Skip to main content

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

See other formats 


^ 


Dictionary  of  the  Bible 


Dictionary  of  the  Bible 


DEALING    WITH    ITS 


LANGUAGE,  LITERATURE  AND  CONTENTS 

INCLUDING   THE  BIBLICAL   THEOLOGY 


EDITED   BY 

JAMES    HASTINGS,    M.A,    D.D. 

WITH    THE    ASSISTANCE  OP 

JOHN    A.    SELBIE,    M.A.,    D.D. 

AND,    CniEFLV    IN   THE   REVISION   OF   THE   PROOFS,    OP 

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

PBOFESSOB  OF  HEBREW,   NEW  COLLEOE,   EDINBCROU  REGHJS  FROPESSOB  OF  HEBREW,  OXFORD 

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

BEGIPS  PROFESSOR  OF  DIVINITY,   CAMBBIDOE 


VOLUME  IV 
PLEROMA-ZUZIM 


NEW    YORK 

CHARLES    SCRIBNER'S    SONS 
EuisBURou:   T.  it  T.  CLAEK 

J'.)  11 


Copyright,  1902   bv 
CHARLES  SCRIBNER'S   SONS 


The  Rights  of   Translation   and  of  Reprodtictior^ 
are  reserved 


0'  '^ 


6% 

CI. 


THE  EDITOR  OF  THIS 

DICTIONARY    OF    THE    BIBLE 

D5SIRES  TO  DEDICATE  IT  TO  THE  MEMORY  OF 

Sir  Thomas  Clark,  Baronet 

Sometime  Publisher  in  Edinburgh 


Rev.  Andrew    Bruce   Davidson, 

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


PREFACE 


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


LIST  OF  ABBEEVIATIOIS'S 


L  General 


Alex.  =  Alexandrian. 

Apoc.  =Ap()calyi)se. 

Apocr.  =  Apocrj-plia. 

Aq.  =Aquila. 

Arab.  =  Arabic. 

Aram.  =  Aramaic. 

AasjT.  =  Assyrian. 

Itab.  =Ba)iyliiMiaD, 

c.  =circa,  abniit. 

Can.  =Canaaiiito. 

of.  =  coiiii>are. 

ct.  =  contrast. 

D=  Deuleriinomist. 

E  =  Eloliist. 

edd.  =editi"ns  or  editors. 

E^jfyp.  =  E;,'Vptian. 

Eng.  =  En;;lisli. 

Etli.  =  Etiiiopic. 

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

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

Cr.  =(;rwk. 

II  =  I^aw  of  Holine.ss. 

lleb.  =  Hebrew. 

llel.  =  Hellenistic. 

Hex.  =  Me.\aleucli. 

Isr.  =lsraiOite. 

.)  =,laliwist,. 

./ "  =  .)elnivali. 

.lerns.  =.lenisalent 

Jos.  =Josepbua. 


LXX  =  Septnagint. 

MSS  =  Manuscripts. 

MT=  Massoretic  Text 

n.  =note. 

NT  =  New  Testament. 

Onk.  =Onkelos. 

OT  =  ()ld  Testament. 

P=  Priestly  Narrative. 

Pal.  =  Palestine,  Palestinian. 

Pent.  =  I'entateuch. 

Pers.  =  Persian. 

Phil.  =  Philistine. 

Pha'n.  =  I'humieian. 

Pr.  Bk.  =  Prayer  Hook. 

R  =  Redactor. 

Rom.  =  Koman. 

Sam.  =  Samaritan. 

Sera.  =  Semitic. 

Sept.  =Septnasint^ 

Sin.  =Sinaitic. 

Symni.  =Symiiiaclius. 

Syr.  =Syriac. 

Talm.  =TaliMud. 

Tarj;.  =Tar;;iim. 

Tlieiid.  =Theodotion. 

TK  =  Texlu.s  Receptus. 

tr.  =  translate  or  translation. 

VSS=  Versions. 

Vul;;.  =  Vnl;,'ate. 

WH  =  Westcott  and  Hort's  text. 


II.  Books  of  tub  P.ihi.k 


Gn  =  Genp,si». 

Ex  =  Exoiliis. 

Lv  =  LeviMcMi8. 

Nu  =  NnmliiTs. 

I)t  =  Deuieroiioniy. 

Jos  =  .loshua. 

Jk  =  Jiid;;e8. 

Ru  =  Rutli. 

1  S,2  S=l  and  2  Samuel 

1  K,  2  K  =  l  and  2  Kings 

1    Ch,   2   Ch  =  1    and    '. 

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

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


Old  Testament. 

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


Es,    2  Es  = 
Ksdras. 


Apocryiilia. 
and    2      To=Tobit. 
Jth=Judith. 


Ad.   Est  =  Additions  to 

Esther. 
AVis  =  Wisdom. 
.Sir  =  Sirach  or  Ecclesi- 

astii-Ms. 
Har  =  15anicli. 
Three  =  Son)^     of     the 

Three  Children. 

Sus  =  Susanna. 

liel   =   Bel      and      the 

Dragon. 
Pr.     Man  =  Prayer    of 

.Maiiasses. 
1  Mac,  2  Mac  =  l  and  2 

Maccabees. 

New  'Testament. 

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

1    I'll,   2  Th  =  1   and  2 

Thessalonians. 
1  Ti,    2  Ti  =  1    and    2 

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

and  2 

TiMiothy. 
Til=rit,us. 
IMiilciii  =  Philemon. 
He=  Hebrews. 

Corinthians. 
Oal  =  Cahitian3. 
Eph  =  Kjihesian8. 

Ja  =  . lames. 

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

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

Pli^Philippians. 
Col  =  Colos8ians. 

and  3  .lolin. 
Jude. 
Rev  =  Revelation. 

LIST  OF  ABBREVIATIONS 


III.  English  Versions 


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

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

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


Bish.=  Bishops'  Bible  1.568. 

Tom.  =Tom9on'8  NT  1576. 

Rhem.  =  Rhemish  NT  1582. 

Dou.  =  Donay  OT  1609. 

AV  =  Authorized  Version  1611. 

AVra  =  Authorized  Version  margin. 

RV  =  Revised  Version  NT  1881,  OT  1885. 

RVra  =  Revised  Version  margin. 

EV^  =  Auth.  and  Rev.  Versions. 


IV.  For  the  Literaturk 


AnT=Knc\ent  Hebrew  Tradition. 

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

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

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


iV^/7irB  =  Neuhebrfiische8  AVorterbnch. 

NTZG  =  Neutestaraentliche  Zeitgeschichte. 

OiV^=  Otium  Norviceiise. 

0/'  =  Origin  of  the  Psalter. 

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

PiJ=  Polychrome  Bible. 

P£^F=  Palestine  E.\ploration  Fund. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wissenschaft. 
ZDMG  =  Zeitschrift    der    Dentschen     Morgen- 

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

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

schaft. 


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


MAP  IN  VOLUME  IV 
Canaan  as  divided  among  the  Twelve  TaiBss       . 


facing  page)  1 


AUTHORS  OF  ARTICLES  IN  VOL.  lY 


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the  University  of  Marburg. 

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Systematic    Theology    in    the    United    Free 

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

I'rofcssor   of    Divinity  in  the   University  of 

Glasgow. 

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

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

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

Rev.  Geop.ge  Ferries,  ALA.,  D.D.,  Cluny,  Aber- 
deenshire. 

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

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

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

Testament  Exegesis  in  Westminster  CoUct'e, 

Cambridge. 
G.  Buchanan  Gray,  ALA.,  Professor  of  Hebrew 

in  Alanslield  College,  Oxford. 

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

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


AUTHORS  OF  ARTICLES  IN  VOL.  IV 


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the  Department  of  Manuscripts  in  the  British 

Museum,   late  Fellow  of   Magdalen  College, 

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

Testament    Exegesis    in    the    University    of 

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

Systematic    Theology  in    the    New    College, 

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

Keble   College,  and  Dean  Ireland's  Professor 

of  New  Testament  Exegesis  in  the  University 

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

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

Professor  of  Anatomy  in   the  University  of 

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

to  the  Church  of  Scotland  at  Beyrout,  Syria. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


AUTHORS  OF  ARTICLES  IN  VOL.  IV 


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


VOL.  IV.  Map  7. 


'Ti»  £^bur^  Oeo^^iual  luaiiiiit* 


DICTIONARY    OF    THE    BIBLE 


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

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

In   its  semi-technical   application  it  is  applied 

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


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

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

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


PLOUGH,  PLOUGHSHARE 


POETRY  (HEBREW) 


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

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

PLOUGH,  PLOUGHSHAKE See  AaRlCTJLTCEK 

in  vol.  i.  p.  49. 

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


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

W.  Carslaw. 

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

J.  A.  Selbie. 

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

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

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

POETRY  (HEBREW).— 

Introdiirdon. 
t  The  Form  of  Heb.  poetry. 

A.  Poems  written  in  Proea. 

B,  Poems  written  in  Verse. 

1.  The  External  evideucei 


POETRY  (HEBREW) 


POETRY  (HEBREW) 


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

A.  Tile  difTereot  species  of  poetoy. 

B,  The  eniploj-ment  of  poetry. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


P0]::TRY  (HEBREW) 


POETRY  (HEBREW) 


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


POETRY  (HEBREW) 


POETRY  (HEBREW) 


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

t  Cf.,  for  the  earlier  attempts,  Siuilschutz,  Von  der  Form  dcr 
heh.  /'ortfw,  1825 ;  Iludde,  '  tJel>cr  vermeintliche  metrische 
Formen  in  der  heb.  Poesie,'  in  .S'A*.  1874  ;  Briggs,  General  Itxtro- 
duction,  i>.  361  ff.  All  the  modern  systems  are  fullv  explained 
and  criticised  in  Ed.  Konig's  SUlittik,  lUtetorik,  Poetix,  etc., 
19U0. 

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


6 


POETRY  (HEBREW) 


POETRY  (HEBREW) 


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


P0P:TRY  (HEBREW) 


POETRY  (HEBREW) 


1 


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


POETRY  (HEBREW) 


POETRY  (HEBREW) 


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


POETRY  (HEBREW) 


POETRY  (HEliRE\V) 


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

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

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

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

^^^^^^St;''^'r'm^=",^v^t 

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

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

1 1  poet  himself  may  have  been  conscious  of    t 

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

tc  Its' are  mvlhological.  has  been  found  composed 

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

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

mains  true      The  OT  enshrines  a  small  number  of 

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

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

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

nuite  secondary  productions,    versihcalion  of   the 

a  cient  pomdar  ^listory   for  liturg-.ca     purposes; 

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

&  of  later  times,  the  Books  of  I  uth   Jonah 

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

evUcnce  is   uriished  by  the  narrative  proper  m  the 

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

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

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

people  ^  and  are  thus  no  secondary  work   but  an 

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

thl^  people  for  such  subjects,  these   passages  a  e 

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

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

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

re-ard'these  intermingled  lines  of   verse  as  the 

V;;   remnants  of  an  originally  poetic  compositiom 

\Ve  ma    rather  find  here  an  indication  tha    poeti> 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hebrews,  the  exceptional  development  upon  that 

oftheB.ihvloniansaiidAssynans.il 

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

S;j;;h^t^w^^^;id^;'r^.l-i^"^^e'h^^^ 

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

,eJo^^t;:^ofa^dr=.^tiee^.c«u,mu,^ 

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

;;-,;,!i^?:;;::,«c;;t'Sh^[tri.i!i^v^.^.e.o,;io,so„^. 

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

set.  Hvulde.Comm  p.vull. 

~rr:'i:^ri^So:Uwe  n..,t  ..^  «.ma,„. 


10 


POETRY  (HEBREW) 


POETRY  (HEBREW) 


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


POETRY  (HEBREW) 


POETRY  (HE13RE^V) 


11 


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

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

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

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


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

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

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


12 


POETRY  (HEBREW) 


POETRY  (HEBREW) 


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


POETRY  (IIKBREW) 


POISON 


13 


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

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

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

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

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

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

PROVKIiliS. 

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


u 


POLE 


POMEGRANATE 


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

POLLUTION.— See  Purification. 

POLLUX.- See  DioscmiL 

POLYGAMY.— See  Marriage. 

POLYTHEISM.— See  God,  and  Idolatet. 

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

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

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


POMMEL 


PONTUS 


15 


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

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

J.  Hastings. 

POND.— See  Pool. 

PONTIUS  PILATE.— See  PiLATE. 

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


IG 


PONTUS 


PONTUS 


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

•  Josephus,  Ant.  xx.  vii.  3. 

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

!  Gazelonitis  must  also  be  added,  as  stated  above 


PONTUS 


PONTUS 


17 


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


18 


PONTUS 


POOL 


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


POOR 

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

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

C.  W.  Wilson. 

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

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

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

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


POOR 


19 


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


20  POOR 

•the    faithful,'   etc:    Ps  9"    (Heb    text* ;    RV) 
lo"  »•  »•  "  (Ileb.  texf  :  RV)  [comp.  9"  'those  that 
know  thy  name'  and  'that  seek  after  thee,      0 
nlie  humble '  (see  below)] ;  12»  [see  v.   .*  the  god  y, 
•the  faithful'];   W^  [v>. '  for  J"  is  his  refuge  ]^ 
IS"  22«  -20"  ('  I  am  solitary  and   ant   ;  ct.   bJ 
88-),  34«  35>»;'»  (delivered  by  J").  37"  of- J-").  40„ 


POPLAR 


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

S.  R.  Driver. 

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

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

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


PORATHA 


POET 


21 


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

PORCIUS  FESTUS.— See  Festus. 

PORCUPINE.— See  Bittern. 

PORPOISE.— See  Badger. 

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

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

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

J.  HASnNO.S. 


rORTEK 


POSSESSION 


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

J.  Hastings. 

POSSESSION  means  the  control  or  mastery  of  the 

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


POST 


POTIPHAE 


23 


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

Owen  C.  Whitehocse. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

The  name  of  the  'officer'  (o-iy,  lit.  eunuch)  of 
Pharaoh,  and  '  captain  of  the  Ijody  •  guard '  (v 
D'C;?Ci ;  see  vol.  ii.  p.  768"  n.  X),  to  whom  Joseph 
was  sold  by  the  Midianites  (Gn  37^),  and  who 
apjiointed  Joseph  to  wait  upon  the  prisoners  con- 
lined  in  the  state-prison  ((6.  p.  768  n.  ||),  which 
was  in  his  liou.se  (40'") ;  in  the  existing  text  of 
Gn,  al.so,  the  Egyptian  who  made  Joseph  sujier- 
intendcnt  of  his  liousehold,  and  whose  wife  made 
the  advances  to  Joseph  which  the  latter  rejected 
(39'"). 

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

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

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

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


24 


POTIPHERA 


POTTER,  POTTERY 


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

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

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

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

and  Spenser,  FQ  vi.  i.  37— 

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


POTTER,  POTTKRY 


POTTER,  POTTERY 


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


Zee  11". 


Mt  27«- 


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


26 


POTTERY 


POTTERY 


Zucll'^  Mt27'"-. 

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


KARLV    PRE-I8RAKLITK  JAR. 


LEDGE-IlAMil.K. 

(Early  Pre-Israc-lite.) 

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

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


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


LATER  PRB-ISRAELTTE  PAINTED  WARE. 

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


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


POTTERY 


POVERTY 


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


JEWISH  COOKING  roT. 

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


I         11.  STAMP  ox  JAR  IIA.VDLE, 

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

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


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

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


siiJir  OF  THE  lOiii  LF.aio.\'. 


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


CIlltlSTlAX  I.A511'. 

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

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

F.  J.  Bllss. 


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


POTTER'S 

POTTKR. 


FIELD.  —  See      Akelhama     and 


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


j1.    iii.    p.    4iS',    and 


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


28 


POVERTY 


POVERTY 


Ecclesiastes, 
and 


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

The  growth  in  luxury  led  to  an  increase  of  the 
artisan  class  and  the  town  population  generally. 
When  the  tide  of  prosperity  ebbed,  these  classes 
bore  the  brunt  of  bad  times.  The  prophets  tried 
to  keep  the  land  for  the  peasant  farmers,  but  their 
efforts  were  futile.  Deuteronomy  shows  that 
poverty  was  a  serious  and  widespread  evil  (10""" 
14ffl.ai  15  23"*- =°24i''--i26i--i5),  and  frequently  refers 
to  the  Levites  as  an  impoverished  class  (12"-  "  18). 
The  Deuteronomic  legislation  attempted  to  remedy 
the  evil,  but  it  came  too  late. 

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

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

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

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


POVERTY 


POWER 


'J9 


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

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

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

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

GLKANINQ,  SAnilATICAL  YeAH,  TlTllE-S. 

W.  11.  Bennett. 


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

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

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

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


30 


POWER 


POWER  OF  THE  KEYS 


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

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


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

For  Powers  see  under  Dominion. 

G.  Ferries. 

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

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

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


PO\A'ER  OF  THE  KEYS 


POWEK  OF  THE  KEYS 


31 


The  gift  of  '  the  keys '  is  not  expressly  bestowed 
on  any  one  else  besides  St.  Peter,  but  the  legis- 
lative power  is  afterwards  extended  to  others 
(Mt  18").  It  is  not  certain  who  are  the  persons 
there  addressed.  'The  disciples'  mentioned  in  v.' 
are  doubtless  the  apostles,  or  at  any  rate  include 
some  of  the  apostles  ;  but  it  is  not  easy  to  prove 
that  the  power  of  binding  and  loosing  is  there 
bestowed  upon  them  exclusively.  That  opinion, 
however  ancient  and  however  widely  held,  involves 
the  further  conclusion  that  the  promises  which 
follow,  and  ni)on  which  the  binding  and  loosing 
power  is  made  to  depend,  are  to  be  simUarly 
restricted.  It  is,  accordinjr  to  this  interpretation, 
to  the  apostles  alone  that  Christ  promises  that  the 
prayer  of  two  of  them  shall  be  heard,  and  that 
where  two  or  three  are  gathered  in  His  name,  He 
will  be  there.  This  is  dilticult  to  suppose.  We 
must  accordingly  conclude  that  the  binding  and 
loosing  power  lirst  bestowed  upon  St.  Peter  is  not 
represented  in  NT  as  an  exclusive  privilege  of  the 
apostles.  It  is  the  common  privilege  of  the  Christian 
society — even  of  a  small  brancli  of  it — when  acting 
in  agreement  (v.'")  and  solemnly  assembled  in  (or 
'  to ')  Christ's  name  as  its  ground  of  union  ( v.*>).  In 
this  case,  however,  the  power  appears  to  be  connected 
with  judicial  discipline  over  individual  members  of 
the  society.  The  '  binding  and  loosing '  are  not,  in 
this  case  any  more  than  elsewhere,  to  be  inter- 
preted as  the  absolving  and  retaining  of  sins  ;  they 
seem  to  mean  the  prescribing  what  the  ofl'ender  is 
to  do  and  not  to  do.  But,  in  case  of  his  refusal  to 
comply  with  these  requirements  of  '  the  Church,' 
he  IS  to  be  treated  as  'a  heathen  man  and  a 
publican,'  i.e.  as  excommunicate ;  and  the  resist- 
ance to  the  authority  of  the  Church  is  to  be 
considered  as  resistance  to  the  will  of  Heaven. 
The  prayer  of  the  slighted  Church  will  be  heard, 
for  Christ  Himself  is  present  at  the  gathering, 
And  Heaven  will  give  its  sanction  to  the  sen- 
tence (see  interestmg  parallels  in  Wiinsche,  p. 
218). 

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

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

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


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

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

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


32 


POWER  OF  THE  KEYS 


PEJLTORIUM 


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

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


NT  conception  of  it,  are   fraught  with   spiritual 
etUcacy. 

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

PR^TORIAN  GUARD.— See  PRiETORlUM. 

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

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

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


PEJiTUKIUM 


PRAISE  IN  OT 


33 


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

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


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

G.  T.  PUBVES. 
PRAISE  IN  OT.—' Praise,' whether  as  a  verb  or 
a  noun,  has  various  applications  in  the  OT,  but  its 
commonest  use  is  to  denote  an  act  of  homage  or 
worshiii  oHered  to  God  by  His  creatures,  par- 
ticularly by  man.  The  object  of  this  article  wU) 
be  mainly  to  examine  the  meaning  and  usage  of 
the  terms  which  our  English  versions  render  by 
'praise,' and  to  sketch,  as  far  as  the  data  enable 
us  to  do  so,  the  occasions,  the  modes,  and  the 
history  of  praise  in  Israel. 

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


54 


I'KAisE  o  or 


PEiUSE  IX  UT 


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

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


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

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

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

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


PRAISE  IX  OT 


PRAISE  IN  OT 


33 


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


36 


PRAISE  IN  OT 


PRAISE  IN  OT 


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

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

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

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


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

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

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


PRAISE  IX  OT 


PEAISE  IN  OT 


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

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

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

It  is   a  fair  question  whether   praise   was  not 

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


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

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

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


33 


PRAISE  IX  NT 


PRAYER 


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

W.  Lock. 

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

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


PRAYER 


PRAYER 


39 


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


40 


PEAYER 


PEAYER 


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

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

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


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

Erayer  is  the  characteristic  of  his  journal.  It  is 
is  resource  in  difficulty  and  discouragement,  and 
takes  a  distinctly  personal  character,  '  remember 
me,  0  my  God.'  Again,  Dn  6  is  an  illustration  of 
how  prayer  to  God  had  become  a  distinctive  mark 
of  the  Jews  in  exile.  In  it  the  enemies  of  Daniel 
decide  to  find  their  opportunity,  and  on  it  base 
their  attack.  In  this  narrative  (Dn  6'")  we  first  find 
unmistakable  mention  of  the  hours  of  prayer  as 
afterwards  practised  by  the  Jews,  though  perhaps 
Ps  55"  may  be  taken  to  denote  them.  As  is 
usually  the  case  in  ritual,  an  endeavour  \\  as  made 
to  tin^  sanction  for  the  three  hours  of  praj-er  in 
the  earliest  times,  and  Gn  19-''  24^  28"  were 
referred  to  by  the  Jews  for  this  purpose. 

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


I'KAYEE 


PEAYEK 


4J 


i;; 


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

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


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

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

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


42 


PKAYER 


PKAYER 


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


PEAYER 


PKAYER 


43 


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

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

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

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


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

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

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


41 


PRAYEK 


PRAYER 


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


PRAYER 


PREACHING 


45 


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

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

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


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

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

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

PRAYER  OP  MANASSES.  —  See  AUnasses 
(Prayeii  of). 

PREACHER.— See  Ecclesiastes. 

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

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


46 


PREACHI^^G 


PREACHING 


contemporaries  refused  to  Iiear  (Jer  30-) ;  in  the 
c.iso  of  Ezekiel,  because  the  circumstances  of  the 
Kxile  compelled  the  prophet  to  resort  to  literary 
channels  tor  making  his  message  known.  Still 
even  Ezekiel's  prophecies  may  have  been  originally 
spoken  (see  Smend,  Der  Prophet  Ezerhiel,  xxii.). 
t)n  the  other  hand,  Ewald  held  that  Ezekiel  wrote 
his  oracles  instead  of  speaking  them  because  he 
felt  a  decay  of  the  prophetic  spirit  (Prophets  of  the 
OT,  iv.  2,  9).  For  the  most  part,  at  all  events,  the 
projihecies  contained  in  OT  are  written  discourses 
which  had  been  preached  or  which  were  intended 
for  preaching.  Still  there  are  two  important 
did'erences  between  this  preaching  of  the  prophets 
and  what  we  understand  by  the  term  to-day.  (1) 
The  jjreaching  of  the  prophets  was  not  a  normal 
function  of  public  worship  taking  its  place  in  the 
ritual  of  the  sanctuary.  It  was  an  utterance 
demanded  by  special  crises,  or  prompted  by  a 
special  revelation,  and  spoken  in  tlie  court  or  the 
market-place,  wherever  the  prophet  could  find  the 
audience  he  was  urged  to  address.  (2)  For  the 
most  part  it  dealt  with  public  questions,  national 
sins,  judgments,  and  deliverances,  rather  than 
■n-ith  individual  conduct  and  need  (see  W.  R. 
Smith,  Prophets  of  Israel,  Lect.  II.).  In  Ezekiel, 
on  the  other  hand,  more  personal  preaching 
appears  (see  Comill,  Der  Propliet  Ezcchiel,  pp.  51, 
52). 

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

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


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

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


PREDESTINATION 


PREDESTINATION 


47 


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

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

W.  F.  Adeney. 

PREDESTINATION.— 

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

1.  l-'uinLiinental  OT  idens. 

2.  CoHinical  Predestination  in  OT. 

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

It.  Predestination  in  NT. 

1.  The  Tearhing  of  Jesus. 

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

V.  Tlie  liiblo  Doctrine  ot  Predestination. 
Literature. 

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


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

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


4R 


PREDKSTIXATION 


PREDESTINATION 


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


PKEDESTINATION 


PREDESTIXATION 


49 


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

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


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

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

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

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

Naturally,  there  is  in  the  narrative  [lortirns  bnt 


50 


PREDESTINATION 


PREDESTINATION 


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

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

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


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

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


I'KEUESTIiS'ATION 


PREDESTINATION 


51 


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


r>2 


PREDESTIXATIOX 


PREDESTIXATION 


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

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


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

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


PKEDESTINATION 


PREDESTINATION 


53 


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

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


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

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

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


54 


PREDESTINATION 


PREDESTINATION 


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

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


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

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

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

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


PEEDESTIXATION 


PREDESTINATION 


55 


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

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


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


B6 


PREDESTINATION 


PREDESTINATION 


From  the  two  9et«  of  data  provided  by  the  Synoptista  and 
St.  John,  it  is  possible  to  attain  c^aite*  a  clear  insif^'ht  into 
the  conception  oi  predestination  as  it  lay  in  our  Lord's  teach- 
ini;.  It  is  quit(  certain,  for  example,  that  there  is  no  place  in 
this  teachiin;  for  a  '  predestination '  that  is  carefully  adjusted 
to  the  foreseen  performances  of  the  creature  :  and  as  little 
for  a  'decree'  which  may  be  frustrated  by  creaturely  action, 
or  an  '  election '  which  is  ffiven  elVect  only  by  the  creaturely 
choice :  to  our  Lord  the  Vather  is  the  omnipotent  Lord  of 
heaven  and  earth,  according  to  whose  pleasure  all  tliin^cs  are 
ordered,  and  who  jrives  the  Kinj^dom  to  whom  He  will  (Lk 
123J,  silt  ii«,  Lk  10-1).  Certainly  it  is  the  very  heart  of  our 
Lord's  teaching  that  the  Father's  good  pleasure  is  a  gwd 
pleasure,  ethically  riglit,  and  the  issue  of  infinite  love ;  the 
very  name  of  Father  as  the  name  of  God  by  preference  on 
His  lips  is  full  of  this  conception  ;  but  the  very  nerve  of  this 
teaching  is,  that  the  Father  s  will  is  all-embracing  and  omnip- 
otent. It  is  only  therefore  that  His  children  need  be  careful 
for  nothing,  that  the  little  fiock  need  not  fear,  that  His  elect 
may  be  assured  that  none  of  them  shall  be  lost,  but  all  that 
the  Father  lias  jriveii  Him  shall  be  raised  up  at  the  l:ist  day. 
And  if  thus  the  elective  purpose  of  the  Father  cannot  fail  of 
its  end,  neither  is  it  possiVilc  to  find  this  end  in  anything  less 
than  'salvation'  in  the  highest  sense,  than  entrance  into  that 
eternal  life  to  communicate  which  to  <iying  men  our  Lord 
came  into  tiie  worl(L  There  are  elections  to  other  ends,  to  be 
sure,  spoken  of;  notably  there  is  the  election  of  the  apostles  to 
their  otiice  (Lk  O's,  Jn  C"0) ;  and  Christ  Himself  is  conceived 
as  especially  God's  elect  one,  iiecause  no  one  has  the  service  to 
render  wliich  He  has  (Lk  9»  23^).  But  the  elect,  by  way  of 
eminence:  'the  elect  whom  God  elected,'  for  whose  sake  He 
governs  all  history  (Mk  IS™);  the  elect  of  whom  it  was  the 
will  of  Him  who  sent  the  Son,  that  of  all  that  He  gave  Him 
He  should  lose  nothing,  but  should  raise  it  up  at  the  last  d.ay 
(Jn  (P'J) ;  the  elect  whom  the  Son  of  .Man  shall  at  the  last  day- 
gather  from  the  four  winds,  from  the  uttermost  parts  of  the 
earth  to  the  uttermost  part  of  heaven  (.Mk  1327)  ;  it  would  be  in- 
adequate to  8uppo.se  that  these  are  elected  merely  to  opportuni- 
ties or  tile  means  of  grace,  on  their  free  cultivation  of  which 
shall  depend  their  undecided  destiny  ;  or  merely  to  the  service 
of  their  fellow-men,  as  agents  in  God's  beneficent  plan  for  the 
salvation  of  the  race.  Of  course  this  election  is  to  privileges 
and  means  of  grace ;  and  without  these  the  great  end  of  the 
election  would  not  be  attained:  for  the  'election'  is  given 
effect  only  by  the  'call,'  and  manifests  itself  only  in  faith  and 
the  holy  Ufe.  Equally  of  course  the  elect  are  'the  salt  of  tlie 
earth'  and  'the  light  of  the  world,'  the  few  through  whom  the 
many  are  blessed ;  the  eternal  life  to  which  they  are  elected 
does  not  consist  in  or  with  the  silence  and  coldness  of  death, 
but  only  in  and  with  the  intensest  activities  of  the  conquering 
people  of  God.  But  the  prime  end  of  their  election  does  not 
lie  in  these  things,  and  to  pKace  exclusive  stress  upon  them  is 
certainly  to  gather  in  the  mint  and  anise  and  cummin  of  the 
doctrine.  That  to  which  God's  elect  are  elected  is,  according 
to  the  teaching  of  Jesus,  all  that  is  included  in  the  idea  of  the 
Kingdom  of  God,  in  the  idea  of  eternal  life,  in  the  idea  of 
fellowship  with  Christ,  in  the  idea  of  participation  in  the 
glory  which  the  Father  has  given  His  Son.  Their  choice, 
and  the  whole  development  of  their  history,  according  to  our 
Lord's  teaching,  is  the  loN-ing  work  of  the  Father:  and  in  His 
keeping  also  is  the  consummation  of  their  bliss.  Their  segrega- 
tion, of  c.'urse,  leaves  others  not  elected,  to  whom  none  of  their 
privileges  are  granted  ;  from  whom  none  of  their  services  are 
expected ;  with  whom  their  (glorious  destiny  is  not  shared. 
This,  too,  is  of  God.  But  this  side  of  the  matter,  in  accordance 
with  Jesus'  mission  in  the  world  as  Saviour  rather  than  as 
Judge,  is  less  dwelt  upon.  In  the  case  of  neither  class,  that 
of  the  elect  as  little  as  that  of  those  that  are  without,  are  the 
purposes  of  God  wrought  out  without  the  co-operation  of  the 
activities  of  the  subjects ;  but  in  neither  case  is  the  decisive 
factor  supplied  by  these,  but  is  discoverable  solely  in  the  will  uf 
God  anil  the  consonant  will  of  the  Son.  The  '  even  so,  Father  • 
(or  so  it  seemed  good  in  thy  sight'  (Mt  1126,  Lk  lo^i),  is  to  our 
Lord,  at  least,  an  all. sufficient  theodicy  in  the  face  of  all  God's 
diverse  dealings  with  men. 

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


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

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

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

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

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


PKEDESTINATION 


PREDESTINATION 


57 


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

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

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


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

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

911-24,    1  Co    19   716.  17.  18.  18.20. 'a.  a  22.il,    Gal    16.16    58.13,     Eph 

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

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


58 


PREDESTINATION 


PREDESTINATION 


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

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


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

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

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


PREDESTINATION 


PREDESTINATION 


59 


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

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

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


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

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


60 


PKEDESTIKATION 


PREDESTINATION 


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

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


&' 


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

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


PEED  ESTI  NATION 


PREDESTINATION 


61 


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


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

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


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

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


62 


PREDESTINATION 


PKEDESTINATION 


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

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


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

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


PKEDICTION 


PREPARATION  DAY 


6S 


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

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

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

PREDICTION — See  Prophecy,  p.  120  f. 

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


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

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

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

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


64 


PKESBYTER 


PRESENTLY 


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

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

G.  T.  PURVES. 

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

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

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


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

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

PRESENT.-See  Gift. 

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


PRESIDENT 


PREVENT 


6c 


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

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

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

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

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

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

J.  Hastings. 

VOL.  IV. — 5 


PRESS,  PRESSFAT.— See  Fat  and  WiNE. 

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

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

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

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


66 


PREVENT 


PREl 


2.  To  anticipate  for  one's  good:  Job  41"  'Who 
hath  prevented  me  that  I  should  repay  him  ? ' 
(dVs^xi  ';;'-pn  'p,*  Vulg.  Quis  ante  dedit  mihi  ut 
reddam  ei?,  Cov.  'Who  hath  geven  me  eny  thj'nge 
afore  liande,  that  1  am  bounde  to  rewarde  him 
ogayne  ? '  RV  '  Who  liath  first  j^ven  unto  me,  that 

1  sliould  repay  him?');  Ps  21'  'Thou  preventest 
him  with  the  blessings  of  goodness'  (LAX  Trpo^cp- 
6a(xas  ai'TOv  iv  iiiXoyiais  Xf'O^'^^'^^^^y  Vulg.  prwrt'.nwiti 
euin  in  benedict  ioniljus  dulcedinis ;  Wye.  'thou 
■neiitist  beforn  liim  in  blessingus  of  sweetnesse,' 
Cov.  '  thou  liast  prevented  him  with  liberall  bless- 
inges') ;  59'"  'The  (iod  of  my  mercy  sliall  prevent 
me '  (LXX  6  ^eis  /xou,  rb  fKeos  airroO  TrpotpOdcret  ^e, 
Vulg.  Deus  jdcifs,  misericordia  ejus  prcEveniet  me. 
Gen.  '  My  merciful  God  will  prevent  me ' ;  Perowne, 
'  My  God  witli  his  loving  kindness  sliall  come  to 
meet  me ') ;  79*  '  Let  thy  tender  mercies  speedily 
prevent  us'  (LXX  rax!)  TpoKaraXa^eTwaav  Jifiat  oi 
oiKTeipnoi  (Tou,  Vulg.  cito  anticipient  nos  misericordicE 
suoe.  Gen.  '  Make  haste  and  let  thy  tender  mercies 
prevent  us,'  de  Witt  '  Let  thy  mercies  with  speed 
come  to  meet  us');  Is  21"  'They  prevented  with 
their  bread  him  that  tied'  (LXX  dprois  awavTar^ 
Toi!  <l>e&yoviji.v ,  Vulg.  cum  panibus  occurrite  fugicnti. 
Wye.  '  With  loeves  ageucometh  to  the  fleende,' 
Purvey  '  Renne  ye  with  looves  to  hym  that  fleeth  ' ; 
Cov.  '  Meet  those  witli  bread  that  are  fled,'  Gen. 
'  Prevent  him  that  fleeth  with  his  bread,'  Chevne 
'  With  his  bread  meet  tlie  fugitive,'  Skinner  '  Meet 
the  fugitive  with  bread  [suitable]  for  him ' ;  RV 
'  The  inliabitants  of  Tenia  did  meet  the  fugitives 
■with  their  bread'  [so  Dt  23*  AV  itself  for  same  Heb.]). 

Illustrations  of  this  meaning  are  : 

Pr.  Bk.  (1549J  End  o/  Communion,  •  Prevent  us,  O  Lord,  in 
all  our  doings  with  thy  most  p-acious  favour';  Art.  X.  'We 
have  no  power  to  do  good  workea  pleasaunt  and  acceptable  to 
God,  without  the  irrace  of  God  by  Christ*  preventyng  us ' ; 
Archbishop  Hamilton's  Catechism,  fol.  x\Ti,  *  We  prevenit  nocht 
God  with  our  lufe.  lutTand  him  first,  bot  he  prevenit  us  first 
mtli  his  lufe '  ;  Udall.  Erasmus  Paraphrase,  fol.  xcvii, '  Whereas 
the  gospell  of  my  death  shall  bee  preached  throujrhout  all  the 
worlde,  this  woman  also  shall  be  mencioned,  whiche,  with  a 
godly  and  an  holy  duety  hath  prevented  my  sepulture  and 
buriall';  Hall,  Works,  466,  'He  whose  goodnesse  is  wont  to 
prevent  our  desires  will  not  give  denialls  to  our  importunities' ; 
Ro  1210  Rhem.  '  With  honour  preventing  one  another.' 

3.  To  get   before   or  forestall  so  as  to  hinder: 

2  S  22*  II  Ps  18'  '  The  snares  of  death  prevented 
me'  (LXX  Trpo^<pda(xa.v  fie  (tk\t}p6tt]T€s  [Ps  IS'  wayLd^s] 
dafirov,  Vulg.  prcsvenerunt  [Ps  18°  prmoccupaver- 
«nt]  me  laquei  mortis,  Wye.  'There  wenten  before 
me  the  gnaris  of  detli,'  Dou.  'The  snares  of  death 
have  prevented  me,'  RV  'The  sn.ares  of  death 
came  upon  me');  "22"  ||  Ps  18'*  'They  prevented 
me  in  tlie  day  of  my  calamity'  (LXX  TrpoicpBaadi' 
/te  ri^iptxi  6\i\pnjL>s  fxov  [Ps  18'*  ^v  V^P<1^  KaKutaeus  fiou], 
Vulg.  Prievcnit  [Ps  18"  prwvcnerunt]  vie  in  die 
ajfliitionis  mete,  Cov.  in  Ps  18"*  'They  prevented 
me  in  the  tyme  of  my  trouble,'  ChejTie  ['  Parch- 
ment' ed.]  'They  surprised  me  in  the  day  of  my 
calamity,'  RV  'They  came  upon  me  in  the  day  of 
my  cafamity');  Job  3''  'Why  did  the  knees 
prevent  me?'  (LXX  Tea  ri  6^  avvrivTj^ativ  ^ol  ra 
yifara  ;  Vulg.  Quare  exccptits  genibus?  Gen. '  Why 
did  the  knees  prevent  me  ? '  RV  '  Why  did  the 
knees  receive  me?');  30''  'The  days  of  affliction 
prevented  me'  (LXX  irpo^ipSaadf  lu  ri^^pai  inaxlas, 
\\\\i^.  prtEvenerunt  me  dies  ajflittionis,  Cov.  'The 
dayes  of  my  trouble  are  come  upon  me,'  Dou. 
'  The  dayes  of  afliiction  have  prevented  me,' 
RV  '  Days  of  affliction  are  come  upon  me') ;  Am 
9'°  'The  evil  shall  not  overtake  nor  prevent  us' 
(LXX  ou  ;t7j  iyyia-Q  oi)5^  tii]  yivrirax  44*  ^Mas  rdi  KaKd, 
Vulg.  non  veniet  super  nos  malum.  Driver  'come 
in  front  about  us')  ;  1  Mac  6-''  '  If  thou  dost  not 
prevent  them  quicklj',  they  will  do  greater  things 

•The  LXX  is  different,  rit  a,Tirr^rt*«ti  fA*t  uai  i>reu«»i7;  St. 
Paul  therefore  is  nearer  to  the  Heb.  than  to  the  L.\X  in  lie  113^ 


than  these '  (^di'  /nij  wpoKaTaXi^ri  airovs,  Vulg.  Nisi 
prcevencrvs  cos,  Cov.  '  If  thou  dost  not  prevent 
them,'  RV  '  If  ye  are  not  beforehand  with  them') ; 
10'^  '  What  have  we  done  that  Ale.xander  hath 
prevented  us  in  making  amity  witli  the  Jews  to 
strengthen  himself?'  (irpoitpOaKev  rjiids,  \il\".  pros- 
occupavit  nos,  Cov.  'hath  prevented  U'*,'  RV  'hath 
been  beforehand  with  us  )  ;  2  Mac  14^'  '  Knowing 
that  he  was  notably  prevented  by  Judas'  policy ' 
(Srt  y^vvalia^  virb  roO  ivopbs  iiyrpaTyjyqTai,  A^ulg. 
fortiter  se  a  viro  prwventtim,  Cov  '  When  he 
knewe  that  Machabeus  had  manfully  prevented 
him,'  RV  '  When  he  became  aware  that  he 
had  been  bravely  defeated  by  the  stratagem  of 
Judas'). 

Take  the  following  as  illustrations  : 

Fuller,  ilul;/  Warre,  214, '  Was  he  old?  let  him  make  the  more 
speed,  lest  envious  death  should  prevent  him  of  this  occasion  of 
honour';  Hohj  State,  154,  'Expect  not,  but  prevent  their 
craving  of  thee';  Adams,  Expoiiitiun  upon  Slid  Peter,  65, 
'Satan's  employment  is  prevented,  when  he  finds  thee  well 
employed  before  he  comes ' ;  Knox,  Wurks,  iii.  319,  '  Pet*r  was 
synckinge  downe,  and  loked  for  no  other  thyng  but  present 
death,  and  yet  the  hande  of  Christe  prevented  hym' ;  Milton, 
Sonnets~~ 

'  Doth  God  exact  day-labour,  light  denied  t 
I  fondly  ask.    But  Patience,  to  prevent 
That  murmur,  soon  replies.  God  doth  not  need 
Either  man's  work  or  his  own  gifts.' 

J.  Hastings. 

PREY. — Prey,  from  hat.  prceda,  booty  (perhaps 
irou\  prce-hendu,  to  seize  beforehand),  through  Old 
Fr.  praie,  preie,  is  now  narrower  in  meaning  than 
formerly.  In  AV  it  includes  booty  or  spoil.  Heb. 
words  properly  denoting  a  wUd  beast's  prey  are 
(1)  IIP  tereph,  from  r^-e?  to  tear,  to  rend  (the 
verb  itself  is  tr.  '  prey '  in  Ps  17"  '  Like  as  a 
lion  that  is  greedy  of  his  prey,'  fpa^  "jio;:,  AVm 
'  that  desireth  to  ravin,'  Cheyne  '  longing  to  tear 
in  pieces ').  Tereph  is  tr.  '  prey  '  in  Gn  49',  Nu  23-'', 
Job  4"  24'  (RV  'meat'),  Ps  76*  104-'  124",  Is  5» 
31*,  Ezk  19'- "  22^--',  Am  3*,  Nah  2'-"  3'.  This 
is  also  the  proper  meaning  of  (2)  ^nn  hethcph  (from 
[ion]  to  seize),  and  it  is  so  tr.  in  its  only  occurrence, 
Pr  23^  'She  also  lieth  in  wait  as  for  a  mey,' 
AVra  'as  a  robber,'  which  is  the  RV  text,  RVm 
'as  for  a  prey.'  Also  (3)  li  'ad  (from  .17:;  to 
attack?),  means  'prey,'  and  is  so  tr.  in  Gn  49", 
Is  33-'',  Zeph  3',  its  only  occurrences  (against  the 
view  of  Hitzig  and  others  that  it  is  ny  in  this 
sense  that  appears  in  tT'Z%  of  Is  9°  •'>,  .see  DUl- 
mann,  ad  loc).  And  (4)  S:i(  'ohhel,  which  means 
'food,'  is  legitimately  tr.  'prey'  in  Job  9'*  39®. 
But  all  the  remaining  words  mean  biiutij  or  spoil 
taken  in  war  or  snatched  as  one's  share.  The 
cliief  word  is  13  baz  (from  in  to  plunder,  take 
as  siioil ;  the  verb  itself  is  rendered  '  take  for 
a  prey'  in  Dt  2»  3',  Jos  S^- "  11'*,  Est  3'^  8"; 
'  make  a  prey  '  in  Ezk  26'- ;  and  '  prey  upon '  in 
Jer  30").  A  late  form  of  baz,  .113,  is  tr.  'prey'  in 
Neh  4*  ('give  them  for  a  prey,'  RV  'give  them 
up  to  spoiling,'  Anier.  RV  'for  a  spoil').  Est  9"-" 
(RV  'spoil'),  Dn  11^  (so  RV).  The  common  word 
SSf*  sA(Z2u/{fiom  V'jy'  to  plunder,  the  Hithpolel  is  tr'' 
'  make  oneself  a  prey '  in  Is  59"),  which  over  sixty 
times  is  rendered  'spoil,'  is  tr''  'prey'  in  Jg  S'"'"' 
8-"--»  (RV  'spoil').  Is  10-  (RV  'spoil'),  Jer  2P  38» 
39'*  45'  (so  RV).  The  only  remaining  word  is  nipy? 
mal/cuah,  which  sinii)ly  means  something  captured 
(from  np"?  to  take),  which  is  given  as  '  prey '  in  AV 
and  RV'in  Nu  3 1  "• '»• -•«• ",  Is  49«- "  :  in  Nu  31» 
AV  gives  '  booty,'  RV  '  prey.' 

For  prey  meaning  booty  of.  Merlin  (in  Early 
Eng.  Text.  Soc),  ii.  152,  'So  thei  entred  in  to  the 
londe,  and  toke  many  prayes,  and  brent  townes 
and  vilages,  and  distroyed  all  the  contreea'i 
Chapman,  Iliads,  ii.  205 — 

'Come,  fly 
Home  with  our  ships ;  leave  this  man  here  to  perish 
with  his  preys' ; 


PRICE 


PRIESTS  AND  LEVITES 


67 


and  Sliaks.  //  Ilcnry  VI.  IV.  iv.  51— 

'The  r;u»ciil  neople,  thirsting;  aft*r  prey, 
Join  with  the  traitor,  ami  Ihoy  jointly  swear 
To  spoil  the  city  and  your  royal  court.* 

J.  Hastixg.s. 

PRICE  (from  Lat.  pretium,  worth,  value,  thidiigh 
Old  Fr.  pris,  preis)  means  in  AV  the  worth  of  a 
person  or  thing  in  the  widust  sense,  and  not  in 
uioiiey  only.  See  esjjecially  Mt  13'"  '  When  he 
had  fc)und  one  pearl  of  great  price '  (f ra  woXimiiof 
liapyapiTTiv),  and  1  P  3'  '  the  ornament  of  a  meek 
and  qtiiet  spirit,  which  is  in  the  sight  of  God  of 
great  price'  (iroXirreX^s).  Cf.  Chaucer,  Sir  Thopas, 
18.1,  '  Men  speke  of  romances  of  prys ' ;  He  13* 
Tind.  '  Let  wedlocke  be  had  in  pryce  in  all 
poyntes.' 

The  verb  to  price  (spelt  'prise')  occurs  in  Zee 
11'*  'A  goodly  price  that  I  was  prised  at  of  them.' 
Cf.  Mt  27"  Rhera.  'They  tooke  the  thirtie  pieces 
of  silver,  the  price  of  the  priced,  whom  they  did 
price  of  the  children  of  Israel.'        J.  HASTINGS. 

PRICK.— See  GOAD  in  vol.  ii.  194". 

PRIESTS  AND  LEYITES.— 

1.  The  names  kijhin  and  Uwi. 

2.  The  priesthowi  in  the  earliest  timea. 
8.  The  priesthood  from  David  to  Josiah. 

4.  The  priesthood  according  to  Deuteronomy. 

6.  The  priesthood  from  Josiah'a  reform  to  the  Exile. 

0.  The  priesthood  in  Ezokicl's  State  of  the  future. 

7.  The  priesthoofl  from  Ezekiel  to  Ezra. 

8.  The  priesthood  according  to  the  law  contained  in  the 

'Priestly  Wriliny." 
o.  The  priests  in  the  IsM  of  BoUnese  and  in  par. 
ticular  t6r6th. 

b.  The  Aaronite  pricsta. 

c.  The  high  priest. 

d.  The  Levites. 

e.  The  8er%'ing  women. 

f.  The  revenues  of  the  priests  and  Leiit«a. 

g.  Tlie  date  of  the  pnestly  system  in  the  'Priestly 

\Vritinp.' 
•.  The  priesthood  from  Ezra  to  the  Chronicler. 
10.  The  priesthood  after  OT  times. 

a.  Priests  and  Levites. 

b.  The  revenues  ol  the  priests  and  Lerites. 
0.  The  duties  and  olKi  es  of  the  priests. 

Literature. 

(Thronghont  this  article  the  ahbreviation  Getch.,  when  not 
preceded  by  an  author's  name,  stands  for  Baudissin's  GegchichU' 
aes  atUetst.  Prietiterthumg,  Leipzig,  1889.  Whenever  a  citation 
consifits  simply  of  an  author's  name  and  the  number  of  a  page, 
the  reference  is  to  that  work  of  his  whose  title  will  be  found 
In  the  Literature  at  the  end  of  the  article.] 

1.  The  Names  KObE.v  and  LUirt.—The  name 
for  '  priest '  in  the  OT  is  kohen  (;n2).  The  same 
word  driD)  is  met  with  in  Phtcnician  inscriptions  as 
the  oliicial  name  of  the  priest,  as  well  as  tlie 
feminine  form  p:n3.  The  corresponding  word  in 
Arabic,  kAhin,  is  employed  to  designate  the  sooth- 
sayer. It  is  per  se  quite  conceivable  that  the 
priests  of  the  Hebrews  were  originally  soothsayers 
(Stade,  GVI,  Bd.  i.,  Uerlin,  1887,  p.  471;  cf. 
Kuenen,  De  God-idicnst  vun  Israel,  Bd.  i.,  Haarlem, 
1869,  p.  101).  There  are,  certainly,  no  traces  in 
the  or  of  ecstatic  conditions  on  the  part  of  the 
priests,  but  one  of  their  most  important  functions 
in  the  earlier  history  of  Israel  was  the  giving  of 
oracles  by  means  of  the  lot.  A  reference  to  this  is 
to  be  discovered  in  the  Urim  and  Tlnmimim  which 
are  described  as  still  present  in  the  dress  of  the 
high  j)rie.st.  But  the  Arabic  usage  is  not  decisive 
for  the  original  meaning  of  the  word  kohcn  ;  the 
sense  borne  by  kdhin  ma}'  be  secondary,  for  the 
Arabs  borrowed  largely,  in  matters  connected 
with  the  cullus,  from  tlie  Israelites  (.so  also  Van 
Hoonacker,  Sncerdoce,  etc.  p.  235  f, ).  The  ecstatic 
form  of  prophecy  apiiears  in  the  OT  coupled  with 
priestly  lunctionH  only  in  the  story  of  the  youth  of 
Samuel,  to  whom  God  speaks  in  a  revelation,  while 
he  is  odiciating  as  priest  at  the  sanctuary  (1  iS 
3*"').     Ihis  unusual  coupling  of  the  priestly  and 


the  prophetic  office  may  be  due  in  this  instance  to 
the  combination  of  two  conceptions  of  the  jierson 
of  Samuel  :  one  of  which  thought  of  him,  as  is  the 
case  for  the  most  j)art  in  the  story  of  his  youth,  as 
priest ;  whereas  the  other,  which  alone  has  sur- 
vived in  the  narratives  relating  to  his  latei 
activity,  thought  of  him  as  prophet. 

The  root  meaning  of  the  word  kohcn  does  not 
appear  to  speak  in  favour  of  its  being  a  designa- 
tion of  the  'seer.'  Derived  from  a  verb  kclTian, 
probably  equivalent  in  meaning  to  kiin  '  stand,' 
kohcn  will  be  explained  most  simply  as  '  he  that 
stands.'  In  other  instances,  too,  tlie  expression 
'  stand  (icy)  before  Jahweli '  is  used  of  the  priestly 
ollice,  especially  of  the  service  at  the  altar  wliicli 
the  priest  performs  standing.  This  last,  then,  is 
perhaps  what  is  referred  to  also  in  the  name 
ku/iai,  which  will  then  designate  the  priest  as 
oHerer,  or,  since  '  stand  before  one '  is  said  of 
service  in  general,  as  servant  of  the  deity.  This 
general  conception  deserves  the  preference,  because 
in  ancient  times  it  is  not  the  oll'ering  of  sacrilice 
but  other  functions  thtit  ajipear  as  the  .special 
dut}'  of  the  priests.  The  sense  of  '  servant '  is 
obtained  for  kOhCn  also  by  Hitzi"  (on  Is  61'"),  who 
connects  the  word  with  the  I'i'el  kihen  (Is  61'"  = 
I'rn  '  make  ready '  ;  elsewhere,  indeed,  kihen  is  a 
derivative  from  kohen  [see  Ewald,  Heb.  Sprache, 
§  120c]),  to  which  he  assigns  the  sense  ' parare, 
apt  are,  and  then  ministrare.' 

The  word  kdnurim  (a""!C^)  is  used  in  the  OT  only 
of  heathen  priests.  It  answers  to  the  word  idd 
found  in  Aramaic  inscriptions,  Sj-r.  kiimrd  '  jiriest,' 
and  hence  in  the  OT  is  manifestly  a  word  bor- 
rowed along  with  their  idolatr}'  trom  the  Ara- 
ma-ans. 

In  Deuteronomy  the  priests  are  called  '  Levite 
priests  '  (c"ij-ci  cxr^-),  and  already  in  a  very  ancient 
narrative  in  tlie  Bk.  of  Judges  (clis.  17  f.)  we  lind 
a  '  Levite '  ("i^)  regarded  as  haWng  a  special  call  to 
priestly  functions.  In  like  manner  the  Jehovistic 
book  of  the  Pentateuch  (JE)  conttiins  a  tradition, 
according  to  which  Mo.ses  assigned  priestly  rights 
to  the  'sons  of  Levi'  (Ex  32-"^-  [whether  32='>'^- 
belonged  to  the  original  Jehovistic  book  has, 
indeed,  been  doubted  by  Kuenen,  De  bockcn  des 
ouden  vc.rbonds-,  Leiden,  188711'.,  §  13,  note  21] ; 
cf.  Jos  13"- !»  18',  see  Gesch.  p.  100  f.).  In  the 
prophetical  writings  the  name  '  Levites '  occurs 
tor  the  lirst  time  in  the  Bk.  of  Jeremiah  (33"*' 
'  Levite  priests '  n-'il^n  D'}"in),  in  a  section  which  is 
wanting  in  the  LXX,  and  is  pretty  certainly  not 
the  work  of  Jeremiah,  but,  judging  from  v.",  was 
probably  composed  by  an  exile  in  Babylon. 
During  the  Exile  the  term  '  Levites '  is  wit- 
nessed to  by  Ezekiel.  But,  in  view  of  Jg  17  f., 
there  can  be  no  doubt  of  the  higher  antiquity  of 
the  terra,  evi  n  apart  from  the  passages  cited 
above,  regarding  which  doubts  have  oeen  expressed 
whether  they  belong  to  the  pre  -  Deuterononiic 
elements  of  the  Jehovistic  hook.     The  Bk.  of  Dt 

fresiipposes  the  name  as  generally  current,  and 
)t  33,  in  which  (vv.*"")  Levi  is  represented  as 
holder  of  the  priesthood,  dates  to  all  appearance 
from  a  i)eriod  prior  to  the  Fall  of  Samarin, 

Tlie  view  of  the  author  of  the  Deuteronomic  law 
(18'),  as  well  as  that  expressid  in  the  Blessing  of 
Moses  (Dt  33'"),  and  in  the  tradition  embodied  in 
the  '  Priestly  Writing'  of  the  Pentateuch  (also  in 
Jos  13'*-"='[JE?]),  is  that  the  term  'Levites'  indi- 
cates that  the  priests  belong  to  a  tribe  of  Levi. 
The  origin  of  this  priestly  designiition  and  this 
tribal  name  is  obscure.  The  Blessing  of  Jacob, 
which  as  a  whole  is  not  earlier  than  the  mon- 
archical period,  pre.supjioscs  a  tribe  of  Levi  without 
any  allusion  to  its  call  to  |iriestly  functions  (tin 
49''').  On  the  other  hand,  the  OT  contains  certain 
indications  which  appear  to   nresuppose  that  the 


68 


PRIESTS  AND  LEVITES 


PRIESTS  AND  LEVITES 


word  lewt  was  once  regarded  as  the  official  name  of 
the  priest.  In  the  Jehovistie  book  Aaron  as  dis- 
tinguished from  Moses  is  called  '  the  Levite '  (Ex 
4"),  although  the  two  are  cone^eived  of  as  brotliers. 
In  this  passage  there  is  certainly  no  reason  to 
pronounce  (with  Nowack,  p.  99)  the  designation 
an  interpolation  introduced  under  the  influence  of 
the  Priests'  Code,  for  such  an  influence  would  have 
led  to  Aaron's  being  called,  not  'the  Levite,'  but 
'  the  priest.'  The  Levite  who  figures  in  Jg  17  f.  is 
of  the  tribe  of  Judah,  and  hence,  apparently,  does 
not  belong  to  a  special  tribe  of  Levi,  unless  per- 
haps he  belonged  to  Judah  merely  as  a  settler,  as 
appears  to  be  the  interpretation  adopted  in  what 
should  probably  be  pronounced  a  gloss,  namely, 
17'  (cf.,  however,  Gesch.  p.  184  f.).  In  any  case,  it 
is  conceivable  that  the  word  Icwt  was  originally  an 
official  name,  and  only  came  afterwards  to  be 
treated  as  tlie  patronymic  for  the  particular  family 
or  guild  wliich  was  considered  to  have  been  called 
to  priestly  service.  At  all  events  the  coincidence 
of  a  tribal  name  with  the  priestly  designation 
cannot  be  accidental,  and  accordingly  one  may 
not  assume  on  the  ground  of  Gn  49'°-  that  there 
was  a  tribe  of  Levi  which  afterwards  disappeared, 
and  that  the  Levitical  priests  have  no  connexion 
with  it. 

If  the  word  leio(  was  once  an  official  name,  then 
it  niiglit  be  possible  that  a  reminiscence  of  this 
original  sense  has  survived  in  an  explanation  of 
the  word  found  in  the  Priests'  Code  (Nu  18--  *), 
although  in  itself  this  explanation  is  nothing  more 
than  a  word  -  play.  According  to  this  passage, 
those  who  belong  to  the  tribe  of  Levi  are  to 
attach  themselves  (yilldwil,  nilwii)  to  Aaron,  for 
the  service  of  the  tabernacle.  The  word  Ihct  is, 
as  a  matter  of  fact,  probably  to  be  derived  from 
Ic'nvah,  '  to  twine,  to  attach  oneself,'  and  might 
perhaps  be  used  to  designate  an  escort  '  attachmg 
itself,  such  as  the  troop  that  escorted  the  wander- 
ing sanctuary  of  the  nomad  period  of  Israel's  history 
(so  Gesch.  p.  73  f.,  foUowing  others,  especially  de 
La<jarde).  The  word  would  thus  be  not  strictly  a 
designation  of  the  priest,  but  of  a  body  from  which 
by  j)reference  the  priests  were  chosen.  Since  a 
special  body  with  a  genealogical  connexion  had 
presumably  to  be  conceived  of  as  set  apart  for  the 
above-named  duty  of  escorting  the  ark,  it  might 
liappen  in  the  end  that  lewi  was  taken  as  the 
tribal  name  of  this  body. 

This  explanation  of  the  word  lewt  as  an  official 
name,  finds,  however,  no  certain  support  in  the 
history  tliat  has  come  down  to  us,  and  it  must 
always  remain  a  difficulty  to  conceive  of  an 
alle^'ed  tribal  name  having  originated  from  an 
official  name,  espec'iallj-  as  in  Gn  49  we  have  a 
view  of  the  tribe  of  Levi  presented  in  which  there 
is  no  allusion  to  its  being  a  priestly  tribe.  For 
this  reason  also  it  is  not  likely  that  leioi  is  the 
name  for  foreigners,  say  E<rvptians,  who  had 
'  attaclied '  themselves  to  the  Hebrews  (so,  follow- 
ing others,  Renan,  Hist,  du  peuple  (Tlsrnel, 
vol.  i.,  Paris,  1887,  p.  149  f.,  who  makes  Levi  = 
inguilinus ;  see,  further,  on  this  point,  Gesch. 
p.  70  f.).  Besides,  the  view  that  the  Levites  were 
originally  non-Israelites  is  extremely  improbable, 
for  the  reason  that  Moses,  the  deliverer  of  Israel, 
who  is  reckoned  to  the  tribe  of  Levi,  was  certainly 
a  Hebrew.  Moreover,  Levi,  the  father  of  the 
tribe,  is  represented  as  son  of  one  of  those  two 
wives  of  Jacob  whose  birth  was  et^ual  to  his  own, 
and  who  were  his  relations.  Levi's  descent  then 
was  regarded  as  a  pure  Hebrew  one.  Hence, 
taking  everything  into  account,  the  more  probable 
conclusion  is  that  litoi  was  at  first  actuallv  a 
tribal  name,  and  only  afterwards  in  a  secondary 
way  came  to  be  treated  as  the  official  name  of  the 
priests  because  these  were  chosen  from  this  tribe. 


It  is  not  impossible  that  the  tribal  name  Lei-i  is 
connected  with  the  name  Leah  (■"in'?)  which  is  given 
as  that  of  the  niotlier  of  Levi  (Wellhausen, 
Geschichte  I.traels  [Prolegomena  •],  1878,  p.  149 , 
Stade,  ZATW,  1881,  p.  115f.),  in  which  case  it 
may  remain  an  open  question  whether  in  Leah  we 
are  to  find,  with  Staue  (i.e.,  following  Wetzstein), 
an  animal  name,  '  wild  cow.'  The  difficulty  in- 
volved in  the  circumstance  that  Gn  49'''-  is 
acquainted  mth  a  tribe  of  Levi  but  does  not 
represent  it  as  a  priestly  one,  is  not  to  be  obviated 
by  the  assumption  that  this  passage  relates  to  pre- 
>Iosaic  conditions  (so  Van  Hoonacker,  Screrdoee, 
etc.  pp.  309,  311) ;  for  all  the  other  sayings  in  the 
so-called  Blessing  of  Jacob  have  to  do  with  the 
time  when' Israel  was  settled  in  Canaan,  and  even 
the  scattering  of  Levi  among  Israel,  spoken  of  in 
Gn  49',  presupposes  the  settlement.  There  remains 
hardly  any  resource  but  to  suppose  that  to  the 
author  of  Gn  49'*-  the  want  of  a  Levitical  tribal 
territory  presented  itself  so  strongly  as  a  punish- 
ment occasioned  by  the  conduct  of  the  father  of 
the  tribe,  that  he  did  not  look  beyond  this  penal 
condition  of  things  to  the  honourable  priestly 
vocation  of  the  members  of  this  tribe.  W  hat  the 
conduct  of  the  tribe  had  really  been  which  occa- 
sioned the  unfavourable  judgment  passed  ujion  it, 
is  a  question  we  cannot  answer.  It  is  held  by  H. 
Guthe  {Geschichte  cles  Volkes  Israel,  Freiburg 
i.  B.,  1899,  p.  169  f.)  that  certain  descendants  of 
a  non-priestly  dowerless  tribe  of  Levi  had  pro- 
cured maintenance  for  themselves  by  undertaking 
priestly  functions,  and  that  in  this  way  Levi 
became  a  priestly  appellation.  But  this  view, 
which  might  otherwise  be  a  possible  one,  can 
hardly  be  regarded  with  favour,  because  such  a 
condition  of  things  would  not  account  for  the 
relatively  ancient  tradition  as  to  tlie  relations  of 
the  tribe  of  Levi  to  the  person  of  Moses  (see 
below,  §  2). 

The  above  is  the  result  of  a  consideration  of  the 
OT  data.  But  if  it  should  be  established  tliat 
in  the  Minsean  inscriptions  the  word  lavii'u  is 
a  term  for  '  priest,'  and  that  this  is  connected 
with  the  OT  Icict  (Fr.  Hommel,  AHT,  London, 
1897,  p.  278  f.),  it  will  be  necessary  after  all  to 
think  of  the  latter  as  an  official  name,  and  that  an 
ancient  Semitic  one  (otherwise  Van  Hoonackei, 
Sacerdoce,  etc.  p.  31211'.). 

On  bSnS  ha-Uwt  and  bSn6  ha-Uwiyytm  (rare  and 
late  for  the  usual  hing  Icwi),  forms  in  which  lemt  is 
treated  as  a  gentilic  name,  see  Ed.  Konig,  '  Syn- 
taktische  Excurse  zum  AT,'  in  SK,  1898,  p.  537  ff. 

2.  The  PniESTHooD  in  the  earliest  Time.s. — 
As  everywhere  in  the  history  of  religion,  tliere 
may  be  recognized  also  in  the  beginning  of  Hebrew 
historj'  a  period  when  no  special  priestly  class 
existed.  Of  course  it  is  upon  an  artificials^  con- 
structed basis  that  the  view  presented  m  the 
'Priestly  Writing'  (P)  of  the  Pentateuch  rests, 
according  to  which  neither  sanctuary  nor  sacrificial 
acts  nor  a  priestly  class  had  any  existence  before 
the  Divine  revelation  given  throu^li  Moses.  Even 
in  the  narratives  of  tlie  Jeho\'ist^ic  book,  relatin;^ 
to  the  pre-Mosaic  period,  there  are  scarcely  to  be 
discovered  any  reminiscences  of  the  then  condition 
of  the  cultus  ;  but  these  narratives  will  hardly  be 
wrong  in  representing  relations  which  stil.  per- 
sisted at  a  later  period,  as  the  only  ones  present  in 
the  patriarchal  period,  a-s  when  they  describe  the 
head^  of  the  family  in  the  patriarchal  house  as 
exercising  tlie  priestly  function  of  ofl'ering  sacrifice. 
Besides  this,  we  liave  in  the  Jehovistie  book  a 
single  mention,  durin"  the  patriarclial  period,  of 
inquiring  at  an  oracle  (Gn  25^),  and  also  one 
reference  to  the  giving  of  tithes  (Gn  28-).  Both 
these  allusions  imply  the  existence  of  a  sanctuary 
with  a  priest  in  tliarge  of  it.     Here  the  narrators 


PRIESTS  AND  LEVITES 


PRIESTS  AND  LEVITES 


6a 


have  momentarily  forgotten  the  ancient  situation 
wliicli  is  assumed  elsewliere,  yet  witliout  expressly 
naming  the  priest  on  either  occasion.  The  author 
of  the  prologue  of  the  Bk.  of  Job,  again,  intro- 
duees  his  liero,  whom  he  conceives  of  as  a 
shepherd-prince  living  in  remote  antiquitj-  in  the 
land  of  Uz,  as  olienng  sacrifices  for  his  family 
(Job  1»  ;  cf.  429'-,  and  contrast  12'»  kohantm).  The 
story  of  Gn  14'""^,  whore  Abraham  is  represented 
as  giving  tithes  to  Melihizedek  the  priest-king  of 
Salem,  is,  in  its  present  form,  a  glorilication  of 
the  later  priesthood  of  Salem,  i.e.  Jerusalem. 

According  to  a  narrativ  e  contained  in  the  Jeho- 
vistic  book,  Moses  instituted  a  special  priestly  body 
when  he  set  apart  the  'sons  of  Levi'  for  this  pur- 
pose (Ex  32-''"  J.  In  the  first  instance,  Moses  him- 
self, according  to  this  book,  performs  the  sacrificial 
act  (Ex  24").  In  that  descriptive  narrative,  which 
makes  him  receive  the  Divine  revelations  in  the 
holy  t«nt  outside  the  camp  to  which  the  people 
went  'to  seek  Jahweh'  (Ex  SS""-),  the  function  of 
conniiunicating  oracles  appears  as  a  distinction 
conferred  only  upon  Moses  personally.  15ut  in  this 
waj-  he  is  clearly  thought  of  as  the  presiding 
authority  over  the  liolv  tent — in  other  words,  as  a 
priest.  The  Priestly  \Vriting,  on  the  other  hand, 
makes  Moses  otiiciate  as  priest  only  upon  the 
occasion  of  the  instalment  of  the  priests  in  their 
olfice  (Ex  29) ;  and  from  this  point  onwards,  accord- 
ing to  this  source,  priestly  functions  are  discharged 
only  by  Aaron  and  his  sons,  who  are  selected  from 
the  body  of  the  tribe  of  Levi  for  this  purpose. 
According  to  a  prophetical  discourse  interpolated 
into  the  older  text  of  the  history  of  the  youth  of 
Samuel  (1  S  2"'-},  God,  during  the  bondage  in 
Egypt,  revealed  Himself  to  the  fathers'  house  of 
Eli,  the  priest  of  Shiloh,  and  cliose  this  house  out 
of  all  the  tribes  of  Israel,  to  be  priests.  Here  too, 
then,  without  any  mention  indeed  of  Aaron  or 
Levi,  appears  the  conce|)tion  of  an  institution  of 
the  priesthood  in  the  time  of  Moses.  This  con- 
ception, in  the  form  in  which  it  here  makes  its 
appearance,  cannot  be  of  quite  recent  origin,  since 
in  opposition  to  the  later  claims  of  the  Zadokite 
priesthood,  which  existed  from  the  time  of  Solo- 
mon, it  represents  the  Elida>,  who  were  dill'erent 
from  these,  as  the  original  legitimate  priests.  It 
is  in  itself  quite  credible  that  Muses,  in  his 
arrangements  for  the  Israelii isli  nation  and  its 
cult  us,  made  provision  for  the  performance  of 
religious  service  by  a  special  body,  and  it  is  a  very 
plausible  supposition  that  he  who  is  represented 
as  belonging  like  Aaron  to  the  tribe  of  Levi, 
selected  his  own  family  for  this  ollice.  Among 
the  ancient  Arabs  as  well,  the  priesthood  was 
largely  in  pos.se.ssion  of  special  famdies,  wluth  did 
not  belong  to  the  tribe  amongst  whom  they  exer- 
ci.sed  their  olfice  (Wollliausen,  lieste^,  \>.  130  f.). 
Gutlie  (Gcscliiclitc,  \>.  21  f.)  opi)Oses  the  view  that 
Mo.ses  belonged  to  the  tribe  of  Levi,  and  holds 
that  the  priestly  tribe  first  originated  in  Canaan. 
This  later  origin,  however,  is  ditruult  to  prove,  and 
along  with  it  the  objections  tall,  which  are  brought 
against  a  gcnealoj;ical  connexion  between  Moses 
and  the  priestly  tribe.  / 

If  li'uH  actually  stood  origirtally  for  the  retinue 
of  the  sacred  ark,  only  individuals  from  this  body 
would  have  been  priests  proper.  Ajiart  from  this, 
it  is  in  any  ca.se  not  incredible  that  Moses  shouhl 
have  destined  his  own  fiimily  in  ibe  narrower 
sense  to  be  priests,  but  that  he  should  have  chosen 
precisely  the  family  of  his  brother  Aaron  is  less 
likely.  Aaron,  it  is  true,  is  not  only  represented 
in  1' as  the  father  of  the  priests,  but  even  in  JE 
OS  'the  Levite'  kot'  iiox-/)'  (Ex  4").  Yet  he  does 
not  ajipcar  to  be  known  to  all  the  strata  of  this 
last  book  ;  and  in  all  tlie  pa.ssnges  where  mention 
is  made  of  him  he  is  a  less  individualized  figure, 


to  which  features  from  the  later  historj'  are  trans- 
ferred in  a  prefigurative  waj-  (Gesch.  p.  199).  It  is 
not  imjiossible  tiiat  in  his  case  we  have  to  do  with 
a  personification,  although  no  satisfactory  explana- 
tion of  his  name  'AhAron  has  yet  been  discovered. 
With  '(tr6n  the  designation  of  the  sacred  ark  (a 
combination  proposed,  following  the  lead  of  others, 
by  Kenan,  I.e.  p.  179),  this  name  can  hardlj-,  in 
view  of  the  different  way  in  which  it  is  written, 
have  anything  to  do. 

In  an  ancient  gloss  to  the  narrative  in  the  Bk. 
of  Judges  about  the  LeWte  who  first  on  Mt. 
Ephraim  and  afterwards  at  Dan  officiated  as 
priest,  this  Levite,  to  whom  the  priesthood  at  Dan 
traced  its  descent  down  to  '  the  carrying  captive 
of  the  land '  (i.e.  down  to  the  overthrow  of  Ephraim 
in  the  Assyrian  period),  is  described  as  a  '  son  of 
Gershom  the  son  of  Moses'  (in  Jg  IS*"  Menash-ihch 
is  an  alteration  of  the  original  Mosheh).  Here, 
then,  Moses  himself  may  be  viewed  as  father  of 
the  priests  in  general.  But  all  the  same  it  is 
difficult  to  understand  the  person  of  Aaron  as  a 
purely  fictitious  one,  because  there  is  no  apparent 
reason  whj'  the  priesthood  should  have  exchanged 
the  more  glorious  descent  from  the  lawgiver  for 
descent  from  a  brother  of  his.  Moses  has  been 
supposed  to  be  referred  to  in  Dt  33*  as  the  repre- 
sentative, and  then,  presumably,  as  the  father,  of 
the  priesthood  ;  but  the  context  of  this  passage 
favours  rather  a  reference  to  Aaron  in  this  capacity 
(Gesch.  p.  7G),  in  harmony  with  which  is  the  cir- 
cumstance that  Dt  33  probably  had  its  origin  in 
Ephraim,  and  we  find  traces  that  it  was  in  Ephraim 
that  Aaron  first  came  to  be  looked  upon  as  father 
01  the  priests  (see  below,  §  3,  on  the  bull-worship  of 
Aaron). 

If  really  from  the  time  of  Moses  one  special 
body  was  regarded  as  called  to  the  luiesthood,  yet 
it  is  by  no  means  the  case  that  from  that  time  it 
alone  exercised  priestly  functions.  Long  after 
Moses,  it  is  not  contested  that  men  of  non-Levitical 
descent  discharged  the  j)ricst's  ollice  occasionally 
or  even  permanently.  In  the  latter  case  they 
probably  passed  as  adopted  into  the  tribe  of  Levi, 
which  accordingly  we  arc  not  to  think  of  as  having 
originated  in  a  purely  genealogical  w.ay.  Only,  one 
can  hardly,  with  W  ellhau.scn,  ajipeal  in  favour  of 
this  to  what  is  said  in  Dt  33"  about  Levi's  having 
renounced  his  kinship.  Seeing  that  in  this  pas- 
sage the  denying  of  his  sons  is  also  spoken  of,  the 
relerence  must  be  understood  not  of  the  loosenini; 
of  connexion  with  a  family,  but  of  impartial  officiiu 
action,  without  regard  to  family  interests,  in  allu- 
sion to  the  narrative  of  Ex  32-''- -■"  (Gesch.  p.  77; 
Sellin,  p.  11011'.;  Van  Hoonacker,  Saccrdoce,  etc. 
p.  133).  As  in  Dt  33  the  whole  tribe  of  Levi 
appears  as  in  possession  of  the  priesthood,  so 
elsewhere  down  to  a  late  period  no  trace  is  to  be 
found  of  a  distinction  between  Levites  and  priests 
proper. 

No  special  weight  is  to  be  laid  on  the  circum- 
stance that,  according  to  the  statement  of  one 
source  of  tlie  Jehovistic  book,  Mo.ses  em]i|oycd 
'young  men  of  the  children  of  Israel'  to  oiler 
sacrifice  (Ex  24';  it  is  impossible  that  either  liere 
or  in  I  S  2'^- '"  na'ar,\n  its  sense  of  'servant,'  can 
be  a  designation  of  the  jiriest  as  the  servant 
[' »ntnis<rc '],  namely,  of  the  cultus  or  of  the  people 
'in  the  celebration  of  Divine  worship'  [so  Van 
Hoonacker,  Scicerdore,  etc.  p.  140  f.J),  for  this 
happened  prior  to  the  appointment  (recorded,  in- 
deed,  as  it  seems,  by  a  dillcrent  narrator)  of  the 
Levites  to  the  priestly  service  (Ex  .TJ-'""').  As  early 
as  the  arrival  at  Sinai  we  read  in  Ex  19'^-  **  (a 
narrative  in  any  ca.se  from  another  hand  than 
3.j.7itr.)  Qf  priests  [Gesch.  p.  .IS  11.)  without  being 
tohl  whether  these  are  to  be  thought  of  as  Levite* 
or  not.     It  is  mentioned  in  the  Jehovistic  book,  a.t 


70 


PRIESTS  AND  LEVITES 


PRIESTS  AND  LEVITES 


an  arrangement  in  force  all  through  the  lifetime 
of  Moses,  that  his  attendant,  Josliua,  who  is  repre- 
sented as  of  non-Levitical  descent  (Nu  13',  P),  did 
not  depart  out  of  the  holy  tent  (Ex  33")-  The 
Ephraimite  Micah,  in  the  period  of  the  judges, 
appoints  as  priest  in  his  private  sanctuary,  first  of 
all  one  of  hxs  sons  (Jg  17").  Gideon,  of  the  tribe 
of  Manasseh  (Jg  6""-},  and  Manoah  of  the  tribe  of 
Dan  (13"),  offer  sacrifice  with  their  own  hands. 
Under  Saul  the  Israelites  pour  out  the  blood  of  the 
capt\ired  animals  at  the  altar  stone  without  any 
priestly  interposition  (1  S  14").  At  a  still  later 
period  the  non-priestly  prophet  Elijah  sacrifices 
with  his  own  hand  (1  K  18*"^).  While  the  sacred 
ark,  in  the  course  of  its  wanderings,  tarried  in  the 
house  of  Abinadab,  who  was  plainly  no  priest,  it 
was  served  by  his  sons  (1  S  7',  2  S  6"-;  the  emen- 
dation of  Van  Hoonacker,  Sacerdoce,  etc.  p.  171,  is 
unwarranted).  Of  the  ancient  priestly  prerogative 
of  the  fatlier  of  the  house,  a  relic  was  preserved 
down  to  the  latest  times  of  the  Jewisn  cultus, 
in  the  slaughtering  of  the  Paschal  lamb  by  the 
fatlier  of  the  house  without  any  priest  taking  part 
in  the  ceremony  (Ex  12«ff-[P]  w."'-  [JE]),  although 
it  is  true,  at  the  same  time,  that  the  sacrificial 
character  of  the  Paschal  lamb  had  been  obliterated. 

Sacrificing  was,  then,  manifestly,  in  early  times 
not  the  exclusive  function  of  a  priestly  class.  The 
latter  was  certainly  in  existence.  Yet  even  for 
admittance  to  this  no  special  descent  was  requisite. 
Samuel,  by  birth  an  Ephraimite,  yet,  according  to 
the  representation  contained  in  tlie  history  of  his 
childhood,  becomes,  in  fulfilment  of  a  vow  of  his 
mother,  a  servant  of  Jahweh,  clothed  with  the 
priestly  eiihod,  at  the  sanctuary  at  Shiloh  (1  S  1"- 
211. 18)  'j'lje  fjjgj  that  Samuel  becomes  a  priest  in 
consequence  of  a  vow,  shows  that  he  was  not  one  by 
descent ;  and  the  representation  of  the  Chronicler 
(1  Ch  6''-  '*),  according  to  which  he  is  a  Levite,  is 
not,  with  Van  Hoonacker  {Sacerdoce,  etc.  p.  265  f.) 
and  Girdlestone  ('To  what  tribe  did  Samuel  be- 
long ? '  in  Expositor,  Nov.  1899,  pp.  385-388),  to_  be 
ju'tified,  as  if  Samuel  were  a  Levite  from  Ephraira. 
^n  the  descriptions  of  Samuel's  later  life  he  appears 
not  as  a  priest,  but  as  one  who,  in  the  extraordi- 
nary capacity  of  shophet  and  nabV,  presents  the 
ofi'erings  of  the  people  (1  S  7°''  16-^-)-  A  priestly 
class  is  presupposed  by  the  oldest  collection  of 
laws,  the  so-called  Book  of  the  Covenant  (Ex  22'), 
and  yet,  in  an  enactment  later  prefixed  to  this,  the 
general  right  to  sacrifice  is  assumed  in  the  demand 
made  of  the  Israelites  as  a  whole :  '  An  altar  of 
earth  thou  shall  make  unto  me,  and  shalt  sacrifice 
thereon  thy  burnt  -  ofi'erings  and  thy  shUnmim- 
offerings'  (Ex  20^).  When,  on  the  other  hand,  in 
the  .lehovistic  book  the  people  of  Israel  is  called 
'a  kingdom  of  priests'  (Ex  ly""),  this  is  certainly  to 
be  understood  not  of  the  actual  exercise  of  priestly 
rights,  but  in  a  transferred  sense  as  meaning  that 
the  whole  of  Israel  stands  in  a  priestly  relation  to 
God. 

Where  a  professional  priest  was  not  available, 
young  men  appear  to  have,  by  preference,  replaced 
the  father  of  the  house  in  the  exercise  of  his 
priestly  function,  or  even  to  have  acted  as  priests 
for  a  larger  body.  Of  Moses  we  found  it  recorded 
that  he  aj)pointed  young  men  to  offer  sacrifice. 
The  Ephraimite  Micah  installs  one  of  his  sons  as 
priest.  Certain  traces  appear  to  point  to  a  prefer- 
ence at  one  time  for  making  firstborn  sons  priests, 
or  even  to  indicate  that  in  earlier  times  the  whole 
of  the  firstborn  sons  were  regarded  as  destined  for 
holy  service — an  idea  which  certainly  can  hardly 
at  any  time  have  been  strictly  carried  out  in 
practice.  The  circumstance  that  Samuel,  accord- 
ing to  the  story  of  his  childhood,  was  a  firstborn 
Eon,  is  of  no  importance,  because  it  was  not  as 
lach  that  he  was  set  apart  for  priestly  functions. 


bat  in  consequence  of  a  vow  of  his  mother.  But 
in  the  ancient  code,  the  Book  of  the  Covenant 
(Ex  22'^  [Eng.  »]),  the  demand  is  made  that  the 
firstborn  son  be  given  to  Jalnveh.  The  spirit  of 
this  book,  whether  it  belongs  to  the  time  of  the 
Judges  or  to  the  earlier  monarchical  period,  appears 
to  exclude  the  intcrjiretation  that  the  firstborn  is 
to  be  oti'ered  in  sacrifice  to  the  deitj' ;  and  then 
there  remains  scarcely  any  other  possibility  except 
to  understand  the  '  giving '  to  mean  consecration 
to  holy  service  [Gesch.  p.  55  ff.;  Smend,  Alttut. 
Religionsgeschichte'',  Freiburg  i.  B.,  1899,  p.  282  f., 
note  3;  cf.  Kamphauscn,  Das  Verlialtnis  dea 
Mcnschenopfers  zur  israel.  Religion,   Bonn,   1896, 

£66).  In  the  Priestly  Writing  it  is  said  of  the 
evites  that  they  are  '  given  '  to  Jahweh  (Nu  8"), 
and  even  the  consecration  of  Samuel  is  described 
by  the  term  '  given  '(IS  1"). 

In  spite  of  this  freedom  in  the  matter  of  sacri- 
ficial arrangements,  from  early  times  it  was  con- 
sidered an  advantage  in  the  regular  and  constant 
service  of  a  sanctuary  to  have  a  '  Levite '  for  priest. 
When  one  of  these  happens  to  pass  the  sanctuary 
of  Micah  the  Ephraimite,  the  latter  gives  the 
preference  to  hira  as  priest  over  his  own  sin  (Jg 
IT'""-) ;  and  the  Uanites  v  ho  wi«ih  to  establish  for 
themselves  a  new  sanctuary  in  their  new  home,  do 
not  let  the  opportunity  slip  to  obtain  by  force  the 
services  of  this  same  Levite  (18'"'-)-  Even  if 
in  the  time  of  Moses  a  single  family  amongst  the 
Levites  had  possession  of  the  priesthood  proper, 
in  subsequent  times,  at  all  events,  this  was  viewed 
not  as  their  exclusive  privilege,  but  as  that  of  the 
Levites  in  general.  Nevertheless,  the  term  'Levite' 
nowhere  occurs  as  the  exact  equivalent  of  '  priest,' 
a  circumstance  which  is  not  without  importance 
in  its  bearing  upon  the  origin  of  the  term.  The 
above-named  Micah  the  Ephraimite  is  represented 
as  saying,  '  The  Levite  has  become  my  priest'  (Jg 
17^'). 

As  to  the  instalment  in  the  priestly  office,  even 
that  ancient  narrative  in  the  Bk.  of  Judges 
mentions  certain  formalities  which  in  a  modified 
form  are  retained  in  the  later  ceremonial  law  of 
the  Pentateuch.  Micah  'fills  the  hand'  of  one 
of  his  sons,  so  that  he  becomes  his  prie.st  (Jg 
17').  He  does  precisely  the  same  thing  afterwards 
to  the  Levite  (v.'").  Wherein  this  '  filling  of  the 
hand '  consisted  is  not  clear.  It  has  been  suggested 
that  it  means  the  handing  over  of  the  earnest 
money  (Vatke,  Wellhausen),  which  appears  to  be 
favoured  by  the  fact  that  the  Levite  who  renders 
priestly  services  to  Micah  certainly  speaks  of  him- 
self as  '  hired  '  by  the  latter  (Jg  18^).  This  hiring, 
liowever,  need  not  refer  to  a  sum  of  money  paid 
down,  but  may  consist  in  the  arrangement  about 
an  annual  salarv,  clothing,  and  maintenance  (17'°). 
It  is  not  at  all  likely  that  Micah  hired  his  own 
son  with  a  piece  of  earnest  moneys  and  in  any 
case  the  narrator  in  the  Jehovistic  book  (Ex  32'^) 
was  not  thinking  of  earnest  money  when  he  makes 
Moses  say  to  the  sons  of  Levi  tliemselves :  '  Fill 
your  hands  to-day  for  Jahweh.'  Still  less  likely 
is  it  that  the  expression  '  till  the  hand '  refers  to 
the  handing  over  of  the  arrows  which  are  alleged 
to  have  been  used  in  giving  tlie  priestly  oracle 
(Sellin,  p.  118  f.).  This  interpretation  is  based 
upon  Ex  32-'',  where,  however,  Ic-Jahivch  stamling 
alone  cannot  mean  'on  behalf  of  Jahweh  '  (sc.  take 
hold  of  the  arrows),  but  shows  that  'fill  your  hand' 
refers  in  some  way  to  a  consecration  to  Jahweh,  an 
instalment  into  sen-ice  related  to  Him  (still  an- 
other interpretation  of  the  'filling  the  hand'  in 
Ex  32™-"  is  adopted  by  Van  Hoonacker,  Sacerdoce, 
etc.  p.  IS'il.  In  the  Priestly  Writing  the  ex- 
pression '  fill  the  hand '  is  retained  in  speaking 
of  instalment  into  the  priestly  office  (Ex  28'"  al.), 
and  the  term  'fill-offering'  (mllluim.  Ex  29--  al.\ 


PRIESTS  A^'D  LEVITES 


PEIESTS  AND  LEVITES 


71 


Is  used  of  the  ofi'ering  which  was  presented  at  the 
consecration  of  Aaron  and  his  sons  to  the  priestly 
office.  This  oU'ering  has  the  characteristic  rite 
that  Moses  places  certain  portions  of  the  sacrificial 
animal  upon  the  hands  of^  Aaron  and  his  sons — in 
other  words,  fills  the  hands  of  those  about  to  be 
consecrated  with  these  portions  of  the  sacrifice. 
What  are  specified  are  the  parts  of  the  animal 
which  in  sacrifice  were  burned  upon  the  altar  or 
which  fell  to  the  priests.  The  consecration  cere- 
mony was  meant  thus  to  express  that  the  priest  is 
empowered  to  lay  these  pieces  upon  the  altar,  or, 
as  the  case  may  be,  to  take  them  for  himself. 
Accordingly,  it  is,  to  say  the  least,  not  improbable 
that  the  expression  '  fill  the  hand,'  used  of  installa- 
tion in  the  priestly  office,  had  in  view  from  the 
first  such  a  handing  over  of  sacrificial  portions  as 
pointed  to  the  priestly  functions  {GascA.  p.  183  f.; 
so  also  Weinel,  art.  '  n^o  und  seine  Derivate,'  in 
ZATW  xviii.  [1898]  p.  61).  Such  a  solemn  intro- 
duction to  office  might  well  be  employed  even  by 
the  layman  Micah  in  the  case  of  the  Levite,  as  of 
one  who  was  not  installed  by  him  as  a  priest  in 
general  but  as  his  own  priest  (otherwise  Nowack, 
p.  121). 

But  it  may  be,  further,  that  the  expression 
'  fill  the  {hand '  had  not  originally  a  special  refer- 
ence to  introduction  to  the  priestly  office,  for  in 
Assyrian  the  corresponding  kdtH  mullU  has  the 
general  sense  of  'give,  appoint,  enfeoff,  present' 
(Nowack,  p.  120  f.,  following  Hal^vy ;  cf.  on  the 
Assj'rian  expression,  Frd.  Delitzsch,  Assyr.  Hand- 
worterb.  s.v.  k'jd,  p.  409).  Even  if  the  above  was 
the  original  sense  of  the  Hebrew  expression,  it  was 
no  longer  understood  in  Ex  32^. 

In  early  times  the  priest,  even  when  he  was  a 
young  man,  was  called  by  the  title  of  honour, 
'  father '  (Jg  17'"  18").  The  priests  who  served  at 
any  of  the  sanctuaries  of  ancient  Israel  were 
marked  outwardly  by  the  linen  ephod  they  wore 
(1  S  2").  They  lived,  as  we  learn  in  the  case  of 
Eli  and  Samuel,  in  the  sanctuary  (1  S  3^-)-  There 
thej  offered  the  sacrifices  on  the  altar,  a  work  in 
which  at  the  more  frequented  places  of  worship 
they  were  assisted  by  servants  ( 1  S  2''-  ").  Portions 
of  the  offerings  presented  were  assigned  thera  for 
their  maintenance  (1  S2'"'-);  whether  these  were 
definitely  fixed  (Gesch.  p.  208,  and  against  this 
Nowack,  p.  125),  or  were  left  to  the  pleasure  of 
the  offerer,  can  scarcely  be  determined.*  At  the 
private  sanctuaries,  as  we  are  told  of  Micah  the 
Ephraimite,  the  owner  of  the  sanctuary  paid  his 
priest  a  salary  and  supplied  his  clotliiiig  and  hia 
food  (Jg  17'°).  While  the  offering  of  s.ic  rifice  was 
in  early  times  open  to  others  as  well  as  to  the 
priests,  it  is  only  of  professional  priests  that  it  is 
recorded  that  they  gave  oracles.  Micah's  Levite 
consults  fiod  at  the  request  of  others  (Jg  18° ;  on 
the  giving  of  oracles  by  the  priests  among  the 
ancient  Arabs,  see  Wellhau.sen,  Ecite',  p.  131  if.). 

As  would  appear  from  what  we  hear  of  Ahijah 
(Ahimelech)  tne  descendant  of  Eli  (1  S  14'),  and 
his  son  Ebiathar  (Abiathar)  the  priest  of  Nob 
( 1  S  -3"),  it  was  only  the  chief  priest  of  a  considerable 
sanctuary  who  had  another  eiiliod  different  from  the 
linen  one,  by  means  of  which  he  cave  oracles  ( 1  S 
14""-,  where  for  '(lr6n  read  'ephud).  In  this  must 
have  been  kept  the  oracle  -  lots,  the  prototype 
of  the  Urim  (cf.  1  S  28")  and  Thuniniim  of  the 
later  high  priest.  In  the  Blessing  of  Moses  (Dt 
33"),  Thuiiiiiiini  and  Urim  are  tluMight  of  as  the 
special  dower  of  Levi,  and  probably  more  specifi- 
callj'  as  that  of   Aaron.       The   name  thummim, 

*  NVe  And  traces  that  amon^  the  Phoenicians  and  the  liiihy- 
loniana,  aa  was  doui>tlc8s  tlic  casn  with  all  liighly  {levetaped 
cults,  the  priests  ho'l  ttieir  allowance  from  the  otTerinf^s  (Mce 
F.  C.  Movers,  Da«  Opfencetteii  der  Karthager^oininenlar  zur 
Op/eHaJel  txm  ilarmUle,  Phonlilsche  Texte,  Thell  il.,  Brcslau, 
IS47,  pp  lis,  1269.). 


'right,'  points  to  the  fact  that  the  giving  of 
priestly  oracles  originally  served  mainly  the 
interests  of  the  administration  of  justice,  which 
was  in  the  last  resort  the  task  of  the  priests.  In 
order  to  decide  a  difficult  lawsuit  the  parties  are 
required  by  the  Book  of  the  Covenant  to  appear 
'before  God'  (Ex  22'),  i.e.  to  appeal  to  a  decision 
by  the  priestly  lot.  The  same  place  which  bciirs 
the  name  ^dae-iA,  'sanctuary,'  is  called  also  '.£'re- 
■mishpdt,  '  well  of  decision  '  (Gn  14'). 

In  the  administration  of  justice,  but  no  doubt 
also  in  the  indication  of  what  was  ritually  proper, 
and  in  general  of  what  was  well-pleasing  to  the 
deity,  will  thus  have  consisted  the  turdh,  '  instruc- 
tion '  or  '  direction '  (see  La\v  IN  OT,  vol.  iii.  p.  64''), 
which  from  ancient  tunes  appears  as  the  duty  of 
the  priests  (Dt  33'").  It  has  been  suggested  that 
the  root-word  (hGrdh)  in  this  notion  of  'instructing' 
should  be  traced  back  to  the  casting  of  the  sacred 
lots.  But  this  is  scarcely  probable  in  view  of  the 
use  of  turdh  also  for  the  teaching  of  the  prophets, 
which  has  notliin"  to  do  with  oracles  obtained  by 
lot.  Rather  had  Yi6rdh,  which  is  used  of  shooting 
arrows  (1  S  20^  al.),  the  meaning  of  'aim  at  some- 
thing,' and  then  '  lead  to  a  goal,'  '  point  out  some- 
thing' (Gn  46'*),  'instruct'  {Ge.'<ch.  p.  207,  note  1). 

When  they  settled  in  Canaan,  the  Israelites  had 
taken  over  the  sacred  places  of  the  Canaanites  and 
set  up  the  worship  of  Jahweh  at  them.  These 
sanctuaries  did  not  all  enjoy  the  services  of  a 
Levitical  priest,  as  we  see  from  the  fact  that  a  son 
of  Micah  the  Ephraimite  acted  as  priest.  The 
numbers  of  the  Le\'ites  were  probably  insufficient 
to  meet  the  needs  of  such  service.  They  will  have 
settled  only  at  the  more  important  sanctuaries. 
A  reminiscence  of  this  is  preserved  in  the  Priestly 
Writing  of  the  Hexateuch,  which  conceives  of 
specially  appointed  Levitical  or  priestly  cities. 
Some  or  the  names  of  cities  specified  in  this  con- 
nexion clearly  point  to  ancient  places  of  worship 
(cf.  below,  §  8,  f  end,  and  g). 

The  most  important  sanctuary  in  the  time  of 
the  .Judges  was  the  temple  at  Shiloh,  whose  annual 
festivals  were  resortecl  to  by  a  wide  circle  of 
worsbippers.  There  officiated  Eli  and  his  house, 
which  traced  back  its  priestly  rights  to  the  time 
of  the  Exodus  from  E<jrypt  (1  S  2-'''),  and  thus  at  all 
events  belonged  to  the  category  of  the  Levites. 
It  may  be  that  the  house  of  Eli  also  laid  claim  to 
descent  from  the  priestly  brother  of  Moses,  namely 
Aaron ;  so  at  least  the  matter  was  viewed  by 
those  in  later  times  who  traced  the  descent  of  the 
Elida;  to  Ithamar  a  son  of  Aaron  (1  Ch  24'). 
But  it  may  be  also,  as  we  have  seen,  that  originally 
the  priest  of  the  Exodus,  and  even  the  ancestor  of 
the  house  of  I'^li  was  held  to  be  Moses  himself,  for 
whom  his  brother  might  come  to  be  substituted 
only  in  after- times  (Wellhausen,  Proleqinncna^, 
p.  146  f.).  In  the  history  of  the  childhood  of 
Samuel,  Eli  is  introduced  abruptly  (1  S  1")  ;  a  pas- 
sage paving  the  way  for  the  mention  of  him  must 
have  been  lost,  and  in  this  his  genealogy  was  prob- 
ably given.  Eli,  as  no  doubt  was  the  case 
equally  with  the  head  of  the  family  elsewhere, 
held  the  position  of  chief  priest  in  the  temple,  as 
may  be  gathered  from  the  relation  to  him  of 
Samuel  and  of  his  own  sons.  Eli's  sons  perished 
in  the  wars  with  the  Philistines,  and  with  them 
probably  also  the  sanctuary  of  Shiloh,  which  is 
never  afterwards  mentioned  as  existing  (1  S  4"''-)- 
The  house  of  Eli  was  not,  however,  completely 
extinguished  ;  a  great-grandson  of  his,  Ahijah  the 
son  of  Aliitub,  the  son  of  Phinehas,  the  son  of  Eli, 
bore  Mie  cplioil  in  the  time  of  Saul  (1  S  14').  He  is 
eviiiiiilly  identical  with  the  son  of  Ahitub  whom 
another  source  calls  Ahimelech.  This  Ahimelech, 
apparently  as  chief  priest,  had  his  residence,  along 
with   his  lathers'   house,  at   Nob  (1  S  21"-  22""), 


72 


PRIESTS  AND  LEVITES 


PRIESTS  AND  LEVITES 


the  'city  of  the  priests'  (22").  Here  then  it  would 
appear  that  the  ancient  priestly  family  of  the 
Exodus  gathere<l  itself  together  after  the  downfall 
of  Sliiloh.  Renan  (Histoire,  i.  420,  note  1)  finds 
dilhculty  in  the  identification  of  Ahijah  with 
Aliimelech,  because  the  priests  of  Nob  can,  he 
thinks,  hardly  have  belonged  to  the  family  of  the 
priests  of  Shiloh.  But  why  not,  and  why  should 
it  be  necessary  to  impute  an  error  to  1  K  2-'',  where 
Ebiathar  (Ahimelcch's  son)  is  reckoned  to  the 
house  of  Eli?  There  was  similarly  at  Dan  a 
Levitical  priesthood  which  traced  its  descent  to 
the  before-mentioned  LeWte  of  Micah  the  Eph- 
raimite,  and  consequently  to  Moses  (Jg  18**). 

3.  The  Priesthood  from  David  to  Josiah. — 
When  David  had  acquired  for  his  capital  the 
Jebusite  citadel,  he  conferred  upon  it  the  distinc- 
tion of  transferring  the  sacred  ark  to  the  summit 
of  its  hill,  the  threshing-floor  of  Araunah  tlie 
Jebusite.  By  this  act  he  established  a  royal 
sanctuary  of  which  the  king  was  the  proprietor, 
in  the  same  sense  in  which  the  private  person 
Micah  was  the  owner  of  the  sanctuary  set  up  by 
him.  David  and,  subsequently  to  the  building  of 
the  temple  by  Solomon  on  Mt.  Zion,  his  suc- 
cessors assumed  a  kind  of  chief  priestly  position 
at  the  .sanctuary  of  Jerusalem.*  David  presented 
olierings,  manifestly  discharging  priestly  functions 
in  person,  for  it  is  said  that  he  '  made  an  end  of 
ottering'  (2  S  6'''') ;  he  pronounced  the  liturgical 
blessing  (v.'*),  and  danced  in  the  priestly  garb,  the 
linen  ephod,  before  the  ark  of  the  covenant  (v.'*). 
Of  Solomon,  too,  it  is  recorded  that,  at  the  dedica- 
tion of  the  temple,  he  ottered  sacrifice  (1  K  8''  ^'^■), 
and  that  three  times  in  the  year  he  offered  burnt- 
otterings,  and  peace-otferings  and  '  sweet  smoke ' 
(1  K  y-*).  There  is  no  mention  of  priests  on  tins 
occasion  ;  their  presence  may,  however,  be  taken 
for  gTante<l  ss  self-evident,  for,  of  course,  Solomon 
could  not,  without  help  of  some  kind,  have  over- 
taken all  the  dedicatory  oUerings.  From  the 
above  statements,  then,  it  is  not  clear  to  what 
extent  Solomon  in  his  offering  discharged  priestly 
functions  in  person.  But  it  is  difficult  to  suppose 
him  to  have  acted  in  this  matter  difi'erently  from 
David.  In  any  case  the  blessing  which,  standing  by 
tlie  altar,  he  pronounced  upon  the  people  (1  K  8")  is 
a  priestly  act.  Of  the  first  king  of  tlie  Northern 
kingdom,  Jeroboam,  we  are  expressly  told  that  he 
ascended  the  altar  of  Bethel  and  made  the  ottering 
(1  K  12^),  although  he  too  had  priests  at  his 
command  (v.").  The  position  of  the  kings  of  the 
Northern  kingdom  in  relation  to  its  chief  sanctuary 
at  Bethel  will  have  been  practically  the  same  as 
that  of  the  kings  of  Judah  to  the  temple  at 
Jerusalem.  Under  Jeroboam  11.  Amaziah  the 
priest  at  Bethel  speaks  of  the  sanctuary  there  as 
a  royal  one  (Am  7'^) ;  Amaziah,  that  is  to  say, 
officiated  under  the  king's  commission.  Of  one  of 
the  later  kings  of  Judah,  Ahaz,  it  is  expressly  re- 
corded that  he  ascended  the  temple  altar,  kindled 
the  ottering,  poured  out  the  dnnk-oU'ering,  and 
sprinkled  the  altar  with  the  sacrificial  blood  (2  K 
16'-' ).  Conseq^uently  it  is  at  least  not  an  incorrect 
condition  of  things  that  is  presupposed  in  Chronicles 
when  we  are  told  how  Uzziah,  the  second  jncdo- 
cessor  of  Ahaz,  ottered  incense  upon  the  altar  of 
incense  (2  Ch  26"'^).  All  that  belongs  to  the  later 
standpoint  of  the  Chronicler  is  the  notion  that  this 
ottering  by  the  king  in  person  was  an  illegitimate 
encroachment  upon  the  priestly  privileges,  and  that 
Uzziah  was  on  that  account  punished  with  leprosy ; 
perhaps  al.so  the  assumption  of  a  sjiecial  altar  for 
incense  bespeaks  a  later  viewpoint. 

At    least    the  earliest   kings  looked  upon   the 

*  Among  the  Assyrians  as  well  the  kin^  was  at  the  same  time 
the  chief  priest  (see  Alf.  Jeremias,  Die  bau.-axnj/r.  VoretfUuiigen 
vom  Ltben  nach  dem  Tode^  Leipzig,  1887,  p.  07,  note  1). 


Jerusalemite  priests  as  subordinate  officials  whom 
they  could  appoint  and  depose.  From  the  massacre 
which  Saul  perpetrated  amongst  the  priests  at 
Nob  who  held  with  David  (1  S  22"''''),  none  escaped 
of  the  family  of  Eli  but  Ebiathar,  who  fled  for 
refuge  to  David,  carrying  ■with  him  the  oracle- 
ephod  (1  S  22-"  23").  He  was  installed  by  David 
as  priest  in  attendance  on  the  sacred  ark  on  Mt. 
Zion.  Along  with  him  Zadok  is  named  as  David's 
priest  (2  S  8",  where  read  '  Ebiathar  son  of 
Aliimelech ').  Both  have  their  sons  at  their  side 
as  priests  (2  S  15"-'*).  Ebiathar  must  have  held 
the  higher  rank  of  the  two,  for  we  are  told  in 
1  K  2^  that  Solomon,  after  deposing  Ebiathar, 
gave  his  post  to  Zadok.  Ebiathar,  with  his  son 
Jonathan,  had  taken  the  side  of  Adonijah  when 
the  latter  conspired  against  his  father  David  (1  IC 
jis.  4^ff.)  By  command  of  David,  Zadok  anointed 
Solomon  king  (1  K  P-^-).  and  Ebiathar  was 
banished.  He  retired  to  his  landed  property  at 
Anathoth  (1  K  2^*'-),  where  in  the  time  of  Jere- 
miah we  still  find  a  priestly  family  settled,  to 
which  Jeremiah  himself  belonged  (Jer  1'  32**0- 
Accordingly  Jeremiah  was  probably  a  descendant 
of  Ebiathar,  and  thus  of  the  ancient  priestly 
family  which  dated  its  possession  of  the  dignity 
from  the  time  of  the  Exodus  (see  above,  §  2). 

The  house  of  Zadok  continued  in  possession  of 
the  Jerusalemite  priesthood.  This  we  know  from 
the  exilian  prophet  Ezekiel,  who  constantly  speaks 
of  the  Jerusalemite  priests  as  '  the  sons  of  Zadok.' 
What  was  Zadok's  descent  is  not  clearly  to  be 
seen.  This  much  only  is  plain,  that  he  did  not 
belong,  like  Ebiathar,  to  the  old-privileged  priestly 
family,  for  a  piopliecy,  put  into  the  mouth  of  an 
unnamed  man  of  God  in  the  time  of  Eli,  announces 
that  God,  after  He  had  chosen  in  Egypt  tlie 
fathers'  house  of  Eli  for  the  priesthood,  had  now 
rejected  this  house,  and  would  apjioint  for  Him- 
self a  trustworthy  priest  who  should  walk  after 
Jahweh's  heart  and  mind,  for  whom  Jahweh  would 
build  an  enduring  house,  and  who  should  walk 
before  Jahweh's  anointed  for  ever  (1  S  2-'"'-)-  This 
prophecy  is  in  1  K  2-''  understood  of  the  installa- 
tion of  Zadok  in  the  Jerusalemite  priesthood,  and 
was  certainly  so  intended  from  the  first,  for — the 
only  other  conceivable  supposition — to  refer  it  to 
the  priestly  Samuel  will  not  answer,  seeing  that 
Samuel  is  never  represented  as  a  king's  priest. 
Thus,  then,  Zadok  did  not  belong  to  the  family  or 
the  fathers'  house  of  Eli,  and  consequently  not  to 
the  ancient  priesthood.  Zadok  cannot,  therefore, 
as  Poels  supposes,  have  really  belonged,  although, 
to  he  sure,  later  generations  represented  hira  as 
belonging,  to  an  ancient  Aaronile  family,  namely 
that  of  the  Eleazarites.  This  family,  according 
to  I'oels,  had  discharged  the  priestly  duties  at 
Nob,  and  when  the  national  sanctuary  was  trans- 
ferred to  Jenisalem,  Zadok  came  from  Nob  to  the 
cajtital  (so,  already,  essentially.  Movers,  Kiitische 
Untersuchnngen  ubcr  die  biblisihc  Chronik,  Bonn, 
1834,  p.  294 f.,  according  to  whom  Zadok  was  at 
first  chief  priest  in  the  Jlosaic  tabernacle  at  Gibcon 
[which  Poels  identifies  with  the  sanctuary  of  Nob]). 
It  is  maintained  by  Van  Hoonacker  [Sacerdoce,  etc. 
p.  IGStt'.)  that  according  to  1  S  2-''  the  house  of  Eli 
was  chosen  'non  pas  isoliiment,'  but,  together  with 
others,  as  one  particular  family  of  the  priesthood 
which  includea  a  plurality  of  families ;  but  this 
notion  is  read  into  the  text.  Zadok  is  called  the 
son  of  Ahitub  (2  S  8").  In  the  state  of  the  case 
just  described,  we  are  not  to  think  of  this  Ahitub 
as  the  same  as  the  grandson  of  Eli  (1  S  14''). 
The  above-cited  oracle  of  the  man  of  God  gives 
undoubtedly  the  correct  account  of  Zadok,  for  in 
later  times,  when  the  sons  of  Zadok  had  exclusive 
possession  of  the  priesthood,  men  would  not  have 
attributed  to  them  a  prestige  as  priests  less  lofty 


PRIESTS  AXD  LEVITES 


PRIESTS  AXD  LEYITES 


in  its  origin  than  that  of  the  Elidie  who  had  now 
fiillen  into  the  backfrround.  Under  these  circum- 
stances it  may  be  doubted  whetlier  Zadok  was  a 
Levite  at  all.  No  certain  decision  can  be  pro- 
nounced, because  we  do  not  know  how  much  is 
included  in  the  expression  '  fathers'  house '  of  Eli 
in  tlie  above  oracle.  If  it  means  the  same  thin^ 
as  'sons  of  Levi,'  then  Zadok  was  no  Levite  ;  but 
it  maj'  be  intended  in  a  narrower  sense,  perhaps, 
to  mean  the  house  of  Aaron.  Since  even  prior 
to  the  time  of  David,  as  we  saw  from  the  story 
of  the  Levite  of  Micah  the  Ephraimite,  it  was 
considered  desirable  to  have  a  Levite  for  priest, 
David  is  unlikely  to  have  overlooked  this  advan- 
tage in  the  selection  of  Zadok,  who  primarily  was 
his  priest.  Subsequent  generations  naturally  did 
full  honour  to  the  genealogy  of  Zadok,  whose 
descent  was  traced  back  to  a  son  of  Aaron,  nay, 
to  his  eldest  son  Eleazar  (1  Ch  24').  In  the  circum- 
stance that  the  later  writers  made  the  Elidit  to  be 
descended  from  another  son  of  Aaron,  namely 
I tliamar(lCh,/.c.),  there  is  preserved  a  reminiscence 
of  the  diilerence  in  the  descent  of  the  two  priestly 
families. 

The  descendants  of  Ebiathar,  when  expelled 
from  the  priesthood  at  Jerusalem,  are  hardly  likely 
to  have  all  remained  settled  at  Anathoth.  Prob- 
ably a  portion  of  thorn  found  employment  at  the 
sanituaries  of  the  Northern  kingdom,  where  they 
took  part  in  the  otticial  worship  of  Jalnveh  under 
the  figure  of  a  bull.  In  this  way  we  may  explain 
the  narrative  in  the  Jehovistic  book,  which  attri- 
butes to  Aaron  a  part  in  bull-worship.  Ex  32'"- 
{Gesrh.  p.  199  ;  so  (ireviously  Th.  N(ildeke,  Untcr- 
suchnng&n  zur  Kritik  dcs  AT,  Kiel,  18G9,  p.  55, 
note).  At  all  events  the  Northern  kingdom  too 
had  an  organized  priestly  body,  as  may  be  gathered 
from  the  story  that,  after  the  downfall  of  Samaria, 
a  priest  from  amongst  the  exiles  was  sent  back  to 
Epliraim,  to  instruct  the  inhabitants  of  the  land 
in  the  worship  of  the  god  of  the  land,  i.e.  Jahweh 
(2  K  17"'). 

liesides  Ebiathar  and  Zadok  and  the  son  of  Ebi- 
athar and  the  son  of  Zadok,  there  is  mention  of 
another  otherwise  unknown  'Ira  as  priest  under 
David  (2  S  2U-"').  According  to  the  traditional 
text  he  was  a  Jairite,  i.e.  belonged  to  a  Gileadite 
family,  and  was  consequently  no  Levite ;  but 
perlia[is  the  statement  should  be  emended  to  the 
etlect  that  he  was  a  Jattirite,  i.e.  belonged  to  the 
priestly  city  Jattir  in  Judah  (so  [following  Thenius, 
ad  lnc.'\  Gcsch.  p.  192,  and  Lolir,  (id  loc),  in  which 
case  the  pos.sibiIity  is  not  excluded  that  he  was  a 
Levite.  In  addition  to  him,  Davids  own  sons  are 
called  in  2S8"'/io///)ni/n.  In  itself  there  is  nothing 
unpossible  in  the  view  that  David  appointed 
members  of  his  own  non-Levitical  family  to  be 
actual  priests,  for  we  see  from  the  picture  of 
Samuel  as  a  priest  that  at  that  time  and  probably 
for  long  afterwards  the  priestly  status  was  not  at 
all  bound  up  with  a  special  descent.  But,  on  the 
other  hand,  again.st  understanding  IcCihiXnim  in  the 
literal  sense,  when  applied  to  iJaviil's  sons  {as  is 
done  by  Lohr  and  JI.  P.  Smith,  ad  loc),  is  the 
circumstance  that  just  immediately  before  (v.") 
the  priests  of  David,  nanielj'  Zadok  and  Ebiathar, 
have  been  already  enumerated  amongst  the  other 
court  otiicials.  Hence  it  is  perhaps  proliablo  rather 
that  the  sons  of  David  only  bore  the  title  of 
kdliilnim  in  the  same  way  aa,  in  the  time  of 
Solomon,  we  find  Zabud,  a  son  of  Nathan  (prob- 
ably the  son  of  David),  called  ' kO/ien,  friend  of 
the  king'  (1  K  4°  [Van  Uooiiacker,  Succrdoce,  etc. 

£28tJf.,  and  Benzinger,  ad  luc,  following  B  and 
uc.  of  the  LXX,  strike  out  the  [n:  ;  but  Kittel, 
ad  luc,  dofenus  its  genuineness]),  where  in  any  case 
'  friend  '  is  a  title.  But  kO/un  can  scarcely  be  the 
title  of  a  court  olUcial  in  the  sense  of  '  representa- 


tive,' scilicet,  of  the  king  (so  Klostermann,  ad  loc, 
who  reads  2  S  S"  kOluinc  hn-melckh).  As  little 
justilicatiou  is  there  for  giving  up  the  statement 
in  Samuel  in  favour  of  the  dillerent  expression  of 
the  Chronicler  (1  Ch  18"),  as  is  done  by  Van  Hoon- 
acker,  Succrdocc,  etc.  p.  275  f.  Ilitzig's  emenda- 
tion of  kCihilnim  to  sokhiiiim,  'administrators'  (Is 
22">),  which  is  adopted  afresh  by  Cheyue,  rests 
upon  the  correct  impression  that  from  the  context 
it  nmst  be  a  court  office  that  is  in  view,  and  the 
emendation  is  not  demonstrably  wrong.  Yet  it 
would  be  surprising  if  in  two  passa-jes  copj'ists 
erroneously  introduced  the  word  kohen  in  a  context 
where  this  word  must  have  struck  them  as  strange. 
Perhajis,  then,  kOhCn  is  in  both  instances  the 
origimil  reading  after  all.  Such  a  title  as  ko/icn 
niaj'  be  an  imitation  of  the  Pha-nicians,  amongst 
whom  members  of  the  royal  house  were  often 
invested  with  priestly  olliccs  (so  Movers,  and 
similarly  Ewald ;  see  Gcsih.  p.  191  f.,  and  cf., 
further.  Driver  on  2  S  8",  who  is  not  quite  decided 
as  to  the  sense  of  kululnim  in  this  passage,  although 
he  believes  that  it  means  priests  of  sumo  kind). 

Although  the  Jud;can  kings  always  reserved  for 
them.selves  a  kind  of  chief  iiricstly  ijosition,  yet  in 
view  of  the  importance  of  tlie  temple  at  Jerusalem 
as  the  central  sanctuary,  and  the  considerable 
number  of  priests  which  such  a  sanctuary  ])re- 
supp().>es,  it  is  hardly  jiossible  to  avoid  su|iposing 
that  amongst  the  Jerusalemite  priests  there  was 
one  who  claimed  the  lirst  jjlace,  as  had  already 
been  done  at  Shiloh  by  the  head  of  the  priestly 
family.  The  priest  who  evidently  claimed  this 
lirst  place  is  in  the  Books  of  Kings  called  for  the 
most  ))art  simply  'the  kolicn' ;  so  Jehoiada  (2  K 
l\»'- aL),  Urijah  (16""- ">'•),  and  llilkiah  (i-J.^o  al.). 
The  same  title  is  given  in  Is  8-  to  Uriah,  and  in 
Jer  29-''  to  Jehoiada,*  Along  with  this  we  have 
once  in  Kings  (2  K  25'*  =  Jer  52**)  the  term  'head- 
priest'  (kohcn  hd-ro'sh)  applied  to  Seraiah.  This 
title  in  this  instance  (dili'erently  in  2  S  IS"  where 
we  should  read  lia-kOhCn  hd-ro'sh)  is  certainly  not 
due  to  later  insertion  (Nowack,  p.  107,  note  1),  for 
in  that  case  the  designation  'high  priest,' sanctioned 
by  the  Priests'  Code  of  the  I'entateuch,  would 
have  been  cmplo3'ed.  The  title  '  head-jiriest,' 
found  nowhere  else  except  in  Ezr  7°  and  in  Chron- 
icles, where  it  occurs  along  with  'high  priest,'  is 
certainly,  for  the  very  reason  that  it  is  not  found 
in  the  Priests' Code,  derived  from  earlier  anticiuity. 
On  the  other  hand,  it  is  possible  that  the  title  by 
which    the    later    high    i)riest    is    distinguished. 


namely  ha-kOhin  Itfigadul,  which  is  once  apjilied 
to  Jehoiada  (2  K  12")  and  thrice  to  Hilkiah  (22'- » 
^'i*),  is  due  to  antedating  of  this  title  on  the  part  of 
the  redactor  of  Kings  wiio  wrote  during  the  Exile, 
or  it  niiiy  even  be  a  later  insertion.  The  Deutero- 
nomic  law  uses  the  simple  title  '  the  kOhcn '  to 
designate  the  chief  juiest. 

The  dignity  and  inlluence  of  the  chief  priest  of 
Jerusalem  must  even  in  early  times  have  been 
great.  This  comes  out  especially  in  the  command- 
ing rOle  which,  about  the  miildle  of  the  9tli  cent. 
n.C,  was  played  by  the  chief  ]iricst  Jehoi.nda  in 
connexion  with  the  overthrow  of  ([ucen  Athaliali 
and  the  proclamation  of  her  grandson  Joasli  as 
king,  in  whose  name  Jehoiada  at  lirst  directed 
the  government  (2  K  ll'"-   12^).t     The  authority 

•  It  may,  indeed,  be  doubted  wlu-tlier  in  Jeremiah  tiie  refer- 
ence is  tt>  tlie  banie  Jclioiada,  who  wiu,  cliief  priest  under  Joa«h. 
Uenaii  (//w(.  ii.  [ISSU]  323,  note)ii"d  Van  llooimclter  {.Sacenloct, 
ete.  n.  lf)S  f.)  conteBt  it ;  but  nee  llilzit;  and  Orut  on  Jer  'J1»'A 

t  Tradition  furnishes  no  warrant  for  rcconstruflitiL'  the 
history  with  Rcnan  (//t#f.  ii.  323,  409,  note  1),  who  ititriMluces, 
alon^'hido  of  Jelioiadu  tlie  priest,  in  2  K  ll-*,  an  oMIcit  uf  the 
(fuanl  of  the  sjinie  naiiii'.  No  priest,  it  in  true,  had  the  rinlit  to 
euninion  the  army,  but  the  priest  Jelioiada  could  act  iu  accord 
with  the  chiefs  of  the  army.  That  the  latter  allowed  them- 
selves lo  be  led  by  him  is  ftu  indiculioa  of  Uw  respect  paid  tio 
his  position. 


T4 


PRIESTS  AND  LEVITES 


PRIESTS  AND  LEVITES 


of  the  chief  priest,  however,  scarcely  extended, 
as  a  rule,  beyond  the  sphere  of  the  temple  at 
Jerusalem,  besides  which  there  continued  to 
exist  even  in  Judah  other  places  of  worship 
with  their  own  priests,  down  to  the  time  of 
Josiah's  reformation.  Yet  the  prediction  above 
referred  to  regarding  the  downfall  of  Eli's  house 
represents  the  sur\'ivor3  of  this  house  as  begging 
of  tlie  royal  priest  to  put  them  into  one  of  the 
priests'  offices  that  they  might  obtain  a  morsel  of 
bread  (1  S  2**).  This  may  indicate  that  the  chief 
priest  of  Jerusalem,  so  long  as  the  existence  of 
the  smaller  sanctuaries  of  Judah  was  not  opposed 
in  the  interest  of  the  temple  at  Jerusalem,  exer- 
cised a  certain  supremacy  over  these,  and  made 
appointments  to  their  staff  of  priests.  It  can 
scarcely  be  that  we  are  to  think  of  reception  of 
the  Elidae  into  priestly  offices  at  Jerusalem,  where 
the  Zadokites  would  be  very  slow  to  suffer  the  in- 
trusion of  strangers. 

Alongside  of  the  head-priest  Seraiah  there  is 
mention  in  2  K  25"  (Jer  52**)  of  Zephaniah  as 
kohen  mishneh  (kohen  ha-mishneh),  lit.  '  priest  of 
the  repetition,'  i.e.  probably  representative  of  the 
bead-priest.  The  same  title  occurs  in  2  K  23^, 
where,  instead  of  the  plural  kohanS  lui-mishneh, 
the  singular  is  to  be  read  with  the  Targum,  since 
a  plurality  of  'priests  of  the  second  rank,'  beside 
the  high  priest,  who  is  here  named,  and  the  keepers 
of  the  threshold,  would  come  in  strangely  ^N-hen 
there  has  been  no  mention  of  priests  of  the  first 
rank  (it  is  therefore  not  permissible,  with  Van 
Hoonacker,  Sacerdoce,  etc.  p.  162,  to  find  in  the 
kohani  ha-mishneh  the  Levites  of  the  Priestly 
Writing).  The  Zephaniah  in  question  appears  in 
Jer  29^'-  as  principal  overseer  of  the  police  arrange- 
ments in  the  temple.  The  keepers  of  the  thresh- 
old {shomrS  ha-saph)  are  also  named  in  2  K  25" 
(Jer  52*")  along  with  the  head-priest  and  the 
'  second '  priest ;  according  to  this  passage  the 
keepers  or  the  threshold  were  three  in  number. 
Plainly  we  must  think  here  of  a  fairly  exalted 
priestly  office,  different  from  the  humbler  station 
uf  tlie  post-exilian  doorkeepers  (sho  dnm),  of  whom 
there  were  a  great  many  (2  Ch  34°  confuses  these 
^\ith  the  keepers  of  the  tlireshold  who  are  reckoned 
among  the  Levites).  The  keepers  of  the  thresh- 
old already  appear  in  the  time  of  Joash  (2  K  12"') 
as  having  to  guard  the  entrance  to  the  inner 
fore-court  with  the  altar  of  burnt-offering.  Ac- 
cording to  this  same  passage  as  well  as  2  K  22*, 
one  of  the  duties  of  the  keepers  of  the  threshold  was 
to  collect  the  people's  contributions  to  the  temple. 
We  must  suppose  that  other  priests  or  temple 
attendants  were  at  their  command  in  the  discharge 
of  their  duties,  which  could  scarcely  have  been 
overtaken  by  only  three  persons.  Beyond  all 
doubt  we  have  in  the  keepers  of  the  threshold  to 
do  with  an  actual  pre-exihan  priestly  office,  for  it 
is  an  office  which  is  unkno«-n  in  later  times. 

According  to  2  K  19'  (Is  37"),  the  priestly  body  was 
arranged  in  groups  as  early  as  the  time  of  Hezelciah, 
for  here  we  read  of  '  elders  of  the  priests,'  who  can 
be  nothing  else  than  chiefs  of  groups. 

In  only  a  few  passages,  apart  from  Chronicles, 
where  post-exilian  relations  are  everywhere  trans- 
ferred to  earlier  times,  are  LeWtes  named  during 
the  monarchical  period.  In  1  S  6'°  and  2  S  15^ 
they  appear  as  bearers  of  the  ark  of  Jaliweh,  just 
as  m  the  Priestly  Writing  and  in  Deuteronomy. 
The  first  of  these  passages,  where  tlie  Levites 
make  their  appearance  quite  abruptly,  is  mani- 
festly interpolated.  On  the  other  hand,  in  tlie 
second  passage  the  Levites,  who  are  found  here 
in  the  retinue  of  the  priest  Zadok,  are  not  out  of 
place ;  but  it  must  be  confessed  that  the  text  of 
the  whole  passage  is  corrupt,  and  on  this  account 
doubt  is  here  again  cast  upon  the  presence  of  the 


Levites.  In  Kings  there  is  only  a  single  mention 
of  Levites,  namely  in  1  K  S^'-.  Here  they  are 
clearly  thrust  into  the  text  by  means  cf  a  later 
interpolation  (the  close  of  v.*  is  found  in  the  LXX 
only  in  A),  for  it  is  said  first  of  all  that  priests 
took  up  the  ark,  the  tent  of  meeting  and  its 
vessels,  and  only  afterwards  is  the  supplementary 
remark  made  that  priests  and  Levites  did  this. 
AU  the  same,  however,  the  term  '  sons  of  Levi ' 
for  those  who  were  entitled  to  exercise  the  priestly 
office  was  knowTi  to  the  author  of  ICings,  Avho 
blames  Jeroboam  for  making  priests  '  from  among 
ail  the  people,  which  were  not  of  the  sons  of  Levi ' 
(1  K  1231). 

The  existence  of  a  class  of  sanctuaiy  attendants, 
ditl'erent  from  the  priests  or  subordinate  to  them, 
and  who  were  called  'Levites,'  cannot  be  proved 
for  the  monarchical  period.  But  there  are  clear 
enough  allusions,  during  this  period,  to  temple 
attendants  or  slaves.  According  to  Jos  9^,  the 
Gibeonites,  on  account  of  the  fraud  they  per- 
petrated upon  the  Israelites,  were  pronounced  by 
Joshua  accursed  and  degraded  to  be  serfs,  namely 
hewers  of  wood  and  drawers  of  water  for  the  house 
of  his  God.  This  passage,  from  the  mention  of 
'  the  house  of  God  (not  '  tabernacle,'  as  in  the 
Priestly  Writing),  is  seen  to  be  from  the  Jehovistio 
book  (differently  P  in  v.=',  cf.  v."  [JE  and  P, 
with  a  Deuteronomic  addition]).  In  this  account 
of  the  institution  of  temple-slaves  the  writer  of 
the  Jehovistic  book  is  thinking  unquestionably  of 
those  that  belonged  to  the  Jerusalem  temple  as 
/tar'  i^oxn"  the  house  of  God,  and  thus  anticipates 
the  temple  and  its  set  of  attendants.  Saul  had 
not  quite  succeeded  in  exterminating  the  Gibeon- 
ites (2  S  2]}");  what  survived  of  them  belonged 
no  doubt  to  the  remnants  of  the  Canaanites  in 
the  midst  of  Israel,  of  whom  it  is  related  that 
Solomon  put  them  to  forced  service  (1  K  Q''"'-). 
Even  in  the  post-exilic  period  there  were  still 
'servants  of  Solomon,'  along  ^^^th  other  temple- 
slaves,  the  Nethinim,  i.e.  'those  given'  (Ezr  2'''^- 
aZ.).  After  the  Exile  we  hear  also  of  Nethinim, 
who  are  said  to  have  been  given  by  David  and 
the  princes  'for  the  service  of  the  Levites,'  i.e. 
for  the  temple  (Ezr  S^). 

Even  the  pre-exilic  period  would  appear  to  have 
been  acquainted  with  other  grades,  in  addition  to 
this  lowest  grade,  of  sanctuary  attendants,  who 
were  also  distinct  from  the  priests  proper.  In  the 
time  of  Nehemiah  there  was  in  the  new  com- 
munity a  large  body  of  temple-singers  and  door- 
keepers, ^^ho  were  then,  or  at  a  later  period, 
considered  to  have  returned  from  the  Exile  with 
Zerubbabel  (Neh  7*"=  Ezr  2"'-).  It  is  difficult  to 
suppose  that  these  groups  of  sanctuary  servants 
took  their  rise  in  the  cultus-lacking  period  of  the 
Exile,  and  equally  so  to  believe  that  they  were 
a  new  creation  during  the  miserable  beginnings 
of  the  restored  religious  service  in  the  period  be- 
tween the  First  Return  and  the  advent  of  Nehe- 
miah. The  post-exilic  temple-singers  and  door- 
keepers are  therefore,  in  all  probability,  descend- 
ants of  those  who  had  discharged  tlie  same  offices 
in  the  pre-exilic  temple  (so  also  A.  Kuenen,  Hist.' 
krit.  onderzoek  naar  het  ontstaan  en  de  verzame- 
linfr  van  de  boektn  des  Ouden  Verhunds,  vol.  iii. 
Leiden,  1865,  p.  288  f.;  and  especially  Koberle, 
whose  assumptions,  however,  regarding  the  pre- 
exilic  period  go  much  farther). 

4.  The  Pkiesthood  according  to  Deutero- 
nomy.—The  relations  of  the  cultus  personnel  at 
the  close  of  the  monarchical  period  are  unquestion- 
ably portrayed  in  the  Deuteronomic  law,  not  lut 
that  the  atteiiii)t  is  made  by  the  legislator  to 
modify  these  relations  upon  the  ground  of  the 
centralization  of  the  cultus  for  which  he  contends. 
The  Deuteronomic  law  in  its  primitive  form,  which 


PRIKSTS  AND  LEVITKS 


PRIESTS  AND  LEVITES 


78 


has  to  be  recovered  from  the  present  Bk.  of  Dt, 
is  that  book  of  the  law  which  was  found  in  tlie 
temple  in  the  reign  of  Josi:ili,  and  which  was  the 
occasion  of  his  reform  of  the  cultus.  The  law- 
book proper  is  in  any  case  contained  in  chs.  12-20. 
As  a  whole  it  cannot  be  raucli  older  than  the  date 
of  its  discovery,  since  its  standpoint  and  its  lan- 
jrnage  both  point  to  the  time  of  Jeremiah.  A 
ritual  code  proper  it  is  not,  rather  are  regulations 
about  the  cultus  treated  of  only  in  so  far  as  they 
touch  the  one  demand  of  the  legislator  directly 
allecting  the  cultus,  namely  that  for  a  sini'le 
sanctuary,  or  have  a  bearing  upon  the  social  rela- 
tions about  which  he  is  concerned.  Even  the 
demand  for  a  single  place  of  worship  is  not  really 
made  in  the  interest  of  the  cultus,  but  rather  in 
that  of  the  form  of  the  belief  in  God.  In  the 
rourse  of  his  legislation,  which  is  not  directed 
specially  from  the  point  of  view  of  1,1  e  Divine 
service,  the  author  of  the  Deuteronomic  ay  is  far 
from  ^ving  a  complete  picture  of  the    jxisting 

fr.estiy  relations,  or  of  those  to  be  established. 
n  what  he  SJiys  about  them  there  are  gaps  which 
musi  be  tilled  up  from  what  we  know  from  other 
sources.  This  cannot  be  done  with  complete 
certainty  on  all  points. 

The  priests  are  constantly  referred  to  in  Dt  as 
'the  Levite  priests'  (ha-ku/ulnim  ha-Uwiyyhn, 
179. 18  jgi  „;  )  The  legislator  evidently  has  in 
view,  in  this  expression,  a  special  descent,  for  in 
21',  in  an  older  enactment,  as  it  seems,  borrowed 
by  the  author,  there  occurs  the  other  expression, 
'  the  priests,  tlie  sons  of  Le\'i '  (so  also  31").  The 
fl-anie  inference  follows  from  18'  '  the  Levite  priests, 
the  whole  tribe  of  Levi,'  where  the  second  desig- 
nation is  probably  in  apposition  with  the  first,  in 
which  case  the  author  of  the  Deuteronomic  law 
would  not  distinguish  between  '  Levite  priests ' 
and  'Levites.'  Since  he  recognizes  only  the  one 
place  chosen  by  Juliweh,  namely  Jerusalem,  as  a 
place  of  worship,  it  is  only  there  tliat  in  his 
estimation  real  priests  are  to  be  found.  Rut  he 
knows  of  Levites  who  live  scattered  up  and  down 
in  the  land,  and  appears  to  be  willing  to  concede 
to  the  whole  of  these,  if  they  come  to  reside  at 
Jerusalem,  the  same  rights  at  its  temple  as  the 
Levite  priests  who  are  settled  there.  Such  at 
least  is  the  simjdest  way  of  understanding  Dt  IS""-: 
'And  if  a  Levite  come  from  any  of  thy  gates  out 
of  all  Israel,  where  he  sojourncth,  and  come  witli 
all  tlic  desire  of  his  soul  unto  the  place  which 
Jaliweh  shall  choose,  to  minister  there  in  the 
name  of  Jahweh  his  God  like  all  his  brethren, 
the  Levites,  who  stand  there  before  Jahweh,  he 
shall  eat  the  same  portion  [as  they].'  This  last 
expression  appears  to  refer  to  the  {)ricst's  right  to 
the  sacrilicial  portions  mentioned  in  v."-  and  to 
the  re'shiik.  Every  Levite  thus  appears  to  ac(iuire 
priestly  rights  as  soon  as  he  takes  up  his  abode 
at  Jerusalem.  It  is  true  that  18'  does  not  say 
that  [the  Levite]  serves  there  '  like  all  his  brethren 
the  Levite  priests,'  but  '  like  all  his  brethren  the 
Levites.'  Hence  the  interpretation  is  not  abso- 
lutely excluded  that  the  jiassage  means  to  say 
that  everj'  memljer  of  the  tribe  of  Levi  who  comes 
to  Jerusalem  may  discharge  functions  there,  ac- 
cording to  his  special  station,  whether  as  priestly 
or  as  serving  Levite,  and  that  he  is  entitled  to 
the  payment  corresponding  to  the  particular  ser- 
vice rendered  (so  van  Hoonacker,  Sncerdocc,  etc. 
p.  174).  This  explanation,  however,  is  not  a  prob- 
able one,  because  even  in  this  passage  there  is  not 
the  slightest  hint  of  any  distinction  amongst  the 
Levites ;  and  the  expressiim  here  use<l  of  the 
Levites  at  Jerusalem,  '  stand  before  Jahweh,'  ap- 
pears also  outside  Dt  a.s  the  designation  of  tlie 
Bpecifically  priestly  service  (Ezk  44''). 

Id  Dt  '21*  it  is  prescribed  that  the  '  priests,  the 


sons  of  Levi,'  are  to  a.ssist  in  the  atoning  ceremony 
for  a  murder  that  has  been  committed  in  the 
neighbourhood  of  a  city  of  Israel ;  those  meant 
then  are  apparently  priests  from  this  particular 
city.  In  like  manner  in  24",  where  the  treatment 
of  lepiosy  is  entrusted  in  quite  general  terms  to 
the  Levite  priests,  the  existence  of  priests  outjside 
Jerusalem  appears  to  be  presupposed,  for  the 
Jenusalem  priests  could  hardly  have  exercised  the 
supervision  in  question  for  the  whole  country. 
Both  these  pas.sages,  wliich  .appear  to  be  out  of 
harmony  with  the  Deuteronomic  conception  that 
there  are  priests  only  at  Jerusalem,  are  probably 
borrowed  from  older  laws  which  recognized  a 
priesthood  scattered  up  and  down  througliout  the 
land. 

A  distinction  between  priests  and  Levites  is 
equally  unknown  to  the  expansions  of  the  Deutero- 
nomic law.  The  parenetic  introduction  to  Dt 
assumes  that  the  tribe  of  Levi,  after  the  destruc- 
tion of  the  golden  calf  (10',  cf.  9""''),  was  chosen 
by  Jahweh  to  bear  the  ark  of  the  covenant,  to 
stand  before  Jaliweh  to  serve  Him,  and  to  bless 
in  His  name  (10*).  This  serving  (shdrUh)  and 
blessing  are  sjiecially  priestly  functions.  The 
meaning  of  this  jiassage  might,  indeed,  be  that 
these  functions  and  the  bearing  of  the  ark 
(which,  according  to  another  conception,  that  of 
the  Priests'  Codex  [see  below,  §  8  d],  is  not  a 
specially  priestly  office)  were  dividetl  amongst 
different  branches  of  the  tribe  of  Levi.  But  in 
the  passage  belonging  to  some  redactor  of  the 
Deuteronomic  law,  31",  the  ark  is  borne  by  '  the 
priests,  the  sons  of  Levi,'  while  in  v."  its  bearers 
are  the  Lerites.  The  jireservation  of  the  law  is, 
according  to  3r'""-,  the  business  of  the  Levites; 
according  to  v.*  (and  17'"),  it  is  tlie  business  of 
the  priests,  the  sons  of  Levi  (the  Levite  priests). 
Everywhere  here  there  appears  to  be  no  dillerence 
recognized  between  Levites  and  priests.  In  ch.  27, 
which  is  also  a  section  belonging  to  a  redactor  of 
the  Deuteronomic  law,  tlie  same  persons  who  in 
V.'  are  called  Levite  priests,  appear  to  be  called 
in  v.'^  Levites  (butcf.,  on  this  passage,  Kautzsch, 
]).  288).  Taking  evei-ything  into  account,  neitlier 
111  the  Deuteronomic  law  nor  in  the  additions  to 
it  is  'Levite'  employed  as  the  special  designation 
for  a  class  of  teniiile-servants  subordinate  to  the 
priests.  The  supposition  is,  indeed,  not  absolutely 
excluded  that  priests  and  temple-servants  are  botu 
included  in  the  name  '  Levites,'  but  even  this  is 
not  likely.  Rather  would  it  appear  that  all 
through  tlie  Bk.  of  Deuteronomy  we  are  to  under- 
stand by  Levites  those  oiilj-  who  are  called  to 
tlie  priesthood  proper.  There  can,  indeed,  be  no 
doubt,  after  what  we  know  from  the  Jeliovistic 
account  in  the  Bk.  of  Joshua  (see  above,  §  3)  about 
temple-slaves,  that  the  autlior  of  the  Deuteronomic 
law  and  those  who  expounded  his  law  were  ac- 
quainted with  lower  grades  of  temple-servants, 
1  ut  to  all  apjiearance  they  did  not  reckon  these 
among  the  Levites. 

In  the  words  of  Dt  2fi'  'the  priest  who  shall  be 
in  those  days,'  there  appears  to  be  an  allusion  to 
one  special  jiriest,  a  chief  priest.  In  17'',  do  the 
other  hand,  '  the  priest '  may  be  taken  rather  as 
a  typical  designation  for  any  priest  (althou<'h  it 
is  against  this  interpretation  that  in  v.'  we  nave 
the  sin".  '  the  judge  side  by  side  with  '  the  licvite 
priests  in  the  plural).  Certainly  in  the  redactory 
addition  to  the  narrative  introduction  to  Deutero- 
nomy, namely  10",  a  chief  priest  is  taken  for 
granted  :  '  Aaron  died,  and  his  son  Eleazar  became 
priest  in  his  stead,'  i.e.  Elenzar  then  became  ehicf 
prie-st,  he  was  a  priest  already  (Gc.irh.  p.  88  f.). 

If  no  undoubted  mention  of  a  chief  priest  can 
bo  found  in  the  Deuteronomic  law  proper,  still  less 
docs  it  speak  of  the  other  priestly  uignities  wliicli. 


76 


PRIESTS  AND  LEVITES 


PRIESTS  AND  LEVITES 


according  to  the  Books  of  Kin^a  (see  above,  §  3), 
already  existed  in  tlie  pre-exUic  period.  This 
shows  the  incompleteness  of  the  Deuteronomic  data 
regarding  priestly  relations. 

Ueuterononiy  shows  a  distinct  advance  upon  the 
older  relations  witnessed  to  in  the  Jehovistic  book, 
in  this,  that  no  longer  do  we  hear  of  lay  priests.  Itis 
plainly  assumed  in  Dt  that  only  Levite  priests  are 
entitled  to  otter  sacrilice.  The  whole  duty  of  the 
priests  is  summed  up  in  the  expression  '  serve 
Jahweh'  {s/idrcih  Ja/iweh,  I'"  21^  also  shdreth 
absolutely,  18'-'),  or  in  the  equivalent  expression, 
'stand  before  Jahweh'  (18°-').  To  this  service 
belongs  the  pronouncing  of  the  blessing  upon  the 
people  (21°  10*).  Besides  their  special  functions  in 
connexion  with  the  cultus,  the  priests  are  entrusted 
with  the  supervision  of  leprosy  (24*).  Further,  the 
priest  has  to  gdve  a  hortatory  addiress  to  the  host 
of  Israel  before  it  moves  out  to  battle  (20-").  The 
ancient  priestly  task  of  giving  judicial  decisions 
still  persists  in  Deuteronomy.  To  deal  with  dilii- 
cult  lawsuits,  a  superior  court  is  established  at 
Jerusalem  (17*^').  in  which  Levite  priests  have  a 
seat  along  with  a  lay  judge  (shophct).  By  the  body 
of  judges  mentioned  in  IQ'"  as  consisting  of  priests 
and  a  plurality  of  shophetim,  we  should  probably 
understand  the  local  court.  According  to  the 
decision  of  '  the  priests,  the  sons  of  Levi,'  shall 
every  controversy  and  every  ofl'ence  be  judged, 
hence  the  priests  have  to  take  part  in  the  atoning 
ceremony  performed  when  a  man  has  been  mur- 
dered by  an  unknown  hand  (21°).  Moreover, 
according  to  a  passage,  whose  place  as  a  con- 
stituent of  the  primitive  Deuteronomy  is  not 
uncontested,  '  the  priests,  the  sons  of  Levi,'  have  to 
see  to  the  preservation  of  the  book  of  the  law  (17'*; 
cf.  31»  and  also  v.=«). 

The  tribe  of  Levi  has,  according  to  Dt,  no  in- 
heritance in  the  land  ;  Jahweh  is  their  inheritance, 
i.e.  the  Levite  priests  are  to  live  by  their  holy 
sei-vice  (18"-  id.,  also  in  the  introduction  10°). 
Personal  ownershiij  of  land  on  the  part  of  a  Levite 
is  not  therebj'  excluded  (18*).  As  he  discharges 
his  holy  office,  certain  specified  portions  of  the 
sarrifices  and  the  dedicated  gilts  fall  to  the 
oliidating  priest.  He  receives  the  shoulder,  the 
cheek,  and  the  maw  of  all  ofi'erings  in  cattle  and 
sheep  (18^).  The  priest  is  to  have  the  re'shith, 
the  best,  of  com,  must,  oil,  and  (cf.  15'")  wool  of 
shceii  (18^).  According  to  26""-,  however,  the 
whole  of  the  re'ahith  did  not  fall  to  the  priest,  at 
least  not  that  of  the  fruit  of  trees  (vv.---')  ;  on  the 
contrary,  a  feast  is  to  be  made  of  this,  which  does 
not,  however,  exclude  the  sujjjiosition  that  a 
portion  of  this  meal  had  to  be  given  to  the  priest. 
In  what  relation  this  re'shith  stands  to  the  tenth, 
an<l  whether  the  regulations  about  the  re'shith 
belong  to  the  original  elements  of  the  Deuteronomic 
law,  is  not  quite  clear  (Nowack,  p.  126);  there  is 
no  mention  of  the  olliciating  priest  having  a  share 
of  the  meals  held  with  the  tithes. 

(^iiite  peculiar  weight  is  laid  by  the  author  of 
the  Hcuteronomic  law  on  injunctions  of  kindness 
to  the  Levites.  These  manifestly  cannot  have  in 
view  the  Levites  who  exorcise  priestly  functions  at 
Jerusalem,  for  they  had  their  fixed  perquisites  from 
the  olterings,  and  did  not  req^uire  kindness.  Katlier 
has  the  lawgiver  in  his  nund  the  Levites  of  the 
country  who  did  not  discharge  holy  services,  and 
he  refers  to  them  clearly  in  the  expression,  '  the 
Levite  that  is  within  thy  gates '  (12'--  '*  al.).  It  is 
expressly  enjoined  that  the  Levites,  along  with 
other  needv  persons,  are  to  be  invited  to  the  meals 
held  with' the  tithes  (U-'-s*),  to  the  sacrificial 
meals  (12"-  "'•  26"),  especially  to  the  joyous  cele- 
bration of  the  festivals  (16"'  "),  and  that  the  third 
year's  tithe  is  to  be  given  to  them  and  to  other 
needy  ones  (26'*).     One  is  not,  as  it  is  expressed  in 


these  enactments,  to  'forsake'  the  Levil?  (12** 
14-'),  who  is  thus  in  need  of  religious  charity. 
It  is  not  clear  at  the  outset  what  kind  of  Levitea 
outside  Jerusalem  the  author  of  the  Deuteronomic 
law  has  in  view  in  the  above  injunctions.  It  is 
generally  supposed  that  he  refers  to  the  country 
Levites  in  general,  in  so  far  as  these,  owing  to  tlie 
centralization  of  the  cultus  demanded  by  the 
Deuteronomic  law,  would  be  deprived  of  theii 
former  income  derived  from  the  numerous  places 
of  worship  in  the  country,  the  bdmCth.  But  it  is 
not  at  all  likely  that  the  author  of  the  Deuteronomic 
law  should  confess  to  so  special  an  interest  in  the 
priests  of  the  bdin6th  service  which  he  prohibits, 
anti  which  was  largely  mingled  with  idolatrj'. 
Moreover,  he  evidently  conceives  of  the  Levites, 
who  are  commended  to  charitable  support,  as 
already  in  destitution  ;  it  is  not  as  of  the  future 
but  as  of  something  ])rescnt  that  he  speaks,  when 
he  refers  to  the  Levite  'who  is  within  thy  gates.' 
Probablj'  he  is  thinking  of  those  Levites  who  had 
not  taken  part  in  the  service  on  the  high  places, 
and  yet,  as  not  belonging  to  the  Jerusalem  priest- 
hood, were  excluded  from  officiating  in  the  cultus 
of  the  temple.  He  may  also  have  had  this  class 
specially  in  view  in  speaking  of  the  Levites  to 
whom  he  desires  to  open  the  entrance  to  the  cultus 
at  Jerusalem  whenever  they  take  up  their  abode 
there.  That  there  were  such  Levites  in  the  time 
of  Josiah  is  not  to  be  doubted.  The  priestly  family 
to  which  Jeremiah  belonged  lived  at  Anathoth, 
probably  traced  its  origin  to  the  Elidje  (see  above, 
§  3),  and  can  hardly  be  supposed  to  have  been 
admitted  by  the  Zadokite  priests  at  Jerusalem  to  a 
share  in  the  temple  service.  On  the  other  hand,  it 
is  not  conceivable,  at  least  in  the  case  of  Jeremiai 
himself,  that  he  took  part  in  the  bdmvth  service, 
and  thus  his  priestly  desoent  brought  him  no  income. 
Other  Levites,  too,  may  have  found  themselves  in 
the  same  situation. 

The  attitude  of  the  author  of  the  Deuteronomic 
law  to  the  non-.ferusalemite  Levites  is  of  gre.at 
importance  for  the  forming  of  ii  judgment  on  his 
legislation  and  its  origin.  It  is  accordingly,  in 
the  opinion  of  the  present  writer,  improbable 
that  the  author  of  the  Deuteronomic  law  belonged, 
as  is  mostly  held  at  present,  to  the  Jerusalemite 
priesthood,  and  it  is  further  extremely  probable 
that  although,  like  the  proidiets  long  before  him, 
he  stands  up  for  Jerusalem  as  the  legitimate  place 
of  worship,  the  cultus  forms  he  describes  are  not 
specifically  Jerusalemite.  To  this  may  be  ascribed 
many  of  the  differences  between  the  Deuteronomio 
prescriptions  and  those  of  other  codes  in  the  Penta- 
teuch. In  any  case  the  author  of  the  Deutero- 
nomic law,  in  view  of  the  many  points  of  contact 
between  Jeremiah  and  tlie  laws  in  Dt,  must  have 
stood  near  to  the  circle  in  which  Jeremiah  moved, 
that  is  to  say,  at  once  the  prophetical  and  the  non- 
Jenisalemite  Levitical  circle.  The  circumstance 
that  it  was  Hilkiah,  the  chief  priest  imder  Josiah, 
who  caused  the  '  book  of  the  law '  {i.e.  Deutero- 
nomj'),  which  he  found  in  the  temple  during  the 
execution  of  some  repairs,  to  be  submitted  to  the 
king  (2  K  22^"-),  is  no  evidence  that  this  book  was 
the  genuine  expression  of  the  then  aims  of  the 
Jerusalemite  priesthood.  We  have  no  reason  to 
doubt  that  Hilkiah  bond  fide  regarded  the  book 
which  he  had  found,  and  whose  origin  he  need  not 
have  known,  as  the  ancient  book  of  the  law,  and 
gave  weight  to  it  as  such,  without  regard  to  the  ccn- 
venicnce  or  inconvenience  of  its  contents.  Besides, 
we  may  suppose  that  the  requirement  of  the  cen- 
tralization of  the  cultus,  which  underlies  the  whole 
of  Dt,  was  so  extremely  welcome  to  the  Jerusalemite 
chief  priest  that  it  would  go  less  against  the  grain 
for  him  to  take  into  the  bargain  other  reciuirements 
which  did  not  exactly  serve  the  special  interests  of 


PRIESTS  AND  LEVITES 


PRIESTS  AND  LEVITES 


77 


Hie  .lerusalemite  priesthood.  Further,  we  have  no 
reason  to  think  of  Hilkiah  as  prejudiced  in  favour 
of  this  special  interest. 

5.  The  Priesthood  from  Josiah's  REFOiiM  to 
THK  Exile. — The  requirements  of  Dt  on  lielialf  of 
the  Leviles  were  not  carried  out  to  their  full  extent 
in  Josiah'.s  reform.  Even  from  this  circumstance  it 
may  be  inferred  that  Hilkiah,  under  whose  guid- 
ance probably  the  reform  was  conducted,  is  not  to 
be  credited  with  the  formulating  of  the  Deutero- 
noniic  legislation.  A  consistent  carrying  out  of 
tlie  letter  of  the  Deuteronomic  jjrescrijitions  would 
liave  re(|uired  that,  after  the  abolition  h}'  Josiah  (jf 
all  places  of  worship  except  the  temple  at  Jeru- 
salem, all  non-Jerusalemite  Levites  who  desired 
it  should  be  equally  admitted  to  the  cultus  at 
Jerusalem  ;  for  Dt  sets  up  no  distinction  amongst 
the  Levites  outside  Jerusalem,  between  those  w-lio 
are  entitled  to  this  and  those  who  are  not.  Not- 
withstanding, iu  so  far  as  the  narrative  in  Kings 
is  correct,  and  in  this  instance  its  correctness 
hardly  admits  of  doubt,  nothing  like  a  general 
admi.ssion  of  Levites  took  place.  Hilkiah,  if  lie 
was  the  moving  agent  in  tornmlating  Dt,  must 
thus  either  have  failed  to  carry  out  thoroughly  his 
own  aims,  or  he  did  not  iu  the  Deuteronomic  jiio- 
gianinie  give  correct  expression  to  these  aims. 
Little  probability  attaches  to  either  of  these 
suppositions. 

According  to  the  narrative  of  Kings  (2  K  S."?), 
Josiah,  in  liis  purification  of  the  cultus  bj'  the 
suppression  of  the  hdmOth  worship,  aii])ears  to  have 
di.stmguislied  between  three  categories  of  priests 
outside  Jerusalem.  The  kemarim  he  deposed  (v.°). 
Hy  these  are  meant,  in  accordance  >vith  the  uniform 
or  use  of  this  word  (see  above,  §  1),  and  in  view  of 
tbf  Aay  in  which  the  kimartm  are  introduced  in 
connexion  with  the.suppres.sion  of  the  IJaal  worship 
which  found  expressiun  in  the  adoration  of  sun, 
moon,  and  stars — idolatrous  priests.  The  koIWuiiin 
from  the  cities  of  Judah  were  assembled  by  the 
king  (v.*),  but  he  did  not  permit  the  priests  of  the 
high  places  to  ascend  the  altar  of  Jahweh  at  Jeru- 
salem, but  allowed  them  to  '  eat  mnrzCth  in  the 
midst  of  their  brethren  '  (v.").  By  tliis  is  perhaps 
meant  that  they  had  to  remain  in  their  respective 
places  and  there  find  their  bread.  In  this  sense 
the  expression  would  certainly  be  somewhat 
strange,  and  there  would  be  no  indication  then 
that  these  bCtmith  priests  were  treated  with  any 
less  severity  than  the  kemarim,  although  it  must 
be  assumed  that  they  were.  We  must  therefore 
suppose  that  the  expression  '  eating  of  mazzCth ' 
has  reference  to  some  favour  shown  them  in  the 
matter  of  maintenance  (Gesrh.  p.  225 f.).  Of  a 
third  class  of  non-Jeru.salemite  priests  there  is  not 
express  mention  ;  but  since  it  is  said  that  the 
koluXnim  (in  a  body)  were  assembled  at  Jerusalem, 
and  then  the  special  treatment  of  the  kulUlniiii  of  the 
high  places  is  indicated,  the  assembling  can  hardly 
have  had  any  object  except  to  seiiarate  these 
hi'imuth  priests  fioiii  other  non-Jerusalemite  priests 
wild  had  not  been  priests  of  the  high  places.  Kuenen 
(ThT,  xxiv.  [ISiJii]  II.  27)  objects,  indeed,  to  this 
explanation,  with  apparent  right,  when  he  says 
that  then  the  order  of  words  in  2  K  1'X'  would 
re<|uire  to  be  ^nkh  kohdni  hn-bfimCt/t  16'  ya'dUi. 
Hut  the  contrast  is  between  '  ho  bromj/it  to  Jeru- 
salem '  (v.")  and  '  the  priests  of  the  high  jilaeos 
iri:vl  not  up,'  so  that  the  order  of  words  ('«/./(  lo' 
yiidlii)  can  be  justilied  also  on  our  view.  Those 
non-Jeru.salemite  priests  who  had  not  been  |iriests 
of  the  high  places  were  then  probably  admitteil  by 
Josiah,  in  accordance  with  the  directions  of  Dt 
regarding  the  Levites,  to  a  share  in  the  cultus  at 
Jerusalem.  If  this  was  done,  the  rei|uireMients  of 
Dt  were  satisfied  in  the  spirit,  although  certainly 
not  to  the  extent  of  what,  taken  in  the  letter,  they 


might  exjiress.  On  the  other  hand,  if  by  the  priests 
of  the  high  places  (v.»)  who  were  excluded  by 
Josiah  from  the  sen-ice  of  the  altar,  we  are  to 
understand  all  non-Jerusaleiiiito  Levites,  it  must 
be  held  that  the  Deuteronomic  demands  in  favour 
of  the  admi.ssion  of  the  non-Jerusalemite  Levites 
had  no  regard  paid  to  them  at  all.  Considering 
the  impression  which  the  law  made  upon  Josiah, 
this  is  not  exactly  probable,  for  Dt  demands  in  no 
ambiguous  terms  that  the  non-Jerusalemite  Levites 
should  be  admitted  to  some  share  in  the  holy  ser- 
vice. It  is  possible,  no  doubt,  that  in  tlie  narrative 
of  Kings  the  admission  of  non-Jerusalemite  Levites 
to  the  cultus  is  passed  over  in  silence,  not  without 
intention,  because  it  might  ajipear  objectionable  to 
the  author.  In  the  cities  ot  the  old  kingdom  of 
Samaria,  which  were  likewise  purilied  of  the 
bdmoth,  Josiah,  according  to  the  narrative  of 
Ivings,  offered  all  the  bCunuth  priests  upon  the 
altars  (v.-").  AVhether  this  bloody  measure  w.as 
literally  carried  out  may  indeed  be  doubted.  On 
other  jioints  the  story  of  the  reform  of  the  cultus 
makes  the  impression  of  being  ba.sed  upon  good 
authority.  For  in.stance,  in  the  mention  of  the 
eating  of  mazzvtli  (or  whatever  may  have  been  the 
original  expression  in  what  is  perhaps  now  a 
corrupt  text)  by  the  former  priests  or  the  high 
places  in  the  midst  of  their  brethren,  the  author 
must  have  had  in  view  a  special  arrangement  no 
longer  clearly  intelligible  to  us,  which  cannot  have 
been  invented  by  him  after  the  analogy  of  certain 
relations  in  which  the  priests  fouiul  themselves  at 
a  later  period,  or  w  hicli  were  known  from  other 
sources. 

The  Bk.  of  Jeremiah  calls  the  prophet's  rela- 
tives at  Anathoth  kuhdnim  (!') ;  they  would  have 
been  called  in  Dt  Levites.  IJesides  this,  in  a 
passage  which  it  is  difficult  to  assign  to  Jeremiah 
himself,  the  Deuteronomic  expression  '  Levite 
priests '  is  emplo3'ed  (33'*),  and  in  the  same  place 
there  is  mention  of  '  the  Levites,  the  priests,  my 
(nc.  Jahweh's)  ministers'  (v.-'),  or,  more  brielly.  'the 
Levites  that  minister  to  me '  (v.--).  The  lik.  of 
Jeremiah  bears  no  witness  to  the  existence  of  a 
class  of  Levites  distinct  from  the  priests.  But  it 
certainly  witnesses  to  an  organization  of  the 
priestly  body.  There  is  mention  of  elders  of  the 
priests  (19'),  the  office  of  chief  su]ierinteiident  in 
the  temiilc  (20'  29-»'-),  as  well  as  that  of  keeper  of 
the  threshold  ('A5*).  The  priests,  even  the  higher 
grades  of  them,  appear  to  be  still  regarded  as 
court  officials  ;  at  least  the  chief  superintendent 
Zephaniali  (20'-^'- '-'")  makes  his  ajjpearance  as  a 
messenger  of  king  Zedekiah  /21'  37^). 

6.  Till':  Prie.sthooi)  in  Ezekikl's  State  of 
THK  Future.  —  During  the  Exile,  the  prophet 
Ezekiel,  the  son  of  Buzi,  of  priestly  descent  (Ezk 
P),  drew  up  a  set  of  statutes  for  the  future  tlieo- 
cracy.  These  statutes  are  thoroughly  imbued 
with  a  priestly  spirit,  and  in  view  of  the  com- 
manding position  which  is  assij,'ned  in  them  to  the 
sons  of  Zadok,  the  Jeiusalemite  priestly  family, 
there  can  be  no  doubt  that  Ezekiel  himself  belonged 
to  this  family. 

In  the  State  of  the  futuje,  in  what  shall  then  be 
the  sole  existing  temple,  that  at  Jerusalem,  he 
permits  (44""-)  none  but  the  Levite  priests  (cf.  43'"), 
the  sons  of  Zadok,  to  enjoy  priestly  rij^'hts,  to  oiler 
to  Jahweh  fat  and  Mood,  to  enter  His  sanctuary 
and  to  approach  His  table;  this  prerogative  is  to 
belong  to  them  because  they  kept  the  charge  of 
the  sanctuary  of  Jahweh  when  the  children  of 
Israel  went  astray.  The  prophet's  meaning  clearly 
is,  that  the  Zadolcites  kept  the  service  of  Jahweli 
pure  wlien  the  people  deviated  into  idolatry — a 
statement  which,  of  course,  has  only  a  measure  of 
truth,  fur  the  intrusion  of  idolatry  into  the  temiilo 
I  at  Jerusalem  in   the   reign   of   Slana-sseh   cannot 


78 


PRIESTS  AND  LEVITES 


PRIESTS  AND  LEVITES 


liave  tukcn  jilace  without  some  coin]ilicity  on  the 
part  01  till.'  Jeinsalciiiite  priests.  The  Zadokites 
are  eontrasted  liy  lOzekiel  with  the  Levites  wlio 
went  astray  from  Jahvvoh  when  Israel  apostatizeil, 
who  left  the  service  of  Jahweli  for  that  of  idols. 
They  are  to  bear  their  iniquity,  they  shall  not 
ajiproaeh  Jahweh  to  exercise  the  office  of  priest  to 
Him,  nor  a])proach  His  holy  things  ;  on  the  con- 
trar_y,  they  are  to  take  the  place  of  the  foreigners 
who  have  hitherto  been  allowed  to  enter  the 
sanctuary  as  keejers  of  it,  and  in  their  room  they 
are  to  keep  watch  at  the  doors  of  the  temple,  to 
be  ministers  of  the  house,  to  slay  the  bumt- 
ofifering  and  the  sacrilice  of  the  people,  and  to 
stand  before  them  (the  Israelites)  to  minister  to 
them  (44°'^).  Besides  slaughtering  the  victims, 
the  '  ministers  of  the  house,'  i.e.  the  non-Zadokite 
Levites,  have,  further,  to  cook  the  sacrLtices  of  the 
people  (4G-''). 

It  is  plain  that  by  the  non-Zadokite  Levites, 
Ezekiel  means  the  former  priests  of  the  high 
places,  who  had  abetted  the  people's  practice  of 
idolatry  on  the  high  places.  For  this  they  are  to 
be  deprived  of  their  former  priestly  rank  and 
degraded  to  the  position  of  temple  -  servants. 
From  this  it  may  be  seen  that  Josiah's  reform 
had  not  been  able  to  destroy  the  former  bdmuth 
priests'  claim  to  priestlj'  rights.  They  could,  in 
face  of  that  reform,  appeal  to  the  enactment  of 
Dt,  whereby  an  equal  share  in  the  priestly  service 
at  Jerusalem  was  open  to  all  Levites  who  might 
come  to  attach  themselves  to  the  cultus  there. 

The  explanation  of  Ezekiel's  '  Levites '  as  the 
former  priests  of  the  high  places  has  been  rightly 
mainta,ined,  especially  by  Graf,  Kuenen,  and  SVell- 
hausen.  On  the  other  hand,  one  cannot  infer,  as 
has  been  done  by  the  writers  just  named,  from 
Ezekiel's  presentation  of  the  case,  that  up  till  then 
there  were  in  the  temple  at  Jerusalem  no  other 
servants  of  the  priests  or  of  the  temple  beyond  the 
foreigners  spoken  of.  Ezekiel  demands  merely 
that  the  foreigners  who  had  preriously  given  ser- 
vice in  the  sanctuary,  and  who  are  known  from 
the  Jehovistic  passages  in  the  Bk.  of  Joshua  (see 
above,  §  3)  as  temple-slaves,  should  have  their 
place  taken  in  future  by  the  former  priests  of  the 
high  places.  But  besides  such  servants,  there 
may,  even  prior  to  the  time  of  Ezekiel,  have  been 
Israelites,  possibly  even  Levites  in  particular,  who 
held  in  tlie  temple  a  position  subordinate  to  the 
priests  and  intermediate  between  them  and  the 
laity.  Ezekiel  speaks  of  a  degradation  not  of  the 
Levites  as  a  body,  but  only  of  those  of  them  who 
had  been  priests  of  the  idol-worship.  Only  in  a 
later  passage  (48")  does  he  say  of  the  'Levites' 
generally,  in  distinction  from  the  sons  of  Zadok, 
that  they  '  went  astray,'  but,  after  the  previous 
description  of  the  manner  of  this  going  astray,  it 
may  be  so  put  for  the  sake  of  shortness.  "That 
besides  those  who  went  astray  and  the  Zadokites 
there  is  yet  another  group  of  Levites  recognized  by 
Ezekiel,  namely  those  who  had  even  at  an  earlier 
period  occupiea  the  position  now  assi^ed  to  the 
former  baniCth  priests,  of  this  there  is  certainly 
nowhere  a  clear  expression.  One  might  think 
to  deduce    it  from  40''"-,   where — before  the  de- 

frading  of  the  idolatrous  Levites  is  spoken  of — a 
istinction  is  made  between  '  the  priests,  the 
keepers  of  the  charge  of  the  house,  and  '  the 
priests,  the  keepers  of  the  charge  of  the  altar, 
which  are  the  sons  of  Zadok,  who  from  among  the 
sons  of  Levi  draw  near  to  Jahweh  to  minister  to 
him  '  (Gesrh.  p.  106).  Smend  (ad  loc.)  and  Kuenen 
',ThT,  1890,  p.  23)  would  refer  the  words  'these 
are  the  sons  of  Zadok'  to  both  the  preceding 
definitions  of  the  kohdntm,  go  that  by  '  keepers 
of  the  charge  of  the  house  '  we  should  not  have  to 
understand  Levitts  as  distinguished  from  Zadok- 


ites. This  docs  not  appear  to  the  present  writei 
to  be  permissible,  seeing  that  in  44"  it  is  expressly 
said  of  the  Levites  that  they  are  to  be  '  ministers 
01  the  house,'  and  in  44'''  that  it  is  they  that  are  to 
be  '  keepers  of  the  charge  of  the  house '  (cf.  46-^), 
whereas  44'^  says  of  the  eons  of  Zadok  that  thev 
are  to  draw  near  to  the  table  of  Jahweh,  whiiK 
corresponds  to  the  definition  '  to  keep  the  char_''e 
of  the  altar.'  Kuenen  appears  to  be  decidedly 
wrong  when,  in  answer  to  the  present  writer's 
distinguishing  of  two  classes  of  priests  in  40"'-, 
he  objects  that  the  south  hall  and  the  north  hall 
in  40''^'-,  of  which  the  first  is  for  the  keepers  of  the 
charge  of  the  house,  and  the  second  for  the  keepers 
of  the  charge  of  the  altar,  are,  according  to  42", 
both  intended  for  the  priests  proper,  '  who  draw 
near  to  Jahweh,'  i.e.  the  Zadokites.  The  south 
hall  and  the  north  hall  of  40"'-  are  quite  difl'erent 
from  the  north  halls  and  south  halls  of  42"  (ob- 
serve hall*  to  the  north  and  lialls  to  the  south,' 
both  times  in  the  plural).  The  two  single  halls  of 
40''"-  lie  outside  the  inner  gate,  i.e.  the  south  gate 
and  the  north  gate  leading  to  the  inner  fore-court, 
by  the  side  of  the  gate  (v.").  The  north  halls  and 
south  halls  of  42"  are  situated  opposite  the  inner 
fore-court,  i.e.  outside  the  latter,  on  its  north  and 
south  sides  (see  Smend,  ad  loc).  From  42"  it 
cannot  then  be  inferred  that  the  kohuntm  men- 
tioned in  40^"-  are  all  to  be  regarded  as  Zadokites 
But  even  if  in  this  passage  a  distinction  is  already 
made  between  priests  of  first  and  second  rank,  it 
is  possible  that  there  is  in  this  a  proleptic  reference 
to  the  later  statements  about  the  degrading  of  the 
priests  of  the  high  places.  If  so,  it  is  certainly 
surprising  that  only  in  40'"  are  even  the  lower 
class  spoken  of  as  kohanim.  The  two  classes  are 
elsewhere  distinguished  by  Ezekiel  in  the  same 
fashion,  but  the  designation  kohanim  for  the  lower 
class  occurs  no  more  after  the  rule  has  been  laid 
down  in  ch.  44  that  the  Levites  who  went  astray 
are  no  longer  to  discharge  priestly  services.  Un 
the  contrary,  45"-  speaks  of  '  the  priests,  the 
ministers  of  the  sanctuarj',  who  draw  near  to 
minister  to  Jahweh,'  and,  along  with  these,  of 
'  the  Levites,  the  ministers  of  the  house.'  There- 
fore it  seems  to  follow  from  the  peculiar  form  of 
designation,  kohdnim,  apjilied  only  in  40'"-  to  the 
lower  class,  that  the  distinction  of  kohilntm  of  two 
grades  was  familiar  to  Ezekiel  from  already  exist- 
ing relations  (so  Van  Hoonacker,  Sacerdoce,  etc. 
p.  195),  but  that  in  his  later  utterances  he  pur- 
posely avoided  giving  to  the  lower  class  the  name 
of  '  priests,'  after  he  had  denied  the  priestly  char- 
acter to  the  apostate  Levites  who  were  a-ssigned  to 
this  class.  That  there  should  have  been  a  second 
class  of  priests  even  prior  to  the  Exile  is  not 
astonishing  in  view  of  the  various  priestly  dig- 
nities recognized  in  the  Bks.  of  Kin^s  (see  above, 
§  3).  If  this  were  really  the  case,  the  priests  of 
secondary  rank  will,  of  course,  have  been  dillercnt 
from  the  foreigners,  the  temple-slaves.  The  latter 
are  required  by  Ezekiel  to  be  in  future  wholly  dis- 
carded. His  Levites,  i.e.  the  former  priests  of  the 
high  places,  are,  on  this  presupposition,  to  dis- 
charge in  the  future  cultus  the  duties  which 
hitherto  have  been  discharged  by  the  priests  of  the 
second  rank  and  the  foreigners. 

A  chief  i)riest  is  not  known  to  the  future  theo- 
cracy of  Ezekiel  any  more  than  a  king,  but  only  a 
'  prince'  (nasi'),  to  whom  certain  priestly  prerofra- 
tives  belong,  as  they  had  done  to  the  pre-exilic 
king.  The  prince  may  upon  certain  occasions 
enter  the  east  gate  of  the  inner  fore-court,  but 
not  this  court  it.self  ;  he  is  to  defray  the  cost  of 
the  daily  offering  and  the  material  for  the  offer- 
ings at  the  great  festivals,  and  for  the  people 
(Oesck.  p.  129f.).  'The  priest'  who  officiates  at 
the  atonement  for  the  sanctuary  on  the  first  day 


PRIESTS  AND  LEVITES 


PKIESTS  AND  LEVITES 


of  the  first  and  seventh  months  (45'"')  can  hardly 
be  the  chief  priest  (Smend,  ad  loc),  but  may 
rather  be  regarded  as  tlie  particular  Zadokite  who 
happens  to  officiate.  It  has  frequently  been 
assumed  that  these  ordinances  of  Lzekiel  imply 
the  nonexistence  of  a  '  high  priest '  up  to  iiis 
time.  It  may  be,  indeed,  that  prior  to  Ezekiel  no 
priest  bore  the  exact  title  '  high  priest ' ;  but  there 
can  be  no  doubt,  from  the  account  of  things  in  the 
Bks.  of  Kings,  that  prior  even  to  the  E.xile  there 
was  a  fhi:/  priest  at  Jerusalem.  In  Ezekiel's 
theocracy  Jaliweh  is  directly  present,  hence  it  has 
no  room  for  a  huni;ui  king,  and  is  just  as  little 
in  want  of  a  single  priestly  mediator  (this  also 
against  Van  Hoonacker,  Saccrdoce,  etc.  p.  308, 
^vllo  holds  that  Ezekiel  intends,  by  the  emphasis 
he  lays  on  Zadok  as  the  father  of  the  Jeruaalemite 
priesthood,  to  recognize  in  his  State  of  *ie  future 
a  '  higli  priest '  such  as  Zadok  was).  Kzekiel's 
temple  has  no  sacred  ark,  to  which  sucn  a  priest 
had  to  draw  near,  but  God  Himself  dwells  in  the 
tenijile.  It  may  be  that  in  the  words,  '  Away  with 
the  tiara  {miznejiheth,  elsewhere  only  as  the  desig- 
nation of  the  high  priest's  turban  in  the  Priests' 
Code,  cf.  ziinipk  in  Zee  3°),  hence  with  the  crown' 
(Ezk  21"  [Eng.-*]),  there  is  a  distinct  rejection 
both  of  the  kingship  and  of  the  high  priesthood 
expressed  [Gesrh.  p.  118  f. ).  At  all  events,  in  view 
of  the  droi)])ing  ot  the  title  of  '  king'  in  Ezekiel's 
theocracy,  it  would  not  be  surprising  if  he  meant 
a  hitherto  existing  high  priesthood  to  be  also  dis- 
carded. 

Ezekiel  gives  special  injunctions  to  the  priests. 
They  are  to  perform  the  lioly  service,  clothed  in 
linen,  not  in  wool,  in  order  to  avoid  sweat  (44"'). 
This  official  dress  they  are  to  put  otl'  when  they  go 
or.t  to  the  outer  court,  that  they  may  not  sanctity 
the  people  with  their  holy  garments  (v.").  In  like 
manner,  in  order  to  avoid  sanctifying  the  people, 
it  is  enacted  that  the  priests  are  to  boil  the  guilt- 
oti'ering  and  tlie  sin-oiVering  and  to  bake  the  minhdh 
in  chambers  of  the  inner  court,  but  not  to  bring 
them  into  the  outer  court  (46"").  Their  hair  they 
are  neither  to  let  grow  long  nor  to  shave  off,  but 
to  cut;  when  they  go  into  the  inner  court  they 
may  not  drink  wine  (44™'-).  They  may  not  marry 
a  divorced  woman,  but  only  a  virgin  of  the  hou.se 
of  Israel  or  the  widow  of  a  priest  (v.*-).  They  are 
not  to  defiie  themselves  with  dead  bodies  except  in 
the  case  of  the  nearest  relations ;  in  the  event  of 
such  defilement  the  priest  is  not  to  be  allowed  to 
enter  the  inner  court  and  present  his  sin-offering 
till  the  seventh  day  after  his  purification  (v.^"'). 
An  injunction,  which  was  indeed  of  general 
application  (cf.  Ex  22-''°),  is  addressed  with  special 
emphasis  to  the  priests,  namely  that  they  are  not 
to  eat  of  animals  that  have  died  of  themselves  or 
been  torn  (v.").  Amongst  the  functions  assimed 
to  the  priests,  besides  the  oil'ering  of  sacrifice,  there 
is  the  instruction  of  the  people  in  the  difference 
between  holy  and  iirofano,  clean  and  unclean,  as 
well  as  the  givin"  of  judicial  decisions  (v.'-'"-). 

The  principle  alreadj'  laid  down  in  Dt,  and  re- 
peated by  Ezekiel,  that  the  priests  are  to  have 
no  inheritance  in  the  land  of  Israel,  that  Jahwch 
is  their  inheritance  (44-*),  is  not  carried  through 
consistently  by  Ezekiel.  He  assigns  to  the  priests 
the  land  immediately  surrounding  the  temple,  as  a 
holy  tiriimdh  or  '  portion  '  to  dwell  on  (4,')"'-  48'"''-) ; 
the  Levites  receive  the  district  toucliing  on  the 
priests'  land  (45°  48").  The  land  of  the  priests 
and  Levites  is  an  inalienable  possession  (48").  Be- 
sides this  the  priests  have,  as  in  Dt,  but  after  a 
dilVerent  arrangement,  definite  portions  assigned 
them  of  the  sacrifices  and  sacred  gifts.  The  iiiin- 
fydh,  the  sinolVering  and  the  guilt-oflering  they 
have  to  consume  in  the  chamliers  of  Mie  teiiiple 
(42"  44*").     Every  '  devoted  thing' in   Israel  falls 


to  them  (44^),  and,  in  the  case  of  the  consecrated 
gifts,  the  best  (the  rc'shith)  of  all  tlie  first-fruits 
of  everything,  and  of  every  heave-otlering  (tiru- 
mdh),  of  everything  of  all  heave-oll'erings,  along 
with  which  special  mention  is  made,  further,  oi 
tlie  best  (the  rc'shith.)  of  the  dough  (44»").  By 
the  lieaveoff'erin''  appears  to  be  meant  vegetable 
proiluots  of  the  land,  along  with  the  first-fruits 
already  mentioned.  Of  the  heave-ofVering  also 
only  the  re'skUh  is  a.ssigned  to  the  priest.  What 
is  to  be  done  with  the  rest  is  not  indicated,  per- 
ha]is  it  goes  to  the  State  (Gesch.  p.  126  f.). 

7.  The  Priesthood  from  Ezekiel  to  Ezra. 
— Ezekiel's  ordinances  were  of  an  ideal  character, 
calculated  upon  a  hoped  -  for  restoration  of  the 
theocracy.  During  the  Exile,  when  there  was  no 
holy  service  performed,  we  learn  nothing  about 
the  condition  of  the  priestly  arrangements.  Only 
Deutero-Isaiali  speaks  of  '  holy  princes '  (43^),  by 
which  probably  priest-princes  are  meant,  and  in 
that  case  a  priestliood  organized  in  different  grades 
is  jiresupposed,  such  as  we  make  acquaintance  with 
in  Kings.  A  propliet  \vriting  in  the  period  after 
the  Ketum,  wlio  appears  to  have  belonged  to  the 
school  of  Deutero-Lsaiah,  but  can  scarcely  have 
been  identical  with  him,  rises  to  the  broail-minded 
expectation  that  Jahweh  in  the  future  will  take  to 
Himself  even  Gentiles  '  for  priests,  for  Levites  '  (Is 
Gt)-',  where  read  D'l'?^  D':nj)  ;  see  Gesch.  p.  249  f. ). 
Whether  the  prophet  understands  the  terms 
'  priests  '  and  '  Levites '  to  be  identical  in  mean- 
ing, or  distinguishes  between  tliem  (so,  recently, 
again.  Van  Hoonacker,  Snccrdoce,  etc.  p.  206  fi'.), 
is  not  perfectly  clear ;  but  the  probabUity  is  that 
the  two  terms  are  regarded  as  equivalent,  as  other- 
wise there  would  be  an  anti-climax  in  the  order 
'  priests,  Levites.'  The  statement  assumes  the 
simplest  character  if  one  emends  (with  Kuenen, 
Duhm  [ad loc.},  Kittel  [adloc.'},  and  Cheyne  [Introd. 
to  the  Book  of  Isaiah,  London,  1895,  p.  377])  O'm'i) 
C'.i^'  for  Levite  priests.' 

From  the  post-exilic  community  we  have  authen- 
tic information  about  the  condition  of  the  priest- 
hood, first  of  all  from  Haggai  and  Zecliariah  in 
the  second  jear  of  king  Darius  (Hystaspis),  B.C. 
520.  Both  these  prophets  speak  of  Josliua,  the 
head  of  the  priestly  body,  as  '  high  priest '  {ha- 
kOhen  ha-aadvl.  Hag  !'• '".  »,  Zee  V-"  al.),  a  designa- 
tion of  which  we  have  found  hitherto  only  isolated 
occurrences  in  Kings,  without  having  any  guarantee 
from  these  that  we  are  entitled  to  look  upon  it  as 
a  pre-exilic  title.  When,  in  the  vision  of  Zeihariah, 
the  Satan  accuses  the  high  priest,  his  comjilaint  is 
repelled  by  tlie  angel  of  Jaliweh,  in  the  name  of 
Jahweh  '  wlio  has  tliosen  Jerusalem  '  (Zee  3-').  The 
high  priest  then  is  clearly  viewed  as  the  represen- 
tative of  Jerusalem,  and  thus,  in  all  probability, 
of  the  whole  community.  Without  the  liigh  priest, 
Zechariah  cannot  portray  the  consummation  of  all 
things  under  the  Zemah,  i.e.  the  Messiah.  He 
thinks  of  a  priest  as  standing  on  the  right  (LXX) 
of  the  future  king  (G").  In  another  passage  in 
this  same  prophet,  the  Messiah  himself  appears  to 
be  rei>resente<l  as  in  possession  of  priestly  preroga- 
tives, when  it  is  said  of  Joshua  and  his  companions, 
i.e.  tlie  rest  of  the  priests,  that  they  are  '  men  ot 
the  sign,'  in  allusion  to  the  coming  of  i\\c  /.cmoh, 
under  whom  tlie  sin  of  the  land  is  to  be  taken  away 
in  one  day  (:!"'■).  To  Joshua  the  promise  is  made 
that,  if  he  will  walk  in  Jahweh's  ways  and  kee]i  His 
charge,  he  sliall  judge  Jahweh's  house  (i.e.  Israel  ; 
tudin  wouKl  scarcely  be  used  of  the  management 
of  the  temple  [Wellliausen,  Nowack],  although  the 
tenijile  ajipears  to  suit  better  the  mention  of 
'courts'  in  the  same  context),  keep  His  court«, 
and  have  a  place  to  walk  among  those  who  stand 
befiire  ( lod  (:t').  Joshua  is  thus  thought  of  aa 
the  culminating  head  of  the  people,   the  directs' 


BO 


PRIESTS  AND  LEVITES 


PRIESTS  AND  LEVITES 


of  the  cultus,  the  mediator  between  the  community 
and  God.  The  high  priest  is  manifestly  conceived 
of  by  Zechariah  as  anointed  (as  in  the  Priests' 
Code),  for  the  'two  sons  of  oil'  of  Zee  4'''  can 
hardly  stand  for  anything  else  than  the  Davidic- 
ally  descended  Zerubbabel  and  tlie  high  priest 
Joshua. 

All  this  marks  a  view  of  the  dignity  of  the  chief 
priest  which  is  diametrically  opposed  to  the  pro- 
gramme of  Ezekicl,  and  which  cannot  be  under- 
stood as  a  direct  expansion  of  what  we  have  learned 
from  Dt  or  the  prophets  or  the  historical  books  to 
have  been  the  ilevelopment  of  thint;s  hitherto.     Of 
course,  through  the  restoration  of  Israel,  after  the 
Exile,  the  dignity  of  the  chief  priest  acquired  extra 
elevation,  because  he  was  now  head  of  the  com- 
munity with  no  longer  a  king  by  his  side.     But  in 
spite  of  all  this  it  appears  to  the  present  writer 
inconceivable,  that  in  the  course  of  the  52  years 
which  had  elapsed  since   Ezekiel  in  the  five  and 
twentieth  year  of  his  captivity  (B.C.  572)  had  his 
vision  of  tne  new  Jerusalem  with  its  new  ordin- 
ances (40'),  the  high  priestly  dignity  should  have 
made  its  appearance  as  a  wholly  new  creation.     If 
Ezekiel  is  silent  about  a  chief  priest,  this  is— as  the 
statements  in  the  Bks.  of  Kmgs  show  —  plainly 
not   because    there   had   been   no   chief   priest  at 
Jerusalem  up  till  then,  but  is  due  to  an  intentional 
reaction  against  a  then   actually  existing  otBce. 
But  even  if  this  be  so,  the  rank  of  tlie  chief  priest 
must,  in  the  interval  between  Dt  and  Zechariah, 
or  even  between  Ezekiel  and  Zechariah,  have  been 
raised  in  a  way  of  which  there  is  no  evidence  in  the 
sources  as  yet  adduced,  and  which  is  not  intelligible 
on  the  ground  simply  of  the  changed  circumstances. 
We  shall  have  to  return  later  on  to  inquire  to  what 
influence  this  alteration  is  to  be  ascribed  (see  below, 
§  8  g). 

In  Haggai  the  priests  are  asked  for  tdrah,  i.e. 
oral  direction,  and  this  with  reference  to  the  dis- 
tinction of  clean  and  unclean  (2"").  From  the  fact 
that  the  reply  is  given  by  word  of  mouth,  it  does 
not  follow  that  there  was  as  yet  no  written  t6rah 
at  all  on  this  subject ;  even  where  such  exists,  oral 
direction  as  to  its  application  in  any  particular  case 
is  still  requisite.  By  Zechariah,  too,  it  is  regarded 
as  the  business  of  tlie  priests— as  well  as  the  pro- 
phets— to  give  information  about  a  question  aflect- 
ing  religious  observances  (7'). 

Neitlier  Haggai  nor  Zechariah  make  any  mention 
of  Levites  alongside  of  priests.  Our  first  authentic 
witness  to  Levites  is  in  the  time  of  Ezra.  Accord- 
ing to  the  account  given  in  Ezra's  own  Memoirs 
(indicated  hereafter  by  M,  which  stands  also  for 
the  Memoirs  of  Nehemiah),  Ezra  was  accompanied 
to  Palestine  by  two  priestly  houses,  that  of  Gersliom 
of  the  sons  of  Phinelias,  and  that  of  Daniel  of  the 
sons  of  Ithamar  (Ezr  8^  M).  No  Levites  came  for- 
ward at  first  to  join  him  (v."  M).  It  was  only  at 
■Ezra's  special  request  that  38  Levites  were  at 
length  prepareQ  lo  go  with  him  (v.'"-  M).  Of  the 
Nethinim,  '  whom  David  and  the  princes  had  given 
for  the  service  of  the  Levites,'  there  went  with 
Ezra  220  men  (v.^"  M).  The  fact  that  so  few 
Levites,  and  these  only  after  much  pressing,  con- 
sented to  follow  Ezra,  must  have  been  due  to 
special  circumstances.  The  Levites,  who  in  Ezr 
and  Neh  are  everywhere  sliari)ly  distinguished  from 
the  priests,  must  be  understood  to  be  those  whom 
Ezekiel  had  called  Levites  in  the  narrower  sense, 
i.e.  the  descendants  of  the  non-Jerusalemite  priests 
of  the  high  places.  The  station  which  Ezokiel  had 
assigned  to  them  in  the  State  of  the  future  must 
have  presented  few  attractions.  Still  tlie  distinc- 
tion between  priests  and  Levites  among  those  who 
returned  with  Ezra  can  scarcely  be  based  merely 
upon  the  ordinance  proposed  by  Ezekiel,  but,  like 
the  appearance  of  the  high  priest  in  Zechariah,  is 


probably  to  be  attributed  to  the  influence  of  anothei 
classification  which  had  nieauwhUe  come  into  force 
(cf.  below,  §  8  g).  But  even  apart  from  such,  and 
even  if  there  was  no  thought  of  introducing  the 
ideal  constitution  of  Ezekiel,  the  situation  was 
not  a  favourable  one  for  these  '  Levites.'  As  Ezra 
himself,  according  to  what  is  quite  a  credible 
account  of  his  descent  (Ezr  7"-),  was  a  Zadokite, 
the  descendants  of  the  former  priests  of  Jeru- 
salem would,  as  a  matter  of  course,  take  the 
lead  amongst  the  returned  exiles,  so  that  other 
'  Levites,'  who  were  not  in  a  position  to  claim 
that  they  belonged  to  the  priestly  aristocracy,  must 
gi\e  way  to  them. 

The  Memoirs  of  both  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  make 
a  distinction,  which  the  Bks.  of  Ezr  and  Neh  do 
not   make   everywhere   throughout,   between   the 
Levites  and  the  singers  and  doorlteepers   of   the 
temple  (e.g.  Ezr  10^'-  M  ;  see  Gesch.  p.   142,  and 
cf.  below,  §  9).     These  are  classes  which  meet  ua 
for  the   first  time  in  the  post-exilic  period  (the 
'singers'   of   Ezk  40-"  are  based  upon  a   textual 
error,  see  Sniend,  ad  he;  otherwise  Kijl  erie,  p. 
17  tt'.).      But  it  is  not  likely  that   these   classes 
constitute  a  really  new  phenomenon,  which  first 
took  its  rise  in  the  Exile,  for,  during  a  period  when 
there  was  neither  temple  nor  cultus,  professional 
classes  like  these  can  scarcely  liave  been  formed. 
And  as  little — even   if   the   representation   given 
in  Neh  7  (?M)  =  Ezr  2,  that  already  amongst  those 
who  returned  with  Zerubljabel  there  were  singers 
and  doorkeepers,  should  be  incorrect— can   these 
classes  have  come  into   being  for  the  first  time 
under  the   wretched  conditions  that  marked  the 
beginnings  of  the  cultus  in  post-exilic  Jerusalem. 
Ratiier,   it    may   be   inferred,   in    the    post-exiho 
singers  and  doorkeepers  we  liave  to  do  with  the 
descendants  of  doorkeepers  and  singers  of  the  pre- 
exilic    temple,    just    as    in    the    Nethinim    with 
descendants  of  pre-exilic  temple-slaves.     The  post- 
exilic  singers,  doorkeepers,  and  Nethinim  are  con- 
sequently an  argument  in  favour  of  the  existence 
of  a  numerous  non-priestly  personnel  of  servants 
in  the  pre-exilic  temple. 

In  a  statistical  account  of  the  Astarte  temple, 
inscribed  on  stone,  found  on  the  site  of  the  ancient 
Kition,  and  belonging  perhaps  to  the  4th  cent.  B.C. 
(CIS,  I.  86a  and  c),  there  is  mention  of  a  whole 
series  of  difi'erent  servants  of  the  temple,  who 
correspond  in  part  to  the  Jerusalem  temple- 
servants  :  those  who  had  charge  of  the  curtains, 
gatekeepers,  those  who  had  to  attend  to  the 
slaying  of  the  sacrificial  victims,  female  singers 
or  dancers  (ns'^y).  A  personnel  of  a  similar  kind 
was,  in  fact,  required  by  every  considerable 
temple. 

The  post-exilic  Levites  m  the  narrower  sense, 
on  the  other  hand,  cannot  be  identified  with  any 
ofiice  in  the  pre-exilic  temple.  Although  the  class 
known  in  post-exilic  times  as  '  Levites '  owed  it.s 
origin,  to  all  appearance,  to  the  programme  of 
Ezekiel,  yet  the  presence  of  special  doorkeepers, 
alongside  the  Levites,  in  the  post-exilic  temple, 
shows  that  the  Levites  had  not  bec^ome  precisely 
what  he  intended,  for  he  had  assigned  to  them 
the  charge  of  the  temple  doors  (see  above,  §  6). 
From  the  same  circumstance  it  may  be  inferred 
with  probability  that  the  class  of  doorkeepers 
existed  prior  to  Ezekicl,  and  that  he  intended 
to  amalgamate  his  Levites  with  these.  If  the 
list  contained  in  Neh  7  is  what  in  the  present  text 
it  gives  itself  out  to  bo,  namely  a  catalogue  of 
those  who  at  the  first  returned  from  the  Exile 
with  Zerubbabel  (Neh  7'),  the  first  guliih  that 
returned  already  included  all  the  above  classes 
of  sanctuary  servants.  Along  with  4289  i>ricsts 
the  list  mentions  74  Levites,  148  (128)  smgers, 
138  (139)  doorkeepers,  392  Nethinim  and  sons  of 


PKIESTS  A^sD  LEVITES 


PRIESTS  ANT)   LEVITES 


i\ 


Solomon's  servants  (Neh  V*"-,  cf.  Ezr  S^'-).  But 
perhaps  the  jirobability  is  greater  that  we  have 
to  do  here  with  a  list  of  the  population  of  Judah 
at  the  time  of  Neheraiah.  The  very  small  number 
of  Levites  will  liave  to  be  explained  in  this  passage 
in  the  same  way  as  in  the  notice  regarding  those 
that  returned  ^^-ith  Ezra  (see  above).  Another 
list  (Xeh  11'"""),  which  likewise  has  reference  per- 
haps to  the  time  of  Nehemiah  (the  Chronicler,  at 
all  events,  understands  it  so),  gives,  amongst  the 
numbers  of  those  dwelling  in  Jerusalem,  for  the 
priests  1 192  ;  for  the  Levites,  to  whom  the  singers 
are  here  reckoned,  284  ;  for  the  doorkeepers  172. 
This  list,  liowever,  as  it  does  not  distinguish  be- 
tween Levites  and  singers,  may  not  have  been 
drawn  up  till  after  the  time  of  Nehemiah.  Ezra 
himself  says  nothing  of  singers  and  doorkeepers 
lia\-ing  returned  with  him  ;  it  is  only  in  the  later 
narrative,  Ezr  7',  that  they  are  mentioned,  but 
^^•ithout  any  statement  of  their  numbers,  amongst 
the  different  classes  of  those  who  accompanied 
Ezra.  It  may  be  that  they  had  already  returned 
in  such  numbers,  that,  when  Ezra  set  out,  there 
were  either  no  more  singers  and  doorkeepers  in 
Babylon  at  all  (Vogelstein,  p.  38  f.),  or  none  that 
were  prepared  to  go  with  him.  On  the  otlier 
hand,  220  Nethinim  returned  with  Ezra  (Ezr  8=» 
M). 

The  same  list  in  Neh  7,  whose  date  is  uncertain, 
lays  great  stress  on  the  priests  being  able  to  prove 
their  priestly  genealogy  ;  the  families  that  could 
not  do  this  were  excluded  from  the  priesthood 
(v.""').  What  was  demanded  in  the  matter  of 
this  genealogy  is  not  evident  from  the  expressions 
used,  whether  perchance  descent  from  Zadok  had 
to  be  proved,  in  accordance  with  the  ordinance  of 
Ezekiel,  or  from  Aaron,  as  is  required  by  the 
Priests'  Code. 

The  above  were  the  constituent  elements  of  the 
service  of  the  temple,  when,  according  to  the 
usually  accepted  date,  in  B.C.  445  or  444,  during 
the  governorship  of  Nehemiah,  Ezra  caused  the 
Law  to  be  read  aloud  in  solemn  assembly  (Neh 
8ff.).  This  law — probably  the  whole  Pentateuch, 
otherivise  only  the  so-called  Priests'  Code,  i.e.  the 
ceremonial  law  contained  in  the  middle  books  of 
the  Pentateuch — contained  also  regulations  re- 
garding the  priesthood  which  up  till  then  had  not 
possessed  normative  force,  at  whatever  time  tliey 
may  have  ori";inated.  In  the  position,  however, 
answering  to  tliat  in  the  Priests  Code,  which  was 
assumed  by  the  high  priest  in  the  new  Jewish 
community,  even  before  the  arrival  of  Ezra  (see 
above),  we  shall  have  to  recognize  an  influence 
exerted,  prior  to  its  imblic  promulfjation,  by  the 
legislation  of  the  Priests'  Code  which  was  gradu- 
ally arranged  or  collected,  if  not  composed,  by 
the  scribes  in  Babylon.  In  this  Code,  as  is  ^cfl 
known,  the  high  priest  has  a  unique  position 
given  to  him.  The  influence  of  the  same  legisla- 
tion is  probably  to  be  traced  likewise  in  the  ex- 
plicit distinction  between  priests  and  Levites 
amongst  tlio.se  who  returned  witli  Ezra,  and  still 
more  clearly  in  the  circumstance  that  some  priests 
who  returned  with  Ezra  traced  their  descent  to 
Aaron  (Ithamar),  but  not  to  Zadok  (Phiiichas). 
This  influence  of  the  Priests'  Code  upon  tlie  re- 
lations of  the  new  community  prior  to  Ezra's 
appearance  in  Palestine,  is  enough  to  exclude  the 
view,  which  is  sometimes  put  forward,  that  Ezra 
composed  the  Priests'  Code  after  his  arrival,  i.e., 
according  to  the  usual  chronology,  between  the 
years  B.C.  458  and  445  or  444.  At  least  the  rudi- 
mentary stage  of  the  Priests'  Code  must  be  placed, 
in  view  of  tne  position  of  the  liigh  priest  in  the 
time  of  the  pro[Miut  Zcchariah,  not  less  than  about 
a  century  before  the  time  of  Ezra. 

In  ail  probability  the  publication  of  the  Law  was 
vou  IV. — 6 


preceded  by  the  appearance  of  tlie  short  jirophetiial 
writing  which  has  come  down  to  us  under  the 
name  Malachi,  which  is  derived  from  one  of  its 
catch-words,  or  may  even  be  a  title  of  honour 
given  to  its  author.  It  was  probably  WTitten 
after  the  arrival  of  Ezra,  as  it  occupies  itself  with 
the  question  of  the  mixed  marriages,  which,  so 
far  as  we  know,  was  first  agitated  by  him.  The 
covenant  with  the  priests  is  called  in  Malachi  the 
covenant  with  Levi  or  with  the  Levites  (2*-*), 
which  does  not  agree  with  the  terminology  of  the 
Priests'  Codex,  and  hence  appears  to  pomt  to  a 
date  prior  to  its  publication.  It  cannot,  surely, 
be  supposed  that,  with  reference  to  an  oppression 
of  the  serving  Levites  by  the  priests,  the  latter  are 
reminded  by  Malachi  that  Jahweh  has  entered 
into  covenant  with  the  whole  tribe  of  Levi  (Vogel- 
stein, p.  24  f.),  for  what  Malachi  complains  of  is 
not  ill-treatment  of  the  Levites  by  the  priests, 
but  that  the  priests  handle  the  tdrdk  wrongly  and 
with  respect  of  persons  (2'"-),  i.e.  of  course  in  their 
dealings  with  the  community.  Malachi  calls 
those  who  present  the  offerings  '  sons  of  I^evi '  (3^), 
and  betrays  no  acquaintance  with  the  term 
'  Levites '  in  the  special  sense  of  the  Priests'  Code, 
namely  as  the  appellation  of  a  cljuss  of  inferior 
ministers  of  the  sanctuary.  The  terminology  of 
the  Priests'  Codex  had  thus,  at  all  events,  not 
become  current  in  the  time  of  Malachi.  It  is 
true  that  in  Malachi  the  payin^  of  the  tithes  is 
demanded,  not  for  the  holding  of  feasts,  as  in  Dt, 
but  for  the  store-house  of  the  temple,  as  '  food,' 
i.e.  for  those  who  live  by  their  temple  service 
(38.10)  Tills  agrees  with  the  requirement  of  the 
Priests'  Code  published  by  Ezra,  but  tliis  par- 
ticular ordinance  may  have  come  into  force  even 
prior  to  the  publication  of  tlie  Code. 
8.  The  Priesthood  according  to  the  Law 

CONTAINED  IN  THE  '  PRIESTLV  WriTINC;.'— We 
do  not  know  what  was  the  compass  of  the  law- 
book which  obtained  recognition  under  Ezra. 
Probably  we  should  understand  by  it  the  whole 
Pentateuch.  The  narrative  of  the  reading  of  the 
law  and  the  binding  of  the  people  to  obey  it  is 
scarcely,  it  is  true,  taken  directly  from  the 
Memoirs  of  Ezra,  but  certain  traces  indicate  that 
it  goes  back  to  these.  The  indications  whidi 
the  narrative  of  the  reading  of  the  law  gixos 
as  to  its  contents  point  in  ]iart  (the  prohibition 
of  marriage  with  the  Canaanites,  Neh  10^')  to 
Deuteronomy,  or  even  to  tlie  still  older  legislation 
contained  in  the  Jehovistic  book,  but  fn  great 
measure  to  enactments  which  are  to  be  found 
only  in  the  code  contained  in  that  source  of  the 
Pentateuch  which  it  lias  become  customary  to 
call  as  a  whole  the  '  Priestly  Writing' (Neh  8"'- '» 
IQW.  soir.)  This  portion  of  the  law  of  Ezra  is  a 
new  factor  which,  at  whatever  time  it  may  have 
originated,  had  not  hitlicrto  obtained  public  recog- 
nition or  been  generally  known.  It  is  true  that 
in  certain  new  ordinances  regarding  the  situation 
of  the  priests,  introduced  in  the  period  between 
the  First  Return  and  the  arrival  of  Ezra  (see 
above,  §  7),  influences  are  to  be  traced  which  pro- 
ceeded from  this  code,  whether  already  in  existence 
or  in  process  of  coming  into  being. 

The  Priestly  Writing  occupies  itself  more  than 
any  of  the  collections  of  laws  that  had  hitherto 
obtained  validity,  with  tlie  relations  of  the  priest- 
hood, and,  on  this  account  and  because  of  its  having 
undeniably  originated  in  the  circle  of  the  priests, 
may  be  called  after  them.  Its  legislation,  which 
deals  mainly  with  ritual,  is  not,  indeed,  specially 
designed  for  the  priests.  It  is  not  meant  to  bo  a 
manual  of  rules  for  the  discharge  of  the  priestly 
service.  These,  indeed,  are  not  fully  given  on 
many  points ;  rather  are  the  readers  or  hearers  it 
has  m  view,  primarily   the  members  of  the  con- 


82 


PRIESTS  AN'D  LEVITES 


PRIESTS  AND  LEVITES 


grcjiation.  The  latter,  however,  are  instructed 
mainly  ahout  the  organization  of  the  holy  ser- 
vice and  of  those  who  perform  it,  about  the  rights 
and  duties  appertaining  to  the  priests.  Neverthe- 
less, for  the  sake  of  brevity,  the  law  contained  in 
the  '  Priestly  Writing '  may  be  called,  after  the 
example  of  others,  the  Priests'  Code. 

a.  The  priests  in  the  LaiB  of  Holiness  and  in 
particular  't6r6th.' — It  is  owing  only  to  redaction 
by  a  single  hand  that  the  Priests'  Code  has 
reache<l  a  harmonious  character ;  this  redaction 
has  clearly  welded  it  together  from  a  variety  of 
con)ponents.  Even  the  vieAvs  it  rives  of  the 
priestly  relations  have  not  been  all  cast  in  one 
mould.  In  those  components  of  the  Priests'  Code 
«liich  manitestly  are  to  be  recognized  as  the 
oldest,  the  so-called  '  Law  of  Holiness,'  i.e.  the 
main  stock  of  Lv  17-26,  as  well  as  particular 
tOrdth  akin  to  this,  which  were  perhaps  originally 
combined  with  it  or  may  have  had  currency  by 
themselves  (Lv  6f.,  11  [12-15.  27],  Nu  5""-  6'-''' 
15^'"*'),  we  hear  onlyof  '  the  priests '  or  '  the  priest,' 
namely  the  one  officiating  ;  but  the  priests  are  not 
more  clearly  defined  as  to  their  descent,  and  there 
is  no  mention  of  Levites  or  other  sanctuary  servants 
alon^  with  them.  It  is  a  later  process  of  redaction 
that  lias  introduced  into  these  passages  the  designa- 
tion of  the  priests  with  reference  to  Aaron  and  his 
sons.  In  Lv  6'  (Eng.")  'sons  of  Aaron '  appears 
to  stand  in  the  place  of  an  original  '  the  priest,' 
for  this  subject  is  followed  in  y.^W  by  the  singular 
of  the  verb.  The  quite  isolated  mention  of  the 
Levites  in  these  portions  (Lv  25'="**)  is  certainly 
an  interpolation.  On  the  other  hand,  even  the 
original  Law  of  Holiness  probably  contained  very 
minute  prescriptions  as  to  purity  on  the  part  of 
the  priests  (Lv  21"'-).  This  law  appears,  further, 
to  have  been  acquainted  with  a  chief  priest,  for 
the  connexion  of  tiie  section  which  hays  down 
special  rules  for  hi-  .Jritj'  (Lv  21"'*'-)  with  the 
Law  of  Holiness  scarcely  admits  of  a  doubt  (it  is 
doubted,  indeed,  by  H.  Weinel,  'nu'D  und  seine 
Denvate,'  in  ZATlV,  1898,  p.  28 AT.).  In  favour 
of  this  connexion  is  the  expression,  not  used  else- 
where in  tlie  Priests'  Code,  "  the  priest  who  is 
greater  than  his  brethren '  (v.'").  To  the  older 
elements  probably  belongs  also  the  prescription 
that  this  Hrst  priest  is  not  to  leave  the  sanctuary 
in  the  event  of  a  bereavement  (Lv  21''''),  whicli 
presujiposes  that  he  lives  in  the  sanctuary  (as 
Eli  did),  a  view  which  is  taken  nowhere  el.se 
in  the  Priests'  Code. 

To  what  date  these  oldest  components  of  the 
Priests'  Code  should  be  attributed  it  is  hard  to  de- 
citle.  At  present  they  are  usually  assigned  to  the 
Exile,  near  the  time  of  E/ckiel.  So  much  is  un- 
questionably right,  that  the  Law  of  Holineiis  still 
existed  as  a  collection  by  itself  during  the  Exile, 
and  that  it  received  then  its  conclu.sion  which  tits 
only  that  period  (Lv  26'"-)  But,  beyond  this, 
it.  does  not  follow  necessarily  from  the  special 
points  of  contact  between  Ezekiel  and  this  law, 
that  both  belong  to  nearly  the  same  period. 
These  points  of  contact  may  be  due  to  the  fact 
that  Ezekiel  made  quite  a  special  use  of  the  Law 
of  Holiness,  and  specially  attached  himself  to  it. 
The  demand  which  stands  at  the  head  of  this  law 
(Lv  17'"),  that  all  slaying  of  animals  must  take 
place  before  the  sanctuary  (which  was  afterwards 
brour;ht  by  a  redactor  into  relation  to  the  tent  of 
meeting,  which  was  not  originally  mentioned), 
could  be  obeyed  only  at  a  time  when  there  were 
more  sanctuaries  than  one  (so,  followin"  Dillmann, 
Gesch.  p.  47).  This  would  lead  us  to  think  of  the 
pre-Deuteronomic  period.  That  the  author  of  the 
Deuteronornic  law  was  acquainted  with  the  tCrdli 
about  leprosy  which  has  come  down  to  us  in  Lv 
13  L,  outside  the  specially  so-called  '  Law  of  Holi- 


ness,' but  belonging  to  those  special  tCrCth  akin  to 
this  law  (see  above),  is  not  improbable,  seeing  that, 
at  all  events,  some  lepro.sy-<ora/t  entrusted  to  the 
priests  is  known  to  him  (Dt  24*). 

If  the  Law  of  Holiness  originally  presupposed 
the  existence  of  a  plurality  of  sanctuaries,  it 
remains  doubtful  whether  it  thinks  of  a  single 
chief  priest  for  all  the  sanctuaries,  or  assumes  lliat 
there  will  be  a  number  of  chief  priests  taking 
charge  of  the  different  sanctuaries. 

b.  The  Aaronitc  /jHrais.— The  other  components 
of  the  Priests'  Code  exhibit  a  harmonious  system 
of  organization  of  the  priesthood  ;  although  even 
here,  in  matters  of  detail,  dilierences  of  various 
strata  and  innovations  are  not  to  be  overlooked. 
A  priesthood,  according  to  the  Priestlj'  Writing, 
first  came  into  beiuf;  in  Israel  in  the  time  of 
Moses,  when  the  one  legitimate  place  of  sacrifice, 
the  tent  of  meeting,  was  by  Divine  direction 
established.  Previously,  according  to  this  writing, 
the  fathers  of  Israel  had  ottered  no  sacrifices,  and 
consequently  required  no  priests.  Moses  installed 
as  priests  his  brother  Aaron  and  the  latter's  sons. 
Only  to  the  descendants  of  these  do  the  priestly 
rights  pass  on.  The  terms  '  sons  of  Aaron '  and 
'priests'  are  thus  synonymous  (Ex  28-"  29'"  4U'''"''- 
etc.).  Only  two  of  Aaron's  sons,  Eleazar  and 
Ithamar,  perpetuate  the  family.  A  preference, 
however,  is  given  to  the  sons  of  Eleazar  above 
those  of  Ithamar,  when,  on  tl.e  occasion  of  a  pro- 
pitiatory action  on  the  part  of  Phinehas,  the  son  of 
Eleazar,  the  covenant  of  an  everlasting  priesthood 
is  entered  into  only  with  hira  and  his  seed  (Nu 
25'=^'-). 

For  the  exercise  of  the  holy  office  the  sons  of 
Aaron  are  provided  with  a  special  priestly  attire. 
Ex  28*'"'- — linen  breeches  and  a  long  coat  {kith- 
oneth),  besides  a  girdle  and  a  turban.  The  uiipcr 
garments  are,  according  to  Ex  39-",  to  be  all  of 
shcsh,  i.e.,  borrowing  an  Egy])tian  term,  by-rsus, 
therefore  white,  till  we  come  to  the  girdle,  vliicli, 
according  to  Ex  39^  (if  liere  it  is  the  girdle  of  the 
priefts  in  general  and  not  that  of  the  high  priest 
that  is  spoken  of),  is  composed  of  the  four  colours 
of  the  sanctuary,  namely  white,  crimson,  blue- 
purple,  and  red-jniriile.  At  all  events,  according 
to  Josephus  {Ant.  III.  vii.  2),  the  white  ground  of 
the  priest's  girdle  had  flowers  of  the  four  colours 
wTought  into  it.  Shoes,  which  are  nowhere  men- 
tioned, are  apparently  not  to  be  worn  by  the 
priests  while  performing  the  sacred  ottice ;  they 
probably  go  barefooted  (Ex  3'  [JE]),  just  as  the 
Phoenician  priests  wore  not  shoes  but  linen  socks 
(Pietschsmann,  Gesch.  der  Phonizier,  Uerlin,  1889, 
p.  223).  The  white  garments  of  shc.sk  correspond 
to  the  linen  robe,  the  'cj^ltod  bad,  which  in  oldrn 
times  was  worn  by  the  Hebrew  priest.-;  (1  S  2"). 
Linen  was  the  material  of  the  priest's  dress  also 
among  the  Babylonians  (Gunkel,  Archiv  /.  lie- 
ligion.swissensrhiiJ't,  i.  [1898]  p.  297)  and  the  Egyp- 
tians (Ancessi,  p.  10211'.;  Kenan,  Jlist.  du  pcujile 
d' Israel,  i.  149;  Gesch.  p.  70  f.).  The  employment 
of  shesh  instead  of  the  more  common  linen  is  to 
be  set  down  as  <a  later  refinement. 

The  ritual  fiinctiuns  oi  the  priests,  specified  in 
the  Priests'  Code,  are  of  a  manifold  char.-vcti"-. 
The  priests  have  to  sprinkle  the  blood  of  the 
victim  in  the  sanctuary  (Lv  !»•  "■ '»  etc.),  to  offer 
the  sacrifices  (i.e.  lay  them  upon  the  altar  and 
cause  them  to  go  up  in  the  sacred  lire  (Lv 
27-».  lat.  16-17  gtc. )  ;  they  .alone  may  accomplish  the 
kapparah  ('covering')  cflected  by  the  presentation 
of  tlie offerings  (Lv4-"'-*' etc.).  On  the  other  hand, 
the  killing,  flaying,  and  cutting  up  of  the  victim 
is,  according  to  the  Priests'  Code  (differing  in  this 
from  Ezekiel),  the  business  of  the  person  making 
the  ottering,  even  should  he  be  a  layman  (Lv 
!"•  al.;    see   Gesch.    p.  114  f.).     The  priests  have. 


PRIESTS  AND  LEVITES 


PRIESTS  AND  LEVITES 


83 


further,  to  ponr  ont  the  drink-offering  (Nu  6") 
thev  have  to  jierform  the  whole  ser\'i<-e  connectei 
lie  altar    of    burnt -offering  (Kx  30-*)   and 


(spoken  with  special  reference  to  Aaron)  tlie  altar 
of  incense  (Ex  30").  Only  an  Aaronite,  and  'no 
stranger'  may  offer  incense  at  all  (Nu  17°  [Eng. 
IB*"]).  The  Aaronites  alone  have  charge  of  the 
table  of  shewbread  (Lv  24',  siioken  specially  of 
Aaron)  and  the  candlestick  (Ex  27*').  From  Ex 
30"-,  Lv  24',  Nu  8^-  it  does  not  result  that,  accord- 
ing to  another  older  enactment,  onl}'  the  high 
priest  had  charge  of  the  candlestick  (Vogelstein, 
p.  63).  Wlien  '  Aaron '  alone  is  spoken  of  here. 
It  is  as  the  representative  of  the  priesthood 
in  general.  As  such  he  performs  in  the  Priests' 
Code  the  whole  of  the  priestly  sen-ice,  and  in 
other  passages  as  well  he  is  named  alone  as  stand- 
ing for  the  ]iriests  in  general.  E.\  27-'  *  Aaron  and 
his  sons  '  will  not  be  incorrect,  then,  as  the  explana- 
tion of  tlie  other  passages  which  speak  of  Aaron 
alone.  Only  the  priests  may  go  within  the  sanc- 
tuary (Ex  30™).  A  '  stranger,'  i.e.  a  non-Aaronite, 
who  ajiproaches  the  altar  or  the  space  inside  the 
curtain  shall  die  (Nu  18').  Amongst  the  holie.st 
articles  which  may  be  approached  only  by  holy 
persons,  i.e.  only  by  the  priests,  is  reckoned  even 
the  laver  in  the  fore-court  CE.x  30^). 

Even  outside  the  sanctuary  there  are  special 
duties  assigned  to  the  priests.  They  have  to 
remove  the  ashes  from  the  altar  to  a  clean  place 
without  the  camp  (Lv  6^  [Eng.  "]) ;  they  have 
(specially  Eleazar,  but  this  while  Aaron  was  yet 
alive)  charge  of  the  holy  anointing  oil  (Nu  4", 
which  is  perhaps  to  be  assigned  to  a  redactor,  see 
Dillm.  Nunwri,  etc.,  1886,  p.  14  f.).  They  alone 
may  pronounce  the  blessing  upon  the  people  (Nu 
6'°"),  and  in  war  or  at  the  festivals  are  to  blow 
with  the  sacred  trumpets  (Nu  lO'*-  3P).  They 
have  to  watch  over  the  distinction  between  holy 
and  profane,  unclean  and  clean,  and  to  instruct 
the  children  of  Israel  in  all  statutes  which  Jahweh 
has  s|>oken  to  them  through  Moses  (Lv  10""-), 
whereby  probably  those  statutes  are  specially  in- 
tended which  have  regard  to  holy  and  profane, 
clean  and  unclean. 

The  priests  have,  further,  to  pronounce  the  curse 
on  the  woman  who  is  accused  of  adulterj',  and  to 
give  her  the  water  of  bitterness  to  drink  (Nu  5"*-); 
they  have  to  reconsecrate  the  head  of  the  Nazirite 
who  has  been  defiled  (Nu  6"),  to  determine  the 
presence  of  leprosy  in  human  beings,  in  houses, 
and  in  clothes,  as  well  as  to  pronounce  the  declara- 
tion of  cleanness  from  leprosj',  and,  in  the  latter 
case,  to  carry  out  the  sprinkling  of  the  man  to  be 
cleansed  with  the  sacrificial  blood,  as  well  aa  the 
sjirinkling  and  pouring  out  of  oil  (Lv  13 f.).  At 
tlie  slaying  and  burning  of  the  red  heifer,  frora 
whose  ashes  the  water  of  purification  for  those 
who  have  been  defiled  by  touching  a  dead  body  is 
to  be  prepared,  the  priest  (Eleazar  in  the  lifetime 
of  Aaron)  is  to  be  present;  he  has  to  sprinkle  the 
blood,  and  to  throw  various  ingredients  into  the 
burning  (Nu  Iff'"-).  The  priests  have,  further,  to 
determine  the  valuation  of  persons  that  have  been 
vowed  (Lv  27'),  of  vowed  unclean  beasts  (v.'"-),  of 
the  consecrated  house  (v.")  or  field  (v.'""-). 

Aaron  and  Iiis  sons  are  itutnlletl  in  office  by  a 
solemn  consecration,  with  '  filling  of  the  hand,'  i.e. 
by  the  presenting  of  a  dedicatory  oH'cring  jilaced 
in  their  hand,  the  '  fill-oll'cring' (Ex  29,  Lv  8  al.; 
cf.  on  the  filling  of  the  hand,  above,  §  2).  That 
this  act  of  consecration  is  to  bu  repeated  in  the 
case  of  every  priest  afterwards  is  not  said,  and  how 
far  this  was  actually  done  is  questionable  (Sihiirer, 
p.  231  f.,  note  25).  In  other  passages  an  anointing 
of  the  priests  is  spoken  of  (Ex  28"  30»°  al.).  But 
at  the  same  time  the  title  'the  anointed' as  an 
oxpressioD  of  honour  is  used  only  of  the  high  priest 


(Lv  4'- '•  "«/.).  At  the  ceremony  of  consecrating 
the  priests  there  is  mention  only  of  the  anointing 
of  Aaron  (Ex  20'),  and  the  anointing  is  viewed  as 
the  sign  of  the  high-priestly  succession  (v.^). 

Clearly  we  have  to  do  here  (as  Wellhausen 
was  the  first  to  see)  with  two  strata  of  the  Priests' 
Code ;  one  of  which  assumes  the  anointing  of  all 
priests,  the  other  only  that  of  the  high  priest. 
Through  combining  the  two  views,  thedescri]ition 
has  ongin.ated  which  makes  it  appear  as  if  origin- 
allj"  all  priests  were  anointed,  while  in  future  the 
high  priest  alone  is  to  be  anointed  {Gesch.  jpp.  25, 
48  f.).  Nowhere  in  the  OT  outside  the  Priests' 
Code  is  the  anointing  of  ordinary  priests  assumed, 
but  that  of  the  high  priest  is  assumed  in  several 
passages  (Weinel  in  ZATW,  1S98,  p.  28). 

Full  priestly  rights  belong  to  such  Aaronites  as 
are  free  from  bodily  defects.  No  one  who  suffers 
from  any  such  blemish  is  to  go  within  the  sanctu- 
ary or  approach  the  altar.  On  the  other  hand, 
even  such  persons  are  entitled,  like  the  other 
Aaronites,  to  eat  of  the  holy  and  the  most  holy 
offerings  (Lv  21"''').  On  pain  of  being  cut  off,  the 
priests  have  to  refrain  from  sacrificing  and  from 
eating  of  the  sacrificial  Hesh  as  long  as  they  are 
tt'iintcd  with  any  Levitical  unclcanness  (Lv  22-'''). 
The  prohibition  which  applied  to  all  Israelites 
(Lv  17"'')  against  eating  the  flesh  of  an  animal 
that  had  died  of  itself  or  been  torn,  is  addressed 
with  special  emphasis  to  the  priests  (Lv  22'). 
Before  performing  the  sacred  ofhce  they  have  to 
wash  their  hands  and  feet  in  the  brazen  laver  (Ex 
3Qi»ff.  4031'.)^  and  may  not,  before  going  into  the 
sanctuary  to  perform  their  duties,  drink  wine  or 
strong  drink  (Lv  10"-).  They  are  forbidden  to 
marry  a  harlot,  a  polluted,  or  a  divorced  woman 
(Lv  21').  A  priest's  daughter  who  by  harlotry  has 
profaned  the  office  of  her  father  is  to  be  bunied 
with  fire  (v.").  The  priests  are  forbidden  to  defile 
themselves  through  the  dead,  with  the  exception 
of  defilement  by  the  corpse  of  the  nearest  blood 
relations  (Lv  21"'-).  In  all  cases  of  bereavement 
they  are  forbidden  to  exhibit  signs  of  mourning 
by  niakin"  a  baldness  upon  their  heads,  cutting 
their  beards  at  the  comers,  or  making  cuttings  in 
their  flesh  (v.°). — These  prescriptions  for  the  main- 
taining of  purity  on  the  part  of  the  priests  are  found 
to  a  large  extent  in  the  Law  of  Holiness,  and  may 
already  have  belonged  to  its  main  stock,  and  thus 
have  been  merely  adopted  by  the  Priests'  Code. 

c.  The  hirfh  priest. — At  the  head  of  the  priestly 
liody  stands,  in  the  time  of  Moses,  his  orother 
Aaron,  and  in  later  times  always  one  of  the 
descendants  of  the  latter  (E.\  29'^'-  etc.).  After 
the  death  of  Aanm  the  functions  of  chief  priest 
are  undertaken  by  his  eldest  son  Eleazar,  who  in 
turn  is  succeeded  by  his  son  Phinehas  (Nu  25""-) ; 
which  seems  to  assume  an  arrangement  for  the 
succession  of  the  firstborn.  Aaron,  like  the  other 
priests,  usually  bears  the  simple  title  hn-kohcn 
(Ex  29™  31'°  etc.).  There  are  few  passa-ies  in 
which  the  chief  priest  receives  the  name  of  honour 
'the  anointed  priest'  {ha-kdltcn  ha-nutihiah,  Lv 
4s,  e.  i«  gis  .  cf  Gcsrh.  p.  26  ;  these  ]ias.sagcs,  and,  in 
general,  the  majority  of  those  in  P  in  which  an 
anointing  is  mentioned,  are  considered  by  Weinel 
[ZATW,  1S9S,  p.  30  if.]  to  be  additions).  Equally 
seldom,  three  times  onlj',  does  the  chief  priest  bear 
the  title  '  high  priest'  {ha-kulu'n  ha-fjddid,  Lv  21'°, 
Nu  35-^- **).  The  high-priestly  digiiitv  is  clearly 
thought  of  aa  conferred  for  life  (Nu  35-^-  **).  With 
solemnities  lasting  for  seven  days  each  new  high 
priest  is  to  be  installed  in  ollice,  with  putting  on 
of  the  holy  attire,  anointing,  and  filling  the  hand 
(Ex  29""'-) ;  he  has  on  this  occasion,  like  Aaron  on 
the  day  of  his  anointing,  to  offer  a  minliah  (L^- 
e""  ;  so  at  least  according  to  the  present  text,  8e« 
Dillm.  ad  loc.). 


64 


PKIESTS  AND  LEVITES 


PRIESTS  AND  LEVITES 


The  chief  priest  is  distinguished  by  two  minutely 
described  official  costumes.  One  of  these  is  wholly 
of  linen.  He  wears  this  only  when  he  goes  into 
the  Holy  of  Holies  on  the  Day  of  Atonement  (Lv 
Kjj.  5S.  82)  i„  discharging  the  rest  of  his  functions, 
lie  has  to  wear  above  the  white  kcthoneth  of  shPsh 
worn  by  all  the  priests,  a  variegated  dress  of  tlie  four 
colours  of  the  sanctuary,  blue-purple,  red-purple, 
crimson,  and  white,  interwoven  witli  gold  (Ex2S°°'-, 
Lv  8'"-  nl. ).  The  difi'erent  parts  of  this  dress  are 
de.scribed  in  detail,  yet  their  exact  structure  is  not 
quite  clearly  recognizable.  Above  his  under- 
garment the  high  priest  wears  his  distinguishing 
ciiliod,  ke]it  together  at  the  shoulders  by  a  couple 
of  clasps  formed  of  shoham  stone,  upon  each  of 
which  are  engraved  six  names  of  tne  tribes  of 
Israel  (cf.  art.  EPHOD).  Upon  his  breast,  above 
the  ephod,  the  hirfi  priest  wears  the  four-cornered 
hdshen  suspended  by  little  chains.  Set  in  this 
externally  are  twelve  precious  stones  in  four  rows, 
having  engraved  upon  them  the  names  of  the 
twelve  tribes.  The  hdshen  must  be  conceived  of 
as  a  species  of  pocket  (cf.  art.  Breastplate  of 
THE  High  Peiest),  for  in  it  are  deposited  the 
Urim  and  Thummim,  which  evidently  are  to  be 
thought  of  as  tangible  objects  (cf.  art.  Urim  AND 
Thummim).  Upon  the  hem  of  the  upper-garment 
(me'il)  which  was  attached  to  the  ephod,  there 
iian"  alternately  pomegranates  and  little  bells. 
In  the  front  of  his  turban  (miznephcth)  the  high 
priest  wears  upon  his  forehead  a  golden  diadem 
mscribed  '  Holy  to  Jahweh.'  The  high  priest 
alone  is  entitled  to  carry  the  Urim  and  Thummim 
(Ex  28™,  Lv  8"),  and  to  pronounce  the  'judgment 
of  the  Urim  '  before  Jahweh  ;  and  by  this  decision, 
as  that  of  a  Divine  oracle,  Israel  has  to  abide  (Nu 
27^). 

None  but  the  high  priest  may  go  into  the  Holy 
of  Holies  on  the  yearly  Day  of  Atonement,  to 
make  propitiation  for  the  priests  and  the  congrega- 
tion, and  carry  through  the  ceremony  with  the  two 
goats,  in  which  he  has  to  make  atonement  also  for 
the  sanctuary  (Lv  W^-,  cf.  Ex  SO").  Above  all,  it 
rests  with  hmi  alone  to  make  atonement  for  his 
own  guUt  and  that  of  his  house  (Lv  4'"-,  cf.  9"'-), 
as  well  as  for  the  community  as  a  whole  (Lv  4'*^-, 
cf.  y*;  differently,,  as  it  would  appear,  Nu  15^, 
see  Gesch.  p.  27,  note).  He  has  to  ofl'er  a  daily 
minhdh  (Lv  6'^"'*,  where  '  on  the  day  of  his  anoint- 
ing' [v."]  is  probably  a  later  addition,  by  which 
the  daily  offering  is  transformed  into  one  offered 
once  for  all  at  the  time  of  his  installation  in  the 
priestly  office).  Moreover,  he  has  to  take  his  share 
in  the  service  rendered  by  the  other  priests  (Ex 
27"').  The  r61e  of  mediator,  apart  from  the  above- 
luentioned  atoning  transactions,  he  assumes  by 
bearing  upon  his  breastplate  the  names  of  the 
children  of  Israel,  when  he  goes  into  the  sanctuary 
(Ex28-'»). 

The  high  priest  Eleazar  is  named  in  the  first 
rank,  along  with  Joshua,  the  prince  of  the  tribes 
(Nu  34""-,  cf.  Jos  14').  At  his  word,  spoken  by 
means  of  the  Urim,  the  whole  congregation  is  to 
go  out  and  come  in  (Nu  27^°''-).  After  the  death 
of  the  high  priest  the  manslayer  is  safe  to  leave 
the  city  of  refuge  (Nu  35^-  ^).  The  duration  of 
the  high  priest's  office  is  treated  in  tliis  enactment 
as  an  epoch  at  whose  close  certain  questions  that 
have  remained  open  are  to  be  regarded  as  now 
settled  (the  interpretation  proposed  in  Gesch.  p.  28, 
and  approved  by  Van  Hoonacker,  Sacerdoce,  etc. 
p.  340,  linds  no  justification  either  in  the  Priests' 
Code  or  in  the  OT  generally).  The  high  priest 
holds  no  other  position  ol  secular  authority. 
When  Moses  and  Aaron  together  number  the 
people  (Nu  1'- "),  Aaron  acts  in  this  matter  simply 
as  the  brother  of  Israel's  leader. 
Special   injunctions  regarding  purity  are  laid 


upon  the  high  priest,  which  are  stricter  than  those 
for  the  rest  of  the  priests.  Like  the  latter,  they 
are  found  in  the  Law  of  Holiness.  According  to 
them,  '  the  priest  who  is  greater  than  his  brethren ' 
may  marry  only  a  virgin  of  his  people,  and  not,  .as 
is  permitted  to  the  other  priests,  a  widow  (Lv 
21'^*-).  He  is  not  to  delile  himself  through  any 
dead  body,  even  that  of  a  father  or  mother  (v."). 
He  is  forbidden,  as  a  sijjn  of  mourning,  to  let  his 
hair  grow  long  or  to  rend  his  clotlies  (v.'"). 

If  the  high  i)riest  have  brought  guilt  upon  the 
people  through  any  sin  of  his,  he  has  to  present  a 
sin-offering,  with  ceremonies  specially  prescribed 
for  this  particular  case  (Lv  4''''),  because  a  sin  on 
the  part  of  the  spiritual  head  of  the  people  is 
looked  on  as  bringing  special  trouble  upon  the 
whole  community.  Sms  affecting  the  priesthood, 
i.e.  violations  of  the  laws  given  to  the  priests, 
have  to  be  expiated  by  Aaron  and  his  sons 
(Nu  18';  not  by  the  high  priest  alone  [Benzinger, 
p.  422],  but  by  him  and  the  rest  of  the  priests). 

d.  The  Lemtcs. — The  Aaronite  priests  are,  in  the 
Priests'  Code,  a  special  family  of  the  tribe  of  Levi. 
The  designation  '  Levites '  is  only  in  isolated 
instances  used  of  all  that  belong  to  this  tribe, 
including  the  Aaronites^Ex  6=»,  Lv25'='-,  NuSo'") ; 
it  is  usually  applied  to  the  non-Aaronite  Levites 
alone.  The  whole  tribe  is,  like  the  other  tribes, 
divided  into  '  fathers'  houses  '  with  their  heads  or 
princes  (Ex  6^,  Nu  3'^").  The  tribe  as  a  whole  is 
considered  as  consecrated  to  God,  this  by  w.ay  of 
compensation  for  the  firstborn  of  man  in  Israel 
who  all  rightfully  belonged  to  the  Deity  (Nu 
3'^'-  al.).  The  Levites  in  the  narrower  sense  are 
not,  like  the  Aaronites,  servants  of  Jahweh,  but 
are  given  to  the  priests  or  to  Jahweh  for  the 
service  of  the  tabernacle,  as  is  emphatically  ex- 
pressed in  the  designation  of  the  Levites  as 
nethihilni,  'given'  (Nu  3"  8"  1S«),  wliich  cleariy 
stands  in  some  relation  to  tlie  name  a)>plied  to  the 
foreign  temjile-slaves  in  the  Bks.  of  Ezr  and  Neh, 
namely,  Nethinim.  In  other  passajjes,  without 
the  term  nithuvim  being  employed,  it  is  said  of 
the  Levites  that  they  serve  the  dMelling-place  of 
Jahweh,  or  that  they  serve  Aaron,  or  the  congre- 
gation. Here,  as  in  the  case  of  the  priestly 
service,  the  verb  shdreth  is  used,  but  not,  as  in 
that  case,  absolutely,  but  with  the  object  of 
service:  the  'dwelling-place,'  i.e.  the  tent  of 
meeting,  '  Aaron,'  or  '  the  congregation  '  (Nu  1" 
3"  \&  18').  The  Levites  minister  to  the  priests 
'  before '  the  tent  of  meeting.  The  Levites  are 
forbidden  to  approach,  like  the  priests,  the  vessels 
in  the  inner  sanctuary  or  the  altar  ;  by  doing  so 
they  would  bring  death  upon  themselves  and  upon 
the  priests  (Nu  18-'-).  The  technical  term  for  the 
service  of  the  lievites  is  shumnr,  '  guard,'  which 
suits  the  Levites  of  the  Priests'  Code  in  so  far  as 
they,  in  the  arrangement  of  the  camp,  have  to 
encamp  with  the  priests  immediately  around  the 
tabernacle,  so  that  in  point  of  fact  they  do  guard 
the  latter  (Nu  P»- ''^  al.).  A  'stranger,'  i.e.  one 
who  is  neither  priest  nor  Levite,  who  intrudes  into 
this  circle  round  the  holy  dwelling-place,  shall  lie 
(Nu  3^).  The  standing  employment  of  the  verb 
s/uiinar  for  the  service  of  the  Levites  indicaftea 
clearly  that  the  ]irescription  for  the  (purely  ideal) 
arrangement  of  the  camp  corresponds  to  some 
actual  duties  performed  by  tliose  whom  the 
Priests'  Code  calls  Levites.  Surely  the  shdmar 
of  the  Levites  has  some  connexion  with  the  work 
of  the  doorkeepers  of  the  temple  in  the  Bk.  of 
Ezra.  The  Levites  are  called  in  the  Priests'  Code 
directly  shomrS  mishmfrclh,  '  guardians '  of  the 
sanctuary  or  'the  dwelling-place'  of  Jahweh  (Nu 
3j«.  3J  31^0. 47).     i„   j^u   33a  ti,g   tgrn,   jg  extended 

even  to  the  priests,  with  reference  to  the  arrange- 
ment of  the  camp.    Besides,  the  same  verb  shdmat 


PRIESTS  AND  LEVITES 


PRIESTS  AND  LEVITES 


85 


is  employed  in  an  untechnical  sense,  in  a  few 
isolated  instances  in  the  Priests'  Code  (Nu  3'°  IS'), 
of  tlie  priestly  service  in  general  (so  also  in  the 
post  -  exilic  Zechariah),  and  then,  further  (so 
akdmar  is  used  in  the  Priests'  Code),  of  the  ser- 
vice of  God  in  general,  i.e.  of  one's  attitude 
towards  His  coniniandnients  (Gn  26').  All  this 
shows  that  we  have  here  to  do  with  a  very 
ancient  teriuinolo^'j',  which  probably  reaches  back 
far  bej'ond  the  time  when  there  was  a  special 
class  of  doorkeepers  of  the  temple.  Perhaps  it 
preserves  a  trace  that  the  Levitus  were  originally 
the  '  guarding '  escort  of  the  sacred  ark,  which 
would  be  quite  conceivable,  even  if  the  name  lewt 
has  nothing  to  do  with  this  duty  (.see  above,  §  1). 
In  any  case,  it  may  be  gathered  from  the  above 
use  otshdmar  that  the  guarding  of  a  sanctuary  in 
some  form  was  at  one  time  the  essential  task  of 
tlie  Levites.  It  has  been  suggested  that  it  was 
the  guarding  of  a  divine  image,  as  was  the  main 
duty  of  the  priest  among  the  ancient  Arabs  (Well- 
hausen,  Bcste",  p.  130).  But  tliere  appears  to  be  a 
special  reference  to  the  escorting  of  the  sacred 
ark,  which  accompanied  Israel  in  Uieir  joumeyings 
and  campaigns,  in  the  remarkable  term,  likewise 
used  very  occasionally  of  the  LeWtes'  service,  zdba', 
'  to  render  military  service  '  (Nu  4"  al.). 

When  the  host  of  Israel  is  upon  the  march,  the 
Levitical  family  of  the  Kohathites  has  charge  of 
carrj'ing  the  tabernacle  and  its  vessels,  after  these 
have  been  covered  by  the  jiriests  from  the  view  of 
the  Levites,  who  may  not  look  upon  them  (Nu 
4").  None  but  Levites  may  attend  to  the  carry- 
ing and  the  setting-up  of  the  tabernacle  ;  any  non- 
Levite  doing  so  mu.st  oe  put  to  death  (Nu  1"  18*-  **). 
Hence  the  service  of  the  Levites  is  si)oken  of  as 
a  '  covering '  for  the  children  of  Israel,  that  no 
plague  come  upon  them  when  they  come  nigh  to 
the  sanctuary  (Nu  8'").  Then  it  is  the  Levites 
who,  according  to  Ex  38-',  under  the  direction  of 
the  Aaronite  Itliamar,  take  cliarge  of  the  '  num- 
bering of  the  dwelling  of  the  testimony,'  i.e.  the 
keeping  account  of  the  gifts  offered  for  its  con- 
struction. There  is  no  indication  of  any  other 
duties  performed  by  the  Levites  than  tho.se  of 
carrying  the  tabernacle,  encamping  around  the 
sanctuary,  and  keeping  the  account  just  men- 
tioned. Wherein,  apart  from  encamping  round 
the  sanctuary,  consisted  tlie  charge  assigned  to 
the  Levites  over  the  dwelling  of  the  testimony 
and  all  its  vessels  and  everything  belonging  to  it 
(Nu  1""),  or  'tlie  keeping  of  the  charge'  of  the 
dwelling  of  the  testimony  and  its  vessels  (Nu  l"* 
3*  nl.),  or  the  'work'  of  the  Levites  'about  the 
tabernacle'  (Nu  4''),  or  tlieir  'service'  about  the 
dwelling  or  the  tabernacle  (Nu  S"- 4^  al.) — is  not 
indicated.  Thus  we  do  not  learn  what  the  Levites 
have  to  do  when  tlie  sanctuary  is  set  up  and  the 
service  is  being  cunducted  in  it,  and  tlius  have, 
further,  no  indication  of  what  is  to  be  the  work 
of  the  Levites  once  Israel  has  reached  the  goal  of 
its  wanderings  and  attaincil  to  a  settled  mode 
of  life.  It  may  only  be  Kujiposcd  from  the  desig- 
nation of  tlie  Levite.s'  work  as  'service  of  the 
congregation,'  that  the  intention  of  the  law  was 
to  assign  to  the  Levites  some  kind  of  intermediate 
function  between  tlie  congregation  and  the  priests. 
The  lower  services  at  the  sanctuary,  once  it  was 
set  up,  appear  also  to  be  pointed  to  in  Nu  1°", 
wh  >re  the  service  of  the  tabernacle  is  presented  as 
a  duty  distinct  from  that  of  carrying  it. 

The  data  regarding  the  period  of  service  of  the 
Levites  are  not  hannonious.  In  Nu  4'"-  it  is  given 
as  from  the  thirtieth  to  the  fiftieth  year ;  Nu  8^*", 
on  the  other  hand,  enacts  that  the  Levites  have 
to  serve  from  their  twentj'lifth  year,  and  it  is 
added  that  from  their  liftieth  year  onwards  they 
are  no  longer  to  serve,  but  to  assist  their  brethren 


(the  serving  Levites).  This  enactment  is  clearly 
a  later  addition  (Gesch.  p.  34). 

In  Nu  8^"^-  a  ceremony  for  the  installation  of  the 
Levites  is  described :  tlie  children  of  Israel  (no 
doubt  the  elders)  lay  their  hands  upon  them  as 
upon  an  offering,  and  the  Levites  are  waved  be- 
fore Juhweh  a*  a  gift  of  tlie  Israelites — a  repre- 
sentation which  manifestly  results  from  the  con- 
ception of  the  Levites  as  a  substitute  for  the 
ofl'ering  of  the  firstborn  of  man.  They  are  to  be 
treated  in  this  ceremony — which  cannot  be  thought 
of  as  literally  peifornicd,  but  simply  gives  expres- 
sion to  a  theory — like  those  sacrificial  jiortions 
which  fall  to  the  priests,  because  the  Levites  also 
are  given  to  the  latter  to  be  their  own  (so  rightly 
A.  Van  Hoonacker,  Le  vosu  de  Jephthi,  Louvain, 
1893,  p.  40  tr.). 

The  'tribe  of  Levi,'  t.e.  probably  the  Levites 
and  also  the  Aaronites,  is  exempted  from  bein" 
numbered  amongst  the  children  of  Israel  (Nu  1" 
2^),  i.e.  from  military  service. 

Sins  affecting  the  sanctuary,  i.e.  any  defilement 
of  it,  have  to  be  expiated  by  the  Aaronites  and 
Aaron's  father's  house,  the  Kohathites,  that  bnuu  !i 
of  the  Levites  who  have  to  carry  the  holiest  vessels 
(Nu  18').  The  Levite.s,  without  distinction,  have 
to  expiate  the  sins  of  their  service  (Nu  18^). 

The  di-Hinction  betiveen  priests  and  Levites  is 
not  rejiresented  as  having  gained  validity  without 
opposition.  The  narrative  of  the  rebellion  of  the 
Levite  Korali  against  Aaron  and  Moses  (Nu  16) 
serves  to  exhibit  this  distinction  as  one  divinely 
determined :  the  prerogatives  of  Aaron  are  estab- 
lished in  opposition  to  Korah.  In  this  account, 
however,  a  still  older  narrative,  belonging  to  an- 
other stratum  of  the  Priests'  Code,  may  be  dis- 
entangled, in  which  Korah  stands  up,  not  for  the 
preroi'atives  of  the  Levites  as  against  the  Aaron- 
ites, but  for  those  of  the  whole  congiegation  as 
against  the  Levites.  To  this  older  stratum  at- 
taches itself  the  narrative  of  Nu  IT""-,  in  which 
the  budding  of  Aaron's  rod  conlirms  the  unique 
position,  not  of  the  Aaronites,  but  of  the  whole 
tribe  of  Levi  {Gcsch.  p.  34  ff.  ;  of.  art.  KOEAH, 
Datiian,  Abiram). 

e.  2'he  serving  women. — Only  in  a  single  pa.ssage 
in  the  Priests'  Code  is  there  mention  of  serving 
women  (Ex  38').  They  mini.ster  at  the  door  of 
the  tabernacle ;  and  this  service,  like  that  of  the 
Levites,  is  described  by  the  term  zCibd' ;  but  wherein 
it  consisted  we  have  not  a  word  of  information. 
We  learn  merely  that  these  women  were  provided 
with  mirrors  of  brass.  The  only  other  reference 
in  the  whole  of  the  OT  to  such  women  as  servin" 
at  the  sanctuary  is  in  1  S  2*'-''  (wanting  in  LXX 
except  in  A  and  Luc. ),  where  they  are  introduced 
as  if  they  had  been  in  existence  in  the  time  of  Eli 
at  Shiloli ;  but  as  in  this  pa.ssage  the  '  tent  of 
meeting'  is  spoken  of,  as  in  the  Priests'  Code, 
whereas,  in  other  passages,  at  Shiloh  a  built  temple 
is  presupposed,  we  have  to  do,  no  doubt,  with  an 
interpolation  based  ujion  the  Priests'  Code. 

f.  Tlie  revenues  of  the  priests  and  Levites. — The 
]iriests,  like  the  Levites,  have  a  fixed  revenue 
assigned  them  in  return  for  their  services.  It  is 
presuiiposed  in  this  that  they  are  without  posses- 
sions, I.e.  they  have  not,  like  the  other  tribes,  a 
tribal  territory  (Nu  IS"-"'-  26"^). 

The  priests  dues  from  the  offerings,  the  t(ru- 
mvth,  '  ncavo-ofi'erings'  (Nu  IS'-'"),  are  calculated 
on  a  more  liberal  scale  than  in  Ot  and  even  than 
in  Ezk,  or  at  all  events  they  are  sjiccilicd  more 
exactly  than  in  the  latter  book,  which  does  not 
name  the  tithe  and  the  firstlings.  The  skin  of 
the  burnt-offering  falls  to  the  officiating  priest 
(Lv  7")  ;  from  the  «/iiV(/Hii"»H-oirerings  he  is  entitled 
to  a  cake  (v.'''),  as  well  as  to  the  wave-brea.st  and 
the  heave-thigh  (ICx  2'.)-'"-  al.);  in  the  ca.se  of  tliu 


86 


PEIESTS  AND  LEVITES 


PRIESTS  AND  LEVITES 


sh^amtm-oSeTing  of  the  Nazirite  he  receives  not 
only  the  wave-breast  and  heave-thigh,  but  also 
the  slioulder  of  the  ram  and  two  cakes  as  a  wave- 
oftering  (Nu  6'"-).  Of  the  'holy,'  i.e.  not  'most 
holy,'  ofTerings  the  male  and  female  members  of 
tlie  house  of  Aaron  are  to  eat  in  a  clean  place  the 
wave-breast  and  the  liea\e-thigh,  and  in  general 
the  tiruiiwth  that  fell  due  of  these  oU'erings  (Lv 
10'''-,  Nu  IS'");  the  priest  who  presents  the  offering 
may  thus  bring  these  jiortions  into  his  house 
ancl  there  distribute  them.  The  members  of  the 
priest's  house  who  are  entitled  to  participate  in 
those  meals  are  exactly  specified  ;  any  one  who  by 
mistake  and  without  warrant  eats  of  the  holy 
thing  is  to  restore  to  the  priest  what  he  has  taken, 
witli  a  fifth  part  added  to  it  (Lv  22'"''-)-  Every 
tSrumdh  belongs  to  the  particular  priest  to  whom 
on  any  occasion  one  hands  it  over,  and  not  to  the 
whole  of  the  priests  (Nu  5"-).  Of  the  '  most  holy' 
offerings — the  minhah,  the  guilt-oft'ering,  and  the 
sin-offering— nothing  may  be  taken  into  the  priests' 
houses ;  whatever  portion  of  these  does  not  find 
its  way  to  the  altar,  or  is  not  in  certain  specified 
instances  burned  (Lv  6^),  is  to  be  eaten  only  by 
Levitically  clean  male  Aaronites  in  the  holy  place, 
according  to  the  diflerent  regulations  for  the  re- 
spective offerings,  it  may  be  by  the  priest  who 
presents  the  ottering,  it  may  be  by  all  male  Aaron- 
ites (Lv  2'  5^'  6"  etc.).  The  shewbread  also,  as 
most  holy,  is  to  be  eaten  by  male  Aaronites  in 
the  holy  place  (Lv  24'). 

Besides  the  above,  the  priests  have  firstling- 
dues.  To  them  belong  the  firstborn  of  clean  beasts  ; 
those  of  unclean  beasts  and  of  man  are  to  be 
redeemed  (Nu  18"^-)-  The  redemption  price,  for 
arriving  at  which  a  mode  of  reckoning  is  given, 
probably  falls,  as  a  logical  consequence,  to  the 
priests,  although  this  is  not  expressly  stated  [Gesch. 
p.  41).  In  later  times,  at  all  events,  it  was  so 
arranged  (Schiirer,  p.  254).  In  the  case  of  the  first- 
bom  of  clean  beasts,  the  flesh,  in  so  far  as  this  is  not 
the  portion  of  the  altar,  falls  to  the  priest,  and  may 
be  eaten  by  him  and  the  male  and  female  members 
of  his  household  (Nu  18"'-).  The  reshlth  that  has 
to  be  offered  of  oil,  must,  ana  com,  as  well  as  the 
first-fruits  {bikkHrim)  of  everything,  belong  to  the 
priests ;  all  clean  persons  in  the  priest's  house, 
male  and  female,  may  eat  of  them  (Nu  IS"'-). 
The  question  whether  rffslnth  and  bikkHrim  have 
both  to  be  paid  from  the  same  products  of  the 
ground  niay  remain  open  [Gesch.  p.  124  ff. ;  Schiirer, 
t>.  245).  The  two  leavened  firstling-loaves  of  the 
Feast  of  Pentecost,  along  with  the  two  lambs  to 
be  added  as  a  shilu»i{7n-oSeiin<^,  are  assigned  to 
the  priest  (Lv  23*').  Further,  of  the  devoted  things 
that  which  is  called  fUrem  belongs  to  the  priests 
(Nu  IS") ;  likewise  in  the  year  of  jubilee  there 
falls  to  them  the  field  regarded  as  Mrem,  which 
has  been  dedicated,  not  redeemed,  and  yet  sold 
(Lv  27-').  The  rffshlth  of  dough,  which,  according 
to  Nu  15"'",  is  to  be  paid  to  Jahweh,  is  probably 
to  be  understood  as  falling  to  the  priests,  although 
this  is  not  expressly  said.  In  the  case  of  a  with- 
holding of  the  proper  dues,  restitution  has  to  be 
made  to  the  priest,  with  the  addition  of  a  fifth 
part  (Lv  5").  If  any  one  has  unwittingly  taken 
from  his  neighbour  anything  belonging  to  him, 
and  if  restitution  to  the  injured  party  is  not  pos- 
sible, the  articles  which  require  to  be  restored 
belong  to  the  priest  v  ho  oU'ers  the  guilt-offering 
for  the  offender  (Nu  5*). 

Of  sacred  dues  the  tenth  belongs  to  the  Levites, 
wlio  in  turn  have  to  pay  a  tenth  of  this  to  the 
priests  (Nu  18-'- *"■■•).  Originally,  according  to  Nu 
IS",  all  that  was  in  view  here  was  the  tenth  of 
field  and  vineyard  produce.  It  appears  to  be  a 
later  expansion  when  Lv  Ti'^-  demands,  in  addi- 
tion to  this,  the  tenth  of  cattle  and  sheep.    Priests 


and  Levites  receive  a  fixed  percentage  of  the  spoil 
taken  in  war  (Nu  31^^). 

The  Priests'  Code  enjoins,  further,  in  what  i« 
perhaps  an  addition  subsequent  to  the  time  of 
Nehemiah,  a  tax  for  the  sanctuary  (Ex  30"^-  ;  see 
Gesch.  p.  219f. );  this  does  not  fall  to  the  priests, 
but  is  spent  on  the  '  service  of  tlie  tent  of  meeting,' 
i.e.  for  tlie  expense  of  the  regular  cultus. 

The  idea  that  the  tribe  of  Levi  has  no  inherit- 
ance finds  strange  expression  in  the  purely  theo- 
retical and  evidently  late  added  (Gesch.  p.  42 f.) 
statement  (Nu  3^'-")  that  Jahweh  has  taken  to 
Himself  the  cattle  of  the  Levites  in  place  of  the 
firstborn  of  the  cattle  of  the  children  of  Israel. 
The  matter  is  meant  thus  to  be  viewed  as  if  the 
Levites  had  not  an  absolute  property  in  their 
cattle,  but  only  the  usufruct  of  them.  In  speak- 
ing of  the  possession  of  cattle  the  Priests'  Code  is 
thinking  of  the  injunction  (which  is  not  quite  in 
harmony  with  the  absence  of  possessions  on  the 
part  of  the  tribe  of  Levi)  that  48  cities  in  the 
Promised  Land  should  be  set  apart  for  the  tribe 
of  Levi  to  dwell  in,  along  with  the  surrounding 
pasture  lands  to  feed  tlieir  cattle  (Nu  35'*').  The.ie 
cities,  with  their  houses  and  pasture  lands,  are  an 
inalienable  possession  ;  whatever  may  have  been 
sold  of  them  is  redeemable  at  any  time,  and,  if  it 
is  not  redeemed,  it  returns  to  the  Levites  in  the 
year  of  jubilee  (Lv  25'-'^-)-  The  carrying  out  of 
this  enactment  about  Levitical  cities  is  recorded  in 
a  narrative  in  the  Bk.  of  Joshua  (ch.  21),  belong- 
ing to  the  Priestly  Writing  ;  and  here  a  distinction, 
not  found  in  the  earlier  directions,  is  made  between 
LeWtical  and  priestly  cities ;  the  sons  of  Aaron 
receive  13  of  the  48  cities. 

g.  The  date  of  the  priestly  system  in  the  '  Priesthj 
Writing.' — Even  apart  from  the  older  elements 
(P',  see  above,  §  8  a)  which  detach  themselves  from 
the  main  body  of  the  Priests'  Code,  the  date  of  the 
priestly  system  exhibited  by  this  Code  is  not  a 
single  one.  In  general  the  consistent  character  of 
the  system  (P^)  is  not  to  be  denied,  but  certain 
smaller  constituents  detach  themselves  as  clearly 
new  to  it  (P').  But,  even  after  the  removal  of  these 
elements,  everything  (in  P^)  is  not  of  one  cast ;  in 
the  view  taken  of  the  Levites,  for  instance,  apart 
from  an  innovation  (Nu  S"'^'  [see,  further,  below] 
and  w.^**  [see  above,  g  8  d]),  there  is  no  mistaking 
the  presence  of  two  different  strata  (in  Nu  16,  ci! 
ch.  17  ;  see,  further,  below). 

At  present  it  is  commonly  held  that  the  whole  of 
the  priestly  system  of  the  Priests'  Code,  and  in 
general  this  whole  Code  itself,  belongs  to  the  post- 
exilic  period,  and  that  Ezekiel's  enactments  regard- 
ing the  priests,  especially  his  distinction  between 
Levites  and  priests,  paves  the  way  for  the  Priests' 
Code  (so  the  adlierents  of  the  Graf  hypothesis). 
On  one  point  there  can  be  no  doubt,  namely  this, 
that  the  affinity  between  the  law  of  Ezekiel  and 
the  Priests'  Code  is  so  great  that  it  can  be  explained 
only  by  the  dependence  of  one  of  these  upon  the 
other.  For  the  i)riority  of  Ezekiel  it  is  quoted  aa 
decisive  that  in  his  State  of  the  future  he  knows  no 
high  iiriest  such  as  stands  at  the  head  of  tlie 
priestly  body  in  the  Priests'  Code.  Ezekiel,  it  is 
argued,  does  not  mention  the  one  unique  function 
assigned  to  the  high  priest  in  the  Priests'  Code, 
namely  the  propitiatory  transactions  on  the  Day 
of  Atonement,  and  it  is  hard  to  suppose  him  to 
have  been  acquainted  with  them.  But  the  law 
concerning  the  Day  of  Atonement  in  Lv  16  bears 
quite  a  peculiar  character  which,  e.g.  in  the  con- 
ception of  AZAZEL  (which  see),  distinguishes  it 
from  the  rest  of  the  Priests'  Code.  This  law  has 
its  place  immediately  before  the  Law  of  Holiness 
(Lv  17-26),  which,  as  it  appears  to  the  present 
writer  necessary  to  assume,  was  incorporated  in 
the  system  of  the  Priests'  Code,  not  by  the  real 


1 


PKIKSTS  AND  LEVITES 


TKIKSTS  AND  LEVITES 


87 


antlior  of  P'  but  by  a  later  redactor  ;  probalily  the 
section  contained  in  Lv  1(5  was  also  a  later 
addition  (G&scA.  p.  128  £. ),  and  so  were  also,  in 
tliat  cxse,  as  a  matter  of  course,  the  merely  brief 
allusions  to  the  Day  of  Atonement  which  are  found 
elsewhere  in  the  Priests'  Code.  Ezekiel  has  no 
Day  of  Atonement,  but  nierelj' certain  propitiatory 
transactions  on  two  days  eveiy  J'ear,  which  look 
like  a  tirst  step  towards  the  Day  of  Atonement. 
There  is  no  period  at  which  the  law  of  the  Day  of 
Atonement,  of  which  there  is  not  a  trace  in  the 
pre-e.\ilic  history,  can  be  more  readil)'  conceived  to 
tiave  originated  than  during  the  great  chastening 
of  the  K.xile,  or  even  it  may  be  shortly  thereafter. 
Zee  3^  appears  to  contain  the  earliest  allusion  to 
tlie  Day  of  Atonement.  If  the  function  a-ssi-^ned 
by  the  Priests'  Code  to  the  high  ])rie8t  on  the  I)ay 
of  Atonement  is  a  later  insertion,  the  original 
liigli  priest  of  this  Code  has  no  station  left  to  him 
but  that  of  primus  inter  pares.  Even  the  distinc- 
tive dress  he  wears  appears  to  mean  nothing  more 
(see  below).  A  chief  priest,  however,  was,  beyond 
all  doubt,  found  at  Jerusalem  prior  to  Ezekiel  (see 
above,  §  3).  As  to  the  further  argument  in  favour 
of  the  priority  of  Ezekiel's  system  to  that  of  the 
Priests  Code,  namely  tliat  Ezekiel  was  the  first 
to  introduce  the  distinction  between  priests  and 
Levites,  this  rests  upon  an  intcrjiretation,  which 
per  se  is  a  possible  one,  but  which  is  not  to  be 
deduced  unconditionally  from  the  language  of 
Ezekiel.  It  is  true  that  Ezekiel  gave  a  new 
arrangement  to  the  station  of  those  Levites  who 
had  fiirnierli'  been  priests  at  the  high  places,  but 
his  language  by  no  means  excludes  or  even  renders 
improbable  the  supposition  that  in  the  pre-exilic 
temjile  there  were  other  Levites  besides  these,  or 
that  there  were,  besides  the  foreign  temple-slaves, 
other  temple-servants  not  called  Levites,  or  priests 
of  the  second  rank  side  bj'  side  with  the  priests 
proper,  i.e.  the  Zadokites  (see  above,  §  6).  We 
will  seek  to  show  further,  below,  that  Ezekiel's 
designating  of  the  priests  as  '  Zadokites,'  in  con- 
trast to  their  being  called  in  the  Priests'  Code 
'  Aaronites,'  is  by  no  means  an  evidence  of  Ezekiel's 
priority. 

On  two  points,  it  is  true,  the  Priests'  Code  con- 
tains regulations  allecting  the  priests  which  cannot 
be  sejiarated  from  its  system  (I*^),  and  which  yet 
undoubtedly  go  beyond  what  is  found  in  Ezekiel. 
In  the  Priests  Code  the  tenth  falls  to  the  Levites 
and  the  tenth  of  the  tenth  to  the  priests,  to  whom 
belong  also  the  firstborn  of  dean  beasts.  Ezekiel 
says  nothing  about  either  of  these  things.  But  in 
the  Deuteronomic  regul.itions  it  is  clear  that  neither 
the  tenth  nor  the  lirstbom  are  considered  as  be- 
longing to  the  Levites  or  priests  (cf.,  further, 
below). 

Other  difTorences  between  the  law  of  Ezekiel 
and  that  of  the  Priests'  Code  ap|)ear  to  the  present 
writer  to  speak  ncce.s.sarily  in  favour  of  the  i)riority 
of  the  Priests'  Code,  or  at  least  of  the  system  repre- 
sented by  it.  In  this  Code  the  kiUinj;,  flaying,  and 
cutting  up  of  the  sacrilicial  animal  has  to  bo  done 
by  the  layman  presenting  the  ottering  (Lv  l"-'"- 
etc. J  see  Gcsrh.  p.  114);  in  Ezekiel  the  Levites 
have  to  perform  the  killing.  There  can  be  no 
doubt  that  in  this  instance  the  Priests'  Code  repre- 
sents the  earlier  custom,  which  was  based  upon  the 
view  that  by  slaying  his  sacrifice  the  od'erer  himself 
presents  his  gift  to  the  deity,  and  thereby  expresses 
the  fact  that  it  is  meant  for  him.  In  Ezekiel,  on 
the  other  hand,  this  action  is  undertaken  by  the 
Levites  as  a  cla,ss  intermediate  between  laity  f.nd 
priests,  in  order  to  remove  the  layman  a  stage 
lurtlier  from  sacred  functions.  Vogclstein  (p.  67), 
indeed,  reverses  the  chronological  order,  and  holds 
that  the  flow  of  an  anti-Levite  current  has  willi- 
drawn  from  the  Levites  the  slaying  of  the  sacrilicial 


victims  ;  but  surely  the  slaughter  bj'  the  hand  of 
the  sacrificing  layman  is  a  relic  of  primitive  times 
when  every  Lsraelite  was  entitled  to  ofler  sacrifice. 
Besides,  by  setting  down  the  killing  of  the  animal 
by  the  lay  offerer  as  a  later  custom,  a  very  im- 
probable course  would  be  given  to  the  development 
of  the  practice  in  this  matter  (as  it  cannot  be 
imagined  that  the  regulations  of  the  Priests'  Code 
we  are  considering  are  due  to  a  later  alteration  of 
the  text)  ;  that  is  to  say,  the  Chronicler,  who 
makes  the  Levites  take  part  in  the  slaying  of  the 
victims  (see  below,  §  9),  would,  on  this  view,  have 
taken  a  step  backwards  from  the  Priests'  Code  in 
the  direction  of  Ezekiel.  The  practice  of  later  times 
in  regard  to  the  temple  service  appears,  indeed,  to 
have  excluded  both  Laymen  and  Levites  from  the 
slaying  of  the  sacrilicial  animals,  and  to  have 
reserved  this  for  tlie  priests  alone  (Biicliler,  Priester, 
136  fl.);  it  is  probably  a  matter  of  pure  theory 
when  tlie  Talmud,  in  agreement  with  the  Priests' 
Code  (Vogclstein,  p.  G8,  note  1),  represents  laymen 
as  performing  the  act  of  slaughter.  Amongst  the 
oriTinances  of  Ezekiel  which  go  beyond  the  Priests' 
Code  in  the  sen.se  of  keeping  the  laity  at  a  distance, 
besides  the  one  we  have  considered,  there  are  the 
enactments  that  the  priests  are  not  to  come  out 
amongst  the  people  with  their  holy  garments  or 
with  the  sacrilicial  portions,  lest  the  people  be 
hallowed  thereby— regulations  which  are  wanting 
in  the  Priests'  Code.  We  find  expressed  here  a 
materialistic  conception  of  holiness  as  if  it  were 
something  that  could  be  transferred  by  external 
contact.  The  .same  conception  shows  itself  in  the 
Priests'  Code  only,  on  what  is  not  an  impossible 
explanation,  in  the  case  of  the  sinolfcring  (whoever 
touches  the  flesh  of  this  ollcring  '  l)ccomes  holy '  [?], 
Lv  6**  [Eng. -■']),  and  the  '  most  holy '  otl'erings  in 
general  (Lv  6"  [Eng.'"]  ;  cf.  Ex  2!("  :!0-'»).  But  in 
these  pa.ssages  the  thought  of  '  becoming  holy ' 
(Jlciligwerdcn)  by  touching  can  hardly  be  really 
present,  rather  would  it  apjiear  tlint  it  is  '  being 
holy'  (Ileilirjscin),  i.e.  'being  a  priest,'  that  is 
s]iccified  as  the  condition  of  touching  (see  liaudissin, 
titndicn  zur  semit.  Hfliijiunsgasrhiilde,  ii.,  Leii)zig, 
1878,  p.  54  f.  note).  The  no'stexilic  Haggai  (a"*^) 
denies  that  contact  with  the  skirt  of  a  garment  in 
which  one  carries  holy  flesh  makes  holy ;  but  he 
does  not  deny  that  direct  contact  with  sacrilicial 
flesh  has  this  efl'cct.  In  this  way  he  does  not,  as 
Kuenen  {ThT,  1890,  p.  17)  sujiposes,  contradict 
Ezekiel  ;  and,  therefore,  we  may  not  infer  from 
Haggai's  language  that  Ezekiel's  view  was  an 
older  one,  which  was  abandoned  in  the  post-exilic 
period  (and  so  also  in  the  Priests'  Code,  on  the 
assumption  of  its  po.st-exilic  composition). 

It  is  alleged  that  Ezekiel  was  not  actjuainted 
with  Lv  Si'"',  whore,  perhaps,  the  priest  is  for- 
bidden (although  this  is  extremely  questionable)  to 
defile  himself  for  a  dead  wife.  But  this  does  not 
follow  (Nowack,  p.  115,  note  1)  from  the  faet  that 
in  Ezk  24'""-  mourning  on  the  part  of  the  priest  for 
his  wife  is  assumed  as  a  matter  of  course,  for  it  is 
not  mourning  in  general  that  is  forbidden  in  Lv  21'"', 
but  only  certain  specified  mourning  customs,  besides 
the  defilement  by  the  coijise  (v.°  ;  cf.  Ezk  44'" ;  cf. 
Job.  Frey,  'I'od,  Seeleiifflnubc  tind  Heelenkult  ivi 
altcn  Israel,  Leipzig,  IS'.tS,  p.  74  f.). 

Ezekiel's  arrangements  about  the  Levitical  and 
priestly  land  are  much  more  practical  than  in  the 
Priests'  Code.  In  Ezekiel's  State  of  the  future, 
priests  and  Levites  live  in  the  immcdiiito  neigh- 
oourhood  of  the  temple  where  they  have  to  serve; 
according  to  the  Priests'  Code  they  are  distributed 
among  dill'erent  cities  throughout  the  land,  where 
they  have  nothing  to  do.  It  is  hardly  conceivable 
that  the  author  of  the  Priests'  Code  should  have  so 
changed  for  the  worse  tlie  arrangements  of  Ezekiel, 
if  these  were  the  earlier.     Kather  does  the  Priests 


88 


PKIESTS  AND  LEVITES 


PRIESTS  AND  LEVITES 


Code  in  this  instance  stUl  adhere  more  than  Ezekiel 
to  the  conditions  ■niiich  really  existed  in  the  pre- 
exilic  period.  Amoni,'st  the  priestly  cities  named 
in  Jos  21  (P),  is  Anathoth,  which  we  know  from 
Jeremiah  as  a  city  where  priests  lived.  Among  the 
Levitical  cities  are,  further,  included  the  si.\  Cities 
of  Refuge.  The  latter  were  old  sanctuaries  to 
whose  altar  the  manslayer  fled.  Besides,  in  the 
case  of  four  of  these  Cities  of  Refuge  which  are 
named  in  Jos  21"*',  it  may  be  .shown  either  from 
hi-story  or  from  the  names  themselves  that  they 
were  places  of  worship  (Hebron,  Shechem,  Kadesh, 
Ramoth  [probably  identical  with  Mizpah  of  Hos 
5']). 

If  the  system  represented  by  the  Priests'  Code  is 
prior  to  Ezekiel,  then  the  sUence  of  the  latter 
about  the  tenth  and  the  firstborn  as  priestly  dues, 
can  be  explained  only  by  assuming  that  these 
particular  ordinances  had  not  obtained  practical 
recognition   before   Ezekiel's    time,   and    that    he 

Eurposely  passes  them  over,  presumably  because 
e  nad  doubts  as  to  the  possibility  of  carrying 
them  out.  He  is  silent  also  as  to  the  tithe-meals 
of  Dt,  and  the  sacrificial  meals  which,  according  to 
Dt,  are  to  be  held  with  the  firstborn  of  cattle  and 
sheep.  He  must  have  been  acquainted  with  both 
these  regulations,  and  has  thus  not  sought  to  inter- 
fere with  the  treatment  of  the  tenth  and  the 
firstborn.  The  old  view,  as  represented  in  the  Jeho- 
vistie  book  (Gn  28--),  is  that  the  tenth  is  to  be  given 
to  the  Deity.  The  same  demand  is  expressly  made 
by  the  Book  of  the  Covenant  (Ex  22-")  in  the  case 
of  the  firstborn  of  cattle  and  sheep.  The  arrange- 
ment in  the  Priests'  Code,  in  so  far  as  it  assigns 
tithes  and  firstborn  to  the  servants  of  the  Deity, 
comes  nearer  to  this  view  than  the  common  meals 
of  Dt  (see  Dillmann  on  Lv  27^).  The  term  '  tenth ' 
can  originally  have  been  applied  only  to  an  impost, 
and  not  to  the  material  for  a  sacrificial  meal  (so 
also  Van  Hoonacker,  Saccrdore,  etc.  p.  393).  Only 
in  this  particular  is  something  secondary  to  be 
recognized  in  the  Priests'  Code,  namely  that  it 
assigns  the  tenth — difl'erently  with  the  firstborn — 
not,  or  at  least  only  indirectly,  to  the  pr()])er  ser- 
vants of  the  Deit}',  namely  the  priests,  but  in  the 
first  instance  to  the  servants  of  the  sanctuary,  the 
Levites. 

That  the  priestly  legislation  of  the  Priests'  Code 
(P^)  is  to  be  placed  prior  to  Ezekiel,  appears  to  the 
present  writer  to  result  also  from  the  circumstance 
that  it  shows  no  regard  to  the  special  conditions  of 
the  personnel  of  the  sanctuary  at  the  Return  from 
the  Exile.  In  the  early  days  of  the  Jewish  colony, 
at  all  events  at  the  time  of  Ezra,  if  not  earlier, 
we  find,  alongside  of  the  priests,  these  classes — 
Levites,  singers,  and  doorkeepers  (both  these 
originally  distinct  from  the  Levites),  and  Nethi- 
nim ;  the  Priests'  Code,  on  the  other  hand,  knows 
only  the  two  clas.ses— priests  and  Levites.  The 
Levites,  called  in  the  Priests'  Code  netki'inim,  are 
evidently  intended  to  replace  the  foreign  Nethinim 
who  are  no  less  disapproved  of  in  the  Priests'  Code 
indirectly  than  they  are  in  the  direct  polemic  of 
Ezekiel.  It  may  "be  seen  from  the  narrative 
portions  of  the  I5k.  of  Joshua  which  belong  to  the 
Priestly  Writing,  that  the  Latter  does  not,  indeed, 
mean  to  set  aside  the  Netliinim  entire!}';  for  in 
Jos  9°',  which  evidently  belongs  to  this  source,  it 
is  said  that  the  inhabitants  of  Gibeon  and  the 
neighbouring  cities  were  set  aside  by  the  princes 
of  Israel  to  be  hewers  of  wood  and  drawers  of 
water  '  for  the  congregation.'  These  serfs  are  thus 
looked  upon  here,  not  as  servants  of  the  temple  or 
the  priests,  but  as  servants  of  the  congregation, 
i.e.  the  laity.  As  far  as  the  temple  service  is  con- 
cerned, their  place  ir,  to  be  taken  by  the  Levites. 
But  the  latter  have  in  this  matter,  as  it  would 
appear,  to  discharge  the  functions,  not  so  much  of 


the  Netliinim  as  of  the  post-exilic  doorkeepers,  for 
tliey  are  called  '  keepers.' — It  is  difficult  to  suppose 
that  a  legislator,  wlio  was  face  to  face  with  the 
comi)licated  relations  of  the  temple  personnel  in 
]>ost-exilic  times,  should  have  imagined  that  he 
could  come  to  an  adjustment  with  them  by  simply 
throwing  all  non-jiriestly  temple-servants,  without 
an)'  further  argument  or  justification,  ictc  a  single 
class. 

In  particular,  upon  any  theory  which  makes  the 
Priests'  Code  exilic  or  post-exilic,  we  miss  in  it  that 
regard  we  should  expect  to  the  former  priests  of  the 
high  places,  who,  since  the  centralization  of  the 
cultus  under  Josiah,  gave  rise  to  difficulties.  Josiah 
sought  to  exclude  tliem  from  the  Jerusalem  cultus, 
but  evidently  was  unable  to  set  aside  their  pre- 
tensions to  a  share  in  the  priestly  service  in  the 
temple ;  for  Ezekiel  considered  it  necessary  to 
announce  to  them  in  unambiguous  terms  that  it 
was  God's  decree  that  they  should  be  removed  from 
the  priesthood.  In  Ezra  s  time  only  a  few  of  the 
descendants  of  the  old  priests  of  the  high  places, 
those  who,  in  Ezekiel's  terminology,  are  called 
'  Levites,'  had  accommodated  themselves  to  the 
position  assigned  to  them.  It  is  true  that  the 
Priests'  Code  contains  a  clear  trace  of  a  conflict 
between  the  Levites  and  the  priests,  in  the  narrative 
of  the  rebellion  of  the  Levite  Korah  against  Moses 
and  Aaron.  But  that  the  conflict  here  spoken  of  has 
regard  to  the  claims  of  the  deposed  priests  of  the 
high  places  is  not  to  be  gathered.  On  the  contrary, 
Korah  cannot  be  the  representative  of  these 
whilom  bdmuth  priests,  for  in  the  post-exilic  period 
the  Korahites  belong  to  the  singers  or  to  the  door- 
keepers (1  Ch  6--  O"*  al.),  and  hence  ijc/t  to  the 
LeWtes  in  the  sense  of  that  term  as  used  by 
Ezekiel,  and  in  the  Memoirs  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiali, 
whose  use  of  the  term  is  fashioned  upon  Ezekiel's 
model.  Instead  of  a  conflict  between  former  priests 
of  the  high  places  and  the  old  Jerusalem  priests,  one 
might  see  in  the  narrative  about  Korah  the  de- 
scription of  a  conflict  in  the  time  after  Ezra,  when 
the  singers  were  reckoned  to  the  Le\'ites.  This  is 
the  view  of  Vogelstein  (p.  45  ff. ),  who,  upon  the 
ground  of  very  precarious  combinations,  places  an 
attempt  of  these  later  Levites  to  seize  the  right  of 
ofi'ering  incense,  in  the  time  of  the  high  priest 
Johanan  I.  (the  son  of  Joiada)  and  the  Persian 
satrap  Bagoses,  who  probably  belong  to  the  reign 
of  Artaxerxes  II.  (B.C.  404-359).  But  the  narrative 
of  Korah's  rebellion,  i.e.  the  later  account  of  the 
Priests'  Code  abon  t  this  rebel  1  ion  ( see  above,  §  8  d  enrf, 
and  cf.,  further,  below),  can  scarcely  be  separated 
from  the  Priests'  Code  of  Ezra  ( P-)  and  assigned  to 
a  later  innovation  ( P^) ;  for  then  the  law  of  Ezra 
would  merely  have  contained  a  narrative  giving 
expression  to  the  priestly  prerogatives  of  the  whole 
tribe  of  Levi  as  against  the  rest  of  the  congrega- 
tion. But  this  is  not  to  be  supposed,  .seeing  that 
the  Priests'  Code  (P-)  everywhere  insists  most  dis- 
tinctly on  the  priestly  rights  of  the  Aaronites 
alone.  This  it  does,  in  the  opinion  of  the  present 
writer,  not  in  opposition  to  claims  of  non-Jem- 
salemite  priests,  which  do  not  come  into  view  with 
1*-  at  all,  but  rather — and  -so  also  in  the  story  of 
Korah — in  opposition  to  pretensions  put  forward 
by  the  personnel  at  the  Jerusalem  temple  who 
were  not  counted  as  belonging  to  the  (Zadokite) 
priestly  family. 

The  duties  of  the  Levites  of  the  Priests'  Coda 
and  their  relations  to  priests  and  people  are  so 
vaguely  defined  as  to  give  rise  to  tlie  impression 
that  these  '  Levites,'  as  servants  of  the  priests,  are 
simply  an  innovation  of  the  legislator,  not  corre- 
sponding at  all  to  the  actually  exist!  ig  relations. 
Ill  other  words,  the  legislator  appears  to  havo 
written  at  a  time  when,  in  addition  to  a  special 
priestly   family,    namely    the    Aaronites    ot    the 


I 


PRIESTS  AXD  LEVITES 


PRIESTS  AXD  LEVITES 


89 


Priests'  Code,  there  was  not  a  class,  who  from 
their  descent  might  be  called  Levites,  servin"  as 
lower  othcials  at  the  sanctuary  ;  and  the  emmoy- 
nient  of  Lerites  for  this  ollice  appears  to  oe  a 
matter  of  pure  theory  on  the  jiart  of  the  le^'islator, 
whose  system  elsewhere  also  is  based  in  large 
measure  upon  ideal  construction.  He  appears  to 
substitute  the  name  '  Levites '  for  the  lower  grade 
of  sanctuary  servants,  singers,  and  doorkeepers. 
In  the  priestly  system  of  the  Priests'  Code,  so  far 
as  this  has  a  real  basis,  the  only  parties  in  view 
would,  in  this  way,  be  the  personnel  of  the  old 
Jerusalem  temi)le — a  circumstance  most  easily 
capable  of  explanation  if  this  system  took  its  rise 
at  a  time  when  one  had  no  motive  for  taking  into 
consideration  the  nou-Jerusalemite  priests  or  their 
descendants. 

The  Priest-s'  Code  is  acquainted,  on  the  other 
hand,  with  a  class  amongst  the  personnel  of  the 
sanctuary  with  wliich  we  meet  nowhere  in  the 
post-e.\ilic  period,  namely  the  serving  women  (see 
above,  §  8  e).  These  may  be  connected  with  tlie 
consecrated  women,  the  kUdishoth  of  the  ancient 
Can.'ianite  sanctuaries,  who  in  certain  pre-exilic 
periods  were  found  even  in  the  Jerusalem  temple 
(Gesfh.  pp.  36  f.,  IT'Jf. ;  cf.  Ismar  J.  Peritz,  'Woman 
in  the  ancient  Hebrew  Cult,'  in  JBL,  1898,  pt.  ii. 
p.  14511'.),  although  a  le'rislator  of  the  Janweh 
religion  could  not  think  of  women  at  the  sanctuary 
serving  the  purpose  of  the  Canaanite  hieroclouloi, 
but  only  as  employed  in  cleaning  and  such  like. 
A  later  age  did  away  with  these  serving  women 
entirclj',  as  tending  to  recall  the  hieroclouloi,  and 
as  furnishing  occ.ision  for  moral  abuses. 

The  designation  chosen  for  priests  in  the  Priests' 
Code,  namely  '  Aaronites,'  appears  to  the  present 
writer  to  point  to  the  time  before  Josiah's  reform, 
or  at  least  before  Ezekiel.  Its  result  was  that  a 
priestly  family  returned  with  Ezra,  which  traced 
Its  descent,  not,  like  the  Zadokites,  to  the  family 
of  Phinelias  or  Kleazar,  but  to  that  of  Ithamar 
(Ezr  8*  M),  and  thus  did  not  belong  to  the  old 
Jerusalem  priesthood.  The  real  existence  of  such 
non-Zadokite  'Aaronites'  is  also  probable  from 
other  indications.  As  we  found  occasion  to  con- 
clude (.see  above,  §  3,  cf.  §  2)  from  the  history  of 
Eli's  de.scenflant  Ebi.athar,  who  was  b.anished  to 
Anathoth,  and  of  the  priests  at  Anathoth  in 
Jeremiah's  time,  who  probably  traced  back  their 
de.scent  to  Ebiathar,  the  priesthood  of  Anathoth, 
in  distinction  from  the  house  of  Zadok,  held  itself 
to  be  derived  from  the  ancient  priestly  family  at 
the  time  of  the  Exodus,  and  perhaps  from  Aaron. 
Consequently,  the  enactment  of  the  Priests'  Code, 
that  the  sons  of  Aaron  are  all  entitled  to  exercise 
the  priestly  office,  was  not,  when  the  new  com- 
munity was  set  up,  litted  to  serve  the  special 
interest  of  the  Zadokites,  for  it  required  these  to 
treat  even  those  priests  who  did  not  belong  to 
their  family  as  equally  entitled  to  sacred  functions 
with  themselves.  I^ow  there  can  be  no  doubt 
that  the  author  of  the  jiriestly  legislation  of  the 
Priests'  Code  (P-)  belonged  to  the  priesthood  of 
Jerusalem,  for  otherwise  he  could  not  be  so  familiar 
as  he  is  with  the  ritu.al  of  the  one  legal  place  of 
worship,  the  tabernacle,  i.e.  the  antedated  single 
temple.  liut  it  ia  extremely  improbable  that  a 
Zaxlokite  of  the  period  after  Ezekiel  should,  in 
divergence  from  this  prophet,  have  conceded  to 
non-Zadokite  priests  equal  rights  with  the  Zadok- 
ites. The  substitution  of  the  ancient  Aaron  for 
the  relatively  modern  Zadok  cannot  be  a  mere 
play  with  names  on  the  part  of  an  exilic  or  post- 
exilic  legisl.ator,  for,  as  Ezr  8'  shows,  there  were 
actually  non  •  Zadokite  '  Aaronites.'  While  the 
aiUurciits  of  the  Graf  hypothesis  liml  hitherto  for 
the  most  part  seen  in  the  term  '  Aaronites'  simply 
an  archaism  for  'Zadokites,'   Kuenen  (ThT,  IS'.M), 


p.  28  II'. ),  latterly  agreeing  with  Oort,  the  present 
writer,  and  Vogelstein,  came  to  the  conclusion  we 
have  reached.  The  connotation  of  the  term  '  Aaron- 
ites '  is — and  this  not  merely  in  theory,  but  as 
applied  in  practice— even  in  the  post-exilic  period 
wider  than  that  of  'Zadokites.'  Kuenen,  accord- 
ingly, following  Oort  and  Vogelstein,  held  that  a 
compromise  took  place  between  the  Zadokites  after 
Ezekiel's  time  and  non-Zadokite  priestly  families, 
and  that  to  this  compromise  the  enactments  of  the 
Priests'  Code  owed  their  origin  (so  also  SchUrer, 
p.  239,  note  49;  cf.,  for  the  .same  explanation,  as 
the  lirst  after  Oort  [1884],  Stade,  GV/ii.,  Berlin, 
1888,  p.  104).  But  it  is  not  at  all  likely  that  on 
the  one  hand  Ezekiel's  distinction  between  non- 
Zadokite  Levites  and  Zadokites  should  have  gained 
acceptance,  as  it  undoubtedly  did,  to  such  an 
extent  that  a  new  cl.ass,  'the  Levites,'  was  formed 
out  of  the  former  priests  of  the  high  places ;  but 
that,  on  the  other  hand,  this  same  distinction 
found  so  little  acceptance  that,  in  direct  opposition 
to  it,  new  regulations  were  introduced,  by  which 
non-Zadokites  had  to  be  admitted  into  the  number 
of  the  priests.  About  the  j'ear  572  Ezekiel  had 
made  the  tirst  attempt  to  have  all  non-Zadokite 
Levites  declared  to  be  sanctuary  servants.  A 
movement  of  non-Zadokite  priestly  families  must, 
as  Oort  and  his  followers  thiiiK,  have  formed 
itself  in  opposition  to  this  ordinance,  and  must 
have  been  not  without  effect,  so  that,  when  Ezra 
returned  in  the  year  4.58,  Ezekiel's  limitation  of 
the  priesthood  was  already  forgotten  so  far  that  a, 
non-Zadokite  family  of  priests  joined  Ezra,  and  no 
opposition  was  ollered  to  the  recognition  of  their 
priestly  rights.  Of  a  decisive  contest  of  the  nou- 
Zadokite  priestly  families  with  tlie  Zadokites  in 
this  matter,  tradition  shows  no  trace,  and  the 
development  subsequently  to  Ezekiel's  time  is 
much  more  easily  explained  if  tlie  rule  entitling 
all  Aaronites  to  the  priesthood  was  an  older  one, 
with  which  an  adjustment  had  to  be  made.  With 
what  right  the  iiouse  of  Ithamar,  which  does 
not  apjiear  in  the  history  prior  to  Ezr  8'- (M),  was 
traced  back  to  Aaron,  as  is  done  in  the  Priests' 
Code,  it  is  impossible  to  s.ay  (cf.  Nowack,  p.  105, 
note  2).  But  it  is  not  likely  that  the  connexion  of 
Ithamar  with  Aaron  was  first  put  forward  after  the 
Ithamarites  under  Ezra  had  gained  entrance  to  the 
priesthood,  for  in  that  case  it  would  not  be  intelli- 
gible by  what  other  title  this  entrance  could  have 
been  gained  by  the  Itliamarites  in  opposition  to 
the  Zadokites  and  to  the  statutes  of  Ezekiel.  See- 
ing that  the  family  of  Eli  in  any  ca.se  w.as,  even  in 
pre-exilic  times  (in  view  of  1  S  2*',  and  probably 
also  I  K  2-'',  the  oracle  of  1  S  2-'"''-  cannot  be  exilic 
or  post-exilic),  traced  back  (1  S  2-'"-)  to  the  priest 
of  the  Exodus  (who  is  not,  indeed,  named),  the 
assumption  is,  to  say  the  least,  not  improb.iblo 
that  even  in  pre-exilic  times  there  were  non- 
Zadokite  priests  who  traced  their  descent  to  Aaron 
as  the  priest  of  the  Exodus.  The  very  same  con- 
clusion results  from  the  account  in  the  Jehovistic 
book  of  Aaron's  part  in  the  worsliij)  of  the  golden 
calf,  for  he  is  thus  presented  as  the  tj-jie,  nay 
probably  also  as  the  ancestor,  of  the  priests  of  the 
Northern  kingdom.  If  from  pre-exilic  times  there 
were  'Aaronites'  who  did  not  belong  to  the  house 
of  Zadok,  the  fact  that  the  name  '  Aaron  '  or  '  sons 
of  Aaron '  is  employed  by  a  legislator  belonging  '.o 
the  priesthood  of  tlie  only  legitimate  sanctuary, 
the  temi)le  of  Jerusalem,  for  this  very  priesthood, 
appears  to  the  present  writer  to  he  intcltigililo  only 
at  a  time  when  the  participation  of  non-Jeru- 
salemite  'Aaronites'  in  the  temple  cultus  did  not 
form  the  subject  of  question,  because  at  that  time 
they  did  not  desire  such  participation,  i.e.  at  a 
time  when,  besides  the  ti.Miiple  at  Jerusalem,  tlicre 
were  other   sanctuaries   at  which  they  could  dis- 


00 


PRIESTS  x\.XD  LEYITES 


PRIESTS  AND  LEVITES 


charge  priestly  service — in  other  words,  before 
Josiali's  reform. 

The  Priests'  Code  appears  to  the  present  writer 
to  betray  quite  clearly  the  circumstaiu-e  that,  at 
the  time  when  it  was  written,  all  Aaronites  did  not 
de  facto  enjoy  priestly  riglits,  but  only  that  branch 
to  which  (so  Ezr  7'*)  the  Zadokites  were  reckoned, 
namely  the  branch  of  I'hinehas  (cf.  Ezr  8-  M).  In 
Nu  25'-'-  it  is  only  to  Phinehas,  of  all  the  Aaronites, 
that  an  everlasting  priesthood  is  promised.  And 
yet  Ezra  had  to  admit  priests  who  were  not 
reckoned  to  the  house  of  PIiineha.s.  This  appears 
to  us  to  be  e-xjilicable  only  on  the  sup])usition  that 
th.at  saying  about  the  everlasting  priesthood  of 
Phinehas  alone  belongs  to  a  dillerent  age  from 
that  of  Ezra.  This  cannot  be  the  age  after  Ezra, 
for  the  nonZadokite  Ithamarites  who  under  him 
were  admitted  to  the  priesthood  at  Jerusalem  were 
not  afterwards  removed  from  this  ottiee  (Gesch.  p. 
139).  No  <loubt  the  Zadokite-s,  as  is  shown  by  the 
term  Sadducces  derived  from  their  family  name, 
formed  still  later  a  special  priestly  aristocracy^ ;  but 
this  does  not  authorize  our  taking,  with  Kuenen 
(ThT,  1890,  p.  37),  the  promise  of  an  everlasting 
priesthood  to  Phinehas  alone,  as  a  later  inter])ola- 
tion,  for  the  everlasting  priesthood  was  from  the 
time  of  Ezra  not  an  exclusive  characteristic  of 
Phinehas,  i.e.  of  the  Zadokites. 

In  the  narrative  of  the  Priests'  Code  regarding 
the  destruction  of  two  of  Aaron's  sons,  Nadab  and 
Abihu,  without  issue  (Lv  10'"',  Nu  3*  26«',  cf.  Lv 
16'),  we  should  apparently  find  either  a  reminiscence 
of  priestly  families  that  actually  died  out  (so,  fanci- 
fully, Ad.  Moses,  Nadab  und  Abihu  oder  der 
Untergang  dcr  Saulidcn  und  dcs  grosstcn  Theils 
des  Stammes  Benjamin,  Berlin,  1890:  Nadab  = 
Abinadab,  1  S  7' ;  Abihu  =  Abiel,  1  S  9'),  or  even  a 
polemic  against  the  claim  of  certain  families  to 
belong  to  '  Aaron.'  If  the  latter  is  the  case,  the 
genuineness  of  the  genealogy  of  these  families, 
which  went  back  to  Kadab  and  Abihu,  would  be 
denied,  since  these  sons  of  Aaron  perished  with- 
out leavin"  any  issue  behind  them.  It  is  impos- 
sible to  find  in  the  narrative  of  their  fate  any  indica- 
tion of  conditions  pointing  to  a  particular  period  of 
time,  unless  we  are  to  hold,  with  Oort  (p.  331), 
that  the  'strange  fire'  which  Nadab  and  Abihu 
brought  '  before  Jahweh '  has  reference  to  their 
participation  in  bam6th  worship.  The  eflect  of 
tills  would  be  that  in  this  narrative  the  Aaronite 
families  Nadab  and  Abihu  would  stand  for  the 
noa-Jenisalemite  priests  (as  '  Aaron '  stands  else- 
where for  the  priests  of  the  bull-worship)  who 
were  displaced  by  Aaron's  son  Eleazar,  whom  the 
Zadokites  regarded  as  their  ancestor.  Such  an  in- 
terpretation, however,  is  not  very  probable,  for  the 
'strange  fire'  is  at  least  offered  to  Jahweh,  which 
appears  to  presuppose  that  it  is  offered  at  the  legal 
sanctuary  and  not  in  the  high  places  (see,  further, 
art.  Nadab). 

The  designation  of  the  priests  as  '  Aaronites ' 
does  not  belong  to  the  oldest  strata  of  the  Priests' 
Code,  even  apart  from  the  Law  of  Holiness  and  the 
tOrOth  akin  to  it.  In  a  version  of  the  story  of 
Korah  which  has  been  worked  over,  and  wlii<h 
does  not  belong  to  the  Jehovistic  book  but  to  the 
Priests'  Code,  Korah  is  regarded  as  the  champion 
of  the  congregation  against  Moses  and  Aaron 
(Nu  16'),  i.e.  the  Levites.  Here  the  Levites  as  a 
body  are  thought  of  as  priests,  just  as  in  the 
narrative  of  the  rod  that  blossomed  (Nu  n'"") 
Aaron  is  the  representative  of  the  tribe  of  Levi, 
which  in  its  totality  is  thought  of  a-s  invested  with 
priestly  prerogatives.  In  ojiposition  to  this  older 
conception  of  the  Levites  as  priests,  the  main 
body  (P*)  of  the  Priests'  Code  seeks  to  establish 
the  exclusive  right  of  the  Aaronites,  i.e.,  in  the 
\  lew  of  the  legislator,  the  Jerusalem  priesthood. 


A  different  procedure,  again,  is  followed  by  a 
recent  addition  to  the  legislation,  which  seeks  to 
present  the  Levites  as  more  like  the  priests.  We 
refer  to  what  e\idently  was  never  carried  into 
actual  practice,  the  consecration  of  the  Levites 
(Nu  S""-),  which  is  intended  to  be  an  analogue  to 
the  consecration  of  the  priests.  This  representa- 
tion, which  shows  a  higher  estimate  of  the  Levites, 
will  belong  to  the  exilic  or  post-exilic  period  (P^), 
when  by  '  Levites'  were  understood  the  families  of 
the  former  priests  of  the  high  places,  and  it  was 
desired  to  gi\e  to  these  a  priest-like  rank  cone- 
sjionding  to  their  pretensions. 

Among  the  later  elements  of  the  Priests'  Code 
would  have  to  be  reckoned  also  the  description  of 
the  V  estments  of  the  high  priest,  if  we  are  to  see 
in  the  latter  an  investiture  with  the  insignia  of 
royalty,  of  which,  of  course,  there  could  be  no 
word  before  the  post-monarchical  period,  when 
the  high  priest  was  the  only  visible  head  of  Israel. 
But  the  purple  in  the  high  priest's  robe  can  hardly 
be  the  symbol  of  royalty  ;  the  principal  colour  of 
the  high  priest's  garments  is  not  red-  but  blue- 
purple.  The  diadem,  to  be  sure,  is  a  sign  of  princely 
rank,  but  '  holy  princes  '  (sarim)  appear  already  in 
the  exilic  '  Isaiah'  (43^),  surely  not  as  a  new  crea- 
tion of  the  Exile.  The  chief  priest  of  royal  Tyre 
assumed  a  very  high  dignity  as  '  next  after  the 
king'  (Movers,  Die  Phimizier,  II.  i.  1849,  p.  542 tt.). 
The  circumstance  that  the  high  priest  of  the 
Priests'  Code  bears,  as  the  most  important  item  ia 
his  attire,  the  Urim  and  Tliummim,  is  not  favour- 
able to  an  exilic  or  post-exilic  date  for  the  com- 
position of  the  passage  embodying  this  view,  for 
the  post-exilic  period  had  no  Urim  and  Thummim 
(Nell  7°°).  The  priests  in  old  Israel  were  in  posses- 
sion of  them  prior  to  the  overthrow  of  the  Northern 
kingdom  (Dt  33").  Perhaps  these  insignia,  and 
probably  also  the  sacred  ark,  were  lost  when  the 
temple  was  destroyed  by  Nebuchadrezzar.  Tliat 
the  author  of  the  Priests'  Code  had  before  his 
mind's  eye  the  post-exUic  high  priest  as  also  the 
secular  head  of  the  community,  does  not  follow 
from  Nu  27"  (Benzinger,  p.  423),  where  it  is  said 
that  Joshua  and  all  the  children  of  Israel  and  the 
whole  congregation  are  '  to  go  out  and  come  in  at 
the  word  of  Eleazar.'  Eleazar  gives  this  direction 
on  the  ground  of  the  Urim  and  Thummim,  that 
is,  God  issues  His  commands  through  him.  No 
other  means  of  ascertaining  the  will  of  God  was 
open  to  the  congregation  after  the  death  of  Moses; 
there  is  no  thought  here  of  a  ruling  position  occu- 
pied by  the  high  priest  himself,  least  of  all  of  the 
position  of  the  post-exilic  high  priest  who  had 
not  the  Urim  and  Thummim  at  all.  The  circum- 
stance that  in  Nu  34"  and  Jos  14'  the  priest 
Eleazar  is  mentioned  lirst,  before  Joshua,  among 
the  heads  of  the  people,  is  due  to  the  fact  that 
Eleazar,  as  Aaron's  son,  stands  in  a  closer  relation 
to  Moses,  the  former  leader  of  the  people,  than 
does  Mo.ses'  servant  Joshua  or  any  of  the  othe 
then  princes  of  the  people  (on  the  relation  betweci 
the  high  priest  in  P  and  in  the  post-exilic  period, 
cf.  Van  floonacker,  Saccrdoce,  etc.  p.  324  II. ). 

It  is  scarcely  possible  to  arrive  at  a  definite  date 
for  the  various  strata  of  the  priestly  sj-stem  in  the 
Priests'  Code,  and  thus  for  tne  Priests'  Code  as  a 
whole.  The  probable  conclusion  from  the  prece<I- 
ing  considerations,  if  these  are  justified, — differing 
from  what  is  reached  on  the  view  of  the  case 
adopted  by  the  majority  of  modem  critics, — would 
be  that  tlie  "iiain  stock  of  the  Priests'  Code  (P^) 
is  prior  to  Ezekiel,  and,  in  that  case,  belongs 
probably  even  to  the  period  preceding  Josiah  s 
reform  of  the  cultus.  The  programme  of  Ezekiel, 
which  in  one  wa}'  or  other  is  of  decisive  im- 
portance for  the  dating  of  the  Priests'  Code, 
appears  to  the   present  writer  to  be  intelligible, 


PRIESTS  AND  LEVITES 


PRIESTS  AND  LEVITES 


91 


if  the  prophet  considers  an  older  cultus-legislation 
to  ha\e  Deen  abolislied  with  the  overtlirow  of 
the  ancient  temple,  and  if  he  substitutes  a  new 
s}-steni  for  use  in  his  new  temple.  But  it  appears 
dilliiult  to  comprehend  how  a  legislator  posterior 
to  Kzokiel  should  have  displaced  the  law  of  the 
propliet  written  down  for  the  new  Israel  by  a  lej,'is- 
lative  scheme  of  his  own.  On  the  other  hand, 
n^'ain,  it  is  readily  intellipble  that  through  the 
impulse  of  the  law  of  Ezekiel,  and  owing  to  the 
new  conditions  and  the  new  conceptions  that  grew 
up  during  the  El.\ile,  expansions  and  modilications 
should  have  been  made  by  exilic  priests  u|ion  an 
ancient  law,  in  order  to  fit  it  for  application  to  the 
new  community.  The  form  of  the  Bk.  of  Ezekiel, 
apparently  intermediate  between  Deuteronomy  and 
tlie  Priests'  Code,  is  more  simplj'  explained  if 
Ezekiel  is  dependent,  not  only,  as  he  clearly  is, 
upon  Deuteronomy  and  Jeremiah,  but  also  upon 
an    older    code    emanating   from    the    Jerusalem 

Sriesthood,  tlian  if  he  makes  an  original  start  in 
ealing  with  the  cultus.  The  same  remark  applies 
to  his  language,  which  on  the  one  hand  recalls 
Deuteronomy  and  Jeremiah,  and  on  the  other 
hand  the  Priests'  Code. 

The  ditl'erent  views  held  as  to  the  date  of  the 
system  of  the  Priests'  Code  do  not  afl'ect  esscnti.ally 
the  actual  history  of  the  priesthood  itself  except 
on  a  few  points,  as,  for  instance,  in  the  view  whicli 
is  to  be  taken  of  the  position  of  the  chief  priest 
prior  to  the  time  of  Ezekiel,  if  the  Code  is  to  be 
placed  thus  early.  This  is  owing  to  the  fact  that 
the  organization  of  the  priesthood  in  the  Priests' 
Code  13  of  a  theoretical  character,  for  as  a  whole 
it  does  not  fit  the  real  conditions  of  any  period 
whatever.  Of  much  more  importance  is  the  ques- 
tion of  the  date  of  the  Priests  Code  for  the  history 
of  sacrifice. 

But,  whatever  date  may  be  fixed  for  the  redac- 
tion of  the  system  of  this  legislation,  it  will  not  be 
possible  to  avoid  the  conclusion  that  the  whole 
body  of  ritual  set  up  in  it  could  not  have  taken 
its  rise  in  its  special  form — i.e.  in  its  deviation 
from  Dt  and  Ezk — during  the  relatively  short 
period  between  Ezekiel  (B.C.  572)  and  Ezra  (B.C. 
458),  namely  some  110  years,  but  that  it  represents 
a  long  development  of  cultus-practice  as  well  as 
cultus-language.  The  beginnings  of  this  de\  elon- 
nieut  go  back  in  any  case  to  the  pre-exilic  period, 
and  are  not  unintelligible  there,  wlien  we  consider, 
what  to  the  mind  of  the  present  writer  is  dear, 
tliat  the  Deuteronomic  law  did  not  emanate  from 
the  priesthood  at  Jerusalem,  in  which  case  no 
specimen  of  the  cultus-language  and  cultus-practice 
of  this  priesthood  prior  to  Ezekiel  lia-s  been  pre- 
served outside  the  Priests'  Code,  and  when  we 
note,  further,  that  Jeremiah  (8")  is  acquainted 
with  a  literary  actinty  exercised  in  the  way  of 
giving  form  to  the  t6rah,  an  activity  of  which  he 
disapproves,  and  whicli  therefore  cannot  be  taken 
to  reler  to  the  codifying  of  the  Deuteronomic  law, 
with  which  the  prophet  undeniably  syinpatliizcd. 
AVhat  incurs  hLs  disapproval  can  scarcely  be  any- 
thing else  than  the  resolving  of  God's  will,  wliich 
lie  interprets  ethicallj'  ("-'■),  into  ritual  dcmamls. 
Here,  then,  in  Jeremiah  we  find  pretty  clear  traces 
of  a  priestly  literary  activity  answering  to  the  rise 
of  the  Priests'  Code.  Those  literary  productions, 
however,  as  may  be  gathered  from  the  same  refer- 
ence in  Jeremiah,  have  not  yet  gained  the  iiosition 
of  a  generally  accepted  ceremonial  law.  Even  the 
Deuteronomic  law  betrays  no  acquaintance  with 
this  la.st,  but  knows  only  of  some  particular  tOrCih 
for  the  priests  (Dt  24'),  which  may  afterwards  have 
been  taken  over  by  the  Priests'  Code  (see  above, 
§  8  a).  On  the  other  hand,  a  point  which  cannot 
be  more  fully  discussed  here,  the  redaction  of 
the  Deuteronomic  law  and  the  position  it  assigns  to 


this  as  a  farewell  address  of  Moses,  presujjposes  an 
acquaintance  with  the  Priests' Code,  and  an  accept- 
ance of  it  as  the  law  proper,  of  which  Dt  is  meant 
to  appear  as  a  recapitulation.  The  redaction  of 
Dt  is,  in  view  of  its  relations  to  the  Deuteronomic 
law,  not  to  be  placed  at  a  very  great  distance  frou 
the  latter  ;  it  cannot  belong  to  so  late  a  period  as 
the  rise  of  the  new  post-exilic  coniniunlly. 

If  the  sj'stem  of  the  Priestly  Writing  is  earlier 
than  the  Exile,  and  thus  probably  prior  to  Josiah's 
reform,  it  can  have  originated  at  such  a  time  jmrely 
as  an  ideal  picture  sketched  by  a  Jeru.'^.ilcm  i)riest, 
and  not,  or  at  least  only  very  partially,  as  a  de- 
scription of  the  actually  existing  state  of  things. 
At  whatever  time  the  I'riests'  Code  was  written, 
the  first  unmistakable  trace  which  at  the  same 
time  is  capable  of  being  dated  with  certainty,  of 
the  influence  of  the  system  embodied  in  it,  is  to  be 
found  in  the  place  given  to  the  high  priest  in 
Zechariah,  and  the  first  evidence  of  its  close  is 
found  in  tlie  reading  aloud  of  the  law  in  the  time 
of  Ezra. 

9.  The  Priesthood  fuom  Ezra  to  the 
Chronicler.— After  the  Pentateuch  had,  under 
Ezra,  obtained  recognition  as  the  lawbook,  we 
find,  as  could  not  but  have  been  expected,  that 
the  relations  of  the  sanctuary  servants  were 
moulded  according  to  the  finished  system  set  forth 
in  the  Priests'  Code.  The  Deuteronomic  views  of 
these  relations,  not  being  rounded  off  into  one 
well  -  compacted  whole,  must  give  place  to  this 
system. 

Thus,  \vith  the  author  of  the  chronicle  written 
between  B.C.  300  and  200,  i.e.  in  the  Books  of 
Chronicles  and  in  the  redaction  by  his  hand  of  the 
Books  of  Ezra  and  Neheniiah,  we  lind  the  relations 
of  the  personnel  of  the  sanctuary,  as  these  had 
existed  in  the  time  of  Ezra  and  Isehcmiah,  modi- 
fied in  various  points,  in  order  to  bring  them  more 
into  harmony  with  the  requirements  of  the  Priests' 
Code.  The  Chronicler  tran-^fers  the  relations  ex- 
isting in  his  own  time  without  distinction  to 
earlier  times,  as  if  everything  had  been  in  force 
in  the  same  way  from  the  time  of  David  down- 
wards. It  is  possible,  indeed,  that  his  descrip- 
tions do  not  in  every  single  point  correspond  to  the 
actual  conditions  of  his  own  daj'.  It  cannot, 
however,  be  inferred  from  this,  with  Van  Hoon- 
acker,  that  the  Chronicler  portraj's  the  i)re-exilic 
conditions  as  these  really  existed,  for  this  con- 
clusion is  opposed  by  all  that  we  know  from 
earlier  writings.  The  Chronicler  may  be  assumed 
to  have  used  for  the  pre-exilic  historj-,  at  least 
indirectly  if  not  directly,  ancient  sources  that  have 
not  come  down  to  us,  but  for  his  account  of  the 
condition  of  the  priesthood  prior  to  the  Exile  ho 
certainly  had  no  such  sources  at  his  disposal. 
Wherever  this  account  exhibits  a  deviation  from 
the  conditions  after  the  Exile,  the  Chronicler 
evidently  puts  forward,  as  a  rule,  not  something 
corresponding  to  any  actual  state  of  things,  but 
only  what  appeared  to  him  desirable.  His  de- 
scriptions tend  to  glorify  the  Levites,  to  whom  he 
everywhere  shows  regard  even  more  than  to  the 
priests.  Piobaldy  he  was  himself  a  Levite,  and, 
in  view  of  his  special  interest  in  the  tcniiilc  singers, 
ho  may  have  belonged  to  this  group  of  tlie  Levites. 

The  Chronicler  is  accjuaintcd  with  24  divisions 
or  families  of  priests,  which,  after  his  manner, 
he  carries  back  to  the  time  of  David  (1  Ch 
24™).  Since  in  the  list  of  these  divisions,  as  it 
lies  before  us,  the  first  place  is  occupied  by  the 
family  of  Joiarib,  from  which  the  Hasmono^ans 
sprang,  it  may  perhaps  be  inferred  that  this  list 
was  first  drawn  up  in  the  Hasmomcan  period 
(Schiirer,  p.  237,  note  44).  These  24  juiestly 
families  are  referred  to,  in  some  instances  clearly, 
in    others    at    least    to    all    appearance,    by  the 


92 


PRIESTS  AND  LEVITES 


PEIESTS  AND  LEVITES 


terms  mahUMth,  •  divisions'  (1  Ch  24'  28i>-  ",  2  Ch 
8"  [-238?]  31""');  blth  'abSth,  'fathers'  houses' 
(1  Ch  24''-  '  al.) ;  and  mishmarutk,  '  watches '  (2  Ch 
31'"),  tliis  last  occurring  already  in  Nehemiah 
(13*'  M).  According  to  the  Rabbinic  tradition, 
the  24  classes,  with  which  Josephus  {Ant.  VII. 
xiv.  7  ;  Vita,  1)  is  acquainted  as  still  existing  in 
his  time,  are  lield  to  have  been  in  existence  from 
the  time  of  the  Exile  (Schurer,  p.  232  f.).  Tliis 
cannot  be  quite  correct.  The  list  in  Neh  V"' 
names  only  four  priestly  families  (cf.  Ezr  10'*"--), 
and  two  returned  with  Ezra  (Ezr  8'  M).  But 
Neh  12'-''  mentions,  for  the  time  of  Zerubbabel 
and  Joshua,  22  divisions  of  priests,  and  the 
same,  with  one  omission,  are  given  in  Neh  12'^'^' 
for  the  time  of  Joiakim  the  son  of  Joshua. 
Neh  lO'-*,  on  the  other  hand,  names  21  divi- 
sions, in  which,  indeed,  the  names  show  changes 
(cf.  Ed.  Meyer,  p.  168  tf.).  Those  four  families  in 
Neh  7  should  therefore  probably  be  thought  of  as 
falling  into  subdivisions.  The  two  groups  that 
returned  with  Ezra  do  not  necessarily  represent 
other  two  families  besides  those  four  ;  tney  are 
representatives  of  the  two  great  branches  into 
which,  according  to  the  Priests'  Code,  the  whole 
body  of  priests  falls,  namely  Phinehas  (or  Eleazar) 
and  Ithamar,  i.e.  Zadokites  and  non-Zadokites. 
The  heads  of  the  21  to  24  divisions  are  spoken  of 
as  ra'shim  of  fathers'  houses  (Neh  12>2,  1  Ch  24^«), 
with  whom  we  should  probably  identify  the  priest- 
princes  [sdrim)  of  Ezr  8=<-  ^  M,  10»,  2  Ch  36'*. 

The  Chronicler  divides  the  singers  likewise 
into  24  classes  (1  Ch  25),  and  appears  to  have 
designed  to  give  in  like  manner,  for  the  Levites  in 
general,  a  list  of  24  classes,  which  has  certainly 
not  reached  us  in  a  correct  form  in  the  present 
text  of  1  Ch  23'-^.  Since  the  division  of  the 
Levites  into  24  classes  is  witnessed  to  in  the  period 
posterior  to  the  OT  (Jos.  Ant.  VII.  xiv.  7  ;  cf. 
Schiirer,  p.  242,  and,  on  the  other  side,  Van  Hoon- 
acker,  Sacerdoce,  etc.  p.  41  tt'.),  these  statements 
of  the  Chronicler  are  probably  due  to  the  circum- 
stance that  with  him  the  classes  of  singers  and 
Levites  are  practically  identical  (see  below,  §  10). 
Di\-isions  of  the  Levites,  without  specification  of 
the  number  of  these,  are  presupposed  by  the 
Chronicler  in  various  ways  (mahUkuth,  1  Ch  28"-  ^' 
al.  ;  mifhmdrOth  of  the  Levites  [singers]  and 
mammh  of  the  doorkeepers,  2  Ch  8" ;  [bUh'i 
'abOth  of  the  Levites,  1  Cli  9**  al.),  and  even 
Nehemiah  (IS*'  M)  speaks  of  mishmdrith  of  the 
Levites.  The  heads  of  the  divisions  of  the  Levites, 
like  those  of  the  priests,  are  called  by  the  Chronicler 
sdrtm  (Ezr  10»,  1  Ch  IS"'-  al.)  or  ra'shim  (Neh 
12*"-,  1  Ch  9^'-  [of  the  singers  and  doorkeepers, 
yy  14-32]  (j;  )  Xn  the  Priests'  Code  nasi'  is  the 
designation  of  the  heads  of  the  Levitical  fathers' 
houses  (Nu  3°^"-),  along  with  wliicli  we  find  ra'shim 
used  of  the  heads  of  the  whole  tribe  of  Levi  (Ex 
6"). 

In  the  position  of  the  high  priest  no  essential 
change  can  be  traced  since  the  time  of  Ezra.  The 
very  first  of  the  post-exilic  high  priests  assumed 
the  place  claimea  for  liim  in  the  Priests'  Code. 
Nehemiah  (3'-  *•  M,  13^  M)  and  the  Clironicler 
give  to  the  high  priest  the  title  of  ha-kohen  ha- 
gadul  (2  Ch  34"),  the  Chronicler  has  also  the  older 
title  [ha-'\  kohcn  hn-ro'sh  (Ezr  7»,  2  Ch  19"  a/.). 
In  addition,  the  Clironicler  employs  the  designa- 
tion, not  found  in  the  Pentateuch,  '  prince  [nagitl] 
of  the  house  of  God'  (1  Ch  9"  al.;  cf.  'prince  of 
Aaron,'  1  Ch  27'°'),  which  marks  the  later  time 
when  the  high  priest  was  at  the  same  time  the 
head  of  the  political  community.  Usually,  how- 
ever, the  Chronicler  (1  Ch  16*'),  as  well  as  Nehe- 
miah (Neh  13*  M),  calls  the  high  priest  simply 
'  the  priest,'  as  is  likewise  done  frequently  in  the 
Priests'  Code. 


By  the  Chronicler,  as  in  the  Priests'  Code,  the 
priests  recognized  are  tlie  Aaronites,  including;  both 
the  Eleazarites  and  the  Ithamarites  (1  Ch  24™-  al.). 
The  equalizing  of  the  latter  with  the  Zadokites 
{i.e.  Eleazarites),  which  as  a  necessary  concession 
to  the  system  of  the  Priests'  Code  appears  to  have 
been  first  recognized  under  Ezra  (Ezr  8^  il),  has 
thus  become  permanent. 

A  ditlerence,  as  compared  with  the  conditions  in 
the  time  of  Ezra,  reveals  itself  with  the  Clironicler 
only  in  regard  to  the  inferior  personnel  of  the 
temple,  and  in  some  points  concerning  the  relatioE 
of  tliis  to  the  priests.  A  distinction  between 
Levites  on  the  one  hand  and  singers  and  door- 
keepers on  the  other,  such  as  we  noted  (see  above, 
§  7)  in  the  time  of  Ezra,  is  no  longer  made.  The 
written  source  in  which  the  Chronicler  would 
appear  to  have  found  at  the  same  time  the 
Memoirs  of  Ezra  and  those  of  Nehemiah,  appears 
to  have  still  made  this  distinction,  seeing  that 
even  outside  the  Memoir  passages  in  the  Bks.  of 
Ezr  and  Neh  the  singers  are  only  very  occasionallj', 
and  the  doorkeepers  not  at  all,  reckoned  to  one 
comprehensive  class,  the  Levites  {Gesch.  p.  143  f.). 
On  the  other  hand,  for  the  Chronicler  singers  and 
doorkeepers  are  subdivisions  of  the  one  class,  the 
Levites  (1  Ch  G'S"-  [note  v.^-]  9="  al.,  see  Gesch. 
p.  151  fl.).  C.  C.  Ton-ey  (The  Cotnposiiion  and 
Historical  Value  of  Ezya-Nehcmiah,  Giessen,  1896, 
p.  22  f.)  is  decidedly  wrong  when  he  denies  the 
existence  of  a  dilierence  in  this  respect  between 
the  Chronicler  and  the  older  portions  of  the  Bks. 
of  Ezi-a  and  Nehemiah  (see  above,  §  7).  Still  less, 
in  view  of  the  material  evidence  tliat  exists,  can  it 
be  held,  with  Koberle  and  Van  Hoonacker  {Sater- 
dace,  etc.  p.  49,  cf.  70),  that  the  reckoning  of  the 
singers  and  doorkeepers  to  the  Levites,  as  we  find 
done  by  the  Chronic-ler  in  the  Bks.  of  Chronicles 
themselves  and  in  his  working  over  of  the  sources 
of  Ezr  and  Neh,  is  presupposed  by  Ezra  and  Nehe- 
miah as  existin",  and  rests  even  upon  a  pre-exilic 
application  of  the  name  '  Levites '  to  those  classes 
of  sanctuary  servants.  On  the  contrary,  the 
application  of  the  name  'Levite'  even  to  the 
smgers  and  doorkeepers  is  plainly  introduced 
through  the  influence  of  the  Priests  Code,  which 
knows  of  only  the  one  class  besides  the  priests, 
namely  the  Levites.  The  Nethinim,  who  under 
Ezra  were  received  into  tlie  community  (Neh  10-'), 
appear  to  have  disappeared  at  the  time  of  the 
Clironicler,  who  mentions  them  only  once,  namely 
at  the  time  of  the  founding  of  the  first  post-exilic 
community  (1  Ch  9-).  \\'hetlier  they  were  re- 
moved from  the  service  of  the  sanctuary  or  by 
a  genealogical  device  were  absorbed  among  the 
Levites  can  scarcely  be  determined,  but  even  here 
the  influence  of  the  Priests'  Coile  is  unmistakable. 

For  the  priests  tlie  Chronicler  sometimes  uses 
the  expression,  which  is  somewhat  strange  for  him, 
ha-kohdnim  ha-lcwiyyim.  It  is  not,  indeed,  quite 
certain  that  he  actually  uses  it,  for  the  copulative 
waw  may  easily  have  dropped  out  between  the  two 
appellations  just  quoted,  and  the  readings  of  the 
M.SS  vacillate  (Gesch.  p.  15411'.).  But  there  is  an 
a  priori  probability  in  favour  of  the  reading  with- 
out VMW,  for  this  form  of  expression  is  just  what 
does  not  correspond  with  the  ordinary  usage  of 
later  times,  and  in  any  case  in  2  Ch  3^,  where  it 
is  said  of  the  '  Levite  priests '  that  they  blessed 
the  people,  this  reading  is  undoubtedly  correct, 
since  blessing  is  the  function  of  the  priests  ex- 
clusively. In  this  instance,  by  way  of  exception, 
the  terminology  of  Dt  has  again  forced  itself  to 
the  front,  aa  in  like  manner  the  desijjnation 
'  Levites '  is  also  occasionally  still  used  Iby  the 
Chronicler  in  a  -nnder  sense  so  as  to  include  tlia 
priests  (Gesch.  p.  136).  In  the  employment  of  the 
title  '  Levite  priests '  we  may  find  an  approxima- 


PKIESTS  AITD  LEVITES 


PRIESTS  AND  LEYITES 


93 


tion  of  the  position  of  the  Levites  to  tliut  of  the 
priests,  whicli  would  liave  to  be  viewed  iis  a  con- 
cession to  tlie  pretensions  of  those  whom  Ezekiel 
and  Ezra  called  Levites,  namely  the  descendants 
of  the  deposed  priests  of  the  high  places. 

Snch  a  raisin"  of  the  dignity  of  the  Levites 
Would  not  be  witliout  analo^es  in  Chronicles.  In 
point  of  fact  they  have  in  these  books  a  more 
iiriest-like  standing.  This  is  shown,  in  particular, 
1)V  the  -services  they  have  to  render  at  the  ollering 
ol  the  burnt-oU'ering  on  the  Sabbaths,  and  at  the 
new  moons  and  gieat  festivals  (1  Ch  23^'),  and  by 
their  (in  an  exceptional  way)  helping  the  priests  to 
Hay  the  victims  on  the  occasion  of  extraordinary 
oMerings  for  the  whole  people  (2  Ch  29**).  From  the 
latter  passage  it  may  be  inferred  that  the  service 
of  the  Levites  at  the  ottering  of  the  burntotlering 
also  on  holy  days  consisted  in  the  Haying,  and,  it 
may  be,  in  accordance  with  Ezekiel's  enactment, 
the  slaying  of  the  victims.  At  all  events,  in 
Chronicles  it  is  the  Levites  who  undertake  the 
killing  and  flayin"  of  tlie  Paschal  lambs,  h.and  to 
tlie  priests  the  blood  for  sprinklinj;  (2  Ch  Su'""- 
35«.  lui.)^  ,^[,j  attend  to  the  roasting  of  the  Paschal 
ottering  (2  Ch  .S5'^') ;  whereas  in  the  Priests'  Code 
it  is  the  head  of  the  house  who  kills  and  roasts  the 
Paschal  lamb  (E.x  I2«f- ;  Gesch.  p.  163).  On  the 
other  hand,  in  2  Ch  29=2- «  it  is  the  priests  who  slay 
the  sacriUces,  probably  because  we  nave  here  to  do 
with  e.xtraordinary  sacrilices  for  the  whole  people. 
By  tlie  '  Kohathite  Levites'  who  prepare  the  shew- 
bread  (1  Ch  9^-),  the  Chronicler  appears  to  mean 
not  the  Aaronites  (who,  to  be  sure,  belonged  to  the 
Kohathites),  to  whom  alone  that  duty  falls  in  the 
Priests'  Code  (but  cf.  Gesch.  p.  161  f.).  While, 
further,  in  the  Priests'  Code  the  duty  of  teadiing 
belongs  only  to  the  priests,  this  duty,  particularly 
that  of  instructing  in  the  tordh,  is  assigned  in 
Neh  8'-»  (cf.  v."),  2  Ch  17»'-  35'  also  to  the  Levites 
{Gesch.  p.  163f.).  The  more  priest-like  jjosition  of 
•  he  Levites  ttnds  quite  peculiar  expression  in  the 
tact  that  in  Chronicles  not  only  the  priests,  as  in 
the  Priests'  Code,  but  also  the  Levites  are  called 
holy  (2  Ch  23"  35';  cf.,  further,  Ezr  8-»  M,  where 
already  the  Levites  seem  to  be  included  [with  the 
priests]  in  the  '  Ye  are  holy  to  Jahweh '). 

Rcgardin"  the  serWce  of  the  doorkeepers  in  par- 
ticular, we  learn  that  they  had  daily  to  set  in  all 
24  watches,  under  four  chiefs  belonging  to  the 
doorkeepers,  at  the  four  quarters  of  the  temple 
(ICh  26'-"")  —  an  arrangement  which,  although 
given  as  existing  in  the  time  of  TXivid,  will  really 
have  reference  to  the  temple  of  Zeruhbabel.  As 
concerns  thevinjrfr.v,  HuchleriJ^T^JIF,  lS9!t,  p.  97  H.) 
s.eks  to  prove  that  tlie  data  regarding  teiiijile 
music  and  tenii)le  singing  were  not  found  in  the 
authority  u.sed  by  tlie  Chronicler,  and  are  thus 
added  by  himself.  This  is  not  impossible;  but  so 
sharp  a  distinction  between  the  Chronicler  and  his 
authority  (the  lost  Midra.sh  on  Kings),  with  which 
we  are  wholl}'  unacquainted,  ajipears  to  the  present 
writer  incapable  of  being  carried  out. 

There  is,  moreover,  an  'external  activitT,'  i.e. 
one  outside  the  sanctuary,  assigned  to  the  Levites 
in  Chronicles  (1  Ch  26™).  They  are  employed  as 
over.-teers  and,  like  the  priests,  as  judges  (1  Ch  23* 
26^«/. ).  In  particular,  their  charge  of  measures 
is  referred  to  in  1  Ch  2:^'^"  {Gesch.  j).  162).  While 
the  Priests'  Code  fixes  the  commencement  of  the 
Leiites'  service  at  their  thirtieth,  or,  according 
to  an  innovation,  their  twenty-lifth  year,  they 
have,  according  to  1  Ch  2.T-""'  and  other  passages, 
to  serve  from  their  twentieth  year  <inward8 — an 
arrangement  which  the  Chronicler  is  aware  is  a 
deviation  from  the  legal  statute,  and  which  he 
geeks  to  justify  as  a  change  made  by  David. 

In  the  matter  of  the  revenues  falling  to  the 
priests  and   Levites,    from   the   time   of   Ezra  an 


attempt  was  made  to  carrj'out  the  pre.scri])tiinis  of 
the  Priests'  Code.  P.ut  the  setting-up  of  Levitical 
cities  was  as  little  carried  into  practice  after  Ezra 
as  it  had  been  up  till  then.  When  the  Chronicler 
represents  these  cities  as  having  existed  in  the 
time  of  Da^nd  (1  Ch  13°)  and  later,  this  is  simply 
due  to  his  theory,  which  he  forgets  in  2  Ch  23-, 
where  the  Levites,  at  the  accession  of  Joash,  are 
assembled  out  of  all  the  cities  of  Judah.  Nor  is 
the  meaning  of  the  7»i;jr('ish  of  the  Levitical  cities 
quite  clear  to  the  Chronicler  (2  Ch  31'").  Accord- 
ing to  Neh  7"=  Ezr  2™,  and  other  passages,  in  the 
post-exilic  period  priests,  Levites,  singers,  door- 
keepers, and  Nethinim  dwelt  dispersed  in  various 
localities,  which  did  not,  however,  bear  the  char- 
acter of  the  Levitical  cities  of  the  Priests'  Code. 
So  also  in  the  period  subsequent  to  the  OT,  the 
priests  did  not  all  live  at  Jerusalem  :  the  Maccabees 
came  from  Modein  (1  Mac  2'),  to  which,  indeed, 
they  had  retired  from  Jerusalem  only  in  conse- 
quence of  the  troubles  under  Antiochus  Epiphanes  ; 
and  the  priest  Zacharias  (Lk  P'-"-)  had  his  home  in 
the  hill-country  of  Judah  (cf.  Biichler,  Pricater, 
pp.  1,59-205:  'Die  Priester  ausserhalb  Jeru- 
salem's'). The  doorkeepers,  according  to  1  Ch  9-°, 
betook  themselves  every  seven  days,  according  to 
their  divisions,  from  their  villages  to  Jerusalem  to 
perform  their  service.  The  Levites  and  singer? 
(and  so,  no  doubt,  the  priests  also)  in  Neheniiah's 
time  possessed  at  their  places  of  residence  fields, 
from  whose  produce  they  supported  themselves 
when  their  dues  were  not  paid  (Neh  13'"  M),  and 
probably  in  general  when  thej'  were  not  on  duty, 
for  the  tenth  in  the  time  of  Nehemiah  was  paid  at 
the  temple  (Neh  13'- '='•  M),  and  thus  will  hardly 
have  extended  to  the  LeWtes  and  priests  outside 
Jerusalem.  The  Nethinim  lived  in  Neheniiah's 
time  on  the  Ophf.i,  (which  see)  at  Jerusalem  (Neh 
3^1.31  M).  ^i,g  (ofhciating)  luiests  had  houses  in 
Jerusal(Mn,  situated  apparently  on  the  temple  area 
(Neh3-'^M).  _ 

On  the  subject  of  the  dues  falling  to  the  temple 
personnel,  we  have  a  certain  anumnt  of  informa- 
tion for  the  time  of  Nehemiah.  The  Latter  tells  us 
in  his  Memoirs  (Neh  13'')  that  before  his  departure 
from  Jerusalem  the  tenth  of  corn,  must,  and  oil 
w;is  paid  and  deposited  in  the  storehouses  as  tha 
portion  of  the  Levites,  temple-singers,  and  door- 
keepers, which  three  classes  received  the  tenth, 
and  the  priest  the  tSrnmdh.  The  tiiri'tmdh  here 
might  possibly  mean  the  tenth  of  the  tenth,  but 
linguistic  usage  favours  rather  our  referring  it  to 
tlie  handing  over  of  the  first-fruits.  In  th.at  case 
the  [laying  of  the  tenth  of  the  tenth  to  the  prie^t^ 
is  not  witnessed  to  for  the  time  of  Nelieniiah. 
The  tenth  of  the  tenth  in  Neh  lO*'-'"'  owes  its 
presence  apparently  to  a  later  hand  {Gc.ir/i.  p. 
171  f.),  to  which  is  due  also  the  additional  enact- 
ment, which  perhaps  suits  even  tlie  time  of 
Nehemiah,  but  in  any  case  is  cliaracteristic  of  the 
later  develojuiient,  that  an  Aaroiiite  iiriest  is  to 
superintend  the  operations  of  the  Levites,  as  they 
receive  the  tithes  (v.'"').  After  a  while  remissness 
in  paying  the  tithes  set  in,  so  that  Nehemiah  at 
his  second  visit  had  to  adopt  drastic  measures  in 
order  to  bring  the  payment  of  them  into  force 
again  (Neh  13'""-  M).  There  is  no  mention  in 
Nehemiah  of  the  tenth  of  cattle.  The  demand  for 
this  made  by  the  Priests'  Coile  is  probably  an 
innovation,  the  result  of  i)Uiely  theoretical  con- 
struction, and  is  perhaps  not  earlier  than  the 
period  subsequent  to  Nehemiah.  The  Clironi<lcr, 
on  the  other  hand,  is  acquainted  with  the  reciuire- 
ment  of  the  tenth  of  cattle  (2  Ch  31«).  Priests  and 
Levites  were  ajipointed  by  Nehemiah  to  take 
charge  of  the  wood  that  had  to  he  delivered  at 
fixed  times,  and  of  the  lii/c/ciirim  (Neh  13»"'-  M). 
According  to  Neh  1(P  those  contributions  of  wood 


J 


94 


PRIESTS  AND  LEVITES 


PRIESTS  AND  LEVITES 


for  the  requirements  of  the  altar  of  burnt-offering 
were  imposed  upon  the  priests,  the  Levites,  and  the 
people— a  prescription  whipli  is  not  contained  in 
the  Pentateuch,  although  tliis  passa^'e  in  Nchemiah 
api)cals  to  the  Torah  (but  c{.  Lv  6"). 

The  Clironider  or  liis  predecessor  in  tlie  redac- 
tion of  the  Memoirs  of  Neheniinh  had  no  longer 
a  clear  understanding  of  the  whole  of  the  regula- 
tions respecting  dues.  It  is  impossible  to  gain  a 
distinct  view  from  the  confused  picture  he  draws 
{Ge.-<ch.  p.  169  ff.).  Only  in  Chronicles  is  there  any 
allusion  to  a  tenth  of  honey  (2  Ch  31') ;  the  tenth 
of  dedicated  gifts  which  is  likewise  mentioned  (v."), 
rests  upon  a  confusion  of  the  tenth  with  the 
teritmdh.  The  various  kinds  of  dues  are  most 
concisely  enumerated  in  Neli  12*',  a  passage  re- 
garding which  it  is  doubtful  whether  it  belongs 
to  the  Memoirs  of  Nehemiah.  Three  species  are 
named  in  it :  tSrumuth,  re'shith,  and  tenth.  On 
this  is  based  the  Talmudic  distinction  of  three 
kinds  of  dues,  which  finds  no  direct  support  in  the 
Torah. 

10.  The  Priesthood  after  OT  Times.— Several 
further  developments  in  the  relations  of  the  per- 
sonnel of  the  sanctuary  still  show  themselves  in 
the  period  subsequent  to  the  OT. 

a.  Priestt!  and  Levites. — The  consequence  of  the 
inclusion  of  the  singers  and  doorkeepers  among 
the  Levites  was  that  these  two  classes,  which  at 
the  time  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  were  much  more 
numerous  than  the  Levites  so-called  in  the  narrower 
sense,  dispossessed  these  of  their  unique  character. 
At  least  the  tendency  to  this  result  is  already  dis- 
coverable in  the  OT  in  Chronicles,  where  singers 
and  doorkeepers  play  a  more  important  part  than 
the  Levites  so-called  in  the  narrower  sense,  so  that 
one  might  be  tempted  to  suggest  that  the  latter 
had  even  for  the  Chronicler  merely  a  theoretical 
existence  (Vogelstein,  pp.  30,  102 if.).  It  is  doubt- 
ful whether  in  1  Ch  O"""  other  '  Levites'  (w."-  *«•) 
besides  the  doorkeepers  (vv."-  ^^)  and  the  singers 
(v.^)  are  assumed  to  exist  [Gesch.  p.  157 f.).  The 
Talmud  at  all  events  knows  only  two  kinds  of 
Levitical  service,  that  of  song  and  that  of  w^atching 
in  the  temple  (cf.  Maimonides,  ap.  Vogelstein, 
1>.  85;  and,  further,  Blichler,  Priester,  p.  118  ti'., 
esp.  136  ff. ).  This  is  a  result  that  is  not  surprising 
in  view  of  the  origin  of  the  Levites  in  the  narrower 
sense.  The  ancient,  i.e.,  as  would  appear,  pre- 
e.\ilic  (see  above,  §  3  end),  classes  of  sanctuary 
servants  included,  besides  the  priests,  only  the 
singers  and  doorkeepers.  The  class  known  to 
Ezekiel  and  in  the  time  of  Kzra  as  '  Levites'  was 
an  artiKcial  creation,  which  served  only  the  purpose 
of  disposing  of  the  old  non- Jerusalem ite  priests. 
In  so  far  as  these  were  not,  like  the  Ithamarites, 
admitted  to  the  post-exilic  priesthood,  they  received 
as  'Levites' an  intermediate  place,  which  is  hard 
to  deline,  between  the  priests  on  the  one  liand  and 
the  singers  and  doorkeepers  on  the  other.  Thus 
it  came  about  that  at  last  the  Levites  /car'  i^oxh" 
were  absorbed  in  the  singers  and  doorkeepers,  who 
constituted  the  only  two  surviving  professional 
classes  of  Levites.  In  this  way  the  arrangement 
gained  ground,  which  the  author  of  the  I'riests' 
Code,  if  we  judged  rightly,  had  in  view.  He 
thought  of  his  Levites  as  singers  (for  he  reckons  to 
them  the  singer-family  of  the  Korahites)  and  door- 
keepers (for  he  employs  to  describe  their  service 
the  technical  term  '  keep ').  Of  any  other  kind  of 
Levites  he  for  his  part  seems  to  know  notliing, 
and  the  close  of  the  history  of  the  Israelitish 
cultus  personnel  knows  as  little. 

In  fi.\ing  the  position  of  the  cultus  personnel,  a 
later  age  accepted  on  other  points  as  well  the 
simpler  and  more  natural  arrangement,  and  dis- 
regarded ordinances  which  had  for  some  time 
enjoyed  validity,  thanks  to  an  artificial  theory  or 


to  historical  confusion.  The  tenth  as  a  sacred  due 
is  readily  intelligible  if  it  is  either  devoted  to  a 
sacrificial  meal  (as  proposed  in  Dt),  or  even  given 
to  the  priests,  as  representatives  of  the  deity,  but 
not  when  it  falls  to  subordinate  servants  of  the 
sanctuary.  Tlie  Priests'  Code,  which  assigns  it  t« 
the  Levites,  shows  by  this  very  circumstance  that 
the  name  '  Levites '  was  originally  a  designation 
of  the  priests  (Gesch.  p.  52 f.).  After  the  tithe 
regulation  of  the  Priests'  Code  had  lieen  actually 
put  in  force  under  Neliemiah  in  later  times,  accord- 
ing to  the  testimonj'  of  Josephus  [Ant.  XX.  viii.  8, 
ix.  2  ;  Vita,  12,  15)  and  the  Talmud  (see  the  refer- 
ences in  Graetz,  M(jiint.':schrift,  1886,  p.  97  ff.},  the 
tithes  were  withdrawn  from  the  Levites  and 
assigned  exclusively  to  the  priests  (cf.  Van  Hoon- 
acker,  Sacerdore,  etc.  p.  40).  The  Mishna  [Maaser 
shcni,  V.  6)  appears,  indeed,  to  assume  as  the  correct 
practice  that  some  receive  the  first  tenth  and  others 
the  tSrilinah  of  the  tenth.  The  first  class  could  be 
only  the  Levites  (Schiirer,  p.  258,  note  44) ;  but  then 
this  description,  as  it  seems,  would  not  correspond 
with  the  actually  existing  relations  of  later  times. 
It  is  possible  tliat,  as  Vogelstein  (p.  72  ff.)  holds,  the 
tradition  handed  down  in  the  Mishna,  to  the  effect 
that  the  high  priest  Johanan  abolished  '  the  prayer 
of  thanksgiving  and  confession  at  the  tithe,  refers 
to  the  abolition  of  the  paying  of  the  tithe  to  the 
Levites,  and  that  by  this  Johanan  is  to  be  under- 
stood the  contemporary  of  the  Persian  satrap 
Bagoses  (cf.  above,  §  8  g  ;  so  also  Van  Hoonacker, 
Saccrdoce,  etc.  p.  401,  who,  according  to  his  chrono- 
logical scheme  [p.  60  f.],  regards  this  Johanan  as  a 
contemporary  of  Ezra ;  on  the  other  hand,  Biber- 
feld,  p.  18,  holds  that  the  Johanan  who  abolished 
the  tithe  prayer  was  John  Hyrcanus).  Our  earliest 
evidence  that  the  priests  received  the  tenth  comes 
from  a  much  later  time.  Josephus  (I.e.)  assumes 
it  as  a  matter  of  right  that  the  priests  receive 
the  tenth,  and  complains  only  that  some  priests 
take  it  by  force.  He  is  speaking  of  the  time  of 
Agrippa  II.  Since  Josephus  describes  the  priests 
as  taking  the  tithe  at  the  hands  of  the  laity, 
he  cannot  have  in  view  the  tenth  that  had 
to  be  paid  by  the  Levites  to  the  priests.  He 
appears  thus  to  be  quite  unacquainted  with  the 
paying  of  the  tenth  to  the  Levites  as  a  usual 
thing.  From  the  fact  that  the  Talmud  looks  ujion 
it  as  a  punishment  that  the  tithe  was  withdrawn 
from  the  Levites  and  paid  to  the  jiriests  instead, 
which  was  the  custom  after  the  destruction  of  the 
temple  (Graetz,  Monatssehrift,  ISSO,  p.  107  f.),  it 
has  been  inferred  by  Graetz  (I.e.  p.  98  11'.)  that  the 
offence  in  view  as  punished  maybe  the  presump- 
tion of  the  Levites,  who — but  only  the  temple 
singers — in  the  time  of  Agrip|ia  II.  succeeded  in 
obtaining  the  right  to  wear  the  linen  garment  of 
the  priests  (see  below).  The  historical  motive  fo"* 
deviating  from  the  law  cannot  be  determined,  bu^ 
it  is  readily  conceivable  that  any  o]iportunity 
would  be  seized  for  altering  the  awkwardly  com- 
plicated tithe  law  of  the  Priests'  Code. 

Not  only  the  tithe  but  other  previous  rights 
were  withdrawn  from  the  Levites.  Th.ey  were  no 
longer  trusted  with  the  whole  of  the  watch  .•service 
of  the  temple,  but  had,  according  to  the  Mishna, 
to  keep  watch  only  on  the  outside  at  21  points, 
whereas  the  three  stations  in  the  inner  court  were 
occupied  by  priests.  The  guard  supplied  by  the 
Levites  was  under  the  control  of  a  captain  of  the 
temple,  i.e.  a  priest  {.Middoth  i.  1,  2). 

Seeing  that  the  Nethinim,  who  apparently  were 
no  longer  even  in  the  time  of  the  Chronicler 
employed  as  a  special  class  for  the  service  of 
the  temple,  although  still  mentioned  at  a  latel 
period,  are  not  mentioned  in  connexion  with  the 
temple  service,  the  lower  nercices  must  have  been 
discharged  by  others.     Pliilo  assigns  not  only  the 


PRIESTS  AND  LEVITES 


PRIESTS  AND  LEVITES 


95 


watch  service  but  also  the  cleaning  of  the  temple 
to  the  yeuK6poi,  i.e.  the  Lcvites ;  for  other  duties, 
growing  boys  of  the  priests  were  employed  (Schiirer, 
p.  279).  In  addition,  we  hear  {Hukka  iv.  i ; 
Tamid  v.  3)  of  'attendants'  (c';;n),  without  its 
being  clear  whether  they  were  Lerites  (so  Biichler, 
Pricster,  p.  149  ff.)  or  non-Levites  that  were  thus 
employed.  In  any  case  the  only  class  of  Levites 
that  could  enter  into  consideration  would  be  the 
doorkeepers,  for  t  he  singers  were  doubtless  regarded 
as  holding  too  di'^nified  a  position  to  have  such  a 
name  a[>plied  to  tliem. 

Shortly  before  the  destruction  of  the  temple,  the 
sinr/ers  succeeded  in  obtaining  from  Agrippa  II. 
and  the  Sanhedrin  permission  to  wear  the  '  linen  ' 
garment  of  the  priests  (Jos.  Ant.  XX.  i.\.  6).  The 
desire  to  do  this  was  not  new ;  according  to  1  Cli 
15-'',  2  Ch  5",  in  the  time  of  David  and  Solomon 
not  only  the  singers  but  the  Levites  in  general 
wore  the  jiriestly  Oyssus  robe — a  statement  which 
sliows  merely  that  at  the  time  of  the  Chronicler 
this  practice  was  an  object  of  desire.  Agrippa  II. 
not  only  granted  the  desire  of  the  singers,  but 
allowed  a  portion  of  the  Levites,  by  whom  only 
doorkeepers  can  be  meant,  to  learn  tlie  singing  of 
hymns  (Jos.  I.e.),  i.e.  to  hold  an  equal  place  with 
the  division  of  singers. 

It  is  to  the  Levites  apparently  that  we  shotild 
refer  the  designation  oi  ypaiifiareU  toP  Upov,  '  the 
teachers  of  the  law  of  the  teiii])le,'  which  occurs  in 
the  letter  of  Antiochus  the  Great,  ap.  Jos.  Ant. 
XII.  iii.  3.  As  these  ipaixpjiTtU  are  named  between 
the  Updt  and  the  lepoiZ-aXToi,  they  can  liardly  be 
other  than  Levites  (Sam.  Krauss,  p.  675).  The 
mention  of  them  tallies  with  what  we  learn  from 
Nell  8'"'  about  the  instruction  in  the  Torah  whicli 
was  given  by  the  Levites. 

b.  The  revenue.1  of  the  priests  and  Levites. — The 
dties  demanded  for  the  priests  by  the  Priests'  Code 
were  augmented  by  that  imposed  by  Deuteronomy 
npon  sheep's  wool  {Chtiltin  \i.  1,  2).  By  combin- 
ing the  requirements  of  Dt  with  those  of  the 
Priests'  Code,  the  income  of  the  priests  was  further 
augmented,  inasmuch  as  those  portions  of  the 
sacrilicial  victims  which,  according  to  Dt,  fell  to 
the  priests,  had  at  a  later  period  to  be  paid  to 
them  from  all  animals  that  might  legitimately  be 
oliered  in  sacrilice,  even  when  these  were  slaugh- 
tered for  a  common  use,  namely  the  foreleg,  the 
cheek,  and  the  maw  of  cattle,  sheep,  and  goats 
{Chtdlin  X.  1  ;  cf.  Schiirer,  p.  255).  The  bikkurim 
were  more  specilically  defined  as  having  to  be  [laid 
from  seven  sources,  adopted  from  Dt  8",  namely 
wheat,  barley,  grajies,  ligs,  pomegTanates,  olives, 
and  honey.  According  as  the  parties  concerned 
resided  near  to  or  far  from  Jerusalem  the  bik- 
kiiriiii  were  to  be  handed  over  fresh  or  dried,  and 
were  to  be  brought  in  general  processions  to  Jeru- 
salem (Scliiirer,  p.  2-19).  A  distinction,  based  on 
Nell  12",  was  made  between  the  bikkurim  and  the 
tirihiidh  in  the  narrower  sense,  i.e.  the  due  levied 
on  the  best  not  only  of  the  above  seven  kinds  but 
on  all  fruits  of  lield  and  tree.  There  was  no  fixed 
measure  prescribed  for  these  dues,  but  on  an 
average  tliey  were  to  amount  to  ^ih  of  one's  in- 
come. This  tirunulh  was  to  be  eaten,  accordinj;  to 
Nu  18'2,  by  priests  alone  (Schiirer,  p.  249  f.).  The 
due  to  be  presented  of  dough  was  also  more  specifi- 
cally defined,  as  well  as  the  products  of  the  ground 
which  had  to  be  regarded  aa  tithable  (Schiirer, 
p.  250  tr.). 

According  to  the  Mishna  (Menahoth  x.  4),  a 
portion  of  the  firstling  sheaf  that  was  waved  by 
the  priest  before  Jaliweh  (l,v  2;i">')  falls  to  the 
priest— an  arrangement  of  which  there  is  no  indica- 
tion in  t*ie  OT.  According  to  Josephus  (-In*.  IV. 
iv.  4),  the  redemjition  mice  for  the  vow  of  one's 
own  {(erson  is  considered  to  belong  to  the  priests, 


whereas  in  the  Priests'  Code  (Lv  27)  this  is  not 
expressly  said,  as  it  is  in  the  case  of  the  h(rem. 
Perhaps  the  statement  of  Josephus  is  inexact ;  as  a 
rule,  at  least  the  things  vowed  appear  to  have  been 
used  for  general  cultus  purposes  (Schiirer,  25()f.). 

In  one  point  the  practice  of  later  times  took  a 
turn  less  favourable  to  the  temple-servants  than 
the  IViests'  Code  had  intended.  Not  only  the  so- 
called  second  tenth,  i.e.  tL  •  one  which,  upon  the 
ground  of  the  tithe  regulations  in  Dt  was  levied 
besides  the  tithe  of  the  Levites,  but  also  the  tithe 
of  cattle,  are  required  by  the  Rabbinical  rules  to  be 
devoted  to  sacrilicial  meals  at  Jerusalem.  The 
latter  thus  did  not  fall,  as  is  unquestionably  tlie 
intention  of  the  Priests'  Code,  to  the  Levites  and 
priests  (Schiirer,  p.  251  f.,  note  22). 

Those  dues  of  the  priests  which  did  not  consist 
of  portions  of  the  offerings,  and  which  were  not 
therefore  necessarily  brought  to  Jeru.salem,  were 
paid  'every^vhere  where  there  was  a  priest,'  i.e.  on 
the  spot  to  any  priest  who  happened  to  be  present, 
and  this  was  enjoined  to  be  continued  even  after 
the  destruction  of  the  temple  (Schiirer,  p.  257). 

c.  The  duties  and  offices  of  the  priests. — The 
enactments  concerning  the  priests  were  in  later 
tinii;s  simply  made  more  precise,  upon  the  basis  of 
the  Priests'  Code  ;  for  instance,  tlie  laws  about  their 
marriacie  (Schiirer,  p.  227  f.),  and  the  requirements 
of  freedom  from  bodily  blemish  (ib.  p.  230f. ).  It 
would  appear  that  in  later  times  it  was,  not  indeed  a 
law  liut  a  custom  that  the  principal  priests  ni.arrie'l 
only  the  daughters  of  priests  (Biichler,  Priester, 
p.  88  fl". ).  A  particular  aqe  for  admittance  to  the 
priestly  service  was  no  more  fixed  in  the  period 
following  the  OT  than  is  done  by  the  Priests'  Code 
in  the  case  of  the  Aaronites ;  but,  as  a  matter  of 
practice,  those  admitted  required  apparently  to 
have  passed  their  twentieth  year  (Schiirer,  p.  231). 

Among  the  priestly  duties,  the  bloirlyii/  of  triim 
pets  takes  a  wider  scope  than  in  the  Priests'  Code 
or  the  statements  of  the  Chronicler,  according  to 
which  this  ceremony  was  practised  only  in  war  and 
at  the  regular  festivals  and  on  special  festive  occa 
sions.  In  later  times  it  took  jilace  also  in  connexion 
with  the  sabbatical  and  daily  oH'erings  (.Jos.  Ant. 

III.  xii.  6),  and  to  announce  the  beginning  of  the 
Sabbath  from  the  battlements  of  the  temple  (BJ 

IV.  ix.  12;  cf.  Schiirer,  p.  278  f.).  In  addition  tc 
the  washing,  required  in  the  Priests' Code,  of  hands 
and  feet  in  the  urazen  laver  before  performing  the 
sacred  office  (on  the  mode  of  performing  this  wash- 
ing see  Biichler,  Prie.^tcr,  p.  74,  note  1),  the  priests 
had  in  later  times  to  take  a  plunge-bath  every 
morning  before  commencing  the  work  of  the  day 
(Schiirer,  p.  283).  In  the  last  days  of  the  temple  it 
wouM  appear  that  the  higher  ranks  of  jiriests  took 
no  jiart  in  the  work  of  sacrifice,  with  the  excejition 
of  the  ollcrings  presented  by  the  high  priest  on  the 
feast  (lays,  as  this  non-particii)ation  in  sacrilicial 
work  is  to  all  appearance  to  be  assumed  in  the  case 
of  the  priest  Ilavius  Josephus  (Biichler,  Prie«<er, 
p.  70  If.). 

The  24  divitions  of  priests,  of  which  we  know  as 
early  as  Chronicles,  served  for  the  performance  of 
the  cultus  to  which  they  attended  in  turn.  The  21 
divisions  are  distinguished,  in  the  literature  pos- 
terior to  the  OT,  as  the  mis/imdri'th,  from  the  sub- 
divisions not  mentioned  in  the  OT,  the  btlttU'dbCth. 
Each  principal  division  included,  accoriling  to  tra- 
dition, from  five  to  nine  subdivisions  (Schiirer,  p. 
235  f.).  A  principal  division  is  called  in  Greek  irarpio 
(Jos.  Ant.  VII.  xiv.  7),  or  i<prifj.epla  (Lk  1'- ■•>.  or 
iip-nnepls  (Jos.  Vita,  1);  a  sulidivision,  0kXt)  (Jos. 
]'ita,  1).  I'2ach  of  the  24  divisions  went  on  duty 
for  a  week,  the  exchange  with  the  next  division 
taking  place  on  the  Sabbath.  At  the  throe  great 
annual  festivals  all  the  24  divisions  olliciated  simul- 
taneously (Schiirer,  p.  279  f.). 


96 


PRIESTS  AND  LEVITES 


PRIESTS  AND  LEVITES 


The  position  of  the  high  priest  undenvent  a 
change  towards  the  close  of  the  Jewish  hierareliy 
through  respect  being  no  longer  paid  to  the  office 
as  one  that  was  to  he  held  for  life  and  to  he  lieredi- 
tary.  The  elevation  of  the  Hasmona'ans  to  the 
high-priestly  dignity  had  already  marked  a  break- 
ing \vith  tne  past,  for  thereby  the  hereditary 
succession  of  high  priests  was  interrupted.  The 
Hasnionaeans  sprang  from  the  priestly  class  of 
Joiarib  (1  Mac  2'  14=").  Whether  the  latter  was 
reckoned  to  the  Zadokites  or  not,  cannot  be  deter- 
mined. In  the  lists  contained  in  the  Book  of 
Nehemiah  (12^"'-'="")  it  holds  a  subordinate  posi- 
tion ;  a  list,  perhaps  not  earlier  than  the  time  of 
the  Hasmonajans  (cf.  above,  §  9),  found  in  1  Ch 
24"-,  assigns  to  it  the  first  place.  In  one  of  the 
recently  discovered  fragments  of  the  Hebrew 
original  text  of  Jesus  Sirach,  namely  51'^°<°',  the 
house  of  Zadok  is  highly  exalted  :  '  O  give  thanks 
unto  Him  that  chose  tlie  sons  of  Zadok  to  be  priests ' 
(S.  Schechter  and  C.  Taylor,  The  Wisdom  of  Ben 
Sira,  Portions  of  the  Book  Ecdesiasticus,  Cam- 
bridge, 1899).  The  whole  hymn  to  which  this 
passage  belongs,  namely  vv.'==i')"''=('"',  is  omitted  in 
the  Greek  translation  of  the  grandson  of  Jesus  Ben 
Sira,  perhaps  as  Schechter  (p.  35  f. )  suggests  (cf. 
Th.  Noldeke,  ZATW,  1900,  p.  92),  because  in  the 
inten-al  between  the  composition  of  the  original 
text  and  that  of  the  translation  (i.e.  between  c.  200 
and  130  B.C.)  the  family  of  the  previous  Zadokite 
high  priests  had  been  superseded  by  the  Has- 
inon.-eans.  But  after  this  latter  event  the  high 
priesthood  again  became  hereditary  in  the  Has- 
momean  line.  At  a  later  period  Herod  and  the 
Romans  set  up  and  deposed  high  priests  at  their 
pleasure.  From  these  non-acting  high  priests 
arose  the  group  kno^vn  as  d/jx^peis.  But  the 
custom  was  always  rigidly  adhered  to  of  select- 
ing the  high  priests  only  from  certain  special 
priestly  families  (Schiirer,  p.  215  £f.).  The  anoint- 
ing of  the  high  priest,  which  is  ordained  in  the 
Priests'  Code,  was  not  in  later  times  carried 
out  in  the  case  of  all  high  priests,  perhaps  it  was 
in  general  omitted ;  the  Mishna  knows  of  high 
priests  who  were  installed  in  office  simply  by 
clothing  them  with  the  official  robes  (Horajoth,  iii. 
4 ;  cf.  Gesch.  p.  140 ;  Schurer,  p.  232,  note  26 ; 
AVeinel,  ZATW,  1898,  p.  66  f.  ;  Van  Hoonacker, 
Sacerdoce,  etc.  p.  351  f.).  The  high  priest,  who, 
during  the  period  of  Jewish  independence,  was  the 
head  also  of  the  State,  was  at  least  in  later  times 
president  of  the  Sanhedrin,  and  in  so  far  also  the 
representative  of  the  people  in  political  matters  in 
dealing  with  the  Romans.  As  regards  his  partici- 
pation in  the  performance  of  the  cultus,  it  was  a 
later  custom  for  him  to  ofl'er  the  daily  ofl'ering 
during  the  week  preceding  the  Day  of  Atonement ; 
any  other  share  he  might  take  in  the  work  of 
sacrifice  was  simply  according  to  his  pleasure 
{Joma  i.  2).  Joseidms  states  tnat  the  higli  priest 
offered  as  a  rule  on  the  Sabbath,  at  the  new  moon, 
and  at  the  yearly  festivals  {BJ  V.  v.  7  ;  Biicliler, 
Pricster,  p.  68  ff.,  doubts  whether  in  later  times  the 
high  priest  oflered  except  at  the  yearly  festivals). 
The  (laily  minhdh,  which  according  to  the  original 
intention  of  Lv  6'^"-  he  had  to  offer  (see  above,  S  8  c), 
was  not  always  offered  by  the  high  priest  in  person, 
but  he  defrayed  the  cost  of  it  (Jos.  Ant.  in.  x.  7, 
where  Up(v%  can  be  none  but  tlie  high  priest),  a  duty 
wliich  Ezekiel  imposed  upon  the 'prmce.'  In  the 
Roman  period  a  conflict  arose  on  tlie  question  of 
the  kee])ing  of  the  high  priest's  robes  (Jos.  Ant. 
XV.  xi.  4,  XVIII.  iv.  3,  XX.  1.  1,  2) ;  wlien  Jerusalem 
was  taken,  his  robe  of  state  fell  into  the  hands  of 
the  Romans  (BJ  VI.  viii.  3). 

Besides  tlie  higli-priestly  office,  we  hear  in  the 
Rabbinical  literature  of  an  exalted  priestly  office, 
that  of  the  ^(gan  ([jy),  of  which  there  is  no  mention 


in  the  OT.  The  scgan  has  usually  been  viewed  aa 
the  high  priest's  substitute,  wlio  had  to  take  big 
place  if  he  was  prevented  by  Levitical  uncleanness 
from  discharging  the  duties  of  his  office.  But  the 
existence  of  a  standin"  vicarius  for  tlie  high  priest 
is  rendered  improbable  by  the  statement  of  the 
Mishna  (Joma  i.  1)  that  seven  days  before  the 
Day  of  Atonement  '  another  priest '  was  to  be  set 
apart  to  act  for  the  high  })ricst  in  the  event  of  his 
being  prevented  from  officiating.  It  is  not  at  all 
likely  that  this  statement  in  the  Mislina  relates  to 
an  earlier  practice,  and  that  afterwards  (subsequent 
to  the  year  A.d.  63)  the  scgan  was  appointed  aa 
substitute  for  the  high  priest  (Buchler,  Priester,  p. 
1 13),  for  there  is  nothing  known  of  such  a  change. 
Since  the  LXX  usually  reproduces  theword  sigunim, 
which  is  used  in  the  OT  for  non-priestly  officials,  by 
tTTpaT-qyol,  Schiirer  (p.  264  f.)  is  probably  right  in 
seeing  in  the  segan  the  captain  of  the  temple  (arpa- 
TTiybs  ToD  lepou),  who  is  repeatedly  mentioned  in  the 
NT  and  by  Josephus,  and  in  attributing  to  him  the 
principal  oversight  of  the  external  order  of  the 
temple.  Yet  Joma  39*  (Biicliler,  Pricster,  p.  105) 
looks  upon  the  segan  as  in  some  measure  the  repre- 
sentative of  the  high  priest.  Tlie  sCganim  in  the 
plural  (Bikkurim  iii.  3)  are  doubtless,  like  the  o-rpa- 
T1770/  (Lk  22^-  °2),  heads  of  the  temple  police  sub- 
ordinate to  the  sSgan.  In  the  Mishna  (Bikkurim, 
iii.  3)  there  are  mentioned  as  going  to  meet  the  festive 
procession  which  accompanied  the  bikkurim — the 
pahuth  (nins),  the  segdnim,  and  the  qizbdrim.  It 
may  be  inferred  that  by  the  first  of  these  designa- 
tions, as  by  the  two  following,  priests  are  intended, 
although  pahvth  is  used  also  for  secular  governors. 
But  a  special  priestly  office  can  hardly  be  con- 
noted by  the  word,  which  apparentlj'  corresponds 
to  the  NT  dpxifpeis  (Schiirer,  p.  266).  The  gia 
bdrim  (o-i;!:.  Peak  i.  6  end)  or  ya^o(pv\aKes  (Joa 
Ant.  XV.  xi.  4,  XVIII.  iv.  3)  had  charge  of  the  rich 
temple  treasures.  From  the  description  of  th« 
Chronicler,  it  appears  necessary  to  hold  that  in 
his  time  the  administration  of  the  temple  revenue 
and  capital  was  in  the  hands  of  the  Levites.  At  a 
later  period  the  higher  posts  as  treasurers  appear  to 
have  been  held  by  priests,  for  the  gizbdrim  appear 
as  higli  temple  officials  alongside  of  the  segdnim 
(Bikkurim  iii.  3),  and  Josephus  (Ant.  xx.  viii.  11) 
names  the  yafo^i'XoJ,  i.e.  probably  the  head  of  the 
treasurers,  immediately  after  the  high  priest.  It 
is  possible  that  the  Chronicler,  in  his  account  of 
the  management  of  the  temple  treasury,  has,  in  his 
preference  for  the  Levites,  arbitrarily  put  these  in 
the  foreground  (but  cf.  Ex  38=').  But,  seeing  that 
in  the  matter  of  other  duties  and  rights  the  Levitea 
were  in  point  of  fact  displaced  in  later  times  by  the 
priests,  the  same  may  have  happened  with  the 
holding  of  treasury  offices.  Under  Nehemiah  (Neh 
13"  M)  a  priest  was  at  the  head  of  the  treasurera 
(i.e.  those  who  were  set  over  the  'Czdrith,  '  store- 
houses '),  among  whom  only  one  is  stated  to  have 
been  a  Levite.  Sam.  Krauss  (p.  673  f.)  doubts, 
however,  whether  the  gizbdrim  were  priests,  they 
being,  as  far  as  is  known  to  the  present  writer, 
nowhere  directly  called  such.  To  the  treasury 
officials  probably  belonged  also  the  'dmarkHin 
(p'73-ox),  who,  without  a  more  particular  definition 
of  the  term,  are  mentioned  in  the  Mishn.a  only 
once,  along  with  the  gizbdrim  (Shekalim  v.  2),  ana 
are  named  also  in  later  literature,  as  a  rule,  together 
with  the  gizbdri7n  (Schiirer,  p.  270  f.).  Sam.  Krauss 
(p.  673)  holds  the  'dmarkclin  also  to  have  been  lay- 
men, drawin"  this  inference  from  the  Midrash 
Wajikra  Rabba  (Par.  V.  ch.  v.  3 ;  in  A.  Wiinsche'a 
Bibliotheca  liabbinica,  Liefer.  26,  1884,  p.  36), 
according  to  which  the  'dmarkol  liad  a  right  to  par 
take  of  the  holy  things,  but  not,  like  the  high  pnest, 
of  the  offcrinjjs.  But  Schiirer  (p.  270)  is  probably 
right  in  referring  to  Tosefla  Hctrajoth,  end  (Tosefta, 


PRIESTS  AND  LEVITES 


PEIEST  IX  XT 


97 


ed.  by  M.  S.  Zutkermandel,  18S0,  p.  476,  bottom), 
where  in  a  graduated  list  the  iXmarkOl  and  the 
i/izbdr  are  aUove  tlie  ordinary  priest,  the  latter  is 
above  the  Levite,  and  this  last  again  above  the 
Israelite,  i.e.  the  layman  (cf.  also  Oraetz,  Monats- 
.■iihri/t,  1885,  p.  1U4).  It  is  coiTect,  however,  that 
the  official  name  'Umarkul  is  used  to  desij;nate  the 
office  not  only  of  priest,  but  of  administrator  in 
^•eneral  (Biichler,  Pricxtcr,  p.  UiO  tt.  ;  Schiirer,  p. 
■JTu).  Accordin"^  to  Biichler  (p.  90  ti'.),  tliere  were, 
in  addition  to  the  regular  priestly  ghbdrhn  and 
\}mnr/;elin,  others  who  were  selected  from  the 
successive  divisions  of  officiating  priests ;  but  no 
express  testimony  is  known  of  the  use  of  these 
two  names  for  heads  of  these  divisions. — Only  in 
the  Jerusalem  Talmud  is  the  office  of  the  katohkin 
Wr'yr.j,  Ka$o\tKoi)  named  (SchUrer,  p.  271). 

The  cultus  wa-s,  according  to  the  Law,  to  be 
performed  by  all  priests  ;  but  in  course  of  time  the 
ditlerent  functions  became  so  complicated  and  in 
part  ditlicult,  that,  according  to  the  Mishna,  they 
were  apportioned  amon"  dillerent  priestly  officials, 
and  certain  duties,  such  as  that  of  preparing  the 
shewbread  and  the  incense,  became  liereditary  in 
particular  families  (Schiirer,  p.  275  ff.). 

In  addition  to  their  serv'ice  in  the  temple,  the 
priests  are  known  to  Josephus  as  administrators  of 
the  most  imjwrtant  concerns  of  the  community, 
under  the  presidency  of  the  high  priest  (c.  Apion. 
ii.  21).  He  has  in  view  primarily  Jeru.salem.  But 
in  all  cities  there  were,  according  to  him  {Ant.  iv. 
viii.  14),  as  Moses  had  enjoined,  men  of  the  tribe 
of  Le>'i  appointed,  two  for  each  court  of  seven,  to 
assist  the  members  as  vin)p4Tai.  Such  an  enact- 
ment is  not  found  in  the  Pentateuch ;  Josephus 
must  then  have  in  view  arrangements  existing  in 
his  own  time  in  Jud.ea  under  the  Romans  (dif- 
ferently Van  Hoonacker,  6'accrrfoce,  etc.  p.  45f. ). 
From  the  designation  vrrjp^rai  it  is  more  likely 
that  these  two  assessors  were  Levites  (Schiirer, 
p.  178)  than  that  priests  are  meant  (Biichler, 
Fricster,  p.  180).  According  to  the  Mishna  {San- 
hcdrin  i.  3),  priests  are  in  certain  instances  to  be 
called  in  as  judges  (cf.  Jos.  c.  Apion.  ii.  21).     This 

i'udicial  activity  of  the  J)rie8ts,  perhaps  also  of  the 
>evites,  is  a  continuation  of  the  corresponding 
duties  assigned  to  the  [jriests  in  Deuteronomy  and 
Kzekiel,  and  to  the  priests  and  Levites  in  Chron- 
icles. In  the  last  resort  this  species  of  activity  on 
the  part  of  the  personnel  of  the  sanctuary  goes 
back  to  the  practice,  with  which  we  make  acquaint- 
ance in  the  u<jok  of  the  Covenant,  of  having  certain 
lawsuits  decided  at  the  sanctuary,  by  means  of  the 
oracle  of  the  Deity  communicated  by  the  priests. 

LlTERATTniK. — Jn.  IJchtfoot.  Minixterium  Templi  quale  erat 
tfinpore  noslri  Hatualuru  dencriplutn  fz  gcriptura  et  antiquis- 
ttmut  Jxtdeeornm  iHonnmentU  (Ujitro,  Koteradanii,  lOi^,  vol.  i. 
pp.  671-768)  ;  Joh,  Lundius,  OU  alten  jiiilinchfn  Iliiligthumer, 
'fOtteidifnste  unil  lir^rohnhfiJen,  Jiir  Aufjm  qcntclUt,  in  einer 
atuffuhrlichm  ikjfchreiOuny  ties  ganUen  Levitischen  PrienUr- 
Ihuyrut,  etc,  iUu  von  neuem  iiberaehen,  und  in  beygejiigten 
Atunerckungen.  hin  und  wieder  theilt  verbestfrtt  tlieils  ver- 
infhrft  durch  Joh.  Christoph.  Wot/ium^  Uambun;,  1738 ;  Joh. 
Gottlob  Carpzov,  Ajfparattit  hittoriothcriticui  anti/juifatum 
Maori  ffuhcis  et  {/enlij/  heirneee  uberrimia  annolationibxts  in 
Thtima:  {ioodwinx  itosen  et  Aaronem,  Francofurthi  et  Lipaiio, 
1748. — On  various  points  connected  with  the  subject:  Blosius 
Ugolinus,  Thesaurus  antiquilatum  sacrantm,  vols,  ix,  xii. 
and  xiii.,  Veneliis,  17*8,  1761,  and  17.'i2,  especially  *  i*auli  Frid. 
<>;'iiii  commentariuB  de  custnilia  t^'Hii)ti  nocturna,'  vol.  ix.  cc. 
I"  '  I  xxlx-MLXxvi ;  'Job.  Saulnjrti  de  sacerdotibus  et  sacris 
KtTiMrum  pt-rgonis  coninietitarlus,'  vol.  xii.  cc.  I-Lxxx ; 
'Jon»  Knniiblioltz  Socerdolium  Ebraicum,'  ib.  cc.  Lxxxi- 
*'xx;  'Bias.  IVolini  8acerdotium  Ilebnucura,"  vol.  xiii.  cc. 
c.\xxv-Mcni.— K.  H.  Graf,  '  Zur  Geschichtc  des  Stammes  Levi,' 
'n  .Merx'  Arc/iiv  fur  visxrnjtc/ia/ttiche  Krforschung  deg  Alten 
T'tlamenlet,  Bd.  i.  ISC'-ltt'.i,  pp.  68-106,  208-236;  S.  I.  Curliai, 
The  Levilicat  PriejU,  a  e.^nitnltution  to  the  crilicigm  of  the 
Pentateuch.  Edinl»urgh  and  Leipzig,  1877,  also  De  Aaronitici 
»arrr<totii  atqite  ThorcB  elohittica  origine  dieeertatio  hintnriro- 
eTit«-a,  Lip8i;e,  1878;  Oort,  '  De  Aiironledcn,'  In  ThT,  Jaarsr. 
xviij.  1K84,  i)p.  2S9-335;  W.  W.  CJrt.  BaudlBsln,  Die  Geeehicl.le 
de*  ttltteKtatrteni lichen  Prieeterthutne  untersueht ,  Leipzig.  Ib-^O, 
on  pp.  xi-xv  of  which  see  a  fuller  list  of  the  Literfttun  on  the 
VOL.  IV. — 7 


history  of  the  OT  priesthood  since  1S06,  to  which  may  be 
added :  J.  M.  Jost.  Ueadiichte  des  Judenthume  und  seiner 
Hecten,  Abtheiluug  i.,  Leipzis;.  lSo7,  pp.  146-156  ('Ucr  jungere 
Prresterstand  ■),  p.  156  f.  ('Leviten'),  pp.  158-167  ('GottesdieJist- 
Ordiiung  ini  Tenipel '),  pp.  KiS-lsu  ('  Uottesdienst  dcr  Synagoge 
niid  gottesdienstliche  IIandh]n;,'en ') ;  Gractz,  •  Die  letzten 
Tempelbeamten  vor  der  Tenipelzcrstorung  und  die  Tenipel- 
auiter,'  in  Monaleschrljt  Jur  tjtichichte  und  n'ismucha/l  det 
Judcnthume,  Jahrg.  xxxiv.  1885,  pp.  193-205,  also  '  Eine 
Strafmas.sre;.'el  gegeu  die  Leviten,'«6.  xxxv.  1886,  pp.  97-108; 
Hcinr.  Biberfeld,  Der  Vbergang  des  levitiechen  Dienstgehallee 
am  die  /'i  tetter  (Leipziger  Dissertation),  Beriin,  1888.— More 
recent  works:  E.  Kautzsch,  article  'Levi,  Leviten,'  in  Erscb 
and  Gruber's  AU/jetneine  Kncijklopddie,  Section  ii.  ThI.  xliii 

1889,  pp.  282-293;  H.  Vogelstein,  Der  Kampf  zwischen 
Priestem  und  Leviten  teit  den  Tagen  Ezechiels,  Stettin, 
1889 ;  A.  Kuenen,  '  De  geschiedenis  der  priesters  van  Jaliwe 
en  de  ouderdoin  der  priesterlijlve  wet,'  in   'i'h'l\  Jaarg.  xxiv. 

1890,  pp.  1-12  l=GesamiiLelte  Abhandlungen  zur  BMischen 
Wisseiuchajt,  tr.  by  K.  Budde,  Freiburg  i.  B.  1894,  pp.  465- 
500];  Ch.  Piepenbring,  '  Histoire  des  lieux  de  cuke  et  ou  sacer- 
doce  en  Israel,"  in  Jievue  de  ihixtoire  dee  lit'ligioiie,  Ann.  m. 
t.  xxiv.  IS'Jl,  pp.  l-flO,  133-186  (a  risumi  of  the  Reuss-Well- 
hausen  view  of  the  history);  Bruno  Baent^ch,  Das  Heiligkeite- 
qesetz  Lv  xcii-xxvi,  Erfurt,  1»93,  pp.  142-144  ('Die  heiligen 
Personen  ) ;  J.  U.  Breasted,  '  The  development  of  the  priest- 
hood in  Israel  and  Egyi)t,  a  comparison,'  in  The  Biblical  ICc/rW, 
new  series,  n.  i.,  July  189:!,  pp.  19-'28  [not  seen] ;  I.  Benzingcr, 
Uebrdieche  Archaologie.  Freiburg  i.  B.  1894,  pp.  40.5-428 ;  \V. 
Nowack,  Lehrbueh  der  hebraiachen  Archdoloqie.  Freiburg  i.  B. 
1894,  Bd.  ii.  pp.  87-130 :  Ad.  Buchler,  Die  'Priesler  und  der 
Vultue  im  letzten  Jahrzehnt  dee  JerxLSalemischen  Tempele, 
Wien,  1895  (see  a  review  of  this  work  by  Schiirer  in  ThLZ, 
1893,  col.  616  (^.) ;  Samuel  Krauss,  *  Priests  and  worship  in  the 
last  decade  of  the  temple  at  Jerusalem,'  in  the  J(^R,  vol.  viii. 
1898,  pp.  066-678;  Ed.  Meyer,  Die  Entstehunn  des  Juden- 
thuins,  Halle  a.  S.  1896,  pp.  168-183  ('  Die  (Jeistliclikeit ')  ;  U.  A. 
Poels,  Examen  critique  de  I'hietoire  du  sancttiaire  de  I'arche, 
tome  L,  Louvain,  1897,  pp.  292-301  ('Les  prctres  de  Nob')  ;  E. 
Sellin,  Beitrttge  zur  Israelitischen  und  Jiidi^chen  lieligions- 
g'sehichte,  Heft  ii.,  Leipzig,  1897,  pp.  109-121;  E.  Scburer, 
GrucUichte  des  jiidij:chen  Volkee  im  Zeitalter  Jesu  Chrinti' 
(Eng.  tr.  from  2nd  ed.,  under  title  History  o/  the  Jewish  People 
in  lite  time  of  Jesus  Christ,  b  vols.,  Edin.,  T.  &  T.  Clark,  1885- 
1890J,  Bd.  u.,  Leipzig,  1893,  pp.  214-'299  (' Die  Hohcnpriester,' 
'Die  Priesterscbaft  und  der  Tempelcultus ') ;  Ad.  Buchler, 
*  Zur  Geschichte  des  Tempelcultus  in  Jerusalem,'  in  lieaieil  des 
travaux  ridigis  en  memoire  du  Juhili  Scientific  de  M.  Daniel 
Chwolsnn,  Berlin,  1899,  pp.  1-41  (I.  '  Die  Verloosung  dcr  Dienst- 
gesch.ifte';  IL  'Simon,  der  Gerechte" ;  III.  'Die  Signale  ira 
Tempel  (iir  die  einzelnen  Dienstgeschitfte ') ;  T.  K.  Cheyne, 
'The  priesthood  of  David's  sons,'  in  Expos.,  I-lfth  series,  ix. 
(1899)  pp.  453-457;  A.  Van  lloonacker,  Le  sacerdoce  Livitigue 
dans  laloi  et  dans  I'histoire  des  IWbreux,  London  and  Louvain, 
1899  (cf.  ThLX,  18i»,  col.  35911.),  'Les  pr6tres  et  les  Invites 
dans  le  livre  d'Ez6chieI,'  in  Jlev.  bibl.  internal.  1899,  ii.  pp.  177- 
205  [not  seenj ;  Fr.  v.  Hunimelauer,  Das  vonnosaische  friester. 
thtun  inlsracl,  Freiburg  i.  Ii.  1899  ;  J.  Wellhausen,  Prolegomena 
zur  Geschichte  Israelii,  Berlin.  1899,  Kap.  4  ('  Die  Priester  und 
Leviten  '),  Kap.  5  ('  Die  Ausstattuiig  des  Klerus ')  [Ist  ed.,  under 
title  'Gescliichte  Israels,'  1878,  pp.  123-174]. 

On  the  high  priests,  see  Literature  in  Schiirer  {tc.  p.  214),  and 
add  B.  Pick,  '  The  Jewish  High  Priests  subsequent  Vt  the 
return  from  Babylon,"  in  the  Lutheran  Church  lieview,  1898,  i. 
pp.  127-142,  ii.  pp.  370-374,  iii.  pp.  650-656,  iv.  pp.  655-664  [not 
seen]. 

On  the  temple  singers :  Justus  Koberic,  Die  Teinpelsdnger  im 
Alten  Testament,  Eriangen,  1899  (cf.  ThLK,  1899,  col.  676 fl.); 
Ad.  Buchler,  'Zur  Geschichte  dcr  Tempelmusik  und  der  Tem- 
pelpsalmen,'  in  ZATW,  xix.  1899,  pp.  90-133,  329-344,  XX.  1900, 
pp.  97-135. 

On  the  Nethinim,  see  Literature  in  SchUrer,  l.o.   p.   279, 

note  94. 

On  the  ki^nulrim :  Christoph.  Braunhardt,  Dissertatio  phiio- 
lojica  de  ta'TDD  sen  hierophantis  Judceonan  ex  S  lieg.  tS.  6, 
Wittebergae,  1680 ;  Conr.  Ikenius,  Dissertatio  theologico-phiio- 
loaica  de  Cemarim  ad  UlustratioTiem  locorum  t  Ileg.  tS.  6, 
Uot.  10.  6,  Zeph.  1.  h,  Brem»,  1729. 

On  the  priests'  dress :  Joh.  Braun,  Vestitus  sacerdotum 
nel/ra-orum^,  Amstelod.  1701  ;  '  Bened.  David  Carpzovii  dis- 
flcrtauo  de  pontiilcum  llebrieorum  vestitu  sacro,'  in  Ugolinus, 
Thesaurus,  vol.  xii.  cc.  dcclwxv-dcccx  ;  further,  on  tlie  same 
subject,  some  other  dissertations,  ih.  vols.  xii.  and  xiii.  ;  F. 
de  Saulcy,  *  Rccherclu's  sur  le  costume  eacenlotal  chcz  toe 
Juils,'  in  lieime  archt'oltKjique,  nouv.  s^irie,  vol.  xx.  1S6*, 
pp.  100-115;  V.  Ancessi,  '  l.cs  vCtements  du  grand  prGtre  et 
des  Invites '  (L'Egi/pte  et  Moisr,  premiiire  panic),  Paris,  1876. 
Cf.,  further,  the  Literature  cited  in  Schiirer,  i.e.  p.  263  f. 
note  6. 

On  the  priesthood  among  the  ancient  Arabs :  J.  Wellhausen, 
Iteste  arabischen  lleideiilums^,  Berlin,  1897,  pp.  130-140 
('  Heilige  Personen  ')  ;  among  the  Babylonians  :  Friedr.  Jerc- 
mias  in  Ciiantepie  de  la  Saussaye,  Lehrbueh  der  lietiginns- 
ntschicltte'',  Freiburg  i.  B.  1897,  I'.ii.  i.  p.  203  f. ;  among  the 
Pboinicians :  F.  0.  Movers,  Die  rhun<;ier,  lid.  I.,  Bonn,  1841, 

pp.  676-690.  Wolf  Baudissin. 

PRIEST  IN  NT.— 1.  The  word  'priest'  {kpevt)  is 
used  in  the  NT  of  the  sacrificing  ministers  of  any 


93 


PRIEST  IX  NT 


PKIEST  IX  XT 


religion.  The  priest  of  Zeus  is  mentioned  in  Ac 
14",  the  priest  of  the  true  God  in  Mt  8*.  Refor- 
enoes,  indeed,  are  numerous  in  the  NT,  especially 
in  the  Gospels,  to  the  priests  of  tlie  OT.  In  Lk 
!'• "  alhision  is  made  to  the  twenty-four  itptififpiai 
into  which  they  were  divided,  and  to  the  assijjn- 
ment  of  certain  of  their  duties  bj'  lot.  The  NT 
throws  little  liglit,  however,  on  the  standing  of 
the  priests  generally,  or  on  the  service  they 
rendered  to  the  nation.  The  Gospels  speak 
almost  e.xclusively  of  those  whom  they  call  the 
dpx'fpf'Si  or  chief  priests.  The  high  priest  was 
cliosen,  as  a  rule,  from  one  of  a  small  number  of 
priestly  families,  and,  when  the  olliee  ceased  to  be 
held  for  life,  there  might  be  a  number  of  persons 
entitled  by  courtesj'  to  the  name.  An  ex-high 
priest,  if  a  man  of  unusual  force  of  character, 
might  actually  exercise  a  greater  influence  in  the 
direction  of  ecclesiastical  or  political  afi'airs  than 
the  proper  holder  of  the  ottice,  and  either  over- 
shadow the  latter  in  the  common  mind,  or  prac- 
tically share  his  distinction.  It  is  thus  we  must 
explain  such  expressions  as  Lk  3'  irl  dpx'fp^ws 
'Avra  utoi  Kaidipa  =  ' in  the  high  priesthood  of  Annas 
and  Caiaphas,'  and  the  part  taken  by  Annas  (wliile 
Caiaphas  was  titular  high  priest)  in  the  trial  of 
Jesus  (Jn  18").  So  also  in  Ac  4'  the  dignity  of 
the  high  priesthood  is  retlected  on  if  not  extended 
to  all  the  members  of  the  7^»'os  apxiepariKdr  ;  there 
was  a  kind  of  aristocracy  among  the  priests,  and 
it  was  from  it  that  the  high  priest  proper  was 
chosen.  Though  the  apx^epeU  made  common  cause 
^vith  the  Pharisees  in  their  hostility  to  Christi- 
anity, they  were  themselves  on  the  Sadducjean 
side  (Ac  5"),  and  the  most  determined  opposition 
to  the  preaching  of  the  resurrection  came  from 
them.  Probably  the  inferior  members  of  the 
priestly  order,  who  had  but  a  nominal  share  in 
its  prerogatives,  were  more  free  from  its  preju- 
dices ;  it  would  be  among  them  that  the  great 
multitude  of  priests  was  found  which  '  became 
obedient  to  the  faith'  (Ac  6').  On  the  whole  sub- 
ject of  the  Jewish  priests  in  NT  times,  see  Schiirer, 
G,7P  ii.  21i-305  [BJP  U.  i.  195-305],  and  the  pre- 
ceding article,  esp.  §  10c. 

2.  A  more  important  subject  is  that  which  is 
suggested  by  the  use  of  the  word  '  priest '  in  the 
interpretation  of  the  Christian  religion.  In  the 
NT  it  is  only  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews 
that  Jesus  is  spoken  of  as  Upeit,  fUyai  lepeii,  and 
apxiepfis — terms  which  are  not  to  be  distinguished 
from  each  other,  the  last  two  only  signifying 
Christ's  eminence  in  the  priestly  character.  In 
the  highest  sense  of  the  term,  so  to  speak.  He  is  a 
priest.  But  what  is  a  priest  ?  In  the  Ep.  to  the 
Hebrews,  it  may  be  said,  the  priest  is  tlie  person 
through  whom  and  through  whose  ministry  people 
draw  near  to  God,  through  whom  they  are  'sancti- 
fied ' ;  that  is,  made  a  people  of  (^rod,  and  enabled 
to  worship.  The  writer  does  not  think  of  such  a 
thing  as  a  religion  without  a  priest.  Men  are 
sinful  men,  and  without  mediation  of  some  kind 
tliey  cannot  draw  near  to  God  at  all.  The  people 
of  God  had  mediators  under  the  OT,  and  they  have 
a  mediator  under  the  NT.  It  is  on  the  character 
of  the  mediator  that  the  character  of  the  religion 
depends.  If  he  is  imperfect  the  religion  will  be 
imperfect  ;  there  will  be  no  real  or  pennanent 
access  to  God,  no  real  liberation  of  the  conscience. 
But  if  he  is  what  he  should  be,  then  the  perfect, 
and  therefore  the  final,  religion  has  come.  The 
conscience  will  be  efl'ectually  purged,  sin  as  a 
barrier  between  God  and  man  will  be  etVectually 
removed,  the  waj-  into  the  holiest  of  all  will  \ie 
opened,  and  the  covenant  realized  in  the  abiding 
fellowship  of  God  and  His  people.  It  is  from  this 
point  of  view  that  the  writer  works  out  the  contrast 
between  the  OT  and  the  NT.    The  Jewish  religion 


was  a  true  one,  for  God  had  given  it  ;  but  it  waa 
not  (/le  true  and  therefore  not  the  final  one,  for  its 
priesthood  was  im|ierfect.  Everything  about  it 
was  imperfect.  The  priests  themselves  were  im- 
perfect. They  were  mortal  men,  and  could  not 
continup  becau.se  of  deatli.  They  were  sinful  men, 
too,  and  had  to  otl'er  for  their  own  sins  before  they 
could  oiler  for  those  of  the  people.  The  sanctuary 
was  imperfect,  a  (£7101'  Kodp^iKbv,  not  the  real  <lwell- 
ing-place  of  God.  The  sacrifices  were  imperfect ; 
tlie  blood  of  buUs  and  goats  and  other  animals, 
whatever  its  virtue,  could  not  make  the  worshin- 
pers  perfect  touching  the  conscience  ;  that  is,  could 
not  bring  them  to  the  desired  goal  of  a  fearless  jieace 
toward  God.  The  very  repetition  of  the  sacrifices 
showed  that  the  work  of  removing  sin  had  not 
really  and  once  for  all  been  achieved.  And,  finally, 
the  access  to  God  was  imperfect.  The  priests  had 
no  access  at  all  into  the  Holiest  Place,  and  when 
the  high  priest  did  enter  on  one  day  in  the  year  it 
was  no  abiding  entrance  ;  the  communion  of  the 
people  with  God,  which  his  presence  there  symbol- 
ized, was  lost,  it  might  be  said,  as  soon  as  won  ;  he 
came  out  from  the  shrine  and  the  veil  closed  behind 
him,  '  the  Holy  Ghost  this  signifying,  that  the 
way  into  the  holiest  of  all  had  not  Vet  teen  made 
manifest.'  Everything  in  the  old  religion  had  im- 
perfection written  upon  it — the  imperfection  in- 
volved in  the  nature  of  its  priests  (oiSkv  yap  ere- 
Xeiojaev  6  fd^os,  He  7'^). 

It  is  in  contrast  with  this  that  Christ's  priest- 
hood is  set  forth.  Christianity  is  the  perfect  and 
final  religion,  because  Christ  is  the  perfect  priest. 
An  OT  foundation  for  this  doctrine  is  found  in 
Ps  110*,  where  the  Messiah  is  aildressed  bv  God 
as  '  a  priest  for  ever,  after  the  order  of  Melchize- 
dek.'  Perhaps  one  should  call  it  rather  a  point 
of  attachment  than  a  foundation,  for  though  it 
probably  served  the  writer's  |)urpose  in  arresting 
the  attention  of  his  readers,  the  ideas  whicJi  he 
connects  with  the  priesthood  of  Christ  are  not, 
strictly  sneaking,  derived  frum  it.  The  order  of 
Melcliizedek  is  contrasted  with  that  of  Aaron : 
the  two  orders  exclude  each  otlier.  Christ  is  not 
a  priest  after  the  order  of  Aaron  upon  earth,  and 
afterwards,  in  heaven,  a  priest  after  the  order 
of  Melchizedek  :  being  what  He  is,  the  Son  of 
God,  in  the  sense  understood  in  this  Epistle,  His 
priesthood  can  be  of  the  Melchizedek  order  alone. 
In  Him  and  through  His  ministry  a  fellowship 
with  God  has  been  realized  on  the  behalf  of  men 
which  is  [lerfect  and  which  abides.  The  word 
which  is  used  to  express  this  in  the  Epistle  is 
a/aVios.  Inasmuch  as  He  is  the  true  priest, 
Christ's  blood  is  the  blood  of  an  eternal  covenant. 
He  oU'ered  Himself  through  eternal  spirit.  He  has 
become  the  autljor  of  eternal  salvation,  has  ob- 
tained eternal  rodeiuption.  and  en.ables  men  to  get 
hold  of  the  eternal  inheritance  (5"  9''^-  '■'•  "  KS*"). 
All  these  are  ways  of  indicating  the  perfection 
and  finality  of  His  priesthood,  i.e.  of  His  function 
to  mediate  between  the  holy  God  and  sinful  men, 
and  to  realize  in  Himself,  and  enable  sinful  men  to 
realize,  a  complete  and  abiding  fellowship  with  God. 

Among  the  aspects  or  constituents  of  Christ's 
priesthood  on  which  the  writer  lays  emphasis  .are 
these.  (1)  His  communion.  He  5'.  God  nmst 
appoint  the  priest,  for  he  is  to  be  the  minister  of 
His  grace.  No  man  can  take  this  honour  to  him- 
self. The  writer  seems  to  find  the  Divine  commis- 
sion in  the  psalms  quoted  in  He  5"-  (Ps  2'  110*), 
but  he  connects  these  imniediatel}'  in  v."-  with 
what  seems  to  be  a  reference  to  the  agony  in 
(Jethsemane,  as  though  it  were  there,  historically, 
that  Jesus  received  this  hi<;h  and  hard  calling. 
(2)  His  preparation.  This  is  a  jioint  on  which 
great  stress  is  put.  To  be  a  merciful  and  trust- 
worthy high  priest  (2"),  it  is  necessary  that  he 


PEIi:ST  IN"  XT 


PRIKST  IN  NT 


99 


ehould  be  to  the  utmost  possible  extent  one  with 
those  whom  he  represents  before  God.  Hence  lie 
becomes  like  them  a  partaker  of  llesh  and  blood 
(2"),  is  tempted  in  all  points  like  us  (4"),  learns 
obedience  by  the  thin;4s  which  he  suffers  (5"), 
knows  what  it  is  to  worship  with  others  and  to 
■«ait  upon  God  (2'^-),  and  at  last  to  taste  death. 
Sin  apart  (4"),  nothing  human  is  alien  to  him  ;  in 
virtue  of  his  nature  and  his  experience  he  can 
synipatliize  with  us  ;  through  sutiering,  especially, 
he  has  been  made  '  perfect,'  i.e.  been  made  all  that 
he  ought  to  be  as  a  '  captain  of  salvation,'  or  a 
piiest  to  stand  before  God  for  sinful  men,  able 
truly  to  enter  into  their  case.  On  the  word 
*  perfect '  {Te\eiwa(u)  see  Davidson,  Hebrews,  p. 
207  f.  (3)  His  offering.  Every  priest  is  appointed 
to  oll'or  gifts  and  sacrifices  (S')  for  sins  (5'),  and 
this  one  also  must  have  something  to  oiier.  What 
is  it!  In  a  word,  it  is  himself.  This  is  more 
easily  said  than  interpreted.  There  is  a  passage 
in  the  Epistle  (lO*-')  in  which,  following  Ps  4u'-«, 
what  Christ  did  is  contrasted  with  '  sacrifices  and 
ofl'erings  and  whole  burnt-oHerings  and  sin-oil'er- 
ings,'  as  '  doing  the  will  of  God '  ;  and  it  is  said 
that  Scripture  puts  away  the  first  to  establish  the 
second.  From  this  it  is  often  inferred  that  Christ's 
■work  was  not  sacrificial,  and  especially  that  His 
death  is  not  to  be  conceived  as  an  olVering  for  sin  ; 
sacrifice,  it  la  said,  is  abolished  to  make  room  for 
obedience.  But  this  is  certainly  not  the  contrast 
in  the  writer's  mind.  The  conception  of  oll'ering 
or  saerifice  is  essential  to  him,  and  to  Christ  as 
priest.  This  priest,  like  every  other,  mvsf  have 
somewhat  to  oiler.  Indeed,  immediately  after  the 
remark  that  He  puts  away  the  first  (the  OT  sacri- 
fices) to  e-stablish  the  second  (the  doing  of  God's 
will),  he  adds,  '  in  which  will  we  have  been  sancti- 
fied through  the  olTcring  of  the  hodij  of  Jcius  Christ 
OTice  for  all.'  \\  hat  He  opposes  is  not  sacrifice 
and  obedience  simplkitnr,  bnt  the  OT  sacrifices, 
in  which  the  victims  were  involuntary,  and  the 
ofl'ering  therefore  morally  imperfect,  not  to  say 
meaningless,  and  Christ's  willing  sacrifice  of  Him- 
self, which  was  an  act  of  obedience  to  the  Father. 
As  a  voluntary  act  of  obedience  this  sacrifice  had 
a  significance  and  a  moral  worth  wliicli  no  animal 
sacrifice  could  have.  But  the  obedience  involved 
in  it  was  not  simply  the  obedience  required  of  man 
as  such  ;  it  was  the  obedience  required  of  the 
Son  whom  the  I'^ther  had  commissioned  to  be  the 
mediator  of  a  new  covenant,  the  restorer  of  fellow- 
ship between  Himself  and  sinful  men  ;  in  other 
words,  it  was  the  obedicnre  of  a  priest,  who  had 
'to  annul  sin  by  the  sacrifice  of  himself  (U"),  to 
be  '  offered  once  for  all  to  bear  the  sins  of  many ' 
(9™),  to  enter  into  the  sanctuary  'through  his  own 
blood'  (9'^),  '  liy  one  offering  to  perfect  for  ever 
them  th;it  are  Ijeing  sanctified  '  (10'^).  In  short,  it 
is  not  sacrifice  and  obedience  that  are  blankly 
contrasted  here,  but  unintelligent  wUl-less  animal 
sacrifice,  and  the  sacrificial  obedience  of  the  Priest 
who  willingly  dies  to  make  purgation  of  sins  (1'). 
As  the  perfect  priest  Christ  made  once  for  all  the 
perfect  sacrifice  for  sin  ;  that  is  why  the  Levitical 
sacrifices  have  passed  away.  (4)  'V\\(i  scene  of  Uis 
ministry,  or  the  sanctuary.  'The  true  ollering  is 
made  in  the  true  sanctuary,  i.e.  heaven.  It  is  there 
that  Christ  appears  in  the  presence  of  God  for  us. 
It  is  there,  in  Ilis  person,  that  there  is  realized  the 
abiding  fellowship  of  God  and  man  into  which  the 
gospel  calls  us.  But  this  does  not  mean  that 
wliut  has  been  spoken  of  under  the  he.id  of  His 
ollering,  namely  Ilis  death,  is  not  included  in  His 
priestly  work.  To  break  the  work  of  the  perfect 
priest  into  pieces  in  tliis  way  is  foreign  to  the 
writer's  mode  of  thought.  The  priest's  work,  his 
OlVering,  is  not  consummated  till  lie  enters  with  it 
(and  by  means  of   il)  into  God's  presence;  it   is 


then  that  he  is  in  the  full  sense  a  priest.  Hence 
Christ  is  conceived  as  e.\ercising  His  priestlj- 
function  in  the  sanctuary  above  ;  but  He  could 
not  be  priest  there  except  in  virtue  of  the  com- 
mission, the  preparation,  and  the  ollering,  which 
have  just  been  described.  All  these  therefore 
belong  to  the  conception  of  the  priesthood  as  mnch 
as  what  is  done  in  the  heavenly  sanctuary  itself. 
(5)  His  intercession.  He  is  able  to  save  to  the 
uttermost  those  who  draw  near  to  God  through 
Him,  seeing  He  ever  liveth  to  make  intercession 
for  them.  In  what  the  intercession  consists  is 
nowhere  explained.  The  writer  to  the  Hebrews 
does  not  dehne  it  as  the  perjjetuating,  or  makin>' 
prevalent  for  all  time,  of  an  atoning  work  achieved 
on  earth  ;  he  does  not  conceive  of  the  atoning 
work  as  achieved  at  all  except  through  the  entrance 
of  the  piiest  into  the  presence  of  (iod  Sia  rod  ioiov 
aifidTos.  On  the  other  hand,  it  seems  to  be  less 
than  what  he  means,  if  we  say  that  His  mere 
appearin;^  in  God's  presence,  even  with  tlie  virtue 
ot  His  sin-annulling  work  in  Him,  is  itself  the 
intercession  —  a  continuous  and  prevailing  plea 
with  God  to  receive  even  those  who  have  sinned 
into  fellowship  with  Himself,  and  not  to  let  sin 
annul  His  covenant.  It  is  a  fair  inference  from  4" 
(that  we  may  find  grace /or  timely  succour},  taken 
in  connexion  with  what  precedes,  that  the  inter- 
ce.ssion  of  the  great  High  Priest  is  not  a  continu- 
ous unvarying  representation  of  man  before  God, 
but  relates  itself  sympathetically  to  the  vari- 
ously emergent  necessities  and  crises  of  individual 
life.  (6)  The  rssitlt  of  Christ's  priesthood.  The 
result  is,  in  a  word,  the  establisliment  of  the  new 
covenant  between  God  and  man.  In  Christ,  and 
on  the  basis  of  His  work,  God  is  our  God  again, 
and  we  are  His  people.  Because  Christ  is  all  that 
a  priest  should  be,  the  new  relation  of  God  and  man 
realized  in  Him  is  all  that  such  a  relation  should  be  ; 
Christianity  is  a  new,  but  also  the  final,  because 
the  perfect  religion.  Tliere  are  various  ways  in 
whicii  this  is  expressed  in  detail.  Those  who  have 
the  perfect  priest  are  freed  from  the  fear  of  death 
(2'°)  ;  can  come  with  boldness  to  God's  throne  and 
find  it  a  throne  of  grace  (4'")  ;  have  a  hope  of 
immortality  that  nothing  can  shake,  knowing  as 
they  do  that  Jesus  has  entered  within  the  veO  as 
their  forerunner  (G-") ;  have  an  assurance,  in  the 
indissoluble  life  of  Christ  (7'"),  in  the  priesthood 
which  as  founded  on  it  never  pas.ses  to  another 
or  can  never  be  trenched  upon  by  another  (7''"), 
and  in  the  intercession  of  their  deathless  rei)re- 
sentative,  that  complete  salvation  awaits  them  ; 
in  their  worship  are  made  perfect  as  touching  the 
conscience,  i.e.  completely  delivered  from  sin  as 
that  which  hinders  access  to  God  (9*'").  And  as 
the  blessings  of  the  covenant  are  infinite,  so  (he 
deliberate  and  wilful  rejection  of  them,  and  the 
relapse  from  the  fellowship  with  God  assured  in 
Christ  to  any  inferior  religious  standpoint  (G'"'- 
lO-'""-),  is  the  unpardonable  sin. 

3.  The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  does  not  attrib- 
ute to  believers  as  priests  any  of  the  special 
functions  involved  in  the  unique  priesthood  of 
Christ.  In  Ex  19'  Israel  is  sjioken  of  as  n:^:;^ 
0')-S,  i.e.  God's  people  are  His  kingdom,  and 
they  are  priests,  with  the  right  of  access  to  Him. 
As  the  N'r  point  of  view  is  that  there  is  only  one 
people  of  Uod  through  all  time,  this  conceiition  is 
found  in  the  NT  also  :  see  esi)ecially  Uev  1"  5'°  20", 
1  P  2'**'  (iepdreu/ia  dyiov,  piaaiXeioi' :  f]affi\flav,  lepeU 
TV  <?ev  ""■^  TraTpi  aiToC).  In  substance,  the  same 
thing  is  meant  when  wo  read  in  Hebrews  of  the 
right  to 'draw  near  with  boldness,' or  in  Eph  2" 
that  through  Christ  all  Christians  alike  have  '  their 
access  (ttji'  Trpoffayioy^v  :  the  chara<;teristic  privilege 
of  the  new  religion,  Bo  !>'',  I  1'  3'")  in  one  spirit  to 
the  Father.'    To  the  Father  :  for  in  experience  the 


100 


PRINCE 


PRINCE 


sonship  of  believers  and  their  priesthood  are  one 
and  the  same  thing.  Sonship  and  priesthood  are 
two  Bgures  under  which  we  can  represent  the 
characteristic  relation  of  man  to  God,  his  charac- 
teristic standing  toward  God,  in  the  new  religion 
instituted  by  Christ.  Formally  distin^ishable, 
they  are  really  and  experimentally  the  same. 
Christ  Himself  was  perfect  priest  only  because  He 
was  true  Son  of  God ;  His  priesthood,  though  it 
was  His  vocation,  was  grounded  in  His  nature  :  it 
had  nothing  oHicial  in  it,  but  was  throughout 
personal  and  real.  So  it  is  with  the  priesthood  of 
believers :  it  also  is  involved  in  sonsliip,  is  one 
element  or  function  of  sonship,  and  only  as  such 
has  it  any  meaning.  The  writer  to  the  Hebrews 
speaks  of  Christians  as  ottering  to  God  saerilices 
of  praise,  the  fruit  of  lips  making  confession  to  His 
name.  He  bids  them  remember  benehoence  and 
charity,  for  with  such  sacrifices  God  is  well  pleased. 
So  St.  Peter  says  Christians  are  a  holy  priesthood 
to  otter  spiritual  s.acrifices,  acceptable  to  God 
through  Jesus  Christ  ( 1  P  2') ;  and  St.  Paul  bids  the 
Romans  present  tlieir  bodies  a  living  sacrifice, 
holy,  acceptable  to  God,  which  is  the  rational 
worship  required  of  them  (Ro  12').  Praise,  self- 
consecration,  charity, — if  we  include  Rev  8',  we 
may  add,  after  the  analogy  of  Ps  14P,  prayer, — 
these  are  the  only  sacrifices  which  the  priestly 
people  of  God  may  oft'er  now.  There  is  no  such 
thing  in  the  NT  as  a  sacrifice  for  sin  except  the 
sacrifice  which  Christ  ottered  once  for  all. 

4.  The  NT  does  not  apply  the  word  lepeiJi  to  any 
Christian  minister,  nor  indeed  to  any  Christian  at 
all,  except  so  far  as  the  people  of  God  are  spoken 
of  as  a  '  royal  priesthood.'  It  is  easy  to  see  why. 
Christianity  is  what  it  is — a  perfect  and  abiding 
fellowship  with  God— because  it  is  realized  in  the 
Eternal  Son  of  God.  It  cannot  be  realized  or 
guaranteed  in  any  other.  He  is  the  Mediator  of 
it,  to  whom  it  owes  its  character.  To  introduce 
into  it,  no  matter  how  we  define  their  relation  to 
Him,  official  mediators,  is  to  relapse  from  the 
Melchizedek  priesthood  to  the  Aaronic ;  it  is  in 
principle  to  apostatize  from  Christianity.  The  pic- 
torial use  of  language  borrowed  from  the  old  re- 
ligion is,  of  course,  intelligible  enough.  St.  Paul, 
e.ff.,  can  speak  of  himself  as  lepovpywv  rb  cvayyiXiov 
ToO  fleoO,  discharging  a  sacred  function  toward  the 
gospel,  and  presenting^  the  Gentiles  as  an  offering 
to  God  (Ro  15'« ;  cf.  Ph  2").  But  there  is  not,  as 
in  the  nature  of  the  case  there  could  not  be,  any 
trace  in  the  NT  of  a  Christian  priest  making 
sacrifice  for  sin,  and  mediating  again  (in  the 
Aaronic,  official,  mortal,  never  perfect,  and  never 
to  be  perfected  fashion)  between  God  and  man. 

LiTBRATuuK. — Schurer,  as  &bove ;  the  books  on  NT  theology, 
Weiss,  Pfleiderer,  Beyschlag,  Holtzomnn  ;  the  commeDtaries  oo 
Hebrews,  esp.  the  extended  notes  in  Davidson ;  Bruce,  Ep.  to 
the  Uebrpwg,  and  art.  Hebrews  in  this  Dictionary ;  Milligan, 
Aacerufion  and  Heavenly  Priesthood  ;  Westcott,  llebrewa  ;  also 
Prioithood  and  Sacrifice  (Eeport  of  Conference  at  OxfordX 
edited  by  W.  Sauday,  1900.  J.  DeNNEY. 

PRINCE  is  the  AV  tr.  of  no  fewer  than  16  Hebrew 
or  Hebraized  terms  in  OT  and  3  Greelc  ones  in  NT. 

1.  (CC'J,  lit.  '  exalted  one '  from  n;j  '  lift  up.'  This 
word  is  practically  confined  (the  only  exceptions 
are  Ex  22-''l«»  [J  or  E],  1  K  8'  ll"  [both  W],  and 
Pr  25")  to  the  writings  of  P,  the  Chronicler,  and 
Ezekiel.  It  is  used  in  Gn  l"*"  (LXX  (Bvti  '  nations  ') 
25'"  (ipxovrei)  of  the  twelve  'princes'  descended 
from  Isiimael ;  in  23"  it  is  put  by  P  in  the  mouth  of 
the  '  children  of  Heth '  as  a  designation  of  Abra- 
ham (LXX  ^airtXei;!) ;  in  34' it  is  applied  to  Shechera 
the  son  of  Hamor  tipx'^' !  so,  or  Bipxoym,  in  the 
LXX  of  all  the  following  pa-ssages,  unless  other- 
wise noted) ;  in  Nu  25"  of  a  prince  of  Midian  ;  in 
Jos  13-'  of  the  princes  of  Sihon.  It  is  especially 
frequent  for  the  beads  of  the  Isr.  tribes :  £x  16'^ 


34",  Lv  4''  (AV  and  RV  in  these  three  passages 
'rulers'),  Nu  2^  V<'-  31'»  etc.,  Jos  g"- is. is. 21  174 
2214.  so.  82^  so  also  1  Ch  2'»  i^  5«  1*^  etc.,  cf.  Ex  2i« 
(28)  ('Thou  shalt  not  revile  God  nor  curse  a  ruler  of 
thy  people'),  and  1  K  8'  (A  iir-riaiUvoi.,  prob.  error 
for  iTT-qpiiivoi,  Aq.'s  tr.  of  nVJ  in  Ex  22'^ ;  B  om.)  = 
2  Ch  5-  (S.pxoi'Te';),  where  the  princes  of  the  fathers' 
houses  of  the  children  of  Israel  were  assembled  by 
Solomon.  In  IK  11"  the  term  nast'  is  used  of 
Solomon  himself  ('I  will  make  him  prince,'  K'i:) 
>in*t;'t<,  LXX  avmaffffbfievoi  avrtrd^o^ai),  and  in  Ezr  1^ 
the  Chronicler  applies  it  to  Shcslibazzar.  In  Ezk 
not  only  is  it  used  of  the  king  of  Judah  (12'»-  '^  21*' 
tEng.  25]  [a.<j)TtyoviJifvoi\),  and  of  Isr.  and  foreign  princes 
(7=' 21"  [E»s.  121  [d^iryoi'Mfo']  26'«  30"  32-"  etc.),  but 
han-nasi'  \a  the  special  designation  of  the  head  of 
the  future  ideal  State  (34=»  37=^  [both  6  dpx""]  44' 
[6  iryoiiievo^'l  45'-  '«•  "•  22  46'--  ■■•  <*■  ">•  '■■'■  '«•  "• '«  48-''-  --'  [all 
b  d.(priyoiiievoi\).  For  the  later  Talmudic  use  of  nasi' 
as  the  technical  title  for  the  president  of  the 
Sanhedrin  see  art.  Sanhedrin  ;  Kuenen,  Ge- 
samm.  Abhandl.  [Budde's  tr.]  p.  58  f.;  Schiirer, 
RJP  II.  i.  180  ff.  ;  Weber,  Jud.  Theologie,  p.  140. 
The  title  nasi'  was  also  assumed  by  Simeon  bar- 
Cochba  (the  leader  of  the  Jewish  revolt  A. D.  132), 
whose  coins  are  stamped  '  Simeon  nasi'  of  Israel ' 
(see  art.  Money  in  vol.  iii.  p.  430'',  and  Schurer, 
H.JP  I.  ii.  299). 

2.  IS'  occurs  with  extreme  frequency.  The  verbal 
form  Tii?  is  found  4  times  in  Qal  (Jg  9=^  Is  32',  Pr 
8",  Est  P-),  twice  in  Hithp.  (Nu  16'^""),  and  once 
in  Hiph.  (Hos8*).  In  Jg  9-'' and  Hos  8'' it  is  pointed 
in  MT  as  if  from  -no,  but  see  Konig,  i.  328,  352.  It 
is  uncertain  whetlier  this  is  the  primitive  root  = 
'have  power,'  'exercise  rule,'  or  whether  it  is  a 
denominative  from  iv.  Amongst  other  applica- 
tions, V  [in  the  following  passages  reproduced  in 
LXX,  unless  otherwise  noted,  by  fi/JX""]  is  used  of 
ofiicers  or  rulers  whether  military  Ex  18^  (AV  and 
RV  'rulers'),  Nu  21'8,  Is  21»,  2  Ch  32^'  ||  tjj  (AV 
and  RV  'captains'),  or  civil  1  Ch  27"  (irpoo-Tdrai, 
AV  and  RV  'rulers'),  cf.  29'  etc.,  particularly  of 
royal  officials  Gn  12",  2  K  ■J4'^  Hos  3*,  Ezr  S^  ;  of 
the  chiefs  of  foreign  nations  Jg  1^  8'  (Midian),  1  S 
IS**  (Philistines) ;  of  leaders  in  war  1  .S  22-  (^701!- 
/ie»oi,  AV  and  RV  'captains'),  cf.  2  S  Ii*  and  Neh 
2'  (ifyxTtol);  of  the  'ruler  of  the  city'  Jg  Q*",  cf. 
1  K  222«  (jSuffiXf i!s,  AV  and  RV  '  governor '),  Neh  V; 
of  the  chief  of  the  eunuchs  Dn  1"-  '"■  (apx^evoirxos) ; 
the  chief  of  the  butlers  or  bakers  Gn  40^-2"  (apx'- 
oivoxbot,  ipxt(riTOTroi6s),  etc. ;  the  head  of  the  priestly 
or  Levitical  classes  Ezr  S'^  10»,  1  Ch  15'«'  --  etc.  j 
the  directors  of  the  post-exilic  community  Neh  4"", 
cf.  Ezr  9'  10''',  Neh  11'.  With  the  sense  of  '  prince ' 
proper,  ii?  is  niainlv  post-exilic.  Est  1'*,  Job  29' 
(dSpoO  II  D'l'J},  Ps  119='-''";  of  the  Messiah,  'the 
prince  of  peace'  Is  9* (A  apx""  ^IpV'V't  B  follows  a 
ditterent  text) ;  of  the  guardian  angels  of  the 
nations  Dn  10"-=»-2i  12'  (Theod.  in  all  ipxi^',  LXX 
in  first  three  rrpar-qyiis,  in  last  dyycXos) ;  of  God 
Dn  8"  ('prince  of  the  host,'  dpxti^T/)dT7n'os)''(' prince 
of  princes,'  LXX  follows  a  ditterent  text). 

■rhe  noun  'princess'  in  EV  always  represents 
.Tip  (cf.  the  proper  name  SARAH).  Its  only  two 
occurrences  in  AVare  1  K  11' (of  the  seven  hundred 
wves  of  Solomon  ;  LXX  fi/jxowat).  La  1'  (of  Jerusa- 
lem '  princess  among  the  provinces';  LXXapx<""''°l- 
To  tlie.se  RV  adds  Est  !'«  (AV  'ladies,'  LXX 
TvpamlSe^).  There  are  only  two  other  occurrences 
of  mb  in  the  Hebrew  Bible.  The  one  is  Jg  5'^ 
n'n'np  ntorn  ( AV  and  RV  '  her  wise  ladies,'  Moore  [cf. 
his  note  on  the  text],  'the  sagestof  lier  princesses'; 
LXX  dpxowai);  the  other  Is  Is4;ra  (AV  and  RV 
'queens,'  AVm  'princesses';  LXX  ipxovaat). 

3.  fJ}.  The  root  meaning  is  probably  '  one  in 
front,'  'a  leader.'  This  word  is  used  in  general 
of  rulers  or  princes  in  Job  29'°  (AV  and  KV 
'nobles,'  LXX  wants  this  verse)  31"  (LXX  follows 


I'KLNCL 


riii:N'CL 


101 


aditlLTuiit  text),  Fs-G^-t^'^ipxw),  Pr2S'«  {3a<n\ei's). 
More  particularly  it  is  the  designation  of  (n)  the 
kinfi  of  Israel:  Saul  1  S  9'"  10'  [the  use  of  t:}  is 

Seculiar  to  the  earlier  of  the  two  narratives  of 
aul's  election,  "^;  '  kinj;'  being  used  in  the  other; 
the  same  distinction  is  oliscrved  in  the  LXX  dpx"'' 
anil  iia<Ti.\evi] ;  David  13'''  (apx""  ;  in  the  following 
passages  ^yoi/^fi-o!  unless  otherwise  noted)  25*, 
2S  5-  (eiarryoiiiiroi)  C-'  7^  1  Ch  H»  17',  2  Cli  6' 
[in  all  these  passages  relating  to  Saul  and  David, 
KV  has  'prince,'  AV  has  'captain'  in  all  except 
1  S  25^,  2  S  6-'  7',  1  Ch  11"  17',  2  Ch  6»,  where  it 
has  'ruler'],  Is  55'  (AV  and  RV  'leader,'  RVni 
'prince,'  LXXdpx"'');  Solomon  1  K  1"(AV 'ruler'), 
1  Ch  29"  (AV  'chief  governor,'  LXX  /SacriXetJs) ; 
Jeroboam  1  K  14' ;  Baasha  16- ;  Hezekiah  2  K  2U' 
( AV  '  captain ') ;  Abijah  2  Ch  1 1-^  (A V  '  ruler ') ;  cf. 
the  choice  of  Judah  1  Ch  28'  (AV  'ruler,'  LXX  if 
'Ioi'J(i  rjpiTiKiv  rh  §a.tTi\ci.ov). — (b)  A  foreign  ruler  or 
prime :  tlie  prince  of  Tyre  Ezk  '28-  (dpx"'') ;  per- 
liaps  also  'the  prince  that  shall  come'  Dn  9-* 
(?  Antiochus  Kpiplianes,  see  below;  Theod.  i  rjyov- 
fievos  6  ipx^^^voSy  LXX  ^aoikda  idvC:v). — (c)  A  h'tfjh 
temple  offici'il :  Pashhur  Jer  20'  (AV  'chief  gover- 
nor,' RV  'chief  oHicer') ;  cf.  1  Ch  9",  2  Ch  31"  35^ 
(AV  and  R  V  '  rulcr(s  '),  LXX  in  last  5.pxo<nrei),  Neh 
11"  (AV  and  RV  ruler,'  LXX  airivavTi.  oIkov  toO 
Beau) ;  the  high  priest  Dn  U'-^  ('the  prince  of  the 
covenant'),  and  perhaps  9-''-"  (AV  in  v.^  'the 
Messiah  the  prince,'  RV  '  the  anointed  one,  the 
prince';  Theod.  x/'""'**  Tnovixtvos).  The  prince  in 
v.''"  is  frequently  understood  of  Cyrus,  and  in  v.-" 
of  Ejiiphanes,  but  Bevau  argues  in  favour  of  under- 
standing the  reference  in  both  instances  to  be  to 
the  high  priest,  the  first  being  to  Joshua  the  son  of 
Jozadak  (Ezr  3°,  ll.i"  1',  Zee  3'),  and  the  second 
[reading  oy  n.-y:  '  shall  be  destroyed  with,'  for  cy 
r-ny:'  the  people  shall  destroy ']  to  Jason.  the  brother 
and  successor  of  Onias  III. — (d)  A  ruler  in  other 
cnjxicities.  This  use  of  the  word  is  l.ate  :  the  '  ruler ' 
of  each  tribe  1  Ch  27"^,  2  Ch  19";  the  '  ruler'  of  the 
Korahites  1  Ch  9-°;  the  'leader'  of  the  Aaronite 
warriors  1  Ch  12-';  the  '  leader '  of  an  armv  division 
1  Ch  13'  27*  (AV  and  RV  'ruler,'  LX.^  dpx""). 
2Ch  11"  ('captain'  of  a  fortress)  32-'  (in  the 
Assyrian  army;  AV  and  RV  'leaders,'  LXX 
dpXo"'fs) ;  the  'ruler'  over  the  temple  treasuries 
1  Ch  26-'-'  (6  iirl  rdv  eijaavpCii-),  cf.  2  Ch  31'"  (^tti- 
(TT-aTj)!).  In  2  Ch  28'  the  'house'  (n;;n)  of  which 
Azrikam  was  ruler  (AV  'governor'),  is  probably 
the  palace  ;  cf.  the  familiar  n:3Ci-Sy  iyi<  Is  22"  36'', 
1  K4«,  2  K  15"  etc. 

4.  3-j,  lit.  'willing,'  e.g.  a^i  anj  'willing  of 
heart'  Ex  35»-"",  2  Ch  29";  nj-i}  rj"  'a  willing  (AV 
and  RV  '  free')  spirit'  Ps  51" I'"' ;  cf.  the  use  of  the 
verb  3:i  "to  volunteer '  Jg  .->-- »,  2  Ch  17",  Neh  11", 
and  the  noun  .i^t;  'freewill  ofTering'  Ex  3ri"«  36', 
Ezr  1"  et  eil.  Hence  3";  may  mean  generous  or 
noh/e  in  disposition:  Pr  I7-"  (AV  'princes,'  RV 
'the  noble,;  II  pns),  v.' (LXX  SUaiot;  AV  and  RV 
'a  prince'  is  quite  mi.sleading,  see  Tov,  ml  lor.), 
I8  32»»  (AV  and  RV  'the  liberal';  opposed  here, 
as  in  Pr  17',  to  ^j:).  The  word  is  used  of  noble  or 
princely  rank  in  Nu  21"  (the  Soiij;  of  the  Wei! ; 
AV  and  RV  '  the  nobles,'  LX.\  /Saa-iXeis,  ||  Dn-;> 
'princes,'  ipxofTes.  In  the  following  passages,  un- 
less otherwise  noted,  apxw  is  used  by  LXX  to  tr. 
3"}),  1  S  2"  ('to  make  them  sit  with  princes,  ^trd 
Swaarwi'  Xoiii-),  .lob  12'-'  =  l's  107'°  ('He  poureth 
contempt  upon  princes')  21^  ('  Where  is  the  house 
of  the  prince?'  15  oZ/coj  ipxovTo^,  but  A  oTkos  dpxaios) 
34",  Ps  47'>"»i  83'"  l">  (AVand  RV  'nobles')  113'""' 
118"  146',  Pr  8">  dlD-i;',  LXX  MfViirrai-fs  and  rdpavm 
respectively)  19«  (AV  and  RVm  'prince'  seems 
preferable  to  RV  'liberal  man';  LXX /SoffiXm)  25' 
[Siiyd<TTiit),  Ca7'  CO  priuce's  daughter,'  S  euyarep 
NaSdiS,  A  0vy.  'Apupadi^). 

5.  TCJ  (As.syr.  »i«.«Ak),  from  root  idj  'install '  (cf. 


Ps  2«  pT'jy  -j^D  'rirpj  'I  have  installed  my  king 
upon  Zion'),  occurs  4  times  in  OT :  Jos  13"'  'the 
princes  (AV 'dukes,'  LXX  HpxafTa  [but  the  Gr. 
text  is  confused])  of  Sihon';  Ezk  32-*  'the  princes 
(d,/xoi'Tts)  of  the  north';  Mic  5'>'''  'eight  pnnciiial 
men '  (o-x  ■:•-},  RVm  'princes  among  men,' LXX 
5rr)ixaTa  avBptlnrap) ;  Ps  83'- 1"'  '  make  their  princes 
(I  C'3"},  see  above  ;  LXX  dpxoirfs)  like  Zebah  and 
Zalmunna.'  In  Dn  11*  on";'?;,  which  is  rendered  in 
AV  and  RV^m  'their  princes,'  is  much  more  likely 
from  another  Vih  a  by-form  of  Tirj,  and  means  '  their 
molten  images'  (so  RV,  Oxf.  Heb.  Lex.  etc.;  cf. 
LXX  and  Theod.  rd  x^i'fin-d).  We  reach  the  same 
result  by  simply  changing  the  Massoretio  reading 
to  cnTfj.     See,  further,  Bevan,  ad  lac. 

6.'c-:5-!i::-rs  (Ezr  8'"',  Est  3'"  &  ff<)  or  N.'jSTiv'nK 
(Dn  3"-  5-  ■-''  6^-  ■*•  »■  '■ «)  is  uniformly  rendered  by  RV 
satraps,  while  AV  gives  '  lieutenants '  in  the  pas- 
sages in  Ezra  and  Esther,  '  princes '  in  those  in 
Daniel.    See  art.  Lieutenant. 

7.  C"?y'''^  in  Ps  6S*'i'-l  is  rendered  by  both  A\' 
and  RV  'princes.'  The  LXX  has  wpiapa's  'am- 
bassadors,' Vulg.  legati ;  but  all  these  renderings 
are  purely  conjectural,  founded  upon  the  context. 
Probably  we  ought,  with  Nestle  {.JBL,  1891,  p. 
152),  to  emend  to  D'jrifs  '  they  shall  come  with 
oils  or  ointments'  (so  Duhm,  et  al.). 

8.  c-j:^3  is  rendered  '  princes '  in  AV  of  Job  12", 
but  there  is  no  reason  for  departing  from  the  usual 
meaning  'priests'  (so  RV,  LaX  iepeis). 

9.  c";:?  Is  41"°  'he  (Cyrus)  shall  come  upon 
princes  (RV  'rulers,'  RVm  'deputies')  as  upon 
mortar.'  The  LXX  lias  dpxo'^ft.  Scganhn  (found 
only  in  the  plural)  is  a  loan-word  from  the 
Assyrian,  where  it  appears  as  mknu  'prefect'  of 
a  conquered  city  or  province.  For  the  other  OT 
uses  and  the  later  meanin"  of  sCgdnim  see  art. 
Priests  and  Levites,  p.  96''. 

10.  c';n-)5,  a  Persian  loan-word,  probablj- =/ra- 
tama,  '  lirst,'  occurs  3  times:  Dn  P  "certain  of 
the  cliildren  of  Israel,  even  of  the  seed  royal  and 
of  the  nobles  '  (AV  'princes  ' ;  LXX  (k  tCiv  iirCKiKTav, 
Theod.  B  airb  rCir  <t>opOofiiieii',  A  .  .  .  TropOo,utielv, 
Symm.  and  Pesh.  tr.  'Parthians ') ;  Est  H  (AV 
and  RV  '  nobles,' ||  ony  ;  LXX  lySoioi);  &  'one  of 
the  king's  most  noble  princes'  (cpn-ifri  tj^eh  n^'p  ej-n, 
LXX  fvl  Tu)V  (^i\wv  TOV  /iaiT^Xeuis  twv  4vo6^ii)v). 

11.  ]'¥[;  ( =  Arab,  kd/li.  from  hirjri  '  to  decide,'  '  to 
pronounce  a  sentence')  is  a  term  used  of  both 
military  and  civil  leaders:  Jos  10**  ('the  chiefs 
of  the  men  of  war'),  Jg  ll'- "  (of  Jephtliah),  Pr  6' 
(in  a  saying  about  the  ant,  joined  with  loy  and 
Vj=),  Is  1'"  3"-'  2-2".  The  OT  passages  where  it  is 
tr.  '  prince '  in  A V  are  :  Pr  25'°  '  By  lon^  forbear- 
ing IS  a  prince  (RV  'ruler,'  RVm  'judge')  per- 
suaded '  (LXX  iv  fiaKpoSvpilf  evo5ia  jia<Ti\eO<rtv  ;  there 
api)ears  to  be  no  sufficient  reason  for  Toy's  and 
I'rankenberg's  emendation  of  the  last  two  words 
of  the  MT  I'sj  HP";  to  ivf)  Dpifi;  or  "jxp  '^■;  '  is  anger 
[or  an  angry  man]  pacified ') ;  Mic  3'-  '  '  ye  princes 
(RV  'rulers')  of  the  house  of  Israel'  (LXX  ol 
KaTdXoiiroi ;  in  both  verses || c-px-;  'heads') ;  Dn  H" 
'a  iirince(RVm  'captain')  shall  cause  the  reproach 
offered  by  him  to  ce.ase.'  The  reference  is  to 
the  Roman  general  Lucius  Scipio  who  defeated 
Antiochus  the  Great  at  Magnesia,  R.C.  190  (see 
Bevan,  ad  he).  There  is  nothing  in  Theod.  or 
the  LXX  text  here  corresponding  to  the  word  ['Vj. 

12.  13.  31,  which  is  especially  familiar  as  the 
first  part  of  otlicial  titles  like  Rab-mao,  Rab- 
saris,  Rah-shakeii  (see  the  artt.  on  these  names), 
is  twice  tr.  'prince'  in  AV  :  Jer  39"  41'  of  the 
ririnces  (RV  'chief  oflicers')of  the  king  of  Baby 
ton  ;  LXX  in  the  first  passage  [46']  riyep-ivei,  in 
the  second  the  term  is  dropped.  In  Dn  4''<''' 
51.  2.s.».  10. »  gisini  the  form  l?-|3T  occurs.  Both 
AV  and  RV  render  uniformly  by  'lords'  except 
in  5'-  •  where  A  V  has  '  princes ' ;  flieod.  has  pLcyi- 


102 


PRINCESS 


PRISCA  OR  PRISCILLA 


arayes  in  every  instance,  so  LXX  in  5™  and  6"  <">, 
om.  in  the  other  passages. 

H.  15.  I'm.  (cf.  the  proper  name  Rezon,  1  K  11") 
only  Pr  14^  'in  the  want  of  people  is  the  destruc- 
tion of  the  prince'  (LXX  SmdaTys) ;  elsewhere  [I'l, 
namely  Jg  5'  '  Give  ear,  0  ye  princes '  (B  ffaTodwai, 
A  adds  Siiuarol),  Vs  2'  (ipxofTes,  AV  and  RV 
'rulers'),  Pr  S'"  (Svvd<rrai)  31^  Hab  1"  {ripayvoi), 
Is  40"  {S.pxofTes).  In  all  these  passages  jHit  or  jh 
is  I1 1|^5  '  king,'  except  in  the  last,  where  q'JIT  is  II 
P.N  'oEb"  'judges  of  the  earth.'  Cf.  Arab,  razin, 
'  grave,'  '  steady,'  from  razuna,  '  to  be  hea\'y.' 

16.  »•'?¥•  is  once  (Ezk  23")  tr.  '  prince.'  A  better 
rendering  would  be  'officer'  or  'captain.'  The 
word,  which  means  literally  '  third  '  (cf.  the  LXX, 
but  not  in  above  passage,  TpicrrdTTjs),  is  usually 
explained  to  have  denoted  originally  the  man 
who,  in  addition  to  the  driver,  stood  beside  the 
king  on  his  war-chariot,  holding  his  shield  or  the 
like.  But  the  adequacy  of  this  as  an  explanation 
of  the  general  usage  of  the  term  is  questioned  by 
Dillniann  (on  Ex  14'),  Kraetzschmar  ('  Ezechiel'  in 
Nowack's  JSdkomm.),  and  others.  Kraetzschmar 
prefers  to  make  the  meaning  simply  third  in 
military  rank  (comparing  the  obsolete  titles  '  first 
lieutenant,'  '  second  lieutenant '),  or  to  regard 
shalish  as  a  loan  -  word.  The  term  occurs  fre- 
quently elsewhere  in  OT  in  the  same  sense  (e.g. 
Ex  14^  15^  2  K  9^  10»  15^,  AV  and  RV  always 
'  captain '). 

In  the  NT  the  terms  rendered  in  AV  'prince' 
are  1.  apxTV^s : — Ac  3"  '  ye  kUled  the  Prince  ( AVm 
and  RVm  '  Author ')  of  life.'  '  Author '  appears  to 
be  the  better  rendering  here  (cf.  He  2'° '  the  author 
[AVm  and  RVm  '  captain ']  of  their  salvation '). 
The  only  other  instance  where  dpxvy^'  is  tr. 
'prince'  (AV  and  RV)  is  Ac  5^'  'Him  did  God 
3xalt  with  his  right  hand  to  be  a  Prince  and  a 
Saviour.'  The  Gr.  term  occurs  once  more  in  NT, 
namely  in  He  12-  '  Jesus  the  author  (AVm  '  be- 
ginner,' RVm  'captain')  and  finisher  (RV  'per- 
lecter')  of  our  faith,'  where  the  meaning  is  prob- 
ably 'leader'  or  ' antcsignanus.'  2.  S.px'^"-  Mt  9** 
12-'^  Mk  3=2  of  (Beelzebub)  'the  prince  of  the 
demons';  Mt  20'-^  'the  princes  of  the  GentUes,' 
cf.  1  Co  '2'-  ^  '  the  princes  of  this  world  '  (el  ipxomes 
Tov  aliixo!  ToijTov) ;  Jn  12"  \i^  16"  '  the  prince  of 
this  world '  [i  ipxi^v  toO  Klia/iov  toittou)  ;  Epli  2-  '  the 
prince  of  the  power  of  the  air '  (6  ipx^f  t^s  ^fowrfas 
ToD  ddpos ;  on  this  expression  see  art.  SATAN) ; 
Rev  1°  '  the  Prince  of  the  kings  of  the  earth '  (6 
&PX<ov  Tuv  ^aaCKiwv  t^s  7^5,  probably  a  reminiscence 
of  Ps  89(88)^).  3.  rrtepLihv  is  tr.  'prince'  only  in 
Mt  2"  '  thou  art  not  the  least  among  the  princes 
of  Judah.'  On  the  surprising  variations  between 
St.  Matthew's  quotation  and  the  original  passage 
Mic  5',  and  the  possible  explanation  of  these,  see 
art.  Quotations,  L  d.  J.  A.  Selbik. 

PRINCESS.— See  Prince,  No.  2,  ad  Jin. 

PRINCIPALITY.— In  Jer  13"  nSotiiD  (from  e».-!-i 
the  head)  is  tr.  'principalities,'  apparently  in  the 
sense  of  privilege,  pre-eminence,  as  in  Jer.  Taylor, 
Worthy  Communicant,  i.  83,  '  If  any  mystery,  rite, 
or  sacrament  be  effective  of  any  si)ii  itual  blessings, 
then  this  is  much  more,  as  having  the  prerogative 
and  illustrious  principality  above  everything  else.' 
This  is  better  than  the  tr.  '  from  your  head '  or 
'  from  your  heads'  of  the  previous  versions  (Vulg. 
de  captte  vestro,  LXX  dird  it€(^aX^s  i/iwi') ;  but  the 
meanmg  is  evidently,  as  in  AVm  and  RV,  '  head- 
tires.' 

In  2  Mac  4"  5'  the  high  priesthood  is  called  the 
'principalitj-,'  i.e.  principal  olEce  or  supreme  power 
I'i/'X'))-  Cf.  Jliltoii,  Reform,  ii.  'The  Bishoi)s  of 
Rome  and  Alexandria,  who  beyond  their  Priestly 
bounds  now  long  agoe  had  stept  into  principality.' 


For  the  '  principalities '  {apxat)  of  Ro  S",  Eph  1" 
{ipx-^,  RV  '  rule  ^)  3'°  6'»,  Col  2i»- ",  Tit  3'  (RV 
'rulers'),  see  Dominion  in  vol.  i.  p.  616'. 

J.  Hastings. 

PRINCIPLE.— See  Element  in  vol.  i.  p.  082'. 

PRISCA  or  PRISCILLA  {Upl<rm,  Upl<rKi\\a).— 
The  wife  of  Aquila.  The  name  is  Latin,  PrisciUa 
being  the  diminutive  form.  In  the  three  places  in 
Acts  where  the  word  is  used  (IS''"  '*i^''),  the  form  is 
always  Priscilla  ;  in  the  three  places  in  St.  Paul's 
Epistles  (Ro  16»,  1  Co  IG'",  2  Ti  4'")  it  is  in  the  best 
MSS  always  Prisca.  In  Ac  18'8-»,  Ro  16^  ■-'  Ti  4" 
tlie  wife's  name  appears  first,  in  the  other  two 
places  the  husband  s. 

There  U  some  variatioD  io  the  MSS  &nd  VSS.  In  Ac  18^ 
KABE  vulg.  boh.  read  Xlp.rxikXa  «»; '  A«;xai ;  DHLP,  etc.,  gig, 
syrr,  sah.  read'A«.  ««;  Tlf.  In  Ro  lO^  and  2  Ti  -lis  the  evi- 
dence for  Tlpio^m  is  prepondemting ;  in  1  Co  l&^  llainut.  is  read 
by  kBMP  ™1k.  codd.,  boh.  arm.  ;  no.o-»-Wi«  by  ACDEFOKL 
and  most  later  MSS,  \iilg.  codd.,  syrr,  Chrys.,  Thdrt.,  Dam.  and 
TR ;  the  former  reading  is  undoubtedly  riylit.  In  2  Ti  i^s 
there  is  acurious  addition  after  '  Axii.et*  in  46,  lUO.  and  1U9  l^t. 
AlKTpait  (sic)  rr,t  yvvattuc  tLvrcv  Juti  ^fJ.aLiet9  (sic)  xcti  Z*i>^.«  rtif 

The  variations  in  the  text  of  Ac  18'-^  have  been  examined 
ver.v  carefully  by  Harnack,  who  shows  that  the  longer  text 
(usually  called  the  Western,  or  by  Blass  ,i)  is  clearly  formed 
out  of  the  shorter,  and  suj^gests  that  it  has  been  modified  by 
an  interpolator  who  objected  to  the  too  ^reat  prominence  ^ven 
to  a  woman,  and  has  made  the  position  of  PrisciUa  less  pro- 
minent. With  liis  conclusion  we  may  compare  the  remarks  of 
Ramsay  {Church  in  the  Roman  Empire,  p.  101)  on  the  omission 
of  Damaris  in  the  AVestern  text,  Ac  173-*. 

Prisca  is  always  mentioned  with  her  husband. 
He  is  described  as  a  Jew  of  Pontus,  and  a  tent- 
maker.  St.  Paul  is  a-ssociated  with  them  first  at 
Corinth,  whither  they  had  retired  after  the  decree 
expelling  the  Jews  from  Rome.  After  remaining 
there  about  eighteen  months,  they  went  with  St. 
Paid  to  Ephesus,  and  remained  there  while  he  went 
on  to  Jerusalem.  At  Ephesus  they  were  concerned 
in  the  instruction  of  Apollos,  and  seem  to  have  re- 
mained throughout  St.  Paul's  residence,  their  house 
being  used  for  Christian  meetings.  Later,  probably 
in  consequence  of  the  uproar  in  the  theatre,  when 
there  seem  to  have  been  considerable  riots,  they 
returned  to  Rome,  where  again  their  house  was 
used  for  Christian  worship:  and  ultimately  weagain 
find  them  at  Epliesus.  These  numerous  changes 
between  Rome,  Ephesus,  and  Corinth  have  caused 
difficulty  to  critics,  who  have  for  this  and  other 
causes  suggested  that  Ro  16  was  really  addressed 
to  Ephesus.  A  sufficient  explanation  is,  however, 
afl'orded  by  the  nomadic  character  of  the  Jewish 
world  in  general,  of  Aquila  and  Priscilla  in  par- 
ticular, and  by  their  occupation  as  Christian 
missionaries  interested  in  the  spread  and  support 
of  the  Christian  Churches.  They  were  evidently 
persons  of  prominence  in  the  earl3-  Christian  com- 
munity. St.  Paul  speaks  of  them  with  atlection, 
and  saj-s  that  they  had  endangered  their  lives  for 
his  sake  (Ro  16^). 

The  above  is  all  that  we  learn  from  the  New 
Testament,  but  the  traditions  of  the  Roman 
Church,  where  the  n.ame  Prisca  was  of  con.sider- 
able  importance,  suggest  the  possibility  of  some 
interesting  discoveries  being  made.  The  name 
occurs  in  two  connexions. 

(1)  There  is  a  church  on  the  Aventine  bearin" 
the  name  of  St.  Prisca  which  jrivcs  a  title  to  one  of 
the  Rom.'in  cardinals.  This  churcli  bore  the  name 
of  the  TitidiiK  St.  PrUrae  from  the  4th  to  the  8th 
cent.  (Lilier  Pontifinli.t,  ed.  Duchesne,  i.  501, 
517")  ;  later,  under  Leo  III.  (795-816),  it  is  called 
the  Titulus  Aquilae  ct  Prixcne  (ih.  ii.  20).  There 
are  legendarj'  Arti  of  St.  Pri.<!in,  dating  from  the 
loth  cent.,  in  which  it  is  stated  that  the  liody  of 
St.  Prisca  was  translated  from  the  place  on  the 
Ostian  Way  where  she  had  bcHU  buricil  and  trans- 
ferred to  the  Church  of  St.  Aquila  and  Prisca  oa 


priso:n 


PEIYY,  PRIVILY 


lOS 


the  .\vt'ntine  {Acta  Sam-torum,  Jan.  ii.  i).  187). 
An  inscription  of  the  10th  cent.  {C.  Inn.  Christ,  u. 
p.  443)  also  calls  it  domus  AijuUae  scu  Priscne. 

(2)  In  the  legendary  acconnt  of  Piulens,  Puden- 
ziana,  and  Praxedis,  Priscilla  is  stated  to  have  Ijeen 
the  mother  of  Pudens  (Ada  Sanct.  May,  iv.  295). 

(3)  One  of  the  oldest  of  the  catacombs  of  Rome 
is  the  Ccemcterium  Priscillae,  outside  the  Porta 
Solaria,  and  there  seems  to  he  some  evidence  to 
connect  the  name  Prisca  with  the  Acilian  gens, 
members  of  wliich  were  buried  there. 

Now  it  has  been  noticed  that  the  name  Prisca 
in  four  out  of  six  places  is  mentioned  before  that 
of  her  husband.  Hort,  following  out  this  point, 
suggests  that  she  was  a  member  of  a  distinguished 
Roman  family  who  had  married  a  Jew.  This  would 
account  both  for  the  prominence  given  to  her,  and 
the  connexion  of  the  name  with  one  of  the  oldest 
cemeteries.  A  more  plausible  suggestion  is  that 
both  Prisca  and  Aquila  were  freedmen  of  the 
Acilian  or  some  other  gens ;  that  through  them 
Christianity  had  reached  a  distinguished  Roman 
family,  whose  name  they  had  taken,  and  that 
this  accounted  for  the  prominence  of  the  name 
Pri.sca  in  the  early  Church.  More  discovery  and 
investigation  are  needed,  but  the  point  of  interest 
is  that  the  name  Prisca  in  some  way  or  other 
occupied  a  prominent  position  in  the  Rora.  Church. 

An  intereating  su^estion.  which  has  the  merit  of  novelty. 
bu  Ijeen  miule  by  Professor  Harnack,  tlmt  in  Priscilla  and 
Ac^ulla  we  have  the  authors  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews. 
Pnsca  and  Aquila  were,  we  know,  teachers  of  prominence  who 
had  turned  Apollos  to  Christianity ;  they  belonged  to  the 
Intimate  circle  of  SU  Paul's  friends  ;  tlicy  were  close  friends  of 
Timothy,  and  personally  received  St.  Paul.  They  had  for  some 
time  been  connected  with  a  small  ChriHtian  community  in 
Rome,  and  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  waji  clearly,  he  ar^es, 
written  to  Rome,  and  not  to  the  Church  as  a  whole,  but  to  a 
small  circle  within  the  Churcii.  They  were  with  Italian  con- 
nections, but  living  outside  Italy.  In  the  Ejiistle  there  is  a 
curious  interchange  of  '  We  *  and  '  I.'  Lastly,  the  authorship  of 
Priscilla  will  explain  why  the  writing  is  now  anonjinous.  The 
Church  of  the  2nd  cent,  objected  very  stronjfly  to  the  prominent 
position  of  women  in  the  Apostolic  age.  This  had  caused  the 
gradual  modification  of  various  passages  in  the  Acts,  and  the 
desire  to  separate  this  work  from  the  name  of  Priscilla.  The 
whole  argument  is  as  ingenious  as  Professor  Harnack  always  is, 
but  it  does  not  succeed  in  being  quite  convincing. 

LlTBRATORl.— De  Rossi,  B\M.  Arch.  Chritt.  Ser.  L  No.  6 
(1887),  p.  45  ff.,  Ser.  Iv.  No.  6  (18S8-S9),  p.  120;  Duchesne,  Lt*er 
PontificaiU  \  Hort,  Roin.  and  Eph.  pp.  12-14;  Plumptre, 
Biblirat  Studies,  p.  417 ;  Sanday-IIeadlam,  Homana,  pp.  x.wii, 
418  fl. ;  liarosay,  St.  Paul  the  TTamller,  2(i8  f.  ;  Hiiniack, 
SitzunQgberichte  der  K.  Frewfttichen  Akadeini«  der  M'i^sen- 
tcha/ten.  1(KX),  i.,  and  Zeitgchrift  fur  die  iieutestameiUlicUe 
Wiuentchaft  und  die  Kunde  det  Urchrittentmm,  1900,  p.  10. 

A.  C.  Headi.am. 

PRISON. — Joseph  wa.s  imprisoned  in  an  Egyp- 
tian pri.son  (vc?  n-j,  perhaps  '  hou.se  of  enclosure,' 
i,e.  walled,  or  '  fortress,'  cf.  cognate  Syriac  nmno 
'palace,'  and  Targumic  ino  'to  go  round,'  'sur- 
round ' ;  6xi<p'^iia,  SeffiiuT^piov ;  career,  custoilia,  Gn 
39-.«-»  403.8  [jEj.  gXio  iu  'pit,'  EV  'dungeon'; 
Xdxxot,  ixiV^Mo  ;  lacus,  career,  Gn  40"  41'''  [JE] ;  in 
40",  c-rjsn  %■  n-j  '  house  of  the  captain  of  the  execu- 
tioners,' i.e.  the  guard).  '  Fortress '  suggests  the  use, 
always  common,  of  fortresses  as  prisons ;  '  house 
of  the  captain  of  the  guard  '  suggests  that  the  care 
of  prisoners  waa  one  of  the  duties  of  that  oflicial. 
Ebers,  A^gypten,  p.  317  fl'.,  identities  this  'fort- 
ress' with  that  at  Memphis,  mentioned  in  inscrip- 
tions as  the  'White  Wall';  see,  further,  art. 
Joseph  in  vol.  ii.  p.  708",  note  ||.  In  Egypt,  in 
addition  to  the  royal  prisons,  the  great  temples 
had  prisons  of  their  own  (Erman,  Life,  etc.  p.  304). 
Imprisonment  is  mentioned  as  a  penalty ;  and  the 
great  gold  and  other  mines  of  Ethiopia  and  Sinai, 
which  were  worked  by  convicts  and  cjiptives  under 
conditions  of  barbarous  cruelty,  were  re.illy  vast 
prisons  (Masncro,  Daton,  etc.  337).  Joseph'sbreth- 
ren  are  said  (Gn  42"->')  to  have  been  kept  in 
custody,  Tyy'I?,  ipvXaK-^. 

Samson  was  imprisoned  by  the  Philistines  in  a 


D"!!3.x.7  n'5  (Kt.  0"!T><)  'house  of  those  who  are 
bound,'  ouos  toO  Sea/xorrripiov,  career,  Jg  16"'-^.  The 
terms  n^-j  (n-j),  n-^j  '2,  m'??  'a  '  house  of  conlinement,' 
<pv\aK-/i,  are  used  of  the  places  of  imprisonment  of 
Micaiah,  1  K  22-'' ;  Ho.shea  (in  Assyria),  2K  \'' ; 
Jehoiachin  (in  Babylon),  2  K  25^  ;  and  Jeremiah, 
Jer  37*' "  etc.;  al.so  in  Is  42"-**.  Jeremiah's  place 
of  confinement  is  also  called  .tie?  'place  of  guard,' 
0i;Xoin),  career;  and  tcn  n'3,  37'°  =  on)r,'<n  n'3  (see 
above,  Samson).  In  2  Ch  16">,  Jer  29-'',  n'r^rro  (.\V 
' prison,' 0i;\oK7)),  etc.,  should  be  'stocks.'  Zedekiah 
was  imprisoned  at  Babylon  in  a  ^~P^^  n'3  'liouse  of 
inspection,'  oUia,  tivXun'os,  domo  cnreeris,  Jer  52". 
Other  terms  used  are  ipo  'enclosure,'  ixvpatxa, 
(jiv\aK-fi,  etc.  career,  Ps  142',  Is  24--  42';  if;,  rallier 
'oppression,'  Is  53';  -1-^!?  =  ' ward,  custody,'  Gn 
42'".  'Prison'  is  supplied  in  Is  61'.  The  case  of 
Samson  suggests  buildings  like  the  Roman  ergn.s- 
tulum,  in  which  malefactors  and  slaves  were  con- 
Cued  and  kept  at  work.  Jeremiah's  prison  was 
at  one  time  part  of  the  palace,  32-,  cf.  37^',  I  K  22-'', 
Nell  3^,  2  K  25-'' ;  at  another  a  private  house, 
Jer  37".  As  .til-?  in  Jer  32-  = '  guardhouse,'  it  seems 
that  the  care  of  prisoners  was  one  of  the  duties  of 
the  body-guard,  and  that  the  prisoners  were  con- 
fined in  rooms  attached  to  their  quarters.  The 
'  pit '  (I'la,  Jer  38^-",  cf.  Gn  37=")  may  have  been  an 
empty  cistern,  or  possibly  an  oubliette. 

Our  available  evidence  points  to  places  of  conline- 
ment being  parts  of  palaces,  temples,  fortresses, 
etc.,  rather  than  special  buildings  set  apart  for 
the  purpose.  For  the  crimes  punished  by  con- 
linement, and  the  conditions  and  treatment  of 
prisoners,  see  Crimes  and  Punishments  in  vol.  i. 
p.  525,  .?.  '  Imprisonment.' 

In  NT,  John  the  Baptist  (Mt  14'  etc.),  Peter 
(Ac  5"  etc.),  Paul  and  Silas  (l(i-^  etc.),  and  otheis 
were  confined  in  a  tpvKaK-i)  '  prison,  place  of  guard- 
ing'; John  (Mt  11-),  Paul,  etc.  (Ac  16=")  in  a 
5(j nijjT-tipiov  '  prison,'  '  place  of  bonds.'  The  apostles 
(Ac  5^'''-°)  Mere  confined  in  the  Seaixur-fipiov,  also 
T-fip-riaii  (5'")  '  place  of  keeping.'  In  Ac  12'  otKij/xa 
'house,'  is  tr"  'prison.'  According  to  Jos.  {Ant. 
XVIII.  v.  2),  John  was  imprisoned  at  tlie  royal 
fortress  of  Macluerus.  The  prison  at  Jerusalem 
mentioned  in  Ac  5  was  under  the  control  of  the 
priests,  and  probably  attached  to  the  temple  or  the 
high  {)riest's  palace.  Paul  was  imprisoned  in  the 
fort  Antonia  (Ac  23"')  at  Jerusalem,  in  the  Praj- 
toriiim  (or  Palace)  of  Herod  at  Ca'sarea  (Ac  23**). 
At  Rome  he  was  .allowed  to  live  in  his  'own  hired 
house '  (Ac  2S™),  doubtless  in  charge  of  a  soldier. 
Before  his  trial,  however,  he  may  have  been  trans- 
ferred to  prison,  perhaps  the  career  specially  so 
called  (named  in  mediieval  times  Mamertiinis),  and 
consisting  of  a,  larger  oblong  upjier  storey  and  a 
smaller  circular  underground  dungeon — the  Tulli- 
anum.  This  career  may  ha\e  been  Paul's  place 
of  conlinement  in  his  second  imprisonment.  Cf. 
•Career'  in  Smith's  Dii't.  of  Cl'i.s\i.  Antiquities. 

On  '  the  spirits  in  prison '  of  1  I*  3'"  see  vol.  i. 
p.  754*  and  vol.  iii.  p.  7t)5.  W.  H.  BENNETT. 

PRIYY.  PRIVILY.— These  words,  which  came 
into  the  I'ng.  language  through  the  Old  Fr.  j'rive, 
have  now  been  displaced  (except  in  some  com- 
pounds) by  'private,'  'privately,'  which  were 
taken  direct  from  the  Lat.  privatii.i,  and  which 
are  al.so  found  in  AV.  Cf.  Mk  4-''  Tind.  'There 
is  nothinge  so  jirevy  tlmt  shall  not  bo  opened' 
(AV nothing  hid  which  shall  not  be  manifested'); 
Jn  7"  Tind.  'Then  went  he  also  up  unto  the  feast; 
not  openly,  but  as  it  were  nrevely '  (AV  'in  secret'); 
ErasiiniH,  Ex/xi-^ition  of  the  Crcdc,  '  By  the  spirits 
he  doth  understand  and  mcano  privye  or  secrete 
grace  of  faytlie'  ;  More,  Utopia,  43,  '  Howe  should 
a  man,  that  in  no  parte  of  his  apparell  is  like 
other  men,  flye  prevelie  and  unknowen  !' 


104 


PEOCHOEUS 


PEOMISE 


I 


To  be  privy  to  a  thing  (1  K  2**,  Ac  5')  is  simply 
to  have  a  knowledge  of  it.  C£.  Calderwood, 
llistori,  of  the  Churck  of  Scotland,  140,  '  Argile 
came  to  St.  Andrews  the  day  following,  privie, 
as  ap]ieared,  to  the  purpose ' ;  Bishops'  Bible,  Ps 
19"  '  \Vho  can  knowe  his  owne  errours  ?  Oh  dense 
thou  me  from  those  tliat  I  am  not  privie  of ' ; 
Spenser,  Shep.  Cal.  viii.  153 — 

*  Te  carelesse  bjrds  are  privie  to  my  cries. 

J.  Hastings. 

PROCHORUS  (Ilpixopos).  —  One  of  the  'seven' 
appointed,  Ac  6".  Later  tradition  made  him  bishop 
ol  Nicomedia,  and  a  martyr  at  Antiooh.  He  was 
commemorated  by  the  Latins  on  April  9,  by  the 
tJreeks  on  July  28.  See  Baronius,  i.  ad  ann.  44  ; 
Acta  Sanctorum,  Ap.,  i.  S18.  There  is  published 
in  Magna  Bibliutheca  Patrum,  Colon.  Agr.  1618, 
i.  49-t)9,  a  spurious  Historia  Prochori,  Christi 
Discipuli,  de  vita  B.  loannis  Apostoli. 

A.  C.  Headlam. 

PROCONSUL  (Lat.  proconsul;  Gr.  avduTraTos).— 
The  technical  term  for  the  governor  of  a  senatorial 
province,  used  Ac  13'*-''  of  Sergius  Paiilus  in 
Cyprus;  IS'-  of  Gallio  at  Corinth;  IQ^*  of  the 
governors  of  Asia.  Some  little  difficulty  has  been 
elt  by  the  use  of  the  plural  in  the  last  case,  but 
it  quite  normally  expresses  what  is  habitual  :  *  H 
any  man  has  a  definite  charge,  there  are  law  courts 
and  judges,'  as  we  should  say.  The  proconsuls 
were  of  two  classes — those  who  were  ex-consuls, 
viz.  the  rulers  of  Asia  and  Africa,  wlio  were 
therefore  correctly  (according  to  republican  usage) 
proconsuls,  and  those  who  were  only  ex-praetors. 
For  fuller  details  see  under  Province. 

A.  C.  Headlam. 

PROCURATOR.— The  technical  terra  to  describe 
the  ofhce  held  by  Pontius  Pilate  and  the  other 
governors  of  Jud:ea.  The  word  means  originally 
a  baUiff  or  steward  ;  under  the  empire  it  was  used 
for  the  imperial  officials,  sometimes  of  equestrian 
rank,  sometimes  only  freedmen,  who  were  appointed 
in  the  provinces  to  collect  the  imperial  revenue  or 
fiscus.  In  imperial  provinces  they  managed  the 
whole  of  the  revenue ;  in  senatorial  provinces, 
where  there  were  quasstors,  only  that  part  which 
belonged  to  the  emperor.  Even  in  senatorial  pro- 
vinces their  authority  had  a  tendency  gradually  to 
increase,  and  they  obtained  judicial  powers  in 
revenue  cases  ;  but  in  addition  to  that  there  were 
certain  provinces  which  were  governed  directly  by 
a  procurator,  who  possessed  all  the  powers  ot  an 
ordinary  governor.  The  provinces  so  governed  were 
usually  those  in  a  tran.«itional  state  —  provinces 
whicli  had  not  been  thoroughly  romanized,  and 
were  passing  from  the  rule  of  one  of  the  reqes  socii 
to  the  conditions  of  a  province.  The  following  pro- 
vinces were  governed  in  this  way  (at  any  rate  at 
certain  periods) : — Mauritania,  liha^tia,  Noricum, 
Thrace,  Cappadocia,  the  Maritime  Aljis,  the  Alps 
of  Savoy,  and  Juda?a.  These  provinces,  governed 
by  procurators,  were  in  some  sense  subordinate  to 
the  governor  of  the  neighbouring  province :  for 
instance,  Cappadocia  was  subordinate  to  Galatia, 
and  Judaea  to  Syria.  With  this  limitation,  the 
procurator  had  the  full  power  of  the  governor. 
He  commanded  such  troops  as  were  within  bis  pro- 
vince, he  held  the  power  of  life  and  death,  and  full 
judicial,  administrative,  and  financial  authority. 

The  technical  term  in  connexion  with  Juda'a  is 
given  in  Tacitus,  Annal.  xv.  44  :  Christus  Tibcrio 
imperitante  per  procurntorem  Pontium  Pilatum 
supplicio  ndfcctus  est.  The  proper  Greek  transla- 
tion would  be  eiriTpowos,  but  in  the  NT  we  find  the 
vaguer  term  riytfuiv.  which  might  include  rultrs  of 
sther  categories  (Mt  2T--  "•  "•  '»■  "•  -''  28",  Lk  3'  2u-», 
Ac  23-"-  '^-  ^  --M'-  '"  2G*').  In  Josephus  we  find  both 
triTporot  and  rjyepiuv.  A.  C.  HeADLAM. 


PROFANE The    Eng.    word  comes  from   Lat. 

pro/amis  (through  Fr.  profane),  which  is  taken  to 
oe  pro  'before'  and  finuin  'the  temple,'  hence 
outside  the  temple  limits,"  outside  the  limits  of 
that  which  is  holy,  unholy,  secular,  t 

The  incorrect  spellint?pro^fta/i€  became  common  in  the  16tb 
cent.,  and  is  the  spelling  in  the  1011  ed.  of  AV  everywhere 
except  Ezk  2333-  39,  1  Mac  351,  2  Mac  (i^,  Ac  246. 

Tlie  Heb.  word  so  tr''  in  AV  is  S'rn  to  pollute, 
with  its  derivatives  Sn  pollution,  and  "^^ici  (adj.) 
polluted.  Once  also  (Jer  23")  the  verb  [ijn],  and 
once  (Jer  23")  its  deriv.  n?jq  are  tr^  '[is]  profane' 
and  '  profaneness.'  AVm  gives  'hypocrisy'  in  the 
second  passage,  Anier.  RV  prefers  '  ungodliness.' 
In  Greek,  the  verb  is  ^e^riXiu  and  the  adj.  jiifirjXoi. 
The  subst.  ^f^TiXao-ts  is  thrice  (Jth  4»-  '^,  I  Mac  1«) 
tr'*  '  profanation.'  The  ptcp.  dTroSiearaX/i^i'os  is  also 
tr''  '  profane '  in  2  Mac  6*  (RV  '  abominable  ').  In 
2  Mac  4"  the  subst.  tr''  '  profaneness '  is  d^a-zi-cio. 
Finally  in  2  Es  we  find  the  vb.  profanare  ti^  '  to 
profane'  (10--),  and  the  adv.  irreligiose  tr^  'pro- 
fanely' (15').    See  Unclean,  Uncleanness. 

J.  Hastings. 

PROFESS,  PROFESSION.— The  verb  to  'pro- 
fess '  and  tlie  subst.  '  profession '  have  acquired 
a  narrow  '  professional '  meaning ;  in  AV  they 
still  have  the  sense  of  '  speak  out,'  '  declare 
openly '  (from  profteri,  ptcp.  professus).  Thus  Dt 
26'  '  I  profess  this  day  unto  the  Lord  thy  God, 
that  I  am  come  unto  the  country  which  the  Lord 
sware  unto  our  fathers  for  to  give  us'  ('n-;;.!) ; 
Mt  7^  '  And  then  will  I  profess  unto  them,  I 
never  knew  you'  (o/jLoXoyfiaa  avroU) ;  1  Ti  6'^  '  Thou 
hast  professed  a  good  profession  before  man}'  wit- 
nesses '  (u)fio\6yT)aa.t  ttjv  KaXrjv  dfj.o\oyiav,  RV  'didst 
confess  the  good  confession  ') ;  He  3'  '  Consider  the 
Apostle  and  High  Priest  of  our  profession '  {ttjs 
ofioXoylas  rj/iiov,  RV  '  of  our  confession,'  that  is, 
says  Rendall,  'whom  our  Christian  confession  of 
faith  acknowledges  in  this  character'). 

J.  Hastings. 

PROGNOSTICATOR.-In  Is  47"  the  '  monthly 
prognosticators'  (Cv'^J"  D7"'id,  AVm  'that  give 
knowledge  concerning  the  months')  are  mentioned 
along  witii  the  'astrologers'  and  the  'star-gazers' 
as  unable  to  help  B.iliylon  in  her  hour  of  need. 
The  meaning  of  c';h-'-  is  probably  '  at  (the)  new 
moons,'  the  reference  being  to  the  forecasts  which 
it  was  usual  to  make  at  that  season  of  what  was 
likely  to  happen  during  tlie  coming  month.  The 
lucky  and  unlucky  days  of  each  month  were  duly 
noted  in  the  Assyrian  and  Babylonian  calendars, 
and  reports  were  given  in  monthly  by  the  official 
astronomers  and  astrologers  (cf.  Sayce  in  2'SBA 
iii.  p.  229,  and  see  also  art.  ASTROLOGY  in  vol.  L 
p.  194').  The  LXX  has  nothing  answering  to 
'  miinllihj  proiinosticators,'  the  text  reading  in  such 
a  way  that  the  'astrologers'  are  called  on  to  stand 
forth  and  save  their  votaries,  and  the  '  star-gazers ' 
are  challenged  to  make  known  (avaY/eiXiTuaav, 
representing  somehow  o-yniD)  what  is  going  to 
happen.  J.  A.  Selbie. 

PROLOGUE.— The  Book  of  Sirach  opens  with  a 
preface  by  the  author's  grandson,  which  bears  in 
BA  the  title  irpbXoyoi  (C  irp.  ~ipix<  S  om.).  For  its 
contents  see  art.  .Sirach.  The  opening  verses  of 
the  Fourth  Gospel  are  also  frequently  called  the 
Prologue  to  that  Gospel.     See  John  (Gospel  of). 

PROMISE. — The  word  'promise'  is  used  in  Scrip- 
ture with  the  same  latitude  as  in  language  gener- 
ally, but  the  present  art.   takes  account  only  of 

•  Cf.  Ezk  4220  '  to  make  a  separation  between  the  sanctuary 
and  the  profane  place.' 

t  Cf.  Tj-mnie's  tr.  of  Calvin's  (JenegU,  on  iV  '  ^^^len  Jacob  il 
8ai<le  to  blesse  the  kin^,  Moses  ther<:'by  meaneth  not  a  coDimon 
and  prophane  salutation,  but  a  godlie  and  bolie  prayer  a  t  th«. 
servant  of  God.' 


PROMISE 


PEOMISE 


105 


the  technical  or  semi-techaical  sense  of  it  wliich 
comes  into  view  when  we  read  of  'the  promise' 
without  any  qualification.  God  is  tlie  autlior  of 
the  promise,  and  it  is  spontaneously  put  forth  on 
His  part ;  this  is  what  is  signihed  by  (Ta~c/i\\ta6ai 
as  opjiosed  to  uTi(rx''"<^S<",  the  latter  signifying  to 
come  under  an  obligation,  as  part  of  a  contract. 
The  promise  was  originally  given  to  Abraham  ; 
and  though,  in  its  largest  scope,  it  covers  the 
whole  future  guaranteed  to  him  by  God,  it  is 
delined  at  ditlerent  times  in  ditt'erent  ways.  Some- 
times the  thing  promised  is  the  possession  of  a 
country — Canaan  is  '  the  land  of  the  promise  '  (He 
11");  sometimes  it  is  the  birth  of  a  son  or  of  a 
numerous  posterity,  a  seed  like  the  stars  of  heaven 
or  the  dust  of  the  earth  (Gn  13'«  15')— Isaac  is  the 
first  of  'the  children  of  the  promise'  (IloSJ")  ;  more 
generally  it  is  a  divinely-secured  greatness  and 
felicity  ho  conspicuous  that  all  nations  will  make 
it  a  standard  of  congratulation  (Gn  12-').  The 
OT,  though  the  promises  of  God  may  be  said  to  be 
the  contents  of  His  covenant  (so  that  St.  Paul 
Bpeaks  of  '  the  covenants  of  the  promise,'  Kph  2'^), 
dx)e8  not  make  much  use  of  this  category  to  inter- 
pret the  experience  of  Israel.  The  future  of  the 
nation  does  depend  on  God,  but  it  is  seldom  related 
to  His  'promise'  in  the  technical  sense  with  which 
we  are  here  concerned.  There  is  an  approach  to 
the  general  idea  in  Jer  29"  '  I  know  the  thoughts 
that  I  think  toward  you,  saith  the  Lord,  thoughts 
of  peace  and  not  of  evil,  to  give  you  a  future  and  a 
hope.'  This  conception  of  some  good  unrealized, 
but  to  be  realized  tlirough  faith  in  tlie  sure  word  of 
God,  is  what  is  meant  by  the  promise.  But  there 
is  a  nearer  approach  still  to  the  technical  sense 
in  I's  1U5"  '  He  remembered  his  holy  word,  and 
Ahrahiini  his  servant.'  The  whole  future  of  Israel, 
all  tlie  deliverances  wrouglit  for  it,  are  here  con- 
ceived as  bound  up  in  sometliing  which  God  said 
to  Abraham  ;  the  history  of  the  nation  is  tlie 
revelation  of  what  was  involved  in  the  primitive 
proi  ise,  and  not  only  its  revelation  but  its  fullil- 
nieiit.  It  is  a  witness  to  God's  faithfulness  to  His 
word. 

It  is  at  this  point  that  the  NT  takes  up  the  idea. 
We  see  in  the  Magnifcnt  and  in  the  llcm-i/iittis 
how  pious  souls  in  Israel  were  preoccupied  with  it : 
'  He  iiath  holpen  Israel  his  servant  that  he  might 
rememher  mercy  (as  he  spake  unto  our  fnthrcs) 
toward  Ahrahmn  and  his  seed  for  ever'  (Lk  1^'-, 
cf.  v."  '  the  oath  which  he  sware  unto  Abraham  our 
father,'  eU:.).  In  NT  times,  however,  the  signih- 
cance  of  the  promise  was  determined  ex  eventu  ; 
it  had  been  at  last  fulhlled  in  Christ,  and  it  was 
by  lookin"  at  Christ  that  men  discovered  what  it 
meant.  '  For  how  many  soever  are  the  promises  of 
God  [the  sejiarate  ble.ssinL'S  into  which  the  one  all- 
embracing  f7ra77«\(a  can  lie  resolved]  in  him  is  the 
Yea,'  that  is,  the  Divine  conlirniation  and  fullil- 
ment  of  them  all  (2  Co  l**).  The  substance  of  NT 
teaching  on  this  subject  can  be  arranged  under 
the.se  heads:  (1)  the  contents  of  the  promise;  (2) 
the  heirs  of  it ;  (3)  the  conditions  of  its  fullilment. 
(1)  The  contents  of  the  promise  are  always  re- 
lated to  Christ,  but  they  are  dehned  in  various 
ways  under  the  influence  of  various  01'  ideas. 
Sonietinies  the  original  idea  of  a  'country  of  our 
own'  reajipcars,  a  liind  in  which  we  shall  not  be 
strangers  and  pilgrims  as  on  earth,  'a  city  with 
foundations,'  rather  'the  city  with  the  founda- 
tions,' a  rest  like  the  Sabbatli  rest  of  God,  into 
which  we  may  enter  after  we  have  traversed  the 
wildLrness,  an  eternal  inheritance.  This  may  be 
said  to  be  the  asiicel  of  the  ]promise  which  |iervades 
the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  See  He  1 1"'"  4",l'». 
In  the  preachiii''  of  St.  I'eter,  as  we  find  it  in  the 
early  chapters  of  Acts,  it  is  the  Uisen  .(esus,  made 
by  God  '  both  Lord  and  Christ,'  in  whom  the  promise 


has  been  fnllilled,  and  its  contents  may  be  said  to 
be  mainly  the  two  divinely  bestowed  possessions 
of  the  Christian  Church — the  forgiveness  of  sins 
and  the  gift  of  the  Holy  (Jhost.  The  latter  is 
specially  spoken  of  as  '  the  promise  of  the  Father' 
(Lk  24'^  Ac  1');  Jesus  has  received  from  the 
Father  '  the  promise  of  the  Spirit '(Ac  2^),  and  it  is 
with  this  in  view  that  St.  Feter  says,  '  the  promise 
is  unto  you  and  your  children '  (2^').  There  is  no 
doubt  here  a  reference  to  the  fact  that  Jesus  had 
promised  to  send  the  Spirit  to  His  disciples  ;  but 
the  last  passage  quoted  shows  how  this  special 
promise  of  Jesus  coalesced  in  the  apostle's  mind 
with  the  great  Messianic  promises  m  which  the 
future  of  Israel  was  assured. — Wlien  we  |)ass  to 
St.  I'aul  we  hnd  at  hrst  a  general  concei)tion  of  the 
same  character.  The  promise  made  to  the  fathers 
God  has  fulfilled  in  all  its  import  {(KTmr\ripo>K(v,  Ac 
13^)  by  raising  up  Jesus — tlie  raising  u|i  having 
reference  either  to  the  bringing  of  Jesus  on  to  the 
stage  of  history,  or  to  the  Resurrection  ;  in  either 
case  it  is  'according  to  promise'  that  God  has 
'  brought  to  Israel  the  Saviour  .lesus' (Ac  13'-^).  At 
a  mucTi  later  date,  as  he  stands  before  Agrippa,  St. 
Paul  can  represent  himself  as  invohed  in  such  ' 
troubles  '  for  the  hope  of  the  promise  made  by  God 
to  our  fathers '(Ac  20",  cf.  2.S-"  '  for  the  hope  of  Israel 
I  am  bound  with  this  chain ').  The  hope  of  Isr.-iel, 
all  that  God  has  promised  to  do  for  it,  is  in  these 
passages  regarded  as  bound  up  in  the  Uisen  and 
K.xalled  Jesus.  What  the  content  of  that  hope  is, 
it  would  require  an  exposition  of  all  the  apostle's 
theology  to  show  ;  for  Christ  and  the  promise  are 
practically  synonymous  terms.  All  that  is  in 
Christ  is  meant  by  the  promise ;  all  the  promises 
of  God  are  summed  up  in  Christ.  Special  aspects 
of  this  are  set  in  relief  by  St.  Paul  as  by  other  NT 
writers.  Thus  he  speaks  of  Christians  as  sealed 
with  the  Holy  Spirit  of  the  promise  (Kph  1"),  and 
as  receiving  tlie  promi.se  of  the  Spirit  through  faith 
(Gal  '6^').  The  gift  of  the  Spirit  has  something  of 
pronii.se  in  it ;  it  is  the  earnest  of  a  heavenly 
inheritance,  an  inheritance  with  the  saints  in  the 
light  (Eph  1",  Col  1'^);  as  the  spirit  of  sonship  it 
is  the  assurance  that  we  are  joint  heirs  with 
Christ,  and  shall  j'et  be  conformed  to  the  image  of 
God's  exalted  Son  (Uo  8'°'"),  and  have  an  entrance 
into  that  kingdom  of  God  which  for  St.  Paul  is 
always  a  transcendent  and  glorious  mode  of  being. 
In  Gal  3 'the  promise  of  the  Siiirit,'  or  the  Spirit 
as  the  essential  blessing  of  the  ]jromise,  has  its 
]ieculiar  value  in  this,  that  it  is  the  principle  of  a 
new  life  and  righteousness  to  which  sinful  men 
could  never  attain  on  any  other  terms. — Other 
references  to  the  promise  in  the  NT  ire  more 
dubious,  though  Tit  1-  Ja  1'-  '2'  (the  crown  of  life, 
the  kiiigdiiiii  which  God  hath  promised  to  then, 
that  h>ve  Him)  are  in  the  line  of  that  conception 
of  the  ]>romise  which  was  common  to  St.  Paid  with 
all  primitive  Christians.  On  the  other  hand,  a 
distinctively  Johannine  thonght  has  availed  itself 
of  this  mode  of  expression  in  1  Jn  2^. 

(2)  The  second  question  concerns  the  heirs  of  the 
promise:  to  whom  is  it  given'.'  It  was  given  at 
first  to  Abraham,  or  to  Abraham  and  his  seed. 
Is!i;h'  and  Jacob  were  '  heirs  with  him  of  the  same 
promise '(He  11").  It  might  seem  as  if  'the  .seed 
of  Abiaham  '  were  an  expression  not  capable  of 
two  interpretations,  and  yet  the  |iroper  interpreta- 
tion of  it  was  the  great  subject  of  controver.sy  in 
the  iirimitive Church.  Even  when  the  promise  was 
seen  to  be  fulhlled  in  Jesus,  it  seemed  obvious  to 
say  that  it  was  fuHilled  to  Israel— that  IsrMcl  alone 
had  a  part  in  it.  ICven  St.  I'aul  can  siiy  that 
Jesus  Christ  was  a  minisler  of  the  circumcision, 
on  behalf  of  the  truth  of  God,  to  lonhrm  the 
promises  of  the  fathers,  i.e.  belonging  to  th« 
lathers,  because  made  to  them  (Uo  16").    (n  enumer 


106 


TROMISE 


PROPHECY  AND  PROPHETS 


atinc^  the  prerogatives  of  Israel,  he  says  frankly, 
'to  whom  belong  the  promises'  (Ro  9'').  In  de- 
scribing the  pre-Christian  condition  of  a  Gentile 
Church  he  says  its  members  had  been  '  strangers 
to  the  covenants  of  the  promise,'  ajid  therefore 
without  hope.  No  pagan  people  had  that  kind  of 
assurance  as  to  its  own  future  which  pious  Israel- 
ites derived  from  the  word  of  God,  and  hence  the 
pessimism  with  which  paganism  generally  contem- 
plated the  issues  of  human  existence.  It  was  the 
work  of  St.  Paul  to  show  that  the  promise  was  not 
subject  to  physical  or  historical  limitations,  and  that 
no  physical  or  historical  accident,  such  as  Jewish 
birtn  or  upbringing,  could  give  one  a  claim  as  of 
right  against  God  for  its  fulfilment.  The  chief  pas- 
sages in  which  he  deals  with  the  problem  are  Gal  3 
and  Bo  9-11.  In  the  former  he  discusses  rather 
the  conditions  on  which  the  promise  is  inherited, 
to  which  we  shall  refer  below,  and  comes  to  the 
conclusion  that  all  who  are  Christ's  by  faith  are 
Abraham's  seed,  the  Israel  of  God,  and  heirs  ac- 
cording to  promise.  In  the  latter  he  is  confronted 
with  the  fact  that  the  promise — to  judge  by  the 
results  of  his  own  preaching — is  not  being  fultilled 
•  to  those  to  whom  it  belongs,  and  is  being  fultilled 
(according  to  him)  to  those  to  wliom  it  does  not 
belong.  What  strikes  one  most  in  this  extra- 
ordinary passage  is  the  extent  to  which  St.  Paul's 
heart  is  on  the  side  of  those  against  whom  he 
argues.  Thus,  after  proving  in  ch.  9  that  no  man 
can  claim  unconditionally  that  God  shall  fulfil  the 
promise  to  him,  and  in  ch.  10  that  the  Jews,  by 
persistent  disobedience,  have  forfeited  all  title  to  be 
counted  God's  people  and  the  heirs  of  His  promise, 
he  falls  back  in  ch.  11  on  the  abstract  theological 
principle  tliat  the  gifts  and  calling  of  God  are 
\vithout  repentance.  It  is  as  if  he  said — After  all, 
there  is  no  denying  that  Israel  is  God's  people. 
God  has  given  them  the  promise,  and  He  cannot 
deny  Himself.  In  spite  of  all  their  unbelief  they 
are  beloved  for  the  fathers'  sakes ;  God  will 
remember  His  oath  to  Abraham,  and  '  so  all  Israel 
shall  be  saved.'  Such  faith  may  well  seem  bewilder- 
ing to  Gentiles  who  calmly  assume  that  the  promise 
is  their  own  ab  initio,  and  ignore  even  the  historic 
prerogative  of  the  Jew.  But  to  the  last  the  Jew 
was  to  St.  Paul  the  root,  the  first-fruits ;  and  the 
Gentiles  were  only  avti/iiroxa  Tijs  iiray-^eXlas  (Eph  3'), 
not  its  original  and  proper  heirs. — In  later  NT  writ- 
ings the  echoes  of  this  conflict  die  away,  and  the 
scope  of  the  promise  is  universalized  as  instinctively 
as  Christ  is  felt  to  be  Lord  of  all.  '  The  promise,'  in 
short,  is  a  historically  conditioned  way  of  conceiv- 
ing the  grace  of  God,  and  once  the  critical  stage 
had  been  passed — as  it  was  in  St.  Paul's  lifetime — 
the  discussions  as  to  its  range  lost  interest.  Men 
could  question  who  were  the  true  heirs  of  the 
promise,  but  not  under  the  same  forms  who  were 
the  objects  of  the  redeeming  love  of  God  in  Christ. 
(3)  The  conditions  on  which  the  promise  are  ful- 
filled are  discussed  in  various  connexions.  As 
already  remarked,  the  very  idea  of  irayyfXla  is 
spontaneity  on  the  part  of  the  promiser.  Tlie 
promise  is  of  grace.  In  Ro  4  and  Gal  3  St.  Paul 
labours  to  show  that  it  is  subject  to  no  control  on 
the  part  of  law,  or  of  works  of  law.  In  Galatians 
he  gives  a  historical  proof  of  this.  The  promise 
was  given  to  Abraham,  and  to  his  faith,  430  years 
before  the  law  was  heard  of  ;  and  this  late  in- 
trusion of  law,  whatever  it  maj'  mean,  cannot 
mean  that  we  must  earn  the  fulfilment  of  the 
promise ;  if  this  were  the  case  it  would  be  an 
ira-ryMa — a  free  spontaneous  motion  on  the  part 
of  God — no  more.  In  Ro  4  the  proof  is  rather 
speculative  or  experimental  than  historical.  Cer- 
tain ideas  and  experiences  hang  together,  and 
certain  others  do  not.  Promise,  grace,  and  faith 
are  parts  of  one  whole;  wages,  debt,  and  works 


are  parts  of  anotlicr  wliolc  ;  but  these  two  wlioles, 
and  the  parts  of  them,  exclude  each  other.  lienca 
the  promise,  in  all  the  fulness  of  its  content,  ex- 
plained above,  is  fulfilled,  not  to  works  of  law,  not 
to  merit,  but  to  faith  in  Jesus  Christ.  All  that  God 
holds  out  to  us  becomes  ours  as  in  faith  we  attach 
ourselves  to  Him.  Where  the  blessings  of  salva- 
tion are  presented  as  '  promise,'  there  is  always, 
of  course,  the  suggestion  that  they  are  not  yet 
realized,  and  hence  faith  (when  this  conception  is 
prominent,  as  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews) 
assumes  some  of  the  characteristics  of  hope  and  of 
patience.  We  read  of  those  who  '  througli  faith 
and  patience '  inherit  the  promises  ;  we  have  '  need 
of  patience'  that  after  '  liaving  done  the  will  of 
God'  we  may  receive  the  promise  (He  6"  10**).  It 
is  part  of  the  heroism  of  faith  that  having  God's 
promise  to  go  upon  it  can  maintain  a  strong  con- 
viction as  to  the  things  it  hopes  for,  and  give  reality 
to  things  unseen  (He  11').  It  is  the  mark  of  an 
evil  time  that  scott'ers  ask,  in  regard  to  the  one 
great  promise  of  the  NT,  roS  iarlv  i)  iirayytXia  rrjt 
irapowias  aiJToO,  2  P  3*.  J.  DENNEY. 

PROPER. — Like  the  Lat.  proprium,  from  which 
it  is  derived  through  the  Fr.  propre,  '  proper ' 
means  one's  ou-n.  Thus  Udall,  Erasmus'  Para- 
phrase, i.  77,  '  Onely  God  chaungetli  the  myndes 
and  heartes  of  riche  men,  that  they  ^vill  cherefully 
evther  cast  awaie  that  which  they  doe  possesse,  or 
els  possesse  them  as  common  and  not  proper'; 
Tindale,  Expositio}is,  124,  '  Forsooth  I  have  no 
goods,  nor  anj'tliin^  proper,  or  that  is  mine  own  ; 
it  is  the  convent's  ;  Rhem.  NT,  note  on  Mt  9* 
'  The  faithlesse  Jewes  thought  (as  Heretikes  now 
a  daies)  that  to  forgeve  sinnes  was  so  proper  to 
God,  that  it  could  not  be  communicated  unto 
man '  ;  and  especially  Adams,  Works,  i.  69,  '  Sal- 
vation is  common,  as  St  Jude  speaketh,  ver.  3, 
"  When  I  gave  all  diligence  to  write  unto  you  of 
the  common  salvation  ;  but  few  make  it  proper 
to  themselves :  that  God  is  my  salvation  and  t/it/ 
salvation,  this  is  the  comfort.'  This  meaning 
occurs  in  AV  five  times.  For  1  Ch  29^  see 
Pecuuar.  The  other  instances  are  Wis  IS-' 
19«,  Ac  1",  1  Co  V.  The  Gr.  is  always  Mios.  RV 
adds  Wis  2^  and  Jude'  where  the  Gr.  is  also 
Wios.* 

Another  meaning,  a  derivative  of  the  above,  is 
'of  good  appearance,'  'handsome,'  as  in  Fuller's 
IIoli/  War,  ii.,  '  Wliat  a  pitie  is  it  to  see  a  proper 
Gentleman  to  have  such  a  crick  in  his  neck  that 
he  cannot  look  backward  '  ;  and  in  Holy  State,  319, 
of  the  '  Embas.sadour,'  he  says  '  He  is  of  a  proper, 
at  least  passable  person.'  This  is  the  sense  of 
'  proper '  in  He  11^  '  By  faith  Moses,  when  he  was 
born,  was  hid  three  months  of  his  parents,  be- 
cause they  saw  he  was  a  proper  child '  {arretoy  ri 
ToidLoii ;  RV  '  goodly  '—see  F'air). 

J.  Hastings. 
PROPHECYAND  PROPHETS.— Under  this  head- 
ing four  subjects  fall  to  be  treated  :  the  history  of 
prophecy ;  the  psychology  of  prophecy  ;  the  pro- 
phetic teaching  ;  and  the  verification  in  history  of 
the  prophetic  ideas  of  the  future. 

A.  TBS  HISTORY  OF  PnOI'HECT. 

L  The  Origin  of  Pkopubot, 
U.  The  NiME  Prophet. 
UL  Historical  Steps. 

1.  The  Agi'  of  Samuel. 

2.  The  Early  Monarchy. 

8.  The  Aire  of  the  Literary  Propheti. 
4.  The  Decline  and  Expiry  of  Prophecy. 

B.  TBS  PROHUETir  M IXD. 

i.  The  Ii>e.\  op  the  Peophr. 
ii.  Inspiration. 
lii.  Tub  False  Peofhktb. 

*  See  Deissmann  on  i3i«»  in  Bibeittudien,  p.  120 1.  (En<.  tr.  p 
123  f.). 


PROniECY  AND  PROrHKTS 


PKOl'HECY  A^'D  PKOrilKTS     107 


0.  The  Tea  crt.vc  of  the  Prophets. 
i.  Obneral  Teaciiinq. 
U.  Pkbdictive  Pkuphkcy. 

1.  f*redicti->ii  in  OcueraL 

2.  Messianic  I'rophecv. 

Ll.    iKTERfRETA  TIOS  A  XD  FVLFII.MEIfT  OF  PROPHECY 
i.    I'Kul'UKCY  I'OETICAL  ASU  luBAL. 

U.  I'Kiii'UECT  Moral  and  Costinoknt. 
Ul  Pkoi'Uicv  National  and  Ukultivs  uks  OT  Reuoion. 

A.  Tr/B  JTrsTonr  OFPROPllKcr.—Uehrew  pro- 
phecy, tlioii;^!!  the  deepest  movement  of  the  human 
cpiril  and  in  many  waj-s  the  most  mysterious,  has, 
like  other  movenienta  of  the  spirit,  a  history. 
There  is  the  period  of  its  obscure  beginning's  ;  the 
period  of  its  hi^'hest  purity  and  lottiest  achieve- 
ments ;  and  tlie  period  of  its  decline  and  exjiiry, 
when  its  work  being  aceomplislied  other  agencies 
in  the  education  of  mankind  took  its  place.  Its 
e.xpiry  can  be  spoken  of  only  in  the  sense  that  it 
ceased  to  be  a  creative  power ;  its  results  remain 
an  imperishable  heritage  of  the  race,  and  the 
agencies  in  Israel  that  succeeded  it,  such  as  scribes 
and  proverbial i.sts  or  wise  men,  were  only  the  con- 
duits and  channels  that  distributed  the  waters  of 
its  grciil  stream  over  the  individuals  of  the  nation. 

i.  Ul:li;l.\  OF  Pkophkcy. — Something  to  which 
the  general  name  of  prophecy  might  be  given  seems 
to  have  existed  among  all  peoples.  It  originated 
from  beliefs  or  feelings  common  to  men  everywhere, 
Buch  as  (1)  that  there  was  a  supernatural,  a  God 
or  gods,  on  whose  will  and  power  the  wellbeing  and 
the  destiny  of  men  depended  ;  (2)  that  these  sujier- 
iiatural  powers  had  communion  with  men  and  gave 
thein  intimations  of  their  will  and  their  purposes  ; 
and  (3)  that  these  intimations  were  not  given  to 
men  indiscriminately,  but  to  certain  favoured  men, 
wlio  communicated  them  to  others.  Having  these 
beliefs,  onlinary  men  or  States  desirous  of  living 
or  acting  in  accordance  with  the  mind  of  the  deity, 
and  particularly  when  in  perplexity  in  regard  to 
what  laj'  in  tlie  future,  liail  recourse  to  those 
through  whom  the  deity  spoke,  and  consulted 
them. 

The  supernatural  powers,  it  was  supposed,  gave 
intimation  of  their  will  and  disposition  towards 
men  in  two  ways:  (1)  in  an  external  way,  by 
objective  signs  or  omens  in  the  region  of  nature, 
as  by  the  (light  or  cry  of  birds.  These  creatures 
coming  from  heaven  were  the  bearers  of  a  message 
from  heaven.  Other  creatures  also  were  the  means 
of  signiliiant  indications  from  the  deity,  for  ex- 
amiile,  in  the  way  they  met  a  man,  or  the  side,  the 
right  or  the  left,  from  which  tliey  crossed  before 
him.*  In  all  countries  the  sacrilicial  victim  offered 
to  the  gods  was  held  to  exhibit  signs  from  them, 
particularly  in  the  convulsive  movements  of  the 
liver  and  entrails  of  the  freshly  slain  creature 
(Ezk  21).  Less  commonly  omens  were  observed 
outside  the  animal  world,  e.g.  in  the  rustling  of 
the  leaves  of  trees  (Dodona;  cf.  Gn  12",  Jg  9^, 
2  S  a-*).  In  the  East  the  movements  and  conjunc- 
tions of  the  stars  were  regarded  as  prophetic, 
though  in  this  case  the  influence  on  man's  destinj' 
may  have  been  supposed  to  be  exerted  by  the  stars 
thiiiisulves,  which,  however,  were  often  identilied 
with  deities.  {-)  Hesides  this  external  or  objective 
revelation,  there  was  an  inward  revelation  given  in 
the  mind  of  man.  In  this  case  the  deity  possessed 
the  man,  inspired  him,  and  spoke  through  him. 
It  is  possible,  indeed,  that  the  animal  omens  may 
have  sometimes  been  regarded  as  forms  assumed 
by  the  deity  or  as  possessed  by  him.  And  from 
the  curious  feelings  of  antiquity  regarding  the 
rnpjiiirt  existing  between  aninuils  and  men,  the 
animals  may  sometimes  have  been  supposed  to 
Come  to  men  not  as  mes.sengers  of  the  deity,  but  on 
their  own  impulse,  knowing  themselves  what  they 
told  to  nun  (W.  K.  Smith,  ii.s"  443).  But  this,  if 
*  Ablivardt,  Chat^  a  Atymar,  p.  460. 


true,  belongs  to  a  difTerent  circle  of  iileas.  Ex- 
amples of  this  second  kind  of  revelation  are  common 
in  the  heathen  world,  as  the  Pythia  in  Greece,  the 
hAhin  in  Arabia,  the  sibyl,  and  the  like.  Even  in 
Greece  this  inward  inspiration  was  considered 
something  higher  than  divination  by  omens,  and 
in  ancient  times,  at  least,  tlie  Oracle  subserved 
high  ethical  and  national  ends.  The  divine  omens 
were  not  intelligible  to  ordinarj'  men,  hence  they 
required  persons  either  of  special  endowment,  or 
of  skill  acquired  from  tradition  or  by  practice,  to 
interpret  them.  Such  persons,  augurs,  soothsayers, 
diviners,  or  prognosticators  {Is  47),  might  be  called 
prophets  of  the  deity  to  men.  Tlie  I'ylliia,  being 
wholly  overpowered  by  the  deity,  ulteied  her 
oracles  with  no  consciousness  of  their  meaning. 
The  oracles  were  often  enigmatic,  requiring  an 
interpreter.  The  interpreter  was  called  prupliet 
[irpo<prjT-qi,  in  which  t\\epro  is  not  temporal). 

Tlie  nifthods  of  divination  practised  in  Israel  will  have  more 
altinity  wilh  Ihoae  usual  amonf^  the  Slieniitic  pL'Oj'li  s  than  with 
those  of  the  general  heathen  world.*  The  feeling's  prevalent 
in  the  ICast  appear  from  the  fact  that  a  message  tioin  the  deity 
nii;,'ht  be  brought  to  one  by  a  person  of  another  nation 
(Jt'  '^~^,  2K  31-"):  from  the  freciuent  mention  of  divinen*,  as 
among  the  Philistines  (1  S  62,  Is  2''),  and  of  localities  to  vhic-h 
they  had  given  names  (Jg  7*  9^") ;  from  the  weight  laid  on 
omens  (Jg  (i-^  ?■',  2  S  .V-^),  and  particularly  on  dreams  (J)r 
"ilir.,  1  s  2S'^) ;  and  from  the  use  of  the  oracle  by  the  sat  red 
.)ot(Jg8«  17s  185,  lizk  ai'-ii).  An  exhaustive  list  of  the  practices 
appears  to  be  given  in  l>t  ISlO-  n.  The  passage  8t.ates  that  the 
practices  were  in  use  among  the  abori^'inal  tribes  which  Israel 
disi)ossessed ;  but  as  these  tribes  had  been  absorbed  into  Israel 
and  fonned  one  people  with  it,  the  practices  no  doubt  continued 
to  maintain  themselvea  in  Israel.  The  dilference  might  be  that 
they  were  now  performed  in  the  name  of  J",  and  not  in  that  of 
the  native  deities.  The  terms  describing  the  practices  are  used 
by  Heb.  writers  rather  indiscriminately,  but  perliaps  three 
distinct  forms  can  be  discovered  ;  (1)  the  oracle  gained  by  certain 
methods  from  a  god  or  idol  (DCp),  (2)  interi>retation  of  omeni 
(tyn:),  and  fS)  utteranoes  of  one  possessed  or  ins])ired  by  the 
deity.  (1)  The  oracle  was  common,  perhaps,  to  most  of  the 
Sliemitic  peoples  ;  at  least  it  appears  in  Arabia  and  Babylon,  aa 
well  as  in  Israel.  Mesha  of  .Moal),  too,  states  that  Chemosh  gavo 
him  commandments,  but  the  metliod  of  receiving  them  is  not 
in(hcated  (cf.  Ezk  21'-^).  Lots  (which  were  usually  headless 
arrows  or  rods)  were  shaken  and  drawn  in  the  presence  of  the 
idol,  e.g.  Hobal  at  Mecca,  and  the  teraphim  (one  image)  by 
Nebuchadnezzar  (Kzk  2121).  xhe  (juestion  put  by  the  impiirer 
usually  tfiok  the  form  of  an  alternative,  '  yes "  or  '  no,' '  this '  or 
'  that,' though  several  possibilities  might  be  proposed.  In  the 
story  of  Neljuchadnezzar  the  alternative  was  '  Itabbath-ammon ' 
or  'Jerusalem,'  and  the  decision  came  out  'Jerusalem.*  In 
method  the  sacred  lot  in  Israel,  Urim  and  Tunmiim,  did  not 
dilfer.  This  also  gave  a  reply  to  an  alternative  proposed.  It  is 
possible  that  LX.V  of  1  S  U'*!-'*^  suggests  the  original  reading: 
'  And  tSaul  said,  If  the  guilt  be  in  me  or  in  Jonathan  my  son,  give 
Urim,  O  Lord  God  of  Isi-ael ;  but  if  thou  say  it  is  in  my  people 
Israel,  give  Tummim.'  The  first  time  Saul  'iil  Jonathan  were 
taken  and  Israel  left ;  the  second  time  Jonat.ian  was  Uiken  and 
Saul  left.  The  fonn  of  the  sacred  lot  is  unknown,  and  in  later 
times  its  real  nature  seems  to  have  been  forgotten.  Nebuchad- 
nezzar drew  the  lots  before  the  teraphim,  certainly  an  image. 
In  Israel  the  cphod  was  used,  and  hence  the  ephod  is  supposed 
by  many  to  have  been  an  image  of  J".  Ephod  and  ter.iphini  are 
named  together  (Jg  17^,  llos  3-^),  but  it  remains  uncertain 
whether  they  were  things  different  though  used  together,  or 
things  of  the  same  class,  the  two  naiTU'S  neing  cunmlative,  or 
the  one  used  as  interpretative  of  the  other.  In  the  time  of  Saul 
and  t)avid  the  epho<l  was  in  common  use ;  later  it  fell  into 
desuetude.  Ilosea,  however,  mentions  it  as  one  of  the  ap^iliancea 
of  religion  in  his  day,  and  certainly  not  W'ith  ap^>rnbatnin  (Jl-*). 
If  the  root  ka^am  originally  referred  to  this  particular  kind  of 
divination,  its  use  ceased  t^>  be  exact.  Saul  uses  the  word  of 
riivination  by  the  'df*  (I  s  iS'*).  and  the  canonical  prophets  call 
the  false  prophets  k6^i^inim,  diviners,  and  their  oracles  kciiem, 
liivination  fpl.  tyt'^dnittn),  even  when  these  prophets  spoke  (as 
they  thought)  by  inspiration  of  J"  or  by  dreams.  (2)  'The  root 
nahash  (used  In  I'iel  t'-j)  appears  to  be  used  properly  of  divina- 
tion from  omens.  Joseph  divined  with  a  cu|>,  the  significant 
Indications  being  afforded  by  the  play  of  light  in  the  fluid,  or  by 
the  bells  and  movements  of  the  fluid  itself,  or,  as  some  think, 
by  the  behaviour  of  oil  poured  into  the  cu|i  of  water  (Gn  44''  i*). 
The  word  as  well  as  ita  noun  is  used  of  divination  liy  omens,  but 
the  different  kinds  of  omen  are  not  discriminated  (Lv  I»"^,  Nu 
2;l''Ci  211) ;  in  an  enfeebled  sense  the  word  meant  to  infer  from 
signs  or  hidications  generally  (Gn  SO'n,  1  K  •HP').  (3)  (tracks  by 
inspiration  or  possession  by  deity  were  common  to  the  heathen 

•  An  excellent  account  of  general  heathen  mantlcism  Is  given 

In  K.  Kohler,  Dpr  I'ruphetiitiiuu  drr  tlvlintrr,  u.  tlir  MariUk  iter 

Gritchcn,  IS'JIJ.     The  work  of  P.  Scholz,  (Jiitziiidini)il  «.  '/.aiUjer- 

WfHMi  Oft  ilfn  aiUn  Uet/ruem  u.  den  Utuichbartint  yoikent, 

I  1877,  is  less  critical. 


108     PROPHECY  AND  PROPHETS 


PROPHECY  AND  PROPHETS 


and  to  Israel.  And  here  manticism  and  prophecy  come  in  con- 
tact. The  two  agree  in  fomi,  and  have  to  be  distinj^ished  by 
other  toliens,  e.ij.  by  the  pod  in  whose  name  the  oracle  was 
given,  and  perhaps  by  the  fact  that  in  the  mantic  ecstasy  the 
consciousness  was  overpowered  and  lost,  while  in  prophecy 
there  was  only  exaltation  of  inind  and  loss  of  the  consciousness 
of  external  thiiif^s. 

The  other  thing's  mentioned  in  Dt  W"-  are  of  the  nature  of 
magic  or  sorcery,  and  were  always  proscribed  in  the  religion  of 
J"  (Ex  22'8,  1  S  28'  '■•),  though  they  continued  in  Israel  till  very 
late  times.  Saul  names  as  legitimate  sources  of  knowledge  of 
the  will  of  the  deity,  dreams,  Uritn,  and  prophets  (1  S  2S<').  Un- 
like divination,  wliich  seeks  to  ascertain  the  mind  of  the  deity, 
magic  was  a  means  of  binding  superhuman  powers  (chietly 
demonic  or  chthonian),  either  to  restrain  them  from  injurmg 
oneself,  or  to  constrain  them  to  injure  others,  and  put  them 
under  a  spell,  or  to  reveal  what  to  mortal  man  was  unknown. 
Tlie  magical  means  might  be— (1)  protective,  such  as  amulets 
(Gn  S.i-i  Is  33. 19)  ;  or  (2)  both  protective  and  constraining,  such 
as  fonnulas  of  incantation  (Ps  6S^i-,  Dt  18",  Is  47»- 12) ;  an<l  (3) 
necromancy.  The  last  had  several  forms  :  (a)  consulting  theVii/, 
lb)  consulting  the  yid'vni,  and  (c)  consulting  the  dead.  The 
forms  (d)  anillM  are  embraced  in  (c),  though  whether  they  ex- 
haust (c)  is  somewhat  uncertain  (Is  819  29-1,  Lv  2027).  Cf.  W.  R. 
Smith,  Jmr.  of  PkUolugy,  vol.  xiii.  2"3fE.,  xiv.  113ff.;  and 
Driver  on  Dt  IsioT-. 


ii.  The  Name  Pkophet.— In  1  S  9"  it  is  said, 
'  He  that  is  now  called  "  the  prophet"  (n'3:  nabi') 
was  beforetime  called  "  the  seer  "  (nx-i  ru'eK).'    The 
passage  is  an  annotation,  much  later  in  date  than 
the  context,  and  cannot  have  been  written  before 
the  name  'prophet'  had  been   long  current  and 
attached   to  a  succession   of   men.      The  radical 
meaning  of   the  word   nabi'  is  uncertain.      Two 
terms   are  used  for  '  seer,'  rffeh  and   huzeh  (nin), 
though  without  diti'erence  of  sense.     The  annota- 
tor's  remark  might  be  supposed  an  inference  from 
the  fact  that  in   the  ancient  record   before  him 
Samuel  is  called  '  the  seer.'    Still  that  fact  is  of 
importance ;  and  the  possibility  that  there  was  a 
time  when  the  word  '  seer '  was  in  common  use  may 
seem  supported  by  the  other  fact  that  the  word 
'  vision '  (j'ln,  p-in,  etc. )  connected  with  '  seer '  is  used 
all  down  the  literature  for  '  prophecy,'  the  term^ 
'prophecy'    (nebu'ah)    connected    witli   'prophet' 
being  a  fate  word  (Neh  6^^  2  Ch  9-^  15*).     Much 
weight  maj'  not  be  due  to  this  consideration,  and 
on  tiie  other  side  may  be  urged  the  extraordinary 
rarity  of  the  word  '  seer,'  though  this  again  may 
be  explained  by  supposing  that  all  references  to 
early  times  in  which  'seer' might  have  been  ex- 
pected to  occur  belong  to  writings  which  are  pos- 
terior to  the  time  when  the  word  'prophet'  liad 
become  the  usage.*     The  author  of  the  annotation 
1  S  il''  is  familiar  with  'prophets'  who  were  great 
isolati'd  personages,  like  Elijah  and  probably  the 
canonical    prophets;    and   lie  considers  the  'seer' 
Samuel  to  have  been  quite  like  one  of  these.     This 
is  certainly  true  of  Samuel,  though  how  far  true 
of  other  seers  of  his  day,  if  such  existed,  may  be 
doubtful.     The  seer  was  an  isolated  personage  like 
the  great  pro|ihets.      Hut,  further,  the  character- 
istic of   the  true  'projihet'  was  that  he  pursued 
nation.al  religious  ends.    Samuel  did  this  with  more 
splendid  initiative  than   the  greatest  of   his  suc- 
cessors.     He  created   the   nation  by  giving  it  a 
king ;  they  only  sought  to  preserve  it.     But  the 
seers  of  h'is  day,  if  there  was  such  a  class,  may 
have  ministered    rather  to   personal  and   private 
interests,  as  Samuel  himself  seems  to  have  done 
on   some  occasions  (1  S  9).      In   1  S  3'  it  is  said 
that  '  vision '  when  Samuel  was  young  '  was  not 
widely  diffused';  but  'vision'  is  here  used  of  true 
prophecy  such  as  the  author  was  familiar  with  in 
his    own   time.      History   leaves  us  in   complete 
ignorance  in  regard  to  the  seers.     In  fact,  the  only 
'  seer '  we  know  of  is  Samuel,  and  his  history  is  told 
as  in  a  very  fragmentarv  way.    The  historian  gives 
a   beautiful    picture    of    his  birth  and   childhood, 
narrating  how  he  was  dedicated  by  his  mother  to 
the  Lord,  and  how  J"  sjioke  to  him  in  Shiloh  as  He 

•  For  example  On  ■Jii'  (Abraham),  Ex  11)»>  (Miriam),  Nu  112«»- 
(Eldad  «nd  Meaad),  Dt  lsi»,  Jg  4«  68, 1  S  3a>,  c(.  V. 


did  to  the  canonical  prophets  afterwards  (1  S  1-.3) ; 
but  the  narrative  is  smldenly  broken  otl',  and  when 
we  hear  of  Samuel  again  he  is  already  an  old  man, 
dwelling  in  Kamah,  and  known  as  '  the  seer.-  We 
learn  from  Jer  7'-  that  the  house  at  Shiloh  was  at 
some  time  completely  overthro\\'n — no  doubt  at  the 
hands  of  the  Philistines  ;  and  Samuel  driven  from 
there  took  up  his  abode  at  Kamah.  Though  called 
a  priest,  the  role  of  prophet  was  that  accepted  by 
him,  as  it  is  tliat  usually  as.4gned  to  him  (1S9'^ 
Jer  15',  Ps  99^  Ac  3'-^) ;  and  it  was  in  the  exercise 
of  his  r6le  as  prophet— statesman  in  the  kingdom 
of  God— that  he  interfered  in  so  decisive  a  mannei 
in  the  national  politics.  It  is  true  that  the  religion 
of  J"  did  not  as  a  rule  create  new  agencies,  but 
served  itself  of  those  already  existing,  into  which 
it  infused  its  own  spirit,  which  gradually  threw  oH 
all  heathen  elements  originally  belonging  to  them. 
There  may  have  been  a  class  of  'seers'  in  the 
time  of  the  Judges  whose  methods  may  not  have 
been  greatly  unlike  those  in  use  among  othei 
Shemitic  peoples.  But  we  know  nothing  of  them. 
Samuel  is  the  only  '  seer '  known  to  history. 

The  meaning  of  the  root  and  the  form  N'3:  is  uncertain. 
(1)  The  form  is  not  likely  a  pans,  ptcp.,  but  more  probably,  like 
Tip  harvester  and  many  words  of  similar  form,  has  active 
sense.  The  word  itself  )in6i'  occurs  in  Arab.,  but  may  be  a  loan- 
word from  Heb.,  as  it  is  in  other  dialects  (Noldeke,  Oesch.  d. 
Korans,  p.  1).  (2)  The  sense  of  the  word  is  obscure.  The  root 
has  probably  no  connexion  with  y3:  to  bubble  up,  as  if  JidW 
were  one  who  bubbles  up  under  inspiration  (Ges.,  Kuenen, 
Prophets,  42,  cf.  Ps  4.'>i).  The  root  naba'a  in  Arab,  means  to 
come  forward  or  into  prominence,  and  causative  (conj 


ii)  to 
bring'forward,  speciallv  to  do  so  by  speech,  to  announce  ;  and 
in  Etli.  nababa  means  'to  speak  (DiUm.  AT  Theut.  p.  475).    The 
word  ndbV  therefore  would  mean  he  who  amuuiKes,  or  bruigs 
a  message.    The  term,  however,  has  not  in  usage  the  general 
sense  of  announcer  or  speaker,  but  always  means  one  who  speaks 
from  God,  i.e.  a  prophet,  and  the  Hithp.  frequently  means  to 
speak  in  an  excited  manner,  to  rave  (jx^iytfoti).    This  connota- 
tion might  suggest  the  question  whether  the  root  naba'  did  not 
ori<'inallv  express  some  mental  emotion,  the  reflexive  forms 
(Niph.  Hithp.)  meaning  to  exhibit  or  display  this  emotion,  as  is 
the  case  with  so  many  reflexives,  e.g.  nitty  to  groan,  ?3xnn 
to  exhibit  grief,  •]:mn  to  show  anger.     It  is  usually  supposed, 
however,  that  the  verbal  forms  are  denominatives  from  nul/i: 
In  this  case  the  original  verb.al  root  wouUi  not  be  found  in  Heb., 
and  the  word  ndbV  would  either  be  an  old  noun  surviving  after 
the  verbal  root  was  lost,  or  else  a  new  word  learned  from  the 
Canaanites.    The  word  nabi'  is  said  (1  S  »9)  to  have  become  » 
substitute  for  rii'cA  '  seer,'  and  unfortunately  the  literature  la 
all  later  than  the  time  when  ndbV  with  its  derivatives  had 
become    the  usage.      The  70  elders  of  Nu   U  (according  K> 
Wellhausen,    Comp.'^   102 f.,  J    working    on   older    materials) 
'prophesy'  quite  after  the  manner  of  the  'prophets'  ot   the 
days  of  Samuel  H  S  10)  or  of  Ahab  (1  K  22),  i.e.  their  '  prophesy- 
ing' is  a  joint  exercise.    It  is  possible  that  'prophets   of  thu 
kind  may  have  appeared  in  the  earliest  times,  though  we  do 
not  hear  of  them.    Others  (e.g.  Kuenen,  Proph.  eli.  16)  are 
inclined  to  think  that  the  name  ndbl  is  Canaanite,  and  borrowed 
by  the  Hebrews,  who  applied  it  to  the  bands  of  enthusiasts  ol 
Saniucrs  day  because  thev  seemed  to  resemble  the  Can;iamte 
'prophets.'     But  the  existence  of  Canajmite   'prophets.    i.«. 
bands  of  Dervish-like  enthusiasts,  is  purely  conjectural.     Viedt 
not  hear  ot  such  'prophets'  till  20il  years  later,  and  these  are 
not  Canaanite,  but  the  priest-prophets  ot  the  Tynan  Baal  inain- 
Uined  at  the  cost  ot  Jezebel  (1  K    1819).      Wellhausen  {Utit. 
p  449)  remarks:  '  Among  the  Canaanites  such  Nebum— for  so 
they  are  stvled— had  long  been  familiar.'    It  would  not  he  easy 
to  furnish  the  evidence.     Again,  the  prophetic  movement  in  tho 
days  of  Samuel  was  a  religious  national  one,  and  it  is  not  just 
probable  that  the   Hebrews  would    borrow  terms    from    the 
Sanaanites  to  describe  it,  particularly  as  the  Canaanites  were 
more  than  probablv  in  league  with  the  Philistines  (1  S  Jl'"). 
The    Can     and    Heb.    languages    must   have    been    virtually 
identical ;  at  the  same  time  the  root-word  appear*  to  exist  in 
Assvr    e.q.  in  Nebo  the  interpreter  of  the  gods,  and  nabu  to 
announce  (Delitzsch,  Assi/r.  U»I!).  and  the  term  may  have 
entered  Canaan  from    Daliylon.    The  date  when  the  change 
from  '  seer '  to  '  prophet '  took  place  cannot  be  ascertained ,  and 
the  change  itself  is  difficult  to  explain.     Possibly  as  persons  of 
individuality  and  power  arose  among  the  '  prophets   they  took 
a  more  independent  position  like  that  of  'seer,    though   th» 
name  '  prophet '  contimied  attached  to  them.    Some  personages 
like  Gad  bore  both  names  (2  S  2411).  ,    _     .  .     ,o 

The  tcnn  ili'eA  is  used  chieflv  of  Samuel,  7  times  out  of  8 
(twice  of  Ilanani,  2  Ch  1071»).  The  word  h6:eh  is  more  common, 
2  a  "411  0  K  17",  Am  712,  and  often  in  the  Chronicler,  who 
alTerts  archaic  phraseology,  e.g.  1  Ch  219  (Gad)  2  Ch  929  121. 
(Iddo),  2Ch  l»4(Jehu),  2Ch  i^M  (Asaph),  1  Ch  265  (Heman), 
2  Ch  3516  (Jeduthun).  In  the  plur.  both  rd'im  and  «c)Jto>  are 
used  as  parallel  to  'prophets,'  Is  2010  (a  gloss),  SOm,  Mic  S'> 


PROPHECY  AND  PROPHETS 


PROPHECY  AND  PROI'HETS     109 


2  Ch  33^8. 19,  The  eeera  were  so  named  from  having  Nnsions, 
and  pos-iibly  the  priest  Auiaziah  apjilied  tlie  name  hi'isr/i  to 
Amos  (7'-)  on  account  of  the  visions  wiiich  he  narrated  (7^"). 
On  h/jzeh  (Arab.  Aiiii)  cf.  HolTmonn,  ZA  II'.  1SS3,  pp.  9U-U6  ;  and 
on  kcihin  (  =  A<izl)  Wellhauscn,  Reite^,  p.  lliOlf. 

iii.  Historical  Steps. — 1.  'Time  of  Samuel. — 
In  tlie  Book  of  Judges,  beyond  the  reference  to 
Di'borali  (Jg  4),  nnd  a  'propliet'  in  tlie  days  of 
Midianite  oppres.sion  (6',  of.  1  S2-''),  nothing  is  said 
about  proiibets.  Deborali  was  a  '  prophetess,'  and 
'judged,'  that  is,  ruled  or  governed,  Israel.  Both 
termt-. '  jirophetess'  and  'judge,'  imply  that  Deborah 
played  a  political  r6]e.  Slie  was  a  motlierin  Israel, 
and  took  the  leadership  in  a  national  crisis.  In 
the  times  of  Samuel  men  called  'prophets'  appear 
to  have  existed  in  great  numbers. 

(«)  Those  called  'prophets'  in  this  age  formed 
communities ;  they  were  cenobites,  though  not 
celibates  (2  K  4').  They  are  first  mentioned  in 
connexion  with  Saul  at  Gibeah  of  God,  Saul's 
home  (1  S  10').  When  dismissing  him  Samuel  pre- 
dicted that  lie  would  meet  a  band  of  prophets 
coming  down  from  the  high  ])lace  with  music, 
and  engaged  in  '  prophesying' (1  S  10°- '").  Anotlier 
( ompany  had  its  home  at  Kamah,  where  Samuel 
himself  dwelt  (1  S  19").  It  has  usually  been  sup- 
]>o.sed  that  the  term  nuif/th  means  '  dwellings,'  and 
describes  such  a  prophetic  settlement  (2  K  t5''',  see 
Naiotii).  In  the  times  of  Elijah  and  Elisha  other 
localities  are  mentioned  as  residences,  e.o.  Bethel 
(2  K  2^),  Jericho  (2  K  2^),  and  tiilgal  (2  K  4^,  cf. 
2  K  6').  The  re.sidenters  are  called  '  prophets'  and 
'sons  of  the  prophets,'  i.e.  members  of  the  pro- 
phetic societies  (a  single  member  is  hcn-ndbi'.  Am 
7").  Between  Samuel  and  Elijah  (1  K  202')  „g  ,„,,„, 
tion  is  made  of  the  '  sons  of  the  prophets,'  though 
it  is  probable  that  the  succession  was  still  main- 
tained. Amos,  a  hundred  years  after  Elijah, 
aiipears  to  be  acquainted  with  prophetic  societies 
;i''),  and  at  all  times  prophets  continued  to  be 
numerous  (I  K  22*  IS'').  As  at  the  places  named 
as  residences  there  was  a  '  high  place  '  or  sanctuary, 
it  was  probably  around  these  sanctuaries  where 
J"  was  worshipped  that  the  prophets  settled.  In 
early  times  tlie  distinction  between  priest  nnd 
projihet  does  not  seem  to  have  been  sharp.  Tlie 
Arab.  Icithin  was  both  seer  and  priest.  Samuel  was 
both  priest  and  prophet.  Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel 
lioth  came  out  of  priestly  families.  The  con- 
nexion, indeed,  of  priests  and  projihets  was  always 
close  (Is  8').  Those  proiiliets  whom  Jer.  denounces 
as  false  act  in  concert  with  the  temple  priesthood. 
I'ashliur,  who  jmt  Jer.  in  the  stocks,  was  prophet 
as  well  as  priest  (Jer  20'"")  ;  and  it  was  the  '  priests 
and  prophets'  who  arraigned  Jer.  before  the 
princes  for  blasphemy  against  the  temple  (Jer  '2()). 

(i)  The  inulliiilication  of  'prophets'  at  this 
epoch  indicates  a  rising  spirit  of  devotion  to  J ", 
and  fervour  in  His  service.  Some  have  supposed 
that  this  new  fervour  and  religious  elevation  were 
due  to  the  influence  of  Samuel,  and  that  tiie 
origin  of  the  juoiihetic  societies  must  be  traced 
to  him.  But  all  that  we  have  history  for  is  that 
Samuel  was  in  close  relation  with  the  prophetic 
communities.  We  see  him  on  some  occasions  at 
their  head  (1  S  I9=")  ;  but  that  he  did  not  usually 
reside  among  the  '  prophets'  appears  from  the  state- 
ment that  when  David  lied  to  hira  at  IJaniah  the 
two  together  then  went  and  dwelt  at  Naioth  (1!)'*). 
It  is  evident  that  the  prophets  looked  up  to  him 
and  learned  from  him  ;  but  it  is  also  evident  that 
lie  felt  that  the  impulses  which  moved  them  were 
common  also  to  himself,  and  he  wius  not  a.shanied 
to  direct  tliciii,  and  sh.'ire  in  their  prophesyings 
(cf.  Elisha,  2  K  4**).  It  is  probable,  therefore,  that 
ihe  rise  of  the  '  prophets  was  due  to  something 
whi^h  swept  both  Samuel  and  the  people  into  the 
•aiiie  stream  of  national-relijjious  enthusiasm. 
(')  This  can    hardly   have  been   anything  else 


than  the  crisis  that  had  arisen  in  the  nation's 
fortunes.  The  people  had  been  subdued  by  the 
Philistines,  and  were  threatened  with  national 
extinction.  And  in  Israel  of  this  age  national  and 
religious  were  virtuallj-  the  same  thing.  The  idea 
of  later  prophets,  that  national  autonomy  might 
be  lost,  while  the  religion  of  J"  remained,  had 
not  yet  been  reached.  It  was  J"  that  created 
Israel,  and  made  it  a  nation  ;  faith  in  Him  was 
the  bond  of  its  national  existence,  and  the  hour 
of  the  nation's  peril  awoke  a  new  religious-national 
fervour.  The  nation's  fortunes  and  history  was 
from  the  beginning  the  great  lesson-book  in  which 
men  read  the  nature  of  J"  their  God,  and  His 
disposition  towards  them  (2  S  21"f-  24'"-).  The 
national  disasters  were  evidence  of  J"'s  anger,  and 
they  awoke  the  national  conscience.  The  'pro- 
phets'  were  not  indi\idual  enthusiasts  ;  they  were 
inspired  by  common  sentiments,  and  animated 
each  other,  and,  as  a  society,  reacted  on  the  sur- 
rounding population.  Their  '  prophesying '  was  a 
kind  of  public  worship  at  the  Iiigli  place  or  sanc- 
tuary, to  which  they  went  up  with  pipe  and  song, 
as  continued  to  be  done  in  after -days  (Is  30-''). 
And  the  songs  were  not  songs  without  words. 
They  had  religious  contents,  as  much  as  tho.se  of  the 
singers  who  afterwards  '])roj)hesicd  with  harps'  in 
the  temple  ( 1  Ch  25=- ',  cf.  2  S  23').  However  rude, 
thev  would  be  celebrations  of  *  the  righteous  acts 
of  J",  tlie  righteous  acts  of  his  rule  in  Israel '  (Jg 
5").  They  would  be  such  songs  as  were  after- 
wards collected  in  'the  Book  of  the  AVars  of  J"' 
and  in  '  the  Book  of  the  Upright'  (I'k.  of  Jashar). 
Some  of  the  poetical  fragments  still  to  be  found  in 
the  historical  books  may  well  belong  to  this  age. 
Whether  writing  was  practised  by  the  'prophets' 
may  be  uncertain  (though  cf.  1  Ch  29-'') ;  but  if  they 
did  not  write,  they  prepared  by  their  '  prophesy- 
ing '  a  language  for  the  literary  jiropliets  who 
came  after  them.  In  Amos,  the  oldest  literary 
prophet,  we  find  a  religious  nomenclature  already 
complete ;  we  find  also  in  him,  almost  more  than 
in  his  successors,  the  prophetic  mannerism  and 
technique,  such  as  the  phrases  'oracle  of  J"'  ('•  ctti), 
'thus  saith  J",' and  much  else.  It  is  not  too  much 
to  siippo.se  that  it  was  in  these  'schools  of  the 
projjhets'  all  down  the  history  that  this  uonieii- 
clature  anil  techni(nie  were  formed. 

[d)  The  new  proplietism  was  a  national-religious 
movement,  though  the  emiiliasis  lay  on  the  reli- 
gious aspect  of  it.  Like  their  great  successors,  the 
projihets  hoped  that  the  national  restitution  would 
be  the  .shape  in  which  the  religious  regeneration 
would  verify  it.self.  Nevertheless,  the  national 
claimed  expression.  The  monarcliy  was  the  crea- 
tion of  prophecy,  not  merely  in  the  sense  that  the 
))rophet  Samuel,  by  inspiration  of  J",  gave  the 
jieople  a  king.  The  national  direction  of  pro- 
phecy embodied  itself  in  the  kingship.  The  liist 
king  of  Israel  was  a  prophet  as  well  as  the  second. 
When  Saul  turned  to  go  from  Samuel,  God  gave 
him  another  heart,  and  when  he  met  the  iirophets 
the  spirit  of  God  came  on  him  nnd  he  prophesied. 
His  excitation  was  not  mere  contagious  sympathy. 
There  was  iniml  uiuler  it;  it  was  the  thouglit 
awakened  by  Samuel  of  his  high  destiny  and  of  the 
task  before  him  taking  lire  from  contact  with  the 
national  -  religious  enthusiasm  of  the  prophets. 
The  exclamation  of  the  populace,  Is  Saul  also 
among  the  projihets?  has  been  taken  as  an  ex- 
pression of  wonder  that  a  solid  yeoman  like  Saul 
should  join  himself  to  a  conijiany  of  ranting  en- 
thusiasts. This  view  is  wholly  imju-oliable.  It 
was  not  in  this  way  that  religious  exaltation  was 
looked  on  in  the  ta.st.  It  was  just  the  visible 
excitation  that  suggested  to  the  onlooker  that 
the  enthusiast  was  possessed  by  the  deity.  Even 
the  insane,  just  because  he  had  no  mastery  over 


no  PEOPHECT  AND  PROPHETS 


PROPHECY  AND  PROPHETS 


his  mind,  whicli  seemed  moved  by  another,  was 
lield  inspired.  A  multitude  of  passages  sliow  the 
popular  reverence  for  the  prophets,  c.ij.  2  K  4'"-  *"'• 
(cf.  6'  9'),  particularly  2  K  4''-'''-  which  describes 
how  a  person  '  brought  the  man  of  God  bread  of 
the  first  fruits,'  as  people  did  to  the  sanctuary  of 
J"  (cf.  1  K  12^''-)-  Iseither  can  Amos'  disclaimer  of 
being  a  prophet  or  one  of  the  sons  of  the  prophets 
mean  that  '  he  felt  it  an  insult  to  be  treated  as 
one  of  them."  Amos  (V)  merely  states  a  his- 
torical fact,  viz.  that  he  had  not  been  an  isolated 
prophet  such  as  Elijah  and  others  were,  nor  a 
member  of  one  of  the  'prophetic  schools,'  but  had 
been  suddenly  called  from  behind  the  flock  to 
'  prophesy '  to  God's  people  Israel.  The  respect 
with  which  he  mentions  prophets  elsewhere  a-s 
God's  greatest  gift  to  the  people  (2"  3'),  is  sufficient 
evidence  of  his  feeling,  t 

2.  Early  Monarchy.  —  During  the  time  of;  the 
Judges  and  the  early  monarchy  the  means  of 
ascertaining  the  \n\\  of  J"  was  chiefly  the  sacred 
lot  and  ephod.  This  was  employed  by  Gideon  (Jg 
8")  and  Micah  (Jg  17.  18),  by  Saul,  and  by  David 
and  his  priests  in  the  early  period  of  his  history 
(1  S  23"-'').  At  a  later  time  it  is  little  referred  to, 
the  king's  advisers  being  the  prophets.  Side  by 
side  with  this  there  existed  seers  through  whom  J" 
spake.  The  Arab.  Mhin  or  seer  was  also  sup- 
posed to  be  possessed  by  a  spirit,  which  spake 
through  him  (Wellhausen,  Beste^,  134).  The  seer 
was  absorbed  into  the  class  of  '  prophets,'  and  the 
name  '  prophet '  remained  common  to  the  isolated 
individual  and  the  member  of  the  community. 
And  from  this  time  forward  the  will  of  J"  was 
chiefly  asked  at  the  mouth  of  the  prophet  (1  K 
14'''-).  The  early  waters  of  prophetism  may  have 
been  somewhat  turbid,  but  they  gradually  ran 
clear,  and  became  that  stream  of  ethical  prophecy 
to  which  there  is  nothing  like  in  the  religious 
history  of  mankind.  J"  spake  in  the  mind  of  man 
and  to  his  mind ;  the  propliet  stood  in  the  council 
of  God.  The  two  ways  of  ascertaining  the  will  of 
J"  in  the  age  of  Samuel  are  reflected  in  the  two 
narratives  of  the  election  of  Saul.  Both  narra- 
tives ascribe  the  institution  of  the  monarchy  to  the 
\^-ill  of  J ",  but  in  the  one  (1  S  9'-10"  II)  his  will  is 
declared  through  prophetic  inspii-ation,  in  the 
other  (1  S  8.  10"«-  12)  through  the  oracle  of  the 
lot.  The  latter  tradition,  though  further  removed 
from  the  actual  events,  is  at  least  true  to  the  his- 
torical conditions  of  the  period. 

The  true  causes  of  the  rupture  between  Samuel 
and  Saul  can  scarcely  be  ascertained.  The  pro- 
phetic spirit  in  Saul  never  obtained  the  mastery 
within  him,  it  was  always  in  conflict  with  contrary 
currents  in  his  nature.  Latterly  the  spirit  became 
troubled  and  obscured,  and  its  place  was  taken  by 
an  evil  spirit  from  God  (cf.  1  K  22^'*).  David  was 
a  man  according  to  God's  heart,  that  is,  in  all 
things  subject  to  the  wUl  of  J"  (cf.  1  S  IS**),  and 
the  prophets  are  found  supporting  his  throne. 
Special  designations  are  given  to  some  of  them 
suggestive  of  the  oflices  they  performed,  e.g.  men- 
tion is  made  of  '  the  prophet  Gad,  David's  seer  '  (2  S 
24",  1  Ch  21»,  2  Ch  29-«).  These  prophets  indirectly 
influenced  the  government  and  acted  on  the  allairs 
of  the  kingdom  as  a  whole,  although  through  the 
king  (2  S  24"  T'"-  IZ'"-,  1  K  I'^ff).  So  long  as  the 
prophets  and  kings  were  in  accord  this  may  have 
continued,  but  when  kings  arose  who  were  mere 
national  rulers  and   unprogressive  or  retrograde 

•Wellhausen,  Hint.  293.  Wellhansen'B  remark  that  'the 
point  of  the  story  narrated  of  Saul  (1  S  in22ii-)  can  he  nothing 
out  Saniuel'B  anti  David's  enjo>Tjienl  of  the  disf;race  of  the 
naked  king '  (p.  208),  is  merely  the  cynical  sally  of  a  modern 
buinourist. 

t  This  view  of  Am  71<  is  rightlv  taken  by  J.  0.  Mattbes,  art. 
'The  False  Prophets,'  Mod.  liev.,  July  1884.  See  also  J. 
Bol>ertson,  Early  lielig.  of  Israel,  p.  00. 


in  religion, — of  course  no  king  of  that  age  was 
irreligious  in  the  sense  of  neglecting  tlie  tradi- 
tional religion, — naturally  the  propliets,  at  least 
those  among  them  m  ho  were  ethically  progressive, 
took  another  side.  It  might  have  been  well  for 
the  peaceable  development  of  the  kingdom  of  J" 
if  the  prophets  and  rulers  had  always  been  in 
harmony,  and  it  might  seem  a  calamity  when  a 
dissidence  arose  between  them  ;  but  undoubtedly, 
though  the  disagreement  was  often  fruitful  of 
trouble  and  revolution,  it  contributed  to  the  inde- 
pendence of  the  prophetic  order.  Prophecy  re- 
sumed the  '  national '  element  in  it,  which  it  had 
divested  itself  of  and  delegated  to  the  riionarcliy, 
and  stood  forth  against  all  classes  and  fuiKrtions  as 
the  immediately  insjiired  guardian  of  the  kingdom 
of  J"  in  all  its  interests.  Moses  was  the  type  of 
the  true  prophet  (Hos  12",  Dt  18"). 

3.  The  Canonical  Prophets.  —  Prophets  like 
Nathan,  Elijah,  and  Elisha,  following  the  ex- 
ample of  Samuel,  directly  interfered  in  the  govern- 
ment of  the  State.  Nathan  determined  the  suc- 
cession to  the  throne  (1  K  l'-"')  ;  Elijah  denounced 
the  dynasty  of  Omri,  and  Elisha  set  in  motion  the 
revolution  that  overthrew  it  (2  K  9).  The  latter 
prophet  was  the  very  embodiment  of  the  national 
spirit  in  the  Syrian  wars,  and  took  the  field  in 
the  campaign  against  Moab  (2  K  S""').  Elijah 
and  he  were  the  national  buhvai-k — '  the  chariots 
of  Israel  and  the  horsemen  thereof  '  (2  K  2"^).  But 
after  Elisha  the  propliets  withdraw  from  exter- 
nal national,  and  party,  conflicts.  They  no  more 
head  revolutions.  l^evertlieless,  they  remain 
statesmen  as  much  as  their  great  predecessors. 
They  could  not  cease  to  be  politicians  as  long 
as  the  kingdom  of  J"  had  the  form  of  a  State. 
They  oppose,  warn,  and  counsel  kings  and  State 
parties  according  to  the  exigencies  of  the  time. 
Hosea,  indeed,  thinks  the  monarchy  impotent  for 
good,  if  it  has  not  been  from  the  beginning  the 
source  of  all  evil  (IS'"^-).  But  Isaiah,  so  long  aa 
the  State  was  independent,  warned  Ahaz  against 
involving  his  kingdom  in  the  struggles  of  the 
nations,  in  the  collision  of  which  his  country  would 
be  crushed  (Is7);  and  when  the  dream  of  independ- 
ence had  passed  away  he  resisted  with  equal 
strenuousness  the  meditated  revolt  of  Hezekiah 
and   the    Egyptian    party    against    the   Assyrian 

Sower  (Is  3U"''-  Sl'"^-)-  I'le  same  principles  guided 
er.  and  Ezk.  in  the  Chahhean  age  (Jer  21'  3S-, 
Ezk  17).  But  the  only  weapon  which  the  prophets 
now  use  is  the  word  of  God  which  is  in  their  mouth. 
Jer.,  though  set  over  the  nations  to  pluck  up  and 
break  do«n,  wields  only  the  word  of  J",  which  is 
like  a  h.ammer  breaking  the  rocks  in  pieces  (Jer 
1».  10  2,3"'),  and  which  has  a  self-fulfilling  energy 
(Is  55'"^).  J"  hews  the  people  by  the  prophets, 
and  slajs  them  with  the  words  of  His  mouth 
(Hos  6").  But  in  this  age  new  thoughts,  difficult 
to  account  for,  filled  the  minds  of  the  prophets. 
Formerly,  J",  as  God  and  ruler  of  His  people, 
rejected  dynasties,  and  by  the  proi>hets  overthrew 
them  (Hos  13")  ;  now,  it  is  the  conviction  of  all  the 
prophets,  both  of  the  north  and  south,  that  J"  haa 
rejected  the  nation,  that  Israel  as  an  independent 
State  is  doomed  to  perish.  Side  by  side  with 
this  thought,  or  as  a  consequence  of  it,  another 
thought  appears.  The  complex  notion  'national- 
religious'  seems  reflected  on  and  analyzed,  and  the 
'religious'  assumes  such  preponderating  weight 
that  the  'national'  appears  of  little  value.  The 
ideal  kingdom  of  J"  is  a  religious  community  faith- 
ful to  the  Lord.  Another  thing,  closely  connected 
with  the  two  just  mentioned,  is  the  lotty  spiritual 
and  ethical  conception  of  J"  God  of  Israel  reached 
by  the  prophets  of  this  age,  and,  what  is  but  the 
obverse  sitfe  of  it,  their  severe  judgment  on  the 
moral  condition  of  the   people.     This  lofty  con- 


PROPHECY  AXD  PROPHETS 


PROPHECY  AKD  PROPHETS     111 


cepjion  of  J"  and  this  pure  ideal  of  what  His  people 
must  be,  cannot  be  an  unmediatcd  and  inexplicable 
leap  upward  of  Imnian  religious  genius,  neither 
can  it  be  a  sudden  divine  creation.  It  did  not, 
like  Jonah's  gourd,  grow  up  in  a  night.  History, 
unhappily,  does  not  enable  us  to  follow  its  growth. 
But  it  is  the  perfect  efflorescence  of  a  tree  whose 
roots  stood  in  the  soil  of  Israel  from  the  beginning, 
whose  rital  et<'rjfies  had  always  been  ino\'ing 
towards  flower,  and  >vhich  burst  forth  at  last  in 
the  g'jrgeous  blaze  of  colour  which  we  see.  The 
■wealtn  of  ethical  and  religious  teaching  found  in 
the  prophets  of  this  age  has  led  to  a  reaction 
Hgaii.st  the  former  idea  that  prophecy  was  speeih- 
cally  prediction,  and  the  \-iew  has  become  i)reva- 
lent  that  the  true  function  of  the  prophet  was 
to  be  a  teucher  of  ethical  and  religious  truths. 
This  view  is  also  one-sided.  The  prophets  never 
cease  to  be  '  seers ' ;  their  face  is  always  turned  to 
the  future.  They  stand  in  the  council  of  J" 
(Am  3',  Jer  23--),  and  it  is  what  He  is  about  to  do 
that  they  declare  to  men.  Their  moral  and  reli- 
g;ous  teaching  is,  so  to  speak,  secondary,  and  due 
to  the  occasion.  Their  conviction  is  that  the 
destruction  of  the  nation  is  inevitable,  and  they 
iwell  on  the  nature  of  J"  and  on  the  moral  de- 
clension of  the  people  to  impress  their  conviction 
on  the  nation — '  prepare  to  meet  thy  God,  O  Israel ' 
(Am  4'").  Or,  as  their  conviction  of  the  inevit- 
ableness  of  the  nation's  doom  does  not  seem 
absolate,  but  is  crossed,  at  least  at  times,  by  the 
possibility  or  even  the  hope  that  it  might  be 
averted  (Am  5"- ",  Is  1",  Jer  36'-*),  they  impress 
on  the  people  the  mind  and  life  which  is  acceptable 
to  J" — that  ^^llich  is  good,  and  what  the  Lord 
requires  of  them  (Mic  C) — that  they  may  repent, 
and  that  His  judgments  may  be  arrested.  Or, 
when  the  foreboding  of  near  destruction  again 
oppresses  them,  they  look  beyond  the  dark  and 
tempestuous  night  that  is  gathering  to  the  day 
that  will  dawn  behind  it  (Is  8""), — for  though  J" 
will  destroy  the  sinful  kingdom  He  will  not  destroy 
the  house  of  Jacob  (Am  9'), — and  they  dilate  on 
the  righteousness  and  the  peace  and  the  joy  of 
that  new  age  (Is  9'-*,  Hos  2^^").  The  prophets  now 
emjploy  writing,  and  the  short,  drastic  oracles  of 
former  times  (1  S  15*-',  IK  11"  21'»)  give  place  to 
discourses  of  considerable  length.  By  writing 
they  could  influence  many  whom  their  voice  could 
not  reach,  and  the  written  word  became  a  perma- 
nent possession  of  the  godly  kernel  of  the  people, 
upholding  therti  in  the  midst  of  the  darkness  when 
God's  face  was  hidden,  and  being  wlien  the 
calamities  were  overpast  a  witness  that  God  had 
still  been  with  them  (Is  S'"-,  Ezk  2").  The  instances 
of  Deuteronomy  and  the  roll  of  Jeremiah  show  that 
a  writing  produced  a  far  more  powerful  impression 
than  the  spoken  word  of  the  prophet. 

A  strange  and  interesting  phenomenon  in  the 
history  of  prophecy  is  what  is  called  'False' 
Prophecy.  The  true  prophets,  whose  word 
hibtciry  and  God's  providence  verilied,  and  to 
which  the  religious  mind  of  mankind  has  set  its 
seal,  laid  cmjihasis  on  the  'religious'  element  in 
the  complex  'national-religious'  idea.  The  unity 
J'  and  the  nation  had  to  their  minds  become  dis- 
rupted, and  J'  now  stood  opposed  to  the  nation. 
The  '  false '  prophets  continued  to  lay  the  chief 
emphasis  on  the  'national'  side;  hence  they  might 
be  called  nationalistic  prophets  rather  than  false, 
though,  of  course,  their  anticipations  were  often 
di8i)roved  by  events.  The  question  whether  these 
prophets  were  retrograde  or  only  unprugressive, 
will  be  answered  dilR-rently  acconling  to  the  view 
taken  of  the  development  of  religion  in  Israel. 
There  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  they  had  per- 
sonally sunk  below  the  level  of  their  own  time. 
They  stand  on  the  same  level  with  the  body  of 


the  peoiile.  The  charge  of  the  canonical  prophets 
is  that  tlie  nation  as  a  whole  had  declined  from 
the  purer  moral  and  religious  ideal  of  early  times 
(Hos  2',  Is  1-').  And  this  charge  is  certainly 
true.  Kor,  admitting  that  the  people  by  entrance 
upon  the  Canaanite  civilization  liad  attained  to  a 
broader  and  fuller  human  life,  and  admitting  even 
that  the  conception  of  J",  by  taking  up  into  it 
some  of  the  thoughts  connected  with  the  native 
gods,  became  enlarged  and  enriched,  mixture  with 
the  Canaaiiites  produced  a  deterioration  both  in 
the  life  and  religion  of  Israel.  It  is  this  deteriora- 
tion that  seems  to  the  true  prophets  so  fateful  in 
regard  to  the  destinies  of  the  nation.  And  it  is 
on  this  (question  of  the  national  future  that  con- 
flicts arise  between  the  true  prophets  and  the 
false.  It  is  in  this  region,  too,  that  another  new 
phenomenon  in  tlie  history  of  prophecy  appears  in 
this  age — the  persecution  of  the  prophets.  Former 
prophets,  like  Samuel,  Elijah,  and  Elisha,  were 
embodiments  of  the  '  national -religious  '  spirit, 
and  carried  the  people  witli  them.  The  new  out- 
look of  the  prophets  regarding  the  national  des- 
tinies enraged  the  populace.  The  prophets  seemed 
to  them  madmen;  their  predictions  that  J"  would 
destroy  His  people  were  incredible ;  they  were 
traitors,  and  sought  not  the  welfare  of  the  people, 
but  their  hurt  (Jer  38^).  The  prophets  probably 
mi"ht  have  preached  as  they  liked  about  the  nature 
of  J"  and  the  kind  of  service  pleasing  to  Him,  if  they 
had  not  gone  further  and  drawn  inferences  as  to 
the  destinies  of  tlie  nation.  Jehoiakim  showed  his 
indifference  to  Jeremiah's  preaching,  or  his  con- 
tempt for  it,  by  throwing  his  book  piecemeal  into 
the  fire ;  it  was  only  when  at  the  end  of  the  roll 
he  found  the  assertion  that  Nebuch.  would  come  and 
destroy  the  land  (Jer  36^  25"- '"),  that  he  ordered 
the  prophet's  arrest.  On  another  occasion  Jer.  was 
seized  and  beaten  on  the  suspicion  that  he  was 
falling  away  to  the  Chalda>ans,  and  flung  into  a 
dungeon  because  his  gloom3'  anticipations  dis- 
heartened the  men  of  war  in  the  city  (38*).  And 
it  was  because  of  his  prophecy  of  national  disaster 
(1  K  22)  that  Ahab  ordered  Aticaiah  to  be  confined 
on  bread  and  water  till  he  came  back  (he  did  not 
come  back  !).  It  was  not  their  religious  opinions 
but  their  political  threats  that  drew  persecution 
on  the  propliets  (."^ni  T'"*).  The  persecution  was 
the  convulsive  efl'ort  of  the  '  national  -  religious ' 
spirit  to  maintain  itself.  No  doubt  many  of  the 
people  were  impatient  of  the  pro|>hets'  general 
teaching,  or  contemptuous  of  it :  thej-  burlesqued 
their  manner  (Is  28"- '"),  and  ironically  invited  the 
interposition  of  the  Lord  with  which  the  prophets 
threatened  them  (Is  5"- '") ;  they  imiiosed  silence 
on  them  (Am  2'-,  Mic  2"),  and  told  them  to  have 
done  with  the  Lord  of  hosts  in  their  hearing  (Is 
30"'") ;  but  it  was  mostly  when  the  proimcts 
entered  the  political  region,  or  when  to  the  general 
mind  they  seemed  guilty  of  sacrilege  (Am  "'-•  ",  Jer 
714  ofp.  8)_  i\^g_i  harsher  measures  were  adopted.  No 
doubt  the  persecution  of  the  prophets  by  Ahab  at 
the  instigation  of  Jezebel  was  on  account  of  their 
opposition  to  the  introduction  of  the  liaiil  worship. 
But  even  this  persecution  seems  to  have  been 
transient,  for  shortly  before  his  death  we  observe 
Ahab  on  the  best  of  terms  with  the  pro])hets  (1  K 
22).  If  the  400  mentioned  here  are  '  false,'  or 
merely  nationalistic,  prophets,  probably  many  of 
them  liad  opposed  the  Baal  cultus  if  for  no  liighei 
reason  than  that  J"  was  the  national  God.  The  per- 
secution by  Manasseh,  of  whom  we  know  so  litth', 
would  be  for  similar  reasons,  because  the  prophets 
opposed  the  Assyrian  cults  which  the  King  1"- 
ardently  patronized. 

4.  T/ie  Ex/iiri/  of  Prophecy.  —  Many  things 
contributed  to  the  decline  and  final  failure  of 
propliecj'. 


112     PROPHECY  A:S'D  PEOPHETS 


PROPHECY  AND  PROPHETS 


(a)  The  projihets  bore  some  resemblance  to  a 
progressive  political  party  in  a  State.  So  long  as 
abuses  exist,  and  privilege  leads  to  injustice  and 
oppression  of  the  weaker  classes,  such  a  party 
is  slroni;.  Its  power  lies  in  attack.  But  when 
abuses  nave  been  removed,  and  tlie  reforms  de- 
manded have  been  conceded  and  placed  upon  the 
statute  book,  the  function  of  the  party  of  progress 
has  ceased.  Now,  the  evils  against  which  the 
prophets  contended  had,  e.xternally  at  least,  been 
removed  by  the  reform  of  Josiah.  Deuteronomy 
received  the  sanction  of  the  king  and  government, 
and  became  tlie  law  of  tlie  State.  Tliis  was  a 
triunipli  of  prophetic  teaching  on  morals  and  re- 
ligion ;  but  if  it  was  thus  a  witness  to  the  power 
of  prophecy  in  the  past,  it  was  virtually  a  death- 
blow to  it  for  the  future.  For  by  embodying  the 
practical  issues  of  the  prophetic  principles  in  law, 
having  State  authority,  it  superseded  the  living 
prophetic  word.  No  doubt  even  after  Deut.  be- 
came State  law  Jer.  continued  to  be  a  prophet, 
lie  perceived  that  the  reform  was  merely  e.xternal, 
and  he  continued  to  demand  something  more  in- 
ward— not  reform  but  regeneration. 

(6)  Again,  the  great  prophets  from  Amos  to  Jere- 
miah had  traversed  the  whole  region  of  theology  and 
morals.  Little  could  be  added  to  what  they  had 
taught  concerning  J"  and  His  purposes,  concerning 
man  and  his  destiny.  Those  who  came  after  them 
could  do  little  more  than  combine  their  principles 
into  new  applications  and  uses.  And  in  point  of 
fact  such  prophets  as  Ezekiel  and  Deutero-Isaiah 
are  almost  more  theologians  than  prophets.* 

(<•)  Another  thing  which  contributed  to  the  ex- 
pirj'  of  prophecy  was  the  fall  of  the  State.  With 
the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  the  nation,  the 
subject  of  prophecy,  ceased  to  exist.  Its  destruc- 
tion was  the  seal  set  to  the  truth  of  prophecy,  to 
its  teacliing  on  God  and  the  people,  and  its  task 
was  done.  If  in  a  sense  prophecy  had  destroyed 
the  nation  it  had  saved  religion.  For  by  teaching 
that  it  was  J"  who  brought  ruin  on  the  State  it 
showed  that  the  downfall  of  the  nation  was  not 
the  defeat  but  the  triumph  of  J".  The  gods  of  the 
nations,  Chemosh,  Asshur,  and  Merodacli,  perished 
with  the  nations  of  whose  spirit  they  were  the  em- 
bodiments, but  Jehovah  rose  the  higher  over  the 
ruins  of  Jerusalem.  He  was  seen  to  be  the  God  of 
Kighteousness,  the  moral  Ruler  of  the  world — 
Jehovah  of  Hosts  was  exalted  in  judgment, 
And  the  Holy  God  sanctified  in  righteousness 

(Is  5"). 
Wlien  Israel  perished  as  a  nation,  and  was  scattered 
over  every  land,  the  idea  of  Israel  just  by  being 
detached  from  the  nation  became  clearer ;  the 
conception  of  Israel,  of  its  place  in  the  moral 
history  of  mankind,  took  the  place  of  Israel,  and 
the  second  Isaiah,  operating  with  this  conception, 
— the  servant  of  the  Lord, — is  still  a  prophet.  No 
doubt  with  all  his  brilliancy  mucli  of  his  book  is 
theoloCTcal  deduction  from  his  lofty  conception 
of  J",  out  in  one  respect  he  is  what  aU  the  great 
prophets  were,  an  '  interpreter '  of  history,  and  by 
tar  the  profoundest.  He  stands  at  the  end  of 
Israel's  history,  and  looking  back  he  reads  its 
meanin",  which  is  that  its  sutlerings  as  servant 
of  the  Lord  have  atoned  for  its  sins  as  a  mere 
part  of  mankind. 

(rf)  Altliough  at  the  Restoration  the  gorgeous 
anticipations  of  the  second  Isaiah  had  been  dis- 
appointed, the  idea  of  what  Israel  was,  its  con- 
sciousness of  itself  and  its  meanin-'  in  the  religious 
life  of  mankind  still  maintained  tnemselves.  The 
eschatological  hope  remained  indestructible.  This 
hope  had  sometimes  a  national  element  in  it,  the 

•  Wellhausen  remarks  (^Heste^,  137)  that  with  the  revelation  of 
the  Koran  the  function  of  the  kdhin  or  Beer  caoie  to  an  end, 
and  he  disappears. 


idea  of  a  political  supremacy  of  Israel  over  the 
other  nations,  but  it  was  mainly  the  hope  of 
religious  supremacy  as  the  people  of  God  (Is  61*). 
Israel  had  become  a  purely  religious  idea,  its 
mission  was  to  be  the  light  of  the  nations — salva- 
tion was  of  the  Jews.  And  this  great  eminence 
and  triumph  God  would  confer  upon  it  by  a 
sudden  interposition,  when  He  would  plead  its 
cause  and  'justify'  it  by  showing  it  to  be  in  the 
right  in  its  time-long  plea  against  the  nations — a 
plea  which  in  other  words  was  the  n^ligious  history 
of  mankind  (Is  otH"-)-  And  what  remained  for 
Israel  was  to  prepare  for  God's  interposition,  and 
be  worthy  of  it  by  doing  His  will.  Thus,  when 
Israel  was  merely  a  religious  community  with  no 
national  life,  propliccy  became  altogetlier  detached 
from  history  and  took  the  form  of  reflective  and 
theological  combinations  of  former  prophecies.  Its 
theme  was  the  eschatological  hopa,  and  it  occupied 
itself  with  searching  what,  and  what  manner  of 
time  this  hope  would  be  realized  (Dn  9-,  I  P  1"). 
Prophecy  becomes  Apocalyjitic.  Apocalj'ptic  con- 
tinues to  share  all  the  great  ideas  of  proi.hecy  :  it 
regards  history  as  the  expression  of  God's  moral 
rule  of  the  world  ;  it  regards  God  as  purposing 
and  foreseeing  all  its  great  movements  ;  and  it  sup- 
poses Him  to  reveal  His  purposes  to  His  servants 
from  the  beginning.  Hence,  instead  of  looking 
back  over  history.  Apocalyptic  plants  itself  in 
front  of  history,  turning  history  into  prophecy, 
and  locating  all  its  great  movements  in  the  mind 
of  some  ancient  seer,  Enoch,  Moses,  Baruch, 
Daniel,  or  Ezra.  Apocalyptic  is  thus  always 
pseuilepigrapliic ;  but  the  date  of  an  Apocalyjise 
can  generally  be  guessed  from  the  fact  that  up  to 
his  own  time  the  author  is  pretty  accurate,  having 
history  to  rely  on,  whUe  from  his  own  time  on  to 
the  end  he  can  only  forecast  or  calculate. 

In  the  times  when  prophecy  had  virtually  ceased 
there  are  occasional  references  to  it.  The  references 
are  of  two  kinds.  Generally  they  are  ex]iressions 
of  sorrow  that  the  people  has  no  more  the  guidance 
of  the  prophet  in  its  perplexities  and  darkness,  and 
of  the  hope  that  a  prophet  will  again  arise ;  but 
once  at  least  prophecy  is  spoken  of  with  dislike. 
In  the  one  case  the  true  prophet  is  thought  of,  in 
the  other  the  misleading  false  prophecy.  See  on 
the  one  hand  Ps  74»,  1  Mac  4'«  9-''  14^'  ;  cf.  La  2", 
Pr  29'8  :  on  the  other  hand  Zee  13'-»  ;  cf.  La  2'''  4'». 

The  prophets  of  the  OT  may  be  grouped  thus — 

t  Prophets  of  the  Assyrian  ^ql 
Jonah  (referred  to  2  Iv  14^). 
Amos,  c.  700-7.50. 
Hosea,  c.  760-737. 
Isaiah,  740-700. 
Mical),  c.  724  and  later. 
Zephaniah,  c.  627. 
Nahum,  c.  eiCMiOS. 

U.  Propuets  op  the  Cbaldj&as  Pi&iOik 
Jeremiah,  c.  626-586. 
Habaklsuk,  c.  605-600. 
Ezekiel,  c.  69S-573. 

Ui  Prophf,t8  of  the  Persian  Period. 
Is  13-14  211-10  34-35?. 
Deutero-Isaiah,  c.  540. 
Haiigai  and  Zt-chariah,  1-8,  c.  620. 
Malachi,  c.  460-450. 

ProlMibly  later,  at  all  events  after  the  Restoration,  Joel, 
Jonah,  Obadiah  (in  present  form),  Is  24-27,  Zee  9-14. 

B.  The  PitOPllETIC  Mind.  —  Many  questions 
arise  regarding  the  mind  of  the  prophet  which 
can  hardly  be  answered,  but  allusion  may  be  made 
to  some  of  them. 

i.  The  Idea  of  the  Prophet. — A  number  of 
things  are  said  of  the  projihet  which  might  .serve 
as  partial  delinitions.  Such  definitions  are  ditl'crent 
at  dill'erent  times,  the  prophet  being  regarded  from 
various  sides.  In  inquiring;  into  the  prophetic  mind, 
it  is  the  prophet's  own  idea  of  himself  that  is  of 
interest ;  but  his  idea  of  himself  did  rot  differ  frow 


rEOl'llKCV  AND  PROPHETS 


PEOPHECY  AND  PROPHETS     113 


tlie  people's  idea  of  liim,  though  in  his  own  case 
the  idea  was  based  on  his  coriseiousness,  in  the  case 
of  t lie  people  on  their  observation.  Both  believed 
that  the  prophet  was  one  who  spoke  the  word  of 
J".  When  threatened  with  death  Jer.  said  to  the 
people,  '  For  of  a  truth  J"  has  sent  me  unto  you  to 
speak  all  these  words  in  j'our  ears  '  (Jer  26'°)  ;  and 
the  people's  idea  of  their  prophets,  if  not  of  Jer., 
was  the  same  :  '  the  word  shall  not  perish  from  the 
prophet '  (Jer  18'8). 

Certain  names  applied  to  the  prophet  axe  sug- 
gestive of  ideas  entertained  of  him.  (1)  One  of  the 
oldest  and  most  common  of  these  designations  was 
man  of  God.  The  name  is  used  of  Samuel  (1  S  9'), 
of  Elijah  and  Elisha,  and  of  others  (1  K  12^  13, 
Jer  3o*),  and  often  of  Moses.  The  name  implies 
close  relation  to  God ;  the  prophet  is  near  to  God 
(Am  3',  Jer  23*»-  =»).  The  Shunammite  made  a  little 
chamber  for  Elisha,  because  he  was  '  a  holy  man 
of  God  '  (2  K  4).  Holiness  is  nearness  to  God  ; 
whether  in  this  age  it  already  connoted  moral 
purity  (Is  6')  may  be  uncertain  ;  the  '  man  of  God' 
at  any  rate  sujifjested  this,  for  the  widow  of 
Sarepta  said  to  Elijah,  '  What  have  I  to  do  vdth 
thee,  thou  man  of  God?  art  thou  come  to  call  my 
sin  to  remembrance?'  (1  K  17'*).  The  name  'man 
of  God  '  suggests  both  the  ethical  basis  of  prophecy 
and  the  religiousness  of  the  prophet.  All  the  pro- 
phets pass  moral  judgmentson  their  contemporarie.«i, 
e.g.  Nathan  on  David  (2S  12)  and  Elijah  on  Ahab, 
and  the  pages  of  the  literary  prophets  contain  little 
else  than  such  judgments.  And  Jeremiah  at  last 
goes  so  far  as  to  say  that  the  mark  of  a  true  pro- 
phet is  just  that  he  pas-ses  such  a  moral  condenma- 
tion  on  his  time ;  this  of  itself  authenticates  him 
(Jer  28'- ').  How  deeply  the  moral  entered  into 
the  prophet's  own  idea  of  prophecy  is  seen  in  Is 
6^-,  cf.  Mic  3*.  But  the  notion  of  religiousness  or 
godliness  suggested  by  the  name  '  man  of  God  '  is 
even  more  important.  Tlie  prophet's  '  call '  was 
less  appointment  to  an  office  as  we  call  it,  than  to 
a  religious  life-task.  His  prophesying  was  lifted 
up  into  his  own  per.sonal  religious  life.  The  foun- 
tain of  prophecy  was  communion  with  God.  This 
is  seen  in  Jer.,  in  whom  prophecy  and  piety  melt 
into  one  another.  (2)  Another  common  designa- 
tion of  the  prophet  is  servant  of  God  or  of  J". 
The  name  is  given  to  prophets  in  general  (2  K  9'), 
to  Elijah  (1  k  IS**),  Isaiah  (2i)^),  and  others  (1  K 
14",  2  K  14^*),  iiarticularly  to  Moses.  The  service 
is  usually  public,  in  the  iuterests  of  God's  king- 
dom. The  name  'servant  of  J"'  is  given  also  to 
Israel.  Israel  is  the  great  servant  of  J"  —  his 
ministry  is  to  mankind,  that  of  the  individual 
prophets  is  to  the  narrower  world  of  Israel  itself. 
And  in  like  manner  both  Israel  and  tlie  prophet 
are  called  vir.survr/rr  of  J" — the  one  to  the  nations 
(Is  42'»- '»),  and  tlie  other  to  Israel  (44'^'').  The  term 
•messenger'  is  used  mostly  in  late  writings  (Hag 
1",  Mai  3'),  but  the  consciou-sness  of  being  '  sent' 
is  common  to  all  the  proi)liets — '  Go  and  tell  this 
people'  ( Is  0-',  Jer  26'°).  "The  prophet  feels  he  has 
a  commission  to  the  people  as  much  as  Moses  felt 
he  had  a  commission  to  Pharaoh.  (3)  Another 
name  given  to  the  projihet  is  interpreter.  The 
name,  though  rare  (18  43-''),  is  descriptive  of  the 
position  of  the  prophet  in  regard  to  historj' and 
God's  providence.  (Jod  speaks  in  events,  and  the 
prophet  interprets  Him  to  men.  Prophecy  arises 
•mt  of  history,  keeps  pace  with  it,  and  interprets 
it.  (iod  is  the  author  of  Israel's  history,  and  His 
meaning  in  it.  His  disposition  towards  the  people 
as  expressed  in  it,  rellccts  itself  in  the  projihet's 
mind.  And  as  it  rellects  itself  it  awakens  in  him 
the  sense  of  the  i)e<>i)le'8  evil  ;  and  being  one  with 
them  he  becomes  the  conscience,  particularly  the 
evil  conscience,  of  the  people.  Events  are  never 
mere  occurrences;  God  animates  them;  each  great 
VOL.  IV. — 8 


event  of  history  is  a  theophany,  a  manifestation  of 
God  in  His  moral  operation.  The  eyes  of  ordinary 
men  do  not  perceive  this  meaning,  and  when 
suddenly  confronted  with  some  unexpected  issue 
they  exclaim,  'Verily  thou  art  a  God  that  hidest 
thyself,  God  of  Israel,  the  Saviour'  (Is  4.5"). 
Further,  no  event  is  isolated  ;  each  has  resulted 
from  something  preceding  it,  and  will  issue  in  con- 
sequences following  it.  History  is  a  moral  current, 
and  at  whatever  point  in  it  the  prophet  stands  he 
feels  whence  it  has  come  and  whither  it  is  llowing. 
Of  course,  the  prophet  is  not  a  mere  interpreter  of 
history  or  institutions.*  To  sujjpose  so  would  be 
to  give  him  the  second  instead  of  the  first  place; 
the  mind  of  man  is  greater  than  institutions  or 
history,  and  it  is  in  it  above  all  that  God  will 
reveal  Himself.  And  even  the  institutions  and 
history  are  not  mere  miraculous  Divine  creations; 
men  concurred  in  founding  the  institutions,  and 
they  have  their  part  in  making  the  history.  Events 
furnish  the  occasion  of  the  prophet's  intuitions,  but 
they  do  not  set  bounds  to  them.  Indeed  we  often 
see  the  prophet's  mind  outrunning  history,  filling 
the  events  around  him  with  a  profounder  meaning 
than  they  actually  contain.  His  own  mind  is  full 
of  great  issues,  great  ideals  of  the  future ;  and 
eager  to  see  their  realization  he  animates  the  events 
occurring  in  his  day  with  a  larger  significance  than 
they  have,  thinking  they  will  issue  in  the  linal 
perfection  for  which  he  yearns.  If  he  proves  at 
fault  in  regard  to  the  ti7ne,  he  rightly  divines  the 
moral  connexion  of  the  events  of  his  day  with  the 
perfection  of  the  end.  Other  names,  such  as  '  seer,' 
'  watchman '  (Jer  6",  Ezk  3"),  need  not  be  dwelt 
upon. 

There  are  several  passages,  belonging  to  fliR'orent 
dates,  which  might  be  taken  as  definitions  of  '  pro- 
phet.' In  Am  3'-'  it  is  said,  '  The  Lord  God  doeth 
nothing  without  revealing  his  counsel  to  his  ser- 
vants the  prophets.'  Jer.  (23--)  varies  this  by  saying 
that  the  prophet  stands  '  in  the  council '  of  J",  and 
knows  His  piirjiose  (Job  15*).  The  passage  states 
two  things.viz.  that  J"reveals  His  mind  and  purpose 
to  the  prophets,  and  that  He  does  so  particularly  in 
reference  to  the  future.  When  great  events  are 
about  to  happen,  involving  the  destinies  of  the 
people,  the  sensibility  of  the  prophet  is  quickened 
and  feels  their  ajiproach,  and  he  stands  forth  to 
announce  them.  '1  bus  Amos  and  Hosea  appear  as 
heralds  of  the  downfall  of  the  kingdom  of  the 
North  ;  Micah  and  Isaiah,  when  the  storm-cloud  of 
Assyrian  invasion  «as  rising  on  the  northern 
horizon,  and  Jeremiah  when  the  empire  of  the  East 
was  passing  to  the  Chald.eans,  and  the  downfall  of 
Judali  was  nigh  at  hand.  Among  other  passages 
referring  to  prophecy  on  its  predictive  side,  Is 
4jj.2iir.  j,.f  4518.  ID)  deserves  mention.  Here  predic- 
tive prophecy  is  claimed  for  J"  and  Israel  and 
denied  to  the  idols  and  their  peoples,  and  the  power 
to  predict  as  well  as  the  fact  of  bavin"  truly  pre- 
dicted is  proof  that  J"  is  God.  J"  is  tlio  first  and 
the  last ;  He  initiates  the  movements  of  history, 
anil  He  brings  them  to  an  end.  From  the  beginning 
He  foresees  the  end.  But  it  is  His  relation  to  Israel 
that  causes  Him  to  announce  it  beforehand.  For 
Israel  is  His  servant,  and  His  piir])ose  can  be  ful- 
filled only  through  the  co-operation  of  men,  to 
whom  it  must  be  revealed.  The  conception  of  a 
living  God  in  moral  fellowship  with  men  involves 
in  it  proidu'cy  having  reference  to  the  future.  Here 
again  ])ro|ihc(y  is  lifted  up  into  the  sphere  of 
personal  religious  life. 

The   passage   Dt  18''",   though    not   excluding 

frediction,    places  prophecy  on   a  broader   basis. 
'ropheey    is    due    to    two    things;    (1)    to    that 
yearning  of  tlie  human  spirit  to  know  the  will  of 

*  This  scL-nis  tlie  idt-a  of  v.  llofniann,  Weiuaffung  u   Erfiil- 

luTUJ. 


114  PROPHECY  AXD  PROPHETS 


PROPHECY  AXD  PROPHETS 


the  deity,  and  to  have  communion  with  him, 
common  to  men  everywhere.  This  yearnin" 
created  many  kinds  of  diviners,  who  by  external 
means  inferred  what  was  the  mind  of  deity.  But 
it  is  not  in  this  way,  but  in  one  higher  and 
worthier,  that  the  true  God  satisfies  the  yearning 
of  His  |ieo|)Ie's  heart  (Nu  23-").  However  pro- 
fusely si;,'ns  of  Him  and  of  His  mind  be  scattered 
over  nature,  tliere  is  a  more  immediate  intercourse 
between  Him  and  men.  He  speaks  to  the  mind 
of  man  directly  ;  there  is  a  communion  of  spirit 
with  spirit.  J '  puts  His  words  in  the  prophet's 
mouth,  who  speaks  them  in  His  name  (Dt  18'*-''). 
(2)  And  the  reason  for  employing  a  prophet  as 
mediator  between  J"  and  the  people  is  that  the 
jicople  shrank  from  hearing  the  voice  of  J"  speak- 
ing to  them  directly.  He  spoke  the  ten  words  in 
tlie  people's  ears  at  Horeb,  but  Israel  said,  '  Let 
me  not  near  again  the  voice  of  the  Lord  my  God, 
that  I  die  not'  (18'°).  An  extraordinarily  lofty 
place  is  assigned  here  to  the  prophet :  his  words 
are  as  much  the  words  of  J"  as  if^  J"  spoke  them 
immediately  with  His  own  voice  (of.  Nu  12-). 
But  these  words  of  Moses,  '  A  prophet  shall  the 
Lord  your  God  raise  up  unto  you  like  unto  me,' 
contain  other  points  illustrating  the  idea  of 
'prophet.'  The  term  'raise  up'(cf.  Am  2")  is 
used  of  the  judges,  and  in  many  ways  the 
prophets  were  the  successors  of  the  judges.  The 
prophet  is  immediately  raised  up.  The  Divine 
art  is  reflected  in  his  own  consciousness  in  the 
crisis  named  his  'call.'  His  position  is  a  personal 
one.  He  is  not  a  member  of  a  caste  inlieriting  an 
office.  He  may  be  taken  from  any  class :  from 
the  priesthood,  like  Samuel,  Jer.,  and  Ezek.,  and 
probably  others  ;  from  the  aristocracy  of  the 
capital,  like  Isaiah ;  from  the  population  of  the 
country  tOTiTiships,  like  Micah  and  Urijah  of 
Kiriath-jearim  (Jer  26) ;  or  from  those  that  followed 
after  the  flock,  like  Amos.  Women,  too,  might  be 
prophetesses,  as  Miriam,  Deborah,  and  Huldah 
(2  K  22).  The  singular  '  a  prophet '  may  be  used 
collectively  of  a  line  of  prophets  (Hos  12"),  or 
more  probably  as  there  was  usually  only  one  great 
prophet  at  one  time  the  reference  may  be  to  the 
individual  prophet  in  each  age.  In  the  words  '  like 
unto  me '  the  prophet  is  put  on  the  same  plane 
with  Moses ;  and  so  far  as  the  scope  of  his  func- 
tions extended  this  is  the  best  definition.  It  may 
be  said  that  we  really  do  not  know  what  Moses 
was  like ;  and  to  say  tliat  the  prophet  was  '  like 
Moses,'  is  to  explain  the  unknown  by  tlie  more  un- 
known. We  know  at  least  wlia  t  Moses  was  thought 
to  be  like  in  the  age  of  the  Deuteronomist  and 
earlier — he  was  one  faithful  in  all  God's  hoime  (Nu 
12') ;  and  the  prophet's  oversight  was  equally  broad. 
Prophecy  was  not  an  institution  among  other  insti- 
tutions, like  priesthood  and  monarchy  ;  it  founded 
the  monarchy,  and  it  claimed  in  the  name  of  J" 
to  correct  and  instruct  priests  as  well  as  kings. 
Tholuck  *  has  defined  the  prophet  as  'the  bearer 
of  the  idea  of  the  theocracy.  The  definition  is 
true  in  the  sense  that  the  prophets  do  not  claim 
to  be  originators,  they  have  inherited  the  prin- 
ciples which  they  teach;  but  it  touches  the  jirophet 
only  on  his  intellectual  side.  The  propliet  was 
more  than  a  teacher,  and  the  theocr.acy  was  life 
as  well  as  truth.  The  jirophet  was  not  only  the 
bearer,  he  was  the  emho<linient  of  the  idea  of  the 
theocracy.  This  idea,  which  is  that  of  the  com- 
munion of  the  living  God  with  mankind,  was 
realized  in  him  and  through  him  in  Israel. 
Though  he  could  be  distinguislied  from  Israel  he 
was,  in  truth,  Israel  at  its  highest.  The  prophets 
were  not  persons  who  stood  as  mere  olijective 
Divine  instruments  to  the  people  whom  they 
addressed  ;  they  were  of  the  people ;  the  life  of 
*  JHe  Propheten  u.  ihre  Wrisgagungen,  p.  12. 


the  people  flowing  through  the  general  mass  only 
reached  its  flood-tide  in  them.  Every  feeling  of 
the  people,  every  movement  of  life  in  it,  sent  its 
impulse  up  to  them  ;  every  hope  and  fear  waa 
reflected  in  their  hearts.  And  it  was  with  hearts 
so  filled  and  minds  so  quickened  and  broad  that 
they  entered  into  the  communion  of  God. 

One  other  passage  may  be  referred  to  which 
expresses  very  clearly  the  main  element  in  the 
idea  of  prophet.  In  Ex  7'  J"  speaks  to  Moses, 
'  See,  I  liave  made  thee  God  to  Pharaoh,  and 
Aaron  thy  brother  shall  be  thy  prophet'  (H).  In 
Ex  4'*  (J)  a  similar  statement  occurs,  'He  (Aaron) 
shall  be  thy  spokesman  to  the  people  ;  he  shall  be 
to  thee  for  a  mouth,  and  thou  slialt  be  to  him 
God.'  Moses  '  inspired  '  Aaron,  and  Aaron  spoke 
his  words  to  Pharaoh  and  the  people.  So  all  the 
prophets,  e.g.  Is  SO''  31',  regard  themselves  as  the 
'  mouth  '  of  J". 

ii.  Inspiration. — When  Samuel  dismissed  Saul 
he  said  to  him,  '  Thou  shalt  meet  a  band  of 
prophets ;  and  the  spirit  of  the  Lord  will  come 
mightily  upon  thee,  and  thou  shalt  prophesy  with 
them,  and  shalt  be  turned  into  another  man* 
(IS  10°-').  The  term  'prophesy'  describes  the 
excited  demeanour  and  utterance  of  the  prophets, 
and  the  '  spirit '  is  regarded  as  the  cause  of  this. 
Of  course,  the  prophets  did  not  utter  mere  sounds, 
but  words  with  meaning ;  but  it  is  the  personal 
exaltation  of  the  prophet  himself,  who  has  become 
another  man,  and  not  specially  the  contents  of  his 
utterance,  that  is  ascribed  to  the  '  spirit.'  The  man 
on  whom  the  spirit  comes,  oftener  performs  deeds 
than  speaks  words.  The  '  spirit  of  tlie  Lord  '  came 
on  Samson,  and  he  rent  the  lion  as  he  would  have 
rent  a  kid  (Jg  14*) ;  it  came  on  Saul,  and  he  slew 
his  oxen  and  sent  the  fragments  throughout  Israel, 
calling  to  war  with  Amnion  (1  S  11°) ;  similarly  it 
came  on  Gideon  (Jge**),  Jephthah  (11-'),  and  others, 
and  they  went  out  to  war  and  judged  Israel.  The 
spirit  of  the  Lord  suddenly  carries  Elijah  away, 
one  knows  not  whither  (1  K  IS'-),  and  men  fear 
that  it  may  cast  him  upon  some  mountain  or  into 
some  valley  (2  K  2'°)  ;  and  with  '  the  hand  of  the 
Lord  '  upon  him  he  kept  pace  with  Ahab'a 
chariots  (1  K  18^'').  Probably  the  conception  of 
God  and  that  of  the  spirit  of  God  always  corre- 
sponded to  one  another.  In  early  times  God  was 
conceived  more  as  a  natural  than  a  spiritual  force ; 
His  operation,  even  when  He  might  operate  on  the 
ethical  side  of  man's  nature,  was  physical.  Hence 
'  siiirit '  connotes  suddenness  and  violence  in  the 
Divine  operation.  When  one  is  seen  performing 
what  is  be3ond  man  to  do,  or  what  is  beyond  him- 
self in  his  natural  condition,  both  to  himself  and 
to  the  onlooker  he  appears  not  himself,  he  is 
another  man  ;  he  is  seized  and  borne  onward  by  a 
power  external  to  him — the  spirit  of  the  Lord  is 
upon  him.  One  under  the  spirit  is  always  carried 
away  by  an  impulse,  sudden,  and  often  uncon- 
trolfable.  Hence  the  terms  descriptive  of  the 
spirit's  operation  suggest  suddenness  and  violence  ; 
it  'comes  upon  '  (Sy  .Trt  1  S  l!)-"-^),  'comes  mightily 
upon'  (n^s  IS  lu"- •»),  'falls  upon'  (Ezk  11'), 
'descends  and  rests  on'  (nu  Nu  II'^-^),  'puts  on' 
a  man  as  a  garment  (-'^V  Jg  6^,  2  Ch  24-*),  '  fills' 
him  (Mic  3*),  and  the  like.  Similarly  it  is  said 
that  tlie  '  hand  of  the  Lord '  comes  upon  him  (Ezk 
l^  2  K  3'»),  and  overi.owers  him  (Is  8").  AH 
these  expressions  describe  the  plienomena  visible 
to  the  onlooker,  or  experienced  by  the  prophet. 
But  it  is  the  complex  manifestation  that  they 
describe ;  they  do  not  analyze  it,  nor  answer  the 
question.  Where  amidst  these  phenomena  is  the 
point  at  which  the  spirit  operates? 

It  is  remarkable  that  in  the  literary  prophets 
little  reference  is  made  to  the  spirit,  and  the 
references  made  are  rather  allusive  than  forma' 


. 


PROPHECY  A^'D  PROPHETS 


PROPHECY  AND  PROPHETS     113 


and  direct.  Hosea  (9')  calls  the  prophet  '  the  man 
of  the  spirit' ;  Isaiah  (30'-  -,  cf.  Job  20*)  uses  '  spirit 
of  J"  as  parallel  to  '  muuth  of  J"' ;  and  Miiali  (3") 
declares  liinisclf  full  of  power  '  by  the  spirit  of 
J"'  to  declare  unto  Jacob  his  trans^'ression.*  But 
other  pro)iliets,  including  Amos  and  Jer.,  do  not 
express  the  idea.  The  e.\planation  of  this  fact  is 
probably  this :  in  this  ajje  the  violent  e.\citation 
usual  in  early  prophecy  liad  almost  disappeared  ; 
it  was  the  violent  impulse  to  sp.  ak  or  act  that 
•spirit'  particularly  connoted,  and  hence  refer- 
ences to  spirit  are  rare.  Isaiah  ou  one  occasion 
(8")  speaks  of  the  '  hand  *  of  J"  being  upon  him, 
which  may  refer  to  some  unusual  elevation  (though 
cf.  Jer  15'"),  but  the  'power'  which  Micah  was 
conscious  of  was  probably  moral,  though  whether 
intermittent  or  not  may  be  uncertain.  Some  have 
supposed  that  in  this  age  the  spirit  was  regarded 
as  a  permanent  possession  of  the  prophet,  and  for 
that  reason  not  specially  alluded  to.t  In  Xu  11^ 
the  spirit  that  was  upon  Moses  is  spoken  of,  part 
of  whicli  rested  on  the  elders,  and  they  prophesied. 
Their  prophesying  was  momentary  and  under  great 
excitation;  but  whether  the  'spirit'  was  considered 
a  permanent  possession  of  Moses  or  not  is  not  clear 
(cf.  v.^  with  V.-*).  And  the  same  uncertainty  re- 
mains with  regard  to  the  'spirit'  that  was  on 
Elijah  (2  K  2-"').  In  Is  II-'-  the  spirit  of  J"  is 
said  to  descend  and  rest  upon  the  Messiah,  giving 
him  discernment,  counsel,  and  might  in  rule,  as 
well  as  the  fear  of  the  Lord  ;  and  this  spirit  would 
seem  a  permanent  possession,  though  revealing 
itself  as  occasions  reijuired.  But  the  failure  of 
the  canonical  prophets  to  refer  to  the  spirit  is 
scarcely  due  to  their  thinking  of  it  as  a  permanent 
power  indwelling  in  them ;  it  is  rather  due  to  their 
not  thinking  of  the  spirit  specially  at  all.  The 
cessation  of  the  ecstasy  left  the  prophet  his  proper 
self ;  he  was  conscious  of  being  an  independent 
individual  person,  and  as  such  he  entered  into 
fellowship  with  God.  He  was  no  more  driven  or 
overpowered  by  an  impulse  from  without,  which 
superseded  his  proper  self  ;  his  communion  with 
God  was  a  communion  of  two  moral  persons.  God, 
it  is  true,  did  not  speak  to  him  face  to  face  and 
externally  as  He  did  to  Moses,  but  He  spoke  no 
less  really'  to  his  mind.  The  nature  of  the  com- 
munion 13  clear  from  the  dialogues  in  Is  G  and 
Jer  1.  In  its  full  perfection  it  is  seen  in  Jeremiah, 
who  should  be  taken  as  the  true  type  of  the 
prophet. 

At  a  later  time  references  to  the  sjiirit  again 
recur,  particularly  in  lizekiel.  How  far  the  trances 
of  Ezekiel  were  real,  being  jjartly  due  to  a  natural 
constitutional  temperament,  and  how  far  thej' 
are  mere  literary  embodiment  of  an  idea,  may  be 
disputed.  In  the  latter  ca.se  the  idea  they  express 
would  be  the  one  running  through  all  his  pro- 
pliei  ies,  the  transcendent  majesty  and  jjower  of 
God,  and  the  nothingness  of  the  'child  of  man,' 
who  is  a  mere  instrument  in  the  hand  of  God.  In 
this  late  age  various  idcius  of  the  spirit  i)revail. 
A  prophet  like  Joel  goes  buck  to  the  early  forms 
of  piojilicey,  and  reproduces  the  ancient  idea  of 
the  spirit  (2-""  [lleb.  3'"]).  In  other  passages  the 
spirit  a]ii)ear8  a  iiermaneut  possession,  being  like 
tlie  gift  bestowed  on  one  when  consecrated  to  an 
ollice  (Is  61') ;  while  in  others  still  the  spirit  seems 
generalized  into  the  Divine  enlightenment  and 
guidance  given  to  Israel  through  its  leaders  and 
prophets  all  down  its  history  (Is  5!)-'  03'",  Hag  2'). 
But  amidst  some  variety  of  coiicei>tion  certain 
ideas  of  the  spirit  always  remain :    the  .si)irit   is 

•Some  scholars  repnrtl  the  phnue  by  the  tpirit  of  J"  08  ftn 
•xplanntory  glnwi  O^el'-.  Xowock,  etc.).  The  sense  of  nn  ia 
uncrrUIn  ;  it  may  mean  mlh,  Inj  Ihe  aid  o/,  On  41,  Job  ;(!',  or 
It  muy  be  accua.  si^n  :  '  lull  ol  power,  even  the  spirit  of  J",'  KVm. 

t  Oiewbrechl,  Die  BeruJeUj/abung  dtr  atUcit.  J'rojtli. 


something    external   to   man,   something  Divine, 
something  bestowed  by  God  on  man. 

Taking  into  account  what  has  been  said  above 
of  the  '  spirit,'  it  ai)pears  that  what  has  been 
called  the  prophetic  state  varied  at  dill'erent  times. 
Two  periods  can  be  distinguished,  though  not 
separated  from  one  another  by  any  sharp  line  of 
demarcation  :  the  early  prophetic  period,  and  the 
period  of  the  literary  prophets.  (1)  In  the  early 
period  mental  excitation  was  common,  though  the 
excitation  might  be  of  various  degrees  ;  seff-eon- 
.sciousness  was  not  lost,  and  memory  of  what  was 
experienced  remained ;  the  NT  rule  that  '  the 
spirits  of  the  prophets  are  subject  to  the  prophets  ' 
was  in  most  cases  verified.  The  revelation  in  this 
period  often  took  the  form  of  dream  and  vision. 
The  OT  couples  these  two  together  (Xu  12",  Jl 
2^  [Heb.  3']).  Dream  and  vision  are  not  identical, 
but  they  differ  chiefly  in  degTee — the  degree  to 
which  the  senses  are  dormant,  and  the  conscious 
ness  of  what  is  external  is  lost,  and  reflective 
control  over  the  operations  of  the  mind  is  sus- 
jiended.  The  pro^iliets  regard  their  dreams  and 
visions  as  something  objective  in  the  sense  that 
they  are  caused  by  God  (Am  7"^-).  But  in  attempt- 
ing to  analj'ze  the  prophetic  uiiud  we  must 
remember  that  dreaming  and  seeing  a  vision  are 
forms  of  thinking  ;  the  contents  of  the  dream  and 
vision  are  not  objective,  as  things  seen  with  the 
bodily  eye  are  objective,  they  are  creations  of  the 
mind  itself.  Perhaps  the  best  idea  of  the  pro- 
phetic mind  in  this  period  or  in  this  condition 
might  be  got  by  reflecting  on  the  phenomena  of 
the  dream.  Now,  it  is  in  this  period  that  the 
jiliraseology  current  all  down  the  prophetic  age 
originated,  and  it  is  the  phenomena  of  tliis  period 
that  it  describes  —  sucn  phra.seulogy  as  '  see,' 
'  vision,'  '  hear,'  '  the  word  of  the  Lord,'  and  such 
like.  In  this  early  time  prophets  did  'see'  and 
had  'visions';  lliey  did  'hear'  the  'word  of  the 
Lord,'  just  as  one  sees  persons  and  things,  and  hears 
words  audibly  in  a  areani.  The  terms  truly  de- 
scribe the  mental  experiences  of  the  prophet,  and 
are  not  mere  figures  of  s[ieecli.  But  in  the  time 
of  the  canonical  prophets  visions  and  dreams 
virtually  ceased,  though  the  pioi)lietie  language 
still  remained  in  use.  It  is  quite  possible  that  in 
some  eases  the  literary  propliets  still  had  visions 
and  '  heard '  words,  but  certainly  they  use  the 
ancient  phraseology  in  a  multitude  of  instances 
when  they  bad  no  such  experience.  Jer.  alludes 
with  aversion  to  the  'dreams'  of  the  false proidiets. 
It  is  possible  that  these  dreams  were  in  .some  cases 
real,  being  due  to  the  agitations  produced  by  the 
political  crises  of  the  time.  If  so,  it  is  another 
evidence  that  these  prophets  still  occupied  a 
position  which  the  true  prophecy  had  long  aban- 
doned. (2)  Perhaps  the  bust  idea  of  the  mental 
slate  of  the  prophet  in  the  purest  stage  of  prophecy 
would  be  got  by  considering  the  condition  of  the 
religious  mind  in  earnest  devotion  or  rapt  spiritual 
communion  with  God.  Even  the  earliest  prophets 
intercede  with  God  (Am  7,  cf.  Kx  32") ;  and  Oehler 
has  drawn  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  com- 
munication of  a  revelation  to  them  is  often  called 
'answering"  them — the  same  expression  as  is  used 
in  regard  to  prayer  (Mic  3',  Uab  2"^-,  J.  r  23"). 
The  [irophets  as.severate  very  strongly  that  it  is 
the  word  of  God  which  tliev  speak.  But  it  is 
doubtful  if  any  psychological  conclusions  can  be 
drawn  from  their  language.  I'or  it  is  to  the 
contents  of  their  prophecies  that  they  refer;  and 
though  it  might  seem  strange  that  they  do  not 
alluile  to  any  mental  operations  of  their  own,  the 
analogy  of  the  devout  worshipper  suggests  an  ex- 
planation. A  person  in  earnest  prayer  to  God 
and  communion  with  Him,  though  his  mind  will 
certainly    be    profoundly    exercised,    when    light 


116     PROPHECY  AND  PROPHETS 


PROPHECY  AND  PROPHETS 


dawns  on  him,  or  certitude  is  reached,  or  conduct 
becomes  plain,  will  also  feel  and  say  with  certainty 
that  it  was  God  who  gave  him  the  result  he 
reached.  It  might  be  rash  to  say  that  the  experi- 
ence of  such  a  devout  mind  is  perfectly  analogous 
to  that  of  the  prophetic  mind,  but  the  analogy  is 
probably  the  nearest  that  can  be  found. 

It  may  be  said,  therefore  :  (1)  that  the  prophet's 
mind  in  revelation  was  not  passive,  but  in  a  state 
of  activity.  Even  the  '  call '  to  prophesy  was  not 
addressed  to  a  mind  empty  or  unoccupied  with  the 
interests  of  the  nation.  The  '  call '  came  to  the 
three  great  prophets  through  a  vision  (Is  6,  Jer  1, 
Ezk  1 ),  but  it  is  recognized  that  the  '  vision ' 
contains  strictly  nothing  new  ;  it  is  a  combination 
of  ideas  and  thought-images  already  Ij'ing  in  the 
mind.  Isaiah,  for  example,  had  often  thought  of 
the  Holy  One  of  Israel,  the  King,  previous  to  his 
vision ;  he  had  often  considered  tlie  sinfulness  of 
the  people,  which  he  himself  shared ;  and  no  doubt 
he  had  forecast  the  inevitable  fate  of  the  people 
when  J"  arose  to  shake  terribly  the  earth.  These 
thoughts  probably  occupied  his  mind  at  the 
moment  of  his  caU,  for  it  came  to  him  as  he 
worshipped  J"  in  the  temple,  and  beheld  His 
glory  (cf.  also  Jer  1*"'°).  Neither  can  the  com- 
pulsion  of  which  the  prophets  speak  be  regarded  as 
anything  physical.  Even  when  Amos  says,  '  The 
Lord  God  speaks,  who  can  but  prophesy?'  the 
constraint  is  only  moral.  And  similarly  when  Jer. 
says,  '  Thou  didst  induce  (or  entice)  me,  and  I  was 
induced '  (20'),  he  refers  to  the  conflict  in  his  own 
mind  described  in  1^"'°  ;  and  even  when  he  speaks 
of  the  word  of  J"  being  as  a  fire  in  his  bones,  com- 
pelling him  to  speak,  when,  to  avoid  persecution, 
he  had  resolved  to  be  sUent,  there  is  nothing  more 
than  such  moral  constraint  as  was  felt  by  the 
apostles  in  the  early  days  of  the  Church,  or  by 
one  now  with  earnest  convictions.  Again,  the 
allegation,  often  made,  that  the  prophets  did  not 
understand  their  own  oracles,  can  hardly  be  s>ib- 
stantiated.  The  passage  1  P  l""-  says  that  the 
prophets  '  searched  what  time  or  what  manner  of 
time  the  spirit  of  Christ  which  was  in  them  did 
point  unto ' ;  but  first,  it  speaks  of  the  prophets  as 
a  body,  and  of  the  spirit  common  to  them  all.  It 
does  not  say  that  any  prophet  searched  his  own 
prophecies.  The  apostle  probably  generalizes  the 
mstance  referred  to  in  Dn  9-,  where  Daniel  searches 
the  prophecies  of  Jeremiah.  Further,  tlie  point  to 
which  the  search  was  directed  was  the  time  or 
manner  of  time,  nothing  else.  And  this  point,  if 
indicated  at  all,  was  indicated  so  obscurely  that  it 
had  to  be  inferred  from  the  other  contents  of  the 
prophecy  (cf.  Mt  24*^).  (2)  The  kind  of  operation 
of  the  proplietic  mind  wlien  reaching  or  perceiving 
truth  was  intuition.  In  the  early  times  of  pro- 
phecy the  excitation  or  comparative  ecstasy  was 
common.  This  elevated  condition  of  the  intuitive 
mind  was  natural  to  an  Oriental  people,  and  in 
an  early  age.  It  was  a  thing  particularly  natural 
when  truth  was  new  ;  wlien  convictions  regarding 
God,  and  man's  duty  in  moments  of  great  ])er- 
sonal  responsibility  or  national  trial,  were  for  tlie 
first  time  breaking  on  the  liuman  mind.  But, 
on  the  other  hand,  it  is  equally  natural  that 
as  prophecy  became  more  regular  and  acquired 
the  character  of  a  stable  institution,  such  accom- 
paniments of  revelation  in  the  mind  would  gr.adu- 
ally  disappear.  And  the  same  ell'ect  would  follow 
from  the  gradual  accumulation  of  religious  truths. 
These  were  no  longer  altogetlier  new.  As  funda- 
mental verities  they  had  entered  into  the  conscious- 
ness of  the  nation.  Wliat  was  new  was  only  the 
application  of  tliem  to  the  particular  crisis  in  the 
inuividual's  life  or  the  nation's  liistory,  or  that 
further  expansion  of  them  needful  in  order  to 
make  them  applicable.     But  this  was  always  new. 


No  truth  uttered  by  a  prophet  has  attained  thi 
rank  of  a  maxim  of  reflection  or  a  deduction  from 
prior  truths.  The  prophet  never  comes  before 
men  inferring.  His  mind  operates  in  another  way. 
The  truth  reached  is  always  a  novelty  to  him,  so 
that  he  feels  it  to  be  an  immediate  communication 
from  God.  But  it  is  vain  to  speculate  how  the 
Divine  mind  coalesces  witli  the  human,  or  to  ask 
at  what  point  the  Divine  begins  to  operate.  Some 
have  argued  that  the  operation  was  dynamical, 
that  is,  an  intensification  of  the  faculties  of  the 
mind,  enabling  it  thus  to  reach  higher  truth. 
Others  regard  the  Di\'ine  operation  as  of  the  nature 
of  suggestion  of  truth  to  tlie  mind.  What  is  to  be 
held,  at  all  events,  is  that  revelation  was  not  the 
communication  of  abstract  or  general  religious 
ideas  to  the  intellect  of  the  prophet.  His  whole 
religious  mind  was  engaged.  He  entered  into  the 
fellowshij)  of  God,  his  mind  occupied  with  all  his 
own  religious  interests  and  all  those  of  the  people 
of  God ;  and  his  mind  thus  operating,  he  reached 
the  practical  truth  relevant  to  the  occasion. 

iix.  The  False  Prophets.  —  Reference  has 
already  been  made  in  the  historical  sketch  to  the 
so-called  false  prophets,  but  the  phenomenon  of 
false  prophecy  has  points  of  connexion  also  with 
the  proplietic  mind.  A  hard-and-fast  line  of  de- 
marcation between  true  and  false  prophecy  can 
hardly  be  drawn.  The  fact  that  prophecy  was  the 
embodiment  of  a  religious-national  spirit  accounts 
for  what  is  called  false  propliecy.  When  the 
spirit  that  animated  the  pro])het  pursued  pre- 
dominantly national  ends,  he  was  a  false  prophet ; 
when  the  ends  pursued  were  religious  and  ethical 
the  prophet  was  true,  because  in  the  religion  of 
J"  the  national  was  transient,  and  the  ethical 
abiding. 

In  early  times  men  everywhere  felt  the  nearness 
of  tlie  supernatural  ;  the  Divine,  with  its  mani- 
festations, was  all  about  them.  Those  who  seemed 
or  who  professed  themselves  to  be  inspired  were 
accepted  as  being  so  (cf.  the  reception  given  to 
Ehud  by  the  king  of  Moab,  Jg  S-"'-).  The  spirit  of 
the  time  was  not  critical ;  it  was  reverent,  or,  as 
we  might  now  say,  credulous.  In  the  first  conflict 
which  we  read  of  between  true  and  false  prophecy 
(1  K  22)  the  400  prophets  of  Ahab  were  false  and 
Micaiah  true,  but  Mieaiah  did  not  consider  tlie  pre- 
tensions to  inspiration  of  his  opponent  Zedekiah  to 
be  false.  He  was  inspired,  but  it  was  by  a  lying 
spirit  from  the  Lord  (1  K22"--^).  This  lying  spirit 
was  put  by  J"  in  the  mouth  of  the  prophets  of 
Ahab  tliat  they  might  entice  him  to  liis  destruc- 
tion. The  explanation  given  by  Ezekiel  (Ezk  13. 
14)  is  similar  :  J"  deceives  the  prophet  that  He 
may  destroy  him  and  his  dupes  alike  (14^).  But 
J"'s  deception  of  the  prophets  in  order  to  destroy 
them  and  those  who  consult  them  is  in  punish- 
ment of  previous  evil  (1  K  22',  Ezk  14>-",  2  S  24'). 
A  profounder  conception  of  tlie  ethical  nature  of 
J",  and  a  dislike  to  regard  Him  as  the  author  of 
evil  (cf.  2  S  24'  with  1  Ch  21'),  combined  perliaps 
with  a  more  critical  juilgmcnt  of  their  contem- 
poraries, led  others  to  a  dillerent  explanation.  To 
.Jeremiah  the  false  prophet  is  not  inspired  by  a 
lying  spirit  from  J",  lie  is  not  insjiired  at  all.  He 
s|)eaks  out  of  his  own  heart,  and  has  not  been 
sent  (Jer  23'«-2i- »■=«).  Micah  goes  further  and 
auiilyzes  the  prophet's  motives :  he  sjieaks  wliat 
men  wish  to  hear  (2",  cf.  Is  SO'""),  and  for  iiitpicsted 
ends — '  When  they  have  something  to  chew  with 
their  teetli  they  cry,  Peace  ;  hut  wlioso  putteth  not 
into  their  mouth,  they  preach  war  against  him ' 
(3°).  And  the  priest  Amaziah  (Am  7")  .seems  to 
iiave  formed  his  idea  of  the  prophets  aa  a  whole 
from  this  cla3.s. 

There  are  several  kinds  of  false  prophecy  of 
little  interest  except  as  casting  light  on  the  re. 


FKOPIIECY  AX]J  PROPHETS 


PROPHECY  AXD  PROPHETS     117 


ligious  condition  of  the  people,  e.g.  prophecy  by 
other  gods  than  J',  a  thing  perhaps  not  very  preva- 
lent in  the  prophetic  age  ;  and  prophecy  as  a 
professional  means  of  gaining  a  living.  Tliere 
were  persons  who  assumed  the  Imiry  mantle  and 
atlected  proplietic  plira'^eology,  ne'i'nn  J",  'saith  J"' 
(cf.  Jer  23"  yiu'dmH  ne'iim,  Ezk  13'-'),  apparently 
for  the  sake  of  bread  (Mic  3°).  It  was  customary 
to  bring  presents  to  the  seers  and  prophets  in 
ancient  times  when  people  consulted  them  (1  S  9', 
1  K  14^  2  K  8"- ;  cf.  Wu  22'),  and  the  practice  not 
unnaturally  led  to  deterioration  in  the  prophetic 
class.  But  in  '■elation  to  the  question  of  the  '  pro- 
phetic mind.'  Me  only  'false'  propliecy  of  interest 
is  tliat  w  hicli  we  see  among  prophets  all  professedly 
and  alike  prophets  of  J".  Men  who  alike  regarded 
prophetic  truth  as  something  revealed  by  J"  in  the 
heart,  are  found  not  infrequently  to  give  forth  as  the 
word  of  J"  conflicting  judgments.  They  advised 
contrary  steps  in  a  political  emergency,  or  tliey 
predicted  diverse  issues  in  regard  to  some  enterprise 
on  which  they  were  consulted.  Ahab's  400  said, 
•  Go  up  to  Hamoth-gUead,  for  J"  shall  deliver  it 
into  the  hand  of  the  king ' ;  but  Micaiah  said,  '  I 
saw  all  Israel  scattered  upon  the  mountains'  (1  K 
22"-  ").  Jer.  predicted  that  the  Chaldjvan  suprem- 
acy would  last  70  years,  while  Hananiah  prophesied 
tliat  in  two  years'  time  the  exiles  would  return, 
with  Jehoiachin  at  their  head  (Jer  28).  To  us  now, 
with  our  ideas  of  the  prophet,  and  looking  back  to 
liim  aa  a  great  isolated  and  almost  miraculous 
personage,  divinely  accredited,  two  things  seem 
Burprising,  Jirst,  tliat  any  one  should  supiiose  him- 
self a  true  prophet  of  J"  who  was  not ;  and,  second, 
that  the  people  failed  to  discriminate  between  the 
true  and  the  false.  As  to  the  first  point,  it  is  very 
ditlicult  to  discover  on  what  plane  of  religious 
attainment  those  called  false  prophets  .stood,  and 
what  kind  of  consciousness  they  had.  Evidently, 
they  had  lofty  conceptions  of  J"  in  some  of  lii? 
attributes.  These  were  perhaps  more  His  natural 
attributes,  such  as  His  power,  than  those  of  His 
moral  being.  It  is  here  perhaps  that  the  point  of 
ditl'erence  lies— J"  was  not  to  them  absolutely  or 
greatly  a  moral  being.  He  was  a  natural  force,  and 
His  operation  in  a  way  magical :  they  thought  His 
mere  presence  in  the  temple  guaranteed  its  inviola- 
bility. They  were  Jehovists,  but  J"  was  to  them 
greatly  a  symbol  of  nationality,  and  they  were 
fervid  nationalists.  Such  feelings  coloured  their 
outlook  into  tlie  future,  making  them  the  optimists 
that  they  were,  always  crying,  I'eace  and  .Safety  ! 
Further,  in  whatever  way  the  true  jjrophet  was 
Msured  that  he  spoke  the  word  of  J",  the  evidence 
was  internal.  He  had  the  witness  in  him.self.  It 
was  a  con.sciousness,  something  positive,  but  not 
negative.  The  person  who  wanted  it  had  no  con- 
sciousness of  the  want.  The  ca.se  is  similar  to,  if 
not  identical  with,  what  is  still  familiar  in  religious 
experience. 
As  to  the  second  point,  the  people's  failure  to 


discriminate  between  the  true  and  false  prophets, 
it  is  evident  that  they  had  no  criterion  by  which 
to  decide.     There  was  usually  nothing  in  tiie  mere 


projihecy  or  prediction  on  one  side  or  the  other  to 
carry  conviction.  They  had  to  bring  the  criterion 
with  them  in  their  own  minds,  i.e.  to  go  back  to 
the  princijjles  on  which  the  prophecy  was  bsised — 
He  tliat  18  of  the  truth  hearetn  my  words.  The 
condition  of  the  people's  mind  can  be  observed  in 
Jer  18".  Hero  we  see  that  the  peoiile  believed  in 
prophecy  us  the  word  of  J",  and  in  tlieir  prophets; 
but  Jeremiah,  who  contradicted  these  prophets, 
they  consiilered  a  deceiver  and  no  lover  of  his 
country.  Their  state  of  mind  appears  even  more 
clearly  from  Jer  28.  Hanaiiiali  pre<licted  that  the 
Exile  would  be  over  in  two  years,  while  Jeremiah 
said  it  would  last  two  generations     Naturally,  the 


people  gave  their  voice  for  Hananiah,  and  for  tl  e 
moment  Jeremiah  was  put  to  silence.  There  wer« 
several  things  which  it  has  been  supposed  might 
have  served  as  external  criteria  of  true  prophecy  : 
(1)  the  prophetic  ecstasy  ;  (2)  miracle;  and  (3)  fulfil- 
ment of  the  prediction.  Hut  all  these  things  when 
used  as  tests  to  discriminate  between  one  prophet 
and  another  were  liable  to  fail. 

(1)  The  ecstasy  in  greater  or  less  degree  was  a 
thing  natural  to  an  Oriental  people  ;  in  the  early 
prophetic  period  it  was  common  ;  it  was,  however, 
no  essential  element  in  prophecy.  It  was  no  evi- 
dence that  a  prophet  was  true,  neither  was  it  any 
evidence  that  he  was  false,  tliouj;li  if  evidence  at 
all  it  was  rather  evidence  that  lie  was  false,  at 
least  in  later  times,  for  in  the  ethical  proiihecy  of 
the  8th  century  it  rarely  appears.  Ewald,  indeed, 
li.as  observed  that  the  ecstasy  was  liable  to  he  a 
source  of  false  propliecj-,  for  one  subject  to  such  a 
condition  might  think  himself  inspired  by  J"  when 
he  was  not. 

(2)  Miracle  might  certainly  be  an  evidence  and 
test  of  true  propliecj',  e.g.  in  the  conditions  pio- 
po.sed  by  Elijah  atCarmel ;  but  such  conditions  were 
rarely  possible.  In  the  OT  miracle  means  wonder  ; 
it  is  something  extraordinary,  nothing  more.  The 
force  of  a  miracle  to  us,  arising  from  our  notion  of 
Law,  would  not  be  felt  by  a  llclirow,  because  he 
had  no  notion  of  natural  law.  l''urtlier,  the  ancient 
mind  was  reverent,  or  superstitious,  and  felt  itself 
surrounded  by  superhuman  powers.  It  was  not  J" 
alone  or  His  servants  that  could  work  wonders; 
the  magicians  in  Egypt  also  did  so  (Ex  7"- "  8'). 
Again,  even  when  J"  empowered  one  to  give  a  sign 
or  wonder,  the  meaning  of  the  wonder  might  be 
ambiguous.  In  Dt  13"'-  a  prophet  is  supposed  per- 
mitted to  work  a  miracle  at  the  same  time  that  he 
advocates  worship  of  other  gods  than  J  " ;  but  the 
miracle  so  far  from  authenticating  him  as  true  has 
quite  another  purpose  :  it  is  to  prove  the  people 
whether  they  love  J"  with  all  their  heart.  To  one 
who  knows  and  loves  J"  no  miracle  will  authenticate 
another  god.  And  to  all  this  has  to  be  added  the 
fact  that  from  Amos  downwards  miracle  plays 
hardly  anj'  part  in  the  history  of  prophecy  (though 
cf.  Is  7"  SS"''-),  while  it  was  just  in  the  last  days  of 
the  kingdom  of  Judah  that  false  prophecy  was  most 
prevalent. 

(3)  The  test  of  fulfilment  of  the  prophetic  word 
is  proposed  in  Dt  18-'.  Hut  this  criterion  was  one 
which  was  serviceable  less  to  individuals  than  to 
the  people,  whose  life  was  continuous  and  extended. 
As  a  guide  to  the  conduct  of  individuals  at  the 
moment  when  the  prediction  was  uttered  it  could  bo 
of  little  service.  Occasionally  predictions  were  made 
which  had  reference  to  the  near  future,  as  when 
Micaiah  predicteil  Ahab's  defeat  at  Kiuiiotli-gilead, 
or  when  Jeremiah  foretold  the  death  of  Hananiah 
within  the  year.  But  usually  the  pro|>hecies  bore 
upon  the  destinies  of  the  State,  and  had  reference  to 
a  somewhat  indefinite  future.  Tliis  peculiarity  per- 
plexed men's  minds,  and  led  to  the  despair  or  the 
disparagement  of  prophecy.  They  said,  '  The  days 
are  prolonged,  and  every  vision  failetli'  ;  or  if  they 
did  not  go  so  far  thej' said  of  tlie  prophet,  'The 
vision  that  he  seeth  is  for  many  days  lo  come,  and 
heprophesicth  of  the  times  that  are  far  oil"  (Ezk 
12-^-'^).  Wliile,  therefore,  in  the  prolonged-life  of 
the  people  the  event  might  ultimately  be  seen  to 
justify  the  prophet  (Ezk  '2'),  some  more  immediate 
test  was  necessary  for  the  guidance  of  the  indi- 
vidual. Such  a  test  is  proi>oscd  hy  Jeremiah.  Tlio 
test  lies  in  the  relation  of  the  prophecy  to  the  moral 
condition  of  the  people.  The  prophet  who  predicts 
disaster  and  judgment  needs  no  further  aiitlieiiti- 
cation:  the  nature  of  his  prophecy  proves  him 
true;  the  prophet  who  prophesies  I'eace,  let  lliu 
event  justify   him  I   (Jer  28^").     The   interesliiiy 


118     PROPHECY  AND  PROPHETS 


PROPHECY  AXD  PROPHETS 


thing  in  all  this  is  that  so  far  as  religious  certitude 
was  concerned  the  people  of  Israel  were  exactly  in 
the  same  position  as  ourselves.  Neither  the  super- 
natural nor  anything  else  will  produce  conviction 
apart  from  moral  conditions  of  the  mind.  This  is 
perhaps  a  truism  because  the  conviction  required 
was  not  mere  intellectual  helief,  but  religious  faith 
in  a  person  and  in  II  is  word. 

False  prophets  are  delined  to  be  those  by  whom 
J"  did  not  speak,  and  true  prophets  those  by  whom 
11^  spoke.  The  dehnition  is  true  on  both  its  sides, 
and  there  are  instances  when  nothing  more  can 
be  said.  But  usually  it  is  possible  to  go  a  step 
further  back  The  opposite  way  of  statin"  the 
point  lias  also  a  truth  in  it :  J"  did  not  speak  by 
certain  prophets  because  they  were  false.  His 
speaking  or  not  speaking  was  not  a  mere  occur- 
rence, isolated  and  in  no  connexion  with  the 
previous  mind  of  the  prophets  and  their  religious 
principles.  It  is  extremely  difficult  to  realize  the 
condition  of  people's  minds  at  any  time  in  Israel. 
There  were  many  jilanes  of  religious  attainment. 
There  were  worshippers  of  other  gods  than  J" ; 
and  there  were  those  who  combined  J"  and  other 
gods  in  their  worship  (Zeph  1).  Tliere  were  wor- 
shippers of  J"  to  whom  J '  was  little  more  than 
a  symbol  of  their  nationality.  There  were  wor- 
shippers of  J"  who,  in  addition  to  regarding  Him 
as  the  impersonation  of  their  nationality,  ascribed 
to  Him  lofty  natural  attributes,  such  as  power, 
but  who  reflected  little  if  at  all  on  the  moral 
aspects  of  His  being.  And  there  were  those  to 
whom  the  moral  overshadowed  all  else,  and  who 
regarded  J"  as  the  verj'  impersonation  of  the  moral 
idea.  Scholars  will  dispute  how  far  moral  concep- 
tions of  J"  prevailed  among  the  people  from  the 
first,  and  also  how  much  moral  teaching  was  set 
before  them  at  the  beginning.  But  the  great 
lesson-book  in  which  thoughtful  men  read  was  the 
national  history  and  fortunes.  This  was  written 
by  the  finger  of  God.  In  the  prosperous  days  after 
David  little  advance  might  be  made  ;  men  settled 
on  their  lees.  But  by  and  by  God  sent  unto  them 
'  them  that  pour  oti"  (Jer  48'-).  The  disasters 
suffered  in  the  olistinate  Syrian  wars  from  Omri 
onwards  awoke  the  conscience  of  men,  revealing 
the  nature  of  J",  and  directing  the  eye  to  the 
national  sores ;  for  at  all  times  national  disaster 
and  internal  miseries  were  felt  to  be  due  to  the 
displeasure  of  God  (2  S  •IV-  24i»,  1  K  17').  Thus, 
though  history  casts  little  light  on  its  growth, 
there  arose  a  society  educated  in  the  things  of 
God,  and  it  was  out  of  this  society  that  the  true 
pro|i1iets  were  called  ;  for  the  idea  that  the  breadth 
and  wealth  of  religious  and  moral  conceptions  in  a 
propliet  like  Amos  were  all  supplied  to  him  by 
revelation  after  his  call,  will  hardly  be  maintained. 
Those  who  stood  on  a  lower  plane  were  not  suited 
for  the  purposes  of  J",  and  He  did  not  speak  by 
them.  They  came  forward  in  His  name,  but  it 
was  mainly  national  impulses  that  inspired  them. 

There  are  three  lines  on  which  Jeremiah  opposes 
the  otiier  prophets  :  the  political,  the  moral,  and 
the  personal.  (1)  The  false  or  national  prophets 
desired  that  Israel  should  take  its  place  amon"  the 
nations  as  one  of  them  ;  be  a  warlike  State,  ride  on 
horses,  build  fenced  cities,  and  when  in  danger  seek 
alliances  abrojul.  Jeremiah  and  the  true  prophets 
instead  of  all  these  things  recommend  quiet  con- 
fidence and  trust  in  J"  (Is  7"  17').  (2)  The  naifonal 
[uophets  had  not  a  stringent  morality.  Jeremiah 
charges  some  of  them  with  being  immoral  (Jer 
23'^).  But  what  characterized  tliem  all  was  a 
superficial  judgment  of  the  moral  condition  of  the 
nation,  which  was  but  the  counterpart  of  their 
inadequate  conception  of  the  moral  being  of  J". 
The  condition  of  society  did  not  strike  them  as  at 
all  desperate.      Hence  they  preached  Peace,  and 


healed  the  hurt  of  the  people  slightly.  On  the 
other  hand,  the  wordsof  Micah,  '  I  am  full  of  power 
to  declare  to  Jacob  his  transgressions '  (3*),  might 
be  taken  as  the  motto  of  every  true  prophet.  It  ia 
possible,  even  true,  that  the  demands  of  the  true 
prophets  were  ideal,  that  they  could  not  be  realized 
in  an  earthly  community,  that  it  was  the  spirit  of 
the  future  yet  to  be  that  was  reflecting  itself  in 
their  hearts — a  future  that  even  to  us  is  stUl  to 
be ;  and  it  is  not  impossible  that  the  people  felt 
this  and  passed  by  their  words  as  impossible  of 
realization  (Jer  2'-'^) — a  very  lovely  song  of  one  that 
hath  a  pleasant  voice  (Ezk  33^-').  (3)  With  his 
tendency-  to  introsjiection  Jeremiah  analyzes  hia 
own  mind  ;  and  that  naive  feeling  of  former  pro- 
phets, that;  they  spoke  the  word  of  J",  is  to  him  a 
distinct  element  of  consciousness.  He  knows  that 
he  stands  in  the  council  of  J",  and  he  is  certain 
that  the  false  prophets  have  not  his  experience 
(2328. 2SI).  He  does  not  hesitate  to  go  further  and 
assert  that  those  prophets  whom  he  opposes  are 
conscious  that  tliey  have  no  true  fountain  of  in- 
spiration within  them.  Their  prophetic  manner, 
'saith  J",'  is  atVectation  (23*'),  and  there  is  nothing 
personal  in  the  contents  of  tlieir  oracles,  which 
they  steal  every  one  from  his  neighbour  (23'°). 
The  prophets  of  this  time  speak  of  their  '  dreams,' 
and  it  is  possible  that  the  crisis  in  the  nation's 
history  agitated  them  and  produced  mental  ex- 
citation ;  out  it  is  evident  that  they  represented  a 
phase  of  prophecy  which  had  long  been  overcome. 
It  is  strange  that,  from  the  days  of  Micaiah  ben 
Imlah  under  Ahab  down  to  the  fall  of  the  Jud;ean 
State,  no  change  seems  to  have  taken  place  in  the 
position  and  principles  either  of  the  true  prophets 
or  of  the  false. 

C.  The  Teachino  of  tee  Prophets.— The 
idea  of  the  'proiihet,'  one  who  speaks  from  God 
(B.  i.),  leaves  a  very  extended  sphere  of  action  to 
the  prophet.  The  prophet  is  always  a  man  of  his 
own  time,  and  it  is  always  to  the  people  of  his  own 
time  that  he  speaks,  not  to  a  generation  long  after, 
nor  to  us.  And  the  things  of  which  he  speaks  will 
always  be  things  of  importance  to  the  peoi>le  of 
his  own  day,  whether  they  be  things  belonging  to 
their  internal  life  and  conduct,  or  tilings  afiecting 
their  external  fortunes  as  a  people  among  other 
peoples.  And  as  he  speaks  ti)  the  mind  and  con- 
sciousness of  the  people  before  him,  he  speaka 
always  with  a  view  to  influence  it.  On  many, 
perhaps  on  all  occasions,  the  most  powerful  means 
of  exerting  an  influence  on  the  mind  of  his  time 
may  be  what  he  is  able  to  reveal  to  it  of  the  future, 
whether  the  future  be  full  of  mercy  or  of  judg- 
ment ;  but  whether  he  speaks  of  the  present  or  the 
future  the  direct  and  conscious  object  of  the  pro- 
phet is  to  influence  the  people  of  bis  own  genera- 
tion. For  this  purpose  the  prophet  reviews,  not 
only  the  forces  and  tendencies  operating  in  his 
own  nation,  but  all  the  forces,  moral  and  national, 
operating  in  the  great  world  outside  (Jer  1'"). 

Influenced  partly  by  the  great  apologetic  use 
made  of  the  prophecies  in  the  NT,  interpreters 
were  for  long  accustomed  to  lay  almost  exclusive 
stress  upon  the  predictive  element  in  projihecy,  so 
that  prophecy  and  prediction  were  considered 
things  identical.  The  function  of  the  prophet 
was  supposed  to  be  to  predict  the  Messiah  ana  the 
things  of  His  kingdom  ;  and  the  use  of  the  pro- 
phecies was  to  iirove  that  Jesus  was  the  Messiah, 
or  more  generally  to  show  the  sui>ernaturalness  of 
revelation.  However  legitimate  such  a  use  of  the 
prophe<'ies  may  be,  modern  interpreters  have 
rightly  felt  that  it  failed  to  take  into  account  a 
very  large  part  of  their  contents.  The  religious 
and  moral  teaching  of  the  prophets  was  overlooked. 
Hence  in  modern  times  a  dirterent  view  has  arisen, 
to  the  efl'ect  that  the  function  of  the  prophet  was 


PEOPHECY  AJS'D  PKOPHETS 


PROPHECY  AND  PKOl'IIETS     119 


to  teach  moral  and  reli|;.'ious  truth.  But  this  view 
is  equall  .■  onesijed  with  the  other.  To  us  now  to 
whom  tlie  apolo<;etic  use  of  prophecy  has  become 
less  necessary,  the  moral  teaching  of  the  propliets 
may  seem  tlie  most  important  thinj;  in  their  pro- 
phecies. Hut  if  any  prophetic  book  be  e.\amineJ, 
such  as  Amos  or  Uos  4-14,  or  any  of  the  complete 
prophetic  discourses  contained  in  a  prophet's  book, 
sucli  aa  Is  1.  5.  6.  2-4,  it  will  ajipuar  that  the 
ethical  and  reli^'ious  teaching  is  always  secondary, 
and  that  the  e.^.seutial  thing  in  the  book  or  dis- 
course is  the  prophet's  outlook  into  the  future. 
The  burden  of  tlie  teaching;  of  all  the  great 
canonical  jirophets  is:  (1)  that  the  downfall  of 
the  Slate  is  imminent ;  (2)  that  it  is  J"  who  is 
destroying  it ;  and  (3)  that  the  nation  w hich  shall 
overthrow  it,  be  it  As.syria  or  Babylon,  is  the 
instrument  of  J",  the  rod  of  His  anger,  raised  up 
by  Him  to  execute  His  purpose.     And  the  pro- 

S net's  religious  teachinf:  regarding  the  nature  of 
",  and  the  duty  and  sin  of  the  people,  is  sub- 
ordinate, and  meant  to  sustain  his  outlook  into 
the  future  and  awaken  the  mind  of  the  people  to 
the  truth  of  it  (cf.  above  A.  iii.  3).  This  may  be  said 
also  of  such  a  NT  prophet  as  John  the  Baj>tist, 
and  in  a  sense  even  of  our  Lord.  The  Baptist's 
theme  was,  The  kingdom  of  heaven  is  at  hand  ;  and 
liis  ethical  teaching,  IJepeiit!  Bring  forth  fruits 
meet  for  repentance  !  was  designed  to  prepare  men 
for  entering  into  the  kingdom.  And  our  Lord's 
theme  was  the  same,  the  coming  of  the  kingdom 
of  God  ;  and  His  moral  teaching,  such  as  the 
Sermon  on  the  Mount,  was  intended  to  show  the 
nature  of  the  kingdom  and  the  condition  of  mind 
nece.s.-^ai-y  to  inherit  it.  Of  course,  the  outlook  of 
the  prophets  was  not  bounded  by  the  downfall  of 
the  .State.  Their  outlook  embraces  also  that  which 
lies  bcvond,  for  the  great  events  transacting  around 
them,  being  all  moral  interpositions  of  J",  seem  to 
them  alwaj's  to  issue  in  the  coming  in  of  the  per- 
fect kingdom  of  God  ;  and  this  final  condition  of 
the  peojile  is  virtually  their  chief  theme. 

i.  General  Teaching. — In  general,  the  prophets 
may  be  characterized  as  religious  idealists,  who 
appealed  directly  to  the  spirit  in  man  ;  who  set  the 
truth  before  men  and  exhorted  them  to  follow  it, 
not  out  of  constraint,  but  in  freedom  of  spirit, 
because  it  was  good,  and  the  will  of  their  God. 
They  never  dreamed  of  legislative  compulsion. 
The  law  recogni7.ed  by  Amos  is  the  law  of  riglit-  1 
eousness  and  humanity  written  on  all  men's  hearts, 
whether  Jew  or  heathen;  the  law  of  Hosea  is  the 
law  of  love  to  Him  who  had  loved  the  people  and 
called  His  son  out  of  Kgypt.  The  propliets  really 
occupied  the  Christian  position  ;  tliey  ilemanded 
with  St.  Paul  that  men's  conduct  and  life  should 
be  the  free  expression  of  the  sjjirit  within  them,  a 
spirit  to  be  formed  and  guided  by  the  fellowship 
01  God  and  the  tliankfiil  rtmembrance  of  His 
redenijition  wrought  for  them.  Later  prophets 
perceive  that  man's  sjiirit  must  be  determined  bj 
un  operation  of  (iod,  who  will  write  His  law  on  it 
(Jer  'M'"),  or  who  will  put  His  own  spirit  within 
hiiri  as  the  impulsive  jjrinciplc  of  his  life  (Is  32", 
K/k  36^").  llcnce  ritual  has  no  place  in  the 
liruphetic  teaching,  that  which  is  moral  alone 
liiis  anj-  meaning.  No  doubt  the  prophets  assail 
abuses  in  ritual  worshin  as  well  as  in  social  life, 
and  men  more  practical  than  they  embody  their 
|>rinciples  in  legislative  form,  for  the  prophets, 
instead  of  being  mere  expounders  of  the  Law,  are 
indirectly  the  authors  of^  the  Law  ;  but  when  this 
legislation,  even  though  an  embodiment  of  pro- 
phetic tejiching,  is  elevated  by  authority  into  State 
or  ecclesiastical  law,  however  necessary  the  step 
D'.iglit  be,  it  is  a  descent  from  the  NT  position 
occupied  by  the  prophets. 

Tlie  special  teaching  of  the  individual  prophets 


is  treated  under  their  respective  names.  Here 
only  two  or  three  general  points  can  be  alluded 
to. 

(1)  The  prophets  all  teach  that  J"  alone  is  God  of 
Israel,  and  that  He  is  a  moral  Being, whose  accept- 
able service  is  a  religions  and  ri'jliteous  lite  (.Mic  li"), 
and  not  mere  ritual  (Hos6',  Is  I""'-,  Jer  7-"'-,  1  S 
1  j-"-).  Questions  have  been  raised  whether  in  tliese 
points  the  prophets  follow  a  law,  such  as  the  Deca- 
logue, or  whether  the  moral  Decalogue  be  not,  in 
fact,  a  concentration  of  their  teaching.  All  classes 
of  the  people  agreed  with  the  prophets  that  J"  was 
the  particular  God  of  Israel,  but  a  theoretical 
monotheistic  faith  cannot  have  prevailed  among 
the  mass  of  the  people.  Such  a  faitli,  though  only 
iniormally  and  indirectly  enunciated  by  them, 
evidently  prevailed  among  the  prophets  from  Elijah 
downwards;  but  how  much  older  the  belief  may 
be  and  how  widely  it  was  entertained  among  the 
people,  the  very  scant}'  history  scarcely  enables  us 
to  determine-  Perhaps  too  much  stress  luav  be  laid 
on  the  value,  particularly  in  early  times  of  simple 
thought,  of  an  abstract  monotlieism.  What  was 
important  was  the  nature  of  J",  the  closeness  of 
relation  to  Him  which  conditioned  human  life,  and 
the  worshipper's  feeling  that  He  was  his  God; 
whether  other  biniigs  to  be  called  gods  existed,  and 
were  served  by  the  nations,  was  practically  of  little 
moment.  Even  the  polytheism  of  the  heathen 
sometimes  came  practically  near  Id  monotheism. 
Worshippers  usually  devoted  thcmseh  es  to  one  out 
of  the  many  gods  'known  in  their  country ;  they 
usually,  therefore,  thought  of  him  as  god  alone, 
and  gradually  assigned  all  the  distinctive  attributes 
of  other  deities,  i.e.  virtually  of  deity,  to  him.  And 
one  can  conceive  how  particularism  or  monolatry, 
the  idea  that  J"  was  the  particular  God  of  Israel 
and  of  Israelites,  may  have  had  in  a  rude  age  an 
educative  and  religious  inlluence  which  an  ab.stract 
monotheism  might  not  have  exerted.  To  it  may  be 
gieatly  due  that  extraordinarj'  sense  of  the  presence 
of  J"  in  the  people's  history  and  the  individual  s 
life,  that  personal  intimacy  with  God,  characteristic 
of  UT  religion. 

So  far  as  the  worship  of  J"  is  concerned,  it  is  re- 
markable that  Elijah,  though  contending  against 
Baal  worship,  is  not  said  to  have  assailed  the  calves. 
The  history  of  Elijah  is  a  fr.-igment,  and  it  may  be 
precarious  to  draw  conclusions  from  the  historian's 
silence.  Even  Amos  does  not  refer  formally  to  the 
calves  ;  he  condemns  the  ritual  worsliipas  a  whole, 
and  threatens  with  destruction  the  seats  of  calf- 
worship  ;  and  his  condemnation  of  the  whole  prob- 
ably applies  to  the  details ;  at  least  it  is  wholly 
inept  to  infer  that  he  saw  no  evil  in  the  calves. 
Hosea  is  the  lirst  to  condemn  them  expressly,  and 
in  Judali  Isaiah  in  like  manner  often  assails  images 
(Is  2*  17").  When  the  early  i)ropliets  assail  the  worship 
at  the  high  places,  it  is  the  nature  of  the  worship 
that  they  attack,  not  the  niultiplicitj'  of  altars. 
But  Jer.  and  Ezek.,  along  with  Dent.,  go  further, 
and  condemn  the  high  places  themselves;  they  are 
Canaanite  and  heathen  (Dt  12-,  Jer  2',  Ezk  20i-'"'-).* 
The  prophets'  attacks  on  sacrilice  are  in  opposition 
to  the  exaggerated  worth  assigned  to  ritual  by  tlie 
people.  Tlicir  position  is  not,  as  is  often  said,  that 
sacrilice  without  a  righteous  life  is  an  abomination 
to  J",  but  rather  this  :  that  sacrilice  as  a  substitute 
for  a  righteous  life  is  an  abomination.  It  is  a 
question  of  service  of  J"  :  and  J  "  desires  a  righteous 
life  so  much  more  than  sacrifice,  that  He  may  be 
said  not  to  desire  sacrilice  at  all  (llos  6'). 

(2)  Though  the  prophets  use  the  word  'covenant' 
little  down  to  the  tune  of  Dent,  and  Jer. ,  the  idea  they 
express  of  the  relation  of  J"  and  Israel  is  the  same. 
J"  says  in  Am  3- '  You  only  have  I  known  of  all  ths 

*  !n  Mio  10  LXX  reads  '  tiD  of  Judah '  for  '  bi^h  places  o« 
Judah.* 


T20     PROPHECY  AXD  PROPHETS 


PROPHECY  AND  PROPHETS 


families  of  the  earth.'  J"'s  choice  of  Israel  was  a 
conscious,  historical  act.  With  tliis  all  the  pro- 
phets agree.  No  motive  is  assigned  for  the  choice, 
and  no  purpose  to  be  served  by  Israel  thus  chosen 
is  referred  to.  In  Amos  for  all  that  appears,  the 
choice  of  Israel  is  virtually  an  act  of  wh.it  is  called 
sovereignty.  In  Hosea  the  act  is  regarded  as  due 
to  .I"'s  love  (11')-  This  makes  the  act  moral,  and 
expl.ains  it,  though  the  love  itself  is  necessarily  in- 
explicable. In  Deut.  the  love  is  denied  to  be  due  to 
anj'thing  in  Israel,  and  seems  just  explained  by 
itself  (Dt  7*).  In  Isaiah  the  idea  of  a  purpose  had 
in  view  in  the  choice  begins  to  appear.  J"  is  the 
universal  sovereign,  and  His  making  of  Israel  His 
people  was  in  order  that  He  might  be  recognized 
as  God  ,inil  alone  exalted  (2").  In  Isaiah  sin  is 
insensibility  to  J"  the  King,  levity  and  self- 
exaltation  ;  and  religion  is  recognition  of  J"  and 
His  benehts,  a  constant  consciousness  of  Him  and 
trust  in  Him.  Wliile  Jer.  shares  Isaiah's  idea  of 
what  true  religion  is  {9-*),  he  speaks  of  Israel  being 
chosen  '  that  they  might  be  unto  me  for  a  people, 
and  for  a  name,  and  for  a  glory.'  In  other  words, 
Israel  was  chosen  that  by  its  character  it  might 
reflect  moral  fame  upon  its  God,  that  is,  make 
known  J"  to  the  world  of  men,  if  not  by  active 
operations,  by  showing  in  its  own  character  the 
nature  of  its  God.  The  prophet  of  Is  40  fl'.  often 
expresses  the  same  idea  (43'-''  44'-^),  but  he  adds  to 
it  the  conception  of  an  active  operation  of  Israel  in 
making  J"  known  to  the  nations  (Is  42'-'  49'-"  60"-). 
This  is  the  highest  generalization  regarding  Israel's 
place  in  the  religious  history  of  mankind,  and  the 
purpose  of  J"  in  its  election. 

(3)  The  prophets  address  themselves  to  the 
nation ;  but  in  appealing  to  the  whole  they  appeal 
to  each  individual,  though  no  doubt  specially  to 
those  whose  conduct  is  influential  in  shaping  the 
destiny  of  the  whole.  J"  chose  a  nation  because 
His  idea  of  mankind,  of  which  He  wUl  be  God,  is 
that  of  a  social  organism.  It  is  this  organism  of 
which  He  is  God.  But  though  the  relation  might 
seem  to  be  with  the  ideal  unity,  it  operated  in  dis- 
posing all  the  parts  making  up  the  unity  ri<jhtly 
to  one  another.  And  in  this  way  each  individual 
felt  J"  to  be  his  God.  It  is  absurd  to  argue  that 
the  nationalism  of  OT  religion  excluded  individual 
religion.  But  the  later  prophets  feel  that  a  true 
social  organism  can  be  created  only  out  of  true 
individual  members,  and  they  begin  to  construct 
a  whole  out  of  single  persons.  Many  things  united 
to  work  in  this  direction.  The  nation  no  longer 
existed,  but  the  individuals  remained,  and  J"  and 
religion  remained.  Moreover,  personal  piety,  such 
as  was  seen  most  conspicuously  in  Jer.,  but  was  not 
confined  to  him,  was  a  great  creative  force ;  the 
sense  of  relation  to  God  made  powerful  men,  and 
the  sense  of  the  relation  in  common  united  them. 
Reflexion  also  did  something.  Ezekiel  saw  the 
practical  need  of  reconstructing  a  people,  and  re- 
cognized this  to  be  his  ta.sk.  lie  felt  himself  in 
a  certain  waj'  a  Pastor  with  a  care  of  intlividual 
souls.  And  he  saw  the  need  of  creating  independ- 
ent individual  personalities  by  disentangling  them 
from  the  national  whole  and  its  doom — '  .Ml  souls 
are  mine,  saith  J";  as  the  soul  of  the  father  so  also 
the  soul  of  the  son.'  But,  however  individualistic 
the  operations  of  the  prophets  of  tiiis  age  were, 
they  never  abandon  the  idea  of  founding  a  new 
social  organism.  Individualism  is  but  the  neces- 
sary stage  towards  this.  J"  is  God  of  mankind, 
not  of  an  inorganic  ma-ss  of  individual  men. 

ii.  Predictive  Prophecy. — As  the  prophets  are 
absorbed  in  the  destinies  of  the  kingdom  of  God, 
it  will  be  chiefly  mumenta  in  its  history  and  de- 
v«loi)ment  and  its  linal  condition  that  will  form 
the  subject  of  their  predictions.  They  will  have 
little  occasion  to  refer  to  the  future  of  individuals, 


or  to  predict  events  in  their  history.  There  ar« 
instances  :  e.g.  Samuel  predicted  some  things  that 
would  happen  to  Saul,  whicli  the  history  declares 
did  happen  (1  S  9.  10).  Jer.  predicted  the  death  of 
Ilananiah  within  the  ye.ar,  which  took  place  (Jer 
28).  But  most  of  the  predictions  relate  to  the 
history  of  the  State  and  its  destinies.  Micaiah 
predicted  the  defeat  and  death  of  Ahab  at  Kamoth- 
gilead(l  K22).  Isaiah  predicted  the  failure  of  the 
Northern  coalition  to  subdue  Jerusalem  (Is  7) ;  he 
also  predicted  the  overthrow  in  two  or  three  years 
of  Damascus  and  Northern  Israel  before  the  Assj-- 
rians(Is8.  17).  In  like  nutnner  he  predicted  the 
failure  of  Sennacherib  to  capture  Jerusalem ;  while, 
on  the  other  hand,  Jer.  predicted  the  failure  of  the 
Egyptians  to  relieve  Jerusalem  when  besieged  by 
Nebuchadnezzar.  And  in  gener.al,  apart  from  de- 
tails, the  main  predictions  of  the  prophets  regarding 
Israel  and  the  nations  were  verilied  in  historj'  (e.g. 
Am  1.  2).  The  chief  predictions  of  the  prophets 
relate  (1)  to  the  imminent  downfall  of  the  kingdoms 
of  Israel  and  Judah  ;  (2)  to  what  lies  beyond  this, 
viz.  the  restoration  of  the  kingdom  of  God  ;  and 
(3)  to  the  state  of  the  people  in  their  condition  of 
final  felicity.  To  the  last  belong  the  Messianic 
predictions.  It  is  Israel,  the  kingdom  and  people 
of  God,  that  is  properly  the  subject  of  prophecy, 
but  other  nations  are  involved  in  its  history  ;  e.g. 
Assyria  is  the  instrument  in  the  hand  of  J"  in 
humiliating  Israel,  and  Babylon  is  the  obstacle 
which  has  to  be  removed  before  its  Restoration, 
and  thus  these  kingdoms  and  others  become  also 
the  subject  of  prophecy. 

1.  Prediction  in  general. — There  are  two  ques- 
tions in  connexion  witli  prophetic  prediction  which 
h.ave  given  rise  to  iliscussion  :  hrst,  how  are  the 
prophetic  anticipations  as  to  the  future  to  be  ex- 
plained? anil  second,  what  is  the  explanation  of 
the  prophet's  feeling  that  the  events  which  he 
predicts,  e.g.  the  downfall  of  the  State,  the  coming 
of  the  day  of  the  Lord,  and  the  inbringing  of  the 
perfect  kingdom  of  God,  are  imminent?  As  to 
the  lirst  point,  it  must  be  obvious  that  the  pro- 
phetic anticipations  or  certainties  cannot  be  ex- 
plained as  the  conclusions  of  a  shrewd  political 
insight  into  the  condition  of  the  people  or  the 
nations  at  the  time.  Neither  can  the  anticipa- 
tions of  the  nation's  dissolution  be  the  mere 
iiessimistic  forebodings  of  a  declining  and  e.\- 
Iiausted  age,  for  the  material  and  political  con- 
dition of  the  North  in  the  time  of  Amos,  and  of 
the  South  in  the  early  days  of  Isaiah,  was  not 
such  as  to  suggest  such  gloomy  outlook.  And 
least  of  all  can  it  be  pretended  that  the  predic- 
tions are  only  app.arent,  being,  in  fact,  written 
post  evc7itiim.  It  has  been  suggested  that  the 
human  mind,  or  at  any  rate  some  rarely  endowed 
minds,  possess  a  faculty  of  presentiment  or  divina- 
tion, and  that  it  is  to  this  faculty  that  the  jiro- 
phet's  anticipations  or  certainties  in  regard  to  the 
occurrence  of  future  events  are  due.  Certainly, 
belief  in  the  possession  of  such  a  faculty  by 
pcculiarlj'  gifted  persons  has  been  prevalent  in 
diMcreiit  .ages  and  among  ditlerent  peoples,  but 
iinytliing  like  scientilic  proof  of  the  existence  of 
the  facility  has  probably  never  been  offered.  7t 
would  be  remarkable  if  such  a  large  number  oi 
persons  as  the  prophets  of  Israel  should  all  1  o 
endowed  with  this  extraordinary  faculty.  And 
it  would  be  even  more  strange  if  a  faculty  of  this 
kind,  tlie  operation  of  which  appears  to  be  blind 
and  unrational,  should  be  found  to  manifest  itself 
.so  generally  ju--t  in  the  purest  period  of  prophecy, 
at  the  time  when  prophecy  had  thrown  otl'  all 
naturalistic  and  physical  characteristics  and  be- 
come ]iurely  ethical.  I'lobably,  if  any  one  of  the 
data  of  this  sujiposed  faculty  of  luesciitiment  were 
analyzed,  it  would  be  found  to  be  the  result  of  a 


PROPHECY  AND  PROPHETS 


PROPHECY  AND  PROPHETS     121 


complex  process.  There  would  be,  first,  a  peculiar 
temperament,  suggesting  events  sad  or  juyous  ; 
then  certain  facts  presented  to  tlie  mind,  and  tlien 
the  unconscious  operation  of  the  mind  on  these 
facts,  the  whole  resulting  in  the  presentiment  or 
vaticination.  There  may  be  obscure  capacities  in 
the  iiiiud  not  j'et  explored  ;  and  there  may  be 
sympathetic  rapports  of  human  nature  with  the 
greater  nature  around,  and  of  mans  mind  with 
the  moral  mind  of  the  universe,  which  give  results 
by  unconscious  processes  ;  and  if  there  be  such 
faculties  and  relations,  then  we  may  assume  that 
they  would  also  enter  into  prophecy,  for  there  is 
nothing  common  or  unclean  in  the  nature  of  man. 
In  point  of  fact  such  presentiments  as  we  can 
observe  to  be  authentic  are  chielly  products  of  the 
conscience  or  moral  reason  ;  and  Jer.,  as  has  been 
said,  insists  that  true  prophecy-  in  general  is  based 
on  moral  grounds  and  consists  of  moral  judgments. 
And  certainly  all  the  prophets,  in  analyzing  their 
intuitions  of  the  future  and  laying  them  before 
the  people,  usually  present  them  in  the  form  of  a 
moral  syllogism.  Thus  Mic  S'"-,  after  enumerating 
tlie  misdeeds  and  oppressions  of  the  heads  of  the 
house  of  Israel  says,  '  Therefore  on  your  account 
shall  Zion  be  plowed  like  a  held.'  And  Is  S""-, 
liaving  described  the  luxuriousness  and  ungodly 
levity  of  his  day,  says,  '  Therefore  hath  hell  en- 
larged her  maw.'  Everywhere  the  menacing 
future  is  connected  with  the  evil  past  by  there- 
fore.'    Cf.  Am  1.  2. 

The  other  question.  How  is  it  that  the  prophets 
brin"  in  the  consummation  and  final  perfection  of 
the  kingdom  of  God  immediately  on  the  back  of 
the  great  events  in  the  history  of  the  people  and 
the  nations  taking  place  in  their  own  day  ?  may 
not  be  susceptible  of  a  single  answer.  (1)  An 
explanation  has  been  sought  in  what  is  called  the 
perspective  of  prophecy.  Just  as  one  looking  on 
a  mountainous  region  sees  a  hill  which  appears 
to  ruse  up  close  behind  anotlier,  but  when  he 
approaches  nearer  he  finds  the  second  to  have 
receded  a  great  way  from  it ;  so  tlie  prophet  sees 
great  events  close  behind  one  another,  though  in 
history  and  time  they  are  far  apart.  This  is  an 
illustration,  but  no  explanation.  The  explanation 
is  usually  found  in  the  theory  of  prophetic  vision, 
liut  in  the  literary  prophets,  vision  in  any  strict 
seuse  has  little  place.  The  prophetic  perception, 
however,  was  of  the  nature  of  intuition,  and  some- 
thing of  the  peculiarity  referred  to  may  be  due  to 
this.  (2)  In  the  period  of  the  canonical  prophets 
it  is  less  events  that  suggest  religious  ideas  and 
1m)]ic8  than  idea^  already  won  that  explain  events. 
The  prophets  are  not  now  learning  principles,  but 
ajiplying  them.  Their  minds  are  full  of  religious 
beliefs  and  certainties,  such  as  the  certainty  of  a 
reign  of  righteousness  upon  the  earth  ;  and  Riehm 
has  suggested  that  it  is  their  eager  expectations 
and  earnest  longings  that  make  them  feel  the 
consummation  to  be  at  hand.  (3)  Another  point 
may  be  suggested.  It  is  only  in  general  amidst 
convulsions  that  rend  society  that  the  prophets 
come  forward.  These  convulsions  and  revolutions 
were  the  operatiiin  of  J",  and  His  operations  had 
all  one  end  in  view,  the  bringing  in  of  His  king- 
dom, and  thus  to  the  prophets  these  great  move- 
ments seemed  the  heralds  of  the  full  manifestation 

•  The  albumen t«  by  which  Giosebrecht,  Bfn^fHhffjabuiig,  13  ff. , 
tupi^ortjt  the  theory  of  ft  'faculty  of  presentiment'  have  little 
OOKency.  This  (acuity  is  iiuppotied  to  reveal  it«elf  particularly 
on  the  approa<--h  of  death  (tin  'il.  40).  The  contemporarie:*  of 
most  preat  religious  pervonofces  have  attributed  to  them  a 
prophetic  (fifl.  The  anBwcrof  John  Knox  to  those  who  credited 
nini  with  Huch  a  gift  is  worth  reading  :  '  My  assurances  are  not 
uiurvoUi  of  Merlin,  nor  yet  the  dark  sentences  of  profane  pro- 

fthecy.  But,  Jirat,  the  plain  truth  of  Ood's  word.  Hfcond,  the 
nvinclble  Justice  of  the  everlastiiiK  t!od.  and  third,  the  ordinary 
course  of  His  punishments  and  nluKues  from  the  be^'innin^,  are 
my  ossuruices  aud  grounda.'    liinlory,  p.  '^7  (Uuthrie't  eu.). 


of  J".  For  the  movements  had  all  moral  signi- 
ficance :  they  were  a  judgment  on  His  people, 
which  would  so  change  them  as  to  lead  into  the 
final  salvation  {Is  oy^"- '"•  SU""'-  SP"-),  or  they 
were  the  judgment  of  the  world,  removing  the 
obstacle  to  the  coming  of  His  kingdom  (Is  40  ft'.) ; 
and  thus  the  present  and  the  final  were  organically 
connected,  the  chain  was  formed  of  moral  links. 
Further,  the  prophets  appear  to  entertain  and 
operate  with  general  conceptions.  Israel  is  not 
merely  a  people,  it  is  the  people  of  God.  Babylon 
is  not  only  a  hostile  nation,  it  is  the  idolatrous 
world.  The  conflict  between  them  in  the  age  of 
Cj'rus  is  a  conflict  of  principles,  of  Jehovism  and 
idolatry,  of  truth  and  falsehood,  of  good  and  evil. 
It  is  not  a  conflict  having  great  moral  significance, 
it  has  absolute  significance,  and  is  linal :  '  Ashamed, 
confounded,  are  all  of  them  that  are  makers  of 
graven  images  :  Israel  is  saved  w  ith  an  everlasting 
salvation '  (Is  -l.')"'). 

2.  Messianic  Prophecy. — The  term  Messianic  is 
used  in  a  wider  and  a  narrower  sense.  In  the 
wider  sense  the  term  is  virtually  equivalent  to 
Eschatological,  and  comprehends  all  that  relates  to 
the  consummation  and  perfection  of  the  kingdom 
and  people  of  God.  In  the  narrower  sense  it  refers 
to  a  personage,  the  Messiah,  who  is,  not  always, 
but  often,  a  commanding  figure  in  this  perfect  con- 
dition of  the  kingdom.  The  conception  of  a  final 
condition  of  mankind  could  hardly  have  arisen 
before  a  general  idea  of  the  nature  of  the  human 
economy  had  been  reai  lied.  Insight  into  the 
meaning  of  human  history,  however,  was  not 
attained  in  Israel  by  reflection  on  the  life  of 
mankind,  but  by  revelation  of  the  nature  of  God. 
God  was  the  real  maker  of  human  history.  Hence, 
when  so  broad  a  view  as  that  of  human  life  or 
history  as  a  whole  is  taken,  it  is,  so  to  speak, 
secondary :  it  is  a  reflection  of  the  view  taken  ol 
God,  of  His  Being,  and  therefore  of  wliat  the 
issue  will  be  when  He  realizes  Himself  in  the 
history  and  life  of  mankind.  So  soon  as  the 
conception  of  the  perfect  ethical  Being  of  J "  Was 
reachcil,  there  could  nut  but  immediately  follow 
the  idea  also  that  liunian  history,  which  was  not 
so  much  under  His  providence  as  His  direct  opera- 
tion, would  eventuate  in  a  kingdom  of  righteous- 
ness which  would  embrace  all  mankind.  The  way, 
no  doubt,  in  which  this  is  conceived  is  that  this 
kingdom  of  righteousness  is  first  realized  in  Isniel, 
and  that  through  Israel  it  extends  to  all  mankind 
— for  the  nations  come  to  Israel's  light  (Is  (iu). 
But  it  is  the  unity  of  God  that  su"gests  to  men's 
minds  the  unity  of  mankind  ;  and  tlie  moral  being 
of  God  that  suggests  the  moral  perflation  of  man- 
kind. And  such  ideas  hardly  prevailed  before  the 
prophetic  age. 

The  Messianic  in  the  narrower  sense  is  part  of 
the  general  doctrine  of  the  Eschatology  of  the 
kingdom  (see  EscilATOLOGY).  The  'Messianic'  in 
this  sense  is  hardly  a  distinct  thing  or  hope.  The 
Messiah  is  not  an  independent  figure,  unlike  all 
other  figures  or  personages,  and  higher  than  they  ; 
on  the  contrary.  He  is  always  some  actual  histori- 
cal figure  idealized.  The  term  means  '  anointed,' 
and  only  two  per.sonages  received  anointing— the 
king,  and  possibly  the  priest ;  though  no  doubt 
the  term  '  anointed '  was  used  more  generally  in 
later  times  (I's  Hi.')").  The  OT  is  occupied  with 
two  subjects — Jehovah  and  the  people,  and  the 
relation  between  them.  The  E.schatological  per- 
fection is  the  issue  of  a  rcdemiitive  movement. 
Now,  the  only  redeemer  of  His  [leople  is  J" — salva- 
tion belongetn  unto  the  Lord.  The  Eschatological 
perfection  is  always  duo  to  His  operation— the 
perfection  consists  in  His  perfect  presence  aiming 
His  people,  for  the  idea  of  salvation  is  the  fellow, 
ship  of  God  and  men.     But,  on  the  other  hand 


122     PKOPHECY  AlfD  PKOPHETS 


PROPHECY  AXD  PROPHETS 


the  people  are  not  passive.  The  goal  is  set  before 
them,  and  they  strive  towards  it.  J"  awakens 
ideals  in  their  mind,  and  aspirations  after  them  ; 
ami  in  contrast  to  such  ideals  the  imperfections  of 
the  present  are  felt,  and  an  effort  made  to  overcome 
them.  But  it  is  characteristic  of  the  redemptive 
operations  of  J"  that  He  influences  the  people  and 
leads  them  forward,  through  great  personages 
whom  He  raises  up  among  them.  Such  persons 
are  diflFerent  in  dill'erent  ages — judges,  prophets, 
kings,  and  the  like.  These  He  enlightens  so  that 
they  give  the  people  knowledge,  or  He  endows 
them  by  His  spirit  with  kingly  attributes,  so  that 
they  govern  the  people  aright  (Is  ll'"-  28'>  32i"-), 
and  lead  them  on  to  the  final  perfection.  But  J" 
always  remains  the  Saviour ;  and  if  there  be  any 
mediatorial  personage  it  is  J"  in  him,  the  Divine 
in  him,  that  saves.  Naturally,  the  most  e.xaJted 
and  influential  personage  is  the  king :  he  has  the 
lieople  wholly  in  hLs  hand  ;  the  ideal  is  that  he 
reigns  in  righteousness  and  secures  peace  (Is  3'2'*-). 
The  Messiah  is  mainly  the  ideal  Kmg.  Thus  the 
Eschatological  perfection  may  be  supposed  reached 
in  two  ways :  Jir-H,  3"  the  only  Saviour  may  come 
in  person  to  abide  among  His  people  for  ever.  In 
tile  earlier  prophets  His  coming  is  called  the  day 
uf  the  Lord — .a  day  of  judgment,  and  eternal  salva- 
tion behind  the  judgment.  What  precise  concep- 
tion the  prophets  formed  of  the  coming  of  J"  may 
not  be  easy  to  determine.  But  it  was  not  merely 
1  coming  in  wonderful  works,  or  in  the  word  of 
His  prophets,  or  in  a  spiritual  influence  upon  the 
people's  minds,  it  was  something  objective  and 
personal.  In  later  prophets,  such  as  Ezek.  and  the 
post-exile  prophets,  it  was  a  coming  to  His  temple ; 
and  wlien  He  comes  Jerusalem  is  called  Jehovah 
Shammah,  '  the  Lord  is  there'  (Ezk  48",  Hag  2'"-, 
Mai  3').  Examples  of  such  representations  are  Is 
40'""  '  The  Lord  cometh  with  might,  his  arm 
rulin"  for  him  ;  the  glory  of  the  Lord  shall  be 
revealed,  and  all  flesh  shall  see  it  together,'  and 
Ps  102"-  '*•  ".  But,  secondly,  sometimes  the  mani- 
festation of  J"  is  not  considered  immediate  and  in 
person  :  He  is  manifested  in  the  Davidic  king. 
The  Davidic  king  may  then  be  called  Immariucl, 
'God  with  us,'  and  El  Gibbor,  'God  mighty' 
(Is  7.  9.  11).  In  NT  both  these  classes  of  passages 
are  interpreted  in  a  Messianic  sense.  To  NT 
writers  Christ  had  approved  Himself  as  God  mani- 
fest in  the  flesh,  and  even  such  passages  as  were 
spoken  by  the  OT  writer  of  J"  are  regarded  as 
fulfilled  in  Him  and  spoken  of  Him,  for  no  dis- 
tinction was  drawn  between  these  two  things  (e.g. 
Is  40'-"  in  Mk  IS  Ps  102  in  He  l'""-). 

(a)  The  Monarchy.  — J"  is  represented  at  all 
times  as  Saviour;  and  this  idea  is  of  special  im- 
l)ortance,  because  it  la3's  the  foundation  for  both 
the  work  and  person  of  the  Messiah,  as  the  word 
is  ordinarily  used.  During  the  monarchy  the 
prominent  figure  in  the  salvation  of  the  people  or 
in  ruling  it  when  saved  by  J"  is  the  Davidic  king. 
The  true  king  of  Israel  is  J" :  Israel  is  the  king- 
dom of  God;  and  this  is  a  general  eschatological 
idea,  suggesting  what  the  kingdom  will  be  when 
it  is  fully  realized  and  J"  truly  reigns  (Ps  96-99). 
But  it  is  the  Davidic  monarchy  that  is  Messianic 
in  the  narrower  sense.  This  unites  two  lines — the 
Divine  and  the  human.  The  Davidic  kin"  is  the 
representative  of  J " ;  truly  to  represent  Him,  J" 
Himself,  the  true  king,  must  be  in  him  and  manifest 
Himself  throu-h  him  (Is  9'-«  11'").  But,  on  the 
other  hand,  both  David  and  his  rule  were  suggestive. 
(1)  He  was  himself  a  devout  worshipper  of  J", 
endowed  with  the  .s])irit  of  the  knowleoge  and  the 
fear  of  the  Lord  (Is  11-).  (2)  He  subdued  the 
peoples  and  extended  the  limits  of  his  kingdom 
till  for  that  age  it  might  be  called  an  empire, 
suggesting  the  universality  of  the  kingdom  of  God 


(Ps  28  72'"-,  Zee  9">).  (3)  His  rule  was  just  and 
the  end  of  his  reign  peaceful,  suggesting  the  idea 
of  a  ruler  perfectly  righteous,  and  a  reign  of  peace 
(2  S  23»"-,  Is  9»-'2J,  Mic  5',  I's  723-',  Zee  9'").  (i} 
Finally,  he  founded  a  dynasty,  which  suggested 
the  idea  of  the  [lerpetuity  of  the  rule  of  his  house 
over  the  kingdom  of  J"  (Is  9',  Ps  72').  Such 
points  may  not  have  struck  men's  minds  in  David's 
own  age,  but  in  later  and  less  happy  times,  when 
his  reign  was  idealized,  they  were  noticed,  and 
entered  into  the  conception  of  the  future  king  and 
kingdom  of  J".  The  promise  given  by  Nathan  to 
David  takes  up  the  first  and  fourlli  of  these  points 
— the  close  relation  between  .)"anil  those  of  David's 
house  who  shall  sit  upon  the  throne,  and  the  per- 
petuity of  the  rule  of  his  family  (2  S  7"*").  Ihis 
promise  is  the  basis  of  all  suljsci]ucnt  prophecy 
regarding  the  Davidic  king.  Such  passages  as 
Ps  2  take  up  the  promise,  '  I  will  he  to  him  a 
father,  and  he  shall  be  to  me  a  son,'  while  the  pro- 
phecies Is  7-11  are  founded  on  the  promise,  '  Thy 
throne  shall  be  established  for  ever.'  It  was  during 
the  Sjro-Ephraimitic  war  (B.C.  73o  f.)  that  the  idea 
of  a  special  future  king  of  David's  house  was 
expressed  by  Isaiah.  The  Northern  coalition 
meditated  the  deposition  of  the  Davidic  dynasty, 
but  the  projihet's  faith  in  the  promises  given  to 
David  enabled  him  to  foresee  that  though  his 
house  should  share  the  humiliations  of  the  peojile 
and  be  cut  down  to  the  ground,  yet  out  of  the 
root  of  Jesse  a  new  shoot  would  arise  on  whom  the 
spirit  of  the  Lord  would  rest  (Is  11).  From  this 
time  forward  there  is  a  special  Messianic  hope, 
that  is,  the  hope  of  an  extraordinary  king  out  of 
the  house  of  David.  This  hope,  though  in  some 
periods  not  referred  to,  continues  to  prevail  to  the 
end  of  the  people's  history.  Subsequent  prophets 
repeat,  but  add  little  to,  Isaiah's  ideas,  e.g.  Mio 
4.  5  (though  the  age  of  the  pa.ssages  is  disputed), 
Jer  235- «  30»,  Ezk  IT""-''  34--«''-  37'^-'-»-.  Prophets 
prior  to  Isaiah,  as  Am  9",  Hos  3',  do  not  seem  yet  to 
have  readied  the  idea  of  a  special  king  of  David's 
house ;  and  other  prophets  before  the  E.\ile,  Naliiim, 
Zephaniah,  and  Habakkuk,  though  some  of  them 
refer  to  the  final  condition  of  the  people  and  the 
world,  do  not  allude  to  an  expected  future  king.* 

(i)  The  Exile. — After  the  destruction  of  tlia 
monarchy  and  the  abasement  of  the  Davidic 
house  the  hope  of  a  great  ruler  out  of  that  house 
for  a  time  disappears  (e.g.  in  Is  4011'.).  The 
general  eschatological  hope  of  the  perfection  and 
felicity  of  the  people  is  even  more  luilliant  than 
before,  but  no  great  personage  is  referred  to  as 
ruler  of  the  saved  people.  J"  Himself  is  the 
Saviour  and  the  everlasting  King,  who  feeds  His 
(lock  like  a  shepherd  (Is  40").  And  the  .sure 
mercies  of  David — the  privileges  and  the  mission 
of  the  Davidic  house  —  are  now  transferred  to 
the  people  (Is  55"').  Circumstances  turned  the 
thoughts  of  the  prophets  in  other  directions. 
God's  providential  tnalment  of  Israel  suggested 
to  them  new  conceiition.s  They  reflected  on  the 
meaning  of  the  history  of  Israel  and  its  sufferings, 
and  on  its  place  in  the  moral  history  of  mankind. 
And  there  arose  the  great  conception  of  'the 
Servant  of  the  Lord.'  The  phrase  expresses  the 
highest  generalization  on  the  meaning  of  Israel  in 
the  religious  life  of  mankind — Israel  is  the  Servant 
of  J"  to  the  nations,  to  bring  to  them  the  know- 
ledge of  God.  Scholars  do  not  universally  accept 
this  interpretation,  but  they  agree  that  tiie  ideai 
expressed  by  the  prophet  in  regard  to  the  Servant 
have  been  more  tlian  verified  in  Christ.  Of  these 
ideas  the  two  chief  are  :  first,  that  the  Servant  is 
the  mis^ional•y  of  J"  to  the  nations — he  bringeth 
forth  right  to  the  nations,  that  the  s.alvation  of  J* 
may  be  to  the  ends  of  the  earth  (Is  42'-'  49'-"  etc.); 
•  The  Tai-K""!  intei-preta  Hos  3*  of  the  Mc^jtiioh. 


PEOPHECY  A2fD  PROPHETS 


PROPHECY  AXD  PROPHETS     123 


and  second,  hy  his  sufferings  he  atones  for  the 
SIMS  of  the  nionibers  of  the  people  (Is  j.'i,  cf.  40-'). 
The  Servant  is  the  '  word'  and  spirit  of  J"  incar- 
nated in  the  seed  of  Abraham.  I'liis  inciirnaied 
word  will  yet  redeem  all  Israel  and  be  the  light  of 
the  nations.  Here  again  it  is  the  Dirine  that  saves  ; 
the  word  of  J",  the  true  knowledge  of  the  true 
(Jod,  implanted  once  for  all  in  the  heart  of  man- 
kind in  Israel,  which  will  accomplish  that  whereto 
it  is  sent  (Is  a')'").  As  Delitzsoh  remarks,  the 
Servant  of  the  Lord,  though  strictly  nut  a  Mes- 
sianic figure  at  all  in  the  narrower  sense,  contri- 
butes more  elements,  and  those  of  the  profoiindest 
kind,  to  the  Christological  conception  realized  in 
our  Lord  than  all  other  figures  to^'ether.  The 
ideal  of  the  Davidic  king  is  that  ot  a  ruler  just 
and  conipa-ssionate,  whose  rule  secures  righteous- 
ness and  peace  and  the  wellbeing  of  the  poor  and 
meek  (Is  11''")  :  whether  in  Is 9'"' he  be  the  saviour 
or  onlj-  ruler  of  a  people  saved  by  J "  may  be  dis- 
puted. But  in  connexion  with  the  Servant  of  the 
Lord  deeper  conceptions  appear,  such  as  that  of 
atonement  for  sin  througli  tlie  sullering  of  the 
guiltless,  and  the  idea  tliat  the  highest  glory  is 
the  reward  of  him  who  loses  his  life  for  others 
(Is  53'-).  In  former  prophets,  who  foresee  both 
the  rejection  and  the  restoration  of  the  people, 
the  restoi-ation  is  unmediated  by  any  atonement 
beyond  the  people's  repentance :  God  forgives 
their  sins  of  His  mere}*  and  restores  them.  In 
Den tero- Isaiah  the  Servant  atones  for  the  sins  of 
the  people,  and  their  restoration  follows.  lormer 
prophets,  owing  to  the  people's  misconceptions  of 
the  meaning  of  ritual,  assail  the  sacrifices;  Deut.- 
Is.  combines  the  sacrificial  idea  with  the  sufferings 
of  the  Servant,  lifting  the  idea  out  of  the  region 
of  animal  life  into  that  of  human  life.  These  two 
figures,  the  Davidic  king  and  the  sutfering  Servant, 
supply  the  chief  contents  of  the  idea  of  the  Chris- 
tian Slessiah.  It  is  strange  how  little  impression 
the  conceptions  of  the  prophet  of  the  Exile  seem  to 
have  niatle  ujion  those  who  followed  him.  While 
his  universalism — the  idea  that  Israel  is  the  mis- 
sionary of  J"  to  mankind  that  His  salvation  may 
be  to  the  end  of  the  earth — entered  into  the 
thought  of  the  people  and  profoundly  infiuenced 
it,  his  conce[)tion  of  atonement  tlirough  the  inno- 
cent bearing  the  sins  of  the  guilty  hardly  if  at  all 
reappears.  There  may  be  a  far-otf  echo  of  it  per- 
haps in  the  Rabbinic  idea  that  the  merit  of  great 
saints  may  avail  for  others.  In  the  OT  period  the 
suffering  Servant  was  never  identified  with  the 
Davidic  king.  The  idea  that  the  royal  Messiah 
suffers  yVyr  the  sins  of  his  people  does  not  appear. 
No  doubt  Immanuel,  who  appears  amidst  the 
Assj-rian  desolations,  shares  the  hardships  of  his 
generation,  living  on  thick  milk  and  honey  like  all 
those  left  in  the  land  (Is  7);  and  in  Zee  9"  Zioii's 
king  shares  the  character  of  tlie  saved  jieople, 
being  meek  and  lowly  and  a  prince  of  |ieace,  out 
nothing  is  said  of  suffering  in  behalf  of  others. 

(K)  Post-exile  Perioil. — At  tlie  Restoration  the 
general  eschatological  hope,  as  it  appears  in  Ilaggai 
and  Zechariah,  was  that  so  soon  as  the  temple 
was  finished  J"  would  return  to  it  in  glory  ;  at  His 
manifestation  He  would  shake  all  natums,  who 
would  turn  to  Him,  and  His  universal  kingdom 
would  come  (Ha''  2",  Zee  l'""-  S'""-).  Side  by  side 
with  this  hojie,  however,  the  more  special  Mes- 
sianic hope  of  a  ruler  from  David's  house  also 
appears  (cf.  Kzk  34"- ■^).  This  ruler  appears  to  be 
Zei-ubbabel  (Hiig  2«'-).  But  with  the  Restoration 
I  lie  priest  becomes  more  prominent.  The  calami- 
tous history  of  the  nation  sank  <leep  into  the 
popular  mind,  and  seemed  to  be  the  seal  set  to 
the  p.ophetie  teaching  regarding  the  people's  sin. 
And  from  henceforth  the  sense  of  sin  in  the 
people's  mind  was  deeper ;  and  that  view  of  sacri- 


fice according  to  which  it  was  a  propitiation  foi 
sin  assumed  a  larger  prominence,  and  the  other 
idea  of  it  .-us  a  gift  for  (Jod's  acc^^ptanee  sank  pro- 
portionally. It  was  really  the  nation's  history 
that  impressed  men  with  the  sense  of  their  sinful- 
ness rather  than  the  ceremonial  enactments  of  the 
ritual  law.  The  developed  ritual  expressed  the 
new  conscience  of  sin,  it  did  not  create  it.  The 
royal  and  the  priestly  now  appear  united  in  the  final 
ruler.  In  I's  110  he  is  a  crowned  prie.st.  In  tli  • 
passage  Zee  6^'^  it  is  uncertain  whether  the  Brancli 
(the  Davidic  ruler)  is  to  be  'a  priest  upon  his 
throne'  or  to  have  a  priest  associated  with  him 
(RVm).  But  the  Davidic  king  continues  to  be  the 
Messianic  figure  of  the  post-exile  period,  e.r/.  in 
Ps  2.  72 — both  late  passages— Zee  9,  and  par- 
ticularly in  the  Psalms  of  Solomon  (Ps  17.  18, 
c.  100-50  u.C).  A  great  'part  of  the  Psalter  is 
eschatological  in  the  general  sense.  The  Psalmists' 
minds  are  filled  with  the  eschatological  ideas  of  the 
prophets,  now  become  the  faith  of  the  people— the 
idea  of  the  manifestation  of  J",  the  judgment  of 
the  world,  the  redemption  of  the  peojile  of  J "  ami 
their  eternal  blessedness,  with  the  participation 
of  the  nations  in  their  salvation:  but  it  is  only  in 
a  few  p.salms  that  the  personal  Messiah  is  referred 
to,  e.g.  Ps2.  72.  110;  cf.  89.  132.  It  is  uncertain 
when  the  title  Messiah  began  to  be  given  to  the 
expected  future  king.  The  term  can  scarcely  have 
been  a  proper  name  or  special  title  for  the  future 
kini;  in  the  time  of  the  Exile,  for  Deutero-Is.  uses 
it  of  the  Persian  king,  'Tims  saitli  the  Lord  to  his 
anointed  (in-ij'n  messiah),  to  Cyrus'  (Is  45').  But 
the  name  was  used  <|uite  currently  of  the  expected 
king  or  saviour  in  the  age  of  Christ,  for  even  the 
woman  of  Samaria  employs  it,  '  I  know  that  Mes- 
siah Cometh  '  (Jn  4-*).  The  title  has  been  supimsed 
by  some  to  be  given  to  the  expected  king  in  Dn  9-'', 
but  more  probably  it  is  ajiplied  there  to  some  liigli 
priest.  It  was  perhaps  Ps  2  that  suggested  tlio 
special  application  of  the  title  to  the  expected 
king',  '  Tlie  kings  of  the  earth  set  themselves 
against  the  Lord  and  his  Messiah.'  The  title  '  Son 
of  God '  seems  taken  from  the  .same  psalm,  both 
being  employed  in  St.  Peter's  confession,  'Thou 
art  tlie  Messiah,  the  Son  of  the  living  God.'  The 
psalm  is  based  on  Nathan's  prophecy,  and  ajipears 
to  be  a  directly  Messianic  passage,  and  probably 
belongs  to  a  late  date.  The  only  creative  book 
in  post-exile  times  is  Daniel.  Chap.  2  is  eschato- 
logical in  the  general  sense,  the  stone  cut  out  from 
the  mountains  that  brake  in  pieces  the  image 
being  a  symbol  of  tlie  kingdom  of  God  which  shall 
destroy  the  world-kingdom  in  its  successive  his- 
toricaf  forms.  It  is  less  certain  whether  this 
general  jioint  of  view  be  maintained  in  ch.  7,  or 
whether  the  personal  Messiah  Vie  referred  to  in  the 
phrase  'a  son  of  man.'  The  former  interpretation 
IS  the  more  pndiable,  the  expression  'a  son  (or, 
chilli)  of  man,'  i.i\  a  man,  being  used  as  a  symbol 
of  '  the  peoiile  of  the  saints  of  the  Most  High'  to 
whom  the  kingdom  is  given.  The  spirit  of  man 
shall  aiiiiiiale  this  kingdom,  whereas  the  kingiloms 
of  the  world  are  animated  by  the  spirit  of  the  wild 
beast.  Very  soon,  however,  the  phrase  'son  of 
man '  was  interpreted  to  mean  the  Messiah,  as 
appears  from  the  Bk.  of  Enoch.* 

The  Messianic  is  usually  held  to  circle  round  the 
three  great  figures- the  prophet,  priest,  and  king. 
But  the  basis  is  broader  th.an  this;  the  Messianic 
age  being  the  time  of  the  perfection  of  the  people 
of  God,  any  factor  that  enters  into  the  life  of  men 
as  an  essential  element  of  it  may  be  idealized  and 

•  There  has  been  conskicnihlo  controversy  lately  ov(?r  Ihe 
iiieanin;;  of  the  pliroso  *  tfie  S'tn  of  man'  in  the  (iospclti ;  cf. 
WcIIhanaen,  Skizz>rn,  vi.  ISS  ;  Scliiniedel  iti  I'roO'gt.  MinuttH- 
fif/tt',  18HH ;  I.ietzmann,  Meiwhewtohn,  180(1 ;  llnlnmn,  \i'nrtt 
Jt'giL,  p.  lUl.  See  L.  A.  Muirheiul  in  I'Jxpos.  Tinu*,  Nov.,  LNjo. 
ISOO  ;  and  art.  Son  op  Ma.s. 


124     PROPHECY  AND  PROPHETS 


PROPHECY  AND  PROPHETS 


made  prominent.  The  prophet  or  prophecy  is 
typical  of  the  general  eschatological  state  of  the 
people  of  God,  for  then  J"  will  pour  out  His  spirit 
on  all  flesh  (Jl  2^,  Jer  31»^,  Is  64'»),  and  the  prayer 
of  Moses,  '  Would  that  all  the  Lord's  people  were 
prophets  ! '  shall  be  answered.  But  otherwve  the 
prophet  is  not  directly  a  Messianic  figure  (on  Dt 
18'''  see  above  in  B.  i.) ;  he  is  the  herald  of  tlie 
advent  of  J"  to  Zion  (Is  40^)  or  to  His  temple  (Mai 
3').  The  Ser\'ant  of  the  Lord  is  in  a  lofty  sense  a 
proplietic  figure  ;  but  he  is  not  a  prophet  like  other 
propliets  with  a  message  for  any  particular  time  or 
circumstances,  nor  does  he  give  particular  teaching 
or  predict  particular  events.  He  is  the  bearer  of 
the  whole  revelation  of  the  true  God,  the  '  word ' 
of  God  incarnate  (Is  49""),  and  therefore  prophet 
of  J"  to  the  world.*  The  priest  or  priesthood  is 
also  predictive  of  the  general  eschatological  con- 
dition of  the  people,  for  '  they  shall  be  a  kingdom 
of  priests  and  an  holy  nation  '  (Ex  19'),  the  two  ideas 
suggested  by  priesthood  being  holiness  and  privilege 
to  draw  near  to  God  (Nu  16').  But  even  in  Zee  3"- ' 
tlie  atoning  function  of  the  priest  appears  still  only 
typical  of  J"'s  o^vn  act  of  forgiveness,  who  will 
remove  the  iniquity  of  the  people  in  one  day.  The 
Servant  of  the  Lord  makes  himself  an  ofiering  for 
sin  (Is  53'"),  but  he  does  not  appear  to  be  regarded 
as  a  priest.  Besides  these  three  great  figures, 
however,  there  is  another  who  contributes  to  the 

Eerfect  ideal  realized  in  Christ,  viz.  the  saint  or 
oly  one,  that  is,  the  individual  righteous  man. 
It  IS  particularly  the  personal  chaiacter  and  ex- 
perience of  this  figure,  his  faith  in  God,  his  struggles 
with  adversity  and  death,  his  hopes  of  immortality, 
that  come  prominently  to  the  light.  It  is  lie  who 
says  in  Ps  16, '  I  have  set  the  Lord  ever  before  me  : 
because  he  is  at  my  right  hand,  I  shall  not  be 
moved.  For  thou  wilt  not  give  over  my  soul  to 
Sheol ;  nor  sufl'er  thine  Holy  One  to  see  the  pit.'  It  is 
he  also  who  speaks  in  Ps  40,  '  Sacrifice  and  ofiering 
thou  wouldst  not.  Then  said  I,  Lo,  I  am  come  to 
do  thy  wOl,  O  my  God  ;  yea,  thy  law  is  within  my 
heart.  I  have  preached  righteousness  in  the  great 
congregation.'  In  Ps  22^  a  speaker  says,  '  I  vv-ill 
declare  thy  name  unto  my  brethren  :  in  the  midst 
of  the  congregation  will  I  praise  thee.  For  he 
hath  not  despised  nor  abhorred  the  affliction  of  the 
afflicted,  nor  hid  his  face  from  htm.'  The  ideas  in 
this  passage  ditler  from  those  in  Is  53.  The  afilic- 
tions  of  the  sufierer  are  not  borne  for  others.  But 
he  suft'ers  innocently  and  wrongly  ;  and  the  inter- 
position of  J"  to  deliver  him  is  so  signal,  and  gives 
such  a  revelation  of  what  J"  is,  that  they  that 
behold  it  turn  unto  Him — all  the  ends  of  the  earth 
shall  remember,  and  turn  unto  the  Lord  (v.''). 
Such  lofty  expectations  were  scarcely  likely  to  be 
connected  with  any  individual  personage,  however 
outstanding ;  more  probably  the  sufierer  in  the 
psalm  is  the  true  people  of  J"  personified,  as  in 
Deutero-Isaiah. 

In  a  sense,  great  part  of  the  OT  is  Messianic. 
For  it  is  just  the  peculiarity  of  OT  that  it  struck 
out  lofty  moral  and  redemptive  ideals,  on  occasions 
the  most  diverse,  and  in  connexion  with  personages 
and  in  circumstances  very  various.  These  ideals 
were  ultimately  combined  together  to  express  the 
being  of  Him  who  was  the  ideal  on  all  sides.  But 
this  RIessianic  of  OT  was,  so  to  speak,  unconscious. 
The  writers  had  not  the  future  king  in  their  mind. 
They  were  speaking  of  other  persons,  or  they  were 
uttering  presentiments,  or  what  seemed  to  them 
religious  necessities,  or  projecting  forward  brilliant 
spiritual  hopes  and  anticipations.  There  was  a 
spirit  in  them  broader  than  the  hope  of  a  future 
person — a  spirit  as  broad  as  the  kingdom  of  God  in 

*  By  the  time  of  Deutero-Isaiah  the  idea  of  the  •  word*  of  God 
had  become  eenemhzed  ;  it  is  the  true  knowledge  of  the  true 
God,  and  this  is  the  U/rah  of  the  Servant  to  the  aationi. 


all  its  needs,  in  all  its  endowments,  and  in  all  the 
possible  height  of  its  attainment.  The  history  ol 
the  people's  mind  from  the  Restoration  onward  is 
mainly  the  history  of  a  rellection  on  these  ideals. 
They  tried  these  ideals  by  the  conditions  of  tiie 
present,  and  found  that  they  and  the  present  world 
were  incompatible,  and  they  projected  them  into 
the  future,  and  thus  the  ideals  became  prophetic. 
Further,  they  had  received  the  liojie  ol  a  great 
deliverer,  and  he  became  a  centre  around  wliom 
tlie  ideals,  whether  of  glory  or  holiness  or  even  of 
sufiering,  could  be  gatiiered,  and  they  attached 
tliem  to  him.  The  woman  of  Samaria,  for  ex- 
ample, regards  the  Messiah  as  one  that  '  will 
declare  unto  us  all  things.' 

Kinds  of  Messianic  Passaoes. — The  question  put  in  regard  to 
any  passage  by  hiiitorical  exegesis  is,  What  did  tlie  Heb.  writer 
mean?  What  personage  had  he  in  his  mind  in  tlie  poiisage  ? 
There  may  thus  be  several  classes  of  Messianic  prophecies. 
(1)  Directly  Messianic  prophecies.  In  these  the  prophet  or  writer 
had  the  expected  future  Messiah  actually  present  to  his  own 
mind.  Examples  are  Is  7.  9.  11,  Mic  4.  6,  Jer  23»-6  309,  Ezk 
17-.-iM  3423ff.  37l»28,  Zee  38  612  9S"f-,  Ps  2.  72.  110,  and  other 
passages.  Is  7  is  denied  by  many  to  be  Messianic  (see  Immanuel), 
while  Is  9.  11,  though  generally  aduiitted  to  be  Messianic,  are 
held  by  some  to  be  later  than  Isaiali  (see  Isaiau).  In  Is  9.  11  it 
is  not  taught  that  the  Messiah  is  God,  but  that  J"  is  fully 
present  in  him.  The  general  eschatological  idea  was  that  the 
presence  of  J"  in  person  among  men  would  be  their  salvation  ; 
the  prophet  gives  a  particular  turn  to  this  general  idea,  repre- 
senting that  J"  shall  be  present  in  the  Davidic  king.  The  two 
are  not  identified,  but  J"  is  fully  manifested  in  the  Messiah. 
The  passage  goes  very  far ;  and  though  the  Christian  doctrine 
of  incarnation  contains  a  positive  conception  in  it  which  OT 
saints  did  not  reach,  tlieology  is  obliged  to  limit  that  positive 
by  negations  which  seem  rather  to  neutralize  it ;  and  though 
the  phrase  *  became '  man  is  used,  it  is  atlinned  at  the  same 
time  that  the  two  natures  remained  distinct,  and  that  the 
Divine  suffered  no  change  and  no  confusion  or  composition  with 
the  human.  (2)  Indirectly  Messianic  passages.  These  are 
passages  in  which  the  writer  had  some  OT  otticer  or  personage 
in  his  mind,  but  spoke  of  him  according  to  the  idea  of  his  office 
or  function  or  character  ;  and  this  ideal  is  transferred  to  Christ 
in  the  NT,  as  being  actually  realized  only  in  Hiui,  or  at  least  in 
llim  first.  Examples  are  what  is  said  of  '  man'  in  PsS,  of  Israel 
as  Ser\'ant  of  the  Lord  in  Is  40 ff.,  Ps  22,  of  the  'prophet'  in 
Dt  18,  of  the  saint  or  holy  one  in  Ps  16.  40,  and  much  else.  Such 
passages  are  sometimes  called  tj'pically  Messianic,  the  idea 
being  that  OT  personages,  such  as  king,  prophet,  and  the  like, 
were  types,  that  is,  designed  prophetic  suggestions,  of  the 
Messiah  in  some  of  bis  essential  redemptive  functions  or  ex- 
periences. The  exegesis  of  Calvin  gave  vogue  to  this  method  of 
interpretation,  and  applied  it  to  passages  to  which  it  is  scarcely 
applicable,  e.g.  Ps  2.  72.  According  to  this  interpretation  Ps  2 
is  supposed  spoken  of  some  actual  king  of  Israel ;  but  as  its 
language  transcends  what  was  verified  in  any  ordinary  king,  it 
had  a  more  proper  fulfilment  in  Christ.  Ps2,  however,  could 
hardly  have  been  spoken  of  an  actual  king  ;  the  universalism  of 
its  ideas,  e.g.  'the  kings  of  the  earth'  who  oppose  J"  and  Ilia 
Anointed,  the  extent  of  the  King's  inheritance  as  the  Son  of  J", 
viz.  'the  nations' and  'the  ends  of  the  earth,'  and  the  final 
kindling  of  J"'s  anger,  all  mark  it  out  as  an  eschatological  and 
directly  Messianic  passage.  The  same  is  true  of  Ps  72.  Very 
confused  language  is  used  by  interpreters  in  regard  to  these 
BO'Called  tj'pical  proi>hecies(see  Expositor.  Nov.  1S78).  NT  does 
not  recognize  any  class  of  iiidirect  Messianic  prophecies,  for  God 
being  the  speaker  in  the  OT  the  person  in  whom  the  language  waa 
fulfilled  must  be  the  person  of  svliom  it  was  spoken.  So  far  as  the 
Heb.  writer  is  concerned,  he  had  in  his  mind  eitlter  the  expected 
future  Messiah,  or  he  had  some  OT  person.  In  the  latter  case, 
If  his  language  transcends  what  could  be  realized  in  the  0*1 
personage,  he  spoke  ideally,  that  is,  according  to  the  religioufl 
idea  of  the  personage  or  bis  function  or  bis  experience. 

D.  ISTERPJtETATION  AXD  FULFILMENT.  — 
There  are  certain  peculiarities  in  the  language  and 
thouglit  of  the  prophets  which  have  to  be  taken 
into  account  in  interpreting  their  writings,  and  in 
considering  how  their  predictions  or  constructions 
of  the  future  have  been  or  will  be  fulfilled.  These 
peculiarities  so  struck  early  writers  on  prophecy 
that  they  devoted  great  attention  to  them,  fancy- 
ing that  the  prophetic  writings  were  constructed  on 
a  particular  plan,  whicli  had  special  purposes  in 
view.  Hence  they  speak  greatly  of  what  they  call 
the  '  structure '  of  prophecy,  and  lay  down  elaborate 
rules  for  the  way  in  wliich  prophecies  relating  to  a 
distant  future  must  have  been  expressed,  in  order 
tliat  when  fulfilled  they  might  he  recognized  to 
have  been  genuine  supernatural  predictions.*  Ths 
•  e.y.  John  Davison,  Discourses  on  Prophecy. 


PROI  HECY  AND  PROPHETS 


PROPHECY  AND  PROPHETS     125 


language  also,  as  well  as  the  form,  was  thoufjht  to 
differ  from  that  of  ordinary  literature,  sj'iiibob 
being  greatly  used  instead  of  jilain  expressions. 
This  artificial  way  of  regarding  tlie  prophecies  was 
greatly  due  to  the  apologetic  or  evidential  use 
made  of  them.  But  there  is  nothing  in  the  form 
of  the  propliecies  so  special  that  it  deserves  the 
name  of  'structure';  neither  is  symbol  to  any 
great  extent  employed  instead  of  ordinary  lan- 
guage. The  prophets  were  practical  teachers,  such 
as  we  might  expect  men  of  their  nation  and  time 
to  be,  and  their  i)rophetic  addresses  are  cast  in 
the  form  that  would  be  most  easily  understood  by 
their  hearers.  They  were  usually  men  of  powerful 
imagination,  and  hence  their  language  is  poetical 
and  to  some  extent  figurative  ;  and  they  were  men 
living  under  a  particular  kind  of  constitution  or 
dispensation,  and  in  certain  conditions  of  the 
world,  and  tlieir  ideas  naturally  are  clothed  in  the 
forms  suggested  by  their  OT  constitution,  and 
those  conditions  of  the  ancient  world  in  which  they 
lived.  This  OT  constitution  and  these  conditions 
of  the  ancient  world  have  passed  away,  but  the 
religious  ideas  and  truths  expressed  by  the  prophets 
still  remain  and  live.  Obviously,  to  interpret  the 
j)r<)phets  we  must  read  them  literally,  endeavour- 
ing to  throw  ourselves  back  into  their  circum- 
Btances  and  the  conditions  of  the  world  around 
them,  and  into  their  mind  in  such  conditions :  if 
we  fail  to  do  this,  and  fasten  our  attention  onlj'  on 
their  ideas  and  truths  as  valid  for  other  times  than 
theirs,  we  do  not  interpret  but  only  applij  their 
prophecies.  Some  points  bearing  on  fuliilment 
may  be  bricdy  alluded  to. 

i.  The  prophecies  are  poetical.  They  are  not 
poetical  in  so  strict  a  sense  as  books  like  Job  and 
the  Psalms  are  :  the  parallelism  is  not  so  exact, 
and  the  lines  are  not  so  uniform  in  length.  Many 
parts  of  the  early  prophets  are  no  doubt  poetical 
evec  in  form,  ana  some  modern  commentators 
make  great  ell'orts  to  bring  the  present  text  of  the 
prophecies  into  strictly  poetical  measure,  assuming 
that  it  had  this  form  originally  ;  but  their  opera- 
tions apiiear  in  many  ca.ses  to  be  arbitrary.  The 
approximation  to  poetical  form  appears  less  in  later 

irophets,  though  the  style  still  remains  elevated. 

"hough  poetical  the  prophecies  are  not  allegorical. 
When  Is  2,  for  example,  says  that  tlie  day  of  the 
Lord  shall  be  on  all  lofty  mountains,  and  on  all 
cedars  of  Lebanon  and  oaks  of  I5ashan,  these 
things  are  to  be  umloistdod  literally,  and  not 
allegorized  into  things  human,  such  as  great  .States, 
the  higher  r.anks  of  .society,  or  persons  of  eminence. 
Neither  are  the  iiropliccies  written  in  symbolical 
language.  It  has  licen  said,  for  exaiiiph;,  that 
'mountain'  in  propheiy  is  a  sj'inliol  for  kingdom, 
and  the  like.*  '1  lure  is  no  evidence  for  this. 
'  Mountain '  is  a  ligure  for  any  great  obstacle  in 
the  way  (Is  40*  iV,  Zoc  4')  of  whatever  .sort  it  be, 
but  is  no  stereotypic!  symbol  for  kingdom.  A 
beginning  of  fixed  symbolism  is  made  in  Daniel, 
where  'horn'  is  a  symhol  for  king  or  kingdom, 
and  the  usage  is  contiiiiuMl  in  the  Apocalypse  ;  but 
in  Zee  1"  'horn'  is  still  merely  a  figure  for  any 
instrument  of  pushing  and  overthrow.  The  pro- 
phecies are  poetical  in  the  sense  that  they  are 
imaginative  and  often  ideal.  Thus,  in  predicting 
the  destruction  of  some  great  city  at  present  full 
of  life,  the  prophet  will  draw  a  picture  of  desola- 
tion with  all  its  mournful  characteristics— '  their 
houses  shall  be  full  of  doleful  creatures  ;  wolves 
shall  cry  in  their  castles,  and  jackals  in  the 
pleasant  palaces'  (Is  i;i-'');  'the  pelican  and  the 
porcupine  shall  lodge  in  the  chapiters  thereof ' 
(Zeph  '2",  la  34""').  Such  pa.ssages  merely  expre.ss 
the  idea  of  complete  desolation  ;  the  details  are 
not  predictions,  but  part  of  the  expression  of  the 
•  Fairbaim,  On  rropliecy,  p.  496. 


K' 


idea.  Similarly,  in  predicting  the  capture  of 
Babylon  by  the  Medes  the  prophet  gives  an  ideal 
picture  of  the  sack  of  a  city — '  their  infants  shall 
be  dashed  in  pieces,  and  tlieir  wives  ravished' (la 
13'").  We  know  that  these  things  did  not  actually 
hajipen,  for  Cyrus  entered  Babylon  'in  peace.'  In 
some  cases  it  may  be  dillicult  to  say  whether  a 
ims.sage  be  of  this  ideal  kind,  or  be  merely  of  the 
nature  of  a  threat,  e.(f.  Am  7"  spoken  of  Jeroboam, 
and  Jer  22'^'-  of  Jehoiakim.  A  margin  of  un- 
certainty will  remain  in  connexion  with  these 
ideal  prophecies.  The  details  given  in  the  pro- 
phecy form  a  true  and  natural  picture  of  sucli  a 
thing  as  that  predicted,  and  some  of  them  may  bo 
realized,  and  the  question  may  be  put,  Are  these 
details  thus  realized  to  be  regarded  as  a  fuliilment 
of  the  prediction,  or  are  they  merely  due  to  the 
nature  of  the  case?  Under  the  belief  that  in  such 
propliecies  the  details  are  merely  an  exiiressioii  of 
the  idea,  and  that  the  idea  exhausts  the  predic- 
tion. Dr.  Arnold  propounded  a  theory  of  fuliilment 
ex  abunJiinti.  I"  or  example,  the  prophecy  Zee  9''' — 
'Behold,  thy  King  conieth  unto  thee;  lowly,  and 
riding  upon  an  ass,'  merely'  by  its  details  expresses 
the  idea  that  the  Messiah  will  not  be  a  man  of  war, 
but  humble  and  a  prince  of  peace,  and  would  have 
been  fullilled  in  Christ's  mind  and  bearing,  though 
none  of  the  external  details  had  been  verified  ;  the 
fact  that  Christ  entered  Jerusalem  riding  on  an 
ass  was  a  fuliilment  ex  abundanti,  and  (iue  to  a 
special  providence  of  God.*  Of  course,  the  special 
fuliilment  in  this  case  may  have  been  intentional 
on  tlie  p.vrt  of  Christ.  In  that  case  we  must 
suppose  that  Christ's  consciousness  of  being  the 
Messiiih  spoken  of  was  so  powerful  that  it  prompted 
Him  to  act  in  the  character  described.  His  action 
was  merely  His  consciousness  expressing  itself  by 
an  irresistible  impulse  ;  it  was  not  a  matter  of 
calculation  intended  to  impress  the  multitude. 

ii.  Another  thing  which  might  modify  fulfil- 
ment was  this  :  the  prophecies  were  designed  to 
iiitliience  the  conduct  ol  the  people;  they  were 
moral  teaching,  of  the  nature  of  threats  or  pro- 
mises, which  might  be  revoked  or  fuUilled  accord- 
ing to  the  demeanour  of  those  to  whom  they  were 
addressed.  Thus  Jer  2(5'-  says,  '  The  Loril  sent  me 
to  prophesy  against  this  city  all  the  words  which 
ye  have  heard.  Now  therefore  amend  your  ways, 
and  obey  the  voice  of  the  Lord  your  tlod  ;  and  the 
Lord  will  re]'eiit  him  of  the  evil  which  he  hath 
pronounced  against  you.'  Prophecy  was  to  such 
an  extent  moral,  and  meant  to  influence  men's 
conduct,  that  threatenings  of  evil  were  rarely 
absolute.  Jonah  predicted  in  what  seemed  an 
absolute  manner  the  destruction  of  Nineveh  in 
forty  days;  but  on  the  repentance  of  the  people 
the  threatened  evil  was  averted.  Jer  18  expressly 
formulates  the  moral  and  contingent  character  of 
prophecy,  s.aying,  in  the  words  of  J",  '  At  what 
time  I  shall  speak  concerning  a  nation,  to  phiek 
u])  and  destroy  it ;  if  that  nation,  against  whom  I 
have  pronounced,  turn  from  their  evil,  I  will  repent 
of  the  evil  which  I  sought  to  do  unto  them.  And 
at  what  instant  I  speak  coucerning  a  nation  to 
build  and  plant  it;  if  it  do  evil  in  mj'  sight,  I  will 
repent  of  the  good  wherewith  I  said  I  would 
benelit  them.  Now  therefore  go,  speak  to  the 
men  of  Judah,  Behold,  I  frame  evil  against  you : 
return  ye  now  every  one  from  his  evil  way.'  This 
moral  character  of  prophecy  was  well  understood 
in  Israel,  as  appears  from  the  intervention  of  the 
elders  in  behalf  of  Jeremiah:  'Then  ro.se  up 
certain  of  the  elders,  and  said,  Micah  the  Morash- 
tite  prophesied  in  the  days  of  Hezekiali,  sayinc, 
Ziim  shall  he  plowed  like  a  field  !  Did  Hezekiali 
and  all  Judah  put  him  to  death?    Did  they  not 

•'Two  Semioiw  on  the  Interpretation  of  Prophecy'  in 
Sennon9,  vol.  t.  p.  373,  London,  1S45. 


126  PROPHECY  AND  PROPHETS 


PROPHECY  AND  PROPHEL'S 


fear  the  Lord,  and  entreat  his  favour,  and  the  Lord 
repented  him  of  the  evil  which  he  had  pronounced 
against  them  ?'  (Jer  26'").  The  princijile  was  also 
well  understood  in  the  early  Church,  for  Jerome 
remarks  that  many  of  the  prophecies  were  given, 
'not  thrit  lliey  should,  but  that  they  should  not, 
he  fullilled.'  Tliey  were  threatenings  of  evil 
designed  to  influence  conduct  and  avert  the  very 
evils  tlireatened.  Tiiere  were,  no  doubt,  pro])hccics 
which  were  absolute.  The  promises  of  tiod  were 
so  ;  those  that  contained  statements  of  His  grace, 
as  that  the  house  of  David  should  for  ever  bear 
rule  in  His  kingdom,  and  many  others  wliich  de- 
pended on  His  will  alone.  Kven  some  of  tliese 
contained  an  element  of  contingency  in  them,  to 
this  extent,  that  the  conduct  of  men  might  retard 
although  not  invalidate  tiieir  fulhlment ;  while  on 
the  other  hand  threatenings,  though  long  delayed, 
might  eventually  be  fulfilled  because  men  perse- 
vered in  their  evil  ways  or  returned  to  them. 

Moreover,  another  thing  is  evident :  moral  threats 
or  promises  could  be  made  only  to  a  subject  also 
considered  moral.  The  predictions  of  the  prophets 
against  foreign  nations,  though  often  having  the 
form  of  threats  against  their  capital  city  or  their 
land,  are  really  not  directed  against  these  material 
things,  but  against  what  might  be  called  the 
national  personality,  the  moral  subject  which  the 
nation  was,  with  its  spjit  and  influence  in  the 
world  of  the  i)rophet'8  day.  The  prophets  deal 
only  with  moral  forces  ;  to  them  there  are  no  other 
forces.  The  world  is  a  moral  constitution,  and 
States  are  moral  personalities.  Ezekiel  conceives 
them  as  exi.sting  after  their  disappearance  from 
the  world,  just  as  individual  persons  do  after 
death.  It  is  this  national  personality  that  prophecy 
threatens  with  destruction ;  and  when  Babylon, 
for  example,  came  under  the  power  of  the  Persians, 
the  prophecies  against  it  were  fullilled,  although 
not  a  brick  was  thrown  down  from  its  walls  nor 
a  bar  broken  in  one  of  its  brazen  gates.  These 
material  things,  no  doubt,  embodied  and  expressed 
the  spirit  of  Uabjdon  ;  but  they  were  nothing  in 
themselves,  and  might  equally  embody  and  express 
the  wholly  difl'erent  moral  personality  of  the 
Persians.*  In  point  of  fact,  the  material  details 
of  tliu  prophecies  against  the  nations  were  in 
many  instances  not  verifled.  Is  17'  says,  '  Behold, 
Dam.ascus  is  taken  away  from  being  a  city,  and 
it  shall  be  a  ruinous  heap';  but  Damascus  has 
probably  never  ceased  to  be  a  city.  Here  again, 
no  doubt,  interesting  questions  have  been  raised. 
Micab's  prophecy  about  Jerusalem  was  eventually 
fullilled ;  Babylon  is  at  this  daj'  a  desolation. 
Anil  Bacon  suggested  the  idea  of  what  he  called  a 
'germinant'  fulfilment,  i.e.  one  going  on  through 
time.  At  any  rate,  in  the  first  place  the  prophetic 
threat  must  be  held  to  have  been  directed  against 
the  national  personality,  and  to  have  been  ful- 
filled in  the  main  in  its  destruction  ;  and  secondly, 
in  endeavouring  to  reach  a  conclusion  in  regard  to 
the  material  details,  the  instances  in  which  they 
have  not  been  verified  must  he  considered,  as  well 
as  those  in  which  tlioy  seem  to  have  received 
verification.  Apart  from  the  uncertainty  incident 
to  such  historical  investigations,  it  is  to  mis- 
apprehend the  nature  of  projjhecy  to  treat  these 
material  details  as  having  great  evidential  value. 
Prophecy  concerns  itself  with  the  world  as  moral. 
The  evidence  of  proidiecy  rather  lies  in  the  broad 
general  nunement  of  religious  thought  which  it 
jiresents,  showing  that  a  divine  power  had  laid 
Iiold  of  the  whole  mind  of  man,  creating  in  it  lofty 
religious  ideals,  quickening  its  aspirations,  gii  ing 
it  an  onward  and  forward  look  towards  a  religious 
jierfeclion,  stirring  up  the  heart  of  the  creature  to 

*  See  remarks  on  Ezekiet's  prophecy  against  Tyre,  EzekUi,  p. 
lW(Caisb  Bible). 


cry  after  Him  who  created  it,  and  long  for  Hia 
perfect  revelation  ui)on  the  eartb  (Jn  14""-). 

iii.  The  above  remarks  refer  mainly  to  prophecies 
that  have  already  been  fuUilled ;  but  the  same 
principles  apply  to  prophecies  still  awaiting  fulfil- 
ment, i.e.  prophecies  regarding  the  final  condition 
of  the  people  of  God.  The  moral  and  religious 
element  was  the  essential  part  of  the  prophecy, 
the  form  in  which  the  principle  was  to  verify  itself 
was  secondary.  The  form  was  of  the  nature  of  an 
embodiment,  a  projection  or  construction,  and  the 
materials  of  which  the  fabric  is  reared  are  those 
lying  to  the  hand  of  the  prophet  in  each  successive 
age.  The  imagination  of  the  prophet  operates 
largely  in  these  constructions.  Still  it  is  chiefly 
the  moral  imagination.  When,  for  example,  all  the 
evils  existing  in  the  prophet's  day  are  banished  and 
every  desirable  good  introduced  (Am  9'*,  J I  3'*, 
Ps  72'°),  this  is  not  due  to  the  desire  for  sensuous 
pleasures,  it  is  rather  the  expression  of  the  writer's 
general  view  of  the  universe.  The  world  «as  to 
his  view  a  moral  constitution,  the  physical  being 
nothing  but  a  mode  of  expressing  or  a  medium  for 
transmitting  the  moral  and  spiritual ;  the  miseries 
of  men  and  all  the  outward  evils  of  life  were  the 
result  of  moral  disorder  ;  and  simultaneously  with 
thfe  disappearance  of  moral  evil  physical  evil  would 
also  cease  ;  and  with  the  perfection  of  the  people  of 
God  the  external  world  would  be  transfigured,  and 
be  the  perfect  minister  to  the  needs  of  mankind. 
Thus,  while  the  moral  and  the  spiritual  in  the  pro- 
phetic constructions  of  the  future  are  absolute  and 
permanent,  the  constructions  which  embody  them 
are  perishable  and  change.  Just  as  some  temple 
of  God  embodies  and  expresses  spiritual  coni^ep- 
tions,  but  is  constructed  out  of  materials  at  the 
architect's  disposal  in  his  own  day,  which  materials 
decay,  and  in  a  later  age  have  to  be  replaced  by 
materials  of  that  age,  leaving,  however,  the 
spiritual  ideas  still  visibly  embodied  ;  so  tlie  pro- 
jections of  one  prophet,  constructed  out  of  the 
state  of  the  world,  and  of  the  nations  in  his  day, 
decay  with  the  changes  of  the  world,  and  have  to 
be  replaced  V)j'  a  later  prophet  with  materials  from 
the  world  of  his  daj'.  In  Is  7  fl".  the  prince  of  peace 
is  born  and  grows  up  amidst  the  desolations  of  the 
Assyrian  invasion,  and  sitting  on  the  throne  of 
David  establishes  a  reign  of  rigliteousness  and 
peace  without  end  (Is  9');  while  in  Is  40  ft',  the 
everlasting  kingdom  of  God  is  introduced  by  the 
destruction  of  Babylon,  the  idolatious  world,  and 
the  restoration  of  Israel,  the  Servant  of  the  Lord, 
who  shall  be  the  light  of  the  nations  (Is  60).  The 
construction  of  the  former  is  that  of  a  moral  poli- 
tician ;  the  construction  of  the  latter,  that  of  a 
religious  thinker,  almost  a  theologian.  Thus 
prophecy,  while  maintaining  its  spiritual  princi- 
ples unchanged  from  age  to  age,  by  substituting 
one  embodiment  of  these  principles  for  another 
age  after  age,  seems  itself  to  instruct  us  how  to 
regard  these  embodiments  or  constructions.  They 
are  provisional  and  transient.  Tliey  sustain  the 
faith  and  satisfy  tlie  religious  outlook  of  their  day, 
but  they  have  no  lin.-ility.  Even  the  prophets  of 
the  NT  are  probably  no  more  final  in  their  construc- 
tions than  those  of  the  UT,  e.g.  in  the  Apocalyii.se 
and  Uo  11.  They  rear  their  fabrics  out  of  the 
materials  of  their  own  day,  as  the  OT  prophets 
did  (cf.  vol.  i.  p.  737). 

Thus  we  have  to  distinguish  between  Prophecy 
and  I'ulfilment.  Prophecy  is  what  the  prophet  in 
his  age  and  circumstances  and  dispensation  meant; 
fulfilment  is  the  form  in  which  his  great  religious 
conceptions  will  gain  validity  in  other  ages,  in 
dill'erent  circumstances,  and  under  another  dis- 
pensation. Certain  elements,  therefore,  of  the 
relative,  the  circumstantial,  and  the  dispensational 
must  be  stripped  away,  and  not  expected  to  gc 


PKOPHECY  ^VXD  PROPHETS 


PROPHET  IX  NT 


127 


into  fulfilment.  Every  proi)liet  speaks  of  the  per- 
fection of  the  kinfjdora  of  GoU,  looks  for  it,  and 
constructs  an  ideal  of  it.  We  are  still  looking  for 
it.  Tlie  fundamental  conceptions  in  these  con- 
structions are  always  the  same, — the  presence  of 
God  with  men,  righteousness,  peace,  and  the  like, 
—  but  the  fabrics  reared  bj'  dillercnt  prophets 
diller.  They  ditt'er  because  each  prophet,  seein" 
the  perfect  future  issue  out  of  the  movements  and 
conditions  of  his  own  time,  constructs  his  ideal  of 
the  new  world  out  of  the  materials  lying  around 
him  :  the  state  of  his  people  ;  the  conditions  of  the 
heathen  world  in  his  day  (Mic  5^',  Is  60*")  ;  such 
facts  as  that  Israel  was  the  people  of  God,  that  the 
kingdom  of  God  had  the  form  of  a  State,  and  that 
the  seat  of  Jehovah's  rule  was  Zion.  Tliese  rela- 
tive elements  are  not  to  be  called  figurative,  tliey 
are  essential  parts  of  the  propliet's  conceptions,  and 
are  all  to  be  understood  literally.  Israel  was  not 
a  symbol  to  him  meaning  the  peojile  of  God  or 
Church,  neither  was  it  to  him  a  t3'pe  of  this. 
Israel  icas  the  people  of  God.  Neither  were  Moab, 
Edom,  Babylon,  or  Egypt  symbols  of  the  foe  of  the 
people  of  God  nor  types  of  the  hostile  world.  Each 
of  tliem  to  the  propliet  wa-f  such  a  foe.  But  in  all 
cases  the  names  are  used  literally,  though  along 
with  their  reli"ious  connotation.  And  what  the 
propliet  was  able  to  say  of  the  partial  and  relative 
of  his  day  may,  of  course,  be  applied  to  the  universal 
and  absolute  now — to  the  Cliuich  of  God  on  the 
one  hand,  and  the  hostile  world  on  the  other. 
With  the  coming  of  Christ  the  national,  relative 
and  imperfect  stage  of  religion,  as  it  was  in  OT, 
pa.ssed  away  ;  religion  became  universal,  absolute, 
and  perfect.  The  Apostolic  principles  of  interpre- 
tation seem  something  like  these  :  (1)  They  a.ssume 
that  in  Christ  and  Christianity  religion  has  become 
final  and  perfect ;  the  development  has  reached  the 
end  in  view.  And  their  arguments  from  OT  are 
verj'  much  the  analysis  of  this  general  assumption. 
(2)  God  is  the  author  of  Scripture  ;  the  OT  is  the 
word  of  God.  (3)  The  Divine  consciousness  is  one, 
embracing  the  end  and  the  beginning  alike  :  in 
sjieaking  any  word  God  had  always  the  Christian 
consummation  in  view.  Truth  is  also  one  ;  when 
a  truth  is  seen  in  any  aspect  it  is  that  truth 
tliat  is  seen.  (4)  Scripture  being  the  word  of 
God,  its  whole  meaning  is  religious  and  spiritual. 
The  circumstances  amidst  which  it  was  spoken, 
and  the  person  of  whom  or  to  whom,  are  of  no 
importance.  It  is  the  s|iiritual  nieaiiin<;  alone  of 
the  words  that  is  the  word  of  God.  Historical 
exegesis  accepts  these  principles,  and  merely  adds 
another.  It  assumes  that  the  OT  writer  h.ad  in 
every  passage  which  he  wrote  a  meaning  in  his 
own  mind,  and  that  he  desired  to  convej-  this 
meaning  to  his  contemporaries  ;  an<l  it  asks,  what 
did  the  Hebrew  writer  mean?  What  would  the 
people  of  his  day  understand  from  his  words  ? 

LiTBRATiTRK.— The  OTTheoloniid,  particularly Oehler.Suhultz, 
and  Dillmann  ;  .lolin  Siiiilh,  .Si-l'Ct  DUcmtrgM,  1821  ;  John 
baviHoti.  Diftcourgft  on  f'rojthfr}/^,  18f>fl ;  Knohel,  Dfr  Pro- 
phelimniu  der  Ufbrner,  1837;  Ewald,  Dig  Pro/ihfttm  dm  aJli'n 
Bundct.  vol.  i.  Isio  Cluii  e<l.  ISOS,  trans.  1»76) ;  Ilodii.iMii, 
WtiMiiyung  unt  Er/ullung,  1841 ;  Hcnifstenlwri;,  ChritlnL^iie 
da  all'ii  Tm/.s  (trans.  1864);  Patrick  Fairlp:iirn,  rnphrnj, 
1856;  limir,  OrKchichle  dfir attlfst.  H'fijl8n(jiniit,iHi;t) ;  Eifrthi-nu, 
*  Dit;  ftlttewt.  Weiss,  von  Ismet's  Ueichs'herrlichkeit'  {J'lftrbb. 
/.  dmttclie  Theulogit,  ls.')n-CO) ;  Oehler,  articles  '  I'rophetin- 
thnm,'  '  Weissaifiing,'  aiui  '  Messia.**,'  in  llcrz.iir,  Kiici/ct.  (recimt 
bv  V.  Orelli  In  HerzoitS);  Thnluck,  /)i>  fm/./irlrn  und  Hire 
n'ritiiniiungfn,  1801  ;  O.  F.  Oehler.  Dai  VerhaltniM  der  altlent. 
Priiphetit  lur  htidnuchrn  Manlik,  ISOl ;  Ihllinann,  Dit  Pro- 
pfutrn  det  alien  Bnndfg  nach  ihrer  yotUUehen  Wirlitamkeit, 
ls<W,  and  article  '  Prophctcn  '  In  .Sclnnkel's  Bihrl  ■  Lfxicon  ; 
Piiync  Smith,  Profiheqi  a  Prrparalin  \  /or  Chritt  (liamp. 
lA^ct.),  181)9 ;  Kucnen.  De  Profeim  en  de  Pro/etie  onder 
luraet,  1875  (trans.  ls77) ;  Caatelli,  II  Metiiia  tecoiulo  j/li  Hbrci, 
ls7l  ;  Ouhni,  Du  Thenlniie  der  Proflirten,  1875 1  Unislori, 
llitlnire  Crilitfut  de  la  UlUralure  Prophftitpie,  1881  ;  Urcden. 
kanip,  GeteU  und  Prit,,hrten,  1881  ;  von  Orelli,  Die  attlett. 
U'eiuajung  run  d*T  Volletiduni/  del  Unlletreicht,  1882  (trans, 
under  till*  OT  Prophecv  of  the  Conjiummation  oj  Qod't  Kinij- 


•fom,  ISSr*);  Konig,  Der  Of^enlinrun^tibe'jrijr  det  alien  TrM. 
18.s*2  (cf.  criticism  in  Riehtn  and  Gicsebrecht),  ond  Haupt 
jjrithteme  der  altijtr.  lieiiinnmjegchiciite,  1882 ;  \V.  Robertson 
Smith,  The  Prophets  ../  Israel,  1882 ;  (3.  A.  Brl(;g;s,  ilettianic 
J'rvphec;/,  18s« ;  StantoHj  The  Jewish  and  Chriiitian  Messiah, 
isstl ;  Delitxsch.  Mrsttianisch^  }yeissa(tun{fen,  latHl (trans.  1891); 
Damiesteter,  Lrjt  Propht-tes  d'lsrart,  1892 ;  Kirkpatrick,  Doc- 
triyie  o/  the  Prophets,  1892 ;  Driver,  Sermons  on  OT,  1892 ; 
Cornill,  Der  israeliiische  Prophi-ti*in»s,  1S04  (trans.^  1898); 
Gicsebrecht,  Uritrdge  zur  .Jesaiatsrilik,  189(1,  and  Die  Berrijs- 
berjntning  der  alltest.  Propheten,  1897  (cf.  Skinner's  notice  in 
Vril.  Revietc,  ix.  34  ff.) ;  Schwartzkopff,  Die  Prophetische  O'Jen- 
barung,  1890 ;  Lohr,  Der  M issimis'jedanke  im  aiten  Test.  1896  ; 
F.  H.  Woods,  The  Uupeo/  Israel.  1896  ;  Wellhausen,  Israelilische 
und  Jiidische  Geschichte^,  1897  ;  Volz,  Die  vorexiliiche  Jahwe- 
projihrlie  u.  der  Stessias,  1397;  HUhn,  Die  Mess.  Weisswjun- 
ijeii,  1899  ;  Hud.  Kittel,  Pro/rtic  und  WeUsagung,  1899 ;  Kichm, 
Messianic  Prophecy'^  (containing  exhaustive  literature).  1!X)0. 

A.  B.  Davidson. 
PROPHETESS  (IN-?},  irpoc^^Tu).— The  conditions 
that  were  ncce.ssarj'  to  qualify  for  tlie  projibetic 
othire  in  the  OT  sense  were  not  such  as  to  e.xchide 
women  from  the  latter  (see  the  prcceiling  article, 
p.  IH",  and  cf.  Ac  'J'').  Tlie  following  [iiophetesses 
are  mentioned  in  Scripture:  Miriam,  K,\  15'-",  cf. 
Nu  1-22  (both  JE);  Deborah,  .Ig  4';  Huldali, 
2  K  22'*  (=2  Ch  ?,\") ;  Noadiah,  Neh  f*  (but  cf. 
LXX,  which  has  the  niasc.  ti}  Xoaoia  ry  vpo<priTri)  ; 
Anna,  Lk  2^*.  'The  prophetess '  of  Is  8*  is  jirob- 
aljh'  simply  '  the  prophet's  wife.'  Prophecy  in  the 
N'T  sense  was,  of  course,  also  a  gift  exercised  by 
women  (cf.  Ac  21',  1  Co  1 1").  '  The  woman  Jezebel 
which  calleth  herself  a  prophetess'  (Kcv  2-";  see 
vol.  ii.  p.  6.56'')  may  have  cljiimed  the  gift  of  pro- 
phecy in  either  the  OT  or  the  NT  sense.  See  also 
art.  Woman.  J.  A.  Selhif;. 

PROPHET  IN  NT  (Trpo^ijnjs,  -eieiv,  -ela  :  never 
fidvTLi  or  cognate  words  except  Ac  16"  pLavrevoiiivri 
of  the  possessed  girl  at  Philippi). — -The  irpo^iJrTjs  in 
classical  Greek  is  one  who  speaks  for  another — the 
interpreter  either  of  the  ecstatic  iiivm  or  of  the 
god  himself,  so  that  he  is  near  akin  to  the  ^I'ryv'isi 
though  with  more  definite  reference  to  a  per- 
son than  to  things.  Of  lori  classid  may  be  men- 
tioned .Esch.  Eum.  19  :  Ai6s  irpo^ijn;?  {(ttI  Ao|iti! 
TTOTpis  (.so  Plato,  Rep.  427  C:  Trdrpiot  irp. ),  .'ind 
Plato,  Tim.  71  E  f. ,  where  he  contrasts  the  irpo^iixiji 
with  the  iii.vTL'i.  The  same  sense  of  '  interpreter  ' 
is  found  in  Pliilo  (e.g.  QiiU  rer.  div.  52,  De  sj)ec. 
legihus,  8;,  though  he  ascribes  to  him  the  ecstasy 
assigned  by  Plato  to  the  ixavm.  This  blending  of 
the  two,  which  pr.actically  merges  the  irporf>r}T7]i  in 
the  ixdpTis,  was  a  current  belief  even  among  Chris- 
tians (Justin,  Athenagoras)  in  spite  of  1  Co  14, 
esp.  v.'-,  till  it  was  partly  discredited  by  Montanist 
fanaticism  ;  and  in  our  own  time  it  may  be  tracetl 
in  every  theory  of  inspiration  which  fails  to  realize 
the  full  co-opcnition  ol  the  proiihet's  understanding. 

In  NT,  too,  the  word  ir ito<pi)Tris  keejis  its  general 
sense  of  an  interpreter  of  (Iinl's  niessjige.  Ifiil  the 
prediction  which  most  impressed  the  vulgar  (so 
roundly  even  Clem.  Alex.  .^trom.  v\.  12:  17  irpo- 
tpyjrda  npdyi'wffis^crTiv — in  truth  it  is  nearer  ^3r/7ftj(rts) 
was  a  very  small  part  of  the  message.  Agabus 
predicted  the  famine  and  St.  Paul's  imprisonment 
(Ac  11'^  21'°),  the  Apoc.  is  called  a  irpoijiiyrda,  and 
the  OT  prophets  aie  natunilly  cited  more  or  less 
from  the  side  of  prediction.  But  the  pmphet's 
proper  work  is  rather  (1  Co  4'''  **■  -°)  edification  and 
consolation,  revealing  the  secrets  of  the  inner  life 
and  incidentally  converting  unbelievers,  though, 
strictly  speaking,  prophecj-  is  the  sign  (1  Co  14'^) 
for  believers.  And  because  the  prippbct  edifies  the 
Church,  not  only  himself,  propliccy  is  a  better  gift 
(1  Co  14''  ^)  tiiaii  that  of  tongues,  and  more 
earnestly  to  be  coveted,  though  still  but  a  transi- 
tory gift  (1  Co  13"),  not  abiding  like  faith,  hope, 
antl  love.  On  the  method  (scarcely  the  only 
method)  of  edification  we  get  a  hint  in  Ac  l:!'* 
where  jiropbcts  are  ministering  (XeiToi'p7oi"iTft  t(^  K. 
— comiiare  Timothy's  appointment,  I  Ti  1"'4''')  when 


128 


PROPITIATICy 


PKOPITIATION 


tiiey  receive  the  command  to  separate  Barnabas 
ttuu  baul.  This  seems  to  imply  some  such  position 
as  we  find  in  the  Didachi  (10),  where  the  prophet 
(if  tliere  be  one)  is  the  proper  person  to  conduct  the 
public  worship,  and  the  only  person  free  to  give 
thanks  in  what  words  he  thinks  tit. 

The  prophets  ranked  next  to  the  apostles  (1  Co 
12^,  Eph  4"),  and  are  even  coupled  with  them 
(Eph  2*  3»  dir.  K.  vpo(p.  in  this  order  will  be  NT 
prophets)  as  receivers  of  revelation  and  layers  of 
foundations.  Prophecy  was  not  an  office,  but  a 
special  gift,  coming  not  from  men,  but  straight 
from  Christ  (xai  oi>ris  louKev,  Eph  4"),  and  it  might 
come  to  women  too  (Ac  21^  1  Co  11^).  The  pro- 
phet spoke  iv  vfeO/MTi  (Eph  3',  Apoc.  e.g.  V : 
contrast  iv  imTaa-ei  of  the  trances,  Ac  10'°  22"), 
because  the  divine  Spirit  worked  in  him,  1  P  1", 
1  Co  12"  ;  and  he  was  also  iryevjiariKds  (1  Co  14", 
where  TvfvfianKis  at  least  includes  irpoipip-qi),  be- 
cause his  human  spirit  was  in  full  activity,  and  so 
steadily  (inroTaaaerai,  1  Co  14'-)  controlled  the  gifts 
of  the  Spirit  that  he  was  quite  able  to  speak  (Ro 
12^)  only  in  proportion  to  the  faith  that  was  in  him. 

Neglect  of  this  self-restraint  is  visible  at  Corinth 
(1  Co  14-'''-",  prophets  need  not  all  speak  together), 
and  may  help  to  account  for  the  early  warning  in 
1  Th  5*.  Later  on  1  Jn  4'  speaks  of  \pevSoirpo<priTai, 
and  the  woman  Jezebel  (Rev  2-°)  implies  false 
prophets  in  Asia.  So  also  the  Didachi  (11)  is  very 
stringent  in  its  cautions  about  prophets. 

Of  prophets  expressly  so  called  in  NT,  there  are 
Agabus,  the  groups  at  Antioch,  Judas  and  Silas, 
and  the  four  daughters  of  PhUip.  We  need  not  go 
further  ;  but  the  last  prophets  we  read  of  (Anon. 
an.  Eus.  HE  v.  17)  are  Quadratus  and  Ammia  in 
Philadelphia,  perhaps  in  Hadrian's  time.  See, 
further,  Selwyn,  The  Christian  Prophets,  1900. 

H.  M.  GWATKIN. 

PROPITIATION.— This  word  occurs  in  AV  only 
three  times :  Ko  3^  as  the  tr.  of  IXtumipioi'  (iv 
Tpoiftero  6  9c6s  IXoffTijpioc, — most  probably  [see 
Sanday-Headlam]  an  adj.  masc,  'whom  God  set 
forth  to  be  propitiatory '  [RVm]),  and  1  Jn  2'  4'" 
as  the  tr.  of  l\a<rix6s  {airrbs  IXaj/idt  i(m  Tipl  tCiv 
afxapTiCiv  7]fjiCiv  ;  d7r^<rTciXe  rbv  vlbv  aiiTOu  IXafffidv  repl 
Twv  aiiapmwv  rjpiuiv) ;  to  which  RV  adds  a  fourth. 
He  2"  (a  merciful  and  faithful  high  priest  .  .  .  els 
rb  l\ciiTK€a0ai  ras  apuipTLas  toO  XaoD,  *  to  make  pro- 
pitiation [AV  '  reconciliation ']  for  the  sins  of  the 
ppople ').  It  will  be  the  object  of  the  present 
article,  firstly,  to  explain  the  meaning  of  the 
Greek  words  used,  in  the  light  of  their  usage  in 
the  LXX  ;  and,  secondly,  to  examine  the  ideas 
associated  with  the  Heb.  words  which  they  repre- 
sent commonly  in  the  LXX. 

1.  'IXaarripiov  is  in  OT  the  regular  rendering  of 
ms:  (in  EV  '  mercy  -  seat '),  Ex  25"  I")  (here 
l\a(rr-npiov  iirWeim),  vv."-2>  (18-^1  31?  gtc.  :  IXa<rAiii 
Stands  for  (a)  D-is?  (EV  'atonement'),  Lv  25' 
ri  Ti/xipa.  ToO  I.  (toD  fJiX.  Lv  23"-  ^),  Nu  5«  4  xpibi 
ToO  i.  ;  (6)  nxvn  '  sin-offering,'  Ezk  44'^  (so  45" 
iii\a<rpiis)  ;  (c)  nri-^ip  '  forgiveness,'  Ps  130*,  Dn  9» 
(Theod.);  so  ^fiX.  Sir  5"  (Heb.  .-m-SD)  ;  [d)  nt:;'N 
'  guilt,'  Am  8"  (falsely) :  IXiuKOfjiat  stands  seven 
times  for  n'jj  'to  forgive,'  as  2  K  5'*,  Ps  25"  (for 
which  rXeus  e^va^  is  more  common),  and  three  times 
for  i;:,  Ps  65^  18^  70",  which,  however,  is  far  more 
frequently  represented  by  the  (intensive)  com- 
pound iii\i(XKopuii  (variously  construed  :  see  §§  5, 
7-10 ;  and  Westcott,  Epp.  of  St.  John,  pp.  83-85). 
The  use  of  the  term  in  He  2"  in  connexion  with 
the  high-priest  shows  that  IX.  must  there  be  re- 
garded as  the  equivalent  of  "e;,  not  of  n'pj  (which 
IS  never  said  of  the  high-priest,  or  indeed  of  any 
human  subject).*   'IXiir/to/tai  is  common  in  classical 

"  The  conjttnuition,  however,  with  an  ace  o(  the  sin,  is,  as 
Ritschl  rightly  remarks  (p.  212),  not  that  of  the  legal  (J  10),  but 
ot  the  DOn-legal  (i  0  ;  Ps  653)  UCX  unge. 


Greek,  where,  however,  it  is  construed  regularly 
with  an  accus.  of  the  deity  (or  person)  propitiated 
(as  11.  i.  100,  444,  472,  ^oXtt^  0ebv  l\6.<iKovro ;  Udt. 
V.  47,  0V(rlyiTL  alrrbv  IXiaKovrai,  viii.  112,  Oe/urroKXia 
Xirf)iM<Ti  l\aaiixevoi)  :  in  the  LXX,  on  the  contrary, 
this  usage  is  not  found  except  Gn  32-°,  Zee  7"  (efiX. 
Tb  irpbaairof],  and  Pr  IG'*  (^fiX.  aurbv,  fig.  of  wrath), 
the  word  (^{i\.),  when  used  of  a  human  subject 
(§§10,ll),beingcommonlyconstruedabsolutelj',with 
Trepi  of  the  person  on  whose  behalf  the  propitiatory 
act  is  performed.  The  difl'erence  marks  a  ditfer- 
ence  between  the  heathen  and  the  Biblical  point 
of  view  :  though  the  idea  of  i)roi)itiating  God  may 
be  indirectly  involved  in  the  phrases  used  in  the 
OT,  it  is  very  much  less  prominent  than  in  the 
heathen  writers ;  the  propitiatory  sacrifice,  or 
rite,  has  indeed  generally  for  its  aim  the  restora- 
tion of  God's  favour,  and  the  '  forgiveness  '  of  the 
worshipper  (Lv  4-°  etc.,  §  12i),  but  there  is  not 
the  same  thought  of  directly  appeasing  one  who  is 
angry,  with  a  personal  feeling,  against  the  ofl'ender, 
which  is  implied  wlien  the  deity  is  the  direct  object 
of  the  verb  (cf.  Cremer,  Wbrtcrb.;  Westcott,  p.  85; 
Kalisch,  Lev.  i.  316-318).  In  other  words,  the  difter- 
ence  corresponds  with  the  fact  that  the  higher 
Biblical  conception  of  God  is  more  spiritual  and 
less  anthropomorphic  than  that  of  heatnen  writers. 

2.  The  facts  that  have  been  quoted  make  it 
evident  that  the  Greek  terms  renc'ered  '  propitia- 
tion '  correspond  to  the  Heb.  irj  and  derivatives. 
These  words  hold  an  important  place  in  the  theo- 
logical terminology  of  tne  OT  ;  and  though  they 
are  generally  rentiered  in  EV  by  '  (make)  atone- 
ment' (or  'reconcile,'  'make  reconciliation,'  in  Lv 
630  815  igM,  Ezk  45"-  "■  =i°  AV  ;  Dn  9=*  AV  and  RV), 
the  idea  expressed  by  the  Heb.  is  certainly  rather 
that  of  'propitiation'  than  of  'atonement'  (i.e. 
'at-one-ment,'  setting  at  one,  reconciliation  [see 
Shaks.  Rich.  III.  I.  iii.  36]) ;  and  hence  they  will  be 
properly  considered  under  the  present  heading. 

It  is  much  to  be  rejrretted  that  the  link  connecting  OT  and 
NT,  supplied  by  (i^*>.ac-Kflu«i,  should  have  been  neglected  in 
EV  ;  and  that  words  which  clearly  correspond  should  have 
been  rendered  '  propitiation  '  in  the  NT,  but  '  atonement '  in  the 
OT.  '  Atonement '  is  now  an  unsuitable  rendering  of  kipper, 
for  two  reasons.  (1)  Since  AV  of  1611  was  made,  the  word  haa 
changed  its  meaning ;  and  whereas  it  formerly  (see  Murray) 
expressed  the  idea  of  reconciliation,  it  now  suggests  chiefly  the 
idea  of  snaking  amends  or  reparation.  Hence  in  the  one 
passage  in  AV  of  NT  in  which  *  atonement  *  occurs  (Ro  511,  for 
»»T«XAayr),  the  Revisers  have  done  rightly  in  substituting  for 
it  '  reconciliation  *  (which,  with  *  reconcile,'  is  used  elsewhere. 
in  AV  itself,  for  compounds  of  ixxio-»-»,  Mt  6=^,  Ko  S'"-  ">■  11 
1115,  1  Co  7",  2  Co  S"s- 18-  19,  Col  120-  21,  Eph  216).  But  (2)  even 
in  its  older  sense  of  *  reconciliation,'  it  does  not  projierly  repre- 
sent kipper ;  for  kipper  does  not  mean  to  '  reconcile,'  nor  i»  it 
ever  represented  in  LXX  by  compounds  of  aUartf-*. 

3.  The  root-meaning  of  155  is  probably  to  cover 
over ;  for  the  Arab,  knfara,  though  not  very 
common,  has  this  meaning  in  various  applica- 
tions (Lane,  Arab.  Lex.  p.  2620). 

In  Syr.  ktphar,  and  esp.  the  Pael  kappar,  means  to  wipe  or 
ivipe  away,  as  Pr  302*>  to  wipe  the  mouth,  to  wipe  away  tears, 
the  stain  of  sin,  etc,  hence  fig.  to  disperse,  destroy  (delerc),  a» 
darkness  Ephr.  i.  9,  a  race  or  nation,  etc.  (P.  Smith,  Thes.  i>yr, 
col.1797-0);  and  W.  R.  Smith(07'yCl4SSf.,  more  briefl;)-,  2  3S0, 
3$1)  adopts  this  as  the  primary  meaning  of  the  Heb.  hpper, — 
explaining  Gn  32'2'  (see  §  5)  as  meaning  properly  to  '  wipe  clean 
the  face,*  blackened  by  displeasure,  as  the  Arabs  say  '  whiten 
the  face.'  The  Heb.  kipper,  however,  as  a  theological  tenii, 
in  any  case  implies  a  metaphor, — and  it  does  not  greatly  si^'uify, 
in  explaining  it,  whether  we  start  from  the  idea  of  covering  over 
or  from  that  of  vnpin<t  out :  in  either  case,  the  idea  which  the 
uataphor  is  intended  to  convey  is  that  of  rendering  null  and 
inoperative.  There  are  analogies  in  the  OT  for  each  explanation  ; 
sin  is  spoken  of,  viz.  as  covered  (np5, — an  ordinary,  untechnica] 
word  for  *  cover '),  Ps  321  (*  covered  in  respect  of  sin '),  653, 
Neh  3^"  (Heb.  4')  [borrowed  from  Jer  IS^,  vfith  kipper  (§  9) 
changed  to  kitfali];  and  as  wiped  (or  blotted)  out  (.in?).  Is  43* 
41-.!,  Jer  182<(  =  Nch33?14»l),  Ps  611- 9i' 1091''.  (It  is  dirticult  not 
to  think  that  the  Arab,  and  Syr.  senses  ot  the  root  spring 
ultimately  from  a  common  origin, — e.g.  from  the  idea  of  wipi7iq 
over :  in '  both  languages,  it  is  remarkable  that  the  word 
acquires  the  further  derived  idea  of  disown,  deny,  be  a  di4 
believer;  hence  'Kafir,'  properly  an  i?ijiilcl).— The  .4rab.  U 
conj.  (ka.^ara)  occi»'«  often  in  the  Koran  of  God's  e^acing,  or 


PKOPITIATIOX 


PROPITIATION 


129 


(or^ivinj,  ein  ;  and  lafarat  (Kor.  6<9  9>- «!)  means  the  expia- 
t'"n  of  a  crime,  broken  vow,  etc.  (Lane,  2(120,  2U:i2 ;  Lai,':inle, 
iiit'ttiii'i  d^r  yotn.  23111.);  but  these  wunla  luay  be  borrowed 
from  Judaism  (liiriichield,  BeUrage  I.  ErkUir.  d.  J^or.  p.  00). 
The  Ass>  r.  kuppuru,  also  a  ritual  term  ('  siibnen '),  seeraa  to 
mean  i)roperly  to  wipe  o.'f :  9e«  Uaupt.  JliL^  1900,  pp.  61,  80, 
and  e^p.  Zinunem,  Beitrdge  zur  KtrnTttnit  der  Bab.  Belig. 
pp.  92,  123,  elo. 

4.  The  Heb.  kipper  is,  however,  never  used  In  a 
purely  literal  sense  (like  n;?),  but  always  *  in  a 
ligurative  or  moral  application,  viz.  with  the  col- 
lateral idea — which  in  course  of  time  became  the 
preponderant  if  not  the  exclusive  idea— of  either 
conciliating  an  otiended  person,  or  screening  an 
otience  or  an  oHender. 

C(.  Oehler,  OT  Theol.  §  127 :  'Kipper,  and  the  cognate  sub- 
stantives, represent  the  propitiation  (Stihne)  as  a  coverinj  ;  the 
puilt  is  covered,  or,  as  it  were,  withdrawn  from  the  siglit  of  the 
person  propitiated,  so  that  tlie  t^'uitty  person  can  now  approach 
him  without  danger.'  Riclim,  in  his  exposition  of  the  term, 
uses  commonly  the  expression  'protecting  covering'  (schijtz- 
ende  Bedeckung), — an  expression  which  no  doubt  reads  more 
into  the  word  than  it  actually  denotes — for,  as  Schmoller  (p. 
282  f.)  observes,  kipper  is  c</Ht€gere  and  «i//tegere,  but  not  pro- 
tegere,  being  never  useii,  for  instance,  in  the  ordinary  sense  of 
'protecting, — but  which  is  still  a  useful  and  8Uggesti\e  para- 
phrase (cf.  'M.  2;J5  n.,  279,  where  it  is  allowed  that  '  protection,' 
though  not  denoted  directly  by  kipper,  is  neverthele.ss  an 
indirect  coiiJ<efjtience  of  it).  Schmoller,  in  his  exposition, 
starts  with  the  idea  of  eorerin(f  oi^er  (obmere),  in  tlie  sense 
of  causing  to  disappear,  making  unob8e^^'ed,  inoperative,  etc. 
These  explanations,  though  they  start  with  the  idea  of  '  cover- 
ing,' difler  little  in  the  end  from  that  which  would  be  reached 
by  starting  with  the  idea  of  '  wiping  out ' ;  but  it  is  a  question 
w'hether  some  modem  writers  do  not  press  the  idea  of  '  cover' 
unduly,  and  understand  it  in  a  too  literal  sense  (cf.  §§  1&,  17). 

5.  Kipper  is  u-^ed  in  three  applications,  which 
it  is  nece-^sary  to  distinguish,  (la)  A  human  sub- 
ject is  the  agent,  and  the  object  was  originally,  it 
seems,  the  face  of  the  ollended  person,  though,  in 
actual  usage,  it  is  mostly  the  oifended  person  (or 
persoiiilied  agency)  himself  ;  the  means  is  a  gift, 
an  entreaty,  conciliatory  behaviour,  etc.  The 
most  primary  example  of  this  application  appears 
to  occur  in  Gn  3'J-"  i^'*  (J),  where  Jacob  says  of 
Esau,  '  I  will  cover  his  face  with  a  present,'  i.e. 
conciliate  him  (©  i^Aiaoiuu),  the  figure  being  that 
of  a  person  whose  eyes  are  blinded  by  a  gift  so 
as  not  to  notice  something  (cf.  for  the  figure,  Gn 
20""  C'J'V  mo?  ;  Ex  23*  D'njs  tj;;  ^^i.••,^  -j  ;  Job  9'-"  'j? 
.19;;  n-E^p).  Hence,  'face'  being  omitted,  kijip,-r 
acquires  the  general  sense  of  to  conciliate,  jtru- 
pilirite,  ap])cnse :  Ex  32**  '  peradventure  I  shall 
make  propitiation  (■t:?:k)  for  your  sin'  (viz.  bv 
intercession,  v.'"-  ;  (5  i^iXiauimi  repl),  fig.  Pr  16''' 
(of  a  king's  wrath,  threatening  death)  'but  a  wise 
man  will  pro/titiate  it'  (viz.  by  conciliatory  be- 
haviour ;  6  i^i\d(rrrou),  Is  47"  (of  calamity)  '  thou 
shalt  not  be  able  to  propitiate  it '  (||  n-irnji  '  to  charm 
it  away ' ;  but  Griitz,  Buhl,  Choyne,  airs'  '  to  bribe 
it  away,'  cf.  I'r  G"  Heb.),  viz.  either  by  a  bribe 
(Is  13")  or  by  religious  ceremonies. 

6.  Here  may  be  best  explained  the  sub.st.  kopher, 
prop,  a  covering  (viz.  of  an  ofhmccO,  hence  a  pro- 
pitiatory gift,  but  restricted  by  usage  to  a  gift 
oirend  to  propitiate  or  satisty  the  avenger-of- 
blood,  and  so  the  satisfaction  ojjered  for  a  life,  i.e. 
a  ran.iom,  —  the  wehrgeld,  '  protection  -  money,' 
rigorously  prohibited  by  Hebrew  law  in  the  case 
of  murder,  but  admitted  in  certain  other  cases, 
and  evidently  a  well-known  institution:  Ex  21^ 
(JE);  1  S  12'  (a  bribe  to  screen  a  murderer;  so 
Am  5'-) ;  Ex  30"  F  (a  half-shekel,  to  be  paid  by 
every  one,  at  the  time  of  a  census,  as  the  ^v-:}  i;r, 
or  '  ransom  of  his  soul  (life),'  to  avert  a  plague, — 
such  as  might  be  apprehended  [cf.  2  S  '21]  under 
the  circumstances:  cf.  §  U  h) ;  Nu  35"'-  I'  (not  to 

•  Except  indeed  Is  281**,  where — unless,  with  some  modems, 
i5n^  or  ISH]  (from  nnp ;  cf.  24*^)  is  to  be  read— it  is  used  of 
annuiliiuj  a  treaty  ((g  «9iX*i ;  EV  'be  disannulled') — a  sense 
which  may  bo  derived  either  from  the  idea  of  covering  over, 
obtitercuing  (Ges.),  or  from  that  of  viping  or  blotting  out 
(of.  Peab.  "^s^ni '  be  wiped  out '). 
VOL.  IV. — 9 


be  accepted  from  a  murderer) ;  Pr  6"  (ofi'ered  in 
vain  for  the  life  of  an  adulterer;  ||' bribe');  13' 
('the  ransom  of  a  man's  soul  (life)  is  his  riches'); 
21'"  ('the  wicked  is  a  ransom  for  the  righteous' 
[see  11*]);  Is  43^  (Egypt  said  poetically  to  be  the 
'  ransom,'  which  J"  gives  to  Cyrus  in  lieu  of  Israel : 
II  'Seba  instead  of  thee') ;  Ps  49'  ('no  man  can  re- 
deem ['^^'^  a  brother  from  death,  or  give  God  a 
kopher  for  him  ') ;  tig.  of  the  discipline  of  suliering 
(conceived  as  delivering  from  death),  Job  3.3^ 
(II  '  redeem  him  [read  'm?]  from  going  down  into 
the  pit'),  3G"*[all]. 

7.  This  use  of  kopher  illustrates  2  S  21'.  Hero 
David  says  to  the  representatives  of  the  murderea 
Gibeonites,  '  Wherewith  shall  I  make  propitiation 
(15;!;;  (5  ^iiXdo-w/ioi)?'  a  moiiej'  kopher  is  refused 
jv.'),  and  the  kiiplier,  which  (though  the  word  is 
not  actually  used)  is  demanded,  and  given  to  J' 
(v."";  cf.  v.'  24'),  consists  of  the  lives  of  Saul's 
seven  sons:  comp.  also  Nu  35^  (P),  where  it  is  said 
that  blood  unjustly  shed  'profanes'  and  'defiles' 
a  land,  and  that  a  '  covering,'  or  propitiation,  can- 
not then  be  made  for  the  land  (nsp;  n'^  j"in^  ;  ®  ovk 
e^iXaadrjaerai  7)  yrj  diri  toO  oi'/iaros),  except  by  the 
blood  of  the  murderer. 

S.  There  is  an  analogous  group  of  cases,  (16)  in 
which  the  verb  is  in  the  passive  voice,  the  subject 
being  the  iniquit}',  and  the  means  a  purifying  rite, 
a  sacrifice,  or  repentance,  the  ell'ect  of  which  is 
that  the  olVence  is  conceived  as  hidden,  cancelled, 
or  made  inoperative  :  Dt  21*''  ('  and  the  blood  shall 
be  "covered"  {i.e.  annulled)'  for  them,'  viz.  Iw 
the  symbolical  execution  of  the  murderer,  vv.*- ' ; 
(5  {ii.\a<rBr)<nTai  oiW-ois),  IS  3"  ('the  iniquity  of 
Eli's  house  shall  not  be  "  covered "  t  (©  iiiKaa- 
B-fjaerai.)  by  sacrifice  or  minliah  for  ever').  Is  6' 
('thy  sin  sli.all  be  "  covered  "  t,'  viz.  by  the  coal 
from  the  altar  touching  the  prophet's  lijis ;  (S  irepi- 
Ka.ea.pi.ei  :  II  '  thine  iniquity  shall  depart '),  22'* 
('  Surely  tliis  iniquity  shalfnot  be  "covered"  t  for 
you,  until  ye  die':  (S  atpee-naerat),  27" t  (through 
the  abandonment  of  idolati-y ;  ©  a<pa.ipe9-/iaerai), 
Pr  10"!  (through  amendment  of  life;  (!5  airoKa- 
ealpovrai. :  cf.  2S'^^  Ezk  IS'-'-  ■').  J 

9.  (2)  In  the  second  class  of  cases  in  which 
kipper  is  used,  the  subject  is  God,  the  object  is 
either  the  oflender  or  the  olfence,  the  question  of 
means  does  not  here  arise,  but  the  motive,  in  so  far 
as  it  is  indicated,  is  the  free  grace  of  God, — repre- 
sented, however,  sometimes  as  called  into  activity 
by  a  purifying  or  expiatory  rile  :  the  idea  of  the 
verb  then  is  that  God  'covers,'  i.e.  treats  as 
covered,  overlooks,  pardons,  condones,  the  oflender 
or  the  ofience.  So  (a)  the  object  being  the  ojfcndcr, 
Dt  21*"  (J",  after  the  symbolical  expiatory  rite, 
vv.'-',  is  entreated  to  '  cover'  [AV  '  be  merciful  to," 
UV  'forgive';  (5 '/Xfws  yevou]  the  people,  guilty 
[implicitly]  of  an  untraced  murder),  3'2"  (rather 
dillcrently:  'will  "cover"  his  land,'  i.e.  cancel 
or  remove  the  stain  of  bloodshed  attaching  to  it, 
by  the  slaughter  of  those  who  have  shed  it ;  (S  /xKa- 
eapiei;  AV  'be  merciful  unto,'  IIV  'make  expiation 
for':  II  'avenge  the  blood  of  his  servants,  and  re- 
quite vengeance  to  his  adversaries'),  Ezk  16"° 
('when  I  "cover"  thee  {i.e.  act  proi)itiou3ly  to- 
wards thee;  (S  if  tv  i^CKiaaaOal  p-i  <roi),  wilh  regard 
to  all  that  thou  hast  done'),  2  Ch  SO'"  (EV  'par- 
don' ;  (5  iiCKiaOu  virip)  ;  and  (6)  the  object  being 
the  offence,  Jer  18^  (EV  '  forgive'  ;  05  aOviu),  I's 
Go's  ((5  iMtrvris  d<re8das),  78'»(' annulleth  inicmity 
and  destroyeth  not    ;   (5  IXdaerot   raU   dp.. ),    79"   § 

•  EV  'forgiven,' which  no  doubt  expresses  falrlv  the  general 
sense,  but  obliterates  the  distinctive  character  of  the  lleb.  word 
U8ed(ef.  s  15,  towards  the  end). 

t  KV  'purged,'  substituting  an  Idea  not  at  all  contained  in 
the  Ilcb.     ItVm  '  Or,  expiated.' 

:  Comp.  tor  the  thought  Sir  S»-»  (Ileb.  nnsn  "VOSn  np-i)i) 
S.-.1  (.Iwetc  82  (35)  »). 

§  lev  '  purge  away ' :  see  the  last  note  but  one. 


130 


PROPITIATION 


PROPITIATION 


((!5  l\d<r6riTi  T015  a/i.),  Dn  9"  (RVm  '  purge  away' ; 
Theod.  ds-aXet^ai  tAs  ddiKias  [=  LXX]  Kal  tov 
i^tXdaajSai  dSixfas), — the  object  in  all  these 
cases  being  either  'iniquity'  or  'transgression,' 
end  there  being  no  reference  to  any  propitiatory 
rite.  Cf.  (though  with  a  reference  to  sacriUce) 
Sir  34'9  (Swete  31  (34)  ^). 

10.  (3)  Tlie  third  class  of  eases  in  which  kipper 
is  used  belongs  to  the  distinctively  legal  termin- 
ology (almost  entirely  Ezk  and  P :  Ha  nearly 
always  i^i\d<rKoixat  wcpL :  EV  mostly  '  to  make 
atonement';  see  §  2).  Here  the  subject  is  the 
priest,  *  the  means  usually  a  sacrihce,  though 
occasionally  it  is  (see  §  11  h-m)  some  other  act  or 
ofl'ering,  regarded  as  vindicating  the  holiness  of  the 
community  in  which  Jehovah  dwells,  and  hence  as 
reinstating  it  in  His  favour :  the  object  is  never 
the  sin,  but  (as  commonly  understood)  the  person 
(or  thing)  on  whose  behalf  the  propitiation  is  made, 
the  verb — which  is  construed  mostly  with  "75;  or 
nj;?,  and  only  rarely,  in  some  of  the  cases  in  which 
the  object  ia  something  material  (the  altar  or  the 
sanctuary),  with  a  direct  accusative  (Lv  le-""- "**, 
Ezk  43»'-'«  45™  [©  ^?iX.  with  accus.])— being  inter- 
preted as  signifying  properly  to  cover  up  (cf.  njj 
7S,  and  nj;?  iJD),  or  screen,  by  a  n?3,  or  covering 
(propitiatory)  gift  (so  Riehm,  30-32;  Dillm.; 
Schmoller,  tliough  undecidedlj',  p.  284). 

Wellh.  (Compos.^  336),  observinfj^  the  analog'y,  as  re^rds  the 
subject  and  the  means,  with  the  cases  grouped  under  (1), 
supposes  that  the  object  was  ori*;maUy  'Jehovah's  face'  (cf. 
Gn  3220,  cited  §  6;  and  the  phrase  '•  'JS'nx  n'^n,  lit.  'make 
sweet  the  face  of  J",'  EV  '  beseech,'  or  '  entreat  the  favour  of,' 
Ex  3211, 1  S  1312,  1  K  138  etc.),  but  that  in  process  of  time  the 
object  came  to  be  omitted,  and  the  verb  was  construed  abso- 
lutely, to  perform  a  propitiatory  rite  (h'ppurirn) :  construed 
with  an  accus.,  it  would  then  mean  (analogously  with  15;',  etc., 
Ge3.-Kautzsch,  §f.2/))fo  af^ct  with  a  jiropitiatorii  riie.  So  far 
as  the  ideas  associated  witli  the  word  are  concerned,  it  is  in- 
different which  of  these  explauations  of  the  constructioo  is 
adopted. 

11.  We  must  next  consider  of  what  different 
sacrifices,  or  other  rites,  tapper,  in  this  third  class 
of  cases,  is  predicated.     It  is  predicated,  viz., 

(a)  of  the  iitrni-oUering,  Lv  1«  14-'"  16'^ ;  cf.  Ezk 

4515.  17_ 

(6)  of  the  .vMiVi-offering  (nyx),  Lv  5"- "  6'  7'  14'8 

(see  vv.i'--  "),  vv.  •-'•  =«  (see  vv.'i>-*>)  19==,  Nu  5*. 

(c)  of  the  «m-oii'ering.  Ex  29*=-  ^  30'»,  Lv  42»-  =«•  si-  ^ 

66.13  630  §15.34  ion  1419  16  (i4_i5  times  [on 

v.'"  see  Kalisch,  Dillm.,  and  above,  i.  199«.]) 
23'-«,  Nu  15-=»  'I'S'^- »»  '29»,  Ezk  43^-  *<  45*',  2  Ch 
292*,  Neh  10^. 

(rf)  of  the  «m-oii'ering  and  the  6Mm<-offering  to- 
gether, Lv  5'"  9'  I2'5'- '  14^'  iS"-  i",  Nu  6"'  8" 
(cf.  v.*'")  15--"-. 

(e)  of  blood  in  general  (as  containing  the  'soul,' or 
life),  Lv  17"  H  ('  I  have  given  it  to  you  upon 
the  altar  to  make  propitiutlon  for  your 
souls  ;  for  tlie  blood,  it  mnkcth  propitiation 
bv  means  of  the  .soul  [life]'):  cf.  6^  8"*  16-'; 
also  W^,  where  the  blood  of  the  slain  bird 
(with  other  ceremonies)  '  makes  propitia- 
tion '  for  the  leprous  liouse. 

{/)  of  the  '  ram  of  installation  (d"!*^?),'  and  the 
bread,  oll'ered  at  the  consecration  of  the 
high-priest,  Ex  2y»  (see  vv. >»-2»- S2). 

{g)  of  the  meal-  and  /jectce-ofiering,  only  in  Ezk 
4515. 17  (possibly,  also,  though  not  probably, 
of  the  meal-ottering  in  Lv  U-"- "  :  see  §  13). 

Kappcr  is  attributed,  further,  to 

(h)  tlie  half-shekel,  to  be  i)aid  bv  every  one  at  a 
census,  as  the  kappcr  of  liis  'soul'  (life). 
Ex  30'»- '«  (probably  [cf.  Riehm,  24  f.  ; 
Dillm.]  as  an  acknowledgment  of  member- 
ship in  the  theocracy,  upon  an  occasion 
when  the  sins  and  imperfections  of   indi- 

•Or  sometimes  (Lv  1«  17",  Ex  sol »  16,  Nu  SI*  SS")  the 
^^ering  ;  but  the  difference  is  immaterial. 


viduals  would  come  prominently  nndet 
Jehovah's  notice) ;  cf.  §  6. 
(»)  the  appointment  of  the  Levites  as  authorized 
representatives  of  the  Israelites  to  perform 
menial  duties  about  the  sanctuary,  Nu  8" 
(lay  Israelites,  approaching  the  holy  vessels, 
etc.,  would  do  so  at  risk  of  their  lives  [cf. 
1822  pi.  Mj .  (^ijg  Levites,  doing  it  on  their 
behalf,  prevent  Jehovali's  wrath  from  mani- 
festing itself  in  a  plague  [cf.  the  same  ex- 
pression in  Ex  30'-],  and  are  therefore  said 
to  '  make  propitiation  '  on  their  behalf). 
(/)  the  incense  by  which  Aaron  appeased  Jeho- 
vah's anger,  and  arrested  the  plague,  Nu 
16«'-  (Heb.  17"'-). 
(k)  the  punishment  of  a  conspicuous  offender, 
Nu  '25''  (the  occasion  on  which  Phinehas, 
interposing  with  the  sword,  '  turned  away ' 
Jehovah's  '  wrath '  from  the  Israelites,  and 
arrested  the  plague  :  see  v."). 
(I)  the  ottering  of  tlie  spoil  taken  from  the 
Midianites,  Nu  31^  ('  to  make  propitiation 
for  our  souls  before  J" ' ;  probably,  as  in 
Ex  SO"-'*,  in  view  of  the  numbering  of 
the  men  of  war,  v.^'  [where  the  phrase  is 
the  same  as  in  Ex  ZQ" ;  cf.  also  v."''  with 
Ex  30»"'ll. 
(to)  the  blood  of  a  murderer,  making  expiation 

for  blood  unjustly  shed,  Nu  35**. 
All  these  passages  belong  to  P. 
12.  The  following  additional  facts  Avith  regard 
to  the  usage  of  kipper  deserve  al.so  to  be  noted. 

(a)  It  is  construed  with  p  'from'  of  the  ott'ence 
(or  uncleanness), — RV  'as  concerning,'  'because 
of,'  'for,'  but  more  probably  (so  Riehm,  60 f.; 
Schmoiler,  254  f.,  284;  cf.  Diilm.  on  Lv  4»«)  to  be 
understood  in  the  sense  of  '  (clearing)  from '  ('shall 
make  propitiation  for  \\\m  from  his  sin'),  Lv  4-» 
56.10  1419  (.from  his  uncleanness'),  IS"-*"  16"^-i«", 
Nu  6"  ;  and  with  '^v  '  on  account  of,'  Lv  4''  5"-  " 
6'  19"  (RV  'as  touching,'  '  concerning,'  '  for'). 

(6)  It  is  followed  by  'and  it  shall  be  forgiven 
him  (them),'  in  the  case  of  the  sin-oft'ering,  Lv 
4-.:o.  26.31.  S5  510. 13^  Nu  1525. 28  ((.f_  v.-«);  .and  in  the  case 
of  the  guilt-ottering,  Lv  S'"-  '^  6'  19-=.  (These  are 
the  only  passages  in  the  Law,  except  Nu  SO"-  '•  ", 
in  which  n^?  'to  forgive,'  occurs). 

(c)  It  is  closely  associated  (but  only  where  pre- 
dicated of  the  sin-ottering)  with  '  to  be  clean  '  (in-j), 
or 'to  cleanse'  (ina),  Lv  12'- «  14-»- '»• "  16'»-%  Nu 
8=',  Ezk  43-»,  cf.  2  Ch  30'8 ; 
with   'to  sanctify,'    Ex  W"-^-",    Lv  8"  IG", 

Nu  6" ; 
and  with  'to  free  from  sin'  (nEn),  Ex  29''  (EV, 
very  inadequately,  'cleanse'),  Lv  8">  (EV  'puri- 
fied' !),  14*-"  [see  v.""]  of  the  leprous  house  (EV 
'cleanse'),  Nu  8"  (RV  '  puriUed  from  sin'),  Ezk 
4320. 22  (.  cleanse,'— of  the  altar,  as  Ex  29'")  45-*  (see 
v."), — in  all  the  cases  with  nan,  of  a  material 
object,  \\hich  the  Hebrews  regarded  as  capable  of 
being  infected  with  sin  (Schmoller,  222,  261). 

(rf)  Cf.  kippurim, '  propitiation '  (EV '  atonement '),  used  («)  of 
a  sin-ofterins,  Ex  2936  3010,  Nu  29"  ;  (^)of  a  piilt-otfering,  Nu  68 : 
(y)  in  the  expression  '  day  of  propitiation  (atonement),'  Lv  23'-^-  88 
SiV.*;  (i)'propitiation.money,'of  the  half-shekel  paid  at  a  census, 
Ex  3016.  It  is  probable  also  (whatever  the  ultimate  orif^'in  of 
the  term  may  have  been)  that  the  idea  of  propitiation  was  felt 
to  attach  to'  kamurcth  (EV  '  mercy-seat ') ;  cf.  what  is  said  OD 
this  subject  in  Lemticxui  (in  Haupt's  SBOT),  p.  80 1. 

(e)  The  object  of  kipper  is  usually  an  individual 
or  the  community  ;  but  sometimes  it  is  a  material 
object, — in  particular  the  altar  of  burnt-ollering, 
(at  the  time  of  its  consecration)  Ex  29'"'- ",  Lv  8'*, 
Ezk  43-"-  "*,  (on  the  annual  Day  of  Atonement)  Lv 
1618.20.33.  tiie  sanctuary  (on  the  same  occasion), 
Ex  SO""  [in  v.'o*  the  prep,  has  probably  a  local 
force],  Lv  16'"-  *■  ^,  Ezk  45^  ;  a  house  infected  with 
leprosy,  Lv  14" ;  cf.  of  the  goat  sent  to  Azazel,  Lt 
16'0(see  Dillm.). 


PROPITIATION 


PROPITIATION 


131 


13.  It  floes  not  fall  within  the  scope  of  the 
present  article  to  investigate  the  character  or 
rationale  of  Sacrifick,  except  in  so  far  as  this  is 
expressed  by  the  term  kapper.  Confining  ourselves 
therefore  to  this,  we  may  draw  from  the  data  col- 
lected in  §§  10-12  the  following  conclusions  with 
regard  to  the  significance  of  this  term  in  its  legal 
or  ceremonial  applications  (which  are  to  be  care- 
fully distinguished  from  the  ea;<ra-legal  usages, 
analj-zed  in  §§  5,  7-9).  In  the  legal  terminology  it 
is  especially  associated  with  the  siJi-otlering,  of 
which  it  designates  tlio  most  distinctive  and  char- 
acteristic operation  ;  it  is  also  frequently,  though 
not  so  characteristicallv,  predicated  of  the  guilt- 
offering  (the  dsham),  tliat  ditt'erentiated  type  of 
sin-oH'ering  prescribed  for  cases  in  which  injury 
has  been  done  to  the  rights  of  another  person.  To 
the  6«m<-oH'ering,  ofi'ered  aloue,  it  is  attributed 
only  in  Lv  I*  14-"  16^  (cf.  Ezk  45'»-  ";  also  Job  1' 
42*),  on  the  ground,  it  seems,  that,  though  not  a 
proper  propitiatory  sacrifice,  it  was  a  mark  of  the 
worshipper's  devotion,  and,  bein^  offered  '  for  his 
favour  (acceptance)  before  J"'  (Lv  1*  ^li")^),  and 
accepted  Cii"  n>-;:i)  accordingly,  moved  Him  to  regard 
him  graciously,  and  to  overlook  his  moral  insutU- 
ciency ;  elsewhere  it  is  not  attributed  to  it  ex- 
pressly,* but  only  (§  11  rf)  when  it  is  closely  associ- 
ated with  the  sin  -  ofi'ering,  for  the  purpose  (as 
seems  to  be  frequently  the  case)  of  enhancing  the 
significance  of  the  latter  ;  and,  indeed,  Lv  H'-"  16" 
(of.  vv.'-  °)  might  almost  be  regarded  as  falling  under 
this  category.  Ezekiel  (45"-  ")  attributes  it  to  tlie 
peace-  and  meal-  oflering  ;  in  H,  also,  it  is  attributed 
to  the  peace-  (and  burnt-)  offerings,  in  virtue  of 
what  is  said  about  the  '  blood '  in  Lv  17"  (cf.  v.*) ; 
in  the  system  of  P  it  is  not  attributed  directly  to 
either  of  these,  for  the  meal-offering  in  Lv  14-'"'-" 
holds  such  a  secondary  place  that  it  cannot  be 
treated  with  any  confidence  as  participating  in  the 
kappara.  The  kapjidrd  is  specially  the  function 
of  the  blood  (see  Lv  17"  [H] ;  and  cf.,  in  the  ritual 
of  the  sin-offering.  Ex  30'»,  Lv  4.  6»<°i  8">  16""- 1»'- ", 
Ezk  43*>  45""-),  on  account,  as  is  expressly  said  in 
Lv  17",  of  its  being  the  seat  of  the  '  soul '  or  life, 
the  most  precious,  and  also  the  purest  and  most 
immaterial  gift  that  can  be  offered  to  God  ;  the 
only  exception  (among  sacrifices)  being  one  that 
proves  the  rule,  viz.  (Lv  5")  the  vegetable  offering 
allowed  as  a  substitute  for  the  usual  sin-offering, 
when  the  latter  was  beyond  the  means  of  the 
offerer.  Hence  the  later  llabb.  dictum  ( Yomd  5a) 
C73  K^(ji  ,-055  I'N  '  there  is  no  kappara  except  with 
blood '  (cf.  He  9-), — which,  however,  is  not  true 
universally  (see  the  cases,  §  11  h-m,  esp.  Ex  30'"-), 
but  only  in  so  far  as  sacrifice  is  concerned. 

14.  'I'lie  effect  of  the  kappara  is  a  purification, 
sometimes  from  sin,  sometimes  (Lv  12.  14.  15,  Nu  6) 
from  merely  ceremonial  defilement,  sin  being  re- 
garded as  a  stain,  and  the  defilement,  whether  ritual 
or  moral — for  in  P  the  two  are  not  clearly  distin- 
guished (see  Law,  vol.  iii.  p.  72* ;  and  cf.  Sclimoller, 
280) — being  conceived  as  either  made  invisible  and 
inoperative,  or  else  as  actually  obliterated  ;  it  is 
regarded  as  withdrawn  from  Jehovah's  eyes  (cf.  Ps 
61" ;  and  contrast  00*) ;  it  no  longer  comes  be- 
tween Him  and  man  :  He  neither  sees  nor  imputes 
it.  The  aim  of  tlie  priestly  legislation  is  to  main- 
tain the  ideal  lioliness  of  the  theocratic  community 
(Law,  ib.  p.  70  f.)  ;  and  the  kappara  is  the  primary 
means  by  which  this  is  effected.  Sometimes  cleans- 
ing (moral  or  ceremonial)  is  expressly  mentioned  as 
the  effect  of  the  rite  (see  §  12  c  ;  and  note  esp.  Lv 
le"  'on  this  day  shall  propitiation  be  made  for 
you  to  cleanse  you  ;  from  all  your  sins  ye  sluM  be 
clean  before  J  ).  As  prescribed  for  the  priests 
(Ex  29»,  Lv  9')  and  Levites  (Nu  8^').  before  admis- 

*  The  cxtim-leg&l  panage,  1  8  3"  (i  8),  Is  not  evidence  of  the 
Uau  uaodated  witb  kipptr  Id  the  ocremoniiU  system  o(  P. 


sion  to  their  sacred  duties,  it  is  a  readily  intelli- 
gible rite  of  preliminary  lustration  (Riehm,  7G  f. ; 
SchmoUer,  234  f.,  245).  Enjoined  for  a  material 
object,  the  altar  or  the  sanctuary,  its  aim  is  to 
secure  or  maintain  its  holiness  :  the  altar,  prior  to 
its  consecration,  is  regarded  as  affected  by  the 
natural  impurity  of  human  workmanship,  which 
has  to  be  removed ;  the  sanctuary,  frequented  as 
it  was  by  a  sinful  and  unclean  people,  is  contami- 
nated by  their  sins,  and  accordinglj'  requires  a 
periodical  purification  (Riehm,  54-57  ;  SchmoUer, 
221  f.,  242,  202) ;  the  leprous  house  (Lv  14")  is  con- 
ceived as  tainted  by  sin  (§  12  c) ;  the  '  scape-goat,' 
offered  by  the  sinful  people,  requires  to  be  purified 
before  it  can  discharge  the  solemn  functions 
assigned  to  it  (Riehm,  55  ;  Dillm.  ;  etc.).  On  the 
part  of  God  the  efi'ect  of  the  kappara  is  more  par- 
ticularly specified, — at  least  in  the  sin-  and  guilt- 
otl'ering, — as  forgiveness, — conditional,  as  we  may 
suppose  would  be  understood  by  the  more  spiritual 
Israelites,  on  the  penitence  of  the  oU'erer,  though 
this  is  not  stated  in  the  laws  as  distinctly  and 
regularly  as  might  be  expected  (cf.  Lv  5°  16-',  Nu 
5';  Schultz,  Of  T/teol.  ii.  99  f.):  it  should,  how- 
ever,  in  this  connexion  be  remembered  tliat  kapper 
was  in  general  possible  only  for  unintentional  {or 
venial)  sins  *  (above,  vol.  L  201''  note  ;  Schultz,  i. 
382 f.,  388 f.,  394 f.,  ii.  87-89:  cf.  Ezk  45^,  where 
'  erreth '  =  sins  inadvertently).  Sins  committed  wil- 
fully, '  with  a  high  hand'  (Nu  15*"*),  i.e.  in  a  spirit 
of  presumptuous  defiance,  challenging  God's  anger, 
lie  outside  the  sphere  within  which  the  kappara 
ordinarily  operates ;  hence,  as  predicated  of  the 
regular  Levitical  sacrifices,  it  is  never  described  as 
appeasing  God  (cf.  §  2  end),  nor  is  it  ever  implied 
that  the  offerer  of  such  a  sacrifice  is  outside  God's 
dispensation  of  grace,  or  the  object  of  His  wrath  ; 
the  cases  §  11  j  k  are  exceptional;  at  most  (§  11 
A  t  /)  it  may  be  said  to  be  a  means  of  averting  it 
(Rielim,  30,  37,  85;  AT  T/teol.  132;  cf.  Schultz,  i. 
394). 

15.  From  what  has  been  said,  it  will  be  seen 
that  kipper  is  a  difficult  word  to  represent  satis- 
factorily in  English.  'Cover' — or  'wipe  out,'  if 
that  view  of  the  original  sense  of  the  word  be 
adopted  —  is  too  colourless  :  '  make  atonement ' 
(at-one-ment,  reconciliation)  may  express  a  con- 
sequence of  kipper,  but  it  is  not  what  the  word 
itself  denotes.  It  has  always — or  almost  always — 
a  religious,  and  mostly  a  ritual  colouring  :  it  is  to 
cover  (metaphorically)  by  a  gift,  offering,  or  rite, 
or  (if  God  be  the  subject)  to  treat  as  covered :  the 
ideas  associated  with  the  word  are  thus  to  jnake 
(or  treat)  as  luirmlcss,  non-existent,  or  inoperative, 
to  annul  (so  far  as  God's  notice  or  regard  is  con- 
cerned), to  withdraw  from  God's  sight,  with  the 
attached  ideiis  of  reinstating  in  His  favour,  free- 
ing from  sin,  and  restoring  to  holiness, — especially 
(but  not  exclusively),  when  the  subject  is  a  human 
agent,  by  the  species  of  sacrifice  called  the  'sin- 
offering.'  It  is  a  stronger,  more  significant  syno- 
nym of  N?n  to  '  un-sin,'  and  V15  to  '  purify  or 
'  cleanse.'  There  appears  to  be  no  one  English  word 
which  combines,  or  suggests,  ideas  such  as  these. 
Even  to  '  make  propitiation '  accentuates  some- 
what unduly  a  particular  side,  or  aspect,  of  what 
is  involved  in  kipper  (cf.  §  1  end) ;  though  the  fact 
that  the  ideas  just  indicated  were  associated  with 
the  word  in  conjunction  with  a  rite,  would  point 
rather  naturally  in  tlie  direction  of  such  a  mean- 
ing, which  the  nearly  habitual  rendering  of  the 
LXX,  {ii)i\d(rKotuu,  shows  was  felt  to  attach  to 
the  word  in  the  3rd  cent.  D.C.  Nevertlieless, 
esp.  in  view  of  the  LXX,  and  NT  l\a<rnSs,  this  is 
on  the  whole  the  best  rendering  of  k-ipper  in  ita 
ritual  sense,  the  cases  grouped  under  §§  8,  9  being 
represented,  for  consistency,  by  deal  propitiously 
•  See,  however,  Lv  6»-'  Wm,  Nu  6M. 


I 


Whether,  in   actual 


ivith,   or  be  propitious  to. 
usage, 

«niritual  dcatli  (see  Kedeemer)  ;  as  a  -caTaXXaT'i, 
se  t  ."  '  at  one,'  or  rccoru^iUng,  God  and  man  and 
hrin  "incr  to  an  end  the  alienation  between  them  ; 
^X.''^ propitiation,  breaking,  d?-"  ^Ue  barner 
thlclT  sin^int^rposes  between  5od  and  man,  and 

enabUng  God  to  enter  ag^OT  Attached  espea 
him.     '  Prop  tiation    is  in  the  0 1  attatuea  esp«V^ 
X  to  the  lin-ofiering,  and  to  the  faorifice  of  the 
bl  Tod  (or  life) ;  and  Christ,  by  the  giving  up  ot  ilis 
I^nlesi  lifeTamuls  the  power  of  sin  to  separate 
between  God  and  the  believer,  by  a  sacriface  an- 
alogous to  those  offered  by  the  J7;';  {^  P"tTONE 
infinitely   more  efficacious  (see,  further,   ATONE 
MRNT  Mediation,  Reconciuation). 
"n^'lt  remains  oily  ,to  notice  brieflv  the  different 
view  of   kappcr  which  is  developed  by  K  tschl, 
^.'i-htfcHlaunq    u.    Versdhnung\    u.     1O-8O    (on 
i«tir      f84-210.      Kapper,   Ritschl    argues    (p. 
ffi),''is    attributed    to    a«    °^'''°^?' }Xlo 
gveness  (imv-lying  the   presence  of  sm)  only^  to 
the    sin-    anA  guilt-otienng:   it  is  thus  *_  tai^se 


plied  in  the  passages  quoted),  ""r  is  it  ever  re- 
■— '^^s^^^SJrtoi^'^.^'^^lai^ 

:i.LiiS'^:^n^-atfwlu:r-^i^ 

&"■  415. 19.  =0  1710  18»-  »»• »  ;  cf.  I-  8"  18»).  In  pref- 
^rente  therefore  to  having  recourse  to  an  expla. 
nation  both  artificial  in  itselt   anjl  also  w^  b  «. 

'5i^.-i-^^^-ixs^« 

•ZZ-m'-%T  neutralizing,  the  offerer  s  unworthi- 
P^°,^^  j!°"  .i  „r-,hnl,le-. '  orotection,'  as  said  above 


^rZ  a'^at^oSe^;;^:   it  is  thus  a.f^^MFotecUon^  nioreu^^^^ 

tpneralizption  to  suppose  that  its  purpose  is  the    ^^.''^.f^^^Te    ^  "condary  and  indirect  conse.iuence 
generalizauon  1^"      f  i;        nnnclusion  is  conhrmed    (§4),  may  be  a  seconua  j  ,irimarv  and  im- 


3   suppose    Luat    •>»   f"'f , 

?;mov"»rof  3in ;  and  this  conclusion  is  conhrmed 
bv  the  fact  that  there  are  many  cases  of  purely 
X'^a/uLcleanness.for  which,  nevertheless^^n. 
offering  involving  it  is  prescribed.  In  f act,  AMWer 
hS  essentially  (p.  203)  no  relaUon  «  «» ;  '^  « 
'coverine'  of  persons,  spoken  of  in  the  priesuy 
la'sdoe!  not  'mean  the  -vering  of  ^-r  ^^It 
hut  their  protection,  in  order,  viz.,  that— in  accoru. 

f^^r.  ^  U  6»)-tS  -ay  be  able  to  appear 
bffore  God  without  risk  of  their  lives ;  the  neces- 
sftv  of  such  •  protection'  depends  however  not 
ujon   man's  sinfulness,  but  upon  bis    cr^^^fel^ 

r.^t^}:^;ie!^'s^\^o^'^v^^ 


ff  ^I'^r;  beTsecrndary  ^and  Indirect  conse,™ 
Tkappt,  but  it  is  not  at  all  tbe  l--aig  and  im- 

itsuinu»  u^  I    ^_j     same  connexions,  §  l-i<-), 

material,  as  well  as  moral,  dehlemenU. 

L,„„,„^.,_The  two  ve^  Ml  discussions  tha^ 

from  i-K,  is.  r,  PP^/-^ .W'f  p7°ot2SS  ;  SchulU.  OT  Theo.  .. 
SehmoUer.  ii.,  1»91.  ^^'if-  Ke  fhTnlW  (19001  285-91,  301-4, 
S97-400,  and  ^'"^•/'^':^,,°{,b"'cl^"..^' 335f. :  Smeid,  AT 
809-13;  D.llm.on  Lv  <'%•  ^;.^Vf 'o^o .T b  Davidson,  •"  Atone" 
Hel.-oesch.  321 ;  Nowack,  ^jfL^-^M^'  fso"  p92fl.  SchulU'l 
in  Extra-ritual.Uterature,  ;5^?*- f  "f„p„^'iSates  to  that  ol 
view  of  the  ntual  s"'^^.  »'  ^'^g^^  ffi  an  ethical  motive  •« 
BiUchl,  though  he  /e^as  the  .dea  that  .  ,„„,,,„,e  • 


offerin")    its    occasion.       n-    i""""\  "r"'^,^^^  I  «''«'=*''• '''°"?-    ■? 'h'jnnidrendc^^^^^ 
Ritscht's  view,  kipper  ought  not  to  be  translated  j  „ever  involveS  m  jt :  hej^ould^endcr^the^w^  _^^^^^ 

•make    propitiation'    (or    'atonement ^    at    all 

accordin-'lv,  he  condemns  (p.   1991.)  tue  renuer 

?Sr  'sUhnen'   as    introducing    'oujy.   confusion 

which  was  not  really  its  equivalent. 

This  theory  is  controverted  at  length  by  l»th 
Riehm  (esp.  pp.  37  f.,  46-8,  51  f  ,  0--9    -2-8^  83-6. 

one  .&aing  in  some  parts  upon  a  combination 
"relenents  which  are  not  comb  ned  together  in 
the  OT  and  in  others  emphasizing  features  and 
principles  which  do  not  really,  in  the  e!^;;^a  .10°  - 
a  whole,  possess  the  prominence  and  si-niUcancc 
wlch  are  attached  to  them.  The  crucial  quesUon 
undoubtedly  is.  What  does  the  ^"Z;/"";"  ' -^Y^fi, " 
R  tsclil's  view  that,   as  it  is  predicated  of    the 

burnt    Ld  leace-offering,  in  which  there  is  no 

auction  o   s\n.  it  must  cover  man's  creaturehness 

^Xc     cannot 'subsist  in  God's  Pre?ence  witjjou 

«nch    'protection,'  introduces    an   idea  which  is 

nowherrbrtught  into  connexion  wiU.   sacnfu=e^ 

Tn  annroach  God  (with  sacrifice)  is  by  no  means 

WentE  with   'seeing'   Him  (in    the  sense  im- 


iever  involvea  in  it :  ^^J^"  -J^^a  conrequenily  (ph.vs,..ally 
Itreihen)  :  man  is  "y  """''^''^'ifr.  „:"  |,  unto  God  :  the  priest,  by 
Ld  morally)  <?°«f  ^^^.^  ^™  uovfr  Se  creaturely  unworthf- 
the  'covering   nte,  'l™'^^.^  "^  °  =  requires  it,  over  his 

„es»  of  the  offerer  -and  also  ^f  the  case  ^^^  ^^.^^^  .^_ 

r^t^erl^a-nJSrg-  l™e;;t"5yahl,nl-  him  to  draw  near 
tS  to  Wgh  and  holy  God  without  danger.  ^    ^    ^^^^^^ 

PROSELYTE  (^po,ri5\irro5,  from  yo<,ipx^<^e<it. :  liU 

•'7^el't>^:o'o|3"i^'^ife-.gdin^sach^ 

,,.„x*,  ««  'i^;' JTIo«^"hough  more  often  in  such  phrases  as 
,,.r,x»f«  .. -^i  "  1-    .^       fc        participles   are  used,  viz. 

thv  Kates'  in  Ex  io'",  ui  o     •  '^'  ■  j,  pj,    g     ^ 


PROSELYTE 


PROSELYTE 


133 


one  who  takes  up  his  residence  in  a  foreign  land, 
and  80  puts  liimself  under  the  protection  of  a 
foreign  i)eoi)le,  as  a  client ;  i>articularly  a  forei^er 
thus  residing  in  Palestine.*  The  classical  equivalent 
is  iirijXiii  or  iTrr)\im]i  (adccnn) ;  but  the  technical 
name  of  such  a  foreign  resident  was  fiiroiKoj 
(inroln),  to  which  LXX  irdpotKos  [ijl4toikos  occurs  Jer 
20»  only]  corresponds.  In  NT  (Mt  23",  Ac  2">  6» 
13*^)  JT^ocnJXwos  is  coninionly  understood  to  mean  a 
foreign  convert  to  the  Jiwisli  religion,  apro.ii'li/te  in 
our  sense  of  the  word. t  It. seems  to  havelost  all  con- 
nexion with  residence  in  Palestine,  for  the  prose- 
lytes referred  to  in  Ac  2'"  13"  live  in  foreign  lands. 

When  did  the  word  lose  the  local  (political)  and 
gain  this  liual  technical  (religious)  sense?  Its 
meaning  in  the  LXX  is  somewhat  disputed. 
Geiger  (Ursrhrift,  p.  35311.)  maintains  that  it  is 
there  strictly  eiiuivalent  to  gCr  in  its  original 
sense,  while  \V.  C.  Allen  (Expositor,  1894,  .\.  267- 
275)  argues  that  the  LXX  uses  tlie  word  con- 
sistently in  the  final  sense  ol proscbjte.  This  wide 
divergence  of  view  is  possible  because  the  Hebrew 
word  yir  itself  becomes  almost  eijuivalent  to  prose- 
lyte in  P.  J  The  ideal  of  Judaism  is  that  there 
shall  be  no  vincircumcised  alien  in  the  Uoly  Land. 
But  it  cannot  be  proved  that  Trpoir^Xuros  connects 
itself  consistently  with  these  OT  approaches  of 
ger  to  its  liiial  (Mishnic)  sense.  It  is  true  that 
«-dpono!  stands  for  giir  in  several  passages  where 
the  sense  '  proselj'te '  would  be  especially  inappro- 
priate, as  where  Israel,  or  an  Israelite,  is  called 
a  gCr  in  a  foreign  land  (tJn  15",  l)t  23',  Gn  23*, 
Ex  2^  W),  or  in  God's  land  (Ps  39'»  119",  1  Ch 
29'"),  where  God  is  Himself  a  gir  (.Jer  14*),  or 
where  the  law  for  the  gUr  difl'ers  from  that  for  the 
home-bom  (Dt  U^  contra  Lv  17'°).  Cut  on  the 
other  hand  no  very  obvious  reason  for  the  render- 
ing exists  in  2  S  1'"  ;  and — what  is  more  important 
— ^Israelites  are  elsewhere  called  vpoaiiXvroi.  in 
Egypt  (Ex  22-'  23»,  Lv  19«,  Dt  10"),  or  In  God's 
land  (Lv  25-') ;  the  word  is  closely  parallel  to 
irdpootos  (Lv  2.J'''- ")  ;  circumcision  is  specially  re- 
quired of  a  7r/)oiTi)\iTos  before  he  can  eat  the  Pass- 
over (Ex  12'");  and  in  two  passages  where  a 
proselyte  pro[ior  is  meant,  the  Aramaic  word 
•yf.w/»s  is  used  (Ex  12"',  Is  14').§ 

It  is  certain  tliat  the  LXX  7rpo<ni\i/roi,  even  if  he 
is  often  a  circumcised  convert,  remains  always  a 
foreign  resident  in  Palestine.  Of  an  apjilication  of 
the  word  to  a  convert  to  Judaism  who  still  resides 
in  a  foreign  land  there  is  no  trace.H  Tliis  distin- 
guishes tlie  L.\X  use  from  that  of  the  NT.  In 
an  interesting  mistranslation  of  Is  54"  LXX  reads, 
'  Behold,  proselytes  will  come  to  thee  through  me, 
and  will  sojourn  with  tliee,  and  will  llee  to  thee  for 
refuge.' H  The  religious  sense  blen<ls  witli  the 
local,  but  does  not  dis|daee  it.  It  is  therefore 
impossible  to  make  the  word  simply  equivalent  to 
'convert.'  The  tendency  of  the  L.\X  to  translate 
gir  by  irpoo-iiXin-os  is  stronger  than  its  sense  of  this 

oever  translates  any  other  root,  but  Ifl  found  Mrithout  Hebrew 
e<^uivak'nt  in  Lv  17^,  l)t  10'^**  I'.il'*;  la  541*  (fives  au  interesting 
miHtranilation.     'IvrrAiiref  occurB  only  in  Job  20'^. 

•  •  Tf^g'Xirrt  is  diatin^iiiahed  on  the  one  side  from  the  native 
iBmclite  (o  flttiTej;^*™,  i  ly^ufiiM,  6i  i/j#i  *I^/)(Er,A),  arifl  on  the  other 
from  tiie  forci^rncr  (e  ayjMpict,  i  »xx^i*xt),  Tho  diutinction 
from  i  rxp^iiut  is  leas  clear,  and  does  oot  perfectly  correspond 
to  that  between  g^  and  tAshub. 

i  So  Theodoret :  v^^JUJrei/f  hi  ijUtXcw  rouf  M  rSy  idfiSt  wp*r- 
litreit  xatJ  ryf  toujxnv  woXiTliett  etffWet^ou4Mt/(  ',  and  8ui(lajl  ;  »i  l£ 
iStvt  vperl>.f:>.u9eTt!  K^i   Kecric  tcuof  T»^>ir«»rlf  ^ohftClftiaJ. 

t  See,  r.g.,  Lv  17-19  (H),  Nu  15  (P).  The  prindple  ia,  one  law 
lor  home-born  and  nfrim.  Ex  Vi"),  Nu  9'*  15i»- 18-  »■  ">. 

J  So  .Schurer,  OVn  iii.  Vi:>l.;  Hcrtholet,  Die  SMluiu)  der 
Itrofliten  u.  d.  Juden  ru  rfcn  Fremden,  1890,  p.  269  ft.  The 
word  yiiitpxt  la  used  by  Jvmtin  {/>i«^.  e.  Trttph.  a  122  \yriOfiett]) 
and  .luliiis  Afri.  (ad  ArUtidein)  of  proaelyt^'H  ;  but  Fhilo  read  it 
In  Ex  2**  (L.\X  rap«iK«r)of  .Moees  in  MidianCt/f  Cin\/iLg.  Ling. 
17),  hence  It  also  cannot  have  been  a  reco^rnir-ed  technical 
title.  Does  Josephus  mistnke  It  for  the  name  of  ft  town?  («  [rtu] 
Tnup»  2<u«n,  lU  u.  xix.  2.  etc.). 

n  i.  rn  yn  iu^,  Lv  lOKi.  Nu  91*  I6>«,  ■•  iJjut  Ex  12«  etc 

^  ih4v  wfitr.XuTU  wp^rU^utttrau  rM,  etc 


later  technical  meaning.  No  difference  of  nsago 
appears  between  early  and  late  parts  of  the  LXX. 
Ihe  word  occurs  in  the  Aiiocry|)haI  books  only 
in  To  li*  N  (from  Dt  14-'='  20'-).  The  absence  of  a 
common  technical  use  of  the  word  seems  to  be 
indicated  by  the  fact  that  it  is  not  used  of  un- 
misUikable  proselytes,  from  Ruth  to  Acliior  (Jth 
14'"),  or  in  the  frequent  expressions  of  hope  for  the 
conversion  of  the  heathen. 

Philo  *  understands  the  LXX  irpomiXtToi  in  the 
sense  of  'convert.'  Those  who  have  changed  to 
the  better  order  Moses  calls  7rpoff7)Xi/roi,  because 
they  have  come  to  a  new  and  God-pleasing  consti- 
tution (djrd  Tov  irpoff€\T]\vOii'ai  Katc^  Kal  ^iXoO^ip 
To\iTel(f,  de  Monarch,  i.  7).  But  he  prefers  the 
word  tirriXvt  {eirriXimft,  e'TnyXirrot),  often,  as  in  this 
passage,  substituting  it  for  the  other  in  the  course 
of  his  discussion  (so  also  in  de  Vict.  Ojf.  10,  Qtims. 
in  Ex  22-",  de  Cher.  31.  33.  34),  more  often  still 
using  it  throughout  {de  Septcnario  14,  de  Creat. 
Prin.  6,  de  Caritate  12,  de  Pienit.  2,  de  Exccrat. 
6).  Bertholet  (p.  2SS)  is  surely  mistaken  in  sajing 
that  fTTTjXus  has  a  wider  meaning  than  rpocriiXvros, 
for  the  distinction  in  Quicst.  in  Ex  22-"  between 
iTn)\vd(s  of  place  {xupo.^),  and  those  of  laws  and 
customs  (vop.liJ.uii  Kal  iduiv),  is  made  solely  in  order  to 
explain  the  two  uses  of  the  word  Trpo<T-/i\i/Tos  in  E.'c 
22'-"l^'i,  and  the  argument  would  be  wholly  without 
force  if  the  two  words  were  not  synonymous. 
Philo  allows  the  possibility  of  the  local  mean- 
ing of  TTpoiniXiTos  (lirjjXus)  in  order  to  explain  its 
apjilication,  liguratively,  to  Israel  in  Egypt.  The 
literal  word  in  this  connexion  was  p.4toihos  or  f^vot 
(de  Vita  Mos.  i.  7,  de  Carit.  13.  14).  Compare  his 
interpretation  of  Lv25^  {de  C/ter.  31-34)  :  the  wise 
man  is  but  an  ^injXus  and  irdpotKos  in  the  world  ; 
God  is  the  only  citizen,  and  on  the  contrary  the 
foolish  man  is  altogether  a  fugitive. 

Philo's  preference  for  the  word  fj-TjXut  prevents 
us  from  supposing  that  the  word  irpoff^Xi/ros  was 
current  in  his  circle,  though  it  hardly  warrants 
the  opinion  that  lTri)Xvt  was  the  current  technical 
name  of  the  Greek  converts  to  Judaism  of  whom 
he  8i)eak8.  It  was  probably  simply  the  more 
natural  word  by  which  to  convey  the  sense  of  the 
LXX  to  his  readers.  In  Philo,  {lien,  the  religious 
interprets  and  practically  displaces  the  local  u.se 
of  the  word,  but  a  common  technical  u.se  of  it, 
such  as  the  NT  seems  to  presuppose,  he  does  not 
reveal. 

Josephus  often  refers  to  actual  proselytes,^  but 
^vithout  using  the  name  ;  and  he  not  inirequently 
alludes  to  OT  passages  in  wliicli  the  gir  is  com- 
mended to  charity, t  but  cites  them  only  as  pro- 
viding for  the  poor,  or  for  the  foreigner  (i^yot, 
i.X\i<pvXos,  dXXoTpiixwpos).  Are  we  to  infer  that 
Philo  knew,  as  Josephus  did  not,  a  class  of  Greek 
converts  to  Judaism  to  whom  the  humane  in- 
junctions of  the  law  applied,  who  had  lost  their 
natural  friends  and  helpers  for  the  sake  of  re- 
ligion, and  were  especially  needy  and  deserving  of 
friendly  consideration  on  the  part  of  Jews  ? 

ii.  ]Vords  and p/irases  desrri/iline  of  prosi'hjtes. — 
Instead  of  a  fixed  technical  word  for  foreign  con- 
verts to  the  Jewish  religion,  the  Old  Testament 
and  Jewish  literature  give  various  descriptive 
phrases,  some  of  which  may  well  be  gathered 
together  here,  since  they  contain  in  themselves 
an  interpretation  of  Jewish  proselytism.  The 
proselyte  is  a  grr  who  is  circumcised  (Ex  12*'), 
or  who  joins  himself  to  the  house  of  Jacob  (Is  14') ; 
he  is  one  who  enters  into  the  assembly  of  Jahweh 
(Ot  23»  'in  the  third  generation,'  cf.  v.');  ho  is 

•  See  Bertholet,  l.a.  pp.  2S5-2S9. 

t  <■  1/  Hell  iia,  Izates,  and  Monobania  (AiU.  xx.  II. -lv.)  ;  Fulvln 
AnI.'xvui.  iii.  6);  cf.  c.  Ap.  ii.  11,  29,  37,  Ant.  xni.  Ix.  1,  xi.  8: 
!J  II.  XX.  2,  VM.  iii.  3,  etc. 

t  e.g.  Ant.  in.  xii.  3  (Lv  251),  iv.  viii.  21  (Dt  U^,  Vf  1«»  >»)k 
I  viU.  22  (Dt  14»  »  20'»),  vill.  SS  (Dt  2<'«-  >»). 


^j 


134 


PROSELYTE 


PROSELYTE 


a  foreigner  [-o:rr]2,  6  aWoyev-fji]  wlio  has  'joined 
himself  to  J"*  to  minister  to  him,  and  to  hive  the 
name  of  J',  to  he  his  servant — every  one  who  so 
keeps  the  Sabbath  as  not  to  profiine  it,  and  who 
lays  hold  on  niy  covenant'  (Is  5(i^-*);  he  is  a 
nokhri  {^(nos)  who  'comes  to  take  refuge  under 
the  wings  of  J"'  (Ru  2"-",  cf.  '" ;  see  also  Apoc. 
Bar  41^).  Only  in  Est  8"  are  converts  spoken  of 
as  those  who  '  become  Jews '  [c'-r:ipp,  LXX  jrepic- 
riixvovTo  /coi  lonSai^oti].  Achior  (Jth  14'")  believed 
in  God,  was  circumcised,  and  added  to  the  house 
of  Israel  {irpareridTi  irp6s,  as  Is  14').  See  also  the 
forms  of  expression  in  such  passages  as  Is  2-'*, 
Jer  3"  4^*  12'8  (cf.  Is  45=^  6r>'«),t  Zeph  3»,  Is  44», 
1  K  8"-«  Eu  l'«.  Zee  S-""-^  9'  H'"-'",  Is  lO'^-^*,  To 
14'^-'.  A  convert  could  be  described  as  one  Mho 
turned  to  J",  swore  by  the  name  of  J",  prayed  to 
Him,  sought  and  kept  His  law,  especially  the 
Sabbath  and  the  prohibition  of  eating  blood. 
Circumcision  could  not  be  omitted  by  one  who 
would  join  liimself  to  Israel.  Almost  without 
exception  (but  see  Zeph  2",  Is  19"*'^)  the  supposi- 
tion is  tliat  converts  will  live  in  Israel's  land.J: 
They  are  circumcised  gerim. 

Piiilo  regards  proselytes  as  those  who  leave 
polytheism  and  adopt  the  worship  of  one  God. 
He  describes  them  as  changing  to  the  better  order, 
as  migrating  to  piety,  journeying  to  a  good  colony, 
deserting  to  God  or  to  the  truth,  wandering  to 
truth  and  to  the  honouring  of  the  One  who  is 
worthy  of  honour,  as  fugitives  to  God,  and  sup- 
pliants, as  those  who  change  to  the  constitution 
(iroNiTci'a)  of  the  Jews.  Tlie  mind  of  a  proselyte 
(Ex  23")  is  alienation  (dXXoTp/uo-is)  from  polytlieism 
and  familiarity  (oiVeiuo-ts)  with  the  worship  of  the 
One  and  Father  of  all.§  Having  come  to  the 
worship  of  the  true  God  they  come  to  possess  all 
rirtues,  wisdom,  temperance,  modesty,  etc.  (de 
Pcenii.  2),  they  will  have  a  secure  place  in  heaven, 
and  meanwliile  are  to  be  especially  cared  for, 
since  they  have  cut  themselves  off  from  their 
natural  relationships,  and  since  the  God-pleasing 
conduct  (8co<pi\i!  ijfios)  should  be  a  greater  giound 
of  friendship  than  anything  else  [de  Cant.  12 ; 
de  Pcenit.  1). 

Josephus  describes  the  proselyte  as  one  who 
clianges  his  life  to  the  customs  (le-n)  of  the  Jews 
[Ant.  XX.  ii.  1) ;  who  is  carried  over  to  their  laws 
(vA/xous),  or  is  tauglit  to  worship  God  as  the  Jews 
do  [rdv  dibv  a4^€t,v  ws  'louSafots  irdrptov  rjv^  XX.  ii.  3)  ; 
who  has  come  to  the  Jewish  laws  (vo/tf/iois  xpocr- 
€X7^Xi;(?uj5  TOL^  'lofSaiVois,  XVIII.  iii.  5),  or  simply 
becomes  a  Jew  (eZi/ai  'IodSoios,  XX.  ii.  4)  ;  one 
whom  the  Jews  have  brought  over  to  their  re- 
ligious observances,  and  made  in  a  sense  part  of 
themselves  (BJ  VII.  iii.  3).  All  but  a  few  of  the 
women  of  Damascus  had  been  brought  under  tlie 
Jewish  religious  worship  {9pr]<rKeta) — BJ  II.  xx.  2. 
The  Iduma'ans  and  Iturtcans  were  circumcised,  and 
lived  according  to  the  laws  of  the  Jews  (XIII.  ix.  1, 
xi.  2;  cf.  XIII.  XV.  4,  XV.  vii.  9;  c.  Ap.  ii.  11,  29). 
Keligion  is  with  Joseplius,  not  indeed  simply  a 
matter  of  race,  but  essentially  one  of  ancestral 
custom  and  fixed  habit  of  life,  and  a  change  of 
religion  is  a  change  of  custom. 

Apoc.  Bar  speaks  of  those  'who  have  forsaken 
vanity  and  fled  for  refuge  beneath  thy  wings,'  in 
contrast  to  those  who  have  '  withdrawn  from  thy 
covenant  and  cast  from  them  the  yoke  of  thy 
law'  (4H-*);||  and  refers  to  them  again  as  -those 
who  before  knew  not,  but  afterwards  knew  life 

•  See  Zee  2",  Est  9». 

t  Cf.  Dt  e's  1020. 

j  Naaman  is  hardly  an  exception,  since  he  can  worship  J"  in 
ft  foreifrn  land  only  by  talduff  some  of  J"'8  land  with  him 
(2  K  &'r  18). 

9  See  references  above. 

I  So  Philo  contrasts  proselytes  with  apostates  (o«  rSr  iipSo 
re/A**  «rorTa,ri,-,  de  Pwnit,  2), 


and  mingled  with  the  seed  of  the  people  which 
had  separated  itself '  (42'). 

Much  uncertainty  must  be  acknowledged  regard- 
ing the  use  of  the  phrase  the  '  devout '  or  '  God- 
fenrefs'  (".t  'N*i',  oI  ^pofioijfj.evoi  rbv  Oedv  [Kvpiovlf  ol 
ire/JAfifi'oi  T.  6.)  as  the  technical  name  either  for 
proselytes  in  general  or  for  a  certain  class  of  prose- 
lytes. In  Judaism  (after  Dt  6-- 1^- -■"  10'2-»  Lr 
Ijju. 32  2517  etc.)  it  became  so  far  a  standing  phrasa 
for  Israelites,  or  the  true  Israelites,  themselves 
that  it  would  seem  inappropriate  as  a  distinctivs 
designation  of  converts,  or  half  converts,  from 
heathenism  (see  Ps  15*  2^-'^  2512-"  31"  60*  etc., 
Mai  3'"  4-,  Sir  2'""  6"*-  "  34"-"'  etc.,  Ps.-Sol  2"  3'« 
4-*  etc.).*  It  is  indeed  commonly  held  that  in  Ps 
11511.  IS  iig4  13520  proselytes  are  distinguished  by 
this  title  from  the  Israelitisli  laity  and  priesthood.t 
But  this  is  not  certain.  The  phrase  may  be  a 
comprehensive  and  summary  one,  as  it  probably  is 
in  Ps  22-»  (so  in  Three  «*,  cf.  «'-^,  ■»  [LXX  Dn 
390. 83-8is. 33]_  Kev  195  (11'8?),  whcrc  it  is  equivalent 
to  '  servants  of  the  Lord ').  2  K  17^--  ^  does  indeed 
suggest  that  heathen  mi"ht  fear  J"  and  at  the  same 
time  serve  their  own  gods  ;  but  this  is  perhaps  an 
ironical  description  of  the  Samaritan  religion. 

It  is  Acts  wliich  seems  most  clearly  to  imply  a 
technical  use  of  the  phrase.  Sf^i/ieyoi  or  ^o/Joi'/xej-oi, 
with  or  without  rbf  debf,  is  commonly  regarded  as 
designating  such  non-Jews  as  held  to  the  Jewish 
synagogue  worship  and  observed  the  most  elemen- 
tary Jewish  laws  of  food  and  purity  and  Sabbath 
observance,  without  entering  by  circumcision  into 
the  Jewish  community.  Such  a  class,  distinct 
from  Jews  on  the  one  side  and  from  casual  travellers 
to  Jerusalem  on  the  other,  Josephus  once  mentions 
as  contributing  to  tlie  wealth  of  the  temple  (Ant. 
XIV.  vii.  2,  cre/36/xf;'oi  rbv  eebv).X  Yet  the  references 
to  them  here  and  in  Acts  are  indefinite  enough, 
so  that  Bertholet  (pp.  328-334)  can  argue  that 
they  are  nothing  but  circumcised  proselytes,  while 
on  tlie  other  hand  O.  Holtzmann  (NT  Zeitgexrh. 
p.  185)  declares  that  irpoo-ijXi/ros  is  the  technical 
name  of  (uncircumcised)  <po^ovp,(voi.  They  are 
distinguished  from  Israelites  (Ac  13"),  children 
of  Abraham's  race  (13*),  the  Jews  (13**  17"),  and 
these  two  classes  together  composed  the  .synagogue 
audiences  at  Antioch  of  Pisidia  and  at  Atliens. 
The  '  God-fearers '  seem  to  be  identified  with  prose- 
lytes in  IS'^,  for  ol  <re^6fi(fOi  Tpoir-fiXwoi  can  hardly 
be  different  from  oi  ipo'^ovfievoi  rbv  Bedi/  of  vv."'-^". 
Schiirer  himself  recognized  the  identification  in 
Riehm's  Handweirterbtick''  ( 1894),  art.  '  Proselyten,' 
but  denies  it  again  in  the  3rd  ed.  of  his  G,/K  (1S98) 
iii.  p.  124  ff.,  where  he  argues  against  Bertholet 
that  proselytes  proper  are  included  in  the  first 
category,  that  of  Jews  or  Israelites.  This  might 
indeed  be  used  in  common  speech  to  include  all 
the  circumcised,  whether  of  Jewish  birth  or  not, 
but  the  phrase  '  children  of  the  race  of  Abraham' 
(v.-*)  seems  more  explicit.  But,  on  the  contrary, 
'the  devout  Greeks'  of  Thes.salonica  (l"*)  were 
hardly  a  different  class  from  the  '  Greeks '  whom 
St.  Paul  found  in  the  synagogues  at  Iconium  (14') 
and  Corinth  (18'').  St.  Paul  carries  out  his  threat 
to  leave  the  Jews  and  go  to  the  Gentiles  by  going 
to  the  house  of  Titius  Justus,  one  of  the  affihixcvtn 
(18'),  who  could  therefore  hardly  have  been  circum- 
cised. As  to  Lydia  (lO")  and  '  the  devout  women' 
of  Antioch  ( 13°"),  we  cannot  determine  the  degree 
of  their  connexion  with  Judaism  ;  but  Cornelius 
is  unmistakably  an  uncircumcised  foreigner  (dXXi- 
i^uXos,  lO-*),  with  whom  a  Jew  could  have  no  free 
intercourse  (IP).     Bertholet  is  obliged  to  say  that 

•  See  references  in  Cremer's  V>'6rterbHch,  «.  fe^itt. 

♦  Bertholet  (p.  181 1.).  Baethgen  {DU  Psatmen)  on  P8  11511; 
Wellhausen  (PB).  This  interpretation  goes  back  to  Theodoret, 
Ibn  Ezra,  Rashi. 

J  These  are  '  the  Greeks  who  honour  our  customs*  {Ant  m 
viii.  9) ;  those  who  have  a  '  zeal  for  our  religion '  (c.  Ap.  ii.  29X 


PKOSELYTE 


PROSELYTE 


135 


the  phrase  <t>opovfi.evo%  rbv  8e6r  (10'--')  is  not  >ised  of 
him  in  its  technical  sense.  It  is  true  tliat  its  use 
here,  in  connexion  with  other  descriptive  words, 
and  especiallj-  in  v."  ('  he  tliat  fears  him  and  works 
rigliteousness'),  does  not  suggest  the  technical 
name  of  a  definite  class  of  men.  But  surely 
Cornelius  would  have  been  found  in  the  synagogue 
on  the  Sabbath  (see  10---),  and  he  ia  not  to  be 
distinguished  from  the  class  of  foreigners  informally 
connected  with  Judaism,  with  whom  the  other 
passages  acquaint  us.  Another  such  is  the  cen- 
turion who  loved  the  Jewish  nation  and  built 
them  a  synagogue  (Lk  7^"*);  and  another,  the 
eunuch  who  came  to  Jerusalem  to  worship  (Ac 
8-'"'-)>  hut  who  could  not,  if  he  would,  enter  into 
the  a.«sembl3'  of  the  Lord  (Dt  23');  others  are 
mentioned  iu  Jn  12^. 

Bertholet  is  probably  ri"ht  in  insisting  that 
there  was  only  one  sort  of  convert,  the  circum- 
cised foreigner,  who  undertook  to  fulfil  the  whole 
law  (Gal  5»).  He  reco'niizes,  too  (pp.  2'J8-300,  334), 
the  undoubted  fact  that  Cornelius  was  a  repre- 
sentative of  a  large  class  of  Greeks  who  were 
attracted  by  certain  beliefs  of  Judaism,  and  adopted 
certain  of  its  customs,  were  recognized  by  Jews  as 
religious  and  virtuous  men,  but  did  not  cross  tlie 
strict  line  which  still  separated  Jew  from  Gentile. 
But  it  seems  probable  that  he  is  mistaken  in  com- 
bating the  common  view  that  such  Greeks  were 
called  '  God-fearers.'  It  is  true  that,  in  the  absence 
of  evidence  of  the  common  use  of  the  word 
'proselyte'  itself,  we  might  be  tempted  to  find  in 
i  tpoiiov/iefos  an  earlier  technical  name  for  the 
prosel_\  te  proper,  as  Cremer  seems  to  do  *  on  the 
basis  of  2  Ch  5^  LXX.  But  for  this  the  evidence 
is  too  slight. 

The  number  of  foreigners  who  had  come  in  some 
measure  under  the  Jewi!<li  religion  was,  according 
to  Josephus  {Ant.  xiv.  vii.  2;  c.  Ap.  ii.  29)  and 
I'hilo  {Vita  Mos.  ii.  4),  very  large.t  Schiirer's 
careful  collection  and  investigation  of  the  evidence 
of  inscriptions  J  proves  that  there  were  Greek 
religious  societies  in  the  first  centuries  after  Christ, 
of  so-called  'worshippers  of  the  Most  High  God,' 
who  got  their  name  and  their  monotheistic  faith 
from  the  .lews,  and  yet  held  to  many  elements  of 
Greek  religion.  They  were  a  result,  in  Scliiirer's 
opinion,  of  Jewish  propaganda,  but  remained  part 
Jewish,  part  Greek,  in  very  varying  proportions. 
One  who  belonged  to  such  a  society  could  well 
have  (Tf^d/ifvo!,  or  mcluens,  inscribed  on  his  tomb.§ 

The  '  God-fearers,'  then,  are  not  proselytes  in 
any  proper  sense,  in  8])ite  of  Ac  13''',  which,  if  not 
due  to  an  early  te.\tual  error,  is  an  indication 
of  a  somewhat  free,  untechnical  use  of  irpocrriKvToi 
itself,  such  as  the  LXX  would  suggest.  If  the 
latter  lie  allowed  here,  the  question  might  arise 
whether  all  the  'proselytes'  in  2'"  were  certainly 
circumcised.  The  question  is  made  the  harder  by 
the  uncertainty  whether  the  jihrase  ai)plies  only 
to  the  Komans  (Zahn)  or  to  all  those  named  in 
vv.»- '"  (Holtzmann,  etc.),  and  whether  they  were 
then  permanent  residents  in  Jerusalem  (v.°),  or 
pilgrims  to  the  feast. 

The  phrase  Proselytes  of  th«  Gate  has  nothing 
whatever  to  do  with  the  ae^b^enoi  Tbv  0e6v.  It  is 
simply  a  late  Itabbinical  title  (after  Ex  20'»,  Dt  5" 
etc.)  for  sojourners  in  Israel's  land  (the  original 
gcrim).  Earlier,  in  the  Mishna,  such  a  person  is 
ger  tCshab  (cf.   Lv  25'"'').  ||     In  distinction  from 

•  Vi'iirtfrh^ieh,  $.  wp*r^>ur»€,  c*Si*»' 

f  See  contiriiiatory  evidence  in  Bertholet,  p.  293ff.,  uid 
BcliilrtT. 

;  l>if  Juden  im  ftotporaniaehen  lirifhe  uiul  die  Geno»stnsefi<n/- 
ten  tier  rijtuitai  flio,  Cr^itrt*  fltendasetOtt,  1897. 

i  AKuinst  llertholft,  p.  .S3'2. 

I  Tlic  gfr  and  t<l»/m6  arc  distinguished  In  Ex  12"  «,  Lv  25*'«, 
Nu  S6'5  etc.,  tivit  are  cImcIv  ogsoclaU'd  (ct.  Cn  2a*,  Lv  24«1-  K, 
1  Ob  W»,  Ps  88»,  and  Lr  250.  *^). 


these,  the  proselyte  was  called  by  late  Rabbis  the 
'Proselyte  of  liighteousness,'  while  in  the  Mishna 
he  is  simply  the  '  ijer.'  * 

Although  there  were  among  the  heathen  many 
who  were  attracted  by  the  monotheism  and  mor- 
ality of  Judaism,  and  attended  the  8yna"ogue 
services,  yet  these  were  not  in  our  sense  proselytes. 
A  heathen  could  become  a  Jew  only  by  circum- 
cision, hence  there  was  but  one  order  of  proselytes 
proper.  Lardner  had  already  made  the  correct 
observation:  'There  was  but  one  sort  of  proselytes 
among  the  Jews  (the  circumcised),  and  Cornelius 
was  not  a  proselyte  but  a  Gentile.'  t  But  that  the 
word  vpoirriXvToi  was  applied  exclusively  to  these  in 
NT  times  is  not  certain. 

iii.  The  Duties  and  Bights  of  Proselytes,  i.e.  of 
circumcised  foreigners,  were  ideally  the  same  as 
those  of  circumcised  Jews  (Ex  12'''').  Philo  gives 
abundant  evidence  that  a  Greek  became  a  proselyte 
only  by  a  violent  and  absolute  break  with  his  past 
life  and  associations.^  So  Tacitus  (Hist.  v.  5) 
says  that  proselytes  learn  to  despise  the  gods, 
cast  off  the  fatherland,  and  hold  parents,  children, 
brothers,  in  contempt.  The  story  of  Izates  is  not 
in  conflict  with  this.§  His  first  Jewish  adviser 
dissuaded  him  from  circumcision,  telling  him  that 
he  could  worship  the  deity  (t6  Odov  aijieLv)  without 
it.  But  this  only  meant  that  it  was  better  for 
him  to  remain  a  heathen  and  not  to  become  a  Jew. 
The  second  adviser  encouraged  him  to  become  a 
proselyte. 

If  circumcision  was  the  decisive  step  in  the  case 
of  all  male  converts,  there  seems  no  longer  room 
for  serious  question  that  a  bath  of  purification 
must  have  followed,  even  though  early  mention 
of  such  proselyte  hnptism  is  not  found.  ||  The  law 
(Lv  11-15,  Nu  19)  prescribed  such  baths  in  all 
cases  of  impurity,  and  one  who  came  with  the 
deep  impurity  of  a  heathen  life  behind  him  could 
not  have  entered  the  Jewish  comiminity  without 
such  cleansing.  As  long  as  the  temple  stood,  an 
ottering  made  a  third  (in  case  of  women  a  second) 
rite  in  connexion  with  the  proselyte's  reception. 

According  to  Dt  23-'''''-  full  entrance  into  the 
assembly  of  the  Lord  was  denied  entirely  to 
eunuchs  (but  see  Is  OG"'"),  bastards, IT  Ammonites, 
and  Moabites  ;  while  admittance  was  granted  to 
children  of  the  third  generation  in  the  case  of  the 
Edomite  and  the  Egyptian.  It  is  not  clear  how  far 
this  principle  may  have  been  applied  in  later  times, 
or  just  what  restrictions  it  imiilied.**  Certainly, 
the  Passover  could  be  observed  after  circumcision 
(Ex  12"). 

Various  practical   limitations  of  the  rights  of 

firoselytes  (in  respect  to  marriage,  etc.)  which 
ater  Kabbis  discuss,  probably  belong  to  the  in- 
tensified racial  feeling  which  followed  the  rise  of 
Christianity  and  the  fall  of  Jerusalem.  The 
proselyte  seems  to  have  been  feared  rather  than 
sought  or  welcomed  by  the  Judaism  of  the 
Talmud. tt 

The  proselyte  would,  of  course,  have  needed 
iiistruction,  both  before  and  after  his  admission  to 

•  To  Schiirer  belong  the  credit  of  having  corrected  current 
misconceptions  on  tliiii  mutter. 

t  Worku,  vol.  vi.  pp.  622-633,  cf.  xi.  pp.  300-324.  Lnrdner 
also  Baw  that  the  distinction  of  '  proselytes  of  the  ^rate  *  and  '  of 
righteousness,'  and  the  construction  of  the  Noachic  coiuiuands 
for  the  fomiL-r,  were  recent. 

;  I)e  Vicl.  Oferenl.  11),  de  Creat.  Prin.  0,  do  Cant.  12,  etc 
See  other  references  above. 

§  AiU.  XX.  ii.  2-1. 

II  Baptism  of  convert*  Is  not  mentioned  by  Philo  or  Josephus, 
but  tlio  MiHlina  presupposes  it.  See  also  Arrian,  oiid  ^Uj.  Or. 
lv.  104  ;  Schurer,  IIJ I'  II.  ii.  310-321  (cf.  IIAITISM.  III.  a). 

^  On  the  nu'aninjrof  the  Ileb.  viamz^r  In  Dt  23'"*  ("^J,  seo  Driver, 
ad  toe,  and  Nestle  in  Exjiog.  Timrs.  Feb.  IIHK).  p.  2:(.'». 

•"  .See  I'hilo,  df  Caril.  IS  end  (ct.  Ezk  47*' '  which  shall  begt* 
children  anioni;  you '). 

tl  Sec  Uerthcilet,  pp.  839-.149 ;  Schiirer,  IIJP  ll.  II.  834  fT. 
Weber,  Z>m  Juditc/ie  Theolugie  (Index,  f.  '  i'roselytcn '). 


136 


PROSELYTE 


PROSELYTE 


the  Jewish  comiminity.  One  might  be  tempted  to 
lind  evidence  of  early  catechetical  instruction  in 
such  passages  as  Hs  15.  2i-«'-  34'^",*  Is  SS""'"  etc. 
In  Harnack's  opinion  we  have  in  Ai5.  l''*"  2--5-  and 
fragments  m  ens.  8  and  13,  a  book  of  instruction 
for  Jewish  proselytes  called  '  The  Two  Ways.' 

With  the  disappearance  of  a  detinite  second 
order  of  '  Proselytes  of  the  Gate,'  the  question  of 
special  rules  for  them  falls  away  for  the  biblical 
period.  The  so-called  '  seven  commands  of  the 
children  of  Noah,'  wliich  the  Talmud  holds  to  be 
valid  for  the  ger  t6shdb,\  are  a  product  of  legal 
theorizing,  and  could  never  have  been  enforced  by 
the  Jewish  authorities  of  NT  times  on  the  Greeks 
and  Romans  who  lived  in  Palestine. 

As  the  (re^ifKfoi  t&v  8e6v  were  Gentiles,  the  Jewish 
authorities  would  hardly  attempt  to  give  detailed 
rules  for  their  life.  They  would  rather  accept 
whatever  measure  of  homage  Greeks  paid  to  their 
religion  as  contributing  to  its  glory,  and  would, 
according  to  tlieir  generosity  of  disposition,  recog- 
nize and  admire  moral  rectitude  and  even  religious 
reverence  among  the  heathen.  For  such  recognition 
of  ethnic  religion  and  morality  the  OT  prepared  the 
way.t 

the  apostolic  decree  of  Ac  15^-  ^,  cf.  vv."- »  21^, 
no  doubt  prohibits  some  of  the  heatlien  practices 
which  were  most  offensive  to  Jews,§  but  cannot  be 
identified  with  any  known  or  probable  Jewish  rules 
for  the  aepbixtvoi.  It  was  only  Christians  who 
had  to  face  the  problem  of  providing  a  modus 
Vivendi  between  Jews  and  Gentiles.  That  Jews 
did  not  eat  with  even  the  best  of  the  o-f SiMfoi  the 
story  of  Cornelius  is  striking  proof.  The  Jewish 
customs  which  the  ce^bnevoi  seem  chiefly  to  have 
observed  were  the  Sabbath,  the  kindling  of  lights 
(before  Sabbath,  so  as  not  to  violate  Ex  35'),  the 
fasts,  certain  food  laws,  contributions  to  the 
temple, II  charity  to  the  poor,  and  other  moral 
virtues.lf 

iv.  The  History  of  JetvkK  Proselytism  cannot 
even  be  sketched  within  the  limits  of  this  article.** 
Although  the  prophets  furnished  the  universal 
faith  wliich  must  underlie  missionary  effort ;  and 
though  Judaism  cherished  the  hope  that  J"  would 
be  recognized  by  all  nations,  yet  it  is  only  among 
the  Jews  of  the  Greek  Dispersion  that  anything 
like  a  propaganda  can  be  found.  According  to  the 
ruling  view,  whicli  Pharisaism  represented,  the 
conversion  of  the  heathen  was  to  be  accomplished 
by  God  rather  than  by  man.  It  belonged  to 
e.sehatology.  The  Book  of  Jonah  uncovers  and 
rebukes  the  deep-seated  reluctance  of  Judaism  to 
go  to  tlie  heatlien  with  a  message  for  their  salva- 
tion. In  the  Dispersion  outward  and  inward 
conditions  f.avoured  a  more  open  and  generous 
attitude.  .lews  could  not  but  be  influenced  by  the 
breadth  of  tireek  thought,  and  Greeks  were  drawn 
by  the  mere  spectacle  of  a  people  who  held  a 
monotheistic  faitli  and  led  a  moral  life.  The 
Hellenistic-.Iewish  literature  was  no  doubt  in  part 
aimed  at  heathen  readers,  and  meant  to  persuade 
them  of  the  falsity  of  polytheism  and  idolatry, 
and  the  truth  of  the  sacred  books,  the  laws,  ancl 
the  doctrines  of  Judaism. tt    The  synagogues  were 

*  Note  Ttj,  and  see  Bertholet,  p.  193. 

t  Aboda  Zara  646  ;  Scburer,  UJP  n.  U.  p.  31Sf.  These  were 
(1)  jml;fnients  (obedience  to  them);  and  prohibition  of  (2)  bla«- 
phemy,  (3)  idolatry,  (4)  uncbastity,  (5)  murder,  (6)  stealing, 
(7)  eating  blood. 

t  «.o.  Melchizedek,  Job,  P»  88.  89,  cf.  1  K  6"  (431),  Mai  1", 
Pa  05«,  Bk.  of  Jonah.  So  also  the  account  of  creation  (On  126ff-^ 
Is  42ft,  cf.  St.  P.iul'8  use  of  it  in  Ac  l"**"'),  and  euch  bopea  u 
Zee  91. 10  14»,  Jl  228  8!,  Is  -^57.  8,  Pa  478.  u  22-''-a>. 

5  See  Lv  17'»-18m,  Ezk  33»  «,  Zee  V  etc. 

t  Of.  Oal  2i»,  Ac  24",  Ito  loSsif,  1  Co  161-3  eta 

II  Philo,  I'ifo  .t/o».  ii.  4 ;  Jos.  Ant.  xiv.  vil.  2,  c.  Ap.  II.  39. 

**  See  Bertholet,  f.c. ;  Lohr,  Z)*»r  Misgioru<<irdanke  tin  Alien 
Tesl.  1896;  Siegfried,  *  Prophetische  Missionsgedanken  und 
liidische  Missionsbestrebungen,'  in  Jahrb.  Prot.  Thfol,  1S90. 

ft  See  Schurer,  HJP  u.  iu.  248  B. 


open  to  foreigners,  and  were  the  most  effective 
agency  in  the  propagation  of  Jud.-iism  (cf.  Ac  15^' 
fulfilling  v.").  Whether  the  temple  at  Loontopolia 
had  a  similar  effect  it  is  hard  to  say  (cf.  Is  li)'"''-  ?). 

It  is  extremely  diliicult  to  measure  the  results 
of  such  efforts.  The  number  of  those  who  were 
more  or  less  influenced  by  Judaism  was  no  doubt 
very  great.  The  number  of  circumcised  proselytes 
may  have  been  relatively  small,  but,  on  the  other 
hand,  it  may  have  helped  to  fill  out  the  great 
multitude  of  .Jews  who  were  to  be  found  in  Egypt, 
Syria,  Asia  Minor,  Greece,  and  Italy. 

In  Palestinian  Judaism  it  is  hard  to  find  evi- 
dence in  the  time  of  Christ  of  that  zeal  of  which 
Mt  23'*  speaks.  There  is  evidence  of  large  acces- 
sions to  the  Jewish  community  during  tlie  latter 
part  of  the  Persian  and  the  beginning  of  the  Greek 
periods,*  a  result  perhaps  of  the  impulses  of  which 
Is  40  ff.,  Ruth,  Jonah,  and  such  Psalms  as  22.  47. 
65-67.  83  are  expressions,  which  the  work  of  Ezra 
and  Nehemiah  only  temporarily  repressed.  The 
use  of  Aramaic,  the  language  of  neighbouring 
peoples,  is  a  fact  worthy  of  consideration  in  this 
connexion.  A  reaction  and  a  closing  of  doors 
came  with  the  reign  of  Antiochus  IV.  and  the  rise 
of  the  Pharisaic  party. 

The  Maccabaean  princes  revived  the  old  method 
of  proselytizing  by  force.  So  John  Hyrcanus, 
having  conquered  Idumrea,  permitted  the  inhabit- 
ants to  remain  in  the  land  if  they  would  be 
circumcised  and  adopt  the  laws  and  customs  of 
the  Jews.t  The  similar  forcible  conversion  of 
the  Ituraeans  by  Aristobulus  J  is  regarded  by 
Schiirer  §  as  referring  to  Galilee.  At  the  begin- 
ning of  the  Maccaba?an  wars  this  had  still  been 
a  heathen  country,  with  a  few  scattered  communi- 
ties of  Jews  in  it,  who  could  be  transferred  bodily 
to  Judaea  (1  Mac  5'"").  The  earliest  references  to 
these  Jewish  converts  in  Galilee  are  found  in 
2Ch  SO'"-"  (cf.  132,  2Ch  15'').||  'It  is  hardly  to 
be  doubted  that  the  proper  Judaizing  of  Galilee 
is  essentially  the  work  of  Aristobulus  I.'  (B.C. 
105-104).  The  strong  Jewish  community  in  Rome 
is  plausibly  traced  to  Numenius  and  his  embassy 
(1  Mac  14^15"iT-).1I 

But  of  a  proselytizing  work  by  Pharisees  their 
literature  gives  us  little  information.  The  story 
of  Helena  and  Izates  remains  isolated.  Saul  may 
be  cited  as  a  Pharisee  who  was  zealous  for  the 
extension  of  his  religion,  but  his  effort  was  not 
to  make  converts  from  heathenism,  but  to  pre- 
vent Christians  from  converting  Jews.  St.  Paul's 
Jewish  -  Christian  adversaries  were  prosel3'tizer3 
(Gal  I'-'o  3'  5^-"  etc.),  and  perhaps  reveal  tha 
quality  in  Pharisaism  which  M^t  23'°  condemns. 

The  Pharisaic  ideal  remained  one  of  separation. 
Such  propaganda  as  they  attempted  seems  to  have 
aimed  at  the  realization  of  the  hope  that  no  un- 
circumcised  alien  should  render  Israel  and  its  laud 
and  temple  unclean.**  It  does  not  reflect  the  sur- 
urising  generosity  of  Dt  23'-  »,  Is  19"*-^,  Zee  9'  toward 
Israel's  traditional  foes.tt  The  expectation  of  a 
futurcniissionaryera(Enoch91'*?)is  rare.  Prosely- 
tism was  a  sort  of  conquest  or  subjugation,  for  the 
benefit  of  the  conquerors,  not  of  the  conquered,»» 

•  See  Wellhausen,  /<r.  und  Hid.  Geachichte,  p.  160  (3rd  ed. 
p.  199  If.). 

t  ^>i(.  sm.  ix.  1,  cf.  XT.  vU.  9. 

J  Anl.  xm.  xi.  3,  XV.  4 

§  IIJP  1.  i.  293  f..  Index,  p.  91;  OJV»  it  6-7;  followed  by 
Wellhavisen,  Bertholet,  etc. 

I  The  Book  of  Judith  also  indicates  isolated  Jewish  town* 
amid  heathen  surroundings. 

II  Schiirer,  UJP  i.  i.  p.  2(i8fr. ;  Bertholet,  p.  227  ff. 

••  See  Ezk  44'J,  Is  62'  358,  Nah  li»,  Zee  1421,  Jl  317,  Ps.-Sol  17»), 
cf.  Rev  212'  2215. 

tt  It  is  very  difficult  to  determine  the  historical  conditions 
that  produced  these  exceptional  utterances. 

;;  The  Jews  were  always  ready  to  say  to  thofle  whose  help 
thev  needed,  *Come  with"  us,  and  we  will  do  you  good.'  See 
Nu"l02«2(JE). 


PROVE 


PEOVERB 


137 


End  it  is  fair  to  sny  that  the  Jewish  proselyte  did 
not  form  a  link  between  the  Jews  and  the  Gentiles, 
but  eiii|ihasizeJ  and  widened  the  dill'erence.  Xor 
did  the  proselyte  prei)are  the  way  for  Christianity. 
He  may  well  have  been  the  worst  of  St.  Paul's 
enemies,  while  the  aejjjfievo!,  who  did  not  count 
as  a  Jew  at  all,  was  the  first  of  his  converts. 
Josephus  gives  an  interesting  illustration  of  the 
truth  tliat  it  was  the  narrow  Jews  who  insisted 
on  prosclylism,  while  his  own  more  liberal  temper 
was  satislied  that  every  one  should  worslii]>  (iod 
according  to  his  preference.*  Only  a  few  could 
recognize  that  the  worship  of  one  God  and  the  prac- 
tice of  righteousness  (Ac  10")  were  more  important 
than  the  observance  of  legal  rites,  beginning  with 
circumcision,  which  were  essentiallj'  tribal  in 
character.  In  the  common  Jewish  judL;ment  these 
Greeks  were  dogs  who  ate  the  crumus  that  fell 
from  their  masters'  table,  and  only  a  propliet 
could  see  in  them  a  greater  faith  than  Israel's. 
But  in  reality  the  best  influence  of  Judaism  is  to 
be  found  in  that  large  class  of  heathen  to  whom 
it  taught  the  worship  of  one  God  and  the  pursuit 
of  virtue,  and  not  in  the  class  of  actual  converts. 

LiTERATUitK.— Bertholet,  Di^  StfUuiig  der  Israclittn  und  tier 
Judrn  zu  </.»  Frrmdm  (1S06) ;  Scluirer,  IIJP  M.  ii.  pp.  291- 
827,  c(.  p.  2111  (f.,  iii.  27i)-320  (ct.  GJi'^  §  31);  Allen,  "On  the 
Meaning  of  -rp^rr./yTo.-  in  Ihe  Septuafrint' (/i'x^'»*(f"r,  1S94,  pp. 
2W-27i) ;  A.  n.  Davidson,  'They  Umt  Fear  tlie  l.oni,'  in  Ezpo». 
Timei,  iii.  (1&92).  491  ff.;  J.  Strau.ss,  ' Table-Fellowship  of  Jew 
and  Gentile.'  in  Expog.  Timet.  i».  (1S93).  30711.  On  later  liab- 
binical  \iews  see  Bacher,  />i>  Afjada  der  Tannaiten,  Die  Agada 
der  pahtxtitwiuiticltcn  Ainoraer\iui\ii\,  8.  '  I'roselyten  ') ;  Weber, 
Die  J lidijiclie  Theot'tyie  (Indea,  t.  '  Proselyten ') ;  Hamburger, 
Beal-Eney.  (art.  '  I'roseljt ').  f .  C.  PORTER. 

PROVE. — There  are  several  Fleb.  and  Gr.  verbs 
translated  'prove'  in  AV,  but  they  fall  into  two 
classes,  according  a.s  the  Eng.  word  means  (1)  to 
test,  put  to  the  proof  ;  or  (2)  to  bring  forward 
proof,  demonstrate.  The  lirst  is  the  more  primi- 
tive meaning,  as  well  in  the  Lat.  probare  and  the 
Fr.  prover  as  in  the  Kng.  '  prove.'  It  has  now 
gone  out  of  u.se,  but  in  AV  it  is  rather  more  fre- 
quent than  the  second  meaning.  A  familiar  ex- 
ample is  Mai  3'°  '  Prove  me  now  herewith,  saith 
the  Lord  of  Hosts,  if  I  will  not  open  you  the 
windows  of  heaven,  and  pour  you  out  a  blessing.' 
Cf.  Udall,  Errismus'  Paraphrase,  i.  67,  'Jesus 
thought  good  to  prove  how  much  his  scholars  had 

{)iohted  by  hearing  so  riiuche  communicacioii,  and 
)y  seeing  so  many  miracles  .  .  .  therefore  he  de- 
niandeth  of  them,  sayin",  Whom  doe  men  talke 
that  the  sone  of  man  is  ?  and  p.  103,  '  I'ilate  per- 
ceyvyng  that  though  he  proved  all  wayes  and 
meanes  yet  he  i)reva3-led  notliyng  .  .  .  he  assoyled 
Jesus  before  that  he  condeuined  hym.'  This,  as 
Skeat  remarks,  is  the  lue.-uiiiig  of  'prove'  in  the 
proverb,  'The  exception  proves  the  rule'  =  Lat. 
exceplio  pruhat  regulam  ;  tlie  idea  that  an  excep- 
tion dcmonxtrateji  a  nile  is,  as  he  s.ays,  plainly 
absurd.     See  also  Driver,  Parallel  Psalter,  4.j'2  f. 

J.  Hastings. 
PROVERB.  — 1.  The  connotation  of  the  term 
'  ProDc.r/j.'  The  proverb  is  a  familiar  phenomenon, 
but  when  the  question  is  put.  What  is  its  place  in 
the  system  of  devices  that  enter  into  the  employ- 
ment of  language,  a  correct  reply  will  hardly  be 
found  in  the  literature  dealing  with  the  use  of 
proverbs.  An  attempt  will  be  made  in  the  present 
article  to  fumisli  a  satisfactory  answer.  We  assign 
the  proverb  to  the  category  of  aynecdocliiriil  e.\- 
pressions,  regarding  it  a.s  a  species  of  the  tofum 
Itrn  parts.  The  proverb  is  a  general  pr<)|iosition, 
which  throws  its  light  upon  a  number  of  single 
instances.  This  is  coiiliniied  by  the  biblical  usajje 
in  two  ways— (a)  It  happens  more   than   once  in 

•  i'lta,  23,  31.  and  cf.  Ant.  iv.  viii.  10,  J.  xX.  7,  jcvi.  vl.  8, 
•-  All.  ii.  :i3,  40;  I'hilo,  de  .Monarch,  i.  7  (cf.  Jer  2"  181»-'», 
Mi.-  4-''), 


the  OT  that  one  and  tlie  same  sentence  is  in  ona 
passage  put  into  the  mouth  of  the  general  subject 
'they'  (Germ,  mnn,  Fr.  <»!),  and  in  another  is 
called  a  'proverb.'  In  1  S  IS)-"'  we  read,  'Where- 
fore they  s.ay.  Is  Saul  also  among  the  prophets?' 
whereas  in  the  p.arallel  [lassage  (10'-''')  we  find, 
'  Therefore  it  became  a  ma.i/uil.  Is  Saul  also  among 
the  prophets'?  Again,  in  Jer  31-'»  we  read,  'In 
those  days  they  shall  say  no  more.  The  fathers 
have  e<aten  sour  grapes,  and  the  children's  teeth 
are  set  on  edge,'  but  in  Ezk  18^  we  find  in  place  of 
this,  '  What  mean  ye,  th.at  ye  use  this  mushal  in 
the  land  of  Israel,  The  fatliers  have  eaten  sour 
gr.apes,  and  the  children's  teeth  are  set  on  edge?' 
(A)  But  even  the  meanin"  of  mdsheil  appears  to  the 
present  writer  to  show  that  the  sayings  to  which 
this  designation  is  applied  were  general  proposi- 
tions. For  in  art.  Parable  (in  OT)  we  consider  we 
havo  proved  that  the  original  sense  of  mashed  was 
'  likeness '  or  '  identity,'  and  as  the  usual  form  of  an 
identiticatioii  is  the  combination  of  subject  and  pre- 
dicate, mdshdl  became  an  expression  for  a  judgment 
in  general.  What,  then,  is  the  Hebrew  md.<ihal  but 
a  general  proposition  ?  In  this  way  we  may  ex- 
plain the  u»e  of  md.thdl  also  for  an  authoritative 
utterance  iu  Nu  23'- '»  24^- '»•»"•  =3_  j„b  27'  29'. 
From  this  point  md,9hfd  could  readily  attain  to  the 
meaning  'proverb,'  which  it  possesses  also,  e.g.,  in 
the  recently-discovered  Heb.  text  of  Sir  47"',  where 

we  read  htra,  Syr.  ]JALd,  Gr.  irapoi/xiai,  Vetus 
( =  Vulgate)  Latina  proverhia. 

ii.  The  general  proposition  and  the  proverb  in 
the  narrower  sense  in  their  mutual  relations. — 
These  two  belong  to  the  same  category,  and  the 
border-line  between  them  <annot  alwaj's  be  sharply 
drawn ;  but  the  e.ssential  difference  between  a 
general  proposition  and  a  proverb  is  this,  that  the 
proverb  has  entered  more  upon  the  stage  of  tin- 
conscious  existence.  Prominent  representatives  of 
the  two  groups  &re  the  following :  (a)  General 
sentences  such  as  '  Thou  shalt  not  muzzle  the  ox 
when  he  treadeth  out  the  com '  (Dt  25'').  This 
sentence  is,  so  to  speak,  on  the  way  to  go  over  to 
the  camp  of  the  proverbs  (cf.  I  Co  9»,  I  Ti  5'"),  but 
it  has  not  yet  reached  this  goal.  Other  general 
sentences  ot  the  same  kind  occur  ''  !  S  ,5-'^  ('To 
obey  is  better  than  sacrilice'),  1  IC  20'-^  Jer  13'-^ 
23'"^  Ps  02"*',  2  Ch  2r)8'>;3,  cf.  I.k  I".— (6)  But  such 
sayings  as  the  following  have  more  certainly  at- 
tained to  the  stage  of  current  use,  and  are  tliere- 
fore  jorowcrfc?in  the  more  special  sense:  'as  Nimrod 
a  mighty  hunter  [i.e.  warrior  or  conqueror]  before 
the  Lord,'  Gn  10"'',  cf.  22'-"',  ,Ig  8-'"',  1  S  lo'^  (l|  19-') 
24",  2  S  5"*'>  •20'«,  Is  32«'^,  Jer  31-»,  Ezk  1'2"  16"''  IS-', 
Job  2^",  Lk  4»,  .In  4"  (6  \67os,  k.t.X.),  2  P  2--' 
{wapoifila). — The  genetic  relation  of  the  two  groups 
is  this,  tliat  tlie  general  sentences  form  a  wider 
circle,  from  which  the  jnoverbs  stand  out  as  an 
/'lite,  .and  the  two  coiu-entric  circle.^  form  a  constant 
parallel. — There  is  even  a  passage  in  the  OT  where 
the  characteristic  of  currency  which  belongs  to  the 
proverb  proper  has  clear  expression  gi\en  to  it. 
We  refer  to  1  S  24'^,  where  the  sentence  "Out  of 
the  wicked  cometh  forth  wickedness '  is  called  Ss'? 
'ppn,  i.e.  '  the  proverb  of  the  ancients '  (cf.,  on  the 
collective  sense  of  the  singul;ir,  Koiiig,  .^i/ntax, 
§ '2o6e).  What  can  this  mean  but  that  this  judg- 
ment has  been  long  passed,  and  preserved  during 
the  centuries?  It  is  the  same  when  in  2  S  2U'"  we 
read,  '  They  were  wont  in  olil  time  to  speak,  saying. 
They  shall  surely  ask  counsel  at  Abel.'  On  the 
other  hand,  the  OT  contains  a  remark  from  which 
we  see  that  general  sentences  might  be  regarded  as 
the  produit  of  reflexion.  In  the  pasfage  (Ec  1'2"  ") 
where  the  Preacher  says  that  he  sotght  out  many 
parables  (D''?»'?,  lit.  '.sentences'),  he  adds,  '  Mudi 
study  is  a  weariness  of  the  flesh.'     So  in  the  Heb. 


138 


PKOVERB 


PROVERB 


text  of  Sir  IS™*"  we  read  '  Study  and  meditation  is 
wearisome  thought,'  where  in  tlie  Greek  version 
this  'study'  is  specialized  as  eOpftris  rapajioXui',  'in- 
vention of  parables.' 

iii.  The  form  of  the  proverb. — The  following 
varieties  of  form  are  to  be  noted — (n)  Some  of  these 
sentences  are  affirmative,  and  serve  to  commend 
the  individual  to  whom  the  general  judgment  is 
applied.  This  is  illustrated  by  the  very  tirst  pro- 
verb we  encounter  in  the  Bible,  namely,  'as  Nim- 
rod  a  mighty  conqueror  in  the  estimation  of 
Jahweh'  (Gn  lO^*").  Another  nuishCil  may  have  a 
negative  character,  and  pass  a  taunting  criticism 
on  the  persons  to  whom  such  a  negative  mdshcil 
refers.  Tliis  is  the  case  with  the  sentence,  '  Where- 
fore they  that  speak  in  proverbs  say.  Come  unto 
Heshbon,'  etc.  (Nu  21"),  or  with  the  question,  '  Is 
Saul  also  among  the  prophets?'  (1  S  10'- II  IQ^-*). 
A  tauuting  oracle  of  this  kind  is  also  to  be 
spoken  over  the  king  of  Babylon,  when  that 
city  at  last  reaps  the  reward  of  her  tyranny 
(Is  U*  'Thou  slialt  take  up  this  parable  against 
the  king  of  Babylon,  and  say.  How  hath  the  op- 
pressor ceased,  the  golden  city  ceased  ! ').  The 
same  phenomenon  occurs  in  Hab  2*,  and  a  similar 
negative  jndshdl  is  spoken  about  disobedient  Israel 
in  Mic  2*.  Hence  a  formidable  threat,  occurring 
not  rarely  in  the  OT,  is  that  some  one  shall  be 
made  the  subject  of  a  mdshal.  Thus  Israel,  if 
it  persists  in  its  impiety,  is  to  be  a  'proverb'  (Dt 
28").  The  other  e.\aniple3  are :  1  K  9',  Jer  24', 
Ezk  14'  (D'^V'D^),  Ps  44»5  69l^  Job  17»  ('^s'o'?),  2  Ch 

(J)  Another  formal  difierence  amongst  proverbs 
shows  itself  in  their  varying  lengths.  A  judgment 
is  naturally  expressed,  of  course,  in  a  single  simple 
sentence,  and  so  we  find  it  not  only  in  that  '  pro- 
verb of  the  ancients'  in  1  S  24''',  but  in  the  great 
majority  of  the  proverbs  contained  in  the  historical 
and,  prophetical  books  of  the  Bible.  Jer  SI-"*  and 
Ezk  12*-'  18-  are  e.xceptions,  for  in  these  the  sen- 
tences are  made  up  of  two  simple  statements :  for 
instance  in  the  mdshal  '  Tlie  days  are  prolonged, 
and  every  vision  faileth'  (Ezk  12~).  From  this 
formal  point  of  view  we  naturally  obtain  a  rule  of 
considerable  importance  for  determining  the  date 
of  the  proverbs  contained  in  the  '  book  of  meshdlim' 
(Pr  1'-*  26'-«).  That  tlie  Book  of  Proverbs  does 
not  form  a  unity  is  evident  even  from  the  titles 
wliich  we  meet  with  in  10'  22"  24=^  25'  30'  31'. 
For  whoever  prefi.xed  to  the  lOtli  chapter  the  title 
'  the  Proverbs  of  Solomon,'  did  not  suppose  that 
proverbs  of  Solomon  were  contained  also  in  chs. 
1-9.  Now,  the  section  10'-22"  posse.sses  this  for- 
mal characteristic,  that  the  sentences  contained  in 
It  are,  with  the  exception  of  19'  (cf.  2r-^'-),  expressed 
in  isolated  duitirhs,  and  although  in  these  sentences 
causal  (I6'2-  =»  19"  21-»  22-')  or  final  (lo*"  16^)  clau-ses 
make  their  appearance,  yet  they  form  a  part  of  the 
particular  distich.  But  in  tne  section  22"-24*' 
groups  of  four,  five,  six,  or  more  stichoi  are  more 
frequent.  On  the  other  hand,  in  chs.  25-29  the 
sentence  is  again  frequently  expressed  by  isolated 
distichs  (25"- '^-''^-^s*-,  esp.  chs.  28  and  29),  or 
by  tristichs  (25'* "),  although  tetrastichs  also  occur 
(perliaps  in  25»-*'-,  certainly  in  s'- «•"'•)  The  last 
two  chapters  of  tlie  book  contain  as  a  rule  larger 
groups  of  lines,  and  exhibit  also  such  devices  as  the 
alphabetical  poem  (31'"'").  But  the  isolation  of 
the  sentences  is  almost  entirely  wanting  in  chs. 
1-9.  There  the  teacher  of  wisdom  develops  his 
ideas  almost  always  in  connected  expositions  (cf. 
jst.  lo-n  2'-i>- lo'-  etc.).  From  these  considerations 
alone  the  conclusion  may  be  drawn  with  much 
probability  that  in  the  section  10'-22"  we  have  the 
oldesi,  collection  of  sayings  (so  recently  also  Wil- 
deboer  in  his  essay,  De  Tijdsbepaling  van  het  hoek 
der  Spreuken,  1899,  p.  7).     See,  further,  the  follow- 


ing article.  This  rule  that  the  extent  of  tha 
clauses  in  which  a  sentiment  is  expressed,  increased 
in  general  as  time  went  on,  is  favoured  also  when 
we  compare  the  groups  of  sayings  of  Ben  Sirs 
(p-2o.2i-:d. 57-30  21-18  etc.).  The  Book  of  Qohelcth, 
which,  in  the  opinion  of  the  present  writer  (cf. 
Einleitung,  pp.  433-435),  was  written  still  later,  \a 
likewise  composed  for  the  most  part  of  continuous 
expositions.  Post-biblical  Jewish  works  also  ex- 
hibit proverbs  only  of  that  kind  which  are  inwoven 
in  a  continuous  text,  as  pearls  are  wont  tc  be  set 
in  gold.  Such  is  the  case  in  the  tractate  Pirki 
Aboth  (lit.  'chapters  of  the  fathers'),  which  is  per- 
haps the  oldest  portion  of  the  Mishna. 

iv.  The  material  of  the  Biblical  proverbs. — This 
may  be  best  illustrated  by  indicating  the  spheres 
from  which  the  particular  sayings  are  diawn. 
Tliese  are  mainly  five — 

(a)  From  the  Mineral  Kingdom  we  have  the 
following  :  '  The  waters  wear  the  stones '  (Job  14"), 
the  Hebrew  pendant  to  '  gutta  cavat  saxum  ' ;  '  A 
word  fitly  spoken  (is  like)  apples  of  gold  in  pictures 
of  silver  (Pr  25");  'Iron  sharpeneth  iron'  ("27"); 
'  In  the  fire  is  the  gold  tried '  (Sir  2°) ;  '  Gold  has 
ruined  many '  (8-°) ;  '  Whoso  toucheth  pitch  it  shall 
cleave  to  his  hand'  (13'',  Heb.  text  translated  by 
C.  Taylor) ;  '  What  fellowship  shall  earthen  pot 
have  with  kettle,  when,  if  this  smite  that,  it  is 
dashed  in  pieces?'  (13-'=);  'What  is  heavier  than 
lead,'  etc.  ?  (22''')  ;  '  Sand  and  salt  and  a  mass  of 
iron  is  easier  to  bear  than  a  man  without  under- 
standing' (v."). 

(b)  From  the  Vegetable  Kingdom  we  note  first 
of  all  the  proud  question  by  which  Jereiniali  dis- 
tinguishes himself  from  his  rivals :  '  What  is  the 
chatt'to  the  wheat?'  (23^'').  To  the  same  category 
partially  belongs  also  the  saying  about  the  eating 
of  sour  grapes  (Jer  31'-^,  Ezk  18"),  as  well  as  the 
following  sentences :  '  Better  is  a  dinner  of  herbs 
where  love  is,  than  a  stalled  ox  and  hatred  there- 
with '  (Pr  15"  II  17') ;  '  Wine  is  a  mocker '  (Pr  '20') ; 
'  Drowsiness  shall  clothe  (a  man)  with  rags'  (23-"') ; 
cf.  'Seek  not  to  be  a  mighty  man  at  wine'  (Sir 
34^) ;  '  Like  a  new  wine,  so  is  a  new  friend '  (9'*) ; 
and  '  Wine  and  women  will  make  men  of  under- 
standing to  fall  away'  (19^). 

(c)  From  the  Animal  Kingdom  are  derived  the 
following  general  sayings  and  proverbs :  first  comes 
the  caution,  '  Thou  slialt  not  muzzle  the  ox  when 
he  treadeth  out  the  corn'  (Dt  '25^) ;  next,  the  ear- 
nest question,  '  Can  the  leopard  change  his  spots  ? ' 
(Jer  13-^) ;  to  which  may  be  added  the  general 
sayings,  '  Go  to  the  ant,  thou  sluggard ;  consider 
her  ways,  and  be  wise'  (Pr  0") :  'Where  no  oxen 
are,  the  crib  is  clean'  (14^  cf.  Sir  '26');  'A  whip 
for  the  horse,  a  bridle  for  the  ass,  and  a  rod  for 
the  fool's  back'  (26») ;  'Skin  for  skin'  (Job  2*); 
'  Doth  the  wUd  ass  bray  when  he  hath  grass  ? '  (6°) ; 
'  Small  among  flying  creatures  is  the  bee,  and  her 
fruit  is  the  chief  of  sweetmeats'  (Sir  II');  'Who 
will  pity  (?)  a  charmer  that  is  stung?'  (12'*  trans- 
lated from  the  Heb.  by  C.  Taylor) ;  '  All  flesli 
loveth  its  kind'  (13"»  iro  nnx-  -ic-n.n  '?3 ;  cf.  the 
Arabic,  '  One  camel  kneels  again  in  the  place  of 
another,'  ap.  Schultens,  Gram.  Arab.  p.  297  ;  ^Xf 
^XiKo  rlpwei.  ;  '  Pares  cum  paribus  facillime  con^:re- 
gantur' ;  '  Qui  se  ressemblent  s'assemblent ' ;  '  Birds 
of  a  feather  flock  together');  'What  fellowsliip 
shall  wolf  have  with  lamb?'  (Sir  13"*  3ni  -law  no 
r33  \k)  ;  '  Flee  from  sin  as  from  a  serpent,'  etc. 
(21^) ;  '  The  true  proverb.  The  dog  is  turned  to 
his  own  vomit  again,  and,  The  sow  that  was 
washed  to  her  wallowing  in  the  mire '  (2  P  2-^). 

(rf)  Other  sayings  in  the  Bible  which  border  on 
the  realm  of  proverbs,  or  belong  to  it,  are  borrowed 
from  the  human  sphere ;  and  if  it  is  desired  to 
divide  this  large  group  into  its  particular  species, 
these  may  be  given  as  follows  : — (a)  Many  proverbs 


PEOVERB 


PROVERBS,  BOOK  OF 


139 


are  derived  from  the  life  of  tlie  individual.  To 
this  category  belong  tlie  frequently  cited  'As 
Nimrod,'  etc.  (Gn  10"")  ;  '  Is  Saul  also  among  the 
prophets?'  (1  S  lO'''  ||  19")  ;  'As  is  the  mother,  so 
18  her  daughter '  ( Ezk  lO"'') ;  '  Treasures  of  wicked- 
ness prolit  notliing'  (Pr  10^;  ef.  the  Arab. 
matal"",  '  Poverty  is  better  than  unlawful  riches 
and  unrighteous  gain,'  ap.  Schultens,  Gram.  Arab. 
p.  2S4 ;  'Ill-gotten  goods  do  not  prosper';  'Bien 
mal  acquis  ne  protite  pus ')  ;  '  Tlie  memory  of  the 
just  is  blessed,^  etc.  (Pr  10'  13"- =") ;  'Kighteous- 
ness  exalteth  a  nation'  (H**);  'A  soft  answer 
turneth  away  wrath'  (15');  'In  all  labour  there 
is  profit'  (14^*^),  cf.  the  following  negative  par- 
allels: 'The  siurjgard  will  not  phjugh  by  reason 
of  the  cold,'  etc.  f-'O^  22"  24^»  2G'^-»^» ;  '  A  sluggard 
may  be  compared  to  a  dirty  stone'  (Sir  22';  cf. 
the  Arabic  saj'ing,  '  SU)th  and  much  sleep  lead 
away  from  God,  and  bring  poverty,'  ap.  Schultens, 
Gram.  Arab.  p.  281  f.);  'It  is  better  to  dwell  in 
a  comer  of  the  housetop  than  with  a  brawling 
woman  in  a  wide  house'  (Pr  21";  similar  sayings 
about  women  are  found  in  v."  25-''  27",  cf.  the 
extravagant  hyperbole  in  '  I  would  rather  dwell 
with  a  lion  and  a  dragon  than  in  a  house  with  an 
angry  woman '  (Sir  25"')) ;  '  A  friend  will  not  be 
known  (•;t\')  in  prosperity,'  etc.  (Sir  12^,  translated 
by  C.  Taylor) ;  '  \\  hoso  diggeth  a  pit  shall  fall 
therein'  (Pr  26",  and  simUarly  Ec  10»,  Sir  27^; 
cf.  '  He  wlio  digs  a  pit  for  another,  may  soon  fall 
himself  therein,'  or  'celui  qui  creuse  la  fosse  y 
tombera ') ;  '  Give  to  a  brother,  and  let  tliy  soul 
fare  delicately'  (Sir  14'°*,  Heb.  text  'Ji  nn'?  jn) ;  'A 
slip  on  a  pavement  is  better  than  a  slip  with  the 
tongue'  (Sir  20'^) ;  '  A  /ie  is  a  foul  blot  in  a  man  ' 
(v.^^;  cf.  the  Arabic,  'The  tongue  of  the  dumb  is 
better  than  the  tongue  whicli  speaks  lies,'  ap. 
Schultens,  Gram.  Arab.  p.  284);  'He  who  multi- 
plies words  occasions  sin'  (PirlcS  Aboth,  i.  17); 
'A  rough  (or  boorish)  man  fears  not  sin'  ("i'i3  px 
K2n  Ni;,  ib.  ii.  5) ;  '  Whoso  makes  much  llesh  makes 
many  worms'  (ib.  ii.  7;  cf.  Is  14""  6G=^^  Job  7°' 
IjHt.  gia""  242»«  25*').— (^)  Other  proverbs  draw  a 
lesson  from  the  life  of  nations  or  other  wider 
circles  of  the  human  race  :  '  They  shall  surely  ask 
counsel  at  A  bel '  (2  S  20'") ;  '  Can  the  Ethiopian 
change  his  skin?'  (Jer  13'-");  'As  the  man  is,  so 
is  his  strength '  (Jg  S*") ;  1  S  24''' ;  '  The  vile 
person  will  speak  villainy '  (Is  32*')  ;  Jer  31="= 
Ezk  18^. — (7)  In  that  oliservation  of  human  life 
which  led  to  the  constructing  of  proverbs,  regard 
has  also  been  had  to  the  life  of  the  warrior,  as  in 
'As  Nimrod,'  etc.  (Gn  10"''),  and  in  'Let  not  him 
that  girdetli  on  (his  harness)  boast  himself  as  he 
that  i)utteth  it  oil'  (1  K  20"") ;  the  conduct  of  the 
trader  is  noted  in  '  skin  for  skin '  (Job  2*,  cf.  the 
case  of  Shylock) ;  the  sphere  of  the  physician  is 
in  view  in  '  Physician,  heal  thyself  (Lk  4''') ;  and 
the  hard  lot  of  the  husbandman  suggests  the  lesson, 
'  One  soweth  and  another  reapeth '  ( Jn  4"). 

(e)  From  the  religious  or  .<nipra-hrimnn  sphere 
the  following  sayinjjs  are  derived  :  '  In  the  mount 
of  the  Loud  it  is  seen '  [i.e.  Divine  Provi- 
dence is  exercised;  see,  further,  art.  Jkiiovah- 
JlHKH]  (Gn  22'*") ;  '  The  blind  and  the  lame  must 
not  come  into  the  house  '  ((.e.  the  temple,  2  S  5'") ; 
'The  davs  are  prolonged,  and  every  vision  faileth  ' 
(Kzk  12--);  'God  hath  power  to  help'  (2  Ch  2rfi ; 
cf.  'With  God  nothing  is  impossible,'  Lk  1"). 
This  noting  of  the  spheres  from  which  the  biblical 
proverbs  are  derived,  prepares  us  for  recognizing 
the  vriqin  of  these — 

V.  The  source  of  the  proverbs  nf  the  Bible. — This 
was  twofold — one  source  formal,  and  one  material. 
Their  formal  source  lay  in  the  ability  of  the  human 
mind  to  compare  the  objects  of  its  observation, 
and,  from  comparison  of  the  various  phenomena, 
to  draw  conclusions.     The  material  source  was  the 


sura  of  experiences  gathered  by  men  in  the  dift'erent 
spheres  ot  their  environment.  Both  sources  were 
in  the  last  resort  ojiened  up  by  God  himself.  For 
the  human  capacity  for  separating  oU'  points  of 
diii'erence  and  combining  similarities,  was  a  feature 
in  the  Divine  image  which  was  bestowed  on  man 
at  his  creation  (Gn  1^'-  2'),  and  which  survived  the 
FaU  (Gn  5'->  9",  1  Co  11',  Ja  3");  cf.  'The  spirit 
ai  man  is  the  candle  of  the  Lokd'  (Pr  20-'''),  and 
'(God)  gave  man  understanding'  (Sir  38"  puk'j  [n'l 
nj'3).  And  is  not  the  same  God  the  linal  author 
of  the  experiences  which  form  the  material  sub- 
stratum of  the  biblical  proverbs?  Hence  the  aged 
appear  as  Jahweh's  representatives  in  the  congre- 
gation (Lv  19^'''  'Thou  shalt  rise  up  before  the 
hoary  head,  etc.,  and  fear  thy  God').  They  are 
celebrated  also  elsewhere  as  possessors  of  w  isdom, 
cf.  Pr  18  &\  Job  12'^  ('  with  the  ancient  is  wisdom ') 
IS"'*,  although  in  the  opinion  of  Elihu  this  rule  is 
not  without  exceptions  (32").  So  also  Ben  Sira: 
'  Miss  not  the  discourse  of  the  aged,  for  they  also 
learned  of  their  fathers'  (Sir  8"*) ;  and  the  Preacher 
drew  his  sayings  (a-^v^  Ec  12")  from  the  experi- 
ences of  his  long  life  (1'^  7^) ;  cf.  the  exhortation, 
'  Let  our  lord  consult  only  his  old  men '  (Tel  el- 
Amarna  Letters,  ed.  Winckler,  No.  xli.  11),  and 
the  Arabic,  '  Length  of  experience  is  increase  of 
knowledge'  (ap.  Schultens,  Gram.  Arab.  p.  281). 
Hence  we  need  not  wonder  that  in  the  Bible  itself 
proverbs  are  viewed  as  legitimate  elements  in  its 
contents.  Like  the  information  of  the  husband- 
man spoken  of  in  Is  28-',  they  have  their  original 
source  in  the  Divine  arrangement  of  the  world  and 
disposition  of  history. 

vi.  Proverbs  outside  Scripture. — From  the  same 
standpoint  as  above  it  is  explicable  how  the 
proverbs  of  the  Bible  agree  essentially  with  those 
which  we  find  in  the  post-biblical  Jewish  writings 
and  in  the  literary  treasures  of  other  nations. 
Further  materials  for  comparison  beyond  what 
have  been  already  cited  from  both  these  classes 
of  writings  will  be  found  in  the  Literature. 

LiTKRATTiRE. — J.  Buxt^rf,  FlorHp()iuin  Bcbraicum,  1648;  R. 
J.  Furstenthal,  liaU/iiiincfte  AntltoUi'iie,  lfs35 ;  J.  Fiirst,  Pet' 
lensc/itnac  aramtiitffher  (Jnomfn  utM  Licdrr,  1836;  L.  Dvikes, 
RabhiiiiKche  BluirumU^c,  18i4,  and  Xur  rahhinUchen  Spriich- 
kunde,  1S.')1 ;  C.  Taylor,  Sayings  of  the  Jewish  Fathers'^,  Cam- 
bridj,'e,  1897,  Appendix,  Camb.  1900;  S.  Scliechter,  Aboth  d« 
liabbi  Nathan,  Vindobona),  1837  ;  Gabirol's  D'3":2.i  iniD  -IBD,  A 
Choice  of  Pearls,  orijf  inally,  compiled  from  the  Arabic,  translated 
into  Hebrew,  with  a  faithful  Knj^.  tr.  by  B.  H.  Asher,  London, 
1809  ;  Freytag,  A  rabutn  proverbia,  1838-43  ;  the  Ethiopia  Book 
of  the  Philosophers,  portions  of  which  are  given  in  Dillmann's 
Chrestomathia  .^thwpica,  p.  40ff.  ;  G.  Gerber,  l/ie  Sprache 
ala  Kunst,  Bd.  ii.  (1885)  p.  405 ff. ;  W.  Budge,  Oriental  Wit,  etc., 
London,  18B9,  p.  31  fl.  ED.  KoNIO. 

PROVERBS,  BOOK  OF.— 

Introduction. 
I.  Analysis  of  the  book, 
ii.  Unity  and  Authorship. 

iii.  Dates  of  tlie  various  components  of  the  book, 
iv.  Relation  of  the  Miuisoretic  text  to  ttie  Versions. 
Literature. 

The  Book  of  Proverbs  (.ibV  •^;f*? ;  LXX  title 
Uapoiixlat,  subscr.  B  Ilopoi/ifai,  A  II.  i'oXoyuiii'ros,  N 
n.  iaX.)  belongs,  with  Job  and  Qohcletli,  to  the 
Wisdom  literature.  In  harmony  with  the  char- 
acter of  the  Hebrew  I/o/chnuih  (wisdom),  which  is 
inspired  by  religious  motives,  this  book  as  a  whole 
has  a  decidedly  religious  character,  although  we 
find  also  that  many  maxims  have  found  their  way 
into  it  which  bear  upon  ordinary  prudence  of  con- 
duct, and  are  the  result  of  purely  human  experi- 
ence.    See,  further,  art.  Wisdom. 

i.  Analysis  of  the  Book. — The  Book  of  Pro- 
verbs falls  into  a  number  of  parts  which  are  clearly 
distinct,   and  which  are  partially  marked  off  by 
special  titles — 
I      (1)  Chs.  1-9,  which  form  the  introduction  to  the 


/40 


PEOVERBS,  BOOK  OF 


PROVERBS,  BOOK.  OF 


book  which  now  follows.  In  V  Solomon  is  named 
us  the  autlior  of  llie  proverbs,  but  v.^  appears  also 
to  announce  tlie  intention  of  publishing  '  words 
and  riddles  of  the  wise.'  The  author  of  those 
chapters  exhorts  the  reader,  whom  he  addresses  as 
'  my  son,'  to  give  himself  w'ith  all  earnestness  to 
the  pursuit  or  wisdom,  and  to  flee  folly,  which  is 
thou;,'bt  of  predominatingly  as  con.si.sting  in  sensual 
indulgences.  In  ch.  8  Wisdom  is  introduced  speak- 
ing in  person,  while  in  ch.  9  'Madam  Folly'  is 
opposed  to  •  Madam  Wisdom,'  and  the  two  are 
represented  as  issuing  rival  invitations  to  men.  It 
is  not  possible  to  regard  these  chapters  as  a  collec- 
tion of  various  exhortations  intended  as  words  of 
Introduction  to  books  of  proverbs  (Bertheati),  nor 
have  we  any  right  to  assume  that  they  contain 
serious  interpolations  (Hitzig).  On  the  contrary, 
the  unity  of  diction  and  of  the  whole  mode  of  pre- 
sentation, as  well  as  the  equally  evident  unity  in 
the  train  of  ideas  throughout  these  chapters,  point 
to  a  single  author. 

(2)  Ch.  lOi-Sa's,  the  '  proverbs  of  Solomon '  {'h-^'r: 
nbS^  10'*;  LXX  om.),  forming  the  real  kernel  of 
the  book.  Each  verse,  consisting  usually  of  seven, 
sometimes  eight,  rarely  nine  to  eleven,  words,  forms 
a  saying  complete  in  itself  and  Independent.  In 
chs.  10-15  the  antithetic  parallelism  predominates, 
in  chs.  16-22''  the  synthetic,  along  with  which  we 
find  also  the  synonymous,  in  wnieh  the  second 
member  limits  or  expands  or  continues  the  first. 

(3)  Ch.  22" -24-.  These  'words  of  the  wise' 
(22""-')  contain  maxims  and  warnings  which  only 
exceptionally  are  comprised  in  a  single  verse ; 
u^Qally  they  extend  tf  two,  sometimes  tliree,  once 
even  seven,  verses.  They  are  again  addressed, 
like  1'*',  to  '  my  son,'  a  form  of  address  which  is 
found  in  (2)  only  in  the  corrupt  passage  19^.  The 
rigid  poetical  rhytlim  of  (2)  is  not  prominent  in 
this  section,  here  anil  there  it  is  wanting  entirely. 

(4)  Ch.  24-^"*'.  This  appears  to  be  an  appendix 
to  (3).  It  is  headed,  '  These  are  also  words  of  the 
wise,' and  may  perhaps  be  reduced  to  seven  sayin-js 
and  exhortations,  comprised  for  the  most  part  in 
one  verse,  although  the  second  consists  of  two,  and 
the  seventh  of  five,  verses. 

{b)  Chs.  25-29,  with  the  heading,  'These  also 
are  proverbs  of  Solomon,  Avhich  the  men  of  Heze- 
kiah,  king  of  Judah,  collected,'  2.5'.  Here  again, 
as  a  rule,  each  verse  makes  up  a  proverb  (so  al«  ays 
in  chs.  28.  29),  although  at  times  two,  in  27^-" 
even  five,  verses  have  to  go  together.  Some  of  the 
sayings  are  duplicates  of  proverbs  contained  in 
10'-22".  The  parallelism  is  not  regular  as  in  (2), 
but  these  sayings  are  distinguished  by  the  pithiness 
of  their  contents  and  the  rich  imagery  of  their 
language.  The  religious  character  recedes  far 
into  the  background  ;  notably  in  chs.  25-27,  they 
are  for  the  most  part  sayings  bearin"  purely  upon 
a  prudent  direction  of  the  conduct  of  lite. 

(6)  Ch.  30,  entitled  '  Words  of  Agur,'  made  up, 
as  to  form  and  contents,  of  enigmatical  sayings, 
and  a  few  numerical  proverbs  such  as  meet  us 
elsewhere  only  in  6*"'".  The  title  in  30'  is  mani- 
festly connipt  (cf.  Frankenberg  or  Wildeboer  ad 
loc,  and  art.  Ac  UK). 

(7)  Ch.  31'-',  exhortations  to  'Lemuel,  king  of 
Massa'  (see  Lemukl  and  Mar.sa),  spoken  by  his 
mother.  These  may  really  be  re<luced  to  a  single 
saying  consistinj'  of  eight  verses,  in  which  tlie 
mother  cautions  lier  son  against  wine  and  women, 
and  exhorts  him  to  rule  righteously  (cf.  MUlilau, 
De  Proverb.  qu(E  dimntur  Agnn  ct  Lemuelis 
origine  atniie  indole,  Lipsiie,  1869,  and  Kuenen, 
Onrlerzoek\  §  95,  note  10).     The  book  closes  with — 

(8)  Ch.  31'"'",  an  alphabetical  poem,  standing 
by  itself,  without  any  connexion  with  what  pre- 
cedes, devoted  to  a  panegyric  on  the  virtuous 
housewife. 


ii.  Unity  and  Authorship.  —  It  is  beyond 
question  that  in  the  present  book  we  have  to  du 
not  witli  a  collection  of  proverbs  which  took  their 
rise  in  the  mouth  of  the  people,  but  with  arti 
ticially  constructed  poetry.  Delitzscli  has  pointed 
to  the  saying  contained  in  1  S  24'''  [Eng.  '^J,  '  Out 
of  the  wicked  cometh  forth  wickedness,'  as  a 
specimen  of  the  folk-proverb.  The  latter  wants 
tlie  rhythmical  form,  and  is  generally  marked  by 
pregnant  brevity  ;  cf.  also  1  S  W\  1  K  20",  Jei 
31-",  Ezk  IS"-,  Lk  4^,  Jn  4"  (see  the  preceding 
article).  Cut  for  such  sayings  we  seek  in  vain  in 
the  Book  of  Proverbs.  This  is  generally  recog- 
nized to  be  the  case,  as  is  shown  by  tlie  inquiry  as 
to  the  authorsliip  of  our  book  and  its  sayings. 
From  the  titles  in  10'  25'  22"  24=3"  301  311  (cf_  i6)  it 
results  with  certainty  tliat  the  traditional  view, 
which  credits  Solomon  with  the  authorship  of  our 
book  and  its  individual  parts,  must  be  rejected. 
It  must,  further,  be  admitted  that  no  principle  can 
be  distinguished  upon  which  the  proverbs  are 
arranged.  Sometimes,  indeed,  sajangs  of  similar 
purport  are  brought  together,  which  collectively 
make  up  a  series  of  admonitions ;  or  sayings  in 
which  the  same  word  recurs  are  found  in  juxta- 
position ;  but  these  are  only  isolated  occurrences. 
Finally,  it  is  a  significant  circumstance  that  the 
same  proverbs  are  repeated  in  identical  or  almost 
identical  terms  in  diti'erent  parts  of  the  book  : 
compare  218  „.jt,]i  2o-\  W  with  26-^  20'»  with  27", 
22'  with  27'=,  19"  with  26",  17*'  =  27=>»,  19"  =  28% 

J518»_-Og'J2ji     OO-'Sh^;  0310a     2433- S4  _  glO.  11      OO-Sa  — 0311^ 

24'  compared  with  20'"'  and  ll'*"" ;  nay,  even  within 
the  same  division  such  repetitions  make  their  ap- 
pearance, e., 17.  14'-=16'»,  10■-'•=ll*^  10"»=18"%  IP" 
=  16">^  15*"'=  18'='',  and  oft.  ;  cf.  Delitzscli,  Comm. 
p.  21  ff. ;  Nowack  (in  the  Kgf.  Hdbch.),  p.  xxiv ; 
Comill,  Einleitung^,  p.  225;  briver,  LOT',  p.  397. 
The  phenomena  just  noticed  necessitate  the  assump- 
tion that  the  different  parts  of  our  book  belong  to 
ditt'erent  authors,  and  consequently  exclude  the 
authorship  of  Solomon. 

But  although  the  book  in  its  present  form 
does  not  proceed  from  Solomon,  may  not  parti- 
cular portions  of  it  be  assigned  directly  or  indi- 
rectly to  him  ?  One  title  (10')  plainly  credits  him 
with  the  authorship  of  10' -22",  while  anotliei 
(25'  'proverlis  of  Solomon,  which  the  men  of 
Hezekiah,  king  of  Judah,  collected ')  ascribes  chs 
25-29  at  least  indirectly  to  him.  But  thest 
titles  simply  give  exjiression  to  the  tradition  tlia* 
prevailed  at  a  particular  period,  while  the  fact  that 
the  men  of  Hezekiah  are  spoken  of  in  the  third 
person  would  appear  to  indicate  that  this  note 
does  not  proceed  from  themselves,  nay,  the  way  in 
which  Hezekiah  is  spoken  of  not  as  '  king,'  but  as 
'  kingof  Judah,'  suggests  that  the  note  was  written 
down  at  a  time  when  there  was  no  longer  a  king 
of  Judah  (cf.  Baudissin,  Die.  alttest.  Spruchdu-h- 
tung,  p.  11).  We  need  not  then  regard  it  as  im- 
possible that  we  have  to  do  with  a  literary  fiction 
which  attributed  proverbs  to  Solomon,  perhaps  in 
order  to  enhance  their  value,  just  as  the  books  of 
Qoheleth  and  Wisdom  are  also  ascribed  to  him. 
Such  a  tradition  is  all  the  more  intelligible,  be- 
cause not  only  was  Solomon  regarded  as  the  beau 
ideal  of  wisdom,  but  in  1  K  4*"  it  is  expressly 
stated  tliat  he  spoke  three  thousand  proverbs. 
This  passage,  in  fact,  has  been  sought  to  be  used 
in  support  of  the  Solomonic  authorship  of  our 
book,  but  (a)  the  Book  of  Proverbs  contains  only 
nine  hundred  and  thirty-five  verses,  (b)  1  K  4^ 
saj's  only  that  Solomon  spoke  three  thousand  pro- 
verbs, (c)  this  passage  does  not  lead  us  to  suppose 
that  the  contents  of  these  proverbs  belonged  to  the 
religious  and  moral  sphere,  rather  would  they 
appear  from  v.*'  to  have  dealt  with  subjects  of 
quite  a  difierent  kind.     Consequently  the  author 


PROVERBS,  BOOK  OF 


PROVERBS,  BOOK  OF 


141 


of  1  K  4"  laninit  liave  meant  his  remarks  to  apply 
tu  our  buuk,  altliuii;:li  it  is  quite  conceivable  luat 
tlie  trajition  that  Solomon  was  the  author  of  the 
Book  of  I'roverbs,  or  of  particular  portions  of  it, 
goes  back  for  its  basis  to  this  passage. 

Against  the  Solomonic  authorship  of  the  portions 
desif;iialed  above  (2)  and  (ii),  the  contents  of  the 
proverbs  contained  iu  them  are  ri^'htly  urj;ed  :  in 
J4-JS.  33  i(ji«.  i4f.  20--  ^-  *'■  '^  21-  22^'  25-''  "•  29'*-  ^*  it  is 
not  a  kin<'  that  speaks  of  himself,  but  another  that 
speaks  of  the  king,  and  the  experiences  under- 
lying these  proverbs  are  scarcely  conceivable  in 
tlie  days  of  Solomon,  rather  do  they  point  to  later 
times  ;  in  14'  18**  19"'-  21'-  " — proverbs  dealing 
with  married  and  domestic  life  —  monogamy  is 
uniformly  presupjio^ed,  and  unquestionably  the 
thought  of  a  harem  is  far  from  the  mind  of  the 
author  ;  proverbs  like  those  contained  in  11^ 
J516.  25  ^Qa  a^re  unlikely  in  the  mouth  of  the 
Bplendour-Ioving  Solomon,  etc. 

Under  these  circumstances  we  must  disregard 
the  titles,  and  seek  from  internal  evidence  alone 
to  date  the  composition  of  our  book  and  of  its 
parts. 

iii.  Dates  of  the  vauious  Componknts  of 
THii  Book. — Which  of  the  above  divisions  of  the 
Book  of  I'roverbs  are  we  to  make  our  starting- 
point!  Ilitzig  and  Ilooykaa-s  have  taken  l'-9  to 
be  the  oldest  portion,  holding  that  when  10'-22"' 
were  collected,  l'-9  already  existed.  But  simple 
comparison  of  the  parallel  passages  in  the  two 
divisions  does  not  justify  such  a  conclusion ;  see 
Comm.  on  18=*  and  8";  14' and  9';  19'-'' and  3'=; 
9  ami  10' ;  12-  and  3"  5-  8'= ;  12*  16--  19"  and  3* 
13" ;  and  cf.  Kuenen,  I.e.  §  96,  note  10.  On 
the  other  hand,  a  comparison  of  the  form  of  the 
proverbs  and  the  conception  of  wisdom  in  these 
two  divisionH  leads  to  the  conclusion  that  the  first 
division  nmst  be  the  more  recent.  The  strict  form 
of  the  musluil,  with  its  didactic  tendency,  as  this 
appears  throughout  the  second  division,  is  sup- 
pressed in  the  lirst,  and  in  its  place  a  fuller  pre- 
sentation of  the  parcnesis  prevails.  To  regard  a 
periodic  structure  such  as  we  lind  here  as  older 
tlian  the  simple  form  of  the  distich  in  the  second 
division  is  all  the  less  possible,  seeing  that  this 
first  division  also  lets  it  be  clearly  seen  that  mean- 
while wisdom  has  become  a  subject  in  the  schools, 
where  '  the  wise '  gathered  their  pujnls  around 
them  as  their  '  eons,'  a  feature  which  is  wanting 
in  tlie  second  division.  If  one  takes  into  account, 
finally,  that  in  chs.  1-9  wisdom  is  thought  of  as  an 
independent  personality,  who  was  with  God  even 
prior  to  the  creation  of  the  world,  as  the  lirst  of 
His  works,  who  stood  by  His  side  as  superin- 
tendent at  the  creation,  and  who  now  plays  her 
r6le  on  earth  among  the  children  of  men,  whereas 
in  the  second  division  wi.sdom  is  partly  prudent 
conduct  and  partly  the  fear  of  God  by  which  one 
ensures  for  himself  the  blcr-siiig  of  God,  namely 
long  life,  pro.-.purity,  etc.,  there  can  be  no  doubt 
that  the  second  division  (10'-22"')  and  llic  lifth  (chs. 
25-29),  which  are  both  attributed  to  Solomon,  are 
older  than  the  lirst  (chs.  1-9). 

The  relation  of  the  second  and  the  fifth  part  to 
one  iiniitlier  is  not  easy  to  determine.  In  chs.  25  11". 
we  lind  not  only  dislichs,  but  also  brief  oracular 
di.sc<iurse8  in  which  several  verses  are  combined  to 
express  an  idea  (cf.  2o-^^  and  27*"),  while, 
further,  in  these  chapters  the  rhythm  is  several 
times  wanting  or  at  least  imperfect  (cf.  25'  26'"'-). 
On  these  grounds  it  has  generally  been  held  that 
the  lifth  part  is  more  recent  th.in  the  second,  in 
which  we  encounter  nothing  but  distichs  of 
uniformly  pure  rhythm.  Hooykaa-t  believes  it 
po.ssilile  to  reach  the  same  result  by  a  comparison 
between  the  verses  common  to  the  two  divisions, 
but  an   unprejudiced  examination   by  no  means 


establishes  this  conclusion,  nay,  Keuss  {La  Bible, 
vi.  149)  actuallj'  calls  '  the  collection  of  the  men  of 
Hezekiih  the  best  part  of  the  book.'  Viewed  more 
exactly,  the  case  stands  thus  :  sometimes  it  is  the 
second,  sometimes  the  lifth,  division  that  ha.s  pre- 
served the  original  form  of  a  pro\erb  (cf.  Kuenen, 
I.e.  §  96,  note  5).  Very  significant  is  the  circum- 
stance that  in  chs.  25-27  wisdom  appears  through- 
out as  practical  prudence  of  conduct,  without  any 
sjiecial  religious  tinge.  This  suggests  that  the 
tilth  division,  although  as  a  collection  more  recent 
than  the  second,  yet  contains  in  part  older  proverbs 
than  the  latter  (cf.  Frankenberg,  Sprilcke,  p.  8). 

The  third  and  fourth  divisions  are  by  general 
consent  regarded  as  more  recent  than  the  second 
and  lifth  :  instances  of  oracular  discourses  extend- 
ing to  live  (24™""),  nay,  even  to  seven  (23-^-"),  verses, 
are  found  here  again,  while  the  rhythm  is  un- 
mistakably less  pure  and  complete  than  in  these 
other  divisions.  As  in  the  first  division,  so  also 
here  we  find  the  form  of  address  'my  son'  (cf. 
0315. 18. 26  anj  oft.);  here  as  well  as  there  the 
parenetie  tone  prevails,  and,  whereas  in  the  second 
and  fifth  divisions  wisdom  is  a  human  quality,  it 
appears  here  t.s  the  sum  of  God's  requirements 
from  men,  it  is  even  personified  as  in  the  lirst 
division,  and  hence  can  say,  '  My  son,  give  me  thine 
heart,  and  lei  thine  eyes  delight  in  my  ways' 
(2.3-»).  Finally,  in  verses  like  23'«  24"-  =°  the  thought 
of  a  retribution  in  the  world  beyond  apjiears  to 
emerge:  'The  wicked  hath  no  future,  and  the 
candle  of  the  transgressor  is  put  out,'  a  conception 
which  is  still  strange  to  lO'"^-  and  25"-. 

The  appendixes  chs.  30.  31  consist  of  three  inde- 
pendent pieces,  which  undoubtedly  belong  to  a 
somewhat  late  period,  and  are  in  fact  probably  the 
latest  in  the  whole  book.  We  are  led  to  this  con- 
clusion by  the  very  form  of  the  proverbs  they 
contain  :  in  30-31"  there  is  a  manifest  ellbrt  to 
express  ideas  in  single  short  sententious  poems 
marked  by  the  extreme  of  art,  and  often  enigmati- 
cally expressed.  The  contents,  too,  point  to  a  late 
date  :  in  30"''-  we  find  a  deeper  consciousness  of  the 
inadequacy  of  man's  knowledge  of  God  and  of 
divine  things  than  meets  us  anywhere  else  except 
in  Qoheletii  and  partially  in  Job ;  moreover,  the 
notion  that  appears  in  ;!0°'-  of  a  fixed  written 
revelation,  from  which  nothing  is  to  be  taken  and 
to  which  nothing  is  to  be  added,  equally  points 
us  to  a  late  period,  subsequent  at  all  events  to 
Deuteronomy. 

The  alphabetical  poem  (31'°"")  shows  by  this 
very  device,  which  is  peculiar  to  it,  that  we  have 
to  do  with  a  relatively  late  literary  product.  To 
determine  more  specifically  its  date  from  its 
contents  is  unfortunately  not  possible. 

The  determination  of  the  period  to  which  10'- 
22"  and  chs.  25-29  belong,  is  peculiarly  difficult 
owing  to  the  circumstance  that  historical  allusions 
are  practically  wanting  in  them.  Ewald  (Gesch. 
d.  V(jlk.  Isr.  lii.  598  11.)  has,  indeed,  discovered  in 
28-'- 29-- ■■•"•'" '"  allusions  pointing  us  to  the  last 
years  of  the  Northern  kingdom,  but  there  is  no 
necessity  to  suppose  these  proverbs  to  have  origin- 
ated then  ;  at  the  most  it  may  be  conceded  sim|)ly 
that  they  would  be  intelligible  if  emanating  from 
this  period  (cf.  the  Books  of  Amos  and  Ilosea). 
The  date  of  the  rise  of  these  collections  is  not, 
however,  to  be  determined  on  the  ground  of  par- 
ticular sayings  which,  like  the  above,  held  good  at 
various  periods  of  time,  but  from  the  whole  char- 
acter of  the  collections.  This  has  escaped  the 
notice  of  those  who,  like  Bauilissin,  have  adduced 
in  particular  the  saj'ings  about  the  king  in  order 
to  prove  that  these  chapters  originatcil  during  the 
times  of  Israel's  independence.  It  has  to  be  nil 
mitted  that  analogous  savings  are  found  also  in 
Siracb  ;  but  these  are  dibtinguislied,  we  aie  tolil. 


142 


PROVERBS,  BOOK  OF 


PROVERBS,  BOOK  OF 


from  those  we  are  dealing  with,  in  so  far  as  they 
contain  warnings  of  the  danger  of  intercourse  with 
the  great  rathor  tlian  point  to  the  benefit  arising 
from  such  (cf.  I'r  IG'-'*'').  In  confirmation  of  tliis 
date  for  the  main  stock  of  our  book,  we  are  pointed, 
furtlier,  to  the  mention  in  pre-exilic  time  (cf.  Is 
3s,  Jer  IS's,  Dt  16"")  of  'the  wise'  along  with 
priests  and  prophets  (so  Ewald,  Oehler,  Hooykaas, 
Delitzsch,  and  others).  These  '  wise,'  it  is  held, 
were  evidently  divided  into  two  classes — the  one 
with  a  more  secular  tone,  inditi'erent  or  even  hostile 
to  religion ;  the  other  with  a  religious  character, 
concerned  more  with  individual  than  with  national 
principles  and  aims.  From  the  sphere  of  the 
latter,  chs.  10'"-  and  25'*'  are  supposed  to  have 
emanated,  whereas  it  is  to  the  first  class  that  the 
unfavourable  judgment  passed  by  the  prophets 
upon  '  the  wise '  applies  (cf.  Is  5"  29",  Jer  4--  8' 
9^-  and  oft.).  But  neither  have  we  any  evidence 
that  these  '  wise '  exercised  a  literary  activity,  nor 
is  it  probable  that  the  above  distinction  existed. 
Kuenen  {I.e.  §  97,  note  14)  has  pointed  out  that 
the  projihets,  by  way  of  opposition  to  the  anti- 
theocratic  '  wise,'  never  mention  this  other  class  of 
religiously  disposed  '  wise '  who  are  supposed  to  have 
been  so  nearly  akin  to  themselves  in  their  aims, 
nor  characterize  them  as  allies  in  their  conflict  with 
godJessness  and  immorality.  But  even  if  this  pre- 
supposition, which  is  intended  to  show  the  possi- 
bility of  a  pre-exilic  composition,  were  correct,  as 
we  have  shown  it  is  not,  yet  this  possibility  would 
not  be  converted  into  a  reality  simply  by  pointing 
to  these  sayings  about  the  king  or  to  any  particular 
sayings,  because  it  is  by  no  means  inconceivable 
that  sayings  belonging  to  the  pre  -  exilic  period 
should  have  been  taken  over  into  collections  origin- 
ating at  a  much  later  date.  Consequently  the 
question  about  the  date  of  10'^-  and  25"-  can  be 
determined  only  by  taking  into  account  the  whole 
character  of  these  collections.  It  is  a  character- 
istic circumstance  that  these  proverbs  a^ee  in 
their  religious  and  ethical  requirements  with  those 
of  the  prophets,  and  yet  on  the  other  hand  difl'er 
from  the  latter  in  some  not  unessential  points  :  we 
find  the  same  estimate  of  sacrifice  in  Pr  15*  21'- " 
as  in  Am  S""''-,  Hos  6",  Ezk  1""- ;  the  same  praise  of 
humility  and  warning  against  pride  in  Pr  IP  14^ 
151.  i.  18. 25.  83  i6»- 18'-  1719  1812  igu  214  22<  as  compared 
with  Is  2",  Am  6^  Hos  7",  Mic  6*  and  oft. ;  the 
same  denunciation  of  those  who  oppress  the  poor, 
and  the  same  commending  of  care  for  the  latter 
in  Pr  14^1  17°  IS^^  19'- '  22^- '  28«-  «• "  29>'  as  compared 
with  Am  4i»-,  Hos  C^"*-,  Mic  2*  etc.  Like  the 
prophets,  these  proverbs  see  in  the  fear  of  God  the 
foundation  of  all  piety  and  morality,  and  in 
numerous  passages  they  exhort  men  to  this  fear. 
But  whereas  the  prophets  deal  essentially  with  the 
national  life  and  apply  to  it  their  demands  for 
righteousness,  etc.,  tlie  proverbs  treat  of  matters 
belonging  to  the  sphere  of  individual  and  domestic 
life.  A  serious  displacement  has  even  taken  place 
in  so  far  as  the  unique  relation  between  Jahweh 
and  Israel,  which  the  prophets  never  lost  sight  of, 
has  here  disappeared,  and  the  individual  conception 
of  religion  has  taken  the  place  of  the  national  : 
not  Israel  and  the  peoples,  out  the  upright  and  the 
ungodly,  the  proud  and  the  humble,  the  under- 
standing and  the  foolish,  are  the  contrasted 
categories  \vith  which  the  proverbs  have  to  do. 
Whereas  the  prophets  are  Jahweh's  advocates  in 
His  conflict  with  the  gods  of  the  heathen,  and 
have  to  plead  His  cause  to  Israel  when  it  turns 
from  Him  to  the  service  of  these,  in  the  proverbs 
monotheism  holds  undisputed  sway,  and  the  con- 
sequences that  result  from  it  are  not  defended, 
but  assumed  as  self-evident,  and  only  the  practical 
points  of  view  insisted  upon  :  He  is  the  Creator  of 
poor  and  rich  (14"  22»  29") ;  the  Omniscient  (15»-  " 


Ifis  178  212  24"') ;  He  directs  all  things,  the  actions 
of  men  (IG'-  "•  ^  19-'  20=-'  21'-»"-  20-«)  as  well  as  their 
fortunes,  etc.  In  view  of  this  displacement  of  the 
subject  of  religion,  it  is  quite  comprehensible  why 
in  these  proverbs  there  is  likewise  no  mention  of 
the  Messianic  deliverance  which  the  prophets  ex- 
pected for  the  nation  ;  rather  is  the  central  position 
occupied  by  the  belief  in  individual  retribution,  as 
this  had  been  growing  up  since  the  days  of  Jeremiah 
and  Ezekiel  (cf.  Pr  lO^-'-*"'-  ii»-8.si  i2:a.  is.  21  13s 
15^  etc.).  As  in  some  of  the  P.sjilnis,  the  godly  are 
cautioned  against  the  envy  awakened  by  the 
prosperity  of  the  wicked,  ancl  have  their  attention 
directed  to  the  righteousness  of  Jahweh  which  will 
manifest  itself  in  the  future. 

Views  such  as  we  have  briefly  sketched  are  not 
conceivable  as  contemporaneous  with  the  preach- 
ing of  the  prophets — it  is  not  without  justification 
that  Kuenen  (I.e.  §  97,  note  15)  calls  the  ethico- 
religious  train  of  ideas  represented  by  the  com- 
posers of  these  proverbs  an  anachronism  if  referred 
to  the  period  of  the  projjhets — but  only  in  the 
post-exilic  period,  a  period  in  which  Law  and 
Prophecy  are  raised  above  all  doubt,  and  hence 
not  the  slightest  attempt  is  made  to  prove  their 
truth,  while  at  the  same  time  there  is  an  evident 
attempt  to  apply  the  results  of  the  prophetic  teach- 
ing to  real  life.  In  this  the  composers  of  the 
proverbs  are  quite  in  agi-eement  with  the  tendency 
that  prevailed  in  the  post-exUic  time. 

As  an  objection  to  fixing  the  date  then,  the 
character  of  this  period  as  one  of  narrow  legal 
piety  has,  indeed,  often  been  urged  ;  but  this  view 
scarcely  needs  nowadays  to  be  seriously  refuted : 
books  like  Ruth  and  Jonah,  whose  post-exilic  com- 
position hardly  any  one  now  doubts,  and  a  large 
portion  of  our  Psalms  show  that  it  is  quite  in- 
correct to  characterize  the  post-exilic  period  in 
such  a  way.  What  is  true  of  the  time  of  the 
Maccabsean  wars  we  have  no  right  to  transfer  to 
the  whole  preceding  period  back  to  the  Exile  ;  in 
this  earlier  period  very  difl'erent  currents  flowed 
side  by  side.  But  we  lack  the  necessary  data  for 
fixing  more  definitely  the  period  when  lO'*-  and 
25"'-  were  composed,  whether  towards  the  end  of 
the  Persian  or  at  the  beginning  of  the  Greek 
period. 

Later  in  any  case  than  these  portions,  as  we  have 
said  already,  is  first  of  all  the  introduction  (cA.5. 
1-9),  in  which  Wisdom  and  Religion  are  actually 
identified,  and  the  former  is  personified.  In  the 
latter  circumstance  it  has  been  sought  to  discover 
the  influence  of  the  Greek  doctrine  of  ideas,  but 
this  notion  is  rightly  rejected  by  Kuenen,  Baudissin, 
and  others ;  the  contrast  of  the  personified  Folly 
shows  that  we  have  to  do  manifestly  with  a  purely 
poetical  personification.  But  Baudissin  (I.e.  p.  20) 
rightly  adds :  '  The  mythologizing  freedom  with 
which  Wisdom  is  portrayed  as  plaj'ing  a  r6le  in  the 
presence  of  God  or  upon  eartn,  is  not  according 
to  the  ancient  Hebrew  manner,  but  recalls  the 
Haggadic  creations  of  the  Rabbinic  literature.' 
That  we  have  actually  before  us  a  period  more 
advanced  than  in  10'*-  and  25'"-  follows  from  the 
conception  that  here  meets  us  of  the  guests  of 
'  Madam  Folly '  as  in  the  depths  of  Sheol  (9'8).  The 
latter,  which  was  originally  simply  the  abode  of 
departed  souls,  has  become  synonymous  with  hell. 
In  view  of  the  close  aflinity  in  spirit  and  tendency 
between  these  chapters  and  Sirach,  no  very  long 
period  can  have  intervened  between  the  composi- 
tion of  the  two.  We  shall  not  be  far  wrong  if 
we  fix  upon  c.  250  B.C.  as  the  date  of  the  origin 
of  these  chapters,  and  therewith  of  our  book  as 
a  whole.  To  bring  the  date  further  down  (cf. 
Geiger,  Urschrift  unci  Uebersetzungen,  p.  61  fit) 
is  impossible,  inasmuch  as  no  reason  is  then 
evident  why  Sirach  itself  was  not  admitted  into 


PKOVIDENCE 


PROVIDENCE 


143 


the  Canon.  It  cannot,  indeed,  be  made  out  with 
certainty  how  far  the  book  edited  by  the  author  of 
the  introduction  extended.  While  Delitzsch  regards 
24-^-29  as  the  tirst  considerable  addition,  to  which 
afterwards  chs.  30.  31  were  aiipemled  (cf.  Driver, 
LOT,  ch.  viii.),  others,  like  Curnill,  ascribe  the 
publication  of  the  whole  book,  or,  like  Wildeboer, 
almost  the  whole  with  the  exception  of  ch.  31  or 
31""-,  to  the  author  of  chs.  1-9  (cf.  t)ie  Conim.  on  1»). 

iv.  Kelatio.v  of  the  Massoretic  Text  to 
THE  Veksions.  —The  MT  shows  marked  deviations 
from  the  LXX,  the  Syr.  Version,  the  Targum,  ami 
the  Vulgate,  aUliougli  the  deviations  of  the  last 
three  almost  all  go  back  to  the  LXX. 

The  Targum  is  entirely  dependent  upon  the 
Peshitta,  nay,  it  has  practically  arisen  from  it, 
hence  the  strong  Syriac  colouring  of  its  language. 
Its  author  has  at  tlie  same  time  plainly  striven  to 
approximate  his  renilering  to  the  MT  (cf.  S.  May- 
baum  in  Merx'  Archiv,  ii.  66  U'.,  and  Noldeke,  ib. 
246  ir.). 

The  Peshitta  exhibits  such  close  agreement  with 
the  LXX,  that  one  can  hardly  avoid  supposing 
that  the  author  in  making  his  translation  had  the 
help  ot  the  LXX  (cf.  H.  Pinkuss  in  ZATiV,  1894, 
pp.  6511".,  16111'.). 

The  case  of  the  Vulgate  is  simil.ar  to  that  of  the 
Peshitta:  Jerome  evidently  called  in  the  LXX  to 
aid  the  acconiplishiiient  of  his  task  of  translation. 

As  to  the  LXX  itself,  apart  from  particular  read- 
ings, this  Version  is  distinguished  from  the  MT  by 
(1)  a  number  of  additions  and  onii.ssions,  and  (2)  a 
dillerence  in  the  order  of  the  proverbs  from  24-- 
onwards.  Whether  the  plus  ot  the  LXX  ahviij's 
goes  back  to  a  lleb.  original,  or  whether  we  have 
to  do  with  later  additions,  is  often  hard  to 
decide.  In  cases  where  such  LXX  additions  are 
wanting  in  the  Vulgate,  it  is  natural  to  suppose 
that  they  are  late — a  conclusion  which  need  not 
•urprise  us  in  view  of  the  long-continued  bloom  of 
the  proverb  literature.  Regarding  the  reason  for 
the  dill'erent  order  followed  in  the  LXX,  it  is  im- 
possible to  get  beyond  conjectures  (cf.  P.  de  Lagarde, 
Anmerlcunijcn  zur  griechischen  Uebersetzung  der 
Proverbien,  Leipzig,  1863). 

LiTERATCRE.— The  Einleiturujen  of  Comill' (p.  222  ff.),  Ed. 
Koniu  (p.  400fT.),  Strack  (p.  ISOff.);  \yildebocr,  Liu.  d.  AT, 
882II.  ;  Kuenen,  Onderzoek^,  6911.;  Driver,  LOT  ch.  viii.; 
Cheyne,  Job  and  Solomon,  18S7,  p.  117(1,,  Founders  o/  OT 
Crilicum,  1893.  p.  337 lY. ;  Hooykaas,  Geseh.  van  de  beoe/enina 
der  Weuheid  oyuler  de  Uebre^n,  18(t2  ;  A.  J.  Baumjjarten,  ^tade 
critique  giir  f^tat  du  texle  du  livredet  proverbes,\ii\i{\;  R.  .Smend, 
Altlest.  Heligiomtietchic/ile'i.iSSa.;  \V  .  T.  Davison,  V'/ie  Wiidom 
Literature  of  the  OT,  1804;  A.  B.  Davidaon,  art,  '  I'roverbH'  in 
Uncuc.  Brity,  of.  Hxpoa.  .May  1880,  p.  321  ff,  ;  C,  O,  llontelloro, 
•Note  upon  the  Date  and  Reli(;iou8  Value  of  the  Proverl)9'  in 
JQIt,la\y  ISUO,  p.  430(1. ;  Baudissin,  Z>i«  allleat.  Sprw-hdirh- 
tujvj,  18'J3  ;  W.  Frankcnhcrg,  '  Ueber  Al>fassun;:8-0rt  und  -Zeit 
•owie  Art  u.  Inhalt  von  Prov.  1-9'  in  ZATlf,  1S9.J,  p.  1U4  II.). 

Commentaries,— A,  Scluiltens,  1748;  Hitzi)^,  1858;  ICwald, 
18<17  ;  A,  Kainptiau^cll  (in  liunsen's  Bibelwerk),  18G8  ;  DeUtzsch, 
1873  ;  Nowack  (in  Kq/.  Udhch),  1883  (a  recasting  of  the  lat  ed, 
by  Bcrtheau) ;  Dyserinck,  1884  ;  Strack  (in  Strack -Zocklel^s  A'.aA 
Comm.),  1888,  2nrt  cd.  1809;  Wildeboer  (in  iMarti's  Kurzer 
Ildcnmm.),  1807;  Frankenberg  (in  Nowack's  Ildkomm.),  1808; 
Toy  (in  the  liUemat.  Crit.  Comm.),  1899.     \V.  IsoWACH. 

PROVIDENCE  is  twice  naod  of  the  foresight  and 
care  of  God,  Wis  14^  IT",  and  once  of  the  fore- 
thought of  man,  Ac  24^  The  Gr.  is  rpbuoi-a  and 
the  Vulg.  providentia.  Providence  is  used  as  a 
title  of  God  in  late  classical  writers,  but  never  in 
Scripture.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  probably  the 
modern  use  of  the  word  as  a  Divine  title  that 
has  caused  its  disuse  in  reference  to  man's  fore- 
thought. Cf.  the  note  to  Lk  12-^  in  Khem,  NT, 
'  He  I'orbiddi'th  not  competent  providence  but  to 
much  carefulnes.'  The  Khem.  translators  chide 
Beza  for  calling  'God's  prescience  or  foreknow- 
ledge (in  the  Greeke  wp/rffuKTit)  Gud's  providence' 
(note  on  Ao 3^).     See  following  art.,  and  art.  GoD. 

J.  Hastino.s, 


PROVIDENCE.— According  to  the  OT  the  creci- 
tion  is  continued  in  the  preservation  of  the  world 
by  God,  who  gives  or  withdraws  life  according  to 
His  wUl  (Gn  2"  6^).  He  gives  otispring  (Ps  127") 
even  against  hope  (Gn  15*  18'"  25-\  1  S  1").  He 
forms  man's  spirit  within  him  (Zee  12').  Man's 
life  is  at  every  moment  dependent  on  God  (Is  31', 
Job  34",  Ps  13y'«,  I04=«),  and  man  in  his  weak- 
ness apart  from  God  is  likened  to  the  grass  (Ps  90*, 
Is  40").  God  saves  life  (Ps  IS",  Gn  8'--'),  or  He 
destroys  it  (Gn  7=*  19=",  Ex  \'2-\  He  gives  food  to 
man  and  beast,  and  rules  all  the  forces  of  nature 
(.)er  3»,  Ps  145"«,  Job  38^-",  Jl  l-»,  Ps  136'-"  29). 
This  preservation  of  nature  and  man  is  the  back- 
ground of  God's  Providimce  in  the  kingdom  of 
God,  for  nature  serves  His  purposes,  reveals  His 
power  and  wisdom  (Ps  8.  19),  and  shows  His  glory 
and  goodness  (Ps  104.  147""''-').  The  thunder  is 
His  voice  (Am  P),  locusts  are  His  army  (Jl  2-°),  He 
makes  Canaan  a  fertile  land  (Ps  65'").  Although 
the  regularity  of  natural  phenomena  is  recognized 
(Ps  104°,  Jer  SS'-"-  ^),  yet  there  is  no  order  of  nature 
apart  from  God's  will.  Therefore  miracles  are 
taken  for  granted,  for  God  does  whatever  He  wills 
(Is  55"),  and  nothing  is  too  wonderful  for  God  (Gn 
18'^  Dt  8^).  The  relation  of  God's  Providence  to 
man's  free  will  is  a  subject  of  greater  difficulty. 
While  man's  freedom  and  responsibility  are  empha- 
sized (Gn  17',  Ps  1,  Is  1'",  Jer  21*) ;  his  prayers  are 
recognized  as  having  power  with  God  (Gn  18^  24'^ 
25'-',  Ex  8*  9^  10") ;  and  a  blessing  is  regarded  as 
having  force  in  spite  even  of  change  of  mind  (Gn 
27i7-»3^  Ex  12^-) ;  yet  all  power  is  with  God,  for 
God  is  the  potter  and  man  is  the  clay  (Jer  18') ; 
and  God  sends  man  evU  and  good  alike  (Am  3', 
La  .3^,  Is  45').  The  lot  of  the  nation,  and  of 
individuals  in  it,  is  determined  according  to  a  law 
of  recompense,  and  all  human  action  is  du-ected  by 
God  to  further  His  own  ends,  especially  for  the 
benefit  of  His  people  (Gn  50'-'»,  Ex  3=').  Although 
a  man's  heart  may  devise  his  way,  yet  it  is  God 
that  directs  his  steps  (Pr  16") ;  and  so  God  can 
scorn  the  plans  of  the  mighty  (Ps  2'').  God's 
action  in  and  by  man  is  through  His  Spirit,  which 
blinds  as  well  as  enlightens,  hardens  in  sin  as  well 
as  renews  in  righteousness.  This  belief  in  Provi- 
dence was  one  of  the  leading  marks  of  Heb,  piety: 
rebuking  pride  (Hag  2",  Ps  44*-'  127');  forbidding 
fear  and  dcsjiondency  (Ps  33'"-  "• '«  60'^  77"  94'-  118" 
144^),  and  bringin|j  courage  and  hope  to  sutlering 
saints  (Ps  121''  127^91'  66'-').  While  the  fullilment 
of  His  purpose  of  salvation  for  His  people  is  God's 
immediate  work,  yet  the  action  of  God  in  the 
history  of  other  nations  is  also  acknowledged  (Am 
9',  Dt  2-^  Is  46"  48">).  There  are  nroblems  of  God's 
Providence  that  excite  doubt  and  compel  inquiry. 
The  fact  of  heredity  is  affirmed  (Dt  S',  Ex  20''X 
Jer  32"),  and  its  difficulties  are  discussed  (Jer 
31^,  Ezk  18').  God  is  regarded  as  Himself  har- 
dening men  in  sin,  and  the  question  is  rai.sed. 
How  can  He  righteously  condemn  them  (Is  6°,  Pr 
16^)  ;  the  answer  is  given  that  the  hardening  is  a 
penalty  of  sin  (ICzk  12^  Ps  18=",  La  Z^).  The 
sutlering  of  the  righteous  contr.adicts  the  assunii)- 
tion  of  a  moral  order  on  e.urtli,  which  invariably 
rewards  the  righteous  and  punishes  the  wicked 
(Jer  12',  Job  21',  Ps  22,  73,  Hab  1).  This  problem 
is  fully  discussed  in  the  Book  of  Job.  Sullcring 
may  be  regarded  as  a  discipline  (Dt  8'^,  Hos  2'^  Jer 
H.')'^,  Is  27").  In  later  books  the  difficulty  is  some- 
what relieved  by  the  hojie  of  inilivldual  resurrec- 
tion, but  the  best  answer  to  the  ((ueslion  is  given 
ill  the  idea  of  vicarious  suH'ering  (Is  53).  Doubt 
regarding  God's  ways  in  Providence  is  regarded  as 
brutalizing  (Ps  7.3-')  ;  and  in  Ecclc-iastes  we  have 
the  nearest  approach  to  scepticism  in  OT. 

The  NT  takes  for  granted  the  teaching  of  the 
OT   on    Providence.      Jesus  teaches  a  beneficent 


144 


PEOVINCE 


PEOVINCE 


Providence  to  all  men,  good  and  bad  (Mt  5^') ;  and 
encourages  His  disciples  to  trust  in  and  pray  to 
God  as  Father  (Mt  6").  As  God  cares  for  the 
flowers  of  the  field  and  the  birds  of  the  air,  so 
will  He  care  for  tliem  (Mt  e^'**).  Nothing  can 
befall  them  without  God's  knowledge  (Mt  lO**- »*). 
The  prayer  of  faith  will  be  answered  (Mt  7''"  =  Lk 
ll'-is,  >llc  ll^-«  =  Lk  IT").     Even  for  daily  bread 

grayer  is  to  be  made  (Mt  6").  This  is  not  a  new 
octriue  of  God's  Providence,  only  a  more  imme- 
diate application  of  it  to  individual  believers  than 
is  found  in  OT,  which  is  mainly  concerned  with 
the  chosen  nation.  Jesus'  miracles  are  also  to  be 
regarded  as  sigtis  of  God's  Providence.  St.  Paul  in 
Romans  sketches  the  course  of  God's  dealings  with 
the  individual  believer  from  the  beginning  in  fore- 
knowledge to  the  end  in  glorification  (Ko  S^*",  cf. 
Eph  l"*"") ;  and  affirms  as  the  law  of  Providence  that 
'  aU  things  work  together  for  good  to  them  that 
love  God  '  (Ro  8^).  On  the  wider  stage  of  human 
history  he  traces  the  fulfilment  of  a  Di\  ine  purpose 
in  the  inclusion  of  Jew  and  Gentile  alike  in  sin, 
that  righteousness  might  be  of  faith  only  (Ro  1-3) ; 
and  in  the  temporary  rejection  of  the  Jew  result- 
ing in  the  call  of  the  (ientile  first  of  all,  and  followed 
finally  by  the  restoration  of  the  Jew  also  (9-11). 
In  the  Ep.  to  the  Hebrews  an  independent  inter- 
pretation of  God's  Providence  is  given,  in  which 
the  sufficiency  and  supremacy  of  Christ  in  relation 
to  OT  ritual  especially  is  proved.  Finally,  in  the 
Apoe.  the  course  of  contemporary  history,  pre- 
sented in  symbolic  forms,  is  for  the  comfort  and 
hope  of  persecuted  believers  interpreted  as  God's 
immediate  action  for  the  establishment  of  the 
kingdom  of  Christ.  See,  further,  artt.  EssKNES, 
Pharisees,  Stoics. 

Literature. — Oehler  or  Schiiltz,  OT  Tkeolorjy ;  Weisa  or 
Beyschla^,  NT  Theoloqy  ;  Wendt.  l^eaching  of  Je^us  ;  Sabatier, 
Apontie  Paul;  PUeiderer,  Paul  in  ism ;  Coiiim.  on  Romans, 
Hebrews,  Apocalj-pse,  Job,  Ecclesiastes,  ad  locc,  eit.  supra. 

A.  E.  Garvie. 

PROVINCE  (Lat.  provincia,  Gr.  4i!-apxia).—The 
technical  term  used  to  describe  the  administrative 
divisions  of  the  Roman  empire  ;  so  Ac  23^^  '  And 
when  the  governor  had  read  the  letter,  he  asked  of 
what  province  he  was ' ;  Ac  25'  '  Now  when  Festua 
was  come  into  the  province.'  The  original  mean- 
ing of  the  word  was  the  sphere  within  which  a 
magistrate  (whether  consul  or  prajtor)  exercised 
Ills  imperium  or  sovereign  power ;  so  it  could  be 
used  of  the  division  between  the  two  praetors  of 
the  difl'erent  classes  of  le^al  business  ;  so  again  we 
get  such  phrases  as  the  following :  Consulibitx  Italia 
provincia  decernitur,  where  Italy  is  described  as  the 
sphere  within  which  the  consuls  are  to  exercise  their 
jurisdiction.  It  was  only  in  B.C.  227,  with  the 
acquisition  of  Sardinia  and  Sicily,  that  the  word^ro- 
vincia  acquired  its  later  sense,  and  the  definition 
of  a  province  came  to  be  a  division  of  the  Roman 
empire  with  definite  boundaries,  under  a  standing 
chief  magistrate,  paying  tribute  in  taxes  to  the 
s^upreme  power.  Under  the  Republic  these  pro- 
vinces had  been  governed  by  proconsuls  or  pro- 
prietors under  the  supervision  of  the  senate ;  on 
the  establishment  of  the  empire  the  proconsular 
imperium  over  all  provinces  was  vested  in  the 
emperor,  and  by  an  agreement  which  he  made 
with  the  senate  the  provinces  were  divided  into 
two  classes.  The  older,  more  peaceable  provinces, 
where  there  was  no  need  of  any  large  military 
force,  called  i\\e  provinciw  inermci,  were  left  in  the 
hands  of  the  senate  ;  the  frontier  provinces,  where 
military  operations  were  necessary,  were  governed 
directly  by  the  emperor  through  his  lieutenants. 

The  governors  of  the  senatorial  provinces  were 
appointed  by  lot  from  those  who  had  held  the  office 
ot prator  or  consul,  or  as  they  were  technically  called 
the  consulares  and  prcetorii,  or  in  some  cases  from 


those  who  had  not  yet  attained  that  rank.  Two 
pro\inces,  Asia  and  Africa,  were  '  consular,'  i.e. 
held  bv  ex -consuls,  the  remaiiider  were  'prae- 
torian, but  all  senatorial  governors  alike  bore 
the  name  of  Proconsul.  The  governors  appointed 
by  the  senate  were  in  theory  the  most  distinguished 
and  honourable  ;  they  were  allowed  10  or  12  fa-sces ; 
they  had  higher  rank  and  larger  salary;  but  tlieir 
appointment  was  only  for  a  year,  they  had  no 
military  command,  and  practically  possessed  only 
the  appearance  of  power. 

The  governor  of  an  imperial  province  is  called  by 
historians  incorrectly  propnetur ;  his  proper  title 
was  legattis  Aur/usti,  lieutenant  of  the  emperor,  or 
more  inWy  hrjatus  Augusti  ])ro praitore,  jrpc<T^evTris 
Ka.1  dvTiffTpdTTiyos  toO  ^e^aaroO.  They  were  of  two 
classes — those  of  consular  rank  or  consulares  (vra- 
TiKol),  and  prcrtorii,  those  who  possessed  only  prae- 
torian rank.  The  latter  were  appointed  to  provinces 
wliere  there  was  only  one  legion,  the  former  to  the 
larger  and  more  important  commands. 

'i'lie  arrangements  concerning  the  provinces  were 
liable  to  be  changed  according  to  the  needs  of  the 
empire.  If  rebellion  or  invasion  threatened  any 
senatorial  province,  or  if  its  finances  fell  into 
disorder,  it  would  be  transferred  to  the  emperor, 
at  any  rate  temporarily,  and  the  emperor  would 
very  likely  compensate  the  senate  by  giving  them 
some  other  province  in  return.  Instances  of  change 
wOl  be  given  below. 

The  following  are  Roman  provinces  mentioned  in 
the  NT  :— 


Senatorial — 
Macedonia,  enrolled  B.C.  146 


(Imperial  from  Tiberiuf 

to  Claudius). 
(Imperial  B.O.  15-A.D.  14X 


Achaia,  B.c,  146     . 

Asia,  B.C.  133. 

Bithynia  (with  part  of  Pontus),  |    ss„^f„ritLl  to  A.D.  HI. 

OiT^rus,  B.C.  27     ...        .    (Imperial  n.c.  27-22,  the> 

Senatorial). 
Crete  and  Cyrenaica,  B.C.  74. 
Imperial — 
Syria,  B.C.  64        .       .       .       .    Of  the  First  Claaa. 

Galatia  B.C.  25     .        .  1  Of  the  Second  Cl«». 

PamphyUa  and  Lycia,  B.o.  25      /  ^*  **  =  "'^"^  "  wi«oo. 
Egypt,  B.C.  30. 

r.™fw.,.,io  \  «  ;»     ■       ■        }    UnderProouratcm. 
Cappadocia,  A.D.  17     .        .        > 

The  position  of  Egypt  demands  a  slight  refer- 
ence. Its  great  wealth,  and  the  importance  of  its 
com  trade,  made  Augustus  give  it  special  treat- 
ment. The  country  was  the  emperor's  private 
property  (patrimonium  Cmsaris),  and  w  as  governed 
by  a  prte/ectus  of  equestrian  rank.  No  senator 
was  allowed  to  enter  the  province. 

Certain  small  provinces  (Judaja  and  Cappadocia, 
for  example)  were  governed  by  imperial  PROCUR- 
ATORS. They  were  generallj-  districts  which  had 
been  only  recently  added  to  the  empire,  and  were 
not  thoroughlj-  romanized.  Judjea  was  so  treated 
during  the  intervals  when  it  was  not  governed  by 
native  kings ;  ultimately  it  was  definitely  incorpor- 
ated in  the  province  of  Syria. 

One  further  form  of  provincia  may  be  mentioned. 
In  cases  of  great  and  serious  emergency  a  special 
command  might  be  given  to  some  distinguished 
oificer,  embracing  more  than  one  province,  or  per- 
haps superior  to  tlie  governors  of  several  provinces : 
such  was  the  position  of  Corbulo  in  the  East,  of 
Gerraanicus  and  possibly  Quirinius  in  SjTia. 

If  we  pass  to  the  internal  government  of  the 
provinces,  we  notice  first  the  concentration  of  power 
in  the  hands  of  the  governor.  He  was  the  principal 
military,  judicial,  and  administrative  authority. 
Except  in  the  case  of  Africa,  he  commanded  all 
the  troops,  whether  legions  or  auxiliary  :  he  went 
from  place  to  place  to  hold  courts,  the  province 
being  divided  into  conventus  for  that  purpose  (cf. 
Ac  19^).  The  finances,  however,  were  not  directly 
in  his  hands.    The  proconsuls  in  senatorial  provinces 


PROVOKE,  PROVOCATION 


PSALMS,  BOOK  OF 


145 


were  assisted  by  a  qua?stor,  while  a  procurntur 
appointed  by  tlie  emperor  collected  all  tuxes  be- 
on^'iny  to  the  fiscus  or  emperor's  purse  ;  in  iinjierial 
provinces  all  the  finance  was  in  the  liiinds  of  the 
procurator.  The  provinces  were  variously  di\  ided : 
in  Macedonia,  for  example,  there  were  four  divisions 
apparentlycalledlocally/«pi6<5(Ac  16'-),but  the  unit 
of  administration  within  the  province  was,  at  any 
rate  in  all  the  settled  Greek  districts  such  as  Asia 
and  Achaia,  the  city.  A  city  implied  not  only  the 
actual  to>\Ti,  but  also  all  the  land  which  bclonj;ed  to 
it  and  was  its  territory.  The  cities  were  of  two 
main  classes — Roman  cities  or  '  colonies,'  the  in- 
habitants of  which  had  either  full  civic  or  Latin 
rif;hts.  These  in  the  East  were  garrisons  of  the 
Romans,  often  inhabited  by  veteran  soldiers.  Such 
were  Corinth,  Philippi  (Ac  16'-),  Lyslra,  Antioch 
in  Pisidia.  The  second  chiss  of  cities  were  non- 
Roman;  they  were  either  civitatcs  fiederatce  et 
immunes  or  civitates  stipend iurUe.  The  former 
were  cities  like  Alliens,  which  were  8U|)posed  to 
be  independent  allies.  No  proconsul  might  enter 
Athens  with  h\s  fasces,  or  any  symbol  of  his  power. 
The  Greek  cities  seem  generally  to  have  preserved 
their  old  constitution.  Outside  the  limits  of  the 
cities  were  the  imperial  estates,  administered  by 
imperial  freedmen  and  slaves ;  and  in  less  advanced 
districts,  peoples  whose  organization  was  tribal, 
administered  from  some  common  religious  centre 
or  market,  round  which  they  were  grouped.  For 
religious  and  social  iiuriio-es,  for  the  worship  of 
the  emperor  and  the  celebration  of  games,  tliere 
existed  representative  bodies,  the  council  of  the 
province  (t6  Koii<4>'  t^s 'Atrias,  etc.),  with  their  prin- 
cipal officer  the  high  priest,  the  Asiardi,  Galatarch, 
etc.  (.Vc  19").  These  bodies  had  considerable  social 
bat  little  or  no  political  influence. 

The  general  condition  of  the  provinces,  at  any 
rate  during  the  1st  cent,  of  the  eiu]iire,  was  good. 
Order  was  preserved.  The  taxation  was  definite 
and  fixed.  The  governors  were  paid,  and  redress 
was  comparatively  easy  if  they  were  guilty  of  ex- 
actions. The  country  was  prosperous,  even  if  the 
taxation  was  heavy  ;  and  it  was  not  until  a  later 
period  that  attacks  from  without  and  decrease  of 
prosjierity  within  broke  down  the  economic  pro- 
sperity of  the  empire. 

LrrERATTRB. — W.  T.  Arnold,  The  Roman  St/sft^n  of  Provijicial 
Administration  I  Monimsen  and  .Mannirxrdt,  liOniijiche  titnatS' 
verwaitunn  und Staatgverfa^tntiu/;  Furiieau.\,  A iinats o/ Tacitwi; 
Schurer,  GJV^L  878,  379  [HJPi.  i.  327  fl.,  ii.  4,'>t.). 

A.  C.  Headlam. 

PROVOKE,  PROVOCATION.— To  provoke  {pro- 
vornn-),  lit.  to  'call  forth,'  is  in  AV  to  excite  any 
emotion  or  activitj',  good  or  bad.  Hence  we  find 
2  Co  O''  '  Your  zeal  hath  jirovoked  very  many,'  and 
Col  3^'  '  Fathers,  provoke  not  your  children  '  (both 
^Mffifu).  For  the  orig.  meaning  of  '  stir  up,'  cf. 
Jer  43'  Cov.  '  Baruch  the  souiio  of  Ncrias  pro- 
voketh  the  agaynst  us.'  Cf.  al.so  Erasmus,  Crede, 
p.  15,  '  It  is  .a  great  spoore  to  prycke  and  provoke 
a  man  to  profyght  and  go  foreward  in  ony  scyence 
or  crafte :  the  love  of  the  teacher';  and  p.  99 — 
'  .Saynte  Paule  i)rovok3ng  the  Galathians  from 
vengeance  to  humanite  and  jjentj'lnesse.'  Provo- 
rnlion  is  always  used  in  AV  in  a  bad  sense.  In 
Ps  95'  the  Heb.  is  Meribah,  which  see. 

J.  Hastings. 

PSALMS,  BOOK  OF.— The  most  important  book, 
Biiil  ill  inipilern  Heb.  liililes  the  first  in  order,  of  the 
tliinl  section  of  the  OT  Canon— that  known  as 
KithuhUim  OT  Hagiogrnjihft.  It  has  been  thought 
that  in  the  time  of  our  Lord  the  lik.  of  P.saliiis 
furnished  a  name  for  the  KHimlihim  as  a  wliole 
(see  Lk  24"  and  cf.  Jos.  c.  Ap.  i.  8,  who  speaks  of 
'  the  remaining  four  liooks'  as  containing  '  hymns 
to  God  and  precepts  for  hnnian  life').  It  is  not 
probable,  however,  that  at  this  stage  in  the  history 

VOL.  IV. — lO 


of  the  Canon  the  title  '  psalms  '  would  be  .so  used. 
The  onler  of  tlie  books  in  the  Ilagio^'iapha,  more- 
over, has  varied  gieatly.  The  earlie.st  Rabbinic 
list  (Bahn  Bathra  146)  gives  the  order  as  Ruth, 
I'.salms,  .lob,  Proverbs,  etc.,  Ruth  apparently  being 
jilaceil  before  Psalms  because  it  contained  an  ac- 
count of  David's  ancestry.  Jerome  {Prut.  Gal.) 
gives  the  order  as  Job,  Psalms,  Proverbs,  I'cclesi- 
astes.  Canticles,  etc. ;  but  this  is  not  in  accordance 
with  pre\ailing  Heb.  tradition.  In  many  MSS, 
especially  the  Spanish,  the  Books  of  Chronicles 
come  first,  then  Psalms,  Job,  Proverbs,  etc.  The 
usual  order  is  that  of  the  German  MSS  followed  in 
the  printed  edd.  of  the  Heb.  Bible — Psalms,  Pro- 
verbs, Job  (the  poetical  books,  sometimes  known 
by  the  technical  name  ncK,  'Trutli,'  formed  by  tlie 
initial  letters  of  the  three  books  Job,  Proverbs, 
P.salms),  followed  by  the  five  Megilloth  or  rolls, 
the  narrativ  e  books  coming  last  (see  Ryle,  Canon 
of  or,  p.  22!)  iX.).  The  present  article  will  deal 
with  the  Name  and  Number  of  the  psalms,  the 
Formation  of  the  Collection,  the  Date  and  Author- 
ship, the  Titles  and  the  Poetical  Construction  of 
the  psjilms,  the  Moral  and  Religious  Ideas  pre- 
vailing in  the  Psalter,  the  Text  and  Versions,  and 
finally  with  the  Literature  of  the  subject. 

i.  N' AME  AND  Number. — No  name  for  the  psalms 
collectively  is  found  in  the  book  itself  or  in  the 
text  of  the  OT.  The  nearest  approach  to  such  a 
designation  is  found  in  the  name  given  to  a  portion 
of  the  Psalter  in  the  subscription  to  Ps  72  (v.^) — 
'  The  prayers  (niV;;^)  of  David,  son  of  Jesse,  are 
ended,  'flie  word  '  jirayer'  must  here  be  understood 
in  its  broadest  sense  as  any  turning  of  the  lieart 
towards  God  in  supplication  or  in  praise.  See  ahso 
1  S  2'  and  Ilab  3'.  Ps  17.  86.  90.  102  and  142  are 
also  called  '  prayers  '  in  their  several  inscriptions. 
The  title  for  the  book  used  by  tlie  Jews  is  ifp 
L'i-Ji  (shortened  D''?fi,  apocop.  '^b,  Aram.  I'Vn),  i.e. 
Book  of  Praises,  a  name  which  was  current  in 
the  time  of  Origen  and  Hippolytus,  though  the 
genuineness  of  the  passage  in  which  the  latter  dis- 
cusses the  general  introduction  to  Psalms  has  been 
questioned.  In  that  passage  the  name  stands  trans- 
literated into  Greek  as  Zi(ppa  QcXd/j.,  and  in  Eus. 
HE  vi.  25  Origen's  title  of  the  book  is  preserved  as 
pifiXoi  \fa\nCii'  -(pap$e\>Kclii.  Jerome  confirms  this 
by  describing  (in  the  preface  to  his  Psalt.  juxta 
licb.)  the  Heb.  title  as  Scphar  Tallim.  Eusebius 
elsewhere  transliterates  Ziip-qp  QiW-^v.  The  word 
which  thus  appropriately  gave  a  name  to  the  wliole 
book  is  found  once  only  in  the  HeVi.  te.xt  as  a  title, 
Ps  145  being  called  n-'rici  a  Song  of  Praise.  The 
regular  plural  of  this  word  is  tihilltith,  Ps  22",  this 
feminine  form  being  distinguished  from  the  ma.sc. 
tihillim,  in  that  the  former  points  more  distinctly 
to  the  subject-matter,  the  latter  to  the  form  of  the 
composition.  Cf.  Baethgen,  who  distinguishes  (Pref. 
to  Coram,  p.  iii)  between  ein  Buck  der  Gesdngc  and 
ein  Gesanr/onch. 

The  usual  name  for  a  separate  psalm  is  ■I'iDiO 
mizmOr,  found  in  the  titles  ot  57  i).salms,  from  the 
third— probalilv  the  first  in  the  earliest  collection 
— onwards.  Tlie  word  by  its  derivation  indicates 
that  which  is  to  be  sung  to  a  musical  accompani- 
ment, and  in  practice  it  is  used  only  of  a  religious 
song.  The  more  general  word  tj'  shir,  used  for 
secular  songs  in  Is  23'"  and  Am  8'",  is  found  in 
combination  with  mizmOr  13  times  in  the  titles  ;  5 
times  the  order  is  shir  mizmur,  and  8  times  this 
order  is  reversed.  Once  (Ps46)  the  word  shtr '\» 
used  alone,  and  once  it  occurs  in  the  form  shiruh 
(Ps  18).  The  word  corresponding  to  mizmir  in 
Greek  is  \pa\)ibt,  projierly  a  song  to  the  accom- 
paniment of  stringed  instruiiicnts  ;  and  the  usual 
title  of  the  book  in  the  LXX  is  ^i/SXot  ^aXyuuv. 
But  in  Cod.  Alex,  we  find  faXriiptoK,  which  i? 
properly    the    name    of    a    stringed    instrument. 


146 


PSALMS,  BOOK  OF 


PSALMS,  BOCK  OF 


adopted  as  a  title  of  the  book;  hence  Eng.  'Psalter.' 
The  usual  Greek  title  is  quoted  in  St.  Luke's 
writings,  Lk  20''^,  Ac  1°".  The  Syriac  name 
Ktthahti  de-rnazmiir6  presen'es  a  name  which  is 
not  found  in  the  O T  as  a  plural,  and  which  did  not 
prevail  as  a  collective  title  in  subsequent  Jewish 
usage. 

The  number  of  the  psalms  is  150,  both  according 
to  the  MT  and  the  LXX.  But  the  same  total  is 
preserved  with  a  ditierent  arrangement  in  detail. 
Only  the  first  eight  psalms  and  the  last  three  are 
married  by  the  same  number  in  the  two  versions, 
the  Greek  combining  Ps  9  and  10  in  one,  also  Ps 
114  and  115,  whilst  it  divides  Ps  116  and  Ps  147 
each  into  two  parts  severally  numbered.  This  may 
be  more  clearly  shown  by  the  following  table  : — 


Hbb. 

LXX 

Psalms  1-8 

1-8 

9.10 

9 

11-113 

10-112 

114.116 

113 

116 

114. 115 

117-146 

116-145 

147 

146. 147 

148-160 

148-150 

The  arrangement  of  the  Greek  is  followed  in  the 
Vulg.  and  in  some  of  the  older  Eng.  VSS.  In 
the  LXX  is  found  an  additional  psalm  (151)  with 
the  following  title :  '  This  psalm  was  written  by 
David  with  his  own  hand,  though  it  is  outside  the 
number,  composed  when  he  fought  in  single  combat 
with  Goliad.      It  runs  as  follows : — 

•  I  was  small  among  my  brethren. 
And  youngest  in  my  father's  house, 
I  used  to  feed  my  father's  sheep. 

My  hands  made  a  harp, 

My  fingers  fashioned  a  psaltery. 
And  who  will  declare  unto  my  Lord? 
He  is  Lord,  He  it  is  who  heareth. 
He  it  was  who  sent  his  angel 
And  took  me  from  my  father's  sheep, 
And  anointed  me  with  the  oil  of  his  anointing 

My  brethren  were  goodly  and  tall. 

But  the  Lord  took  no  pleasure  in  them. 
I  went  forth  to  meet  the  Philistine, 
And  he  cursed  me  by  his  idols. 

But  I  drew  the  sword  from  beside  him  ; 

I  beheaded  him  and  removed  reproach  from 
the  children  of  IsraeL' 

The  psalm  has  no  pretensions  to  genuineness, 
some  of  its  phra.si's  being  obviously  adaptations  of 
the  language  of  1  S,  but  something  is  to  be  learned 
by  comparing  and  contrasting  it  with  the  canonical 
5salms.  Certain  apocryphal  psalms,  dra^\'n  from 
Syrian  sources,  are  given  by  Wright  (PSBA,  June 
1887),  including  the  above  with  four  other  psalms. 
One  of  these,  in  which  a  poet  speaking  in  the  first 
person  is  supposed  to  represent  the  feelings  of  the 
nation  when  Cyrus  gave  permission  to  the  exiles 
to  return  from  Babylon,  is  quoted  at  length  by 
Baethgen  {Introd.  p.  xl). 

The  diiierent  methods  of  numbering,  indicated 
above,  point  to  a  various  arrangement  of  material 
which  there  is  good  reason  for  thinking  has  been 
much  more  extensive.  Ps  1  and  2  are  found 
together  in  some  copies.  In  Ac  13^  the  Western 
reading  preserved  in  D,  8,  and  some  Lat.  MSS 
known  to  Origen,  describes  what  we  call  the  second 
as  the  first  psalm,  whilst  Justin  (Apol.  i.  40)  quotes 
the  whole  of  both  psalms  together  as  one  prophetic 
utterance.  As  will  be  seen  below,  the  distinc- 
tion between  Ps  9  and  10  and  between  42  and  43 
should  never  have  been  made ;  the  latter  two 
psalms  are  found  together  in  several  Heb.  MSS. 
These  facts,  together  with  others  to  be  men- 
tioned, prepare  us  for  the  phenomenon  of  com- 
posite psalms. 

ii.  Formation  of  the  Collection.  —  The 
Psalter,  as  we  now  have  it,  is  divided  into  five 
books,  including  respectively  Ps  1-41,  42-72,  73-89, 


i' 


90-106,  107-150.  These  divisions  are  marked  in 
KV,  and  have  been  recognized  by  the  Jews  from 
at  least  the  2nd  cent,  of  our  era  ;  it  is  not  to  be 
understood,  however,  that  they  represent  the 
original  lines  of  demarcation  in  the  formation  of 
the  Psalter.  The  close  of  each  '  book  '  is  marked 
by  a  doxology,  appended  '  after  the  pious  fashion, 
not  uncommon  in  Eastern  literature,  of  closing  the 
composition  or  transcription  of  a  volume  with  a 
briet  prayer  or  word  '  (W.  R.  Smith,  who  adduces 
parallels  from  the  Diwan  of  the  Hodalite  poets,  to 
show  how  the  limits  of  an  older  collection  of  poems 
may  be  marked  by  the  retention  of  a  doxological 
phrase).  This  explanation  unquestionably  applies 
to  the  three  doxologies,  41",  72''*-  "  and  89°^  ;  these 
are  clearly  separable  from  the  psalms  at  the  end  of 
which  they  are  respectively  found.  It  is  not  clear 
that  106",  at  the  end  of  Book  iv.,  has  precisely  the 
same  history  ;  whilst  the  fifth  book  has  no  closing 
doxology,  Ps  150,  which  is  itself  a  full  ascription 
of  praise,  being  understood  to  obviate  the  necessity 
for  such  an  addition.  The  fivefold  division  is 
recognized  in  the  Midrash  Tehillin  on  Ps  1',  which 
undoubtedly  embodies  a  tradition  much  earlier 
than  the  commentary  itself.  Jerome,  also,  in  his 
Prolg.  Galeat.  distinguishes  between  the  quinque 
incisiones  and  the  uniun  rolunun  of  the  psalms. 
The  passage  from  Hippolytus  which  refers  to  this 
subject  cannot  be  urged  as  certainly  genuine.  The 
presence  in  the  LXX  version  of  the  doxology  at 
the  end  of  the  fourth  book,  with  its  liturgical 
addition,  '  And  let  all  the  people  say  Amen,'  un- 
questionably points  to  a  fivefold  division  as  more 
or  less  clearly  marked  in  at  least  the  2nd  cent. 
B.C.,  but  it  is  not  probable  that  this  division  was 
made  by  the  final  redactor  of  the  Psalter  himself 
setting  in  their  respective  places  four  doxologies 
to  mark  the  limits  of  the  various  collections.  On 
the  contrary,  evidence  is  forthcoming  to  show 
that  the  Psalter  gradually  grew  into  its  present 
shape,  and  several  of  the  stages  by  which  the  final 
result  was  reached  can  be  distinctly  traced.  The 
chief  evidence  for  this  gradual  compilation  of  the 
Psalter  is  as  follows  : — 

a.  The  existence  of  duplicate  editions  of  the 
same  psalm.  Compare  Ps  14  with  53,  40'''"  with 
70,  108  with  57"-"  and  60'-'-.  The  collections  in 
which  these  duplicates  severally  occur  must  at  one 
time  have  existed  separately. 

b.  The  use  of  the  names  of  God  in  the  various 
books  is  such  that  it  cannot  be  considered  acci- 
dental or  without  significance.  The  facts  in  brief 
are  these.  In  Book  i.  the  name  J"  occurs  272 
times,  Elohim,  used  absolutely,  only  15 ;  in  Book 
ii.  the  case  is  reversed,  Elohira  being  found  164 
times,  J"  only  30  times.  The  figures  in  Book  iii. 
are  more  complex,  and  it  is  found  necessary  to 
divide  it  into  two  parts,  so  that  in  Ps  73-83  J" 
occurs  13  times,  Elohim  36,  while  in  84-89  J"  is 
found  31  times,  Elohim  only  7  times.  In  Books 
iv.  and  v.  J"  is  used  almost  alone  (339  times) ;  the 
only  exceptions  being  in  Ps  108  (found  also  in 
earlier  collections)  and  Ps  144,  which  there  ars 
other  reasons  for  holding  to  be  composite.  That 
this  prevailing  use  of  one  or  other  name  is  due  (at 
least  in  part)  not  to  the  author  but  to  editorial 
modification,  is  made  probable  by  the  fact  that  we 
have  a  Jahwistic  and  an  Elohistic  recension  of  the 
same  psalm  (cf.  14  and  53,  also  40'^  and  70) ;  whilst 
the  repetition  of  the  phrase  '  God,  thy  God  '  in  43'' 
45'  and  50'  appears  to  have  arisen  from  the  much 
more  appropriate  '  J",  thy  God.'  The  phraseology 
of  some  psalms  appears  to  have  been  drawn  directly 
from  certain  passages  in  the  Law,  with  an  alteration 
only  in  the  Divine  name  used.  Cf.  Ps  50'  with  Ex 
20-,  Ps  71"*  with  Ex  15"  etc. 

c.  Another  argument  is  drawn  from  the  titles 
and  the  way  in  which  the  psalms  are  assigned  in 


PSALMS,  BOOK  OF 


PSALMS,  BOOK  OF 


147 


CTonps  to  various  authors,  those  in  Books  i.-iii. 
Caving  for  the  most  part  some  kind  of  designation, 
wliUst  tliose  in  Books  iv.  and  v.  are  generally 
anonymous. 

d.  The  editorial  note  in  Ps  72°°  '  The  prayers  of 
David,  tlie  son  of  Jesse,  are  ended,'  seems  to  prove 
conclusively  that  the  compiler  of  the  collection  in 
question  knew  of  no  other  Davidic  psalms,  wliereas 
several  that  are  found  in  later  books  are  ascribed 
to  David. 

e.  Tlie  rarity  in  Books  iv.  and  v.  of  the  musical 
notes  and  directions  so  common  in  the  earlier  books 
points  to  a  dill'erence  in  the  history  of  their  com- 
pilation. 

/.  Another  argument  has  been  drawn  from  the 
general  character  of  the  subject-matter  in  tlie 
various  collections.  It  is  thus  expressed  by  Kirk- 
patrick :  '  Speaking  broadly  and  generally,  the 
psalms  of  the  First  Division  (Bk.  i.)  are  personal, 
those  of  the  Second  (Bks.  ii.  and  iii.)  national, 
those  of  the  Third  (Bks.  iv.  and  v.)  lituitjical. 
There  are  numerous  exceptions ;  but  it  is  in  the 
First  Division  that  personal  prayers  and  thanks- 
givings are  chiefly  to  be  found  ;  in  the  Second, 
prayers  in  special  times  of  national  calamity  (44. 
60.  74.  79.  80.  83.  89),  and  thanksgiving  in  times  of 
national  deliverance  (46-48.  75.  76.  65-68) ;  in  the 
Third,  psalms  of  praise  and  thanksgiving  for 
general  use  in  temple  services'  (95-100.  105-107. 
111-118.  120-136.  146-150),  Jntrod.  pp.  xlii,  xliii. 

Is  it  possible,  then,  more  minutely  to  trace  the 
stages  by  which  the  various  sections  of  the  Psalter 
assumed  their  present  shape?  It  is  noteworthy 
that  in  Bk.  i.  all  the  psalms  are  assigned  to  David, 
with  the  following  exceptions:  Ps  1  is  introductory, 
and  was  probably  prehxed  to  the  collection  as  a 
suitable  preface.  The  absence  of  a  title  to  Ps  2 
seems  to  point  to  a  separate  history,  and  perhaps 
accounts  for  its  liatHng  been  joined  in  many  copies 
to  Ps  I.  Ps  10,  which  is  anonymous,  belongs  to 
Ps  9,  as  is  seen  by  the  acrostic  arrangement.  Ps  33 
is  assigned  to  bavid  in  the  LXX,  but  it  was 
originally  anonymous,  and  ai)pears  to  be  of  dis- 
tinctly later  date  than  the  rest. 

In  Bks.  ii.  and  iii.  all  the  psalms  bear  titles 
excei)t  Ps  43  (which,  as  the  refrain  shows,  is  part 
of  4-^)  and  71.  They  fall,  not  quite  symmetrically, 
into  groups.  Eight  jisalms  together  (42-49)  are 
assigned  to  'the  sons  of  Korali,'  and  a  supplement 
of  a  few  Korahitic  psalms  is  found  in  84.  85.  87. 
One  psalm  'of  Asaph  '  (50)  stands  alone,  followed 
later  by  a  group  of  eleven  Asaphic  psalms  73-83. 
Ten  psalms  of  David  are  found  together  (51-70,  all 
Daviilic  except  66  and  07) ;  Ps  86,  which  is  also 
a.scribed  to  David,  may  be  shown  to  be  a  mosaic  of 
sentences  adopted  from  other  psalms.  One  psalm 
(72)  is  assigned  to  Solomon,  one  to  lleman,  and  one 
to  Ktlmn. 

In  Bks.  iv.  and  v.,  on  the  other  hand,  the  rule  is 
that  the  psalms  are  anonymous,  the  only  exceptions 
being  that  the  90th  psalm  is  a.scribed  to  Moses,  the 
l'27th  to  Solomon,  whilst  a  few  additional  ones,  17 
in  all,  bear  the  name  of  David. 

The  history  to  which  these  facts  appear  to  point 
may  be  sketched  somewhat  as  follows.  The 
earliest  collection  consisted  of  Ps  3-41  or  the  bulk 
of  the  Psalms  now  so  numbered,  bearing  generally 
the  name  of  David.  The  significance  of  that 
designation  will  be  considered  later ;  enough  now 
to  say  that  it  does  not  necessarily  imply  that  David 
himself  was  the  author  of  every  psalm — and  to 
these  were  added  Ps  I  and  2  ami  probably  some 
others.  The  next  in  order  were  Levitical  collections 
I  Korahito'  or  '  Asapbitc.'and  these  werecomliined 
in  due  course  by  an  '  Klohistic'  editor,  who  added 
a  few  '  Davidic' and  other  psalms.  A  conjecture 
of  F.wald  is  sup[iortc<l  by  many  mudenis,  that  Ps 
61-72  originally  stood   after  I's  41,  forming  one 


collection  of  'Davidic'  psalms,  with  the  editorial 
note  72-'"  found  naturally  at  its  close.  The  Leviti- 
cal ps:ilms  would  then  follow  in  their  order — 
Koraliite  42-49,  Asaphite  .50.  73-83,  Korahitic 
supplement  84-89.  W.  R.  Smith  marks  the  follow- 
ing stages  in  the  process  of  forming  the  Psalter  as 
it  now  exists  : — 

a.  The  form.ition  of  the  first  Davidic  collection,  with  ita 
closiiif^  doxoloiry,  Ps  1-41. 

b.  The  second  collection  with  doxolo^  and  subscription,  Ps 
51-72. 

e.  The  twofold  Levitical  collection  (Ps  42-49.  60  and  73-83). 

d,  Elohistic  redaction  and  oonibination  of  /t  and  c. 

e.  Atii-Ution  to  (/  of  non-Klohistic  sunplenient  and  doxolocy. 
Ps  84-S9.    (SeeOTJC  201). 

Without  adopting  this  precise  arrangement, 
which  has,  however,  much  to  recommend  it,  it  may 
be  assumed  that  by  some  such  process — probably 
one  not  so  accurate  and  precise  as  modern  critics 
theoretically  constnict  —  the  psalms  in  the  first 
three  books  were  gathered  and  arranged.  Ps  90- 
150  are  viewed  by  most  modern  scholars  as  one 
division  or  collection,  but  certain  lines  of  stratifica- 
tion may  easily  be  perceived  in  it.  One  exquisite 
little  group  of  psalms  is  found  in  120-134,  the 
'Songs  of  Ascents,'  which  in  all  probability  at  one 
time  existed  as  a  .separate  '  hymn-book.'  Another 
break  is  found  in  the  doxology  appended  to  Ps  106, 
whatever  may  have  been  its  precise  history.  Then 
Ps  92-100  possess  a  character  of  their  own,  and 
groups  of  Hodu  and  Haltchijah  psalms  may  be 
discerned,  though  it  is  not  likely  that  these  ever 
existed  as  S(!parate  collections. 

No  precise  rules  can  be  given  for  the  order  in 
which  the  psalms  are  found.  A  certain  broad  out- 
line of  chronological  order  is  perhaps  discernible  ; 
sometimes  psaln\s  are  grouped  together  which  refer 
to  the  same  subject-matter,  e.rj.  the  psalms  of  the 
Theophany  of  which  Ps  98  forms  a  centre.  The 
same  musical  designation  apiiears  to  have  caused 
the  grouping  of  the  Masclnl  psalms  42-45.  52-55, 
whilst  those  inscribed  Mlchtam  are  found  together 
in  56-60.  Sometimes  the  occurrence  of  a  word  or 
phrase  seems  to  link  one  psalm  with  another,  and 
some  writers,  of  whom  Wordsworth,  Forbes,  and 
occasionally  Delitzsch,  may  be  named  as  examples, 
attach  much  significance  to  this.  But  it  is  un- 
desirable to  build  any  elaborate  theories  upon  the 
arrangement  of  lyrics  the  present  collocation  of 
which  must  have  had  a  long  hist orj'.  Experience 
shows  how  gradual  and  irregul.-ir  has  been  the 
arrangement  of  many  modern  hymn-books,  in  daj-s 
when  much  greater  symmetry  and  more  formal 
arrangement  might  be  looked  for  than  in  the 
Psalter. 

The  dates  of  these  several  collections  can  he  de- 
termined only  in  the  most  general  way,  and  even  so 
with  a  con.siderable  measure  of  uncertainty.  It  is 
perhaps  possible  to  fix  a  tenninux  a  quo  and  nd 
Quem,  a  superior  and  inferior  limit,  to  mark  the 
period  within  which  the  whole  work  must  have 
tieen  carried  out.     And  first,  for  the  superior  limit. 

The  earliest  collection  is  that  of  'Davidic' 
psalms,  numbered  1-41.  If  Ps  1  and  2  were  in- 
cluded in  the  collection  when  it  was  first  made, 
also  25  and  33,  it  is  tolerably  certain  that  this  was 
not  done  till  after — probably  not  long  after — the 
return  from  Captivity.  Ps  1  is  almost  certainly 
post-exilic.  The  language  of  14'  '  Oh  that  the 
salvation  of  Israel  were  come  out  of  Zion,'  does  not 
necessarily  imi)ly  the  Bab.  Captivitj',  and  the 
ver.se  may  be  a  liturgical  addition.  Ps  '25^,  which 
forms  an  addition  to  an  acrostic  arrangement, 
breathes  a  similar  prayer,  and  shows  that  the  psalm 
in  its  present  condition  cannot  bo  very  early.  The 
subject  of  Ps  16  does  not  necessitate  a  post-exilic 
(late,  but  if  a  doctrine  of  immortality  be  implied 
in  it,  such  a  date  is  most  prulnilili'.  Some  other 
psalms  in  this  collection — notably  31  and  39—  [>oint 


148 


PSALMS,  BOOK  OF 


PSALMS,  BOOK  OF 


at  least  to  the  period  of  the  later  monari^hy.  The 
history  of  Temiilenmsic,  moreover,  so  far  as  that 
is  ascertainable  from  the  documents  before  us, 
hardly  seems  to  admit  of  the  production  of  such  a 
linished  collection  of  Temple -songs  before  the 
Exile.  The  Chronicler  must  be  understood  as 
describing  in  1  Ch  15  and  16  the  institutions  of  his 
own  time,  of  which  David  only  laid  the  early 
foundations.  That  a  guild  of  lemple-iiingers  ex- 
isted before  the  capti\ity  of  Judah  is  probable 
enough,  but  the  collection  as  a  whole — compare 
the  titles  to  Ps  24  and  28  in  the  LXX — implies  a 
stage  of  advancement  in  Temple  psalmody  which 
can  hardly  have  been  reached  till  after  the  Return. 
This  does  not  imply,  of  course,  that  no  previous 
collection  of  sacred  songs  had  ever  been  made.  It 
is  possible,  though  hardly  probable,  that  in  the 
time  of  Solomon  some  steps  ha<l  been  taken  in  this 
direction.  But  we  are  dealing  with  the  Psalter  as 
it  has  come  down  to  us,  and  ne  should  name  the 
period  shortly  after  the  Exile  as  the  earliest  possible 
and  the  most  probable  date  for  the  formation  of 
the  first  collection  of  psalms.  Tlie  next  may  very 
well  have  taken  place  in  the  time  of  Nehemiah, 
and  the  work  appears  to  have  been  very  gradually 
accomplished  during  the  succeeding  centuries  by 
stages  which  we  cannot  exactly  trace,  but  some 
idea  of  which  has  been  furnished  above. 

AVhat,  then,  is  the  inferior  limit  of  date  in  the 
carrjnng  out  of  this  work  ?  Here  a  number  of 
argiiments  have  to  be  examined,  the  investigation 
of  which  is  in  itself  instructive,  and  the  material 
thus  furnished  is  sufficient  to  warrant  tolerably 
definite  conclusions. 

a.  Tlie  bearin"  of  1  Ch  16  upon  the  date  of  the 
Psalter.  Tlie  date  of  the  Chronicler  may  be 
roughly  taken  as  about  B.C.  3uO.  In  ch.  16,  in 
tlie  course  of  an  account  of  the  bringing  up  of  the 
ark  to  the  city  of  David,  the  WTiter  puts  a  psalm 
into  the  moutli  of  David  as  appropriate  to  such  an 
occasion  The  psalra  is  not  directly  attributed  to 
David  as  the  tr.  of  v.'  in  AV  would  imply.  The 
phraseology  only  emphasizes  tlie  fact  tliat  David 
took  especial  care  concerning  the  giving  of  thanks  : 
'  On  that  d.ay  did  David  make  it  his  chief  work 
to  give  thanks  unto  the  Lord  by  the  hands  of 
Asaph  and  his  brethren.'  A  psalm  follows,  how- 
ever, wliich  consists  of  105'""*  96  and  certain  verses 
(1.47.48)  fro,a  pg  iQg  Apparently,  therefore,  the 
Chronicler  had  these  psalms — possibly  a  collection 
containin"  these  psalms  —  before  him  when  he 
wrote.  V.'*  seems  distinctly  to  imply  that  the 
writer  adapted  the  doxology  to  his  purpose,  chang- 
ing the  imperfects  into  perfects,  '  And  all  the 
people  said  Amen,  and  praised  the  Lord.'  If  this 
were  the  case,  the  conclusion  is  clear,  that  Ps  106 
was  written,  perhaps  Bk.  iv.  formed,  soiuewliere 
in  the  4th  cent.  B.C.  Closer  examination  shows, 
however,  that  this  is  not  quite  so  certain.  Cheyne 
contends  (Origin  of  Ps.  p.  457)  that  vv.w-*>'  were 
only  liturgic.il  formiihe,  not  composed  solely  for 
use  in  Ps  106,  but  freely  attaclied  to  many  psalms. 
It  may  be  replied  that  the  connexion  between  1  Ch 
16"  and  Ps  HiQ*'  as  a  whole  appears  too  close  to  lie 
accidental,  and  we  can  hardly  conceive  that  the 
psalmist  adapted  the  phraseology  of  the  Chronicler, 
though  Kyle  seems  to  favour  this  view  (Canon  of 
OT,  p.  129).  It  is  possible,  as  Clieyne  suggests, 
that  additions  were  made  to  the  various  books 
after  the  collections  had  been  provisionally  tdosed, 
and  this  pos-sibility  must  not  be  summarily  ex- 
Dluded.  It  is  possible,  ar;ain,  and  for  some  reasons 
probable,  that  w.^-^  did  not  form  part  of  the 
original  text  of  1  Ch  16.  V.'  joins  verj-  naturally 
to  v.",  whilst  the  words  of  the  psalra  do  not  lit 
in  very  appropriately  with  the  phraseology  of  the 
seventh  verse,  when  its  meaning  is  rightly  under- 
ttood.     This  suggestion,  originally  made  by  Reuss, 


is  favoured  by  Baotbgen,  and  the  possibility  of  iti 
acceptance  prevents  the  argument  from  being  con- 
clusive. Given  both  texts  as  they  stand,  it  .seems 
dilficult  to  resist  the  conclusion  that  Ps  106,  with 
its  doxology  complete,  was  before  the  Chronicler 
as  he  wrote. 

/3.  The  evidence  afforded  by  the  LXX  is  much 
more  trustworthy,  and  rests  upon  a  broader  basis. 
It  is  true  that  we  cannot  be  quite  certain  when 
the  tr.  of  the  Hagiographa  was  completed.  That 
the  whole  work  was  begun  and  the  tr.  of  tlie  Pent, 
executed  about  B.C.  250  seems  tolerably  clear; 
but  Cheyne  and  some  others  are  disposed  to  bring 
down  tlie  inferior  limit  for  tlie  completion  of  the 
tr.  of  the  Hagiographa  very  late.  All  Cheyne 
will  admit  is  that  it  was  finished  'at  any  rate 
before  the  Christian  era.'  The  evidence  of  the 
prologue  of  Siradi,  however,  will  hanlh'  admit  of  a 
later  date  for  the  tr.  of  the  Psalter  than  B.C.  150. 
The  author  of  this  preface,  writing  about  B.C.  130, 
thrice  mentions '  the  law,  the  prophets,  and  the  other 
books'  (or  an  equivalent  expression),  and  he  speaks 
of  his  grandfather,  .Jesus  son  of  SiiaiOi,  as  having 
been  familiar  with  these  as  sacred  writings.  This 
indicates  a  third  class  of  sacred  Scriptures,  the 
canon  of  which  was  not  necessarilj-  complete  in 
the  time  of  Siracides,  say  B.C.  180.  But  that  the 
Psalter  was  included  among  these  can  hardly  be 
questioned,  even  though  it  were  not  in  its  present 
form.  Keferences  in  1  and  2  JIac,  as  we  shall  see, 
confirm  this  supposition.  But  granted  that  the 
evidence  is  not  conclusive,  and  bringing  down  the 
date  for  the  tr.  of  the  Psalter  even  so  low  as  B.C. 
100,  it  is  clear  that  a  considerable  interval  must 
be  allowed  for  the  accomplishment  of  the  various 
processes  passed  through  between  the  completion 
of  the  latest  collection  in  Heb.  and  its  rendering 
into  Greek.  Sanday  (Bampt.  Lect.  on  Inspiration, 
Lect.  V.  Note  A,  p.  271)  marks  as  many  as  nine 
such  processes.  The  number  is  probalily  exces- 
sive ;  out  if  the  history  of  the  formation  of  the 
Psalter  has  been  at  all  correctly  indicated,  several 
stages  must  separate  the  comiiosition  of,  say,  one 
of  the  psalms  in  the  Eloliistic  collection  and  its 
inclusion  in  the  LXX.  The  smaller  group  of 
Korahite  or  Asaphic  psalms  would  be  collected, 
then  would  come  the  larger  Eloliistic  collection, 
the  addition  of  title,  the  embodiment  of  the 
smaller  collection  in  the  full  Psalter  of  150  psalms, 
the  numeration,  the  formation  of  titles  as  found 
in  the  Greek, — these  are  some  of  the  steps  wliich 
must  have  been  successively  taken.  Probably  not 
much  time  needs  to  be  allowed  for  some  of  them, 
some  may  even  have  been  contemporaneous,  but 
reflection  shows  that  an  interval  of,  at  least,  one 
or  two  decades  must  be  allowed  between  the  com- 
pletion of  the  Heb.  Psalter  and  its  tr.  into  Greek. 

y.  A   further    argument    may    be    drawn   from 

1  Mac  7",  which  quotes  Ps  79 — usually  accounted 
one  of  the  latest  in  date — with  the  formula  usual 
in  citing  Scripture — kot4  tou!  \lrfOv!  oOs  (ypa'pep. 
l"or  a  psalm  thus  to  be  recognized  and  quoted  as 
Scripture,  implies  the  lapse  of  a  considerable  in- 
terval since  its  composition.  Not  much  reliance 
for  our  purpose  can  be  placed  on  the  statement  of 

2  Mac  2",  which  recorils  how  Nchcniiah,  '  found- 
ing a  librar3-,  gathered  together  tlie  books  aliout 
the  kings  and  prophets,  and  the  books  of  David 
(rd.  ToO  Aaveld)  and  letters  of  kings  about  sacred 
gifts.' 

S.  Indirectly,  the  so-called  '  Psalms  of  Solomon ' 
(which  see)  furnish  evidence  from  another  point  of 
view.  These  psalms  possess  a  distinct  character  of 
their  own.  If  tliey  may  be  placed,  as  most  modem 
scholars  are  inclined  to  place  them,  about  the  middle 
of  the  1st  cent.  B.C.,  a  considerable  interval  must 
be  allowed  as  elapsing  between  their  composition 
and  that  of  the  latest  canonical  books.     Even  a 


PSALMS,  BOOK  OF 


PSAOIS,  BOOK  OF 


119 


■nperficial  reader  must  be  struck  by  the  contrast 
bet  .Veen  these  'psalms  of  the  Pharisees'  aud  those 
of  the  canonical  psalter.  Kirkpatrick  speaks  of 
them  aa  '  separated  \>y  an  impassable  gulf.'  Tliis 
is  stronj;  langua^'c  ;  but  on  tlie  two  great  subjects 
of  the  future  hie  and  the  Messianic  hope  the 
contrast  is  so  striking,  that  if  argument  from 
growth  and  ili;velopuient  of  thuuglit  is  worth 
anything  at  all,  this  is  a  case  in  which  great 
reliance  must  be  placed  ujion  it. 

Parsing  by  otlier  arguments  of  more  question- 
able value,  such  as  tliat  from  tlie  musical  titles, 
which  were  certainly  uninteUigible  to  the  (Jr.  trans- 
lators, and  that  from  the  language  of  the  Chronicler 
concerning  the  Levitical  guilds  of  singers,  we  may 
perhaps  come  to  the  following;  conclusion : — 'I'he 
PsaJter  is  a  collection  of  relijrious  poetry  chielly, 
though  not  entirely,  intended  for  use  in  public 
worship,  and  very  gradually  compiled.  The  ear- 
liest stage  of  the  final  process  dates  from  shortly 
after  the  Exile,  one  step  succeeding  another 
through  the  compass  of  some  three  centuries,  till 
the  collection  was  virtually  closed  in  the  first  half 
of  the  2nd  cent.  B.C.  R3'le  represents  tlie  pre- 
vailing view  of  modern  scholars  when  he  sajs, 
'  The  time  of  its  final  promulgation  in  its  present 
form  and  of  its  first  recognition  as  part  of  the 
people's  Scriptures,  may  well  have  been  that  of  the 
great  religious  revival  that  accompanied  the  suc- 
cess of  the  Maccaba'an  revolt,  and  the  downfall 
of  the  Hellenizing  party  among  the  priests  and 
nobles'  {Canon  of  OT,  ji.  127).  Tlie  e.xact  form  of 
the  conclusion  reached  is  somewhat  dependent  on 
the  decision  of  questions  concerning  the  date  and 
authorship  of  individual  psalms,  a  subject  in- 
timately bound  up  with  that  just  discussed,  to 
which  accordingly  we  now  pass. 

iii.  Date  and  Authorship. —  Care  must  be 
taken  not  to  confuse  date  of  compilation  and  date 
of  composition,  and  sometimes  a  distinction  must 
be  made  between  the  date  of  composition  of  the 
original  psalm  and  the  date  to  be  assigned  to  it 
in  its  present  form.  Many  of  these  lyrics  were 
handed  down  orally,  and,  in  particular,  some  of 
those  that  were  connected  with  public  worship 
may  have  been  long  current  in  a  narrower  circle 
before  they  found  a  place  in  a  smaller  or  larger 
collection  of  psalms.  Further,  the  phenomena  of 
the  Psalter,  as  we  have  it,  prove  conclusively  that 
modifications  were  freely  made  in  existing  com- 
positions, whether  to  make  them  suitable  for 
public  worship  or  to  adapt  them  to  the  new  cir- 
cumstances of  a  new  time. 

It  is  not  the  object  of  this  article  to  describe  the 
history  of  lyric  poetry  amongst  the  Hebrews.  Hut 
no  intelligent  judgment  can  be  formed  as  to  the 
probable  date  of  these  particular  sacred  songs, 
without  a  brief  survey  of  what  is  known  from 
other  sources  concerning  the  history  of  this  form 
of  literary  composition  in  Israel. 

The  history  of  the  iieojile  begins  with  an  outburst 
of  song.  The  deliverance  from  Egyi)t  at  the  Red 
Sea  was  an  event  which  made  a  deep  impression  on 
the  ritual,  the  literature,  and  the  national  life  of 
Israel.  It  was  signalized,  according  to  Ex  15,  by  a 
Bong  '  which  Moses  and  the  children  of  Israel  san" ' 
—a  pa'an  not  unworthy  of  the  great  occasion.  It 
is  found  as  part  of  the  '  second  Elohist's '  narrative, 
doubtless  handed  down  from  earlier  days,  and  is 
fitted  into  its  place  by  v.".  That  the  wliole  song 
in  its  present  form  is  antique  seems  hardly  likely. 
Ewahl,  Dillmann,  Delitzsch,  and  Driver  agree  that 
vv.'-'  },'ive  the  ruling  strain  of  the  ancient  hj'mn, 
while  the  laiigiuige  of  vv."  and '"' seems  to  point 
to  later  days,  when  the  early  deliverance  was 
triumphantly  recalled.  The  'Song  of  Moses'  in 
Dt  32  may  with  some  confidence  be  a.ssigned  to  the 
Bth  cent.   B.C.     It  is  not   Mosaic  in  its  point  of 


view  ;  V."-  are  enough  to  show  that  the  settlement 
in  Canaan  is  an  event  of  the  far  past.  Driver 
would  fix  the  date  about  the  time  of  Jeremiah, 
and  some  features  point  in  this  direction.  But  it 
is  near  enough  for  the  present  purjiose,  if  it  be 
assigned  generally  to  the  period  of  the  monarchy. 
The  remarkable  poem  given  at  length  in  Jg  5, 
known  as  the  Song  of  Deborah,  is  generally  recog- 
nized as  one  of  the  oldest  fragments  of  Heb. 
literature.  Kuenen  describes  it  as  contemporaneous 
with  the  events  it  celebrates,  and  most  critics 
aclinowledge  the  absence  of  anachronisms  and  the 
strong  impression  of  reality  which  this  ode  leaves 
ujjon  them.  The  date  of  Hannah's  song  in  1  S  2 
cannot  easily  be  determined.  Judged  by  modern 
ideas,  it  seems  little  suited  for  the  occasion  on  which 
it  is  said  to  have  been  uttered,  except  so  far  as  it 
sets  forth  the  Divine  exaltation  of  the  lowly,  or 
may  be  considered  to  possess  a  prophetic  character. 
Tliat  it  was  composed  after  the  establishment  of 
the  monarchy  seems  clear  from  v.'".  The  lament 
over  Saul  and  Jonathan  ascribed  to  David  in  2  S  1 
may  be  taken  as  genuinely  Davidic.  It  contains 
nothing  inconsistent  with  the  occasion,  none  of 
those  indications  of  a  later  point  of  view  some- 
times found  lurking  in  a  single  clause  or  allusion, 
whilst  the  date  of  the  compilation  of  the  book,  so 
far  as  can  be  gathered,  would  point  to  an  early 
origin  for  the  elegy.  Other  indirect  evidence  as  to 
the  handing  down  of  such  songs  from  early  times 
may  be  drawn  from  the  mention  of  the  '  book  of 
Jasliar'  and  the  'teaching  of  the  song  to  the 
children  of  Judah'  in  v.'".  The  'last  words'  of 
David,  found  in  2  S  23,  do  not  stand  on  quite  the 
same  footing,  since  these  later  chapters  form  an 
appendix  to  the  book  which  may  be  much  later  in 
date. 

Other  lyrics  which  havecome  down  to  us  embedded 
in  proplietic  literature  —  with  which  psalmody  is 
closely  connected — are  the  thanksgiving  of  Is  12, 
the  dirge  of  Hezekiah  in  Is  38,  the  prayer  of 
Habakkuk  in  Hab  3,  and  that  of  Jonah  in  Jon  2. 
It  is  impossible  to  enter  into  detailed  questions  of 
criticism,  yet  the  objective  evidence  ati'orded  by 
the  dates  of  these  poems,  if  they  could  be  fixed, 
would  be  important,  for  these  would  serve  as  land- 
marks to  judge  of  compositions  when  removed 
from  their  setting.     Is  12  probably  belongs  to  the 

Eeriod  of  Hezekiah.  The  dirge  in  ch.  38  may  well 
e  of  the  same  date.  It  was  apparently  added  by 
the  compiler  of  Is  36-39  to  the  historical  narratives 
drawn  from  2  Kings.  Cheyne  compares  the  lan- 
guage of  the  dirge  \\ith  that  of  Job,  and  holds  it  to 
be  exilic,  inserted  on  the  principle  that  psalms  in 
any  sense  illustrative  of  historical  incidents  might 
be  quoted  as  if  actually  connected  with  them. 
The  prayer  of  Habakkuk  is  considered  by  many 
critics  to  be  a  late  addition,  but  there  is  no  valid 
reason  why  it  should  not  belong  to  the  Gth  cent. 
B.C.  The  general  character  of  Jon  2  seems  to 
mark  it  out  as  a  cento  of  phrases  drawn  from 
earlier  psalms.  It  has  none  of  the  freshness  and 
force  to  bo  expected  in  a  composition  of  the  time 
of  Jonah  the  prophet. 

Gathering  tliis  hasty  survey  to  a  close,  it  may  be 
said  in  a  word  that  the  highly  elaborated  poetical 
composition  entitled  '  The  Lamentations,'  though 
not  by  Jeremiah,  and  perhaps  not  of  single  author- 
ship, may — allowing  for  the  slightly  varying  dates 
of  its  dillerent  parts  —  be  with  some  confidence 
placed  soon  after  the  Exile,  in  the  course  of  the 
tith  cent.  B.C.  The  finished  acrostic  arrangement, 
no  less  than  the  language  and  stylo,  points  to  an 
advanced  stage  of  jioetical  composition.  See, 
further,  art.  POETRY  (IlKlillKW). 

If  these  results  are  only  approximately  correct, 
they  furnish  valuable  data  for  further  investiga- 
tion.     We   cannot  obtain   as  much   information 


150 


PSALMS,  BOOK  OF 


PSALMS,  BOOK  OF 


concerning  the  history  of  music  and  song  in  con- 
nexion with  temple-worship.  The  notes  of  the 
Chronicler,  written  long  after  the  event,  though 
in  many  cases  drawn  from  original  sources, 
liardly  enahle  us  to  determine  how  far  the  services 
which  were  inaugurated  by  David  had  developed 
in  the  earlier  period  of  the  monarchy.  Some  of 
the  descriptions  seem  to  give  a  picture  of  the  full 
organization  known  to  the  Chronicler,  of  which 
David  established  merely  the  rudiments.  Delitzsch 
laid  it  down  that  there  were  three  chief  epochs  of 
psalmody  in  Israel — the  time  of  David,  of  Jehosha- 
pli.it,  and  of  Hezekiah  ;  but  in  our  records  it  is 
dittioult  to  distinguish  the  stages  of  growth  in  the 
music  and  worship  of  the  sanctuarj'.  It  seems 
clear,  however,  that  the  position  discernible  after 
the  ExUe  (Ezr  2"  and  Neh  T")  implies  considerable 
previous  development,  at  least  under  the  later 
monarchy,  though  its  exact  degree  is  doubtful. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  outburst  of  song  in  the 
time  of  the  Maccabees,  of  which  many  recent 
critics  have  much  to  say,  while  probable  enough, 
is  hypothetical  only.  The  theory  is  likely  enough 
a  priori,  and  possesses  some  slight  indirect  con- 
firmation from  history  (cf.  2  Mac  2'''),  but  its 
historical  basis  is  not  strong  enough  to  bear  any 
solid  superstructure.  The  evidence  of  Jer  33"  is 
by  no  means  unimportant  where  external  evidence 
is  so  scanty  ;  pointing,  as  it  does,  to  a  measure  of 
liturgical  development  and  the  use  of  formula  in 
worship  during  the  Chaldtean  period,  which  may 
form  a  fixed  point  in  dealing  with  the  psalms. 

Let  us  next  examine  the  titles  so  far  as  these 
bear  on  authorship.  The  facts  are  these.  One 
psalm  is  attributed  to  Moses,  73  to  Da\-id  (in  the 
live  books  respectively,  37.  18.  1.  2.  15),  2  to 
Solomon,  12  to  Asaph,  11  to  the  sons  of  Korah, 
1  to  Heman,  and  1  to  Ethan.  In  fourteen  cases  the 
historical  circumstances  of  composition  are  alluded 
to  (cf.  Ps  3.  7,  etc.).  These  cease  in  the  later 
books.  Those  that  have  come  down  to  us  are 
sometimes  taken  from  the  historical  books,  and 
sometimes  present  difficulties,  as  in  the  mention  of 
'  Cush,'  Ps  7.  The  LXX  contains  some  additional 
titles.  The  following  psalms,  anonymous  in  the 
Heb.,  are  in  it  ascribed  to  David,  33.  43.  67.  91. 
93-99.  104 ;  Ps  138  and  139  are  inscribed  in  cod.  A  r^i 
Aai/fiS  Zaxopiou,  whUe  146.  147,  and  148  have  the 
title  A77a/ou  icai  Zaxopiou.  The  historical  refer- 
ences peculiar  to  this  version  are  often  curious  or 
obscure,  e.g.  Ps  27  irpd  toO  xp^'^^vvai,  Ps  29  f'foSiou 
ffKijvijs,  Ps  66  dvatrriaeui,  whilst  Ps  76  and  80  are 
entitled  Tpii  riv  'A<rarpiov  and  inrip  tou  'A<r(Tvplov, 
and  Ps  144  jrp6s  riv  FoXtdS.  This  version  contains 
also,  it  may  be  said  in  passing,  notices  of  the  days 
on  which  certain  psalms  were  recited  in  public,  as 
Ps  92  in  the  Heb.  is  spoken  of  as  a  Sabbath-psalm. 
Ps  24  was  sung  on  the  first  day  of  the  week,  48  on 
the  second,  94  on  the  fourth,  and  93  on  the  day 
before  the  Sabbath. 

The  anonymous  psalms,  called  'orphans'  in 
later  days,  were  by  the  later  Jews  provided  with 
parents  by  being  attributed  to  the  author  named 
in  the  nearest  previous  psalm  (see  Jerome,  Episl. 
139  ad  Cyprianum).  In  all  probability  it  is  on 
this  principle  that  so  many  psalms  in  the  first 
book  came  to  be  attributed  to  David,  and  in  later 
times  Moses  was  credited  with  all  tlie  psalms 
91-100,  extending,  that  is,  from  tlie  '  Mosaic  '  llUth 
psalm  to  the  lOl-st,  which  bears  David's  name. 
The  usage  by  which  the  whole  Psalter  came  to  be 
attributed  to  David,  so  that  the  popular  name 
'  David '  was  applied  to  the  whole  collection  in 
He  4'  is  easily  intelligible,  and  has  been  fre- 
quently paralleled  since  in  the  names  of  'Wesley's' 
and  other  popular  hymn-books. 

The  time  when  these  titles  were  added  cannot 
be  exactly  determined.  Some  would  be  prefixed  at 


the  time  of  the  earlier  compilations,  others  when 
the  collections  of  collections  were  made.  Several 
of  the  titles  in  the  LXX  show,  what  one  or  two 
psalms  in  the  Heb.  exhibit,  a  combination  of  in- 
consistent traditions,  both  as  regards  author  and 
occasion.  As  a  whole,  the  titles  represent  an 
early,  but  far  from  contemporary  tradition,  and 
are  for  the  most  part  uncritical  in  character,  as 
may  be  shown  by  the  following  considerations. 

1.  Some  of  the  psalms  assigned  to  David  cannot 
by  any  possibilitv  be  his.  Compare,  •  g.,  the 
Aramaisms  of  103."  122.  139  and  144  ;  but  etpecially 
those  of  139,  a  psalm  which  must  be  amongst  the 
latest  in  the  Psalter.  Other  exjilanations  have 
been  given  of  these  Aramaisms  which  cannot  be 
considered  satisfactory  ;  but  if  they  are  supposed 
to  originate  in  the  Northern  Kingdom,  Davidio 
authorship  is  equally  set  aside. 

2.  Some  psalms  ascribed  to  David  are  evidently 
late  because  of  tlieir  obvious  borrowings  from 
earlier  psalms.  These  are  tame  in  stylo,  lacking 
the  fresh  vigour  associated  with  the  Davidic 
period,  though  often  with  a  plaintive  beauty  of 
their  own  (cf.  Ps  86). 

3.  The  acrostic  psalms  25.  34  and  37  cannot  be 
David's.  It  is  conceivable  that  this  artificial  style 
of  composition  came  into  use  early,  but  it  is  not 
probable.  Kno^\'n  examples  of  it  are  late,  and 
some  other  features  in  the  acrostic  psalms  of  the 
first  book — e.g.  the  condition  of  the  State,  the 
exhortations  to  patience  under  oppression,  as  in 
Ps  37 — make  so  early  a  date  impossible. 

4.  The  mention  of  the  temple  in  5'  27''  etc.  must 
be  considered  as  an  eWdenee  of  date.  It  has  been 
contended  (e.g.  hy  Delitzsch,  Psalms,  vol.  i.  pp. 
160,  161)  that  '?:•"  might  be  applied  to  the  Davidic 
tabernacle ;  but  it  is  only  by  a  certain  straining  of 
language  that  a  word  for  '  palace '  could  be  applied 
to  a  tent,  even  though  that  tent  were  the  dwelling- 
place  of  God.  The  phrase  God's  '  holy  hill,'  more- 
over, seems  to  imply  tliat  the  sanctuary  had  been 
established  upon  Zion  for  some  considerable  time 
(see  Driver,  LOT'  p.  375).  The  early  use  of  these 
expressions  might,  liowever,  perhaps  be  allowed,  if 
aU  other  features  of  the  psalms  in  question  favoured 
a  Da\"idic  authorship.  But  this  is  not  the  case. 
The  language  which  describes  a  period  of  oppression 
and  fear  (Ps  9'*  etc. )  requires  a  good  deal  of  adap- 
tation before  it  will  fit  David's  position,  and  tlie 
same  may  be  said  of  the  descriptions  of  the  kind  of 
foes  ajjainst  which  the  psalmist  had  to  contend. 
Traditional  interpretation  may  have  accustomed 
readers  to  think  of  David  under  persecution  by 
Saul,  or  at  the  time  of  Absalom's  rebellion,  but 
close  examination  shows  that  much  of  the  language 
is  inapjiropriate  in  David's  mouth.  Often  there  is 
a  superficial  resemblance  to  the  circumstances  of 
David's  life,  combined  with  real  incompatibility. 
See,  e.g.,  Ps  20  and  21,  which  refer  to  the  kin^,  but 
could  not  have  been  written  by  king  David  in 
relation  to  himself  ;  Ps  55'-- '',  which  might  seem 
to  point  to  Ahithophel,  but  that  so  many  phrases 
of  the  psalm  (w.^-'-'^  and  the  pliraseology,  care- 
fully considered,  of  '-"'■')  are  incompatible  with 
David's  jiosition.  Many  of  the  psalms  ascribed 
to  David  are  not  the  lan^age  of  a  monarch  at  all, 
but  the  plaintive  complaints  of  one  who  is  crushed 
under  a  government  which  he  has  no  power  to 
modify,  and  from  which  he  cannot  escape.  Isolated 
expressions  such  as  are  found  in  SI'*-''  maybe 
explained  as  liturgical  additions  to  an  originally 
Davidic  psalm,  while  6*"  might  conceivably  be 
understood  of  David's  time  ;  but  some  violence  is 
required  in  each  case.  And  puttin"  together  (1) 
the  separate  phrases  which  betray  a  later  date,  (2) 
the  kind  of  trials  to  which  the  psalmist  is  exposed, 
(3)  the  condition  of  society  exhibited,  (4)  tha 
maturity  of  theological  thought  often  manifested, 


PSALMS,  BOOK  OF 


PSALilS,  BOOK  OF 


151 


it  will  be  seen  that  a  strong  case  is  made  out 
apiiinst  at  least  a  large  number  of  the  psalms 
atuibuteU  in  the  titles  '  to  Da\-id.' 

Is  it  to  be  said,  then,  that  David  wrote  none  of 
the  psuliiis  that  have  come  down  to  tis  ?  Well- 
Imusen's  dictum  has  often  been  quoted,  that  '  the 
question  is  not  whether  the  Psalter  contains  post- 
exilic,  but  whether  it  contains  any  pre-exilic 
psalms,'  and  that  question  is  by  many  answered 
in  the  negative.  It  will  be  safer  to  conduct  the 
inquiry  upon  critical  principles  cautiously  applied. 

First,  little  or  no  reliance  is  to  be  placed  on  the 
titles  as  indicative  of  authorship.  For  it  is  not 
certain  that  tlie  i')"}^  is  to  be  understood  of  personal 
authorship  (compare  the  title  'of  the  sons  of  Korah,' 
where  the  preposition  is  admittedly  not  the  Lamed 
aiutoris).  It  is  probable  that  a  title  originally 
given  to  one  or  two  psalms  in  a  book  was  after- 
wards athxed  separately  to  all  in  a  collection.  And 
the  arguments  above  alleged  show  that  many  of  the 
titles  must  have  been  alhxed  in  a  crude  and  super- 
ficial way.  But  the  same  cannot  be  said  of  the 
general  reputation  of  David  as  a  psalmist.  Tliis 
must  have  rested  upon  a  toler.ibly  substantial 
basis.  It  has  been  said  that  David  ^\  as  noted  only 
as  a  musician,  not  as  a  poet.  The  pas.sages  1  S  16'", 
2  S  1"  .S-"  6'^  and  Am  6*  are  said  not  to  imply  more 
than  this.  But  the  Chronicler  makes  David  to 
have  been  the  founder  of  psalmody,  see  1  Ch  IS^-'", 
2Ch  7«",  and  compare  Ezr  3'",  Neh  12*". 

Further,  it  has  already  been  seen  that  David 
was  confes.sedly  the  aullior  of  the  eleg>'  of  2  S  1, 
and  the  18th  psalm  is  attributed  to  him'in  2  S  22. 
It  is  .said  that  the  lirst  of  these  poems  is  not  of  a 
religious  character,  hut  that  does  not  constitute 
a  proof  that  the  writer  could  not  compose  a  reli- 
gious poem,  and  for  literary  purposes  its  evidence 
13  valid.  David  was  the  writer  of  verses  which,  as 
literature,  are  parallel  with  the  psalms,  whilst  early 
tradition  asc^ribes  to  him  the  composition  of  psalms 
al.so.  Taking,  then,  the  18tli  psalm  as  a  kind  of 
test  case,  how  stands  the  evidence  ?  (a)  External 
Evidence.  If  the  22nd  cli.  forms  an  integral  part  of 
2S,  the  testimony  to  Davidic  authorship  is  early 
and  strong.  If — as  tliere  is  reason  to  suppose — 
chs.  22  and  23  constitute  a  later  addition  to  the 
book,  their  evidence  is  greatly  weakened.  It 
is  not  easy  to  determine  whether  the  text  as 
given  in  the  psalm  is  earlier  or  later  than  that 
found  in  the  liistory.  Baethgen  inclines  to  hold 
that  the  psalm  gives  the  earlier  form  of  text,  but 
that  the  two  have  been  handed  down  independently. 
On  the  other  hand,  it  is  much  more  probable  that 
the  brief  historical  introduction  with  which  Ps  22 
opens  was  taken  from  the  history  than  vice  versd. 
(yS)  Internal  Evidence.  The  contents  of  the  psalm 
suit  well  the  early  monarchy,  and  can,  in  fact,  with 
difliculty  be  applied  to  any  other  period.  The 
vigour  and  freshness  which  characterize  the  style 
have  convinced  Kwald  and  many  other  critics  of 
the  Davidic  authorsliip.  Tlio  only  arguments  on 
the  other  .side  have  been  drawn  from  v.-'',  which 
mii'ht  verv  well  have  come  from  David's  pen, 
ana  vv.*"-^,  which  do  uMquestionably  jioint  the 
other  way,  though  tliere  is  nothing  in  them 
ahsolutelj'  incompatible  with  Davidic  authorship. 
The  theory  adopted  by  Clieyno  and  others  who 
support  a  much  later  date  is  that  the  writer, 
with  marvellous  ability  and  success,  throws  him- 
self hack  into  the  life  of  the  conquering  hero  of 
many  centuries  before,  and  the  rioem  was  '  con- 
jccturally  ascribed  to  the  idealized  David  not  long 
before  the  Exile.'  This  conclusion  appears  to 
spring  from  the  assumed  premiss  that  '  from  the 
point  of  view  of  the  history  of  art,  not  less  than 
from  tliat  of  the  history  of  religion,  the  sn|iposition 
that  we  have  Davidic  [isalms  presents  insuperable 
dillicullies.'      The    conjunction    of    internal    and 


external  evidence  furnishes  a  fair,  tliough  not 
conclusive,  case  in  favour  of  the  Davidic  author- 
ship of  Ps  18,  such  as  would  reasonably  be  accejjted 
in  the  case  of  any  similar  document  in  classical 
literature,  and  it  can  be  overruled  only  by  con- 
siderations drawn  from  a  general  view  of  OT 
religion,  such  as  cannot  be  discussed  here. 

It  is  obvious  that  a  decision  on  the  question  of 
the  18th  psalm  will  carry  many  others  with  it. 
If  this  psalm  be  not  David's,  probably  none  from 
his  pen  has  come  down  to  us ;  if  it  be,  the  way  is 
open  to  examine  other  psalms  for  which  a  similar 
claim  is  made,  rejecting  sucli  as  are  condemned  by 
internal  evidence.  Tlie  only  otlier  psalm  of  whicli 
mention  can  be  made  here  is  the  lloth.  Older  ex- 
positors, such  as  Delitzsch  and  Ewald,  held  it  to  be 
Davidic,  or  of  the  Davidic  age,  but  the  tendency 
of  modem  criticism  is  to  assign  to  it  a  much 
later  date.  The  terseness,  vigour,  and  occasional 
ohscurit}'  of  its  phraseology  favour  an  early 
origin,  and  its  occurrence  in  the  fifth  book  of  the 
Psalter,  which  tells  in  favour  of  a  late  date,  is  not 
absolutely  inconsistent  with  an  earlier.  Decision 
upon  the  point  is  bound  up  with  the  exposition  of 
V.'.  If  the  opening  words  may  be  understood  in 
the  sense  that  the  Messiah  is  objectively  regarded 
as  the  psalmist's  Lord,  David  may  be  regarded  as 
the  speaker.  If,  as  many  hold,  this  is  impossible, 
the  theocratic  priest-king  must  be  addressed  by 
the  psalmist  as  his  lord,  and  the  Messianic  reference 
can  only  be  indirect  and  typical,  and  Davidic  author- 
ship is  excluded.  It  hiis  been  attempted  to  support 
the  first  of  these  theories  bj'  the  langu.-ige  of  2  S  23^'' 
and  the  prophecj*  recorded  in  2  S  7,  but  these  do 
not  present  a  close  parallel  to  the  kind  of  Messianic 
reference  proposed.  An  argument,  conclusive  to 
the  minds  of  many,  is  drawn  from  our  Lord's  quota- 
tion of  this  psalm  as  recorded  in  the  Synoptic 
Gospels.  This  quotation  shows  at  least  that  the 
current  Jewish  opinion  regarded  the  psalm  as 
Messianic,  but  it  does  not  exclude — (1)  the  sup- 
position that  an  arijume7itiim  ad  hominem  was 
intended  sufficient  for  the  purpose  which  Christ 
had  in  view,  or  (2)  the  fact  that  the  argument  to 
be  drawn  from  tlie  psalm  holds  good,  if  for  'David' 
the  general  word  '  psalmist'  were  substituted.  A 
study  of  the  whole  use  of  OT  made  by  Christ  in 
His  teaching  shows  that  the  (questions  of  date 
and  authorship  with  which  criticism  is  chiefly 
concerned  were  not  before  the  mind  of  our  Lord 
as  He  s]i()ke,  nor  was  it  His  object  to  pronounce 
upon  them. 

In  general,  the  conclusion  reached  upon  the 
subject  of  Davidic  psalms  seems  to  be  as  follows. 
It  cannot  certainly  be  proved  that  David  wrote 
any  psalms ;  the  probability  is  tliat  he  wrote  many  ; 
it  is  not  likely  that  all  tliese  were  lost;  some  of 
those  extant  whicli  are  ascribed  to  him  are  appro- 
priate in  bis  lips ;  e.xternal  evidence  ascribes  the 
18th  psalm  to  David,  and  if  it  bo  his,  it  is  probable 
that  others  also  should  be  attributed  to  him  ;  and  in 
determining  the  number  of  tliese,  internal  eridence 
drawn  from  contents,  style,  allusions,  etc.,  is  the 
solo  criterion.  The  judgment  of  critics  proceeding 
upon  these  lines  natur.illy  varies  considerably. 
Baethgcn,  with  some  hesitation,  admits  3  psalms  as 
Davidic,  Schultz  10,  Ewald  17,  Delitzsch  44,  while 
Driver  [LOT'^  380)  sums  up  by  saying— 'A  non  liquet 
must  bo  our  verdict ;  it  is  possible  that  Ewald's  list 
of  Davidic  psalms  is  too  large,  but  it  is  not  clear  that 
none  of  the  psalms  contained  in  it  are  of  David's 
composition.'  The  arguments  above  adduced  would 
lead  to  the  conclusion  that  from  ten  to  twenty 
psalms— including  3.  4.  7.  8.  15.  18.  23.  24.  32,  and 
perliaps  101  and  110 — mntj  have  come  down  ton* 
from  David's  pen,  but  that  the  number  can  hardly 
be  greater  and  may  bo  still  less.  The  OOtli  psalm 
cannot  have  been  written  by  Moses,  nor  the  72iid 


i52 


PSALMS,  BOOK  OF 


PSALMS,  BOOK  OF 


and  12Ttli  by  Solomon.  The  titles  in  these  cases 
nnist  be  understood  as  indicative  of  the  subject- 
matter.  Tlie  reference  of  certain  psalms  to  Asaph, 
Heman,  Ethan,  and  the  sons  of  Korah,  is  to  be 
understood  from  the  point  of  view  of  compilation 
rather  than  of  authorship.  If  these  psalms  were 
taken  from  collections  associated  with  the  Levitical 
guilds  kno^vn  by  these  historical  names  in  the  time 
of  the  second  temple,  the  titles  become  easily 
intelligible.  It  creates  difficulties  to  press  the 
meaning  of  the  preposition  as  Lamed  auctoris, 
and  to  suppose  (e.g.)  that  the  famUy  or  guild  of 
'  Korah '  were  either  separately  or  conjointly 
authors  of  psalms.  It  is  quite  possible  that  the 
free  multiplication  of  the  title  Ti'i^  is  due  to 
the  same  habit  on  the  part  of  those  who  formed 
the  several  collections.  Compilers  would  think 
more  of  the  source  from  which  the  psalms  were 
actually  derived  than  of  the  presumably  remote 
original  author,  especially  in  days  when  personal 
authorship  was  not  dwelt  upon  as  in  a  later 
time. 

On  the  general  subject  of  the  age  of  the  Psalms, 
Cheyne  hardly  allows  one  to  be  preexilic ;  the 
scattered  references  to  monarchy  he  applies  for 
the  most  part  to  the  time  of  the  Maccabosan 
revival.  In  this  he  stands  almost  alone  amongst 
Englisli  critics,  though  the  general  tendency  of 
criticism  is  to  assign  a  continually  increasing 
majority  of  the  psalms  to  the  post-exilic  period. 
Cornill  probably  represents  the  prevailing  opinion 
of  contemporary  scholars  when  he  describes 
(Einleitunrj,  p.  221)  the  Psalter  as  representing  a 
reaction  of  the  old  Israelitish  pious  feeling  against 
the  stiffening  formalism  of  the  time  of  Ezra  and 
his  successors,  a  proof  that  the  religious  genius  of 
Israel  in  the  3rd  and  4th  centuries  B.C.  had  not 
been  quenched  by  the  growing  influence  rf  what 
was  later  known  as  Pharisaism.  The  historical 
allusions  which  are  found  in  some  psalms  are  not 
for  the  most  part  decisive,  and  these  cease  to  have 
any  weiglit  if  the  possibility  of  later  impersonation 
and  idealization  is  freely  conceded.  Taking  the 
language  of  the  p-salms  as  it  stands,  however,  the 
nearest  approach  to  detiniteness  on  the  ground  of 
historical  allusions  would  be  found  in  Ps  46  as 
applied  to  the  overthrow  of  Sennacherib,  Ps  74 
and  79  to  the  period  of  the  Maccabees.  Ps  68, 
which  by  earlier  critics  was  assigned  to  the  reign 
of  Jehoshaphat,   almost  certainly  belongs  to  the 

Eeriod  of  the  Second  Temple,  and  Ps  118,  which 
as  generally  been  considered  as  especially  suitable 
to  the  return  from  Captivity,  is  conlidentlj-  assigned 
by  Cheyne  to  the  Maccabwan  period.  Ps  45,  which 
most  critics  place  during  the  monarchy,  is  under- 
stood by  the  same  writer  of  Ptolemy  Philadelphus. 
If  historical  allusions  are  not  decisive,  neither  will 
the  evidence  of  parallel  passages  avail  much.  If  the 
dates  of  Joli,  of  Ueut.,  and  of  certain  chapters  of 
Isaiali  could  be  fixed,  the  dates  of  a  few  psalms 
mipht  be  approximately  determined  ;  e.g.  Ps  8  was 
written  before  the  Book  of  Job,  and  Ps  90  after 
Deuteronomy.  The  date  of  Jer.  is  well  known,  but 
a  comparison  between  the  language  of  the  psalms 
and  the  prophet  (cf.  Ps  1  with  Jer  17'-*)  makes  it 
difficult  to  say  whicli  can  claim  the  priority.  A 
certain  group  of  psalms,  e.g.  69,  may  with  some 
conlidence  be  assigned  to  the  period  of  Jeremiah. 

In  only  a  verj'  few  cases  can  linguistic  evidence 
be  considered  as  decisively  characteristic  of  late 
date  ;  Ps  1.39  is  probably  tlie  best  example  of  this. 
The  criterion  of  style  is  too  svibjective  and  too 
differently  estimated  by  different  eriti(-s  to  be  re- 
lied iipon  as  evidence  of  date.  Arguments  drawn 
from  the  stage  of  theological  thought  visible  in  the 
psalms  depend  upon  the  view  taken  of  the  history 
of  OT  theology,  and  opinion  can  hardly  be  con- 
sidered ripe  enough  on  this  subject  for  it  to  be 


employed  with  certainty.  The  psalms  themsf>lves 
form  no  inconsiderable  portion  of  the  evidence  by 
means  of  which  that  history  is  to  be  traced  out, 
and  it  is  clear  that  the  vicious  circle  must  ba 
avoided  which  would  conclude  that  a  given  psalm 
'  cannot  be  of  early  origin  because  the  ideas  it  con- 
tains cannot  have  been  promulgated  so  early.'  Tlia 
state  of  religious  thought  and  life  manifested  in  the 
writings  of  the  prophets  Amos  and  Hosea  presup- 

Eoses  a  long  religious  history,  the  nature  of  which 
as  not  yet  been  made  sutiiciently  clear  to  allow 
of  sweeping  dogmatic  assumptions.  And,  apart 
from  a  belief  in  the  supernatural,  the  history  of 
religion  shows  how  frequently  the  vntes,  whether 
bard  or  prophet,  has  been  before  his  time  in  his 
religious  intuitions  and  aspirations.  Certain 
general  conclusions  may,  however,  be  given,  which 
wUI  guide  us  approximately  to  the  time  when  the 
psalms  as  a  whole  were  composed.  A  few  being 
probably  Davidic,  a  considerable  number,  especially 
in  the  earlier  books,  are  pre-exUic,  but  tfce  greater 
proportion  of  these  date  after  the  8th  cent.  B.C. 
The  large  majority  of  the  psalms  may  be  with 
confidence  assigned  to  the  period  during  and  shortly 
after  the  Exile,  some  few  to  the  3rd  and  even  the 
2nd  cent.  B.C. 

Are  any  Maccabman  psalms  included  in  th« 
Psalter  ?  This  much  debated  question  has  received 
very  various  answers.  There  is  an  a  priori  proba- 
bility in  favour  of  the  existence  of  such  psalms 
and  of  their  inclusion  in  the  Psalter,  if  the  Canon 
of  OT  were  not  closed  too  early  to  admit  them. 
The  stron"  probability  is  that  the  Canon  was  not 
virtually  c-losed  till  about  B.C.  lOU,  and  the  Psalter 
maj'  have  been  kept  open  even  after  the  various 
collections  were  formed,  in  the  sense  that  a  few 
later  psalms  might  find  their  way  in  after  a  collec- 
tion possessed  a  separate  existence.  The  evidence 
of  Josephus  and  of  2  Mac  maj'  be  taken  as  indirectly 
confirming  the  a  priori  prol<ability  that  the  Mac- 
cabaean  times  would  furnish  a  vigorous  psalmody. 
The  evidence  of  the  'Psalms  of  Solomon'  shows 
that  the  true  spirit  of  psalm -composition  existed 
even  later,  though  the  ho])es  and  ideals  of  the 
psalmist  had  altered.  When  we  examine  the 
e.xtant  psalms,  however,  difficulties  arise.  Those 
which  appear  most  likely  to  have  sprung  from 
Maccabiean  times,  such  as  44.  74.  79.  83,  are  found, 
not  in  the  later,  but  in  the  earlier  or  middle  collec- 
tions. It  is  possible,  but  not  easy,  to  understand 
how  a  psalm  composed  B.C.  150  made  its  way  into 
Book  ii.  and  was  labelled,  not  in  the  Heb.  only, 
but  in  the  Greek,  as  a  psalm  of  Asaph.  It  is  urged 
by  some  that  the  language  of  these  psalms  may  be 
appropriately  understood  of  earlier  desolations  than 
those  of  the  time  of  Antiochus.  But  in  Ps  74*,  for 
example,  the  phrase  ^n  "ti'id  (though  understood  by 
the  LXX  of  feasts)  seems  distinctly  to  point  to 
the  synagogues  of  a  later  period,  while  74'  connects 
itself  naturally  with  1  Mac  4«  9-''  14-".  The  argu- 
ment drawn  from  the  repeated  use  of  nn'pq,  on  the 
other  hand,  has  been  too  much  pressed,  as  if  it 
must  necessarily  refer  to  the  time  when  the 
Handim  became  a  recognized  party,  when  'the 
comjiany  of  the  Hasidseans,  mighty  men  of  Israel,' 
olfcrcd  themselves  'willingly  for  the  law' (1  Mae 
2^'-).  It  by  no  means  follows  that  all  mention  of 
'  the  pious  ones '  is  to  be  taken  as  distinctly  Mac- 
cabfean. 

The  history  of  opinion  displays  considerable 
diversity  of  opinion  on  this  question.  Theodore 
of  Mopsuestia,  holding  the  Davidic  origin  of  the 

f)salms  generally,  taught  that  David  projected 
limself  m  the  spirit  of  prophecy  into  the  times  of 
the  Maccabees,  so  that  some  oi  the  psalms  faith- 
fully picture  that  period.  Calvin  attnbuted  Ps  44. 
74  and  79  to  the  period  in  question  ;  Hitzig  and 
Olshausen  enlarged  this  short  list  to  embrace  th« 


PSALMS,  BOOK  OF 


PSALMS,  LOOK  OF 


153 


creatcr  portion  of  the  Psalter,  including  all  psalms 
Frum  73  to  150.  Ileuss  assigned  several  psalms  to 
a  still  later  period — that  of  John  Uyreanus,  B.C. 
13.5- 1U7.  Cheyne  indicates  some  twenty  ■  five 
psalms  as  M.iccaba-an,  ineludin";  20.  21.  33.  44.  00. 
61.03.74.79.83.  101.  108.  115-llH.  13.3-13S.  US- 
ISO.  His  criteria  of  '  a  uniquely  stron';  church 
feeling,' an  'intensity  of  monotheistic  faith,' and 
an  '  ardour  of  gratitude  for  some  unexampled 
stepping'  forth  of  the  Lord  J"  into  history,'  are  not 
susceptible  of  specific  and  decisive  ajiplication  to 
Maccaba-an  times.  The  first  criterion  mentioned 
bv  Che3-ne — the  e.vistence  of  'some  fairly  distinct 
allusions  to  Maccab.Tan  circumstances' — would  be 
decisive  if  its  occurrence  could  be  clearly  proved. 
But  the  allusions  are  held  by  such  critics  as 
Gesenius,  Ewald,  Dillmann,  and  Hupfeld  to  be 
anytliing  but  distinct.  In  our  judgment  the 
number  of  Maccaba>an  psalms  cannot  be  large, 
but  the  bare  possibility  that  a  few  such  psalms 
were  included  in  the  Psalter  before  the  Canon  was 
closed  should  be  left  open.  If  any  psalms  of  the 
2nd  cent.  B.C.  are  found  in  our  present  collection, 
the  internal  evidence  whicli  would  assign  44.  74. 
79.  83  to  this  period  may  be  lielil  to  outweigh  the 
unquestionable  dilficulties  arising  from  their  place 
in  the  second  and  third  books. 

iv.  Titles. — It  has  been  found  convenient  to  dis- 
cuss such  of  the  titles  as  bear  on  the  question  of 
authorship  already;  the  present  section  will  there- 
fore be  devoted  to  an  examination  of  those  words 
or  phrases,  mostly  musical  notes,  which  require  ex- 
planation. For  the  sake  of  convenience,  they  are 
given  in  alpliabetical  order,  following  the  EV. 

'Aijeleth  hash-Shahar,  Ps  22  nrisn  rJ>N-^>i',  LXX 
irrip  Tqi  dKTiXii^i/'eus  tti^  euSii'^j,  i.e.  'concerning  the 
morning  aid '  (rh;K) ;  so  Targum,  whicli  refers  to  the 
Tamil/,  tlie  perpetual  morning  sacrifice ;  Jerome, 
pro  cervo  nvitutino  (so  An.).  '  Upon '  here  signifies 
'Bet  to  the  tune  of'(kV),tliename  of  the  song  being 
prob  '  Hind  of  the  Dawn.'  W.  R.  Smith  compares 
Arabic  usage  in  thus  describing  melodies ;  also 
Ephraem  in  the  Syriac.  Baethgen  understands  the 
morning  to  be  viewed  els  '  the  hind  in  its  swiftness.' 

•Alamoth,  Ps  46 ;  cf.  1  Ch  15^  '  psalteries  set  to 
Alamoth '  (RV),  n-nVy-Sy,  LXX  iwl  tuiv  Kpviploiv, 
'about  the  hidden  tilings'  (n'o^n),  so  Targum; 
Jerome,  after  Aq.,  pro  juvcntutibiis.  In  1  Cli, 
LXX  transliterates  akatiiuB.  (!e.s.  and  most 
modems  derive  irorn'olmrth,  'damsel,'  and  render 
'  with  accompaniment  of  damsel  voices,'  or  '  in 
soprano.'  Baethgen  holds  that  this  interpretation 
is  not  suitable  to  Ps  46.  Rashi  understands  it  of 
a  musical  instrument,  as  modern  viola  or  tenor- 
violin.  Cf.  '  Double-bass,'  correspondinL'  to  Shcnii- 
nith,  which  see.  It  is  a  question  whether  the 
closing  words  of  Ps  48  'al-muth,  which  will  hardly 
bear  the  translation  'unto  death,'  should  not  be 
read  as  'al/tm6th  and  taken  as  part  of  the  title  of 
the  following  psalm. 

•Al-taschith  (AV),  'AUashhrth  (RV),  Ps  57.  58. 
69.  75,  nz^i'trhif,  LXX  /jtj  SiatjiOclpjjt ;  Jerome  lit  non 
di.'iperdas.  As  in  RV,  this  must  be  understood  to 
mean  'set  to  the  tune  of.  Destroy  not.'  Possibly 
these  words  may  form  the  beginning  of  an  old 
vintage-song,  such  as  we  find  described  in  Is  65", 
when  the  new  wine  is  found  in  the  cluster,  '  and 
one  saitli,  Destroy  it  not,  for  a  blessing  is  in  it '  ; 
but  this  is  mere  conjecture  (see  OTJC  p.  209). 

Ascents. — See  Derjrec.s. 

Chief  Musician,  for  the. — Found  in  55  psalms, 
be^'inning  with  P«4.  See  al.so  Hab  3'".  lleli.  ni;^':, 
LXX  tli  rb  TfKoi  (connect  with  ns}^'  '  for  ever  '  ?). 
Other  Gr.  VSS,  tit  ri  yikos,  Jerome  Vutori ;  follow- 
ing apparently  the  meaning  of  a  kindred  Aram, 
root.  The  verb  nsi  is  found  in  1  Ch  1.5-"  in  refer- 
ence to  music,  and  is  rendered  '  to  excel  '  in  AV, 
'  to  lead '  tlie  singing  in  RV.     In  1  Ch  23*  it  means 


'to  preside  over'  the  work  in  question.  Tht 
meanin>'  of  the  title,  therefore,  apparcutlj-  is  that 
the  psalm  was  to  be  given  to  the  precentor  or 
leader  of  the  choir,  and  was  intended  to  be  sung  in 
the  temple-service. 

Dedication,  A  Song  at  the  d.  of  the  house,  Ps 
30,  Heb.  n-ir.  n;;---!-;;',  LX.\  ^\crrd(reMS. — The  order 
of  words  in  this  title  suggests  that  in  its  present 
form  it  combines  two  several  traditions ;  it  is  at 
the  same  time  a  psalm  li-David  and  a  song  for  the 
dedication  of  '  the  house.'  It  is  po.ssible  that  the 
two  may  be  combined ;  not,  however,  when  the 
site  was  chosen  for  the  temple  (Hengstenberg),  for 
this  was  not  the  dedication  of  a  house  ;  nor  (prob- 
ably) at  some  re-consecration  of  the  palace  after 
Absalom's  rebellion  and  David's  absence.  The 
most  probable  supjiosition,  if  the  ii-salm  is  to  be 
referred  to  David's  lifetime,  is  that  of  Delitzsch, 
who  refers  it  to  the  house  mentioned  in  2  S  5",  and 
sujjposes  tliat  about  this  time  the  king  was  re- 
covering from  severe  sickness.  It  is  know^l,  how- 
ever (Suphcrim  xviii.  2),  that  this  psalm  was  used 
by  the  Jews  from  an  early  date  at  the  feast  of 
Hrniukkah,  the  '  dedication  mentioned  in  1  Mac  4°* 
and  Jn  10--,  and  Baethgen  and  many  moderns  con- 
sider that  this  clause  of  the  title  was  added  later  as 
an  after-thought.  It  has  been  questioned  whether 
this  is  consistent  with  the  ignorance  of  its  meaning 
shown  by  the  LXX.  The  probability  is  that  the 
clause  refers  to  a  liturgical  use  of  the  psalm,  not 
to  its  original  composition. 

Degrees,  Songs  of,  Ps  120.  122-134  niVj/En  Tp ; 
in  121  'y^7 ;  LXX  (^5^  tujv  ava^ad^iGiVj  Jerome 
cantkum  gradiium,  whence  AV  '  degrees,'  RV 
'  ascents.' — Grammatically,  the  form  of  the  title 
in  Ps  121  is  the  more  correct,  if  ts'  is  to  be  under- 
stood of  an  individual  psalm.  W.  R.  Smith  and 
Chejne  understand  it  collectively="nv,  properly 
the  title  of  the  whole  grouji,  the  plural  '  ascents ' 
indicating  that  tlie  title  of  the  group  has  come  to 
beatfi.xed  to  eacli  psalm  .seiiarately.  The  following 
meanings  have  been  attached  to  this  ambiguous 
phrase : — 

1.  The  return  from  Babylon  (Ewald).  SeeEzr7», 
in  which  we  read  of  '  the  going  u])  from  Babylon,' 
and  cf.  Ezr  2'.  The  use  of  the  plur.  '  goings  up '  is 
explained  to  refer  to  more  than  one  journey,  under 
Cyrus  and  Artaxerxes  (Ezr  2  and  8) ;  or  to  the 
number  of  caravans,  cf.  ol  dvajJalfonTcs  of  Jn  Iff™. 
It  is  hardly  likely,  however,  that  the  plural  would 
be  used  of  the  one  event  which  so  signalized  itself 
in  the  memory  of  the  people,  and  the  subject- 
matter  of  at  least  Ps  122  and  134  is  un.suitable  to 
this  connexion. 

2.  The  going  up  to  the  annual  festivals  in  Jeru- 
8<aleni.  The  word  ma'dlah  is  not  elsewhere  used 
of  these  journeys,  but  the  cognate  vb.  n'?j)  is  (Ps  122* 
al.).  The  psalms  are  for  the  most  part  suitable  in 
subject  for  such  a  purpose,  either  directly  (.see 
122.  132.  1.33)  or  indirectly.  Herder,  Reuss.'W.  R. 
Smith  ('Pilgrimage  songs'),  and  Baethgen  may  be 
mentioned  as  amongst  those  who  favour  this  ex- 
planation. 

3.  Fifteen  steps  led  from  the  women's  court  to  the 
men's  court  in  the  temple,  and  the  Talmud  {Midd. 
ii.  5,  Sukknh  15A)  says  that  these  corresponded 
to  the  songs  of  degrees ;  not,   however,   that  the 

iiB.alms  were  n.amea  after  the  steps,  or  that  the 
^evites  sang  these  particular  jisalms  upon  the 
steps.  This  explanation  of  the  name  has,  how- 
ever, been  held  by  some  {e.q.  Ariiilield,  who  has 
written  a  monograph  upon  tlie  subject). 

4.  Delitzsch  favours  the  interpretation  which 
finds  an  allusion  to  the  peculiar  style  or  structure 
of  the  psalms,  the  repetition  of  a  word  or  phrase, 
with  a  gradual  ladder-like  ascent  as  to  a  climax— 
'a  step -like  progressive  rhj'thm  of  thoughts.' 
Compare  the  structure  of  the  'triolet'  in   nior« 


154 


PSALMS,  BOOK  OF 


PSALMS,  BOOK  OF 


recent  literature.  Ajjainst  this,  however,  it  may 
be  urged  tliat  not  aU  these  psalms  exhibit  this 
structure  (see  132) ;  tliat  it  is  found  in  some  otlier 
psalms  {e.g.  29) ;  and  that  nowhere  else  is  this 
teclmical  use  of  the  word  found. 

5.  Im  /uihern  C'Aor  (Luther)  to  be  sung  '  in  louder 
tones ' ;  so  11.  Sa'adya  Gaon,  and  cf.  2  Ch  20" 
le-md'lnh  (dilV.  word  from  n^;z,c),  '  with  a  loud  voice 
on  high'  (AV),  'an  exceeding  loud  voice'  (KV). 

6.  An  e.\planation,  lirst  given  by  K.ashi,  has 
lately  l)een  revived  l)y  Schiller  -  Szinessy,  which 
refers  tlie  word  to  the  '  liftings-up  '  or  '  goings-up ' 
of  the  heart  in  adoration  and  trust.  See  121' 
123'  130>. 

It  will  be  gathered  from  the  above  sketch  that 
no  certain  meaning  can  be  given  to  the  title  of  this 
group  of  lovely  psalms.  The  second  explanation  is, 
on  the  whole,  the  most  probable. 

Gittith,  Set  to  the,  Ps  8.  81.  84,  Heb.  n'risrr^y, 
LXX  inrip  tQv  X-qfQy,  Jerome  pro  {in)  torcularibtis 
(niBJ). — The  T.arg.  explains  of  a  musical  instru- 
ment which  David  brouglit  from  Gath,  or  of  the 
form  of  a  winepress.  Generally  understood  to 
indicate  the  name  of  a  tune,  possibly  set  to  a 
vintage  -  song,  a  meaning  whicli  the  LXX  and 
Jerome  may  possibly  have  had  in  view  in  their 
renderings.  Ewald  understands  it  to  mean  '  the 
March  of  the  Gittite  guard.' 

Higgaion  (p'J.i).  —  This  word  does  not  occur  in 
any  of  the  titles,  but  is  found  in  Ps  9'*  and  is  con- 
veniently considered  here.  It  occurs  in  connexion 
with  Selah  (\\-hich  see),  and  the  double  phrase  is 
rendered  by  LXX  qiSii  diaypiXfiaros.  It  is  found  in 
the  text  of  Ps  92^,  where  Cheyne  renders  '  with 
sounding  music  upon  the  harp.'  The  root  nir\  from 
wliich  the  word  is  probably  derived  means  to  emit 
a  deep,  murmuring  sound,  and  is  used  of  a  lion  in 
Is  31^,  of  a  dove  in  Is  SS",  and  of  a  mourner  in 
Is  16'.  Also  in  a  secondary  sense  of  meditation  or 
deWce  in  Ps  19",  La  3''-.  Kimchi  explains  Higgaion 
from  this  secondary  meaning  of  the  root ;  but  it 
is  in  all  probability  a  musical  term  derived  from 
the  primary  meaning,  possibly  indicating  a  'forte 
burst  of  jo}-ous  music' 

Jonath-'elem-rehokim,  Ps  56  o-p^rrn  d^n  nj'i-'^i;, 
LXX  uTT^p  rod  XaoO  toD  airh  rdv  ayitjv  fic/xaKpvfi- 
uAvov,  a  tr.  which  supposes  that  Israel  is  intended  by 
the  word  .ij'i'  dove,  and  dV.><  is  quite  misunderstood. 
Like  so  many  others  of  these  enigmatical  plirases, 
this  is  in  all  probability  the  name  of  a  melody  to 
wliich  the  psalm  is  to  be  sung.  With  the  reading 
a''?><  the  phrase  may  be  interpreted  '  the  dove  of  the 
distant  terebinths^  ;  with  present  pointing,  as  in 
RVm,  '  the  silent  dove  of  them  that  are  afar  off.' 

Mahalath,  Ps  53  ;  Mrihdlath  le  'annijth,  Ps  88, 
Heb.  n'pnD-'ji;,  or  with  addition  of  rtJi'S,  LXX  inrip 
MaeXiB  (toO  d7roKpiSj>oO  as  pr.  name,  see  Gn  28", 
2  Cli  U'*,  Jerome  pro  c/mro,  per  chorum  (after  Aq. 
Theod.  Symm.).  Considerable  uncertainty  attaches 
to  the  rendering  of  this  phrase.  If  it  does  not 
indicate  the  name  of  a  tune  (Ibn  Ezra),  or  the  sad- 
ness of  the  melody  to  which  the  psalm  was  sung 
(I)elitzsch),  the  choice  lies  between  understanding 
mnhitUith  as  (1)  akin  to  malu'dah,  'sickness'  or 
'  calamity'  (Ex  15'-'),  so  Targ. ;  or  (2)  as  a  nmsical 
instrument  (Rashi,  Ges.,  Lowe).  Neither  etymo- 
logy nor  the  probabilities  of  the  case  can  be  said 
to  point  decidedly  in  either  direction. 

Maschil. — Found  prelixed  to  13  psalms,  viz.  32. 
42.  44.  45.  52-55.  74.  78.  88.  89.  142.  Heb.  'j-jv"?, 
LXX  avviaeiiii,  fi?  avv(tsi.v.  Cf.  47'  V'^B'D  iioi,  '  make 
melody  in  a  skilful  strain '  (cf.  IlVm) ;  Targ.  '  with 
good  understanding.'  Gesenius renders,  'a didactic 
poem,'  which  does  not  lit  many  of  the  psalms 
mentioned  above.  Delitzsch  understands  it  as 
indicating  a  'contemplative'  psalm  ('^'J^.t  prop, 
'consider,'  'attend  to,'  cf.  Ps  lOl*  [RVm]  106'); 
Rashi   interprets  by  reference  to  2  Ch  30-'-,  the 


Levites  that  '  had  good  understanding  (or  were 
well  skilled)  [apparently  in  music]  for  J".  So  far  as 
etymolofry  serves  us,  the  title  probably  indicates  a 
contemplative  composition,  but  in  process  of  time 
the  original  meaning  probably  passed  away  and  it 
came  to  mean  little  more  than  a  poem  (cf.  iroli]iui,). 

Michtara,  Ps  16  and  56-60  n:j:n,  LXX  cT-qXo- 
•ypcLtpla.  —  So  Gesenius,  who  says  anD  =  scribere, 
ODD  =  inscribere  ;  the  meaning  in  tug.  would  imply 
a  carefully-fashioned,  '  emblazoned  '  psalm  ;  but 
this  meaning  of  the  root  cnD  is  wholly  uncertain. 
Another  suggested  derivation  connects  with  Dnj 
and  would  give  the  rendering  '  a  golden  psalm ' ; 
so  Luther.  The  word  is  also  used  in  Is  38^  of 
Hezekiah's  dirge,  but  it  is  not  easy  to  detect  any 
features  which  tlie  various  compositions  to  which 
the  word  is  applied  possess  in  common. 

Iluth-labben,  Ps  9  |5^  rea-'jy,  LXX  irip  tS>v 
Kpv(plai'  Tov  I'loO,  Vulg.  pro  occultis  (Jer.  pro  morte) 
Jilii,  Targ.  'concerning  the  death  of  man  (who 
came  forth)  between  (the  armies).'  All  these  tr"* 
show  that  tlie  phrase  was  not  understood,  and  the 
ignorance  of  the  ancients  is  shared  by  the  moderns. 
Grammar  will  not  allow  of  the  rendering  'death 
of  the  son,'  i.e.  Absalom,  even  if  such  a  meaning 
were  appropriate.  In  all  probability  this  is  the 
name  oi  a  tune  ;  but  whether  it  should  be  rendered 
'  Die  for  the  son '  or  (with  other  pointing)  '  Death 
makes  white,'  it  ia  impossible  to  say,  and  cannot 
really  signify. 

Neginoth. — Found  in  six  psalms — i.  6.  54.  55.  67. 
76  nirm,  and  once  in  61  nr:r>i',  cf.  Hab  3",  LXX 
iv  \paKiJLoti,  Jerome  in  psalmi.',:  The  word  means 
unquestionably  '  on  stringed  instruments '  ;  it  ia 
always  found  after  the  phrase  '  For  the  chief 
musician,'  and  indicates  that  the  psalm  is  to  be 
sung  to  an  accom])aninient  of  stringed  music,  cf. 
1  Ch  15''.  Neginath  is  Generally  understood  as  the 
same  word  with  an  old  feminine  ending  (Ges.); 
or,  according  to  Massoretic  punctuation,  closely 
joined  with  le-Dciuid,  it  would  mean  '  in  the  Davidic 
stj'le  of  stringed  music' 

Nehiloth,  Ps  5  mynjrrSN,  LXX  iirr^p  ttjs  KX-npovo- 
liSvffTji,  asif  nS-Jn,  Jerome  pro  hcereditatibus.  Gener- 
ally understood  as=D'V^D.  meaning  '  to  the  accom- 
paniment of  llutes'  or  wind-instruments.  That 
flutes  were  used  in  worship,  is  shown  by  Is  30-^. 
Baethgen  objects  that  tlie  usual  word  for  flute 
might  be  expected  here,  and  understands  Nehiloth 
as  the  name  of  a  tune. 

Remembrance,  To  bring  to,  Ps  38  and  70  r^rh, 
LXX  eis  avaiivriaiv  (adding  in  70,  (h  t6  awaal  lu 
Kvpiov),  Jerome  in  commemornndum,  ad  recordan- 
duni.  Is  it  to  be  understood,  however,  that  God  is 
to  remember  the  psalmist,  or  the  psalmist  to  re- 
member God  ?  Both  views  have  been  taken.  The 
Targ.,  followed  by  Delitzsch,  finds  a  reference  to 
the  Azkarah  (di'd/ttj'ijo-is)  part  of  the  sacrifice  of  the 
Minhah,  when  a  portion  was  thrown  upon  the  fire 
an<l  tlie  smoke  was  supposed  to  bring  the  worshipper 
into  the  Divine  remembrance.  See  Lv  24'-  *,  and 
connect  with  title  in  LXX  vepl  aa^^arov.  But  the 
word  is  found  in  1  Ch  16^,  when  certain  Levites 
were  appointed  to  minister  before  the  ark,  and  '  to 
record  (AV),  '  celebrate  '  (KV),  as  well  as  to  thank 
and  praise  J" ;  and  perhaps  this  more  general 
meaning  of  worshipping,  in  the  sense  of  not  for- 
getting the  Divine  DeneCts,  is  the  more  probable 
meaning  here. 

Sheminith,  Ps  6  and  12  nrPrH',  LXX  iirip  t^s 
6y56-iii,  '  upon  the  octave  or  the  eighth,'  cf.  1  Ch  15". 
The  piirase  either  refers  to  a  special  kind  of  stringed 
instrument  with  eight  strings,  or  means  perhaps 
'  in  the  bass,'  cf.  'ai-'ylM»«/iA= soprano.  '  In  a  lower 
octave,'  the  reverse  of  the  modern  octave  (Lowe). 

Shiggaion,  Ps  7  P'jy',  LXX  \paXiiis — /xeri  vSijs, 
Jerome  pro  ignoratione  (after  Theod.  Symm.,  and 
see  Ps  19''  'errors'). — The  word  is  found  in  the 


PSALMS,  BOOK  OF 


PSALMS,  BOOK  OF 


158 


plural  in  Hab  3'.  As  derived  from  njr  '  to  wander,' 
Jiwald,  Dehtzsch,  and  others  give  the  meanin<;  of 
a  ' dithyrambic  song,'  one  characterized  by  \ariou3 
feelings  or  rlij-thms.  Gesenius,  with  hesitation, 
renders  cantu^  suavis.  There  appears  to  be  nothing 
eitlier  in  etymology,  tradition,  or  the  character 
of  the  two  psalms  in  question  to  guide  modern 
readers  definitely  to  the  meaning  of  tliia  word. 

Shoshannim,  Shushan-'Eduth,  Ps  45  and  C9  '^y 
C';;s-,  Ps  60  nnj;  i»is"'7i,  Ps  80  V-^x,  LXX  iiirip  tCiv 
dWotuOriffo/Uvoir  (c-js'?  from  root  n:c  '  to  change' ), 
Jerome  pro  liliis  iestimonii. — Rashi  understands  as 
an  instrument  of  six  strings.  Probably  the  name  of 
a  tune  (Ibn  Ezra  and  moderns)  'set  to  the  melody 
of  Lilies,  or  Lilies  of  the  Testimony.'  '  Pure  as  a 
lily  is  the  Testimony,'  i.e.  the  Law  (Ewald). 

Song  of  Loves,  Ps  45  ninn;  Tp,  LXX  v'oi)  inrip  tou 
ayaTnp-ou. — The  allegorical  interpretation  which  is 
suggested  by  the  Gr.  is  of  very  early  origin,  and  is 
based  upon  the  use  of  language  found  in  Hosea  and 
elsewhere  in  OT,  and  recognized  by  St.  Paul  in 
Eph  5^-.  The  Targ.  renders  '  Thy  beauty,  O  King 
Jlessiah.'  The  feminine  plural  termination  must 
not  be  understood  literally  as  of  king's  daughters 
(Hengstenberg),  nor  of  a  marriage-feast,  nor  in  an 
erotic  sense,  for  the  word  is  a  noble  one  ;  but 
according  to  the  Heb.  idiom  it  corresponds  to  a 
neuter  abstract,  and  the  phrase  would  mean  'A 
song  of  that  whicli  is  lovely.'  It  is  to  be  under- 
stood, like  Canticles,  of  a  pure  and  holy  earthly  love 
which  may  be  understood  to  symbolize  and  prepare 
the  way  for  a  higher  allection  still. 

To  Teach,  Ps  IjO  tzb^,  cf.  Dt  31",  where  Moses  is 
commanded  to  teach  a  song  to  the  Israelites,  and 
2  S  !"•  '*,  where  it  is  said  that  David  '  bade  them 
teach  the  children  of  Judah  the  song  of  the  bow' 
(the  word  'bow'  is  omitted  in  B  of  LXX)  —  a 
martial  son",  to  be  sung  at  the  practice  of  arms  ? 
These  parallels  would  seem  to  show  that  the  title 
li-lammed  means  that  this  psalm,  like  many  others, 
was  to  be  taught  to  Israel. 

V.  Poetical  Construction.  —  Heb.  poetry,  it 
is  well  known,  is  not  constituted  by  rhyme. 
Neither,  like  Anglo-Saxon  and  other  verse,  is  it 
marked  by  regularly  recurring  assonance,  though 
occasionally  this  feature  is  present.  Neither, 
again,  is  metre  an  essential  feature  of  Heb. 
psalmody.  It  has  been  questioned  among  scholars 
— though  only  a  small  minority  are  prepared  to 
answer  in  the  affirmative — whether  metre,  iiiijily- 
ing  lines  consisting  of  a  fixed  number  of  syllables, 
is  recognizable  at  all  in  OT  poetry,  as,  confessedly, 
both  rhyme  and  metre  are  characteristic  of  Jewish 
poems  of  the  Middle  Ages.  Hut  though  metre  is 
not  discernible  in  Psalms,  it  does  not  follow  that 
rhythm  is  excluded.  The  rhythm  of  thought  in 
the  well  -  known  parallclisnnis  memhrorum  is,  of 
course,  an  essential  feature,  and  rhj-thm  of  lan- 
guage matching  the  thought  is  readily  perceptible, 
though  no  rules  can  be  laid  down  for  its  determina- 
tion. There  is  a  rlivthm  in  all  the  finest  prose,  not 
the  less  impressive  for  being  irregular.  In  Psalms 
the  rhythm  of  language  more  nearly  approaches 
regularity  than  the  rhythm  of  carefully  constructed 
rose,  but  it  defies  analysis  and  systematization. 
"he  prevailing  form  is  the  couplet  of  two  corre- 
sponding lines,  though  the  triiilet  and  quatrain  are 
used  from  time  to  time.  On  this  suljjcct  Driver 
says:  'The  poetical  instincts  of  the  Hebrews 
appear  to  have  been  satisfied  by  the  adoption  of 
lines  of  (ipproxlnuddy  the  sjinie  length,  which 
were  combined,  as  a  rule,  into  groups  of  two,  three, 
or  four  lines,  constituting  verses,  the  verses  mark- 
ing u.sually  more  distinct  pauses  in  the  progress  of 
thought  than  the  separate  lines'  {LOl'"  p.  302). 
(For  the  details  of  this  subject  see  Driver's  chapter 
just  (|uoted  and  art.  Poktry).  It  may,  however, 
be  briefly  said  here  that  the  chief  attempts  to  trace 


T 


out  a  more  regular  metrical  system  in  Psalms  than 
the  above  remarks  allow,  are  tho.se  of  J.  hey  (Metr. 
Funncn  dcr  Heb.  Puesie,  ISGG,  and  Grunclziitje  det 
lihijt/tmits  in  der  Heb.  Poesie,  1875),  Gustav  IJickell 
(Cnrmina  VT  metrice,  1882,  and  articles  in  ZDMG, 
181)1-1894),  and,  more  recently,  H.  GriinmeC  Abriss 
der  biblisch-hebriiischen  Me'trik'iu  ZDMG,  1896, 
pp.  529-584,  and  1897,  pp.  6S3-712).  Ley  seeks  to 
establish  a  metre  which  depends  upon  accents,  and 
relies  upon  alliteration,  assonance,  and  rhj-me  as 
subordinate  features.  BickeLl  seeks  to  prove  that 
tlie  measure  of  the  verse  is  marked  by  regular 
alternation  of  accented  and  unaccented  syllables  ; 
but  he  accomplishes  this  only  by  an  exces.sive 
modification,  not  to  say  mutilation,  of  the  text, 
and  by  a  violent  use  of  unnatural  elisions. 
Grimme's  system  is  described  in  art.  Poetry, 
p.  G''.  C.  A.  Briggs  holds  Ley's  views  in  a 
modified  form.  He  says,  '  The  accent  may  be 
useil  as  a  principle  of  measurement  to  a  very 
large  extent  in  Heb.  poetry,  but  it  is  not  an 
absolute  law;  for  whilst  many  poems  and  strophes 
are  uniform  in  this  respect,  the  poet  breaks  away 
from  it  and  increases  or  diminishes  the  number  of 
accents,  as  well  as  words,  to  corre.'^iiond  with  the 
movements  of  his  tliought  and  iiioti(m '  (Bihl. 
Study,  p.  263).*  This  does  not  greally  differ  from 
the  mode  of  statement  adopted  by  iJelitzsch,  which 
is  accepted  in  this  article.  '  Heb.  poetry  is  not 
metrical,  i.e.  it  is  not  regulated  by  the  laws  of 
quantity  and  by  the  number  of  syllables ;  strong 
accents,  which  give  jirominence  to  the  logically 
most  important  syllables,  produce  a  very  great 
variety  of  rhythms  in  the  series  of  syllables  that 
form  the  sticiwi ;  the  ictus  of  the  verse  is  regulated 
by  tlie  logical  movement ;  and  the  rhythm  is  the 
purely  accentuating  rhythm  of  the  oldest  kinds  of 
national  yoelry' {Psalnis,\o\.  i.  p. 31,note, Eng.  tr.). 

Tliere  is  one  stage  of  poetical  construction  inter- 
mediate between  the  unit  —  couplet,  triplet,  or 
quatrain  —  and  the  completed  lyric.  It  is  the 
strophe  or  stanza,  whichever  name  be  considered 
most  appropriate  for  a  section  of  the  poem,  mark- 
ing a  clearly  defined  movement  in  the  thouglit, 
and  consisting  of  a  measured  number  of  lines. 
Moulton,  in  his  Literary  Study  of  the  Bible,  uses 
the  term  'sonnet'  to  describe  this  feature  of  Heb. 
poetry,  but  the  accepted  connotation  of  the  word 
makes  it  generally  unsuitable,  and  it  would  be 
qiiite  out  of  place  in  the  psalms.  Sometimes  the 
close  of  the  strophe  is  marked  by  a  refrain,  or  a 
nearly  exact  repetition  of  verse  or  phrase  at  more 
or  less  regular  intervals.  Some  of  the  most  clearly 
marked  examples  of  this  are,  '  Why  art  thou  cast 
down,  O  my  soul?'  in  42=- "43";  'The  Lord  of 
hosts  is  with  us '  in  46'- '' ;  '  Turn  us  again,  O  Lord 
of  hosts'  in  80^-  '■ '"  ;  '0  that  men  would  praise  the 
Lord  for  his  goodness'  in  io7».  lo-ai- 3i_  In  tlie  loGth 
psalm  the  refrain,  '  his  mercy  endureth  for  ever ' 
occurs  as  the  latter  half  of  every  verse.  Less 
readily  recognized  examples  may  bo  found  in  39'-  " 
'  Surely  every  man  is  vanity  '  ;  56'- '"  '  In  God  will 
I  praise  his  word  ' ;  57°'  "  '  Be  thou  exalted,  O 
God,  above  the  heavens';  62'- '  'My  soul,  wait 
thou  only  upon  God ' ;  99°-  •  '  Exalt  tlie  Lord  our 
God,  for  he  is  holy.'  In  some  of  these  cases,  how- 
ever, the  repetition  of  a  phrase  is  rather  the  in- 
dication of  a  style  which  meets  us  markedly  in 
the  Songs  of  Ascents,  than  the  occurrence  of  a 
refrain  such  as  marks  the  close  of  a  8tro]ihe. 
Frequently  it  is  clear  that  a  psalm  naturally 
divides  itself  into  sections,  where  no  refrain  or 
poetical  device  marks  the  several  pauses.  The 
first  three  psalms  would  sutficicntly  illustrate 
this,  particularly  the  second,  in  which  the  arrange- 
ment of  vv.'-3- •'•"■'•"•"'""  commends  itself  at  once. 
Driver  holds   that  in   many   cases   these  sections 

•  Slifbtly  modified  In  Study  q/  Uolu  Script.  (1899)  p.  3C9(. 


156 


PSALMS,  BOOK  OF 


PSALMS,  BOOK  OF 


are  '  to  be  regarded  as  logical  rather  than  poetical 
units,  and  as  not  properly  deserving  —  even  in 
its  modified  sense — the  name  of  strophes.'  The 
construction  of  Heb.  poetry,  however,  is  such  that 
it  is  always  more  or  less  diHicult  to  make  the 
distinction  between  thought  and  form ;  and  as  the 
length  of  line  depends  largelj'  upon  the  movement 
of  tliouglit,  so  also  with   tlie  length  of  what   in 

Erose  would  be  called  a  section,  but  in  the  irregu- 
irly  but  rhythmically  constructed  poetry  of  Israel, 
may  be  called  a  strophe  or  a  stanza.  Sec,  further, 
art.  I'OETUV,  1).  7  fV. 

Several  iisalms  are  acrostic,  or  alphabetical,  in 
their  arrangement.  Sometimes  successive  verses 
be"in  with  the  letters  of  the  Heb.  alphabet  in 
order ;  sometimes  half-verses,  or  pairs  of  verses, 
are  thus  marked,  and  in  the  119th  psalm  eight 
verses  are  found  to  each  letter.  In  Ps  9-10  we 
find  two  verses  to  a  letter,  but  the  scheme  is  not 
complete.  In  9-"  p  takes  the  place  of  3,  Ps  10  be- 
gins with  S,  and  tlie  last  four  pairs  of  verses  close 
with  p,  1,  c,  n,  the  intervening  verses  not  being 
arranged  alphabetically,  tliough  their  number 
exactly  corresponds  with  the  number  of  letters 
passed  over.  In  Ps  25  one  verse  is  found  to  each 
letter,  though  i  is  missing,  and  an  extra  verse  is 
added  at  the  end.  In  Ps  37  two  verses  occur  to 
each  letter  (with  slight  irregularity),  in  HI  and 
112  half  a  verse.  In  34  and  145  the  single-verse 
arrangement  is  found,  w'ith  slight  irregularities, 
which  may  be  accounted  for  by  a  corruption  of 
text.  It  might  be  supposed  that  so  artificial  an 
arrangement  of  matter  would  form  a  sure  sign  of 
late  date,  of  a  '  silver  age '  and  fading  poetic 
power,  but  this  hardly  appears  to  be  the  case. 
One  of  the  most  elaborate  and  complete  instances 
is  found  in  the  'Lamentations,'  which  is  consider- 
ably earlier  than  many  of  the  psalms.  In  Latin 
poetry  the  acrostic  arrangement  is  found  in  early 
times  (see  Cicero's  reference  to  Ennius,  quoted  by 
Delitzsch,  i.  204) ;  and  Hitzig,  who  allows  only 
fourteen  Da\'idic  psalms,  includes  9  and  10  amongst 
tliem.  The  alphabetical  psalms  do  not,  as  a  rule, 
exhibit  much  poetic  fire  or  vigour  in  comparison 
with  psalms  which  are  strictly  lyrical  in  char- 
acter. But  this  may  be  due  to  the  subject  and  the 
mode  of  treatment  adopted,  for  single  phrases  in 
the  119th  psalm  mi"ht  easily  be  quoted  which  are 
full  of  im-aginative  fervour  and  power.  If  we  can- 
not say  with  Delitzsch  that  the  acrostic  arrange- 
ment is  'full  of  meaning  in  itself,'  it  may  be 
admitted  with  Driver  that  it  was  'sometimes 
adopted  by  poets  as  an  artificial  principle  of 
arrangement,  when  the  subject  was  one  of  a 
general  character,  that  did  not  lend  itself  readily 
to  logical  development.' 

It  is  needless  to  say,  however,  that  it  is  not  in 
their  form  and  construction  that  we  find  the  true 
poetry  of  the  psalms,  though  this  is  of  such  a 
charac^ter  as  to  aid  in  securing  for  them  the  uni- 
versality which  is  one  of  their  chief  features.  The 
form  of  Heb.  poetry  bears  rendering  into  other 
languages  better  than  the  poetical  literature  of 
any  other  nation.  But  the  poetry  of  the  psalms 
does  not  lie  in  their  artistic  form.  The  word 
'  artistic,'  indeed,  is  out  of  place  here.  Artilice 
hides  itself  abaslied  in  the  presence  of  deep  re- 
ligious feeling.  It  is  not  merely  that  the  pre- 
dominating tone  and  spirit  of  the  book  is  religious  : 
religion  has  laid  its  stron"  uplifting  liand  upon 
every  string  of  the  psalmist  s  harp,  every  touch  of 
the  psalmist's  fingers.  The  literary  character- 
istics which  charm  us  in  the  great  poets  of  the 
world  are  indeed  present.  Lofty  imagination 
marks  some  of  the  descriptions — 'Who  coverest 
thyself  with  light  as  with  a  garment,  who  stretchest 
out  the  heavens  like  a  curtain.'  '  He  rode  upon  a 
cherub  and  did  fly  ;  yea,  he  did  fly  upon  the  wings 


of  the  mnd.'  Fancy  appears  in  slighter  touches, 
often  unnoticed — '  In  Salem  is  his  leafy  covert,  and 
his  (rocky)  lair  in  Zion.'  The  varied  metaphors 
of  the  j>salnis  have  furnished  religious  life  with 
brightness  and  picturesque  variety  for  more  tlian 
two  thousand  years.  The  terebinth  p!;inte<l  by 
the  streams,  the  hind  panting  for  the  water- 
brooks,  the  sun  going  out  like  a  bridegroom  from 
his  cliamber,  the  Divine  Shepherd  tending  His 
flock  alike  in  the  pleasant  jiasture  and  the  lonely 
and  gloomy  ravine, — these  familiar  images  are  not 
more  striking  than  the  tliousand  less  noticed 
pictures,  sketched  in  outline  only :  the  crowned 
and  anointed  guest  at  the  banquet  of  life  spread 
in  the  very  \vildemess  amongst  foes  ;  the  harassed 
and  overthrown  forces  of  the  enemy  scattered 
over  hillside  and  plain,  like  the  ten  thousand 
flakes  '  when  it  snowetli  in  Zalmon ' ;  or  Death 
the  shepherd  herding  among  his  flock  in  Sheol 
those  who  had  arrogantly  defied  liis  power — yet 
the  psalmist  knows  of  a  miglitier  Shepherd  still, 
who  shall  '  redeem  my  soul  from  tlie  power  of 
Sheol,  for  he  will  receive  me.'  Some  of  the  poetical 
efl'ect  is  doubtless  peculiar  to  the  Hebrew,  the 
picturesqueness  of  some  of  the  words,  and  occasion- 
ally the  variety  of  its  synonyms,  or  the  play  of 
tenses,  alternating  one  with  another,  like  lights 
and  shadows  upon  the  hillside,  or  the  changing 
colours  upon  tin;  burnished  neck  of  the  dove.  But 
the  simplicity  of  diction  which  imparts  such 
sublimity  to  a  phrase — '  with  thee  is  the  well- 
spring  of  life  :  in  thy  light  we  shall  see  light' ;  the 
depth  of  human  feeling  which  can  be  felt  like  a 
beating  pulse  on  every  page — '  Fervently  do  I  love 
thee,  J ",  my  strength  ! ' — '  Deep  calleth  unto  deep 
at  the  noise  of  thy  cataracts ;  all  thy  waves  and 
billows  are  gone  over  me ' ;  the  concrete  directness 
with  which  the  most  abstract  truths  of  religion  are 
set  fortli — '  In  the  hand  of  J"  there  is  a  cup,  and 
the  wine  foanieth  ;  surely  the  dregs  thereof,  all 
the  wicked  of  the  earth  sliall  drain  them  out  and 
drink  them  '  ; — '  He  shall  cover  thee  with  his 
pinions,  and  under  his  wings  slialt  thou  take 
refuge ' ;  these  words  appeal  to  the  heart  of  the 
world,  and  their  power  is  as  great  for  the  English- 
man as  for  the  Israelite.  But  the  reason  for  this 
is  not  chiefly,  though  it  is  partly  to  be  found  in 
these  poetical  characteristics.  The  Psalter  lives  in 
virtue  of  its  unique  religious  power  and  beauty, 
and  on  its  theology  sometliing  must  now  be  said. 

vi.  Religious  and  Ethical  Ideas. —In  the 
following  paragraphs  the  Psalter  will  be  treated  as 
one  whole.  Owing  to  the  uncertaintj'  which  attaclies 
to  the  dates  of  the  several  psalms,  it  is  impossible 
to  trace  out,  according  to  the  methods  of  biblical 
theology,  the  growth  and  development  of  religious 
ideas  m  the  psalmists'  minds,  if,  indeed,  any 
marked  ^owth  took  place.  If  tlie  book  is  entirely 
post-exilic,  the  '  hymu-book  of  the  second  temple,' 
no  decided  theological  development — except,  per- 
haps, on  the  subject  of  the  future  life — would  be 
expected.  If,  as  we  have  seen  reason  to  believe, 
the  Psalter  contains  an  anthology  of  sacred  lyrics, 
extending  over  many  centuries,  a  progress  of 
thought  miglit  be  looked  for.  But  the  method  of 
the  psalmist  is  not  dialectic.  He  moves,  not  in 
the  atmosphere  of  theology,  but  of  religion.  And 
whUst  creeds  change,  litanies  remain  the  same.  It 
would  be  going  too  far  to  say  that  no  variety,  no 
advancement,  in  moral  and  religious  ideas  is  dis- 
cernible, but  for  the  puri)Oses  of  this  brief  examina- 
tion it  may  be  neglected.  Tlie  Psalter  is  concerned 
with  the  deep,  elemental  ideas  of  religion — God, 
man,  and  the  communion  of  man  with  God  ;  joj 
and  trouble,  hope  and  fear,  good  and  evil,  their 
present  conflict  and  future  destiny ;  tlie  human 
soul  in  all  its  moods  and  the  Divine  power  and 
grace  in  all  its  aspects, — and  it  is  proposed  to  d& 


PSALMS,  BOOK  OF 


PSALMS,  BOOK  OF 


157 


•orihe  a  few  characteristics  only  of  the  way  in 
which  tliese  jn'eat  themes  are  treated. 

1.  The  leading  feature  in  the  doctrine  of  Goil — 
to  speak  theologically  —  which  distinguishes  the 
psalms  is  the  clearness  with  wliich  the  Divine 
Personality  is  conceived,  and  the  vividness  with 
which  it  is  depicted.  '  J'liveth,  and  blessed  be  my 
Koek '  i.s  written  on  the  book,  within  and  without. 
The  chief  service  wliicli  the  psalms  have  rendered 
to  the  religion  of  the  world  is  the  preservation  of 
the  idea  of  tlie  living  God,  Avithout  any  impairing 
of  Uis  absolute  and  inconceivable  glory.  The 
thinker  elaborates  his  abstract  conceptions  of  the 
Divine  till  tliey  dissolve  into  thin  air ;  the  boor 
ima'dnes  '  such  a  one  as  himself,'  and  lowers  tlie 
Godhead  into  a  'magnified  and  non-natural'  man- 
liood.  Isaac  Taylor  says  that  '  metapliysic  theo- 
logies, e.\cept  so  far  as  tliey  take  up  the  very  terms 
and  figures  of  the  Heb.  Scriptures,  have  hitherto 
shown  a  properly  religious  aspect  in  proportion  as 
they  have  been  unintelligilile ;  when  intelligible 
thej'  become — if  not  atheistic,  yet  tending  in  that 
direction.'  No  sacred  book  of  any  nation  has 
solved  this  fundamental  problem  ot  all  religion, 
how  to  preserve  at  the  same  time  the  Infinity  and 
the  Personality  of  God,  as  has  the  Psalter. 

The  psalmist  is  not  afraid  of  'anthropomor- 
phisms. He  not  only  employs  forms  of  speech 
which  seem  almost  necessary,  such  as  '  his  eyes 
iiehold,  his  eyelids  try,  the  children  of  men,'  but 
he  re])resents  God  as  tidnking  upon  man,  so  that 
the  Divine  thoughts  are  greater  in  number  tlian 
the  saml ;  as  seated  in  the  heavens  with  earth  for 
His  footstool,  as  bowing  the  lieavens  to  come  down, 
whether  for  judgment  or  deliverance ;  as  spread- 
ing His  broad  wings  of  defence  over  His  own 
peojile,  scattering  dismay  and  destruction  among 
their  enemies,  and  returning  again  on  high  in 
t:iumph,  when  He  has  'led  into  captivity  his 
captives,'  bringing  with  Him  the  spoils  of  victoi'y. 
But  no  reader  of  the  psalms  finds  his  ideas  of 
Divine  majesty  lowered,  or  the  Divdne  glory 
dimmed  and  shadowed,  by  these  modes  of  speech. 
Tlie  Rabbi  disdains  them,  the  Alexandrian  pliilo- 
Bopher  cxjilaiiiH  them  away,  the  hypereritic  finds 
only  'mythohjgy'  in  them;  tlie  wise  and  devout 
man  knows  that  nowhere  else — except  in  the  words 
of  .le.sus  of  Nazareth  —  is  he  brought  so  directly 
into  the  presence  of  the  living  God,  as  inexjires- 
sibly  lofty  and  pure  as  He  is  near  and  gracious 
and  tender. 

Tlie  'attributes'  of  God  are  not  described  in 
the  psalms,  but  God  in  His  varied  attributes  is 
made  known  as  in  the  mirror  of  the  worshipper's 
soul.  Ui;^liteousness  is  pre  -  eminent,  but  it  is 
blended  with  mercy,  as  if  tlie  pious  heart  had  never 
conceived  of  the  two  asunder.  '  J",  thy  loving- 
kindness  reaclieth  unto  the  heavens,  tliy  faithful- 
ness unto  the  clouds.  Thy  righteousness  staiuleth 
like  the  mountains  of  God  ;  thy  judgments  are  a 
great  deep.  How  precious  is  thy  loving-kindness  ! ' 
(Hs  3G).  Loving-kindness  is  shown,  according  to 
the  psalmist's  view,  by  God's  rendering  to  every 
man  according  to  his  work  (02'-) ;  yet  it  is  an 
equally  true  explanaticm  of  the  same  ^;5  to  define 
it  as  'salvation,'  or  expand  it  into  tlie  clau.sc  'J" 
hath  dealt  bountifully  with  mo'  (13°').  One  of 
the  most  striking  illustrations  of  the  features  upon 
which  we  have  been  dwelling  is  the  atlributinjj  to 
the  Most  High  God  of  .ti;;;,  '  humility.'  The  Knglish 
word  ia  a  bold  one  to  cmjihiy  in  tliis  connexion, 
but  it  better  expresses  the  psalmist's  thought  than 
'condescension.  It  is  found  but  once,  in  18" 
'thy  lowliness  hath  made  imm  great,'  but  the  same 
quality  is  dwelt  upon  in  God's  humbling  Himself 
to  rrg  ird  the  heavens  and  the  earth,  and  it  is 
not  far  removed  from  that  yearning  '  pity '  with 
which  tlia   Kather  God   pities  His  children.     The 


word  '  sympathy '  is  not  found  in  the  Psalter,  but 
that  for  wliich  the  word  stands  sheds  rays  across 
the  gloom  of  dirge-like  psalms  (39  and  88),  and 
shines  like  a  radiant  sun  in  the  glow  of  such  psalma 
as  21.  40.  103,  and  140.  And  the  marvel  is  that 
He  who  bends  so  low  to  lift  the  downcast,  the  de- 
graded, and  the  sinner,  is  He  whose  '  kiii;,'dom 
luleth  over  all,'  and  for  whom  the  whole  Ps:ilter, 
as  well  as  the  9yth  psalm,  provides  the  refrain, 
Moll/  is  He. 

2.  The  manifestation  of  God  in  nature — to  use  a 
modem  phrase — is  not,  properly  speaking,  a  tlieme 
of  the  psalms.  The  nature-psahns  are  well  known  : 
the  8th  and  19th,  the  iOth  and  93rd,  the  Ooth  and 
104th  have  taught  mankind  many  lessons,  liut 
tlie  pictures  of  nature  come  in  by  the  way.  For 
the  psalmist,  nature  is  not  so  much  a  revelation, 
as  the  frame  of  a  picture  which  contains  one. 
Occasionally  tlie  eye  wanders  to  the  frame  and 
dwells  upon  it,  but  it  is  only  in  passing.  The 
picture  itself  is  concerned  with  the  human  .soul 
and  its  relation  to  the  living  God.  And  if  the 
psalms  are  a  wonder  of  literature  because  of  the 
unique  picture  of  God  which  they  present,  in  con- 
trast with  the  highest  conceptions  of  which  man 
thus  far  had  shown  himself  capable,  no  less  remark- 
able is  their  portraiture  of  man.  The  Heb.  psalmist 
might  seem  to  be  a  child  by  the  side  of  the  Hindu 
sage  and  the  Greek  philoso[iher,  but  neither  of 
these  could  sound  the  human  heart  as  he  has  done. 
The  complexities,  the  inconsistencies,  the  para- 
doxical contradictions  which  characterize  human 
life  are  all  here.  '  What  is  man  that  thou  art 
mindful  of  him,  or  the  son  of  man  that  thou 
visitest  him  ? '  The  littleness  and  the  greatness  of 
man  are  there,  in  a  line  ;  disceriieil,  almost  un- 
consciously to  himself,  by  the  poet,  because  his 
eye  was  fixed,  not  on  man  but  on  God.  The  first 
and  last  verses  of  the  8th  psalm  give  tlie  keynote 
to  its  music,  and  that  of  the  wliule  Psalter,  and 
man  falls  into  his  place,  so  sm.all  in  himself,  so 
great  in  his  relation  to  God.  '  Nothing  is  more 
easy  than  to  take  a  high  view  of  human  nature, 
(ili)»e,  or  a  low  view,  aloni; ;  there  are  facts  and 
ajinearances  in  abundance  to  account  for  and  justify 
eitlier.  IJut  the  view  of  the  I'saliiis  combines  them  ; 
man's  littleness  and  insignificance,  in  relation  to 
the  immense  universe  about  him,  and  to  its  infinite 
and  everlasting  God  ;  man's  littleness  in  his  rela- 
tion to  time,  to  his  own  short  passage  between  its 
vast  before  and  after,  his  feebleness,  his  misery, 
his  sin  :  on  the  other  side,  man's  greatness,  as  the 
consummate  work  of  (Jod  s  hands,  thought  worthy 
of  His  care,  His  choice.  His  provident  and  watch- 
ful regard  ;  man's  greatness  and  ies|ionsil)ility,  as 
aipable  of  knowing  (iod  and  loving  Him,  of  win- 
ning His  blessing  and  perishing  un<ler  His  judg- 
ment; man's  greatness  even  as  a  sinner  able  to 
sink  so  low,  and  yet  to  rise  by  reijentaiice  out  of 
the  deejjest  degradation  and  most  hopeless  ruin' 
(K.  W.  Church). 

3.  There  may  at  first  sight  appear  to  be  an  in- 
consistency between  the  language  of  various  psalms 
on  the  suoject  of  sin.  The  deepest  contrition  is 
jHirtrayed  in  the  32nd  and  .51st;  the  utmost  con- 
fidence, sounding  perilously  likeself-rightcousness, 
in  the  "tli,  18th,  and  101st.  It  may  be  thought 
that  hero  is  a  mark  of  varying  date,  Israel's  sense 
of  sin  deepening  as  history  advanced  ;  or  that  the 
contrast  is  between  the  language  of  men  of  diflcrent 
temperaments,  or  the  .same  man  in  difrcient  moods. 
But  tlio  inconsistency  is  only  ajipareiit.  The 
assertion  of  integrity  is  relative,  not  absolute.  It 
is  that  of  the  hn.dd,  the  'pidly'  man,  who  is 
determined  to  keep  well  within  the  bounds  of  the 
covenant  which  is  the  charter  of  national  religion, 
or  is  conscious  of  having  done  so.  The  same  man 
may  bow  low  in  humility  before  God  and  confesa 


158 


PSALMS,  BOOK  vF 


PSALMS,  BOOK  OF 


his  sins  ;  just  as  the  nation — for  in  the  opinion  of 
many  the  '  clnircli-nation '  is  the  speaker  in  the 
'  I '  of  the  psalms — may  at  one  moment  plead  the 
sacredness  of  the  bond  which  binds  it  to  J ",  and  at 
another  deplore  its  own  unfaithfulness  to  covenant- 
vows. 

That  the  ethical  view  of  the  psalmist  was  limited 
is  unquestionable ;  he  was  the  child  of  his  own 
age.  Ethics  was  as  yet  too  little  personal,  and 
the  individual  sense  of  wrong-doing  «as,  for  the 
most  part,  neither  deep  nor  poignant.  The  life  of 
the  communitj' — for  better,  for  worse — was  more 
important ;  and  it  is  no  easy  matter  sometimes  to 
distinguish  between  the  passages  in  which  the 
psalmist  speaks  in  his  own  name  and  those  in 
which  his  personality  is  merged  in  the  national 
life.  The  tendency  of  modern  criticism  is  to 
minimize  the  personal  element  in  the  Psalms  (see 
Smend,  '  Ueber  das  Ich  der  Psalmen'  in  ZATW, 
1888,  pp.  49-147  ;  and  Cheyne,  who  says  in  Origin 
of  Ps.  p.  205  :  '  In  the  psalmists,  as  such,  the  indi- 
vidual consciousness  was  all  but  lost  in  the  corporate 
— the  Psalter  is  a  monument  of  church-conscious- 
ness ' ;  and  notes,  pp.  276, 277).  It  is  not  necessary 
to  recoU  to  the  other  extreme  in  reaction  against 
the  excessive  individualism  of  some  schools  of  in- 
terpreters. There  are  psalms  in  w  hich  the  personal 
note  is  unquestionable  (3.  4.  6.  18.  27,  etc. ).  Others, 
again,  are  as  clearly  national  (44.  46.  76) ;  whilst 
in  others  the  references  to  trouble  or  to  joy  may 
be  such  that  they  might  apply  equally  well  to 
personal  or  to  national  experience  (31.  86.  118) ;  or 
the  psaJra  WTitten  by  an  individual  for  himself 
might  be  used  in  worship  by  the  community. 
Eminent  modern  critics  (\V.  R.  Smith,  Driver, 
Cheyne)  are  content  to  understand  the  51st  psalm 
' as  a  prayer  for  the  restoration  and  sanctitication 
of  Israel  in  the  mouth  of  a  prophet  of  the  Exile.' 
But  such  a  view  not  merely  runs  counter  to  tradi- 
tional exegesis,  but  appears  to  many,  including 
the  present  writer,  to  fail  to  do  justice  to  the 
language  of  such  a  psalm.  Deep  sense  of  sin  and 
contrition  on  account  of  it,  though  not  very 
frequently  expressed  in  the  psalms,  forms  an 
essential  part  of  the  religious  life  therein  depicted. 
Some  of  the  '  penitential '  psalms,  so-called,  may 
refer  to  trouble  rather  than  transgression,  but 
the  psalmist's  religion  cannot  be  understood  if  it 
be  resolved  into  a  sense  of  national  humiliation 
and  distress. 

4.  This  is  confirmed  by  the  closeness  of  personal 
communion  with  God,  wliich  is  the  characteristic 
privilege  of  the  devout  soul  in  these  poems,  and 
the  means  by  which  that  fellowship  is  to  be 
restored,  when  it  lias  been  lost  or  impaired.  The 
joy  is  S]iiritual  when  the  avenue  of  communion  is 
open  ;  the  sorrow  is  spiritual  when  that  avenue  is 
closed  and  darkened  ;  tlie  means  by  which  the 
soul  may  meet  again  with  its  God  are  spiritual 
also.  The  Israelite  is  a  member  of  a  community 
ill  which  sacrifice  is  a  recognized  institution  ;  he 
does  not  disparage  it,  but  if  he  lias  learned  the 
lessons  it  has  to  teach,  he  knows  that  alone  it  is 
not  sufficient.  Tlie  well-known  expressions  of  the 
40th,  the  50th,  the  51st  psalms — '  Thou  desirest  not 
sacrifice,  else  would  I  give  it ' ;  '  Would  I  eat  the 
flesh  of  bulls  or  drink  the  blood  of  goats?' — do  not 
stand  alone.  There  is  no  inconsLstency  between 
these  psalms  and  '  I  will  go  into  thy  house  with 
burnt-otl'erings,  I  will  oiler  bullocks  with  goats,' 
in  the  66th.  The  51st  psalm,  as  it  now  stands, 
contains  a  recognition  of  ceremonial  sacrifices  in 
vv.'"-^,  and  even  if  these  are  not  by  the  same 
author  as  v.",  '  the  sacrifices  of  tJod  are  a  broken 
spirit,'  the  same  temple-congregation  could  chant 
•Kith  alike  without  thought  of  contradiction.  But 
'he  spiritual  note  is  the  deeper  and  the  more  char- 
acteristic    The  psalmist  has  learned  in  the  school  I 


of  the  ])rophet  rather  than  of  the  priest,  his  plea  ia 
God's  mercy,  his  hope  for  that  sense  of  personal 
intercourse  which  can  be  enjoyed  only  when 
Divine  forgiveness  has  removed  the  sense  of 
personal  sin.  Tlie  heaviness  and  pain  before  con- 
fession (32^-  ■*  40")  is  as  deep  as  his  assurance  of  the 
readiness  of  God  to  forgive  is  complete  and  his  joy 
when  forgiven  rapturous  (40-'  103'"").  The  130th 
is  not  the  only  '  Pauline  '  psalm,  and  if  its  language 
and  that  of  other  psalms  expresses  the  contrition 
of  a  community,  it  cau  only  be  said  that  the 
mourners  for  sin  of  all  ages,  in  the  most  spiritual 
religion  the  world  has  ever  known,  have  found  no 
language  more  appropriate  to  express  their  peni- 
tential sorrow  and  the  rapturous  joy  of  forgiveness 
than  is  to  be  found  in  the  psalms. 

5.  Another  characteristic  of  the  '  lower  level  of 
morality '  which  is  said  to  mark  the  psalms  is  found 
in  the  particularism  which  belongs  to  many  of  them. 
The  national  confidence  in  J"  has  a  reverse  side 
which  is  not  always  admirable.  The  tone  which  the 
psalmists,  like  the  prophets,  adojit  towards  other 
nations  than  Israel,  varies.  Sometimes  they  are 
simply  marked  out  for  judgment  and  punishment 
(Ps  2.  9.  68).  Sometimes,  though  more rarelj',  they 
are  represented  as  in  some  sense  gathered  in  within 
the  pale  now  occupied  by  Israel  alone  (Ps  22. 
67.  87).  Sometimes  bitter  resentment  is  expressed 
which  sounds  personal  rather  than  national — the 
expression  of  tierce  joy  over  the  destruction  of 
hated  enemies,  rather  than  the  grave  anticipation 
of  righteous  judgment  upon  evil.  The  Imprecatory 
psalms  are  better  understood  than  they  once  were. 
Those  who  read  into  them  a  coarse  vindictivenesa 
are  now  seen  to  be  no  less  wide  of  the  mark  than 
those  who  in  a  mistaken  zeal  contended  that  all 
the  utterances  of  godly  men  in  an  inspired  Bible 
must  be  justifiable  bj'  the  highest  standard.  But 
the  solution  of  a  moral  ditficulty  is  not  found  in  a 
timid  compromise  between  extremes.  The  strong 
language  of  Ps  7.  35.  69.  109  and  some  others  is 
not  to  be  blamed  as  an  exhibition  of  a  personally 
revengeful  spirit.  The  law  condemns  this  as  well 
as  the  gospel  ;  and  in  the  psalm  which  contains 
the  strongest  language,  the  writer  disclaims  such 
culpable  resentment  (109^-').  The  psalmist,  as  a 
member  of  a  covenant  -  keeping  community,  was 
at  liberty  to  identify  himself  with  the  friends  of 
God  and  to  count  those  who  opposed  him  as  God's 
enemies  also  (139'"-  ^).  Not  always  does  he  specifj- 
the  ground  of  his  anger  and  praj'ers  for  their 
destruction,  as  in  Ps  83,  '  Against  thee  do  they 
make  a  covenant  .  .  .  O  my  God,  make  them  like 
whirling  dust,  as  stubble  before  the  wind' ;  but  it 
is  legitimate,  in  at  least  the  majority  of  passa";es, 
to  read  in  that  thought  w  hen  unexpressed.  The 
psalmist  wouUl  be  simidy  unable  to  take  the 
purely  individualistic  standpoint  of  modern  times, 
which  makes  language  such  as  we  find  in  the  35th 
psalm  for  us  unnatural  and  wrong. 

It  does  not  therefore  follow  that  the  spirit  of  the 
imprecatory  psalms  is  justifiable  by  the  standard  of 
the  NT.  It  may  indeed  be  well  to  consider  whether 
the  OT  saints,  in  the  vigour  and  simplicity  of  their 
piety,  did  not  cherish  a  righteous  resentment 
against  evil  which  the  more  facile  and  languid  moral 
sense  of  later  generations  would  have  done  well  to 
preserve.  'O  ye  that  love  J",  hate  evil,'  is  an 
exhortation  that  belon<;s,  not  to  one  age,  but  to  all 
time.  But  the  point  in  question  is  the  relation, 
not  to  evil  deeds,  but  to  evil  men.  And  here  it 
must  be  clearly  recojpized  that  the  moral  level  oi 
the  old  dispensation  is  necessarily  lower  than  that 
of  the  new.  The  Christian  does  not  stand  in 
relation  to  the  world  as  the  Jew  did  to  the  nations 
around  him.  The  blessings  of  the  New  (covenant 
are  not  material  as  were  many  of  the  blessings  pro- 
mised under  the  Old;  and  the  curses  which   are 


PSALMS,  BOOK  OF 


PSALMS,  BOOK  OF 


159 


Cronounced  on  tliose  who  refuse  to  inherit  a 
le-ssing  diller  correspondingly.  The  prospect  of 
a  future  life— to  take  one  point  only — alters  the 
whole  question  of  retribution  and  destiny.  With- 
out any  spirit  of  Pharisaism  or  consciousness  of 
superior  virtue  —  which  would  be  grossly  out  of 
place — the  Christian  cannot  use  the  language  of 
the  imprecatory  psalms  as  it  stands,  but  interprets 
it  in  its  s]iirit  by  reserving  his  wTath  for  the  evil  in 
himself  and  others,  and  striving  to  blend  with  it 
something  of  his  Saviour's  yearning  compassion  for 
the  evil-doer. 

6.  The  problems  of  life  opened  up  by  the  ques- 
tion of  evil  do  not  figure  largely  in  the  psalms. 
The  suilering  of  the  righteous,  the  apparent  im- 
punity of  the  wicked,  do  not  often  disturb  the 
psalmist's  mind.  The  moods  expressed  are  those 
of  thankfulness  for  mercies  bestowed,  sorrow  in 
trouble,  present  or  impending,  prayer  for  deliver- 
ance, help,  and  guidance,  not  the  anxiety  of  doubt 
or  the  half -bitter,  half -eager  cry  of  the  seeker 
after  truth  who  would  believe,  but  cannot.  The 
spiritual  wrestlings  of  Job  and  the  incredulous 
scepticism  of  I^oheleth  in  his  darker  hours  hardly 
find  any  echo  in  the  Psalter.  The  psalmist's 
mental  exercises  are  described  as  mere  transient 
moods,  trying  enough  while  they  lasted,  but  not 
seriously  atlecting  the  foundations  of  his  faith.  The 
73rd  and  the  77th  psalms  are  the  chief  examples  of 
this.  The  3Sth,  88th,  and  other  sorrowful  p.-^alms 
describe  trouble  of  outward  life  and  of  inward 
spirit,  but  not  such  as  arises  from  intellectual 
doubt  or  the  undermining  of  faith  in  God.  It  is 
interesting  to  notice  the  way  in  which  relief  comes, 
when  the  question  has  once  been  raised  as  to 
whether  the  ways  of  Providence  are  equal  and 
success  precisely  proportioned  to  character.  In 
the  77th  psalm  the  rigliteous  man,  whoai)peared  to 
be  forgotten  and  forsaken  by  God,  falls  back  upon 
history,  and  recalls  the  deliverances  wrought  out 
for  God's  chosen  people  in  the  past.  He  rebukes, 
therefore,  himself  for  his  '  inlirmity,'  and  renews 
his  confidence  in  the  'right  hand  of  the  Most 
High.'  Here  there  is  no  examination  of  the 
'  problem '  at  all  as  such  ;  the  theory  that  God  re- 
wards the  righteous  and  punishes  the  wicked,  which 
is  BO  fiercely  assailed  in  Job,  is  never  questioned 
here.  The  writer  of  the  73rd  psalm  goes  deeper. 
His  perplexity  arises  rather  from  the  prosperity  of 
the  wicked  than  the  sufiering  of  the  righteous,  but 
the  problem  in  both  ca-ses  is  the  same.  His  conclu- 
sion is  emphatically  announced  at  the  beginning. 
'  Surely  (^x),  God  is  good  to  Israel  and  to  men  of 
clean  heart.'  The  mode  of  deliverance  is  described 
in  w.""".  In  the  sanctuary  light  came.  But  it 
came  chielly  in  the  form  of  an  emphatic  re-state- 
ment of  the  prevailing  theory  of  Providence,  The 
wicked  will  be  punished,  all  tlie  more  over- 
whelmingly because  of  delay  in  Judgment.  This 
psalmist  holds  with  tlie  writer  of  Ps  92  that  only 
the  (lull  and  foolish  fail  to  understand  that  if  the 
workers  of  iniquity  flourish,  it  is  that  they  shall 
be  destroyed  for  ever. 

Another  kind  of  solution  may  seem  to  be  sug- 
gested by  vv."'-".  The  psalmist  finds  his  own  por- 
tion in  the  presence  and  favour  of  God,  and  this 
is  so  strongly  expressed  that  it  might  seem  as  if 
he  had  attained,  by  a  sublime  reach  of  faith,  the 
doctrine  of  immortality.  A  similar  conclu.sion  is  sug- 
gested by  Ps  l(i,  in  which  the  same  line  of  thought 
and  religious  experience  is  followed.  Ps  17'°  and 
49"  are  also  held  to  express  in  briefer  phrase  the 
expectation  that  the  righteous  will  enjoy  life  in 
the  presence  of  God  beyond  the  grave.  It  is 
certam  that  this  was  not  the  prevailing  view  of 
the  writers  of  the  psalms.  "The  wliole  ca.st  of 
these  devout  utterances  would  have  been  altered 
if  any  such  expectation  had  formed  a  part  of  their 


working  creed.  The  strain  of  the  6th,  30th,  39th, 
and  SSth  psalms  is  not  the  language  of  a  passing 
mood.  '  In  death  there  is  no  remembrance  ol 
thee  ;  in  Slieol  who  sliall  give  thee  thanks  ? '  The 
'dust'  cannot  praise  God;  in  the  'grave,'  in 
'darkness,'  in  'Abaddon,'  in  the  'land  of  forget- 
fulness,'  God  cannot  be  praised,  because  He  can- 
not be  known  by  'shades,'  men  who  have  passed 
away  from  the  hajipy  light  of  life.  The  evidence 
of  silence  is  equally  strou'',  thou<;h  not  so  readily 
noticed.  A  blank  is  found  in  the  creed  of 
the  psalmists,  as  of  the  OT  writers  generally, 
when  life  beyond  the  grave  is  in  question.  The 
exceptions  in  the  psalms  above  referred  to  do 
not  invalidate  the  rule.  Translated  with  severe 
accurac-j-  and  closely  restricted  to  their  exact 
declarations,  the  passages  73-''  17"  and  49'*  do  not 
prove  any  clear  anticipation  of  a  future  life.  It 
may  be  otherwise  with  IG"'",  but  the  more  satis- 
factory way  of  treating  all  these  passages  is  to 
consider  tliem  together.  Thus  handled,  they  show 
us  the  path  by  \Wiii:h  the  faithful  servant  of  God 
was  travelling  upwards  from  amidst  the  twilight  of 
a  dispensation  in  which  was  no  clear  revelation  of 
a  future  life.  He  could  not  believe  that  the  pit  of 
corruption  or  the  shadowy  half-existence  of  Shcol 
was  to  be  the  end  of  all  for  the  friend  of  God. 
One  who  had  set  J"  always  before  him,  and  desired 
none  in  heaven  or  earth  in  comparison  with  his 
God,  could  not  be  left  in  darkness  and  forgetful- 
ness,  it  must  be  that  he  should  behold  God's  face 
in  righteousness  and  be  satisfied  with  His  likeness. 
One  who  had  God  for  his  portion  must  have  Him 
for  ever.  God  was  his  God,  and  the  psalmist 
auticipated  the  reasoning  of  the  Saviour,  '  He  is 
not  tlie  God  of  the  dead,  but  of  the  living.' 
Nevertheless,  this  was  but  a  reach  of  faith.  No 
revelation  had  been  given,  no  doctrine  could  be 
tauglit,  no  complete  assurance  could  be  enjoyed. 
The  hope  was  a  bright,  reassuring  and  not  decep- 
tive gleam  of  sunshine.  But  it  was  a  gleam  only. 
It  was  enjoyed  for  a  moment  and  the  clouds 
gathered  in  again.  Not  the  clouds  of  denial  or 
despair,  but  the  impenetrable  veil  of  vapour  which 
hid  from  the  saints  of  the  Old  Covenant  God's 
will  concerning  the  future.  It  does  not  follow- 
that  the  psalmist's  religion  is  of  a  low  and 
feeble  type  because  this  element  in  it  is  for  the 
most  part  missing.  Its  vigour  is  shown  in  the 
tenacity  of  his  faith  without  the  'comfortable 
assurance  '  of  later  days.  The  Christian,  for  whoni 
'  the  resurrection  of  the  dead  and  tlie  life  of  the 
world  to  come'  is  an  essential  article  of  creed, 
may  find  a  fuller  meaning  in  the  words  of  the 
psalmist  than  he  himself  dared  to  find  in  them, 
and  wonder  the  more  that  he  who  knew  so  littU 
believed  so  nmch  and  conquered  in  so  hard  a 
battle  upon  comjiarativcly  slender  fare. 

7.  The  ho[ies  of  the  psalmists,  like  those  of  the 
prophets,  were  directed,  not  to  a  future  life  of  the 
mdividual  in  heaven,  but  to  the  future  of  the 
community  on  earth.  The  subject  of  Messianic 
psalms  can  be  adequately  treated  only  in  con- 
nexion with  Messianic  prophecy,  of  wliich  they 
form  a  part.  See  under  the  articles  Mkssiaii  and 
PkoI'HKUV.  The  princijiles  which  should  deter- 
mine views  of  ])rophecy  in  general  are  here  con- 
cerned, and  they  are  better  studied  on  the  more 
extended  field  and  in  the  more  explicit  utterances 
of  the  prophetical  books.  The  psalms  which  have 
usually  been  termed  (in  a  somewhat  conventional 
sense)  '  Messianic '  are  '2.  8.  10.  4.i.  72.  89,  and  110. 
The  list  may  vary  slightly,  but  when  it  is  ex- 
amined it  is  inevitable  that  the  questions  should 
arise.  Why  include  precisely  these  and  no  others  1 
And  what  is  meant  by  the  term  Messianic?  For 
if  mention  of  a  personal  king  ruling  on  earth  ia 
essential,  all  these  psalms  cannot  claim  the  title  ; 


160 


PSALMS,  BOOK  OF 


PSALMS,  BOOK  OF 


and  if  a  larger  sense  of  the  tenu  be  intended, 
others  have  as  good  a  right  to  be  found  in  the 
list. 

The  older  exegesis,  which  made  the  language  of 
the  Psalter  generally,  and  of  some  psalms  in 
particular,  to  be  the  language  of  Christ  Himself, 
has  for  some  time  been  discredited.  Delitzsoh, 
who  may  be  taken  to  represent  modern  '  orthodox  ' 
scholarsliip,  linds  onlj'  one  psalm,  the  lluth, 
directly  Messianic  in  the  sense  that  it  contains 
propliecy  immediately  pointing  to  tlie  person  of  a 
coming  Anointed  One,  who  was  fully  to  set  up 
God's  kingdom  on  earth.  All  other  references, 
as  in  the  2nd,  45tli,  and  72nd  psalms,  he  under- 
stands prunarlly  of  Isr.  monarchs,  so  that  the 
words  contain  jirophecy  only  in  an  indirect  or 
typical  sense.  The  tendency  of  criticism  is  to 
deny  even  this  smaller  measure  of  Messianic  refer- 
ence. 'All  these  psalms,'  says  Chej'ne,  referring 
chiefly  to  2.  72,  and  110,  and  in  a  lesser  degree  to 
some  others,  '  are  only  Messianic  in  a  sense  which  is 
p.sychologieally  justiliable.  They  are,  as  I  have 
shown,  neither  typically  nor  in  the  ordinary  sense 
prophetically  Messianic'  The  2nd  and  lluth 
psalms  may  claim  the  designation  in  the  sense 
that  '  the  idealization  of  historical  persons  which 
they  present  presupposes  the  belief  in  an  ideal 
Messianic  monarchy,  now  or  at  some  later  time  to 
be  granted  to  Israel'  (Oricfin  of  Ps.  pp.  339,  340). 
That  is,  type  and  prophecy  are  alike  excluded  from 
the  Psalter.  The  psalmists  disregarded  history, 
preferring  to  '  idealize';  their  David  is  not  the  true 
David,  their  Moses  is  not  the  true  Moses ;  and 
they  had  no  right  to  find  in  the  monarchs  of  their 
own  time  a  type  and  pledge  of  future  glory,  and 
no  power  directly  to  prophesy  concerning  it.  If 
this  be  so,  the  term  '  jNIessianic'  is  liardly  worth 
retaining,  and  its  employment  is  likely  to  mi.slead. 

Perhaps  we  may  see  in  these  views  another 
instance  of  extreme  reaction  against  a  mistaken 
exegesis.  The  time  when  Ps  45*  could  be  quoted 
as  proof  direct  of  the  divinity  of  Christ  has  gone 
by.  The  hopes  and  prayers  of  Ps  72  are  under- 
stood as  hopes  and  prayers  in  which  no  direct 
vision  of  a  Kin<j  or  Jlessiah  was  before  the  mind 
of  the  singer.  It  is  even  doubted  by  some  of  tlie 
most  tr\ilv  Christian  interpreters  whether  '  the 
oracle  of  J"  unto  my  lord'  in  Ps  110'  can  mean 
that  the  speaker  was  the  theocratic  king,  and  his 
'  lord  '  a  greater  King  yet  to  come.  The  '  Son '  in 
Ps  2'-',  if  indeed  that  word  occur  at  all  in  the 
obscure  phrase  nmps'i  (see  art.  Kiss),  is  no  longer 
understood  as  the  Son  of  God  incarnate,  and  the 
'  Son '  who  is  unquestionably  mentioned  in  v.'  is  not 
sup])osed  to  be  Jesus  of  Nazareth.  But  it  by  no 
meansfollowsthat  no  psalnisareeitherprophetically 
or  typically  Messianic.  The  exegesis  which  finds  in 
Ps4.Tan  epithalamiuML  for  some  monarch  unknown, 
is  bound  to  confess  that  here  is  no  ordinary  wed- 
ding-song, and  that  the  writer  of  it  had  thouglits 
which  soared  not  only  far  above  the  occasion,  but 
far  above  those  of  most  of  his  contemporaries. 
The  beneficent  prince  of  Ps  72  is  not  a  Jchosha- 
pliat  or  a  Jeroboam  with  a  halo  round  his  head, 
unwarrantably  placed  there  by  a  court-poet  in  a 
drcun.  In  wliatever  way  the  details  of  Ps  110 
be  <inder.stood,  the  priest-Icing  of  no  Aaronic  type, 
wlio  was  to  gather  around  him  an  army  of  j-oiitlis, 
clad  not  in  mail  but  in  holy  festal  apjiarel,  multi- 
tudinous and  brilliant  as  tlie  dewdrops  born  from 
the  womb  of  the  morning,  is  not  a  phantom  of 
imagination,  suggested  by  the  idealization  of 
Simon  the  Maccabee.  But  is  it  possible  at  the 
same  time  to  preserve  the  limits  oi  sober  exegesis 
and  to  believe  in  the  prophetic  message  of  the 
Psalms?  The  evangelists  and  apostles  held  a  view 
of  the  P.salter,  which  tliey  so  often  quoted,  that 
cannot  be  defended  if  neither  by  way  of  prophecy 


nor  of  type  is  Christ  contemidated  in  the  Psalma 
at  all. 

A  method  of  sohing  the  difficulty  is  sometimes 
described  as  the  theory  of  '  the  double  sense,'  a 
plirase  wliich  seems  to  imply  that  the  obvious 
meaning  of  the  words  as  read  refers  to  con- 
temporary persons  and  events,  whilst  some  deep- 
lying,  mystical  signihcance  lies  behind  this,  in 
which  reference  is  made  to  Christ  and  the  New 
Covenant.  Now  words  can  have  but  one  meaning, 
though  they  may  have  not  only  a  twofold  but  a 
manifold  application.  And  it  is  not  by  a  mystical 
sleight-of-hand,  unintelligible  to  the  plain  reader, 
that  a  Mes.sianic  signilieance  is  to  be  found  in  the 
psalms.  The  tirst  duty  of  the  interpreter  is  to 
iind  the  simple  meaning  of  the  words  as  they  stand, 
as  they  were  intended  b}'  the  psalmist,  and  would 
be  understood  by  his  contemporaries.  But  the 
reason  why  this  is  not  the  end,  as  it  is  the  begin- 
ning of  exegesis  of  the  psalms,  is  that  the  dispen- 
sation under  which  the}-  were  written  did  not 
stand  alone,  it  was  part  of  an  organism,  and  the 
writers  knew  it.  The  Old  Covenant  proclaimed 
its  own  insufficiency,  and  pointed  continually 
onwards.  Consequently,  when  inspired  writers 
handled  certain  themes,  they  did  so  in  a  way  that 
would  have  been  unintelligible  but  for  this  under- 
lying consciousness.  And  often,  when  they  were 
not  themselves  consciously  glancing  forwards,  sub- 
sequent events  shed  a  richer  light  upon  their  words, 
and  enabled  those  who  came  after  to  make  a 
much  more  complete  and  significant  ajijilic.ation 
of  the  words  whicli  they  had  spoken.  When  the 
glance  of  the  psalmist  fell  directly  upon  the  future 
culmination  of  the  kingdom  of  God  upon  earth, 
his  words  are  prophetically  Messianic  ;  when  he 
was  chiefly  concerned  with  the  present,  but  as 
part  of  an  organism  not  yet  completed,  his  words 
may  be  styled  indirectly  or  typicallj'  Messianic. 
If  the  statement  of  Schultz  be  admitted,  '  There  is 
positively  not  one  NT  idea  that  cannot  be  shown 
to  be  a  healthy  and  natural  product  of  some  OT 
germ,  nor  any  truly  OT  idea  which  did  not  in- 
stinctively press  towards  its  NT  fulfilment'  (Old 
Test.  Theol.  vol.  i.  p.  52,  Eng.  tr.) — a  position  which 
not  many  will  care  to  dispute — the  principles  just 
laid  down  do  but  declare  that  in  a  growing  plant 
the  relation  of  the  parts  to  the  whole  is  best  dis- 
cerned in  the  maturity,  not  in  the  infancy  of  the 
growth.  Tlie  seed  is  the  prophecy  of  the  plant, 
stem  and  buds  and  flowers,  to  those  who  know  its 
nature.  And  the  tva  TXripudy  of  NT  means  that 
tlie  earlier  stage  existed  in  order  that  the  later 
might  reach  its  ripe  and  full-orbed  deveIo])ment. 

The  question  wliether  certain  psalms  are  rather 
to  be  considered  directly  or  indirectly  Messianic 
is  one  for  the  exegete.  It  may,  however,  be  ad- 
mitted that  the  number  of  direct  prophecies  is, 
at  most,  very  small,  and  it  may  well  be  that  the 
Psalter  contains  hardly  a  single  instance.  For, 
though  p.salmists  and  prophets  had  much  in 
common,  there  were  important  dilferences  between 
them.  The  very  attitude  of  tlie  psalmist  makes  it 
unlikely  that  he  will  look  directly  into  the  future. 
The  2nd  and  110th  psalms  are  those  which  partake 
most  of  this  character,  and  the  2nd  psalm  in 
almost  anj'  case,  the  110th  if  the  theocratic  king  ia 
not  the  speaker  but  the  person  addressed,  can  be 
most  easily  understood  as  only  typically  Messianic. 
But  the  monarch  of  Israel  was  a  real  type, 
and  could  seldom  or  never  be  considered  as  the 
psalmist  considered  him,  without  reference  to  the 
substance  of  which  he  was  but  the  shadow.  Take 
the  idea  of  'sonship,'  for  example.  The  promise 
was  mode  in  2  S  7  that  the  king  should  be  a  '  son ' 
of  God:  which  of  them  came  near  to  realizing 
this  ?  And  the  inspired  bard  of  the  Old  Covenant 
uses  words  concerning  the    filial    character    and 


Pti.VL.MS,  LUUK  UF 


rSALMS,  UUUK  UF 


IGl 


promised  triuinplis  of  the  cliosen  nation  with  their 
king  at  their  head,  which  were  never  actually 
acioniplislied  till  He  who  was  Son  indeed  was 
declared  to  be  such  by  the  resurrection  from  the 
dead,  when  it  was  said  to  Him,  '  This  day  have  I 
begotten  thee.'  This  is  no  mere  historical  parallel, 
for  the  parallel  ia  not  obvious,  but  it  is  the  full 
development  of  the  plant  which  the  psalmist  spoke 
of  ill  Its  germ  and  early  growth.  And  such  a 
psalm  is  truly  Messianic. 

But  the  name  must  not  be  confined  to  psalms  in 
which  there  is  specific  mention  of  a  coming  personal 
king.  This  particular  feature  of  the  '  age  to  come ' 
is  not  prominent  in  the  Psalter,  as  it  is  in  the 
Psalms  of  Solomon.  The  Messianic  ideas  of  the 
OT  are  many.  The  kingdom  is  often  spoken  of, 
when  there  is  no  mention  of  the  king.  The  Theo- 
phany  or  manifestation  of  the  glory  of  J"  upon  the 
earth  is  another  form  which  the  hope  of  Israel 
wore  ;  and  the  good  time  coming  is  sometimes 
described  as  a  new  and  better  Covenant  which  was 
to  take  the  place  of  the  old.  Sometimes  this  golden 
age  of  the  future  is  described  in  its  etlecl  ujion 
nature,  the  lields  and  streams  and  fruits  of  the 
earth  ;  sometimes  upon  the  nations,  which  either 
willingly  or  unwiUingly,  in  submissive  alliance  or 
as  conquered  enemies,  are  to  help  to  swell  tlie 
triimiph  of  Israel.  Though  in  all  this  there  may  be 
no  mention  of  a  personal  Redeemer  or  Ruler,  such 
language  is  in  a  real,  perhaps  the  best  sense  of  the 
word,  *  Messianic'  Tlie  psalms  which  tell  of  the 
coming  of  J"  to  earth  in  oeneficent  judgment  (9G- 
98)  are  most  truly  a  part  of  the  Messianic  prophecy. 
Christ  Himself  showed  how  unexpected  lessons 
might  be  learned  regarding  His  Person  and  work 
from  the  passage  Ps  118-,  and  it  is  needless  to 
adduce  the  frequent  quotations  of  the  2nd,  16th, 
and  110th  psalms  which  are  found  in  the  sermons 
and  letters  of  the  apostles.  Doubtless  the  psalmists, 
like  the  prophets,  were  able  but  feebly  to  under- 
stand how  their  high  vaticinations  were  to  be 
accomiilished.  Often  they  had  little  idea  tliat  'not 
unto  tliumselves  but  unto  us  they  did  minister,'  in 
their  rapt  lli'-lits  of  joyful  liopc.  But  not  the  less 
did  they  aid  in  throwing  subtle  but  signilicant 
chains  of  spiritual  connexion  across  from  the 
earlier  days  to  the  later,  from  the  Old  Covenant  to 
the  New ;  they  aided  in  the  growth  of  that  mar- 
vellous spiritual  organism,  the  development  of  that 
kingdom  of  God,  the  lull  glory  of  which  has  not 
dawned  upon  the  eartli  even  yet  :  and  it  is  not 
ditlicult  for  the  devout  Christian,  with  such 
thoughts  in  his  mind,  to  be  convinced  tliat  he 
cannot  fully  understand  tlie  Psalter,  unless  he 
hears  the  voice  of  one  who  explains  '  how  that  all 
things  must  needs  be  fiillilled  wliich  are  written  in 
the  law  of  Moses,  and  the  prophets,  and  the  psalms, 
concerning  Mb.' 

The  Paftlmfl  have  somettmefl  been  daaslfled  according  to  their 
■ubjeijt-maiur,  but  any  »uch  arran(;eincnt  is  oi>fn  to  ob\ious 
oljjL-cliunu.  Tiio  Bubdiviaiona  ncce-isiirily  overhip,  and  many 
pralmH  refuse  to  be  clos-sified.  IhipfelVi  in  his  I ntriMlurAinn 
dtalg  with  tliia  subject,  and  Bleek  (0th  ed.  by  Wellhausen,  p. 
467),  also  Driver,  LOT*  p.  3tJ8  (.  The  analysifl  might  run  BOine- 
what  as  follows  :  I.  Songs  of  I'raiso  to  Jehovah  ;  (a)  aji  Uwi  of 
nature,  I's  8.  10'  ».  29.  66.  104  ;  (^b)  in  relation  to  man,  a£  God  of 
Providence,  103.  107.  113.  14.'i.  ii.  Didactic  Psalms,  on  the  moral 
Itovemmcnl  of  the  world,  etc.,  Ps  1.  84.  37.  49.  73.  77  :  and  of  a 
more  directly  ethical  characttr,  15.  241*  82.  40.  60.  lil.  National 
Paalinii,  inclu'lin^  (<l)  prayers  in  disaat«r,  e.g.  44.  60. 74. 70.  80,  etc., 
and  (6)  thaiikM;;ivini;M  for  deliverance,  e.g.  4B.  47.  43.  66.  68.  70,  etc. 
Iv.  Purely  historiuil  Psalms,  78.  81.  105.  106.  114.  v.  Royal 
Psalmi,  2.  18.  20.  21.  45.  72.  101,  etc.  vi.  The  more  ilirectly  per- 
sonal I'Balms  are  of  very  various  character  :  sometimes  (a)  they 
contain  prayers  for  fnri.'ivene»8  or  recovery  from  sickness,  3.  4. 
0.  7.  22  ;  sometimes  ('*)  thanks(;ivinfr  predominates,  as  in  30.  40. 
116;  or  (>*)  the  prevailing;  strain  is  one  of  faith  or  resignation,  f.g. 
16.  23.  27.  42.  121.  130;  or  the  law  is  praised,  as  in  1.  lO'H  111), 
or  the  bouse  of  flod,  as  in  si.  122.  132.  Such  a  cKissillcation, 
however,  can  hardily  be  considered  to  be  of  use,  except  in  a  very 
l^neral  and  superficial  way. 

vii.  Text  and  Versions.— The  Massoretio  text 

VOU   IV.  — II 


of  the  OT,  it  is  now  generally  admitted,  stands  in 
need  of  frequent  emendation.  From  the  Ttli  ceo'- 
A.D.  onwards,  the  lleb.  text  has  been  preservev 
with  scrupulous  fidelity,  passing  at  times  into 
extreme  punctiliousness.  But  tlie  earlj'  o-igin  of 
this  text  is  unknown,  we  possess  no  MSS  earlier 
than  the  10th  cent,  of  our  era,  and  the  Massoretes 
represent  for  us  only  one  line  of  textual  trans- 
mission. The  materials,  however,  for  textual 
criticism  are  scanty.  In  the  case  of  the  NT,  these 
are  so  abundant  that  conjectural  emendation  has 
little  or  no  place  in  sound  criticism.  In  the  OT 
beyond  the  Massoretic  notes,  the  only  help  is  to  be 
derived  from  the  ancient  versions.  Hence  scholars 
have  been  driven  to  adopt  conjectures,  more  or  less 
probable,  in  specially  difficult  pass.ages  ;  and  as  the 
science  of  textual  criticism  is  still  young,  no 
sufficiently  complete  consensus  of  opinion  has  been 
arrived  at  with  respect  to  the  text  in  these  cases. 

As  regards  the  Psalms,  the  chief  iincient  version 
to  be  con.sulted  is,  as  elsewliere,  the  LXX.  The 
Ps.alter  is  contained  in  cod.  x>  BlexceptPslOo'^-lST"), 
and  A  (except  49"-79"').  The  Greek  tr.  of  the  Psalms, 
tliough  not  equal  to  that  of  the  Pent.,  is  at  least 
up  to  tlie  general  average  of  tlie  LXX.  In  places 
it  is  quite  at  fault,  but  not  so  frequently  as  in  the 
Propliets,  and  in  some  passages  its  lielp  is  valuable. 
The  frequent  difficulty  of  ascertaining  the  original 
reading  of  the  Greek  itself  is  one  of  the  chief 
drawbacks  to  its  critical  use.  The  Targiim  of  the 
Ps.alms  is  of  uncertain  date,  since  it  embodies  some 
early  tradition,  but  in  its  present  form  cannot  date 
earlier  than  tlie  7th  or  8th  cent.  A.D.  The  Pesh. 
SjTiac  version  (2nd  cent.  ?),  thou'jh  in  the  main 
agreeing  with  the  Heb.,  is  often  of  ser\'ice  by  the 
support  which  it  gives  to  the  LXX.  The  later  Gr. 
VSS,  so  far  as  extant,  are  not  of  much  critical 
value.  Jerome's  version  of  the  Psalms  is  rendered 
from  the  Heb.,  while  that  retained  in  the  Vul^.,  a 
representative  of  the  Old  Lat.,  was  translated  from 
the  Greek.  Jerome's  renderings  are  sometimes  of 
considerable  value,  and  shed  liglit  on  the  history  of 
the  text,  when  tliey  do  not  enable  us  to  recon- 
struct it.  The  Eng.  versions  may  be  briefly  men- 
tioned, though  therr  history  is  <;enerally  familiar. 
The  Pr.  Bk.  version  of  tlie  Psalms  is  taken  from 
the  Great  Bible  f  first  ed.  1539),  which  was  a  revision 
of  Matthew's  Bible,  the  Psalms  in  which  was 
the  work  of  Coverdale.  Coverdale's  tr.  was  made 
from  theZiirich  Bible  and  the  Vulg., and  accordingly 
in  it  the  traces  are  to  be  found  of  LXX  readings 
which  have  made  their  way  through  the  Lat.  into 
the  Pr.  I3k.  version.  The  AV  of  1011,  which  is  far 
more  accurate,  did  not  displace  the  earlier  version 
to  which  congregations  had  become  accustomed, 
and  which  is  undoubtedly  better  titted  for  melodious 
chanting  in  public  worship.  The  RV  of  1885  re- 
presents a  much  nearer  approa(^h  to  accuracy  of 
rendering,  and  is  invaluable  as  an  adjunct  to  AV, 
though  it  has  not  yet  displ.iccd  it.  Mariy  of  the 
renderings  approved  by  modern  scholarship  are  to 
be  found  riot  in  the  text,  but  in  the  margin,  since  a 
two-thirds  majority  of  the  Revisers  was  nece.s.sary 
to  elfect  an  alteration.  A  very  useful  work  has 
been  recently  (1898)  published  by  Driver,  entitled 
the  Parallel  Psalter,  in  which  the  Pr.  Bk.  version 
is  given  on  one  page,  with  a  new  version  by  Dr. 
Driver  himself  opposite.  The  liook  contains  a 
valuable  Introduction  and  Glo.ssarie.s.  The  Cainb. 
Univ.  Press  published  in  1899  T/ie  Bnok  of  P.ialms, 
cuntahthifj  the  Vr.  Bk.  vrr.non,  the  A  V,  and  tlie  li  V, 
in  parallel  i-olnmns.  The  metrical  versions  of  the 
Psalms  in  Knglish  alone  are  exceedingly  numerous, 
but  neither  Milton,  nor  Keble,  nor  less  known  poets 
who  have  attempted  metrical  renderings,  can  be 
said  to  have  attained  any  great  success. 

It  is  beyond  the  scope  of  this  article  to  illustrate 
the  need  of  textual  criticism  in  detail,  or  its  prob- 


PSALMS,  BOOK  OF 


FSALiMS  OF  SOLOMON 


a.le  elTects.     But  the  foll»win-re^^^^^^^^^ 

of  faiuiliar  passages  in  ^^liK.hcorrup  i;^.^^.^  ^^ 

or  has  been  suspected.  Is-,  V;Xrew.  None  of 
vith  the  meamng  •  son  s  ^o*  ^^!^^^«"^„a  jeronie 
the  ancient  VSS  adopt  tins  ren'^«^"|,'^  ^^.„,^  ^,n 
translates  'Adorate  pure        In^^J^  l'  „  ^,,g 

can  hardlv  he  th«  ^^meaus  '"u^e  a  lion';  the 
Heb.  reads  -7",  \  ''J-'''  "^"""f  „„  ■  so  the  LXX, 
rendering  'pierced  '^^'f'^V^'o',;  appears,  fol- 
Vulg.  and  byriau.     ^yP'":'„,"n,av  have  crept 

lowld  the  MX.  .  S°I?.«~ethec  au  e^theuprigLt 
into  the  text, asm  49",  v^heiet^iec  ,„„,„;„„■ 

shall  have  dominion  o^f  ^'^'^^n  Ps  48'^  niD'Sy  is 
reads  like  a  later  if ««  l^/'gsis  and  77" 
untranslatab  e  as  it J^™-  J^^^-  text  which 
there  is  an  abrnptness  m  the  ^x^t        ^^^^_^^^^   .^ 

points  to  a  Pi"'^'^''''',„®"f  •  iiich  may  be  due  to 
difficult  Pass^g«^'  ^°"^|,°J  opening  of  ^Ps  87  is  so 
textual  corruption.     ^^,n,^°P^"t nation  must  have 

a  large  and  difficult  subject^  So  lon^J^  «•  ,,^  „„. 
evidence  rema  ns  as  ^'^"X^^ttenr  all  attempts 
7'^::^  ^;SS^^^Si^.coniectural 
lendati'ont  must  be  expected  to  continue. 


the  primitive  and   mediaeval  waiters  ;a^dSl^^^^^^^^ 
\'relsury  o/i).W  has  r-^^^JZt^.^Tterest  are  :  Fausset 
the  Puritans  (lb nv-S-.)-  Ji^'f  ^„.^t,ual  ComfMOJi 0/ fml"^ 

(1888);  Bmme,  The  F^<U>'Ui,'neirY   J    •  ^      jj^^-t.  Lcct. 
hsso)    Alexander,  UK. 'V''*^   LipJSml  in  Three  Collectwm. 


vUi.  The  L.TKaA™K.  of  the  subject  is  Port^tously  large 
Even  excluding  the   mMS  of   dev<,t^na^.^__^j  and  critical 

annotations,  and  l™'X^.»h"s,orv  "of  exposition  would  run  to 
Uterature  only,  a  detailed  h,stor>  o        .1__^  ^^^^  ^^^  ^^^^ 

very  great  length.  The  >?"o"'"h  laming  of  centunes  have 
Ihe^  Psalms  which  the  piety  '^^d  '«^™X^ietion  of  Delitzscl.'s 
accumulated,  may  he  °'  «°°'^/|^'bTeet  (vol.  i.  P.  64.  Eng.  tr.  by 
Introduction  is  devoted  t«the»uDject  i  important    com- 

Eaton).  Amongst  *€  Falt^"^  OKgorv  of  Nyssa,  Ambrose 
mentaries  are  those  of  Athanasius,  uieb    .  ]„nonvnce  of 

rrome,  and  esp.  Ch^y^o^t""  an^  Augu|tme.  ^^^g^ 

Hebrew  on  the  part  °*  "?"y  *  j  u„.historical  methods  of 
Church,  and  their  ""f"' '"^  .HevoSt  and  often  spiritua  ly 
exegesis,  mar  the  feet  of  the  rne  ^^^^^^  exegetes 

instructive  comments  In  the  "'d^^'^^j^S  '^^o.^gst  these  mav 
are  more  "npor  ant  than  the  win  ^^j  j,^    ^ 

be  named  Rashi  ("th  «f  ■).  Ihn  tzra  l^t  ^_^^  ^^.^^^  ^^^^^  i,, 
Kimchi  (13th cent.);  other  later  Je„'  ^^^  Reformation 

scholars  who  helped  ^  prepare fie  «  y^  Reformation  s.ay8 
of  the  18th  cent.  •^'^V'.he  Psalter  also  began  to  diffuse 
Delitzsch,    the  '°se-garden  of  the  P^^«r  ^^b^,_i„    ,    ^.^e 

it^  odour  as  in  the  "newed  freshnes.  ^  •  ,  churches,  and 
Psalms  fo™ed  the  hjTOn-book  of  the  H^o^^  ^^  ^^^  Refomiers 

It  is  matter  »' li'^'°7  ^^'f  g(  Uther  and  the  tr.  of  Marot 
was  advanced  by  the  hymns  o,  but     ^^  ^^^^  ^^  the  psalms 

(1543)  and  Be"' (1^!*;L»  evangelical  insight  and  spiritual  power 
(Opero!io/vat)  exhibit  his  evangeuctti  lb  ,^jj  ^  ^e\\^^ 

Ut  Calvin's  Common  ary  O^S^)  «  m°re  ^  l^^^^^j^,^  th 
more  sound  and  masterly,  a"^  "fiL  °,  Rosenm liner's  Scholta 

Teat  advantage.  In  more  "od^™  Si  re„d"'='*  """""'^"^ 
tl798-1804),"aouKh   only  a  comp.  auo^^  ^^  the  works 

service  at  *«  V"1,?,,rv  t he  ol  o-^'n?  may  be  mentioned  :-de 
of  the  last  haU-centurj  the  loiiowing       >  ;„  '""■^''/: 

Wette  (1811-66)  ;   Hitag  ,/''*''^„h,  ",,847    1852)  ;  Ilupfeld 
ItT-  karulbuch  (1853);  He"g^tenberg  (184  ,  18^-)^^      l^ 
na55-62  2nded.byKiehm,1867-<l,3rrtby  y)»>^  •  j,  „  j„ 

'^l^'^^'d,  ^B  (««  18««  ;  MU-f„,(td'!  1^9)?CrStz.  KHt. 
Lange'Bi3iA'''i''«™(lbtJJ-  M,  i^ev,  ^i  ^  ^j  j,,,    i,y 

Komm.  (18S2);  Schullz  in  StroH  .  Aomm^U8«,^^^^^^ 
Kessler,1890);Baetl^emnNowack  9  Ha^^      ^^^S^^  Delit^ch 
in  Marti'8  Kurzer  H^'^"''"'.'!'."',"  "  Enirllsh.    Amongst  recent  1 
and  Moll  have  been  *«"''»'£ '"i^ned'l'erowne  (0th  ed.  ISOI!  ; 
Kng.  commentators  "ay  be  raentionM  1  er     .^^^v^^^^^^  ^^         . 

Jennings  and  If  "=u  ^^,«  S)  and  V/.«  Oriflin  0/ (A«  /'"".'"-j;. 
Cheyne,  The  Book  <>/,^Z^^R^himy.  Slaclaren  in  ExponloTs 
B.inipton  Lecluresh891),  De\\^ttUb»iN      ^^.^^^^  (,s93-95).    The 

liiUe  (189l)-92),  and  K'y^P'>'"°  ,4ml  Introductions  to  OT  should 
seclionsonthelsalmsinthese  emMu       ^^^^^^^^  ^  'epres...  a- 

not  be  neglected.  J^e  ™  """"B/y;,.^  Riehm(ed.  Brandt.  18»9). 
tive  :  Wellhausen-Bleek  (6lh  ed.  i»J-V. '  .  Jggg,  girack  6lh 
Sriver  (.Ith  ed..  18?')iConi.    (3rd  and  *  h  ed.  ^^      ,^^^^^ 

:^dUtie:^eCf'ciu;c^^n"4^ol.  (186<^7«  Not*,  from 


Imo-ng^t  sepamte  artides  be-des  b^«-  ,  -  ^  ^^^  .  ^,.^, 
above.p.  Wl^).orm™opapteareBaet^i  ^^  j„dirirf,K>i-  u. 

brechtLi  ZATW,  l^^l  •  ^.^Mfs, -jyundijy  mdenP«o  m«n, 

,892;  Stade,.-Die  ;"es^'^°- 3^°^ .^g-rn,*^  Ueber  das  Oetend» 
Theol.  u.  Kirche.  IS^-.vfe -B  Jacob,  '  Beitriige  zu  emer  EinL 
Ich  in  den  f«?.''Tiri-  ISgeif;  \Vellhausen,-Bemertangeo 
indie  Psalmen'm/il/l'.lS™  i-'  '  6;.j,,,„  vi.  (1899)  163-187  ; 
ra  den  Psalmen '  in  S*"--?^™  "vJi^  asga  enlarged  ed.  1898. 
W.  t:  Davison,  The  •P'-''«'«5,{Srlext  o  '  toe  Psalms  may  be 
Of  critical  editions  of  t^e  Heh-  text  01  i'  ^^^^^    ^d 

mentioned  that  in  the  Baer-t)el.tz|ch  sen     t    ^       ^^_        ^^ 
that  of  Wellhausen  in  Haupt  9  *^C"^  ,_  p^^^^  ,,^  PV'";,'?^,^ 
text  by  Furness  in  PD).  .Jhe  L^m^^  ^^  g^^.^^^.^  ^,^  ,„ 

separately.  The  Pwl«i»  »»  G^w*  tiom  ^   ^    DAVISON. 
Greek. 

PSALMS  OF.SOLOMON^This  n-e  -s^^-n 

at  an  "f  f  t=i^»  .'I'^^^d'  cent)  to   a  collection  of 
rJXi^lX^'l^f  ^t^^^.  and  extant 

".-G-'^VThTnl^e^tloomo'^not.  seem- 
,^.3?^^^^trXse^psaln.<^^a,.q 

author's  name  was  S.°1°'P°",' '^  Hseemid  a  natural 
most  likel.v  explanation  is  that  it  s<=em     ^^^^.^^  ^^ 

uniformly  in  company  ^Mth  ^S.^  o^"  jj^gy  ^^e 
books  (Pr  Ec,  Ca,  N\  ^^^'^^^^^^^^^^nh^^.r.,  Gr. 
_(1)  R  (Vatican,  Gr.  3db)  ,  l^)  ^  ^  i;  p  (Paris, 
6)  (3)  M  (Moscow  Synod^-  ?;,''^Ll.  7);  (6.  7) 
Gr.  2991  A) ;  (^\^,.^}ZBMiothcca  Casanatensu 
at  Mt.  Atbos;  («)  "i  tne  ^^o  ^,^g  joth 

of  Baruch  has  a  section  (4  -o)  «n  ca  ^^^ 

lar.-e  part  from  one  of  these  psalms  (^o^  g^'o^tio 
naturally -itbout  aeloiow  edgment  1^^^^.^,,^, 
book  Pw«w  Soi'hia  and  the  -itn  ce  golomon, 

Lactantius  ^"^h  quote  ^rtam  odes^o^.^ 

which  were  very  Pl°'''^^'J .  u.-t^he  18  Greek 
book,  of  Christian  °"f " 'j^i^^^^tion  of  the  book 
psalms  are  nowhere  "t<^^-  J^'f ",  ^i  writings,  and 
Ucurs  only  in  ^i^^s  of  apocrji  n 

in  two  By^autine  writers  of  tl«^  pavid  Hoeschel, 
ZonarasandTlieodoreBal^amou  ^^^^ 

librarian  at  .Augsburg  ^^  as  the  u  ^^^^^  .^^^ 
called  attention  t^o  the  book,  ana  ^^.^^^  j^  Cerda 
after  his  death,  in  1°;°'  "y,^  g^e  have  been  many 
in  lus  ^<^~"«"«^'^^,"ttex  ,for  the  formation  of 
editions  since.  ^""^ ''^^i„r,t  mss  have  been  used, 
which  all  tlie  known  fj^ht  W?^  "  Unters. 

;V    hat  of  O.  von  Gebhardt  m  ^me  ^'^i^^rsitv 


-   ,         ThP   Cambridge   University 

(1895):    text    onl.y.      Th^„,Vo^  wed  upo"  Cod.  R. 

duction,  ind  notes  .    ^        ^  by  the 

iv.  DATE.  Chaka™  etO'     [  i^^^^ti,  t    these 

S^sms'bXSV .  "^5:^^ii^;^(^i'cr'^ThS 
iblr^^lSs^^^d^^i^--^-^^"' 

I  terms. 


psal:sis  of  solomon 


PSYCHOLOGY 


163 


It  is  also  commonly  agreed  that  the  psalms  were 
written  ( 1 )  in  ralestiiio,  (i)  in  the  Hebrew  language, 
(3)  by  a  i'liarisee.  The  lirst  of  these  three  points 
is  assumed  on  grounds  of  general  probability,  sup- 
ported by  the  subjects  of  the  psalms,  and  the  fact 
that  they  ieem  intended  for  synagogal  use.  The 
second  depends  on  a  large  number  of  linguistic 
peculiarities,  and  is  demonstrated  by  the  exist- 
ence of  a  number  of  passages  which  can  be  best 
exjilained  as  mistranslations  of  a  Hebrew  text. 
In  favour  of  the  third  the  following  reasons  may 
be  urged : — There  is  a  strong  polemic  element  in 
the  psalms  j  many  invectives  are  directed  against  a 
party  who  are  ciuled  dinners  (dynapruXoi)  or  trans- 
gressors {vapivoiiOi),  while  the  party  to  which  the 
psalmist  belongs  are  the  righteous  (StKoioi)  or  holi/ 
{Sffioi).  The  party  of  the  sinners  is  in  power,  and 
has  usurped  David's  throne  and  the  priesthood. 
The  holy  things  are  polluted,  and  secret  enor- 
mities are  prevalent.  The  party  of  the  sinners  is 
also  rich  and  prosperous,  while  the  saints  are  for 
the  most  part  poor. 

All  these  points  are  strikingly  appropriate  to 
the  Hasmona-an  rule  in  its  latter  daj's,  and  to  the 
Sa/iducean  party.  On  the  other  hand,  the  dis- 
tinctive Pharisaic  doctrines  and  aspirations  are 
maintained  and  cherislied  by  the  psalmist.  The 
ideal  of  a  theocracy,  the  hope  of  a  Messiah,  the 
expectation  of  a  retribution,  and  the  views  ex- 
pressed about  free  will,  are  all  of  them  just  such  as 
the  Pharisees  are  known  to  have  held. 

T.  CO.N'TKNTS  OF  THE  PSALMS. — 

Ps    1.  Deals  shortly  with  the  sin  and  ponishment 
of  Jerusalem. 

2.  The  siege  of  Jerusalem  ;  the  sins  which  led 

to  it;  the  death  of  the  besieger;   the 
justice  of  God. 

3.  A  contrast  between  the  righteous  and  the 

sinner. 

4.  A  deac  ription  and  denunciation  of  the '  men- 

pleasers'  {arBpuTrdpfffKoi). 

5.  God's  mercy  to  the  righteous. 

6.  The  fearlessness  of  the  righteous. 

7.  A  prayer  for  God's  chastening. 

8.  The  sins  of  Israel,  and  their  punishment :  o 

prater  for  restoration. 

9.  Ood's  justice  and  man's  free  will. 

10.  The  blessedness  of  alUiction. 

11.  The  restoration  of  Israel.    This  psalm  coin- 

cides larfjely  with  Baruch  5,  which  seems 
to  be  derived  from  it. 

12.  The  deceitful  tongue :    its  deeds  and  its 

punishment. 

13.  The  preservation  of  the  righteous  and  the 

destruction  of  the  sinner. 

14.  God's  faithfulness  to  the   righteous;    the 

sinner's  insecurity. 

16.  The    deliverance    of    the    righteous ;    the 

sinner's  fall. 
18.  Confession  of  sin  ;  praise  for  deliverance ; 
and  prayer  for  future  guidance. 

17.  The   kingship  of  God ;    the  overthrow  of 

David's    throne ;    the    kingdom    of   the 
Messiah. 

18.  God's    love    to    Israel ;    anticipations    of 

Messiah's  rule  ;  praise  of  God  as  the 
Lord  of  the  heavens.  This  last  portion 
ends  abruptly,  and  seems  not  connected 
with  the  rest  of  the  psalm.  It  may 
possibly  be  a  fragment  of  a  19th  psalm. 
The  most  important  of  these  psalms  are  2.  4.  8. 
11.  17.  18. 

vi.  Me.s.sianicTeachino.— The  Messiah  of  these 
psalms  is  figured  as  a  king  of  the  seed  of  David, 
who  is  to  appear  in  God's  good  time  to  drive  out 
the  Koinans  (Goitiks)  and  Saildiicces  {sinncr.i),  to 
restore  the  dispersed  tribes  and  renew  the  glories  of 
Jerusalem  and  its  temple,  and  subdue  and  convert 


the  Gentiles.  He  will  reign  in  holiness  and  justice, 
not  bj'  force  of  arms.  lie  is  anointed  (xp'oris)  king 
and  priest,  but  he  is  not  divine. 

The  new  features  in  this  description  are  mainly 
two.  (1)  Messiah  is  a  person.  Excluding  Dn  7 
as  of  disputed  interpretation,  we  have  this  point 
plainly  stated  for  the  lirst  lime  in  the  literature  of 
Palestine.  The  oldest  portion  of  Sib.  Orac,  which 
comes  from  Egj'pt,  has  a  somewhat  similar  descrip- 
tion of  a  coming  king  (iii.  652  ff.).  (2)  The  epithet 
XP'<rT6s  is  here  lirst  applied  to  him. 

We  may  see  in  this  presentation  of  Messiah  a 
result  of  the  brilliant  victories  of  the  Maccabees, 
which  had  reawakened  in  the  popular  mind  the 
hope  of  a  Jewish  monarchy.  But  this  is  only 
part  of  the  truth. 

A  designation  of  Messiah  which  appears  in 
these  psalms,  and  elsewhere  only  in  La  4-'*  and 
Lk  2",  is  XP'-"'''^^  KvpLos.  A  probable  view  of  it  is 
that,  as  in  Lamentations,  it  is  a  faulty  rendering, 
and  should  be  x-  xvpiov. 

The  interest  and  importance  of  these  psalms  is 
very  considerable.  Thej'  throw  much  light  on  the 
aims  and  thoughts  of  the  Pharisees  of  our  Lord's 
time ;  they  mark  an  important  stage  in  the  de- 
velopment of  the  Messianic  idea ;  and  they  illus- 
trate in  very  many  points  the  diction  of  the  NT 
and  of  the  LXX. 

In  literarj'  merit  they  do  not  stand  very  high. 
The  longer  psalms  are  the  best ;  the  shorter  ones 
are  like  centos  from  the  Davidic  psalter.  Still  we 
gain  a  favourable  impression  of  tlie  author  :  while 
he  is  a  strong  and  unsjiai  Ing  partisan,  he  is  clearly 
also  a  pious  and  humble-minded  man. 

LiTERATURB, — A  list  o(  editious  aud  notices  will  be  found  in 
Ryle  and  James's  edition  ;  since  the  date  of  that,  Gebhardt's  aa 
well  as  tile  C'anib.  text  have  appeared  (see  above),  and  also  a 
pamphlet  by  Krankenberg  (Die  Datierwi'j  dcr  Ps.  .S'o/.,  Uicssen, 
ltj9(i),  and  a  German  version  by  Prof.  Kittel  in  Kautzsch's  Apokr. 
v..  I'seudepigr.  d.  AT.  M.  K.  JAIIES. 

PSALTERY. — A  stringed  instrument  of  music, 
described  in  art.  MusiC  in  vol.  iii.  p.  459'".  The 
Gr.  i/'dWeii',  to  harp,  gave  x/'uXtt^s  a  harjjer,  and 
\pa.\Ti]piov  a  harp  (used  in  the  widest  sense).  The 
LXX  uses  \j/a\Tripiof  as  the  tr.  of  five  Ileb.  words — 
(1)  iV.:}  Gn  4-1  (EV  '  harp  '),  Ps  49*  (EV  '  harp  ')  81» 
1493  (EV  '  harp '),  Ezk  2G^^  (EV  '  harp  ') ;  (2)  ^^}  or 
h^i  Neh  12",  Ps  33=  57»  92'  108*  1449  ISO^,  Is  5'" 
(AV  'viol,'  RV  'lute');  (3)  nj-:}  Is  SS^"  (EV 
'  stringed  instruments  ')  ;  (4)  ['"injc^  or  piojp?  Dn 
35. 7. 10.  JB .  (5)  ^i,  Job  2112  (EV  'timbrel').  From 
tpaXHjpiov  was  formed  Lat.  psalteriuiti,  from  which 
(through  Old  Fr.  psalterie)  came  Eng.  '  psaltery.' 
The  spelling  in  Chaucer  (following  the  middle- 
Eng.  pronun.)  is  sautrye,  as  Millcres  Tale,  27 — 
'  And  al  above  ther  lay  a  pay  sautrye, 
On  which  he  made  a  nightes  inclodye 
So  Bwetely,  that  al  the  chambre  rong.' 

Wyclif  has  a  variety  of  spelling  :  sautree,  sautrie, 
sawtree,  sawtrye,  and  jisautrie  are  all  found  in  the 
Wyclilite  versions.  The  eccles.  Lat.  psidterium 
was  both  a  psalterr  and  a  song  sung  to  the 
psaltery,  and  then  also  the  book  of  songs  or  the 
Psalter.  J.  Hastings. 

PSALTIEL.— 2  Eb  5'«  (RVm).    See  Phaltiel. 

PSYCHOLOGY An    initial    prejudice   on    this 

topic,  arising  out  of  an  extravagant  claim  made 
by  some  writers  on  its  behalf,  has  first  of  all  to 
be  removed.  To  frame  a  coni])lete  and  indepen- 
dent philosophy  of  man  from  the  Bible  is  impos- 
sible. The  attempt  cannot  commend  itself  to  any 
judicious  interpreter.  The  psychology  of  the  Bible 
IS  largely  of  a  popular  character,  and  not  a  scien- 
tilic  Hystem.  Moreover,  the  Bible  implicitly  takes 
for  granted  much  that  luen  have  thought  out 
for  themselves  on  thb  theme.    But  the  relation 


164 


PSYCHOLOGY 


PvSY  Clio  LOGY 


of  the  p.S3cliolof;y  to  the  content  of  revelation  is 
very  close.  It  is  essential  to  the  other  doctrines 
of  Scripture — its  directly  relijjious  doctrines — that 
these  be  expressed  in  terms  of  such  underlying,' 
thoufihts  on  man's  nature  and  constitution  as  aie 
implied  in  the  Bible  itself.  For  in  terms  of  some 
conception  of  man  —  some  psycholo"y  more  or 
less  systematic — must  all  religious  and  theological 
statements  be  couched.  But  the  religious  teach- 
ings of  the  Bible  have  always  suffered  Injustice 
when  they  have  been  forced  (as  is  so  commonly  the 
case)  to  take  shapes  derived  from  systems  of 
thought  and  theories  of  man  other  than  those  of 
Scripture.  How  constantly  all  through  the  Chris- 
tian centuries  Cliristian  doctrines  have  been  run 
into  the  mould  of  the  prevailini;  philosophies,  is 
proverbial.  In  the  earliest  age  of  Christian  specu- 
lation Plato  and  Plotinus  shaped  almost  all  Bible 
interpretation.  In  the  Middle  Ages,  Aristotle  ruled 
the  Scholastic  Theology,  and  his  sway  extended 
down  to  and  beyond  the  Reformation.  Leibnitz 
and  Descartes  had  their  age  of  influence  in  the 
ITth  and  18th  centuries.  Kant  and  Hegel  control 
the  forms  of  thinking  of  many  cultured  theologians 
iu  our  own  day.  But  when  we  seek  to  work  out 
a  Biblical  Theology,  when  we  aim  at  presenting 
the  result  of  Scripture  exegesis  in  our  statement 
of  revealed  doctrine,  we  are  bound  to  defer  to  the 
Scripture  way  of  thinking.  We  can  rid  ourselves 
of  the  mistake  which  so  long  vitiated  Theology, 
only  by  observing  those  ideas  of  Life  and  of  the 
Soul  which  the  Scripture-writers  themselves  assume 
in  all  their  statements.  To  ascertain  the  science 
of  human  life,  if  it  may  be  so  called,  to  put  to- 
gether such  simple  psychology  as  underlies  the 
writings  of  Scripture,  cannot  be  an  unnecessary 
task.  Theology  is  not  truly  biblical,  so  long  as 
it  is  controlled  by  non  -  biblical  philosophy,  and 
such  control  is  inexcusable  when  it  is  seen  that 
a  view  of  human  nature,  available  for  the  purpose, 
is  native  to  the  source  from  which  Theology  itself 
is  derived.  Two  things  are  assumed  here,  without 
further  explanation.  The  one  is,  that  such 
materials,  of  this  kind,  as  the  Scriptures  give, 
cannot  form  a  complete  or  independent  structure. 
They  cannot  be  riglitly  treated  except  in  close 
connexion  with  the  proper  and  principal  theme 
of  the  Bible.  They  cannot  be  treated  abstractly 
or  separately.  They  occur  in  the  record  of  a 
revelation  of  Divine  dealings  with  man  for  his 
redemption.  They  must  be  treated,  therefore,  in 
1  ine  with  the  history  and  development  of  these  deal- 
ings. The  other  is,  that  they  are  on  the  whole 
uniform,  that  one  fairly  consecutive  and  con- 
nected system  of  ideas  on  the  topic  holds  through 
the  whole  Bible.  The  proof  of  this  will  come  out 
in  the  exposition.  It  is  an  OT  system  of  tliought. 
Even  among  the  older  apostles  in  the  NT  the  same 
order  of  thought  rules.  Only  in  the  case  of  the 
Pauline  writings  is  there  any  marked  change  or 
advance,  consistent  enough,  however,  in  its  de- 
velopment of  the  original  ideas. 

Rotlie  has  said  *  that  we  may  appropriately 
speak  of  a  '  language  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  Cremer, 
\vho  quotes  the  remark,  expounds  it  thus :  '  Tlie 
spirit  of  the  language  assumes  a  form  adequate  to 
the  new  views  whicli  the  Spirit  of  Christ  creates 
and  works.' +  Without  attention  to  this  element 
of  progress  it  is  impossible  to  read  biblical  psychol- 
ogy aright.  This  alone  explains  the  transition 
from  terms  in  the  earlier  Scriptures  that  are 
rather  physical  than  psychical,  to  those  in  the 
later  Scriptures  that  are  more  deej)ly  charged 
with  spiritual  meaning.  A  progressive  religious 
revelation  is  intimately  connected  with  the  growth 

*  Znr  DofrnuUih,  p.  238  (Ootha,  18B3>. 

t  Cremer'8  W6rterbuch  der  NT  Oriicitdt.  Voirede,  p.  6  (Ootha, 
IS86) 


of  humanity,  casts  growing  light  npon  the  nature 
and  prospects  of  man,  will  tlierefore  he  increasingly 
rich  in  statements  and  expressions  bearing  upon 
the  knowledge  of  man  himself,  and  especially  of 
his  inner  being.  It  is  in  the  latest  records  of  such 
a  revelation  tliat  the  terms  expressive  of  the  facta 
and  phenomena  of  man's  nature  should  be  corre- 
spondingly enriched,  diversilied,  and  distinguish- 
able in  their  meaning.  It  is  on  this  principle  that 
in  the  sketch  which  follows  so  much  attention  is 
given  to  tlie  Pauline  antliropology. 

i.  The  Bible  account  of  man's  origin  first  claims 
our  attention.  What  strikes  one  is  the  unity  and 
simplicity  of  tlie  conception.  We  are  warned  oil', 
by  the  primal  passage  (Gn  2'),  from  any  sliarp 
analysis.  'The  Lord  (Jod  formed  man  of  tlie 
dust  of  the  ground,  and  breathed  into  his  nostrils 
tlie  breath  of  life  ;  and  man  became  a  living  soul.' 
There  are  two  elements  or  factors  specified  from 
wliich  God  formed  man — 'dust  from  the  ground'; 
'  breath  of  the  Almighty,' — and  the  result  is  a 
unity.  Tlie  OT  has  no  dehnite,  single  word  (unless 
we  excejit  n'lj,  which  occurs  13  times,  nanielv  Gn 
47",  J;;  14»-»,'l  S  Sl'o-'^"",  Neh  9^',  Ps  llO^'Ezk 
l''-^:*,  Nah  3"",  Dn  10« ;  see  art.  Body)  for  the 
'  body '  apart  from  the  soul.  Indeed  the  term 
'soul'  is  sometimes  used  for  the  corpse  (Lv  21", 
Nu  6'  9"-  '■ '"  19").  In  this  primal  passage,  there- 
fore, the  expression  '  man  became  a  living  soul ' 
has  a  characteristic  simplicity.  We  must  not 
identify  '  soul '  here  with  what  it  means  in  modern 
speech,  or  even  in  later  biblical  language.  In 
primitive  Scripture  usage  it  means  not  the  '  im- 
material rational  principle '  of  the  philosophers, 
but  simply  '  life  embodied.'  So  that  here  the  unity 
of  the  created  product  is  emphatically  expressed 
The  sufficient  interpretation  of  tlie  passage  is  that 
the  Divine  inspiration  awakes  the  already  kneaded 
clay  into  a  livinji  human  being.  Cf.  Ezekiel's 
vision  (ch.  37),  w-liere  there  is,  first,  the  recon- 
struction of  the  animal  frame — bone,  sinews,  flesh, 
skin  ;  and  only  after  this  the  '  breath '  comes  upon 
them,  and  they  live. 

Now,  this  account  of  the  origin  of  man  is  fitted 
to  exclude  certain  dualistic  views  of  his  nature 
with  which  the  religion  of  revelation  had  to  con- 
tend. '  It  directly  contradicts  the  doctrine  of  the 
pre-existence  of  the  soul'  (Schultz,  OT  Theology, 
li.  252,  Clark,  Edin.  1892).  Whether,  indeed,  the 
formation  of  man's  frame  and  the  inbreathing  of 
his  life  be  taken  as  successive  or  simultaneous 
moments  in  the  process  of  his  creation,  the  de- 
scription is  exactly  litted  to  exclude  that  priority 
of  the  soul  which  was  necessary  to  tlie  transmigra- 
tion taught  by  Oriental  religions,  or,  to  the  pre- 
existence  theory  of  the  Greek  schools.  There  is 
here  no  postponement  or  degradation  of  the  earthly 
frame  in  favour  of  the  soul,  as  if  the  soul  were 
the  man,  and  the  bodj'  were  only  the  prison-house 
into  which  he  was  sent,  or  the  husk  in  which  for 
a  time  he  was  concealed.  According  to  this 
account,  the  synthesis  of  two  factors,  alike 
honourable,  constitutes  the  man. 

That  neither  the  familiar  antithesis,  soul  and 
body,  nor  any  other  pair  of  expressions  by  which 
wo  commonly  render  the  dual  elements  in  human 
nature,  should  occur  in  this  locus  rlassicus,  is  a  fact 
which  lielps  to  fix  attention  on  tlie  real  chaiaetcr 
of  the  earlier  OT  descriptions  of  man.  The  fact  is 
not  explained  merely  by  the  absence  of  an.alysis. 
Rather  is  it  characteristic  of  these  Scriptures  to 
assort  the  solidarity  of  man's  constitution — that 
he  is  of  one  piece,  and  not  composed  of  separate  or 
indejiendent  parts.  This  assertion  is  essential  to 
the  theology  of  the  Bible — to  its  discovery  of  human 
sin,  and  of  Divine  salvation.  In  a  way  not  per- 
ceived by  many  believers  in  its  doctrines,  this  idea 
of  the  unity  of  man's  nature  hinds  into  consistency 


|.^ 


PSYCHOLOGY 


PSYCHOLOGY 


165 


the  Scri[>ture  .locount  of  liis  Creation,  the  story  of 
his  I'all,  the  character  of  Kedemption,  and  all  the 
luadiug  features  in  the  workinj;  out  of  his  actual 
recovery,  from  his  Eegeueration  to  his  Resurrection. 

Later  Scriptures  suggest  a  more  definite  and  sepa,- 
rate  idea  of  tho  body.  In  Job  4'"  we  have  t-'rr'B? 
'  houses  of  clay,'  imitated  perhaps  in  2  Co  5'  v  iizl- 
7«io5  .  .  .  oUla  Toi"  ^r<c7j^ol•5 ;  also  in  Dn  7"  '  grieved  in 
my  spirit  in  the  midst  of  my  body '  (.ij"i;  sheath),  2  P 
1*  ToO  aK-tjuiixaTos  fiou.  In  the  OT  Apocrypha  the 
pre-exibtence  idea  is,  once  at  least,  suggested.  Wis 
-i». »  <  a  good  soul  fell  to  my  lot,  and  being  good 
.  .  .  came  into  a  body  undehled.'*  The  >iT  uses 
freely  the  Greek  duality,  which  has  become  the 
modern  one,  '  soul  and  body '  ;  and  though  the  OT 
'  Hesh  and  soul '  does  not  occur  in  the  ST,  'body 
and  spirit'  can  take  its  place.  Then,  in  the 
progress  of  redemption,  it  at  last  appears  that 
the  discrepancy  between  the  two  is  resolved,  when 
the  redeemed  Tri'cD/ia  shall  put  on  aS/ia  weviiaTiKbv 
{I  Co  15"),  '  a  spiritual  body,'  which  is  by  no  means 
the  same  as  a  'bodiless  spirit '  (see  BODY). 

ii.  Let  us  now  pass  on  to  the  biblical  treatment 
of  sin  anil  salvation,  and  show  how  these  atl'ect  the 
various  elements  of  human  nature  as  more  specifi- 
cally distinguished  through  them,  especially  the 
terms  'Hesh,'  'soul,'  and  'spirit.' 

Flesh. — Besides  the  more  obvious  literal  mean- 
ings of  this  term  already  discussed  in  a  separate 
article,  it  acquires  a  psychological  importance  when 
we  ask  whether  its  general  OT  sense  is  morally 
unfavourable,  and  what  is  the  origin  and  force  of 
the  peculiar  meaning  it  has  in  St.  Paul,  as  the 

i)rinciple,  or  a  seat  of  the  princijile,  of  sin  in  man. 
'Vom  the  first  application  of  'licsli'  to  fallen  man 
(Gn  6')  there  is  nothing  in  the  OT  which  identifies 
it  with  the  principle  of  evil.  '  Not  a  single  pas- 
sage can  be  adduced  wherein  bdsdr  is  used  to  denote 
man's  sensuous  nature  as  the  seat  of  an  opposition 
against  his  spirit  and  of  a  bias  towards  sin ' 
(.Miiller,  ChrUtian  Doct.  of  Sin,  i.  32.3).  It  is  true 
that  '  Hesh '  is  used  for  human  kind  in  contrast 
to  higher  beings  and  to  God  (e.q.  Gn  6',  Ps  78'"), 
and,  so  used,  brings  out  his  frailty  and  finitude. 
It  is  true  also  that '  tlesh  '  as  a  constituent  of  human 
nature  means  the  perishable,  animal,  sensuous,  and 
even  sensual  element  of  it  {e.g.  Ec  5',  Is  40")  ;  but 
which  of  these  ideas  is  prominent  in  any  passage 
must  be  learned  from  its  connexion  and  context. 
It  is  further  true  that  in  its  meaning  of  '  natural 
kinship'  there  is  often  an  implied  contrast  with 
something  better — 'Israel  after  the  flesh'  (1  Co 
10").  But  the  conclusive  proof  that  nothing  of 
moral  depreciation  is  necessarily  implied  in  this  use 
of  '  Hesh,'  is  its  application  to  Christ  as  designat- 
ing His  human  in  contrast  with  His  Divine  nature. 
'  The  woril  was  made  flesh '  (6  \l)-/oi  aap^  iyinfro,  Jn 
1").  'Who  was  m.inifest  in  the  flesh,  justified  in 
the  spirit '  (1  Ti  3") ;  '  made  of  the  seed  of  David 
according  to  the  flesh,  declared  to  be  the  Son  of 
Ood  with  power,  according  to  the  spirit'  (Ro  I"). 
But  in  the  Pauline  EpisUes  a  Bpocilic  meaning  of 
the  term  emerges.  In  certain  well-known  pas.sages 
it  denotes  the  principle  which  resists  the  Divine 
law,  as  contrasted  with  the  '  mind  '  consenting  to 
the  law  tliat  it  is  good,  and  which,  even  in  the  re- 
cenerate,  makes  war  against '  the  spirit.'  Here  we 
have  a  very  marked  ethical  significance  given  to  the 
term  '  flesh.'  Nor  is  it  the  only  term  of  its  kind 
used  to  denominate  the  evil  jirinciple  in  man's 
nature  as  now  under  sin.  '  The  old  man,' '  the  body 
of  sin,'  'the  body  of  the  Hesh,'  'the  law  in  the 
members,' '  our  members  which  are  upon  earth,'  are 
kindred  expressions,  more  or  less  closely  denoting 
the  same  thing,  although  '  the  Hesh,'  in  its  counter- 
poise to  'the  mind'  and  to  'the  sjiirit'  respec- 
tively, is  the  leading  expression  (Ko  7'^  8",  Gal  a"). 
*  Compare  ib,  Qt^  ^Bxfrot  ykf  r«u«  ^ufuru  'i't/x^'. 


How  is  it,  then,  that  this  term  'flesh,'  properly 
denoting  the  lower,  corporeal  or  physical  element 
in  human  nature,  should  come  to  denote  the  being 
of  sin  in  that  nature  ?  Is  it  because  this  phj'sical 
element  is  the  main  seat,  or  the  original  source  of 
evU  in  man?  But,  according  to  St.  Paul,  it  is  not 
in  the  physical  alone  that  sin  has  its  seat.  There 
are  sintul  desires  of  the  mind  as  well  as  of  the  Hesh 
(Eph  2^).  There  is  defilement  of  '  the  spirit'  (2  Co 
7')-  There  are  works  called  '  of  the  flesh  '  whicli 
have  nothing  to  do  with  sensuality,  e.g.  hatreds, 
variance,  emulation,  wraths,  factions,  divisions, 
heresies  (Gal  5-",  ICoS'-*).  The  apostle  calls  by 
the  name  of  'floshlj'  wisdom'  what  was  evidently 
speculative  tenden<  y  derived  from  the  Greek  schools 
(2  Co  1'-).  There  were  heretics  at  Colossoe  whose 
ruling  impulse  he  calls  their  '  fleshly  mind,'  though 
they  were  extreme  ascetics,  attached  to  some  form 
of  Gnosticism  (Col  2'»-  "■  ■•"■  ^). 

It  might  indeed  be  maintained  that  if  we  assume 
the  physical  nature  in  man  to  be  the  source  of  evil 
in  him,  it  would  be  easy  to  explain  how  the  whole 
man  under  that  influence  should  be  ciilled  'the 
flesh  '  or  'the  bod}' of  sin.'  Btit  this  assumption 
will  not  tally  with  the  treatment  of  man's  bodily 
nature  in  these  writings.  Any  view  implying  the 
inherent  evil  of  matter  is  radically  opposed  to  the 
whole  Bible  philo.sophy.  It  is  as  ojiposed  to  the 
Scripture  account  of  its  beginning  in  the  race,  as  it 
is  to  our  experience  of  its  first  outbreak  in  the  in- 
dividual. In  Genesis  the  first  sin  is  represented  as 
the  consequence  of  a  primary  rebellion  against 
God.  The  earliest  manifestations  of  evil  in  chil- 
dren are  selfishness,  anger,  and  self-will.  Again, 
that  the  corporeal  nature  is  necessarily  at  strife 
with  the  s])iritual,  is  a  view  which  cannot  be  recon- 
ciled with  the  claims  made  upon  '  the  body '  in  tho 
Christian  system.  Throughout  St.  Paul's  Epistles, 
Christians  are  enjoined  'to  yield  their  mcnil  i  s 
instruments  of  righteousness  unto  God'  (Ro  6"),  to 
'  present  their  bodies  a  living  sacrifice'  (Ro  12'),  to 
regard  their  bodies  as  'members  of  Christ,'  and  as 
'the  temple  of  the  Holy  Ghost'  (1  Co  C"-"*) ;  that 
the  body  is  for  the  Lord,  and  the  Lord  for  the  body 
(1  Co  6'").  Still  more  impossible  is  it  to  reconcile 
with  such  a  view  the  Christian  revelation  concern- 
ing the  future  of  the  redeemed,  and  the  consumma- 
tion of  redemption.  If  sin  were  the  inevitable 
outcome  of  man's  possession  of  a  bodj',  redemption 
ou";ht  to  culminate  in  his  deliverance  from  the 
body,  instead  of  in  its  change  and  restoration  to  a 
higher  form  (Ph  S^').  To  say  that  the  matter  of 
the  body  is,  or  contains,  the  princi]ile  of  sin,  and 
then  to  say,  as  St.  Paul  does  (Ilo  8"),  that  the  last 
result  of  the  Redeemer's  Sjiirit  indwelling  in  us 
shall  be  to  quicken  these  mortal  bodies,  would  be 
flat  self-contradiction.  But  the  view  which  con- 
nects sin  with  the  material  body  is  neither  Hebrew 
nor  Christian.  It  is  essentially  alien  to  the  whole 
spirit  of  revelation.  No  dou\it,  at  a  very  early 
period  in  Christian  history,  chiefly  through  the 
influence  of  the  Greek  and  some  of  the  Latin 
Fathers,  it  obtained  such  hold  of  Christian  thought 
that  it  continues  to  colour  popular  modes  of  con- 
ception and  speech  to  the  present  day.  One  of  the 
most  obvious  examples  is  that  men  imn^ne  they 
are  uttering  a  scrijitural  sentiment  when  they  spcalc 
of  welcoming  death  as  the  liberation  of  the  soul 
from  the  body.  Yet  the  idea  of  St.  Paul  is  exactly 
the  reverse,  when  he  declares  that  even  tiio  re- 
deemed, who  have  the  first-fruits  of  the  Spirit, 
^roan  within  themselves  waiting  for  the  adoption. 
I.e.  for  tho  redemption  of  their  body  (Ro  8^).  Two 
additional  reasons  why  the  apostle  cannot  be  held 
as  tracing  man's  evil  to  the  corporeal  element,  may 
be  summed  uj)  in  tho  words  of  .lulius  Mliller  :  '  He 
denies  the  presence  of  evil  in  Christ  who  was  par- 
taker of  our  fleshly  nature,  and  he  recognizes  iti 


166 


PSYCHOLOGY 


PSYCHOLOGY 


presence  in  spirits,  who  are  not  partakers  thereof. 
Is  it  not,  tlierefore,  in  the  highest  dep'ee  probable 
tliat,  accordin<r  to  him,  evil  does  not  necessarily 
pertain  to  man  s  sensuous  nature,  that  jarx  denotes 
Boraetliing  different  from  this?'  {I.e.  i.  321). 

Taking,  then,  the  two  meanings  of  the  term 
'  flesh,'  we  note  how  impossible  it  is,  in  a  way  of 
mere  ratiocination,  to  develop  the  one  out  of  the 
other.  The  attempt  to  get  the  ethical  significance 
which  St.  Paul  gives  to  it  (lut  of  the  elementary 
Hebrew  conception  of  the  perishable  or  earthly  part 
of  man,  signally  fails.  It  leaves  out  the  clearly 
biblical  account  of  the  change  in  human  nature 
caused  by  the  Fall.  It  is  quite  inadequate  to  ex- 
plain how  selfishness,  wrath,  pride,  and  other  non- 
tleshlv  sins,  bear  prominently  the  name  '  works  of 
the  flesh.'  To  assert,  for  instance,  that  sarx 
from  its  prinuiry  meanin",  'living  material  of  the 
body,'  came  by  a  natural  process  of  thought  and 
language  to  mean  'the  principle  of  sin,'  is  to 
assume  human  nature  to  be  subject  to  sin  by  its 
physical  constitution  —  a  view  wholly  untenable, 
because  at  variance  with  the  most  radical  con- 
ception of  the  Bible  from  its  earliest  to  its  latest 
writings. 

Yet  there  must  be  some  connexion  between  the 
two  ideas.  Otherwise  we  fall  into  mere  tautology, 
and  oljtain  the  profound  conclusion  that '  the  flesh ' 
is  sinful  human  nature.  If  '  the  flesli'  be  nothing 
else  than  just  this  condition  of  h\iman  nature  which 
is  to  be  explained,  then  the  whole  of  St.  Paul's 
subtle  and  acute  deduction  would  be  '  nothing  but 
the  most  wretched  argument  in  a  circle '  (Pfleiderer). 
Now,  it  is  quite  certain  the  apostle  means  to  posit 
a  principle  of  sin  in  man,  '  the  sin  that  dwelleth  in 
me,'  '  the  law  in  my  members.'  It  is  further  clear 
that  the  law  or  princijde  of  sin  is  one  thing,  and 
tliat  the  flesh,  or  native  constitution  of  man  in  which 
it  inheres,  is  another.  It  is  certain  that  the  sacred 
writer  as  little  develops  the  principle  of  sin  out 
of  the  mere  physical  flesh,  as  he  identihes  the 
one  with  the  other.  It  is  impossible  to  deny  a 
very  pointed  reference  to  the  lower  element  of 
human  nature  in  this  important  kej'-word  of  the 
Pauline  theology.  But  what  misleads  is  the  sup- 
position that  the  lower  and  higher  elements  in 
man  were  conceived  of  by  St.  Paul  as  they  were  by 
the  Greeks  or  are  by  ourselves  ;  that  the  antithesis, 
material  and  immaterial,  is  at  the  basis  of  tlie  dis- 
tinction. So  long  as  this  idea  prevails,  it  will  be 
impossible  to  get  rid  of  the  suspicion  that  in  '  the 
flesh '  of  the  Pauline  Epistles  we  have  somethin" 
wliicli  connects  sin  essentially  with  the  material 
element  in  man's  constitution.  Let  us  get  rid  of 
this  idea.  Substitute  for  it  the  proper  biblical 
antithesis,  —  earthly  and  heavenly,  natural  and 
supernatural,  that  'flesh'  is  what  nature  evolves 
(this  term  being  understood,  of  course,  in  a  theistic 
.sense),  'spirit'  what  God  in  His  grace  bestows, — 
then  we  can  see  how  the  idea  of  '  flesh,'  even  when 
ethically  inteTisilied  to  the  utmost,  is  ajipreciably 
distinct  from  tlie  notion  of  evil  necessarily  resident 
in  matter.  The  great  saying  of  our  Lord  in  Jn  3" 
is  probably  the  source  of  apostolic  doctrine  on  the 
point:  'That  which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh.' 
'  Flesh '  has  become  the  proper  designation  of  the 
race  as  self-evolved  and  self-continued.  Human 
nature  as  now  constituted  can  produce  nothing  but 
its  like,  and  that  like  is  now  sinful.  '  Flesh,' 
therefore,  may  be  appropriately  used  for  the  prin- 
ciple of  corrupt  nature  in  the  individual,  for  the 
obvious  reason  that  it  is  in  the  course  of  the  flesh, 
or,  of  the  ordinary  production  of  human  nature, 
that  the  evil  principle  invariably  originates.  Thus 
the  phrase  is  some  explanation  of  the  condition  of 
man  s  nature,  which  it  describes.  It  is  no  objection 
to  this  view,  but  rather  a  conflrmation  of  its  cor- 
'ectness,  that  it  grounds  the  Pauline  use  of  sarx 


on  the  underlying  doctrine  of  hereditary  corruption. 
'  Flesh  '  is  that  through  which  man  in  his  natural 
state  is  descended  from  a  sinful  race  and  inherits  a 
sinful  nature,  and  the  term  is  used  to  denote  that 
nature.  On  the  other  hand,  '  spirit '  is  that  through 
which  and  in  which  God  implants  the  new  Divine 
life  of  holiness,  and  the  term  therefore  is  used  to 
denote  that  life.     See  Fle.SH. 

Soul  and  Spirit. — Let  us  now  direct  our  atten- 
tion to  wh.at  is  usually  considered  the  crux  of  our 
topic,  and  which,  from  the  exaggerated  use  made 
of  it  by  some  writers,  has  led  others  to  explode  or 
reject  biblical  psychology  altogether.  The  ques- 
tion raised  is  whether  the  Scripture  makes  a 
tenable  and  consistent  distinction  between  soul 
and  spirit.  This  is  the  real  question  which  under- 
lies that  of  the  so-called  trichotomy  of  the  Bible. 
Does  the  Bible  conceive  of  human  nature  as  three- 
fold, as  made  up  of  body,  soul,  and  spirit  ?  The 
only  relevant  question  is  the  one  above  stated. 
In  what  sense  and  to  what  extent  does  the  Bible 
recognize  a  distinction  between  soul  and  spirit^. 
A  large  number,  probably  a  majority,  of  exegetes 
have  been  in  the  habit  of  concluding  that  tliere 
is  no  real  distinction,  that  the  terms  are  synony- 
mous, or  at  least  interchangeable,  and  that  nothing 
can  be  asserted  beyond  a  shadowy,  poetic  distinc- 
tion which  enables  the  sacred  writers  to  employ 
them  in  parallelism.  But  when  we  face  the  facts 
we  are  forced  to  a  dift'erent  conclusion.  In  the 
Pauline  Epistles  it  is  undoubted  that  a  real  dis- 
tinction is  asserted.  The  natural  or  unconverted 
man  is  said  to  be  soulish,  the  renewed  man  spiritual 
(i/'DXikis,  TTfec^aTuis,  1  Co  2''- "  ;  cf.  Jude'*  yj/vx^Kol, 
TTneP/xa  ixT]  Ix""'''^^)-  Again,  St.  Paul  asserts  that 
the  body  which  all  men  carry  to  the  grave  is 
soulish,  but  the  body  of  the  resurrection  is  spiritual 
{tpvxiKti>',  TTPeviiaTiKdv,  1  Co  15") ;  that  the  first  man 
was  made  a  living  soul,  the  last  Adam  a  quicken- 
ing spirit  (v.").  The  distinction  of  the  adjectives 
is  repeated  in  v.''". 

Now,  a  fact  of  this  sort  emerging  in  such  decisive 
and  culminating  passages  of  St.  I'aul's  writings 
compels  us  to  reconsider  the  usage.  If  we  adhere 
rigidly  to  the  conventional  idea  that  there  is  no 
real  distinction  in  the  terms  '  soul '  and  '  spirit ' 
beyond  that  of  pjarallelism,  we  must  go  on  to  hold 
St.  Paul  to  have  introduced,  in  important  passages 
of  his  writings,  an  arbitrary  and  baseless  antithesis. 
For  this  we  are  certainly  not  prepared,  and  are 
thrown  back  upon  the  conclusion,  which  has  great 
and  growing  probability  in  its  favour,  that  from 
OT  usage  there  was  real  distinction  latent  in  the 
employment  by  biblical  writers  of  the  terms  soul 
and  spirit,  which  distinction  was  recognized  and 
emphasized  in  these  leading  passages  of  St.  Paul. 
What  the  distinction  is,  it  may  not  be  easj'  to 
determine  with  precision.  Precision  is  perhaps 
not  present  in  the  case  at  all.  But  there  can 
remain  little  doubt  in  the  mind  of  a  careful  reader 
of  Scripture  that  a  distinction  makes  itself  felt 
from  the  first  and  throughout.  Even  in  the 
relation  of  both  terms  to  physical  life  the  dis- 
tinction is  felt.  To  this  hiMx  pneuma  a,n<i  psiiclu!, 
like  ruah  and  ncphesh,  of  which  they  are  the  Greek 
equivalents,  originally  belong,  ycphcsh  is  tho 
subject  or  bearer  of  life,  riiah  is  the  principle  of 
life  ;  so  that  in  all  OT  references  to  the  origin  of 
living  beings  we  can  distinguish  nephcsh  as  life 
constituted  in  the  creature,  from  ruah,  as  life 
bestowed  by  the  Creator. 

No  doubt,  the  '  life '  indicated  by  these  terms  is 
that  of  man  and  tho  lower  animals  alike.  A 
'  living  soul '  is  a  living  creature  in  general,  or  an 
animated  being.  It  is  used  in  Gn  P"-^"  in  a  wide 
sense  of  creatures  that  have  life,  and  the  same 
expression  is  used  in  Gn  2'  to  denote  the  result, 
even  in  man,  of  the  Divine  creative  brrath.     So, 


PSYCHOLOGY 


PSYCHOLOGY 


167 


also,  riah  and  its  kimlred  term  nc^liumah  are  ii?ed 
for  tlie  principle  ot  lite,  in  man  and  brute  alike. 
It  is  tlie  '  rUshdmah  of  life '  that  makes  man  a  living 
soul  (/.'".)•  It  is  the  'rii«/tof  life'  that  animates 
all  creatures  threatened  by  the  I'lood  (6"),  and  all 
those  which  entered  into  the  ark  (7").  It  is  the 
nishmath-ruah  of  life  those  had  which  perished 
in  the  waters  (7-").  These  passages  prove  that  no 
distinction  is  made  between  the  life-principle  in 
animals  generally  and  in  man. 

But,  what  is  of  more  im])ortance,  they  call 
attention  to  a  usage  which  is  practically  uniform 
of  putting  'spirit'  (ri'ia/t  or  nashdmah)  for  the 
animating  principle,  and  'soul'  or  'living  soul' 
(nepliciU  /I'li/i/ah)  for  the  animated  result.  This 
primary  distinction  of  the  two  terms,  when  applied 
to  phj-.sical  life,  has  passed  over  from  the  Hebrew 
of  the  or  to  their  Greek  equivalents  in  the  NT, 
and  suggests  a  reason  for  their  respective  employ- 
ment, even  when  the  meaning  goes  bej'ond  tlie 
merely  physical.  \i pnyche  thus  means  the  entire 
being  as  a  constituted  life,  we  can  see  why  it  is 
used  in  such  a  connexion  as  that  of  Jn  10"  '  He 
giveth  his  life  for  the  sheep '  (psyche,  not  zoe,  nor 
pneuma).  If  pncuma  is  the  life-i)rinciple,  we  see 
the  propriety  of  its  use  in  Jn  lO*"  '  He  "ave  up  the 
ghost '  {pncuma).  When  we  pass  from  tliis  primary 
application  of  the  two  terms  to  a  liigher,  in  which 
thej-  refer  not  to  ph}-.sieal  life  alone,  but  also  to 
the  lite  of  the  mind,  both  terras  denote  almost 
indillerently  the  inner  nature.  For  this  purpose 
they  are  used  throughout  tlie  OT  and  generally 
even  in  the  NT  with  no  sharp  distinction,  but 
freely  interchanged  and  combined.  As,  for  in- 
stance, when  each  is  used  alone,  'Why  is  thy 
Kpirit  so  sad  ? '  '  Why  art  thou  cast  down,  my 
i>oul?'{l  K  2P,  Ps  42");  'Jesus  was  troubled  in 
spirit ' ;  '  My  soul  is  e.\ceeding  sorrowful '  (Jn  13-', 
Mt  20^) ;  '  To  destroj'  both  soul  (psi/che)  and  body '  ; 
'  The  body  without  the  spirit  (pneuma)  is  dead '  (Mt 
KF*,  .)a  '2-').  Or,  again,  when  the  two  terms  occur 
together,  in  the  manner  of  other  terms  of  Hebrew 
poetry,  '  With  my  soul  (neplicsh)  have  I  desired 
thee  in  the  night ;  yea,  with  my  spirit  (riia/*)  within 
me  will  I  seek  thee  early '  (Is  20") ;  '  My  HO\i\(psyche) 
duth  magnify  the  Lord,  and  my  spirit  (pneuma) 
hath  rejoiced  in  God  my  Saviour'  (Lk  l*'- ") ; 
'Stand  fast  in  one  spirit  (pneuma),  with  one  soul 
(psyclie)  striving  for  the  faith  of  the  gospel'  (Ph  1-'' 
K\  ).  Tlie.se  last  quoted  passages  prove  it  iiuite 
impossible  to  hold  that  'spirit  can  mean  exclu- 
sively or  mainly  the  Godward  side  of  man's  inner 
nature,  and  '  soul '  the  rational  or  earthward. 
The  terms  are  parallel,  or  practically  equivalent 
expres.sion8  for  the  inner  lile  a-s  contrasted  with 
the  outer  or  bodily  life.  The  whole  usage  makes 
for  the  ordinary  bipartite  view  of  human  nature, 
and  not  at  all  for  any  tripartite  theory.  No 
doubt,  however,  the  underlying  distinction  found 
in  the  primary  or  physical  application  of  the 
terms  gives  propriety  to  their  usage  all  through  ; 
and,  when  lirmly  grasped,  prepares  us  to  under- 
stand the  expanded  meaning  which  they  receive 
in  the  later  .Scriptures. 

-\ll  thro\igh  Scripture  'spirit'  denotes  life  as 
coming  from  God,  '.soul'  denotes  life  as  consti- 
tiiled  in  the  man.  Consequently,  when  the  indi- 
vidual life  is  to  be  made  emphatic,  'soul '  is  used. 
'Souls'  in  Scripture  freely  denotes  persons.  My 
'soul'  13  the  Lgo,  the  self,  and  when  used  like 
'heart'  for  the  inner  man,  and  even  for  the 
feelings,  has  reference  always  to  special  individu- 
ality. On  the  other  hand,  'siiirit' — seldom  or 
never  ii.sed  to  denote  the  individual  human  being 
in  this  life — is  primarily  that  imparted  power  by 
which  the  individual  lives.  It  lilly  denotes,  there- 
fore, when  used  as  a  i)sycliological  term,  the  inner- 
most of  the  inner  life,  the  higher  aspect  of  the  self 


or  personality.  Thus  the  two  terms  are  used,  ovef 
the  breadth  of  Scripture,  as  parallel  expressions 
for  the  inner  life.  The  inner  nature  is  '  soul ' 
according  to  its  special  individual  life ;  it  is 
'  spirit '  according  to  the  life  -  power  whence  it 
derives  its  special  cliaracter.  The  double  phrase 
'soul  and  spirit'  presents  the  man  in  two  aspects 
as  his  life  is  viewed  from  two  different  points. 

So  much  for  the  use  of  the  two  words  in  the 
Scripture  at  large.  But  when  we  come  to  certain 
NT  writings  —  mainly  though  not  exclusively 
Pauline — a  still  more  definite  meaning  has  set  in. 
The  adjective  'psychic' or 'soulish '  has  taken  a 
force  not  percept  ilile  in  its  root-word.  It  has 
become  almost  eiiuivalent  to  '  carnal.'  In  Ja  .3'°  a 
wisdom  is  spoken  of  which  is  '  earthly,  soulish 
(RV  sensual),  devilish.'  Of  certain  predicted 
opponents  of  the  gospel,  it  is  said  (Jude'")  that 
'  they  are  soulish  (A  v  and  RV  sensual  ;  RVni 
natural  or  animal),  not  having  the  Sjiirit.'  St. 
Paul  terms  the  unregenerate  who  cannot  discern 
the  things  of  the  spirit  of  God  a  '  soulish '  man 
(1  Co  2''').  The  body  which  we  wear  at  present — 
'the  body  of  our  humiliation'  (Ph  .3-')  —  is  a 
'  soulish  '  body,  and  shall  be  sown  in  the  grave  aa 
such  (1  Co  lo""").  The  corre.spondin"  adjective 
'  i)neumatic '  or  '  spiritual '  has  now  tiUcen  on,  in 
the  parallel  passages,  a  religious  sense,  and  de- 
niitcs  what  belongs  to  t,\\e  pneuma  in  tliat  sense, 
viz.  that  which  is  derived  from  the  spirit  of  God — 
the  spirit  of  the  regenerate  life.  It  is  plain  tli.at 
if  we  would  not  accuse  these  NT  writers — especially 
St.  Paul  —  of  introducing  groundless  distinctions, 
we  are  drawn  to  admit  a  real  dillerence  of  the 
terms  from  the  first,  in  the  general  or  wider  sense 
already  described.* 

Spirit. — On  a  closely  similar  line  of  e.xegetical 
investigation  we  explain  the  Scripture  use  of  this 
term.  It  is  an  entirely  original  biblical  term  for 
the  highest  aspect  of  man's  life.  It  is  almost 
inseparable  from  the  idea  of  man's  relation  to  God, 
whether  in  creation  or  in  redemption.  All  through 
the  OT  it  is  the  supreme  term  for  human  life. 
God  is  spirit,  and  man  has  spirit.  '  The  sjjirit 
returns  to  God  who  gave  it'  (Ee  12').  In  this 
way  the  psychology  of  the  Bible  is  distinguished 
from  all  ethnic  system.s.  In  this  it  stands  entirely 
alone,  and  is  thoroughly  consistent  with  itself 
from  first  to  last.  '  Spirit'  is  not  so  used  by  Plato, 
by  Philo,  by  the  earlier  Stoics,  by  Plotinus  and 
the  Neo- Platonists,  nor  indeed  anywhere  out  of 
the  circle  of  Bible  thought.  It  denotes  the  direct 
dependence  of  man  upon  God.  The  peculiarly 
biblical  idea  is  the  attribution  to  man,  as  the 
highest  in  him,  of  that  which  is  common  to  man 
with  God.  'Spirit'  is  the  God-given  princiido  of 
man's  life,  physical,  mental,  and  spiritual.  Where 
modem  analysis  imports  a  false  element  into  it,  is 
when  an  attempt  is  made  to  represent  jri-eD/ia  as  a 
separable  constituent  of  man's  being,  as  .something 
which  can  be  wanting,  dead,  or  dormant  on  the 
one  hand,  restored  or  conlirmed  on  the  other. 
Indeed  the  whole  character  of  the  Bible  psychology 
is  mistaken  in  such  attempts  to  distinguish  spirit, 
soul,  heart,  and  the  like  as  seiiarale  faculties. 
They  are  diverse  a.spects  of  one  indivisible  inner  life. 

When  we  come  to  the  Pauline  writings,  and 
those  associated  with  them  in  the  NT,  we  lind  that 
a  certain  improvement  or  addition  to  the  force  of 
this  term  has  come  in  ;  yet  one  comjiletely  in 
harmony  with  its  original  meaning.  That  in  man 
which  IS  '  spiritual '  is,  frankly  and  fully,  that 
which  is  inlluenced  by  the  spirit  of  God — by  the 
new  spirit  of  regener.ation.  'Spirit'  is  more 
entirely  used  of  the  renewed  man,  though  there  is 
still  a  clear  and  appreciable  distinction  maintained 

*  See  this  discussed  in  ch.  v.  of  the  present  writer**  DittU 
Doctrine  n/  itan,  Edin.  1600. 


168 


PSYCHOLOGY 


PSYCHOLOGY 


between  the  two.  'The  Spirit  itself  beareth  wit- 
ness with  our  spirit  that  we  are  the  ohihlren  of 
God'  (Ko  S'").  Vet  so  almost  eoaiiilute  is  the 
identilication,  that  our  translators  find  it  dilficult 
— tlirouyhout  tlie  Epistles — to  determine  wliere 
the  term  spirit  should  be  distinguished  by  a  capital 
letter.  The  advance  consists  in  the  fact  that, 
whereas  from  the  lirst,  man's  life  is  dignified  as 
the  direct  inbreatliing  of  the  Almightj', — ncslidmah 
or  riiuh  from  tlod, — his  new  life  is  now  signalized 
by  a  term  identical  with  that  bestowed  on  the 
Third  Person  of  the  Holy  Trinity.  It  is  one  of 
tlie  central  doctrines  of  Christianity  concerning 
the  tlieanthrupic  person  of  the  Son,  that,  as  head 
of  tlie  new  humanity,  He  becomes  a  life  -  giving 
vftvixa  —  a  (juickening  spirit.  At  every  point  in 
the  unfolding  of  the  Bible  anthropology  this 
doctrine  of  the  pneuma  in  man  will  be  found 
distinctive.  It  forms  a  central  element  in  the 
Divine  Image  in  which  he  was  created,  and  at  the 
climax  of  redemption  it  is  the  approi)riate  designa- 
tion of  the  man  as  renewed  in  Christ.    See  Spirit. 

Heart  is  a  term  used  with  much  clearness  and 
consistency  throughout  Scripture,  for  the  inner, 
the  real,  the  hidden  and  ruling  element  in  man's 
nature.  Translated  into  modem  language  it 
denotes,  in  one  of  its  most  frequent  applications, 
'principles  of  action.'  It  is  always  suthciently 
distinguished  from  Being  or  Personality.  From 
the  first  it  is  said  that  '  every  imagination  of  the 
thoughts  of  man's  heart  is  evil '  (Gn  6^),  i.e.  his 
'  principles  of  action '  are  gone  wrong,  but  it  is 
never  said  that  the  personality  is  corrupt  or  de- 
stroyed. Again,  it  is  the  great  promise  of  restora- 
tion, 'a  new  heart  also  will  I  give  you,  and  a  new 
spirit  will  I  put  within  you'  (Ezk  36'-'^),  i.e.  new 
principles  will  be  implanted  ;  yet  it  is  not  another 
or  a  dillerent  personality  that  is  given.  There  is 
not  such  a  sharp  distinction  in  Biljle  speech  as  that 
which  we  have  introduced  into  modern  language 
between  the  h':ad  and  the  heart.  Tliere  is  no 
marked  separation  of  the  rational  and  intellectual 
elements  in  man's  nature  from  the  emotional  or 
volitional.  Althoujjh  there  is,  to  some  e.xtent,  a 
distinction  of  this  Kind  between  35'?  and  b';j,  all 
inward  elements  of  whatever  sort  may  be  included 
\inder  heart:  even  such  as  good  judgment  and 
clear  perception  are,  at  least  in  the  UT,  lonsidered 
as  qualities  of  heart.  In  the  writings  of  the  older 
apostles  the  OT  idea  of  '  heart'  is  still  the  ruling 
one.  Indeed,  in  these  NT  writings  the  Greek 
terms  for  the  intellectual  life  of  man  are  used  for 
the  more  general  OT  terms  '  Heart,'  '  Soul,'  and 
the  like,  without  any  precision  whatever.  Thus 
the  LXX,  on  occasion  {e.r/.  Dt  6°,  B),  uses  Sidroia  for 
Ifbhdhh.  St.  Mark  (12-'^)  uses  aiveai^  for  nephcxh. 
St.  Luke  introduces  Jidi/oia  along  with  KapSla,  'pi/X'^t 
und  CirxiJs  {10'").     See  HEART. 

It  is  plain,  however,  that  in  the  writings  of  St. 
I'aul  and  those  allied  to  him,  these  Greek  expres- 
sions for  the  intellectual  elements  in  man  liave 
acquired  more  place,  although  no  very  marked 
precision.  In  especial,  St.  Paul  has  a  firm  con- 
ception of  MlNl>  (i-oiis)  as  the  highest  expression 
for  man's  mental  or  intellectual  faculty,  as  that 
which  in  man,  under  grace,  is  appealed  to  by  the 
Divine  law  (Ko  T'^-'"'),  and  as  that,  on  the  other 
hand,  which  is  to  be  distingtiished  from  the 
nj/latus  01  influence  upon  him  of  the  supernatural 
(i  Co  14"- ").  Then  there  is  introduced  in  these 
writing  a  free  use  of  the  similar  and  related 
terms  in  which  the  Greek  language  was  so  rich, 
<rvi'e<n^  understanding,  \670!  reason,  Sia\cryt<rii6t 
reasoning,  yoij/noTa  thinkings,  (ppifrj/j.a  minding  or 
disposition,  but  scarcely  any  one  of  these  used 
with  strictness  or  accuracy.     See  MiND. 

The  one  instance  in  which  a  Greek  term  of  this 
character  is  introdnced  and  adhered   to   in   the 


NT,  is  ffi'i-a'Sijiris  or  conscience.  It  is  cnee  used 
by  the  LXX  in  the  OT  (Ec  UP),  where  it  is  also 
introduced  liy  our  translators  on  the  margin,  but 
obviously  rather  with  the  moaning  'consciousness' 
than  'conscience.'  The  force  of  it  in  Wis  17"  ('a 
witness  within,'  RV)  is  more  nearly  our  own.  To 
trace  the  advance  of  the  term  from  its  literal 
meaning  of  'self-consciousness'  to  ils  full  ethical 
import,  would  take  us  outside  of  biblical  matter 
altogether.  Its  clear  and  full  recognition  in 
pagan  literature  is  significant.  Lightfoot  speaka 
in  somewhat  strong  terms  of  this  word  as  the 
'crowning  triumph  of  ethical  nomenclature,' 
which  '  if  not  struck  in  the  mint  ;of  the  Stoics, 
at  all  events  became  current  coin  through  tlieii 
influence.'  He  cites  it  as  a  special  instance  of 
'  the  extent  to  which  Stoic  philosophy  had  leavened 
the  moral  vocabulary  of  the  civilized  world  at  the 
time  of  the  Christian  era.'  Now  its  use  in  the  NT 
precisely  corresponds  to  this  estimate.  It  does  not 
occur  in  the  Gospels  except  in  Jn  8',  a  passage 
which  the  best  scholarship  does  not  hold  to  be 
genuine.  It  occurs  twice  in  the  addresses  of  St. 
Paul  recorded  in  Acts ;  plentifully  in  the  Epistles 
of  Paul  and  of  Peter  and  in  the  Ejiistle  to  the 
Hebrews,  and  in  all  these  places  its  force  is  equi- 
valent to  that  which  it  still  bears  in  modern  speech. 
Were  we  to  bring  it  into  line  with  the  older 
biblical  usage,  it  might  be  reckoned  a  function  of 
TTfei'/ia  so  far  as  it  signifies  'self-consciousness'; 
and  of  Kapdia  >\hen  regarded  as  moral  approval  or 
disapproval.  In  confirmation  of  this  it  is  to  be 
noted  that  St.  John  u.ses  KapSla  (1  Jn  3""-')  in  a 
conne.xion  where  St.  Paul  would  have  used  fovs  or 
iri'rffSijffis.  The  use  of  conscience,  however,  is  so 
definite  and  consistent  as  to  force  us  to  the  con- 
clusion that  it  was  introduced  into  the  NT  as  a 
full-fledged  idea.     See  CONSCIENCE. 

The  .system  of  thought  thus  sketched  belongs 
essentially  to  the  OT.  It  is  what  Continental 
writers  call  a  'psychology  of  the  Hebrews.'  In 
our  outline,  this  fact  is  rather  concealed  by  the 
almost  disproportionate  attention  given  to  the 
important  modifications  made  on  it  by  the  Apostle 
Paul.  But  the  system  itself  is  the  ruling  one, 
not  only  tliroughout  the  OT  but  in  the  writings 
of  the  older  apostles  in  the  NT.  The  Greek  terms 
supplied  by  the  Septuagint  are  taken  up  in  their 
01  meanings,  ami  from  these  the  writers  seldom 
or  never  depart.  The  leading  psychological  notions 
are  those  attached  to  the  simple  terms  spirit,  soul, 
flesh,  heart.  These  four  are  the  vores  .si(jnatce  of 
the  entire  Scripture  view  of  man's  nature  and  con- 
stitution. They  are  all  grouped  round  the  idea  of 
life,  or  of  a  living  being.  The  first  two — soul  and 
spirit — represent  in  ditlcrent  ways,  or,  from  dillerent 
points  of  view,  the  life  itself.  The  last  two — flesh 
and  heart  —  denote  respectively  the  life-environ- 
ment and  the  life-org.an, — the  former,  that  in  which 
life  inheres  ;  the  latter,  that  through  which  it  acts. 
So  much  for  their  simjile  and  primary  meaning. 
In  their  secondary  meaning  they  are  groujied  as 
follows :  spirit,  soul,  flesh  are  ex^iressions  for 
man's  whole  nature  viewed  from  dillerent  points. 
They  are  not  three  natures.  Man's  one  nature 
is  really  expressed  by  each  of  them,  so  that  each 
alone  may  liesignate  the  human  being.  Thus  man 
\s  flesh  as  an  embodied  perishable  creature.  'All 
flesh  is  grass,  and  all  the  goodliness  thereof  as  the 
flower  of  the  field'  (Is  40").  Man  again  is  »■««/,  as 
a  living  being,  an  individual  responsible  creature, 
'All  souls  are  mine'  (Ezk  18*).  Once  more,  man 
is  spirit.  More  commonly,  however,  he  is  said  to 
have  or  possess  '  spirit  as  his  life  -  principle. 
'Heart'  stands  outside  this  triad,  because  man  is 
never  called  a  'hcu','  or  men  collectively  spoken 
of  as  '  hearts.'  '  Heart '  never  denotes  the  personal 
subject,  but  always  the  organ  of  the  personality. 


PSYCHOLOGY 


PTOLEMAIS 


1C9 


Again,  the  four  terms  may  he  thus  jjrouped  : 
'sjiiiil,'  'soul,'  'heart'  may  be  used  to  denote, 
eaih  of  them,  one  side  ot  man's  doulde-sided 
nature,  viz.  his  inner  or  higher  life.  Over 
a^'ainst  any  one  of  these  may  stand  '  flesh ' ;  as 
representing  his  nature  on  its  outer  or  lower  side, 
so  that  the  combination  will  express  in  familiar 
duality  the  whole  of  man  as  '  tiesh  and  spirit,' 
'  Hesh  and  soul,'  or  '  flesh  and  lieart.'  The  two 
latter  combinations  are  the  ruling  ones  in  the  OT. 
Thus  '  soul '  and  '  Mesh  '  occur.  '  My  soul  thirsteth 
for  tliee,  and  my  Hesh  longeth  for  thee'  (I's  63'). 
'My  flesh  in  my  teeth,  and  my  life  (soul)  in  my 
hanil'  (Job  13").  'His  flesh  hath  pain,  and  liis 
soul  mourneth  '  (Job  H'").  A  land  entirelj'  stripped 
of  itj*  trees  and  of  its  crops  is  said  be  'consumed 
soul  and  body'  (Is  10"  Heb.  'from  the  soul  and 
even  to  the  flesh').  Equally  characteristic  is  the 
conjunction  of  'flesh'  with  'heart'  for  the  whole 
human  being.  Aliens  wholly  unht  for  God's  ser- 
vice are  described  as  '  uncircmncised  in  heart  and 
flesh'  (Ezk  44"-').  The  man  whose  whole  being 
is  given  to  pleasure  '  searches  in  his  heart  how  to 
cheer  his  flesh '  (Ec  2'  liV).  '  Remove  sorrow  from 
thy  heart  and  put  awaj'  evil  from  thy  flesh '  ( Ec 
11'").  T\\e  summum  Imnum  of  human  life  is  when 
a  'sound  heart  is  the  life  of  the  flesh'  (Pr  14^),  an 
expression  which  reminds  one  of  the  classic  jnens 
Sana  in  carport  sano.  This  dualism  of  the  OT  is 
clinched  in  the  memorable  description  of  its  final 
form,  when  'the  dust  returns  to  the  earth  aa  it 
was,  and  the  spirit  to  Uod  who  gave  it'  (Ec  12'). 

The  distribution  of  jiarts,  however,  is  not  in- 
variably or  rigidly  dualistic.  For  along  with  such 
aa  those  now  quoted  we  have  also  various  trinal 
phrases,  e.(t.  '  ily  soul  longeth  .  .  .  for  the  courts 
of  the  Lord  ;  my  heart  and  my  flesh  crieth  out  unto 
the  living  God  (Fa  84^).  'My  heart  is  glad  and 
my  glory  rejoiceth,  my  flesh  also  dwelleth  in 
safety  '  (I's  10").  '  Mine  eve  is  consumed  with  grief, 
yea,  my  soul  and  my  belly'  (HV  'body,'  Ps  31"). 
Yet,  dual  or  trinal  though  the  terras  may  be,  the 
intention  is  essentially  bipartite,  viz.  to  express 
in  man  the  inner  and  the  outer,  the  higher  and  the 
lower,  the  animating  and  the  animated  all  restinj? 
upon  the  iirimal  contrast  of  what  is  earth-derived 
with  what  is  God-inbreathed. 

Such  is  a  condensed  account  of  the  Bible  treat- 
ment of  psychological  terms  and  ideas,  which  also 
goes  a  long  way  to  fix  the  biblical  teaching  about 
Man.  At  most  of  the  important  points,  the  liible 
view  of  man's  nature  coincides  with  that  of  human 
psychology  at  large.  Scrii>ture  frankly  and  fully 
conlirnis  the  view  which  places  man  among  the 
animals,  but  at  their  head.  It  m.ikes  m.an  dill'er 
in  no  respect  as  to  the  origination  of  his  ])Iiysical 
frame,  but  in  two  most  important  particulars  it 
distinguishes  man  altogether  from  the  anim.als — 
in  the  direct  and  immediate  connexion  of  his 
origin  with  (Jod,  and  in  his  survival  of  death  (see 
artt.  EscilATOU)(;v  and  Ue.suki!kctio.v). 

LiTKRATCFtB.  —  M.  F".  Roo»,  Futulamfitta  Fuiichutorjup  ex 
S,S.  €*/llfcUe  (ITGft) ;  ()Uhau»«n,  '  Do  Nattiraj  huiimii;u  tricho- 
toniiH."  in  hiH  (JptuiciUa  T/iroUfjica  (Berlin,  18;i4) ;  lit>tt»;hcr, 
Vf  it\f*'ri»  .  .  .  fx  Hfl/rtXf/ram  et  tjrivrt'rnin  opiniimibus 
(Urindin,  184.1);  J.  T.  Beck.  Uinritl  d<-r  ljiUi.-.chtn  Serlmlrhre 
(184a,  1877,  Euil.  It.,  Clark,  Eilin.  lS77i:  Franz  l)elilzs<:li, 
Si/itlf>n  (Irr  bilitinchen  1'nucholfffie,^  (Leip/.i-.;.  18tU,  Knif.  tr., 
Clark,  Ivlin.  1S117);  II.  11.  Wentll,  Dif  h-qriffr  Flrixh  u„il 
Geint  in  fjiU.  Sprach'ifbrauch  (Gotha,  ls7S) ;  EUicoit,  'The 
Threefold  Nature  o(  .Man'  in  Thi^  D'-ttiny  of  the  Creature  uiul 
oilier  S-nnmui  (London,  I'arkcr,  180:1) ;  .1.  B.  Heart!,  The  Tri- 
parlile  \nliire  of  Mani (Olurk,  FA\n.  l!iS');  E.  White,  Life  m 
ChriAl,  A  Study  of  the  Scripture  Doetrine  on  the  Nature  of 
Man  (l^ndon,  fc.  Stock,  IS7s) ;  W,  P.  Uickson.  St.  Paui  i  Ute 
of  the  Tenna  Fleth  ami  Sjiiril  ^alungnw,  188.!) ;  Laldlaw,  The 
Biliir  Dortrin*  of  Man  (re\iHed  ed.,  Clark,  Win.  18«5).  TlFe 
reader  mav  consult  also  the  Old  Teitlamfut  Thrutixjieg  of 
Oehler  and  SchulU,  and  the  Hew  Tmlainent  Theulii.jiei  of 
Bvrnhard  Weisil  and  ncvschla^;  cf.,  further.  OilTonl.  /inirianx, 
4*>-5'J ;   Sanday-Headlam,    Hoinawi,   181 ;    Driver,   Srr.nim»  on 

OT.\B.  J.  Lau.law. 


PTOLEMAIS  (IlroXeuafs)  is  the  NT  name  of  tha 
old  t-'auaanilisli  stronghold  Acco  (which  see).  It 
received  this  name  from  Ptolemy  n.  Philadelphus 
when,  after  the  conquest  of  .Syria  and  the  death  of 
Alexander  the  Great,  it  came  into  his  possession. 
For  several  hundred  years,  throughout  its  inde- 
pendence during  the  wars  of  the  Maccabees,  and 
under  the  dominion  of  Koine,  when  it  received  the 
privileges  of  a  Roman  city,  this  title  supplanted  the 
original  name.  At  Ptolemais,  Jonathan  Alaccalueus 
was  treacherously  captured  (1  .Mac  12"*);  and  the 
Greeks  had  built  there  a  sj)lendid  temple  to  Jupiter. 
It  is  only  once  noticed  in  the  NT,  in  connexion 
with  the  missionary  journey  of  St.  Paul  from 
Tyre  to  Ca^sarea  (Ac  21').  There  was  a  sm.-ill 
band  of  Christian  converts  in  the  place,  and  it  is 
recorded  that  the  Apostle  abode  with  them  one 
day.  Ptolemais  was  favourably  situated  as  regards 
both  sea  and  land  approaches.  On  the  occasion  of 
the  Apostle's  visit,  we  are  told  that  he  came  by  sea, 
having  sailed  from  the  harbour  of  Tyre,  and  that 
he  proceeded  on  foot  to  C;esarea  and  from  thence 
to  Jerusalem,  lint  there  is  every  likelihood,  judg- 
ing from  Ac  IP"  12-'  15--*'  18-'-,  that  he  must  have 
passed  severjil  times  through  the  city,  by  the  ancient 
land-route  along  the  coast  that  connected  Ca'-sarea 
by  means  of  the  rocky  pa.ss  of  the  Ladder  of  Tyre 
with  Antioch. 

Josephus  {Ant.  xiv.  xv.  I)  tells  us  that  Herod 
landed  at  Ptolemais  on  his  voyage  from  Italy  to 
Syria.  It  may  be  mentioned  that  there  is  another 
Ptolemais,  the  capital  of  Pentai)olis  in  Cjrenaica, 
of  which  the  celebrated  Synesius,  the  pupil  of 
Ilypatia  of  Alexandria,  was  bishop  early  in  the 
5tn  century.  In  the  extremely  interesting  series 
of  his  letters  which  are  still  extant,  there  is  one 
addressed  to  all  Christian  bishops  throughout  the 
worlil,  in  which  he  announces  that  he  had  excom- 
municated, at  a  Dioce.san  Sj'nod,  Andronicus,  the 
governor  of  the  place,  on  account  of  his  crimes 
against  the  Church. 

As  it  was  a  seaport  town,  the  Jews,  who  were 
not  a  maritime  people,  took  very  little  interest  in 
the  Syrian  Ptolemais,  and  therefore  it  hardly 
figures  on  the  pages  of  Scripture.  But  in 
medi;cval  times  it  rose  into  "reat  fame  under  the 
name  of  Acre,  which  is  closely  connected  with  its 
original  name  of  Acco,  and  has  obscured  all  the 
other  names  imposed  or  altered  at  dill'erent  times 
by  foreigners.  Elsewhere  in  the  Holy  Land  .sacred 
memories  almost  obliterate  secular  ones  ;  but  here 
it  is  the  reverse.  The  civil  history  of  Acre  is  de- 
cidedly Western,  as  is  the  prouiinent  headland 
on  which  it  is  situated,  which  pushes  it.self  farther 
out  from  the  monotonous  coast  than  any  other 
place  in  Palestine,  except  Cariiiel.  On  this  jiroject- 
mg  shoulder  of  the  Holy  Land  the  town  occupies 
so  commanding  a  position  that  Napolecm  called 
it  the  Key  of  Syria.  At  a  distance  it  presents 
the  iippearanee  of  a  stronglj'  fortilied  European 
town,  but  its  architectural  features  inside  are 
thoroughly  Oriental  in  chanicter.  At  the  time  of 
the  Crusaders  it  was  the  Castella  Peregrinorum,  the 
principal  landing-place  of  pilgrims  to  Jeru.sulem  j 
and  it  was  the  last  foothohl  of  the  Cru.saders  on 
the  sacred  soil.  Here  was  the  ijrincii)al  seat  of 
the  great  knightly  orders  of  St.  John  of  the 
Temple  and  the  Hospital,  who  gave  it  the  French 
name  of  St.  Jean  d'Acre.  It  iiad  a  large  sliare  in 
the  feudal  and  ecclesiastical  wars  of  Europe,  and 
in  the  unhaii]iy  iiolitical  intrigues  of  the  Kejiuhlics 
of  Venice,  Genoa,  and  Pis4i.  It  has  been  subjected 
to  numerous  sieges,  from  the  days  of  Baldwin,  the 
founder  of  the  shortlived  dynasty  of  the  Latin 
sovereigns  of  the  Eastern  empire,  to  those  of 
Napoleon,  whose  destiny  was  here  first  marred  by 
<lefeat.  Saladin,  Ccjcur  de  Lion,  anil  Sir  Sydney 
.Smith    performed    feats  of    valour   in    connexion 


170 


PTOLEMY  I 


PTOLEMY  in. 


with  this  fortress.  The  last  siege  took  place  in 
1840,  when  Sir  Charles  Napier,  tighting  for  the 
Turks,  took  the  town  from  the  Egyptians  under 
Ibrahim  Pasha. 

Acre  never  recovered  the  bonibardinent  of  the 
English  fleet;  and  it  is  now  a  dull,  niiiious  town 
of  about  10,(100  inhabitants.  It  is  the  market-place 
of  the  Syrian  wheat  trade  ;  and  the  breuil  manu- 
factured from  the  rich  crops  grown  on  the  sur- 
rounding plain  of  Acre  is  jjroverbially  said  to  be 
'  the  best  in  the  Holy  Land ';  tlius  maintaining  still 
the  reputation  it  had  acquired  in  the  days  of  Israel, 
when  the  Patriarch  cast  the  blessing  of  his  son  into 
its  local  mould,  '  out  of  Asher  his  bread  shall  be 
fat.'  The  shallow  Kahr  Xartutn,  the  ancient 
Belus,  which  falls  into  its  broad  bay,  recalls  the 
Greek  story  of  the  chance  invention  of  glass  on 
its  b.anks ;  and  the  patriarchal  promise  to  the  lot 
of  Issachar  of  '  the  treasures  hid  in  the  sands,' 
which  may  have  had  something  to  do  with  the 
ancient  classical  tradition.  The  view  from  the 
shattered  ramparts  is  very  extensive  and  beautiful, 
comprising  on  the  one  side  tlie  opposite  headland 
of  Carmel,  reflected  in  the  blue  waters  of  the 
curved  bay,  and  on  the  other  the  dark  green 
plain  along  the  coast  up  to  the  white  promontory 
of  the  Ladder  of  Tyre ;  the  distant  snow-clad 
Lebanon  range  fading  northwards  in  the  clouds ; 
while  the  eastern  horizon  is  closed  up  by  the 
shadowy  hills  of  Galilee. 

Literature. — Conder,  Tent  -  Work  in  Pakstinf,  pp.  18S-192 ; 
Stanley,  SP  pp.  204  -  2(i6 ;  Bovet,  Egypt,  Palestine,  and 
Phwnicia,  pp.  3S3-3a5.  HUGH  MaCMILLAN. 

PTOLEMY  {IlToKefiatos,  a  metric  alternative  for 
the  Ion.  TToXe/i^ios,  '  warlike ')  I.,  surnamed  Ziiir-qp, 
'  Preserver '  (on  account  of  his  defence  of  tlie 
Rliodians  in  B.C.  306;  Pans.  i.  8.  6;  or  by  the 
Confed.  of  the  Cyclades,  who  claim  the  credit, 
according  to  Inscript.  373  in  Michel's  Bccueil—see 
Mahatiy,  Emp.  Ptol.  llOf.),  was  the  son  of  Lagus 
and  Arsinoe,  a  reputed  concubine  of  Philip  of 
Macedon.  He  was  born  about  B.C.  367,  and  upon 
the  death  of  Alexander  (1  Mae  P")  he  assumed 
tlie  satrapy  of  Egypt.  For  the  intricate  details  of 
the  wars  that  preceded  his  assumption  of  royalty 
in  B.C.  305,  see  Mahafly,  op.  cit.  27-58  ;  Droysen, 
Hellenismus ;  Niese,  Gesch.  der  Griech.  Staaten, 
pt.  i. — by  each  of  whom  the  original  authorities 
are  given.  He  abdicated  in  B.C.  285  in  favour  of 
his  second  son,  and  died  two  years  later,  with  his 
dynasty  flnnly  established  by  his  wise  and  vii'orous 
administration  upon  the  throne  of  Egypt.  In  the 
course  of  his  campaigns  Jie  several  times  traversed 
or  ocoipied  Palestine.  In  B.C.  320  (Cless  in  Pauly, 
art.  '  Ptolemy'),  or  more  probably  eight  years 
later,  he  took  advantage  of  the  Sabbath  law  to 
seize  Jerusalem  on  that  day  (Jos.  Ant.  Xll.  i.),  but 
so  ingratiated  himself  witn  the  people  that  many 
of  them  accom])anied  him  to  Egypt  and  settled 
there  (Jos.  c.  Ap.  i.  22 ;  Miiller,  Fragm.  Hist. 
Grmc.  u.  393).  They  were  employed  partly  as  mer- 
cenaries ;  and  in  Alexandria  a  kind  of  citizenship 
and  a  special  quarter  of  the  city  appear  to  have 
been  a-ssigned  them  (Jos.  ]Vars,  n.  xWii.  7).  Such 
migrations  to  Egypt  occurred  three  or  four  times 
during  this  reign  ;  and  the  favour  with  which  the 
Egyp.  rule  was  regarded  in  Palestine  was  largely 
due  to  the  kindness  with  which  the  settlers  were 
treated,  and  to  the  comparative  avoidance  of  inter- 
ference with  their  religious  practices.  It  has  been 
assumed  [e.g.  by  Cheyne)  that  Is  lO""^  (this  pas- 
sage maj' allude  to  the  Jewish  temple  at  Heliopolis 
founded  in  tlie  time  of  Ptol.  VII.)  was  written  in 
tho  time  of  this  king,  and  he  is  generally  held  to 
be  'the  king  of  the  south'  referred  to  in  Dn  11°, 
where  the  liVm  is  to  be  preferred. 

R.  W.  Moss. 


PTOLEMY  II.  (afterwards  known  as  *iXd5eX0os, 
'  brother-loving,'  from  the  title  adopted  by  hia 
sister  and  wife,  Arsinoe),  the  youngest  son  ol 
Soter,  succeeded  his  father  in  B.C.  285.  He  con- 
tinued his  father's  policy,  and,  instead  of  Hellen- 
izing  Egypt,  treated  the  country  rather  as  a  private 
estate  to  be  administered  wisely  in  the  interest  of 
its  projirietor.  On  the  series  of  coins  which  he 
struck  at  Tyre  the  earliest  date  that  occurs  is 
B.C.  266  (Poole,  Coins  of  Ptol.  .\xix.) ;  and  conse- 
quently his  lirst  Syrian  war  took  place  at  least  two 
or  three  years  earlier.  From  that  time  Pales-tine 
formed  a  permanent  part  of  his  kingdom,  his 
right  to  hold  it  as  an  inheritance  from  his  father 
having  been  unrecognized  before.  Among  the 
cities  which  he  founded  were  PhUotera  to  the 
soxith  of  the  Lake  of  Galilee  (Polyb.  v.  70),  Phila- 
delphia on  the  site  of  Kabbah  (Jerome,  in  Ezek.  25), 
and  Ptolemais  on  the  site  of  Acco  (pseudo-.Aristeas 
in  Merx,  Arc/iiv,  i.  274  ;  Droysen,  HcllenisnmSy 
iii.  2.  305).  In  these  foundations  his  principal 
object  seems  to  have  been  to  conciliate  the  peojde, 
and  to  furnish  himself  with  centres  of  inltuence. 
A  second  .Syrian  war  soon  after  B.C.  250  was  pro- 
voked by  an  attempt  on  the  part  of  Antiochus  II. 
to  annex  the  country  ;  but  of  its  details  nothing 
is  known  with  certainty,  except  that  Philailclplius 
lost  no  part  either  of  his  dominions  or  ap])arently 
of  his  supremacy  by  sea  in  the  Eastern  Alediter- 
ranean.  He  died  in  B.C.  247.  The  reign  of  Pliila- 
delphus  was  a  brilliant  literary  epoch  in  Alex- 
andria. At  his  court,  as  officials  of  the  Museum 
and  Library  which  his  father  founded  and  he 
fostered,  gathered  many  of  the  most  eminent 
writers,  artists,  dOettanti,  of  the  period :  and 
thus  was  provided  a  place  for  the  fusion  of  Jewish 
and  Greek  ideas,  and  a  means  of  introducing  the 
latter  into  Palestine  itself.  It  is  not  impossible  that 
the  story  of  the  origin  of  the  LXX  is  so  far  correct, 
that  the  Pent,  and  perhaps  also  Joshua  were  trani- 
lated  during  his  reign  and  under  royal  patronage  : 
see  Septuagint.  Dn  11"  is  to  be  interpreted 
of  Pliiladelphus ;  but  the  latter  part  of  the  verse 
is  so  vague  and  even  so  dithcult  of  translation  that 
tliere  is  ground  for  suspicion  that  the  text  is 
corrupt.  It  has  been  conjectured  that  Ps  72  was 
written  soon  after  the  accession  of  Pliiladelphus  as 
an  expression  of  the  anticipations  which  his  repu- 
tation warranted,  and  Ps  45  in  honour  of  liia 
marriage  with  the  daughter  of  Lysimachus,  king 
of  Thrace ;  but  neither  conjecture  has  much  suj)- 
port.  K.  W.  Moss. 

PTOLEMY  III.  (first  styled  'EiepyiTTi^,  '  benefac- 
tor,' in  a  decree  of  the  synod  of  Canopus  in  B.C. 
238)  succeeded  his  father  Philadelphus  ui  B.C.  247. 
Soon  after  his  accession,  to  avenge  the  murder  of 
his  sister  at  Antioch,  he  engaged  in  the  third 
Syrian  war,  during  which  his  conquests  led  him  far 
into  the  East,  and  on  his  return  from  wliich  he  ia 
alleged  to  have  offered  sacrilices  in  Jerus.  (Jos.  c. 
Ap.  ii.  5).  In  B.C.  229  the  control  of  the  Jewish 
taxes  was  entrusted  to  Josephus,  nephew  of  Onias 
II.,  according  to  an  account  (Jos.  Ant,  Xll.  iv.  1-5), 
for  which  there  is  probably  some  historical  basis, 
and  which  is  an  evidence  of  the  mildness  aad 
consequent  popularity  of  the  Egyp.  rule.  Of  the 
later  history  of  Euergetes  only  the  scantiest 
information  has  been  preserved.  He  appears  to 
have  devoted  himself  principally  to  the  internal 
development  of  his  kingdom,  which  was  at  the 
heiglit  of  prosperity  in  B.C.  222,  when  he  was 
murdered  by  his  son  (Justin,  xxix.  1),  or  more 
prob.ibly  died  a  natural  death  (I'olyb.  ii.  71).  Dn 
1 1'""  is  to  be  interpreted  of  Euergetes,  the  middle 
verse  relating  to  the  act  by  which  he  won  his 
title — the  restoration  of  the  Egyp.  idols  carried 
off  by  Cambyses  nearly   three    centuiies  before 


PTOLEMY  IV. 


PTOLEMY  YIL 


17] 


This  king  must  not  be  confounded  with  the 
Euergetes  of  the  Prologue  to  Sirach.  Tlie  data 
ot  time  show  that  the  latter  must  have  been 
Euergetes  II.,  known  also  a.":  Physcon,  who  was 
odniitted  by  his  brother  to  conjoint  sovereignty  in 
B.C.  170,  and  died  in  B.C.  117.  R.  W.  Moss. 

PTOLEMY  lY.  (*iXo7rdrw/),  strictly  '  fond  of  his 
f.itlior,'  though  the  title  appears  to  have  been 
given  in  the  belief  that  he  was  designated  for  the 
throne  by  his  father)  suceeeiled  his  father  Euer- 
getes in  B.C.  222.  In  tlie  llftli  ye.ar  of  his  reign  he 
was  forced  into  an  e.\piMlition  to  recover  Palestine 
from  Antiochus  the  Great,  who  was  completely 
defeated  in  a  battle  near  Kaphia.  I)n  11"-  '-'  is  a 
summary  of  the  campaign.  A  treaty  of  peace  was 
made  with  .Antiochus  (l^olyb.  v.  87),  and  Ptolemy 
returned  homewards.  At  Jerus.,  according  to  a 
story  in  3  Mac,  he  attempted  to  enter  tlie  Holy  of 
Holies  against  the  indignant  protests  of  the  people, 
but  tell  in  a  fit  on  its  threshold.  Renouncing  his 
purpose,  he  returned  to  Alexandria,  where  his 
rage  against  tlie  Jews  showed  itself  in  an  edict 
commaiidiMg  them  to  practise  idolatry  on  pain  of 
degradation  from  citizenship.  So  many  refused, 
that  in  an  access  of  wrath  he  gave  orders  for  all 
the  Jews  in  Egj'pt  to  be  collected  at  Alexandria 
to  be  put  to  death.  The  royal  design  was  a^ain 
thwarted  bj'  supernatural  occurrences  :  and  a 
national  feast  was  appointed  to  commemorate 
the  deliverance.  The  last  statement  may  be  re- 
garded as  authentic,  and  it  is  not  unlikely  that 
the  Jews  under  this  king  lost  some  of  their  privi- 
leges, and  joined  the  Egyp.  natives  in  uneasiness 
and  insurrection  (Polyb.  v.  107,  xiv.  12)  ;  but 
teiy  little  reliance  can  be  safely  placed  on  3  Mac. 
Of  the  rest  of  his  reign,  which  terminated  in  B.C. 
205,  little  is  recorded  beyond  his  extreme  licenti- 
ousness and  his  Napoleonic  love  of  building. 

K.  W.  Mo.SS. 

PTOLEMY  Y.  ('ExK^anis,  'illustrious')  had  no 
sooner  succeeded  his  father,  Pliilopator,  in  B.C. 
20,3,  than  Antiochus  the  tJieat  took  advantage  of 
the  Eg3'p.  king's  minority  to  seize  Palestine. 
I'tolemy's  general,  Scop.as,  was  sent  to  recover 
tlie  country,  but  was  defeated  near  the  sources  of 
the  Jordan,  and  compelled  to  surrender  at  Sidon 
(Jerome,  in  Dan.  ll"").  Many  of  the  Jews  were 
led  by  the  concessions  of  Antiochus  (Jos.  Ant. 
\U.  iii.  3)  to  transfer  to  him  their  allegiance,  and 
the  country  passed  linally  from  under  the  control 
of  Egypt.  When  the  I'oinans  forbade  Antiochus 
lo  attack  Ptolemy,  he  conciliated  both,  but  re- 
tained his  conquests  by  betrothing  his  daughter 
Oleopatra  to  the  Egyp.  king  (B.C.  198).  The 
marriage  was  celebrated  in  B.C.  193,  the  Syrian 
princess  receiving  as  her  dowry  the  royal  .share  of 
the  taxes  of  the  conquered  provinces,  but  no  right 
of  interference  in  their  govorniiient.  On  the  death 
of  Antiochus,  Ptolemy  decided  to  invade  Syria, 
but  before  his  prejiarations  were  complete  was 
poisoned  in  B.C.  182,  or  the  early  part  of  the 
tollowing  year.  Pn  H"-"  is  to  be  interpreted 
of  these  relations  between  Ptolemy  and  Anti- 
ochus; but  11''"'  must  refer  to  a  futile  attempt 
to  restore  the  independence  of  Isr.ael  (Bevan,  in 
/w.)  rather  than  to  .i  preference  for  .Vntiochus  by 
a  party  amongst  the  Jews,  for  in  that  case  the 
phiases,  so  far  as  they  ajo  intelligilJe,  are  con- 
trary to  fact.  li.  W.  Moss. 

PTOLEMY  VI.  (should  be  reckoned  as  vil., 
as  there  is  eviilcnce  of  the  brief  reign  of  an 
older  brother  :  for  the  authorities  and  the  present 
state  of  the  question,  see  Mahall'y,  Einp.  Ptol. 
329  I.— surnamed  *i\o;ij)rw/),  '  lover  of  his  mother') 
spent  the  first  seven  j'ears  of  his  reign  under  the 
ve^eiicy  of  his   mother,  Cyprus   being   meanwhile 


under  the  governorship  of  Ptolemy  Macron  (2  Mac 
10"),  who  afterwards  transferred  his  allegiance  to 
Syria.  Soon  after  her  death  he  took  the  govern- 
ment into  his  own  hands  ;  and  amongst  the  envoys 
who  came  for  the  occasion  was  Apollonius,  who 
was  instructed  to  discover  the  feelings  of  the 
Egyp.  court  towards  Syria  (2  Mac  4^').  In  B.C. 
173  the  king  married  his  sister  Cleopatra.  Two 
years  later  he  was  defeated  on  the  borders  of 
Egypt  by  Antiochus  IV.,  who  overran  the  country 
(1  Mac  1'*'-)  and  got  possession  of  the  king.  The 
latter's  brother,  Euergetes  11.,  was  at  once  raised 
to  the  throne  by  the  people  of  Alexandria,  and, 
when  Antiochus  retired,  reigned  conjointly  with 
his  brother  (n.c.  170).  In  B.C.  163  Philometor 
was  driven  out  of  Egypt  by  his  brother,  but 
restored  soon  after  by  order  of  the  Roman  senate, 
the  kingdom  being  divided  and  Cyrene  assigned 
to  Euergetes.  From  B.C.  154  there  was  peace 
between  the  brothers.  About  the  same  time  must 
be  dated  the  foundation  of  the  temple  of  Onias, 
near  Heliopolis  (Jos.  Ant.  XIII.  iii.  1-3),  the  cir- 
cumstances of  which  are  an  evidence  of  the  king's 
popularity  amongst  and  favour  to  the  Jews.  To 
the  same  conclusion  point  his  employment  of 
Jewish  <jenerals  (.los.  c.  Ap.  ii.  5),  his  relation 
to  the  Jew  Aristobulus  (2  Mac  1'"),  who  is  iden- 
tified with  the  Alexandrian  philosopher  of  the 
same  name  by  Clemens  Ales.  {Strom,  v.  14.  97) 
and  Eusebius  (Prcep.  Evang.  viii.  9),  and  possibly 
also  the  dedication  of  Ad.  Est  IP.  When  Alex- 
ander Balas  was  trying  to  establish  his  authority 
over  Palestine,  besought  alliance  with  Philometor 
(1  Mac  10""'*),  whose  daughter  Cleopatra  was 
given  him  in  marriage  about  B.C.  150.  With  a 
view  to  take  advantage  of  the  rivalry  between 
Balas  and  Uemetrius  (1  Mac  11'),  or  more  prob- 
ably in  anger  at  the  suspected  treason  ot  the 
former  (Jos.  Ant.  xill.  iv.  6),  Ptolemy  again 
invaded  Syria,  and  attached  to  himself  Demetrius 
bj'  promises  of  support  and  of  marriage  with  Cleo- 

fiatra;  but,  after  making  himself  master  of  Antioch, 
le  retained  the  crown  of  Syria  for  himself.  Balas 
was  defeated  in  battle,  and  killed  in  the  course  of 
his  flight ;  but  Ptolemy  was  wounded  mortally, 
and  only  lived  to  have  his  enemy's  head  luosented 
to  him,  in  B.C.  140  (1  Mac  11«-'";  Jos.  Ant.  xill. 
iv.  8).  Dn  11=5-*'  is  to  be  understood  of  the  wars 
between  Philometor  and  Antiochus  iv. 

II.  W.  Mo.ss. 
PTOLEMY  yil.  (more  correctly  IX.,  the  young 
sou  of  Cleopatra  II.  having  reigned  for  a  few 
months,  assumed  the  title  of  Euergetes  II.,  possibly 
at  his  coronation  at  Memphis,  but  was  better 
known  amongst  his  Greek  sulijects  by  the  nick- 
name of  Physcon,  '  fat-iiaunch ')  succeeded  to  solo 
rule  in  B.C.  146  or  the  following  year,  and  died 
about  thirty  years  afterwards.  Justin  and  Strabo 
describe  him  as  tyrannous  to  his  subjects,  and  as 
shrinking  from  no  crime ;  but  the  papyri  (cf. 
especially  Mahall'y  in  vol.  iv.  192 11.  of  Petrie'a 
Hist,  of  Egijpt)  represent  him  as  extending  the 
commercial  bounds  of  E<'ypt,  and  as  upholding 
law  and  order  within  it.  riiere  are  indications  in 
two  texts  from  Atliribis  (cf.  also  Grenfcll's  Papyri, 
i.  74  f. )  that  he  protected  and  was  popular  amongst 
his  Jewish  subjects.  If  so,  the  evidence  against 
the  theory  that  3  Mac.  records  persecutions  during 
his  reign  is  increased.  In  the  Prologue  to  Sir.  the 
editor  of  the  Gr.  version  states  that  he  came  to 
Egj'pt  in  the  30th  year  of  Euergetes  (B.C.  133, 
the  reckoning  being  from  the  commencement  of 
the  joint  reign  of  the  brothers),  and  im|ilies  tliatby 
th.at  time  the  entire  OT  had  already  been  trans- 
lated for  the  benefit  of  the  Jews  in  Egypt,  prob- 
ably with  special  reference  to  the  needs  of  those 
resident  in  the  great  centre  of  Leontopolis.  The 
task  appears  to  have  been  begun  in  the  reign  of 


i7'J 


PUAH 


PUliUCAN 


Philopator,  possilily  earlier,  and  may  have  been 
completed  sliortlj-  before  the  visit  of  the  w-riter  of 
the  Prologue. 

LlTERATURB. — Of  Ptolemaic  literature  a  good  eumniary  to 
1895  is  given  in  WaclisiiHitii's  KiiUeituiig  in  das  Studiuni  der 
alien  Gesrhichtc,  679  (I.,  whilst  the  articles,  especially  by  Clcss 
and  bv  Wiluken,  in  the  new  edition  of  Paulj's  ttealeiicydopadie, 
eil.  Wissowa,  are  invaluable.  The  principal  sources  are  Justin's 
L/titinnf ;  Pausanias,  bk.  L ;  Jerome,  Cmn.  »n  Van.  xi.  ; 
plu  arch's  Lilt  0/  Cleoinenet;  Josephus,  Diodorus,  Polybius, 
and  Livy,  of  which  any  edition  with  a  good  index  will  funiish 
a  list  of  the  scattered  passages  referring  to  the  Ptolemies. 
Careful  and  ingenious  use  is  made  of  inscriptions  by  Mahaffy  in 
his  Empire  of  the  Ptolemies,  ami  in  his  sketch  of  the  Ptolemaic 
Dynasty  in  'the  fourth  volume  of  Petrie's  Hiet.  of  E'jypt. 
.-Vniongst  the  best  connected  histories  are  Droysen's  Geschichte 
de,t  Uellenigmv^,  and  Strack's  Dynastw  der  Ptolemder.  For 
the  inscriptions,  in  addition  to  the  memoirs  of  the  Egypt  Ex* 
ploration  Fund,  Wilcken's  Archia  Jar  Pnpitnts-forschuTUf, 
MahatTy's  Pctrie  Papyri  in  3  vols,  of  'Cunningham  Memoirs'  of 
the  Royal  Irish  Academy,  Revillout's  Revue  hiiyptolnnique  and 
M<^lan{jes,  should  be  consulted.  A  great  wealth  of  pa|>yri  has 
accumulated  in  the  British  Museum  and  the  Louvre,  at  I^eyden, 
•Turin,  Rome,  and  elsewhere,  and  these  are  gradually  being 
edited  in  separate  memoirs  or  in  one  of  the  Egyptological 
periodicals  by  Grenlell,  Hunt,  and  others ;  but  only  a  com* 
paratively  small  proportion  relate  to  the  period  of  the  Ptolemies. 
For  furtber  or  more  general  literature  reference  should  be  made 
to  the  l)iblingraphical  not©  at  the  close  of  the  article  on  Egypt, 

vol.  i.  p.  1)67.  K.  W.  Moss. 

PUAH.— 1.  (isns  ;  *ovi)  Ex  1",  one  of  the  Hebrew 
niidwives  in  Ejrypt.  Philo  {Quis  renim  dii'iyi.  p. 
3S1)  f.,  ed.  1()13)  identifies  this  name  with  2,  perhaps 
riy;htly,  and  e-vplains,  <t'oi/d  (pvBpav  epp.veiJeTa.i.  2. 
(HNS  ;  <t>oi'd)  .Ig  10',  of  the  tribe  of  Issachar,  father 
of  the  minor  judge  Tola.  Puah  is  called  '  son  of 
Dodo,'  for  which  LXX  and  Syr.  give  the  improb- 
able rendering,  'son  of  his  [Abimeleeh's]  uncle.' 
A  recension  of  LXX,  represented  by  8  minnscles, 
renders  ,  .  .  vldv  4'oi'a  vlov  Kapi^  [KapT^^]  TrarpaSeXfpou 
airrov,  k.t.X.  ;  hence  HoUenberg  (ZATW  i.  104  f.) 
concludes  that  Puah  was  the  son  of  r-i^  (cf.  2  K 
IS'',  Jer  40*),  and  that  the  name  has  fallen  out 
of  MT.  Moore  (Jw/ifes,  p.  '273)  suggests  that 
Kapti  is  only  a  corruption  of  Issachar ;  the  MT 
is  probably  right.  3.  In  the  lists  of  Issachar, 
Gn  46'^  Nu  26^  (n;=  Puvah),  1  Ch  7'  (■iw=),  Puah 
appears  as  the  brother,  not  the  father  of  Tola. 
Both  are  probably  names  of  clans  rather  than  of 
individuals. 

Tlie  meaning  of  Puah  is  uncertain.     The  name 

has  been  connected  with  the  Arab.  }»•  fuh,  a  plant 

yielding  a  red  dye,  'madder,'  the  Ruhia  tinctorum 
of  Linn.  In  Talm.  nn^s  is  used  in  this  sense,  e.g. 
Sliahb.  Sii//,  Eriib.  26f.  See  Low  {Arainaische 
Pflnnzennnmen,  251).  If  this  be  so,  the  connexion 
with  Tola,  '  the  crimson  worm,'  is  interesting. 
Lagarde  (Mitthcil.  iii.  1889,  281)  takes  ptiah  to  be 
a  sea-weed  =  0Pkos,  and  explains  that  Issachar's  son 
was  so  called  because  he  used  sea-weed  in  dyeing ; 
Issachar  dwelt  by  the  sea  (Dt  33'").  But  the  riibia 
tinct.  is  not  a  sea-weed.  G.  A,  Cooke. 

PU  BLICAN  (TeX(4>T)5,  from  tAos,  '  tax  ' ;  Lat.  publi- 
canus). — In  the  widest  sense  the  word  publicaniis 
stands  for  any  one  who  has  business  connexions 
with  the  State.  It  is  usually  employed  in  a  nar- 
rower and  more  specific  sense  for  a  farmer-general 
of  the  revenue^by  preference  a  man  of  equestrian 
rank  (who  was  also  sometimes  designated  'manceps,' 
e.g.  Cicero,  Div.  in  Ccecilium,  33,  and  'redemptor,' 
Div.  ii.  47).  The  name  was  also  given  to  the  agents 
of  the  farmer  of  the  revenue,  wOiom  he  employed 
in  collecting  the  taxes.  In  Palestine  the  taxes 
went  to  the  imperial  treasury  {fiscus),  not  to  that 
of  the  senate  {(crarium).  Unaer  the  procurator 
the  Juda'an  taxes  were  paid  through  that  official, 
whose  primary  function  was  the  superintendence 
of  the  revenue.  In  the  territories  assigned  to  the 
petty  kings  and  tctrarchs,  such  as  that  of  Herod 


Antipas,  the  payment  was  made  to  those  authori- 
ties. Even  seprirate  cities  were  allowed  to  collect 
their  o^^-n  taxes.  An  inscrijrtion  in  Greek  and 
Aramaic  at  Palmyra,  giving  the  custom  taritiof  a 
number  of  articles  in  the  time  of  Hadrian,  shows 
that  the  town  had  a  certain  authority  in  deter- 
niinin"  the  details  of  its  own  taxation  (Schiirer, 
11 J F  1.  ii.  61  a.). 

The  publican  leased  the  customs  of  a  particular 
district  for  a  fixed  annual  sum,  gaining  what  the 
revenue  yielded  in  excess  of  that  amount,  ami 
being  required  to  make  good  any  deficiency.  In 
earlier  times  even  direct  taxes  nad  been  farmed 
(Jos.  Ant.  XII.  iv.  1,  3,  4,  5).  But  this  was  no 
longer  the  case  in  NT  days.  The  publicans  of 
whom  we  read  in  the  Gospels  were  engaged  in 
collecting  the  custom  dues  on  exports  (Marquardt, 
Roniische  Staatsverwaltung,  ii.  p.  2618'.).  Pliny 
mentions  that  merchants  from  Aralna  paid  custom 
dues  at  Gaza  (HN  xii.  6.3-65).  In  Jericho  there 
was  an  dpxireXii^Tjs,  possibly  himself  the  fanner  of 
the  customs  of  that  important  trade  centre.  Most 
of  the  NT  publicans  could  only  have  been  tax- 
collectors,  subordinate  to  the  official  who  more 
strictly  bore  the  name  'publicanus.'  Publicans 
formed  themselves  into  companies  (societates  publi- 
canomm),  each  member  taking  a  quarter,  or  a 
lesser  share,  of  the  collecting  and  its  profits  or 
losses,  according  to  the  amount  of  capital  invested. 
In  the  time  of  the  Csesars  the  contract  was  for  five 
years. 

It  is  evident  that  such  a  system  as  this  would 
be  liable  to  abuse,  especially  in  a  neglected  and 
ill-governed  province.  It  is  expressly  stated  in 
the  Palmyra  inscription  that  the  authorities 
should  prevent  the  lessee  of  the  customs  from 
exacting  anything  bejond  what  was  required  by 
the  law.  Ditt'erences  having  arisen,  a  fixed  t.aritf 
for  a  number  of  articles  appears  on  the  inscription 
to  prevent  misunderstandings  and  undue  exactions. 
The  unpopularity  of  the  publican  was  partly  due 
to  his  being  a  servant  of  tne  hated  Roman  govern- 
ment. 'This  would  be  the  case  especially  in  Judaea 
under  the  procurators.  The  case  of  Galilee  under 
Herod  Antipas  was  somewhat  ditlerent ;  and  yet 
the  Herods  were  dependent  on  and  subser\'ient  to 
Rome.  For  a  Jew  to  engage  in  collecting  the 
revenues  that  went  to  support  the  foreign  domina- 
tion, was  regarded  as  peculiarly  mean  and  un- 
patriotic. If  he  grew  rich  it  was  on  the  spoils 
\vrun"  from  his  brethren  by  the  oppressor.  Conse- 
quently men  who  had  a  due  regard  for  their  own 
food  name  would  shrink  from  accepting  the  ortice. 
his  would  lead  to  its  falling  into  the  hands  of 
persons  of  doubtful  reputation.  Then  the  fann- 
ing of  the  customs  was  a  direct  incentive  to  dis- 
honesty. In  Rabbinical  literature  the  tax-gatherer 
is  commonly  treated  as  a  robber.  In  NT  publicans 
and  sinners  are  commonlj'  coupled  as  forming  but 
one  class.  It  would  not  be  lair  to  accept  the 
popular  judOTient  on  this  matter  as  an  unprejudiced 
assertion  of  the  truth.  .Still,  our  Lord's  ^Tacious 
treatment  of  the  publicans  is  no  indication  that 
He  wished  to  clear  their  char.icter  from  calumny, 
for  He  was  equally  gracious  to  persons  of  notori- 
ously bad  character  when  He  saw  signs  of  amend- 
ment. Levi  had  been  a  publican,  but  he  left  his 
Srevious  occupation  on  becoming  a  disciple  of 
esus  (I.k  5'-''-^).  ZacclL-Pus  declared  that  he  had 
mendeil  his  ways,  and  was  in  the  practice  of  making 
ample  recompense  for  his  previous  extortions  at 
the  time  when  he  met  with  .Jesus  (Lk  19").  Out 
Lord's  ministry  was  peculiarly  acceptable  to 
publicans  (Lk  15').  We  nave  no  reference  to  any 
men  of  this  class  in  the  apostolic  period.  Acts  and 
the  Epistles  never  name  the  publicans. 

LlTEBATURB.— Schiirer,  EJP  l.  ii.  17  ;  Marquardt.  Romischt 
Staatfoerualtung,  U.  201-270,  289-293  ;  Pauly,  Real-Encyc,  art 


rUBLIUS 


rURClIASE 


173 


'  Piililii'an  ' ;  Leyrer  in  Ilerzop's  Rfnt-Euiifc,,  art.  '  Toll ' ;  Hcrz- 
fet'l.  fJandi'lj^jeschiL'hte  tier  Jud'-n^  etc.  159  ff.  ;  Naquet,  *  Dea 
iniput^  iiidireoUcliczlcs  Koiuaiii8,'etc.(BuiTian'8i/a/irc«^tfnc/i<«^, 
xix.  400  ff.) ;  Ca^nat,  *  ^tude  tii^lortijue  bur  )es  imp6U  indirect^ 
KoiiKiins,'  etc.  \ib.  xxvi.  245  fT.);  Vigi6.  Etiidi^  sur  le*-  impAU 
indirecU  liomaiTU;  Ederabeim,  Je^ru  the  Mesxlafi,  i.  Sl.Sff. 

W.  K.  Ade.vky. 

PUBLIUS,  or  more  correctly  Poplins  (IlirXios), 
the  leailin;,'  man  iu  Malta  when  St.  Paul  was  cast 
on  the  i.slaiul  by  shi|>\vreck.  He  was  both  rich 
and  hospitable,  and  his  father  was  among  tlio.se 
who  were  healed  by  the  apostle  (Ac  28'-*).  He  is 
described  as  6  rpwro!  (rendered  '  the  chief  man  '  in 
AV  and  UV),  a  title  wliich  seems  to  have  been 
jjeculiar  to  Malta,  but  which  has  been  proved  from 
inscripticms  to  have  had  a  technical  signilicance 
there.  These  inscriptions,  however,  leave  it  doubt- 
ful whether  the  title  indicates  the  chief  maj^istrate 
of  the  island  or  one  with  an  honorary  rank.  He 
inav  have  been  the  delej,'ate  of  tlie  pru'tor  of 
Sicily,  to  whose  jurisdiction  Malta  belonged.  The 
naiiie  Poplius  is  the  Gr.  form  of  the  pncnomen 
Publius,  but  in  this  instance  it  may  be  the  Gr. 
rendering  of  the  nomen  Po|)ilias.  Tradition  says 
that  he  was  tlie  lirsl  bishop  of  Malta,  and  that 
aftei  wards  he  became  bishop  of  Athens. 

W.  MUIR. 

PUDENS  (UooSrit,  but  a  few  cursives  give 
SiroiiOTjs ;  Fuclenx). — A  Christian  at  Konie  in  the 
time  of  St.  Paul's  last  imprisonment  there,  wlio 
sends  greeting  from  him  to  '1  imotliy  (2  Ti  4-').  This 
is  all  tliat  is  certainly  known  of  him,  but  conjecture 
has  been  rife  in  attempting  to  identify  him  with 
others  of  the  same  name.  The  name  is  Roman, 
often  borne  by  Romans  of  good  family,  and  common 
in  the  early  Christian  centuries.  Ibus  we  tind — 
(1)  Aulus  Pudens,  a  .soldier,  the  friend  of  Martial, 
and  hu.sband  of  a  British  huly,  Claudia  (Mart. 
Epifff.  iv.  13  ;  xi.  53).  (li)  Titu.s  Claudius  Pudens, 
husband  of  Claudia  Quintilla,  wlio.se  inscription 
to  a  lost  child  lias  been  found  between  Rome  and 
Ostia  (CIL  vi.  15,000).  (3)  Pudens,  a  son  of 
Pudentinus,  a  Roman  who  gave  the  site  for  a 
temple  which  the  British  king  Cogidubnus  erected 
to  Neptune  {CIL  vii.  17).  (4)  Mievius  Pudens, 
employed  by  Othu  to  conupt  Galba's  friends 
(Tac.  Hist.  1.  24).  (5)  Pudens,  a  Roman  knight, 
killed  at  the  siege  of  Jerusalem  (Jo.s.  BJ  VI.  ii.  10). 
(0)  Pudens,  a  Roman  .senator,  said  by  Roman 
tradition  to  have  been  tlie  host  of  St.  Peter  at 
Rome  (Baronius,  Ann.  Eed.  ad  A.D.  44,  Martyr, 
lioin.  ad  May  19 ;  Lipsius,  Apomjph.  Apostel-leg. 
ii.  1.  207,  418).  (7)  Pudens,  father  of  Pudentiana 
and  Praxedes,  c.  A.D.  100. 

The  Greek  Mcmen,  appealing  to  the  authority  of 
Dorotheus,  regards  Pudens  as  having  been  one  of  the 
seventy  disciples,  who  afti:rwards  accompanied  St. 
Paul  on  his  missionary  journeys,  and  was  belicidcd 
under  Nero.  His  memory  is  honoured  with  th.it 
of  Aristarchus  and  Troiihimus  in  the  Greek  Church 
on  April  14.  The  Roman  Church  tended  to  identify 
him  with  the  host  of  St.  Peter  (6),  who  was  appar- 
ently confu.scd  with  (7)  (see  Acta  Sanctorum  for 
May  I'J,  where  the  editor  di>tiiiguishes  between 
the  two).  English  writers  have  attempted  to 
identify  liira  with  (1)  anil  (3).  This  is  possible,  but 
cannot  be  regarded  as  proved  (cf.  art.  Clauuia). 
So  many  of  tlie  name  were  soldiers,  that  the  con- 
jecture may  be  hazarded  that  I'udens  was  one  of 
the  soldiers  who  had  been  in  charge  of  St.  Paul, 
jierhaps  one  to  whom  he  had  been  chained  while  a 
prisoner.  W.  Lock. 

PUL  (ViD,  *oi<X,  <I>oiyd,  •I'aXwx.  'I'aXiis)-— The  Aa- 
•yriun  Pulu.     See  Tiglath-I'ILE.skr. 

PUL.— la  6C".     See  Put,  p.  177*. 

PULPIT.— This  terra  occurs  only  in  Neh  8*||  1  Es 


9"  in  connexion  with  the  reading  of  the  Law,  wncn 
Ezra  is  said  to  have  stood  '  upon  a  pulpit  of  wootl 
(i-y-S::--"?*,  LXX  jiTiiia  iv\wov).  The  Heb.  word 
S^;?,  which  is  freiiueiit  in  the  sen.se  of  'tower'  (cf. 
AVni  and  RVm  at  Neh  S-*),  means  any  clevatca 
structure.  Ezra's  'pulpit,'  like  its  Latin  original, 
])ulpitum,  probably  corresponded  rather  to  what 
we  should  call  a  'platform    or  'stage.' 

.).  A.  Selhie. 

PULSE  (D'v'ii  zUro'tm,  o'lini  zcrontm,  Dn  l'-- '»). 
— The  words  in  the  original  do  not  refer  to  any 
special  plant,  or  even  order  of  plants,  but  only 
to  things  soum.  The  purpose  of  Daniel  and  his 
companions  was  to  be  tried  on  a  jiurely  vegetable 
diet.  An  Arab,  word  of  similar  meaning,  but 
more  restricted,  is  kutniijijch  (jil.  kfit/ini),  which 
is  defined  as  '  grains,  with  the  exception  of  wheat, 
barley,  raisins,  and  dates,'  or  as  'those  grains 
which  are  cooked,  as  lentils,  ni.lsli  ( Virjna  Nilo- 
lica),  horse  beans,  beans,  and  chick  jieas.'  "The 
Latter  definition  would  correspond  well  with  the 
Eng.  'pulse,'  which  refers  to  the  edible  seeds  of 
the  orcler  Lcijuminosce.  It  is  saiil  that  they  are 
called  by  this  name  in  Arab,  from  the  root  hatnn, 
'  to  dwell,'  because  tliej-  last  well,  or  because  they 
are  necessary  to  those  who  dwell  in  bouses.  Other 
authorities  deline  hilAni  to  be  khilf,  i.e.  all  summer 
vegetables,  which  would  make  the  exact  equivalent 
of  zcroim  and  zi'runim. 

'Pulse'  in  2  S  17^*  is  not  in  the  Heb.  original. 
The  word  '  parched '  (■'pij  =  roasted  or  toasted) 
occurs  twice  in  this  verse,  once  after  /ye/nah  = 
'  meal,'  following  wheat  and  barley,  and  tr'' 
'parched  corn'  (see  Wheat);  and  again,  aftei 
beans  and  lentils,  and  tr''  'parched  piihe.'  It  is 
customary  to  roast  immature  chick  peas  (Arab. 
hummus)  in  the  oven,  and  eat  them.  The  natives 
are  exceedingly  fond  of  them  when  prepared  in 
this  way.  The  allusion  in  the  above  passage  is 
doubtless  to  grains  roasted  in  the  oven  or  toasted 
over  the  lire.     See  Parched.  G.  E.  Po.st. 

PUNISHMENTS.  —  See  Crimes  and  Punish- 
ments. 

PUNITES  (•}«.■:,  B  4  *oraei,  A  *oi»aO.— The  gen- 
tilic  name  from  PuvAH,  Nu  20^.  See  PuAH,  No.  3. 
Siegfried-Stade  suggest  that  the  Heb.  name  shouki 
perhaps  be  pointed  ');p. 

PUNON  (jiiB,  B  <J>ci>'ii,  A  ^ii-ii,  F  *ii'ii>'). — A  station 
in  the  journeyings  of  the  children  of  Israel,  men- 
tioned only  in  Nu  33"-  *^.  The  LXX  renders  it  in 
the  same  way  as  PiNON,  the  name  of  one  of  the 
'dukes'  of  Edora  (Gn  30*').  Eusebius  (,9.v. 'Wi-wi-) 
and  .Jerome  (s.v.  '  Faenon  ')  speak  of  it  as  formerly 
a  city  of  the  dukes  of  Edom,  and  identify  it  with 
a  place  between  Petra  and  Zoar,  called  'I'oii'iii', 
where  mines  were  worked  (Onomast.  ed.  Lag.  pp. 
155  and  288).  A.  T.  CiIAPMAN. 

PURAH  (X1J  ?* branch •  =  .-nN3  la  10";  T'wine- 
press'  =  .Ti-D  Is  63';  LXX  "fapo). — Gideon's  'ser- 
vant,' lit.  '  young  m.an  '  (^l•J,  L.XX  iraioipiov,  'Vulg. 
pucr),  i.e.  armour-bearer,  Jg  7""-;  cf.  9",  1  S  14'- «, 
2  S  20".  G.  A.  Cooke. 

PURCHASE.— To  purchase  (from  Old  Fr.  pcvr- 
chasscr,  i.e.  junir  'for'  and  chasscr  'to  chase')  is 
to  pursue  after  a  thing,  hence  to  aciiuire.  The 
sense  is  now  narrowed  to  acfiuiring  by  payment. 
For  the  wider  meaning  cf.  Alelvill,  ihan/,  p.  42, 
'  Mr  Andro  Melvill  .  .  .  with  grait  diliicultie  pur- 
chossit  leave  of  the  kirk  and  magistrates  of  Gcnev 
.  .  .  and  takin  jorney  cam  hamwart '  ;  Knox, 
First  lilast  (Arber's  reprint,  p.  7).  'The  veritie  oi 
God  is  of  that  nature,  that  at  one  time  or  at  other, 
it  will  pourchaco  to  it  selfe  audience '  ;  Article  xxv 


174 


PURGE 


PURIM 


•  They  that  receave  thera  unworthyly  purchase  to 
them  selves  damnation.'  This  wider  meaning  is  also 
Been  in  Ac  20-"  '  tlie  church  of  God  wliicli  he  hath 
purcliased  with  his  own  blood'  (»/»  Tre/jieTrot^craTo) ; 
and  in  1  Ti  3'^  '  Thej-  that  have  used  the  oHice  of 
a  deacon  well  purchase  to  themselves  a  good  de- 
gree '  {irepnroioui'Tai,  RV  '  gain ').  Cf.  Ps  84'  in 
metre — 

'The  swallow  also  for  herself 
Hath  purchased  a  nest.' 

J.  Hastings. 
PDRGE.— Like  Lat.  purgare  and  Fr.  purger, 
the  verb  to  '  purge '  was  formerly  used  in  the 
oddest  sense  of  to  cleanse  or  purify.  Hence  Ps  5P 
'  Purge  me  with  hyssop,  and  I  shall  be  clean,' 
referring  to  the  ceremony  of  dipping  a  bunch  of 
hyssop  (see  HvssoP)  in  blood  and  sprinkling  tlie 
leper  or  defiled  person  (Lv  14^  Nu  19")  ;  Mt  3'- 
'  He  will  throughly  pur<;e  (RV  '  cleanse ')  his 
floor';  Mk  7'"  'purging  all  meats' (RV  '  making 
all  meats  clean,'  i.e.  ceremonially,  see  Swete's 
note)  ;  Jn  15-  '  Every  branch  that  beareth  fruit, 
he  purgeth  it'  (RV  'cleanseth  it')  ;  He  1'  'when 
he  had  by  himself  purged  our  sins'  (RV  'made 
purification  of  sins  ).  Cf.  the  tr.  of  1  Jn  3'  in 
Udall,  Erasmus'  iVT,  '  And  every  man  that  hath 
thys  hope  in  him,  purgeth  himself,  even  as  he  also 
is  pure '  ;  Wyclif 's  tr.  of  Ja  4*  '  ye  synners  dense 
the  hondis,  and  ye  double  in  soule  purge  ye  the 
hertis';  and  the  Act  of  Henry  VIII.  (1543)  pro- 
hibiting Tindale's  Translation,  '  The  person  or 
persons  being  detecte  or  complained  on,  shal  be 
admitted  to  purge  and  trie  his  or  theyr  innocency 
by  other  witnesse.'  J.  HASTINGS. 

PURIFICATION.— See  Unclean. 

PURIM  (ni!s  or  Dnsn  'd;). — A  Jewish  festival  of 
whose  origin  and  institution  we  have  an  account  in 
the  Book  of  Esther.  There  we  are  informed  that 
the  festival  had  its  rise  in  the  resting  and  rejoicing 
of  the  Jews  in  Persia  after  their  slaughter  of  their 
enemies  on  13th  Adar,  in  the  12th  year  of  king 
Ahasuerus  {i.e.  Xerxes,  B.C.  473).  "That  was  the 
day  which  Haman,  the  grand  vizier,  had  chosen  by 
lot  (=pur.  Est  3')  for  the  extermination  of  the 
Jews  throughout  the  Pers.  empire.  Owing  to  the 
fact  that  in  Susa  the  conflict  was  renewed  on  14th 
Adar,  the  '  day  of  feasting  and  gladness '  in  that 
city  fell  on  the  15th.  It  was  therefore  enacted,  as 
■we  learn  from  what  appears  to  be  an  interpolation 
(9^"'-),  by  an  ordinance  of  Mordecai,  the  successor 
of  Haman,  confirmed  by  Esther  the  queen  (who 
were  chiefly  instrumental  in  procuring  the  deliver- 
ance), tliat  there  should  be  an  annual  celebration  of 
the  feast  in  all  time  coming,  among  the  Jews  and 
their  seed,  both  on  14th  and  15th  Adar;  'that  they 
should  make  them  days  of  feasting  and  gladness, 
and  of  sending  portions  one  to  another  and  gifts 
to  the  poor.'  No  religious  services  were  enjoined, 
and  the  observance  seems  to  have  been  at  first 
merely  of  a  convivial  and  charitable  nature  ;  but 
ultimately  it  was  accompanied  ^vith  the  reading  of 
the  Uk.  of  Esther  in  the  synagogue,  the  whole  con- 
gregation joining  enthusiastically  in  the  closing 
passages  relating  to  Mordecai's  triumph,  and,  at  the 
mention  of  Haman,  hissing,  stamping,  gesticulating 
and  crying  out,  '  Let  his  name  oe  blotted  out ;  let 
the  name  of  the  wicked  perish,'  while  the  reader 
pronounced  the  names  of  Haman's  ten  sons  all  in 
one  breath  to  indicate  that  they  expired  at  the 
same  moment.  This  reading  of  '  the  Megilla,'  pre- 
ceded and  followed  by  a  special  benediction,  com- 
mencing in  each  case  with  the  words,  '  Blessed  art 
thou,  O  Lord  our  God,  king  of  the  universe,'  takes 
place  both  on  the  evening  of  the  13th  of  Adar, 
which  is  observed  as  a  fast  day  (called  '  the  Fast  of 
Esther,'  traceable  from  the  9th  cent. ;  cf.  9"  4"), 


and  on  the  inorninn;  of  the  14th,  which  along 
with  the  loth  is  devoted  to  celebrations  of  a 
festive  and  social  character,  as  enjoined  in  Scrip- 
ture, but  without  any  prohibition  of  labour.  To 
the  inllueneeof  theBlc.  of  Esther  the  festival  seema 
to  have  largely  owed  its  popularity  (Buxtorf,  Sijn. 
Jud.  24,  and  Ginsburg  in  Kitto's  Cycl.).  Apart 
from  that  book,  the  following  are  the  only  allusions 
to  the  subject  that  have  been  discovered  in  ancient 
literature.  Referring  to  the  commemoration  of 
the  victory  over  the  Syrian  general  Nicanor  on 
13th  Adar  (B.C.  161),  2  Mac  (15*),  which  was  prob- 
ably written  a  little  before  the  beginning  ot  the 
Christian  era,  mentions  that  the  anniversary  fell 
on  the  day  before  '  Mordecai's  day.'  1  Mac  (about 
a  century  earlier)  is  silent  on  the  point,  although 
it  mentions  (7^")  the  institution  of  '  riicanor's  day.' 
Josephus,  WTiting  about  the  close  of  the  1st  cent. 
A.D.,  gives  an  account  of  the  feast  (Ant  XI.  \\.  13), 
and  mentions  that  in  his  day  it  was  observed  by 
the  Jews  throughout  the  world  on  the  14th  and 
15th  Adar,  which  days  they  called  ^povpaiov^.  In 
the  Meg.  Taanith  (xii.  31),  which  existed  in  the 
2nd  cent.  A.D.,  these  two  days  are  also  mentioned 
as  '  the  days  of  Purim,'  when  '  mourning  is  for- 
bidden.' By  some  'the  Feast  of  the  Jews'  (Jn  5', 
cf.  4^'  6^)  is  identitied  with  Purim  ;  but  the  inference 
is  questionable,  as  the  latter  never  had  any  special 
connexion  with  Jems.,  and  was  not  likely,  as 
actually  celebrated,  to  be  very  attractive  to  the 
Saviour  (but  see  Milligan-Moulton  on  Jn  5')- 

With  regard  to  the  historical  origin  of  Purim, 
there  has  been  during  the  last  half-century  a 
growing  tendency  to  reject  the  narrative  in  theBk. 
of  Esther,  largely  owing  to  the  difficulty  of  finding 
any  Persian  word  with  which  the  name  Pur  can  be 
identified.  Various  theories  have  been  advanced  to 
show  that  the  festival  had  quite  a  diflerent  origin. 

1.  According  to  Reuss(Ge^cA..4  T,  §  473),  following  J.  D.  Micbaelifl 
iGesch.  A  T),  it  may  have  ^own  out  of  the  Nicanor-festival  on 
13th  Adar,  the  latter  losing  its  historical  significance  in  the 
course  of  an  eventful  century  or  two,  and  thus  becoming  a  pre- 
paratorj-  fast  to  *  Mordecai's  day,*  whose  strong  hold  upon  the 
popular  milid  (notwithstanding  the  misgiving  of  the  Great 
Synagogue,  itejj.  Lxx.  4)  was  due  to  the  popularity  of  the  Bk.  of 
Esther,  with  which  it  was  so  closely  connected.  This  theorj-,  how- 
ever, leaves  the  Purim  mystery  unsolved,  and  it  is  negatived  by 
the  fact  that  even  so  late  as  in  the  Meg.  Taanith  (xii.  30)  the  13th 
Adar  is  spoken  of  as  *  Nicanor's  day.' 

2.  J.  Fiirst  (Kanon  AT)  and  E.  Meier  {Btb.  Wrtb.)  trace 
Purim  directly  to  a  Pere.  spring-festival  (adopted  by  the  Jews  in 
Susa),  and  suppose  the  name  to  be  connected  with  Pers.  6aAar= 
spring.  Z\iT\z\ZDMG  xxvii.)  takes  a  similar  view,  regartling the 
Bk.  of  Esther  as  designed  to  invest  the  festival  with  a  Jewish 
character  when  it  could  no  longer  be  got  rid  of ;  while  Meyboom 
gives  the  idea  a  practical  form  by  supposing  Haman  to  be  an 
emblem  of  ninter  overcome  by  the  sun  (Esther)  and  the  moon 
(Mordecai). 

3.  Hitzig  (Gtgch.  ler.)  obsen-es  that  PhuT  in  mod.  Arabic= 
New  Year  (cf.  pilrva=the  first),  and  argues  for  a  New  Year's 
festival  of  Parthian  origin  which  the  Bk.  of  Esther  (after  B.C.  238) 
was  designed  to  commend  to  the  Jewish  nation  generally,  itfl 
historical  elements,  such  as  they  are,  being  derived  from  the 
early  Arsacid,  not  the  Achiemenid  period. 

4.  A  more  remarkable  theory  is  that  which  was  originated 
by  von  Hammer  in  1827  (iriVn.  Jahrbuch  Lit.),  and  elabo- 
rated and  developed  by  Lagarde  in  his  '  Purim,'  Ein  Beitrag 
zur  (iexch.  der  Relifji&n  0880.  according  to  which  the  feast  ie 
a  Judaic  transformation  ot  the  old  Zoroastrian  Farwanligin 
(Festival  of  the  Dead),  obser^'ed  on  the  last  ten  days  of  the 
year,  including  five  intercalary  days.  Lagarde  (while  also 
ascribing  an  influence  to  the  juaycjov/*  of  Herod,  iii.  79,  and  to 
a  Fe»t  deg  Unbarti(]m)  endeavours  to  make  out  a  linguistic 
connexion  between  the  Pers.  name  just  mentioned  and  the 
various  phases  of  the  Greek  name  by  which  Purim  is  represented 
in  the  Soptuagint  (viz.  fpovfixi,  ^ci/pi'x,  cofOfAxia,  f/toupxiei^,  finding 
in  these  the  elements  of  New-Pers.  PCrdigdn,  which  he  idcnl  ities 
with  the  ^evfi^tyav,  mentioned  by  the  Byz.  Menander  as  a  I'ers. 
feast  in  the  6th  cent.,  and  inferring  the  original  Gr.  form  to  have 
been  ^ptiixii  =  Heb.  Purdaia  («;Tn!E),  while  he  explains  aw»y 
the  Heb.  "US  by  supposing  that  the  original  reading  (37)  may 
have  been,  not  Nin  ■na,  but  r.iC-iS  (phannanah)=  Pers.  firman 
(edict).  Renan  takesa  similar  view  (Livre  iv.  Hist,  du  P.  d'l8r.\ 
tracing  the  name  to  Pere.  FourrH  (.\ram.  Pourdai,  Heb.  Phour- 
durt=PAtnirim),  and  supposes  the  festival  to  have  acquired  ite 
halo  of  Jewish  romance  in  the  time  of  the  Maccabees.  The  ety- 
mological argument,  however,  is  very  precarious,  popular  usage 
in  such  a  case  being  little  inlluenced  by  corruptioiu  of  tex^ 


PUKBl 


rUElTY 


175 


wid  the  varioM  Or.  readings  being  too  easily  accounted  for  by 
the  trrors  of  Alexandrian  copyisU  to  justilv  us  in  using  them 
to  correct  such  a  good  Hcb.  text,  even  i(  tlie  dcrivatiou  from 
/•an«ir>/l-;,in  were  better^ sui.i>orted  than  it  l»  ((or  oljjections 
Kc  U^ilti  V  in  the  litv.  dft^twJtt  Juivrt,  1887,  who  denves  the 
LXX  forms  from  the  Gr.  ;«!./>«  =  9i«in/).  j     -.k    „ 

6  Another  theory  which  has  been  recently  advanced  with  no 
leuaoonfldence  is  that  of  iir..tz(J/u.ia(.*c/m/(  Gai.  v.  n  us.  d.  Jvd. 
XXXV.  10-12).  He  traces  Furim  to  Heb.  n-iiEO)firaA)  =  wine-press, 
Bupposing  the  (east  to  have  been  due  to  the  adoption  by  the 
JewT in  Palestine  (in  the  rei-n  of  Ptolemy  iv.  Ph.lupator  B.O. 
J->i--'lJi  ihruuL-h  the  Ikllenizing  influence  o(  Joseph  the  tribute- 
collector,— Jos.  AM.  xil.  iv.)  of  the  Or.  fi'htival  n,0.,5...  =  jur- 
opening,  corresponding  to  the  Vinalia  of  the  Uomans,  alleging 
In  supiort  of  his  theory  the  riotous  mirth  and  the  making  of 
presents  of  wine  which  characterized  that  Bacchanalian  seiison. 
The  linguistic  argument,  liowevtr.  is  seen  to  be  more  apparent 
than  rial  when  it  is  noticed  that  iriiu-preas  suggests,  not  ej^ng 
(when  the  AnthesU-ria  were  held,  of  which  the  J'ldiuiyui  (orincd 
part)  butou/iimii,  and  that  tlie  J  n(A<".<'.-rui  lasted  for  Hirer  days. 
Moreover,  it  is  scarcely  conceivable  that  such  a  Gr.  institution 
could  have  gained  in  the  course  of  a  generation  or  two  such  a 
«rong  hold  on  the  affections  of  the  Jews  as  to  resist  the  anti- 
Hellenic  reaction  which  set  in  tjnder  the  Maccabees  within  half 
a  century"  afterwards.  ,        ,     .      ,  ^,^ 

6.  Still  more  recently  Zimmem  (ZATW,  1891)  has  derived  the 
Feast  of  Puriin  from  the  Bab.  ZaymiilM  (otherwise  Akttu).  an 
ancient  New  Year's  festival,  celebrated  with  great  TOnip  and 
mirth  in  the  opening  days  of  Nisan  (cf.  Est  37).  This  was 
remarkable  chiefly  for  an  aticmbln  (Assyr.  pufiru,  easily  passing 
into  the  meaning  of  feast,  cf.  wi.r  and  ama,  connmim)of  the 
gods  which  was  held  under  the  presidency  of  the  Bab.  tutelar 
deity  ilarduk,  itendach  (cf.  NordecaC).  in  a  chamber  forming 
part  of  s.  larger  room  {Ubixtyina  =  room,  of  the  puhni)  in  his 
tcraiile  B-Sagila,  (or  the  purpose  of  settUng  the  fates  of  the  king 
and  the  whole  nation  for  the  coming  year  (cf.  the  (of  of  Lsl 
37  9»»)  Thiscelebration  represented  a  similar  mjthical assembly 
of  the  gods,  supposed  to  be  held  in  a  mysterious  spot  in  the  far 
East,  ivhich,  again,  had  iU  prototype  in  a  convi\nal  assembly  of 
the  gods  on  the  eve  of  the  creation  (see  art  Babvlosia,  vol.  l. 
E17"5,  at  which  Marduk  was  appointed  to  overcome  the  rival 
power  Tidtiiat.  and  carry  out  the  work  of  creation.  In  this 
connexion  Manluk  is  signilicantly  called  'the  arranger  of  the 
ptiAru  of  the  gods.'  In  Tidmat  Zimmem  thinks  we  may  And 
the  original  of  Hainan  (as  in  Marduk  of  Mordecai);  and  in 
the  story  of  the  Bk.  of  Esther  he  sees  a  Jewish  transformation 
of  the  liab.  legend  (Bel  and  the  Dragon),  the  change  of  d.ile 
from  Nisan  to  Adar  being  due  to  the  desire  to  keep  it  a  month 
earlier  than  the  solemn  Passover. 

Conliriiiation  of  this  theorv  in  a  modified  form  is  offered  by 
Jen^cn  ( ir/A'J/  vi.  471!.  2u9il. ;  see  also  his  communication  to 
'^ildeboer,  quoted  by  the  latter  in  his  (Jomm.  on  'Esther'  in 
Marti's  KuTlrr  Udcomm.  p.  173),  who  suggests  the  identification 
of  Haman  with  an  Elamite  god  Huinba-ba=//uwinam  (cor- 
responding to  the  Bab.  .Marduk),  of  Uaman's  wife  Zereeh  with 
Hummams  consort  Kiriia,  and  of  Vatldi  with  an  Elamite 
divinity  WaMi,  while  at  the  same  time  pointing  out  that  Kslher 
-Bab.  Iitar,  and  that  Iladaxxa  in  Hab.^bridf.  He  also  makes 
out  /«((ir  to  be  a  cousin  of  Marduk,  as  Esther  of  Mordecii. 
With  this  mythology  he  connects  the  Bab.  New  Year's  epic 
which  celebrates,  in  twelve  parts,  the  changing  fortunes  of 
Eabani  (.Marduk),  and  he  finds  in  the  Bk.  of  Esther  a  combina- 
tion of  these  and  other  elements  of  a  more  popular  character 
relating  to  the  Babvlonian  conquest  of  the  Elamites,  the  whole 
being  wrought  up  b'v  Jewish  fancy  amid  Pers.  surroundings. 

Wildebocr,  while  accepting  this  theory^^ combines  with  it  the 
Idea  of  a  festival  of  the  dead 


(AU-Souls'-Day),  as  suggested  by 
Lagarde  above,  and  applied  bySchwally  (Leien  nach  dem  Tode, 
42  rt.).  Hence  the  fcastings  and  fastings  and  sending  of  gifts- 
repasts  and  offerings  for  the  dead  being  a  usual  accompaniment 
of  such  commemorations  in  Persia  and  elsewhere  ;  hence,  too, 
the  absence  of  the  name  of  God  from  a  story  intended  for  such 
semiheathenish  rites,  as  its  introduction  in  such  a  connexion 
would  have  given  offence  to  the  religious  authorities  and  pre- 
vented its  admission  to  the  synagogue. 

A  different  version  of  the  same  theory  is  given  by  Br.  Meissner 
(ZD.MU,  1896).  He  traces  back  the  Jewish  festival  through  its 
Persian  medium  to  the  festivities  referred  to  by  Berosus  under 
the  name  of  !.««.«,  which  he  identifle8(on  doubtful  etimoloRical 
ipxiunds)  with  the  Bab.  Zagmuk,  as  popularly  understood  and 
abser\'c<l.  In  the  celebration  of  this  festival,  which  was  of  so 
merry  a  character  that  Istar,  the  goildcss  of  love,  naturally 
acquired  a  more  prominent  place  in  it  than  Marduk,  it  was 
usual  for  a  slave,  arrayed  In  royal  apparel,  to  rule  over  the 
nobles  for  five  days,  and  something  like  a  reversal  of  the 
onlinary  social  relations  took  place.  Meissner  supiMses  the 
Jews  to  have  become  acquainted  with  It  In  Susa,  and  to  have 
appreciated  it  »0  much  in  their  state  of  Bubleclion  as  to  per- 
petuate it  In  a  form  that  was  specially  fitted  to  glorify  their 
own  nation. 

In  thu  Kxpotitor,  Aug.  1898,  Mr.  0.  H.  W.  Johns  calls  atten- 
tion to  the  fact,  as  brought  out  by  Peiser  in  the  Keilimchr\fllicht 
Bilddil.  vol.  iv.  p.  107,  that  the  As«yr.  word  ptiru  means  'term 
of  olllce,'  '  turn,'  and  holds  I'urim  to  be  dcrivol  from  Puru, 
which  is  free  from  the  ineffaceahlc  guttural  in  ;/riArw,  as  the 
common  designation  of  the  New  Year's  fca«t  on  its  nfruiar  sklc 
(In  connexion  with  the  accession  of  olllclals),  as  <liBtingul8hed 
tmni  Its  sacrcd  names  and  associations,  with  which  the  Jews 
•ould  have  no  sympathy. 
According  to  a  conleotora  of  U.  J.  da  Ooeje't,  favoured  by 


Kuerien,  the  storv  of  Esther  is  derived  from  the  same  Perslao 
tradition  as  the  "tale  of  Tlie  Thnuyand  and  On<  A>j//its,  which 
has  a  similar  heroine  in  Scheherazade. 

The  word  Pur  has  sometimes  been  supiiosed  to 
belong  to  the  same  root  as  Pers.  p&re  and  Lat. 
^«ri,  Ijut  Hal6vy  traces  it  to  a  lost  Aram,  word 
.Ti?s,  from  root  its  =  to  break  in  pieces,  after  the 
analogy  of  other  Semitic  tongues,  in  which  the  idea 
of  'lot'  is  closely  related  to  that  of  fraction,  or 
partition,  with  which  he  connects  the  distribution 
of  gifts  at  the  feast.  Another  suggestion  is  that 
it  may  have  denoted  some  object  (cf.  urn,  dice, 
cards)  used,  in  casting  lots,— such  as  Dieulafoy 
(Itev.  dcs  Et.  Juives,  1888)  claims  to  have  dis- 
covered in  the  excavations  of  the  Memnonium  at 
Susa,  in  the  shape  of  a  tjuadrangular  nrism,  bearing 
ditl'ercnt  numbers  on  its  four  faces,  which  he  thinks 
may  have  been  used  for  casting  lots,  the  name  cur 
(like  Sanskrit  »t<r  'fulness,'  Pers.  pur  '  fiiU,'  Lat. 
ptenus,  Fr.  plcin)  having  reference  to  its  solid 
form.  But  Jensen  (quoted  by  Wildeboer  as  above) 
derives  the  word  from  Assyr.  puru  or  buru=stone, 
used  in  a  metaphorical  sense  analogous  to  that  of 
S-iia  and  \j/ri(poi. 

In  subsequent  times  the  Feast  of  Ptirim  has  often 
been  the  means  of  sustaining  the  faith  of  Jewish 
communities  when  in  imminent  danger  of  destruc- 
tion at  the  hands  of  their  enemies,  of  which  we  are 
reminded  by  the  Cairene  Purim  (Furin  al-Miz- 
rayim)  and  the  Purim-Vincent,  designed  to  com- 
memorate the  deliverance  of  the  Jews  in  Cairo  and 
Frankfort  in  1524  and  1616. 

It  may  be  added  that  the  distinction  between 
'  Great  f  urim '  and  '  Little  Purim,'  referring  to  the 
two  celebrations  that  used  to  take  place  in  leap- 
year,  in  Adar  and  Ve-Adar  respectively,  cannot  be 
traced  to  an  earlier  period  than  the  2nd  cent.  A.  D. 

Literature. —Besides  the  authorities  cited  above,  sec  the 
literature  referred  to  in  art.  Esther,  and,  further,  Derenbourg, 
IIM  de  la  Pal.  442  ff. ;  W.  E.  Smith,  OTJC^,  184  n. 

J.  A.  M'Clymokt. 
PURITY.— This  word,  in  subst.  form,  is  not 
found  in  AV  or  RV  of  OT,  and  occurs  only  twice 
in  NT,  1  Ti  4"  5=  (a-yvda),  the  RV  adding,  however, 
a  third  instance  when  it  accepts  (with  N  B)  icoi 
Tfji  ayplrrrrros  at  2  Co  11'.  The  form  'pureness' 
occurs  once  in  NT,  2  Co  6"  {ayv&rrii),  and  three  times 
in  OT,  Job  22**,  Is  1=»,  Pr  -22"  (Heb.  being  bor  in 
the  two  former  passages,  and  lahor  in  the  last,  and 
the  LXX  reproduction  being  nearest  to  exactness  in 
the  6<rlas  xf"/""  of  Proverbs).  In  all  these  instances 
the  use  of  'purity'  is  ethical.  This  ethical  use  is 
one  of  the  functions  of  all  the  Heb.  and  Gr.  words 
constituting  the  family  of  purity,  though  it  would 
be  an  error  to  say  that  any  one  of  these  words  is 
never  u.sed  ceremonially;  even  idrar  (primarily  = 
'  separate')  is  ceremonial  in  at  least  one  passage. 
Is  52".  And,  of  course,  there  is  the  literal  use 
also,  as,  for  instance,  to  describe  gold  when  free 
from  alloy  (Ex  25"  ct  al.,  (cllwr,  naBapU;  cf.  Rev 
21").  But  the  Eng.  translators  have  preferred 
'purity'  and  its  family  for  the  ethicaj  region 
(though  they  have  never  so  used  '  purilication,'and 
i.„...,  ...^f   *...atr^..t.>.1    *r^,u-ifTr*i    nnff   hn.vp   nrpferrnd 


have  not  restricted  '  purify '),  antf  have  preferred 
'  clean '  (though  '  cleanness '  is  almost  always  ethical ) 
for  the  double  oflice  of  ethical  and  ceremonial.  In 
the  Gr.  usage  there  are  similar  preferences.  'Kyvbi, 
d-yTela,  a7i'dT7;s,  avuls  (Pli  1"  only,  RV  'sincerely') 
are  in  NT  exclusively  ethical,  though  not  so  ex- 
clu.sivcly  ayvl^ui,  and  not  at  all  ay viaiibi  (Ac  21=« 
only)  :  "in  LXX  avi-As  is  almost  always  ethical, 
though  never  ayvliu,  ayda,  or  ayvurnlit  (Jer  6"  is 
doubtful;  Heb.  =  ' rest  for  your  souls,'  LXX  ren- 
dering ayviafibt,  which  may  be  intenilcd  to  mean 
national  purification  from  idolatry) ;  ayvbrrii  and 
o7i'w5  do  not  occur  ;  while  KaOapiis,  (aliir,  is  in  LXX 
mainly  ceremonial,  and  in  NT,  as  is  natural,  nearly 
always  ethical ;  indeed,  in  Tit  1"  {iriirra  xaB  ipA  Toii 


176 


PURITY 


rui 


KaOapoU)  the  idea  of  ceremonial  or  Levitical  im- 
purity, already  ignored  in  tlie  spiritual  Psalms 
(c.ij.  ]'s  119),  is  overtly  surrendered  (of.  Mt  15""-", 
Mk  7"').  'Ayfds  and  its  immediate  correlates  are 
doubtless  connected  with  the  more  comprehensive 
family  of  dyio!,  but  form  at  the  same  time  a  distinct 
branch  conlined  to  one  aspect  of  holiness,  holiness 
and  purity  remaining  so  far  distinct  throughout 
OT.  "A710S,  h'idfjsh ,  '  holy,'  as  separate,  as  related  to 
God,  wlio  is  absolutely  separate  from  all  evil,  is  in 
OT  useil  fundamentally,  not  of  ethical  qualities,  but 
of  position — the  position  of  God  as  vncippronchnblc 
in  majesty,  power,  and  goodness ;  the  position  of 
men  as  consecrated  to  and  by  God,  and  tlierein  and 
thereby  summoned  to  be  separate,  in  God-likeness, 
from  all  the  defilements  of  heathenism  (Lv  19^  1 1*"); 
and,  finally,  the  position  of  material  things  as 
related  to  the  service  of  God  or  the  consecrated 
position  of  men.  One  of  the  most  prominent  of 
the  defilements  of  heathenism  was  sensuality,  and 
to  this  the  family  of  a7i'6s  stands  especially  opposed, 
both  in  classical  Greek  (cf.  a.ypi\  with  Artemis  in 
Homer,  and  the  use  of  d7J'6s  in  Soph.  Antig.  880, 
and  Dera.,  ado.  Nerer.  59,  78)  and  in  sacred  Greek 
(cf.  4  Mac  18'- 8,  and  2  Co  11-,  Tit  2');  yet  it  often 
takes  a  wider  sweep  and  covers  purity  of  motive 
(Ja  4',  1  P  1*^),  and  of  character  generally  (1  Co  IP, 
Ja  3",  1  Jn  3^  and  in  LXX  Ps  11  (12)"«  18  (19)^ 
Pr  20'). 

In  NT  ayi/is  and  xaOapdi  may  perhaps  be  dis- 
tinguished (see  Westcott  on  1  Jo  3')  as  predomi- 
nantly connoting  feeling  and  state  respectively, 
dvKis  (cf.  fii"o/toi)  implying  a  shrinking  from  pollu- 
tion, while  Kadapds  expresses  simply  the  fact  of 
cleanness.  Hence  the  ayvl^a  eambv  in  1  Jn  3'  and 
the  a.yvi(TaTe  Kapoia^  in  Ja  4^  penetrate  more  deeply 
towards  the  root  of  the  matter  than  the  KaBapiaare 
Xeipas  of  the  latter  passage,  or  even  than  the  kaSa- 
plfei  ri/xai  of  1  Jn  1',  the  KaSapItrj;  ijij.d^  of  1  Jn  1°,  and 
the  KaOaplffji  Xai;*  of  Tit  2",  in  proportion  as  the 
purification  by  the  man  of  his  external  acts,  or 
the  purification  by  the  external  influence  (if  we 
may  so  speak)  of  God  or  Christ,  has  less  to  do  with 
internal  and  personal  feeling  than  the  eflbrt  of 
the  man  upon  his  inner  life.  Westcott  also  dis- 
tinguishes d7>'6s  and  Ka8ap6s  from  47105,  in  that  the 
latter  is  '  holy  absolutely  in  itself  or  in  idea,'  while 
d7i'6s  and  Kadapb^  '  admit  the  thought  or  the  fact  of 
temptation  or  pollution.'  So  'a  man  is  dyio^  in 
virtue  of  his  divine  destination  (He  10'°)  to  which 
he  is  gradually  conformed  (He  10"),'  while  he  is 
KdOapU  or  d7i'js  according  (we  m.ay  add)  as  we 
regard  his  state  or  the  internal  discipline  by  which, 
on  the  human  side,  the  state  is  attained.  If  tliese 
distinctions  hold,  we  shall,  with  Westcott,  inter- 
pret the  j)hrase  '  even  as  he  is  pure'  (d7i'6s),  1  Jn  3', 
not  of  God  (of  whom  a.yvb's  could  not  be  predicated), 
but  of  Christ  in  the  light  of  the  discipline  of  His 
human  life. 

Another  word,  which  AV  translated  'pure'  in 
2  P  3'  ('your  pure  minds'),  and  which  is  vei-y 
closely  allied  to  071-158,  is  c<XiKpinjs  (-fio  or  -la),  a 
word  of  uncertain  etymology  (see  Lightfoot  on 
I'll  1'°),  but  of  no  uncertain  significance.  It  is 
now,  in  RV,  in  all  five  passages  where  it  occurs, 
rendered  by  'sincere'  (or  its  subst.),  that  is,  un- 
mixed, a  sense  which  it  bears  in  the  only  jilace 
where  it  is  found  in  LXX,  Wis  7",  Wisdom  being 
there  spoken  of  as  .an  '  unmingled  eflluence  of  the 
glory  of  the  Almighty.'  Trench  (NT  Synon.» 
p.  309)  is  probal)!y  correct  in  distinguishing  etXt- 
ttpiv-fi!  from  Kadapii,  as  denoting  (the  former)  freedom 
from  the  falsehoods  of  life  .and  (the  latter)  freedom 
From  its  pollutions.  'Ouios,  which  is  associated  with 
words  for  '  purity '  at  He  7*,  has  special  reference 
to  piety,  i.e.  reverence  for  the  acknowledged  sanc- 
tities of  law  and  religion.  See  Clean,  Holiness, 
tod  Unclean.  J.  Massie. 


PURPLE  (]'pi<  'argamdn  ;  Aram.  p,;iN  'arglwa* 
(Pn  5'- '")  ;  Arab,  urjuwiin;  irop<pvpa,  purpura).-— 
This  dye  was  extracted  from  tiie  shell-fisli  Murex 
truncultcs,  L.,  and  M.  hrandaris,  L.,  and  some- 
times from  Purjiura  hfcmastoma.  Large  heaps 
of  the  shells  of  these  molluscs  are  found  near 
Tyre,  and  outside  the  s(mtli  gate  of  Sidon.  The 
dje  was  known  as  Tyrian  purple.  It  was  extracted 
from  the  throat  of  the  animal,  each  one  yielding 
a  single  drop.  The  exact  colour  is  iincertain,  as 
the  art  of  extracting  the  dye  is  lost.  The  fluid 
is  at  first  white,  then,  by  exposure,  becomes  green, 
and  finally  reddish  purple.  The  purple  (iropipvpoZy) 
robe  (lixaTiov)  of  Jn  19-  (cf.  iropipvpav,  Mk  15")  is 
called  scarlet  (x>^afiv&a  KOKKb-qv)  in  Mt  27**.  See, 
further,  art.  Colours  in  vol.  i.  p.  457"". 

G.  E.  Post. 

PURSE.— See  BAG. 

PURTENANCE  (an  abbrev.  of  'appurtenance,' 
from  Lat.  apcrtinere,  thiough  Old  Fr.  apartenir, 
apurtcnaunse)  means  properly  whatever  pertains 
to,  and  in  its  single  occurrence  in  AV  (Ex  12*)  is 
used  for  the  intestines  of  the  Passover  lamb  (RV 
'inwiirds').  The  tr.  is  from  Tindale.  Wyclif  has 
'  entrayls.'  Cf.  Babees  Book,  p.  'J75,  '  Kyude  roste 
with  ye  heed  and  the  portenaunce  on  lamb  and 
pygges  feet,  with  vinegre  and  percely  theron.' 

J.  Hastings. 

PURVEYOR,  i.e.  'provider'  (Fr.  pourvoijeur, 
from  Old  Fr.  proreoir  or  porreoir  =  ha,t.  providert), 
occurs  onl3'  in  To  1"  of  Tobit,  who  obtained  grace 
and  favour  in  the  eyes  of  Enemessar  and  became 
his  purveyor  (ayopaaHi^).  The  ayopaaT-fi^  (lit. 
'  buyer')  was  the  slave  who  had  to  buy  provisions 
for  the  house  (Xen.  Mem.  I.  v.  2);  cf.  the  Lat. 
obsonator  (Plant.  Mil.  III.  i.  73;  Sen.  Ep.  47). 

J.  A.  Sei.bie. 

PUT  (AV  Phut,  except  in  1  Ch  !»,  Nah  3»).— 
Name  of  an  African  nation  ;  b?s,  LXX  <l>oi;5  in  Gn, 
Ch  (A  in  Ch  <J>our,  Genes.  Cotton,  ioiid),  in  the 
Prophets  Ai/3ues  (except  Nah  3',  where  the  render- 
ing tpvyri  appears,*  with  a  false  division  of  the 
verse) ;  the  marginal  additions  of  Q  (Marchali- 
anus)  twice  explain  the  name  fancifully  as  o-ri/io  ; 
Vulg.  Phuth,  Phut  (Ch),  in  the  Prophets  Libyes, 
Libya  (Ezk  30' — so  AV  in  Jer  and  Ezk). 

In  Gn  W,  1  Ch  1»,  Put  is  the  third  son  of  Ham. 
In  the  Prophets,  warriors  from  Put  are  principally 
associated  with  the  armies  of  Egypt  as  auxiliaries. 
Jer  46"  '  Cush  and  Put,  that  handle  the  shield,  and 
the  Ludim,  that  handle  and  bend  the  bow,'  are 
among  '  tlie  mighty  men '  of  Efjypt.  In  Ezk  30* 
we  have  a  similar  enumeration  of  auxiliaries 
beginning  with  Cush  and  Put.  In  Nah  3'  Thebes 
(No-amon)hasEthioplaandEgypta3  'her strength,' 
Put  and  Lubim  as  her  '  helpers.'  A  distinction 
seems  to  be  made  here  between  the  subjects  of 
the  Ethiopian  -  Egyptian  empire  and  the  inde- 
pendent tribes,  living  farther  off,  who  appear  to 
nave  served  the  Pharaohs  only  as  mercenaries. 
In  Ezk  27'"  Tyrus  is  said  to  have  had  Persia  and 
Lud  and  Put  in  her  army.  An  employment  of 
E.  African  mercenaries  in  Tyrus  is  strange, 
although  it  does  not  present  greater  difficulties 
than  tlie  connexion  with  various  other  remote 
nations,  like  Persia  (but  see  below).  In  Eck  38', 
however,  the  circumstance  that  in  the  army  of  the 
Northern  prince  Gog  from  Magog  '  Persia,  Cush, 
and  Put '  appear  among  the  various  barbarians  from 
Asia  Minor,  is  very  surprising.  If  we  do  not  wish 
to  accuse  the  prophet  of  senselessly  accumulating 
here  all  obscure  names  of  remote  nations  known 

•  Thie  blunder  seema  to  be  one  of  the  rare  instances  where 
the  Egj-ptian  tongue  influenced  the  Alexandrian  translators. 
D1S  does  not  exist  iQ  Uebrew,  nor  does  it  mean  '  to  flee '  in  the 
Semitic  languages,  but  Coptic  hae  wmt  *  to  run,  to  flee.'  Some 
MSS  read  *iiCi  also  in  Ezk  2710 ;  see  Field,  Uexapla. 


PUT 


PUT 


177 


to  him,  it  is  most  natural  to  assume  a  corruption 
of  the  text,  due  to  a  reader's  having  enlarged  it 
from  other  passages  (from  27'"?).  A  blunder  of 
the  scholarly  Ezekiel,  who  displays  such  a  wide 
knowledge  of  geography,  espeeially  in  ch.  27,  is 
not  very  probable.  Otherwise,  Put  would  be 
another  country  than  the  one  usually  designated 
(see  below).  The  passage  must  certainlj'  be  used 
with  caution.  On  the  other  hand,  Is  6(i"  seems  to 
come  in  here  :  '  Pul  and  Lud,  that  draw  the  bow,' 
as  the  most  remote  nations.  The  reading  ■t'oiJS  for 
Pul  in  the  LXX  (x  'i'oOO)  contirms  the  evident 
emendation  to  Put. 

These  biblical  passages  are  insufficient  to  deter- 
mine the  situation  of  the  country.  However, 
apart  from  the  ditiicult  and  doubtful  name  Lud, 
we  see  the  Libyans  repeatedly  distinguished  from 
Put,  e.i;.  in  Gn  IC  (see  Lkhabim)  and  Nah  S-> 
(see  LuuiM),  also  in  Ezk  SO*,  where  we  must  read 
Lub  instead  of  Cub,  after  the  LXX.  Therefore 
the  guess  of  the  LXX  at  the  Libyans  has  little 
probability.  We  have  rather  to  look  to  the  east 
of  Africa. 

The  best  interpretation  of  the  name,  which  is 
now  being  more  and  more  generally  accepted,  is 
the  idtntilication  with  the  country  Pintt  (or  rather 
Puent  ?)  of  the  Egyptian  inscriptions.*  The  Per- 
sian list  of  tributary  countries  in  Naksh-i-Kustara 
(Spiegel,  Pers.  Kcihnschr.^  119)  enumerates  Kush- 
iya,  Putiya,  and  Masiya  (Babylonian  translation 
Puta,  Kiiiu,  Maxsii),  coiilirming  the  view  that 
Put  (with  assimilation  of  the  n)  was  the  form  of 
the  name  used  b_y  all  Semites,  and  that  it  signified 
a  part  of  N.  Eastern  Africa.  The  Egyptians  pro- 
nounced t  after  n  regularly  with  a  sound  which 
the  Greeks  translated  by  S  (cf.  <l>oi;S  with  the 
correct  rendering,  not  of  the  Hebrew,  but  of  the 
Egyptian  pronunciation),  the  Semit-js  by  B.  So 
Put  stands  for  Pu(n)t,  quite  regularly. 

The  Egj'ptian  inscriptions  mention  this  country 
of  P\int  (later  form  Pune)  very  frequently  after  c. 
3uOO  B.C.  According  to  the  latest  investigations,  it 
comprised  the  whole  African  coast  of  the  Ked  Sea 
from  the  desert  E.  of  Upper  Egj'jit  to  the  modern 
Somali  country.t  Parts  of  it,  evidently  only  those 
in  the  north  (lietween  SouaWin  and  Massoua  ?), 
were  tributary  to  the  great  conquering  Pharaohs 
of  the  I8th  dynn-sty.  Whether  the  masters  of 
Egj'pt  in  projihetic  time  extended  their  power  so 
far  sontli  is  uncertain.  But  at  all  times  there  was 
intercourse  and  commerce  between  Egypt  and  the 
southern  rich  parts  of  Punt  both  by  land,  through 
the  Nubian  desert,  and  by  water.  We  have 
various  inscriptions  referring  to  commercial  naval 
expeditions  sent  by  the  Pharaohs,  especially  in 
the  I2th,  18th,  and  20th  dynasties,  of  whieli 
that  in  the  time  of  queen  'lfa't-sheps{o)ut  has 
become  most  famous  by  the  line  pictures  illus- 
trating it  upon  the  walls  of  the  temple  of  Dcir 
el-Bahri  in  Western  Thebes.  Already  in  the 
5th  djTiasty  king  Assa  received  a  member  of  the 
African  dwarf-tribes  from  Punt.  The  treasures  of 
Punt  were :  slaves,  cattle,  gold  (from  a  region 
called  'Amau),  ivory,  ebony,  ostrich-  feathers  and 
-eggs,  rare  live  animals  (especially  monkeys),  grey- 
hounds for  hunting,  gum,  and  a  number  of  fra- 
grant substances  from  various  trees  or  shrubs.   The 

•  Due  to  O.  Eljcre  in  his  Aegppten  und  <h'e  Duchrr  ifoce'g,  p. 
84,  iccepU-d,  e.g.,  tjy  Stode  (d«  lia.  vat.  jl'.th.).  On  the  weak 
att«nipt  at  contradiction  by  Dilimann,  Bee  the  present  writer's 
Aficn,  p.  116. 

t  A  great  nuus  of  earlier  lltemture  on  the  much  diBcuBsed 
situation  of  this  country  is  ariti(|uatcd.  Formerly  scholarB 
tried  to  identify  Punt  with  Soutlurn  Arabia,  then  (after  Mas- 
pcro)  they  located  it  on  both  sides  of  the  Ked  .Sea.  Tlie  latest 
literature  will  be  found  in  Krall,  Dot  Land  I'uiil  ('.Silzun|{8- 
bericlite  Altad.  Vienna,'  cicxi.  1890);  Naviilc,  Deir  etiltihari. 
Hi.  ;  W.  M.  Miiller  in  MittheiL  vorderat.  Getelts.  lii.  ls«^,  148 
(cf.  Ari^n  UTul  Kuropa,  ch.  7)l  Olaser  (MUthrit.  vonleras. 
OetdlH.  iv.  etc.)  unfortunately  uses  some  very  antiquated 
sources. 

VOL.  IV.  — 12 


incense  needed  by  the  Egyptians  for  the  divine 
worship  and  for  cosmetics  lormed  the  must  im- 
portant product  of  the  country.  The  parts  of 
Punt  producing  it  were  called  '  the  incense- 
terraces  '  (or  '  stairs '),  apparently  situated  on 
the  Aljyssiniau  coast  (incense  in  sutiicient  quan- 
tity -TOWS  only  E.  of  Bab  el-Mandeb),  but  it 
would  be  wrong  to  limit  Punt  to  these  regions. 
The  inhabitants  were  rude  nomadic  shepherds, 
some  of  them  negroes  or  mixed  with  negroes,  but 
mostly  of  the  pure  Hamitic  race,  i.e.  near  relativea 
of  the  Egyptians  and  the  other  white  Africans. 
Consequently  their  descendants  are  the  desert 
tribes  called  Troijlodj/tce  (better  Trogoclytce)  or 
Icltthyoplmgi  by  the  Greeks,  Bcdja  by  the  Arabs 
in  the  north,  Saho  and  Afar  (Uanakil)  on  the 
Abyssinian  coast.*  They  can  hardly  have  fonned 
a  larj'e  contingent  of  the  Egy|itian  armies,  because 
the  desert  regions  north  of  Abyssinia  were  too 
thinly  jiopulated.  Only  the  archers  of  the  region 
Mnza  (Masiya  of  the  Persians,  see  above),  more 
inland,  i.e.  nearly  in  the  modern  province  of  Taqa, 
were  as  popular  as  policemen  and  guards  as  the 
Nubas  are  in  modern  Egypt ;  this  country  of  the 
Mazoyu  is  frequently  separated  from  Punt.  But 
the  prophets  speaking  of  Put- Punt  evidently 
did  not  consider  the  scanty  population  of  this 
country.  To  them  it  represented  all  Africa  east 
of  Eg3'pt  and  Ethiopia  (i.e.  the  Nubian  Nile  valley, 
not  modern  Ethiopia  or  ^abesh),  an  en<lless  and 
luystcrious  part  of  the  world.  The  Phoenicians 
(ci.  Ezk  27'°)  may  have  extended  their  commercial 
connexions  to  what  the  Greeks  called  the  '  coasts 
of  the  aromata,'  after  the  completion  of  Necho's 
canal  between  the  Nile  and  the  Ked  Sea  ;t  before 
that  time  the  difficulties  must  have  been  too  great 
to  allow  a  direct  contact. 

Commentators  who  wished  to  follow  the  trans- 
lation of  the  LXX,  compared  the  Coptic  name 
(JiAiAT  '  Liljya  (especially  the  western  part  of  the 
Helta),  Libyan'  (thus  Knobcl  and,  following  him, 
Dillmann).  The  hieroglyphic  equivalent  of  Phnint 
has  not  yet  been  found,  but  the  word  looks  like  a 
(plural  ?)  denominative  from  a  feminine  noun 
ending  in  -ct.  This  would  not  at  all  a^ee  with 
the  I  (ts)  of  the  Semites,  unless  an  n  liad  been 
assimilated  (see  above).  The  Greek  translators  of 
the  prophets  may  have  thought  of  this  name, 
nevertheless.  See,  however,  above,  the  objections 
from  the  biblical  passages  and  the  (•onlirmation  of 
the  reading  PAt  from  the  Persian  inscription. 
Some  Eg}'ptologi.sts  compare  the  Egyptian  ex- 
pression for  '  foreign  warriors,'  which  they  errone- 
ously read  pet,  pite,  etc.  But  the  Amania  tablets 
have  shown  that  this  expression  '  bowmen  '  was 
pcdnte  (singtilar  'a  troop  of  bowmen'  ])cditc{t), 
derived  from  pide{t)  '  bow  ').  Consequently 
neither  the  Coptic  (Jjaiat  nor  the  Semitic  Put 
agrees  with  these  formations.  How  the  com- 
parison of  'a  river  Phut  in  Mauretania'  (i.e. 
Morocco,  which  was  never  even  known  to  the 
Egyptians  !)  in  Josephus  (^n<.  I.  vi.  2);  was  seri- 
ously considered  by  modem  commentators,  re- 
mains a  mystery.§  W.  Max  MCller. 

•  If  we  have  a  ripht  ttt  compare  the  tribea  more  to  the  south- 
eaflt,  we  might  Kpt-iili  also  of  tlie  (Jfilla.'*.  Tiie  frequent  com- 
parison of  tiie  Soinalis  with  the  'I'unli'  is  erroneous.  Tlie 
.Sotnalia  lived  originally  only  on  the  eastern  coast  of  modern 
Sonmliland,  i.e.  at  too  great  a  distance.  Some  writers  have 
tried  to  find  in  I'unt  tlie  original  African  Beat  of  the  '  rim-- 
nicians.'  But  this  idea  rest.s  only  on  the  accidental  Biniilarit*' 
of  a  Latin  pronunciation  (Punicus  for  Phiunicus).  No  ethno- 
logic connexion  lieLwecn  those  African  savages  and  the  higlily 
cultured  Asiatic  nation  can  be  found.  The  position  of  the 
rluunicians  in  Gn  10  among  the  llaniites  seems  to  be  due  to 
other  reasons  than  tlioso  of  ethnology. 

f  See  Miilheil.  vordera:  Ge»:'Ut.  iii.  16!,  on  the  completion 
of  the  cjinal. 

t  Called  Phthutli  Ptol.  Ir.  1,  8 ;  Fut  Plln.  t.  1,  and  known 
thtis  also  to  Jerome. 

fi  Winckler  (Forechuvgen,   I.   613)  has    raised    the    qucntii'n 


n 


PUTEOLI 


PYTHON 


PUTEOLI  (IlorloXoi,  modern  Pozzuoli).  —  The 
great  commercial  port  of  Italy,  in  what  is  called 
now  the  Bay  of  Naples,  but  was  at  one  time  called 
the  Sinus  Puteolanus.  It  was  at  this  port  that 
Ht.  Paul  landed  on  his  journey  to  Konie  (Ac  28"). 
There  were  alreadj-  brethren  there,  and  he  and  St. 
Luke  were  entreated  to  tarry  with  them  seven 
days.  Its  name  is  of  doubtf\il  origin,  hut  is 
attributed  either  to  the  putrid  smell  of  the  sul- 
I)hurous  s|)rin^s  close  by,  or  to  the  wells  (piitei) 
of  the  place.  Cicero,  like  St.  Paul,  landed  there 
TN-hen  he  came  from  Sicily  (pro  Plane.  2(3).  It  was 
the  resort  of  trade  from  all  parts,  notably  from  the 
East,  and  the  corn  supplies  for  the  capital  were 
landed  here.  Josephus  speaks  of  himself  as  havin" 
landed  there  after  being  sliipwrecked  ( Vit.  3),  and 
gives  its  other  name  of  Dicajarchia.  There  must 
have  been  a  Jewish  population  in  the  place  (cf. 
Jos.  Ant,  xvill.  vi.  4),  and  this  may  perhaps  ac- 
count for  the  presence  of  Christians  there.  Some 
of  the  ruins  of  the  ancient  mole,  at  which  the 
apostle  must  have  landed,  are  still  in  e.xistence. 

H.  A.  Redpath. 

PUTHITES  (T'irn,  B  Mei0ci(*eiM,  A  'U<pi$dv).— 
One  of  the  families  of  Kiriath-jearim,  1  Ch  2^. 
See  Genealogy,  iv.  38. 

PUTIEL  ('jK'cis,  *owi^X).— The  father-in-law  of 
Aaron's  son  Eleazar,  Ex  6-^  (P).  About  Putiel  we 
liear  nothing  more  in  the  0 T,  and  the  meaning  of 
the  name  is  uncertain.  Gray  (IIPN  210)  classes 
it  amongst  the  late  and  artilicial  names  character- 
istic of  the  lists  of  P  and  the  Chronicler.  It  may 
be  half -Egyptian  half-Semitic  (  =  'he  whom  El 
gave,'  see  Dillm. -Ryssel,  Exodus,  ad  loc),  but 
even  if  so,  it  will  not  bear  all  the  weight  of  the 
argument  that  Hommel  (^-I/?2'293,  295)  builds  upon 
it  in  regard  to  the  early  history  of  Israel  and  the 
character  of  the  Priests'  Code.         J.  A.  Selbie. 

PUYAH.— See  PuAH. 

PYGARG  (fc'T  dishon). — Dishon  occurs  only  once 

(Dt  I4=).  It  is  the  fifth  name  in  the  Heb.  list. 
In  B  of  the  LXX  it  comes  third  in  order  (iri'yapyos), 
yalimilr  and  'a/,7,d  being  left  out,  although  AF 
reproduce  these  by  /3oi'<(3aXo!  and  TpayiXat/io^.  Both 
l'"iig.  VSS  have  adopted  '  pygarg '  for  dishon,  but 
AVra  h.^s  'dishon  or  bison.'  We  have  no  certain 
knowledge  of  the  animal  intended  by  dishon,  ex- 
cept that  it  is  to  be  inferred,  from  its  jiosition  in 
the  list,  that  it  was  an  antelope.  If,  of  the  four 
antelopes  found  in  the  deserts  contiguous  to  Pal., 
Gnzella  Dorras,  L.,  corresponds  to  zibi,  Antilope 
Ic.ucori/x,  Pall.,  to  tffo,  Ave  may  adopt  A.  Addax, 
Licht.,  for  dishon.  This  species  is  over  3J  feet 
high  at  the  shoulders,  and  sha])ed  like  the  rein- 
deer. Its  horns  are  spiral,  2i  feet  long.  Its 
colour  is  white,  \vith  tlie  exception  of  a  black 
niane,  and  a  tawny  colour  on  the  shoulders  and 
back.  It  is  uncertain  whether  the  fourth  antelope, 
Alci-jilinlus  bubalis,  Pal].,  is  mentioned  in  Scripture 
(see  Unicorn).  G.  E.  Post. 

whether  the  PtHit-yaman  mentioned  In  the  fragmentary  annals 
of  Nehiiehadnezzar  does  not  come  in  here.  This  '  Oreek-Putu  '  is 
nieritionctl  ainontj  remote  counlries  in  the  midst  of  the  sea, 
wliich  aided  Kfrypt  under  Ania-sis  aj^ninst  the  Babylonians,  and 
this  reminds  Wiiioltler  of  Xali  3i>.  But  tlie  nerpssary  addition 
yainan  (Greek)  shows  that  this  countrj-  (Winrkler  supposes 
Lesbos,  suitably  to  his  restoration  of  the  name  of  the  prince, 
viz.  [PUta]ktt(»),  or  Caria)  is  to  be  distinj^uished  from  the 
ordinary  Pfit  of  the  Bible,  the  Persians  and  Babylonians. 
Perhaps  the  Put  of  Ezk  271»  [ch.  SS^)  mij;ht  be  explained 
after  Winckler,  so  that  we  should  have  two  countries  called 
Put — one  in  Alrica,  another  ki  the  north. 


PYRAMID. — Simon  the  Maccabee  is  said  to  have 
erected  a  magnificent  monument  to  his  parents  and 
his  (four)  brothers  at  Modein.  This  consisted  partly 
of  seven  pyramids  (irvpa/jildas),  si.x  set  up  one  opposite 
another,  with  the  seventh  (intended  apparently  for 
Simon's  own  monument)  probably  standing  by 
itself  at  one  of  the  ends,  1  Mac  13^  (cf.  Jos.  Ant. 
Xlll.  vi.  6).  Pyramid-graves  are,  of  course,  most 
familiar  to  us  in  Egypt,  but  they  were  not  un- 
common elsewhere.  There  is  probably  a  reference 
to  such  graves  in  Is  14"  'all  the  kings  of  the 
earth,  all  of  them,  lie  in  honour,  each  one  in  hia 
own  house.'  The  Bible  contains  no  certain  special 
allusion  to  the  pyramids  of  Egypt,  the  reference  in 
Job  3''',  which  has  been  conjectured,  being  very 
doubtfiil  (see  Dillm.  ad  loc). 

PYRRHUS  {Uippos  :  lit.  '  fiery-red ').— Amongst 
the  companions  of  St.  Paul  who  accompanied  him 
on  his  last  journey  to  Jerusalem  from  PhUippi  was 
Sopater  of  Beroea,  who  in  the  RV  is  described  as 
•son  of  Pyrrhus'  (Ac  20^).  The  word  Iluppov  is 
omitted  in  TR  in  accordance  with  the  later 
authorities,  but  it  is  read  by  all  the  diflerent  classes 
of  older  documents  (X-'^BDE  vulg.  boh.  sah.  Or.), 
and  must  clearly  have  formed  part  of  the  original 
te.xt.  Blass  {ad  loc.)  points  out  that  this  is 
the  only  case  in  the  NT  in  which  a  patronymic 
is  added  after  the  Greek  fashion,  and  that 
perhaps  it  implies  that  Sopater  was  of  noble 
birth.  A.  C.  Headlam. 

PYTHON The  reading  iriiflui-a  in  Ac  16"  is 

attested  by  the  overwhelming  evidence  of  kABC* 
D*.  The  inferior  reading  irvSoivos,  found  in  C^D' 
EHLP,  is  easily  expl.ained.  The  accusative  form 
was  not  understood.  Hence  the  more  intelligible 
construction  with  the  genitive  (cf.  Lk  4-").  The 
reading  irvdwi'a  is  obviously  the  right  one  (so 
Lachm.  Tisch.  WH,  Blass) 

The  name  llidiiiv  as  a  Greek  term  must  be  con- 
nected with  that  of  the  district  llvddi  in  Phocis, 
which  lay  at  the  foot  of  Parnassus  where  the 
town  Delphi  was  situated.  Its  geographical  asso- 
ciation with  the  Delphic  oracle  over  which  Apollo 
presided  gave  rise  to  the  adjective  noffios  as  an 
epithet  of  Apollo.  His  priestess  was  called  ii 
Jli'dia.  Also  the  name  HvSuiv,  derived  from  this 
local  connexion,  was  bestowed  on  the  serpent 
whom  the  god  was  believed  to  have  slain  when 
he  took  possession  of  the  Delphic  oracle.  Accord- 
ing to  Apollodorus  (L  iv.  1)  this  oracle  was  formerly 
in  possession  of  the  goddess  Themis,  and  the 
mysterious  chasm,  from  which  the  intoxicating 
and  inspiring  exhalations  issued,  was  guarded  by 
this  serpent,  whom  Apollo  destroyed.  The  con- 
nexion of  the  serpent  with  wisdom  and  sooth- 
saying is  based  on  demonology  (see  Magic  in  vol. 
iii.  pp.  2(J9  (footnote),  210).     Cf.  Gn  3',  Mt  10'«. 

In  tlie  present  passage  it  is  clear  that  what  is 
implied  is  that  the  girl  was  considered  to  be 
possessed  of  a  soothsaying  demon.  In  the  lan- 
guage of  the  OT  she  would  probably  be  called 
a  D'K  n'?V3  (1  S  28').  The  word  nix,  however,  is 
employed  by  itself  to  convey  this  meaning,  and 
is  reproduced  in  the  LXX  by  iyyaffTplp-vSos  (Lv  19" 
20"--'').     The  Syriac  version  on   Ac   16'"  renders 

by  |!iD»jO>   (>.i03  'soothsaying  spirit '(lit. 'spirit 

of  soothsaying ').  See  art.  SOOTHSAYING  ;  cf.  ala* 
Necromancy  under  Sorcery. 

Owen  C.  'Whitehousk. 


QOHELETH 


QUAKKY 


179 


Q 


QOHELETH.— See  Ecclesiastes. 

QUAIL  {-ys  ItCcri  v)-^]  silaw,  in  Nn  11"  plur. 
O'l^';',  w  liicli  implies  a  sing.  TW^'i  salwch  ;  dprvyo- 
inqrpa,  cuturnix;  Arab.  sdwn). — A  well-known 
ini;;ratory  biid,  Coturnix  vulgaris,  L.  A  few 
individuals  remain  in  E^\-pt  and  the  Holy  Land 
throughout  the  j-ear.  The  migrators  arrive  in 
iljundance,  on  their  way  north  towards  the  bo- 
binning  of  March,  and  again  on  their  way  south 
in  Noveml)er.  Some  pass  through  without  stop- 
ping, while  others  remain  to  breed.  Their  arrival 
13  heralded  by  their  peculiar  call,  especially  early 
in  the  morning  and  at  sunset.  They  migrate 
in  vast  flocks,  crossing  the  Arab,  desert,  flying 
for  the  most  part  at  night.  They  also  cross  the 
Mediterranean,  selecting  as  their  places  of  passage 
the  narrowest  portions,  as  that  between  Africa 
and  Malta,  Sicily,  and  the  Greek  islands,  etc. 
Tliey  always  fly  with  the  wind.  Their  bodies  are 
so  heavy  in  comparison  with  the  power  of  their 
wings  tliat  they  cannot  cross  very  Ion"  reaches 
of  the  sea.  Many  perish,  even  in  the  sliort  pas- 
sage, and  those  which  arrive  safe  are  excessively 
fatigued.  Quails  are  twice  mentioned  in  conne.\ion 
with  the 'Wilderness  .loumevings  (Ex  16"  [P],  Nu 
J  131.83  |-JE]_  cf_  i>s  10540).  >rhose  which  supi)lied 
the  Israelites  came  in  spring,  while  on  their  way 
northwards.  Tristram  has  shown  that  they  would 
naturally  follow  up  the  Red  Sea  to  its  bifurcation, 
and  cross  at  the  narrowest  part  into  the  Sinaitic 
peninsula.  A  sea  ^vind  woiud  bring  them  in  im- 
mense numbers  into  the  camp  which  the  Israelites 
occupied  at  that  time.  The  miracle  consisted  in 
their  lieing  directed  to  the  right  time  and  place. 
Q\iail8,  when  migrating,  begin  to  arrive  at  night 
(Ex  16"),  and  are  found  in  large  numbers  in  the 
morning  (Nu  U"-").  Their  great  exhaustion  on 
their  arrival  makes  it  ea.sy  to  believe  all  that  is 
said  in  the  narrative  as  to  the  numbers  which  the 
Israelites  captured,  and  the  ease  with  which  they 
were  taken. 

The  (|uail  belongs  to  the  order  Gallinm,  family 
Phaxvtnifltr..  Its  predominant  colour  is  brown, 
shaded  and  mottled  with  nifous  and  grey,  with 
edgings  of  black.  A  buir  line  extends  down  over 
each  eye,  and  another  down  the  centre  of  the 
head.  Its  length  is  J  inches.  Its  flesh  is  succu- 
lent. It  is  popularly  known  in  Syria  as  the/iJrrf, 
an  onomatopoetie  word,  referring  to  the  whirring 
of  its  wings  as  it  takes  to  flight.  See,  further, 
Dillm.-Ryssel  on  Ex  16".  G.  E.  Post. 

QDAKE.— To  quake  (from  the  same  root  as 
•quick'  [  =  alive],  'quicken,'  cf.  Pier.?  Plmimuin, 
'Quook  as  hit  quyke  were')  is  to  shake,  usually 
with  fear  (so  alwaj-s  in  AV,  where  the  transit, 
sense  does  not  occur).  Thns  lie  12''  '  Moses  said, 
I  exceedingly  fear  and  quake'  (f>t0oj34s  tliu  xal  (v- 
rpofiot).  George  Fox  in  his  Journal  says,  'Justice 
Bonnet  of  Derby  was  the  first  that  called  us 
Quakers,  becausel  bid  them  tremble  at  the  word 
of  the  Lord.  This  was  in  the  year  16.50.'  Fox  had 
used  the  verb  '  quake,' which  probably  struck  the 
Justice's  ear  a«  odd  because  already  antiquated  in 
this  sense.  Yet  RV  retains  it  everywhere,  and 
adds  Mt  28*  '  For  fear  of  him  the  watchers  did 
qnake'  (for  A'V  'shake,'  Gr.  adu,  wliich  is  tr* 
'quake'  in  AV  and  R'V  at  27").  Ainer.  RV  in- 
troduces 'quake'  also  at  Ps  18''.       J.  HASTINGS. 

QUALITY  Is  used  in  Ad.  Est  1 1  ''*"»«  in  the  sense 


of  rank  :  '  The  stock  and  quality  of  Mardocheas.' 

Cf.  Shaks.  Uenry  V.  IV.  viii.  95— 

•  The  rest  are  princes,  barons,  lords,  knights,  squires, 
And  gentlemen  of  blood  and  quality.' 

QUARREL. — Like  Lat.  querela,  from  which  it 
comes,  through  Old  Fr.  querele,'  'quarrel'  origin- 
ally meant  a  complaint  or  cause  of  complaint. 
Thus  Hall,  Works,  ii.  155,  '  It  was  thy  just  quarrell, 
O  Saviour,  that  whiles  one  Samaritane  returned, 
nine  Israelites  were  healed,  and  returned  not.' 
Then  it  was  used  for  any  cause  or  case  that  had 
to  be  pursued  or  defended,  as  in  Golding's  Calvin's 
Job,  559,  '  Although  Job  had  a  just  and  reasonable 
quarrell,  yet  did  he  farre  overshote  himself;  and 
p.  573,  '  Sometymes  we  will  be  ashamed  to  main- 
teyne  a  good  quarrell,  bycause  wee  see  that  men  do 
but  make  a  mocke  at  it.'  This  is  the  sense  in 
which  the  word  is  used  in  AV :  Lv  2G^  '  I  will 
bring  a  sword  upon  you  that  shall  avenge  the 
quarrel  of  my  covenant'  (RV  'execute  the  venge- 
ance ') ;  2  K  5'  '  See  how  he  seeketh  a  quarrel 
ag.aiust  me'  (RVra  '  an  occasion ') ;  Mk  6"  '  Herodias 
had  a  quarrel  against  him'  (AVm  'an  inward 
grudge,'  RV  'set  herself  against  him,' Gr.  ivc'ix^v 
aiTif) ;  except  in  Col  3"  '  If  any  man  have  a  quarrel 
against  any,'  where  the  meaning  is  rather  'com- 
plaint,' as  AVm  and  RV;  Gr.  /io/n^?). 

The  verb  '  to  quarrel '  occurs  in  AV  Preface  in 
the  transit,  sense  of  oppose,  object  to.  Cf.  Melvill, 
Diary,  370,  'At  the  quhilk  word  the  King  in- 
terrupts me,  and  crobbotlie  quarrels  our  meitting, 
alleagin"  it  was  without  warrand  and  seditius.' 
The  modem  intrans.  meaning  of  the  verb  is  found 
in  Sir  31'",  and  RV  introduces  it  at  Pr  20». 

J.  Hastincs. 

QUARRY In  1  K  6' it  is  said  that  the  temple 

was  built  of  stone  made  ready  'at  the  quarry' 
(RV  ;  AV  has  'before  it  was  brought  thither,' 
RVm  'when  it  was  brought  away').  The  MT, 
whose  correctness  is  not  above  suspicion,  is  [yX 
y;5  r^zh\:f  •  LXX  XWots  ditpoTiS/iois  apyois ;  Vulg.  de 
lapidihus  dolatis  atque  perfectis.  The  rendering 
' nuarry '  or  ' quarrying'  for  yr?  is  probably  correct 
(cf.  the  use  of  the  root  yoj  in  Hiphil  in  1  K  5"' 
ti-"g-  "1  and  Ec  10«),  and  the  meaning  is  that  the 
liuge  stones  spoken  of  in  5^' '"'  were  dressed  before 
leaving  the  quarry  (for  this  practice  cf.  Benzinger, 
Hill).  Arch.  237).  For  the  process  of  quarrying  as 
carried  on  by  the  Egyptians  in  early  times,  see 
Maspero,  Dawn  of  Cioilization,  p.  383  f.,  and 
passim.  It  is  evident  that  1  K  6'  breaks  the  con- 
nexion, and  this  verse  is  probably  a  later  addi- 
tion (so  Benzinger,  Kittel,  et  al.).  The  statement 
contained  in  it  gave  rise  to  a  variety  of  fanciful 
legends  tending  to  the  glorification  or  the  temple 
and  its  builder  (see  Benzinger,  Comm.  nd  lor.). 

The  only  other  occurrence  of  'quarry'  in  the 
EV  is  in  j'g  3'"-''".  According  to  v.'',  Ehud  turned 
back  from  '  the  quarries  that  were  by  Gilgal,'  and 
after  the  assassination  of  Eglon  he  '  escaped  while 
they  tarried,  and  passed  beyond  the  quarries,'  v.". 
AVm  and  RVm  oiler  as  an  alternative  renclcring 
'graven  images';  LXX  has  rd  yXinrrd  ;  Vulg.  in 
V?'  '  reversus  de  Galgalis,  iibi  erant  idola,'  in  v.'"' 
'  Locum  iddlonim.'  The  Hebrew  is  o''?'C?,  which 
is  used  as  plural  to  S;?,  and  is  employed  of  images 
of  gods  in  wood,  stone,  or  metal,  Dt  7'-"  12", 
Is  21"  30",  2  Ch  34*.  Moore,  who  considers  that 
'  quarries  '  is  an  unwarranted  translation,  proposes 

•The  Bi^elling  haa  been  OMiniilat*Hl  to  the  difltinct  wor>l 
'quarrel,*  a  square-headed  crossbow  bolt  (Low  IjaUfptadrrlhn-') 


ISO 


QUAETUS 


QUEEN 


rendering  '  siiiJ ptnred  stones  (prohably  rude  stone 
inia;;es:).'  They  may  be  the  same  as  tlie  stones 
whic-h,  according  to  popular  tradition,  Joshua 
erected  to  commemorate  (he  passage  of  the  Jordan 
(Jos  4-'°),  or,  possibly  boundary  stones,  marking  tlie 
last  Moabite  outijost  (of.  Jg  3=").  See,  further, 
Budde  ('Kichter'  in  Kurzer  Hdcom.  ad  loc),  who 
thinks  the  PMlt7n  probably  marked  the  Jordan 
ford  at  GUgal,  and  tliat  the  ford  was  known  by 
this  name.     For  Jos  7°  (RVm)  see  Shebakim. 

In  Is  51'  -fi2  rc^;  (lit.  '  excavation  of  a  pit ')  is  used 
lor  quarry  in  a  fig.  sense :  '  Look  unto  the  rock 
wheuce  ye  were  he\\Ti,  and  to  the  hole  of  the  pit 
(ei's  rbv  ^ddvvov  tov  \iiKKov)  whence  ye  were  digged.* 
On  a  Rabbinical  conceit  regarding  this  passage  see 
rKTER  (FiR.ST  Epistle  of)  in  vol.  iii.  p.  795''.  See, 
further,  art.  STONE.  J.  A.  Selbie. 

QUARTUS  (KoiiapTos).— Mentioned  with  Erastus, 
the  treasurer  of  Corinth,  a.s  joining  in  St.  Paul's 
greeting  to  the  Church  of  Rome,  Ro  16^.  He  is 
commemorated  Nov.  3.  Later  traditions  will  be 
found  in  Acta  Sanctorum,  Nov.,  i.  p.  5S5. 

A.  C.  Headlam. 

QUATERNION  (nTpiSiov)  means  a  group  consist- 
ing of  lour  ]iersons  or  things.  The  Greek  word  is 
a  aTrai  \ey.  in  NT,  being  found  only  in  Ac  12^ 
Tapa5oi>s  Tetro-apctv  TerpaSiotg  arparLitiTuiv  <pv\d<xff€LV 
avTov,  Vulg.  quatuor  quatemionihus.  A  Roman 
watch  consisted,  Polyuius  tells  us,  of  four  men 
(vi.  33  :  rd  ipvXaKeTiv  itrrtv  iK  Terrdpuv  dvopu^v),  and 
Vegetius  {de  Re  Mititari,  iii.  8)  wTites  :  '  De  singulis 
ccnturiis  quaterni  equites  et  quatemi  pedites  ex- 
culiituni  noctil)us  faciunt.'  The  same  author  goes 
on  to  explain  that  the  night  was  divided  into  four 
watches  of  three  hours  eacii ;  cf.  Jerome,  Epist. 
140.  8  (ed.  Vallarsi).  It  seems  that  one  member 
of  tlie  quaternion  watched  (while  the  other  three 
slept)  through  each  watch.  It  appears  from  Jn  19-^ 
(of.  Ef.  Petr.  9)  that  a  TerpaSiov  was  on  guard  during 
the  Crucifixion,  and  from  Mt  27'"  (ix^-rt  KovnTuiolav) 
]ierhaps  that  the  same  quaternion  was  on  duty  at 
the  time  of  the  Resurrection  :  but  see  GUAKD,  4. 

TerpiSioK  occurs  in  Philu  (udo.  flavcmn,  ii.  533. 
25,  ed.  Mangey)  with  the  same  colouring  as  in  NT, 
CTpaTiJinji'  Tifa  Twy  if  Tois  T€Tpa5ioL^  tpvXdKujv,  and 
fairly  frequently  in  late  authors  in  the  sense  of  a 
quire  of  a  book  containing  four  double  leaves,  i.e. 
sixteen  pages.  The  Latin  form  quaternio  is  rare, 
and  occurs  only  once  in  the  Vulgate,  if  we  may 
trust  Dutripon.  The  Peshitta  of  Ac  12*  ('sixteen 
soldiers')  misses  the  clear  reference  to  Roman 
militarj'  custom.  On  this  subject  cf.  Marquardt 
and  Mommsen,  Handb.  der  roni.  Altcrlhiimcr,  v. 
4u7  (ed.  1876).  W.  Emery  Barxes. 

QUEEN. — 1.  The  nsual  Heb.  terra  for  'queen '  in 
the  OT  is  n;^D  (in  Dn  5"  Aram.  stat.  eraph.  nn?-;) ; 
LXX  /SatriXKriro ;  with  the  verb  iSo  'to  be  queen,' 
Hiph.  '  to  make  queen,'  Est2*-  ".  For  nrte  see  art. 
Queen  of  Heaven.  The  other  words'  so  trans- 
iited  in  AV  are— 2.  nysi  (lit.  'mistres.s,'  cf.  Is  24-) 
1  K  ll'MLXXMifW"")  15>^(^oiiA<^i'7;),2  K  10"(8iwa(r- 
TcOovaa),  2  Ch  15'«  (LXX  om.),  Jer  13'»  (ol  Sivaffrei- 
oiTfs)  29  [Gr.  30]  2  (|8o(r(Xiff<ra)  [RV  in  the  last  two 
passages  'queen-mother'].  3.  '?:;?  (V;y  =  'ra\'ish  ' ; 
cf.  Dt  28»\  Is  13",  Zee  14=)  only  in  P8  459  {fia<Tl\iff<ra), 
Neh  2°  (jraXXoK^).  *  The  Aram,  form  of  the  word 
is  found  in  Dn  5-'- "  (Tlieod.  in  all  ttciXXost),  LXX 
om.).  i.  n-;-;'  (lit.  'princess,'  cf.  AVm)  Is  49^ 
{dpxovffai).  In  NT  PaaiKuiaa  is  alone  found — Mt 
12^-,  Lk  11",  Ac  8-'',  Rev  18'. 

In  ordinary  cases  of  synonyms  it  is  well  to  trace 
the  usage  of  each  word  in  the  original  ;  but  as  in 
this  case  the  same  Hebrew  word  is  used  to  convey 

•  Possibly  in  Jg  5^  (end)  '73;?  should  be  read  for  S^^  (bo 
Ewald,  (oUowed  by  Bertheau,  Oettii,  Renan,  Kautzsoh.  For 
oLher  proposed  emendatious  of  the  text  see  Moore,  ad  Ivc.). 


more  than  one  meaning  of  our  English  '  queen,'  it 
will  conduce  to  clearness  and  also  be  found  more 
suggestive  if  the  usage  of  the  English  word  in  our 
Riljles  be  taken  as  our  guide.  This  has  three 
meanings :  the  queen  reigning  in  her  own  right, 
the  queen  as  the  wife  of  the  reigning  king,  and 
the  queen  as  the  mother  of  the  reigning  king. 

i.  The  queen  reigning  in  her  own  rigid. — The 
general  tendency  of  the  Semitic  as  of  the  other 
groups  of  nations  in  strictly  historical  times  haa 
been  for  women  to  take  other  than  the  first  place 
in  governing,  and  this  tendency  is  very  conspicuous 
in  the  history  of  Israel.  Possibly  the  general  close 
connexion  in  Semitic  States  of  the  king  with  the 
god  (see  ICiNG,  i.  2)  made  it  appear  unseemly  that 
a  woman  should  rule ;  and  though  among  the 
Northern  Arabians  queens  seem  to  have  been 
frequent,  as  well  as  in  the  Southern  Arabian  king- 
dom of  Sheba  (see  McCurdy,  HPM  g  3.34),  there 
is  no  trace  in  Israel  of  any  otiicial  recognition 
of  women  as  being  capable  of  the  chief  govern- 
ment. It  is  just  possible,  indeed,  that  the  word 
Hammolecheth  *  (1  Gh  7"^),  usually  understood  aa 
the  proper  name  of  a  JIanassite  woman,  should  be 
translated  '  the  queen'  (so  Targ.  and  many  Rabbis, 
e.g.  Kimchi  and  R.  Solomon  b.  Melek,  Vulg.), 
but  corroborative  evidence  is  wholly  lacking.  The 
position  of  Deborah  as  'judge'  (for  parallels  in 
Arabian  history  see  W.  R.  Smith,  Kinship,  pp. 
104,  171)  was  quite  abnormal,  and  presumably  due 
solely  to  her  personal  vigour  and  character.  So 
too  Athaliah,  who  reigned  (n;^-)  over  Judah  six 
years  (2  K  IF,  2  Cb  22'-),  was  a  mere  usurper, 
and  traded  on  her  earlier  influence  and  position. 
Hence  'queen'  in  this  first  sense  is  used  only  of 
the  non-Israelitish  queen  of  Sheba  (k^^  nj'rij  1  K 
10'-'^  2  Ch  9'-'-,  Mt  12-'-,  Lk  IP'),  Candace,  queen 
of  Ethioijia  (Ac  8-''),  and  Babylon  personitied  (Rev 
IS'). 

ii.  The  queen  as  the  wife  of  the  reigning  king. — 
Queen  in  this  sense  also  is  hardly  found  in  Israel- 
itish  history.  In  Egypt  (1  K  11'")  Pharaoh  gives 
Hadad  to  wife  the  sister  of  Tahpenes  the  queen 
(n-i-;;n,  but  the  text  is  very  doubtful).  In  Persia 
Vashti  (Est  1)  and  Esther  (Est  2  and  passim)  are 
successively  called  the  queen  (i;^?)  of  Ahasuerus. 
And  again  '  queen '  is  used  in  N  eh  2*  in  reference 
to  the  royal  consort  ('?J?)  of  Artaxerxes  Longi- 
manus.  In  Dn  5-'  ^-  ^,  however,  Sis'  is  used  of  royal 
wives  of  lower  rank.  In  Israel,  on  the  contrary, 
'  queen '  in  this  sense  is  used  only  indirectly  and  in 
poetry.  So  no^a  (^ao-iXio-ffoi)  in  Ca  6*- '  of  wives 
who  enjoyed  some  higher  (perhaps  more  legal) 
status  than  mere  concubines  (cvjVs,  jroXXn/toi).  In 
Ps  45'  ^i'i'  is  used  of  the  one  legitimate  wife. 

iii.  The  queen  as  the  mother  of  the  reigning  king 
(H^-jn  EX  llv  2'»,  2K  24").  — Strange  as  it  is  to 
modem  ideas  that  the  queen-mother  should  be  the 
queen  par  excellence,  it  is  very  common  in  the  East 
{e.g.  China  in  our  own  time),  and  perhaps  almost 
the  necessary  result  of  polygamy  (see  Family'  in 
vol.  i.  )).  S47'').t  'Queen'  occurs  in  this  sense  in 
the  Bible  of  a  non-Israelite  only  in  Dn  5""''',  where 
the  mother  (apparently)  of  Belshazzar  is  so  called 
(N,n;Sr)  it  hut  it  is  used  more  often  of  Israelites. 
In  fact  the  queen-mother  appears  to  have  had  a 
regular  official  status  both  in  the  Northern  and  in 
the  Southern  kingdom,  which  in  part  accounts  lor 
the  frequencjj  with  which  the  name  of  the  mother 
of  the  King  is  recorded  (see  below),  and  the  im- 
•  Tlie  reading,  however,  is  not  certain.  The  Pcsliitta  (which 
some  thinit  to  be  in  Chronicles  a  Jewish  Targuin  of  ord  irent. 
A.D.)  reads  Maacah. 

t  So  among  the  negroes  of  West  Africa  the  mother  ho«  in- 
corapaniblv  more  innuence  than  the  wife.  See  Miss  M.  H. 
Kingsley,  \Vett  African  Sludia,  1899. 

J  Coiiiinentators  have  compared  Amastris,  the  wife  of  Xerxel 
and  mother  of  Arta.xerxes  I.  (Herod,  vii.  61),  and  Parysatis,  the 
wife  of  Darius  and  mother  of  Artajterxes  Mnemon  and  Cyrul 
(.\en.  Anab.  l.  i.  1). 


QUEEN  OF  HEAVEN,  THE 


QUESTION 


181 


portance  attached  to  some  of  her  actions.  The 
iiclual  term  'queen'  (m/ji)  is  used  only  of  Jezebel 
(2  K  10"  prob.),  Maacah  (1  K  lo"  =  2  Ch  lo'"),  and 
Nehushta  (Jer  13'"  29-).  The  semi -royal  state, 
however,  of  Bathsheba,  Solomon's  mother,  is 
shown  in  1  K  2'^  where  Solomon  sits  on  his  throne 
and  sets  a  liirone  for  '  the  king's  mother,'  and  she 
sits  on  his  right  hand.  The  importance,  too,  of 
Maacah,  Asas  'mother'  (i.e.  probably  grand- 
mother), who  had  retained  her  influence  from 
the  reign  of  Abijah,  is  shown  by  the  mention 
of  her  idolatry,  and  of  Asa's  destruction  of  the 
monstrous  ligure  that  she  had  made  (1  K  15"  = 
2  Ch  15'«). 

Athaliah  has  been  already  mentioned.  Nehushta, 
from  Jeremiah's  bitter  words  in  Jer  22-',  apjiears 
to  have  used  her  ollicial  position  to  take  an  active 
part  against  Jeremiah  and  his  policy  of  submitting 
to  the  Chaldieans. 

From  Jer  13"  the  queen-mother  appears  to  have 
worn  a  crown  (.t;?^,  vriipavoi)  more  or  less  like  the 
king's,  but  the  'head  tire'(RV)  is  a  translation 
of  a  doubtful  readin".  In  Jg  o*",  Ewald,  by  a  slight 
textual  change,  renders  '  for  the  neck  of  the  queen ' 
(see  Moore,  in  loc. ). 

For  the  names  of  the  mothers  of  the  kings  of 
Judah  see  Gknealogy  in  vol.  ii.  p.  126''.  lu  the 
case  of  the  kings  of  Israel  the  only  names  found 
are  Zeruah  the  mother  of  Jeroboam  I.  (1  K  11-"') 
and  Jezeljel  the  mother  of  Ahaziah  (presumably, 
cf.  1  K  22'-)  and  Joram  (prob.  2  K  3'--  '^  10"). 

A.  LUKYN  Williams. 

QUEEN  OF  HEAVEN,  THE.— d:;:.?  nz-.o  m'lc- 
kheth  Itash-shdnuiyim,  or  in  a  few  MSS  'b'h  nrxj^rj 
m'le'khethf  etc.  ;  r^  (XTpan^  tov  oupavoVf  '  the  host 
of  heaven,'  in  Jer  7",  but  rj  ^aaMaar)  tov  oiipapoO, 
•  the  queen  of  heaven,'  in  Jer  44  [Gr.  51]  "•  '"•  '»•»>, 
except  k"  in  v.^  tj  BdaX  ;  in  v."  two  late  cursives 
give  as  the  rendering  of  the  Ileb.  represented  by 
'(Then  all  the  men  which  knew  that  their  wives 
burned  incense)  nnto  other  gods,'  Oeols  MpoLt  tj 
OTfaTtf  ToO  oi'p.i  with  a  few  exceptions  the  other 
LaX  MSS  have  no  eiiuivalent  for  'unto  other 
gods' ;  Aq.,  S^ymm.,  and  Theod.  in  7",  and  Symm. 
in  44  [51]'*  Tj  /Soff.  T.  oi'p.;  regime  cwli,  but  also 
in  Jerome  (Kuenen,  Abhandl.  p.  187,  Germ,  tr.), 
mililire  ca-li  ;  Syr.  (Lee),  '  for  the  worship 
(^^j^  O^)  of  heaven  '  in  7"  44"-  "•  so,  '  for  the 
qneen  (/..hIiLd)  of  heaven'  in  44'";  Targ.  n33i3 
H'cv  '  star(s)  of  heaven ' ;  according  to  Jastrow, 
theplanet  Ventis. 

"Tlie  reading  njK^ij  mfle' kheth  is  set  aside  by 
common  consent  as  a  late  emendation  duo  to  the 
tradition  that  n^So  here  was  to  be  interpreted  as 
MK^D.  The  pointing  nzf-s  tti'lflchoth,  is  sometimes 
explained  as  an  intentional  variation  of  mnlknth, 
'  queen-of,'  meant  to  suggest  that  a  false  goddess 
was  not  a  legitimate  queen,  just  as  luim-Melckh, 
'the  kin",'  when  used  of  a  false  god,  receives  the 
vowels  of  bosheth,  '  shame,'  and  becomes  ham- 
Molckh.  But  more  probablj[  the  pointing  indicates 
that  nj'rn  was  identified  with  nitths  '  work,'  the 
silent  Aleph  having  dropped  (as  sometimes  hap- 
pens, Ges.-Kautzsch  -",  §  23.  3). 

M'lekheth,   thus   idciitilied,   was  taken    by   the 

rriac,  also  by  Kimchi,  in  the  sense  of  '  service ' 
'  worship,'  m  which  it  is  found  in  1  Ch  9"  etc.; 


Syrii 


bnt  it  is  clearly  not  the  worship,  Imt  the  object  of 
worship.  It  was  no  doubt  intended  bj-  the  puiictn- 
ators  U>  be  taken  in  the  sense  of  '  the  host  of 
heaven.'  Probably  vi'lrhhcth  itself  was  not  under- 
stood to  mean  '  host '  directly  ;  but  the  punctuators 
equated  the  unusual  phrase  m'lekheth  hnshsh.  to 
the  more  common  phrase  ziba  hash-sh.  (Jer,  etc.), 
being  nartly  influenced  bj'  the  references  in  Gn 
2'- '  to  Creation  as  God's  m'lckhith.  This  view  was 
taken  by  the  LXX  in  Jer  7'"  (unless  the  unlikely 


view  be  adopted  that  the  LXX  here  and  in  44 
[51]"  read  zibd  haxh-sh.),  and  perliaps  by  the 
Targ.,  and  was  recognized  as  an  alternatiie  by 
Jerome ;  cf.  above.  It  has  been  recently  revived 
by  Static,  mainly  on  the  ground  that  elsewhere 
Jeremiah  speaks  of  the  Jews  as  worsliippinjj 
'other  gods  or  'the  host  {?abd)  of  heaven,  and 
that  therefore  this  phrase  should  denote  a  group 
of  objects  of  worship ;  cf.  also  the  statement  that 
Manas.seh  '  built  altars  for  all  the  host  of  heaven 
in  the  two  courts  of  the  house  of  Jehovah,'  2  K  2P. 
l!ut  most  critics,  e.ff.  Budde  {Bel.  of  Isr.  p.  162), 
ConilU  [SIJOT],  Giesebreeht  {Jer.),  KautzsLai(^r), 
Kuenen,  hold  that  the  original  meaning  was  'queen 
of  heaven,'  and  the  proper  pointing;  is  mauctdh. 
The  pointing  iiialkutTi,  '  kingdom,'  has  met  with 
little  acceptance.  It  is  pointed  out  that  the 
phrases  '  worship  of  other  gods  ...  of  the  host 
of  heaven '  may  equal  '  idol.itr^,  star  worship,' 
and  are  in  no  way  evidence  against  the  e.xistence 
of  a  popular  and  widespread  cult  of  a  particular 
goddess. 

According  to  7"  44  [SI]"''"  this  goddess  was 
ofl'ered  incense  and  cakes  which  '  pourtrayed  '  her, 
and  had  been  worshijjped  by  the  ancestors  of  the 
Jews  of  Jeremiairs  time,  and  by  their  kings  and 
princes  in  the  cities  of  Judah,  and  in  the  streets 
of  Jerusalem.  The  Jewish  women  were  specially 
devote<l  to  this  worship. 

This  'queen  of  heaven'  can  scarcely  be  a  col- 
lective term  for  the  stars,  and  is  usually  identified 
with  the  moon,  or  some  planet  or  fixed  star ; 
most  commonly  with  the  Assyrian  Ishtar,  the 
planet  Venus  (also,  however,  connected  with  tlie 
moon).  '  Queen,  or  princess,  of  heaven  '  apjiaiently 
occurs  as  a  title  of  Ishtar,  and  she  is  styled  '  Lady 
of  Heaven,'  bilit  sam-i-i,  in  the  Araarna  Tablets 
(Wiiickler,  p.  4Sf. );  and  our  goddess  may  he  the 
Atiir-samain  (Athar-Astarte),  worshipped  in  North 
Arabia.  Cf.  the  divine  title  Ba'al  Hlmmnyin  in 
Aramaic  hiscriptions.  See  Asiitoreth  in  vol.  i. 
pp.  168^  109^  At  Athens  cakes  in  the  shape  of  a 
full-moon  [uekrivai.)  were  offered  to  the  moon- 
goddess  Artemis  ;  and  in  Arabia  similar  offerings 
were  made  to  the  goddess  Al-Uzza,  whose  star  was 
Venus,  and  to  the  sun  (Kuenen,  208).  St.  Isaac  of 
Antioch  (d.  c.  460)  tells  us  tliat  the  Syrian  women 
worshipped  the  planet  Venus  from  the  roofs  of 
their  houses,  as  a  means  of  preserving  and  in- 
creasing their  beauty.  Ishtar  seems  to  nave  been 
identical  with  Ashturcth ;  but  probably  this  wor- 
shij)  of  the  '  queen  of  heaven'  was  not  the  ancient 
Canaanite  cult  of  Asiitoreth,  but  a  new  worship  of 
the  goddess  with  her  Assyrian  name  and  rites,  due 
to  the  political  supremacy  of  Assyria  in  the  reign 
of  Maiiasseh. 

The  title  Ecgina  Ca-li  has  been  given  to  the 
Vii  1,'iii  Mary  ;  and  at  Mukden,  the  Sacred  City  of 
China,  there  is  a  temple  to  the  '  Queen  of  Heaven.' 
Cf.  ASHTORETII. 

LiTKRATi'RB.  —  See  AsiiTORKTn  in  vol.  I.  p.  1C8'>  note  •,  p. 
lOS''  note'  ;  ami  luld  Uiesebreclil,  Jeremiah,  on  7'» ;  W.  U. 
Bi;tiiR'tt,  Jeremiah  xxi.-lii,,  ch.  XV.  Tliis  article  is  largely 
indebted  to  Kuenen's  Essay.  W.  H.  BeNNE'IT, 

QUESTION.— The  modem  sense  of  'interroga- 
tion '  is  found  in  the  Synoptic  (iospels  in  the  phrase 
'ask  a  inicstion,'  Mt22'«""',  Mk  12",  Lk  2-'«  iO", 
the  Gr.  being  always  the  verb  irepuTdo)  standing 
alone.  In  Lk  2'"  I'indale  has  '  bothe  hearynge 
tliem  and  posinge  them,'  but  the  meaning  is  not 
different,  since  'po.se'  is  used  in  its  old  sense  of 
interrogate,  as  in  Bacon,  IJist.  Uenry  VII.  119, 
'  She  I'osed  him  and  sifted  him,  to  try  whether  he 
were  the  very  Duke  of  York  or  no.'  Tindale  was 
followed  by  all  the  Eng.  VSS  till  the  Khcm.  and 
Auth.,  when  '  pose '  had  become  antiquated  in  this 
sense.     The  sense  of  interrogation  is  found  also  in 


182 


QUICK,  QUICKEN 


QUICKSAl^DS 


2  Es  8"'  And  therefore  ask  thou  no  more  questions 
concerning  the  multitude  of  theni  that  perish  '  (Noli 
ergo  adicere  tnquirendo).  A  slightly  different 
meaning  is  found  in  1  Es  6**  'Without  further 
question'  (dKa/i^io-^ijTTjT-ais) ;  with  which  may  be 
compared  1  Co  10^  "  '  Asking  no  question  for 
conscience'  sake '   {fnjdiv   dfaKptfovTes   Sta.  tt}v  ffvvci- 

The  phrase  '  to  call  in  question '  is  in  AV  more 
than  to  dispute  ;  it  means  to  accuse,  to  bring  into 
judgment.  Thus  Ac  19"  '  We  are  in  danger  to 
De  called  in  question  for  this  day's  uproar '  (kivSw- 
eiyOMf  ^KoKfTadai,  RV  '  we  are  in  danger  to  be 
accused ') ;  23' '  Of  the  Iiope  and  resurrection  of  tlie 
dead  I  am  called  in  question  '  (iyui  Kpivofuii ;  so  24^')- 
See  Call  in  \ol.  i.  p.  344»,  and  cf.  Winthrop, 
Hist,  of  New  Eng.  i.  172,  '  The  governour  wrote  to 
some  of  the  assistants  about  it,  and,  upon  advice 
with  the  ministers,  it  was  agreed  to  call  them  [the 
offenders]  in  question.' 

Elsewliere  the  subst.  '  question '  is  used  either  in 
the  sense  of  discussion,  dispute,  or  else  the  subject 
of  discussion,  matter  of  dispute.  Thus  (1)  Discus- 
sion, dispttte  (Gr.  always  f7)n;<ris),  Jn  S'-^  '  Then 
there  arose  a  question  between  some  of  John's 
disciples  and  the  Jews  about  purifying ' ;  2  Ti  2-^ 
'  Foolish  and  unlearned  questions  avoid.'  Cf.  Ac 
28^  Wye,  'Jewis  wenten  out  fro  him,  ha\'ynge 
miche  questioun,  or  seking  (Purvey,  ethir  musyng) 
among  iiem  silf.'    Also  Shaks.  Henry  V.  I.  L  5 — 

*  The  scrambling  and  unquiet  time 
Did  push  it  out  of  farther  question.' 

(2)  Subject  .f  debate,  1  K  10'  ||2  Ch  9'  'She  came 
to  prove  him  with  hard  questions '  (nh-rj,  lit.  '  with 
riddles,'  see  Riddle)  ;  1  K  10'  ||  2  Ch  9»  '  And 
Solomon  told  her  all  her  questions'  (C"!?";,  lit.  '  her 
matters');  cf.  Mk  ll-'"'!  will  also  ask  of  you  one 
question'  (Iva  Xlryov,  AVm  'one  thing,'  RVm  '  Gr. 
word  ').  Elsewhere  only  ^rrrrtiia  and  only  in  Acts, 
as  Ac  23^  '  W  lioin  I  perceived  to  be  accused  of 
questions  of  their  law.'  Cf.  Shaks.  Hamlet,  ill. 
i.  56— 

'  To  be,  or  not  to  be  :  that  is  the  question.* 

The  verb  'to  question'  occurs  only  in  the  phrase 
'  question  with  one '  (once  '  question  among  them- 
selves,' Mk  1'''),  which  often  meant  to  dispute, 
argue  with,  as  Shaks.  Merch.  of  Venice,  IV.  i.  70, 
'  I  pray  you,  think  yon  qtrestion  with  the  Jew '; 
but  in  AV  it  seems  never  to  mean  more  than 
'  inquire  of.'  Thus  Lk  23°  '  Then  he  questioned 
with  him  in  many  words  (irrjpurra  di  avrdi/  if  \6yois 
UavoU),  but  he  answered  him  nothing.' 

J.  Hastings. 

QUICK,  QUICKEN.  —  Although  the  adverb 
'  quickly '  in  the  sense  of  speedily  is  of  frequent 
occurrence  in  A  V,  neither  '  quick '  nor  '  quicken ' 
is  ever  found  with  that  meanmg. 

In  Is  11'  and  some  passages  in  the  Apocr.  the 
raeanins;  of  'quick'  is  acute  or  active.  Thus  Is 
11*  'And  shall  make  him  of  quick  understanding 
in  the  fear  of  the  Lord'  Cin-i::!,  RV  '  His  delight 
shall  be  in  the  fear  of  the  Lord,'  RVm  as  AV,  see 
esp.  Delitzsch,  in  lac);  Wis  7^  'Wisdom  .  .  . 
taught  me  .  .  .  for  in  lier  is  an  understanding 
spirit  .  .  .  quick  '  ((Sfi),  Vulg.  acutus,  RV  '  keen  ')  ; 
8"  '  I  shall  be  found  of  a  quick  conceit  in  judg- 
ment' (i^lis  (v  Kfilaet,  Vulg.  acutus  in  judirio). 
With  these  passages  cf.  Knox,  Hist.  377,  '  Many 
wondred  at  the  suence  of  Jolin  Knox,  for  in  all 
these  quick  reasonings  hee  opened  not  his  mouth  ' ; 
Melvill,  Diary,  "il,  '  Efter  ernest  prayer,  maters 
war  gravlie  and  cleirlie  proponit,  overtures  made 
be  the  wysest,  douttes  reasonit  and  discussit  be 
the  learnedest  and  maist  quick.'  We  still  retain 
this  sense  slightly  modified  in  '  quick-witted,'  of 
which  an  example  may  be  quoted  from  Tindale, 


Pent.  Prologe  to  Lv  (p.  297),  '  Allegoryes  make  3 
man  qwick  witted  aiul  prynte  wysdoiue  in  him 
and  maketh  it  to  abyde,  where  bare  wordes  go 
but  in  at  the  one  eare  aud  out  at  the  other.'  In 
Sir  31--  the  meaning  is  rather  active  than  acute, 
'  In  all  thy  works  be  quick  '  (7ii'ou  ifrpexv^)- 

Elsewhere  the  meaning  is  livinr;,  mostly  in 
direct  opposition  to  dead,  as  Nu  1(5^"  '  If  .  .  .  they 
go  down  quick  into  the  pit,'  compared  with  v.^ 
'  They  .  .  .  went  down  alive  into  the  pit'  (Heb.  in 
both  □••!:,  AV  follows  Tindale,  RV  'alive'  in 
both) ;  Ps  55"  '  Let  them  go  down  quick  into 
hell'  (RV  'alive  into  the  pit');  clearly  in  the 
phrase  '  the  quick  and  the  dead,'  Ac  10''-,  2  Ti  4', 
1  P  45.  Cf.  Jn  7^  Wye,  'Flodis  of  quyke  watir 
schulen  Howe  of  his  wombe';  Knox,  M'orks,  ni. 
232,  'Thair  upon  foUowit  sa  cruell  persecutioun, 
under  the  name  of  justice,  that  na  small  noumber 
wer  burnit  quick ' ;  Barlowe,  Dialogue,  58,  '  It  is 
enacted  throughoute  Suytzerland  among  the  Oe- 
colampadyanes,  and  in  dyvers  other  places,  that 
whosoever  is  founde  of  the  Anabaptystes  faction, 
he  shall  be  tlirowen  quycke  into  the  water,  and 
there  drowned  '  ;  Tindale,  Expositions,  189,  '  As 
there  is  no  sin  in  Christ  the  stock,  so  can  there 
be  none  in  the  quick  members,  that  live  and 
grow  in  him  by  faith '  ;  Fuller,  Holy  State,  9, 
'  He  that  impoverisheth  his  children  to  enrich 
his  widow,  destroyes  a  quick  hedge  to  make  a 
dead  one.' 

In  He  4'^,  though  the  same  Gr.  word  (fii')  is 
used  as  in  the  passages  quoted  above,  the  meaning 
is  more  than  merelj'  living,  rather  alive,  almost 
lively,  '  For  the  word  of  God  is  quick  and  power- 
ful'  (Rhem.  '  livel}'  and  forcible').  And  tliis  is 
nearest  of  all  to  the  derivation  of  the  word,  its 
base  being  the  Teut.  kivika,  '  lively,'  connate  with 
Lat.  vivus.  Cf.  Milton,  Areopag.  (Hales'  ed. 
p.  7),  '  Against  defaming  it  was  decreed  that  none 
should  be  traduc'd  \>y  name  .  .  .  and  this  course 
was  quick  enough,  as  Cicero  writes,  to  quell  both 
the  desperate  wits  of  other  Atheists,  and  the  open 
way  of  defaming,  as  the  event  shew'd.' 

To  quicken  is  to  give  life  to,  wliether  physically 
or  spiritually.  In  OT  it  is  always  the  tr.  of  i;n 
(Piel  of  n;n  to  live),  which  also  means  to  preserve 
life,  but  when  tr''  '  quicken  '  in  AV  always  means 
to  bless  with  spiritual  life.  In  NT  the  Gr.  is 
either  iuoiroUoi  or  its  compound  avv^uioiroiim  (Eph 
2*,  Col  2",  tr''  '  quickened  together  with  ').  In  Jn 
5^'  the  phj-sicaJ  and  spiritual  meanings  are  placed 
side  by  side,  '  For  as  the  Father  laiseth  up  tlis 
dead  and  quickeneth  them ;  even  so  the  Son 
quickeneth  whom  he  will.'  J.  HASTINGS. 

QUICKSANDS  (Ac  27",  RV  Syrtis).— The  Syrtes, 
Major  and  Minor,  are  situated  on  the  N.  coast  of 
Africa,  in  the  wide  bay  between  the  headlands  of 
Tunis  and  Barca.  They  consist  of  -sandbanks 
occupying  the  shores  of  the  Gulfs  of  Sidra  on  tlie 
coast  of  Tripoli,  and  that  of  Gabes  on  the  coast  of 
Tunis  or  Carthage.  They  have  been  considered  a 
source  of  danger  to  mariners  from  very  early 
times,  not  only  from  the  shifting  of  the  sands 
themselves,  but  owin"  to  the  cross  currents  of  tlie 
adjoining  waters.  Thus  in  the  .^neid  of  Virgil 
(iv.  40  f.)  we  find  them  referred  to— 

•  Hinc  GwtOlsa  urbes,  ^enua  insuperabile  bello : 
Et  Numidtt  infnfini  ciugunt,  et  inhospitA  SyrtiB.' 

In  the  last  voyage  of  St.  Paul  on  his  way  to 
Italy  the  ship  in  which  he  and  his  companions 
were  sailing  was  at  the  mercy  of  the  tempest,  and 
was  drifting  before  the  N.E.  wind  EURAQUILO,  after 
leaving  the  shelter  of  the  island  of  Cauda.  Tliere 
was  every  reason,  therefore,  to  fear  that  they 
might  be  driven  on  the  Syrtis,  which  was  situated 
to  the  leeward  of  their  course;  but  owing  (it  may 


QUINTUS  MEMillUS 


QUIVER 


183 


be  supposed)  to  the  rotatory  movement  of  the  wind 
they  were  driven  into  the  sea  of  Adria  (Ac  27").* 

E.  Hull. 
QUINTUS   MEMMIUS.— See   Memmius  (Quin- 

TUS). 

QUIRINIUS,  CENSUS  OF.  — The  statement  of 
St.  Luke  (2'"')  as  to  how  tlie  birth  of  Clirist  came 
to  take  place  at  Bethlehem  rather  than  at  Nazareth, 
has  produced  an  amount  of  discussion  of  wliicli  tlie 
world  is  rather  wear}'.  We  should  have  had  less 
of  this,  if  apologists  had  not  been  ready  to  admit, 
and  opponents  eager  to  maintain,  that  to  prove 
that  the  evangelist  has  here  made  a  misstatement, 
is  to  imperil,  if  not  demolish,  the  authority  of  his 
Gospel  as  an  inspired  writing.  Notliinj;  of  the  kind 
Is  at  stake.  We  have  no  right  to  a-ssume  that 
inspiration  secures  infallible  chronology  ;  and  St. 
LuKe  bases  his  claim  to  be  heard,  not  on  inspira- 
tion, but  on  the  excellence  of  his  information  and 
his  own  careful  imiuiry  (Lk  l'"").  Yet  even  well- 
infomied  and  careful  wTiters  sometimes  make 
mistakes,  and  he  maj-  have  done  so  here. 

There  is  no  serious  diliiculty  about  the  statement 
that  Augustus  ordered  that  there  should  be  a 
general  census  throughout  the  Roman  Empire  (2'). 
It  is  true  that  there  is  no  direct  evidence,  inde- 
pendent of  Luke,  of  any  such  decree  ;  and  we  know 
that  in  some  provinces  no  census  was  held  during 
the  reign  of  Augustus.  Nevertheless  there  is 
evidence  that  jieriodic  enrolments  were  made  in 
EgjMit  {Clas.  Ri'.i:  Mar.  1803) ;  and  a  Roman  census 
in  Judaea  at  the  time  indicated,  in  consequence  of 
general  orders  issued  by  Augustus,  is  not  improb- 
able (Suet.  Aug.  28,  101,  Cal.  16  ;  Tac.  Ann.  i.  11. 
5,  6  ;  Plin.  Nat.  Hist.  iii.  2.  17).  The  real  difficulty 
is  about  the  parenthetical  remark  in  v.''. 

There  has  been  much  discussion  about  the  text 
of  v.^,  but  the  right  reading  is  certainly  aiiT-ij 
dircTYpatprj  trpumj  iyivcro  rpfip-oviijovro^  ttjs  2i'p/as 
Kupi)fiov:  'This  took  place  as  a  first  enrolment, 
when  Quirinius  was  governor  of  Syria.' t  And 
this  remark  is  made  in  order  to  distinguish  this 
census  from  the  one  in  A.D.  6,  7,  when  Q.  certainly 
v-as  governor  and  conducted  the  census  (Ac  i}^\ 
Jos.  Ant.  XVIII.  i.  1,  ii.  1).  But  it  is  hard  to  see 
how  Q.  could  be  governor  when  Herod  died  in  B.C. 
4.  From  B.C.  9  to  6  Sentius  Saturninus  was 
governor  ;  J  from  B.C.  6  to  4  Quinctilius  Varus. 
After  that  nothing  is  clear  till  A.D.  6,  when  P. 
Sulpicius  Quirinius  succeeds  and  holds  the  census 
of  Ac  5".  Bergmann,  Mommsen,  Zumpt,  and 
others  have  shown  that  this  governorship  of  Q. 
was  probably  not  his  first,  but  that  he  was  in 
otlice  during  part  of  the  interval  between  B.C.  4  and 
A.D.  6,  viz.  B.C.  3,  2.  But  it  stilt  remains  as  in- 
credible as  ever  it  was  that  Q.  was  governor  be/ore 
the  death  of  Herod ;  and  until  that  is  established 
we  must  admit  that  Luke  is  at  least  a  year  wrong  in 
his  chronology.  Even  Zahn,  who  denies  the  later 
governorship  of  Q.,  and  asserts  that  only  one 
census  was  taken,  viz.  in  B.C.  4  to  2  (to  which  he 
refers  both  Lk  2-  and  Ac  5^),  is  obliged  to  place 
the  census  after  Herod's  death.     No  help  on  this 

Soint  is  obtained  from  the  oft-quoted  testimony  of 
ustin  Martyr,  who  in  three  passages  places  the 
birth  of  Christ  iirl  Ku/n^Wou,  and  in  one  of  them  says 
that  the  birth  at  Bethlehem  may  be  learned  ^k  tCiv 
itroypatpuii'  tCiv  yevofUviav  iirl  Kvptjpiov  tqD  vficr^pov  iv 
'\oviai(f   irpwTou  ytvoiUvov  iiriTpiwov  (Apol.  i.  34,  46  j 

•  If  the  wind  In  (his  awe  hwl  been  anti-cyclonic  (which  ia 
probable)  the  direction  would  have  changed  from  N.F^  to  E. 
»nd  trom  E.  to  .S.E.  and  from  tliis  to  S.  and  S.W.,  which  would 
have  driven  the  ship  into  the  sea  of  Adria. 

t  The  name  is  Quirinius,  not  Quirinus  ;  see  Fumeaux  on  Tac. 
^nn,  ii.  30.  4;  and  xyiu^ttiUtrot  may^'waJl  commanding'  an 
army  (but  ft.  the  use  of  the  word  in  Lit  8'). 

t  Tertullian  {ado.  Marcion,  Iv.  10)  says  that  the  census  was 
token  by  Saturninus;  yet  he  himself  places  the  birth  of  Christ 
•.a  3  {.adv.  Jud.  6% 


Dial.  78).  But  it  should  be  noted  that  Justin  calls 
Q.  iTlTpoiros,  prociirafnr,  not  legatus,  as  he  was  in 
A.D.  6.  The  word  which  Ltike  uses  is  indefinite 
(■rryeiJLoveviji),  and  might  be  employed  of  any  kind 
of  ruler  ;  but  in  the  only  other  pla(^e  in  Avhich  he 
uses  it  (3')  it  is  of  the  promrator  I'ontius  Pilate. 
L'ntil  Judaja  became  a  Roman  provin"e  in  A.D.  6 
there  would  be  no  procurator  in  the  strict  sense  j 
but  Q.  may  have  had  some  military  position  in  Syria 
even  before  the  death  of  Herod,  and  also  have  been 
concerned  with  the  census.  Ami  this  is  perhaps 
Luke's  meaning  ;  he  may  not  be  giving  a  mere  date. 
In  any  case  Christians  who  were  inventing  an  ex- 

filanation  of  the  birth  at  Bethlehem  would  not  be 
ikely  to  attribute  it  to  Roman  and  heathen  causes. 
The  error,  if  there  be  one,  has  probably  foundation 
in  fact ;  and,  moreover,  is  not  the  result  of  confusion 
with  the  later  census  A.D.  6,  7,  which  Luke  himself 
notices  Ac  5". 

The  general  result  is  that  if  a  mistake  has  not 
been  proved,  neither  has  it  been  disproved.  \i  the 
accuracy  of  Luke  in  many  other  details  were  not  so 
conspicuous,  one  would  say  that  there  probably  is 
some  mistake.  But  the  error  would  not  be  great, 
if  Q.  held  some  ollice  in  Syria  B.C.  3,  2,  and  helped 
to  complete  a  census  which  was  begun  before  the 
death  of  Herod.  And  there  is  no  error,  if  Christ's 
birth  is  to  be  placed  B.C.  6  (vol.  i.  p.  405),  and  Q. 
was  in  command  in  Syria  then,  whicn  would  be  the 
right  time  for  the  first  of  .a  series  of  enrolments,  of 
which  that  in  Ac  5"  was  the  second.* 

LiTKRATtTRE. — See  the  commentaries  of  Farrar  and  Godet :  the 
Lives  of  Christ  by  Andrews,  Didon,  Edersheini,  Keiin,  and  B. 
Weiss;  the  articles 'Cyrenius' in  .Smith,  Dl>-,  and  'tinhatzun^  'in 
Hci-zofr;  tlie  niunographs  ni  Zumpt  on  '  DiiatJeburtsjahrChnsti,' 
18«1)  (llibl.  .S'rt<-ra,  187(1),  and  of  Zahn, '  Pie  Syr.  .Stnttlialterschaft 
und  d.  Schat/.unif  des  Quirinius,*  in  Neue  Kirchl.  Zt»jt.  18!»3 ; 
and  above  all,  Schiirer,  hlJ P  I.  ii.  105  ff.,  and  Itamsay,  H'a« 
Christ  born  at  Bethtchemi  1898.  See  ako  Haverfield  in  Class. 
Rev.,  July  1000,  p.  309.  A.  PLUMMER. 

QUIT  is  both  an  adj.  and  a  verb.  1.  The  adj., 
as  Skeat  shows,  is  oldest.  It  comes  from  Old  tr. 
quite  (mod.  quitte),  which  is  the  Lat.  guietu-t  in  its 
late  sense  of  free  from  obligation.  This  is  the 
meaning  of  the  word  in  AV,  where  it  occurs :  Ex 
21"  '  If  he  rise  again,  and  walk  abroad  upon  his 
stafl',  then  shall  he  that  smote  him  be  quit '  (npji)  ; 
2r-»,  .Jos  2^  (both  Vi).  Cf.  Udall's  Erasmus' 
Paraph,  ii.  279,  '  But  he  that  sticketh  his  brother 
with  the  darte  of  a  venemons  tongue,  although  he 
be  quitte  by  mannes  lawes  from  the  crime  of  man- 
slaughter, yet  by  the  law  of  the  gospel  he  is  giltie 
of  manslaughter  ' ;  Jer  25''"  Cov.  '  ye  shall  not  go 
quyte." 

2.  The  verb  came  from  Old  Fr.  quiter  (mod. 
quitter),  a  derivative  of  Lat.  quictare.  In  AV  it 
IS  used  only  refiexively,  '  quit  yourselves  like 
men'  (IS  4"'"',  Heb.  oV;!;'?  vn),  'quit  you  like 
men  '  (1  Co  16",  Gr.  ivSpli«j0().  To  'quit  oneself 
is  to  discharge  one's  obligations  ;  on  every  man  lie 
the  obligations  of  a  man.  Cf.  Milton,  Savuon 
Agon.  i.  1709 — 

■  Samson  hath  quit  himself 
Like  Samson.' 

J.  Hastings. 

QUIVER  represents  more  than  one  Heb.  word. 
1.  Gn  27"  for  •'71?  tHt  [Samar.  n-Vn  tHith  (?)],  a  fliraf 
\ty.  meaning  literally,  if  a  genuine  Heb.  word, 
'  that  which  is  hung,'  either  a  quiver  (LXX 
[<pap{Tpa.\  pseudo-Jon.)  or  a  sword  or  /cnife  {Onk., 
Pesh.,  Abulwalid).  2.  Usually  for  idy'n  'a.<)hpah, 
perhaps  a  loan-word  from  Asiyr.  iSpatu,  literal 
meaning  unknown. 

The  quiver  was  a  very  conspicuous  part  of  the 
equipment  of  the  Eastern  warrior ;  on  the  Assyr. 

•  Perhaps  the  possibility  of  a  slip  of  the  pen,  Ki/mmW  foi 
K«ci*TiA.oi/,  like  'Barachiah*  for  'Jehoiada'  (Alt  239^),  is  Just 
worth  mentioning. 


18i 


QUOTATIONS 


QUOTATIONS 


reliefs  in  the  Hritish  Museum  tlie  Assyr.  soldier  is 
alwaj's  an  arclier,  and  £/(//«  his  foe  regularly  bears 
the  (jniver  (Is  '2'2!').  The  famous  mounted  archers 
of  the  East  are  perhaps  alluded  to  in  Job  39-^  '  the 
quiver  rattleth  upon  him'  (UVm),  i.e.  ujwn  the 
horse,  and  the  terror  caused  by  them  is  vividly 
portrayed  in  Jer  5'"  '  Their  quiver  is  as  an  open 
sepulchre';  cf.  Jer  6^  'They  ride  upon  horses.' 
The  Lord  Himself  has  a  quiver  in  which  He 
hides  His  chosen  instruments  (Is  49-).  When  the 
moment  comes  for  the  execution  of  His  judgments, 
His  arrows  lly  suddenly  to  the  mark  (Ks  04'). 
There  is  a  parallel  for  these  metaphors  in  the 
speech  of  al-Hajjaj,  the  Khalifa  Abd  al-Melik's 
go\-ernor,  to  the  disallccted  inhabitants  of  Cufa 
(A.II.  75)  ;  'The  Prince  of  the  Believers  has  spread 
before  him  the  arrows  of  his  quiver,  and  has  tried 
every  one  of  t'lem  by  biting  its  wood.  It  is  my 
wood  that  he  has  found  the  hardest  and  the 
bitterest,  and  I  am  the  arrow  which  he  shoots 
against  you'  (Stani.slas  Guyard,  'Mohammedan- 
ism,' \nEncycl.  Brit.  xvi.  571).  Another  metaphor 
in  the  OT  is  that  a  man's  home  circle  (?)  is  his 
quiver,  and  his  sons,  born  while  he  himself  is  still 
j-oung,  are  his  arrows  (Ps  127');  cf.  La  3",  where, 
conversely,  arrows  are  called  '  sons  of  the  quiver ' 
(RVm). 

3.  In  the  Pr.  Bk.  version  Ps  IP  reads  '  [They] 
make  ready  their  arrows  within  the  quiver '  (nn;  7y 
'al  yct/u-r).  This  translation,  though  supported 
by  LXX  (e^s  (papirpav)  and  Vulg.,  is  wrong.  AV 
and  IIV  (so  Pesh.)  have  rightly  '  upon  the  string.' 

4.  Ancient  authority  is  strong  for  translating 
n-^h::)  shdatiin,  '  shields  '  (EV)  as  'quivers'  (2  S  8' 
=  rCh  IS',  2K  ll'<'=2  Ch  239,  (j^  4^  Jer  51", 
Ezk  27").  The  latter  rendering  suits  Jer  51"  '  fill 
the  quivers,'  but  it  is  more  probable  that  in  all 
these  passages  D'aV;f'  has  the  more  general  meaning, 
'arms,  equipment'  (cf.  Expository  Times,  x.  (1898) 
43  ff.).  W.  Emery  Barnes. 

QUOTATIONS.— In  OT  there  are  few  definite 
quotations,  but  the  Bible  \\Titers  freely  introduced 
matter  which  they  found  ready  to  hand.  Several 
books,  such  as  those  of  the  Hexateuch,  J<',  1  and  2  S, 
etc.,  are  made  up,  in  fact,  of  previously  existing 
documents  (see  Hexateuch,  etc.).  Shorter  ex- 
tracts are  also  frequent,  esp.  poems,  such  as  the 
Song  of  Laniech  (Gn  4^-  ^),  the  Blessing  of  Jacob 
((!n  49--"),  the  Song  and  the  Blessing  of  Moses  (Ex 
15-'"",  Dt  33-"^),  etc.  ;  or  portions  of  songs,  as  Jos 
lU'-'"''*'.  In  a  few  instances  only  is  the  source  men- 
tioned, as  'the  Bk.  of  Jashar'  (Jos  10"",  2S  l'», 
1  K  8"  LXX),  'the  Bk.  of  the  W.ars  of  J"'  (Nu 
21''').  Sometimes  they  were  probably  popular  songs 
handed  down  by  oral  tradition  (Nu  21").  Often  a 
writer  incorporates  the  language  of  an  earlier 
writer,  a.s  frequently  throughout  the  Psalms,  so 
much  so  that  certain  phrases  came  to  be  tradi- 
tional, such  as  'praise  ye  J",'  'for  His  mercy 
endureth  for  ever.'  It  is  not  always  certain 
M'hether  passages  common  to  two  writers  are 
copied  from  one  by  the  other,  or  are  both  taken 
from  one  common  source,  as  Is  '2'-"''=Mic  4'"^, 
which  is  evidently  foreign  to  the  context  of  Is 
(note  the  minatory  tone  of  2'"--),  and,  if  taken 
by  Isaiah  from  Micah,  proves  Is  2  to  have  been 
written  not  earlier  than  Hezekiah's  reign  (cf. 
Jer  26"  with  Mic  3"  contextually  connected  with 
Mic  4'),  and  is  therefore  belie\ed  by  many  to 
belong  to  some  earlier  unknown  document.  It  is 
also  probable  that  Is  15-16'^  is  derived  from  an 
earlier  source  (see  16"),  and  such  passages  suggest 
the  inquiry  whether  the  insertion  ot  earlier  material 
by  biblical  ^vriters  may  not  have  been  nmch  more 
frequent  than  is  commonly  sui)po8ed. 

i.  (Quotations  from  OT  in  NT.— These  are 
very    frequent    and    very    various    in    character. 


Turpie  puts  them  at  275  ;  but  this  does  not  in. 
elude  the  very  gieat  number  of  passages  incor- 
porated into  tlie  language  of  NT  writers,  esp.  in 
tlie  Apocalypse. 

A.  Quotations  are  ttsuolbf  from  LXX — (ot)  even 
though  dill'ering  more  or  less  considerably  from 
MT  (1)  in  pointing,  as  Ac  15"  [Am  9'-]  (mx  '  man' 
for  Dix  'Edom'),  He  I1-'  [Gn  47"]  (noo  'stall''  fol 
na?  '  bed ')  ;  (2)  in  reading,  as  Ac  15"  {•o-n'.  '  seek' 
for  •!?■)';  'possess')  (Ac  2-'  [Ps  16'"]  agrees  with 
LXX  in  following  ]>erS  ^Vf  q  '  Thy  holy  one '  for 
Kethibh  'Cy:n  '  Thy  holy  ones')  ;  (3)  by  a  probably 
inaccurate  tr.  of  words,  as  Ac  2"  [Ps  l(j'"]  {Sia<p0op6. 
'  destruction  '  for  nrc' '  pit '),  Ro  10'-"  [Is  C5']  {e/j.(pai'rjs 
iycvi/j.-iji'  '  I  was  m.ade  manifest '  for  'nf -inj  '  1  was 
souglit ') ;  and  of  phrases,  as  He2''-'[Ps8*"''J(^XdTTu(ra! 
aurdv  Qpaxv  Ti  Trap'  d-yy^Xovs  '  Thou  madest  him  a 
little  lower  than  the  angels'  for  o'-Sk::  oi'S  imjom 
'  Thou  hast  made  him  but  little  lower  than  God ') ; 
(4)  by  other  dillerences  which  cannot  easily  be 
accounted  for,  but  are  probably  due  to  various 
readings,  as  Ro  9-'''-  '^  [Is  lO'-'-'  '"J,  where,  besides 
other  variations,  LXX  seems  to  have  read  I'S",'  for 
3it';,  and  157  for  ['v^s  and  n^j,  and  in  He  lO'''" 
[Hab  2^-^],  where  LXX  probably  read  nsVi'  (with 
531  K)  for  nVs>;,  and  rryio  for  n-i;;.  In  He  10* 
[Ps  40']  it  was  suggested  by  Kennicott  that  a;}])} 
(Heb.  text)  is  a  corruption  of  nu  in  (LXX).  If  so, 
it  would  seem  probable  that  t."<  itself  was  inserted 
by  error  from  the  following  line,  and  that  LXX 
read  ni:  only  ;  but  the  Heb.  reading  with  all  its 
difficulty  better  suits  the  context,  the  contrast 
being  between  obedience  and  sacrifice  (cf.  1  S  15-"). 
(6)  Sometimes  when  the  argument  depends  on 
LXX  as  distinct  from  Heb.,  as  in  He  1'  [Ps  104''], 
where  Heb.  = '  Wlio  maketh  for  his  messengers 
winds,  for  his  ministers  a  flaming  fire.'  Cf.  also 
Ac  2-',  He  2'  10'.  (c)  Generally  even  by  writers 
conversant  with  the  Heb.  as  St.  Paul  and  St.  John 
(see  I,  /,  h).  {cl)  To  a  large  extent  even  when 
the  (^notation  points  to  a  knowledge  of  Heb., 
showing  that  the  %vriter,  even  though  he  had 
the  Heb.  before  him,  or  in  his  mind,  still  repro- 
duced in  part  the  familiar  language  of  LXX,  as 
Mt  2'8  [Jer  31  (38)  "]  (K\av9fi6s  rai  65vp^Los,  LXX 
KXavefiov  K.  6dvpfiou),  12"--'  [Is  42'-'],  where  after 
a  quotation,  which  is  an  independent  tr.  of  Heb. 
dittering  in  almost  every  word  from  LXX,  the 
last  verse  agrees  exactly  with  LXX,  tliough  the 
latter  follows  a  diti'erent  text  in  all  three  words 
[k.  iv  [LXX  ^Tri]  T.  6vo^ia.TL  avroO  ^Ovtj  4\TnoO(Tt  '  and 
in  his  name  shall  the  Gentiles  hope '  for  d">!  in-jinj!) 
('?.3:;  'and  the  isle?  shall  wait  for  his  law').  It  la 
also  possible  tha'-  this  may  be  the  insertion  of  an 
early  editor  of  Mt,  or  a  various  reading  of  Heb. 
followed  also  by  LXX  (see  J,  a  ;  cf.  Ro  9-'). 

B.  Quotations  are  occasionally  independent 
translations  from  the  Heb. — (a)  because  they  were 
so  found  in  the  documents  which  the  writer  incor- 
porates, as  Lk  1"  [Mai  3'  and  4°- 'J  (^roi/ncttrat— njs 
for  LXX  iri^Xhj/eTai  ;  itrkaTpixj/ai — 3'rn  for  diro«to- 
TatTT^o-ei ;  ■waripuv  —  Ti'i^i}  for  Trarpis),  2'^  (see  J,  a); 
(b)  for  the  sake  of  the  argument,  as  Jn  19"  [Zee 
12'"]  ((Is  bo  i^eKivTTiaav — nj-i  n;:'.x  nx  for  avB'  Sir 
KaTtjpxv<''<^''ro  from  variant  "Fl),  Ro  9"  [Ex  9'"], 
where  St.  Paul  prefers  the  rendering  of  'J?-]"^"  ^J 
^i-^yeipi  fff  'did  I  raise  tliee  up  '  to  dicntprjdrii  '  tliLAl 
wast  preserved,'  Ro  12"*  [Dt  32^]  (i/iol  iKbU-qffn— 
DQj  '^  for  iv  Tjiiipq.  iKSixitadiis) ;  (c)  probably  becausa 
tiie  wTiter  was  better  acquainted  with  the  Heb. 
of  the  book  quoted  memoritcr,  as  Ro  11*  etc.  (see 

I-  *'■  .  „  . 

C.  The  only  quotations  in  Aramnic  or  Hebrew- 
Aramaic  are  the  words  on  the  Cross,  Mt  27", 
Mk  15**  (see  I,  a  (1),  (2)),  unless  we  include  tha 
words  /xapi.i'  i$i  'our  Lord  cometh'  (1  Co  16'-^), 
probably  a  well-known  Christian  salutation.  Sea 
^Iauaxatha. 


QUOTATIONS 


QUOTATIONS 


18c 


D.  Some  few  quotations  are  based  upon  an 
Aranviif  inlerprctntion  of  the  Hebrew,  and  suggest 
the  inijuirv  whether  thev  and  others  also  may 
not  possibly  be  derived  from  some  intermediate 
source  of  tlie  nature  of  a  Targum  ;  or  whether, 
on  tlie  other  hand,  the  interpretation  was  merely 
inHueuced  by  current  Aram,  usage.  Had  an 
Englishman  of  to-day  to  translate  Milton's  'silly 
sheep'  into  French,  he  would  very  probably  give 
the  lirst  word  its  modem  meaning.  In  1  Co  \ir^ 
[Is  25"]  n>jS  '  for  ever '  is  translated  according 
to  the  Aram,  meaning  of  the  root  eh  vTkos  '  in 
victory.'  In  I  Co  2!>  [Is  6i'*]  .irT9  'that  waiteth 
for'  IS  apparently  read  as  Anim.  rnnn  'tliat 
loveth  '  [but  see  J,  a].  It  is  possible  that  Mt  2»;  ^ 
shoiUd  be  traced  to  some  sort  of  Targuniic  in- 
fluence, or  at  any  rate  some  current  traditional 
interpretation,  with  which  the  evangelist's  readers 
were  familiar.  In  the  lirst  the  words  oCSafnHs 
i\axl<rTr)  seem  an  intentional  emphatic  denial  of 
the  original  words  fMic  a-].  Bethleliem  had  by 
the  very  fact  of  Messiah's  birth  become  bi/  no 
means  the  least.  'Ky€ii6<rii'  is  eitlier  from  a  variant 
(see  J,  a),  or  at  any  rate  a  less  literal  translation. 
But  the  substitution  of  y?  'lovSa  for  '  land  of 
Ephratah  '  looks  like  a  slip  of  memory,  and  suggests 
that  the  whole  is  a  bold  paraphrase  of  the  evangelist 
himself  (for  parallels  see  G).  Mt  2^  is  evidently 
from  Is  11'  (TiJ  '  branch'  being  from  the  same  root 
as  Xaj'upaios  '  Nazarene '),  and  suggests  a  tradi- 
tional interpretation  of  the  passage  in  this  sense. 

E.  Apart  from   B,   C,   and  D,   variations  from 
LXX  are  due  to  (a)  slips  of  memory,  (b)  errors  of 
transcription,  (c)  literary  corrections,  (d)  exegetind 
alterations.    But  it  is  not  always  easy  to  determine 
Trhich,  or  in  case  of  (c)  and  {d)  to  say  how  far 
they  were  intentional.    In  quotations  from  memoi-y, 
and  even  in  those  copied,  there  is  a  natural  tend- 
ency to  correct,  unconsciously,  according  to  famili;ir 
language  and  familiar  ideas.     We  should  probably 
be  right,  when  quotations  are  short,  in  assigning 
to  (a)   verbal    changes,    considerable    perhajis    in 
number,  but  unimportant  in  their  bearing,  as  Jn  1^ 
[Is  40^]  (^oc/xdaare  t.   bbbv  "Kvpiov,  (Cideias  TroteZre   t. 
Tplfiovt    T.    6eoO    ^/xiv    becomes    the  single  phrase 
tvOvrare  t.  i>obv  Kvplov,  which  gives  the  full  sense 
more    briefly).     Probably    HafivXCivot   for    Aa/idtr/cou 
in  Ac  ?■"  [Am  5"]  is  a  slip  of  memory  of  either  St. 
Steiihen  or  his  reporter,  the  two  captivities  bein<j 
confused  (cf.  the  error  about  the  burial-places  of 
the  patriarchs  in  7'").    We  have  a  striking  example 
of  (i)  in  He  3'  [Ps  95'],  where  Iv  SoKifutaiif.  is  read 
for  iSoKlnaaav  (LXX),  tlie  error  being  facilitated  by 
iv  T.  TrapawiKpaaiuf  above  (unless  it  is  an  error  of 
a  very  early  copyist).     Under  (c)  we  should  class 
corrections  of  Hebraisms  and   other  clumsy  con- 
structions, as  Lk  3'  [Is  40*],  where  tiBtlav  (bOjv)  is 
altered  so  as  to  agree  with  iJoiJs  added  by  St.  Luke 
in  the  next  phrase,  and  i)  rpaxe^a  into  al  r/jaxf^ai- 
In  He  8'»  10"H.Jer  31^]  du<ru  is  omitted  so  as  to  give 
liSovi  its  |)roper  participial  construction  (cf.  Lk  S'°). 
To  this  head  we  might  also  refer  rhetorical  expan- 
sions, such  as  the  insertion  of  X^yei  6  Oe6s  or   the 
like  in  Ac  2"    7*»,   Ro  12"'  (in   He   10^  spurious) 
14",  1  Co  14",  2  Co  6".     To  (rf)  would  belong  the 
very  frequent  changes  of  person,  tense,  etc.,  so  as 
to  make  the  quotation  more  directly  applicable. 
Thus  in  2  Co  6^'  [2  S  T"  "]  oiJti^  and  oiV6s  become 
wuiK  and  i/iitU,  and  vl6v  is  boldly  changed  into  vious 
K.   Ovyaripai,   SO  that    Nathan's  words  respecting 
David's  son  become  a  jiromiae  of  God  to  Christians 
(cf.  Ac  1*').      In   Lk  23'"  [Ps  31»]  the  future  irapa- 
9il<io)iai  naturally  becomes   the  present  TrapaTW(p.n.i 
in  the  mouth  of  our  Lord,  and  in  Mk  14"  (Mt  20^') 
[Zee   13']  the   imper.   iraTdfart   becomes  the    ind. 
1st  pers.   fut.    because  the  action   is  referred   by 
Christ    to   God    Himself.      Sometimes  words  are 
ediled  to  give  a  special  turn  to  the  quotation,  us 


rby  iypof  in  Mt  27"'  [Zee  11"]  to  refer  to  the  fie'd 
bought  with  Judas'  uioney  (unless  this  is  a  variant 
of  Heb.  ;  see  J,  a).  In  lie  10"  [Hab  2^]  the  inser- 
tion of  i  converts  a  Hebraism  into  a  Messianic 
prophecy.  Sometimes  words  are  omitied,  and  so 
the  quotation  gets  a  more  general  and  dogmatic 
c'liaracter,  as  with  p-oO  in  Ko  1",  Gal  3"  [llab  2*] 
(in  He  Itf""  it  is  transposed).  Apparently  it  had 
already  become  a  common  doctrinal  formula.  In 
Gal  3'*[Dt  21'-^]  the  omission  of  Inrd  $(ou  makes  the 
statement  a  general  principle,  or  it  may  be  due 
to  reverence  (see  Liglitfoot,  in  loc).  Still  more 
frequently  words  were  altered.  In  Gal  4^  [Gn  21'°] 
the  substitution  of  t.  iXtvOepas  for  pov  'Iffad^  brings 
out  more  forcibly  the  contrast  between  bomlage  and 
freedom.  In  1  Co  3-'°  [Ps  94"]  the  quotation  would 
be  far  less  apjilieable  without  the  correction  of 
avOpiliTTuv  into  ao(pQiv.  St.  Paul,  no  doubt,  felt  the 
verse  to  imply  that,  however  wise  men  might  be, 
God  saw  their  folly.  In  Eph  4"  [Ps  68'"]  f\a/3« 
.  .  .  ^y  dvOpijiTTi^j  is  boldl}^  altered  into  ^SutKc  .  .  .  r. 
ayOpiiiroit,  the  latter  being  probably  regarded  as  an 
inference  from  the  former,  and  tlie  statement  of 
V."  clearly  dejiends  upon  St.  Paul's  rendering. 
With  this  we  might  compare  Lk  21-"  (contrast 
Mk  IS'''),  where  the  manner  of  fulfilment  of 
Christ's  prophecy  has  been  read,  but  probably 
unconsciously,  into  the  prophecy  itself.  Suiiie- 
times  liy  abbreviation  the  words  of  the  original 
come  to  be  dill'erently  applied.  Thus  in  1  Co  14-' 
[Is  2S"-  '-J  the  words  represented  by  k.  ouS'  oOtuis 
(uTcLKOvaovTai  pov  are  made  to  refer  to  *  other 
tongues,'  etc.,  Instead  of  to  the  refusal  to  listen  to 
the  words  of  kindness  spoken  by  tiod  through  the 
prophet  to  which  the  'other  tongues'  stand  in 
direct  contrast.  In  Ac  3-^  the  phrase  Kara  ■KavTo, 
baa  is  applied  quite  dill'erentlv  from  its  original  in 
Dt  18'«.  In  I  P  S'-"  "  [Is  8'-- "],  by  changing  airiv 
to  T.  Xpiarbv,  the  words  are  applied  to  those  ad- 
dressed in  the  Epistle,  but  the  passage  is  not  cited 
as  a  quotation.  Even  supposing  that  such  changes 
were  to  a  large  extent  unconscious,  there  is  enough 
to  show  that  the  writers  of  NT  allowed  themselves 
the  greatest  freedom  in  their  treatment  of  the 
language  of  OT. 

F.  Combined  Quotations. — These  are  far  commoner 
than  is  often  realized,  and  are  of  various  kinds. 
Frequently  we  find  several  passages  strung  to- 
gether consecutively,  as  Ko  S'"""",  where  there 
are  six  separate  quotations  so  combined  ;  cf.  He 
l'-'*  etc.  In  Mk  U"  (Mt  21'»,  Lk  19«)  a  direct 
quotation  from  Is  oQ'  is  followed  by  an  allusion  to 
Jer  7".  So  far  had  they  been  from  fultilling 
Isaiah's  prophecy,  that  they  were  acting  in  the 
spirit  of  Jeremiah's  contemporaries.  Still  more 
frequently  dillercnt  quotations  are  mixed  together. 
Thus  in  Ko  9^,  St.  Paul,  probably  quoting  from 
his  recollection  of  the  Heb.,  mixed  together  the 
s.iyings  about  the  stone  in  Is  S'''  and  in  'J.s'",  giving 
the  latter,  by  so  doing,  a  sense  conlranj  to  tlie 
ordinal;  or  the  mixture  may  have  been  intentional. 
However  precious  Christ  was  to  those  who  believed, 
He  would  prove  to  many  merely  a  rock  of  stumb- 
ling. For  the  somewhat  similar  couihination  of 
Is  28",  Ps  118-^  and  Is  8"  in  1  P  'i"  '  see  H,  c. 
More  often  the  combination  suggests  that  the 
quotation  is  made  from  memorj",  as  Gal  3'  from 
{\t\  12'  18'»,  Ac  3^  from  Gn  22'"  1'2S,  Jn  \Vf^ 
from  Ex  12"  and  I's  34=".  The  seven  words 
of  Jn  6"'  seem  derived  from  three  distinct  sources 
(l's78'-".  Ex  1U">  W),  and  Ac  13'^  from  at  least 
four  (Ps  89-»,  1  S  17"  13'* 'i'").  Very  frequently  a 
mere  plira.se  or  even  a  word  is  inserted  from  a 
similar  passage.  Thus  in  Mt  21'  in  a  <iuotation 
from  Zee  9"  the  opening  words  etiraTt  r.  Ovyarpl  Siiiv 
are  from  Is  62".  Curiously  enough,  in  the  same 
quotation  St.  John  (12'''-")  begins  with  pr]  <fio;ioO, 
apparently  from   Is  40'  (Heb.).     In  Lk  4"'- ''•'  [In 


186 


QUOTATIONS 


QUOTATIONS 


42'-  ']  diroffTerXm  TeSpanaixhovs  in  dipdaei  is  ailapted 
from  Is  58«(I>XX).  In  Ac  3«-«>  [Dt  18">- w- "'•'»] 
^vxv  ■  ■  ■  iio\o6p(v0ri(reTai  (k  t,  Xaou  is  substituted 
from  Lv  17^  this  and  similar  phrases  being  common 
and  easily  remembered.  In  Ac  7'''  [Gn  IS"-"] 
aXXoT/.;?  is  from  Ex  2-'''.  In  Ac  7^-  ^  [Ex  3'-  '■  '■  ■»] 
arevayfiov  is  from  Ex  2=^.  In  Ro  11-6-2'  [Is  SO**-"] 
Stov  d0Au/xat  rds  afiafrrtas  airrHv  is  slightly  altered 
from  Is  27». 

G.  Paraphrastic  Quotations  (see  also  D  and 
E,  d). — In  some  cases  the  language  of  a  passage 
of  OT  is  merely  paraphrased  to  express  some  new 
thought,  as  in  Ro  lO''',  which  is  oased  upon  Dt 
30'^"'*.  Here  the  original  eis  r.  iripav  t.  eaXdcaris  is 
changed  to  els  t.  ifivaaof,  to  express  the  contrast 
between  the  descent  of  Christ  in  the  Incarnation, 
etc.,  and  His  Resurrection,  and  thus  to  show  that 
the  inward  revelation  spoken  of  in  Deut.  was  made 
possible  by  Christ  and  through  faith  in  Him. 
Certain  quot.ations  are  believed  to  be  merely  refer- 
ences to  the  general  tenor  of  Scripture,  as  Jn  7^, 
which  some,  on  the  other  hand,  regard  as  a  para- 
phrase of  such  passages  as  Is  58^'.  Similarly,  Eph 
.i'^  may  possibly  be  a  paraphrase  of  Is  66'-  "•  -". 
Some  have  supposed  Ja  4°  to  be  a  paraphrase  of 
some  such  passage  as  Wis  6"- ",  but  most  com- 
mentators take  the  words  as  a  rhetorical  question 
by  St.  James  (as  RV).     On  Mt  2«-  ^s  see  D. 

H.  Indirect  Quotations  (see  also  D). — It  is  quite 
possible  that  quotations,  even  though  avowedly 
from  Scripture,  were  taken  directly  from  some 
other  source.  The  possibility  of  that  in  1  Co  2' 
being  from  some  Aram,  document  has  been  already 
suggested  under  D.  It  may  here  be  further  noticed 
that  the  awlcvvardness  of  the  construction,  nnsuited 
to  the  context,  makes  it  likely  that  St.  Paul  is 
quoting  it  as  he  found  it  ready  to  hand,  not  him- 
self adapting  it  from  the  original.  It  has  been 
thought  by  some  that  Eph  5'*  may  be  a  quotation 
from  some  early  Christian  document,  but  the 
words  5i6  \i-/ei  make  this  improbable  (see  G). 
It  is  also  remarkable  that  some  quotations  are 
made  with  the  same  variants  by  ditierent  writers, 
or  by  the  same  writer  t^vice.  (a)  In  some  cases 
the  variant  may  be  looked  npon  as  traditional, 
as  the  omission  of  iiou  [Hab  2^]  in  Ro  1",  Gal  3", 
and  probably  the  order  of  the  commandments  in 
Mk  lO'^?),  'Ro  13»— adultery,  murder,  theft— for 
adultery,  theft,  murder  of  Ex  20""-  (LXX),  or 
murder,  adultery,  theft  of  Dt  5"-i»  (LXX)  and  of 
both  (Hebrew).  (6)  In  other  cases  the  agreement 
may  be  a  coincidence.  Thus  Mt  18",  2  Co  13' 
abbreviate  Dt  19'"  (LXX)  in  nearly  the  same  lan- 
guage. This  possibly  had  become  almost  a  pro- 
verb, (c)  The  agreement  may  point  to  a  variant 
in  Heb.,  as  Ro  9«  (10"),  or  in  LXX,  as  Mk  12^, 
Ac  7''  (see  J,  a,  6).  (rf)  In  other  cases,  again, 
one  writer  has  presumably  copied  another.  Thus 
Mt  and  Lk  retain  many  of  the  peculiarities  of 
the  quotations  of  Mk.  It  seems  likely  also  that 
1  P  2* •'  was  influenced  by  Ro  9**.  Both  agree 
(1)  in  the  combination  of  Is  28"  and  8'*;  (2)  in 
the  reading  iSoii  rtSr/fu  (again.st  liXX),  which  can 
hardly  be  an  independent  translation  of  Heb., 
hecause,  whereas  St.  Paul's  mixed  quotation  is 
from  Heb.  throujrhout  (see  F),  St.  Peter,  except 
when  he  agrees  with  St.  Paul,  follows  lyXX.  The 
agreement  of  Ro  12"  and  He  lO*"  with  MT  "^  for 
ay\  cf  LXX  and  Sam.  Pent.,  proves  that  the  writer 
of  Hebrews,  who  shows  otherwise  no  knowledge 
of  Ileb.,  must  have  copied  the  quotations  either 
from  Romans  or  from  some  intermediate  source. 
There  are  no  variants  of  LXX.  Still  more  remark- 
able is  the  quotation  of  Pr  10"  in  1  P  4'  as  com- 
pared with  Ja  5™.  In  1  P  it  is  evidently  a  rather 
curious  and  independent  rendering  of  Heb.  (Vb 
being  translated  oy  rX^ffos) ;  the  LXX  is  quite 
different.     In  James  we  have  obviously  a  refer- 


ence to  this  very  translation.  If,  as  is  generally 
Ijelieved,  James  is  earlier  than  1  P,  botn  quota- 
tions and  reference  are  derived  from  some  othei 
document,  (e)  When  a  writer  quotes  a  passaga 
twice  with  the  same  variant,  as  in  Ro  9*'  10", 
He  8'°  10""  (omission  of  Siio-u),  the  most  probabla 
explanation  is  that  he  consciously  or  unconsciously 
copied  his  own  correction. 

I.  Manner  of  quotation  in  different  books  {or 
sources)  of  AT. — (a)  Synoptic  Tradition.  (1)  In 
Mk  out  of  20  quotations  (excluding  reference  in 
12'^),  of  which  all  but  one  are  sayings  of  our  Lord, 
16  are  either  exact,  or  very  slightly  altered,  quota- 
tions of  LXX.  Of  the  remaining  four  V*'  is  prob- 
ably an  early  interpolation  into  Synoptic  tradition, 
not  being  in  the  corresponding  place  in  either  Mt 
or  Lk,  and  breaking  the  obvious  connexion  between 
1^  and  1' ;  Mk  V2-^-  ^  [Dt  6^- »]  is  the  great  v^v, 
which  from  its  frequent  use  in  devotion  was  prob- 
ably known  to  Greek  Jews  in  its  Heb.  form,  and 
was  hence  independently  translated  ;  14"  contains 
words  of  Christ  which,  if  quoted  as  in  LXX,  would 
have  lost  all  point ;  in  15*"  we  have  words  of  Christ 
in  their  original  Hebrew  -  A  ramaic  form.  The 
following  translation,  though  Influenced  by  LXX, 
aims  at  greater  literalness  (ei's  ri  for  Iva  tI,  repeti- 
tion of  /iou,  non-addition  of  the  curious  vpacrxn 
iwi).  It  seems  that  the  writer,  while  he  had  re- 
ceived and  retained  a  few  sayings  of  our  Lord  as 
actually  uttered,  generally  used  LXX  as  a  matter 
of  course.  (2)  Mt  reproduces  all  the  Synoptic 
quotations,  except  the  doubtful  Mk  1'-'",  and  very 
nearly  as  he  finds  them,  but  mth  a  slight  tendency 
(perhaps  unconscious)  to  assimilate  to  LXX,  Heb., 
or  Aram.,  as  perhaps  in  19"  (order  of  LXX  in  Dt, 
of  LXX  and  Heb.  in  Ex  and  Dt),  22»-'  (  +  d/u  LXX). 
22"  (eV  =  Heb.  1  for  ii  ;  Siavoltf,  a  LXX  transl.  of 
3;^  for  /(TxiJos),  22«  {KiOov  LXX),  21-^  (•Sn(?)  Heb. 
and  Aram,  for  'n'jx  ;  n:^  (?)  Aram,  for  Heb.  'i?^). 
The  follo^ving  translation  is  a  little  less  bold,  as 
also  the  reference  to  Dt  25'  in  22^.  (3)  Lk  out 
of  19  Synoptic  quotations  (excluding  Mk  1-'',  which 
Lk  has  in  quite  a  different  connexion)  omits  8  and 
treats  the  rest  with  greater  freedom,  chiefly  for 
literary  reasons,  as  3^"*  (where  the  continuation  of 
the  quotation  increases  the  rhetorical  effect.  Sea 
also  E,  c).  For  the  same  purpose  he  abridges  in 
gio  lo^Jou"  18=»  19*'*.  In  the  last  he,  so  far  only, 
agrees  with  Mt.  In  10"  he  apparently  combines 
Mk  12=«-  *>  and  Mt  22^',  reading  (^  .  ■  .  KapSlas  and 
iv  .  .  .  i'vxi,  etc.,  and  both  i<rxw  and  Siavotf.  20" 
is  altered  so  as  to  agree  exactly  with  LXX.  The 
word  Kadov  in  20^,  though  also  in  Mt,  probably 
comes  therefore  from  the  same  source.  (6)  The 
portions  common  to  Mt  and  Lk  and  not  to  Mk. 
Quotations  are  found  only  in  the  account  of  the 
Temptation  (Mt  4*-  "•  •• '»,  Lk  4*-  '»•  "■  '='• »),  and  are 
based  in  both  on  LXX.  The  1st  quotation  is 
exact  in  Lk,  in  Mt  longer,  and  part  only,  that 
not  common  with  Lk,  varies  from  LXX  ;  the  2nd 
is  abbreviated  in  both,  but  esp.  Mt,  which  omits 
the  whole  clause  toD  5ia4>v\d^at  oe — 65o7s  aoO,  Lk 
retaining  the  first  three  words.  Both  split  up  the 
quotation  into  two  parts,  Mt  adding  (coi  before 
iwl,  Lk  Kal  5ti.  The  third  is  exact  in  both.  In  the 
fourth  both  substitute  vpooKw-fiacis  for  <poPri8^<rti. 
The  kind  of  assimilation  thus  exhibited,  in  con- 
nexion with  the  difference  in  the  order  of  the  temp- 
tations, suggests  that  in  both  the  quotations  were 
taken,  not  from  LXX,  but  from  some  other  com- 
mon source,  probably  preserved  by  oral  tradition. 
(c)  Original  quotations  of  Mt.  These  exhibit  con- 
siderable variety  of  character,  3  onlv  (27^"  is  an 
interpolation  from  Jn  19-*)  being  derived  from 
LXX,  21"  [Ps  S'']  exactly,  where  Heb.  t'y  was 
inappropriate,  or  at  least  ambiguous;  1"  [Is  7"] 
(notice,  besides  the  doubtful  irap9(vot,  (v  yaarpl, 
'EfifiavovtiX  so  spelt)  with  several  alterations,  prob- 


QUOTATIONS 


(^UOTATlUXS 


187 


ably  tlirou';h  fault  of  memory ;  18"  (adds  ira» 
before  /"}/*»)  much  abridged.  Tlie  rest  are  from 
the  Ileb.,  as  2"  8",  though  often  showing  the 
influence  of  LXX  (see  A,  </),  as  2"*  11'°  12»'-'  13» 
21°;  and  often  very  Kiiigularlv  paraphrased,  as 
2<i  2-3  -JT"- '"  (see  D  ;  E,  d).  {</)  Quotatium  of  a 
'  Gospel  of  tlie  Infancy '  (originally  Aramaic  ?). 
Lk  2^  is,  curiously  enough,  an  exact  quotation 
from  LXX,  thougli  from  Lv  5",  not  Lv  12',  the 
passajje  actually  referred  to,  and  is  probabl}'  an 
maert um  by  St.  Luke  into  the  e.arlier  translation 
of  an  original  Aram,  docuinent;  1"  is  a  paraphrastic 
reference  to  Mai  4°-°  3',  based  on  Heb.  (see  B) ; 
2-*  depends  apparent!}'  on  a  variant  of  Heb.  (see 
J,  n).  (e)  The  Original  quotations  of  Lk,  4"  and 
23**,  are  both  from  LXX  ;  the  first  a  combination 
of  Is  (31'- ''  58°,  with  a  slight  change  of  order  and 
construction,  the  second  with  necessary  alteration 
of  the  text.  (/)  St.  John's  Gospd.  Quotations  are 
marked  by  brevity  and  freedom,  with  a  toiidcncy 
to  attach  more  importance  to  mystical  and  hidden 
meanings  than  to  the  literal  sense  of  the  words ; 
usually  from  LXX,  as  lO'-''  12"',  but  occasionally 
from  lleb.,  as  13"*  liF  (see  B),  in  both  of  which 
dill'erences  between  LXX  and  Heb.  are  very  great  ; 
but  often  so  unlike  eitlier  as  to  make  it  uncertain 
which  the  writer  had  in  his  mind,  as  12"'  (ido-oynai 
LXX,  but  see  J,  a).  On  T**  see  G.  Combined 
quotations  are  frequent  (see  F),  as  6"  12"-  ">  lo'-" 
[Ps  .35'"  or  G9^  and  lOQS]  19*'.  There  are  only  4 
quotations  common  to  anv  of  the  Synoptists,  1'^ 
8"  12"  12^»  (iMt  27"  is  spurious);  of  these  the 
second  and  tliird  to  Mt  only.  In  all  there  is  an 
independent  rendering,  and  in  12"  a  difi'erent  com- 
bination, (g)  The  Acts.  Quotations  are  all  from 
LXX,  often  quite  exact,  as  in  the  long  quota- 
tions, 2'-^"^  2**-^;  though  dillering  greatl}'  from 
Heb.,  as  7"";  sometimes  following  a  different 
text,  as  1  j'"-  "  (see  A,  a  (1)  (2)) ;  frequently  abbre- 
viated, as  l-'»  3---  -a  7*"  1.3*"  1.3"  IS'"-  "  ;  sometimes 
expanded,  as  2"""  (for  literary  eU'ect),  and  often 
combined,  a.s  3=»  13"  etc.  (.see  F).  On  7'--'"  see 
E,  a.  (h)  St.  Paul's  Epistles.  Quotations  are 
usually  from  LXX,  as  Ko  9-''"',  but  knowledge 
is  shown  of  Heb.,  as  Ho  9"  (see  B,  6)  10"  (lipaioi) 
11*  12".  In  Uo,  and  to  a  less  extent  in  1  Co,  the 
quotations  from  Pent,  and  Ps  are  very  largely 
exact  from  LXX  ;  those  from  the  prophetical  and 
historical  books  vary  considerably  from  LXX, 
are  usually  free,  but  often  contain  elements  from 
Hebrew.  It  would  seem  probable  that  the  former 
are  usually  copied  from  LXX,  the  rest  quoted 
memoriler.  In  Ko,  out  of  31  quotations  from 
Pent,  and  Ps,  only  9  are  not  practically  exact, 
and  of  those  10°"*  is  a  mere  paraphrase,  and  Ko 
9"  12"  are  intentionally  taken  from  Heb.  ;  out  of 
22  quotations  from  hist,  and  proph.  books  only  3 
are  exact.  In  1  Co,  out  of  9  quotations  from 
Pent,  and  Ps,  4  are  exact ;  out  of  9  from  hist,  and 
proph.  books,  only  one.  The  change  of  avOpiiiruv 
to  ootpCiv  in  3-°  [Ps  94"],  though  dilticult,  is  prob- 
ably intentional  (see  E,  (/).  The  distinction  here 
pointed  out  is  remarkably  illustrated  in  Ko  S'"''", 
where  the  single  quotation  from  Is  (59'-*,  Pr  1'° 
is  not  in  LXX)  has  2  important  variants  from 
LX.X,  6i(h  (LXX  raxi-voi)  and  lypujaf  (LXX  otSauiv), 
suggesting  a  memoriter  quotation,  whereas  the 
5  ij  notations  from  I's  are  practically  exact  from 
L.\.\.  In  Ko  3",  Ec  7"  is  combined,  by  probably 
a  slip  of  memory,  with  the  phrase  oiioi  lU  from 
Ps  14'  or  53"  (licb.  L.X.X  has  ouk  (ano  fm  .Vis). 
Of  the  other  Uagiograjiha,  I'r  25'-'-  ^"*  is  quoted 
from  LXX  exactly  in  Ko  12-«,  .Job  6"  from  lleb. 
in  1  Co  3".  For  the  remarkable  quotation  in 
1  Co  2»  see  II.  In  the  other  Epistles  the  quota- 
tions are  too  few  to  make  any  satisfactory  general- 
izations possible.  On  Eph  4»  5''  see  E,  d,  and  G, 
H.     (i)  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.    With  the  excep- 


tion of  Iff"  (see  H),  quotations  are  all  from  LXX, 
very  numerous  and  generally  exact,  suggesting 
that  variations  are  eitiier  inientional  alteration!", 
as  8'°  (10'°)  10^  (see  E,  c,  d),  or  errors  of  transcriii- 
tion,  as  3"  (see  E,  b).  We  have,  however,  most  prob- 
alily  memoriter  quotations  in  9-",  where  toOto  for 
i5o0  looks  like  an  unconscious  imitation  of  the  words 
of  institution  (cf.  Mk  14-''  etc.),  and  12-",  where 
Srjplov  for  KTijuos  can  hardlj'  be  reg.arded  as  an  in- 
dependent translation  of  nr.-^.  {j)  St.  James.  Of 
six  possible  quotations,  three,  2'2''''  4°,  are  certainly 
from  LXX,  and  nearly  exact ;  2"  may  ])ossibly  be 
an  independent  translation  of  Heb.  ;  5-"  is  cer- 
tainly so,  but  is  probably  from  some  intermediate 
source  (see  H);  4",  if  a  quotation  at  all,  is  from 
an  unknown  source  (see  G).  (k)  First  Ep.  of  St. 
Peter.  Though  quotations  are  taken  partly,  but 
seldom  very  exactly,  from  LXX,  as  2"  3'"-'-"  3'^-  '^ 
(see  E,  d),  the  inlluence  of  the  Heb.  is  frequently 
apparent,  as  I'-"-'*  [Is  40'''']  (aiJrf;?  for  a.v0pd>Trov  of 
LXX),  2~  [Is  53»]  ((vpidr,  5i\os  for  o6\ov),  4"  (where 
LXX  is  quite  ditl'erent,  but  see  H).  2°-'  is  prob- 
ably connected,  directly  or  indirectly,  with  Ko  9*', 
and  proves  little  (see  H).  (I)  Second  Ep.  of  St. 
Peter.  The  only  quotation,  2--,  is  from  Heb., 
nearly  every  word  diiiering  from  LXX.  («i)  The 
Apoealyp.se  contains  no  delinite  quotations,  but  is 
full  of  the  thoughts  and  ideas  .and  even  language 
of  OT.  This  last  seems  in  general  to  point  to  Heb. 
rather  than  to  LXX,  as  in  1",  where  (ia^CKdav, 
Upeis  is  evidently  a  translation  of  O'j-S  nr'rcD  Ex  19° 
(LXX  has /3a(j-(Xfioi'  Uparevixa),  V  (/ierd,  with  Aram, 
of  I)n  7'^  for  LXX  iTl ;  oi'ni'fs  aurbv  iicKiin-riaat', 
from  Zee  12'",  for  avB'  Siv  kotu^x ')"■'"''■<',  cf.  Jn  19"), 
1"  (suggested  by  Dn  10°)  wliich  has  no  special 
LXX  word.  So  11*  (cf.  Zee  4--  ^-  '^)  14'  [cf.  Is  21 '] 
14*  [cf.  .11  3"].  In  6'°  we  find  tlie  phra.se  jras  ooC,\os 
Kal  iXevffepos  instead  of  avvcxipenos  k.  iyKaraXeXeifi- 
lUvoi  of  1  K  21='  (LXX  20'-').  On  the  other  hand, 
there  are  some  signs  of  direct  or  indirect  LXX  inllu- 
ence, as  in  2'  (irapaSdatp,  Gn  2'  elc. )  6'*  {jiiji\lov,  cf. 
Is  34*  LXX)  18-  (oaip-ovltj^v,  cf.  Is  13-'  LXX),  etc. 

J.  The  bearinq  of  NT  quotations  on  textual 
criticism. — {a)  When  a  quotation  agrees  witli 
Heb.  but  has  a  single  word  or  plirase  agreeing 
with  LXX,  this  may  have  come,  not  from  LX\ 
itself,  but/ro?n  a  various  reading  of  Heb.,  followed 
also  by  LXX.  Thus  in  Jn  12'"  idawnai  may  point 
to  a  variant  x;iK  for  k?";.  In  Mt  12-'  the  words 
It.  iv  T.  dvdfiaTi  airrov  lOfrj  iXirioOai,  agreeing  exactly 
with  LXX  (tliough  so  ditl'erent  from  lleb.),  whereas 
all  the  earlier  p.art  of  the  quotation  follows  a 
totally  dillerent  rendering  of  lleb.,  m.ay  point  to 
iSn;;  n")i  tor? ;  but  see  A,  d.  Even  wliere  a 
quotation  dill'ers  more  or  less  from  both  LXX 
and  Heb.  the  dilTcrence  may  have  arisen  from  a 
various  reading  of  the  latter.  Tims  in  Mt  2" 
rjyep.Ojiv  is  often  referred  to  a  reading  ';i'?n  ft)r 
'S^S  (see  D).  Lk  2-*  points  to  a  reading  nh^n- 
ijrSp  -V  for  iba-'?;  '^-v-Jl:  Ito  Q^  [Is  28'°]  (10")  to 
viz:  I*''  'i''  I'C{(^n  ^or  c'-n;  "i'  r"t<^C.  Even  if  the  in.ser- 
tion  of  'iS  is  merely  a  mental  error,  it  shows  that  St. 
Paul  had  the  Hebrew  in  his  mind,  and  therefore 
got  /caraiffxi'f^^o'f'rai,  not  from  hW  Karaiaxf'i'&V}  but 
trom  aiT,  which  LXX  also  reads.  Mt  27"' '"  nuiv 
have  been  based  on  a  text  reading  is'n  n'j  hx,  witli 
590,  108,  251,  K  2,  K,  for  njVn  ^{(  (but  see' E,  (/), 
and  possibly  "  ij'ij  for  "  n-g.  It  is  imjiortant  also 
to  notice  that  Mtdoes  not  support  the  otherwise 
probable  reading  of  "lif'm  'treasury'  for  ij'  'potter.' 
1  Co  2"  seems  originally  duo  to  a  dillerence  of  text, 
]ix!i  iH'pv*  for  «M.sn  li'j  'V?;' ,  o'n'^N  rcy'-j  ii  for  in^tt  o^^^t< 
nyy:,  and  ^SC^'?  for  n;nt;'^  (see  D)  (on  Mt  2°  see  D, 
and  on  Mt  12^'  see  A,  d).  {h)  When  a  quotation 
follows  LXX  almost  exactly,  hut  agrees  with 
lleb.  in  a  word  or  phrase,  it  raises  the  suspicion 
that  it  follows  a  difcrent  reading  of  LA'X,  ai 
in  Ac  13"  [Is  49"]  [riOeiKa  for  maita  of  LXX,  and 


188 


RAAMA 


KAAJISES,  KA.MESES 


omission  of  (is  Si.aOrtKriv  yivov^,  which  is  apparently 
an  interpolation  from  Is  49') ;  in  Mk  12  '>,  Ac  7^'^ 
(omission  of  (Iixl  ;  the  ultra-HuUenistic  speech  of 
St.  Steplien  is  the  last  place  to  .-uspect  the  inllu- 
ence  of  Heb.  text).  The  mere  fact  of  a  certain 
number  of  MSS  of  LXX  agreeing  with  a  quota- 
tion is  of  practically  no  importance,  because  they 
were  so  frequently  altered  into  agreement  with 
NT  quot.ations.  We  have  tlie  most  striking  ex- 
ample in  Ps  14^  (13^  LXX),  where  the  whole  cento 
of  iiuotations  in  Ro  3'*'*  h.as  found  its  way  into  B 
and  some  other  .\ISS  of  LXX,  and  hence  through 
the  Vulg.  into  the  English  Prayer-Book  Psalter. 
(c)  It  is  just  possible  that  quotations  may  throw 
liglit  on  questions  connected  with  the  text  of  NT 
itself,  as  He  3"  ;  see  E,  b. 

ii.  Quotations  in  NT  from  the  Apocrypha 
AND  PsEUDEPiGR.\PHiCAL  Jewish  Literature.— 
These  are  not  cited  as  Scripture,  and  with  the 
exception  of  Jude  "  [Bk.  of  Enoch  i.  9,  tr.  by  K. 
H.  Charles,  Oxford]  are  not  directly  cited  at  all ; 
but  there  are  several  references,  such  as  in  Lk 
1218-20  (cf    Sir  1118.19)  147-10  (cf   Sir  139-10),  Jn  6" 

(cf.  Sir  24='),  Ro  12"  (cf.  Sir  '^),  He  1"  (Wis  7=*) 
4'"  "  (cf.  Wis  7---=»),  Ja  l'"  (Sir  5"). 

iii.  Quotations  FROM  Pagan  Writers.— These 
are  veiy  few,  and  not  always  easily  recognized. 
Thus  that  of  Ac  17°*''  is  found  both  in  Aratus, 
PhcBnom.  5,  and  in  the  hymn  of  Cleanthes  to  Zeus, 
5.  The  quotation  in  1  Co  15^  is  mentioned  by 
Lucian,  A  m.  43,  as  a  saying  of  Menander  from  his 
Thais.    The  quotation  of  Tit  1'^  is  said  by  early 


Christian  writers  to  come  from  a  lost  w  ork  0/ 
Epimenides,  called  wepl  xpi7a'"ii>',  but  is  now  found  in 
the  hymn  of  Callimachus  (an  Alexandrian  poet  0/ 
3rd  cent.  B.C.)  to  Zeus,  8.  In  1  Co  12'="^  we  have 
probably  a  reference  to  the  fable  of  Meneniua 
Agvippa.  But  it  is  very  uncertain  wliether  tlicse 
quotations,  etc.,  point  to  a  wide  knowledge  of 
pagan  literature  on  St.  Paul's  part,  or  would  not 
rather  from  their  proverbial  character  have  been 
generally  known  \>y  men  of  very  moderate  culture 
(see  Farrar's  Life  of  St.  Paul,  vol.  i.  Exc.  iii.). 

Literature. — Turpie,  The  OT  in  the  Sew  is,  in  spite  of  the 
one-sided  aims  of  the  writer  and  ni.any  in.iccuracies.  a  very  use- 
ful book  when  used  with  proper  reference  to  (food  critical 
editions  and  coniinent.aries,  and  lias  been  of  great  service  in 
writing  tliis  article.  The  quotations  of  OT  are  taken  froui 
OT  in  Greek,  edited  by  H.  C.  Swete,  Cambridge,  those  ol 
NT  usu.illy  from  the  re\  ised  text  of  Greek  Test.,  Oxford.  Set 
also  L.  Cappellus,  Qu^ent.  de  toe.  parall.  Vet.  et  Aoc.  Test.  1650 : 
Surenhusius,  "I'CD.i  "i£D  sive  ^.^>.k  KxraXkaty^s,  1713 ;  Roepe, 
d«  Vet.  Teat.  Loc  in  apo.^t.  libr.  allegatione.  1827  ;  Tholuck, 
Dm  All.  Tett.  i.  NTi,  1840 ;  Kautzscli,  de  Vet.  Test.  loc.  a 
Paulo  allegatis,  1863  ;  C.  Taylor,  The  Gospel  in  the  Law,  1SC9  ; 
Monnet,  Les  citations  de  Vane.  test.  d.  les  ^p.  de  S.  Paul,  1874  ; 
Bohl,  ATCUaU  in  ST,  1878  ;  Toy,  Qnxttaliom  in  the  ST,  1884  ; 
VoUmer,  Die  AT  Citalc  Ui  Paultui,  1890  ;  Johnson,  The  Quota- 
tions 0/  the  Sew  Test,  /rum  the  Old,  1890  ;  Dittniar,  Vetus  Test. 
in  Som,  i.  1899  ;  cf.  also  .lowett,  St.  PauTs  Epistles^,  1894,  vol. 
i.  185 fl.;  Swete,  Introd.  to  Old  Test,  in  Greek,  1900,  p.  381ft.; 
and  Thackeray,  St.  Paul  and  Contemp.  Jewish  Thought,  1900, 
p.  181  a.;  and  for  special  NT  books,  Allen.  '  The  OT  Quotations 
in  St.  .Mark "  in  Expos.  Times,  Jan  1901  (xii.  187),  and  '  The  OT 
Quotations  in  St.  Matthew,'  Expos.  Times,  March  1901  (xii. 
281);  Lightfoot,  Notes  on  Epistles  u/ St.  J'aul,yt\>.  170  0.,  210  t.; 
Westcott,  Hebrews,  p.  67 ft'.;  Mayor,  James,  p.  LxLxflE.  The 
subject  ifi  dealt  with  in  all  the  MaDuala  for  BibN-  study. 

V.  H.  Woods. 


R 


RAAMA  (Ksp  only  1  Ch  1»)  or  RAAMAH  (nc!;-!).— 
Son  of  Cush  and  fat  her  of  Sheba  (Saba)  and  Dedan 
(Gn  10',  1  Ch  P),  also  mentioned  by  Ezekiel  (27") 
as  a  trading  community  hy  the  side  of  Sheba.  The 
LXX  (in  Gn  A  '?ena^a;  in  1  Ch  BA  'Feyfii;  in 
Ezk  B  'Papid,  AQ  'Payij.d)  identified  the  word  with 
Regma,  mentioned  as  a  city  hy  Ptolemy  (vi.  7,  14) 
on  the  Persian  Gulf,  whicli  is  probably  identical 
with  Regma,  which  Steph.  Byz.  (ed.  Westermann, 
p.  242)  describes  as  a  city  or  a  gulf  in  the  Persian 
Gulf.  This  latter  form  of  the  word  (in  most  MSS 
practically  indistinguishable  from  the  other)  may 
verj'  well  he  Greek,  meaning  'breach.'  The  above 
identification  is  accepted  hy  most  authorities, 
including  Glaser  {Skizze,  ii.  325),  who  adds,  how- 
ever (p.  2.'i2),  that  the  name  is  spelt  in  inscriptions 
with  a  jim.  It  is  at  present  impossible  to  say 
whether  there  is  any  connexion  between  tlie  place 
mentioned  hy  the  Greek  geographers  and  the  tribe 
mentioned  in  Genesis  or  not.  Dillmann  thinks 
Raama  may  be  the  Pa^^iai'irai  of  Strabo  (XVI.  iv. 
24),  in  S.  Arabia,  N.W.  of  Chatramotitce (  =  ]}£idTa,- 
maut ;  see  IIazarmaveth). 

D.  S.  Margoliouth. 

RAAMIAH  (n.-pin  ;  B  JfaoMia,  A  'P«XM).— One  of 
the  twelve  chiefs  who  returned  with  Zerubb.ibel, 
Neh  V.  In  the  parallil  passage,  Ezr  2^,  the  name 
is  Reelaiah  (n.Vy-i,  B  'PeeXtid,  A  'PeeUas),  and  in 
1  Es  5'  llESAlAS  (which  see).  It  is  impossible  to 
decide  with  certainty  what  was  the  original  read- 
ing, although  n'^iii  probably  represents  it  more 
nearly  than  n-ojn. 

RAAMSES,  RAMESES  (orcvT  Ex  1"  ;  KDy!  Gn 
47",  Ex  li2''  ;  l..\'.\  'Pa/ifffff.)  [D  0111.  in  Gn  47"]).— 
The  city  of  Kaamses  was,  like  Pithoiii,  built  by 
the  Israelites  for  the  Pharaoh  of  the  Oppression 


(Ex  I"),  who  has  been  shown  by  Dr.  Naville's 
discovery  of  the  site  of  Pithom  to  have  been 
Ramses  II.  of  the  19th  dynasty  (see  Pithom).  It 
was  from  Raanises  or  Rameses  that  the  Israelites 
started  when  they  lied  from  Eg\pt ;  and  as  the 
next  stage  in  their  journey  was  Succoth  (Ex  12"), 
Raarases  could  not  have  been  far  from  Pithom. 
It  must  also  have  been  in  the  land  of  Goshen,  as  is 
indeed  expressly  stated  in  Gn  47",  where  Goshen 
is  called  proleptically  '  the  land  of  Rameses.' 
According  to  LXX  of  Gn  46^ '  the  land  of  Rameses' 
[D  om.]  included  also  Heroopolis  or  Pithom. 

Qosem  or  Goshen  was  the  capital  of  the  20th 
nome  of  Lower  Egypt,  and  is  now  represented  by 
Saft  el-Henna,  at  the  western  end  of  tlie  Wady 
TumUat,  north  of  Belbfis,  and  a  little  to  the  east 
of  Zagazig.  The  8th  nome,  of  which  Pithom  wa« 
the  capital,  adjoined  the  20th  to  the  east.  We 
should  therefore  probably  look  for  the  site  of 
Raamses  somewhere  between  Belbfis  and  Tel  el- 
Maskhflta.  The  latter  was  identified  with  Raamses 
by  Lei)sius,  and  the  identification  was  perpetuated 
for  a  time  in  the  name  of  Ramses  given  to  the  place 
by  the  French  engineers  during  the  construction  of 
the  Fresh-water  Canal.  Dr.  Naville's  excavations 
proved,  howe\  er,  that  Tel  el-Maskhflta  is  Pithom, 
and  consequently  the  site  of  Raamses  must  be 
sought  el.sewhere. 

The  city  is  mentioned  in  the  Egyptian  texts. 
We  learn  from  them  that  it  was  built,  like  Pithom, 
by  Ramses  II.,  from  whom  it  derived  its  name; 
and  a  letter  of  the  scribe  Panbesa,  translated  by 
Bnigsch  {Ilistory  of  Egypt,  Eng.  tr.  ii.  pp.  96-98) 
and  Goodwin  (RP,  1st  ser.  vi.  p.  11  ff.),  gives  a  long 
and  glowing  description  of  it.  Its  canals  are  said 
to  be  'rich  in  fish,  its  lakes  swarm  with  birdi,  its 
meadows  are  green  with  vegetaliles.'     The  canal 


KABBAH 


KABBAH 


189 


on  tlie  banks  of  wliifli  it  stood  comnmnicated  with 
the  sea,  and  was  called  Pa-shet-Hor,  '  the  mere  of 
Horus.'  Brugsch  at  one  time  wished  to  identify 
it  ^vith  Tanis  (Zoan),  where  there  seems  to  hiive 
been  a  Pi-I!amessu  or  'temjile  of  Ramses,'  erected 
by  Ramsfs  ii.,  but  the  discovery  of  the  position  of 
Pithom  obliged  him  to  change  his  mind.  An  un- 
edited papyrus  in  the  possession  of  M.  Gol6nischetT, 
moreover,  distinguislies  it  from  Tanis,  and  places 
it  between  Tanis  and  Zaru  (on  the  eastern  frontier) 
in  a  list  of  the  towns  of  the  Delta.  'The  land  of 
Rameses '  seems  to  have  taken  its  name  from  the 
city. 

LiTisR,\TrRK. — Jacques  de  Roup<i,  GftxjrapJiie  anciennf  de  la 
Bafxe-Efjt/pte,  1S91  ;  II.  Bniir^rh,  Dictionnaire  mioqrajihique 
de  fancienne  E^upte,  1879 ;  Dillinunn-Kjssel  on  Ex  1^'  ;  Driver 
iu  Uogiirth's  A  tttlntrity  and  ArctujboCogy,  lb99,  p.  65 ;  Bail, 
Lightjrom  Uu  tost,  p.  109  (.  A.  U.  SaYCE. 

KABBAH 1.  (.n:-! ;  Jos  13^  B  'kpiS,  A  'Pa^^d  ; 

2S  11'  12--'-»  'Po^;3d»:  1  Ch  20>  'PaS^di-;  Am  1" 
'Po/S/Sd;  Jer  49[30]='  'Va^Sie  ■  Ezk  2.5^  rhv  w6\iv 
rod'Aiifiuv),  or  more  fully  Rabbath-bene-Ammon  = 
'  Kabbah  of  the  children  of  Amnion '  (p:;;  •;?  n--i ; 
Dt  3"  7)  &Kpa  Twv  l/iux  'A/x/uiK  ;  2  S  12'^  17^,  Ezk 
2l=»  'Pa(,3)^de  vl^v  "AM^aii",  Jer  4'J[3U]»  'PaySySdO). 
The  chief  and,  in  fact,  the  only  city  of  the 
Ammonites  mentioned  in  the  OT.  It  was  situ- 
ated about  25  miles  N.E.  of  the  north  end  of  the 
Dead  Sea,  in  the  fruitful  valley  which  forms  the 
upper  course  of  the  Jabbok  (cz-Zerka),  now  called 
the  Wufly  'Amman  (Buhl,  GAP  48,  260  f.).  Under 
Ptolemv  n.  (Philadelphus)  the  city  was  rebuilt 
and  called  Philadelphia,  but  the  oririnal  name 
sci-ms  never  to  have  been  completely  Tost,  and  is 
still  preserved  in  the  modem  'Animun. 

Apart  from  the  isolated  notice  in  Dt  3",  where 
a  pa.ssing  reference  is  made  to  it  as  the  site  of  the 
bed  or  sarcophagus  of  Og  king  of  Baslian,  and 
the  statement  in  Jos  13^  that  it  lay  out.>-ide  the 
ea-stern  border  of  the  tribe  of  Gad  on  the  east  of 
Jordan,  no  allusion  is  made  in  the  OT  to  the 
capital  of  the  Ammonites  until  the  reign  of  David. 
According  to  the  narrative  of  2  S  lO'-lP  12-«-»' 
(which  appears  in  a  condensed  and  less  accurate 
form  in  8-',  see  Samuel,  Books  of)  an  embassy 
was  -sent  bj'  David  to  condole  with  Hanun  king 
of  Amnion  on  the  death  of  his  father  Nahash. 
The  envojs,  however,  were  grossly  insulted  by  the 
Ammonite  king  and  his  servants,  who,  in  view  of 
the  growing  power  of  the  Israelite  monarch,  were 
inclined,  jierliaps  not  unnaturally,  to  suspect  the 
motives  of  his  embassy.  This  treatment  of  the 
envoys  could  have  but  one  result,  and  the  Ammon- 
ites therefore  at  once  summoned  to  their  aid  those 
poutlieru  tribes  of  the  Aninueans  who  were  their 
more  immediate  neighbours  on  the  east  of  Jordan. 
Meantime  the  Israelite  army,  under  the  command 
of  Joab,  had  lo.st  no  time  in  invading  the  country 
of  the  Ammonites.  Their  intention,  doubtless, 
was  to  lay  siege  to  Babbah  itself ;  for  though  he 
was  aware  (2  S  10')  of  the  alliance  between  the 
Ammonites  ami  Aranueans,  Jo.ib  docs  not  appear 
to  have  realized  either  the  strength  or  the  jiosition 
of  the  Aranucan  force  that  was  opposed  to  him, 
until  he  had  actuallj'  come  within  striking  distance 
of  the  Ammonite  capital  (vy.'»).  The  Aiiima?ans, 
however,  as  we  learn  from  the  Chronicler  (1  Ch 
19'),  had  penetrated  as  far  south  as  Medeba,  and 
now  threatened  to  cut  oil'  his  retreat  across  the 
Jordan.  Thus  hemmed  in  'before  and  behind,' 
Joab  perceived  that  his  only  hope  of  safety  lay 
in  assuming  the  ofl'ensive.  He  therclore  divided 
his  army  into  two,  and,  having  entrusted  Abishai 
with  the  task  of  holding  the  Ammonites  in  check, 
himself  led  '  all  the  picked  men  of  l.srael '  in  an 
attack  on  the  more  powerful  .^rama'an.s.  The 
combined  movement  was  completely  successful  : 
the  AramtBans  fled  discomtited,  and  their  example 


was  soon  followed  by  the  Ammonites,  who  took 
r-fuge  in  Kabbah.  Joab,  however,  did  not  follow 
up  his  advantage,  but  retired  with  the  armj'  to 
Jerusalem.  In  the  following  year  David  took 
the  lield  in  person  against  the  Arama-ans,  who 
had  reassembled  under  Shobach,  captain  of  the 
host  of  Iladadezer,  at  Helam  (probably  not  far 
from  Damascus),  and  defeated  them  with  great 
slaughter  (\'v. '*-"*).  The  \vay  was  now  clear  for 
the  renewal  of  the  war  with  the  Ammonites,  and 
Joab,  with  the  whole  army  and  the  ark  (11"),  was 
despatched  across  the  Jordan  to  ravage  the  land 
of  the  Ammonites,  and  to  lay  siege  to  Kabbah 
(IP).  If,  as  the  biblical  narrative  seems  to  imply, 
both  the  sous  of  Batlisheba  were  born  during  this 
period,  the  siege  of  Kabbah  must  have  lasted 
nearly  two  years.  The  aim  of  the  besiegers  was 
doubtless  to  starve  out  the  city,  rather  than  to 
take  it  by  storm  (U-"-  ^) :  the  actual  liglitin"  was 
probabl5'  confined  to  the  occasions  on  whicli  the 
beleaguered  garrison  attempted  a  sortie.  It  was 
by  exposing  Uriah  the  Hittite  to  one  of  these 
sallies  that  Joab  was  able  to  eflect  David's  plan 
for  getting  rid  of  the  former  (vv.'^'"). 

The  fate  of  the  city  was  finally  sealed  by  the 
capture  of  the  spring  of  water  from  wliich  the 
inhabitants  derived  their  water  supply  (12-''  reading 
c~C  \"i  'spring  of  waters'  for  orErr  tv  'city  of 
waters,'  so  Klostermann  ;  but  .see  Clieyne  [Expos. 
Tiine.1,  Sept.  18'J8,  p.  143  f.],  who  would  read  liere 
and  in  the  preceding  verse  csV?  Ty  'the  city  of 
MUcom'):  only  in  this  way  can  we  harmonize 
Joab's  message  (v.-""-)  with  the  phrase  '  the  royal 
city'  (njiS^n  ry)  in  v.^.  By  the  latter  phrase  is 
probably  meant  the  royal  castle  or  citadel,  situ- 
ated at  the  apex  of  the  lofty  triangular  plateau, 
which  seems  to  have  formed  the  site  of  the  ancient 
Kabbah.  'The  two  sides  are  bounded  by  wadies 
which  diverge  from  the  ai)ex,  where  they  are 
divided  by  a  low  neck  of  land,  and  thence  separ- 
ating, fall  into  tlie  valley  of  the  Jabbok,  which 
forms  the  base  of  the  triangle'  (Olipliant,  The 
Land  of  Gilencl,  p.  259  f.).  The  precipitous  char- 
acter of  the  wadis — on  the  one  side  there  is  a  drop 
of  300  ft.,  on  the  other  of  400  ft.— precluded  any 
access  to  the  streams  below,  save  at  the  (?  artificial) 
depression  which  separated  the  cita<lel  from  the 
rest  of  the  city.  Hence  the  capture  of  the  latter 
virtually  placed  the  city  at  the  mercy  of  Joab, 
and  as.sured  him  of  its  speedy  downfall.*  He 
thereupon  despatched  messengers  to  David,  bid- 
ding him  collect  the  rest  of  his  forces,  and  super- 
intend the  final  assault  of  the  (ity,  'lest,'  he 
adds,  '  I  take  the  city,  and  my  name  be  called 
ui)on  it' — in  token,  namely,  of  its  concjuest  by  him. 
(See,  further,  on  this  passage,  vol.  i.  p.  344"). 
David  at  once  resiioudcd  to  Joab's  appeal,  and 
shortly  after  his  arrival  the  city  was  taken,  to- 
gether with  much  sjioil,  including  the  crown  of 
AliUom  (LXX),  the  god  of  the  Ammonites.  (Tor 
a  full  discussion  of  the  treatment  of  the  inhabit- 
ants of  Kabbah  1  y  David,  see  Driver,  A'otes  on 
Samuel,  pp.  2-2{i-22'Ji. 

From  tlie  few  scattered  notices  of  Kabbah  in 
the  writings  of  the  prophets  from  the  8tli  cent, 
onwards,  we  gather  that  the  city  once  more  re- 
verted to  the  jjosscssion  of  the  Ammonites.  Thus 
Amos,  in  his  denunciation  of  Aimiiun  (1'"'),  pro- 
phesies the  destruction  of  the  wall  and  palaces  of 
Kabbah,  while  similar  language  is  used  by  Jere- 
miah (49'-  ')  shortly  before  the  siege  of  Jerusalem, 
and  by  Ezekicl  ('25').     It   is  noticeable   that   the 

•  The  reading  of  the  Hebrew  text '  city  of  wnten* '  is  URually 
explained  as  referring  to  the  lower  town.  But  (1)  the  phrtma 
it«elf  iu  an  unlikely  one  to  he  applied  to  a  ^rt  of  the  eity, 
(2)  there  is  no  reference  elsewhere  to  a  division  of  the  city, 
and  (3)  the  explanation  seenm  diie  to  the  present  condition  of 
the  ruins  of  'Amman,  which  date,  at  earliest,  from  liomao 
times. 


190 


RAEBI,  EABBONI 


RAB-MAG 


latter  regards  Rabbali  as  no  less  important  politi- 
cally tlian  Jenisaleiii  itself  (2)-»[Heb.-"']i. 

In  tlie  3rd  cent.  B.C.  Kabbah  was  ^lill  a  place 
of  consideral)le  importance.  After  its  capture  by 
Ptolemy  Pluiadelplius  (B.C.  2S.5-247)  it  was  called 
Philadelphia,  and  the  surrounding  district  Phila- 
delphene  or  Arabia  Philadul]>liensis  (Ritter,  Die 
Erdkunde,  xv.  pt.  ii.  p.  1154  f.).  According  to 
Polybius  (v.  71),  the  city  underwent  a  severe  and 
protracted  siege  under  Antiochus  the  Great,  who 
succeeded  in  capturing  it  only  through  the  agency 
of  a  captive.  The  latter  revealed  the  existence  of 
the  subterranean  passage  by  which  tlie  L'arrison 
of  the  citadel  obtained  their  water  supply  :  the 
passage  was  accordingly  blocked  up,  and  tlie  gar- 
rison forced  to  surrender.  The  same  authority 
makes  use  of  the  old  name  Rahbatamana  ('Pa/3/3a- 
Ta^Lava),  while  Stephen  of  Byzantium  states  that 
it  was  formerly  called  Ainana,  and  afterwards 
Astarte.  Joseplius  describes  it  as  the  most  easterly 
border-town  of  Persea  (BJ  ni.  iii.  3),  and  Strabo 
especially  notes  it  as  one  of  the  localities  inhabited 
by  a  mixed  population.  It  formed  one  of  the  cities 
of  the  Decapolis,  and  in  the  middle  of  the  4th 
cent.  Ammianus  JIarcellinus  classes  it  with  Bostra 
and  Geresa  as  one  of  the  fortilied  great  cities 
of  Coele-Syria  (Ritter,  I.e.).  Philadelphia,  later, 
became  tlie  seat  of  a  Christian  bishup,  forming 
one  of  the  nineteen  sees  of  '  Pala^stina  tertia ' 
(Reland,  Pal.  22S).  Of  the  Arabic  geographers, 
IMuk.iddasi  (A.D.  985)  describes  'Amman  as  the 
capital  of  the  Belka  district,  lying  on  the  border 
of  the  desert.  He  mentions  the  castle  of  Goliath 
as  situated  on  the  hill  overhanging  the  city,  and 
containing  the  tomb  of  Uriah,  over  which  is  built 
a  mosque.  YftkClt  (iii.  719),  in  A.D.  1225,  men- 
tions it  as  the  city  of  the  emperor  Dakiyanfls 
(Deoius) :  he  further  relates  the  Moslem  legend, 
according  to  which  'Amman,  the  founder  of  the  city, 
was  the  son  of  Lot's  brother  ("Amman  =  'he  who  is 
of  the  uncle').  Abulfeda  (A.D.  1321)  also  assigns 
the  founding  of  the  city  to  Lot  (Guy  le  Strange, 
Pnl.  under  the  Modems,  p.  391  f.).  Coins  of  the 
city  exist  with  the  head  of  Marcus  Aurelius  (A.D. 
Uil-lSO)  and  the  legend  'Philadelphia  of  Hercules 
of  Coele-Syria';  but,  save  for  a  few  rude  stone 
monuments,  nothin"  remains  in  the  way  of  archi- 
tecture'which  can  be  referred  with  any  certitude 
to  a  pre-Roman  period'  (see  Survey  ofE.  Pal.  pp. 
19-64,  where  a  full  description  is  given  of  the 
present  site;  see  also  Baedeker*  pp.  170-172; 
Merrill,  En.<!t  of  Jordan,  p.  398  f.). 

2.  (Jos  Li"  .n;nrr ;  B  •Za8r,^i,  A'Ape^pi  ;  Arebba). 
A  city  of  Judah,  apparently  near  Kiriath-jearim. 

J.  F.  Stenning. 

RABBI,  RABBONI From  3"!,  primarUy  'master' 

in  contrast  with  slave  (Aboth  i.  3;  Suhka  ii.  9; 
et  nl.),  was  formed,  bv  the  addition  of  the  pro- 
nominal suffix,  -n  ('Pa;3/3r,  'Pa|3;3d  WH),  '  my 
m.aster,'  the  use  of  wliioli  as  a  title  of  respect  by 
which  teachers  were  addressed  occurs  first  within 
the  last  century  before  the  destruction  of  Jeru- 
salem. The  Mishna  contains  several  instances  of 
this  mode  of  address  (Nedarim  ix.  5  ;  liosh 
hnshnna  ii.  9;  Berarhoth  ii.  5,  7  ;  e<  al.).  In  a 
similar  way  was  formed  Rabboni  (Va^^oi/l  Mk  10", 
'PojS^ou^I  Jn  20"=,  'Va^^ouvd  WH)  from  l;"!  or  ]S:n 
(used  of  God  in  Taanith  iii.  8),  an  Aramaic  form 
of  the  title  uscil  almcst  exclusively  to  designate  the 
president  of  the  Sanhedrin,  if  a  descendant  of 
Hillel,  from  the  time  of  Ganinliel  I.  (Aboth  1.  17). 
In  later  times  the  title  of  Habbi  appears  to  have 
been  conferred  officially  upon  such  as  were  author- 
ized in  Palestine  to  decide  ritual  or  legal  questions 
(Babn  mrzia  86a ;  Sanhedrin  136),  the  corre- 
sponding Babylonian  title  beinij  Rab  or  Mar  ;  but 
there  is  no  evidence  of  its  use  in  this  sense  before 
or  in   the  time  of   Christ.     Its    suffix,    however, 


quickly  lost  its  specific  force  by  a  process  of  which 
parallels  are  allorded  in  several  languages  ;  and  in 
the  NT  the  word  occurs  simply  as  a  courteous  title 
of  address.  Rabboni  is  even  more  respectful  ;  and 
in  the  two  passages  where  it  is  used  of  Christ 
(Mk  10"  and  Jn  20'")  the  pronominal  force  may  not 
have  entirely  disappeared.  Neither  word  occurs 
in  classical  use,  in  the  LXX  or  other  Gr.  version  of 
the  OT,  or  in  the  Apocrypha.  In  the  NT  the  shorter 
title  is  apidied  to  Christ  in  Mt26=°-''»,  Mk  9'  IP' 
U*\  Jn  l*--"*  3=  43'  6'^  92  118;  to  John  Baptist  in 
Jn  3=";  whilst  in  Mt  23'- »  Christ  forbids  His 
disciples  to  covet  or  use  it.  In  Jn  1**  a  parenthesis 
states  its  equivalence  in  meaning  with  SiSdo-KuXf, 
which  is  in  turn  cited  in  Jn  20""  as  a  synonym  of 
Rabboni.  RVm  implicitly  supports  this  explana- 
tion in  Mt  238,  where,  however,  the  text  reads 
Ka6i]yi]Tris,  a  word  whose  primary  meaning  of 
'  guide  '  naturally  suggests  that  of  '  teacher.'  See, 
for  further  details  and  for  literature,  Schiirer,  ILIP 
II.  i.  315  fl'.,  and  of.  Dalman,  Worte  Jesu,  267,  272  ff. 

R.  W.  Moss. 
RABBITH  (n>3nn  with  art.  ;  B  ha.§eip<iv,  A  'PajS- 
Pud). — A  town  of  Issachar  (Jos  19-"),  probably  the 
modern  BCiba,  on  the  south  part  of  the  r.ange  of 
Gilboa.  See  SWP  vol.  ii.  sheet  ix.  ;  Miihlau  in 
Riehm's  HWB  1252;  Gu6rin,  Samarie,  i.  336; 
Buhl,  GAP  204.  0.  R.  CoNDER. 

RABBONI.— See  Rabbi. 

RAB-MAG  (J?-3-!;  B'?apanie,  X*  'Pa'^rfT,  x"-*'" 
BoMclr,  A  'Pa/ja^dx,  Q  '?a.^aixa.y  [in  Jer  39  (4G)" 
Q'»«  •Po/3oAiA7];  Vulg.  Rebinag). —The  title  (as  is 
now  generally  admitted)  of  a  Babylonian  official, 
apparently  Nergal-sharezer,  who  was  present  at 
the  taking  of  Jerusalem  by  Nebuchadnezzar  in 
the  11th  year  of  Zedekiah  king  of  Judah,  togethef 
with  all  the  rest  of  the  princes  (Jer  39  [Gr.  46]') 
and  all  the  chief  officers  (v.'*)  of  the  king  of 
Babylon.  Whether  the  Nergal-sharezer  who  is 
here  mentioned,  and  who  apparently  bears  the 
title,  be  the  Neriglissar  of  the  Greeks,  who  came 
to  the  throne  of  Balijlon  in  the  year  B.C.  560  (16 
years  later),  is  uncertain,  but  not  by  anj-  means 
improbable.  The  explanation  of  the  title  Kab- 
mag  is  a  matter  of  considerable  uncertainty. 
Gesenius  explains  J?  as  magian,  'the  name  of 
the  priests  and  wise  men  among  the  Medes, 
Persians,  and  Babylonians'  [the  inclusion  of  the 
Babylonians  was  pardonable  before  the  inscrip- 
tions were  made  out].  G.  Rawlinson  and  others 
have  compared  the  title  Rab-mag  with  the  Baby- 
lonian EubA  cmga,  or,  more  correctly,  RuuA 
cmqu ;  but  this,  apart  from  its  improbability  in 
conse(juence  of  the  difference  of  form,  cannot  be 
the  original  of  the  term,  as  it  is  not  a  title  in  the 
true  sense  of  the  word — it  simply  means '  the  deeply- 
wise  prince.'  Another  etymology  for  the  second 
element  is  that  of  Fried.  Delitzsch  (cf.  also  Sicg- 
fried-Stade  and  Oxf.  Heb.  Lex.),  who  suggests  that 
it  is  the  same  as  the  Assyr.  mahM,  '  soothsaj'er ' ; 
but  the  objections  to  this  are  the  diBering  double 
consonant,  and  the  absence  of  the  compound  rab- 
mnhhi'i.  'The  most  probable  of  the  proposed  origi- 
nals appears  to  the  present  writer  and  others  to 
be  the  title  rab-miigi  (see  Pinches  in  S.  A.  Smith's 
Kcilsrhrifttexte  Asiirbanipah,  Heft  ii.  1887,  p.  67, 
note  to  1.  89 ;  Sayce,  HCM  \\  456 ;  Winckler,  Orient. 
Litteraturztg.  1898,  p.  40).  This  word  occurs  in 
the  text  translated  by  Pinches  (K  824,  edge,  9)  in 
the  accusative  (miiga),  and  also  in  the  oracles  to 
Esarliaddon  (WAI  6\.  1.  26r«)  in  the  phrase  atla 
inn  libbi  mngi,  'thou  (art)  in  the  midst  of  the 
princes  (?),'  the  two  lines  which  follow  being  '  I  (the 
goddess  Istar)  in  the  midst  of  my  flock  (?)  advance 
(and)  rest.'  A  nasalized  form,  rab  munqi,  also  occurs. 

T.  (J.  Pinches 


RAB-SARIS 


EACA 


19i 


RAB-SARIS  (OT:"!;  B  '?a<peis,  A  '?a3(7apds,  in 
2  K  is";  ilA  XojSowrapf/i,  X*  Xa/Joicreeit,  {{'Q  Xa- 
^owapit,  Q"«  'Pa^<rapis,  in  Jer  39  [■16]'-''';  Vulg. 
Ji'ihsiiris,  Rab.vues). — This,  like  Rab-5Iag,  is  now 
generally  and  rightly  held  to  be  a  title,  and  not  a 
name  (see  RV).  1.  An  Assj-rian  olliccr  who  went 
with  the  Tartan  and  the  lliib-shakeh,  whilst  Senna- 
cherib was  at  Lac'hish,  to  demand  on  behalf  of  his 
royal  master  the  surrenderor  Jerusalem,  which  was 
at'the  time  besieged  by  the  Assyrian  forces(2K  18"). 
2.  A  Babylonian  named  Sarsechim  [? ;  see  art. 
Nercal-Sharezer],  who,  with  'all  the  princes' 
of  Nebuchadnezzar,  was  present  at  the  taking 
of  Jerusalem  by  that  king  in  the  11th  year  of 
Zedekiah  king  of  Judah  (Jer  3'J»).  3.  A  Babylonian 
named  Nebusliazban,  who,  after  the  taking  of  the 
city,  gave  authority,  with  other  of  the  princes 
of  Babylon  who  are  mentioned,  for  the  release 
and  return  of  Jeremiah,  thus  enabling  him  to 
be  taken  home  and  to  dwell  with  his  own  people 
(Jer  39"). 

The  usual  biblical  explanation  of  the  word  is 
'  chief  of  the  eunuchs,'  or,  perhaps  with  greater 
proliability,  'chief  eunuch,'  an  explanati(m  that 
agrees  with  the  information  yielded  by  the  otlier 
Semitic  languages,  Arabic  and  Aramaic  havin'' 
practically  the  same  word  with  this  meaning,  and 
also  verbs  derived  therefrom.  The  word  oi;,  with 
its  plural  C';-!5,  is  of  frequent  occurrence  in  the 
Hebrew,  and  not  only  means  '  a  eunuch,'  but  also 
'courtier'  in  general,  'chamberlain.'  In  2  K  25'^ 
it  indicates  an  otticer  who  commanded  a  division 
of  the  army,  and  PoTlPHAR,  who  was  certainly  a 
married  man,  is  called  the  0-15  of  Pharaoh  in  Gn 
39'.  The  Assyro  •  Babylonian  inscriptions,  how- 
ever, do  not  furnish  us  with  any  word  that  contains 
this  idea.  A  D-03i,  Rabsaris,  named  Jsabd-sarra- 
usur,  eponym  for  the  year  B.C.  683,  is  named'  on 
the  tablet  81-2-4.  147  (Berger,  Comptes  rendu.i  de 
VAcad.  des  Inscr.  el  Belles  Lettres,  1886,  p.  201  ; 
CIS  tom.  i.  fasc.  1,  pp.  43,  44),  but  this  title  is  not 
rendered  in  the  Assyrian  te.\t  which  accompanies 
the  Aramaic  inscription.  Winckler  (in  Unters.  z. 
altor.  Gesch.  1889,  E.xkurs  v.  p.  138)  gave  the  ex- 
planation that  this  word  was  simply  a  transcrip- 
tion of  the  Assyro-Babj'lonian  ratjii-ia-rHi,  a  sug- 
gestion that  was  afterwards  conhrmed  by  the 
discovery  of  the  title  in  question  on  the  British 
Museum  tablet  82-7-14,  3570,  written  rubu-Sa-ri-e- 
tu  (read  -rciu) ;  cf.  Academy,  June  25,  1892.  This 
expression  means  'chief  of  the  heads'  or  princip.il 
men,*  and  being  apparently  not  a  usual  title,  we 
Diav  perhaps  conclude  that  it  was  not  often  given, 
anil  may  have  been  one  of  great  honour.  Of  its 
age  nothing  can  be  said, — the  earliest  date  known 
is  B.C.  683, — and  how  long  it  had  been  in  use 
before  then  cannot  even  be  guessed.  As  to  the 
etymology,  that  is  very  simple.  The  first  com- 
ponent part  19  the  common  Assyro-Babylonian 
word  r/iljii,  meaning,  in  compounds,  '  chief,' equi- 
valent to  the  Hcb.  21.  The  second  word  is  the 
particle  iu,  meaning  '  of,'  and  the  third  is  iria 
'  lieiul '  (the  Heb.  e'lti),  seemingly  one  of  the 
numerous  short  words  of  masculine  form  which  were 
the  same  in  the  plural  as  in  the  singular.  Whether 
the  Ueb.  01;  is  derived  from  Sa-rciti,  without  the 
rah,  and  obtained  the  meaning  of  '  eunuch '  from 
the  circumstance  that  many  of  those  who  bore  the 
title  Rab- saris  had  authority  over  the  eunuchs, 
or  whether  the  Hebrews  a-ssimilated  this  Assyro- 
Baliylonian  title  to  a  word  already  well  known  in 
tliiir  language,  and  common  Semitic  property,  is 
unknown  ;  but  the  former  would  seem  to  be  the 
more  probable.  In  any  case  the  word  as  used  in 
2  K  18"  and  Jer  Sfr'-  "  must  be  held  to  represent  the 

•  Ct.  Dn  1»,  where  the  '  master  ot  hit  eunuchs '(Vf-lf-31,  LXX 
■ml  Thecl.  iLn:>wi»ZxM)  seems  to  hsve  hsd  charge  of  'the  seed 
royal  and  tlit-  nobles.' 


Assyro-Babylonian  rabH-Sa-rHu,  whatever  opinion 
be  held  witli  regard  to  the  other  pas.sages  where  it 
occurs.  It  is  noteworthy  that  the  sibilants  are 
in  botli  cases  d,  for  which  the  Assyro-Babylonian 
has  .$,  afi'ording  another  proof  that  the  sound  tran- 
scribed by  the  latter  was  often  not  sh,  but  simply 
*,  in  later  times,  in  Assyria  and  Babylonia. 

T.  G.  Pinches. 

RAB-SHAKEH  (if?:"!;  'fa^6.K-n^,'?a^,riKri^:  Unh- 
saces). — The  title  of  the  ofticer  sent  by  Sennacherib 
with  the  Tartan  and  the  Rab-saris  to  demand  the 
surrender  of  Jerusalem,  at  that  time  besieged  by 
the  Assyrian  forces  (2  K  18"-  '"•  ^■^- "  19'-  ^  Is 
36--  ■*•  "■<■'■  22  37''-  »).  He  came,  with  a  great  army, 
accompanied  by  the  other  dignitaries  w  ho  are  men- 
tioned, from  Lachish,  and  '  called  to  the  king.'  In 
response  to  the  summons,  the  officials  of  Hezekiah's 
court  replied,  and  the  Rab-shakeh  pronounced  to 
them  a  long  and  insolent  message  to  their  royal 
master,  increasing  the  violence  of  his  tone  when 
requested  to  speak  in  Aramaic,  and  not  in  Hebrew 
'  in  the  ears  of  all  the  people  that  are  on  the  wall.' 
From  this  it  will  be  seen  that  this  official  was  one  of 
some  attainments,  as,  besides  his  native  Assyrian, 
he  must  have  known  Hebrew  very  well ;  and  the 
remonstrance  of  the  Jewish  representatives  of  the 
king  who  were  parle3"ing  with  him  implies  that  lie 
knew  Aramaic  also,  probably  because  it  was  the 
language  of  a  large  section  of  the  Assyrian  people, 
and  therefore,  in  a  sense,  a  second  mother-ton^'ue 
to  him.  The  lirst  opinion  of  scholars  concerning 
the  title  Rab-shakeh  was  that  it  meant  '  chief  of 
the  cupbearers';*  but  there  must  have  been  con- 
siderable doubt  as  to  the  correctness  of  this  render- 
ing, as  such  an  official  would  hardly  have  been 
sent  on  an  errand  of  this  kind.  When,  therefore, 
the  cuneiform  inscriptions  began  to  be  more 
thoroughly  studied,  the  suggestion  was  made  that 
the  Rab-shakeh  of  the  passages  quoted  was  the 
same  as  the  rab-saki  of  the  texts.  This  word  is  a 
compound,  consisting  of  rab,  const,  case  of  rabu, 
'  chief,' =  the  Heb.  21,  and  saki,  plural  of  sakn, 
from  the  Akkad.  aagn,  '  head,'  the  whole  meaning 
'  chief  of  the  heads,'  or  '  captains'  (cf.  Kab-SARIS). 
The  list  of  names  of  officials  printed  in  IVAI  ii. 
pi.  31,  No.  2,  mentions  the  rab-siiki  between  the 
rah-iumtjar  or  rab  seqar  ('chief  of  the  supply?') 
and  the  saki  or  riic,  'officers'  or  'captains.'  In 
the  time  of  Tiglath-pileser  the  Sut-saki  who  was 
sent  to  Tyre  as  rab-saki  received  tribute  from 
Metenna  01  that  city,  from  which  it  may  be  con- 
cluded that  the  Rab-shakeh  or  Rabsaki  was  a 
military  ollicer  of  high  rank,  regaided  as  possess- 
ing some  abilitj'  as  a  diplomat.  The  Ricb-kisir, 
'chief  of  a  force,'  also  often  bore  this  title  (tablet 
K  1359,  col.  i.  36,  ii.  7,  10,  iii.  I,  iv.  11).  See 
Schrader,  KAT'^  319,  320  [COT  ii.  3,  4];  Sayce, 
UCM  441,  442.  T.  G.  PiNCIlES. 

RACA  occurs  Mt  5-  only,  and  in  its  Greek  form 
is  variously  spelt — /Ja\(i  (SVIl,  witli  cod.  Ii),  jxix^ 
(Tisch.  witli  codd.  j<*D).  It  is  the  Aramaic,  Kjn, 
a  form  of  js'i  'empty'  (Heb.  p"!),  the  first  o 
in  the  Greek  being  due  to  a  Galiliean  change. 
The  X  in  Tischendorf's  spilling  is,  like  the  lirst  x 
in  'AxeXSa^djc  (Ac  1'",  codd.  ^k),  due  to  the  assi- 
milation in  the  pronunciation  of  l^oph  to  the 
aspirated  Kapk  (Dalinan,  Gramm.  des  Jiid.-I'ol. 
AramaUch,  pp.  GO,  138,304).  liaca  appears  to  be 
a  word  of  contempt,  'empty,'  so  '  worthle.ss,'  in- 
tellectually rather  than  morally,  like  the  worthless 
(P"!),  empty-headed  fellows  whom  Abinielech  at 
Shechiin  hired  to  be  his  followers,  Jg  9^ ;  like  the 
Kent,  Ja  2-'°,  the  empty-head,  who  boasts  of  a 
faith  which  is  intellectual  only ;  or  like  the 
'  ignorant,'  called  by  the  Rabbis  kij'I,  because,  for 

•  See  Oesenius  (Treitcllcs'  tr),  i.v.  Luther's  translation  is 
generally,  in  accordance  with  this,  Eruchenkf, 


192 


RACAL 


KACHEL 


examiile,  they  could  not  conceive  how  God  could 
builil  the  gates  of  Jeiasaleni  of  gems  30  cubits 
liigh  and  3U  cubits  broad  (EdcrsUeini,  Life  and 
Times  of  Jesus,  i.  538).  Obviously,  as  rebuked  by 
Christ,  it  is  an  advance  upon  mere  angry  feeling 
{6iriL^lili(voi),  in  projiortion  as  utterance  is  less  self- 
controlled  than  silence  ;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  it 
does  not  betray  so  complete  a  loss  of  self-control 
as  the  word  of  clinuix,  the  more  positive  fiwpi, 
'fool,'  i.e.  godless,  good  -  despising  fool,  moral 
reprobate.* 

I5ut  the  precise  force  of  Raca,  as  compared  with 
that  of  repressed  anger  and  of  '  fool,'  cannot  be 
estimated  apart  from  the  gradations  of  court  or 
penalty  from  which  Christ  draws  His  analogical 
illustrations  ;  and  these  gradations  are  too  readily 
taken  for  granted  as  historical  and  intelligible, 
even  by  some  of  the  foremost  commentators  in 
England  and  in  Germany.  It  is  quite  commonly 
assumed  (1)  that  Christ  uses  Kpltns  for  the  local  or 
provincial  court  in  a  Jewish  town  or  village ;  (2) 
that  such  a  court  could  try  cases  of  murder  ;  (3) 
that  it  could  punish  the  murderer,  but  only  with 
the  sword  ;  (4)  that  the  Sanhedrin  (avpiopiou)  alone 
could  inilict  'the  more  painful  and  degrading  pun- 
ishment of  stoning';  (5)  that  7^e^fa  tov  tti'/jos  was 
the  valley  of  Hinnom,  and  that  in  it  the  corpses  of 
criminals  were  burned,  the  most  degrading  and 
most  abhon-ed  punishment  of  all.  But,  as  a  matter 
of  fact,  there  is,  outside  this  passage  itself,  no 
trustworthy  evidence  for  any  of  these  assump- 
tions (see,  tor  instance,  GEHENNA,  vol.  ii.  p.  119''). 
It  is  true  that  the  Talmud  may  be  quoted  for  the 
second  assumption  (cf.  Sanhedrin  i.  4,  as  referred 
to  in  Schiirer,  HJP  II.  i.  154) ;  but  this  evidence  is 
shaken,  first,  by  the  extreme  improbability  of  the 
statement  in  the  light  of  the  fact  that  no  execution 
was  permitted,  even  to  the  Sanhedrin,  except 
by  consent  of  the  Procurator  (cf.  Jn  18^');  ind 
secondly,  by  the  important  qualification  that  the 
Talmud  is  often  purely  academic,  speaking  of 
things  that  ought  to  be  as  though  they  were.  The 
Talmudic  passage  just  cited  was  not  written  down 
till  the  2nd  cent.  A.D.,  and  represents  what,  in 
the  opinion  of  the  Rabbis,  ought  to  be  the  pro- 
cedure, and  what  would  be  in  an  ideal  Judah  under 
Rabliinical  nile.  The  same  statement  is  made  by 
Maimonides  1000  years  later,  when  it  could  not 
be  historically  true.t  Accordingly,  it  appears  im- 
possible to  estimate,  with  any  confidence,  the  exact 
relations  of  'the  judgment,'  'the  council,'  'the 
gehenna  of  fire,'  in  our  Lord's  picture,  and  there- 
fore, so  far,  the  exact  relations  of  the  three  stages 
of  anger.  Two  salient  points,  however,  emerge 
like  headlands  out  of  the  mist.  (1)  Christ  hands 
over  all  anger,  even  silent  anger,  to  be  tried  as  a 
murderous  act,  to  be  tried  (it  should  be  added)  on 
its  merits  (cf.  ti'oxoj  rg  Kpicei),  and  not  ipso  facto 
and  at  once  condemned.  (2)  Christ  is  no  verbal 
Pharisee.  That  it  is  not  the  utterance  of  a  word, 
but  the  spirit  of  the  utterance,  that  is  reprehended, 
is  jilain  from  the  fact  that  He  can  use  okjtjtoi,  a 
\\(ii(l,  like  St.  James's  kcv^,  practically  identical 
with  Raca,  when  rebuking  the  spiritual  dulness  of 
two  of  His  immediate  followers  (Lk  24-'>). 

J.  Massie. 
PACAL. — Amongst  those  to  whom  David  is  said 
(I  S  W^)  to  have  sent  a  share  of  the  spoil  after  his 
return  to  Ziklag,  are  mentioned  'they  that  were 
S;-;:';  but  probably  the  last  word  ought  to  be 
corrected,  after  the  LXX  {iv  Kap/iTj\<f),  to  fc^;?,  'in 

*  It  seems  belter  to  take  this  word  as  the  voc  of  f.taipo<,  one 
of  the  LXX  translations  of  nubiil,  'fool'  (cf.  the  practical 
atheist  of  Is  326),  than  as  a  tmnaliteration  of  the  ptcp.  .T^o 
'murmiirinp,'  *  refractor}',' Nu  2(|io  (LXX  iTiiili7!),  there  bein^ 
DO  evidence  that  the  latter  was  a  common  Heb.  word  of 
opprobrium.    (See  FooL). 

t  On  this  p.irticular  point  the  present  writer  is  indebted  to  a 
private  letter  from  Dr.  Neubauer. 


Carmel    (of  Judah,  Jos  1.5",  1  S  25-).      So  Well 
hausen.  Driver,  Budde,  Lohr,  11.  P.  Smith,  et  al. 

RACE.— See  Games  in  vol.  ii.  p.  108. 

RACHEL,  once  (Jer  SV'  AV)  Rahel*  (Snn  •« 
ewe,'  Gn  31**  al.;  'Pax'i\;  Rachel). — The  youngei 
daughter  of  Laban,  whom  Jacob,  arriving  at  l,la'.an 
(Gn  L"J'''),  meets,  as  she  comes  to  water  her  father's 
sheep  (v. "If),  at  a  well  in  the  open  country  (v.-). 
Impressed  by  her  beauty,  and  deeply  in  love  with 
her  (29""-"),  Jacob  agrees  to  serve  Laban  for  seven 
years,  if  he  may  then  have  her  for  his  wife ;  but 
Laban,  at  the  end  of  the  stipulated  time,  fraudu- 
lently substitutes  his  elder  daughter,  Leah,  and 
only  consents  to  give  him  Rachel  as  well  upon  his 
agreeing  to  serve  him  seven  years  more  (29-'"*). 
Leah,  though  less  loved  by  her  husband  than 
Rachel,  is  blessed  with  four  children  ;  this  arouses 
in  her  younger  sister  feelings  of  discontent  and 
envy,  and  petulantly  reproaching  Jacob  she  bids 
him  take  her  handmaid,  llilhah,  as  a  concubine  (cf. 
IG-'),  that  she  may  be  'buUt  up' — i.e.  (1G-)  obtain 
a  faiiiily — from  her  (30'"'').  Two  sons,  Dan  and 
Naphtali,  are  bom  accordingly  to  Bilhah  :  the  ex- 
planations given  of  their  names  (SO*"-')  are  meant 
to  indicate  Rachel's  recognition  that  God  had  now, 
at  least  in  a  measure,  granted  her  her  due,  and 
that  she  had  won,  after  her  long  '  wrestlings '  with 
her  sister.  His  favour  and  blessing.  '  The  struggle 
of  these  two  women  for  their  husband  gives  us  a 
strange  picture  of  manners  and  morals,  but  must 
not  be  judged  by  our  standard  '  (Payne  Smith) :  at 
the  same  time,  so  far  as  the  temper  and  attitude  of 
Rachel  are  concerned,  it  is  only  fair  to  remember 
that  Leah  was  not  the  wife  of  Jacob's  choice,  but 
had  been  forced  by  fraud  into  what  was  really 
Rachel's  own  rightful  place  in  his  house.  Rachel's 
anxiety  to  have  a  son  of  her  own  is,  however, 
evinced  before  long  in  her  eagerness  to  obtain  some 
of  the  youthful  Reuben's  mandrakes,  or  love-apples 
(30'^'-).  At  last,  tlie  long-delayed  hopes  are  accom- 
plished, and  Joseph  is  born  (3U--"^). 

SLx  years  later  (3P')>  when  Jacob  meditates 
quitting  the  service  of  Laban  (31'''),  both  wives 
endorse  cordially  his  reasons  for  doing  so  {'SI'"'-  "■"), 
and  accompany  him.  Rachel,  at  once  unscnipu- 
lous  and  superstitious,  steals  her  father's  teraphira 
(31''),  hoping,  no  doubt,  that  they  would  bring  her 
and  her  husband  prosperitj- ;  Sl^"**  de.scribes  the 
ready  wit  by  which  she  conceals  the  theft  from  her 
indignant  father.  Rachel  is  next  mentioned  on 
the  occasion  of  Jacob's  meeting  with  his  brother 
Esau  (33'"'^),  when  the  superior  atl'ection  which  he 
still  felt  for  her  is  shown  by  the  position  assigned 
to  her  and  Joseph  (33'- *■'').  Her  death,  shortly 
afterwards,  at  the  time  of  Benjamin's  birth,  soon 
after  Jacob  left  Bethel,  is  recorded  in  35"'"*'  (cf. 
48').  She  and  her  sister  Leah  are  alluded  to  in 
Ru  4"  as  foundresses  of  the  house  of  Israel,  and 
types  of  wedded  ha|ipiness  and  prosperity.  Like 
llebekah  (Gn  24),  Rachel  at  first  (Gn  2'J)  produces 
a  favourable  impression  upon  the  reader :  she  is 
attractive,  not  only  in  person,  but  also  evidently 
in  manner  and  address ;  she  stirs  Jacob's  deepest 
affections;  their  long  and  patient  waiting,  followed 
by  a  cruel  disappointment,  enlists  our  sympathies; 
but  the  sequel  shows  that,  like  her  aunt,  she  is  not 
exempt  from  the  family  failings  of  acquisitiveness 
and  duplicity. 

The  Isr.  tribes  are  pronped  around  Leah  and  Rachel ;  so  It 
is  evident  that  they  both  possess  a  tribal  as  well  as  a  personal 
significance.  For  speculations  oa  to  what  historical  facts  may, 
from  this  point  of  view,  bt-  supposed  to  be  represented  by  them 
— e.g.   the  growth  of  'Israel'  out  of  etemente  more  or  len 

•  As  resnilarly  in  the  '  Gre.it  Bible '  (1539-41)  and  the  Geneva 
Version  (1600)  ;  Coverdale  (loa:.)  and  the  '  Bishops'  Bible '  (1668), 
however,  have  regularly  '  Itachel.' 


RADDAI 


RAHAB 


19b 


oripnalU-  distinct— see  Ewald,  Hurt.  i.  3T1-6 ;  Stade,  GVI  i. 
146 (!.  ;  \VtlIh.  UUt.  4:i>  ;  Guthe,  (!  VI (ISW), pp.  5  t., 40-42  ;  and 
cL  Bk.s-jami.s,  vol.  1.  p.  I'-l*^,  Jacob,  vol.  ii.  p.  633  f. 

Rachel's  grave. — In  Gn  35"  it  is  said  that 
Rachel  (liuil  wlien  there  was  yet  'a  distance!?)  of 
land  '  (nx.i  n'l??)  to  go  to  Ephrath  ;  and  in  v."  (cf. 
4S")  .laioi)  is  said  to  have  buried  her  '  in  the  way 
to  Kplirath  (that  is  Beth-Iehein),'  and  (v.-")  to 
have  'set  up  a  pillar'  ^mazzcbCih) — i.e.  here,  as 
often  in  riiicn.  (CIS  I.  i.  44[  46,  57,  etc.),  a  sepul- 
chral monument — 'upon  her  grave:  that  is  the 
pillar  of  Kachel's  grave  unto  this  dav.*  Tlie  locality 
must  con.sequently  have  been  well  known  when 
the  narrative  (E)  was  written  ;  and,  in  fact,  it  is 
mentioned  as  a  well-known  spot  in  I  S  10-,  and  also 
alluded  to  in  .ler  31'°  (where  the  prophet  poetically 
imagines  Rachel,  the  mother  of  Joscjih  and  Ben- 
jamin, as  weeping  over  the  captivity  of  the  last 
remnants  of  her  nation,  as  on  their  way  to  exile 
tliey  pa.ssed  near  her  tomb;  cf.  40').*  The  spot 
which,  from  at  least  the  4th  cent.,t  has  been 
shown  traditionally  as  the  site  of  Rachel's  grave,  is 
about  four  miles  S.  of  Jerusalem  and  one  mile  N. 
of  Beth-lehem  ;  here  there  is  now  the  Ifubbet  Eahel 
or  '  dome  of  Rachel,'  a  stone  structure,  of  com- 
paratively modern  date,  exactl}'  like  an  ordinary 
jloslem  '  wely,'  or  tomb  of  a  luily  person,  about 
23  ft.  square,  surmounted  by  a  dome,  and  contain- 
ing an  apparently  modern  sarcophagus  ;  on  the  E. 
an  oblong  chamber  and  court  iiave  been  recently 
added.; 

A  serious  difficulty,  however,  arises  in  this  con- 
nexion. In  1  S  10-  Rachel's  tomb  is  described  quite 
clearly  as  being  on  the  '  border  of  Benjamin,'  i.e., 
obviously,  the  N.  border  between  Benjamin  and 
E]nhraini,  not  far  from§  Bethel  (v.*),  which  was  10 
nules  N.  of  Jerusalem  ;  and  a  site  in  the  same 
neighbourhood  is  strongly  favoured  by  Jer  31", 
where  Rachel  is  rei)resented  as  weeping  at  (or 
near)  Ramah,  5  miles  N.  of  Jeru.salem.  ||  The 
distance  which  pN.i  n-i33  was  understood  to  express 
is  uncertain  ;  but  it  can  hardly  (cf.  2  K  5'")  have 
been  as  much  as  15  or  16  miles.  We  seem,  there- 
fore, reduced  to  one  of  two  conclusions :  either 
(Knob.,  Graf,  Stade,  ZA  W,  1883,  pp.  5-8  ;  Riehm, 
//l(7J»,  1281  f.:  Holzinger,  al.)  Ephrath,  though 
elsewhere  identified  with  Beth-lehem  (Ru  1-  4", 
Mic  5^),  is  here  the  name  of  a  placo  near  Ramah  (in 
which  case  the  words  'tliat  is  Beth-lehem'  in  35" 48' 
will  be  an  incorrect  gloss);  or  (Nold.,  Del.,  Dillm.) 
there  were  two  dill'erent  traditions  as  to  the  site  of 
Rachel's  grave — one  tradition  (1  S  10'-,  Jer  31">) 
placing  it  near  Ramah,  the  other  (Gn  35"  48') 
placing  it  near  Beth-lehem.  As  Rachel  has  other- 
wi.se  no  connexion  with  Judah,  while  .she  is  con- 
nected closely  with  Joseph  and  Benjamin,  the 
former  alternative  is  perhaps  the  more  probable 
(Buhl,  Geogr.  159,  does  not  decide  between  them). 

S.  R.  Driver. 

RADDAI  (TJ;  B  ZaSSoI,  B'"  Za/35al,  A  '?aSSal).— 
The  lifth  son  of  Jes.se.  1  Ch  2". 

RAG,  RAGGED.— The  words  properly  translated 
'rag'  are  (1)  o';-;3,  pieces  torn  olF,  from  yifj  to 
rend,   which  is  ti^  'rags'  in  Pr  23",  but  in  1  K 

*  Mc  2"'  is,  of  coune,  an  applieation,  not  an  interpretation, 
of  the  prophecy. 

f  See  the  Itinerary  of  the  Bordeaux  Pilgrim,  A.D.  333  (in  the 
»erie«  of  the  J'al.  PUgrimif  Text  .Sac.  1.  20  f.),  nnd  the  1M1- 
rnuiai,'e  of  Paula  (Vj.  p.  C,  at  the  end  of  the  vol.)  in  Jerome's 
t'p.  ad  Eustochium  (ed.  Bcned.  Iv.  i,  674  ;  ed.  Vallarei,  1. 
692). 

!  See,  further,  Ilobltuon,  BliP  1.  218,  UL  278;  Bad.>129f.; 
PEFMi-m.  ill.  120  f.  (with  a  view). 

I  The  terms  of  1  8  10"  hardly  enable  u»  to  fix  it«  »lt«  more 
•peciHi  ally  :  see  an  ottempt  l)v'schi<k,  ZDPV  Iv.  (Igsl)  p.  21S1. 
l=Pi:iyi,  1883,  p.  Ill);  aliaiidoncd  I'KFSI.  1808,  p.  10. 

I  It  -nay  'le  worth  nhservinif  that,  thonj^h  Joh  isia(p)  makes 
the  .S.  Iwrdcrot  lienjaniin  pass  close  to  theS.  of  liilhel,  1  K  161' 
•cema  to  Imply  Hint  the  S.  Iwrder  of  the  N.  kingdom  wo»  at 
Bamah  ;  see  also  Jg  4'. 
VOL.  IV. — 13 


ll*"",  2  K  2'-  simply  'pieces,'  being  preceded  by 
the  verb  ;  (2)  o-nSs,  wotn-out  clothes,  from  [n^r]  to 
wear  out,  tr''  '  rotten  rags '  in  Jer  38"- '-,  the  only 
place  where  it  occurs;  (3)  ^d«ro5,  tr''  'rag  '  in  Ad. 
Est  14".  In  Is  64^  '  All  our  righteousnesses  are  as 
lilthy  rags'  (C'-y  n:??),  the  word  tr''  'rags'  {-i:z)  is 
simply  '  clotliin"  '  'a  garment'  ('from  the  tilthy 
clothing  of  the  leper  to  the  holj'  robes  of  ihe  high 
prie.st' — Ox/.  Heo.  Lex.);  RV  'as  a  polluted  gar- 
ment.' The  specific  allusion  here  is  to  a  vestii 
vienstruis  polluta  ;  cf.  Is  30-'. 

The  root  meaning  of  the  Eng.  word  'rag'  is 
neither  '  torn '  nor  '  worn,'  but  rough,  sluiggij 
(Swed.  rngg  or  rugg,  rough  hair),  whence  the  adj. 
ragged  w;is  used  as  we  now  use  '  rugged '  in  the 
sense  of  jagged,  applied  to  rocks,  etc.  So  in  AV 
Is  2"  '  the  tops  of  the  ragged  rocks ' ;  and  Sir 
32  >"«"»«  '  Of  a  ragged  and  a  smooth  way.'  Cf. 
ShakB,  Rich.  II.  v.  v.  21— 

'  How  these  vain  weak  nails 
May  tear  a  p-ossat^e  through  the  flinty  ritifl 
Of  this  hard  world,  my  ragged  prison  walla.' 

And  Milton,  L' Allegro,  9 — 

'There,  under  ebon  shades  and  low-browed  rocks. 
As  ragged  as  thy  locks.' 

J.  Hastings. 
RAGAU. — See  following  article. 

RAGES  fP(i70'  [X  in  Tog'-^'Pa-yai]  t^s  MtjJ/os).— 
Now  Rai  near  Teheran.  The  city,  whose  ruins 
occupy  a  space  about  4500  yards  long  by  3500  broad, 
gave  its  name  to  Media  Ragiana,  and  commanded 
the  approach  to  the  Caspian  Gates.  The  size  and 
thickness  of  its  walls,  and  the  number  of  towers 
with  which  they  are  flanked,  must  have  made  it 
one  of  the  strongest  fortresses  of  the  Persian  em- 
pire. According  to  the  'Vendidad  it  was  colonized 
by  the  advancing  Aryans  after  they  had  left 
H5Tcania  and  before  they  reached  Khorassan, 
and  it  was  there  that  they  were  mingled  with  two 
other  races  and  so  first  came  into  contact  with 
heretics.  An  old  tradition  asserted  that  Zoroaster 
was  born  there  (see  de  Harlez,  Introduction  a 
I'Hude  de  I'Avcsta,  Paris,  1882).  In  the  Behistun 
In.scription  Darius  calls  it  Ragft  in  Media,  and 
states  that  the  Median  pretender  Frawartish  or 
Phraortes  fled  to  it  after  his  defeat  ;  he  was, 
however,  captured,  and  after  being  tortured  was 
sent  to  Ecbatana  to  be  impaled.  At  a  later  date 
Alexander  passed  through  it  in  pursuit  of  Darius 
Codomannus,  eleven  days  after  leaving  Ecbatana. 
It  was  rebuilt  or  enlarged  by  Seleucus  I.,  who  gave 
it  the  name  of  Europus  (Strabo,  XI.  xiii.  6),  which 
was  supplanted  by  that  of  Arsacia  after  the 
Parthian  conquest.  In  the  age  of  Isidorus  (§  7)  it 
was  still  '  the  greatest  city  in  Media.'  In  Strabo 
and  Arrian  the  name  appears  as  EagcB ;  Ptolemy 
(vi.  5)  makes  it  liagcna. 

Rages  is  often  mentioned  in  the  Bk.  of  Tol)it. 
Tobit  left  there  ten  talents  of  silver  (1'''  4'),  ami 
Tobias,  accompanied  by  the  angel  Raphael,  started 
for  Rages  in  quest  of  this  deposit,  which  was 
finally  recovered  by  the  angel  (5^  0"-  ''■'  9-).  Accord- 
ing to  .Itli  1°"  Ragau  ('Payai',  evidently  another 
form  of  H'lgi-s)  was  the  scene  of  the  decisive  battle 
in  which  Nebuchadnezzar  '  king  of  the  As,syrians ' 
defeated  and  slew  Arphaxad  the  Median  prince. 
It  is  possible  that  in  the  story  of  Arphaxad  we 
have  a  distorted  reminiscence  of  the  overthrow 
and  capture  of  Frawartish.  A.  H.  SAYCii. 

RAGUEL.— 1.  The  AV  form  (LXX  •Pa-yowiX),  in 
Nu  lo'",  of  Reuel.  See  Hodah  and  Jktiiro.  2. 
The  father  of  Sarah,  the  wife  of  Tobias,  To  3'-  "•  " 
14''^.  The  name,  which  is  the  same  ivs  the  Ileb. 
licucl,  occurs  as  that  of  an  angel  in  Enoch  xx.  4. 

RAHAB  (Dcn,  "PcuJ/S).— The  heroine  of  the  ad- 


194 


RAHAB 


EAIIAB 


venture  of  the  spies  sent  by  Joshua  to  ascertain 
the  strength  of  Jericho  and  the  feeling  of  the 
people  there.  The  story  of  her  reception  of  the 
two  young  men,  and  the  clever  devices  by  which 
she  liides  them,  contrives  their  escape,  and  balUes 
the  pursuit  ordered  by  tlie  king  of  Jericho,  is  told 
in  Jos  2,  assigned  by  critics  to  JE  (vv."-  "  D-),  and 
exhibiting  all  the  ease  and  grace  of  that  narrative, 
all  its  power  of  delineating  life  and  character.  A 
few  lively  tou''hes  bring  the  whole  scene  vividly 
before  us,  and  suggest  much  that  is  not  told  in 
detail.  We  see  the  house  on  the  wall,  probably 
near  the  gate  of  the  city,  and  convenient  for  resort, 
certainly  convenient  for  escape.  On  the  roof  are 
drying  stalks  of  lla.\,  an  indication  of  the  inmate's 
busy  toil,  possibly  of  a  particular  trade.  Here 
she  dwells  alone,  but  she  has  a  father  and  mother, 
and  brothers  and  sisters  residing  in  the  town. 
She  is  a  harlot,  for  the  word  .■iiii  applied  to  her 
(LXX  wipvri;  Vulg.  'meretrix)  refuses  to  be  softened 
down  to  'innkeeper'  (Josephus,  Chrj's.,  Chald. 
VS),  but  she  may  have  combined  with  this  unhappy 
calling  the  more  honourable  occupation  of  wea\ing 
and  dyeing.  She  had  evidentlj'  been  brought  into 
communication  with  the  outside  world,  and  had 
heard  of  events  going  on  beyond  the  Jordan,  which 
had  caused  the  terror  of  Israel  to  fall  upon  the 
inhabitants  of  Canaan.  She  was  convinced  that 
the  God  of  the  Hebrews  would  open  a  way  for  His 
people  into  Jericho.  In  this  belief  she  obtained  a 
promise  from  the  spies  of  protection  for  herself 
and  family  in  return  for  her  help.  A  scarlet  line 
hanging  Irom  the  window  by  which  they  had 
escaped  was  to  be  the  sign  that  the  house,  with 
all  its  inmates  for  the  time,  should  be  spared.  The 
Israelites  would  be  guiltless  of  the  blood  of  any 
member  of  Kahab's  family  caught  outside  the 
house. 

Joslma  kept  the  agreement  to  the  letter  (Jos 
gi7.22. 23--.a)_  j^„d  tijg  narrative  states  'and  she 
dwelt  in  the  midst  of  Israel  unto  this  day.' 

*  A  nation's  gratitude  long  preserves  the  names  of  those  who 
by  opportune  information  open  for  a  besiefjing  host  the  path 
to  victory'  (Ewald,  who  cites  a  parallel  insUince  soon  to  follow, 
jg  122. '26^  ana  illustrates  from  profane  history,  HI  U.  '247,  Enjf .  tr. ). 
In  fact  the  conduct  of  Itahab  was  recojpiized  with  gratitude 
and  kept  long  in  memory  by  Jew  and  Christian  alike.  Accord- 
ing to  a  rabbinical  tradition  she  married  Joshua  himself,  and 
became  the  ancestress  of  seven  prophets  (Lightfoot,  norue 
Heb.  ad  itt  15).  Christian  estimates  of  her  worth  are  even 
more  remarkable.  One  NT  writer  places  her  in  the  roll  of  the 
heroes  of  faith  (He  1131),  another  quotes  her  as  justitied  by 
works  (Ja  -S^).  Clement  of  Rome  declares  she  was  saved 
through  her  faith  and  her  hospitality,  and  claims  for  her 
the  gift  of  prophecy,  since  the  scarlet  line  foretold  redemption 
by  the  bloo<l  of  Christ  {ad  Cor.  i.  1'2).  The  same  allegorical 
interpretation  is  assumed  by  all  ancient  ecclesiastical  writers 
(seeJacobson,  PaX,  Ap.,  who  cites  Just.  Mar.  Tryph,  cxi. ;  Iren. 
iv.  *20.  V2  ;  Origen,  Ambrose,  Jerome,  Augustine,  and  Theodoret). 
None  of  these  writers,  any  more  than  the  NT,  think  it  necessary 
to  change  'harlot'  into  'innkeeper' with  Josephus  and  Chry- 
Bostom.  Irenffius,  in  his  reference  to  her,  recalls  how  publicans 
and  harlots  were  admitted  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  We 
know  nothing  of  her  after-conduct,  but  we  may  well  believe 
that  the  faith  which  an  apostle  cotild  praise  waa  accompanied 
bv  a  true  conversion. 

As  to  Ilahab's  lie  to  the  king,  and  her  betrayal  of  her  own 
countrymen,  all  that  need  be  said  is,  that  while  neither  can  be 
approved,  both  may  be  extenuated  by  her  situation. 

The  most  interesting  question  in  connexion  with 
this  woman  arises  from  the  mention  of  a  Ra)inb 
('Paxii/3)  in  the  genealo":y  of  Mt  P  'And  Salmon 
begat  Boaz  of  Kahab'  (RV),  which  thus  makes  her 
an  ancestress  of  our  Lord.  The  patristic  age  seems 
to  liave  taken  the  identification  with  Kahab  of 
Jericho  for  granted.  I5ut  in  the  11th  cent.  Theo- 
phylact  could  write,  'There  are  some  who  think 
Rachab  to  be  that  Rahab  the  harlot  who  received 
the  spies  of  Joshua  the  son  of  Nave.'  A  Dutch 
professor,  G.  Outhov,  urged  ditliculties  in  the  way 
of  identitication  (in  the  Biblioth.  Brem.  hist,  philul. 
Thcol.  ch.  iii.  p.  438),  and  was  answered  by  Wolf 
(Cur.  philol.  et  crit.  in  Mt  1°).    That  the  'Pod/j  of  the 


LXX  and  of  Hebrews  and  James  should  be  'PaxijS 
in  Mattliew  appears  at  tirst  improbable.  But  the 
latter  has  the  support  of  Josejihus,  who  always 
speaks  of  Rahab  as  t;  Paxd/S?;.  A  second  objection 
w  ould  be  more  serious  if  it  rested  on  the  mention 
of  Rahab  alone,  but  it  is  a  chronological  dilhculty 
not  ati'ected  by  the  question  oi  her  identity,  and 
may  therefore  be  dismissed  here.  There  is  no 
improbability  in  tlie  marriage  of  Rahab  to  Salmon 
son  of  Nahshon  (Nu  7",  1  Ch  S")  (see  Alford  on 
Mt  1').  The  diliiculty  arises  from  the  names  Boaz, 
Obed,  Jesse  being  made  to  bridge  the  interval 
between  Rahab  and  David. 

LiTEKATiJRE.— In  addition  to  authorities  already  cited,  see 
Bengel,  Liglitfoot,  and  Olsliauscn  on  Mt  l' ;  Mill,  Descent  ana 
Parnita'je  of  the  Saeiour;  Patrick,  Grotius,  Ilitzig,  Keil, 
DiUmann,  and  Steueroagel  on  Jos  2  and  6 ;  Schleusner,  Lex, 
NT,  t.v.  rifw.  A.  S.  AGLEN. 

RAHAB  (nn-i). — A  mythological  and  symbolical 
term  meaning  '  the  raging  monster,' '  the  impetuous 
one,'  which  occurs  6  times  in  OT  (RV). 

As  a  verb,  3m  is  found  twice  in  Qal :  Pr  63  '  importune  thy 
friend'  (.W  'make  sure'  [Toy  remarks  that  'importune  is 
hardly  strong  enough  ;  beset,  btxiege,  assaii  better  express  the 
inipetuusitv  involved  in  the  lleb.  tenn '] ;  LXX  irttpoluvi  -rbr 
(•:ut  <r»u);'  la  S^  'the  child  shall  behave  himself  proudly" 
(Chevne,  PB,  'the  boy  shall  be  insolent';  LXX  Tpo(rxc^u  vi 
T«.i.s>) ;  and  twice  in  Hiphil :  Ca  G^  '  tliine  eyes  have  over- 
come me'  (RVm  'make  rae  afraid'  [so  Budde,  set^rn  mlck  in 
Sclirecken] ;  AVm  'have  puffed  me  up' ;  Duhm,  rerjcn  mich  auf 
[so  Siegfried-Stade.  errrgrn  (fii'^chleehtlicfi)] ;  LXX  etviTr^.piufftcr 
fa ;  but  it  is  very  doubtful  whether  these  last  three  renderings 
are  possible ;  probably  '  contuse '  or '  perturb'  [Syr.  vOOlJ  |l  is 
the  meaning,  see  Driver,  LOT^  440  n.);  Pa  1383  'Thou  didst 
encourage  me '(Driver,  Par.  P«<ii(cr, '  Thou  niakest  me  proud  ' ; 
LXX  irc^viiiprru;  /^i).— The  noun  3.11  is  used  in  Ps  9010  [only] 
'their  pride'  (AV,  following  Kimchi,  interprets  the  root  here 
falsely  in  the  sense  of  '  strength '  [so  in  Is  307  and  Ps  13S"J ; 
L.XX  T«  wXtTov  «iT4J»  [by  confusion  with  D3il),  and  the 
adjective  3.11  (in  plur.)  in  Ps  iOW  (only)  'the  proud'  (LXX 

fjUtTXliTYlTCti), 

1,  The  first  occurrence  of  arri  we  shall  examine 
is  Job  9"  3ni  'itv  snqv'  vrnn  iSN  3'e';-N^>  ii'j.s' ;  LXX 
B  aurbi  yap  dTr^crrpajrrat  6pyr]f,  vtt*  ain-ou  ^Kdfx<p67}aav 
KTiT-q  ri  iiT  oipaviv  ;  KV  'God  will  not  withdraw 
his  anger,  the  helpers  of  Rahab  [m.  'or  arroganctj, 
see  Is  30' ']  do  [m.  '  or  did ']  stoop  under  him  ' ;  AV 
'(If)  God  will  not  withdraw  his  anger,  the  proud 
helpers  [m.  '  Heb.  helpers  of  pride  or  strength '] 
do  stoop  under  him.'  The  meaning  distinctly 
appears  to  be,  '  God  withdraws  not  his  anger  (till 
it  has  accomplished  its  purpose) ;  even  the  helpers 
of  R.ahab  bowed  [note  the  perf.  <nn-^',  referring  to 
some  definite  occasion]  under  him  ;  how  much  less 
can  I  (Job)  stand  before  him.'  What  now  is  the 
allu.sion  ?  There  can  be  little  doubt  that  it  is  to  the 
mytliical  conflict  in  which  the  Creator  was  said  to 
have  vanquished  the  supjiosed  primeval  dragon  of 
the  deep.  This  myth  is  most  familiar  to  us  in  the 
Babylonian  Creation-epos,  where  there  is  a  very 
detailed  account  of  the  victory  of  Marduk  over 
Tianiat  (cf.  t!-h6m,  Gn  1")  and  her  eleven  '  helpers' 
(.see  art.  BABYLONIA  in  vol.  i.  p.  220'' f.  ;  Sayce, 
HCM  63  ff.  ;  Ball,  Light  from  tJie  East,  2ff.). 

From  the  use  of  Rahab  for  the  raging  sea  monster 
(who  appears,  in  certain  forms  of  the  myth  current 
amongst  the  Jews,  to  have  been  thought  of  not  as 
finally  destroyed,  but  as  imprisoned  in  the  sea, 
and  destined  to  be  slain  at  last  by  Jahweh's  sword, 
Is  27' ;  cf.  the  Egyptian  myth  of  the  defeat  of  the 
serpent  Apopi)  the  transition  is  easy  to  the  appli- 
cation of  the  term  to  the  sea  itself.  So  in  2.  Job 
2(j''^,  where,  however,  the  same  mythological  allusion 
underlies  the  two  parallel  clauses, '  He  quelleth  the 
sea  with  his  power,  and  by  his  understanding  he 
smiteth  through  Rahab'(3ni  fr:  '\T\y.2nyt  c;n  i':i  'ini?; 
LXX  B  t'lTxiJ'  KaTiTtavaev  t7]v  BiXaaaav,  ^iri<m)^p  Si 
larpuTcii  Tb  K^ros)  ;  RV  'He  stirreth  up  [m.  'oi 
stilleth ']  the  sea  with  his  power,  and  by  his  under- 
standing he  smiteth  through  Rahab' ;  AV(wrongly) 


RAHAM 


KAIN 


195 


'  He  divideth  the  sea  with  his  power,  and  by  his 
understanding  he  sniitetli  througli  the  proud '  [m. 
'H>ih. pride'].  Cf.  I's  74'--'».  3.  Very  similar  is  Is 
61'  I';?  ri;;"'!?  3rn  nzsr'^r.  K'.i-nN  niSn  ;  LXX  B  oi/  <ri>  ef 
ij  ^prjfjLoOaa  $d\affffav,  vSwp  d^uaaov  vXijOos  ;  RV  *  art 
thou  (sc.  the  arm  of  the  LORD)  not  it  that  cut 
Kahab  in  pieces,  that  pierced  the  dragon  ? ' ;  AV 
'  art  thou  not  it  that  liath  cut  Rahab  and  wounded 
the  dragon?'  The  reference  here  appears  to  be  to 
the  destruction  of  the  Egyptians,  under  the  figure 
of  a  monster  (see  Sea  JfoXSTEU),  at  the  Red  Sea 
(cf.  v.'"  'art  thou  not  it  which  dried  up  the  sea, 
the  waters  of  the  ^eat  deep;  that  made  the  depths 
of  the  sea  a  way  for  the  redeemed  to  pass  over  ? '). 
4.  One  otlier  parallel  to  this  is  Ps  89'" '"  r"?"  •■>•"!< 
zrn  7^nr  ;  LXA.  <ri>  ^aTreffwffas  us  Tpav/xarlav  VTrtpTJ- 
iparov;  AVand  UV 'Thou  hast  broken  Rahab  [m.  'or 
Egypt ']  in  pieces,  as  one  that  is  slain.'  The  mean- 
ing of  this  clause  is  interpreted  by  what  follows, 
'  Thou  hast  scattered  thine  enemies  with  the  arm 
of  thy  strengtli,'  and  this  again  by  the  preceding 
verse,  'Thou  rulest  the  pride  of  the  sea;  when  the 
waves  thereof  arise,  thou  stillest  them.'  There 
may  be  a  veiled  allusion  to  Egypt  here,  as  in  Is  51', 
but  such  a  conclusion  is  not  necessary. 

5.  In  our  next  example  the  epithet  Eahah  is 
applied  to  Egypt,  Is  30'  •"!<-;5  ]z)  niy;  pni  "jjn  Dns-! 
icy  D.T  3rn  niii; ;  LXX  A/7i>jrTiot  iiAToia  koX  Ktvb. 
itptX^ffovffiv  i/fMS'  aTiyyitKov  avroU  5ti  fiaraia  ij  rapd- 
itXTjiris  i)iu>i>  airrri :  RV  '  for  Egypt  hclpeth  in  vain 
and  to  no  purpose ;  therefore  liave  I  called  her 
Rahab  that  sitteth  still '  [lit.  (Ges.  S  141  c) '  Rahab, 
they  are  a  sitting  still '].  Driver  {Isaiah  ',  '  Men 
of  the  Bible'  series,  p.  59  n.)  takes  Rahab  as  a 
poetical  title  expressing  '  the  idea  of  inflation  and 
pride.'  So  Cheyne  (Prophecies  of  Isaiah^,  i.  p.  172) 
speaks  of  it  as  expressing  the  '  boisterousness ' 
or  '  arrogance '  of  the  Egyptians  as  a  people ;  he 
cites  Pliny's  description  ot  them  as  '  ventosa  et 
insolcns  natio.'  Isaiali  declares  that  the  name 
Bahnb  had  better  be  changed  to  67K'ie<A  (' sitting 
still,'  'inaction');  Egypt  is  a  blustering  do-nothing, 
prompt  with  high-sounding  promises,  but  utterly 
incapable  of  carrying  these  out.  If  this  passage 
belongs  to  Isaiah,  and  if  the  MT  be  correct  (but 
see  Cheyne,  SBOT,  '  Isaiah '  ad  loc,  and  Intro,  to 
la.  p.  253 ;  Budde  on  Job  9" ;  and  Gunkel,  Scliop- 
fung  und  Chaon,  p.  39),  it  is  probable  that  no 
mythological  allusion  underlies  the  passafre,  but 
that  n.Tj  simply  means  '  boastfulness'  thougli  with 
allusion  to  liahab  as  a  name  of  Egypt.  6.  Either 
through  the  influence  of  this  passage,  or  more 
prolmbly  owing  to  a  conception  of  Egypt  as  akin 
to  the  mythological  sea  monster,  because  lying 
ensconced  amidst  its  rivers  and  canals  (cf.  Ezk  29^), 
Jialiab  appears  as  a  designation  of  Egypt  in  Ps  87* 
'??'  3Cn  ■''5'¥ ;  LXX  inyriaOi^aoiULi,  'Paifi  Kal  Ba;3uXui'os  ; 
AVand  RV  'I  will  make  mention  of  Rahab  (RVm 
'or  Egi/pt ')  and  Babylon  as  those  that  know  me.' 

Guiikfl  {Schopf.  u.  Chaos,  40)  finds  an  allusion  to 
Rahab  al.so  in  Ps  40°  (*»  '  Happy  is  the  man  that 
maketh  the  Lor.D  hb  trust,  and  respecteth  not  the 
proud  (rihablm).' 

LrrFRATnm.— The  Comm,  on  the  above  cited  Scripture  pa«- 
MKeii,  esp.  Dlllmann,  Davitlson,  Budde,  and  Dutim  on  Jub,  ])ill- 
mann,  I>clitx8<-h.  and  Cheyne  on  Isaiah,  und  DtlitZHch  and 
Duhm  on  Vsalma;  Chcvne,  Job  and  Solomon,  p.  76  f.,  '  I^uiah ' 
\aSDOT,  lO'Jf.,  riJ  V.ai.,  2nr,t.,  and  his  art.  '  Dragon  '  in  linq/e. 
BibL  ;  Gunkel,  Schop/ung  und  Chaog,  pattim,  esp.  p.  30  (T. 

J.  A.  SKi.niK. 
RAHAM  (Drn  ;  B  'Pd^tf,  A  'Pdf/i,  Luc  "Pda/i).— 
A  descendant  of  Caleb,  1  Ch  2". 

RAHEL.— See  Ractiei,. 

RAIMENT — The  early  suhst.  'arrnymcnt'  was 
often  in  inidrlle  Eng.  spelt  '  araiment)' and  the  a 
dropping  oU  left  'raiment/  which  is  found  as  early 


as  Piers  Plowman.  Raiment,  being  treated  as  a 
mere  synonym  of  'apparel,  *  is  used  in  AV  to 
translate  many  Heb.  and  Gr.  words,  which  are 
often  plu.  (as  rd  l/idna,  Mt  17=  27"',  Mk  9»,  Lk  7" 
23**,  Jn  195^^  etc.),  the  word  having  a  collective 
force.  Occasionally,  however,  it  was  used  in  the 
singular  and  in  the  plural :  thus,  Ezk  9'  Cov. 
'  Tliere  was  one  amongst  them,  that  had  on  him 
a  lynninge  rayment';  Ps  109"  Pr.  Bk.  'He 
clothed  him  self  with  cursyng  lyke  as  with  a 
rayment.'  Also  Ex  39^'  Tind.  'His  sonnes  ray- 
mentes  to  ministre  in';  Hull,  Works,  \.  818,  'He 
sends  varietie  of  costly  rayments  to  his  Father.' 
See  Dress.  J.  Hastings. 

RAIN  (lOD  is  the  usual  Heb.  term.  rnV  [in  Jl  2" 
Ps  84'  n-iic]  'the  early  rain,'  falling  Oct.-Nov.,  is 
opposed  to  cipi"?  'the  latter  rain,'  from  March  to 
April,  Dt  1 1",  Jer  5'-^,  Hos  6'.  c;i-,,  a  burst  of  rain, 
is  sometimes  used,  esp.  of  the  he.i\'y  winter  rains 
[cf.  Driver  on  Am  4';  G.  A.  Smith,  HGHL  64]. 
The  NT  terms  are  verbs  and  ,3poxi5  [only  Mt  l'^-^']). 
— In  the  beautiful  passage  Is  55"'- ''  we  have  an 
exjiression  of  the  blessing  accompanying  rain  in 
Eastern  countries,  not  so  much  appreciated  in 
our  own  humid-  clunes.  In  Palestine  the  fruit- 
fulness  of  the  soil,  the  supply  of  the  springs  and 
rivers,  the  pasturage  for  the  flocks  and  herds, 
indeed  life  itself,  is  dependent  on  the  fall  of  the 
'  former  and  the  latter '  rain.  The  descent  of 
rain  is  used  as  an  illustration  of  tlio  blessings 
following  upon  the  spread  of  the  kingdom  of  Christ 
(Ps  72'- ') ;  while  the  presence  of  clouds  and  wind 
without  rain  is  likened  to  a  man  '  who  boasteth 
himself  of  his  gifts  falsely '  (Pr  25"  RV).  Rain  in 
han'est  time  was  regarded  as  phenomenal  and 
portentous  (1  S  12",  Pr  20'). 

In  Palestine  nearly  the  whole  of  the  rainfall  of 
tlie  year  occurs  in  the  \vinter  months,  or  from 
November  to  March  inclusive ;  during  tlie  re- 
maining months  the  rain  is  slight  and  intermittent. 
In  the  rainy  season  the  falls  are  usuallj'  heavy,  and 
are  accompanied  by  thunder  and  lightning,  while 
the  wind  comes  from  the  \V.  or  S.W.  Northerly 
and  easterly  winds  are  generally  dry.t  Snow  falls 
on  the  tableland  of  we-stem  Palestine  and  of 
Moab,  and  to  a  greater  depth  in  the  Lebanon,  but 
is  almost  unknown  along  the  seaboard  of  Philistia 
and  the  plain  of  Sharon  ;  on  Sunday  night,  20th 
January  1884,  snow  fell  to  a  depth  of  2  ft.  and 
upwards  around  Jerusalem  ;  J  this  is  mentioned 
only  in  order  to  dispel  the  general  belief  that  snow 
never  falls  on  the  Holy  City. 

Conder  disputes  the  view  that  the  seasons  in 
Palestine  have  changed  since  OT  times.  §  He  says, 
'  As  regards  the  seasons  and  the  character  and 
distribution  of  the  water-sujjply,  natural  or  arti- 
ficial, there  is,  apparently,  no  reason  to  suppose 
that  any  chanj^e  has  occurred  ;  and  with  respect  to 
the  annual  rainfall  (as  observed  for  the  last  ten 
years  II)  it  is  only  necessary  to  note  that,  were  the 
old  cisterns  cleaned  and  mended,  and  the  beautiful 
tanks  and  a()ucducts  repaired,  the  ordinary  fall 
would  be  quite  suHiciunt  for  the  wants  of  the 
inhabitants  and  for  irrigation. 'IT  While  this  is 
doubtless    true,   there  can    be   no  question    that 

•  Ab  the  AV  translators  varied  their  language  as  much  afl 
posBible,  we  find  three  different  renderings  of  the  one  word  tfSy,( 
in  Ja  2'-^S:  'in  (goodly  apparel'  (i»  wth.ii  XaiM^pi),  *  in  vile 
raiuienl'  (i*  pt^tcea  ieOr.Ti),  and  'the  ^'ay  clothing '  (r^,  ir^r* 
T*,,  >.Kfj.9fioLi,).     RV  has  "  clothing' throughout  here. 

t  The  connexion  of  the  rainfall  and  direction  of  the  wind  la 
not  very  well  Icnown,  though  undoubtedly  the  S.W.  wind  is  the 
most  humid. 

t  ilounl  Scir,  Sinai,  eta  170  (1885). 

il  Tent-Work  in  J'alettine,  ch.  xxiv.  334. 

I  From  187O-l|iS0. 

^1  /6.  p.  sue.  On  the  otherhand, Tristram  appenratOoonBidet 
that  the  rainfall  ha«  diioiulflhcd  tinco  the  time  of  the  Onuoderv. 
Land  <i/ Itrael',  aia. 


196 


KAINBOW 


EAKEM 


Jurin^  the  '  Pluvial  period,'  which  extended  from 
the  riiocene  down  throujjh  the  Glacial  into  the 
commencement  of  the  present  or  '  Recent' epoch, 
the  rainfall  must  have  been  greater  and  the  climate 
colder  and  more  humid  than  at  the  present  day. 
8now  now  falls  on  the  summits  of  Jebel  MOsa  and 
Jebel  Katarina  in  the  Sinaitio  peninsula,  giving 
rise  to  the  perennial  streams  which  descend  from 
the  former  of  these  mountains.*  The  following 
is  a  table  of  the  rainfall  at  Jerusalem  during  20 
yeais : — 

Taule  of  the  RirarUiL  iT  Jerusaiem  fbom  1861  to  18S0. 


Year. 

Fall  in  Inches. 

Tear. 

FftU  in  Inches. 

1 861 

27-30 

1871 

23-57 

lhU2 

21-86 

1872 

22-26 

1S«3 

20-54 

1873 

22-72 

lsi'4 

15-61 

1874 

29-76 

lsit.i 

18-19 

1875 

27-01 

1»U6 

18-65 

1876 

14-41 

lSli7 

29-42 

1877 

20-00 

isr.8 

2910 

1878 

32-21 

IS.M 

18-61 

1879 

18-04 

1S70 

13-39 

1880 

32-11 

The  above  observations,  taken  by  Chaplin,  show 
how  extremely  variable  is  the  rainfall  in  this  part 
of  Palestine  ;  t  the  amount  varying  between  13-39 
inches  in  1870  and  32-21  inches  in  1878 ;  the 
average  for  these  20  years  is  about  20  inches  ;  and 
the  number  of  days  on  which  rain  fell  varied  from 
30  in  1864  to  68  in  1868.  The  results  are  not 
dissimilar  to  those  of  the  eastern  counties  of 
England  north  of  the  Thames.  These  results  may 
be  considered  as  the  mean  between  those  of  the 
Lebanon  on  the  north  and  of  tlxe  Sinaitic  peninsula 
on  the  south,  the  rainfall  being  greater  in  the 
former  region  than  in  the  latter.  Between  these 
two  Jerusalem  occupies  a  nearly  central  position  ; 
and  the  amount  of  rain  is  consequently  of  an 
intermediate  character.  E.  Hull. 

RAINBOW  (rciij,  H^oy,  Tpis).  —  No  definition  is 
needed  of  this  familiar  phenomenon,  which  Ezekiel 
describes  (1^)  as  '  the  bow  that  is  in  the  cloud  in 
the  day  of  rain  ' ;  and  no  explanation  is  called  for 
of  the  optical  laws  according  to  which  it  is  pro- 
duced. The  Scripture  references  to  the  rainbow 
are  few,  and,  with  one  exception,  comparatively 
unimportant.  They  allude,  as  a  rule,  to  its  bright- 
ness, or  to  the  brilliance  of  its  colours.  In  Ezekiel's 
vision  {/.c.)  it  is  the  glory  of  God  that  is  likened  to 
the  aiipearance  of  the  rainbow.  In  Sir  43"-  "  the 
beauty  of  the  rainbow  is  given  as  a  reason  for 
praising  God  who  has  made  it,  and  whose  hands 
tiave  stretclied  it  out.  In  Sir  50'  the  high  priest 
Simon,  the  son  of  Onias,  is  compared  to  tlie  rain- 
bow among  other  glorious  objects.  In  one  of  the 
visions  of  the  Apocalypse  (Rev  4")  there  is  'a  rain- 
bow round  about  the  throne,  like  an  emerald  to 
lixik  upon,'  and  in  another  (10')  there  is  an  angel 
with  'the  rainbow  u))ou  his  head.' 

The  most  important  of  the  Scripture  allusions  to 
tlie  rainbow  is  that  in  Gn  9"'',  where  it  is  intro- 
duced at  the  close  of  the  story  of  the  Deluge  as  a 
token  of  tlie  covenant  in  which  God  promised  that 
He  would  never  again  destroy  the  world  by  a  Hood. 
The  passage  as  it  stands  is  capable  of  two  interpre- 
tations. It  may  convey  either  (a)  the  nnscieiiliUc 
idea  that  tlie  rainbow  was  created  after  the  Flood, 
or  (6)  the  idea  that  the  rainliow,  already  created, 
was  then  appointed  to  have  a  new  signiticance  as  a 
symbol  of  mercy.     Those  who  regard  the  narrative 

•  The  elevation  of  Jebel  MOsa  Is  7378  feet ;  that  of  Jebel 
Katarina  8551  feet. 

t  '  un  the  Fall  of  Bain  at  Jerusalem,'  by  J.  Qlaisher,  PBFSt, 
Jan.  1S94,  p.  39. 


as  strictly  historical,  can  of  course  adopt  only  the 
latter  of  these  views.  But  when  we  take  into 
account  such  considerations  as  those  given  under 
Flood  (which  see),  it  seems  best  to  regard  the 
whole  story  of  the  Deluge,  including  that  of  the 
rainbow,  as  a  piece  of  Semitic  folk-lore,  which, 
under  the  guidance  of  Divine  inspiration,  '  assumed 
a  Hebrew  complexion,  being  adapted  to  the  spirit 
of  Hebrew  monotheism,  and  made  a  vehicle  for  the 
higher  teaching  of  the  Hebrew  religion'  (Driver  in 
Hogarth's  A  uthority  and  A  rchceolugy,  p.  27).  In  an 
early  Sumerian  hynm  the  rainbow  is  said  by  S.-iyce 
(Expos.  Times,  vii.  308)  to  be  called  'the  aic  which 
draws  nij^h  to  man,  tlie  bow  (qiistu)  of  the  deluge,' 
and  the  Chaldaean  account  of  the  Flood  tells  hoiv — 

*  Already  at  the  moment  of  her  comin-;;  the  great  goddess  (Istar) 
Lifted  up  the  mighty  bow  •  which  Aim  had  made  according  to 
his  wish.' 

The  significance  of  the  rainbow  as  a  token  of 
God's  co\-enant  with  men  may  be  variously  viewed. 
n::-i3  and  rb^op  (Sir  43"  50')  are  the  regular  words 
for  the  bow  as  a  weapon  of  war,  and  the  rainbow 
may  have  been  regarded  as  God's  bow,  formerly 
used  in  hostility  (as  in  Ps  7",  Hab  3'-  "),  and  now 
laid  aside.  Or  it  may  have  appeared  to  be  a  link 
between  heaven  and  earth  ;  or,  more  probably,  its 
suggestiveuess  as  an  emblem  of  hope  may  have 
arisen  simply  from  the  contrast  between  its  beauty 
and  brightness  and  the  forbidding  gloom  of  the 
rain-clouds.  In  any  case,  the  story  of  the  rainbow 
is  worthy  of  its  place  in  Scripture.  Though  poetic 
rather  than  literal,  it  was  a  beautiful  and  fitting 
vehicle  for  conveying  to  men  in  the  childhood  of 
the  world  the  truth  that  God's  mercy  glories 
against  judgment,  and  is  the  ground  of  all  human 
hope. 

Though  the  Babylonian  Flood  legend  affords  the 
closest  parallel  to  the  biblical  story  of  the  Deluge 
and  the  rainbow,  some  interesting  correspondences 
may  be  gathered  from  the  mythology  of  other 
nations.  In  the  Iliad  we  find  (a)  the  simple  view 
of  '  rainbows  that  the  son  of  Kronos  hath  set  in 
the  clouds'  (xi.  27),  and  (6)  the  conception  of  Iris  aa 
the  personified  messenger  of  the  gods  (iii.  121).  In 
the  Lithuanian  account  of  the  Flood  the  rainbow  is 
sent  as  a  comforter  and  counsellor  to  the  surviving 
couple.  In  the  Edda  the  rainbow  {Asbru,  Bif-rost) 
is  conceived  of  as  a  heavenly  bridge  which  is  to 
break  at  the  end  of  the  world.  Akin  to  this,  but 
with  a  biblical  colouring,  was  the  German  belief  of 
the  Middle  Ages,  that  for  a  number  of  years  before 
the  day  of  judgment  the  rainbow  will  no  longer  be 
seen. 

*So  the  rainbow  appear 
The  world  hath  no  fear 
Until  thereafter  forty  year.' 

The  popular  tendency  to  connect  Christian  and 
mythological  conceptions  is  seen  in  the  fact  that 
in  Zante  the  rainbow  is  called  '  the  girdle,  or  bow, 
of  the  virgin.' 

The  extravagant  theory  of  Goldziher,  that  the 
history  of  Joseph  is  a  solar  myth,  is  fittingly 
crowned  by  the  supposition  that  tiie  '  bow '  of 
Jose|)h  (Gn  49-"')  is  the  rainbow  (Mythology  among 
the  Hebrews,  169-70). 

LiTKRATL'R  E. — Sayce, '  ArchiBological  Commentary  on  Genesis,* 
in  Exime,  Timei,  vii.  308,  463;  Kyle,  'Early  Narratives  ol 
Oenesis.'  i/>.  in.  450;  Nicol,  Recent  ArchcEolorjy  and  the  Bible, 
71 ;  Dilhnaun,  Genesis,  in  loc. ;  Grimm,  Teutonic Mijthotofjy,  Kng. 
tr.  680,  731-734  ;  Thorpe,  Northtm  Mythology,  L  U,  1-2,  81,  201. 

James  Patkick. 
RAISIN.— See  Vine,  and  Food  in  vol.  ii.  j).  32". 

RAKEM.— See  Rekem. 

•The  word  rendered  'bow'  by  Sayce  (f.c.  483)  is,  however, 
ver>'  uncertain,  other  Assvriologists,  aa  Zimniern  {ap.  Gunkel, 
SchO/if.  u.  Chaos,  427),  Jensen  (KiMmil.  3S1 ;  KIIS  vi.  241), 
rendering  'Oeschmeide,'  'Intaglio.'  Still,  this  may  possibly 
denote  the  rainbow  (Ball,  Light  jTom  the  East,  40  n.> 


KAKKATII 


ILAJMAII 


197 


RAKKATH  (np-; ;  B  'nMoffooostfl,  Uie  -SaKie  repre- 
Bentiiij;  npT  by  confusion  of  i  with  i,  and  the  tirst 
part  ot  the  compound  standing  for  ran  '  Hamiiiatli ' ; 
A'Peitnaff).— A  'fenced  city'  of  Naphtali,  Jos  19^. 
The  later  Habbis  placed  it  at  or  near  Tiberias  (see 
Neubauer,  Giog.  du  'lalm.  208  f.). 

C.  R.  CONDER. 

RAKKON.— See  Me-Jarkon. 

RAM  (-•;  '  lofty,'  '  exalted  '). — 1.  An  ancestor  of 
David,  Ku  4>9  ("Appdv),  Mt  P-*  ('A/)d,u,  hence  AV 
Aram,  as  in  Lk  3*^,  where  RV,  following  WH 
'Ap>'el,  has  Arn-1).  In  1  Ch  2"  (Va^)  >»  (B  'A/jpdi',  A 
*ApQ/x)  he  is  called  the  brother,  but  in  vv.*'  (B  'Pdi/, 
A  'Vifi)  ^  (B  'kpi/j.,  A  'Pd/i)  the  sun  of  Jerahmeel. 
See  Gexealocv,  IV.  5.  2.  The  name  of  tlie  family 
{r^'.^i--:)  to  which  Elihu  belonged,  Job  32-  (B  Pd/i, 
A  'P'o/id,  C  Wpaii).  It  is  quite  uncertain  whether 
Ham  Rliould  be  taken  as  a  purely  fictitious  name, 
coined  by  the  author  of  the  Elihu  speeches,  or 
whether  it  is  that  of  an  unknown  Arab  (?)  tribe. 
In  Gn  22'-'  Aram  is  a  nephew  of  Buz  (cf.  '  Elihu 
the  Buzite'),  and  some  {e.g.  Wetzstein,  Knobel, 
Ewald)  have  supposed  that  Ram  is  a  contraction 
for  Aram,  in  support  of  which  2  Ch  22'  is  appealed 
to,  where  liumitcs  (D'?-in)  is  supposed  to  be  shortened 
from  Aramitcs  (D's-ig,  the  reading  of  2  K  8^) ;  but 
this  seems  hardly  likely.  In  the  passage  just  re- 
ferred to,  it  is  more  probable  that  the  initial  5< 
has  been  changed  by  a  .scribal  error  into  n,  as  has 
happened  in  several  other  instances  in  the  OT. 
Basiii,  by  a  Kabbinicai  conceit,  makes  liam  = 
Abraham.  J.  A.  Selbie. 

RAM.— See  Batterino-Ram,  and  Sheep. 

RAMS'  HORNS See  Music  in  vol.  iii.  p.  462*. 

RAMS'  SKINS.— See  Dyeino. 

RAMAH  (isnri,  always  with  definite  art.  except 
ii  Neh  ll"  and  Jer  SI").— This  word,  with  its 
various  modifications  and  compounds  Ram,  Ramah, 
Ranioth,  Ramathaim,  Arimatliiea,  is  derived  from 
the  root  en  '  to  be  lofty.'  It  appears  as  a  'high 
place'  four  times  (Ezk  16"- ^- "•»*).  As  a  proper 
name  it  is  used  of — 

1.  (B  ApaijX,  A  'Pa;ia)  One  of  the  fenced  cities 
of  the  tribe  of  Naphtali  (Jos  19").  It  is  not 
otherwise  mentioned  in  OT.  Robinson  (iii.  79) 
has  identified  it  as  lidmeh,  a  village  on  the  great 
route  between  'Aklui  and  Dama-scus,  and  about 
8  miles  W.S.W.  of  Safed.  The  village  lies  upon 
the  southern  lower  cultivated  slope  of  the  moun- 
tain whose  ridge  forms  a  boundary  between  U]>per 
and  Lower  Galilee,  but  still  several  hundred  feet 
above  the  plain.  It  is  a  large  village,  surrounded 
by  extensive  olive  groves,  and  has  no  traces  of 
antiquity  within  or  around.  It  is  mentioned  by 
Eusebius  (Onom.  288,  9)  and  Jerome  {ih.  146,  19), 
Brocardus  (c.  0)  and  Adrichomius  (p.  123). 

2.  (Pa/xa)  One  of  the  cities  on  the  boundary  of 
the  tribe  of  Asher  near  Tyre  (Jos  19-*).  '  And  the 
border  turned  to  liamah,  and  to  the  fenced  city 
of  Tyre.'  Robinson  (iii.  64)  considers  there  is  no 
question  (and  in  this  he  is  followed  by  Gu6rin, 
GaliUe,  ii.  12of.,  and  SWP)  that  Ramah  of  Asher 
is  represented  by  the  modern  village  of  RAmia. 
It  is  situated  about  12  miles  duo  east  of  the 
Ladder  of  Tyre,  as  the  crow  Hies.  It  stands  upon 
an  i.solated  hill,  in  the  midst  of  a  basin  with  green 
fields,  surrounded  by  higher  hills.  The  south- 
western portitm  of  the  basin  has  no  outlet  for 
its  waters ;  which  therefore  collect  in  a  shallow, 
niarshy  lake,  which  dries  up  in  summer.  It  is  a 
•luall  stone  village  with  a  few  ligs  and  olives : 
there  are  cisterns  and  a  large  birhet  for  water- 
■npiWy.     There  are   many  sarcophagi   about   the 


hillside,  some  of  unusual  size.  One  of  the  lids 
measured  7A  feet  long  and  2  feet  broad.  Robin- 
son considered  the  remains  generally  'a  striking 
monument  of  antiquity.'  West  of  Rdmia  is  a 
lofty  hill  called  Bcl/it,  on  which  are  extensive 
ruins,  and  remains  of  a  temple  of  which  ten 
columns  are  still  standing.  Tliere  is  no  trace  of 
Ramah  of  Asher  in  any  liistorical  records  except 
the  bare  mention  of  the  name  by  Eusebius  and 
Jerome.     Cf.  Buhl,  p.  231  n. 

3.  ("Pfwuff,  -PafLa)  2  K  82»  =  2  Ch  22«.  In  this 
case  Ranuth  is  an  abbreviation  of  Bamoth-GILEAD 
(whicli  see). 

4.  (Pa/ia,  in  IIos  5'  t4  ifr)\6.)  A  city  of  Benjamin 
which  is  possibly  (see  below)  also  identical  with 
No.  6,  the  birthplace  and  home  of  Samuel,  but  for 
convenience  of  consideration  it  is  taken  separately. 
It  is  given  in  the  list  of  14  cities  and  their  villages 
allotted  to  Benjamin  (Jos  18^),  the  greater  number 
of  which  have  been  identified  north  of  Jerusalem. 
The  first  tliree  are  Gibeon  (el-Jib,  5  miles  N.N.W. 
of  Jerusalem  and  3  miles  west  oi  er-RAm),  Ramah 
(er  RAm,  2600  feet,  5  miles  due  north  of  Jerusalem 
and  near  the  main  road  to  north),  Beeroth  (el- 
Bireh,  10  miles  north  of  Jerusalem  near  main 
road  to  north).  Isaiah  (10^)  enumerates  the  posi- 
tions that  will  be  successively  taken  up  by  the 
king  of  Assyria  as  he  approaches  Jerusalem  aftei 
laying  up  his  carriages  (i.e.  baggage)  at  Michmash  ■ 
'  They  are  gone  over  the  pass :  they  have  taken 
up  their  lodging  at  Geba ;  Raman  trembleth  ; 
Gibeah  of  Saul  is  fled.'  The  Levite  (Jg  19'^),  pass- 
ing Jerusalem  with  his  concubine  when  the  day 
was  far  spent,  passed  on  to  Gibeah  (Tell  el-FiiC, 
2  miles  south  of  er-RAm),  which  was  short  of 
Ramah.  The  Palm-tree  of  Deborah  was  between 
Ramah  and  Bethel  in  the  hill-country  of  Ephraira 
(Jg  4').     Beilin  (Bethel)  is  5  mUes  N.  of  er-RAm. 

From  these  notices  it  seems  to  follow  that  er- 
RAm.  is  the  modern  equivalent  of  R.imah.  the 
distance  from  Jerusalem  (5  miles  as  the  crow  flies) 
accords  with  the  account  of  Eusebius  and  Jerome 
(Oiioma.it.  '287,  1;  146,  9:  6  m.  N.  of  Jerusalem) 
and  of  Josephus  (A)it.  vill.  xii.  3). 

After  the  separation  of  the  kingdoms,  Baasha 
king  of  Israel  (1  K  1.5'"')  went  up  against  Judali 
and  built  (fortified)  Ramah,  'that  he  mi^ht  not 
suffer  any  one  to  go  out  or  come  in  to  Asa  iving  of 
Judah,'  showing  tliat  Ramah  commanded  the  hirfi 
road  leading  to  Jerusalem  ;  but  .Vsa  secured  the 
assistance  of  Benhadad  king  of  Syria,  who  smote 
the  northern  cities  of  Israel,  so  that  Baasha  de- 
sisted from  buUding  Ramah,  and  Asa  took  away 
the  stones  and  the  timber  and  built  with  them 
Geba  of  Benjamin  and  Mizpah  (2  Ch  16'"').  From 
this  it  would  appear  that  liamah  was  more  suit- 
able for  defence  towards  the  south  than  towards 
the  north.  After  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem, 
Ramah  is  mentioned  as  the  place  (Jer  40')  where 
the  captain  of  the  guard  over  those  who  were 
carried  away  captive  from  Jerusalem  loosed  Jere- 
miah from  Ills  chains.  Ramah  was  very  near  to 
Geba  and  Gibeah  :  see  Is  10-"  cited  above,  and  cf. 
'  Blow  ye  the  comet  in  Gibeah  and  the  trumi)et  in 
Ramah'  (llos  5');*  '  The  chUdren  of  Raman  and 
Geba'(Ezr2-'',  Neh  7'"[L.\X  Apa/«i]).+  It  was  also 
the  traditional  site  of  Rachel's  tomb:  'A  voice 
was  heard  in  Ramah  .  .  .  Rachel  weeping  for  her 
children '(Jer  31":  cf.  above,  p.  193*).  The  Ramah 
of  Nell  11"^  is,  in  all  |)robability,  the  same  place. 

Er-RAm  is  a  small  village  in  a  conspicuous 
position  on  the  top  of  a  high  white  hill,  with 
olives:  it  has  a  well  to  the  south;  west  of  the 

•  But  In  1  8  22«  'Saul  waa  sittlnp  In  Oiheah  ...  In  Ramah' 
render  *  in  nibcah  .  .  .  on  the  A''>;;/t( '(Keil,  Kirkp.,  eta,  RVm), 
even,  indpetl,  if  we  shoiiici  not  read,  with  LXX  (i»  Ba.u«)  and 
H.  P.  Smith,  'on  the  hinh  placf.'—S.  R.  I). 

t  In  1  Es  6'^  wc  fliid  Kirama  (K(t)ifi»fjut)  ioBtead  of  RamaX 


193 


EAMAH 


RAMAH 


village  is  a  good  birket  with  a  pointed  vault ;  on 
the  hill  are  cisterns.  At  Khdn  er-lidm,  by  tlie 
main  roaJ,  is  a  (juarry ;  and  drafted  stones  are 
used  up  in  the  village  walls  {SWP  iii.  155).  The 
height  of  the  village  is  about  2(iU0  feet. 

C.  Warren. 

5.  Ramah  of  the  South  (33i  nOK-i;  Ba/j-id  (A  la/neS) 
Kari  \l§a). — '  Height  of  the  soutli,'  a  city  of 
Simeon  (Jos  19'),  at  its  extreme  southern  limit, 
apparently  another  name  forBAALATU-BEEK,  with 
which  it  is  in  apposition  in  this  passage.  It 
appears  to  be  the  same  as  Ramoth  of  the  South 
(1  S  30",  LXX  here  also  has  the  singular,  'Pa/m 
i'6tov).  The  verse  is  not  contained  in  the  parallel 
list  (in  the  description  of  Judah),  Jos  15-|>-»-  (after 
v.'2)  ;  and  in  the  transcript  in  1  Ch  p^-^^  though 
(v.^^)  Ba.al  ( =  Baalath-beer  :  LXX  BaXar)  is  men- 
tioned, the  alternative  name  '  Ramah  of  the 
South '  is  not  gi\en.  Nor  is  it  mentioned  by 
Eusebius  or  Jerome.  Its  situation  is  quite  un- 
certain. It  has  been  placed  on  a  low  ridge  called 
^ubbet  el-Baul,  about  35  m.  S.  of  Hebron,  on  the 
main  route  from  Hebron  to  Petra  ;  or  (Tristram, 
Bible  Places,  23)  at  Kurnub,  a  little  further  to  the 
S.  (see  Rob.  ii.  197,  19S,  202) ;  but  either  identifi- 
cation rests  upon  slight  grounds  (cf.  DUlm.  on 
Jos  15=^ ;  Buhl,  184). 

6.  1  S  V^  2"  VS*  IS'*  16"  19'"--'-  20'  25'  28'; 
in  1  S  1',  also,  Ramathaim,*  '  the  double  eminence,' 
or  '  the  two  Ramahs '  (o^nEnri :  LXX  in  all  the 
passages  quoted  ( -I- 19'-^),  except  19'^-  '="•  ^  20',  has 
Ap/ia0aifi,  which  it  also  inserts  in  1  S  1'  after  '  his 
city':  comp.  1  Mac  11**  'Paixadf/j.  [so  MSS  ;  As 
corruptly 'PaSaAiftK],  Pesh.  iCLiAlDJ).  The  birth- 
place, residence,  and  burial-place  of  Samuel  (1  S  1' 
7"  28*).  The  question  of  its  site  isdithcult;  and 
there  have  been  many  claimants  for  it.  All  that 
we  definitely  know  about  it  is  that  it  was  on  an 
eminence,  as  its  name  '  Ramah  '  implies,  and  that 
it  was  in  the  hill-country  of  Ephraim,  not  too  far 
either  from  Shiloh,  the  sanctuary  to  which  the 
parents  of  Samuel  went  up  yearly  to  sacrifice 
(1  S  1),  or  from  Bethel,  Gilgal,  and  Mizpah  (Neby 
Samwil),  the  places  visited  by  Samuel  in  his 
annual  circuits  as  judge  (IS  "7'°-").  Although 
this  has  been  doubted,  it  is  also  extremely  difficult 
to  avoid  identifying  it  with  the  unnamed  city  where 
Saul  found  Samuel  (1  S  9),  and  which  is  sjjoken  of 
as  if  it  were  the  seer's  habitual  residence  (vv."- '"). 

As  regards  antiquity,  Eusebius  writes  (Onom. 
225,  11  tt.) :  '  Apixae^^  2«,/,a  [as  LXX].  The  city  of 
Elkana  and  Samuel.  It  lies  near  Diospolis 
[Jerome,  ib.  96,  18,  adds,  'in  the  district  of 
Timnah '  (in  regione  Thamnitica)] ;  thence  came 
Joseph,  said  in  the  Gospels  to  be  from  Arimathea.' 
And  in  1  Mac  11**  Ramathem  is  mentioned,  to- 
gether with  Aplu-erema  (Ephraim,  5  m.  N.E.  of 
Bethel)  and  Lydda(  =  Diospolis),  as  three  toparchies 
which  had  belonged  to  Samaria,  but  were  in  B.C. 
145  transferred  to  Judsea.  These  notices  would 
agree  witli  a  site  Beit-Rima,  a  village  on  a  hill 
13  m.  E.N.E.  of  Lydda  (Diospolis),  and  2  m.  N.  of 
Tinmah  (Tibneh),  proposed  originally  by  Furrer 
in  Schenkcl's  Bibellexinon  (cf.  Sehiirer,  i.  183),  and 
adopted  by  G.  A.  Smith,  HGIIL  254,  and  Buhl, 
170.  It  is  true,  Eus.  says  '  near  Diospolis ' :  but 
•  '  Ramathaim-zophim  •  (D-jW  D:n:;-;n)  is  grammatically  im- 
possible. Of  course  the  expression  cannnt  mean  '  the  heights  of 
the  views'  (I),  as  the  reader  of  Tent-Work  (p,  257)  is  gravely 
informed  LXX  tor  □'Bis  has  Su*«,  showing  that  the  final  c  has 
arisen  by  dittography  from  the  following  word  Read  either  '  a 
man  of  Ramathaim,  a  Zuphite  ('J^s ;  see  IS  9')  of  the  hill- 
country  of  Ephraim'  (Wellh.,  Driver,  Lohr);  or  (though  this 
is  not  the  usual  way  of  designating  a  person's  native  place  in 
the  OT)  'a  man  of  the  Ramathites  (D'ni:-]n-[p :  1  Ch  11^),  a 
Zuphite,' etc.  (Klost,  Budde,  H.  P.  SmithVlhe  dual  •Rama- 
thaim,' though  by  no  means  unparalleled  (of.  Kirialhaim, 
Gederothttini),  is  remarkable,  in  view  of  the  Ding.  hd-Ramah 
En  V.19  and  everywhere  else. 


the  word  need  not  be  understood  too  strictly;* 
and  there  are  other  passages  in  which  the  '  district 
of  Timnali '  is  reckoned  by  him  as  belonging  to 
tlie  ipiov  Aiotr7r6\ews  (219,  84  =  Jerome  92,  4;  239, 
93-4  =  Jerome  107,  12-14:  so  Timnah  itself,  260,  4 
=  156,  7).  Beit-Riina  is  12  m.  W.  of  Shiloh,  and 
12  m.  N.  W.  of  Bethel,  on  the  W.  edge  of  the  hill- 
countiy  of  Ephraim.t 

Another  possible  site  for  Ramah  would  be  Rdm- 
allah,  3  m.  S.W.  of  Bethel,  and  12  m.  S.W.  of 
Shiloh,  now  a  large  Christian  village,  standing  on 
a  high  ridge,  with  rock-cut  tombs,  and  overlooking 
the  whole  country  towards  the  W.  as  far  as  tha 
sea  (BRP  i.  453  f.  ;  PEP  Mem.  iii.  13).  This  was 
suggested  by  Ewald  [Hist.  ii.  421),  m  ith  the  remark 
that  its  present  name,  '  tlie  high  place  of  God,' 
seems  still  to  mark  it  as  a  place  of  ancient  sanctity. 
Ram-allah  has  not  the  same  support  of  tradition 
that  Beit-Rima  enjoys  ;  but  (if  Ramah  be  the  city 
of  Samuel  of  1  S  9)  it  seems  to  agree  better  with 
the  terms  of  1  S  Q^"""-  ^ ;  for  Rftm-allah,  though, 
if  it  were  Ramathaim,  it  would  be  in  'the  hill- 
country  of  Ephraim  '(IS  1'),  might  also,  as  seema 
to  be  implied  of  the  city  in  1  "S  9  (vv.'"™"'-'),  be 
regariled  as  being  in  Benjamin  (cf.  Jg  4').  Saul 
would  probably,  on  his  route  home  to  Gibeah,  pass 
naturally  near  Rachel's  sepulchre,  on  the  (N.) 
'border  of  Benjamin  (IS  10-),  somewhere  near 
er-Rfim  (No.  i),  and  might  abo  'meet'  naturally 
men  'going  up'  to  Bethel  (v.^),  whether  his 
starting-point  were  Beit-Rima  or  Rim-allah. 

Of  otiier,  less  probable  identifications,  the  follow- 
ing may  be  mentioned  : — 

(1)  Ramleh.  Tlie  traveller  of  to-day,  as  he 
journeys  through  the  Maritime  Plain  from  Joppa 
to  Jerusalem,  is  assured  by  his  dragoman,  when 
he  reaches  Ramleh  (12  m.  S.E.  of  Joppa,  2  m. 
S.W.  of  Lydda),  that  this  is  the  Arimathsea  of  tha 
Gospels.  As  Robinson  {BRP  ii.  234-41)  shows  at 
length,  there  is  no  ground  for  this  identification. 
Ramleh  is  no  ancient  city ;  it  was  buUt  by 
Suleiman,  after  he  had  destroyed  Lydda,  in  the 
8th  cent.  A.D.  ;  and  it  is  first  mentioned  (aco.  to 
Robinson,  p.  234)  in  870  (under  the  form  Ramitla) 
by  the  monk  Bernard.  The  name  Ramleh  signifies 
sand;  and  lias  no  etymological  connexion  what- 
ever with  Ramah,  high.  Ramleh  is  also  in  the 
Maritime  Plain,  not,  like  Ramathaim,  in  the 
'  hill-country'  of  Ephraim. 

(2)  Neby  Samwil,  the  commanding  and  con- 
spicuous eminence  (2935  ft. )  above  Gibeon,  i\  m. 
N.W.  of  Jerusalem.  Procopius  (c.  560)  men- 
tions a  monastery  of  '  Si .  Samuel '  in  Palestine 
(though  without  indicating  its  site);  and  in  the 
Crusaders'  time  a  church  of  '  St.  Samuel '  was 
built  (A.D.  1157)  at  Neby  Samwil,  which,  with 
Moslem  additions  (including  a  minaret),  remains, 
though  partlj'  in  a  ruined  state,  to  the  present 
day  ;  close  by,  and  once  probably  in  the  nave  of 
the  church,  is  the  cenotaph  of  the  prophet,  now  a 
Moslem  wely  (cf.  Robinson,  BRP  i.  450  f.  ;  SP 
2\i  i.;  Jent.\Vork,2o^i.  ;  PEP  Mem.  iii.  12  f.,  149- 
152,  with  views).  The  Ramah  of  Samuel  was  identi- 
fied, at  least  provisionally,  with  Neby  Samwil  by 
Mr.  (afterwards  Sir  G.)  Grove  (in  Smith's  Dli). 
The  liradition  connecting  the  place  with  Samuel 
is,  however,  very  late  ;  and  Neby  Samwil  is  mu<:li 
more  probably  Mizpeh  (Rob.  i.  460 ;  HGUL  120 ; 
Buhl,  167  f.). 

(3)  Other  identiUcations  that  have  been  proposed  are  SOba,  30 
an  elevated  conitral  hill,  5  m.  W.  of  Jerusiilem  (Itiil)inson,  it 
7-10) ;  the  Frankenbcrg,  or  Jebel  Fureidis,  the  ancient  Her- 
odium,  4  m.  S.E,  of  Bethlehem  (Oes.  Th6«.  1276*)  ;  er-lt:un,  said 

•  Lydda,  as  Robinson,  BliP  ii.  240,  obsen'ea,  though  11  milel 
from  Joppa,  is  said  in  Ac  93s  to  be  '  near  '  to  it 

t  Elsewhere,  however  (146,  25 1. ;  2S3,  11  f.),  Eua  and  Jcrom* 
identify  Arimatha^a  with  a  "PifA^te  or  Remfthis,  also  i*  ipitd 
^torrikittf, — supposed  to  be  the  village  :i  ?tantieb,  6  m.  M. 
of  Lydda. 


KAMATHAIM 


RANGE 


199 


to  be  a  little  N.  of  Beth-lehem,  and  E.  of  the  so-called  '  Rachel'a 
tomb,'  but  not  known  to  Rob.  (ii.  8  n.)  or  marked  on  the  J'Kh^ 
map(Bonar,  Land  of  HroinUe,  114);  Rainel  el-Ivbatil,  I  m.  N. 
oi  lIel)ron  (van  de  Velde,  Syr.  and  Pal,  ii.  5U);  and  the  two 
hei-lils  (•  Riunatliuim ')  of  'Ah'a  (2900  ft.)  and  Birch  (2!l80  ft.), 
<  m.  W.S.W.  of  Beth-lehem — the  latter  \  m.  S.  of  the  fonner, 
out  without  a  name  on  the  PEF  mop  (Schick,  PKFSi,  1898, 
p.  IBf.,  with  map).  But  it  is  incredible  that  any  of  tlicse  places 
can  have  been  reu'arded  as  being  in  KphraUii  (1  S  1') ;  and, 
except  the  fir^t,  they  are  all  connected  with  the  identification 
of  '  Kachel's  sepulchre  '  in  1  S  10-  with  the  place  now  shown  as 
■  Rachel's  tomb,'  1  m.  N.  of  Beth-lehem,  which  (see  p.  19*") 
•ccuis  impossible.  S.  Ii.  BltlVER. 

RAMATHAIM,    RAMATHAIM  -  ZOPHIM.  —  See 

I!.\M.MI,  No.  6. 

RAMATHITE  (t=-!C  ;  B  A  ^k  Ta^X,  A  4  'Vaiiaea'to^). 
— Sliimei  the  Itanmtliite  w.ns  over  the  viiiej'ards 
of  king  David,  1  Ch  27='.  Wliich  of  the  Kamahs 
enuiiiurated  in  art.  Kamah  ia  in  view  liere,  must 
remain  uncertain. 

RAMATH-LEHI.-See  Leri. 

RAMATH-MIZPEH  (.ij???  mi, ;  B  'A/)a/?(i9  rari 
T7)»  }i\aaari(pa,  A  'Pa^iujS  .  .  .  "Haarpi). — Mentioned  in 
Jos  13-'*  only  as  one  of  the  limits  of  the  tribe  of 
Gad  to  the  north,  Heshbon  being  the  limit  to  the 
south.  It  may  be  identical  with  .Mizjiah  (and 
Mizjjeh)  of  Gilead  (see  MiZPAH,  No.  1). 

C.  Warren. 

RAMESES.— See  Raamses. 

RAMIAH(n:DT  'Jah  is  hish';  'Po/xid).  — One  of 
the  sons  of  Paro.sh  who  had  married  a  foreign 
wife,  Ezr  10«»,  called  in  1  Es  92«  Hiermas. 

RAMOTH.— 1.  In  F.zr  I0=»  A V and  RVm  read  '  and 

K:iiimtli'  (i.e.  nto-ii ;  B  xai  'Mrifiwy,  A  Kal'?rjiiii0)  for 
Jkiikmotii  (i.e.  r-oi;)  of  IIV.  In  1  Es  9'°  the  name 
is  Hieremoth.  Jeremoth  or  Kamoth  was  one  of 
the  sons  of  Bani  who  had  married  a  foreign  wife. 

2.  ("'."«■;,  BA  om.)  A  Gershonite  Levitical  city 
in  Issachar,  1  Ch  e"*!"',  apparently  =  Hi:.meth  of 
Jos  19='  and  Jarmuth  of  Jos  21^  (see  artt.  on 
these  names).  3.  For  'Kamoth  of  the  south' 
(:;}  man)  see  Kamaii,  No.  S.  4.  For  'Kamoth  in 
Gilead'  (Dt  4'",  Jos  20*  21»«,  1  Cli  6'"i'»))  see 
Kamoth-Gilead.  J.  A.  Selbie. 

RAMOTH-GILEAD.— A  prominent  city  east  of 
the  .Ionian  belonging  to  the  tribe  of  Gad,  and  first 
brouglit  to  our  notice  in  the  assignment  of  the 
Cities  of  Refuge,  Dt  4«,  Jos  20".  It  was  also  a 
Levltical  city,  Jos  21^.  In  four  passiiges,  the  three 
just  mentioned  and  1  Ch  0*  [Heb.«'>],  all  referring 
to  this  assignment,  tlie  form  'Kamoth  in  (iilead' 
{Tj):3  nto-i  [in  Dt  4''^  Jos  20',  1  Ch  G,^  niCN-;!)  is 
used,  but  elsewhere  it  is  simply  Kamotligilead 
('Sj  n-D"!).  Another  early  notice  of  this  place 
belongs  to  the  time  of  Solomon,  and  makes  it  the 
hea<li|uarters  of  one  of  the  commi.s.sariat  officers  of 
that  king,  1  K  4>».     See,  also,  Kamaii,  No.  3. 

Although  it  is  mentioned  as  a  well-known  city, 
we  liave  no  account,  in  the  Bible  or  elsewhere,  of 
its  origin.  The  greater  its  importance  the  more 
conspicuous  it  would  naturally  be  ;  and  this  we 
find  was  the  case,  in  the  wars  lietween  the  Syrian 
kings  of  Dama.scus  and  the  Hebrews.  Of  "these 
wars  we  have  the  fullest  account  of  those  occur- 
ring between  B.C.  9U0  and  B.C.  800,  particularly 
during  the  reigns  of  Ahab,  Aliaziali,  Jchoram, 
and  .lehu,  kings  of  Israel.  Althoiigli  tlio  southern 
kingdom  sometimes  acted  as  an  allv,  the  brunt  of 
these  wars  fell  upon  the  Northern  kingdom,  since 
from  its  nearer  position  it  was  more  espociiilly 
interested  in  them  than  tlie  kingdom  of  Judali. 
In  one  of  these  wars  Ahab,  king  of  Israel,  was 
kille.l,  1  K  2-2>*-",  and  at  a  later  time  his  son 
Jeliorani(Joram)  was  wounded,  and  was  carried  to 


Jezreel,  2  K  S=*-  ^,  in  the  neighbourhood  of  which 
he  was  shortly  afterwards  murdered  by  Jehu,  who, 
by  the  directions  of  Elisha,  had  been  anointed 
king  of  Israel. 

In  Hos  G'  *  there  is  mentioned  a  city  named 
Gilead,  about  whose  identity  there  has  been  ditli- 
culty  ;  but  tlie  probability  is  that  Rainoth-gilead  + 
is  meant,  tlie  lirst  word  having  l)een  dropped,  a  thing 
well  known  in  the  history  of  OT  double  names. 

The  Babylonian  Talmud  [Maklcoth.  96)  places 
the  Cities  of  Kefuge  in  pairs,  so  that  those  on  the 
east  of  the  Jordan  are  ojmosite  those  on  the  west 
of  that  river.  Shechem,  bein"  the  middle  one  of 
tlie  three  west  of  the  Jordan,  should  have  Ramoth- 
gilead  nearly  opposite  it  on  the  east  of  the  Jordan, 
and  this  would  place  its  site  at  Gerasa,  the  modern 
Gerash.  There  is  no  reason  for  supposing  tli.at 
the  Talmud  in  this  case  went  out  of  its  way  to 
state  something  that  was  contrary  to  fact,  especi- 
ally at  a  time  when  the  misstatement  could  so 
readily  have  been  pointed  out. 

The  main  route  from  Shechem  to  the  country 
east  of  the  Jordan  and  on  to  Damascus  is  by  the 
Damieh  ford  and  Wady  Ajlun.  A  carriage  road 
with  a  very  easy  grade  could  be  made  along  this 
valley,  and  this  was  the  route  by  which  the  Icings 
of  I.srael  went  back  and  forth  with  their  charioU 
to  tiglit  the  Syrians. 

The  attempt  of  Ewald  and  Conder  to  locate 
Ramoth-gilead  at  licimun  in  the  Gilead  hills  has 
little  in  its  favour.  This  place  has  neither 
water  nor  ancient  ruins,  it  is  not  a  point  where 
a  pioiuinent  city  would  be  built,  it  is  not  on  or 
near  the  road  from  Shechem  to  the  east,  and  the 
mUitary  operations  carried  on  at  I'tamoth-gilead 
could  never  have  taken  place  here.  Nearly  the 
same  can  be  said  of  eij-Srilt,  another  rival  for  the 
site  of  Ramoth-gilead.  It  has  no  ruins,  and  only 
a  spring  for  water-supply,  while  Gerash  has  a 
large  living  stream  runniiit;  directly  through  the 
town.  It  ought  to  be  stated  that  both  these  places 
were  suggested  for  the  site  in  question  before  the 
east  Jordan  country  had  been  thoroughly  e.'ii)lored. 
It  seems  now,  however,  that  the  results  of  modem 
research  should  have  weight  above  the  casual 
observations  of  a  former  period. 

The  testimony  of  Eusebius  and  Jerome,  which 
frequently  is  of  great  service  in  determining  topo- 
graphical questions,  is  in  this  case  conllicting,  for 
one  places  Ramoth-gilead  15  miles  west,  and  the 
other  the  same  distance  east  of  Philadelphia. 
(1)  Ramoth-f'ilead,  if  placed  at  Gerash,  where  the 
writer  is  fully  convinced  it  should  be  placed, 
would  be  suitable  for  a  City  of  Refuge,  because 
it  would  be  on  the  main  road  of  that  part  of  the 
country.  (2)  For  the  same  reason,  and,  more- 
over, because  it  was  a  central  and  wealthy  city, 
it  woiild  be  a  suitable  station  for  a  commissariat 
ollicer.  (3)  Here  chariots  could  be  used  freely, 
which  is  not  true  of  es-Salt.  (4)  This  identilica- 
tion  confirms  Jewish  testimony  that  Kamoth-gilead 
was  opposite  Shechem.  (5)  It  would  confirm  Jewish 
tr.adition  that  Gerash  was  identical  with  Kamoth- 
gilead.  See  a  full  discussion  of  this  question  in  the 
writer's  East  of  tlie  Jordan,  pp.  2S4-290. 

LiTKiiATURH.  —  I)illm»nn,  GenetU,  ii.  209;  Buhl,  GAP  262 
(hnth  locate  Rainuth-jjilead  in  the  ruins  of  el-Ja^tid,  some  6 
niite.s  N.  of  es-Salt) ;  Neubaucr,  iji*tifj.  du  Tatm.  66,  260  (inclines 
to  iilonlify  with  cs-Salt) ;  Baedeker.  Pat.  287  ;  Q.  A.  Smith, 
IIGUL  686  (T.  (would  locate  near  tlto  Yarniuk,  farther  north 
than  the  usual  sites) ;  Merrill,  Ea«t  of  the  Jordan.  284  ff. ; 
Tristram,  Laiui  of  Israel.  477,  652  ;  Oliphant,  Land  of  Gilead, 
212  ;  Conder,  llelh  and  Moab3,  17011.,  llihh  Placet,  cd.  1807, 
304  f. ;  O.  A.  Cooke,  ap.  Driver,  Deul.  '  Addenda,'  p.  \x. 

Sei.ah  Merrill. 
RANGE. — To  'range'  is  to  'set  in  ranks'  (the 
words  are  cognate  :  Fr.  ranr/,  Old  Fr.  reng,  a  row, 

•  Possibly  also  in  J(f  ID^T. 

t  Some  .Stss  of  Luo.  recension  have  TiXy^iXm  (Oilg&lX  Set 
Nowack,  ad  loc 


JOO 


RANSOM 


RANSOM 


of  Oemiaii  orijrin),  and  a  'ranjie'  is  a  'rank'  or 
'row.'  Wlieii  ranges  or  ranks  of  men  scoured  a 
country  tliey  were  said  to  'ranj;e'  the  country. 
That  i.s  the  only  use  of  the  verb  in  AV,  viz.  in 
I'r  28"  'As  a  roaring  lion  and  a  ranging  bear.' 
Cf.  Barnes,  Sonnets,  li. — 

'  Who,  like  a  ran^-in^  lyon.  with  hia  pawes 
Thy  little  flocke  with  daily  dread  adawes' ; 

Gohling,  Calvin's  Jub,  p.  579,  '  It  is  a  pity  to  see 
what  man  is ;  for  he  is  so  frauglit  \\-ith  evill,  that 
assoone  as  he  hath  a  litle  lihertie  given  him,  by 
and  by  he  raungeth  out  on  the  one  side  or  on  the 
other,  and  will  not  hold  the  right  way,  but  gaddeth 
astray,  ye  even  or  ever  he  tliinke  it.' 

The  subst.  signifies:  (1)  files  or  rows  of  soldiers, 
2K  11«-",  2Ch  23'*  ('Have  her  forth  of  the 
ranges,'  Heb.  nn-iif) ;  (2)  the  extent  of  one's  rang- 
in>;  or  roaming,  Job  39*  '  The  range  of  the  moun- 
tains is  his  pasture  '  (nsn;) ;  and  (3)  a  grate  or  stove 
with  rows  of  openings  on  the  top  for  carrying  on 
several  processes  at  once,  Lv  11"'  ranges  for  pots ' 
(::•"!■;,  R V  '  range,'  RVm  '  stewpan ').  Cf.  Spenser, 
FQ.  II.  ix.  29— 

'  It  was  a  vaut  ybuilt  for  great  dispence. 
With  raany  raunges  reard  along  the  wall, 
And  one  great  chimney,  whose  long  tonnell  tkeoce 
The  smoke  (orth  threw.' 

J.  Hastings. 
RANSOM  is  the  tr.   in  OT  of  the   Heb.  words 

iri,  from  ir?  '  to  cover,'  hence  '  to  propitiate,'  '  to 
appease '  (so  AV  and  RV  in  Ex  30'-',  Job  33-"  36'», 
Ps  49',  Pr  &<■  13»  21",  Is  43^ ;  and  RV  alone  in  Ex 
21»",  Nu  35"- '-,  1  S  12^  where  AV  renders  respect- 
ively 'sum  of  money,'  'satisfaction,'  and  'bribe') ; 
and  i'i5,  from  nis  '  to  redeem '  (so  AV  in  Ex  21™, 
RV  '  redemption  ').*  The  verbal  form  .ti3  is  also 
occasionally  rendered  by  '  ransom '  instead  of  by 
the  more  usual  '  redeem '  (so  AV  and  RV  in  Is 
35'",  Hos  13'S  and  RV  in  Ps  69'^  Is  51",  Jer  31"), 
and  the  same  is  true  in  two  cases  (AV  in  Is  51'", 
Jer  31")  of  the  parallel  term  hni. 

In  NT  the  word  occurs  only  in  Mt  20^  =  Mk  I0« 
(where  it  renders  the  Gr.  Xirrpoi'),  and  1  Ti  2"  (where 
it  takes  the  place  of  the  rare  word  avTiKurpov).  In 
both  cases  it  is  used  of  Christ's  gift  of  Himself  for 
the  redemption  of  men.  '  The  Son  of  Man  came 
not  to  be  ministered  unto,  but  to  minister,  and  to 
give  his  life  a  ransom  for  many.'  '  There  is  .  .  . 
one  Mediator  between  God  and  men,  himself  man, 
Christ  Jesus,  who  gave  himself  a  ransom  for  all.' 

For  the  understanding  of  these  NT  passages  the 
OT  oilers  us  two  possible  conceptions,  correspond- 
ing in  general  to  tlie  difl'erent  Heb.  equivalents  of 
the  Gr.  \vTpoi>.\  On  the  one  hand,  if  regarded  as 
taking  the  place  of  some  word  from  the  stems  ms 
or  '?KJ,  it  may  refer  to  the  money  payments  re- 
quired under  the  law  to  secure  the  release  of 
persons  from  slavery  (e.g.  Ex  21",  Lv  25"""  ;  cf. 
1  P  1 '»•'»,  Gal  3'^  and  the  passages  cited  under 
Redemption).  On  the  other  hand,  if  taken  as 
the  equivalent  of  isa  (lit.  '  covering,'  hence  '  pro- 
pitiatory gift ' — restricted,  however,  by  usage  to  a 
gift  offered  as  a  satisfaction  for  a  life ;  see  art. 
Propitiation,  §  6),  it  may  denote  the  ransom 
paid  by  an  ott'ender  either  to  man  (Ex  21*",  Nu 
35S0.  32_  Pr  635)  or  to  God  ( Ex  30'-,  Ps  49')  in  order 
to  save  the  life  which  he  has  forfeited  by  his 
v/rongdoing.  J 

•  Elsewhere  only  Ps  498  (av  and  RV  '  the  redemption  of  their 
•oul  [life] ') ;  oL  D^'•;^  noj  Nu  S"-  »l  (Kethibh)  [all],  EV  •  redemp- 
tion-money.' 

t  This  word  stands  in  the  LXX  for  derivatives  of  ms  in  Ex 
Sisob,  i,v  1920,  Nu  8«-««  "  (cf.  V.12)  18i»;  of  ^Ki  in  Lv 
25M.  26.  M.  62  27»i ;  tor  153  in  Ex  21*'«  StP^,  Nu  8531.  m  p,  e" 
188 ;  and  for  Tn?  '  price '  in  Is  4518, 

1  The  distinction  between  the  Heb.  terms  is  not  alwayi  main- 
tained, (or  P;;  I'"15  is  virtually  =  1?S;  see  Ex  2130,  Ps  iV», 
tlM  Job  83»  if  (as  is  probable)  i.iynEl  is  an  error  for  ;ni^. 


Those  exegetes  who  regard  \vTpov  as  suggesting 
ma  or  '7XJ,  interpret  Mk  10""  after  the  analogy  ol 
1  P  !"•  '",  and  understand  Jesus  as  teaching  that 
His  life  is  the  ransom  [nice  by  which  He  redeems 
His  disciples  from  liondage  (so  Wendt  [Teaching 
of  Jesiis,  ii.  p.  226  ff.],  who  tliinks  of  deliverance 
from  suffering  and  death  ;  Beyschlag  [NT  Theol. 
i.  p.  153],  who  thinks  of  freedom  from  sin).  This 
view  is  possible  even  if  we  take  XiW-poK  as  the  tr.  of 
ir3  (so  Briggs  [Mess.  Gosp.  p.  Ill],  who  cites  Is 
43^  '  I  have  given  Egypt  as  thy  ransom,'  where 
tlie  context  makes  it  clear  that  the  thought  is  ol 
deliverance  from  captivity.  The  irj  paid  by  J* 
to  Cyrus  releases  Israel  ;  cf.  the  parallel  '  Seba 
instead  of  thee').  In  this  case  we  must  regard 
the  ransom  as  paid  to  the  one  who  holds  the 
prisoners  captive.  The  older  interpreters,  taking 
the  figure  literally,  taught  that  Christ's  death 
was  a  ransom  paid  to  Satan.  Modern  exegetes 
either  think  of  the  recipient  as  an  impersonal 
power,  such  as  death  (Wendt),  'sin  and  evil' 
(Briggs),  or  '  that  ultimate  necessity  which  has 
made  the  whole  course  of  things  what  it  has  been  ' 
(Sanday,  Romans,  p.  86),  or  else,  relying  on  the 
figurative  character  of  the  language,  refuse  to 
raise  the  question  at  all  (cf.  Westcott,  Hebrews, 
p.  296). 

The  other  interpretation,  starting  with  isb  as  a 
propitiatory  gift  otlered  in  satisfaction  for  a  life, 
makes  Go^  the  recipient  of  the  ransom.  Thus 
Ritschl,  following  Ps  49'  and  Mk  8",  thinks  of  the 
life  of  Jesus  as  a  precious  gift,  offered  to  God  in 
order  to  ransom  from  death  those  who  were  unable 
to  provide  a  sufficiently  valuable  1:3  for  themselves 
(so  Weiss,  Bihl.  Theol.  p.  101  ;  Runze,  ZWTh,  1889, 
p.  148  tt'.;  Crenier,  Bib.  ■  Theol.  Worterb.  p.  594). 
In  this  case  the  thought  is  clearly  of  deliverance 
from  penalty,  and  the  nearest  parallel  is  ;o  be 
found  in  Mt  26^,  where  Jesus  compares  His  death 
to  a  covenant  sacrifice,  offered  for  the  remission 
of  sins  upon  the  occasion  of  the  establishment  of 
the  new  covenant  between  God  and  the  disciples. 
(Cf.  Tit  2'^  He  9",  1  P  l'«- '»,  where  the  combina- 
tion  between  the  ransom  and  the  sacrificial  figures 
is  clearly  found).  The  exact  meaning  will  vary 
according  as  we  associate  dxrl  with  Xvrpov  alone 
(Cremer),  or  mth  the  whole  clause  (Ritschl,  Weiss). 
In  the  first  case  the  comparison  will  be  between  the 
life  of  Jesus  and  that  of  the  many  whose  place  it 
takes  ;  in  the  latter  it  will  merely  express  the  fact 
that,  in  laying  down  His  life,  Jesus  takes  the  place 
of  the  disciples  in  doing  that  which  they  ought  to 
do  for  themselves. 

Whichever  interpretation  we  take,  itis  important 
not  to  isolate  the  death  of  Jesus  from  the  life  which 
precedes  it.  It  is  not  the  death  as  such  which  is  a 
ransom,  but  the  death  considered  as  the  culmina- 
tion and  completion  of  a  previous  career  of  ministry. 
This  is  clearly  shown  by  the  preceding  context, 
'The  Son  of  Man  came  not  to  be  ministered  unto, 
but  to  minister,  and  to  give  his  life  a  ransom  for 
many.'  We  have  here  the  same  combination  of 
suffering  and  service  which  meets  us  in  the  OT  in 
the  SuHering  Servant  of  Is  53.  It  is  clear,  there- 
fore, that  the  ^ift  of  which  our  Lord  speaks  should 
not  be  confined  to  the  death  on  the  cross,  but  in- 
cludes also  His  'entire  Person  and  service  which 
He  gives  in  ministry'  (Briggs,  p.  Ill;  so  Weiss, 
Wendt). 

It  is  to  be  noted  that  while  Mk  10"  speaks  ol 
the  life  of  Christ  as  given  for  many,  1  Ti  2'  gives 
the  ransom  a  universal  significance:  'Christ  Jesu* 
.  .  .  who  gave  himself  a  ransom  for  all.' 

See,  further,  under  REDEMPTION,  Salva  noK. 

LiTERATURB. — RitschI,  Rtchtf.  und  Vert.  ii.  pp.  6S-S8;  Runze 
ZWTh,  1889,  p.  148ff. J  Weiss,  Bibl.  Theol.  p.  74  (Eng.  tr.  p.  101) , 
Be\-5chlag,  Neutett.  Theol.  1.  p.  149  lEng.  tr.  i.  p  152] ;  Wendt, 
Ldire  Jem,  ii.  p.  509  ff.  (Eng.  tr.  ii.  p.  2269.];  Creme.,  BM.- 


KAPE 


RAVEX 


201 


rtirnl.  WOritrb.  f.  ),;««. ;  Wcstcott.  llehrevii,  229  fT.;  Brigfs, 
M'-gK.  itfttrp.  p  lioff.  For  similar  ideas  among  the  later  Jews, 
It.  Weber,  Ju  lincht  Theutoyu,  p.  313  ff. 

W.  Adams  Brown. 
RAPE.— See  axt.  Cbimes  and  Punishments  in 
vol.  i.  p.  522". 

KAPHA,  RAPHAH.— 1.  In  RVm  these  names  are 
substimtcd  lor  'the  giant'  in  1  Cli  SCf*-"-"  (xr-in) 
and  in  '_' .S  21"'- '»■»>•-  (.ir-irr)  respectively.  It  is 
there  .said  that  certain  Philistine  cliampions,  slain 
l>y  David's  heroes,  were  born  to  tlie  raphdh  in 
(iath.  The  word  is  certainly  a  common  noun,  and 
not  a  jimper  name.  If  used  individually,  'the 
piant '  IS  probably  the  Goliath  whom  David  slew, 
liut  more  prol)al)ly  the  noun  is  a  collective,  and 
denote-s  the  stock  of  the  giants,  rather  than  any 
one  person.  The  plural  of  tliis  word,  or  at  least  a 
plural  of  this  stem,  is  Kepuaim  (which  see). 

2.  For  Raphah  (AV  Kapha),  a  descendant  of 
Saul,  1  Ch  S",  see  Kei'HAIAH,  No.  4. 

W.  J.  Beecher. 

RAPHAEL  (Sx;-! ;  LXX  "Po<^oi;X,  '  El  has  healed  ') 
Is  not  named  in  the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  and  in 
the  KXX  only  in  Tobit.  His  functions  may  best 
be  learned  from  his  own  words  in  To  12'^"",  where, 
combining  the  dillerent  versions,  we  read,  '  I  am 
Raphael,  one  of  the  seven  angels  who  stand  and 
serve  before  the  throne  of  God's  glory,  present- 
ing the  prayers  of  saints.  I  brought  the  memorial 
of  your  prayers  and  tears  before  the  Holy  One. 
When  thou  didst  bury  the  slain,  I  was  with  thee  ; 
and  now  God  hath  sent  me  to  heal  thee.'  On  this 
pa&sage  we  would  observe  :  (1)  The  'seven  angels,' 
of  whom  Kajihael  declares  himself  one,  were  i)rob- 
ably  Raphael,  Gabriel,  Uriel,  Michael,  Izidkiel, 
Hanael,  and  Kepharel.  We  read  in  Rev  8-  of 
'  the  seven  angels  who  stand  before  God '  ;  and 
in  I*  of  '  the  seven  spirits  who  are  before  the 
throne'  (but  this  passage  is  understood  by  most 
expositors  to  refer  to  the  Holy  Spirit,  cf.  5^)  ;  and 
'  which  are  sent  forth  into  all  the  earth,'  5". 
(2)  These  seven  are  the  archangels,  the  princes  of 
the  angelic  host.  They  stand  near  the  throne  of 
glory,  and  were  conceived  to  be  the  only  angels 
who  are  uermitted  to  enter  within  the  radiance. 
Gabriel  describes  him.self  (Lk  1'*)  as  one  that 
'stands  in  tlie  presence  of  God.'  (3)  The  doctrine 
of  Divine  aloofness,  which  was  pushed  to  extreme 
lengths  in  late  .(udaism,  has,  herein  Tobit,  reached 
thus  far,  that  God  does  not  Himself  hear  prayer. 
He  was  thought,  as  Kpicurus  also  taught,  to  be 
engaged  in  higher  pursuits.  Prayers  which  by 
their  importunity  or  worth  reach  heaven,  are  heard 
by  the  iiiigels  of  the  Presence,  and  are  carried  to 
the  throne  by  them,  and  then  they  are  conimis- 
sioned  to  execute  the  answer.  There  is  no  clear 
evidence  in  Tobit  that  prayer  was  presented  to  the 
angels;  though  Cod.  B  in  To  3"  almost  implies 
this,  where  we  read,  '  The  prayer  of  both  was  heard 
l)elore  the  glory  f;/"</ie(7rea<yia/)/i/(e;.'  All  the  other 
Versions  read  '  before  the  glory  o/  God.'  The  Book 
of  Tobit  docs  not  assign  to  Raphael  anj'  inter- 
cessory mediation.  He  is  simply  a  messenger, 
reporting  to  the  Inefl'able  man's  ])rayers  and  tears, 
cf.  Ac  1U<,  Rev.  8'.  (4)  Raphael  served  holy  men 
as  a  qwtrtlinn  angel.  When  Tobias  was  in  danger 
of  losing  his  life  for  burying  Jews  who  had  been 
massacred  in  Nineveh,  Raphael  '  was  with  him,' 
protectinj,'  him.  But  the  unique  feature  of  the 
Book  of  Tobit  is  that  Raphael  is  said  to  have 
a.s9Uiiied  a  human  form,  claiming  to  bo  a  kinsman 
of  Tobit,  and  travelling  as  guide  with  hiin  from 
Nineveh  to  Kcbatana.  While  the  wedding  festivities 
of  Tobit  and  Sarah  were  being  celebrated,  Raphael 
went  forward  to  Rages  in  Media,  for  the  money 
which  Tohia-s  liatl,  years  before,  di'posited  with  his 
friend  (iabael,  and  eventually  J'aphael  brought  the 


brid.il  pair  safe  home.  Before  taking  his  leave 
Raphael  assures  Tobias  that  when  he  seemed  to 
them  to  eat  and  drink,  they  were  under  an  illusion. 
To  12".  (5)  The  chief  characteristic  of  Raphael 
was  as  a  herder  oj  men's  mrdadies.  Tobias,  the 
father  of  Tobit,  was  atllicted  with  leucoma  in  the 
eyes ;  and  Sarah  was  jjossessed  by  the  demon 
Asmodseus,  who  h.ad,  on  the  lirst  night  of  marriage, 
slain  seven  husbands  who  had  been  married  to 
Sarah.  By  the  fumes  of  the  heart  and  liver  of  a 
fish  burnt  on  embers,  Raphael  instructed  Tobit 
how  to  expel  the  demon,  and  to  use  the  gall  of  the 
same  lish  to  cure  Toliias'  blimlness. 

In  Enoch  10  Raphael  and  Michael  both  receive  a 
commission  from  God  to  punish  the  fallen  angels, 
who  had  married  human  wives.  The  reason  why 
Raphael  was  bidden  to  cast  the  angels  into  cavities, 
aiul  cover  them  for  ever  with  rugged  stones,  was, 
that  he  might  heal  the  earth,  which  had  been 
deliled  bj'  the  enormities  of  the  '  watchers.'  Jewish 
tradition  names  Raphael  as  the  third  of  the  .angels 
who  appeared  to  Abraham  in  Gn  IS,  his  duty  being 
to  im|iart  to  Sarah  'strength  to  conceive  seed,'  cf. 
He  11",  Ro  4'».  The  Midrash  speaks  of  a  Book  of 
Noah  (see  vol.  iii.  p.  557"),  which  was  one  of  the 
earliest  treatises  on  medicine.  The  origin  of  this 
book  is  said  to  have  been  that  after  the  Flood  men 
were  atllicted  with  various  diseases,  and  (jlod  sent 
the  angel  liaphael  to  disclose  to  Noah  the  use 
of  curative  plants  and  roots  (Ronsch,  Buck  der 
Juhilcien,  3S5  f . ).  Thus  was  Raphael  true  to  his 
name,  'El  has  healed.'  J.  T.  Marshall. 

RAPHAIM  (A  'Paipah,  K  'Paipadf,  B  om.).— An 
ancestor  of  Juditn,  Jth  8'. 

RAPHON  ('Pa0(iv).— A  city  in  R.ashan,  '  bevond 
the  wjidy '  {ir^pav  tov  x^'M^ippoi'),  near  which  1  imo- 
theus  sustained  a  defeat  at  the  hands  of  Judas 
Maccabaius  ( 1  Mac  5^).  It  is  no  doubt  the  Itnphana 
of  Pliny  (HN  v.  16),  but  the  site  has  not  yet  been 
identified.  C.  R.  CoNDER. 

RAPHU  (msT  '  healed  '  ;  "Pa^oi'/).— The  father  of 
Palti,  the  spy  selected  from  the  tribe  of  Benjamin, 
Nu  13". 

RASSES  (BA  'Pofforis,  N  'Pao<r(rf(?,  Lat.  Cod.  corb. 
and  Vulg.  Thnrsis  [  =  "Tarsus],  OM  Lat.  Tyrru  et 
2in.n.i,  Syr.  Thirds  (Gn  10'-)  and  Jinimifes  (Ex  1")). 
— Among  the  peo])le3  which  Holofcrnes  subdued 
are  mentioned  'the  children  of  Rasses'  (Jtli  2-^). 
Some  think  the  Vulg.  Tarsus  is  original,  the 
Greek  a  corruption,  the  Old  Lat.  and  Syr.  a  union 
of  the  two.  Fritzsche  suggested  Uhosos,  a  moun- 
tain chain  and  city  south  of  Amanos,  on  the  Gulf 
of  Issus.  Ball  adds  the  possibility  of  Rosh  (Ezk 
38'^-'  39').  Eastern  Asia  Minor  seems  to  be  the 
general  region  which  the  connexion  suggests. 

P.  C.  Porter. 

RATHUMUS  CPdeiz/ios),  'the  story- writer'  or 
'recorder,'  1  l';8  o'"- "■  ^- *•,  is  the  same  as  '  Rehum 
the  chancellor '  of  Ezr  48-  »•  "•  ^.  The  LXX  of  Ezra 
has  merely  transliterated  the  Aramaic  title  j  1  Es 
has  either  taken  it  as  a  proper  name  (itoi 
\',ei\Teeij.o-i,  "),  or  tr''  it  as  a  title  (4  [7(>d<^u>']  rA 
7r/)o(r7rl7rTo^Ta  "),  or  combined  both  these  render- 
ings (*>).    See  Beeltetumus,  Chancellor. 

RAVEN  (■^-ly'orebh,  /c6pa{,  corvus,  Arab,  ghur&h). 
— Both  the  Ileb.  and  Arab,  roots  mean  'to  be 
black.'  The  Arab,  root  also  contains  the  idea 
of  leaving  home.  From  these  two  meanings  the 
raven  has  come  to  bo  a  bird  of  specially  evil  omen 
to  the  Arabs,  who  attribute  to  his  presence  the 
worst  of  presages  of  death  and  disaster.  They 
are  esiiecially  superstitious  about  the  ijhttrdb  el- 
bi'.n,  wliich  they  say  is  marked  with  white  on  hit 


202 


EAVEN,  RAVIN 


EEBEKAH 


black  coat,  or  has  a  red  beak  and  legs.  What 
bird  is  meant  by  these  descriptions  is  not  quite 
dear.     It  is  probably  fabulous. 

The  raven  is  the  first  bird  mentioned  by  name 
in  the  Bible  (Gn  8').  The  lleli.  inijilies  tliat  the 
raven  went  out  and  stayed,  probably  feeding  on 
carca.sses.  The  LXX  ami  V  ulg.  ^eeiu  to  imply  that 
it  went  out  and  stayed  until  the  waters  were 
dried  up,  and  then  returned.  But  there  would 
have  been  no  reason  for  its  returning  then.  The 
raven  was  unclean  (Lv  11",  Dt  14''').  It  is  in  part 
a  carrion  bird,  and  therefore  uneatable.  Kavens 
were  commanded  to  feed  Elijah,  and  did  so  (I  K 
17^").  See  article  Elijah  in  vol.  i.  p.  6SS\ 
tiod  is  twice  said  to  provide  for  young  ravens 
(Job  3S-",  Ps  147^).  There  is  nothin"  especially 
significant  in  this.  It  is  implied  in  tlie  previous 
and  succeeding  verses  that  God  provides  for  other 
wild  animals.  The  stories  that  ravens  neglect 
their  young  are  fabulous.  The  allusion  to  the 
eanion-eating  propensities  of  ravens  (Pr  30")  is 
true  to  nature.  Ihey  are  always  found  among 
the  birds  and  animals  which  assemble  around  a 
carcass  in  Palestine.  They,  however,  capture  and 
eat  lizards,  bares,  mice,  etc.  Their  black  colour 
is  compared  with  that  of  the  hair  of  the  Shulam- 
mite's  lover  (Ca  5")-  They  are  among  the  ill- 
omened  creatures  which  symbolize  the  desolation 
of  Edom  (Is  34").  Ravens  are  not  wholly  flesh- 
eaters.  On  the  contrary,  they  are  very  fond  of 
chick  peas  and  other  grains,  by  devouring  which 
tliey  do  vast  damage  to  the  farmers. 

The  term  'orebh,  as  well  as  Kipaf,  is  not  confined 
to  the  raven.  It  doubtless  includes  all  birds  after 
its  kind  (Lv  11").  Of  these,  besides  C'orvtcs  corax, 
L.,  the  raven,  there  are  in  Palestine  C.  affinis, 
Riipp.,  the  Fantail  Raven  ;  C.  comix,  L.,  the 
Hooded  Crow  (Arab,  zdgh) ;  C.  agricola,  Trist., 
the  Syrian  Rook;  C.  vionedula,  L.,  the  Jackdaw 
(Arab.  l;dk) ;  Garrulus  atricapillus,  St.  H.,  the 
Syrian  Jay  or  Garrulous  Roller  (Arab.  'alcQk)  •  and 
Pi/rrliocorax  alpinus,  Koch,  the  Alpine  Chough, 
ftlost  of  these  eat  vegetable  food  as  well  as  animal, 
including  grubs,  worms,  etc.  To  all  would  apjdy 
the  words  of  Ciirist  (Lk  12-'')  in  regard  to  God's 
provision  for  them,  although  they  neither  sow  nor 
gather  into  storehouses.  G.  £.  POST. 

RAYEN,  RAYIN.— To  'raven'  is  to  seize  with 
violence,  to  prey  u])on  with  greed  or  rapacity,  and 
.so  'raven'  or  'ravin'  is  plunder  or  prey.  The 
word  comes  from  Lat.  ranina  plunder,  through  Old 
Fr.  ravine,  whence  also  Eng.  'ravine'  a  mountain 
gorge,  and  '  rapine '  plunder.  There  is  no  con- 
nexion with  the  bird,  the  raven,  whose  name  is  of 
native  origin,  Anglo-Sax.  hrefn. 

The  verb  occurs  in  AV  in  Gn  49"  ('  ravin,' 
intrans.),  Ezk  22^-  "  ('  ravening,'  trans.),  the  Heb. 
being  i",ia  to  tear  as  proif.  As  a  snbst.  'ravin'  is 
found  in  Nah  2'-  '  The  lion  .  .  .  filled  his  holes 
with  prey,  and  his  dens  with  ravin'  (njnp) ;  and 
'  ravening'  in  Lk  11™  'Your  inward  part  is  full  of 
ravening  and  wickedness'  (dpiray^,  RV  'extortion'). 
The  adj.  is  either  'ravening'  (Ps  22",  Mt  7")  or 
'  ravenous'  (Is  35"  46",  Ezk  39'). 

An  example  of  '  ravin  '  in  the  sense  of  '  plunder- 
ing' is  Udall,  lirasmus'  Paraph,  i.  17 — '  Mekencsse 
obteyneth  more  of  them  that  gcve  wyllyngly  and 
of  theyr  owne  accorde,  then  violence  and  ravine 
can  purchase  or  obta3no  by  hooke  and  croke'; 
and  in  the  sense  of  '  plunder,'  '  booty,'  Spenser, 
FQ  I.  xi.  12- 

'  His  deepe  devouring  Jawes 
Wide  paped,  like  the  (jriesly  mouth  of  hell, 
Througti  which  into  his  darke  abysse  all  ravin  fell.' 

J.  Hastings. 
RAZIZ   {'Panels). — The  hero  of  a  narrative  in 
2  Mac    14"''-.       I^'icanor,   having    been    informed 


against  Razis  (who  is  described  as  'an  elder  of 
Jerusalem,  a  lover  of  his  countrymen,  and  a  man 
of  very  good  report,  and  one  called  "  father  of  tha 
Jews  "for  his  goodwill  towards  them'),  sent  a  band 
of  soldiers  to  apprehend  him.  He  escaped  arrest 
by  committing  suicide,  the  circumstances  of  which 
are  described  in  revolting  detail  in  2  Mac.  His 
conduct  is  criticised  adversely  by  Augustine  (Ep. 
civ.  (3)  in  opposition  to  the  Donatists,  w  ho  admired 
it,  as  the  author  of  2  Mac.  evidently  did. 

RAZOR  (ifn  'knife,'  Nu  6"  8',  Ps  52',  Is  1'^, 
Ezk  51 ;  n-iiD  '  razor,'  Jg  13^  16",  1  S  1").— It  is  not 
likely  that  originally  there  was  any  distinction 
between  razors  and  knives,  the  same  word  ii'ij 
being  used  in  many  passages  for  both,  but  a  special 
word  for  razor  (m,io,  Arab,  mi'is)  is  used  in  the 
stories  of  Samson  and  Samuel.  In  the  above 
passages  the  LXX  uiiiforndv  tr.  tyo  by  ^vpdv,  and 
n-iio  by  ffioijpos  except  in  .)g  16"  where  B  has 
(TibTipos  but  A  (vpif.  In  early  times  razors  were 
piobably  made  of  bronze,  as  other  cutting  instru- 
ments were.  In  Wilkinson's  Anc.  Efjtjpt.  1878, 
vol.  ii.  I).  333  note,  it  is  said  of  the  barber,  '  his 
instruments  and  razors  varied  at  diflerent  times, 
being  sometimes  in  shape  of  a  small  short  hatchet 
with  recurved  handle ;  other  instruments  knife- 
shaped  were  also  employed.'  Forty  years  ago  a 
peculiarly  shaped  razor,  with  a  straight  tixed 
handle,  was  in  use  in  Syria ;  now  European  razors 
are  universally  used.  W.  Carslaw. 

REAIAH  (n;x-!  '  Jah  hath  seen'). — 1.  The  eponym 
of  a  Calebite  family,  1  Ch  4-  (B  'PaSd,  A  'Pad), 
probably  to  be  preferred  (so  Bertheau  and  Kittel  ; 
Gray  [UPN  236]  is  more  doubtful)  to  Haroeh, 
1  Ch  2=2  (nsiirr  '  the  seer,'  B  AW,  A  'Apad).  2.  The 
eponym  of  a  Benjamite  family,  1  Ch  5'  (A V  Reaia  ; 
BA  Prixd,  Luc.  'Paid).  3.  A  Nethinim  family 
name,  Ezr  2"  (B  ^P€^'|\,  A  •Paid)  =  Neh  I""  (B  'Potd, 
A  'Paaid)  =  1  Es  5^'  JaIKUS. 

REAPING.— See  Agriculture. 

REBA  (yji). — One  of  the  five  kinglets  of  Midian 
who  were  slain  by  the  Israelites,  under  Moses,  Nu 
31"  i'PilioK),  Jos  13'-'  (B  'P(5/3e,  A  'P^^jk).  Like  his 
companions,  he  is  called  in  Numbers  a  Tii>5  ('  king '), 
but  in  Joshua  a  k'v)  ('  prince,'  '  chieftain  '). 

REBECCA.— The  NT  and  modern  spelling  (from 
the  Gr.  'Peli^KKa)  of  the  name  which  is  spelt  in  OT 
Rebkkah.  The  only  occurrence  of  '  Rebecca '  is  in 
Ro  9i»  (both  AV  and  RV). 

REBEKAH,  in  Ro  9'"  Rebecca  (nijn^,  i.e. 
niblikdh ;  in  Arab,  a  card  with  luops  for  tyinn 
lamlis  or  kids,  from  rahaka,  to  tie  or  bind  fust  ; 
LXX  and  NT  'Pe/Senrra,  Vulg.  .RcAc^ca).— Daughter 
of  Bethuel,  the  son  of  Nahor  and  Milcah,  and  conse- 
quently great-niece  of  Abraham  (Gn  22-"- ■''');  sister 
of  Laban,  and  subsequently  wife  of  Liaac.  The 
idyllic  story  of  the  circumstances  through  which 
Rebekah  became  Isaac's  wife  is  told  by  J,  in  his 
usual  picturesque  style,  and  at  the  same  time  with 
stress  on  the  providence  which  overruled  them 
(vv.""- "  [lit.  'cause  it  to  meet — i.e.  ha]i])en  success- 
fully—before me,'  so  27'-"]  '•'•  '"■  ^-  "■  "• "''%  in  Gn  24. 
In  accordance  with  Eastern  custom  (Mariuaoe, 
vol.  iii.  p.  270),  the  betrothal  is  arranged  with- 
out Isaac's  own  personal  intervention :  Abraham 
sends  his  principal  and  confidential  servant  (v.*) 
— called  in  E  (15-'-)  Eliezer — to  find  a  wife  for 
his  son,  not  from  among  the  Canaanites  around 
him,  but  from  his  own  relations  in  'the  land  of 
his  nativity':  the  servant  proceeds  accordingly 
to  Aramnaharaim,  to  the  'city  of  Nahor'  (i  e. 
Haran :   cf.  Laban,  vol.  iii.  p.  13'') ;  as  he  reachef 


RECAH 


RECHAB,  RECIIABITES 


203 


the  well  outside  the  city  (v."),  he  prays  for  a  sign 
by  which  he  may  know  Isaac's  destined  bride ;  and 
the  damsel  wno  fullils  it  proves  to  be  Rebekah. 
Lalian  and  Bethuel,  satisfied  bj'  the  evidence  of 
their  uncle's  prosperity  (vv.'-^-^-";  cf.  v.'"  [RVj, 
V.''),  and  of  Isaacs  prospective  wealtli  (v.*^''),  and 
reco^^nizing  in  what  had  happened  the  hand  of 
Providence  (vv.*'- "  ""',  —  'spoken,'  viz.  by  tlie 
facts),  agree  to  the  servant's  proposal ;  Rebekah 
herself  consents  to  return  willi  liim  (v."'-),  and  so 
she  becomes  Isaac's  wife,  consoling  him  after  his 
mother's  death  (v.^).* 

Like  Sarah,  Rachel,  and  Hannah,  Rebekah  was  at 
first  barren  ;  and  her  barrenness  ceased  only  after 
Isaac's  entreaty  ('2o-'), — according  to  the  chronology 
of  P  (25*'-  -"■), — "20  years  after  her  marriage.  On  the 
oracle,  received  by  her  (2o^),  shortly  before  the 
birth  of  her  twin  sons,  see  JACOB,  vol.  ii.  p.  526. 
The  ne.\t  incident  in  Rebekah's  life  that  we  read 
of  is  on  the  occasion  of  Isaac's  visit  to  Gerar 
(26»-"),  when,  fearing  lest  her  beauty  (cf.  24'«) 
might  attract  admirers,  and  his  own  life  be  en- 
dangered in  consequence,  he  passed  her  off  as  his 
sister  (cf.  tin  20;  and  ISAAC,  vol.  ii.  p.  484''). 
•lacob  was  Rebekah's  favourite  son  (25^) ;  and 
Gn  27  (JE)  tells  of  the  deed  of  treachery  by  which 
the  ambitious  and  designing  mother,  'sacrificing 
husband,  elder  son,  principle,  her  own  soul,  for 
an  idolized  person,'  secured  for  him  his  father's 
blessing  (see  more  fully,  on  tliis  narrative,  Jacob, 
vol.  ii.  p.  527).  After  this,  she  prompted  Jacob 
to  flee  to  his  uncle  Laban,  in  order  to  escape 
Esau's  vengeance,  w."-" :  in  the  paragraph  from 
P  which  follows  (27'"^-2S''),  however,  the  motive 
upon  wliich  she  urges  his  visit  to  ^aran,  is  that 
he  may  obtain  a  wile,  not,  like  Esau  (cf.  20^- *• 
P),  from  among  the  natives  of  Canaan,  but  from 
among  Laban's  daughters  (see,  furtlier,  ibid.).  An 
isolated,  and  very  possibly  misplaced,  notice  (35") 
states  that  Deborah,  Rebekah  s  nurse,  who  had 
accompanied  her  long  before  from  ^aran  (24'-'),  died 
alter  Jacob's  return  to  Canaan,  and  was  buried 
below  Retliel.  The  death  of  Rebekah  herself  is 
not  specially  mentioned  ;  but  in  49^'  (I')  she  is  said 
to  have  been  buried  in  the  cave  of  Maclijielah. 

S.  R.  Driver. 

RECAH. — In  a  genealogy  contained  in  1  Ch  4, 
the  sc>r»  of  Eshton  (v.'-)  are  described  as  'the 
men  of  Recall'  (nj"!  •?'{>!),  a  place  wliich  is  not 
mentioned  elsewhere  in  the  OT,  and  is  quite  un- 
known.    The  h\X  has  H'V-qxi^,  A  'Vri<pi. 

RECEIPT  OF  CUSTOM  (rtXcii-io^  RV  'place  of 
toll'),  Mt  9»,  Alk  2'\  Lk  5".  See  PUBMCAN, 
Taxes,  Toll.  For  '  receipt '  in  the  sense  of  '  place 
for  receiving,'  see  Mandeville,  Travels,  1 12,  '  Men 
have  made  a  litj'lle  Resceyt,  besj'de  a  Pylere  of 
that  Chirche,  for  to  resceyve  the  OU'rynges  of  Pil- 
grymes'  j  and  Sliaks.  Macbeth,  I.  vii.  (J6— 

'  -Memory,  the  warder  of  the  brain. 
Shall  be  a  fume,  aud  the  receipt  of  tta&QU 
A  limbeck  only.' 

RECHAB,  RECHABITE8  (=pn,  't  [a,  D';;-in  n'3  ("J?), 
2r  v;k:  1,.\X  'P,xd;3  [B  in  2S  4»-«-»  T^xd, 
in  1  Ch  2»  'Pifxd] ;  and  'Apxafiei"  in  B,  'AXxa^eii'  or 
Xapa^ely  in  A,  'Paxa^dy  in  Q ;  ^'ulg.  Itciluib, 
Rcchabitte). — Rikhiibh  is  often  explained  as  mean- 
ing 'a  rider,'  on  camels,  i.e.  a  name  for  a  nomadic 
tril>e.  Tlie  names  :3n3  (of  a  man),  Vkist  (of  a 
god),  are  found  in  Aramaic  inscriptions  (Lidzbarski, 
Nordsem.  J-:/nr/raph.  pp.  246,  309).  The  biblical 
Rtknnbh  may  be  a  contraction  for  Sxaai. 

1.  Rechab  (in  Jos.  Ant.  vn.  ii.  1,  Qdwos)  ben- 
Rimnion  the  Beerothite,  a  captain  of  one  of  the 
'  bands '  following  Inhbosheth.      He  and   Baanah 

•  Wliich,  however,  thou^ch  only  according  to  P,  had  taken 
place  three  to  four  yearn  pruvioujily  (17i<'  2^  'ii}^). 


murdered  Ishbosheth,  carried  the  news  to  David, 
and  were  jmt  to  death  by  his  orders;  2S  4'*-  J- 
(Budde).    Cf.  Baanah,  Ishbosheth. 

2.  3.  Rechab  in  1  Ch  2"  '  Ilammath,  the  father 
of  the  house  of  Rechab,'  and  Recliab  in  Neh  3'*, 
'  Malchijah  ben-Rechab,'  sometimes  reckoned  as 
separate  individuals,  are  to  be  identified  with  the 
following — 

4.  Recliab,  Rechabites. — A  clan  of  the  Kenites, 
in  later  times,  probably  after  the  Return  from  the 
Captivitj',  incorporated  in  the  tribe  of  Judah,  i.e. 
in  the  restored  Jewish  community  in  Palestine, 
1  Ch2»-». 

The  \iew  that  the  Rechabites  were  a  relifdous  sect,  founded 
by  Jehonadab  (2  K  lo'."'-*,  Jer  35),  is  improbable ;  althoufjh 
DiUraann,  Oehler,  Scbultz,  etc.,  speak  of  him  aa  '  the  founder  of 
the  Rechabites.'  It  is  not  likely  that  the  founder  of  the 
Rechabites  would  himself  be  described  aa  *  btn-lUx/tab'  \  more- 
over, I  Ch  '.i^  speaks  of  liammath  (AV  Hemath)  aa  the  '  father 
of  the  house  of  Rechab.* 

This  clan  is  traced  back  (1  Ch  2")  to  Hammath 
(n';^='hot  spring,'  LXX  B  Mc(7i;A«i,  A  Al/idO),  a 
descendant  of  Hur,  the  son  of  Caleb,  i.e.  a  clan  of 
the  Calebite  branch  of  the  Kenites.  The  view  of 
Bertheau  (m  loco),  that  Rechab  was  the  actual 
father  and  Hammath  the  grandfather  of  the 
Jehonadab  of  2  K  10,  etc.,  is  contrary  to  all 
analogy.  Jos  19"  (P)  mentions  a  town  llammalh 
ill  Naphtali.  As  a  settlement  of  Kenites  under 
Hcber  and  Jael  existed  somewhere  in  that  district 
in  the  time  of  Deborah  (Jg  4"  5-'^),  and  the  Rechab- 
ites belonged  to  the  Northern  Kingdom  in  tlie  time 
of  Jehu,  it  is  possible  that  the  Rechabites  had  some 
connexion  with  this  town  before  they  migrated  to 
Judah.  It  is  clear,  however,  from  Jer  35  that  they 
were  a  nomad  tribe  up  to  the  fall  of  the  Southern 
Kingdom.  Moreover,  according  to  Kittel  (SBOT), 
1  CU  2"  is  part  of  a  late  addition  to  Clironicles. 

The  Recli.ibites  appear  in  the  UT  on  three 
occasions.  Pirst,  in  the  person  of  Jehonadab 
ben-Rechab  (i.e.  'the  Rechabite'),  in  2K  10""-. 
Jehonadab  showed  his  zeal  for  the  exclusive  wor- 
ship of  Jehovah  by  associating  himself  with  Jehu 
in  liis  fierce  persecution  of  the  devotees  of  Baal. 
Josephus  reproduces  the  biblical  narrative  in  Ant, 
IX.  vi.  6,  and  mentions  Jehonadab,  but  does  not 
sa3'  that  he  was  a  Rechabite.  The  second  incident 
is  narrated  in  Jer  35.  Some  time  after  the  reign 
of  Jehu,  probably  about  the  period  of  the  Fall  of 
Samaria,  the  Rechabites  had  migr.-itcd  to  Judah. 
NVhen  Nebuchadrezz.ar  invaded  Judali  in  the  reign 
of  Jehoiakim,  the  Rechabites  took  refuge  in  Jeru- 
salem, probably  encainjjing  in  some  open  space 
within  the  walls.  Jeremiah  utilized  their  presence 
to  provide  an  object-lesson  for  his  fellow-country- 
men. Amongst  other  prohibitions,  their  clan-laws 
forbade  them  to  drink  wine.  The  prophet  invited 
the  clan  under  their  chief,  Jaazaniah  ben-Jeremiah 
ben-Habazziniah,toMieelhim  in  a  chamber  attached 
to  the  temple,  and  ollcred  them  wine.  They  refused 
on  the  ground  that  their  'fatlier'  Jonadab  ben- 
Rechab  had  forbidden  them  to  drink  wine,  build 
houses,  sow  seed,  or  plant  vineyards,  and  had  com- 
manded them  to  live  in  tents.  They  stated  that 
they  had  always  obeyed  the.se  conimands,  and  had 
entered  Jerusalem  only  through  siieer  necessity. 
Josephus  does  not  reproduce  this  incident,  nor  does 
he  anj'where  mention  the  Rechabites. 

The  Rechabites  therefore  regarded  Jonadab 
much  as  the  Israelites  regarded  Mose.s.  They 
traced  to  him  their  clan-law.  It  is  not  likely, 
however,  that  ho  originated  the  customs  which  he 
made  permanently  binding.  In  his  time  the 
Rechabites,  of  whom  he  w;ib  doubtless  chief,  were 
a  nomad  clan  pasturing  their  Hocks  in  the  less 
occupied  districts  of  the  Northern  Kingdom  ;  they 
anil  their  chief  werezealous  worshippers  of  Jehovah. 
In  the  natural  course  of  events  iluy  would  have 
followed  the  example  of  the  Israelites,  once  theil 


204 


RECFIAB,  RECHABITES 


RKCOXCILIATIOX 


fellow-nomads,  and  settled  down  as  farmers  and 
townsmen.  I'rohably  the  process  was  beginning 
in  tlie  time  of  Jonadab;  but  that  chief  nipped  it 
in  the  bud,  and  induced  his  followers  to  make  their 
ancient  nomadic  habits  matters  of  religious  obli- 
gation. He  had  no  leanings  to  asceticism,  and  his 
ordinances  were  not  intended  to  make  his  followers 
ascetics.  He  forbade  wine,  but  the  term  '  wine '  is 
to  be  understood  strictly  ;  there  is  no  prohibition  of 
any  other  intoxicant.  His  motives  would  be  two- 
fold. First,  the  nomad  regards  agriculture  and 
city  life  as  meaner,  less  manly,  less  spiritual  than 
his  own.  Jonadab  wished  to  keep  his  clan  to  the 
higher  life.  Moreover,  when  the  Israelites  surren- 
dered nomad  life  to  settle  on  the  land  and  in  towns, 
they  corrupted  their  worship  of  Jehovah  by  com- 
bining it  with  the  superstitious  and  immoral  rites 
of  the  Canaanite  baals,  to  whom,  as  they  thought, 
they  owed  their  corn  and  wine  and  oil,  Hos  2". 
Recently,  nnder  Ahab  and  Jezebel,  the  worship  of 
Baal  had  greatly  developed.  The  cultivation  of 
corn  and  of  the  \'ine  seemed  to  lead  directly  to 
baal-worship  ;  and  it  would  seem  to  Jonadab  that 
by  cutting  ort'  his  people  from  any  connexion  with 
agriculture  he  would  preserve  the  purity  and  sim- 
plicity of  their  ancient  worship  of  Jehovah. 

Probably  the  Rechabites  were  still  in  Jerusalem 
when  tlie  city  was  taken  by  Nebuchadrezzar,  and 
some  of  them  shared  the  Captivity  and  the  Return 
of  the  Israelites.  Under  stress  of  circumstances, 
they  would  be  obliged  to  linally  surrender  their 
ancestral  customs,  so  that  in  Neh  3'^  we  tind 
Malchijah  the  Rechabite  engaged  under  Nehemiah 
in  rebuildin''  the  walls  of  Jerusalem.  Malchijah 
is  styled  'ruler  of  the  district  of  Beth-liaccherem,' 
i.e.  of  the  '  House  of  the  Vinej-ard.'  The  very 
obscure  verse  1  Ch  2"  describes  '  The  families  of 
scribes  that  dwelt  at  Jabez' — a  town  in  Judah — 
'  the  Tirathites,  the  Shimeathites,  the  Succathites,' 
as  '  Kenites  that  came  of  Hammath,  the  father  of 
the  house  of  Recliab.'  This  points  to  the  settle- 
ment of  some  Recliabites  in  late  post-exilic  times 
at  Jabez  as  'scribes.'  The  Vulgate  regards  the 
words  rendered  '  Tirathites,'  etc.,  as  titles  of  three 
classes  of  scribes,  '  canentes  atqueresonantes,  et  in 
tabemaculiscominoianles  '  =  ' singers,  makers  of  an 
echo  or  of  a  ringing  sound  [?  chorus],  and  dwellers 
in  tents,' but  the  words  are  proper  names  (so  LXX), 
and  denote  three  clans  of  the  men  of  Jabez. 

The  promise  of  Jer  3d""-  that  because  the 
Rechabites  had  kept  the  laws  of  Jonadab, '  Jonadab 
ben-Rechab  shall  not  want  a  man  to  stand  before 
me  for  ever,'  might  lead  some  later  Recliabites  to 
revert  to  their  ancient  clan  customs.  It  would 
also  lead  those  wlio  lived  like  other  Jews  to  keep 
up  the  memory  of  their  descent  from  the  ancient 
Rechabites.  .Jeremiah  does  not  expressly  state 
that  the  fulfilment  of  his  promise  is  dependent  on 
the  continued  observance  of  the  laws  of  Jonadab. 
Rut,  on  the  other  hand,  tliis  promise  and  its  im- 
plied conditions  wovild  naturally  lead  communities 
or  individuals  which  observed  some  or  other  of 
these  laws  to  adopt  the  name  '  Rechabite,'  and  to 
imagine  a  genealogy  connecting  them  with  Rechab. 
Thu.5,  in  modern  time,  a  Total  Abstinence  Society, 
whose  members  live  in  houses  and  do  not  abjure 
corn  or  oil,  styles  itself  the  'Rechabites.'  Probably 
this  is  the  explanation  of  the  statement  of  Heges- 
ippus  {ap.  Eus.  BE  ii.  23),  that  '  one  of  the  priests 
of  the  sons  of  Rechab,  the  son  of  Rechabim,  who 
are  mentioned  by  Jeremiah  the  prophet,'  protested 
against  the  murder  of  James  the  Just,  especially 
as  Epijilianius  (//<cr.  Ixxviii.  14)  substitutes  symeon 
the  brother  of  James  for  the  Rechabite  (so  E.  H. 
Perowne  in  Smith's  DB).  The  name  had  become 
a  term  for  an  ascetic  A  similar  view  explains  the 
fact  that  travellers  —  Benjamin  of  Juda'a,  12th 
cent.  ;  WolH',  1829 ;  Pierotti,  c.  1860— have  found 


tribes  in  Syria  and  Arabia  claiming  the  name 
Rechabite  and  professing  to  observe  the  laws  of 
Jonadab.  These  tribes  are  probably  connected 
with  the  ancient  Rechabites  in  just  the  same  way 
as  the  Total  Abstinence  Society  mentioned  above. 
Moreover,  as  words  for  '  horseman,'  '  camel-rider,' 
in  Heb.,  Aram.,  and  .\rab.,  are  derived  from  the 
root  rich,  it  is  easy  to  see  how  tribes  might  be 
called  '  Rechabites  without  any  connexion,  real  or 
imaginary,  with  the  Old  Testament  clan. 

In  Ps  71  (LXX  70)  the  L.XX  has  the  title  Tv 
AcLveLd,  vluiv  'luvaod^  (R  'ApuvaSdfj.),  Kal  tujv  irpihrtav 
aixf-a'^t^icOii'Toit',  '  To  David,  of  the  Bne  Jonadab 
(R  Aminadam,  i.e.  Aniinadab)  and  of  those  lirsl 
can'ied  away  captive.'  This  title  has  sometiim'* 
been  adduced  as  evidence  of  the  existence  and  im- 
portance of  the  Rechabites  in  the  3rd  or  2nd  cent. 
But  the  origin,  text,  and  meaning  of  the  title  are 
too  uncertain  to  warrant  any  such  conclusion. 
Jonadab  may  be  the  cousin  of  David ;  or,  as  the 
reading  of  li  suggests,  a  scribe's  error  for  soma 
other  name. 

The  devotion  of  the  Rechabites  to  Jehovah  is 
illustrated  by  the  zeal  of  Jonadab  and  by  the  fact 
that  all  the  names  of  individual  Rechabites  known 
to  us  include  the  Divine  name  Jehovah,  viz. 
Habazziniah,  Jaazaniah,  J(eh)onadab,  Jeremiah, 
and  Malchijah.  It  has  generally  been  supposed 
that  the  Kenites  were  led  to  adopt  the  worship  of 
Jehovah  through  their  association  with  the  Israel- 
ites ;  and  that  the  zeal  of  Jonadab,  like  that  of 
Jehu,  was  inspired  by  the  teaching  of  Elijah  and 
Elisha.  But  recent  scholars,  e.g.  Budde,  have 
pointed  out  the  close  association  of  Jeliovah  with 
Sinai,  and  of  Moset,  with  the  Kenites  (see  Jethro, 
IIOBAB),  and  have  suggested  that  the  Israelites 
adopted  the  worship  ol  Jehovah  from  the  Kenites, 
and  that  the  Kenites,  and  therefore  the  Rechab- 
ites, were  by  ancient  practice  and  tradition  the 
most  devoted  followers  of  Jehovah  in  Israel ; 
hence  the  zeal  of  Jonadab.  It  should  be  noted, 
however,  that  the  only  direct  evidence  for  the 
connexion  of  the  Rechabites  with  the  Kenites  ii 
the  very  late  and  obscure  passage  in  Chronicles. 

As  the  Rechabite  laws  are  simply  the  ordinary 
customs  of  nomads, —  for  primitive  nomads  the 
regular  use  of  wine  was  impossible, — it  is  easy  to 
tind  numerous  parallels  to  them.  Probably  even 
the  prohibition  of  wine  is  not  strictly  and  directly 
religious,  but  merely  a  means  for  preserving  the 
nomadic  life.  Hence  Mohammed's  prohibition  of 
wine  and  similar  laws  or  taboos  (cf.  iJ.S  4S4  f. )  are 
not  real  parallels.  Ol  others  commonly  cited  ia 
the  statement  of  DiodoiusSiculus{xi.\.  9«,  c.  8  B.C.), 
that  the  Nabat,-ean  Arabs  forbade  sowing  seed, 
planting  fruit-trees,  using  or  building  houses,  under 
pain  of  death.  Cf.,  further,  Ji'.iion'adab,  Jere- 
miah, Kenites,  Tirathites,  Shi.meathites,  Suc- 
cathites. 

5.  In  Jg  1"  the  LXX  has  for  '  because  they  had 
chariots  (rekhcbh)  of  iron,'  'because  Rechab  com- 
manded them ' ;  an  obvious  mistake. 

LiTERATFRB. — W.  H.  Bennett,  Jeremiah  xxi.-lii.  p.  44  ff. ; 
Budde,  Het.  of  Igr.  to  the  Exile,  p.  19  ff.  (for  connexion  of  J" 
with  the  Kenites) ;  Dillniann,  OT  Theol.  p.  172 ;  Oehler,  OT 
ThfoL,  Enjr.  tr.  ii.  195;  E.  H.  Perowne,  art.  'Rechabites'  in 
Smith's  OB  (views  of  Patristic  and  other  commentators, 
travellers'  tales  of  '  Rechabites '  in  Syria  and  Arabia) ;  Schultz. 
OT  Theol.,  Eng.  tr.  L  91, 18S;  Smen'd,  Atttest.  lieligion»jesch.i 

93 1. ;  /i.S484t.  W.  H.  Bennett. 

RECONCILIATION  (KaraWayi). —The  general 
doctrine  of  the  Atonement  has  been  dealt  with 
under  that  title  (vol.  i.  p.  197),  and  the  biblical 
phraseology  under  Propitiation  (p.  128).  The 
present  art.  is  concerned  with  the  reconciliation 
made  by  Christ  between  God  and  men  ;  and  the 
question  specially  to  be  investigated  is,  whethei 
it  is  subjective  only,  our  reconciliation  to  God,  o/ 


EECOXCILIATIOX 


RFXOXCILIATION 


201 


objective  also,  God's  reconciliation  to  us.  The  Gr. 
word  occurs  four  times  in  NT,  Ko  5"  11'°  and  2  Co 
518.  i9_  and  in  ^n  these  places  it  is  used  objectively 
to  describe  the  new  relation  between  God  and 
humanity  broujrht  about  by  the  work  of  Christ  (see 
Cremer,  Bihl.-Theol.  Lex.  s.v.).  This  is,  perhai)s, 
most  clearly  seen  in  Ro  5"  Ji'  ov  vdf  tt)v  KaTaXK!xyT]v 
{\i^o)ur,  '  through  whom  we  have  now  received 
the  reconciliation.'  The  reconciliation  must  have 
been  already  an  accom|)lislied  fact  before  it  could 
be  received,  i.e.  before  faith  or  feeling  could  have 
anything  to  do  with  it.  So  in  Ro  11"  the  kut. 
Kuj/xou  is  plainly  the  favourable  attitude  of  God 
towards  tne  world  through  His  turning  away 
from  Israel.  In  2  Co  5"- '"  the  oiaxoi'ia  ttjs  KaraX- 
\ayrjs  and  the  Xiyor  tt)!  (caraXXaYi/s  are  the  means 
appointed  by  God  to  bring  men  to  a  knowledge  of 
what  He  has  done  for  them  in  Christ.  And  what 
is  that  ?  What  is  '  the  word  of  reconciliation  '  ?  It 
is  '  that  God  was  in  Christ,  reconciling  the  world 
nnto  himself.'  That  this  refers  to  an  objective 
matter  of  f.ict,  not  a  subjective  state  of  feeling,  is 
plain  from  the  exhortation  based  on  it :  '  Be  ye 
reconciled  to  God.'  Besides,  how  was  God  in 
Christ  reconciling  the  world  to  Himself?  By  '  not 
imputing  unto  men  their  trespasse.s.'  But  this 
was  only  the  negative  side  of  it.  The  positive  is 
reserved  to  clinch  the  argument  at  the  close  :  '  For 
God  made  him  to  be  sin  for  us,  who  knew  no  sin, 
that  we  might  be  made  the  righteousness  of  God 
in  him'  (2  Co  5-').  But  if  this  is  the  meaning  of 
the  reconciliation  in  the  two  most  important  of 
the  passages  that  bear  on  it, — the  doing  on  God's 
part  of  all  that  needed  to  be  done  to  make  it  right 
lor  Ilim  to  receive  us  back  into  favour, — the  re- 
conciliation cannot  have  respect  to  us  alone,  nor 
can  the  whole  purpose  of  the  work  of  Christ  be 
exhausted  in  the  moral  effect  it  has  upon  us  as  a 
ji.athetic  disjilay  of  the  love  of  God.  Moreover, 
according  to  Ro  3--,  the  primary  object  of  the  work 
of  Christ  was  not  to  display  the  love,  but  the  riijht- 
eousne.is  of  God.  That  righteousness  h.id  been 
obscured  by  the  forbearance  of  God  in  the  past, 
and  might  still  further  be  obscured  in  the  future 
by  His  forgiving  men  on  the  ground  of  their  faith 
in  Jesus.  They  had  been  tempted,  and  might  again 
be  tempted,  to  doubt  the  reality  of  His  wrath 
against  sin,  unless  it  were  made  clear  that  in 
forgiving  it  to  men  God  had  dealt  seriously  with 
it  in  tliu  propitiatory  work  of  Christ. 

1.  'J'/te  Need  of  Reconciliation  on  the  part  of  God. 
—The  siibject  has  already  so  far  been  di-scussed, 
and  passages  have  been  cited  both  from  OT  and 
NT  ascribing  anger,  wrath,  indignation,  jealousy, 
and  even  hate  to  God  (see  art.  ANGER  OF  GoD  in 
vol.  i.  J).  97  tr.).  But  something  may  be  added  to 
what  IS  there  said  of  the  reluctance  theologians 
have  long  shown  to  take  such  passages  seriously. 
In  their  recoil  from  the  extreme  anthropomorphism 
of  liery  writers  like  TertuUian,  they  have,  from 
Origen  downwards,  often  nished  to  the  oi)posite 
extreme,  and  conceived  of  God  not  only  as  a  Being 
'  without  parts,'  but  also  'witliout  pnssi(ms.'  But 
anlhro{>omorphism  has  at  the  heart  of  it  a  truth  of 
priceless  worth,  for  man  was  miule  in  tlio  image  of 
God  (Gn  !*■),  and  therefore,  spiritually  considered, 
I  h>ir  natures  are  essentially  akin.  As  we  ai>prcci- 
alo  and  apply  this  truth  in  Cliristology,  we  make 
it  easier  to  see  the  jiossibility  of  an  Incarnation. 
If  the  Divine  and  the  human  natures  were  dis- 
parate, it  is  hard  to  see  how  there  could  be  a 
union  of  God  and  man  ;  but  if  they  are  essentially 
akin,  the  dilhculty  is  at  least  sensibly  relieved. 
But  if  this  helj)  is  available  for  Chnstology,  it 
is  available  for  Theology  also.  For  then,  what 
Edward  White  calls  '  the  Buddhism  of  the  West,' 
according  to  which  God  is  conceived  a«  a  Being  of 
passionless  repose,  sublimely  raised  above  all  the 


fluctuations  of  feeling  to  which  we  are  suhject, 
gives  )ilace  to  a  truer  conception  of  IJod,  more 
human  and  therefore  more  Divine.  (See  the  Ex- 
cursus on  the  '  Sen^ibility  of  God  '  in  Ed.  White's 
Life  in  Cliriit,  p.  2.")'),  and  Bushnell's  Sermon  on  '  the 
Power  of  God  in  Self-.Sacrilice'  in  Tlic  S<:w  Life). 

We  are  here  concerned,  however,  not  with  tlii^ 
Divine  sensibility  in  general,  but  with  that  par- 
ticular form  of  it  implied  in  the  anger  or  wrath  of 
God.  What  is  meant  by  that?  Our  answer  to  tiju 
question  will  turn  in  part  on  the  view  we  take  of 
the  way  in  which  God  governs  the  world,  and  in 
part  on  the  view  we  take  of  our  own  nature  in 
comjjarison  with  God's.  If  we  think  that  God 
administers  a  law  above  and  apart  from  Himscli', 
as  a  judge  administers  the  law  of  his  country,  we 
must  interpret  all  that  Scripture  says  of  llis  anger 
or  wrath  in  some  nun-natural  sense,  for  these  are 
emotions  which,  even  if  ho  had  them,  a  judge 
would  not  betray.  Thi;  more  perfect  he  is  as  a 
judge,  the  more  carefully  will  lie  sup]press  them. 
His  decisions  will  tell  us  nothing  of  his  personal 
feelings,  but  only  of  his  determination  to  uphold  the 
law  of  the  land.  Now  tliis  is  just  how  the  great 
majority  of  theologians,  from  Origen  and  Augustine 
down  to  our  own  day,  have  dealt  with  the  language 
of  Scripture  about  the  anger  of  God.  They  have 
taken  it  in  a  thoroughly  non-natural  sense,  as  if  it 
told  us  nothing  of  the  personal  feeling  of  God,  but 
only  of  His  judicial  determination  to  punish  and 
put  down  wickedness  (see  Simon,  Rcdeimitiun  of 
Man,  PI).  223-229).  But  this  is  not  how  the  Scrip- 
tures speak,  and  therefore  we  may  be  sure  it  is 
not  the  view  they  take  of  God's  relation  to  the 
world.  They  give  free  vent  to  God's  personal  feel- 
ings regarding  the  cliaracter  and  conduct  of  men, 
from  which  we  may  safely  infer  that  they  did  not 
regard  Him  primarily  as  our  Judge,  but  as  our 
Father,  the  Father  of  our  spirits,  and  our  Judge  in 
virtue  of  His  Fatherhood  ;  for  as  every  father  is 
head  over  his  own  house,  so  is  God  Head  over  all 
(1  P  1").  In  other  words,  His  relations  to  us  are 
personal,  and  His  government  direct.  There  is  no 
law  over  and  above  Him,  or  between  Him  and  us. 
The  law  He  ui)holds  is  that  of  His  own  life,  and 
therefore  of  ours,  for  our  life  is  but  our  linite 
share  in  His.  llonce  His  Divine  displeasure, 
when  we  do  anything  to  disturb  it.  It  is  Him 
and  not  merely  ourselves  we  grieve,  when  we 
fall  out  of  right  relations  to  Him  ;  and  against 
Him  we  chielly  oli'end,  even  when  we  do  wrong  to 
others.  '  Against  thee,  thee  only,  have  I  sinned, 
and  done  that  which  is  evil  in  thy  sight '  (Ps  .51''). 
The  nearest  human  analogue  we  liave  to  the  moral 
government  of  God  is  that  of  the  family,  and  the 
best  clue  we  have  to  the  feeling  of  (!od  when  we 
deliberately  do  wrong  is  the  bitter  disappointment 
of  a  father  who  has  loved  and  lived  for  his  children, 
when  they  have  rebelled  against  him,  until  the 
filial  bond  between  them  is  strained  almost  to  the 
breaking.  And  the  Divine  Father  feels  it  the 
more,  because,  though  we  may  ceaso  in  spirit  to  be 
His  children.  He  cannot  ceaso  to  be  our  Father. 
He  cannot  con.sent  to  stand  in  any  lower  relation 
to  us,  and  can  only  express  His  astonishment  that 
we  should  behave  as  we  have  done.  'Hear,  (> 
heavens,  and  give  car,  O  earth,  for  the  Lord  liatli 
spoken:  I  have  nourished  and  brought  up  chihlnn, 
and  they  have  rebelled  against  mo'  (Is  V).  Thai 
is  what  sin  means  to  God.  Is  it  any  wonder  that 
He  should  hate  it,  and  plead  with  His  rebellions 
children  as  He  dues:  'Oil,  ilo  not  this  abominable 
thing  which  I  hate'  (Jcr  41'). 

But  even  pathos  like  that  will  bo  lost  on  us,  unless 
we  further  see  what  the  Fatherhood  of  God  involves, 
namely,  that  His  nature  and  ours  are  essentially 
akin,  so  that,  allowance  being  made  for  our  moral 
imiierfection,   from   our  own  experience  wc  m:iy 


206 


KECONCILIATION 


RECOXCILIATION 


safely  infer  His.  If  man  was  marie  in  the  image 
of  God,  a  <'ood  man  must  be  a  good  guide  to  right 
thoughts  about  God.  If  a  good  man  may  be  angry, 
so  may  God.  A  good  man's  anger  wiil  never  be 
mere  blind  rage,  nor  mere  personal  resentment,  but 
as  moral  indignation  it  may  rise  to  any  heiglit ; 
and  the  better  he  is,  the  higher  it  will  ri.se,  in  the 
presence  of  deliberate  wrong-doing.  And  that 
being  so,  it  were  surely  strange  to  conclude  that 
if  he  were  altogether  perfect,  his  anger  would 
entirelj'  disapi)ear.  There  would  disappear  from 
it  only  what  deliled  it  before — the  smolce,  but  not 
the  flame  ;  as  we  see  in  the  one  perfect  Man  of 
the  whole  race — the  Man,  Christ  Jesus.  Was  He 
never  angry?  Did  not  He  look  round  on  His 
enemies  '  with  anger,  being  grieved  for  the  hard- 
ness of  their  hearts'?  (Mk  3'').  And  can  we  con- 
ceive Him  denouncing  the  hypocrites  of  His  day  in 
cold,  nnirapassioned  language  ?  Is  not  His  indict- 
ment against  them  instinct  Avith  moral  indignation, 
the  fire  of  which  we  feel  as  we  read  it  still  ?  We 
cannot  doubt  the  reality  of  His  anger.  Why, 
then,  should  we  doubt  the  reality  of  God's  ?  Was 
not  God  in  Christ  denouncing  the  Pharisees,  as 
well  as  reconciling  the  world  to  Himself?  And 
does  not  the  one  fact  go  far  to  determine  how  the 
other  should  be  understood  ? 

2.  The  Possibility  of  Reconciliation  on  the  part 
of  God. — But  many  demur  to  a  mutual  recon- 
ciliation, not  only  because  they  doubt  the  reality 
of  God's  anger,  and  see  no  need  of  reconciliation 
on  the  part  of  God,  but  also  because  they  doubt 
its  possibility,  for  reconciliation  implies  a  change 
of  feeling,  and  there  can  be  no  change  in  God. 
This,  however,  is  confusion  of  thought.  It  is  to 
misunderstand  the  nature  of  God's  unchangeable- 
ness.  God  is  not  a  mere  mechanical  force,  but  a 
living,  moral  mind.  It  is  His  character  that  is 
unchangeable,  not  His  feelings,  nor  His  actions. 
These  must  change  with  the  changing  character 
and  conduct  of  His  creatures,  just  because  He 
changeth  not.  In  any  relevant  sense  of  the  word, 
it  is  not  He  that  changes,  but  we.  If  we  obey 
not.  He  abideth  faithful.  He  cannot  deny  Him- 
self, and  therefore  He  must  deny  us,  when  we 
defy  Him.  In  fact  this  apparent  change  in  God 
proves  His  real  unchangeableness,  just  as  an 
apparent  unchangeableness  would  prove  a  real 
change.  (See  Domer  on  '  the  Divine  Immutability ' 
in  System  of  Chnstian  Doctrine,  i.  244  fi'.,  iv.  80). 

1.  But  both  the  need  and  the  possibility  of  recon- 
ciliation on  the  Divine  side  seem  to  many  forbidden 
from  another  point  of  view.  There  seems  no  room 
for  it  in  the  Christian  conception  of  God.  God  is 
Lo\  e,  and  love  is  incapable  of  anger  or  hostility. 
But  if  God  is  love,  love  must  be  more  than  a  mere 
emotion.  It  is  a  character,  and  a  character  is 
made  up  of  likes  and  dislikes,  attractions  and  re- 
pulsions, according  to  its  affinity  for,  or  aversion 
to,  the  character  and  conduct  of  those  with  whom 
it  comes  in  contact.  In  other  words,  God  is  a 
person,  not  a  force.  He  can,  and  does,  discrimin- 
ate between  the  righteous  and  the  -(vicked.  '  The 
eyes  of  the  Lord  are  upon  the  righteous  .  .  .  the 
face  of  the  Lord  is  against  them  that  do  evil ' 
(Ps  34"").  That  does  not  mean  that  He  does 
not  love  even  them  that  do  evil,  but  it  does  mean 
that  His  love  is  capable  of  hostility.  How,  indeed, 
can  God  love  us  for  our  good  without  showing  His 
hostility  to  what  would  do  us  harm  ?  When  a 
river  is  dammed  back  by  some  obstruction  thrown 
in  its  way,  it  chafes  against  it,  and  poetically  we 
say  it  is  angry.  But  it  is  not  mere  poetry  to  say 
that  when  the  Divine  love  is  held  Dack  by  our 
Bin,  so  that  it  can  no  longer  flow  forth  to  bless 
ns  as  it  would,  it  chafes  against  the  obstacle,  and 
cannot  bear  to  be  balked  of  its  benign  purpose 
concerning  us.     Love  is   goodness  in  earnest  to 


make  others  good,  and  when  it  cannot  have  its 
way  it  is  grieveil,  when  it  is  deliberately  thwarted 
it  is  angry,  and,  as  Coleridge  says — 

'  To  be  wroth  with  one  you  love 
Doth  work  Ukc  niadntsji  in  the  brain.* 

It  ia  here  that  Simon  (Redemption  of  Man,  p.  216  ff,),  who 
has  done  so  much  to  define  and  defend  the  reality  of  God'a 
anger,  has  lost  his  wa.v.  According  to  him, '  love  and  wrath  are 
mutually  exclusive ' ;  that  is,  thry  cannot  both  be  felt  for  one  and 
the  same  person  at  one  and  the  same  time,  though  the.v  may 
both  be  felt  by  one  and  the  same  person  towards  different 
persons.  *  A  father  may  become  angry  with  one  of  his  children, 
and,  to  that  extent,  cease  loving  him,  without  therefore  ceasing 
to  love  the  rest.  At  the  moment  of  intensest  indignation  with 
the  one  he  may  turn  with  tenderness  to  the  rest.  Not  other- 
wise with  God.*  It  is  true,  he  adds  that  a  man  who  is  angry 
because  his  love  has  been  repelled,  *  will  also,  even  whilst 
angry,  carefully  search  for  means  of  vanquishing  the  indiffer- 
ence, and  converting  the  contemptuous  aversion  into  loving 
regard.  This  is  what  a  lovin(/  being,  a  loving  God,  can  do,  hut 
it  is  misleading  to  ascribe  it  to  love*(iA.  p.  201).  But  surely, 
as  Scott  Lidgett  has  pointed  out  (The  Spiritual  Principle  oj 
the  Atonement,  p.  25U  f.),  it  is  contrary  to  the  most  familiar 
exTserience  of  life  to  say  that  love  must  either  be  requited  or 
withdrawn.  Life  is  full  of  unrequited  and  even  outraged  love 
that  has  never  been  withdrawn.  Witness  the  way  in  which  a 
mother  will  cling  to  a  reprobate  son,  and  for  all  the  wrong  he 
has  done  her  never  give  him  up  while  she  Uves.  Nor  is  the 
love  that  will  not  let  him  go  love  in  general,  but  distinctively 
her  love  for  him.  How  could  her  love  for  her  other  children 
supply  the  energy  required  to  seek  reconciliation  with  him  from 
whom,  by  the  supposition,  it  has  been  withdrawn?  It  is  a 
moral  impossibility.  Simon's  mistake  is  due  to  his  making  too 
much  of  love  as  a  mere  emotion,  forgetting  that  in  its  deepest 
and  divinest  sense  it  is  a  character,  a  moral  determination  of 
the  whole  being  towards  another.  As  a  character,  love  may 
survive  the  mere  enjojiuent  of  \Vb  own  satisfaction.  Satis- 
faction may  give  place  to  dissatisfaction  and  the  severest  dis- 
pleasure. These  may  be  the  only  emotions  proper  to  it  for  the 
time  being,  but  it  cannot  enjoy  these,  cannot  even  endure  them, 
and,  in  its  own  interest  as  well  as  that  of  its  object,  it  will  seek 
their  removal,  and,  if  possible,  out  of  its  own  resources  provide 
a  propitiation.  That  is  precisely  what  God  has  done  for  ua. 
*  Herein  is  love,  not  that  we  love  God,  but  that  God  loved  ua, 
and  sent  his  Son  to  be  the  propitiation  for  our  sins '  (1  Jn  4^0). 

2.  But  this  brings  us,  in  the  second  place,  to 
what  seems  to  many  the  greatest  difficulty  of  all. 
That  God  should  both  require  and  provide  pro- 
pitiation seems  to  be  a  contradiction,  and  from  tlie 
fact  that  God  did  provide  it  thej'  infer  that  He  did 
not  require  it — that  is,  did  not  need  to  be  pro- 
pitiated. It  was  provided  by  but  not  for  Him. 
God  did  not,  and  could  not,  propitiate  Himself.  So 
W.  R.  Dale  puts  it.  'God  Himself  provided  the 
ransom  ;  He  could  not  pay  it  to  Himself '  (Atone- 
ment, p.  357).  To  Avhom,  then,  or  to  what,  was 
it  paid  ?  To  the  eternal  law  of  righteousness,  says 
Dale,  as  if  there  could  be  any  such  law  above  or 
apart  from  God,  or  as  if  propitiation  had  anything 
to  do  with  impersonal  law,  or  could  be  made  at 
all  outside  personal  relations.  The  difficulty  is 
due  to  the  assumption  that  God  both  pro<nided 
and  offered  the  propitiation — an  assumption  very 
commonly  made,  and  made  decisive  of  the  whole 
matter.  Thus  SV.  N.  Clarke  says :  '  If  we  wish 
to  hold  a  doctrine  that  is  real,  we  must  choose 
between  the  two  directions  for  the  action  in  the 
work  of  Christ ;  we  cannot  combine  them.  There 
may  be  action  that  takes  eB'ect  on  God  to  influ- 
ence Him,  but  we  may  be  sure  that  it  originates 
somewhere  else  than  m  God  Himself ;  and  there 
may  be  action  that  originates  in  God,  but  we 
may  be  sure  that  it  takes  effect  upon  some  other. 
God  does  not  influence  Himself.  If  we  choose  or 
judge  between  these  two  directions,  there  can  be 
no  doubt  as  to  the  result.  In  the  work  of  Christ, 
was  God  the  actor,  or  was  God  acted  upon  ?  For 
we  are  at  war  with  reality  if  we  attempt  to  affirm 
both.  We  cannot  hesitate  about  our  answer.  God 
was  the  Actor'  (Present-Day  Papers,  1900,  vol.  iii. 
p.  238).  But  God  was  not  the  Actor  in  the  whola 
transaction.  God  provided  the  propitiation,  but 
He  did  not  ofl'er  it  to  Himself.  Christ  oflered  it, 
acting  not  as  God's  representative,  but  as  ours. 
(See  Cremer  on  IXdcKfadai).  God  gave  humanity 
in  llim  the  means  of  making  propitiation,  but  God 


RECORD 


RED  HEIFER 


20; 


dill  not  propitiate  Himself.  Nor  is  there  any 
difficulty  liere  but  sucli  as  meets  us  everywhere  in 
the  spiritual  life.  It  is  only  the  sujjreme  example 
of  a  universal  spiritual  law.  Thus,  e.g.,  God  both 
requires  and  gives  repentance— or  rather  power  to 
reiieut,  for  of  course  He  does  not  repent  for  us. 
And  so  with  every  other  grace,  as  the  very  word 
implies.  The  grace  is  in  ns,  but  it  is  of  GoA.  God 
worketh  in  us  both  to  will  and  to  do  of  His  good 
plea-sure.  He  neither  wills  nor  acts  for  us,  but 
enables  us  to  will  and  act  in  the  line  of  His  own 
pood  pleasure.  So  in  the  work  of  reconciliation. 
God  made  it  possible  to  humanity  by  the  gift  of 
Christ,  but  Christ  as  the  Head  and  Representative 
of  the  race  actually  accomplished  it.  The  prin- 
ciple underlying  it  is  identical  with  the  principle 
wliich  underlies  our  whole  religious  life,  and  finds 
instinctive  e.\pression  in  the  language  of  prayer, 
wherein  we  virtu.illy  ask  God  to  fulfil  His  own 
law  in  us,  to  fuUil  in  us  all  the  good  pleasure  of 
His  goodness  and  the  work  of  faith  with  power. 
(See,  e.«pecially,  Simon,  liedetnption  of  Man,  ch. 
ix.).  \i  this  is  a  paradox,  it  is  a  paradox  inherent 
in  our  very  existence,  as  finite  creatures,  who  have 
yet  a  certain  moral  independence  over  against 
God  ;  and  on  its  religious  side  it  has  never  been 
better  expressed  than  in  Augustine's  words :  'Da 
quod  juhes,  et  jube  quod  vis'  (Conf.  x.  29). 

LrrKRATUKB. — Cremer,  Bibl.-Theol.  Lex.,  articles  on  «wt«x- 
iArrm,  xxraXXttyr,,  't>.afx«/xtu,  IXx^/j^  ;  Trench,  Si/noiif/ms  on  the 
same ;  Thorn  in  Expos.  Timt-jt,  iv.  335  (. ;  Sanday-Ueadlam, 
Komans,  129  f.;  Sartorius,  Dioiru  Loot  (Eng.  tr.),  12811.; 
Lechler,  Aitott.  nnd  J'oit-Apost.  Times,  ii.  39  ff.,  141  ff.  ;  Bp. 
Ewing  in  Pres.-Day  Papers,  iiL;  Gracev,  5m  and  Salvation, 
238fF. ;  T.  Binney,  Si-rmam,  11.  61  ff. ;  Siinon,  The  Redemption 
of  Man,  ch.  v.,  and  lieconciliation  by  //wamation  (1898) ;  Scott 
Lidij'ett,  The  Spiriluai  Principle  0/ the  Atonement,  ch.  v. ;  and 
OQ  tiie  Eng.  word,  Expos.  Times,  v.  632  ff. 

A.  Adamson. 

RECORD.— To  record  a  thing  is  to  call  it  to 
Blind  (Lat.  rccordare,  i.e.  re  and  cor  the  heart, 
throi:gh  Old  Fr.  recorder).  This  primitive  mean- 
ing, 'call  to  mind'  or  'meditate  on'  is  found,  e.g., 
in  Erasmus,  Crede,  47,  '  After  that  thou  shalte 
have  dylygently  recorded  these  thyn^es,  and  called 
them  well  to  remembraunce,  then  nave  recourse 
hcther  agayne  unto  me';  Tindale,  Expositions, 
110,  'Therefore  care  day  by  day  and  hour  by  hour 
earnestly  to  keep  the  covenant  of  the  Lord  thy 
God,  and  to  recorde  therein  day  and  night.'  A 
similar  meaning,  '  bear  in  mind,'  is  common  in 
Wyclif.  Thus  Gn  19^  '  Whan  forsothe  God  had 
Bubvertid  the  citees  of  tliat  regioun,  he  recordide  of 
Abraham'  (1388  'he  hadde  mynde  of  Abraham  ') ; 
Pr  31'  '  Of  ther  sorewe  recorde  thei  no  more'  (1388 
'Thenke  thei  no  more  on  her  sorewe'). 

We  may  call  a  thing  to  mind  either  by  speak- 
ing about  it  or  by  writing  it  down.  The  former 
meaning  is  now  obsolete,  but  AV  has  preserved 
one  example :  1  Cli  16*  '  He  appointed  certain  of 
the  Levites  to  minister  before  the  ark  of  the 
Lord,  and  to  record,  and  to  thank  and  praise  the 
Lord  God  of  Israel' (Heb.  i'*!'?!',  lit.  'to  cause  to 
remember,'  KV  '  to  celebrate ' ;  the  AV  tr"  is  as 
old  as  Wyclif  ;  the  13S8  version  gives  '  have  mynde 
of  the  werkis  of  the  Lord  '). 

The  phrase  'call  to  record'  means  'cause  to 
te.stify,'^  Dt  30"  '  I  call  heaven  and  earth  to  record 
this  day  against  you '  (c;;  'niyn),  31^  ;  and  '  take  to 
record  has  the  same  meaning  :  Is  8'  '  (And)  I  will 
take  unto  me  faithful  witnesses  to  record '("V  iy;i<i); 
Ac  20^  '  Wherefore  I  take  you  to  record  this  diiy, 
that  I  am  pure  from  the  blood  of  all  men'  (^apri)- 
poMoi  iM<»i  which  is  incorrectly  taken  by  AV,  after 
Tindale,  in  the  classical  sense  of  '  call  one  to 
witness'  [which  would  need  iiiias],  but  rightly  by 
IIV,  as  by  Wyclif,  in  the  sense,  known  only  to 
very  late  Greek,  of  '  testify '). 

1  he  Bubst.  '  record '  is  used  in  AV,  usually  in  the 
tense  of  witnest,  whether  the  person  who  witnesses 


{liipTv%,  2  Co  1°,  Ph  1')  or  the  testimony  itself 
(p.afnvpia,  Jn  l'»  8"-  "  1!F,  1  Ju  5'^'-  ",  3  Jn  "}.  In 
the  same  sense  is  used  the  phrase  '  bear  record,'  a 
frequent  tr.  of  puprrvpiu  '  to  give  testimony.' 

J.  Hastings. 
RECORDER,  THE  (T;i;ri,  lit.  'the  remem- 
brancer';  L.\X  ^Jri  tuji/  inro/jii'ijfiiTiav,  {6)  dfafnnv-^- 
ffKuv,  virofiifiviiaKuji',  (6)  inrop.vri^aToyp6L<pos). — An  ollicer 
of  high  rank  in  the  Israelite  kingdom.  His  func- 
tions are  nowhere  precisely  defined,  but  the  im- 
portance of  his  office  is  shown  by  the  f.act  that  he 
IS  mentioned  along  with  the  commander-in-chief, 
the  chief  secretary,  and  other  leading  oflicials  at 
the  courts  of  David  and    Solomon  (2'S  20=*  8>«= 

1  Ch  1S'»,  1  K  43).  In  the  reign  of  Hezekiah  lie 
appears  as  the  king's  representative  together  with 
the  prefect  of  the  palace  and  the  chief  secretary 
(2  _K  18'»-  "  =  18  363-  ~),  while  the  holder  of  the  same 
office  under  Josiali  formed  one  of  the  commission 
appointed  to  superintend  the  repairing  of  the 
temple  (2  Ch  34*).  The  '  recorder '  is  often  supposed 
to  have  been  a  historiographer,  but  Benzinger 
(Arch.  310),  Nowack  (i.  308),  Kittel  (on  1  K  4»), 
ct  al.,  argue  plausibly  that  his  duty  was  to  reinind 
the  king  of  important  business  by  preparing 
matters  for  his  consideration  and  laying  them 
before  him.  Under  David  and  Solomon  tlie  office 
was  filled  by  Jehoslinphat  the  son  of  Ahilud ; 
under  Hezekiah,  by  Joah  the  son  of  Asaph;  and 
under  Josiali,  by  Joah  the  son  of  Joaliaz. 

J.  F.  Stenning. 
RECOVER.  — The  verb  'to  recover'  (Old  Fr. 
recovrcr,  Lat.  recupcrare)  is  still  in  use  transitively 
in  the  sense  of  regaining  something  that  has  been 
lost,  whether  persons  (Is  11",  Jer  41"),  territory 
(as  2  S  S'',  2  K  14-^,  1  Mac  10"),  or  other  possessions 
(as  Hos  2",  1  JIac  2**) ;  also  of  regaining  health 
(Jer  8~),  strength  (2  Ch  IS-'",  Ps  39'^),  sight  (Lk  4'^). 
But  it  is  no  longer  used  with  the  person  to  bo 
restored  to  health  as  direct  object,  as  it  is  in  AV, 

2  K  5^-  »•'■ ",  Is  3S'«  391,  Jth  14'.  Cf.  Shaks.  Jul. 
Crrs.  I.  1.  28,  '  I  am  indeed,  sir,  a  surgeon  to  old 
shoes  ;  when  they  are  in  great  danger  I  recover 
them ';  Defoe,  Crusoe,  520,  '  Our  men  in  the  Pinnace 
followed  their  orders,  and  took  up  three  men  ;  one 
of  which  was  just  drowning,  and  it  was  a  good 
while  before  we  could  recover  him.' 

The  intrans.  use  is  also  found  in  AV,  to  which 
RV  adds  Jn  11'-  '  Tlie  disciples  therefore  said  unto 
him.  Lord,  if  he  is  fallen  asleep,  he  will  recover,' 
for  A V  '  he  shall  do  well ' ;  HVm  '  he  shall  be 
saved'  (Gr.  awB-qa^Tai,  Vulg.  scUvus  erit). 

J.  Hastings. 

RED.— See  COLOURS  in  voL  i.  p.  457''. 

RED  DRAGON.— See  Revelation  (Book  of). 

RED  HEIFER.— Of  the  numerous  forms  of  cere- 
monial uncleaiiness  which  occupy  so  important  a 
place  in  the  priestly  legislation,  that  arisin;;  from 
contact  with,  and  even  proximity  to,  a  dead  body 
was  regarded  as  the  most  grievous,  requiring  a 
specially  efficacious  medium  of  lustration  for  its 
removal.  To  provide  such  a  medium  is  the  object 
of  the  unique  enactment  of  Nu  19 — unique  in  its 
title  (see  below),  in  its  provisions,  and,  one  is 
templed  to  add,  in  the  amount  of  discussion  to 
which  it  has  given  rise. 

The  prrcisc  relation  to  each  other  of  the  two  sectionfl  of  thi8 
chanter  ih  not  easy  to  detennine.  According  to  Wellh.  {Voinp. 
d.  llex.^  176,  approved  by  Kucnen,  Ut-x.  IHi)  vv.i*-^  fomi  an 
appendix  to  vv.ils,  giving  more  precise  instruction  regarding 
tlie  application  to  particular  cases  o(  the  general  Torah  cnibodiea 
in  tlie  latter.  The  more  elaborate  and  peculiar  title  of  the  tirst 
Bert  ion.  however — viz.  .T]inn  npn  'the  statute  of  the  law 
(7'riru/i),'  Nu  102  sia  only— and  other  indications  rather  suggest 
tliat  this  section,  w.'-",  U  the  younger  of  the  two,*  and  be- 

•  According  to  the  authors  of  the  Oxford  Hexateuch  (WOO), 
yy.ita,  arc  derived  from  a  corpus  of  priestly  lirAth  or  decisioni 


:os 


RED  HEIFER 


RED  HEIFER 


long's  to  the  secondary  strata  of  P  (P«).  Neither  section,  it 
flhonld  he  noted,  presents  that  historical  setting  which  is 
churacteristic  of  the  Iej;al  ordinances  of  tiie  main  stock  of  P. 
Such  a  setting,  liowever,  was  supplied  by  later  Jewish  tradition. 
Tlie  rite  of  the  red  iieifer,  accor<iing  to  Josephus.  was  instituted 
by  Moses  on  the  death  of  Miriam  (see  Nu  "201,  the  cliapter  im- 
Diediately /o^/ou'im/  its  itislitulion  in  the  Hebrew  text),  and  the 
asbes  of  the  first  victim  were  used  to  purify  tlie  people  at  the 
expiry  of  the  thirty  days  of  mourning  (,tln(."iv.  iv.  (5). 

i.  Tlie  preparation  of  the  ashes  of  the  red  heifer. 
li.  The  purpose  and  manner  of  their  ap]>licatioil. 
iii.  The  orisrin  and  significance  of  the  rite. 
iv.  The  red  heifer  as  a  type  of  Christ. 

i.  The  procedure  to  be  fulloiocd  in  the  preparation 
of  tlie  a.slies  is  laid  down  in  outline  in  vv.'"">.  De- 
tailed instructions — a  few  of  the  more  important  of 
whicli  are  noted  in  the  sequel — will  be  found  in  the 
.special  treatise  of  the  Mishna  devoted  to  the  sub- 
ject (see  Literature  at  end  of  art.).  The  ashes  are 
to  be  those  of  a  victim  with  special  qu.tlitications  of 
sex,  colour,  and  condition,  the  ultimate  grounds 
for  whieli  have  formed  the  subject  of  endless  de- 
bate among  Jewish  and  Christian  scholars.  The 
sacrilicial  victims  were  predominantly  males,  in 
the  case  of  the  sin-offerings  for  the  congregation,  a 
he-goat  (Lv  9^)  or  a  young  bullock  (4-^) ;  here,  as 
in  the  ancient  and  allied  rite  by  which  the  land 
was  p\irilied  from  the  defilement  of  an  untraced 
murder  (Dt  21"^-),  a  heifer  or  young  cow  «as  pre- 
scribed. According  to  a  widely  supported  view 
(Bahr,  Kurtz,  Keil,  Edersheim,  etc.),  the  female  se.\, 
as  the  immediate  source  of  new  life,  was  chosen  in 
onler  to  furnish  a  more  suggestive  contrast  in  a 
rite  associated  with  death.  This  and  similar  ex- 
]>lanations,  however,  seem  to  us  to  introduce  a 
train  of  thought  much  too  advanced  for  ceremonies 
bearing  such  evident  marks  of  a  great  antiquity 
(see  iii.  below)  as  do  those  of  Nu  19  and  Dt  21. 
We  ought  rather,  in  these  eases,  to  see  in  the  choice 
of  the  female  sex  the  desire  to  offer  the  most 
[irecious  and  therefore  the  most  efficacious  victim, 
the  females,  as  the  breeders  of  the  herd,  being  the 
more  valuable  in  the  estimation  of  a  pastoral  people 
— a  view  retlected  in  the  composition  of  Jacob's  pre- 
sent to  Esau  (Gn  32'*^ ;  cf.  Dillm.-Ryssel,  £z.-i».' 
429).* 

The  age,  by  Rabbinic  prescription,  might  range 
from  two  to  live  years  (Farah  i.  1);  the  colour 
must  be  red  (■?"!<,  cf.  Zee  1*  of  horses),  or  rather 
reildisli  brown. t  The  heifer,  further,  had  to  be 
without  spot  or  blemish  of  any  kind,  '  upon  which 
never  came  yoke'  (v.-),  rightly  paraphrased  by 
Josephus  as  '  a  heifer  that  had  never  been  used  to 
the  plough  or  to  husbandry'  (Ant.  IV.  iv.  6 ;  cf. 
Dt  2P,  and  the  epithets  i^yyet,  in^uges,  applied  to 
sacrilicial  victims  by  classical  writers).  The  cost 
was  defrayed  from  the  half -shekel  temple  tax 
(Shekal.  iv.  2). 

Not  the  high  priest,  who  dared  not  risk  the  con- 
tagion of  uncle.anness,  but  his  rejiresentative, 
Eleazar,  had  to  bring  the  victim  forth  'without 
the  camp'  (v.')— that  is,  in  actual  practice,  from 
the  teini)le  bill,  by  the  so-called  Red  Heifer  bridge, 
across  the  Kidron  to  the  Mount  of  Olives.  A  rite 
so  sacrosaiK't,  and  therefore  entailing  ceremonial 
(ielilemenl  on  the  place  and  persons  concerned,  had 
to  lie  performed  at  a  distance  from  the  sanctuary 
(cf.  the  barren  valley  of  Dt  21').  At  a  spot  secure 
troni  possible  contamination  by  graves,  the  heifer 
was  slain  by  a  second  person  in  the  presence  of  the 
priest,  who,  dipping  bis  finger  in  the  warm  blood, 
sprinkled  thereof  seven  times  in  the  direction  of 

—hence  the  si;,;natiire  P' — codified  independently  of  the  main 
stock  of  P  (Psj.     See  op.  cit.  ii.  218f.,  and  cf.  L  162 f.,  and  art. 

Ki'MISKltS. 

•  Foi-  other  explanations  of  the  comparative  sacrednesa  of  the 
cow,  a.e  W    U  .Smith.  liS^  281),  »  287,  and  rcff.  there. 

f  The  later  .lewish  authorities  by  a  false  exegesis,  which  took 
tPm\wah ,  '  physically  perfect,'  as  a  qualification  of  the  preceding 
ftdjectixe  'perfectly  red,"  considered  the  presence  of  even  two 
hairs  of  another  colour  as  disqualifying  {Parah  ii.  6  ;  c(.  Rasbi 
and  other  commeutators.  in  lor..\ 


the  sanctuary,  i.e.  the  temple.  A  pyre  having 
been  previously  constructed  of  various  fragrant 
woods,*  the  complete  carcass  of  the  heifer— 'her 
skin,  and  her  flesh,  and  her  blood,  with  her  dung' 
(v.") — was  burned  thereon.  At  a  cert;iin  stage  (sea 
Piinih  iii.  10)  an  interesting  p.art  of  the  ceremony 
took  place.  This  was  the  ctisting,  by  the  directing 
priest,  of  'cedar  wood  (iiy),  and  hyssop,  and 
scarlet' into  the  midst  of  the  burning  ma.ss.  Ac- 
cording to  later  authorities,  these  items  consisted 
of  a  thin  piece  of  so-called  'cedar' — in  reality  a 
piece  of  the  fragrant  wood  of  the  Juniperus  Phan- 
uea  (see  CEDAR)  or  J.  Oxi/cedrus  (Low,  Araiti, 
PJlanzennamen,  p.  57) — a  cubit  in  length,  a  bunch 
of  aromatic  hyssop  or  wild  marjoram,  and  a  strip 
of  woollen  cloth  dyed  scarlet,  which  bound  the 
juniper  and  hyssop  together  [Parah  iii.  10.  11, 
with  commentaries  ;  Maimonides,  de  Vacca  Rufa). 

When  the  whole  pyre  was  reduced  to  ashes, 
these  were  collected  by  a  third  clean  person — the 
two  previous  participants  having  been  rendered 
unclean,  in  modern  phrase  '  taboo '  (see  below,  iii.), 
by  contact  with  the  sacrosanct  victim,  and  de- 
posited by  him  'without  the  camp  in  a  clean  place' 
(V.*).  The  ashes  (not  of  the  red  heifer  alone,  be  it 
noted,  but  these  mixed  with  the  ashes  of  the  frag- 
rant woods)  were  now  ready  to  be  used  as  the  law 
prescribed.  All  the  three  participants  in  the  cere- 
mony were  unclean  (or  taboo)  till  sundown,  after 
which  time,  having  bathed  their  persons  and 
washed  their  clothes,  they  were  again  ceremonially 
clean  (vv.'-  *• '") — that  is,  they  were  again  admitted 
to  the  society  of  their  fellows,  and  to  participation 
in  the  cultus. 

iL  TXm  ])urpose  of  the  ashes  prepared  as  above  la 
expressly  dec-lared  to  be  '  for  (the  preparation  of) 
a  water  of  separation'  (.i-i  -c^  v.';  R\  m  'a  water 
of  impurity ').  The  meaning  of  these  words  was 
early  misunderstood.  The  LXX,  followed  by  aU 
the  chief  ancient  versions,  connecting  rni  nidddh 
with  the  Aramaic  form  of  the  Heb.  nu  '  to  sprinkle,' 
rendered  the  phrase  by  ioup  jiavnafiov  '  water  of 
sprinkling,'  Jerome's  aqua  aspersionis,  Luther'a 
Sprenqwasser.  In  reality  the  verb  n^j  (see  Is  66°) 
denoted  in  the  technical  language  of  the  priests  '  to 
exclude  from  the  cultus,'  in  post-biblical  Hebrew 
'  to  excommunicate ' ;  hence  the  substantive  nidddh 
denotes  'that  which  excludes  from  the  cultus,' t 
viz.  ceremonial  uncletmness  or  impurity.  Mi 
niddCih  (lit.  'water  of  exclusion')  accordingly 
signifies  water  for  removinij  the  uncleanness  whicIi 
is  the  cause  of  this  exclusion  ;  In  other  words,  as 
suggested  by  RVm,  '  water  [for  the  removal]  of 
impurity.'  The  mode  of  preparation  was  of  the 
sim[)Iest :  'for  the  unclean  they  sh.all  take  of  the 
ashes  of  the  burning  of  the  sin -offering,  and  running 
water  shall  Ije  put  thereto  in  a  vessel' (v."  RV). 
This  simple  procedure  was  later  elaborated  with 
the  most  ingenious  detail,  if  we  are  to  believe  the 
statements  of  the  Mishna,  to  which  the  student  is 
referred  (Prtrn/t  iii.  2-5).  A  clean  person — accord- 
ing to  Parah  xii.  10,  an  adult  male,  not  a  female, 
though  the  latter  might  hold  the  vessel — took  a 
bunch  of  hysso]),  dipped  it  in  the  '  water  of  im- 
purity,'and  s]irinkled  the  house  in  which  a  death 
had  taken  place,  and  all  the  persons  and  utensils 
therein,  except  such  of  the  latter  as  were  provided 
with  lids,  or  were  otherwise  closed  against  the 
contagion  of  uncleanness  (v.").  The  same  lustra- 
tion was  required  in  the  case  of  uncleanness  con- 

"  Four  are  named  in  Parah  iii.  8 :  fJN  and  pit  (Aagyr.  Irinrt, 
'  cedar '),  two  species  of  Juniper  (probably),  Cii3  '  cypress,'  and 

fig- 

t  Ibn  Ezra  appears  to  be  the  first  to  grasp  the  true  connexion 
Iwtween  the  verb  and  the  substantive.  See  his  conim.  in  toe. 
Rashi  kept  to  the  traditional  view  .T'1.1  "cS  'for  water  ol 
sprinkling.'  The  commentaries  of  both  exegetea  ore  found  in 
the  ordinary  Rabbinic  Bibles. 


RED  HEIFER 


RED  HEIFER 


209 


tracted  by  every  one  who  had  occasion  to  toucli  a 
dead  body,  whether  the  person  had  died  a  natural 
or  a  violent  death,  and  by  every  one  who  liad 
tonchcd  even  a  bone  of  the  linnian  bodj-  or  a  grave 
(v.'»). 

By  a  separate  enactment  (Nu  31""**;  note  esp. 
.■r;i,-!n  r-n  v.''),  which  likewise  bears  every  indica- 
tion of  belonging  to  the  latest  stratum  of  the 
priestly  legislation,  the  'water  of  impurity'  had 
to  be  employed  on  the  return  from  a  campaign  for 
the  cleansing  of  the  soldiers  and  their  captives 
(31"),  including  their  clothes  and  impedimenta 
(v.*).  The  spoil,  also,  of  precious  and  useful 
metals  taken  from  the  enemy,  after  a  preliminary 
purilieation  by  being  passed  through  the  lire,  had 
to  be  finally  purified  by  the  application  of  the 
'  water  of  impurity '  (v.^). 

In  the  case  of  unclean  persons  the  sprinkling 
Ras  performed  on  the  third  and  seventh  days 
following  that  on  which  the  uncleanness  had  been 
«3ntracted.  On  the  seventh  day  'at  even'  or 
sundown,  after  having  bathed  their  persons  and 
washed  their  clothes,  they  were  once  more  clean. 
The  ban  of  exclusion  from  tlie  cultus  was  finally 
removed,  and  the  persons  all'ected  resumed  their 
place  in  the  holy  community  of  J". 

iii.  Origin  and  significance  of  the  rite. — Although 
the  chapter  before  us  may,  or  ratlier  must,  have 
assumed  its  present  form  at  a  comparatively  late 
period,  the  essential  part  of  the  ceremony  of  lus- 
tration may  be  conlidently  affirmed  to  be  of 
extreme  antiquity,  for  the  mystery  attaching  to 
the  beginning  and  the  end  of  life,  and  to  tlio 
blood  aa  the  vehicle  of  life,  has  impressed  mankind 
from  the  earliest  days.  In  all  forms  of  primitive 
religious  thought  a  dead  body  is  conceived  as  a 
TOurce  of  real,  if  undefined,  danger  to  nil  in 
|ii<)xiniity  to  it.  Itself  in  the  highest  degree 
unclean,  in  modem  phrase  taboo,  it  becomes  an 
active  source  of  uncleanness,  and  renders  taboo 
everyone  and  evcrj-thing  about  it.  These  death 
taboos,  as  they  may  be  called,  were  in  full  force 
among  the  ancient  Hebrews,  as  among  the  other 
nations  of  antiquity,  and  the  means  used  to 
remove  the  taboo  were  to  a  large  extent  identical. 
Primarily,  as  Kobertson  Smith  has  pointed  out, 
'purification  means  the  application  to  the  person 
ot  some  medium  which  removes  a  taboo,  and 
enables  a  person  to  mingle  freely  in  the  onlinary 
life  of  his  fellows'  (RS^  405).  The  most  widely 
distributed  medium  is,  of  course,  water,  but  for 
aggravated  ca-ses  of  uncleanness  this  medium  was 
supposed  to  acquire  increa.sed  potency  through 
the  addition  of  ashes  (see  the  rett'.  to  ancient 
writers  quoted  by  Bahr,  Symbolik,  ii.  495,  and 
Knobel  in  Dillmann's  commentary,  in  loc).  Here, 
then,  ue  have  the  origin  of  the  essential  part  of 
the  Hebrew  rite. 

Closely  connected  with  this  circle  of  ideas  is  the 
nniveisal  belief  of  primitive  man  that  sickness  and 
death  are  caused  by  harmful  and  malevolent 
spirits  whose  anger  be  has  incurred  (cf.  Demon, 
vol.  i.  p.  590*).  An  interesting  survival  of  this 
primitive  mode  of  thought  may,  we  venture  to 
think,  be  found  in  the  ritual  of  the  red  heifer. 
Much  laboured  ingenuity  has  been  exjiended  in 
finding  suitable  symbolical  meanings  for  each  of 
the  'cedar  wood,  liyssop,  and  scarlet'  which  were 
a«lded  to  the  burning  pyre.  According  to  some, 
cedar,  hastily  assumed  to  be  the  majestic  cedar  of 
Lebnniin,  is  the  symbol  of  pride,  aa  hyssop  of 
humility  ;  according  to  others,  cedar,  the  incor- 
ruptible wood,  was  chosen  '  aa  tyjiical  of  eternity 
of  life,  hyssop  of  purification  from  the  power  of 
death,  and  scarlet  thread  to  show  the  intensity  of 
life  in  the  red  heifer.'  The  true  explanation,  it 
seems  to  us,  is  to  be  found  in  the  primitive  concep- 
tion referred  to  above.  We  have  here  a  meaning- 
vou  iv._i4 


less  survival,  of  which  innumerable  parallels  will 
occur  to  students  of  comparative  religion,  from  the 
time  when  the  fragrant  woods,  such  as  junijier  and 
cyi)re.'<s  ami  the  aromatic  plants  of  the  mint  family, 
were  supposed  to  act  as  a  protection  against  the 
harmful  unseen  powers  that  were  the  cause  of 
death  *  and  hovered  about  the  dead.  The  scarlet 
cloth  is  to  be  explained  either  by  the  fact  that  a 
special  healing  virtue  was  assigned  in  antiquity  to 
the  scarlet  dye  (11elitzsch,t  art.  '  Sprengwasser '  in 
Kiehm's  //lI'/J  d.  bihl.  Altcrthums-),  or  by  the 
universally  prevalent  idea  of  red,  the  colour  of  the 
sacred  blood,  as  the  taboo  colour  par  excellence 
(Jevons,  Introd.  to  Hist,  of  Religion,  67  ff.  ;  Trum- 
bull, The  Blood  Covenant,  23(5f.).t  The  line  of 
thought  along  which  we  have  sought  to  explain 
this  confessedly  difficult  part  of  the  ritual,  to  the 
exclusion  of  the  adv.anced  symbolical  interpreta- 
tion hitherto  current,  finds  further  justification  in 
the  use  of  a  sprinkler,  consisting  of  a  bunch  of 
hyssop,  tied  to  a  handle  of  juniper  wood  by  a 
similar  strip  of  scarlet  cloth,  in  sprinkling  a  house, 
as  well  as  a  person,  that  was  to  be  declared  free 
from  the  plague  of  leprosy  (Lv  14°"'^'). 

While  we  have  thus  endeavoured  to  trace  the 
origin  of  the  ritual  of  the  red  heifer  to  its  source 
in  an  atmosphere  of  primitive  religious  thought 
common  to  the  Hebrews  of  the  pre-Mosaic  age 
with  other  r.aces  on  a  similar  plane  of  develop- 
ment, it  must  not  be  forgotten  that  the  rite 
received  a  higher  and  fuller  interpretation  in  being 
admitted  Into  the  circle  of  the  priestly  legislation 
of  the  post-exilic  age.  Uncleanness  and  sin,  sin 
and  death,  are  now  associated  ideiis  (for  the  whole 
subject,  see  art.  Uncleanness).  The  red  heifer 
has  become  a  sin-od'ering  ( vv.'-  ")  of  a  unique  kind  ; 
part  of  the  blood  is  sprinkled  towards  the  dwelling- 
place  of  J",  from  whose  worship  those  'unclean 
from  the  de.id  '  are  temporarily  excluded,  the  rest 
is  burned  with  the  victim  to  heighten  the  expiatory 
efficacy  of  the  ashes.  The  rite  in  all  its  details 
becomes  a  powerful  object-lesson,  teachin"  the 
eternal  truth  that  a  holy  God  can  be  servea  only 
by  a  holy  people. 

It  is  no  longer  possible  to  ascertain  the  extent  to  which  the 
'  water  of  impurity  '  was  actually  used  as  a  medium  of  lustration 
by  the  mass  of  tiie  Jewish  people.  Even  such  sober  investi- 
gators as  llelitzuch  and  L^illmann  have  pointed  out  the  ditti- 
cullies  in  the  way  of  an  extended  application  of  the  ritual  of 
Nu  10  in  a  thickly  peopled  country.  Again,  what  are  we  to 
make  of  the  statement  {i'arah  iii.  5)  that  only  seven  or  nine 
red  heifers  were  slain  in  all— the  first  by  Moses,  the  second  by 
Ezra,  and  the  rest  later?  The  jirobability  is  that,  like  many 
other  of  the  more  stringent  rec|uiremenC«  of  the  LeviLical  code, 
the  observance  was  confined  to  the  more  ardent  le;,'alist8  in 
Jerusalem.  Jewish  tradition  represents  this  and  other  rites 
regarding  uncleanness  as  ceasing  to  be  observed  about  fifty 
yeara  after  the  destruction  of  the  temple  (Hamburger,  Heal- 
eucycl.  d.  JudetUhuiiw,  i.  874).  The  red  heifer,  it  may  be 
remarked  finally,  has  given  her  name  to  the  second  cliapter  of 
the  Koran,  '  the  snrah  of  tlie  heifer,*  in  which,  however, 
Mohannned  in  his  usual  fashion  has  confused  the  two  heifera  of 
Nu  10  and  Lit  il  (see  »ur.  ii.  to  ff.). 

iv.  The  red  heifer  as  a  t>ipe  of  Chriit. — It  was 
natural  that  the  early  Church  should  si^c  in  the 
expiatory  rite  of  Nu  19  a  prefiguring  of  the  atoning 
work  of  our  Lord.  The  first  to  give  literary  ex- 
pression to  this  idea,  which  has  received  such 
detailed  elaboration  at  the  hands  of  successive 
generations  of  typologists,   is  the  author  of   the 

•  In  comparatively  recent  times  In  our  own  country,  a  Juniper 
tree  planted  before  a  house  was  regarded  as  a  preventive  of  the 
plague. 

I  l)clit7.sch  is  apparently  the  only  writer  who  has  sought  to 
assign  other  than  a  purely  symbolical  significance  to  these  three 
element*.  See,  bc.sides  ihc  above  article,  his  commcDtary  OD 
Ho  lil^,  and  cf.  Nowack,  Arch.  ii.  '280,  note  1. 

!  If  we  could  l>e  sure  that  the  red  colour  ot  the  heifer  was  M 
old  ojt  the  practice  of  burning  for  the  sake  of  the  ashes,  the 
choice  would  probably  have  t^  l>e  exniainefl  by  the  same  associa- 
tion of  ideas.  The  oxen  sacrificed  by  the  ancient  Egyptians 
ha<I  also  to  be  red,  a  single  black  or  white  hair  disqualifyuig  ao 
animal  for  the  sacrifice  Q'lutnrch,  Iti*  tt  Oirirw,  SI  ;  Herod.  U. 
3S,  cited  hv  Frazcr,  Ouldm  Boti'ih,  i.  300,  2nil  ed.,  1000,  il.  812). 


210 


RED  HORSE 


REDEEMEK,  REDEMPTION 


Epistle  to  tlie  Hebrews  in  the  familiar  passage  9'"-. 
In  the  Kpistle  of  Barnabas  we  find  a  whole  chapter 
(ch.  8)  devoted  to  this  subject,  in  the  course  of 
which  the  writer  shows  an  intimate  acquaintance 
with  contemporary  Jewish  practice  as  reflected  in 
the  Mishna  (see  esp.  Parah  iii.  2,  3).  '  The  calf  is 
Jesus,'  the  juniper  wood  is  His  cross,  while  the 
scarlet  wool,  the  hyssop,  and  other  details  receive 
a  more  or  less  appropriate  iuterpretation. 

LiTERATURB. — The  comm,  on  Nu  19,  esp.  Dillmann ;  the 
treatise  Parah  (Lat.  tr.  with  commentaries  in  Surenhu'jius' 
Mishna,  vol.  vi.,  English  in  Barclay's  Talmud,  p.  SOOff.),  which 
fcnns  the  basis  of  Maimonides'  treatise  ms  noVn,  edited  with 
Lat.  tr.  and  notes  by  A.  C.  Zeller,  de  Vaoca  Rufa,  17H  ; 
Spencer,  de  legg.  Heb.  ril.  ii.  15,  '  de  vitula  rufa,'  etc. ;  Bahr, 
SvmboUk  des  ilosaUchen  Cultus,  1839,  i.  493-612 ;  Kurtz  in  SK, 
1846,  p,  629  9.  ;  Edersheim,  The  Temple,  etc.  p.  304  £f.  ;  works 
on  Biblical  archaeology-,  esp.  Haneberg,  Keil  (i.  385  ff.),  and 
Nowack  (ii.  2S3  ff.) ;  art.  *  Sprengwasser  *  by  Delitzsch  in 
Riehm's  HWB  d,  bibl.  AUerthuilui-,  and  * Reinigungen '  by 
KbmginPJ;i.=.  A.  R.  S.  KENNEDY. 

RED  HORSE.— See  Revelation  (Book  of), 
p.  239. 

RED  SEA  ('■|'D-D-  Ex  10"  and  often ;  also  c-n  Ex 
14-"^- »,  Is  51""'"  63"  etc.  ;  D-y^-^-a;  Is  11";  LXX 
ij  ipvBpa.  Sd\a(r<7a,  with  the  equivalent  amongst 
Latin  geographers  Mare  Rubrum,  also  Mare 
Erythrceum). — The  origin  of  the  name  '  Red  Sea' 
is  uncertain,  though  several  reasons  for  it  have 
been  assigned,  such  as  the  colour  of  the  corals 
which  cover  its  floor  or  line  its  shores  ;  the  tinge 
of  the  Edomite  and  Arabian  mountains  which 
border  its  coasts,  and  the  light  of  an  Eastern  sky 
reflected  on  its  waters.  Dean  Stanley  considers 
that  the  name  as  applied  to  the  Gulfs  of  Suez  and 
Akabah  is  comparatively  modern,  as  it  was  used 
to  designate  the  waters  of  the  Indian  Ocean  and 
the  Persian  Gulf  before  it  was  applied  to  the  arm 
which  extends  northwards  of  the  Strait  of  Bab-el- 
Mandeb;*  and  in  the  former  application  it  is  used 
by  Berosus  and  Herodotus.f  The  Hebrew  name 
Yam  Siiph  (see  art.  St;PH)  appears  to  have  been 
used  from  very  early  times.  The  origin  of  the 
name  is  not  ot  much  importance,  since  the  name 
itself  is  in  universal  use. 

The  Red  Sea  is  one  of  the  most  remarkable  of 
oceanic  gulfs  on  the  globe,  owing  to  the  fact  that 
it  receives  the  waters  of  no  river,  while  the  evapo- 
ration from  its  surface  is  necessarily  enormous. 
It  must,  therefore,  be  fed  by  the  influx  of  water 
from  the  Indian  Ocean  through  the  Straits  of 
Bab-elMandeb  ;  but  as  such  a  condition  of  sujiply 
would  long  ere  this  have  resulted  in  the  conversion 
of  the  whole  basin  into  a  mass  of  solid  rock-salt,  it 
is  inferred  that  an  outward  current  flows  into  the 
Indian  Ocean  beneath  the  surface  inward  current. 

The  length  of  the  Red  Sea  from  the  Straits  to 
♦he  head  of  the  Gulf  of  Suez  is  about  1350  miles, 
and  the  extreme  breadth  in  lat.  19°  N.  205  miles. 
Towards  its  northern  end  it  bifurcates  into  two 
narrow  gulfs — those  of  Suez  and  Akabah  (^lanitic 
Gulf),  between  which  rises  the  mountainous  region 
of  Sinai.  The  waters  are  clear  and  of  a  deep  blue 
colour  ;  and,  as  might  be  expected,  are  more  saline 
than  those  of  the  ocean  in  the  proportion  of  4  to 
3'5  ;  the  relative  densities  being  1'030  and  r026  at 
a  temperature  of  60"  Fahrenheit. 

The  waters  of  the  Red  Sea  are  crowded  with 
living  forms,  and  their  high  temperature  (where 
not  deep),  combined  with  extreme  purity,  being 

•  Stanley,  Sinai  and  Palextine  6,  6  (noteX 

f  Ritwlinson,  .-1  ncient  Monarchies,  i.  109.  Sayce  (HCM  255  ff.) 
maintains  that  Vam  Suph  as  used  by  Heb.  writers  means 
only  the  Gulf  of  At^ba^,  and  that  its  application  in  Kx  15^23 
to  the  *8ea,*  which  the  Israelites  crossed  on  leaving  Egj-pt, 
rests  upon  a  mistake.  This  view,  which  the  present  writer  is 
persuaned  is  entirely  erroneous,  was  adopted  by  Sayce  in 
order  to  support  his  theory  that  Mount  Sinai  lay  amongst  the 
Edomit«  mountAins  eub  of  the  Guli  of  A^cabah.  Se«,  further, 
art.  SuiAL 


favourable  to  polyp  life,  coral  reefs  abound,  either 
liuing  the  shores  or  rising  as  islands  above  the 
surface.  The  navigable  channel  from  Suez  to  the 
Straits  lies  nearly  in  the  centre  of  the  basin,  and 
in  lat.  21°  N.,  where  the  greatest  depth  is  found, 
the  bed  descends  to  a  depth  of  1200  fathoms. 

That  the  bed  of  the  Red  Sea  is  becoming:  shallower 
by  the  gradual  rise  of  the  land,  admits  of  the  clearest 
proof.  Raised  beaches  containing  shells  and  corals 
now  living  in  the  water  are  found  at  various 
levels  up  to  many  feet  above  the  present  surface  ; 
as,  for  example,  along  the  clitls  of  Nummulii£ 
limestone  above  Cairo  and  other  parts  of  Lower 
Egypt,  as  well  as  along  the  shores  of  the  Gulf  of 
Suez  and  Akabah.  The  most  remarkable  of  these 
beaches  is  tliat  which  is  found  at  a  level  of  220 
ft.,  and  was  first  recognized  by  Oscar  Fraas.  Still 
more  recently,  and  probably  within  the  human  and 
pre-historic  period,  the  waters  of  the  Red  Sea 
stretched  up  the  Istlimus  of  Suez  into  the  great 
Bitter  Lake,  as  the  floor  of  the  canal  when  being 
cut  in  1867  laid  open  beds  of  rock-salt  and  strat?., 
with  recent  sliells  and  corals.*  At  the  close  of 
the  Eocene  period  the  whole  surface  of  E<rypt  was 
under  the  waters  of  the  ocean,  and  the  Red  Sea 
and  Mediterranean  waters  were  continuous.  The 
fauna  of  the  Red  Sea  and  of  the  Meditenanean 
are  now  highly  dissimilar :  that  of  the  former 
partaking  of  the  character  of  the  Indian  Ocean ; 
that  of  the  latter,  of  the  Atlantic.  This  process  of 
diflerentiation  has  been  naturally  proceeding  from 
the  time  when  the  two  seas  were  disconnected  by 
the  uprising  of  the  land  in  Miocene  and  Pliocene 
times,  and  the  formation  of  the  Isthmus  of  Suez.t 

The  biblical  history  of  the  Red  Sea  is  chiefly 
connected  ■with  the  Exodus  (which  see) ;  but 
we  have  an  interesting  reference  to  it  later 
in  the  time  of  Solomon  and  Hiram,  ling  of 
Tyre,  illustrating  the  essentially  ditt'erenl  habits 
of  the  Israelites  and  Phoenicians.  These  latter, 
from  the  time  they  settled  on  the  coast  of 
Syria,  became  a  maritime  nation,  extending  their 
trade  and  founding  colonies  all  round  the  Medi- 
terranean, while  inland  their  extent  of  territory 
was  extremely  limited.  The  Israelites,  on  the 
other  hand,  were  not  a  seafaring  people  ;  and  con- 
sequently, when  Solomon  had  extended  his  rule 
over  Edom,  and  as  far  south  as  the  ..Elanitic  Gulf, 
and  was  desirous  of  having  a  fleet,  to  navigate  the 
waters  of  the  Red  Sea  and  to  trade  vnth  Ophir 
for  gold  and  other  commodities ;  and  when  Elath 
[Aila  of  Strabo)  and  Ezion-geber  were  fortitied, 
and  the  latter  made  a  seaport  town,  his  own 
subjects  being  ignorant  of  nautical  afl'airs,  he  was 
obliged  to  have  recourse  to  the  assistance  of  Hiram, 
with  whom  he  had  preserved  friendly  relations. 
This  appeal  was  not  made  in  vain,  and  Hiram  sent 
his  servants,  '  shipnien  that  had  knowledge  of  the 
sea,'  to  man  the  fleet  in  the  trade  with  Ophir 
(1  K  9'^-^).  After  this  event  the  Red  Sea  drops 
out  of  biblical  history  ;  Elatli  was  for  a  time  lost 
to  the  kingdom  of  Israel  on  the  revolt  of  Edom 
against  Joram  (2  K  8™),  and,  though  regained  by 
Azariah  (14-),  it  finally  passed  into  the  hands  of 
the  Syrians  (Kcthibh)  or  the  Edomites  (Ijicre)  in 
the  reign  of  Ahaz  (16").  Some  ruins  on  an  island 
at  the  head  of  the  gulf  are  supposed  to  mark  the 
site  of  this  once  important  seaport.        E.  Hull. 

REDEEMER,  REDEMPTION.— With  two  excep- 
tions ( AV  in  Ps  136-''  [p"!p,  lit.  to  break  or  tear  away, 

•  The  writer  considers  that  this  waa  the  condition  of  tha 
Isthmus  at  the  time  of  the  Exodus.  Such  a  view,  borne  out 
by  ot>sen'ation,  renders  the  account  of  this  event  intelligible, 
but  does  not  necessitate  the  inference  that  the  waters  of  the 
Red  Sea  and  the  Mediterranean  were  at  that  time  connected. 

t  For  an  account  of  the  raised  beaches  of  the  Red  Sea  c  )ast 
and  ot  Lower  Egrpt,  see  Hull,  '  On  the  Physical  Geology  ol 
Arabia  Petnea,'  PiF  Menn.  69  ff.  (1886). 


REDEEMER,  EEDEMrTION 


REDEEMER,  REDEMPTION       211 


n  common  Aram,  word  for  rescue,  deliver,  in  Heb. 
also  La 5'"],  RV  'delivered';  and  AV and  RV in  Neli 
u»  [njij  to  buy,  so  RVml),  'redeem  '  is  tlie  tr.  in  OT 
of  the  Heb.  .ti?  and  7N3,  with  their  derivatives. 
mD  (better,  for  distinction  from  Sk:,  rendered 
'to  ransom')  is  used  of  the  money  payments  re- 
quired under  tlie  Law  for  tlie  redemplion  of  the 
tirstborn  (so  Nu  3«-"  IS""-;  cf.  Ex  13"-",  Lv 
27"),  or  for  the  release  of  persons  from  slavery  (so 
Ex  21»,  Lv  25"-"') ;  and  hKi  '  to  redeem  '  (in  a.  le^'al 
sense),  of  the  recovery  of  property  which  had  passed 
into  other  hands  (so  Lv  25-",  Itu  4'"''-),  or  of  commuta- 
tion of  a  vow  (Lv  27"-  "•  '»■  =")  or  a  tithe  (Lv  27^'). 

In  the  Prophets  and  the  Psalms  both  Sxj  and 
.Tip  are  used  tij;uratively,  with  the  general  mean- 
ing 'deliver,'  of  the  saving  activity  of  God,  as 
jhown  in  the  history  of  Israel  (so  Is  29^  [:i-i:]  48®' 
32*,  Ps  77"  [all  hsi\)  and  in  the  experience  of  indi- 
vidual Israelites  (Ps  34-'^  [lis]).  Cremer  ( Worterb. 
p.  596)  finds,  in  tlie  use  of  these  words  rather  than 
others  which  might  have  been  chosen,  a  suggestion 
of  the  property  relation  conceived  to  exist  between 
J"  and  Israel.  Cf.  Ps  74"  '  Remember  thy  con- 
gregation, which  thou  hast  purchased  of  old, 
which  thou  hast  redeemed  (Snj)  to  be  the  tribe  of 
thine  inheritance ' ;  so  Dt  9'^,  2  S  7=^,  1  Ch  17" 
(all  ms),  Is  52^  (^'ki).  [A  similar  idea  appears  in  the 
NT  TtpiToulaeai  (Ac  20=*),  jrf/jiTroiV'S  (t-I'h  l'^  1  P 
2*),  and  ayopi^u  (I  Co  6^  and  often);  but  these 
words  correspond  in  the  LXX  to  ^;™,  n^;?,  and 
n}B,  never  to  7(<;  or  ms].  In  the  great  majority  of 
cases,  however,  tlie  idea  of  a  money  pajinent  falls 
altogether  into  the  liackground,  and  the  words 
arc  used  in  the  purel}'  general  sense  of  'save,' 
'deliver.'  To  'ransom'  or  'redeem'  means  to 
deliver  from  any  calamity  or  misfortune,  however 
that  deliverance  may  be  urought  about. 

More  specifically,  redemption  is  tliou^bt  of  as 
deliverance  from  adversity  (2  S  49,  1  K  1^,  Ps  25=2 
[all  ms]),  oppression  and  violence  (Ps  72'*  ['?n3]). 
captivity  (Zee  10»-'»  [ms],  Ps  107--'  V'«i\),  or  death 
(Pg49"['™].  103',  Hos  1.3"  [both  Sn:],  Job  S-"  [ms]). 
It  is  specially  associated  with  the  deliverance  from 
Egypt  (Dt  7'  13'  24'«,  Mic  6*  [all  mD]),  and  with 
the  (idealized)  deliverance  from  Babylon  (Is  35" 
62'"  63'  [all  Sxil).  In  a  single  instance  only  is  it 
used  of  redemption  from  sin  (Ps  130'  [ms]). 

The  noun  '  redeemer'  is  the  tr.  in  OT  of  the  part. 
SkI  (rfO'cl,  properly  one  who  asserts  a  claim  or  has 
the  right  of  '  re<lenir)lion,'  esp.  one  who  vindicates 
the  right  of  a  murdered  man,  i.e.  the  'avenger  of 
blood,'  lience  the  next-of-kin,  Nu  5',  Ru  2-"  al., 
1  K  IG"),  and  is  applied  in  our  VSS,  in  a  figura- 
tive sense,  to  God  only.  It  is  a  favourite  term 
of  Deutero-I.saiah,  who  often  speaks  of  J"  as  the 
GC'ei  of  Israel  (so  41"  43"  44«- ^  47*  48"  49'-!» 
54».  a  59M  (jQio  63i»),  and  magnifies  the  freeness  and 
the  greatness  of  His  deliverance.  Cf.  Is  52'  *Ye 
were  sold  for  nought,  and  ye  shall  bo  redeemed 
witliout  money  '  ;  Is  54''  '  '  For  a  small  moment 
have  I  forsaken  thee ;  but  with  great  mercies  will 
I  gather  thee.  In  overllowing  wrath  I  hid  my 
face  from  thee  for  a  moment ;  but  with  everlasting 
kindness  will  I  have  mercy  upon  thee,  saith  J ' 
thy  redeemer.'  Outside  of  Isaiali,  the  term  gO'el 
is  not  applied  to  (Jod  excej)t  in  Ps  19"  78*>,  Job 
IS^,  Pr  23",  Jer  5(J".  In  the  last  three  cases  it  is 
used  in  the  special  sense  of  advocate  or  vindicator. 
J"  is  here  represented  as  doing  for  the  opjiressed 
what  the  human  rjO'clvioiM  do,  if  he  were  living. 
So  in  the  familiar  passage  Job  19*'  'I  know  that 
my  redeemer  liveth,  the  true  rendering  sliould  be, 
'  I  know  tliat  my  vindicator  liveth  '  (so  R\'m),  i.e. 
the  one  who  will  see  that  1  have  justice  after  I  am 
gone.  See,  further,  art.  GOEL,  and  A.  B.  David- 
ion's  note  on  Job  lO"". 

In  NT  the  words  for  '  redeem '  are  iyofiil^o) 
and  Xvrpouiuu,  with  their  derivatives.     The  former 


means  lit.  '  to  buy,'  '  to  purchase,'  by  which  terms 
it  is  uniformly  rendered  in  RV  (1  Co  6^  7^,  2  P 
2',  Rev  5"  14'- '  [all])  and  AV  in  all  passages  except 
Rev  5"  14'-  ♦.  This  is  akin  to  tlie  figurative  use  of 
n:p  'buy'  or  'purchase,'  in  tlie  OT,  of  the  deliver- 
ance of  Israel  from  bondage,  Ex  15",  Is  11",  Ps  74' 
(cf.  78'''),  though  mp  is  not  represented  in  the  LXX 
of  those  p.assages  by  ci7opds"w.  In  the  compound 
form  f^ayopifia,  '  to  buy  from  or  out  of,'  it  acquires 
the  technical  meaning  '  redeem,'  and  is  so  used 
twice  by  St.  Paul  (Gal  3"  4°)  of  Christ'.s  deliverance 
of  those  who  were  under  the  curse  of  the  law. 
'Christ  redeemed  us  from  the  curse  of  the  law, 
having  become  a  curse  for  us.  For  it  is  written, 
Curseil  is  every  one  that  hangeth  on  a  tree.'  Here 
Christ's  shameful  death  on  the  cross  is  regarded 
as  the  ransom  price  paid  for  the  deliverance  of 
those  who  were  held  prisoners  under  the  law  and 
subject  to  its  curse.  Cf.  Rev  5',  where  the  redeemed 
are  said  to  be  purchased  unto  God  (not  from  God) 
with  the  blood  of  the  Lamb. 

The  more  common  NT  word  is,  however,  XvrpoO- 
fiai  (from  X&rpov,  '  a  ransom'),  with  its  derivatives, 
Xvrpitnijs,  "KuTpiccns,  d7ro\iVpw(rtj.  These  follow  the 
usage  of  the  OT  Snj  and  ni",  being  sometimes 
used  in  the  technical  sense  of  '  ransom '  {e.ff.  1  P 
jis.  19)^  i)uf  more  frequently  in  the  purely  general 
sense  of  'deliver.'  Thus  X&rpciKni  is  used  in  Luke 
of  the  Messianic  deliverance  from  misfortune  and 
sorrow.  So  Lk  1**  2^,  cf.  24"'.  More  particularly 
of  the  salvation  to  be  wrought  at  the  Paronsia,  Lk 
21'-'*  {a.To\vTpuais,  cf.  Ro  8^  the  redemption  of  the 
body ;  Eph  1"  the  redemption  of  God's  own 
possession.  In  Eph  4**  the  phrase  '  day  of  re- 
demption '  is  used  as  a  synonym  for  Parousia). 
In  otiier  passages  which  follow  the  thought  of 
Ps  130\  the  reference  is  clearly  to  redemption 
from  sin.  So  in  Eph  1',  Col  1",  reilemption  is 
associated  with  forgiveness.  In  Ro  3-'""  it  is  con- 
nected with  justification.  In  Tit  2"  Christ  is  said 
to  have  given  Himself  for  us  'that  he  might 
redeem  us  from  all  iniquity,  and  purify  unto  him- 
self a  people  for  his  own  possession,  zealous  of 
good  works.'  In  this  narrower  sense  redemption 
is  frequently  connected  with  the  death  of  Christ. 
Thus  He  9"  speaks  of  '  a  death  having  taken  place 
for  the  redemption  of  the  transgressions  that  were 
under  the  first  covenant.'  Cf.  Eph  I'  '  redemption 
through  his  blood ' ;  Ro  3'-''  ^  '  redemption  .  .  . 
through  faith  in  his  blood,'  and  esp.  1  P  !"• " 
'  Knowing  that  ye  were  redeemed,  not  with  cor- 
ruptible things,  as  with  silver  or  gold,  from  your 
vain  manner  of  life  handed  down  from  your  fathers ; 
but  with  precious  blood,  as  of  a  lamb  without 
blemish  and  without  spot,  even  the  blood  of 
Christ.'  Here  the  technical  meaning  of  \vrpovixai 
reajipears.  The  blood  of  Christ  is  represented  as 
tlie  ransom  price  (Xirpov,  cf.  Mk  10''')  by  which 
Christians  are  redeemed  from  their  former  sinful 
life.  Observe  that  in  1  P  l'«- '",  as  in  Tit  2"  and 
He  9",  the  thought  is  not  primarily  of  deliverance 
from  punishment,  but  of  deliverance  from  sin.  See, 
further,  uiuier  RANSOM. 

The  term  '  redeemer '  (Xv7-pam)s)  is  found  in  XT 
only  in  Ac  7^,  where  it  is  used  of  Moses  (ho  RVm  , 
AV  and  RV  tr.  'deliverer').  In  the  LXX  Xi/r/juiT-iji 
stands  for  SnJ  in  Ps  18(19)"  77(78)»  [all]. 

For  a  fuller  discussion  of  the  biblical  idea  of 
redemption,  see  Salvation,  Saviour. 

LrrnRATtm*.— Cromer,  Bib.Throl.  WBrttrb..  1.  Xurfim ;  Rltachl, 
RrcMf.  und  Vers.  U.  p.  2210. ;  BcysehlnK,  ynitest.  Thtol.  i.  p. 
38(5  <Kni{.  tr.  I.  p.  395 1.);  Stfvt-ns,  PatUint  Theot.  (ISOJ) 
p.  tJ-7  ff. ;  Orr,  Christian  Vvw  of  (jod  atul  the  M'orld  tlSlt:^, 
p.  SinlT.  ;  llort,  1  Paler  OSOS),  p.  78  IT.;  Brisirs,  Metnah  oj 
Apinllta,  p.  47  ft.,  and  Stxtdu  of  lloln  Heripturr,  isno,  p.  647(t. ; 
Abbott,  Ephetiant  and  ColosniaTU,  pp.  II  -  IS ;  Westcott, 
£f eirew*.  pp.  206, 208 ;  Sanflay-Hcadlam, /Jomanj,  p.  86;  Urlvei 
on  Dt  78  19«  ftnd  Par.  Ptalt.  463  (. 

W.  Adams  Brown. 


212 


KKED 


KEED 


REED. — There  is  as  mnch  uncertainty  in  regard 
to  the  signilication  of  the  Heb.  words  used  to 
designate  the  various  sorts  of  aquatic  and  marsh 
plants,  grouped  under  the  above  general  term,  as 
there  is  about  the  English  term  itself.  Two  of 
these,  'dhu  and  sdph,  have  alreaily  been  discussed 
under  Flag.     There  remain  the  foil,  four : — 

1.  P'V,  iin;N  'agmon.  This  word  seems  to  l)e 
derived  from  d:n  'again,  the  same  as  the  Ar.ab. 
'ajam,  denoting  '  a  troubled  or  muddy  pool '  (Is  14-^ 
c'c-'DJK),  such  as  reeds  and  rushes  grow  in,  and 
thence  a  reed  from  such  a  pool  (Jer  51'-,  RVm 
'mnrslie'i,  Heb.  pools').  'Agmon  is  tr^  in  ilob  41^ 
AV  'hook,'  RV  'rope';  job  41-'"  AV  'caldron,' 
liV  '  burning  rushes' ;  Is  58' '  bulrush,'  RV  '  rush.' 
The  word  is  used  metaphorically  for  the  lowly, 
and  tr"  'rush'  (Is  9''  19").  The  LXX  (cpU-os  = 
'  ring,'  S.v8pa^-='coa\,'  /itKp6s  =  ' small,'  Ti\oi='  end,' 
give  us  no  clue  to  the  signihcation  of  'agmon. 
Unfortunately,  there  is  nothing  in  the  etymology 
which  is  any  more  helpfiil.  The  expression  'bow 
down  his  head  like  a  bulrush'  (Is  58')  would  ex- 
clude the  true  rushes,  which  are  stifi',  erect  plants. 
There  are  several  rush-like  plants  to  which  it 
would  well  apply,  as  the  Twiij  Rush,  Cladium 
inariscus,  L.  ;  Cijperus  longus,  L.,  and  a  number 
of  the  Scirpi,  all  of  the  order  Cyperacece ;  the 
Common  Reed,  Phrngmites  coi)iminii>:,  L.,  of  the 
Graminece;  the  Flowering  Rush,  Bntomus  vmbel- 
Intus,  L. ,  of  the  Alismacew  ;  and  the  Rur  Reed, 
Sprirgnnium.  ramos^un,  Huds.,  of  the  Ti/p/iacew. 
The  expression  'canst  thou  put  an  'agmun  (AV 
'  hook,'  RV  '  rope ')  into  his  nose  ? '  (Job  41'-)  m.ay  be 
explained  as  referring  to  the  ring  Avhich  is  passed 
through  the  nostrils  of  bulls  to  lead  them.  'This  is 
usually  of  iron.  Sometimes  it  is  of  tough,  twisted 
withes.  It  may  be  that  it  was  sometimes  made  of 
rushes.  But  this  also  gives  no  light  as  to  the  par- 
ticular kind.  The  tr"  '  rush  '  is  admissible  only  if 
we  take  it  in  its  widest  and  most  general  sense. 

2.  Kti  gome'.  The  Ueb.  root  signifies  '  to  swallow 
or  imbibe.'  Gome'  occurs  in  connexion  with  its 
marshy  place  of  growth  (Job  8",  LXX  i-din/pos, 
AV  and  RV  'rush,'  RVm  'papyrus').  The  ark 
in  which  Moses  was  placed  was  made  of  gome' 
(Ex  2').  The  LXX  says  only  flr,3i!  =  ' wicker 
basket,'  without  mentioning  the  material  of  which 
it  was  made ;  AV  and  RV  '  bulrushes,'  RVm 
'papyrus.'  What  were  the  'vessels  of  gome"  ^ 
(Is  18=,  AV  'bulrushes,'  RV  'papyrus').  That 
boats  for  sea  voyages  were  ma<le  of  papyrus  is 
improbable.  But  the  passage  does  not  require 
tliat.  The  allusion  in  the  expression  'sea'  is 
doubtless  to  the  Nile,  the  gieater  branches  of 
which,  as  well  as  the  main  stream,  are  called 
by  the  Arabs  6aAr  =  'sea.'  The  Blue  Nile  is  el- 
b'lhr  el-azrnk,  and  the  White  Nile  el-bahr  el- 
ablnd,  while  the  united  stream  is  called  bnhr 
en-Nil  far  more  frequently  than  nnhr  (river)  en- 
Nil.  This  being  understood,  the  vessels  must  be 
considered  as  boats  or  skills  or  canoe.s.  The  LXX 
seems  to  have  another  text,  and  gives  ^iriffToXds 
/ii^Xii'05  =  ' letters  on  parchment.'  We  have  pro- 
fane testimony  as  to  the  use  of  papyrus,  which 
is  here  generic  for  sedges,  etc.,  for  boats  (I'lin. 
Nat.  Hist.  xiii.  22 ;  Theophrast.  //w<.  PI.  iv.  8), 
sails,  mats,  cloths,  coverlets,  and  ropes.  Gome' 
is  mentioned  in  one  other  passage  along  with 
Ifdtieh  (Is  35',  LXX  fXo$='a  swamp,'  AV  and  RV 
'rushes').  If  we  adojit  'rush'  as  the  generic 
expression  to  represent  'agmon,  it  would  be  better 
to  take  '  sedge '  as  an  equivalent  generic  expression 
for  gome'.  This  will  include  the  papyrus,  Cyperus 
Papyrus,  L.,  the  bnbir  or  bardi  of  the  Arabs; 
C.  alepecuroides,  Rotb.,  a  species  growing  to  tlie 
height  of  a  man  or  taller,  in  the  marshes  of  Egypt 
and  the  IJftleh,  and  used  in  making  mats,  etc.  ; 
Llie  Club  Rush,  or  Bulrush,  Scirpus  maritimus,  L., 


which  grows  as  large  as  the  last,  and  is  used  for 
similar  purposes ;  S.  mucronatus,  L. ;  S.  lacustris, 
L. ;  and  S.  littoralis,  L. ;  and  the  Twig  Rush, 
Cladium  mariscus,  L.,  which  has  been  mentioned 
under  'agmon.  The  papyrus  is  the  largest  and 
finest  of  all.  It  grows  from  creeping  root  stocks, 
which  produce  tufts  of  sterile,  linear  leaves  at  the 
surface  of  the  mud  or  water.  The  culms  are  10 
to  15  ft.  high,  and  2  to  3  in.  thick  at  the  base, 
which  is  enclosed  in  imbricated,  brown  sheaths. 
These  are  leaHess,  or  end  in  a  broad,  lanceolate 
limb.  The  culm  is  triquetrous  above,  and  ends 
in  an  umbel  8  to  15  in.  broad,  subtended  by  an 
involucre  of  numerous  lanceolate  leaves.  The 
spikelets  are  only  a  third  of  an  inch  long,  of  a 
pale  fawn  colour.  This  noble  sedge  is  the  orna- 
ment of  the  yoleh  swamps,  and  the  finest  of  the 
Cyperacew  of  Bible  lands,  perhaps  of  the  whole 
world.  It  used  to  be  common  in  Lower  Egypt, 
but  has  now  disappeared. 

3.  njij  kaneh.  Tliis  is  undoubtedly  the  equi- 
valent, neither  more  nor  less  general,  of  the  Eng. 
'reed.'  Both  are  generic  for  all  tall  grasses,  and 
more  or  less  for  grass-like  plants.  The  word 
hdna  in  Arabic  came  to  signify  a  spear,  from  the 
long  reed  which  constitutes  its  handle.  Such 
reeds  grow  in  great  profusion  in  the  cane  brakes 
of  the  Lower  Euphrates  and  Upper  Nile.  Egypt 
and  the  Holy  Land  are  pre-eminently  lands  of  tall 
grasses  and  canes.  Among  the  most  notable  of 
the  Graminece  of  the  Holy  Land  are  Arundo 
Donax,  L.,  called  in  Arabic  kamb  fdrisi={.\\e 
Persian  Reed.  This  noble  grass  often  attains  a 
height  of  15  to  20  ft.  Its  silky  panicle,  swaying 
gracefully  to  and  fro  in  the  wmd,  may  well  have 
been  the  'reed  shaken  by  the  wind  (Mt  11'). 
Immense  brakes  of  this  cane  are  found  on  the 
boi'ilers  of  tlie  stre.aiiis  about  the  Dead  Sea,  in  the 
Jordan  Valley,  I,Iflleh,  and  along  the  irrigation 
canals  and  rivers  throughout  the  land.  Another 
noble  grass  is  Sacclmrum  .^gyptiacum,,  Willd., 
called  in  Arsuhic  ghazzdr.  It  resembles  the  Pamp.xu 
Gr.ass  of  the  Argentina  in  the  beauty  of  its  silky 
panicles,  which  are  often  borne  on  stalks  10  to  15  ft. 
high.  Others  are  Panicum  turgidum,  Forsk.  ; 
Erianthus  Ravennie,  L.,  the  Woolly  Beard  Grass; 
Ammophila  aranarin,  L.  ;  Phragmites  communis, 
the  true  Reed,  known  in  Arabic  as  ghdb  and  bus  ; 
Eragrostis  cyno/turoidcs,  Riem.  et  Schultz,  the 
famous  Hal/A,  from  which  Wady  Haifa  in  Nubia 
derives  its  name.  This  latter  attains  a  height  of 
6  to  10  ft.,  and  has  a  be.autiful  panicle.  It  forms 
dense  brakes  in  marsliy  regions,  from  the  latitude  of 
Jalt'a  and  Ghi'ir  es-SHJieh  to  Egj'pt  and  the  Upper  Nile. 

l^fineh  is  tr''  by  various  words — (1)  '  Reed'  (e.g. 
1  K  14").  The  allusion  to  the  '  bruised  reed  '  (2  K 
18-')  shows  a  keen  insight  into  the  facts  of  nature. 
The  grasses  have  hollow  stems.  A  slight  force  is 
sulRcient  to  crash  them  in,  and  then  their  ela-sticity 
and  strength  are  gone.  Yet  even  such,  by  God'a 
help,  may  be  saved  from  fracture  (Is  42*,  Alt  VX"). 
The  reed  is  spoken  of  as  growing  in  marshes  (Job 
4(F).  The  '  wild  beast  of  the  reeds'  (P368*'  AVm 
and  RV)  is  probably  either  the  crocodile  or  (cf. 
Job  4(1-')  the  ni[>popotamus  ;  in  either  case  it  is  a 
symbolical  designation  of  Egypt  (cf.  Ezk  29',  I's 
74").  See  Driver,  Parallel  P.ialter,  p.  190,  n.  7. 
The  stronger  kinds  of  reeds,  such  as  Arundo 
Dunax,  L.,  were  used  for  walking  stairs  (Ezk 
29"-',  Is  36").  This  sort  was,  and  still  is,  used 
for  measuring  purposes  (Ezk  40'- »  etc.  [cf.  Rev 
11'  21'"-].  This  one  was  6  cubits  and  6  palms 
long.  The  Gr.  xdXa/io!  was  also  a  measure  of 
61  cubits).  (2)  'Stalk  (of  grain)'  (Gn  41»---). 
(3)  'Bone'  (Job  31^'),  from  the  fact  of  this  being 
a  tube  like  the  hollow  stems  of  gra.sses.  (4) 
'Beam  of  a  balance,'  thence  the  balance  itself 
(Is  46°),  probably    because    the    cross    beams  oi 


REED  GRASS 


REFUGE,  CITIES  OF 


213 


balances  were  sometimes  made  of  reeds.  (5)  The 
'  branches  of  a  lampstand,'  probably  because  these 
were  tubular  (Ex  25"- »=).  Possibly  these  tubes 
carried  oil,  as  in  the  case  of  the  seven  pipes 
(n7>"C)  of  the  lampstand  in  Zechariah's  vision  (Zee 
4»-'-').  (6) 'Cane' (Is -13-'),  RVm' calamus.'  Tlie 
fuller  form  is  rsn  7^:r,  kaneh  haliobh,  'sweet  cane' 
(Jer  G-'"  KVm  '  calaiuus).'  (7)  'Calamus'  (Ca  4", 
Ezk  27").  Tlie  fuller  form  is  D-^'S-njp  ktnih-bOsem 
= '  sweet  calamus '  (Ex  30-").  Calamus  is  not  in- 
digenous in  Syria  and  Palestine.  This  is  noted 
in  Jer  G-'",  wliere  it  is  said  that  it  comes  '  from  a 
far  country.'  Pliny  {Kat.  Hist.  xii.  48)  says, 
'  Scented  calamus,  also,  which  grows  in  Arabia,  is 
common  botli  in  India  and  Syria,  that  which  grows 
in  the  last  country  being  superior  to  all  the  rest. 
At  a  distance  of  150  stadia  from  the  Mediterranean, 
between  Mount  Libanus  and  another  mountain  of 
no  note  (and  not,  as  some  have  supposed,  Anti- 
libanus),  there  is  a  valley  of  moderate  size,  situate 
in  the  vicinity  of  a  lake,  the  marshj'  swamps  of 
■which  are  dried  up  every  summer.  At  a  distance 
of  30  stadia  from  this  lake  grow  the  sweet-scented 
calamus  and  the  rush.'  This  indication  of  locality 
would  probably  refer  to  the  Lake  of  Hems,  and 
the  ewamj^s  of  the  Upper  Orontes.  But  no  modern 
botanist  lias  detected  Arorus  Calamus  there.  Nor 
have  we  been  able  to  identify  '  scented  calamus ' 
with  any  of  tlie  reeds  or  rushes  which  grow  there. 
Tlie  precision  of  Jeremiah's  language  seems  to  for- 
bid the  idea  that  he  spoke  of  any  indigenous  plant. 

4.  rn-ij'aroth  (Is  19')  is  tr''  in  AV  'paper  reeds,' 
RV  more  properly  'meadows,'  see  art.  Mkauow 
in  vol.  ii.  I).  307  note  t ;  LXX  x^wp<5s.  There  is  no 
authority  for  identifjing  this  with  the  papyrus. 

G.  E.  I'OST. 

REED  GRASS  (Gn  41«'8).  _RV  for  mx,  AV 
•  meadow.'  The  same  word  is  tr''  in  Job  8"  '  flag,' 
RVm  '  reed  grass.'    See  Flag  1. 

REELAIAH.— See  Raamiah. 

REELIAS  (A  'PffXfas,  B  BopiXem  or  -tlas,  AV 
Reelius),  1  Ea  5",  corresponds  in  position  to  Bigvai 
in  Ezr  2',  Neh  7' ;  but  the  form  of  the  name  is 
nearer  to  Reelaiah  (A  'PeeXIas)  in  the  same  verse 
of  Ezra,  or  Raamiah  in  that  of  Nehemiah. 

REFINER,  REFINING.— 1.  The  verb  ppi  in  Qal 
is  used  in  Job  28'  of  gold,  and  in  36"  of  rain  (see 
Bill  m.  ad  loc. ) ;  in  Piel  it  is  used  in  1  Ch  28"  of  gold, 
in  29*  (cf.  Ps  12*)  of  silver ;  and  in  Pual  of  settled  wine, 
Is  25'.  2.  The  most  usual  word  for  '  refine '  is  l?f. 
The  only  occurrence  in  AV  of  '  refiner '  is  Mai  3-- ' 
(■riKP).  i-iy  occurs  both  in  a  literal,  Ps  66'°,  Jer 
6^,  Zee  13",  and  in  a  metaphorical  sense,  Ps  26',  Is 
1»>48'»,  Dn  11»  (cf.  Driver,  Par.  Psalt.  458  f.).  3. 
rvpomecL  Rev  l'»  3"  (RV  'be  refined');  cf.  1  P  1', 
with  Hort's  note. 

The  ancient  Egyptians,  as  described  by  Wilkin- 
•on,  purified  n;oId  by  putting  it  into  earthen  crucibles 
with  lead,  salt,  a  little  tin,  and  barley  bran,  sealing 
the  crucibles  with  clay,  and  then  exposing  them  to 
the  heat  of  a  furnace  for  five  daj's  and  nights. 
Refining  silver  by  cupellation  is  a  veiy  old  process. 
The  silver  mixed  with  lead  is  put  into  a  crucible 
made  of  bone  earth,  and  placed  in  a  reverberatory 
furnace.  As  the  oxide  of  lead  fonns,  it  is  blown  on 
by  bellows,  and  towards  the  end  of  the  process  the 
thin  covering  of  oxide  becomes  iridescent  and  soon 
disappears,  and  the  pure  bright  surface  of  the  silver 
flashes  out.  This  process  of  refining  silver  is  re- 
ferred to  in  Jer  6'^.  The  reference  in  Mai  3  is  to  the 
purifying  influence  of  atlliction  on  the  people  of 
CJod  ;  their  sinful  impurities  gradually  disappear, 
and  at  last  the  Divine  image  is  reflected  from  the 
(oul,  as  the  face  of  the  refiner  from  the  surface  of 
the  purified  silver.  W.  Carslaw. 


REFRAIN. — The  verb  'to  refrain'  is  now  used 
only  intransitively,  to  abstain  from.  This  use  is 
found  twice  in  AV,  Ec  3'  '  A  time  to  embrace,  and 
a  time  to  refrain  from  embracing '  ;  and  Ac  b^ 
'  Refrain  from  these  men.'  *  But  the  primitive 
meaning  of  'refrain'  is  to  curb  or  restrain  (Old 
Fr.  rcfrener,  Lat.  refrcnare,  from  re  back,  and 
frennm  a  bridle,  a  curb),  and  this  is  the  usual 
meaning  of  the  word  in  AV.  So  Udall,  Erasmus 
Paraph,  i.  97,  '  Jesus  refreyned  them,  saying.  Why 
be  ye  grieved  with  this  woman  ? ' ;  Ex  32'*  Tind. 
'  And  the  Lorde  refrayned  him  selfe  from  that 
evell,  which  he  sayde  lie  wolde  do  unto  his  people' ; 
Ja  1-'  Wye.  '  If  ony  man  gessith  hym  silf  to  be 
relegious  and  refreyneth  not  his  tunge'  (AV 
'bridleth  not');  Elyot,  Governour,  ii.  215, '  Injurie 
apparaiint  and  with  powar  Inforced  eyther  may  be 
with  Ivke  powar  resisted,  or  with  wisedome  eschued, 
or  with  entreatie  refrained.'  J.  Hastings. 

REFUGE,  CITIES  OF  (s^p-:  "iv,  'en  rs,  or,  more 
fully  ~)i'l^  £:';,""  Ty ;  LXX  (al)  ttAXcis  (twv)  ^vya- 
SevTTiplav,  or  the  cities  are  said  to  be  ijivyaonrrqpin, 
or  eis  (pvyaSeirrripiov  ;  a  fuller  description  (Jos  21-''  ^) 
is  i)  jrAXis  ToO  ipvyaoeimipLov  (tj)  toD  ^ovevffai^os  ;  Vulg. 
civitates confugii,  civitates  (iirbei)  ad con/iigicndum, 
urbcs  fufjitirorum  (in  funitirorum  anxilia  OT  prw- 
sidia,  ad  fugitivnrum  subsidia). — Nnmcs  and  loca- 
tion.— The  names  and  location  of  these  cities  are 
given  with  great  definiteness,  and  their  distribution 
was  such  an  would  best  accommodate  the  entire 
country.  There  were  three  on  the  west  of  the  Jordan 
— Hebron  in  the  mountains  of  Judah,  Shechem  in 
Mount  Epliraim,  Kedesh  in  Mount  Naphtali ;  and 
three  on  tlie  cast  of  the  river — Bezer  in  the  plain 
belonging  to  Reuben,  Ramoth  in  Gilead  belonging 
to  Gad,  t;olan  in  Baslian  belonging  to  Manassen 
(Jos  20'-*).  See  under  each  of  these  names. 
There  is  every  reason  to  believe  that  the  early 
Jewish  tradition  (Neubauer,  Gfoq.  du  7'almud, 
p.  55),  which  placed  these  cities  in  pairs  nearly 
opjiosite  each  other  on  the  east  and  on  the  west 
of  the  Jordan,  is  correct,  so  that  Bezer  should 
be  found  near  Dhiban,  Ramoth  in  Gilead  at 
Gerasa, — the  modern  Jerash  with  which  it  has 
been  identified  (East  of  the  Jordan,  pp.  284-290),— 
and  Golan,  not  yet  located  with  certainty,  about 
due  east  from  Kedesh.  For  greater  convenience 
there  seems  to  have  been  a  provision  (Dt  19')  that 
the  principal  roads  to  these  cities  should  be  kept 
open,  and  the  inference  is,  although  this  is  not 
stated,  that  they  were  likewise  properly  marked 
The  distance  to  be  travelled  could  hardly  have 
exceeded  30  miles  at  most,  and  was  easily  passed 
over  in  a  day. 

Origin  and  purpose. — In  the  state  of  society 
then  existing,  the  appointment  of  such  places  of 
refuge  was  wise  and  wholly  in  the  line  of  justice. 
If  a  man  took  the  life  of  another,  he  himself  must 
be  slain  by  the  nearest  relative.  No  other  law 
was  known  ;  justice  could  be  satisfied  in  no  other 
way.  It  was  seen,  however,  that  if  this  law  were 
carried  out  hastily  in  every  case,  men  might  suffer 
death  who  were  really  innocent.  Hence  a  trial 
must  be  had,  and  meantime  asylums  provided 
where  alleged  criminals  Avould  be  safe  until  their 
case  could  be  properly  adjudged.  The  plan  did 
not  result,  as  might  be  sujiposed,  in  giviii"  these 

S laces  a  bad  character  by  filling  them  witn  mur- 
erors.  On  the  contrary,  these  six  cities  were  of 
the  highest  rank  in  every  Avay  :  thev  were  all 
Levitical  cities — Shechem  and  Hebron  Leing  royal 
cities,  and  Hebron  in  addition  a  priestly  city. 
Each  city,  according  to  the  (ideal  ?)  legislation  of 

•  There  Is  also  ft  doubtful  example  in  Sir  4®  '  Refr&in  nol 
to  speak,  when  there  is  occasion  to  do  jfood '  (pr.  ^*l  «*Awr»x 
Xtyf,  KV  *  UefraiD  not  speech ') :  ct.  Job  Ztt'  '  Princes  retrained 
talking.' 


214 


EEFUSE 


REGENERATION 


P,  vas  to  have  a  suburb  of  a  little;  more  than  half 
a  mile  in  extent  in  every  direction,  so  that  the 
refugees  might  not  be  absolutely  coulined  within 
the  city's  walls  (Nu  35'). 

This  privilege  of  asylum  was  evidently  not  de- 
signed for  wilful  murderers.  A  wilful  murderer  was 
to  be  put  to  death  at  once,  and  these  cities  were 
for  those  who  had  taken  liie  unintentionally  ('^=3 
Tin  Dt  4«  Jos  20»-  "  [D^],  .i:;^ ?  Nu  35"-  ",  Jos  20'-  » 
[all  P]).  That  there  was  to  be  a  strict  trial 
(Nu  35'"-  ''*)  is  sufficient  proof  that  some  persons 
who  had  committed  wilful  murder  availed  them- 
selves of  this  possible  chance  of  escaping  with 
their  lives  (Nu  35'-).  The  trial  took  place  where 
the  accused  had  lived  or  was  well  known,  and  not 
necessarily  in  the  place  where  he  had  sought 
refuge  ;  and  this  is  shown  by  the  fact  that,  if 
proved  innocent  of  wilful  murder,  the  authorities 
were  to  see  him  safely  back  to  the  city  of  refuge 
after  the  trial  was  over.  The  law  of  murder  and 
of  unintentional  killing  is  fully  stated  in  Nu  35"'"-^ 
After  being  taken  back  to  the  city  of  refuge  to 
which  he  had  fled  at  first,  the  offender  was  bound 
to  remain  there  until  the  death  of  the  then  reign- 
ing '  high  priest '  (an  expression  which  is  taken  by 
many  to  imply  that  the  passage  in  its  present 
form  reflects  the  usage  or  the  theory  of  a  late  age 
in  Israel's  history),  after  which  he  was  free  to  return 
to  his  ONvn  home.  During  that  period,  however, 
if  accidentally  or  otherwise  he  passed  beyond  the 
suburb  limits  of  the  city  of  refuge,  the  avenger  of 
blood  might  slay  him.  No  payment  of  money  was 
ever  allowed  to  interfere  with  the  strict  fulfilment 
of  this  i)enalty  (Nu  35^^).  Besides  these  regularly 
appointed  cities  of  refuge,  the  temple  at  Jerusalem, 
or  possibly  the  altar  (see  ALTAR)  alone,  enjoyed  a 
similar  prerogative,  as  is  shown  by  the  cases  of 
Adonijah  and  Joab  (1  K  1»  ll-^;  cf.  Ex  2V^<'). 
As  a  ground  of  their  action,  we  must  presuppose 
a  well  -  understood  custom  or  sentiment,  which 
gave  to  the  altar  the  right  of  asylum  in  cases 
of  life  and  death.* 

It  is  a  curious  fact  that  in  the  later  history  of 
the  Hebrews  very  little  is  said  to  show  how  gener- 
ally homicides  availed  themselves  of  the  refuge 
thus  afforded.  It  may  have  been  such  a  matter  of 
course  that  nothing  was  ever  said  about  it.  The 
provision  so  carefully  made  by  the  Hebrews  to 
shield  those  who  had  committed  no  intentional 
wrouji  had  its  counterpart  among  the  Greeks 
and  Romans,  and  may  be  looked  upon  as  one  of 
the  most  humane  features  of  ancient  ci\ilization, 
where,  in  the  general  administration  of  affairs, 
cruelty  and  injustice,  as  we  regard  them,  were 
frequently  conspicuous.     See,  fuither,  art.  GOKL. 

S.  Merrill. 
REFUSE — The  verb  'to  refuse'  frequently  has 
in  AV  its  earlier  meaning  of  '  reject,'  especially  as 
unft  for  use,  which  is  still  retained  in  the  subst. 
'refuse.'  Thus  I's  118^  'The  stone  which  the 
builders  refused  (KV  '  rejected '  t),  is  become  the 
head  stone  of  the  comer ' ;  Is  8'  '  Forasmuch  as 
this  people  refusetli  the  waters  of  Shiloah  that  go 
softly.'  So  Knox,  Works,  iii.  210, '  He  that  refuseth 
aot  himself,  and  takis  not  up  his  croce,  and  folio  wis 

•  As  to  the  relation  ot  Dt  «««■  to  191^,  and  on  the  whole 
iubjcct,  see  Driver,  Oeut.  233. 

t  The  Gr.  of  the  Sept.  is  BfrtitMifjutra*,  the  Lat.  of  the  Vut^. 
reprohaverunt ;  Wye.  translates  '  repreveden,'  Gov.  and  Gen. 
'refused,'  Douav  'rejected,'  Bish.  'refused.'  TJie  pas-jajje  is 
quoted  in  Mt  21«,  Mk  12i»,  Lk  20"  where  the  Gr.  is  always 
atxthoKi/xAirx*,  and  the  Vulg.  reprobaverunt ;  Wye.  has  *  repre- 
veden'  in  Mt  and  Lk,  but  'dispisid*  in  Mk ;  Tind.  has  always 
'refused'  or  'did refuse,*  Rhem. and  AV  'rejected.'  The  puy^a^'e 
is  also  quoted  in  Ac  4^^  and  1  P  2*,  but  with  less  verbal  o\art- 
nesa.  Thus  Ac  4^1  Gr.  icaoflivijffiiV,  Vulg.  qui  re^trubatus  t'nt,  Wye. 
•which  was  reproved,*  Tind.  'cast  a  sj'de,'  Rhem.  'rejected,' 
Bish.  '  set  nought,'  AV  and  RV  '  set  at  nought ' ;  IP  2*  Gr. 
eiira^iicxiujcir,u.i»e¥,  Vulg.  reprobatum,  Wye.  '  reproved,'  Tind. 
'disalowed'  (so  Gov.,  Gran.,  Gen.,  Bish.,  AV),  Rhem.  'repro- 
bated,' BV  '  rejected.' 


me,  is  not  worthie  of  me ' ;  p.  317,  '  Peter  was  per. 
mitted  once  to  sincke,  and  tliryse  most  shamefully 
to  refuse  and  denye  his  Maister '  ;  Tindale,  Pent. 
Prologe  to  Exodus,  'an  abjecte  and  a  castawaye,  a 
despised  and  a  refused  person  '  ;  Kxpos.  101,  '  None 
of  them,  that  refuseth  not  all  that  he  possesseth, 
can  be  my  disciple ' ;  Mt  2i^  Tind.  '  Then  two 
shalbe  in  the  feldes,  the  one  shalbe  receaved,  and 
the  other  slialbe  refused.' 

The  origin  of  the  word  is  difficult  to  trace. 
Trench  (English  Past  and  Present,  3ii6)  says  un- 
reservedly, '  To  refuse  is  recusnre,  while  yet  it  has 
derived  the  /  of  its  second  syllable  from  rrfutare  j 
it  is  a  medley  of  the  two';  and  perliaps  he  ia 
right.  J.  Hastings. 

REGEM  (nn;  B  'Vi-yefi,  A  ■p^7tM)-— The  eponym 
of  a  Calebite' family,  1  Ch  2". 

REGEM-MELECH  (-^jcn:  B'Ap/3e(re^p  [A 'Ap/Se- 
ddsip,  i^'-  '  'kp^taip,  Q  'kplieael]  6  /SairiXei's).— One  of 
a  deputation  sent  to  consult  the  priests  about  the 
propriety  of  continuing  to  observe  the  fast  of  the 
lifth  mouth  in  commemoration  of  the  destruction 
of  the  temple  by  the  Chaldaians,  Zee  7-.  The  text 
of  this  passage  is  dubious,  especiallj'  as  concerns 
the  words  Bethel  (AV  'house  of  CJod')  and  Sharezee 
(which  see). 

REGENERATION In  the  NT  this  subject  is 

uniformly  regarded  in  its  concrete  or  experimental 
aspect :  "hence  the  abstract  idea  hardly  occurs. 
Wliere  it  does,  the  terra  TaXivyefetrla  (so  Tisch. 
\VH,  7raXi77.  TR)  alone  is  employed.  This  word 
is  not  found  in  LXX,  but  it  has  a  history  ia 
Classical  and  Hellenistic  Greek,  being  used  mainly 
in  the  figurative  sense  of  complete  renovation 
{dvaKalvu(TLS,  cf.  Ro  12",  Tit  3").  It  is  this  idea 
of  restoration  to  pristine  state  that  meets  us  in 
the  nearest  equivaient  to  the  term  found  in  LXX, 
viro/jLevd  ?us  iraXiv  7cv(i>|iai,  Job  14'^.  But  ia  pre- 
Christian  usage  it  is  not  the  individual  so  much 
as  the  world,  or  a  nation,  that  is  generally  the 
subject  of  the  entire  change  of  condition  denoted 
by  iraXivyevfata.  Thus  Basil  {Horn.  iii.  in  Hexcem.) 
says  that  the  Stoics  dTreipous  (pBopas  Kbanov  k.  vaKiy 
■yevealas  eladyeii'  (cf.  PhUo,  de  Incorr.  mundi,  3.  14. 
17  ;  de  Mundo,  15),  what  M.  Aurel.  (xi.  1)  calls 
T)  TTcpioBiKT)  w.  Twii  SXuv.  Similarly,  Philo  calls 
Noah  and  his  sons,  iraXiyy.  ijyep^oi'es  k.  Se\rripa% 
dpxiry^rai  TreploSov  (Vit.  Mui/s.  ii.  12  ;  cf.  1  Cletn.  ix. 
4).  National  restoration  is  a  sense  found  in  Jos. 
[Ant.  XI.  iii.  9,  v  ayaKTijan  k.  ttoXitt.  tt)S  TrarplSos) ; 
and  this,  in  the  fuller  sense  of  the  Messianic 
renewal  of  Palestine  (and  of  the  whole  world,  or 
dependent  thereon,  dTroKardcrTaffis  iravruv),  seems 
to  reappear  in  Mt  19-",  one  of  the  two  NT  occur- 
rences of  iroKivy.  (cf.  Dalni.  145).  Even  in  Classical 
usage,  however,  the  term  does  sometimes  refer  to 
the  lot  of  the  individual,  denoting  restoration  to 
life  in  a  literal  or  a  figurative  sense.  PlutJirch 
uses  it  several  times  in  the  former  sense,  i.e.  iu 
relation  to  the  transmigration  of  souls  (de  Esu 
cam.  ii.  4.  4,  firt  xp^'*''"''^  Ko^voXi  a.1  tpvxo-i  trufia<Tt¥ 
iv  Toi!  Tra\t.yy(viaiai.s) ;  and  Agrippa  is  (juoted  by 
Philo  (Leg.  ad  Gaiiim,  41)  as  addressing  the  em- 
peror Gams  as  follows:  riy  .  .  .  nOfe^a,  t(^  o^et 
j^uTTvp-Zjcrai  KaOdirep  ix  jraXiT'yfi'eo-ias  ivrjyeipas.  In 
more  figurative  wise  Cicero  (ad  Att.  vi.  ti)  calls  his 
restoration  to  his  lost  life  of  dignity  and  honour 
hanc  waXiyy.  nostram;  and  Olj'uipiodorus,  speak- 
ing of  memory,  says,  jraXi77.  ti)s  yvwaub's  ianv  i) 
afd/xv-nais.  Hence,  on  the  whole,  10X177.  in  non- 
biblical  usage  seems  to  denote  a  restoration  of  a 
lost  state  of  well-being,  amounting  to  re-creation 
or  renovation. 

If  we  could  be  surer  of  the  Rabbinic  use  (esp. 
in  relation  to  proselytes)  of  such  an  idea  in  th« 


EEGENERATIOX 


KEGEXERATIOiS^ 


215 


time  of  Christ,  we  should  probably  get  further 
li^'ht  on  the  exact  connotation  ot  iraXtKy.  and 
kindred  expressions  as  they  emerge  in  the  NT. 
Among  the  latter  the  following  are  [irominent : 
dycmaiyuutt  (Ro  12-,  and  eap.  Tit  3'),  with  the  verb 
oFoKoivoiV^ai  (Col  3'",  2  Co  4"')  and  its  synonym 
iyayeoucdai  (Eph  4^);  dvayefi'SLV  (1  P  I'-^'^J  [which 
does  not  occur  elsewhere  in  extant  Greek  litera- 
ture uninfluenced  by  the  NT  itself,  thougli  the 
Philonean  tract,  de  Incorr.  mvndi,  3,  has  0^07^1-- 
friui!  as  a  synonym  for  the  Stoic  TraXiy-fivicla  of 
the  world,  and  PorphjTy  has  avayewriTiKht  (Ep.  ad 
A  neb.  24)];  ytvi>T]0Tifai  ivwOev  (Jn  3^'',  cit.  •y^vr. 
•y4fni)v  &»  or  ievTipoVy  V.*) ;  Katv^)  Krl^ts  in  the  con- 
crete sense  (2  Co  5",  Gal  6",  Eph  2'"  4-*),  and  its 
practical  equivalents,  koikAs  d^-ffpunros  (Eph  2"  4^), 
vios  ifOp.  (Col  3'");  T^itra  SfoD  7fv^<7«o«  (Jn  1"), 
y€vi'T}6iivai  ix  r.  6tov  (Jn  passim),  iK  r.  wyeu/xaroj, 
or  e'J  CottTot  K.  vKv/iaTos  (Jn  3'-°-');  and,  finally, 
yevfdv  (rica)  iid  toC  ciayy.,  used  of  the  preacher  of 
the  Word  (1  Co  4",  of.  tjal  4'").  A  single  passage 
from  an  early  Christian  Father  may  be  subjoined, 
as  showing  the  influence  of  the  NT  ujion  his 
langua^'e,  and  also  the  relation  of  the  biblical 
idea  ot  Regeneration  to  certain  other  cognate 
ideas.  Clement  of  Alex.,  speaking  of  the  restora- 
tion of  a  sinful  woman,  writes  (iitrom.  ii.  ad  fin. 
p.  424) :  i)  5i  fieravorjaaaa,  olof  avayivvqdf'iaa.  /card 
TTiv  iiri(7Tpotp7jv  Tou  ^iov,  TTaXiyyevfaiav  txet  fw^J, 
TtdvTiKulas  lUv  T^s  TripKTjs  T^s  ToKalai,  els  jSiov  5^ 
rape\doij<rr]s  av$Li  tt)S  Kara  ttjv  fxerdvoiav  yevv-rjSelffTjs. 
It  has  sometimes  been  thought  that  the  idea  of 
religious  regeneration  in  this  life  was  one  '  in  the 
air'  in  the  1st  cent.  ;  and  the  phrase  in  wtcmum 
renatus  tauruboliu,  in  connexion  with  Mithraic 
worship,  has  been  cited  as  evidence.  But  Hort 
thinks  it,  as  well  as  the  -roKiyyevccla  of  the  Her- 
metic writings,  to  be  dependent  on  Christian  usage. 
Nor  can  the  fact  that  Osiris  was  addressed  as  one 
who  '  giveth  birth  unto  men  and  women  a  second 
time,'  be  cited  to  the  contrary :  for  this  clearly 
refers  to  renewed  life  bej'ond  the  grave,  not  to 
spiritual  regeneration  in  this  life.  The  origin  of 
tills  latter  notion  and  phraseology  is  rather  to  be 
sought  in  the  OT  and  its  liabbinic  developments. 
The  phrase  'new  creation,'  adojited  by  St.  Paul, 
occurs  repeatedly  in  the  lilidrashim  with  various 
applications  (see  Dalm.  Worte  Jesu,  146),  and  a 
proselyte  is  compared  to  a  newborn  child  in  the 
Talmud  (Jebamoth  G2a ;  see  WiinsLhe,  Erldut. 
der  Evanrjg.  506) ;  cf.  Hort,  First  Ep.  of  Peter, 
p.  33.  The  present  article  will  deal  with  the 
following  points : — 

*  Eegeneration '  characteristic  of  the  NT. 

A,  Old  Tc-iit.  AdumbratiODS. 

L  In  (a)  national,  (&)  pereonal  rellgioD. 
ii.  In  the  case  of  Proselytes. 

B.  New  TesU  Presentation. 

i.  In  the  Synoptics, 
ii.  In  SL  Janies. 

Hi.  In  St.  Peter  (relation  to  Baptism), 
iv.  In  Epistle  to  Hebrew*. 
V.  In  St.  Paul. 
Ti.  In  Kt.  John. 
C  Connected  Summary. 
Literature. 

The  idea  of  Regeneration  belongs  to  the  NT 
rather  than  the  OT.  Indeed,  some  would  confine 
it,  in  any  proper  personal  sense,  to  the  former 
exclusively.  Rut  this  would  be  to  confuse  the 
implicit  and  explicit  forms  of  the  doctrine  and 
experience,  and  to  break  the  ji;eiiuine  continuity 
of  biblical  religion.  This  continuity,  along  witli 
progressive  development  of  form,  it  must  Tie  our 
care  to  trace  between  OT  and  NT,  as  well  as 
between  the  several  types  of  presentation  in  the 
NT  itself. 

A.  Old  Te.st.  Adumbrations.— i.  OT  religion 
being  originally  a  matter  of  the  nation  rather 
than  the  individual,  all  the  forms  under  which 


it  was  conceived  were  highly  objective.  Thingi 
to  be  done  or  avoided  are  jirominent ;  and  all  as 
tending  to  avoid  rupture  of  the  normal  relation 
or  covenant  between  the  people  and  J".  At  first 
little  stress  is  laid  on  the  state  of  the  inner  life, 
on  ethical  as  contrasted  with  ritual  purity.  But 
when,  under  the  iiitluence  of  the  prophets  of  the 
8th  cent,  and  later,  the  ethical  element  in  religion 
came  fully  to  light,  tlie  old  idea  of  relip^ion,  as  a 
dutiful  relation  between  man  and  God,  became 
charged  with  new  spiritual  meaning,  and  allbided 
the  deepest  and  most  adequate  notion  of  piety 
imaginable.  For  it  went  below  the  level  of  mere 
deeds,  to  the  attitude  of  soul  of  which  they  were 
as  the  fruit. 

(rt)  The  stages  in  the  process  may  be  traced  as 
follows.  As  the  older  notion  of  salvation  or  well- 
being  had  been  largely  that  of  external  national 
prosperity,  taken  as  the  expression  of  the  favour 
of  J " ;  so  the  chief  means  of  its  purification  and 
deepening  was  national  adversitj-.  This  turned 
attention,  first  to  the  moral  conditions  of  the  favour 
of  the  Holy  One  of  Israel,  and  then  to  the  intrinsic 
blessedness  of  righteousness  itself,  apart  even  from 
its  normal  external  concomitants  of  peace  and 
prosperity.  At  the  same  time,  the  break-up  of 
national  welfare  caused  the  individual  to  attain 
to  a  new  consciousness  of  his  personal  relations 
to  J",  and  so  to  a  more  spiritual  piety.  These 
chanjjes,  as  they  afl'ectcd  both  Israel  and  the 
individual  Israelite,  reached  their  crisis  in  the 
experiences  of  the  Exile.  During  and  after  it 
the  spiritual  harvest,  the  first-fruits  of  which  are 
to  be  .seen  even  in  the  pre-exilic  prophets,  was 
gathered  in  by  the  sifted  Church-nation.  Chief 
among  the  new  ideas  acquired  were  (1)  the  thought 
of  sin  as  a  besetting  power,  ever  apt  to  mar  the 
normal  relations  between  J"  and  His  people ;  (2) 
the  idea  that  a  profound  change  of  temper  or 
attitude  in  Israel  as  a  whole  was  needful ;  (3)  the 
conviction  that  an  evil  so  inherent  as  the  stitt- 
neckedness  and  uucircunicision  of  heart  discovered 
in  Israel  could  be  met  only  by  Divine  and  super- 
natural agency,  working  upon  the  very  springs  of 
conduct  (cf.  Dt  10'«  30'").  In  fact,  the  vision  of 
a  renovation  of  feeling  and  will  as  needful  to 
Israel,  of  national  regeneration  as  the  pre-requisiie 
and  the  essential  blessing  of  the  longed-for  Messi- 
anic age,  began  to  possess  the  better  minds  follow- 
ing in  the  wake  of  Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel.  Yet 
even  in  those  great  prophets  the  bestowal  of  the 
regenerate  heart  is  thought  of  largely  as  a  special 
intervention  to  meet  an  exceptional  need,  as  it 
were  at  a  stroke ;  and  its  primary  reference  is 
collective  rather  than  personal.  Ephraim  is  over- 
heard aclcnowledging  tne  ellcct  of  the  Divine  dis- 
cipline as  salutary,  and  adding,  'Turn  thou  me, 
and  I  will  turn'  (.Jer3I"'):  and  then  the  prophet 
looks  forward  to  the  bright  day  of  national  restora- 
tion, when  the  covenant  shall  become  'a  new 
covenant,'  as  being  divinely  in.scribed  on  the  heart 
or  inner  life  of  tne  people  (31'"'-)-  Then  'they 
shall  be  my  people,  and  I  will  be  their  God  :  and 
I  will  give  them  one  heart  and  one  way,  that 
they  may  fear  nie  for  ever'  (32™'-  24').  Similarly 
Ezekiel:  'And  1  will  sprinkle  clean  water  upon 
you,  and  ye  shall  be  clean :  from  all  your  fillhi- 
ness  and  from  all  your  idols  will  I  cleanse  you. 
A  new  heart  also  will  I  give  you,  and  a  new  spirit 
will  I  put  within  you :  and  I  will  take  away  the 
stony  heart  out  of  your  llesh,  and  I  will  give  you 
an  heart  of  flesh.  And  I  will  put  my  spirit 
within  you,  and  cause  you  to  walk  in  my  statutes' 
(36""-'  II'").  Here  we  get,  as  never  before,  the 
idea  of  a  new  responsiveness  of  heart  divinely 
produced — the  essence  of  regeneration.  But  the 
regeneration  is  still  viewed  as  national  rather  than 
individual  (cf.  the  prophecy  of  the  Valley  of  Drj 


216 


REGENERATION 


KEGENEKATION 


Bones,  Ezk  37'""),  though  the  effects  on  the  in- 
dividuals composing  the  nation  are  often  clearly 
present  to  mind  (Jer  31",  Is  541^  60-').  And, 
above  all,  it  is  felt  to  be  still  future  (contrast 
Ezk  18^'),  a  blessing  of  the  Messianic  age. 

(6)  But  while  this  is  true  of  OT  religion  as  a 
whole,  even  after  the  E.xile,  there  are  traces  of 
individual  piety  going  far  beyond  it,  and  virtually 
anticipating  tlie  NT  experience  of  regeneration. 
Transferring  the  idea  of  religion,  as  a  dutiful 
relation  between  Israel  ami  its  God,  from  the 
nation  to  the  individual  conscience,  this  deeper 
piety  gave  the  holiness  loved  of  J"  a  most  vital 
meaning.  It  saw  in  '  wajking  humbly  with  one's 
God,'  the  inmost  secret  of  'doing  justly  and  loving 
mercy.'  All  sprang  from  the  'contrite  and  humble 
spirit'  indwelt  of  the  Holy  One  of  Israel  (Is  57" 
66^).  '  The  sacrifices  of  God  are  a  broken  spirit,' 
a  spirit  broken  by  the  sense  that  it  was  '  truth  in 
the  inward  parts'  that  could  alone  satisfj'  the 
Holy  One  (Ps  51"-").  And  along  with  this  begins 
to  appear  the  sense  of  a  nature  radically  prone  to 
Bin,  and  so  in  need  of  more  radical  aid  from  the 
Searcher  of  hearts  before  covenant  obedience  could 
become  possible  (Ps  51',  Job  14^  '  Who  can  bring 
a  clean  thing  out  of  an  unclean  ?  Not  one '). 
There  arises  a  cry  for  the  '  mercy '  and  '  loving- 
kindness'  of  God,  to  draw  the  heart  to  Himself, 
and  so  create  the  very  state  of  spirit  with  which 
He  could  commune.  'A  clean  heart,'  'a  right' 
(steadfast)  or  'free  (willing)  spirit'  —  on  which 
turned  '  the  joy  of  thy  salvation ' — are  all  traced 
to  the  presence  of  God's  'holy  Spirit'  at  work  on 
the  soul  (Ps  51''"''''^).  Here  we  have  the  high- 
water  mark  of  piety  on  OT  lines,  or  rather  piety 
under  OT  forms,  but  already  outgrowing  its  limits. 
For  with  the  emergence  of  the  ideas  of  religion 
as  primarily  a  state  of  the  heart,  of  the  radical 
tendency  to  sin  native  to  frail  human  nature,  and 
of  the  grace  of  God,  in  renewing  and  quickening 
power,  as  alone  adequate  to  man's  need, — with  this 
the  old  national  religion  is  transcended,  and  a  new 
covenant  becomes  indispensable.  Here,  then,  the 
experience,  not  to  say  the  doctrine,  of  regenera- 
tion is  already  virtually  present :  it  lacks  only 
the  objective  basis  furnished  by  the  revelation  in 
Christ,  to  give  it  that  steady  and  assured  quality 
which  is  the  prerogative  of  NT  'faith.' 

ii.  As  Israel's  slowness  to  realize  the  idea  of 
regeneration  was  in  part  due  to  its  overshadowing 
sense  of  a  specially  favoured  relation  to  J"  attach- 
ing to  Abraham's  seed,  as  such  ;  so  we  may  suppose 
that  the  accession  to  exilic  and  post-exilic  Israel 
of  a  growing  number  of  those  who  had  no  such 
natural  advantage,  must  have  stimulated  reflexion 
on  the  subjective  conditions  of  fitness  for  com- 
munion with  .1'.  It  may  be  true  that  the  sense 
in  which  proselytes  were  first  spoken  of  as  '  born  ' 
to  or  in  Messianic  Zion  (Is  49'''''-  44°,  Ps  87"-)  was 
mainly  that  of  formal  adhesion  to  the  sacred 
people.  Yet  the  patent  greatness  of  the  change 
of  belief  and  conduct  involved  in  the  adhesion, 
must  have  tended  to  develop  thought  upon  the 
spiritual  and  ethical  senses  in  which  a  man  might 
become  a  'new'  man,  as  it  were  by  birth  out  of 
one  world  into  another.  Such  reflexion  would 
further  be  fostered  by  the  rites  through  which 
the  change  of  condition  was  achieved,  particularly 
the  ablution  or  bai)tism  by  which  proselytes  were 
admitted  to  Israel.  Ana  all  this  would  easily 
coalesce  in  devout  minds  with  the  promise  in  Ezk 
36^'-  touching  the  sprinkling  of  Israel  itself  with 
clean  water,  and  tlie  new  heart  associated  there- 
with, as  markinjr  the  piety  of  the  great  age  that 
was  to  come.  \Vhen,  then,  .John  the  Baptist 
appeared,  to  usher  in  the  fulfilment  of  Mai  3"'-, 
there  must  have  been  a  widespread  feeling  that 
his  baptism  meant  a  radical  change  of  heart  even 


in  Israel  (cf.  Jn  l^"-).  Still,  the  Diviner  side  ol 
Ezckiel's  prophecy,  the  baptism  with  the  Holy 
Spirit,  waited  upon  the  coming  of  the  Mightier 
One,  Messiah  Himself  (Mt  3",  Lk  3'«,  Jn  I*"  3-»). 
And  it  was  the  deeper  experience  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  in  specifically  Christian  form,  that  brought 
regeneration  to  light  as  implicit  in  the  contrite 
heart  and  spirit,  and  placed  it,  the  Divine  side  o' 
the  fact  of  true  repentance,  in  the  centre  of  NT 
teaching  (cf.  Jn  3^- "). 

B.  New  Test.  Presentation.— i.  The  Synop- 
tics.—  In  Jesus'  own  public  teaching  the  idea 
appears  only  in  implicit  forms,  chiefly  that  of  a 
radical  repentance  or  change  of  heart  (ij-erivoia) 
towards  God  and  towards  sin — the  great  condition, 
in  the  prophets  also,  of  restoration  to  Divine  fellow- 
ship.  But  in  that  teaching  there  are  also  hints 
that  the  change  is  more  complete  than  anything 
hitherto  realized,  in  keeping  with  the  advance  in 
tlie  revelation  conditioning  it.  Man  must  choose 
between  two  lives,  a  lower  and  a  higher  :  to  find 
or  save  the  one,  he  must  be  ready  to  lose  the 
other.  And  it  is  implied  in  the  parable  of  the 
Prodigal  Son  that  the  spiritual  life  of  sonship  ig 
in  fact  'dead'  or  null  (Lk  15-^)  in  every  child 
estranged  by  sin  and  selfhood.  It  is  needful  tliat 
even  honest  disciples  '  turn  and  become  as  little 
children '  in  order  truly  to  enter  the  Kingdom,  in 
which  it  is  the  crown  of  blessedness  to  be  genuine 
children  of  the  heavenly  Father  (Mt  18»  5«).  The 
parable  of  the  Sower  implies  that  the  specific  life 
of  the  Kingdom  arises  in  the  human  heart  by  the 
sinking  in  of  the  gospel,  and  its  producing,  as  it 
were,  a  new  root  of  personality  ;  and  it  is  inti- 
mated, though  only  in  private  to  chosen  disciples, 
that  true  'faith'  is  dependent  on  a  Divine  factor 
at  work  behind  the  human  (Mt  IG'").  This  latter 
case  suggests  that  the  merely  imjilieit  form  in 
which  the  profound  truth  of  regeneration  occurs 
in  Christ's  ordinary  preaching  is  due,  partly  at 
least,  to  its  popular  character,  as  adjusted  to  the 
needs  of  the  poor  and  simple,  in  contrast  to  theo- 
logians like  Nicodemus. 

ii.  St.  James. — The  exact  sense  of  the  words  (1"), 
'of  set  purpose  he  brought  us  forth  by  the  word 
of  truth,  that  we  should  be  first-fruits,  as  it  were, 
of  his  creatures '  {^ov\r]6eis  aireKVT)jev  imas  \6ryif 
dX7;^etay,  els  rd  etvat  i}^d$  dTrapx^**  ^^*'^  ''wi'  avToO 
KTifffiiTuf),  has  been  much  debated.  St.  James  is 
addressing  the  Israel  of  God,  conceived  much  in 
the  way  in  which  an  ancient  prophet  thought  of 
the  triie  Israel  within  Israel.  He  thinks  of  all 
'  Israelites  indeed,'  though  he  has  in  mind  chiefly 
those  who  already  believe  in  Jesus  as  Messiah 
(cf.  Jn  !■"  3-') ;  for  both  alike  have  in  principle  one 
religion,  that  of  'doers  of  the  word'  (the  revealed 
will  of  God),  of  such  as  visit  the  fatherless  and 
widows,  and  keep  unspotted  from  the  world  (I*'"'"). 
To  his  ej'e,  then,  this  people  of  loving  obedience  ia 
what  Israel's  God  had  meant  Israel  to  be  (Is  43™'-), 
'  My  people,  mv  chosen,  the  people  which  I  formed 
for  myself  (LXX,  Sr  irefiiciroiri<rdfirji>),  that  they 
might  set  forth  my  praise.'  So,  of  those  Avho 
fear  J"  and  regard  His  name  it  is  said  (Mai  3"), 
'  And  they  shall  be  to  me  ...  in  the  day  which 
I  make,  lor  a  special  possession '  {laoi'Tai  /kh  .  .  . 
fis  Trepinoiri<ni').  This  is  very  much  the  idea  on 
which  St.  Peter  dwells  so  lovingly,  of  'a  people 
for  God's  own  possession,'  quickened  into  new  life 
through  the  word  of  the  living  God  (IP  1^  2')— 
though  he  has  professed  Christians  alone  in  view. 
Like  ideas  occur  also  in  Eph  1 '"•'*,  but  <lecisively 
universalized  as  to  the  scope  of  '  God's  own  posses- 
sion '  (cf.  2  Th  2'^'-,  es[).  if  we  read  ajrapxv"  instead 
of  dir'  dpx^5>  with  BFG  "  P  minn.  f.  v^.  syr.  hi., 
al.);  while  the  notion  of  God's  saints  being  first- 
fruits,  as  it  were,  of  His  full  and  final  possession 
of  His  creatures  in  general,  appears  quite  explicitly 


REGENERATION 


REGENERATION 


217 


in  Ro  S""".  Thore  creation  is  represented  as 
awaiting  'the  revealing  of  the  sons  of  God  '  \'  the 
Regeneration,'  in  the  collective  sense  of  Mt  19-'), 
who,  as  already  having 'the  tirst-fruits  of  tlie  Spirit,' 
may  themselves  be  styled  God's  lirst-fruits  (cf. 
Rev  14*  'Jl').  Thus  spiritual  Israel,  now  in  pro- 
cess of  rallying  to  Messiah  Jesus,  seemed  to  St. 
James  '  the  lirst-fruits'  of  God's  final  rei^n.  As  for 
'  the  word  of  truth '  to  which  this  Israel  owed  its 
being,  it  was  the  revealed  will  of  God  active  in 
conscience  (  =  'the  inbred  word,'  P',  or  simply  '  the 
word,  1—'=  God's  'law,'  known  as  spirit  and  not 
as  letter,  'perfect  law,  that  of  liberty,'  'royal 
law,'  1^  2*-'"  4"='  the  truth,'  in  an  ethico-religious 
sense,  S"  5",  cf.  Jn  8^"-  17").  It  was  the  sort  of 
'  word  '  that  meets  us  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount, 
the  final  practical  is.sue  of  OT  revelation  for  the 
conscience  icf.  'the  word  of  trutli '  in  Ps  110"; 
also  v."**  'the  sum  of  tbj'  word  is  truth').  Yet 
it  is  not  to  be  conlined  to  the  spucilically  Christian 
gospel  :  it  denotes,  rather,  the  element  common  to 
that  and  the  law  as  it  lived  in  the  unsophisticated 
consciences  of  Jews  like  those  who  meet  us  in  Lk 
1-2. 

St.  James  has  in  mind,  then,  not  individual 
regeneration,  but  rather  the  collective  being  of  a 
People  devoted  to  the  Divine  Will,  and  of  which 
believers  on  Jesus  Messiah  were  the  typical 
members — a  People  which  thus  could  be  styled 
'lirst-fruits,  as  it  were,  of  God's  creatures.'* 
His  argument  is  that  God  cannot  stultify  Himself 
by  temjiting  to  evil.  He  is  the  author  of  good, 
and  cliangeth  not.  And  since  it  was  with  full 
intention  that  He  brought  forth  t  or  constituted 
the  godly  community  gathering  to  the  name  of 
Jesus  Messiah,  lie  must  not  be  thought  of  as  the 
author  of  seductive  temptations.  The  emphasis 
■till  falls,  as  in  pre-Christian  references  to  regene- 
ration, on  the  collective  quickening  traceable  to 
the  Divine  initiative,  rather  than  on  the  individual 
— though  this  latter  is  implied  in  the  exhortation 
to  '  receive  the  inborn  word  (IfiipvToy  Xlryov,  cf.  Wis 
12"'  tn<f)VTOt  i)  Kaxla  aiViii-),  J  which  is  able  to  save 
your  souls.'  Accordingly,  such  rudiments  of  our 
doctrine  as  occur  in  James,  represent  a  stage  mid- 
way between  typical  OT  and  typical  NT  statements 
on  the  subject. 

iii.  St.  Peter. — The  Petrine  doctrine  stands  be- 
tween that  of  St.  James  on  the  one  hand,  and 
that  of  St.  Paul  on  the  other.  The  O  T  associa- 
tions of  collective  ble.ssing  (cf.  his  reference  to 
'seasons  of  recovery'  or  'restoration,'  dvdxpv^it, 
iroKaTdaraais,  in  Ac  3'°'  "•  **)  are  still  prominent 
in  the  language  chosen  (1  P  '2") ;  while  yet  the 
idea  of  '  regeneration,'  and  that  of  individuals,  by 
the  Divine  'seed'  or  'word  of  God,'  is  firmly 
Kras])ed  (l^cf.  °,  cf.  parable  of  the  Sower).  The 
uLsciple  seems  possessed  by  his  Master's  teaching 
as  to  the  child-spirit  and  the  Divine  fatlierhood 
(2^  1").  The  Divine  parentage  involved  in  the 
new  life  is  appealed  to  as  a  reason  for  love  of  the 
brethren  (f^-):  being  regarded  as  a  congenital  law 
of  their  new  being — an  idea  which  recurs  in  2  P  1*, 
where  renewed  human  nature  is  set  forth  as  'in  a 
true  sense  not  God-like  merely,  but  derivatively 
Divine'  (Hort,  cf.  1  Jn  3"). 

'The  word'  by  wMch  this  comes  about  is  clearly 
that  of  the  gospel  (1  P  l'^) ;  and,  answering  to  this, 

*  Jer  2>  '  InracI  (is)  holiness  unto  the  Lono,  the  Drat-frults  of 
bit  Inrreaae' — t^fx^-i  yttr,^Ttir  «i«u,  whii-h  j>.irallel8  urxpxytv 
npcr^*  K'>rou  KTt^ixaTain ;  and  for  the  (>erw()nal  sense  of  mrifuMTK, 
of.  Sir  SO>i>f',  wliere  i  K»if  rtu  \b  descnlxKl  in  the  next  line  oa  r* 

t  The  Idea  occurs  elsewhere,  e.g.  Sir  38"  (derived  from  Dt 
f^^'^.V.x  i'^)'\trp%*xi*  vptrrvyiim  muJt'^riti.  In  Ja  I't^  the  verb 
kwtH,^,tK  is  used  to  marlt  an  aiititliesis  to  the  llioujrlit  of  !•», 
Wiierc  tills  metaphor  was  em]>lo>ed  of  Bin  as  parent  of  death. 

I  Cf.    itam.    I.    2,    tCritt    tfjL-vrtf    rrtt    2«/}|a(    r>luu«ri«nt    X«^PI* 

•uii^Ti,  and  Ix.  9,  •!>»  i  rVii  i^t^mr  )«/iik«  njr  itmBrimt  mUti 


the  definite  act  of  confession  in  baptism  is  thought 
of  as  objectively  sealing  the  salvation  thus  wrought 
(see  Bai'TIsm  in  vol.  i.  p.  '244").  Water,  says  ne, 
doth  now,  in  antitj'po  to  Noah's  preservation,  play 
its  part  in  .salvation,  as  Christian  baptism — '  not 
the  putting  away  of  the  filth  of  the  flesh,  but  the 
appeal  toward  God  of  a  good  conscience,  through  the 
resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ,'  man's  surety  at  God's 
right  hand  ( 1  P  3-').  The  sense  of  this  passage,  and 
particularly  the  meaning  here  given  to  the  word 
iirfpumifw.,  seems  lixed  by  Ko  lO'-"-,  Ho  10'^-.  '  For 
with  tlie  heart  man  trustfullj'  believeth  unto  (the 
attaining  of)  Righteousness  (i.e.  Justilication  =  Sal- 
vation  in  (iod's  sight,  impliciti) ;  but  with  the 
mouth  man  maketh  confession  unto  ( the  attaining 
of)  Salvation '  (i.e.  formal  possession  of  salvation, 
explic.iti).  '  Salvation,' in  this  context  (Ho  lU"'-), 
refers  to  objective  menibc^rsliip  of  the  Messianic 
Community  or  Church,  the  proper  unit  or  subject 
of  I  he  New  Covenant.  Into  this  Body  of  the 
Christ,  St.  Paul  says  elsewhere  (1  Co  12"),  Chris- 
tiiins  are  through  baptism  incorporated  '  by  one 
Sjiirit.'  'The  Spirit  of  adoption,  whereby  we  cry, 
Abba,  Father,'  seals,  often  by  objective  manifes- 
tations, tlie  sincerity  of  the  believer's  confession. 
Similarly  He  10-^  '  Let  us  draw  near  (as  favoured 
worshippers)  with  a  true  heart,  ixi  full  asauranci  of 
faith,  having  our  hearts  sprinkled  (by  blood,  9'''-) 
fruin  an  eeil  conscience,  and  the  bodi/  ivashcd  with 
pure  water.'  Thus  every  obscure  element  in  1  P 
318. 21  ia  elucidated.  Christ,  though  '  i)ut  to  death 
in  (the  sphere  of)  flesh,'  was  '  quickened  in  (the 
sphere  of)  spirit ' — and  so  became  for  others  '  a 
quickening  spirit'  {jrviufxa  fuoTroioOv,  1  Co  15'''). 
Baptism,  then,  as  the  consummation  of  the  be- 
liever's appropriation  of  Christ,  means  no  mere 
bodily  cleansing  (like  Levitical  ablutions),  but 
the  ajipeal  of  a  cleimsod  conscience  (see  1*  with 
3'*;  cf.  He  9"'-),  directed  in  'full  assurance  of 
faith'  to  God  (cf.  Eph  3'^  irpoaaforyT]v  iv  Trciroi9i)ff«)- 
It  corresponds  to  tlie  'living  hope'  due  to  Christ's 
resurrection,  spoken  of  in  1'  (cf.  Col  2'-).  'The 
promise  of  the  eternal  inheritance'  (Ho  9"),  for 
which  wor.shipful  appeal  is  made  to  God's  covenant 
fidelity  in  the  Mediator,  was  conceived  to  be  re- 
ceived 'in  earnest'  in  the  manifestation  of  Holy 
Spirit  power  (Ac  S"*)— 'anoinlin^'  or  'sealing'  the 
believer  unto  the  d.iy  of  perfected  redenH)tion  (2  Co 
l-"-,Ki)h  1"'-  4**).  Thus 'baptism.' as  a  livin"  experi- 
ence, could  be  alluded  to  in  Tit  3°  as  a  formal  'wash- 
ing of  regeneration  and  renovation  (in  virtue)  of 
Holy  Sjiirit,'  'poured  forth  richly'  at  the  solemn 
crisis  of  confession,  where  '  Salvation,'  as  an  objec- 
tive state,  took  full  ellect  [taanev  ^/xas  5ii  XourpoO 
7raXif7Cfe(r/as  Ka.1  dvaKaivuff^ixiS  ttv.  d7ioi').  Baptism 
was  a  rite  for  the  Church  or  saered  community  as 
such,  and  for  the  individual  in  relaticin  to  it  ana  its 
privileges;  'by  the  washing  of  water'  were  its 
members,  as  'cleansed'  'by  means  of  the  word' 
(cf.  Jn  15"),  formally  admitted  to  the  sphere  of 
consecrated  life  resting  on  Christ's  sacrihce  (Eph 
5'^,  Ko  10«'). 

St.  Peter  seems  also,  by  the  time  he  \vrote  1  P, 
to  have  caught  in  his  own  wav  St.  Paul's  deej), 
mystical  thought  in  Ko  6"-,  wkere  identity  with 
Christ's  '  resurrection '  life,  on  the  part  of  the 
regenerate,  is  made  to  grow  out  of  spiritual  union 
with  Him  in  His  death  to  sin  (consummated  in 
His  crucifixion,  see  1  P  2-*).  For  1  P  4'»»  con- 
tains the  es.sential  idea  of  spiritual  ouickening 
through  judgment  in  the  flesh.  And  tliis  process 
is  extended  by  him,  alone  among  NT  writers,  even 
to  certain  souls  in  Hades,  namely,  those  suddenly 
cut  oil  in  the  days  of  Noah— a  fate  conceived  (as  it 
seems)  to  have  given  them  less  than  the  normal 
prol)ation  of  mankind,  and  that  in  an  age  of  but 
dim  light  (1  P  3""-4«;  see,  further,  arU  PkTFU, 
FlltST  Ei'lSTLK  OF,  in  vol.  iii.  p.  790). 


218 


ElCGENERATIOiSr 


REGEXEKATION 


iv.  The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews. — Tliough  this 
Epistle  contains,  as  we  saw,  much  bearin;;  on  the 
new  consciousness,  yet  it  lias  no  formal  doctrine  of 
'  regeneration '  as  the  deepest  aspect  of  the  Messianic 
blessing.  True,  it  uses  metaphors  of  life  developing 
from  infancy  to  maturity  (6""'*,  with  its  allusions 
to  '  milk '  and  '  solid  food ') ;  but  there  is  no  stress 
on  tlie  image  involved.  The  categories  of  thought 
are  mainly  of  an  OT  character — apart  from  the 
writer's  own  '  Alexandrine '  strain  (see  below,  C,  ad 
pn.  ;  cf.  '  those  once  illumined,'  '  having  tasted 
( iod's  word  as  good,'  6^).  Hence  we  get  a  parallel 
to  Ja  1'*  in  the  '  congregation  of  the  firstborn 
(who  are)  enrolled  in  heaven.'  Hence  also  the 
central  place  of  repentance,  as  marking  the  be- 
ginning of  the  new  relation  to  God—'  repentance ' 
as  the  negative  side  of  the  change  represented  on 
its  positive  side  by  'faith'  (6'-*).  ' Kepentance,' 
however,  is  taken  by  this  writer  in  a  deep  and 
inward  sense,  in  which  it  amounts  to  a  '  new 
heart '  wherein  the  Divine  Law  is  by  Di\'ine  grace 
made  inherent,  according  to  Jeremiah's  great 
prophecy  of  the  New  Covenant  O'"-  10'"-''). 

V.  St.  Paul. — The  Pauline  doctrine  of  Regenera- 
tion contains  the  essence  of  its  author's  unique 
experience  of  Jesus  the  Christ,  as  effecting  at  once 
revolution  and  renovation  in  his  inner  life.  The 
difficulty  here  is  to  prevent  this  central  aspect  of 
Paulinism  from  involving  us  in  an  exposition  of 
that  system  as  a  whole.  We  shall  try,  however, 
to  indicate  its  place  in  the  organism  of  St.  Paul's 
soterioloo;y  as  allusively  as  possible. 

Beyond  all  question,  '  faith  '  was  to  him  the  very 
soil  or  subjective  condition  of  that  new  good  which 
came  through  the  gospel.  Faith  was  such  recep- 
tivity as  enabled  God  to  give  'his  ineffable  gift' 
to  the  soul.  As  such,  it  answers  to  '  the  good 
ground,'  the  '  honest  and  good  heart,'  as  the  state 
of  soul  adapted  to  '  the  word  of  God,'  in  Christ's 
parable.  But  St.  Paul,  -viewing  things  in  a  more 
subjective  way,  proceeds  to  uluniine  the  inner 
factors  and  stages  of  the  great  process  from  the 
standpoint  of  personal  appropriation,  as  one  who 
was  himself  the  conscious  soil  in  which  it  had 
come  about.  The  good  of  which  such  '  faith '  or 
vital  trust  is  receptive  in  Christ,  is  variously  set 
forth  by  St.  Paul  as  the  righteousness  of  a  recti- 
fied relation  to  God,  including  forgiveness  of  sins 
(see  Justification)  ;  cleansing  or  consecration 
(sanctilication  in  principle  :  see  SanCTIFICATION)  ; 
participation  in  the  Divine  life,  as  the  life  of  the 
Christ,  or  Spirit-life  ;  and  hence  realized  sonship  to 
God,  as  embracing  all  else.  So  arranged,  the  series 
passes  from  the  more  objective  to  the  more  subjec- 
tive aspects  of  tlie  one  simple  yet  complex  fact, 
which,  rooted  at  the  heart  of  St.  Paul's  experience, 
had  made  a  new  man  of  him.  And  tne  most 
adequate  conception  of  it  is  that  which  represents 
the  new  relation  to  God  in  its  most  inward,  vital, 
and  causal  aspect — the  birth  of  a  new  manhood  or 
personality  within  the  old  individual,  Saul.  It  is  this 
which  ever  emerges  in  St.  Paul's  most  spontaneous 
and  personal  utterances.  Such  are  the  great  out- 
bursts in  Gal  2-"  and  2  Co  5'°'" — passages  familiar, 
yet  in  virtue  of  thiir  experimental  depth  so  little 
'  known  '  in  the  biblical  sense.  '  I  have  been  cruci- 
fied with  Christ ;  yet  I  live  ;  (and  yet)  no  longer  I, 
but  Christ  liveth  in  me :  and  that  (life)  which  I 
now  live  in  the  flesh,  I  live  in  faith,  (the  faitli) 
which  is  in  the  Son  of  God.'  And  again  :  '  He 
died  for  all,  that  they  who  live  sliould  no  longer 
live  unto  themselves,  Tjut  unto  him  who  for  their 
Bakes  died  and  rose  again.  .  .  .  Wlierefore  if  any 
man  is  in  Christ,  (he  is)  a  new  creature  (koi^?; 
KTlmt) :  the  old  things  are  passed  away ;  behold, 
they  are  become  new.'  In  tiiese  and  like  passages 
St.  Paul  speaks  as  a  prophet,  not  as  a  schoolman. 
He  affirms :  he  has  no  thought  of  what  he   may 


seem  implicitly  to  deny.  The  life  in  him  wai 
above  all  new  ;  and  it  was  of  Divine  initiation  or 
grace.  But  that  did  not  mean  tliat  there  was  no 
psj'cliological  continuity  between  tlie  old  Saul  and 
tiis  faculties,  and  tlie  new  Paul  and  liis  :  nor  did  it 
exclude  the  responsible  co-operation  of  his  own 
volition  througliout.  The  affirmations  are  experi- 
mental and  unembarrassed  by  reflective  considera- 
tions of  verbal  consistencj'.  We  may  see,  more- 
over, from  other  passages  that  what  is  here  in  the 
background  was  not  overlooked  by  St.  Paul,  but 
entered  into  the  body  of  his  tliought,  coming  out 
in  turn  as  occasion  arose.  Thus  when  he  speaks  of 
'  a  new  creature '  (Gal  6",  2  Co  5"),  or  says,  '  the  old 
things  are  passed  away  ;  behold,  they  are  become 
new,  he  simply  means  that  his  experience  had 
utterly  changed  in  colour  and  perspective.  No 
factors  had  been  eliminated :  but  the  resultant 
was  new  ;  and  this  by  the  operation  of  a  new 
factor  determining  all  afresh  and  in  a  new  syn- 
thesis. The  new  factor  was  the  quickening  grace 
of  God  in  the  Christ,  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  the 
(Holy)  Spirit,  or  most  fully  '  the  law  of  the  Spirit 
of  life  ill  Christ  Jesus.'  Tliis,  by  overcoming  '  the 
law  of  sin  and  death,'  naturally  at  work,  had  pro- 
duced a  new  spiritual  life  in  him,  and  so  made  him 
a  '  new  man '  in  Christ  Jesus.  The  way  by  which 
this  had  come  about  is  laid  bare  in  Ko  7,  a  chapter 
of  deep  psychological  and  also  autobiographic  sig- 
nificance. From  it  w-e  gather  that  even  in  his  un- 
regenerate  state,  while  the  law  of  sin  operative  in 
'  the  flesh ' — the  sensuous  and  self-willed  side  of 
his  nature  —  actually  swayed  his  will,  he  was 
already  conscious  of  another  and  deeper  element 
in  his  being,  protesting  against  the  flesh  and 
sympathizing  witli  the  claims  of  God's  law.  This 
'mner  man'  (6  (au  dfOpuiros,  7-^  =  6  vovs,  7^-^  =  t4 
TTi-eC/ia  Tov  di/dpuTTov,  1  Co  2"  ;  cf.  Ro  8'°),  however, 
has  only  a  latent  or  potential  existence  so  long 
as  it  is  overridden  by  '  the  flesh  ' — '  the  law  of  the 
mind,'  by  the  law  or  principle  active  in  the  fleshly 
members  (7^).  The  spirit  is  as  good  as  dead  in  the 
man  Saul  as  a  moral  personality,  being  outside  the 
centre  of  volition  as  long  as  '  the  flesh '  is  there 
enthroned  in  power  ;  and  so  it  is  generally  ignored 
in  St.  Paul's  references  to  '  the  natural  man,'  who 
is  called  summarily  '  dead  in  trespasses  and  sins,' 
because  morally  'alienated  from  the  life  of  God' 
(Eph  2'-  °  4'*).  But  when  the  life  of  God  succeeds 
in  quickening  this  half-inanimate  spiritual  faculty 
with  a  kindred  passion  for  the  righteousness  of 
God,  then  it  springs  to  life  (Ro  8'")  and  gains 
control  of  the  will  :  a  new  personality  arises  from 
the  new  union  of  the  will  and  the  higher  element 
dependent  on  and  akin  to  the  Divine :  the  man 
lives  anew  with  a  fresh  type  of  moral  life— that 
being  dominant  which  before  was  subject,  and  vice 
versa.  With  tliis  psychological  reversal  may  be 
comjiared  the  earlier  change  from  the  rudimentary 
'  life '  of  irresponsible  innocence  to  the  '  death  '  of 
a  divided  heart,  wherein  the  lower  elements  hold 
sway  (Ro  7*'")-  Now,  however,  the  man  is  con- 
scious of  the  issues  at  stake  and  the  forces  of  both 
kinds  at  work  in  and  upon  him  :  and  the  whole 
deliverance  has  a  vividness  and  finality  propor- 
tionate to  his  prior  sense  of  the  death  in  bondage 
to  sin  (7"). 

As  this  experience  of  renovation  came  to  St. 
Paul  under  the  forms  of  the  life,  death,  and  resur- 
rection of  Jesus  tlie  (^lirist,  so  regeneration  is  set 
forth  in  terms  of  the  same.  The  '  new  man '  or 
'  new  creature '  is  so  *  in  Christ';  and  Christ  is  in 
him.  Hence  '  the  Spirit  of  God  '  or  '  Holy  Spirit,' 
the  quickener  of  the  new  life  (1  Co  6"  12^),  can  also 
bo  called  'the  Spirit  of  Christ'  (Ro  8'-')  or  'the 
Spirit  of  his  Son '  (Gal  4").  Hence  also  the  specific 
condition  of  the  '  new  man,'  in  contrast  to  the  '  old ' 
(Col  S"-,  Eph  42>-»'),  is  that  of  sonship  and  instal'a 


REGENERATION 


REGENERATION 


219 


tion  into  sonship  {iloffeala,  Ro  8""'^)  after  the  like- 
nfss  ot  Christ's. 

StUJ  this  regenerate  or  filial  life  is  not  comjilete 
at  the  tiiue  when  it  is  given,  coinciJently  witli  the 
eelfconuiiittal  of  faith.  It  has  a  course  of  growth 
to  go  throuijh,  analogoiis  to  that  of  natural  life. 
It  begins  with  spiritual  immaturity  and  proceeds 
to  maturity  of  will  and  insight.  The  'babe' 
(viirios)  in  Christ  is  one  who  perceives  only  the 
broadest  outlines  of  the  Father's  waj's  ana  will, 
and  may  still  be  confused  by  the  films  of  his  old 
Heshly  blindness  ;  whereas  the  full-grown  or  '  per- 
fect '  man  (WXcios)  is  one  to  whom  experience  lias 
brought  enlightenment  and  discrimination  of  con- 
science (Ph  l"'  3'-""") :  he  is  actually  and  not  only 
potentially  '  spiritual '  [Trpev/iaTiKis).  And  each 
stage  has  its  own  spiritual  nutriment,  its  'milk' 
or  its  '  solid  food '  (1  Co  S'-*). 

(vi.)  St.  John. — The  term  'regeneration'  does 
not  actually  occur  in  St.  John's  writings,  though 
it  does  virtually  in  one  passage  of  his  Gospel  (3"  '), 
in  the  phrase  ^ei'i'Tjff?'''"  fiyuflei',  which  is  best 
rendered  '  born  auew'  (cf.  v.*  bivrepov  el<T(\Ouv  .  .  . 
Kal  ieiiiir)6rivai).  This  shade  of  thouglit,  while 
proper  to  the  context,  and  while  probably  appro- 
priated by  St.  Jolin  as  the  root  of  his  own  thinking 
on  the  matter,  is  not  the  one  most  characteristic 
of  his  own  doctrine.  It  is  not  so  much  the  fact  of 
a  new  beginning  in  the  Christian  life,  as  the  in- 
herent nature  of  that  life  as  due  to  its  Divine 
origin,  that  occupies  tliis  apostle's  mind,  llis 
favourite  emphasis  is  seen  in  the  phrase  '  to  be 
begotten  of  God '  (yew-qOiivai  ix  toO  $eov).  God 
Himself  is  the  veritable  Father  of  the  Christian 
believer,  the  kindred  fontal  source  of  his  new  life, 
with  its  iulicrent  Divine  virtue  [rb  yeyewrjiiivov  ix 
Tou  Bfoi).  This  virtue  manifests  itself  in  certain 
vital  functions,  wonderful  and  Divine  by  reason 
of  their  distinctness  from  the  average  conduct  of 
liuMian  nature,  as  St.  John  saw  it  about  him, 
radically  determined  by  the  world  of  sense,  that 
source  of  seductive  pleasures  and  ambitions.  The 
worlil,  so  regarded,  stood  at  tlie  rival  pole  of  beiii" 
to  the  Father;  so  that  '  to  be  of  the  world 'and 
'to  be  of  God'  were  mutually  exclusive  states  or 
spirits,  by  which  the  soul  might  be  possessed  and 
cliamcterized  (I  Jn'i'"). 

Such  birth  from  God  is  conceived  by  St.  John  as 
%  single  initial  fact,  carrying  in  itself  abiding  issues 
of  a  like  nature.  This  is  expressed  by  the  use  of 
perfects,  like  ye-y^vvijraif  6  yey^wTj^yos  (1  Jn  2^  3*  4' 
51. 1. 1«_  (.f  jy  jju.  8)^  a^  distinct  from  aorists  (i 
ytvuTiOeis  iK  toO  0(ou  describes  Christ  in  immediate 
contrast  to  the  believer,  A  ytyewrnjjvos  in  tou  OeoO, 
1  Jn  5'").  The  rarer  cases  in  which  the  aorist 
occurs,  are  those  which  sunply  contemplate  re- 
generation as  the  decisive  fact  constitutive  of 
spiritual  sonship  in  the  believer  (Jn  1'-'-,  cf.  3'''). 
"The  main  passage  in  question  is  Jn  !'"• :  '  But  as 
many  as  received  him  (the  Logos),  to  them  gave 
he  prerogative  to  become  children  of  God  (touxei' 
avTois  (ioMtav  Hxva  fftoO  yei'i<;OaL),  even  to  them 
that  Were  believers  on  his  name  (rois  iriarfiiowrtv 
fis  K.r.X.) ;  who  were  born,  not  of  blood  of  liunian 
parents,  nor  of  fleshly  volition,  nor  of  a  human 
lather's  volition,  hut  of  God  '  (ot  ovk  c'f  al/xdrui'  oiiSi 
fK  tffXTj/uiTos  (rapKbs  ovSi  f'/c  6i\i)^aTos  ivbpds  d\\*  iK 
Oeou  tytfir^Oriaati).  This  is,  in  form  and  in  context, 
an  absolutely  general  statement ;  so  much  so,  that 
it  seems  impossilile  to  refer  it  primarily  to  belief 
in  Jesus  tlie  Clirist  at  all,  but  rather  to  the  uni- 
ver.ial  approach  of  the  Logos  to  the  human  soul, 
prior  even  to  the  Incarnation  (see  1 1"  for  a  similar 
thouglit).  This  is  a  most  important  aspect  of  the 
Johannine  doctrine  of  regeneration  :  it  not  only 
tits  ir.  with  the  universality  of  his  thought,  but 
also  confirms  with  his  authority  what  is  urged 
below,  namely,  that  '  regeneration '  may  properly 


be  predicated  of  the  experience  of  saints  under  the 
Old  Covenant.  Yet  the  language  in  which  St. 
John  states  this  very  truth  of  the  wider  regenera- 
tion, eficcted  wherever  the  Logos  is  welcomed  by 
the  soul,  is  signilicantl.v  coloured  by  liis  habitual 
speech  in  terms  of  the  final  manifestation  of  the 
Logos  in  Jesus  the  Christ  ('  believers  on  his 
name'). 

As  a  rule,  then,  regeneration  is,  to  St.  John, 
actually  conditioned  by  personal  trust  in  Jesus,  or, 
more  specifically,  in  Him  as  the  Christ,  the  .Son  of 
God  {V-'-  20^',  1  Jn  5').  Further,  it  is  assumed  to 
take  formal  or  consummated  ell'ect  (aa  in  the  case 
of  Jesus'  own  Messiahsliii))  in  the  experience  of 
baptism.  Just  as  he  says,  'This  is  he  who  came 
under  the  condition  of  water  {Si'  iooros)  .  .  .  even 
Jesus  Christ '  (1  Jn  5") — words  used  in  close  con- 
nexion with  the  Spirit  as  Messiah's  endowment 
and  witness  (vv.""*,  cf.  Jn  3")  ;  so  bajitism  is  to 
hira  the  normal  condition  under  which  believers 
come  to  rank  as  'children  of  God,'  in  virtue  of  a 
manifest  sealing  by  Holy  Spirit  power.  As  the 
Father  had  'sealed' tlie  Son(JnO-')  with  the  Spirit's 
witness,  in  response  to  His  obedience  of  self-eonse- 
oration  at  the  Baptism  (1  Jn  S"'"),  so,  ai)paiently, 
St.  Johu  thought  of  the  Messianic  gift  of  the 
Spirit,  usually  manifest  at  baptisms  in  the  Apos- 
tolic Age,  as  definitively  '  sealing'  (cf.  above,  (iv.)) 
the  believer's  confession  of  personal  trust  and 
consecration  by  'an  unction  from  the  Holy  One' 
{i.e.  Christ,  1  Jn  2-»- -'').*  Such  a  reading  of  his 
Master's  mind,  as  expressed  by  the  reference  to 
water  in  the  words  to  Nicodenius,  may  be  implied 
by  St.  John's  return  to  the  topic  of  baptism  a  few 
verses  later  on  (3---  '^''■),  and  certainly  corresponded 
to  the  experience  of  the  Apostolic  Age— though 
hardly  to  that  of  later  times.  Naturally',  the  con- 
junction has  no  relation  to  the  baptism  of  infants, 
where  the  essential  element  of  belief  on  Clirist's 
name  is  lacking.  But,  in  lelation  to  the  conditions 
contemplated  by  the  apostle,  the  definite  line 
drawn  by  baptism  between  the  filial  status  of 
Christian  believers  and  what  went  before,  is  of 
great  moment  for  his  tliouglit  as  to  regeneration. 
It  does  not,  indeed,  annul  his  recognition  of 
children  of  God  awaiting  the  gospel  to  gather 
them  into  Christ's  one  flock  (Jn  11'^  iVa  khI  rd  r^Kva 
Tov  deov  tA  dieaKopTna/j^va  auvaydyji  els  ?;*),  and  so  of 
a  deep  dualism  of  moral  state  among  mankind  at 
large,  a  predisposition  to  accejit  or  to  reject  the 
Light  definitively  revealed  in  Christ,  according  to 
the  attitude  to  God  implicit  in  eacli  of  two  tj-pes 
of  conduct  (3""-').  But  all  this,  taken  along  with 
the  absolute  form  in  which  the  tests  of  kinsliip  to 
God  are  set  forth  in  his  Epistles  ('  every  one  that 
doeth  rigliteonsness,'  '  that  lovetli,'  I  Jn  2-^  4'-,  cf. 
3  Jn  "),  suggests  that  St.  John  distinguislied  be- 
tween a  virtual,  though  latent,  and  an  explicit  or 
conscious  sonship.  The  latter  was  the  specific 
blessing  brought  by  the  gospel  of  Christ,  the 
assurance  or  Icnowlcdge  of  Divine  sonship,  after 
which  even  the  best  of  men  had  before  sought  in 
vain.  In  this  respect  the  revelation  in  Christ  was 
crucial.  As  Light,  in  an  absolute  moral  sense. 
He  brought  all  to  a  crisis  or  decision  {Kpluis),  forcing 
all  hearts  to  reveal  their  inmost  allinities— whether 
for  'the  world'  and  self,  or  for  God  and  His 
righteousness  and  love.  Implicit  regeneration, 
where  it  already  exists,  thus  passes  into  explicit 
regeneration. 

i'lie  more  definite  and  psychologically  mature 
character  of  the  NT  experience  of  Regeneration, 
as  compared  with  that  of  the  godly  under  the  OT, 
is  hinted  in  the  words,  '  I  came  that  they  may 
have  Life,  and  have  it  in  abundance '  ( 10'°,  cf.  4'''). 

*  As  has  been  well  said,  *tho  disciples  are  in  a  tnio  sense 
Chritfi  In  virtue  ot  the  lite  of  "Uj«  Christ '"  (Westcott,  T/u 
i^pistUs  qf  St.  John,  xlv). 


220 


REGENERATION 


REGENERATION 


It  connects  itself  also  with  the  Johannine  emphasis 
on  the  specilieally  new  presence  of  the  Spirit  with 
the  Christian  as  sudi.  Here  two  passages  in  the 
Gospel  are  crucial.  Commenting  on  Clirist's  words, 
'  lie  that  bclieveth  on  me  .  .  .  out  of  his  belly 
shall  flow  ri\ers  of  living  water,'  St.  John  adds: 
*  But  this  sjjake  he  of  the  Spirit,  whicli  they  that 
believed  on  him  were  to  receive — for  (the)  Spirit 
was  not  yet  (given),  because  Jesus  was  not  yet 
glorified  '  (T^'O-  Then,  in  the  gicat  Farewell  Dis- 
cour.se  (Jn  14'^)  he  records  his  JIaster's  promise 
that  He  would  give  tlie  disciples  '  another  Helper  ' 
or  Paraclete,  to  supply  what  would  he  lacking  of 
conscious  support  through  the  removal  of  His  own 
bodily  presence.  This  implies  something  fresh  to 
their  e.xperience,  and  yet  Jesus  adds  :  'Ye (already) 
have  (experimental)  knowledge  of  him,  for  at  your 
side  he  abideth  and  in  you  he  is '  {v/j.c7s  yiviliuKerc 
avTd,  Irrt  Trap*  i/fuv  ^ii'et.  Kai  iv  v^uv  iarlv).  Here  the 
contrast  is  a  religious  rather  than  a  metaphysical 
or  theological  *  one  :  it  is  a  matter  of  the  disciples' 
consciousness  rather  than  of  tlie  Spirit's  real  pre- 
sence. They  had  implicit  experience  of  His  action, 
in  their  very  experience  of  oneness  of  heart  with 
their  Master  :  in  a  little  while  this  was  to  blossom 
out  into  recognition  of  His  presence  and  support 
as  the  very  ground  of  their  assurance  of  abiding 
spiritual  union  with  their  gloritied  Lord  and  a 
share  in  His  sonship.  This  is  the  thought  which 
St.  Paul  grasped  so  firmly  and  expresses  in  the 
words,  •  the  Spirit  himself  beareth  witness  with 
our  spirit  tliat  we  are  children  of  God'  (Ro  8'*,  cf. 
"*'■).  But  it  is  also  what  St.  John  has  in  mind  in 
saying  that  'not  yet  was  the  Spirit,'  i.e.  the 
Spirit-consciousness  of  full  sonship  which  marked 
Christians  after  Pentecost  (7^°,  cf.  Ac  19"). 

St.  John's  doctrine  of  salvation,  then,  centres  in 
Kegeneration.  In  it  man's  true  or  ideal  destiny 
is  realized  through  the  initiative  of  the  heavenly 
Father  or  the  Spirit,  responded  to  bj'  the  moral 
receptivity  of  obedience  in  the  human  heart  or 
will :  potential  sonship  becomes  actual  in  a  Life 
of  communion  that  is  at  once  human  and  Divine 
(IC^).  Every  man  has  the  potemy  of  two  dia- 
metrically opposed  personalities  in  him,  by  his 
natural  birth.  The  one  has,  as  it  were,  the  start 
of  the  other,  realizing  itself  along  the  line  of 
sensuous,  egoistic  tendency — the  line  of  least  re- 
sistance morally.  It  is  thus  '  of  the  earth  '  (3''), 
'of  the  world'  ("iS'MT"- '»,  lJn2'»4'>),  'from  below' 
(8^),  the  sphere  of  '  the  ruler  of  this  world '  (W>). 
Those,  then,  in  whom  it  reigns  are  morally 
'  children  of  the  devil '  (IJn  3»- »»,  cf.  Jn  8").  The 
other  personality  or  character,  on  the  contrary, 
owes  its  origin  and  vitality  to  God  and  that 
sjiiritual  order  of  His  which  gradually  dawns 
\ipon  our  ken  with  the  emergence  of  reason  and 
conscience.  Thus  it  is,  when  produced  in  a  man 
by  Divine  grace  (6**) — though  not  without  the  co- 
operation of  human  volition  (3°<"-  5"  8") — a  life 
'  from  heaven  '  (S-''),  '  notof  the  world  '  (15'»  17"-  "), 
'  from  above '  (like  the  Son  himself,  8'-^),  '  of  God  ' 
(1  Jn  S'J  5*-  ")  or  'of  the  Father'  (1  Jn  2'«).  To 
save  one  of  these  lives  is  to  lose  the  other  (12-')  : 
the  life  of  the  one  means  the  death  of  the  other  (as 
in  the  Synoptics). 

C.  Connected  Summary.— Regeneration  is  the 
final  form  in  which  biblical  religion  conceives  that 
profound  s[iiritual  change  whereby  sinful  man 
conies  into  real  and  abiding  communion  with  God. 
Accordingly,  one  must  recognize  in  regeneration 
the  virtuaJ  synonym  of  various  other  soteriological 
terms,  such  as  Repentance,  Conversion,  Justifica- 
tion,  or   Forgiveness,   and  even   Consecration  or 

•  The  usual  readinc  inou,  instead  of  irrit  (BD*  1.  22.  69.  251. 
254  it  P'*""  syr.  cur.  pesh.  pro  Tat  »'»*>■  Lcif),  is  probably  due  to 
failure  to  see  this,  and  the  coDsequent  attempt  to  harmonize 
the  statement  with  the  future  Q^icu)  above. 


Sanctification  in  that  radical  sense  which  consti 
tutes  the  believer  as  such  'a  saint.'  But  aa 
'  regeneration '  sets  forth  the  change  in  question 
in  a  specially  inward  or  vital  way,  it  hardly 
emerges  as  an  explicit  doctrine  in  the  OT,  and 
does  so  but  grjidually  even  in  the  NT.  We  have 
seen  that  in  Christ's  own  ordinary  preaching,  as 
given  in  the  Synoptics,  regeneration  is  set  forth 
in  purely  religious  and  ethical  fashion,  in  terms  of 
the  will  rather  than  in  a  manner  more  abstract. 
This  poimlar  aspect  of  the  matter  meet.s  us  again 
in  early  Judajo  Christianity,  before  highly  trained 
minds  like  St.  Paul  and  the  writer  to  'Hebrews' 
had  brought  the  categories  of  Rabbinic  and  Hel- 
lenistic psychology  to  bear  on  the  data  of  Christian 
experience.  Repentance,  not  regeneration,  stands 
in  the  forefront  of  the  early  preaching  in  Acts,  as 
also  of  that  under  which  'the  Hebrews'  had  be- 
lieved (He  6'' ") ;  and  thereby  men  were  qualified 
for  entrance  into  the  Messianic  communitj'  in 
baptism,  in  which  they  received  the  '  seal '  of  the 
Spirit's  manifested  gilts.  The  more  inward  and 
secret  operation  of  the  Spirit,  implied  in  penitence 
and  trust,  had  not  as  yet  received  due  notice. 
This  side  of  things,  indeed,  was  largely  hidden 
from  those  whose  outlook  and  conception  of  Sal- 
vation were  still  primaril_v  eschatological. 

Hence  St.  Paul's  unique  experience  of  the  gospel 
as  power  of  God  in  the  soul,  and  as  an  essentially 
present  Salvation,  marks  an  epoch  in  the  NT 
doctrine  of  Regeneration.  His  deeply  self-reveal- 
ing consciousness  of  sin  gave  him  to  see,  traced 
within,  the  process  by  which  new  moral  energy 
was  received,  and  to  realize  the  Divine  quickenin" 
involved  in  man's  experience  of  repentance  and 
faith.  He  saw  that  human  nature  embraced  two 
principles,  opposed  in  tendency  to  each  other,  and 
competing  for  the  control  of  man's  settled  personal 
will.  In  actual  human  nature  the  lower  or  sensu- 
ous (^('I'xtKii"')  and  self-centred  principle,  called  '  the 
flesh '  (ffd/jj),  had  the  upper  hand  and  determined 
the  quality  of  man's  moral  life  :  and  the  outcome 
was  '  death  '  towards  God  and  His  righteousness. 
But  in  Jesus  Christ,  who  was  a  '  second '  or  new 
type  of  manhood,  of  heavenly  origin  (6  deiWcpot 
dfdpuTros  ((  ovpafov),  and  '  spiritual '  in  contrast  to 
the  'sensuous'  or  'eartliy '  type  of  Adamic  man- 
hood (1  Co  IS""^'),  a  new  basis  was  laid  for 
humanity.  To  believers  this  Saviour  became  '  a 
quickening  spirit'  (iri-eDjua  (woroiovv),  turning  the 
scale  decisively  against  'the  flesh,'  and  setting 
free,  as  if  by  a  resurrection,  the  enthralled  higher 
nature  (^oDs  or  irvevfui),  before  as  good  as  dead,  by 
tilling  it  with  Divine  energy  or  life  {irveOfui  d-yiov) 
akin  to  His  own,  in  virtue  of  which  He  rose  vic- 
torious over  death.  A  man  so  vivified  by  the 
Spirit  of  God,  and  after  the  likeness  of  Christ, 
was  in  very  deed  a  new  moral  being  {Kainii  Kricns), 
a  son  of  God,  bj-  Divine  re-creative  action  and 
adoption.  The  S])irit  replaced  the  flesh  as  piime 
determinant  of  will  and  conduct ;  and  therewith 
'  the  old  man,'  the  moral  state  of  the  individual  by 
nature,  gave  way  to  'the  new  man,'  the  state  in 
which  the  human  will  is  in  harmony  with  the 
Divine  in  principle,  and  normally  so  in  practice 
likewise.  '  Cleaving  to  the  Lord,  the  soul  '  is  one 
spirit'  with  Him  (1  Co  6"),  animated  by  one  and 
the  same  life  that  is  in  Christ,  the  Head  of  the 
new  humanity,  a  life  that  is  essentially  of  God  and 
Divine. 

This  deeper  idea  of  Salvation  seems  certainly  to 
have  left  its  trace  on  St.  Peter's  later  thought,  to 
Judge  by  1  P.  Possibly  also  it  affected  the  form 
in  whicn  St.  John  himself  interpreted  the  new 
Life  which  hail  been  manifested,  first  among  the 
original  disciples,  and  then  in  them.  Yet  there 
were  elements  in  St.  John's  doctrine  proper  to  his 
o^\'n  experience,  both  of  his  Master's  teaching  ano 


REGEXERATION 


REHOB 


221 


of  the  Light  and  Life  in  himself  and  others.  He 
shared  with  St.  Paul  the  idea  of  moral  dualism  as 
rooted  in  a  dualism  of  elements  in  human  nature. 
On  the  one  hand  man  was  related  to  '  the  world ' 
of  sense  and  of  self  (the  flesh),  on  the  other  he 
was  akin  to  God,  as  .sensitive  to  His  word  and 
BO  potentially  His  'child'  in  deed  and  in  truth. 
St.  Paul  thought  most  of  the  new  experience  in 
itself,  speaking  of  the  regenerate  man  as  a  '  new 
(moral)  creature,'  or  as  a  '  son '  in  respect  of 
dchnite  status  and  privileges  in  relation  to  God 
through  faith  in  Christ  and  by  virtue  of  the  Spirit 
(2  Co  5",  Gal  3^  4'-',  Ko  S"""-  ^).  Thus  it  is  a 
question  of  a  new  status  or  condition  into  which 
a  man  is  brought  by  a  definite  act.  Adoption 
(vlod(aia),  by  which  the  transition  is  made  from  the 
opposite  states  of  serfdom,  wretchedness,  aliena- 
tion, death  (Gal  S^'-\  Ko  7=^  S"'- ") :  so  tliat  the 
full  etlect  of  such  adoption  waits  upon  man's 
emancipation  from  '  the  bondage  of  corruption '  in 
'the  redemption  of  our  body'  (Ro  S-"''^).  St. 
John,  on  the  other  hand,  thought  rather  of  the 
intrinsic  nature  of  the  '  eternallife'  quickened  in 
believers,  of  the  wonder  and  glory  of  its  origin  in 
God — the  Divine  nature  germinating  as  'seed'  in 
the  liuman  soul,  and  by  a  new  birth  begettin<j  a 
new  personality.  Thus  it  is  his  writings  which 
present  the  most  classic  statement  of  the  doctrine 
of  Kegeneration,  as  '  that  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
in  a  man  by  which  a  new  life  of  holy  love,  like  the 
life  of  God,  is  initiated.' 

Aside  from  tliis  main  line  of  development  stand 
St.  James  and  the  writer  '  to  Hebrews.' 

The  former  thinks  of  the  origin  of  the  higher 
life  in  the  soul  in  terms  of  the  Wisdom  literature 
of  the  OT  and  of  writers  like  Philo.*  '  The  word 
of  truth,'  'the  inborn  word,'  or  'the  wisdom  from 
above,'  is  the  medium  of  God's  creative  action  on 
the  soul,  by  '  the  Spirit  which  he  hath  caused  to 
d'vell  in  us'  (!'»■"  3"  4»).  To  the  latter,  men  are 
essentially  'spirits,'  placed  by  'the  Father  of 
spirits'  in  the  body,  to  be  disciplined  and  puri- 
hed  with  a  view  to  conscious  sonship,  and  so  to 
the  '  glory '  of  the  spiritual  and  leal  world  of 
which  the  visible  is  but  the  poor  shadow  (12'-'-'' 
oio  12'").  Hence  the  work  of  grace  is  set  forth 
as  moral  enlightenment  and  puriticalion  of  the  con- 
science (6*  hy'-  9*  KI-),  believers  being  '  those  who 
have  been  illumined.'  The  vital  and  djTiamic 
aspects  are  not,  indeed,  absent  (5"-6°) ;  but  the 
renewal  ell'ected  in  the  fundamental  change  of 
heart  which  the  NT  everywhere  recognizes  in 
Repentance  (6"),  is  to  him  a  matter  of  divinely- 
given  insight  into  the  realities  of  the  moral  and 
spiritual  world,  and  a  corresponding  obedience, 
'ihe  Christian  'tastes  the  word  of  God  to  be  good,' 
and  as  he  feeds  upon  the  oracles  of  God  he  gains 
an  ever  more  relined  perception  of  shades  of  moral 
and  spiritual  truth  (6'  5").  This,  the  writer's  own 
emphasis  (as  distinct  from  his  readers'  type  of 
thought),  is  Hellenistic  and  '  Alexandrine,  being 
largely  paralleled  in  the  so-called  Epistle  of  Bar- 
nabas, as  well  as  in  1  Clement  and  a  good  deal  of 
2nd  cent.  Christian  literature. 

But  differently  as  the  NT  writers  do,  in  some 
respects,  conceive  the  (jreat  exi)erience  whereliy 
the  mural  centre  of  gravity  in  a  man's  life  changes 
from  self  to  God,  they  are  unanimous  on  one  car- 
dinal point.  And  that  is  the  constant  relation  of 
the  '  word  of  God,'  made  vital  to  the  conscience 
and  heart,  as  the  means,  and  of  faith  aa  the  con- 
dition of  the  change. 

LiT«KiTCR».— Tho  special  literature  of  this  subject  Is  rather 
scanty.    Considerable  sections  on  It  exist  In  the  larger  works 

•  Philo  represents  Ood  and  the  Logos  as  sowing  In  the 
womb  of  the  soul  the  seed  of  virtues,  and  so  maltirig  it  preg- 
nant_  and  boar :   e.g.  Ley.  atUg.  ill.  61.  heivtwnt  ykp  rirt  t^ 


on  biblical  theoIog>'  (e.p.  Weiss  and  Iloltzmann  in  particular),  as 
also  in  systems  ol  I)oginatic  (e.g.  Itothe,  Thomosius,  Marteuscn, 
Uorner).  But  attempts  at  a  strictly  historical  aud  genetic 
account  of  the  biblical  doctrine,  on  the  basis  of  an  adequate 
literary  criticism,  are  singularly  few  :  J.  Kostlin'a  art.  '  Wicder- 
geburt,'  in  /*/iA'2  xvii.  75  ff.,  seems  the  best  available,  but  is 
no  longer  sullicient.  The  Angus  Lecture  on  'Regeneration' 
(1S97),  so  fur  as  it  deals  with  the  biblical  material,  is  quite 
uncritical  and  conventional.  Much  matter  bearing  on  our 
doctrine  is  to  be  found  in  studies  of  the  doctrine  of  the  .-leveral 
NT  writers,  often  under  other,  but  kindred,  headings,  e.g. 
Adoption,  Converyion,  Faith,  Justilication,  Repentance,  Son- 
ship.  As  examples  may  be  cited,  J.  B.  Mayor,  Kintitle  of  Jaines, 
appended  Conunent  on  '  Regeneration,'  pp.  l.sO-189 ;  A.  B. 
Bruce,  St.  Paul's  Conception  of  Christianity^  chs.  x.-xiii.,  and 
esp.  ch.  xvii.,  'The  Christian  Life'  (though  it  unduly  uiinimizes 
St.  Paul's  recognition  of  growth  in  the  new  life) ;  Westcott, 
El'isHet  of  St.  John,  added  Note  on  'Children  of  Ood,'  p. 
123  a.  J.  V.  B,UITLET. 

REGISTER.— See  GENEALOGY,  vol.  ii.  p.  121. 

REHABIAH  (••i;?Tl  and  >ri-2n-\  'Jah  is  wide'). 
— The  eponym  of  a  Levitical  family,  said  to  be 
descended  from  Eliezer,  one  of  the  sons  of  Moses, 
1  Ch  23"    24"  (LXX  'Paapid)  2G'»  (B  'Po;3ias,   A 

'Paa^iat). 

REHOB  (3'im  and  nn-j).— 1,  (B  'Paci/S  [2  S'Poiii?],  A 
■Pou)^)  A  town  at  the  northern  end  of  the  valley 
of  the  Jordan,  most  probably  the  same  as  Betii- 
REHOB  (which  see),  of  which  the  exact  site  is  un- 
known. In  P's  narrative  of  the  spies  Kehob  is 
mentioned  (Nu  IS'")  as  the  most  northerly  limit  of 
their  explorations,  and  is  further  delined  as  '  at  the 
entering  in  of  llamatli,'  i.e.  at  the  entrance  of  the 
great  depression  between  the  mountains  of  Lebanon 
and  Hermon,  which  connects  Palestine  and  Coele- 
Syria.  P's  i)hrase,  therefore,  '  from  the  wilder- 
ness of  Zin  unto  Kehob,'  is  merely  a  variation  of 
the  more  usual  formula  '  from  Dan  to  Beersheha.' 
With  this  agrees  the  notice  in  J"  IS-""-,  where  the 
new  settlement  of  the  Danitesat  Laish  (or  Leshem, 
Jos  ID'")  is  described  as  situated  '  in  the  valley  that 
lieth  by  Bethrehob.'  In  the  reign  of  David  the 
valley  of  Beth-rehob  (2  S  10«)  or  Kehob  (v.»)  was 
the  seat  of  a  petty  Arama\an  kingdom  (cf.  I  S  14", 
LXX  Lag.),  like  the  neighbouring  Beth-maacah  or 
Abel  of  Beth-maacah.  Kobinson  {BliP'^  iii.  p.  371) 
identified  the  town  with  the  ruins  of  Hunin  in  the 
valley  of  Hiileli ;  but  this  site  is  too  far  south. 
More  probable  is  the  view  of  liiilil  (6-',lPp.  240), 
who  suggests  that  it  correspomled  to  the  later 
Paneas  (Banias).  It  is  true  tliat  many  writers 
have  identified  this  town  with  the  ancient  Dan 
(Reland,  Palicstina,  p.  918  f.;  Thomson,  Land 
and  Book,  ii.  547  ;  and  recently  G.  A.  Smith, 
HUIIL  pp.  473,  480  f.) ;  hut,  in  view  of  the  explicit 
statement  of  Eusebius  (0S^'  275.  33,  249.  32,  cf. 
Jerome,  ib.  136.  11)  that  Dan  was  four  miles  distant 
from  Paneas,  we  should  probably  identify  Dan  with 
the  modern  'Tel  el-ljaili  (/.«(/»= 'judge '  =  Z>n;i). 

2.  (B 'Pod,3,  A'Poui/3)  A  town  belonging  to  the 
tribe  of  Asher,  the  exact  site  of  which  is  unknown. 
It  was  pre.suinalily  near  to  great  Ziilon  (Jos  19^), 
and  was  afterwards  assigned,  together  with  its 
suburbs,  to  the  Gershonile  Levites  (Jos  21*',  1  Ch 
G").     It  is  therefore  to  be  distinguished  from — 

3.  (B'Paaii,  A'l'aii^),  which  is  al.so  mentioned  aa 
belonging  to  Asher,  and  was  apparently  near  the 
seacoast  (Jos  lO**).  According  to  Jg  1"  Kehob 
was  one  of  the  cities  which  were  still  retained  by 
their  Canaanite  inhabitants.  Very  possibly  it  is 
the  city  referred  to  in  the  Egyptian  lists  cited  by 
Miillcr  (Askn  u.  Europa,  p.  153). 

LiTKRATi'RB. — Thomson,  Land  and  Honk,  11.  647  ;  Robinson, 
BUI-'  iii.  p.  371  ;  .SH7'  i.  p.  130B. ;  Baedeker»,  p.  iOit.  ;  O.  A. 
Smith.  IIGIIL,  I.e.:  Hulll,  OAP  pp.  U5f.,  112f.,  237-2.10; 
Stanley,  Sinai  and  Palrttine,  p.  400;  Moore,  Judgei,  p.  888  f. 
and  p.  61  f. 

4.  (PodjS)  The  father  of  Hat'adezer,  king  of  Zobab 
(2  S  8»-  '••'). 


222 


REHOBOAM 


KEHOBOAM 


5.  (N  ■Po6|3,  A'Poii^,  B  om.)  One  of  tliose  who 
scaled  the  covenant  (Neh  10"). 

J.  F.  Stenning. 

BEHOBOAM  (oy^rj-j  'the  people  is  enlarged,'  or 
perhaps  '  'Am  is  wide,'  cf.  Eciuibiah  [see  Gray,  IIPN 
52,  note  1,  59  f.] ;  'Po/3oa/i,  Roboam). — The  narrative 
of  this  reign  is  contained  in  1  K  11«-12=^  U-'-^',  2  Ch 
g3i_j2.  '  Ample  in  foolishness  (nSiN  nm)  and  lack- 
ing understanding,  Kelioboam  by  [his  counjsel  let 
loose  [the  peojple '  (Sir  47^,  Cowley  and  Neubauer's 
translation).  Such  is  the  judgment  of  the  son  of 
•Sir.ach,  as  he  pauses  in  his  'praise  of  famous  men  ' 
fur  the  inevitable  notice  of  the  collapse  of  Israel  as 
a  world  power,  and  the  frustration  of  the  proud 
hojies  of  Solomon  that  had  found  expression  in  tlie 
name  he  had  bestowed  on  his  heir.  The  Cliristian 
historian,  who  recognizes  that  the  function  of  the 
chosen  race  was  to  be  the  custodian  of  the  oracles 
of  God  and  source,  according  to  the  flesh,  of  the 
Saviour  of  the  world,  can  easily  perceive  that  this 
prceparatio  Evangdii  was,  humanly  speaking,  ren- 
dered possible  only  by  that  checking  of  the  material 
development  of  the  nation  of  Israel  which  resulted 
from  the  disruption  of  Solomon's  empire.  But  to 
the  Jewish  patriot  the  maiming  of  his  country's 
life  must  always  have  seemed  an  unmixed  evil.  The 
api)arent  immediate  cause  —  Rehoboam's  fatuous 
insolence— was  merely  the  pretext  for  the  revolu- 
tion that  took  place  on  his  accession.  As  is  the 
case  in  every  other  turning-point  of  history,  the 
true  cause  of  the  issue  must  be  sought  for  beneath 
the  surface,  in  social  and  religious  forces  which 
had  been  at  work  long  before. 

There  was,  in  the  lirst  place,  the  political  ques- 
tion. It  was  the  normal  condition  of  things  that 
Kjihraim  should  envy  Judah,  and  Judah  vex 
Ephraim.  From  the  time  of  the  earliest  settle- 
ment in  Canaan  the  North  and  the  South  had  stood 
ajiart.  The  Bk.  of  Judges  exhibits  the  northern 
tribes  welded  together  by  common  resistance  to 
the  various  oppressors.  Judah  never  joins  them, 
even  when  the  attack  comes  from  the  south.  It 
may  have  been  that  co-o])eration  was  difficult 
owing  to  the  line  of  Canaanitish  fortresses,  such  as 
Jebus,  Gezer,  and  Ekron,  that  extended  across  the 
country  from  east  to  west.  It  may  have  been  that 
the  spirit  of  nationality  was  weaker  in  Judah  and 
Simeon  as  a  consequence  of  their  greater  laxity 
with  regard  to  intermarriage  with  and  adoption  of 
native  families;  if  indeed  we  should  not  rather 
regard  it  as  a  cause  of  this  laxity.  Be  that  as  it 
may,  we  find  tlie  distinction  between  Israel  and 
Juilali  noted  in  the  Krst  army  raised  by  Saul  (1  S 
II*),  and  immediately  after  Saul's  death  an  open 
l)reach  occurred.  David  laboured  hard  to  break 
down  this  antagonism.  His  transference  of  the 
seat  of  government  from  the  purely  Judahite 
Hebron  to  Jerusalem  was  a  compromise  with  the 
northern  tribes.  Yet  in  his  reign  Israel  twice 
rebelled.  David's  policy  was  continued  by  his 
successor  ;  Solomon's  division  of  the  land  for  com- 
missariat purposes  (1  K  4'")  was  evidently  an 
attempt  to  obliterate  the  old  tribal  boundaries. 
Tliat  this  attemiit  was  in  some  degree  successful 
may  be  infened  from  the  fact  that  the  boundary 
between  the  dominions  of  Kehoboamand  .leroboam 
so  ran  as  to  include  in  tlie  southern  kingdom  a 
l)ortion  of  Benjamin,  and  the  greiiter  part  of  the 
southern  settlement  of  Dan.  A  succession  of 
nionarchs  of  the  commanding  personality  of  David 
or  Solomon  might  have  completed  the  unification 
of  the  tribes,  but  Solomon  presumed  too  much  on 
his  personal  prestige.  The  odious  levy  of  forced 
labour,  and  that,  too,  for  the  adornment  of  an 
upstart  capital,  and  the  ceaseless  exactions  for  the 
supniy  of  the  royal  table  (LXX  1  K  IS^-"'),  had  long 
rankled  in  the  liearts  of  the  proud  Ephraimites. 
Add  to  this  that  the  character  of  Solomon's  sue-  ' 


cesser,  as  one  '  not  fit  to  be  a  ruler  nor  to  be  a  prince  ' 
(LXX  1  K  12-'"),  must  have  been  well  known  for 
many  years.  Everything,  indeed,  indicates  that  all 
preparations  had  been  made  for  :„  revolution  the 
moment  Solomon  should  die.  The  Ephraimite  Jero- 
boam, supported  by  a  prophet's  nomination  and  the 
favour  of  his  tribe,  was  biding  his  time  in  Egypt, 
and  treated  there  not  as  a  runaway  official,  hut  aa 
an  exiled  prince  (LXX  2  K  V2:-*').  Tlie  temper  of 
the  northern  tribes  was  further  shown  in  their  de- 
termination to  appoint  Itehoboam  independently, 
if  at  all,  and  in  their  selection  of  Shechem,  the 
chief  sanctuary  of  Ephraim,  as  the  place  of  as- 
sembly, thus  ignoring  the  recent  centralization  of 
civil  and  religious  administration  at  Jerusalem. 

This  political  movement  was  supported  by  a 
religious  agitation  in  which  two  elements,  ecclesi- 
astical and  prophetical,  may  be  discerned  :  on  the 
l)art  of  the  priests  of  the  high  places  jealousy  of 
the  exclusive  claims  of  the  new  temple  at  Jeru- 
salem, and  on  the  part  of  the  prophets  a  nobler 
zeal  for  Jehovah,  called  forth  by  the  lax  eclecticism 
of  Solomon  in  his  later  years.  As  we  see  from  the 
attitude  of  Nathan,  the  prophets  had  not  cordially 
approved  of  the  building  of  the  temple,  and  they 
now  probably  thought  that  there  was  more  chance 
of  the  national  worship  being  preserved  in  its 
purity  in  the  north.  Rehoboam's  subsequent  con- 
duct, indeed,  quite  justified  these  alarms.  He 
added  to  his  father's  innovations  by  sanctioning 
the  erection  of  pillars  of  Baal  and  the  worst  abomi- 
nations of  heathenism  (1  K  14^- "),  such  as  did  not 
find  a  place  in  the  northern  kingdom  until  the  reign 
of  Ahab  fifty  years  later.  The  Chronicler's  account 
of  Jeroboam's  expulsion  of  priests  and  Levites,  and 
of  the  rallying  of  the  orthodox  Israelites  round 
Rehoboam  (2  Ch  11'""'),  is  quite  unsupported  by 
Kings,  which  (12")  merely  states  that  Rehoboam's 
subjects  included  some  residents  of  northern 
extraction.  The  special  animus  of  the  revolting 
tribes  against  the  temple  at  Jerusalem  possibly 
underlay  their  parting  taunt,  '  Now  see  to  thine 
own  house,  David.'  .losephus  {Ant.  vill.  viii.  3) 
understood  it  thus,  '  We  only  leave  to  Rehoboam 
the  temple  which  his  father  built.'  Ahijah  and 
Shemaiah  were  right.  '  It  was  a  thing  brought 
about  of  the  LoKD ' ;  the  pure  monotheism  of 
which  Israel  was  privileged  to  be  the  exponent 
would  have  been  sapi)ed  and  destroyed  by  foreign 
cults,  if  the  later  Solomonic  policy  had  received  no 
check.  In  after  times  this  was  forgotten;  and  the 
later  prophets,  thinking  solely  of  the  political 
consequences  of  the  disruption,  refer  to  it  as  a 
supreme  calamity  (Is  7",  Zee  ll"). 

The  most  important  event  in  this  reign  is  the 
invasion  of  Palestine  by  Shishak.  This  was  one  of 
the  direct  consequences  of  the  division  of  tlie 
nation.  Sesonchis,  as  Manetho  calls  him,  the  first 
monarch  of  the  22nd  dynasty,  reversed  tlie  policy 
of  his  predecessor  Psusennes,  and  displayed  un- 
friendliness towards  Solomon  by  sheltering  hia 
adversaries  Haiiad  and  Jeroboam.  Notwithstand- 
ing tlie  fact  that  Shemaiah  had  forbidden  the 
employment  of  the  huge  army  (reduced  in  LXX, 
B,  to  i20,0U0  men)  which  Hilmlioam  had  mustered 
by  the  following  j-ear  (LXX  1  K  12'-"')  in  order  to 
recover  the  kingdom  he  had  lost,  yet  'there  was 
war  between  Rehoboam  and  Jeroboam  continu- 
ally' (1  K  14'°).  In  all  probability  Jeroboam, 
harassed  by  these  border  forays,  called  in  the  aid 
of  his  former  protector.  The  fifteen  towns  which 
Rehoboam  is  said  to  have  fortified  (2  Ch  11""'")  are, 
with  two  exceptions,  south  of  .Jerusalem,  as  though 
an  attack  might  be  expected  from  that  quarter. 
The  invasion  took  place  in  Rehoboam's  fifth  year, 
and  the  prophetical  historian  justly  sees  in  this 
humiliating  calamity  the  scourge  of  God  for  the 
continued  and  aggravated  national  apostasy.    Th9 


rehoboa:si 


REHOBOTH-IR 


223 


statement  of  the  Chronicler  (2  Ch  11")  that  Reho- 
bciaiii's  defection  did  not  occur  \intil  his  fourth 
year,  and  the  story  of  his  subsequent  repentance 
(12*),  are  oliWonsly  designed  to  bear  out  the  theory 
of  the  orijrinal  orthodoxy  of  tlie  kingdom  of  Judali 
(see  Abijah's  speech,  2  Ch  13'°),  as  well  as  to 
heighten  the  moral  and  dramatic  effect  of  the 
Btory.  Jerusalem  does  not  seem  to  have  stood  a 
siege.  Kesistance  was  hopeless.  Shishak  (herein 
acting  treacherously,  according  to  Josephus)utterly 
denuded  the  temple  and  royal  palace  of  their  trea- 
sures, including  the  famou.s  golden  shields  of 
Solomon's  guard,  to  which  the  LXX  (2  S  8',  1  K 
U^')  adds  the  golden  shields  taken  by  David  from 
Hadadezer.  Dean  Stanley  well  points  out  that 
there  is  a  grave  irony  in  the  historian's  account 
( 1  K  4^)  of  how  the  elaborate  ceremony  which  had 
been  observed  with  regard  to  the  "olden  shields 
was  continued  in  the  case  of  their  brazen  substi- 
tutes. We  learn  from  the  Chronicler  (2  Ch  12^) 
both  the  number  of  Shishak's  host,  to  which 
Joscphus  adds  400,000  infantry,  and  also  the 
nationalities  of  which  it  was  composed — Libyans, 
Sukkiiui  (  =  troglodytes,  LXX  and  Vulg.),and'l'2tlii- 
oiiians.  Ewald  (HI  iv.  45)  conjectures  that  Edom 
also  joined  in  the  invasion  (see  Jl  3'").  There  may 
still  be  seen  on  the  south  wall  of  the  temple  of 
Anion  at  Kamak  an  inscription — now  partially 
defaced — which  deals  with  this  expedition.  It  gives 
the  list  of  towns  subjugated  by  Shishak.  Some 
dillieulty  has  been  caused  by  the  inclusion  in  this 
list  not  only  of  pl.ices  in  the  south,  such  asShocoh, 
Gaza,  Keilah,  and  perhaps  Jerusalem,  but  also  of 
many  towns  of  Israel  as  far  north  as  Megiddo. 
This  does  not  contradict  the  biblical  narrative, 
which  conlinea  itself  to  the  invasion  of  Judah  ;  but 
it  seems  scarcely  reconcilable  with  the  hj-pothesis 
that  Shishak  invaded  Palestine  as  Jeroboam's 
ally.  However,  Maspero  (Journal  of  the  Transac- 
tiuns  of  the  Victoria  Institute  of  Great  Britain,  vol. 
xxvii.  p.  63)  points  out  that  '  the  king  of  Israel  in 
imploring  the  aid  of  Shishak  against  his  rival  had 
thereby  made  himself  vassal  toEgj-pt.  This  would 
euflice  to  make  his  towns  figure  at  Karnak  anion" 
the  cities  subjected  in  the  course  of  the  campaign. 
This  is  a  more  likely  solution  of  the  difficulty  than 
Rawlinson's  supjiosition  {Sprahcr's  Com.  in  loc), 
that  these  were  Canaanite  or  Levitical  towns  which 
h.od  taken  llehoboam's  side.  The  names  on  this 
list  are  engraved  on  cartouches,  over  which  appear 
the  heads  of  men  of  various  tj'pes,  representing  the 
inhabitants  of  each  town.  Considerable  interest 
was  formerly  excited  by  one  of  these  names,  which 
Maspero  transliterates  Jaoud-hn-maluk  or  Jud- 
Ivim-mdek.  This  was  rendered  by  Rosellini  '  king 
of  Judah' (!),  and  the  inference  was  a  tempting 
one,  that  in  the  annexed  fifjure  we  had  a  veritable 
portrait  of  Kehoboam  himself.  But  Brugsch 
{Geogr.  Ins.  I.  iL  p.  C2),  followed  by  Maspero,  in- 
terprets it  as  the  name  of  a  village  in  Dan,  Jehud, 
now  elYehftdiyeli,  near  JaH'a.  '  The  name  bears 
the  sign  for  "country,"  not  for  "person."'  See, 
further,  Struggle  of  the  Nations,  774. 

Sorae  minor  matters  remain  to  be  diHOussed.  From  Kings  we 
learn  the  name  o(  Rehoboani's  chief  wife  only,  Maacaii.  Rut 
the  Chronicler  gives  details  about  his  doniestic  affairs,  noting: 
the  name  of  a  second  wife,  Maualatii,  and  perhaps  of  a  tliird. 
ABillAiL,  who  is  mother  of  Mahalath  according  to  the  KV,  but 
another  wife  of  Kehoboam  according  to  AV  and  RVm.  Josephus 
reduces  the  numt>er  of  his  concu)>ines  to  thirty. 

The  rise  in  Judah  of  the  power  of  the  queen-mother  is  prob- 
ably to  be  attributed  to  Kchoboam's  uxoriousnfss.  His  con- 
duct towards  his  sons,  whicli  is  praised  by  tlie  Chronicler,  may 
have  rendered  the  accession  of  Abijah  easier,  but  was  not  wise 
in  the  Itest  sense  of  the  term. 

Accfjriling  to  the  JIT  of  1  K  H"  and  2  Ch  12"  Rehoboara  was 
41  years  of  age  at  bis  accession,  and  reigned  17  years.  He 
would  then  have  been  bom  before  Solomon  came  to  the  throne. 
Rawlinson  would  read,  with  some  MSS,  21  in  this  passage,  on 
the  ground,  perhaps,  tliat  the  insolence  of  RtliolMiam  to  the 
Israelites  is  more  like  the  conduct  of  a  petulant  youth  than  of 
a  m^n  of  mature  age.    More  weight  must  be  given  to  the  second 


Greek  account,  which  in  1  K  V2-^  says  that  Rehohoam  wa»  1« 
years  of  age  at  his  accession,  and  that  he  reigned  12  years.  The 
EUtiinent  of  .\bijah  (2  Ch  13")  that  Uehoboam  was  'young  and 
tender-hearted '  (:3jyTn,  <.e.  '  fainthearted,'  see  Dt  20»)  at  the 
time  of  the  rebellion  must  not  be  pressed. 

There  is  one  other  imj>oftant  chronological  difference  between 
the  second  Greek  account  and  our  present  Hebrew  text.  In 
tile  latter,  Jeroboam,  even  if  he  took  no  personal  share  in  the 
negotiations  with  Kehoboam  (1  K  12'*),  certainly  left  Kgypt 
immediately  after  Solomon's  death ;  whereas  in  LX.X  1  K 
12-i'i-f  the  marriage  of  Jeroboam  to  Shishak's  sister-in-law,  and 
the  birth  of  his  son  Abijah.  occur  in  Kgypt  after  Rehoboani's 
accession.  But  this  whole  story  is  in  a  very  confused  condition, 
and  is  antecedently  less  probable  than  that  preserved  in  tlie 
commoD  text.    See  Jbaoboau  ;  and  of.  Swete,  Int.  to  tJT  in  Gr. 

2«'-  N.  J.  D.  White. 

REHOBOTH 1.  The  name  given  by  Isaac  to  a 

well  of  which  he  was  allowed  by  Abimelech's  herd- 
men  to  take  peaceable  possession.  This  was  after 
two  previous  wells  dug  by  Isaac's  servants  had  led 
to  strife,  and  tlie  name  of  the  tliird  was  called 
Rehoboth  (norn  'wide  spaces,'  LXX  Ei'pi/xwpio) 
because,  said  Isaac,  '  now  tlie  Lord  hath  made 
room  (hirhibh)  for  us,'  Gn  26--  (J).  Palmer  (Desert 
of  the  Exodus,  383)  describes  a  very  ancient  well 
on  the  north-east  side  of  the  Wadu  es-Sddi  (eight 
hours  south  of  Beersheba),  which  he  is  inclined  to 
identify  with  the  Kehobotli  of  this  passage.  The 
name  liuhaihch  still  lingers  in  the  neighbourhood, 
being  applied  to  a  wady  close  by.  The  objections 
of  Robinson  (BRF'  i.  197)  to  this  identification  are 
strangely  pointless.  It  is  not  improbalile  (cf. 
Konig  and  Sayce  in  Expos.  Times,  xi.  [1900]  pp. 
239,  377)  that  the  Rehoboth  of  Gn  26-  is  also  the 
Ruhuti  or  Rubute  of  the  Tel  el-Amarna  letters 
(Winckler,  Nos.  183  and  239  ;  Petrie,  256  and  260), 
although  Sayce  (in  Early  Israel,  289)  and  Petrie 
(Sijria  and  Egypt  from  the  Tell  el-Amarna  Letters, 
180)  prefer  to  make  Rubuti=\ia.hha,\\  of  Jos  15™, 
and  Hommel(.4//r234f.)  identifies  it  with  Kiriath- 
arba  (Hebron),  which  he  supposes  to  have  been 
called  RohdCt,  '  the  four  quarters.' 

2.  In  the  list  of  kings  of  Edom  contained  in 
Gn  Se^'*'  one  of  the  names  is  Shaul  '  from  Reho- 
both of  the  River'  (-in;.i  nuh-ia  v."  ;  LXX  [A  ;  15  is 
defective  here]  (k  "?oui^w9  rrjs  xapa  ttoto^iSi',  and  so 
A  in  the  parallel  passage  1  Ch  1^',  15  om.).  The 
situation  of  this  Rehoboth  is  quite  uncertain.  It 
is  not  even  clear  whether  it  sliould  be  sought  in 
Edom  or  elsewhere.  The  Notitia  Dignitatum  (c. 
29)  makes  it  Edomite,  and  Eusebius  and  Jerome 
(in  the  Onomastieon)  locate  it  in  Gebalene,  i.e. 
Idum;ea ;  but  the  analogy  of  other  OT  passages 
where  'the  River'  (-^:-)  is  sjioken  of  absolutely, 
would  lead  us  to  think  of  the  Euphrates,  in  which 
event  Rehoboth  might  be  Rnhnhn  on  the  western 
bank  of  that  stream,  somewhat  to  the  south  of  the 
Chabora.s.  Winckler  (Gcsch.  i.  192)  would  (doubt- 
fully) place  it  between  Palestine  and  Egypt,  under- 
staiuling  the  "in;  here  to  be  the  Wady  cl-Arish,  the 
'  River  (Snj  wady)  of  Egypt '  of  Nu  34"  etc. 

The  name  RiVLoboth,  owing  lo  its  meaning,  would 
be  likol}'  to  be  very  widely  dilVuscd  (see  Knobel  on 
Gn  36",  and  cf.  W.  Max  iliiller,  Asien  u.  Eicropa, 
134).  J.  A.  Selbie. 

FEHOBOTH-IR  (ry  nSh-i,  AV  Mhe  city  Roho- 
botli,'  A\'rn  '  t  lur  streets  of  the  city';  LXX  A  t) 
'Pow^us  ttAXis,  />"  'I'ou^bO  ir.,  E  'Pou^d'9  r.  ;  Vulg. 
platen;  ciritatis). — One  of  the  four  cities  built  by 
A.sshur  (RV  by  Nimrod)  in  Assyria,  the  others 
being  Nineveh  (regarded  as  the  later  capital), 
Resen  (ReJ-(5ni,  Sayce),  and  Calah,  now  Nimrouci 
(Gn  10").  There  has  been  much  discussion  as  to 
the  identity  of  this  site,  and  As.s5-rian  literature 
has  not  furnished  us  with  any  geographical  city 
name  ^vitll  which  it  could  be  identified.  Indeed 
it  is  hardly  likely  that  we  should  come  across  it 
there,  except  umfer  a  different  form,  for  neither  of 
the  component   parts  of   the   name  is  really  As- 


224 


EEHUM 


REKEM 


Syrian,  EShdhdth,  as  Delitzach  has  sliown,  being 
rt-hitu,  'broad,  open  spaces,'  whilst  'ir  would  lie 
represented  by  the  common  word  /llu,  'city.'  It 
has  lieen  objected  tliat  the  Heb.  scribe  would  not 
have  translated  ribitu,  but  would  have  transcribed 
it,  just  as  he  has  transcribed  Jiesen,  without  the 
guttural  ;  for  the  Assyrians  as  a  rule  pronounced 
neither  the  soft  guttural  ^,  nor  the  v.  This, 
liowever,  cannot  be  regarded  as  conchisive,  for  the 
Heb.  scribe  has,  to  all  appearance,  translated,  and 
ricit  transcribed,  the  Assyrian  dlii  in  the  word  'ir, 
'city.'  It  would  therefore  seem  that  we  must  not 
transcribe,  but  translate,  the  Heb.  Rchobiith-'ir, 
.'ind  this,  in  As.syrian,  would  be  rebct  dli,  '  the  broad 
.spaces  (squares)  of  the  city,'  and  regard  the  ex- 
pression, with  Deliizsch,  as  referring  to  the  name 
of  Nineveh,  which  immediately  precedes.  Uelitzsch 
compares  the  Heb.  expression  with  the  rcbit  Ninua, 
'  broad  place  of  Nineveh,'  in  Esarhaddon  1.  23,  and 
the  probability  is  that  he  is  right  in  his  identifica- 
tion. Through  this  part  of  the  city,  probably  a 
suburb,  Esarhaddon  caused  the  heads  of  the  kings 
of  Kundi  and  Sidon  to  be  carried  in  procession  with 
singing,  etc. ;  and,  as  he  thus  specially  mentions 
it,  it  must  have  been  a  sufficiently  important  place. 
It  is  ai>iiarently  this  same  place  of  which  Sargon, 
Esarliaddon's  grandfather,  speaks  in  his  Cylinder 
In.scriiitiun,  1.  44,  in  connexion  with  the  peojiling 
of  JIagganuljba :  '  The  city  Magganubba,  which 
lay  like  a  pillar  at  the  foot  of  the  mountain  Musri, 
above  the  springs  and  the  broad  place  of  Nineveh' 
(rcbit  Kind).  This  text  would  therefore  seem  to 
make  Magganubba  the  old  name  of  Dfirsargina  or 
Kborsabad,  and  the  rrbit  Nind  must  have  lain  be- 
tween that  city  and  Nineveh,  but  much  nearer  to 
the  latter.  If  the  places  referred  to  are  named  in 
the  order  in  which  they  actually  occurred,  their 
relative  positions  would  be  (I)  the  mountain  Musri, 
(2)  the  city  Magganubba,  (3)  the  springs,  (4)  the 
rebit  Nind,  (5)  Ninft  or  Nineveh  itself. 

Ltteraturk.— Delitzsch,  Paradies,  p.  261 ;  Schrader,  COT  i. 
p.  101 ;  Uielim,  Hatulworlerbuch ;  and  the  Cahoer  Bihdlexikon, 

s.D.  T.  G.  Pinches. 

REHUM  (Din-))- — ^-  0"e  of  the  twelve  heads  of 
the  Jewish  community  who  are  said  to  have  re- 
turned with  Zeruhbabel,  Ezr  2-  (B  om.,  A  'Ipeovii). 
In  the  parallel  pas.sage  Neh  7'  the  name  appears, 
perhaps  by  a  copyist's  error,  as  Nehum  (LXX 
XaoiV) ;  in  1  Es  5"  it  is  RoiMUS  (LXX'PieiAios). 
2.  '  The  chancellor,'  who,  along  with  Shimshai  the 
scribe  and  others,  wrote  a  letter  to  king  Artaxerxes, 
which  had  the  ell'ect  of  stopping  for  the  time  the 
rebuilding  of  Jerusalem,  Ezr  4*-  "•  "•  *^.  In  1  Es  2'" 
be  is  called  Kathumus.  The  title  for  CHANCELLOR 
(DSJB-Si'S,  lit.  'lord  of  judgment'),  being  misunder- 
stood by  the  LXX,  appears  in  the  latter  passage 
as  a  proper  name  ('PdSu/ios  /to!  Bc^XtcSjios)  ;  see 
HeeltethMUS.  In  Ezr  4*  B  has  'Pooi>\  jiaonTaiUv, 
in  v.''Paoi>/t  pi.a\,  and  in  v."  'Paoi>(i  ^a\yd/i,  while 
A  has  uniformly  'Peoifi'  ^aaXriii.  3.  A  Levite  who 
helped  to  repair  the  wall,  Neh  3"  (B  WaaovB, 
XA'Paoii^).  4.  One  of  those  who  sealed  the  cove- 
nant, Neh  10--'<="l  ('Paoi'/i).  5.  (c-r,)  The  eponym  of 
a  priestly  family  which  returned  with  Zer\ibbabel, 
Neb  12MB A  om.,  N'-"  <'°«  'Veov^).  The  name  nm 
in  this  last  instance  is  not  improbably  a  textual 
error  for  onn  Harim,  cf.  t.".  J.  A.  Seliiie. 

REI  (Heb.  'Vi_,  probably  =  ' the  Lord  is  a  friend'; 
Pesh.   Q_>_L)   [•"'-■i    >   and    >   being    confounded] ; 

LXX  B  'Vnal,  A  'Vnaii ;  Vulg.  ReA,  iJAci).— Accord- 
ing to  the  MT  of  1  K  V  this  is  the  name  of  one 
of  the  influential  supporters  of  Solomon  at  the 
critical  moment  when  Adonijah  was  preparing  to 
dispute  the  succession  to  the  throne.  It  is  im- 
possible to   be  quite  certain  that  the  reading   is 


correct,  but  the  balance  of  evidence  is  in  its  favour. 
Lucian's  2a/xafas  Kal  ol  iraipoL  aurou  ol  fii'Tes  dwaroi 
rests  on  a  dilierent  division  of  the  Hebrew  letters, 
not  a  dilierent  text — 'an  v;;t  instead  of  'in;  •j;i. 
Jos.  Ant.  VII.  xiv.  4,  has  6  AaoviSou  (piXo;,  thug 
making  Shimei  into  the  'friend,'  the  royal  official 
of  2  S  15"  It)'",  and,  with  Lucian,  getting  rid  of 
Rei  altogether.  But  if  ,Iosephus  is  supposed  to  be 
following  a  Heb.  original  pretty  closely,  that 
original  would  here  be  ilJiEri  j;-i  or  nhnn  n^l,  and  it 
is  not  easy  to  believe  that  the  much  longer  form 
of  the  MT,  nin^  ^;;■.s  D'T^^i?)  'I'l,  has  grown  out  of 
this.  Klostermann's  conjectural  emendation,  n.b^^ 
vj;i;  {Die  liilcher  Sam.  u.  Kon.  p.  263),  scarcely 
commends  itself  (see  Benzinger,  cid  loc),  nor  is 
there  sufficient  support  fur  Winckler's  (Gesch.  ii. 
247)  identilication  of  Kei  with  Ira,  or,  as  he  would 
spell  it,  Ya'ir  of  2  S  20-". 

As  to  the  pair  of  names,  Shimei  and  Rei,  Ewald 
[Gesch.  iii.  p.  266,  note)  thought  that  they  might 
belong  to  the  two  brothers  of  David,  Shammah 
and  Raddai,  who  are  mentioned  1  S  16'  17''', 
1  Ch  2".  But  the  double  alteration  of  rrjs?  into  •y.';? 
and  Ti  into  'V"!  is  somewhat  unlikely.  Perhaps 
one  may  add  that  the  LXX  'PT/tri  seems  to  have 
originated  in  a  mistaken  reading  of  s  for  y. 

Assuming  that  Rei  must  stand  in  the  text,  it  is 
fairly  certain  that  the  man  thus  designated  was 
an  officer  of  the  royal  guard.  The  important  part 
plaj-ed  by  these  troops  in  determining  the  suc- 
cession to  the  throne,  as  well  as  the  mention  of 
the  gibburim  immediately  after  Shimei  and  Rei, 
points  in  this  direction.  J.  TayloB. 

REINS.  —  This  name  for  the  kidneys  is  now 
obsolete,  though  RV  retains  it  in  all  its  18* 
occurrences  in  AV.  It  comes  from  Lat.  rcnes  the 
kidneys,  through  Old  Fr.  rr.ins,  whUe  'kidneys'  is 
of  Seand.  origin.  The  word  was  always  used  with 
some  freedom.  Thus  Cov.  translates  Ezk  29'  '  Vlf 
they  leaned  upon  the,  thou  brakest,  and  hurtdest 
the  reynes  of  their  backes' ;  and  in  AV  it  is  once 
used  for  the  loins  (Is  11°).  This  indeliniteness  and 
not  any  sense  of  its  becoming  antiquated  must 
have  leil  tlie  AV  translators  to  use  the  word  only 
figuratively,  to  express  those  feelings  or  emotions 
which  %\ere  understood  by  the  Hebrews  to  have 
their  seat  in  the  kidneys.  Only  in  the  marg.  of 
Lv  '22''  is  the  literal  use  found.  The  lit.  sense  ia 
common  enough  in  writers  of  the  day  und  later. 
Thus  Bacon,  Essays,  p.  2u5,  '  Bowling  is  good  tor 
the  Stone  and  Reines   ;  and  Milton,  FL  fi.  34(J— 

'  For  Spirits,  that  live  throu^hoal 
Vital  in  every  part— not,  as  frail  Slan, 
In  entrails,  heart  or  lieait,  liver  or  reioB — 
Cannot  but  by  annihilating  die.' 

'  When,'  says  Driver  {Par.  Psulter,  454),  'it  is  said 
of  God  that  he  trietli  (or  seeth)  the  "hearts  and 
reins"  (Ps  7»,  Jer  IV-"  17'"  '20'-),  it  is  implied  that 
He  is  cognizant  of  man's  emotions  and  affections, 
not  less  than  of  his  thoughts.'    See  Kidneys. 

J.  Hastings. 
REKEM  (Dp_-i). — 1.  One  of  the  five  kinglets  of 
Midian  who  were  slain  by  the  Israelites,  under 
Moses,  Nu  3P  (BA  'Pmo^),  Jos  13-'  (B  'Pi^oK,  A 
'PdKofi.).  Like  his  companions,  he  is  called  in  Numbers 
iV?  ('king'),  but  in  Joshua  k';;j  ('prince,'  'chief- 
tain'). 2.  Eponym  of  a  Calebite  family,  1  Ch  2" 
(B'P^/io/i,  A'l'iKo/j.)"  (LXX  follows  a  different  read- 
ing, B  iiaving  lexXdi'  and  A  lepKadi',  a  repetition  of 
the  name  in  the  preceding  clause,  which  appears  in 
Heb.  as  ForA-^dm  :  see  JouKEAM).  3.  Theeponyra 
of  a  clan  of  Machir,  1  Ch  7'"  (AV  and  KV  Rakera, 
but  tliis  is  simply  the  pausal  form,  DiJ^,  of  the  Heb. 

•  To  the  16  In  the  Concordances  add  2  Eg  6S<,  Wis  l^,  1  Ma« 
2^,  which  we  have  found  in  the  Apocrji^ha.  A  new  Concord,  to 
the  Apocr.  is  much  needed.  Cruden  ^'ives  only  one  o(  those 
three.    The  8.P.C.K.  Concord,  is  a  reprint  of  Cruden. 


RELIGION 


REPENT,  REPENTAXCE 


225 


name;  LXX  ora.).  4.  A  city  of  Benjamin,  men- 
tioned with  Irpeel  and  Taralali,  Jos  IS-''  (B  Xokoj', 
or  pel  haps  cm.,  A  'P^xe/i).  The  site  haa  not  been 
identiKeu. 

RELIGION.— For  the  reli^'ion  of  Israel,  see  GoD, 
ISRAiiL.  It  is  referred  to  in  AV  ander  the  name 
of  '  the  Jews'  relijjion'  (6  'louSaio-^is)  in  2  Mac  8'  14^ 
(I  earer  the  beginning  of  this  verse  the  same  word 
is  tr^  'Judaism'),  as  well  as  in  Gal  !"■  ",  but  the 
thought  is  rather  of  the  outward  forms  than  the 
inner  spirit.  We  read  also  in  2  Mac  6"  of  going 
to  a  •  strange  religion  '  (efs  6X\ixpvXi(Tii6f).  Else- 
where in  AV  the  word  is  used  generally  of  the 
outward  manifestation  of  religioui  life,  the  Gr. 
words  being  iyvela  (1  Mac  14**  marg.),  Xarpela 
(I  Mac  1«  2i»-^),  and  e^<r«ta  (Ja  I-"- ").  "This 
sense  of  the  cnttward  expression  attached  stronfjly 
to  the  word  throughout  the  time  of  tlie  EnglLsh 
translations  of  the  Bible  from  AVyclif  to  AV 
(though  Tind.  has  'devocion'  in  Ja  l*-").  See 
Trench's  remarks  in  Study  of  Words,  p.  9f.,  Eng- 
lish Past  and  Present,  p.  249  f.,  and  Select  Glos- 
tary,  p.  183  f.;  and  cf.  Elyot,  Governour,  11.  191, 
'  He  tnerfore  nat  onely  increased  within  the  citio 
Temples,  alters,  ceremonyes,  preestes,  and  sondry 
religions,  but  also  ...  he  brought  ail  the  people 
of  Rome  to  suche  a  devocion,  or  (as  I  mougbt 
saye)  a  supersticion,  that  .  .  .  they  by  the  space 
of  xlii  yeres  (so  longe  reigned  Numa),  gave  tliem 
selfe  all  as  it  were  to  an  observaunce  of  religyon ' ; 
and  Latimer,  Sermons,  3U2,  '  For  religion,  pure 
religion,  I  say,  standeth  not  In  wearing  of  a 
monk's  cowl,  but  In  righteousness,  justice,  and 
well  doing.'  J.  Hastings. 

REMALIAH  (^i-^r\;  'Po^Moi).— The  father  of 
king  Pekah,  2  K  lo^"-  16'- »,  2  Ch  28»,  Is  V'-  8'. 
He  appears  to  have  been  of  humble  origin,  hence 
the  disparaging  allusion  to  Pekah  as  'the  sou  of 
Kemaliah  '  in  Is  7*  (cf.  I  S  10"  '  the  son  of  Kish  ' ; 
202'.  M  .WIS  0510  2  S  20'  '  the  son  of  Jesse ' ;  1  S  22'- 
'  thou  son  of  Ahitub'). 

REMETH  (n--i ;  B  'P/mmos,  A  'Paiiie).—A  town  of 
Issncliar,  near  En-gannim,  Jos  19^' ;  called  in  1  Ch 
6se(73,  Ramotii,  and  in  Jos  21^  (possibly  by  a  wrong 
vocalization)  Jarmuth.  It  appears  to  be  the  pres- 
ent village  RAmeh,  on  a  hill  to  the  south  of  the 
plain  of  Dothan.     See  SWP  voL  ii.  sheet  viii. 

C.  R.  CONDER, 

REMISSION.— See  FoROrvENESS. 

BEMPHAN.-See  Rephan. 

RENDING  OF  GARMENTS See  MouRNlNO. 

REPENT,  REPENTANCE  (ddj,  3ie>,  /lo-oi-oeii', 
trurrpi<t>eiv,  ficrafifKtffBat ;  cnl,  ^erdvoia,  ^iriorpo^i)). — 
The  usual  meaning  of  nij)  (?  from  an  onoiiiatopoetlc 
root  signifying  to  pant  or  groan)  is  to  change  one's 
mind  or  purpose  out  of  pity  for  those  whom  one's 
actions  have  affected,  or  because  the  results  of  an 
action  have  not  fulfilled  e.\pectation.  In  this 
sense  repentance  is  attributed  not  onlj'  to  man, 
but  to  God  (Gn  6',  Ex  32").  With  reference  to 
sin,  orj)  is  found  only  in  Jer  8'  and  Job  42".  The 
idea  of  repentance  from  sin  is  in  other  cases  ex- 
pressed by  the  verb  Did  'to  turn.'  Though  the 
change  in  the  direction  of  the  will  is  here  in  the 
fore;;iouiid,  a  change  in  inner  disposition  is  always 
presupposed.  The  turning  from  sin  is  einphatical"ly 
a  matter  of  conduct,  but  it  is  also  a  matter  of  the 
heart  (Jl  2"),  and  it  has  as  its  elements  enlighten- 
ment (Jer  31"),  contrition  (Ps  5V-).  longing  for 
God's  forgiveness,  and  trust  In  God  (Hos  14^).  In 
their  direct  amieals  to  the  people,  the  prophets 
naturally  think  of  repentance  In  a  purely  etuical 
vou  IV.— 15 


way  as  a  function  of  the  will :  Ezekiel  even  calls 
upon  them  to  make  themselves  a  new  heart  and  a 
new  spirit  ( Ezk  18^').  But  retlexion  on  the  facts 
of  experience  quickly  leads  to  the  discovery  that 
the  will  is  not  the  only,  or  even  the  main,  factor 
in  the  case.  Beliiiid  the  will  lie  the  spiritual 
forces  that  move  it  to  action,  and  behind  theso 
again,  God.  Moreover,  the  new  lite,  which  is  the 
positive  side  of  repentance,  cannot  be  called  into 
being  by  the  mere  fiat  of  the  will.  The  spiritual 
facts  and  forces,  in  and  through  which  God  ia 
working,  thus  advance  into  the  foreground,  and 
the  pro](het8  are  led  from  the  causality  of  the  will 
to  tue  causality  of  God,  from  the  etliical  to  the 
religious  standpoint.  God  Himself  creates  the 
new  heart  (Ps  51'",  Ezk  36'-*''-)  ;  His  law  converts 
the  soul  (Ps  19') ;  His  people  turn  when  He  turns 
them  (Jer  31").  In  despair  of  a  generation  bound 
by  the  tradition  and  habit  of  evO,  Jeremiah  looks 
into  the  future  for  some  new  maiiifesUition  of 
Divine  power,  w  hich  shall  effect  a  radical  change 
in  the  inner  disposition  of  the  people  (Jer  31^). 

Beyond  a  genuine  repentance  the  prophets  know 
of  no  other  condition  attaching  to  God's  forgive- 
ness and  favour  (Dt  30'^-,  Jer  17*.  Ps  32=).  And 
the  idea  of  repentance  is  set  up  in  its  moral  purity, 
everything  merely  external  and  statutory  being 
stripped  away.  In  primitive  Hebrew  religion  the 
otlender  brought  a  gift  to  God  to  appease  Him ; 
he  fasted,  rent  his  garments,  and  by  an  attitude 
of  mourning  and  humiliation  sought  to  make  his 
prayer  for  pardon  impressive  and  effectual.  But 
of  all  this  the  propliets  and  psalmists  will  hear 
nothing.  God  does  not  desire  such  things  (Hos 
5»  6',  Is  I"*-,  Jer  G*"  7-"'-  14'-,  Ps  50'»).  The  .sacri- 
ficial forms  with  which  atonement  was  associ- 
ated are  ignored  as  worthless  or  condemned  as 
noxious  (Am  5=',  Mic  e"*-,  Jer  7'^''-,  Ps  40«  51'«). 
The  sacrifice  pleasing  to  God  is  that  of  a  broken 
and  contrite  heart  (Ps  51'"-).  No  attempt  is  made 
by  the  prophets  to  take  the  sacrificial  system  into 
the  service  of  a  purer  faith,  whether  by  a  process 
of  moral  reinterpretation,  or  by  going  back  on  an 
original  but  forgotten  meaning.  In  process  of 
lime  the  system  was  to  some  extent  ethicised ; 
but  its  atonement  (which  presupposed  repentance 
in  the  transgressor)  was  available  only  for  sins  of 
inadvertence  (Nu  15-''-  *■).  The  place  of  repentance 
as  condition  of  forgiveness  is  not  due  to  any  idea 
of  its  meritorious  character.  The  idea  of  merit — 
ivhich  never  attaches  itsalf  to  a  genuine  moral  act, 
but  always  to  some  external  form  or  accompani- 
ment-is foreign  to  the  spirit  of  the  OT.  If  God 
forgives,  it  is  because  it  is  His  nature  and  pre- 
rogative to  do  so  (Is  43^)  ;  and  that  He  will  not 
reiect  the  praj'er  of  the  penitent  is  accepted  as 
self-evident  to  the  moral  sense. 

In  the  later  Judaism  the  idea  of  repentance  is 
not  indeed  lost  sight  of,  but,  in  Pharasaic  circles 
at  least,  external  acts  of  penitence,  such  as  fast- 
ing, have  usurped  the  place  of  the  inner  spirit, 
and  to  these  acts  the  idea  of  merit  has  attached 
itself.  In  the  preaching  of  the  Baptist  it  again 
emerges  in  its  pristine  moral  purity,  as  the  one 
condition  of  escape  from  approaching  judgment 
(Mt  S"'-). 

There  are  two  words  in  the  NT  which  convey 
the  idea  of  repentance,  luravoeiv  and  iinrrpiipuv, 
though,  as  we  shall  see,  the  idea  appears  also  under 
other  forms  of  expression.  The.se  words  derive 
their  moral  content  not  from  Greek  but  from 
Jewish  and  Christian  thought,  nothing  analogous 
to  the  biblical  conception  of  repentance  and  con- 
version being  known  to  the  Greeks.  If  respect  be 
had  to  their  literal  meaning,  the  first  presents 
repentance  in  its  negative  aspect,  as  a  change  of 
mind,  a  turning  from  sin  ;  the  second,  in  its  posi- 
tive aspect,  as  a  turning  to  God.     Both  have,  Low- 


226  REPENT,  REPENTANCE 


REPHABI,  VALE  OF 


ever,  much  the  same  content  of  meaning.  Christ 
began  His  ministry  with  a  call  to  repentance 
(\ft  4").  The  call  has  as  its  motive  the  nearness 
of  the  kingdom,  particijiation  in  which  requires  as 
its  condition  the  new  disiu>sition  (Mt  18').  It  is 
addressed,  not  as  in  the  ()T  to  tlie  nation,  but  to 
the  individual  ;  and  not  merely  to  those  guilty  of 
flagrant  sin,  but  to  all  (Lk  13^).  The  inner  and 
radical  character  of  the  change  required  is  illus- 
trated by  the  figure  of  the  tree  and  its  fruits.  The 
first  four  Beatitudes  may  be  taken  as  descriptive 
of  elements  in  a  true  repentance.  Poverty  of 
spirit,  sorrow  for  sin,  meekness,  hunger  and  tliirst 
for  righteousness,  are  all  characteristics  of  the 
soul  that  is  turning  from  sin  to  God.  In  the 
parable  of  the  Prodigal  Son,  Jesus  draws  a  picture 
of  tlie  true  penitent.  Such  is  assured  of  the  for- 
giveness and  welcome  of  the  Father,  whose  love, 
indeed,  has  anticipated  his  return,  and  gone  out 
to  seek  and  save  (Lk  15^).  That  God  accepts  the 
penitent  follows  at  once  from  His  own  nature,  and 
rrom  the  moral  appropriateness  of  a  humble  and 
contrite  spirit.  The  Father  cannot  but  rejoice 
over  the  recovery  of  a  lost  son  (Lk  15-^) ;  and  the 
spirit  of  the  publican  in  the  temple  as  plainly 
carries  with  it  justification  as  the  spirit  of  the 
Pharisee  condemnation  (Lk  18").  Of  fasting  or 
other  external  accompaniments  Christ  knows 
nothing. 

Although  Christ  began  His  ministry  with  the 
call  to  repentance,  it  cannot  be  said  that  it 
appears  in  His  teaching  as  the  fundamental  re- 
quirement. Exhibiting  the  righteousness  of  the 
kingdom  of  God,  and  revealing  the  love  of  the 
heavenly  Father,  He  requires  rather /at</i  in  His 
message,  leaving  the  particular  form  of  the  re- 
sponse to  be  determined  in  correspondence  with 
each  man's  character  and  history.  Repentance 
accordingly  falls  into  the  background  before  the 
wider  idea  of  faith  (Lk  1^).  In  the  apostolic 
speeches  in  Acts,  and  in  the  Apocalypse,  repent- 
ance most  frequently  appears  in  its  ethical  sense  ; 
but  side  by  side  with  this  use  we  have  that  which 
treats  it  as  a  result  of  Divine  activity — an  experi- 
ence rather  than  an  act  (Ac  3'^).  In  the  latter 
case  the  idea  of  repentance  passes  into  that  of  con- 
version {iTTiiTTpiipeadai,  the  conversio  intransitiva  of 
theologians  as  distinguished  from  conversio  transi- 
tiva),  the  ethical  activity  of  the  individual  being 
subordinated  to  the  Divine  causality.  The  problem 
of  the  relation  of  the  two  sides,  which  exercised 
the  Church  later,  giving  rise  to  such  conceptions  as 
virtus  indeclinabiliter  et  insupcrahiUter,  gratia  co- 
operans,  etc.,  is  not  raised  in  the  New  Testament. 

In  the  Pauline  Epistles  repentance  is  considered 
more  as  an  experience  than  as  an  act,  and  this 
experience  is  described  in  a  manner  peculiar  to  the 
apostle  as  a  death  and  resurrection  with  Christ,  or 
as  a  putting  off  of  the  old  man  and  a  putting  on 
of  the  new.  The  believer  is  buried  with  Christ  in 
baptism,  and  raised  with  Him  into  a  new  life  in 
the  Spirit  (Ro  &^-,  Col  2'=).  The  result  of  this  new 
creation  is  a  new  walk  and  conversation  ;  sin  is  in 
its  principle  destroyed.  In  this  profound  concep- 
tion, which  also  gives  its  content  to  the  apostle  s 
idea  of  faith,  the  place  of  Christ  in  the  experience 
of  conversion,  together  with  a  certain  mystical 
element  in  that  experience,  comes  to  expression. 

The  word  'repent'  does  not  once  occur  in  the 
Johannine  writings,  having  dropped  even  from  the 
Baptist's  preaching.  The  idea  is  not,  however, 
absent,  but  appears  under  the  form  of  the  new 
birth,  which  takes  the  place  of  the  Synoj)tic 
^fTdvoia  as  the  condition  of  entrance  into  the  king- 
dom (Jn  3').  The  causality  of  the  will  here  wholly 
disappears,  together  with  those  psj'chological  ele- 
ments characteristic  of  repentance  as  a  process  of 
turning,  and  the  new  life  stands  out  as  the  result 


of  a  transcendent  and  mysterious  act  of  God's 
creative  power  (Jn  3").  The  n.atural  and  the  super- 
natural, the  fleshly  and  the  spiritual,  are  opposed 
in  a  way  that  excludes  all  mere  renewal,  or  any 
transition  from  the  old  life  to  the  new.  The 
human  and  ethical  side,  however,  linds  expression 
in  the  idea  of  faith,  which  here,  as  in  the  NT  in 
general,  implies  an  active  turning  from  sin  to  God 
(Jn  4'"-  9=«,  1  Jn  l^). 

LiTERATiTtB. — Works  on  07*  Theology  by  Schultz  and  Smend : 
on  NT  Theulony  by  Weiss,  Beyscblag.  and  Holtzn^ann  ;  Sieffert, 
DiJi  npucMen  i/u'ot.  Forschnnijeii  Tiber Biume  undljlaube;  Creraer, 
Bifj.-thenl.  Wurterlmch  ;  Wrede,art.  *  fj.iTcc>oicc  Siunesanderung?' 
in  ZUclir./.  XT  Wmenicha/l,  i.  (1900)  p.  66  ff. 

W.  MOBOAN. 

REPHAEL  (Ss-n  '  El  has  healed ' ;  LX.X  'Pa.<pa/i\, 
cf.  Raphael  of  To  3"  5^"-).— The  eponym  of  a 
family  of  gatekeepers,  1  Ch  2(3'.  The  name  belongs 
to  a  class  of  late  formations ;  see  Gray,  HPN 
225,  311. 

REPHAH  (nsT;  "Pd^ij).— The  eponym  of  an  Eph- 
raimite  family,  1  Ch  7". 

REPHAIAH  (.n;5-|  '  Jah  has  healed,'  cf.  Rephael). 
— 1.  A  Judahite  mentioned  in  the  royal  genealogy, 
1  Ch  3-'  (B  'Prx^dX,  A  'Pa^aid).  2.  One  of  the  chiefs 
of  the  5U0  Simeonites  who  went  on  the  expedition 
to  RIt.  Seir,  1  Ch  4-"  ('Po^id).  3.  A  descendant  of 
Issachar,  1  Ch  7»  (B  'Pa^apd,  A  'Pa^oid).  4.  A 
descendant  of  Saul,  1  Ch  9"  ('Pa^o.d),  called  in  8" 
Raphah  (B  '?a<t>a.i,  A  'Poi/)aid).  5.  One  of  those 
who  helped  to  repair  the  wall,  Neh  3'  ("Pai^aid). 

REPHAIM  (D'ND-i ;  -ylyavrei,  fa(padti.,  "Pa^xieh  [Dt 
2"-  ■-»,  Jos  15^  2  K  23^]).— The  word  used  in  Hebrew 
to  describe  the  earlj'  giant  peoples  of  Palestine. 
Many  regard  rdpha  as  a  proper  name,  forming  the 
gentilic  adjective  rephd'i,  of  which  rv/jfui'im  is  the 
plural.  It  is  more  in  accord  with  the  use  of  the 
word,  however,  to  regard  rdpha  as  a  concrete  noun, 
and  rcphd'im  as  the  direct  plural  either  of  this  or  of 
the  corresponding  abstract  noun.  It  is  used  as  the 
geographical  name  of  a  certain  valley  (see  next 
art.).  In  Gn  14'  the  syntax  indicates  that  it  is  a 
proper  name,  definite  without  the  article.  The 
statement  is  strictly  that  '  they  smote  Rephaim,' 
that  is,  they  smote  a  region  of  that  name,  the 
region,  of  course,  being  so  named  from  the  char- 
acter of  its  inhabitants.  Evernvhere  else  the  word 
is  strictly  a  common  noun,  dehnite  or  indefinite  as 
the  case  may  be,  substantially  equivalent  to  our 
English  word  'giants.'  For  the  derivation  of  this 
meaning  from  tlie  stem  idea,  and  for  an  account  of 
the  rephd'im,  see  GlANT. 

The  word  rephaim  is  also  used  to  denote  the 
inhabitants  of  the  world  of  the  dead  (Job  26»,  Ps 
88'",  Pr  2'*  9''  21'^  Is  14»  26"- '"),  bein''  here  nearly 
the  equivalent  of  the  English  word  '  ghosts,'  in  the 
popular  sense  of  that  word.  RSphd  'im  in  the  sense 
of  ghosts  is  used  only  in  the  plural,  and,  like 
riphd'tm  in  the  sense  of  giants,  has  the  ordinary 
syntax  of  a  common  noun,  definite  or  indefinite. 
The  two  are  from  the  same  stem.  Schwally  (Lcben 
nach  dem  Tode,  64  f . )  supposes  a  connexion  between 
C'x;-i  '  ghosts '  and  D'xd-)  '  extinct  giants.'  W.  R. 
Smith  (quoted  by  Driver,  Dent.  p.  40)  suggests 
that  the  '  old  giants  were  still  thought  to  haunt 
the  ruins  and  deserts  of  East  Canaan ' ;  see  also 
Schwally  in  ZATW,  1898,  p.  132 ff. 

W.  J.  Beecher. 

REPHAIM,  YALE  OF  (o-NS-ip^i: ;  KoiXdi  'Va-txulyL, 
K.  ru;if  TiTavujv,  k.  tCiv  yt,'y6.vTwv/l£t^eK'Va<paiivt  <pdpay( 
areped). — A  locality  near  Jerusalem.  The  Hebrew 
word  here  used  for  valley  denotes  an  arable  valley. 
So  we  may  at  once  dismiss  all  theories  that  would 
make  it  either  a  plateau  or  a  steep-sided  ravine  j 
though  it  is  quite  possible  that  it  may  have  been 
a  system  of  arable  valleys,  rather  than  a  single 


REPEAL 


KEPHIDBI 


227 


ralley.  Different  opinionB  have  been  held  con- 
cerning it,  but  really  the  evidence  all  bears  in 
one  direction.  The  northern  extremity  of  the 
vale  of  Repliaim  was  just  over  the  western  ridge 
of  the  upper  part  of  the  ravine  of  the  son  of  Hin- 
nom  (Jos  15'- •  18").  Josephus  {Ant.  vil.  xii.  4) 
says  thnt  it  was  '  the  valley  which  extends  to  the 
city  of  Bctlilehem,  which  is  twenty  furlongs  from 
Jerusalem.'  It  is  puzzling  to  know  how  lie  measures 
his  twenty  furlongs  ;  but  that  Betlilehem  had 
strategic  relations  with  the  vale  of  Keidiaim  is 
confiniied  by  2  S  23",  1  Ch  ll'».  This  is  not  in 
contradiction  with  the  statement  that  David, 
getting  to  the  rear  of  the  Philistines  when  they 
were  encamped  in  the  vale  of  Kephaim,  '  smote 
them  from  Geba  until  thou  come  to  Gezer '  (2  S  5^, 
1  Ch  14") ;  for  the  effect  of  his  strategic  movement 
might  be  to  compel  them  to  move  from  their  camp 
and  attack  him  ;  or,  while  encamped  to  the  south- 
west of  Jerusalem,  they  might  have  had  outposts 
as  far  north  as  Geba  or  Gibeon. 

But  the  sacred  writer  evidently  thought  of  the 
rale  of  Kephaim  as  somewhat  extensive,  for  he 
twice  says  that  the  Philistines  spread  themselves 
there  (2  S  5'«- «",  1  Ch  W- ").  Hence  the  locality 
referred  to  is  probably  the  system  of  small  valleys 
which  supply  the  southern  affluent  of  the  Naiir 
Rflbln,  a  stream  which  flows  into  the  Mediterranean 
some  distance  south  of  Joppa.  One  branch  of  this 
afUuent  starts  near  Jerusalem  and  another  near 
Bethlehem,  the  two  unitin"  about  three  miles 
Bouth-west  of  Jerusalem.  The  vale  of  Rephaim 
may  well  be  these  two,  \vith  their  tributaries.  It 
was  natural  that  invading  Philistine  armies  should 
march  up  the  valley  of  the  Nahr  Kflbin  to  attack 
Jerusalem. 

The  name  doubtless  indicates  that  this  region 
had  been  occupied  especially  by  ripha'tm,  at  .some 
period  before  Joshua  s  conquests.  Its  celebrity  is 
mainly  connected  with  events  that  occurred  soon 
after  Darid  had  been  made  king  of  all  Israel  in 
Jerusalem.  In  two  successive  campaigns  the 
Philistines  attacked  him  here,  and  were  defeated 
(2  S  5"-»,  1  Ch  148-"  and  2  S  S'^'^^,  1  Ch  14"-"). 
The  Brst  of  these  two  campaigns  was  of  the  most 
desperate  character  (2  S  23"-",  1  Ch  lI"-'»).  See 
G.  A.  Smith,  HGHL  p.  218.       W.  J.  Beecher. 

REPHAN  (LXX  BA  'Vaifiv,  Q  "Pf^dr,  in  Am 
6»;  WH  VofjLipi,  variants  ?tii<p6.ii,  '?efi<piv  [AV 
Remphan],  'VaKpav,  'Pf^di-,  in  Ac  7**). — Tliis  word 
replaces  the  p'3  of  tlie  Heb.  text,  and  there  is 
much  difl'erence  of  opinion  as  to  the  reason  of  this 
change.  Influenced  by  the  fact  that  the  LXX  tr. 
was  made  at  Alexandria  in  Egypt,  some  have 
contended  that  the  translators  substituted  for  the 
word  Chiun  (apparently  pronounced  by  them,  more 
correctly,  Kewnn),  the  meaning  of  which  was  prob- 
ably obscure  to  them,  an  Egyptian  equivalent 
term,  viz.  repa-ln-neteru],  a  title  of  the  god  Set, 
identified  with  Saturn  ;  but  this,  besides  being  a 
hardly  probable  hypothesis  itself,  is  also  unlikely 
on  account  of  the  etymological  difficulties  in- 
volved. The  general  opinion  at  present  is,  that 
Hep/inn  is  sini|ily  a  mistake  for,  or  an  alteration 
of,  the  Kfitxtn  {Chiun)  of  the  Heb.  text,  K  having 
been  replaced  by  Ji,  and  pk  (0)  substituted  for  i, 
with  the  sound  of  v,  sharpened  to  something 
resembling  /.  There  is  no  doubt  that  this  is 
the  best  oi  all  the  explanations  proposed,  for 
Kewan  would  seem  to  be  nothing  else  but  the 
Semitic-Babylonian  Kaawanu,  for  an  older  Kaya- 
wanu,  '  the  planet  Saturn.'  That  a  Babylonian 
etymology  is  to  be  sought  rather  than  any  other, 
may  be  regarded  as  indicated  by  the  fact  that 
SiccUTil  in  the  lirst  part  of  the  verse  is  apparently 
from  the  Akkad.  Sakkut  or  Sak-ui,  the  latter  being 
one  of  the  non-Semitic  names  of  Saturn,  translated 


by  Kaawanu  in  Babylonian.  In  addition  to  this, 
Saturn  was  also  called  §alam,  ^ahne,  as  '  the  dark 
star,'  a  name  which  recalls  the  expression  cj'pTs, 
'your  images,'  which,  in  the  Heb.,  immediately 
follows  Chiun  {  =  Kaawanu  =  Bephan),  and  would 
furnish  a  parallel  to  the  translation  of  orr^p  ('your 
king ')  after  Siecuth,  by  '  Moloch '  in  the  LXX. 
As  has  been  already  shown  (see  NiMKOD,  NiSKOCH, 
etc.),  the  Hebrew  scribes  were  accustomed  to 
distort  the  names  of  heathen  deities,  apparently 
to  show  their  contempt  for  them,  and  there  is  but 
little  doubt  tliat  this  has  been  done  in  the  present 
case.  No  name  resembling  Replian  or  Remphan 
as  the  pronunciation  of  the  ideographs  for  Saturn 
has  as  yet  been  found  in  Akkadian  or  Semitic- 
Babylonian. 

LiTEKjiTrRR.— Schrader  in  SK,  1874,  pp.  ."i24-.'5.15,  and  In 
Riehm'8  U  WU ;  Delitzsch  in  the  Calwer  BibcUexicun,  under 
'Ciliun,'  and  in  Assyr.  HWB  669*'  (end  of  art.  *SaImu'):  and 
the  Comm.  on  Amos  and  Actfi.  T.  G.  PlNCIIES. 

REPHIDIM  (cn-fi  and  oi'Jl;  LXX'Po(^i5c(^  Eua. 
'Pa<pi.dlfi ;  Vulg.  Raphidim). — A  station  between  the 
wilderness  of  Sin  and  the  wilderness  of  Sinai  (cf. 
Ex  17'  with  19^).  The  same  order  is  given  in  the 
itinerary  of  Nu  33  ;  but  two  additional  stations  are 
there  given,  Dophkah  and  Alush  (vv."-"),  between 
Sin  and  Kephidim.  These  are  the  only  pa.ssages 
in  which  tlie  name  occurs,  and  from  tliem  it 
appears  that  Rephidim  is  outside  the  wilderness 
of  Sinai,  and  that  the  people,  when  encamped  there, 
have  not  yet  reached  the  mount  of  God. 

The  events  recorded  in  connexion  with  this  place 
are:  (1)  the  people  strive  (2"n)  with  Moses  and 
'  tempt '  (i.e.  prove,  toj)  the  Lord  because  there 
is  no  water  to  drink  (Ex  17'-');  (2)  the  defeat  of 
Amalek  (w.""") ;  (3)  the  visit  of  Jethro  when  he 
counsels  Moses  about  appointing  judges  (Ex  18). 
The  first  two  are  ex^iressly,  the  third  may  be  by 
inference  (cf.  19-),  assigned  to  Repliidim. 

Now,  in  the  account  of  the  first  event,  the 
smitten  rock  is  described  as  being  in  Horeb  ('  I 
will  stand  l)efore  thee  upon  the  rock  in  Horeb,' 
Ex  17*).  Also  in  18°  Jethro  comes  to  Moses  'where 
he  was  encamped  at  the  mount  of  God.'  According 
to  internal  evidence  in  both  these  narratives,  the 
people  are  already  at  Horeb  the  mount  of  God,  and 
the  ditticulty  of  harmonizing  these  statements  with 
those  introduced  with  reference  to  the  situation  of 
Rephidim  is  apparent. 

The  first  of  these  events  has  been  discussed  in 
the  art.  Meribah,  where  the  similarity  between  it 
and  another  event  (Nu  20'-")  assigned  to  a  period 
after  leaving  Sinai  is  pointed  out.  In  the  account 
of  the  third  event,  the  description  of  the  persons 
appointed,  on  Jethro's  advice,  to  assist  Moses  in 
judging  the  people,  resembles  that  in  Dt  1'-"  (note 
especially  the  verbal  coincidences  of  Ex  18"  with 
Dt  1").  In  Deuteronomy  the  appointment  is  said 
to  have  been  made  at  the  departure  from  Sinai — 
at  which  time  the  reference  to  ordinances  and  laws 
(Ex  IS'*)  would  be  appropriate,  and  it  has  been 
suggested  that  Ex  18  was  at  one  time  read  in 
connexion  with  Nu  lO'^'*"  (see  Driver  on  Dt  1,  at 
p.  15  of  Intern.  Crit.  Comm.,  and  Dillniann  on  Ex 
18).  These  remarks  illustrate  what  has  been  said 
in  art.  EXODUS  AND  JOURNEY  TO  CANAAN,  vol.  i. 
p.  804"  and  8(I5*. 

The  foe  wliicli  Israel  encounters  in  Rephidim  is 
Amalek,  a  tribe  which  is  generally  described  in 
Scripture  as  dwelling  on  the  soutliern  border  of 
Palestine  though  occasionally  found  f.irther  north 
(see  Amalkk).  Supposing  tliat  the  Israelites  on 
leaving  Egypt  went  eastwards,  they  would  pass  by 
the  territory  which  is  ordinarily  assigned  to 
Aninlck,  whereas  if  they  made  tlie  detour  to  tho 
south,  involved  in  visiting  the  traditional  Sinai, 
the  Amalekites  must  have  wandered  much  farther 


228 


REPKOBATE 


REPROOF,  REPROVE 


to  the  south.  A  question  here  arises  simUar  to 
that  suggested  hy  the  mention  of  Midian,  in  con- 
nexion with  Sinai,  and  considerably  strengthens 
the  argument  in  the  note  on  the  art.  MiDlAN. 
Comparing  that  note  with  what  is  here  said,  it 
follows  that  the  acceptance  of  the  traditional  site 
of  Sinai  involves  two  hypotheses  of  migration  (one 
for  Anialek  as  well  as  one  for  Midian),  while  the 
site  there  suggested  for  Sinai  assigns  a  uniform  geo- 
graphical position  for  both.     See  also  art.  Paran. 

A.  T.  Chapman. 

REPROBATE.  —  The  word  '  reprobate '  occurs 
only  once  in  AV  of  OT,  viz.  Jer  6^  (KV  'refuse;). 
It  there  represents  the  Heb.  dncj,  and  is  used  in 
connexion  with  the  ligure  of  smelting  or  retining 
metal.  People  who  are  incurably  bad,  from  whom 
no  discipline,  however  severe,  can  smelt  out  the 
badness,  are  compared  to  base  metal  which  can 
only  be  thrown  away.  The  assonance  of  the  Heb. 
(DN?'?  .  .  .  DNC:)  is  preserved  in  LXX  (dp7i/pio>' dxoSe- 
hoKLfjuafx^fOv  .  .  .  firt  airedoKi/jLadetf  aOroiii  Kvpios)^  but 
lost  in  Vulg.  (argentuni  reprobum  . .  .  ({uia, pro jecit). 
It  is  from  the  Vulg.  that  the  rendering  'reprobate' 
comes,  the  (ireek  equivalent  of  which  is  found  in  a 
similar  passage  in  Is  1^,  describing  the  degeneracy 
of  Israel :  t6  apyvpiov  v/iQd  6,S6kipmv=  'your  silver  is 
not  proof,'  cannot  stand  the  test  (-■^V  'is  become 
dross,'  wliich  exactly  reproduces  Heb.).  In  this 
place  Vulg.  also  gives  argentum  tuum  verfium  est 
%n  scorinm.  In  both  cases  people  are  regarded 
as  '  reprobate,'  or  unable  to  pass  muster  in  God's 
judgment,  not  in  virtue  of  an  eternal  decree  of 
reprobation,  but  as  having  reached  a  last  and  hope- 
less degree  of  moral  debasement.  It  is  the  same 
with  the  use  of  d36KiMo$  in  NT.  This  is  usually 
rendered  '  reprobate,'  and  is  always  passive.  The 
most  instructive  instance  is  perhaps  Ro  1^  '  As 
they  did  not  think  fit  on  trial  made  (ouk  iSoKlfiaaav) 
to  keep  God  in  their  knowledge,  God  gave  them 
up  to  a  reprobate  mind '  (eis  vouv  aSl>Kiiwv).  This 
means  a  mind  of  which  God  can  by  no  means 
apiirove,  one  which  can  only  be  rejected  when  it 
comes  into  judgment.  The  marg.  of  AV  ('  void  of 
judgment')  brings  out  in  accordance  with  the  con- 
text whu  the  i/tus  is  iSiKi/iot :  the  mind  which  God 
rejects  is  one  whose  moral  instincts  are  perverted, 
and  which  does  not  serve  the  purpose  of  a  moral 
intelligence  any  longer ;  but  this  is  not  what  the 
term  dWxi/ios  itself  expresses.  It  might  be  thought 
that  there  was  here  a  more  active  relation  of  God 
to  the  state  in  Question  than  is  foimd  in  Isaiah  and 
Jeremiah,  but  tuat  is  doubtful.  There  is  no  doom- 
ing of  men  ab  initio  to  reprobation ;  under  God's 
government,  and  in  the  carrying  out  of  His  sentence 
on  sin,  evil  works  itself  out  to  this  hopeless  end. 
The  simple  passive  sense  of  the  word  is  apparent 
also  in  the  three  instances  in  2  Co  13°"'.  "rhe  test 
of  true  Christianity  is  that  Christ  is  in  men  ;  those 
who  can  stand  this  are  Sd/ct/xot  ('approved')  ;  those 
who  cannot  are  dSSxi/j-oi  ('reprobate ').  Here  the  test 
is  to  be  applied  by  Christians  to  themselves  ;  in  1  Co 
9"  (where  AV  renders  dJAiti/ioj  '  castaway '  and  RV 
'rejected  ')  the  final  judgment  by  God  is  in  view  ; 
St.  Paul  subjects  himself  to  the  severest  discipline 
that  he  may  not  at  the  last  day  be  unable  to  stand 
trial.  It  would  have  been  an  advantage  for  some 
reasons  to  keep  the  rendering  '  rejirobate '  here  also. 

The  relations  in  which  one  is  d56«;iAios,  or  the 
trials  which  he  cannot  stand,  may  be  variously 
conceived.  Thus  in  2  Ti  3*  we  have  '  repiol)ate 
concerning  the  faith.'  The  men  who  are  thus 
characterized  are  described  also  as  KaTC(t>9apiJL.ivoi  rbv 
yovy.  This  expression  unites  in  itself  what  we  dis- 
tinguish as  ethical  and  intellectual  elements.  The 
men  in  (jiiestion  are  men  whose  moral  sense  is  per- 
verted, and  whose  minds  are  clouded  with  specula- 
tions of  their  own ;  when  they  are  brought  into 
relation  to  '  the  faith '  (which  in  the  Pastoral  Epp. 


includes  something  like  the  Christian  creed  as  veil 
as  the  Christian  religion)  they  are  dSi/ci^ioi — cannot 
stand  the  trial.  Similarly  in  Tit  1'"  when  certain 
persons  are  described  as  irp6s  vav  Iprfov  ayadbp 
aSdKipLoi  the  meaning  is :  put  them  to  the  test  of 
any  good  work  (as  distinct  from  fine  profession) 
and  tliey  can  only  be  rejected.  The  same  sense 
results  from  the  only  other  passage  in  NT,  He  6'. 
The  soil  which  receives  every  care  from  God  and 
man,  and  yet  produces  only  thorns  and  briars,  is 
adiiKifioi.     It  is  rejected  as  useless  for  cultivation. 

Taken  together,  these  passages  support  the  idea 
that  men  may  sink  into  a  condition  in  which  even 
God  despairs  of  them — a  condition  in  which  He 
can  do  nothing  but  reprobate  or  reject  them.  But 
they  do  not  support  the  conception  of  an  eternal 
decree  of  reprobation  in  which  the  destiny  of  man 
is  related  solely  to  the  will  of  God.  No  one  who 
claims  to  hold  this  view  will  ever  admit  that 
another  can  state  it  without  caricature,  but  it  may 
be  given  in  Calvin's  words  [Inst.  ill.  xxii.  11) :  '  Si 
non  possumus  rationem  assigiiare  cur  suos  raiseri- 
cordia  dignetur,  nisi  quoniain  ita  illi  placet,  neque 
etiam  in  aliis  reprobandis  aliud  habebimus  quam 
ejus  voluntatem.'  Apart  from  the  speculative 
objection  that  if  salvation  and  reprobation  are 
related  in  exactly  the  same  way  to  the  will  of 
God  there  is  no  difl'erence  between  them,  all  the 
distinctions  of  the  human  world  being  lost  in  the 
identity  of  the  Divine,  it  is  obvious  that  this 
presents  a  conception  of  reprobation  remote  from 
that  suggested  by  Scripture.  Nor  can  it  be  said 
that  the  Calvinistic  doctrine  of  reprobation  is  a 
necessary  inference  from  the  true  doctrine  of  elec- 
tion. The  true  doctrine  of  election  is  experimental. 
It  expresses  the  truth  (which  every  Christian 
knows  to  be  true)  that  it  is  God  who  saves,  and 
that  when  He  saves  it  is  not  by  accident,  or  to 
reward  human  merit,  but  in  virtue  of  His  being 
what  He  is — a  God  who  is  eternally  and  unchange- 
ably Redeemer.  But  while  the  Christian  can  say 
out  of  his  experience  that  God  in  His  infinite  love 
has  come  to  him,  and  made  sure  to  him  a  redeem- 
ing mercy  that  is  older  than  the  world,  faithful 
and  eternal  as  God  Himself,  no  one  can  say  out  of 
his  experience  that  God  has  come  to  him  ar;d  made 
sure  to  him  that  in  that  love  he  has  neither  part 
nor  lot.  In  other  words,  election  has  an  expeii- 
mental  basis,  but  reprobation  has  not.  It  is  true 
that  men  are  saved  because  God  saves  them — true 
to  experience  as  to  Scripture  ;  but  it  is  not  true  to 
experience  that  men  are  lost  because  God  ignores 
or  rejects  them.     The  form  in  which  the  truth  is 

Eut  may  be  inadequate  even  in  the  case  of  election  ; 
ut  in  the  case  of  what  is  called  reprobation  there 
is  no  verifiable  truth  at  all.  For  older  theological 
opinion  on  this  subject  see  Calvin,  Inst.  III.  ohs. 
xxi.-xxiii. ;  Hill,  Lectures  in  Dii-initij,  iii.  41  f.; 
Hodge,  Systematic  Theology,  iL  320  f.  See  also 
Election,  Predestination.  J.  Denney. 

REPROOF,   REPROVE.— The    verb  (from  Lat. 

reprobare  through  Old  Fr.  reprover)  means — 1.  To 
disapprove  of,  reject,  as  in  Ps  118=^  Wye.  (138S) 
'The  stoon  which  the  bilderis  repreueden '  ;  Mk 
8"  Tind.  '  And  he  beganne  to  teache  them,  how 
that  the  soune  of  man  must  sutl're  many  thinges, 
and  shuld  be  reproved  of  the  elders,  and  of  the 
bye  prestes  and  scribes.'  There  is  no  example  of 
this  meaning  in  AV.  2.  To  disprove,  refute,  aa 
Shaks.  Ve7iti.i,  19,1 — 

*  What  have  you  urged  that  I  cannot  reprore? 
and  //  Uenry  VI.  111.  i.  40— 

•  Reprove  my  allegation.  If  yon  can  ; 
Or  else  conclude  my  words  effectual.' 

Of  this  meaning  there  are  probably  some  examples 
in  AV,  as  Job  6'^  '  How  forcible  are  riglit  w-jrds  I 


i 


REPTILE 


RESEN 


229 


but  what  doth  your  arguing  reprove  ? '  Is  37*  '  It 
may  be  the  Lord  thy  God  will  hear  the  words  of 
Rabshakeh  .  .  .  and  will  reprove  tlie  words  which 
the  Lord  thy  God  hath  heard,'  tlioufjli  in  these  and 
other  like  places  Oxf.  Ueb.  Lex.  takes  the  mean- 
ing to  be  snnply  'rcDuke.'  3.  To  convict,  as  Jer. 
Taylor,  Great  Exemplar,  Pref.  p.  14,  '  God  hatli 
never  been  deficient,  but  hath  to  all  men  that 
believe  him  given  sufficient  to  confirm  them  ;  to 
those  few  that  believed  not,  suHieieut  to  reprove 
them.'  So  in  AV,  Jn  16'  '  He  will  reprove  the 
world  of  sin  '  (Wye.  '  repreuve,'  Tind.  '  rebuke,' 
Gen.  '  reprove,'  Gen.  marg.  '  convince,'  AVra 
'convince,'  KV  'convict')  ;  cf.  Jn  8**  Wye.  'Who 
of  you  schal  repreuve  me  of  synne  ? '  (Tmd.  '  can 
rebuke,'  AV  '  convinceth,'  RV  '  convicteth ') ; 
2Ti  4'-'  'Reprove,  rebuke,  exhort  with  all  long- 
suffering  and  doctrine.'  4.  To  chide,  rebuke,  the 
mod.  meaning,  as  Pr  9'  '  Reprove  not  a  scomer, 
lest  he  hate  thee  :  rebuke  a  wise  man,  and  he  will 
love  thee.' 

Reproof  is  used  mostly  in  the  sense  of  rebuke, 
but  there  is  a  possible  e.xaniple  of  conviction  in 
2  Ti  3"  (' prolitable  for  doctrine,  for  reproof  [irpJs 
fK€yii6v],  for  correction,  for  instruction  in  right- 
eou.sness');  and  a  probable  examjile  of  ditproof, 
refutation  in  Ps  3S'''  ('  Thus  I  was  as  a  man  that 
heareth  not,  and  in  whose  mouth  are  no  reproofs ' ; 
RVm  '  arguments ').  J.  Hastings. 

REPTILE.— See  Natural  History  in  vol.  iii. 
p.  492*. 

REQUIRE Sometimes  in  AV  as  in  mod.  Eng- 
lish to  'require'  is  to  demand,  a.s  I  S  21'  'The 
king's  business  required  haste':  cf.  Mk  5'  Tiiul. 
'I  requyre  the  in  the  name  of  God  that  thou 
torment  me  not.'  This  is  especially  the  case  in 
the  freq.  phrase  of  requiring  one,  or  one's  blood, 
at  another's  hand  ;  cf .  Bar  6'"  Gov.  '  Thouf'h  a 
man  make  a  vow  unto  them  [the  idols]  and  kope 
it  not,  they  will  not  requyre  it.'  liut  the  sense 
of  denuind  does  not  lie,  as  now,  in  the  verb  itself, 
but  in  the  context.  To  require  (from  Lat.  requirere 
through  Old  Fr.  requerir)  is  first  to  seek  after,  and 
then  to  request  or  entreat.  It  may  be  used  to 
translate  a  verb  of  demanding,  as  Driver  (Par. 
Psalter,  480)  suggests  that  in  Ps  40"  51«  it  may 
perhaps  correspond  to  yiunatev's  nostulavi  and 
txigis,'  but  of  all  the  Ileb.  and  Gr.  words  it  is 
used  to  tr.  in  AV  there  is  none  that  means  more 
than  seek  after  or  a.ik.  That  it  means  no  more 
than  ask  or  entreat  in  some  places  is  evident,  as 
Ezr  8"  '  I  was  ashamed  to  require  of  the  king  a 
band  of  soldiers'  (RV  'ask  ').  Cf.  Tindale,  Expos. 
151,  '  He  giveth  abundantly  unto  them  that  require 
it  [mercy]  with  a  faith/ul  heart.'  Gov.  after 
rendering  'Gedeon  sayde  unto  them.  One  thinge 
I  desyre  of  you,  every  man  geve  me  the  earinge 
that  "he  hath  spoyled  '  (Jg  8*'),  adds,  '  And  the 
golden  earynges  which  he  requyred '  (S").  Cf. 
Bemers,  Frot^snart,  ch.  ix.  'Tlien  the  queen  was 
greatly  abashed,  and  required  him  all  weeping  of 
ElBgqod  counsel, 'and  Chapman,  Odijsscys,  xx.  215 — 
'  For  she  required 
HIb  want«,  and  will'd  him  all  thiti)^  he  desired. 

Ksox  frequently  speaks  of  re(|uiring  a  tiling 
humbly,  as  Hist.  190,  'We  required  your  High- 
nesse  in  most  humble  manner  ;  so  .Oaldcrwood, 
Hist.  14.5,  '  I  protest  and  most  humbly  require,' 
and  Ptalma  in  Metre,  Ps  143'— 

•  O  hear  my  praver,  I>ord, 
And  unto  my  nosiro 
To  bow  thine  ear  accord, 
I  humbly  thee  require' ; 

•  Only  once  1»  exigm  u»cd  In  Vulg.  (On  SIS")  to  express 
•refiuire  at  the  bond  of,*  elsewhere  qucrrere  or  reqitirere 
Marly  always. 


and  the  end  of  A   Dialog  betweene  Christ  and  a 
Sinner,  by  William  Hunnis — 

■  5m7i«r— ThrouKh  this  sweet  grace  thy  mercie.  Lord, 
We  hmiililie  doo  require. 
Christ  —  By  mercie  iiiiTie  1  you  for;,'ive. 
And  grant  this  your  desire.' 

J.  Hastings. 
REREWARD — The  'rereward,'  i.e.  rearguard, 
was  tlie  last  of  the  three  main  divisions  of  an 
army,  the  'vanguard'  {  =  avant-ward)  or  'fore- 
front' being  the  first.  The  word  comes  from  Old 
Fr.  arerewarde,  i.e.  arere  (mod.  arriirc)  '  beliind ' 
(from  Lat.  ad-retro)  and  %oarde,  a  variety  of  Old 
Fr.  garde  (which  came  from  Old  High  Ger.  warten 
to  watch  over).  RV  retains  the  word  in  all  its 
occurrences  (Nu  lO'",  Jos  6"-  '^  1  S  29^  Is  52''''  58*) 
but  spells  it  '  rearward.'  It  is  always  sjielt  '  rere- 
ward '  (sometimes  with  a  hyphen)  in  A  V,  and  it  is 
always  a  substantive.  Cf.  Hakliiyt,  Voyages,  ii.  20, 
'  Because  ...  it  was  bootlesse  for  them  to  assaile 
the  forefront  of  our  battell  .  .  .  they  determined 
to  set  upon  our  rereward.'  Berners  (/"Voissferi,  p. 
376,  Glooe  ed.)  uses  '  rearband  '  in  the  .same  sense  : 
'  The  Bishop  of  Durham  with  the  rearband  came 
to  Newcastle  and  supped.'  J.  Hastings. 

RESAIAS  ('PTjirafo?,  AV  Reesaias),  1  Es  5«,  corre- 
sponds to  Reelaiah,  Ezr  2=,  or  Raamiah,  Neli  V. 

pU(;.\IA  has  apparently  been  read  as  pCjCAIA. 

RESEN  (i:-i ;  KB  Mjreii,  E  Maev  ;  Vulg.  Eesen). 
— The  last  of  tlie  four  cities  built  by  Assliur  (KV 
by  Nimrod),  between  Nineveh  and  Calah  (the 
modern  Nimroud),  and  further  described  in  Gn  10" 
as  'the  great  city'  (RV).  Various  conjectures 
have  been  made  as  to  the  position  of  tliis  settle- 
ment. The  Byzantine  authors  and  Ptolemy  iden- 
tified it  with  Rhesinaor  Rhesainaon  the  Khabour, 
probably  the  Arab.  Ras  cl-'Ain  —  an  impossible 
identification,  this  site  being  '200  miles  W.  of  the 
tw^o  cities  between  which  Resen  is  said  to  have 
lain.  A  better  identification  is  that  of  Boihavt, 
which  makes  Resen  to  be  the  L.arissa  of  Xenophon 
(Anah.  iii.  4),  though  whether,  as  he  argues, 
'Larissa'  be  an  adaptation  of  'Laresen,'  i.e. 
'Rosen's  (ruins),'  is  a  matter  of  doubt.  It  is 
worthy  of  note  that  Xenophon  describes  Larissa, 
like  Resen  in  Gn  10",  as  'a  great  city.'  The 
identification  of  the  name,  however,  and  that 
of  the  site,  are  two  different  things.  On  the  one 
hand,  there  is  the  possibility,  maintained  by  some, 
that  Larissa  may  be  Nimroud  (Calah),  and,  on  the 
other,  the  probaliility  that  the  ruins  described  by 
Xenophon — and  the  city  Rosen — may  be  repre- 
sented by  the  remains  known  as  Selamich,  an 
ancient  site  situated  about  three  miles  N.  of 
Nimroud,  and  between  that  city  and  the  mounds 
of  Nineveh  (Kouyunjik).  These  remains  have  the 
advantage  of  being  situated  in  the  tract  where, 
according  to  Gn  10",  Resen  really  lay.  As  Sayce 
has  pointed  out,  the  name  of  Resen  occurs,  under 
the  form  R6s-f>ni,  in  a  list  of  18  cities  or  small 
towns  from  which  Sennaclierib  dug  canals  com- 
municating with  the  river  Kliouser  or  Khosr, 
in_  order  to  supply  them  with  drinking-water. 
Whether  this  be  tlie  Resen  of  Genesis  or  not  is 
uncertain, — in  all  jirobability  it  wa.s  a  compara- 
tively unim|iortant  place,  and  situated  too  far 
north.  Moreover,  such  a  name  as  R6s-6ni,  '  foun- 
tain-head,' must  have  been  far  from  rare  in  ancient 
Assyria,  as  is  Ras  el-'ain  in  countries  where  Arabic 
is  spoken  at  the  present  day.  The  Greek  forms  are 
api)arently  corrupt,  and  due  to  the  likeness  between 
1  and  1. 

l.iTERATi'RK.  — Moohart.  Oroqraph.  .^aer.  Iv.  2S ;  PolitiMch 
/'ani((i,'»  2(11 ;  Schroder,  COT  1.  M ;  Sayce  in  the  .4r^M/<-inv  toi 
1st  May  IS80.  X.  G.  PlNCllKS. 


230 


KESH 


RESTORATION 


RESH  (n).— The  twentieth  letter  of  the  Hebrew- 
alphabet,  and  as  such  employed  in  the  119th 
Psalm  to  designate  the  20tli  part,  each  verse  of 
which  begins  with  this  letter.  It  is  transliterated 
in  this  Dictionary  by  r. 

RESHEPH(l[?n.;  B^dpoi^,  A'Pda-e^).— The  eponym 
of  an  Ephraimite  family,  1  Ch  7^. 

RESPECT  OF  PERSONS.— See  Accept,  vol.  i. 
p.  21. 

REST. — In  the  Scriptures  rest  is  ascribed  to  God, 
and  also  to  man  in  a  variety  of  aspects ;  and  the 
uuderlyin"  conception  in  each  case  is  the  necessary 
relation  of  the  rest  of  man  to  that  of  God. 

1.  At  the  close  of  His  creative  actii-ity  God  rested, 
it  is  said,  from  all  His  work  which  He  had  made 
(Gn  2-  nyf  [see  Sabbath,  adinit.],  usually  rendered 
in  LXX  by  KaTaTravetv,  but  sometimes  by  dvaTaveii'). 
This  implies  t!ie  twofold  thought  tliat  creation,  with 
all  tliat  the  creative  process  invohed,  was  com- 
pleted unce  for  all,  and  that  God  was  satisfied  with 
the  work  at  that  stage  accomplished.  But  this 
assertion  of  rest  on  the  part  of  God  contains  no 
denial  of  subsequent  action,  no  theory  as  to  such 
action,  and  is  consistent  with  ceaseless  activity  (Jn 
5",  cf.  Th.  Aquin.  Smnm.  Theol.  Qu.  73.  2).  The 
apparent  silence  or  inactivity  (opv')  on  the  part  of 
God  in  presence  of  the  impiety  of  men  is  the  rest 
of  One  who  is  watchful  and  will  strike  at  the  fitting 
time  (Is  18*). 

Z.  The  rest  (n«,  nmjp)  promised  by  J°  the  cove- 
nant-God to  the  people  of  Israel  is  the  rest  of  a 
settled  dwelling-pl.ace.  But  the  rest  of  the  people 
in  this  case  is  coincident  with  tlie  rest  of  God  ;  tor 
with  the  permanent  settlement  of  the  ark  by  a 
plan  of  rest  (1  Ch  22')  God  is  represented  as  enter- 
ing into  His  rest  and  the  people  into  theirs,  which 
is  also  His  (2  Ch  6",  Ps  1328- ").  Into  this  rest 
some  did  not  enter  because  of  disobedience  (Ps 
95",  He  4«). 

3.  In  addition  to  this  national  rest,  a  rest  of  a 
more  spiritual  and  individual  character  is  spoken 
of.  To  IMoses  tlie  promise  of  the  Divine  presence 
with  a  settled  abode  as  a  goal  is  the  guarantee  of 
rest  (Ex  3S'*).  Jeremiah  ofFers  it  (yin?)  to  his 
countrymen  on  condition  of  their  walking  in 
the  eternal  paths  (Jer  6"'),  in  liarmony  with  tlie 
will  of  God  given  of  old  (cf.  Is  28'^  where  we  tirul 
•ij;n?  II  ■irBjp).  Those  who  do  so  are  by  a  kindred 
word  described  as  the  quiet  or  restful  ones  (Ps 
ZS").  Because  obedience  to  the  will  of  God  is  the 
secret  of  rest,  it  cannot  be  possessed  by  tlie  un- 
rig'iteous,  whose  normal  condition  is  a  restlessness 
like  that  of  the  waves  of  the  se.a  (Is  57'-''). 

4.  To  men  worn  out  with  worrying  toils  and 
struggling  under  burdens  too  heavy  for  them  (tlie 
immediate  reference  being  probably  to  the  Pharis.aic 
burdens),  Christ  promised  rest  (Mt  U^-**).  It  is  His 
own  rest  that  He  offers  to  tliose  who  with  a  meek 
and  lowly  heart  recognize  the  will  of  His  Fatlier 
as  the  law  of  the  inner  life,  and  take  His  yoke  upon 
themselves.  It  is  not  a  rest  from  toil  but  in  toil 
(.In  .5"),  not  the  rest  of  inactivity  but  of  the  har- 
monious working  of  aU  faculties  and  affections — of 
will,  lieart,  imagination,  conscience — because  each 
has  found  in  (Jod  the  ideal  sphere  for  its  satisfac- 
tion and  development. 

5.  The  teaclung  of  Scripture  as  to  future  rest  is 
most  explicitly  set  forth  in  He  4'-"  and  Rev  It". 
Taking  up  the  creative  rest  of  God  (nj;-)  along  with 
the  rest  referred  to  in  Pa  95"  (inijn)  (both  words 
being^  rendered  in  LXX  KaTawami/)',  the  author  of 
the  Ep.  to  the  Hebrews  argues  thus :  God  rested 
at  the  creation  of  the  world,  and  subsequently 
promised  to  Israel  the  rest  of  a  settled  abode. 
That  something  more  than  an  external  rest  was, 


however,  implied,  is  proved  by  the  fact  that  at  a 
later  period  He  swore  that  they  should  not  entei 
into  His  rest.  As  that  promise  still  held  good  and 
was  yet  unfullllled,  a  Sabbath  rest  (aa/3^iaTt(T/i(5s)  to 
the  people  of  God  remained  (He  4"),  which  had 
been  unappropriated  or  only  partially  appropriated 
by  the  past.  Into  that  rest  believers  now  enter 
(He  4^) ;  but  because  it  is  the  very  rest  of  God  Him- 
self (He  4'"),  its  full  fruition  is  yet  to  come.  The 
rest  of  the  blessed  dead  is  not  merely  the  rest  of 
the  grave  (Job  3"-"),  it  is  a  rest  from  toils  (in  tQv 
K&TTuv,  Rev  14''),  but  not  from  work,  a  rest  only 
'  from  sorrow  and  trouble  and  hard  service'  (Is  14'). 
In  .all  these  forms  of  rest  God  and  man  are  indis- 
.sohibly  related.  The  rest  of  God  the  Creator  is  set 
forth  as  t!ie  condition  and  type  of  the  rest  of  man. 
The  rest  of  J"  is  one  with  that  of  His  people.  The 
rest  offered  to  men  by  Christ  is  His  own  rest, 
which  is  also  that  of  His  Father.  The  blessed  rest 
of  man  is  rest  in  God,  with  God,  nay,  the  very 
rest  of  God.     See,  also.  Sabbath,  p  317. 

Ltterattrb. — Sp.ath  in  Schc-iikel's  Bib.  •Lex.  vol.  V.  118; 
Cremer,  Bib.-Theol.  Lex.*  82(>-(>.i8  ;  Trench,  ST  Syn(myrmi\ 
146, 147  ;  A.  B.  Davidson,  Hebrews,  97-101. 

John  Patrick. 
RESTITUTION.— See  CRIMES  and  next  article. 

RESTORATION  in  RV  corresponds  to  'restitu- 
tion '  in  AV,  as  rendering  of  the  noun  npokatastasis, 
which  occurs  but  once  in  the  NT,  Ac  3'-'  dTroKard- 
fl-ratris  tuv  TravTuv,  The  times  spoken  of  by  the 
prophets  are  here  described  as  times  of  restoration, 
when  Christ  shall  reign  over  a  kingdom  in  which 
none  of  the  consequences  of  sin  will  any  longer 
apjiear.  The  same  word  in  its  verbal  form  occurs 
in  Mt  17"  and  in  the  LXX  of  Mai  4"  of  the  moral 
restoration  or  spiritual  revolution  inaugurated  or 
attempted  by  .lohn  the  Baptist.  This  restoration 
was  a  foresliadowing  of  the  true  apokatnstasi.'s, 
which  is  to  be  realized  in  the  case  of  all  who  will 
recognize  the  authority  of  the  Messiah  and  become 
members  of  His  kingdom.  The  word  palinr)enesia 
(iroKiv-feveala)  is  used  by  our  Lord,  Mt  i9-*,  in 
precisely  the  same  sense  of  the  restoration  of  the 
whole  creation.  The  subject  of  the  new  genesis 
comes  under  the  influence  of  the  transforming 
power  of  the  Hol3-  Spirit  by  which  he  is  renewed 
day  by  d.iy.  See  Trench,  Synonym.^  of  the  AT", 
p.  65.  The  word  is  also  used  by  Josephus,  Ant. 
XI.  iii.  9,  of  the  restoration  of  the  country  of  the 
Jews  under  Zerubbabel.  It  became  a  favourite 
term  in  later  Jewish  Apocalyptic  writings,  and 
was  no  doubt  in  common  use  in  the  Jewish 
Apocalypses  current  in  the  time  of  our  Lord. 
That  the  word  should  be  employed  in  the  Hebrew 
Gospel  of  Matthew  and  not  in  the  writings  of  the 
other  evangelists  is  natural  enough,  so  that  there 
is  no  need  of  the  hvpothesis  of  interpolation,  nor 
yet  of  the  assumption  of  any  particular  .lewish- 
Christian  sources.  The  proi)hecy  of  Caiaphas  (Jn 
11'-)  supposes  the  oiler  of  the  Saviour's  salvation 
to  all, — it  may  be  in  another  stiite  of  existence 
to  those  who  have  not  had  it  here,  —  but  not 
necessarily  its  acceptance  by  all.  Anumg  the 
words  of  Jesus  which  seem  to  favour  the  restora- 
tionist  view  may  be  mentioned  Jn  12'-,  wherp, 
however,  the  lifting  up,  like  that  of  .In  3",  ctlerft 
a  drnwing,  which  secures  salvation  only  for  tl.ose 
who  look  or  believe.  It  ha-s  been  maintained,  e.g. 
by  Ptleiderer  [Paulinism,  i.  274-276),  that  the  idea 
of  a  restitution  in  the  sense  of  a  literal  restoration 
of  all  things  is  taught  by  St.  Paul  in  Ro  IP-  and 
1  Co  15-"-.  But  in  these  pa.ssajjes  St.  Pa\il  simply 
insists  upon  this,  that  only  believers  shall  share  in 
that  perfected  kingdom  of  God  in  which  God  is  all 
in  all.  It  might,  of  course,  be  argued,  if  I  he 
pener.al  scope  of  Divine  revelation  would  .allow  of 
it,    that  the  believers  who  shall   share    in   th  jse 


KESUKRECTION 


RESURRECTION 


231 


blessings  will  at  last  be  found  to  embrace  all 
mankind.  But  it  cannot  be  said  that  these  pas- 
sages contribute  any  evidence  for  or  against  that 
view.  See  Weiss,  Liblical  Theology  of  XT,  ii.  73. 
Such  biblical  passages  were  understood  by  Clement 
of  Ale.xaudria,  Origen,  Gregory  Nazianzen,  Gregory 
of  Nyssa,  even  by  Chrysostom  (see  Homily  on  1  Co 
15**)  and  other  lathers,  by  Erigena,  most  of  the 
mystics  and  theosophists,  as  they  have  been  in 
modern  times  by  Schleiermacher,  Erskine  of  Lin- 
lathen,  Maurice,  Farrar,  etc.,  not  as  teaching 
absolutely  the  final  salvation  of  all  nun,  but  as 
pointing  to  the  ultimate  restoration  of  all  as  at 
least  a  possibility. 

In  the  Pastoral  Epistles  there  are  three  very 
interesting  passages,  1  Ti  2*  4'»,  Tit  2'",  in  which 
God's  saving  will  is  described  as  universal.  This, 
however,  is  the  will  of  God  concerning  men  who 
are  themselves  possessors  of  a  will,  which  may 
resist  and  reject  as  well  as  accept  what  the 
gracious  will  of  God  has  designed  for  them.  The 
aame  explanation  must  be  given  of  Eph  1'- '",  Col 
1",  which  represent  the  gathering  into  one  and 
rcconcilin"  of  all  as  the  purpose  and  good  pleasure 
of  God.  1  his  Divine  plan  is  realized  only  in  Christ, 
and  applies  therefore  only  to  tliose  who  are  in 
Christ.  What  is  taken  into  account  here  is  only 
God's  purpose,  and  not  what  is  actually  realized  in 
the  world  of  human  freedom.  The  whole  scope  of 
Scripture  shows  that  the  realization  of  the  Divine 
will  regarding  man  is  conditioned  by  man's  volun- 
tary acceptance  of  the  terms  proposed.  The 
universal  purpose  of  God  is  well  described  by 
Martensen  as  '  an  avoKaTaaTaan  a  parte  ante'  whicli 
has  its  development  as  an  dTroKarairTacns  a  parte 
post,  under  condition  of  man's  free  will,  only  when 
the  possibility  of  eternal  comlemnation  has  been 
confessed.  He  would  regard  the  opposition  of 
biblical  passages,  on  the  one  hand  seemingly 
universahst,  on  the  other  hand  seemingly  in  favour 
of  eternal  retribution,  a.s  an  antinomy  like  that  of 
freedom  and  predestination. 

It  is  now  generally  admitted  by  the  best  exegetes 
of  all  schools  that  the  doctrine  of  tlie  restoration 
of  all  cannot  be  supported  by  NT  texts.  The 
ablest  and  most  candid  advocates  of  this  theory 
seek  to  ground  their  position  on  what  they  regard 
as  necessary  conclusions  as  to  the  nature  and 
character  of  God,  or  on  psychological  and  ethical 
doctrines  of  the  constitution  and  destiny  of  man. 

LlTHRATURS. — Jukes,  The  Second  Death  arid  the  Restitution 
9f  all  Thingt,  London  (iscn),  18AS;  MaitHnsen,  Christian  Dog- 
maticn,  E<lin.  1866, pp.  47l-4b4;  Farrar,  Eternal  Uoi>e,  London, 
1878.  Mercji  and  Judjment,  London,  1881  ;  Pusey,  What  ill  ojF 
Faith  at  to  Everlasting  Punishment  >  London,  1S80 ;  Cox, 
Saleator  ilundi :  It  Christ  the  Saviour  of  all  Meni  London, 
1877  ;  Row,  Future  Hetribulion,  London,  1S87  ;  Mniirire, 
TheoUmeal  Essays,  London,  18M ;  File,  The  Uereafter,  Kdin. 
1880 ;  Salmond,  The  Christian  Doctrine  o/  Immorldlity,  Edin. 
1896,  4th  ed.  1001 ;  Beet,  The  Last  Thinr/s,  London,  1897. 

3.  Macpiiku-son. 

RESURRECTION.  —  In/rnductory.  —  The  NT 
«nli>t.  di'diTraffis  from  which,  through  Vulg.,  we 
obtain  the  term  '  resurrection,'  gives,  so  far  as  its 
Btrict  sense  j^oe-s,  an  incomplete  account  of  the 
Biblical  doctrine.  The  essential  idea  is  restoration 
of  life  in  its  fulness  to  a  penson  whose  existence 
has  not  been  absolutely  cut  oil',  but  so  mutilated 
and  attenuated  as  to  be  unworthy  to  be  described 
as  life.  The  name  'resurrection'  given  to  this  act 
of  Go<l  is  drawn  from  the  fact  whicli  immediately 
struck  the  eye  in  cases  where  renewal  of  life  took 
place.  The  rising  up  of  the  body  (iviartt,  2  K  13-' 
L.XX)  is  taken  as  the  symbol  of  the  whole  fact. 
But  the  essential  matter  is  the  renewal  of  life, 
hence  in  Uabbinic  n;r;n  (revival)  is  more  frequent 
than  ri-ipn  (resurrection).  See  Buxtorf,  s.v.,  who 
Bays  that  some  distinguished  the  former  as  the 
proper  word  to  be  used  of  the  resurrection  of  the 
righteous.     Delitzsch  in  hia  Hebrew  NT  frequently 


renders  ivd<rra(rit  by  njnn.  Cf.  the  use  of  fwoiroifiii 
in  Jn  5'^'  and  elsewhere.  In  LXX  cf.  fuo7ro(ij<r«i 
(only  in  Ezr  9*-  •)  used  of  revival  of  the  nation. 

The  development  of  the  Biblical  doctrine  of 
resurrection  starts  from  a  previous  belief  that 
death  was  not  the  end  of  existence  but  was  the 
end  of  life,  a  distinction  which  it  is  difficult  for 
modern  thought  to  apprehend.  This  was  itself 
the  result  of  the  fusion  of  two  opposing  beliefs,  as 
has  been  ably  shown  by  Charles  (Escluitulugy,  chs. 
i.-iii.).  On  the  one  side  there  were  survivals  of 
a  primitive  belief,  common  to  the  Hebrews  with 
other  nations,  according  to  which  the  dead  were 
not  mere  shades,  but  still  active  and  powerful.  On 
the  other  side  was  the  teaching  of  Gn  2',  that  the 
soul  was  but  the  result  of  the  indwelling  of  the 
Divine  Spirit  in  the  earthly  body  ;  leading  logically 
to  the  conclusion  that  the  withdrawal  of  the  spirit 
at  death  must  involve  the  break  up  of  the  exist- 
ence of  the  individual.  But  this  latter  conclusion 
was  not  generally  adopted,  and  with  certain  excep- 
tions (EcS-"-'-')  the  soul  was  believed  to  persist  or 
subsist  after  the  breath  of  life  had  been  withdrawn. 
The  question  before  us,  therefore,  is  not  that  of  the 
immortality  of  the  soul,  which  in  some  form  or 
other  is  the  starting-point,  not  the  subject,  of  the 
present  inquiry.  The  advances  made  by  the  two 
peoples,  Hebrew  and  Greek,  in  the  doctrine  of  a 
future  life  show  a  strong  contrast.  The  Greek 
advance,  represented  in  Biblical  literature  by  the 
Bk.  of  Wisdom  only,  was  due  mainly,  though  not 
entirely,  in  the  limited  circle  all'ected  \>y  it,  to  the 
consciousness  of  intellectual  vigour  and  the  diffi- 
culty of  conceiving  intellectual  activity  arrested 
and  annihilated,  as  in  the  belief  of  the  Homeric 
age  it  undoubtedly  was.  In  the  Hebrew  advance, 
it  was  the  development  of  religious  vigour  and 
experience  which  made  men  feel  that  existence  in 
.Slieol,  as  generally  understood,  could  not  be  their 
linal  lot.  Again,  to  the  Greek  it  appeared  that  the 
body  was  in  some  respects  a  hindrance  to  the 
intellectual  life,  and  that  the  serenity  needed  for 
reflexion  was  disturbed  by  bodily  passions ;  hence 
the  resumption  of  the  body  presented  no  attrac- 
tions. The  Hebrew,  from  his  less  intellectual 
point  of  view,  felt  nothing  of  this,  and  was  there- 
tore  able  to  retain  his  instinctive  perception  that 
the  body  was  essential  to  the  life  of  man,  and  to 
require  that,  if  life  was  to  be  restored,  the  body 
should  be  restored  also.  The  history  of  the  doc- 
trine of  the  resurrection  in  the  OT  is  that  of  a 
slow  hesitating  development.  In  the  NT  there  is 
undoubtedly  development,  but  the  doctrine  is  not 
merely  developed  within  human  thought,  but  re- 
vealed to  it  from  without  by  a  fact  which  assured 
it — the  resurrection  of  .Jesus  Christ.  In  the  present 
article  that  event  will  not  be  dealt  with  in  its 
historical  aspect,  nor  with  regard  to  its  place  in 
Cliristology  and  in  Christian  evidences  (see  art. 
JE.SUS  ClIltlST),  but  only  in  its  relation  to  the 
doctrine  of  the  resurrection  of  mankind.  The 
order  of  treatment  will  therefore  be— (i.)  the  ex 
peetalion  of  resurrection  as  developed  in  the  OT 
and  Apocrj-pha  ;  (ii.)  the  ellect  on  this  expectation 
of  (A)  the  teaching,  (B)  the  resurrection  of  Jesus; 
(iii. )  the  place  thenceforward  assigned  to  the 
doctrine  in  apostolic  teaching. 

i.   The    Expectation   of    Resitrrection   as 

DKVEI-OPED      IX     TlIK     OT     AND      APOCRYPHA.  — 

Martlia's  words,  '  I  know  that  ho  shall  rise  again 
in  the  resurrection  in  the  last  day'(Jn  11-'^),  set 
before  us  the  general  belief  of  the  Jews  (excluding 
.Sadducees)  in  the  time  of  Christ.*  But  how  had 
this  belief  been  arrived  at?  Its  development  in  OT 
•The  disniples'  inability  to  undcratAnd  'what  thp  rJBiny 
aifaiii  from  the  dead  Hhoulil  mean  '  (Mk  O'^)  doefl  not  conlroven 
tiie  8t.itonient  above.  It  arose  from  their  nnwillini^ncnn  t« 
conct'ive  a  Hutlerintr  Messiah,  and  so  to  expect  His  deatli,  whiob 
was  the  necessary  preliminary  to  UiB  rising  again. 


232 


RESURRECTION 


RESURRECTION 


has  been  so  often  and  so  fully  dealt  with  {e.g. 
Schultz,  OT  Theology,  II.  ch.  xxii.;  Salmond,  Chr, 
Dort.  Immortality,  bk.  ii.),  that  only  an  outline 
will  be  necessary. 

A.  Old  Testament.— \.  Stages  of  devdopment— 
[a)  The  religious  life  of  the  inclividual  Hebrew  was 
subordinate  to  that  of  the  nation.  It  is  in  the 
sphere  of  national  life  that  we  first  find  those 
religious  conceptions  which  ultimately  come  to  be 
appropriated  by  the  individual,  e.g.  Justification 
(see  Is  45-^).  Tliis  holds  good  of  the  expectation  of 
resurrection,  and  Hos  6-  may  be  taken  as  a  typical 
passage.  Ezk  37  belongs  to  the  same  class.  One 
prophecy  of  national  resurrection  is  of  a  special  and 
peculiar  character,  viz.  Is  53'°.  While  gi-anting  that 
the  Servant  of  the  Lord  is  primarily  Israel  idealized, 
we  have  here  the  prolongation  of  life  after  death 
described  in  so  individual  a  way,  that  when  once 
the  thought  is  admitted  that  the  Servant  is  a 
Person  representing  the  nation,  tlie  prophecy 
becomes  a  prophecy  of  individual  resurrection. 
It  will  be  observed  that  in  Hosea  and  Ezekiel  it  is 
a  figurative  resurrection,  namely,  the  recovery  of 
national  life,  which  is  spoken  of,  and  not  a  literal 
one,  and  the  whole  conception  depends  on  the 
nation  being  considered  as  a  person  capable  of  life 
and  death.  But  it  thus  becomes  clear  that  the 
notion  of  literal  resurrection  as  a  possible  thing 
was  a  very  early  one,  inasmuch  as  the  literal  con- 
ception of  an  event  must  precede  its  figurative 
application.  The  miracles  of  Elijah  and  Elisha 
(1  K  17,  2  K  4),  even  for  those  who  refuse  to  accept 
them  as  facts,  testify  to  the  notion  of  resurrection 
being  in  men's  minds,  (b)  The  second  stage  of 
thought,  later  in  logical  if  not  in  chronological  order, 
is  a  transitional  one.  In  it  the  notions  of  indi- 
vidual and  national  resurrection  appear  side  by 
side — Is  26".  Compared  with  26''',  this  verse  must 
be  understood  as  a  prayer  for  the  resurrection  of 
individuals.  See  Diilmann,  ad  loc.  (c)  In  Dn  12' 
the  res\iiTection  of  individuals  stands  out  alone 
and  clear.  The  passage  probably  refers  to  the 
faithful  and  the  apostates  of  Maccabrean  times 
(cf.  11'-^-).  and  resurrection  is  predicted  for  both 
classes,  without,  however,  any  implication  of 
resurrection  for  Gentiles.  The  form  of  expression 
and  its  connexion  with  a  time  of  trouble  and  de- 
liverance seem  to  show  dependence  on  Is  20".  The 
passage  likewise  introduces  for  the  first  time  the 
resurrection  of  sinful  Israelites  with  a  view  to 
retribution. 

2.  Uy  the  side  of  these  stages  of  thought  shown 
in  prophetic  utterances  we  must  place  the  reflexions 
of  psalmists  and  wise  men.  They  will  best  be  con- 
sidered under  the  head  of  lines  of  thonght,  in 
which  the  doctrine  of  resurrection  was  developed. 
In  every  case  it  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  it  is 
not  the  renewal  of  an  existence  which  has  been  cut 
ott',  nor  merely  the  restoration  of  a  body  which  is 
aspired  to,  but  tlie  deliverance  of  an  existent  per- 
sonality from  Slieol,  and  its  re-endowment  with 
life  in  all  its  powers  and  activities,  (a)  Communion 
with  God.  Of  this  the  psalmists  were  conscious, 
yet  before  them  lay  Sheol  with  the  entire  cessation, 
according  to  the  popular  belief ,  of  any  such  relation 
to  Him  (Ps  6°  30').  Some  of  them  surmount  the 
barrier.  Such  a  communion  must  partake  of  the 
nature  of  Him  who  admits  it,  and  therefore  be 
eternal.  Two  of  the  psalms  which  express  most 
strongly  the  delight  ol  fellowship  with  God,  viz. 
16  and  17,  are  those  in  which  the  hope  of  life  after 
death  reaches  its  least  ambiguous  expression  (ie'" 
17")  —  least  ambiguous,  because  here  and  every- 
where in  similar  pa-ssages  in  the  Psalms  it  may 
possilily  be  temporary  jjresen-ation  from  literal 
and  physical  deatli  which  is  intended,  as  is  certainly 
the  case  in  I's  68*".  But  very  widely  in  the  Psalter 
there  exists  the  feeling  that  life  means  more  than 


the  continuance  of  the  soul  in  the  body.  And  thi« 
fact  should  be  taken  into  account  in  interpreting 
all  Psalm  passages  in  which  life  and  death  are 
referred  to.  (b)  Need  of  retribution.  Under  this 
head  we  must  consider  not  only  the  Psalms  but 
also  the  Prophets  and  Job.  It  makes  itself  felt  in 
various  waj's.  (1)  In  connexion  with  Mc-ssianic 
hopes.  The  more  vivid  and  glorious  these  become, 
the  more  needful  is  it  that  the  dead  Israelite! 
should  not  be  thought  to  be  debarred  from  par- 
taking in  their  fulfilment.  The  idea  of  the  dis- 
persed who  are  alive  being  gathered  to  partake  in 
the  great  restoration  is  abundantly  expressed  (Is  60 
and  elsewhere) ;  and  it  is  only  a  step  further  to 
gather  them  from  the  underworld  for  the  same 
purpose.  That  is  indeed  the  connexion  of  the 
prayer  and  promise  in  Is  26"  and  Dn  12",  already 
cited.  The  thought  comes  out  much  more  clearly 
in  Eth.  Enoch  51  j  and  when  the  doctrine  of  a  tem- 
porary Messianic  reign  on  earth  grows  into  shape, 
the  resurrection  of  the  righteous  to  share  in  it  is 
usually  placed  at  its  beginning.  Hence  arises  the 
expectiation  of  two  distinct  resurrections,  which 
will  be  examined  below.  (2)  Besides  retribution 
of  blessing  for  the  righteous,  retribution  for  the 
wicked  came  also  to  be  felt  as  a  necessity.  For 
the  Psalmist  it  had  been  enough  to  pray  for  venge- 
ance on  them  in  this  life,  or  to  think  of  them  aa 
shut  up  for  ever  in  Sheol  (Ps  49''');  and  for  the 
Prophets  it  was  enough  to  expect  a  '  day  of  the 
LoKD,'  in  which  they  would  receive  their  punish- 
ment here,  and  be  swept  away.  But  in  Dn  12' 
resurrection  for  unfaithful  Israelites  with  a  view 
to  their  punishment  appears  for  the  first  time, 
and  it  is  obvious  that  from  this  starting-point 
an  expectation  of  resurrection  and  judgment  for 
mankind  gener.ally  would  naturally  proceed,  (c) 
There  is  another  aspect  of  retribution,  which  does 
not  look  at  reward  or  punishment,  but  rather  at 
the  reversal  of  mistaken  human  judgments.  There 
must  be  a  higher  tribunal  to  appeal  to,  and  to 
reach  it  man  must  be  brought  out  of  Sheol. 
Further,  the  dealings  of  God  Himself  require  a 
justification  which  He  cannot  fail  to  give.  This  is 
in  the  main  the  line  of  expectation  in  Job.  The 
sufferer  is  dying  with  an  unjust  condemnation 
upon  him,  and  with  no  sign  of  regard  from  God. 
In  Sheol  he  will  still  be  cut  oft"  from  God.  He 
rises  to  the  thought,  and  throws  out  the  wish 
(14"'-).  that  there  may  be  release  from  Sheol, 
and  later  on  is  assured  that  '  his  redeemer  (go  el) 
lives,'  and  that  he  himself  will  see  God  (I'J-^).  All 
this  implies,  first  of  all,  literal  death,  and  then 
restoration  to  life  after  death,  i.e.  resurrection  in 
the  proper  .sense  of  the  word.* 

These  three  tendencies  of  thought  which  were 
at  work  in  the  mind  of  Israel  during  and  after  the 
E.xile  seem  to  spring  naturally  out  of  the  previous 
OT  religion,  and  not  to  reiiuire  any  extraneous 
influence  to  account  for  the  shape  which  they 
took.  No  doubt,  such  a  passage  as  Ya.ma  Ix. 
II,  12  is  sulGcient  proof  of  a  clear  and  lofty 
doctrine  of  resurrection  in  Persian  religious 
chought.t  But  at  the  most  such  belief  among 
their  foreign  rulers  did  no  more  than  stimulate 
the  home-born  expectation  of  resurrection  in  the 
breast  of  Israel. 
B.  Apocrypha. — The    variations   which    th« 

*  It  must  be  confessed  tbat  both  the  text  and  the  excpe^is  of 
this  passage  are  still  involved  in  considerable  ohaciirity.  Se« 
the  Comitu,  especially  those  o(  Diilmann,  A.  B.  Da\  idaon,  and 
Duhm. 

t  '  In  order  that  cur  minds  may  be  delighted  and  our  souls  the 
best,  let  our  bodies  be  glorified  as  well,  and  let  them,  O  Muzda, 

§0  likewise  openly  (to  Heaven)  as  the  best  world  of  the  saintfl 
evoted  to  Anura.  and  accompanied  by  Afiha  Vabista,  who  is 
righteousness  the  i)est  and  most  beautiful,  and  may  we  seethe* 
and  may  we  approaching  come  round  about  thee,  and  att&in  to 
entire  companionship  with  thee." — Sacred  Bkt.  oj  the  East,  voL 
xxxi.  p.  312. 


RESURRECTION 


RESURRECTION 


233 


doctrine  of  resurrection  underwent  in  the  inter- 
Tcstamental  period  are  various  and  complicated. 
Their  inconsistencies  may  hie  gatliered  from  tlie 
brief  suniniai-y  of  tlieni  in  art.  Eschatoloqy, 
vol.  i.  p.  748'' :  for  a  full  account  of  their  phases, 
Charles,  Eschntology  (Jowett  Lecture),  chs.  v.-viii., 
should  (if  course  be  studied.  See  especially  an 
admirable  summary  in  Bouk  of  Enoch,  ed.  Charles, 
ch.  51,  note. 

Three  of  the  deutero-canonical  books  require  a 
lew  words,  viz.  Sirach,  Wisdom,  2  Maccabees,  as 
rei)resentatives  of  widely  diverj;eut  views.  The 
earliest  of  the.se  (Sirach)  is  on  the  lines  of  Ecclesi- 
astes,  not  risinj;  beyond  the  old  popular  coiueptiim 
of  Sheol.  The  ininiorlality  of  man  is  distinctly 
denied  in  Sir  17*.  The  contrary  statement  in 
19'»  is  omitted  in  BkAC  (followed  by  RV).  It  is 
found,  however,  in  the  Complutensian  te.xt,  and 
in  the  very  important  MS,  Ho  \H&.  Ajiparently,  the 
only  immortality  expected  is  (1)  that  of  the  nation, 
and  (2)  for  the  individual  a  good  name,  37^.  The 
three  passages  which  appear  to  iiiiidy  a  better 
hope  (46'^  48"  49'")  are  capable  of  l)eing  other- 
wise interpreted  ;  cf.  Schwally,  Das  Lcban  nach 
dem  Tode,  §  40. — In  direct  ojiposition  to  Sirach 
is  Wisdom,  see  Wis  1^  3'"-.  But  the  expectation 
of  immortality  in   this  book  is  jirobably  drawn 


from   Greek    philosophy   nmch    more    tlian    from 

A  belief  in  the  pre- 
of  souls  is  held  to  be  involved  in  it  (Wis  8-"),  and 


Fsalms  or  Prophets.     A  belief  in  the  preexistcnce 


resurrection  of  the  body  is  nowhere  contemplated. 
— On  the  other  hand,  2  .Mac.  expres.ses  the  :iasurance 
of  such  a  resurrection  not  only  as  an  opinion,  but 
as  the  motive  and  support  of  martyrdom.  The 
persecutor  can  mutilate  the  body,  but  God  will 
restore  it  intact  ('2  .Mac  V"  11"- =«  14«).  And  12" 
thows  that  the  author  had  a  Sadducean  denial  of 
resurrection  confronting  him,  such  as  is  implied 
by  the  silence  of  1  M;ic.  in  regard  to  everything 
relating  to  a  future  life.  Thus  we  liave  in  these 
three  books  severally  (1)  the  ancient  view  of  Sheol 
as  the  end  of  m.an,  (2)  the  expectation  of  immortality 
for  the  soul  alone,  (3)  belief  in  the  resurrection  of 
the  body.  It  may  be  added  that  in  2  Mac.  for  the 
first  time  avaaTaaa  occurs  in  the  Gr.  Hible  in  the 
sense  of  '  resurrection  '  (but  cf.  Ps  Go  title).— 2  Es. 
need  not  be  discussed  here,  as  it  is  entirely  post- 
Christian.  For  the  pseudepigrapliic  literature  the 
reader  has  already  been  referred  to  EsCH.VTOI.oaY. 
ii.  Effect  of  tiik  Teaching  and  Kksuuhec- 
TioN  of.Iksus  on  TitK  E.xi'kctation  of  KliSUU- 
RECTION  IN  Israel.— In  the  lir.st  place  there  may 
be  room  for  doubt  as  to  the  precise  character  of 
this  expectation.  May  2  Mac.  be  taken  as  the 
expression  of  it?  Was  it  regarded  as  a  return  to 
life  under  previous  physical  conditions  in  order  to 
partake  in  a  Mes,sianic  kingdom  upon  the  present 
earth  subjugated  and  renewed  ?  ft  is  to  this  that 
a  survey  of  OT  propheiry  seems  to  lead,  and  it  is 
this  which  seems  to  be  in  the  minds  of  the  apostles 
so  far  as  we  can  judge  by  their  utterances  in  the 
Gospels.  It  has  indeed  been  shown  by  Charles 
{Eer/uilolof/t/,  Jowett  Lect  p.  238)  that  such  a 
view  is  more  properly  characteristic  of  the  2nd 
cent.  n.c.  than  of  the  1st.  The  portions  of  Eth. 
Enoch  which  belong  to  the  Ist  cent.  D.c.  declare 
that  the  Messianic  kingdom  is  of  only  temporary 
duration,  and  that  the  goal  of  the  risen  righteous 
is  not  this  transitory  kingdom,  but  heaven  itself 
{op.  cit.  p.  201  ir.).  Yet  the  literature  of  a  period 
is  not  deci.sive  as  to  popular  belief,  and  the  ex- 
pectation of  the  kingdom  of  God  in  the  Gospels 

*  Teii'hmuiD  {Die  Paulinixfim  Vortlrllimnen  von  Auferaleh- 
uwi  niut  (Irrichrt  endeuvoura  to  Bhow  llmt  in  2  Co  6  SL  Paul 
hiw  »l)ni  lonM  hia  early  Judaic  belief  In  a  littrnl  rcmirrectlon, 
under  the  inHuenc«  ol  Hellenic  thoiiKht,  nn'l  eRpciinlly  ol  the 
Ilooli  ol  Wi«doin,  cf.  on.  See  pp.  11-76  for  the  whole  ar^'UMl^nt, 
which.  Ibouyb  Iniceiiioualy  worked  out,  la  nevertheleBB  uncon- 
vincing. 


appears  to  be  more  in  harmony  with  the  earliei 
eschatology.  Even  if  '  the  doctrine  of  the  resur 
rectiou  current  among  the  cultured  Pharisees  in 
the  century  preceding  the  Christian  era  was  of  a 
truly  spiritual  nature,'  it  had  not  laid  hold  of  the 
mass  of  the  peojile.  The  character  of  the  resur- 
rection belief  to  be  gathered  from  the  Mishna  (for 
which  see  Weber,  Jnd.  Theol."  jip.  3ti9,  370)  is  prob- 
ably better  evidence  of  Jewish  pojiular  opinion 
in  the  time  of  Christ  than  any  portion  ol  Kth. 
Enoch,  though  it  seems  too  much  to  say  with 
Weber,  that  Enoch  cannot  in  any  ca.se  serve  as 
authority  for  the  exhibition  of  Jewish  theology 
(op.  cit.  p.  .\v).  Assuijiing,  then,  that  the  popular 
conception  of  resurrection  was  return  to  life  under 
previous   physical  conditions  in   order  to  partici- 

Eate  in  a  Alessianic  kingdom,  we  have  to  observe 
ow  this  would  be  attected  by  the  teaching  and 
resurrection  of  Jesus. 

A.  TkacuiNO  of  JE.<! vs.  — In  the  Synoptics 
the  resurrection  is  taken  for  granted.  There 
the  discourses  of  Jesus  seldom  if  ever  communi- 
cate doctrine.  Doctrine  is  presupposed.  The  dis- 
courses are  practical,  and  it  is  in  connexion  with 
conduct,  and  judgment  upon  conduct,  that  the 
resurrection  comes  before  us.  However,  a  new 
view  of  life  and  death  is  implied  in  Mt  9'^  'the 
damsel  is  not  dead,  but  sleepeth,'  and  to  enforce 
this  teaching^  may  have  been  in  part  the  object  of 
the  three  miracles  of  raising  the  dead.  There  is 
another  more  important  exception  to  the  absence 
of  direct  teaching,  the  answer  to  the  Sadduceea 
(Mt  22'^-»2,  Mk  12'8-27,  Lk  20"-^«),  which  was  evi- 
dently felt  by  those  who  recorded  it  to  be  of  the 
highest  importance.  As  an  answer  to  the  diliiculty 
raised  by  tlie  Sadducees,  the  words  of  the  Lord  are 
ia  a  mea.sure  coiiliriuatoi-y  of  Kth.  Enoch  51* 
{'they,  i.e.  the  righteous,  will  all  become  angels  in 
beaven  ').  But  the  Lord  goes  on  to  attack  the 
position  of  His  ad < er.saries,  and  !•  prove,  not 
indeed  that  there  will  be  a  resurrection,  but  that 
the  conditions  of  it  exist.  The  souls  of  the 
patriarchs  are  still  tinly  alive,  because  acknow- 
ledged by  God  Himself  (Kx  3")  to  be  in  relation 
to  Him;  cf.  Lk  !"■  «>■  ".  Their  resurrection  in 
the  body  is  indeed  a  further  step,  but  follo^^s 
inevitably  from  the  love  of  God  (see  Swete  on  Mk 
12^*).  Tlie  narrative  of  Luke  extends  the  thought 
of  tills  relation  of  man  to  God  from  the  souls  of  the 
patriarchs  to  all  men,  and  to  this  striking  utter- 
ance St.  Paul  probably  refers  in  Ko  14'*. — In  the 
Fourth  Gospel  tlie  treatment  of  the  doctrine  of 
resurrection  is  dillerent.  There  it  forms  part  of 
Chri.st's  doctrinal  s\  stem,  both  as  to  the  spiritual 
revival  which  is  its  necessary  condition  (Jn  5-'^' ^), 
and  as  to  His  own  share  in  ellecting  it  (5^- '^ 
6™-  *"•  ■"■ ").  In  this  latter  particular  we  may  com- 
pare the  expectation  of  Lth.  Enoch,  whiiHi  had 
connected  the  resurrection  with  the  coining  of  the 
Son  of  Man  (Eth.  Enoch  51' 6I»).  This  claim  of 
Christ  is  concentrated  in  the  words,  '  I  am  the 
resurrection  and  the  life,'  Jn  11^.  In  Martha's 
words  and  Christ's  reply  the  old  and  the  new 
doctrines  meet,  and  the  old  is  taken  up  and  trans- 
formed into  the  new,  losing  nothing  and  gaining 
much.  A  serious  diHiculty,  however,  arises  on 
this  teaching.  If  resurrection  is  presented  (.In  6'") 
as  the  necessary  ultimate  result  of  believing  on 
the  Son  of  God,  the  resurrection  of  unbelievers 
must,  it  is  evident,  stand  on  some  other  footing. 
To  deny  it  altogether  would  be  to  fall  into  the 
fallacy  of  arguing  from  denial  of  the  antecedent  to 
denial  of  the  consequent.  l!ut  it  must  clearly  be 
ditlercnt  in  character.  What  is  the  dilVerence? 
The  question  will  recur  below  in  considering  St 
Paul's  presentation  of  the  doctrine  in  Bo  8".  A 
resurrection  of  the  wicked  is  jdainly  presupposed 
in  Christ's  teaching  as  to  the  Judgment,  Mt  25''^-. 


234 


EESURRECTION 


EESUERECTION 


It  IS,  moreover,  distinctly  affirmed  in  Jn  6^-  ™. 
The  excision  of  these  verses  as  proposed  by  some 
critics  (Charles,  Eschatology,  p.  371)  is  an  arbitrarj' 
method  of  getting  rid  of  the  diiiiculty.  The  solu- 
tion seems  to  lie  in  the  doctrine  of  two  resurrec- 
tions diflerent  in  nature  if  not  in  date,  which  is 
implied  in  Lk  14'''  20*°,  where  see  Plummer's  notes 
(InUrnat.  Crit.  Comm.  on  Luke).  The  causation, 
so  to  speak,  of  the  resurrection  of  the  righteous 
from  the  dead  (^  (k  veicpuiv  dvdaraais)  will  be  dif- 
ferent from  that  of  the  rising  of  the  wicked, 
tliough  in  both  cases  it  proceeds  from  Christ  as  its 
author. 
B.  EEsaiiRECTioy  OF  Jesus,  and  its  Effect 

oy  TUB  DoCTniiVE  OF  EESUJUiECTIOy.—Oi  greater 
moment  than  any  result  of  verbal  teaching  was 
tlie  change  in  the  doctrine  produced  by  the  resur- 
rection of  .Jesus.  The  .Jewish  expectation,  if  it 
has  been  rightly  estimated  above  (i.  A.),  would 
have  been  fulUUed  by  a  return  to  life  such  as  that 
of  Lazarus,  with  a  body  subject  to  all  its  previous 
conditions.  This  and  the  two  preceding  raisings 
from  the  dead  had  appeared  to  conhrm  the  popular 
view.  And  the  Lord  Himself  had  accommodated 
His  teaching  to  the  same  expectation  in  Mt  18', 
though,  as  we  have  seen.  He  had  incidentally 
rebuked  it  in  Lk  20"'^  But  when  He  had  risen, 
it  was  clear  that  the  body  with  which  He  had 
risen  was  in  some  ways  released  from  previous 
material  conditions.  He  could  pass  through  a 
closed  sepulchre  (implied  by  Mt  28'-),  and  closed 
doors  (Jn  20-^),  and  be  present  at  no  great  interval 
in  dilierent  and  distant  places  (cf.  Lk  24''  and  24^''). 
It  ^^■as  the  same  and  yet  Avith  a  certain  difference 
which  was  enough  in  some  cases  to  delay  or  hinder 
recognition  (Mk  l6'^  Jn  201-'  21^).  _  As  against 
this  alteration  in  the  character  of  His  risen  body, 
it  might  be  urged  that  He  asked  for  and  received 
food  (Lk  24-'"f-,  Ac  10-").  But  in  these  cases  the 
purpose  of  the  moment  was  to  convince  the  dis- 
ciples that  what  they  saw  was  not  a  phantom  ;  cf. 
Mt  14-°.  Tliis,  with  a  view  to  the  persons  dealt 
with,  could  best  be  done  bj-  taking  food.  If  there 
be  resurrection  of  the  body,  there  is  no  reason  why 
such  a  body  should  not  have  the  power  of  taking 
food  without  depending  on  it.  Once  cross  the 
boundary  of  the  i>resent  sphere  of  existence,  and 
we  are  in  a  realm  where  we  can  no  longer  say  '  this 
is  imiiossible.'  Indeed  it  was  the  reality  and 
identitj'  of  His  risen  body  which  the  Lord  had 
to  insist  on  ;  the  difference  was  evident,  and  spoke 
for  itself.  To  sura  up,  the  effects  of  His  resur- 
rection were  these — (1)  It  assured  men  of  what 
tUl  then  h.ad  been  a  hope  imperfectly  supported 
by  Scripture  warrant,  and  therefore  contested  by 
an  influential  school  of  thought  (the  Sadducees). 
(2)  It  raised  and  enlarged  that  hope;  cf.  1  P  1'. 
Whatever  influence  the  lofty  predictions  of  Eth. 
Enoch  (Siinilitudes)  may  have  had  among  the 
studious  and  learned,  it  is  probable  that  the  people 
generally  had  interpreted  resurrection  as  a  renewal 
of  this  present  life  under  its  previous  conditions. 
Clirist's  resurrection  showed  that  it  meant  entry 
into  an  entirely  new  phase  of  existence.  (3)  It 
broiight  the  doctrine  of  resurrection  from  the 
background  of  religious  thought  to  the  very  front. 
The  gospel  of  Jesus  Christ  demanded  acceptance 
on  the  ground  of  His  resurrection.  It  was  that 
which  declared  (opl^eiv)  Him  to  be  the  Son  of  God 
(Ko  I''),  and  set  the  final  seal  of  Divine  .acceptance 
on  His  teaching  and  life  ;  and,  as  was  afterwards 
realized,  on  the  sacrifice  of  His  death.  The  gospel 
which  the  apostles  preached  was  the  gospel  of  the 
resurrection  (cf.  Ac  4^),  though  this  combination 
of  words  does  not  actually  occur.  Confession  of 
Jesus  as  Lord,  and  belief  in  His  resurrection,  are 
the  oiilv  things  necessary  for  salvation,  Uo  10". 
iii   I'he  Place  theu\aftee  assig.\ed  to  the 


Doctrine  of  the  REstmEECTioN  or  the  Dead 
IN  Apostolic  Teaching. — To  this  the  preceding 
remarks  naturally  lead  us  on.  In  two  respects  the 
doctrine  presented  itself  to  men  of  the  apostolic 
age  dili'erently  from  the  way  in  wliich  we  regard  it. 
(i)  To  the  apostles  the  expectation  of  tlie  Second 
Coming  in  their  own  lifetime,  arising  from  such 
sayings  as  Mt  24^^,  superseded  in  some  measure  the 
expectation  of  resurrection  for  themselves  and  for 
those  whom  they  addressed,  vet  the  strong  Saddii- 
cean  opposition  to  the  gospel  is  expressly  attributed 
to  the  apostles'  teaching  as  to  the  resurrection 
(Ac  4-).  (2)  On  the  other  hand,  the  sense  of  the 
new  life  imparted  to  them  by  the  words  of  Christ 
and  the  gift  of  the  Spirit,  with  the  example  before 
them  in  the  Person  of  Christ  of  how  this  life  could 
triumph  over  death,  made  the  resurrection  in  its 
aspect  of  quickening  (^wo-KoutaBai.)  an  already  pres- 
ent fact.  They  were  already  risen  with  Christ, 
death  was  brought  to  nought  (2Ti  1'"),  and  the 
subject  of  their  preaching  was  'this  life'  (t)  fwij 
oCti),  Ac  5-").  But  for  later  ages  of  the  Church 
the  literal  resurrection  has  appeared  to  be  the 
important  thought,  and  the  mjstical  resurrection 
has  lost  the  fieshness  which  it  had  when  grown 
men  entered  by  baptism  into  the  new  life,  from 
the  bondage  of  Judaism  or  the  superstition  and 
vice  of  heathenism  (Ko  6^-  ").  But  the  question  as 
to  apostolic  teaching  is  really  not  a  general  one, 
but  special,  and  to  be  answered  almost  entirely 
from  the  Pauline  Epistles.  The  Catholic  Epistles 
and  Hebrews  contribute  very  little.  It  is  when  St. 
Paul  turns  to  the  Gentiles  that  the  doctiine  of 
the  resurrection  assumes  a  fresh  prominence.  It 
is  not  merely,  as  in  Judsea,  that  ^ritness  must  be 
given  that  .Jesus  is  risen,  to  men  who  expect  already 
resurrection  for  themselves  ;  but  the  idea  of  resur- 
rection is  here  a  new  one,  and  there  is  no  previous 
belief  in  which  the  resurrection  of  the  Lord  can 
find  its  place.  Popular  Hellenic  thought  on  the 
subject  was  vague,  and  apparently  but  little  in- 
fluenced by  the  doctrine  of  retribution  taught  in 
the  mj'steries  (Salmond,  Chr.  Duct.  Immortalitti, 
p.  135  note).  Philosophic  thought  was  simply 
concerned  with  the  possible  immortality  of  the 
soul,  and  uniformly  discarded  the  prospect  of  a 
renewed  existence  in  the  body  except  by  way  of 
transmigration,  a  totally  different  conception  from 
that  of  resurrection.  In  his  discourse  at  Athens, 
St.  Paul  carried  the  Stoics  with  him  throughout, 
untU  he  came  to  the  words  '  in  that  he  raised  him 
from  the  dead,'  Ac  17^'.  Then  some  mocked,  and 
Paul  departed  from  among  them.  Hence  in  both 
his  Epistles  to  the  most  distinctly  Greek  of  the 
Churches  which  he  addresses  (Corinth),  St.  Paul 
enters  fully  on  the  question  of  resurrection.  It 
was  apparently  at  Corinth,  first  of  all,  that  the 
mystical  sense  of  resurrection,  described  above, 
usurped  the  place  of  the  literal  sense.  It  is  to  St. 
Paul  that  we  owe  the  clear  presentation  of  both 
the  literal  and  the  mystical  views  of  resurrection 
as  truly  compatible.  As  examples  of  the  mystical 
sense,  besides  Ko  G*-  °  (already  referred  to),  we  have 
Col  2"  3',  Eph  2''-.  The  last-named  jiassage  carries 
the  mystical  union  with  Christ  bej'ond  His  resur- 
rection to  His  ascension.  And  it  is  in  reference  to 
the  mystical  resurrection  that  we  are  to  understand 
the  baptismal  hvmn,  '  Awake  thou  that  sleepcst, 
and  arise  from  the  dead,  and  Christ  shall  sliine 
upon  thee,'  Eph  G".  It  is  easy  to  see  how  such 
language,  if  it  stood  alone  and  without  its  com- 
plement, might  give  occasion  to  the  teaching  of 
Hj-menoeus  and  Philetus  that  the  resurrection  w.as 
past  already,  2Ti  2'".  It  was  tliercfore  absolutely 
necessary  for  St.  Paul  to  emphasize  also  the  liter.'il 
sense  of  the  doctrine,  which  he  does  in  1  Th  4'*, 
2  Co  5,  Ph  3-',  but  especially  in  1  Co  15'-"".  In  th« 
latter  passage  he  first  shows  that  faith  in  the  re- 


RESURRECTION 


RESURRECTION 


235 


•nrrection  of  the  dead  is  vital  to  the  gospel,  because 
the  resurrection  of  Christ  is  vital  to  it,  and  that 
cannot  be  maintained  if  the  resurrection  of  those 
■who  are  in  Christ  is  denied.  Then  he  meets  the 
difficulties  which  Greek  thought,  more  subtle  and 
critical  than  Je^vish,  felt  so  strongly — '  How  are 
the  dead  raised,  and  with  what  manner  of  body  do 
they  come?' 

In  further  examination  of  the  Pauline  doctrine, 
three  questions  will  present  themselves,  which 
must  be  dealt  with  successively — (1)  In  what  re- 
spects, if  at  all,  does  the  teaching  of  St.  Paul  on 
tlie  subject  go  beyond  the  teaching  of  Christ? 
(2)  Is  his  teaching  consistent  with  itself  ?  (3)  Does 
it  include  a  doctrine  of  two  resurrections  I 

(1)  The  principal  thought  which  we  owe  to  1  Co 
15  is  that  of  a  spiritual  (irvtu/iariKii')  as  distin- 
guished from  a  natural  {tpvxiKiu)  body,  namely,  a 
body  wliifh  is  adapted  to  be  the  organ  of  a  per- 
Bonalitj-  in  which  it  is  no  longer  the  soul  ii/vx^) 
but  the  spirit  {TrveO^ui),  which  is  supreme.  This  is 
in  full  correspondence  with  the  account  given  in 
the  Gospels  of  the  risen  Christ,  but  needed  to  be 
detinitely  stated  (cf.  1  P  3"  KV).  The  analogies 
by  which  the  possibility  of  such  a  body  is  indicated 
(vv.""")  are  to  be  regarded  as  (a)  popular  illustra- 
tions, (6)  examples  of  the  inexhaustible  resources 
of  God,  and  are  not  adduced  aa  arjjuments.  The 
crux  of  the  doctrine  is,  '  What  continuity  is  there 
between  the  natural  body  resigned  at  death,  and  the 
spiritual  body  received  at  the  resurrection  ? '  For 
tliis,  another  analogy  is  brought  forward — that  of 
the  seed  and  the  Avheat  plant ;  and  here  again  we 
have  an  illustration  which  must  not  be  pressed  too 
closely.  It  does  not  iini)ly  that  the  writer  believed 
that  there  really  is  as  it  were  a  seed  in  the  dead 
body  out  of  which  the  new  body  will  be  developed 
(cf.  Weber,  Jiirl.  Theol.'  p.  369  ;  Hughes,  Diet. 
Islam,  art.  '  Resurrection  ).  Nor  do  St.  Paul's 
words  necessarily  imply  that  view  of  the  doctrine 
V.  iiich  iTom  the  Apologists  onwards  was  general  in 
the  Catholic  Chuicli,  namely,  that  the  matter  which 
constituted  the  former  body  at  the  time  of  de.ath 
will  be  collected,  and  that  the  former  body  will 
thus  be  reproduced  in  all  its  members.  The 
passage  lends  itself  quite  as  readily  to  Origen's 
suggestion  of  a  '  ratio  quaj  salva  est '  (Or.  de 
Frimipiis,  11.  x.  3)  ;  see  Westcott,  Gospel  of  Ee- 
surreitiun,  ii.  §  7.  In  considering  the  dilliculties 
attending  the  idea  of  the  preservation  of  identity 
in  the  body,  it  must  not  be  forgotten  that  difficulties 
also  attend  the  conception  of  a  continuous  identity 
of  the  soul. 

(2)  Is  St.  Paiil's  tearhitu;  consistent  with  itself  f — 
It  is  urged  by  Teichniann  (on.  cit.)  that  St.  Paul's 
view  in  1  Thess.  is  purely  .Judaic  {echl  Judisclie). 
It  is  true  that  he  says  nothing  in  1  Thess.  of  the 
'  change '  which  is  so  prominent  in  the  teaching  of 
1  Co  15,  but  this  is  no  proof  that  it  did  not  then  form 
p.irt  of  his  expectation.  1  Co  15  is  described  b3'  the 
same  writer  as  'a  compromise';  and  strongly  con- 
trasted with  2  Co  5,  a  contra.st  which  must  now  be 
examined,  (a)  In  2  Co  5-  the  resurrection  body  is 
described  as  '  our  habitation  which  is  from  heaven,' 
an  expression  which  is  not  strictly  consistent  with 
the  resurrection  or  retention  of  the  former  body  as 
in  I  Co  15.  But  the  inconsistency  is  no  more  than 
is  allowable  in  speaking  of  a  really  indescribable 
event.  The  notion  of  a  previously  prepared  body 
brought  to  the  soul  to  be  animated  by  it  surely 
could  not  have  definitely  presented  itself  to  the 
apostle's  mind  without  being  at  once  discarded. 
And  it  is  further  to  be  observed  that  vv.'-^  have 
verbal  coincidences  with  Mk  14",  wliich,  althou"h 
a  partly  inaccurate  statement  of  Christ's  words, 
may  very  well  have  been  known  to  St.  Paul  and 
have  inlfuenced  his  choice  of  expressions,  {h)  2  Co 
fi'  hts  been  heii  to  imply  that  St.  Paul  expected 


the  resurrection  body  immediately  upon  his  death. 
But  this  is  not  proved  by  his  use  of  the  present 
tense  {Ixofiev),  which  only  expresses  the  certainty 
of  his  hope.  Nor  is  it  proved  by  ^di-  (taraXufls,  for 
iir  need  not  here,  as  in  some  cases,  be  rendered 
'  whenever,'  but  may  retain  its  strictlj'  conditional 
force,  and  so  express  the  doubt  which  St.  Paul  still 
felt  as  to  whether  his  '  earthly  house '  will  really 
be  dissolved  by  death,  or  be  changed  at  the  Lord  a 
coming  without  dissolution.  Nor,  again,  does  his 
expectation  of  being  with  the  Lord  as  soon  as  he 
leaves  the  body  (5'')  imply  that  his  resurrection 
would  then  take  place  (if  indeed  the  term  'resur- 
rection '  be  applicable  to  such  a  view,  which  is 
hardly  the  case),  for,  in  another  Epistle  in  which 
he  expresses  the  same  expectation  of  being  im- 
mediately with  Christ  in  case  of  death  (Ph  1^),  he 
makes  it  perfectly  clear  that  the  change  of  the 
body  of  bumiliation  into  the  body  of  glory  does  not 
occur  unlU  the  Second  Coming  (Ph  3-"'-).  It  may  be 
repliei  that  the  change  described  in  Ph  3-°'-  refers 
only  to  those  who  shall  be  alive  at  the  Coming, 
amon^  whom  St.  Paul  has  again  begun  to  include 
himself  (cf.  I'h  l'-").  But  this  can  hardly  be  pressed 
in  face  of  his  delinite  expectation  for  liimself  of 
resurrection  from  the  dead  in  Pli  3".  We  therefore 
conclude  that  he  expects  to  be  with  the  Lord  before 
the  Parousia  in  a  disembodied  state.  Teichmann's 
arguments  are  largely  based  on  a  detached  note 
on  2  Co  5  in  Schmiedel's  Hand-Commentar,  pp. 
200-202,  and  on  Schmiedel's  exegesis  generally. 
It  should  be  added  as  a  supplementary  considera- 
tion that  tlie  supposed  abandonment  by  St.  Paul 
of  belief  in  an  intermediate  state  would  present  a 
serious  difficulty  in  view  of  the  miracles  of  raising 
the  dead  recorded  in  NT.  It  is  surely  inconceiv- 
able that  a  soul  already  invested  with  a  glorified 
body  should  be  recalled  to  exchange  it  for  an 
earthly  one. 

(3)  r/te  two  resurrections.  —  We  have  already 
seen  under  OT  that  this  expectation  belongs  to 
the  earlier  stages  of  the  doctrine.  First  came  the 
hope  of  resurrection  for  righteous  Israelites,  and  it 
was  only  by  degrees  that  the  expectation  was 
extended  to  wicked  Israelites,  and  afterwards  to 
the  Gentiles.  In  Lk  14'''  we  have  perhaps  some 
sanction  given  to  a  distinction  between  the  resur- 
rection of  the  righteous  and  tliat  of  the  wicked, 
and  in  Lk  20^'  tliey  that  are  accounted  wortliy  to 
attain  that  world  and  the  '  resurrection  from  the 
dead'  are  spoken  of  as  (all  of  them)  '.sons  of  God.' 
The  conclusion  to  be  drawn  is,  not  that  Christ 
taught  that  only  the  righteous  will  be  raised,  but 
that  their  resurrection  is  to  be  thought  of  aa 
separate  from  tliat  of  the  wicked.  This  distinction 
seems  to  be  confirmed  by  Jn  5'-",  and  to  be  followed 
by  St.  Paul  in  Ac  24^^  With  this  clue  we  can 
scarcely  fail  to  see  the  same  thought  in  1  Th  4", 
where  the  resurrection  of  the  dead  in  Christ  is 
spoken  of  quite  without  reference  to  any  general 
resurrection,  though  this  must  not  be  inferred 
from  the  word  '  fust.'  This  word  is  correlative  to 
'then'  (fTTfiTo),  which  introduces  as  the  second 
event  the  '  rapture  '  of  the  living.  Again,  in  1  Co 
IS^-  "  there  seems  to  be  a  distinction  between  the 
phrases  'they  that  are  Christ's'  and  'the  end,' 
which  latter  expression  may  cover  the  general 
resurrection  and  the  judgment.  Lightfoot  (on 
Ph  3")  distinguishes  firmly  between  i)  i^avaarairit 
i)  iK  KKpu}!),  dcdaracris  iK  v(KpCiv  on  the  one  side,  and 
7)  dvdcTTocris  tC)v  ftKoHv  on  the  other  ;  the  former  two 
phrases  being  equivalent  to  avairraffis  fwi)!,  and  the 
latter  phrase  to  drdaToffii  Kpl<rews,  Jn  a-'".  And 
indeed  it  would  he  hard  to  explain  St.  Paul's  words, 
Ph  3"  '  if  bj'  any  means  I  may  attain,'  if  we 
suj^iiose  that  what  he  desired  to  attain  to  was 
merely  that  resurrection  which  is  certain  for  all. 
The  only  other  explanation  of  such  an  ospiratiu'i 


236 


RESURRECTION 


REU 


is  that  he  had  "iven  up  belief  in  a  resurrection  of 
the  wicked.  On  the  whole,  it  appears  that  there 
must  be  some  distinctive  character  in  tlie  resurrec- 
tion to  life,  both  as  to  causation  and  nature,  which 
lias  not  yet  been  brought  out  adequately  in 
theolof;y.  Thus  we  are  led  to  return  to  the 
dilUcuity  stated  above  (ii.  A)  aa  arising  from  the 
teaching  of  the  Lord  in  Jn  5  and  6.  Christ's 
promise  to  raise  His  hearers  in  the  last  day  is 
conditioned  by  belief  on  the  Son  (Jn  6*"),  and  their 
resurrection  is  represented  as  an  act  of  grace 
extended  to  them  by  Christ  (Jn  5-'  6""),  although 
it  is  also  said  that  '  all  who  are  in  the  tombs  shall 
hear  his  voice  and  shall  come  forth'  (5^").  Now 
St.  Paul's  teaching  distinctly  follows  the  same 
line:  'lie  that  raised  up  Christ  Jesus  from  the 
dead  shall  quicken  also  your  mortal  bodies  through 
(or  because  of)  his  Spirit  which  dwelleth  in  you' 
(llo  8"),  which  limits  this  Divine  operation  to  those 
in  whom  the  Holy  Spirit  dwells.  1  Co  l.')-"-""  is  a 
fuller  statement  of  the  same  thought.  The  bod}' 
there  spoken  of  is  spiritual,  i.e.  a  lit  organ  for  the 
spirit,  a  description  which  cannot  refer  to  any  but 
the  saved.  1  Co  15--  has  been  quoted  on  the  other 
side  as  proving  that  all  (both  rigliteous  and  wicked) 
shall  be  made  alive  in  Christ.  But  'all'  probably 
means  all  who  are  already  in  relation  to  Christ  as 
believers.  See  Meyer,  Kommentar^,  ed.  Heinrici, 
on  the  verse.  It  must  be  acknowledged  that  the 
line  of  teaching  in  the  above  passages  makes 
strongly  at  first  sight  for  a  resurrection  of  the 
righteous  only,  and,  in  short,  for  the  doctrine  of 
conditional  immortality.  But  inasmuch  as  this 
view  can  be  carried  through  only  by  dint  of  very 
rough  dealing  with  the  te.xt  of  t\ie  NT  in  several 
passages,  e.g.  Jn  5^,  it  may  be  concluded  that  while 
'life'  (Jn  6^°)  and  its  equivalent,  the  indwelling 
Spirit  (Ro  8"),  are  both  the  cause  and  the  earnest 
of  resurrection  for  believers,  they  are  nevertheless 
not  indispens.able  to  such  a  resurrection  as  is 
involved  in  the  presentation  of  the  rest  of  man- 
kind in  an  embodied  state  before  their  Jud<je. 

(4)  From  the  doctrine  of  two  resurrections,  in 
whatever  form  it  be  accepted,  arises  the  ques- 
tion. Will  there  be  an  interval  between  them,  and 
if  so  wliat  occurs  in  it  ?  1  Co  15-^"-*,  arguing  from 
Ps  110',  seems  to  imply  that  there  is  an  interval 
during  which  Christ  subdues  all  His  enemies.  A 
much  more  definite  statement  occurs  in  Rev  20'''', 
where  the  interval  is  a  thousand  years — '  the  rest 
of  the  dead  lived  not  till  the  thousand  years  should 
be  finished.'  In  this  passage  the  first  resurrection 
is  placed  at  the  beginning  of  the  millennium,  and 
at  the  end  of  it  follows  not  a  second  resurrection 
but  the  '  second  death.'  It  is  beyond  the  scope  of 
this  article  to  show  that  in  the  first  three  centuries 
belief  in  a  millennial  reign  of  Clirist  on  earth  was 
generally  accepted  in  the  Church.  Seeesp.  Justin, 
Dial.  Ixxx.  I ;  Iren.  v.  33  fl'.  The  interpretation 
given  by  Aujjustine  *  to  Uev  20'  is  that  the  tirst 
resurrection  is  the  spiritual  awakening  which 
began  to  work  in  mankind  after  the  coming  of 
(Christ,  i.e.  the  resurrection  in  its  mystical  aspect ; 
and  that  the  millennium  of  Rev  20  is  the  period 
from  that  awakening  onwards.  He  supports  this 
explanation  of  the  reign  of  the  saints  by  the  con- 
stant u.se  in  NT  of  '  Icinijdom '  as  equivalent  to 
the  Church  militant.  Tins  is  hardly  satisfactory 
as  an  exposition  of  the  passage  in  question.  It  is 
rather  an  exposition  of  passages  in  the  Prophets 
and  the  sayings  of  Christ  which  underlie  Rev  20  ; 
and  as  sucli  it  has  real  value.     The  history  of  the 

•  '  I>e  hoc  ergo  repno  militilB,  In  quo  adhuo  cum  hoste  con* 
fligitur,  et  aliquando  repu^jnatur  pupnantibue  vitiis,  aliquando 
et  cedentiltus  uiiperatur,  donee  veniatur  ad  ilium  pacatissimum 
regnum,  ubi  sine  hoste  ret'iiiibirur ;  et  de  hac  pntna  remirrec- 
tWTU  qum  ninic  «*(,  liber  iste  (w.  Apoc.)  sic  loquitur.*— Aug. 
de  Civ.  Dei,  xx.  9 ;  And  see  also  vl.-x.,  which  are  full  of  ioterest 
throughout. 


Church  has  been  a  history  of  the  subjugation  of 
the  world  to  Christ,  slow  but  progressive.  Such 
a  view,  however,  if  adopted  in  reference  to  Rev  20, 
would  contradict  the  identification  of  '  the  first 
resurrection  '  with  '  the  resurrection  of  the  just,' 
which  must,  so  far  as  we  can  see,  be  taken  in 
other  passages  to  mean  a  literal  resurrection.  The 
interpretation  of  Rev  20  is  beset  with  difficulties 
and  contradictions,  which  are  well  stated  by 
Milligan,  Lectures  on  Apoc,  Lect.  vi.  The  sugges- 
tion of  a  considerable  interval  of  time  between 
the  resurrection  of  the  just  and  that  of  the  unjust 
has  therefore  no  secure  basis.  The  significant 
contribution  of  the  Apocalypse  is  the  clearness 
with  which  the  resurrection  of  the  wicked  for 
judgment  appears  in  it,  which  can  hardly  be  dis- 
missed on  the  ground  that  the  book  is  ultra- 
Judaic.    See,  further,  art.  Millennium. 

There  remains  to  be  dealt  with  in  a  few  words 
what  is  probably  the  latest  book  in  the  Canon 
(1  Jn  3^).  St.  John  first  disclaims  knowledge  of 
the  nature  and  conditions  of  our  future  state,  and 
then  in  three  words,  S/iOiOi  airi^  {abixeBa  ('we  shall 
be  like  him  '),  gives  the  substance  of  the  Christian 
doctrine  of  the  resurrection  of  the  dead.  Our 
resurrection  will  be  on  the  pattern,  so  to  speak,  of 
His.  Not  only  does  His  resurrection  answer  all 
doubts  as  to  the  possibility  of  resurrection  for  us, 
but  it  also  an«:wers  sufficiently  the  questions  in 
which  those  doubts  express  themselves,  namely, 
as  to  'how'  and  'wherewith.'  In  one  respect  the 
parallel  between  His  resurrection  and  ours  appears 
to  faU.  But  a  little  reflexion  will  show  that  the 
difference  involved  in  the  reanimation  of  a  body 
not  yet  decayed,  as  was  the  case  in  His  resurrec- 
tion, and  the  clothing  of  the  soul  with  a  body 
which  has  to  be  reconstituted,  is  of  no  great 
weight,  inasmuch  as  the  change  which  passed  on 
the  Lord's  human  body  at  resurrection  must  have 
been  of  so  fundamental  a  character,  that  although 
outward  identity  was  preserved,  yet  the  natural 
body  had  given  place  to  something  wholly  ditlerent. 

The  extenuation  of  the  Christian  doctrine  of  the 
resurrection  of  the  dead  into  a  natural  or  conferred 
immortality  of  the  soul  to  avoid  perplexities 
arising  from  the  limitation  of  our  knowledge, 
evacuates  the  force  of  St.  Paul's  teaching  as  to  the 
ideal  sanctity  of  the  human  body,  e.g.  I  Co  6''',  and 
sacrifices  the  moral  value  of  a  sense  of  its  high 
destiny.  Again,  it  breaks  up  the  Pauline  con- 
ception of  man  as  body,  soul,  and  spirit,  all  capable 
of  being  preserved  entire  without  ul.ame  (1  Th  r>^). 
Even  if  Ave  hesitate  to  accept  St.  Paul's  psycho- 
logy, we  must  confess  that  the  only  self  which  we 
know  is  a  self  constituted  of  body  as  well  as  soul. 
St.  Paul's  expression  of  Christian  hope  is  not 
deliverance  from  the  body,  but  redemption  of  the 
body.  The  redemption  of  the  body  is  the  last 
stage  in  the  great  process  of  adoption  [nlodarla)  by 
which  we  are  made  '  sons  of  God  '  (Ro  8^). 

LiTERiTORK.— W.  R.  Alger,  Critical  History  o/  the  Doctrint 
of  a  Future  Life,  with  Bibliogniphy  by  Kicra  Abljott  (the  latter 
also  pub.  separately);  Schultz,  OT'  Theohigy  (Eng.  tr.),  vol.  ii. 
pp.  382-308;  Hevs'chlag,  HT  Tlienlngj/  (Eng.  tr.);  Schiirer, 
HJP  §  29,  '  Messianic  Hope ' ;  Schwally,  Dan  Leben  nach  dem 
Tode;  Teichmann,  Die  Paulinisctien  Vorstellungen  von  Au/er- 
Blehimg  und  Oericht ;  Che.\Tie,  Oripin  of  the  J'salter,  Lect.  vin, 
part  if. ;  Comuientariee  on  1  and  2  Co,  especially  Meyer** 
Kommentar,  ed.  Heinrici,  Schniiedel's  lland.Cfnnmeiitar,  and 
Kldpper's  Sectmd  Corinthians ;  articles  in  Ilerzog,  PJiK^,  by 
Kiibel,  and  in  Ilauck,  PRE^,  by  Schacder ;  articles  on  Ksciiat- 
0IX)QY  in  pre-tient  work ;  Westcotl,  The  Gospel  o/the  Resiirr.rtion ; 
Sir  O.  (1.  Stokes,  Immortality  of  the  Siml  (a  short  panijihlet). 
By  far  the  most  important  modern  works  are  Saliii<iiid'sC7(rf;v/ian 
Doctrine  of  Immortality ;  and.  on  different  lines.  Charles'  Kscliat. 
olofjy,  Hebrew,  Jewish,  and  Christian,  with  which  should  be  read 
the  same  author's  Book  of  Enoch,  See  also  Thackeray's  Helation 
of  St.  Paul  to  CoiUemp.  Jewish  Thought,  ch.  v.  (published  after 
the  foregoing  art.  was  in  type).  I'\iller  accounts  of  the  literatur* 
will  be  found  at  the  end  of  the  three  articles  on  Esch.itotx)OT. 

E.  R.  Bernard. 
REU  (in ;  LXX  and  NT  'P0701;,  hence  AV  in  Lk 


REUBEN 


REUBEN,  REUBENITES 


237 


3»  Ragnu).-The  son  of  Pelog,  Gn  H"-",  1  Ch  1", 
Lk  3".  The  ethnolo},'ical  signification  of  the  name 
Is  uncertain.  Von  Bohlen  has  even  suggested  its 
Ulentitj-  with  Rhnges  in  Media;  Ewald  (Hist.  i. 
268,  Eng.  tr.)  conjectures  ylrj'Aajiffl  at  the  sources 
of  the  Tigris ;  some  think  of  Rughwa  in  the 
Shammar  mountains  in  Arabia  (see  Sprenger,  Geog. 
Arab.  •2'i'i,  294),  others  of  the  Araraiean  Eu'ua  in 
S.  Babj'louia,  often  mentioned  in  the  Assyrian  in- 
scriptions from  the  time  of  Tiglath-pileser  II. 
onwards  (see  Dclitzsch,  Pararftcs,  238  If.  ;  Schrader, 
KAT'  117  [COT  i.  102]).  Mez  (Gesch.  der  Stadt 
^nrrCin,  23)  makes  Reu  the  name  of  a  god  ;  but  see 
l)illm.  Genesis,  ad  loc.  J.  A.  Selbik. 

REUBEN  (I31K-!;  LXX  •Po«;3>';^  [E  in  Gn  30" 
■PoupitMj  ;  but  Jos.  Ant.  I.  xix.  7,  etc.  'Pou^ijXos,  Syr. 
[Lee]  \\  .  ^ni  Rtibil,  and  similarly  [so  Dilhnann 

on  Gn  2SF-]  in  Arab,  and  Eth.  Versions  and  some  Gr. 
MSS  'Pou;3i.\,  'Poi/jSTjX). — The  etymology  is  auite  un- 
certain ;  MT  spelling  makes  the  nanie  =  '  Behold  a 
son.'  Gn  29^,  playing  upon  the  form  of  the  word, 
finds  in  it  a  suggestion  of  '  He  hath  looked  upon 
my  distress '  (nVa  ly'onyt),  and  possibly  also  of  '  He 
will  love  me'  (ye'ihdbhini).  Josephus  (^c.)  states 
that  the  word  meant,  '  It  had  liappened  to  her 
according  to  the  compassion  of  God,'  i.e.  Kl. 
None  of  these  derivations  are  probable.  Baethgen 
(BeitrdQe,  p.  159)  prefers  t)ie  reading  Reuben,  and 
Bees  in  it  a  strengthened  form  of  the  Arabic  proper 
name  Ru'bn,  found  in  an  African  inseriplion  as 
the  name  (in  the  form  linbnti.';)  of  a  Palinyiene. 
If  Reiihel  is  read,  he  would  explain  it  as  re'u-bel  or 
re'u-b-el,  '  seen  by  [cared  for  by]  Bel  or  El,'  and 
not,  as  some  have  taken  it  (with  Gad  and  Asher), 
as  the  name  of  a  cod.  Dillmann  (on  Gn  29^'-) 
prefers  the  reading  lieubel,  and  connects  it  with 
Arab,  ri'bdl.  'wolf;  Ball  (on  Gn  29»2,  SBOT) 
suggests  a  connexion  with  the  Egyptian  ra-uhnn, 
but  prefers  to  derive  from  Arab,  ra'-ub,  '  a  chief 
who  mends  matters,  a  big,  portly  chief,'  from 
rn'lin,  '  to  mend.'  The  form  '?n-3t  occurs  as  a 
proper  name  in  Aramaic  inscriptions  (Lidzbarski, 
p.  31)7)  ;  and  it  seems  possible  that,  whichever 
reading  is  preferre<i,  the  root  3t  'great'  underlies 
the  word  (note  Reuben's  position  as  firstborn).  Cf. 
Lagarde,  Onom.  Sarrn, s.v. ;  Gray,  HPN  pp.  65, 124. 

In  .1,  Reuben  is  the  firstborn  of  Jacoo,  and  the 
son  of  I.eah,  Gn  29''' ;  he  linds  mandrakes  for  her, 
30";  and  lies  with  ISilhah,  the  slave -girl  whom 
Itachel  gave  to  .Jacob  as  a  concubine,  35^.  Per- 
haps in  the  original  narrative  of  .J  this  episode 
was  placed  after  .Jacob's  death,  and  was  a  kgiti- 
niati!  incident  of  Reuben's  succession  to  his  father 
(Addis,  but  cf.  below).  In  the  Blessing  of  Jacob 
(possibly  incorporated  by  J  in  his  work),  Gn  49''-, 
in  the  text  as  it  stands,  Reuben  is  the  firstborn, 
and  is  denounced  for  the  act  of  incest. 

In  E,  Reuben  appears  only  in  the  story  of  Joseph, 
na  making  an  unsuccessful  attempt  to  oave  him 
from  liis  other  brothers,  37-"' "*,*  and  as  offering 
his  sons  as  pledges  for  the  safety  of  Benjamin. 

In  I',  Reuben  is  Leah's  son  and  Jacob's  first- 
born, 35*»,  46'-»=R,  etc.,  1  Ch  2'.  Gn  48»  ap- 
)arently  implies  that  the  birthright  was  trans- 
eired  from  Reuben  and  Sinieim  to  Ephraim  and 
Manasseh.  This  is  expressly  stated  oi  Reuben  in 
1  Ch  5',  and  his  incest  is  given  as  the  reason. 

Reuben  is  often  regarded  as  merely  the  epo- 
nymous ancestor  of  tlie  tribe,  and  the  primitive 
traditions  as  tribal  history  cast  in  the  form  of 
personal  narrative.     See  next  article. 

W.  H.  ni:NN'r,TT. 

REUBEN  (Tribe),  REUBENITES,  CHILDREN 
OF  REUBEN,  derivatives,  etc.,  of  Reuben,  Roitbd, 

'  In  871  Reuben   hM   been  •ubitituted  tor  Judah  by  u> 

editor. 


I 


etc. — (Cf.,  throughout,  Gad  for  the  treatment  of 
matters  common  to  the  two  tribes,  which  is  not, 
as  a  rule,  repeated  here). 

i.  Early  History. — The  relation  of  Reuben  to 
the  other  tribes  is  indicated  genealogically  by  the 
statement  that  Reuben  was  tlie  firstborn,  the  son 
of  Leah,  that  he  committed  incest  with  Billiah, 
and  that  the  birthright  was  transferred  to  Ephraim 
and  Manasseh  ;  i.e.  in  early  times  Reuben  was  the 
most  powerful  tribe  and  enjoyed  the  hegemony, 
which  passed  at  a  later  period  to  Ephraim  and 
Manasseh.  The  incest  incident  is  variously  inter- 
preted. Either  the  tribe  retained  a  lax  sexual 
morality  abandoned  by  its  fellows  ;  or  it  in  some 
way  assailed  the  rights  of  the  BUhah  tribes,  Dan 
and  Naphtali.  If  the  latter  view  is  taken,  the 
reference  must  be  to  events  before  the  Exodus  ; 
otherwi.se  it  is  impossible  to  determine  whether 
these  traditions  refer  to  events  before  or  after  the 
Conquest.  In  the  narrative  of  the  rebellion  of  the 
Reubenite  chiefs  Dathan  and  Abiram  against 
Moses  (Nu  16,  JE),  we  may  have  a  reminiscence 
of  an  attempt  of  Reuben  to  assert  its  ancient 
rights  as  premier  tribe. 

As  a  'son'  of  Leah,  Reuben  is  grouped  with 
Simeon,  Levi,  Judah,  Issachar,  Zebuhui,  and  Dinah. 
This  arrangement  does  not  agree  with  any  knowii 
geographical  or  political  conditions,  and  nmy  be 
a  reminiscence  ot  the  state  of  affairs  before  the 
Exodus. 

In  P,  etc.  (Gn  46',  Ex  6",  Nu  26»,  1  Ch  5'),  the  sons 
or  clans  of  Reuben  are  Hanoch,  Pallu,  Ilezron,  and 
Carmi ;  and,  at  the  Exodus,  the  prince  of  Reuben 
is  Elizur  ben-Shedeur  (Nu  1»  2">  7**  1U'»),  and  the 
Reubenite  spy  is  Shammua  ben-Zaccur  (Nu  13*). 
Buchanan  Gray  {IIPX  p.  197)  is  inclined  to  regard 
Shaddaiur  [Shedeur]  as  one  of  a  set  of  names  which 
are  'archaic  artificial  formations,' not  improbably 
created  by  the  author  of  P,  rather  than  'names 
actually  current  at  any  period.'  He  seems  to 
favour  a  similar  view  as  to  Elizur  (p.  199).  P  also 
tells  us  that  Reuben  numbered  40,.'')00  (Nu  I"  2") 
at  the  first  census,  and  at  the  second  43,730  (Nu 
26').  Reuben  occupies  the  first  place  in  Nu  P- '" 
26',  but  the  fourth  place  in  2'»  7**  lO'^.  In  the 
order  of  marching  in  the  wilderness,  Reuben 
headed  the  'camp  of  Reuben,' which  was  on  the 
south  side,  and  also  included  Gad  and  Simeon, 
Nu  2". 

ii.  TiiR  Conquest.  —  Reuben  was  associated 
with  Gad  in  the  occupation  of  Eastern  Palestine, 
in  co-operation  with  the  other  tribes  in  the  Con- 

3uest  of  the  West,  and   in  tlie  return  across  the 
ordan,  and  the  various  incidents  connected  with 
the  erection  of  a  great  altar  (see  Gad  ii.). 

iii.  Thk  Territory  of  Rkiihen  ;  cf.  Gad  iii.. 
Map  and  Table  of  Cities. — Besides  minor  references, 
we  have  two  main  accounts  of  the  territory :  (a) 
Nu  32"-*'  (JE)  'The  Reubcnites  built  Heshbon, 
Elealeh,  Kiri.'ithaim,  Nebo,  Baal-meon  (their  names 
being  changed),  and  Sibmah  :  and  gave  other  names* 
unto  the  cities  which  they  builded.'  These  cities 
lie  in  a  district  about  midway  between  the  Jabl)ok 
and  the  Arnon,  but  nearer  to  the  southern  stream. 
Dilmn  and  Aroer,  given  to  Gad  in  the  preceding 
paragraph,  are  to  the  south  of  the  Reubenite  cities; 
so  that  the  territory  of  Reuben  seems  to  have 
been  an  enclave  in  tliat  of  (iad.  There  is  no 
trace  of  these  cities  being  called  by  did'ereiit 
names  either  before  or  iiflcT—Bcth-baal-meon  is 
only  a  variant  of  Bnnl-meon.  The  writer  cannot 
intend  to  tell  us  that  the  Reubcnites  gave  to 
their  cities  the  names  of  foreign  gods,  Nebo  and 
liaal  ;  so  tliat  those  given  are  the  ancient  names, 
anil  tlie  new  names  are  not  mentioned  here  or  any- 
where else.  Perhaps,  as  Dillmann  suggests,  the 
writer  meant  that  the  Reubcnites  did  not  use  such 
*  *Qavo  other  names'  often  omitted  by  critics  as  a  gloss. 


238 


REUBEN,  REUBEXITES 


REUBEN,  REUBENITES 


names,  but  substituted  others  unconnectedwith  the 
worship  of  false  gods.  This  list  may  indicate  the 
geographical  relations  of  Gad  and  Reuben  at  some 
flourishing  period  of  the  Israelite  monarchy.  (6) 
Jos  13,  P  (using  earlier  sources?).  The  northern 
boundary  of  Reuben  is  a  line  drawn  about  E.N.E. 
eastwards  from  the  northern  end  of  the  Dead  Sea, 
or  due  E.  from  some  point  on  the  Jordan  a  little 
farther  north.  The  line  passed  a  little  north  of 
Heshbon.  The  W.  boundary  is  the  Dead  Sea  and 
the  Jordan,  the  S.  boundary  is  the  Arnon,  the  E. 
boundary  is  not  defined.  As  far  as  they  have 
been  identified,  the  cities  assigned  to  Reuben  else- 
where in  P  (Jos  20.  21)  and  in  1  Ch  6  fall  in  this 
district.  The  statements  of  P  may  not  rest  upon 
any  actual  knowledge  of  historical  geography,  but 
state  a  theory  as  to  the  legitimate  claims  of 
Reuben.  (c)  In  1  Ch  5«- "  the  Chronicler  (so 
Kittel,  SBOT)  tells  us  that  a  Reubenite  clan 
Joel  (so  apparently)  occupied  Aroer,  as  far  as 
Nebo  and  Baal-meon  ;  but  also  mentions  a  Gadite 
clan  Joel.  If  these  statements  rest  on  ancient 
tradition,  we  have  a  trace  of  the  confusion  arising 


as  carried  captive  by  Tiglath-pUeser.  On  the 
other  hand,  they  are  kept  quite  separate  in  the 
Blessing  of  Jacob  (Gn  49)  and  the  Blessing  of 
Moses  (Dt  33) ;  and  tlie  latter  document  shows  us 
that  Gad  was  flourisliing  when  Reuben  had  been 
reduced  to  insignilii-.ance.  Probably  Gad  and 
Reuben  were  associated  at  tlie  Conquest,  an  I 
through  the  proximity  of  their  territories ;  but, 
after  the  Conquest,  the  prevailing  tendency  to 
lapse  from  national  unity  to  tribal  isolation 
loosened  the  ties  between  the  two  eastern  tribes, 
till  Reuben  was  overwhelmed  by  some  catastrophe, 
and  its  remnants  became  absorbed  in  Gad. 

Apparently,  at  and  immediately  after  the  Con- 
quest, Reuben  was  still  an  important  tribe.  In 
the  Song  of  Deborah  it  is  referred  to  before  Gad, 
and  at  greater  length — 

*By  the  watercourses  of  Reuben 
There  were  great  resolves  of  heart. 
Why  aatest  thou  among  the  sheepfolds. 
To  hear  the  piping's  for  the  flocks? 
At  the  watercourses  of  Reuben 
There  were  great  searehings  of  heart. 
OUeod  abode  beyond  Jordan '  (Jg  y^-").* 


Table  of  Cities  assigned  to  Reuben. 


Assigned  to 

Remark*. 

Reuben. 

Gad. 

Moab. 

Nu 
3237.38. 

Jos 

1315.23. 

Job  208. 

Jos 

2136.  37. 

lCh68. 

la  15.  16, 
etc. 

Jer  4S. 

Stone. 

Aroer 

A8bdoth'pis<;ah  b    . 

BauioLh-b:uil  . 

Relb-baal-inc-on 

Beth-jeshimoth 

Heth-peor 

Bezer 

Dibon      . 

Elealeh    . 
Heshbon 

Jah(a)z(ali)      . 
Kedeni'>th 
Kiriathaim 
Medelia   . 
Mephaath 
Nel.o 
Sibnmh    . 
Zereth-shahar 

• 
• 
• 

• 
« 
• 
• 
« 

• 

• 

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

• 

• 

• 

=lCh 

67&79 

• 

• 
• 

• 

• 
• 

Nu3234 

Nu323J 

3346.48 

Jos  208 
2138 

Ezk25i'd 
Ezk259 

• 

• 
• 

• 

« 

« 
• 

• 

•• 

•  f 

ft 

• 

• 
• 

• 

• 

•o 

• 

• 
« 

•g 

•  'from,' 

bRV  -slopes  of  Pisgah.' 

«  Beth  Buiil. 
d  Baal-iueon. 
«  Beth-meoo. 

fBozrah. 

E  Taken  from  Israel. 

from  the  close  association  of  the  two  tribes  :  clans 
and  territories  were  reckoned  sometimes  to  the 
one,  sometimes  to  the  other. 

The  district  assigned  to  Reuben  is  described 
under  Moab. 

iv.  History  after  the  Conquest.— It  is  diffi- 
cult to  determine  how  far  Reuben  had  a  history 
separate  from  that  of  Gad.  In  Nu  32  and  in  the 
narratives  in  Joshua,  Reuben  and  Gad  are  con- 
stantly associated,  and,  as  we  have  seen,  were 
somewhat  intermingled  in  their  territorial  settle- 
ments. This  relationship  probably  arose  out  of 
the  arrangements  made  during  the  period  of  the 
Conquest,  and  were  not  due  to  any  previous  special 
connexion  between  the  two  tribes ;  Reuben  is  a 
'  son  '  of  Leah,  Gad  of  Zilpah,  Rachel's  slave.  P's 
usual  grouping  (Nu  2'°  etc.)  —  Reuben,  Simeon, 
Gad— in  the  history  of  the  Exodus  is  a  reflexion  of 
later  conditions.  Reuben  and  Gad  [Gilead]  are 
mentioned  consecutively  in  the  Song  of  Delwrah 
as  having  both  held  aloof  from  the  war  against 
Sisera.  The  two  tribes  are  also  associated  in 
2  K  lO**  as  '  smitten '  by  Hazael,  and  in  1  Ch  S^ 


Thus,  at  this  time,  Reuben  was  still  much  occu- 
pied with  flocks  and  herds,  perhaps  altogether  a 
pastoral,  semi-nomadic  people  ;  and  was  too  little 
interested  in  its  western  kinsfolk  to  join  the 
muster  against  Sisera. 

In  Jg  20.  21  (RP'  on  JE)  the  eastern  tribes  take 
part  in  the  war  against  Benjamin.  The  Blessing 
of  Jacob,  a  document  of  the  early  monarchy  (B.C. 
1000-850),  opens  by  referring  to  Reuben ;  thus, 
according  to  MT — 

'  Reuben,  thou  art  my  Srstbom,  my  might,  and  the  beguminf 

of  my  strength ; 
The  pre-eminence  of  dignity,  and  the  pre-eminence  of  power. 
Uncontained  as  water,  thou  shalt  not  have  the  pre-eminence ; 
Because  thou  wentest  up  to  thy  father's  bed  : 
Then  defiledst  thou  it ;  ne  went  up  to  my  couch.' 

The  sense  is  obscure,  and  the  text  doubtful ;  but 
the  lines  seem  to  suggest  that  at  this  time  Reuben 
was  still   powerful  ;  out  in   bad  odour  with   the 
•  Moore  (PB)  emends  the  text  and  translates— 

'  Great  were  the  dissensions  in  the  divisions  of  Bdlbeo. 
Why  didst  thou  remain  amid  ash-heaps, 
Listening  to  pipings  at  sheepfolds? 
Gilead  sat  still  beyond  Jordan-' 


REUBEN,  REUBENITES 


REVELATIOX,  BOOK  OF 


239 


otlicr  tril)es,  possibly  on  account  of  lax  sexual 
morality  (Dillinann),  or  for  political  reasons,  or 
because  the  tribe  bad  in  some  way  violated  some 
Israelite  tradition  as  to  religious  observances.  Jos 
VfJ  may  be  based  on  some  such  reminiscences. 

Another  view  is  that  these  lines  are  an  explana- 
tion, after  the  event,  of  the  ruin  of  the  tribe  ; 
but,  if  this  were  the  case,  we  should  expect  some 
more  definite  and  circumstantial  reference  to  the 
calamity. 

In    1  Ch   5"-  "■^,  according  to   Kittel   {SHOT), 

f)art  of  the  material  added  oy  the  Chronicler  to 
lis  sources,  we  read  that,  in  the  time  of  Saul,  the 
Renbenites  had  much  cattle,  and  in  conjunction 
with  Gad  and  Eastern  Manasseh  possessed  them- 
selves of  the  cattle  and  conquered  the  territory  of 
the  Hagrites,  and  'dwelt  in  their  stea*l  till  the 
Captivity  '  (see  Hagrites).  The  same  stratum  of 
Chronicles  (so  Kittel)  makes  the  following  state- 
ments as  to  the  Keubenites  in  the  reign  of  David. 
In  1  Ch  12^- "  amongst  the  Israelites  who  came  to 
Da\'id  at  Hebron  to  make  him  king  were  120,000 
from  the  Eastern  tribes ;  and,  according  to  1  Ch 
26*',  David  appointed  2700  Levites  of  Hebron  as 
eeclesia-stical  and  civil  officials  over  these  tribes ; 
and  1  Ch  27"  states  that  the  chief  of  the  Keuben- 
ites in  his  reign  w.is  Eliezer  ben-Ziihri.  No  doubt 
the  Keubenites  often  engaged,  with  varj'ing  suc- 
cess, in  border  warfare  with  the  neighbouring 
tribes ;  and  tradition  may  have  preserved  re- 
miniscences of  a  victory  over  the  Hagrites.  The 
statistics  are  probably  ootained  by  tlie  Chronicler's 
familiar  conjectural  reconstruction  of  history. 

Kittel,  however,  considers  that  the  statement  of 
1  Ch  1 1**,  that  among  David's  mighty  men  was  the 
Reubenite  chief  Adina  ben-Shiza  with  thirty  fol- 
lowers, is  derived  from  some  ancient  source  no 
longer  extant. 

According  to  an  ancient  source  preserved  in 
1  h.  •*•'■",  Solomon  divided  the  country  into  twelve 
districts,  three  of  which  lav  east  of  Jordan.  The 
snutliernmost  is  described  as  '  the  land  of  Cad  (so 
Benzinger  with  LXX  [B] ;  MT  has  '  GUead '),  the 
country  of  Sihon ' ;  *  Reuben,  in  common  with  the 
majority  of  the  tribes,  is  not  mentioned.  At  the 
disniption  Reuben  fell  to  the  Northern  kingdom, 
1  K  11". 

In  the  Blessing  of  Moses  (Dt  33),  a  document 
com[io»ed  in  the  Northern  kingdom  under  either 
Jeroboam  I.  or  II.,  Reuben  is  still  mentioned  lirst  ; 
perhaps,  however,  only  through  the  intluence  of 
the  earlier  Blessing  of  Jacob.  The  verse  runs — 
*  Let  Reuben  live,  and  not  die ; 
Yet  let  his  men  be  few  •  (RV).  t 

This  verse  implies  that  Reuben  had  become  alto- 
gether insignilicant.  So,  too,  the  Moabite  Stone 
mentions  most  of  the  Reubenite  cities  as  occupied 
or  conquered  by  Moab ;  it  8])eak8  of  the  Gadites, 
but  does  not  name  Reuben.  Hence  before  the 
time  of  Mesha  (a  younger  contemporary  of  Ahab), 
Reuben  had  long  lost  the  country  to  the  east  of 
the  Dead  Sea,  if  it  ever  held  it,  and  was  merged  in 
Gad.     When  or  how  Reuben  lost  its   power  and 

Csperity  we  do  not  know  ;  the  change  may  have 
n  gradual.  On  the  one  hand,  Reuben  was  the 
ontpost  of  Israel  towards  the  S.E.  deserts,  it  was 
exposed  to  hostile  neighbours  on  both  its  southern 
and  eastern  frontiers,  and  constantly  bore  the 
brunt  of  the  predatory  habits  of  the  Bedawtn  ; 
on  the  other,  it  was  largely  isolated  from  the 
other  tribes  geographically,  and,  according  to 
the  '  Blessings,'  had  alienated  their  sj-mpatliies. 
Reuben  may  have  suflered  through  the  weakening 

*  '  Og,*  etc ,  Is  a  late  gloBs.  The  last  clause  of  v  .10  Is  obviously 
corrupt  both  In  MT  and  I, XX  ;  Henr-inger  emends '  A  prefect- 
general  was  appointed  over  all  the  prefects.' 

t  Improbable  renderings  are  :  '  And  let  not  his  men '  (ItVm), 
and  '  May  he  not  die,  or  his  men  become  few'  (Uillm.),  See, 
further,  on  this  passage,  art.  Siukom  (Tribe). 


of  the  power  of  Israel  in  the  latter  part  of  the 
reign  of  Solomon,  and  at  the  time  ot  the  dis- 
ruption. 

The  Chronicler  (1  Ch  5«- *■•=»)  associates  the 
Renbenites  with  Gad  and  E.  Manasseh,  as  occu- 
pying E.  Palestine,  till  the  two  and  a  half  tribes 
were  carried  captive  by  Tiglatli  -  pileser,  and 
mentions  Beerah  ben-Baal  of  the  clan  Joel  as 
chief  of  the  Renbenites  at  that  time.  No  doubt  a 
remnant  of  Reuben  remained  amongst  the  Gadites 
up  to  this  captivity. 

Certain  indications  suggest  that  other  Reubenite 
clans  took  refuge  in  Judali,  and  becama  merged  in 
that  tribe.  Two  of  the  clans  of  Reuben  as  given 
in  P  and  Chron.  bear  the  same  names  as  two  clans 
of  Judah,  viz.  Ilezron  and  Carmi,*  (in  46^'  '•',  1  Ch 
4'  ;  and  P  also  mentions  (Jos  15"  18")  the  stone  of 
Bohan  the  Reubenite  as  a  landmark  on  the  bound- 
ary between  Judah  and  Benjamin. 

Ezk  48'- "  makes  provision  for  Reuben  in  the 
restored  Israel ;  and  Reuben  is  one  of  the  twelve 
tribes  enumerated  in  Rev  7'.  Besides  Gad,  cf. 
Moab.  W.  H.  Bennett. 

REUEL  ('?wjn;  LXX  'Pa7onj\).  —  1.  A  son  of 
Esau  by  Basemath,  Gn  30'-  '"■  '»• ",  1  Ch  1«- ". 
2.  Ex  2",  Nu  10=»  (AV  in  the  latter  Raguel).  See 
HoBAB  and  Jethro.  3.  The  father  of  Eliasaph, 
the  prince  of  Gad,  Nu  2'^,  called  (probably  by 
mistaking  i  for  i)  Deuel  in  1"  7''--"  10=°.  The 
LXX  has  everywhere  'Payoir/jX.  i.  A  Benjamite, 
1  Ch  9». 

REUMAH  (iiiiq ;  A  [B  is  wanting  here]  "Pfj/pi, 
D  'Vetifii). — "The  concubine  of  Nabor,  Abraham's 
brother,  Gn  22«. 

REVELATION.— See  Biblk. 

REVELATION,  BOOK  OF.— 

L  Introduction. 

1.  Title. 

2.  Canoiiicity. 

3.  History  of  Interpretation. 

IL  The  Nature  of  Apocalj-ptical  Writings. 

L  Daniel :  (a)  occasion  and  message ;  (M  anderlying 
faith;  (c)  source  and  authority  of  the  message; 
((/)  plan  of  the  book. 

8,  Charaoteriatics  of  Apocalypses  in  comparison  with 
Prophecy  :  (a)  situation  and  message ;  (b)  dualistic 
theology ;  (c)  element  of  prediction  ;  (d)  j>8cud- 
onyraous  authorship;  (e)  literary  materiiil  and 
form ;  (/)  literary  composition  and  history ; 
0/)  ai.>ocal>T>tical  dogmas. 

8.  Inferences  as  to  Methods  of  Interpretation. 

4.  Book  of  Rev.   as  an  Apocalypse :  (a)  likeness  to 

Jewish  Apocalypses ;  (6)  unlikeness  ;  (c)  remain- 
ing questions. 
111.  Contents  and  Composition  of  Revelation. 
1.  Contents. 

5.  Plan :    (a)  introduction ;    (6)  plan    of    chs.    1-3 ; 

(c)  plan  of  cha.  4-22 ;  (d)  experiences  of  the  leor, 
(1)  place    and    movement,  (2)  heavenly    scenes, 
(8)  form  of  inspirution. 
S.  Sources:  {a)  Old  Testament  (chs.  18.  21-22B  lia-ao)- 
(b)  Jewish  apocalj-ptical  tradition  (chs.  A.  ll^-u 
12.  13.  17). 
It.  Historical  Situation. 
T.  Teachings  of  Revelation. 

1.  Predictions :   (a)  general ;   (^)  details,   (1)  fall    of 
Rome,  (2)  saving  of  the  faithful,  (3)  fall  of  Satan, 
(4)  the  thousand  years. 
1.  EeligiouB  Ideas  (Theology) :  (a)  Ood  •  (6)  Christ's 
person  and  work  ;  (c)  the  Christian  Ufs. 
rt  Relation  of  Rov.  to  other  HT  Books. 
1.  St.  Paul. 
i.  Synoptic  Gospels. 
8.  Gospel  and  Epistles  of  St.  John. 
Conclusion. 

I.  Introduction.— 1.  Title.— The  first  word  of 
the  Book  of  Revelation  gives  the  current  title  not 
only  to  this  book,  but  to  the  class  of  literature  to 
winch  it  belongs.  The  word  *  apocalypse*  does 
not  occur  again  in  Rev.,  and  does  not  here  sicnifr 
a  literary  product.  The  title  which  the  lK)ot 
•  Unless  wa  read  Cholubai  In  1  Cb  A^. 


240         REVELATIOJS,  BOOK  OF 


REVELATION,  BOOK  OF 


suggests  is  rather  '  the  words  {or  the  book)  of  the 
prophecy  of  John'  ( l*  22'- 1"- "*'»).  Certainly  the 
title  'Apocalypse  of  John'  (xC  etc.)  implies  a 
dillerent  use  of  the  word  '  Apocalypse '  from  tliat 
which  tlie  NT  attests.  The  book  is  introduced 
not  as  the  Apocalypse  of  John,  but  as  '  an  apoca- 
lypse of  Jesus  Christ.'  God  is  the  ultimate  autlior 
of  the  revelation.  He  gave  it  to  Christ,  and 
Christ,  through  His  angel,  to  His  servant  John, 
w  ho  therefore  testifies  to  tliat  which  is  ultimately 
'  the  word  of  God,'  and  more  immediately  '  the 
testimony  of  Jesus  Clirist,'  though  it  can  also  be 
called  'whatsoever  things  he  saw'  (I-,  cf.  "■'"). 
The  phrase  'apocalypse  of  Jesus  Christ'  here 
means,  not  a  revelation  of  Him  (i.e.  the  Parousia, 
as  in  1  Co  1',  2  Th  V,  1  P  !'• "  413),  nor  a  revela- 
tion concerning  Him,  but  a  revelation  by  Him 
concerning  the  future  (cf.  Gal  P^- ",  where  the 
revelation  is  by  Christ,  but  also  concerning  Him 
— a  self-revelation). 

2.  Canonicity. — There  is  probably  no  trace  of 
Kev.  in  the  Apostolic  Fathers  (Zahn,  Gesch.  d.  NT 
Kanons,  L  954  f.).  Ign.  ad  Eph.  xv.  3  does  not 
necessarily  imply  Rev  21' ;  still  less  does  ad  Phil. 
vi.  1  require  Rev  3'-"-.  Papias  is  the  first  to  attest, 
not  the  apostolicity,  but  the  credibility  of  Rev., 
according  to  Andreas,  bishop  of  Caesarca  (Cappa- 
docia),  \vho  in  his  commentary  cites  two  remarks 
of  Papias  on  Rev  12'.  Their  source,  however,  is 
unknowTi,  and  Euseb.  does  not  directly  mention  any 
reference  to  Rev.  by  Papias  (HE  m.  xxxix.).  He 
does,  however,  say  that  Papias  based  his  chiliasm 
on  apostolic  statements,  which  he  took  literally, 
instead  of  figuratively  as  he  should  have  done.  It 
is  true  that  when  Irenseus  appeals  in  favour  of 
the  reading  666  (13'*)  to  presbyters  who  had  seen 
John  (Hcer.  V.  xxx.  I  ;  Euseb.  HE  V.  viii.  5),  we 
naturally  think  of  Polycarp  or  Papias  as  his 
authority.  But  this  is  not  a  matter  about  which 
Iren.  would  naturally  remember  what,  as  a  boy, 
he  had  heard  the  aged  Polycarp  say ;  and  if  lie 
had  been  able  to  appeal  to  Polycarp,  he  would 
have  done  so  by  name.  It  is  probably  tradition 
rather  than  recollection  on  which  lie  rests. 

Justin  (Dial.  Ixxxi.  15)  is  the  first  to  declare  that 
Rev.  is  by  '  John,  one  of  the  apostles  of  Christ '  (cf. 
Euseb.  IV.  xviii.  8).  Melito,  bishop  of  Sardis 
(170),  wrote  a  lost  work  on  the  'Rev.  of  John' 
(Euseb.  IV.  xxvi.  2).  This  is  important,  since 
Sardis  is  one  of  the  seven  Churches.  Theophilus 
cited  Rev.  (Euseb.  IV.  xxiv.  1),  and  so  did  Apollonius 
(Euseb.  V.  xviii.).  Irenaeus  was  a  defender  of  the 
apostolic  authorship  of  the  Gospel,  Epistles,  and 
Rev.  of  John  (for  Rev.  see^trr.  IV.  xx.  11,  V.  xxxv.  2, 
'  John  the  Lord's  disciple,'  elsewhere  simply  '  John,' 
I.  xxvi.  3,  IV.  xiv.  2,  etc.,  or  without  name).  Iren. 
took  his  high  estimation  of  the  book  with  him  to 
the  Vt'^est.  It  was  regarded  aa  '  sacred  Scripture ' 
by  the  Churches  in  Lyons  and  Vienne  in  A.D.  177 
(Euseb.  V.  i.  10,  58  ;  Zahn  i.  201,  203  f.).  Tertullian 
cites  Rev.  frequently,  and  attests  its  recognition  in 
Africa,  as  by  '  the  Apostle  John '  (c.  Marcion.  iii. 
14.  25).  Clement  of  Alex,  cites  it  and  other  apoca- 
lypses also,  and  puts  value  upon  them.  So  also 
does  Origen,  in  spite  of  his  opposition  to  chiliasm, 
•.vhicli  he  escapes  by  allegorical  interpretation. 

For  the  Roman  Church,  the  eschatology  of 
Hernias  is  significant  for  its  independence  of 
Revelation.  The  book  stands,  however,  in  the 
Muratorian  Canon  without  suspicion  ('Jolm,  too, 
in  the  Apocalypse,  although  he  writes  only  to 
seven  Chuiches,  yet  addresses  all ')  ;  and  after  the 
elaborate  defence  of  it  by  Hippolytus  against 
Caius,  its  canonicity  remained  established  for  the 
Western  Church. 

But  though  hardly  any  other  book  in  the  NT  is 
80  well  attested  in  tlie2na  cent.,  there  were  already 
those  who  denied  its  authority,  and  its  place  in  the 


Canon  of  the  Eastern  Church  was  long  uncertain. 
The  objections  appear  to  have  rested  on  dogmatia 
grounds,  though  they  required  to  be  maintained 
by  a  denial  of  the  apostolic  authorship  of  the  book. 
Marcion,  as  was  mevitable,  rejected  the  book 
because  of  its  strongly  Jewish  character  (Tert. 
c.  Marcion.  iv.  5).  On  the  other  hand,  the  Mon- 
tanists,  with  their  high  appreciation  of  the  new 
Christian  prophecy  and  the  strongly  eschatological 
type  of  their  Christianity,  held  the  book  in  liigh 
esteem ;  and  it  was  in  opposition  to  them  that 
the  well-known,  long-remaining  antipathy  of  tho 
Eastern  Church  to  Rev.  was  developed. 

Epiphanius  (Beer.  li.  33)  tells  of  a  sect  which  rejected  John'l 
Gospel  and  Rev. ,  and  ascribed  both  to  Cerinthus.  He  caUs  them 
Alogi,  which  su^j^ests  that  the  reason  for  their  criticism  was  the 
Logos  Christolo^'y,  in  which  the  Gospel,  the  First  Epistle,  and 
Rev.  agree.  The  sect  would  then  be  anti-Gnostic,  as  the  choice 
of  Cerinthus  for  the  author  would  indicate,  Epiph,  says  they 
supported  their  view  by  the  fact  that  there  was  no  Christian 
Church  at  Thyatira  [Rev  21h],  where  this  sect  had  ita  seat.  They 
are  further  described  as  being  averse  to  the  sensuous  and  ex- 
travagant form  of  the  apocal^'ptical  language,  the  significanc* 
of  angels,  etc. 

Iren»u8  (in.  xi.  9)  describes  a  certain  sect  which  rejected 
John's  Gospel  on  account  of  its  doctrine  of  the  Paraclete,  and 
not  only  contended  against  false  prophets,  but  would  exclude 
prophecy  from  the  Church  altogether.  Since  this  ground  for 
the  rejectionof  the  Gospel  would  be  even  more  conclusive  against 
Rev.,  and  since  Epiph.  himself  says  that  the  Alo^ji  opposed  the 
Spirit  and  denied  its  gifts,  Zahn  (i.  223-227,  237-262,  u.  na7-973) 
concluded  that  this  wus  the  same  sect  that  Epiph.  called  Alo^, 
and  that  it  was  an  anti-Montanist,  rather  than  an  anti-Gnostic, 
movement.  Now  Ejjiph.  probably  got  his  information  about 
the  Alogi  from  Hippolytus  (c.  19i;-235  a.i>.  at  Rome),  who  knew 
ft  sect  which  rejected  both  books  because  of  the  support  which 
the  Gospel,  in  its  doctrine  of  the  Spirit,  and  Rev.  in  its  pro- 
phetic character,  gave  to  ilontanism.  Against  these  Hippolytua 
wrote  in  defence  of  the  Gospel  and  Revelation.  He  also  wrote 
another  book  against  Caius,  a  pre-sbrter  of  Rome,  in  defence 
of  Revelation.  This  Caius,  in  a  controversial  writing  againrt 
ProcluB  the  Montanist  (Euseb.  11.  xxv.  6,  in.  xxviii.  xxxi.  4,  VL 
XX.  3),  had  evidently  rejected  Rev.,  ascribing  it,  as  the  Alogi 
did,  to  Cerinthus.  The  citation  in  Eusebius  (111.  xxviii.  2)  reads  : 
'Cerinthus,  through  revelations  professing  to  have  been  written 
by  a  great  apostle,  brings  before  us  marvels  which  he  falsely 
claims  were  shown  to  him  through  angels,  asserting  that  after 
the  resurrection  there  would  be  an  earthly  kingdom  of  Christ, 
and  that  men  dwelling  in  Jerusalem  will  again  be  subject  to 
desires  and  pleasures.  And  being  an  enemy  to  the  Scriptures  of 
God,  he  said  that  a  period  of  a  thousand  years  would  be  spent 
in  nuptial  festivities.'  The  long  dispute  as  to  whether  thia 
referred  to  our  Rev.  must  be  regarded  as  ended  by  the  publica- 
tion, by  J.  Gwynn  (^Uermafhena,  vi,  397-41S),  of  fragments  of 
the  reply  of  Hippolytus  to  Oaius,  from  which  it  is  evident  that 
Caius,  who  was  not  one  of  the  Alogi  (not  a  heretic),  argued  in 
detail  against  the  harmony  of  Rev.  with  the  rest  of  the  NT, 
using  some  of  the  arguments  of  the  Alogi,  and  in  all  probability 
ascribing  it,  and  not  some  other  apocal.x-pse,  to  Cerinthus  (so 
Zahn,  Bousset,  Holtzmann,  et<:.,  against  Gwynn). 

Zahn  dates  the  writing  of  Caius  against  Proclus  about  A.D.  210, 
and  the  reply  of  Hippolytus  in  defence  of  Rev.  about  215.  It  i» 
evident  that  Caius  did  not  question  the  Gospel  of  John.  After 
this,  no  Western  Church  writer  seriously  questioned  Rev. 
(though  see  Jerome's  position,  below). 

In  the  East,  Dionysius  of  Alexandria  (A.D.  255), 
a  pupil  of  Origen,  wrote  a  temperate  and  scholarly 
criticism  (Euseb.  vil.  xxv.),  in  which  he  argues 
that  Rev,  is  not  by  John  the  apostle.  He  reviews 
previous  criticisms,  evidently  among  others  that  of 
Caius,  mentioning  the  hypothesis  that  Cerinthus 
was  its  author.  He  does  not  leject  the  book  out 
and  out,  since  others  valued  it,  but  cannot  himself 
understand  it ;  and  proves,  by  an  elaborate  com- 
parison as  to  literary  character,  language,  and 
composition,  that  it  is  not  by  the  author  of  the 
Gospel  and  the  First  Epistle  of  John.  It  is  indeed 
by  some  holy  and  inspired  man  whose  name  wa» 
John.  There  were  many  of  that  name  (e.g.  John 
Mark),  and  it  is  said,  he  adds,  that  there  are  two 
monuments  in  Ephesus,  each  i)earing  the  name  of 
John.  The  ground  of  the  rejection  of  its  aposto- 
licity by  Dionysius  was  probably  in  part  a  sense 
of  its  difi'erence  from  Jolin's  Gospel,  in  part  the 
Hellenist's  aversion  to  sensuous  hopes,  and  to  the 
chiliasm  which  made  room  for  such  ho|ie8. 

Eusebius,  who  gives  the  argument  of  Dionysins 
at  some  length,  evidently  sympathized  with  his 
view,  though  his  own  judgment  wavers.     He  in- 


KEVELATION,  BOOK  OF 


EEVELATION,  BOOK  OF 


241 


clines  to  ascribe  Rev.  to  the  Presbyter  John  of 
whom  Papias  WTote  (Euseb.  III.  xxxi.\.  :  'It  is 
probably  the  second  [John],  if  one  is  not  willing  to 
admit  that  it  is  the  lirst,  that  saw  the  Apocalypse'). 
Uis  doubt  as  to  the  place  of  the  book,  wlielher 
among  the  Ilomolunoumenn  (accepted)  or  among 
the  ^lotha  (rejected),  is  expressed  in  III.  xxv.  4. 
He  emphasizes  the  rejection  of  the  book  by  good 
churchmen,  and  does  not  mention  the  ahnost 
certain  use  of  it  by  Pai)ias,  or  the  elaborate 
defence  of  it  by  Hippolytus.  Yet  he  cites  many 
words  in  its  favour. 

After  Euseb.  the  opposition  to  Rev.  was  for  a 
time  general  in  the  Syro-Palestinian  Church.  Cyril 
of  Jerusalem  [Catech.  iv.  33-36)  does  not  name  it 
among  canonical  books ;  nor  does  it  appear  in  the 
Canon  60  of  the  Sj-nod  of  Laodicea  (c^  560?),  nor 
in  Canon  85  of  Apost.  Const,  viii.  (Zahn,  iL  177  11'., 
197  tr.,  191  ff.) ;  nor  is  it  in  the  list  of  Gregory  of 
Nazianzus  (ii.  216 f.),  nor  in  the  so-called  i^'i/nupsis 
of  Chrysostom  (ib.  230).  Neither  Chrysostum  nor 
Theotiore  of  Mopsuestia  mentions  the  book,  and 
Theodoret  does  not  accept  it.  It  dues  not  appear 
in  the  Chronograpliy  of  Nicephorus,  or  in  the  List 
of  60  books  (|6.  L"JS,  290  f.).  The  Nestorian  and 
Jacobit«  Churches  did  not  receive  it  (Bousset,  p. 
25). 

The  question  a«  to  the  origin  and  significance  of  this  attitude 
of  the  tj>TO-I'aIestiniun  Church  leads  back  to  the  striltuii,'  fact 
th&t  Rev.  (Willi  2  and  3  Jn,  2  V,  Jude)  did  not  ori;^inally  stand 
In  the  Syriac  NT  (Peshitta).  It  has  been  supiiosed  tliat  it  was 
•till  wanting  in  the  I^hiloxenian  version,  but  Uwynn  argues  that 
the  vereion  he  edited  belonged  to  that  translation  {Tl'ie  Apoca- 
lupteoj  St.  Joint  inSj/riac,lS3T).  Was  the  book,  then,  w:inting 
in  tile  Canon  of  the  Syrian  Churcli  from  the  beginning?  An 
ftlfirmative  answer  is  niade  doubtful  Ity  the  apparent  references 
to  liev.  in  I::uhrttem.  It  is  not  certain,"  however,  that  Eplinieni 
used  Itev.,  the  question  being  involved  in  questions  of  text  and 
of  authenticity  («ee  Bousset,  21-*2a).  (Jwynn  (pp.  c-cv)  believes 
that  the  book  was  excluded  'In  ignorance  rather  than  of  set 
purpose '  from  the  Peshitta  Canon,  anrl  remained  unknown  to 
8\  rmc-speaking  Christians  for  perhaps  four  centuries,  except  to 
tlie  few  who  could  read  it  in  Greek,  among  whom  he  reckons 
Epliraem.  Even  after  translation  into  Syriac,  the  book  never 
became  familiarly  known  in  any  of  the  Syrian  Churches.  Their 
religious  thought  and  rich  liturgical  literature  remained  practi- 
cally uninlluenced  by  it.  Bousset  thinks  the  dominance  of 
another  type  of  eschatology,  the  Apocalypse  of  Anticlirist, 
helped  to  effect  the  exclusion  of  Revelation. 

The  Greek  Church  yielded  only  slowly  to  the 
decision  of  the  Western,  and  adiiiitied  tlie  book 
into  it«  Canon.  In  Egypt,  wlu-re  the  opposition 
lirst  developi'd  in  orthodox  circles,  it  was  sooner 
overcome.  Athanasius,  and  others  after  him,  re- 
cognized the  book.  Tlie  first  Eastern  commentary, 
that  of  Andreas,  belongs  to  the  5lh  cent.,  and  the 
next,  that  of  Arethaa,  to  the  9th.  Each  begins 
with  a  defence  against  doubts  as  to  the  canonicity 
of  the  book. 

In  the  West,  after  the  elaborate  defence  of 
Hijipolytus,  Jerome  alone  shows  the  influence  of 
Eastern  doubts.  The  Eastern  Church,  he  says, 
receives  Hebrews  ;  tlie  Western,  Revelation.  He 
inclined  to  accept  it  {£/>.  ad  Dardanum,  129), 
but  elsewhere  (in  Psalm.  149)  he  puts  it  in  a 
middle  cla-ss  between  canonical  and  apocryphal. 
This  suggestion  did  not  bear  fruit  until  Carlstadt 
(132U),  at  the  beginning  of  the  Reformation,  made 
a  threefold  division  of  NT  books,  corresponding 
to  that  of  the  OT  in  Hebrew,  and  put  in  the 
third,  least  authoritative,  class  (with  the  UT 
'  Hnriiogruplia'),  2  and  3  John,  2  Peter,  Jude, 
Jnnies,  Hebrews,  Revelation.  Of  these  seven, 
wiiich  are  '  of  third  and  lowest  authority,'  Rev. 
■tands  last,  on  the  verge  of  being  apuciyphal. 

Luther  at  first  (Preface  in  Trannlation  of  NT,  ir)22)cxpre««cd  a 
■trong  aversion  to  the  book,  declaring  that  to  him  it  liad  every 
mark  of  ln'ing  neither  ajiostolic  nor  prophetic.  Ai'owtles  s)>ok'e 
clearly,  wuliout  figure  or  vision,  of  Chrisl  and  His  deeds  ;  and  no 
prophet  in  the' IT.  tosay  nothing  of  the  NT.  deals  so  entirely  with 
visions  and  llgures.  It  is  comparable  onlv  with  4  IC/.ra  t'l  Kj^dras), 
»nd  he  cannot  see  that  it  was  the  work  of' the  llnly  .'■piril.  .More- 
over,  be  does  not  like  tlio  comnuuida  and  IhreaU  which  the  writer 
VOL.   IV.— 16 


makes  about  his  book  (22'8  19),  and  the  promise  of  blessedness 
to  those  who  keep  what  is  written  in  it  (is  227),  when  no  one 
knows  what  that  is,  to  say  nothing  of  keeping  it,  and  there  are 
many  nobler  books  to  be  kept.  .Moreover,  many  Fathers  re- 
jected the  book  ;  and  though  Jerome  says  it  is  aliove  all  praise, 
and  has  as  many  mysteries  in  it  as  it  has  words,  yet  he  cannot 
prove  this.  'Finally,  every  one  thinks  of  it  whatever  his  spirit 
imparts.  My  spirit  cannot  adapt  itself  to  the  book,  and  a 
sufficient  reason  why  I  do  not  esteem  it  highly  is  that  Christ 
is  neither  taught  nor  recognized  in  it,  which  is  what  an  apostle 
ought  before  all  things  to  do."  Later(1634),  Luther  tindsapossi- 
bility  of  Christian  usefulness  in  it,  and  gives  its  message  in  words 
well  worth  quoting:  'Briefly  IKev.  teaches  that)  our  holiness 
is  in  heaven  where  Clirist  is,  and  not  in  the  world  before  our 
eyes,  as  some  paltry  ware  in  the  market.  Therefore  let  offence, 
factions,  lieresy,  and  wickedness  be  and  do  what  they  may  ;  if 
only  the  Word  of  God  remains  pure  with  us,  and  we  hold  it  dear 
and  precious,  we  need  not  doubt  that  Christ  is  near  and  with 
us,  even  if  m.atters  go  hardest:  as  we  see  in  this  Book  tiiat 
through  and  above  all  plagues,  beasts,  evil  angels,  Christ  is 
still  near  and  with  His  saints,  and  at  last  overthrows  tlicm 
(translation  of  Westcott,  Lanon,  ISn'J,  p.  1S3).  He  still  thought 
it  a  hidden,  dumb  projihec.v,  unless  interiireted,  and  upon  tht 
interpretation  no  ceitainty  bad  been  reached  after  many  efforts. 
His  own  interpretation  of  the  book  as  anti-Papist  niay  have 
led  him  to  a  more  favourable  opinion  of  it.  But  he  remained 
doubtful  about  its  apostolicity  (l*reface  to  Revelation  in  the 
edition  of  1546).  and  printe<i  it,  with  Hebrews,  James,  Jude,  as 
nil  njipendix  to  his  New  Teytament,  not  numbered  in  the  index. 
The  other  three  doubtful  books,  2  and  3  John  and  2  Peter,  it 
w;ia  not  so  natural  to  sejtarate  from  1  John  and  1  Peter.  In 
this  way  these  four  books  were  printed  in  Luther's  Bible  as  late 
as  the  17th  cent.  So  also  in  Tindale's  New  Testament.  '  In 
general  the  standpoint  of  the  Reformation  is  marked  by  a 
return  to  the  Canon  of  Eusebius,  and  consequently  by  a  lower 
valuation  of  Hebrews,  2  Peter,  2  and  3  John,  James,  Jude,  and 
Revelation  '  (lioltzniann,  Einleittiiuj.xt.  \Wt). 

Zwingli  regarded  Rev.  as  '  not  a  BibUcal  book ' ;  and  even 
Calvin,  with  his  high  view  of  inspiration,  does  not  comment  on 
2  and  3  John  and  Revelation.  Only  gradually  was  the  effort  to 
maintain  such  a  deutero-canonical  class  of  boohs  in  the  NT 
given  up,  as  Che  dogmatic  displaced  the  freer  and  more  his- 
torical attitude  toward  the  Bible. 

In  f'eneral  it  may  be  said  that  Rev.  has  main- 
tained its  pl.ace  in  the  Canon,  in  spite  of  doubts 
and  a.s.siUiUs,  not  because  of  its  extravagant  claims 
to  inspiration  and  authority,  not  because  of  its 
visionary  form,  and  not  because  of  its  eschat- 
ology, but  rather  in  sjjite  of  all  these,  which  were 
marks  also  of  the  many  apocalypses,  Jewish  and 
Cliiistian,  that  the  Church  rejected.*  Nor  can 
it  be  s.aid  that  belief  in  its  apostolic  authorship 
kept  tlie  book  in  the  NT,  lor  this  was  very 
early  denied,  and  could  as  easily  be  set  aside,  as, 
for  example,  that  of  tlio  Apocalypse  of  Peter, 
which  the  Church  rejected.  The  real  reason, 
for  the  sake  of  which  apostolic  authorship  was 
maintained,  was  the  consciousness  that,  on  the 
wliole,  the  religious  faith  and  feeling  of  the  book 
predominate  over  its  apocalyptical  form,  and 
give  to  ajiocalyptical  language,  which  the  majority 
cannot  understand  or  accept  in  its  literal  sense, 
practically  the  value  of  figure  for  the  emotional 
exjiression  of  Christian  faith  and  hope.  It  is 
really  as  Christian  poetry,  rather  than  as  the 
disclosure  of  mysteries  of  the  unseen  world  and 
of  the  future,  that  the  book  has  been  valued,  and, 
because  valued,  preserved  and  canonized  by  the 
Christian  Church. 

A  book,  however,  which  has  been  canonized 
because  of  its  general  contents,  and  the  spirit 
behind  its  form,  will  inevitably  le  used  by  many 
for  its  details  literally  taken.  So  used.  Rev.  has 
often  had  a  harmful  influence,  setting  thought 
upon  useless  tasks,  and  stimulating  self-centred 
and  morbid  hopes  and  fears.  If  one  puts  over 
against  this  the  wonderful  ministry  of  comfort  and 
strength  in  limes  of  trial  which  the  book  liaa 
rendered,  he  may  lind  justilicntion  both  for  the 
doubts  and  for  the  tinal  decision  of  the  Church 
regarding  its  canonicity. 

3.  History  of  Interpretation. — The  history  of  the 
interpretation  of  Rev.  is  an  interesting  chapter  in 

'Christianity  has  been  in  certain  sects  and  at  certain  times 
apocal.\'ptical  in  temper,  but  not  on  the  whole.  Many  npo- 
cal.vpcea  were  treasured  a.i  sacrnl  by  sects  ami  at  times,  wjijch 
were  left  aside  by  the  Church  as  a  whole  and  in  the  end. 


242         REYELATTOX,  BOOK  OF 


REVELATION,  BOOK  OF 


Churcli  history  ;  *  but  it  is  an  inseparable  part  of  a 
much  larger  chapter  which  it  would  be  quite  im- 
possible to  write  here.  Harnack  (Hist,  of  Dogma, 
1.  12911'.,  16711.)  describes  tlie  two  contrasted, 
though  not  mutually  exclusive,  conceptions  of 
Christianity,  the  sschatological  and  the  spiritual, 
the  relatious  of  which  make  on«  of  the  chief 
themes  in  the  history  of  Christian  thought.  The 
earlier  eschatological  view  gave  way,  especially 
under  the  inlluence  of  Greek  thought,  to  the 
spiritual  conception  of  salvation.  Chiliasm,  of 
which  Rev.  was  the  one  clear  and  authoritative 
source,  '  is  found  wherever  the  gospel  is  not  yet 
Hellenized.'  It  is  evident  that  where  Hellenistic 
views  prevailed  Rev.  must  be  either  rejected  or 
spiritually  interpreted. 

Among  chiliasts,  besides  Cerinthiis,  the  heretic,  are  Papias, 
Justin,  Irenffius.  Hippolynjs,  Tertullian — the  early  defenders  of 
the  authority'  of  Revelation.  Origen,  on  the  other  hand,  could 
receive  the  book  and  yet  oppose  a  chiliastic  conception  of 
Christianity.  The  Eastern  Church  in  general,  as  we  have  seen, 
followed  the  easier  method  of  rejecting  or  neglecting  the  booic. 
In  the  West,  Victorinus  (c.  303)  commented  on  the  boolc  in  a 
chiliastic  [i.e.  literal)  sense  ;  but  a  greater  influence  was  exerted 
by  the  Commentarj'  of  T3'conius  (before  3S0),  whose  interpreta- 
tion is  spiritualistic.  Through  hiui  'the  Latin  Church  finally 
broke  ftnth  all  chiliastic  inclinations  and  all  realistic  eschat- 
ology  '  (Bousset,  C3)-  The  '  thousand  years' denote  the  present 
period  of  the  Church  between  the  First  and  the  Second  Coming 
of  Christ.  He  was  followed  by  Augustine  (d«  civitate  Dei,  xi. 
7-17)  and  Jerome. 

The  possession  of  world-nilership  by  the  Church 
took  away  the  ground  for  chiliastic  hopes,  and  re- 
moved both  the  circumstances  and  the  temper  out  of 
which  Rev.  came.  There  was,  however,  a  revival 
of  the  prophetic  spirit  in  the  Middle  Ages,  in  re- 
action against  ecclesiasticism  and  the  secvuar  spirit. 

From  the  protesting  order  of  the  Franciscans,  who  attempted 
to  recover  the  character  and  spirit  of  apostolic  Christianity, 
came  a  chiliastic  interpretation  of  Rev.  about  a.d.  1200,  by 
Joachim  of  Floris.  In  Commentaries  on  Jeremiah  and  Isaiah 
under  his  name  the  end  of  the  world  was  fixed  at  1240  (Rev  113 
1'2'i)  and  then  at  1'290.  The  woman  (Rev  17)  was  already  inter- 
preted of  the  Romish  Church  by  these  pre-Reformation  reformers, 
and  this,  together  with  a  like  application  of  the  beasts  of  ch.  13 
to  Rome  and  the  Pope,  inevitably  became  a  standing  feature 
of  Protestant  commentators  from  Luther  onwards;  with  ex- 
ceptions, such  as  Qrotius  (l(i44)  and  Hammond  (1653-1659). 

Over  against  this  enticing  but  flagrant  misuse 
of  the  book,  Catholic  scholars  in  part  sought  for 
other  historical  applications  of  these  figures  (Turks, 
Mohammed,  etc.)  ;  but  in  part  made  a  beginning 
of  a  more  correct  method  of  interpretation  by 
seeking  in  events  of  the  author's  own  time,  in 
the  Jews  and  the  Roman  empire,  for  the  clue  to 
his  predictions. 

So  especially  Alcazar  (lfll4),  a  Spanish  Jesuit  of  Antwerp,  who 
maintained  that  Rev  1-11  was  aimed  against  Judaism,  chs.  12 fl. 
against  Rome.  This  correct  effort  to  interpret  Rev.  in  the  light 
of  the  events  of  its  own  time  was  carried  forward  bv  Grotius, 
llannnond,  Clericus  (1698),  Wetstein  (176'2)  and  others,  at  first 
wilh  too  nmch  reference  to  Judaism  and  the  fall  of  Jerusalem, 
but  finally  with  a  growing  reco;jnition  of  Rome  as  the  object  of 
the  book's  denunciations  (Semler  (1769,  etc.),  Corrodi  (1780), 
Eichhorn  (1791)).  The  reference  to  Nero,  in  the  wounded  head 
(ch.  13),  which  had  been  found  already  by  Victorinus  (303),  and 
again  in  a  Jesuit  commentary  (Juan  Mariana),  was  introduced 
into  Protestant  exegesis  by  Corrodi.  This  so-called  contem- 
ftorarj/.historical  (by  some  called  'prteteriat ')  method  of  inter- 
pretation {i.e.  by  reference  to  historical  events  of  the  writer's 
own  time)  was  most  fully  carried  to  completion  in  the  great 
works  of  Liicke  (Versuch  einer  vollstanditjen  Einleitung  in  die 
Offenbarumi,  1832,  2nd  cd.  18.'>2),  Bleek  {Vorlesurwen  iiber  die 
Apok.  186'2if,  and  Ewald  (Comm.  in  Latin,  1828,  Die  Johann. 
Sehriften,  1862).  So  also  Volkmar  (1862),  Diisterdieck  (Meyer, 
1859-87).  t 

In  general  these  writers  date  the  book  before  70  (Rev  11M8); 
regard  it  as  written  chiefly  against  Rome ;  and  And  in  it  a  pre- 

•  See  Liicke,  Einl.  in  die  Offenbarunrfl,  1863 ;  Holtzmann, 
Band-Commentar,  iv.  p.  280  ff.  :  Bousset,  KommenUir,  pp. 
51-141. 

t  To  Liicke  was  especially  due  the  recognition  of  the  fact 
that  Rev.  is  not  an  isolated  book,  but  is  one  of  a  class,  that  It 
belongs  in  kind  to  the  Jewish  apocalypses,  and  is  to  be  inter- 
prcted  as  they  are.  The  fact  that  Daniel  contains  allusions  to 
the  Greek  empire  and  to  Antiochus  Epiphanes  was  a  strong 
reason  for  accepting  the  apparent  references  in  Bev.  to  Borne 
and  Nero. 


diction  of  the  return  of  Nero.  The  interpretation  of  the  numbei 
tU'iCi  as  Nero  Vifxar  seems  to  have  been  made  independently  by 
several  scholars  (Frilzsche,  Benary,  Hitzig,  Reuss,  Ewald  COX 
With  this  understanding  and  dating  of  Rev,,  Baur  athrmed  iti 
apostolicity,  and  made  it  a  monument  of  the  original  Jewish 
Christianity. 

Against  this  method  conservative  theologians 
still  attempted  either  new  interpretations  of  the 
book  as  a  summarj-  of  Church  history  (the  '  Church- 
historical'  or  'continuously  historical'  method, 
Hengstenberg,  Ebrard,  etc.),  or  a  reference  of  ita 
predictions  to  events  still  future,  the  end  of  the 
world  (the  endgeschichtliche,  'fnturist '  method, 
Kliefoth,  Zahn).  A  method  which  is  in  some 
sense  intermediate  between  these  is  one  that  sees 
in  Rev.  not  definite  events  in  Church  history,  but 
symbolic  representations  of  good  and  evil  prin- 
ciples, their  conflict  and  the  coming  victory  of  the 
good  (Auberlen's  reic/isgeschichtlichi  Methode). 

A  similar  standpoint  is  occupied  by  Milligan  {Commentary/  on 
the  Apocalypge ;  Th£  Rev.  oj  St.  John,  Baird  Lectures,  18S6 ; 
DiscitSifions  on  the  Apocalypse,  1893;  The  Bk.  of  Rev.  [Ex- 
positor's Bible],  1S99.  The  Apoc.  embraces  the  whole  period 
from  the  First  to  the  Second  Coming  of  the  Lord.  It  sets 
before  us  within  this  period  the  action  of  ^eat  principles  and 
not  special  incidents.  We  must  interpret  in  a  spiritual  and 
universal  sense  that  language  of  the  Apoc.  which  appears  at 
first  sight  to  be  material  and  locals  So  also  Benson  {The 
Apocalifpse,  1900)  maintains  that  Rev.  unveils  Jesus  Christ  as 
present  in  this  world,  and  His  enemies,  Satan  and  his  agents, 
who  are  ali  principles  not  persons  or  historical  characters,  '  the 
principles  which  maintain  the  self-deceiving  half  of  human 
nature  in  its  death  strugi.'le8  with  a  Divine  Wisdom  wilicb 
slowly  vanquishes  it'  (p.  176). 

It  is,  of  course,  true  that  beneath  every  book 
there  are  certain  fundamental  beliefs  and  hopes 
capable  of  being  generalized  and  taken  out  of 
all  historical  relations.  It  is  true  also,  as  we 
shall  see,  that  the  allusions,  for  example,  to  Nero 
are  not  so  clear  as  we  should  expect  of  one  who  set 
out  to  describe  him  in  sjmbol.  But  the  principles 
which  these  writers  look  for  are  still  less  clearly 
symbolized,  and  it  is  a  fundamental  mistake  to  pro- 
ceed upon  the  assumption  that  such  principles  are 
everywhere  intended,  and  also  that  the  teachings 
of  Rev.  must  agree  with  all  other  teachings  of  the 
NT  and  with  the  judgment  of  the  Christian  con- 
sciousness. The  history  of  the  book  in  the  Canon 
might  well  have  kept  others  from  the  bondage  of 
this  assumption,  as  it  kept  Luther  and  the  early 
Reformers.  But  the  assumption  is  no  longer 
possible  for  those  who  approach  Biblical  study  in 
a  historical  spirit.  For  such,  the  efl'ort  to  find  in 
the  book  allusions  to  events  of  its  author's  time 
is  natural,  and  this  method  is  destined  to  general 
acceptance.  Of  late,  however,  a  growiu"  convic- 
tion has  arisen  that  this  contemporary-liisturiral 
method  is  not  sufficient  by  itself  to  solve  all  the 
proltlems  of  the  book. 

The  first  question  to  arise  concerned  the  unity 
of  the  book.  As  prophetic  books  like  Isaiah  and 
Zechariah  and  apocal3'pse3  such  as  Enoch  are 
composite,  it  was  natural  to  raise  the  question 
with  reference  to  Rev.,  and  to  remove  by  literary 
analysis  the  unevenness  in  structure  and  the  :vant 
of  harmony,  both  in  historical  references  and  in 
doctrinal  views,  that  had  troubled  interpreters. 
Theories  of  composite  origin  have  been  advanced 
in  two  general  forms:  (1)  The  book  is  in  its 
present  form  a  unity,  but  its  author  made  use  of 
various  documentary  or  traditional  sources,  of 
Jewish  or  Christian  origin,  incorporating  them 
in  his  work.  (2)  The  present  book  is  the  result 
of  one  or  more  revisions  of  an  older  Jewish  or 
Christian  apocalypse,  or  more  than  one. 

Weizsacker,  who  gave  the  impulse  to  this  effort  at  literary 
criticism,  held  the  former  of  these  two  views :  *  '  We  have  in 


•  The  historj'  of  these  efforts  has  been  told  by  Holtzmann, 
Jahrb.  /.  Prot.  Theol.  1891  :  Barton,  AJTh,  1898 ;  A,  Meyer  in 
Theol.  liundechau,  1897 ;  and  in  fuller  detail  by  Ranch,  Dx4 
O^enbarunff  det  Johannee,  1894,  and  Bousset,  Komm.  p.  127  fl. 


KEVELATIOX,  BOOK  OF 


REVELATION,  BOOK  OF    243 


Uiis  writing,  which  is  as  certainly  pseudonrmous  as  are  all 
apocalypses,  a  compilation,  which  in  its  origin  is  already  a 
compilation ;  and  in  its  various  strata,  which  certainly  reach 
for  back,  it  testifies  in  itself  alone  to  an  extensive  practice  of 
(Christian)  prophecy'  (Theol.  Lit.-ZHtung,  18S2).  The  first 
efforts  aiter  detail  were,  however,  made  on  the  basis  ot  the 
•econd  theory. — Volter,  a  pupil  of  Weizsacker,  in  a  series  of 
works  (Du  Knlsteliung  der  Apuk.  1882,  ISsS ;  Dot  Problem  der 
Apok.  1893),  attempted  to  construct  a  primitive  apocal^'pse  of 
a.D.  66-66,  which  tne  author  revised  after  Nero's  death.  Three 
or  four  other  revisers  added  to  the  work,  to  the  last  of  whom 
the  letters  are  due.  Volter  argues  on  the  basis  of  (1)  want  of 
formal  and  material  conne.\iou,  (2)  reference  to  different  his- 
torical situations,  (3)  doctrinal  differences,  especially  as  to 
Ohristolog>*.  Some  of  his  observations  are  just,  but  his  solu- 
tioo  of  the  ditticulties  is  arbitrary*  and  unconvincing.— Vischer 
(Die  Oj^ettOarumj  JohannU,  eine  juduiche  Apokalyp^e  in  c/tri^t- 
licher  BeurbeitutujtlSbti)  put  forth  a  simpler  and  more  attractive 
hypothesis,  which,  appearing  with  Harnack's  hearty  approval, 
won  nianv  adherents.  He  believed  Rev  4*-225  to  be  a  Jewish 
apocal^-pse  set  in  a  Christian  framework  (1-3.  22'*^^)  with  a 
•light  Christian  revision  (o^->*  79-"  12"  139-  '»  14'  6-  '2- 13  15-'  161' 
]7n  19!)  10. 13b  sow  211»>J  and  all  references  to  the  Lamb).  His 
•tarting-point  is  Biblico-theological,  the  presence  in  tlie  book  of 
Jewish  by  the  side  of  Christian  ideas.  Hamack  (Sachwort) 
admits  that  this  does  not  in  itself  involve  Jewish  authorship, 
but  regards  that  hypothesis  as  necessary  in  this  case. 

Weyland  {Omwa-hiiuji  en  compUatie  -hypotheeen  toctjepast 
op  de  Apoailypse  tan  Johannes,  1888)  elaborated  Vischer's 
theory  by  supposing  two  Jewish  sources.  The  oldest  (:)  con- 
tained (omitting  slight  and  obvious  Christian  words  or  phrases) 
10.11'U  12.13.  14«11  152-«  16. (part,  esp.  1»  ")  19112120.  211  », 
i.e.  the  little  book,  Jerusalem  and  tne  two  witnesses,  i^;& 
appearance  of  the  dragon  and  beasts  and  their  final  overthrow 
the  last  judgment  and  the  new  world.  The  later  source  (N) 
contained  110.12.17.19  4.  51.7  6.  7'*n'  (part)  8.9.  liu-i»  14^3 
165  lolTb  .20  1411 20  17.  18.  i9l.«  21927  22111,  i_e.  the  seven  seals 
and  trumpets,  the  fall  of  Babylon  (Rome),  and  the  new 
Jerusalem.  These  were  united  by  a  Christian  redactor  who 
additi  (hesides  occasional  phraaes)  lie.  i».2u  2.  8.  14i-'>  I6II'' 

19,--1U  '>-r,^  li  li,  1S-.-2. 

Weizsacker  in  his  Apostolic  Age  rejected  these  and  similar 
efforts  at  analysis,  and  held  to  his  original  suggestion  that  the 
hook  is  a  unity  ;  but  its  author  has  made  use  of  various  older 
materials,  apocal^-ptical  visions,  fragmentary  in  character,  and 
has  introduced  these  in  such  a  way  as  often  to  interrupt  his 
plan.     Such  pieces  are  71«-9  17  111-13  121-11. 12-17  13.  17. 

Sahatier  (.Ren.  de  Th/ol.  et  de  Phil.  1887,  and  Les  oriijinrs 
iitteraire  ft  la  compointion  de  I'apoc.  de  St.  Jean,  18S8)  defends 
a  similar  view.  The  Christian  writer  introduced  foreign  oracles 
bito  his  work,  viz. :  Ill's  121-1313  W-^  I6ia-16  171-1«2  (IS'^n 
1911-201*1  219-225. 

Very  similar  is  the  view  of  8choen  (L'origine  de  VApoc. 
1887X 

This  \'iew  of  the  composition  of  Rev.,  which  does 
jnstice  both  to  its  general  unity  of  pl.tn  and  .stj-le 
and  to  the  brealcs  in  its  phui  and  the  coiitra.sts 
in  its  thought,  and  does  not  attempt  the  impossible 
task  of  reconstnicting  complete  lost  books,  has 
gained  the  adherence  of  an  increasin"  number 
of  competent  critics.  It  is  the  view  of  JUliclier 
(Einhitung  in  d.  NT,  1894).  It  is  also  the  view  of 
(junkel  and  of  I5ous.set,  though  these  two  scholars 
have  carried  the  problem  of  the  interpretation  of 
Rev.  on  to  a  new  phase. 

On  the  other  hand  Spitta  (Offenb.  JohnnnU, 
1889),  who  had  reached  his  main  conclusions  in- 
de[>endently  before  the  appearance  of  Volter's 
work,  attempts  an  elaborate  analjsis  in  which 
every  verse  and  word  is  ascribed  to  its  source. 

The  basis  of  our  present  book  is  held  by  Spitta  to  be  a 
primitive  Christian  a|)Ocalvp9e,  containing  the  letters  and  the 
teals (14*919  2-3.  (omitting  the  conclusion  of  each  letter,  2', 
•tc.)  4-6.  81  7»-l'  I99i>- 1»  22a- 10-13- 16-18..  aob.2l).  He  believes  that 
thiiM-aa  written  by  John  Mark,  about  60  a. D.  To  this  a  later 
Christian  adde<l  two  older  Jewish  apocaI>ikse8  ;  one  is  from  the 
time  of  Caligula  (133- 14  refers  to  an  illness  from  which  he 
noovered ;  616  (lalsj  =  r.;»<  K»7»»*),  occasioned  by  his  effort 
to  et»ct  his  image  in  the  temple  (13M.  I2ir.).  it  contains  (a) 
ri-»  8",  ((1)81-921,  (c)  (915)  101',  (rf)  11(15)  ID  121-17  1218-13KI  141 11 
1S1>.«>,  (,)  iQii_2ii.s.  iU.  The  other  Jewish  source  is  put  back 
to  the  time  of  Pompey  (Israel's  first  conflict  with  Rome,  and 
the  danger  of  the  temple).    It  is  composed  of  (a)  iQlb.  2m».«b^il 

(6)   llllll5.1M»_    (c)14H.»  162-I,  (rf^  154.1814.  (7.  21,  («)  171*81. 

181-19S,  CO  2i»-22»^  15.  All  other  parU  are  from  the  bond  of 
CAe  reviser. 

Spitta's  work  contains  much  that  is  of  great 
value,  but  scholars  generally  agree  that  such 
minute  analysis  is  impossible,  that  the  book  liaa 
a  greater  unity  than  this  theory  admits,  and  that 
in  particular  to  ascribe  the  seven  seals,  trumpets, 
and  bowls   to   three  ditferent  hands  is   to  over- 


look one  of  the  unmistakable  characteristics  of 
the  final  writer.  Yet  Briggs  (Messiah  of  Apustlcs, 
1895,  chs.  9-15)  goes  even  further  in  this  direc- 
tion. His  analysis  but  not  his  view  as  to  author- 
ship [epistles,  seals,  bowls,  and  probablj'  trumpets 
being  attributed  by  Briggs  to  one  author,  the 
Apostle  Jolin  (pp.  303,  369)]  is  followed  by  Barton 
(AJTh,  189S). 

It  is  not  to  be  concluded  that  the  many  laborious 
and  ingenious  ellorts  at  literary  analysis  have 
been  without  value,  even  though  they  have  led  to 
no  agreeing  result.  There  has  been  increasing 
agreement  as  to  certain  general  points.  The  book, 
though  probably  the  work  of  one  writer,  is  not  the 
original  product  of  one  mind  or  one  occasion.  It 
contains  sections  which  appear  to  be  foreign  to 
the  rest,  and  may  well  be  of  Jewish  origin,  though 
the  line  between  Jewish  and  Jewish-Christian  is 
one  impossible  to  determine.  7'"'*  11'"'*  12.  13.  17 
quite  certainly  belong  to  this  category,  and  there 
are  other  sections  which  may  have  been  taken 
by  the  writer  in  practically  finished  form  from 
apocalyptical  tradition  (e.g.  18.  20.  219-22').  This 
result,  however,  important  as  are  its  bearings  on  the 
interpretation  of  the  book,  since  it  relieves  us  of  the 
necessity  of  finding  one  type  of  religious  thought 
or  one  historical  situation  in  all  parts,  bj'  no  means 
solves  all  or  even  the  more  important  problems  of 
historical  exegesis. 

Guiikel  (Sclio))fung  unci  Chaos  in  Urzeit  und 
EnUzeil :  Eine  religionsgeschichtliclie  Unterauchung 
uher  Gen.  1  und  Apoc.  Joh.  12  (1895))  sharply 
formulated  one  of  these  outstanding  problems — 
that  concerning  the  ultimate  origin,  the  first 
meaning,  and  subsequent  history  of  that  tradi- 
tional material  from  which  apocalyptical  writers 
drew.  He  criticized  both  the  methods  in  which 
critical  scholars  had  treated  the  book — that  which 
looks  everywhere  for  figiuative  references  to  his- 
torical events  of  the  writer's  time,  and  that  which 
devotes  itself  to  literary  analysis  as  an  end.  Ac- 
knowledging that  some  of  the  apocalyptical  figures 
are  allegories  of  current  events  (Dn  7.  8,  Enoch  85 II'., 
4  Ezr  11  f..  Rev  13.  17),  and  also  that  criticism  must 
separate  some  sections  from  their  setting,  he  yet 
urges  that  tradition  largely  fixes  the  form  of  the 
figures,  and  that  the  apocalyptical  writer  uses 
them  not  with  freedom,  Ijut  with  reverence ;  not 
creating  them  as  a  poetical  embodiment  of  well- 
known  persons  and  events,  but  seeking  in  them 
for  the  clue  to  the  mjstery  of  the  present  and 
future.  The  history  of  tradition  is  therefore  more 
important  than  the  historj'of  literary  composition. 
Tradition  i.s,  in  fact,  the  real  author  of  an  apoca- 
lypse, and  it  is  this  fact  that  gives  the  writer  his 
deep  conviction  of  the  truth  of  his  predictions. 
Except  where  it  is  expressly  indicated,  it  is  not  to 
be  assumed  that  references  to  historical  persons 
and  events  are  hidilcn  behind  the  apocalyptical 
imagerj'.  With  reftrence  to  most  of  such  images 
(e.g.  9'-"  9'»--a  IP-''  IG'^'^i"  ti"-"  (cf.  4  Ezr  4«) 
11'- »  6'-'  16.6'=-"),  Gunkel  decl.ares  the  contem- 
porary-historical method  bankrupt.  Even  in 
ch.  13,  where  the  first  beast  is  the  Roman  empire, 
and  in  ch.  17,  where  the  woman  is  the  city  (Rome), 
many  details  are  not  to  be  explained  historically. 
Here  Gunkel  carries  his  opposition  to  the  ruling 
method  so  far  as  to  deny  the  almost  universal 
opinion  of  critics  that  Nero  is  indicated  by  the 
beast  and  its'  number  (pp.  21011.,  .3:«ifi'.).  Of 
Gunkel's  specific  argument,  which  is  to  illustrate 
and  vindicate  his  method,  viz.  that  Rev  12  is  ulti- 
mately an  otherwise  lost  Bab.vlonian  myth  of  the 
birth  of  Marduk,  the  conqueror  of  the  Dragon, 
more  will  be  said  below.  Other  elements  tai<cn 
from  l!al)yloniaii  mythology  (Junkel  found,  especi- 
ally in  chs.  13  and  17,  but  also  in  the  seven  angels, 
stars,  candlesticks,  eyes  (p.  294  IT.),  the  twenty-i'oui 


244    REVELATION,  BOOK  OF 


REVELATION,  BOOK  OF 


elders  (302  ff.),  Harmagedon  (263  ff.),  the  number  3i 
(266  ff.),  the  number  666  (374  ff.). 

Bousset  adopted  Ounkel's  method  in  Dtr  Antichriit  in  dtr 
Ueberlicferung  dfi  Jtuientumji,  dis  neu^n  Testaments  und  der 
neuen  liirche  (IbUa),  and  attempted  to  sliow  that  an  essentially 
fixed  apocal^-pse  of  Antichrist,  originating  in  Judaism,  can  be 
traced  from  the  New  Test,  down  through  the  Middle  Ages  ;  and 
that  this  tradition  is  essentially  independent  of  Kev,,  though 
Eev.  at  certain  points  shows  dependence  upon  it.  In  his 
Kritisch-exeiji^tuiche  Kmnmentar  (Meyer,  1896),  Bousset,  on  the 
question  of  composition,  follows  the  method  of  WeizsJiclier, 
regarding  the  hook  as  a  unity,  but  seeing  in  many  sections 
apooalj'ptical  fragments  introduced  by  the  writer  from  existing 
tradition,  in  part  Jewish  in  origin.  In  several  of  these  frag- 
meius  Bousset  finds  parts  of  the  Antichrist-tradition  (71-^  ll'-" 
1311  17  1414.20);  others  also  may  well  be  of  Jewish  origin  (131-i»  >» 
17  (with  which  should  probalily  go  also  16'2-21  and  IS],  219-2:25), 
while  12  is  of  foreign  but  apparently  not  of  Jewish  origin. 
Bousset's  treatment  of  various  matters  of  detail  will  be  men. 
tioned  in  the  course  of  this  article. 

Holtzniann  (,Einleituug  in  d.  XT^,  1892  ;  Band-Cmnmentar^, 
1893)  recognizes  indications  of  a  double  historical  background 
(soon  after  the  dt-alh  of  Nero,  and  in  the  reign  of  Domitian),  but 
does  not  go  beyond  the  recognition  of  two  or  more  streams  in 
the  book,  and  liolds  chiefly  to  the  contemporary -historical 
method  of  interj^retation,  though  now  recognizing  also  the 
importance  of  tradition  ob  a  source  of  the  writer's  material 
(Lehrtfuch  der  neutetit.  Theol.  i.  403-476). 

The  relative  value  of  the  three  methods  of 
interpretation  last  discussed — the  conteinporary- 
huitorical,  the  literary-critical,  and  tlie  tradition- 
historical — is  still  a  matter  of  debate  (see  Well- 
hausen,  Skizzen  u.  Vorarbeilen,  vi.  18fi9,  pp.  '215- 
249,  and  Gunkel,  Zeitschr.  f.  wissen-schl.  Theol. 
1899).  Each  in  a  measure  limits  or  controls  tlie 
application  of  the  other,  and  the  right  of  each, 
within  its  bounds,  may  fairly  be  said  to  be  estab- 
lished. Yet  they  do  not,  taken  together,  wholly 
cover  the  ground.  On  two  general  Hues,  nnuh 
work  remains  to  be  done.  One  is  the  psychological 
study  of  apocalyptical  writing,  the  other  is  the 
hi-storical  relations  of  the  Christianity  of  Rev., — 
esp  the  relation  of  its  eschatologj'  to  that  of  Jesus 
and  to  that  of  St.  Paul,  and  the  relation  of  its 
Chiistology  and  Soteriology  to  the  Pauline  and 
the  primitive  apostolic.  Gunkel  at  first  put  for- 
ward his  tradition  -  historical  method  as  also  a 
psychological  explanation  of  the  apocalypse.  The 
writer's  belief  in  the  truth  and  inviolable  sanctity 
of  his  mysterious  message  could  arise  only  from 
actual  vision  (which  the  nature  of  the  material 
and  the  tendency  of  the  modern  mind  exclude),  or 
from  the  real  antiquity  of  the  material,  before 
which  the  writer  himself  stood  with  awe.  But 
Gunkel  himself  is  now  inclined  to  allow  the  actu- 
ality of  visionary  experiences  (as  psycliologists 
recognize  them)  in  connexion  with  the  writing  of 
apocalypses  (see  the  Introduction  to  his  translation 
of  4  Ezra  in  Kautzsch's  PseudcpicirapJien  d.  AT, 
1900,  and  Preface  to  the  2nd  eii.  of  his  Wirkungen 
des  Ileiligcn  Gcistes,  1900).  The  most  significant 
effort  in  this  direction,  and  the  occasion  of  Gunkel's 
modification  of  his  former  position,  is  Weinel's 
Wirkungen  des  Geiites  und  der  Gcister,  1899. 

On  the  other  Iiand,  the  question  so  vital  to  an 
understanding  of  the  beginnings  of  Christianity, 
whether  the  Chiistology  and  Soteriology  of  Kev. 
are  Pauline,  anti-Pauline,  or  independent  of  Paul- 
inism,  remains  quite  unanswered ;  as  does  the  other 
still  more  vital  question  whether  the  eschatology 
of  Kev.  (given  as  the  dictation  of  Jesus,  1'  22")  is 
based  on  that  of  the  Gospels,  and  ultimately  on  the 
teaching  of  Jesus,  or  is  the  source  of  the  eschat- 
ologj'  which  the  Gospels  wrongly  ascribe  to  Him. 

The  final  problem  of  the  interpreter  is,  of  course, 
to  get  back  as  fully  as  possible  into  the  mind  of 
the  writer.  Two  main  paths  are  now  open  that 
lead  toward  this  result  in  the  cose  of  Revelation. 

(1)  The  study  of  apocalyptical  literature  in  general ; 

(2)  the  study  of  the  contents,  plan,  sources  (so  far 
as  known),  historical  situation,  and  teachings  of 
the  book  itself.     These  two  paths  will  be   pur- 


sued in  the  following  discussion.  Two  other  paths 
invite  exploration — (1)  the  psychological  study  of 
trance  and  ecstatic  conditions  and  phenomena  in 
religious  history,  (2)  the  origin  and  relations  of  the 
apocalyptical  and  the  spiritual  types  of  Christian 
thought  in  the  1st  cent.  These  two  paths  must  be 
opened  by  further  research,  in  the  latter  oise  most 
of  all  in  the  Gospels,  before  results  can  be  sum- 
marized in  an  article  like  the  present. 

In  following  the  two  main  paths  just  indicated, 
the  following  presuppositions  will  be  in  part 
assumed  as  a  result  of  the  history  of  criticism,  in 
part,  it  is  hoped,  proved  by  the  discussion  —  (1) 
Kev.  is  an  apocalypse  among  others,  and  is  to  be 
viewed  and  mterpreted  as  such.  (2)  Rome  is  that 
emliodiment  of  evil  against  which  the  book  is 
chiefly  diiected,  whose  overthrow  it  immediately 
predicts.  (3)  The  book  makes  use  of  apocalyptical 
materials  from  various  (often  probably  from  Jewish) 
sources,  so  that  the  question  as  to  the  place  of  a 
given  section  in  the  writer's  plan,  its  meaning  in 
his  use  of  it,  is  to  be  kept  distinct  from  the  ques- 
tion of  its  original  meaning  and  use,  and  the 
interpreter  at  many  points   has  a  twofold   task. 

(4)  It  may  not  infrequently  happen  that  the  writer 
receives  from  tradition  details  which  have  no 
meaning  at  all  for  him,  but  which  he  retains  as 
parts  of  the  picture.  The  traditional  meaning  is 
in  such  cases  the  only  one  for  which  we  need  to 
search  ;  and  often  we  can  only  say  that  it  belongs 
to  tradition,  since  the  clue  to  its  meaning  is  lost. 

(5)  In  such  cases,  and  in  various  others,  the  possi- 
bility is  open  that  the  writer  uses  such  material 
for  its  poetic  value,  and  not  because  of  a  reverence 
which  prevents  his  altering  it. 

ii.  The  Natitre  of  Apocalyptical  WRinNcs. 
— The  Book  of  Rev.  calls  itself  a  prophecy,  and  ita 
author  classes  himself  among  prophets ;  but  the 
book  is  called  by  us  an  apocalypse,  and  we  have 
applied  this  title  to  certain  other  Jewish  books, 
and  some  Cliristian  adaptations  and  imitations  of 
them,  which  we  distinguish  somewhat  sharply 
from  prophecy.  Our  interpretation  and  estima- 
tion of  Kev.  is  deeply  affected  by  this  classification. 
What,  then,  is  the  apocalypse  in  its  distinction 
from  prophecy  ?  We  cannot  avoid  some  prelimin.ary 
discussion  of  this  question  (though  see,  further, 
Apocrypha  i..  Apocalyptic  Literatitre,  Pro- 
phecy), as  it  bears  on  the  nature  of  our  book  and 
the  way  in  which  it  should  be  used.  There  are 
still  some  who  class  Kev.  with  the  prophetic  rather 
than  with  the  apocalyptical  writings  of  Israel  (e.g. 
Zahn),  and  there  are  some  who  class  it  with  apoca- 
lypses, but  regard  the  apocalyptic  as  a  higher 
form  of  inspiration  than  the  prophetic  (see  Terry, 
Biblical  Apocalyptics,  1898,  pp.  11,  12).  Since  such 
views  strongly  att'ect  interpretation,  it  is  essential 
to  understand  the  historical  relation  of  the  two 
forms  of  writing  and  the  place  of  Kev.  in  relation 
to  them. 

The  transition  from  prophecy  to  apocalypse  wag 
effected  in  the  OT  itself.  It  was  not  a  sudden 
but  a  gradual  transition,  nor  is  the  contrast  at  the 
end  an  absolute  one.  Tlie  change  is  usually  traced 
to  Ezekiel  for  its  beginning.  Daniel  is  the  oldest 
book  which  has  complete  apocalyptical  form  ;  and 
it  remains  the  classical  example  and  tyjie  of  this 
kind  of  writing.  Yet  anticipations  of  certain 
marks  of  tliis  literature  can  be  found  in  earlier 
prophets,  especially  in  Isaiah  (e.g.  Vision  of  God, 
ch.  6  ;  description  of  Day  of  J",  ch.  2  ;  perhaps  the 
inviolability  of  Jerusalem),  and  genuinely  pro- 
phetic traits  are  not  wanting  in  Daniel  (ct.  9'""), 
or  even  in  other  apocalypses  from  Bk.  of  Enoch 
to  4  Ezra.  The  character  of  the  Book  of  Daniel 
deserves  somewhat  close  attention  because  of  iti 
fundamental  significance  and  many  special  point* 
of  contact  with  Revelation. 


REVELATION,  BOOK  OF 


REVELATION,  BOOK  OF    245 


1.  Biok  of  Dnnkl. — (a)  Occasion  and  message. — 
The  }5k.  of  Ilanirl  .-ipiicurfd  during  the_reIigioa3 
persecution  of  Am ii>.  hus  lljiiphanes.  ItsaiiiiwaS 
the  encourH;;eniuiil  of  ijalitiut  endurance  and 
fidelity  anud  j)er.secution.  It  taught  this  lesson  in 
part  by  stories  (histories)  illustrating  the  safe- 
keeping by  God  of  those  who  resist  the  tempta- 
tions and  endure  the  violence  of  the  world-power 
in  its  hostility  to  God  ;  in  part  by  predictions  of 
the  approaching  end  of  the  power  now  threatening 
and  atuicting  the  people  of  God. 

AntiochuB  shall  die  by  a  Judffment  of  Ood  {Sa^/Xi.-n  n27.«) 
»ft«r  about  3*  years  (S'-i  9-1  12'  "•  l^X  and  the  Greek  world- 
empire  shall  be  overthrown  (23<.  ss  «■ «  7"- »).  This  is  to  be 
accomplished  not  by  human  effort,  but  by  God  directly  (2^^-  •"•  *^ 
gSB  7»fl".  83.*;),  or  throujrh  Gabriel  and  Michael,  who  contend 
with  the  pods  of  heathen  nations  (lO'3-lll  121).  After  this  a 
time  of  trouble  shall  follow,  testing  the  Jewsh  people,  includ- 
ing some  of  the  de.vl,  and  dividing  the  pood  from  the  wicked 
(121-*- 10).  Then  shall  be  established  the  kingdom  of  God,  which 
10  the  world-kingdom  of  Israel,  and  is  to  endure  tor  ever. 

(6)  Underhjing  faith. — The  general  foundation 
on  which  this  message  rests,  the  underlying  doc- 
trine of  tliabook.^iajnonotheism,  the  faith  llial 
all  power  is  (JoU's  f  that  •  tlie  iviost  High  ruletli  in 
the  kingdom  of  men,  and  giveth  it  to  whomsoever 


he  will '  (4"- 


'  5-M,  and  that  times  and  seasons 


are  in  His  hand,  fixed  by  His  purpose.  This  faith 
requires  the  inference  that  God's  rule  must  and  at 
last  shall  be  recognized  by  all  kings  and  nations, 
and  that  He  must,  in  the  end,  take  His  kingdom 
to  Himself  (2"),  and  rule  it  tlirough  His  own 
people  (7i»- "•  M- ■-■').  But  the  very  fact  that  the 
realization  of  God's  rule  is  fnt^rp  r^vffl]s  t])^  rliifll. 
iatie  element  which  stands  over  against  mono- 
ttieism  in  the  theology  of  the  book.  The  contrast 
between  the  present  and  the  future,  between  this 
age  and  the  age  to  come,  reaches  beyond  the 
visible  into  the  invisible  world,  and  is  connected 
with  oontrast  and  conflict  there,  finds  there,  indeed, 
its  explanation.  The  seer  who  would  understand 
the  present  perverse  and  intolerable  cour.se  of 
history,  with  heathen  nations  at  the  head  and 
Israel  at  the  tail,  must  not  only  have  the  veil 
lifted  that  hides  the  future  developments  of  God's 
fixed  plan,  but  must  see  behind  the  scenes  those 
actions  in  the  angelic  world  by  which  man's  history 
may  be  influenced,  in  some  sense,  and  for  a  time, 
even  against  God's  plan. 

(c)  Hource  and  authority  of  the  message. — Whence 
did  the  writer  gain  his  certainty  of  the  near 
approach  of  the  fall  of  the  existing  world-empire, 
and  the  realization  of  the  kingship  of  God,  and  of 
the  beings  and  actions  in  the  angel-world  which 
explain  present  evils  and  are  to  effect  their  end  ? 
The  predictive  parts  of  Daniel  (clis.  7-12)  could 
well  be  described,  like  Rev  1',  as  'revelations  of 
God  through  his  angel  Gabriel  to  his  servant 
Daniel.'  Gabriel's  communications  are  in  part  in 
the  form  of  interpretations  of  dream-visions  (chs. 
7.  8,  of.  2),  but  once  he  interprets  an  OT  prediction 
after  Daniel  haa  studied  it  and  prayed  over  it 
(ch.  9),  and  once  Gabriel  appears  to  Daniel  after  a 
three  weeks'  fast,  and  declares  to  him  directly  (not 
through  figure)  mysteries  of  the  spirit-world  and 
of  the  future  (chs.  10-12). 

The  visions  are  described  as  real  experiences, 
time  and  place  being  given,  and  tlie  deep  emotions 
of  the  seer  described  (7"-  >»  8'»-'«- "  9»- »  lO'"'"-  ">■'»). 
The  experiences  seem  to  lie  in  the  region  of  sleep 
or  on  its  borderland  (7'- '  8"  10").  Their  subjective 
reality  seems  to  be  in  a  measure  confirmed  by  the 
intense  seriousness  which  characterizes  the  book, 
and  the  writer's  evident  belief  in  the  value  and 
Divine  origin  of  his  message. 

But,  on  the  other  hand,  the  book  is  nnquestion- 
ahly  pseudonymous,  and  the  visions  contain,  in 
the  form  of  Gabriel's  di.^closures  about  the  future, 
much  that  was  to  the  author  really,  and  of  course 


consciously,  history.  Is  this  consistent  with  the 
impression  that  the  writer  is  describing  really 
visionary,  ecstatic  experiences,  or  docs  it  compel  us 
to  assume  that  the  vision  is  tliroughout  a  literary 
form  ?  The  problem  is  really  a  psychological  one. 
How  are  we  to  explain  the  form  ot  tlie  book,  that 
of  visions  and  angelic  interpretations,  so  as  to 
explain  both  the  fact  that  tliese  consist  largely  in 
history  disguised  as  prediction,  and  the  fact  of 
the  writer's  emotion  and  conviction  as  to  their 
contents  ?  It  is  evident  that  this  form  served  the 
writer's  practical  purpose,  for  it  showed  that  the 
present  insupportable  condition  of  his  people  was 
foreknown  and  determined  by  God,  and  it  gave  a 
ground  for  belief  in  the  truth  of  predictions  of 
really  future  events.  But  the  emotion  and  con- 
viction of  the  writer  seem  inconsistent  with  his 
use  of  a  purely  artistic,  not  to  say  artful,  form  of 
composition. 

We  are  undoubtedly  helped  towards  a  solution 
of  tlie  problem  hy  the  fact,  whose  significance  we 
owe  to  G'\nkel,  that  the  predictions  of  the  apoca- 
lypse are  not  novelties,  but  rest  in  part  on  tradi- 
tion. The  foresight  of  Daniel  comes  to  the  ^vriter, 
at  least  in  part,  through  the  study  of  the  older 

Srophets.  Tlie  interpretation  of  the  70  weeks  of 
er  25'"-  29'"  is  certainly  of  central  si-'nilicance  in 
the  book  (ch.  9).  But  it  is  probable  also  that 
symbolical  figures  such  as  those  of  chs.  7  and  8 
(cf.  2)  were  not  invented  de  novo  by  tlie  author, 
but  came  to  him  from  the  past,  and  were  regarded 
by  him  as  mysterious  types  and  forecasts  of  human 
history,  in  which  he  could  find  the  future  the 
more  surely  because  he  could  lind  in  them  the 
past.  The  pseudonymous  form  becomes  both  less 
oirensive  to  us  and  more  intelligible  if  we  suppose 
that  the  writer  was  actually  searching  in  ancient 
prophecies,  and  in  apocalyptical  traditions  to  him 
no  less  ancient,  for  previsions  of  the  actual  course 
of  post-exilic  Jewish  history,  in  order  that  he 
might  the  more  firmly  believe  and  the  more  surely 
convince  others  that  the  present  crisis  is  not  a 
break  in  the  plan  of  God,  but  a  necessary  stage  in 
its  unfoldin<^,  and  that  the  promised  deliverance 
is  near.  It  is  possible  also  in  this  case  to  suppose 
that  the  interpretation  came  in  connexion  with 
deep  emotional  experiences. 

(a)  Plan  of  the  cumpo.s-it ion.  —  Daniel  is  char- 
acterized by  an  unmistakable  unity  of  tone  and 
general  teaching  ;  but  unity  in  plan  and  in  detail 
IS  not  obvious,  and  various  ell'orts  to  prove  com- 
posite authorship  have  been  made.  In  fact  the 
book  is  made  up  of  ten  quite  distinct  pieces,  largely 
independent  oi  each  other  (divided  according  to 
chapters,  except  the  10th, which  includes  chs.  10-12). 
Distinct  apocalypses  could  easily  be  made  of  chs. 
2.  7.  8.  9.  lU-12.  It  is,  however,  the  prevailing  and 
probable  view  that  the  book,  as  we  have  it,  comes 
from  one  author  ;  that  the  enemy  of  God  and  His 
people  is  everywhere  Antiochus,  and  the  hone  every- 
where that  01  his  speedy  overthrow  and  tiie  ruler- 
ship  of  Israel  over  the  nations.  The  book,  then, 
has  no  chronological  sequence  throughout ;  it  does, 
however,  describe  the  present  distress  and  the 
coming  deliverance  on  the  whole  with  increasing 
definiteness  and  detail  in  the  successive  figures.  Ch. 
7  is  more  explicit  than  ch.  2,  while  cli.  i^jlcsauiid 


)  ol  Aiiliipi  Iius  IV.  Tins  pi 
as  serving  well  the  tntmonitory  aim  of  the  writer, 
which  the  stories  also  evidently  serve.  His  plan 
is  to  give  a  clearer  and  fuller  disclosure  of  the 
future  OS  the  book  proceeds,  but  to  enforce  con- 
stantly in  varied  forms  the  les.son  of  the  reality  of 
God's  rule  and  the  safety  of  patient  and  enduring 
trust  in  Him  amid  present  troubles.  There  is  no 
anxiety  about  exact  consistency  throughout.     Th« 


246    REVELATION,  BOOK  OF 


REVELATION,  BOOK  OF 


overthrow  of  the  Greek  kingdom  is  at  first  the 
deed  of  God  alone,  but  in  the  last  vision  Michael 
is  the  deliverer.  At  first  the  consummation  seems 
to  follow  directly  upon  the  fall  of  Antiochus,  hut 
in  oh.  12  a  period  of  trial  for  Israel  intervenes 
before  its  glory.  The  stories  teach  a  present  de- 
liverance for  the  faithful,  but  at  the  end  martyrdom 
and  a  deliverance  only  after  death  come  into  view. 

2.  Characteristics  of  Apocalypses  in  comparison 
with  Prophecy. — On  tne  basis  of  this  description  of 
Daniel  we  may  attempt  a  brief  discussion  of  the 
characteristics  of  apocalyptical  literature  in  general 
in  comj)arison  with  OT  prophecy. 

(a)  situation  and  message. — In  the  case  of  the 
apocalj£se  the  situation  is  always  one  in  which  the 
righteous  arein  trouble,  because  ot  tlie  rule  uf  y 
foreign  power,  and  usually  also  because  in  the 
Jewish  community  itself  those  who  have  power 
and  prosperity  are  the  wicked,  not  the  righteous. 
Thft  pipss.'ycr^  ii^  f'^t  '^plij^erance  is  soon_if'  "nmo 


andjnr  tliit  i 
iTie  pre-exil 


pre-exilic  prophets,  on  the  contrary,  spoke  in 
times  of  national  prosperity  and  conlidence  of  a 
coming  day  of  J",  which  would  be  a  day  of  judg- 
ment on  Israel  at  the  hand  of  a  foreign  power. 
The  message  was  one  of  repentance  and  righteous- 
ness that  the  threatened  judgment  might  be 
averted,  the  sentence  recalled.  The  prophets  pre- 
dicted primarily  judgment,  not  deliverance ;  the 
prediction  was  conditional,  not  fixed ;  and  the 
practical  inference  was  repentance,  not  patience. 
The  change  of  message  belonged  in  part  to  the 
^change  of  situation  which  the  ExUe  itself  effected. 
(6)  The  dualistic  theology. — Bousset  rightly  calls 
4  Ezr  7™  '  The  Most  High  has  made  not  one  world, 
but  two,'  the  inner  principle  of  the  apocalypse. 
The  sliarp  contrast  in  which  the  kingdom  of  this 
world,  which  is  the  kingdom  of  Satan,  is  set  over 
against  the  kingdom  of  God,  can  he  partly  explained 
as  a  result  of  tendencies  within  Judaism ;  but  it 
seems  probable  that  the  Persian  dualistic  religion 
must  be  taken  into  account  in  order  to  explain  this 
strange  departure  from  the  otherwise  strongly 
marked  monotheism  of  Judaism  (see  esp.  Stave, 
Einfluss  des  Parsismus  auf  den  Judentum,  1898). 
In  contrast  to  this  dualistic  tendency  the  older 
prophets  were  far  more  consistently,  even  if  less 
theoretically  and  consciously,  monotheistic,  for  they 
believed  in  the  actual  rule  of  the  God  of  right- 
eousness in  present  world-history  as  well  as  in 
the  coming  age,  in  the  visible  and  not  only  in 
the  invisible  realm.  They  therefore  saw  evidence 
of  the  nearness  and  reality  of  God's  rule  in  the 
presence  and  growth  of  tlie  power  of  good  ;  while 
the  tendency  of  the  apocalypse  was  to  see  in  the 
Rowing  power  of  evil  the  evidence  that  God's 
intervention.  His  reversal  of  human  history,  was 
at  hand. 

(c)  The  element  of  prediction. — -Unfulfilled  pro- 
phecy is  the  foundation  upon  which  the  whole  struc- 
ture of  the  apocalypse  was  built.  This  was  both 
the  problem  and  the  reliance  of  Jewish  faith  and 
hope.  What  was  spoken  must  be  literally  accom- 
plished. Of  conditional  prediction  the  apocaly])se 
knows  nothing.  The  prophets'  predictions  of  judg- 
ment had  been  fulfilled  by  the  Exile,  but  tlieir 
predictions  with  reference  to  the  return  from  exile 
had  never  been  fulfilled  by  tlie  actual  return  ;  hence 
it  must  be  that  these  hojies  of  the  renewed  land, 
the  united  tribes,  the  royal  power  and  glory  of 
Israel,  were  still  to  be  realized.  What  the  pro- 
phecies really  meant,  in  view  of  their  apparent 
contradiction  by  events,  when  and  liow  their  ful- 
filment was  to  come  about,  it  was  the  task  of  the 
apocalyptic  scribe  to  discover.  Ezekiel  took  a  de- 
cided step  towards  apocalypse  when,  on  the  basis  of 
the  words  of  Zephaniah  and  Jeremiah  concerning 
the  Scythians,  he  predicted  the  final  assault  of  Gog 


and  his  wild  hosts  upon  Jerusalem  and  their  over- 
throw, and  thus  established  one  of  the  fixed 
elements  in  apocalyptical  dogma  (Ezk  38"  39*). 
Haggai  and  Zechariah  still  looked  for  a  human 
explanation  of  the  failuie  of  the  hopes,  and 
found  it  in  the  delay  in  rebuilding  the  temple ; 
Malachi,  in  imperfect  ofl'erings  and  withheld 
tithes.  Tti,^  jn  pnnioj  the  reason  is  found  nc 
longer  in  the  fault  of  man  but  in  the  plan  of  God. 
The  VU  years  are  70  wee^  of  years,  and  the  un- 
alterable time  tor  the  ega~tronIy  ^ust  now  draw- 
ing near.  4  Ezra  reinterprets  thelourth  beast  of 
Un  7  to~prove  that  Rome  also  was  included  in  the 
predehtined  course  of  history  before  the  end  could 
come  (12"-").  Only  in  the  Bk.  of  Jonah  do  we 
have  a  protest  against  the  dominant  apocalyptic  by 
a  surviving  prophetic  spirit.  Here  the  prediction 
is  of  judgment,  its  aim  to  produce  repentance,  and 
the  result  the  success  of  the  preaching,  with  the 
failure  of  the  prediction.  Yet  even  a  book  written 
in  part  to  prove  that  prediction  is  ethical  in  aim 
and  conditional  in  result  could  be  used  by  Jews  as 
if  its  predictions  were  magical  and  inviolable  (To 
14*-  *,  B).  The  fault  of  the  prophet  Jonah,  which  the 
book  uncovers  and  rebukes,  was  the  fault  of  Judaism 
and  its  apocalypses.  The  Bk.  of  Jonah  is  a  true 
utterance  of  the  spirit  of  prophecy  in  unavailinor 
protest  against  tlieji9ira:vaJ«as,-the  iealoiisY.  and 
tile"  rev^'n'^p  f^'t^t  Tfi°["''"  ni'ic'igj^jj^j'  iipnciljp'''' 
writing.  Prophecy  is  fulfiUeiriiy  every  evidence 
in  history  of  the  rule  of  a  righteous  and  merciful 
God,  whether  anticipated  or  not,  whether  for  the 
benefit  of  Jews  or  of  Gentiles.  Apocalypse  sees 
the  hand  of  God  and  the  vindication  and  glory  of 
the  seer  only  in  a  literal  correspondence  between 
predictions  and  events,  and  only  in  the  fall  of  a 
Nineveh  and  the  glory  of  Zion  and  Israel. 

(d)  Pseudonymous  authorship.  —  It  corresponds 
perfectly  to  the  contrast  just  described  that  pro- 
phecy should  be  a  personal  and  direct  form  of 
speech,  the  apocalypse  a  pseudepigraphic  and 
mj'sterious  form  of  writing.  The  prophet  stood 
before  his  people  and  spoke  in  his  own  person. 
Tlie  authority  of  his  speech  was  in  no  small 
measure  that  of  his  personality.  He  spoke  first 
and  wrote  afterwards,  but  wrote  as  he  spoke,  in 
the  first  person.  When,  in  the  Exile  and  after  it, 
prophets  followed  who  repeated  what  others  had 
said,  or  gave  expression  to  the  common  faith,  and 
had  no  peculiar  message,  their  names  were  unim- 
portant, and  many  of  them  wrote  anonymously 
(Is  40-66,  Malachi,  Zee  9-14,  etc.).  Daniel  is  the 
tir.st  example  of  that  pseudonymous  prophetic 
writing  which  characterizes  the  whole  apocalyp- 
tical group.  It  embodies  the  Jewish  worship  of 
prediction.  Yet  the  moral  earnestness  and  reliL'ioua 
elevation  of  books  like  Daniel  and  4  Ezra  malce  it 
ditficult  for  us  to  regard  tliem  as  fictions,  and  cer- 
tain considerations  may  help  us  to  understand  how 
this  form  of  v\Titing  could  be  used  by  such  men, 
although  we  must  at  best  put  their  work  far  below 
the  simplicitj'  and  openness  of  genuine  propliecy. 
■The  fact  that  the  apocalyptical  writer  was  a  serious 
student  of  ancient  prophecies,  whose  sacredness  he 
reverenced,  and  whose  secrets  he  believed  he  could 
in  a  measure  expound,  suggests  that  he  did  not 
regard  his  thoughts  as  his  own.  The  fixed  and 
really  ancient  cliaracter  of  such  apocalyptical  tra- 
ditions as  those  of  the  dragon  of  the  deep,  makes 
conceivable  such  a  writer's  evident  faith  in  his  pre- 
dictions, which  would  be  psychologically  incredible 
if  the  visions  were  pure  works  of  the  imagination. 
Furthermore, — and  this  is  an  observation  of  great 
importance, — no  apocalypse  gives  the  impression  of 
entire  unity  and  harmony.  Not  only  the  writer's 
own  studies  of  OT  proi)hets,  not  only  his  own  in- 
terpretations of  apocalyptical  imagery,  but  those  of 
others  before  hiiu  are  at  his  command,  and  furnisi 


EEVELATION,  BOOK  OF 


REVELATIOX,  BOOK  OF         247 


the  materials  of  his  book.  Not  only  traditions,  bat 
writings  form  his  sources.  Tliese  materials  may 
already  have  connected  themselves  with  Enoch,  or 
Mose.-,  or  some  other  great  name.  So  that  one 
may  venture  to  say  that  the  pseudonymity  of  these 
books  has  some  basis  in  actuality.  The  hiding 
or  sealing  of  the  book  until  the  end  (Dn  12^'  8'^ 
(10"),  Assump.  Mos.  l"->8)  belongs  to  the  pseudepi- 
graphic  form,  accounting  for  tlie  appearance  of  tlie 
book  so  long  after  the  time  of  its  assumed  origin. 
Yet  this  may  also  express  the  actual  fact  of  the 
ancient  character  of  the  writer's  sources.  Tlie 
writers  could  not  have  put  forth  this  material 
altogether  in  their  own  names,  for  it  is  not  as  a 
whole  their  invention.  They  are  largely  compilers 
and  commentators,  and  have  a  deep  reverence  for 
tlicir  sources.  Yet  this  observation,  which  we  owe 
to  Gunkel,  must  be  modilied  in  view  of  those  figures 
which  are  unmistakably  and  even  e.xplicitly  con- 
structed for  the  purpose  of  setting  forth  in  alle- 
gorical form  the  nistory  of  the  past,  especially  of 
the  recent  past,  as  foreseen  by  the  supposed  ancient 
author.  Dn  7  contains,  no  doubt,  traditional 
material  of  the  sort  just  described,  but  it  has 
been  freely  re-shaped  so  as  to  contain  the  history 
of  four  successive  world-empires.  If  the  original 
form  of  the  tradition  contained  only  one  dra^'ou  of 
the  deep,  how  can  we  be  sure  that  the  description 
of  the  one  like  a  man  was  not  part  of  the  writer's 
elaboration  of  his  material,  rather  than,  as  Gunkel 
affirms,  part  of  the  tradition  itself?  And  if  so,  his 
belief  in  the  forecast  it  contains  preceded  his  use  of 
the  tradition  and  determined  his  use  of  it. 

(e)  Literary  material  and  form. — The  apoca- 
lypse is  characterized  by  the  use  of  striking 
bgures,  not  only  strange  and  unnatural,  but 
evidently  mysterious  in  character,  seen  in  dreams 
and  visions,  interpreted  by  angels,  and  yielding 
secrets  of  the  future  course  of  history.  Although 
prophecy  is  full  of  figurative  forms  of  speecL, 
Ireely  fashioned,  or  poetically  and  rhetorically 
applied,  j-et  these  figures  liave  neither  the  strange 
unearthly  character  nor  the  mysterious  value  of 
the  distinctively  apocalyptical  symbols.  Those 
latter,  at  least  in  part,  go  back  to  primitive 
mythological  formations.  This  connexion  is  quite 
unmistakable  in  Zecli. ,  where  a  mass  of  this  material 
suddenly  meets  us.  The  four  winds,  messengers 
and  agents  of  God,  and  the  seven  planets.  His 
eyes,  which  run  to  and  fro  through  the  whole 
earth,  are  still  clearly  to  be  perceived  as  the 
underlying  foundation  of  figures  wliich  the  pro- 
phet applies  to  the  historical  situation,  and  to  the 
two  men,  Joshua  and  Zerubltabd,  on  whom  he 
fixes  his  high  hopes  (2»-"  6'-»  4="'^  ""■").  Yet  Zech. 
uses  such  material  aa  poetry,  while  in  Daniel  it 
has  value  as  mystery,  containing,  for  one  who 
could  interpret  it,  the  secrets  of  tlie  future.  The 
vision  and  its  interjiretation  by  an  angel  comes 
therefore  to  be  of  supreme  value,  and  revelation 
is  conceived  of  in  this  half-sensible  and  wholly 
eupernaturalistic  way.  Ezekiel  here  also  leads 
the  way.  Ilia  vision  of  God  is  more  sensible  than 
Isaiah's,  and  his  inspiration  more  external  and 
eupernaturalistic  than  Jeremiah's  (cf.  Ezk  1  with 
Is  G,  and  Ezk  2.  3  with  Jcr  I). 

(/)  Literary  composilivn  and  history.  —  After 
Daniel,  the  Jewish  apocalypses  appear  to  be  in 
no  case  proper  unities.  ^lost  of  tliera  have  been 
ailapted  by  revision  to  use  in  later  and  changed  con- 
ditions, and  all  of  them,  including  Daniel,  appear 
to  l>e  based  in  their  first  writing  on  older  materials 
wliich  they  embody,  without  serious  ellort  to 
build  them  into  a  harmonious  structure.  The  Bk. 
of  Enoch  is  a  compilation  of  Enoch  literature, 
having  indeed  a  certain  rough  plan  as  it  now 
stiiiids,  but  without  real  unity.  Even  chs.  1-36 
contain  three  distinct  descriptions  of  the  Messianic 


consummation  (chs.  5.  10.  25),  which,  in  connexion 
with  the  description  of  Slieol  (cli.  22),  form  any- 
thing but  a  continuous  and  consistent  picture. 
Almost  all  forms  of  the  Jewish  hope  are  contained 
in  this  book  :  that  in  which  the  Messiah  occupies 
the  central  place,  that  in  which  he  is  subordinate, 
and  that  in  which  he  is  wholly  absent ;  that  in 
which  the  scene  and  character  are  purely  earthly, 
that  in  which  they  are  properly  heavenly  (angelic) ; 
that  in  which  the  heavenly  precedes  the  earthly 
and  finally  descends  to  earth  (37-70),  and  that  in 
which  the  heavenly  follows  after  the  earthly  in 
chronological  succession  (91'-'")  —  the  chiliastic 
scheme.  In  general  the  apocalypses  are  not  char- 
acterized by  a  thoroughgoing  unity  of  scheme,  nor 
even  by  a  consistent  unity  of  teaching,  and  cannot 
be  undsrstood  except  by  the  recognition  of  inde- 
pendent sources,  and  also,  in  some  cases,  editorial 
revision.  Here  we  have  especially  to  do  with  the 
additions  of  Christian  hands,  since  througli  them 
alone  these  books,  after  Daniel,  have  reached  us. 
In  some  cases  this  Christian  revision  has  gone  but 
a  little  way  (Enoch,  Assump.  Mos.,  Apoc.  Bar) ; 
while  in  some  cases  the  Jewish  apocalypse  is  found 
in  a  radical  Christian  revision  (Asc.  of  Isaiah, 
Test.  XII.  Patriarchs).  The  questions  as  to  literary 
analysis  and  the  presence  of  a  considerable  Christian 
element  are  still  very  variously  answered,  especially 
in  the  case  of  Enoch  37-70  (71)  and  4  Ezra. 

{(/)  Apocalyptical  dogmas. — The  religious  teach- 
ings of  the  prophets,  individual  and  distinct  as 
they  are,  can  be  summarized  only  in  some  such 
statement  of  their  moral  and  religious  principles 
as  Mic  6'  ('to  do  justly,  and  to  love  mere}', 
and  to  walk  humbly  with  thy  God '),  in  con- 
nexion with  such  a  formulation  of  their  preach- 
ing of  repentance  in  view  of  tlie  threatened 
judgment  as  Zech.  gives  (I*  1'^-  connecting  v."  with 
v.').  But  in  the  apocalj'pses  not  jjrinciples  so 
much  as  details  become  fixed  in  dogmas.  Daniel's 
general  scheme  for  the  future  is  unchanged :  a 
coming  Day  of  J",  which  is  near  at  hand,  and 
comes  when  evil  is  at  its  height ;  the  overthrow 
of  the  world-kingdom,  the  siltin"  of  the  Jewish 
people,  and  the  possession  by  the  righteous  of 
kingship  over  the  nations  and  lasting  blessedness. 
To  this  were  added,  from  Ezekiel,  a  final  assault 
of  the  outstanding  heathen  upon  Zion,  in  which 
they  are  gloriously  and  finally  vanquished ;  from 
various  prophecies,  the  expectation  of  the  return 
of  the  ten  tribes  and  the  gathering  of  the  dis- 

fiersed  Jews ;  and  details  regarding  the  renewed 
and  and  city,  such  as  Deutero-Isaiah,  Ezekiel, 
Haggai,  and  others  suggested. 

within  this  general  Bcheme  Bome  important  differences  were 
possible.  Tile  Messiah  is  sometimes  conceived  of  as  God't 
agent  in  establiiihing  his  ItiiiK'iiom  on  eartli  (e.</.  Ps-£iol  17, 
Enoch  37-70),  sometimes  as  king  after  the  kingdom  hoa  been 
set  up  by  Ood,  e.g.  Enoi^h  90,  4  Ezr  7'^,  Apoc.  Bar  29 ;  and 
sometimes  all  is  done  by  God  alone,  and  there  is  no  king  beside 
him  (e.g.  I>aniel,  Enoch  1-3<J,  Assump.  Mos.  lU). 

Tile  place  of  the  individual  in  this  eschatulogicol  scheme  Is 
differently  estimated.  Sometimes,  and  in  ^'encral  one  may  say 
in  earlier  times,  nations  are  the  chief  actors,  and  it  is  the 
problem  of  Israel  that  events  are  to  solve.  Increasingly  the 
individual  claimed  consideration,  and  the  sug^'estions  of  Dn 
1'^  3. 13  were  followed  and  elaborated.  An  oscbatology  of  the 
individual  was  developed  in  connexion  with  the  national,  and 
gradually  threatened  to  subordinate  the  national  to  itself.  At 
first  it  was  enough  that  the  righteous  dead  should  arise  to  have 
the  part  they  deserved  in  the  glory  of  the  nation.  Ijut  at  *tome 
time  the  effort  to  claim  for  the  individual  a  more  than  earthly 
and  temporary  future,  and  perhaps  also  the  effort  to  ascribe  to 
the  comuig  age  a  more  than  earthlv  glory,  produced  a  strain 
and  at  lajit  a  break  in  the  traditional  nope.  There  came  to  be 
two  consummations,  the  earthly,  the  world-rule  of  Israel,  the 
Messianic  king<iom,  which  would  come  to  an  end  and  be  fol- 
lowed by  the  heavenly  and  eternal.  Of  this  break  of  the  one 
hope  into  two  our  earliest  rCLOnl  is  in  the  AiiocalviMe  of  Tea 
Weeks  in  Enoch  93110  91ia-l'.  Ct.  4  Ezr  7*',  Apoc.  Uar  40», 
Secrete  of  Enoch  33,  and  see  Millrvnm'm.  In  connexion  with 
this  scheme,  the  lot  of  the  soul  after  death  became  a  subject 
of  apocah-ptical  research  and  vision  by  the  side  of  the  lot  ol 
Isruel  and  Zion  <4  Ezra). 


248    REVELATION,  BOOK  OF 


REVELATION,  BOOK  OF 


The  Idea  that  the  visible  and  human  world  waa  to  be  under- 
stood by  the  invisible  and  angelic  that  lay  about  and  beneath 
and  above  it,  led  the  apocali-pticul  writers  not  only  to  a  de- 
veloped an^elology,  in  part  Persian  in  orisfin,  but  also  to 
researches  in  the  mysteries  of  nature,  especially  in  refcrenfie 
to  the  movements  of  the  planets,  most  of  all  those  of  the  moon, 
•uch  as  are  elaborated  in  Enoch  72-79.  82.  iV^^  43.  44.  69.  (J9. 
But  while  some  apocalypses  are  concerned  with  such  specula- 
tions, others  move  back  in  the  oiiposite  direction  to  an  almost 
prophetic  earnestness  of  moral  denunciation  and  exhortation 
le.g.  Enoch  91-104), 

(3)  Inferences  as  to  Methods  of  Interpretation. — 
From  this  brief  study  of  the  nature  of  the  apoca- 
lypse certain  inferences  follow  as  to  the  method  of 
interpretation. 

(a)  Not  'futurist.' — The  apocalj'pse  has  to  do 
witli  the  present  and  the  uiimcuiate,  not  the 
remote  future.  Its  predictions  are  to  be  under- 
stood as  referring  to  actual  or  imminent  historical 
factors  and  events. 

(b)  Conteynporary-historical. — Some  of  the  figures 
of  the  apocalypse  are  invented  or  freely  adapted 
in  order  to  reiiresent  historical  persons,  nations, 
and  events.  These  are  to  be  explained  in  accord- 
ance vnth  their  origin  by  the  events  which  they 
describe.  From  them  we  may  hope  to  get  tlie 
clearest  light  upon  the  date  of  the  writing. 

(c)  TradUion-kistorkal. — Some  of  the  ligures  are 
borrowed  from  the  OT  or  from  older  apocalypses 
or  traditions.  In  such  cases  the  interpreter  must 
distinguish  between  the  original  meaning  of  the 
figure  and  the  present  author's  purpose  in  using 
it.  He  may  have  used  it  because  in  the  main  it 
lent  itself  to  his  application,  but  he  may  have 
preferred  not  to  change  it,  either  from  artistic 
instinct  or  from  reverence.  It  is  a  mistake,  then, 
to  assume  that  every  detail  had  a  meaning  to 
him,  and  to  insist  on  finding  it.  Perhaps  some 
features  of  the  picture  were  as  much  a  mystery  to 
the  writer  of  our  book  as  they  are  to  us.  Some- 
times we  can  guess  quite  plausibly  what  tlie 
original  meaning  was,  although  we  cannot  tell 
whether  the  writer  of  our  book  gave  it  a  meaning 
or  not. 

((f)  Literary-critical. — The  unity  of  an  apoca- 
lypse cannot  be  assumed.  The  ancient  material 
just  alluded  to  may  be  introduced  almost  entire 
from  some  unknown  source.  Later  readers  might 
weave  together  distinct  oracles,  especially  if  they 
passed  under  the  same  name ;  and  editorial  com- 
ments or  changes  are  always  possible  in  tlie  etlort 
to  adapt  an  apocalypse  to  the  changed  conditions 
or  the  changed  beliefs  of  a  later  time.  Literary 
criticism  must,  however,  be  held  in  check  by  the 
fact  that  a  writer  often  himself  used  ancient  tra- 
ditional materials  only  partly  harmonious  with  his 
own  time  and  teaching,  and  fitted  them  but  im- 
perfectly into  his  plan. 

(e)  Poeitea/.— The  underlying  religious  faith  and 
the  immediate  practical  aim  of  an  apocalyptical 
writer  (to  encourage  faith  amid  trial,  to  recall 
apostates,  to  guard  readers  against  the  influence  of 
foreign  thought  and  life,  etc.),  must  not  be  lost 
sight  of  in  the  study  of  the  mysteries  of  the  unseen 
or  future  world  which  he  woulil  unveil.  The  ques- 
tion is  always  to  be  asked  how  far  the  strange 
accounts  of  the  unseen  world  and  of  coming 
events  were  of  literal,  and  how  far  of  figurative  or 
poetic  value  to  the  writer  himself.  There  was 
something  of  the  poet  in  the  apocalyptical  seer. 
He  was  seldom  simply  a  scribe  and  a  literalist. 
The  greater  the  variety  and  the  less  the  outward 
consistency  of  his  Wsions,  the  less  probably  were 
they  regarded  by  him  as  literally  true.  In  con- 
nexion with  this  the  question  must  arise  as  to  the 
psychical  experience  of  the  ajioialyptical  writer, 
the  possibility  of  some  actual  visionary  experi- 
ences among  the  many  which  must  be  regarded  as 
fictitious,  a  mere  literary  form.  Thus  Gunkel 
believes  that  such  genuine  experiences  lie  behind 


some  of  the  %'isions  in  4  Ezra  (2  Esdras),  more  in  th« 
first  three  visions  (chs.  3'-9")  and  less  in  the  last 
three  (11-14). 

4.  Bci:  as  an  Apocalypse. — AVe  may  now  notice 
certain  points  of  likeness  and  of  uuliKeness  which 
a  general  comparison  of  Rev.  with  the  Jewish 
apocalypse  suggests,  and  certain  points  of  un- 
certainty which  form  the  main  problems  in  the 
follow  ing  discussion. 

('0  Likeness  of  Eev.  to  Jewish  apornbjpses. — The 
Bk.  of  liev.  is  written  to  encourage  faith  and  en- 
durance amid  trials  and  persecution.  These  trials 
are  at  least  chiutly  due  to  the  rule  of  Rome, 
though  within  the  Christian  communities  directly 
addressed  there  are  false  as  well  as  true  members. 
The  message  of  the  book  is  one  of  repentance  only 
in  the  case  of  indifferent  or  wavering  believers 
(OS.  16  33. 14  [and  Jews,  ll'"  ?]).  It  is  not  a  message  of 
repentance  for  those  whose  sin  is  chiefly  denounced 
(;,M.2i  169.  u  22"),  but  of  deliverance  and  reward 
for  those  who  endure  a  little  longer  ;  and  of  judg- 
ment and  destruction  for  the  evil  power  and  its 
adherents.  The  situation  and  message  are  those 
of  apocalypse,  and  not  those  of  prophecy. 

Apocal3'ptical,  al.so,  is  the  contrast  betiveen  the 
present  and  the  coming  age ;  the  conviction  that 
evil  must  increase,  and  that  its  violence  is  a  sign 
of  the  nearness  of  the  end  ;  the  belief  that  evil  has 
its  source  and  strength  in  the  world  of  spirits,  and 
that  angelic  conflicts  and  triiunphs  precede  or 
accompany  those  among  men. 

Rev.  contains  an  abundance  of  that  striking  and 
higlily  wrought  imagery  which  characterizes  an 
apocalypse.  These  images  are  in  part  borrowed 
from  ^ech.  and  Daniel  and  other  OT  writers;  in 
part,  presumably,  from  the  storehouse  of  apoca- 
lyptical traditions.  That  they  are  not  used  simply 
as  poetical  ornament,  but  have  for  the  writer  in 
])art  a  mysterious  value,  is  at  all  events  a  natural 
first  impression.  The  facts  that  the  book  is  so 
largely  made  up  of  such  imagery,  and  that  it  is 
put  in  the  form  of  Wsion,  and  is  interpreted  to 
the  seer  by  angels,  make  up  the  most  obvious 
resemblance  between  this  book  and  tlie  Jewish 
apocalypses.  Tlie  literary  materials  and  form  are 
largely  apocalyptical.  Ihat  this  resemblance  is 
not  merely  formal  but  deep-going,  is  suggested  by 
the  extraordinary  claims  with  which  tlie  book  is 
sent  out  (!'■'  22"*- '').  In  its  supernaturalistic  con- 
ception of  inspiration  the  book  is  apocalyptical 
rather  than  proplietic  (l'"*-  4'*-  etc.). 

In  its  scheme  of  the  future,  the  contents  of  its 
prediction,  the  book  has  an  obvious  likeness  to 
the  Jewish  books  of  this  class :  the  coming  of 
the  day  of  the  Lord  Christ,  when  evil  is  at  its 
height ;  the  overthrow  of  the  world  -  kingdom, 
Rome ;  the  sifting  of  the  Christian  people  ;  the 
earthly  Messianic  age,  in  which  the  saints  (Chris- 
tian martyrs)  \\iW  possess  the  kingdom  and  reign 
with  Christ ;  the  final  assault  and  overthrow  of 
the  powers  of  evil,  the  Gog  of  Ezekiel's  predic- 
tion; the  general  resurrection  and  judgment,  and 
the  new  heaven  and  earth  with  individual  and 
eternal  awards  :  this  is  simply  the  Jewish  scheme 
in  its  Messianic  and  chiliastic  form,  with  Jesus  as 
the  Messiah,  and  His  servants  as  the  saints  and 
heirs.  Over  against  such  likenesses  in  form  and 
substance  no  difference  can  be  sufficient  to  sever 
the  relationship  between  our  book  and  other 
apocalypses.  Liicke  was  the  first  fully  to  estab- 
lish the  relationship.  Zahn  (Einleitung  in  d.  NT, 
ii.  1899)  is  the  last — one  is  tempted  to  say,  will  be 
the  last — real  scholar  to  deny  it.  He  may  at  least 
teach  us  to  be  on  our  guard  against  false  infer- 
ences from  this  undeniable  literary  relationship. 

(A)  Unlikencss  of  Eev.  and  Jewish  apucal ijpset. 
— Rev.  is  a  Christian  apocalypse.  What  and  how 
great  unlikenesses  does  this  involve  i    Two  genera] 


EEVELATION,  BOOK  OF 


EEVELATI02f,  BOOK  OF        249 


eonsiderations  would  lead  us  in  opposite  directions 
«ith  reference  to  this  question.  Tlie  Christian 
religion  as  tlie  Baptist  prepared  the  way  for  it,  as 
Christ  founded  it,  and  as  St.  Paul  preached  it,  was 
undoubtedly  in  essential  respects  a  return  to  pro- 
phecy, not  only  from  the  law,  but  also  from  the 
national  and  sensuous  liopes  of  Judaism.  The 
Baptist  and  Jesus  announced  not  the  fall  of  Rome, 
but  the  fall  of  Jerusalem,  just  as  Amos  and  Hosea 
announced  the  approaching  fall  of  Samaria,  and 
Micah  and  Jeremiah  that  of  Jerusalem  ;  and  for 
the  same  reason,  in  the  same  way,  with  the  same 
motive,  the  call  to  repentance  and  righteousness. 
Jesus  was  a  prophet  in  His  belief  in  this  world  as 
God's  world,  and  in  good  as  already  the  ruling 
power  in  it,  and  also  in  the  directness  and  personal 
authority  of  His  words,  the  immediateness  and 
inwardness  of  His  relation  to  God,  His  eye  for  the 
supernatural  in  spiritual  and  not  in  magical  mani- 
festations. We  should  certainly  hope  that  the 
new  Cliristian  prophecy  would  be  truly  piophetic 
in  character,  and  not  apocal3'ptical.  But,  on  the 
other  hand,  we  know  th-at  the  early  Christian 
Church  found  itself  fully  at  homo  in  Jewish 
apocal3-pscs.  It  was  the  Jews  who  threw  away 
their  apocalypses.  Christians  who  preserved  them 
almost  witliout  change,  applying  to  the  second 
coining  of  the  Messiah  what  Jews  had  imagined  of 
His  first  coming.  How  early  this  happened  the 
NT  and  even  the  Gospels  give  evidence.  We  can- 
not, therefore,  assume  that  the  Christian  apoca- 
lypse is  esseulially  unlike  the  Jewish.  The  Chris- 
tian element  may  be  an  entirely  superficial  one, 
the  mere  identilication  of  the  coming  ilessiah  with 
Jesus,  aud  of  the  redeemed  with  the  Christian 
Church. 

Looking  at  the  book  itself,  the  most  obvious  nn- 
likeness  to  the  Jewish  apocalypse,  after  the  identi- 
fications just  named,  is  the  letters  to  the  seven 
Churches.  To  be  sure,  they  are  introduced  by 
a  highly  coloured  Christophany,  based  on  Zech. 
and  Daniel,  and  are  given  in  the  form  of  a  direct 
communication  of  the  exalted  Christ  through  the 
Spirit.  Yet  they  have  to  do  with  actual,  concrete 
conditions;  they  praise  and  blame,  encourage  and 
warn,  with  close  discrimination  and  intense  moral 
earnestness,  so  that  we  feel  the  prophetic  si'irit 
behind  the  partly  apocalyptical  form.  Their 
warnings  are  aimed,  not  at  foreign  powers,  but  at 
the  Christian  communities ;  and  the  judgment 
they  predict,  though  not  itself  conditional,  is 
nevertheless  the  basis  of  a  teaching  of  repentance. 
These  are  not  like  the  letters  of  St.  Paul,  but  they 
are  far  les,s'  like  the  Epistle  of  Baruch  to  the  nine 
and  a  half  tribes  (Apoc.  Bar  78-87).* 

(c)  Eemaining  rjucstions  as  to  the  relation  of 
Reo.  to  the  apocalypses. — Certain  points  remain  at 
which  the  question  of  likeness  or  unlikencss  be- 
tween Rev.  and  Jewish  apocalypses  cannot  be 
answered  by  a  general  view,  but  only,  if  at  all, 
by  closer  study. 

(1)  Pseudunymity. — The  Jewish  apocalypses  are 
all  pseudonymous,  and  contain  accounts,  in  direct 
or  figurative  form,  of  the  past  course  of  history, 
In  the  form  of  predictions  by  the  assumed  author. 

'Who  can  compare  the  name  John  (l'-  »■  »  228)  with  Enoch  or 
Moeis,  or  even  with  Daniel,  liaruch,  and  Ezra?  The  authors 
of  tlioae  hooka  dated  themaelves  centuries  bock,  veiled  ttiem- 
■elvos  in  tlie  sjwred  names  of  the  remote  past,  and  turned  to  a 
credulous  public  of  their  time  without  even  pretending  any 
personal  reliUiun  to  it  whatever.  Here,  on  tne  contrarv,  a 
inan  si>eaks  to  seven  Churches  of  the  province  of  Asia  and  pves 
them  his  book,  who  is  most  accurately  acquainted  with  their 

S resent  conditions ;  and  he  speaks  to  them  under  the  name, 
ohn,  which  was  borne  there  about  a.d.  70-100  by  the  most 
eonsiiicuouB  ecclesinjitical  personalitv  ;  and  this  he  does  accord- 
ing to  tradition  about  a.i>.  96,  so  in  the  lifetime  of  the  famous 

•  Of.  the  possible  companioD  letter  to  the  two  and  a  half 
feribM  In  Bar  li-t  SM«. 


John  of  Ephesus,  or  according  to  any  conceivable  hypothesis 
in  the  lifetime  of  the  personal  pupils  of  this  John'  (Zabn. 
ExtUat.  ii.  p.  684  f.X  \— ™> 

This  is  Zahn's  chief  objection  to  classing  Rev.  with 
the  apocalypses,  to  the  very  essence  of  which,  he 
says,  belongs  pseudonymity.  '  The  representation 
of  the  development  of  world-history  under  the  form 
of  an  ante-dated  prediction,  if  it  is  present  at  all 
in  Rev.,  is  a  wholly  subordinate  element  in  it.' 
With  this  sentence  Zahn  makes  his  position  in- 
secure. A  certain  amount  of  antedated  prediction, 
or  at  least  of  history  in  the  form  of  vision,  can 
hardly  be  excluded  from  the  picture  of  the  Roman 
empire  in  Rev  13  and  17  ;  but  pseudonymity  has 
such  visions  for  its  most  characteristic  product  and 
one  of  its  reasons  for  being.  Even  as  a  subordi- 
nate element  in  the  book,  comparable  to  the  place 
of  chs.  11.  12  in  the  Apoc.  of  Ezra,  such  visions 
suggest  the  possibility  of  pseudonymous  author- 
ship, which  in  the  case  of  a  Christian  apocalypse 
might  well  choose  an  apostolic  name.  Weizsacker 
tlierefore  thinks  we  should  start  from  the  fact 
'that  among  all  similar  writings  of  Jewish  and 
ancient  Christian  origin,  we  know  not  a  single 
one  which  bears  the  name  of  its  own  author.' 
Even  Hernias  is  hardly  a  unity,  and  professes  a 
greater  than  its  actual  age.  This  does  not  make 
it  impossible  that  John  wrote  under  his  own 
name.  '  But  a  strong  presupposition  always  re- 
mains that  the  general  practice  of  this  art-form 
is  followed  in  this  case  also'  (Apostolic  Acre,  ii.  p. 
174).  »  i- 

The  question  of  pseudonymity,  and  the  connected 
question  whether  and  how  far  Rev.  contains  history 
in  the  form  of  vision,  remains  open  at  this  pre- 
liminary stage  of  our  discussion. 

(2)  Composite  cknrnrter.—Ho  also  must  the  ques- 
tion of  composite  chfiracter  be  regarded  as  opened, 
and  not  closed,  by  a  general  comparison  of  Rev. 
with  the  Jewish  apocalypses. 

Boes  Rev.  share  this  common  characteristic  of 
the  apocalypse  ?  The  book  has  often  been  praised 
for  its  architectural  construction,  but  there  are 
various  indications  of  seams  or  breaks  in  its  struc- 
ture, and  neither  in  the  historical  situation  which 
it  reflects  (before  or  after  70;  soon  after  Nero  or 
under  Domitian)  nor  in  the  type  of  religious 
thought  which  it  repiesents  (Jewish  or  Pauline 
[universalistic]  Christianity ;  primitive  Jewish, 
or  developed  [HellenisticJ  Christology)  is  unity  of 
impression  easily  gained.  The  course  of  recent 
investigation  abundantly  vindicates  the  proposi- 
tion that  the  question  of  likeness  or  unlikencss 
between  Rev.  aud  the  apocalypses  in  the  matter 
of  unity  and  sources  is  at  present  an  o|)en  one. 

(3)  Mature  of  vltion. — A  third  uncertainty  con- 
cerns the  question  of  the  nature  of  the  visions, 
the  narrative  of  which  makes  up  the  book.  All 
apocalypses  arc  coiii]iosed  largely  of  accounts  of 
visions  and  tlnur  interpretation  by  angels.  The 
question,  how  far  this  is  a  literary  (artistic)  form, 
and  how  far  really  ecstatic  experiences  were  con- 
nected with  their  authorship,  is  one  that  should 
not  be  answered  too  confidently  and  sweepingly 
even  with  reference  to  the  .Jewish  apocalypses. 
Zahn  accepts  the  visions  of  Rev.  as  actual  ex- 
periences literally  described,  while  he  regards  the 
visions  of  other  apocalypses  as  artistic  fictions. 
The  diflerence  is  to  him  that  between  true  and 
false  prophecy.  Others,  the  majority,  judge  the 
vision  to  he  everywhere,  at  least  in  this  age,  a 
literary  form,  anil  point  for  evidence  especially  to 
tlie  many  repetitions  or  imitations  of  OT  and 
other  traditional  materials  which  they  contain, 
ami  to  the  many  visions  which  simply  embody 
history  in  allegorical  form,  to  account  for  which 
real  vision  is  a  wholly  unnecessary  supposition. 


250         REVELATION,  BOOK  OF 


EEVELATION,  BOOK  OF 


Becent  investigation,  however,  showing  the  large 
dependence  of  the  visionary  upon  memory,  does 
not  allow  us  to  saj'  with  confidence  of  the  abund- 
ance of  OT  allusions  in  Rev.,  '  This  is  literary  art, 
and  not  the  way  in  which  living  vision  in  the  spirit 
expresses  itself    (Weizsacker). 

Three  important  questions,  then,  are  opened  by 
the  general  comparison  of  Rev.  with  Jewish 
apocalypses  :  Is  it  pseudonymous  !  Is  it  a  literary 
unity,  or  is  it  composite  ?  Are  its  \'isions  actual, 
or  a  literary  form  ?  The  questions  converge  in  the 
etl'ort  to  recover  the  author's  personality,  and 
tlie  method  and  purpose  or  spirit  of  his  work, 
the  self-consciousness  of  the  man.  Weizsacker, 
to  whom  the  recent  course  of  criticism  is  directly 
due,  gives  his  answer  to  our  questions  in  this  sum- 
mary fashion:  'The  Apoc.  of  John  was  not  written 
by  the  apostle.  It  is  also  not  the  record  of  a 
revelation  or  a  vision  which  the  author  experienced 
on  a  day.  It  is,  further,  not  the  work  of  a  homo- 
geneous conception  '  (Apostolic  Age,  ii.  174). 

iii.  Contents  and  Composition  of  Revela- 
tion.— 1.  Contents  of  the  Book. 

The  Book  of  Rev.  reads  briefly  as  follows: — An  introduction, 
giving  title,  author,  address,  and  subject  (li-S),  is  followed  by 
the  appearance  of  Christ  to  John  at  Patuios,  and  the  charge  to 
write  to  the  seven  Churches  (l^-^**),  to  each  of  which  a  letter  is 
dictated  by  Christ  (or  His  angel-spirit),  in  which  the  Church  is 
praised  or  blamed  vnih  reference  to  past  trials  and  heathen 
influences,  and  in  view  of  a  greater  trial  soon  to  come  iu  con- 
nexion with  the  approaching  coming  of  Christ  (2.  3).  The  seer 
then  sees  heaven  opened,  and,  being  summoned  up  thither,  he 
sees  and  describes  the  throne  of  God,  and  the  twenty-four  elders, 
seven  spirits,  and  four  living  beini^s,  who  praise  God  the  creator 
(4).  He  sees  the  sealed  book  in  God's  hand,  and  the  Lamb  as  if 
slain  with  seven  horns  and  seven  eyes  (the  spirits  of  God)  ap- 
pears amid  the  praises  of  the  highest  angels  and  of  all  creation, 
as  the  one  who  alone  can  open  the  seven  seals  (5).  He  opens 
six  seals.  The  first  four  introduce  four  horsemen  who  seem  to 
be  agents  of  judgment  (war,  famine,  pestilence).  The  fifth 
reveals  the  prayers  of  martjTed  souls  for  vengeance  ;  the  sixth 
an  earthquake,  which  brings  destruction  to  nature  and  terror  to 
men  (0).  Before  the  destructive  powers(winds)are.loosed,  12,000 
from  each  of  Israel's  twelve  tribes  are  sealed  (71-^),  and  John  sees 
a  countless  multitude  of  all  nations  who  have  passed  through 
the  great  tribulation,  in  heavenly  blessedness  (79-17).  Xhe 
seventh  seal  brings  silence  in  heaven  (81).  Then  'the  seven 
angels'  appear  (8'-),  and,  after  the  prayers  of  the  saints  have 
again  been  offered  before  God  (83-'),  six  of  the  angels  sound  their 
trumpets.  The  first  four  bring  forth  earthquake  and  volcanic 
phenomena  with  destructive  effect  upon  a  third  of  earth,  sea, 
rivers,  and  heaven  (Si^-l^).  The  remaining  three  are  to  be  three 
woes  (813).  The  fifth  (first  woe)  brings  demonic  Iocus^beings 
from  theabyss,  under  their  king  Apollyon,  who  torment  unsealed 
men  five  months (91-12).  The  sixth  brings  armies  of  cavalry  from 
the  Euphrates,  destroying  one-third  of  men  (91>-2i).  Before 
this  second  woe  is  declared  to  be  past  [in  111-*],  the  seer  receives 
a  new  commission  and  message,  a  httle  book  which  he  eats  (10) ; 
and  it  is  revealed  to  him  that  Jerusalem,  except  the  temple 
and  inner  court,  will  be  trodden  by  the  Gentiles  42  months, 
and  that '  the  two  witnesses '  will  prophesy  during  that  time,  and 
then  be  killed,  and  after  SJ  days  raised  to  heaven  (lliU).  The 
leventh  trumpet  (third  woe)  sounds,  and  heavenly  voices 
announce  the  establishment  of  the  kingdom  of  God  and  Christ 
(111&-18).  Storm  and  earthquake  follow  the  opening  of  God's 
heavenly  temple  (111»).  The  seer  then  beholds  the  unavailing 
effort  of  the  dragon  Satan  to  destroy  the  Messiah  at  His  birth  ;  the 
dragon's  fall  from  heaven,  and  his  persecution  of  the  woman  who 
bore  the  child,  and  of  her  other  seed  (PiilT).  Out  of  the  sea 
comes  a  beast  with  ten  horns  and  seven  heads,  whom  the  dragon 
equips  with  his  own  authority.  He  wars  against  the  saints  anti 
is  worshipped  by  all  other  men  (131  lo).  This  worship  is  furthered 
and  enforced  by  another  beast  out  of  the  earth  with  miraculous 
powers,  who  stamps  men  with  the  number  of  the  beast,  (MB 
(I3111S).  Over  against  these  evil  powers  the  Lamb  is  seen  with 
the  1-14,000  undeflled  on  ilt.  Zion  (1  lis).  Angels  announce  the 
eternal  gospel  of  the  worship  of  God  in  view  of  judgment  to 
come,  the  fall  of  Babylon,  the  punishment  of  the  worshippers 
of  the  beast,  the  blessedness  of  martyTS  (146-13).  One  like  a  son 
of  man  (Messiah  or  angel  ?J  reaps  the  earth  with  his  sickle,  and 
another  angel  gathers  the  grapes  into  the  winepress  of  God's 
wrath  (14 n-'io).  Seven  angels,  after  the  heavenly  praises  of  the 
redeemed  are  heard,  pour  out  seven  bowls  containing  the  seven 
Last  plagues,  the  sixth  of  which  brings  remote  nations  to  the 
last  war  at  Har-Ma^edon,  and  the  seventh  an  earthquake  which 
destroys  cities,  dinilea  Babylon,  destroys  nature  (15.  16).  The 
city  is  then  seen  as  a  woman  seated  on  a  scarlet  beast,  at  last 
wasted  and  destroyed  by  the  beast  and  its  10  horns  (17ii»). 
Angels  utter  prophetic  woes  over  Babylon,  announcing  its  fall 
because  of  its  persecution  of  prophets  and  saints  (18).  After 
heavenly  rejoicings  over  the  city's  fall,  and  the  readiness  of  the 
Lamb's  bride  (19l-10),  the  Messiah  appears  as  warrior  and  king, 
tbo  two  beasts  are  ca8t  into  the  lake  of  Are,  and  their  followers 


destroyed  (1911-21).  Satan  is  bound,  while  Christ  and  the  risea 
martj'rs  reign  1000  years.  Satan  is  loosed,  and  brings  remote 
peoples  to  a  final  war  against  Jerusalem.  They  are  Jestroyed, 
and  he  is  cast  into  the  lake  ot  fire  (201-10).  The  general  resurrec- 
tion and  judgment  follow  (2011-15).  The  new  heaven  and  earth, 
the  new  Jerusalem,  and  final  blessedness  in  it,  are  described 
(211-22').  The  conclusion  consists  of  attestations  and  admoni- 
tions regarding  the  Divine  authorship  and  sanctity  of  the  book 
(226-21). 

2.  Plan  of  the  Book. — (n)  Introductory. — There 
are  two  main  methods  by  which  plan  and  order 
are  discovered  in  the  visions  of  4i-22°.  The 
recapitulation  method  (from  Tyconius  and  Augus- 
tine to  recent  times)  finds  no  progress  in  the  suc- 
cessive sevens  (seals,  trumpets,  and  bowls)  which 
form  the  main  structure  of  this  section,  but  repe- 
tition under  varj'ing  forms.  The  seals  bring 
already  the  last  judgment  (6""")  and  the  fiuEU 
blessedness  ("""").  Among  more  recent  critics, 
however,  the  view  prevails  that  the  seventh  in 
each  series  is  developed  in  the  new  series  of  seven 
that  follows.  The  seventh  seal  contains  the  re- 
mainder of  the  book,  and  is  unfolded  in  seven  trum- 
pets, of  which  the  seventh  includes  all  that  follows 
to  the  end  (10'),  but  is  unfolded  in  the  seven  bowls 
(Liicke,  Bleek,  Ewald,  etc.).  In  this  scheme  ch.  7 
appears  as  an  interlude  between  the  si.\th  and 
seventh  seals,  and  lO-lIi^  as  a  similar  insertion 
between  the  sixth  and  seventh  trumpets.  The 
bowls  are  not  interrupted  in  the  same  way,  but 
before  and  after  them  are  visions  which  give  the 
same  impression  of  standing  outside  of  the  writer's 
rulin"  scheme  (12-14.  17-191"}. 

HoTtzmann  represents  the  structure  of  the  book 
in  the  following  scheme  (Comm.  p.  295) : — 

11-8  Introduction. 
18-352  The  seven  Letters. 
4I-5I-*  Heavenly  scene  of  the 
visions. 
61-"  Six  seals. 

7117  The   sealed    and    the 
blessed- 
gl-s  The  coming  forth  of 
the  trumpets  out  of 
the  7th  seal. 
86-921  Six  trumpets. 

101-1114  Destiny  of  Jerusalem, 
llis-is  Seventh  trumpet. 

I21-145  The    great   visions  of 
the  three  chief  foes 
and     the     Messiah- 
kingdom. 
146-20  Return  to  the  earlier  connexion. 
161-161  Transition      to     the 
bowls. 
16J-S1  Seven  bowls. 

171-1910  The  great  Bibylon. 
19U.201S  Final  catastrophes. 

211-22'  The  new  Jerusalem. 
228-21  Conclusion. 

It  is  to  be  noticed  that  the  sections  at  the  right 
contain  most  of  the  material  which  Weizsacker 
and  others  regard  as  of  earlier  origin,  and  that 
of  which  Jewish  authorship  can  be  most  plausibly 
affirmed.  The  supposition  that  they  were  inserted 
by  the  writer,  ancf  that  he  was  not  able  to  bring 
them  into  the  sevenfold  scheme  which  he  chose, 
is  a  natural  one.  Holtzmann,  however,  says  that  if 
this  was  the  case,  these  sections  have  at  all  events 
been  assimilated  to  the  rest  in  style,  and  connected 
with  it  by  various  references,  so  that  the  lines  of 
sep.iration  do  not  remain  sharply  defined. 

15y  the  side  of  this  we  may  well  place  in  bare 
outline  the  analysis  of  Zahn  [Einl.  ii.  587  tf.), 
which,  as  he  believes,  demonstrates  the  unity  of 
the  book  'in  spite  of  all  lack  of  literary  art.' 

Introd.  (ll-«).    Fir«(  Fiition,  110-S"  (Letters).   Second  Vitum, 

4I-SI  (Seals),  with  two  Episodes,  (o)  7i-8,  (4)  7»i7,  before  the 
seventh.  Third  Vigiim,  S'^llis  (Trumpets),  with  two  Episodes, 
(a)  101-11,(6)111-14,  before  the  seventh,  fourth  Tmon,  lli»-1420. 
Fifth  Vision,  ISi-lG"  (Bowls).  Sixth  Viiion,  17I-IS"  (Judg- 
ment  on  Babylon),  1618  21  introduces  it,  and  101-8-  9-10  concludes 
it  and  introduces  the  Seventh  Visicn,  1911-218  (Judgment  and 
Awards).  Eighth  Vudon,  21^-22'  ior  1')  (a  description  not  of  tht 
new  heaven  and  earth  of  211-8,  but  of  the  world  during  th« 
1000  years'  reign  of  Christ,  204-6).    ConcluiioD,  226  {or  i«i  21. 


EEVELATIOX,  BOOK  OF 


REVELATION,  BOOK  OF    251 


(6)  Plan  of  c/w.  1-3. — The  construction  of  these 
chapters  gives  the  greatest  evidence  of  conscious 
and  careful  literary  art,  and  no  doubt  may  fairly 
predispose  the  reader  to  look  for  art  tlirou^'liout. 
The  introductory  verses  (l''")  contain  a  remarkably 
complete  statement  of  the  source,  character,  and 
contents  of  the  entire  book,  and  prepare  us  to  re- 
cognize such  summary,  anticipatory  introductions 
elsewliere.  The  ultimate  author  of  the  revelation 
is  God,  who  gave  it  to  Christ,  who  sent  an  angel 
to  signif}'  it  to  John.  It  can  therefore  be  called 
'  the  word  of  God,'  '  the  testimony  of  Jesus,'  or 
'  the  things  \\  hich  John  saw.'  Its  contents  are  '  the 
thing^i  which  must  happen  quickly  ' ;  that  is,  it  is 
a  prediction,  but  of  the  immediate  not  the  remote 
future.  Its  readers  are  God's  servants,  who  are 
blessed  if  they  hear  and  keep  what  is  written. 
More  expressly  'the  seven  Churches  in  Asia'  are 
addressed,  and  in  saluting  them  the  author  com- 
pletely sums  up  his  theology.  It  is  in  some  sense 
trinitarian  (vv.*'),  and  the  kingly  exaltation  of 
Christ  through  resurrection,  the  saving  ell'ect  of  His 
death,  and  tlie  destination  He  made  possible  for 
believers,  are  described.  Tlie  central  message  of 
the  book,  the  coming  of  Christ,  and  that  in  its 
judicial  aspect,  is  expressly  announced,  perhaps  by 
God,  who,  at  all  events,  as  the  real  author  of  the 
revelation,  adds  in  tlie  first  person  His  attestation. 
It  is  not,  indeed,  impossible  to  di\dde  this  intro- 
duction into  independent  parts  (1-3.  4-6.  7.  8),  and 
supi'ose  them  to  have  introduced  separate  apoca- 
lypses (cf.  Spitta,  Briggs).  Hut  it  can  hardly  be 
denii-d  that  tlie  whole  is  admirably  adapted  to  in- 
troduce the  book. 

The  vision  of  Christ  (1'"^)  brings  before  us  the 
priestly  and  kingly  One,  who  lives  amid  His 
Churches  and  possesses  or  rules  them.  The  letters 
are  introduced  by  descriptions  of  Chri-st  which  are 
in  most  cases  burrowed  from  the  vision,  and  close 
with  promises  '  tii  liiiii  that  overcometh,'  wliich  in 
most  cases  anticipate  the  fuller  descriptions  of  chs. 
19-22.  The  selection  of  descriptive  features  from 
the  vision  of  Christ  in  several  cases  fits  the  special 
message  of  the  letter  ;  and  this  is  sometimes,  but 
not  so  often  and  clearly,  the  case  with  the  selection 
of  the  reward.  (1)  The  de.scription,  2'  (from  I"'*- 
'^),  is  referred  to  in  2\  The  reward,  2"'  (cf.  22^),  has 
no  obvious  relation  to  the  letter.  (2)  The  descrip- 
tion, 2«  (from  l"i'-'*>),  (its  both  the  mes-sage,  2""', 
and  the  reward,  2'"'  (cf.  20»).  (3)  The  description, 
2"  (from  1'"'),  is  referred  to  in  2'«.  The  reward,  2'"' 
(only  in  part,  if  at  all,  parallel  to  22^  cf.  19"),  may 
possibly  stand  in  contrast  to  the  eating  of  things 
sacrificed  to  idols  (2''').  (4)  The  de.scription,  2'" 
(from  !'"■•  '»*,  but  '  Son  of  God  '  is  here  only),  pre- 
pares for  2^.  The  reward,  2-""^  (in  part  parallel  to 
20«,  cf.  12»  19'»  22'»),  could  relate  to  the  letter  if 
Jezebel's  teaching  included  submission  to  Rome. 
(5)  The  description,  3'  (from  l'",  cf.  2'  1*),  has  no 
special  relation  to  the  letter.  The  reward,  3"  (cf.  C"" 
7.U.  13  i-»  .2ij'-2.  i»  oi^T^  Mt,  1032),  ia  connected  with  v.« 

and  perhaps  v.'.  (0)  The  description,  3'  (not  from 
the  vision,  cf.  Is  22'-''  [cf.  1"]),  is  used  in  v.".  The 
reward,  3'-  (cf.  H"-  22*  2P- '"  19'^- '»),  has  no  obvious 
connexion  with  the  letter  (Bousset  compares  v.'-^ 
with  v."").  (7)  The  descrijition,  3"  (not  from  the 
vLsion,  cf.  I*,  Col  1""'-,  Jn  P),  may  prepare  for  the 
severity  of  the  letter  (cf.  v.'").  The  reward,  3^' 
(cf.  20*-«  !•  Z"'-  6"  22»),  connects  with  v.""  (cf.  Lk 

That  the  writer  is  working  as  an  artist  is  evident, 
and  a  reason  may  have  determined  his  choice  of 
titles  and  promises  where  it  is  no  longer  evident. 
The  last  title  is  perhaps  the  highest,  and  the  last 
reward  also  represents  a  climax.  The  first  reward 
suggests  Eden  ;  the  second,  the  Fall ;  the  third, 
the  Wilderness ;  the  fourth,  the  Kingdom  ;  but 
though  the  intention  to  represent  the  fulfilment  of 


.successive  stages  of  OT  history  is  wholly  conceiv- 
able, the  evidence  for  it  is  not  convincing.*  No 
evident  reason  for  the  changed  position  of  the 
sentence,  'He  that  hath  an  ear,' etc.,  in  the  last 
four  letters,  is  manifest.  Of  the  historical  condi- 
tions described  in  the  letters  something  will  be 
said  further  on.  But,  in  spite  of  unmistakable 
references  to  local  conditions,  each  letter  is  a 
message  of  the  spirit  to  'the  Churches.'  Tliey 
were  not  .sent  separately  or  meant  to  be  read 
separately,  but  have  each  a  representative  and 
all  together  a  complete  character,  which  the 
number  seven  itself  suggests. 

Chs.  1-3  show  not  onlj'  a  conscious  artistic  pur- 
po.se,  but  in  more  details  than  can  here  be  noted 
and  still  more  in  total  efiect  they  show  a  high 
order  of  poetic  instinct  and  skill. 

(c)  Plan  of  chs.  4-22. — The  choice  of  three  series 
of  sevens  in  the  representation  of  the  coming  woes 
and  judgment  shows  the  same  mind  tliat  addressed 
the  Churches  as  seven.  To  assign  these  sevens  to 
different  sources  (Spitta,  Briggs),  is  to  miss  one  of 
the  most  evident  marks  of  unity  in  the  book.  It 
is  more  likely,  e.g.,  that  the  author  made  seven 
seals  out  of  an  original  four  (see  below)  than  that 
he  found  his  sevens  ready  made.  But  what  is  to 
be  said  of  the  two  twofold  interludes  inserted 
between  the  sLxth  and  seventh  seals  and  trumpets 

(71-8.8-17  10.    U>-'3)? 

The  first  two  of  these  visions  not  only  interrupt 
the  plan,  but  are  apjiarently  inharmonious  with 
each  other.  In  one  (7''")  a  definite  number  of  Jews 
are  sealed  before  the  coming  of  evil,  in  order  to  be 
kept  from  it ;  in  the  other  (7"'")  a  countless  number 
from  all  nations  liave  already  come  through  trials 
and  death  to  heavenly  blessedness.  The  first  could 
well  be  of  Jewish  origin  (based  on  Kzk  9*'-),  and 
describe  the  literal  safe-keeping  of  Jews  in  the 
troubles  of  the  last  days.  Did  our  writer  believe 
that  Jews  would  play  a  distinct  rule  in  the  end'; 
This  is  possible  (cf.  St.  Paul  in  Ko  9-11),  but  it  is 
more  probable  that  he  adopts  a  Jewish  apocalyptical 
fragment  api)lying  it  to  the  Christian  communitj', 
and  understanding  it  not  in  a  literal  sen.se.  This 
would  account  for  the  fact  that  the  four  winds  (7') 
are  never  loosed.  We  have  not  a  whole  but  a  jiart 
(9'*'-  is  related,  but  difl'eieiit).  We  have  indeed  an 
allusion  to  the  sealing  (9*,  cf.  14')  as  if  to  prevent 
our  supposing  the  section  a  later  in.sertion.  But 
there  tlie  sealed  can  only  be  all  true  Christians, 
as  in  14'-»  the  144,000  are.  If  Rev  7'"  applies  a 
Jemsh  oracle  to  the  Christian  community,  the 
deliverance  it  assumes  may  well  be  no  more  literal 
than  the  rest,  and  its  meaning  in  the  author's  in- 
tention may  be  wholly  like  the  meaning  of  7"'". 
Not  deliverance  from  death,  but  deliverance  through 
death,  is,  iu  fact,  the  promise  of  the  book.  These 
two  visions,  then,  contrasted  as  they  are,  and  of 
difl'erent  origin,  may  have  meant  the  same  thin{» 
to  the  author.  They  are  assurances  of  escape  and 
salvation,  inserted  here,  after  the  beginning  of 
evils  but  before  their  culmination,  to  serve  the 
practical  purpose  of  encouragement.  The  second 
one  seems  to  describe  by  anticipation  nothing  less 
than  the  final  heavenly  blessedness,  for  no  such 
host  had  as  yet  passed  through  trial  (martyrdom  ?) 
to  heaven,  and  6'""  seems  to  prevent  the  supposition 
that  those  who  had  already  died  were  in  possession 
of  their  final  glory. 

Our  iiil'trLiice  in  regard  to  cli.  7  is,  then,  that  the 
writer  introduces  foreign  (in  part  Jewish)  frajj- 
ments  into  his  book,  apparently  interrupting  his 
plan,  but  not  without  a  purpose.  He  is  writing 
even  more  to  encourage   true  Christians   than  to 

"  Trench  {Kpisllea  to  the  Seven  Churohei,  N.Y.  1802,  p.  287(.), 
who  procetsiH  with  a  new  seriea,  thuti ;  flfth,  individuarB  lot  at 
the  l>ay  of  Judj^uient;  tiixth^  in  cunipuniuiiship  with  the  re- 
deemed ;  seventh,  in  commumoa  with  God. 


252    REVELATION,  BOOK  OF 


REVELATION,  BOOK  OF 


warn  apostates,  and  so  wUl  not  let  assurance  and 
promise  wait  until  its  proper  plate,  whv.n  judgment 
has  run  its  course,  but  will  autitipate  deliverance, 
setting  lij;ht  over  against  dark  in  his  picture, 
though  dark  must  predominate. 

Turning  to  the  second  pair  of  insertions,  we 
notice  tliat  ch.  10  seems  to  describe  nothing  less 
than  a  new  beginning  of  the  prophet's  activity,  a 
new  commission  and  inspiration.  It  seems  meant 
to  e.xplain  the  new  and  strange  nature  of  the 
oracles  that  follow.  I'erhaps  10^-  *  maj'  seri-e  to 
explain  the  writer's  departure  from  the  jdan  of 
developing  the  seventh  of  one  series  of  judgments 
in  the  form  of  a  new  series  of  seven.  Instead  of 
the  seven  thunders  which  he  heard,  he  is  charged 
to  WTite  the  contents  of  the  little  book  of  prophecies 
over  many  peoples.  Yet  this  apparent  change  of 
plan  is  not  a  real  break  in  the  order,  since  it  is 
still  allirmed  that  the  seventh  angel's  trumpet  will 
bring  the  end  (10'). 

The  second  section,  11'"",  is  still  preliminary,  as 
1 1"  (cf .  9'-)  clearlj'  indicates.  Its  strange  character 
is  evident.  Yet  it  maj'  well  have  been  meant  to 
serve  the  same  purpose  as  7'"",  and  indeed  it  falls 
into  two  similar  parts.  II'-',  like  7'"*,  assures 
Christians,  the  true  worshippers  in  the  true  temple 
of  God,  that  they  will  escape  from  the  evils  of 
the  last  days.  Undoubtedly  in  their  origin  these 
verses  referred  to  the  real  temple  and  to  Jewish 
worshippers.  This  must  have  been  a  Jewish 
oracle  uttered  some  time  before  A.D.  70.  But  our 
author  can  have  used  it  only  as  a  figure,  precisely 
like  the  sealing  of  the  144,000.  Its  unprepared 
and  fragmentary  character  are  explicable  if  it  was 
to  the  writer  symbol,  not  reality.  Not  otherwise 
must  we  judge  Ip-'^  In  our  writer's  plan  it  must 
mean  that  those  who  do  not  in  the  outward  sense 
escape  the  evil,  but  because  of  their  testimony  and 
work  against  the  power  of  evil  suffer  and  die,  will 
nevertheless  rise  in  glory  and  be  avenged  upon 
their  enemies  (not  unlike  7'"").  Of  course  this 
does  not  explain  the  origin  of  the  section.  It  is 
full  of  unexplained  allusions,  and  is  clearly  part  of 
a  larger  whole.  Its  Jewish  origin  is  unmistakable. 
Bousset  regards  it  as  a  part  of  the  apocalyptical 
tradition  of  Antichrist.  It  suggests  an  elaboration 
of  the  expectation  of  the  return  of  Elijah  for  a 
work  of  protest  and  reform  (Mal  4''-  ',  Mt  17"  11"), 
and  the  similar  hope  of  the  return  of  Moses  based 
on  Dt  18'°-  '*  (Mt  17').  But  since  our  writer  intro- 
duces it,  not  SIS  an  incident  in  the  direct  develop- 
ment of  the  drama,  but  in  an  interlude  and  for 
its  general  message  of  encouragement  in  faithful 
testimony  unto  death,  it  is  natural  to  raise  the 
question  whether  he  took  the  details  literally, 
and  expected  the  two  prophets  and  especially  the 
conversion  of  the  majority  of  the  Jewish  people 
after  a  partial  judgment  upon  them  (v.").  How, 
indeed,  could  a  Christian,  in  view  of  the  pre- 
diction of  Christ,  even  before  A.D.  70,  have  taken 
literally  either  the  expectation  that  the  temple 
would  be  exempt  from  desecration  by  the  heathen, 
or  that  only  a  tenth  of  the  city  would  fall?  Still 
less  possible  would  the  literal  sense  of  the  oracle 
be  after  70.  It  is  true  that  a  Christian  hand  has 
touched  the  narrative  (v.«  end),  but  it  is  not  prob- 
able that  the  resurrection  of  the  two  witnesses  is 
shaped  after  that  of  Christ  (v.").  In  its  strongly 
Jewish  character,  its  evident  date  (before  70), 
much  earlier  than  the  book  as  a  whole,  its  unpre- 
pared insertion,  apparently  only  for  its  general 
thought  of  faithful  testimony,  martyrdom,  and 
heavenly  reward,  the  section  is  very  instructive 
regarding  the  litierary  manner  of  the  author  (see 
below,  iii.  3). 

The  seventh  trumpet  must  be  the  third  woe 
(II"),  and  it  must  bring  the  consummation  (10'). 
Its  contents  cannot  therefore  be  given  in  U"-'", 


but  must  include  the  rest  of  the  book.  The  third 
woe  cannot  be  less  than  the  last  conflict  with  th« 
powers  of  evil  and  their  overthrow,  which  form* 
the  theme  of  chs.  12-20  (see  12'=).  In  ll""'*  we 
have,  therefore,  an  anticipation  in  a  heavenly 
chorus  of  the  consummation  which  is  not  yet  fully 
come  (as  in  16="^  ly'j ;  a  superscription  for  chs. 
12-20. 

The  general  plan  of  chs.  ll"-22'  is  clear.  After 
an  introductory  anticipation  of  the  kingdom  of 
(iod  and  the  wrath  and  destruction  that  must 
precede  its  coming  (ll'°''*),  Satan,  the  real 
power  of  evil,  is  introduced,  and  his  present 
peculiar  aggressiveness  is  explained  in  such  a  way 
as  to  malJe  it  a  ground  of  special  hope,  not  of 
discouragement.  He  has  been  cast  down  from 
heaven,  and  knows  that  his  time  on  earth  is  short 
(ch.  12).  The  chief  agents  of  Satan  in  his  perse- 
cution of  Christians — Rome,  the  empire  and  the 
religion — are  then  introduced  (ch.  13).  Before  judg- 
ment against  the  evil  powers  begins,  the  author, 
according  to  his  custom,  inserts  various  antici- 
patory passages  :  a  vision  of  the  blessedness  of  the 
saints  with  Christ  (vv.'"*)  ;  a  review  of  the  entire 
teaching  of  the  book  (w.'^'^) :  its  gospel,  the  sole 
worship  of  God  in  view  of  judgment  to  come  ;  its 
prediction,  the  fall  of  Rome,  and  the  eternal 
punishment  of  those  who  yield  to  Roman  life  and 
cultus ;  the  supreme  Christian  duty,  patience, 
endurance  in  Christian  life  and  faith,  and  the 
promises  of  heavenly  blessedness  for  martyrs ; 
then  a  general  vision  of  judgment  in  two  acts,  the 
reaping  of  grain  and  the  gathering  of  grapes 
(vv. '■*•-").  The  seven  bowls  are  introduced  as 
finishing  the  wrath  of  God  (15',  cf.  'it  is  done," 
7^701'f;',  16").  They  lead  up  to  the  destruction  of 
Rome.  But  for  this  great  event  the  writer  has 
larger  resources  of  description  at  his  command. 
The  vision  of  the  >voman  seated  on  the  dragon 
shows  that  it  is  her  own  evil  demon  that  will  turn 
against  the  city,  and  ^\'ith  its  ten  horns,  which  are 
ten  kings,  destroy  her  (ch.  17).  Her  fall  will  fulfil 
the  language  of  prophecy  against  Babj'lon  and  Tyre 
(ch.  18).  It  will  be  finally  effected — the  end  having 
been  once  more  anticipated  in  heavenly  praises 
(19i-io)_at  Christ's  coming  and  by  Him  (19"-"). 
Then,  the  beasts  having  been  destroyed,  Satan's 
own  judgment  must  come,  a  preliminary  binding 
and  a  final  destruction  (ch.  20).  Then  at  last  the 
consummation  so  often  anticipated  will  be  an 
actuality  (21-22=). 

Although  the  wTiter  connects  ch.  17  and  21'*- 
with  one  of  the  angels  of  the  bowls,  yet  it  must 
be  evident  that  we  are  not  to  judge  this  section 
(12-22')  as  consisting  of  the  seven  howl?  (develop- 
ing the  seventh  trumpet),  and  some  introductory 
and  concluding  sections  ;  for  the  prelude  and  post- 
hide  would  in  this  case  far  overbalance  the  piece 
itself  both  in  length  and  in  interest  and  power.  On 
tlie  other  hand,  the  theme  of  12-22'  being  the  fall  of 
Rome,  the  present  Satanic  power,  and  with  it  the 
deliverance  and  blessedness  of  faithful  Christians, 
it  is  clear  that  chs.  12.  13  and  17-22*  form  the 
solid  framework  of  the  structure.  Ch.  19  bring! 
the  beasts  of  ch.  13  to  judgment ;  ch.  20  brings 
the  Satan  of  ch.  12  to  an  end  ;  21-22'  brings  to 
actuality  the  anticipation  of  11""".  To  set  aside 
the  passages  put  in  the  right-hand  column  in 
Holtzmann's  scheme  for  the  sake  of  carrying  out 
the  plan  of  developing  the  seventh  of  each  serie« 
bj'  a  new  series  of  seven,  would  sacrifice  the  most 
important  parts  of  the  section,  in  which  order  and 
movement  are  most  evident.  We  must  conclude 
that  the  writer,  in  the  second  half  of  his  book, 
renounced  that  plan  as  not  adequate  for  his  ma 
terial,  as  ch.  10  may  have  been  meant  to  suggest. 
The  seven  bowls,  in  fact,  form  the  lea.'t  origins.' 
and   impressive   part  of    this    section,   being  de- 


REVELATION,  BOOK  OF 


REVELATION,  BOOK  OF    253 


pendent  on  the  seven  trumpets  and  inferior  to 
them  in  cirectiveness  (see  oelow).  The  seven 
bowls  do  not  furnish  the  plan  of  this  section.  But 
we  may  fairly  ask  whether  we  are  to  give  to  the 
sevens  quite  sucli  signilicanee  in  the  earlier  part  of 
the  book  as  is  commonly  done.  If  both  the  seventh 
seal  and  the  seventh  trumpet  include  all  that 
follows  in  the  book  (as  also  the  seventh  bowl  is 
simply  more  fully  described  in  ehs.  17-19),  then 
we  should  not  divide  by  sevens,  since  this  would 
cut  oU'  the  announcement  of  the  seventh  from  its 
development.  The  seventh  sliould  open,  not  end, 
a  new  section,  and  the  separation  of  the  seventh 
from  the  sixth  by  passages  of  vital  importance 
(not  mere  interludes  m  character)  seems  to  indicate 
this  intention  on  the  part  of  the  writer.  Clis.  7 
and  10  seem  most  evidently  to  mark  transitions. 

Some  such  outline  as  this  may  therefore  with 
reserve  be  suggested — 

L  Preliminarj' Judgments  (4-9). 

1.  Visions  of  tile  actors  (4-6). — 

a.  God  (4) ;  0.  Christ  (5) ;  c  Destroctiv*  powere(d). 

2.  Promises  of  deliverance  out  of  coming  evils  (7). 

8.  The  jud;,Tiienta  (one-third,  without  producwg  re- 
I'eiitance,  S.  9X 
n.  Final  jud|;uieiiu  (10-2-2). 

1.  The  prophet's  new  commission  (10). 

2.  Vision  of  deliverance  for  true  worshippen  of  God, 

and  esp.  for  martyrs  (111'*). 
8.  Prelude,  summarizing  the  action  (lllMB), 

4.  Visions  of  the  actors  (12.  13  [14i-^V]). — 

«.  Satan  (12) ;  b.  Roman  empire  and  emperor- 
worship  (13) ;  [e.  The  Lamb  and  His  followers 
(Hl-S)). 

5.  Promises  and  warnings  (14  [or  146-20]). 
e.  The  judgi)ients(15-20).— 

a.  Upon  the  earth,  leading  up  to  the  fall  of  the  city, 
Eome  (15.  10.  171-lS--"  1191-10?));  ft.  Upon  the 
demon-beasts  of  the  Roman  empire  and  religion 
and  their  followers(19Ji-2i);  c.  Upon  Satan  and 
all  that  belongs  to  him  (20). 
T.  The  new  world  and  city  (211-8  21»-22»(9?)).« 

Titles  or  Buper8cri|)tions  quite  frequently  summarize  the  con- 
tents of  following  visions :— U-s  sums  up  the  whole  book,  §2 
Is  a  title,  and  b^-San  anticipation  of  the  effect  of  the  trumpets 
(&fi"  ),  and  the  bowls  arc  similarly  introduced  (16'- 2-1).  iil5ia 
IS  a  summary  t  itle  of  cha.  12-22  ;  182- »  summarizes  IS-*  '-^  ;  19'-10 
iumn-arizes  1011--2221 ;  211-8  summarizes  218-22' (211- 2 = i>-2i,  s-4 

Yet  though  we  find  evidence  of  a  general  order 
in  the  book  which  the  artistic  structure  of  chs.  l-.'5 
prepares  us  to  look  for,  ^ve  must  take  account  of 
various  departures  from  any  strict  order,  if  we 
would  understand  the  spirit  of  the  writer.  Tliough 
the  interruption  of  tlie  sevens  by  clis.  7  and  10-11'* 
is  not  due  to  a  want  of  plan,  yet  here  and  in 
various  anticipatory  voices,  visions,  and  comments 
(e.p.ll"-'«  14'"  15^-<  I'J'-'"  12")  we  find  evidences  of 
the  practical  impulse  to  encourage  and  admonish, 
rather  than  artistic  reflexion.  In  the  failure  to 
observe  strict  chronological  sequence  the  book  is  in- 
deed only  like  Daniel  and  other  apocalypses.  There 
is  here  as  in  Daniel  a  progress  towards  greater 
concretencss  and  detail.  In  6"""  tlie  final  day  of 
God's  wrath  seems  already  come.  It  is  described 
again  in  14"™.  The  fall  of  Home  is  announced  in 
14'as  if  accomplished  ;  more  fully  described  in  IG"'"'; 
still  predicted  in  17'"  ;  announced  in  18",  predicted 
still  in  18*'"*.  Again  the  letters  seem  to  assume 
that  though  trials  have  been  endured,  martyrdom 
is  almost  wholly  future  (2") ;  but  in  5"""  many 
souls  of  martyrs  are  seen,  and  7"""  implies  a  multi- 
tude, as  20'''  also  does. 

((/)  Jixperienrcn  of  the  seer.  — We  have  already 
met  with  evidence  that  the  author  used  some 
ancient  materials  for  their  general  thought,  and 
not  In  a  literal  sense.  Before  passing  to  a  more 
detailed  stuilj'  of  his  use  of  material,  it  is  import- 
ant to  ask  whether  ho  gives  a  consistent  picture 
of  bis  own  experiences. 

•  It  Is  evident  that  171  and  21*  are  meant  to  mark  the  begin- 
nings of  paralti'l  set-tiona,  and  It  Is  pos^iilile  that  the  likewise 
parikllel  IB'i  and  22>  are  meant  to  mark  their  close. 


(1)  The  position  and  movements  of  the  seer, — 

He  is  on  earth  in  V^- ;  in  41  he  is  summoned  up  into  heaven, 
where  he  may  be  conceived  as  remaining  through  ch.  9  (cf.  6' 
8'- 2  etc.),  though  earth  is  not  out  of  bis  sight  (6i2(r.  71  etc.). 
That  he  is  literally  in  heaven  is  clearly  implied  in  5-*f.  713'-.  But 
in  lU',  without  a  break  (*  and  1  saw '),  he  ajipears  to  be  on  earth 
(so  10*-  <*),  Eartli  appears  to  bo  the  scene  of  the  action  in  lll-'5*, 
but  in  ll'B  voices  in  heaven  are  beard,  and  in  v. '9  the  temple  in 
heaven  is  seen  to  be  open.  In  12  the  seer  seems  to  be  in 
heaven  (?),  but  in  13  and  probably  in  14'-"*  he  is  on  earth.  If 
we  read  iirTaO>i>  in  12"*  (13').  we  have  a  definite  reference  to  the 
seer's  position,  comparable  to  19.  But  the  judgment  scene  14'*  '■"^ 
suggests  heaven.  Again  chs.  16. 16  give  a  heavenly  scene.  In  173 
an  angel  carries  John  away  in  the  spirit  into  a  wilderness  to 
see  the  woman  (Rome),  and  in  21'0  to  a  mountain  to  see 
Jerusalem  descending  out  of  heaven.  18'- -*  indicate  that  the 
seer  is  on  earth.  In  19'-io  he  seems  to  be  in  heaven,  but  in  v.n 
on  earth  again  (for  he  sees  heaven  open,  as  in  41)  ;  so  also  in  20^ 
212,  and  probably  in  2110'.. 

There  is  so  little  law  in  those  movements,  and 
so  little  care  to  make  the  connexion  clear,  that 
one  might  infer  that  our  writer  leaves  such  refer- 
ences as  they  stood  in  his  dili'erent  sources ;  but 
this  would  mean  that  the  vision  was  to  him  a 
form,  not  a  reality. 

(2)  The  heavenly  scenes. — 

The  scenery  in  heaven  is  not  clearly  described.  Ch.  4  pictures  a 
throne  of  Uod,  with  24  elders  on  thrones  around  it,  seven  lamps 
before  it  which  are  the  seven  spirits  of  God,  before  it  a  glassy 
sea,  and,  in  the  midst  of  it  and  around  it,  four  living  creatures. 
Here  in  the  mirUt  of  the  throne  stood  tlie  Lamb  (ch.  6),  whose 
seven  eyes  arc  the  seven  spirits  of  God,  of  which  the  seven 
lamps  were  already  a  8.\Tiibol.  About  the  throne  and  the 
elders  and  living  beings  are  myriads  of  angels  (6"  7").  Here 
also  are  the  multitudes  who  iiave  come  out  of  great  tribulation 
(7«-17).  Of  them,  however,  it  is  said  not  only  that  they  are 
before  the  throne  of  God,  but  that  they  serve  Him  in  His 
temple.  3'2  has  prepared  us  for  the  conception  of  a  teraple  in 
heaven,  and  in  C»  wo  have  suddenly  been  m.ode  aware  of  '  the 
altar,*  beneath  which  are  the  souls  of  martyrs.  Now  the 
trumpets  are  Bounded  by 'the  seven  angels  which  stand  before 
God,'  82  (cf.  1*«).  Tiiese  did  not  api'ear  in  the  scene  just 
drawn,  unless  they  are  the  same  as  *  the  seven  spirits,'  as  14 
might  indicate.  The  altar  is  mentioned  again,  ana,  perhaps  in 
distinction  from  it,  '  the  golden  altar  which  is  before  the 
throne,'  the  altar  of  Incense  (S^-^).  From  the  bonis  of  this 
'golden  altar  which  is  before  God'  comes  the  voice  which 
directs  the  angel  of  the  sixth  trumpet  (D'^'-)-  The  seventh 
truniiiet  reveals  the  original  scene  (the  throne  and  elders  and 
living  beings,  il'fi-ls) ;  but  then  we  reafl.  '  there  was  opened  the 
temple  of  God  that  is  in  hea\-en,'  and  in  it  the  ark  of  Ills 
covenant  was  seen  (11'9).  After  this  the  24  elders  appear  only 
in  141-6  and  19'-**,  two  soinewbat  similar  pjissages,  though 
152-*  may  have  the  saii-e  setting  (cf.  4").  One  of  the  four 
living  creatures  is  mentioned  in  157  in  connexion  with  the 
temjile ;  but  more  often  the  temple  scenery  stands  by  itself. 
Out  of  the  temple  comes  the  angel  who  summons  the  reaper 
(14"^)  and  the  angel  who  is  to  gather  the  grapes  (1417),  whom 
another  angel  f rum  the  altar  directs  (14'«).  Out  of  the  temple 
come  the  seven  angels,  having  the  seven  last  jilagues,  and  the 
temple  is  filled  with  smoke  from  the  glory  of  God,  so  that  it 
could  not  be  entered,  although  open  (Ij-'  ^).  A  great  voice 
from  the  temple  commands  them  (16')  ;  'the  altar' affirms  the 
justice  of  the  judgment  (10'),  and  the  final,  '  It  is  done,'  comes 
'out  of  the  temple  and  from  the  throne,'  uniting  the  two  (16'7). 

It  is  not  easy  to  unite  in  one  picture  the  concep- 
tion of  God  as  sitting  on  a  throne  surrounded  by  His 
court,  and  of  His  dwelling,  in  lieaven  as  on  earth, 
in  the  temple's  holiest  place,  from  whicli  His  voice 
or  messengers  issue  forth.  Since  tlie  scenery  of 
the  throne  is  that  of  the  seals,  and  the  temple 
scenery  that  of  the  bowls,  it  is  natural  to  think 
of  this  unharmonized  element  as  due  to  sources. 
The  author  has  mixed  the  scenes  somewhat  (15' 
could  be  an  insertion,  as  the  angels  came  out  of 
the  temple  already  having  seven  plagues,  vv.'-')j 
but  he  does  not  harmonize  them,  or  [laint  a  heaven 
that  can  be  imagined.  The  new  Jerusalem  must 
al.so  have  been  in  heaven  (3'-  21'-'),  though  the  seer 
beholds  it  only  as  it  descends  to  earth  (21'"-).  The 
description  ot  the  new  heaven  and  earth  resolvea 
itself  into  the  description  of  a  city,  and  in  this 
there  is  no  temjile  (21--'),  but  the  throne  roiiiains 
the  final  seat  of  God  (20-'- "  21»  22'»).  If  the 
writer  had  wislied  to  paint  a  clear,  consistent 
picture,  ho  could  easily  have  done  so.  The  infer- 
ence that  ho  took  his  descriptions  as  they  were, 
and  valued  them  as  poetical  not  literal  accounts, 
is  hurely  a  natural  one. 


254    REVELATION,  BOOK  OF 


REVELATION,  BOOK  OF 


(3)  Form  of  insjnration. — The  same  freedom  and 
disregard  of  formal  consistency  is  evident  in  the 
representation  of  the  way  in  which  the  seer  re- 
ceived his  revelations.  There  is  no  set  way,  no 
fixed  medium. 

The  fli-st  verses  seem  explicit,  yet  leave  us  uncertain  whether 
we  are  to  conceive  of  the  writer  as  reeei\ing:  Christ's  revelation 
throu(;h  angel  (!')  or  by  vision  ('all  the  things  that  he  saw,'  l*'^, 
cf.  l^^}.  The  letters  are  given  by  Ciirist  in  the  first  person.  Yet 
they  are  introduced  by  a  description  of  Christ  in  the  third 
person,  and  the  expression  '  hear  what  the  spirit  saith  to  the 
Churches '  sug-gesta  that  the  letters  are  dictated  to  John  by  an 
angel-spirit  in  the  name  of  Christ.  The  voice  which  John  hears 
at  first  (l>*"")  must  be  the  voice  of  Christ  Himself  (cf.  1'^).  The 
Bame  voice  summons  John  into  the  open  heaven  (4')-  He  is 
there  '  in  the  spirit'  (4^,  as  in  V^).  Hut  it  does  not  appear  to 
be  Christ  Himself  who  shows  him  what  is  to  come.  Christ 
appears  as  an  actor  in  the  drama  of  the  future,  not  as  the  seer's 
inteqtreter.  Not  till  ltJi&  is  His  voice  heard  again,  and  then  not 
till  22' (V).  In  1"!  one  of  the  seven  angels  of  the  bowls  summons 
John  and  carries  him  away  in  the  spirit  into  a  wilderness  to  see 
the  judgment  upon  Rome.  This  is  the  sort  of  angel  guidance 
that  1^  would  lead  us  to  expect,  but  which  we  look  for  thus  far 
in  vain.  This  angel  fulfils  his  function  as  interpreter  (177-18); 
but  then  we  hear  another  angel  announcing  Babylon's  fall  (181-3) ; 
another  voice  from  heaven  pronouncing  the  prophetic  denuncia- 
tion over  her  (IS*-^");  and  still  another  angel  predicting  the 
fall  by  deed  and  word  (1821-2^).  Then  are  heard  various  voices 
from  heaven  (19i-«);  and  only  then,  in  I99l0(*and  he  says  to 
me'),  does  the  original  angel-guide  speak  again.  He  then 
rejects  John's  impulse  to  worship  him  (cf.  Asc.  Isaiah  721  s*-^) 
with  the  words,  '  I  am  a  fellow-servant  of  thee  and  thy  brothers 
who  have  the  testimony  of  Jesus ;  worship  God  :  for  the  testi- 
mony of  Jesus  is  the  spirit  of  prophecy '  (19li).  The  last  clause 
is  often  struck  out  as  a  gloss  by  critics  (Bousset,  Hilgen- 
feld,  etc.),  but  this  is  venturesome.  *The  spirit  of  prophecy' 
should  mean  the  spirit  from  God  which  inspires  the  prophet; 
that  is,  in  this  case,  the  angel  himself  (cf.  226).  So  he  would  say, 
'  I  am  only  one  of  you  who  have  the  testimony  of  Jesus  ;  indeed 
this  testimony  constitutes  my  verj'  being.'  The  angel-spirit  of 
prophecy  is  simply  the  personified  testimony  of  Jesus,  the  word 
of  Jesus  Himself.  As  a  messenger  this  angel  is  on  an  equality 
with  John, — because  his  message  is  wholly  and  simply  the 
message  of  Christ.  There  follow  visions  of  the  first  and  of  the 
final  judgments  (19ii-20i^),  and  an  introductory  (summary) 
vision  of  the  consummation  (21l-^),  in  which  are  heard  the 
words  of  God  Himself  (\'v.8-8);  and  then  'one  of  the  seven 
angels  who  had  the  seven  bowls'  (not  the  same  one  as  before?) 
carried  John  in  the  spirit  to  a  mountain  to  see  the  new  Jeru- 
salem. It  is  this  angel  who  measured  the  city  and  showed  John 
the  details  of  the  vision  (21i5-i7  22'),  so  that  when  22^  begins 
•and  he  said  to  me,'  it  can  be  only  the  angel  that  speaks  (one 
of  the  'spirits  of  the  prophets');  but  in  v.7  his  words  become 
Christ's  words,  'behold,  1  come  quickly.'  No  wonder  John 
would  again  worship  him,  but  again  he  classes  himself  with  the 
prophets.  As  a  person  he  is  only  a  revealer,  a  voice;  but  his 
words  are  those  of  Christ.  So  when  he  speaks  again  (2210H.)  his 
words  ajiain  become  Christ's  words  (vv.I'-ff).  Now  it  is  to  be 
observed  that  the  seven  angels  of  the  bowls  (ch.  15),  two  CO  of 
whom  are  the  imparters  of  these  last  prophecies  of  the  book, 
naturally  lead  us  back  to  '  the  seven  angels  which  stand  before 
God,'  to  whom  the  trumpets  are  given  (82),  and  these  again  to 
the  seven  lamps  burning  before  the  throne,  which  are  the  seven 
Bjtirits  of  Goa  (4*),  from  whom  (H),  as  from  God  and  Christ, 
John's  message  comes.  When  now  Christ  is  described  as  'he 
that  hath  the  seven  spirits  of  God '  (31),  and  is  pictured  as  the 
Lamb  with  seven  eyes  '  which  are  the  seven  spints  of  God  sent 
forth  into  all  the  earth'  (56),  we  have  certainly  significant 
indications  of  what  the  WTiter  meant  hy  calling  bis  book  an 
•apocal>^»se  of  Jesus  Christ,' and  of  his  idea  of  the  inspiration 
of  a  Christian  prophet.  Angels,  however  realistically  described, 
are  hardly  more  than  a  means  of  expressing  the  fact  that  the 
writer  was  somehow  consrious  of  having  a  message  from  Christ 
for  the  Churches.  Any  further  Interpretation  of  his  consciovis- 
ness  must  he  deferred  until  we  have  studied  the  sources  and 
relationships  of  his  materials. 

Any  set  and  consistent  form  of  representing  his  experiences, 
however,  the  author  seems  purposely  to  avoid.  Apart  from 
17iff.  2iy*^-  we  have  no  indication  of  a  special  interpretmg  angel, 
taking  the  part  of  Gabriel  in  the  Bk.  of  Daniel.  The  speakers 
in  the  book  are  verj'  many.  The  underlying  faith  in  the  king- 
ship  of  God  and  of  Christ,  and  its  ultimate  triumph,  are  expressed 
in  heavenly  choruses,  led  by  the  twenty-four  elders  and  the  four 
cherubim,  but  joined  in  by  multitudes  of  angels  and  of  glorified 
men  (4a-li  591*  79-12  nl*-"*  1210  142.3  152.4  191-7  (S).  One  of  the 
elders  instructs  John  in  5^  and  Tl*^!"?.  Often  it  is  simply  'a 
voice  from  heaven'  that  he  hear8(10*-8  1413  I8*  218,  cf.  Wi\  or 
from  the  horns  of  the  altar  (9i-'f-)i  or  from  the  altar  itself  (16^. 
He  records  woMs  of  God,  18  I?  ?)  215-8  \Qn  (?) ;  of  Christ,  1"  l»  »> 
2.  3.  ini5  227-  I2flr. ;  of  the  spirit,  14»3  2217.  There  are  beatitudes 
uttered  by  Christ  (16i»  22'  H),  by  a  voice  from  heaven  (14>3),  by 
the  angel-guide  (19'-*),  by  John  (l^).  Sometimes  he  seems  to 
interrupt  the  storj-  of  what  he  had  seen  with  a  direct  word  of 
his  own  to  the  reader  (27»  etc.  13^  10 1318  1412,  cf.  179?).  Among 
the  other  voices  that  are  heard  are  those  of  the  souls  of  martyrs 
(610):  of  various  angels  undefined  (7*  14«- 8.»- 16. 13  1917  etc.) ;  of 
Hhe  angel  of  the  waters'  (Iti^f);  an  eagle  (&13);  the  ro<l  QW). 
At  the  beginning  and  at  the  end  the  book  is  declared  to  be  from 
Gbriflt  Himself,  His  testimony  (li-  9  221^    The  part  which  the 


anpels  perform  might  almost  he  regarded  as  pictorial,  since  the 
wnter  reduces  the  significance  of  these  beings,  who  are  the 
uniform  at^tors  and  speakers  in  the  Jewish  apocal>-pses,  to  thai 
of  messengers  of  Christ.  He  is  the  primary  and  final  actor  la 
the  book  (.opens  the  seals,  ch.  6  f.,  and  executes  the  judgment^ 
igiiff),  and  He  is  the  real  speaker. 

Here  also,  as  in  the  case  of  the  place  and  move- 
ments of  the  seer  and  the  heavenly  scennry,  a 
variety  of  sources  nu*;ht  explain  the  diversity  of 
the  representation,  but  we  must  also  suppose  the 
author  to  be  relatively  inditlerent  to  formal  con- 
sistency. He  must,  one  is  forced  to  think,  have 
taken  the  external  language  of  apocalypses  in  a 
figurative  or  poetic  way.  The  only  other  hypothesis 
would  seem  to  be  that  of  composite  origin  (as  held 
by  Volter,  Spitta,  etc.) ;  but  the  etibrt  to  bring  con- 
sistency out  of  the  book  by  analysis  and  the  recon- 
struction of  sources  out  01  which  it  was  gradually 
and  unskilfully  put  together,  fails  to  do  justice  to 
the  unity  of  style  and  even  of  plan  which  the  book 
has  been  found  to  exhibit.  Moreover,  this  etiort 
has  been  made  by  many  able  men,  and,  according 
to  the  prevailing  opinion  of  scholars,  has  failed. 

In  order,  however,  to  test  the  possibility  of  a 
free,  more  or  less  poetic,  use  of  traditional  apoca- 
lyptical material,  we  must  examine  our  autlior'a 
use  of  tradition  at  various  points  more  closely. 

3.  Sources. — (a)  Old  Testament. — Although  Rev, 
contains  no  direct  citations  from  the  OT,  it  is  full 
of  OT  language  from  the  beginning  to  the  end. 
An  impression  of  its  dependence  on  OT  phrase- 
ology may  be  gained  from  the  text  of  W  estcott 
and  Hort,  or  from  that  of  Nestle,  in  which  such 
allusions  or  remini.scences  are  printed  in  a  distinct 
type.  In  the  corresponding  list  of  references  in 
WH*s  Appendix,  pp.  184-188,  out  of  the  total 
number  of  404  verses  in  the  book  about  265  verses 
contain  OT  language,  and  about  550  references  are 
made  to  OT  pas.^ages.*  The  material  is  still  more 
fully  gathered  by  Hiihn  [Die  alttest.  Citate  und 
Rcminlscenzen  iin  NT,  1900). 

Nothing  is  more  hnportant  for  the  understanding 
of  our  author's  mental  and  literary  processes  than 
a  close  study  of  his  use  of  OT  language. 

The  bearmg  of  such  study  upon  the  interpreta- 
tion of  our  book  can  here  only  be  suggested  by 
illustrations.  One  of  the  simplest  cases  is  the 
prophetic  denunciation  of  the  fall  of  Babylon 
(Rome)  in  ch.  18.  It  is  composed  almost  wholly 
of  material  taken  from  the  prophetic  woes  over 
Babylon  (Is  13.  14,  Jer  50.  51),  Tyre  (Is  23,  Ezk 
26-28),  and,  in  a  slight  degree,  Edom  (Is  34).  Even 
the  admonition  that  mi^ht  seem  to  have  direct 
reference  to  the  historical  situation,  *  Come  forth, 
my  people,  out  of  her,'  etc.  (18-*),  is  directly 
borrowed  from  prophetic  utterances  (Jer  51^-'-** 
50^,  Is  48^  52"),  and  lias  there  rather  than  here 
its  historical  explanation.  Yet  the  chapter  does 
not  make  the  impression  of  being  a  laborious  piece 
of  patchwork.  It  has  a  unity  of  its  oven  and  a 
high  degree  of  impressiveness,  and  seems  to  be  the 
work  of  one  who?^e  mind  is  tilled  with  the  language 
of  prophecy,  and  who  draws  abundantly,  and  of 
course  consciously',  from  his  storehouse,  and  yet 
^^'rites  with  freedom  and  from  a  strong  inner  im- 
pulse  of  his  o^\'n,  and  elaborates  with  his  omu  con- 
ceptions the  themes  which  the  prophetic  words 
contain.  So  he  makes  out  of  the  old  a  product 
in  a  real  sen.se  new,  a  poetical  whole.  But  what 
shall  we  say  of  hia  putting  this  product  into  the 

•  The  allusions  agree  in  part  with  the  Heb.,  in  part  with  the 
LXX.  WH  mark  33  references  as  distinctly  from  IK-b.  (and 
Chald.),  15  as  from  LXX;  5  are  marked  Ileb.  and  LXX,  viz. 
4  references  to  Ex  19I6  (4^*8^  11  !'->  1618)  and  one  to  Zee  3'^  (12i'). 
Schurer(3  iii.  323)  cites  9-^  1(P  13'  20^  as  citations  from  Daniel, 
which  follow  Theodotion  more  closely  than  LXX.  See  Bludau, 
'  Die  Apokalvpse  und  Thcodotions  Daniel-Uebersetzung,'  in 
Theol.  QuarthLchri/t,  1897,  pp.  1-26.  Salmon  (Introd.  to  tht 
yT,  p.  (i«2f.)  argue*  that  the  citations  in  Rev.  show  a  nearer 
relationship  to  Theod.  than  to  LXX.  referring  to  »20  io5  12?  W 
196  20*^  11 ;  on  the  other  side,  1"  X916.    Cf.  Swete,  Introd.  p.  48  L 


REVELATION,  BOOK  OF 


REVELATION,  BOOK  OF 


255 


moutli  of  angels?  It  ia  easier  to  attribute  such  a 
literary  tomi«Jsition  to  a  poet  than  to  a  voice  from 
lieaven.  Kven  the  action  of  tlie  an<;el  in  18-'  rests 
on  the  s)-mliolic  act  of  Jeremiah  (51'^").  And  if 
our  writer  says  that  lie  hears  and  sees  tliese  things, 
must  we  not  judge  the  nature  of  his  vision  by  its 
contents?  A  literal  voice  from  heaven  this  certainly 
cannot  be,  and  we  seem  shut  up  to  two  possibilities 
regarding  it :  either  the  angels  and  the  voice  from 
heaven  belong  wholly  to  the  poetry  of  the  piece, 
its  literary  form,  or  they  express  the  writer's  own 
interpretation  of  the  strong  impulse,  as  if  from 
without,  under  which  he  wrote. 

Another  instructive  illustration  of  the  author's 
use  of  the  OT  is  to  be  found  in  his  description  of 
the  new  Jerusalem,  2I'-22'.  This  is  largely  taken 
from  the  anticipations  of  the  prophets  of  the  Exile, 
Ezekiel  and  Deutero- Isaiah,  with  reference  to  the 
return  and  the  reb\uldiiig  of  Jerusalem.  Features 
are  added  from  other  sources.  Here,  as  in  ch.  18, 
the  impression  i.s  not  that  of  mere  clipping  and 
piecing,  but  rather  that  of  the  work  of  a  mind  full 
of  the  Messianic  language  of  the  prophets,  WTiting 
out  of  a  genuine  and  deep  religious  and  poetic 
emotion,  with  a  dependence  on  the  OT  which  is  free, 
not  slavish,  and  yet  with  very  little  real  inventive- 
ness. Yet  this  also  is  shown  to  the  seer  by  an  angel, 
who  seems  to  be  in  general  the  speaker  (see  21" 
4  \a\uy,  22");  and  an  action  of  his  is  described  21""" 
which  is  taken  from  Ezekiel  (40"^-).  In  this  case, 
more  clearly  than  in  ch.  18,  we  may  suspect  a  cer- 
tain limitation  of  the  author's  imagination  by  bis 
sources,  which  is  not  inconsistent  with  a  large 
measure  of  freedom  in  the  use  of  them.  He  has 
mastered  the  OT  material  of  this  sort,  and  can  use 
it  etlectively,  b\it  cannot  go  much  beyond  it.  How 
otherwise  can  \i'e  explain  the  emphatically  Jewish 
picture  of  a  future  which  was  certainly  to  this 
writer  universal  in  scope  ;  the  presence  still  of 
thoroughly  earthl}'  features  in  a  consummation 
which  must  surely,  in  t  he  writer's  view,  be  heavenly; 
the  appearance  still  of  nations  and  kings  and  their 
wealth  after  heaven  .and  earth  have  passed  away? 
He  has  little  but  the  old  familiar  national  and 
earthly  language  at  command  for  the  description 
of  that  which  heaven  contains  for  Christian  hope. 
He  can  describe  the  Christian  heaven  only  in 
Jewish  language.  Hut  though  bound  in  language 
he  is  not  bound  in  thought.  He  knows  no  more 
impressive  and  expressive  language  (nor  do  we) ; 
but  the  language  is  poetry  to  him,  it  is  figurative, 
not  literal,  chosen  for  its  poetic  worth  and  emotional 
ellect,  which  belonged  to  it,  indeed,  partly  because 
it  was  old  and  familiar.  It  must  of  course  be  re- 
cognized that  the  most  powerful  imagination  comes 
guickly  to  an  end  if  it  attempts  to  leave  the  earth 
in  its  descriptions  of  heaven.  Religious  faith 
and  hope  cannot  do  better  than  take  the  language 
which  tlie  greater  souls  have  created,  which  genera- 
tions have  shaped,  which  age  has  hallowed,  and 
use  it  not  for  its  literal  but  for  its  emotional  and 
poetic  worth,  to  symbolize  and  suggest  inexpressible 
realities. 

Jewish  literature  furnishes  other  similar  collec- 
tions of  OT  Messianic  imagery  (To  13,  etc.);  and 
the  possibility  that  some  earlier  (Jewish)  mind  had 
already  shaped  the  material  in  21»-22',  and  that  our 
author,  in  21'"*,  introduces  and  summarizes  this 
section,  and  adds  his  own  concluding  sentences 
(22'-^'),  is  to  be  considered. 

A  still  more  striking  illustration  of  our  author's 
dependence  on  OT  language,  yet  his  freedom  in  the 
use  of  it,  both  in  combination  and  in  application, 
is  his  description  of  Christ  in  l'--".  Almost  all  of 
it  is  taken  from  Daniel,  but  it  unites  in  a  most 
surprising  way  features  from  the  descriptions  of 
the  one  like  a  son  of  man,  and  of  the  Am  lent  of 
Days,  in  Dn  7,  with   still  more  from   the  angel 


(Gabriel)  in  Dn  10.  The  seven  golden  candlesticks 
and  the  seven  stars  .are  without  parallel  in  Daniel. 
Something  can  he  said,  however,  as  to  their  source 
and  use.  The  former  was  of  course  a  familiar  OT 
symbol  (Ex  25"  37^)  which  Zech.  (4-)  uses  in  an 
unearthly  sense,  exjilaining  that  the  seven  lamps 
are  the  .seven  eyes  of  J",  which  run  to  and  fio 
through  the  whole  earth  (4""'  following  v.*").  He 
sees  by  the  candlestick  two  olive-trees  (4*),  and 
evidently  interprets  their  two  branches  as  signify- 
ing Zerubbabcl  and  Joshua,  so  that  the  two  trees 
are  the  Davidic  and  the  Aaronic  houses.  These 
two  men,  Zech.  would  say,  have  the  eyes  of  the 
Lord  upon  them  in  favour  and  blessing.  But  this 
is  a  free  npi)lication  by  the  prophet  to  the  historical 
present  and  to  his  practical  purpose  of  a  symbol 
which  originally,  no  doubt,  pictured  the  seven 
planets  and  the  w.ay  in  which  their  light  was  con- 
stantly replenished  by  the  oil  from  ever-growing 
trees.  It  was  a  mythological  .symbol  (Gunkel, 
Schop/ung,  pp.  122-131),  which  Zech.  used  as 
poetry,  not  interpreting  all  of  the  symbol  (4-''), 
and  perhaps  adding  a  feature  for  the  sake  of  the 
interpretation  (4'-).  Now  in  Uev  1'-"  the  writer 
chooses  to  identify  the  seven  lamps  with  the  seven 
churches  among  which  Christ  is  and  moves.  But 
in  4°''  he  sees  seven  lamps  burning  before  the 
throne  of  God,  which  are,  he  explains,  the  seven 
spirits  of  God,  altirmed  in  l""  to  be  before  God's 
tlirone  (cf.  8") ;  and  even  in  the  letters  (3')  Christ 
is  described  as  the  one  who  has  the  seven  spirits 
of  God  and  the  seven  stars,  so  that  this  interpreta- 
tion of  the  lamps  was  in  his  mind  l)y  the  side  of 
the  other.  When,  still  furtlier,  we  read  that  the 
Lamb  has  'seven  ej-es,  which  are  the  seven  spirits 
of  God  sent  forth  into  all  the  earth '  (5"),  with 
evident  allusion  to  Zee  4'"'',  we  are  able  to  realize 
how  far  from  a  slavish  literalness  and  formal  con- 
sistency our  author's  >ise  of  OT  figures  is.  Finally, 
Zech.'s  figure  reappears  in  1 1'',  where  the  two  wit- 
nesses are  declared  to  be  '  the  two  olive-trees  and 
the  two  candlesticks  [what  two  ?]  st.-mding  before 
the  Lord  of  the  earth,'  a  free  identification  for  a 
purpose,  similar  in  kind  to  that  of  Zech.  himself, 
this  time  certainly  made  not  by  our  author,  but  by 
some  source. 

Our  writer  cares  miich  for  OT  prophetic  language, 
and  cannot  easily  add  much  to  it,  but  he  ap[dies  it 
freely  to  new  uses.  Note  esp.  that  we  have  in  Rev. 
no  such  anxious  ell'ort  to  interiuet  an  OT  predic- 
tion, assuming  the  necessity  of  its  literal  fulfil- 
ment, as  Dn  9  contains.  The  relation  of  11^  to 
Zee  4,  and  of  20»  to  Ezk  38  f.,  is  wholly  dillbrent. 

Other  illustrations  could  readily  be  given, — such 
as  the  relation  of  ch.  4  to  Is  G  and  Ezk  1, — but 
enough  has  been  presented  to  justify  the  following 
presupjiositions  with  reference  to  passages  in  our 
book  which  contain  imagery  not  derived  from  the 
OT — (1)  that  such  imagery,  if  It  Is  at  all  elaborate, 
is  not  the  author's  free  invention,  but  is  borrowed 
from  some  literary  or  oral  iirophetic  tra<litions; 
(2)  that  the  writer  docs  not  feci  bound  to  leave  it 
as  it  Is,  but  is  free  to  combine  and  intcri>ret  it  to 
suit  his  own  purpose,  so  that  the  Interiireter  must 
distinguish  sharply  between  the  present  use  of  the 
symbols  and  their  original  use.  If  this  distinction 
is  necessary  in  21-22'  and  l"'",  it  will  be  no  less 
necessary  in  11'"  12.  13,  etc. 

(4)  Jewu'ik  apcinrli/pfiral  tradition.i.  —  The  line 
that  sei)arates  uncaiioiilcal  from  OT  material  In 
Rev.  is  not  a  sharp  one.  It  would  indeed  bo 
natural  that  Jewish  ajiocalyptical  trailitlons  should 
consist  largely  of  exjiositions  and  elaborations  of 
OT  material.  The  picture  of  the  throne  of  (lod 
(ch.  4)  is  unquestionably  bused  upon  that  of  Ezk 
1.  10  and  IsC  (cf.  also  the  prohahiy  older  iias.sageB, 
Ex  24"',  1  K  22'").  The  four  li\  ing  creatures,  cheru- 
bim, are  taken  directly  from  Ezekiel,  and,  in  spite 


256    EEVELATION,  BOOK  OF 


EEVELATION,  BOOK  OF 


of  difTerences,  need  no  other  explanation.  It  is 
of  course  not  to  be  assumed  that  they  have  no 
history  before  and  after  Ezekiel  (cf.  the  four  pres- 
ences in  Enoch  40  and  Apoc.  Bar  51"  21",  and  the 
four  angels  in  Enoch  a'--"  88'  W).  For  the  seven 
lamps  which  are  the  seven  spirits  of  God  we  have 
already  found  points  of  connexion  in  the  OT,  hut 
we  need  to  adduce  such  passages  as  To  12",  Enoch 
90-',  in  order  to  realize  how  tixed  an  element  in 
apocalj'ptical  imaginations  these  seven  spirits  (or 
angels,  arcliangcls)  were.  The  use  of  tlie  article 
in  Kev  l*  4'''  8-  is  itself  proof  of  the  familiarity  of 
the  conception.  Tliat  foreign  speculations,  Persian 
or  Babylonian,  lie  behind  it  is  probable  (see 
Clieyne,  OP  2Slfr.,  323  ll.,  334  If.  ;  Gunkel,  6'rAd>- 
fung,  294-302,  and  Arc/do  f.  Rcllfji-unswUsensch. 
1898,  294-300;  Stave,  Parsismus,  216-219).  It  is 
therefore  a  natural  inference  that  the  twenty-four 
elders,  clotlied  in  white,  sitting  on  thrones  and 
crowned,  come  from  tradition,  and  are  not  an 
invention  of  the  author.  They  represent  probably 
not  the  Christian  Church,  twelve  tribes  and  twelve 
apo^t  les  ( though  2 1  '^  may  ind  icate  the  WTiter's  desire 
to  add  the  Christian  to  the  Jewish  twelve),  but 
the  glory  and  power,  especially  the  reigning  or 
judicial  power  of  God,  His  heavenly  court.  They 
are  associated,  as  are  the  seven  spirits  and  the  four 
cherubim,  with  God  and  His  throne,  not  with  the 
creation  (see  Gunkel,  Schopfung,  302-308).  Is  24^ 
gives  probable  evidence  of  the  antiquity  of  the 
conception  (cf.  Is  63',  LXX).  With  the  general 
description  of  God's  throne  should  be  compared, 
e.g.,  Enoch  14.  71,  Secrets  of  Enoch  29.  22. 

We  have  already  found  reasons  for  regarding 
11'"'"  as  a  Jewish  oracle  (or  two  fragments  of  a 
Jewish  apocalypse),  used  by  our  author  in  a  sense 
wliolly  ditierent  from  its  original  literal  meaning. 
It  is  a  most  convincing  illustration  of  our  author's 
union  of  dependence  on  traditional  forms  of  ex- 
pression, and  independence  of  the  traditional  use 
and  meaning  of  such  forms. 

The  great  sign  in  heaven  which  ch.  12  presents 
can  be  accounted  for  only  in  a  \ery  sliglit  degree 
on  the  basis  of  the  Ol.  Yet  nowhere  is  the 
writer's  dependence  upon  traditional  material  more 
certain.  Assuming  that  he  did  not  invent  these 
ligures,  it  is  not  difficult  to  understand  what  he 
meant  to  saj-  by  the  use  of  them.  The  chapter 
contains  a  picture,  in  some  sense  an  explanation, 
of  Satan's  present  ])ower  in  the  world,  and  his  fierce 
hostility  to  the  Christian  Church  ;  and  at  the  same 
time  the  a.ssurance  that  his  power  is  soon  to  end. 
Christ  escaped  his  hands,  and  is  with  God.  Satan 
has  already  been  cast  ilown  from  his  old  place  in 
heaven,  and  no  longer  brings  accusations  against 
the  saints  before  God  ;  and,  tliough  he  is  now  all 
the  more  determined  in  his  assaults  upon  Christ's 
brethren  on  earth,  his  reign  is  doomed  to  a  speedy 
end.  This  application  of  tlie  ligure,  however,  uy  no 
means  explains  its  origin.  Many  of  its  details 
can  be  fitted  to  this  use  only  by  violence,  if  at  all, 
and  could  not  have  been  devised  for  the  purpose. 
What  tlien  was  the  source,  and  of  what  sort  was 
the  wTiter's  use  of  this  material  ? 

Gunkel's  book  must  be  regarded  as  little  short 
of  epoch-making  in  its  significance  for  the  inter- 
pretation of  this  chapter,  even  though  serious 
doubt  be  felt  regarding  certain  of  his  conclusions, 
lie  offers  convincing  proof  of  the  long  and  wide- 
spread influence  in  Hebrew  literature  of  the  IJaby- 
hmian  myth  of  creation— the  victory  of  Marduk, 
i.ne  god  of  lijrht  (the  sun),  over  the  chaos-beast 
Ti.lmat,  the  dragon  of  the  deep  He  traces  the 
transition  from  a  cosmological  to  an  eschatological 
use  of  the  conception,  on  the  principle,  which  ex- 
plains many  features  of  the  Jewish  hope,  that  God 
will  make  tlie  last  thin^rs  as  tlie  first  (Barn.  6"*)  ; 
and  the  interpretation  of  the  dragon  as  a  historical 


instead  of  a  natural  power.  In  this  way  the  myth 
becomes  a  poetic  expression  of  the  expectation 
that  the  hostility  ot  tlie  world -ruling  nation 
against  Israel  will  come  to  a  supreme  manifesta- 
tion ;  tliat  then  J"  will  intervene  directly,  or 
through  the  angel  Michael,  and  again,  as  at  the 
beginning,  the  dragon  will  be  bound  or  slain  (cf. 
Is  51"- '"  27').  '  The  beast  that  conies  up  out  of 
the  abyss'  (Kev  11')  is  this  well-known  figure  in 
Jewish  eschatology.  It  could  be  regarded  as  a 
symbol,  or  representative  of  the  hated  nation,  as 
in  Dn  7  it  becomes  four  beasts,  to  describe  the 
four  successive  masters  and  enemies  of  the  Jewish 
nation,  and  as  in  Rev  13  it  is  the  Roman  empire ; 
or  it  could  be  more  distinctly  and  personally  con- 
ceived, as  in  Rev  12,  as  the  Satan  who  <;ives  the 
hostile  kingdom  its  evil  power.  It  could  also  be 
conceived  of  as  a  man  in  whom  evil  reaches  its 
height  (Antichrist,  perhaps  Rev  II'). 

Gunkel  is  not  contented,  however,  with  this  general  and 
probable  identification  of  the  draj^on  of  ch.  12,  tie  proceeds  to 
delend  two  much  more  dubious  positions.  First,  that  our 
ciiapter  rests  ultiuiiitely  upon,  and  loUou-s  closely,  a  part  of  tiie 
Babylonian  myth  of  which  we  have  no  oliier  remaining  record — 
the  account  of  the  birth  of  Marduk,  his  escape  from  the  dragon 
wtio  knows  him  to  be  his  destined  destroyer,  and  the  dra^ou'a 
fierce  persecution  ot  his  ^'oddess-mother  "during  the  period  of 
the  boy's  growth  to  maturity,  '  the  three  and  a  lialf  times,' 
from  the  winter  solstice  to  the  spring  equinox  [?J.  Second,  that 
in  contrast  to  the  free  poetic  use  of  such  material  in  the  earlier 
prophetic  and  poetic  books  of  the  OT,  we  find  in  the  apoca- 
Ij-pses  an  increasing  tendency  to  look  upon  these  ancient  and 
mysterious  figures  with  awe,  and  to  believe  that  tliey  really 
contained,  and  could  reveal  to  one  who  had  wisdom,  the  ex- 
planation of  present  evil  and  the  secrets  of  ita  comin<r  end. 
This  reverence  for  apocalj'ptical  traditions  explains,  Gunkel 
contended,  what  nothing  else  but  literal  vision  could  exjtlain, 
tlie  confident  belief  of  these  writers  in  their  own  predictions. 
He  finds,  therefore,  in  such  sources  as  these  not  only  an  illus- 
tration of  the  literary  method  of  the  seer,  but  an  explanation  of 
his  self-consciousness,  a  psychological  account  of  apocalyptical 
writings.  Both  of  these  positions  of  Gunkel  are  insecure,  and 
from  the  second  one  he  lias  himself  in  part  withdrawn.  The 
freedom  with  which  we  have  found  our  author  combining  and 
modifying  OT  materials  renders  it  hazardous  to  attempt  to 
reconstruct  his  sources  when  they  are  unknown,  and  also  jire- 
vent3  the  assumption  that  he  looked  upon  such  materials  with 
awe  and  derived  from  them  his  revelation. 

It  is  not  probable  that  the  material  in  Rev  12 
stands  in  its  original  form  and  order.  Gunkel 
himself  recognized  that  v."  and  vv.'-'*  offer  two 
variants.  \A  ellhausen  (Hkizzen  unci  Vorarbeiten, 
6  Heft,  p.  21511'.)  regards  »"«  and  '•'■■  as  doub- 
lets,  and  would  distinguish  two  actions  in  the 
original  story  wliich  are  here  confused.  1.  In 
heaven,  the  dragon  wars  with  the  angels,  or  with 
the  sun,  moon,  and  zodiac  (vv."-'-'),  is  conquered 
and  cast  down  to  earth  witli  his  angel  host  (vv.'-*- 
*'■).  2.  On  earth,  he  makes  war  with  tlie  woman 
who  bears  the  son  (■"'  is  already  an  earthly  scene), 
the  son  is  snatched  up  to  heaven  ('),  the  woman 
flees  into  the  wilderness,  the  dragon  pursues  her 
there,  but  must  leave  her  (fi=ii-i»),  and  turns 
against  those  of  her  seed  who  did  not  escape  with 
her.  There  must  then  have  followed  an  account 
of  the  overthrow  of  the  dragon  by  the  rescued 
Messiah  after  His  growth  to  maturity.  Something 
like  this,  Wellhausen  thinks,  was  a  Jewish  apoca- 
lypse of  the  siege  of  Jerusalem.  It  described  how 
the  remnant  (the  woman)  had  escaped  out  of  tha 
city  and  been  rescued  through  great  dangers ;  how 
the  Romans  (dragon)  had  turned  against  those  who 
remained  in  Jerusalem,  who  are  to  be  destroyed 
(Rev  11'-^  is,  however,  a  fragment  of  the  same 
time  which  anticipates  the  rescue  of  those,  the 
Zealots,  who  occupied  the  temple  itself  during  the 
sie''e).  The  fall  of  the  Roman  power  itself  must 
follow  at  the  hand  of  the  Messiah,  who  has  been 
born,  according  to  prophecy,  in  Palestine,  but  was 
translated  at  once  to  heaven,  so  that  He  will  come 
as  a  heavenly  being,  according  to  the  more  trans- 
cendental Messianic  hojie  of  late  Judaism.  So 
Wellh.  offers  a  literary-critical  and  contemporary- 


EEVELATIOX,  BOOK  OF 


REVELATION,  BOOK  OF    257 


historical  explanation  of  cli.  12  in  opposition  to 
Gnnkel's  tradition-historical  explanation. 

We  may  regard  Well  Hansen's  analysis  as  plaus- 
ible, for  the  war  in  heaven  and  the  easting  of  the 
dragon  down  to  earth  must  originally  have  pre- 
ceded his  persecution  of  the  woman  (w.**  and  " 
suggest  this  order).  But  Gunkel  is  surely  right 
in  denjnng  that  the  figure  is  the  pure  invention  of 
the  Jewish  writer,  whom  he  as  well  as  \\'ellh. 
accepts.  Its  history  goes  further  back,  and  its 
origmal  connexion  with  a  sun  -  mytli  is  highly 
jirobable.  It  is  a  striking  fact  that  (Jreek  myth- 
ology in  its  story  of  the  birth  of  Apollo,  and  the 
attempt  of  the  dragon  Pytho  to  kill  his  mother 
(Dieterich,  Abraxas,  p.  117  ii'.),  and  also  the 
Egyptian  story  of  the  birth  of  Horus  (Bousset, 
p.  410  f.),  contain  striking  points  of  likeness  to  Rev 
12,  so  that  Gunkel's  resort  to  a  postulated  Baby- 
lonian story  may  not  be  necessary.  In  all  of 
these  sun-myths,  however,  the  flight  of  the  woman 
is  before  the  birth  of  the  child,  and  for  its  rescue 
from  the  dragon. 

The  questions  left  open  by  these  recent  discus- 
sions of  the  chapter  are  many,  and  the  hypothesis 
of  a  Jewish  Me.ssianic  use  of  a  heathen  sun-myth, 
and  then  a  Christian  adaptation  of  the  Jewish 
form,  leaves  room  for  much  diversity  of  opinion 
in  detail ;  yet  it  is  a  wholly  credilde  hypothesis, 
and  the  actual  history  of  the  tradition  here  era- 
bodied  is  probably  more  rather  than  less  complex 
than  the  theory. 

Heathen  may  well  be  the  description  of  the  woman  (v.l)  and 
of  the  dragon  (\'v.3-*»),  his  effort  to  en;;ulf  the  woman,  her 
irings,  and  the  wilderness  to  which  she  flies  (H-'**),  Jewish 
(certainly  not  Christian)  may  be  the  idea  of  the  birth  and 
'mme<liate  translation  of  the  Messiah  to  God  (v. 5),*  so  also  the 
otflce  of  Michael  (•),  and  perhaps  a  chanj;e  ol  order  by  which 
Che  woman's  fli^'ht  is  made  to  follow  the  birth  of  the  cliild. 
The  Hebrew  lanyuajje,  according  to  Wellh.  and  Gunkel,  lies 
behind  the  Greek  of  the  chapter.  Christian  is  vM,  and,  more- 
over, so  plainly  out  of  keeping  with  the  rest,  as  almost  to  prove 
that  the  Christian  writer  is  using  material  already  shaped  (cf. 
Vischer).  The  verse  contains  the  messajie  of  our  writer,  and  is 
one  of  his  characteristic  anticipatory  sayintrs.  Christian  may 
■Iso  be  the  chantfe  of  order  by  whicli  Christ's  birth  and  ascen- 
sion are  made  to  prece<te  tiie  casting  of  the  dragon  out  of 
heaven  (cf.  Jn  1'231  14™  lo'l-as.  l  Jn  38,  Col  •21i>).  This  fives 
Christ  an  earlier  and  higher  part  in  the  drama  than  the  Jews 
ucribed  to  their  Messiah. 

In  answer  to  the  question  as  to  the  writer's  use 
of  this  uncanonical  material,  we  are  bound  to  con- 
clude that  it  was  as  free  and  poL^tical  as  his  use  of 
OT  conceptions.  V."  gives  us  the  clue.  The 
victory  of  Christian  faith  over  the  world  through 
martyrdom  is  the  counterpart  on  earth,  the  inter- 
pretation for  man,  of  the  victory  of  Michael  over 
the  dragon  in  heaven.  The  place  of  Michael  here, 
where  we  should  expect  only  the  direct  deed  of 
Christ,  shows  both  the  extent  of  the  writer's  depend- 
ence on  tradition  and  the  confidence  with  which  he 
finds  a  Christian  meaning  behind  unchanged  Jewish 
forms. 

Are  we  not  to  see,  then,  in  ch.  12  any  reference 
to  historical  factors  and  events?  Wellhausen's 
exact  determination  of  the  history  here  symbolized 
is  far  from  convincing,  and,  moreover,  it  fails  to 
explain  many  features  in  the  picture.  It  need 
not,  however,  be  doubted  tli;it  the  dragon  was,  at 
Some  point  in  the  genesis  of  the  cliapter,  regarded 
•8  a  Kynibol  of  the  lioman  empire.  His  seven 
crowned  heads  and  ten  horns  mean  world-nilership, 
and  his  persecution  of  the  W(jman's  seed  is  the 
same  jiersecution  with  which  our  whole  book 
deals.  So  far,  indeed,  even  Gunkel  allows  the 
presence  of  cuntemiiorary  hi.story  in  ch.  12. 

The  ca-te  is  a  more  comjilex  one  in  chs.  13  and  17, 
but  the  dillerence  is  one  of  projiortion  and  degree. 
Traditional  elements  are  hero  in  abundance,  and 
beyond  dispute,  yet  the  reference  to  Home  is  more 

•  BousMt  omIU  the  Jewish  link  In  the  chain  because  this 
nature  has  no  parallel  in  Iho  Jewish  Messianic  hope. 
VOL.  IV.— 17 


specific  and  detailed.  Gunkel  admits  the  latter 
element  here  (as  in  Dn  7.  8,  Enoch  85-90,  4  Ezr 
11.  12,  Apoc.  Bar  5311".),  but  restricts  it  within 
narrow  limits,  and  wUl  by  no  means  allow  that 
these  figures  were  freely  invented  allegories,  every 
feature  of  which  can  be  explained  as  a  reference 
to  contemporary  history.  He  dill'ers  from  the 
ruling  critical  opinion  most  radically  in  his  refusal 
to  recognize  any  allusion  to  Nero.  Two  questions 
must  be  kept  quite  distinct  in  the  study  of  these 
chapters:  (1)  the  question  how  much  is  due  to 
apoc.'ilyptical  tradition,  and  how  much  is  re-shaped 
or  invented  for  the  sake  of  the  apiilication  of  the 
traditional  figures  to  Rome  ;  and  ('2)  the  question 
whether  this  application  is  made  by  the  writer  of 
our  book,  or  was  already  present  in  the — possibly 
Jewish — sources  from  which  he  drew. 

The  seven  heads  and  ten  horns  appear  in  each 
case  (12^  13'  17').  The  Roman  world-empire  was 
meant  by  all.  Yet  the  ditt'erences  are  so  great 
that  one  must  conclude  that  more  or  less  independ- 
ent traditions  lie  behind  the  three  chapters,  even 
if  they  are  ultimately  traced  to  one  root.  The 
seven  heads  and  ten  horns  sum  up  the  outfit  of 
the  four  beasts  in  Dn  7,  though  they  do  not  need 
that  explanation.  We  can  well  suppose  the  numbers 
to  have  been  symbolic  at  first,  but  the  ellbrt  to 
apply  them  to  individual  kings,  and  so  to  estimate 
the  nearness  of  the  end,  was  inevitable.  There  is 
evidence  in  the  chapters  of  diflerent  etibrts  of  that 
kind. 

In  12'  it  is  the  seven  heads  that  are  kings,  in  13* 
it  is  the  ten  horns,  but  in  13'  the  smitten  head  must 
mean  a  king.  The  latter  is  commonly  interpreted 
(by  Victorinus,  and  by  modern  scholars  from  I'^ieh- 
horn,Liicke,  Bleek,downtoHoltzmannandI5ousset) 
of  Nero's  death,  which  ended  the  Julian  dynasty, 
and  seemed  likely  for  a  time  to  bring  the  empire 
to  an  end  in  anarchy.  Gunkel  thinks  the  Hebrew 
original  read  '  the  first  head,'  hence  Julius  Cajsar, 
whose  death  threatened  the  empire,  but  i.ssued  in 
its  greater  power  (cf.  On  8*  on  Alexander's  death). 
In  17'"'  "  the  seven  heads  are  the  seven  kings  of 
Rome,  and  the  writer  feels  bound  by  that  number 
even  when  he  needs  to  add  an  eighth.  The  ten 
horns,  on  the  other  hand,  are  apparently  allied  kings. 

The  evidence  of  later  adaptations  or  interjirctations  of  given 
figures  is  often  clear.  The  seven  mountains  of  171^**  is  so  clearly 
such  an  addition  for  the  sake  of  the  idcntilication  of  the  woman 
with  the  city  Rome,  that  one  is  the  more  inclined  to  find  in  vv.18 
and  If  also  allegorical  interpretations,  and  to  question  whether 
the  woman  was  originally  invented  as  a  figure  of  Rome.  8he  is 
now,  of  course,  the  city  Rome  (vv.0-«),  and  may  have  been 
created  in  that  sense ;  but  even  if  so,  not,  we  may  be  almost 
certain,  by  our  author. 

The  second  beast  in  13""-  is  evidently  now  the 
prophet  or  priest  (priesthood)  of  Roman  emperor- 
worship  (cf.  16"  19-"  -20'").  But  here  also  older 
traditions  are  to  be  supposed.  Bousset  regards 
this  as  a  Jewish  figure  of  Antichrist  {Kumm. 
Excursus  on  ch.  13,  Antichrist,  p.  121),  and  a 
Jewish  apocalyptical  writer  may  very  well  have 
interpreted  as  Antichrist  the  religion  of  emperor- 
worship,  and  put  this  by  the  side  of  the  beast  who 
stood  for  the  empire  itself  as  its  helper  in  evil. 
None  of  the  many  attempts  to  find  a  definite  person 
in  the  .second  bea.st  (Vespasian,  Simon  Magus,  Paul!, 
etc.)  have  made  any  approach  to  success.  The 
personal  interpretation  of^  the  first  beast,  however, 
as  signifying  Nero,  has  become  almost  a  fixed 
assumption  of  critics.  Gunkel's  attack  ujwn  this 
strongliold  of  the  contemiiorary-histuriail  method 
has  not  changed  the  prevailing  opinion  (see  Bousset, 
Holtzmann,  etc.).  It  has,  however,  served  to  empha- 
size the  fact  that  if  the  beast  from  the  abyss  is  here 
by  some  one  made  a  symbol  of  Nero,  yet  the  beast 
was  not  first  invented  for  this  use,  and  it  is  not 
certain  by  whom,  whether  by  our  author  or  l)y  a 
source,  the  identification  was  made.     The  opinion, 


258    REVELATIOX,  BOOK  OF 


REVELATION,  BOOK  OF 


indeed,  does  not  go  beyond  probability.  In  view  of 
tlie  embodiment  of  the  suijernatural  power  of  evil  in 
Antioclms  Epiphancs  in  Daniel,  it  is  not  possible 
to  s  ttle  the  question  by  a  "eneral  appeal  to  'con- 
gruitj',  analogy,  proportion,  and  a  sarcastic  thrvist 
at  the  famous  critics  who  have  '  placed  T.  Claudius 
Nero  along  with  Christ,  Satan,  Death,  Hades,  the 
Church,  and  other  powers  and  principles  which 
constitute  the  Dramatii  Persomeoi  the  Apocalypse' 
(Benson,  p.  159).  But  it  must  be  said  that  the 
evidence  is  of  a  wholly  dill'erent  sort  from  that 
which  Daniel  furnishes,  with  its  detailed  lii.story 
of  Antiochus  (chs.  8.  11),  and  is  not  such  as  we 
should  expect  if  the  writer  had  set  out  to  indicate 
his  belief  that  Nero  would  return  from  the  grave, 
and  be  the  demonic  power  of  evil  in  the  last  assault 
of  evil  against  good.  On  the  origin  and  history  of 
the  belief  in  Nero's  return  the  fullest  investigation 
is  that  of  Zahn  (Zeitsch.f.  kirchl.  Wisscnxch.  u.  k. 
Leben,  1885-86).  See  also  Bousset,  Komm.  p. 
47511'.,  and  Charles,  Ascension  of  Isa iah,  pp.  li-lxxv. 
The  chief  evidence  that  Rev.  refers  to  this  ex- 
pectation is  in  ch.  17.  The  return  of  one  of  the 
seven  kings  as  an  eighth,  who  is  nevertheless  also 
the  beast  himself  (v."),  suggests  this  more  or  less 
current  expectation.  In  the  ten  kings  of  v."  it  is 
possible  to  find  the  Parthian  kings,  with  whom  it 
was  believed  that  Nero  would  return  against  Rome. 
And  the  idea  that  the  city  Rome  would  be  de- 
stroyed by  the  verj'  beast  that  represents  her 
empire,  in  league  with  outside  kings  (vv."-"),  is 
difhcult  to  explain  at  all  apart  from  the  Nero 
myth,  which  would  perfectly  explain  it.  If  Nero 
be  found  here  it  is  natural  to  infer  that  v.'  describes 
in  general  terms  his  death,  return,  and  final  de- 
struction. Yet  this  formula  ('was,  and  is  not ;  and 
•i  about  to  come  up  out  of  the  abyss,  and  to  go  into 
perdition ')  so  fully  sums  up  the  general  apocalyp- 
tical theory  of  the  power  of  evil  (the  history  of  the 
chaos-dragon,  Gunkel),  and  seems  shaped  so  clearly 
in  contrast  to  the  formula  which  sums  up  the 
nature  of  God  ('who  was,  and  who  is,  and  who  is 
to  come'),  that  the  reference  to  Nero  may  be,  if 
present  at  all,  secondary.  The  verse  in  which  our 
author's  hand  is  most  clearly  seen  (v.")  so  inter- 
rupts this  Nero  story  with  an  anticipation  of  IQ'""- 
'for  how  are  the  ten  kings  to  be  overcome  by  the 
Lamb  and  His  followers  before  they  assist  the  beast 
in  the  destruction  of  Rome  ?)  as  to  suggest  that 
Nero  was  not  in  his  mind,  but  here,  as  in  12",  only 
the  Christian  conflict  with  evil.  So  also  the  in- 
terpretation of  the  slain  and  healed  head  in  13'  is 
uncertain,  and  even  the  number  666  gives  no  secure 
support  to  this  historical  reference.  The  Greek 
golutionof  thisriddle,  AATEIX02,  '(THE)  LATIN,' 
which  is  as  old  as  Irenieus,  though  not  aidopted  by 
him,  is  still  held  by  many ;  but  the  Hebrew  pij 
IDp  Nero  C^SAR,  —  which  in  a  Latin  spelling 
IDp  V\i  would  yield  616,  an  early  variant,  —  has 
far  the  larger  number  of  advocates.  Yet  lo-p  is 
the  proper  spelling  of  Ccesar,  which  would  make 
676.  And  when  in  answer  to  this  objection  it  is 
said  that  an  apocalyptical  writer  would  prefer  666 
to  676,  because  of  its  symmetry,  and  because  it 
corresponds  to  the  number  of  the  name  Jesus 
(IH2:OTS=888),  it  is  natural  to  ask  whether  666 
might  not  have  been  chosen  at  first  outright  for 
its  symbolic  meaning,  to  signify  the  one  who  per- 
sistently falls  short  of  holiness  or  perfection  (seven), 
as  Jesus  goes  beyond  it  in  the  fulness  of  His  char- 
acter and  power  (so  Milligan,  Baird  Lecture,  p. 
328  ;  Briggs,  Messiah  of  the  Apostles,  p.  324).  So 
the  number  3i,  the  length  of  tlie  reign  of  evil  (Dn 
7»  12',  Rev  112- »•"  12«-'*  13»)  needs  no  other  ex- 
planation than  the  symbolism  of  the  broken  seven  : 
the  power  of  evil  will  be  cut  off  in  the  midst  and 
come  to  an  untimely  end.  If,  however,  the  number 
is  to  be  interpreted  hy  gematria,  another  view  claims 


serious  attention.  7,a.\\-n(Zeil.f.  kirchl.  Wi-ssensch. 
u.  k.  Leben,  1885,  p.  508  H'.)  argued  that  Irenseus 
opposed  the  readinjj  616  because  those  w  ho  held  it 
did  so  for  the  sake  of  applying  it  to  Caligula  (FAIOS 
KAI2AP  =  616) — an  interpretation  which  Iren.  re- 
jected. Holtzmann  (Stade's  Gesr/iicA<e,  ii.  388  ff.), 
Spitta,  and  Erbes  independently  (as  Zahn  predicted) 
came  to  the  conclusion  that  tliis  was,  in  fact,  the 
original  reading  and  meaning  of  the  number,  and 
that  ch.  13  is  part  of  a  Jewish  oracle  of  Caligula's 
time.  In  fact  no  ruler  since  Antiochus  Epiplianes 
so  UUed  the  r61e  of  Antichrist  in  the  Jewish  mind 
as  he  who  attempted  to  have  his  image  erected  in 
the  temple.  To  liim  13^"',  and  to  the  priesthood  of 
his  worship  w.''- ",  would  admirably  apply.  More- 
over, he  recovered  from  what  seemed  a  fatal  illness 
at  the  beginning  of  his  reign.  Bousset  does  not 
wholly  reject  the  hypothesis  that  a  Caligula  apoca- 
lypse underlies  this  chajiter  (Komm.  pp.  433-5). 
Other  interpretations  of  the  number  666  must  heie 
be  passed  by,  though  Gunkel's  '  the  chaos  of  old ' 
may  be  mentioned.  The  number  does  not  prove, 
and  can  hardly  be  said  to  give  substantial  support 
to  the  identification  of  the  beast  with  Nero. 

Beyond  the  unmistakable  general  reference  to 
Rome,  it  is  hard  to  find  histoi-y  in  our  author's 
visions  ;  and  this  reference  had  certainly  been  given 
already  to  the  figure  of  the  beast,  and  in  all  proba- 
bility by  Jews.  Events  during  the  last  half  of 
the  century  must  have  led  Jewish  apocalyptical 
writers  to  many  more  expressions  of  their  hatred 
of  Rome  and  visions  of  its  overthrow  than  have  sur- 
vived. Indeed,  Pompey  is  already  called  the  dragon 
in  Ps-Sol  2-^  (see  Assunip.  Mos.,  4  Ezra,  Apoc.  Bar). 
Our  author  and  the  Christian  communities  for 
which  he  writes  have  reason  to  share  the  Jewish 
hatred  of  Rome,  and  enter  into  the  inheritance  of 
various  Jewish  expressions  of  it.  Our  author  has, 
as  it  were,  eaten  the  book  of  past  prophecies  against 
peoples  and  nations  before  he  utters  his  own.  The 
ancient  language  has,  as  we  have  seen,  often  the 
value  of  poetry  to  him  ;  but  it  is  impossible,  though 
we  might  wish  it,  to  refer  the  polemic  against  Rome 
only  to  sources  used  by  our  author,  or  to  resolve  it 
into  a  figure  of  the  war  against  evil  in  general. 

iv.  Historical  Situation. — We  have  already 
seen  that  the  date  of  separate  oracles  in  our  book 
cannot  be  assumed  to  be  the  date  of  the  book  as  a 
whole.  11'""  is  from  some  time  before  70,  but  is 
not  literally  used  by  our  author.  The  figurative 
application  of  this  oracle  to  the  safe  keeping  of  the 
true  people  of  God  «  ould  be  more  natural  alter  the 
event  of  70  had  disproved  its  literal  sense.  Ch.  13 
may  have  been  shaped  in  Caligula's  reign,  or  soon 
alter  Nero's  death.  17'"  must  have  been  written 
under  the  sixth  emperor  of  Rome,  i.e.  Nero,  count- 
ing from  Julius  Ca-sar,  or  his  successor,  counting 
from  Augustus,  but  Nero's  successor  might  be 
regarded  as  Galba,  or  as  Vespasian.  That  one 
more  emperor  is  expected  only  shows  that  the 
number  seven  is  fixed;  and  that  he  is  to  reign  a 
short  time  could  be  inferred  from  the  nearness  of 
the  end,  and  does  not  require  the  knowledge  on  the 
WTiter's  part  that  the  reign  of  Titus  was  in  fact 
short.  But  if  v."  comes  from  Vespasian's  reign  (and 
so  is  consistent  with  II'""),  must  not  v."  have 
been  added  by  some  later  hand  ?  The  writer,  it 
would  seem,  already  lives  under  the  eighth  emperor 
(Domitian),  and  adds  this  verse  in  order  to  adjust 
what  was  writtf  n  under  Vesj)asian  (v.'")  to  his  own 
time  by  so  addl<ig  an  eighth  as  not  to  overpass  the 
fixed  number,  seven.  On  the  basis  of  this  verse 
Hamack  [Chronolorjie,  p.  245f.)  confidently  dates 
the  book  under  Domitian.  Yet  it  is  possible  that 
the  writer  of  v.'",  under  Vespasian,  expected  the 
return  of  Nero,  one  of  the  seven,  as  an  eighth,  who, 
coming  back  after  death  out  of  the  abyss,  could  be 
regarded  as  the  very  demon  spirit  of  Rome,  th« 


REVELATION,  BOOK  OF 


REVELATION,  BOOK  OF    259 


beast  itself.  But  even  if,  in  this  way,  with 
Bousset,  we  date  ch.  17  as  a  whole  under  Ves- 
pasian, this  also  may  be  the  date  only  of  a  source. 

Though  historical  allusions  do  not  Ox  the  date, 
yet,  taken  in  connexion  with  other  indications  of 
age,  the  date  ascribed  to  the  book  by  Iren»us 
(V.  XXX.  3), '  near  tlie  end  of  the  reign  of  Domitian,' 
i.e.  about  a.D.  93-96,  is  to  be  preferred  to  that  which 
was  for  some  time  the  ruling  view  of  critics,  A.D. 
66-69  (Liicke,  Bleek,  etc.).  It  is  not  in  sections 
clearly  dependent  upon  apocalyptical  tradition, 
but  in  those  more  ori^nal,  and  especially  in  the 
letters,  that  we  should  confidently  expect  to  find 
indications  of  the  author's  o^vn  time.  In  spite  of 
the  ideal  and  typical  significance  of  the  seven 
Churches,  actual  conditions  unquestionably  meet 
ns  here.  Persecution  past  and  future  forms  the 
background  of  the  letters.  The  writer  was  (not  is) 
in  the  little  island  of  Patmos  '  on  account  of  the 
word  of  God  and  on  account  of  the  testimony  of 
Jesus,'  i.e.  probably  not  in  order  to  receive  his 
revelation  (cf.  1'),  but  because  of  his  Christian 
preaching  (cf.  6'),  that  is,  in  banishment  (see  1**). 
But  the  baiiisIiTiient  of  a  conspicuous  Christian 
seems  to  disclose  a  definite  movement  against 
Christianity  in  Asia  Minor  on  the  part  of  Kome 
Buch  as  we  do  not  know  of  before  Domitian. 
There  are  persecutions  already  past  (Epliesus,  2'; 
Pergamum,  2",  had  its  martyr ;  Philadcli)hia, 
S"'  '"* ;  in  Smyrna  and  Philadelphia  at  the  hands  or 
Bt  the  in.stigation  of  Jews,  2*  3");  yet  this  past  per- 
secution could  be  that  under  Nero.  A  renewed  and 
greater  trial,  of  world-wide  scope  (3'"),  is  soon  to 
come.  At  present  the  Koman  world  tempts  rather 
than  compels  Christians  to  adopt  a  heathen  manner 
of  life  and  heathen  worship.  (Is  this  present 
quiescence  in  the  writer's  mind  when  he  says  tliat 
tlie  beast  *  was,  and  is  not ;  and  is  about  to  come 
up  out  of  the  aby.ss,  and  go  into  perdition '(17*)?) 
Imprisonment  and  death  are  anticipated  for  the 
faithful,  and  for  this  the  letters,  indeed  the  whole 
book,  will  prepare  them.  Its  tlieme  is  the  glory 
and  reward  of^  martyrdom.  The  heretical  teach- 
ings which  are  condemned  in  Pergamum  (the  teach- 
ing of  Balaam)  and  in  Thyatira  (that  of  Jezebel) 
result  in  heatlien  ways  of  living  rather  than  in 
doctrinal  errors,  though  they  seem  to  have  based 
their  worldliness  on  some  sort  of  gnosis  (2-*). 
It  is  uncertain  whether  'Nicolaitan' was  tlie  proper 
name  of  this  sect  (possibly  derived  from  the  Nicolas 
of  Ac  6°)  or  only  the  Or.  name  for  Balaamites  (so 
Schiirer,  who  appeals  to  the  viK-q  of  Jos.  Ant.  IV. 
vi.  6).  Schiirer  argues  with  mucli  force  that 
Jezedel  was  the  priestess  of  the  Chaldean  Sibyl, 
Samliethe,  who  had  a  sanctuary  at  Thyatira 
(Theol.  Ahhandl.  C.  von  Weizsdckcr gewidmet,  1892, 
pp.  37-58).  To  this  hypothesis  it  has  been  objected 
(Bous.set,  Zahn)  that  tlio  impression  is  given  that 
she  is  directly  under  the  discipline  of  Christ 
(vv.n-a),  that  the  church  is  at  fault  for  allowing 
her  (v.*>),  and  that  the  sphere  of  lier  activity  is  the 
Christian  community  (\'v.*>-  ''*),  so  that  a  false  Chris- 
tian prophetess  ratlier  than  a  heathen  is  indicated. 
The  wife  of  the  bishop  (Zahn)  she  surely  need  not 
be.  Satan's  throne  in  Pergamum  (2'^j  may  refer 
to  the  worship  of  Asklepios  there,  whoso  symbol 
was  the  serpent,  or  to  the  fact  that  hero  emperor- 
worship  was  first  introduced,  with  temple  and 
priesthood.  The  latter  would  better  explain  the 
martyrdom  of  Antipas  (unless  he  were  killed  by 
a  mob),  and  would  better  fit  the  figure  of  the 
second  beast  (13"")  Cii'sar-worship  was  Home's 
worst  deed,  and  resistance  to  it  was  that  overcoming 
even  to  death  which  our  book  urges  by  entreaty, 
threat,  and  promise  (15"  16"- '»  17"  ig^"'-  20«-'). 

Although  the  ellbrt  to  force  emperor-worship 
npon  Jews  goes  back  to  Caligula  (A.D.  39-40),  the 
total  impression  is  that  of  a  late,  not  an  early  time. 


To  the  actual  destruction  of  Jerusalem  there  is  nc 
reference.  The  condition  of  the  churclies  (forgetful- 
ness,  indifl'erence,  worldliness)  points  to  a  relatively 
late  time.  It  seems  necessary  to  supjiose  that  St. 
Paul's  position  as  founder  and  unquestioned  leader 
of  the  church  in  Ephesus  is  a  thing  entirely  past. 
That  church  has  had  a  new  founding  (Weizsacker). 
If  17'  expresses  the  belief  in  the  return  of  Nero 
from  hell,  this  is  a  late  form  of  the  belief  in  his 
return,  after  the  possibility  of  his  being  aUve  had 
passed. 

V.  Teachings  of  the  Book.— 1.  Prediction^.— 
The  question  what  the  author  of  Rev.  intended  to 
say  about  the  future  (and  it  was  to  reveal  future 
things  that  he  wrote,  1'  4'  etc.)  is  complicated 
by  the  difficulty  of  distin<'uisliing  between  the 
meaning  of  his  sources  and  his  meaning  in  the  use 
of  them,  and  the  related  difficulty  of  distinguishing 
between  figure  and  reality  in  his  use  of  language. 
That  all  is  literal  our  discussion  thus  far  makes  it 
impossible  to  admit.  Are  we  prepared,  with  the 
spiritual  interpreters  of  all  ages,  to  say  that  all  is 
figure  (as  now  Milligan,  Benson,  etc.)?  Or  sliall 
we  say,  '  Rev.  is  not  a  poem,  an  allegory,  but  the 
figurative  alternates  with  that  which  is  to  be 
taken  very  earnestly  and  literally ;  the  latter 
much  predominates'  (Jiilieher,  Eitil.  172)?  Our 
review  of  the  writer's  use  of  OT  and  other  materials 
must  rather  incline  ns  to  put  the  predominance  on 
the  other  side. 

(a)  General. — The  undoubtedly  real  elements  in 
our  writer's  prediction  are  the  speedy  coming  of 
God  (1*  14'  21°)  in  judgment,  with  or  in  the  coming 
of  Christ  as  judf;e  and  ruler  of  the  world  (1'  22''-"). 
This  coming  Christ  will  divide  true  from  false 
Christians,  and  reward  each  according  to  his  deeds 
(OM  22").  Through  Him  also  God  will  judge  and 
destroy  the  tempting  and  oppressive  power  of  evU 
dominant  in  the  world,  the  Roman  empire  (19"*), 
and  Satan  himself,  whose  authority  Rome  pos- 
sesses, who.se  spirit  Rome  embodies  (ch.  20).  All 
who  belong  to  her  shall  perish  with  her.  Those 
who  hold  fast  the  faith  during  the  present  tribula- 
tions and  the  ^eater  ones  soon  to  come,  and  who 
endure  in  patience  and  faith  even  to  death  itself, 
shall  be  rewarded  with  special  glory  and  power,  and 
especially  close  association  with  Christ  and  His 
royalty  (6"  U'-'  20*-i').  But  the  destination  to  be 
with  Christ  and  God  in  blessed  and  eternal  near- 
ness and  fellowship  is  at  last  for  all  tlie  faitlifiil 
alike  (2'-  "•  "•  ^'^  :^-  ^- ''  (•='• »))  510  7'"v- 14"  21-22»- "). 

(6)  Details.  —  Tumin"  to  details,  we  have  to 
attempt  to  draw  the  line  between  figure  and 
reality,  especially  in  reference  to  the  fall  of  the 
power  of  evil,  and  the  events  that  lead  up  to  it, 
the  saving  of  the  faithful  and  the  heavenly  or 
angelic  background  of  the  action. 

(1)  The  fall  0/  Romt.—\a  the  first  half  of  the  book  six  seals 
and  six  IruiiipeU  bring  forth  the  preliminary  powers  and  acts 
of  the  Divine  Ja(l;,'nient  over  evil.  But  neither  in  their  special 
character  nor  in  their  sequence  do  they  make  the  impression 
of  describinff  Uteral  events. 

The  first  four  seals  introduce  horsemen  who  are  derived,  one 
can  hardly  doubt,  (mm  Zee  l*-"  61",  and  so  ultimately  from  the 
four  winds,  well  fitted  to  serve  as  destructive  niessenperB  of 
Ood,  They  are  summoned  forth  bv  the  four  livinjf  creatures,* 
who  wore  originally  tlie  four  winds  driving  the  storm-cloud,  Uod'e 
chariot  (Ezk  \*  t-tc.).  In  71  the  four  winds  are  destructive  forces, 
and  since  in  91<- 10  (our  angels  are  loojicd  which  then  appear  as 
hosts  of  cavalry  (cf.  20*^),  we  may  infer  that  the  four  winds  sym. 
boli7.ed  the  nations  that  are  to  execute  the  Divine  Judgment 
in  some  final  war  (cf.  the  use  of  the  winds  as  symbols  of  Israel's 
dispersion,  Ezk  6i»  12H  ir".  Zee  2«  Vi). 

Of  the  four  seals,  however,  two  introduce  warriors  (Romans 
and  Parlhians?),  and  two  famine  and  pestilence.  A  fourfold 
enumeration  of  the  plagues  which  Ood  will  send  upon  His  peopla 
in  the  last  days  is  found  in  the  Prophets  (Jer  1&^*,  Ezk  14^,  of. 
6H  >'),  and  quoted  In  Kev  0»i'.  t 

*  It  is  less  natural  to  suppose  that  John  is  addressed, for  he  ia 
already  there,  and  needs  only  to  look, 

t  It  is  templing  to  suppose  tliat  this  originally  ended  the 
description  of  the  four  horsemen,  and  explained  that  to  each  qf 
them  was  given  a  fourth  of  the  earth  to  destroy  (of.  Eok  f>^ 


260 


REVELATION,  BOOK  OF 


REVELATION,  BOOK  OF 


The  flith  seal  discloses  the  prayers  o(  the  martyrs  for  vengeance, 
which  are  a  real  agent  of  judi^ent  in  the  Hebrew  view  (see 
below).    The  sixth  is  an  earthquake.  .  ^    .     ■  . 

Earthqualco  and  voloauio  plienomena  furnish  the  imagery  or 
the  first  four  trumpets,  and,  in  part,  of  the  fifth  and  sixth. 

J  T  Bent  (' What  St.  John  saw  on  Patmos,' iViHcfMJiMi  C«n- 
turv.  1888,  pp.  81S-821)  argues  that  6'2-l?  8'12  IB".  n-J  descrihe 


actual  phenomena  seen  at  the  eruptions  of  the  island  volcano, 
Sanlorin,  «-ithin  sii;hl  of  Patmos  ;  and  that  a'"; '-'f  are  poetic 
ampliflcatioQS  of  the  same  theme.     lUioh  in  Bents  article  is 


fincif'ulVyet  the  imagery,  esp.  of  Rev  8,  fits  SantorinweU  (see 
Fouqu(i,  SatUorin  et  ses  (ruptimis,  18i9,  esp.  pp.  22-31,  J8n.). 
Nothing  could  be  more  Uke  the  pit  of  the  abyss  than  the 
crater  of  this  volcano,  and  nothing  better  fitted  to  suggest 
demonic  agency  than  the  smoke  darkening  sun  and  ajr,  the 
sulphurous  vapours  which  killed  the  lish  in  the  sea,  and  blmded 
and  even  killed  men,  the  masses  of  molten  rock  cast  up  and 
fallinK  into  the  sea  like  a  great  mountain  or  the  sUr  Wormwood, 
the  reddening  of  tlie  sea,  the  rise  and  dis,appearance  of  islands 
(see  also  B.  K.  Emerson,  Bulletin  of  the  (ieol.  bocicty  of  Amenca, 
March  1900).  But  Santorin  is  80  miles  from  Patmos.  Only  the 
hiuhest  points  of  the  island  Thera,  and  the  smoke  of  the  erup- 
Uons,  could  have  been  seen.  Bent  refers  for  details  to  reports  of 
refugees.    Eruptions  took  place  m  B.C.  197  and  a.d.  46  (Fouqu6, 

''^Account  must  be  taken  of  OT  paraUels.  Hiihn  finds  the  follow- 
ing parallels  with  the  Egyptian  plagues  :-<l)  Ex  ?"■'".<:'■  Rev 
gsni  163-<^  ■  (2)  Ev  721-82.  cf  Rev  Ifil? ;  (6)  Ex  98-",  cf.  Rev  162  ; 
(7)  Ex  91S-26  cf.  Rev  8'  ll"  1621 ;  (8)  Ex  10+-15,  cf.  Rev  93-11 ; 
(9)  Ex  1021-23,  cf.  Rev  812  91.  2  1610.  Prophetic  passages  hke 
Is  2  Am  88-»,  Jl  22-10.30.81  315. 16_  i3  1310.13  ai-i-s-io  etc.,  are 
to  be  adduced';  and  poetic  descriptions  of  the  coming  of  God,  in 
which  the  imagery  of  storm  (Ex  1916«)  is  connected  with  that 
of  earthquake  and  volcano,  Jg  6*- 5,  Ps  18  ■15  etc. 

Was  earthquake  more  than  a  symbol  in  our  wnter"8  eschat- 
oloirv?  Was  it  the  literal  power  that  was  to  overthrow  Rome, 
and  even  destroy  the  present  world  (cf.  6"  with  211)?  The  fifth 
trumpet  begins  with  volcanic  imagery  (91-  2)  and  passes  on  to 
locusts,  which  at  the  end  seem  to  symbolize  warriors  (9^-u).  The 
sixth  trumpet  begins  with  armies  of  horsemen,  but  the  powera 
by  which  the  horses  kill  mt-n  are  the  volcanic  powers  of  fire  and 
smoke  and  brimstone  (913-21).  The  bowls  lead  more  directly  to 
the  fall  of  Rome.  Following  the  same  order  as  to  place  as  the 
trumpets  (1.  earth ;  2.  sea ;  3.  rivers ;  4.  sun  ;  5.  under-world(V); 
6  Euphrates),  with  fewer  volcanic  features  in  the  first  five,  and 
a  somewhat  closer  relation  to  the  Egyptian  plagues,  they  lead 
up  in  the  sixth  to  an  invasion  cf  distant  kings,  and  m  the 
seventh  to  an  earthquake  again,  in  which  Rome's  fall  seems  to 
be  involved  (lO'S).  Ch.  17  seems  clearly  to  ascribe  Rome's  fall 
to  an  assault  of  kings.  But  when,  in  19""-  the  beasts  are  over- 
thrown in  an  attack,  with  the  kings  of  the  earth  as  allies,  upon 
Christ  and  His  army,  we  are  ready  to  ask  whether  both  earth- 
quake and  invasion  were  not  figure,  wliiie  this  is  actuaUty. 

A'ain,  the  final  attempt  of  Satan  is  made  by  means  of  armies 
of  distant  nations,  whom  he  brings  against  Zion,  but  they  are 
destroyed,  not  by  arms,  but  by  fire  from  heaven  (20'-io). 

It  is  to  be  remembered  that  both  earthquake  and  the  in- 
vasion of  barbarian  hordes  were  very  real  dangers,  and  the 
most  terrible  that  always  threatened  the  Mediterranean  civi- 
lizations. A  seer  could  weU  look  for  a  literal  overthrow  of 
Rome  from  either  source,  especially  as  prophetic  eschatology 
had  already  made  free  use  of  both,  and  that  with  the  same 
blending  of  the  two  that  is  found  here  (see,  e.g.,  Zeph  11»-18, 
Jl  21-11,  Hag  221.22,  Is  13110- 13)  34H.9.1O1),  and  could  easily 
enlarge  either  into  a  world-embracing  catastrophe.  'Yet  either 
or  both  would  also  serve  admirably  as  figure  for  events  and 
forces  supernatural  (demonic  and  angelic)  in  character.  And 
the  more  freely  our  author  passes  from  one  to  the  other,  and 
even  blends  the  two,  the  more  probable  is  it  that  he  means 
neither.  _  .      ....  j.^,     ,.. 

(2)  The  eavinj  0/ the  faithful.— Here  also  details  are  difficult 
to  adjust  in  a  literal  scheme,  and  the  acceptance  of  a  largely 

Poetical  form  of  representation  is  almost  inevitable.  Twice  the 
souls'  of  the  martvred  dead  are  spoken  of  (6«  •20«),  and  here 
only  in  the  NT  do  we  read  of  the  'souls'  of  the  dead.  Once 
they  are  seen  in  heaven  (7,  see  Spitta,  pp.  89,  2963.)  beneath 
the  altar,  where  the  blood  of  a  sacrifice  would  be  (Ex  2912,  Lv  4' 
etc.),  in  which  the  soul  was  seated  according  to  Heb.  notions 
(Lv  17I').  'They  are  praying  for  vengeance,  and  are  given  a 
white  robe,  and  bidden  to  rest  a  h'tle  longer,  smce  their 
number  is  not  yet  full.  Does  the  wTiter  think  of  the  souls  of 
martyrs  as  literally  in  this  location,  or  does  he  thus  vividly 
picture  the  reality  and  efficacy  of  their  prayers  for  vengeance, 
pictured  otherwise  in  58  and  83-5  ?  (cf.  4  Ezr  4»).  Cf.  the  cry  of 
the  uncovered  hlood  of  the  slain  to  God  for  vengeance  (Gn  410, 
Ezk  24" f.,  Job  1618) ;  also  the  effective  prayers  of  the  oppressed 
(Ex  2223f.,  Dt  9*  2415,  Sir  3ol3ir.,  Ja  54) ;  sometimes  angels  are 
the  bearers  of  such  prayers  (Zee  112,  To  121- 15).  See  esp. 
Enoch  9.  162  22''  40''  471-2  97:1.6  993  11143.  WTien  they  are  seen 
again  it  is  said  that  they  lived  and  reigned  with  Christ  for 
the  1000  vears.  As  eoult,  then,  they  were  not  truly  living, 
but  this  life  is  due  to  a  resurrection  (■ltt^J^),  On  the  other  hand, 
in  7I*-1'  the  martvrs— or  perhaps  rather  all  who  have  kept  the 
faith  amid  tribiilation  (v.l*)— appear  in  their  white  robes  in 
heaven.  Joining  with  angels  in  the  worship  of  Ood.  in  a  glorj' 
and  blessedness  which  can  be  nothing  less  than  final.  And  yet 
the  description  of  the  consummation  in  21-225  li  IS  has  not 
this  setting  (the  heav  enlv  throne  of  Ood,  the  elders,  and  livin- 
beings  and  angels),  but  is  simply  earthly  (after  the  OT)  in  its 
leaturea.    In  the  former  passage  the  saints  are  with  (3od,  in  this 


Ood  descends  to  be  with  men  (213-  22r.).  VTe  note  also  that 
there  are  still  'the  kings  of  the  earth'  who  can  bnng  their 
treasures  to  the  new  Jerusalem  (21'i'-'':'');  and  though  there  sha.U 
not  enter  into  it  anything  unclean  (212'  =  Is  621  etc.),  yet  outside 
of  the  city  gates  are  the  wicked  (2214),  whose  part,  however, 
according  to  21",  is  in  the  lake  of  fire,  the  second  death. 

The  earthly  features  of  the  new  Jerusalem  in  the  new  earth 
are  especially  strange  in  a  chiliastic  eschatology.  We  shpl^d 
expect  the  1000-years'  reign  of  Christ  and  the  martyrs  to  fulfil  the 
earthly  .Messianic  hopes  of  prophecy,  and  the  final  consiiiunia- 
tion  should  be  heavenly.     Zahn  actually  holds,  accorihiigly, 


that  21s'-225  (16)  is  a  description  not  of  the  final  blessedness, 
hut  of  the  condition  of  the  world  during  the  lOUO-years'  reign. 
There  is,  in  fact,  no  escape  from  this  violent  conclusion, 
no  way  of  harmonizing  this  picture  with  that  of  79^",  and  with 
the  condition  of  things  implied  in  1913-21  20ll-ii>  21i,  except  by 
taking  it  throughout  as  poetry.  It  is  in  form  an  almost  purely 
Jewish  description  of  what  is  to  our  author  a  Christian  and 
heavenly  consummation.  It  has  always  been  used  as  poetry  by 
(Christians,  and,  so  used,  has  proved  inspiring. 

The  hope  of  this  writer  has  often  been  declared  to  be  narrowly 
Jewish-Christian,  and  Vischer  and  others  have  felt  that  the 
only  wav  in  which  justice  can  be  done  to  the  evident  univer- 
sality and  spirituaUty  of  some  parts  of  the  book  is  by  separat- 
ing 'it  into  independent  parU.  Undoubtedly,  the  Jewish  lan- 
guage is  due  to  Je»-ish  writers.  £.17.  7i-»  suggests  that  Jewisn 
Christians  form  the  nucleus  of  the  new  community,  and  retain  a 
sort  of  separateness  and  primacv,  while  the  multitudes  from  other 
nations  are  added  to  them.  So  in  111-13  Judaism  appears  to  be 
only  chastened  for  its  sins  ;  but  the  great  majority  repent  and 
are  saved.  And,  finally,  the  new  Jerusalem  remains  Jcwisn 
("112)  Its  gates  are  for  the  tribes  of  Israel  who  enter  into  the 
citv,  while  believing  nations  walk  by  its  Ught,  bring  gifts  to 
it, "but  do  not  dwell  within  its  walls;  are  healed  by  the  leave* 
of  its  trees  of  life,  but  do  not  eat  their  fruit  (2l24-22'i).*  ^  _ 
But  in  spite  of  the  writer's  high  valuation  of  the  name  Jew 
(2*  30).  and  in  spite  of  a  certain  parallel  for  such  a  doctrine  of 
the  eschatological  primacy  of  Je%vs  in  the  expectations  of  St. 
Paul  (Ko  11),  it  appears  quite  certain  to  the  present  writer  that 
Rev.  knows  no  such  distinction  ;  that  in  7i-»  and  111-13  it  is  no 
longer  Judaism,  but  Christianity,  the  true  '  Jews '  and  heirs  to 
Israel's  promises,  to  whom  the  writer  applies  undoubtedly 
Jewish  oracles,  and  that  the  Jewish  language  in  chs.  21.  22, 
wholly  borrowed,  as  it  is,  from  the  OT,  is  used  as  poetry  to 
picture  the  heavenlv  blessedness  of  Christians. 

(3)  The  fall  of  Satan.— In  chs.  l'2-20  the  distinction  be- 
tween fact  and  figure  in  our  writer's  predictions  is  involved 
especially  in  the  question  how  he  conceived  of  the  angelic  and 
demonic  beings  whose  deeds  and  fortunes  form  the  background 
of  the  action.  Here  we  re.ad  of  the  birth  and  ascension  of 
Christ  ;  Satan  and  his  angels  cast  out  of  heaven  by  Michael 
and  his  hosts  ;  the  persecution  of  Christians  by  Satan  through 
the  beasts  who  represent  Rome's  empire  and  cultus  ;  the  fall  of 
Rome  introduced  by  last  plagues  (15.  16),  described  in  symbol 
(17),  and  in  prophetic  language  (18) ;  the  overthrow  of  the  tvvo 
beasts  and  their  followers  by  Christ;  the  binding  of  Satan  ;  the 
1000-years'  reign  of  Christ  and  risen  martyrs ;  the  loosing  of 
Satan,  who  with  a  great  army  (Gog  and  Magog)  assails  the  holy 
city  and  is  destroved  ;  the  general  resurrection  and  judgment, 
when  Death  and  Hades,  with  condemned  men,  are  cast  into  the 
lake  of  fire,  where  the  beasts  and  Satan  are. 

In  this  outlook  one  thing  which  must  be  taken  literally  is  the 
fall  of  Rome.  Even  if  Jews  in  large  part  shaped  the  variom 
oracles  against  the  godless  city,  our  writer  could  not  have  put 
chs  17.  18  into  his  book  if  he  had  not  meant  to  say  what  is 
there  so  unmistakably  said,  nor  can  13.  14»  1619  have  any  other 
meaning.  But  the  Judgment  upon  Rome,  which  forms  the 
concrete  historical  contents  of  chs.  12-20,  is  set  in  a  frame,  or 
double  frame,  of  deeds  in  the  angelic  world.  Chs.  12  and  20 
form  the  outside  setting,  or,  shall  we  say,  the  underiying 
stratum,  the  real  cause  and  end  of  evil.  The  fall  of  Satan  from 
heaven,  his  last  assaults  upon  men  (Christians),  his  imprison- 
ment in  the  abyss,  his  release  and  last  onslaught  and  final  over- 
throw, are  the  events  that  ultimately  explain  the  evil  of  the 
present,  and  bring  evil  to  its  absolute  end.  Chs.  13  and  19'1-21 
fonn  the  inner  framework  about  the  historical  reality  or  the 
upper  stratum,  just  below  the  surface  of  observed  facts.  The 
two  beasts  are  not  identical  with  the  Roman  empire  and 
emperor-worship,  but  are  the  representatives  of  these  in  the 
spirit-world ;  they  are  not  an  abstract  symbol  of  Rome,  but  a 
concrete  (personal)  embodiment  of  Rome.  They  are  dcmonio 
beings,  pictures  of  the  evil  spirit-power  of  Rome.  This  is 
probably  the  correct  view  of  the  beasts  in  Dn  7  also,  since 
Professor  N.  Schmidt  ^JBL.  1900,  part  i.)  has  maile  probable  the 
identification  of  the  'one  like  a  man '  with  the  angel  prince  of 
Israel,  the  Michael,  who  is  described  as  gaining  Israel's  victory 
over  the  angel  representatives  of  the  nations  (chs.  10-12).  That 
the  beasts  are  angelic  beings  is  suggested  by  the  demons  that 
come  out  of  their  mouths  (1613-  "),  and  by  the  difference  between 
their  punishment  and  that  of  the  armies  that  fight  for  them 
(1920.  21).  But  though  distinct  from  Rome  the  beasts  arc  not 
apart  from  it.  We  mistake  the  Jcvvish  idea  of  the  angelio 
counterpart  if  we  give  it  independent  significance.  The  beast's 
power  is  Rome's  power,  and  Rome's  fall  is  the  fall  of  the  beast. 
Yet  the  two  are  not  one,  and  it  is  possible  th.at  the  writer 
used  the  figure  of  ch.  17  to  express  his  behef  that  Rome  was  to 
fall  at  the  hand  of  ito  own  evil  genius,  by  the  fruits  of  its  own 
sin.    It  was  the  woman  sitting  on  the  beast,  against  whom  ths 

*  Baur,  Holtzmann,  etzs. 


EEVELATIOX,  BOOK  OF 


EEVELATION,  BOOK  OF    26  i 


Ot&st  itnelf  would  at  last  turn  In  hatred.  The  demonic  nature 
•f  the  beast  is  here  quit*  clear.  The  actual  Satanic  power  in 
the  writer's  experitnce  was  Home,  and  his  hope  was  for  its 
Call ;  but  though  it  was  the  agent  and  embodiment  of  Satan's 
batred  and  power  aguinst  God's  people,  yet  its  fall  will  bring 
only  the  bindin;:,  not  the  destruction,  of  Satan.  He  has  other 
resources,  and  will  be  given  an  opportunity  to  make  one  more 
effort  before  the  end  comes.  Tlie  arnuigenient  of  material 
compels  U3  to  repird  the  threefold  judy^uent  upon  Satan,  one 
past  (connected  with  Christ's  birth  and  ascension),  two  future, 
ft  preliminary  binding  connected  with  the  fall  of  Rome,  and  ft 
flnal  dei>truulion,  as  expressing^  realities  in  the  author's  mind 
DO  less  than  tlie  fall  of  Rome  itself,  to  which  he  gives  a  detinite 
piftcc  in  this  larjjer  drama  of  the  Christian  conquest  of  evil. 
But  reality  need  not  mean  materiality.  Caution  is  needed  in 
Intcr^ireting  the  antrelolocry  of  our  book.  We  have  already 
olwerved  how  littlu  actuality,  apart  from  Christ,  lias  the  angel 
whoBpeake  for  him  {''.>j.  '2'3'^).  In  the  lettflra  we  have  messages 
from  Christ  to  the  Churches,  but  in  form  they  come  from  the 
angel  who  represents  Christ,  through  John,  to  the  angels  who 
represent  the  Churches.  In  spite  of  the  dilliculty  of  supposing 
that  John  and  his  writing  must  mediate  between  two  angels,  it 
remains  probable  that  the  angel  of  the  Church  Is  a  real  angel, 
conceiv(>d  not  as  ruling  over  the  Church,  not  as  its  heavenly 
guardian,  but  as  its  heavenly  counterpart,  personating  its  actual 
character,  and  hence  worthy  of  praise  and  blame,  not  different 
from  the  Church  itself  ideally  or  abstractly  conceived.  John's 
writing  of  the  message  of  the  Christ-angel  is,  of  course,  for  the 
•ake  of  the  actual  Church,  which  is  really  aildressed  (note  the 
use  of  the  second  person  singular).  It  can  be  spoken  of  as  a 
writing  to  the  angel,  in  accordance  with  the  heavenly  setting 
of  the  vision,  only  liccauye  the  angel  is  the  heavenly  presence 
ftnd  personal  representation  of  the  actual  Church  in  its  actual 
character.  Agamst  the  contrarj-  arguments  of  Zahn  and  others 
it  remains  that  'angel*  is  used  throughout  the  book  in  the 
literal  sense,  and  that  no  human  official  could  be  so  completely 
identified  with  the  Church,  The  intervention  of  John's  book 
between  two  angels  does  not  prove  that  they  were  not  angels, 
but  reveals  the  sense  in  which  our  writer  ascribes  reality  to  them. 
In  order  rightly  to  estimate  the  significance  of  the  angelic 
ftnd  demonic  framework  or  background  of  our  writer's  pre- 
dictions we  should  study  it«  history,  for  it  is  no  free  invention 
or  original  insight  of  his.  This  eschatology,  with  its  union  of 
earthly  (political)  and  unearthly  (angelic)  beings  and  events  haa 
farreachmg  roots,  and  one  would  need  a  far  more  complete  re- 
view than  can  here  be  attempted  of  the  angelology,  demonology, 
ftnd  eschatolo'^'v  of  the  (>T  and  of  Judaism  in  order  to  view  it 
in  the  right  liu'iit.  In  this  picture  are  blended  many  elements 
from  originally  independent  sources  of  which  the  history  can 
only  impcrfer'tly  be  traced.  Gunkel  has  done  a  very  great 
service  m  hi^  study  of  the  history  of  the  Babylonian  myth  of 
the  creation  of  the  world  by  the  slaying  or  binding  of  the  chaos 
lieast,  the  dragon  of  the  deep,  by  the  god  of  light.  He  has 
shown  how  in  the  OT  certoinly  (Is  Sl^f-  27»,  Dn  7,  etc.),  and  not 
improbably  in  Babylonia,  this  coemological  myth  became 
eschatotogical,  the  last  things  were  to  be  like  the  first,  the 
dragon  was  to  rise  in  a  new  conflict  against  God  and  be  again 
overcome  before  the  new  creation.  He  has  also  shown  now 
this  myth,  Chough  retaining  features  of  its  original  sense,  the 
conception  of  creation  as  the  binding  and  confining  of  the 
ocean  (c(.  Pr.  Man  'S  '  who  has  bound  the  sea  by  the  word  of 
thy  commandment ;  who  hast  shut  up  the  deep  aiui  sealed  it 
by  thv  t«rrible  and  glorious  name,'  with  Rev  91  20^),  became, 
especially  in  its  esrhatological  use,  a  figure  of  the  world- 
kingdom  that  opjiressed  the  people  of  God.  1 1«  future  assault 
would  be  literally  by  war,  not  ny  tempest  (see  the  union  in 
Dn  71)-  It  is  evident  how  perfect  an  ex])re88ion  of  this  final 
fonn  of  the  dragon-m>'th  is  contained  in  the  words,  '  the  beast 
that  thou  sawest  was,  and  is  not ;  and  is  about  to  come  up  out 
of  the  abyss,  and  to  go  into  perdition  '  (Rev  l?**).  But  this  leatls 
ns  over  to  an  idea  not  Babylonian  In  origin,  that  the  gods  of 
the  nations  are  angels  (demons)  (Dt  4ie  S23  LXX,  Sir  17'*),  and 
that  these  ongels  of  the  nations  are  responsible  for  their  sins 
acainst  Israel.  Daniel  contains  this  idea  in  a  developed  form. 
Tbe  lieasts  which  in  ch.  7  suggest  the  chaos  dragon  in  his  late 
es^hatological  and  political  form,  give  place  in  chs.  10-12  to 
angel  princes  of  the  nations  whom  Israel's  prince,  Michael,  is  to 
overtlirow.  So  also  in  the  late  apocalypse,  Is  24-27,  the  Baby- 
Ionian  dragon  of  the  deep  (here  three  monsters  probably  stiind 
for  three  nations)  is  to  be  slain  by  God  in  the  Ia.'*t  Judgment 
(27»):  but  before  this  (or  parallel  to  ll)i8  the  punisbmg  of  the 
ftngelic  counterparts  of  eorthly  kings,  and,  very  significantly, 
their  imprisonment  for  a  time  in  the  pit  before  their  final 

gunlshment  (2421. H).  x;,  ,t  the  coming  day  of  J"  includes  a 
eavcnly  judgment  over  these  sjuritual  ijowcrs  of  the  world- 
kingdoms.  Is  seen  also  in  Is  84<- »,  Ps  82.  58  (?).  Both  in  Is  2421, 
of.  •»  »,  and  in  a4*  ^  earthquake  phenomena  are  the  manifest 
•ign  of  this  judgment  upon  angel  beings.  That  Pemion  eschat- 
ology infiuenced  Jewish  at  this  point  is  quite  beyond  serious 
question.  (See  csp.  Stave,  ParKinmiu.  p.  145  ff.).  There  we 
and  the  conc^-ption  of  a  struggle  between  good  ond  evil  spirit 
powers,  be*  oining  especially  severe  at  the  end  when  the  Satanic 
leader,  Angra  Mainyu,  assails  the  al>ode  of  Ahura  Mazda,  the 

good  god.  He  Is  overthrown,  either  by  the  gwl  himself  or  by 
ie  Parsoe  Messiah,  Soshyos,  and  is  held  in  imprisonment  for  a 
time  before  ho  is  destroyed.  The  resurrection  and  the  creation 
of  the  new  heaven  and  earth  are  additional  elements  in  the 
Parsoe  eschatology  parallel  to  the  Jewish.  The  Idea  of  the  fall 
of  Satan  from  heaven  through  an  ambitious  att'^mpt  to  be  like 
God  is  u«cd  ooellcally  in  application  to  the  (all  of  Babylon  in 
It  14l»-l>,  witn  evident  allusion  to  a  myth  deftcriblng  the  failure 


of  the  morning  star  to  mount  the  eastern  sky.  See  also  Secrets 
of  Enoch  29*-  »,  and  cf.  Enoch  6S-»-6. 

The  Bk.  of  Daniel  introduces  a  further  element,  the  essential 
embodiment  of  the  demonic  power  of  evil  in  a  man  (Antioclius 
rv,).  This  human,  not  simply  national,  incarnation  of  the 
power  of  Satan  may  have  had'an  important  history  in  Jewish 
thought  before  it  comes  to  light  in  the  earlv  Christian  ex- 
pectation of  Antichrist  (2  Th  2-i-i2,  1  Jn  2is,  A.i.  16,  etc,;  cf, 
Apoc.  Bar  401-2).  Bousset  (Der  AntichrLst,  ISOi'j)  has  made 
probable  the  Jewish  origin  of  this  conception  aa  an  outgrowth 
or  modification  of  the  Babylonian  dragon  myth,  probably 
originating  with  Daniel, 

Another  Ime  of  development  connects  itself  with  Gn  6i-S,  and 
is  found  in  combination  mth  some  of  those  already  traced  in 
Enoch  1-36.  83-90.  The  points  of  contact  with  Rev.  here  are 
close  enough  to  deserve  a  more  careful  scrutiny. 

The  Book  of  Enoch  (ch,  fiff,)  contains  an  account — probably 
the  blending  of  two  accounts — of  the  fall  of  angels  from  heaven, 
on  the  basis  of  Gn  61-^,  and  of  the  binding  of  their  leader  (Azazel 
or  Serajaza)  by  one  of  the  four  archangels  in  darkness  beneath 
rocks  or  under  the  hills  of  the  eartli,  with  his  associates.  At 
the  last  judgment  they  are  to  be  takt^n  thence  and  cast  into  the 
abyss  of  fire  (lO*-^-  9-13).  if  they  had  not  been  bound,  man  would 
have  perished  from  tlie  earth  (10?),  But  though  the  greater 
powers  of  evil  are  chained,  lesser  powers,  the  evil  spirits,  half 
human,  proceeding  from  their  sons,  the  giants,  continue,  and  to 
them  disease  and  ail  sorts  of  evil  are  ascribed.  In  the  dream 
vision  of  chs.  83-90  the  same  conception  is  found.  Here  we 
read  of  the  fall  of  a  star  from  heaven  and  then  of  other  stars 
(8Ci-  8),  and  of  the  violent  deeds  of  tlieir  sons.  Then  one  of  the 
four  great  angels  binds  in  an  abyss  the  first  star  that  fell,  and 
his  followers  likewise  (88'  3).  This  is  before  the  Flood.  During 
the  whole  period  of  human  history  these  fallen  angels  lie  bound 
in  the  earth ;  but  the  evils  under  which  Israel  groaned  are  due 
to  the  misdeeds  of  the  'seventy  shepheids.'  These  are  angel 
representatives  of  the  kingdoms  to  which  the  Jews  were  in  sub- 
jection from  the  Exile  onwards  (895^*r),  who  transgress  their  com- 
mission as  chosteners  of  Israel.  At  the  last  ju<igment  the  stars 
that  first  fell  are  brought  before  God,  then  the  seventv  shep- 
herds, and  all  are  cast  into  the  same  abyss  of  fire  (l)U'-i  '•^,  so 
100^).  Into  a  like  abyss,  but  not  the  same  one,  apostate  Israelites 
were  cast  (QO'^).  Then  the  old  house  (Jerusalem)  was  taken 
away,  and  the  new  house  was  brought,  and  erected  by  God 
(9727-29).  Certain  points  of  likeness  between  this  apocalypse 
and  Rev.  are  evident:  the  two  sorts  of  angelic  powers  of  evil, 
Satan  and  his  angels  accounting  for  the  evil  of  the  world  in 
general,  and  angels  of  the  nations  explaining  the  particular  and 
present  sufferings  of  the  Jews.  But  the  binthng  of  Satan  in  the 
abyss  is  at  the  beginning  of  human  hist  on*,  not  at  the  beginning 
of  the  Messianic  reign.  The  idea  that  evil  angels  are  confined 
under  the  earth  may  well  have  been  an  inference  from  the 
phenomena  of  earthquake  and  volcano,  cf.  e.g.  Enoch  (i7*'^; 
The  some  conception,  depending  on  Enoch,  though  with  varia- 
tions, is  found  in  later  parts  of  Enoch  (391-  2»  5416  C7-G9),  in  Bk. 
of  Jub.,  ch.  5,  Secrets  of  Enoch  IS?  (cf.  chs.  7. 13.  29),  Jude  8,  2  P 
2*,  In  Enoch  18ll-21i0the  fallen  and  imprisoned  angels  are  seven 
stars  that  transgressed  the  commandment  of  God  by  not  rising 
at  the  a]ipointe(i  time ;  and  though  ch.  19  declares  them  to  be 
the  angels  of  Gn  61-3,  one  suspects  a  different  origin,  namely,  in 
planets  or  meteors.  The  possibility  of  Greek  intluence  on  the 
eschatology  of  Enoch  is  not  to  be  denied  (Dicterich.  Xehjia,  1893). 

Comparing  the  eschatology  of  Kev  12-22  with  these  earlier 
or  and  Jewish  conceptions,  we  are  struck  most  of  all  by  the  free 
union  of  elements  of  an  originally  diverse  origin.  Ch.  12  stands 
nearest  to  the  Babylonian  myth,  even  though  one  hesitate  to 
adopt  Gunkel's  bold  reconstruction.  The  dragon  is  a  water 
beast  (v,i6).  He  is  cast  out  of  heaven  with  his  host  by  Micliael, 
in  a  war  wiiich  can  have  been  nothing  but  an  effort  to  dispossess 
Ood.  But  his  fall  here  follows  the  birth  and  ascension  of 
Slessiah ;  and  by  this  change  of  order  which  appears  to  have 
been  due  to  our  John  himself,  what  was  a  hist'iry  of  the  world 
became  a  history  of  Christianity,  and  the  fundamental  victory 
over  evil,  upon  which  hope  rests,  was  not  that  cffe<'ted  by  God 
at  creation,  but  that  achieved  by  Christ  through  His  resurrec- 
tion. In  91-11  the  allusions  to  the  demonic  powers,  with 
Apollyon  at  their  head,  who  are  confined  in  the  abyss,  seem  to 
rest  on  a  wholly  different  conception. 

The  Satan  of  chs.  12  and  20  is  certainly  more  than  a  repre- 
sentative of  Rome,  and  these  two  chapters  must  be  intended  to 
put  the  present  evil  power  audita  coming  fall  into  relation  to 
an  ultimate  principle  of  evil,  which  Rome  only  for  a  time  em- 
bodies. Through  tlie  birth  and  ascension  of  Christ  a  victory  has 
been  achievicl  over  the  ]>ower  of  evil  in  heaven.  After  Rome's 
fall,  there  still  remains  a  flnal  victory  to  be  achieved  over  the 
power  of  evil  in  the  world.  So  much  we  may  safely  Bay  the 
writer  intends  in  a  literal  sense. 

(4)  The  tfiotisand  year*.— This  leads  to  the  question  of  the 
significance  to  him  of  the  lOOO-yeare'  reign  of  Christ  and  the 
martyrs.  It  is  a  part  of  the  last  conflict  against  evil.  WhUo 
Satan  Is  bound  in  the  abyss,  Christ  and  His  saints  reign  over 
the  worid,  subduing  the  remaining  powers  of  evil.  It  Is  true 
that  in  Jewish  apocaI>^lSC8  the  idea  of  a  temporary  earthly  reiffn 
of  Messiidi  (or  of  Israel)  arose  in  the  effort  to  conceive  of  tiio 
flnal  consunmiation  in  more  transcendental,  heavenly  terms,  and 
yet  provide  for  the  literal  fulfilment  of  the  national,  earthly  horcs 
of  Israel.  In  Enoch  91  Messiah  does  not  apjiear,  but  an  earthly 
Messianic  age  is  followed  after  a  final  judgment  by  a  consunmia- 
tion of  heavenly  character.  In  4  Ezr  7  Messiah  ha«  to  do  only  with 
the  earthly  kingdom,  not  with  the  heavenly  which  foMowsttaftei 
400  yeara  But  in  Rev,  the  lUOO  years  has  no  such  significance 
Our  writer  does  not  need  it  for  the  literal  tuIfllmeQt  of  the 


262         RE7EL1  TION,  BOOK  OF 


REVELATION,  BOOK  OF 


earthly  and  national  features  of  the  prophetic  hope,  for  he  uses 
these  freely  in  a  figrurative  sense  of  the  new  heaven  and  earth 
(21.  22).  He  does  not  need  it  in orderlo  cive  Messiah  His  rij^hta, 
for  the  Lanib  is  still  on  the  throne  in  the  final  consummation 
(2iM  ^221-3).  Holtzraann,  indeed,  declares  that  the  idea  that 
this  1000-yeare'  rei'^  is  a  period  of  peace  and  rest  is  the  only 
propsr  enrichment  of  Biblical  theology  in  our  book,  since 
m  St.  Paul  the  interval  between  the  coming  of  Christ  and  the 
consuunnation  is  a  period  of  the  progressive  conquest  of  evil 
(1  Co  l.'.-o-'.^).  But  where  in  Rev.  is  the  suggestion  that  peace 
and  rest  characterize  the  lOUO  years?  It  is  here  also  a  reigning 
of  Christ,  and  the  reward  of  martyrs  is  a  share  in  His  power. 
St.  Paul  expresses  the  common  e.Kpectation  of  the  Christian's 
part  in  this  reign  of  Christ  in  1  Co  6'-- 3.  There  is  every  reason 
to  suppose  that  judging  and  ruling  characterize  the  100(1  years 
in  Reveiation.  The  difference  between  this  first  resurrection 
and  the  second  is  not  the  difference  between  a  preliminary 
earthly  and  a  final  heavenly  rest.  For  the  final  consummation, 
as  we  have  seen,  is  described  by  ourauthor  in  thoroughly  eart  hly 
(Messianic)  terms  itoetically  taken.  It  is  the  difference  between 
power  and  blessedness.  In  other  words,  the  looO-.vears'  reign 
here  correspuiuls  closely  to  the  Jewish  expectation  of  tlie  time 
when  the  sword  of  justice  and  vengeance  should  be  in  the 
bands  of  the  righteous  (Enoch  911=  9019-  w,  ct.  953-  '  961  9812  991. 6 
99l(>.10O»  3ss,  Dn  72-'). 

In  Kev  2-'ft-  27  321  the  rule  of  those  who  overcome  is  promised  ; 
but  is  this  more  literally  meant  than  the  other  promises  (-7. 17 
etc.)?  In  1^  610  it  seems  to  be  said  that  Christians  are  already  a 
kingdom  and  priests  reigning  on  the  earth.  The  brief  epi&odal 
treatment  of  the  1000  years  in  20*-"^  as  part  of  the  account  of 
Satan's  overthrow,  prevents  our  giving  it  the  aignilicance  in  the 
writer's  mind  that  has  often  been  given  to  it.  The  possibility 
cannot  be  wholly  excluded  that  it  stands  here  because  it  stood 
in  some  account  of  Satan's  overthrow,  which  our  author 
adopted,  as  he  did  so  much  else,  for  its  general  meaning,  not 
for  Its  detail.  We  shall  perhaps  be  better  able  to  estimate  its 
meaning  to  bim  as  we  turn  from  his  predictions  to  his  religious 
conceptions.  It  is  certain  that  the  overcoming]  with  which  John 
is  most  concerned  is  first  Christ's  overcoming  of  sin  through 
His  death  and  exaltation,  then  the  Christian  overcoming  of  the 
e\il  life  and  false  worship  of  the  world  and  its  hatred  and 
persecutions,  by  patience  and  faith  even  unto  death.  And  this 
overcoming  is  so  referred  to  in  the  midst  of  the  description  of 
Satan's  fall  from  heaven  (12"),  and  of  the  fall  of  Rome  (I?"), 
that  we  wonder  after  all  at  the  end  whether  this  is  the  reality 
and  those  the  figure;  whether,  not  of  course  originally  but  to 
our  writer,— the  one  who  inserted  such  verses  as  these,— this 
did  not  express  their  real  meaning.  It  is  certain  that  he 
believed  chiefly  in  the  triumphant  vindication  of  Christian  faith, 
both  in  the  case  of  individuals  who  endured  unto  death,  and  of 
the  world  which  \^*as  now  in  the  power  of  evil.  The  conviction 
that  death  could  only  bring  the  faithful  soul  to  its  God,  and 
that  the  future  could  only  see  God  and  Christ  manifestly 
enthroned  over  the  universe,  our  author  held  with  all  the 
intensity  of  his  being,  and  expressed  in  all  the  variety  of  form 
with  which  the  literature  of  hope  furnished  him,  without  too 
much  anxiety  about  formal  consistency.  That  Christ's  conquest 
of  evil  involved  the  fall  of  Rome,  but  that  the  fall  of  Rome  was 
not  the  end  of  evil  itself,  but  the  beginning  and  guarantee  of 
ita  end,  we  may  also  regard  as  secure. 

2.  Religious  ideas  (theolorjij)  of  Revelation. — 
The  biblicotlieological  study  of  Kev.  should  pro- 
ceed, according  to  the  nioaem  view  of  this  dis- 
cipline, largely  by  the  comparative  nietliod.  We 
are  not  to  assume  that  the  author  had  a  theology 
of  his  own  ;  and  we  are  most  concerned  to  know  the 
sources  and  influence  of  the  Christian  ideas  of  the 
book,  and  how  they  fit  into  the  history  of  Cliristian 
thought.  This  is  far  more  an  average  book,  tliat 
is,  an  embodiment  of  average  beliefs  and  hopes, 
than  the  letters  of  St.  Paul  or  the  Gospel  of  St. 
Jolin.  It  expresses  the  faith  and  tlie  temper  of 
Christianity  in  the  early  years  of  its  conflict,  its 
struggle  for  existence  against  a  hostile  world.  As 
its  message  is  one  of  a  speedily  coming  judgment 
and  deliverance,  its  underlying  theology  will 
concern  the  persons  through  whom,  and  the  way 
in  which,  salvation  is  to  be  eB'ected.  God  and 
Christ,  redemption  past  and  to  come,  are  its 
themes.  The  general  conception  of  the  deliverer 
and  the  deliverance  will  be  determined  by  the 
conception  of  the  evil  from  which  men  desire  to  be 
delivered.  The  theology  of  our  author  will  be 
fundamentally  determined  by  the  question  whether 
he  conceives  of  the  evil  chiefly  as  political  or  as 
religious.  The  answer  to  this  question  is  not 
altogether  easy.  Although  Rome  now  embodies 
the  spirit  of  evU  itself,  and  is  endowed  with  its 
authority,  yet  on  the  one  hand  it  is  througli  its 
religion  that  its  evil  ^wer  is  exerted  (2"  13""^), 
and  on  the  other  band  it  is  only  a  temporary  repre- 


sentative of  the  ultimate  evil  power,  the  Devil 
and  Satan,  the  destroyer  (9"),  the  deceiver  of  thj 
wliole  world  (12"),  the  real  persecutor  of  the  sainti 
(1212.17).  Titius  is  doubtless,  on  the  whole,  right 
in  suggesting  that  the  political  view  of  evil  and 
salvation  seems  to  be  oflered  to  the  writer  by  some 
of  his  sources,  but  that  it  is  disavowed  by  him 
(Die  mutest.  Lehre  von  dcr  Scligkcit,  iv.  35) ;  yet 
the  case  is  not  wholly  clear,  and  the  central 
problem  in  the  interpretation  of  the  Cliristianity 
of  the  book  lies  just  here.  Tlie  fall  of  Rome  would 
seem  to  be  a  chief  act  in  that  Divine  judgment 
which  is  to  bring  blessedness  to  the  faithful.  But 
this  Jewish  '  Mpoc-.ilj'ptical  connexion  of  politics 
and  religion '  is  not  the  teaching  of  the  book  as  a 
whole,  otherwise  Clirist's  person  and  work,  and 
the  Christian  conduct  and  hope,  must  have  been 
determined  by  the  goal  of  political  world-ruler- 
ship.  It  is  not,  indeed,  decisive  that  '  the  conduct 
of  the  faithful  is  not  political,  but  is  characterized 
exclusively  by  patience  (13'°  14'^) '  (Titius) ;  for  this 
is  true  also  in  the  Bk.  of  Daniel,  the  occasion  of 
Avhich,  like  that  of  Rev.,  is  not  war,  but  religious 
persecution.  Here  literal  worldrulership  is  un- 
questionably hoped  for,  and  yet  the  conflict  with 
tlie  beast,  as  in  Rev.,  'is  tarried  on,  on  the  one 
side  by  executions,  and  on  the  other  by  quiet 
martyrdom'  (cf.  Dn  ll^").  Many  Jews  expected 
that  worldrulership  was  to  come  to  them  through 
God's  direct  intervention,  upon  purely  religious 
conditions  on  their  part.  Nor  can  we  say  with 
confidence  that  the  literal  worldrulership  of  the 
saints  was  not  in  our  author's  mind  (2^-  -''  321  5'" 
20^'^).  When  the  Roman  empire  is  regarded  as 
the  Satanic  power,  it  is  notea.sy  to  escape  the  con- 
ception of  a  kingdom  of  the  saints  which  shall 
literally  displace  it.  Nevertheless,  it  remains  true 
that  for  our  autlior  the  ultimate  evil  power  is  not 
Rome  but  Satan,  and  that  the  final  struggle  and 
victory  are  in  the  spiritual  realm.  It  is  not  the 
worldrulership  of  Rome,  but  its  blasphemous 
claims,  that  made  it  the  present  agent  ol  Satan's 
power.  Both  by  temptation  and  by  violence  it 
endangered  the  Christian  life  and  the  Christian 
faith.  Any  power  that  opposed  the  sole  worship  of 
tlie  one  God,  whether  Jewish  (2'>  3»)  or  Roman  (2" 
13^  etc.),  is  Satanic. 

(a)  God. — The  fundamental  faith  ot  the  book 
is,  then,  that  God  alone  is  to  be  worshipped,  since 
He  alone  is  eternal  and  all-powerful.  Monotheism 
is  the  basis  on  which  the  apocalyptical  hope  rests, 
since  this  is  always  only  the  hope  that  the  real 
kingship  of  God  will  soon  become  manifest  and 
actual.  God  is  He  who  was,  and  who  is,  and  who 
is  to  come  (1**  4",  cf.  11"),  while  the  power  of  evil 
'  was,  and  is  not ;  and  is  about  to  come  up  out  of 
the  abyss,  and  to  go  into  perdition'  (IV"'  ").  The 
ditrerence  between  these  two  definitions  saves  the 
Christian  faith  which  this  boolc  represents  from 
dualism.  The  doctrine  of  God  is  Christianity's 
great  inheritance  from  Judaism,  and  is  given  here 
not  only  in  Jewish  terms,  but  in  the  Jewish  spirit. 
God  is  the  Creator  (4"  10*  14'),  omnipotent  [iraiiTo- 
KpiTup]  (1»  4«  ll"  15»  16'-  i-i  19«-  ">  21-'^  ;  elsewhere  in 
NT  only  2  Co  6'*).  Fear,  not  love,  is  the  temper  of 
worship  (14'  15^  19'  lli').  God  is  indeed  described 
as  one  to  be  feared,  one  whose  coming  self- 
manifestation  will  be  in  WTath  and  judgment 
(6'«-  "  11"  14"-"-  '»•  »  15'-  »  16'  19").  He  is  a  King 
who  is  absolute  in  power  and  just  in  His  judg- 
ments. This  justice  is  His  supreme  quality,  on 
which  faith  and  hope  rest  (6'»  15^  16'  19'-2). 

(b)  Christ. — Christ  is  conceived  as  one  equal  to 
His  task,  which  is  threefold.  (1)  He  is  to  over- 
throw the  Roman  empire  (19""2i)  and  its  allies 
(17"),  and  so  is  described  as  warrior  and  king, 
wholly  in  Jewish  terms.  He  is  the  lion  of  tha 
tribe  of  Judah  (5",  cf.  22"),  with  a  sword  in  Hii 


KEVELATION,  BOOK  OF 


REVELATION,  BOOK  OF        263 


mouth  (l"  2'2-"  19",  Is  11<),  the  destined  ruler  of 
the  heathen  (2»'-  12»  19'»,  Ps  2»,  of.  PsSol  17="). 
(2)  But  since  the  real  power  of  evil  is  not  Rome 
but  Satan,  Christ  must  be  conceived  not  only  as 
the  greatest  of  kings,  '  King  of  kings  and  Lord  of 
lords  '  (17'^  19'«  1'),  as  God  is  in  the  OT  (Dn  2^'),  but 
83  one  supreme  in  tlie  world  of  spirits.  So  in  the 
first  vision  of  Him  (l'"*").  He  appears  as  an  angelic 
being,  like  Gabriel  in  Dn  10,  but  above  him,  since 
He  applies  to  Himself  (1"  2'  22")  Uie  name  'the 
first  and  the  last,'  which  belongs  to  God  (1*  21*, 
la  41'  44»  48'=).  He  is  'the  living  one'  (1'*),  as 
God  also  is  (4'-  ">  lU") ;  the  One  wlio  lias  already, 
b}'  His  resurrection,  gained  the  mastery  over  those 

Sowers  of  evil  which  are  tlie  last  of  all  to  be 
estroyed.  Death  and  Hades  (I'S  cf.  20'*,  1  Co 
15").  The  second  vision  of  Christ  (5'""}  shows 
still  more  clearly  His  superiority  to  all  angelic 
powers,  even  those  that  stand  closest  to  the  throne 
of  God.  He  only  of  them  all  can  open  the  book 
of  the  Divine  purposes.  The  seven  spirits  of  (Jod 
are  His  eyes  (5"),  or  are  in  His  hand  (3').  This 
elevation  is  His, — just  as  in  Ph  2°"",  —  because 
of  His  redemptive  death  (5°).  Tlie  whole  creation 
joins  in  ascribing  to  II  im  praises  as  to  God  (5""", 
of.  l**-- »  7'°). 

The  angel-like  and  God-like  nature  of  the  risen 
Christ  is  tlie  best  proof  that  our  writer's  view 
went  beyond  the  political.  Such  a  One  as  this  was 
not  needed  for  tlie  overthrow  of  Uome.  Yet  it  is 
a  striking  fact  tliat  the  victory  over  spirit  powers 
of  evil  is  not,  as  we  sliould  expect,  expressly  ascribed 
to  Christ.  The  demon-beasts  of  Korae  are  taken  and 
i-.ist  into  the  lake  of  lire,  but  by  whom  is  not  said 
(19"''-'"),  though  it  is  the  sword  in  Christ's  mouth 
that  slays  their  followers  (v.=').  The  dragon  recog- 
nized in  Christ  liis  deadly  foe  (1'2*'-),  but  it  is 
Micliael  who  cast  him  down  from  heaven  (12'"°), 
'  an  angel '  who  chained  him  in  the  abyss  (20'"', 
cf.  9'"") ;  fire  from  heaven  devoured  his  liusts,  and 
it  in  not  said  who  cast  him,  and  after  him  Deatli, 
into  tlie  lake  of  lire  (20'»- '*).  So  the  key  of  the 
abyss  is  in  an  angel's  hand  (9'  20')  in  spite  of  1'". 
Our  writer  does  not  feel  the  need  of  formally  dis- 
placing the  angel  by  Christ  in  these  Jewisli  figures. 
Angelology  had  already  influenced  the  Jewisli  con- 
ception of  Messiah  in  Enoch  3711.  (see  46')  on  the 
basis  of  Daniel.  But  in  general  Michael  retained 
his  place  as  Israel's  heavenly  representative, 
defender,  priestly  intercessor,  liousset  suggested 
(Der  Antichrvit,  p.  151)  that  Jewisli  speculations 
about  Michael  may  have  infiuenced  early  Chris- 
tian ideas  about  Christ,  and  Luekcn  (Michael, 
Gfittingen,  1898)  has  made  the  hypothesis  probable. 
In  our  book,  however,  Michael  is  not  displaced, 
but  performs  one  of  his  cliief  functions  (12'"-) ;  on 
the  other  hand,  the  worship  of  angels  is  expressly 
forbidden  ( ig'"  22»- ») ;  and  Christ  is,  with  God— in 
spite  of  19'"  'worship  God'  — the  oliject  of  the 
worship  of  angels  ana  men  alike.  A\  liile  angels 
are  classed  with  men,  Chri.st  is  classed  with  (Jod ; 
and  various  titles  and  expressions  carry  us  beyond 
not  only  the  Messianic  but  also  the  angelological 
speculations  of  Judaism.  He  is  once  called  '  the 
Son  of  God  '  (2'«,  but  see  also  2-''  3»-=',  cf.  1»  14") ; 
once,  'tlie  beginning  of  the  creation  of  God'  (3"), 
as  only  the  Divine  wisdom  is  called  in  OT  (Pr  ^''], 
and  as  Christ  is  called  only  by  St.  Paul  in  the 
NT  (Col  1").  He  is  called  once  also  the  Word  of 
God  (19"),  and  even  this  Johannine  (Hellenistic) 
title  is  surpassed  by  the  title  of  eternity,  '  the  first 
and  the  last'  (1"  2«  22'^).  Yet  one  hesitates  to 
put  stress  on  the  pro-existence  which  these  titles 
imply,  because  the  resurrection  so  sujiremely  marks 
Christ  and  conditions  His  exaltation  (]»*• '"  2»  5""-). 
A  cosinical  significance  and  fitness  to  (leal  with  the 
cosniii  al  principle  of  evil  the  writer  certainly  "  isli.s 
to  otliriu.    He  would  seem  almost  to  identify  Christ 


and  God  if,  as  seems  probable,  he  adds  to  Jewish 
sources  the  expressions  'and  of  his  Christ'  (11"*), 
•and  of  the  Lamb'  (22^),  without  feeling  the  need 
of  changin"  the  following  words  to  jilurals.  Yet 
close  as  is  tlie  as.sociation,  closer  and  more  abiding 
than  in  1  Co  15"'"''",  subordination  remains,  and  is 
expressed  in  simple  and  unreserved  fashion  (1'  2'-  '■" 
32.  VI.  ij.i:i)  _(3)  iJut  it  is  neither  the  world-empire, 
nor  its  demon-gods,  nor  Satan  himself  that  fur- 
nished the  chief  task  of  Christ.  The  Christian 
community  was  His  greatest  deed.  He  created  it 
by  His  redeeming  death  (1«  5'- '"),  and  is  first  and 
last  the  Lord  of  the  Churches,  knowing  them  as 
they  are  (2=  etc.),  ruling  them  in  love,  but  with 
severity  (2"---»3'»),  their  Lord  (ll"  14'^  22M-2'). 
For  Him  the  perfected  communitj'  is  destined  as  a 
bride  (19'-*  2r''' ").  Believers  are  His  .servants  (1' 
2™),  as  they  are  the  servants  of  God  (7'  10'  11" 
etc.).  The  name  which  most  expresses  what  Christ 
is  to  the  Christian  is  the  '  Lamb,'  u.sed  twenty-nine 
times  in  the  book.  The  figure  of  a  lamb  as  if  slain, 
i.e.  with  throat  cut  as  if  about  to  be  sacrificed,  the 
author  is  able  to  use  in  such  a  way  that  it  gives 
an  impression  of  power  and  excites  feelings  of 
reverence  and  awe.  Although  the  Lamb  slain  is 
a  striking  Christian  transformation  of  the  Lion 
of  Jiulah's  tribe  (5°-"),  yet  lion-like  rather  than 
lamb-like  qualities  remain  dominant.  The  seven 
horns  and  the  seven  eyes  picture  kingly  power 
and  Divine  knowledge.  The  Christian  Messiah 
is  one  crucified,  indeed,  but  nevertheless  kingly 
and  powei  ful,  a  stern  warrior  and  righteous  judge 
((ji«  1411J  i;u)  jjig  place  is  near  the  throne  of 
God  (.')«•  8  79. 17)^  and  at  last  upon  it  (21--'--^  22'-'). 
Although  the  name  Jesus  is  commonly  used  (1' 
12"  17"  19'»  20-'  221"),  yet  the  reference  is  to  the 
heavenly,  not  the  cartlily  life.  Neither  allusions 
to  the  hirth  of  Christ  (12'-»,  cf.  5°  22'"),  nor  to  Hia 
death  (5'"-,  cf.  Is  53;  1',  cf.  Zee  12'»,  Dn  7'-'),  indicate 
a  use  of  the  Gospel  accounts.  The  .fact  of  the 
death,  however,  is  of  vital  significance.  The 
crucifixion  was  the  crowning  sin  of  Jerusalem 
(11"),  but  the  slaying— the  blood  of  the  Lamb — is 
that  through  which  He  made  men  a  kingdom, 
priests,  unto  God  (1"  5'").  This  ellect  is  exjilained 
as  a  jiurcliase  (redemjition),  b''  14'- •■  (cf.  1  Co  6'* 
7-^),  with  wliictli  the  reading,  XuaavTi.  in,  in  1' 
('loosed'),  would  correspond.  But  it  is  also  said 
that  the  redeemed  had  '  washed  their  robes  and 
made  tlieni  white  in  the  blood  of  the  Lamb '  (7", 
cf.  22'*  N.\,  and  the  less  probable  reading,  XoiKrarTi. 
aird,  in  1°), 

The  figure  of  the  slain  Lamb  itself  pictures  the 
fact  of  the  atoning  significance  of  the  death,  but 
does  not  give  us  a  definite  theory  regarding  it.  It 
is  not  certain  whether  the  Paschal  lamb  is  in  mind 
(Kx  12»''-,  1  Co  5'),  or  Is  53'  (as  probably  in  Jn 
l'-'-*').  The  vicariousness  of  Christ's  death  is  not 
indicated,  and  the  contact  with  St.  Paul's  thought 
at  this  point  seems  formal  rather  than  real. 

(c)  The  ChristUin  life. — The  divergence  of  the 
thought  of  our  book  from  St.  Paul  becomes  still 
more  evident  when  we  note  that  the  white  gar- 
ments which  the  redceiiied  wear  signify  moral  purity 
(3*  ").  It  is  the  duty  of  the  Chiistian  Church  to 
array  itself  in  white.  The  fine  linen,  bright  and 
pure,  is  tlie  righteous  deeds  of  the  saints  (It)').  Such 
raiment  can  be,  as  it  were,  bought  of  Christ  (3'*), 
or  given  (6"  19") ;  but  its  possession  is  evidently 
regarded  more  from  the  moral  than  from  the 
ritual  iHiint  of  view.  There  is  no  such  rellexiou 
upon  the  relation  of  gift  and  duty  in  the  Christian 
life  as  in  St.  Paul  ;  but  by  the  .side  of  prai.se  for 
redemption  by  Christ's  blood,  is  an  almost  legalistic 
conception  of  salvation  by  works.  In  the  letters, 
works  are  required  by  01  irist  ('2=- »• '»■"•»'  31- '■'■»•'» 
cf.  14'3  18"  20"-  '=• '»  2-1".  Ilnll/iiiann).  They  are  IIU 
works  (2"),  the  keeping  of  His  Mords  or  commandi 


364         REVELATION,  BOOK  OF 


EEVELATIOX,  BOOK  OF 


(39),  as  well  as  God's  words  (1»- »  12"  14"  20*),  of 
ivliich  Jesus  is  a  witness  (1' 3'*).  To  keep  God's  com- 
mands is  to  keep  the  testimony  of  Jesus  (P-  *  12"  19'" 
20*)  or  His  faith  [U^).  Pure  morals  (2"-  *>  3*  14*-») 
and  a  pure  worship  {2^*-^  W^"-  14*'-)  are  enjoined, 
over  against  heathen  influence  ;  and,  to  keep  these 
in  such  a  time,  patience,  endurance,  fidelity  were 
tlie  most  needed  virtues.  '  The  patience  and  the 
f aitli  of  tlie  saints '  ( 13'")  are  closely  related  virtues. 
That  faith  and  patience  alike  mean  fidelity  is 
evident  (2"  14'-  2^""  17''"').  They  were  most  mani- 
fest in  martyrdom.  As  Christ,  through  the  shed- 
ding of  His  blood,  proved  Himself  a  'faithful 
witness,'  and  attained  as  a  reward  His  place  of 
power,  so  Christians  gain  the  highest  glory  through 
a  martyr  death.  Its  power  as  an  e.\ample  is  one 
of  the  clearest  interpretations  given  by  our  author 
to  Christ's  death  (see  7'*  12"  3-'  20*«).  The  point 
of  view  of  reward  is  that  from  which  salvation 
is  predominantly  regarded  (2"  etc.,  'to  him  that 
overcometh,'  ll'«  22'-  7'*"). 

vi.  Relation  of  Rev.  to  other  NT  Books. — 
1.  St.  Paul. — The  question  in  what  relation  the 
Christology  and  Soteriology  of  Rev.  stand  to 
Paulinism  is  one  to  whicli  a  confident  answer 
is  impossible  until  we  know  better  how  to  answer 
the  questions  both  of  source  and  of  influence  with 
reference  to  St.  Paul's  thought  at  these  points.  If 
St.  Paul  is  the  author  of  the  '  higher  Christology,' 
Rev.  must  be  under  his  influence,  and  certainly 
the  expression  'the  firstborn  from  tlie  dead'  (P) 
suggests  Col  1"  (cf.  1  Co  IS-*),  though  liousset 
believes  that  Ps  89^  (LXX)  accounts  for  it.  To 
the  same  verse.  Col  1"  (cf.  v."),  the  e.xpression 
'  the  beginning  of  the  creation  of  God,'  points  (3'^). 
Yet  these  parallels  are  far  from  conclusive.  IJoth 
St.  Paul  and  Rev.  exalt  Christ  above  angels  as 
a  reward  for  His  earthly  life  and  death  (Ph  2''-, 
Rev  5'"'-). 

If  St.  Pavl  was  the  first  to  connect  the  forgiveness 
of  sin  with  the  death  of  Christ,  the  thought  of  Rev. 
is  in  some  sense  due  to  him  ;  but  St.  Paul's  origin- 
ality at  this  point  is  an  open  question  (1  Co  15'-  "), 
and  the  elFect  of  the  death  of  Christ  is  here  described 
in  a  wholly  un-Pauline  way.  Again,  the  univer- 
sality of  the  gospel  owed  most  to  the  championship 
of  St.  Paul,  but  Weizsacker  is  justified  in  saying 
that  in  Rev.  Judaism  has  become  uuiversalistic 
and  free  from  law,  not  in  the  Pauline  way,  but  in 
a  way  of  its  own.  The  thought  of  Rev  5'  is  that 
of  Eph  2'^  but  dependence  is  not  evident. 

There  are  many  points  of  contact  between  the 
two  writers  in  eschatology,  but  none  that  cannot 
be  explained  from  the  common  basis  of  Jewish 
and  primitive  Christian  conceptions.  It  is  not 
probable  that  we  are  to  infer  from  Rev  7'''  II''" 
an  expectation  like  St.  Paul's  of  the  final  repent- 
ance and  salvation  of  the  Jewish  people  (Ro  11-'')  ; 
it  is,  however,  possible.  St.  Paul  expects  a  literal 
renewal  of  the  world  (Ro  8'*■-^  cf.  Rev  21') ;  also 
(before  this?)  an  interregnum  of  Christ  (1  Co  15-') 
when  He  and  His  (6^- ')  will  overcome  all  powers 
hostile  to  God  (Rev  20''-') ;  the  last  foe  to  be  destroyed 
is  death  (1  Co  15=",  Rev  20'*).  It  is  a  striking  fact 
that  while  the  literalness  of  these  expectations  is 
not  to  be  questioned  in  St.  Paul's  case,  in  Rev.  we 
feel  ourselves  to  be  everywhere  on  the  border  line 
between  fact  and  figure.  None  of  these  parallels 
is  so  striking  as  the  contrast  between  St.  Paul's 
attitude  towards  Rome  and  that  of  Revelation  (Ro 
13'-',  2  Th  2').  Even  at  thU  point,  however,  we 
cannot  think  of  an  intentional  polemic  against  St. 
Paul.  Antichrist  has  taken  on  a  Roman  mstead  of 
a  Jewish  character  by  the  course  of  events.  The 
cllbrt  of  Baur  and  Volkmar  to  prove  the  presence 
of  ttn  anti-Pauline  polemic  in  the  book  cannot  be 
regarded  as  successful.  The  Christianity  of  the 
John  of  KeT.  La  neither  national  nor  legal  in  a 


Jewish  sense  {e.g.  5»  "i^"-  21»*ff.  2'-'-  ^  21«').  Th« 
absoluteness  of  its  freedom  from  Judaism,  i.e.  of  its 
conviction  that  Christians  are  the  true  Jews,  is  seen 
in  the  fact  that  it  can  adopt  without  change  such 
thoroughly  Jewish  pictures  as  7  *  11'"'*,  taking 
for  granted  their  figurative  application  to  the 
Christian  community.  Its  conception  of  faith 
and  of  works  is  neither  St.  Paul's  nor  is  it  aimed 
against  St.  Paul's  conception. 

We  may  agree  with  Jiilicher  that  the  Christi- 
anity of  Rev.  is  neither  Pauline  nor  anti-Pauline ; 
and  that,  as  far  as  one  can  speak  of  the  religious 
conceptions  of  the  book  outside  of  the  eschato- 
logical  circle,  they  can  be  understood  as  a  simple 
development  of  the  primitive  form  in  which  the 
gospel  came  through  Jewish  believers  to  Jews.  It 
must,  however,  be  a  late,  not  an  early  development. 

2.  The  Synoptic  Goxpda. — The  traditional  de- 
fence of  the  apostolicity  and  truth  of  Rev.  bv  the 
claim  that  it  is  only  an  elaboration  of  the  escliato- 
logical  teachings  ot  Jesus,  especially  in  Mt  24  [-25] 
=  Mk  13  =  Lk  2I-l-17^"-"-(-12»-«,  must  now  be 
reconsidered  and  tested  in  view  of  a  growing 
inclination  on  the  part  of  scholars  to  regard  these 
chapters  as  due  to  an  elaboration  of  the  simpler 
teachings  of  Jesus  regarding  the  future,  under  tlie 
influence  of  the  eschatological  conceptions,  in- 
herited from  Judaism,  of  which  Rev.  is  a  product 
and  record.  The  parallels  are,  of  course,  unmis- 
takable ;  but  for  the  historical  interpretation  of 
them  we  must  wait  for  further  studies  in  the 
Gospels,  and  in  the  history  of  those  traditions  of 
the  life  and  teachings  of  Jesus  out  of  which  the 
Gospels  came. 

Holtzmann  (Einl.  422)  adduces  the  foUowing  parallels :  Mk 
13'-8  =  Rev  6-1-8-  '2,  Mk  13I»=Rev  H6,  Mk  13'3  =  Rev  226,  Jlk  1319 
=  Rev  1018,  esp.  Mk  13=J.-»=Rev  6''in  »i  »\  Mk  132ii(still 
more  closelv  Mt  273")  =  Rev  1',  Mk  132^  =  Rev  7',  Mk  1331  =  Rev 
6U  1717  ^\\  and  apparent  contracts  between  Rev  111  and  Mk 
131*.  Rev  105  e  1415  and  Mk  1332. 

Von  Soden  {At/hamiluw/en^  p.  132),  on  the  basis  of  various 
parallels  (Rev  1310  Lk  2li',  Rev  61»  Lk  187,  Rev  e'e  Lk  233", 
Rev  33  1615  Lk  1239  [  =  Mt  24«J,  Rev  S™  Lk  1236  14I6M,  Rev  l" 
Lk  2136,  Rev  33  147- 16  Lk  1239'- «,  Rev  11  226  Lk  183,  Rev  IS 
2216  Lk  218,  Rev  199  Lk  1415,  Rev  227  Lk  1128,  Rev  li)i5  Lk 
1237),  regards  it  as  probable  that  the  Christian  editor  of  Rev.  waa 
familiar  with  Luke's  Gospel.  He  thinks  (p.  158  f.),  on  the  other 
hand,  that  Matthew  used  Rev.  in  ita  present  fonn  because  of 
the  parallel  use  of  words  and  phrases  in  manv  passages  (cf, 
e.Q.  Mt  612  Rev  19?,  Mt  S2«  Rev  218,  Mt  2016  231-1  Rev  ir",  Mt  161« 
Rev  118  37  91  20',  Mt  2753  Rev  112  21-'  2219,  su  26  Rev  1",  Mt  19'' 
233  2820  [to  keep,  T,i«r.,  commands  of  Christ]  2818  Rev  13  221', 
Mt  1619  1818  [i«,.)  Rev  15,  Jit  2652  Rev  131»,  Mt  2430  Rev  17 
Mt  2412  Rev  2*-  19  316f.,  Mt  22  Rev  121,  Mt  2"  Rev  212J,  Mt  216-18 
Rev  12-'-  17).  Such  parallels  as  Holtzmann  adduces  between 
Rev.  and  Mk  13  are  referred  by  von  Soden  and  luanj  others  to 
common  or  related  Jewish  apocalyptical  sources. 

3.  r/te  Go.fpel  and  Epistles  of  St.  J'oAn.— The 
relation  between  Rev.  and  the  other  Johaiiiiine 
writings  has  been  obscured  by  critical  attacks  and 
apologetic  defence.  Zahn's  extravagant  statement, 
that  the  common  use  of  the  name  Logos  (Jn  1'-  '*, 
1  Jn  1',  Rev  iy'3)  outweighs  all  the  irreconcilable 
contradictions  which  have  been  found  between  the 
ideas  of  Rev.  and  those  of  the  other  Johannine 
writings,  is  anything  but  conclusive,  although  the 
importance  of  this  point  of  connexion  is  to  be 
recognized.  Even  Zalin  admits  the  difficulty  of 
the  problem  presented  by  the  difference  of  style, 
but  thinks  that  both  John  and  Rev.  betisy  a 
Hebrew  author,  and  that  the  same  man  mi,ght 
write  difl'ereutly  as  a  prophet  and  as  a  historian 
and  teacher.  It  is  really  by  appeal  to  a  super- 
natural agency  that  Zaim  reconciles  the  books. 
In  the  Bk.  of  Revelation  St.  John  is  in  ecstasy 
and  receives  everything  in  vision,  the  form  as  well 
as  the  material  (p.  614  f.).  So  the  books  are  not 
by  the  same  real  author,  after  all  ;  and  how  would 
Zahn  estimate  the  relative  value  of  the  work  of 
John  and  that  of  the  Spirit?  In  regard  to  the 
peculiar  style  of  Rev.,  with  its  departures  from 
grammatical  rules,  certainly  in  part  intentional, 


REVELATION,  BOOK  OF 


REVELATION,  BOOK  OF        265 


ferliaps  in  the  otlbrt  to  give  the  ellect  of  the 
liliruw  proplu-tic  style,  see  especially  Bousset, 
Kuinin.  pp.  l!)S-JuS. 

'I'littt  Kev.  is  not  by  the  author  of  the  Gospel 
and  the  I'irst  Ep.  of  Jolin  appears  to  the  present 
writer  little  less  tlian  a  curtaiuty.  There  are, 
indeed,  ideas  common  to  these  books.  We  have 
already  noticed  the  common  use  of  all  the  Johan- 
nine  writings  by  the  Montanists  because  John 
promises  the  projihctic  spirit,  and  Rev.  is  a  pro- 
duct of  it ;  and  llie  common  rejection  of  all  by 
the  so-called  Alogi,  tliouyh  later  opponents  of 
Montanism  were  contented  to  reject  Kevtlation. 
There  are  also  Johanniue  forms  of  expression  in 
Rev.  (see,  e.ff.,  3-■"^  Jn  11'',  Rev  2-«- "  3=',  Jn  IS"- 
17"  20^'').  But  so  there  are  here  I'auline  forms  of 
expression.  Indeed  the  tliought  -  world  of  our 
author  is  related  to  one  side  of  St.  Paul's,  wliile 
John  and  1  John  are  related  to  another  ;  and  while 
it  is  not  impossible  that  both  Rev.  and  John  pre- 
suppose St.  Paul,  between  these  books  themselves 
little  but  contrast  can  be  discovered,  both  in 
thought  and  in  expression. 

Bousset  has  sought  to  prove  a  linguistic  relation- 
ship such  as  to  justify  the  belief  that  Rev.  came 
from  the  same  circles  in  Asia  Minor  from  wliich 
tlie  Johannine  writings  came.  The  John  of  Asia 
Minor  was,  he  believes,  not  the  apostle,  but  the 
presbyter  John ;  and  though  neither  the  Gospel 
nor  the  Apocalypse  was  written  by  him,  Bousset 
supposes  that  both  rest  in  some  way  upon  him. 
That  the  John  of  Asia  Minor  was  the  apostle 
remains,  however,  stUl  the  more  probable  supjiosi- 
tion  (See  tlie  elaborate  argument  of  Zahn,  For- 
icliungcn,  vi.  1900,  pp.  175-217).  But  the  inference 
that  the  John  of  Kev.  must  in  that  case  be  the 
ajKjstle,  is  weakened  by  the  observation  that  the 
apocalyptist  does  not  speak  with  the  authority  of 
hi.<  own  person.  Tlie  authoritative  autlior  of  his 
book  is  Christ.  All  that  the  author  claims  fur 
himself  is  that  he  is  a  genuine  propliet.  The 
common  idea  'tliat  he  appears  as  a  special  authority 
before  his  readers  rests  on  f.ancy'  (Jiilicher,  Einl. 
176).  It  is  not  he  but  Christ  who  criticizes  and 
commends  the  Churches.  There  remains,  of  course, 
the  other  possibility,  tliat,  like  other  apocalypses, 
this  also  IS  pseudunymous,  issued  in  the  apostle's 
name.  But  we  should  in  that  case  couhdeutly 
look  for  clear  references  to  the  ajiostle's  experi- 
ences, whereas  the  writer  regards  himself  every, 
where  as  a  propliet,  and  seems  to  look  upon  the 
apostles  from  without  (21'*,  cf.  18-'").  That  the 
apostle  was  the  author  of  Rev.,  and  tlierefore  not 
01  John  (Baur,  etc.),  is  now  urged  anew,  chielly 
on  the  ground  of  external  testimony,  by  B.  \V. 
li-Mon  {Intrud.  to  NT,  1900);  but,  though  not 
impossible,  it  can  never  be  so  established  as  to  be 
a  weighty  presupposition  for  the  solution  of  the 
problem  of  the  Gospel.  That  the  writer  of  Rev. 
need  not  have  known  Jesus,  remains  a  strong  in- 
dication that  he  did  not  know  Him. 

In  distinction  from  the  Gospel,  the  Apocalypse 
can  he  historically  interpreted  and  estimated  with- 
out regard  to  the  question  of  its  autlior,  i.e.  of  its 
final  author;  but  a  liook  of  tliis  class  cannot  be 
understood  at  all  apart  from  tlie  stream  of  apoca- 
lyjilical  tradition  out  of  which  it  comes,  of  which 
it  is  in  large  measure  a  product.  Of  its  authorship 
nothing  more  than  guesses  can  be  given.  With 
the  nature  of  the  book  itself  and  tlie  resulting 
method  of  its  interpretation  it  is  possible  to  deal 
more  positively. 

Conclusion. — The  historical  value  of  this  book 
as  a  witness  to  early  Christianity,  and  the  temper 
and  expectation  with  wliich  it  faced  its  long  struggle 
against  the  world,  cannot  be  over-estimated.  The 
religious  value  of  aiiocalypaes  in  general  lies  not 
in  their  form  or  foreciust,  but  in  the  religious  faith 


that  they  express.  The  special  religious  worth  of 
Rev.  lies  first  of  all  in  its  Cliristiaiiity  and  then  in 
what  results  from  this ;  in  the  fact  that  though 
chielly  apocalyptical  it  is  partly  prophetic  in  char- 
acter, that  though  largely  dependent  on  tradition  it 
is  not  wholly  without  the  marks  of  a  creative  sjiirit 
(Bousset,  p.  11).  '  The  book  has  its  imperishable 
religious  worth  because  of  the  energj-  of  faith  that 
finds  expression  in  it,  the  splendid  certainty  of  its 
conviction  that  God's  cause  remains  always  the 
best  and  is  one  with  the  cause  of  Jesus  Christ ; 
but  it  is  unreasonable  to  treat  the  detail  of  its 
phantasies  as  an  authentic  source  for  a  history  of 
the  past  or  the  future '  (Jiilicher,  p.  168). 

The  form  of  the  book  is  uncongenial  to  us  ;  but 
a  fair  historical  judge  will  not  condemn  it  for  its 
form,  which  the  age  supplied,  and  which  served 
the  age.  We  shall  do  best  justice  to  the  form  if 
we  regard  it  as  practically  poetical.  The  line 
which  must  be  drawn  for  a  true  appreciation  of 
our  book  is  not  the  rough  line  between  literal  and 
figurative  speech,  but  the  far  more  delicate  one 
between  pictures  consciously  fashioned  to  express 
spiritual  realities,  and  visions  of  per.sons  and  actions 
literally  taken,  but  valued  for  the  spiritual  realities 
that  lie  behind  them.  This  is  an  important  dis- 
tinction, but  does  not  involve  a  fundamental  con- 
trast. Our  author  is  a  poet,  whether  consciously 
or  not,  since,  whether  taken  as  word-pictures  or  as 
actualities  his  visions  were  to  him,  as  they  are  to 
us,  symbols  of  spiritual  realities,  of  Christian  faiths 
and  hopes. — But,  ajiart  from  form,  are  the  faiths 
and  liojies  of  the  book  fully  Christian?  It  is  hard 
not  to  judge  the  hatred  of  Koine  and  the  desire  for 
vengeance  as  in  some  measure  a  dejiarture  from 
Christ.  The  dill'erence  between  His  announcement 
of  the  fall  of  Jerusalem  and  this  prediction  of  the 
fall  of  Rome  is  just  the  deiiier-lyiiig  dill'erence 
between  prophecy  and  ajiocalypse.  Christ  would 
not  allow  the  kiiigduiii  of  God  to  be  put  into  con- 
trast and  competition  with  the  kingdom  of  Cffisar 
(Mk  12"-").  St.  Paul  followed  His  contradiction 
of  Judaism  at  this  jjoint  (Ro  13'"',  so  1  P  •2'»-") ;  but 
the  writer  of  Rev.  seems  hardly  to  escape  altogether 
the  Jewish  confusion  of  religion  with  politics.  To 
use  the  money  of  the  realm,  or  rather  to  engage 
in  transactions  involving  papers  which  must  be 
attested  by  the  ollicial  stamp  (x^payM-a)  of  the 
emperor  (Ueissmann,  Neue  Bihdstudien,  1897, 
pp.  68-75),  seemed  to  him  the  worship  of  the 
beast  (13").  With  this  goes  also  the  absence  of 
love,  and  with  it  again  tlie  absence  of  hope  for 
men.  The  missionary  spirit  of  Christianity  is 
not  here.  Christians  are  to  liolil  fast  what  they 
have,  and  the  sinful  world  will  be  more  sinful  still 
until  its  speedy  destruction.  To  the  union  of  re- 
ligion with  politics  belonged,  in  the  Jewish  mind, 
the  liojje  that  the  saints  would  in  the  end  rule  over 
the  world  (20*'"').  Whether  it  is  possible  to  regard 
this  inilleiinial  reign  as  taken  by  our  author  from 
some  Jewish  source  for  its  tinderlying  idea,  or 
whether  we  must  regard  him  as  adopting  the  reality 
with  the  form,  through  the  iulluence  of  his  attitude 
towards  Rome,  it  is  in  either  case  impossible  not  to 
regret  the  inlluence  of  these  verses  upon  Christian 
history.  To  this  criticism,  however,  two  things 
are  to  he  said.  One  is  that  as  events,  especially 
the  Exile,  brought  about  the  transition  from  pro- 
phecy to  apocalypse  in  Judaism,  so  events  put 
Christianity  at  this  crisis  in  the  attitude  of  self- 
defence  against  the  threatened  extinction  of  its  faith 
at  the  hands  of  Rome.  The  other  consideration  is 
that  it  was  not  for  its  chiliastic  hope,  but  in  spita 
of  it,  that  Rev.  held  its  place  in  the  Christian 
Canon  ;  and  it  has  not  been  this  that  has  given 
the  book  its  iiower. 

It  is  the  Christianity,  not  the  Judaism,  of  the 
book  that  has   made  and  kept  for  it  a  pliice  in 


266 


EEVENGE,  REVENGER 


REZIN 


Christian  Scriptures.  It  aimed  to  put  Christ  at 
the  centre  of  religious  faith  and  hope.  His  words 
are  the  complete  law  of  God,  His  testimony  is  the 
full  contents  and  inspiration  of  prophecy.  Tlie 
Churches  are  under  His  eye,  and  rospon.siljle  only 
to  Him.  He  also  opens  the  book  of  God's  hnal 
purposes  for  mankind.  His  birth,  death,  and  re- 
surrection began  that  victory  of  good  over  evil, 
which  His  coming  and  reign  will  bring  to  a  glori- 
ous completion,  for  His  coming  is  the  coming  of 
God.  llie  power  and  abiding  worth  of  the  book  is 
in  this  splendid  faith,  against  all  a^)pearances,  iu 
tlie  kingship  of  Christ  and  God  ;  in  the  strong 
hope  wliich  maintained  itself  amid  [)Orsecution  and 
unto  death  ;  and  in  the  intensity  of  emotion  through 
which  tlie  language,  though  both  our  ignorance 
and  our  knowledge  make  it  in  part  less  impressive 
than  it  was  at  hist,  has  still  the  power,  and  in 
many  passages  the  unimpaired  power,  to  stir  in  us 
an  answering  hope  and  faith. 

LlTKRATURB. — The  principal  books  in  which  a  historical  under- 
standing; of  Rev.  has  been  furthered,  and  several  of  the  im- 
portaiu  articles  and  discussions  rejrarding  it,  have  been  named 
in  the  course  of  this  article.  The  text  may  be  studied  with  the 
help  of  Weiss  (Die  Johan.  Apoc. :  Textkrit.  U ntersuchuti'im, 
lb91),  Gwynn  (Tfu  Apocalypse  0/ St.  John,  1S97),  and  Gregory 
{Text-KrUi/c  d.  NT,  1900) ;  the  older  critical  \'iew  (contemporary- 
historical)  in  the  Commentaries  of  Liicke,  Bleek,  and  Ewald.  In 
America,  Stuart's  Commentary  (1S45)  defended  this  general 
method,  with  some 'church-historical'  features.  Of  recent  critics 
the  works  of  Vischer,  Spitta,  Gunkel,  and  Bousset  are  most  de- 
serving of  study.  The  Commentaries  of  Bousset  (Meyer's  Series, 
lSO(j)  and  Holtzmann  (2nd  ed.  1893)  are  of  the  greatest  value.  See 
also  the  Introductions  of  Uoltzmann,  Jiilicher,  Zalm,  and  Bacon ; 
also  the  Uistories  of  the  Apostolic  Age  by  Weizsacker  (ii.  18  ff. 
lCl-205),  McOitfert,  and  Bartlet;  the  NT  Theolo,jir»  of  Weiss, 
Beyschlag,  Stevens,  Holtzmann,  Titius  (Die  nexttest.  Lfhre  von 
der  Seligkeit,  iv.  19U0),  and  artt.  on  Apoc.  by  Harnack  in  Eneyc 
Brit.^  and  Bousset  in  Encyc.  Bidl.  Of  other  books  bearing  iu  an 
important  way  upon  the  understanding  of  Rev.,  reference  may 
be  made  a^ain  to  Gunkel,  Schopfuttg und  Chaos  (ISQ.n);  Bousset, 
Der  Antichrist  (1895,  in  English,  The  Antichrist  Legend,  1896); 
Lueken,  Michael  (1898) ;  W'einel,  Wirkungen  des  Geistes,  etc 

(1899).  Frank  C.  Porter. 

REVENGE,   REVENGER.— See    Avenge,    and 

GOEL. 

REVEREND.  — In  earlier  English  there  is  no 
ditierence  in  meaning  between  '  reverend '  (from 
Lat.  reverendus,  pass.  ptcp.  of  reveren  to  fear,  re- 
vere) and  reverent  (through  Old  Fr.  reverent).  Only 
the  form  '  reverend  '  occurs  in  AV :  Ps  111"  '  Holy 
and  reverend  is  his  name'  {W  trny)  ei-\^;  LXX  S.-ftov 
Kal  (poliep6i',  Vulg.  sanctum  et  terribile),  and  2  Mac 
15'-  '  Reverend  in  conversation'  (aiSripova  ttji/  airdi>- 
TTttnv,  Vulg.  verecundum  vis^u,  RV  '  reverend  in 
hearing ').  RV  maintains  the  mod.  distinction  be- 
tween '  reverend '  =  to  be  revered,  and  '  reverent ' 
(asfromact.  ptcp.  )  =  revering.  It  retains 'reverend' 
in  Ps  111"  and  2  Mac  IS'^and  adds  Ph  4^  marg.  (Or. 
ac/ivii,  RV  '  honourable  ') ;  and  it  also  introduces 
'reverent'  into  Tit  2'  'reverent  in  demeanour'  (^k 
KaTacfTij/xari  iepoTrpejreis,  AV  '  in  beliaviour  as  be- 
Cometh  holiness').  The  older  versions  that  use 
the  word  always  spell  it  'reverent'  (Bish.  in  Ps 
111",  Gen.  and  Dou.  in  2  Mac  IS'^). 

J.  H.\STINGS. 

REVIVE. — In  some  of  the  examples  of  '  revive  ' 
In  .W  it  is  evident  that  the  meaning  is  literally  to 
come  back  to  life  from  the  dead  (or  transitively  to 
bring  back  to  life).  Thus  1  K  17="  The  soul  of  the 
child  came  into  him  again,  and  he  revived'  ;  2  K 
13'*'  '  When  tlie  man  was  let  down  and  touched  the 
bones  of  Elisha,  he  revived,  and  stood  up  on  his 
feet'  ;  Neh  4'  '  Will  they  revive  the  stones  out  of 
tlie  heaps  of  tlie  rubbish  which  are  burned?'; 
Ro  14"  '  Christ  both  died,  and  rose,  and  revived.' 
And,  even  when  this  is  not  the  meaning,  the  word 
i;arries  greater  force  than  it  now  bears  to  us.  Thus 
Ro  7'  'When  the  commandment  came,  sin  revived, 
and  I  died.'  Cf.  Erasmus,  Commune  Crede,  89,  'It 
Is  more  probable  by  the  deade  to  understonde  those 


that  have  departed  from  theyr  bodies  afore  th« 
daye  of  judgemente  (for  as  soiie  as  they  shall  be 
revived  and  risen  agayne,  they  shall  be  judged)'  | 
Lk  15^  Rhem.  '  This  my  soune  was  dead,  and  ia 
revived' ;  and  Shaks.  I  Henry  VI.  I.  1.  18 — 

*  Henry  is  dead,  and  never  shall  revive.* 

J.  Hastings. 

REZEPH  (in. ;  B'Pd^fit,  B'"  "Pd.^fs,  A  Tr,v  'Pd^td, 
2K  19'-;  BQ°«  'Pd0£9,  nQ*  'I'd^es,  A  Pd^.f, 
Is  37'- ;  Vulg.  Bosepk  2  K  19'=,  Kesejph  Is  37'^).— 
Mentioned  in  the  message  of  the  Rabsliakeh  of 
Sennacherib  to  Hezekiah,  when  demanding  the 
surrender  of  Jerusalem,  with  Gozan  and  Ilaran, 
and  the  children  of  Eden  which  were  in  Tehissar. 
The  district  in  which  this  town  was  situated  be- 
longed, for  several  centuries,  to  Ass3'ria,  and  its 
name  occurs,  as  was  to  be  expected,  many  times  in 
the  Assyrian  records,  generally  under  the  form 
Rasapjia  (also  Basapa  and  Eosapi).  The  site  ia 
now  represented  by  Rusufa,  between  Palmyra  and 
the  Euphrates,  and  is  thought  to  be  the  'V-qaaipa.  of 
Ptolemy  (v.  15).  The  earliest  mention  of  the  place 
in  the  Assyrian  records  is  in  the  Eponym  Canon, 
where  we  learn  that  Ninip-kibsi-usur  was  the 
prefect  in  B.C.  839.  From  B.C.  804  to  774,  the  prefect 
was  Igi-guba-eres,  or  Ninip-Sres,  who,  judging  from 
the  length  of  his  term,  and  the  fact  that  he  was  twice 
eponym,  must  have  enjo}"ed  the  contidence  of  his 
superiors  to  an  unusual  degree.  Other  prefects 
mentioned  as  having  held  the  office  of  eponym 
were  Sin-saJlim-anni  in  747,  and  B6l-6mur-anni 
in  B.C.  737.  As  all  the  above-named  prefects  of 
Rezeph  have  Assyrian  names,  it  is  very  probable 
that  they  were,  without  exception,  Assyrians. 
The  tablet  K  9921,  however,  mentions  a  governor 
{hi;l  pihati)  named  Abda',*  \\\\o  seems  to  bear  a 
native  name,  and  probably  held  otKce  at  a  later 
date  than  the  eponyms  whose  names  are  given  by 
the  Assyrian  Canon.  The  district  was  an  important 
trade-centre  in  ancient  times,  as  the  tablets  and 
lists  from  Nineveh  show. 

LiTERATCKE.— Delitzsch,  Parodies,  p.  297:  Schrader  in  Riehm, 
HWB.s.v.,  COT  ii.n.  1.  G.  PINCHES. 

REZIN  (yrt). — No  doubt  the  name  was  oriCTn- 
ally  spelled  jisi,  i.e.  Rczon  or  Rnzon.  The  LXX 
'Vaacaiiiv  (in  Kings,  but  in  Isaiah  'Vaach  or  'Paalp 
disputes  the  place)  points  to  the  0  sound  ;  so  does 

p  9 
the  Assyrian  Ra-sun-nu  and  the  Pesh.  .  ,  }• 

1.  From  2  K  16'  and  Is  7''°  we  leara  that  Rezin, 
king  of  Damascus,  and  Pekah,  king  of  Israel, 
planned  an  attack  on_Judah.  This  was  in  the 
year  B.C.  734.  Damascus  and  Israel  were  vassal 
States,  subject  to  the  suzerainty  of  Assyria.  In 
IU  Raw.  9,  No.  3,  Tiglath-pile.ser  (see  Winckler, 
Keilinsch.  Textb.  p.  17)  enumerates  the  articles 
paid  him  in  tribute  by  i?a-*«n-H?J  of  Damascus  and 
Menahem  pf  Samaria.  Tiie  two  tributaries  were 
now  anxious  to  throw  ofl'  the  yoke.  Naturally 
they  sought  to  enlist  the  aid  of  their  neighbour 
Judah,  which,  for  all  that  appears,  was  at  this 
time  noiuinally  independent  of  '.he  great  king. 
Meeting  with  a  refusal,  the  comoderates  moved 
forwards  against  Ahaz.  We  have  no  reliable  in- 
formation as  to  the  earlier  events  of  the  campaign. 
The  assertion  in  2  K  16*  that  Rezin  '  recovered 
Elath  to  Syria,  and  drove  the  Jews  from  Elatli ; 
and  the  Syrians  came  to  Elath  and  dwelt  there 
unto  this  day,'  is  obviously  an  error.  The  Sj'riana 
had  nothing  to  do  with  tliat  district,  which  came 
rather  within  the  sphere  of  Edom.  The  original 
oiiN  (Edom)  of  the  text  has  been  corrupted  into 
DIN  (Aram),  d'diin  (Edomites)  into  d-diin  (Ar.tma-ans, 
Syrians),  and  when  once  this  was  done  the  iiser- 

*  Probably  there  should  bo  a  vowel  at  the  end('^itfau,  or 
perhaps,   Abda'C).      Cf.  tf^^y  and  its  variant  ■'^;'^3i'. 


REZON 


RHEGIUM 


267 


tion  of  the  king's  name,  Rezin,  easily  followed. 
It  sliould  be  noted  that  according  to  '2  Ch  2G"  the 
Edoniites  were  actively  hostile  to  Aliaz.  All, 
then,  that  we  really  know  of  the  beginning  of  the 
campaign  is  that  the  two  kings,  of  whom  Rezin 
was  the  more  active  and  powerful,  advanced  with 
their  troops  against  Jerusalem  and  besieged  it. 
Isaiah  endeavoured  to  allay  the  intense  alarm  which 
this  caused  amongst  the  citizens,  but  his  eflbrts 
did  not  meet  with  much  success.  Ahaz,  at  all 
events,  put  morf  confidence  in  foreign  intervention 
than  in  the  prophet's  assurance  of  Divine  protec- 
tion. He  'took  the  silver  and  the  gold  that  was 
found  in  the  house  of  the  Lord,  and  in  the 
treasures  of  the  king's  house,  and  sent  it  for  a 
present,'  i.e.  as  tribute,  to  Tiglath-pileser,  entreat- 
ing his  immediate  help.  The  Assyrian  was  only 
too  delighted  with  the  pretext  for  interference. 
His  apiiroach  was  the  signal  for  the  murder  of 
Pekah  by  his  own  subjects  (2  K  15*),  who  then 
accepted  the  great  king's  nominee,  HosilEA,  as 
their  sovereign  :  '  I  took  the  land  of  Bit-Chumria 
[Beth-Omri]  .  .  .  the  whole  of  its  people.  I  carried 
away  their  possessions  to  Assyria.  Pekah  their 
king  did  they  dethrone,  and  I  set  Hosliea  to  rule 
over  them'  (III  Raw.  10,  No.  2,  in  Winckler). 
Turning  ajjainst  Damascus,  he  encountered  a  more 
determined  resistance.  2  K  16^  states  that  he 
'  took  it,  and  carried  the  people  of  it  captive  to 
Kir,  and  slew  Rezin.'  But  the  Assyrian  monarch 
himself  informs  us  that  the  siege  lasted  more  than  a 
year.  It  ended  in  B.C.  7.^2.  bchrader  (COT  i.  257) 
saj's  that  Rawlinson  found  the  slaying  of  Rezin 
mentioned  on  a  block,  which  was  unfortunately 
left  behind  in  Asia  and  has  since  disappeared. 

\\inck\eT  (AUtest,  Untersuch.  pp.  74, 75) identifies 
'the  son  of  Tabeel'  (Is  7*)  with  Kezin.  He  ex- 
plains la-hbeXCfdh-El)  as  meaning  '  El  is  wise,'  and 
argues  from  the  equivalent  name  Eliada  ( 1  K  1 1'-^) 
and  from  the  fab-rimmon  of  1  K  15"  that  such  a 
name  as  J'&h-El  was  not  uncommon  amongst  the 
kings  of  this  dynasty.  And  since  '  the  son  of 
Remaliah'  in  18  7''  means  Pekah,  he  holds  that 
'  the  son  of  TAb-El '  in  Is  V  means  Rezin.  Dam- 
ascus, too,  being  the  predominant  partner,  the 
chief  profit  of  the  expedition  would  fall  to  its  king. 
The  series  of  Damascene  kings,  therefore,  accord- 
ing to  him  is  as  follows  : — 

Circa  950  B.C.    .       .       .    Rezon. 

From  about  885-844 .        .    Bir-'idrl,  the  Ben-hadad  of 

the  Bible. 
From  844  to  about  804  (7)     \\-j.7m:\. 
8O4(?)-744C0     .       .       .    Muri— in  the  Bible,  Ben- 

liodod. 
743{?>-?     .       .       .        .    T:\hEl. 
J-732      ....    Itczin. 

But  the  identification  on  which  this  depends  is 
precarious.  Obviously  the  periphrasis,  '  the  son  of 
Remaliah,'  is  intended  to  be  contemptuous.  It 
recalls  the  fact  that  Pekah  was  a  usurper,  entirely 
unconnected  with  the  royal  family.  Probably, 
then,  'the  son  of  fab-El'  is  also  a  scornful  title, 
hurled  at  one  who  was  a  mere  puppet  in  the  hands 
of  the  two  kings.  If  'fab-El  had  been  a  king  of 
Damiuicus,  it  would  have  been  no  derogation  to 
Rezin's  dignity  to  be  entitled  his  son. 

2.  In  Ezr  2«  =  Neh  7°"  'the  children  of  Rezin' 
(pn  ■;3)  are  mentioned  amongst  the  Nethinim. 
The  LXX  has  viol  'I'aauiv  :  the  vloi  Aaiffiv  of  1  Es  5" 
is  evidently  a  mere  scribe's  error,  resulting  from 
the  common  confusion  of  i  and  i.  Gutlie,  in 
Kautzsch's  Apukr.,  unhcsiUitingly  restores  the 
*  Rezin '  in  this  passage.  J.  Taylok. 

REZON  (I^l^  'prince'),  son  of  Eliada,  was  one  of 
the  gi'nerals  of  that  lladadezer,  king  of  Zobali, 
whom  David  ov(>rtlire\v  (2  S  S'"-)-  Falling  into 
disfavour  with  his  master,  as  David  had  done  with 
Saul,  h«   fled   from   him.     A  band  of  freebooters 


attached  themselves  to  his  standard  ;  and,  begin- 
ning in  this  feeble  fashion,  he  eventually  became 
strong  enough  to  seize  Damascus,  where  he  founded 
a  dynasty.  During  his  own  lifetime  he  proved  a 
thorn  in  the  side  of  Solomon  (1  K  11-"),  and  the 
kings  who  traced  their  descent  from  him  were 
amongst  the  most  persistent  and  troublesome  of 
Israel  s  adversaries. 

The  question  has  been  raised  whether  Rezon  is 
the  correct  name.  LX.\  A,  it  is  true,  supports  that 
form  with  'Pafiii' ;  but  B  has  'Etr/xi/i  1 K 1 1  '^i^i),  which 
apparently  corresponds  to  jiijin,  to  which  also  the 

«.     * 
Pesh.  .OJJCTI  niay  jjoint.      Moreover,  the  I^'I5  of 

1  K  15'^  seems  to  occupy  much  the  same  position 
in  the  genealogy  as  the  [ifi  of  1  K  ll-^.  Hence  the 
conjecture  that  [iiin  (llczron)  should  be  substituted 
for  the  pn  (Kezun)  and  the  p'ln  [Hezlon)  of  these 
two  passages  respectively.  Ou  the  other  hand,  it 
must  be  remembered  that  the  Greek  for  p[n  would 
most  likely  have  been  'Efpti/x  rather  than  "ISir. ;  of. 
'Affiv  for  l^'in  and  'Paath  for  \T\.  The  three  kings, 
Hezron  (our  Rezon),  Tab-rimmon,  and  Bcn-liadad, 
must  also  have  enjoyed  very  long  reigns  if  they 
occupied  the  entire  interval  from  David  to  Asa. 
In  the  absence,  therefore,  of  absolutely  conclusive 
evidence,  we  are  not  at  liberty  to  alter  the  form  of 
the  name  or  to  assume  the  identity  of  Rezon  and 
Hezion. 

The  integrity  of  the  text  and  the  reliableness  of 
the  statements  in  1  K  1 1^"-',  the  only  passage  where 
this  prince  is  named,  are  also  disputed.  Internal 
eWdence,  coupled  with  the  fact  that  LXX  (B,  Luc.) 
omit  the  words,  proves  that '  when  David  slew  them 
of  Zobah  '  is  no  part  of  the  original  text.  Kittel 
(Hist,  uf  the  Uebrews,  ii.  53)  points  out  that  even 
in  the  ^IT  it  looks  as  though  vv.--'-^"  had  been  in- 
terpolated between  v.*^  and  v.■•^^  and  that  in  the 
LXX  (B,  Luc.)  the  whole  ei)isude  is  connected  with 
v.".  But  the  connexion  with  v."  is  as  unsuitable 
as  that  with  v.^.  In  either  case  it  interrupts  the 
Iladad  narrative,  and  gives  the  impression  of  a 
gloss.  This,  however,  is  not  to  say  that  it  is  un- 
historical.  J.  Taylor. 

RHEGIUM  (V-fiytof),  the  modern  Reggio,  was  an 
important  and  ancient  Greek  colony  near  the 
south-western  extremity  of  Italy,  and  close  to  the 
narrowest  point  of  tlie  straits  separating  that 
country  from  Sicily,  op[)oslte  Messana  (Messina) 
and  about  6  to  7  miles  distant  from  it.  It  was 
a  much  more  important  place  in  the  ancient 
system  of  coasting  navigation  than  it  is  in  modern 
tunes.  The  whirlpool  of  Charybdis  near  Messana, 
and  the  rock  of  Scylla  some  miles  from  Rliegium 
round  the  promontory  north  of  the  town,  were 
reckoned  much  more  dangerous  then  ;  and  ships 
had  often  to  lie  at  Rliegium  waiting  for  a  suitable 
wind,  and  avoiding  the  currents  which  in  certain 
circumstances  run  very  strong  in  the  straits. 
Hence  the  Dioscuri,  the  patrons  and  protectors  of 
sailors,  were  much  worshipped  at  Rhcgiiim,  and  are 
represented  on  its  coins  :  tiio  m.iriners  of  the  ships 
tliat  put  in  at  Rliegium  would  often  make  or  dis- 
charge  their  vows  to  the  'Twin  Gods'  in  the  town. 

Rliegium  occupied  not  merely  an  important  but 
also  a  dangerous  and  exjjoscd  situation.  A  great 
city  in  the  Gth  and  5th  cents.  B.C.,  it  was  totally 
destroyed,  and  its  inhabitants  sold  as  slaves,  by 
Dionysius  of  Syracuse  in  387.  Again  in  2S0-270 
it  was  destroyed.  Campanian  troops,  received  aa 
a  garrison  into  the  city,  murdered  the  male  popu- 
lation and  made  themselves  masters  of  the  place, 
till  they  were  captured  and  exterminated  by  a 
RoiiKiii  army,  and  the  town  was  given  back  tu  the 
scanty  rciiiiiant  of  its  former  piijiulation.  Hence- 
forth it  was  in  alliance  with  Rome  as  a  civitat 


268 


RHEIMS  VERSION 


RHODES 


fmdernta.  After  this  it  is  mentioned  only  inciden- 
tally amid  the  Roman  wara.  It  narrowly  escaped 
the  forfeiture  of  its  territory  to  the  soldiers  of  tlie 
triumvirs  after  the  battle  oi  Philippi,  beinj;  si)ared 
by  Augustus  probably  from  a  desire  to  keep  at 
this  ini]>ortant  harbour  a  population  accustomed  to 
navigation  and  friendly  to  himself  ;  and  in  the 
Sicilian  War  (B.C.  38-36)  it  rendered  good  service 
both  to  his  fleet  and  his  army,  and  was  rewarded 
with  the  title  of  Julium  Rhegium  and  an  increase 
of  popidation  (with  other  accompanying  advan- 
tages). Strabo  mentions  it  as  a  flourishmg  town 
about  A.D.  20.  It  presented  a  curious  mixture  of 
Greek  and  Roman  population  and  life,  shown  in  its 
mixed  Greek  and  Latin  inscriptions.  It  was  the 
terminus  of  one  of  the  great  Roman  roads,  a  branch 
of  the  Appian  Way,  diverging  from  it  at  Capua, 
built  probably  bj'  the  praetor  Popilius  in  B.C.  134 
and  called  Via  Popilia.  The  actual  point  of  cross- 
ing to  Sicily  was  at  the  Columna  or  Statua,  6  miles 
or  more  north  of  Rhegium. 

Tlie  ship  in  which  St.  Paul  sailed  from  Malta  to 
Puteoli,  the  'Dioscuri'*  (a  name  of  good  omen), 
lay  for  a  day  in  the  harbour  of  Rhegium,  waiting 
till  a  south  wind  arose,  which  carried  it  to  Puteoli 
on  the  morrow  after  it  saUed  (5ei/repoioi).  Probably 
some  of  the  sailors  on  the  '  Dioscuri '  took  the 
opportunity  of  thanking  the  Twin  Gods  in  the 
city  for  their  successful  voyage  at  that  early 
season  of  the  year,  and  praying  for  equal  luck  to 
tlieir  destination.  The  manoeuvre  by  which  the 
ship  reached  Rhegium  seems  quite  clear  ;  and  yet 
has  caused  much  trouble  and  variety  of  opinion. 
The  ship  must  have  had  a  favourable  wind  from 
Malta,  otherwise  it  would  not  have  attempted  the 
crossing  over  the  open  sea  so  early  in  the  year. 
This  wind  carried  it  to  Syracuse,  but  there  it  had 
to  lie  for  three  days,  which  proves  that  the  wind 
nad  shifted  and  was  then  against  it.  It  then  sailed 
to  Rhegium ;  and,  as  it  had  to  wait  in  Rhegium 
till  a  south  wind  set  in,  the  wind  with  which  it 
reached  Rhegium  cannot  have  been  south.  The 
expression  irepieXBbvT^^,  which  Luke  uses,  shows  that 
the  wind  was  so  far  unfavourable  that  the  ship 
could  not  run  a  straight  course  (£ii0vBpoij.iXv,  Ac  16" 
21'),  but  had  to  tack,  running  out  nortli-eastwards 
towards  Italy  and  then  back  to  the  Sicilian  coast. 
This  is  the  explanation  of  a  practical  yachtsman, 
James  Smith,  m  his  Voyage  and  Shipwreck  of  St. 
Paul.  The  explanation  of  TrepifXSwres  as  'sailing 
round  the  Sicilian  coast'  seems  certainly  wrong. 
The  reading  irepieXofTes  in  X*  B  seems  to  be  a 
corruption,  accepted  through  failure  to  understand 
the  true  text ;  it  can  hardly  be  rendered  '  weighing 
anchor'  (which  is  the  suggested  rendering),  for  in 
Ac  27'"'  it  has  an  accusative  following  it  in  tliat 
sense,  as  Blass  points  out ;  moreover,  it  is  of  great 
consequence  in  Ac  27'"'  to  give  that  information 
(see  Smith,  op.  cit.,  on  the  passage),  but  here  it  is 
unnecessary.  W.  M.  Ramsay. 

RHEIMS  VERSION.— See  Versions. 

RHESA  f  P.;<r<l).— A  son  of  Zerubbabel,  Lk  Z". 

RHODA  (P6Sv).—^\\e  name  means '  Rose.'  ^\^len 
St.  Peter  was  miraculously  released  from  prison 
he  went  to  the  house  of  Mary  the  mother  of  Mark. 
A  damsel  (Foi5/<rK7j)  of  the  name  of  Rlioda  came  to 
the  door,  but  opened  not  the  gate  for  gladness,  and 
ran  in  and  told  how  Peter  stood  before  the  gate. 

•  _L\ike  saw  or  heard  the  ship  (a  Roman  imperial  vessel)  called 
oy  itfl  Latin  name  para,ieino  G*'ininig  or  VatitoritniH  (compare 
the  inKcrijitioii  CIL  iii.  No.  3,  TMvit  parasemo  Jnop/iarid,  i.e. 
whose  Bi);n  wm  the  Pharian  Isis)  in  the  Greek  translation 
wctpcLffitj^  i^,6tr)uv^t<  (where  the  dative  represents  the  I^Atin 
•blat.  abaci. ,  aa  in  etnunUe  Cicerone,  vrirm  Knupnu);  and  the 
formula  remains  in  his  text  to  puzzle  those  commentators  who 
study  only  literary  Oreek  and  neglect  technical  language. 


She  was  accused  of  bein<'  mad,  but  persisted  in  hei 
statement  (Ac  12"-").  Nothing  further  is  known 
of  her.  The  name  is  fairly  common  both  in  litera- 
ture and  inscriptions,  and  was  often  given  to  slave 
girls.  A.  C.  Headlam. 

RHODES  f  PiJos)  ranks  among  the  most  brilliant 
of  the  many  brUliant  cities  of  ancient  Greece.  The 
city  was  foimded  in  B.C.  408,  at  the  extreme  north- 
eastern point  of  the  island  of  Rhodes,  when  the 
three  ancient  cities,  Lindus,  Camii;us,  and  lalysus, 
were  concentrated  in  the  new  foundation.  It 
enjoyed  an  admirable  situation  and  a  splendid 
climate.  The  commercial  aptitude  of  the  popula- 
tion knew  how  to  use  its  advantages  by  wise  laws 
and  just  dealings  with  their  competitors  and  allies 
in  the  trade  of  the  eastern  Mediterranean.  Rhodes 
was  at  its  highest  pitch  of  power  in  the  2nd  cent. 
B.C.,  having  been  made  mistress  of  great  part  of 
Caria  and  Lycia  in  the  settlement  of  189,  after  the 
defeat  and  expulsion  from  Asia  Minor  of  Antiochus 
and  the  Seleucid  power.  The  city  was,  however, 
too  powerful  to  suit  the  Roman  policy.  In  B.C.  166 
the  Carian  and  Lycian  cities  were  declared  inde- 
pendent by  Rome ;  and  another  blow  was  struck 
at  Rhodian  commercial  supremacy  by  making 
Delos  a  free  port  in  the  same  year.  The  result 
of  these  disasters  is  to  be  observed  in  the  diminu- 
tion and  alteration  of  Rhodian  coinage  about  that 
time.  But  Rhodes  continued  to  maintain  its 
commerce.  It  was  relieved  of  Delian  conipetition 
by  the  great  massacre  of  the  Romans  in  Delos  by 
Mithridates  in  B.C.  87;  and  by  continuing  loyal  to 
Rome  in  that  critical  time,  when  almost  every 
other  Greek  citj'  joined  Mithridates,  it  recovered 
favour  and  was  permitted  to  regain  part  of  its 
Carian  possessions.  In  the  Roman  civil  wars 
Rhodes  from  B.C.  47  to  43  supported  the  cause  of 
Cajsar,  and  suffered  severely  in  consequence.  C. 
Cassiiis  captured  the  city  in  43,  and  exacted  4500 
talents  from  its  people  ;  and  another  Cassius  in 
42  burned  all  the  Rhodian  ships  except  thirty, 
which  he  manned  with  crews  of  his  own  and  took 
away.  Rhodes  henceforth  was  a  city  devoid  of 
real  power  ;  and  it  sank  practically  into  a  common 
provincial  town  of  the  Roman  empire,  though  it 
ranked  as  a  free  city  under  the  early  emperors 
(except  for  a  short  time  under  Claudius,  who  took 
away  its  freedom  and  afterwards  restored  it  again). 
Yet  Strabo  mentions  (p.  652)  that  it  was  the  most 
splendid  city  known  to  him  in  respect  of  harbours, 
streets,  walls,  and  other  equipment.  Such  was 
its  condition  in  the  time  of  St.  Paul.  Shortly 
afterwards  Vespasian  made  it  a  part  of  the  pro- 
vince Lycia. 

Rhodes  is  mentioned  in  the  NT  only  as  a  point 
where  St.  Paul  touched  on  his  voyage  from  Troas 
to  Cnesarea,  Ac  21'.  The  route  along  the  coast 
between  the  ports  of  the  province  Asia  on  the  one 
side  and  those  of  Syria  or  Egypt  on  the  other,  was 
probably  the  most  frequented  seaway  in  the  whole 
of  the  Mediterranean.  The  vo}"age  was  marked  by 
a  number  of  stopping  points,— Cos,  Patara,  etc., — 
where  the  ordinary  ships  engaged  in  the  trade 
called  as  a  matter  of  course ;  and  these  are  men- 
tioned in  Ac  20  and  21,  with  the  exception  of 
Myua  (which  is  given  in  the  Western  Text  only). 
Rhodes  was  one  of  them  ;  and  the  ship  on  which 
St.  Paul  and  the  whole  body  of  delegates  wera 
sailing  touched  there  between  Cos  and  Patara. 
This  is  all  in  the  customary  form.  Hundreds  of 
ships  did  the  same  every  year.  An  excellent 
illustration  is  supplied  by  the  voyage  of  Herod, 
about  B.C.  14,  from  Palestine  by  Rhodes,  Cos, 
Chios,  and  Mityhne,  to  Byzantium  and  Sinops 
(see  Jos.  Ant.  xvi.  ii.  2). 

Rhodes  was  also,  beyond  all  doubt,  one  of  the 
ports  of  call  on  the  voyage  from  Alexandria  to 


RHODES 


EIBLAH 


26'J 


Putooli  or  to  Ostia.  It  is,  indeed,  not  mentioned 
in  the  voj-agea  of  that  class  described  under 
MVRA,  but  none  of  those  narratives  gives  a  list 
of  harbours,  and  we  may  assume  with  confidence 
♦.hat  in  each  case  Rhodes  was  a  port  where  the 
eiiip  called  (unless  in  exceptional  circumstances). 
That  is  proved  by  the  voyage  of  Vespasian  from 
Alexandria  to  Rome  in  A.d.  70,  which  was  by  way 
of  the  Lycian  coast  and  Rliodes,  as  is  seen  by 
comparinjj  Dion  Cassius,  IxNi.  8,  vrith  Zonaras, 
xi.  17,  and  Jos.  BJ  VII.  ii.  1.  The  voyage  of  Herod 
the  Great  in  B.C.  40  from  Alexandria  to  Rome  by 
Pamphylia  and  Rhodes  is  also  a  good  illustration.* 
Herod  evidently  passed  east  and  north  of  Cyprus, 
like  the  ship  in  Ac  27'"* ;  but  it  was  the  stormy 
season,  and  the  over-sea  voyage,  common  in  the 
summer  season,  could  not  then  be  risked :  see 
Myka,  where  these  two  voyages  may  be  added  to 
the  examples  quoted. 

Rhodes  is  also  mentioned  in  1  Mac  15^  among 
the  States  to  which  the  Romans  sent  letters  on 
behalf  of  the  Jews  about  B.C.  138  (see  Phaseli.s, 
LyCIA,  Delos,  etc.).  Only  self-governing  free 
States  were  thus  addressed  ;  and  Rhodes,  as  almost 
the  greatest  maritime  State  of  the  eastern  Medi- 
terranean, was  of  course  included.  The  ships 
carrying  Jews  from  the  west  and  from  the  .-Egean 
coasts  and  cities  to  and  from  Jerusalem,  for  the 
Passover,  would  all,  as  we  have  seen,  call  in 
ordinary  course  at  Rhodes.  Such  ships  are  implied 
in  Ac  18'*"^  20^.  It  may  be  taken  as  practically 
certain  that  in  a  great  commercial  centre  like 
Rhodes  there  would  be  Jews  resident ;  but  hardly 
any  memorial  of  them  has  been  preserved. 

In  Ezk  27"  the  Septuagint  reads  'Sons  of  the 
Rhodians  were  thy  merchants';  where  AV  and 
RV  have  'The  men  of  Dedan  were  thy  merchants' 
(•rafJickers,  RV).  There  can  be  little  doubt  that 
the  Septuagint  text  in  this  passage  is  a  change 
made  by  translators  in  the  3rd  cent.  B.C.,  who  had 
no  knowledge  of  the  desert  carrier  tribe  Dedan, 
but  were  familiar  with  the  Rhodians  as  the  greatest 
merchants  of  their  time  in  the  Levant  (see  1  >EDAN). 
In  Gn  10^  and  in  1  Ch  1',  also,  the  Septuagint  text 
has  ■  Rhodians'  ('PMioi)  as  the  fourth  of  the  sons 
of  Javan  ;  but  RV,  following  the  Hebrew  text, 
has  Dodanim  in  the  former  place  and  Rodanim  in 
the  latter  (AV  Dodanim  in  lioth  places).  Among 
the  sons  of  Javan,  Rhodes,  which  was  inhabited  by 
Greeks  (though  by  Dorians,  not  loniana ;  see 
Dodanim),  would  be  quite  suitable  ;  and  the 
Sei>tuagint  text  is  accepted  by  most  modems  in 
those  two  places. 

The  island  of  Rhodes  is  abont43  miles  long  from 
N.E.  to  S.W.  by  20  miles  where  the  breadth  is 
greatest ;  its  nearest  point  is  about  12  miles  from 
the  mainland.  The  famous  colnxsus  was  a  statue 
of  the  sun-god,  105  feet  in  height,  which  stood  at 
the  harbour  entrance.  It  was  erected  to  com- 
memorate the  success  of  the  Rhodians  in  with- 
standing the  siege  by  Demetrius  Poliorcetes  in 
B.C.  2m ;  but  it  fell  during  an  earthquake  in  224, 
and  the  fragments  remained  lying,  sliown  as  a 
curiosity  till  A.D.  672,  when  the  Arab  ''cneral  who 
conquered  Rhodes  is  said  to  have  sold  them  to  a 
Jew  of  Emesa.  The  island  was  soon  afterwards 
reconquered  by  the  Byzantine  arms,  and  remained 
in  Christian  hands  for  many  centuries.  The  most 
interesting  and  glorious  period  of  Rhodian  history 
in  many  respects  began  in  13KI,  when  the  Knights 
of  St.  John  of  Jerusalem  took  the  city  from  the 
Byzantine  empire,  and  founded  a  State,  including 
several  of  the  neighbouring  small  islands  and  some 
towns  on  the  mainland,  especially  llalicarnassus 
and  Smyrna  (the  latter  being  taken  in  1345,  and 
held  till  1403).  The  Knights  of  Rhodes  were  en- 
gaged in  ceaseless  warfare  with  the  Turks.  The 
•  Joe  Ant.  xn.  rlv.  it.;  BJ  i.  xiv.  8. 


city,  which  was  very  strongly  fortified  by  the 
Knights,  was  besieged  unsuccessfully  in  1440,  1444, 
and  1480;  but  at  last,  in  1522,  the  Knights  sur- 
rendered on  honourable  terms  to  Sultan  Suleiman, 
and  retired  to  Crete,  then  to  Sicily,  and  finally  to 
Malta.  The  modern  town  of  Rhodes  is  full  of 
memorials  of  the  time  of  the  Knights,  and  con- 
tains hardlj'  any  apparent  traces  of  its  older 
history.  Its  harbours  have  been  allowed  to  become 
choked  with  sand,  and  its  trade  is  c|uite  insignili- 
cant.  \V.  M.  Ramsay. 

RH0D0CU3  f  PiSoKos).— A  Jew  who  betrayed  the 
secrets  of  his  countrymen  to  Antiochus  Eupatoi. 
He  was  detected  and  imprisoned,  2  Mac  13-'. 

RIBAI  ('jn  ;  LXX  in  2  S  "Pti/Si,  in  1  Ch  B  'Vc^U, 
A'?iji3al,  ^? 'PoiSeiaO.— The  father  of  Ittai  (1  Ch 
Ithai)  the  Bcnjamite,  one  of  David's  thirty  heroes 
(2  S  23^=1  Ch  IP'). 

RIBLAH.— 1.  (.1^2-!,  once,  Jer  52'»,  np^nn ;  LXX 
2  K  25='  'Pe^XaSd,  elsewhere  Ae^Xadd,  and  other 
corrupt  forms). — The  name  of  a  place  in  the  '  land 
of  Pamath,'  now  Ribleh,  in  the  Bekii'a,  or  broad 
vale  between  the  two  ranges  of  Lebanon  and 
Hermon,  on  the  right  bank  of  the  Orontes,  about 
100  miles  N.N.E.  of  Dan,  05  mUes  N.  of  Damascus, 
and  50  miles  S.S.W.  of  Hamath  (which  see).  It 
was  at  Riblah  that  Pharaoh-neeoh,  three  months 
after  his  defeat  of  Josiah  at  Megiddo  (B.C.  G08), 
in  some  way  obtained  the  presence  of  his  successor, 
Jehoahaz,  and  threw  him  into  chains  that  he  nii;;lit 
no  longer  reign  in  Jerusalem  (2  K  23^^).  Riblah 
is  also  mentioned  as  the  place  which,  at  the  close 
of  the  sie^e  of  Jerusalem  (B.C.  58G),  was  Nebuchad- 
nezzar's headquarters,  and  to  which  Zedekiah, 
and  other  prisoners  taken  out  of  the  captured 
city,  were  brought  for  punishment  (2  K  25°'-  = 
Jor39»-''  =  Jer52»'-;  2K  25-"- ='  =  Jer  52=«-'").  Riblah 
is  now  nothing  more  than  a  'miserable'  village 
of  40-50  houses  (Rob.  BRF  iii.  543) ;  but  Robinson 
{ib.  p.  545)  points  out  how,  from  its  situation,  on 
the  banks  of  a  mountain  stream,  and  in  the  middle 
of  a  vast  and  fertile  plain,  and  also  on  the  great 
roa<l  leading  from  Egypt  and  Palestine  to  BabyUm, 
it  was  a  suitable  resting-place,  whether  for  the 
army  of  Necoh,  who  had  designs  on  Babylon,  or 
for  Nebuch.,  wliile  watching  the  operations  that 
were  taking  place  in  Judah.  See,  further,  on  the 
modern  Ritileh,  Sachau,  Reise  in  Syrlen  (1883), 
55-57.  '  Riblah  '  is  likewise  read  by  most  modern 
scholars  (Ges.,  Ew.,  Smend,  Cornill,  etc.),  with 
4  MSS,  in  Ezk  &*  for  '  Diblath '  (nip^Di  i;-;-?-) :  'I 
will  make  the  land  desolate  from  tlie  wilderness 
(on  the  S.  of  Judah)  to  Hiblah  (in  the  far  North),' 
the  expression  being  regarded  as  a  designation  of 
the  whcde  extent  of  Palestine,  to  its  ideal  limits, 
and  Riblah  being  perhaj)S  mentioned  instead  of 
the  usual  'entering  in  of  tlamath'  (Nu  34",  2  K 
14-^,  Am  6",  Ezk  47-°  al.),  on  account  of  its  having 
become  prominent  at  the  time  (B.C.  592 — see  Ezk 
V).  If  the  '  approach  to  l,Iamath  '  is  rightly  placed 
at  the  N.  end  of  the  broad  vale  between  Lebanon 
and  Anti-Libanus,  where,  as  the  traveller  from  the 
S.  approaches  Riblah,  he  finds  himself  entering  a 
new  district,  and  sees  the  country  towards  yanmth 
open  out  before  him  (see  esp.  van  de  Velde,  Aarra- 
tivc,  1854,  ii.  470;  and  cf.  Rob.  liRP  iii.  568; 
Moore,  Jurhie.i,  80,  82;  also  Jos  13»,*  Jg  3'),  this 
reading  will  bo  quite  natural.  Other  scholars, 
however,  doubt  whether  the  Isr.  territory  can  ever 
have  been  regarded  as  extending  as  far  as  the  N. 

•  ^Vhich  impliea  that  the  '  approach  to  Banioth '  wa»  at  noma 
distance  from  a  place  at  the  toot  of  Momit  lltnnon.  Tin 
o|>inion  (Bob.  iii.  MO  ;  UamatiI,  vol.  il.  p.  UiKI")  thot  the  expreii- 
sioii  (lenotod  the  approocti  to  t^umatli,  not  fruiii  the  ti.,  but  from 
the  IIV*(,  is  hordly  probable  (cf.  Kcil  on  Nu  »48). 


270 


EICHES 


RIDDLE 


end  of  Lebanon,  and  tliink  the  '  approach  to 
5amath '  must  be  supposed  to  have  denoted, 
somewhat  vaguely,  a  more  S.  part  of  the  vale  of 
Cccle-Syria  (KeU  and  Dilliu.  on  Nu  34» ;  Buhl, 
Geogr.  66,  110;  notice  Ueliob  in  Nu  13='):  in  this 
case  Riblah  is  certainly  a  more  N.  point  than  would 
be  expected;  on  the  other  hand,  if  the  reading 
be  not  adopted,  Diblath  (RV  'Diblah')  must  be 
the  name  of  a  place  otherwise  unknown,  which  is 
liardly  likely  in  such  a  connexion. 

2.  Nu  34"  (n^;-!n,  with  the  art.  :  LXX  diri 
:^€ir(patmp  Bi;\a  for  •i;?'!?  cEift).  One  of  tlie  places 
mentioned  on  the  (in  parts)  obscurely-defined  ideal 
borders  of  the  promised  land,  Nu  34^''^  It  is 
described  as  being  on  the  E.  border,  somewhere 
between  ^a^ar-'enan— which  (Ezk  47"  48')  was  on 
the  '  border '  of  the  territory  of  Damascus,  and 
was  to  be  (Nu  34'"')  at  the  N.E.  corner  of  Israel's 
territory — and  tlie  Sea  of  Chinnereth  {i.e.  the  Sea 
of  Galilee).  There  is  difficulty  in  determining  the 
site  ;  for  the  places  mentioned  on  the  N.  border  of 
Israel,  in  both  Nu  34'-*  and  Ezk  iV",  are  very 
uncertain ;  and  while  some  scholars  (Robinson, 
Knob.,  Conder)  think  that  this  border  m.ay  be 
drawn  (approximately)  across  the  N.  extremity  of 
Lebanon  (^Jazar-'enfin  being  then  situated  at  one 
of  the  sources  of  the  Orontes — either  [Keil]  the 
spring  of  Lebweh,  22  m.  S.W.  of  Riblah  1  [Rob. 
iii.  532],  or  [Conder,  Ileth  and  Moah^,  8,  11  f.]  'Ain 
el-"Asy,  11  m.  S.W.  of  Riblah  1),  others  (Bahl,  60  f.; 
cf.  Riblah  1)  consider  this  to  be  too  far  N.,  and 
tliink  that  it  should  be  drawn  across  the  S.  ex- 
tremity of  Lebanon  (Hazar-'enan  being  then  either 
B.lnias  itself,  or  el-5ad'r,  9  m.  E.  of  it).*  The 
Riblah  of  Nu  34"  is,  however,  some  place  between 
5a?ar-'enan  and  the  Sea  of  Galilee ;  so  that  upon 
none  of  these  suppositions  can  it  be  identical  with 
Riblah  1  (which  is  to  the  N.  even  of  Ain  el-'Asy). 
No  Riblah  in  a  suitable  situation  seems  at  present 
to  be  known.  The  suggestion  (AVetzst. ;  seeDillm.) 
to  read  (after  LXX)  'to  Harbel'  (•^^31D)  for  'to 
Riblah,'  and  to  identify  Harbel  with  Harmel  (or 
Hormiil),  a  place  about  8  miles  S.W.  of  Riblah 
(see  Sachau's  map,  or  the  one  in  Bad.,  Route  31), 
does  not  really  lessen  the  difficulty  of  tlie  verse. 

S.  E.  Driver. 

RICHES.— See  Wealth. 

RID. — The  original  meaning  of  '  rid '  is  to  rescue 
(Anglo-Sax.  hreddan,  cf.  Dutch  redden  and  Germ. 
retten),  and  this  is  its  meaning  in  five  of  its  six  AV 
occurrences  (Gn  ST**,  Ex  6«,  Lv  26»,  Ps  82*  144'- "). 
Cf .  Gn  37^  Tind.  '  When  Reuben  herde  that,  he  went 
aboute  to  ryd  him  out  of  their  handes  and  s&yde,  let 
ns  not  kyll  him '  ;  Tind.  Expos.  77,  '  Because  we  be 
ever  in  such  peril  and  cumbrance  that  we  cannot 
rid  ourselves  out,  we  must  daily  and  hourly  cry  to 
God  for  aid  and  succour'  ;  Jer  15='  Cov.  'And  I 
will  ryd  the  out  of  the  hondes  of  the  wicked,  and 
delyver  the  out  of  the  honde  of  Tirauntes.'  In 
the  remaining  passage  the  meaning  is  clear  out, 
drive  out,  Lv  26"  '  I  will  rid  evil  beasts  out  of  the 
land '  (RV  '  cause  evil  beasts  to  cease  out  of  the 
land  '),  wliich  is  the  modern  meanin".  The  process 
by  wliich  the  word  thus  practically  reversed  its 
meaning  (from  rescue  to  destroy)  may  be  illustrated 
from  Spenser,  FQ  I.  i.  36 — 

'  Unto  their  lodgings  tlien  hla  guestes  he  riddea,' 

where  the  meaning  is  neutral,  removes.  Cf.  also 
Lv  14"  Cov.  '  The  preast  shall  comniaunde  them 
to  ryd  all  thinge  out  of  tlie  liouase,'  and  Udall, 
Erasmus'  Paraph,  i.  52,  '  With  these  men  the 
Pharisees  consulted  by  what  meanes  they  might 
ridde  Jesus  out  of  tlie  waye.'  J.  Hastings. 

•  Dillm.  and  Keil  adopt  intermediate  riewa.  Dillm.  (p.  218) 
would  not  draw  it  N.  o(  the  preaent  road  from  BCr6t  to 
Dama8c:ua ;  Kei)  takea  it  aa  far  N.  aa  Lebweh. 


RIDDLE  (nyp,  from  root  nin  lOxf.  Eeb.  Lex. 

compares  Arab.  l>  r>-  'decline,  turn  aside,  avoid,' 
hence  perhaps  riddle  as  indirect,  obscure]  ;  verb 
denoiii.  n;n  'to  proijose  an  enigma';  nyn  un  'to 
put  forth  a  riddle,' Ezk  17=:  hXXaivi-)  /i,  Trpi,3\rifia  i 
Vulg.  enigma,  prohlcma,  propoHtio)  is  closely  re- 
lated in  the  OT  to  the  pkovekb  (";;  p),  which  for 
the  most  part  is  represented  in  the  LXX  by  irapo- 
/3o\^ — PARABLE.  It  has  been  suggested,  indeed 
(Oort  in  Cheyne's  Job  and  Solomon,  p.  127),  that 
some  of  the  proverbs  were  originally  cuireiit 
among  the  people  as  riddles,  such  as  '  Wliat  is 
worse  than  meeting  a  bear  ?  Meeting  a  fool  in  his 
folly  '  (Pr  17'=) ;  '  What  is  sweet  at  hrst,  and  then 
like  gravel  in  the  mouth?  Bread  of  falsehood' 
(  Pi  20").  Like  the  proverb  or  the  parable  or  the 
allegory,  the  riddle  served  a  more  serious  and 
didactic  purpose  than  we  usually  associate  with 
the  word.  The  didactic  usage  is  found  throughout 
the  whole  of  the  OT.  It  is  seen  in  Nu  12',  wliere 
Jehovah  chides  Aaron  and  Miriam  for  their  op- 
position to  Moses,  and  says  to  the  honour  of  the 
great  Lawriver,  '  Mouth  to  mouth  speak  I  to  him, 
plainly  and  not  in  riddles''  (m-nj).  In  Ps  49*  the 
Psalmist  says,  '  I  will  incline  mine  ear  to  a  parable 
('?»'C^)  :  I  wall  propound  my  riddle  ("ni'n)  upon  the 
harp,'  and  the  subject  of  the  psalm — the  transi- 
toriness  of  godless  |)rosperity  and  the  blessedness  of 
a  hope  in  God — justities  his  ajiplication  of  the  words. 
In  Ps  78=  the  same  didactic  purpose  is  manifest. 
The  Psalmist  proposes  to  set  forth  the  early  his- 
tory of  Israel  in  parable  and  riddle  for  the  instruc- 
tion of  his  own  age  and  time  :  '  I  will  open  my 
mouth  in  a  parable  (V;'cs)  :  I  will  utter  riddles 
(niTn)  from  the  olden  time.'  This  parabolic  use  of 
the  history  of  Israel  by  tlie  Psalmist  is  taken  by 
the  evangelist  (Mt  13**-  ^)  as  justifying  the  em- 
ployment of  parables  by  Jesus  to  set  fortli  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  :  '  All  these  things  spake  Jesus 
in  parables  to  the  multitudes,  that  the  word  might 
be  fullilled  which  was  spoken  by  the  prophet  say- 
ing, "  I  wiU  open  my  mouth  in  parables :  I  will 
declare  things  hidden  from  the  foundation  of  the 
world,"'  which  last  words  are  a  variation  from  the 
LXX  '  riddles  from  the  beginning '  {Tpo^Xruxara 
aw'  dpx'ls).  This  didactic  {lurpose  attributed  to 
the  riddle  is  well  illustrated  in  Pr  1'  by  its  associa- 
tion with  words  of  like  purport :  '  To  understand  a 
parable  (V?),  and  an  obscure  saying  (njc'i'C),  the 
saj'ings  (o'-ini)  of  the  wise  and  their  riddles  (m-n).' 
In  the  Wisdom  books  of  the  Apocrypha  it  is  per- 
haps natural  to  lind  examples  of  the  didactic 
usage.  In  Wis  8'  it  is  said  in  praise  of  Wisdom : 
'  She  understandeth  subtleties  of  speeches  and 
interpretations  of  riddles'  (<rTpo(pa!  \lryuiv  util  \i/ireii 
alvifpLaTuiv)  ;  in  Sir  39-- '  it  is  said  of  the  man  who 
meditates  in  the  law  of  the  Most  High,  '  He  will 
keep  the  discourse  of  the  men  of  renown,  and  will 
enter  in  amid  the  subtleties  of  parables  (iv  arpoipais 
irapa^oXui').  He  will  seek  out  the  hidden  meaning 
of  proverbs  (dir6/tpu0o  Trapoiiuuif),  and  be  conversant 
in  the  riddles  of  parables '  (^c  aiflyixaai  Trapa/SoXuii'), 
these  last  words  being  inverted  in  47",  where 
Solomon  is  apostrophized  as  filling  the  earth  with 
'  parables  of  riddles '  (ii>  rapa^oXais  alviy/iiTuii). 
Tlie  association  of  the  riddle  with  the  parable  is 
found  in  Ezk  17',  wliere  the  prophet  is  commanded 
'  to  put  forth  a  riddle  (Ti-n  -iin),  anil  utter  a  parable ' 
(Syp  Stc,  LXX  Trapa^oXiic), — the  saying  being  called 
a  riddle  because  it  requires  interpretation,  and  a 
parable  because  of  the  comparison  it  contains  of 
the  kings  of  Babylon  and  Egypt  to  two  great 
eagles,  and  of  their  treatment  of  Israel  to  the 
cropping  of  the  cedar  of  Lebanon.  There  are  still 
two  occurrences  of  the  word  '  riddle '  in  the  Pro- 
phets, where  it  is  not  so  easy  to  say  whether  the 
didactic  or  the  more  special  usage  is  exemplified. 


KIDDLE 


RIDDLE 


271 


In  Dn  8°  the  king  of  fierce  countenance  that  is  to 
arise,  by  whom  Antiochus  Epinhanes  is  meant,  is 
creditea  with  the  jrift  of  '  unaerstanding  riddles' 
(nn'n  pj'C) ;  and  in  Hab  2*  the  propliet,  speaking  of 
the  proud  and  ambitious  man  who  seeks  to  make 
nations  and  peoples  his  o^^'n,  asks,  '  Shall  not  all 
these  take  up  a  parable  (Sf?),  and  an  obscure 
saving  (•ij'^y).  riddles  (n'n'n),  against  him  ?' 

*rhe  riddle  in  the  more  special  sense  of  a  puzzle 
to  sharpen  the  wits,  or  a  paradoxical  question 
to  stimulate  interest,  is  found  in  the  OT,  and 
balks  largely  in  the  Talmud  and  later  Jewish 
literature.  With  riddles  the  Jews  have  been  wont 
from  an  early  period  in  their  history  to  display 
their  intellectual  ingenuity,  or  test  the  wisdom  of 
tlie  learned,  or  entertain  festive  occasions  and 
hours  of  leisure.  Deutsch  [Literary  Jicmains, 
p.  47),  speakin"  of  the  Haggailah  of  the  Talmud, 
refers  to  the  Filgrim's  Progress,  and  says  that 
Bunyan  in  his  account  of  his  o^vn  book  unknow- 
ingly describes  the  Uaggadab  as  accurately  as 
can  be — 

•  WniiM'st  thou  divert  th\-«elf  from  melancholy? 
Would'st  thou  he  plcii^ant,  yet  he  far  from  folly  t 
Would'st  thou  read  riddUs  and  their  explanatioQ? 
Or  else  be  drowned  in  contemplation  ? 

O  then  come  hither 

And  lay  this  book,  thy  bead  aud  heart  together. 

The  riddle  is  not,  however,  confined  to  Jewish 
literature.  The  riddle  of  the  Sphinx  is  familiar 
from  classical  antiquity.  It  was  a  riddle  that 
Tarquin  the  Proud  acted  when  by  striking  off  with 
a  stall'  the  heads  of  the  tallest  poppies  in  his 
garden  he  gave  Sextus  the  hint  to  put  out  of  the 
way  the  chief  citizens  of  captured  Gabii.  The 
riddle  as  an  amusement  at  feasts  and  on  convivial 
occasions  among  the  Greeks  and  Romans  is  men- 
tioned in  the  pages  of  Athenajus  and  Aulus  Gellius. 
(See  liochart,  HUrozoieon,  iii.  384). 

It  was  at  his  wedding  feast  that  Samson  pro- 
jK)sed  the  terms  of  his  famous  riddle  (Jg  14).  He 
/jave  his  Philistine  friends  seven  days  to  lind  it  out, 
iiromising  if  they  should  be  successful  thirty  fine 
linen  wrappers  and  thirty  gala  dresses(v.";  Moore's 
Commentary,  p.  .335),  and  requiring  from  them  the 
same  if  they  should  be  unsuccessful.  They  accepted 
the  terms,  and  Samson  propounded  his  riddle — 
'  Out  of  the  eater  came  something  to  eat,  and  out 
of  the  strong  came  something  sweet  ? '  How  far  a 
riddle  was  fair,  the  solution  of  which  required  a 
knowledge  of  incidents  so  special  as  Samson's 
encounter  with  the  lion  and  its  sequel,  need  not 
be  discussed.  Their  deceit  and  the  treachery  of 
his  wife  put  the  Philistines  in  possession  of  the 
secret.  '  What,'  they  asked, '  is  sweeter  than  honey, 
and  what  is  stronger  than  a  lion?'  At  once  he 
saw  he  had  been  duped,  and  in  a  satirical  vein  he 
exclaimed,  employing  still  the  language  of  riddles  : 
'  If  ye  had  not  ploughed  with  my  heifer,  ye  had 
not  found  out  my  riddle.' 

Solomon  with  his  high  repute  for  wisdom  in 
other  things  is  credited  also  with  skill  in  the 
solution  of  riddles.  The  Queen  of  Sheba  on  her 
visit  to  Jerusalem  proved  him  with  riddles  (1  K  10" 
=  2  Cli  9').  And  Solomon  '  told  her  all  her  ques- 
tions, there  was  not  anything  hid  from  the  King 
which  he  told  her  not'  (1  K  10»  =  2  Ch  9'). 
Josephus  tells  a  similar  tale  of  Hiram  king  of  Tyre. 
Solomon  and  Hiram  were  on  the  most  friendly 
terms.  'What  cemented  the  friendship  between 
them,'  says  Jos.  {Ant.  vill.  v.  3),  'was  the  passion 
both  had  for  wisdom  ;  for  they  sent  riddles  (irpo- 
^XiJmoto)  to  one  another,  with  a  desire  to  have 
them  solved  ;  and  in  these  Solomon  was  superior  to 
Hiram,  as  he  was  wiser  in  all  other  respects.'  In 
aniitl.er  passage  of  his  writings  the  Jewish  his- 
torian (c.  Apion.  i.  18.  17),  records  the  testimony 
of  Dius  the  historian  of  the  Phcenicians,  who  says 


that  Solomon  when  he  was  king  at  Jerusalem 
sent  riddles  (aiviftiara)  for  Hiram  to  guess,  and 
desired  that  he  would  send  others  back  for  him  V; 
find  out,  tlie  condition  being  that  he  who  failed 
should  pay  a  fine  to  him  who  was  successful.  And 
as  Hiram  was  unsuccessful,  he  had  a  large  amount 
to  pay.  At  length  lie  found  a  man  of  Tyre, 
Abuemon  by  name,  who  was  able  to  guess  the 
riddles  proposed  by  Solomon,  and  himself  pro- 
pounded others  which  Solomon  could  not  solve, 
thus  recovering  for  his  sovereign  the  money  he 
had  lost.  None  of  these  riddles  have  survived, 
and  therefore  we  have  no  means  of  estimating 
their  character  as  hard  questions. 

There  are  to  be  found,  however,  in  the  Proverbs 
bearing  the  name  of  Solomon,  sayings  that  appear 
to  be  of  the  nature  of  riddles.  The  riddle  of  the 
insatiable  things  is  one  of  these  (Pr  30"-  '").  'The 
horse-leech  (but  see  art.  HORSE-LKECH)  hath  two 
daughters,  crj'ing.  Give,  give.  There  are  three 
things  that  are  never  satisfied,  yea,  four  things 
say  not,  It  is  enough.'  What  are  these  ?  And  the 
answer  is,  'The  grave,  and  the  barren  womb,  the 
earth  that  is  not  filled  with  water,  and  the  tire 
that  saith  not,  It  is  enough.'  This  is  followed 
by  the  riddles  of  the  four  mysterious  things  (Pr 
SO"-'*),  of  the  four  intolerable  things  (Pr  30^-^), 
of  the  four  little  wise  things  (SO-^"-^),  and  of  the 
four  stately  things  (30=«-").  Riddle  and  inter- 
pretation alike  exhibit  precise  observation  of 
nature,  and  convey  at  the  same  time  moral  in- 
struction. 

To  the  riddles  of  the  OT  fall,  perhaps,  to  be 
added  the  words  of  the  mysterious  writing  on  the 
wall  on  the  night  of  Belsliazzar's  feast  (Dn  S'-^'"*}, 
Mene,  Men'e,  Tekel,  Uphar-sin  (which  see). 
The  inscription  is  to  be  read  according  to  recent 
authorities,  '  A  mina,  a  mina,  a  shekel  and  half 
minas.'  Vv.'-"""'-*,  says  Bevan  (The  Book  of  Daniel, 
p.  106),  are  plays  upon  the  words  of  the  inscrip- 
tion ;  in  v.*"  the  pla3-  is  a  double  one.  'Una — 
God  hath  numbered  thy  kingdom  and  finished  it. 
Shekel — thou  hast  been  weighed  in  the  balance  and 
hast  been  found  wanting.  Half  mina — thy  king- 
dom hath  been  divided  and  given  to  the  Medes  and 
PersiaTis. 

The  parable  is  one  of  the  unique  features  of  the 
teaching  of  Christ  {rapajioXri  in  the  .Synoptists  ; 
«rapoi/i(o  in  St.  John),  but  the  riddle,  except  in  so 
far  as  the  evangelist  Matthew  justifies  instruction 
by  parables  with  a  reference  to  Ps  78-,  is  not 
expressly  mentioned.  Only  once  in  the  NT  is  the 
riddle  expres.sly  named,  and  in  that  instance  (1  Co 
13'-)  the  mention  of  it  is  obscured  in  EV.  The 
meaning  is — 'Now  we  see  through  a  glass,  in  a 
riddle '  {iv  ahlyfrnn),  in  contrast  to  the  direct  \'ision 
of  spiritual  realities,  '  face  to  face.'  In  the  Revela- 
tion of  St.  John  there  is  a  riddle  which  remains  an 
enigma  in  spite  of  all  attempts  to  solve  it :  '  He 
that  hath  understanding  let  him  count  the  number 
of  the  beast ;  for  it  is  the  number  of  a  man,  and 
his  number  is  six  hundred  and  sixty  and  six.' 
Following  the  method  known  among  the  Jews  as 
Gematria,  by  which  a  number  is  obtained  from  the 
numerical  values  of  the  letters  of  a  name,  it  has 
been  found  that  the  Hehrew  transliteration  of 
Neron  Cesar  yields  a  total  of  GOG.  Although 
adopted  by  many  modern  interjireters,  this  .solu- 
tion of  the  riddle  has  not  attaini'd  general  accept- 
ance any  more  than  others  which  have  been  pro- 
posed from  a  much  earlier  time  (see  Bengel, 
Gnomon,  p.  1095  iX.  ;  Milligan,  Baird  Lectures  on 
The  Jtevelation  of  St.  John,  p.  321  IT.,  and  art. 
Rkvei.atidn  [Book  of]  above,  p.  258).  In  the 
Taliinid  and  Rabbinical  literature  there  is  no  lack 
of  riddles.  In  fact  the  Jews  exhibit  a  curiosa 
feliiitds  in  this  department  which  is  unique.  '  A 
large  number  of  famous  sayings,'  says  Abrahams 


i72 


RIDICULOUS 


RIGHTEOUSlSrESS  IN  OT 


(Jewish  Life  in  the  Middle  Ages,  pp.  386,  387), 
*  are  put  in  the  form  of  riddles.  NVlio  is  mighty  ? 
Wlio  IS  a  fool  ?  Who  is  happy  ?  A  whole  class  of 
popular  plirases  in  the  Talmud  and  Midrash  are 
nothing  more  nor  less  than  folkriddles,  the  chief 
exponents  being  women  and  children  ;  hut  distin- 
guished Rahbis  also  utilized  this  language  of 
wisdom.  Ethical  works  of  the  Middle  Ages 
abound  in  philosophical  riddles.  Riddles  found 
their  way  into  the  prayer-book  for  the  I'assover 
Eve.  It  goes  without  sayin",  therefore,  that 
many  Hebrew  riddles  of  the  Middle  Ages  were 
serious  intellectual  exercises.'  To  keep  up  atten- 
tion and  to  stimulate  interest  while  the  intricate 
subtleties  of  the  law  are  being  expounded,  such  an 
assertion  as  this  would  be  announced — '  There  was 
a  woman  in  Egypt  who  brought  forth  at  one  birth 
"six  hundred  thousand  men.'"  The  interpreta- 
tion follows :  the  woman  was  Jochebed,  the 
mother  of  Moses,  who  was  himself  equal  to  the 
whole  armed  host  of  Israel  who  came  out  of  Egynt. 
Talmudic  lore  records  a  story  of  Rabbi  Jeliuda, 
sage  and  saint,  akin  to  that  related  of  Tarquin  the 
Proud.  The  emperor  Antoninus  Pius  sent  him  a 
message  to  say  the  imperial  exchequer  was  empty  : 
how  could  it  be  replenished  ?  The  Rabbi  took  the 
messenger  into  the  garden  and  tore  up  the  big 
radishes  and  planted  young  ones  in  their  place. 
He  did  the  same  with  the  turnips  and  the  lettuces. 
The  emperor  understood  the  hint ;  he  dismissed 
the  old  officials  and  put  new  in  their  place.  Many 
of  the  riddles  that  thus  delighted  the  Jewish 
fancy  seem  trivial  enough.  For  example  :  '  The 
fish  is  roasted  with  his  brother,  is  placed  in  his 
father,  is  eaten  with  his  son,  and  thereafter  is 
helped  down  with  his  father,'  where  his  '  brother ' 
is  the  salt  which  comes  like  himself  from  the  sea, 
his  '  father '  is  the  water  from  which  he  is  taken, 
and  his  '  son '  the  sauce  in  which  he  is  served  ! 
Riddles  whose  solution  depends  upon  the  numerical 
values  of  the  Hebrew  letters  are  common.  '  Take 
30  from  30  and  the  remainder  is  60.'  The  ex- 
planation is  that  30=DT'?i? :  remove  S,  whose 
numerical  value  is  30,  and  the  remainder  is  c-iV 
=  60.  The  letters  of  the  Hebrew  alphabet  have 
also  a  lingual  meaning,  and  a  good  example  of 
a  riddle  whose  solution  depends  upon  such  a  mean- 
ing is  the  following  :  '  There  was  a  she  mule  in  ray 
house  :  I  opened  the  door  and  she  became  a  heifer.' 
To  be  solved  thus  :  From  the  Hebrew  for  '  she- 
mule '  .tt;5  take  away  the  letter  n  {Daleth  =  door) 
and  there  remains  n-jB  '  heifer.' 

Plays  ujion  words  scarcely  come  under  the  scope 
of  tills  article.  They  are  found  most  abundantly 
in  the  Prophets  and  in  the  rhetorical  passages  of 
Job,  but  they  occur  also  with  considerable  fre- 
quency in  the  Proverbs,  and  they  are  to  be  met 
with,  though  rarely,  in  the  Psalms.  In  those 
plays  upon  proper  names  which  are  found  in  the 
etymological  explanations  of  the  name  of  the  law- 
giver of  Israel  (Ex  S'" ;  cf.  Jos.  c.  Apion.  i.  31), 
of  the  name  of  Samuel  (1  S  l-*),  and  many  more, 
the  Talmud  is  said  to  be  especially  rich.  (Upon 
'  Paronomasia  in  the  OT,'  see  Casanowicz,  JBL 
(1891),  pp.  105-167). 

LiTERATORS.— For  the  usage  ot  the  Hebrew  word  JTl'n  see 
Oxf,  U'.b.  hex.  i.v.\  Delitzsch,  Zur  Geschichte  der  Jiidwchen 
Pnesie :  Cheyne,  Joh  and  Soloim.n  ;  Toy,  Proverbs.  On  Biblical 
and  Tahnudic  riddles— Hamburger's  JiE  ;  Low,  Die  Leberut- 
alter;  Abrahams,  Jewish  Life  in  the  Middle  ^ei\  Wiinsche, 
Die  Jldtltsclwritsheit  bei  den  Hebrdem.  T.    NlCOL. 

RIDICULOUS Only  Sir  34'»' He  that  sacriliceth 

of  a  thing  wrongfully  gotten,  his  offering  is  ridicu- 
lous.' The  meaning  is  active,  derisive,  mocking 
(Gr.  wpoatpopi  luixuK-qnivri,  RV  '  his  offering  is  made 
in  mocki^ry ').  Cf.  Shaks.  Love's  Labour's  Lost, 
iii.  78,  '  The  heaving  of  my  lungs  provokes  me  to 
ndiculous  smiling.' 


RIGHTEOUSNESS  in  OT.— The  idea  of  Right- 
eousness is  one  of  the  most  complex  and  difficult 
of  the  ruling  ideas  of  the  OT.  The  subject  may 
be  introduced  by  one  or  two  statements  of  a 
general  nature.  (I)  Rijjhteousness  in  the  OT  ii 
strictly  a  personal  attribute.  There  are  a  few 
instances  where  the  word  is  used  of  things,  but 
these  are  undoubtedly  secondary  (see  below,  p. 
274*).  So  also  are  the  eases  where  it  is  applied 
to  a  social  aggregate  like  the  people  of  Israel  ; 
these  arise  either  through  personihcation  of  the 
community,  or  through  the  virtues  of  representa- 
tive individuals  being  conceived  as  leavening  the 
mass.  (2)  The  personal  relations  indicated  by  the 
term  are  of  three  kinds  :  forensic,  ethical,  and 
religious.  Righteousness,  e.g.,  may  denote  [a) 
a  forensic  right,  as  wlien  Judah  says  of  Tama«, 
'she  has  been  in  t/ie  right  against  me'  (Gn  3S'^') ; 
or  (6)  a  moral  state,  as  Gn  6*  'Noah  was  a  right- 
eous, blameless  man  in  his  generation '  ;  or  (c)  a 
direct  relation  between  man  and  God,  as  in  Gn  15* 
'  Abraham  believed  J",  and  he  counted  it  to  hira 
ioT  righteousness.'  But  under  each  of  these  heads 
the  notion  breaks  up  into  a  j;reat  variety  of  dis- 
tinct applications,  while  the  hgurative  extensions 
of  {a)  into  the  spheres  of  (6)  and  (c)  create  subtle 
distinctions  which  at  times  defy  classification. 
(3)  It  may  be  remarked  that  the  history  of  the 
idea  in  the  OT  exhibits  a  development  in  almost  ex- 
actly the  opposite  direction  to  that  observed  in  the 
case  of  Holiness.  Holiness  (which  see)  is  prima- 
rily a  religious  term,  which  gradually  acquires 
ethical  content  under  the  influence  of  the  reve- 
lation of  God  as  a  Being  of  perfect  moral  purity. 
Righteousness,  on  the  contrary,  belongs  in  the  first 
instance  to  the  region  of  moral  ideas,  and  be- 
comes a  technical  term  of  religion  by  a  process 
whose  outlines  can  be  traced  in  the  OT. — It  will 
be  convenient  in  the  present  art.  to  treat  the 
subject  under  three  main  divisions,  correspond- 
ing broadly  to  three  stages  in  this  development ; 
viz.  (i.)  The  meanings  of  Righteousness  in  ordi- 
nary popular  speech  ;  (ii.)  the  conception  of  Right- 
eousness in  the  pre-exilic  prophets  (Amos  to  Jere- 
miah);  and  (iii.)  the  theological  developments  of 
the  idea,  chiefly  in  exilic  and  post-exilic  writings. 

The  Hebrew  words  expressing  the  idea  of  Righteousness  are 
the  follo%ving  derivatives  of  the  root  pl)i  : — 

1.  The  adj.  p")s  ;  LXX  iimtuM,  etc;  EV  'righteous,'  mor* 
rarely  '  just,'  etc. 

2.  The  abstract  nouns  .ii3'is  and  pnx,  which  appear  to  be  prac- 
tically interchangeable  ;  LXX  iijuciorvvfi,  etc  ;  EV  '  rigbteout- 
nes?,'  more  rarely  'justice,'  etc. 

[The  Aram,  .nij"!^  appears  in  Dn  4'*]. 

The  verbal  forms  are  much  less  freqtiently  used,  viz.: — 

8.  The  Qal  piy  (22  times  in  MT) ;  LXX  S.i^nt  ij.oe/,  liiuuni 
(pass.),  etc.;  EV  'be  righteous,'  'be  Justified,' '  be  just,'  etc 

4.  The  Hiphil  p'^^n  (12  times,  always  in  a  declarative  sens* 
except  Is  63",  Dn  123) ;  LXX  J,««i.D.,  etc.;  EV  'justify,'  etc. 

6.  The  Piel  p^s  (5  times,  with  the  sense  '  make  out  to  be  in 
the  right,'  or  'make  to  appear  in  the  right');  LXX  Iim^*!; 
etc.;  EV  'justify.' 

8.  The  Hithpael  (refl.)  P'V^^fn  (On  44l«);  LXX  tiMoimt 
(pass.);  EV  'clear  ourselves.' 

7.  The  Niphal  pisi  (Dn  S",  of  the  Temple);  LXX  MtiStLfilur 
(pass.)  ;  EV  '  be  cleansed.' 

The  C.rvek  and  English  torm.s  given  above  represent  only  the 
prevalent  usage  ot  LXX  and  EV  respectively.  With  regard  to 
the  latter,  it  may  be  said  that  the  words  'righteous'  and 
'righteousness'  cover  approximately  the  uses  of  pns  in  the 
OT.  Out  of  some  620  instances  where  the  Heb.  root  appears, 
about  400  are  rendered  in  AV  by  'righteous,'  'righteousness,' 
or  'righteously.'  In  over  100  cases  'just,'  'justice,'  'justify' 
are  employed,  sometimes  appropriately  enough,  but  at  other 
times  quite  arbitrarily  (cf.  e.g.  On  «»  with  "',  or  Am  2'  with 
513).  There  are,  besides,  a  few  miscellaneous  renderings,  which 
it  would  serve  no  useful  purpose  to  tabulate.  On  the  other  side, 
'  righteous '  stands  for  If';  ('  upright ')  in  Nu  2310,  job  4^  23', 
Ps  107«,  Ft  2'  333  149  1619  2S1»  (similarly  the  adv.  Ps  67*  99"'). 
KV  has  rectified  some  of  those  anomalies  :  for  instance,  exoep* 
in  Nu  2311',  '  righteous,'  etc.,  never  are  used  except  for  some 
form  of  pnx.  The  usage  of  the  LXX  is  marked  by  somewliat 
greater  diversity,  as  was  to  be  expected  from  the  variety  oJ 


righteous>:ess  m  ox 


RIGHTEOUSXKSS  IN  OT 


273 


circ-uautances  in  which  the  different  book8  were  translated. 
In  the  j;reat  majority  of  cases,  however,  the  Ileb.  terms  are 
rt'prest-nttd  by  )i*xi«<  and  the  coioiate  wonls,  although  other 
rendering's  are  frequent,  as  ectuf^wrti^  Ka.tia.pttt  ^trtti,  tigiir.t, 
Mfirtt,  Uut,  itar.tiAgiint  (the  last  two  are  instructive).  And, 
conversely,  3ts«u«(,  etc.,  are  used  for  such  words  as  ly';,  'p; 
('  innocent '),  ijn  ('  kindneaa  'X  njK  ('  truth,"  '  fidelity '),  tsff p 
('judicial  decision,'  'judf^ent'),  etc.  A  certain  freedom  of 
tlans!;i(ion  is,  no  doubt,  permissible  in  view  of  the  e.xtreme 
VDniatiiity  of  the  Heb.  notion,  and  its  association  with  numer- 
otls  parulielij>ms  ;  and  these  Heb.  synonyms  have  naturally  to  be 
ttJien  into  account  in  forming  conclusions  regarding  the  OT 
idea  of  righteousness.    Cf.  liatch,  Essayt  in  Bw.  Gr.  49. 

i.  Righteousness  in  Common  Life.— In  the 
earliest  liistoriual  literature — the  documents  J  and 
E  of  the  Hex.,  and  the  oldest  sources  of  the  15ks. 
of  Samuel  and  Kings — the  words  for  '  righteous- 
ness 'occur,  not  very  frequently,  but  in  connexions 
which  convey  a  pretty  complete  idea  of  what  they 
meant  in  everyday  life.  Here  the  most  prominent 
aspect  of  the  notion  la  the  forensic,  although  this 
by  no  means  excludes  an  ethical  and  religious 
reference.  In  early  Israel,  law,  morality,  and 
religion  were  closely  identitied,  all  three  restin" 
larjjely  on  traditional  custom  or  being  embodied 
in  it.  Morality  consisted  in  confoniiity  to  the 
conventional  usages  of  the  society  to  wliicli  a  man 
belonged  (Gn  26»,  2  S  13"  etc.) ;  the  administration 
of  ju.-.tice  was  the  enforcement  in  individual  cases 
of  the  acknowledged  rules  of  social  order ;  and, 
again,  these  rules  were  invested  with  religious 
sanctions  as  expressing  the  will  of  J".  Thus  a 
man's  legal  rights  were  a  measure  of  the  morality 
of  his  conduct,  and  at  the  same  time  all  rights 
existing  between  men  were  also  rights  before  .1''. 
When  it  is  sjiid  that  the  forensic  clement  pre- 
jionderates,  what  is  meant  is  that  questions  of 
right  and  wTong  were  habitually  regarded  from 
a  legal  point  of  view  as  matters  to  be  settled  by  a 
judge,  and  that  this  point  of  view  is  empliasized 
m  the  wonls  derived  from  pia.  This,  indeed,  is 
characteristic  of  the  Heb.  conception  of  rig^hteous- 
nets  in  all  its  developments :  whether  it  be  a 
moral  quality  or  a  religious  status,  it  is  a])t  to  be 
looked  on  as  in  itself  controvertible  and  incom- 
plete until  it  has  been  confirmed  by  what  is 
e'luivalent  to  a  judicial  sentence.  Now,  within 
the  forensic  sphere  we  can  distinguish  three 
aspects  of  righteousness  which  are  of  fundamental 
importance  for  the  subsequent  history  of  the  idea  ; 
and  these  may  be  illustrated  from  almost  any 
period  of  the  language. 

(I)  Kighteousness  means,  in  the  first  instance, 
being  in  the  right  in  a  particular  ca.se.  Of  the 
two  parties  in  a  controversy,  the  one  who  has  the 
right  on  his  side  is  designated  as  p'li.i,  and  the  one 
in  the  wrong  as  vyi.n  :  Dt  2.5'  '  If  there  be  a 
guarrel  between  men,  and  they  bring  it  to  the 
]nd''nieiit-seat,  and  (the  judges)  judge  them,  they 
shall  justify  the  p-'s  ana  condemn  the  IVl'  ;  cf. 
ie'».  Ex  23'- »,  Is  S^  29=',  Pr  17">  IS"- "  24-<  etc. 
Siruilai  ly,  a  person  accused  or  suspected  of  wrong- 
doing is  PIS  if  he  is  innocent  and  IVT  if  guilty 
(Gn  20*,  2  S  4",  2  K  10»,  I'r  17=»).  It  makes,  of 
course,  no  difl'erence  whether  the  case  is  actuall}- 
submitted  to  a  judge  or  not ;  all  (lui^stions  of  right 
and  wrong  are  conceived  as  capable  ideally  of 
being  so  settled,  and  the  intrinsic  merits  of  the 
dispute  are  described  by  the  same  terms ;  see 
Ex  Vi"  (' J"  is  in  the  riqht,  and  I  and  my  jieoplo  are 
in  the  wrornt ') ;  1  S  24",  1  K  8*^  (cf.  Kx  2").  Thus 
"i'll' (.^7*  in  this  sense  appears  to  be  later)  denotes 
the  light  or  innocence  ol  an  incriminateil  person, 
his  claim  to  justification,  the  validity  of  his  iilea 
(2  S  19^  •26-=',  Neh  2»).*  In  these  cases  righteous- 
ne.s.s  is  an  inherent  quality,  not  depending  on  the 
decision  of  the  judge,  but  at  the  most  demaniLing 

•  The  fem.  of  the  adj.  pn^  Is  nowhere  used  ;  In  the  only 
mttancc  where  the  right  of  a  woman  Is  concerned  the  simple 
»«rb  la  employed ;  Gn  S3»>  CJjjij  nji)). 

vou  IV.— 18 


recognition  by  him.  And  although  the  conception 
is  essentially  forensic,  it  is  obviously  one  to  which 
ethical  ideas  readily  attach  themselves.  Riglit- 
eousness  comes  to  mean  unimpeachaljle  moral  con- 
dnct  (Gn  SO*'— a  dillieult  case)  ;  and  in  this  sense 
it  may  be  predicated  of  a  man's  whole  life,  the 
righteous  man  being  one  who  is  blameless  before 
an  ideal  tribunal  ;  see  1  K  '2^-  3^  (in  7',  6»  (P) 
IS-o"-,  Dt  9''-«,  La  4'"  etc.  In  this  application  a 
relijjioua  reference  is  probably  always  included, 
the  ideal  tribunal  being  that  of  God. 

Legal  phraseolog}'  is  naturally  transferred  to  the  case  of  mere 
d'-f'tite  :  Job  112  ;j3l2 ;  here  to  '  jii.stify '  means  virtually  to 
admit  the  force  of  one's  arguments  (27»).  With  this  may  be 
connected  the  use  of  the  words  to  cx^iress  correctness  in  pre- 
diction (Is  4126),  or  truthfulness  in  spuech  (Is  46'8-  '^  GJ',  Ps  52», 
Pr  8"*  12'  IG'3) ;  although  other  explanations  are  here  possible 
(see  below,  p.  274). 

(2)  Righteousness,  however,  has  a  second  sense, 
which  is  [jiirely  forensic  ;  it  means  the  legal  status 
established  by  a  pulilic  judgment  in  one^s  favour  : 
Is  S^  '  take  awaj-  the  rigliteousness  of  the  righteous 
from  him  '  (cf.  lO^).  Examples  of  this  kind  are  rare 
in  allusions  to  secular  juri.sprndence  ;  but  the  dis- 
tinction plays  a  very  mijiortant  part,  as  we  shall 
see,  where  forensic  analogies  are  transferred  to 
men's  standing  before  Go(i ;  and  it  could  hardly 
be  drawn  so  clearlv  there  unless  it  had  some  basis 
in  ordinary  judicial  administration.* 

(3)  Lastly,  righteousness  is  the  quality  expected 
of  the  judrje  in  the  exercise  of  liis  office.  His 
fiindamental  duty  is  to  'justify'  (pni:n  =  ' declare 
in  the  right ')  him  who  is  in  the  right,  and  to 
condemn  (i"v'-;n)  him  who  is  in  the  wrung  (Dt  25', 
2S  1.5^  etc.);  and,  if  the  circumstances  require  it, 
to  inflict  punishment  on  the  wrong-doer  (Dt  25'; 
cf.  2S  12'"  etc.).  In  this  he  is  said  to  manifest 
pn>-  (Dt  I'«  IG'"-",  Lv  19'»,  Is  lD-i>  1G»),  or  in  a  com- 
nion  phrase  to  execute  nij-i^i  tiEfp.t  The  tenijita- 
tions  to  which  a  judge  was  mainly  exposed  being 
bribery  and  '  respect  of  persons,'  his  righteousness 
consists  essentially  in  his  rising  superior  to  such 
influences  and  deciding  each  case  with  ab.solute 
im])artiality  on  its  merits.  Stress,  howevei,  is 
naturally  laid  on  the  duty  of  redres.sing  the  -vNTongs 
of  the  jioor  and  defenceless  ;  hence  judicial 
righteousness  is  frequently  equivalent  to  deliver- 
ance or  protection.  This  idea  lies,  indeed,  in  the 
verb  osp  itself,  which  means  not  only  to  judge,  but 
also  to  vindicate  or  defend  (1  S  24",  Is  1"  etc.). 

The  forensic  sense  of  righteousness  illustrated  above  appears 
to  be  fundamental  in  Ileb.,  and  goes  back  to  a  remote  period  in 
Semitic  antiquity.  It  is  found  in  a  phrase  closely  corresponding 
to  OT  usage  in  one  of  the  Tel  cl-Amama  tablets  (l.'^^th  or  14th 
cent.  B.C.),  where  Abdhiba  of  Jerusalem  sa.vs,  sa-du-uk  ana 
ia-a.&i  tii-6um  amiluti  Ka-ii-*l  am  fnnoccnf  with  respect  to 
tiie  Kashi' (/i/yj  V.  306  f.).  That  a  similar  usage  prevailed  in 
Aramaic  and  Phujnician  is  shown  by  the  inscriptions  in  both 
languages  (see  Lidzbarski,  Ilaiulbuch  di^r  nnrd^ein.  Kpigrai'hik, 
p.  ;iG7).  The  forensic  conception  of  righteousness  appears, 
therefore,  to  be  characteristic  of  the  northern  group  of  Semitic 
dialects.    In  Arabic,  on  the  other  hand,  the  root  has  no  forensic 

•  It  may  here  be  pointed  out  that  it  is  doubtful  If  the  adj.  pns 
bears  this  sense  of  outward  Justillcation  even  in  the  religious 
sphere  (Kautzsch).  It  seems  confined  to  the  inherent  character 
on  which  a  legal  right  is  hosed,  but  not  to  include  the  status 
which  results  from  a  vindication  of  that  right.  In  other  wordn. 
it  is  used  of  the  pwily  as  rntitled  to  Divine  justification,  but  not 
as  actually  junUju'd.  Kautz-sch  thinks  there  are  exceptions  in 
is  4(Mf6  and  24-27  ;  but  tiiat  is  not  quite  clear.  Zee  9^  would 
be  a  cose  in  point  if  the  meaning  is  to  be  determined  by  the 
following  epithet  Vv'i]  {^ vimUcated  and  victorious';  O.  A. 
Smith,  Tv'flve  Prophets,  ii.  460).  On  some  doubtful  oases  in 
the  Psalms,  see  below,  p.  278. 

t  This  expression  was  jjrobably  used  originally  of  Judicial 
action  (2  S  «'»,  Jer  22"  23'>,  ICzk  4.'ii').  but  wa.s  extended  to  moral 
conduct  in  general  (Gn  18'",  Ezk  !»*■  tw-'^l,  and  very  often).  In 
Dt  1'*  etc.  (above)  pnv  is  partly  the  personal  virtue  of  the  Judge, 
partly  the  objective  right  which  la  the  result  of  his  Just  action  ; 
the  won!  appears  first  in  Ilosea  and  Isaiah.  It  Is  possible  that 
this  Judicial  sense  of  rigliteousness  (3)  is  less  prniiltive  than 
that  desc^rilied  under  (1).  At  least  the  coses  are  few  where  the 
adj.  is  applied  to  a  human  judge  (though  often  to  God  as  the 
Supreme  Judge  of  men).  2  S  '2.S3  la  a  clear  example  ;  on  Zee  O* 
see  the  last  note  ;  other  possible  cases  are  Jer  23^,  Ezk  234S. 


274 


RIGHTEOUSNESS  IX  OT 


RIGHT KOUSXESS  IX  OT 


Associations.  The  verb  fada^a  means  to  speak  the  truth  ; 
taddaka,  to  attribute  truth  to  a  speaker,  to  accept  or  homolo- 
gate his  statement ;  sadJit^  is  one  who  is  habitually  veracious, 
and  ^(i<i. A:  a  true  or  sincere  friend.  All  these  uses  embody  tiie 
ethical  idea  of  truslicorthxness  or  genuineness;  and  a  reflexion 
of  this  moral  sense  is  probably  to  be  recoj;rnized  in  some  peculiar 
subsidiary  applications,  as  when  the  verb  is  employed  of  eyes  and 
ears  that  faithfully  perform  their  functions,  or  oi  earnestness  or 
steadiness  in  battle  '  as  opposed  to  a  false  show  of  bravery,'  or  of 
the  desperate  running  of  a  hunted  animal  (see  Lane,  Lf-n'cm). 
Saddk,  the  marriage  gift  from  husband  to  wife,  was  originally  a 
pled^'e  of  friendship ;  and  even  the  much  discussed  ruinh  istuii: 

Sossibly  means  a  tmsty  lance,  and  not  a  straight  or  sound  or 
ard  lance  (Wellhausen,  GGiV,  1893,  p.  434),  though  Nbldeke 
considers  that  in  this  case  the  meaning  *  straight 'is  certain 
(Fiinfildallnqiit,  2,  p.  40). 

It  has  commonly  been  held  that  the  varied  senses  of  righteous- 
ness can  be  reduced  to  the  single  idea  of  '  conformity  to  a  norm,' 
resting  ultimately  on  the  physical  analogy  of  strai{jhtness.  But 
the  notion  of '  conformity  to  a  norm '  could  hardly  be  primitive  ; 
and,  even  if  all  the  uses  of  p1^  could  be  brought  under  it,  it 
woiild  not  thereb.v  be  proved  to  be  fundamental,  since  all  legd 
and  ethical  terms  necessarily  imply  a  reference  to  a  norm.  It 
is  indeed  very  doubtful  if  straightness  be  the  concept  originally 
expressed  by  the  root.  Certainly,  nothing  of  the  kind  can  be 
inferred  from  the  cases  in  the  OT  where  the  word  is  used  of 
materi.al  objects.  Jiist  balances,  weights,  etc.  (Lv  19'5. 36,  Dt 
25*5,  Job  31^,  Ezk  4510),  are  simply  such  balances,  etc.,  as  justice 
demands  (cf.  Am  S^),  just  as  sacrifices  of  rightemisness  {\)t  33*3, 
Ps  45  5119)  are  sacrifices  rightly  offered.  The  phrases  pat/ts  nf 
righteousness  (Ps  233)  and  gates  o/  righteousness  (IIS'S)  are  so 
obviously  figurative  that  they  do  not  fall  to  be  considered  here 
at  all.  The  evidence  from  Arabic  is  equally  inconclusive.  Here 
the  discussion  has  turned  largely  on  the  use  of  sad^  as  an  epithet 
of  the  lance  (see  above)-  It  happens,  however,  to  be  applied  in 
particular  to  the  knots  of  the  lance  reed  (of.  sadk  'ul-kxiub,  Muall. 
Antara,  48),  where,  if  the  word  describes  anj-  physical  quaUty  at 
all,  it  must  be  hardness  ;  unless,  indeed,  kab  be  understood  as 
a  section  of  the  reed  between  two  knots  (Nbldeke,  i6.).  On 
the  whole,  perhaps,  the  idea  of  hardness  best  accounts  for  the 
^higher  developments  of  the  idea  both  in  Arabic  and  Hebrew. 
The  transition  from  hardness  to  trustworthiness  is  easy  and 
natural,  while  the  same  analogy  in  the  legal  sphere  might 
denote  unimpeachableness  of  conduct  on  the  part  of  a  suitor, 
or  steadfastness  of  character  on  the  part  of  the  judge.  But 
these  speculations  are  of  little  account ;  the  meanings  of  right- 
eousness in  OT  have  to  be  ascertained  from  usage,  and  the 
fundamental  usages  appear  to  be  those  stated  in  the  preceding 
paragraphs. 

ii.  RiGHTEOtJSNESS  IN  THE  PROPHETS.— AltllOUgh 
the  prophets  were  the  great  champions  and  ex- 
ponents of  righteousness  in  Israel,  it  is  not  easy  to 
say  precisely  in  what  respect  their  teaching  marks 
an  advance  on  the  current  notions  examined  in  the 
last  section.  In  their  use  of  terms  they  adhere 
closely  to  the  common  forms  of  speech :  the  ?•"»• 
is  still  the  man  whose  cause  is  just,  and  n^']^  and 
Pji-  continue  to  be  used  of  forensic  right  or  judicial 
rectitude.  Nevertheless  it  is  clear  that  the  whole 
idea  is  elevated  to  a  higher  plane  in  the  teaching 
of  the  prophets,  and  actjuires  a  signilicance  at  once 
more  ethical  and  more  universal.  The  difference 
of  standpoint  is  partly  to  he  explained  by  the  state 
of  things  which  the  prophets  saw  aroiind  them. 
By  the  8th  cent,  the  old  constietudinary  morality 
had  broken  down  under  the  pressure  of  far-reaching 
economic  changes  which  had  ati'ected  disastrously 
the  life  of  the  people.  Large  numbers  of  Israelites 
bad  been  disposse.ssed  of  their  holdings,  and  in  con- 
sequence deprived  of  their  civil  and  religious  rights; 
the  poor  were  defrauded  and  ground  down  by  the 
rich,  and  even  the  forms  of  law  had  been  turned 
into  a  powerful  engine  of  oppression.  In  face  of  a 
situation  like  this,  it  is  evident  that  the  prophetic 
ideal  of  righteousness  must  rest  on  deeper  founda- 
tions than  mere  use  and  wont.  It  rests,  in  fact,  on 
the  ethical  character  of  J".  What  is  distinctive  of 
the  prophets  is  the  conviction  that  social  righteous- 
ness is  the  necessary  and  inexorable  demand  of 
J"'8  moral  nature.  So  intense  is  this  conviction 
that  the  idea  of  abstract  right  seems  to  stand  out 
before  their  minds  as  an  objective  reality,  a  power 
that  may  be  resisted  but  can  never  be  defeated. 
'Never  before,'  says  Wellhausen,  'had  this  boen 
proclaimed  with  such  tremendous  emphasis.  Mor- 
ality is  that  through  which  alone  all  things  subsist, 
the  sole  reality  in  the  world.  It  is  no  postulate,  no 
idea,  it  is  at  once  necessity  andfact,— the  most  living, 


personal  energy, — Jahwe,  the  God  of  Forces.'* 
This  is  most  clearly  to  be  seen  in  Amos,  the  lather  of 
written  prophecy;  but  all  the  propliets  move  on  the 
lines  laid  down  by  him,  and  mean  by  righteousness 
substantially  what  he  means,  althongli  they  may 
not  give  it  the  same  central  position  which  it  occu- 
pies in  his  book.  It  may  suliice  to  note  the  following 
points.  (1)  The  prophets  are  concerned  in  the  tirst 
instance  with  that  exercise  of  righteousness  o« 
which  the  well-being  of  the  community- most  de- 
pends, the  public  ndministration  of  justice.  Amoa 
demands  that  right  (sff'?)  be  set  up  in  the  gate 
(5");  that  right  roll  down  like  waters,  and  righteous- 
ness like  a  perennial  stream  (5-*) ;  and  complains 
bitterly  of  those  who  turn  righteousness  to  worm- 
wood, i.e.  turn  the  fount  of  justice  into  a  source  of 
wrong  and  misery  (5'  6'").  Isaiah  and  Micah  hurl 
their  invectives  against  the  ruling  classes  for  their 
perversion  of  justice  and  legalized  plunder  of  the 
poor  (Is  1"  3'«-  5'^  10"-,  Mic  -I^-^-  S'-'-"'-),  and 
Jeremiah  denounces  the  rapacity  and  misgovem- 
ment  of  the  kings  (22'3-  •»  23"- ;  cf.  Ezk  Zi^«-).  Cf. 
further,  Hos  10>-,  Is  1='  5',  Jer  2-?'  etc.  A  well- 
governed  State,  repressing  all  wTong  and  violence, 
and  securing  to  the  meanest  his  rights  as  a  mem- 
ber of  J"'s  kingdom,  is  the  embodiment  of  the 
prophetic  ideal  of  righteousness.  At  the  same 
time,  the  spirit  which  ought  to  preside  at  the  seat 
of  judgment  is  conceived  as  a  principle  pervading 
the  whole  life  of  the  nation,  and  regulating  the 
relations  of  its  different  members  and  classes. 
Civic  righteousness  is  perhaps  more  a  function 
of  the  community,  a  sound  and  normal  condition 
of  the  body  politic,  than  a  rule  of  individual 
conduct ;  although  the  latter  is,  of  course,  in- 
cluded (Hos  10'-,  Jer  4'-).  (2)  In  their  conception 
of  wliat  constitutes  righteousness,  the  prophets 
are  not  dependent  on  a  ^^Titteu  code,t  and  stiD  less 
on  the  technicalities  of  legal  procedure.  Their 
appeal  is  to  the  moral  sense,  the  instinctive  per- 
ception of  what  is  due  to  others,  the  recognition 
of  the  inherent  rights  of  human  personality.  The 
idea  is  far  broader  than  what  we  usually  mean  by 
right  or  justice ;  it  includes  a  large-hearted  con- 
struction of  the  claims  of  humanity  ;  it  is,  as  has 
been  said,  the  humanitarian  virtue  par  excellence.^ 
And  this  is  true  not  only  in  private  relations,  but 
also  in  the  sphere  of  juilicial  action.  The  righteous- 
ness of  the  judge  appears  pre-eminently  in  his  vin- 
dication of  the  widow,  the  orphan,  and  the  stranger, 
the  oppressed  and  defenceless  classes  generally  (Is 
1"  etc.).  In  Amos  the  p'ls  is  always  the  poor  man, 
with  no  influence  at  his  back,  who  must  therefore 
look  to  the  judge  to  maintain  his  rights.  This 
feature  might  be  considered  accidental,  arising 
from  the  injustice  to  which  the  poor  were  sub- 
jected at  that  time.  But  it  is  important,  never- 
theless, as  exhibiting  an  aspect  of  the  Heb.  idea  of 
judicial  righteousness  which  is  apt  to  be  overlooked 
by  us.  It  denotes  not  merelv  the  neutral  impartial 
attitude  of  mind  which  decides  fairly  between  rival 
interests,  but  a  positive  energy  on  the  side  of  right, 
a  readiness  to  protect  and  succour  tliose  who  have 
no  belli  in  themselves.  (3)  Righteousness  in  this 
ethical  sense  is  not  only  rooted  in  the  moral 
instincts  of  human  nature,  but  is  a  reflexion  of 
the  character  of  J".  It  is  what  He  requires  of  men, 
what  He  has  looked  for  in  vain  from  Israel  (Is  5'), 
that  in  which  He  delights,  which  He  seeks  to  pro- 
duce on  earth  (Jer  9^).  The  inflexibility  of  this 
Divine  demand  for  social  righteousness  is  one  or  the 
most  impressive  things  in  prophecy.  Ritual  serWce 
is  as  nothing  in  J"'3  sight ;  He  despises  and  hates 

•  Itr.  u.  jad.  Geich.'  109. 

t  The  idea  of  righteousness  as  obedience  to  the  written  law 
of  God,  which  bulks  so  largely  in  the  later  writings,  appears  in 
Dt  6» ;  cf.  24".  Zeph  23. 

t  Cf.  the  combination  of  .Iji't  with  ion  (■  Unctneis ')  In  Ho< 
1012  Jer  »a. 


RIGHTEOUSNESS  IX  OT 


RIGUTEOUSXESS  IX  OT 


275 


it  when  offered  by  men  of  immoral  life.  But  the 
claims  of  rifj;liteousnes3are  absolute,  and  the  nation 
that  will  not  yield  to  them,  thou<;h  it  be  the  chosen 
people  of  Israel  itself,  must  perish.  Further,  this 
righteousness,  being  based  at  once  on  the  nature 
of  man  and  the  nature  of  God,  is  universal  in  its 
ran^e.  It  ha-s  its  witness  in  the  human  conscience 
everywhere  (Am  3°),  and  determines  the  destiny  of 
other  nations  as  well  as  of  Israel  (I'  2*  etc.).  It  is, 
in  short,  the  moral  order  of  the  universe,  and  the 
supreme  law  of  J"'s  operations  in  history.  (4)  As 
the  lack  of  righteousness  is  the  cause  of  Israel's 
destruction,  so  the  presence  of  it  is  a  constant 
feature  of  the  Messianic  salvation  to  which  the 
prophets  look  forward.  'A  king  shall  reign  in 
righteousness,  and  princes  decree  justice'  (Is  32"). 
The  Messiah's  kingdom  shall  be  established  in 
righteousness  (9'),  and  He  shall  judge  the  poor  in 
righteousness  (IP"),  etc.  Cf.  Jer  22"*  23"  33", 
Hos  ?"(?).  Is  1=«  32"'-  33»  etc.  (5)  Kighteousness 
as  a  personal  attribute  of  J"  is  not  named  by  the 
proi)hets  so  frequently  as  one  might  expect.  The 
atlj.  p'^s  is  not  used  in  this  sense  till  a  compara- 
tively late  period  (Zeph  3',  Jer  12').  Amos  never 
mentions  the  righteousness  of  J",  though  the  image 
of  the  plumb-line  in  7''*  shows  that  the  conception 
was  in  his  mind  (cf.  Is  28").  Isaiah  speaks  of  a 
judgment 'overflowing  with  righteousness'  (10--), 
and  of  the  Holy  God  as  'sanctifying  himself  by 
righteousness'  (5"),  i.e.  showing  Himself  to  be  God 
through  the  exercise  of  judicial  righteousness.  The 
idea  is  common  to  aU  the  prophets.  From  the 
special  circumstances  in  which  their  work  was 
carried  on,  they  dwell  chiefly  (if  not  exclusive!}') 
on  the  punitire  side  of  the  Divine  righteousness, 
the  side  whicli  it  presents  to  the  guilt  of  Israel 
(Hos  6°*  10*,  Ilab  1'-).  Itighteousne.ss,  in  short, 
is  here  equivalent  to  retribution,  althougli  retri- 
bution is  not  regarded  as  an  end  in  itself,  but 
only  as  a  step  in  the  carrying  out  of  a  redemptive 
purpose. 

The.se  appear  to  be  the  chief  features  of  the  idea 
of  righteousness  which  is  characteristic  of  the  pre- 
exilic  prophets.  It  is  not  yet  to  be  called  strictly 
a  religious  conception,  inasmuch  as  its  human  side 
consists  of  moral  qualities  displayed  by  men  in 
their  relations  to  one  another,  and  the  righteous- 
ness of  men  before  God  is  an  idea  hardly  repre- 
sented in  the  luojihcts.  But  it  makes  the  religious 
development  possible,  and  some  anticipations  of 
that  development  in  the  prophetic  writings  will 
have  to  be  considered  under  the  next  head. 

iii.  Righteousness  in  tiie  Si'Iieue  of  Re- 
ligion.— 'We  come  now  to  consider  the  ditrerent 
forms  as.sumed  by  the  idea  of  righteousness  as 
expressing  relations  existing  immediately  between 
God  and  man.  These  are  based  on  the  mono- 
theistic principle,  interi)reted  by  the  help  of  the 
forensic  categories  described  above  (under  i.).  J" 
is  the  supreme  Ruler  and  Judge  of  the  universe, 
and  His  judgments  are  seen  in  history  or  provi- 
dence, liut  the  ordinary  course  of  providence 
could  not  always  be  accepted  as  the  final  expres- 
sion of  the  mind  of  the  .Judge  ;  it  is  usually  in 
some  great  crisis,  some  decisive  interposition  of 
J'  felt  to  be  impending,  that  the  ultimate  verdict 
is  looked  for.  Meanwhile  nations  and  men  are 
on  their  trial,  they  are  severally  in  the  right  or  in 
the  wrong  before  God,  and  in  the  final  day  of 
reckoniu"  the  issues  will  be  made  clear,  and  the 
just  ill-  of  the  Divine  government  fully  vin<licated. 
Altliinigh  all  the  elements  of  this  cimception  are 
present  in  prc-exilic  prophecy,  the  special  applica- 
tions of  it  now  to  be  dealt  with  belong  mostly  to  a 
later  period,  and  are  the  result  of  certain  currents 
of  thought  which  come  to  the  surface  in  the  age  of 

•  Rend  KS'  -nsz  'EE^DI. 


the  Exile.  There  are  three  things  to  be  looked  at: 
the  righteousness  of  Israel ;  the  righteousness  of 
the  individual  ;  and  the  righteousness  of  God. 

1.  TUE  Righteousness  of /.9/(.-iJiv..— The  ques- 
tion of  I.srael's  right  against  other  nations  is  one 
little  considered  bj'  the  earlier  prophets.  It  was 
doubtless  a  factor  in  the  jiopular  religion,  revealing 
itself  in  that  eager  longing  for  the  day  of  J"  which 
Amos  rebukes  (.')"').  From  that  point  of  \'ie\v  it 
was  a  matter  of  cour.se  that  J"  should  maintain 
the  cause  and  right  of  His  peo])le,  and  moral 
ccinsiderations  hardlj-  entered  into  the  feeling. 
The  projihets,  on  the  other  h.ind,  were  too  much 
concerned  to  impress  on  Israel  a  sense  of  its  utter 
unrighteousness  before  God  to  pay  much  heed  to 
the  violation  of  right  involved  m  its  subjection  to 
nations  morally  worse  than  itself.  In  the  7th 
cent.,  however,  partly  as  a  consequence  of  the 
Deuteronomic  reformation,  the  idea  of  a  righteous 
Israel  begins  to  exert  an  influence  on  prophetic 
thought  (cf.  I)t  G^).  The  first  prophet  to  treat 
the  matter  expressly  from  this  point  of  view  is 
Habakkuk  (the  idea  is  latent  in  Nalium),  who 
uses  the  technical  terms  p'ls  and  yj'-i  to  designate 
Israel  and  its  heathen  oppressors  respectively 
(14.13.  ^f  2' :  see  the  Comm.),  and  appeals  to  J"  to 
redress  the  WTon^s  suH'ercd  by  His  people.  But 
it  was  the  F.xile  tliat  brought  the  question  to  the 
front  in  the  prophetic  interpretation  of  history. 
The  Divine  sentence  had  gone  forth  confirming  the 
moral  verdict  of  the  prophets  on  the  nation's  past, 
and  the  more  spiritual  part  of  the  people  acknow- 
ledged the  just  judgment  of  God  in  what  had  be- 
fallen them  (La  1").  But  there  still  remained  the 
promi.se  of  a  glorious  future,  in  which  the  righteous- 
ness of  J"  would  be  dlsjd.ayed  not  less  than  in  the 
judgment  now  past.  Israel,  therefore,  has  a  right 
which,  though  obscured  for  the  jiresent,  is  recog- 
nized by  J",  and  will  be  vindicated  by  Him  in  due 
time.  ^Vherein  does  this  righteousness  of  Israel 
consist  ? 

Dcutero-Isainh. — The  answer  to  this  question  is 
given  bj'  the  writer  of  Is  40-55  in  a  manner  which 
went  far  to  fi.x  the  sense  of  righteousness  for  .all 
subsequent  theology.  The  prophet  looks  to  his 
people's  restoration  from  exile  as  a  final  disclosure 
of  the  righteousness  both  of  Israel  and  of  J",  and 
an  event  fraught  with  the  most  blessed  conse- 
<iuen('es  for  humanity.  That  Israel  h.is  been,  and 
is,  in  the  wrong  before  God  is  explicitly  acknow- 
ledged in  the  ironical  challenge  of  43'-'''  ('  that  thou 
maycst  be  in  the  right'),  and  is  implied  in  many 
passages  besides.  But  its  sin  has  been  forgiven, 
the  punishment  endured  has  been  adequate  (40^), 
and,  in  spite  of  the  unprcparedness  of  the  people, 
J"  lirings  near  His  salvation  (4U''  51"  .52'");  the 
hidden  riglit  of  Israel,  which  exists  amidst  all  its 
unwortliincss  and  shortcoming,  is  about  to  be 
made  manifest.  And  here,  in  accordance  with 
forensic  usage,  the  idea  of  righteousness  is  resolved 
into  two  perfectly  distinct  conceptions.  On  the 
one  hand  it  denotes  the  inherent  riglit  of  Israel's 
cau.se  at  the  liar  of  the  Divine  judgment  (as  in  i.  (1)); 
and  on  the  "I her  hand  the  external  viii<lication  of 
that  right  through  a  judicial  intervention  of  J" 
(i.  (2)).  In  the  latter  sense  righteousness  means 
justification  (54'''- "  45'- "),  nnil  is  jiractically 
equivalent  to  salvation,  the  deliverance  of  the 
pcojilc  being  regarded  as  the  execution  of  a  Divine 
sentence  in  its  favour.*  The  idea  of  the  inherent 
righteousness  of  Israel,  however,  is  more  <liHicult, 
and  several  elements  appear  to  enter  into  it.  (a) 
Israel  is  in  the  right,  first  of  all,  as  having  .■suffered 
UTonr)  at  the  hands  of  the  world-power.  The 
triumph  of  Babylon  has  been  the  triumph  of  brute 

•  In  412.  where  it  is  staid  of  Cyrus  that  '  right  meets  him  at 
every  step,*  pix  bears  tlie  sense  of  rinht  vindicated  on  the  field 
of  battle,  i.e.  'victor>' '  (see  tlie  Comni.). 


276 


RIGHTEOUSNESS  IN  OT 


RIGHTEOUSNESS  IN  OT 


force  over  helpless  innocence  (47'  52^''),  and  a  viola- 
tion of  the  moral  order  of  the  world.  On  this 
ground  alone  Israel  has  a  plea  before  the  Judge 
of  all  the  earth,  it  has  a  right  (us?.-)  which  does 
not  escape  the  notice  of  J"(4U-'';  cf.  Mic  7").  (6) 
Righteousness  includes,  in  the  second  place,  a  way 
of  life  in  accordance  with  the  law  of  God.  Of  the 
better  part  of  the  people  it  is  said  that  they  follow 
after  righteousness  (51')  or  know  righteousness 
(51'),  just  as  it  is  said  of  another  section  that  they 
are  far  from  righteousness  (46'-).*  Similarly,  in 
53"  it  is  said  of  J'"s  righteous  Servant  that  by  his 
knowledge  he  shall  make  many  righteous,  i.e. 
bring  them  to  a  moral  condition  conforming  to 
the  Divine  will,  (r)  There  is,  perhaps,  yet  another 
element  to  be  taken  into  account :  Israel  is  in  the 
right  in  virtue  of  its  being  identified  with  the 
cause  of  J",  the  only  true  God.  Israel  is  J"'s 
witness.  His  client  in  the  gieat  controversy  be- 
tween the  true  religion  and  idolatry.  His  ser\-ant 
and  His  messenger  whom  He  has  sent  (43"'-  "  44^ 
418.  9  42'*  etc. ).  As  the  organ  of  J"'8  self-revelation, 
the  nation  represents  the  cause  that  must  ulti- 
mately triumph,  and  is  therefore  essentially  in  the 
right.  This  vocation  of  Israel  is  described  as  per- 
fectly realized  in  the  ideal  Servant  of  the  Lord 
(49^),  whom  J"  has  called  in  righteousness  (42") 
and  appointed  for  a  light  of  the  Gentiles,  that 
His  salvation  might  be  to  the  ends  of  the  earth 
(49" ;  cf.  42'-  ■•).  The  Servant's  confidence  that  he 
shall  be  justified  (SO*-*  49'')  rests  on  the  conscious- 
ness of  his  election,  and  the  unique  relation  which 
he  holds  to  the  redemptive  purpose  of  J". 

The  same  distinction  between  inherent  and  external  righteous- 
ness is  met  with  in  chs.  56-66,  which  are  assigrned  by  some 
scholars  to  a  later  date.  Thus  in  the  sense  of  justification 
(s.ilv.ition,  prosperity,  etc.)  the  nouns  occur  in  bQ^^  588  Ji99 
61^  lyt.  621*.  (cf.  4318,  possibly  an  interpolated  passage  in  the 
earlier  part).  Of  inherent  right,  the  adj.  is  used  in  671  60^  ; 
the  substantives  in  66i»  582  64^'. ;  the  aspect  most  prominent 
appears  to  be  obedience  to  the  law. — The  idea  of  civic  right- 
eousness in  the  sense  of  the  pre-exilic  prophets  appears  in 
69"  n. 

The  sense  of  Israel's  right  against  the  nations  appears  like- 
wise in  other  post-exilic  writings,  particularly  in  the  Psalter, 
where  the  antithesis  of  'righteous'  and  'wicked*  sometimes 
denotes  Israel  and  the  heathen  respectively ;  cf.  Ps  710  145  31I8 
331  526f-  7510  94-1  97111.  11S15. 20  etc.  etc.  But  here  it  is  no 
longer  possible  to  separate  between  the  national  and  individual 
references  of  the  idea  of  righteousness :  and  it  is  therefore 
better  to  deal  with  the  subject  after  we  have  considered — 

2.  The Riobteo usness of tbe  L\di vidh-a l.— 
That  individual  righteousness  was  an  idea  familiar 
in  early  times  to  the  Israelites,  is  sufficiently  clear 
from  such  passages  as  1  S  26=^,  1  K  S^-,  Is  S'"-  " 
(?if  genuine),  etc.t  It  may  be  true  that  the 
individual  wa.s  hardly  felt  to  possess  an  independ- 
ent religious  status  before  God.  His  life  and  his 
interests  were  seen  to  be  merged  in  those  of  his 
family  or  the  community  (IS  3"  etc.)  ;  and  it  was 
perhaps  not  expected  that  his  outward  fortunes 
should  correspond  exactly  with  his  moral  condition. 
At  all  events,  there  is  no  evidence  that  the  inequal- 
ities of  providence  in  this  sphere  pressed  severely 
on  religious  thought  till  towards  the  Exile,  when 
a  growing  sense  of  jiersonal  right  begins  to  assert 
itself  (Dt  24'«,  2  K  14').  In  the  remarkable  pro- 
plietic  experience  of  Jeremiah,  religion  appears  to 
resolve  itself  into  a  personal  relation  of  the  indi- 
vidual soul  to  God.  And  it  is  noteworthy  that 
immediately  he  is  confronted  bj'  the  gravest  pro- 
blem of  Jewish  theolooy, — Why  is  it  that  the  man 
who  is  right  with  Goa  has  to  sulfer  alHiction  and 

•  Many  commentators  take  the  word  in  these  passages  in  the 
•ense  of  outward  justitlcation.  But  the  panillelism  in  51~  ('  in 
whose  heart  is  my  law')  stronjcly  (avoum  the  more  ethical 
meaning,  and  this  ought  in  fairness  to  rule  the  interpretation 
of  511.     46'-  is  more  doubtful. 

t  On  an  Aramaic  inscription  of  the  7th  cent.  B.c.  (Nerab  it  2)  the 
following  words  are  put  into  the  mouth  of  a  de&d  priest ;  '  For 
my  righteousness  before  him,  he  (the  god)  gave  me  a  good  name 
»nd  lengtliened  my  daj-s'  (UoSmann,  ZA,  ISM,  p.  221  f.X 


injustice  in  the  ■world?  '  Too  righteous  art  tliou, 
O  J",  for  me  to  contend  with  thee;  yet  of  judg- 
ments would  I  .-^peak  with  thee  :  Wherefore  is  tlit 
way  of  the  wicked  prosperous?'  etc.  (12'). 

kzekid. — Besides  tlie  general  tendency  of  thought 
referred  to  in  the  last  paragraph,  there  were  two 
special  reasons  for  the  rapid  growth  of  individual- 
ism in  the  exilic  and  post-exilic  ages.  One  was  the 
dissolution  of  the  State,  in  consequence  of  which 
the  principle  of  collective  retribution  was  oeces- 
sarily  suspended,  and  each  man  became  directly 
accountable  to  God  for  his  own  sins  (Jer  SI*"-, 
Ezk  18-"'').  But  another  and  more  permanent 
cause  was  the  introduction  of  the  written  Law  as 
the  basis  of  religion.  The  Law  makes  its  appeal  in 
the  first  instance  to  the  individual  conscience,  and, 
although  the  aim  of  the  Deuteronomic  covenant 
was  to  make  of  Israel  a  righteous  nation  through 
obedience  to  the  Divine  wul  (Dt  6'°),  its  immediate 
effect  was  only  to  set  up  a  standard  of  righteous- 
ness which  served  as  a  test  of  the  individual's 
relation  to  God.  The  influence  of  these  two  facts 
is  very  apparent  in  the  conception  of  righteousness 
which  meets  us  in  the  Bk.  of  Ezekiel.  Except  in 
a  few  instances  ( 16°"-  23"  45"-)  the  words  'righteous' 
and  '  righteousness '  are  there  used  solely  to  denote 
the  religious  condition  of  individual  persons  in  the 
sight  of  God  (S-"*-  13"  14'^- =»  18"*-  2P'-  33'=»-). 
Sometimes  even  the  plu.  nipi?  is  employed  of  the 
separate  virtues  or  good  deeds,  which  when  ii>teg- 
rated  make  up  the  religious  character  (3-"  IS-**  33'*; 
cf.  Is  33">  64°).  In  form  the  idea  is  purely  legal, 
consisting  in  obedience  to  the  precepts  of  the 
written  Law;  its  content,  as  given  in  18°"'  33" 
etc.,  is  mainly  but  not  exclusively  ethical.  And 
to  thi'i  conception  of  righteousness  there  is  attached 
a  rigorous  theory  of  individual  retribution;  accord- 
ing as  a  man's  state  is  when  the  judgment  over- 
takes him,  so  will  his  destiny  be :  the  righteous 
shall  live,  and  the  wicked  shall  die. 

Book  of  Job. — Ezekiel's  doctrine  of  retribution 
was  formulated  with  express  reference  to  the  final 
judgment  which  determines  whether  a  man  is  to 
be  admitted  into  the  perfect  kingdom  of  God  or 
excluded  from  it.  When  the  principle  was  ex- 
tended to  the  ordinary  course  of  providence,  it  was 
found  to  be  contradicted  at  many  points  by  experi- 
ence. Hence  arose  the  most  serious  stumbling- 
block  to  the  faith  of  OT  believers — the  inequalities, 
the  seeming  injustice,  of  God's  providential  deal- 
ings with  men.  This  problem  emerges  in  many 
forms  (see  Hab  l-"*- 1^  Is  53,  Mai  3"- •»,  Ps  37.  39. 
49.  73,  etc.),  but  nowhere  is  it  treated  with  such 

Senetration  and  such  intensity  of  feeling  as  in  the 
k.  of  Job.  Job,  a  typically  pious  man,  acknow- 
IwlgL'd  to  be  such  by  the  Almighty  and  the  Satan, 
as  well  as  by  his  fellow-men,  is  suddenly  visited  by 
a  series  of  calamities  which,  on  the  current  view  of 
providence,  could  onlj-  be  explained  as  the  punish- 
ment due  to  heinous  sins.  This  view  is  upheld, 
in  the  discussion  which  ensues,  bj'  the  three 
friends,  and  is  partly  shared  by  Job  liimself.  His 
mind  is  dominated  by  the  thought  of  God  as  his 
adversary  in  a  law.suit ;  or  rather  his  chief  com- 
plaint is  that  the  Almighty  constitutes  Himself 
both  accuser  and  judge,  while  there  is  no  umpire 
who  can  lay  his  hand  upon  them  both  (9 '-"■).  He 
feels  himself  to  be  the  victim  of  an  accusation 
brought  against  him  by  an  all-powerful  antagonist ; 
and  his  contention  is  that  the  accusation  is  un- 
just— that  he  is  in  the  right  and  God  in  the 
wrong  in  this  unequal  quarrel.  This,  of  course, 
as  the  other  disputants  are  quick  to  point  out  (8* 
34"  36»37*'40"),  is  to  impugn  the  judicial  righteous- 
ness of  God  ;  and  such  a  position  is  to  them  simply 
inconceivable.  '  How  can  a  man  be  in  the  right 
against  God?'  they  ask  (4' 5'* 25*) ;  and  Job  retorts 
with  bitter  irony,  '  How  indeed  !  seeing  He  is  th« 


RIGHTEOUSNESS  IN  OT 


EIGHTEOUSNESS  IN  OT 


271 


Omnipotent  against  mIioiu  there  is  no  redress' 
(9-).  Thus  to  the  friemls  tlie  question  at  issue  is 
tlie  righteousness  of  Job,  whicli  they  ultimately 
deny  ;  nhile  to  Job  himself  it  is  the  righteousness 
of  God  in  His  providential  dealings  with  men  : 
'he  condemns  God  that  he  himself  may  be  in  the 
right'  (40*,  cf.  34').  Although  he  is  forced  to 
acknowledge  that  God  has  pronounced  him  guilty, 
he  is  nevertlieless  perfectly  sure  of  his  own  right- 
eousness (27'),  by  which  he  means  in  the  first 
instance  his  'just  cause  against  God'  (35-),  his 
innocence  of  the  unknown  transgressions  laid  to 
his  charge  by  his  irresistible  opponent.  '  I  am 
innocent — in  the  right'  is  his  constant  cry  (9-"'' 
13"*  34' etc. ).  But  behind  this  formal  and  purely 
forensic  sense  of  righteousness  there  lies  a  deeper 
question,  viz.  What  constitutes  the  righteousness 
of  a  man  before  God,  or  what  entitles  him  to 
a  sentence  of  justitication  in  the  shape  of  temporal 
prosperity  ?  On  that  point  there  does  not  appear 
to  be  any  fundamental  diil'erence  between  Job  and 
his  friends.  Righteousness  means  morality  com- 
bined with  piety — loyal  and  wholehearted  obedi- 
ence to  the  will  of  God.  Observance  of  the  written 
Law  is  obviously  excluded  by  the  conditions  of 
the  poem ;  but  it  is  assumea  that  God's  will  is 
known,  and  that  a  man  may  so  fulfil  it  as  to  be 
righteous.  Job  is  a  man  perfect  and  upright, 
fearin"  God  and  shunning  evil  (I'etc.).  That  his 
outer  life  had  been  morally  correct  was  known 
to  all  the  world  ;  what  wat  known  to  himself 
alone  and  God  was  that  there  had  been  no  hypoc- 
risy or  secret  infidelity  in  his  heart  (29'-"'-  31'-'') ; 
his  morality  had  been  ins|iired  by  religion,  by 
reverence,  and  perfect  allegiance  to  his  Creator. 
On  that  point  the  testimony  of  his  conscience  is 
c't-'ar  and  unwavering;  and  it  is  the  undoubted 
teiiching  of  the  book  that  this  p'oa  of  Job's  is 
valid,  and  that  the  real  problem  lies  where  Job's 
argument  places  it,  in  the  mystery  of  the  Divine 
government.  We  are  not  here  concerned  with  the 
solution  which  the  author  intends  to  suggest,  but 
it  can  hardly  consist,  as  some  have  thought,  in  the 
undermining  of  Job's  consciousness  of  innocence, 
and  his  being  convicted  of  a  subtle  kind  of  sin  in 
the  shape  of  suif-righteousness.  It  is  rather  to  be 
looked  for  in  the  remarkable  distinction  which 
the  patriarch  is  led  to  draw  between  the  God  of 
Providence  who  condemns  and  persecutes  hira, 
and  the  God  to  whom  his  heart  bears  witness,  who 
is  even  now  his  friend,  and  must  yet  appear  as  his 
avenger,  though  it  be  after  his  death  {16'»--'  lO*"-"). 
Job  13  enabled  in  some  degree  to  maintain  his 
fellowship  with  God  apart  from  outward  tokens  of 
His  favour,  sust.aincd  only  by  the  witness  of  his 
conscience,  and  the  nascent  hope  of  seeing  Him  as 
He  is,  in  another  state  of  being. 

It  has  already  been  pointed  out  that  in  this  book  the  terms 
for  rij,'hleounneefl  are  employed  of  being  in  the  riqht  in  aivu- 
Dicnl  ;  cf.  112  27»  322  3;ilJ.  3'J.  Note  also  the  occasional  use  of 
p-Ti  in  the  sense  of  external  Juetiflcation(  =  pro8perity),8«2fl"  (?) 
SSWStf'. 

Proverhn  nvtl  Errlr.'iiattf/i. — In  the  two  remain- 
ing canonical  IJohhmah  books  the  conception  of 
righteousness  is  as  distinctly  individualistic  as  in 
Job  or  Ezekicl.  A  very  common  theme  in  the 
Proverbs  is  the  contrast  between  the  '  righteous ' 
(p"?s— sing,  or  plu.)  and  the  '  wicked '  (yv'^).*  Here 
the  righti'ous  do  not  form  a  party  (as  often  in  the 
Psalms) ;  t  hey  are  a  dnss,  comprising  all  who  follow 
the  moral  ideal  taught  by  the  wise  men.  All 
men,  in  short,  are  divided  by  the  Proverbial ists 
into  good  and  bad,  and  'righteous'  is  simply  one 
of  the  coiiinionest  designations  of  the  good  part  of 

•  Si-e3.'''in;<a»«.  (11  times),  n"">»'i  i2»  7. 10.  iiM.so  I'js.  o.  2a 
1410.  :-j  150.  IB  a  2112.  is  2-JlO'.  2S26  28>-  !>■ »  292-  '•  !»■  in.  There  ore 
man.v  other  contrast*,  as  »inn«r  l;ya,  rril-doeri  21»,  foiilt  Ki'^' 
eu;. ;  and  many  synonym*,  as  mum  8»  11™  saw,  oood  22",  uvriiiU 
2iis  ct« 


mankind.  It  follows  that  the  idea  of  righteous- 
ness presented  in  the  book  is  essentially  ethical, 
though  no  doubt  w itli  a  strong  dash  of  utilitarian- 
ism, the  virtues  chiefly  insisted  on  being  those 
which  experience  shows  to  be  necessary  for  the 
welfare  of  society,  and  therefore  most  immediately 
beneficial  to  the  individual  who  practises  them. 
At  the  same  time  the  moral  system  has  a  religious 
background.  The  written  Law  is  the  supremo 
standard  of  morality  or  righteousness.  Moreover, 
one  of  the  chief  objects  of  the  writers  is  to  incul- 
cate the  doctrine  of  individual  retribution  in  the 
ordinary  course  of  Divine  providence.  However 
the  fact  may  be  explained,  the  difficulties  surround- 
ing this  question  are  ignored  in  the  Proverbs,  and 
the  law  of  retribution  is  regarded  as  fully  mani- 
fested in  the  present  life  :  '  The  righteous  shall  be 
requited  in  the  earth,  much  more  the  wicked  and 
the  sinner'  (IP').  Hence  the  idea  of  righteous- 
ness a{)pear8  to  have  lost  the  eschatological  refer- 
ence whicli  it  frequently  has  in  other  parts  of  OT, 
and  (what  is  more  remarkable)  it  has  all  but  lost 
the  sense  of  outward  justification,  such  as  we 
meet  with  occasionally  even  in  the  Bk.  of  Job. 
Although  it  is  constantly  asserted  that  righteous- 
ness is  the  way  to  honour,  weiilth,  prosperity,  etc., 
it  does  not  seem  ever  to  be  idcntifed  with  these 
external  tokens  of  God's  approval  except  in  21-"' 
8".  In  Ecclesiastes  the  same  conception  of  right- 
eousness as  the  supreme  moral  category  prevails  ; 
cf.  3"  7^'  S"  9'"  ^.  The  sayings  most  characteristic 
of  the  author  are  these  two  :  '  Be  not  righteous 
overmuch '  (7'"),  and  '  There  is  not  a  righteous  man 
upon  the  earth  that  doeth  good  and  sinneth  not' 
(7-°).  The  latter  is  perhaps  the  only  passage  in 
OT  where  righteousness  is  treated  as  equivalent  to 
sinlessness  ;  the  former  exhibits  a  reaction  against 
the  casuistries  of  Pharisaic  legalism.  The  vacilla- 
tion of  the  book  on  the  subject  of  retribution  (con- 
trast 7" S"  9=  with  3"  9'  etc.)  raises  diflicult  critical 
questions  which  need  not  be  considered  here.* 

The  Psalms. — It  is  very  difficult  to  analyze  and 
classify  the  varied  aspects  of  human  rigliteou.sness 
presented  in  the  Psalter.  For  one  thing,  it  is  im- 
possible (as  was  said  above)  to  draw  a  sharp  line  of 
division  between  the  righteousness  of  the  nation 
and  that  of  the  individual.  The  point  of  view 
most  characteristic  of  the  Psalms  is  intermediate 
between  these  two.  In  a  large  number  of  pas- 
sages the  distinction  of  p"!5  and  IV'";  is  applied  to 
twopartieswithin  the  community  ;  the  'righteous' 
being  the  religious  party  who  have  regard  to  the 
Covenant,  and  the  'wicked'  the  godless  and 
wealthy  anti-theocratic  party  who  set  religion 
and  morality  at  dolianco.t  Here  the  idea  of 
righteousness  is  partly  national,  since  the  '  right- 
eous' represent  the  tnie  ideal  Israel;  partly  indi- 
vidual, inasmuch  as  the  party  is  formed  by  those 
members  of  the  nation  who  accept  the  Law  as 
their  rule  of  life.  In  some  cases,  indeed,  it  is 
difficult  to  say  whether  the  contrast  intended  be 
one  within  the  nation  or  between  the  nation  and 
the  rest  of  the  world.  The  ungodly  in  Israel  are 
animated  by  the  same  spirit  as  the  heathen  that 
know  not  God,  and  conversely  the  qualities  of  the 
righteous  are  the  same  whether  the  predicate  be 
extended  to  the  people  as  a  whole  or  restricted  to 
a  portion  of  it. 

With  regard  to  the  conception  of  righteousness 
imiilied  by  this  contrast,  tlie  following  points  have 
to  be  noted,  (a)  The  conflict  of  parties  is,  first  of 
all,  a  conflict  of  religious  first  principles.  The 
righteous  are  distinguished  by  their  faith  in  the 

•  Both  in  Proverbs  and  Ecclosiofites  there  are  roforcm-cs  to 
the  public  administration  of  Justice,  where  of  course  the  idia  of 
riBhtcouanera  has  the  ordinary  loitnl  nppliciktions  :  cf.  Pr  17"  2* 
1(3.  n  24'-"  2.'.'-».  S'O  1012  2r)»  31",  Kc  3l»  6». 

t  Cf.  1'  612  ua-  »  82"  8417.  •-■0. 22  37  pa4l.  f  622  0410  0928  «!•  112« 
14013  1416  etc. 


!7S 


RIGHTEOUSXESS  IN  OT 


RIGHTEOUSNESS  IN  OT 


moral  govenimont  of  the  universe.  They  trust 
in  J"  (16'  '26'  22"),  and  consciously  identify  them- 
selves with  His  cause  in  the  world  ;  they  stake  their 
existence  on  the  conviction  that  '  there  is  a  God 
that  judj,'eth  in  the  earth  '  (58"),  and  that  '  in  the 
end  judgment  must  be  given  for  righteousness' 
(94'°  Wellhausen).  The  wicked,  on  the  contrary, 
are  practical  atheists.  They  deny,  not  perhaps 
the  existence  of  God,  but  His  providential  action 
(14'  53'),  and  acknowledge  no  higher  authority 
than  their  own  lawless  wills  (12'  59'  64^  94').  Thus 
the  Di\  ine  decision  in  their  favour  for  which  the 
Psalmists  pray  wUl  be  the  vindication  of  that  view 
of  the  world  to  which  they  have  committed  them- 
selves— the  proof  that  they  are  in  t/ie  right  in  the 
fundamental  beliefs  on  which  their  life  is  based. 
(6)  The  sphere  in  which  the  contrast  is  wrought 
out  is  that  of  personal  and  social  morality  ;  hence 
there  is  a  constant  reference,  tacit  or  expressed,  to 
the  moral  character  of  the  suppliants.  They  are 
those  who  practise  righteousness  and  justice  (106'' 
119'-')  ;  they  appeal  to  their  integrity  (7*  25-'41'-) ; 
they  claim  to  be  upright,  or  upright  of  heart  (.32" 
33'  37"  64'°  97"  140'^),  and  innocent  (94-') ;  to  have 
clean  hands  and  a  pure  heart  (18-"-  -■*  24*) ;  cf.  17"''" 
26"''-.  On  the  other  hand,  the  wicked  are  cruel, 
unjust,  deceitful,  bloody-minded,  adulterous,  avari- 
cious, etc.  ;  men  who,  with  no  fear  of  God  before 
their  eyes,  trample  every  social  obligation  under 
their  feet.*  (c)  Another  element  in  the  Psalmists' 
sense  of  righteousness  is  the  fact  that  they  sutler 
wrong  at  the  hands  of  their  enemies  (7'  10- 
22"f-  31'»  69=«  lig*"  125^  143^  etc.).  The  outrages 
perpetrated  by  the  heathen  nations  on  Israel, 
and  by  the  rich  upon  the  poor  within  Israel,  are  a 
violation  of  the  moral  order  of  the  world  which 
cannot  pass  unpunished  under  the  just  govern- 
ment of  J" ;  the  oppressed  are,  ipso  facto,  in  the 
right  against  their  oppressors,  (rf)  Lastly  (as  in 
Ueutero-Isaiah  and  elsewhere),  righteousness  bears 
tlie  sense  of  Justijication  thiow^h  the  judicial  inter- 
position of  J ",  usually  in  the  form  of  a  restoration 
of  temporal  prosperity.  So  in  24' '  he  shall  receive 
blessing  from  J",  and  righteousness  from  the  God 
of  his  salvation'  (cf.  17"  35"  37"  1123- »  etc.);  in 
23''  '  paths  of  righteousness '  means  '  paths  of  pro- 
sperity '  (118'"  132»).t 

NoAv,  while  all  these  elements  may  enter  more  or 
less  into  the  Psalmists'  consciousness  of  being  in 
the  right, — that  consciousness  on  which  they  base 
their  expectation  (or  explain  their  experience)  of 
deliverance  (4'  7"  17'  IS'-*- =<  etc.),— they  are  not  of 
equal  importance.  The  second  (6)  far  outweighs 
the  others.  Kighteousness  is  in  the  main  an 
ethical  word,  describing  the  condition  of  those 
whose  lives  are  governed  by  regard  for  the  moral 
law.  To  the  question  in  what  sense  morality  con- 
stitutes righteousness  before  God,  the  Psalms,  of 
course,  furnish  no  direct  answer.  The  chief  con- 
sideration, no  doubt,  is  that  obedience  to  the 
■written  Law  was  the  condition  of  acceptance  with 
J"  under  the  Covenant.  This  thought  is  often 
expressed  {\Vi"'-  78' 99' 103i«  105«  WQ  pass.,  etc.), 
and  may  be  presumed  to  be  always  in  the  mind  of 
the  writers.  At  the  same  time  it  is  to  be  observed 
that  only  the  ethical  (as  opposed  to  the  ceremonial) 
elements  of  the  Law  enter  into  the  conception  of 
righteousness,  a  fact  which  shows  that  the  inlluence 
of  the  prophets  still  lives  in  the  devotional  poetry 
of  Judaism.     Nor  is  there  anything  in  the  Psalms 

•  Ris:hteousness  in  jud^ient  ifl  emphasized,  e.g.,  in  the 
portraits  of  the  king,  46'  722  (o(.  68'  Wl-'-  99*  etc.).  In  72= 
8510. 11.  IS  the  word  possibly  meana  the  ideal  state  of  a  well- 
ordered  commonwealtb,  brin^g  peace  and  prosperity  in  its 
train  (cf.  Is  468). 

t  As  was  remarked  above,  p'^s  (the  adj.)  does  not  appear  to 
have  this  sense ;  it  refers  to  the  inherent  state  or  character  of 
those  who  are  in  the  right,  whether  it  has  been  manifested 
by  external  proTidenlial  act*  or  not.  llSi»-*>  are  hardly 
txceptiona. 


that  can  properly  be  called  self-righteousness  or 
legalism  in  a  Pharisaic  sense,  i.e.  the  Psalmists  do 
not  think  of  their  good  works  as  giving  them  an 
absolute  title  to  justification.  They  do  not  (like 
Job)  maintain  their  right  against  God — '  in  thy 
sight  shall  no  man  living  be  in  the  right,'  143'^ — 
thej'  are  ever  conscious  of  defect  and  sin  cleaving 
to  all  they  do;  and  merely  plead  the  steadfast 
direction  of  tlieir  will  towards  the  ethical  ideal  as 
evidence  of  their  fidelity  to  J".  Kighteousness,  in 
fact,  is  a  relative  term,  meaning  in  the  right  aa 
against  some  other,  not  absolute  moral  perfection 
ill  the  sight  of  God.  In  106^',  where  a  single  good 
action  is  said  to  be  '  counted '  for  righteousness, 
the  word  has  doubtless  a  sense  approaching  to 
merit  (cf.  Gn  15^) ;  but  here  the  Pauline  maxim 
has  to  he  borne  in  mind  that  the  '  reckoning'  of  a 
reward  is  of  grace,  not  of  debt  (Ro  4'').  It  is  a 
manifestation  of  grace  on  the  part  of  J"  that  He 
renders  to  a  man  according  to  his  works  (62''-'). 

This  is  not  the  place  to  examine  the  moral  ideal 
of  the  Psalmists  in  detail  (see  ETHICS) ;  it  is  in  all 
important  features  the  common  property  of  post- 
exilic  Judaism,  and  it  has  its  centre  in  the  indi- 
vidual life.  Only  one  point  needs  to  be  adverted 
to,  in  order  to  guard  against  a  possible  misconcep- 
tion. It  is  found  that  in  connexion  with  the  idea 
of  righteousness  considerable  emphasis  is  laid  on 
the  humane  virtues.  In  112* '  righteous '  and  '  mer- 
ciful '  occur  together  in  the  description  of  the  God- 
fearing man  ;  in  v.''  of  the  same  Psalm  charity  to 
the  poor  is  mentioned  as  a  condition  of  righteous- 
ness ;  in  37^'  112^-"  the  righteous  is  characterized 
bj'  willingness  to  lend  and  to  give.*  Now,  it  is  a 
well-known  fact  that  in  later  times  righteousness 
acquired  the  special  sense  of  mercy  or  even  alms- 
giving (see  below),  and  it  might  he  supposed  that 
in  the  passages  just  cited  we  have  the  first  indica- 
tion of  that  important  change  of  meaning.  It  ia 
very  doubtful  if  this  view  be  correct.  In  reality, 
the  phenomenon  in  question  is  little  different  from 
a  feature  we  have  already  remarked  in  the  pro- 
phetic conception  of  righteousness.  To  say  that  the 
righteous  man  is  merciful,  etc.,  is  not  the  same 
thing  as  to  identify  righteousness  and  mercy  ;  all 
that  is  meant  is  that  mercifulness  is  one  feature  of 
the  ideal  righteous  character ;  and  any  stress  laid 
on  such  virtues  in  particular  passages  is  amply 
explained  by  the  prominence  assigned  to  them  in 
the  moral  code  of  Judaism. 

Some  additional  illustrations  of  the  various  kinds  of  human 
righteousness  may  here  be  given  from  the  later  writings  of  l.»T. 
— In  Mai  3W  the  two  parties  in  the  restored  community  are  dis- 
tinguished as  the  '  righteous' and  the  '  nicked' respectively  (aa 
in  Psalms). — In  320  righteousness  means  jwitiJu:aH<yn  througli  a 
return  of  prosperity  ;  as  also  Jl  2'^  :  '  the  early  rain  m  Uiktn  oS 
)u«(t/i<:atio7i'(.iB'i5i^,— less  probably,  in  )u»l  mea«4«) ;  Dn  92* 
('everlasting righteousness'). —In  Is24i6'2t)2p^s  is  a  predicate  of 
the  nation  of  Israel ;  in  26',  perhaps  of  the  theocratic  parly.— 
In  20^  the  idea  seems  to  be  that  when  J"  rouses  Himself  to  the 
exercise  of  Ilis  judicial  functions,  the  inhabitants  of  the  xvorld 
will  learn  what  true  piety  is.— Is  (145,  Dn  9'i*  exi>ress  a  sense  of 
the  worthlessness  of  the  works  of  right€0usne88(nlp-y)  performed 
by  the  people  ;  the  consciousness  of  being  in  the  right  (oft*n  so 
powerful  in  the  Psalms)  cannot  maintain  itself  in  the  face  of  pro- 
longed national  misfortune.  Dn  8'*  (?■];.■:)  is  a  peculiar  case  :  the 
cleansingof  the  sanctuary  is  considered  asa^'^wtfiTicafio", a  vindi- 
cation of  its  rights  against  the  heathen  who  had  profaned  iU 

3.  TUB  RlGnTEOUSXESS  OF  GOV.— In  the  OT 
righteousness  is  never  predicated  of  any  other  deity 
than  J",  the  God  of  Israel,  t  It  appears  to  be  regarded 

•  The  same  combination  is  met  with  in  Proverbs  (cf.  12'0  21«' 
29'),  and  perhaps  in  Job  (■291''). 

t  In  Ps  &S.  82  many  commentators  And  the  unfamiliar  idea 
expressed  th.at  the  government  of  the  world  has  been  delegated 
bv  J"  to  inferior,  semi-divine  beings,  the  gods  of  the  heathen. 
To  the  unrighteous  judgment  of  tliesc  subordinate  deities  is 
ascribed  the  perversion  of  right  which  prevails  on  earth.  II 
this  view  were  correct  (which  is  doubtful),  it  would  certainly 
show  that  righteousness  was  expected  of  a  1  beings  to  whom 
Divine  honours  were  paid  ;  but  such  a  re|  ceseutatioo  hardly 
contlicts  with  the  statement  made  above. 


KIGHTEOUSXESS  IN  OT 


RIGHTEOUSNESS  IX  OT 


279 


not  as  a  natural  attribute  inseparable  from  the 
very  notion  of  Godhead,  but  as  one  wliioh  J "  alone 
has  proved  Himself  to  possess  in  the  positive  reve- 
lation of  Himself  throujj'h  the  history  of  Israel  (see 
Is'lS""-).  The  idea  has  its  roots  in  the  fundamental 
institutions  of  the  Hebrew  religion.  From  the 
time  of  Moses,  J"  was  regarded  as  the  fountain  of 
right  in  Israel,  the  King  and  Judge  of  His  people, 
dispensing  justice  continuously  through  His  ac- 
credited representatives  (Dt  1").*  The  develop- 
ment of  the  idea  is  due  chiefly  to  influences  ema- 
nating from  the  prophets.  It  belongs  to  their  view 
of  J  "as  an  ethical  I'erson  haWng  an  independent 
character  of  His  own,  in  contrast  with  the  gods  of 
the  heathen,  who  were  conceived  even  by  their 
worshippers  as  arbitrary  and  capricious  "bein>'s, 
subject  to  incalculable  "humours  and  swaj'ed  by 
self-interest.  The  righteousness  of  J"  is  the  stead- 
fastness of  His  character,  to  be  seen,  first  of  all,  in 
His  inllexible  determination  to  puni.sh  Israel  for 
its  .sins  (Is  28"  etc.).  It  comes  to  light  in  the  moral 
order  of  the  universe,  which  is  just  J"  Himself 
operating  in  histor5'  in  a  way  that  answers  to  the 
sense  of  right  which  He  has  implanted  in  human 
nature.  In  Zeph  3'  His  moral  rule  is  described  as 
having  the  constanej-  and  uniformity  of  the  natural 
law  that  brings  in  tlie  dawn  :  '  J"  is  righteous  in  the 
midst  of  her;  he  doeth  no  iniquity;  mornin";  by 
morning  he  bringeth  his  judgment  to  light, 
Dothinj;  is  missing'  (cf.  IIos  6°  'my  judgment 
goeth  torth  as  the  light ').  In  a  similar  and  nearly 
contemporary  passage  we  read :  '  The  Rock,  his 
work  is  perfect,  for  all  his  ways  are  judgment;  a 
(.Tod  of  faithfulness  and  without  iniquity  ;  righteous 
and  upright  is  he'  (Dt  32'). 

This  prophetic  conception  of  the  Divine  righteous- 
ness receives  a  remarkable  expansion  in  the  hands 
of  DeuteroLsaiali.  The  most  suggestive  passage 
is  45'""-'  '  Not  in  secret  have  I  spoken,  in  a  place 
of  the  land  of  darkness ;  I  have  not  said  to  the 
seed  of  Jacob,  Seek  lue  in  the  waste.  I,  J",  speak 
righteousness,  proclaim  uprightness  ...  A  right- 
eous God  and  a  Saviour  (i-yioi  p^s  Vx)  there  is  not 
e.\cept  me'  (cf.  v."  '  rigliteousness  is  gone  forth 
from  my  mouth, — a  word  that  shall  not  return'; 
and  63'  '  I  that  speak  in  righteousness,  mighty  to 
save ').  Here  two  things  are  to  be  noted :  first, 
that  righteousness  is  a  feature  not  merely  of  J"'s 
judicial  action,  but  of  His  whole  manner  of  reveal- 
ing Him.self  in  history  ;  and,  secondly,  tliat  beyond 
the  universal  moral  order  of  the  world  it  embraces 
a  redemptive  purpose,  which,  however,  is  ultimately 
coextensive  with  the  destiny  of  mankind.  Tlie 
fundamental  thought  would  seem  to  be  the  trust- 
worthiness and  self-consistency  of  J"'s  character, — 
Hie  being  ever  true  to  His  own  nature  and  purpose, 
— and  along  with  that  His  straightforwardness  in 
the  revelation  of  that  purpose  to  Israel.  In  the  same 
profound  ethical  sense  tlie  words  are  used  in  41'° 
42*  45"  :  the  upholding  of  Israel,  the  election  of  the 
ideal  servant,  and  the  raising  up  of  Cyrus,  are  all 
moments  in  one  comprehensive  purpose  of  salvation 
which  J",  in  virtue  of  His  rigliteousness,  steadily 
pursues  to  its  glorious  issue. t    Elsewhere  than  in 

•  Aipxpressionii  of  the  righteous  will  of  J",  the  precepts  of 
the  Iaw  are  iiometinies  spoken  of  aa  themselves  'righteous* 
(Dt  i»,  P»  19»,  and  olten  in  Ps  119).  So  in  Dt  3310,  and  perhaps 
elsewhere  (Ps  6»  11(>«  etc.),  the  righteousness  of  J"  means  that 
which  He  requires  of  man,  or  that  which  la  prescribc<l  in  the 
Iviw.  .Some  writers  have  thought  it  strange  that  this  Divine 
altribut«  is  nowhere  mentioned  in  the  Pent,  in  connexion  with 
the  Mosaic  legislation,  which,  from  one  point  of  view,  might 
•eem  the  most  signal  exhihition  of  J"'s  righteousness  in  the 
whole  history  of  Israel.  The  explanation  probably  lies  in  the 
essentially  prophetic  character  of  the  conception  referred  to  in 
the  text  above,  liy  the  prophets  the  term  is  applied  not  to  the 
legi.«latlvc  activity  of  J",  but  to  His  dealings  in  providince. 

I  Of.  also  4'22i  "J"  waa  pleased,  for  his  righteousness'  sake,  to 
magnifv  revelation,'  etc.  Uss  signiflcjint,  but  still  notoworthv. 
»«<  IM  43»,  where  the  terms  are  applied  to  predict'ons  aa  verified 
by  the  event. 


Deutero-Isaiah,  this  precise  sense  of  righteousnesa 
is  rarely  met  with  in  OT  (see  Zee  8',  Nch  9',  and 
those  passages  in  the  Psalms  where  righteousness 
is  parallel  to  faithfulness).  Its  indirect  influence, 
however,  has  been  very  great,  as  appears  from  the 
remarkable  way  in  wliich  the  Psalmists  emphasize 
the  gracious  aspect  of  the  attribute  (see  below). 

The  teaching  of  Deutero-Isaiah  on  this  subject  stands  some- 
what ap;irt  from  the  rest  of  the  OT,  and  represents  a  standpoint 
hardly  reached  by  subsequent  writers.  Righteousness  appears 
to  be  conceived  as  a  moral  attribute  expressing  what  J"'8 
character  is  in  itself,  apart  from  Uis  legal  relations  with  men  ; 
and  it  is  dithcult  to  trace  a  connexion  between  this  view  of 
righteousness  and  the  commoner  forensic  conceptions  about  to 
be  considered.  Smend  describes  it  as  '  die  Zuverhissigkeit  mit 
der  er  sich  als  der  Heifer  Israels  beweist '{/ie^.-ye*"cA.- 394  ;  cf. 
1st  ed.  4-1  If.),  and  seems  to  derive  it  from  the  idea  of  J"'s  being 
in  the  right  in  His  controversy  with  Israel  (see  (a)  below). 
Dahnan  treats  it  simply  as  a  manifestation  of  judicial  righteous- 
nes.<  on  the  part  of  Uod  ((6)  below).  Were  it  not  hazardous  to 
depart  (rum  the  forensic  usage  which  is  so  prevalent  in  Hebrew, 
one  mi;:ht  be  tempted  to  suppose  that  we  have  here  to  do  with 
an  independent  development  of  the  notion  parallel  to  what  ia 
found  in  Arabic. 

For  the  most  part,  however,  the  idea  of  Divine 
righteousness  is  based  on  legal  analogies  applied  to 
the  relation  between  J"  on  tlie  one  hand  and  Israel 
or  mankind  on  the  other.  Here,  again,  there  are 
two  cases  to  be  distinguished,  (a)  Not  infrequently, 
in  the  prophets  and  elsewhere,  J"  appears  as  the 
plaintiff' in  a  \e''al  action,  pressing  His  suit  against 
Israel,  and  calling  for  the  judgment  of  .an  ideal 
tribunal  (Is  1'*  43-',  Mic  G^  etc.).  When  in  this 
connexion  the  word  '  righteous '  is  emploj'ed  of  J",  it 
denotes  that  He  is  in  ike  Wg'/iY  and  His  adversary 
in  the  wrong  in  the  controversy  between  them. 
The  adj.  has  this  sense  in  the  mouth  of  Pharaoh, 
Ex  9-''  ('J"  is  in  the  right,'  etc.).  It  is  so  u.sed  also 
in  the  following  passages,  where  the  righteousness 
of  J"  is  acknowledged  lu  the  punishment  of  Israel's 
sin:  La  l'«,  Ezr  'J'»,  Neh  9-^,  2  Ch  12«,  Du  9". 
Similarly,  niji?  in  Dn  9'- '«,  mpys  in  1  S  12',  Mic  6»  ;  * 
and  the  verb  in  Ps 51* ('that  thou  mayest  be  in  the 
right  in  thy  sentence').  By  an  extension  of  meaning 
parallel  to  what  we  have  alre.idy  noted  in  the 
secular  sphere,  this  sense  of  rigliteousness  might 
readily  pass  over  into  that  of  ethical  perfection  ; 
and  there  are  a  few  instances  where  the  word  is 
possibly  to  be  so  understood  ;  cf.  again  Zeph  3', 
Dt  32*,  Zee  8^ ;  also  Neh  9',  Ps  145'  etc. 

(i)  The  prevalent  conception  of  the  OT  is  that  in 
which  J"  is  represented  not  as  one  of  the  parties  in 
a  lawsuit,  but  as  the  supreme  Judge,  who  sits 
enthroned  above  the  confusion  and  strife  of  the 
world,  and  dispenses  absolute  justice  in  the  end  to 
all  Uis  creatures.  Uighteousness,  accordhigly,  is 
pre-eminently  the  jxidicinl  attribute  of  God  ;  it  is 
that  which  pertains  to  Him  as  '  the  Judge  of  all 
the  earth '  (Gn  18^).  J "  is  a  righteous  Judge 
(Jer  11">,  Ps  7") ;  judges  the  world  in  righteousness 
(Ps  98  90'^  OS") ;  He  sits  on  a  throne  jmlging  right- 
eousness (9'') ;  rigliteousness  is  the  foun<l;ition  of 
Uis  throne  (89'-'  97-')  ;  cf.  11'  36»  4S'»  SU"  71'»  97"  UP 
etc.  Hence  the  word  ma}-  be  expected  to  have  the 
same  range  of  meaning  as  the  ordinary  OT  concep- 
tion of  judicial  righteousness,  wliich  we  have  seen 
to  be  a  somewh.at  wider  idea  than  its  modem 
equivalent,  (o)  It  includes  of  course,  hr.st  of  all, 
the  cardinal  virtues  of  the  judge:  e.q.  love  of 
right  (Jer  \)'^,  Ps  II'  33=  9!H) ;  rigorous  iilipartiality 
in  the  distribution  of  punislinunt  or  reward  (Job  8' 
36'  37^) ;  and  unerring  recognition  of  men's  true 
moral  condition  (Jer  11-"  '20'-,  Ps  7":  cf.  Is  11»  of 
the  Messiah).t    Its  action  is  naturally  two-sided  : 

•n'ip-l>-  in  Jg  6",  Ps  11'  :03ii  is  probably  dilTerent  (  =  man|. 
festAtions  of  judiciAl  righteousness.  In  a  sense  favourable  to 
Israel). 

t  '  Die  gottliche  Zedakah  1st  dielenige  Cesinnung,  welche  In 
Ihrer  BeUiiitigung  den  wahren,  d.  i.  sittlichen  Werth  Oder 
Unwerth  einer  Personlichkeit  (o<ler  einer  Gemelnscha/t)  In 
absolut  richtiger  Weiso  anerkennt  *  (Diestel,  J  DTK,  VS6&Q, 
V.  179). 


280 


EIGHTEOUSNESS  IN  OT 


RIGHTEOUSNFSS  IN  OT 


towards  the  wicked  it  is  vengeance  (Jer  11*"  20", 
Is  59'«'-,  Ps  129-'  etc.),  while  for  the  righteous  it 
means  vindication  and  deliverance;  and  usually 
the  two  sides  of  the  idea  will  be  displayed  in  the 
same  act  of  judgment,  the  deliverance  of  the 
righteous  being  ell'ected  through  the  destruction 
of  the  wicked.  (/3)  But  frequently  the  second  is  so 
emphasized  that  the  other  is  almost  or  quite  left 
out  of  view  ;  and  this  tendency  is  so  pronounced 
as  almost  to  bring  about  a  transformation  of  the 
whole  idea  of  Diiine  righteousness.  Thus  in  virtue 
of  His  righteousness  J"  establishes  the  righteous 
(Ps  7"),  and  jjleads  the  cause  of  His  people  (Slic  7*)  j 
He  answers  their  praj-er  by  terrible  things  in 
righteousness  {Ps  65'),  etc.  So  in  the  many  places 
where  the  righteousness  of  God  is  referred  to  as  an 
object  of  praise  (Ps  7"  22»'  35=8  40>»  51"  71'"- '»  SO" 
145'),  it  is  not  the  abstract  justice  of  J"'s  dealings 
that  calls  forth  adoration,  but  His  proved  readiness 
to  help  and  bless  His  people.  This  aspect  of  right- 
eousness may  be  defined  as  the  j'ustt/i/ing  activity 
of  God.  (7)  Once  more,  the  name  righteousness  is 
given  to  the  act  of  justification  in  which  the  Divine 
attribute  is  manifested,  and  to  its  external  conse- 
quences as  seen  in  the  lot  of  the  justified.  In  other 
words,  righteousness  is  synonymous  with  salvation 
{is  461^  515.6.8  59i6t.^   Ps  4011J  5116  7J151.   t)82  etc  )_ 

This  objective  righteousness  is  spoken  of  indiffer- 
ently as  that  of  God  the  Justiher,  or  of  men  the 
justified  *  (cf.  Ps  IIP  ^^'ith  112^,  and  see  the  passages 
cited  above  amongst  the  illustrations  of  human 
righteousness).  It  should  be  added  that  in  many 
cases  the  context  hardly  determines  whether  it  be 
the  subjective  attribute  in  the  Divine  mind  or  the 
outward  embodiment  of  it  in  providence  which  is 
to  be  understood. 

It  is  evident  that  the  OT  writers  know  nothing 
of  the  sharp  contrast  often  drawn  by  theologians 
between  the  righteousness  and  the  mercy  of  God. 
Kighteousness  and  saving  activit}',  so  far  from 
being  opposed  to  each  other,  are  harmonious  prin- 
ciples of  action  in  the  Divine  nature  ;  J"  is  a  right- 
eous God  and  a  Saviour  (Is  45-').  Accordingly,  the 
Psalmists  constantly  appeal  to  the  righteousness 
of  God,  not  only  for  judgment  (22-'2  So--*),  but  for 
deliverance  (31'  71-  143"),  for  quickening  (5*),  for 
the  answer  to  prayer  (143'),  etc.  Again,  right- 
eousness is  frequently  associated  with  other  attri- 
butes expressing  the  gracious  attitude  of  J"  to  His 
people,  e.g.  mercy  or  grace  {icn  Ps  36"  '"  89'''  103" 
145"),  faithfulness  (n-x,  .i:ex  Zee  8',  Ps  36"  40"' 
8S'2  89l-'96'^  lig'"-'*'  '143'),  c'ompns.nnn  (]i:r  116'), 
goodness  (145'),  etc.  These  parallelisms  are  not  to 
be  pressed  so  far  as  to  identify  righteousness  with 
grace  or  faithfulness  ;  all  that  is  implied  is  that  in 
J"'s  providential  action  various  attributes  meet,  so 
that  the  same  act  may  from  dillerent  points  of 
view  be  regarded  as  an  exercise  of  righteousness, 
or  of  faithfulness,  or  of  mercy.  Still  they  suiBce 
to  show  that  in  the  mind  of  the  WTiters  there  was 
no  sense  of  opposition  between  righteousness  and 
grace  in  God.  How  far  their  idea  is  from  mere 
retributive  justice,  —  the  constant  et  perpetua 
voluntas  suum  cuique  tribuendi, — appears  with 
almost  startling  force  from  the  singular  wish  of 
Ps  69-''  that  the  wicked  may  not  come  into  .I"'s 
righteousness  {i.e.  have  no  share  in  His  justifying 
activity),  or  the  not  less  remarkable  prayer  of 
143'-  ^  '  Answer  me  in  thy  righteousness.  And 
enter  not  into  judgment  with  tliy  servant :  for  in 
thy  sight  shall  none  living  be  in  the  right.'  +    Nay 

_  •  '  Gottes  Gerechtigkeit  hat  einen  mehr  ursiichlichen,  aktiven, 
die  menschliche  einen  melir  sckundaren  und  receptiven  Char- 
ftkter,  jiine  ist  eine  Kraft,  dicse  ein  Zustand'  (Duhni  on  I's  112). 
t  Here  '  enter  into  jndg-ment '  apparently  means  to  appear  .as 
the  accuser  in  a  legal  process  (Wellhausen).  The  I'salmist  does 
not  shrink  from  the  jnd^'nient  of  God,  in  which  His  .lijlf 
Is  operative,  luit  only  from  a  contro\-ersy  with  the  Aliuijj;iity, 
like  that  io  -vhich  Job  so  recklessly  engaged. 


more,  the  principle  of  retiibution  is  in  Ps  62" 
expressly  deduced  not  from  the  righteousness  of 
God,  but  from  His  grace :  '  to  thee  belongeth 
grace  :  for  thou  requitest  each  man  according  to 
his  works '  ;  here  the  meaning  must  be  that  it  is 
an  act  of  condescending  grace  on  the  part  of  God 
to  take  cognizance  of  the  diilerences  in  haman 
conduct. 

On  the  other  Land,  however,  these  examples 
do  not  justify  certain  extreme  theories  that  have 
sometimes  been  built  upon  them.  They  do  not, 
e.g.,  warrant  the  definition  of  righteousness  as 
God's  fidelity  to  the  Covenant  (Kautzsch,  Riehm, 
etc.).  No  doubt,  faithfulness  to  covenant  obliga- 
tions is  a  part  of  the  ethical  righteousness  of  J' 
when  once  a  covenant  has  been  established  ;  but 
there  is  nothing  to  suggest  that  the  attribute  comes 
into  play  only  with  the  covenant  relation,  or  tha'. 
its  sphere  of  exercise  is  confined  to  the  maintenanca 
of  tlie  Covenant  with  Israel.  Again,  it  is  a.; 
exaggeration  to  deny  that  retribution  is  an  ele 
ment  of  the  Divine  righteousness.  This  has  been 
done  by  Diestel  and  Kitschl,  who  hold  that  the 
righteousness  of  God  has  a  positive  reference  only 
to  the  purpose  of  salvation,  and  that  retribution 
has  merely  an  accidental  connexion  with  it  in  so 
far  as  the  punishment  of  the  wicked  may  be  neces- 
sary for  the  establishing  of  the  righteous.  The 
distinction  here  attempted  to  be  drawn  is  illusory. 
The  punishment  of  sin  is  directly  connected  'w-ith 
the  Divine  righteousness  in  such  passages  as  Is  5'* 
1023  2817,  Ps  711  506_  1  K  8^2  etc.;  and  if  this  does 
not  more  fiequently  occur,  the  reasonable  explana- 
tion is  that  the  matter  was  too  self-evident  to 
require  to  be  insisted  on.  But  the  mistake  of  both 
these  theories,  as  of  others  that  might  be  men- 
tioned, is  that  they  tend  to  dissociate  an  OT  idea 
from  the  historic  institutions  in  which  it  was 
incorporated  in  Hebrew  thou^jht,  and  try  to  recon- 
struct it  on  the  unsafe  foundation  of  an  abstract 
definition.  The  language  of  the  OT  is  not  scho- 
lastic but  practical ;  its  writers  do  not  analyze  and 
expound  ideas,  but  express  in  vivid  popular  speech 
the  spiritual  truths  by  which  their  religious  life 
was  sustained.  That  the  Divine  righteousness  was 
mainly  conceived  by  them  as  a  judicial  attribute 
is  beyond  dispute,  and  they  must  be  presumed  to 
include  under  it  all  that  the  term  would  imply  if 
used  of  a  human  judge, — the  punishment  ot  the 
guilty  as  well  as  the  vindication  of  the  innocent. 
The  prominence  which  is  given  to  the  latter  aspect 
of  the  notion  is  certainlj'  a  fact  of  the  utmost 
significance  for  theolo":y,  but  it  involves  no  de- 
parture from  the  analogy  of  secular  justice  as 
administered  in  ancient  Israel.  If  it  be  considered 
that  the  Psalmists  and  other  writers  were  accus- 
tomed to  look  on  a  judge  as  the  natural  protector 
and  patron  of  the  oppressed,  and,  further,  that  they 
were  always  confident  in  the  substantial  justica 
of  their  own  cause  before  God,  there  need  be  no 
difficulty  in  recognizing  the  es.sentially  judicial 
character  of  their  conception  of  the  Divine  right- 
eousness, although  to  tueir  minds  it  presents  on 
the  whole  the  aspect  of  grace. 

Another  point  may  be  referred  to.  The  OT 
does  not  appear  to  teach  a  justification  of  sinners 
as  such.  In  Protestant  theology,  according  to 
Ritsohl,  justification  is  a  synthetic  judgment  of 
God,  expressing,  that  is,  His  resolve,  for  the  sake 
of  Jesus  Christ,  to  treat  as  righteous  those  who 
have  no  righteousness  in  themselves.  Assumin" 
that  to  be  a  correct  statement  'of  the  evangelicd 
doctrine,  we  have  merely  to  observe  that  the  OT 
does  not  proceed  quite  so  far.  It  rather  leads  us 
to  think  of  justification  as  an  analytic  judgment, 
a  ileclaration  of  righteousness  by  God  in  favour  of 
such  as  are  inherently  in  the  right.  Those  who 
are  justified   are,   in   fact,   sinful   men,  —  though 


EIGHTEOUSXESS  IN  OT 


RIGHTEOUSNESS  IN  NT 


281 


never,  of  course,  '  wicked  '  (D'l'jn),  —  but  still,  in 
the  relative  sense  in  which  the  word  is  used,  they 
are  the  'righteous';  and  it  is  qud  righteous,  not 
gud  sinners,  that  they  are  objects  of  the  justifying 
decree  of  God.  It  is  true  that  in  the  actual  ex- 
perience of  OT  believers  this  order  of  ideas  is 
generally  reversed.  The  consciousness  of  being  in 
the  right  is  seldom  strong  enough  to  be  long  main- 
tained in  the  absence  of  the  outward  marks  of 
God's  approval  in  the  shape  of  temporal  good 
fortune  ;  the  case  of  .lob  is  quite  exceptional. 
The  external  justification,  therefore,  as  a  rule 
comes  first  in  the  thought  of  OT  ^mters  ;  and  from 
it  they  derive  the  assurance  that  they  are  in- 
lierently  riglilcous  before  God.  And  as  the  with- 
drawal of  outward  prosperity  is  a  proof  of  sin  in 
the  righteous,  so  the  act  of  justilioation  is  equiva- 
lent to  the  pardon  of  sin  ;  cf.  Job  o3'^,  where  the 
conversion  ol  a  sinner  under  the  chastening  hand 
of  the  Almighty  is  said  to  be  followed  by  the 
restoration  of  his  righteousness.  Thus  the  teach- 
ing of  the  OT  may  be  said  to  culminate  in  the 
thought  of  righteousness  as  a  gift  of  God,  an  idea 
appearing  most  clearly  perhaps  in  Ps  24°  69^,  Is 
4gi3  515. »  5(ji_  £ij  tiigse  passages  we  find  the 
nearest  approximation  to  what  we  mean  by  '  im- 
puted '  righteousness.  The  idea  of  the  righteous- 
ness of  one  person  being  imputed  to  another  is,  it 
need  hardly  be  said,  entirely  foreign  to  the  OT. 

In  late  Hebrew  the  word  npi:i  underwent  a  remarkable 
change  of  meaning,  for  a  full  account  of  which  the  reader  is 
referred  to  the  valuatjle  treatise  of  Dalman  cited  below  (under 
Literature).     A  few  points  may  here  be  noted. 

(1)  Id  the  sphere  of  private  morals  r\p~i)i  became  almost 
equivalent  to  the  OT  "ipn ;  i.e.  it  denoted  any  exercise  of 
benevolence  which  goes  beyond  a  man's  legal  obligations. 
Obviously,  this  is  a  development  of  the  humanitarian  aspect  of 
the  idea  which  we  have  seen  to  be  prominent  in  the  prophets 
and  tlie  Hagiographa,  and  it  reaches  its  climax  in  the  sense  of 
altu^'jirinij  (see  lit  Ol).  Dalman  considers  that  the  word  had 
this  sense  in  the  Aramaic  dialect  before  its  a<loption  by  the 
JoA"8,  but  this  is  hardly  proved  by  the  examples  he  adduces 
(p.  13).  It  is  not  necessary  to  take  the  original  n;;iy  in  Dn  4^^^ 
OS  anything  else  than  right  li\  ing ;  and  tile  occurrence  of  the 
'ater  sense  in  the  Targ,  ((In  Ib'i*)  is  no  sure  evidence  of  an 
independent  Aramaic  development.  It  seems  more  natural  to 
suppose  that  the  usiige  of  the  Targ.  registere  a  change  which 
the  idea  had  undergone  in  the  religious  thought  of  later 
Judaism. 

(2)  !n  the  judicial  sphere  .ipiii  has  ceased  to  be  a  properly 
Judicial  attribute.  It  U  a  consideration  which  comes  in  to 
moderate  the  operation  of  strict  Justice  ({'"n),  so  that  the  ques- 
tion is  actually  raised,  and  answered  with  much  ingenuity, 
how,  in  accordance  with  OT  injunctions,  :\p'\'i  is  to  be  exercised 
in  Judgment.*  This,  of  course,  applies  equally  to  the  Divine 
righteouaiiuss  and  to  that  of  a  human  judge.  Here,  again,  wo 
have  the  one-sided  exaggeration  oi  a  single  element  in  the 
old  Hebrew  notion  of  Judicial  righteousness.  Originally  it 
included  both  the  exercise  of  impartial  Justice  and  a  readiness 
to  espouse  the  cause  of  the  opi>ressed.  Eventually  —  jcirtly 
through  the  parallel  development  in  the  sphere  of  private 
morals,  and  partly,  as  Dalman  observes  (p.  18),  from  a  more 
developed  sense  of  formal  right — the  two  ideas  proved  to  be 
incompatible,  and  the  name  T\p-\:i  was  appropriated  to  that 
which,  strictly  speaking,  haa  nothing  to  do  with  a  Judge's 
fun<;tions  at  all. 

The  question  arises,  To  what  time  can  these  changes,  or  the 
lieginnings  of  them,  be  trace<l  back?  Here  the  evidence  of  the 
LXJC  is  of  importance.  Where  the  reference  is  to  righteous- 
nen  manifested  by  God  to  man,  npi:£  is  not  infrequently 
rendered  by  iUriJ^ri>^  (Dt  625  2413,  Ps  24  (23) »  33  (32) »  103 
(102)«,  Is  V"  2si'  6910,  Dn  918)  or  Uut  (Is  ."iC).  For  human 
righteousness  we  have  only  Ixi«<  in  Ezk  18'^- 22  and  iAit:ft6ffv*«,f 
(  =  almB)  in  Dn  4".  On  the  other  hand,  inninriti,  stands  for  Tcn 
in  (in  1919  20la  2123  242'  321O,  Ex  16ia  34',  Pr  2028,  is  U3'.  Tlie'se 
facts  indioate  a  tendency  to  confuse  the  ideas  of  r^p'i'i  and  ion, 
though  they  do  not  show  it  to  be  far  advanced ;  sumething 
must  be  allowed  for  the  didlculty  of  rendering  in  another 
language  the  peculiar  shades  of  meaning  assumed  by  the 
Hebrew  term.— In  ^he  original  Hebrew  of  IJcn  .Sira,  the  later 
sense  of  npis  appears  (3"  830  [cf.  I>r  16«J  71"  40"),  alongside 
of  the  more  general  OT  sense  (123  iei4  4413  61*))  :  some  passages 
are  ambiguous  (40"  etc.).— Since  the  OT  probably  contains 

•Some  of  Dalman's  tUufltrations  are  very  striking  (p.  bt.y 
B.g.  it  is  said  that  ft  judge  exercises  *  righteousness  when  ho 
pays  out  of  his  own  pocket  the  One  he  has  imposed  on  a  poor 


writings  of  more  recent  date  than  the  Greek  translation  of 
the  Pent.,  or  even  the  age  of  Ben  .Sira  (c.  200  B.C.),  it  would 
not  be  surprising  if  in  some  parts  of  the  Oanon  the  idea  of 
righteousness  were  found  to  have  undergone  the  transforma- 
tions just  described.  Yet,  as  has  been  already  said,  it  is 
doubtful  if  this  is  the  case.  The  OT  emphasizes  humanity 
or  mercy  as  an  element  in  the  ethical  ideal ;  but  it  is  this 
etliical  ideal  itself,  and  not  any  particular  virtue,  which  is 
described  by  tlie  term  righteou.»ines3.  So  a;;ain  in  the  admini- 
stration of  justice  ;  righteousness,  with  whatever  latitude  of 
meaning,  is  always  an  attribute  proper  to  the  judge,  never  a 
foreign  influence  brought  in  to  modify  judicial  action.  Tliero 
is  no  foundation  in  OT  for  the  rabbinical  maxim,  '  Where  judg- 
ment is  there  is  no  room  for  ::pTS,  and  where  r\pi^  is  there  is 
DO  judgment'  (Dalman,  p.  6). 

LiTERATUBE. — Diestel,  *  Die  Idee  der  Oerechtigkeit,  vorziig- 
Uch  im  XT'  (JDTh,  IstiO,  173-253) ;  Ortloph,  '  Ueber  den  Begrifl 
von  p'Vi  und  den  wurzelverwaudten  Wortern  im  2teD  Theil 
des  Pr.  Jes.'  (Xeitschr.  fur  die  ges.  luih.  Th.  u.  E.  1S60,  401- 
4'2i5) ;  Eautzsch,  Ueber  die  Derivate  des  Starmnes  pis,  etc. 
(ISSl);  Orelli,  'Einige  ATliche  Pramisse  zur  NT  VersohnunM- 
lehre  :  II.  Die  Oerechtigkeit  Gottes  '  {Ztschr,  Jur  Kirchl.  \Vu8. 
u.  K,  Leben,  1884,  73  ff.);  Koenig,  '  Essai  sur  revolution  de 
I'idi^ede  justice  chez  les  prophetes  116breux  '  {Annales  du  Mlts6e 
GuiiiK't,  1804,  121-148);  Dalman,  Die  richtertiche  (Jerechtinkeit 
im  A  T  (1897). 

The  OT  Theologies  of  Oehler  8  (1891),  176  £f.,  285  ff.  ;  Schultz* 
(ISsU),  420  fl.,  640  a.;  Kiehm  (1S89),  270  fit.,  2S3ff.  ;  Dillmann 
(1^95),  270ff.,435t.;  Bennett  (1896),  103,  173;  Marti,  Geschichte 
der  lurael,  ketiffion  (1897),  134  ff.,  170  ;  Smend,  Lehrbitch  der 
AT  lieliffionsijesclt.i  (1893),  410-423,  2(1899),  388-394  (the  best 
statement);  Hitschl,  RechtJertMjumj  u,  VersOhnuw/'^,  ii.  102ft"., 
205  fl.;  G.  A.  Smith,  Imiali  (Expositor's  Bible),  ii.  (1600)  214  ff.; 
W.  R.  Smith,  Prophets'',  71  f.,  389.  J.  SKINNER. 

RIGHTEOUSNESS  in  NT.— Tlie  words  denotina 
'  rigliteous '  and  '  righteousness '  in  NT,  dlKaios  and 
diKaioavi'ii,  primarily  signify  what  is  conformable 
to  an  ideal  or  standard,  agreement  with  what 
ought  to  be.  Tliese  terms  naturally  take  their 
colour  from  the  system  of  morals  in  connexion 
with  wliich  they  are  used.  Rijjhteousness  will  be 
a  very  noble  or  a  very  coraraon|)lace  virtue,  accord- 
ing to  the  standards  by  whicli  men  measure  char- 
acter and  conduct.  Accordingly  we  find  that,  in 
profane  Greek,  righteousness  is  chietly  a  social 
virtue.  Usage  and  custom  prescribe  the  standard 
of  righteousness  and  measure  its  elevation.  In 
NT,  however,  righteousness  is,  above  all  tliing.s,  a 
religious  word ;  it  is  riglitness  according  to  the 
Divine  standard ;  it  is  conformity  to  the  will  and 
nature  of  God  Himself.  Since,  therefore,  the 
character  of  (iod  is  conceived  in  NT  teaching  as 
absolute  moral  jierfection,  righteousness  in  men 
becomes  a  name  for  that  disposition  and  method 
of  life  which  accord  with  God's  holy  will ;  in 
short,  righteousness  is  Godlikuriess. 

The  adjective  ouaiot  occurs  with  nearly  equal 
frequency  in  the  Synoptic  Gosjiels  and  in  the 
Pauline  Ejjistles.  The  noun  oiKaioavvri  occurs  seven 
times  in  Matthew,  once  in  I.uke,  and  not  at  all  in 
Mark,  and  is  more  frequently  used  by  St.  Paul 
than  hy  all  the  other  NT  writers  combined.  In 
studying  the  NT  concept  of  righteousness  it  will 
be  convenient  to  begin  witli  tlie  Sjnoptic  Gospels, 
with  special  reference  to  tlie  teaching  of  Jesus, 
then  to  consider  the  Pauline  usage,  and  finally  to 
notice  that  of  otlier  NT  writers.  We  shall  thus 
be  led  to  a  general  estimate  of  tlie  NT  doctrine. 

(A)  KlGIITKOUSNESS  IN  THE  SYNOPTIC  Go.SI'ELS. 
— We  may  here  take  as  our  startiii'-point  that 
saying  of  Jesus  to  His  iiisci]iles:  'Except  ynur 
righteou.sness  shall  exceed  the  rigliteousness  of  the 
scribes  and  Pharisees,  ye  shall  in  no  wise  enter 
into  the  kingdom  of  heaven'  (Mt  5**).  The 
righteousness  which  He  required  was  in  some 
essential  respect  hi'dier  than  that  which  was 
current  in  the  life  and  ideals  of  the  Jewish  people 
of  His  time.  We  must  therefore  hrielly  describe 
the  popular  Jewish  idea  of  righteousness.  That 
idea  grew  out  of  the  current  conception  of  God 
and  of  His  revelation.  Righteousness  was  thought 
to  consist  in  obedience  to  commandments,  and  the 
nature  of  the  Divine  commands  was  viewed  quite 


282 


KIGUTEOUSNESS  IN  NT 


KIGHTEOUSNFSS  IN  NT 


Buperficially.  The  rich  youn;^  man  who  came  to 
Jesus  asking  wliat  he  sliuuld  do  to  inherit  eternal 
life,  is  an  illustration  of  the  view  which  the  Jews 
took  of  the  commaudments  (Mt  19""^-).  He  said 
that  he  had  kept  them  all.  His  conception 
evidently  was  tliat  to  refrain  from  the  outward 
sins  which  they  forbade — stealing,  lying,  Sahbath- 
breaking,  and  the  like — was  to  keep  the  command- 
ments. Only  a  superficial  conception  of  the  im- 
port and  bearing  of  the  commandments  could  have 
permitted  him  to  make  the  claim  that  he  had  kept 
them  all  from  his  youth.  The  same  faulty  notion 
of  cne  real  moral  requirements  of  the  law  lay  at 
ths  root  of  the  pride  and  self-rigliteousness  of  the 
Pharisees.  They  were  able  to  think  themselves 
rigliteous  only  because  they  measured  themselves 
by  an  imperfect  standard,  an  inadequate  idea  of 
the  high  demands  which  the  law  made  upon  the 
inner  life.  Religion  was  conceived  as  a  legal 
alfair,  and  therefore  righteousness  consisted  prima- 
rily in  the  observance  of  all  the  rites  and  cere- 
monies prescribed  in  the  law,  and  in  refraining 
from  all  the  acts  which  the  law  forbade. 

Righteousness  was  thus  placed  too  much  in 
externals  and  too  little  in  the  state  of  the  heart. 
It  exaggerated  the  ritual  features  of  religion,  and 
overlooked  its  deeper  spiritual  requirements  upon 
conduct  and  life.  Either  of  two  results  might 
flow  from  this  extemalism  in  religion — results 
which  would  be  equally  detrimental  to  a  healthy 
religious  life.  On  the  one  hand,  if  one  supposed 
himself  to  have  done  all  that  was  required,  he 
would  easily  fall  a  prey  to  spiritual  pride,  for  had 
he  not  achieved  this  lofty  height  ot  goodness  by 
his  own  exertions?  On  the  other  hand,  if  a  man 
felt  that  he  had  failed  to  do  the  Divine  will  and 
to  win  acceptance  with  God,  he  would  naturally 
become  hopeless  and  despondent.  We  accordingly 
find  that  the  religious  life  of  the  Jewish  people,  to 
a  great  extent,  oscillated  between  self-righteous- 
ness and  despair.  Jesus  must  therefore  have 
demanded  something  vastly  superior  to  this  ob- 
servance of  ritual,  this  conformity  to  command- 
ments and  prohibitions,  when  He  said,  '  Seek  ye 
first  God's  kingdom  and  righteousness '  (Mt  6^). 
What  then  is  that  truerighteousness,  thatSiKaioo-i/xT; 
9eoD,  which  Christ  requires  and  fosters  in  the  lives 
of  His  disciples !  This  question  can  best  be 
answered  by  appeal  to  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount, 
a  collection  of  the  sayings  of  Jesus,  some  of  which 
were  uttered  on  various  occasions.  They  are 
grouped  together  as  illustrating  chiefly  the  nature 
and  demands  of  '  God's  kingdom  and  righteous- 
ness.' In  the  'beatitudes  are  described  the 
qualities  which  fit  men  for  the  kingdom  of  God — 
the  characteristics  which  constitute  true  righteous- 
ness. They  are  such  as  spiritual  poverty,  a  sense 
of  one's  weakness  and  sin ;  meekness,  merciful- 
ness, purity,  and  peacemaking.  They  are  quali- 
ties which  stand  opposed  to  pride,  presumption, 
and  selfishness.  They  are,  above  all,  qualities  of 
tLe  inner  life.  They  describe  what  a  man  is  in 
the  secret  springs  of  his  motives  and  dispositions 
(Mt  5'-»). 

The  true  righteousness  is  a  heroic  virtue.  It  is 
founded  in  strong  convictions  of  truth  and  duty, 
and  is  willing  to  sutler,  if  need  be,  for  the  truth  (Mt 
510-13)  xhe  truly  righteous,  the  sons  of  the  king- 
dom, have  a  saving,  illuminating  power.  They  are 
the  world's  'salt'  and  'light.'  'They  preserve  the 
world  from  moral  corruption,  and  they  shed  abroad 
upon  men  the  light  of  love  and  helpfulness 
(Mt  5"'").  Again,  the  true  righteousness  is  not 
a  destructive,  but  a  constructive  principle.  The 
righteousness  of  Christ's  kingdom  will  not  break 
with  the  past.  It  will  conserve  all  that  was  true 
and  good  in  OT  religion,  and  build  upon  it.  It 
requires  that  the  earlier  and  imperfect  system  of 


Judaism  should  not  be  rejected,  but  fulfilled.  Iti 
true  ideal  content  is  to  be  develo|iud  out  of  the 
limited  and  pro\  isional  form  in  wliicli  it  had  been 
apprehendea  in  earlier  times,  into  its  destined 
universality  and  spirituality.  The  Divine  law 
which  has  been  revealed  is  to  be  observed  and 
taught  in  its  essential  spiritual  content,  and  not 
merely  in  its  outer  form,  and  thus  the  righteous- 
ness of  the  sons  of  the  kingdom  will  'exceed  the 
righteousness  of  the  scribes  and  Pharisees'  (Mt 
5"-»). 

Then  follow  several  Illustrations  of  the  true 
righteousness.  The  law  prohibiting  murder  had 
commonly  been  taken  merely  as  a  prohibition  of 
an  overt  act.  Not  to  kill  another  was  to  obey  it. 
But  Jesus  places  right  and  wrong,  not  in  overt 
acts,  but  in  inner  motives.  He  who  cherishes 
murder  and  hate — the  passions  from  whicli  murder 
springs — is,  morally  speaking,  a  murderer.  P'rom 
hate  murder  would  spring  were  there  no  outward 
constraint  preventing  it.  But  he  who  would  com- 
mit an  overt  act  of  sin  but  for  an  outward  re- 
straint, has  really  committed  it  in  his  heart 
already  (Mt  S-'"-").  The  same  principle  holds 
good  respecting  sensual  passion.  The  impure 
thought,  the  carnal  desire,  is  itself,  in  God's  sight, 
the  act  of  adultery.  Every  etl'ort  must  be  made, 
every  necessary  self-denial  endured,  by  those  who 
would  be  truly  righteous,  to  break  the  power  of 
evil  thought  and  to  exclude  impurity  from  the 
heart  (Mto-''-'-). 

Three  further  illustrations  are  given.  The  first 
concerns  truthfulness.  The  Jews  had  been 
accustomed  to  make  a  fictitious  distinction  be- 
tween oaths  taken  in  J"'s  name,  which  they  had 
regarded  as  sacred,  and  other  oath.s,  \\hich  they 
had  felt  at  liberty  to  violate.  Jesus  discounten- 
ances not  only  this  false  distinction,  but  all  such 
profane  appeals  to  sacred  names  or  objects.  Those 
who  confirm  their  assertions  and  promises  by  such 
oaths  thereby  betray  the  fact  that  their  simple 
word  is  not  regarded  as  binding,  and  thus  show 
themselves  not  to  be  really  truthful.  The  simple 
assertion  should  be  enough.  The  honest  man's 
word  is  as  good  as  his  most  solemn  oath.  Be 
absolutely  truthful,  says  Jesus,  and  the  meaning 
and  occasion  of  these  irreverent  oaths  in  common 
use  will  completely  disappear  (Mt  5^'^).  The 
next  Ulustration  respects  revenge.  The  OT  civil 
law  of  retaliation — which,  at  best,  was  a  rude 
kind  of  justice  incident  to  an  undeveloped  ethical 
code — was  commonly  construed  as  a  permission  to 
take  private  revenge.  This  disposition  to  do  the 
oH'ender  an  injury  like  that  which  he  has  done, 
Jesus  discountenances.  Better  suffer  injustice. 
He  says,  than  resort  to  revenge,  which  springs 
from  hate,  and  is  wholly  incompatible  with  love 
(Mt  3'^-").  The  third  illustration  deals  with  the 
contrast  of  love  and  hate.  From  the  OT  maxim, 
'  Tliou  shalt  love  thy  neighbour,'  many  had 
drawn  the  inference,  'Thou  shalt  hate  thine 
enemy.'  Then,  by  making  'neighbour'  mean 
'  friend,'  it  was  easy  to  find  in  the  maxim  a  justifi- 
cation for  hatred  towards  personal  enemies.  This 
inference  Jesus  utterly  repudiates.  The  right- 
eousness of  the  kingdom  recjuires  that  we  should 
love  all  men  ;  that  we  should  seek  the  good  even 
of  our  enemies.  We  may  not  hate  even  those  who 
injure  us.  The  gospel  has  no  place  for  hatred, 
because  it  is  essentiaJly  un-Godlike.  God  hates  no 
one ;  He  blesses  all,  even  the  wicked.  So  must 
the  man  do  who  possesses  God's  righteousness. 
Love  is  the  essential  principle  of  moral  perfection, 
and  hatred  is  the  opposite  of  love.  This  lova 
which  finds  its  perfect  exemplification  in  the 
character  and  action  of  God  is  the  law  of  the 
Christian  life.  The  Christian  ideal  is  complete- 
ness of  love ;  conformity  to  the  moral  complete- 


RIGHTEOUSXESS  IX  XT 


KlGllTEOUSXESS  IX  XT 


283 


ness  of  God'8  own  perfectly  loving  character  (Mt 

Tlie  next  group  of  passages  illustrates  liow  men 
are  to  'do  their  righteousness.'  The  first  illustra- 
tion is  drawn  from  alms-giving.  Benoticence  is 
not  to  be  o.stentatious.  Tliose  who  give  alms  to 
lie  seen  of  men  must  do  so  from  sellish  motives. 
Thej',  indeed,  obtain  their  appropriate  reward, 
but  it  is  not  the  Divine  approval  (Mt  6'"'').  The 
next  example  is  prayer.  A  false  righteou.sne.ss 
leads  men  to  ])erlorm  their  devotions  in  public 
that  they  nuiy  create  the  impression  that  they  are 
unusually  pious.  The  true  inner  righteousness 
dictates  that  men  pray  in  secret.  Nor  is  prayer 
to  be  based  on  the  idea  that  God  is  a  reluctant 
Giver  whose  favour  is  to  be  won  by  the  wearisome 
repetition  of  the  same  wish  or  cry.  God  is,  on  the 
conlrarj",  a  willing  Giver  who  knows  all  our 
wants  in  advance,  and  onlj-  desires  that  we  be 
willing  to  receive  His  mercies.  A  simple  sincere 
request  is  therefore  enough.  Then  follows  the 
model  prayer  illustrating  the  true  spirit,  as  well 
as  the  simple  form  of  prayer  (Mt  0^''°).  Jesus 
then  shows  that  fasting  performed  with  a  mere 
semblance  of  humility  and  sorrow  is  no  part  of 
true  righteousness,  but  that  it  may  be  such  when 
practised  unostentatiously  from  real  inward  con- 
trition (Mt  e'"-'*).  Then  follows  a  series  of 
striking  contrasts  between  the  worldly  and  selfish 
epiiit  and  supreme  concern  for  the  spiritual  life. 
Tlie  latter  must  be  placed  first,  and  must  sub- 
ordinate to  itself  all  other  interests.  Every  life 
must  have  one  main  direction.  There  can  be  but 
one  supreme  choice.  That  should  be  made  central 
in  life  which  Ls  truly  central.  Other  things,  so  far 
as  needful,  Gud  will  supply.  Seek,  then,  first  His 
kingdom,  and  His  rigiiteousness ;  and  all  those 
things  shall  be  added  unto  you  (Mt  6'*"*'). 

It  is  not  necessary  for  our  present  purpose  to 
follow  this  series  of  saj'ings  further.  It  illustrates, 
better  than  isolated  u.ses  of  the  words  '  righteous ' 
and  '  righteousness' could  do,  the  real  content  of 
Jesus'  doctrine  of  righteousness  as  the  Synoptic 
tradition  has  preserved  it.  It  does  not,  indeed, 
yield  us  any  formal  definition  of  righteousness, 
but  it  shows  us  what  righteousness  is  by  exhibiting 
its  characteristics  and  by  showing  how  it  expresses 
itself  in  human  conduct.  It  leaves  no  doubt  that 
the  righteousness  of  the  kingdom  is  essentially 
liodlike  character.  If  it  is  not  precisely  identical 
with  love,  it  is,  at  any  rate,  absolutely  inseparable 
from  it.  Love  is  the  completeness  (rtXfiorjjs)  of 
God,  and  the  completeness  of  character  in  men 
con.sists  in  love.  Righteousness  appears  to  be  con- 
ceived of  as  the  dill'erent  kinds  of  right  action  which 
have  their  spring  in  love.  IJightcousness  is  never 
presented  in  our  sources  as  a  mere  juilicial  jirin- 
ciple  in  contrast  to  mercy  or  grace.  It  is  right 
conduct  and  right  character,  both  of  which  are 
RTounded  in  love.  Nor  does  the  word  bear  the 
semi-formal  sense  in  which  we  shall  find  it  em- 
ployed by  St.  Paul.  It  is  not  thought  of  under 
the  form  of  a  status  or  relation  ;  it  is  used  rather 
in  the  sini]ile  ethical  sense,  to  inclmle  the  qualities 
of  a  character  which  is  accei)table  to  God. 

Hi)  UlCJHTKOUSNESS  IN  THE  WitlTINOS  OF  ST. 
Paul. — In  several  instances  the  phrase  SiKaioji'i'r) 
0(ou  is  used  to  denote  an  attribute  of  God.  In  Ro  3' 
St.  Paul  asks  the  rhetorical  (juestion  :  '  But  if  our 
unrighteousness  commendeth  the  righteousness  of 
God,  what  shall  we  say  '! '  The  context  shows  that 
the  '  righteousness  of  God  '  here  means  essentially 
the  same  as  the  faithfulness  or  truthfulness  of 
God  (cf.  vv.»-  *).  His  righteousness  is  His  faithful- 
ness to  His  own  nature  and  promises.  If  men  are 
antrue  to  Him,  their  falseness  will  but  set  His 
righteousness  in  the  stronger  relief.  Again,  in 
3"-  "  St.  Paul  speaks  of  the  IrSeiiit  TJjt  dmcuoaunis 


auTov  wliich  God  has  made  in  the  death  of  Christ, 
and  which  should  prevent  men  from  supposing 
that  because  God  treated  leniently  the  sins  of  men  in 
past  times.  He  is  indillerent  to  sin  or  lightly  regards 
it.  Here,  then,  SiKaiocuyri  6eoO  must  denote  that 
self-respecting  quality  of  holiness  in  God,  that 
reaction  of  His  nature  against  sin,  which  must  find 
expression  in  condemnation  of  it.  Righteousness 
in  this  sense  is  the  reaction  of  God's  holy  nature 
against  sin  which  expresses  itself  in  the  Divine 
wrath  (dpyij  d(oO). 

In  the  prevailing  use  of  the  word  by  St.  Paul, 
however,  righteousness  means  the  state  of  accept- 
ance witli  God  into  wliich  one  enters  by  faith.  Tliis 
is  its  meaning  in  Ro  1"  '  For  therein  (in  the  gospel) 
is  revealed  a  righteousness  of  God  by  faith  unto 
faith  ;  as  it  is  WTitten,  But  the  rigliteous  shall 
live  by  faith ' ;  also  in  Ro  3-'-  ~  '  But  now  apart 
from  the  law  a  righteousness  of  God  hath  been 
manifested,  being  witnessed  by  the  law  and  the  pro- 
phets ;  even  the  righteousness  of  God  through  faith 
in  Jesus  Christ  unto  all  them  that  believe.'  We 
cannot  accept  the  view  of  some,  that  in  these  pas- 
sages also  '  the  righteousness  of  God '  refers  to  the 
cliaracter  of  God,  although  we  grant  that  between 
the  idea  of  righteousness  as  an  attribute  of  God  and 
righteousness  as  a  gift  of  God,  a  state  of  acceptance 
with  God  into  wliicli  God  introduces  one,  there  is 
an  essential  connexion  (cf.  Sanday-Headlam  on 
Ro  1").  The  righteousness  which  God  confers  has 
its  ground  in  the  righteousness  of  God.  The  state 
of  acceptance  into  which  the  believer  is  represented 
as  inducted  is  a  state  of  fellowship  and  hannony 
with  God.  The  conditions  of  being  accounted 
righteous  are  such  as  God's  perfect  character  pre- 
scribes. These  conditions  may  be  summed  up  in 
the  woTd/aith.  Now  faith  is,  in  St.  Pauls  view, 
a  personal  relation  with  God  mediated  tlirough 
Christ.  It  involves  by  its  very  nature  sjiiritual 
union  with  God,  obedience  to  His  will,  and  increas- 
ing likeness  of  character  to  Him.  There  is  thus  a 
close  connexion  between  the  righteous  character  of 
God  and  the  righteous  statii>,'  \i  hich  He  reckons  as 
belonging  to  believers  on  condition  of  faith.  But, 
formally  considered,  they  are  quite  difl'erent. 

The  meaning  of  SiKaioavprj  now  under  considera- 
tion explains  the  meaning  of  justification  (Siraiwiris), 
and  of  the  reckoning  of  faitli  for  rigiiteousness 
(Ro  4).  To  J  list  if  1/ means  in  Pauline  phraseology, 
to  regard  and  treat  one  as  righteous  j  to  confer  the 
gift  of  righteousness :  in  other  words,  to  declare 
one  accepted  with  God.  Tliis  judgment  of  justifica- 
tion God  pronounces  upon  condition  of  faith.  The 
phrase  'to  reckon  faith  for  righteousness'  is  a 
periplirasis  for  'to  justify.'  To  declare  righteous 
upon  condition  of  faitli,  means  the  same  as  to 
reckon  faith  for  righteousness.  In  both  cases  the 
meaning,  expressed  in  a  somewhat  formal  and  legal 
way,  is  simply  this :  that  faith  is  the  necessary  con- 
dition of  a  gracious  salvation.  Salvation  is  a  free 
gift;  faith  is  its  humble  and  thankful  acceptance. 
§t.  Paul  is  fond  of  conceiving  this  process  of  salvation 
in  forensic  forms  of  thought,  and  of  intcrpretinjr  it 
by  judicial  analogies.  This  tendency  is  due  to  Ids 
OT  and  Rabbinic  training.  None  the  less  does  he 
lay  stress  upon  its  ethical  and  spiritual  signilicance. 
If  justification  is  a  '  forensic  act,'  there  corresponds 
to  it  and  is  involved  in  it  a  spiritual  renewal.  If 
righteousness  is  a  gift  or  a  state,  it  is  also  a 
character.  It  is  an  inward  state  as  well  as  an 
outward  one.  It  would  be  a  great  mistake  to  repre- 
sent St.  Paul's  doctrine  of  salvation  as  luedomi- 
nantly  legal  or  forensic.  He  has  indeed  brought 
over  from  his  Jewish  training  the  legal  conception 
of  righteousness  as  an  acquittal  before  God  and  of 
justification  as  the  decree  of  acquittal,  but  his 
intenselv  ethical  principles  of  grace  and  faith  put 
quite  a  diU'erent  content  into  tuese  thought-forme 


284 


RIGHTEOUSNESS  IN  NT 


RIMjMON 


from  what  they  have  in  Jewish  theology.  Essen- 
tially, St.  Paul  is  far  more  of  a  mystic  than  of  a 
legalist,  though  he  still  speaks,  to  some  extent,  the 
language  of  legalism  in  wliich  he  had  heen  horn 
and  trained.  Cf.  Thackeray,  Relation  of  St.  Paul 
to  Contemporary  Jewish  Thought,  87  ft'. 

The  question  arises :  If  faith  is  reckoned  for 
righteousness,  is  it  hecause  faith  is  synonymous 
with  righteousness  or  a  substitute  for  it  ?  Faith  is 
not  righteousness  in  the  sense  of  being  so  inherently 
excellent  that  it  may  be  regarded  as  equivalent  to 
righteousness.  The  power  and  value  of  faith  are 
in  its  object.  Faith  is  f^Teat  because  it  allies  man 
with  God.  Faith  is  union  with  Christ,  and  this 
union  involves  and  guarantees  increasing  Christ- 
likeness,  and  Christlikeness  is  righteousness.  The 
imputation  of  faith  for  righteousness  involves  a 
gracious  treatment  of  man  on  the  part  of  God  ;  it 
is  an  anticipatory  declaration  of  what  the  grace  of 
God  will  increasingly  realize  in  those  who  in  faith 
open  their  lives  to  the  power  of  the  Divine  life. 
Justification  means  an  entire  forgiveness  and  an 
increasing  attainment  of  righteousness. 

(C)  Righteousness  in  the  Johannine  Writ- 
ings.— In  one  passage  only  in  the  Fourth  Gospel 
is  the  word  Sixaios  applied  to  God  :  '  O  righteous 
Father,  the  world  knew  thee  not,  but  I  knew 
thee'  (l"''^).  The  idea  of  God's  righteousness  here 
appears  to  be  that  it  is  the  quality  which  prevents 
Him  from  passingthe  same  judgment  upon  Christ's 
disciples  which  He  passes  upon  the  sinful  world. 
Upon  this  equitableness  of  God,  Jesus  bases  His  con- 
fidence in  asking  that  special  blessings  be  conferred 
upon  His  disciples.  The  thought  is  similar  in  17", 
wliere  the  Father  is  designated  as  S.yioi.  As  the 
One  who  is  absolutely  good, — wholly  separate  from 
all  that  is  sinful  and  WTong, — God  is  besought  to 
guard  from  e^nl  those  \\  hom  He  lias  given  to  His 
!son.  In  both  these  cases  the  righteousness  or 
holiness  of  God  is  conceived  of,  not  as  a  forensic 
or  retributive  quality,  but  as  God's  ovm  moral 
self  -  consistency,  His  faithfulness  to  His  own 
equity. 

In  1  Jn  (1'  2^)  God  is  described  as  Jkaios,  and,  in 
both  cases,  in  a  sense  closely  akin  to  that  which 
we  have  found  in  the  Gospel.  '  If  we  confess  our 
sins,  he  is  faithful  and  righteous  (Tna-ris  Kal  Skoios) 
to  forgive  us  our  sins'  (V).  The  correlation  of  the 
word  Si/caios  with  the  word  Tricrris,  as  well  as  the 
entire  context,  shows  that  righteousness  here  is 
that  quality  of  God  which  would  certainly  lead 
Him  to  forgive  those  who  repent.  It  wotild  be 
inconsistent  in  God  —  contrary  alike  to  His  pro- 
mises and  to  His  nature — not  to  forgive  the  peni- 
tent, and  to  exert  upon  his  life  the  purifying  in- 
fluences of  His  grace.  In  the  remaining  passage 
(2-^),  the  term  '  righteous '  has  a  broader  meaning, 
and  designates  the  moral  perfection  of  God  in 
general,  as  the  type  and  ideal  of  all  goodness  in 
man  :  '  If  ye  know  that  he  (God)  is  righteous,  ye 
know  that  every  one  also  that  doeth  righteousness 
is  begotten  of  him.'  Since  God  is  essentially 
righteous,  those  who  are  begotten  of  Him  must 
also  be  righteous.  A  similar  thought  is  presented 
in  3',  but  in  the  reverse  order :  '  He  that  doeth 
righteousness  is  righteous,  even  as  he  (Christ)  is 
righteous.'  As  against  the  Gnostic  over-emphasis 
of  knowledge,  the  apostle  insists  that  the  mere 
intellectual  possession  of  truth  is  not  enough. 
Truth,  or  righteousness,  is  not  merely  something 
to  be  known,  but  something  to  bo  done  (1°  3-'). 
The  man  is  righteous  who  walks  in  the  truth  as 
his  native  element  (2  Jn  *,  3  .In  "• ') ;  in  whom 
the  truth  dwells,  controlling  and  guiding  him  (Jn 
8",  1  Jn  2')  ;  who  belongs  to  the  truth  and  draws 
from  it  the  strength  and  inspiration  of  his  life 
(Jn  18",  1  Jn  2»'  3'»).  Doctrine  and  life  are  in- 
separable. 


{D)  Righteousness  in  other  >T  "Writings.  - 
There  is  nothing  characteristically  dillerent  in  th« 
conception  of  righteousness  in  the  minor  types  of 
NT  teaching  from  what  we  have  already  tound. 
The  word  is  almost  alwaj's  used  in  the  practical, 
religious  sense  of  the  good  life  which  Christ  in 
the  gospel  requires  and  imparts.  Both  James  and 
Hebrews  allude  to  righteousness  in  the  sense  of  a 
gift  of  God  on  condition  of  faith  (Ja  2=»,  He  11'), 
but  both  these  Epistles  generally  speak  of  it  aa 
that  good  life  which  the  Christian  loves  and  seeks. 
In  the  Petrine  Epistles  righteousness  is  the  holy 
life  in  contrast  to  sin,  as  in  1  P  2^  '  that  we,  hav- 
ing died  unto  sins,  might  live  unto  righteousness.' 
In  Revelation  righteousness  is  predicated  of  the 
judgment  (19",  cf.  IS''),  and  is  said  to  be  'done' 
(cf.  1  Jn)  by  those  who  are  righteous  in  the  world 
to  come  (22"). 

From  this  sketch  it  appears  that  the  NT  presents 
the  idea  of  righteousness  mainly  in  two  ways  :  (1) 
as  a  quality  of  God's  nature  and  action,  and  (2)  as 
the  cnaracter  which  God  requires  of  man.  The 
first  of  these  ideas  is  the  logical  basis  of  the  second. 
"What  God  requires  is  grounded  in  what  God  is. 
What,  now,  is  the  actual  content  of  that  Divine 
righteousness  which  is  the  test  and  measure  of  all 
good  life  in  men  ?  What  is  the  ethical  nature  of 
God?  St.  John  replies  that  it  is  love,  and  the  whole 
NT  conception  of  God  agrees  with  this  answer. 
Righteousness  is  an  activity  or  aspect  of  love. 
When  it  is  used  to  denote  more  especially  the  law 
and  penalty  side  of  God's  nature,  it  is  the  self- 
respecting,  self-preservative  aspect  of  holy  love — 
love  as  it  appears  in  forbidding  all  sin  and  en- 
joining conformity  to  the  perfect  standard  of 
uprightness.  Righteousness  is  an  element  of  love, 
^^  ithout  which  love  would  be  mere  benevolence  or 
good-nature.  But  since  love  is  eternally  holy,  and 
is  a  consuming  fire  to  all  sin,  justice  and  judgment 
are  the  foundation  of  God's  throne.  In  the  NT, 
righteousness  is  sometimes  used  more  comprehen- 
sively to  denote  the  equity  or  uprightness  of  God 
in  general.  His  correspondence  to  what  He  ought 
to  be  ;  sometimes  more  narrowly  to  denote  the 
judicial  aspect  of  His  nature  and  action.  In  the 
latter  sense  it  may  be  defined  as  the  self-respect 
of  perfect  love. 

LiTERATURB.— The  NT  idea  of  righteousness  is  more  or  less 
fully  discussed  in  all  Commentaries  and  Biblical  Theolo^es, 
The  Pauline  doctrine  is  carefully  considered  in  Meyer  and 
Sanday-Ueadiam  on  Rouiaiis,  and  in  Morison  on  Uamaiis  Third. 
The  general  subject  receives  attention  in  the  ST  Theologies  of 
Baur,  Weiss,  Beyschlag,  Bovon,  and  Holtzmann,  and  special 
aspects  of  it  in  Wendt's  Teaching  of  Jemui,  Bruce's  Kinodom  of 
God,  and  St.  Pmd's  Conception  of  Chrvitianitjj,  and  Stevens* 
raxdiiie  Theology.  A  careful  study  of  the  words  will  be  found 
in  Oremer's  Bib.-Theol.  Lex.  of  HT  Greek. 

G.  B.  Stevens. 
RIMMON  ([b-i).— The  name  of  a  Syrian  deity 
mentioned  as  occupying  a  temple  in  Damascus 
during  the  activity  of  Elisha  in  Israel  (2  K  5'*). 
It  appears  in  such  compound  proper  names  aa 
Hadad-rimmon  (Zee  12")  and  Tab-rimmon  (1  K  15"). 
LXX  reads  '^eiiixAv  and  the  Vulg.  Remmon.  It  hai 
been  interpreted  as  'pomegranate'  by  Movers  (Z^is 
Phonizier,  i.  197  f.)  and  Lenormant  (Lcttres  assyrio- 
logiques,  iL  215,  r.  1).  But  the  name  is  now 
identified  with  the  Bab.-Assyr.  deity  RammAn, 
god  of  wind  and  weather,  of  the  air  and  clouds,  of 
thunder,  lightning,  and  storm.  He  is  designated 
in  the  inscriptions  as  AN.  IM,  that  is,  '  god  of  the 
celestial  regions,'  and  on  reliefs  and  seals  he  ia 
figured  as  armed  like  Jove  with  thunderbolts. 
Raminftn  is  sometimes  derived  from  c\-t  or  do-i, 
and  thus  taken  to  mean  'the  high,'  'majestic' 
one  (cf.  Baudissin,  Studien,  i.  p.  307) ;  again  it  ia 
derived  from  the  stem  ci"!  '  thunder,'  and  sup- 
posed to  be  =  'the  thunderer'  (Schrader,  Jrthrb. 
J.  prot.  Tlwol.  i.  334  fl. ).  The  correct  derivation  of 
the  word  is  that  advocated  by  Pinches  from  a  Bab.- 


RIMMON 


RING 


Assyr.  root  ramAmu,  'roar,'  'thunder'  (cf.  Del. 
U  ((  11  624).  For  Syria  and  the  west,  in  a  compara- 
tive list  of  deities,  Hadad,  Adad,  Daddii,  Dada, 
Addti  appear  as  special  names  for  Raramin  (Bezold, 
PSBA,  Juno  7,  1S87).  The  identification  of  Hadad 
or  Aditd  of  Syria  with  liammdn  of  Babylonia- 
Assyria  is  estaulished  by  the  fact  that  these  two 
names  are  represented  by  one  and  the  same  ideo- 
gram in  several  proper  names  (cf.  Pinches,  PSBA, 
1SS3,  pp.  71-73).  Rimmon  is  tlieu  a  Hebraized 
form  (the  word  for  'pomegranate')  of  the  Bab.- 
Assyr.  name  liammAyi,  and  is  identical  with  the 
Syrian  god  Hadad  or  Adad.  The  importance  of 
this  deity  in  Syria  is  seen  in  the  fact  that  his  name 
heads  the  list  of  four  gods  of  the  North  Syrian 
kingdom  of  PanammH  to  whom  his  son  Bar- 
Rakiib  offered  prayer  (cf.  Ausgrabungen  in  Send- 
sc/iirli,  vol.  i.  p.  61).  For  a  detailed  description  of 
the  latest  utterances  on  the  etymology  of  the  name, 
and  the  attributes  and  relations  of  Rammfln,  see 
Jastrow,  Jiclifiion  of  Babylonia  and  Assyria,  pp. 
156-164.  It  may  be  that  the  compound  (Heb.)  form 
Hadad-Rimmon  (in  Bab.-Assyr.  Adad-Rammdn) 
arose,  as  suggested  by  Baethgen  (Beitr.  z.  sem. 
Relig.-Gesch.  75),  in  a  manner  similar  to  Adonis- 
Osiris  in  Cyprus.  Such  combination  would  be 
self-explanatory  to  the  population  of  all  Western 
Asia.  To  this  'prince  of  the  power  of  the  air' 
was  dedicated  the  eleventh  month,  the  rain-month 
Shebat.  In  the  Bab.  pantheon,  Ramm&n  appears 
as  the  son  of  Ann  and  Anatu. 

LiTERATCEE.— Baudissin,  stud.  z.  lem.  Relig.-Gach.  L  306-308 ; 
Title,  Bati.-Aiusnr.  Gttch.  ii.  525,  n.  3  ;  Schnuler,  COT  i.  196t.  ; 
Helilzech-Smith,  Chald.  Genetit,  209  f. ;  Wincklcr,  Gesch  Bab.  u. 
Aggifr.  164,  106;  Baethgen,  Beitr.  zur  gem.  Reiig..Gt'8ch.  75; 
Winckler,  AUtett.  Unterguc\-  09 ;  Delitzsch,  Calwer  BiheU^^i- 
con,  art.  '  UimmoD  ;  Kiehni,  UWB,  art.  'Rimmon';  Ueyer, 
GueA.  L  176.  182  ;  Hilprecbt,  Aisyriaca,  76  ff. 

Ira  M.  Price. 
RIMMON  (ite?  '  pomegranate,' ■PtMA'w"').— A  Bcer- 
othite,   the  father  of  Baanah   and   Rechab,   who 
muidered   Ishbosheth,   the  son  and  successor  of 
Saul  (2  S  4»-  »• »). 

RIMMON.— 1.  The  rock  (;to-)(ri)  pSp,  ^  wirpa  (toC) 
'Pt/n/xiii')  in  the  eastern  highlands  or  wilderness 
(midbdr)  of  Benjamin,  whither  the  remnants  of 
the  Beniamites  (.Jg  20^  21i^)  fled.  It  has  been 
identiKea  bv  Robinson  (i.  440)  as  a  lofty  rock  or 
conical  chalky  hill,  visible  in  all  directions,  on  the 
summit  of  which  stands  the  villa-'e  of  RummCn. 
It  forms  a  remarkable  object  in  the  landscape  as 
seen  from  the  village  of  JibA,  some  6  miles  distant. 
It  is  about  4  miles  east  of  Beitin  (Bethel)  (cf.  van 
de  Velde,  Memoir,  345 ;  SWP  ii.  292).  A  place  of 
this  name  is  mentioned  by  Eusebius  and  Jerome  as 
existing  in  their  day  15  miles  north  of  Jerusalem 
{Onomast.  s.  'Rimmon'). 

2.  (po-i)  A  city  in  the  south  of  Judah,  towards 
the  border  of  Edom,  Jos  15"^  {'Epufuie) ;  in  19'  (B 
'Epfii/uip,  A  'Pfij./xu9)  counted  to  Simeon  ;  in  Zee 
14'"  {'Peiiiiuf)  named  as  lying  to  the  far  south  of 
Jcru.salera.  In  the  first  two  of  these  pas-sages 
Rimmon  is  coupled  with  Ain  (in  the  first  with,  in 
the  second  without,  the  conjunction  i),  cf.  1  Ch  4''''. 
In  Neh  U'*,  on  the  other  hand,  we  read  En-rimmon 
('spring  of  the  pomegranate '),  and  there  are  good 
grounds  for  holding  that  this  is  the  correct  reading 
in  all  the  other  passages  as  well.    See  En-rimmon. 

Van  de  Velde  {Mem.  344)  has  identified  Rimmon 
and  En-rimmon  witli  Urnm  er-Rum&min,  between 
Beit-Jibrin  and  Bir  esSeba,  very  nearly  at  the 
di.Mtance  mentioned  by  Eusebius.  He  mentions 
that  Grotius  and  Rosenmiiller  suppose,  as  a  solu- 
tion of  the  difficulty,  that  Ain  and  Rimmon  were 
near  together,  and  in  later  years  united  in  one. 
'Ain  is  probably  identical  with  a  site  onlv  half  a 
mile  north  of  Umm  er-Iiumdmtn,  now  called  Tell 
Khewel/eh,  and  opposite  another  ancient  site.  Tell 


Uora.  Between  the  two  tells  is  a  copious  fountiin 
filling  a  large  ancient  reservoir,  which  for  miles 
around  is  the  chief  watering-place  of  the  Bedawin 
population  of  this  region.  A  city  at  the  base  of 
which  such  a  remarkable  fountain  existed  would 
well  derive  its  name  from  "the  fountain,"  and  its 
vicinity  to  Rimmon  would  justify  both  its  distinct 
enumeration  and  its  collective  appellation.'  SWP 
(iii.  p.  397)  confirms  tliis,  stating  tliat  Khan 
KhuweilJ'ch  is  an  extensive  ruin  near  Bir  Khu- 
weilfeh.  Caves,  cisterns,  broken  pillars,  shafts, 
and  traces  of  walls  are  found.  The  ruins  extend 
along  the  valley  and  on  the  higher  ground.  The 
well  is  large,  lined  with  well-dressed  stones,  and 
resembling  the  Beersheba  wells.  The  tell  has  an 
artificially-levelled  platform,  and  seems  to  have 
formed  a  fortress.  The  water-supply  is  perennial. 
At  Khan  umm  er-Rumdmtn  there  are  heaps  of  well- 
dressed  stones,  many  of  which  are  drafted.  Tliere 
are  also  several  large  lintel  stones,  and  part  of  a 
stone  apparently  representing  the  seven-oranched 
candlestick.  These  remains  probably  belong  to 
the  Bj'zantine  period  (SWP  iii.  398). 

3.  In  Jos  19'^  one  of  the  boundaries  of  Zebulnn 
is  given  as  '  Rimmon  that  stretched  to  the  Ne'ah ' 
(li'aC  iNirpn  P"! ;  AV  wTongly  '  Remmon-methoar  to 
Neah').  In  1  Ch  6^  [""'>• ''-J  the  name  appears  as 
Rimmono  Ciirai),  and  in  Jos  21^"  as  Riramonah  (for 
which,  by  a  textual  error,  MT  has  Dimnah  [which 
see]).     See  Dillm.  Joshua,  ad  loc. 

Robinson  proposes  to  identify  Rimmon  with  the 
village  of  Rumm&tieh,  north  of  Nazareth,  and  this 
site  has  since  been  accepted.  Rummdneh  is  a 
small  village  built  of  stone,  and  containing  about 
70  Moslems.  It  is  situated  on  a  low  ridge  above 
the  plain,  and  there  are  a  few  olive  trees  around. 
The  water-supply  is  from  cisterns  and  a  well. 
There  are  rock-cut  caves,  and  traces  of  ancient 
remains  in  the  village  (SWP  i.  417). 

C.  Warren. 

RIMMONO.— See  Eimmon,  No.  3. 

RIMMON-PEREZ  (AVRimmon-parez,  following, 
with  LXX  and  Vulg.,  the  pausal  form  given  in  the 
MT  of  Nu  SS"*-"  P.9  pi ;  LXX  "Piiiiiwy  ^dpes  (also 
'Po/i/iui'  and  'Pe/x/xuS  <I>. ),  Vulg.  RcminonpJuires). — 
One  of  the  twelve  camping  places  of  the  children 
of  Israel,  mentioned  only  in  the  itinerary  of  Nu  33, 
between  Ilazeroth  and  Mo.seroth.  Ewald  identifies 
it  with  Rimmon  in  the  south  of  Judah  (Jos  15*'' 
etc. ),  and  some  of  the  names  following  are  referred 
by  him  to  the  same  region.  He  thinks  it  probable 
that  the  Israelites  made  their  way  for  some  dis- 
tance into  the  southern  part  of  the  country,  after- 
wards allotted  to  Judah  and  Simeon,  and  that  in 
this  portion  of  the  itinerary  a  trace  may  be  found 
of  such  a  campaign  ;  cf.  Nu  H^il'"',  and  Hormah. 
The  second  part  of  the  name  may  have  been  added 
in  commemoration  of  a  victory  gained  at  this  place, 
after  the  analogy  of  Baal-perazim. 

A.  T.  Chapman. 

RING  (usually  nu;;  {ahbnath  ;  SaxruXios). — The 
rings  of  the  tabernacle  and  its  furniture  are  spoken 
of  as  having  been  cast  (Ex  25'-"'),  and  this  sense 
of  moulding  appears  in  the  cognate  Arabic  taba'a 
'  to  print,'  mutba'ah  '  printing  press.'  Rings  are 
referred  to  in  connexion  with  the  boards  for  tlie 
corners  of  tlie  tabernacle  (Ex  26^) ;  there  are  also 
rings  through  which  bars  pa.ss  to  keep  in  position 
the  upright  boards  for  the  sides  of  the  tabernacle 
(v.").  Similarly,  rings  were  attached  to  the  ark 
of  the  covenant  ('25'"),  to  the  brazen  altar  ('27''"'), 
to  the  altar  of  incense  (30*),  and  were  used  for 
fastening  on  the  high  priest's  breastplate  (28^). 

In  Est  1"  and  Ca  5'*  ^'^y  is  translated  '  rini;'  in 
AV  and  RV,  but  a  preferable  rendering  would  be 
'cylinder'  or  'rod.'  The  'rings' (d';;)  of  Ezk  1" 
are  felloes  (so  RVm  ;  cf.  1  K  7**).     In  RV  the  more 


286 


RING 


KIVER 


genernl  term  'ring' is  used  instead  of  'ear-ring' 
(en  :  see  Ear-Rixg)  in  Gn  24--  35^  Job  42",  Ex 
32-'.  In  Ezk  16'-,  where  KV  gives  'ring*  for 
'jewel'  of  AV,  the  allusion  niaj'  be,  not  to  a  ring 
in  the  nose,  but  to  the  custom  still  prevailing 
among  the  Bedawin,  in  the  case  of  a  favourite 
child,  of  fastening  an  ornamental  ring,  jewel,  or 
bead  to  a  lock  of  hair  over  the  brow  and  allowing 
it  to  dangle  down  as  a  protective  charm  nearly  as 
far  as  the  ejes.  The  ear-ring  as  worn  by  the 
Bedawin  is  about  an  inch  and  a  half  in  diameter, 
and  opens  witli  a  hinge  like  a  bracelet,  so  that 
when  closed  it  clasps  the  outer  ear.  The  hasty 
removal  of  such  oi-naments  is  translated  '  break 
off  (piB)  in  Ex  32-.  The  ring  (tabbdath)  appears 
as  an  ornament  in  Is  3-',  and  as  a  gift  for  sacred 
purposes  in  Ex  35--,  Nu  31™  (both  P). 

Signet-ring.  —  In  closest  connexion  with  the 
general  meaning  of  'ring'  is  the  special  sense  of 
signet-ring:  Gn  4I«,  Est  S'"- "  8-- n- ",  in  which 
tabbdath  is  the  equivalent  of  cnin  hotham  in  Gn 
38's  (in  v.»  n-nin),  Ex  28"- ^^-^  39«- '"•*',  Jer  22*', 
Hag  2-^,  Job  38"  41',  Ca  S";  Npiy  'hka  in  Dn  6"  ; 
HaKTvXio^  in  Lk  15^,  and  atppayi^  in  Ko  4",  1  Co  9', 
Avoc,  passim,  etc.     See  art.  Signet. 

Both  in  biblical  usage  and  in  modern  custom 
there  are  sever.al  important  meanings  connected 
with  the  emploj-ment  of  signet-rings. 

1.  Irrevocable  tesiimoni/,  Jer  32",  Ro  4",  1  Co  9-. 
— Where  the  art  of  writing  is  limited  to  the  edu- 
cated few,  as  is  the  case  still  in  the  East,  the 
difficulty  of  affixing  the  signature  is  got  over  bj- 
the  use  of  a  seal.  In  front  of  every  Turkish  police- 
court  men  sit  with  paper  and  ink  ready  to  write 
out  a  statement  of  evidence  or  form  of  appeal,  and 
one  or  two  men  are  usually  to  be  met  with  who 
have  seals  for  sale  and  are  expert  in  cutting 
monograms  for  brass  seals.  When  a  village  is 
divided  into  two  parties,  as  in  the  case  of  a  dispute 
about  a  right  of  waj'  through  private  property,  it 
is  customary  to  present  to  the  local  magistrate 
two  papers  covered  with  the  seals  of  those  who 
thus  witness  for  and  against  the  road. 

2.  Delegated  authority. — Thus  Pharaoh  took  off 
his  ring  and  put  it  upon  Joseph  (Gn  41«),  and 
Ahasuerus  gave  his  ring  to  Haman  (Est  3'").  Hence 
the  Kgurative  description  of  Zerubbabel  as  a  signet 
of  the  Lord  (Hag  2^).  Thus  in  an  Oriental  cu.stom- 
house  a  junior  clerk  borrows  the  seal  of  a  bus5' 
higher  official,  and  an  indolently  obliging  censor 
leaves  in  the  mission  press  his  seal  which  gives  to 
books  the  right  of  circulation  in  the  empire. 

3.  Cumplelion. — From  its  being  affixed  to  the 
end  of  a  document  as  a  testimony  to  the  truth  of 
what  is  stated,  the  act  of  ai>plying  the  seal  gave 
a  sense  of  finality  to  what  was  thus  sealed  (Dn 

4. /nCTo/rtii/«<y(Jobl4",Eph4«>,Rev5').— Asense 
of  sanctity  was  coimected  with  anything  sealed. 

The  veneration  felt  towards  anything  guarded  by  a  seal  was 
illi.''i.iated  some  years  ago  at  Sidon.  A  coasting  vessel  had 
gone  on  the  rocks  near  that  town,  and  a  few  days  afterwards 
there  was  washed  ashore  a  small  hag  of  gold  coins,  which  the 
c.^pt.^in  had  received  from  a  British  merchant  in  Beyrout,  with 
instructions  to  deliver  it  over  to  another  merchant  in  Jaffa 
The  l)ag  was  found  on  the  Sidon  bea<-h  by  a  Syrian  peasant ; 
and  though  such  a  trcisure,  washed  up  at  his  fee"t  from  the  sea,' 
might  in  itself  have  licen  regarded  a-s  sent  from  God  to  him, 
he  shrunk  from  breaking  tlie  seal.  He  walked  the  intervening 
distance  of  twenty  miles  io  order  to  deliver  the  money  to  it« 
owner  in  Beyrout. 

Arabic  tales  abound  in  accounts  of  things  kept  secret  and 
wonders  wrought  by  seals  of  power,  the  most  celebrated  being 
the  wishing  seal  of  king  Solomon. 

In  the  Book  of  Job  there  occur  several  beautiful 
figurative  applications  of  the  signet,  such  as  the 
sealing  uti  of  the  stars  (9')  as  of  something  folded 
away  and  laid  tmt  of  sight,  the  .sealing  of  instruc- 
tion ill  night  visions  (33'")  like  the  imprinting  of  a 
mould  upon   clay,   and   the  sealing  up  of  man's 


hand  (37')  as  expressing  the  limitation  of  human 
power.     See  al.so  art.  Skal,  Sealing. 

G.  M.  Mackie. 

RINGSTRAKED So  the  adj.  tri'dkod  is  tr^  in 

all  its  occurrences,  Gn  30^^- ''■  "Sis- «•  ">•  '=.  The  root 
verb  ii;v  is  found  once,  Gn  22'  '  Abraham  .  .  . 
bound  Isaac  his  son,'  .so  tiiat  the  primary  idea  is 
'banded'  or  'striped.'  The  adj.  is  u>ed  of  striped 
cattle,  goats,  or  sheep.  The  LXX  tr.  Sid\tvKot 
except  in  SI"-*  \etw6s,  and  it  is  followed  generally 
by  the  Vulg.  {albus)  and  most  English  versions 
'  white  '  ;  but  Tind.  has  '  straked  '  in  31*,  and  then 
the  Bishops'  Bible  gives  '  ringstraked'  throughout. 
The  word  does  not  seem  to  occur  in  Eng.  literature 
el.sewhere.    See  Steake.  J.  Hastings. 

RINNAH  (rtj-i). — A  Judahite,  one  of  the  sons  of 
Shimon,  1  Ch  i^.  The  LXX  (B  A^d,  A  •Pai-riii-) 
makes  him  the  .son  of  Hanan,  taking  the  following 
[;n"i5  thus  (ui6s  -tai-ti  [^kvav])  instead  of  making  it  a 
proper  name,  Ben-hanan,  as  AV  and  RV. 

RIPHATH  (ns-i ;  A  'Pi0d9,  D  'Epii^de).— One  of 
the  sons  of  Gomer,  Gn  10'.  The  parallel  pa.ssage, 
I  Ch  1»,  reads  Diphath  (n5n,  so  RV,  but  AV  Riph- 
ath);  but  this  is  certainly  an  ancient  scribal  error, 
easily  explicable  as  due  to  an  interchange  of  i  and 
t.  The  LXX  (B  'EpH<pde,  A  'Pdjia^)  and  Vulgate 
(Riphath)  support  this  view. 

The  ethnographical  sense  of  Riphath  is  uncer- 
tain. Perhaps  the  view  of  Josephus  (Ant.  I.  vi.  1) 
that  the  Riphseans  (i.e.  Paphlagonians)  are  meant 
is  still  the  most  plausible.  Bochart  and  Lagarde 
think  of  the  Bithynian  river  Rhebas,  which  falls 
into  the  Black  Sea,  and  the  district  Rlieliantia  in 
the  Thracian  Bosporus;  but,  as  Pillmann  remarks, 
tills  appears  to  be  too  far  west  for  the  position  of 
Riphath  between  Ashkenaz  (?  Phrygia)  and  To- 
garmah  (?  W.  Armenia).  A  widely  held  opinion, 
which  makes  its  appearance  as  early  as  the  Book 
of  Jubilees,  identified  Riphath  with  the  fabulous 
Ripha?an  mountains,  which  were  supposed  to  form 
the  northern  boundary  of  the  earth. 

J.  A.  SELniE. 

RISSAH  (np:  B  Ae^trd,  AF'Pttrffd).— A  camping 
place  of  the  children  of  Israel,  noted  only  in  Nu 
33-'-  -^.  It  has  been  proposed  to  identify  it  with 
liasa  in  the  Peutinger  Tables,  on  the  road  from 
the  Gulf  of  Akabah  to  Jerusalem,  or  with  'P^tra  of 
Jos.  Ant.  xrv.  xiii.  9,  xv.  2,  BJ  I.  xiii.  8;  but 
according  to  some  MSS  this  place  is  9p^o^o. 

A.  T.  Chapman. 

RITHMAH  (.i-n-i ;  LXX  'VaBafii  ;  Vulg.  Rcthma, 
Nu  33'«-'»).— The  first  of  the  twelve  stations  fol- 
lowing Hazeroth  which  are  given  in  Nu  33  only. 
The  name  seems  to  be  connected  with  cnT  (.\V  and 
RV  'juniper,'  RVm  'broom'),  and  to  indicate  a 
place  where  that  shrub  was  found  in  abundance. 
Such  are  noted  bj-  Robinson  ( Wady  Abu  Rctnmdt) 
and  Palmer  ( Wady  Erth/ime),  but  any  delinite 
identification  of  this  or  of  tlie  eleven  following 
stations  must  be  regarded  as  very  uncertain. 

A.  T.  Chapman. 

RIVER.— In  the  OT  this  is  the  AV  rendering  of 
the  following  words :  1.  tn;  or  i.-);,  an  Egyptian 
loan-woril,  which  in  the  singular  is  always  (except 
in  Dn  lo"'*-"-'-',  where  it  means  the  Tigris)  used 
of  the  Nile:  Gn  41'- =•»"*»■"■ '«,  Ex  1^  2»'>''"  i»''*' 

•J15.  17.  ISIfr.  aoMj.  21(n-.  2J6(s.  2S.  28    [En".   8']    S'f''''"    17' 

[all  JE],  Am  8»9',*  Is  19""-  233'CJer  46  [Gr.  26]'«, 
Ezk  29»''-»,  /ec  10".  In  all  these  nassages  the 
LXX  renders  by  irora^is  (in  Ezk  29^- »,  Zee  10" 
Trora^ioi)  except  Is  23'- '",  where  a  different  text 
ap|iears  to  have  been  followed.  The  plur.  c^n;  is 
used  of  the  Nile  arms  or  canals  :  Ex  7'^  8' '"  [both 
•  The  prophet's  allusion  in  these  two  passages  to  the  rise  and 
the  fall  of  the  Nile  (C^^i'tJ  IN;)  ia  quite  obscured  by  the  AV 
rendering  'flood.' 


RIVER 


RIVER 


287 


P],  Is  7"  19'37"  =  2  K  19-',  Nali  3«,  EzU  eo'-*""-* 
••  ">  30''-',  Ps  7S".  The  LXX  lias  in  all  these  pas- 
sages irorauoi  (in  Is  7'*,  Ezk  ■29*''"-°  iroraMis)  except 
Is  19',  wliicli  reaJs  al  Snipt'Xf^  '''O"  toto/hou,  and  37^, 
■where  the  text  is  mutilated.  The  same  word  onx; 
is  used  of  watercourses  in  general  in  Is  33'-'  (Jiu- 
piiX"),  and  is  even  applied  once  to  shafts  or  tunnels 
cut  in  the  rock  by  the  miner,  Job  28'"  (cf.  Snj  in  v.''). 

2.  vi;  (LXX  in  the  following  passages  irorafii!, 
unless  otherwise  noted),  the  most  general  term  for 
river,  occurs  some  120  times  in  the  OT.  It  is  un- 
certain whether  it  is  derived  from  a  root  tn:  '  to 
How,'  or  whether  the  latter  is  a  denominative  from 
vi;,  which  may  be  a  loan-word  (cf.  Ass3-r.  ndrti, 
'stream,'  'river').  It  is  used  of  rivers  in  general 
in  Nu  24«  [JE],  Job  14"  40^,  Ps  74"  7S'«  etc. ;  very 
fre<|uently  of  particular  rivers :  the  river  of  Eden 
and  its  branches  Gn  2"'"-";  the  Nile  Is  19»; 
esp.  the  Euphrates  (m.s-iii))  Gn  15'",  Dt  1',  Jos  1*, 
which  is  often  called  n.ijn  as  the  river  /car'  ^^oxv" 
(cf.  the  title  '  the  great  river,'  Vran  ini.i,  in  Gn  1.5'^ 
Dt  1',  although  this  title  is  once,  Dn  W,  applied 
to  the  Tigris),  Gn  3P',  Ex  23",  Nu  22',  Jos  24-- 3- 
"■"  [all  E],  Ezr  8",  Neh2'-»  3'  (.and  Aram.  TJ, 
emphat.  ktj,  Ezr  4'»- "■'«•"•  =»  and  oft.),  prob. 
also  Gn  36"  (P ;  see  Rehobotii,  No.  2),  witliout 
the  art.  (poet.)  in  Is  7»  Jer  2'^  Mic  7'%  Zee  9'", 
Ps  72»  ;  the  river  of  Gozan  2  K  17«  18",  cf.  I  Ch  5-"  ; 
the  rivers  of  Cusb  Zeph  3'".  The  reference  is 
probably  to  canals  in  the  following:  the  Chebar 
Ezk  1'-^  3"-»  10'»-=°-«43^  the  Ahava  Ezr8='-''; 
the  'rivers'  of  Babylon  Ps  137';  the  gates  of  the 
'  rivers'  of  Nineveh  Nah  2'  (I5A  Tn'Xai  riiv  viXcai', 
X*  IT.  r.  roraiJLwi'),  as  niinj  is  u.sed  of  the  canals  of 
Egypt  in  Ex  7'"  S'l"'  (in  both  ||  a-iit-).  In  Jol)  28" 
'  he  tthe  miner)  bindeth  the  streams  (nHij)  that  they 
trickle  not,'  the  reference  is  to  underground  water 
whicli  is  prevented  by  the  use  of  lime  or  clay  from 
percolating  into  the  mine  (A.  B.  Davidson,  ad  foe. ). 
The  Dnqj  in  Aram-naharaim  (Gn  24'°,  Dt  23^  [both 
Ufaairora^ia],  Jg  3"  [B  7rora/xoi  — i^pias,  A  — .  Mftro- 
Torafxia  irora/^wf],  Ps  60  [title  ;  MecroTrora/xfa  Zupia?]) 
was  probably  meant  by  the  Hebrew  writers  to 
have  a  dual  sense  ('  Aram  of  the  two  rivers,'  these 
being  probably  fsee  Dillm.  on  Gn  24'°]  the  Euph- 
rates and  the  Cliaboras),  but  the  original  ending 
may  have  l/een  a  plural  one  (c  .  ),  as  would  appear 
to  "be  implied  by  the  Tel  el-Amarna  Na-ri-ma, 
Nahriimt,  and  the  Egyp.  Nhrima. 

3.  V;  (etym.  uncertain)  is  used  either  (a)  of  a 
torrent  of  ru.shing  water  or  (6)  of  a  valley  through 
which  a  torrent  flows  or  has  flowed,  a  '  torrent- 
valley'  (modern  wddy).\  For  this  latter  sense  cf. 
Gn  26"- '»,  Nu  13'^-  "  21 '^  32',  Dt  I-'-'  2'«"  (see  Driver's 
note;  80  Jos  12*  13'- "  [same  phrases] ;  v.'' is  un- 
certain [.see  Driver's  note],  so  Jos  12-1-""'  """O  3'^-  " 
(toi  um.)  448  [ns  2*'»],  2  K  10^.  For  A V  '  river(s) ' 
RV  substitutes  the  very  misleading  tr.  'brook(s)' 
in  Nu  34»,  Dt  10',  Jos  15*- ■"  16»  17"  19",  1  K  8»», 
2  K  24'.  2  Ch  '\  Am  &\  Ezk  47"  4S'«,  and  the 
equally  misleading  '  valley  '  in  Dt  2=-'-  *""'  3»-  '■'  4'», 
Jos  12'»""'  13S!><«.1«  M.,  2K10»='.  The  use  of  S-j 
in  the  sense  (o)  above  (reproduced  by  the  LXX  in 
the  following  pa.ssages,  unless  otherwise  noted,  by 
X'l^uippoi'S  or  x<'m<"W>s)  may  be  illustrated  by  its 
application  to  the  Kishon  Jg  4'- '» ,5-""-,  Ps  8;i'»i"» ; 
to  Elijah's  stream  Cherith  1  K  17».  J- »■»•',  which 
was  liable  to  dry  up  in  summer,  cf.  Sir  40'^  (iroTa/tis) ; 
Uj  water  bursting  Irom  the  rock  Ps  78-'°  ('  o:t).  Pre- 
fixed to  another  word,  it  is  often  u.scd  in  the  sense 
(6)alK)vp-  VaA«;ArnonNu21"  [licro  phir.],  I)t2-^ 
(cpapavJ)"  3«-"-"  4«  Jos  12'- =  13"- ■«.  2  K  10^;  X 
E.shcol  ('  Wady  of  the  Cluster')  Nu  32»,  Dt  l"  (both 
♦dpa-yf  ^irrpvot) ;  N.  hashskitiim,  '  Wady  of  the 
Acacias 'Jl  4  (3)"  (xfiMiippot  twv  axolfuv) ;  N.  Besor 

•  Comill.  following  the  LX.\,  deletes  the  Iwit  clause  o(  the 
MT,  in  which  D'li<;  occurs  a  third  lime. 
I  Sm  Driver  on  Am  5W. 


1  S  30'- '»  =• ;  .v.  Gad  2  S  24»  ;  N.  Gerar  Gn  20" ; 
N.  Zered  Nu  21'-,  Dt  2'^- '^  (LXX  in  last  tiv« 
passages  (pipayS.) ;  N.  Jabbok  Gn  32-'S  Dt  2"  3", 
Jos   12= ;   A'.    Kidron  2  S    15-^,    1  K  2^   15'»   18* 

2  K  23"- '»,  2  Cli  15">  29'«  30'^  Jer  31  (38)-'°  (yd^oX) ; 
X  Kanah  Jos  16»  17'  (ipapayi) ;  N.  Sorek  Jg  16* 
(B  ' &.\<ruip-qxt  ^  °  X"Mi/5po(u)5  Swprjx) ;  N.  ha-  Arahah 
Am  6'*  [dub.  ;  Wellh.  would  read  N.  Mizraim  ; 
LXX  6  xf'M''/'po(i')s  rilv  SvafiQv^.  The  familiar  river 
(RV  'brook'  except  in  Jth  1'  'river')  of  Egypt 
is  N.  Mizraim  (modem  Wdthj  el- Artsh).  See 
Egypt  (River  of).  Snj  is  once,  Job  28'',  used  of 
a  miner's  shaft  (cf.  the  use  of  cin;  in  v.'°). 

i.  5.  ^31',  by-form  SjiN  or  Sjn  (root  hz- '  flow '  [?]). 
The  former  occurs  only  in  Jer  17'  '  he  shall  be  as  a 
tree  jplanted  by  the  waters  (c'5,  MaT-a),  and  that 
spi-eadeth  out  his  roots  by  the  river'  (V;)-'?!',  iirl 
iK/idda,  'to  moisture');  the  latter  only  in  Dn  S--'-' 
(Theod.  transliterates  t6  i)i)/id\,  LXX  has  ^  vvXti). 

6.  P?ij,  from  a  root  pen  '  to  hold,'  is  a  poetical 
word,  whose  nearest  English  equivalent  is  perhaps 
'  channel,'  the  original  idea  being  that  of  holding 
or  conlining  waters.*  It  thus  denotes,  primarily 
at  least,  tlie  stream-bed  rather  than  the  stream. 
Its  occurrences  are  :  Ps  18'""'i  (where  for  '  channels 
of  waters,'  c:5  '?■?!<,  we  should  read,  as  in  2  S  22'*, 
'channels  (i.e.  bed)of  thesea,' d;  n.  TheLXXhasin 
the  Latter  acp^aas  SaXdaatj!,  and  in  the  former  irriyal 
iSdruip)  41'  (AV  and  RV  '  brooks,'  LXX  Tnjyal)  \26* 
(AV  and  RV  'streams,'  LXX  xf'M<ippoi'5)>  Jl  l-' 
4  (3)  '8  (in  both  AV  '  rivers,'  RV  '  brooks,'  LXX 
atpiaets),  Ca  5'*  (AV  'rivers,'  RV  'brooks,'  LXX 
TrXrjpw/iaTa),  Job  6"  (D'Sn^  'n  '  channel  of  torrents,' 
LXX  xf'MpP'"'')!  Is  8'  (AV  and  R\'  'channels,' 
LXX  <pdf>ayi),  Ezk  6»  31'-  32"  31'»  35"  Sfl-'-  «  (AV  in 
all  the  Ezekiel  passages  has  'rivers,'  RV  'water- 
courses,' LXX  <t>dpayi  in  all  except  31'-,  where  it 
has  vediov). 

7.  ''^~,  from  root  [ihs]  'divide,'  cf.  the  proper 
name  Pki.eg  and  the  explanation  of  it  given  by  J 
in  Gn  lu-^.  This  word  means  an  artificial  ivater- 
course,  a  canal  formed  for  the  purpose  of  irrigation. 
Its  occurrences  are  :  Job  29"  ('rivers  of  oil,'  LXX 
simply  7iiXa)  ;  Ps  P  (AV  'rivers,'  RV  'streams,' 
L.XX  5i^Jo5oi)  46'  ('there  is  a  river  [17]  whose 
streams  [o'jS?,  LXX  opfirniaTa,  arms  or  branches 
led  from  the  river  through  the  surrounding  land] 
make  glad  the  city  of  our  God')  65'"  i"'  {iroTap.d':,  .see 
below)  11!)'*'  ('mine  eyes  run  down  with  rivers 
[LXX  oU^oSoi]  of  waters '),  borrowed  from  or 
quoted  in  La  3**  (LXX  d<j>iuei$.  The  figure  in 
these  two  i)assages  is  probably  that  of  the  tears  in 
their  flow  tracing  furrows  on  the  cheek) ;  Pr  5'* 
('sh(iuld  thy  springs  be  scattered  abroad,  thy 
streams  of  water  [LXX  CSaro]  in  the  street?'  an 
exhortation  to  conjugal  lidelity,  addressed  probably 
to  the  husband,  who  is  cautioned  against  seeking 
pleasure  from  sources  outside  his  own  house  ;  see 
the  various  interpretations  di.scussed  in  Wildeboer 
or  Toy)  21'  ('the  king's  heart  is  in  the  hand  of 
the  Lord  as  the  watercourses';  so  RV,  which 
brings  out  the  meaning  more  clearlv  than  the 
AV  'rivers';  L.XX  op^i  Wdrui') ;  I.s' 30=*  (LXX 
Mwp  5ia.Tropevdpi(voi',  \\  fs  -hz-)  32'''  ('as  rivers  of 
water  in  a  dry  place,'  LXX  viup  (jiepo/xevov).  There 
is  some  doulit  as  to  Jg  5'''- "  and  Job  2iJ".  In  the 
former  of  these  passages  AV  has  '  for  (m.  '  in  ')  the 
divisions  of  Reuben,'  RV  '  by  the  watercourses  of 
Reuben,'  nuSs  being  here  and  in  Job  20"  taken  in 
both  versions  as  the  plural  of  i;'r?,  a  suppo.sed  by- 
form  of  i^z,  but  it  is  not  improbable  that  we  should 
at  least  in  Jg  5  vocalize  m)t;  (cf.  2  Ch  35»-  '-'), 
giving  the  moaning  of  'divisions'  in  the  sense  of 
clans  ox  families.  In  J"  5'°  the  LXX  has  pLcplSes, 
and  in  v."  Sioip^ffcit,  while  in  Job20"it  readsi/MXfu 

■  The  word  p'!^i<  is  used  nj^unitivcly  of  the  bonca  of  the 
hippopotamus,  fts  beinR  hollow,  Job  40*^,  and  of  Ihf  furrowi 
between  the  scales  of  tiio  crocodile,  41'  ('^). 


288  rvIVEB 

KouriSo,.,  after  which  Duhm  emends  to  rfj  3":n 
■milk  of  the  pastures.'  But  Dillni..  Buihle,  and 
most  tr.  'streams,' viz.  of  honey,  etc.,  as  explained 
in  v"  (cf.  '29«).  In  Ps  65'° W  'the  nver  of  God 
ia-rhx  ih^)  is  the  eliaunel  or  conduit  by  which  rain 
is  poetically  supposed  to  be  conducted  from  it^ 
rese?^o  rs  in  the'  lieavens  (cf.  Job  38'^  '  Who  hath 
cleft  a  conduit  for  the  rain  ? ').     See  Driver,  Par. 

Psnlt.  ad  loc.  .  -   ,  ■  •     „.„,j   :. 

8    n'-a      The  proper  meaning  of   this  wora   is 

'  co'iidult'  (from  knU  «f^\i-)'«"'J„itis_so  rendered 

bv  both  AV  and  KV  in  2  K  18"  20-^  Is  ,^  3(r  (L\X, 

except  Is  7^  where '  conduit '  is  not  expressed,  .Spa- 

S)      In  Job  38"-=  AV  has  '  water-course,    KV 

'  :;hanner  (poet,  forrain),  LXXp.'.^?  ;  m  Ezk  31*  AV 

'  little  rivers,'  KV  '  channels'  (for  irrigation),  LXX 

i^^n       Tn  1  K  183^»»»'  the  same  Heb.  terra 

is  used  for  the  '  trench '  round  Elijah  s  altar  (LAA 

/dWa   ;  but  in  Jer  30  [Gr.  37]  "  46  [Gr.  26]  "it 

(really  a  diflt.  word)  means  either  neivjlcsh  or i)laister 

something  coming  up,  or  placed  on  the  yound) ; 

LXX  a..AeX(.)<a,  confusing  with  n^in  from  ^  bv .      ^ 

In  the  NT  '  river'  occurs  only  m  iMK  1  ,  Jn  /  , 
Ap  tfiis  Rev  8'"  9"  le*- '-  22'-  =,  in  all  of  which  it  is 
fhe  tr.'of  xo.a.6,.  The  imagery  of.Kev  22-  is 
borrowed  from  Gii  2''-  and  from  the  vision  m  Lzk  47. 
Rivers  serve  in  Scripture,  as  they  have  done  m 
all  a'e  ,  tolix  boundaries  :  On  15'^  Ex  23"  Nu34  , 
T^t  P  3«->«  11«  Jos  1*  12'  15^  168  179  19",  Jg4", 
OS  10'^  1  K  4»''«  8«»,  2  K  10^  24',  Ezr  4'«,  Neh  2' 
etc.  ;  they  are  utUized  for  bathing  Ex^2»  for 
drinking  7'»-=',  1  K  \V-^  for  fishing  Ex  7'«-=",  Lv 
119- 10  Ec  1',  Ezk  29-'  °,  and  for  irrigation  (see 
above);  they'  serve  as  means  of  defence  Nah  3«, 
and  as  a  highway  for  navigation  Is  18  ;  a  river 
side  appears  as  a  place  of  prayer  in  Ac  lb  . 

Besides  the  instances  of  figurative  employment 
of  the  word  'river'  which  have  been  reterred  to 
above,  the  following  may  be  noted  :— In  Jer  40  • 
the  rising  of  the  Nile  is  used  as  a  syinbol  of  an 
Egyptian  invasion  ;  cf .  the  similar  use  in  Is  8    ol 
'  tbe  river '  to  typify  the  invading  hosts  of  Assyria 
and  the  language  used  in  Jer  4,=  ;  in  l^p- (cf.  Is 
m'-)  rivers  are  a  type  of  danger  or  affliction  ;  m 
I«  59''  a  manifestation  of  Jehovah  is  compared  to 
a-'Sinj,  theprolKible  rendering  being  that  of  KV 
'He  shall  come  as  a  rushing  stream,  which  the 
breath    of    the   LORD    driveth'   (AV   '  when    tie 
enemy  shall  come  in  like  a  flood,  the  spirit  of  the 
Lord  shall  lift  up  a  standarS  against  him    ;  see 
the  Comm.  ad  loc.)  ;  in  Ps  46' W  a  "ver  (nn:)  is  a 
type  of  Jehovah's  favour;  in  Job  29«,  Ps   liy"«, 
lT3«  (all  U'^h-f),    Mic    6',   Job   20"  (both   n-)n}) 
'rivers'  typify  abundance;  in  Am  5"  righteous- 
ness is  compared  to  a  perennial  torrent  {i-}):  a 
well-spring  of  wisdom  and  a  flowing  torrent  C^-j) 
are  coupled  in  Pr  18* ;  a  river  (im)  is  a  symbol  of 
peace   in  Is  48i8  66'-;  the  breath  of  Jehovah   is 
compared  in  Is  30=»  to  an  overflowing  torrent,  and 
in  V  ^  to  a  torrent  of  brimstone  (both  ?CJ). 

The  'r^3  -^ri,  lit.  '  torrents  of  Belial,'  of  2  S  22» 
is  a  doubtful  pi.rase.  It  is  generally  explained  as 
'torrents  of  worthlessness  (  =  wickedness),  but 
Cheyne  (Expositor,  1895,  p.  435  if.,  see  a.Uo  Expos 
Times,  viii.  [1897],  p.  423  f.,  and  Em-yc.  BM.  art. 
'  Belial ')  discovers  a  mythological  allusion  in  the 
expression  and  renders  it  'streams  of  the  under- 
world,' identifying  Belial  with  the  Babylonian 
irodde'^s  Bdili,  whom  he  connects  with  the  under- 
world. Hommel  agrees  with  this  identification, 
but  (lieynu's  interpretation  is  opposed  by  Baudissin 
and  .Knsen  (see  PJtE',  «.  'Belial,'  and  the  articles 
bv  all  four  scholars  in  the  Expos.  Times,  ix.  pp. 
4Utl.,yi  f.,283f.,  332,567). 


RIZPAH 


•The  qnomtion  -Out  of  his  belly,'  ^t*'  "^^  '^P^jSr  V^ 
ireneral  »ir.»e  o(  such  OT  iiassoBes  as  Is  44J  561  68".  Jer  2", 
lik  :«J»i'  4T1"-,  Jl  2'»'-  stf-,  Zee.  \»  HS-the  series  resting 
ultimately  (Westcott)  on  Ex  17«.  Nu  M)". 


For  the  river  system  of  Palestine,  see  vol.  iii. 
p  642  f.,  and  for  an  account  of  particular  rivers  the 
articles  under  their  respective  names. 

J  .    a'\.  oKLlilK. 

RIVER  OF  EGYPT.— See  Egypt  (Kivkk  of), 
and  add  that  in  KV  of  Am  8«  9' the  Nile  is  called 
the  '  River  of  Egypt '  (dp.^p  in;,  AV  badly    flood  ). 

RIZIA  (KTi ;  B  Vaacii,  A  'Pofftd).— An  Ash<»rit«, 
1  Ch  7*'. 

RIZPAH  (asvn;  LXX  Pecr^i,  except  2  S  21' 
where  A  has  ■Pe>.#.de).-A  concubine  of  king  Saul. 
She  is  called  the  daughter  of  Aiah  (2  hi  il  ). 
which  may  imply  that  she  was  a  descendant  of 
Uiat  Hivite  clan  in  the  S.E.  of  P-'f  ^- ^^^°^^ 
which  Esau  is  said  to  have  taken  one  of  his  wives 

'%htn  the  Philistines  struck  down  the  kingdom 
of  Saul,  and  David  established  himself  m  Hebron, 
Riziiah  must  have  withdrawn  to  Mahanaim  amon| 
the  few  who  clung  to  the  ruined  house,  lor  (2  S 
36-")  when  Abner  held  towards  Ishbosheth  the 
position,  and  was  suspected  of  cherishing  the  de- 
ii.ms,  of  a  Mayor  of  the  Palace,  some  who  doubted 
hil  loyalty  accused  him  of  having  entered  into  an 
intri-'ue  with  his  dead  master's  concubine.  Ihe 
sting'of  the  accusation  lay  in  the  fact  that  such  an 
alliance  was  regarded  at  that  period  as  a  sure  step 
toward   claiming    the    throne    (cf.   2  S   16  ,   »nd 

^\fa'Lte?  period  in  David's  reign   (the  exact 
date  of  the  incident  is  uncertain,  since  the  story  is 
found  in  an  appendix  to  the  history  of  Davull   a 
three  years'  famine  fell  upon  the  land  (2  b  -1     ). 
The  oracle,  when  consulted,  decided  that  J    was 
angry  with  His  people,  and  that  the  cause  of  that 
an°er  was  to  be   found    in  the  fact  tbat  Saul, 
ins'tead  of  remaining  true  to  the  oath  of  the  con- 
gregation (Jos  9),  had  deprived  the  Gibeonites  of 
the  privileges  which  the  oath  secured  them,  and 
had  oppressed  this  clan.     David   accordingly  ap- 
proached  the  Gibeonites  with  ofl-ers  to  .stanck  the 
feud       These  rejected   all   money   compensation, 
and,'  denying    that    they   had  any  quarrel  with 
Israel  at  farge,  demanded  the  blood  of  the  giulty 
house.     Seven  descendants  of  Saul-hve  of  them 
sons  of  Merab  ;  two,  Armoni  and  Alephibosheth, 
sons  of  Ki/pah— were   thereupon   seized   and   de- 
livered overdo  their  vengeance.     The  Gibeonites 
brou-ht  them  up  to  Gibeon,  which,  from  its  name 
'the  hUl  of  God,'   evidently  bore   a   sacro-sanct 
character,  and  there  exposed*  the  ^^?'^'']'f^^J: 
To  the  rock   on   this    hill    the   unhappy   Kizpah 
resorted,  and,  spreading  her  mourning  cloak  of 
sackcloth,  keptAreary  watch  beneath  her  dead  l^o 

scare  from  their  prey  the  ^V'T''"f  r'^^Xt     T lie 
daytime,  the  prowling  jackals  ot  the  night.     Ihe 
judicial  execution  had  taken  place  in  the  early 
iays  of  barley  harvest.     It  lends  a  sharper  toucli 
to   the  pictu/e,  if  one  can  see  the  reapers  cou.e 
and  -o  m  the  fields,  while  above  them  the  silent 
woman  crouched  beside  her  dead,  whose  death  was 
toavert  the  curse  from  those  fields,     tor  bI.c  mus 
watch  on  the  height  untU  the  merciful   ram  of 
heaven  squalled  the  end.     The  fall  of  rain  is  no 
inserted  as  a  mere  mark  o     the  le-.^th   »     ''2^, 
euard;  it  is  not   'the  periodic  rains  in  OcU  be 
S  are  referred  to.     Probably  it  >«  "'e"t'.n«d 
as  the  si<Ti  from  which  men  concluded  that  tue 
famine-drought  was  broken,  that  the  sacrifice  was 
eft'-tual,  that  the  anger  of  J"  was  averted  from 
His  land,  and  that  now  at  last  the  motber  m  ght 
tease  from  her  fearful  watch.         A.  C.  \N  ELCil. 

•  The  word  used  is  rare  and  uncertain  in  its  meaning.     W 
n«.,i«  alai?  Nu  2.S4.    The  likeliest  sense  is  the  general  o^« 

explanation.    See.  further,  ort.  Ha-sowo. 


ROAD  (Anglo-Sax.  rad,  a  journey,  literally  'a 
riding,'  from  riilnn  to  ride)  is  found  in  AV  only 
once,  I  S  27'"  '  Whither  have  j'e  made  a  road  to- 
day?' The  sense  is  a  riding  into  a  country  with 
hostile  intent,  a  '  raid '  *  (so  KV):  Cf.  Calderwood, 
lUst.  143,  'AH  who  were  under  the  danger  of  the 
lawes  for  the  roade  of  Ruthven  were  cliarged  to 
crave  pardon ' ;  and  Spenser,  FQ  VI.  viii.  35 — 

'  In  thcee  wylde  deserts  where  she  now  atKxIe, 
There  dwelt  a  salvajje  nation,  which  did  live 
of  su-alth  and  spoile,  and  niakij)^  nightly  rode 
Into  their  neigbboure  bordere.' 


See  Way. 


J.  Hastings. 


ROBBER,  ROBBERY See  Crimes  and  Pun- 

ISII5IE.S-I'S,  vol.  i.  p.  o2'2''. 
ROBBERS    OF   CHURCHES.  — See    Chukches 

(ROIIBEKS  OF). 

ROCK.— In  the  OT  this  is  the  AV  tr.  of  the 
following  terms  : — 1.  ^'P^n,  properly  '  flint.'  AV 
renders  oy  '  rock  '  only  in  Job  28'  '  he  (the  miner) 
putteth  forth  his  hand  upon  the  rock  (RV  '  flint,' 
AVm  '  fiinty  rock '),  he  overturneth  the  mountains 
by  the  roots'  (cf.  v.'"  'he  cutteth  out  channels 
among  the  rocks,'  n\-tii).  The  combination  'n  iis 
'  rock  of  flint '  (so  A  V  and  RV,  LXX  rirpa  dspiro/ios, 
cf.  Wis  \\*)  occurs  in  Dt  8",  and  ts  'n  (||  y^c), 
lit.  '  Hint  of  rock '  (AV  and  KV  '  flinty  rock,' 
LXX  dTtpei.  irirpa)  in  32".  In  the  only  other  two 
instances  in  wliicli  the  Heb.  word  occurs,  'n  stands 
alone:  Ps  114"  (||  -hs  ;  AV  and  RV  'fiint,'  LXX 
iKp6Tojios},  Is  50',  where  it  is  used  as  a  symbol  of 
lirmness,  '  therefore  have  I  set  my  face  like  a 
flint'  {(TTtpei  wirpa;  cf.  Ezk  3*  'as  an  adamant 
harder  than  flint  [is,  jrdrpa]  have  I  made  thy  fore- 
head ').     See,  further,  art.  Flint. 

2.  [';:]  only  in  plur.  o-fj.  Tliis,  which  is  per- 
haps an  Aram,  loan-word  (ke'S  kcphd,  cf.  the  NT 
Ki'phns,  see  art.  Peti:u  in  vol.  iii.  p.  756),  occurs 
only  in  Jer  4^  'they  climb  up  upon  the  rocks' 
(for  refuge  ;  LXX  -rirpai),  and  in  Job  30"  of  one  of 
the  dwelling-places  of  a  race  of  outcasts  (||  onn 
'  caves ' ;  on  cave  -  dwellers  or  Troglodytes,  see 
Driver,  Deul.  37  f.),  cf.  24'  'they  embrace  the 
rock  (Ts,  Trirpa)  for  want  of  a  shelter.'  In  30"  tlie 
LXX  has  a  shorter  text  than  the  Hebrew,  the  whole 
verse  reading  Citf  ol  oUoi  aOrdv  ficrav  rpiIryXat  vfTpCiv. 

3.  I'll'?  is  once  rendered  '  rock '  by  AV,  namely 
Jg  6^  '  build  an  altar  upon  the  top  of  this  rock ' 
(m.  '  strong  place,'  RV  '  strong  hold,  IJ  rb  MaoviK,  A 
t4  {pos  Maiix)-  The  reference  is  probably  to  a  natural 
stronghold  rather  than  to  a  fortilication  (Moore). 
The  word  I'lyo  'place  of  refuge'  (if  from  ^  nv)  or 
'  strong  place '  (if  from  iiv)  occurs  elsewhere  only  in 
the  Prophetical  books  (21  times)  and  in  Proverbs 
(once)  and  Psalms  (9  times).  For  I'lvp  ts,  applied 
to  God,  see  below.     Cf.  also  art.  Mauzzim. 

4.  y^r,  the  nearest  English  equivalents  of  which 
are  '  cliil'  and  '  crag.'  The  ideas  of  steepness  and 
inaccessibility  are  connected  with  the  word,  at 
least  in  earlier  passages,  although  in  later  ones  it 
has  at  times  a  more  general  sense.  In  the  follow- 
ing pa-ssagcs  Vjy  is  used  (LXX,  wherever  'rock' 
is  expressed,  has  irlrpa,  unle.ss  otherwise  noted) : 
Nu  2(j»'"'-  K"""-  II  [all  1"],  Nch  9",  Ps  78"  (v.'»  to),  of 
the  rock  struck  by  Moses  ;  in  the  similar  narra- 
tive, Ex  17«""  [E'l  lis  is  used,  and  so  in  Dt  8", 
Ps  78"  (v.'«  yi?5)«  105"  114',  Is  48-'"'  [on  the  later 
Jewish  legends  regarding  this  rock,  see  below  on 
1  Co  10*].  In  Nu  24-'  [J  F,]  the  words  of  Balaam 
with  reference  to  the  I;wenites,  '  strong  is  thy 
dwelling-place,  and  thy  nest  (ken,  a  characteristic 
word-play)  is  set  in  the  rock,' allude  to  the  safety 

"  llald  la  nt  Scand.  oriKln.    Raid,  savs  Skeat,  was  the  northern 
Bonier  wor<l,  'road"  being  used  in  the  south;    but  the  flrst 
quoutlon  above  Is  Scottish,  and  yet '  road '  is  used. 
VOL.  IV.  — 19 


of  birds  and  their  nests  on  inaccessible  clifl's,  cf., 
for  the  same  figure,  Ca  2",  Jer  48  [Gr.  '28]  »*  49 
[Gr.  29] '«,  Ob»,  Job  39-^  Dt  32'»  [JE]  '  He  made 
him  to  smk  honey  out  of  the  crag '  (y^y  ;  ||  '  oil  out 
of  the  rock  of  flint,'  c''C|'n  nis)  has  in  view  the  stores 
of  honey  that  are  found  in  Palestine  in  the  caves 
and  lissures  of  the  dry  limestone  rocks  (cf.  Ps  81" 
■Hi),  and  the  fact  that  the  olive  flourishes  even  in 
rocky  soil  (cf.  Job  29"  ts,  LXX  rd  6pri)  ;  see  Driver, 
Dcui.  ad  loc.  The  y^n  of  J^  !*>,  2  Iv  14',  Is  16'  42" 
(in  the  tirst  two  passages  with  the  art.  in  both  MT 
and  LXX)  is  very  frequently  taken  to  be  Petra, 
the  rockl)uilt  capital  of  Edom  (see  art.  Sela). 
But  while  this  might  suit  the  two  passages  in 
Isaiah  (but  see  Dillm.  ad  he),  and  is  very  appro- 
priate to  2  K  14',  it  appears  quite  impossible  to  fit 
such  an  identification  to  the  situation  of  Jg  1". 
There  are  strong  reasons  for  taking  '  the  eliU'  in 
this  last  passage  to  be  some  prominent  cliff  near 
the  south  end  of  the  Dead  Sea.  perhiips  the  modern 
e^-SaJieh  (see  Buhl,  Gesch.  d.  Edom.  20,  and  Moore, 
Judges,  ad  loc).  In  Jg  (i™  (probably  a  late  inter- 
polation) ySs,  but  in  v."  n!s  (and  so  in  13"  of 
Manoah's  sacrifice),  is  used  of  the  rock  on  which 
Gideon  oliered  his  sacrilice  ;  the  Assure  of  the  cliff 
Etam  was  one  of  Samson's  places  of  refuge,  Jg 
158.  11.  i»_  ef  20«-  •"  21 '3  the  crag  KiMMON  to  which 
the  Benjamites  fled,  1  S  13°  the  crags  where  the 
Israelites  took  refuge  from  the  Philistines,  23* 
the  crag  in  the  Wilderness  of  Maon  to  which 
David  fled  from  Saul  [on  Sela-hainmahlekoth  of 
v.^  see  art.  under  tliat  name],  1  Ch  11'°  the  rock 
at  Adullam,  Is  '2-'  (||  -ns,  and  so  in  w.'"-  ")  the 
crags  to  which  men  are  to  flee  from  before  the 
Loud,  Jer  IC"  the  refuge  from  which  the 
Israelites  are  to  be  hunted,  48  [Gr.  31]^  the 
crags  for  which  Moab  is  to  abandon  her  cities 
(cf.  21").  Crags  are  sjioken  of  as  the  haunt  of 
bees  Is  7'°  (cf.  Dt  32'^  above),  conies  (Hyrax 
S>/rineu.i)  Pr  30-",  wild  goats  Job  39',  Ps  104'«,  cf. 

1  S  24'^  (i!s)  ;  sepulchres  are  hewn  in  rocks.  Is  22"; 
a  rock  is  a  type  of  hardness,  Jer  5'  'they  have 
made  their  faces  harder  than  a  rock  ' ;  precipitation 
from  a  rock  appears  as  a  form  of  execution  in 

2  Ch  -25'=  {Kpr,)iv6%),  cf.  (?)  Jer  51  [Gr.  28]'»,  and  see 
art.  Hanging  in  vol.  ii.  p.  298'' ;  the  feet  set  upon 
a  rock  typify  security,  Ps  403|=t,  cf.  27°  61*i-»  (both 
•wi)  ;  crags  were  splintered  by  the  storm  in  Elijah's 
vision,  1  K  19"  ;  the  shadow  of  a  great  crag  is 
grateful  in  a  weary  land.  Is  32- ;  clifis  are  strong 
places  of  defence.  Is  33'"  [for  the  two  crags  of 
1  S  14*  see  BozEZ  and  Senf.h]  ;  the  clefts  of  the 
rocks  in  the  wadis  were  the  scene  of  the  sacrifice 
of  children.  Is  57°  ;  in  a  hole  of  the  rock  Jeremiah 
was  to  hide  his  girdle,  Jor  13* ;  the  word  of  the 
Lord  is  comi)ared  to  a  hammer  that  breaketh  a 
crag  in  pieces,  Jer  23-'«  ;  in  ICzk  24'  the  blood  of 
Jeru.salem's  idolatrous  sacrilices  is  compared  to 
blood  shed  upon  a  bare  rock  [ivl  Xeunrerpiav),  which 
does  not  sink  into  the  earth  but  continues  to  cry 
to  heaven  for  vengeance,  cf.  the  threatening  in  the 
following  ver.se  ;  Ezk  20'-  '*  declare  that  Tj'ro  is 
to  become  a  bare  rock  (y^o  rjx^,  Xeuirfrpfo),  there 
being  here  a  punning  allusion  to  the  name  of  the 
city  (Tyre  =  Ti  =  "iis= '  rock ')  ;  the  question  'do 
horses  run  upon  crags  ?'  introduces  in  Am  6'^  a  re- 
proach for  conduct  of  a  thoroughly  unnatural  kind. 

S.  -H'i  is  best  reproduced  by  '  rock,'  having  all  the 
senses  (except,  01  course,  the  geological  one)  which 
that  word  bears  in  English.  lu  many  instances 
it  is  synonymous  with  y'?y  (see  the  numerous 
parallel  occurrences  of  the  two  terms  quoted 
above),  but  there  are  some  passages  where  "iix 
occurs  in  which  y,p  could  not  nave  been  suitably 
used,  at  least  by  early  writers.  Besides  the 
occurrences  of  the  word  which  have  been  already 
noted,  T»  is  \ised  :  of  the  rock  where  Moses  had 
a  partial  vision  of  the  glory  of  Jahweh,  Ex  33"-  " 


290 


EOCK 


ROCK 


[J] ;  of  the  rocky  summit  {Kopv</>^  ifiiav)  from  which 
Balaam  looked  down  upon  the  camp  of  Israel, 
Nu  23'  [JE] ;  of  the  rock  OnEB  where  the  Midian- 
ite  prince  Oreb  was  slain,  Jg  7^  {Zoip),  Is  10-"  ;  of 
the  rock  where  Saul's  seven  sons  were  '  hanged ' 
(see  Hangino  in  vol.  ii.  p.  298'')  by  the  Gibeonites, 
and  where  Rizpah  kept  her  ghastly  watch,  2  8  21'°; 
in  Job  14"  the  removing  of  the  rock  out  of  its 
place  is  an  accomiianinient  of  the  wearing  do\vn  of 
a  mountain  by  slow  natural  forces,  whue  in  18* 
the  question  '  shall  the  rock  (to.  tprri)  be  removed 
out  of  its  place  ?  '  is  tantamount  to  '  shall  the  con- 
stitution of  the  world  be  subverted  ?  ' ;  the  custom 
of  cutting  inscriptions  on  rocks,  of  which  so  many 
examples  are  known,  is  referred  to  in  Job  19^  ; 
rocks  are  the  shelter  of  a  class  of  outcasts.  Job  24*, 
Bee  under  No.  2,  above  ;  in  Pr  30'"  the  waj'  of  a 
serpent  over  a  rock  (i.e.  its  mysterious  movements, 
witliout  the  aid  of  feet)  is  one  of  the  four  things 
which  the  writer  cannot  understand  ;  Jehovah  is  to 
be  a  stone  of  stumbling  (^JJ  |;:n)  and  a  rock  of 
offence  (Viiyzp  nss)  to  both  the  houses  of  Israel  ;  in 
Is  5P  Abraham  is  called  the  rock  (see  vol.  iii.  p. 
TOS"",  '  Additional  Note ')  whence  Israel  was  hewn  ; 
the  perennial  snow  on  the  rocky  summit  of 
Lebanon  is  mentioned  in  Jer  18'*  ;  the  rocks  are 
broken  asunder  (Nowack  [emending  the  text] 
'kindled')  by  the  fury  of  the  LORD,  when  it  is 
poured  out  like  fire,  Nah  1'. 

We  have  reserved  till  now  those  passages  in  which 
the  term  *  rock '  is  figuratively  used  of  God.  These 
are  the  following.  The  word  vho  is  used  in  2  S  22' 
[  =  Ps  IS^W  (oTcp^u/ia)]  31*l'l  (KpaTo'lw/xa)  42"' W  ('\vtl. 
XtJ/chttwp)  71' (oT-ep^u/ta).  The  term  employed  is  iis 
in  Dt  32*-  "•  18.  so.  si  (^u  g^f,,^  ^.^  ySt^^  1  S  2^  (?  SUaios), 
2S  22»  (0t'Xaf)  82  (xWo-rTjs)  [  =  P8  IS*' ("I  ((»e6s)]  " 
(<!>v\ai)  [  =  Ps  18-"H«)  (Se6s)]  23'  (Bebs),  Ps  19i»l"i 
(|3or,Ws)  28'  (fleis)  31»  W  («f 4s  vTrepaffirtaHis)  62'  <-l-  '(«1-  8(71 
(all  eeds)  71'  (»e6s  {nrepa(nn<rr-f,^)  73=»  (Ofis)  78'» 
(/3o7;«6s)  89"  l=«l  (a.vTi\i„j.Trruip)  92" ('"» (fleis)  94--  (/SoTjffA?) 
95'  144'  (both  9e4s),  Is  17'"  (/3o7796s)  26''  (?  a^tos)  .SO^^ 
(Oe6s)  44'  (LXX  om.),  Hab  1'^  (LXX  om.).  In  some 
of  these  passages  it  has  been  contended  that  zur 
has  the  force  of  a  proper  (Divine)  name.  Hommel, 
for  instance,  in  support  of  his  claim  that  a  certain 
class  of  personal  names  found  in  P,  which  have 
been  widely  suspected  of  being  late  and  artificial, 
are  bona  fde  ancient  Hebrew  survivals,  brings 
forward  two  compound  names  to  show  the  exist- 
ence in  early  times  of  a  Divine  name  Zur.  These 
are  Zuri-'nddana,  from  a  S.  Arabian  inscription 
not  later  than  B.C.  800,  and  Bir-  (or  Bar-)  Ztir, 
from  Zinjerli  (8th  cent.  B.C.).  But,  while  Hommel 
has  rendered  a  service  by  calling  attention  to  these 
names,  one  does  well  to  rememoer  that,  whatever 
they  may  prove  for  the  period  and  the  place  to 
which  they  belong,  it  is  very  questionable  whether 
they  justify  the  inference  that  Zur  was  used  in  a 
similar  sense  by  the  early  Hebrews,  and  it  remains 
as  doubtful  as  before  whether  names  like  Pedahzur, 
Elizur,  Zuriel,  and  Zuri-shaddai,  Nu  l"-  «• '»  3» 
[why  are  these  the  only  instances  in  the  OT  of 
compounds  with  zur,  and  why  are  they  confined  to 
P?],  were  at  any  time,  and  much  more  in  early 
times,  prevalent  in  Israel.  To  the  present  writer 
the  probability  appears  to  be  that,  as  far  as  the 
OT  is  concerned,  Dt  32  is  the  source  to  which  all 
the  above  passages  may  be  traced  back  ;  and 
neither  in  Dt  32*- "  nor  in  Hab  1",  the  passages 
which  plead  most  strongly  in  favo\ir  of  Hommel's 
view,  does  it  seem  to  be  neceswary  to  take  zur  as  a 
Dirine  name  in  the  proper  sense.  The  circum- 
stance that  seta'  and  zur  are  both  employed  in  the 
sense  we  are  examining  (sometimes  even  side  by 
side,  e.y.  Ps  18' <"  [cf.  v."]  71'),  strengthens  the 
conclusion  that  in  all  the  instances  cited  we  have 
to  do  simply  with  one  of  those  metaphors  of  which 
Hebrew  writers  are  so  fond.     '  It  (zur)  designates 


Jehovah,  by  a  forcible  and  expressive  figure,  aa 
the  unchangeable  support  or  refuge  of  His  servants, 
and  is  used  with  evident  appropriateness  where 
the  thought  is  of  God's  unvarying  attitude  towards 
His  people.  The  figure  is,  no  doubt,  like  crag, 
stronghold,  high  place,  etc.,  derived  from  the 
natural  scenery  or  Palestine'  (Driver,  Dcut.  350; 
similarly  Bertliolet  and  Steuemagel.  Homniel'a 
contentions  will  be  found  stated  in  his  AHT, 
pp.  300,  319  f.,  where  he  opposes  the  views  of 
G.  Buch.anan  Gray  contained  in  IIPN,  195  f.j 
Gray  replies  to  Hommel  in  tlie  Expositor,  Sept 
1897,  p.  173  ff.  :  cf.  also  Whitehou.se's  Wew,  .as 
expressed  in  art.  Pillar  in  the  present  work, 
vol.  iii.  p.  SSI"). 

In  the  NT  '  rock '  always  represents  vlrpa.  Its 
occurrences  are  as  follows :  Mt  7''''"-  II  Lk  Q*^  *  as  a 
type  of  a  sure  foundation,  in  Jesus'  simile  of  the 
two  buildings ;  Mt  16"  '  upon  this  rock  I  -nTll 
build  my  church'  [this  passage  is  exhaustively 
discussed  in  art.  PETER  in  vol.  iii.  p.  758] ;  Mt  27*' 
tlie  rocks  were  rent  by  the  earthquake  at  the 
Crucifixion  ;  Mt  27**  II  Mk  15**  Joseph's  tomb  was 
hewn  out  in  the  rock,  cf.  Is  22"* ;  Lk  8'-  "  part  of 
the  seed  scattered  by  the  sower  fell  i-rrl  t^v  irirpav, 
'  upon  rock,'  which  is  interpreted  by  the  ivl  t4 
nFrpJiS-ri  of  Mt  13'-^  [the  expression  means  places 
where  only  a  thin  coatintj  of  soil  covered  the 
underlying  rock,  hence  R\  appropriately  'rocky 
places  ;  AV  infelicitously  'stony  places,'  whicn 
suggests  ground  in  which  a  number  of  loose  stones 
were  found] ;  Ro  9"  '  As  it  is  written.  Behold  I 
lay  in  Zion  a  stone  of  stumbling  {\t6ov  TrpoaKd/i/iaTos] 
and  a  rock  of  offence  {■n-^pav  (XKavSaXov),'  where 
Is  S'*  and  28"  appear  to  be  in  view  as  in  1  P  2*-' ; 
in  Rev  6'"-  the  caves  and  rocks  of  the  mountains 
play  the  same  part  as  in  Is  2"*-  and  as  the  moun- 
tains and  hills  in  Hos  10'  (cf.  Lk  23'").  Finally, 
there  is  1  Co  10*,  where  St.  Paul  says  of  the 
Israelites  who  were  led  by  Moses  through  the 
wilderness  that  '  they  did  all  drink  the  same 
spiritual  drink,  for  they  drank  of  a  spiritual  rock 
that  followed  them  :  and  the  rock  was  Christ '  (Ittikok 
yap  iK  TTvev/MirtKTJs  dKoXovdoOff-rj^  Tr^rpas,  i]  irh'pa  5^  ^v  6 
Xpurrds).  Not  only  does  St.  Paul  here  spiritualize 
the  smitten  rock  and  the  water  that  flowed  from 
it,  giving  to  these  a  Eucharistic  sense  (cf.  the 
foreshadowing  of  Baptism  which  he  discovers 
in  the  Passage  of  the  Red  Sea  and  the  Pillar  of 
Cloud,  y.',  and  St.  Peter's  treatment  of  the  Deluge 
and  the  Ark,  1  P  3™-*'),t  but  he  has  drawn  unon 
later  Jewish  expansions  of  the  OT  story.  Neither 
in  Ex  il^"-  nor  in  Nu  20*'-  is  it  hinted  even  that 
the  water  continued  to  How  from  the  rock  after 
the  temporary  occasion  for  it  had  passed  (contrast 
the  case  of  Jg  15'°).  Jewish  haggdda,  however,  went 
much  beyond  this,  describing  how  the  rock  accom- 
panied tlie  Israelites  all  throu";h  their  march  (cf. 
St.  Paul's  dKoXovOoi'xTTi  w(Tpa),  and  how,  wherever  the 
Tabernacle  was  pitched,  the  princes  came  and  sang 
to  the  rock,  'Spring  up,0  well,  sing  ye  unto  it,' where- 
upon the  waters  gushed  forth  afresh  [Bammidbar 
rabba  Nu  21'"-;  Delitzsch  in  ZA'IC,  1882,  p.  455ff.; 
Driver,  Expos.  Jan.  1899,  p.  15  ft'.  ;  Thackeray,  St. 
Paul  and  Contemp.  Jew.  Thought,  204  ff. ;  the  Comm. 
on  1  Corinthians;  cf.,  forinstancesof  similar  Jewish 
fancies,  Sdiurer,  GJV  ii.  343  [HJP  II.  i.  344]). 

RV  substitutes  'rocky  ground'  for  AV  'rocks' 
in  Ac  27^  as  tr.  of  TpoxE's  T6)roi  (lit.  '  rough  places'), 
and  '  hidden  rocks '  for  AV  '  spots '  ( Vulg.  maculce) 
in  Jude  "  as  tr.  of  (nriXdSes  [the  AV  rendering,  was, 
no  doubt,  inrtuenced  by  the  parallel  passage  2  P 
2"  ;  see  the  Comm.  ad  loc.].  J.  A.  Selbie. 

•  In  the  lafit  clause  of  this  verse  the  true  reading  is  iik  n 
KxXait  olM^Bfjjriedau  «wTii*  (RV  '  because  it  had  lieen  well  buiided  *X 
not  Tit>HLi'X/*T*  ykp  i*i  Tti»  »fT(»«»  (AV  '  for  it  wfta  founded  upon  ft 
rook  *),  which  has  been  introduced  from  Mt  725. 

t  St.  Paul  follows  similar  methods  of  iDterpretatioo  uA 
argumeDt  in  Ro  10°K  and  Gal  42» 


ROD 


RODAXIM 


291 


ROD  (■■'E5  mat(eh,  Se;  Ttiakhel,  o^^  shebet,  m;;.;'p 
mish'enet/i  ;  ^d^Sos). — The  rod  or  staff  in  the  hand 
k  the  chief  emblem  of  Oriental  travel.  Thus 
Jacob  setting  out  for  Paddan-aram  left  everything 
behind  him  except  his  makkel  (Gn  32'"),  the  Israel- 
ites kept  the  first  Passover  feast  7nakkil  in  hand 
(Ex  I2''),  and  Elisha  sent  his  misKencih,  the  com- 
]ianion  of  his  journeys,  on  before,  as  if  it  had  been 
a  li\  ing  friend,  to  represent  him  in  the  chamber  of 
death  (2  K  4™).  Tlie  modern  Syrian  peasant  when 
on  a  journey  carries  a  staff  slightly  longer  than 
that  used  in  Europe.  He  invariably  holds  it  by 
the  thin  end,  with  the  hand  an  inch  or  two  down 
and  the  thumb  often  resting  on  the  top.  Such  a 
manner  of  grasping  the  stick  is  suggestive  of  de- 
fence ;  and  by  the  way  in  which  he  raises  himself 
by  means  of  it  in  the  steep  and  rough  mountain 
path,  and  pushes  himself  along  when  travelling  on 
the  dusty  road  of  the  hot  plain,  it  is  evident  that 
the  walking-stick  is  also  meant  to  be  a  support  on 
the  journey.  Protection  from  danger  and  some- 
thing to  lean  upon, — such  are  the  two  original 
meanings  of  the  rod  or  staff. 

In  EV  the  word  matteh,  used  literally,  is  trans- 
lated 'rod'  when  referrin";  to  the  rod  of  Moses 
(Ex  4'  and  oft.),  of  Aaron  (Ex  V- '»  and  oft.),  of  the 
heads  of  the  tribes  (Nu  IT'--'"),  of  Jonathan  (1  S 
14"-  •"),  and  is  tr.  '  st.-ill"  in  Gn  ,38'"-  ^,  Is  10"-  "-*  28=^ 
(as  a  kind  of  Jlail)  30^-  (for  punUhment),  Hab  3". 


of  office.  Tlie  Ileb.  word  is  tran-^Iated  'sceptre' 
in  Gn  49'",  Nu  24",  Ps  45«,  Is  14»,  Ezk  19"-  'S  Am 
!»• »,  Zee  10",  and  in  RV  of  Ps  125».    See  SCEPTRE. 

These  meanings  of  power,  authority,  punish- 
ment, or  correction  are  exemplified  in  2  S  7", 
Job  9"  219  37"  (AVm),  Ps  2',  Is  11*.  In  Is  11' 
the  expression  '  a  rod  (n::h,  of  which  the  only  other 
occurrence  is  Pr  14',  where  see  Toy's  note)  out  of 
the  stem  of  Jesse '  is  more  appropriately  rendered 
in  RV  'a  shoot  out  of  the  stock  of  Jesse,'  where 
the  figure  is  that  of  a  cut-down  stump,  which  will 
put  forth  a  single  flouri.shing  '  rod.'  Compare,  for 
the  figure,  .ina  in  Ezk  19"-  '-•  '*'^  (blooming  up  into 
a  shcbct,  sceptre  of  rule). 

Along  with  his  '  rod  '  or  club  [shebet)  the  shepherd 
had  also  his  'staff'  (misKeneth),  which  was  a 
straight  pole  about  6  ft.  in  length.  Its  service 
was  for  mountain  climbing,  for  striking  trouble- 
some goats  and  sheep,  beating  leaves  from  branches 
be3-ond  the  reach  of  his  floi  k,  and  especially  for 
leaning  upon.  As  he  stood  clas])ing  the  top  of  his 
stick  with  both  hands,  and  leaning  Ids  head  against 
it,  liis  conspicuous  and  well  -  known  figure  gave 
confidence  to  the  sheep  grazing  around  him  among 
the  rocks  and  bushes  of  the  wilderness.  The 
misKencth  is  essentially  something  to  lean  upon. 
Thus  it  is  the  word  used  for  Eli.slia's  stali"  (2  K  4»9), 
and  it  indicates  the  untrustwortliiness  of  Egypt  as 
a  reed  of  cane  for  Israel  to  lean  upon  (Is  36°),  in- 


1.  Shepherd's  rod  or.  rather,  club  {shebet). 

2.  Shepherd's  stufT  (i/iiA7('cH«fA). 

3.  Common  stAfT  {tnatfeh,  makfcel,  or  misk'eneth). 


In  the  Heb.  mafieh  is  coupled  ■with  shebet  in  Is  9* 
(of  taskmaster;  lig.  of  oppressor;  of.  K)*-"*  14°) 
10'»  28'-''  m".  and  with  niakk-l  in  Jer  48"  in  such  a 
way  as  to  imply  that  the  terms  were  practically 
interchangeable  under  ordinary  circumstances. 

It  is  in  tlie  primitive  usage  of  the  shepherd's 
life  that  a  distinction  is  found  between  the  'rod' 
and  the 'staff.'  The  shepherd  carries  both,  but 
for  different  purposes.  In  Ps  23''  the  '  rod  '  (xhrhet) 
is  ft  club  about  2^  ft.  long,  made  from  an  oak 
sapling,  the  bulging  head  being  shaped  out  of  the 
stem  at  the  beginningof  the  root.*  The  sheiiherd's 
ihlbet,  frequently  with  large-headed  nails  driven 
into  the  knob,  is  his  weapon  against  men  and 
animals  when  in  the  wilderness  with  his  flock.  It 
k  worn  either  suspended  by  a  thong  from  the 
waistband  or  inserted  in  a  special  sheath  or  pocket 
in  the  outer  cloak ;  cf.  Lv  27'^  and  Mic  7'*,  Ezk  20" 
(last  two  tig.).  The  shcbct  wafl,  further,  the  staff 
of  authority  (not  necessarily  of  a  king),  Jg  5'*  and 
perhaps  Gn  49'°.  It  is  seen  in  the  sculptures  of 
Assyrian  and  Egyptian  kings,  and  was  the  original 
of  the  military  mace  and  the  baton  and  truncheon 

•Thla  manufacture  of  the  ghfbeX  from  a  youn(f  trfte  might 
(UKKot  that  \a  the  metuphorical  use  of  thlbtt  (Arab.  »ai()i 
'tribe,'  the  reference  is  to  various  seedling  with  a  common 
origin— the  tritica  of  tlie  children  of  Israel.  It  l«  to  be  noted, 
however,  that  maUeh  is  equally  083  t.)  used  for  'tribe,'  and 
pooibly  the  original  reference  In  both  cases  is  to  a  company 
led  by  a  chief  with  a  tajf.  8«e,  further,  on  the  rclaliun 
between  Mbti  and  ma^th,  Driyer  In  Jaum.  Philol.  xl.  (1882) 

nsi. 


stead  of  upon  the  strength  of  God.  In  Nu  21"  the 
mish'eneth  is  used  by  the  nobles  in  digging  a  well 
(see  Lawgiver)  ;  the  angel  who  apjieared  to 
Manoah  carried  a  viiaKeneth  (Jg  6-') ;  in  Zee  8'  tlie 
misKeneth  is  characteristic  of  old  age. 

'  He  that  leaneth  upon  a  staff  (iSb3  p'lno,  B 
Kparwv  (TicirrdXT)?)  of  2  S  3^  should  probably  be  '  he 
that  handleth  the  spindle'  (see  Driver,  ad  loc),  (i 
the  text  be  correct,  which  H.  P.  Smith  (Sam.  ad  loc. ) 
doubts.  The  references  to  makkel  are  generally 
to  the  ordinary  staff*  for  a  journey  [in  Hos  4''^ 
'their  staff' declareth  unto  them,'  there  is  reference 
to  the  practice  of  rhabdomancy],  at  once  protec- 
tive and  supporting.  Examples  are  Jacob  s  staff 
(Gn  32'"),  the  staff  of  the  Passover  feast  (Ex  12"), 
Balaam's  staff(Nu  22"),  with  which  he  could  supjiort 
himself  by  resting  the  end  of  it  on  the  front  of  the 
broad  Oriental  saddle ;  also  probably  the  staff  in 
David's  hand  when  he  went  out  to  meet  (ioliath  ( 1  S 
17*°),  for  being  then  on  a  jouniey  he  would  have  laid 
aside  the  more  cumbrous  sheplierd  equipment. 

In  NT  /idfiSoi  has  the  twofold  meaning  of  a  staff 
for  a  journey  (Mt  lO'",  Mk  6",  Lk  9^  He  11")  and  a 
rod  for  chastisement  (1  Co  4'^'  [cf.  the  verb  in  2  Co 
11»>],  Rev  2-''  12'  19">).  G.  M.  MaCKIE. 

RODANIM,  reading  of  MT  in  1  Ch  1'  for  the 
Dodanim  of  Gn  10*,  answering  to  the  'PiSiot  of  the 
LXX  in  both  passages.    See  DoDANlM. 

*  This  Is  also  the  word  used  Id  On  SO""-  of  Ui»  sticki  employed 
bj  Jacob  to  his  cattle-breeding  artifloea. 


292 


ROE 


ROMAX 


ROE.— This  word  occurs  once  in  AV  (Pr  5",  RV 
'  doe ')  as  the  equivalent  of  nj>j^:  ya'&luh  ;  see  DoE. 
In  all  other  places  where  'roe'  occurs  in  AV  (2  S 
2'",  1  Ch  128,  Vr  6»,  Ca  2'-  »■  "  3"  4»  7»  8",  Is  13")  it 
is  the  tr°  of  zchi  or  zebtyydh,  and  in  these  RV 
also  gives  '  roe,'  but  in  every  passage  except  2  S 
2'*  and  1  Ch  12*,  with  marginal  note,  'gazelle,' 
whicli  is  undoubtedly  the  correct  rendering.  See 
Gazelle.  G.  E.  Post. 

ROEBUCK. — This  word,  wherever  it  occurs  in 
AV  (Dt  12'o-23  14»  15--,  1  K  4-«),  is  the  equivalent 
of  "J?  zebi,  LXX  SopKo.^.  RV  has  in  all  these  pas- 
sages consistently  tr^  zlbi '  gazelle '  (see  Gazelle). 
'  Roebuck '  is  the  proper  tr"  for  •VDniyahinicr,  wliich 
is  rendered  by  AV  '  fallow  deer'  (Dt  14",  1  K  4^). 
Tristram  [Fautia  and  Flora,  p.  4)  says  that 
yahmur  is  used  by  the  natives  of  Carmel  for  the 
roebuck,  which  is  still  found  there.  One  of  the 
districts  of  Carmel  is  known  as  Yahm&r,  perhaps 
from  the  former  abundance  of  this  animal.  Conder 
says  that  the  roebuck  is  called  hamur  in  Gilead. 
The  people  about  I^dna  and  'Alma,  north  of 
Carmel,  call  it  wa'l,  which  is  one  of  the  names  of 
the  ibex  or  wild  goat,  which  animal,  however,  is 
not  now  found  there.  In  N.  Africa  yahmur  is 
synonymous  with  bakar  el-ivafish,  Alcephalus  bu- 
balus,  Pall.  From  these  facts  two  things  are 
evident — (1)  That  'fallow  deer'  is  not  a  correct 
tr°  of  yahmur.  The  fallow  deer  is  S;!<  'nyyal  (see 
Hart).  The  first  three  animals  of  the  list  (Dt  14') 
are  'ayydl,  correctly  tr''  in  both  AV  and  RV  '  hart ' ; 
zebi,  AV  incorrectly  '  roebuck,'  RV  correctly 
'  gazelle  ' ;  and  yahmur,  AV  incorrectly  '  fallow 
deer,'  RV  correctly,  as  we  believe,  'roebuck.'  The 
LXX  (B)  gives  us  no  help,  as  it  has  only  (Xaipos 
and  SopKds,  the  equivalents  of  'ayydl  and  zSbi,  and 
drops  out  yahmur  from  the  lists.  (2)  That  bubale 
(LXX  AF  ^oi)/3aXos),  as  proposed  by  some,  is  also 
not  a  correct  tr"  for  yahmur.  The  bubale  is  not 
now  found  west  of  the  Jordan,  and  only  rarely 
east  of  it.  The  roebuck  is  found  in  considerable 
numbers  on  both  sides  of  this  river.  The  bubale  is 
not  called  yahmur  where  found  on  the  confines  of 
Palestine.  The  roebuck  is  so  called  both  east  and 
west  of  the  Jordan.  It  is  most  numerous  in  the 
thickets,  in  the  wadis  of  Carmel  and  N.  W.  Galilee. 

The  roebuck,  Cermis  capreolus,  L.,  is  shaped  like 
a  gazelle.  Its  full  length  is  3  ft.  10  in.  from  the 
tip  of  the  nose  to  the  end  of  the  rump  ;  height  at 
shoulder  2  ft.  4  in.,  at  rump  2  ft.  6  in.  The  horns 
are  about  as  long  as  the  face,  on  a  line  with  it,  and 
have  three  short  branches.  The  eyes  are  almond- 
shaped,  with  point  forward.  There  is  no  external 
tail.  The  coccyx  is  2  in.  long,  but  is  covered  by 
the  rump  fat.  The  colour  is  grey,  with  a  reddish- 
bro^\'n  shade  towards  the  posterior  part  of  the 
rump,  and  white  between  the  thighs  and  on  the 
belly.  (See  figure  of  a  specimen  in  PEFSt,  July 
1890,  p.  171).  G.  E.  Post. 

ROGELIM  (u-hp;  PwyeXXff^,  A  in  2  S  17"  'Pu- 
yeKelfi.). — The  native  place  of  Barzillai  the  Gileadite. 
■Phe  exact  site  is  unknown  ;  it  probably  lay  in  the 
north  of  Gilead  (2  S  17"  lO*'). 

ROHGAH  (Kcthtbh  nm\  corrected  by  Kerg  to 
njHT  ;  B  om.,  A  '07d).— An  Asherite,  1  Ch  1^. 

ROIMDS  fPAfiMot),  1  Es  5*,  corresponds  to 
Rehum,  Ezr  2^,  or  Nehom,  Neh  V, 

ROLL — See  Wmtinq, 

ROMAMTI-EZER  (ijj;  •BDph).— A  son  of  Henian, 
1  Ch  So^-".  There  is  reason  to  believe  that  this 
and  five  of  the  names  associated  with  it  are  really 
a  fragment  of  a  hymn  or  prayer  (see  Genealogy, 


III.  23  n.  :  and  cf.  Kittel  in  SBOT,  and  W.  K. 
Smith,  OTJC  liZrx.). 

ROMAN  f  Pu^aios,  esp.  Ac  le''-""*  22=»-'»23") 

Roman  citizenship  (civitas)  might  be  held  in  NT 
times  (a)  by  birth,  from  two  Roman  citizens  united 
iajustis  nttpiim.  There  was  no  conubium,  or  right 
of  Eomnn  marria;;i  inless  specially  granted),  ex- 
cept with  a  Roman  woman.  If  tiie  union  were 
un-Roman  (with  a  Latin  woman,  a  foreigner,  a 
concubine)  or  unlawful  (with  a  slave,  etc. ),  it  gave 
no  patria potestas,  and  the  children  followed  the 
mother's  condition.  It  might  also  be  held  (h)  by 
manumission  in  certain  cases,  or  (c)  by  grant, 
either  to  entire  cities  or  districts,  or  to  individuals 
in  reward  of  political  or  other  services,  as  to  a 
soldier  on  his  discharge.  Lender  Claudius,  how- 
ever, Messalina  sold  the  civitas,  and  the  price 
gradually  fell  (Dio,  Ix.  9)  to  a  ridiculous  figure. 
The  chief  captain  (Ac  22-')  bought  it  at  a  high 
price  ;  but  if  St.  Paul  was  hora  free,  it  must  have 
been  held  at  least  by  his  father  (Ramsaj',  St.  Paul, 
30  f . ).  The  franchise  of  Tarsus  (Ac  21^"  'loKOaios,  Tap- 
aeiii)  would  not  imply  the  civitas  as  a  matter  of 
course.f  or  Tarsus  was  an  Kris /i6era(Pliny,iVi?'v.  27). 

The  most  practical  advantage  of  the  civitas  in 
NT  times  was  that  no  citizen  could  be  scourged 
(lex  Valeria  B.C.  509,  lex  Porcia  of  uncertain  date) 
or  put  to  death  by  any  provincial  authority 
without  the  right  of  appeal  to  the  emperor.  Even 
the  prmf actus  prwtorio  could  not  condemn  him  to 
(leportatio,  and  the  emperor  himself  commonly  iiad 
him  executed  by  the  sword,  reserving  the  cross, 
the  fire,  and  the  beasts  for  slaves  and  other  low 
people.  It  was  illegal  when  Paul  and  Silas  were 
scourged  at  PhUippi  (Ac  16^),  and  when  Paul  wag 
to  have  been  examined  at  Jerusalem  by  scourging 
(Ac  22**  fiio-Tiiiv  dverdfeffeai).  In  both  cases  d/co- 
rd/tpiTos  is  re  incognita  (Ramsay,  St.  Paul,  225),  for 
it  would  not  have  been  less  illegal  after  condemna- 
tion. Of  the  other  two  scourgings  mentioned  in 
2  Co  11^  nothing  further  is  known. 

The  right  of  appeal  to  the  emperor  seems  to 
continue  neither  the  old  provocatio  ad  populum, 
which  was  limited  even  in  republican  times  by  the 
quiestiones  perpetuce,  and  had  now  become  obsolete, 
nor  the  old  intercessio  of  the  tribunes,  which  was 
purely  negative,  and  limited  by  the  first  milestone 
from  Rome.  It  seems  rather  to  rest  on  the  general 
authority  of  the  emperor,  under  the  lex  de  imperio, 
to  do  almost  anything  he  should  consider  ex  usu 
rcipublicw,  etc.  The  appeal  was  not  granted  quite 
as  a  matter  of  course.  Festus  confers  (Ac  25'*) 
with  his  assessors  before  deciding  (v.**  iKpiva). 
Once  granted,  it  stopped  the  case.  The  governor 
could  not  even  release  the  accused  (Ac  20").  His 
only  duty  Avas  to  draw  up  a  statement  of  the  case 
{apostoli,  litlerce  dimissonce — Festus  asks  Agrippa's 
help  in  doing  this)  and  send  him  to  Caesar.  St. 
Paul  is  delivered  to  a  centurion,  avelp-q^  Sf^offr^i — 
one  of  the  legionary  centurions  employed  on  de- 
tached service  at  Rome,  and  therefore  called  pere- 
qrini  from  the  Roman  point  of  view,  and  by  hira 
\ianded  over  at  Rome  to  his  chief,  the  orpoiCTcJ- 
ipxit  (Ac  28",  but  om.  WH)  or  princeps  peregrin- 
orttm  (so  Mommsen  :  not  the  prw/ectus pr(etorio). 

The  accused  might  be  kept  before  trial  in  {a) 
cu.<!todin  publica,  the  common  jail,  though  a  man 
of  hi^h  rank  was  frequently  committed  to  (6) 
custodia  libera  as  the  guest  of  some  citizen  who 
would  answer  for  his  appearance.  Intermediate 
was  (c)  custodia  militaris,  where  one  end  of  a  light 
chain  (dXwts)  was  constantly  fastened  to  his  right 
wrist,  the  other  to  the  left  wrist  of  a  soldier  (so 
St.  Paul,  Ac  26'*  28=»,  Eph  6=",  2  Ti  !'«).  In  this 
case  he  might  eit/ier  be  kept  in  strict  custody 
(2  Ti  1",  where  Onesiphorus  needs  diligent  search 
to  find  St.  Paul),  or  allowed  to  live  in  his  own 


KOMAX  EMPIRE 


ROMAN  EMPIRE 


293 


lodgings  and  receive  in  tliem  what  companv  he 
chose  (Ac  2i'^  28*").  The  actual  trial  was  before 
the  emperor  (often  in  person)  and  his  consiliarii; 
and  each  count  of  the  indictment  was  separately 
examined.  2  Ti  4"  seems  to  say  that  the  prima 
actio  a^'ainst  St.  Paul  had  been  a  failure,  though 
the  apostle  lias  no  hope  of  escape  on  the  second. 

A  false  claim  of  citizenship  was  a  capital  crime 
(Suet.  Claudius,  25). 

LlTBRATt'RK,— Moramsen,  Rdmisehe  Staatsrecht,  1S76-77,  and 
(for  pereirrini)  Bertitu  Akad.  SiUuiujiber.  1S9."),  p.  5U1 ;  Willeraa, 
DruU  puUic  Hoinain,  \iSi  :  Kurlowa,  Riimtsche  ttecJUsijeich- 
ichte,  1886;  W.  IL  Kamaaj,  St.  Paul  the  Traveller,  ISUri. 

H.  M.  GWATKIN. 

ROMAN  EMPIRE  (most  nearly  orhis  terrarum, 
i)  oiKovfjJint,  Lk  2'  ;  and  its  people  genus  humanum, 
as  Tac.  Ann.  xv.  44  '  odio  humani  generis.'  Im- 
perium  popvli  liomani  does  not  cover  the  free 
cities,  and  Romania  seems  first  found  Ath.  Iliit. 
Ar.  35,  and  Orosius,  Hist.  e.g.  vii.  43). — Augustus 
left  the  Empire  bounded  by  the  Rhine  and  the 
Danube,  the  Euphrates,  the  African  desert,  the 
Atlantic,  and  the  North  Sea.  These  limits  he 
recommended  to  his  successors,  and  they  were  not 
seriously  exceeded  till  Trajan's  time,  except  that 
the  conquest  of  Britain  was  begun  by  Claudius  in 
43,  and  finished  as  far  as  it  ever  was  finished  at 
the  recall  of  Agricola  in  85.  Germany  had  re- 
covered its  indei)endence  in  9  A.D.  by  the  defeat 
of  Varus,  and  the  conquest  of  Parthia  was  hardly 
within  the  ran^e  of  practical  politics. 

Not  Rome  destroyed  the  ancient  nations,  but 
their  own  wild  passions  and  internecine  civil  strife. 
The  Greeks  could  nuike  notliiug  of  the  liberty 
Flamininus  gave  them,  the  Gauls  were  no  better, 
and  even  Israel — the  one  living  nation  Rome  did 
crush — was  in  no  very  dillerent  case  in  Judiea. 
Rome  came  in  as  often  as  not  to  keep  the  peace  ; 
and  when  the  Empire  settled  down,  it  seeiiiea  quite 
natural  that  'all  the  world  '  should  be  sul)ject  to 
her.  Virgil  and  Claudian  sing  witli  equal  en- 
thusiasm her  everlasting  dominion  ;  and  even  the 
Christians  firmly  believed  that  nothing  bvit  Anti- 
christ's coming  would  end  it  (2  Th  2"'-).  So, 
thougli  she  had  mutinies  enough  of  armies,  Israel 
was  almost  the  only  rebel  nation.  She  could  mass 
her  legions  on  the  great  river  frontiers,  and  leave 
a  score  of  lictors  to  keep  the  peace  of  Asia,  a 
garrison  of  1200  men  to  answer  for  the  threescore 
States  of  Gaul.  She  no  more  ruled  the  world 
than  we  rule  India  by  a  naked  sword. 

Hence  there  was  a  vast  variety  even  of  political 
itatus  within  the  Empire.  Some  cities  had  the 
Roman  civitas  (see  Roman),  others  only  the  jus 
Lata  ;  some,  like  Athens,  were  in  theory  free  and 
equal  allies  of  Rome,  while  others  h;ui  no  voice  in 
their  own  taxation.  Italy  had  the  ciinta.i,  and 
was  supposed  to  be  governed  by  the  Senate, 
whereas  a  senator  could  not  even  set  foot  in  Egyjit 
without  the  emperor's  permission.  Some  provinces 
were  governed   by  senatorial   proconsuls  or   pro- 

fjrsetors,  others  by  legati  Aiigusti  pro  jyrrrtore,  or, 
ike  Egypt  or  Judsa,  by  a  pr/r/eclus  augustnll-^, 
or  a  procurator  of  lower  rank.  Some  regions, 
again,  had  client  kinjjs,  like  Mauretania,  .hula'a 
under  the  Herods,  or  Dirace.  True,  the  Empire 
was  steadily  levelling  all  this  variety.  The  client 
kingdoms  disappeared — Galatia  as  early  as  B.C. 
25,  ChaUis  (held  by  Agrippa  II.)  as  late  as  100. 
riie  autonomy  of  the  urbes  liberty  was  commonly 
respected  — Hadrian  was  archon  twice  at  .Mhens; 
but  the  Roman  cimtns  was  steadily  exteiiilf<l  till 
Caraoalla  gave  it  in  212  to  all  free  iuhabitauta  of 
the  Empire. 

Broadly  speaking,  the  Eastern  half  of  the 
Empire  was  Greek,  the  Western  Latin.  The 
dividing  line  may  run  pretty  straight  from 
Sirmium  to  the  altars  of  the  Philaeni.     But  Greek 


wa-s  dominant  in  parts  of  the  AVest, — Massilia, 
Sicily,  and  the  coasts  of  Southern  Italy, — and  was 
in  most  places  the  language  of  culture  and  of 
commerce,  whereas  Latin  in  the  East  was  not 
much  more  than  an  official  language.  Nor  was 
either  Latin  or  Greek  quite  suiueme  in  its  own 
region.  Latin  had  perhaps  displaced  by  this  time 
the  Oscan  and  other  dialects  of  Italy  ;  but  it  hiid 
only  well  begun  the  conquest  of  Spain,  Gaul,  and 
the  Danube  countries.  Greek  was  opposed  by  the 
rustic  languages  of  Thrace  and  the  interior  of 
Asia  Minor,  such  as  the  Lycaonian  (Ac  14")  and 
tlie  Galatian.  Further  East  it  had  tougher  rivals 
in  Aramaic  and  Coptic,  whi(^h  it  was  never  able  to 
overcome,  though  Alexandria  was  a  Greek  city, 
and  G.alilee  almost  bilingual  in  the  apostolic  age. 
The  distribution  of  the  Jews  resembled  that  of  tlie 
Greeks  in  being  chiefiy  Eastern,  and  in  following 
the  lines  of  commerce  westward  :  but  their  great 
centres  were  Syria  and  Alexandria  within  the 
Empire,  Babylonia  beyond  it. 

Rome  was  never  able  to  make  a  solid  nation  of 
her  Empire.  In  Republican  times  her  aim  was 
utterly  selfish — to  lie  a  nation  ruling  other  nations, 
and  getting  all  she  could  out  of  them.  The  Re- 
public broke  down  under  the  political  corruption 
this  caused,  and  the  proscriptions  completed  the 
destruction  of  healthy  national  feeling.  The 
Empire  had  higher  aims  from  the  first,  and  the 
sense  of  duty  to  the  conquered  world  increased  on 
it  as  time  went  on ;  Imt  it  could  neither  restore 
nor  create  the  patriotism  of  a  nation.  The  old 
Roman  nation  was  lost  in  the  world  ;  and  if  the 
world  was  lost  in  Rome,  it  did  not  constitute  a 
new  Roman  nation.  Greeks  or  Gauls  mitjlit  call 
tlieiiiselves  Romans,  and  seem  to  forget  tlieir  old 
people  in  the  pride  of  the  Roman  civitas  •  but 
Greeks  or  Gauls  they  remained.  Every  province  of 
the  Empire  had  its  own  character  deeply  marked 
on  the  society  of  the  apo.stolic  age  and  on  the 
Churches  of  the  future.  Galatia  was  not  like 
Asia,  and  Pontus  or  Cilicia  diliered  from  botli. 
There  were  peoples  in  great  vaiiety  ;  but  the  old 
nations  were  dead,  and  the  one  new  nation  was 
never  born. 

Yet  the  memory  of  nations  put  the  Empire  in 
a  false  position.  It  belonged,  like  the  Christian 
Church,  to  the  universalism  of  the  future;  but  the 
circumstances  of  its  origin  threw  it  back  on  the 
nationalism  of  the  past.  Augustus  came  in  after 
the  civil  wars  as  a 'Saviour  of  Society,' susl. lined  by 
the  abiding  terror  of  the  proscriptions.  Hence  he 
was  forced  into  a  conservative  policy  very  unlike 
the  real  tendency  of  the  Empire  to  level  class  dis- 
tinctions, to  replace  local  customs  by  uniform  laws 
and  administration,  and  to  supersede  national 
worsliips  by  a  universal  religion.  The  Empire  waa 
hampereil  by  Republican  survivals,  degraded  by 
tlie  false  universalism  of  Civsar-worship.  Augustus 
had  to  conciliate  Rome  by  respecting  class-feeling, 
and  by  leaving  Republican  forms  of  government 
almo-st  unaltered.  He  was  no  king,  forsooth  (not 
rex,  though  called  pa.<n\fis  in  the  provinces, 
Ac  17',  1  P  2^'- "),— only /Jrince;)^,  the  first  citizen 
of  the  Republic.  Theconsuls  were  still  the  highest 
magistrates,  though  those  who  gave  their  names 
to  the  year  were  replaced  during  the  year  by  one 
or  more  pairs  of  ccynsules  sujfecti.  Prietors,  quies- 
tors,  etc.,  went  on  much  the  same,  and  even  the 
anarchical  power  of  the  tribunes  was  not  limited 
by  law  till  the  reign  of  Nero,  though  the  popular 
assemblies  vanished  after  that  of  Augustus.  The 
Senate  deliberated  as  of  old  under  the  presidency 
of  the  consuls,  and  the  emperor  himself  respect- 
fully awaited  their  Nihil  vo.i  mttrniimr  at  the  end 
of  the  sitting.  It  still  governed  Italy  and  hall 
the  provinces,  and  furnisiied  governors  for  nearly 
all— <leep  ofi'ence  would  have  been  given  if  any  one 


294 


ROMAN  EMPIRE 


ROMAX  EMPIRE 


but  a  senator  had  been  made  lec/atu.t  Angusti  pro 
prrrtore.  Aliove  all,  the  Senate  could  legislate 
without  interference  from  tribunes  ur  Comiha.  It 
elected  all  the  magistrates  (from  the  time  of 
Tiberius),  and  even  the  emperor  owed  to  it  his 
constitutional  appointment.  So  far  as  forms  went, 
the  State  was  a  Republic  still,  and  became  a  real 
one  for  a  moment  when  the  government  lapsed 
to  the  consuls  at  an  emperor's  death.  The  name 
respublica  lasted  far  past  476. 

But  the  emperor  was  not  only  master,  but  fully 
recognized  as  such.  The  liberty  of  the  Senate 
was  hardly  more  than  liberty  to  flatter  hira.  The 
pillars  of  his  power  were  three.  He  had  (1)  the 
imperium  proconsulare,  which  gave  him  full  mili- 
tary and  civil  power  in  the  great  frontier  pro- 
vinces, where  most  of  the  army  lay.  The  rest 
were  left  to  the  Senate  ;  but  as  his  imperium  was 
defined  to  be  ma/us — superior  to  that  of  ordinary 
proconsuls — he  practically  controlled  them  too. 
The  power  was  for  life,  and  was  not  forfeited  in 
the  usual  way  by  residence  in  Rome.  He  held 
also  (2)  the  trihunicia  potestas,  also  for  life,  and 
without  limitation  to  the  first  milestone  out  of 
Rome.  This  made  his  person  sacrosanct,  and  gave 
hxiaViie  jus  auxilii,  by  which  he  cancelled  decisions 
of  magistrates,  and  the  intercessio,  by  which  he 
annulled  decisions  of  the  Senate.  He  had  also 
(3)  other  powers  conferred  separately  on  Augustus, 
but  afterwards  embodied  in  a  lex  regia  or  de  im- 
perio  for  his  successors.  A  fragment  of  the  law 
passed  for  Vespasian  is  preserved  {CIL  vi.  930), 
and  two  of  its  clauses  run — 

'  Utiqtte,  qutBCUTnqtu  ex  usu  reipublicce,  majestate  divi- 
naru7n,  humanarum,  publicarum  prii-atarum^iw.  reruin  esse 
censebit^  ei  agere^  /acere  jus  pot<'8ULsqu£  sit,  ita  uti  divo 
Augiiiio  Tibcrioque  lulio  ViBnari  Awjuxto  Tiberioque  Ctattdio 
Civaari  Amiioito  Gerjnanico /uU  ;  utique  quihiis  leg-Unis  plebeim 
settis  ecrij'tum  J'uit  ne  diviui  Augustus  tfcc.  tt'neretUtir,  iis 
Ugibits  plebisque  scitis  impcrator  Ccesar  Vespasianus  snlutus 
fit,  qu<i:(juf  ex  quaque  lege,  rogatione  divum  Auguattan  .tc, 
facerc.  oportuU,  ea  omnia  itnperatori  Ccesari  Vespasiaiw 
Axiijusto  J'acere  iiceat.' 

Thus  the  emperor  was  not  arbitrary.  He  was 
subject  to  law  like  any  otlier  citizen,  unless  dis- 
pensed by  law.  True,  he  could  alter  law  by  getting 
a  senatus  coniultum,  or  by  issuing  his  edict  as  a 
magistrate.  He  could  also  interpret  it  by  a  rescript 
or  answer  to  a  governor  who  asKed  directions;  his 
acta  were  binding  during  his  reign,  though  the 
Senate  might  quash  them  afterwards ;  and,  as 
we  have  seen,  he  had  large  discretionary  ]>owers. 
But  by  law  he  was  supposed  to  govern,  and  by  law 
he  commonly  did  govern.  The  excesses  of  a  Nero 
must  not  blind  us  to  the  steady  action  of  the  great 
machine,  which  was  so  great  a  blessing  to  the  pro- 
vincials. Moreover,  though  the  Senate  was  com- 
monly servile  enough,  it  was  no  cipher  even  in  the 
3rd  century.  It  represented  the  tradition  of  the 
past,  the  society  of  the  present ;  and  every  prudent 
emperor  paid  it  scrupulous  respect.  If  an  emperor 
is  called  bad,  it  need  not  mean  that  he  was  incom- 
jietent  {Tiberius  was  able  enough),  or  that  he 
ojipressed  the  provinces  (Nero  did  not).  It  means 
that  he  was  on  bad  terms  with  the  Senate,  and, 
therefore,  with  the  strong  organization  of  society 
which  culminated  in  the  Senate.  Nero  did  himself 
more  harm  by  fiddling  and  general  vuljgarity  than 
by  murders  and  general  vileness.  Society  was 
always  a  check  on  the  emperor,  and  in  the  end  it 
proved  the  stronger  power.  If  Diocletian  shook 
oil"  the  control  of  the  army,  he  did  it  only  by  a 
capitulation  to  the  plutocrats  of  society. 

The  religious  condition  of  the  Empire  was  not 
like  anything  in  modem  Europe.  It  had  no  estab- 
lished or  even  organized  Church,  for  the  regular 
worships  were  local,  except  that  of  the  emperor. 
I'riesthoods  might  run  in  lamilies  or  be  elective,  or 
sometimes  any  one  who  knew  the  ritual  might  act 


as  priest ;  but  the  priests  were  not  a  class  Taken 
as  lie  commonly  was  from  the  higher  ranks  of 
society,  the  priest  was  first  of  all  the  great  senator 
or  local  magnate,  so  that  his  priesthood  was  only 
a  minor  office.  The  priests  were  not  a  clergy,  ex- 
cept in  the  irregular  Mithraic  and  othet  Eastern 
cults,  where  they  were  not  yet  taken  from  the 
higher  classes.  Nevertheless,  there  were  sharp 
limits  to  Roman  toleration,  though  persecution 
was  not  always  going  on.  Intolerance,  indeed, 
was  a  principle  of  heathenism,  laid  do\vn  in  the 
Twelve  Tables,  and  impressed  by  Mrecenas  on 
Augustus.  Rome  had  her  gods,  whose  favour  had 
built  up  the  Empire,  and  whose  wrath  might  over- 
throw it :  so  no  Roman  citizen  could  be  allowed  to 
worship  other  gods  without  lawful  authority,  which 
could  be  given  only  by  the  Senate.  Gradually  all 
national  gods  obtained  recognition,  so  that  the 
pantlieon  of  the  Empire  became  a  lar"e  one ;  but 
the  individual  was  as  strictly  as  ever  forbidden  to 
go  outside  it.  Thus  we  get  the  anomaly  of  perse- 
cution without  a  persecuting  Church. 

The  emperor's  own  position  was  equally  nnlike 
that  of  modem  sovereigns.  He  held  the  office  of 
Pontifcx  Maximus  in  permanence  after  the  deatl 
of  Lepidus,  B.C.  12.  This  gave  him  a  dignitie- 
position  as  head  of  the  college  of  pontiffs,  which 
superintended  the  State  religion  ;  and  it  gave  hira 
by  law  or  usurpation  the  appointment  of  pontill's, 
vestals,  and  flamens.  But  these  were  only  local 
officials  ;  with  the  priests  in  the  provinces  and  with 
the  irregular  Eastern  cults  the  Pontifex  Maximus 
had  no  direct  concern.  Couiplete  as  was  the 
identification  of  Church  and  State  in  Rome,  the 
office  gave  its  bolder  no  exorbitant  power  over 
religion. 

The  strength  of  his  position  was  not  official  but 
[lersonal — vaguely  indicated  by  the  title  Augustus 
(^fjSao-Tos,  Ac  26'-'-=').  The  courtly  fiction  that  the 
Julian  house  was  descended  from  the  gods  might  do 
service  for  a  time ;  but  the  truth  came  out  clear 
at  Vespasian's  elevation.  If  he  was  a  tough  old 
general  with  no  romance  about  him,  who  died  with 
a  scotl'  on  his  lips  at  his  own  divinity,  he  was  none 
the  less  the  impersonation  of  the  glory  of  the 
world  and  Rome ;  and  this  is  what  made  the 
emperors  divine,  and  kept  them  so  in  spite  of 
absurd  deifications  like  those  of  Claudius  and  of 
Poppsea's  infant.  Emperor -worship  might  be 
fashion ;  but  it  was  also  a  real  cult  sustained  by 
genuine  belief.  If  courtiers  placed  Augustus 
among  the  household  gods,  courtiers  did  not  keep 
Marcus  there  in  Constantine's  time.  Kings  were 
counted  gods  from  the  Pharaohs  of  Egypt  to  the 
Jubas  of  Mauretania ;  and  the  Greeks  had  wor- 
shipped great  men  from  Lysander  (B.C.  403)  on- 
ward, till  deification  became  a  cheap  compliment 
for  kings  and  their  favourites.  Rome  understood 
better  than  the  Greeks  the  dillerence  between 
gods  and  men — deus  is  a  much  more  definite  word 
than  Seij ;  yet  even  she  deified  legendary  kings. 
But  Romulus  was  the  last  of  tliem,  and  she  nevei 
deified  the  heroes  of  the  Republic.  Flamininus 
was  a  god  in  Greece  ;  but  Scipio  was  no  more  than 
a  man  at  Rome;  and  even  Sulla  was  only  iTs^io;,  not 
Augusttis.  To  the  last  she  reserved  the  honour  for 
emjierors  and  their  near  relations,  for  the  worship 
of  Hadrian's  favourite  Antinous  was  rather  Eastern 
and  Greek  than  Roman.  Yet  in  the  goddess  Roma 
the  spirit  of  the  State  was  worshipped  long  before 
the  honours  of  deity  were  pressed  on  the  dictator 
Ciesar  by  a  grateful  people  and  a  servile  Senate. 
CiEsar's  murder  was  a  warnin"  to  Augustus ;  and 
he  called  himself  Dim  Filius,  hut  not  Divus.  He 
allowed  the  A.siatic  cities  to  build  temples  to  him 
after  the  battle  of  Actium,  but  required  them  to 
join  with  him  the  goddess  Roma.  Other  cities 
followed :    first   in  Asia  in  apostolic   times  was 


ROMAN  EMPIRE 


ROMANS,  EPISTLE  TO  THE      293 


Pergamum, '  where  Satan's  seat  is '  (Rev  2").  Such 
cities  were  called  vtuKipoi  or  temple  wardens  of 
Au;.'ustu8,  as  Ephesus  (Ac  19^)  was  vcuxdpos  of 
Artemis.  Before  long  a.  Commune  A  sice  {rb  xoiydr 
TTjs  'Aatat)  was  formed,  with  a  chief  priest  or 
a!sIARCH  (in  looser  sense,  as  Ac  19^',  unless  these 
be  jiast  Asiarchs)  in  each  city,  and  over  them  an 
elected  Asiarcli  (in  the  strict  sense)  or  chief  priest 
of  the  province.  Other  provinces  did  likewise,  as 
liithynia,  Galatia,  Phoenicia,  etc.,  and  in  li.c.  12 
the  b"o  States  of  Gaul  organized  a  Commune,  meet- 
ing annually  at  the  confluence  of  the  Rhone  and 
the  Sai'^ne.  These  provincial  assemblies  were 
powerful  enough— the  priests  were  always  mag- 
nates —  to  answer  some  of  tlie  purposes  of  rei>re- 
sentative  government.  They  could  complain  of  a 
had  governor,  and  often  obtain  his  recall.  In 
Italy,  and  especially  in  Rome,  the  worship  of  the 
emperor  was  chiefly  represented  by  that  of  his 
genius  or  his  virtues :  only  at  his  death  he  was 
formally  placed  among  the  gods  by  the  Senate. 
'  lieliquos  deos  accepimus,'  says  Valerius  Maximus, 
'  Ca:sare3  dedimus.  This  deification  was  the  rule, 
though  emperors  who  displeased  the  Senate  were 
not  deified  when  the  honour  could  safely  be  refused 
them  ;  and  it  can  be  traced  well  into  Christian 
times,  certainly  till  Jovian  (364),  and  perhaps  as 
late  as  Theodosius,  though  long  before  that  time 
the  emperor  had  ceased  to  be  a  real  divinity,  even 
among  the  heathens. 

If  the  Empire  was  the  greatest  of  hindrances 
to  the  gospel,  it  was  also  the  greatest  of  helps. 
We  nmst  look  below  its  superficial  tolerance  in  the 
Apostolic  Age,  below  the  deeper  enmity  proclaimed 
by  Nero's  persecution.  The  single  fact  that  the 
Empire  wa.s  universal  went  far  to  complete  the 
fulness  of  time  for  Christ's  coming.  Rome  put  a 
stop  to  the  wars  of  nations  and  the  great  sales  of 
slaves  resulting  from  them,  to  the  civil  strife  of 
cities  and  their  murderous  revolutions.  Henceforth 
they  were  glad  to  live  quietly  beneath  the  shelter 
of  the  Roman  peace.  Intercourse  and  trade  (wit- 
ness the  migratory  Jews)  were  easier  an<l  freer 
than  ever  since  in  Europe  till  quite  recently.  It 
was  settled  peace,  too,  such  as  never  came  again 
till  after  Waterloo.  Whole  provinces  hardly  saw 
the  face  of  war  for  generations  togetlier.  Roman 
law  went  with  Roman  citizenship ;  and  Latin 
civilization  overspread  the  West,  while  Greece 
under  Roman  protection  completed  her  conquest  of 
Asia  within  Mount  Taurus. 

Historically,  the  Empire  is  the  great  barrier 
which  won  for  civilization  a  respite  of  centuries 
by  checking  at  the  Rhine  the  tide  of  Northern 
barbarism,  and  at  the  Euphrates  the  two  thousand 
years'  advance  of  Asiatic  barbarism  through  Par- 
thian and  Saracen  and  Turkish  times,  beginning 
with  Alexander's  retreat  from  the  Sutlei,  li.c.  .327, 
and  ending  only  at  the  repulse  of  the  Turks  from 
Vienna  in  1683.  During  that  momentous  respite 
Rome  gathered  into  herself  the  failing  powers  of 
the  old  world,  and  fostered  within  her  the  nascent 
powers  of  the  new.  This  was  her  work  in  history 
— (o  he  tlie  link  between  the  ancient  and  the 
modem  — between  the  heathen  city-states  of  the 
ancient  world  and  the  Christian  nations  of  the 
modern.      Her  weakness  was  not  political.     Em- 

Serora  might  rise  and  fall,  but  the  Empire  itself 
id  not  perish  when  emperors  rose  and  fell  no 
moie  It  was  not  military:  generals  might 
blunder,  but  nearly  to  the  end  no  enemy  could  face 
a  Roman  legion  in  the  shock  of  liuttlo.  It  was 
partly  economic,  in  slavery  and  bad  taxation  ; 
partly  educational,  in  the  lielplcss  hark  back  to 
the  mere  words  of  the  past ;  partly  also  admini- 
Btrativo.  Christian  thought  is  even  now  pro- 
tonndly  influenced  by  the  fact  that  the  Empire 
htA    no   good   police.      Rrigands   were   iilenty   in 


Judiea  {X-Qo-Tris  15  times  in  NT,  of  which  2  Co  il^ 
may  refer  to  Gentile  regions),  and,  though  other 
provinces  were  better  off,  the  evil  increased  as 
time  went  on,  and  the  emperor  lost  control  of  the 
administration.  Hence  arbitrary  seVirities  and 
laws  of  atrocious  cruelty  against  such  offenders 
as  were  unlucky  enougn  to  be  caught.  The 
Empire  was  by  far  the  worthiest  image  of  tlie 
kingdom  of  God  vet  seen  on  earth,  but  its  imper- 
fections are  writ  large  on  every  form  of  Christian 
thought  which  looks  on  power  as  the  central 
attribute  of  deity.  After  all,  the  Empire  was  the 
passing  of  the  ancient  world.  With  all  their 
grandeur,  its  rulers  were  only  the  Karapyoiuevoi 
(1  Co  2"). 

LiTHRATCRB. — See  Roman  :  and  add  Boissier,  Religion  romaiiie ; 
Westcotl'8  Comm.  OH  St.  John's  Epp.  ('The  Two  Empires'); 
I.ightfoot,  IrjnatiM,  iii.  404  ;  .ind  authorities  :;uotDd  by  tlieni, 
to  which  add  Kustel  de  Coulaiiges,  La  Gaule  roinuine ;  and  K. 
O.  Hardy,  'The  Provincial  Councils  from  Aug.  to  Diocl.,'  In 
Ely.  met.  Rev.  v.  2'21.  fj.  M.  GWATKIN. 

ROMANS,  EPISTLE  TO  THE.— 

i.  I'lace  of  tlie  Epistle  in  tradition.    Genuineness, 
ii.  Tinie  and  Place  of  writing. 

Iii.  Occ;ision  and  Purpose  :  (1)  Jews  in  Rome ;  (2)Christian«  tn 
Rome  :  (3)  Apostolic  foundation  ;  (4)  Jewish  or  Gentile 
readers?  (5)  Letter  or  Treatise?  (li)  Relation  to  other 
letters  of  the  (jiruup. 
Iv.  SkeU-h  of  main  arguments,  and  Analytical  Table. 
T.  Importance  of  the  Epistle. 

tL  Theology  and  characteristic  ideas :  (1)  God,  Attributes 
and   Will— Law,  Christ;  {'2)  Man  under  sin;  (3)  Jlaii 
under    law  and    under  grace,   the  Spirit ;   (4)  Man's 
admission  to  grace,  faith,  justification ;  ^5)  Grace  and 
the  moral  life ;  (6)  The  Christian  community  and  its 
Institutions. 
viL  Materials  for  personal  history  of  St.  Paul, 
viii.  Transmission  of  the  Text.    Integrity. 
Literature. 

i.  Place  of  the  Epistle  in  Tradition.  — 
What  has  been  remarked  of  1  Corinthians  applies 
equally  to  tliis  Epistle.  But  definite  traces  of  its 
language  occur  already  in  1  Peter,  fainter  l>ut 
still  distinct  traces  in  Hebrews,  and  juobahlo 
distinct  traces  in  James,  though  here  the  case  is 
less  clear,  and  M.ayor,  in  his  edition  oiJnmcs,  con- 
tends for  the  priority  of  the  latter  (see  for  details, 
and  traces  in  Jude,  Sanday-IIeadlam,  Ixxill'.j. 
The  Epistle  was  well  known  to  (^'lem.  Uom.  (nine 
passages  are  distinctlj'  traceable),  Ignatius  (twelve), 
Polycarp  (six),  Justin  Martyr  (seven),  and  appar- 
ently to  Gnostic  writers  (Na.assenes,  Valentinian.s, 
and  Rasilides)  quoted  by  Hijipolytus.  Kor  details, 
see  Sanday-Headlam,  who  add  some  very  instruc- 
tive quotations  (thirteen,  of  which  seven  seem 
indisputable)  from  Test,  of  xii.  Patriarclt.'s.  The 
lirst  reference  to  our  I'^iistle  by  name  is  that  bj' 
Marcion,  who  included  Konians  in  his  collection  of 
Pauline  Epistles  (see  below,  §  viii. ).  We  may  safely 
repeat  here  what  was  said  on  1  Corinthians  (which 
see),  that  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  has  been 
recognized  in  the  Christian  Church  as  long  as  any 
collection  of  St.  Paul's  Epistles  h.as  been  extant. 
In  the  Muratorian  and  other  early  lists  our  Epistle 
stands  seventh  among  the  Pauline  Epistles,  i.e. 
last  among  the  Epi.stles  addressed  to  Churches  as 
distinct  from  individuals.  Its  present  position  ut 
the  head  of  the  list  appears  first  in  the  4th  cent, 
(see on  1  Cor.,  is  1,  and  Sanday-Hcacilam,  Ixxxiv  11'.). 
Another  im])ortant  direct  quotation  is  in  Irena-us, 
Hier.  III.  xvi.  3,  and  in  IV.  xxvii.  3,  an  'elder,'  the 
pupil  of  men  who  had  seen  the  apostles,  is  repre- 
sented as  quoting  Ro  H"'"  (' Paulum  dixisso') 
and  3^.  ^Iarcion,  it  is  true,  omitted  chs.  15.  16, 
and  certain  other  passages  ;  but  neither  he  nor  any 
other  heretic  impugned  the  authority  of  the 
Ejjistle,  which  is  included  in  all  the  ancient 
versions.  But  no  weight  of  external  attesfAtion 
could  be  more  eloquent  than  the  style  and  char- 
acter of  the  Ejiistle  itself.  Its  very  diflicultT  is  of 
a  nature  which  raises  it  above  the  plane  of  arti- 


296      ROMANS,  EPISTLE  TO  THE 


ROMANS,  EPISTLE  TO  THE 


ficiality.  For  this  difficulty  springs  from  no 
clumsiness  of  expression  or  confusion  of  thought, 
but  from  the  depth  of  the  questions  liiuulled  and 
the  originality  of  their  treatment.  It  is  the  most 
•  Pauline'  of  all  the  A\Titings  which  bear  St.  Paul's 
name.  Accordingly,  critics  who  have  set  down 
almost  every  other  writing  of  the  NT  as  anonymous, 
have  allowed  that  this  Epistle,  along  with  those  to 
the  Corinthians  and  Galatians,  is  really  from  the 
hand  of  St.  Paul.  The  somewhat  reckless  criticism 
of  Bruno  Bauer  produced  little  or  no  efl'ect  upon 
the  body  of  critical  opinion  in  Germany.  In  more 
recent  times  the  hypercriticism  of  the  Dutch 
school  of  Loman  and  others,  and  the  extreme 
theories  of  Steck  (on  these  see  1  Corinthians, 
§  4 ;  also  Sanday-Headlam,  pp.  Ixxxvi-lxxxviii), 
have  failed  to  shake  the  main  body  of  representa- 
tive critics  in  their  estimate  of  our  Epistle. 

ii.  Time  and  Place  of  Writing. — The  ministry 
of  St.  Paul  as  recorded  in  Acts  falls  into  three 
periods :  (a)  The  Antiochene  (Ac  13-18^),  when 
Antioch  was  his  headquarters.  Towards  the  end 
of  this  period  (Ac  16-18)  he  founds  the  great 
Churches  of  the  Mgean  region.  (6)  The  yEgean  or 
Ephesian  period  (Ac  18-''-21'°),  when  he  transfers 
his  residence  to  Ephesus ;  at  the  end  come  his 
second  visit  to  Corinth  and  his  last  voyage  to 
Jerusalem,  (c)  The  period  of  captivity  (Ac  '21"-28) 
at  CiEsarea  and  Rome.  To  the  first  period  belong 
the  Epistles  to  the  Thessalonians,  written  from 
Corinth  ;  to  the  second,  the  four  Epistles  to  the 
Galatians,  Corinthians,  and  Romans.  The  third 
period  is  that  of  the  '  captivity  group,'  Philipjiians, 
Colossians,  Ephesians,  Philemon.  Our  Epistle 
was  in  all  probability  the  last  of  its  group, — cer- 
tainly it  is  later  than  1  and  2  Corinthians.  It 
B-as  wjitten  from  Corinth,  where  (assuming  that 
16^  belongs  to  our  Epistle,  see  below,  §  viii.)  St. 
Paul  was  the  guest  of  the  Gains  of  1  Co  1". 

Phoebe,  possibly  the  bearer  of  the  letter,  was  a 
•deaconess'  of  Cenchreae,  the  eastern  port  of 
Corinth.  Moreover,  St.  Paul  was  on  the  eve  of 
departure  from  Corintli  with  the  alms  collected  by 
him  in  Macedonia  and  Achaia  (15^-  -*)  for  the  '  poor 
saints'  of  Jerusalem.  From  the  latter  place  he 
was  hoping  to  visit  Rome,  and  afterwards  Spain 
(15=»  ;  cf.  2  Co  8'-  »,  Ac  24"  20"  19-').  It  was  after 
the  winter,  which  St.  Paul  had  probably  spent  in 
Corinth  (1  Co  16'),  for  he  proposed  to  sail  to  Syria 
(Ac  20*)  and  to  reach  Jerusalem  before  Pentecost 
(Ac  20").     But  Ro  15  contains  no  allusion  to  the 

{dot  of  the  Jews  which  at  the  last  moment  forced 
lim  to  change  his  route  (Ac  20').  The  exact  year 
in  which  the  Epistle  was  written  depends  upon  the 
dates  to  be  assigned  to  I  and  2  Cor.  (see  1  COR- 
INTHIANS, §  6  and  reff.,  and  Chronology  of  NT). 
If,  as  the  present  writer  inclines  to  believe,  the 
clironology  of  Lightfoot,  etc.,  is  not  definitely 
superseded,  the  Epistle  dates  from  just  before  the 
Passover  of  the  year  58.  If  the  whole  scheme  has 
to  be  shifted  back  two  years,  then  the  correspond- 
ing date  in  56  must  be  adopted.  The  point  may, 
for  the  purpose  of  this  article,  be  left  in  suspense. 
The  relative  date,  i.e.  with  reference  to  the  other 
Ejiistles,  is  the  point  of  real  importance  for  the  his- 
tori<-.al  explanation  of  our  Epistle.  On  this  point 
the  limits  of  doubt  are  narrow.  There  is  no  ques- 
tion but  that  Romans  belongs,  with  1  and  2  Cor.,  to 
the  .'Ivgean  period  (see  above),  in  contrast  to  1  and  2 
Thess.,  which  belong  to  the  Antiochene  period, 
and  to  Philippians,  Colossians,  Ephesians,  Phile- 
mon, which  come  after  St.  Paul's  captivities  had 
begun.  There  is,  moreover,  no  doubt  that  Romans 
was  written  on  the  eve  of  St.  Paul's  departure 
from  the  .^"gean  re^on,  and  therefore  was  preceded 
in  time  by  both  Epistles  to  the  Corinthians.  The 
point  which  is  less  absolutely  certain  is  the  relation 
of  Romans  to  Galatians.      It  is  not  so  very  im- 


portant to  subdivide  the  alternative  hypothesoi 
which  agree  in  supposing  Romans  to  follow 
Galatians.  If  Lightfoot's  view  of  the  close  psycho- 
logical relation  between  2  Corinthians  and  Gala- 
tians remains  unshaken  in  itself,  and  is  not 
outweiglied  by  general  chronological  considera- 
tions, we  have  a  very  intelligible  historical  situa- 
tion for  the  origin  of  llomans  (see  below,  §§  iii.  v.). 
Even  if  Galatians  has  to  be  placed  at  the  beginning 
of  the  Ephesian  period  (Weiss,  etc.)  or  at  tlie  close 
of  the  Antiochene  period  (Ramsay,  Rendall,  etc.), 
we  lose,  no  doubt,  something  of  the  dramatic 
unity  of  situation,  but  we  may  still  regard  Romans 
as  the  mature  expression  and  expansion  of  the 
thoughts  struck  out  at  white-heat  in  Galatians. 
But  the  relation  is  wholly  reversed  if  (with  Clemen, 
Chronol.  der  Paul.  Brie/e)  we  regard  Galatians  a." 
presupposing  Romans.  This  view  is  part  of  a 
general  rearrangement  of  Pauline  chronology  dis- 
cussed in  the  art.  1  Corinthian.?,  vol.  i.  p.  485. 
Its  direct  proof  is  drawn  from  the  relation  of  the 
treatment  of  circumcision,  the  law,  etc.,  in  our 
Epistle  to  that  in  Galatians,  which  is  supposed  to 
represent  an  exacerbation  of  the  apostle's  attitude. 
The  view  to  be  maintained  below  (§§  iii.-vi.)  seems 
quite  as  legitimate  an  inference  from  the  facts, 
and  in  itself  more  in  accord  with  our  general  know- 
ledge of  St.  Paul's  thought  and  temper.  If  the 
reader  finds  it  unsatisfactory,  he  may  remember 
tliat  he  has  the  hypothesis  of  Clemen  to  fall  back 
upon. 

iii.  Occasion  and  Pitrpose.— In  order  to  esti- 
mate the  occasion  and  purpose  of  our  Epistle,  we 
must  first  ask.  For  what  readers  was  it  meant! 
and,  secondly.  What  was  the  apostle  probably  de- 
sirous to  say  to  such  readers  at  this  particular 
time?  This  necessitates  a  glance  at  the  ante- 
cedents of  Roman  Christianity. 

Tlie  Christian  body  to  which  our  Epistle  is  ad- 
dressed was  clearly  not,  like  that  of  Thess.  or 
even  of  Gal.,  of  recent  origin  (l*-''  15^  16').  In 
view  of  features  of  the  Epistle,  to  whicli  attention 
will  presently  be  drawn,  its  origin  is  to  be  sought 
in  connexion  with  the  existence  of  a  Jewish  com- 
munity in  Rome. 

1.  Je^vs  in  Rome. — The  first  known  connexion 
of  the  Jews  and  Romans  was  in  the  2nd  cent.  B.C., 
under  the  Maccabees  ( 1  Mac  8'"'-  12'»-  U''- « 
15""').  Jewish  embassies  had  gone  to  Rome,  and 
had  obtained  treaties  of  alliance  (B.C.  161,  144, 
141,  129).  Probably  their  earliest  settlements  in 
Rome  date  from  this  period, — tliough  there  is  no 
need  to  seek  a  special  occasion  at  Rome  at  a 
period  when  Jews  were  beginning  to  lind  their 
way  all  over  the  civilized  world.  Cicero  (pro 
Flarco,  59)  tells  us  of  a  large  Jewish  community 
in  Rome,  which  sent  annual  subsidies  to  Jeru- 
salem. The  captives  brought  by  Porapey  from 
the  East  (B.C.  61)  swelled  their  numbers.  Many 
of  these  gained  enfranchisement  (Philo,  Lc(j.  ail 
Gaium,  2.3),  and  these  are  probably  tlie  Libertini 
who  supiiorted  a  synagogue  of  their  own  at  Jeru- 
salem (Ac  6').  Their  worship  was  expressly  toler- 
ated by  Julius,  Augustus,  and  Tiberius.  They 
occupied,  according  to  Philo,  a  quarter  of  tlieir 
own  beyond  the  Tiber.  But  there  is  evidence  of 
synagogues,  and  therefore  of  Jewish  residents,  in 
other  parts  of  the  city  also.  Josenhus  tells  us 
how  8000  Jews  in  Rome  supported  the  complaints 
against  the  rule  of  Archelaus  in  Judiea  (A.D.  2-4  ; 
Ant.  X\ai.  xi.  1;  BJ  II.  vi.  1).  The  satires  of 
Horace,  Juvenal,  and  Persius  show  that  the  Jews 
were  far  from  popular  in  Rome  ;  while  yet,  partly 
from  the  attraction  which  foreign  rites  had  for 
the  superstitious,  partly,  no  doubt  (Schiirer.  HJP 
§  31,  v.),  from  the  more  serious  attraction  of  the 
fusion  of  a  higher  morality  and  a  purer  theism 
than  were  to  be   found  elsewhere,  they  did   not 


ROJIAXS,  EPISTLE  TO  THE 


EOMA^"S,  EPISTLE  TO  THE      297 


lack  very  numerous  adherents  (' Unus  multonim,' 
Hor.  H'li.  I.  ix.  71).  A  temporary  expulsion,  A.D. 
19,  by  Tiberius,  did  not  long  check  tlieir  growing 
numbers  and  imiKjrtance  in  the  city  (see,  for  de- 
tails, Scliiirer,  Geinfindeverfassunr;,  and  HJP  §  31, 
i.  ii.  ;  Berliner,  GiX'h.  dcr  Jwlin  in  Rom,  1893 ; 
Sanday-HeaiUam,  liunians,  Introd.  §  2,  and  autho- 
ritie'  cited  by  them). 

2.  Origin  of  Christianity  in  Rome. — A  move- 
ment which  so  profoundly  stirred  Judaism  at  its 
religious  centre  could  not  fail  to  find  an  early 
response  in  the  Jewish  community  at  the  centre 
of  the  world's  intercourse.  At  everj'  great  festival 
ftt  Jerusalem,  Roman  Jews  would  be  present  (^t- 
iriftovvrtt,  Ac  2'",  i.e.  if  iravriyvfKi,  as  Demosth. 
e.  Mid.  p.  584).  This  was  the  case  at  the  first 
Christian  Pentecost.  We  may  see  in  the  mention 
of  the  Konian  Jews  of  Ac  S'"  a  significant  hint 
of  what  may  possibly  have  happened.  'Some  who 
had  gone  forth  from  Rome  as  Jews  may  well  have 
returned  there  as  Christians'  (\V.  H.  Simcox). 
But  we  must  look  rather  to  the  constant  stream 
of  movement  to  and  fro  than  to  the  result  of  so 
momentary  an  impression  as  that  of  this  one 
festival.  '  It  would  take  more  than  they  brought 
away  from  the  Day  of  Pentecost  to  lay  the  founda- 
tions of  a  church.'  The  origin  of  the  Roman 
Church  is  to  be  looked  for  in  the  steady  though 
obscure  circulation,  kept  up  among  the  Jews  as 
among  other  cla.sses,  between  Rome  and  the  pro- 
vinces. Aquila  and  Pii.scilla  may  have  been 
Christians  before  their  exjiatriation  from  Rome, 
A.D.  51,  52.  It  was,  at  any  rate,  in  the  class  to 
which  they  belongeil  that  the  seed  of  the  vast  tree 
of  Roman  Christianity  was  lirst  sown  and  grew 
(see  ul.so  Sanday-Ueadlam,  p.  xxvii,  for  details 
from  Ro  16). 

3.  Aposlulic  fijundatiun  of  the  Roman  Church. — 
There  is  no  need  to  assume  that  any  apostle  first 
planted  the  gospel  in  Rome,  nor  do  the  facts  per- 
mit the  supjiosition.  St.  Paul  is  not,  in  writing 
to  the  Romans  (15^),  building  upon  the  foundation 
laid  by  another.  He  is,  on  the  contrary,  dischari;- 
ing  an  unfullilled  portion  of  his  mission  as  Apostle 
to  the  Uentil.-  (11'"  l"- ").  The  Roman  Church, 
then,  had  hitherto  lacked  apostolic  leadership 
and,  80  far  as  our  Epistle  informs  us,  organization 
on  any  permanent  basis  (see  below,  §  vi.  5,  and 
art.  1  Corinthians,  vol.  i.  jj.  490).  It  is  true 
that  early  tradition  ascribes  the  foundation  of  the 
Roman  (jliurch  to  St.  Peter,  and  a  le.ss  ancient 
but  still  somewhat  early  tradition  ascribes  to  that 
apostle  a  twenty -five  years'  episcopate  of  the 
Koman  Church.  The  liighly  contentious  char- 
acter of  the  questions  here  at  issue,  their  extra- 
ordinary comjilexity,  and  their  secondary  bearing 
uiKjn  our  main  subject,  forbid  anything  but  the 
Bknderest  di.scu.ssion  of  them  in  this  article.  But 
it  may  be  said,  with  reference  to  the  first-named 
tradition,  that  the  earliest  testimony  on  the  sub- 
ject ascribes  the  foundation  of  the  Roman  Church 
to  St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul  jointly ;  it  is  '  Petro- 
Pauline.'  i.e.  ascribes  nothing  to  St.  Peter  which 
it  does  not  equally  luscribe  to  St.  Paul.  Moreover, 
it  hinges  primarily  on  the  nvirtyrdoin  of  the  two 
a|K)»tles  at  Rome.  Clement,  writing  soon  after 
95  (.V),  couples  the  death  of  the  two  apostles  in 
a  context  suggestive  of  martyrdom ;  he  does  not 
expressly  locate  their  death  at  Rome,  but  speaks 
of  it  as  if  it  were  within  the  direct  knowledge  of 
those  on  whose  behalf  he  is  writing.  Ignatius 
(ad  Rom.  iv.  3)  is  less  explicit ;  he  suggests  that  the 
two  apostles  had  given  instructions  to  the  Roman 
Christians.  His  language  exemplilies  the  habitual 
association  of  the  two  names.  This  is  stronger 
BtiH  in  DionyB.  Cor.  (in  Eus.  IIE  II.  xxv.  8) ;  he 
makes  the  two  plant  the  Church  of  Corinth  as 
well  as    that    of  iiome.      Iremeus  {and    perhaps 


Hegesippus,  ap.  Eus.  IIE  XV.  xxii.)  knows  that 
the  Roman  Church  claims  the  two  apostles  as  iti 
founders.  Tertullian  (Pne-inr.  3(5)  speaks  of  tnn 
two  apostles  as  having  '  poured  into  that  Church 
all  their  doctrine  along  with  tlieir  blood.'  His 
Roman  contemporary,  Caius,  knows  the  rpiirata 
of  the  two  apostles  on  the  Vatican  and  by  the 
Appian  Way.  We  must  notice,  lastly,  the  inter- 
esting statement  in  the  Prcedicalio  Pauli,  quoted 
by  pseudo.Cyprian  (De  rcbnpt.,  Hartel,  vol.  iii. 
p.  90),  that  after  long  separation  the  two  apostles 
met  and  suH'ered  together  in  Rome.  It  is  a 
very  improbable  suggestion  of  Lijisius,  that  this 
stream  of  tradition  owes  its  origin  to  the  attenii)t 
to  harmonize  the  relations  of  the  two  apostles, 
and  that  it  presupposes  the  Clementine  tradition 
in  which  the  anti  -  Pauline  tradition  of  Simon' 
Magus  at  Rome  was  incorporated.  This  latter 
tradition  is  closely  connected  with  the  tradition 
which  ascribes  to  St.  Peter  a  special  connexion 
with  the  Roman  Church,  i.e.  as  distinct  from  St. 
Paul.  Whether  it  is  possible  to  separate  them, 
so  as  to  exhibit  the  storv  of  St.  Peter's  twenty- 
five  years'  episcopate,  witliout  any  dependence  on 
the  legend  which  brings  Simon  Magus  to  Rome 
(which  in  turn  seems  wholly  due  to  a  well-known 
mistake  of  Justin,  see  Diet.  Chr.  Biog.  art.  'Simon 
Magus'),  is  a  most  intricate  question.  An  inade. 
quale  discu-ssion  of  it  would  be  worthless,  an  ade- 
quate discussion  would  transgress  the  proportions 
of  this  article.  Suffice  it,  then,  to  say  that  the 
question  of  importance  for  our  purpose  is  whether 
St.  Peter  can  be  credibly  held  to  have  come  to 
Rome  as  early  as  the  reign  of  Claudius  (41-54). 
There  are  two  possible  sources  for  this  supposition. 
The  one  is  the  statement  of  Justin,  that  Simon 
came  to  Rome  in  this  reign.  Hut,  apart  from  tlie 
mistake  upon  which  Justin  founded  this  state- 
ment, neither  Justin,  nor  Irenieus,  nor  Tertullian 
after  him,  know  anything  of  the  Roman  conflict 
of  Simon  with  St.  Peter.  The  other  source  is  the 
ide.a  that  St.  Peter,  on  leaving  Jerusalem  (Ac  12"), 
came  to  Rome  shortly  before  the  death  of  Herod 
Agrippa  I.  (i.e.  about  A.D.  42);  the  Lord  having 
(as  inferred  from  that  text)  commanded  the 
apostles  to  remain  twelve  years  in  Jeru.salein. 
Neither  of  these  alternatives  proves  any  founda- 
tion in  fact  for  so  early  a  visit  of  St.  Peter  to 
Rome. 

On  the  whole,  we  conclude  that  the  Petro-Pauline 
tradition  is  the  only  one  which  goes  back  to  the 
1st  cent.,  that  it  is  presupposed  by  the  tradition 
of  the  Roman  conllict  between  St.  Peter  and 
Simon,  and  liy  the  tradition  of  St.  Peter's  twenty- 
five  years'  episcopate,  and  that  its  foundation  in 
fact  IS  the  martyrdom  of  both  apostles  at  Rome. 
This  was  the  '  foundation 'of  the  Roman  Church  in 
the  sense  in  which  the  'foundation-stone'  of  a 
building  is  often  laid  after  the  actual  foundations 
have  been  long  in  progress.  The  two  apostles 
'consolidated  the  Church  with  their  blood.'  There 
is  therefore  no  primitive  tradition  which  brings  St. 
Peter  to  Rome  before  St.  Paul,  or  any  long  time 
before  the  usually  accepted  date  of  his  martyrdom. 
(See  Lipsias,  Apolcr.  Apostdqesrh.  vol.  ii. ,  and 
Quellen  di'r  riiin.  Pi'trussafjc;  Erbes,  'Todestagc 
der  Apostel  Paul,  und  Pet.'  in  Texteund  Untersiirh. 
xix.  1  ;  Lightfoot,  St.  Clement,  vol.  ii.  p.  49011'.  ; 
the  very  careful  and  fair  discussion  in  Sanday- 
Headlam,  Intr.  §  3 ;  and  Chase  in  art.  Petkk  in 
vol.  iii.  of  the  present  work). 

4.  Compo.titiun  of  the  liodii  addrcised  by  St.  Paul. 
— We  must  a-ssume  as  the  basis  of  discussion  th.'it 
St.  Paul  was  not  wholly  ignorant  of  the  composi- 
tion and  general  state  of  the  Church  to  wliicli  ho 
was  writing.  The  names  and  data  of  ch.  16,  which 
we  believe  to  be  an  original  part  of  the  Epistle 
(see  below,  §  viii. ),  and  the  sureness  of  touch  which 


298      ROMANS,  EPISTLE  TO  THE 


ROMANS,  EPISTLE  TO  THE 


marks  all  St.  Paul's  references  to  the  readers  of 
this  Epistle,  are  enough  to  carry  us  thus  far.  The 
Epistle,  then,  is  certainly  meant  for  readers  of 
Gentile  oriyin.  St.  Paul  counts  the  Romans,  as 
such,  as  Gentiles  ;  see  !"■  iv  oU  iare  Kal  ufius,  v." 
if  Tois  XoiTTois  Idfeaif,  cf.  IS'^"'.  The  readers  are 
expressly  described  as  Gentiles  11'""^^,  especially 
viiif  \iyu  Toif  IBviaw,  while  he  speaks  of  the  Jews 
in  the  third  person  U'"-  ir^^-as-si.  These  passages 
are  quite  conclusive,  and  would  justify  a  verdict  if 
taken  alone. 

But  there  are  other  passages  which  show  with 
equal  clearness  that  St.  Paul  is  contemplating 
reade-i  Jewish  in  their  religiovs  education  and 
ideas.  (1)  The  general  ar''ument  of  tlie  Epistle, 
levelling  down  the  Jew,  both  uniler  law  and  under 
grace,  to  the  footing  of  the  Gentile,  is  more  intel- 
ligible as  addressed  to  Christians  of  Jewish  habits 
of  thought.  The  careful  discussion  of  Abraham's 
righteousness  suggests  a  similar  origin.  Nor,  be  it 
observed,  is  there  any  suggestion  of  anti-Pauline 
agitators  in  the  Roman  Church  to  account  for  this 
line  of  argument  (as  in  Galatians).  Add  to  this 
the  assumption  of  knowledge  (o'"^-)  as  to  Adam  and 
his  heritage  of  death,  the  pains  taken  {3"  6')  to 
rebut  the  imputation  of  antinomianism,  and  to 
show  (ch.  11)  that  the  rejection  of  Israel  may  be 
but  the  necessary  step  to  their  eventual  accep- 
tance. (2)  The  dialectical  form  in  which  Jewish 
difticulties  are  carefully  faced,  and  parado.xes  espe- 
cially abhorrent  to  the  Jewish  mind  repelled  with 
/XT)  -yivoiTo  (3'-  '  4'  V-  "  9''-  »•  11'- ",  cf.  Gal  2") ;  the 
Trpoexl>f-(Sa  of  3'  (cf.  4',  and  7°- '  in  conjunction 
with  the  expansion,  w.'-^,  also  9'").  (3)  Here  we 
must  emphasize  the  express  statement  7''"  that 
the  readers  had  lived  under  the  Law,  and  in  '  old- 
ness  of  letter,'  and  that  by  the  deatli  of  Christ 
they  had  been  discharged  from  their  allcL'iance  to 
the  Law.  This  passage  was  regarded  by  Alangold 
(dcr  B.Brief  u.  s.  gesch.  Voraussetzungen,  1884)  as 
the  immovable  corner-stone  of  the  Jewisli-Christian 
cliaracter  of  the  Roman  Churcli.  It  seems  to  ex- 
plain St.  Paul's  readiness  throughout  to  make  use 
of  Jeivish  concessions  (2="-  3-'-  "»•  -'"•  4'"-  6'™-)  and  his 
regard  for  objections  natural  to  a  Jewish  mind. 

In  any  case,  there  is  not  the  smallest  evidence  in 
the  Epistle  that  St.  Paul  apprehended  hostility  on 
the  part  of  his  readers  (see  6"  16").  He  writes  as 
a  Jew  to  Jewish,  but  not  to  inveterately  prejudiced 
readers.  The  Judaism  of  the  Dispersion  was,  in 
many  places  {e.g.  Beroea),  milder  and  less  prati- 
quant  tnan  that  of  Palestine.  The  Jewish  Chri<i- 
tianity  of  the  Diaspora  may  well  have  stood,  in 
many  cases,  in  an  analogous  relation  to  that  of  tlie 
TTTuxol  &.yLoi  (Ac  21='").  Evidently,  the  Jewish  in- 
fluence which  had  moulded  the  religious  temper 
of  the  Roman  Church  was  not,  as  in  Galatia  and 
Corinth,  of  a  recently  imported  or  aggressive  type. 

How,  then,  are  we  to  combine  the  two  classes  of 
evidence?  Partly  we  might  explain  their  diverg- 
ence by  St.  Paul's  habit  of  treating  one  portion  of 
a  Church  as  if  it  represented  the  whole ;  e.g.  at 
Thessalonica,  Corinth,  and  Ephesus  there  were 
numerous  Jewish  Christians,  but  St.  Paul  addresses 
the  Churches,  especially  the  first  and  last  named, 
as  wholly  Gentile. 

But  the  mere  a.ssumption  of  a  mixed  composition 
does  not  quite  account  for  the  phenomena.  The 
readers  are  treated  by  St.  Paul  as  a  homogeneous 
body.  Even  in  ch.  14  the  distinction  between  the 
strong  and  the  weak  is  not  to  be  simply  identified 
with  that  between  Gentile  and  Jew.  The  Roman 
community  as  a  whole  is  treated  as  Gentile  in  its 
elements,  but  Jewish  in  its  ideas  and  feeling.  Now, 
a  class  of  men  corresponding  to  this  description 
existed  all  over  the  Hellenistic  Jewish  world  in  the 
Proselytes,  the  o-e/SiMfoi  of  Acts,  who,  without 
as  a  rule  accepting  circumcision,  frequented   the 


synagogues,  observed  the  moral  law,  worshipped 
the  God  of  Israel,  and  were  instructed  in  the 
Scriptures.  It  was  among  these,  according  to  Acts, 
that  the  gospel  tverywliere  made  its  first  heathen 
conquests.  Probably  the  Roman  Church  was  no 
exception.  If  so,  there  would  of  coarse  be,  as  at 
Corinth,  etc.,  a  nucleus  of  Christian  .Jews,  and,  by 
the  time  when  our  Epistle  was  written,  numberf 
of  heathen  mi^ht  well  have  become  proselyte." 
directly  to  the  Christian  body  without  previously 
passing  through  the  intermediate  stage  of  Jewisu 
j)roselytism.  Still  it  was  the  proselytes  who  gave 
tlie  tone  to  the  community,  and  they  owed  tlieii 
all,  as  Christians,  to  the  influence  and  training  of 
Christian  Jews.  We  are  compelled  to  form  hypo- 
theses in  this  matter,  and  it  is  this  hypothesis 
^^•llich  best  satisfies  the  conditions  of  our  problem. 
The  old  Tiibingen  alternative  of  anti  -  Pauline 
Jewish,  or  anti-Jewish  Pauline  Christianity,  is  not 
imposed  upon  us  either  by  the  facts  of  history  or 
by  the  internal  evidence  of  the  letter  itself.  (Oo 
this  subject  see  also  Hort,  Roinan.'s  and  Ephesians, 
pp.  19-33 ;  Beyschlag  in  SK,  1867  ;  Schiirer'a  art. 
on  'Romans'  in  Encijc.  Brit."). 

5.  Letter  or  Treatise  f — This  being  assumed,  we 
may  approach  the  question  of  the  writer's  purpose. 
St.  Paul  would  not  fail  to  see  that  the  future  ol 
Gentile  Christianitj'  in  the  Roman  world  depended 
to  no  small  extent  upon  the  future  of  the  Christian 
body  in  the  imperial  city.  \\"e  accept  the  sugges- 
tion of  Ramsay,  that  St.  Paul  had  early  grasped 
the  importance  of  the  Roman  empire  as  a  vehicle 
for  the  dissemination  of  the  gospel.  To  commend 
his  own  gospel — the  gospel  of  the  Gentiles — to  a 
community  like  that  at  Rome,  was  no  hopeless 
task.  To  this  end  a  personal  visit  to  Rome  was 
the  obWous  means,  and  this  he  had  long  resolved 
to  pay  (P').  But  a  letter  such  as  this  would  pave 
the  way  for  a  successful  visit,  and  ineanwhile  it 
would  accomplish  much.  Hence  its  reasoning  con- 
ciliatory tone  (12'  IS"-  etc.),  specially  characteristic 
of  a  period  of  reaction  from  a  critical  contest, 
when  the  apostle's  own  desire  for  peace  was,  more- 
over, finding  concrete  expression  in  the  great  "Koryla 
(15^- *•"•)•  It  was,  then,  no  mere  arbitrary  choice 
which  led  St.  Paul  to  address  this,  his  greatest 
letter,  to  Rome.  The  Epistle  is  not  a  systematic 
treatise  which  might  with  equal  appropriateness 
have  been  addressed  to  any  Church.  It  has, 
primarily  at  least,  in  view  the  idiosyncrasy  of  the 
Christian  community  at  Rome  (see  below,  §  v.). 

6.  Relation  to  other  Epistles  of  the  group. — Our 
Epistle  comes  at  the  close  of  a  period  of  deep  agi- 
tation, reflected  in  the  Epp.  to  the  Corinthians  and 
Galatians,  and  summed  up  in  2  Co  1"  iiuiBev  fidxak, 
laaBiv  (pb^oL.  Referring  for  details  to  the  articles 
on  those  Epistles,  it  will  suffice  to  say  that  many 
of  '  the  circumcision '  had  never  in  their  hearts 
acquiesced  in  the  recognition  (Ac  15,  Gal  2')  of  a 
Christianity  emancipated  from  the  Law,  or  frankly 
recognized  the  apostleship  of  St.  Paul.  At  Corinth 
the  Tatter  question  had  been  brought  into  promi- 
nence, in  Galatia  the  former  and  deeper  question. 
The  Epistle  to  the  Galatians  stands  in  the  closest 
relation  to  our  Epistle,  and  its  main  ideas  must  be 
grasped  as  a  preliminary  to  the  understanding  of 
Romans  (see  below,  §  v.).  'To  the  Galatians,  the 
apostle  flashes  out  in  indignant  remonstrance  tlit 
first  eager  thoughts  kindled  by  his  zeal  for  tha 
gospel,  striking  suddenly  agains*  a  stubborn  rem- 
nant of  Judaism.  To  the  Romans  he  writes  at 
leisure,  under  no  pressure  of  circumstances,  in  the 
face  of  no  direct  antagonism,  explaining,  complet- 
ing, extending  the  teachin"  of  the  earlier  Epistle, 
by  giving  it  a  double  edge  directed  against  Jew  and 
Gentile  alike'  (Lightfoot).  The  agitators  of  Gal- 
atia had  insisted  upon  the  Law  as  a  necessary  and 
permanent  scheme  of  righteousness  and  salvatiow 


ROMANS,  EPISTLE  TO  THE 


EO.MANS,  EPISTLE  TO  THE      29f 


for  mankind.  Laid  dovm  by  God  as  the  condition 
of  man's  coiiiniunion  witli  Himself,  it  could  not  be 
set  uside  by  any  subsequent  covenant.  Man  could 
only  appear  before  God  a.s  a  faithful  doer  of  the 
Law.  St.  Paul  in  reply  had  addressed  himself  to 
two  main  points:  (1)  to  prove  that  the  Law  could 
not,  and  tiiat  faith  alone  could,  make  man  right- 
eous in  God's  siylit ;  (2)  to  show  the  true  position 
of  the  Law  in  the  history  of  God's  dealinj^s  with 
man.  llighteousness,  he  argues,  is  a  free  gift  from 
God  to  man,  and  as  such  was  accorded  to  Abraham 
on  the  sole  condition  of  faith  in  an  unconditional 
promise.  The  inheritance  of  this  promise  passes 
not  by  any  earthly  law  of  succession,  but  to  those 
who  resemble  Abraham  in  his  faith.  The  Law, 
bein"  of  long  subsequent  dat«  to  the  Promise, 
could  not  be  meant  to  atl'ect  its  fulfilment.  It  was 
given  for  a  temporary  purpose,  pending  the  fulfil- 
ment of  the  Promise,  namely,  to  prepare  men  for 
the  fulfilment  by  bringing  out  and  making  men 
feel  their  essential  sinfulness  and  helpless  inabilitj- 
to  approach  God  with  any  claim  to  righteousness 
of  their  own.  The  righteousness  which  they  could 
not  earn  is  accorded  as  the  fulfilment  of  the  promise 
to  Abraham's  faith  in  Christ.  Like  the  promise 
itself,  it  is  unconditional,  demanding  nothing  on 
our  part  but  faith.  To  go  back  to  circumcision  is 
to  abandon  the  attitude  of  faith,  and  to  refuse 
to  see  that  in  Christ  the  Law  has  fulfilled  its  pur- 
pose, and  has  an  end.  '  Behold,  I  Paul  say  unto 
j'ou,  that  if  ve  accept  circumcision,  Christ  shall 
profit  you  notliin"'  (Gal  5^  cf.  the  whole  of  ch.  3). 
This  is  the  central  thought  worked  out  in  Romans, 
but  fortified  and  enlarged  by  a  wider  outlook  upon 
history,  a  iirofound  api>licatioii  to  the  principles  of 
the  moral  life,  and  a  coniprelieusive  piiilosophy  of 
the  history  of  revelation.  In  this  latter  part  of 
our  Kpislle  (chs.  9-11)  the  school  of  Uaur  saw  its 
principal  purpose.  This  is  a  mistake.  But  it  is 
essential  to  St.  Paul's  argument  to  show  that  the 
righteousness  of  faith,  by  excluding  the  Jewish 
'  boast,'  does  not  involve  a  reversal  of  God's  '  gifts 
and  calling.' 

iv.  Ar.GUMENT  OF  THE  EPI.STLE,  AND  ANALYSIS. 
— The  theological  part  of  the  Kpistle  extends  from 
1'°  to  the  end  of  ch.  11.  It  treats  successively  the 
Theology  of  (1)  Redemption  (l"-5),  (2)  of  the 
Christian  life  (6-8),  and  (3)  of  history  (9-11).  The 
Theologj'  of  Redeiiii)tion  comprises  two  themes, 
summed  up  and  contrasted  in  5'-'''",  viz.  the  '  wrath 
ot  Cod'  (l"'-3-")  and  the  rji^'hteousness  of  God 
(3^'-5").  The  wrath  of  God  is  the  correlative  of 
man's  need  of  redeiMjjtion.  '  first  comes  the  state- 
ment that  the  world  uji  to  that  moment  had  been, 
morally  speaking,  a  failure'  (Mozley,  Mirmles, 
Lect.  vii.,  a  remarkable  passage  on  our  Epistle). 
A  moral  creed  w.os  there,  but  not  a  corresponding 
life.  Among  Jews  and  Gentiles  alike  the  facts 
are  the  same :  '  knowledge  without  action.'  The 
utmost  the  knowledge  of  right  could  do  for  man 
was  to  confound  him  with  a  sense  of  utter  self- 
condeniiiatiun.  And  this  self-condemnation  was 
but  the  perception  of  an  awfully  real  fact — the 
wrath  of  God  revealed  in  all  its  fearful  intensity, 
not  caly  upon  the  careless  Gentile,  but  upon  the 

iirivileged  Jew,  whose  privilege  (none  the  less  real 
lecause  of  his  apostasy,  3'"")  only  heightened  his 
personal  guilt.  But  God's  dealings  with  men,  His 
Belf-revealed  character,  had  not  only  led  men  to 
fear  His  holiness,  but  had  also  from  the  first  led 
men  to  look  upon  Him  as  a  Saviour.  His  long 
series  of  mercies  to  His  people  had  led  them  to 
look  forward  to  something  in  the  future,  some 
deliverance  more  final,  more  complete,  more  mar- 
vellous, than  His  mighty  works  of  old.  God  was 
^lLdged  to  redeem,  and  God  was  righteous  (see 
jclow,  §  vi.  (I)).  The  OT  revelation  had  led  men 
to  hold  to  the  righteousness  of  God  as  containing 


r,: 


the  promise  of  salvation ;  the  "ospel  declares  it 
as  an  accomplished  tact.  And  the  universality  of 
the  wrath  ot  God  before  Christ  only  brings  out 
that  redemption,  when  it  came,  was  the  .sole  out- 
come of  the  righteousness  of  God,  and  not  in  any 
degree  the  achievement  of  man.  God's  righteous- 
ness has  as  its  correlative  the/ac<  of  Redemption. 
The  redeeming  work  of  Christ,  then,  wherein  God 
appears  as  '  righteous  and  making  righteous  '  (3^), 
humbles  man  even  more  completely  than  did  the 
antecedent  revelation  of  wrath  —  their  boast  is 
shut  out,  not  (only)  by  a  law  of  works,  but  (even 
more  completely)  by  a  law  of  faith.  The  privilege 
of  the  Israelite  has  no  place  in  the  sight  ot  God. 

And  this  strange  result,  so  far  from  revoking  the 
word  of  God  in  the  OT,  is  really  its  fullilment. 
This  gospel  of  faith,  this  levelling  of  privilege,  was 
preached  before  the  Law,  before  any  characteristic 
institute  of  Judaism  was  ordained.  The  whole 
story  of  Abraham — the  boasted  father  of  Jewish 
privilege — makes  this  clear  (ch.  4).  'Well,  then, 
my  readers,'  the  apostle  concludes,  '  let  us  all  make 
this  gift  of  God  our  own'  (see  Beet  on  Ixoi/J-^y,  5'). 
Peace  with  God  is  ours,  founded  on  the  certainty 
of  God's  love  for  us— a  certainty  created  in  our 
hearts  by  the  Spirit  of  God  Himself,  but  no  mere 
subjective  certainty ;  for  actual  recorded  fact 
speaks  plainly  to  us  of  that  love — a  love  transcend- 
ing all  probable  limits  of  human  devotion.  We 
can  trust  God  to  complete  what  He  has  begun, 
and  live  in  joyful  hope,  however  the  appearances 
of  life  are  against  us. 

True,  the  experience  of  history,  so  far,  has  been 
that  of  a  world-wide  heritage  of  death  and  sin. 
But  the  act  of  weakness  m  liich  bequeathed  that 
heritage  to  man  has  now  been  superseded  by  an 
act  of  Divine  power  fraught  with  the  promise  of 
Righteousness  and  Life  to  all  who  receive  the 
abundance  of  its  grace  (.i"'"). 

In  this  great  twofold  division  of  human  history, 
how  subordinate  a  part  was  played  by  Law  !  It 
forms  the  last  episode  of  tlie  heritage  of  death, 
aggravating  the  disease  in  order  to  intensify  man's 
want  of  the  Remedy  (5-"). 

St.  Paul  has  done  half  his  work,  and  what  he 
has  done  is  '  more  than  half  of  the  whole.'  He 
has  shown  that  the  wall  of  sin  no  longer  shuts  out 
the  soul  from  (!od,  that  access  to  God  is  ours,  that 
the  Christian  Life  is  made  possible. 

But  it  remains  for  liiin  to  place  the  Christian 
Life  itself  before  our  eyes,  and  this  he  does  in  the 
second  great  section.  And,  first  of  all,  he  takes  it 
in  the  concrete  (ch.  6).  The  twofold  question, 
'Shall  we  sin?'  (vv.'"'")  at  first  sight  answers 
itself— no  one  would  say  that  the  Christian  is  to 
sin.  But  the  weight  of  the  question  re.ally  turns 
on  the  reason  why  ?  These  cliapters  (6-8)  give  us 
the  fundamental  principles  of  Christian  ethics. 
And,  first  of  all,  he  shows  us  that  '  I  he  grace 
wherein  we  stand,'  which  he  has  hitlierto  viewed 
negatively  as  Justification,  i.e.  forgiven e.ss  of  sin, 
is  on  its  positive  side  union  with  Christ.  If  we 
were  united  to  Him  by  Baptism,  the  rite  resembling 
His  Death,  we  shall  further  be  united  with  Him 
by  something  corresponding  to  His  Resurrection, 
viz.  a  new  vital  energy — Kaivl>Ti)Ti  i'uijt ;  only,  we 
must  realize  this — allow  the  new  life  of  Christ  to 
wield  our  limbs.  For  we  are  no  longer  under  an 
external  compulsion,  but  instinctwith  an  indwelling 
I'orce— 'not  under  law,  but  under  grace.' 

Our  obedience  to  the  will  of  God  will  be  not  less 
complete  for  this  rea.son, — hut  far  vmrc.  '  If,' he 
continues,  'you  seem  to  take  what  I  have  said  as 
a  paradox,  I  will  make  my  mcanin"  plain  by  an 
unworthy  metaphor.  You  hnve  to  choose  between 
slavery  and  slavery — nay,  >oii  have  made  your 
choice — you  have  renounced  slavery  to  sin.  WelL 
then,   you   are  slaves  of  righteousness,  slaves  oi 


300      ROMANS,  EPISTLE  TO  THE 


KOMANS,  EPISTLE  TO  THE 


God:  you  cannot,  if  you  look  back  on  the  past, 
repent  your  choice.  You  are  dead  in  Christ,  and 
Avhen  a  person  dies,  lie  passes  out  of  the  control  of 
law.  You  then,  in  dying  with  Christ,  died  to  the 
law,  and  are  alive  to  Christ  alone '  (G''^-;-'). 

St.  Paul  passes  from  the  concrete  picture  of  the 
Christian  life  to  the  consideration  of  the  forces 
which  are  at  work  in  it  (T'-S).  He  employs  the 
method  of  difference,  comparing  the  pre-Christian 
life  at  its  very  best,  i.e.  as  lived  under  Divine  law, 
^vith  the  Christian  life  ;  the  old  life  under  the  letter 
with  the  new  life  in  the  Spirit.  This  contrast 
is  tersely  stated  in  7=-«,  then  life  under  law  is 
characterized  in  7'"^,  and  life  in  the  Spirit  in  ch.  8. 
In  S'-''-  the  question  asked  in  6',  so  far  as  it  needs 
an  explicit  answer,  is  formally  answered. 

The  connexion  of  9-11  with  the  general  argument 
of  the  Epistle  may  be  best  seen  if  we  consider  how 
thev  are  anticipated  in  3>-8.     That  this  is  so  can  bo 
readily   proved.      The   Rejection  of   Israel,  then, 
was  a  fact  which  apparently  collided  mth  the  main 
thou-ht  of  the  first  section— the  Righteousness  of 
God      The  Righteousness  of  God  was  apparently, 
to  St    Paul,  above  all  God's  consistency  with,  or 
truth    to.   His    revealed   character  and    j>urpose. 
And  the  absolute  levelling  of  Jew  and  Gentile— 
especially  the  levelling   doion  of  the  Jew  to  the 
position  of  the  Gentile  as  the  object  of  God  9  wTath 
—had  the  look  of  a  revocation  of  express  promise, 
the  going  back  upon  God's  own  covenant.     \V  as, 
then,  God  a  '  covenant- breaker '  l—iJ-v  yivoiTo.     Yet 
to  St.  Paul  the  difficulty  was  a  very  real  one,  and 
had  to  be  explained.     His  fundamental  explana- 
tion is  found  in  9'*--*  and  Ip-^"— viz.  that  the  proper 
party  to  the  Divine  covenant,  the  true  heir  to  the 
Promises,    is  not   Israel  after  the  flesh,  but  the 
believing  few— or,  rather,  all  who  by  their  faith 
i.rove  themselves  true  sons  and  heirs  of  Abrahsim 
see  ch.  4),  and  tluit  this  has  been  made  plain  by 
(Jod  all  along.     But  there  is  the  equally  iniportant 
thought  that  the  calling  in  of  all  nations- without 
which  the  Divine  promises  from  Abraham  down- 
wards would  not  be  satisfied,  nor  the  Truth  of  God 
really  maintained  —  would  have  been   impossible 
but  for  the  rejection  of  the  Jews.     '  By  their  fall, 
salvation    liad    come   to   the  Gentiles,'    their    un- 
ri-htcousness  had  established  the  Righteousness  of 
God  (3°)      This  is  the  great  paradox  of  the  third 
section.     Still,  even  with  St.  Paul,  rb  <rv,-r€>'{t  to. 
Sfixiv,  V  e'  6^una,  blood  is  thicker  than  water,  and 
he  will  not  .surrender  tlie  hope   of  the   ultimate 
conversion  of  the  apostate  people,  con.secrated  as 
they   are   by   the  root  whence   they  had  sprung 

(11""^-). 

Tlie  argument  therefore  falls  into  tlie  following 

tabular  scheme : — 

I.   EpiSTOLART  ISTRODrCTIOS,  1"».      _  .  .,  , 

A.  THK  SAl.rTATI".\  <}').— .  The  writer,  his  (rospel 
and  apostlcship  (i-6);  ^.  the  readers  C)l  y-  ">« 

B    TllF.    KoVaXS.    AXD    TBE    apostles   DE^illtJl    TO 

VRKACU  TO  rnsu  (*!'> 
U.  Doctbisai.Part(1'«-11). 

A    TIIEOLOi:roFSil.VATIO.v(lt»-8). 

a.  r/ieoioTOo/Acrfemp(i(m(U«-l!). 
Preamble  (1101'). 
n)  The  Wrath  of  Uod  (li&-3a>). 

All,  Gentiles  (li»32)  and  Jew»  (8I-8»), 
alike  (3>''«)  under  the  wrath  o(  Ood 
against  sin,  and  in  need  of  redemp- 
tion ;  ('ill"  lay  do«Ti  a  ceneral  priii- 
ciple,  preparing  for  the  direct  attack 
(17  2y)  tipon  Jewish  self-esteem). 
(nThe  Rightwiiinnesa  of  Ood  (bringing  re- 
demption to  all)  (Sa-621).  ^ 

•  The     fa.;t     of     Redemption    (S^l ») 
(vv.avM.    Sianificance   qf  the  Death 
0/  ChriM). 
a.  All  men  on  an  equality  In  view  of 

this  fact  (S"«>).  ,^      ,^ 

»  The     Righteousness   of    Faith   older 

than  that  of  Uw  (3S1-1»). 
>.  The  Kighteousucss  of  Faith  the  basil 
of  Certitude  and  Hope  (Bl"X 


1.  Conilnsion.    The  work  of  Christ  il 
contrast    with    the  failure    of  Adiim 
(o''"'). 
bb  Theolnni/  i<f  the  Christian  Life  (61-S3'). 

(1)  Synthetic  treatment.    The  Christian  and 
the  pre-Christian  life  contrasted  as— 
».  Life  and  death  (61 1-"). 
a.  .Sin  and  righteousness  (eis-i^X^  „  ,  ,., 
y.  Law  and  grace  (or  letter  and  Spirit] 
(fill  7i-«). 
P)  Analytic  treatment ("•'►»*);  the  factors  (01 
psychology)  of  the  Christian  life. 
i.  Under    Law :    flesh,    wiU,    intellect 

(70.  7-25), 

^.  Under  Grace  :  spirit,  and  the  Spirit  0« 

God  (76  H). 
The  SnuiT  of  Sonship  in  Christ 
creates  (  Obedieme  to  Cod's  Will  (8i-">. 
in  us    \  Certitude  and  Hope  (Sis"). 
B.  THEOLOOYOF  i/ /.STOW r  (SHI  ;  of.  31"). 

(The  character  of  God  as  shown  in  the  history  of  tn« 

People  of  God).  . 
The  problem  of  the  rejection  ot  Israel  (a'-")  con- 
sidered in  relation  to ..aoox 

ft.  The  Past  (the  promise  of  God) (QSra). 

(l)The  promise  to  Israel  was  never,  from 
the  first,  tied  to  fleshly  descent  (713),  but 
freedom  was  expressly  reserved  to  God 
(!■"»).  .,. 

(2)  This  freedom  vindicated— «.  a  priori 
(1U.21)  aiid,3.  apos(iTi«ri(22-*');  what  has 
happened  is  the  fulfilment  of  God's  word 
in  prophecy  (■•»-2»).  ......^    . 

bk  The  Frenent  (9'«-10'ii),  the  responsibihty  01 
the  rejected. 

(l)The actual  error  of  Israel  (^^'-It^;, „.,- 
CD  Their  error  analyzed  and  defined  (10!>-"). 

(3)  Its  inexcusable  nature  shown  (lui.''-ii). 
e.  The  Future  (U"'^).    The  Rejection  of  IsraeL 

(1)  Only  partial  (lll-l»). 

(2)  Onlv  temporary  (1111-32). 

DoQcolotjy.  closing  part  II.  B.  and  the  doctrinal 
portion  of  the  Kpistle  (1133-36). 
nL  Practical  Pari.  „  ««  ,«, 

A.  GEXEKAL  SOCIAL  AND  MORAL  DVTrESO-i.  IS). 

a.  /'radical  Chrintian  Conduct  (121-21). 

b.  The  Christian  and  the  Ciml  Power (\»t}. 

c.  The  L,iw  0/ Love  (.IS'^^O). 

d.  The  A,,proaeh  of  the  Day  (13"-").      „„„„^„ 

B.  MUTCAL    DUTIES  OP    SECTIO.VS  l.V    TBE    CBUSCB 

(141-1513).  ,  ^^ 

a.  The  Strong  and  the  Weak  (I*'-™). 

b.  Gentiles  ami  Jens  (151-l;'). 
IV.   EP18T01.ART  CO.SCU-SION  (l.ll-l   ll".'^. 

&.  The  Aptislleand  hisreaders(\i'*-^).    _ 

b.  The  A.j-.«.  and  the  .-i/mstU's  appioadiing  meit 

toJemsalcin(i:i-^')  ,   ,   .. 

a  /n(rn(f«cfi'-.i> ../  ri,ui,e  (101- «),  and  salulalwnt 

to  indiriduals  (3  ■'*). 

d.  Final  warnings  (i'-'-"')  and  benediction. 

e.  Salutations  from  i  lulivuluaU  landbmedictum 

inmani/  MSS]C^''»). 
t.  Final  Doxukujy  pa  ■-JT). 

V  Importance  of  the  Epistle.— It  is  evident 
that  we  have  here,  not  exactly  a  systematic 
treatise  on  Christian  doctrine,  but  a  letter,  held 
to-rether  in  all  its  parts  by  a  central  idea,  the 
working  out  of  which  in  its  presuppositions  and 
aiiplications  is  the  essential  purpose  of  the  whole. 
This  central  idea  is  to  be  sought  for  in  connexion 
with  what  the  apostle  calls  (S"  16")  'my  gospel 
(cf.  I'"').  This  expression,  understood  in  the  li^'lit 
of  Gal  V,  points  to  more  than  a  mere  subdivision 
of  labour  between  the  apostles.  Not  merely  the 
well-being,  but  the  very  existence  of  non-Jewish 
Christianity  depended  upon  the  gospel  s^«<;i-illy 
entrusted  to  St.  Paul  (compare  Ph  S^"  with  Gal  2-'=). 
The  "ospel  of  the  uncircumcision,  St.  Paul  s  gospel 
(Ro  fe*  Eph  3'  '''),  meant  the  levelling  of  Jewish 
privilege  and  selfrigliteousness  (Ro  10*  3*-),  and 
this  rested  upon  the  principle  of  faith  as  the  sole 
ground  of  righteousness  in  the  sight  of  God  (J-  • 
read7<ip,  4i»et<;.).  ,  .  ..     r  n 

If  this  view  is  correct,- and  it  seems  to  follow 
directly  from  St.  Paul's  own  language,- it  at 
once  places  Romans  in  a  fundamental  position 
anion"  our  materials  for  a  Pauline  theology, 
and  marks  the  earlier  chapters  as  fundamental  in 
comparison  with  the  rest  of  the  Epistle.  To  take 
the  latter  point  first :  it  was  a  too  external  new 
of  the  Epistle  which  led  Baur  to  see  its  primary 
purpose  in  the  subject  of  chs.  9-11.     Near  to  the 


ROMANS,  EPISTLE  TO  THE 


ROMANS,  EPISTLE  TO  THE      301 


Apostle's  heart  (0")  as  that  subject  was,  it  belongs 
to  the  historical  application  of  the  fundamental 
idea  of  the  Epistle  rather  than  to  the  libre  and 
substance  of  that  idea  itself.  Tlie  ideal  relation 
between  God  and  man  holds  good  prior  to  any 
particular  course  which  in  God's  piovidence  the 
religious  history  of  the  world  may  have  followed. 
Had  the  Jews  never  enjoyed  the  position  of  a 
chosen  people,  the  fumlamental  facts  of  human 
nature  in  relation  to  God  would  have  been  the 
same.  The  Law  came  in  as  a  secondary  factor 
(.3^),  and  the  historical  relations  of  Jew  and 
Gentile,  the  apostiy^y  of  the  Jews,  belong  to  the 
sphere  not  of  eternal  realities,  but  of  the  contin- 
gent. Therefore  the  tirst  eight  chapters  accomplish 
St.  Paul's  primary  purpose ;  the  next  three  round 
ott'  his  fundamental  thought  by  vindicating  it  in 
the  light  of  religious  history.  And  of  the  lirst 
eight  chapters,  clearly  those  (6-8)  which  deal  with 
the  principles  of  the  Christian  life  presuppose  and 
are  governed  by  those  which  treat  of  man  s  funda- 
mental relation  to  God  (1-5).  These  chapters, 
then,  which  are  directed  to  convincing  all  Chris- 
tians, especially  those  of  Jewish  habits  of  thought, 
that  man  cannot  become  righteous  by  means  of 
law,  but  only  by  faith,  are  the  central  portion  of 
the  Epistle,  and  it  is  there  that  its  main  purpose 
is  to  be  found.  St.  Paul's  main  purpose  was, 
then,  to  commend  '  his  gospel,'  the  prmciple  of  the 
righteousness  of  faith,  to  the  Christians  of  Rome. 
But  if  so,  it  is  a  letter,  not  a  treatise  in  the  full 
sense  of  the  word.  So  far  from  being  meant  as  a 
compendium  of  Christian  doctrine,  it  is  not  written 
with  special  reference  to  what  was  common  to  St. 
Paul  and  the  older  apostles  (1  Co  15")-  This  the 
Romans  already  know,  and  it  is  taken  for  granted 
(16"  6").  The  apostle  writes  not  to  controvert, 
nor  even  to  reconstruct  rfe  novo,  but  to  complete 
(1").  St.  Paul's  gospel  was  but  the  exiilicit  for- 
mulation of  what  was  implied  in  the  go:-pel  as 
preached  by  all,  and  from  the  first.  If  Christ,  as 
all  taught  and  all  believed,  had  died  not  in  vain, 
then  righteousness  did  not  come  tlirough  Law  (cf. 
Gal  2-').  It  need  not,  thi-n,  surprise  us  that  the 
enunciation  ex  professo  of  the  specihcally  Pauline 
doctrines  is  almost  conlined  to  the  Epistles  of  this 
group.  In  the  earlier  Epistles  to  the  Thessa- 
lonians,  St.  Paul  is  at  a  simpler  stage  of  his 
teaching.  To  the  recent  converts  of  Macedonia, 
temper.'ince,  righteousness,  and  the  judgment  that 
wa.s  to  come  (Ac  24'-^)  supi)ly  the  natural  heads  of 
instruction.  In  Philippians  we  catch  the  last 
echoes  of  the  great  controversy ;  in  Ephesians, 
Colossians,  Philemon,  and  still  more  in  Timothy 
and  Titus,  new  circumstances  call  forth  dill'erent 
categories  of  doctrine.  But  throughout,  the  prin- 
ciples of  Romans  and  Galatians  are  presupi)Oscd 
and  are  fundamental.  Lastly,  as  compared  with 
Galatians  itself,  our  Epistle  is  primary.  Galatians 
(see  al)Ove,  §  iii.  6)  is  addressed  at  a  special  jisycho- 
logical  moment.  Its  argument  from  the  priority 
in  tnne  of  the  covenant  of  faith  reappears,  identical 
in  substance,  tmt  in  more  extended  elaboration,  in 
Ho  4.  But  the  eternal  [jrinciple  which  underlies 
this  historical  argument  is  worked  out  in  Romans 
with  a  wider  outlook  and  a  deeper  foundaticm  in 
human  nature.  The  Gentile  world  is  included  in 
the  arraignment  of  human  helplessness  before  God. 
The  history  is  carried  back  from  Abraham  to 
Adam  ;  the  justihcation  of  man  is  put  into  relation 
with  the  righteousness  of  God,  the  inability  (8') 
of  the  Law  to  save  is  grounded  upon  a  searching 
psychological  analysis  of  its  exact  elVect  (Ro  7°", 
cf.  Gal  3"),  and  the  contrasted  moral  renovation 
ellected  by  the  Spirit  (Gal  .')""'•)  is  described  at 
length  and  put  into  relation  with  a  comprehensive 
and  sublime  view  of  the  meaning  and  destiny  of 
creation.     No  doubt,  the  root-ideas  of  Romans  are 


those  of  Galatians ;  but  in  the  latter  Epistle  St 
Paul  is  dealing  with  the  controversy  of  the  hour, 
in  Romans  he  is  dealing  with  human  nature  itself, 
and  with  the  fundamental  and  universal  relation? 
of  man  as  man  to  God  as  (;o<l,  as  conditioned  by 
the  central  fact  of  history — the  Person  and  work 
of  Christ.  Our  Epistle,  then,  is  the  ripe  fruit  of 
St.  Paul's  distinctive  mission  as  a  master-builder 
(1  Co  S'")  in  the  formation  of  the  Church.  In 
chs.  1-5,  where  he  speaks  as  a  Jew  to  Jews,  we 
see  .Judaism  led  out  of  itself  by  the  gospel,  but  by 
its  own  methods  and  from  its  own  premises.  This 
is  a  re-statement,  but  on  a  broader  basis,  of  the 
position  of  Galatians.  Then  in  chs.  6-8,  speak- 
ing as  a  Christian  to  Christians,  he  brings  out 
the  contrast  between  law  (and  (Icsh)  and  grace 
(and  spirit)  as  the  respective  sjilieies  of  the  old 
and  the  new  life.  Here  the  Jewish  point  of  view, 
its  legalism  and  nationalism,  are  left  far  behind, 
and  tile  ethical  categories  of  the  OT  (even  in  theii 
truest  signihcance)  have  given  place  to  those  of  the 
New  (comp.are  the  deepened  sense  of  the  terms 
'spirit'  and  'flesh,'  below,  §  vi.),  the  obedience  of 
slaves  to  that  of  sons,  the  natural  man  to  the 
spiritual ;  propitiation  for  sin  issues  in  the  destruc- 
tion of  its  power  (8'°^-),  the  satisfaction  of  Law  by 
Christ  in  its  supersession  as  a  factor  in  the  spiritual 
life. 

\-i.  Theology  and  charactkristic  Ideas.  — 
An  article  like  the  present  neither  requires  nor 
permits  a  full  discussion  of  these  ;  but  it  would  be 
incomplete  without  a  brief  enumeration  of  the 
principal  characteristic  conceptions  of  the  Epistle. 

1.  Kor  his  riincrption  of  God,  St.  Paul  is  depen- 
dent on  the  Old  Testament.  In  other  words,  he 
does  not  so  much  analyze  the  idea  of  God  as  the 
absolute  or  perfect  Being,  as  insist  upon  the  char- 
acter of  Gocl  as  it  has  entered  into  human  experi- 
ence in  the  course  of  God's  dealings  with  men. 
This  has  been  the  case  in  two  main  waj's.  On  the 
one  hand,  God  has  revealed  Himself  to  man  througii 
nature  (l'-"^-)  and  conscience  (ii"'-).  'His  eternal 
power  and  divineness'  and  the  doom  due  to  sin  are 
made  known  to  man  apart  from  direct  revelation, 
and  moral  apostasy  is  therefore  without  excuse. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  will  (2'")  and  character 
of  God  have  been  specially  revealed,  and  Divine 
promises  have  been  given,  to  a  particular  nation 
entrusted  with  His 'oracles' (9'"^- 3').  Both  Jew  and 
Gentile,  in  their  several  ways,  have  the  terrible 
knowledge,  antecedent  to  Christ,  of  the  wrath  of 
God  (!'*).  This  conception  is  with  St.  Paul  pri- 
marily esrfiatolofjicnl  (see  Sanday-Headlam,  in  lor., 
and  on  5"),  hut  the  certainty  of  its  unveiling  in 
the  '  day  of  wrath  '  (2')  is  a,  present  certainty.  The 
wrath  of  God  in  our  E])istle  is  the  category  which 
includes  the  sternly  retributive  attitude  of  God 
towards  sin.  His  dtKaioKpurla  (2').  It  stands  in  the 
closest  relation  to  the  OT  conception  of  the  Divine 
Holiness  (see  Expositor,  March  1899,  p.  193).  If 
the  Divine  wrath  is  an  experience  common  to 
Jew  and  Gentile  alike,  the  Divine  Riohtkousnkss 
(see  the  two  artt.  on  this  subject)  is  one  specilically 
related  to  revealed  religion.  This  is,  of  course, 
tnie  on  the  view  very  commonly  taken  of  the 
phrase  Sikmoitvi'-ij  0eo!)  in  1"  and  other  passages  of 
the  Epistle,  viz.  that  it  denotes,  not  an  attribute 
of  God  Himself,  l)ut  a  righteousness  which  man 
derives  from  God  as  its  source.  This  view,  which 
has  influenced  the  RV  of  1",  supplies  an  idea  so 
obviously  necessary  to  St.  Paul's  contrast  between 
the  false  righteousness  and  the  true  (10'  etc.),  and 
is  in  such  clo.se  correspondence  with  his  language 
in  2  Co  5",  Ph  3"  etc.,  that  it  must,  in  some  way 
or  other,  be  included  in  any  satisfactory  explana- 
tion of  the  phrase  in  1"  and  cognate  passages. 
But  there  is  a  marked  tendency  in  many  quarters 
to  go  hack  to  the  sense  suggested  by  the  parallelism 


302      ROMANS,  EPISTLE  TO  THE 


EOMANS,  EPISTLE  TO  THE 


of  Sivafus  $eoO  and  SiK.  Seov  in  l'"'"  as  the  primary 
one,  and  to  reoojjnize  the  antithesis  between  the 
wratli  of  God  as  the  '  revelation '  antecedent  to  the 
gospel,  and  the  '  righteousness  of  God '  as  the 
specific  revelation  of  the  gospel  itself.  The  main 
objection  to  this  is  the  presupposition  that  by  God's 
'  righteousness '  must  be  meant  His  stern  retribu- 
tive justice,  i.e.  His  anger  against  sin.  The  result 
of  an  examination  of  the  use  of  the  conception  of 
God's  righteousness  in  the  Old  Testament  is,  how- 
ever, adverse  to  this  presupposition.  The  subject 
is  siih  judice,  and  it  is  beyond  the  province  of  this 
article  to  attempt  to  decide  it  (see  above,  §  iv.  ; 
Sanday-Headlam,  p.  24 fl";  Expos.,  March  189.3, 
p.  187  fl'.  ;  Haring,  StK.  6.  bei  Paulus,  Tiibingen, 
1896 ;  Beck  in  Nate  Jahrb.f.  deutsche  T/ceol.  1895, 
p.  249  ft".;  Kblbing  in  SK,  1S95,  p.  7ff.  Haring, 
p.  14  fl'.,  tabulates  the  i)rincipal  alternative  views). 
There  is,  at  any  rate  in  this  Epistle,  the  closest 
correlation  between  the  righteousness  of  God  and 
the  justification  of  the  believer  in  Christ  (3^). 

A  similar  correlation  exists  between  the  final 
Balvation  of  man  and  the  Glory  of  God.  By  this 
expression  St.  Paul  sometimes  means  the  honour 
due  to  God  from  His  creatures  (1  Co  10",  Ro  IG^') ; 
but  there  is  a  sense,  specially  characteristic  of  our 
Epistle,  in  which  it  denotes  the  supreme  destiny 
of^  man,  realized  in  the  ultimate  salvation  of  the 
redeemed  (3'^  9^,  cf.  8'»- »'•*').  The  idea  of  the 
word  5(5|a  here  seems  to  be  the  positive  counter- 
part of  the  more  negative  airoK6.\v\j/is.  The  latter 
suggests  the  removal  of  something  which  hides, 
the  former  the  shining  forth  of  the  thing  previ- 
ously hidden  in  all  its  sublime  reality.  Relativelj-, 
this  is  seen  in  any  signal  display  of  Divine  power, 
e.g.  in  the  resurrection  of  Christ  (6*).  Absolutely, 
it  is  reserved  for  the  consummation  of  all  things, 
when  the  kingdom  of  God  shall  appear  in  its  per- 
fection, and  the  righteous  shall  shine  forth  in  it 
as  the  sun.  In  this  connexion  the  Divine  PRK- 
DESTINATION  must  be  taken  into  account.  In  9^, 
though  the  general  context  relates  more  especially 
to  the  Divine  predestination  of  men  to funHion, 
i.e.  to  the  several  parts  they  play  in  the  providen- 
tially ordered  course  of  history,  there  is  in  the 
immediate  context  unquestioned  reference  to  those 
whom  God  has  prepared  for  glory  (see  above),  in 
contrast  to  those  who  are  '  made  ready'  (it  is  not 
said  'by  God  Himself ')  for  destruction.  There  is 
neither  here  nor  elsewhere  in  the  Epistle  any- 
thing said  of  the  'double  predestination.'  But 
the  predestination  of  the  saints  is  clearly  laid  down 
in  S-'"".  Only,  in  the  latter  passage /ore/;>?ojo- 
ledge  precedes  predestination.  On  the  whole,  whUe 
frankly  recognizing  the  predestinarian  language 
used,  we  must  also  recognize  its  limitations.  The 
apostle  does  not  appear  to  be  giving  expression 
to  a  systematized  scheme  of  thought  on  the  subject. 

The  will  of  God/or  mffl»'«  cemrf«c<  enters  into  man's 
experience  in  the  form  of  Law.  In  the  generic 
sense,  the  term  is  applicable  to  any  authoritative 
principle  of  action  normally  issuing  in  human 
obedience  (8^,  cf.  3^,  1  Co  92>).  Such  obedience 
may,  however,  be  the  response  either  to  an  en- 
abhng  principle  working  from  within  (see  passages 
just  quoted,  and  S'*"-)!  or  to  a  summons  confront- 
ing man  from  without.  In  this,  the  characteristic 
sense  of  »6//os  in  our  Epistle,  law  is  a  factor  in 
the  moral  life  fitted  to  acquaint  the  intellect  with 
the  Divine  standard  of  conduct  (7*°  and  previous 
context),  but  incapable  (dSwaroi',  8')  of  bringing  the 
life  of  man  into  harmony  with  its  precepts.  This 
result,  due  to  the  conaitions  of  human  nature 
(below,  2)  is  the  more  apparent  the  mon'  fixed  and 
definite  the  form  in  which  law  is  promulgated. 
This  appears  to  be  the  meaning  of  '  the  letter ' 
[ypiiifui.),  in  which  the  full  moral  rifect  of  law  is 
seen  (7^  cf.  2  Co  3«,  1  Co  15",  Ro  S"  4"  S=»  7',  Gal 


3"").  This  was  above  all  true  of  the  one  law  which 
had  conveyed  to  man  in  inexorable  fixity  and 
dellniteness  the  Divine  standard  of  action,  the 
Jewish  law,  o  vbixo^.  The  denotative  force  of  the 
definite  art.  depends  upon  its  context.  In  most 
cases,  'the  law'  in  question  is  the  Jewish  law  ;  on 
the  other  hand,  the  anarthrous  viiio^  may  well  be 
used  of  the  Jewish  law,  either  as  a  law  or  as 
representing  the  principle  of  law,  or  as  a  quasi- 
proper  name  (probably  7',  possibly  3^' etc.).  See, 
further,  art.  Law  (in  NT).  The  Christian  is 
ideally  free  from  'law'  as  an  external  principle 
(6^*),  but  to  be  imb  x^P^^  ^^  to  be  ^vvofios  Xptorou 
{ 1  Co  9-',  cf.  Ro  8^,  see  below,  2  ;  on  the  whole  sub- 
ject, cf.  Gittbrd,  p.  41  ft.). 

In  connexion  with  the  doctrine  of  God,  we  must, 
lastlj',  note  the  bearing  of  the  Epistle  on  the  theo- 
logy of  t/>^  Person  and  Work  of  Christ.  Neither 
are  treated  of  ex  profcsso.  But  in  1*- '  and  9°  we 
have  the  contrast  between  what  Christ  was,  kotA 
ffdpKa,  and  His  higher  nature  as  Son  of  God  (P) 
and  as  actuaUy  God  (9').  The  diliiculty  of  the 
former  passage  is  in  the  exact  interpretation  of 
Kara  irv^vfia  ayi<tjff6injs  (see  Gifiord  and  Sanday- 
Headlam,  in  loe.).  In  the  latter  there  is  a  still 
more  difficult  question  of  punctuation  (see  the 
Commentaries,  also  Ezra  Abbot,  Critical  Essays, 
and  Hort's  critical  note,  in  loc).  On  the  whole,  the 
punctuation  assumed  just  above  appears  distinctly 
the  more  probable.  The  principle,  moreover,  of 
T^Xos  vd/iov  Xpio-ris  (10^),  and  Christ  as  an  object  of 
Faith  (1'  SoCXos  'Ii/o-.  Xp.,  contrast  1  Co  7^),  and  10" 
which  identifies  Christ  (by  the  context)  with  mn', 
make  decisively  in  the  same  doctrinal  direction. 
(On  8^  see  below,  2). 

On  the  Atonement,  3^- ''*  is  a  classical  passage,  but 
it  leaves  open  most  of  the  ditticult  questions  which 
attend  the  theology  of  that  mysterious  subject. 
The  reader  must  consult  the  admirable  excursus 
of  Sanday  -  Headlam  on  the  subject,  Lightfoot's 
notes,  and  the  discussion  of  the  passage  in  R.  W. 
Dale,  The  Atonement.  The  key  to  the  meaning  is 
to  be  found  in  the  words  IXoffriJpiov  .  .  .  iv  t<}  atfian 
avTov,  rather  than  in  the  (vdetin  t^s  SiitaiocrwTjs 
aiVoO,  which,  taken  by  itself,  would  hardly  compel 
us  to  go  beyond  the  thought  of  punishment  as  a 
vindication  of  God's  moral  government,  which  by 
no  means  exhausts  the  significance  of  the  Atone- 
ment. The  doctrine  is  emphasized,  but  not  ex- 
plained, in  5^"'". 

2.  St.  Paul's  doctrine  of  man  is  formulated  in  OT 
categories,  but  enlarged  and  deepened  by  his  out- 
look upon  life  and  history,  and  by  his  personal 
experience  as  a  Jew  and  as  a  '  slave  of  Christ ' 
(Ro  1').  His  comprehensive  formula  for  human 
nature  is  'flesh' — 'all  flesh'  (cf.  1  Co  3'  df0puTroi  = 
(ripKivoi).  From  the  time  of  Theodore  of  Mopsues- 
tia  to  our  own  day  the  moral  colour  of  St.  Paul's 
conception  of  adp^  bas  been  matter  of  keen  debate. 
The  close  relation  between  flesh  and  sin  in  his 
theology  is  obvious.  But  to  make  the  connexion 
essential,  is  to  mistake  the  entire  meaning  of  the 
apostle.  In  Ro  8'  we  have  the  crucial  passage. 
What  the  law  could  not  do — namely,  liberate  man 
from  the  law  of  sin — God  did  by  sending  His  iwn 
Son,  and  in  Him  condemning  sin  '  in  the  flesh.' 
That  is,  sin  was,  by  the  mere  fact  (ir^/i^as)  of  the 
coming  of  Christ,  shown  to  be  a  usurper  in  human 
nature.  This  was  ellected  by  the  Son  of  God 
coming  '  in  the  likeness  of  sinful  flesh ' — iv  iiioiw/Mn 
ffapKit  aimprlat.  '  Sinful  flesh '  is  the  universal 
condition  in  which  our  common  humanity  drawt 
its  first  breath  (5'*).  Christ  did  not  enter  into 
this  condition,  but  into  its  '  likeness.'  The  «n- 
likeness  certainly  did  not  consist  in  'the  fle.sh' 
(1»  9»)  which  Christ  took  in  reality,  not  in  mere 
likeness.  St.  Paul  could  not  have  written  iv  ifwiii- 
liari  aapK&s.      But  neither  did  he  write   iv  <rapd 


ROMANS,  EPISTLE  TO  THE 


ROMAN'S,  EPISTLE  TO  THE      303 


itrnprias,  which  he  should  have  done  had  sin  been 
to  him  part  of  the  very  meaning  of  '  flesh '  (see 
Gill'ord's  admirable  discussion,  Iiitrud.  p.  52,  and 
in  loc).  His  language  expresses  with  consum- 
mate accuracy  the  thought  that  Christ  '  by  taking 
our  flesh  ma<le  it  sinless'  (TertuU.),  and  so  broke 
the  empire  over  human  natvire  usurped  by  sin. 
Flesh,  in  fact,  has  with  St.  Paul  a  phj'sical  (adpKiyo^) 
and  a  moral  {<rapKiK6i)  sense.  In  the  former  sense, 
as  long  as  this  life  lasts  we  are  iy  aapKl  (Gal  2**), 
in  the  '  mortal  body '  (Ro  6'=  8").  But  ideally  the 
Christian  has  left  the  flesh  a.s  the  sphere  of  his 
moral  life  behind  (Ro  7'  8").  But  in  the  pre-Chris- 
tian, and  even  in  the  imperfectly  Christian  life,  the 
ffdpKtvot  is  inevitably  cro/)/«ic6s  (Ko  7'*,  1  Co  3'"-). 
This  is  carried  back  by  him  to  a  historic  beginning 
in  the  one  sin  of  one  man  (5"-  "■"),  which  left 
human  nature  under  the  reign  of  death  and  sin. 
Unque.stionably,  actual  disobedience  is  to  St.  Paul 
far  graver  than  passive  or  congenital  sin.  Before 
sin  becomes  a  fact  of  experience,  the  individual  is, 
comparatively  speaking,  'alive'  (7*).  But  guilt 
in  some  sense  is  there  already  (5"),  and  rebellion  is 
there,  thougli  latent  and  '  dead '  (7*''),  and  it  needs 
hut  the  first  shock  of  prohibition  to  'revive'  (v.'). 
Under  the  most  favourable  conditions  of  enlighten- 
ment, with  the  law  of  God  to  guide  it,  and  with 
complete  mental  assent  to  and  enthusiasm  for 
(7**,  cf.  2")  that  law,  human  nature  experiences 
helpless  failure  and  disaster.  But,  where  the 
higher  guidance  is  absent  or  lost,  man  becomes 
more  and  more  lost  to  self-respect  and  moral  con- 
viction (I"-'-).  In  a  sense  the  heathen  is,  like  the 
Jew,  under  law :  apart  from  the  ideal  sense  in 
which  'the  Jewish  law  was  a  law  for  aU  men' 
;Hort,  liomans  and  Ephexians,  p.  25),  his  reason 
•ind  conscience  (2'*),  if  normal  and  healthy,  tell 
him  what  is  right.  The  '  natural  virtue '  of  Aris- 
totle is  fully  recognized  by  St.  Paul,  and  it  is, 
in  fact,  this  inward  moral  law  that  is  restored  in 
Christ.  But,  in  fact,  the  law  of  conscience  con- 
demned the  Gentile  as  completely  as  the  written 
law  condemned  the  Jew  (3*),  and  not  less  so  when 
its  voice  had  ceased  to  be  heard  (l*^-''). 

3.  Sinful  man  does  not,  according  to  St.  Paul, 
lack  a  higher  nature.  "The  inward  self  (7^^)  is 
capable  of  renewal  (12'),  though  in  sore  need  of  it. 
For  the  higher  self  St.  Paul  has  the  term  vftv/ia 
(1  Co  5',  2  Co  7')>  though  in  this  sense  he  employs 
it  spariuglj',  and  not  in  our  Epistle.  More  char- 
acteristic of  Romans  is  the  term  voDs,  which  plays 
80  prominent  a  part  in  the  analysis  (7'"'').  NoDs 
is  an  inalienable  endowment  of  human  nature,  i.e. 
it  belongs  to  the  flesh  (cf.  Col  2'*),  and  may  be  in- 
volved in  its  bondage  to  sin  (1**,  cf.  Tit  1">) ;  but  it 
is  the  highest  endowment  of  the  flesh,  and  is  cap- 
able of  conveying  to  the  will  the  commandment  of 
God  (7°) ;  but  triere  its  power  ceases — St.  Paul 
would  have  accepted,  so  far  as  it  goes,  Aristotle's 
dictum  that  'understanding  alone  moves  nothing.' 
The  understanding,  the  higher  self,  can  indeed 
'wisli'  what  is  right  (7""),  but  its  wish  has  no 
power  in  the  face  of  the  flesh  wielded  by  sin — '  to 
wish  and  to  effect'  (Ph  2")  requires  a  vital  energy 
(Ro  6*)  which  human  nature  cannot  originate. 

This  vital  energy  is  the  Spirit  (see  Kaii/6nit  in 
6*  7',  cf.  2  Co  5")  which  inhabits  the  body  of 
Christ,  and  dwells  in  those  who  are  in  vital  union 
with  Him.  The  word  rffO/ia  in  this  Epistle  is 
nsed,  now  for  the  Spirit  of  God,  now  for  the 
inward  man  (see  above)  as  renewed  and  energized 
by  union  with  Christ  (see  Expositor,  May  1899, 
p.  3,50  ff.;  Sanday  -  Headlam,  pp.  162  ff.,  199  f.). 
It  is  this  living  union  with  the  crucified,  risen, 
and  glorified  Christ  that  distinguishes  the  new 
self  from  the  old  self  (xaXaiA?  ivSpwiros,  6'),  the 
pre-Christian  life  ty  vapKl,  ir  raXaiirrrn  ypimiaTot, 
from  the  regenerate  life  iv  rreiiuiTi,  tv  Xpi<rr(f,  iv 


Kaivlrrrfri  ^loijs,  the  obedience  of  sons  from  the 
obedience  of  slaves  —  slaves  in  mind  jiossibly  to 
a  law  of  God,  but  practically  to  a  law  of  sin  (7-' 
gi6ir.)  To  make  quite  clear  the  perfection  of  the 
obedience  implied  in  the  new  state,  St.  Paul  em- 
ploys, in  6'^-,  with  an  apology  for  doing  so  (v.'"), 
the  term  'slavery'  to  describe  it  (cf.  1');  but  he 
proceeds  to  throw  it  aside  (8")  in  completing  his 
theology  of  the  Christian  life.  The  son  and  the 
slave  differ  above  all  in  this,  that  the  son's  interest 
is  centred  on  his  fathers  will,  that  of  the  slave  is 
elsewhere.  This  is  expressed  in  the  famous  anti- 
thesis of  the  two  (pporqixara  (8*,  cf.  Ph  2'  3'", 
Col  3'),  by  which  St.  Paul  sums  up  his  fundamental 
distinction  of  human  char."ieter.  It  must  be  noted 
here  that  the  language  of  ch.  8  postulates  the  dis- 
tinct Personality  of  the  Spirit  (v.-^"-)  not  less 
cleaily  than  that  of  1  Co  2""'-  implies  His  di^'inity. 
The  Spirit  dwells  in  the  children  of  God  in  this 
life  as  an  instalment  (aircLpxi,  8^,  cf.  ippa^uv  else- 
where) of  the  life  which  is  theirs  already  (v.'"),  but 
to  be  unveiled  in  its  glory  only  with  the  consum- 
mation of  God's  kingdom  over  all   His  creatures 

4.  St.  Paul's  conviction  of  the  profound  degrada- 
tion of  human  nature  is  thus  at  once  deepened  and 
relieved  by  his  belief  in  its  lofty  capacities  and 
destiny.  The  latter,  tliough  to  be  fully  realized 
only  in  the  life  to  come,  are  to  be  entered  upon 
in  this  life.  We  have  now  to  notice  St.  Paul's 
doctrine  of  the  transition  from  the  helpless,  hope- 
less old  life  to  the  'life  and  peace'  of  the  new. 
Obviously,  man  cannot  by  himself  cross  so  vast  a 
chasm.  But  the  '  good-news  of  Christ '  comes  to 
him  as  '  the  power  of  God  to  his  salvation '  (P^),  if 
he  believes  it.  Faith,  then,  presupposes  that  the 
Divine  power  to  save  has  already  been  directed 
towards  the  believer  ;  and  it  has  as  its  immediate 
accompaniment  the  opening  of  a  life  in  fellowsliip 
with  God  from  which  the  sinner  as  such  is  ex- 
cluded. In  other  words,  by  believing,  the  sinner 
is  in  God's  sight  as  though  his  sin  had  not  been, 
— he  is  'justified  by  faith.'  By  justification,  then, 
St.  Paul  primarily  means  the  non  -  imputation — 
the  forgiveness — of  sin  (he  equates  the  two  ideas, 
4'''  etc.).  Justification  renders  possible,  for  the 
first  time,  active  righteousness  (6'*  8'^-)  in  God's 
sight,  but  it  is  not  pos9il)le  to  confuse  the  two  in 
one  idea  without  destruction  of  St.  Paul's  most 
characteristic  thought.  If  once  it  is  grasped  that 
justification  means  to  St.  Paul  the  removal  of  the 
impassable  barrier  set  up  between  God  and  the 
soul  by  sin,  and  not  the  progressive  assimilation 
of  character  to  the  filial  type  which  springs  from 
reconciliation  as  its  root,  and  that  faith  is  to  the 
apostle  not  merely  assent  to  doctrine  as  divinely 
revealed,  but  personal  trust  in  God  through  Christ, 
it  becomes  easy  to  see  how  central  a  place  the 
doctrine  of  justification  by  faith  holds  in  St.  Paul's 
system,  how  unreal  is  its  supposed  conflict  with 
tne  severest  standard  of  Christian  obligation,  or 
the  most  thankful  use  of  divinely  provided  means 
of  ^ace,  and  how  profoundly  it  appeals  to  the  most 
legitimate  and  elementary  need  of  human  nature, 
the  longing  for  a  gracious  God  (see  Jn  6").  The 
doctrine,  taken  by  itself,  does  not  ofl'er  an  account 
of  all  that  grace  does  for  a  man,  but  of  how  a  man 
is  admitted  to  grace.  The  two  things  are  clearly 
distinguishable  in  St.  Paul,  though,  of  course,  in 
practice  they  can  never  be  fic])arated  (compare 
carefully  Ro  8'  with  context  before  and  after). 
Faith,  tlien,  is  to  St.  Paul  the  attitude  of  soul 
which  never  regards  it.self  as  righteous  before  God, 
but  refers  all  to  God's  free  gift.  Its  trust  in  God 
is  absolute  ;  but  it  has  as  its  objective  foundation 
certain  definite  facts  (5--  ""■)  whicii  become  material 
for  faith  under  the  influence  of  the  Spirit,  wiiu 
interprets  to  the  soul  the  Death  of  Christ  as  th» 


304      ROMANS,  EPISTLE  TO  THE 


ROMANS,  EPISTLE  TO  THE 


outcome  of  God's  love  (5°).  Hence  it  is  '  through 
faith'  (3-')  that  the  Deatli  of  Christ  reaches  its 
eU'ect  in  the  justilication  of  the  sinner.  It  is  this 
fact — even  more  than  the  inchision  of  all  alike 
under  sin— that  reduces  all  men  to  one  level  in 
God's  sight  (3-'').  (On  this  subject  see  the  articles 
on  Faith  and  Justification  in  the  present  work, 
and  a  most  careful  discussion  in  Sanday-Headlam, 
pp.  2S-3'J  ;  also  Expositor,  March  1899,  p.  2U0  tt'. ; 
Kit.schl,  Lckre  d.  Ucclitfcrtigung,  vol.  ii.  ch.  4, 
S  36,  and  all  important  commentaries  on  Romans). 
Justifying  faith,  then,  is  not  purely  'dogmatic,'  be- 
cause it  is  trust  in  a  Person.  Neither  is  it  purely 
'  undogmatic,'  because  it  rests  upon,  and  includes 
the  knowledge  of,  something  which  that  Person  has 
done  (1  Co  15^,  the  germ  of  an  'Apostles'  Creed  '). 
Lastly,  justification,  to  St.  Paul,  is  doubtless  one 
act,  the  entrance  once  for  all  into  the  state  of 
grace  (o"-).  But  it  remains  as  a  root  of  character  ; 
its  connexion  with  vital  holiness  is  not  that  of 
mere  succession  in  time,  but  as  its  organic  begin- 
ning. Faith  is  the  abiding  sphere  of  all  Christian 
life  (Gal  2^,  2  Co  13"),  not  a  passing  emotion, 
evoked  by  a  single  great  crisis  and  subsiding 
with  it. 

5.  Grace  and  the  moral  life. — The  act  of  faith  is 
not  meritorious  in  its  character,  for  this  would  be 
open,  equally  with  righteousness  by  works,  to  the 
objection  of  4-*-.  It  must  come,  that  is,  from 
God  as  its  source ;  it  not  only  receives  God's  free 
gift,  but  it  is  God's  free  gift.  In  other  words,  by 
excluding  merit,  we  seem  to  deprive  man  of  his 
responsibility.  It  may  be  questioned  whether  St. 
Paul  had  ever  formulated  in  his  own  mind  the 
problem  of  '  responsibility  without  merit,'  which 
is  the  age-long  crux  of  the  doctrine  of  grace.  Both 
from  the  consideration  of  justifying  faith,  and 
again  from  that  of  Divine  predestination  to  glory 
(above,  1),  the  moral  responsibility  of  man  seems 
threatened,  if  St.  Paul's  principles  are  lo^cally 
developed.  But  he  neither  develops  them  in  this 
way  himself,  nor  does  he  seem  conscious  of  the 
need  for  a  reconciliation  of  the  opposed  truths. 
That  all  human  history  is  in  God's  hands,  and 
that  the  sin  of  man,  e.g.  the  apostasy  of  Israel  in 
rejecting  Christ,  is  used  by  God  as  a  step  to  the 
fullilment  of  His  will  for  man,  is  insisted  upon. 
But  the  fact  is  wholly  disallowed  as  an  extenua- 
tion of  the  sinner's  responsibility ;  St.  Paul  re- 
pudiates with  intense  indignation  (S"")  the  charge 
that  his  teaching  encouraged  a^y  such  view. 
'  Ch.  9  implies  arguments  which  take  away  free 
will,  ch.  10  is  meaningless  without  the  presup- 
losition  of  free  wUl'  (Sanday-Headlam,  p.  348). 
t  is  to  be  noted  that  St.  Paul  s  entire  case  for  the 
need  of  redemption  (1-3-°)  is  an  indictment  of 
human  sin,  which  loses  all  force  if  human  responsi- 
bility is  lost  sight  of.  Although  by  '  works  of 
law  no  flesh  shall  be  justiiiea,  yet  God  '  will 
render  to  each  man  according  to  his  works'  (2*, 
cf.  14'^).  The  stress  laid  by  St.  Paul  upon  personal 
faith  and  individual  renewal  as  the  heart  and 
mainspring  of  the  moral  life,  gives  to  his  theology 
of  conduct  a  strongly  individualistic  character. 
But  no  one  could  be  further  from  individualism 
in  the  sense  in  which  tliat  term  is  often  used. 
The  personal  life  of  the  Christian  is  one  of  fellow- 
ship with  the  saints  through  Christ.  All  the 
manifestations  of  the  Christian  life  are  condi- 
tioned by  membership  of  a  body  (Vl'"-).  And  in 
critical  questions  of  moral  alternative  (ch.  14)  the 
sense  of  brotherhood  is  a  safe  guide.  We  are  to 
ask  not  merely  'what  does  my  liberty  permit?' 
but  '  how  will  my  conduct  help  or  liinder  my 
brotlier? '  We  are  to  respect  the  liberty  of  others 
(W""),  but  to  be  ready  to  subordinate  our  own 
(for  the  whole  chapter,  cf.  1  Co  8-10.  13). 

An  interesting  application  of  St.  Paul's  general 


I 


theory  of  conduct  is  the  attitude  inculcated  by 
him  towards  the  civil  power  ( 13'"').  In  a  word,  hfe 
spirit  is  that  of  good  citizenship,  idealizing  the 
inaj;istrate  as  '  tlie  minister  of  God.'  This  position, 
natural  to  a  born  '  Roman  '  (Ac  22^),  is  very  much 
in  advance  of  the  general  spirit  of  the  apostle's 
compatriots,  and  decidedly  in  contrast  with  that 
of  the  Apocal3'pse.  This  is  partly  to  be  explained 
by  the  circumstances.  When  St.  Paul  wrote. 
Imperial  Rome  was  not  yet  'drunk  with  the  blood 
of  the  saints'  ;  on  the  contrary,  the  imperial 
otiicials  had  more  than  once  protected  him  against 
Jewish  fanaticism. 

6.  The  Church  and  its  institution.^. — The  Roman 
community  does  not  seem  as  yet  to  possess  a  per- 
manent organization  of  'bishops'  and  deacons  (see 
Sanday  -  Hea<llam,  Introd.  §  3  (3)).  The  list  of 
ministries  (12''^-)  must  be  compared  with  others  of 
the  same  kind  (see  the  table  in  art.  1  Cokinthians, 
vol.  i.  p.  490).  The  irpoiffTaiievos  can  hardly  be  a 
permanent  oHicer ;  he  comes  too  low  on  the  list, 
and  is  apparently  on  a  line  with  the  itu^epniffeis  of 
1  Cor.  There  is  evidence  (16')  that  the  houses  of 
diflerent  members  of  the  community  formed  scat- 
tered centres  for  the  worshippers  of  the  household 
or  neighbourhood  (see  Sanday-Headlam,  in  loc.). 
Of  the  sacraments,  the  Eucharist  is  not  mentioned  ; 
but  upon  Baptism  great  stress  is  laid  (6''°).  To  St. 
Paul's  readers,  to  believe  and  to  be  baptized  were, 
probably  in  all  cases,  coincident  in  time.  Faith 
issued  in  baptism  as  its  concrete  expression  and 
correlative.  Baptism  was  the  external  means  of 
union  with  Christ,  the  closing  of  the  door  upon 
the  old  and  lower  self,  the  openin"  of  the  new  life 
of  grace.  It  does  not  occur  to  St.  Paul  to  put 
faith  and  baptism  in  any  sort  of  rivalry.  Faith  in 
Christ  would  involve  the  desire  to  join  His  body 
by  His  appointed  means.  In  all  probability,  the 
reference  to  faith  and  its  confession  in  lO"-  is 
associated  with  the  thought  of  baptism. 

vii.  Materials  for  pf,rsonal  History  op 
St.  Paul. — The  Epistle  is  far  less  rich  than  those 
to  the  Corinthians  and  Galatians  in  details  as 
to  St.  Paul's  personal  history.  His  long-standing 
desire  to  see  Rome  is  mentioned  in  ch.  1  and  in 
15^;  the  puzzling  reference  to  his  having  preached 
liixpi  Tov  'IWvpiKoO  in  15'"  (see  art.  2  Cokinthians, 
vol.  i.  p.  495),  if  the  words  do  not  compel  us  to 
suppose  that  he  had  actually  entered  Illyricum, 
would  be  satisfied  by  his  visit  to  Beroea,  the  last 
important  place  in  Macedonia  (Ac  17'°).  His  further 
intention  to  visit  Spain  (IS-**)  is  a  fact  of  great 
interest,  as  also  is  his  apprehension  as  to  hig 
coming  visit  to  Jerusalem  with  the  Xo7lo  (w. '""''). 
The  names  in  ch.  16  contain  those  of  many  friends 
of  the  apostle  otherwise  unknown  to  us,  including 
his  kinsmen  Andronicus  and  Junias,  Jason  and 
Sosipatcr.  In  Tertius  we  have  the  only  certain 
name  of  an  amanuensis  employed  by  the  apostle. 
His  reference  to  miracles  worked  by  himself  (15") 
should  not  be  overlooked  (cf.  2  Co  12"^). 

Of  deeper  interest,  though  ojien  to  more  doubt, 


is  the  personal  bearing  of  the  i)assage  ' 


Itie 
impossible  to  regard  the  pa.ssage  as  a  mere  iiera(rxn- 
tia.naij.6i,  describin"  the  phenomena  in  the  first 
per.son  merely  for  the  sake  of  vividness.  The  iyiii 
is  too  emphatic,  too  repeated,  the  feeling  too  deep, 
for  a  purely  impersonal  statement.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  passage  is  universal  in  its  reference,  and 
supplies  the  argument  with  an  indispensable  piece 
of  analysis.  We  may  regard  it  as  St.  Paul's 
account,  based  upon  reflexion  as  well  as  on  experi- 
ence, of  the  utmost  that  law  can  do  for  human 
nature.  And  if  so,  we  may  use  it  in  order  to 
understand  how  St.  Paul  may  well  have  come  to 
realize,  even  before  his  conversion,  that  if  the 
preaching  of  the  apostles  (cf.  1  Co  15"- ')  was  true, 
t/  Christ  had  died  '  not  in  vain '  (Gal  2'-'),  then 


ROMANS,  EPISTLE  TO  THE 


ROMANS,  EPISTLE  TO  THE      305 


righteousness  did  not  come  by  the  law.  It  enables 
US  to  realize  something  of  the  '  kicking  against  the 
goads,'  wliich,  as  we  know,  had  preceded  the  scene 
on  the  road  to  Damascus. 

viii.  Transmission  of  the  Text.  Integrity. 
— Tlie  text  of  our  Epistle  comes  to  us  through 
much  the  same  lines  of  transmission  as  that  of  1  Cor. 
(which  see).  It  is  contained  in  the  Peshitta,  Old 
Lat.,  Copt.,  and  other  oldest  versions  of  the  NT, 
as  well  as  in  the  principal  Gr.  MSS.  Of  the  latter 
it  is  complete  in  nAHLS  (the  last  uncoUated). 
C  lacks  •2^-3=',  9«-10'»,  ll^-lS'".  Di»°i  lacks  l""', 
jn-au  j^rp  supplied  by  a  somewhat  later  hand  (also 
l»4i7  jn  ti,g  Lat.) ;  £>""'  (copy  of  D)  has  these  pas- 
sages, but  lacks  S^'-i^,  11  ">•=».  F'*'",  a  copy  of  G,  is 
lacking  in  I'-S".  G""""  lacks  1'  d(pu>pia n.-Tl<rrtat 
1»,  also  2'«-=».  K  contains  the  Epistle  only  to  10". 
P  lacks  2">-3»,  8»-9",  11*'-12>.  3  contains  only 
I3*-15*.  (On  the  cursives,  and  on  tlie  authorities 
for  the  Old  Lat.,  what  was  said  on  1  Cor.  may  be 
repeated,  with  a  further  reference  to  Sanday- 
Headlam,  p.  l.xv). 

Of  textual  phenomena  we  must  notice  the  omis- 
sion in  G  g,  supported  by  a  note  in  the  Bodleian 
cursive  47,  of  the  words  iv  'PufiTj,  V-  ".  The  omission 
tempts  a  comparison  with  the  omission,  by  im- 
portant authorities,  of  the  analogous  words  in  the 
address  of  EphesiaNS.  But  in  tliis  case  there  can 
be  no  question  that  the  words  iy  'Pu/iri  are  original. 
The  omission  may,  however,  be  due,  as  may  also 
be  the  case  with  Ephesians,  to  the  early  circulation 
of  our  Epistle  among  other  Churches  with  the 
omisijion  of  the  delinite  references  to  Ilome.  This 
might  be  connected  with  the  omission,  in  some 
early  authorities,  of  ch.s.  15.  16  (see  below).  But 
this  connexion  would  be  much  more  certain  if  the 
authorities  for  the  omission  of  dv  'Pii/ij)  and  of  chs. 
15.  16  were  identical.     This  is  not  the  case. 

A  more  difficult  question  is  that  of  the  place  of 
the  doxology  (16""").  L  and  many  cursives,  with 
some  other  ancient  authorities,  place  it  at  the  end 
of  ch.  14 ;  AP  and  a  few  authorities  repeat  it  at 
tlie  end  of  16 ;  FG  g  Marcion  omit  it  wholly,  but 
G  leaves  a  blank  S|)aee  at  the  end  of  ch.  14.  (On 
D  see  Sanday-Headlam,  p.  Ixxxix).  But  xHCDE, 
some  cursives,  and  most  Western  authorities,  place 
it  aft«r  16  only.  Tliis  is  probably  the  earliest 
positiim ;  its  omission  by  Marcion  may  be  the  source 
of  all  the  variations,  although,  if  there  were  good 
grounds  for  thinking  that  St.  Paul  himself  issued 
two  recensions  of  the  Epistle,  the  resemblance  of 
the  language  of  the  doxology  to  that  of  the  cap- 
tivity group  of  Ejip.  (on  which,  however,  see  Hort 
in  Lighlf.  BiU.  Essays,  p.  327)  might  warrant  us  in 
BBcriliiiig  the  doxology  to  his  second  recension. 
Bat  here,  again,  the  hypothesis  in  question  is  in- 
adequately founded.  It  should  be  noted  that  G  g, 
which  omit  ir  'Pwfty,  should,  on  this  supposition, 
irut!rl  the  doxology,  which  they,  on  the  contrary, 
omit. 

A  far  more  complex  question  is  raised  by  the 
omission,  in  some  indirect  but  ancient  witnesses  to 
the  text,  of  chs.  15.  16.  These  witnesses  consist  of 
(1)  Marcion,  a.s  quoted  by  Orig.!*' supported  by  the 
language  of  Tertull.  ado.  Marc.  v.  14.  (2)  The 
ahseiice  of  quotations  in   Tert.,    Iren.,   Cyorian. 

(3)  The  capitulation  in  certain  MSS  of  the  Vulgate. 

(4)  The  fact  that  ALP,  etc.  (see  above),  place  tlie 
doxology  at  the  end  of  14.  Of  these,  number  (2)  is 
inconclusive  as  a  mere  argument  from  silence. 
The  others  require  explanation.  A  further  argu- 
ment from  the  repeated  benediction  1G»-"  (TU)  is 
shown  hy  Sanday-Headlani  to  rest  on  no  solid 
foundation.  How,  then,  are  we  to  explain  the 
facts?  Thesupposition  that  chs.  15.  16 are  spurious 
(Baur)  cannot  stand  in  face  of  the  close  connexion 
between  chs.  14  and  15'-",  a  governing  fact  in  the 
whole  question.     The  chapters  are  omitted  by  no 

vou  IV.— 20 


known  MS,  nor  does  the  theory  of  their  partial 
spuriousness  (Lucht),  i.e.  of  interpolations,  find 
any  support  in  the  textual  material.  The  supposi- 
tion that  our  chapters  are  a  combination  of  the 
endings  of  recensions  of  the  Epistle  addressed  to 
several  different  Churches,  1-14  (or  l-ll)  being  the 
part  common  to  all  recensions  (Renan),  otl'ends 
against  the  governing  fact  mentioned  above,  and 
depends,  moreover,  upon  an  erroneous  view  (see 
above)  of  16*- ".  A  plau-sible,  but  in  reality 
equally  untenable,  modification  of  this  view  is  that 
16'""',  or  16^""',  or  '""',  originally  formed  part  of  a 
letter  addressed  to  Ephesus,  and  became  after- 
wards incorporatad  in  our  Epistle  (first  suggested 
in  1767  by  Ke^^ermann,  substantially  adopted  by 
Ewald,  Mangold,  Reu.ss,  Lucht,  Holsten,  Lipsius, 
Weiss,  Weizsiicker,  Farrar,  etc.).  Aquila  and 
Priscilla,  it  is  true,  were  last  heard  of  in  Ephesus 
(1  Co  16i»),  and  are  there  later  (2  Ti  4") ;  Epienetus 
is  the  'first-fruits  of  Asia'  (KV);  and  St.  Paul 
must  have  had  many  friends  in  Ephesus,  while  he 
had  never  seen  Koine.  But  the  hypothesis  dees 
not  account  for  the  facts  ;  on  the  contrary,  it  leaves 
ch.  15  wholly  untouched.  Again,  considering  the 
constant  going  and  coming  between  Home  and  the 
provinces,  it  would  be  very  surprising  that  St. 
Paul  should  not  have  many  acquaintances  in  Home. 
Moreover,  there  is  good  inscriptional  and  other 
evidence  connecting  many  of  the  names  with  Rome, 
and  indeed  with  Roman  Christians.  (See  Sanday- 
Heaiilam,  notes  on  ch.  16).  This  is  specially  true 
of  the  householdsof  AniSTOBULUS  and  Narci.SSUS, 
of  Amim.iatus  and  of  Nereus  (see  the  articles  on 
these  names).  On  the  whole,  with  all  deference  to 
the  distinguished  scholars  who  have  represented  it, 
our  conclusion  must  be  that  the  case  for  trans- 
ferrinj;  this  section,  without  any  textual  ground, 
from  its  actual  connexion  to  a  lost  Epistle  to 
Ephesus,  is  not  made  out. 

To  return,  then,  to  the  general  question  of  chs. 
15.  16,  and  to  the  heads  of  evidence  (1),  (3),  and 
(4),  the  questions  to  be  considered  are,  Jirstlij, 
What  were  Marcion's  grounds  for  omitting  the 
chapters  ?  and,  secondly,  Does  the  fact  that  he  did 
so  sulKcienlly  explain  (3)  and  (4)?  If  Marcion 
omitted  the  chapters  on  grounds  of  tradition,  the 
second  question  need  not  be  asked,  for  a  tradition 
older  than  Marcion  would  doubtless  leave  other 
traces ;  but  if  his  oini.ssion  was  purely  arbitrary, 
the  question  of  his  probable  inllueiice  becomes 
important.  That  Marcion's  text  had  considerable 
circulation  and  some  inlluence  in  the  West  may 
be  allowed.  But  this  is  hardly  adequate  as  a 
hypothesis  by  itself  to  account  for  the  facts  ;  it 
does  not  inarch  without  a  stick.  The  extra 
support  required  is  furnished  by  the  assumption 
that  the  text  was  adapted  for  Church  use  in  certain 
localities  by  omitting  the  personal  and  less  edify- 
ing conclusion.  The  existence  of  a  known  text— 
Marcion's — which  lacked  ch.s.  15.  16,  sugijrsted  the 
adoption  of  14^  as  the  close  of  the  shortened 
Epistle,  and  accordingly  the  doxology,  which  it 
was  desired  to  retain,  was  added  at  that  point. 
The  answer  to  our  second  question,  then,  may  be 
put  thus :  Given  a  demand  for  an  edition  of  our 
Epistle  with  the  closing  section,  exceptin",'  the  dox- 
ology, omitted,  the  influence  of  Marcion's  text 
was  likely  to  suggest  the  exact  point  where  the 
omission  should  begin.  In  other  words,  the  heads 
of  evidence  (3)  and  (4) — we  may  perhaps  add  (2) — 
may  be  exi)lained  by  (1).  Thajir.it  question,  then, 
becomes  one  of  probability.  ^\  as  Marcion  likely  to 
omit  the  chapters  on  doctrinal  grounds,  or  was  he,  on 
the  other  hand,  unlikely  to  excise  any  matter  with- 
out documentary  authority?  On  this  question  the 
reader  is  as  entitled  to  decide  as  the  present  WTiter. 

The  connexion  between  the  question  of  ihs.  15. 
16  and  the  omission  of  tv  'Pii/ijj  in    1'"  is  very 


306 


ROJIE 


ROME 


obscure.  Sanday-Headlani  conjecture  thatMareion 
is  responsil)le  for  tlie  latter  omission  also  ;  Imt  there 
is  no  evidence  tliat  lie  omitted  tiiese  words.  But 
f,'iven  tlie  demand  (see  aliove)  for  an  'imiiersonar 
edition,  the  words  may  have  been  strucK  out  in 
some  cojiies  of  such  an  edition  either  with  or  with- 
out the  support  of  Marcion's  text.  That  Marcion 
was  Interested  in  the  addresses  of  St.  Paul's  Epp. 
we  know  from  the  case  of  Epiiesians  (which  see, 
and  of.  Smith's  DB^  p.  947). 

Literature. — On  the  ancient  commentaries,  Origeo,  Chry- 
so^^toni,  Theodoret,  John  Damasc,  (Ecunienius,  Theophylact, 
Eiitheniius,  Arabrosiaster,  Pelagnus,  llii^h  of  St.  Victor,  Abe- 
lard,  and  Aquinas,  see  the  excellent  characterizations  in  Sanday- 
Headlam.  Au-^justine  tlioui,dit  prufoundly  over  the  Epistle  to 
the  Rouians  ;  his  anti-I'ela^nan  writinj^a  are  in  effect  a  commen- 
tary upon  its  most  characteristic  ideas.  He  bei^n  a  formal 
commentary,  hut  only  reached  the  salutation  (Retract,  i.  26). 
Of  more  interest  is  the  Expositio  quainimlam  qinvst.  in  Ep. 
ad  Horn.  (Mi^ne,  Pat.  Lat.  xxxv.  2087),  which  is  the  result  of 
his  study  of  the  Epistle  as  a  presbyter  (about  a.d.  396)  with 
some  friends.  We  have  here  the  transition  from  his  earlier 
views  of  grace  and  free  will,  etc.,  to  his  more  developed  and 
characteristic  conviction,  fonned  under  the  influence  of  his 
studies  of  St.  Paul  (see  Reuter,  August,  Studien,  p.  7ff.). 
The  Biblical  Commentary  of  Cornelius  a  Lapide  (S.  J.,  11637) 
gathers  up  usefully  much  exegetical  material  from  ancient  and 
mediffl^al  Latin  writers,  including'  Aug-ustine.  On  the  com- 
mentaries of  Colet  (ed.  Lupton,  1873),  Luther  (Preface  to  Mel- 
anchthon's  comm.  1523),  Calvin  (1539,  'by  far  the  best  of  the 
commentators  of  the  Reformation'),  Beza  (1594),  Estius(1614- 
6),  Hammond  (1653),  Locke  (1705-7),  Beng-el  (1742),  Wetstein 
(1751-2),  see  Sanday-Headlam,  who  also  g;ive  a  useful  list  of 
modern  commentaries.  Among  the  more  important  of  these 
are  those  of  Fritzsche  (1830-43),  Mever  (indispensable;  the 
later  German  cd.  bv  Weiss),  de  Wctte  (1830  and  foil.),  Olshausen, 
Philippi  (21850  and  41886),  Jowett  (21809,  31894,  suggestive  and 
inexact),  Vaughan  (^1880,  scholarly  and  admirable  in  illustra- 
tion, less  satisfactory  on  connexion  of  thought),  Bisping,  Maier 
(Roman  Cathohc,  as  also)  Klofutar  (Laibach,  1880,  terse  and 
sensible),  Godet  (1879,  21883,  admirable  in  general  exposition 
and  in  bibUcal  theologv;  among  the  best  general  commentaries), 
Ultramare  (Geneva,  1881-2),  J.  A.  Beet  (,HSSb,  able,  and 
always  worth  consulting).  Otto  (Glauchau,  1880),  Lipsius  (in 
BandkommerUar,  1881,  able  and  useful),  Barmby  (1890,  in 
Pulpit  Commentary),  Moule  (in  Expositor's  Bible,  excellent 
pouular  exegesis,  and  a  distinct  advance  on  that  in  his  Camb. 
Bihlefor  Schools),  Liddon  (1803,  Explnnatory  Analysis).  Light- 
foot'a  posthumous  Notes  on  Epistles  of  ^t.  Paul  contain  a 
precious  fragment  on  Ro  1-7.  The  two  volumes  of  Gore 
(1893-9)  are  popular,  but  based  ui)on  thoroughly  scientillc 
criticism  and  exegesis.  At  the  he.id  of  all  English  commen- 
taries, and  pre-eminent  among  those  in  any  language,  are  those 
of  Giiford  (1886,  reprinted  from  the  Speaker's  Commentary, 
unrivalled  for  accuracy,  both  in  scholarship  and  theology)  and 
Sanday-Headlam  (1895).  The  last  named  is  one  of  the  most 
complete  and  satisfactorv  commentaries  extant  on  any  of  the 
books  of  the  Bible.  The  present  article  owes  more  to  it  than  to 
any  one  work  on  this  E-^istle.  After  it,  the  writer  would  wish 
to  acknowledge  special  mdebtedness  to  Gifford,  Godet,  Meyer- 
Weiss,  and  Lipsius. 

The  standard  works  on  Biblical  Theology  should  be  consulted 
on  the  leading  ideas  of  the  Epistle.  With  specific  reference  to 
St.  Paul,  Baur's  Paulus  (part  2,  ch.  iii.,  which  incorporates  the 
substance  of  his  earlier  essays  on  the  subject)  should  still  be 
read,  also  Usteri's  /'.  Lehrheg'riff  C^lSSi),  ana  Pfleiderers  highly 
suggestive  Pattlinism.  Essaj-s  and  studies  on  the  theology  of 
the  Epistle  are  numerous.  Among  the  more  recent  may  be 
mentioned  Ileadlum  in  Expos.  Times,  1894,  1895;  Beet  in 
Expos.  1898 ;  and  some  studies  by  the  present  writer,  begim 
in  Expos.  1899,  but  not  as  yet  completed.  On  chs.  9-11,  Bey- 
Bchhig,  die  Paul.  Theodicre  ;  Morison  (1849,  on  ch.  9.  In  1866 
he  published  an  exposition  of  ch.  3).  The  integrity  of  the 
Epistle  is  discussed  (in  atldition  to  works  cited,  above,  §  viii.)  in 
the  earlier  part  of  Mangold's  /i^wn^rfrnV/.u.s.w.,  and  by  Lightfoot 
and  Hort  m  articles  reprinted  in  Lightfoot's  Biblical  Essays. 
Hurt's  Lectures  on  liomans  and  Ephesians  also  deal  with  tliis 
and  other  introductory  matters.  'The  Eng.  tr.  of  Meyer's  com- 
mentary, that  of  Godet's  Introd.  to  St.  Paul's  Epistles  {^Mn\>. 
1S91)  antl  the  end  of  the  Introduction  on  his  commentary,  may 
be  referred  to  for  additions  to  the  above  brief  list.  Works  re- 
ferred to  in  the  body  of  the  above  article  are  not  in  all  cases 
enumerated  here.  A.  UOBERTSON. 

ROME. — The  aim  of  this  article  is  (1)  to  give  an 
outline  of  the  relations  between  Rome  and  the 
Jews  during  the  period  covered  by  tlie  Scripture 
history  ;  (2)  to  describe  the  general  aspects  and 
life  of  the  city  at  the  time  when  it  was  first 
brought  into  contact  ■with  Christianity ;  (3)  to 
touch  upon  its  associations  with  the  names  or 
writings  of  St.  Paul,  St.  Peter,  and  St.  John  ;  and 
(4)  with  some  of  the  minor  characters  mentioned 
in  the  NT. 


1.  The  first  specific  mention  of  Rome  in  Jewish 
literature  occurs  incidentally  in  1  Mac  1'",  where 
reference  is  made  to  'a  sinful  root,  Antiochua 
Epiphanes,  son  of  Antiochus  the  king,  who  had 
been  an  hostage  at  Rome.'  Political  relations 
of  a  somewliat  indefinite  character  were  estab- 
lished by  Judas  Maccabxus  in  B.C.  161.  By  that 
date  Rome  had  gained  a  position  of  unquestioniv' 
supremacy.  The  power  of  Carthage,  which  carried 
with  it  the  control  of  the  West,  was  broken  at  Zania 
in  B.C.  202;  the  defeat  of  Antiochus  at  Magnesia 
in  B.C.  190  made  Rome  arbiter  in  the  East.  A 
graphic  picture  of  the  reputation  which  Rome  had 
created  for  itself  in  the  East  is  found  in  1  Mac  8''". 
It  ascribes  to  the  Romans  some  virtues  in  regard 
to  which  closer  experience  might  have  modified  the 
judgment  of  Judas,  and  contains  some  inaccuracies 
in  details,  but  is  vivid  and  accurate  in  its  spirit. 
The  valour  of  tlie  Romans,  the  terror  with  which 
they  inspired  their  foes,  the  support  which  they 
ga\e  to  their  allies,  tlieir  victories  over  Spain, 
over  Philip  and  Antiochus,  the  constitution  of  the 
Senate,  the  absence  of  all  the  outward  insignia 
of  royalty,  their  freedom  from  envy  and  emula- 
tion, are  all  set  forth  in  -tt-ords  of  laudation.  On 
the  strength  of  this  conviction  as  to  Roman  power 
and  policy,  Judas  sent  Eupolemus  the  son  of  John, 
and  Jason  the  son  of  Eleazar,  to  Rome  with  the  view 
of  establishing  friendship  and  a  treaty  of  alliance 
(1  Mac  8").  The  object  of  Judas  was  to  get  rid  of 
the  Syrian  yoke,  and  in  accordance  with  its  tradi- 
tional policy  Rome  readily  recognized  the  Jewish 
autonomy  in  order  to  cripple  SjTia ;  but  tliough 
they  mutually  pledged  themselves  to  furnish  a 
contingent  if  required,  and  not  to  assist  any 
common  enemy  with  '  victuals,  weapons,  money, 
or  ships,'  the  treat'*'  seems  to  have  led  to  no  de- 
finite action  by  either  party.  About  eighteen 
years  later,  in  B.C.  143,  Jonathan,  the  brother  and 
successor  of  Judas,  sent  representatives  to  Rome  to 
renew  and  confirm  the  former  alliance  (1  Mac 
12'-»-'').  In  B.C.  139,  Simon,  the  brother  of  Jona- 
than, despatched  an  embassy,  of  which  Numeiiius 
was  the  head,  to  Rome,  with  a  great  shield  of 
gold,  a  thousand  pounds  in  weight  (1  Mac  14-*). 
The  Romans  graciously  received  the  costly  gift 
and  entered  into  a  formal  treaty  'vvith  Simon. 
They  intimated  the  fact  of  that  alliance  to  all  the 
powers  with  which  they  themselves  were  friendly, 
and  called  on  them  to  hand  over  to  the  Jews  any 
'pestilent  fellows,'  i.e.  any  political  refugees  who 
had  found  an  asj'lum  witfi  them.  Details  of  the 
embassy  of  Numenius  are  given  by  Jos.  (Ant. 
XIV.  viii.  5),  though  by  a  launder  he  assigns  it 
to  a  later  date.  (For  the  literature  on  this  embassy 
see  Schiirer,  HJP  I.  i.  268).  To  this  date  is  prob- 
ably to  be  referred  the  obscure  statement  in 
Valerius  Maximus  (i.  3.  3),  the  authenticity  of 
which  is  now  generally  acknowledged,  that  '  Cor- 
nelius Hisi^alus  compelled  the  Jews,  who  had 
been  trying  to  corrupt  the  Roman  morals  by  the 
worship  of  Jupiter  Sabazius  (J"  ZibdCth?),  to  go 
back  to  their  own  homes.'  If  the  reference  be 
correct,  it  would  appear  that  bj-  some  of  the  suite 
of  Numenius  attempts  at  propagandism  had  been 
successfully  made  (see  Reinacli,  Textes  relatifs  ait 
Judaisme,  p.  259,  note  3).  Though  we  can  point  to 
no  definite  statement,  it  is  probable  that  after  this 
date  many  Jews  found  their  way  to  Rome  in  pursuit 
of  business  (Griitz,  Eistory  of  the  Jews,  ii.  67 ; 
Berliner,  Gcwh.  d.  Jud.  in  Rom,  p.  5). 

After  his  capture  of  Jerusalem  in  B.C.  63, 
Pompey  carried  many  Jewisli  prisoners  to  Romeag 
slaves.  (See  Libertines).  The  great  majority  of 
them  ■would  seem  to  have  been  \  oluntarilv  manu- 
mitted by  their  masters  or  ransomed  oy  theit 
fellow-countrymen,  for  we  find  but  a  few  yean 
later  that  a    strong    Jewish  community   was  iu 


existence  dwelling  on  the  other  side  of  the  Tiber 
in  I  lie  quarter  corresponding  to  the  Trastevere  of 
today.  I'Vom  its  proximity  to  the  wharves  it  was 
a  suitable  place  for  the  trades  which  were  carried 
on  by  the  Jews,  and  the  Jewish  community  rapidly 
increased  in  numbers  and  influence.  In  his  deience 
of  Valerius  Flaccus — who  was  accused  of  appropri- 
ating the  gold  which  had  been  sent  by  the  Jews  in 
Asia  Minor  towards  the  maintenance  of  the  temple 
worship  at  Jerus. — in  the  rear  B.C.  69,  Cicero 
tiiakes  many  allusions  which  sliow  that  the  Jews  in 
Koine  were  a  party  wortli  conciliating.  He  speaks 
9f  their  numbers,  their  unity,  their  influence  in 
public  gatherings.  He  pretends  that  he  must 
speak  in  a  whisper  so  that  only  the  judges  may 
hear,  on  the  ground  that  there  was  no  lack  of 
persons  ready  to  stir  up  the  Jews  against  him  and 
all  the  best  men  in  the  State  (pro  Flacco,  c.  28). 
The  verj'  exaggeration  of  the  scorn  which  he 
pours  on  their  claim  to  be  specially  favoured  of 
heaven  (ib.  c.  69)  is  a  testimony  to  their  grow- 
ing strength,  as  well  as  an  index  of  the  alarm 
which  the  success  of  their  proselrtizing  efibrts  had 
created.  Julius  Csesar,  perhaps  from  the  idea 
that  the  Jews  were  specially  htted  to  be  inter- 
mediaries between  the  East  and  theAVest  (Rosenthal 
in  Berliner,  p.  17),  treated  the  Jews  throughout  the 
empire  with  great  generosity;  and  we  read  without 
s-stonishment  that  conspicuous  among  the  foreign 
races  in  Rome  in  their  sorrow  over  the  death  of 
Caesar  were  the  Jews,  who,  for  nights  in  succession, 
visited  his  tomb  (Suet.  Dimis  Julius,  c.  84).  By  the 
time  of  Augustus  the  Jewisli  population  in  Koine 
must  have  numbered  many  thousands.  Accord- 
ing to  Jos.  {Ant.  XVII.  ii.  1  ;  BJ  11.  vi.  1)  more 
than  8000  Jews  supported  the  embassy  that  came 
to  Augustus  with  complaints  against  Archelaus. 
For  a  time  no  repressive  measures  were  adopted  ; 
on  the  contrary,  the  Jews  in  Rome  received  special 
privileges  in  the  form  of  a  limited  jurisdiction  over 
their  own  adherents.  The  rulers  of  Palestine  were 
often  brought  into  close  relations  by  friendship 
and  alliance  with  members  of  the  imperial  house- 
hold. Herod  Agrippa  I.,  e.g.,  was  brought  up  at 
Rome  along  with  Dmsus  the  son  of  Tiberius  (Jos. 
Ant.  xvni.  vi.  1).  From  allusions  in  the  Roman 
Satirists  (Juv.  iii.  10-15),  as  well  as  from  the 
evidence  of  the  cemeteries  (see  Schiirer),  it  is 
plain  that  the  limitation  to  the  Trastevere  was 
not  rigidlj  enforced,  and  soon  disappeared.  From 
a  story  in  Jos.  {Ant.  XVIII.  iii.  5)  it  may  be 
gathered  that  the  success  of  their  proselytism, 
especially  among  women  in  the  higlier  classes, 
was  the  main  ground  for  the  coercive  measures 
that  were  subsequently  adopted.  In  A.D.  19, 
perhaps  at  the  instigation  of  bejanns,  who  accord- 
mg  to  Philo  {Le(/.  ad  Gaiu7n,  c.  24)  was  bitterly 
hostile  to  the  Jews,  4000  Jews  were  banished  to 
Sardinia  under  the  pretext  of  being  sent  to  put 
down  brigandage  there,  but  not  without  a  hope 
that  they  might  be  cut  off  by  the  notoriously 
nnhcalthy  climate  (Tac.  Ann.  li.  85;  Suet.  Ti/>. 
66).  In  the  account  of  the  embassy  to  Caligula 
in  A.D.  40,  we  have  a  curious  light  thrown  on  tlie 
character  of  the  emperor  as  well  as  on  the  attit\ide 
of  the  court  to  Jewish  customs  and  beliefs  (Philo, 
Leg.  ad  Gaium,  44-46).  In  A.D.  49  (or  52  according 
to  some  authorities),  probahly  on  account  of  the 
tumults  created  by  the  preaching  of  the  gospel  in 
the  Je>vish  quarter  (Suet.  Claud.  25),  Claudius 
issued  an  edict  for  the  banishment  of  all  the  .lews 
from  Rome.*  Among  those  banished  were  Aquila 
and  Priscilla,  who  went  to  Corinth,  where  they 

•  The  Identiflcatlon  of  the  Chrietlam  with  the  Jews  wan  not 
Ihe  reffult  of  a  mlBtake.  They  wwre  Jews,  and  the  ChriHtiane 
were  rppinied  tiniply  aa  a  (cct,  certaialy  by  ouUtidens,  and  In 
all  probability  they  lo  regarded  thenualTe*.  The  time  of 
elaavtge  waa  not  yet. 


came  into  contact  with  St.  Paul  (Ac  IS').  But  the 
decree  of  banishment  was  futile,  for  the  Jews  had 
now  obtained  a  social  and  political  influence  that 
made  repression  difficult  or  impossible.  '  The 
customs  of  that  most  accursed  race,'  says  Seneca, — 
perhaps  with  an  indirect  reference  to  the  influence 
of  Poppffia  on  Nero  (Jos.  Vita,  3,  Ant.  XX.  viii.  11), 
— '  have  spread  to  such  an  extent  that  they  are  kept 
in  every  land  ;  the  conquered  have  given  laws  to 
the  conqueror'  (Aug.  de  Civ.  Dei,  vi.  11).  And 
yet  '  we  may  be  sure  that  the  proud  patricians, 
who,  in  their  walks  on  the  Aventine  cast  a  glance 
on  the  other  side  of  the  river,  never  suspected  that 
the  future  was  being  made  ready  in  that  mass  of 
hovels  which  lay  at  the  foot  of  the  Janiculum ' 
(Renan,  Hibbert  Lecture,  p.  53).*  The  destruction 
of  Jerusalem  in  A.D.  70  is  commemorated  in  the 
well-known  Arch  of  Titus  on  the  Via  Sacra.  The 
seven-branched  candk-stick,  the  golden  table,  and 
the  silver  trumpets,  delineated  on  the  Arch,  were 
themselves  placed  in  the  Temple  of  Peace  in  A. D. 
75,  but  fell  a  prey  to  Genseric,  and  were  landed 
safely  at  Carthage  in  455.  In  535  Belisarius  re- 
captured them,  took  them  to  Constantinople,  and 
since  then  they  have  completely  disappeared. 
But  it  is  fairly  certain  that  they  cannot  be,  as  is 
popularly  imagined,  in  the  bed  of  the  Tiber. 

2.  When  Christianity  was  first  proclaimed  in  the 
Jewish  quarter,  Rome  with  its  environa  had  far 
outgrown  the  old  walls  of  Servius  Tullius,  and  con- 
tained a  population  probably  of  IJ  millions  (Fried- 
liinder,  i.  23 ;  Champagny,  Lcs  Cwsars,  iv.  347-353 ; 
Kenan,  p.  53.  Merivale,  Hist,  of  the  RoDians,  v. 
58,  estimates  it  at  700,000).  Lauded  by  poets  and 
orators  as  '  the  queen  of  cities,'  '  the  home  of  the 
gods,'  'golden  Rome,'  '  the  epitome  of  the  world,' 
Rome  even  at  the  beginning  of  the  Christian  era 
was  impressive  mainly  by  reason  of  its  great  ex- 
tent, and  not  in  virtue  of  any  distinctive  beauty  or 
grandeur.  The  movement  begun  by  Augustus  to 
make  Rome  worthy  of  the  majesty  of  the  empire, 
led  to  great  changes,  and  to  the  building  of  many 
palatial  mansions,  of  ornate  temples  {e.g.  the 
Pantheon  and  the  Temple  of  Apollo),  and  large 
basilicas  for  the  transacting  of  banking  and  law, 
notably  the  Basilica  Julia  in  the  Forum  com- 
menced by  Julius  and  completed  by  Augustus. 
Great  aqueducts  are  associated  with  the  names  of 
Agrippa  and  the  emperor  Claudius,  bringing  the 
water  then  as  now  chiefly  from  tlie  hills  of  Alba 
Longa,  and  making  possible  the  life  that  centred 
around  the  thcrmcB,  corresponding  very  closely  to 
the  club  life  of  our  own  day.  To  what  an  extent 
this  afterwards  developed  may  be  seen  from  the 
imposing  remains  of  the  Baths  of  Caracalla  and  of 
Diocletian.  The  patrician's  day  was  divided  be- 
tween the  forum  and  the  thrrmw.  The  I'^rum 
was  now  embellished  on  all  sides ;  the  Triumphal 
Arch  of  Tiberius  spanned  the  lower  part  of  the 
ascent  to  the  Capitol ;  the  palace  of  the  Ca'sars  on 
the  Palatine, '  wnth  gilded  battlements,  conspicuous 
far,'  looked  worthy  of  an  imperial  city  (see  Meri- 
vale, V.  18-48  ;  Conybearo  and  Ilowson,  St.  Paul, 
ii.  449-^54).  But  notwithstanding  all  tlie  changes 
that  had  been  ellecled,  down  even  to  the  great  lire 
in  A.D.  64,  in  the  reign  of  Nero,  Rome  was  built  on 
no  regular  plan  ;  its  streets  were  narrow  and  dirty, 
the  houses,  several  storeys  high,  were  flimsily  buut 

•  Two  of  the  catacombs  arc  exclusively  Jewish.  One  was  dis- 
covered by  L'.osio  on  Monte  Verde,  and  containi-d  many  Bla>»s  with 
the  seven-branched  candlestick  inscribed,  ond  one  on  which  the 
word  CYNAfOOr  was  jilninly  lepible.  The  other  waa  dls 
covered  In  1S69  In  the  Villa  "lUndanini  on  the  Appian  Way, 
about  2  miles  out  of  Rome  (see  CimUero  dnili  antteJii  Ebrei, 
illuslrato  da  KalToele  Oarucci,  Roma,  1802).  In  It  the  candle. 
slick,  the  dove,  the  olive  branch  and  the  dove  are  the  favourite 
emblems.  Many  of  the  Inscriptions  have  been  removed  to  the 
I^ateran  Museum.  There  Is  no  authority  for  tlie  statement, 
sometimes  made,  that  the  Colosseuni  was  erect«d  by  forced 
Jewish  labour. 


308 


ROME 


ROME 


and  often  tumbling  dow-n.     'The  vici,'  says  Men- 
vale,  '  were  no  better  than  lanes  or  alleys,  and  tliere 
were  only  two  via?,  or  paved  ways,  tit  for  the  trans- 
port of  heavy  carriages,  the  Sacra  and  the  Nova,  in 
the  central  parts  of  the  city.'    ( For  a  vivid  picture 
of  the  shops  and  streets,  see  Martial,  vii.  61).     It 
was  desolated  by  frequent  hres ;  it  was  subject  to 
earthquakes  and  inundations  ;  fever,  as  was  plainly 
indicated  by  the  many  altars  dedicated  to  it,  was 
never  absent ;  the  unhealtliiness  of  the  site  mani- 
fested itself  ill  the   unhealthy  pallor  of  the   in- 
habitants.    Yet  from  the  vastness  of  its  extent, 
the  density  of  its  crowds  representative  of  every 
nationality,  religion,  and  race,  from  its  being  the 
natural   treasure-house  of  all  that  was  valuable 
and  curious  in   the  empire,   from   its  being  the 
centre  of  political  and  intellectual  life,  from  the 
elaborate  amusements  pro\aded  gratuitously  for 
the  inhabitants,  it  fascinated  and  drew  to  itself 
patriots  as  well  as  adventurers  of  all  types.     '  The 
rich  man  went  to  Rome  to  enjoy  himselt,  the  poor 
to  beg;  the  new  citizen  to  give  his  vote,  the  citizen 
who  had  been  dispossessed  to  reclaim  his  rights.' 
The  rhetorician  from  Asia,  the  Greek  philosopher, 
the  ChaldiBan  astrologer,  the  nia§:ician  from  Egypt, 
the  begging  priest  of  Isis,  all  jostled  each  other 
in  the  struggle  for  existence  m  the  metropolis 
(Champagny,  L  41 ;  Strabo,  V.  iii.  8).     The  picture 
of  Milton  {PR  iv.  36-68)  furnishes  a  vivid  if  idealized 
representation  of  Rome  as  it  would  appear  to  St. 
Paul  and  his  fellow-travellers  as  they  came  along 
the  Via  Appia  from  Puteoli  (Pozzuoli),  and  passing 
tlirough   the   Market  of   Appius  and   tlie  Three 
Taverns  (both  as  yet  unidentified)  entered  the  city 
through   the   Porta  Capena,   the   Dripping    Gate 
(,1/'-,  ikla)  of  Martial  and  Juvenal  (long  since  closed, 
but  whose  position  was  determined  by  the  dis- 
covery in  1584  of  the  first  milestone  of  the  Via 
Ajipia,  and  since  then  confirmed  by  the  discovery 
of  tlie  walls  of  the  gate).     These  may  now  be  seen 
in  the  cellar  of  the  Osteria  della  Porta  Capena. 
All  Rome  is  historic  ground  and  of  special  interest 
to  the  student  of  NT  times,  for  the  places  associated 
with  the  names  of  the  apostles  and  their  friends 
and  converts  are  in  many  instances  still  to  be  seen, 
in  some  few  cases  unchanged  since  apostolic  times. 
They  will  be  treated  of  under  the  respective  names. 
3.  When  and  by  whom  the  gospel  was  first  pro- 
claimed in  Rome  is  uncertain.   As  sojourners  from 
Rome  were  in  Jems,  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  some 
of  them  may  have  been  among  the  3000  converts 
(Ac  G'"-  •").     St.  Paul  refers  to  Romans  who  were 
in  Christ  before  him  (Ro  16').     Many  of  the  Jews 
who  had  been  banished  by  the  edict  of  Claudius 
were  brouglit  under  the  influence  of  St.  Paul,  and 
on  returning  to  Rome  swelled  the  ranks  of  the 
missionaries  and   converts   there  (Ac  IS--'-'*,   Ro 
Ig3-7.9.i2)      Prisca  and  Aqnila  should  be  specially 
noted  in  this  connexion.     In  A.D.  59  (or  58),  when 
the  Ep.  to  the  Romans  was  WTitten,  there  was  in 
existence  a  strong  Church,  partly  composed  of  Jews, 
partly    of    Gentiles.      St.     Paul    hail    for    many 
years  cherished  a  strong  desire  and  resolution  to 
see  Rome  (Ac  19='  25",  Ro  l"'").     From  the  time  of 
the  Second  Missionary  Journey  it  had  been  quite 
clear  to  him  that  his  mission  was  to  the  Roman 
Empire  qita  Empire,  and  all  his  subsequent  move- 
ments are  governed  by  this  dominant  idea.     Hence 
he  goes  to  Ephesus,  the  door  of  the  East  toward 
the  West,  afterwards  to  Rome,  and  we  find  him 
purposing  to  visit  Spain,  the  great  province  of  the 
West.    There  is  much  plausibility  in  the  view  that 
his  pu/pose  in  appealing  to  Cte.sar  was  to  gain 
recognition  for  Christianity  as  a  religio  Ikita  (cf. 
Ranisay,  St.  Paul  the  Traveller,  p.  308) :  and  he 
apparently  succeeded  for  the  time  being,  for  after 
hi?  first  trial  the  emperoc  left  Jews  and  Christians 
in  peace. 


About  A.D.  61  he  was  brought  to  Rome  as  a 
prisoner.  Nero  had  already  begun  to  disappoint 
the  promise  of  the  early  years  of  his  reign,  and  had 
given  way  to  his  un{ro\'ernable  sava^erj'.  For  two 
years  before  his  trial,  St.  Paul  lived  either  in  the 
praetorian  barracks  attached  to  the  palace,  or  in  the 
pr^torian  camp  (but  see  p.  33")  in  the  N.E.  of  the 
city, — in  a  place  in  anj'  case  where,  in  spite  of  his 
bonds,  he  was  brought  into  contact  with  the  freed- 
men  and  slaves  who  formed  part  of  the  household 
of  Nero  (Ph  l'^4^) ;  or  in  the  house  of  the  centurion, 
stUl  to  be  seen  beneath  the  church  of  S.  Maria  in 
Via  Lata,  at  the  junction  of  the  Via  Lata  and  the 
Corso  (the  Via  Flaminia)  (see  Lewin,  Life  and 
Epistles  of  St.  Paul,  ii.  238,  239,  and  Appendix  (I.) 
for  a  sketch  and  plan  of  the  house). 

There  is  no  evidence  be3'ond  the  name  for  the  Scuola  di  S. 
Paolo  underneath  the  church  of  S.  Paolo  alia  Regola(t.e.  arenula, 
from  the  sand  deposited  by  the  Tiber)  near  the  modem  Ghetto, 
but  the  under^ound  chamber  is  unquestionably  old.  Neither 
do  we  know  with  certainty  the  spot  wiiere  tiie  trial  of  St.  Paul 
took  place.  The  Proitoriuin  of  Ph  V3  '  is  the  whole  body  ol 
persons  connected  with  the  sitting  in  judgment,  the  supreme 
Imperial  Court,  doubtless  in  this  case  the  Prefect  or  both 
Prefects  of  tile  Prstorian  Guard,  representing  the  emperor  io 
his  capacity  as  the  fountain  of  justice,  together  with  the 
assessors  and  high  officers  of  the  court '  (see  St.  Paul  the  Trav. 
p.  35,  and  cf.  art.  Pfljetohicm).  The  Mamertin  dungeon  or 
Tuilianwn.,  under  the  church  of  S.  Giuseppe  de'  Falegiiaml, 
remains  as  it  was  in  apostoUc  days,  though  the  stairs  leading  to 
the  lower  dungeon  are  modem.  The  only  entrance  originally 
was  through  the  hole  in  the  roof.  Here  St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul 
are  said  to  have  been  immured  during  St.  Paul's  second  im- 
prisonment. The  outbreak  of  Nero's  fury,  which  resulted  in  a 
renewal  of  hostilities  against  the  Christians,  led  to  the  numerous 
martyrdoms  in  the  garden  of  Nero  (now  partly  covered  by  St. 
Peter^s),  where,  amid  sufferings  of  fiendish  ingenuity,  so  many 
disciples  sealed  their  testimony  with  their  blood  ('Tac.  Ann. 
XV.  44  ;  Suet.  A'ero,  35 ;  Kenan,  llibbert  Lecture,  70-9S ;  Liglit- 
foot,  St.  Clement,  ii.  26,  27).  This  was  in  a.d.  64-C5.  About 
this  time,  or  a  little  later,  St.  Paul  suffered  martyrdom  by 
execution.  He  was  led  out  of  the  city  p.ast  the  Pyramid  of 
Caius  Cestius,  along  the  Via  Ostiensis,  tlience  along  the  Via 
Laurentina,  to  a  spot  near  some  springs,  then  known  as  Aqua 
S.alviEe,  now  called  Tre  Fontane,  and  there,  bein^  a  Rothmi 
citizen,  was  beheaded.  This  fact  gives  point  to  his  words  in 
Ph  23  *  obedient  even  unto  death,  yea,  the  death  of  the  cross,'  i.e. 
to  a  more  degrading  form  of  death  than  the  apostle  hinisell 
would  have  bec-n  allowed  to  suffer.  The  site  is  fixed  partly  by 
an  unbroken  tradition  and  partly  by  local  evidence.  It  is  a 
wild,  desolate  spot,  almost  uninhabitable  through  the  prevalent 
malaria  (the  Trappist  monks  have  of  recent  years  redeemed  it 
by  planting  eucalj-ptus),  so  that  there  would  be  everything 
against  the  invention  of  such  a  site  for  so  important  an  event. 
This  factor  has  very  frequently  to  be  borne  in  mind  in  judging 
of  the  likelihood  or  the  reverse  of  a  traditional  site.  Over  the 
spot  a  memorial  oratory  was  erected  in  the  5th  cent.,  whose 
'  foundations  were  discovered  in  1S07  beneath  the  present 
church  of  S.  Paolo  alle  Tre  Fontane,  erected  in  the  17th  cent., 
together  with  historical  inscriptions  in  Latin  and  Armenian* 
(Lanciani,  Pagan  aiui  Chriatian  liottie,  p.  loti).  Lanciani  also 
quotes  an  interesting  fact  confirmatory  of  the  tradition  that  the 
apostle  was  bche.aded  under  a  stone  pine.  The  Trappists  were 
excavating  in  IS95  for  the  foundation  of  a  water-tank  behind  the 
chapel,  and  found  a  mass  of  coins  of  Nero,  together  with  several 
pine  cones  fossilized  by  age  and  earth  pressure. 

There  is  a  continuous  tradition,  found  first  in  Tertullian 
(Scorp.  16  ;  de  Primcript.  36)  and  in  Caius  of  Rome  (quoted  by 
Eus.  HE  II.  XXV.  6,  7),  and  repeated  in  varying  fomis  by  lat«r 
writers,  to  the  effect  that  St.  Paul  was  buried  on  the  Via  Ostia. 
Says  Caius:  ' But  I  can  show  you  the  trophies  of  the  apostles. 
For  if  you  will  go  to  the  Vatican,  or  to  the  Ostian  ro.ad.  you  will 
find  the  trophies  of  those  who  have  laid  the  foundation  of  this 
church."  So  that  about  the  beginning  of  the  3rd  cent,  the 
prev.alent  belief  in  Rome  was  that  St.  Paul  was  buried  on  the 
Via  Ostia.  The  translation  of  his  body,  together  with  that  of  St. 
Peter,  to  thecatacomb  of  St.  Sebastian,  to  the  spot  called  Platooia, 
occurred  later,  in  A.D.  258,  probably  owing  to  the  Valerian  perse- 
cution, "rhis  seems  to  dispose  of  the  ingenious  theory  of  .Mr. 
A.  S.  B^men (St.  Peter  and  his  Tomb  in  /inmc),  that  the  aposllM 
were  buried  first  of  all  in  the  catacomb,  and  only  removed  to 
the  Vatican  and  the  Ostian  Way  after  the  persecution  of  Valerian 
had  ceased,  and  therefore  enables  us  to  accept  the  earlier  and 
more  likely  theorj-  of  de  Rossi.  The  tradition  is  that  a  certain 
Roman  matron  named  Lucina,  a  disciple  of  the  apostle,  begged 
the  body  and  buried  it  in  her  own  garden  on  the  Ostian  road, 
at  the  s]>ot  now  marked  by  the  Uisilica  of  S.  Paolo  fuori  le 
mura.  Lie  Rossi  has  conjeclurally  identified  (and  the  identifica- 
tion is  accepted  by  Lanciani  and  others)  Lucina  \vith  Pomponia 
Gnecina,  the  wife  of  Aulus  I'Inutus.  the  conqueror  of  Britain, 
of  whom  Tacitus  (Annat.  xiii.  32)  records  that  she  was  accused 
of  '  foreign  superstition,"  was  tried  by  her  husband,  and 
acquitted.  Recent  investigations  have  made  it  very  probable 
that  she  was  a  Christian.  An  inscription  was  discovered  in  the 
1  cemetery  of  St  Callixtus,  rrOMnONIOC   rPHK«iNOa    Th« 


ROME 


ROME 


309 


■abeequeot  and  varied  history  of  the  famous  ba.silica  need  not 
be  detailed  herr.  Suffice  it  to  say  that  within  the  walla  of  that 
most  glorious  fane,  into  which  the  kings  of  the  earth  poured 
their  treasure  after  the  fire  of  18;^,  rests  all  that  is  mortal  of 
the  great  apostle.  The  remains  were  enclosed  by  Constaiiline 
tn  a  bronze  sarcopha^is,  and  Lanciani  (o;j.  cit.  p.  167)  relates 
that  in  1691  he  examined  the  grave  so  far  as  he  then  could. 
*  I  found  myself  ou  a  Hat  surface  paved  with  slabs  of  marble,  on 
one  of  which  (placed  ne;,'lit,'entlv  in  a  slanting  direction)  are 
engraved  the  words,  PAVLO  APOSTOLO  HART.  .  . .  This  in- 
ecription  belongs  to  the  4th  cent.,'  and  is,  it  will  be  observed, 
dedicatory  and  not  declaratory.  It  is  possible  that  ere  long 
more  will  be  known  of  this  tomb  and  of  the  garden  in  which  it 
stood.  Tlie  Italian  Government  is  constructing  a  sewer  from 
Eome  to  Ostia,  and  the  excavations  will  include  the  garden  of 
Lucina.  E.  Stevenson  (since  dead)  has  recorded  in  an  article 
full  of  interest,  *  Osservazioni  suUa  topografia  della  via  Ostiense 
e  sul  cimitero  ove  fu  sepolto  I'apostolo  S.  Paolo'  (Knovo 
BuHettino  di  Archeotcxjia  CrUtiana,  Anno  iii.  n.  3,  c,  4, 1897),  all 
that  is  known  about  the  tomb  up  to  the  time  of  writing,  and  the 
Bulletlino  will  contain  an  account  of  any  discoveries  that  are 
nude  during  the  progress  of  the  engineering  works.  On  the 
possibility  of  the  bodies  of  St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul  having  been 
carried  oil  by  the  Saracens  in  A.D.  846,  see  Lanciani,  Destruction 
^Ancient  limne,  p.  129 fl. 

During  his  imprisonment  St.  Paul  wTote  the  Ep. 
to  Philemon,  and  the  Kpp.  to  the  Churches  in  Phil- 
ipjii,  Colos.sjv,  and  Epliesus.  From  Rome  also  was 
written  tlie  second  £p.  to  Timotliy  shortly  heforo 
his  martyrdom,  in  a.D.  67  (?).  (For  a  discussion  of 
questions  connected  with  St.  Paul's  imprisonment, 
Bee  Paul,  and  cf.  Kamsay,  Church  in  the  lionian 
Empire,  and  St.  Pauf  the  Trav.  ;  for  tlie  constitu- 
tion of  the  early  Church  at  Rome,  see  Romans  ;  cf. 
Lightfoot,  Philippians  ',  1-27,  97-102  ;  Hort,  Chris- 
tian Ecclesia). 

The  relation  of  St.  Peter  to  Rome  has  been  a 
matter  of  keen  controversy.  The  general  questions 
of  St.  Peter's  presence  and  martyrdom  in  Rome  have 
been  fully  discussed  in  tlie  urticle  PETf;R,  and  there 
is  now  an  almost  unanimous  agreement  among 
scholars  that  the  apostle  suffered  martyrdom  in 
the  eternal  city,  the  only  point  of  dili'erence  being 
as  to  the  date,  some  adhering  to  the  earlier  date, 
simultaneously  with  or  shortly  after  the  death  of 
St.  Paul,  some  (notably  W.  M.  Ramsay  and  Swete, 
see  Church  in  lioman  Empire,  p.  279  :  St.  Mark, 
p.  xviii)  inclining  to  a  later  date,  in  the  persecu- 
tion of  Doniitian,  but  not  later  than  that.  What 
has  been  already  said  about  the  burial-place  of  St. 
Paul  applies  to  that  of  St.  Peter.  His  tomb  in  the 
Vatican  Cemetery  was  well  kno^vn  in  the  days  of 
Caius  of  Rome,  and  therefore  anterior  to  the  trans- 
lation of  the  body  to  the  catacomb  of  S.  Sebastiano. 
This  has  been  recently  questioned  in  an  able  book 
(cited  above)  by  Mr.  A.  S.  Rames — a  work  full  of 
interest,  in  its  later  parts  dealing  with  the  site  of 
the  tomb  in  old  and  new  St.  Peter's,  but  vitiated 
in  the  earlier  chapters  by  an  insuflicient  review  of 
evidence  and  many  inaccuracies  (see  review  by 
Rani.say  in  Ilonkmnn,  September  1900).  The  site 
of  the  martyrdom  is  sometimes  stated  to  have  been 
where  the  ohelisk  now  stands  in  the  centre  of  the 
piazza ;  but  this  is  inaccurate.  The  obelisk  was 
moved  when  new  St.  Peter's  was  built,  and  the 
true  site  is  marked  by  a  slab  with  an  inscription 
(worn,  neglected,  and  needing  renewal)  to  be  found 
in  the  pavement  of  the  courtyard  behind  the 
sacristy  on  the  north  side  of  the  present  ba.silica. 
The  sites  of  the  sup[iosed  parting  of  St.  Peter  and 
St.  Paul,  and  of  the  Dvmine  quo  vadi.i?  story  may 
or  may  not  be  genuine.  The  chapels  in  both  in- 
stances are  moilcrn.  The  archaeological  evidence 
Bupporting  the  residence  of  St.  Peter  in  Rome  is 
strong,  it  should  be  borne  in  mind,  however,  that 
his  residence  there,  if  proved,  does  not  carry  with 
it  the  episcopate,  nor,  if  it  did,  docs  that  involve 
the  further  claims  of  supremacy  and  infallibility. 
If  Ramsay  is  right  and  St.  Peter  did  not  die  till 
the  lo-st  quarter  of  the  1st  cent.,  there  is  then  room 
(though  not  at  the  period  traditionally  assigned  to 
them)  for  the  alleged  twenty-five  years'  residence 
•n  1  work  in  Rome.    Two  spots  are  locally  connected 


with  this  tradition — the  house  of  Prisca  and  the 
house  of  Pudens,  on  which  see  below. 

The  question  as  to  the  significance  of  Babylon  in 
1  P  5"  and  in  the  Apoc.  has  already  been  discussed 
in  a  separate  article.  (See  BABYLON  IN  NT,  and  add 
to  the  literature  there  given,  Butcher,  The  Church 
in  Egypt).  At  what  date  the  name  of  Babylon 
came  to  be  so  used  cannot  be  definitely  determined ; 
but  it  was  a  familiar  designation  in  the  1st  cent, 
of  the  Christian  era.  In  2  Es.  (3'  15"),  which  Is 
now  usually  assigned  to  the  age  of  Domitian,  it  is 
so  used.  In  the  Sibylline  Oracles,  v.  158 — written 
about  A.D.  SO,  or  earlier,  in  the  judgment  of  Ewal*^ 
and  Hilgenfeld — we  find  the  words — 

icai  0X^fei  irivroi'  te  jiaduv  KaMji'  Ba/SvXwfa 
'IroXfas  ydiav  0', 

In  the  Jer.  Talm.  (Aborfa  znrn,  c.  1)  there  is  a 
curious  pa.ssage  to  the  ellcct  that,  on  the  day  when 
Jeroboam  set  up  the  golden  calves,  Remus  and 
Romulus  built  two  huts  at  Rome.  The  story  is 
repeated  with  variations  in  the  Midrash  Rabba 
(on  Ca  P),  and  it  is  said  that  the  huts  repeatedly 
fell  down,  until  water  brought  from  the  Euphrates 
was  mixed  with  the  clay,  and  the  huts  thus  made 
stable  received  the  name  [I'^a^  -Dn.  (Cf.  Otho,  Lex. 
Babb.). 

The  general  opinion  even  among  interpreters  of 
opposite  schools  is  that  Babylon  in  the  Apocalypse 
(H"  16'"  17»  18--">-2')  must  be  understood  as  Rome. 
The  reference  to  it  as  the  seat  of  universal  empire 
(17'"),  as  the  centre  of  a  bloody  persecution  (17*), 
above  all  to  the  seven  mountains  (17"),  shows  that, 
whether  we  are  to  give  a  mystical  sense  or  not 
to  that  which  is  signitied,  Babylon  stands  for  Rome. 
As  the  citj'  of  the  seven  hills,  Rome  is  lauded  by 
Virgil,  Horace,  Ovid,  and  Claudian  ;  it  is  so  repre- 
sented on  coins ;  it  is  so  designated  in  the  Sibyll 
(ii.  18,  etc.);  in  the  month  of  December  it  cele- 
brated the  feast  of  the  Septimontium,  and,  if 
a  statement  of  TertuUian  is  to  be  trusted,  Septi- 
vwntius  was  one  of  its  many  divinities  (ad 
Nationes,  ii.  15). 

The  question  of  the  visit  of  St.  John  the  apostle  to  Rome  Is 
one  that  is  so  far  wrapped  in  obscurity.  The  lirst  mention  of  it 
is  in  Tcrtullian  (dc  I'ra's.  Uccr.  :JG),  who  5a>s :  *  Uhi  Apostolus 
Joannes  posteaquam,  in  oleum  igneum  deniersus,  nihil  passiia 
est,  in  insulam  relegatur.'  The  only  other  early  notice  of  this 
event  is  found  in  the  P'ragiiunta  Folycatyiana  (see  Liglitfoot, 
I'jnatiius),  which  is,  however,  both  of  uncertain  authorsnijt  and 
date.  The  catena  of  which  it  forms  a  part  was  compiled  by 
some  writer  later  than  Victor  of  Capua,  4SO-.'>rt4  (Lightfoot.  op. 
cit.  iii.  420ff.),  This  fragment  rune  thus  :  '  Idem  ad  ho^c  verba 
Christi :  Calicem  meum  bibetis,  etc.  (Mt  20-'].  Per  huiusniudi 
potum  signiflcat  possionem,  et  Jacobum  quidem  novissitmun 
martyrio  consummandum,  fratrem  vero  eius  Joannem  trun- 
siturum  absque  martyrio,  quamvis  et  alllictiones  plurimas  et 
exsilia  tolerarit,  Bed  prjoparutam  martyrio  mentem  Christus 
martyrem  iudicavit.  Nam  apostolus  Paulus,  Quolitlie,  inquit, 
morior :  cum  impossihile  sit  quotidie  mori  hominem  ea  morto 
qua  semel  vita  ha;c  finitur.  Sed  quoniam  pro  evangelio  ad 
mortem  iugiter  erat  pOBParatus,  ee  mori  (luotidio  sub  ea  signifl- 
cutione  testatus  est.  Lcgitur  et  in  dolio  ferventis  olei  pro 
nomineChristi  beatus  Joannes  fuissodemersus.'  Thetroditional 
site  on  which  this  confession  of  St.  John  took  place  is  outside 
the  Porta  Latina  (now  closed).  Hence  the  celebration  in  the 
Calendar  of  S.  John  ante  PorL  Latina.  The  church  of  S.  Giovanni 
a  Porta  Latina  was  founded  by  Pope  Adrian  I.  in  772,  and  the 
adjoining  circular  chapel  of  S.  Giovanni  in  Oleo  was  erected  so 
recently  as  1509.  liut  although  there  are  no  documentary 
records  earlier  than  those  cited,  and  no  evidence  for  the  existence 
of  a  shrine  on  this  spot  earlier  than  the  8th  cent.,  yet  it  is  hanlly 
a  place  likely  to  have  been  chosen  unless  there  were  some  reasons 
(lost  to  us  now)  for  the  selection.  It  is  out  of  the  way,  near  no- 
where, and  very  inaccessible  even  to-diiy.  So  that  there  is  no  a 
fyriori  groundfor  setting  aside  the  traditional  spot.  Not  without 
nterest  in  the  same  connexion  is  the  dedication  of  the  cathedral 
of  Rome  (oimiium  Urb\$  et  Orbi*  KccUMarum  matrr  et  caput) 
from  about  the  6th  cent.,  '  to  Christ  the  Saviour,  and  In  honour 
of  St.  John  the  Baptist  and  St.  John  the  Evangelist.'  The 
earlier  dedication  was  'to  Christ  the  Saviour'  alone.  It  U 
ditHcult  to  resist  the  belief  that  probably  at  the  time  of  the 
Neronian  persecution,  and  for  some  cause  and  length  of  time  as 
yet  unknown  to  us,  St.  John  did  visit  the  city  of  the  seven  hills, 
and  thence,  perhaps,  derived  his  conception  of  Nero  as  the  Beast 
from  (as  Reiian  suggests,  L'A  nlich  riti,  p.  176)  seeing  the  emperor 


'  disffuised  as  a  wild  beast,  and  in  that  disguise  let  loose  from  a 
cajje,  and  personating  the  furies  of  a  tiger  or  a  panther.'  Cf. 
Suet.  A'ero,  29. 

4.  Connected  with  the  Apostolic  Chnrch  in  Rome 
there  were  many  whose  names  are  mentioned  in 
tlie  NT,  and  with  wliom  associations  remain  in  the 
city  of  to-day.  Chief  among  these  are  PrisCA 
and  Aquila  (which  see).  Plumptre  claimed  for 
them  (Biblical  Studies,  p.  415  fl".)  the  honour  of 
being  tlie  real  founders  of  the  Church  of  Rome. 
But  certain  it  is  that  their  house  (Ro  16')  was  one, 
if  not  the  only  one  or  the  earliest,  of  the  meeting- 
places  of  the  primitive  Church  ;  and  here  St.  Peter 
IS  said  to  have  stayed,  for  some  time  at  least,  during 
his  residence  in  Rome.  The  church  of  S.  Prisca  on 
the  Aventine  Hill  marks  the  spot.  The  dedication 
to  Prisca  is  older  than  the  saint  of  the  same  name 
(Virgin  and  Martyr,  commemorated  in  the  Calendar 
on  January  18th),  whose  body  was  placed  there  by 
Eutychus  towards  the  end  of  the  3rd  century.  The 
original  designation  of  the  church  is  the  Titulus 
Priscce,  and  even  in  the  12th  cent,  it  is  known  as 
the  '  titulus  hcatorum  Aqtiilm  et  Pnscce.'  De  Rossi 
has  published  accounts  of  two  very  remarkable 
discoveries  made  in  the  18th  cent.  The  original 
oratory  was  discovered  in  1776  in  a  garden  near  the 
church.  It  was  decorated  with  frescoes  in  which  the 
symbol  of  the  tish  and  the  figures  of  the  apostles  were 
clearly  discernible.  No  attention  was  paid  to  the 
discovery,  and  the  only  record  of  it  is  in  'a  scrap  of 
paper  in  Codex  9697  of  the  Bibliothfeque  Nationale 
in  Paris,  in  which  a  man  named  Carrara  speaks  of 
having  found  a  subterranean  chapel  near  S.  Prisca, 
decorated  with  paintings  of  the  4th  cent.  A  copy 
of  the  frescoes  seems  to  have  been  made  at  the 
time,  but  no  trace  of  it  has  been  found '  (Lanciani's 
Pagan  and  Christian  Rome).  A  few  years  later 
the  ruins  of  an  old  Roman  house  were  discovered 
close  to  the  church,  but  oratory  and  house  have 
alike  now  disappeared.  Lanciaui  gives  an  account 
of  part  of  this  latter  excavation,  which  is  important. 
'A  bronze  tablet  was  found,  which  had  been  ottered 
to  Gains  Marcus  Pudens  Comelianus  by  the  people 
of  Clunia  as  a  token  of  gratitude.  .  .  .  The  tablet, 
dated  A.D.  222,  proves  that  the  house  of  Aquila 
and  Prisca  in  apostolic  times  had  subsequently 
passed  into  the  hands  of  a  Cornelius  Pudens ;  in 
other  words,  that  the  relations  formed  between  the 
two  families  during  the  sojourn  of  the  apostles  had 
been  faithfully  maintained  by  their  descendants. 
Their  intimate  connexion  is  also  proved  by  the  fact 
that  Pudens,  Pudentiana,  Praxedes,  and  Prisca 
were  all  buried  in  the  cemetery  of  Priscilla 
on  the  Via  Salaria.'  So  that,  in  all  probability, 
beside  that  lonely  church  on  the  Aventine  must 
we  look  for  the  cradle  of  the  infant  Church  of 
Rome. 

The  recently  excavated  house  of  Pudens  on  the 
Viminal  Hill  is  thus  connected  with  that  just 
described.  Pudens,  mentioned  in  2  Ti  4^',  in 
company  with  Linus  and  Claudia  (see  Pudens), 
has  been  the  subject  of  many  conjectures  (see 
Lightfoot,  Clement,  i.  76ff.,  ii.  464;  Farrar,  St. 
Paul,  p.  681),  upon  which  Roman  archfEology  has 
thrown  no  light.  The  church,  now  called  S. 
Pudentiana  (a  later  ignorant  change  from  the 
earlier  name  'the  church  of  Pudens'  —  Ecchsia 
Pudentiana),  has  existed  in  some  form  on  the 
present  site  from  very  early  times.  Pius  I.  in  tlie 
middle  of  the  2nd  cent,  granted  to  Pudentiana, 
Praxedes,  and  Timotheus,  daughters  and  son  of 
Pudens,  th:  institution  of  a  regnhar  titulus,  or 
parish,  with  a  font  for  baptism.  Here,  too,  were 
preserved  some  pieces  of  household  furniture  used 
by  St.  Peter  during  his  stay.  Part  of  this,  the 
old  wooden  table  on  which  the  apostle  is  said  to 
have  celebrated  the  Lord's  Supper,  was  given  by 
Cardinal  Wiseman  (who  was  titular  of  the  church) 


to  St.  .John  Lateran.  If  it  had  been  a  stone  altar 
or  an  elaborate  piece  of  work,  doubt  would  easily 
gather  round  it.  But  there  is  nothing  per  s» 
against  the  genuineness  of  the  relic.  The  excava- 
tion of  the  house  is  still  proceeding. 

Together  with  the  house  of  Prisca  and  the  house 
of  Pudens,  both  genuine  memorials  of  the  apostolic 
age  and  closely  connected  with  St.  Peter  and  St. 
Paul,  should  be  mentioned  the  house  of  Clement 
beneath  the  lower  church  of  S.  Clemente  near  the 
Colosseum  (see  Lightfoot,  Clement,  i.  91  li'.).  This 
has  been  for  many  years  Hooded  with  water  ;  but 
one  of  the  present  writers  was  privileged,  by  the 
kind  permission  of  the  authorities,  to  inspect  it  so 
far  as  possible  this  year  (1900),  and  it  is  to  be  hoped 
that  ere  long  it  may  be  drained  and  once  more 
opened  to  the  archaeologist  and  the  pilgrim.  For 
its  interest  is  that  of  the  apostolic  times,  whatever 
view  wo  may  take  of  the  personality  of  St.  Clement 
and  of  his  connexion  with  the  Clement  mentioned 
by  St.  Paul. 

There  remain  to  be  noticed  only  the  catacombs 
and  other  funereal  memorials  of  Rome  bearing  on 
NT  times.  The  inscriptions,  frescoes,  and  monu- 
ments have  been  mostly  removed  to  the  Lateran 
and  Capitoline  museums,  and  can  be  there  studied 
with  the  help  of  such  works  as  de  Rossi,  Northcote 
(though  now  somewhat  out  of  date),  Witherow, 
The  Catacombs  of  Rome,  and  Malleson  and  Tuke's 
Handbook  to  Christian  and  Ecclesiastical  Rome, 
3  vols,  (the  catacombs  are  dealt  with  in  the  first 
volume).  The  exploration  of  the  columbarium  of 
the  empress  Livia  has  led  to  the  possible  identifica- 
tion of  some  of  the  names  in  Ro  16  (.see  Light- 
foot, Philippians,  Excursus).     See  also  Nereus. 

Monumental  evidence  also  confirms  the  tradi- 
tional friendship  between  Seneca  and  St.  Paul. 
See  L.anciani,  Pagan  and  Christian  Rome;  Ranisaj', 
St.  Paul  the  Traveller,  p.  353 if. 

Much  still  has  to  be  done  before  our  knowledge 
of  Rome  in  the  1st  cent,  is  anything  like  complete, 
and  almost  every  day  brings  its  news.  The  enthu- 
siastic band  of  Italian  scholars,  headed  by  Lanciani 
and  Marucchi  and  Baccelli,  is  working  hard,  and 
great  tilings  are  expected  from  the  newly  founded 
British  School  in  Rome.  The  Bullcttino  and  the 
Nuovo  Bullettino  contain  full  records  of  all  recent 
discoveries.  Among  the  researches  needing  to  be 
made  are  those  concerning  the  burial  of  other 
apostles  in  Rome,  in  addition  to  those  already 
named,  e.g.  St.  Timothy  (in  St.  Paul's  outside  the 
walls),  St.  Bartholomew,  etc.,  and  a  scientific 
sifting  of  the  evidence  concerning  many  of  the 
Eastern  relics  (such  as  the  Santa  Scala)  and 
remains.  In  the  case  of  the  latter  class  the  his- 
tory is  fairlj'  clear  from  the  time  of  Helena 
onwards,  but  before  that,  which  is  the  crucial 
period,  it  is  all  vague  and  unsatisfactory. 

Professor  James  Orr,  in  his  Neglected  Factors 
in  the  Study  of  the  Early  Progress  of  Chrittianity 
(1899),  has  suggested  two  fields  of  inquiry — first, 
into  the  actual  numbers  of  Christians  in  the  city 
in  the  1st  cent,  (on  this  the  evidence  of  the  cata- 
combs has  yet  to  be  examined  fully,  but  the 
numbers  apjiear  to  have  been  very  much  larger 
than  is  commonly  supposed) ;  and,  secondly,  into 
the  social  status  of  those  who  were  drawn  into  the 
infant  Church.  He  has  shoAvn  very  clearly  that 
the  poor  were  by  no  means  the  only  members,  and 
the  evidence  of  houses  like  those  of  Pudens,  Prisca, 
and  Clement,  of  churches  like  that  discovered 
this  year  (1900)  on  the  very  Palatine  Hill  itself 
(of  as  yet  unknown  date,  but  very  early),  all  goes 
to  show  that  then  as  now  the  gospel  was  universal 
in  its  power  as  well  as  in  its  claim,  and  that  St. 
Paul's  great  Apologia  in  Rom.aiis  for  the  'wisdom ' 
of  God  was  addressed  to  the  wise  and  leani»i  an 
well  as  to  the  freedmen  and  slaves. 


ROOF 


ROOF 


311 


LlTERATt'RB. — See,  besidea  the  works  already  mentioned, 
Bchiirer,  Die  Gein*xndev«r/as8utuj  dtr  Jridrjt  in  Kom,  1879, 
UJF  I.  i.  231,  I!,  ii.  232  et  ptuxim  ;  Berliner,  fjesch.  d.  J\id. 
in  Horn,  Io93  ;  Hollzmann,  Aiusicdciuiuj  d*.'^  chrUtcnihuitu  in 
Rom,  lb74  ;  Schmidt,  Ajijunge  des  ChriaUnthuinv  in  dtT  Stadt 
Rcnn,  lb79  ;  Friedliinder,  Sitienrieschichte  lioms,  i.  1-183,  iii.  506, 
etc.ClSolO;  Kenan,  Uibbert  Lecture,  18iis;Ilild.  'LesJuifs  Jl  Kom,' 
In  Jtev.  d.  ilt.JuiviS,  18^,  etc.  ;  Uuidekoper,  JU4fauf7n  at  Hume, 
1876;  the  articles  in  Kiehui's  UWD,  Schenkel'a  liHid.-Lez., 
Hamburger's  /iA'.  ;Lanciaiii,  liuini  and  Excavations  of  Ancient 
Home;  banday-Hea^llam,  Koinans  (Internat.  Grit.  Com.);  de 
Bussierre,  Let  Sepl  Basitiqueg  de  Rome  ;  Mrs,  Jameson,  Hacrt:d 
and  Le'jendary  Art,  vol.  L  ;  Stanley's  Sennona  and  Knnaijs  on 
the  Apontolic  Age  ;  Murray's  llandt*ook  for  Home,  ed.  I'ullen, 
Murray,  Layard,  and  Lanciani ;  iiiacdutf,  FoottitepK  nf  ,St.  Paul; 
I'lumptre,  Excursus  on  the  later  years  of  St.  I'aul's  life,  in  Com- 
menlarij on  Acta (^^T  Com.  for  Knglish Readers);  Gloag,  Catholic 
EpijitUif,  pp.  140-100  ;  MuUooly,  S.  Clemente  ;  itamsay,  *  Paul  the 
StAtefimao,'  in  Conteinp.  Rev.,  JIarch  1901. 

John  Patrick  and  F.  Relton. 

ROOF  (J;,  perliaps  from  a  root  meaning  '  to 
cover,'  .Tiip  [once,  Gn  19'*,  tr^  '  roof,'  lit.  '  beam  '], 
Tin  ['  roof  of  the  mouth  '] ;  trriyr)). — The  most  con- 
venient form  of  roof  for  domestic  purposes  in  a 
dwelling-house  is  undoubtedly  a  flat  one  ;  but  the 
form  of  roof  from  the  earliest  times  has  probably 
been  governed  by  a  variety  of  factors,  of  which  tlie 
most  important  are  the  materials  procurable  near 
the  spot  and  the  climatic  conditions. 

In  northern  climates,  where  wood  is  plentiful 
and  the  snowfall  is  heavj',  a  high-pitched  roof  of 
thatch  or  shingle  can  be  readily  made,  and  is  a 
necessity.  All  around  the  shores  of  the  Mediter- 
ranean Sea,  where  there  is  no  snow  and  slight 
rainfall,  and  where  timber  can  be  procured,  the 
most  convenient  form  of  roof  can  be  economically 
constructed,  and  that  is  a  liat  one  of  some  sub- 
stance impervious  to  water.  In  more  tropical 
climates,  where  the  rains  are  exceedingly  heavy 
and  sudden,  and  the  houses  are  for  the  most  part 
of  wood,  the  roofs  again  are  usually  high-pitched, 
and  of  thatch  or  leaves.  In  countries,  such  as 
Chakla-a,  where  there  is  little  or  no  wood,  the 
storehouses  and  places  where  dryness  is  neces- 
sary are  built  with  thick  w;ills  and  vaults  with 
Hat  roofs  or  masonry  domes,  and  for  the  same 
reason  the  hou.'^es  of  modern  Jerusalem  are  built 
with  thick  walls  and  domes.  The  houses  other- 
wise in  Assyria-Chaldaja  are  flat-roofed. 

In  Egypt,  where   timber  is  scarce,   but  where 


stone  is  plentiful,  the  roofs  are  usually  flat,  the 
roofs  of  tlie  peasants'  houses  being  usually  lightly 
constructed,  and  resting  on  palm  beams,  while  the 
temples  and  palaces  were  roofed  with  stone. 

Probably  from  the  earliest  times  the  same  forms 
of  roof  have  obtained  in  the  same  parts  of  the 
world,  e-xcept  that  local  circumstances  have  here 
and  there  interfered.  For  the  buildings  of  Nineveh 
and  liabj'lon,  as  well  as  for  Jerusalem,  the  cedars 
of  Lebanon  were  made  use  of.  In  Jerusalem,  in 
early  days,  the  roofs  were  flat,  and  the  scarcity  of 
timber,  necessitating  domed  roofs,  appears  to  have 
been  first  felt  after  the  siege  of  the  Iloly  Citj'  by 
Titus.  In  early  days  in  Greece  the  roofs  were  flat, 
and  it  was  customary  to  walk  ujion  them.  But 
pointed  roofs  were  also  used.  In  Home  the  solaria, 
properly  phices  for  basking  in  the  sun,  were  terraces 
on  the  tops  of  houses.  In  the  time  of  Seneca  the 
Romans  lormed  artificial  gardens  on  the  tops  of 
their  hou.ses,  which  contained  even  fruit  trees  and 
fish  ponds  (Smith's  Dirt,  of  Gr.  and  Horn.  Ant.,  s. 
'  Domus  ').  Herodotus  (ii.  95)  says  that  the  Egyp- 
tians slept  OD  the  roof  in  the  marshy  part  of  Lower 
Egyt>t.  '^ 

'  Even  the  bouses  of  the  poor  seem  generally  to 
have  had  their  courtyards,  at  the  back  of  which  a 
structure  was  raised  consisting  of  a  single  storey 
etimiountcd  by  a  flat  roof,  to  which  access  was 
given  by  a  single  staircase '  leading  from  the  court- 
yard. 

'  The  flat  roof  seems  to  have  been  universal  in 
Egypt ;   it  added   to  the  accommodation  of  the 


house  ;  it  afl'orded  a  pleasant  rendezvous  for  the 
family  in  the  evening,  where  they  enjoyed  the 
view  and  the  fresh  breezes  which  spring  up  at 
sunset.  At  certain  seasons  they  must  have  slept 
there.  On  the  other  hand,  the  gianarics,  bams, 
and  storeliou>es  are  almost  always  dome-shaped. 

'  The  flat  roof  of  the  house  ha!d  a  parapet  round 
it,  and  sometimes  a  light  outer  roof  supported 
by  slender  columns  of  brilliantly  painted  wood' 
(I'errot  and  Chipiez,  i.  36). 

Fergusson  (Utstury  of  Architecture,  119)  gives 
an  illustration  of  a  three-storeyed  dwelling  in  the 
Egyptians'  own  quaint  style,  '  the  upper  storey 
apparently  being  like  those  of  the  Assj-rians,  an 
open  gallei'y  supported  by  dwarf  columns.  In  the 
centre  is  a  staircase  leading  to  the  upper  storey, 
and  on  the  left  hand  an  awning  supported  on 
wooden  pillars,  which  seems  to  have  been  an  in- 
dispensable part  of  all  the  better  class  of  houses.' 
'  In  the  Yezidi  House  we  see  an  exact  repro- 
duction in  every  essential  respect  of  tlie  style 
of  building  in  the  d;iys  of  Sennacherib.  Here 
we  have  the  wooden  pillars  with  bracket  capitals, 
supporting  a  mass  of  timber  intended  to  be 
covered  with  a  thickness  of  earth  sufficient  to 
prevent  the  rain  or  heat  penetrating  to  the 
dwelling.  There  is  no  reason  to  doubt  that  the 
houses  of  the  hiunble  classes  were  in  former  times 
similar  to  that  here  represented '  {ib.  160).  In 
speaking  of  the  palace  ot  Esarliaddon,  Fergu-sson 
says  (ib.  104),  '  Had  these  buildings  been  con- 
structed like  those  of  the  Egyptians,  their  remains 
would  probably  have  been  ai)plied  to  other  pur- 
poses long  ago  ;  but  having  been  overwhelmed  so 
early  and  forgotten,  they  have  been  preserved  to 
our  day  :  nor  is  it  dillictdt  to  see  how  this  has 
occurred.  The  pillars  that  supported  the  roof 
bein';  of  wood,  probably  of  cedar,  and  the  beams 
on  the  under  side  of  the  roof  being  of  the  same 
material,  nothinjj  was  easier  than  to  set  them  on 
flre.  The  fall  ot  the  roofs,  which  were  probably 
composed,  as  at  the  present  day,  of  6  or  6  ft.  of 
earlii,  that  being  requisite  to  keep  out  heat  as 
well  as  wet,  would  probably  suffice  to  bury  the 
building  up  to  the  height  of  the  .sculpture.  The 
gradual  crumbling  of  the  thick  walls,  lonsemient 
on  their  unprotected  exjw.sure  to  the  atmos]iliere, 
would  add  3  or  4  ft.  to  this ;  so  that  it  is  hardly 
too  much  to  suppose  that  green  gntss  might  have 
been  growing  on  the  buried  palaces  of  JJineveh 
before  two  or  three  years  had  elapsed  from  the 
time  of  their  destruction  and  desolation.  When- 
ever this  had  taken  place,  the  mounds  allurued  far 
too  tempting  positions  not  to  be  speedily  occu- 
pied by  the  villages  of  the  natives.'  We  may  here 
remark  that  the  modest  dwellings  of  the  Egyptian 
fellah  are  often  covered  by  vaults  of  fris6,  that  is 
to  say,  of  compressed  or  Kneaded  clay.  None  of 
the  ancient  monuments  of  Egj'pt  possess  such 
vaults,  which  are  of  much  less  durability  than 
those  of  stone  or  brick.  We  are,  however,  disposed 
to  believe  that  they  were  used  in  ancient  times 
(Perrot  and  Chipiez,  i.  110). 

The  palaces  ol  Babylon  ap|)car  to  have  consisted 
of  courtyards  and  long  narrow  chambers  ;  and  as 
stone  was  not  readily  obtained,  the  question  of 
how  they  were  roofed  has  occasioned  much  dis- 
cussion. Diodorus  (ii.  10)  states  that  the  hanging 
gardens  of  Babylon  were  suiiported  by  stone 
beams,  16  ft.  long  and  4  ft.  wide  ;  but  Strabo 
(xvii.  1.  5)  says  they  were  sui>]iorted  by  vaulted 
arcades.  Sir  II.  I-ayard  belicMd  that  there  were 
only  flat  roofs  at  Nineveh  similar  to  that  of  modem 
houses  in  Mosul  and  the  neighbouring  villnges, 
and  states  that  he  never  ciime  upon  the  slightest 
trace  of  a  vault,  while  in  almost  every  room  that 
he  excavated  ho  found  wood  ashes  and  carbonized 
timber,     lie  suggests  that  the  long  and  narrow 


rooms  were  roofed  with  beams  of  palm  or  poplar, 
resting  on  the  summit  of  the  walls  (Layard, 
Nineveh,  ii.  250). 

That  Hat  roofs  must  have  been  extensively  used 
is  evident  from  the  number  of  limestone  roof  rollers 
found  by  M.  Place  (Ninivf,,  i.  293)  in  his  excava- 
tions in  tlie  ruins  of  buildings  where  they  had 
fallen  with  the  roofs  ;  but  I'lace  as  well  as  I'errot 
and  Cliipiez  (i.  163)  are  of  opinion  that  thout;li  the 
roofs  wore  flat  they  were  in  many  cases  su])iiorted 
by  brick  vaults,  side  by  side  with  other  Hat  roofs 
of  timber.  Arches  still  standing  in  the  city  gates, 
and  fragments  of  vaults  found  witliin  the  chambers 
of  Sargou's  palace  at  Khorsabad,  give  colour  to 
this  oi)inion.  A  vaulted  storehouse  for  grain  with  a 
flat  roof  is  sliown  in  Wilkinson's  Ancient  Egyptians 
(vol.  ii.  p.  135). 

Strabo  (xv.  3.  18),  qnoting  from  some  old 
authority  on  Susiana,  states,  '  In  order  to  prevent 
the  houses  from  becoming  too  hot,  their  roofs  are 
covered  with  2  cubits  of  earth,  the  weiglit  of 
which  compels  them  to  make  those  dwellings 
long  and  narrow  ;  because  although  they  had  only 
short  beams,  they  had  to  have  large  rooms,  so  as 
to  avoid  being  sulToeated.' 

What  strikes  one  in  considering  the  subject  of 
roofs  is  the  similarity  of  design  in  the  countries 
north  and  south  of  Palestine  (Assyria,  Chaldoea, 
Egypt),  the  ditt'erence  being  due  only  to  the 
material  available.  WUkinson  (ii.  115)  says  that 
the  roofs  of  rooms  of  houses  in  Egypt  were  sup- 
ported by  rafters  of  the  date  tree,  arranged  close 
together,  or  more  generally  at  intervals,  with  trans- 
verse layers  of  palm  branches  or  planks.  Many 
roofs  were  vaulted,  and  built,  like  the  rest  of  the 
house,  of  crude  brick.  On  the  top  of  the  house 
was  a  terrace,  which  served  as  well  for  a  place  of 
repose  as  for  exercise  durin"  the  heat  ;  it  was 
covered  by  a  roof  supported  on  columns  ;  here 
they  slept,  using  a  mosquito  net  (Herod,  ii.  95). 
The  floors  of  the  rooms  were  flat  on  the  upper 
side,  whether  the  rooms  beneath  were  vaulted  or 
supported  on  rafters.  Strabo  (xvii.  1.  37),  in 
speaking  of  the  labjTinth  at  Lake  Moeris,  tells  us 
that  the  roofs  of  the  dwellings  here  consisted  of 
a  single  stone  each,  and  that  the  covered  waj's 
throughout  the  whole  range  were  roofed  in  the 
same  manner  with  single  slabs  of  stone  of  extra- 
ordinary size,  without  the  admixture  of  timber  or 
of  any  other  material.  '  On  ascending  the  roof, 
which  is  not  a  great  height,  for  it  consists  only 
of  a  single  storey,  there  may  be  seen  a  field  thus 
composed  of  stones.  Descending  again  and  looking 
into  the  aulas,  these  may  be  seen  in  a  line  sup- 
ported by  twenty-seven  pillars,  each  consisting  of 
a  single  stone.'  Perrot  and  Chipiez  (i.  109)  give 
examples  of  a  complete  .system  of  construction, 
belonging  exclusively  to  Eg5'pt,  for  stone  buildings 
with  stone  roofs.  The  interior  of  the  building  is 
divided  up  by  rows  of  vertical  supports  or  monoliths, 
on  which  rest  architraves  or  stone  beams,  and  across 
from  architrave  to  architrave  are  placed  long  flat 
stones  forming  the  roof.  This,  however,  seems  to 
have  applied  only  to  temples,  the  palaces  as  well 
as  the  houses  of  the  people  having  been  of  very 
light  construction,  of  wood  or  crude  brick. 

At  Luxor,  Karnak,  and  the  Kamesseum,  the 
temples  are  provided  with  staircases  by  which 
these  flat  roofs  may  be  reached.  These  roofs 
seem  to  have  been  n-eely  opened  to  the  people, 
just  as  with  us  one  is  allowed  to  ascend  domes 
and  belfries  for  the  sake  of  the  view  over  the  sur- 
rounding buikling  and  country. 

The  flat  roofs  of  houses  in  the  East  have  been 
used  from  the  earliest  times  for  a  variety  of 
domestic  and  even  public  purposes. — For  diwution 
and  prayer.  St.  Peter  went  up  upon  the  house- 
top to  pray  about  the  sixth  hour  (Ac  W).    They 


were  used  also  for  idolatrous  purposes.  There 
were  altars  on  the  top  of  the  roof  •  chamber 
(rt'^-l)  of  Ahaz  in  Jerusalem  (2  K  23'-').  They 
burned  incense  to  Baal  on  the  roofs  of  houses 
in  Jerusalem  (Jer  19'^  32-'") ;  and  there  they  also 
worshi[>ped  the  host  of  heaven  (Zeph  1°). — For 
recreation  and  for  sleep  at  night,  it  is  custom- 
ary at  the  present  day  for  the  i)eople  (especially 
the  old)  to  take  exercise  morning  and  evening 
on  the  roof  of  the  house  ;  and  during  the 
summer  -  time  members  of  the  family  usually 
sleep  on  the  roof,  carrying  their  bedding  up  at 
night  and  down  again  in  the  morning.  '  At  night 
all  sleep  on  the  tops  of  their  houses,  their  beds 
being  spread  upon  their  terraces,  without  any 
other  covering  over  their  heads  than  the  vault  of 
heaven.  The  poor  seldom  have  a  screen  to  keep 
them  from  the  gaze  of  passengers'  (Morin,  Persia, 
229).  '  We  supped  on  the  top  of  the  house  for  cool- 
ness, according  to  their  custom,  and  lodged  there 
likewise,  in  a  sort  of  closet  about  8  ft.  square,  of 
wicker-work,  plastered  round  towards  the  bottom, 
but  without  any  doors'  (Pocock's  Travels,  ii.  6). 
Saul  appears  to  have  slept  on  the  roof  of  Samuel's 
house  in  the  unnamed  city.  '  And  it  came  to 
pass,  about  the  spring  of  the  day,  that  Samuel 
called  to  Saul  on  the  housetop,  saying.  Up,  that 
I  may  send  thee  away  '(IS  9-*)  ;  '  David  walked 
upon  the  roof  of  the  king's  house  at  Jerusalem, 
and  from  the  roof  saw  a  woman  washing  herself ' 
(2  S  11-) ;  '  Absalom  spread  a  tent  upon  the  top  of 
the  house '  (2  S  IG-')  ;  '  Nebuchadnezzar  walked 
upon  the  royal  palace  at  Babylon '  (Dn  4^) ; 
'  Samuel  communed  ^vith  Saul  upon  the  top  of  the 
house'  (IS  9-^)  ;  'the  people  made  themselves 
booths,  every  one  upon  the  roof  of  his  house ' 
(Neh  8'«). 

They  used  the  housetops  to  m^ke  their  public 
lamentations,  and  in  the  villages  to  proclaiin  any 
neics  that  required  to  be  promulgated.  As  the 
houses  had  few  windows  opening  to  the  streets, 
the  people  rushed  to  the  roofs  to  look  down  upon 
any  processions,  and  to  view  what  was  going  on 
far  and  near.  '  At  the  present  time  local  governors 
in  country  districts  cause  their  commands  thus  to 
be  published.  These  proclamations  are  generally 
made  in  the  evening,  after  the  people  have 
returned  from  their  labours  in  the  held  ;  the 
public  crier  ascends  the  highest  roof  at  hand,  and 
lifts  up  his  voice  in  a  long-drawn  call  upon  all 
faithful  subjects  to  give  ear  and  obey.  He  then 
proceeds  to  announce,  in  a  set  form,  the  will  of 
their  master,  and  to  demand  obedience  thereto.' 
'  On  their  housetops,  and  in  their  broad  places,  every 
one  howleth'  (Is  15^22').  'On  all  the  housetops 
of  Moab,  and  in  the  streets  thereof,  there  is 
lamentation '  (Jer 48*").  '  Proclaim  upon  the  house- 
tops' (Mt  10'^,  Lk  123).  Eusebius  {HE  ii.  23)  tells 
us  that  '  the  Pharisees,  who  had  a  design  upon  the 
life  of  St.  James,  bishop  of  Jerusalem,  persuaded 
him  to  preach  to  the  people,  when  assembled  at 
the  Passover,  from  the  battlements  of  the  temple, 
alluding  to  this  oistom  of  proclaiming  from  the 
housetop  whatever  was  to  be  made  known  far  and 
wide.' 

The  roof  of  the  house  in  the  East  is  used  as  i* 
the  backyard  of  European  houses ;  linen  and  flax 
are  dried  there,  also  figs,  apricots,  raisins,  and  com. 
'  The  ordinary  houses  have  no  other  place  where 
the  inmates  can  either  see  the  sun,  "smeU  the 
air,"  dry  their  clothes,  set  out  their  flower-pots,  or 
do  numfierless  other  things  essential  to  their  health 
and  comfort'  {Land  and  Book,  i.  49).  Kahab  the 
harlot  brought  the  spies  up  to  the  roof  of  the 
house  and  hid  them  with  the  stalks  of  Uax,  which 
she  had  laid  in  order  about  the  roof  (Jos  2'). 

The  staircase  from  the  roof  leads  down  into  the 
inner  court  (Mt  lU'''  24",  Lk  12').    Battlements  of 


ROOM 


KOSE 


313 


a  parapet  were  enjoined  by  the  law,  a  very  neces- 
sary precaution,  to  prevent  loss  of  life  from  falling 
over  (Dti-i"). 

Tlie  manner  in  which  Samson  brought  down  the 
roof  of  the  temple  of  Dagon  (Jg  16),  upon  which 
about  3000  persons  were  assembled,  by  pulling 
down  the  two  principal  pillars,  has  not  yet  been 
satisfactorily  ascertained.  Shaw  describes  having 
seen  several  hundreds  of  people  assembled,  on  the 
dey's  palace  in  Algiers,  to  view  an  exhibition  of 
wrestlers,  and  describes  how  the  pulling  down  of 
the  front  or  centre  pillars  would  have  been 
attended  by  a  catastrophe  similar  to  that  which 
happened  to  the  I'hilistmes  (Shaw,  Travels,  p.  2S3). 
Cf.  further,  Moore,  Jiidfjes,  ad  loc. 

The  rtat  roofs  in  Syria  at  the  present  day  are 
made  as  follows  :  Stout  beams  are  first  laid  across 
the  walls  about  2  ft.  apart ;  crosswise  is  laid  tough 
brushwood,  or,  if  that  cannot  be  obtained,  split 
wood  with  matting,  and  over  it  a  mass  of  thorny 
bush  in  bundles ;  upon  this  is  laid  a  plsLSter  of 
mud  or  clay  mortar,  which  is  well  pressed  in,  and 
over  this  a  layer  of  earth  6  to  12  in.  thick.  This  is 
pla-stered  over  with  mud  and  straw  as  a  protection 
against  the  rain.  Each  roof  requires  a  little  stone 
roller  to  be  always  ready — the  handles  of  wood 
being  movable,  and  used  for  all  the  rollers  of  the 
ditlerent  roofs ;  periodically,  and  whenever  the 
rain  falls,  the  roller  must  be  used  to  fill  in  the 
cracks  and  keep  the  roof  compact.  Constant  care 
is  required  to  avoid  leakage  (rr  27'°).  During  the 
?£!>  excavations  at  Jerusalem  one  of  these  roof 
rollers  was  found  in  the  ancient  aqueduct  to  the 
west  of  the  temple,  where  it  must  have  lain  for 
q^uite  1800  years,  showing  that  flat  roofs  at  that 
time  were  in  use  at  Jerusalem,  though  at  the 
present  day  they  are  mostly  domed  roofs  of  stone, 
on  account  of  the  scarcity  of  timber.  The  un- 
covering of  a  roof  (Mk  2*)  of  this  nature  would  not 
be  a  dillicult  matter.    See  House  in  vol.  ii.  p.  432". 

l'"or  other  points  connected  with  the  subject  of 
this  art.  see  BRICK,  GATE,  House,  Pavement, 
Walls. 

LiTERATXTRE- — WilldnBOD,  Ano.  Egypt. ;  Fergoisson,  Arekitec- 
turf  ;  Layard,  Sineveh  ;  Place,  Ninivi ;  Perrot  and  Chipiez, 
^9i/pf*  a'so  Chaldoea  and  Assyria;  FEFSt;  Thomson.  Tke 
Laiid  and  the  Book.  See  also  Marshall  in  Expos.  March  IS&l,  p. 
8181.  ;  Ranisav,  Was  Chrim  bom  at  liethUhemt;  E.  A  Abbott, 
CJu<(190u),  p.  1180. ;  and  the  Oomm.  od  Mk  2^,  Lk  b^». 

C.  Warken. 
ROOM.— 1.  Space  to  slay  in :  Gn  24'^  '  Is  there 
room  in  thy  father's  house  for  us  to  lodge  in  ? ' ;  so 
24.15.81  (^]i  [,,p_^  from  Dip  to  rise  up,  stand;  RV 
adds  Is  5'  for  same  Heb.,  AV  'place');  Ps  31' 
'Thou  hast  set  my  feet  in  a  large  room '  (3rri7,  from 
aOT  to  be  spacious  ;  KV  '  place ') ;  Lk  2'  '  There 
was  no  room  for  them  in  the  inn,'  and  14*^  '  Yet 
there  is  room  '  (both  t-ottos)  ;  cf.  Mai  3'°  '  there  shall 
not  be  room  enough  to  receive  it'  (no  Heb.),  Mk  2'^ 
•So  that  there  was  no  room  to  receive  them'  (fiffre 
liriKiri  xwpf '".  RV  '  80  that  there  was  no  longer 
room  for  them') ;  Lk  12"  '  I  have  no  room  where 
to  be.-itow  my  fruits '  {ovk  fx«  "■<>'',  RV  '  I  have 
not  where').  In  this  sense  is  the  phrase  'make 
room,'  Gn  26*",  Pr  18"  (both  3m) ;  to  which  IlVm 
adds  2  Co  7'  'make  room  for  us'  (Gr.  x^P')''"" 
i)^lat,  AV  'Receive  us,'  RV  'Open  your  hearts  to 
us')  Similarly  Ps  80°  'Thou  preparedst  room 
before  it'  (no  Heb.).  Cf.  Dt  .33^  Tind.  'Blessed 
is  the  rowmmaker  Gad  '  (AV  '  Blessed  be  he  that 
enlargelh  Gad') ;  aod  Milton,  PL  viL  488— 

'  First  crept 
The  pareimoaloufl  emmet,  provident 
Of  future.  In  small  room  large  heart  enclosed.' 

8.  A  defnite  position  to  be  occupied  :  To  2*,  Wis 
13'»  (both  oiKTitia.) ;  1  Co  14"  '  he  that  occupieth  the 
room  of  the  unlearned'  (A  avaTrXrfpQiv  riii  rtnrov  tov 
ISiuToy,  Vulg.  qui  supplet  lucum  idioUc).  Cf. 
Mel  rill.  Diary,  0,  'I  durst  na  wayes  waver  or 


mint  away,  bot  stand  stedfast  in  that  roum  and 
station  wlier  He  haid  placed  me ' ;  Calderwood, 
Hist.  12,S,  'Displacing  ot  the  Minister  of  Glasgow 
out  of  his  roome,  which  witliout  reproach  he  hath 
occupied  these  many  years.'  This  is  the  meaning 
of  'room'  wlien  in  AV  irpwroKXiula  is  tr''  'upper- 
most room'  (Mt  23''  Mk  12^-',  RV  both  'chief  place'), 
or  'chief  room'  (Lk  14',  RV  'chief  seat,'  20'«,  RV 
'chief  place '),  or  '  highest  room '  (Lk  14",  RV  'chief 
seat ').  The  Gr.  word  means  the  place  of  highest 
honour  at  table.  See  FOOD,  vol.  ii.  p.  43".  Cf. 
Knox,  Jlist.  380,  'But,  said  hee  (turning  his  face 
towards  the  Room  where  such  men  as  had  so 
alhrmed  sate),  if  I  bee  not  able  to  prove  the  Masse 
to  bee  the  most  abominable  Idolatry  that  ever 
was  used  from  the  beginning  of  the  world,  I  oiler 
my  selfe  to  sull'er  the  punishment  appointed  by 
God  to  a  false  Preacher ' ;  Lever,  Sermons,  107, 
'Then  who  can  de.syre  a  better  master  tlien  the 
Lorde  God  or  a  higher  roume  then  a  steward- 
shyppe  in  the  house  of  Christ ' ;  and  Ps  63"  in 
metre — 

■  Who  seek  my  soul  to  spill  shall  sink 
Dowu  to  earth's  lowest  room.' 

So  in  the  frequent  phrase  '  in  the  room  of  or  '  in 
his  room,'  the  Heb.  being  n.-n  (2  S  19",  1  K  2=="'" 
51.  0  gjo^  2  K  15-^  '23»',  2  Ch  26' ;  R V  adds  2  K  14='  for 
AV  '  instead  of  ') ;  and  the  Gr.  dvrl  (Mt  2--).  So  Ac 
24-''  '  Porcius  Festus  came  into  Felix'  room '  {IXa^e 
SiaSoxov  6  ^^Xif  UipKiov  <l>^<rTor,  RV  '  Felix  was  suc- 
ceeded by  Porcius  Festus').  Cf.  Melvill,  Diary, 
129,  '  The  Generall  Assemblie  commandit  the  Pres- 
byterie  of  Edinbruche  to  keipe  his  roum  frie,  and 
place  nan  thairin';  Calderwood,  Hist.  110,  'It 
pertaines  to  the  Office  of  a  Christian  Magistrate 
.  .  .  to  see  that  the  Kirk  be  not  invaded,  nor 
hurt  by  iaUe  Teachers  and  Hirelings,  nor  the 
roomes  thereof  occupied  by  dumb  doggs  or  idle 
bellies.'  Tlie  plu.  'in  their  rooms'  is  found  in 
1  K  20=*  (RV  '  room  ')  and  1  Ch  4"  (RV  '  stead  '), 
Heb.  in  both  places  on-gija  Cf.  Dt  2^  Tind.  '  The 
Caphthorvms  which  came  out  of  Caphllior  de- 
stroyed them  and  dwelt  in  their  rowmes.'  This 
is  the  meaning  in  the  phrase  'give  room,'  which 
has  been  changed  into  'give  place'  in  AV  where- 
ever  it  occurs  in  earlier  VSS  ;  thus  Gal  2°  Tind. 
'  To  whom  we  gave  no  roume,  no  not  for  the  space 
of  an  houre,'  so  Gen.  NT  1557,  but  1560  '  gave  not 
place.'  Cf.  Tindale,  Works,  i.  227,  '  Dearly  be- 
loved, avenge  not  yourselves,  but  give  room  unto 
the  wrath  of  God  ;  and  Pent.  (Prologe)  'Isaac 
when  his  welles  which  he  had  digged  were  taken 
from  him,  geveth  rowme  and  resisleth  not.' 

8.  The  '  upper  room  '  of  Mk  14'°,  Lk  22'^  (Gr.  avi- 
yatov,  TR  di'iJ7£0>'),  and  of  Ac  l"(Gr.  inrtpi^ov,  RV 
'  upper  chamber ')  is  a  room  in  the  upper  storey  of 
the  house,  'a  roof-chamber'  (see  Moore  on  Jg  3-'°; 
Driver,  Daniel ,  p.  74  ;  Thomson,  Land  and  Book', 
ii.  634,  636  [witli  illustration] ;  and  cf.  House  in 
vol.  ii.  p.  433").  RV  adds  1  Ch  28"  (Heb.  n^Yj^  AV 
'  upi"  1  cliamber '), 

4.  In  Gn  6'''  it  is  said  that  Noah's  ark  had 
'rooms'  made  in  it.  The  Heb.  (D';p)  is  lit.  'nests," 
and  is  usually  understood  to  mean  small  divisions 
or  cells.  J.  Hastings. 

ROSE  (n^pq  IMhazzeleth,  Ca  2',  Is  35'  RVm  in 
both  '  autumn  crocus.' — Some  have  derived  this 
word  from  Vj;  bdzal,  the  same  as  the  Arab,  basal 
=  ' onion,'  and  secondarily  'bulb.'  This  theory 
rests  on  the  supposition  that  the  initial  n  is  a 
mistake  for  n.  Apart,  however,  from  the  fact 
that  there  is  no  critical  support  for  this  theory,  it 
pains  no  probability  from  the  ancient  versions. 
The  Syriac,  for  examnle,  hnmznllditii,  gives  the  n 
also  instead  of  n.  The  'I'.irgum  on  Ca  2'  ex- 
plains lidbhazzeleth  by  cip-.3  =  narcissus  (Celsius, 
Uicrob.  i.   48ii).     An  Assyrian  word  of  similar 


form,  hahasillatu,  signifies  a  '  marsh  plant  or 
reed.'  Notwithstanding  the  authority  of  Gesenius, 
Michaelis,  and  Kosennmller,  we  are  inclined  to 
accept  nru-cissus  as  the  correct  translation.  Two 
species  of  this  genus  grow  in  Palestine  and  Syria, 
N.  Tazetia,  L.,  (lowering  from  November  to 
March,  and  ..Y.  serotinus,  L.,  flowering  in  autumn. 
Tlie  former  has  larger  and  more  sweetly  scented 
flowers  than  the  latter.  They  are  of  the  familiar 
pattern,  with  a  white  perigoniuiu,  and  yellow, 
tup-shaped  crown.  The  scape  bears  from  three  to 
tun  flowers.  The  mention  of  tlie  'narcissus  of 
Sharon  '  in  parallelism  with  the  '  lily  (shoshannCih) 
of  the  valleys'  increases  the  probability  that  they 
are  allied  plants.  iVids/i/oinaA  is  doubtless  generic, 
and  may  include  \'arious  species  of  Iris,  Colchicum, 
Crocus,  Pancratium,  Ixiolirion,  Tulipa,  FritUlaria, 
Hyacinthus,  Asphodeline,  ete.  (see  Lily),  any  or 
all  of  which  would  go  well  in  a  parallelism  with 
narcissus.  For  the  tr"  'rose'  we  have  only  the 
authority  of  Ben  Melech  (Cels.  Hierob.  i.  488). 
The  LXX  ivdoi  and  KpLvov  give  it  no  support. 

The  rose  is  mentioned  in  several  places  ia  the 
Apocrypha.  Sirach  speaks  of  <j>\rra.  pbSov  iv  'lepixv, 
'  a  rose  plant  in  Jericho '  (24'^,  cf.  39").  Seven 
species  of  rose  exist  in  Pal.  and  Syria — Hosa  lutea, 
L.,  the  Yellow  Bose,  which  grows  only  in  N.  Syria  ; 
R.  glutinosa,  S.  et  S.,  and  R.  Thurcti,  Barnat  et 
Gremli,  both  Alpine  species;  B.  canina,  L.,  the 
Dog  Rose,  a  mountain  species ;  B.  dunictorum, 
Thuill.,  a  species  growing  from  Lebanon  and  Anti- 
lebanon  northward  ;  B.  Arabica,  Crep.,  a  Sinaitic 
species ;  and  B.  Phcenicea,  Boiss.  The  latter  is 
almost  universal.  The  present  writer  has  not 
met  with  any  of  these  species  at  Jericho,  but  the 
last  might  easily  grow  there  in  hedges.  There  is 
nothing  in  the  context  to  prevent  the  'rose  plant 
in  Jericho '  being  a  cultivated  one.  It  has  nothing 
to  do  with  the  traditional  'rose  of  Jericho.'  This 
is  a  low,  annual  Crucifer,  Anastatica  hierochun- 
tina,  L.  The  so-called  rose  in  this  case  is  the 
entire  plant,  which,  after  maturing,  dries  up,  and 
its  branches  curl  inward,  forming  a  brown  hemi- 
sphere, 3  to  4  in.  broad.  On  placing  the  root  in 
water,  it  absorbs  moisture,  and  the  dry  branches 
expand,  and  spread  open.  It  has  no  resemblance 
to  a  rose,  except  in  its  round  contour.  Roses  are 
everywhere  cultivated  in  Pal.  and  Syria,  and 
passionately  admired  by  the  people.  The  name 
Wardeh  =  'Rose,  is  a  favourite  girl's  name  in 
Arabic  (cf.  NT  Rhoda).  One  of  the  industries  for 
which  Damascus  is  noted  is  the  distilling  of  rose- 
water  and  an  essential  oil  (attar  of  roses),  as  well 
as  the  making  of  syrup  of  roses.  Large  plantations 
of  rosebushes  are  to  be  seen  there  and  in  other 
parts  of  the  country.  G.  £.  Post. 

ROSH  (P^!^).— 1.  A  son,  or,  according  to  the  LXX 
('Pus),  a  grandson,  of  Benjamin,  (in  46-'.  The 
reading  of  MT  D'SD  ctcii  -nn  '  Elii  and  Rosh, 
Muppim,'  should,  however,  probably  be  corrected 
after  Nu  26**  to  oziei  cTnK  '  Aliiram  and  Shupham ' 
(cf.  also  1  Ch  S'"-).  2.  In  the  title  of  Gog  b^n-i  kx} 
V?ni  Tjr?  in  Ezk  38='-  39'  (KV  'prince  of  Rosh, 
Meshech,  and  Tubal' ;  AV  and  RVm  'chief  prince 
of  Meshech  and  Tubal ' ;  AVni  '  prince  of  the  chief 
of  Meshech  and  Tubal ').  It  is  most  probable  that 
Bosh  is  liere  the  name  of  a  people  or  country,  like 
Meshkch  and  Tubal  (so  LXX  ['Pus]  and  Symm. 
and  Theod.).  Its  position,  however,  cannot  be 
identified.  Gesenius  actually  thought  of  the 
Russians,  but  this  is  impossible.  Even  the  land 
of  Bash,  on  the  western  border  of  Elam,  which 
is  mentioned  in  the  cuneiform  inscriptions  (.see 
Delitzscli,  Paradies,  322),  appears  (see  A.  B.  David- 
son, Ezekicl,  ad  loc.)  to  lie  too  far  east  for  the 
requirements  of  the  prophecy.  For  further  con- 
jectures see  the  Commentaries  of  Bertholet  and 


Kiaetzschmar,  adluc.  Dulim,  followed  by  Cheyne, 
finds  this  same  cxt  concealed  under  the  n-ap  ('  bow ') 
of  Is  66"'.  J.  A.  Selbib. 

RUBY. — Three  Heb.  words,  oiit,  nb-i;,  and  o-j'w, 
are  tr.  'ruby'  in  EV  (text  or  margin),  but  it  ia 
doubtful  whether  this  is  tlie  stone  meant. 

1.  D-iN  is  tr.  '  ruby '  in  A  Vm  and  RVm  at  Ex  28" 
39'",  Ezk  '28'^.  The  text,  in  each  case,  has  sardiuBi 
after  the  Vulg.  sardius  and  the  LXX  (rapoiov.  dim 
(from  mx  or  dtx  '  to  be  red  ')  would  obviously  be  a 
suitable  name  for  any  red  stone.  There  is  nothing 
in  it  to  help  us  in  fixing  on  the  special  kind  of 
gem.  A  similar  ambiguity  attaches  to  the  cognate 
Assyr.  word  adamntit,  when  used  as  a  plant- 
name  ;  all  that  Fried.  Delitzsch  (Assyr.  Hand- 
wiirterbuch,  sub  voce)  feels  justified  in  saying  of  it 
is  that  it  is  '  a  plant,  probably  so  called  on  account 
of  its  colour.'  Pliny,  too,  presents  the  same  kind 
of  difficulty  as  we  meet  here ;  his  method  ol 
naming  stones  according  to  their  colours  often 
leaves  us  uncertain  which  of  them  he  has  in  view. 
Modem  authorities  are  divided  between  the  claims 
of  the  carnclian  [Petrie  makes  it  the  red  jasper ; 
see  art.  Stones  (Precious)]  and  the  ruby  to  repre- 
sent the  Heb.  din,  the  majority  favouring  the  former. 
Two  considerations  are  in  favour  of  this  view  :  by 
far  the  largest  number  of  gems  whicli  have  come 
down  to  us  from  antiquity  are  carnelians  ;  and  the 
DHN  of  Exodus  was  an  engraved  stone,  whereas  the 
ruby,  on  account  of  its  hardness,  was  seldom  en- 
graved in  ancient  times. 

2.  1315  is  tr.  '  ruby '  by  RV  at  Is  54'",  Ezk  27" ; 
AV  has  '  agate,'  m.  '  Heb.  chrysoprase ' ;  LXX  has 
lao-n-it  (Is.)  and  x^PXi^P  (Ezek.)  (from  the  common 
confusion  of  i  and  i) ;  Vulg.  iaypis  and  chodchud. 
It  is  impossible  to  determine  what  the  "i3"!3  was. 
The  root  from  which  the  noun  is  derived  probably 
means  '  to  sparkle.'  But  this  would  suit  a  car- 
buncle almost,  if  not  quite,  as  well  as  a  ruby. 

3.  At  Job  2S'«,  Pr  3'^  [Kctkibk,  by  a  transcriber's 
mistake,  D-i?]  8"  20"  31"*,  La  i\  AV  and  RV  tr. 
D'j-13  '  rubies ' ;  RVm  has  '  red  coral  or  pearls,'  ex- 
cept at  La  4',  which  has  '  corals.'  The  LXX  is  very 
vague  and  fluctuating,  using  \L6oi,  \lSoi  roXirreXeU, 
Tit,  {auTara  (Job  28'^) ;  and  the  Vulg.  is  still  more 
unhelpful, '  cnnctis pretiosissimis,''  '  c\m<;i\s opibus,' 
'  multitudo  qemmarum,'  '  de  ultimis  _/(ni6j«,'  'de 
occultis,'  and  at  La  4'  '  ebore  antiquo.'  (Toy,  Prov. 
p.  72,  appears  to  think  that  this  last  is  due  to  a 
mistaken  reading,  c-i^n  ;  but  it  is  to  be  noted  that 
at  Ezk  27'"  the  Vulg.  renders  D:j3ri  \-j  hy  dentet 
hebeninos).  Although  □■}•}?  never  occurs  m  a  list 
of  gems,  the  Heb.  writers  must  have  had  a  distinct 
class  of  stones  in  view.  This  is  clear  from  La  4'  : 
the  colour  of  the  human  body  could  not  be  com- 
pared to  that  of  precious  stones  in  general.  The 
same  passage  seems  also  to  preclude  the  'pearls' 
of  our  RVm.  For  if  Carey  (quoted  by  Delitzsch, 
Job,  p.  370)  had  seen  '  pearls  of  a  slightly  reddish 
tinge,'  these  are,  at  all  events,  not  so  common  as 
to  justify  a  comparison  which  would  imply  that 
pearls  are  usually  red.  The  clioice  would  appear 
to  lie  between  'ruby'  and  'red  coral.'  And  the 
decision  depends  on  two  considerations — the  value 
and  the  colour  of  these  two  classes  of  objects. 
The  passages  in  Job  and  Proverbs  show  that  O'j'J? 
were  costly.  'The  price  of  wisdom  is  above  D'j'i?. 
Either  rubies  or  coral  would  answer  to  this  require- 
ment. Rubies  have  always  commanded  a  high 
price.  Theophrastus  speaks  of  quite  a  small  ivBpai 
as  being  w'orth  forty  gold  staters.  Benvenuto 
Cellini,  in  the  16th  cent.,  states  that  a  ruby  of 
one  carat  was  worth  eight  times  as  much  as  a 
diamond  of  the  same  weight.  A  fine  ruby  will 
still  fetch  more  than  a  diamond  of  the  same  size. 
But  red  coral  {corallium  rubrum)  has  also  always 
been  held  in  high  esteem.     In  ancient  times  it  wils 


KUDDER 


RUM  AH 


315 


eagerly  jnircliased  in  India.  It  finds  a  place  in 
the  Lapidarium  of  Marljodus.  IJood  specimens 
continue  to  command  a  lii<;li  price  in  China.  The 
coral  lisheries  are  a  carefuUj*  regulated  and  highly 
iuijiortant  source  of  wealth  on  the  Mediterranean 
coasts.  On  the  second  point — tliat  of  colour — 
the  present  writer  is  of  opinion  that  the  balance 
inclines  in  favour  of  the  coral.  Rubies  are  ot  too 
deep  and  fiery  a  hue  to  be  compared  at  La  4'  to 
the  red  of  even  an  Oriental's  body,  notwithstand- 
ing the  fact  that  there  are  exceptional  gems,  such 
as  the  one  King  describes  {Antimie  Gems,  p.  250), 
'of  the  most  delicious  cerise  colour.'  But  coral 
is  found  of  every  shade — deep  red,  rose  pink,  tlesh 
colour,  and  even  milky  white.  There  is  no  dilH- 
cultv  about  the  supposition  that  the  Jews  were 
familiar  with  it,  for  it  was  to  be  obtained  from  the 
coast  of  India  and  the  lied  Sea,  as  well  as  from 
the  Mediterranean.  J.  Taylob. 

RUDDER.— See  Ships  and  Boats. 

RUDIMENT.- See  Element. 

RUE  (irfiyami',  ruta). — Ruta  graveohns,  L.,  the 
officinal  rue,  is  a  heavy-smellin",  shrubby  plant, 
of  the  order  Sutacecc,  2  to  4  ft.  higli,  witli  glandular- 
dotted,  bi-pinnately  parted  leaves,  and  corymbose, 
3'ellow  Howers.  It  is  cultivated  for  its  medicinal 
properties,  which  are  antispasmodic  and  emraena- 
gogue.  It  has  been  inferred  from  Lk  II**  that  it 
was  one  of  the  plants  subject  to  tillie  (but  see 
Plummer,  ad  loc).  The  indigenous  rue  of  Pal. 
is  Euta  Chahpenais,  L.,  the  Aleppo  rue,  which 
dill'crs  but  slightly  from  the  officinal  species. 

G.  E.  Post. 

RUFUS  ('PoP.jios).— In  Mk  15-' we  are  told  that 
Simon  of  Cyrune,  who  bore  our  Lord's  cross,  was 
the  father  of  Alexander  and  Rufus.  In  Ro  16'^ 
St.  Paul  sends  his  salutation  to  Rufus, '  the  chosen 
in  the  Lord,  and  his  mother  and  mine.'  The  name, 
meaning  'red,'  'reddish,'  was  among  the  com- 
monest of  slave  names.  The  mention  of  Simon  as 
the  father  of  Alexander  and  Rufus  seems  to  imply 
that  the  two  latter  were  known  in  the  circles  to 
which  the  Gospel  was  addressed.  There  is  some 
evidence  for  tliinking  that  St.  Mark's  Gospel  was 
written  in  Rome  ;  if  this  be  so,  then  the  same 
person  may  be  referred  to  in  both  passages ;  but 
as  the  name  was  so  common,  this  can  be  only  a 
conjecture.  'Chosen  in  the  Lord'  implies  some 
particular  eminence  as  a  Christian,  and  not  merely 
one  of  the  elect,  which  would  not  be  any  special 
distinction.  By  'his  mother  and  mine,'  St.  Paul 
means  that  the  mother  of  Rufus  had  on  some 
occasion  shown  to  him  the  care  of  a  mother,  and 
that  therefore  he  felt  for  her  the  alfection  of  a  son. 

The  name  of  Rufus  was  made  use  of  largely  in  legendary 
hi9tor>'.  He  is  introduced  into  the  Acts  of  Andrew  and  of 
PHer.  According  to  one  account  he  was  bishop  of  Thebea  ; 
aoconJinp  to  another,  bishop  of  Capua ;  according  to  anotlnT, 
bishop  o(  Avi|,'non.  The  last  legend  states  that  he  tr:i\xllfd 
to  .Spain,  founded  the  church  at  Tortosa,  went  over  the  Alps 
to  Narhonne,  and  preached  in  Avi;.'non.  He  appears  to  have 
been  commemorated  on  the  12th,  14th,  and  21st  November. 

A.  C.  Headlam. 
RHG.-Jg  4"  RV  and  AVm.      See  Mantle, 
No.  4. 

RUHAMAH.— The  second  child  (a  daughter)  of 
Gomur,  Hosea's  unfaithful  wife,  was  called  Lo- 
RUllAMAH,  '  unpitied,'  Uos  l"- »,  as  a  type  of  Israel, 
when,  unnitied  by  .laliweh,  slie  was  to  be  given 
over  to  calamity.  The  opi)osite  condition  of  things 
ie  expressed  in  Hos  2>  [Lng.  2']  'Say  ye  unto  your 
brethren,  Animi  (i.e.  'my  people,'  in  opposition  to 
the  name  of  the  third  child,  Lo-AMMI,  '  not  my 
people'),  and  to  your  sisters,  Ruhamah'  (tjo-i 
'pitied,'  LXX  'l^\n\iUrr)).    Similarly,  when  Jah- 


well's  an-rer  is  turned  away.  He  declares  in  v.''<^) 
'  and  I  will  have  mercy  upon  her  that  had  not  obtained 
mercy '  {tvcrihnmti  eth-l6  ruhamah,  LXX  B  Koi  d7a7r. 
TJcroi  TTjx  OvK  Tj-favriixivTiv  [ AQ  have  (Xe-fiau  for  d7ajrv)o-u), 
and  i)\triixivT)v  for  ^-lairrnjAv-qv,  cf.  llort  on  1  I'  2'"]). 

J.  A.  Selrie. 

RULERS  OF  THE  CITY  is,  at  Ac  17«  ',  the  EV 
rendering  of  the  (Jr.  jroXiTdpxai  (on  the  various 
spelling  TToXeiT.  see  Tisch.  N'l^,  Prol.  p.  86,  n.  2),  as 
the  special  local  title  belonging  to  the  magistrates 
in  Thessalonica,  belore  whose  bar  the  Jews  of  that 
city,  along  with  a  mob  of  market-idlers,  dragged 
Ja.son  and  other  Christian  c<mverts,  under  a  charge 
of  hospitably  receiving  Paul  and  Silas,  and  of  en- 
tertaining treasonable  designs  against  the  emperor. 
The  word  denotes  'rulers  of  the  citizens,'  who,  as 
Thessalonica  was  a  free  city,  had  then  the  privi- 
lege of  choosing  their  own  rulers.  The  use  of  the 
term  TroXirdpx'?'  lias  been  pointed  to  as  an  excel- 
lent illustration  of  the  accuracy  of  St.  Luke  (e.g. 
by  Alford  and  Knowling,  ad  loc.)  ;  for,  while  it  is 
not  employed  in  that  form  by  classical  authors,  who 
use  TroMapx"!  and  TroMrapxos,  the  actual  existence  of 
the  Lukan  form  at  Thessalonica  is  vouched  for  by 
inscriptions  discovered  there,  one  of  which  (assigned 
to  the  time  of  Vespasian)  mentions  among  the 
politarchs  for  the  time  being  Sosipater,  Secundus, 
and  Gains — names  occurring  also  as  those  of  com- 
panions of  St.  Paul  (Boeckh,  CIG  1067,  quoted  by 
Conybeare  and  Howson,  and  by  Alford). 

iluch  fresh  light  is  thrown  on  this  subject  in  a 
paper  by  Prof.  Burton  of  Chicago,  in  the  American 
Journal  of  Theology  for  July  1898,  entitled  '  The 
Politarchs,'  in  which  he  has  carefully  collected,  and 
commented  on,  the  inscriptions  which  attest  the 
u.se  of  the  noun  iroXa-apxns  or  of  the  verb  iroXi- 
Tapxio).  The  following  is  a  summary  of  his  results : 
— There  are  seventeen  inscriptions  which  attest 
the  existence  of  the  office  of  politarch  in  ancient 
cities,  to  which  other  two  may  be  added,  if  we 
accept  recent  probable  restorations.  Eleven  con- 
tain the  verb,  always  in  the  present  participle,  and 
mostly  in  the  genitive  plural ;  seven  contain  the 
noun,  giving  in  all  eleven  instances  of  it.  There 
is  itacistic  variation  between  ei  and  i  in  the  second 
syllable  of  both  noun  and  verb.  While  isolated 
examples  occur  from  Thrace,  liithyiiia,  the  lios- 
poran  kingdom,  and  Egypt,  no  fewer  than  thirteen 
belong  to  Macedonia,  and  live  of  these  without 
much  doubt  to  Thessalonica  itself.  None  have 
apparently  been  di.scovered  from  Greece  proper, 
and  there  is  no  re.ason  to  believe  that  the  ollieo 
existed  south  of  Macedonia.  Its  presence  in  the 
latter  province  so  largely  was  probably  due  to 
Roman  inlluence  in  its  municipal  organization. 
The  five  Thessalonian  inscriptions  extenil  from  the 
beginning  of  the  1st  to  the  middle  of  the  2nd 
cent.  A.D.  As  regards  number,  Thessalonica  had 
five  politarchs  in  the  reign  of  Augustus  and  six 
under  Antoninus  Pius  and  Marcus  Auielius. 
Burton  gives  a  full  bibliography,  mentioning  as 
the  most  recent  book  that  of  Dimitzas :  'H  Macf- 
bovla  iv  \lOois   ^Oeyyopi^vois    Kal  fMvtj/xclois  (Fta^ofj.{voi$, 

2  vols.,  Athens,  189(i.        William  P.  Dickson. 

RULER(S)  OF  THE  SYNAGOGUE.— See  SvNA- 

aoc.UK. 

RUMAH  {m^n;  B  Kpov/xd,  A  'Pi-Mi).— The  home 
of  Pedaiah,  the  maternal  grandfather  of  king 
Jelioiakim,  2  K  23^".  .losephus,  in  the  parallel 
passage.  Ant.  X.  v.  2,  has  'Ajiovni,  no  tfoubt  ft 
copyist's  error  for  'Apov/id,  wliich  may  lie  the 
Arumaii  of  Jg  9*',  which  lay  in  the  neighbourhood 
of  Shechcm.  Another  Rumah  (in  Galilee)  is 
named  in  Jos.  BJ  III.  vii.  21,  which  tna;/  have 
been  the  birthplace  of  Pedaiah  (see  Neubnuer, 
Giog.  du   Talm.  203 ;   GuArin,   GaliUe,   i.   367  f .  ; 


316 


RUNNERS 


RYE 


Bnhl,  GAP  220f.),  if  we  may  suppose  that  con- 
nubium  still  subsisted  between  the  Northern  and 
Koutbern  kingdoms. 

The  reading  non  for  non  in  Jos  15'^,  although 
supported  by  tlie  LXX  (B  'Fe/Mvi,  A  'Poi;/;td),  is 
probably  a  copyist's  error.  See  Dumah,  No.  2. 
According  to  Jerome,  there  was  a  various  reading, 
Itumnh  (i.e.  Home)  for  Dumnh  in  Is  21",  which  is 
said  also  to  have  been  found  in  a  manuscript  belong- 
ing to  R.  Meir.  J.  A.  Selbie. 

RUNNERS.— See  Footman,  and  Guard,  No.  2. 

RUSH.— See  Ueed. 

RUTH  (nn,  LXX  'PoiJe).- The  heroine  of  the 
Bk.  of  Ruth.  She  was  a  Moabitess,  the  wife  of 
Mahlon  (Ru  4'°)  the  son  of  Elimelech  and  Naomi 
■who  were  residing  in  the  land  of  Moab  because  of 
a  famine  in  Judah  (Ru  I'"'-).  Bv  the  time  that  the 
famine  ceased,  Elimelech  and  his  two  sons  were 
dead.  Naomi  decided  to  return  to  her  own  land, 
and  after  she  and  her  daughters-in-law  had  started 
she  recommended  them  to  stay  in  their  native  land 
and  marry  again.  Ruth  refused,  and  declared  her 
intention  that  nothing  short  of  death  should  part 
her  from  Naomi.  They  went  on  their  way,  and 
arrived  at  Bethlehem,  much  to  the  surprise  of  the 
inhabitants.  It  was  the  beginning  of  barley  har- 
vest. Elinielech's  kinsman,  Boaz,  was  one  of  the 
leading  inhabitants  of  Bethlehem,  and  Ruth  went 
to  glean,  and  by  chance  entered  a  part  of  his  field. 
Here  Boaz  noticed  her  and  bade  her  remain  in  the 
same  field,  and  praised  her  for  the  care  she  had 
taken  of  her  mother-in-law.  He  invited  her  to 
share  the  meal  of  the  reapers,  and  instructed  his 
men  to  show  her  proper  respect  (ch.  2).  Instigated 
by  her  mother,  she  introduced  herself  into  his 
presence  at  night  and  claimed  his  protection.  He 
was  quite  « illing  to  give  it  to  her,  but  there  was  a 
nearer  kinsman  who  had  prior  rights  to  bis,  and 
he  had  to  be  reckoned  with  first.  Boaz  therefore 
sent  Ruth  home  with  a  present  for  her  mother, 
whilst  he  himself  took  the  necessary  steps  to  call 
upon  the  nearer  kinsman  to  e.vercise  or  refuse  to 
exercise  his  rights  (ch.  3).  He  summoned  him  to 
his  side  at  the  gate  of  the  city,  with  ten  elders  of 
the  city  as  witnesses.  He  then  called  upon  the 
nearest  kinsman  to  buy  or  redeem  Elinielech's 
portion  of  land.  He  refused  to  do  this,  because 
it  involved  his  taking  to  wife  Ruth  the  Moabitess, 
and  passed  on  his  rights  to  Boaz  by  drawing  olT 
his  shoe  and  giving  it  to  Boaz ;  for  '  this  was  the 
manner  of  attestation  in  Israel.'  The  people  in 
the  gate  were  called  upon  as  well  as  the  elders  to 
bear  witness  to  the  transaction,  and  invoked  the 
blessing  of  God  upon  Boaz  and  Uuth  (4'"'*).  In 
this  way  they  were  married,  and  their  firstborn 
son  was  called  Obed,  from  whom  were  descended 
David  and  Christ  (Ru  4""'-,  of.  Mt  1»). 

The  name  Ruth  is  of  uncertain  origin.  It  is 
to  be  noticed  that  her  alleged  descendant  David 
entered  into  friendly  relations  v.ith  Moab  (cf.  1  S 
22'-  *).  The  transaction  recorded  in  this  book  is 
on  the  same  lines  as  that  legalized  in  Dt  25°'"', 
though  not  coming  under  that  law  (see  Driver, 
Deut.  285).  The  actual  selling  of  the  laud  by 
Naomi  conies  nearer  to  the  law  of  Lv  25^.  At- 
tempts have  been  made  to  assign  the  history  to 
the  days  of  E"lon  (Jg  3'^"*),  or  the  time  of  scarcity 
preceding  Gideon's  call  (Jg  &^] 
next  article. 


).     See,   further, 
H.  A.  Redpath. 


RUTH,  BOOK  OF This  book,   in  which    the 

history  of  Ruth  (see  preceding  article)  is  narrated, 
is  full  of  interest.  It  is  an  anonymous  work, 
idyllic  in  its  character,  describing  pastoral  life 
among  the  Hebrews  in  a  time  of  peace  and  order. 


when  old  customs  were  kept  up  and  careftJly 
observed. 

i.  The  Date  of  the  Book. — This  must  ba 
considerably  later  than  the  history,  though  how 
much  later  is  a  matter  of  controversy.  The  book 
looks  back  to  '  the  days  when  the  juilges  ruled'  (!'), 
to  a  custom  existing  'in  former  time  in  Israel'  (4'), 
and  carries  the  descent  from  Boaz  down  to  David 
(4-^),  unless,  as  some  have  with  little  probability 
thought,  the  last  verses  do  not  really  belong  to 
the  book.  But  it  claims  no  particular  date  for 
itself,  though  the  style  would  lead  us  to  assign 
it  to  a  comparatively  early  one.  The  linguistic 
dilUculties  in  the  way  of  its  being  early  have  been 
discu.ssed  by  Driver  [LOT  pp.  426,  427  [«454,  455]). 
The  main  argument  for  a  post-exUic  date,  besides 
the  linguistic  one,  is  the  way  in  which  the  customs 
of  ch.  4  are  treated  as  quite  obsolete. 

ii.  The  Object  of  the  Book.— This  may  be 
described  as  twofold.  (1)  To  introduce  us  to  the 
family  from  which  David  was  descended  ;  and 
(2)  to  illustrate  the  marriage  laws  of  the  Israel- 
ites. The  marriage  of  Rutli  the  Moabitess  with 
Mahlon  seems  at  first  to  run  counter  to  the  law 
as  laid  down  in  Dt  23'-  *,  and  certainly  in  post- 
exilic  times  such  a  union  was  held  to  be  unlawful 
(see  Ezr  9'-  *,  Neh  10^),  but  the  law  quoted  says 
nothing  about  marriage,  and  differs  in  its  terms 
from  that  of  Dt  7^.  Some  of  those  who  look  upon 
this  book  as  post-exUic  have  been  tempted  to 
regard  it  almost  as  a  political  pamphlet,  and  a 
protest  against  the  action  taken  both  by  Ezra 
and  Nehemiah. 

iii.  Place  in  the  Canon. — In  the  Jewish  Canon 
the  Talmud  (Bab.  Baba  bathra  14)  places  it  first 
amongst  the  Hagiographa  or  third  class  of  sacred 
writings  immediately  before  the  Psalms.  In 
Hebrew  Bibles  it  is  one  of  the  five  Megilloth  or 
rolls  which  were  read  in  the  Synagogue  on  five 
special  days  in  the  Jewisli  ecclesiastical  year — 
Ruth  being  read  at  the  Feast  of  Weeks.  As  this 
was  the  second  of  the  five  days,  the  Book  of  Ruth 
generally  appears  second  in  order  ;  but  in  Spanish 
SiSS  and  m  one  Bible  of  A.D.  1009  Ruth  comes 
first  (Buld,  Canon  of  the  OT,  i.  §  10).  The  arrange- 
ment adopted  in  modern  versions  by  which  Ruth 
follows  Judges  goes  back  to  the  Vulgate  and  LXX, 
and  also  to  Josephus.*  Its  position  in  them  ia 
due  to  its  having  been  linked  on  to  the  Book  of 
Judges  by  its  first  verse,  and  having  been  treated 
as  an  appendix  to  that  book. 

Literature. — Commentarie8  of  Metzgrer  0857),  Kei!  and 
Delitzsch,  Wright  (ISM),  Bertlieau  (combined  with  Ju<iije», 
1SS3),  Hummelauer  (lb6S),  (Jeltli  (Die  i/e.sch.  Ha'jiog.,  Nord. 
lingen,  18!itf),Wildeboer(Ai/rier  Udcom.  ISUS),  Nowack (i/Jtom. 
190(1)  ;  ct.  also  Driver,  LOT  426  f?.  [6  454  II.J ;  Cornill,  Einteit.i 
2429.;  Wildeboer,  Lit.  d.  AT,  341  ff.;  Wellhausen -  Bleck  ; 
Kobertson  in  Book  bi/  Book,  75;  W.  R.  Smith,  art.  'Kuth'  in 
Encycl.  Brit.^ ;  Bee  also  the  relevant  sections  in  the  works  ol 
Ejfle,  Wildeboer,  and  Buhl  on  the  Canon  of  OT. 

H.  A.  Redpath. 
RYE  (npoa  kusscmeth ;  f^a,  6\xipa,  far,  vicia). — 
Kussemeth  occurs  three  times  in  the  Bible.  Twice 
it  is  tr''  by  AV  '  rye '  (Ex  9^^  Is  28^  m  '  spelt ' ;  RV 
in  both  passages  '  spelt ').  It  is  also  tr'*  in  AV 
'fitches'  (Ezk  4»,  AVm  and  RV  'spelt').  The  LXX 
gives  in  the  first  and  third  of  the  above  references 
SKvpa,  and  in  the  second  ^ia.  6\vpa  may,  and  f^a  does, 
mean  '  spelt,'  which  is  the  seed  of  Tritkum  spelta, 
L.,  a  wild  wheat.  Notwithstanding  the  authority 
of  the  LXX,  we  think  that  kussemeth  is  the  same 
as  the  Arab,  kirsanah,  commonly  pronounced 
kirsenneh.  This  is  a  leguminous  plant,  Vicia 
Ennlia,  L.,  near  the  lentil  in  its  general  aspect. 
It  is  an  annual,  with  pinnate  leaves  of  8  to  12 
pairs  of  oblong,  retuse  leaflets,  and  a  tortulose 

•  The  only  way  in  which  Josephus*  reckoning  of  the  books  ol 
the  Bible  as  twenty-two  can  be  accounted  tor  ia  by  luppoaing 
that  he  reckoned  Judges  and  Ruth  aa  one  book. 


SABACHTHANI 


SABBATH 


315 


pod,  1  in.  Ion-'  and  J  in.  broad,  containing  3  to  4 
seeds,  larger  Uian  those  of  the  lentil.  It  is  exceed- 
ingly common,  being  exten.sively  cultivated  for 
fodder,  and  for  the  seeds,  which  reseml)le  those 
of  the  lentil.  The  substitution  of  r  for  the  first  s 
and  n  for  m  produces  the  classical  Arab,  form 
kirsanah.     Evidently  Jerome  adopted   this  view, 


translating  the  word  by  vicin.  Rye  is  unknown 
in  Bible  lands,  bpelt  is  not  cultivated,  and  is 
unknown  here  in  the  wild  state.  Perhaps  the 
best  rendering  would  be  '  vetch,'  with  a  marginal 
note,  '  the  seed  known  l>}'  the  Arabs  a-s  kirxennelt, 
properly  AirianaA '  (but  see  art.  Brkad  in  vol.  i. 
p.  316'').  G.  E.  Post. 


s 


SABACHTH&NI.— See  Eu,  Eli,  Lama  Sabach- 
THANI. 

SAB^ANS,  8EBA,  SHEBA.— The  pnrpose  of 

this  article  is  to  explain  and  differentiate  the  em- 
ployment of  these  terms,  leaving  ethnological  and 
other  information  to  be  given  under  the  articles 
Seba  and  Siieba. 

Sabaeans  occurs  only  twice  In  RV:  once  Is  45" 
(D'xjj ;  B  Za^acln,  A  Zt^weiii)  as  the  gentilic  name 
from  SeM,  and  once  Job  1"  (nJy',  LXX  om.)  as  that 
from  Shelia.  Other  two  instances  occur  in  AV: 
Jl  3  [Heb.  4]',  where  RV  substitutes  'men  of 
Sheba'  as  tr.  of  D-N?,f>  (LXX  om.) ;  and  E/.k  23''% 
where  RV  and  AVm,  following  the  Kethibh  D'k310, 
substitute  '  drunkards '  [A V  '  Sab;eans '  follows 
the  Kcri  o'!<?3  ;  B  om.,  A  olvuiUvoi],  The  text  here 
is  almost  certainly  corrupt,  and  it  can  hardly 
be  said  that  Cornill,  Bertholet,  or  Kraetzschmar 
have  been  very  successful  in  their  attempts  at 
restoring  it. 

Seba  (k;9,  Za^i.)  is  mentioned  in  Gn  10'  (  =  1  Ch 
1«,  B  i:a,3dT)  as  a  son  of  Cush  ;  in  Is  43'  (B  -Zofivr,) 
the  name  is  coupled  with  Cush,  and  in  Ps  72"  with 
tjliolm. 

Sheba  (n??*,  usually  ra/94)  is  variously  described 
as  (1)  a  grandson  of  Cush  Gn  10'  (  =  1  Ch  1»,  B 
Zajia-v);  (2)  a  son  of  Joljtan  Gn  W^  (A  2a;SeO,  E 
2a;3aO)  =  l  Ch  1»  (A  •Za.fi&v) ;  (3)  a  son  of  Jokshan 
On2.5»  (A  Za-^iv,  E  2a(3<i)  =  I  Ch  1*^  (B  Zajial,  A 
2a,9d).  The  queen  of  Sheba  (1  IC  lO'-''- "■'8=2  Ch 
Qi.a. ».  H)  visited  Solomon,  bringing  with  her  great 
stores  of  gold,  precious  stones  and  spices ;  the 
trading  companies  of  Sheba  are  referred  to  in 
Job  G">  (B  Za.^ol,  K  »•  •  'Efff/Sot,  A''"  'Kat^oi),  Is  60», 
Ezk  i't'"-  ^  (associated  with  Ka'amah,  Haran, 
Canneh,  Eden,  Asshur,  and  Cliiluiad)  38"  (with 
Dedan  and  Tarshish) ;  its  gold  is  mentioned  in 
Ps  72"  (Bx  'Apajila),  and  its  frankincense  in  Jer 
6";  in  Ps  72'°  the  name  is  coupled  with  Seba  ('  the 
kings  of  Sheba  [Bx  ^(uriXeit  'Apd^ue]  and  Seba  shall 
ntl'er  gifts ').  J.  A.  Selbie. 

SABANNEUS  (B  SujSai'TOioDs,  A  BnwotoOs,  AV 
Bannaia),  1  I'^s  9".  The  corresponding  name  in  Ezr 
10"  is  Zabad. 

SABANNUS(2ii/9on'0!,AVSabban),  1  Es8«"(LXX 
"). — Mouth  the  son  of  Sabannus  corresponds  to 
Noadiah  the  son  of  Biunui,  Ezr  8". 

SABAOTH — See  LORD  OF  Hosts. 

SABATEUS  (B  'Afiralos,  A  DajS/SaTo/of,  AV  Ra- 
batras),  1  Ea  9"  =  Shabbethai,  Neh  8',  where  the 
LXX  omita  the  name. 

8ABATHU8  (ild/Saffot,  AV  Sabatns),  1  Es  9*= 
Zabiui,  Ezr  10". 

SABBATEDS  (ZajS^raiot,  AV  Sabbatheus),  1  Es 


9". — 'Levis  and  Sabbatens*  correspond  to  'Shab- 
bethai  the  Levite'  of  Ezr  10". 

SABBATH  (n;5>;  ai^^arov;  also,  both  in  LXX 
and  NT,  of  a  single  day,  rh  crdjSjSaTa). — The  Hebrew 
name  for  the  seventh  day  of  the  week,  which 
became  among  the  Israelites  a  centre  of  many 
important  religious  observances  and  associations. 

The  word  is  in  form,  probably  (as  may  be  inferred  from  '1B3B' 
n'injB*),  contracted  from  innjs'  (so  Olsbausen,  p.  349 ;  Konig,  ii. 
180  f. :  othenvise,  but  less  probably,  Bartb,  Nominalbiidung^  p. 
24  ;  Jastrow  [see  ad  yin.],  p.  340).  The  root  n?^  means  (ee« 
Is  14*  248)  to  delist,  cease  (ct.  Arab,  eabata,  to  cut  off,  intercept, 
interrupt) ;  hence  the  idea  connected  with  the  '  sabbath '  will 
be  tliat  of  desisting,  cessation — the  doubled  b  having  an  inten- 
sive force,  and  implying?  either  complete  cessation,  or,  perhaps, 
a  making  to  cease.  It  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  idea 
expressed  by  n^^  and  npf*  is  not  the  positive  '  rest '  of  relaxa- 
tion or  refreshment  (which  is  r53),  but  the  negative  'rest*  of 
cessatUm  from  work  or  activity.  Whether,  however,  this 
etymolo^  expresses  the  original  meaninj^  of  '  sabbath,'  mu»«* 
remain  for  the  present  an  open  question  ;  if  it  be  true  that  ic 
and  the  Assyr.  iabattum  had  a  common  origin,  it  may  have 
denoted  ori^nnally  something  different  (see  below,  g  ii.,  first 
par.  in  small  type). 

i.  History  of  the  Institution  in  the  OT.— 
The  sabbath  is  mentioned  in  all  the  great  Penta- 
teuchal  codes,  and  there  are  also  allusions  to  it  in 
the  historical  and  prophetical  liooks.  It  will  be 
most  instructive  to  consider  the  notices,  as  far 
as  possible,  chronologically. 

In  the  legislation  of  JE  the  sabbath  appears 
as  a  day  of  cessation  from  (in  particular)  fi'.ld- 
labour,  designed  with  a  humanitarian  end :  Ex 
23'*  'Six  days  shalt  thou  do  tliy  work  (^'^H;?), 
and  on  the  seventh  day  thou  shalt  desist  (nifn), 
in  order  that  thy  ox  and  thy  a.ss  may  rest  (O'l;), 
and  that  the  son  of  tliy  maidservant,  and  thy 
'stranger,'  may  be  refreshed  (t'rj:,  pronerly  'got 
breath,'  cf.  2S  16'''),' — conip.  the  similar  motive 
for  the  sabbatical  year,  v.".  And  in  the  parallel 
group  of  laws  in  ch.  34  (v.^'):  'Six  days  thou 
shalt  work,  but  on  the  seventh  day  thou  shalt 
df.sist :  in  plowing  time  and  in  harvest  tliou  shalt 
desist.'  In  the  Decalor;ue  (Ex  'JU")  the  Israelite  is 
commanded  to  '  keep '  the  sabbath  '  holy ' ;  and  the 
injunction  is  expanded  in  the  following  clauses, 
vv.»- '"  (which  are  probably  an  explanatory  com- 
ment, not  forming  part  of  tiio  original  Ten  Woi  ds) : 
the  seventh  day,  it  is  there  said,  is  a  sabbath  '  unto ' 
(i.e.  to  be  observed  in  honour  of)  Jehovah :  no 
work  —  •i?i*l''?,  more  exactly  business,  the  word 
generally  used  in  connexion  with  the  sabbath — is 
to  be  done  in  it  by  any  member  of  the  Israelite's 
household  (including  his  servants),  or  by  his  cattle, 
or  by  the  '  stranger '  settled  in  liis  country ;  and 
in  Dent.  (5'*)  a  clause  similar  to  Ex  23'^''  is  added, 
'  in  order  that  thy  manservant  and  thy  maid- 
servant may  rest  (nij;)  as  well  as  thou'  (cf.  for  the 
philanthropic  motive,  12"'"  H*"-  10").  In  the 
early  histori<'al  books  and  prophets  the  sabbath  is 
as.sociated  with  the  new  moun,  in  a  manner  which 
implies  that  both  were  occasions  of  intermission 
from  labour,  and  holidays  :  in  2  K  4*'-  *•  a  visit  to 


318 


SABBATH 


SABBATH 


a  distance  would,  it  is  implied,  be  undertaken 
naturally  only  on  a  sabbath  or  new  moon.  Hos2" 
('And  I  will  cause  all  her  mirtli  to  cease,  her  pil- 
{.'rinuiges,  her  new  moons,  and  her  sabbaths,  and 
all  her  stated  [rtlisious]  seasons')  implies  that  the 
sabbath,  though  it  had  a  religious  object  (cf. 
Is  1"),  was  also  an  occasion  of  social  relaxation  : 
Am  8°  ('When  will  the  new  moon  be  gone,  that 
we  ma}'  sell  corn?  and  the  sal>bath,  that  we  may 
open  out  wheat  ? ')  shows  that  trade  as  well  as  field- 
laliour  was  intermitted  on  it. 

The  passages  quoted  make  it  evident  that  in  the 
8th  cent.  B.C.  the  sabbath  was  regarded  as  sacred 
to  J",  and  that  it  was  marked  by  abstention  from 
at  least  ordinary  occu]iatiuns.  The  first  of  these 
facts  implies  naturallj'  iix  addition  that  some 
special  sacriUces  were  oH'ered  on  it — an  inference 
which  might  also  be  drawn  from  the  connexion  in 
which  it  is  mentioned  in  Is  1".  In  later  times, 
both  the  religious  observances  and  also  the  absten- 
tion from  labour  were  more  fully  defined  and 
specialized.  Jeremiah  (17"*"")  has  a  prophecy  re- 
lating to  the  sabbath :  the  people  are  solemnly 
charged  by  him,  '  Bear  no  burden  on  the  sabbath 
day,  neither  bring  in  by  the  gates  of  Jerusalem, 
nor  carry  forth  a  burden  out  of  your  houses, 
nor  do  any  business;  but  hallow  ye  the  sabbath 
day,  as  I  commanded  your  fathers ' ;  the  command, 
it  is  added,  had  been  imperfectly  observed,  but 
Jer.  attaches  to  Its  obserx  ance  now  a  promise  of 
the  permanence  of  the  Davidic  draasty,  and  the 
safety  of  Jerusalem.  Jer.'s  authorship  of  this 
prophecy  has  been  questioned  by  recent  critics ; 
out  it  is  exactly  in  Jer.'s  style  :  the  high  imjiort- 
ance  attached  to  the  sabbath,  even  before  Jer.'s 
time,  is  shown  by  the  place  which  it  holds  in  the 
Decalogue  (to  which  Jer.  plainly  refers) ;  and  no 
doubt  the  prophet  emphasized  the  sabbath,  not 
simply  for  its  own  sake,  but  as  a  typical  religious 
observance ;  it  was  an  institution  the  observance 
or  non-observance  of  which  might  be  taken  as  a 
criterion  of  the  general  faithfulness  or  disloyalty 
of  the  nation. 

In  the  '  Law  of  Holiness'  (chiefly  Lv  17-26),  the 
individual  laws  in  which,  though  their  setting  is 
later,  may  in  many  cases  be  as  old  as  the  8th  cent, 
or  older  (cf.  vol.  iii.  pp.  69  f.,  108»),  the  observance 
of  the  sabbath  is  inculcated  more  than  once  ('Ye 
shall  keep  my  sabbaths,'  Lv  19^-  ^^  26-),  even  under 
pain  of  death  (Ex  31''  [a  fragment  of  H]  '  verily  ye 
shall  keep  my  sabbaths,  for  it  is  a  sign  between 
me  and  you  [i.e.  a  mark,  or  token,  like  circum- 
cision ((!n  17"),  of  your  being  my  people]  ...  to 
know  tliat  I  am  J  "which  sanctilieth  you.  And  ye 
shall  keep  the  sabbath,  for  it  is  holy  unto  you ; 
every  one  that  profaneth  it  shall  surely  be  put  to 
deatli ') ;  and  Lzekiel  (who  elsewhere  also  shows 
himself  to  be  strongly  influenced  by  this  body  of 
laws:  LOT  13S-144  [""  145-152])  lays  great  stress 
ujKm  it  likewise :  with  evident  reference  to  the 
language  of  H,  he  declares  it  to  be  an  ancient 
ordinance  of  J"  (20''  'moreover  I  gave  them  my 
sabbaths  to  be  a  sign  between  me  and  them,  to 
know  that  I  am  J"  which  sanctilieth  them,'  v.** 
(I  said)  '.  .  .  and  hallow  my  sabbaths';  cf.,  of  the 
priests,  44**),  and  reproaches  the  [icople  with  having 
deliantly  'profaned'  it  (20'»-"-='-^  22"  23'«),  or 
'  hidden  their  eyes'  from  it  (22-').  It  is  probable 
that  at  this  time  an  increased  significance  began  to 
be  attached  to  the  sabbath  on  account  of  its  being 
one  of  the  few  distinctive  institutions  of  Israel 
which  could  be  observed  in  a  foreign  land.  The 
same  prophet  in  45"  46"*  (cf.  w.'-')  also  gives 
directions — based,  it  may  be  presumed,  upon  ex- 
isting usa''e — resjiecting  the  sacrifices  to  be  offered 
every  sabbath  by  the  '  prince '  on  behalf  of  the 
nation  in  the  restored  temple,  viz.  six  lambs  and 
•ne  ram  as  a  burnt-offering,  with  accompanying 


meal-offerings  (the  clnil)/  offering,  according  to  Ezk 
46'^'',  was  to  be  one  lamb,  with  an  accompany- 
ing meal-offeiing). 

The  later  exilic  references  to  the  sabbath  are  in 
a  similar  strain  to  the  reference  of  Jeremiah.  Its 
observance  is  the  typical  religious  duty,  and  the 
test  of  general  allegiance  to  J'  (Is  56^*-'');  and  a 
promise  of  restoration  to  Palestine  is  given  to 
those  Israelites  who  faithfully  observe  it,  regarding 
it  as  a  '  delight,'  and  refrainmg  on  J"'s  'holy  day 
from  'doing'  their  (ordinary)  'ways,'  or  'find- 
ing' their  own  'pleasure,'  or  'speaking'  [vain] 
'words'  (Is  58'^'):  in  Is  66",  also,  it  is  pictured 
as  being  (in  the  restored  Jerusalem)  a  weekly 
occasion  of  worship  before  J"  for  'all  flesh,'  as 
the  new  moon  would  be  analogously  a  monthly 
occasion. 

In  the  legislation  of  P  the  regulations  respect- 
ing the  sabbath  are  further  developed  and  sys- 
tematized. Its  institution  is  thrown  back  to  the 
end  of  the  week  of  Creation  ;  God,  it  is  said 
(Gn  2'),  then  '  blessed  the  seventh  day  and  hal- 
lowed it,' — i.e.  set  it  apart  for  holy  uses,  and 
attached  blessings  to  its  observance,  — '  because 
in  it  he  desisted  {n^y}  from  all  his  work  (njK^:^ 
'  business ') '  of  creation  :  similarly  in  the  motive, 
based  upon  the  representation  of  P,  attached  in 
Ex.  (20°)  to  the  fourth  commandment ;  and  in  Ex 
31"  'for  in  six  days  Jehovah  made  heaven  and 
earth,  and  on  the  seventh  day  he  desisted  (njv'), 
and  was  refreshed  (a';;!,— as  above,  in  23''^).'  In 
Ex  31'*'"  the  old  law,  derived  from  H,  is  supple- 
mented by  an  addition  (vv. '■">"")  emphasizing 
further  the  sanctity  and  permanence  of  the  insti- 
tution, and  the  penalty  (death)  for  its  non- 
observance:  Ex  35'"'  (an  injunction  prefixed  to 
the  account  of  the  construction  of  the  tabernacle) 
the  directions  contained  in  31'"  are  repeated  almost 
verbatim  (v.-),  and  in  v.'  the  kindling  of  fire  on 
the  sabbath  is  prohibited  ;  Lv  23'  it  is  to  be 
observed  (like  certain  other  sacred  seasons)  by  a 
'  holy  convocation,'  or  religious  gathering  ;  Lv  24' 
the  shewbread  is  to  be  renewed  every  sabbath  : 
Nu  153'--3«  relates  how  a  man  found  gathering 
sticks  on  the  sabbath  was  by  Divine  direction 
stoned  to  death  ;  Nu  28*'-  the  special  sacrifices  for 
the  sabbath  are  appointed,  viz.  double  those 
offered  on  ordinary  days  (vv.*'*),  i.e.  two  male 
lambs  for  a  burnt-offering  in  the  morning,  and  two 
in  the  evening,  with  twice  the  usual  meal-  and 
drink  ollering'S.  Lastly,  in  Ex  16'-  ^-"*'  the  manna 
is  stated  to  have  been  withheld  on  the  sabbath, 
and  given  in  double  quantity  on  the  previous 
day,  in  order  to  preserve  the  sanctity  of  the  day  ; 
anii  the  people  are  forbidden  to  leave  their  homes, 
and  (indirectly)  to  bake  or  cook  anything,  on  the 
sabbath. 

In  P  the  term  thabbdthon  (RV  '  solemn  rest  [properly,  cessa* 
lion] ')  is  also  used  in  connexion  wiili  the  s;ilib.'ith,  viz.  Ex  IG^ 
'  to-morrow  is  a  i>o/<'//J«  rest,  a  holy  salibatli  unto  J"*;  3ti5(cf. 
352,  Lv  23^)  'on  the  seventh  da^'is  a  sabhath  of  solemn  rest 
I'ln??'  n?B',  holy  unto  J"  '  (elsewhere  shabhdthdn  iu  used  of  New 
Year's  day,  Lv  23*',  of  the  flret  and  eighth  days  of  the  Feast  of 
Booths,  Lv  2339,  and  of  the  sahliatiojil  year,  Lv  25' ;  and 
'  sabbath  of  solemn  rest '  of  the  Day  ot  Atonement,  Lv  IBS'  23''^ 
(cf.  in  v.3b  'sabbath'  alone),  and  of  the  sabbatical  yeai,  Lv 
25-'  t).— The  terra  "sabbath'  is  used  al9o(!,v  2Wo(.)of  the  Sab- 
batical Year.    On  Lv  23"- '»  see  Wbbks  (Fkast  or). 

In  the  history  of  the  post-exilic  period  we  read 
in  Nell  10^'  how  the  people,  headed  by  Nehemiah, 
bound  themselves,  if  foreigners  offered  wares  or 
food  for  sale  on  the  sabbath,  not  to  buy  of  them  ; 
and  in  Neh  13"-*'  how  Neh.,  finding  this  obligation 
disregarded,  and  also  other  kinds  of  work  done 
on  the  sabbath  (treading  wine  -  presses,  lading 
animals  >vith  com,  bringin';  fruit  and  other  wares 
into  Jerus.,  and  selling  and  buying  them),  remon- 
strated with  the  people,  and  had  the  gates  of  Jems, 
closed  on  that  day,  in  order  that  merchants  and 


SABBATH 


SABBATH 


319 


packmen  mipht  not  brin^  tlieir  '  burdens  '  (cf.  Jer 
IT-')  into  thiM'itv.  Allusions  tothesncrilicesollered 
on  the  sabbulli  occur  in  Ncli  10»,  2  Ch  2*  8'»  31>. 

It  will  be  evident,  from  the  preceding  survey, 
that  in  the  priestly  Law  tlie  original  character 
aad  objects  of  tlie  sabbath  have  receded  into  the 
background,  it  lias  become  more  distinctly  a  purely 
ceremonial  institution,  and  the  regulations  for  its 
observance  have  been  made  more  strict.  It  will 
appear  in  the  sec^uel  (iii.)  how  in  a  still  later  age 
these  characteristics  are  all  intensilied. 

ii.  Spf.culations  OS  THEOmoiy  of  the  Sab- 
bath.— It  is  not  improbable  that  the  sabbath  is 
ultimately  of  Babylonian  origin.  In  a  lexico- 
graphical tablet  (I r  Rawl.  32,  1.  16)  there  occurs 
the  equation — 

um  nH/f  libbi=ia-bnt-tum, 
or  'day  of  rest  of  the  heart'  {i.e.  not,  as  was 
formerly  supposed,  a  day  of  rest  for  man,  but,  a^ 
parallel  occurrences  of  the  same  phrase  show,*  a 
day  when  the  gods  rested  from  their  anger,  a  day 
for  the  pacification  of  a  deity's  anger)  =  sabbath. 
Further,  in  a  religious  calendar  for  two  months 
(the  second,  or  intercalary  Elul,  and  Marchesh- 
van),  which  we  possess,!  prescribing  duties  for  the 
king,  the  7th,  14th,  19th,t  2l8t,  and  2Stli  davs  are 
entered  as  '  favourable  day,  evil  day,'  while  the 
others  are  simply  '  favouraVle  '  daj-s.  On  the  five 
specilied  days,  the  king  is  not,  for  instance,  to  eat 
food  prepared  by  fire,  not  to  put  on  royal  dress  or 
ofl'er  sacrifice,  not  to  rids  in  his  chariot,  or  hold 
court,  not  to  seek  an  oracle,  or  even  to  invoke  curses 
on  his  enemies  :  on  the  other  hand,  as  soon  as  the 
daj'  is  over,  he  may  oiler  a  sacrifice  which  will  be 
accepted.  The  days,  it  is  evident,  are  viewed 
superstitiouslj' :  certain  things  are  not  to  be  done 
on  them,  in  order  to  avoid  arousing  the  jealousy  or 
anger  of  the  gods.  The  meaning  of  the  expression 
'  favourable  day,  evil  day'  Ls  that  the  day  had  an  in- 
determinate character ;  it  could  become  either  the 
one  or  the  other,  according  as  the  precautions  laid 
down  for  its  observance  were  attended  to  or  not.§ 

Except  in  the  possaffe  quoted,  hibaltum  is  known  at  present 
to  occur  only  ^in  the  fomi  Sabairhn)  2  or  3  times  in  syllabaries 
(Jenwn.  ZA  Iv.  274-s,  /.  /.  Dnitttche  Wort/ortirhumr,  Sept. 
1900,  p.  153  (in  an  art.  on  the  Week  of  seven  days  in  Babylonia)) : 
in  the  first  of  these  syllabaries  it  corresponds  to  a  yuiuerian 
ideoj,Tnni  meaning  to  pnci^i/ ;  in  the  second  (where  Jensen  con- 
tends that  it  occurs  with  the  nicaninj?  to  C07ne  to  re^t^  be  calmfd, 
panned)  ita  occurrence  is  Questioned  by  Jastrow,  AJTh  ii. 
816  n.;  in  the  third  (Z./.  D.  Wort/.  153)  it  corresponds  strangely 
to  the  ideogram  which  means  simply  da;/,  sun,  lujht.  The  etymo- 
logy of  iahattum  is  uncertain.  The  verb  iabdtu  is.  in  a  k'xi<-o- 
Kri»i>liiriil  tablet,  f-quatfil  with  qami'int.  which  nieiins  commonly 
!l)ei,iz«ch.  my  IS  p.  I'.l'.l)  tit  hriiii)  to  uii  end,  eumjdite.  but 
which  seems,  to  Judnc  from  two  syllabariea  (Z.  /.  D.  Wort/. 
153),  to  have  sitfnifled  also  to  paci/y,  appease ;  and  Jensen, 
assuming  that  in  the  tablet  iabdtu  is  qvioted  with  this  excep- 
tional meaning  of  fjatwlm,  explains  iabattum,  ia/'attim,  from 
It.  It  remains  however,  lor  the  i)resent,  a  ditllculty  that  while 
in  Heb.  nbnbbuth  is  coimpcle<I  (apparently)  with  ghdbath,  to 
d<*wt,  the  Assyr.  verb  iabdtu  means  sometiiing  different. 

These  facts  make  it  at  lea.st  a  plausible  con- 
jecture that  the  Heb.  sabbath  (which  was  likcwi.se 
primarily  a  day  of  restrictions)  was  derived  ulti- 
mately from  Babylonia,  ||  or,  as  .Jensen  would  prefer 

•  K.g.  Hgu  nSJ  tti>M  =  p«alm  of  propitiation  (Joatrow,  AJTh, 
»oL  IL  p   31«). 

t  Jastrow.  Rrlig.  o/  Bah.  and  Aun/r.  p.  376  ff. 

t  I'erhnps  the  7x7  =  4»th  dav  from  the  Ist  of  the  preceding 
month— the  month  having  30  days. 

( The  ancient  Assyrians  ret;arded  the  simplest  and  most 
ordlnory  occurrences  as  ominous  of  either  good  or  evil  (Jastrow, 
Hel.  0/  Dab.  and  Atai/r.  p.  365,  etc.);  and,  In  fact,  there  is  a 
calendar  in  which  every  day  In  the  year  Is  marked  as  either 
lortimate  or  unfortunate  for  something  or  other  (p.  878 II. ). 

»  So  Schnuler,  KAT'  on  Cn  '.!» ;  Ixitz,  Qwcutionft  dt  hist. 
Sabl>.  (1883)  67;  Sayce,  IlC.\t  7(1  f..  KHB  193  (where,  how- 
ever, the  facta  about  the  Bab.  '.Sabbath'  are  overstated  ;  for 
thouu'h,  no  doubt  (Lou,  681.  laliattum  might  very  naturallv  be 
the  name  of  the  7th,  14th.  etc.,  davs  of  the  two  months  referred 
to  aliovc.  It  is  not.  In  ony  text  at  present  known,  applied  to 
them  octually) ;  Ounkel,  Scli/ij>/.  u,  CT<io«  (1895),  155.  Nor  Is 
there  at  present  any  evidence  that  a  continuous  succession  of 
weeks,'  each  ending  with  a  day  marked  by  special  obser^ancea, 
was  a  Bab.  institution  (Jensen,  1541 


to  say,*  that  the  Heb.  and  Babylonian  institu 
tions  had  a  common  origin  :  though  naturally,  like 
other  Ueb.  institutions  which  were  not  originally 
confined  to  Israel,  it  assumed  among  the  Hebrews 
a  new  character,  being  stripped  nf  its  superstitious 
and  heathen  a.ssoeiations,  and  being  made  -sub- 
servient to  ethical  and  religious  ends.  It  is  not 
difficult  to  imagine  how,  under  the  influence  of 
Israel's  religion,  a  change  of  this  kind  might 
gradually  be  wrought,  though  (supposing  the 
hypothesis  to  be  a  sound  one)  we  have  no  infor- 
mation of  the  .stages  by  which  it  was  actually 
ellected  ;  Jastrow's  endeavour  {A./T/i,  vol.  ii.  pp. 
321  ff.,  332 fl.,  345 ff.)  to  show  that  the  Heb.  .sabhath 
had  once  (like  the  «»«  niilj  lilbi)  a  propitiatory 
character,  and  even  that  the  verb  sliubath,  as 
applied  to  J",  and  shabbathon,  expressed  originally 
the  ideas  of  ceasing  from  anger,  being  pacijicd, 
cannot  be  deemed  convincing. 

The  sabbath,  as  a  day  of  restriction,  is  an 
institution  parallel  to  what  is  found  among  many 
early  peoples,  and  indeed,  as  a  survival  from  an 
earlier  stage,  among  civilized  peoples  as  well. 
The  wide  diffusion  of  periods  of  restriction  makes 
it  probable  that  they  had  their  origin  in  simple 
ideas  and  social  conditions.  In  all  the  cases 
known  to  us  the  restrictions  are  of  the  same 
general  character — they  refer  to  occupations,  food, 
dress.  Thus,  besides  the  Babylonian  institution, 
which  has  been  already  referred  to,  the  Egyptians 
had  a  list  of  days,  on  which  certain  acts  were  pro- 
hibited (AJTh,  ii.  p.  350 1).  In  Rome  business 
was  suspended  during  ihe  ferim ;  and  on  all  dies 
nefasti  courts  of  law  and  the  comitia  were  closed. 
In  the  Hawaiian  Islands,  it  was  unlawful,  on 
certain  daj'S,  to  light  fires  or  to  bathe  ;  tlie  king 
also  at  certain  times  withdrew  into  privacy, 
giving  up  his  ordinarj'  pursuits.  In  Borneo,  work 
was  forbidden  on  certain  days  in  connexion  with 
the  harvest.  The  origin  of  such  times  of  restric- 
tion is  lost  in  anti<iiiity  :  they  come  before  us 
commonly  as  established  ('Ustoms,  resting  on  pre- 
cedent, and  not  sujiiiosed  to  need  explanation. 
They  may  have  arisen  from  various  causes :  thus 
in  some  cases  observation  would  show  that  par- 
ticular times  were  favourable  or  unfavourable  to 
certain  occupations  ;  but  very  often  they  would  be 
determined  uy  superstitious  or  religious  motives. 
The  days  thus  fixed  would  gradually  be  tabulated 
and  systematized  ;  and  wlien  calendars  had  been 
constructed,  particular  days  would  come  to  be 
marked  upon  them  as  lucky  or  unlucky,  and  in 
some  cases  these  would  agree  with  delinite  pha.ses 
of  the  moon.  '  Such  a  calendar  the  Hebrews  may 
have  inherited,  or  may  have  received  from  Baby- 
lonia or  from  some  other  source ' :  if  they  received 
it  from  Balij-lonia,  they  dctaclied  it  from  its  con- 
nexion with  the  moon  (fixing  it  for  every  seventh 
da3',  irrespectively  of  the  days  of  the  month),  they 
generalized  the  abstinence  as.sociated  with  it,  and, 
more  than  all,  they  transformed  it  into  an  agency, 
which,  though,  like  other  institutions,  capable  of 
abuse,  has  nevertheless,  partly  as  observed  by 
the  Jews  themselves,  partly  (see  below)  as  forming 
the  model  of  the  Christian  Sunday,  operated  on 
the  whole  with  wonderful  elficiency  in  maintain- 
ing the  life  of  a  pure  and  spiritual  religion.  J 

The  question,  which  was  formerly  nuich  debated,  whether 
the  sabbath  W'os  instituted  at  the  close  of  the  Crnalinn,  or 
whether  it  was  a  purely  Mosaic  ordinance,  was  already  answered 
by  Dr.  llesscy  (p.  135  IT.)  in  the  latter  sense;  and  In  the  light 
In  which  the"  earh-  chapters  of  Gen.  are  at  present  regarded 
by  scholars  (cf.  (Josmooony,  and  Kyle's  Karty  Sarratives  o/ 
(Jenejtis),  the  question  itself  has  become  irrelevant.  It  is  plain 
that  in  (In  21-3  the  sanotity  of  the  seventh  day  of  the  week  is 

•  Z./.  D.  Wort/orschung,  164. 

♦  .See  also  Maspcro,  Daren  o/  CivUitation,  210-212 ;  Wlede 
mann,  Jleliq.  nf  Ane.  Eiti/pt.  2(13 f. 

!  With  the  lost  paragraph  cf.  O.  H.  Toy,  'The  earliest  fora 
of  the  Sabbath,'  in  JUL,  lb99,  pp.  191-103. 


320 


SABBATH 


SABBATH 


explained  unhistorically,  and  antedated  :  instead  of  the  sai>- 
bath,  closing  the  week,  being  sacred,  because  on  it  God 
'  desisted '  from  His  six  days'  work  of  creation,  the  work  of 
creation  waa  distributed  among  six  days,  followed  by  a  tlay  of 
rest,  because  the  week,  ended  by  the  sabbath,  existed  already  as 
an  institution,  and  the  writer  (P)  wished  to  adjust  artificially 
the  work  of  creation  to  it.  In  the  Decalogue,  '  Remember ' 
mav  be  interpreted  quite  naturally  as  signifying  '  keep  in  mind ' 
in  the  future  (cf.  Ex  133,  Dt  i63). 

iii.  The  Sabbath  in  the  later  Judaism  and 
THE  NT. — There  are  not  many  allii.'iions  to  the 
sabbath  in  the  apocryphal  books.  It  was  natur- 
ally included  amoni;st  the  distinctively  Jewish 
institutions,  which  Antiochua  Epiphanes  sought 
(B.C.  108)  to  abolish  (1  M.ac  ls»-«.  45_  o  Mac  6"). 
At  the  beginning  of  the  Mace,  uprising,  the  loyal 
Jews  allowed  themselves  to  be  massacred  in  cold 
blood  rather  than  profane  the  sab'.iath,  even  in 
self-defence  (1  Mac  2^'"'*) :  but  in  view  of  the  con- 
sequences which  persistence  in  such  a  course 
would  obviously  entaU,  Mattathias  and  his  friends 
decided  (vv.®"'")  to  recognize  defensive  warfare  as 
permissible  on  the  sabbath  (cf.  1  Mac  O"''-  ^,  2  Mac 
82»-=a  :  also  Jos.  BJ  II.  xix.  2).  The  destruction  of 
siege-works  was  not,  however,  considered  allow- 
able ;  and  so  Pom[iey  was  able  to  complete  his 
mound  against  Jerus.  on  the  sabbath  (Jos.  Ant. 
XIV.  iv.  2).  The  unwillingness  of  the  Jews  to  fight 
on  the  sabbath  naturally  became  known  to  their 
enemies ;  and  several  instances  are  on  record  of 
attacks  being  planned  for  that  day,  and  carried 
out  successfully  (Jos.  c.  Ap.  i.  22  end ;  2  Mac  S^*- 
15' ;  Ant.  XIII.  xii.  4,  XVIII.  ix.  2).  The  Romans 
so  far  recognized  the  scruples  entertained  by  the 
Jews  with  regard  to  bearing  arms  or  travelling  on 
the  sabbath,  as  to  release  them  from  the  obliga- 
tion of  niUitary  service  (Jos.  Ant.  XIV.  x.  11-19). 

Allusions  to  the  sabbath,  generally  more  or  less  satirical, 
occur  in  the  classical  writers  :  by  some  of  them  it  was  supposed 
to  be  a  day  of  mere  idleness,  by  others  that  it  was  a  fast.  See 
Tac.  HM.  V.  4  ;  Sueton.  Octav.  76 ;  Juv.  xiv.  96,  105  f.  ;  Martial, 
iv,  4,  7  ;  Persius,  v,  179-184  ;  Seneca,  Eput.  95,  47  (lights  not  to 
be  kindled  on  it). 

By  the  Jewish  legalists  the  OT  regulations  re- 
specting the  sabbatli  were  developed  and  systema- 
tized to  an  extent  whicli  has  made  their  rules  on 
the  subject  a  byword  for  extravagance  and  ab- 
surdity. Two  entire  treatises  of  the  !Mishna,  Shab- 
lath  and  'Erubin,  as  well  as  [larts  of  others,  are 
Jevoted  to  provisiotis  for  the  observance  of  the 
sabbath  ;  and  there  are  nl.so  long  discussions  on 
the  subject,  with  quotations  of  the  divergent 
opinions  of  different  Kabbis,  in  the  Geniara.  We 
may  mention  some  of  the  more  simple  and  reason- 
able pro\isions  lirst.  As  the  Jewish  day  began  at 
sunset  in  the  evening,  the  .sabbath  lasted  from 
sunset  on  what  we  should  call  Frid.ay  to  stinset 
on  Saturday ;  according  to  Jos.  BJ  IV.  ix.  12,  the 
beginning  and  end  of  the  day  were  announced  by 
trum|)ets  from  the  tetiiple.  The  afternoon  of 
Friday  was  called  the  'eve  of  the  Sabbath'  {^-y 
n3;ri),  or  the  PekparatION-DAY  [rapaaKei'^),  and 
no  business  was  allowed  to  be  begun  on  it  which 
might  extend  into  the  sabbath.  The  sabbath  was 
no  fast-day  (cf.  Jth  8')  :  the  second  Isaiah  had  said 
that  it  should  be  regarded  as  a  '  delight '  (:ji')  ;  and 
the  Jews  have  always  been  careful  not  to  divest  it 
of  this  character.  Tliree  meals  (cf.  Pedh  viii.  7 ; 
Shnhh.  xvi.  2),  of  the  choicest  available  food 
(Edersli.  ii.  52),*  were  accordingly  prescribed  for 
it,  being  laid  ready  before  sunset  on  the  Friday, 
and  the  lamp  for  the  Sabbath  being  lighted  at 
the  same  time.  The  Mishna  adds  minute  regula- 
tions, as  to  how  tlie  meals,  if  necessary,  were  to 
be  kent  warm,  without  infringing  the  sanctity  of 
the  saubath,  as  of  course  no  fire  might  be  kindled 

•  The  meal  of  which  our  Lord  partook  on  a  sabbath  in  the 
house  of  one  of  the  '  rulen  of  the  Pharisees'  (I.k  14l)  would, 
we  may  be  sure,  be  one  of  these  aabbatical  eyuUe  lautiores. 


(Ex  3.5'),  or  even  attended  to,  on  the  day.  The 
sabbath  was  regarded  as  set  aiiart  for  religious 
exercises — both  for  private  meditation  and  prayer, 
and  also  for  public  worship  in  the  Synagooue 
(Mk  V'-^  (Lk  43'-^),  6^  (Lk  4"),  Lk  G'  13'»,  Ac 
IS'-"- ••"■■"«  15-'  17"-  18*),  or  other  place  of  prayer 
(Ac  16").* 

With  regard  to  the  more  technical  observance  tt 
the  sabbath,  the  Mishna  {Shahb.  \'ii.  2)  enumerates 
39  principal  classes  t  of  prohibited  actions,  ^  iz.  .sow- 
ing, ploughing,  reaping,  gathering  into  sheaves, 
threshing,  winnowing,  cleansing,  grinding,  sifting, 
kneading,  baking ;  shearing  wool,  washing  it, 
beating  it,  dyeing  it,  spinning  it,  making  a  warp 
of  it,  making  two  thrum-threads,  weaving  two 
threads,  splitting  two  threads,  tying,  untying, 
sewing  two  stitches,  tearing  thread  to  sew  two 
stitches ;  catching  deer  (game),  killing,  skin- 
ning, salting  it,  preparing  its  hide,  scraping  ott'  its 
hair,  cutting  it  up  ;  writing  two  letters,  erasing  for 
the  purpose  of  writing  two  letters  ;  building, 
pulling  down,  extinguishing  fire,  kindling  fire, 
beating  with  a  hammer,  and  carrj'ing  from  one 
property  to  another  (add  also  Bcza  v.  1,  2  J).  The 
real  '  micrology '  of  the  Rabbis  appears,  however, 
not  so  much  in  this  enumeration  as  such,  as  in  the 
consideration  of  the  cases  in  detail,  the  dLseussion 
what  actions  do  or  do  not  fall  under  the  several 
classes  named,  and  sometimes  also  in  the  casuistical 
evasion  of  a  prohibition.  A  few  specimens  of  the 
extraordinary  refinements  thus  introduced  must 
suffice.  The  prohibition  to  tie  or  untie  a  knot  was 
too  general,  so  it  became  necessary  to  define  tlie 
species  of  knots  referred  to.  It  was  accordingly 
laid  down  that  a  camel-driver's  knot  and  a  boat- 
man's knot  rendered  the  man  who  tied  or  untied 
them  guilty ;  but  R.  Meir  said,  '  a  knot  which  a 
man  can  untie  with  one  hand  only,  he  does  not 
become  guilty  by  untying.'  A  woman  might, 
however,  tie  on  various  articles  of  dress,  and  also 
tie  up  skins  of  wine  or  oil,  and  pots  of  meat.  A 
pail  might  be  tied  to  a  well  by  a  band  ('fascia'), 
but  not  by  a  rope  (''^n).  R.  .loliudah  laid  do\vn 
the  rule  that  any  knot  might  be  lawfully  tied 
which  was  not  intended  to  be  permanent  {Shnbb. 
XV.  1,2).  This  rule  is,  in  fact,  the  principle  by  which 
the  commentators  explain  the  distinctions  that 
have  been  just  quoted.  The  rest  of  the  tractate 
is  almost  wholly  occupied  with  the  discussion  of 
similar  distinctions  in  other  subjects. 

The  aim  of  the  tractate  'Erubin  ('  mixtures,'  or 
'  connexions ')  is  to  alleviate  the  extreme  rigour 
of  some  of  the  Rabb,  enactments  respecting  the 
sabbath.  The  39th  of  the  list  of  prohibited  actions 
quoted  above  was  that  of  carrying  from  one  pro- 
perty to  another:  but  in  this  tractate  it  is  explained 
how  places  might,  by  a  le^al  fiction,  be  combined 
together,  so  that  things  might  lawfully  be  carried 
from  one  into  another  :  there  was  thus  an  'erub,  or 
'commixture,'  of  courts,  of  streets,  and  of  limits : 
a  number  of  houses  opening  into  a  common  court 
were,  for  example,  treated  as  one,  by  all  thefamilies 
before  the  sabbath  tlepositing  some  food  in  the 
common  court  j  or  a  number  of  narrow  streets  or 
blind  alleys  were  converted  into  a  '  private  pro- 
perty,' by  extending  along  them  a  wire  or  rope,  or 
by  laying  a  beam  over  the  entrance.  The  limit  of 
a  '  sabbath-day's  journey '  (Ac  1'^)  was,  according  to 

•  On  the  sabbath  as  a  day  of  spiritual  edification,  cf.  also 
Jos.  Ant.  XVI.  ii.  4  middle,  e.  An.  ii.  17  end ;  Philo,  ii.  168  CTMl, 
169,  197,  282,  630  (from  Euseb.  Pnrp.  Kv.  viii.  vii.  9f.). 

t  n'^DK  :  derivative  actions,  or  species  of  the  principal  classes 
named,  were  called  nHnpiB.  Margoliouth  (Expog.  Nov.  1900, 
p.  336  fr.)  cites  from  an  unedited  Persian  MS,  containing  an 
account  of  the  feasts  and  other  observances  of  different  nations 
by  an  author  of  the  11th  cent.,  an  enumeration  of  38  forbidden 
acts,  differing  in  many  particulars  from  those  mentioned  in  ths 
^lishna,  and  tncluding  more  directly  som<t  of  those  alluded  tc 
in  the  Gospels. 

t  See  Wtinsche,  Erlduterung  (see  full  title  ad  ^n  J,  p.  148, 


SABBATH 


SABBATH 


321 


the  Kabbis,  2000  oubits ;  *  but  if,  before  the  sab- 
bath, a  man  deposited  food  for  two  meals  at  the 
boundary,  he  was  considered  to  declare  that  i>lace 
to  be  his  domicile,  and  he  was  at  libertj',  when  the 
sabbath  came,  to  proceed  2000  cubits  beyond  it. 
However,  it  scorns  that  such  concessions  were  only 
^'ranted  for  some  serious  and  worthy  purpose 
(Silicchter,  a/i.  Montetiore,  Ilibb.  Led.  502). 

Naturally,  there  were  cases  in  which  higher  con- 
siderations superseded  these  rules  for  the  strict 
observance  of  the  sabbath, — nja  rrnx  pnii  '  push 
aside  the  sabbath '  is  the  exjiression  used.  The 
priests  in  the  discharge  of  their  duties  in  the 
tera[>le — e.g.  in  preparing  and  ollering  the  sacri- 
lices  appointed  for  tlie  day — profaned  the  sabbath, 
and  were  'guiltless  '  (Mt  12'').t  And  so  the  Mishna 
permits  on  the  sabbath  acts  necessjvry  for  the 
sacritice  of  the  passover,  though  it  carefully  ex- 
cludes those  which  are  deemed  unnecessary 
(Pesdhim  vi.  1,  2).  A  Levite  performing  upon  a 
stringo<l  instrument  on  the  sabbath  in  the  temple 
(but  not  elsewhere),  might,  if  his  string  broke,  tie 
It  up  again,  but  he  is  forbidden  to  put  in  a  new 
string  (Eruhin  x.  13).  A  priest  who  hurts  his 
linger  may  bind  it  up  with  reeds  in  the  temple 
(though  not  elsewhere),  but  he  is  not  permitted  to 
press  out  the  blood  {ib.  14).  Similarly  circum- 
cision was  permitted,  though  not  anytuin"  con- 
nected with  it  which  could  be  prepared  before 
(JnT*'''  ;  Shftbb.  xix.).  In  other  cases  Ijumanitarian 
grounds  superseded    the   sabbath.      The   general 

Srinciple  w.is  that  any  '  doubt  about  life,'  i.e.  any 
oubt  as  to  whether  life  was  in  danger,  super- 
seded the  sabbath  (nr^-n-nx  n.in  ria'?^  pif^?  !''''«« 
viii.  0)  :t  but,  of  course,  the  further  question  then 
arose.  What  did  endanger  life  ?  Ailments  sup- 
posed to  be  dangerous  to  life  are  mentioned,  and 
treatments  permitted  or  forbidden  are  enumerated  ; 
but,  to  our  minds,  the  distinctions  drawn  are 
arbitrary  and  absurd,  and  the  reasons  alleged  in 
support  of  them  most  trivial  and  insulticient. 
'  He  who  ha.s  the  toothache  must  not  rinse  his 
teeth  w  ith  vinegar  [and  spit  it  out  again  ;  for  this 
would  be  to  apply  a  medicine]  ;  but  he  may  wash 
them  as  usual  [and  swallow  the  vinegar,  for  this 
would  be  merely  like  taking  food].  He  who  has 
pains  in  the  loins  may  not  anoint  himself  with  wine 
and  vinegar  [which  would  be  a  medicinal  applica- 
tion], but  he  may  anoint  himself  with  oil  [ace.  to 
the  usual  custom],  though  not  with  oil  of  roses 
(which,  being  costly,  would  certainly  not  be  used, 
except  as  a  medicine].'  (Shabb.  xiv.  4  ;  the  ex- 
planations, from  the  commentators,  ap.  Surenh.). 
A.  strain  might  not  have  cold  water  poured  upon 
it,  but  it  njiglit  be  washed  in  the  usual  way 
(xxii.  6).  With  such  feelings  current  on  the  sub- 
ject, the  hostility  aroused  by  the  cures  wrought 
by  our  l.ord  on  the  sabbath  (Mt  12»-'»=Mk  3'-'= 
Lk  G«;'»,  Lk  13'»-"  14'-»,  Jn  0»-'"  7=^  9'<-'»)  is  at  once 
intelligible.  It  is  also  apparent  why  on  a  sabbath 
the  sick  were  brought  to  Him  to  be  healed  after 
sunset  (Mk  1'=,  see  v.''). 

The  di.sciiile.s,  in  'plucking'  (Mt  12'  =  Mk  2=»= 
Lk  6')  and  '  rubbing'^  (I,k  O"")  the  ears  of  corn  on 
the  sabbath,  violated  the  day,  according  to  Kabb. 

•  The  dliitAncc  ie  ohtalned  by  an  CRscntlallv  KiiMiiniojiI  com- 
Wnntl(^n  o(  Kx  lo'i)  211S  and  Jos.  3*.  See  I.iithKoot  on  I,k  24M, 
who  remarks  drily  on  tlie  proccsB. 'Bed  arum  disce  fiihricandi 
quidlihot  ex  quolihef  ;  and  comp.  further  the  next  article. 

t  C(.  I'milhimaia  (and  elsewhere):  B'-fJJ  nn;f'  |'K  '  there  is 
DO  ».il>liiith-kfepini;  in  the  sanctunry.* 

J  Sie  ill  Wun»nhe  (p.  ISK.),  from  the  Gemlr4(l'»ma  Vbab; 
cf.  iltchdta  on  Ex  31'3,  tol.  103t,  cd.  Friedniann),  the  bibliial 
authority  which  'Aljiha  and  other  Itahhls  o(  the  2nd  cent. 
Bonuht  to  discover  tor  this  principle.  The  text  which  was 
deemed  moat  conclusive  won  l>v  18".  where  It  is  said  of  the 
statutes  ol  the  law  that  it  a  man  does  them,  he  will  •  live  by 
them,'  and  not  that  he  will  die  bv  them.  .Sie,  further,  on  the 
tcachuiK  and  exexesis  of  corlv  Itiibbis  on  the  subject  of  the 
•abhath,  Hacher,  I>i<> .di/orfa  dor  ranimttm,  i.  72,  84 1.,  117, 1»1, 
S88,  280,  2000.,  3l«.  404,  ii.  M(.,  861,  3U2,  470,  610. 
VOL.  IV. — 21 


ideas,  in  two  respects ;  for  '  jducklng '  wa.s  a 
species  of  '  reaping,'  and  '  rubbing  '  of  threshing 
(cf.  Maimonides,  Hilrhoth  Hhabbath  viii.  3,  '  He 
who  reaps  even  as  little  as  a  dry  tig  on  the  sabbath 
is  guilty  ;  and  the  plucker  is  a  species  (niVin)  of 
reaper '  ;  and  .Jerus.  Talni.  Shabb.  lOa  '  A  woman 
nibuing  the  heads  of  wheat  [is  guilty],  as  being  a 
thresher,'  np.  Kdersh.  ii.  oG  ;  also  Li"htfoot,  //'  r(e 
Ileb.  on  Mt  12-).  To  lead  an  animiu  to  water  ou 
the  sabbath  (Lk  13")  was  allowable,  provided  it 
carried  nothing  that  could  be  regarded  as  a 
'  burden  ' ;  water  might  even  be  drawn  for  it,  and 
poured  into  a  trough,  so  that  it  came  and  drank  of 
Its  own  accord  ;  it  might  not,  however,  be  brought 
and  set  before  the  beast  (Lightf.  nd  loc;  'Erilbin, 
fol.  204).  But  it  is  not  permitted,  at  least  in  the 
Talmud,  if  an  animal  has  fallen  into  a  pit,  or  pool 
of  water,  to  'lay  hold  of  it,  and  lift  it  out'  (Mt 
12"  ;  cf.  Lk  14')  :  it  is  allowed,  however,  to  supply 
it  with  food,  or,  if  that  be  impossible,  to  bring 
mattresses  and  cushions  for  the  purpose  of  helping 
it  to  come  out  of  itself  (Shabb.  fol.  1286  ;  Malm. 
Shabb.  XXV.  20)  ;  it  is  possible,  however,  that  in 
the  time  of  Christ  this  proliibition  had  not  yet 
been  formulated.  To  make  clay  and  apply  it  to 
the  eye  (Jn  9"-  ")  involved  a  breach,  if  not  a  double 
breach,  of  the  sabbath-law  :  the  Mishna  (Shabb. 
x.viv.  3)  lays  it  down  that  'water  may  be  poured 
on  bran,  but  it  must  not  be  kneaded,'  and  the 
same  rule  might  be  naturally  held  to  apply  to 
clay  :  but  the  application  of  the  clay  to  the  eye 
was  certainly  not  allowable  :  it  was  indeed  per- 
mitted to  apply  wine  to  the  outside  of  the  eyelid 
(though  not  to  put  it  inside  the  eye),  but  the 
application  of  saliva  (which  is  mentioned,  as  it 
was  deemed  to  possess  curative  projierties)  was 
altogether  forbidden  {S/uibb.  1086;  Maim.  Shabb 
xxi.  25  ;  Lightfoot,  ad  loc).  Of  course,  to  take 
up  a  bed  (Jn  5'")  was  prohibited,  being  an  act  of 
'carrying'* 

It  IS,  however,  only  right  to  observe  that,  in 
spite  of  the  rules  ana  restrictions  created  by  the 
Kabbis,  the  sabbath  does  not  seem  to  have  been 
felt  practically  to  be  a  day  of  burden  and  gloom, 
to  those  living  under  them.  '  The  sabbath  is 
celebrated  by  the  very  people  wlio  did  observe  it, 
in  hundreds  of  hymns,  which  would  fill  volumes,  as 
a  day  of  rest  and  joy,  of  pleasure  and  delight,  a 
day  in  which  man  enjoys  some  presentiment  of  the 
pure  bli.s8  and  hajjpiness  which  are  stored  up  for 
the  righteous  in  the  world  to  come.  To  it  such 
tender  names  were  ajjplied  as  the  "  tjueen  Sab- 
b;ith,"  the  "  Bride  Sabbath,"  and  the  "  holy,  dear, 
beloved  Sabbath"  (Scliechtor,  JQIi  iii.  703,  or  ap. 
Monteliore,  Ilibb.  Lixt.  507  ;  cf.  the  hymns  quoted 
b}'  Abrahams,  Jewish  Life  in  the  Middle  Ages,  1896, 
pp.  133-137). 

iv.  Summary. — It  appears,  from  what  has  been 
said,  that,  so  far  as  wo  can  trace  the  sabbath 
back  among  the  Hebrews,  it  was  a  day  sacred  to 
J",  and  also  a  day,  presupposing  the  agricultural 
period,  marked  by  cessation  from  labour  in  the 
house  and  in  the  lield  :  it  had  thus  essentially 
a  2'hilanthropic  character,  the  duty  enjoined  on  it, 
as  Wellh.  has  said,  being  less  that  the  Israelite 
should  rest  him.self,  than  that  ho  should  give 
others  rest.  Whatever  the  sabbath  may  have 
been  in  its  primitive  form,  wo  111.13'  f*^*^'  ^^^e  that 
this  philanthropic  a]iplicatiou  of  it  is  of  Israelite 
origin.      As  sacred   to  J",   religious  olwervances, 

•  Of.  Schurer,  II.  893-400,  412-414.  The  tractates  Snablmth 
&nA' Enlbin  are  translated,  in  Sola  and  Itaphael's  Eujittem 
Treatuen  0/  the  Mijihna  (1843),  pp.  34-lKi;  and,  with  copious 
notes,  in  Surenhusius'  Muchna  (11109),  ii.  1-77,  78-134.  There 
is  also  a  pretty  full  alistract  of  SItahbdth  In  ICdersheim,  L\ft 
and  Times,  ii.  77-11?.;  and  a  separate  ed.  In  Ueb.,  with  useful 
introd.  and  glossary,  by  II.  L.  .Straj:k,  Lpz.  1800.  See,  further, 
the  nianv  Taliii.  piu-sa^'es  tr.  bv  Wetstein  (iVou.  Test.)  on  Mt 
122.6  10,' i,k  141  etc.  ;  and  conip.  also  W.  H.  Bennett,  The 
ilMnah  (U  UtuttratiTtg  the  OospcU,  1884,  p.  6311. 


322 


SABBATH 


SABBATH 


at  first  simple  and  nidimentary,  afterwards  such 
as  would  sprin"  naturally  out  of  a  more  educated 
and  maturer  religious  feeling,  were  attached  to  it, 
— special  sacrifices,  gatherings  for  worship  in  the 
temple,  private  prayer  and  meditation,  and  ulti- 
mately services  in  the  synagogues.  On  its  prac- 
tical side,  it  was  essentially  an  institution  '  made 
for  man.'  Its  intention  was  to  gi^•e  a  rest  from 
laborious  and  engrossing  occupations,  and  from  tlie 
cares  and  anxieties  of  daily  life,  and  at  the  same 
time  to  secure  leisure  for  thouglits  of  God.  The 
restrictions  attaclied  to  it  were  meant  to  be  inter- 
preted in  the  spirit,  not  in  the  letter.  It  had  not 
essentially  an  austere  or  rigorous  character  ;  it  was 
never  intended  that  actions  demanded  by  duty, 
necessity,  or  benevolence  should  be  proscribed  on 
it.  Jts  ,'^im  was  rather  to  counterajjL-ll'e  deaden- 
ing infliicnce.  up()"  l"i^l'  hmly  snij^^sn^il,  oTTiever- 
i'Tit^rriiiptpil  daily  Tfiil,  and  of  r^jifiniiniijj  jjhaniptinn 
in  secular  pursuits.  I)ut  as  time  went  on,  an 
anxious  and  ultimatelj'  a  superstitious  dread  of  pro- 
faning the  sabbath  asserted  itself ;  the  spiritual 
was  subordinated  to  the  fonnal,  restrictions  were 
multiplied,  till  at  length  those  which  were  really 
important  and  reasonable  were  buried  beneath  a 
crowd  of  regulations  of  the  pettiest  description. 
The  general  attitude  taken  towards  the  sabbath 
by  our  Lord  was,  while  accommodating  Himself  to 
such  observances  as  were  consistent  with  its  real 
purpose  {e.g.  worshipping  or  teaching  in  the  syna- 
gogue), or  otherwise  innocent  (p.  320"  n.),  to  free  it 
iToni  those  adventitious  accretions  with  which  the 
•  tradition  of  the  elders '  had  encrusted  it.  Tlie 
sabbath,  He  emphatically  declares  (Mk  2^),  'was 
made  for  man,  not  man  for  the  sabbath.'  *  In 
particular,  deeds  of  mercy  were  no  infringement  of 
its  sanctity  :  it  was  '  lawful  to  do  good  on  the 
sabbath  day'  (Mt  12'=).  Nor  was  the  sabbath, 
as  the  Rabbis  seemed  to  make  it,  an  end  in  itself, 
for  the  sake  of  which  men  should  be  subjected  to 
a  number  of  needless  and  vexatious  rules  ;  it  was 
a  means  to  an  end,  the  good  of  God's  people,  and 
this  end  was  best  promoted  by  a  reasonable  liberty 
in  the  interpretation  of  the  statutes  relating  to  it ; 
the  multiplication  of  rules  tended  really  not  to  pre- 
serve its  essential  character,  but  to  destroy  it. 

The  injunction  Mt  2420  ('  Pray  ye  that  your  flight  be  not  in 
the  winter,  neither  on  a  sabbath';  the  clause  is  not  in  the 
II  Mk  lai»)  rests  probably  upon  the  supposition  either  that  the 
Christians  addressed,  bein^  still  resident  in  Judiea,  would  not, 
at  the  time  contemplatea,  have  yet  cast  off  their  Jewish 
Bcniples,  or  (Hessey,  p.  174  f.)  that  impediments  would  be 
thrown  in  the  way  of  their  flight  by  the  Jews  around  them. 
Jn  ;.n  *  My  Father  worketh  even  until  now  (viz.  without 
interruption),  and  1  work,"  bears  upon  the  relation  which — not 
an  ordinary  man,  but — Christ  Himself  holds  towards  the  sab- 
hath  :  He  does  not  by  works  of  mercy  break  the  sabbath  any 
more  than  God  the  Father  does  by  His  sustaining  providence, 
which  operates  continuously  on  the  sabbath  not  less  than  on 
other  dai  s  (ct.  IlnshUh  li.  i  11 ;  tr.  Wunsche,  48 :  liaclier, 
i.  84  f.,  -jasf.). 

The  addition  in  the  Cod.  Bez»  after  Lk  6*  deserves  also  to  be 
mentioned    here  :  r^  ttirv  yi/iUfiet  Stccffetpcttaf  rua,  ipyaitou.tvov  TftJ 

Si  fArt  itdett,  'vrnutrecpotTo^  Kctt  T«^ae/3(Krtir  ilrAv  >CfA«i/. 

As  regards  the  apostles,  the  sabbath  is  men- 
tioned by  St.  Paul,  directly  in  Col  2'"-  '  Let  no 
man  therefore  judge  you  in  meat,  or  in  drink,  or 
in  respect  of  a  feast  day  or  a  new  moon,  or  a 
sabbatii  day,  which  are  a  shadow  of  tlie  things  to 
come  (i.e.  of  the  ChrLstian  dispens.atioii)  ;  but  the 
body  is  Christ's ' ;  and  inferentially  in  Gal  4'"", 
where  the  observance  of  '  days  and  months  and 
times  and  years'  is  described  as  a  return  to  the 
'weak  and  beggarly  elements,'  and  Ro  14"-,  wliere 
it  is  implied  that  it  is  a  matter  of  indilhrence 
whether  one  day  is  esteemed  above  another,  or 
*  In  the  discussion  in  Yfimd  856  a  somewhat  similar  principle 
(*  the  sabbatii  is  delivered  into  your  hands,  not  you  into  ihe 
hands  of  the  sabbath  ')  is  deduced,  by  an  essentially  Itabbinical 
method,  from  the  wortis  of  K\  :iV*  ('  it  is  holy  /or' you').  The 
argument  is  attributed  in  MrdtiUa  on  Kx  ail-''  to  R.  Shimeon  h. 
Uenaaaya  (c.  190  a.d.}  ;  cf.  Bacher,  op.  cit.  ii.  4U3. 


whether  every  day  is  esteemed  alike  :  '  let  every 
man  be  persuaded  in  his  own  mind.'  The  mean- 
ing of  these  passages  clearly  is  that  the  Jewish 
sabbath,  like  other  Jewish  ceremonial  observances, 
as  the  distinction  of  clean  and  unclean  foods,  or 
Jewish  sacred  seasons,  as  new  moons,  feast-days, 
and  sabbatical  or  jubile  'years,' was  a  matter  of 
indillerence  to  the  Christian,  and  was  abrogated 
under  the  Cliristian  dispensation.  The  general 
teaching  of  the  NT  is  thus,  in  Dr.  Hessey's  words, 
that '  the  sabbath  properly  so  called,  the  sabbath 
of  the  .lews,  with  everything  connected  with  it  a« 
a  positive  ordinance,  was  swept  away  by  Chris- 
tianity' (Lect.  v.,  ad  init.). 

The  Fathers  frequently  compare  the  (Jewish)  Babbath  with 

Circumcision,  treating  it,  like  that,  as  a  temporary  ordinance, 
and  pointing  out  that  Abraham,  for  instance,  was  Justiflea 
without  observing  it;  e.g.  Justin,  Trypk.  §§  19,  p.  236  E,  27, 
p.  245  B;  Iren.  iv.  xvi.  2;  Tertull.  adv.  Jud.  0.  2  (Hessey, 
pp.  66ff.,  371  fl.  led.  5,  pp.  429.,  2S1II.)). 

In  He  49  'There  remaineth  therefore  a  sabbath  rest  (tf-oe/S- 
0ccr,truci)  unto  the  people  of  God,'  sabbath  rent  is  used  figura- 
tively of  the  rest  in  God  after  death.  The  apostle  has  been 
arjiuing  that  it  was  God's  purpose  that  some  should  enter  into 
Ilis  'rest'  (aMeTfltT«t/rjf,^.lril3p,  properly  place  of  rest), — the 
'  rest  •  signified  by  the  expression  being  in  the  original  context 
(I's  96'1  ;  ct.  Dt  129- 1«)  the  rest  of  Canaan,  and  this  being  identi- 
fied by  the  apostle — no  doubt  on  account  of  the  presence  and 
fellowship  of  God  implied  in  it — with  the  rest  of  God, — i.e.  the 
'  rest'  into  which  God  entered  after  finishing  His  work  of  crea- 
tion, and  which  He  designs  to  be  shared  ultimatel.v  by  all  His 
faithful  people  ;  as  Israel,  through  disobedience,  failed  to  enter 
into  that '  rest,'  the  promise  still  remains  open  for  Christians. 
See  more  fully  A.  B.  Davidson's  Coiiim.  (T.  &  T.  Clark),  pp. 
pr^-lOl,  The  Rabbis  also  sometimes  regarded  the  sabbath  aa 
foreshadowing  the  rest  of  the  world  to  come  ;  thus  in  the 
Mishna  (redacted  c.  200  A.D.),  Tamid  vii.  4  i  =  Sopherim  xviii. 
2),  in  the  enumeration  of  the  psalms  which  were  sung  by  the 
Levites  in  the  Temple,  when  the  morning  burnt-offering  was 
offered  (Delitzsch,  Pttalm.i  26f.),  it  is  said;  '  On  the  sabbath, 
they  recited  the  psalm  (02)  of  which  the  title  is  "A  Psalm,  a 
son^  for  the  sabbath-day,"  i.e.  a  Psalm  for  the  future  (t^rij^? 
Ni3 7).  for  the  day  (var.  lee.  for  the  age),  which  is  all  sabbath« 
and  rest  for  life  eternal  (-'r}j  .irHip?  nje*  1^21?  (D^iyS  'k  'j)  0V7 
D';r^iv).'  The  same  sa,\ing  is  quoted  also  often  elsewhere,  e.g. 
Mfchilta  OTi  Ex  3113,  Jiogh  ha-shana  31a  (where,  with  the  entire 
passage,  it  is  attriimted  to  R.  'Akiba  [d.  135  a.d.];  cf.  Bacher,  L 
ysii);  see  also  ./I /'Of A  dc  R.  Nathan,  fol.  3a  bottom,  ed.  Schechter 
(with  the  note).*  But  the  passages  cited  by  Schbttgcn  on  He  4^ 
from  Zohar,  Yali^ut  Rubem,  and  R.  Samuel  ben  David,  are  very 
late,— the  book  Zohar  being  of  the  13th  cent.,  and  the  other  two 
of  the  17th  cent. 

Tlie  question  of  the  relation  of  the  'Lord's  Day' 
(Rev  1'"),  or  Christian  Sunday,  to  the  Jewish  sab- 
bath, does  not  piopeily  belong  to  the  present 
article,  and  need  llierefore  be  only  referred  to 
briefly.  The  true  view  appears  to  be  tliat  the 
Sunday  is  not  substituted  fur  tlie  Jewish  sabbatii ; 
the  sabbath  is  abolished  ;  and  the  observance  of 
the  First  Day  of  tlie  week  is  an  analogous  institu- 
tion, based  on  the  consecration  of  that  day  by  our 
Lord's  Resurrection,  sanctioned  by  apostolic  usage 
(Ac  20',  1  Co  16-),  and  accepted  by  the  early 
Church, — the  day  being  set  apart  for  similar 
objects — rest  from  labour,  and  the  service  of  God, 
— in  a  manner  consonant  with  the  higher  and  more 
spiritual  teaching  of  Christ,  and  to  be  observed  in 
the  spirit  of  loyal  Christian  freedom,  rather  than 
by  obedience  to  a  system  of  precise  statutes.  Dr. 
Ilessey  lias  made  it  abundantly  clear  that  during 
the  first  three  Christian  centuries  the  Lord's  Day 
was  never  confounded  with  the  sabbath,  but  care- 
fully distinguished  from  it ;  and  that  it  was  only 
after  the  3rd  cent.,  and  even  then  only  gradually, 
that  the  Christian  and  the  Jewish  institutions  were 
confused,  and  that  tendencies  towards  'Sabbatari- 
anism '  began.     See,  further,  Lord's  Day. 

By  early  Christian  wTitors,  it  may  be  worth  noticing,^ the 
teniis  9-1x0^x10*  and  fkizSxt.Xuv  are  not  infrequently  used  in  a 
fig.  or  spiritual  sense  uf  aLstinence  from  evU  ;  e.g.  Justin, 
Tn/ph.  §  12,  'The  new  law  (of  Christ)  wills  that  you  should 
keep  saljbath  perpetually";  let  a  thief,  etc.,  turn  from  sm, 
juti    riVK^^artKl    T«    r/iv^tfiai   (cf.    Is   BS'^)   awti   iXrA**    treifi0»9m 

'  On  the  opinion  that  this  'day'  would  be  lOOU  years,  ae* 
Charlei,  Book  if  the  Secrets  oS  Htwch,  on  331- »;  Sank.  Via. 


SAEBATH  DAY'S  JOURNEY 


SABBATICAL  YEAE 


323 


«;  «■•;.  81mil«rly  Clem.  Al.  Sirnm.  Hi.  16,  }  Of),  p.  ssn  Potter, 
wheie  'that  keepeth  the  eahbath'  of  Ib  fitl*  \b  e.xplairu'(l  to 
■ignify  MtiTtt  mvtyr.r  ittMtpry,fUtTvt,  and  iv.  3,  ^  6,  p.  600  (^  ^M 
)mjj  T«  r«^^jcr*i  Oi' «ro;^^*  XAXv*  iyxfiuriutt  «j»tTTltf'f/Ki),  Tl-rtul- 

li«n,  adr.  Jurf.  c  4,  anil  others:  see  Hcssev,  pp.  57 fl.,  93,  96 
(ed.  6,  pp.  439.,  70,  72);  Suicer,  Theg.  Ecdet.  916,  918f.;  and 
tt.  also  Ep.  Bamab.  xv.  1,  6,  7,  And  this,  no  doubt,  is  the 
meaning  of  the  expression  in  the  second  of  the  '  Sayings  of 
Jeaus,' discovered  in  Ih'J"  at  Oxyrhyncus,  Aiyu  'Ir.roZt,    Ea»  ^n 

rnr^lirvri  riy  miffia*  [read  Tcu  KtffutZ],  ei/  ui;  tSpm  Tr,i  SaffiXliai  r»u 
tuv  tut't  \i^t  fj,^  ruff^ctTiffriri  rt  ret  22<tvat  tuKO-iric^t  ritwxrtfiit : 

the  Christian's  whole  life  is  to  be  hallowed,  as  a  sabbath,  in  the 
8<r\'ice  of  God.  But  it  is  ditlicult  to  think  that  Christ  Ilimself 
can  have  used  the  expression  in  this  metaphorical  sense.  See, 
further,  Expos.  Times,  ix,  69 ;  Hamack,  Cher  die  pinftxt 
enUUckten  Spriiche  Jesxt,  1S97,  pp.  9-12  (tr.  in  Expos.  Nov.  1S97, 
pp.  323-7J ;  Lock  and  Sandav,  Tico  Lectures  on  the  *Saj/ings  qf 
"ens/  0x1.  1897,  pp.  7,  9,  19  f.,  35  f. 

LiTBRATUBB.— Besides  the  references  already  given,  Wellh. 
Bitt.  112,110;  .Montefiore,  lliM.  Lect.  ^lnilex)■,  Smend,  .^ «(<!«(. 
Rel.-tlrich.  139  f.,  279,  3:(a-.332 ;  Nowock,  A  rrh.  ii.  14rV144  ; 
Speaker's  Comm.  on  Ex.  p.  339  ff.;  Buxtorf,  5ymj<7.  y«d.  c.  l(^-ll : 
Kalisch,  Comm.  mi  Ez.  i35&-363  (with  information  on  Jewish 
oaages):  \Vtiniit:ixe,ErlatUeruiiader  Evann.  aus  Tatm.  u.  Midr. 
ioQ  Mtl22.  11' etc.);  Schiirer (Index)  ;  Edersheim,  Li.feand  Times, 
11.  62-62,  182,  774  IT.;  Malmonides  (d.  1204).  Bilchoth  f!hali- 
bdth  ('  rules  for  the  sabbath '),  in  his  i'ad  hdzdkah  (ed.  15.^0,  i. 
tol.  7711.,  ed.  1702,  i.  fol.  13y6ff.);  §§  242-410  of  part  iii_.  (i-allcd 
'Orah  hayyim)ot  R.  Joseph  Karo'6(d.  lb75)Shtithdn'Ariikh{a 
manual  of  Jewish  usaires  ;  often  reprinted,  e.rr,  I  'anzig,  1845  ;  in 
Lowe's  abridged  tr.  iii.  [llamburp,  1839]  p.  49  ff.);  Abrahams, 
Jeuni/i  Lije  in  Mid.  Ages  (Index) ;  J.  A.  llessey,  Sunday, 
iu  oriijin,  history,  and  present  oi/liyation  (B.-xinpton  Lcct.  (or 
1860 ;  latest  ed.  1SS9).  S.   K.  DRIVEB. 

SABBATH  DAY'S  JODRNEY  (Talmndic  oinn* 
I??'!')- — Au  expression  found  but  once  in  the  Bible, 
Ac  1"  (aa^^arov  .  .  .  oSdf),  where  the  Mount  of 
Olives  is  said  to  be  a  Sabbath  day's  journey  from 
Jerusalem.  The  expression  immediately  suggests 
some  well-known  regulation  fixing  the  distance 
which  might  be  travelled  on  the  Sabbath,  and,  by 
implication,  defines  tliis  distance  as  between  five 
and  six  furlongs  ;  for,  according  to  Josephus  in  liis 
Ant.  (XX.  viii.  6),  the  Mount  of  Olives  is  five  fur- 
longs from  Jerusalem,  wliile  in  his  BJ  (V.  ii.  3) 
it  is  stated  to  be  six,  the  variation  being  perhaps 
due  either  to  the  fact  that  the  distance  lay  between 
the  two,  or  to  the  fact  that  the  older  Hebrew  ell 
was  rather  shorter  than  the  later  one.  What  the 
text  suggests  is  quite  in  harmony  with  extant 
Itabbinical  regulations,  which,  therefore,  in  this 
case  exhibit  not  merely  (as  they  so  often  and  so 
misleadinglv  do)  what  ought  to  be,  but  what  actu- 
ally waa.  rims,  in  the  Jerusalem  Targum,  tlio 
command  in  Ex  IG-""  appears  in  the  form,  '  And  let 
no  man  go  walking  from  his  j)Iace  beyond  2000 
ells  on  the  seventh  day';  and  in  the  "Targum  on 
Ku  1"  Naomi  saye  to  fiuth,  'We  are  commanded 
to  keep  Sabbaths  and  festivals,  and  not  to  walk 
be)'onu  2000  ells';  and  this  regulation  is  supple- 
mented with  many  ritualistic  details  in  the  Mislina 
tractate'£ru6tn.  Occa.sional  variationsf  from  this 
generally  accepted  measurement!  —  as,  for  ex- 
ample, tlie  greater  Sabbath  day's  journey  of  2800 
ells,  the  medium  one  of  'JuiiO,  and  the  .smaller  one 
of  1800— are  merely  the  freaks  of  individual  Rabbis. 

The  evolution  of  the  regulation  can  be  traced 
with  some  approximation  to  certainty.  The  liahbis 
seem  first  to  have  generalized  the  prohibition 
directed  in  Ex  16*  against  a  man's  '  going  out  of 
his  place'  on  the  Sabbath  to  gather  the  manna, 

•  See  Levy,  NHWD,  s.v.  cmn  (vol.  Iv.  p.  6371>). 

t  Nowock  {Lehrb.  d.  llrh.  Archaol.  i.  202)  gives  as  his  opinion 
that  the  Sabbath  (ovirney  pr<»biib]y  corresponded  to  the  K^.'yi)tian 
measure  of  loon  double  'mips,  and  q\iote.H  from  ZiKkerniuiin  the 
tradition  in  the  Talmud  that  it  was  '20(M»  Kfc/^jf,  explainiuk' the 
2W10  ells  elsewhere  by  /!uckeruiann's  statenunt  that  in  the  Tal- 
mud ell  and  step  are  quite  commonly  made  the  same  ;  and  the 
Bkbbotb  Journey  (Nowack  adds)  Is  sonietimes  called  mil  ('j'lp) 
■—that  Is,  fMXjtt.  Jerome  has  another  measurement.  In  his 
BpiMt.  ad  Atijanam  qxtcest.  x.  we  And:  'They  are  accustomed 
to  answer  ond  say  "  liaruchibos  and  Simeon  and  Hillcl,  our 
mastem,  have  handed  down  to  us  that  we  should  walk  2000  feet 
(pedes)  t,n  the  Sabbath.'" 

:  (Iriiten  (fl«  I'rincipiis,  Iv.  17)  says  that  the  Jews  held  2000 
•lis  (}<rx>x^«/r  **'X^*)  to  bo  each  moo's  '  place '  (t»«**)  (on  the 
Mbbolh). 


and  then  to  have  deduced  the  2000  ells  from  the 
distance  ordained  (Jos  3')  to  be  between  the  people 
on  the  march  and  the  ark  in  front  of  them  ;  or,  aa 
some  suppose,  from  the  distance  between  the 
tabernacle  in  tlie  wilderness  and  the  outermost  part 
of  the  camp  ;  but,  jirobablj-,  the  case  of  the  taoer- 
nacle  was  only  an  imaginary  liabbinical  inference 
from  that  of  the  ark.  By  the  '  analogy '  in  the 
use  of  mal;(im,  '  place,'  in  tx  10'-^  and  iu  Ex  21" — 
where  the  '  place  is  a  Levitical  city  of  refuse  with 
borders  extending  (it  was  alHrmed)  2000  ells  from 
the  walls  (Nu  35')— the  man's  'place'  of  Ex  16=» 
became,  in  due  course,  the  city  in  which  he  dwelt, 
together  with  its  borders  measuring  2000  ells 
straight  out  fiom  the  sides  of  the  rectangle  hypo- 
thetically  constituting  the  city.  (This  measure- 
ment seems,  from  Nu  35*,  with  its  1000  ells,  to  have 
been  an  exegetical  mistake :  the  2000  ells  appar- 
ently refer  to  each  side  of  the  larger  rectangle  cir- 
cumscribing the  borders).  According  to  GLnsburg 
(Kitto's  Cyclop.,  art.  'Sabbath  Day's  Journey '),  it 
was  argued  that  '  if  one  who  committed  murder 
accidentally  was  allowed  to  undertake  this  journey 
of  2000  yards  (ells?)  on  a  Sabbath  without  violating 
the  sanctitj'  of  the  day,  innocent  people  rai^ht  do 
the  same.'  Compare  also  J.  Lightfoot  on  Lk  24°'', 
and  his  quaint  remark  on  the  '  pleasant  art  [the 
Rabbis]  have  of  working  anything  out  of  anything.' 

This  Rabbinical  regtiiation,  being  obviously  and 
often  inconvenient,  was  not  allowed  seriously 
to  hamper  'the  movements  of  the  Jews.  They 
secured,  legally,  a  wider  freedom  by  a  simple 
device,  which  « as  called  the  '  connexion  of  boun- 
daries'  or  the  'amalgamation  of  distances.'  If  a 
man  desired  to  travel  more  than  2000  ells  on  a 
particular  Sabbath  day  he  could  adapt  the  law  to 
his  project  by  carrying,  before  that  Sabljath  began, 
to  some  point  within  the  Sabbatical  limit,  food 
enough  for  two  meals ;  he  could  then  and  there 
eat  the  one  moiety  and  bury  the  other,  and  could 
thus  establish  a  domicile  (to  use  a  modem  expres- 
sion, a  'place  within  the  meaning  of  the  Act'), 
from  which  he  could  date  his  journey  on  the 
coming  Sabbath.  Even  this  precaution  was  not 
de  rigueur.  He  could,  if  he  preferred,  ej'e  a  tree 
or  a  wall  at  a  distance  of  2000  ells  from  the  place 
of  his  actual  abode  and  declare  it  his  legal  a!bode 
for  the  Sabbath — that  is,  his  legal  startini'-jioint 
for  his  projected  Sabbath  journey,  provided  he 
used  words  suHiciently  definite  as  to  the  tree  or 
wall,  and,  as  Schiirer  phrases  it,  'did  the  thing 
thoroughly '  {HJP II.  ii.  122,  quoting'£niii7i,  iv.  7). 

J.  Massie. 

SABBATICAL  YEAR  (including  Jubile  Year  and 
Land  Laws). — In  this  article  several  distinct  topics 
are  treated  together,  wliich  are  too  closely  related 
to  one  another  to  be  dealt  with  separately  without 
a  good  deal  of  overlapping.  A  clear  summary 
statement  of  the  position  of  the  Sabbatical  and 
Jubile  years  in  the  cycle  of  Hebrew  sacred  seasons 
will  be  found  under  the  art.  Feasts  AND  FASTS. 

The  7  j'ears'  period  recurs  at  every  stage  of  the 
legislation,  but  not  always  with  itfentical  provi- 
sions, or  even  with  application  to  the  same  suoject. 
The  50  years'  term  is  first  found  in  the  Priestly 
Code,  but  it  is  applied  to  cases  previously  connected 
with  the  7  years    period.     Consequently  it  will  be 

•  There  is  no  necessary  discrepancy  between  Lk  24^0  and  Ac 
V^.  In  the  former  passage  it  is  Hjii<l  that  our  Lord  took  out  the 
diBciples  V«<  wptt  li«iy«..cx.,  'until  they  came  within  view  of 
Bethany'  (Blass,  XT  (iraminar,  139  n.  4),  which  (Jn  ll'")  was 
16  furlongs  from  Jerusalem.  In  the  latter  passage  it  is  said  that 
the  disciples  '  returned  from  the  Mount  called  olivet,  which  iB 
nigh  unto  Jerusalem,  a  Sabbath  day's  Journey  off' — that  is,  from 
6  to  6  furlongs.  The  Mount  of  '(Hives  was  a  ridge  about  a 
mile  long,  and  it  Is  this  and  not  Bethany  whose  distance  is  thus 
mea.'iurLKl  after  Luke's  manner  (cf.  24i:'),  for  the  purpose  of  in- 
fonning  readers  unacquainted  with  the  locality.  Bethany  waa 
on  the  south-east  slope  of  the  ridge,  about  a  mile  beyond  the 
summit.  It  is  unlikely  that  Luke  intended  to  represent  the 
Ascension  os  takiui;  place  either  withiu  or  close  to  the  vUloge. 


324 


SABBATICAL  YEAR 


SABBATICAL  YEAR 


clearest  to  gather  the  whole  material  from  the 
successive  sources  in  such  a  form  as  to  make  coui- 
jjaxison  easy.  Accordingly,  tlie  same  letter  is  vised 
to  mark  corresponding  matter  in  the  following 
paragraphs. 

I.  Comparative  Summary  of  Laws.— (i.)  Tke 
earliest  Legislation — E. — a.  The  7  years'  ]ieriod  is 
found  in  tlie  Covenant  Book  Ex  23""-,  and  among 
the  Judgments  Ex  SP'*  (cf.  vol.  i.  p.  810). 

b.  In  the  former  it  is  laid  down  as  an  obligation 
that  every  Hebrew  owner  of  land  should  ■  let  it 
rest  and  lie  fallow'  in  the  7th  j-ear.  Hupfeld  and 
Wellhausen  apply  this  to  the  increase  only,  as 
though  it  was  lawful  to  sow,  but  not  to  reap ;  but 
it  is  better,  with  Dillmann,  Nowack,  etc.,  to  take 
it,  as  in  our  versions,  as  prescribing  an  entire 
ce.ssation  of  all  field  work ;  for  the  two  verbs  in 
V."  '  let  drop  (or  '  release ')  and  leave  alone '  (njE^^f'fi 
B?y?}')i  seem  obviously  in  contrast  to  both  verbs  in 
v.'"  'sow'  and  'gather.'  The  oliveyards  and  vine- 
yards are  to  come  under  the  same  rule  as  the  corn 
land,  i.e.  no  work  is  to  be  done  in  them  in  the  7th 
year.  The  aim  expressed  is  '  that  the  poor  of  thy 
people  may  eat.'  And  so  stringent  is  the  rule  that, 
if  all  is  not  consumed  by  tlie  poor,  the  remainder 
must  not  be  garnered,  but  must  be  left  for  '  the 
beast  of  the  field '  to  eat.  It  is  not  explicitly  stated 
that  the  owner  and  his  family  were  not  to  eat  of 
the  spontaneous  growth  of  the  fallow  year,  but  the 
passage,  taken  by  itself,  rather  suggests  that  they 
might  not. 

c.  In  Ex  21'"'  a  6  years'  term  is  fixed  as  the 
normal  period  during  which  a  Hebrew  could  be 
compelled  to  serve  as  a  slave.  In  the  7th  year 
he  could  demand  his  freedom  (see,  further,  art. 
Servant,  and  the  Oxf.  Hex.  i.  55). 

d.  Neither  in  connexion  with  the  fallow  for  the 
land  nor  with  the  emancipation  of  the  slave  is 
there  any  clear  indication  that  the  7  years'  period 
was  fixed,  beginning  and  ending  simultaneously 
all  over  the  country.  In  the  second  case,  of  the 
slave,  this  hypothesis  is  practically  ruled  out  as 
impracticable,  and  in  the  case  of  the  fallow  the 
natural  interpretation  of  the  language  is  that  each 
owner  would  reckon  the  term  independently  of 
others,  and  indeed  that  diiierent  portions  of  his 
holding  would  lie  fallow  in  different  years,  so  that, 
e.g.,  if  his  com  land  did  not  require  his  labour,  he 
would  still  have  his  vines  and  olives  to  attend  to, 
and  vice  versd.  The  analogy  of  the  weekly  sabbath 
is  too  precarious  to  be  allowed  much  weight. 

e.  Tne  earliest  legislation  has  no  laws  as  to  the 
inheritance,  sale,  or  redemption  of  land. 

(ii.)  The  Dcuteronomic  Code — D. — a.  The  7  years' 
period  occurs  t%vice  in  Dt  15,  in  w.'^*  and  vv.""-", 
and  a  third  time  in  31'°"''. 

b.  No  mention  is  made  of  any  custom  of  a 
periodical  fallow,  but  an  ordinance  appears  15'"' 
for  the  first  time  (reflecting  the  life  of  times  when 
the  purely  agricultural  stage  has  been  passed), 
which  provides  for  the  remission,  or,  as  some  hold, 
the  suspension  of  debts  due  to  a  creditor  from  '  his 
neighbour  and  his  brother,'  though  debts  may  be 
exacted  'of  a  foreigner.'  The  motive  of  the  law  is 
compassion  for  the  poor  and  unfortunate  among 
the  Israelites.  And  tlie  provision  in  31'°""  that  '  at 
the  end  of  7  years,  in  the  set  time  of  the  year  of  ra- 
lease'  (.lEOif,  from  Ef'c '  let  drop  '[KV'm  '  release '],  Ex 
23"),  in  the 'Feast  of  Booths.'^a  public  reading  of  the 
Deut.  Law-book  should  take  place,  indicates  that  the 
sanction  for  the  ordinance  is  to  be  found  in  the  great 
principles  of  love  to  God  and  man  reiterated  in  it. 

c.  A  Hebrew  slave  (15'^"")  may  go  free  after 
serving  for  6  years. 

d.  'The  period,  in  the  last  case,  obviously  berfns 
with  the  entrance  of  the  slave  upon  servitude  ;  out 
in  the  former,  it  is  clear,  from  the  allusion  to  the 
'proclaiming'  of  'J"'s  release,'  that  the  close  of 


each  period  is  to  be  simultaneous  over  all  the 
country,  and  to  be  publicly  announced. 

e.  Except  for  the  warnings  against  disturbing  a 
neighbour  s  'landmark'  (lO'''  ~1^'),  no  Deuteronomio 
law  bears  on  the  ownership  of  land. 

(iii.)  The  Priestly  Code — P. — a.  Not  only  is  the 
7  years'  period  found  in  this,  the  latest  stratum  of 
Hebrew  legislation,  but  a  50  years'  term  is  added 
to  crown  the  calendar  (Lv  25). 

b.  Every  7th  year,  and  in  addition  every  50th 
year,  is  to  be  kept  with  strictness  as  a  fallow  year, 
the  crops  being  neither  sown  at  the  beginning  nor 
reaped  at  the  close,  the  vines  not  pruned  and  the 
grapes  not  gathered.  The  idea  must  be  that  no 
storing,  or  systematic  harvesting  o|)erations,  was 
to  go  on,  but  not  that  the  crops  that  might  grow 
of  themselves  were  to  be  left  unlouched,  for  it  ia 
added,  '  the  sabbath  of  the  land  shall  be  for  food 
for  you ;  for  thee,  and  for  thy  servant  and  for 
thy  maid,  and  for  thy  hired  servant  and  for  thy 
stranger  that  sojourn  with  thee ;  and  for  thy 
cattle,  and  for  the  beasts  that  are  in  thy  land, 
shall  all  the  increase  thereof  be  for  food.  So  it 
was  lawful  to  go  into  the  fields  and  oliveyards 
and  vineyards,  and  gather  food  as  it  might  be 
wanted  from  the  spontaneous  yield  of  the  land. 

This  view  is  maintained  by  Dillmann,  Nowack, and  the  Jewish 
interpreters.  iStUl  it  is  stran^'e  that  in  w. 20-22,  wiiere  the  prob- 
lem of  food  supply  is  dealt  with,  no  allusion  is  made  to  the  rijiht 
conferred  in  v.w-  (cf.  v.i2).  It  might  be  conjectured  that  v. 6  was 
added  to  v.^  to  modify  a  stringency  regarded  as  impracticable. 

All  mention  of  the  poor  has  dropped  out,  and 
the  ordinance  is  expressly  based  on  the  religious 
principle  that  the  land,  as  well  as  the  people, 
should  keep  Sabbath  unto  J".  Neither  is  the 
arrangement  of  Deuteronomy  recalled  for  the  re- 
mission of  debts,  though  the  prohibition  of  usury 
is  repeated  from  Dt  23'". 

c.  A  provision  for  emancipation  of  slaves  occurs 
yy  89-64^  but  in  connexion  witli  the  jubile,  in  which 
year  eveij  Hebrew  slave  is  to  go  free  with  his 
family.  'This  can  scarcely  be  in  addition  to,  but 
rather  in  substitution  for,  the  earlier  provisions; 
for  (1)  if  the  law'  of  emancipation  at  the  7th  year 
was  in  force,  it  would  be  unnecessary  to  order  it  in 
the  50th ;  and  (2)  the  later  law  in  another  point 
abrogates  the  earlier,  as  it  prohibits  lifelong 
bondage,  and  leaves  no  room  for  such  a  riveting 
of  the  ties  of  slavery  as  was  involved  in  the  archaic 
ceremony  of  the  boring  of  the  ear.  Moreover,  we 
find  again  the  express  mention  of  a  religions  prin- 
ciple as  the  motive  for  the  law,  viz.  that  all  Israel- 
ites are  J'"s  servants,  and  therefore  cannot  be 
permanently  owned  by  anotlier.  V."*-  a  new 
provision  is  also  added,  that  a  Hebrew  enslaved  to 
a  '  stranger '  (i3)  may  be  redeemed  by  a  relative, 
the  price  varying  with  the  distance  of  the  jubile. 
Curiously,  no  such  provision  e.\ists  in  the  case  of  a 
Hebrew  enslaved  to  a  Hebrew. 

d.  The  7th  year  in  Leviticus  becomes  for  the 
first  time  a  true  sabbatical  year,  a  season  to  be 
simultaneously  observed  as  a  fallow  year  in  which 
no  field  work  was  to  be  done  under  a  directly  re- 
ligious sanction.  Moreover,  the  difficulties  of  such 
observance  being  apjiarent,  doubters  are  encouraged 
(yy  30-22)  by  an  assur.ance  of  Providential  aid  in  the 
shape  of  an  unusually  abundant  yield  in  the  Cvh 
year.  The  produce  is  to  be  enough  for  3  years, 
'  untU  the  9th  year,  until  her  fruits  come  in.'  The 
reason  is  that,  after  the  fallow  of  the  7th  year, 
the  ground  is  so  hard  that  a  second  or  third 
plougliing  is  necessary  in  the  8th  year  before  sow- 
ing can  take  place,  and  consequently  only  the 
Bummer-sown  crops  of  the  8th  year  come  to  any- 
thing, and  they  are  not  available  for  use  till  the 
beginning  of  tlie  9th  year,  the  reckoning  of  the 
years  being,  of  course,  in  this  context  from  autumn 
to  autumn. 


SABBATICAL  YEAR 


SABBATIC^\X  YEAS 


325 


It  i«  not  therefore  necessary  to  reject '  until  the  9th  year," 
M  Dillm.  proposes,  on  the  eround  that  the  "i  years'  would 
naturally  be  tne  6th,  7tb,  and  8th  years,  and  that  the  allusion 
to  the  9th  year  has  been  introduceu  because  an  editor  referred 
the  passage  to  the  exceptional  case  of  the  49th  ami  5i)th  years 
when  two  fallow  years  followed  one  another,  tho  7th  sal)batical 
year  and  the  jubile  year.  Vet  it  is  natural  to  conclude  from 
the  languat'e  of  Lv  'ib,  as  K;ilisch  does,  that  the  intention  of 
the  oniinance  was  that,  after  7  sabbatical  periods  had  uassed, 
the  50th  or  jubile  vear  should  be  intercalated  as  an  additional 
tallow  year,  iranietllately  after  the  7th  sabbatical  year,  and  that 
a  new  sabbatical  period  should  begin  with  the  5l8t  year. 
This  was  also  the  %'iew  of  the  Jewish  interpreters.  But  see, 
further,  below  II.  (iv.). 

e.  The  purchase  and  redemption  of  land  is  not 
alluded  to  in  the  earlier  codes  (but  cf.  Kzk  46'"'  for 
allusion  to  some  such  custom),  but  is  here  treated 
with  some  fulness  (vv."-""  '-•"•  **"").  The  i>rovisions 
may  be  entuiierated  as  follows : — ( 1 )  The  freehold  of 
agricultural  land  could  not  be  sold  outri<'ht,  for  at 
the  50th  or  jubile  year  every  piece  sold  returned 
to  the  owner  or  his  representatives.  The  utmost 
that  an  owner  desirous  of  selling  could  do  was  to 
grant  a  lease  of  the  property,  the  term  of  the  lease 
to  expire  at  the  next  jubile,  however  near  that 
might  be.  The  purchaser  only  obtained  the  usu- 
fruct for  the  time  being,  and  the  price  was  to  be 
regulated  by  the  number  of  the  crops  due  before 
the  jubile.  (2)  In  every  case  of  a  man  being 
forced  to  sell  part  of  his  patrimony,  it  was  the 
duty  of  his  kinsman  (v.")  either,  according  to  the 
ordinary  interpretation,  to  redeem  the  land,  i.e. 
from  the  purclia.ser  (who  is  not  named),  or,  accord- 
ing to  the  attractive  theory  put  forth  by  liuhl 
(AJTh  i.  738),  to  exercise  a  rijjht  of  pre-emption. 
(3)  If  there  wius  no  kinsman  to  ellect  the  gc'uUah, 
still,  if  the  original  owner  at  any  time  became  rich 
enough,  he  could  buy  it  back  at  the  selling  price, 
less  the  proportion  belonging  to  the  years  since 
the  sale  (v.^*-).  (4)  House  property  in  a  walled 
city  might  be  sold  outright  witliout  returninj;  to 
the  vendor  at  the  jubile  (v.^') ;  but  he  was  given 
the  right  of  redemption  during  the  one  year  after 
the  sale  (Maimonides  and  others  mention  a  tradi- 
tion that  the  term  'walled  cities' is  restricted  to 
those  that  were  such  in  Joshua's  time).  (5)  House 
property  in  a  village  was  subject  to  the  provisions, 
see  (l)--(3)  above,  attaching  to  agricultural  land. 
(6)  Tlie  Levitical  possessions  were  subject  to  special 
provisions;  (a)  house  property  in  their  cities  was 
to  be  saleable,  as  far  as  the  leasehold  value  went, 
redeemable  at  any  time,  and  restored  at  the  jubile ; 
and  (h)  the  farm  land  round  their  cities  was  to  be 
altogether  unsaleable  and  inalienable.  (7)  The 
ca.se  of  a  field  devoted  to  J"  is  treated  in  Lv  27"'*'. 
The  field  was  to  be  valued  at  once,  and  might  be 
redeemed  at  that  j^irice,  with  a  tifth  addetl,  up  to 
the  jubile,  after  which  it  |)assed  to  the  priest.  If 
the  held  had  been  already  sold,  then  no  redemption 
was  possible,  and  the  gift  became  ell'ective  and 
final  at  the  jubile.  If  the  field  was  not  part  of  the 
donor's  own  patrimony,  but  a  purchased  ( =  leased) 
portion  of  another  man's  possession,  then  the  gift 
could  only  involve  the  usufruct  till  the  jubile, 
when  the  property  returned  to  the  original 
owner. 

Summary. — Three  stages  may  thus  be  distin- 
guished. ( I )  In  Exodus  a  7th  year  fallow  for  the  land 
»nd  a  7  years'  term  for  Hebrew  .slaves  is  reiiuired, 
witlioutanysinmltaneous  reckoning  of  either  period 
throughout  the  country.  (2)  In  Deuteronomy  a 
■imultaneous  remission  of  debts  replaces  the  fallow 
year,  the  term  of  service  for  slaves  remaining  the 
same.  (3)  In  Leviticus  a  simultaneous  7th  year 
fallow  is  ordered  ;  remission  of  debts  is  drojilied  in 
favour  of  a  general  prohibition  of  usury;  emanci- 
pation at  the  50lh  year  is  all  that  remains  of  the 
7  years'  term  of  service ;  and  a  whole  series  of  pro- 
visions  is  added  on  land  and  h<m.><e  property. 

Tht  ytno/ysu  qf  l/v  2S.— That  this  chapter  contains  earlier 
ftBd  Ut«l  element*  is  generally  admitted.     Uillmaon,  Kuenen, 


and  Nowack  consider  that  there  are  no  sure  grounds  on 
which  to  discriminate  these.  Driver  and  White  (*  Leviticus'  in 
SBO'F)  treat  the  jubile  tor  the  land  as  ori^'inal  in  the  Uulinesa 
legislation  (Pt"),  but  ascribe  to  a  later  hand  the  extension  to 
]tersons.  Wellhausen  thinks  that  the  llrst  draft  placed  tho 
freeing  of  slaves  and  re<leniption  of  land  in  the  7th  year,  and, 
if  Oillmann  criticizes  this  reconstruction  as  involving  an  un- 
workable arrangement,  Uolzinger  points  out,  on  the  other 
hand,  that  the  priestly  scribes  were  not  always  very  uracticaL 
Another  solution  is  offered  in  the  Oa/ord  Ufxat>^udi,  ii.  177, 
on  Lv  25.  It  is  there  suggei,ted  that  the  regulations  on  the 
sabbath  year,  w.-b-7.  1b--22^  belong  to  the  first  draft  of  l'^  ;  that 
tlie  block  of  material  on  the  jubile,  vv,s-l7,  which  now  inter- 
rujits  the  former,  is  itself  composite,  as  is  shown  (I)  by  the 
number  of  doublets,  and  (2)  by  trie  recurrence  of  phrases  which 
recall  Pb  ;  that  a  second  draft  of  l'^  underlies  this  pa.ssage  and 
also  the  remainder  of  the  chapter  ;  that  in  this  second  draft  the 
emancipation  of  slaves  and  redemption  of  land,  and  possibly  a 
50  years'  term,  were  included  ;  and  that  the  rest,  embracing  all 
the  clauses  in  which  the  term  'jubile'  occurs,  is  by  a  later 
priestly  editor.  Addis  and  llaentsch  take  a  similar  view.  The 
blowing  of  the  trumpets  on  the  10th  day  of  the  7th  month  is 
thought  by  many  to  be  a  provision  earlier  than  the  appoint- 
ment of  the  same  day  as  the  solemn  day  of  atonement,  so  that 
v.'"'  will  be  later  than  v.^. 

II.  Hlstorical  Character. — (i.)  The  Seventh 
Year  Fallow. — The  custom  of  a  periodical  fallow 
is  so  common  a  feature  in  agricultural  practice 
that  we  should  almost  require  evidence  ti)  prove 
that  there  was  nothing  of  the  kind  amongst  the 
Hebrews  from  the  beginning  of  their  settled  life ; 
and  the  7  years'  period,  which  is  still  observed 
in  Palestine  and  Syria,  has  every  argument 
from  analogy  in  favour  of  it.  Moreover,  the 
fact  that  the  Covenant  Book  in  Ex  23  is 
throughout  directed  to  defining  and  reflating  ex- 
isting customs,  and  bears  no  mark  of  introducing 
any  novelty  (cf.  the  prob.  allusion  in  Jer  17^  [Heb.] ; 
see  Driver,  Dent.  174),  weighs  in  the  same  scale. 
The  silence  of  the  earlier  historical  books  must  be 
regarded  as  entirely  natural  if  the  fallow  was 
not  simultaneously  observed.  It  would  not  be  a 
feature  that  would  call  for  mention.  It  is  other- 
wise with  so  serious  an  interruption  of  the  common 
life  as  would  be  occasioned  by  the  observance  of 
the  same  year  as  a  universal  fallow  year,  so  that 
all  workers  on  the  land  would  be  keeping  holiday 
for  12  months.  Moreover,  the  tradition  at  the 
Exile  explicitly  denies  the  observance  of  the 
sabbath  years  in  the  pre-exilic  times  (2  (^h  30'-', 
cf.  Lv  26'"'-  •»}.  In  fact,  the  first  historic  al  refer- 
ence to  the  sabbatical  year  as  an  institution 
within  the  range  of  practical  politics  is  in  Neh 
10^',  where  it  occurs  among  the  items  included  in 
the  covenant  that  was  entered  into  at  the  prompt- 
ing of  Neheniiah.  Even  there  the  allusion  is  not 
quite  certain.  The  language  '  leave  (k's;  ;  = '  let  lie 
fallow,'  Ex  23")  the  seventii  year,  and  the  exaction 
of  every  debt,'  recalls  the  "law  of  the  fallow  in 
Exodus ;  but  the  clause  is  elliptical  and  far  from 
explicit,  and  the  following  words,  which  recall  Dt 
15  ,  make  it  doubtful  whether  the  remission  of 
debts  in  the  7th  year  is  not  the  institution  in  view. 
It  is  not,  in  fact,  till  we  reach  the  Greek  period 
that  we  come  upon  undisputed  references  to  the 
observance  of  the  sabbatical  j'ear  (Jos.  AtU.  XI. 
viii.  26) :  for  Maccabtean  times,  see  1  Mac  6"- " ; 
Jos.  Atit.  XHI.  viii.  1,  XIV.  X.  0,  XV.  i.2;BJ  I. 
ii.  4  ;  and  for  the  Ilerodian  era,  Jos.  Ant.  Xiv. 
xvi.  2,  XV.  i.  2  ;  Pliilo  in  Eus.  Frcep.  ad  Ev.  viii. 
7  ;  and  Tac.  HUl.  v.  4. 

(ii.)  'I'he  Emancipation  of  Slaves  at  the  Seventh 
Year. — This  is  once  refeiTeid  to  in  .Jer  34""-, *  where 
tho  custom  is  shown  to  be  more  honoured  in  the 
breach  than  in  the  observance,  and  to  be  most 
difficult  to  enforce.  Tho  postponement  of  libera- 
tion to  the  50th  year  may  be  another  witness  to 
the  same  fact. 

(iii.)  Tlie  liemission  or  Suspension  of  Debts. — 

•  Note  here  the  techn.  phrase  im  Nip  ('  proclaim  liberty  'X 
W.9.1S.  17;  also  Is  Oil  of  captives  (cf.  Kzk  40"»  the  'year  of  im,' 
either  of  the  jubile,  or  of  tho  year  of  emancipation  of  slavchi 
and  Lv  26>o  of  the  Jubile.    (8.  K.  b.J. 


326 


SAEBEUS 


SACKBUT 


Unless  Nell  10"  refer  to  this,  history  is  silent  as 
to  the  observance  of  any  such  custom. 

(iv.)  The  Redemption  of  Real  rruperty. — That 
there  was  some  provision  in  law  or  custom  against 
alienating  land  is  clear  from  the  instance  of 
Naboth,  and  the  institution  of  the  (jc'uUnh,  Jer 
32*"-,  Ru  4.  An  obscure  allusion  in  tzk  7'-'-  may 
be  taken  in  the  same  sense ;  and  it  is,  of  course, 
possible  that  the  '  year  of  liberty  '  in  Ezk  46" 
refers  to  the  50th  year  as  an  institution  already 
known.  Neither  is  there  anything  impracticable 
in  the  provisions  themselves.  See  for  parallels 
among  other  nations,  Maine,  Village  Communities, 
81-88;  Early  Hist,  of  Institutions,  81  f.,  100  ff.; 
von  Maurer,  Durfocrfassuiig,  i.  304  ff.  This  kind 
of  tenure  is  known  as  the  '  sliifting  severalty.' 
Strabo  speaks  of  the  Dalmatians  redistributing 
land  ever3-  S  j'oars,  a  practice  wliich  would  supiiort 
Wellliauscu's  theory  that  the  term  was  ori'^inally 
7  years  and  uot  50.  Tlie  denunciations  of  land- 
grabbing  in  Isaiali  and  Micah  show  that  no  such 
law  was  operative  even  if  in  existence.  Moreover, 
uo  single  undisputed  liistorical  allusion  to  the 
jubile  exists,  and  the  dating  of  the  3  sabbatical 
years  that  can  be  securely  traced  in  B.C.  164-163, 
38-37,  and  A.D.  68-09  leaves  no  room  for  the  inter- 
calation of  the  jubile  year.  For  this  reason,  and 
because  of  the  difficulty  of  the  two  fallow  years  in 
succession,  the  text  has  been  strained  to  permit 
the  identification  of  the  7th  sabbatical  year  with 
the  jubile  year.  The  evidence  from  the  literature 
is  therefore  rather  against  the  jubile  year  having 
ever  been  historically  observed.  Neither  is  the 
anthropological  evidence  such  as  to  rebut  this 
presumption. 

The  term  jubUe. — Nowack  grivea  a  summary  of  interpreta- 
tions, and  refers  to  two  essays  by  Krariold  and  Wolde  (Gott. 
1H37)  for  a  fuller  account ;  but  tlie  Ox/.  Heb.  Lex.  mentions  only 
that  which  he  selects  as  the  best,  and  which  is  su|iported  by 
the  Targum  on  Ex  191-*  and  Jos  0^.  and  by  Phosnician  inscrip- 
tions, viz.  '?3i*  =  *  ram.'  It  is  used  both  in  combination,  as  Joa 
ti^i^-,  and  alone,  as  Ex  191^,  for  a  '  ram's  horn,'  and  lastly  stands 
as  a  desijjnatioD  of  the  50th  year,  ushered  in  by  trumpet  blasts. 

LlTBRATCRB.— Treatises  on  Heb.  Archiuolo'^^y  by  Keil  (Eng. 
tr.  ii.  10-2U),  Nowack,  and  Benziiiger ;  Ewald,  Anti-jiiitieg, 
369-380;  Schiirer,  UJ P  I.  i.  41)  If .  ;  Dillm.,  Driver- White, 
Kalisch,  Addis,  Baentsch,  and  Ox/.  Hex.  on  Lv  25  ;  Mishna,  Rosh 
ha-shana  i.  1,  Hhebiiih  vi.  1,  2,  5,  6. 

G.  Harford-Battersby. 
SABBEUS(Sa/3;3aIas),lEs9^'  =  Sheniaiah,EzrlO»'. 

SABI  (B  Tw^e(s,  A  Sa^tl,  AV  Sami),  1  Es  5=*  = 
Shobai,  Ezr  2*",  Neh  7*>. 

SABIAS  CSa/SIas).— A  chief  of  the  Levites  in  the 
time  of  Josiah,  1  Es  1',  called  in  2  Ch  35'  Hasha- 

UlAH. 

SABIE  (B  ::a;3«i5,  A  Sa^.i},  AV  Sabi).— 'The 
children  of  Pochereth-hazzebaim  '  (AV  of  Zebaim), 
Ezr  2",  Neh  7°',  appear  as  '  the  sous  of  Phacereth 
the  sons  of  Sabie '  in  1  £s  5**. 


SABTA  (Ki?;c)  or  SABTAH  (nnap).— Son  of  Cush, 
(.11  10'  (A  2a/3a^d)^,  1  Ch  P  (B  Xa^ard,  A  2a^ofld, 
Luc.  Zt^aOa).  Glaser  (Skizze,  ii.  252)  professes 
himself  satisfied  with  the  identification  of  this 
place  with  Dhu  '1-Sabta,  mentioned  by  the  geo- 
grapher Al-Bekri  (i.  65),  who  quotes  a  line  oi  an 
early  poet,  in  which  this  is  mentioned  by  the  side 
of  .UAbatir,  in  the  dwellings  of  the  Banu  Asad, 
jiobably  in  Yemamah.  This  identification  is, 
lowuver,  of  very  small  value  ;  for  the  word  Sabtau 
means  either  'a  rock'  or  'a  desert,'  and  Dhu  '1- 
Sabta  therefore  'the  place  with  the  rock,'  or  'the 
place  with  the  desert,'  whence  it  is  not  even  certain 
that  the  poet  quoted  really  meant  it  for  a  proper 
name.  Moreover,  there  is  no  sign  of  such  a  place 
ever  having  been  of  ini|>ortance.  Hence  the  con- 
jecture that  it  was  to  be  identified  with  Sabat  or 


I 


Sabbata  in  the  Gulf  of  Adulis  (Ptol.  IV.  vii.  8)  it 
much  more  probable.  Other  conjectures  made  by 
ancient  ami  modern  scholars  are  given  in  Gea. 
J'hes.,  the  Oxf.  Heb.  Lex.,  and  the  Commentaries. 
D.  S.  Margououth. 
SABTECA  (.xrn^D,  Sam.  nDn^a).  — Son  of  Cush, 
Gn  10'  (A  Za^aKaBi,  Luc.  2a/3era«d),  1  Ch  1»  (B 
Luc.  Ze^cKaBd,  A  Ze^eflaxd). — The  identification  of 
this  place  with  Samydake  in  Carmania  (Steph. 
Byz.,  ed.  Westermann,  p.  246),  originally  suggested 
by  Bochart,  has  been  renewed  bj'  (.Uaser  [Skizze, 
ii.  252).  There  is,  however,  nothing  in  favour  of 
this  supposition,  except  the  possibility  that  the 
genealogist  may  have  been  misled  by  the  similarity 
of  the  name  to  Sabtah.  Early  critics  guessed 
various  places  in  Africa,  while  some  have  even 
supposed  a  person  rather  than  a  place  to  be  meant. 
The  termination  -ka  lias  an  appearance  of  being 
Inilo -Germanic,  as  also  has  the  penultimate  syl- 
lable. In  that  case  the  name  probably  meant 
'sevenfold'  (saplaka),  Heptapolis.  Some  other 
conjectures  are  quoted  by  Gesenius,  Thes.,  and 
Dillm.  Gen.  ad  loc.  D.  S.  JLaegolioUTU. 

SACAR  [liy  '  hire,'  '  reward '  [cf.  the  name 
iDsB"  Issachar]). — 1.  The  father  of  Ahiam,  one 
of  David's  heroes,  1  Ch  11*''  (B  'Axa/>,  A  Zaxa.p)  = 
Sharar  of  2  S  23«,  where  'Sliarar  the  (H)ararite' 
appears  in  B  as  'Apa!  Zapaovpcirris  and  in  A  as  'ApdJ 
'Apapelrrii.  The  reading  of  15  here  may  have  arisen, 
by  transposition  of  letters,  from  a  Heb.  original 
'nrD  iTv'.  and  the  name  SItarar  should  probably  be 
reatl  in  both  passages.  2.  The  eponyni  of  a  family 
of  gatekeepers,  1  Ch  26^  (B  Saxdp,  A  Zax'-^p)- 

J.  A.  Selbie. 

SACKBUT  («;?c  Dn  3»,  k:?v-  S'"-";  LXX  and 
Theod.  cra/i^vKT},  Vulg.  sambuca,  Wye.  'sambuke,' 
Cov.,  Bish.  'shawmes,'  Dou.  'doulcimer,'  Gen., 
AV,  RV  'sackbut').  —  Tlie  Gr.  <raix^uKji  (which 
Ges.,  Bulil,  Driver,  etc.,  believe  to  be  derived  from 
the  Aram.)  was  a  stringed  instrument  (see  vol.  iii. 
p.  461").  The  Vulg.  sambuca  is  no  doubt  a  translit. 
of  the  Gr.  ;  but  since  samhuca  may  mean  '  made  of 
the  elder-tree'  (from  sambucus,  the  elder-tree),  the 
name  came  to  be  used  for  any  stringed  instrument 
made  of  that  wood.  In  Eng.  the  '  sambuke '  bad 
the  same  general  application.  Thus  Ascham, 
Toxophilus,  26,  '  And  wliatsoever  ye  judge,  this  I 
am  sure,  that  lutes,  harps,  all  manner  of  pipes, 
barbitons,  sambukes,  with  other  instruments  every 
one,  which  standeth  by  fine  and  quick  fingering, 
be  condemned  of  Aristotle,  as  not  to  be  brought 
in  and  used  among  them  which  study  for  learning 
and  virtue.' 

The  Geneva  translators  used  the  more  precise 
'sackbut'  (possibl}',  however,  from  an  impression 
that  it  was  a  form  of  the  same  word).  But  the  'sack- 
but  '  is  unsuitable,  for  two  reasons :  it  is  a  wind 
instrument  ('  a  brass  trumpet,'  says  Chappell,  '  with 
a  slide  like  a  modern  trombone ')  ;  and,  whereas  the 
aaii^iiK-q  was  particularly  shrill,  the  .sackbut  had  a 
deep  note.     Cf.  Drayton,  Polijulbion,  iv.  365 — 

'The  Hoboy,  Sagbutdeepe,  Recorder,  and  the  Flute*; 

and  Bunyan,  PP  235,  '  He  and  his  Fellows  pound 
the  Sackbut  whose  Notes  are  more  doleful  than 
tlie  Notes  of  other  Music  are.'  The  origl-i  of 
'sackbut'  is  doubtful.  Skeat  traces  it  to  '.he 
Spanish  sacar  to  draw  out,  .iiid  buche  a  box,  used 
familiarly  of  the  belly,  and  thinks  that  Webstei 
is  right  in  suggesting  that  the  name  was  given  to 
the  instrument  because  it  exhausts  one's  wind  in 
blowing  I  Middleton  shows  how  it  lent  itself  to 
punning,  Spanish  Gypsy,  ii.  1  — 

'  .4Jc.— You  must  not  look  to  have  your  dinner  eerved  Ir  wft» 

trumpet& 
Car. — No,  do,  sack-bute  will  serve  us.* 

J.  Hastings. 


SACKCLOTU 


SACRAMENTS 


327 


SACKCLOTH  (pf  sal;  <rdKKOs,  saccus)  was  a  coarse 
material  woven  from  goats'  and  camels'  hair,  and 
lience  of  a  dark  colour,  as  we  see  from  Kev  6''^ 
'  the  sjin  became  black  as  sackcloth  of  hair '  (crdKitos 
Tplxfot)  ;  cf.,  for  the  colour.  Is  5U',  Sir  25"  '  her 
countenance  darkencth  like  sackcloth,'  reading 
(Tan-vo!  with  1$;  also  i"P  'a  mourner,'  lit.  one  who 
wears  dark  soiled  garments  [RS^  414,  n.  2).  A 
similar  material  was  called  by  the  Romans  cilirium 
from  being  prepared  from  the  hair  of  the  black 
};oats  of  Cilicia,  hence  Jerome's  rendering  saccus 
cilk-inus  (Rev  6").  From  the  fact  that  sacks  were 
made  of  this  coarse  haircloth,  J  in  Genesis  (42^- 
"■  ")  uses  py  as  a  synonym  of  n-rcK  ;  hence  through 
the  medium  of  Greek  and  Latin  our  'sack'  and 
'  sackcloth,'  though  haircloth  is  tlie  more  appro- 
priate rendering.  It  was  also  used  for  saddle- 
cloths (Jos  9*). 

From  the  analogy  of  the  evolution  of  dress 
among  the  Egyptians — for  which  see  Erman 
(Egypt,  200  ff.,  with  numerous  illustrations) — we 
may  infer  that  the  dress  of  the  Hebrews  was 
ori''inally,  as  in  Egypt,  a  scant  loin-cloth  of  sak, 
tied  in  a  knot  in  front.  This  continued  to  be  the 
distinctive  dress  of  slave-s,  captives,  and  such  as 
wished  to  appeal  to  the  pity  of  superiors  (see  the 
instructive  episode  1  K  20'"'-).  To  put  on  sack- 
cloth is  nearly  always  ?;■  iJn  '  to  gird  sackcloth ' 
alwut  the  loins  {loc.  c,  Gn  37**,  2  S  3",  and  oft.;  ijri 
alon«-,  Is  32",  Jl  1")  ;  to  take  it  oil'  was  originally 
res  'to  undo  [a  knot]'  (Fs  30",  Is  20^).  The 
linguistic  evidence  is  thus  entirely  against  the 
current  idea  that  the  sackcloth  of  the  OT  was  worn 
in  the  form  of  a  sack  '  with  an  opening  for  the 
head,  and  side  apertures  for  the  anus.' 

Religious  usages  are  proverbially  conservative, 
and  Hebrew  customs  were  no  exception  (see,  e.g., 
Jos  5-'');  hence  it  is  not  an  unlikelj'  .supposition 
(Schwally,  Das  Leben  nach  d.  Tode,  12  ft.)  that  the 
haircloth  cincture  continued  to  be  regarded  as  the 
garment  most  suitable  for  religious  ceremonies 
long  after  it  had  disappeared  from  ordinary  use. 
This  is  at  least  more  satisfactory  than  the  usual 
e.\planation  that  the  wish  to  mortify  the  tlesh  led 
to  the  use  of  sackcloth  in  the  frequent  instances 
where  it  is  associated  with  fasting  as  an  outward 
and  Wsible  expression  of  iienitence,  or  in  cases 
where  confession  and  supplication  are  combined, 
as  indeed  is  most  frequently  the  case  (1  K  21-'', 
Nell  9',  Jon  3'"-,  Jth  4'<"'-  etc.).  In  most  cases, 
even  when  not  expressly  mentioned,  there  was  the 
accompaniment  of  ashes  (l)n  9'',  Mt  U-',  Lk  10") 
or  earth  (Neh  9")  ni)on  the  head.  Hence  the 
author  of  Barucli  speaks  of  putting  on  '  sackcloth 
of  prayer' (4-°  ;  see  Comm.  for  alternative  render- 
ing). The  extravagances  of  Jon  3',  Jth  4",  where 
even  the  cattle  are  clothed  in  sackcloth,  are 
scarcely  historical.  In  the  latter  [las-sage  the 
altar,  also,  is  similarly  covered  (Jth  4").  That 
the  sackclotli  in  such  cases  was  usually  worn  next 
the  skin  (i^jn-'^i') — originally,  as  we  saw,  it  was 
the  only  garment — even  by  women  (Is  32",  Jth  9', 
2  Mac  3'*),  seems  beyond  doubt  (see  2  K  6"'',  .lob 
16",  whicli  are  often  wrongly,  as  we  think,  taken 
to  be  exceptional  <ases). 

Fondness  for  '  the  old  paths,'  and  the  desire  to 
furnish  an  object-los,son  in  simplicity  of  dress,  as 
of  life,  in  the  midst  ot  increasing  luxury,  are 
doubtless  the  reascm  that  haircloth  was  the  char- 
acteristic material  of  a  |)ropliet's  dress  (Zee  13* 
RV  ;  cf.  Rev  W  irpo<prrrevaovaiv  .  .  .  irepipt^Xrinivoi. 
cixKovi).  Elijah  was  distinguished  by  a  mantle 
of  hair  (2  K  1»  KViii).  John  the  Baptist's  only  gar- 
ment, like  that  of  his  jirototype,  was  of  camels'  hair 
(Mt  3*,  Mk  1").  Isaiah,  on  a  particular  occasion, 
wore  even  the  primitive  loin-cloth  of  snk  (20^). 

The  universal  use  of  this  black  hairciiilh  (p;;')  as 
the  appropriate  dress  of  those  mourning  for  their 


dead  probably  has  its  root  in  the  circle  of  primitive 
thought  above  referred  to— the  intention  being  to 
do  honour  to  the  disembodied  spirit  (cf.  Schwally, 
op.  cit.).  It  was  worn  not  only  in  cases  of  private 
mourning  (Gn  37*",  2  S  ,3^'  and  oft.),  but  in  lamen- 
tations over  jiublic  calamities  (Am  8'°,  Jer  48", 
La  2'",  1  Mac  2").  Further,  just  as  prayer  in  this 
garb  might  avert  threatened  private  bereavement 
(Ps  35"),  .so  might  it  avert— when  combined  with 
humility  and  penitence  — a  great  national  mis- 
fortune (Jer  C™,  Jl  1",  Jth  4'-}.  Both  ideas  are 
frequently  combined — mourning  for  past  calamities 
and  prayer  for  their  speedy  removal  (1  Mac  3", 
2  Mac  2^,  also  Am  8'",  and  other  passages  cited). 
A.  R.  S.  Kennedy. 

SACRAMENTS. — The  word  sarramcntum  (sacrare 
=  'to  dedicate')  originallj'  meant  'something  set 
apart  as  sacred,  consecrated,  dedicated.'  As  a 
technical  legal  term  it  was  used  of  the  sum  which 
the  two  parties  to  a  suit  deposited  in  snrro,  and  of 
which  the  winner  of  the  suit  recovered  his  part, 
while  the  loser  forfeited  his  to  the  (craritim. 
Hence  it  came  to  mean  the  suit  itself,  catisa  contro- 
versia  (Smith,  Diet.  o/Gr.  and  Horn.  Ant.  ii.  p.  958). 
Sacramentum  was  also  used  actively  of  the  '  thine 
which  sets  apart  and  devotes.'  As  a  technicEil 
military  term  it  designated  either  the  '  preliminary 
engagement'  entered  into  by  recruits,  or  (mucn 
more  often)  the  '  military  oath  of  obedience'  to  the 
commander.  Under  the  Empire  the  xacramenttcm 
which  soldiers  were  obliged  to  take  to  their 
imperator  was  often  taken  by  subjects,  whether 
citizens  or  provincials,  to  the  emperor  (Tac.  Ann. 
i.  7,  8),  in  recognition  of  \\\s  proconsvlare  imperium 
thioughout  the  Empire.  I'rom  Horace  (Od.  II. 
xvii.  10)  onwards  it  is  sometimes  used  of  any  '  oath 
or  solemn  engagement.' 

The  lirst  ajipearance  of  the  word  sacrnmentmn  in 
connexion  with  Christianity  may  be  called  acci- 
dental. It  occurs  in  a  familiar  passage  in  the 
frequently  quoted  letter  (Ep.  96)  of  the  younger 
I'liny  to  the  Em))eror  Trajan.  It  was  stated  of 
the  Bithynian  Christians  quod  essent  soliti  .stato 
die  ante  lucem  convcnire  carmettque  Christo  quasi 
dco  diccre  secnm  inrircm,  scque  Sacramento  non  in 
scelu-'!  aliquod  obstringere.  There  is  not  much 
doubt  that  the  witnesses  whom  Pliny  quotes 
referred  to  the  obligation  under  which  every 
Christian  lies  to  renounce  the  devil  and  all  his 
works,  and  of  whicli  the  public  service  of  the 
Church  reminds  him.  Possibly  the  service  to 
which  allusion  is  made  contained  an  express  re- 
newal of  the  baptismal  pledge.  That  Pliny  uses 
the  word  sacramentum  to  express  this  obligation 
or  pledge  is  no  more  than  an  interesting  coinci- 
dence. It  was  a  natural  word  to  use  ;  and  neither 
ju.ijurandum  nor  promiss^im  would  have  expressed 
the  meaning  better.  Yet  Lightfoot  is  inclined  to 
think  that  it  means  'sacrament '  in  the  Christian 
sense,  and  that  Pliny  has  here  'confused  the  two 
sacraments,'  the  wording  pointing  to  the  baptismal 
pledge,  while  the  context  about  the  early  hour  and 
the  stated  day  points  to  the  eucharist  (Epp.  of  S. 
Iqtiatius,  vol.  i.  p.  52).  It  may  be  doubted  whether 
tlie  word  sacrami'ntum  had  as  yet  acquired  amonjj 
Christians  any  specially  Christian  meaning;  and 
it  is  improbable  that  the  Bithynian  Christians  used 
the  word  in  a  technical  sense,  or  that  Pliny  uses 
the  word  because  they  had  done  so.  The  word  is 
his,  not  theirs  ;  and  he  employs  it  in  the  ordinary 
classical  sense. 

As  a  Christian  term,  sacramentum  makes  its 
lirst  api)eaiaiice  in  the  Old  Latin  and  in  Tertullian. 
Both  in  Lat;Vet.  and  Vulg.  it  is  sometimes  used  to 
translate  /luimjmoi'.  Cod.  Bob.  (k)  has  it  Mt  13"  ; 
Cod.  Palat.  (e)  Lk  8'" ;  Cod.  Clar.  (h)  Eph  1"  3»-  »  5", 
1  Ti  3»-  '»,  Ro  16"  ;  Vulg.  has  it  Eph  1»  3»  (not ') »  5", 
Col  1"  (not  "),  1  Ti  3"  (not »),  Rev  l*"  17'  (not  »). 


328 


SACKAMENTS 


SACRAMENTS 


But  the  more  common  rendering  of  /ivtrrripiov  is 
mystermm  ;  and  sometimes  in  consecutive  verses 
first  one  word  is  used  and  then  tlie  otlier.  In  OT 
sacrament  um  occurs  Dn  2'*-  ""•  ■"  4*,  To  12',  \\is  2^^ 
6-'',  in  all  which  places  LXX  has  imffrripiov.  But 
Mi/steHum  is  also  found,  sometimes  siile  by  side 
with  sacratnc7Umn  (Dn  2"-  '^'  ^'  *"),  even  in  the 
same  verse  (*').  Tertullian  uses  sacramenttim  as 
the  rendering  of  ixvaTi^piov  in  passages  where  Vulg. 
has  inysteriuin  (1  Co  13'^,  lies.  23;  1  Co  14^,  adv. 
Marc.  V.  15  ;  Eph  6'»,  adv.  Marc.  v.  18).  It  is  his 
usual  word. 

Three  elements  seem  to  have  been  at  work  in 
determining  the  Christian  use  of  the  word  :  (1)  the 
original  passive  sense,  '  a  thing  set  apart  as  sacred ' ; 
(2)  the  active  sense, '  that  which  sets  apart, '  especially 
an  oath  or  pledge  of  fidelity  ;  (3)  the  Greek  term 
ixuariipiov,  to  which  it  was  regarded  as  equivalent. 
It  is  obvious  that  all  these  ideas  coalesce  very  well 
respecting  those  rites  which  have  been  called 
sacraments,  especially  baptism  and  the  eucharist. 

But  in  the  first  instance  the  use  of  the  term  was 
very  much  wider.  It  was  used  to  designate  not 
only  religious  rites,  but  doctrines  and  facts. 
Almost  any  external  form,  wliether  of  word  or 
action,  which  conveyed  or  symbolized  a  religious 
meaning  might  be  called  a  sacramentum.  It  will 
be  worth  while  to  examine  some  of  the  passages  in 
which  the  word  occurs  in  Tertullian  and  Cyprian. 

Tertullian,  after  pointing  out  that  even  the 
heathen  recognize  avoidance  of  the  public  shows 
as  the  mark  of  a  Christian,  remarks  that  the 
man  who  puts  aside  the  mark  of  the  faith  plainly 
denies  the  faith.  Nemo  in  castra  hostlum  transit 
.  .  .  nisi  dcstitutis  signis  et  sacramentis  principis 
sui  {de  Sjyect.  xxiv.).  Again,  with  regard  to  God 'a 
prohiliition  of  idolatry,  he  says  :  Huic  Sacramento 
militrtns  ab  hostibns provocor.  Par  s^im  illis,  si  illis 
maniis  dedero.  Hoc  defcndendo  depugno  in  acie, 
ciUneror,  concidor,  occidor.  Quis  nunc  militi  suo 
exitum  voluit,  nisi  qui  tali  Sacramento  cum  consiij- 
navit  (Scorp.  iv.)  ?  In  both  these  passages  we  have 
little  more  than  the  Roman  military  oath  used 
metaphorically  of  the  Christian's  allegiance  to 
Gcd.  In  Apul.  vii.  we  get  a  stage  further,  when  he 
calls  the  horrible  rite,  of  which  Christians  were 
often  accused,  in  which  a  child  was  killed  and 
eaten,  sacramentum  infantiridii.  It  is  in  this 
treatise  that  the  use  of  the  word  is  specially 
frequent.  In  contending  that  Judaism,  and 
therefore  Christianity,  is  far  more  ancient  than 
heathenism,  he  says :  ipsa  ternpla  et  oracula  et 
snera  unius  interim  priiphetw  scrinium  sceculis 
vincit,  in  quo  videtur  thesaurus  collomtus  totius 
Judaici  sacrainenti  et  inde  jam  nustri  (xix.) ;  where 
sacramentum  seems  to  mean  '  revelation,'  or 
'religion,'  or  'dispensation.'  It  has  a  similarly 
indefinite  meaning  in  the  challenge  respecting 
Christian  abstention  from  heathen  temples  and 
nocturnal  rites :  omnem  hinc  sacramenti  nostri 
ordincm  hnurite,  rejierrussis  ante  tamen  opinioni- 
bus  falsis  (xv.).  In  tlie  plural  the  word  is  used 
of  the  doctrines  of  the  Christian  faith.  Whence, 
he  asks,  did  pagan  philosophy  get  its  doctrine  of 
future  rewards  and  punishments?  Nonnisi  de 
nostri)  sacramentis  (xlvii.).  OT  types  he  calls 
fiqurarum  sacramenta  {adv.  Marc.  v.  1).  In  the 
treatise  de  Baptismo  we  reach  the  more  definite 
use  of  the  term.  It  opens  with  the  words,  Felix 
sacramentum  aquce  nostrce,  quia  ablutis  delictis 
pristincB  cmcitotis  in  vitam  ceternam  liberamur. 
And  so  also  of  the  eucharist :  Proinde  panis  et 
calicis  sarramento  jam  in  evangelio  probavimus 
corporis  et  sanguinis  dominici  veritatem  adversus 
phantasma  Marcionis  (adv.  Marc.  v.  8).  And 
again  of  both  sacraments  :  ad  sacramentum  baptis- 
matis  et  euchnristite  admittens  (ib.  iv.  34). 

Cyprian    seems    to    have     learned    from    his 


'  master '  to  use  the  word  sometimes  in  its  classi. 
cal  sense,  sometimes  with  a  vagueness  which 
was  possibly  deliberate,  sometimes  quite  definitely 
of  baptism  and  the  eucliarist.  Of  Christian 
martyrdoms  he  says  :  0  quale  illud  fuit  spec- 
taculum  Domini,  qvam  sublime,  quam  magnum, 
quam  Dei  oculis  sacrainento  ac  aevotione  militia 
ejus  acceptum  (Ep.  x.  2).  So  of  a  supposed  be- 
trayal of  the  Christian  faith,  he  says :  divinie 
militiiE  sacramenta  solvantur,  castrorum  civlcs- 
tium  signa  dedantur  (Ep.  Ixxiv.  8).  He  calls  the 
Passover  a  sacramentum  (de  C'ath.  Ec.clcs.  unit.). 
But  it  is  not  easy  to  define  its  meaning  when  he 
speaks  of  ccclesicB  Veritas  et  evangclii  ac  sacra- 
menti unitas  (Ep.  liv.  1),  or,  again,  of  veritatis 
jura  et  sacramenta  (Ep.  Ixxiii.  2u).  Couip.  sacra- 
menta ccelestia  (Ep.  Ixxiv.  4),  a  phrase  which  he 
uses  several  times.  He  saj's  that  totum  Jidei  sacra- 
mentum in  confessione  Christi  nominis  esse  digestum 
(Ep.  XXX.  3) ;  and  that  the  Lord's  Prayer  contains 
many  and  great  sacramenta  (de  Dom.  Oral.  9) ; 
where  '  doctrine '  seems  to  be  the  meaning.  In 
baptism,  water  and  the  Spirit  are  each  of  them 
called  a  sacramentum  ;  and,  as  distinct  from  here- 
tical baptism,  those  who  receive  the  Church's 
baptism  utroque  sacramento  nascuntur  (Ep.  Ixxiii. 
21).  Immediately  afterwards  he  uses  baptismi 
sacramentum  of  the  whole  rite.  So  also  of  the 
eucharist  he  says :  Item  in  sacerdote  Melchisedech 
sacrifcii  dominici  sacramentum  prcBJiguratum 
videmus  (Ep.  Ixiii.  3).  He  calls  the  consecrated 
wma sacramentum  calicis  *  (deLapsis,  xxv. );  and  he 
appears  to  call  the  whole  rite  sacramentum  crucis, 
wlien  he  says,  de  sacramento  crucis  et  cibum  sumis 
et  potum  (de  Zelo  et  Livore,  x vii. ).  On  Cyprian's  use 
of  sacramentum,  see  an  important  note  by  E.  W. 
Watson  in  Studia  Biblica,  iv.  p.  253. 

Augustine  says  that  the  bread  and  wine  idea 
dicuntur  siicramenta,  quia  in  eis  aliud  videtur, 
aliud  intclligitur  (Serm.  272).  And  again  that 
Signa  cum  ad  res  divinas  pertinent,  sacramenta 
appelantur  (Ep.  cxxxviii.).  But  there  must  be  re- 
semblance between  the  two  :  si  cnim  sacramenta 
guamdam  similitudinem  earum  rerum  quarum 
sacramenta  s-unt  non  haberent,  omnino  sacra- 
menta non  essent  (Ep.  xcviii.).  Sacraments  are 
verba  visibilia,  sacrosam-ta  quidem,  veruntamcn 
mutabilia  et  temporalia  (con.  Faustum,  xi.K.  16). 
Accedit  verbuin  ad  elementum  et  Jit  sacramentum, 
etiam  ips^im  tanquam  visibile  verbum  (in  Joh. 
Tract.  80).  In  one  place  he  enumerates  baptism, 
unction,  the  euchanst,  and  imposition  of  liands 
as  sacraments  t  (de  Bapt.  con.  Don.  v.  28);  in 
another  he  asks,  Quii  novit  Dei  omnia  sacramenta  f 
Quid  ait  Apostolus  f  Si  sciero  omnia  sacramenta, 
si  habeam  omnem  prophctiam  (Serm.  ad  Ccesar. 
eccles.  plebem,  3).  This  last  passage  is  specially 
interesting,  because  in  Vulg.  the  word  is  not 
used  [though  Aug.  testifies  that  Old  Lat.  read 
sacramenta] ;  it  has,  si  hahucro  proplietiam  et 
noverim  mysteria  outnia  (1  Co  13'-). 

The  general  outcome  is  on  the  whole  this,  that 
the  word  sacramentum  had  two  main  uses,  one 
veiy  vague,  and  the  other  fairly  definite.  On 
the  one  hand,  it  might  be  used  of  anything, 
whether  word,  statement,  or  fact,  which  expressed 

•  In  harmony  with  this  idea  Rabanus  Maunis  (d*  Cler.  iniii- 
tutione,  i.  24,  31  ;  Jliifne,  /'u(.  Lai.  cvii.  316)  makes  baptism, 
unction,  the  body,  and  the  blood  of  the  Lord  to  be  four  sacra- 
ments, exi>rcssly  counting  the  body  and  the  blood  us  two. 
Paschaaius  Iladbertus  is  said  to  do  tlie  same  ;  but  he  speaks  o( 
sacrajnentum  (not  -(a)  corporis  et  eanguinia  (de  Corp.  et  Sang. 
Dom.  iii.  2,  4  :  Mijfne,  cxx.  127.'>). 

t  Similarly  m  a  passage  which  was  quoted  almost  vn-hatim  at 
the  be^nningr  ot  Art.  28  (=25)  in  the  Articles  of  1563:  .Sacra- 
vientU  numero  paucisnmU,  observatione  /acUthnie.  gitjnifica- 
tiorif  prtvstantusiinis,  wcietatein  nnvi  popxdi  coU'njavit  [Cnris- 
tus],  gimti  e*rt  baptismut  Triniiatis  nomine  connecraixis.  coin- 
municatio  corporis  et  sanfjuinis  ipsitu,  et  ei  quid  aliud  in 
seripturis  canonicis  cmtvmendatur  {Ep.  64 ;  cf.  de  Doct.  Chr. 
iii.  9). 


SACRAMEXTS 


SACRIFICE 


329 


or  implied  religious  truth.  On  the  other,  it  was 
apijlud  to  cerUiin  Christian  rites,  not  fixed  in 
number,  but  understood  to  be  few,  of  which  the 
chief  were  baptism  and  the  eucharist.  No  rit« 
had  a  better  claim  to  be  called  a  sacrament  than 
these  two,  which  fully  realized  the  ideas  connoted 
by  the  term,  and  were  instituted  by  the  Lord 
Uini3elf.  Hut  there  were  other  rites,  mentioned 
in  Scripture  and  sanctioned  by  the  Church,  to 
which  the  term  might  rightly  be  given;  and  the 
lite  which  was  commonly  placed  side  by  side  with 
these  two  as  being  of  almost  equal  rank  was 
unction  or  chrism,  which  is  generallj'  ajiplicable  to 
all  Christians  and  has  at  least  the  authority  of 
ajiostolic  tradition. 

The  number  three  was  no  doubt  attractive  ;  but 
still  more  so  the  number  seven  ;  and  it  is  remark- 
able that  a  list  of  seven  sacraments  does  not  seem 
to  have  been  made  earlier  than  the  l'2th  cent., 
when  lirst  Gregory  of  Bergamo  {clc  Euehar.  14), 
and  then  Peter  Lombard  (Sent.  IV.  ii.  1)  fix  on  this 
limit.  It  was  adopted  by  Thomas  Aquinas  and 
stereotyped  by  the  Council  of  Trent.  Hut  it  is 
neither  scriptural  nor  logical.  Our  choice  lies 
between  two  and  an  indelinite  number.*  Scripture 
plainly  marks  out  two.  They  were  instituted  by 
Christ,  and  He  Himself  ordained  the  outward 
visible  signs  for  them.  In  whatever  sense  Christ 
may  be  supposed  to  have  instituted  any  of  the 
other  five, — conlirmation,  penance,  unction,  orders, 
and  matriniony, — He  ordered  no  special  sign  for 
them  ;  and  it  is  rash  to  say  more  than  that  they 
are  among  the  more  important  of  the  many  rites 
to  which  the  name  of  sacrament  may  be  given. t 
For  a  discussion  of  any  one  of  the  seven  see  the 
separate  articles  in  the  dictionaries.  Hut  with 
regard  to  matrimony  it  may  be  here  pointed  out 
that  the  Vulgate  rendering  of  Eph  5'-  s'lr.ramcn- 
tuin  hoc  mnr/num  est,  had  considerable  inlhience  in 
causing  marriage  to  be  re";arded  as  a  sacrament. 

There  is  a  diflerence  oetwecn  the  two  great 
sacraments  of  the  Gospel,  in  that  baptism  may  be 
received  once  only,  and  the  eucharist  daily.  The 
one  confers  an  indelible  character;  the  otner  does 
not.  The  same  dillerunce  divides  the  other  five. 
Confirmation  and  orders  resemble  bajitism.  Once 
baptized,  always  baptized  ;  once  confirmed,  always 
confirmed  ;  once  a  priest,  always  a  priest.  No 
one  may  have  these  rites  repeated  for  hmiself  ;  nor 
is  there  any  need  of  repetition.  But  penance  and 
unction  admit  of  repetition.  Matrimony  belongs 
partly  to  the  one  class  and  partly  to  the  other. 
No  repetition  of  the  rite  is  admissible  between  the 
same  two  parties ;  but  when  death  has  removed 
one,  the  other  is  free  to  have  the  rite  repeated. 
Augustine  writes  thus  of  baptism  and  orders: 
utruiiu/iie  enim  sacramentum  est  ;  et  quadam  con- 
»et:mti(tne  utrunique  homini  dcitur:  illiid,  cum 
brtjiliz'ttnr,  isluil,  cum  ordinatur :  idcoque  in 
Ciitlwlica  vtruiiique  nun  licet  iterari  {Con.  en.  Par- 
men,  ii.  28).  A\  ith  regard  to  matrimony  he  says 
that  its  benefits  are  threefold,  fides,  proles,  sacra- 
mentum ;  and  he  explains  the  last,  ut  conjugium 
twn  scji'trc.tur,  et  dimiasus  aut  dimissa  nee  causa 
prolLi  iiltcri  conjungatur  (de  Gen.  ix.  12  :  cf.  con. 
t'aust.  xix.  2(1;  ili;  Supt.  et  Cvnciiji.  i.  U).  See,  fur- 
ther, llainack,  IJist.  of  Dogma  [Kng.  tr.],  vi.  201  If. 

*  Hugo  de  6U  Vtctore,  following  Ihe  Au^^uatinian  definition  of 
a  •acranienl  oji  r^i  nacra  signum,  cnnnieraU-8  some  twenty  or 
thirty  lemer  Moranu>nt«,  iw  the  ritiml  use  of  holy  water,  of 
MtheH,  of  palm-branches,  of  the  paochal  candle,  of  bcllH,  and  of 
curtains;  also  certain  actJi,  on  Dialling  the  si^  of  the  cross, 
bowinif  the  head  or  the  knee ;  and  certain  utterances,  oif  hoini- 
niM  rohUcum,  Alifluia,  the  recitation  of  the  Z>epro/u7w/ij«,  the 
JuMlal',  the  Creed,  etc.  (d«  Sacrammtit,  II.  ll.  1-9;  Migne, 
Pat.  hat.  clxxvl.  <7I). 

t  Tile  anointing  of  a  king,  the  washing  of  the  salnta"  feet,  and 
the  salt  given  in  certain  Latin  rite's  to  catechumens,  have  all 
been  called  '  sacrament*,' r.i;.  in  the  (}elai«ian  Sacranientary  is 
a  prayer  tU  htec  crtatura  Muu  in  nomine  Trinilatit  t.Jjiciatur 
talMtare  tacramentuin. 


The  question,  whether  there  were  sacraments 
under  the  OT,  is,  like  the  question  of  the  number 
of  sacraments  under  the  N  1",  to  a  large  extent  a 
question  of  definition.  What  is  meant  by  a  sacra- 
ment? Definitions  which  exclude  all  but  baptism 
and  the  eucharist  of  course  exclude  all  OT  rites. 
Hut  those  who,  with  Augustine,  regard  sacra- 
ments as  essential  to  the  life  of  a  religious  com- 
mnnity  must  allow  sacraments  to  the  Jewish 
Church.  Yet  if,  as  he  holds,  the  sacramental 
character  of  marriage  consists  in  its  indissolubility, 
thxn  marriage,  which  is  a  sacrament  under  the 
Christian  dispensation,  was  not  a  sacrament  under 
the  Jewish,  which  allowed  divorce.  The  sacrifices 
and  other  rites  were  sacraments  to  the  Jews, 
necessary  then,  but  superfluous  now.  The  differ- 
ence is  this :  sacramenta  Novi  Testamcnti  dant 
scdutem, ;  sacraiiwnta  Veteris  Testamenti  pro- 
miicrunt  Salvatorem.  .  .  .  Mutata  sunt  sacra- 
menta;  facta  sunt  ficiliora,  pauciora,  salubriora, 
fcliciora  (in  Ps.  Lxxiii.  2).  Both,  however,  tell  of 
the  passion  and  resurrection  of  Christ,  the  one 
by  promising,  the  other  by  commemorating  (con. 
tavst.  xix.  16). 

LiTKRATtHR.  —  Juenin  (French  Oratorian),  Commentariut 
liuitnriciu  et  Dfxjniaticits  de  SaeraiiwntU,  Lyons,  1717;  Uhar- 
don,  Uuituire  (U^  ."iacret/ients,  Paris,  1745  ;  Uahii  (Protestant), 
Ditctriiux  Romaruf  dc  Suiiu-ro  .Sacrajnentwuin  geplt'iiario 
rationeji  kistoricoi,  Breslau,  1S59,  and  i>(>  hrhre  von  den  Sacra- 
menteii,  1864.  Moi^t  uomni.  on  the  XX.\1.K  Articles  discuss 
the  question  and  quote  literature ;  alao  uio^it  Theolo>;ical 
Dictiouariea.  A.  PLUMMER. 

SACRIFICE.— 

A.  SACRiricE  I.N  OT  Times. 

i.  Definition  and  Name. 
ii.  The  Origin  of  Sacrifice. 
iii.  Semitic  Sacrifice  in  the  pre-Mosaic  period, 
iv.  Sacrifice  in  ancient  Israel. 

V.  Tlie  Prophets  as  reformers  of  Sacrificial  worship. 
vL  The  Sacrificial   system    of    the   Priestly  Code  :    1. 
Forms  of  Sacrifice  ;    2.  Etlicacy   of   the   Bloody 
Sacrifices. 
vlf.  Sacrifice  in  Judaistic  practice  and  theory. 

B.  Sackificial   DOCTRINK  OP  NT. 

i.  Appreciation  of  OT  Sacrifices. 
Ii.  Tile  perfect  Sacrifice  of  the  New  Covenant. 
liL  The  Sacrifices  of  the  Christiaa  life. 
Literature. 

A.  Sacrifice  in  OT  Times. 

I.  Definition  and  Name.— The  rites  which  are 
comprehended  under  the  name  of  Sacrifice,  while 
exhioiting  inany  forms  and  embodying  an  equal 
complexity  of  ideas,  yet  display  certain  constant 
features  which  invest  them  with  a  character  of 
unity.  Four  notes  will  serve  to  elm  idate  their 
place  and  function  in  distinction  from  other 
manifestations  of  the  religious  life. 

(a)  .Sacrifice  belongs  to  the  class  of  specifically 
religious  acts,  known  as  cultus  or  worship,  by 
which  man  seeks  to  draw  near  to  God.  When 
religion  is  permeated  by  intense  moral  earnestness, 
greater  importance  is  ascribed  to  character  and 
conduct  than  to  worship,  yet  even  in  the  perfectly 
ethical  religion  of  Christianity  the  cultus  has  sur- 
vived as  at  once  a  cherished  privilege  and  a  sacred 
obligation.  In  those  religions  in  which  tlie  ethical 
interest  is  weak  or  absent,  the  paramount  interest 
attaches  to  the  aiMiropriateness  and  imjircssiveness 
of  the  ceremonial  aiiproach  to  the  Deity.  And 
amonj'  the  elements  of  the  cultus,  by  the  consent 
of  antiquity,  the  rite  of  sjicrifico  excelled  and  over- 
shadowed all  other  ordinances  in  the  ellicacji  of  its 
appeal  to  the  object  of  worship.— (: )  Sacrifice  is 
distinguished  from  other  ordinances  of  worship  in 
that  it  takes  tlie  form  of  the  rendering  to  (iod  of 
a  material  oblation.  The  ejeineiits  of  worship  are 
at  bottom  two — forms  which  express  the  con- 
descension of  God  to  man,  and  forms  which 
express  the  appeal  of  man  to  God.  Of  the.se  the 
first  has  its  familiar  example  in  the  proclamation 


SACRIFICE 


SACRIFICE 


of  the  word  of  God,  the  second  in  P^-ayer-      ^ncl 

rnce'from  threatened  evil  and  possession  of  coveted 
ance  •'""'  formula  roufh  y  expresses  the  end  ot 
°°i-  nC  in  vkw  of  tie  ancient  and  commonly 
^^Xd^o^ition  oTsalrlhce  as  the  staple  reli^^^^^^ 
Xervan^e.  it  follows  that  commumonwah  a  D^ 
v  •„ ,  ..tSfii  thp  security  involved  m  sucn  com 
Son?  must  al^ote  ti.e  end  generaUy  contem- 
plated  in  sacrificial  practice. 


used  in  the  o^a..  ^no,^  ^  '^I'^^l^^'' ^°tf  ^"fl^^^Si 
ordinate  class  of  cereal  offermss  (Lv  -).     ^ne  fc^"""-  .,^^ 

tion  oj  -cnflce^...J.  ^  /-^^(^Crn/m  inverted  order. 
'AT l").'  ?^Vldea  S"aUo  Lpre-ed    by  enu-nemUng   tour 

varieties  (ll>»).    ,„„„^<..».i.  of  freauent  occurrence,  being 

in'er^LS^  ^^'•^"^'^S^^^^Sf  T^^JS^ 

tvpe  Exceptionally  RV  retains  it  as  translation  of  in  (PsU8  ). 
a  r'of  nn3-(141=).  in  NT  it  renders  fo...  and  8^..,  and  >s  some- 
ttaes  dlSn^s.4d  from  the  •  offering'  a«  the  bloody  from  th. 
unbloody. 

ii  The  Obigin  of SACRIFICE.-The  controversies 
in  vhich  this  subject  has  been  so  fru  tful  have 
nassed  throu-h  tv  o  phases.  In  the  earher  period 
?hf  keenly  debated  issue  was  whether  the  institu- 
t  on  was  o'^:  Divine  appointment,  or  merely  devised 
Tmras  an  instruii^ent  for  satisfy  in  ^^ 


tion  is  that  it  is  framed  inth  7'"^;''!,,'?;"the  questionable 

piacularsacriflces  and  furt;e^  that. ^ 

assumption  that  tliepiacuiarsJi-rm^."     ,       ;.v,pd  a  sat  sfaction 

the  object  of  worship  and  secured  Uivine  favour. 

Summing  up,  then,  we  define  sacrifice  as  an  act, 
belo.™in.'  to  the  sphere  of  worship  in  which  a 
mated  ^oblation  fs  presented  to  the  Deity  and 
consumed  in  His  service,  and  -^''''^  has  a  i^s 
object  to  secure  through  communion  with  a  Divine 
being  the  boon  of  His  favour. 

sphere  of  holy  things,  or  in  wie  "h'"'  .      „„.,;i.\i\iiT  ordi- 

pre-Chr  stian    """^"P-    The    groug    M    »o  a  ^^^^_,^^,^.^, 

",^rthit'?Sic°»^hr?«^^^^^^ 

t°rr^™"  '"<i'»- S?'  °-  ^^prarJo^rtnvol^ed  Ihe 

''■'^.fri'flLla  «mmonly  re,en«i  to  in  OT  by  «P«'' jf,X^° 
leading  varicties-vij.  the  Bumt-oilen.ig  (n^-y),  and  the  Sam 
flcial  Feast  (:Ss').  There  are,  however,  two  terms,  which  have 
"  geneT^  well  as  a  specific  meaning.    The  ..np  (a  gift)  wa. 


I;^"^S  '^t;i^e:"'V;;^e;;nniin^s^he  ^nuin 

Thtorietas  to  ttie  significance  origina  y  attached 
to  the  rite,  its  primitive  form,  and  the  stages  in 
the  evolution  of  sacrificial  ritual. 

while  strongly  ^nt^nded  for  by  ■^anj  kc  „^„alive. 

cannot  be  sustained  e^en  on  the  b^^s  Of  t  ^^^^^  ^^^  ^^^ 

The  argument  on  which  ';'"f '  [.^'"'.rujce  (Gn  4!"),  and  the 

-s'yeS^.;^«  =J  £»ra%iS:^ 

sarily  implies  that  there  !""'' ^a  ,e  '.|'^etnfent  ^presupposed 
assurance  ?f  the  Divnne  nonn  controversy  is  disclosed 


assurance  of  the  D'vnne  nonne^  a,..  ^...  w .     -_;^-  -r  ^,,^,^,- ^ 
perhaps,  of  the  zea  on  tins  side  of  the  cont  J^^^  ,      ^^^ 

in  the  argument  that  ^,''™^"  °7,fp  (ii,,;^,';,,^;.,.,  Col  2'-^), 
apostolic  ^"demnation  of  «.lUvoi^h.p  m      '        prerogative 

^","h'  ^''irThoW  th  n^     Con'ceSe  that  sacrifi'ie,  the  dis- 
in  the  sphere  of  ho  >  tnmp^-  ^^^„  devising  and  yet 

tinctive  teature  of  01  "°^!"JP' "rt,  i„„ossible  to  make  good 
acceptable  to  God    and  it  *"came  in  possinie^  b  ^^ 

against  Roman,  Lutheran  and  Anglican  prac  ^^^.^^^  .^ 
festivals  or    rites  ^""J'';^  thirdOL^.alic  prepossession  has 

8cript.ure  As  the  *  f?*  ^^  ^'^''^fn^S^  u,at  the  ^vill-worship' 
coiisideraby  abated  It  is^easj  to  -un^^  ^  ^^  ^^^^^ 

to  Spencer,  a«  ^oY'uv  discussed  bv  Fairbaim  {Tvpolog;/  o/ 
subject  18  '^'so„\">,'"' J  ""'dvances  the  additional  argument 
Smptur,;  y  •^6  J:\  ,'''2^8^  ,,a"ents  '  co.ats  ot  skins '(On  321) 
that  in  making  '°'-°"'' S  JhertVwhich  serves  as  a  covering 
God  prompted  and  authonzed  the  rite  ^Ml  1^ 

ofthesoul.   Uispositionis.ho   e^eramcuia^^B^^^ 

rS'^se^1-.eSnt°to;?;of   wo.h,p    but^..  i^^^ 

existence  altogether  '"  P^^"^"^^'^  '^Sse  o?  modified  eon- 
eonilicting  tniSitio^^and  st.1    mo^-^becau^  ,„  scripture,  there 

T'ZT.  gro'«^n"  inSiV^ition  <«  use  the  scnptural  matenal 

ITa  basis  f'or  a  'i^'^^^'i^i':';:^^:^^:  JXl'^ZZ  U 

Divine  nstitution,  it  should  ■'' ,'"™'    „!r,r,hia  theorv  has  even 

?'>^..''^T^;°al  s%^5,Ts'b«n  v^;!"^  nem^yf  abt'dlT<P  The  only 
in  theological  schools  oecni  I  r>,t,  ^  ^  ^   that,  by  creating 

sense  in  "■'ji'^h  t^he  Div  ne  orig  n  can  be  hel  .^^^.^^^.J^„  „,,  j^^ 
man  tor  religion,  God  '^  the  •"'"'"  ^  universal  expression. 
''"^''^j^frr^^^SA  «^^:"o  .«^;«  a  Hu^an  origin  ma, 


SACKIFICE 


SACRIFICE 


331 


hrre  be  briefly  outlined,  inasmuch  as,  while  operating  mainly 
with  general  anthropological  material,  they  seek  confirmation  to 
flome  extent  in  the  Diblical  sacrificial  system.  These  theories 
may  be  best  grasped  in  accordance  witii  the  views  which  they 
presuppose  as  to  the  primitive  form  of  reli^'ion,  and  by  which. 
It  may  be  added,  they  must  mainly  be  jud;,'t_-d. 

0)  In  the  first  place,  we  meet  with  two  theories  which  rest 
on  tlie  assumption  that  the  reli^on  of  primitive  man  was  a 
monotheism.  Either  by  way  of  mtuitiou,  or  as  the  result  of 
rtllcxion  on  the  world  and  man,  it  is  supposed  that  the  human 
mind  hod  acquired  a  knowledge  at  least  of  the  unity  and  of  the 
<;inlinal  attributes  of  God.  Uniler  the  Impression  of  this 
kiiowledj^e  uian  may  be  supposed  to  have  gone  on  to  shape 
bacniicial  rites,  and  that  from  either  of  two  motives,  (a)  The 
Expiatory  tfi>ortj  is  to  the  effect  that  man,  conscious  of  sin 
aiKl  of  the  punishment  which  it  merits,  substituted  an  animal 
victim  which  should  endure  the  penalty  due  to  himself,  and 
so  make  his  peace  with  God.  This  interpretation  of  the  rite,  it 
is  true,  has  usually  been  identified  with  the  advocacy  of  a 
DiWne  institution,  but  it  at  least  holds  its  place  in  the  popular 
niinii— apart  from  any  question  of  orijjin — as  furnishing  the 
explanation  of  the  a^je-long  searching  after  God  through 
tile  ritual  of  the  slaujihtered  victim  and  the  smoking  altar.— 
(t)  The  Uonia^e  theorij  of  Sacrifice  has  been  more  favoured  by 
those  writers  who  regard  the  institution  as  a  natural  out- 
growth from  a  priulitive  monotheism.  On  this  view  man  was 
mipelled  to  seek  closer  communion  with  God,  not  out  of  a 
sense  of  guilt,  but  rather  out  of  a  desire  to  acknowledge  his 
dependence  and  profess  his  obedience.  To  give  expression  to 
these  devout  sentiments  he  fell  back  on  the  language  which  is 
more  powerful  than  speech— the  language  of  action  ( Warburton, 
Diti.  Lrg.  iv.  4).  'To  such  men  (Cain  and  Abel)  there  came 
Uioughts  of  one  who  is  ruling  them  as  they  rule  the  sheep, 
who  in  some  strange  way  makes  the  seeds  grow  which  they  put 
into  the  ground.  .  .  .  How  sliall  they  confess  Him,  and 
manifest  their  subjection?  Speech,  thanksgiving  are  not  the 
moiit  chillilike  way  of  testifying  homage.  Acts  go  before 
words'  (Maurice,  Sacrifice,  p.  C). 

The  fundamental  objection  to  the  above  two  theorie*  is  that 
they  attribute  to  primitive  man  a  theologv  which  it  is  hard  to 
associate  with  the  childhood  of  the  race.  The  Expiatory  theory 
not  only  presupposes  a  primitive  knowledge  of  God  transcending 
the  thoughts  of  childhood,  but  it  credits  man  ivith  a  sense  of 
sin,  and  with  a  valuation  of  death  as  the  wages  of  sin,  which 
Iwlong  to  a  later  period  of  spiritual  development.  Sloreover, 
the  theory  conflicts  with  the  preponderantly  joyous  character  of 
early  sacrifice.  The  Homa'_'e  theory  is  attractive  to  spiritual 
and  uhilosophical  minds  when  seeking  a  justification  for  sacri- 
fice, nut  can  hardl.v  be  sujiposed  to  have  originated  it;. 

C!)  A  second  group  of  theories  is  connected  with  the 
as.sumption  that  the  deities  of  prmiitive  man  were  beings  of 
a  low  anthropomorphic  order — whether  nature -spirits,  or 
ancestral  ghosts,  or  fetishes.  From  this  point  of  view  it 
naturally  seems  that  the  worshipper  has  somewhat  to  offer 
which  bis  Deity  needs  and  will  gratefully  accept.  How  man 
ministers  to  this  need,  and  how  his  ministering  proves  effectual, 
may  be  conceived  in  various  ways  suggested  by  examination  of 
the  possible  motives. 

(o)  The  Gijt  theorji  has  it  that  the  offerings  were  viewed 
•s  presents,  and  that  the  offerer  reckoned  on  their  beuig 
received  with  plea.sure  and  gratitude.  A  chief  or  a  king  is 
approached  with  gifts,  and  the  gods  expect  the  same.  The 
currency  of  this  interpretation  in  classical  antiquity  is  vouched 
for  by  Cicero.  '  Let  not  the  impious  dare  to  appease  the  gods 
with  gifts.  Let  them  hearken  to  Plato,  who  warns  them  that 
there  can  be  no  doubt  of  what  GtKl's  dis7>osition  toward  them 
will  be,  since  even  a  good  man  will  refuse  to  ocxieiit  presents 
from  the  wicked '  (ifc  Leg.  ii.  10).  In  the  older  literature  it  is 
lnain;ained  by  Spencer,  who  thinks  it  self-evident  that  this 
was^  the  idea  cherished  by  man  in  his  primitive  simplicity 
(ii.  HVlt  Tylor  ami  Herbert  Spencer,  though  differing  as  to 
the  primitive  object  of  worship,  find  the  origin  of  sacrifice  in 
the  idea  of  a  gill.  Accoriling  to  the  latter,  '  the  origin  of  the 
practice  is  to  be  found  in  the  custom  of  leaving  food  and  drink 
at  the  graves  of  the  dead,  and  as  the  ancestral  spirit  rose  to 
divine  rank  the  refreshments  placed  for  the  dead  developed 
Into  sacrifices  ■  (/'nnciycs  'if  Sociotog]/,  §  130  ff.).  Among  the 
older  writers  it  was  comn-only  held  that  such  an  account  of 
the  origin  of  sacrifice  could  not  he  accepted  in  view  of  the 
place  which  it  fills  in  the  system  of  revelation  (Biihr.  Sinnliolik, 
I.  p.  270);  but  within  the  lost  generation  it  has  come  to  be 
regarded  as  by  no  means  axiomatic  that  value  implies  dignity  of 
origin.  A  more  forcible  objection  is  that  the  blood,  which  figures 
so  prominently  in  sacrificial  ritual,  can  scarcelv  have  been 
selecle<l  as  a  desirable  gift.  And  this  criticism  is  effective  In  so 
far  as  it  compels  the  admi.viion  that  the  whole  svstem  of  sacrifice 
has  not  been  shaped  by  the  idea  of  the  gift,  there  is,  besides, 
reason  tor  holding  that  the  fund.imental  conception,  ivhile  akin 
to  that  already  stated,  la  more  definite  and  euggistive. 

(t)  Tha  TabU-bond  theory  exchanges  the  general  conception 
of  a  gift  for  that  of  a  meal  of  which  the  Deity  partakes  in 
company  with  the  worshippers.  The  germ  of  the  theory  is  to 
he  found  in  Sykes,  who  traced  the  eHic.icy  of  sacrifice,  which  is 
comuionly  a  Joint-meal,  to  the  tiwt  that  'eating  and  drinking 
together  were  the  known  ordinary  symbols  of  friendship,  and 
were  the  usual  rites  of  engaging  In  covenants  and  leagues' 
i^^taure  of  Sncrifice^.p.l!,).  On  this  viewsacriflcchiis  more  virtue 
than  a  mere  gilt ;  it  knits  the  god  and  the  worshippers  together 
by  the  bonds  created  by  the  interchange  ol  hospitality.  In  the 
tands  of  W.  K.  Smith  (iiS  p.  201)  IT.)  the  theory  was  developed 


by  the  addition  that  the  Deity  was  united  to  the  worshippers, 
not  merely  because  of  His  gratification,  but  because  a  comnioq 
meal  physically  unites  those  who  partake  of  it.     Whether  this 
latter  conception  of  the  tiwdiu  up-rraridi  of  the  meal  be  primi- 
tive is  open  to  doubt,  but  in  view  of  the  materials  and  form  of 
early  sacrifice  the  conclusion  seems  irresistible  that  the  original 
idea  of  the  worshippers  was  togratilv  their  Ood,  and  strengthen 
their  position  in  Uis  favour,  by  joining  with  Him  in  the  repast 
(c)  The  Iheury  of  a  materialintic  .'acravtental  communion  is 
a  special  development  of  the  lost.    The  h>-pothesis  sUrts  from 
the  obsenation  that  ot  certain  stages  of  civilization  religion 
takes  the  form  of  animal-worship,  or  of  the  reverence  lor  oniinals 
which  are  believed  to  share  along  with  man  in   the   Divine 
nature.    At  this  stage,  also,  it  happens  that  the  sacred  animal 
which  is  commonly  proscribed  as  food,  is  on  solemn  occasions 
made  to  furnish  the  material  of  a  sacrificial  meal.     In  other 
words,  there  is  occasionally  permitted  what  has  been  bluntly 
described  as  'eating  the  god'  (Krazer,  Golden  Bough)      The 
motive  for  this  is  suggested  by  a  widespread  idea  of  physical 
virtue.     In  eating  an  animal  or  a  human  being  the  savage  is 
supposed  to  incorporate  'not  only  the  physical,  but  even  the 
moral  and  intellectual  qualities  which  were  characteristic  ot 
that  animal  or  man.'    Similarly  it  was  easy  to  believe  that, 
it  the  Divine  life  resided  in  a  group  ot    sacred  animals,  a 
particle  ot  the  precious  deposit  would  be  distributed  among 
all  the  recipients,  and  incorporated  with  their  individual  lite 
(/iS2p.  313).    As  to  whether  we  may  regard  as  primitive  the 
totemistic  conception  ot  the  Divine-human  affinity  of  animals 
and  ot  the  assimilation  ot  the  Divine  life  through  eating  the 
totem,  there  is  grave  reason  for  doubt.    The  totemistic  theory 
of  the  origin  ot  worship  has  been  widely  propagated  through 
the  brilliant  and  learned  monograph  ot  W.  E.  Smith  (Joum. 
I'hilot.   ix.   76  IT.),  and  its  fascinating  exposition   bv  Jevons 
(iTUroduction  to  the  Uistori/  of  Iteligum,  1890);  but  "the  main 
body  of  English  anthropologists  refuse  to  regard  it  as  primitive, 
while  in  France  the  hypotliesis  has  been  subjected  to  close  and 
learned    cnticism   (Marillicr,   'La  place   du  Totemisme  dans 
revolution  religieuse,'  in  Rev.  de  lUist.  dee  Religinns,  lS97-9ti) 
Totemism  seems  most  intelligible  when  viewed  as  formed  under 
the  play  of  savage  thought  or  misconception,  and  as  intruiling 
upon  and  overrunning  earlier  forms  of  worship  which  found  a 
god  in  nature  or  the  spirits  of  men. 

The  theories  above  mentioned  assume  that  sacrifice  was 
directly  called  into  e.xisteuce  by  the  religious  idea.  Another 
possibihty  is  that  the  slaughler'ng  ot  animals  or  men  came  to 
awaken  awe  and  misgivings  in  the  breast  ot  the  savage,  and 
that  he  sought  to  reassure  himself  bv  a  procedure  which  in 
vested  such  acts  with  a  religious  character  and  sanction. 

Amid  this  mass  of  speculation  the  mo.st  certaii; 
conclu.sion  seems  to  he  lliat  -sacrilit'e  ()ii;.'iiiated  in 
childlil<e  ideiis  of  God,  ami  that  the  fundamental 
motive  was  to  gratify  Him  hy  giving  or  sharing 
with  Him  a  meal. 

iii.  Semitic  Sacrifice  in  the  phe  -  Mosaic 
I'EumD.— For  the  period  between  the  dim  region 
of  origins  and  the  consolidation  of  Israel  as  a 
nation  a  certain  amount  of  material  is  jirofessedly 
contributed  in  the  i)atriarchal  narratives  of  ,\. 
The  representation  driven  is  that  sacrifice  origin- 
ated in  the  first  family  when  the  bloody  oflcnng 
of  Abel  was  accepted  "((-n  4'')  ;  that  Noah  oflored 
burnt -offerings  after  his  deliverance  (S'-")  ;  and 
that  by  Abraliam  and  his  line  it  was  practised 
under  a  variety  of  forms  and  with  some  diversity 
of  ritual.  The  chief  occasions  were  times  of  meet- 
ing with  God,  and  other  solemn  moments  of  life  : 
the  kind.s  of  olleriiig  in  vogue  were  tlie  I'eace- 
otl'ering  (Gn  SI"),  the  Burnt-oliering  (22"),  the 
Covenant  Sacrifice  (15"-),  and  the  Libation  (28'")  ; 
the  sacrificial  material  consisted  of  clean  beasts  and 
fowls  (8-'"),  especially  cattle,  goats,  sheep,  and 
pigeons  (15").  Human  .sacrifice,  it  ii-  made  known 
to  Abraham,  is  not  required  by  God  ('ii'"').  It  is 
also  recognized  that  sacrifice  is  practised  outside 
the  pale  of  the  chosen  line  (Ex  18",  cf.  Nu  23"''). 

That  the  kinds  of  .'^acrilice  thus  distinguished, 
the  material  of  sacrifice,  and  otiier  features,  corre- 
spond to  the  us.age  of  an  early  period  in  the  history 
of  Israel  is  quite  certain  ;  but  the  references  do 
not  carry  us  back  to  the  earliest  phases  in  the 
evolution  of  Semitic  sacrifice,  lietween  the  primi- 
tive form  of  sacrifice  ami  the  coiiipiirativcly  com- 
|)lex  and  elevated  cultus  niirrorcit  in  these  nar- 
ratives there  lies  a  course  of  development  on  which 
attention  has  been  recently  focussed  owing  to 
the  researches  of  Wellhausen  (Reste  arabUchen 
Hei(lcyitkum.i)  and  of  W.  R.  Smith  (RS).  For  the 
rediscovery  of  the  stages  and  factors  of  this  de- 


332 


SACRIFICE 


SACRIFICE 


velopment,  reliance  is  placed  on  the  survivals  from 
heathen  Arabia,  on  the  vestiges  of  Phcenician  and 
other  Semitic  cults,  and  especially  on  the  gift  of 
divination  which  wrests  from  the  phenomena  of  the 
matured  institution  a  confession  as  to  tlie  course 
of  its  earlier  life-histoi*y.  The  special  features  of 
Smith's  treatment  are  his  insistence  on  the  con- 
nexion of  primitive  sacrifice  with  totemism,  and 
his  scheme  sliowing  the  derivation  of  the  varieties 
of  sacrihce  from  the  alleged  primitive  form,  while 
he  also  supplements  WclUuiusen's  elucidation  of 
the  growth  of  sacrificial  ritual  and  the  progressive 
modilication  of  sacrificial  ideas.  This  reconstructed 
chapter  of  history  may  be  outlined  as  follows  : — 

(a)  Evolution  of  the  varieties  of  Seinitic  Sacrifice. — The 
orig-inal  point  of  departure,  as  we  have  already  aeen,  is, 
according  to  Smith,  the  sacramental  meal,  at  which  an  animal 
wa3  devoured  which  was  akin  both  to  the  god  and  hie  wor- 
shippers, and  which  in  virtue  of  its  sacred  properties  served  as 
a  cement  to  bind  together  in  closer  unioo  the  I)ivine  and  the 
human  sharers  of  the  repast  {RS^  313).  On  this  followed  a 
process  of  differentiation,  giviog  rise  on  the  one  hand  to  the 
Sacrificial  Feast,  on  the  other  to  the  holocaust.  The  distinctions 
between  the  original  sacramental  meal  and  the  Sacrificial  Feast 
are  two  ;  the  former  occurs  at  rare  intervals  and  the  tlcsh  is 
deemed  most  holy,  the  latter  occurs  frequently  and  the  flesh  is 
in  use  as  an  ordinary  article  of  diet.  The  transition  is  explained 
on  the  one  hand  by  the  cessation  of  the  belief  in  the  atiinity  of 
animals  to  man,  on  the  other  by  times  of  scarcity  and  a  grow- 
ing- taste  for  animal  food.  Less  obvious  is  it  why  the  primitive 
sacrifice,  which  was  essentially  a  joint -meal,  should  have 
developed  along  a  second  line  into  a  holocaust.  The  nexus 
is  supplied  by  the  following  train  of  speculation.  So  long 
as  the  victim  was  a  sacred  animal  there  was  but  one  type 
of  sacrifice  —  the  sacramental  meal.  When  totemistic  modes 
of  thought  disappeared,  and  domestic  animals  supplied  the 
sacrificial  material,  the  victim,  since  it  was  no  longer  deemed 
to  be  kin,  no  longer  fulfilled  the  condition  necessary  to  unite 
the  god  and  his  worshippers.  The  only  victim  that  fulfilled 
the  condition  of  being  akin  to  worshippers  and  worshipped  was 
a  human  victim,  and  soon  solenm  occasions  recourse  was  had  to 
human  sacrifices.  The  eating  of  human  tlesh  was,  however,  re- 
pugnant to  natural  feeling,  and  the  human  victim  was  therefore 
offered  as  a  holocaust.  And,  naturally  enough,  when  an  animal 
came  to  be  substituted  for  a  human  victim  the  holocaust  per- 
sisted as  the  ap|>ropriate  form  (Lect.  x.).  By  this  account  the 
evolution  is  carried  for^vard  to  the  point  represented  in  the 
beginnings  of  Hebrew  history — where  the  Sacrificial  Feast  and 
the  Burni-offering  exist  side  by  side. 

(6)  Develitpment  of  Sacrijicial  Kitxial. — The  oldest  Semitic 
form  of  ritual,  it  is  supposed,  is  preserved  in  a  description  by 
Nilus  of  a  Saracen  sacrifice.  'The  camel  chosen  as  the  victim 
is  bound  upon  a  rude  altar  of  stones  piled  together,  and  the 
leader  of  the  band,  after  inflicting  the  first  wound,  in  all  haste 
drinks  of  the  blood  that  gushes  forth.  Forthwith  the  whole 
company  fall  on  the  victim  with  their  swords,  hacking  off 
pieces  of  the  quivering  flesh  and  devouring  them  raw,  with 
such  wild  haste  that  in  a  short  interval  the  entire  camel,  body 
and  bones,  skin,  blood,  and  entrails,  is  wholly  devoured' (/i6'2 
p.  338).  In  this  savage  rite  we  see  the  first  stage  of  usages 
which  were  to  undergo  numy  niodificatioiis  before  reachmg 
familiar  shape. — (1)  The  manipulation  of  the  blood,  so  im- 
portant in  sacrificial  ritual,  here  begins  in  the  form  that  the 
worshippers  lap  it  as  it  flows,  ami  tlie  god  s  portion  runs  out 
upon  the  stones.  Later  the  repulsive  draught  is  eschewed, 
and  they  are  content  to  be  smeared  with  it — a  portion  being 
sprinkled  for  the  god  upon  the  altar  or  running  into  a  gutter, 
while  some  is  sprinkled  upon  the  worshippers.  This  double 
sprinkling  survived  to  hist^jric  times  in  the  Covenant-sacrifice, 
Ordinarily,  however,  the  whole  of  the  blood  was  treated  as  the 
god's  portion,  and  was  conveyed  to  him  on  the  altar  in  peace- 
offerings  and  burnt-offerings,  and  also  in  the  later  piacular 
sacrifices. — (2)  Conveyance  of  other  portiotis  to  the  god.  Assum- 
ing that  the  above-mentioned  rite  IS  primitive,  the  god  origin- 
ally received  nothing  save  a  share  of  the  effueetl  blood. 
Gradually,  however,  other  portions,  as  fat  and  entrails,  were 
assigned  to  him,  and  the  question  emergt-d  as  to  how  they 
were  to  be  conveyed  to  him.  In  the  case  of  libations  of  blood 
or  wine,  they  could  be  supposed  to  rea*;h  him  by  absorption 
in  the  ground,  while  fat  was  seen  to  melt,  but  the  solid  in- 
gredients presented  a  ditficulty.  An  earl.v  idea  was  to  expose 
them,  and  allow  them  to  reach  their  destination  through  being 
devoured  by  wild  beasts.  Next,  the  use  of  fire  came  in— 
originally,  as  Smith  thinks,  simply  to  get  rid  of  the  remanent 
portionsi  but  afterwards  as  the  means  of  canying  into  the 
sphere  of  the  gods  the  sublimated  essence  or  the  sweet  savour 
of  the  meal.  The  usage  in  which,  while  the  blood  is  poured 
out  on  the  altar,  the  essence  of  the  offering  ascends  in  fire 
from  the  altar,  is  that  which  has  been  firmly  established  at  the 
dawn  of  Hebrew  history-  (Wellhausen,  op.  eit.  110  ff.,  'Opfer 
u.  Gaben '  ;  liS^,  Lect.  ix.X— (3)  Modificationi  of  the  hwnan 
m^al.  Like  the  drinking  of  the  warm  blood,  the  eating  of  the 
raw  flesh  had  to  yield  in  the  course  of  time  to  more  refined 
methods.  With  the  appearance  of  the  Burnt-offering  it  went 
partially  out  of  use,  while  in  the  Sacrificial  Feast  it  appears  to 
nave  been  at  first  boiled,  at  a  later  period  roasted.— <4)  Growth 


of  opinion  as  to  the  siffniJicaJice  of  Sacrifice.  The  primitive 
interpretation  of  the  rite  as  cementing  the  religious  relation- 
ship through  the  eating  of  the  sacred  animal  disappeared  when 
the  people  reached  the  pastoral  stage,  although  the  idea 
lingered  that  food  of  any  kind  had  a  unitint;  virtue,  and  the 
illicit  mystic  forms  of  cultus  which  continued  to  be  practised 
to  some  extent  embodied  the  original  idea.  A  new  interpret 
tation  gained  ground  with  the  rise  of  the  institution  of  pro- 
perty. The  worshipper  now  had  somewhat  whereof  he  waa 
absolute  disposer,  not  joint-trustee  along  with  tlie  Deit}',  and 
it  had  thus  become  possible  for  him  to  confer  on  the  latter  a 
favour  by  the  bestowal  of  what  the  worshipper  was  person- 
ally entitled  to  enjoy.  In  this  way  the  Gilt  theory,  whicb 
is  imbedded  in  so  many  terms  of  the  sacrificial  vocabulary, 
came  into  existence.  The  institution  of  property,  in  fact, 
from  the  first  exercised  an  influence  that  on  the  whole  has 
worked  for  religious  deterioration.  At  a  later  stage  the  gift 
was  understood  to  be  in  some  sense  a  substitute  for  the  wor- 
shipper. 

The  Welihausen  -  Smith  contribution  to  the 
evolutionary  account  of  Semitic  sacrifice  is  a 
brilliant  piece  of  work  which  has  profoundly  influ- 
enced research  in  cojj:nate  fields.  Hut  the  attrac- 
tiveness of  the  ingenious  combinations,  supported 
as  they  are  by  vast  and  rechercM  erudition,  neces- 
sitates a  reminder  of  the  extremely  speculative  and 
precarious  character  of  many  of  the  positions.  The 
theory  credited  to  Semitic  heathenism  in  its  primi- 
tive stage,  as  already  pointed  out,  is  highly  proble- 
matical. The  construction  in  question  postulates 
the  idea  of  a  communion  between  the  gt>d  and  the 
worshippers  due  to  their  assimilating  the  same  food, 
but  it  cannot  be  held  to  be  proved  that  this  natural 
enough  idea  sprang  ultimately  from  a  theory  that 
the  sacritice  was  ethcacious  because  the  victim 
was  akin  to  both.  Further,  if  the  god  and  his 
votaries  were  already  kin,  it  is  not  clear  that 
their  union  could  be  more  closely  cemented  by 
eating  an  animal  which  imported  into  the  union 
no  more  than  was  already  found  in  it.  As  regards 
the  genealogical  scheme,  while  Smith  makes  the 
holocaust  a  late  derivative,  and  bj*  a  complicated 
process,  from  the  sacramental  meal,  the  truth  is 
that  the  two  types  are  always  found  existing  side  by 
side — among  the  Phcenicians  as  well  as  among  the 
Hebrews;  and,  so  far  as  historical  evidence  goes, 
there  is  no  strong  reason  for  according  priority  to 
either  (Hubert  et  Mauss,  p.  32  ti'.).  A  weakness  of 
SfnitVs  position  is  that  his  exposition  of  primi- 
tive Semitic  ideas  is  largely  based  on  late  Arab 
practice ;  and  the  next  stage  must  be  to  test  his 
speculations  by  the  results  of  the  researches  now 
being  activelj*  pro.secutcd  in  the  older  iicld  of 
Babylonian  and  Assj-rian  worship  (Zimmern,  Beit- 
rdqe  ztir  Kennt,  der  hab.  Relig.). 

Iv.  Sacrifice  ix  Ancient  Israel.— From  the 
speculative  iield  of  preliistoric  evolution  we  ad- 
vance to  the  period  wliich  extends  from  the  Kxodua 
to  the  rise  of  the  8th  cent,  prophets.  The  question 
which  encounters  us  on  the  threshold  is  whether, 
and  to  what  extent,  Moses  organized  a  system  of 
sacrificial  worship.  The  Pentateuch,  in  its  main 
body,  represents  the  work  of  Moses  in  this  depart- 
ment as  epoch-making  and  final.  The  Priestly 
Narrative,  in  the  first  place,  makes  no  mention 
of  a  use  of  sacritice  anterior  to  Moses,  and  thua 
suggests,  not  indeed  that  it  was  not  previously 
practised,  but  that  it  had  then  no  place  in  the  re- 
ligion of  the  chosen  line,  and  that  it  had  no  Divine 
sanction.  In  the  next  place  it  ascribes  to  Moses, 
as  the  instrument  of  God,  an  elaborate  code  which 
preciselj',  and  with  an  aspect  of  finality,  deter- 
mines *  the  when,  the  where,  the  by  whom,  and  in 
a  very  special  manner  the  how  *  of  sacrifice  ( Wellh. 
Uist.  Isr.  p.  52).  Hut  the  representation  is  in  both 
particulars  unhi.storicaI.  Tlie  use  of  sacrihce  in 
primitive  Israel,  antecedently  more  than  probable, 
IS  vouched  for  by  independent  tradition.  The 
promuljjiation  by  Moses  of  an  elaborate  sacrificial 
code,  wnich  treats  ritualistic  correctness  of  detail 
as  of  paramount  importance,  is  in  itself  improbable, 
and  is  Inconsistent  with  tlie  highly  flexible  practice 


SACRIFICE 


SACEIFICE 


333 


under  the  Judges  and  the  early  nionarcliy,  as  well 
as  with  the  prophetic  conceptions  of  tlie  nature  of 
the  Mosaic  legislation  (see  below).  It  is  indeed 
diilicult  to  believe  that  Moses  left  no  iiiijiress 
upon  the  forms  of  the  relit;ious  life  of  the  people 
wliich  remembered  him  not  only  as  emancipator, 
but  as  prophet  (Dt  34'"),  and  it  may  well  be 
hupiio.-.ed  that  he  stands  for  an  early  stage  in  the 
evolution  of  the  in.siitution  which  culminated  in 
the  system  of  the  l^riestly  Code  ;  but  it  would  be 
a  hopeless  task  to  try  to  disengage  the  Mosaic 
element  in  the  archaic  usages  which  P  certainly 
embodies.  In  these  circumstances  it  is  desirable 
to  base  the  account  of  ancient  Heb.  sacrifice  on 
another  group  of  sources.  Foremost  among  these 
is  JE,  whose  patriarchal  narratives  illustrate  a 
comiiaratively  early  cycle  of  ideas,  and  the  Cook 
of  tlie  Covenant  (Kx  20^-23"),  which  clironicles  or 
corrects  certain  features  of  ritual  practised  down 
to  the  9th  century.  In  addition,  great  value 
attaches  to  the  incidental  references  in  Judges,  in 
the  hooks  of  Samuel,  and  in  the  early  Projiliets. 

(1)  The  Saerifciul  mutcrinl  consisted  of  the  agri- 
cultural produce  of  Canaan,  animal  (Ex  22*'),  cereal, 
and  liquid  (v.^).  The  victims  included — of  large 
cattle,  the  old  and  young  of  the  ox-kind  ;  of  small 
cattle,  sheep  and  lambs,  goats  and  kids.  Of  birds, 
the  pigeon  might  be  used  in  the  Burnt-ollering. 
Wild  animals  and  fish,  which  figure  in  the  liaby- 
lonian  ritual,  were  not  oflercd.  The  blood  and  the 
fat  were  specially  appropriated  to  Jehovah,  and  of 
animal  products  presented  to  Him  we  hear  of  wool 
(Hos2'),  but  notof  the  libation  of  milk.  Meal,  which 
was  baked  into  cakes  (Jg  C",  Am  5-^),  was  the  com- 
mon form  of  the  cereal  offering.  The  valuable  pro- 
ducts of  oil  (Gn  2S'»,  Mic  6')  am"!  wine  (1  S  1=«,  Am  2*) 
were  ingredients  of  the  sacrificial  meal,  and  were 
doubtless  also  offered  in  the  form  of  a  liljation. 
The  sacrifici.al  material  of  the  Carthaginians 
agrees  with  this,  except  that  their  code  allowed 
many  species  of  birds  and  also  milk  {CIS  i.  237). 

(2)  T/te  varieties  of  sacrifice  were  of  two  types — 
that  in  which  the  ofrering  was  wholly  devoted  to 
<  lod,  and  that  in  which  He  received  a  portion  and 
the  worshippers  feasted  on  the  remainder.  Of  the 
former  u.se  the  typical  example  is  the  Burnt-offering, 
of  the  latter  the  Sacrificial  Feast  (Ex  10==  18'^  20") ; 
but  there  are  other  kinds  of  offering  that  have  to  be 
described  which  bear  distinct  names  either  because 
of  the  peculiarity  of  the  ritual,  or  of  the  special  end 
which  they  were  designed  to  serve. 

('()  The  Sacrificial  Feast  was  probably  the  oldest 
form,  was  in  early  times  by  far  the  most  common, 
and  gave  satisfactioo  to  normal  states  of  religious 
feeling. 

The  n&mes  by  which  this  type  of  otferln^^  Is  dfstinpruished  In 
FtV  are  Sacrifice  and  Peace-olTfring.  '  Sacrifice '  (njl)  is  Borae- 
limea  cooCnst«d  with  the  old  generic  name  (.in;'3  1  8  2'-'^), 
but  ottener  with  the  Burnl-offcring  (Ex  102»,  1  8  «"),  and  in 
both  caae«  It  Is  *  the  general  name  for  all  sacrifices  eaten  at 
feuts '  (Oxf.  Heb.  Lex.  i.  n;i).  The  sacriBce  in  the  narrower 
ft*nfle  Is  synonymouB  with  the  Peace-ofTering  (D;y),  which  is 
BimUarty  used  to  desi^^nate  the  division  of  offerings  wliicb 
were  divided  between  God  and  man  (Ex  2u24,  Am  6*^). 
The  original  meaning  of  the  dV^'  is  obscure.  The  interpreta- 
tion of  ovir  versions  rendered'  by  Pence-oITerinK  (LXX  6vf!» 
Mi^iixx)  conceives  it  as  the  sacriilce  offered  when  friendly  re- 
lations existed  towards  God  (O^V,  *to  be  whole  or  at  one ') — In 
contnuiiMtinntion  to  the  piacular  sacriflccs  which  presupposed 
estrungL-tuent.  Ueihopjer  is  somewhat  similar  in  idea.  An 
alternative  rendering  derives  it  from  D^C*  'to  malco  whole,' 
'make  restitution,'  in  which  case  it  would  be  originally  an 
offering  of  reparation  (Rrglattun(Tgf>p/fr).  and  by  an  intelligible 
transition  a  payment  of  vows  or  thanit-onering  (Luther). 

The  occasion  of  the  Peace-offering  was  some 
■nch  event  a«  prompts  human  beings  to  come 
tog(ther  in  a  festive  spirit.  Even  in  the  modern 
World  the  joyful  event  provokes  demonstrations 
and  rejoicings  which  are  felt  to  have  their  fittest 


culmination  in  the  banquet,  and  the  Peace-offering 
was  simply  the  form  taken  by  the  festal  banquet 
in  an  age  thoroughly  permeated  by  the  religious 
spirit.  The  opportunity  for  such  celebrations  is 
given,  not  only  in  the  life  of  the  nation  and  of 
the  community,  but  in  that  of  the  kindred  stock 
and  of  the  family.  In  the  national  life  such  occa- 
sions for  rejoicing  occurred  in  the  successful  con- 
clusion of  a  campaign  (lb  11'°,  cf.  Jg  lU^),  in  the 
cessation  of  a  visitation  of  famine  or  pestilence 
(2  S  "24"),  and  in  the  accession  of  a  king  to  his 
throne  (1  K  l'").  In  the  last  case,  and  also  at  the 
dedication  of  the  temple,  the  provision  naturally 
was  on  the  most  magnificent  scale  (1  K  8'").  The 
smaller  unit  of  the  local  community  had  its  special 
occasion  for  rejoicing  in  the  events  of  the  agricul- 
tural year:  firstlings  and  first-fruits  supjdicd  the 
material  of  a  sacrificial  meal  (Ex  22-'""").  The  visit 
of  a  notable  prophet  to  a  town  also  suggested  the 
recognition  of  the  privilege  by  a  sacrificial  feast 
(1  S  10').  The  sept  or  larger  family  professed  and 
strengthened  its  kinship  by  an  annual  reunion 
wliicli  took  the  form  of  the  sacred  bancjuet  ('20*). 
Similarly,  family  religion  found  occasional  ex- 
pression in  the  pilgrimage  of  man  and  wife  to  a 
local  sanctuary,  where  tliey  ate  and  drank  before 
the  Lord  (1  S  l').  Other  events  in  this  sphere 
which  were  similarly  hallowed  were  the  de)iarture 
on  a  momentous  journej'  (Gn  31°*),  the  arrival  of 
a  guest  of  consequence  (IS'"*),  the  embarkation  on 
a  new  career  (1  K  19=').  In  general  it  served  to 
keej)  alive  the  sense  of  dependence  on  God  for  pro 
tcction  and  the  natural  blessings  of  life,  while  it 
had  the  social  value  of  promoting  the  solidarity  of 
the  nation  and  of  its  component  parts. 

i\)  A  course  of  preparation  was  required  before 
taking  part  in  the  sacred  observance  ( 1  S  10°).  A 
period  of  continence  was  ordained  (21°,  cf.  Ex 
19"''''') ;  and  lustrations  and  a  change  of  garments 
constituted  the  physical  holiness  which  was  deemed 
seemly  and  necessary  in  approaching  the  Deity 
(Gn  35^  Ex  19""'-).  Naturally,  al.so,  it  was  made 
the  occasion  for  the  display  of  finery  and  orna 
ments  (Hos  2'").  There  was  recog;nizcd,  however, 
the  necessity  of  a  more  spiritual  preparation  in 
which  the  heart  was  touched,  or  even  renewed  by 
God  ( 1  S  10').  (2)  T/ie  ritual  necessarily  varied  with 
the  material.  In  the  case  of  the  animal  sacrifice, 
the  blood  and  the  fat  were  approjiriatcd  to  God 
(1  S  2"),  and  were  consumed  on  the  altar.  To 
lessen  the  temiitation  to  sacrilege,  it  was  provided 
that  the  fat  should  be  given  to  God  immediately 
after  the  slaughtering  (Ex  '23").  The  accompany- 
ing offering  consisted  of  unleavened  bread  {ib.}. 
The  remaining  portions  were  divided  between  the 
priests  and  the  offerers.  The  sin  of  the  sons  of 
Eli  was  that,  instead  of  taking  the  share  allowed 
by  ancient  custom,  they  dipped  with  a  rapacious 
flesh-hook  into  the  cauldron,  and  also  that  they 
encroached  on  the  Divine  portion  by  claiming  their 
share  before  the  fat  had  been  conveyc<l  to  God 
(1  S  2'="'-).  At  this  stage  the  sacrificial  tlesh  was 
boiled,  and  it  is  represented  as  an  objectionable 
innovation  that  the  prie.'its  demanded  their  |)ortion 
raw  with  a  view  to  its  being  roasted.  The  custom 
of  boiling  the  flesh  is  al.so  commemorated  in  Ihe 
prohibition  of  seething  a  kid  in  its  mother's  milk 
(Ex  23'") — which  probably  had  its  origin,  not  so 
much  in  a  feeling  that  the  practice  was  of  the 
nature  of  an  outrage,  as  in  heathen  associations 
connected  with  the  .sacrificial  use  of  milk.  (3)  The 
reliqiints  ej/iracy  of  the  Sacrificial  Fca-st  was  doubt- 
less dillerentlj'  interpreted  according  to  the  degree 
of  spiritual  enlightenment.  The  popular  idea  prob- 
ably was  that  God  was  entertained  at  a  feast,  in 
which  He  received  His  portion  in  the  form  of  fire- 
food,  and  that  the  honour  and  gratification  thus 
afforded   Him  rendered   Him  well  disposed  to  the 


334 


SACRIFICE 


SACRIFICE 


worshippers.  The  offering  would  tlius  be  con- 
sidered elHcacious  as  l»riiiging  tlie  response  whicli 
is  naturally  elicited  by  a  gift  or  service.  The 
command,  '  none  shall  appear  before  me  empty- 
handed  '  (Ex  23'*  34-"),  su^'gosts  that  the  practice 
of  approaching  a  monarch  with  gifts  was  regarded 
as  typical  of  the  approach  to  Jehovah  with  offer- 
ings. The  use  of  .in;;?  (gift)  in  a  comprehensive 
.sense  points  to  the  same  interpretation.  With 
tills,  doubtless,  was  also  associated  the  conviction 
that  by  eating  and  drinking  along  with  Jehovah 
friendly  relations  were  both  e.\pressed  and  strength- 
ened. That  the  sacred  life-blood  of  the  animal 
was  conceived  as  cementing  the  union  by  constitut- 
ing a  physical  tie  is  more  problematical  (Schultz, 
AJTh,  1900,  p.  269).  But  these  interpretations 
were  beginning  to  be  challenged.  The  higher  theo- 
logy excluded  the  idea  of  God  as  a  fellow-guest. 
A  striking  saying,  ascribed  to  Samuel,  declares 
offerings  worthless  without  obedience  (1  S  IS-''). 

(p)  The  Burnt-offering,  nSy  (LXX  oA«e«uiwju«,  oxaxt^uraurn, 
cXoxxfirMuM,  t>\cKupTtuffti\  '  that  which  ascenda,'  is  so  called  either 
as  that  wliich  is  elevated  to  tlic  altar  (Knobel,  Oehler,  Nowack), 
or  wliich  ascends  in  flame  (Bulir,  Keil,  Delitzsch).  It  is  usually 
synonymous  with  'the  whole  Burnt-offering,'  though  originally 
the  distinction  may  have  obtained  that  the  portion  of  any 
bloody  sacritiGe  consumed  on  the  altar  was  designated  the  npv, 
while  only  the  Burnt -offering  consisting  of  an  eotire  victim 
was  a  "j'^s  (Nowack,  Arch.  ii.  215). 

If  the  bright  side  of  human  experience,  which 
gives  birth  to  joy  and  hope,  had  its  characteristic 
rite  in  the  Peace  -  offering,  the  Burnt  -  offering 
answered  to  the  mood  in  which  the  predominant 
feelin"  is  grief,  apprehension,  or  awe.  In  certain 
situations,  of  course,  there  is  a  combination  of 
joyousness  and  solemnity,  of  hope  and  fear — as  at 
the  coronation  of  a  monarch,  or  the  conclusion  of 
a  national  covenant  with  God,  and  in  such  cases 
the  double  aspect  has  its  expression  in  the  com- 
bination of  the  two  types  of  offering  (I  S  10', 
Ex  24*).  But  on  occasions  of  extraordinary  solem- 
nity or  gravity  the  Burnt -offering  stood  alone. 
The  deliverance  from  the  Flood,  accompanied  as  it 
may  be  supposed  to  have  been  by  overwhelming 
awe  at  the  sweep  of  God's  devastating  judgment, 
was  marked  by  the  sacritice  of  the  Burnt-offering 
(Gn  8"").  Similarly  on  the  occasion  of  a  theophany, 
when  the  sense  of  privilege  is  overborne  by  the 
sense  of  danger  in  tlie  presence  of  Jehovah,  the 
Burnt-offering  is  the  appropriate  rite  (Gn  22'", 
Jg  Vi"').  At  the  beginning  of  a  war,  when  the 
danger  and  the  dubious  issue  are  keenly  realized, 
it  alone  bespeaks  the  Divine  aid  ;  nor  does  the 
leader  of  the  host  embark  without  this  appointed 
service  on  his  hazardous  enterprise  (Jg  Q-").  It 
would  even  seem  that  in  perplexity  it  was  used 
with  the  divinatory  purpose,  which  in  Babylonia 
had  been  one  of  the  principal  uses  ( Jg  6"*-).  When 
one  was  driven  to  extremity  by  the  hatred  of  a 
powerful  opponent,  it  miglit  be  offered  in  the  hope 
of  God  interposing  to  change  his  heart  (1  S  26'"). 
In  time  of  peril  it  might  be  promised  by  way  of 
vow  on  condition  of  success  ( Jg  11).  It  has  indeed 
been  alleged  that  in  periods  of  national  calamity  it 
was  not  oll'ered — the  idea  being  tliat  this  was 
useless  so  long  as  the  wrath  of  Jehovah  was  fierce 
against  king  or  people ;  but  this  view  rests  upon 
an  incident  in  the  life  of  David  (2  S  24")  when 
acting  under  proplietic  guidance,  and  cannot  well 
be  supposed  to  represent  the  prevalent  belief. 
(1)  The  sarrific.ial  material  had  consisted,  from  very 
early  times,  in  one  or  other  of  the  following  :  the 
ox-kind,  the  goat,  the  slieep,  the  turtle-dove,  and 
the  young  pigeon  (Gn  15").  (2)  The  ritual  of  the 
Burnt-offering  exhibits  survivals  of  ancient  usage. 
Though  tlie  usual  custom  now  was  to  slay  the 
victim  beside  the  altar,  there  are  traces  of  an  older 
practice  of  slaying  it  upon  the  altar  (Gn  22",  cf. 


1  S  14'^).  The  ritual  of  Gideon  is  peculiar :  th« 
Hesh  of  the  kid  is  boiled,  it  is  then  put  in  a  basket 
along  with  unleavened  cakes  and  placed  on  the 
altar,  while  the  broth  is  poured  either  over  it  or 
on  the  ground  ( Jg  6'''-  -").  The  token  of  accept- 
ance is  its  consumption  by  lire.  In  the  later 
period  the  broth  played  no  part,  the  flesh  being 
consumed  raw  upon  tlie  altar. 

(3)  The  signifirance  of  the  Burnt-offering  is  sug- 
gested by  what  has  been  said  of  its  occasions.  Its 
object  was  to  secure  protection  against  tlireatened 
danger,  success  in  the  hazardous  conflict,  deliver- 
ance from  the  sore  calamity  ;  and  if  in  some  in- 
stances it  has  the  appearance  of  a  thank-offerin" 
after  deliverance,  the  dominant  thought  may  still 
have  been  that  security  was  sought  against  a  recur- 
rence of  the  judgment.  Furtlier,  it  is  clear  that 
the  idea  was  to  ensure  safety  by  performing  an  act 
which  was  acceptable  to  God,  and  thus  dispose 
Him  to  maintain  the  worshippers'  cause.  The 
intention  was  not  inv.ariably  to  propitiate  God  in 
the  sense  of  altering  His  attitude  from  hostility  to 
clemency  ;  the  sacrifices  of  Abraham  and  of  David 
are  rendered  when  God  is  already  at  peace  with 
them,  but  they  were  always  at  least  propitiatory 
in  the  secondary  sense  that  they  v.-ere  designed 
to  prevent  God  from  changing  His  attitude  of 
clemency  into  an  attitude  of  hostility.  As  to  how 
they  were  supposed  to  influence  God  we  cannot 
very  confidentlj'  speak.  The  old  Hebrew  idea  was 
that  the  food  actually  reached  God  in  the  form  of 
the  fragrant  flre-distilled  essence,  and  thus  gratified 
Him  as  an  agreeable  gift  (Gn  8-').  In  this  point 
of  view  it  was  more  efficacious  th.an  the  Peace- 
oft'ering,  inasmuch  as  it  paid  to  God  greater 
honour,  and  made  Him  a  more  costly  gift.  Tlie 
story  of  the  sacrifice  of  Isaac  suggests  the  theory 
that  the  animal  was  substituted  for  a  human 
victim,  but  it  does  not  say  that  Isaac  was  to  die  for 
Abraham,  and  it  therefore  does  not  involve  the  idea 
that  the  animal  victim  was  understood  to  bear  the 
penalty  due  to  the  sin  of  the  offerer.  On  this  view, 
the  animal  victim  represented  only  the  substitu- 
tion of  the  less  valuable  for  the  more  valuable 
gift.  As  in  the  case  of  the  Peace-offering,  it  is 
certain  that  the  reflexion  which  was  rooted  in  the 
higher  faith  gradually  worked  its  way  to  a  nobler 
conception  than  that  of  gratifying  God  by  the 
delights  of  a  repast.  Old  forms  of  expression, 
such  as  'sweet  savour'  and  'bread  of  God,'  con- 
tinued to  be  used  even  when  it  liad  come  to  be 
realized  that  the  quality  which  pleased  God  was 
the  piety  which  prepared  the  tire-food. 

Human  SacHjicex,  of  which  OT  contains  some  record,  come 
under  the  category  of  the  Burnt-offering.  That  they  occurred 
in  the  heathen  stage  through  which  tlie  progenitors  of  the 
Hebrews  passed  in  prehistonc  times,  can  hardly  be  questioned. 
The  practice  prevailed  throughout  Semitic  heathendom ;  it  la 
abundantly  vouched  for  among  the  Arabs  and  the  Carthaginians, 
and  it  was  in  use  among  the  Moabites  (2  K  3^).  The  story  of 
the  sacrifice  of  Isaac  (Gn  2211)  clearly  implies  that  the  custom 
had  been  deeply  rooted  in  the  past ;  the  history  of  Jephthah 
furnishes  an  indubitable  instance  from  the  period  of  the  Judgea 
(Jg  ll*^ff-):  *iid  its  persistence  down  to  a  late  period  may  be 
collected  from  various  prophetic  references  (Mic  67,  Jer  731,  Ezk 
2026  2337).  The  main  point  in  dispute  is  whether  'human 
sacrifices  were  an  essential  element  of  the  Mosaic  cultus* 
(Ghillany),  or  whether  they  'were  excluded  from  the  legitimate 
worship  of  Jehovah '  (Oehler).  The  argument  for  the  legitimacy 
of  the  practice  would  be  considerably  stronger  if  we  could 
regard  as  huiiian  sacrifices  the  slaving  of  Zebah  and  Zalmunna 
by  Gideon  (Jg  si»'i),  and  of  Agag  by  Sanmel  (1  S  1633,  cf.  2  S 
21^) :  but  these  acts  m.ay  be  assigned  to  the  different  category 
of  executions.  In  the  case  of  Jephthah  it  is  hard  to  suppose 
that  he  expected  other  than  a  iiuman  beinij  to  come  forth 
to  meet  him,  and  the  most  that  can  be  said  is  that  the  narra- 
tive seems  to  recognize  in  the  issue  a  merited  punishment. 
The  manifest  moral  of  the  sacrifice  of  Isaac  is  that  the  practice 
wae  'an  alien  element  repudiated  by  conscious  Jahwism'  (Hol- 
zinger  on  On  221'' 20).  As  to  the  commarnlroent  of  Ex  22'-»,— 
'the  firstborn  of  thy  sons  Shalt  thou  give  unto  me,'— it  is  an 
exegetical  possibility  that  the  words  point  to  human  sacrifice ; 
but  as  a  normal  demand  of  OT  religion,  and  indeed  of  any 
Bane  religion,  it  iB  inconceivable  (see  art.  PaiKSTS  add  LBViru, 
p.  70''). 


SACRIFICE 


SACRIFICE 


335 


(c)  The  Corenant-Bacrifice  iaclosely  relat«<l  to  the  Peace-offering, 
fclthouifh  it  may  be  considered  to  be  intermedial*  between  the 
n^i'  and  the  njj.  The  pecuharity  Hea  partly  in  the  specific 
object,— which  in  to  seal  a  compact,  partly  in  the  rilual.  Ac- 
cordinif  to  antique  practice  tlie  lonnution  of  a  covenant  or  an 
alliance  waa  sealed  by  a  variety  of  rites.  One  form  is  the 
Bprinklincof  each  party  with  the  other's  blood,  or  the  coinDiing- 
Ung  of  the  blood  of  both  by  smearing  it  upon  stones.  In  a 
second  form  animal  blood  is  employed.  Another  is  the  partition 
of  a  carcase,  with  the  paisiii^'eoi  the  covenantinij  parties  between 
the  divided  parts.  Of  the  latter  custom  there  is  an  evident 
trace  in  1  S  11'.  After  being  chosen  as  king,  Saul  '  took  a  yoke 
of  oxen  and  cut  them  in  pieces,  and  sent  them  throughout  all 
the  borders  of  Israel.'  In  the  text  it  is  interpreted  as  a  threat 
of  a  like  fate  being  visit«d  upon  rebels ;  but  the  form,  which  is 
reminiscent  of  the  passage  through  a  sundered  %ictim,  rather 
conveys  an  invitation  to  the  tribes  to  join  with  him  in  a  cove- 
nant. The  form  is  also  recognizable  in  the  ritual  employed  in 
God's  covenant  with  Abraham  (Gn  15).  A  heifer,  a  ram,  and  a 
she-goat  are  sundered  in  twain;  and  after  nightfall  a  flaming 
torch,  which  clearly  represents  God  in  its  action,  passes  between 
the  divided  pieces.  Another  noteworthy  feature  oi  the  narra- 
tive is  that  at  first  birds  of  prey  descend  upon  the  carcase  and 
are  driven  away— not  improbably  a  deliberate  repudiation  of  the 
ancient  practice  of  exposing  the  god's  portion  to  he  consimied 
bv  wild  creatures  (v.").  The  second  important  instance  of  the 
Covenant-sacrifice  connects  itself  with  the  usage  of  cementing 
an  alliance  by  an  interchange  of  blood.  At  the  making  of  the 
covenant  between  Jehovah  and  His  emancipated  people,  Burnt- 
offerings  and  Pea';e-offering8  are  sacrificed;  and  in  connexion 
with  the  burnt-offering,  as  it  would  seem,  Moses  pours  half  of 
the  blood  upon  the  altar  for  God,  while  the  other  half  is  sprinkled 
on  the  peojile  (Ex  240  »).  in  this  ti-pe  of  sacrifice  a  different 
idea  from  tnat  of  propitiating  God  by  a  gift  is  clearly  preserved 
—that,  ^iz.,  of  the  establishment  of  communion  of  Ufe  through 
assimilation  of  the  same  blood. 

id)  V-fjetahle  nfcrings  were  later  in  origin,  and  in  less  repute, 
but  must  have  fonned  an  important  division  of  the  offerings  at 
the  sanctuaries.  Meal,  baked  into  cakes,  was  doubtless  a 
common  form  of  oflering  (Jg  6^^,  1  S  1^).  The  most  interesting 
example  of  this  class  is  the  bukwkkbad  (o^r?  ^O!?*  *?""*  I^utioi, 

c(.  Lv  24W-)-  Tl'i^  ofTering,  even  as  regards  the  number  of  the 
loaves,  is  anticipated  in  the  far  older  Babylonian  ritual  (Zini- 
nicm,  lieitrage).  The  ritual  in  the  first  stage  followed  the 
method  of  exposure — the  bread  being  laid  out  on  a  table  in  the 
sanctuarj- ;  but  the  Divine  portion  is  conveyed  to  the  Deity  in 
•he  end  by  being  allotted  to  the  priests.  The  vegetable  ofTer- 
Ings.  it  should  he  added,  were  often  associated  with  animal 
offerings.  The  Book  of  the  Covenant  prohibits  the  use  of 
leavei:cd  bread  in  connexion  with  the  Sacrificial  Feast  (Ex  2;il«). 
(e)  The  Libation  was  originally  a  libation  of  blood,  possibly  at 
a  later  stage  of  milk  and  of  water  (1  S  7'^  2  S  23if>  preserve  a 
recollection  of  the  latter),  but  in  tlie  historical  period  the  chief 
material  is  oil,  wliich  also  naturally  went  along  with  the  cereal 
ofTerings.  The  rarity  of  the  mention  of  the  libation  of  wine, 
which  was  certainly"  in  use,  is  not  improbably  connected  with 
the  incongruity  to  more  elevated  thought  of  the  idea  of  ofTering 
to  God  a  festal" banquet,  and  also  with  offlcial  opposition  to  the 
excesses  to  which  the  prominence  of  this  element  led  (1  S  l''*). 
Tliere  could  not  be  wanting  an  instinct  that  the  hbation  of  wine 
was  most  in  harmony  with  the  unethical  genius  of  heathendom. 

V,  The  Phoi'Iiets  as  Refokmers  of  Sacri- 
ficial Worship.  —  The  sacrificial  system  of 
ancient  Israel  was  the  result  of  a  long  and  com- 
plex format  ive  process.  A  remote  heathen  past 
supplied  the  rudimentary  forms,  and  these  had 
under^'one  modifi(-ation  under  the  influence  of  a 
progressive  civilizjil  ion,  and  of  the  early  stages  of 
a  gradual  revelation.  The  system  of  ordinances 
thus  historically  given  was  now  to  be  subjected  to 
a  testing  ordeal.  The  knowledge  of  God  and  of 
His  will,  which  had  been  conveyed  through  ilis 
dealings  with  Israel,  and  which  had  been  under- 
stood in  essence  by  Moses,  attained  to  great  clear- 
ness and  consistency  in  the  consciousness  of  the 
8th  century  propliots ;  and,  possessed  as  they 
were  by  this  knowledge,  they  were  comp'llcd  to 
examine  in  its  light  the  past  and  the  future  of  the 

Seople,  and  to  sit  in  juagment  on  all  the  present 
oingB  of  the  house  OI  Israel.  In  particular,  they 
eould  not  hut  ask  whether  the  sacrificial  cult, 
which  to  popular  thinking  was  all  but  coextensive 
with  religion,  was  needed  and  justilied  in  view  of 
the  better  knowledge  of  (iod.  As  a  fact  this  was  a 
subject  which  bulked  largely  in  their  teaching  ;  it 
lupplied  the  occasion  of  much  of  their  strongest 
Invective  ;  and  so  unqualified  was  their  denuncia- 
tion that  it  is  a  debatable  question  whether  tliey 
proposed  the  abolition  of  all  sacrificial  worsliip,  or 
only  its  reform. 


That  the  religious  ideal  of  the  prophets  involved  the  abolitioa 
of  sacrifice,  as  attirnK-d  by  various  mo<lern  writers,  is  a  thesis 
which  rests  on  a  partial  view  of  the  evidence.  'Their  opposi- 
tion to  sacrifice,*  says  Kayser,  'was  founded  on  principle, 
and  the  real  significance  of  their  language  is:  "No  offermg, 
but  love  and  right  knowledge  of  God"^  {Altteet.  Theol.^  p. 
hMS).  This,  it  is  held,  is  the  natural  sense  of  a  group  r)( 
passages  which  represent  God  as  declining  offerings,  as  sated 
with  ihem,  and  even  loathing  them.  'To  what  purpose 
is  the  multitude  of  your  sacrifices  to  me?  I  delight  not 
in  the  blood  of  bullocks,  or  of  lambs,  or  of  he-goats.  Bring 
no  more  vain  oblations'  (Is  lUff.,  cf.  Am  .')2i  25^  Hqs  6-*-*',  Mic 
ti^ff.).  Hut  such  expressions  may  as  naturally  be  understood  of 
a  conditional  as  of  an  absolute  rejection  of  sacrifice.  The 
people  addressed  was  a  sinful  nation,  persisting  in  ita  sins, 
and  the  repudiation  of  offerings  at  its  hand  by  no  means 
implied  that  sacrifice  would  be  equally  uiiucce}»table  at  the 
hand  of  a  penitent  and  regenerate  people  (cf.  Suiend,  Altleat. 
Theol.  p.  168).  And  the  view  that  the  rei>udiation  is  merely 
conditional  is  borne  out  by  hints  that  accompany  the  more 
extensive  prophetic  prospects.  Thus,  Hoi^ea  looks  forward  to 
the  cessation  of  sacrifice  as  a  national  punislnnent  or  calamity 
(349111.);  Isaiah  predicts  that  the  E^'yptians  will  bring  sacrifice 
and  oblation  to  Jehovah  (11)-').  while  Jeremiah  very  emphati- 
cally includes  sacrifices  in  the  purified  worship  of  the  future 
(;i3if*  172C).  In  short,  those  who  regard  the  prophets  as  aboli- 
tionists make  a  mistake  which  is  common  in  studying  polemics 
—viz.  of  misconceiving  an  attack  on  abuses  as  an  attack  on  the 
institution  which  they  have  infected. 

A  second  argument  adduced  is  that  the  prophets  lay  great 
stress  on  the  fact  that  in  the  Mosaic  period  sacrifice  was 
neither  rendered  nor  ordained  (Am  5^5,  Jer  T^i-*'"),  whereby 
they  are  supposed  to  claim  for  a  policy  of  abolition  the  sanc- 
tion of  a  sacred  period  of  antiquity.  These  remarkable  pas- 
sages are  of  great  weiglit  in  the  controversy  as  to  the  Mosaic 
contribution  to  sacrificial  legislation,  but  in  the  present  con- 
nexion they  are  not  convincmg.  That  Israel  did  not  sacrifice 
during  its  wanderings  (Am  525)  ^as  not  necessarily  an  argument 
for  cessation,  but  might  equally  have  in  view  to  win  tlie  people 
to  a  doctrine  which  certainly  was  included  in  the  prophetic 
programme— viz.  that  the  place  of  sacrifice  in  worship  was  not 
the  all-important,  or  even  pre-eminent,  one  that  was  commonly 
supposed. 

The  prophetic  progrnmme  of  reform  in  this 
field  embraced  both  sacrihcial  practice  and  sacri- 
hcial  theory.  (1)  Among  the  practical  reforms 
the  foremost  place  belonged  to  (a)  the  prohihi- 
Hon  of  hcathf.n  sacrifices  —  i.e.  those  ottered  to 
other  gods,  to  idols  (Hos  ll^,  Jer  IP*),  to  the 
dead  (Ps  106^),  and  to  sacred  animals  (Ezk  8^"). 
In  connexion  with  these  the  practice  of  kissing 
the  idol  is  noticed  (Hos  13-*).  To  the  class  of 
heathen  sacrifices  we  maj'  also  refer  those  mystic 
rites  in  which  the  victim  was  an  unclean  or  re- 
pulsive creature  (the  swine  Is  65"*,  the  mouse  61)"), 
and  which  ma}'  have  been  an  underground  survival 
from  a  very  early  cult  (7t'.V-  p.  357  tl. ).  (6)  The 
prohibition  of  certain  Iritnis  of  sacrifice  is  also 
enforced — notably  human  sacriiicea  (Ezk  20*^).  It 
is,  moreover,  dilticult  to  resist  the  impression,  in 
view  of  the  disparaging  references  to  the  number 
and  costliness  of  the  ollerings  (Is  1",  Mic  iV, 
Am  4^  Ezk  2(i^).  tliat  the  school  preferred  fewer 
kinds  and  greater  simplicity.  In  particular, 
antagonism  to  the  Sacrihcial  Peast  is  strongly  sug- 
gested by  (r)  condemrnytion  of  the  excesses  which 
connected  themselves  with  the  sacrificial  cult.  The 
sacritices  of  this  type  naturally  gave  occasion  for 
revelry,  and  even  for  drunken  and  licentious  orgies 
{Hos  4'^  Am  2^),  and  thus  an  institution  conceived 
to  honour  God  became  a  main  instrument  in  pro- 
moting a  national  corruption,  which  called  down 
the  vengeance  of  Heaven.  While,  therefore,  w<^ 
cannot  regard  the  prophets  as  against  sacrilice  in 
principle,  it  is  at  least  a  probable  view,  in  con- 
sideration of  the  organic  connexion  of  tlie  sacri- 
ficial meal  with  the  indulgence  of  tleshly  lusts, 
that  they  meant  to  discountenance  the  Peace- 
otl'ering  as  the  mjiin  source  of  evil,  and  laboured  to 
enhnnce  the  credit  of  those  other  varieties  which 
pre<*lnded  its  characteristic  temptations. 

(2)  It  was,  however,  on  the  theoretical  side  tbnr 
the  projihetical  protest  went  deepest,  and  uu>st 
loudly  challengetl  the  existing  order,  (a)  It  de- 
manilcd  a  revision  of  the  popular  estimate  of  tlie 
place  of  the  cultus  in  religion,  and  in  a  minor  degree 
of  the  place  of  sacrihco  in  the  cultus.    The  current 


536 


SACRIFICE 


SACRIFICE 


conception  was  that  religious  ordinances  were  the 
grand  means  of  pleasing  God,  and  to  this  the 
prophets  sliarply  opposed  the  doctrine  that  in  God's 
view  ceremonies  are  unimportant  in  comparison 
with  morality.  Latent  in  Mosaism,  this  view 
found  strikin"  expression  in  a  saj^ing  already 
quoted — '  to  ohey  is  better  than  sacrifice,  and  to 
hearken  than  the  fat  of  rams,'  1  S  15-^.  It  is 
the  main  burden  of  the  prophecy  of  Amos,  and 
finds  its  classic  expression  in  the  '  what  doth  the 
Lord  require  of  thee?'  of  Micah  (G"*-,  of.  Hos  6«, 
Pr  17'  21').  The  secondary  importance  of  the 
cultus,  in  fact,  was  the  obvious  consequence  of 
the  soteriology  of  the  prophets.  According  to 
tlieir  teaching  it  wa.s  only  on  condition  of  right- 
eousness, after  backsliding  on  condition  of  repent- 
ance and  amendment,  that  the  Divine  favour  could 
be  ensured  ;  failing  the  fulfilment  of  this  condi- 
tion, ceremonial  religion  only  provoked  the  Di^^ne 
anger  ;  and  it  was  therefore  out  of  the  question  to 
treat  the  two  as  of  co-ordinate  rank.  And,  further, 
even  within  the  sphere  of  the  cultus  it  is  not  granted 
that  it  is  the  all-important  form  of  'service.'  Hosea 
attaches  high  importance  to  the  teaching  function 
of  the  priests  (4*),  while  in  more  than  one  passage 
preference  is  manifestly  exhibited  for  the  exercises 
of  prayer  ('  calves  of  the  lips,'  Hos  14-)  and  for 
sacred  song  (Ps  27'). 

(i)  The  significance  of  sacrifice  for  the  prophets 
remains  to  be  considered.  With  the  cultus  thus 
depreciated,  and  the  pre-eminence  of  sacrifice  in  the 
cultus  challenged,  in  what  sense  was  it  possible 
to  maintain  its  efficacy  ?  After  what  has  been 
already  said,  it  is  inconceivable  that  they  supposed 
it  to  be  acceptable  to  God  In  the  capacity  of  a 
gift.  The  God  who  claimed  the  whole  life  for 
duty  was  not  likely  to  be  influenced  hy  a  present 
or  a  meal.  And  from  the  point  of  view  of  their 
high  theology  the  Gift-theory  fell  to  the  ground 
as  untenable,  even  ridiculous.  In  the  first  place, 
God  did  not  experience  the  wants  which  the  ofl'er- 
ings  supplied  ;  in  the  second  place,  even  if  He  did, 
the  oiterings  were  already  God's  property,  not 
man's  to  present  (condensed  in  Ps  51)'").  If  sacri- 
fice had  any  efficacy  at  all,  it  needed  another 
explanation  for  those  who  had  realized  the  true 
God.  This  it  possessed  as  a  vehicle  for  the  ex- 
pression of  the  sentiments,  and  for  the  revelation 
of  the  spirit  of  the  life,  of  those  who  sincerely 
served  or  sought  God.  Its  efficacy,  in  short,  was 
neither  more  nor  less  than  that  of  prayer,  which, 
on  its  part,  is  of  value  not  as  an  act  considered  in 
itself,  but  in  virtue  of  the  aspirations  and  the 
sincerity  which  find  voice  in  it.  That  in  the  pro- 
phetic valuation  the  function  of  sacrifice  was 
identical  with  that  of  prayer,  cannot  indeed  be 
conclusively  proved,  but  it  is  the  view  which  best 
harmonizes  with  their  religious  theory ;  and  it 
derives  confirmation  from  several  considerations. 
In  the  patriarchal  narratives,  which  embody  a 
measure  of  the  prophetic  spirit,  it  is  usually 
associated  closely  with  the  prayer  of  adoration 
and  petition,  suggesting  that  the  spoken  word 
serves  the  purpose  of  making  the  action  articu- 
late. In  the  case  of  the  sacrifice  of  Abel,  again, 
the  ground  of  accejitance  manifestly  was  the 
disposition  of  the  worshipper,  which  disposition 
prayer  equally  with  sacrifice  would  have  served 
to  bring  to  expression.  Especially  significant  is 
the  fact  that  in  certain  passages  the  ofl'ering  of 
words  is  demanded  (Hos  14-)  —  the  implication 
being  that  they  served  the  same  purpose  as  sacri- 
fice in  making  the  ap[>e.il  of  i>rayer  to  God,  and 
that  they  were  preferable  in  that  they  were  less 
likely  to  foster  evil  practices  and  to  encourage 
superstition. 

The  Dcnteronomic  Reformation  made  the  influ- 
ence of  the  prophetic  school  to  tell  along  another  line 


on  the  development  of  the  sacrificial  system.  The 
suppression  of  the  local  sanctuaries,  and  the  con- 
solidation of  worship  in  Jerusalem,  which  had  its 
spring  in  prophetic  inspiration,  had  far-reaching 
consequences.  One  immediate  consequence  was 
to  detach  sacrifice  from  the  everyday  life  of  the 
people,  and  to  reduce  it  in  the  main  to  an  element 
in  the  worship  in  which  national  religion  found 
expression.  Naturally  also  the  Sacrificial  Feast 
ceased  to  be  as  practicable  as  when  it  had  been 
observed  in  their  several  districts  by  the  smaller 
units  of  the  family  and  the  clan,  and  it  tended  to 
give  place  to  the  type  of  the  holocaust  in  which 
the  people  looked  on  at  the  consumption  of  the 
offerings  in  the  service  of  God,  whether  directly 
or  by  His  priests.  With  the  decay  of  the  Sacri- 
ficial Feast,  moreover,  the  spirit  of  worship  was 
altered — the  joy  of  the  table  being  swallowed  up 
in  a  deepening  sense  of  the  solemnity  of  the  col- 
lective worship,  and  of  the  more  imposing  rites 
to  which  it  gave  prominence  (Wellh.  Proleg.  Eng. 
tr.  p.  76  fi'.;  Nowack,  Arch.  ii.). 

Sacrifice  in  Deuteronoiny. — \AliiIe  in  general  Deut.  rf  fleets  the 
prophetic  doctrine  of  the  superiority  of  morality  to  csreniony. 
It  is  far  from  representing  the  abolitionist  standpoint  ascribed 
to  Amos.  Its  list  of  offerings  includes  burnt-offerinjs-s,  peace- 
olTerings,  heave-offerings,  votive-offerings,  free-will  offerings, 
first-fruits,  while  it  prohibits  human  sacrifices  (181*5),  t^e  drink- 
ing of  blood  (12'.^),  hair-offerings  and  mutilations  {14iX  Among 
its  leading  interests  are  to  conserve  somewhat  of  the  jojous  char- 
acter of  sacrifice  in  spite  of  the  centralization  of  worship  (12^,  and 
to  ensure  a  sufficient  portion  to  the  priestjs  from  the  sacrifices, 
— in  the  case  of  animal  offerings  the  shoulder,  two  cheeks,  and 
the  maw  (183).  The  animal  victim,  it  is  also  emphasized,  must 
be  without  blemish  (171).  The  sacrifice  in  expiation  of  an 
uncertain  murder  (21^)  is  interesting  for  its  peculiar  ritual, 
manifestly  antique,  while  it  is  obviously  excepted  from  the 
centralization  of  the  worship. 

vi.  The  Sacrificial  System  of  the  Priestly 
Code. — With  tlie  downfall  of  the  kingdom  of 
Judah,  involving  the  destruction  of  the  Temple 
and  the  deportation  of  the  people,  Hosea's  pre- 
diction of  the  cessation  of  sacriticial  worship  was 
fulfilled.  Whatever  relief  individuals  might  there- 
after find  in  recurrence  to  simple  forms  of  offering, 
or  by  conforming  to  heathenism,  the  nation  as 
such,  broken  as  it  was  and  dispersed,  was  deprived 
of  the  stated  means  of  communion  with  God.  Yet 
the  visitation  which  had  thus  overwhelmed  Judah, 
and  reduced  its  institutions  to  ruins,  was  not  in- 
terpreted by  its  religious  leaders  as  a  Divine 
condemnation  of  its  system  of  worship.  The 
WTitings  of  Ezekiel  bear  testimony  to  the  hopes 
of  a  great  prophet  touching  the  restoration  of  the 
Temple  and  its  solemn  ordinances.  The  priests 
who  escaped  into  exile  carried  with  them  a  minute 
knowledge  of  the  Temple  services,  possibly  also 
written  summaries  of  the  rules  that  had  governed 
the  elaborate  system  of  otl'erings  and  ritual ;  and 
it  may  well  be  believed  that,  ere  tlie  Temple  with 
its  solemn  rites  faded  from  living  memory,  it  was 
realized  to  be  a  pious  duty  to  compile  a  faithful 
record  of  the  ancient  sanctities  and  glories. 
Cherished  as  a  monument  of  the  past,  this  record 
naturally  became,  in  the  prospect  of  a  new  national 
existence,  the  basis  of  a  practical  religious  jiro- 
gramme.  The  dream  of  restoring  the  old  worship 
on  the  old  sacred  gi'ound,  in  a  second  Temple  of 
Jerusalem,  was  one  wliicli  must  have  irresistibly 
appealed  to  the  pious  exile.  But  restoration  did 
not  preclude  adaptation  and  amendment.  Novel  cir- 
cumstances, foreign  impressions,  deeper  reflexion, 
required  that  the  legacy  from  the  piast  should  be 
handled  with  freedom  as  well  as  with  piety.  The 
result  of  the  two  factors — obscure  as  was  the  pro- 
cess— was  the  Priestly  Code,  which  was  adopted 
as  authoritative  at  the  Reformation  under  Ezra, 
c.  444,  and  which  thenceforward  regulated  Jewish 
worship  and  gave  its  characteristic  note  to  Jewish 
religion.     The  sacrificial  system  described  in  this 


SACRIFICE 


SACRIFICE 


337 


code  (Leviticus,  Ex  25-31.  35-40,  Nu  1-10.  15-19. 
25-36)  we  have  now  to  analyze. 

1.  Fot-ms  of  SacriJice.—'i'Uc  arrangement  of  the 
complicated  enactments  of  the  code  lias  been  at- 
tcniiitBd  in  ditleient  ways,  but  the  more  satisfactory 
method  is  to  adopt  as  the  leading  clue  the  distinc- 
tion of  kinds  and  varieties.  Tlie  cliissilication  of 
the  Levitical  sacrifices  may,  however,  be  carried 
out  from  dill'erent  points  of  view. 

The  main  principle  of  division  has  been  sought 
in  the  distinction  of  the  subjects  oa  behalf  of  whom 
sacrihces  were  ollered. 

It  is  on  this  principle  that  Malmonlrles  haor-s  his  interesting 
and  instructive  suinniary  ot  the  auorilicial  laws  (J'r(rlatio  in 
quintain  J/uiiice  iiiirli-m',  iii.  IIT.)-  Tin-  viirieliis,  he  premises, 
may  all  be  reduced  to  four  groups — the  Sin-offcriug,  tlie  Guilt- 
offering,  the  Durnt-offcring,  and  the  Peace-oflering  ;  and  the 
Tictinis  were  o(  Ove  species— sheep,  cattle,  goats,  young  pigeons, 
and  turtlenioves.  In  reference  to  the  subjects,  his  classification 
(sligbtlv  transposed)  is  as  follows  : — 

1.  Sacrifices  offered  on  behalf  of  the  whole  congregation  :— 
(o)  in  the  exercise  ot  its  ordinary  religious  duty,  under  a 
■Uted  ritual,  and  tied  to  stated  occasions  (Saljhath,  New 
Moon,  F<;ists) ;  (^)  on  the  occasion  o(  some  collective  or 
public  traiis^rression. 

2.  Sacrilicea  oiTered  on  behalf  of  the  individual :— (a)  in  virtue 
of  his  r-onnexion  with  the  theorratic  community  as  an  official 
or  ordinary  member,  e.ti,  the  Pawover ;  (h)  on  a  special  occa- 
aion— «.£/.  a  sin  of  word  or  deed,  a  bodily  accident,  amisfor- 
tune  in  business,  the  end  of  a  flxcd  period,  the  obligation  of  a 
vow. 

The  Levitical  sacrifices  have  also  been  classi- 
fied with  reference  to  the  dill'erent  ends  which  they 
served  in  the  approach  to  the  Deity. 

The  usual  division  from  this  point  of  view  is  into  horunrijie, 
designed  to  render  due  homage  to  Ood,  and  piacular  or  ex- 
piaturii,  designed  to  make  atonement  for  sin— to  wliich,  since 
W.  R.  Smith's  work,  it  luis  been  usual  lo  add  sacrifices  of  cum- 
munion.  The  distinction  wliich  (lihler  lays  at  the  basis  of  his 
discussion  is  expressed  by  him  (Tlienlog;/  of  OT,  Eng.  tr.  p.  423) 
as  follows  :— '  We  refer  the  tour  kinds  of  offering  to  two  higher 
classes— those  which  assume  that  the  covenant  relation  is  on 
the  whole  undisturbed  (Peace^)frerings),  and  those  tliatare 
meant  to  do  awav  with  a  disturbance  which  has  entered  into 
this  relation,  and'  again  to  restore  the  right  relation  (of  the 
peojile  or  of  separate  individuals)  to  Ood '  (Burnt-,  Sin-,  and 
Uuilt-offeriugs). 

The  division  founded  on  the  distinctions  of 
the  sacrificial  maierinl  —  animal,  vegetable,  or 
liquid — is  the  most  obvious,  and  may  be  followed 
here  as  of  adequate  importance,  while  not  pre- 
judging the  difficult  question  of  the  purpose  of 
sacrifice. 

(i. )  Animal  sacrifices  are  by  far  the  most  im- 
portant, and  in  P  it  appears  that  a  re-valuation 
has  taken  place  of  the  two  ancient  types.  The 
Peaceofiering  of  which  the  worshippers  claimed  a 
large  sliare  is  overshadowed  by  the  feurntoHering, 
with  which  are  now  associated  two  kindred  sacri- 
fices—the  Sin-offering  and  the  G  nil  t-oU'eriug,  falling 
to  (jod  and  Uis  ministers. 

(o)  The  Burnt-otrerlng  (n^'y  Lv  1,  Ex  29»<«,  No  JS"-, 
Lv  CI'),  which  stands  at  the  head  ot  the  group,  owes  its 
position  to  the  fact  that  its  juirpose  was  the  most  general,  that 
the  victims  were  ot  pre-eminent  value,  anrl  that  at  this  stage  it 
was  regarfled  as  most  pertectlv  emlwdying  the  sacriticial  idea 
(Knoliel-Dillmann  on  Lv  1^).  (l)  Tht  viclinis  \yere  the  oxkind, 
sheep,  goats,  turtloKiovcs.  or  young  pigeons, — in  the  case  of  the 
animals  it  was  prescribed  that  the  victim  should  be  a  male,  as 
the  more  valuable,  and  without  blemish  (1»,  tor  a  list  of 
blemishes  of.  2a*-^).    (2)  The  riltuit  to  tje  observed  includes  the 


following  points  in  the  cise  of  the  animal  victims  : — (n)  Action 
ofl/if  o/Vrer — imposition  of  lianrls  (Lv  H),  slaughter  of  the  victim 
at  the  door  of  the  tabernacle,  to  the  north  of  the  altar  (vv.s-  n)^ 


flaying  and  cutting  uj)  the  carcase  (v.s^,  washing  of  the  entrails 
and  legs  (v.f).  (X)  Action  of  the  /jncnf— manipulation  of  the 
bloo<l  which  is  sprinlded  aliout  the  alt-ir  (v.B),  disposition  of  the 
pieces  upon  the  woisl  of  the  altar  (v. S),  burning  the  o(TtTing(v,i'). 
The  dove  was  killed  by  the  priest,  and  its  crop  and  feathers 
were  flung  a«lde  as  unsuitable  (v.l*'r-).  In  the  above  ritual 
the  occasion  presupposed  is  a  private  sacrifice,  which  might  lie 
rendered  as  the  result  of  a  vow  or  spontaneously  (22"*).  (.()  The 
oeceunni^  of  this  sacrifice  were  in  the  main  connected  with  the 
collective  worship,  of  which  it  formed  the  chief  eienienl.  The 
daily  services  ot  the  temple  consistetl  ot  the  continual  Biimt- 
•Bering  (I'ljp  n^V),  wherein  a  he-lamb  was  offered  every 
VOL,  IV. — 22 


moniing  and  evening,  accompanied  hv  cereal  oblations  and  by 
libalions(Kx3n3»«',  Nu28>-»).  On  holy  days  it  was  celebrated 
on  a  magnilled  scale  :  on  the  Sabbath  two  pairs  of  lambs  were 
offered  (N  u  2^^' ^^)  ;  at  the  New  Moon,  at  the  Passover,  and  at  the 
Feast  of  Weeks  it  consisted  of  two  bullocks,  a  ram,  and  seven 
he-lambs,  with  corresponding  iiicrta--<-  of  the  concomitant 
offerings  (v. 11").— T/ie  purpote  o/  the  liuriit-offering  may  be  so 
far  understood  from  its  use  as  tlie  constant  element  in  the 
organized  worship  of  the  community.  It  was  not  connected 
with  anv  particular  form  of  transgression,  hut  was  appropriate 
as  the  means  of  approach  to  God  ot  a  people,  or  ot  individual 
persons,  sensible  of  God's  majesty  and  holiness,  and  of  their 
standing  in  Uis  sight.  The  effects  are  described  from  three 
points  of  view— that  it  isa  'savour  ot  rest-giving'  (i.e.  acceptable) 
to  God  (n'in'}"n'l  Lv  1'),  that  it  surrounds  the  worshipper  with 
a  '  covering'  (v^;;  nj;^  1^),  and  that  it  cleanses  from  ceremonial 
Impurity  (14=0).    On  this  point  see  Propitiation,  §  4. 

The  later  period  of  the  monarchy  \yas  a  period 
of  national  calamities,  culminating  in  ruin  and 
exile,  which  were  inleipreted  by  the  piophets  as 
a  judgment  upon  national  sin.  Under  these  con- 
ditions there  was  naturally  a  strong  disposition  to 
strengthen  the  nation's  interest  with  Jehovah  by 
the  nuilti[)lication  of  solemn  sacrifices,  and  during 
the  Exile  future  safety  might  well  seem  to  lie  in 
the  development  of  the  system  of  bloody  sacri- 
fices. It  is  thus  th.at  the  tact  has  been  plausibly 
accounted  for  that  two  kinds  of  sacrifice,  which 
occur  only  in  name  in  the  earlier  history,  figure  in 
Ezekiel  somewhat  prominently,  while  in  P  they 
almost  rival  in  importance  the  liurnt-ottering. 
These  are  the  Sin-oUering  and  the  Uuilt-oUering 
(AV  Trespass-offering). 

(6)  The  Sin-offering  (njien,  LXX  {i»l  ripl  or  i^rif  i/iccprw)  is 
mentioned  2  K  121',  init  there  signifies  presents  or  fines  paid  to 
the  priests.  In  EzeUiul  the  special  occasions  on  which  it  is 
prescribed  are  the  dedication  ot  the  altar  (43i»"),  the  annual 
cleansing  of  the  sanctuary  (45i'-lf),  the  consecration  of  prince 
and  peojiie  on  festal  occasions,  including  Passover  week  (4.1—  '^1), 
and  the  return  of  a  priest  to  duty  after  purification  (44'-!).  In 
the  ritual  the  outstanding  features  are  tlie  sprinkling  ot  the 
blood  of  the  victim  on  the  doorposts  of  the  temple  (4013)  and 
on  the  four  horns  of  the  altar  (4;i'-'"),  and  the  burning  of  the 
carcase  without  the  sanctuary  (v.'-l).  The  regulations  of  P  may 
bethussumniarized:— (1)  Beneficiaries  ami  aijprnpriate  iiictiins. 
For  a  ruler  the  suitable  offering  was  a  he-goat  (Lv  4'^).  for  an 
ordinary  person  a  she-goat  (4'-'),  a  ewe-lamb  U^-),  a  turtle  dove 
or  young  pigeon  (f)""),  or  a  cereal  offering  (fill) ;  for  priests  (48), 
Levites  at  their  installation  (Nu  88),  and  for  the  whole  congrega- 
tion (Lv  4'-'),  a  bullock,  tor  the  latter  also  a  he-goat  (Nu  16^). 
On  the  IJay  ot  Atonement  a  bullock  was  offered  for  the  hijrh 
priest,  and  two  he-goats  for  the  congregation  (Lv  IC""  ).  (2)  'J  he 
ritual  included  the  following  acts  :  (u)  imposition  of  hands,  and 
slaughter  of  the  victim  by  the  offerer  (4<)  or  the  representa- 
tives of  the  cj)ngregation  (v.ic) ;  (d)  manipulation  ot  the  blood, 
which  was  sprinkled  before  the  veil,  smeared  on  the  horns  of 
the  altar,  and  poured  out  at  the  base  (v.7) ;  (c)  disposal  of  the 
carcase,  whereof  the  choice  and  fat  portions  were  burnt  on  the 
altar,  while  the  skin,  entrails,  and  (in  some  cases)  the  ordinary 
flesh  were  burned  without  the  camp  (v. 6").  The  remaining  llesh 
was  not  burnt,  but  fell  to  the  priests,  when  the  offering  did  not 
concern  themselves  (,'.13  lonar ).  (:i)  The  ohjrct  of  the  sacrifice  is 
otherwise  conceived  than  in  Ezekiel.  With  the  latter  it  mainly 
ajipears  as  a  service  of  consecration  for  holy  places,  in  P  it  is  de- 
signed for  the 'covering 'of  minor  offences  (Lv  6i-<i),  the  removal  of 
ceremonial  uncleannes8(12i'-"ii'-).and  alonenientfor  sinsof  ignor- 
ance (naj,'?  4'-  M  ^.  By  the  last  it  might  bo  understood,  either 
that  the'wrong-doer  was  ignorant  of  the  law.  or  that  he  acted  io 
forgetfulness  ot  the  law.  (4)  As  to  the  effect  of  the  sacrifice.  It 
is  declared  that  a  '  covering '  takes  place  and  the  sin  is  forgiven 
(428. 3i). 

(0  The  Gullt-offerlng,  AVTrespass-offering  (C'»'f:(LXX  niwif 
iyttixi,  TO  »rV  rXr./j.iMiXt.a.s,  n  i^.rjiti*"*"""], 'offence,'  then  repara- 
tion made  for  the  same),  occurs  in  this  general  sense  in  th» 
older  history  (1  S  63'^.,  2  K  12").  The  allusions  to  it  in  Er.ckiel 
are  incidental,  and  show  that  in  his  time  it  had  already  gained  a 
footing,  and  that  its  special  character  was  generally  understood 
(40^11 421S  44'^  4tt'-'").  — '"if  occasion  of  the  (luilt-offering,  according 
to  P,  is  unwitting  trespass  against  the  ordinances  ot  God,  in 
respect  either  of  holy  things  (Lv  lii'')  or  of  the  rights  of  property 
(Giif).  The  special  feature  ot  the  regulations  is  that  reparation 
is  demanded  for  the  trespass,  with  the  addition  ot  a  line,  ono- 
flfth  of  the  value  ot  the  thing  to  bo  restored,  which  goes  to  the 
priest  (!ii«).  Where  the  injury  is  a  private  wrong,  restitution  is 
niaile  to  the  injured  party,  failing  whom  or  bis  heirs  it  goes  to 
the  priest  (Nu  13" ).— 'i'Ac  t'ii'fim  is  usuallv  a  ram  (.V),  and  the 
ritual  is  similar  to  that  ot  the  Sln.offering  (Lv  7').  The  '  cover- 
ing'  of  the  trespass  and  the  forgiveness  ot  the  oHender  follow 
upon  the  acceptance  ot  the  offering  (0'). 

The  distinction  of  the  Sin-ollering  and  the  Cuilt- 
offering  has  been  felt  to  be  a  matter  of  some  diffi- 


338 


iSACRIFICE 


SACRIFICE 


culty,  aggravated  by  the  fact  that  the  latter  was 
wron;^Iy  suppo.setl  to  be  in  view  in  Lv  o^*^^.  The 
principal  views  which  have  been  held  are — (1)  that 
the  Sin-otfering  was  for  sins  of  omission,  the  Guilt- 
olfering  for  sins  of  coinmb^sion  ;  (2)  that  the  former 
operated  objectively  by  averting  punishment,  the 
latter  subjectively  by  appeasing  the  conscience ; 
(3)  that  the  former  was  offered  because  of  open, 
tlie  latter  because  of  secret  sins.  Unmistakamy, 
however,  the  specific  feature  of  the  Ouilt-oflering 
is  the  preliminary  act  of  restitution ;  and  its 
occasion  would  thus  seem  to  be  those  cases  where 
the  sin  which  had  been  committed  allowed  of 
an  act  of  reparation.  The  Sin-ottering  was  re- 
quired in  cases  where  the  liarm  done  could  not 
be  undone  or  measured.  The  designation  of  the 
Buttering  Servant  as  a  Guilt-ottering  (Is  53^^  not 
*  ottering  for  sin')  indicates  that  the  highest 
degree  of  efficacy  was  ascribed  to  this  form  of 
ottering. 

In  the  ritual  of  the  Day  of  Atonement  the 
bloody  sacrittces  were  combined  in  an  impressive 
way,  and  invested  with  peculiar  features. 

(d)  The  Peace-offering  (-S?-,  D'pS^f'  nji,  LXX  unu»r.  [Bviria], 
rtn-Y.flio*)  is  brought  under  fixed  regulationg.  In  Lv  7nff-  three 
varieties  are  distinguished — (1)  thank-offerings  (nypin  n^i), 
(2)  votive  offerings  {^nj  njT),  and  (3)  free-vnll  offerings  (njl 
njTi).  The  view  of  Henystenberg,  that  the  thank-offering  is 
an  alternative  generic  name,  equivalent  to  peace-offering, 
and  that  the  votive  offering  and  the  free-^nll  offering  are 
the  speciea,  is  inconsistent  with  the  fact  that  a  different 
treatment  of  the  sacrificial  flesh  is  prescribed  for  (I)  as 
compared  with  (2)  and  (3).  As  to  the  distinction  of  the 
three  varieties,  the  most  satisfactory  explanation  is  that 
which  interprets  the  thank-offering  as  a  resjionse  to  experienced 
acts  of  Divine  goodness,  while  the  voti\e  offering  and  the 
free-will  offering  are  conmrcted  with  expectation  of  benefit 
and  supplicatory'  prayer.  The  first,  in  short,  was  contemplated 
only  after  blessmgs  received,  while  the  last  two  were  decided 
on  when  some  special  blessing  was  still  awaited  at  the  hand  of 
God.  The  supplicatory  pair,  again,  were  distinguished  in  this 
way,  that  the  free-will  offering  was  presented  in  support  of  the 
prayer,  while  the  votive  offering  was  promised  as  conditional  on 
the  granting  of  the  boon.  '  The  latter  did  not  need  to  be  pre- 
8ent«d  if  the  prayer  was  not  granted,  the  former  had  already 
been  presented,  even  if  the  request  continued  imfulfilled' 
(Kurtz,  Sac.  it'orship,  Eng.  tr.  p.  262). — (a)  The  iHciimsa.Te  the 
samtaAS  in  the  holocaust — oxen,  sheep,  and  goats,  but  not  pigeons. 
It  was  accompanied  by  a  cereal  offering  mingled  with  oil  (Lv  71-). 
In  view  of  the  less  solemn  character  of  this  offering,  the  regula- 
tions as  to  quality  are  relaxed  :  the  female  animal  is  allowed  as 
well  as  the  more  valuable  male  (Lv  3^),  and  for  the  free-will 
offering  the  principle  of  the  unblemished  character  is  not 
rigidly  insisted  on  (2223).  (b)  The  ritual  corresponded  in  its 
first  stages  with  that  of  the  Bunit-offering  and  the  Guilt- 
offering.  The  imposition  of  hands,  the  killing  of  the  victim,  and 
the  sprinkling  of  blood  upon  the  altar  are  common  to  it  with 
the  holocausts,  (c)  The  distribution  of  the  sacrifice  includes  God's 
portion  — consisting  of  fat  pieces  (33"),  the  priest's  portion — 
consisting  of  the  breast  (njn)  and  the  right  fore-1^  (PP'C  p'^P 
730.32)^  while  the  worshipper  received  the  residue.  The  parts 
assigned  to  the  priest  were  handled  in  a  peculiar  way,  on 
account  of  which  they  are  described  as  the  breast  of  the 
wave-offering,  and  the  thigh  of  the  heave-offering  (Kx  2927). 
The  ceremony  of  the  wave -offering  (hd^jpi,  ^jn)  consisted  in 
moving  the  portion  backwards  and  forwards  in  the  line  of 
the  altar,  with  a  motion  somewhat  similar  to  that  of  a  saw 
(Is  1015).  'The  swinging  in  a  forward  direction,'  says  Oehler, 
'  was  a  declaration  in  action  that  it  properly  belonged  to  Him  ; 
whilst  the  movement  back  again  denoted  that  God  on  His 
part  returned  the  gift,  and  assigned  it  as  His  own  present  to 
the  priest'  (I.e.  ii.  6).  The  handling  of  the  heave-ofTering 
(n"nn)  is  interpreted  in  a  similar  way  by  Kurtz,  following  the 
Jewish  tradition,  as  a  s^-mbolical  act,  whereby  the  offering  was 
presented  to  God  by  being  lifted  njiward  (I.e.  p.  269  ff.);  but 
according  to  most  moderns  heaving  wa^  not  an  act  of  worship, 
but  only  the  preliminary  act  of  detac-hing  a  portion  from  the 
rest  of  the  carnase  for  consecration  (see  Offer,  $  5).  In  any 
case  it  is  certain  that  the  mode  of  viewing  the  waving  must  soon 
have  extended  to  the  heading,  and  marie  it  equally  a  religious 
ceremony  and  a  vehicle  of  ideas  of  consecration.  The  breast 
which  was  waved  fell  to  Aaron  and  Ills  sons  (Lv  7^^),  the  heave- 
Bhoulder  to  the  officiating  priest  (733).  (,/)  The  portion  of  the 
tcitrghippers  waa  enjoyed  at  a  sacrificial  meal.  In  the  case  of 
the  thank-offering  the  whole  had  to  be  consumed  on  the  day  of 
the  sacrifice  (Lv  "i^^),  while  the  feast  furnished  by  the  two  other 
varieties  might  be  extended  over  the  second  day" (v. 16).  At  the 
end  of  the  fixed  time  the  remnants  were  burned  with  fire 
without  the  camp.  (e)The  effect  of  the  Peace-offering  is  only 
referred  to  in  a  general  way:  it  is  a  'savour  of  rest-giving' 
unto  the  Lord,  1.0.  acceptable  to  God  (Lv  3^ 


On  a  review  of  the  regulations  which  have  thue 
been  sketched,  it  appears  that  the  following  dis- 
tinctions may  be  drawn  : — (1)  In  respect  of  destina- 
tion, the  Peace-oiiering  stands  by  itself  as  a  sacri- 
licial  meal,  while  the  remaining  tnree  are  conveyed 
entire  to  (iod  or  to  God  and  His  ministers.  (2)  Jn 
respect  of  ritual,  certain  acts  are  common  to  all — 
the  imposition  of  hands,  the  sprinkling  of  blood  on 
the  altar,  the  burning  of  the  fat  portions,  but  the 
other  portions  are  either  burned  on  the  altar 
(Burnt-offering)  or  outside  the  sanctuary  (Sin- 
offering  and  Guilt-offering).  (3)  In  respect  of  occa- 
sion, two  were  elements  of  normal  public  wor- 
ship (Btimt-offering  and  Peace-offering),  two  pre- 
supposed exceptional  relations  between  God  on 
the  one  hand  and  the  community  or  the  individual 
on  the  other  (Sin-offering  and  Guilt-offering).  It 
is  indeed  too  much  to  say  that  in  connexion  with 
the  former  the  sacriHcer  always  stood  upon  the 
ground  of  salvation,  in  connexion  with  the  latter 
he  had  fallen  from  a  state  of  grace.  The  use  of 
the  Sin-offering  in  the  matter  ot  the  consecration  of 
temple  buildings  and  furniture  does  not  suggest 
the  rupture  of  covenant  relations,  nor  does  it 
appear  that  the  sacrificer  of  a  Guilt-offering  had 
fallen  from  a  state  of  grace  more  surely  than  any 
ordinary  member  of  the  community.  He  was 
probably  a  man  of  unusual  sanctity  and  tender- 
ness of  conscience,  and  the  point  was,  not  that  his 
sin  was  particularly  heinous,  but  only  that  it  was 
particularly  definite.  Moreover,  it  was  only  on 
the  assumption  that  he  was  still  *  in  a  state  of 
grace  '  that  he  was  allowed  to  sacrifice  at  all  :  for 
the  sins  which  led  God  to  cast  men  off  no  sacrifice 
was  accepted.  The  view,  in  short,  that  there 
were  two  classes  of  sacrifices  contemplating  re- 
spectively the  pardoned  and  the  unpardoned  is 
much  less  tenable  than  the  view  that  all  four 
were  at  one  in  contemplating  the  community  as 
being  in  a  state  of  guilt,  and  requiring  to  be 
constantly  reconciled  to  God.  They  have,  ic 
fact,  become — not  excepting  the  Peace-offering  in 
its  later  interpretation — piacular  sacrifices  which 
dispose  God  to  mercy,  procure  the  forgiveness  of 
sin,  and  avert  punishment.  Behind  this  lies  the 
question  as  to  the  ground  of  its  efficacy,  or  the 
viodu^  operandi,  which  in  view  of  its  importance 
will  be  treated  in  a  separate  section. 

(ii.)  Vegetable  offerings  consisted  of  the  produce 
of  the  tilled  field  and  of  the  vineyard,  but  not  of 
garden-herbs  or  the  fruits  of  the  orchard.  They 
were  sometimes  an  accompaniment  of  the  bloody 
sacrifice,  sometimes  independent. 

The  Meal-  (AV  Meat-)  offering  (vol.  iii.  p.  309)  (nijp  of  P, 
LXX  huffia)  was  a  preparation  of  flour  and  other  ingredients.  lo 
the  older  practite  tlie  quantities  probably  varied,  and  features 
of  the  later  pniclioe  which  have  been  noted  are  the  fixing  of 
the  measure  (Ezk  4tl5-  7-  n.  U)^  the  prohibition  of  leavened  bread 
and  honey  (Lv  2i')i  t^nd  the  substitution  for  ordinary  meal  of  a 
fine  sort  of  flour(Wellh.  i.c.p.  441).  (I)  Among  the  iiulepejuient 
Meal-offerinqs  we  place  the  list  in  Lv  2,  although  it  haa 
been  strongly  contended,  chiefly  on  dogmatic  grounds,  that 
a  bleeding  sacrifice  is  presupposed  as  a  basis  (see  ^e^iew 
of  opinions  in  Kurtz,  p.  304  ff.).  (a)  VnHetifs  are  distinguished 
according  to  the  different  processes  used  in  preparing  the 
flour,  viz.  kneading  it  with  oil,  baking  it  in  an  oven,  a  baking- 
pan,  or  a  frying-pan,  and  bruising  ears  of  com.  ('*)  Other 
ingredients  added  were,  in  all  cases  salt  (2^'X  in  most  case* 
oil,  in  one  case  incense  (v.l*).  Under  stress  of  poverty  a  cereal 
oblation  might  also  be  presented  as  a  Sin-offering,  but  with- 
out oil  or  incense  (5"^ )-  (c)  The  ritual  resembled  that  of  the 
Sin-offering  so  far  as  consistent  with  the  difference  of  material 
— a  portion  being  consumed  by  Are  on  the  altar,  while  the 
remainder  fell  to  the  priests  (Lv"614b).  (rf)  The  effects  of  cover- 
ing sin,  and  delivering  from  its  consequences,  are  .ascribed  to  it 
in  common  with  the  Sin-offering  (5i3,  but  see  Prohtiatios, 
5  11  g).  Special  effects  which  are  attributed  to  it  are  such  ai 
the  insurance  of  the  reliability  of  the  trial  by  ordeal  (Nu  6n'''.X 
where  oil  anri  incense  are  excluded. 

(2)  As  a.  enncomit ant  oftheanimnl  sacrifice*  the  Meal-offering 
had  a  prominent  place  in  the  sacrificial  sjTtem.  It  was  indeed 
laid  down  that  no  Burnt-offering  or  Peace-offering  was  legitimate 
without  the  cereal  oblation  (Nu  15.  2S.  29).  In  the  public 
worship  of  common  days  and  festivals  it  bore  a  stated  proper* 


J 


SACRIFICE 


SACRIFICE 


339 


tlon  to  me  number  and  material  of  the  hiirnt'Offerinps  (Nu 
)5iffV  Occasions  where  the  material  and  the  ritual  undergo 
Uiodiflcation  are  the  consecration  of  the  priests  (Lv  b'-*),  the 
pre^t-ritation  of  a  thank-off eriut;  (7^^),  and  the  Bocriflccs  of  the 
NiiziritefNuGlT). 

The  Shewbread  Is  regulated  by  a  minute  ritual  (Lv  24'"'"), 
specifyini:  the  material,  the  number  and  size  of  the  cakes, 
Uie  manner  of  their  arrangement  on  the  table,  and  the  use  of 
incense  (v.").  The  sacrosanct  character  of  the  offeriuij,  of  wiiich 
part  foil  to  the  priests,  is  emphasised,  and  it  seems  to  have  the 
epecial  signiflcanc^  of  recalling  toUod  the  terms  of  His  covenant 
(v.7).    See,  (urth  ^,  art.  Shkwbrbao. 

(iii.)  DrinJc-oJferings  and  Incense-offerings. — The 
libation  (t;?;,  LXX  (nrovS^)  appears  at  tliis  stage 
only  as  an  accompaniment  or  element  of  another 
kind  of  ottering. 

We  have  already  met  with  oil  as  an  ingredient  of  sacrificial 
cakes.  Ezck.  {Aifi*^-  46H)  and  P  (Numb.)  fix  the  quantity,  though 
with  variations,  required  in  consideration  of  the  number  and 
quality  of  the  victims.  Neither  in  this  case  nor  in  that  of  wine 
(Nu  18)  is  anything  said  of  the  manipulation  of  the  Prink- 
offering.  The  oil  was  probably  used  in  part  for  kneading,  in 
part  treated  as  a  libation.  The  wine  was  probably  poured  into 
a  gutter,  whence  it  drained  into  the  ground. 

On  the  Incente-ofering  (rrjbp,  LXX  BvutiuM.^  C'3p  ^'p^) 
•ee  art.  Incense  ;  and  on  other  fonns  which  would  fall  to  be 
Dociced  here,  see  First-fruits,  Titub,  and  art.  Priksts  and 
LlviTls,  patuiin, 

2.  The  Efficacy  of  the  Bloody  Sacrifices  is  of  such 
imj>ortance,  and  has  figured  so  largely  in  the 
history  of  theologj%  as  to  call  for  separate  treat- 
ment. Tiie  questions  that  have  to  be  discussed  are 
two — (1)  the  nature  of  tlie  benefits  which  were 
conceived  to  flow  from  the  sacrilicial  worship  ; 
(2)  tlie  manner  in  whicli  the  ollerings  were  con- 
ceived to  operate  so  as  to  procure  the  desiderated 
boons. 

( 1 )  The  Benefits  procured  by  sacrifice. — These  fall 
into  two  classes,  which,  to  our  thinking,  are  very 
clearly  distinguished.  In  one  group  of  cases  the 
purpose  is  the  cancelling  of  guilt,  in  tlie  other 
the  removal  of  cereuiuiiiai  uncleanuess.  In  otlier 
words,  sacriiice  has  both  a  moral  and  a  physical 
occasion. 

(rt)  Tlie  Expiation  of  guilt  is  the  leading  purpose 
of  the  Levitical  sacrilices.  Their  olfice  is  to  cover 
or  make  atonement  for  sin.  The  word  employed  to 
describe  this  specific  ellect  is  125.  This  elHcacy  is 
connected  with  all  four  kinds  of  principal  otl'erings : 
the  objects  of  the  covering  are  persons  and  sins, 
the  covering  takes  place  before  God,  and  it  stands 
in  a  specially  close  relation  to  the  sprinkling  of 
the  blood  and  the  burning  of  the  sacrilicial  liesh 
(Lv  1*  etc.).  The  view  that  the  main  purpose  of 
the  Levitical  sacrifices  was  the  obliteration  of 
guilt  has,  however,  been  traversed  by  Kitschl,  who 
finds  the  necessity  for  the  covering,  not  in  the 
moral  but  in  the  natural  attributes  of  God,  not  in 
the  sinfulness  but  in  the  creaturely  condition  of 
man  {Lehre  von  der  liechtfcrtigung  u.  Vemoknungt 
Bd.  iL). 

193,  originally  to  cover,  then  to  expiate — either  ae  pleasing 
Ood  by  covering  His  table,  or  by  hiding  from  His  sight  (cf.  old 
Babylonian  Bocritlrial  term  kijyjmrxt,  '  to  wash  away,  atone,' 
Zimmem.  op.  cit.,  Vorwort).  But  from  what,  acoonling  to 
Rltachl,  does  sacrifice  hide?  Throughout  the  OT  there  is  evi- 
dence for  the  belief  that  to  see  or  meet  with  God  involved 
destruction  fOn  8'230  Jacob,  Jg  fiS  nideon,  1322  Manoah),  and 
this  being  BO  it  was  necessary  to  take  measures  for  self -protect  ion. 
This  was  found  In  sacritlce.  '  From  the  majesty  of  ii<Hl  per  m 
tbe  destruction  follows  of  those  who  come  before  His  face  as 
perishable  creatures — provided  that  their  life  is  not  jireserveti 
of  divine  R-race'  (p.  203  fT.)-  To  the  common  view,  which  makes 
the  ancrillce  an  atonement  for  sin,  Hitachi  objecte  that  it  is  in- 
credible  that  God  would  have  prescribed  for  His  covenant 
people  a  system  which  presuppost-d  that  they  were  to  be  per- 
manently under  Ilia  wrath.  Hut  we  have  no  analysis  of  the 
consciousneas  of  thosi;  witnessing  a  thcophnny  which  makes  it 
clear  that  It  was  the  mere  presence  of  God,  nut  of  God  as  Imly 
that  led  the  Israelite  to  expect  death.  In  the  later  perifKl 
at  all  evenu.  when  the  holiness  of  Ood  and  the  prevalence  and 
heinousnesn  of  sin  had  been  so  profoundly  realized,  It  is  impos- 
nblo  to  doubt  that  what  invested  the  approach  to  Ood  with  its 
c^racter  of  peril  was  above  all  the  consciousness  of  the  con- 
trast between  Divine  holiness  and  human  guilt.    The  strength 


of  this  penitential  feeling  no  doubt  varied  in  the  case  of  dif- 
ferent offerings,  as  well  as  with  different  worshippers,  but  it 
could  never  be  wholly  absent  from  the  educated  theocratic 
conscience.    See,  further,  art.  Propitiation,  esp.  $  17. 

[b)  Purification  from  physical  uncleanness,  aa  a 
condition  of  re-entering  the  relij^ious  life  of  tlie 
community,  is  also  an  important  tunction  of  sacri- 
fice. The  circumstances  constituting  this  cere- 
monial uncleanness  are  mainly  three — participation 
in  the  processes  of  sexual  life,  contact  with  a 
corpse,  and  recovery  from  leprosy. 

(a)  As  regards  the  first  categon,',  there  were  degrees  of  unclean- 
ness. and  the  major  degree,  which  entailed  a  sacrificial  puri- 
fication, attached  only  to  morbid  sexual  conditions  and  to  the 
position  of  a  woman  after  child-bearing  (Lv  15.  12*-'f").  The 
sacrifices  prescribed  for  the  purification  of  a  mother  were  a 
iamb  for  a  liurnt-offcring  and  a  dove  for  a  Sin-offering. 

(p)  The  defilement  diffused  by  a  dead  body  was  intense,  long- 
sustained,  and  removed  in  a  peculiar  wav  (Nu  Ifli^.  is  sii'-*). 

Tfie  Sacrifice  of  the  Red  Ue\fer{^\\  lOi""-),  which  was  appro 
priated  to  purify  from  this  form  of  defilement,  presents  certain 
curiovis  features  of  ritual.  The  victim  is  a  red  heifer  without 
spot  (v. 2).  The  use  of  the  blood  is  confined  to  sprinkling  seven 
times  towards  the  sanctuary.  With  the  Sin-offering  it  has  a 
certain  affinity,  but  in  this  case  the  whole  of  the  carcase — skin, 
flesh,  blood,  and  dung,  mixed  witli  fragrant  ingredients  — is 
burned  without  the  camp.  The  extraordinary  feature  of  the 
offering,  however,  is  that  the  main  purpose  is  the  procuring 
and  resen'ation  of  the  ashes  (v.y).  These  gave  its  virtue  to 
the  holy  water  which  was  sprinkled  on  the  third  day  on  those 
contaminated  by  the  neighbourhood  of  the  dead,  and  this 
procured  them  purification  on  the  seventh  day  (v,l2).  por  a 
discussion  of  the  symbolism  see  Kurtz,  p.  422  ff.  ;  for  the 
evolutionary  aspect,  iiS^  pp.  351,  354,  376.  See,  further,  art. 
Kgd  IIkiker. 

(>)  The  recovery  of  a  leper  was  marked  by  two  series  of  rites 
(Lv  141-^2),  In  tije  first  stage  one  bird  was  killed  over  a  vessel 
of  running  water,  and  another,  after  being  dipped  in  the 
coloured  water,  was  allowed  to  escajje  (w.**-  7).  in  the  second 
stage  the  man  offered  a  Guilt-offering,  a  Sin-offering,  and  a 
Burnt-offering  (vv. 13. 3l)_with  the  peculiar  provision  that  blood 
from  the  Guilt-offering  was  smeared  on  the  right  ear,  the  right 
thumb,  and  the  right  great  toe  of  tlie  offerer  (yM).  The  same 
rite  was  observed  for  the  purification  of  houses  infected  in 
some  such  way  as  is  typified  to  us  by  *  dry-rot '  (1433ff. ;  gee  art. 
Lkprost). 

In  the  matter  of  these  purificatory  rites,  two  outstanding 
facts  have  to  be  explained — the  temporary  isolation  of  persons 
and  families  under  certain  physical  or  pathologieiU  conditions, 
and  the  association  of  sacrifices  of  an  expiatory  kind  with  their 
readniission  to  the  life  of  the  community.  The  temporary 
isolation  has  its  manifest  explanation  in  a  regard  to  the  nealtli 
of  the  community,  wliich  recognized  permanent  sources  of 
danger  in  the  sexual  life  aa  well  as  in  leprosy  and  the  death- 
bed. Less  apparent  is  it  why  the  same  kinds  of  sacrifice  whiih 
expiated  guilt  should  have  been  required  in  coniiexiou  with 
events  with  no  moral  complexion — such  as  the  natiu'al  calamity 
of  disease,  and  the  joyous  event  of  birth.  But  the  matter 
becomes  partially  intelligible  when  we  recall  the  doctrine, 
widely  operative  in  OT,  as  to  the  strictly  retributive  character 
of  natural  evils.  When  sickness  was  interpreted  as  a  judgment 
because  of  open  or  secret  sin,  when  deatli,  especially  premature 
or  sudden  death,  was  similarly  construed,  the  obvious  pro- 
cedure was  to  apprnarh  God  with  a  remembrance  of  the  pro- 
curing cause,  and  to  make  atonement  for  tlie  guilt.  Nor  is  it 
ditlicult  to  bring  child-bearing  within  the  same  sphere  of  ideas 
The  pangs  of  child-birth  were  naturally  regarded  from  this 
standpoint  as  penal  :  in  J  they  were  inten'rt.'ted  oa  a  punish- 
ment expressly  Inflicted  because  of  woman's  share  in  the 
prunal  sin  (Gn  S^^);  and  it  is  quite  intelligible  that  on  restora- 
tion to  the  fellowship  of  her  people  the  mother's  sacrifice 
should  be  directed  to  cancel  the  gudt  in  which  her  sufferings 
were  believed  to  have  their  spriDg.  See,  further,  art.  Unclkan, 
Unclbannebb. 

(c)  The  Consecration  of  persons  and  things  for 
sacred  uses  appears  as  a  further  prominent  function 
of  the  Levitical  Sacrifices.  The  ceremonies  at  the 
consecration  of  the  priests  have  been  discussed 
elsewhere  (see  I'liIKSTS  AND  Lkvites,  pp.  70f.,  B'^). 

The  consecration  of  the  teni])le  -  fiirniture  b^' 
means  of  sacrifice,  esp.  the  Sin  -  olVerinp,  is  a 
pmminent  feature  in  the  ordinances  of  Ezekiel 
J4;jjMr.j  [jj  KxoduH  minute  instrtictionH  are  ;;iven 
as  to  the  conHcciation  of  the  tahornade  in  all  ity 
parts  by  means  of  holy  oil  (30--''-  40>"**,  of.  Lv 
j^io.  iij  ')^\^^.  \^\^.ix  of  giving  to  a  building  and  to  its 
furniture  the  character  of  physical  holiness  was 
certainly  antique,  and  even  v<-'t  maintains  it.4 
ground  in  oppositi<m  to  the  view  that  the  only 
character  which  consecration  can  confer  on  mntorial 
objects  is  reservation  for  religious  uses.    It  hod  its 


340 


SACKIFICE 


SACRIFICE 


roots  in  the  conception  tliat  God  is  merely  a  visitor 
on  eartli,  and  tliat  He  can  only  appear  in  those 
places  which  ha%-e  been  detached  from  the  earthly 
sphere,  and  which  have  acquired  certain  of  the 
characters  of  His  heavenly  home  {Jn  4-''-  ^'). 

(2)  The  Sacrificial  Theurij  vf  the  Lcvitical  legisla- 
tion.— The  theory  has  been  the  subject  of  keen  and 
prolonj;ed  controversy.   That  the sacriliiial  worship 
was  ordained  as  a  means  of  grace,  and  indeed  as  a 
condition  of  pardon  and  communion,  is  evident ; 
but  we  have  further  to  ask  wliat  was  the  precise 
function  ascribed  to  sacrifice  in  the  legal  economy. 
And  at  this  stage,  it  may  be  conlidently  premised, 
the  sacrilicial  theory  has  shed  the  anthropopathic 
ideas  which  oiieratcd  in  the  earlier  ages.     If  the 
ritual  embodieil  forms  and  phrases  descending  from 
the  period  of  religious  childhood,  the  crude  ideas 
whicli  first  shaped  thtm  had  been  outgrown  and 
forgotten.     The  theology  of  the  prophets  had  too 
deeply  saturated  the  religious  thought  of  Israel  to 
make  it  possible  for  any  but  an  elevated  doctrine  to 
gain  official  recognition.  The  gift-theory  of  Spencer, 
as  Bahr  observed,  is  involved  in  insurmountable 
dilliculties   if   the  attempt  is  made  to   prove  its 
vitality  and  persistence  in  an  age  whose  conscious- 
ness was  dominated  by  the  unity  and  spirituality 
of  God  (Syinbdik,  ii.  275).     Equally  does  the  same 
objection  press  against  the  view  that  the  sacrifice 
may  still  have  been  construed  as  a  gratifying  meal ; 
while  it  is  generally  admitted  that  tlie  theory  of 
a  communion  physically   mediated  by  tlie  sacri- 
licial feast,  whatever  part  it  may  have  previously 
jilayed,    was   now   quite    outside   the   horizon   of 
Israel's  religious  teachers.    Another  theory,  which 
has  also  had  some  vogue,  may  be  summarily  set 
aside  as  belonging  to  a  plane  of  thought  incom- 
patible with   the  deeply  religious  spirit    of    the 
Pentateuch.     This  is  the  view  which  reduces  the 
system  to  the  level  of  police  regulations  by  inter- 
preting the  sacrifices  as  essentially  hues,  and  as 
[)riniarily  designed  to  punish  and   check  wrong- 
doing.    The  explanations  of  the  Levitical  sacri- 
ficial tlieory  which  have  so  far  survived  in  the 
controversial  struggle  operate  with  higher  forms 
of  thought.     These  explanations  vary  not  a  little 
in  detail,  but  substantially  they  may  be  reduced 
to  three  types  according  as  they  seek  to  elucidate 
the  subject  with  the  help  of  the  three  Christian 
categories  of  substitutionary  satisfaction,  prayer, 
and   sacrament.      In  addition,  there   is  a  widely 
dillused  ojiinion  that  either  no  sacrificial  theory 
is  propounded,  or  that  it  is  not  consistently  carried 
through  in  the  later  legislation. 

(i.)  The  theory  of  a  Penal  Substitution  is  entitled 
to  precedence,  not  only  on  historical  grounds,  but 
also  because  of  the  primd  facie  support  « Inch  it 
has  in  the  biblical  evidence.  The  salient  points  of 
the  theory  may  be  summarized  as  follows — (1)  as  a 
sinner  the  offerer  was  under  the  wrath  of  God,  and 
his  life  was  forfeited  ;  (2)  by  a  gracious  provision 
he  was  permitted  to  substitute  an  immaculate 
victim,  to  which  his  guilt  was  transferred,  and 
which  was  put  to  death  in  his  stead  ;  (3)  the  vica- 
rious death  of  the  victim  was  accepted  by  God, 
who,  on  the  gro\jnd  of  the  satisfaction  ofl'ered  Him, 
received  the  worshipper  to  peace  and  fellowship. 
As  to  a  fourth  point — wherein  the  ground  of  the 
satisfaction  iay — opinion  has  dillered  within  the 
school.  The  usual  Protestant  view  has  been  that 
the  ultimate  ground  of  the  sinner's  acceptance  was 
the  sacrifice  of  Christ  which  the  victims  typified, 
and  even  that  reflective  minds  might  have  risen 
at  the  OT  stage  to  a  realization  of  this  real  ground 
of  forgiveness  with  which  tlieir  typical  ritual 
brought  them  into  touch.  Others  held  that  the 
sacrifices  had  /ler  se  a  true  expiatory  cHicacy  in 
relation  to  the  sins  of  the  offerers  (see  Outram,  p. 
248  ff.  J  Fairbairn,  ii.  p.  304). 


The  essential  feature  o(  thia  theory,  then,  U  that  the  death  oj 
the  animal  victim  was  of  the  nature  of  a  vicarious  punishment — 
i.e.  '  some  evil  indicted  on  one  party  In  order  to  expiate  the  ^11 
of  anotlier,  in  the  sense  of  delivering  the  guilty  from  punishment, 
and  procuring  the  forgiveness  of  sin'  (Outram,  ib.).  The  evidence 
on  wiiicli  chief  reliance  is  placed  is  contained  in  the  ritu;il  of  the 
D.ay  of  Atonement  (see  AZA/.EL).  In  this  ceremony  it  is  distinctly 
stated  that  tile  high  priest  confesses  the  iniquities  of  the  children 
of  Israel  over  the  scapegoat,  that  the  goat  carries  their  ini()uitie8 
away  into  the  desert,  and  that  he  who  lets  the  goat  go  uicura 
deflfement  (Lv  lO^uif).  In  the  case  of  the  Sin-offering  there  it 
a  similar  contamination  conveyed  by  the  victim  (v.^),  and, 
although  the  transference  of  guilt  is  not  e-vpressly  mentioned, 
it  is  argued  that  this  offering  is  clearly  governed  by  the  e^ime 
ideas.  Further,  it  is  contended  that  the  acts  common  to  tb« 
ritual  of  all  of  the  bloody  sacrifices  are  expressions  of  the 
Bubstitutionarv  idea,  (a)  The  immaculate  quality  of  the  victim 
fitted  it  to  take  the  place  of  the  guilty ;  ((/)  the  imposition  of 
hands  had  the  significance  of  setting  it  apart  as  a  substitute,  or 
imputing  to  it  the  sinner's  guilt,  or  both ;  (c)  the  slaughter  of 
the  victim  was  the  carrying  out  of  the  penal  substitution ; 
(ci)  the  sprinkling  of  the  blood  on  the  altar  attested  to  Uod  that 
an  animal  had  been  slain  as  an  atoning  sacrifice ;  (e)  the  con- 
sumption by  fire  had  the  significance,  on  the  older  view,  of  the 
consignmetit  of  the  substitute  to  eternal  fire, — on  the  newer,  of 
bringing  the  transaction  before  the  mind  of  God  (Kurtz,  pp. 
123-149;  Fairbairn,  ii.  p.  30'2ff.  ;  Cave,  p.  123  ff.).  In  the  judg- 
ment  of  most  modem  scholars,  the  theory  in  question  is  un- 
tenable, and  for  the  following  reasons :  (at)  the  death  of  the 
victim  cannot  have  been  ncarious,  since  sacrifice  waa  not 
allowed  for  sins  which  merited  death  (Nu  153»),  only  for  venial 
transgressions  ;  (3)  a  cereal  offering  might  also  atone  (Lv  511-13), 
and  in  thia  case  there  could  be  no  idea  of  a  penal  substitution  ; 
(y)  the  victim  waa  slain  by  the  offerer,  but  on  the  theory  in 
question  should  have  been  put  to  death  by  the  priest  as  Ood'a 
representative  ;  (S)  the  assumption  that  the  imposition  of  hands 
involved  a  transmission  of  guilt  is  inconsistent,  not  only  with 
other  references  to  thia  practice,  but  W'ith  the  fact  that  the 
sacrificial  flesh  waa  treated  as  most  holy,  and  might  be  eaten 
by  the  priest ;  (i)  the  central  act  of  the  sacrifice  was,  not  the 
act  of  slaughtering,  but  the  manipulation  of  the  blood,  which 
was  viewed  as  the  seat  of  the  aninvd  soul,  or  oa  a  life  which 
was  presented  to  tiod  (Dillmann,  AUIrst.  Thcol.  p.  408.  On  the 
Imposition  of  Hands,  see  Driver's  note  in  PrUtthood  and 
Sacrijice,  p.  39). 

Of  the  above  arguments,  at  least  (a),  (7),  and  (J) 
are  of  undeniable  weight ;  but  how  much  do  they 
prove?  Simply  this,  that  the  idea  of  penal  sub- 
stitution is  not  one  which  has  teen  consistently 
transfused  throughout  the  entire  sacrificial  system. 
The  various  kinds  of  animal  saciihce,  with  their 
common  element  of  ritual,  are  certainly  not  the 
creation  of  one  man,  or  of  one  school,  by  whom 
they  were  shaped  with  a  single  eye  to  making 
them  the  vehicle  of  a  particular  sacrificial  theory. 
The  sacrificial  system  of  P  clearly  embodies  a 
laige  inheritance  of  forms  and  usages  which  had 
been  created  by  earlier  modes  of  thought,  and  the 
legislators  did  not  feel  called  upon  to  recast  every 
rite  in  a  spirit  of  doctrinaire  consistency.  But 
when  this  has  been  said  the  possibility  still  remains 
that  the  sacrificial  forms  of  most  recent  growth, 
and  the  most  likely  therefore  to  reveal  the  ideas 
of  the  compilers,  embody  the  idea  of  propitiation 
through  penal  substitution.  In  the  case  of  the 
sacrifice  on  tlie  Day  of  Atonement,  as  we  have 
seen,  there  is  a  transference  of  guilt,  and  the  con- 
clusion is  drawn  that  the  flesh  becontes  unclean ; 
in  the  case  of  the  Sin-oll'ering  as  much  is  suggested  ; 
and  it  is  a  reasonable  view  that  the  interpretation 
thus  given  was  meant  to  supply  a  key  to  the  less 
articulate  language  of  the  other  bloody  sacrifices. 
The  locus  classicus,  Lv  17",  is  not  suHitiently 
definite  to  serve  as  a  ground  for  rejecting  the  view. 
Moreover,  the  presuppositions  of  such  a  sacrificial 
theory  were  already  recognized  in  OT  religion. 
That  sin  is  universally  jirevalent,  that  it  provoke* 
the  Divine  anger,  and  that  its  due  recompense  is 
suU'ering  and  death,  had  long  been  axiomatic  in 
the  higher  teaching,  and  had  been  imptcsscd 
upon  the  popular  mind  by  numerous  cxami  les  of 
public  and  private  judgments.  Further,  the  pro- 
phets had  been  wont  to  describe  the  judgiuents  of 
God  upon  the  nations  as  sacrifices,  and  it  was  a 
familiar  enough  idea  that  the  consummated  sacri- 
fice was  one  in  which  the  vengeance  of  God  waa 
fully  wreaked  upon  a  people  in  the  carnage  of  a 
battlefield,  or  in  the  atrocities  of  the  sacked  city. 


SACRIFICE 


SACRIFICE 


341 


On  the  prophetic  view,  indeed,  as  has  been  main- 
tained, theie  were  only  two  possible  modes  of 
Divine  reaction  against  sin — viz.  the  execution  of 
the  destroying  purpose,  or  forgiveness  on  tlie 
ground  of  repentance  and  reformation.  But  there 
was  a  third  possible  development  of  thought.  The 
Bacrilicial  system  was  maintained,  and  even  grew 
in  honour,  and  it  was  an  obvious  reflexion  that,  in 
place  of  the  consummated  sacrifice  of  destruction 
spoken  of  by  the  prophets,  Uod  accepted  as  a 
surrogate  the  sacritice  of  animal  victim.s.  That 
the  idea  of  substitution  was  already  familiar 
appears  from  Gn  22'^  (ottering  of  a  ram  in  place  of 
Isaac),  and  at  a  late  stage  the  vicarious  idea  is 
used  to  explain  the  sufferings  of  the  righteous 
Ser^'antof  Jehovah  (Is  53).  And  given  the  doctrine 
that  sin  entailed  death,  and  that  one  being  might 
sutler  in  room  of  another,  it  was  a  highly  natural,  if 
not  an  inevitable  step,  to  go  on  to  8up])0se  that  the 
rite  of  sacritice  combined  the  two  ideas,  and  that 
the  slain  victim  bore  the  penalty  due  to  the  sinner, 
(ii.)  The  Prnijer-thtory  may  serve  to  designate 
the  group  of  interpretations  which  rest  on  the 
fundamental  idea  that  the  eilicacy  attached  to 
sacrifice  was  due  to  the  fact  that  it  symbolized  the 
religious  sentiments  which  are  the  cumlition  of  ac- 
ceptance with  God.  While  on  the  former  view  the 
victim  is  held  to  take  the  place  of  the  otTerer  in 
bearing  the  doom  which  he  has  merited,  on  this  view 
it  is  held  to  be  the  mere  vehicle  for  the  expression  of 
his  devout  sentiments  and  longings.  The  purpose 
of  the  sacritice,  as  with  pra\  er,  is  to  serve  as  an 
index  of  what  is  in  the  wor.sliipper's  heart,  and  its 
virtue  is  exhausted  in  bringing  this  before  God. 
Further,  as  prayer  is  of  various  kinds,  so  ditrerent 
^Titers  have  given  to  sacritice  varj'ing  interpreta- 
tions corresponding  to  these  kinds :  by  Philo,  e.g., 
it  is  construed  as  chiefly  expressive  of  spiritual 
aspiration,  corresponding  to  the  prayer  of  supplica- 
tion ;  for  Biihr  it  has  tiie  function  of  expressing 
hatred  of  sin  and  self-surrender  to  God,  correspond- 
ing to  the  praj-er  of  confession  and  supplication  ; 
while  Maurice  also  emphasizes  the  note  which 
oorrespoiids  to  the  prayer  of  adoration. 

The  vtewBof  Biihr.  though  he  adopte  a  different  rubric,  belong 
to  this  t}!)*.  lie  tln'is  the  lit  y  of  ttic  nysteni  in  IjV  171* — •  the  soul 
plocinj;  itself  at  the  disposal  of  tJod  in  order  to  receive  the  ^ft  of 
true  life  in  BunctiQcutioo '  ^p.  211).  From  this  point  of  view 
the  ritual  undiT^'oes  a  new  interpretation.  A  valual>le  and  un- 
blemished victim  is  selected  a^  a^  mbolical  of  the  excellence  and 
purity  to  which  theofTereraspires;  thedeath  is  necessary  only  in 
order  to  procure  a  life  which  may  be  offered  to  God  ;  the  sprink- 
ling of  tne  altar  is  the  presentation  of  the  life,  still  resident  in 
the  bloo<J,  to  God.  A  simpler  version  of  the  theory  is  jciven  by 
Oehlcr.  who  emphasizes  the  vital  point  in  sayinp  that  *  the  self- 
■urrcnder  of  the  pcrw)n  sacriflcinp  waa  accomplished  vicariously 
in  ttie  otTerin^''  (p.  G32) ;  and  the  discuaaiona  of  .Maurice  centre 
round  the  same  idea  (p.  G7  ft.,  '  The  l^gal  Sacrifices ').  Schultz 
holds  that  the  Priestly  Code  wa«  strongly  dominated  by  tbo 
teaching  of  the  prophetJi,  and  that  the  signillcance  of  all  kinds 
of  ofleritiKB  was  simply  that  which  belonKS  to  genuine  worship. 
The  Uurnt-oflcrinj.'s  and  the  Pcace-olTerings  were  a  mode  of 
adoration,  while  *  the  ground  of  purification  in  the  Sin-offering 
(and  the  Guilt-ofTerintj)  is  that  Ood  accepta  the  sacrifice,  ana 
that  man  in  this  ofTering.  enjoined  by  God  as  the  embodied 
prater  of  a  penitent,  expresses  his  confession,  his  regret,  hia 
petition  for  forgiveness'  (Amtr.  Joum.  Theol.  1900,  p.  810X 

The  exegetical  arguments  by  which  this  view 
has  been  supported  are  of  no  great  cogency.  Lv 
17",  on  whicli  Biihr  places  such  reliance,  is  at  the 
most  a  contribution,  though  this  doubtfully,  to 
the  view  that  the  atoning  element  was  the  pure 
life  which  was  ottered,  not  the  death  through 
which  it  pa-ssed.  In  any  case  it  does  not  give  ex- 
prc8.sion  to  the  characteristic  idea  of  the  symboli- 
cal theory.  *  It  is  never  said  in  any  manner  of 
circumlocution  that  the  blood  of  the  animal  slain 
atones  for  the  otl'erer  by  symbolically  representing 
the  soul  of  the  otVerer '  (Cave,  p.  250).  The  inarticu- 
late evidence  of  the  ritual  is  no  more  favourable. 
It  is  true  that  it  can  be  so  interpreted  as  to  fall 


in  with  the  theory,  but  no  part  of  the  rites  or 
appended  commentary  speaks  so  strongly  for  the 
theory  as  do  the  sacrifices  of  atonement  for  the 
idea  of  vicarious  punishment.  A  further  objection 
which  has  been  pressed  by  Kurtz  and  others  is, 
that  it  is  alien  to  the  spirit  of  revealed  religion  as 
the  religion  of  grace,  inasmuch  as  it  grounds  the 
acceptance  of  the  sinner  upon  his  own  worthiness, 
or  at  least  on  the  worth  of  his  sentiments  and 
resolutions.  This,  however,  is  indecisive :  to  sa.j 
that  prayer  alone  is  efficacious  is  not  to  say  that  it 
is  meritorious.  Weightier  is  the  objection,  that 
on  the  Prayer-theory  correct  ritual  could  not  i  laim 
the  paramount  importance  which  it  possesses  in 
the  Priestly  Code.  Further,  the  view  could  never 
be  popular  that  sacrifice  had  no  etlicacy  other 
than  that  of  a  vehicle  for  the  expression  of  the 
spirit  of  worship  ;  and  the  Priestly  Code,  which  lias 
all  the  character  of  a  popular  religion,  may  well 
be  supposed  to  have  taken  account  of  the  common 
need,  and  to  have  supplemented  the  spiritual- 
ized thought  of  the  prophets  on  the  subject  of 
sacritice  with  a  theory  which  made  the  otlering  an 
objective,  an  independent,  and  as  such  a  deeply 
efficacious  ground  of  obtaining  or  preserving  the 
favour  of  God. 

(iii.)  The  Sacramental  idea  has  also  been  widely 
used  to  elucidate  the  sacrificial  theory  of  the  Pen- 
tateuch. But  to  describe  the  sacrilices  as  of  the 
nature  of  sacraments  does  not  supply  a  definite 
theory  as  to  the  real  questions  at  issue.  The 
category  called  in  to  explain  the  problem  is  itself 
ambiguous,  and  when  it  has  been  acceiJted  it  has 
still  to  be  explained  whether  the  etlicacy  of  a 
sacrament  is  understood  in  the  lioiiian  or  the 
Zwinglian  sense,  or  in  accordance  with  an  inter- 
mediate type  of  doctrine. 

Thus  a  Protestant  theologian  claims  for  the  sacrifices  that 
they  possess  the  sacramental  notes  ;  they  were  signs  of  spiritual 
realities ;  they  not  only  represented  but  sealed  and  applied 
spiritual  blessings,  and  their  efficacy  w.-xs  proportioned  to  faith 
(Scott,  Sacrifice,  p.  288).  Similarly,  a  Roman  Catholic  divine 
teaches  that  there  were  certain  ^losaic  ceremonies  to  which 
something  of  a  sacramental  character  attache<),  notably  the 
Passover,  which  corresponded  to  the  Eucharist,  the  puriflcatory 
rites,  which  corresponded  to  the  aacranient  of  penance,  and  the 
consecratory  sacrifices,  which  corresponded  to  the  sacrament 
of  ordination  (Hunter.  Dog-mat.  Theul.  iii.  172).  But  tliis  means 
only  that  they  have  agreed  to  use  the  same  name,  not  that 
they  are  at  one  as  to  the  theory  of  the  modus  operandi — which  is 
the  point  in  dispute— of  the  OT  sacrifices.  That  the  use  of  the 
sacramental  rubric,  so  far  from  introducing  us  to  a  definite 
theory,  rather  serves  to  obscure  the  issues,  appears  from  the 
fact  tnat  it  is  adopted  by  writers  who  differ  tola  coeto  as  to  the 
rationale  of  sacrifice.  *The  acceptance  of  the  sacrifice  by 
Jehovah,'  says  Bahr,  'and  His  gift  of  sanctiflcation  to  the  wor- 
shipper, gives  to  the  sacrifice  thecharocter  of  a  sacnunentalact* 
(ii.  p.  211).  At  the  same  time  Cave,  who  devotes  considerable 
space  to  the  refutation  of  Biihr's  distinctive  positions,  discuase* 
the  nature,  the  method,  the  extent,  and  the  ettliyicy  of  the 
Mosaic  atonement  under  a  title  which  alllriiis  that  the  Mosaic 
sacriticcs  had  '  a  sacramental  significance '  (p.  138  IT.).  Yet  again 
the  sacramental  title  bos  been  claimed  by  Robertson  Smith  for 
the  idea,  which  is  not  alleged  to  be  consciously  present  in  the 
Priestly  Code,  that  the  union  of  the  worshippers  with  their  Qod 
was  cemented  by  the  physical  bond  of  a  ooumion  meaL 

Reasons  might,  indeed,  be  ^ven  for  resting 
satistied  with  the  Sacramental  interpretation — as 
that  it  does  justice  to  the  clement  ot  mystery,  or 
that  it  contributes  a  formula  in  which  tliose  may 
rest  who  think  the  controversy  fruitle.ss.  But  an 
independent  theory  it  is  not,  and  when  closely 
examined  is  founef  to  branch  otf  either  into  the 
Prayer-theory,  or  into  some  modification  of  the  doc- 
trine of  an  objective  atonement,  which  has  its  chief 
illustration  in  the  theory  of  penal  substitution. 

(iv.)  There  remains  the  view  that  no  sacrificial 
theory  underlay  the  Leviticnl  code.  The  earlier 
ideas,  which  attached  themselves  to  the  efficacy  of 
a  gift  or  of  a  uniting  meal,  had  been  discredited 
in  the  course  of  religious  progress,  and  the  legisla 
tion,  it  is  supposed,  had  nothing  definite  to  )mt  in 
their  place. 


342 


SACRIFICE 


SACRIFICE 


A  precise  answer  to  the  question  how  the  sacriflclal  worship 
Influenced  God,  men  were  unable  to  give.'  What  was  certain 
was  that  it  was  of  Divine  appointment;  tor  the  rest  it  was  a 
mystery.  •  When,  in  the  blood  of  the  Sin-olTering,  the  tie  be- 
twuen  Cod  and  His  people  was  renewed,  wliat  was  felt  was  the 
weird  influence  of  the  incoinpreliensible '  (Smend,  p.  824). 

The  impression  made  by  the  code,  however, 
ratlier  is  tliat  tlie  matter  waa  so  well  understood 
as  not  to  require  explanation,  than  that  it  was  so 
mysterious  as  to  be  incapable  of  explanation  (cf. 
Lv  17").  It  seems,  besides,  improbable,  in  view 
of  the  share  that  the  mind  invariably  claims  in 
religion,  and  of  the  fact  that  every  preceding  phase 
had  its  accompaniment  of  illuminating  idea,  that 
at  the  culniiiiatint<  stage  thought  abnegated  its 
function,  and  took  refuge  in  the  category  of  mys- 
tery. iMoie  likely  is  it  that  the  step  deemed  by 
Holtzmaiiu  inevitable  at  a  later  stage  was  already 
taken,  and  that  the  chaos  of  confused  ideas  result- 
ing from  the  discredit  of  old  views  was  averted  by 
the  assertion  of  the  substitutionary  idea.— 'the  most 
external,  indeed,  but  also  the  simplest,  the  most 
generally  intelligible,  and  the  readiest  answer,  to 
the  question  as  to  the  nature  of  expia.tioB'  {Neutest. 
Theol.  i.  p.  6S). 

vii.  Sacrifice  in  Judaistic  Practice  and 
Doctrine.— The  authority  of  the  Pentateuch  en- 
sured for  its  sacrificial  legislation  a  prominent  place 
in  the  religious  life  of  the  Jewish  people  subse- 
quent to  the  Exile.  By  the  destruction  of  the 
Second  Temple,  a  revolutionary  blow  was  subse- 
quently struck  at  the  sacrificial  system,  inasmuch  as 
oflerings  could  no  longer  be  presented  at  the  place 
and  in  the  manner  appointed  by  God.  In  the 
necessarily  brief  sketch  of  this  part  of  the  subject, 
we  confine  our  attention  to  the  two  points  of  out- 
standing interests— the  theor>'  of  sacrifice  prevalent 
in  the  Jewish  schools  before  the  rise  of  Christianity, 
and  the  way  in  which  Judaistic  thought,  after  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem,  accommodated  itself  to 
the  suspension  of  its  sacrificial  cult. 

1.  The  old  Jewish  theory  of  sacrifice,  could  we  be 
confident  of  recovering  it,  would  possess  priceless 
interest  as  helping  to  elucidate  the  sacrificial  ideas 
of  those  who,  like  St.  Paul,  passed  through  the 
school  of  the  synagogue.  Unfortunately,  the  dat« 
of  the  material  collected  by  Weber  {Jild.  Theol.^ 
38  ft'. ),  and  utilized  by  Pfleiderer  and  Holtzmann,  is 
somewhat  uncertain  ;  and  it  is  always  open  to 
doubt  whether  a  dictum  is  not  a  product  of  later 
Talmudic  reflexion.  The  ideas  and  tendencies 
most  satisfactorily  vouched  for  may  be  thus  sum- 
marized : — 


(a)  Sacnfloal  worship  wu  not  regarded  as  of  pre-eminent 
Iniportance,  but  was  co-ordinated,  as  a  condition  of  pleasing 
God,  with  knowledge  of  the  Law,  and  with  the  performance  of 
good  deeds.  That  a  higher  valuation  of  sacrifice  did  not  ob- 
tam  was  due  partly  to,  prophetic  influence,  partly  to  the  later 
developments  of  the  religious  life.  The  temple  had  now  its 
complement  and  competitor  in  the  synagogue,  which  was  the 
sphere  of  the  larger  part  of  religious  activity,  as  being  the 
orduiary  place  of  woreliip  ;  and,  as  the  exposition  of  Scripture 
and  tradition  was  the  most  prominent  element  in  the  worship 
of  the  synagogue,  the  Rabbi  and  the  scribe  tended  to  over- 
shadow the  priest  in  popular  estimation.  Thus  a  dictum 
ascribed  to  the  period  of  the  Second  Temple  has  it  that  an 
Ignorant  high  priest  is  inferior  to  the  wise  man.  even  thouirh 
the  latter  be  a  '  bastard '  (Weber,  p.  3S). 

(d)  Recognition  is  accorded  to  a  class  of  acts  seri-ing  a  function 
similar  to  animal  sacrifices,  hut  belonging  to  a  higher  order  To 
this  category  belong  the  merits  of  the  forefathers.  The  merits  of 
Abraham,  in  particular,  served  to  cover  the  sins  of  his  posterity 
Suffering  especially  had  expiatory  iiualitv.  Ilv  penal  and 
disciplinary  sufferings,  and  above  all  by  death,  atonement  was 
made  for  sin.  A  much  higher  degree  of  elHcacv  atUchcd  to  the 
sufferings  and  death  of  the  righteous,  as  foreshadowed  in  Is  5S. 
The  death  of  the  righteous  is  expressly  compared,  in  point  of 
emcacy,  to  the  Day  of  Atonement  (Pesikta,  174ft).  The  trial  of 
Abraham,  the  lamentations  of  Jeremiah,  all  the  dolour  of  the 
prophets,  and  all  the  anguish  of  the  martyrs,  constituted  a 
ground  for  the  forgivenc8.s  of  sin  in  Israel.  Even  the  penal 
•uffenngs  inflicted  by  God  upon  the  Egi-ptians  and  other 
hereditary  foes  of  Israel  have  the  character  of  a  ransom  for  the 
;hosen  people  (»  clwr.  p.  S2«fl. ;  cf.  Uoltanaon,  A'ctKssc.  TheoL. 
t  p.  64  tl,> 


(c)  Interpretation  of  sacrifice  In  the  sense  of  substitution. 
The  nse  ot  ideas  of  substitution  «nth  imputation  of  gmll 
and  ment  has  been  indicated  in  the  previous  section.  If  as 
is  probable,  these  were  already  associated  with  the  sacrificial 
system,  it  can  be  readily  understood  how  they  were  extended  to 
explain  the  nients  and  the  sufferings  of  the  fathers.  If,  on  the 
other  hand,  they  originated  independently,  itcannot  be  doubted 
that  at  this  period  they  profoundly  infiiienced  the  sacrificial 
tlieory.  ].  rom  the  belief  in  the  vicariousness  of  the  death  of 
the  righteous,  it  was  an  easy,  an  inevitable  transition,  to  belief 
in  the  substitution  of  the  animal  victim.  The  idea  of  penal 
substitution  supi.lied  an  intelligible  popular  answer  to  the 
question,  which  could  not  fail  to  be  raised,  as  to  why  and  how 
sacnfice  procured  the  favour  of  God;  and  although  express 
statements  of  the  idea  are  few  (2  Mac  7^7,  4  Mac  6»)  the  evi- 
dence  points  to  this  mode  of  thought  having  become  current, 
bverything  pressed  towards  the  assumption  that  the  offering 
or  a  life,  substituted  for  sinners  according  to  God's  appoint 
ment,  cancelled  the  death  penalty  which  they  had  incurred,  and 
that  consequently  the  ottered  blood  of  the  sacrificial  victims 
expiated  sin  as  a  surrogate  for  the  life  ot  the  guiltv'  (Uoltz- 
ni.-jun,  p.  68).  The  Philonic  interpretation  of  sacrifice  as  8\m- 
bolio  of  self-sacrifice  was  too  philosophical  and  mve  too  littla 
religious  assurance  for  general  acceptance. 

During  the  period  in  question,  the  sacrificial 
regulations  were  observed  witli  the  utmost  scrupu- 
losity, and  with  all  due  pomp  and  solemnity.  But 
at  the  same  time  a  process  was  going  on  which 
was  loosenuig  the  hold  of  sacrifice  upon  the  Jewish 
mind,  and  in  which  the  conviction  was  already 
finding  half-articulate  expression,  that  it  was  not 
a  complete  provision,  and  even  that  it  was  uot 
vital  to  the  communion  of  the  people  with  God. 
Had  no  such  loosening  taken  place,  it  is  diffi- 
cult  to  conceive  how  faith  in  God  could  have 
survived  the  blow  which  at  one  and  the  same 
time  robbed  the  Jews  of  their  fatheriand  and 
their  organized  national  worship.  A  living  belief 
in  the  necessity  would  naturally  have  issued, 
when  sacrifice  became  impossible,  in  apostasy  to 
heathenism. 

Of  sacrificial  practice  at  the  close  of  the  period  some  glimpses 
are  given  in  NT.  Allusion  is  made  to  the  sacrifice  ot  the  iiiinot 
Buriit-oflienng  at  the  presentation  of  Jesus  (Lk  224),  the  sai-nfice 
of  the  Passover  (Mk  1412),  the  union  in  sacrifice  ot  a  Oalilisan 
group  (Lk  13'),  the  ofi'ering  after  recovery  from  leprosy  (Mt  S-") 
the  votive  offering  (Ac  2128),  and  money  offerings  (Lk  214) 
Josephus  gives  a  somewhat  minute  account  of  the  sacrificial 
system  for  the  information  of  the  Gentile  worid  (Ant.  passim) 
lea\Tng  the  impression  that  it  was  thoroughly  normative  for  con- 
temporary practice.  The  Intermission  of  the  sacrifice  offered 
for  Cajsar's  prosperity  marked  the  beginning  of  the  Jewish  war 
(.BJ  u.  xvu.  2).  The  seizure  by  John  of  the  store  of  wine  and 
oil.  used  in  the  Burnt-offerings,  and  their  distribution  among 
the  multitude,  made  the  Roman  conquest,  he  thinks  only  a 
merited  counterpart  of  the  doom  ot  Sodom  (v.  xiii.  6). 


2.  Readjtistment  of  Judaistic  thought  tcith  the 
cessation  of  sacrifice. — To  the  new  conditions  cre- 
ated by  the  destruction  of  the  Temple,  theology 
accommodated  itself  by  the  theory  that  otlier 
observances  were  accepted  as  a  substitute  for 
sacrificial  worship.  The  study  of  the  Law  took  the 
place  of  the  rites  of  the  altar,  and  even  took  over 
the  characteristic  designation  of  the  latter  (.-niy). 
The  knowledge  of  the  Law,  it  was  taught,  was 
more  valuable  in  the  sight  of  God  than  the  con- 
tinual Burnt-ofl'ering,  and  even  than  the  building 
of  the  sanctuary  (Megilla  M,  166).  In  particular, 
it  was  held  that  the  duty  of  offering  the  legal 
sacrifices  had  been  superseded  by  the  duty  of 
studying  the  laws  relating  to  the  subject  (Pesikla 
606).  The  other  observance  which  is  treated  aa 
an  equivalent  for  the  abolished  serrtce  is  Prayer, 
in  accordance  with  which  a  paral'elism  was  worked 
out  between  the  order  of  the  daily  sacrifices  and 
the  order  of  daily  prayers,  and  also  between  the 
varieties  of  sacrifice  and  the  difi'erent  kinds  of 
prayer  (Weber,  p.  38 ft".). 

It  was  also  natural  that  the  idea  of  the  merits 
of  the  righteous,  especially  of  pious  sull'erers, 
should  continue  to  gain  in  siomificance  and  em- 
phasis. The  destruction  of  Jerusalem  compre. 
nended  an  unparalleled  tale  of  horrors,  and  involved 
in  suffering  and  death  many  innocent  and  right 


SACRIFICE 


SACRIFICE 


343 


eous  persons  ;  and  it  might  well  be  believed  that  this 
was  a  consummated  sjicrilice  whereby  full  atone- 
ment had  been  made  for  national  sin  (Weber,  p. 
32:*  f.). 

B.    TOE  SACRtFIClAL  DOCTRINE  OF  NT. 

It  13  open  to  question  whether  in  an  undisturbed 
course  of  development  sacritice  would  have  main- 
tained its  place  in  the  religion  either  of  the  Jewish 
or  of  the  (jrra?co-K()man  world.  On  tlie  one  hand, 
it  possessed  many  features  which  justilied  its  posi- 
tion as  the  central  relij^ious  rite — it  lent  itself  to 
imposing  ceremonial,  it  was  peculiarly  fitted  to 
thrill  the  physical  nature  of  the  worshippers,  it 
satisfied  tlie  instinct  which  prompts  men  to  give 
to  God  what  costs  them  something,  it  supplied 
an  external  ground  of  confidence,  and  it  was  hal- 
lowed by  its  immemorial  antiquity.  I5ut,  on  the 
other  hand,  it  was  menaced  oy  more  than  one 
factor  in  the  higher  civilization  of  the  ancient 
world.  On  the  aesthetic  side  there  must  have 
been  some  considerable  feeling  to  the  effect  that 
the  public  slaughter  of  cattle,  especially  with 
such  accompaniments  as  were  observed  at  Koman 
festivals,  could  not  be  retained  in  a  period  of 
advamiug  refinement  as  the  appropriate  form  of 
worship.  Still  more,  the  conceptions  of  God 
prevalent  in  the  Stoic  and  I'latonic  schools  raised 
the  question  as  to  whether  animal  offerings  were 
really  acceptable  to  God,  while  the  scepticism  of 
others  turned  upon  the  system  the  shafts  of 
ridicule.  The  Jewish  Church,  in  its  turn,  con- 
tained within  it,  in  the  prophetical  teaching,  a 
Bet  of  principles  which  at  least  involved  the  con- 
clusion that  sacrifice  was  unnecessary,  from  which 
it  was  no  long  step  to  the  position  that  it  should 
be  discontinued.  But,  whatever  the  issue  might 
have  been  in  the  natural  progress  of  refinement  and 
theological  reflexion,  the  question  was  settled  both 
for  the  Jewish  and  the  Gentile  world  by  two 
extraordinary  events.  The  destruction  of  Jeru- 
salem, as  we  have  seen,  brought  about  the  aboli- 
tion of  sacrifice  in  one  way,  and  in  another 
Christianity  destroyed  tie  system  in  the  name  of 
a  higher  fulfilment. 

f.  NT  Api'Rrciation  of  thii  OT  Sacrifices. — The  teachinpr  of 
Jt'HUs  on  thin  subject,  as  recordt-ti  in  the  Synoptic  report,  haa 
two  outstanding  feuturea :  (1)  the  recof^iltion  of  the  Divine 
■  tithority  of  the  sacrificial  law,  and  of  its  bindinjf  character 
upon  the  Jews ;  (2)  the  accentuation  of  the  prophetic  doctrine 
of  the  pre-eminence  of  the  moral  over  the  ceremonial,  lie 
anumes  that  His  hearers  offer  sacriflce  (Ml  b"^),  and  He  enjoins 
a  recovered  leper  to  make  the  ofTerln^f  required  in  the  Law 
i^*).  I>id  He  Himself  Join  in  the  sacrificial  worship?  He 
whose  presentation  as  an  infant  was  accompanied  by  a  liurnt- 
offerin^,  whose  death  was  preceded  by  the  celebration  of  the 
Passover,  and  who  made  it  a  maxim  to  conform  to  llie  laws  of 
the  Jewish  Church  even  when  knowing  Himself  unbound  by 
them,  certainly  did  not  hold  aloof  from  the  temple-worship  of 
wliich  sacrifice  was  the  central  act.  With  equal  certainty  we 
may  assuriic  that  it  was  only  as  an  element  of  collective  worMhip 
that  sacrifice  was  use<l  by  Him.  But,  while  at  this  statre  sanc- 
tioning sacrifice.  He  adopts  the  sayinu  of  Hoses  that  '  Ood  will 
have  mercy  ana  not  sacrifice'  <Mt  9'^  127),  and  accounts  the 
scribe  who  gives  a  similar  valuation  as  not  far  from  the  king- 
dom of  Ood  (Mk  12'0).  The  second  prophetic  axiom,  that  sncrl- 
flco  Is  worthless  with  unrepented  sin  in  the  background,  finds 
utterance  in  .Mt  VO.  u.  Had  this  been  all  the  evidence,  it  could 
have  been  held,  and  witli  greater  conlidence  than  in  the  case 
of  the  prophets,  that  Jesus  contemjilated  the  continuance  of 
aicrillce  as  a  sutiordinato  element  in  the  religious  life.  The 
alK)lltion  Is  Involved  in  theonnouncenientof  theentahlishmentof 
a  new  covenant  (Mt  2Sa,  Mk  14^,  l.k  22»),  with  the  implication 
of  the  disappearance  of  the  old  economy  and  all  its  sacrifices. 

The  rlirect  references  of  St.  Paul  to  the  subject  are  not 
numerous.  Thoobsorvanceof  the  sacritlclal  law  was  still  iiiain- 
t.aini'<I  to  some  extent  among  the  Jewish  Christians,  and  the 
apostle  on  one  occasion  associated  himself  with  four  men  who 
went  through  a  purification  ending  in  ofTcnng  (Ac  212").  In 
]  Co  inis  he  speaks  as  if  the  purjiose  aii'l  signiflcjince  of  one  kind 
of  sacrifice  were  well  understood  -  i*  >-ns  dpstgned  to  esmlJisb 
communion  or  fellowship  with  Uod,  It  might  be  wTin  ncmoiis, 
and  of  the  worshippers  one  with  anollicr,  through  the  medium 
of  the  sacrificial  meal.  The  principal  aspect  in  which  the  OT 
sacriflres  pr«sent4*d  themselves  to  him  was  the  tvpical.  In 
theuisulves  they  belonge<l  to  the  beggarly  elements,  but  they 
pointed  forward  to  a  satisfying  and  oudurimr  ground  of  recon- 
ciliation with  Ood. 


The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  contains  an  express  and  full 
discussion  of  OT  sacrifice.  As  kinds  it  distinguishes  gifts  and 
sacrifices — ue.  unbloody  and  bloody  offerings,  and  regards  the 
sacrifices  of  the  Day  of  Atonement  as  the  crown  of  the  Byateui. 
The  purpose  was  deliverance  from  sin  (51).  the  beiieDciaries 
were  priests  and  people,  but  the  contemplated  end  was  not 
fully  attained.  That  they  were  ineffectual  for  the  purpose 
in  hand  was  proved  from  the  restricted  scope  of  their  claim 
('sins  of  ignorance,"  9"),  from  the  imperfections  and  burdened 
consciences  of  the  worshippers  (102-  :*),  from  the  necessity  of  the 
repetition  of  the  offerings  (v.2),  and  from  explicit  declarations 
of  God  (V.*).  The  conclusion  is  that  they  accoiiiplislied  only  a 
bodily  orceremonial  purification  (9'^),  and  that,  as  merely  tvpical 
of  a  real  salvation,  they  were  a  transitory  provision  (lOi").  In 
so  far  OS  blessing  Howea  from  them  in  the  olrl  dispensation  it 
was  attached  to  the  faith  accompanying  them  (11-*X 

In  general  we  should  distinguish  two  stages  in 
the  thou"ht  of  the  apostles  on  this  subject.  In 
the  |)re-Christian  stage  they  had  believed  in  the 
full  ellicacy  of  the  Levitical  .sacrifices,  and  in  the 
Christian  they  regarded  them  as  chiefly  valuable 
because  of  their  witness  to  their  own  inadequacy, 
and  to  the  complementary  work  of  Christ. 

ii.  The  rEEFECT  Sacrifice  of  the  New 
Covenant. — It  was,  then,  axiomatic  for  the  NT 
writers  that  the  system  of  OT  sacrifices  had  been 
abolished  by  Christ.  This  conclusion  was  not, 
however,  founded  on  the  belief  that  sacrifice  was 
a  superfluous  rite,  but  on  the  conviction  that  the 
OT  sacrifices,  which  had  possessed  some  value  rela- 
tive to  their  time,  had  been  superseded  by  a  sacrifice 
of  a  nobler  nature  and  of  absolutely  certain  efficacy. 
This  was  the  sacritice  offered  u]>  by  Christ.  In  the 
NT  doctrine  of  Christ's  sacrifice,  now,  we  may 
distinguish  five  points,  on  three  of  which  the  testi- 
mony is  unmistakable,  while  the  other  two  are 
left  in  some  obscurity.  The  points  on  which  the 
teaching  is  clear  are  (1)  the  sacrificial  character  of 
Christ's  death,  (2)  the  blessings  which  proceed  and 
flow  from  it,  (3)  the  conditions  on  which  these 
are  apjiropriated.  The  debatable  ground  is  reached 
when  it  IS  attempted  to  fix  the  NT  conception  of 

(4)  the  nature  or  material  of  Christ's  offering,  and 

(5)  the  manner  in  which  it  operated  towards  God  as 
the  procuring  cause  of  the  blessings  of  redemp- 
tion. 

(1)  The  interpretation  of  Chriit's  death  as  a 
sacrifice  is  imbedded  in  every  important  type  of 
the  NT  teaching  (Kitschl,  ii.  p.  161  ;  C.ive,  p.  284). 
The  silence  of  St.  James  and  St.  Jude  raises  no 
presumption  against  the  idea  being  part  of  the 
common  stock  of  Apostolio  doctrine.  It  has  been 
denied  that  St.  Paul  adopts  the  category  (Sclunidt, 
Die  paul.  Christologie,  p.  84),  but  the  denial  rests 
on  dogmatic  rather  than  on  exegetical  grounds 
(Kitscnl,  ii.  p.  161).  The  interpretation  was  given 
by  Jesus  in  connecting  His  death  with  the  Sinaitic 
sacrifice  of  the  Covenant  (Mt  26^,  Mk  U~\  1  Co 
11^),  and  it  is  expanded  and  presented  by  the 
apostles  under  various  points  of  view. 

The  evidence  for  the  Apostolic  construction  Is  as  follows  : — 
(a)  It  is  expressly  stau>d  that  Christ  was  offered  as  a  sacrifice 
—tft^t'f  (Eph  6',  He  9'''),  Bko-.*  (Eph  62,  Ue  9^).  ((,)  A 
saving  efllcacy  is  ascribed  to  the  blood  or  the  cross  of  Christ, 
and  in  these  cases  the  thought  clearlv  points  to  the  forms  of 
the  altar  (Bo  3'^  69,  1  Co  lOiu,  Eph  1'  2i3,  Col  !»>,  Ho  lUl  '«,  1  P 
1*-  iw,  I  Jn  V  b^-  **,  Uev  l^).  (c)  The  correspondence  is  worked 
out  between  Christ's  death  and  tlie  different  OT  sacrifices— 
esp.  the  Siii-olTering  (Ko  8^,  He  13",  1  P  3i»),  the  Covenant- 
sacrifice  file  91'*''^.  the  sacrifices  of  the  Day  of  Atoneinent 
(He  2"  912U  ),  and  the  Passover  (1  Co  57).  (d)  The  distinctive 
acts  of  the  OT  sacrificial  ritual  are  shown  to  have  been  repeated 
in  the  experience  of  Christ — the  slaying  of  the  Immaculate 
victim  (llev  (,»  13S),  the  sprinkling  of  the  blood,  both  In  the 
sanotuary  as  in  the  sin-olTering  (Ho  0i3'f-)and  upon  the  people 
as  in  the  Covenant-sacrifice  (1  P  1-),  and  the  desmifiioii  of  the 
victim,  as  in  the  case  of  tlie  Sin-offering,  without  the  gate 
(Ho  13i>)  (Hitachi,  11.  p.  l.'i'lT.;  San'lay  ■  Ileaillani,  Jiomant, 
n.  91).  fill  The  s))ecific  effect  of  sacrifice— ex|iiation  or  pardon 
of  sin— oeiiig  ascribed  to  Christ's  death,  points  in  the  same 
direction  lib.). 

Nor  for  the  apostolic  ago  was  the  description  of 
Christ's  death  as  a  sacrifice  of  the  nature  of  a  mere 
illustration.     The  apostles  held  it  to  be  a  eocrifice 


344 


SACEIFICE 


SACEiriCE 


in  the  most  literal  sense  of  the  word,  .'uitl  it  is  not 
difficult  to  apjireciate  various  reasons  why  thej' 
clung  to,  and  even  gloried  in,  this  interpretation  of 
the  deatli.  It  was  not  merely  that  they  received  it 
with  the  impress  of  Christ's  own  authority.  It  pro- 
vided tliem  with  their  best  defemeajrainst  a  popular 
calumny :  without  altar  and  ofVering  Christianity 
lent  colour  to  the  suspicion  tliat  it  was  at  bottom 
irreligious  if  not  atheistic,  and  the  one  ellective 
means  of  removing  the  natunil  prejudice  was  to 
show  that  it  embodied  the  doctrine  of  a  literal  and 
necessary  sacriliie.  Further,  it  solved  to  their  own 
minds  the  speculative  difficulty  arising  out  of  the 
death  of  Christ.  Judged  by  acknowledged  canons, 
His  crucifixion  had  the  aspect  of  a  retributive 
judgment, — at  the  least,  of  a  repudiation  of  His 
mission  by  God  ;  but  this  explanation,  in  view  of 
their  faith  in  Christ  and  the  event  of  tlie  resur- 
rection, was  an  impossibility.  On  the  other  hand, 
it  was  not  intellectually  satisfying  to  treat  it  as  a 
mere  mystery,  and  to  point  to  the  fact  that  it  had 
been  foretold  by  the  prophets.  The  needed  intel- 
lectual relief  was  found  in  bringing  it  under  the 
category  of  the  victim-death  which  God  had  of 
old  appointed,  not  as  the  punishment  of  the  victim's 
sin,  but  as  a  means  of  blessing  to  others,  .\bove 
all,  the  sacrificial  interpretation  met  a  religious 
want  —  the  need,  all  but  universally  felt,  of  a 
ground  of  confidence  external  to  self  on  which 
to  rest  in  approaching  the  majesty  and  holiness 
of  God. 

(2)  The  benefits  procured  by  Christ's  sacrifice  are 
coextensive  with  the  blessings  of  tlie  gospel,  and 
may  be  distinguished  as  primary  and  derivative. 
The  primary  effects  are  that  it  sets  man  in  a  new 
relation,  on  the  one  hand  to  God,  on  the  other  to 
sin.  By  St.  Paul  special  prominence  is  given  to 
the  new  relationsliip  which  it  establishes  between 
God  and  the  sinner  ;  on  this  ground  the  sinner  is 
justified  or  accepted  as  righteous  (SiKaioi<n!,  Ko 
3-''"*),  adopted  (vloeeaia.,  8">),  and  placed  on  a  foot- 
ing of  reconcUiation  {KaraWayi),  S").  Elsewhere 
tlie  emphasis  is  laid  rather  on  its  efficacy  in  pro- 
curing the  forgiveness  of  sin,  i.e.  in  saving  from 
the  penal  consequences  which  otherwise  the  curse 
of  tlie  broken  law  inevitably  entails.  It  is  upon 
this  aspect  that  Clirist  fastens  our  attention  in 
speaking  of  His  Covenant-sacrifice  {S.<pecni  rdv 
afiapTiuv,  Mt  26^)  ;  the  idea  of  cancelling  guilt, 
of  which  a  vital  moment  is  liability  to  punish- 
ment, is  associated  with  Clirist's  sacrifice  in  He 
2",  1  Jn  2-  (VKiaKeaBai  witli  d/iopr/os  as  object,  and 
60  '  to  expiate ') ;  and  the  redemption  series  of 
terms  (Xirrpop,  diroXurpunris,  i^ayopa.^ei.i>),  while  com- 
prehensive of  all  the  aspects  of  spiritual  deliver- 
ance in  Christ,  has  spec^ial  reference  to  emancipation 
from  the  curse  of  sin  or  its  merited  penalties 
(Eph  1',  Col  1").  Upon  these  fundamental  boons 
of  i)eace  with  God  and  forgiveness  follow,  in  the 
order  of  grace,  the  gifts  of  the  Spirit  as  the  energy 
of  sanctitication  (Gal  5'-'^-),  and  as  the  spring  of 
boundless  consolations  —  v\z.  peace,  joy,  hope, 
assurance,  with  their  fruits  (ito  S'"'-),  while  the 
consummation  is  reached  in  the  heavenly  inherit- 
ance that  is  the  meet  portion  of  the  sons  of 
God  (Ro  8").  In  brief,  the  sacrifice  of  Christ  is 
represented  as  the  ground  of  all  filial  communion 
with  God,  as  the  condition  of  pardon,  as  the  source 
of  all  noble  endeavour  and  true  comfort  in  the  life 
which  now  is,  and  as  onr  one  warrant  for  con- 
fidence as  to  the  world  to  come. 

(3)  The  conditions  on  which  the  blessings  are  pro- 
cured, on  which  the  hypothetical  becomes  actual, 
are  repentance  (Mfrdj/om)  and  faith  (irfirret). 
As  to  the  necessity  of  these  conditions  the  NT 
writers  speak  with  one  voice.  Even  St.  James 
must  have  considered  faith  of  vital  importance, 
since  otherwise  he  need  not  have  become  a  Christian 


at  all.  The  one  question  in  regard  to  which  the 
teaching  is  somewhat  fluid  is  as  to  the  precise 
object  of  the  faith  which  unlocks  the  treasury  ol 
reuomption.  In  Hebrews  the  conception  is  very 
generiil — tlie  object  is  God  and|  His  promises.  In 
tlie  I'auline  theology  it  is  brought  ii.to  ilie  most 
intimate  connexion  with  Christ,  and  includes 
belief  in  Him  as  Messiah,  crucified  Saviour,  and 
risen  Lord  (Ro  4**  10",  1  Th  4'''),  issuing  in  union 
with  the  crucified  and  exalted  Christ  in  trust  and 
self-surrender  (Gal  2-"). 

(4)  The  nature  of  Christ's  offerinq,  and  (5)  The 
mode  of  its  operation,  are  two  questions  which  are 
so  closely  inter-connected  that  they  may  best  be 
discussed  in  conjunction.  So  far  we  have  been 
dealing  with  the  facts  of  the  Atonement  as  to 
which  the  biblical  teaching  is  full  and  express. 
These  data  are,  to  adopt  an  old  formula — the 
disease,  sin  ;  the  remedy,  Christ's  sacrifice ;  the 
application  of  the  remedy,  salvation  here  and 
hereafter  on  the  ground  of  repentance  and  faith 
But  the  medical  analogy  suggests  that  the  remedy 
may  cure  the  disease,  while  yet  it  may  be  obscure 
to  the  patient  wherein  precisely  the  virtue  of  the 
curative  agent  lay,  and  how  it  aflected  his  system 
so  as  to  overcome  the  disease.  Similarly,  theology 
has  its  questionings,  which  the  NT  teaching  does 
not  unmistakably  answer,  as  to  the  precise  '  what ' 
of  Christ's  offering,  and  as  to  '  the  principle  on 
which  the  forgiveness  of  sins  is  connected  with  it* 
sacrificial  quality'  (Ritschl,  ii.  p.  185). 

(a)  Tlie  references  of  ChriH  to  His  own  death, 
while  representing  it  as  conditioning  the  highest 
blessings,  do  not  elucidate  the  connexion  between 
the  work  and  its  eti'ects. 

The  passage  in  which  Christ  speaks  of  Himself  as  come  'to 
pive  his  life  a  ransom  for  many'  (ilk  10*2-*^,  Mt  20'*),  has 
been  supposed  to  contain  in  ntice  the  solution  of  the  problems 
of  the  Atonement.  A  ransom  implies  captives  (sinners),  a 
hostile  power  which  holds  them  in  thrall  (God  as  the  repre- 
sentative and  indicator  of  the  outraged  moral  law),  operation 
of  the  ransom  (the  death  of  Christ  accepted  as  a  substitute  (or 
that  of  sinners),  specific  effect  (dehverance  of  sinners  from  the 
penalties  of  sin).  This  elaboration  has,  however,  been  chal- 
lenged at  almost  every  point.  It  is  maintained  by  Ritschl  that 
the  key-word  of  the  passage  is  erroneously  rendered  '  ransom,' 
that  as  the  equivalent  of  "irs  it  has  the  significance  of  a  protec- 
tive covering,  and  that  the  way  in  which  it  operates  to  protect 
us  is  by  stimulating  us  to  sel(-den.\-ing  imitation  of  Christ 
{Recht/.  u.  Vers.  ii.  S5).  Wendt  adheres  to  the  ransom  idea, 
but  maintains  that  the  specific  effect  is  to  deliver  from  bondage 
to  Buffering  and  death,  and  that  it  accomplishes  this  by  teaching 
us  to  adopt  Christ's  sanguine  valuation  of  these  eWls  {Lehre 
Jesxt,  ii.  237).  According  to  Beyschlai;,  the  evil  from  which  it 
was  to  emancipate  was  worldly  ambition  and  similar  forms 
of  sin,  which  could  not  survive  the  ruin  of  earthly  hopes  in 
the  tragedy  of  the  Cross  {Seutest.  TheoL  i.  153).  The  error  of 
this  group  of  interpretations  lies  in  disconnecting  Christ's 
death  from  the  immediate  specific  effect  of  expiation  or  the 
forgiveness  of  sin,  while  the  older  interpretation  unduly 
exploited  the  metaphor.  All  that  the  passage  teaches  is  that 
the  death  of  Christ  was  the  means  of  effecting  a  redemption 
from  sin  (ireXurpma-K)  which  accrues  to  the  benefit  of  many. 
The  institution  of  the  Lord's  Supper  supplies  an  important 
reference  to  our  Lord's  death: — 'This  is  my  blood  of  the  new 
Covenant,  which  is  shed  for  many'(Mk  14^4);  'this  cup  is  the 
new  Covenant  in  my  blood '  (1  Co  11^5),  to  which  St.  Matthew 
adds  the  definition  of  the  specific  effect—'  for  the  remission  of 
sins'  (26'-^).  These  words  are  important  as  comparing  the 
death  of  (Christ  to  the  Covenant-sacrifice  which  accompanied 
the  giving  of  the  I.aw  at  Sinai  (Ex  '24*^,  and  as  suggesting 
that  it  resembles  the  latter  in  its  operation  and  effect.  As  to 
the  effect  of  both  sacrifices  there  is  not  much  room  for  doubt. 
The  Covenant-sacrifice  of  Sinai  ratified  the  legal  covenant 
between  God  and  His  people,  the  Covenant-sacrifice  of  Calvary 
established  the  Covenant  of  grace  foretold  in  Jer  3131^  in  which 
the  cardinal  boon,  as  specified  in  St.  Matthew's  addition,  is  ths 
remission  of  sins.  As  to  the  manner  of  its  efficacy  we  are 
hampered  by  the  uncertainty  as  to  how  the  sprinkling  ot  the 
people  with  blood  in  the  Sinaitic  sacrifice  operated,  or  was 
understood  to  have  operated,  in  establishing  the  Old  Covenant. 
According  to  the  traditional  view,  the  blood  of  the  animal 
victims,  slain  in  room  of  the  guilty  people,  and  sprinkled  on 
them,  was  accepted  as  atoning  for  their  gTiilt,  and  hallowed 
them  for  entrance  on  their  new  relation  with  God.  Again,  it 
has  been  supposed  that  the  fundamental  idea  was  that  the 
victim  represented  the  two  parties  in  the  Covenant,  and  the 
killing  of  it  meant  that  so  far  as  the  Covenant  was  concerned 
they  had  no  longer  will  or  life,  ».e.  the  (^>veuant  was  iramutabl* 


SACEIFICE 


SACRU-"ICK 


345 


^VeHtoott,  llehrexrg,  p.  301).  Yet  a^in  It  has  been  Interpreted 
u  of  tiie  nature  of  a  honorific  ^ift  which  as  such  was  acceptable 
to  t;o<J  (Wendt,  op.  cit.  ii.  237).  And  once  more,  recurring  to 
the  evolutionary  account,  we  might  utilize  the  idea  that  by 
sharing  the  blood  God  and  His  people  were  knit  into  a  close 
physical  union  and  communion.  Corresponding  to  these 
accounts  the  aacritice  of  Christ  would  be  necessarily  interpreted 
as  ettlcocious  as  a  penal  substitution,  as  an  act  declaratory  of 
the  inmiutability  of  God's  gracious  purpose,  as  an  acceptable 
gift  of  perfect  ol>edience,  and  as  a  sacramental  act  uniting  Cod 
and  man.  It  thus  appears  that  the  conce)>tion  of  the  death 
as  a  Covenant-sacrifice  docs  not  itself  yield  a  theory,  but  otdy 
supplies  a  form  which  con  be  utilized  to  illustrate  a  theory 
otherwise  grounded.  Probably  Christ's  meaning  was  simpler 
than  any  that  has  been  specified,  viz.  that  it  was  God's  plan  to 
seal  a  covenant  by  a  socrilice,  and  that,  like  the  Old,  the 
New  Covenant,  which  provided  for  the  remission  of  sins,  had 
a  sign  of  ita  origio  and  validity  in  the  shedding  ood  sphiikiing 
of  blood. 

(6)  The  Pauline  Epistles  bring  us  closer  to  the 
familiar  theological  issues.  In  view  of  his  specu- 
lative interests,  it  is  antecedently  probable  that 
St.  Paul  had  reHected  on  the  problems  which  have 
proved  so  fa.scinating  to  later  Christian  thoufjht, 
while  his  rabbinical  training  must  have  lelt  a 
dcjiosit  of  answers  to  similar  questions  touching 
O'V  sacrifice.  As  a  fact,  he  makes  a  large  con- 
tribution to  a  theory  of  the  Atonement. 

(«)  The  element  of  Christ's  sacrifice  to  which  decisive  import- 
ance attaches  b  llie  death  upon  the  cross.  So  vital  is  this  that 
the  gospel  may  be  summarily  described  as  the  message  of  the 
cross  ^1  Co  lis).  It  is  in  the  death  of  the  Son  (lio  5l»),  in  His 
cross,  m  the  blood  of  His  cross  (Col  1^),  that  the  procuring 
cause  is  found  of  the  blessings  of  redemption.  It  is  obviously 
true  that  St.  Paul  recognizes  other  elements  without  which 
the  death  would  have  had  no  significance.  Especially  does  it 
derive  its  value  from  the  dignity  of  the  person  of  liim  who 
was  Messiah,  declared  to  be  the  .Son  of  God  in  the  resurrection, 
and  who  is  now  exalted  (Ko  1^,  Col  li-*"^-).  But  it  waa  not 
•imply  as  obedient  (Ko  .^Ifl,  Ph  2«),  it  was  as  the  obedient  One 
who  was  slain,  and  whose  blood  was  spilt,  that  He  had  power 
and  prevailed  (Ro  323).  *  n  jg  upon  the  moment  of  death  that 
'iie  grounding  of  salvation  is  exclusively  concentrated '  (Holtz- 
raann,  Snitfgf.  Throl.  ii.  p.  111). 

(3)  The  sacrifice  of  Christ  had  the  significance  of  the  death 
of  an  innocent  victim  in  the  room  of  the  guilty.  It  is  vain  to 
deny  that  St.  Paul  frcfly  euiploys  the  category  of  substitution. 
Involving  the  conception  of  the  imputation  or  transference  of 
moral  Qualities.  He  does  not,  indeed,  expressly  say  that 
Christ  nie<l  in  our  stead  («r?/) :  the  phra.se  is  'on  our  behalf 
iy*ip,  Ito  68  8^-*,  1  Th  610  etc.),  or  'on  accoimt  of  our  sins' 
(8j«.  Ro  4^6  ;  wtoi,  1  Co  15^).  But  the  idea  of  an  exchan^eof  parts 
*»  netwixt  Christ  and  man  is  unmistakable.  Chnst  suffers 
death,  which  is  the  penalty  of  our  sins,  not  of  His  own ;  man 
is  the  recipient  of  a  righteousness  which  he  has  not  built 
up,  but  which  is  won  for  him  by  Christ  (2  Co  521).  From  his 
reference  to  Christ  as  a  means  of  propitiation  (jXaerrn^'dv, 
Ro  323)  it  is  probable  that  the  apostle  conceived  of  Christ 
u  expiating  guilt  through  the  vicarious  endurance  of  itfl 
characteristrc  penalty.  It  does  not,  indeed,  follow  that  he 
conceived  of  Christ  as  becoming  the  object  of  the  Father's 
wrath,  and  construed  the  cross  as  having  the  quality  of  a 
punishment  indicted  upon  Christ  and  recognized  as  such,  or 
the  content  of  an  erjuivalentof  the  misery  of  the  lost  (Pfleiderer, 
I'aulinUmug,  p.  ^ZB.). 

(r)  The  necessity  of  Christ's  sacrifice  tiad  Its  ground  in  the 
Divine  Justice.  "The  economy  of  grace,  which  includes  the 
Atonement,  Is  indeed  derived,  as  its  ultimate  spring,  from  the 
love  of  God(Ro6iH0  8M-«');  but  the  justice  of  Ood  had  a  voice 
in  the  shaping  and  developing  of  the  economy.  The  atoning 
sacrifice  was  necessary  in  order  'that  God  might  be  just'  as 
well  as  'the  Justifier  of  them  that  believe' (Ro  825).  But  this 
answer  only  opens  up  new  vistas  of  questionings.  Why  was 
Christ's  vicarious  death  demonded  by  God  in  virtue  of  His 
justice?  We  nmy  safely  say  that  neither  the  Orotian  Iheorj  — 
to  prevent  the  spread  of  sinful  disorder  by  an  example  of 

{lunishment,  nor  even  the  orthodox  view — because  Divine  justice 
ty  its  very  nature  insists  on  punishment  or  satisfaction,  lay 
within  the  apostle's  horizon.  The  ground  of  the  necessity  was 
something  more  positi\'e,  viz.  that  God,  whose  word  could  not 
be  broken,  had  enacted  and  provided  In  Scripture  that  sin 
would  1«  punished  with  death.  According  to  PHeidcrer,  this  is 
one  of  the  instances  of  the  contnulictions  of  Paulinism.  The 
Law,  which  the  apostle  pronounced  to  be  temporary  and  now 
abrogated.  Is  here  utilized  to  lay  the  foundation  of  the  doctrine 
of  the  Atonement  (op.  eit.  p.  103).  But  the  proclamation  of 
death  as  the  wages  of  sin  is  not  confined  to  the  Lnvi ;  It  goes 
bock  to  the  patriarchal  and  earlier  times  (On  3»),  In  which  St. 
Paul  always  recognized  an  anticipation  of  the  religious  condi- 
tions of  the  age  of  the  gospel. 

(>)  The  sacrificial  death  of  Christ  was  an  event  which  broke 
the  power  of  sin  as  the  dominant  principle  of  humanity.  It 
does  not  exhaust  St.  Paul's  t«a<:hing  as  to  the  mode  of  Its 
elllcocy  to  say  that,  on  the  ground  of  the  sacrifice,  God  accei>t« 
and  sanctifies  the  sinner.  lie  also  teaches  that  In  the  death 
of  Christ  there  took  place  a  death  of  mankind  to  sin,  'If  one 
died  for  all,  then  all  died"  (2 Co  5'«,  c».  Ro  if).      Humanity 


was  then  in  a  manner  comprehended  In  Him,  and,  although 
the  realization  was  to  be  partial  and  gradual,  contemporaneously 
with  His  death  it  died  in  principle  to  the  old  order  in  which 
the  flesh  held  the  nobler  elements  in  thrall.  Christ  routed  sin 
in  the  sphere  of  human  nature,  and  a  new  humanity  was  thus 
potentially  created.  While  insuthciently  recognizing  the  for- 
ensic aspect  of  Christ's  work,  Weizsiicker  justly  observes ;  'it 
consists  not  only  with  his  doctrine  of  the  Person  of  Christ,  but 
also  with  the  severul  modes  of  thought  of  the  great  apostle, 
that  Christ's  work  in  death  appears  to  him  under  this  highest 
view-point  of  the  destruction  of  a  world  and  its  power  through 
a  higher  power  and  order,  and  that  this  clistiiiclion  should 
take  place  in  its  own  province,  so  that  flesh  is  vanquished 
in  the  flesh,  law  through  law,  death  through  death'  ( Avast. 
ZeUalt.  p.  HO). 

(c)  The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  though  dealing  very 
folly  with  the  sacrifice  of  Christ,  cliielly  dwells  on 
its  parallelism  to  the  Levitical  sacrilices  in  re- 
spect of  the  ritualistic  acts  of  the  manipulation  of 
the  blood,  and  its  superiority  as  regards  its  range 
and  efficacy.  There  are,  however,  two  points  at 
whicli  it  propounds  or  develops  a  rellexiun  which 
is  of  far-rcacliing  importance  in  the  field  of  specu- 
lation. The  iirst  relates  to  the  question  as  to  the 
precise  nature  of  Christ's  oflering,  or  the  element 
whicli  gave  it  its  atoning  value.  In  common  with 
the  apostles,  the  writer  fixes  our  attention  closely 
on  the  event  of  the  bodily  death  as  that  which  con- 
stitutes Christ  the  sin-bearer  (9-^)  and  tlie  instru- 
ment of  our  sanctilication  (10'°).  Hut  behind  tliis 
lay  the  question  wherein  the  sacrificial  value  of  the 
death  consisted.  Was  the  material  of  the  .sacrifice 
the  sum  of  the  physical  anguish,  and  of  the  accom- 
panying distress  of  spirit,  which  immediately  pre- 
ceded death,  and  especially  of  the  agony,  the 
humiliation,  and  the  dissolution  of  tiie  final  event? 
Or  was  it  tlie  spirit  of  self-sacrificing  love  which 
prompted  Jesus  to  lay  down  His  life?  In  other 
words,  wa.s  the  sacrifice  of  Christ  etticacious  in 
virtue  of  its  quality  of  a  eufi'ering  unto  death,  er 
in  virtue  of  its  quality  of  an  obedience  unto 
death  ?  Already  St.  Paul,  in  whose  scheme  of 
thought  it  was  of  vital  consequence  that  Clirist 
sutt'ered  the  physical  consequences  due  to  human 
sin,  had  given  expression  to  the  thought  that  an 
element  of  fundamental  value  was  the  obedience  of 
Christ.  That  we  are  justified  by  Uis  blood,  and 
that  we  are  justified  by  His  obedience,  are  parallel 
conceptions  (Ilo  S'-'").  This  conception,  which 
with  St.  Paul  comes  in  somewhat  incidentally,  is 
very  directly  stated  in  He  10°-'  'Sacrifices  and 
oflerings  and  whole  burnt-ofl'erings  and  sacrifices 
for  sin  thou  wouldest  not ;  then  liath  he  said,  Lo,  I 
am  come  to  do  thy  will '  (vv.*- »).  Here  the  contrast 
between  the  Levitical  sacrifices  and  the  s.acrifice  of 
Christ  is  developed  in  a  peculiarly  suggestive  way. 
It  docs  not  consist  in  this,  tli.it  in  the  former  case 
animal  victims  are  slain,  in  the  latter  a  victim  of 
pre-eminent  dignity,  but  in  the  circumstance  that 
in  the  one  case  the  oll'ering  is  a  material,  in  the 
other  a  spiritual  oblation. 

The  second  inijiortant  passage  is  that  in  which 
the  writer  develops  the  parallel  to  the  action  of 
the  high  priest  in  the  sanctuary  on  the  Day  of 
Atonement.  Even  as  the  high  priest  entered  the 
Holy  of  Holies,  bearing  with  him  .sacrificial  blood, 
which  he  ollered  for  himself  and  the  peoiile  (9'),  so 
Christ  entered  heavenly  places  '  through  his  own 
blood,'  or  to  present  His  .sacrifice  before  (!od  (9""' 
v.^).  From  this  representation  it  would  ajipear 
that  the  vital  moment  of  tlie  sacrificial  act  was 
the  presentation  of  His  blood.  And  as  it  may  be 
maintained  that  the  object  in  presenting  the  blood 
was,  not  to  bring  into  God's  presence  evidence  of 
the  consummation  of  the  death,  but  to  oiler  that 
which  the  OT  dcacribed  as  the  seat  of  life,  it  would 
follow  that  the  quality  of  satisfying  God  attached 
to  Christ's  oll'ering  of  a  stainless  sotil  or  a  [lerfected 
obedience.  The  issue  may  be  more  sharply  defined 
thus :  Was  the  satisfaction  rendered  by  Christ  the 
death  to  which  He  voluntarily  submitted,  or  wa- 


346 


SACELFICE 


SACRIFICE 


it  the  lifelong  obedience  which  found  in  the  death 
its  last  an<l  most  signal  expression  ?  To  many 
ujinds  the  thought  embodied  in  the  second  alter- 
native has  brought  welcome  intellectual  relief. 
For  the  hard  saying  that  God  could  be  satisfied 
only  by  the  death  of  His  Son  it  substitutes  the 
reasonable  and  even  natural  idea  tliat  the  filial 
obedience  manifested  in  the  whole  life  of  Jesus 
— in  His  inner  life,  and  His  ministry  of  teaching 
and  beneficence,  as  well  as  in  His  faithfulness 
unto  death — constituted  the  oirering  with  which 
God  was  well  pleased,  and  which  brought  humanity 
into  a  new  relation  to  God. 

While  eusrpestinff  the  higrher  conception  of  the  nature  of 
Christ's  offering,  the  Epistle  does  not  free  itself  from  the  idea 
that  the  physical  event  of  death  came  into  account  as  some- 
thing additional  to  the  obedience.  It  accepts  the  principle 
that  '  apart  from  6he<lding  of  blood  there  is  no  remission '  (922), 
and  indeed  knows  nothing  of  a  sacrifice  which  does  not  involve 
sutTering  and  death  as  an  essentia]  element  of  it  (9'-^).  The 
following  utterance  seems  to  come  near  to  the  eventual  teaching 
of  the  Epistle.  '  It  has  been  said  that  Christ's  perfect  sacri- 
fice is  wholly  inward,  of  the  heart.  But  is  it  not  essential  to 
sacrifice  that  it  should  be  the  outward  act  by  which  the  inward 
intention  is  realized,  is  pledged,  is  sealed?  The  inward  self- 
dedication  only  becomes  sacrificial  when  it  has  discovered  the 
appropriate  offering  by  which  it  can  verify  itself.  Only  through 
attaining  this  expression,  in  outward  realization,  does  the 
language  of  sacrifice  apply  to  it'  (Scott  UoUood  in  Priesthood 
and  Sacnjice^  p.  85). 

(rf)  In  the  JoTumnineiDritings  the  centre  of  gravity 
shifts  from  the  Atonement  to  the  Incarnation.  In 
the  Pauline  theology  the  capital  tlieme  is  the 
sinner's  acceptance  and  pardon  on  the  ground  of 
Christ's  atoning  sacrifice ;  in  the  Johannine  it  is 
the  possession  of  eternal  life  in  intimate  and  vital- 
izing union  with  the  Word  made  flesh.  The  key- 
note of  the  one  is  reconciliation, — of  tlie  other, 
communion.  It  is  indeed  a  difi'erence  of  emphasis, 
not  of  inclusion  and  exclusion.  As  St.  Paul  also  ex- 
perienced and  chronicled  the  inspiration  and  spirit- 
ual energy  enjoyed  in  mystic  communion  with 
the  exalted  Christ,  so  the  Johannine  writings  also 
embody  numerous  references  to  the  importance 
of  Christ's  sacrificial  death.  They  preserve  the 
Baptist's  testimony  to  Christ  as  the  lamb-victim, 
whether  the  Paschal  lamb  or  the  suffering  Servant 
of  Jehovah  (Is  53"),  that  takes  away  the  sin  of  the 
world  (Jn  1®);  His  work  is  paralleled,  as  in  Hebrews, 
to  that  of  the  hi"h  priest  on  the  Day  of  Atonement 
(17'") ;  and  His  death,  which  is  conceived  as  a  Sin- 
oftering,  has  manifestly  expiatory  value  [IXarrixb^  wcpl 
anaprtSv,  1  Jn  2-',  cf .  4"").  But  the  group  of  ideas  con- 
nected with  the  Atonement  is  felt  to  be  accepted 
and  reproduced  as  part  of  the  common  stock  of 
Christian  beliefs,  rather  than  to  have  been  assimi- 
lated and  developed  under  the  progressive  guid- 
ance of  the  Spirit  of  truth. 

It  haa  sometimes  been  affirmed  that  St.  John  unfolda  *  new 
theory  of  redemption.  Not  by  dyin',',  but  hv  shedding  abroad 
a  revelation  of  God  and  true  life  from  His  Divine-human  person, 
did  Christ  come  to  drive  away  darkness  and  sin  (cf.  Holtzinann, 
ii.  474).  In  other  words,  his  soleriological  theory  waa  Greek— 
th.at  sin  is  jgnorance,  and  its  remedy  light.  But  his  being 
possessed  with  the  marvel  of  the  Incarnation  was  not  incom- 
patible with  the  loyal  acceptance  which  he  intimates  of  the 
general  belief  as  to  the  significance  of  Christ's  death.  In 
Uoman  Catholic  and  Anglican  theology  there  is  a  similar  in- 
sistence on  the  pre-eminence  of  the  Incarnation  dogma,  coupled 
with  a  certain  reserve,  but  assuredly  no  want  of  faith,  in  regard 
to  the  Atonement. 

Such  being  the  perspective  of  the  Johannine 
theology,  there  is  not  much  ground  for  expecting 
answers  to  questions  raised  in  the  theory  of  the 
Atonement.  It  accentuates  by  preference  moral 
aspects  of  the  Atonement,  but  without  entitling 
ns  to  infer  that  Christ's  sacrifice  only  influences 
God  indirectly  through  the  change  which  it  pre- 
viously produces  in  believers.  As  examples  of^its 
moral  influence  may  be  noted  that  in  the  Caper- 
naum discourse  Christ  views  His  death  as  the 
preliminary  to  pi%'ing  His  flesh  for  the  life  of  the 


world  (6"),  and  that  at  a  later  period  it  is  spoken 
of  as  destined  to  exercise  an  irresistible  magnetism 
(12''^).  But  that  its  influence  was  not  in  the  first 
instance  merely  subjective,  appears  from  the  fact 
that  it  is  represented  as  a  transaction  in  which 
Satan  joined  issue  in  decisive  conflict,  was  beaten 
back,  and  in  consequence  was  shorn  of  his  power 
(16"  12^').  And  with  this  direct  transcendental 
efl'ect  clearly  predicated,  it  becomes  the  more  prob- 
able that  in  the  Johannine  teaching  the  sacrifice 
of  Christ,  when  likened  to  an  expiatory  or  pro- 
pitiatory sacrifice,  was  understood  to  have  an  effect 
upon  God  unconditioned  by  its  after  -  fruits  in 
human  experience. 

To  sum  up,  we  find  that  the  NT  ^vriters  are 
unanimous  and  distinct  as  to  the  .saving  signifi- 
cance of  Christ's  sacrifice,  as  to  the  blessings  which 
flow  from  it,  and  as  to  the  conditions  on  which 
these  are  appropriated.  As  regards  tlie  precise 
nature  of  the  ottering,  and  its  mode  of  working, 
our  Lord  says  nothing  definite.  St.  Paul  certainly 
holds  the  satisfaction  of  Divine  justice  through  a 
vicarious  death  ;  the  Ep.  to  the  Hebrews  emphasizes 
the  germinal  thought  that  the  ofl'ering  was  the 
obedience  or  spiritual  perfection  of  Christ ;  St. 
John's  record  chiefly  confines  itself  to  its  moral 
bearings.  Upon  the  points  in  question,  indeed, 
they  have  more  to  teach  if  we  could  handle 
the  key.  To  their  thinking,  and  to  that  of 
their  readers,  these  points  were  elucidated  by 
describing  Christ's  death  as  a  sacrifice,  especi- 
ally a  Sin-ottering ;  but,  as  we  cannot  say  with 
confidence  what  was  the  accepted  theory  of  the 
significance  of  sacrifice,  the  elucidation  has  in  its 
turn  become  a  problem.  From  this  condition  of 
mingled  certainty  and  uncertainty  several  infer- 
ences may  fairly  be  drawn.  In  the  first  place,  it 
may  be  surmised  that  the  sacrificial  category, 
while  emphasizing  certain  vital  aspects,  was  m- 
adequate  to  the  expression  of  the  full  signifi- 
cance of  the  work  of  Christ,  and  that  the  old 
sacrificial  doctrine  was  providentially  left  in  ob- 
scurity at  those  points  where  it  was  least  adequate. 
In  close  connexion  with  this  it  may  also  be  sug- 
gested that  there  was  a  design  not  to  bind  up  the 
work  of  Christ  so  intimately  with  the  interpre- 
tation of  an  obsolescent  institution  as  to  prevent  its 
receiving  fresh  illumination  from  other  fields  of 
human  life.  From  this  would  follow,  further,  a 
commission  to  theology  not  to  regard  itself  as 
bound  by  the  fragmentary  NT  data  for  a  theory 
of  the  Atonement,  but  to  reinterjiret  by  its  own 
thought  the  nature,  the  grounds  of  the  necessity, 
and  the  mode  of  efficacy  of  the  sacrifice  of  Christ. 
In  the  exercise  of  this  commission  modem  theology 
has  very  generally  become  penetrated  by  the  con- 
viction that  the  sacrifice  of  Christ  is  too  narrowly 
interpreted  of  His  death,  and  that  the  atoning 
etticacy  attaches  to  the  whole  life,  in  which  active 
and  passive  obedience  are  interwoven  as  warp  and 
woof.  Meanwhile  the  uncertainty  which  attaches 
to  certain  stages  of  the  process  only  throws  into 
bolder  relief  the  apostolic  certitude  as  to  the  fact 
that  God  was  in  Christ  reconciling  the  world  to 
Himself. 

iii.  The  Sacrifices  of  the  Chri.stian  Life. 
— The  NT  doctrine  is  tliat  Christ  ottered  a  sacrifice 
which  established  peace  with  God,  and  which  pro- 
cures the  forgiveness  of  sins.  But  with  this  the 
conception  of  ofiering  was  not  wholly  detached 
from  the  sphere  of  human  service  ;  on  the  contrary, 
a  place  is  reserved  for  human  ofl'erings  of  a  com- 
plementary or  secondary  kind. 

(a)  The  graces  and  the  activities  of  the  Chris- 
tian life  have  a  sacrificial  character.  In  the 
Prophets  it  was  a  frequent  thought  that  the  forms 
and  expressions  of  the  devout  life — the  broken 
spirit,  the  voice  of  adoration  and  aspiration — were 


SACRIFICE 


SACRIFICE 


347 


sacrifices  of  peculiar  value ;  and  such  spiritual 
exerci-es  continued  to  be  described  as  oblations. 
The  NT  doctrine  of  the  priesthood  of  believers  also 
involved  the  idea  that  they  had  somewliat  to  oiler. 
The  in.iterial  of  such  otlVrings  is  the  Christian  per- 
sonality (Ko  15",  cf.  Jnde  ■■'),  or  the  body  regarded 
as  the  "instrument  of  Christian  service  (Ro  12'),  or 
the  exercises  and  actinties  of  the  Christian  life 
(1  P  2'),  including  prayer  (He  13"),  beneficent  deeds 
(v."),  money  gifts  (Ph  4"),  or  the  graces  in  which 
service  has  its  spring  (faith,  Ph  2")  (Cave,  p.  40G  IT., 
who  treats  this  subject  very  fully  and  suggestively). 
The  immediate  effect  attributed  to  these  ollerings 
is  that  they  are  pleasing  to  God  (Ko  12'),  are  to 
Him  as  the  odour  of  a  sweet  smell  (Ph  4'"). 

But  the  further  question  arises  whether  God, 
as  pleased  with  these  sacrifices,  and  on  the  ground 
of  the  offerings,  bestows  upon  the  Christian  any 
special  corresponding  blessing.  It  may  safely 
be  said  that  tliey  are  not  regarded  as  expiatory  ; 
only  faith  comes  into  account  as  connected  with 
the  forgiveness  of  sin,  and  then  as  the  mere  con- 
dition of  obtaining  the  boon  of  which  the  real 
ground  is  the  sacrifice  of  Christ.  But  certain  of 
the  offerings  specified  have  at  lea-st  a  puriliiatory 
virtue — faith  which  overcomes  the  world,  and  hope 
which  purifies.  As  regards  forms  of  Christian 
service,  it  is  antecedently  probable  that  they  were 
regarded  as  procuring  certain  benefits.  To  call  an 
act  a  sacrifice,  was  clearly  to  imply  that  a  benefit 
followed  ;  and  to  say  that  God  was  well  pleased, 
was  equally  to  imply  that  He  would  practically 
manifest  His  approbation.  From  the  NT  stand- 
point, indeed,  the  motive  for  rendering  spiritual 
sacrifices  is  gratitude  to  God  for  His  inexpressible 
magnanimity ;  but  it  does  not  thence  follow  that 
they  do  not  receive  a  rich  Divine  recognition.  In 
the  paralile  of  the  Unjust  Steward  it  is  taught 
that  wealth  might  be  .so  used  as  to  procure  an 
abundant  entrance  into  the  everlasting  habitations 
[Lk  16"-),  and  it  is  no  unfamiliar  thought  of  the 
ipostle  of  grace  that  God  will  specially  reward 
the  work  and  labour  of  love. 

But  what  is  the  precise  nature  of  the  Divine 
response  to  the  offerings  of  service?  The  current 
reply  is  that  in  the  present  it  takes  the  form  of 
mward  enrichment  and  growth  in  grace,  and  that 
in  the  world  to  come  it  will  be  manifested  in  a 
distinction  of  degrees  of  glory.  Hut  it  may  be 
doubted  if  this  e.xhausts  the  NT  concejjtion  of  the 
efficacy  of  the  secondary  sacrifices.  The  life  that 
utters  itself  in  the  forms  of  sacrifice  would  appear 
to  evoke  a  response  additional  to  strengthening 
grace,  which  is  of  the  nature  of  a  special  provi- 
dential discipline  or  blessing,  and  which,  resting 
on  the  individual  or  even  the  house,  makes  "ener- 
ally  for  their  protection  and  well-being  (^It  6'"). 
So  St.  Paul,  after  specifying  the  acceptable 
sacrifices  of  the  Philippians,  concludes  that  God 
will  supply  all  their  need  (Phil  4'''). 

^n  ezpiatory  chancer  mi^ht  appear  to  t>e  ascribed  to  one 
cloiw  of  ttpirilual  sacriQces,  viz.  the  sutTerin^s  of  Itie  sainU.  '  I 
reloice  in  inv  sufTeriiiga  on  your  behalf,'  sa.vs  the  npoalle,  'and 
fill  up  wliat  19  larking  of  the  atllictions  of  ChrlHl  in  my  tiesh  on 
behalf  of  hia  body,  which  is  the  Church*  (Col  IW).  "By  some 
Rom.  Cath.  excretes  it  has  been  ar^^ued  that  the  afllictions  of 
the  saints  are  regarded  as  comliined  with  the  passion  of  Christ 
'o  constitute  the  satisfaction  on  the  ground  of  which  God 
pardons  sin.  But  while  the  apostle  atflruis  that  his  sutTerings 
are  for  the  good  of  the  Church,  he  <ioe8  not  say  that  it  is  as 
propitiatory,  and  the  mo<le  of  conveying  benefit  may  well  have 
been  that,  bv  the  apostolic  example  of  patient  obedience,  the 
body  was  edified.  But  how  do  they  fill  up  what  was  la<^king  of 
Christ's  sufferings?  The  idea  may  either  be  that  the  apostle 
desired  to  approximate  to  the  standard  of  Christ's  sulTerings 
(Weiss),  or  that  he  desin-tl  to  entluro  his  share  of  the  sutTerings 
which  Christ,  through  Ills  Cburch-bodv,  has  yet  to  •uner(AI- 
ford,  in  loe.).    See  also  Lightfoot  and  Abbott. 

(h)  The  worship  of  the  Church  embodies  a  sacri- 
ficial element ;  but  this  is  not  to  be  identified  with 
the  Eucharist,  nor  can  the  latter  be  scripturally  in- 


terpreted as  having  the  character  of  a  propitiatory 
.sacrifice.  To  say  that  worship  is  sacrificial  is  to 
repeat  what  has  already  been  said  of  the  NT 
spiritual  sacrifices.  The  faith  and  hope  and  love 
which  find  expression  in  praise  ami  prayer,  the 
money  gifts  which  are  devoted  to  the  work  of 
Christ,  are  declared  by  the  apostles  to  have  this 
character.  Specially  is  the  celebration  of  the 
sacrament  of  trie  Lord's  Supper,  evoking,  as  it  does, 
faith  and  hope  and  the  sentiment  of  gratitude,  the 
occasion  of  the  presentation  of  spiritual  offerings. 
The  special  question  is  whether  the  Eucharist  is 
a  sacrifice  in  a  peculiar  specific  sense,  and  if  so, 
what  is  its  precise  character  and  efficacy.  The 
question  as  to  whether  it  may  be  called  a  sacrifice 
is  not  of  vital  importance.  It  may  easily  be 
brought  within  the  compass  of  our  working  defini- 
tion. '  In  a  certain  loose  sense  the  Lord's  Supper 
may  be  called  a  sacrifice,  inasmuch  as  it  was 
deliberately  associated  by  its  founder  with  the 
sacrificial  rites  of  the  O't"  (Cave,  p.  439).  The 
really  important  issues  are  raised  by  the  Roman 
doctrine,  which  interprets  it  as  continuous  with 
the  atoning  sacrifice  of  Christ,  and  as  therefore 
possessing  a  propitiatory  character. 

•  By  the  consecration  of  the  bread  and  of  the  wine  a  conver- 
sion  ia  made  of  the  whole  substance  of  the  bread  into  the 
substance  of  the  body  of  Christ  our  Lord,  and  of  the  whole 
substance  of  the  wine  into  the  substance  of  His  blood '  (llec. 
Cone.  Trident.,  Sesa.  xiii.  cap.  4).  '  Forasmucii  as,  in  this  Divine 
sacrifice,  which  ia  celebrated  in  the  Mass,  that  same  Christ 
ia  contained  and  immolated  in  an  unbloody  manner  who 
once  otTered  Himself  in  a  bloody  manner  on  the  altar  of  the 
Cross,  the  boly  Synod  teaches  that  this  sacrifice  is  truly  pro- 
pitiatory, and  that  by  means  thereof  this  ia  effected — that  we 
obtain  mercy  and  find  grace  if  we  draw  nigh  contrite  and 
penitent,'  etc.  (Twenty-second  sesa.  cap.  2).  'Wherefore,  not 
only  for  the  sins,  etc.,  of  the  faithful  who  are  living,  but  also 
for  those  who  are  departed  in  Christ,  and  not  yet  fully  purified, 
it  is  ri^rlitly  olTered '  (I't.).  At  the  same  time,  it  is  held  that 
propitiation  is  not  the  only,  or  even  the  principal,  fruit  (cauoo 
6  of  thirteenth  aess.). 

It  would  be  out  of  place  to  develop  the  general 
objections  to  this  view,  which  involves  the  grave 
religious  defect  of  suggesting  tli.at  s.ilvation  rests 
on  an  incomplete  and  therefore  iiiseiure  founda- 
tion. The  relevant  objections  are  that  the  tenet 
of  transubstantiation,  which  is  the  presupposition 
of  the  theory,  has  no  scriptural  warrant,  while  the 
interpretation  of  the  Eucharist  as  a  per]ietual 
propitiatory  ofl'ering  is  inconsistent  with  the  NT 
teaching  tli.at  the  sacrifice  of  Clirist  was  e.'jpiatory, 
and  was  ollered  once  for  all  (Ro  6'",  He  7"  9"-  *«•■* 
10">-  "• ",  1  P  3"*). 

According  to  a  modified  view,  the  Eucharist 
ia  a  perpetuation  of  Christ's  sacrifice,  but  not  of 
the  propitiatory  sacrifice  which  lie  ollered  on 
Calvary.  Attention  is  here  transferred  to  the 
sacrifice  which  Christ  presented,  and  continues  to 
present,  in  the  heavenly  sanctuary  (He  8'-'),  and 
it  is  maintained  that  in  the  Eucharist  the  Church 
presents  an  offering  which  is  organically  connected 
with  the  ceaseless  offering  of  her  Head. 

'The  offering  of  our  Heavenly  High  Priest,'  to  quote  an  Im- 
portant atatcuient  of  this  view,  'includes  in  it  a  present  and 
eternal  offering  of  His  life  in  heaven.'  Rut  the  duty  of  the 
Ohurcll  fa  to  repeat  and  represent  the  life  of  her  Head  in 
another  and  higher  world  ;  and  in  the  Eucharist  she  'appropri- 
ates and  reproduces  the  priestly  offering  of  Him  in  whom  she 
livea.  Aa  our  Lord's  oficring  of  Himself  never  enfls  or  can 
end,  so  In  that  offering  Hia  people,  organirally  united  to  Hhii, 
one  with  Him.  must  be  ollered,  anrl  must  offer  themselvea  ;  and 
this  they  do  in  the  expressive  and  touching  symbols  of  the 
Eucharist'  (Milligau,  Ucaixnly  PrieMood,  p.  'iOO). 

On  this  view,  then,  the  Eucharist  is  a  sacrifice 
which  not  only  represents,  but  also,  a.s  a  coii.se- 
quence  or  Chnst's  union  with  the  Church,  forms  a 
part  of  the  offering  made  by  Christ  to  God  It 
IS  commended  on  the  ground  that  it  satisfies 
the  legitimate  demand  for  a  perpetual  oblation 
which  IS  unscripturally  ministered  to  in  the  sacri- 


548 


SACRIFICE 


SACRIFICE 


fice  of  the  Mass.  But  tlie  scriptural  evidence 
IS  in  conflict  with  its  cardinal  positions.  Tlie 
ofloring  of  Christ,  wliich  is  the  ground  of  our 
salvation,  was,  according  to  passages  already 
quoted,  one  which  does  nut  need  to  be  repealed, 
and  we  are  therefore  forced  to  seek  it  witliin  the 
compass  of  Christ's  earthly  life  —  either  in  His 
death  or  in  His  obedience  unto  death.  It  is  said, 
indeed,  that  that  which  is  undiangeable  and  ever- 
lasting is  not  repeated,  but  it  is  hardly  disputable 
that  «liat  was  present  to  the  mind  of  the  writer  to 
the  Hebrews  was  the  contrast  of  the  ever-renewed 
to  the  completed,  not  to  the  never-ending  ottering. 
Nor  was  it  declared  in  the  words  of  institution 
that  the  special  purjiose  of  the  Eucharist  was  to 
furnish  the  Church  with  an  ordinance  which  should 
be  a  counterpart,  and  even  a  part,  of  the  activi- 
ties of  Christ  s  heavenly  priesthood.  Rather  is  it 
brought  into  close  relation  with  the  obedience  unto 
death  which  preceded  His  entrance  into  glory. 

On  the  whole,  it  may  be  concluded  tliat,  while 
the  Eucharist,  more  than  other  means  of  grace,  has 
the  form  of  a  sacrifice,  it  is  at  bottom,  like  them, 
only  the  occasion  of  sacrifice,  i.e.  of  the  presenta- 
tion to  God  of  spiritual  offerings.  Wliether  the 
outward  act  be  prayer,  or  praise,  or  the  Eucliarist, 
the  offerings  therein  rendered  to  God  are  the  faith, 
the  penitence,  and  the  self-surrender  to  wliich  it 
gives  expression,  and  which  are  sustained  by  the 
rite. 

The  Typology  of  Sacrifice,  which  has  been  inci- 
dentally touched  on,  requires  more  direct  con- 
sideration at  the  close  of  this  study,  in  which  we 
have  seen  the  sacrificial  worship  of  the  earlier 
dispensation  disappear  in  the  sacrifices  of  the  New 
Covenant.  From  the  typological  point  of  view,  the 
Levitical  sacrifices  come  under  the  category  of 
prediction.  They  difl'ered  from  the  predictions 
proper  in  form, — Ijeing  enshrined  not  in  word  but 
in  institution  and  rite, — but  they  served  the  same 
end  of  testifying  beforehand  to  the  person,  the 
life,  and  the  work  of  Christ,  and  to  the  contents 
and  conditions  of  His  salvation.  In  the  older 
works  the  study  of  sacrifice  as  prediction  and  ful- 
filment was  assiduously  prosecuted  as  at  once 
alVording  the  deepest  gratification  to  the  believer, 
and  furnishing  a  weapon  of  distinct  apologetic 
value.  In  labouring  at  this  task.  Christian  piety 
gave  free  play  to  fancy,  and  every  feature  of  the 
OT  ritual  became  eloquent  of  the  unspeakable 
riches  of  Christ.  Dogmatic  prepossessions  also 
supervened  to  dominate  the  discussion  ;  and,  while 
the  Romanist  discovered  in  the  Levitical  system 
a  foreshadowing  and  corroboration  of  the  distinc- 
tive sacerdotal  and  sacramentarian  tenets  of  his 
communion,  the  Protestant  found  in  it  an  equally 
good  witness  for  every  fundamental  article  of  the 
evangelical  system  of  doctrine  (Fairbairn,  Typology 
of  Scripture). 

The  luminous  and  thorouph  monograph  of  Principal  Cave  Is 
distinfc'uished,  in  its  treatment  of  the  typical  aspect  of  sacrifice, 
by  great  sobriety  of  judijnuiit.  A  tj-pc  is  defined  as  an  enacted 
propliecy,  and  three  essential  notes  are  diatinjuished :  it  ad- 
umbrates something ;  it  adumbrates  some  future  thing,  and  it 
is  specially  designed  by  God  to  adumbrate  that  future  thing 
(p.  158).  The  eaoriflcial  practice  he  divides  into  two  branches 
— that  which  was  concerned  with  atonement,  and  that  which 
was  concerned  with  the  presentation  of  the  offering.  And  to 
these  types  respectively  correspond,  as  their  antitypes,  the 
death  of  Christ  and  our  spiritual  sacrifices.  'The  atonement 
by  blood  has  its  antitype  in  the  atonement  made  by  .Jesus.  In 
the  activities  and  passivities  of  the  Christian  life  are  Xo  be 
found  the  intit.\pe  of  the  Mosaic  injunctions  other  than  those 
concerning  the  methods  of  atonement,  the  high  priesthood,  and 
the  tabernacle'  (p.  419,  cf.  406ff.). 

The  precedent  for  treating  the  OT  sacrifices 
typologically,  i.e.  as  predictive  in  character  and 
design,  is  set  in  the  NT.  As  certainly  as  re- 
liance is  placed  on  fulfilments  of  OT  verbal  pre- 
dictions IS  use  made  of  antitypal  fulfilments  to 


attest  the  Messiahship  and  the  redemptive  mission 
of  Jesus.  But  while  the  OT  sacrifices  are  thus 
accorded  the  dignity  of  OT  predictions,  they  must 
also  share  in  the  consequences  of  the  altered  view 
as  to  the  precise  nature  and  soope  of  prophecy 
viewed  as  prediction.  What  has  become  increas- 
ingly clear  is  that  OT  prophecy  does  not  consist 
of  chapters  of  detailed  history  written  before  the 
event.  Proplietism  was  in  essence  faith  in  God 
as  tlie  righteous  Governor  of  the  world  and  the 
gracious  Guardian  of  His  people,  and  on  the  basis 
of  this  faith  it  cherished  a  confident  expectation  of 
the  realization  on  earth  of  a  kingdom  of  righteous- 
ness by  the  instrumental uy  of  a  divinely  commis- 
sioned King,  who  should  through  suti'ering  establish 
His  dominion  (Bruce,  ^/)c/t)p'.- p.  25711'.).  Similarly, 
the  typical  element  in  the  Levitical  code  cannot 
be  regarded  as  coextensive  with  its  multifarious 
forms  and  ritualistic  acts.  The  Pentateuchal  code 
of  sacrifice  is  not  a  mj-stical  version  of  the  Christian 
religion,  whose  every  form  and  rite  was  shaped  by  a 
design  to  show  forth  the  story  of  our  Lord's  passion, 
or  to  elucidate  the  '  activities  and  the  passivities '  of 
the  Christian  life.  The  witness  which  it  bears  to 
Christ  is  less  voluminous,  but  not  necessarily  less 
weighty.  The  OT  sacrifices  expressed  a  need 
which  Christ  satisfies,  and  embodied  a  faith  which 
Christ  justifies.  The  need  to  which  they  gave 
utterance  was  that  felt  by  tlie  human  heart  for 
some  ground  of  religious  confidence  external  to 
itself ;  and  this,  which  the  animal  victim  only 
seemed  to  supplj',  is  fullj'  met  in  the  Christian 
conviction  that  sin  is  forgiven,  in  some  real  deep 
sense,  for  Christ's  sake.  The  faith  which  they 
declared  was  that  God  had  provided  a  means  by 
which  man  could  enter  into  communion  with  God, 
and  the  great  expectation  which  they  expressed 
has  its  realization  in  the  filial  relations  with  God 
into  which  the  Christian  is  brought  by  Christ. 
Yet  once  more,  the  institution  emliodied  the  con- 
viction, which  was  also  a  prediction,  that  the 
sovereign  boon  of  union  with  God  is  not  won  with- 
out labour  and  cost.  The  victim  was  slain,  the 
oflerer  denied  himself  for  God.  And  this  prin- 
ciple only  attained  to  a  fuller  and  deeper  realization 
when,  on  the  one  hand,  Christ  died  that  He  might 
bring  men  to  God  and  reign  in  human  hearts  ;  and 
when,  on  the  other,  it  was  seen  that  self-sacrifice 
is  the  ritual  of  the  lives  that  He  moulds. 

LrrsRATURB.— Mishna  np  "no  (iJerum  sanctarwm  ordc),  espw 
D'nnt  (d«  Samfidis),  ed.  Surenhusius,  vol.  iii.,  Amsterdam, 
Vjm.;  Philo,  d«  Vxdimis  (Yongc's  tr.  185.5,  vol.  iii.);  Outram, 
de  SaerificiU,  London,  1677 ;  Spencer,  de  lecfibus  Uehrieorum 
rittuililjiig  (lib.  iii. '  de  ratione  et  origine  Sacriticiorum '),  Cantab. 
1727  ;  S\kes,  Ussay  on  the  Nature,  etc.,  of  .%tcri/icet,  London, 
1748 ;  liavison.  Origin  and  Extent  o/  Primitioe  Sarrifice,  Lon- 
don, 18'25 :  Bahr,  Symbolik  dejt  Mosaischen  Cultus,  Heidelberg, 
1837  ;  Kurtz,  Der  AT  Op/ercidtus (Kng.  tr.),  Edin.  1865  ;  Oeliler, 
Theol.  dee  AT  (Eng.  tr.),  Edin.  1S82 ;  Fairbairn,  The  Tyijulo:!)/ 
of  Scripture,  Edin.  1817;  Cave,  Script.  Doct.  o/Sacriiee,  Edin. 
1877  ;  \Vcllhausen,  I'roleg.  zur  Gesch.  Isr.  1883  (Kng  tr.  with 
additions,  Edin.  1885);  Nowack,  Lehrb.  der  hebrdisclien  Archd- 
oloijie,  bd.  ii.,  Freiburg,  1894  ;  lienzinger,  llelj.  Arch.,  Freiburg, 
1895;  Riehm,  Attlest.  Theol.,  Halle,  1889,  p.  114  f.  ;  Smend, 
Lehrb.  der  AUIest.  Retirjiomgeachichte^,  Freiburg,  1899,  J)  9,  17. 

For  discussion  of  special  points  the  following  reffs,  may  b« 
given:  Stade,  ZATW,  1894  {sacriDces  of  Cain  and  Abel); 
Kamphausen,  Da^  V^erhtiltniss  des  M enschenop.feri  zur  israeL 
Reliiiion,  Bonn,  1896 ;  Trumbull,  The  Blood  Covenant,  New 
York,  18S6;  Wilcken,  Ueirr  doi  Haaropfer,  Amst«rdam,  1SS8; 
Kiehm,  ■  Ueber  das  Schuldopfer,'  in  SK,  1854,  i.  p.  93  IT. ;  Rinck, 
til.  1855,  ii.  p.  369ft.  ;  U.  Schultz,  'Significance  of  Sacrifice  in 
OT,'  in  AJT,  April  1900.  The  theological  aspects  are  pro- 
minent in  the  following:  Warburton,  Divine  Legation  o) 
Moses,  London,  1738 ;  Magee,  Script.  Doct.  of  Atoneinrjit  and 
Sam/ice,  London,  1812 ;  Payne  Smith,  Power!  and  Duties  o) 
tlie  Priesthood,  London,  1868 ;  Maurice,  The  Doctrine  o/  Sacri. 
fice,  Ixjndon,  1879;  Jowctt  in  Epp.  to  ThessaL  etc.*  ii.  S60, 
London,  1894  ;  Delitssch,  Pom.  on  Ueb.  (Eng.  tr.),  Edin.  1868  ; 
A.  B.  Davidson,  Com.  on  Ueb.,  FAin.  1882 ;  Mflhgan,  The  Ascen- 
sion ami  Ih-avejiiy  Priesthood  of  our  Lord,  London,  1892  ;  Priest' 
hood  and  .Sacrifice  (Report  of  Discussion  at  Oxford),  ed.  .Sanday, 
London,  1900;  Scott,  Sacrifice:  its  Prophecy  and  Fulfilment, 
Edin.  1894;  Baxter,  Sanctuary  and  Sacrifice,  London,  1806) 
Jloberly,  Atonement  and  Personality,  London,  190L 


SADDUCEES 


SADDUCEKS 


319 


The  diBcuflsion  of  the  ori^n  and  evolution  of  Semitic  sacriflce 
to  dominated  by  Wellhausfn,  Skuz^m  u.  VorarOeiifn,  liesU  arab. 
Ufutenthums^,  Berlin,  16«7,aud  cap.  \V.  R.  Smith,  /W2,  London, 
l»y4,  examined  by  .Marillicr  in  lieu,  de  ChUt.  des  llel.  (1897-98); 
Hubert  et  Mauss,  '  Essai  sur  le  nature  et  ia  fon^tion  du  sacrifice,' 
In  L'Aniifr  Sociolmi'nu  for  1SU7-98,  I'aris.  For  the  place  of 
Bacritiee  in  tiie  lieathen  reiipons  see  de  ia  Saussave.  Lt)irb.  der 
Jietiffiontyejii:/iir/tte,  Kreibarjf,  1SS7 ;  Tiele,  Get-c/iichte  der  lieL 
im  AUerUtum,  (^otha,  1803;  Jevons,  An  Introduction  to  the 
Butirry  qf  Hetigiun,  London,  1890;  Tylor,  Primitive  Culture^, 
London,  1891  ;  il.  S[>encer,  Principles  of  Sociolofftjy  London, 
1876;  Lubboclc,  Orvjxn  o/  Civilization^  London,  1889;  Frazer, 
The  Gulden  Bowjh'-,  London,  1900;  Zimmern,  lieitriLfje  zur 
Kfnnlnins  der  babijlon.  Rcti(jion,  Leipzig,  1&9C:  Na^elsbach, 
Homeritiehe  Theoio'jic^.  Niirnberg,  1884;  Famell,  t'uitg  of  the 
Greek  States,  Oxford,  l&t»(J ;  Fowler,  The  Roman  FejiticaU  of 
Ui»  Period  of  th*  Republic,  London,  1S90. 

W.  P.  Patkbson. 
SADDUCEES.— 

i.  Ori;^n  and  History  of  the  SaddaceM. 
U.  Derivation  ol  Hit;  name  '  Sudducee.' 
UL  Their  opiHjsition  to  the  Pbari(>eea. 

(a)  Coiitroveraies  aa  to  the  IjSiw:  (1)  Crimln*!  Law, 

(2)  qucslionB  of  Ritual,  (3)  the  Feasts. 
(6)  Doctrinal  ditferencea :  (1)  aa  to  the  resurrection  of 
the  body,  and  future  retribution  ;  (2)  aa  to  the 
existence  of  aii^rels  and  spirits;  (3)  aM  to  *fate' 
and  free  n'ill,  and  Divine  providence, 
iv.  The  Sadducees  and  Jeaus. 

i.  Origin  and  History  op  the  Sadducees 
(cf.  art.  Pharisees,  §  i.).— The  Sadducees  were 
the  spiritual  descendants  of  the  priestly  party  in 
Jemsaleni,  which,  towards  the  close  of  tlie  Greek 
period  of  Israel's  history,  was  anxious  to  Hcllenize 
the  Palestinian  .Je«s.  The  Maccaba;an  rising  (see 
art.  Maccabees),  which  was  caused  by  the  attempt 
of  Antiochus  Epiphanes  to  accomplish  this  by 
violence,  taught  these  Ilellenizers  the  folly  of 
tampering  with  the  national  religion  ;  while  the 
success  of  Judas  Maccaba'us  and  his  brothers  in 
assertin"  the  nation's  political  independence  de- 
prived them  of  olBce  and  power.  Tlieir  descend- 
ants, however,  speedily  accommodated  themselves 
to  the  new  order  of  things,  which  was  in  many 
respects  after  tlieir  mind.  The  Maccabtcan  rising 
had  ended  otherwise  than  was  hoped  when  it 
bsyan.  In  the  course  of  the  struggle  for  national 
inaependence  the  Maccabee  brothers  were  com- 
pelled to  enter  into  alliances  with  foreign  princes, 
to  receive  honours  and  dignities  from  them,  and 
in  general  to  maintain  their  cause  by  the  use  of 
purely  secular  means.  The  .Jewish  State  which 
they  set  up  was  not  essentially  dillcrent  from  the 
secular  States  around  them.  Tliis  led  to  a  new 
development  of  parties  among  the  Jews.  The 
HASiUiEANS,  who  had  withdrawn  from  the  struggle 
with  the  Syrians,  when  religious  freedom  was 
granted,  grew  both  in  numbers  and  in  strictness, 
and  came  to  be  known  as  the  Pharisees.  Their 
great  concern  was,  not  that  the  nation  should  be 
politically  independent,  but  that  it  should  be 
secured  against  the  intrusion  of  all  foreign  ele- 
ments by  the  most  scrupulous  observance  of  the 
Law.  And  they  now  found  themselves  face  to 
face,  not  with  foreign  rulers,  but  with  native 
princes,  who,  while  thoroughly  orthodox  in  the 
faith,  were  indillerent  to  what  they  conceived  to 
be  the  interests  of  religion,  and  from  whom  they 
accordingly  became  increasingly  estranged. 

The  successors  of  the  llcllinizcrs,  on  the  other 
hand,  were  in  f\ill  sympathy  witli  the  sec\ilar 
mlicy  of  the  llasmona'an  princes,  and,  unlike  the 
Vliarisces,  took  no  exception  to  the  illegitimacy  of 
tlieir  high  priesthood.  They  entered  the  service 
of  the  new  princes  as  soldiers  and  diplomatists, 
and,  drawing  around  them  the  lea<ling  adherents 
of  the  new  dynasty,  formed  the  party,  to  which 
was  given  their  family  name  of  Zadokites  or  Sad- 
tiurer^i.  Taught  by  experience,  this  party  made 
no  violent  attempts  to  introduce  Greek  customs  ; 
but  they  were  a  purely  political  party  :  their  main 
interest  was  in  the  .Jewish  State  as  an  independent 
State,  and  not,  like  that  of  the  Pharisees,  in  the  legal 


purity  of  the  Jews  as  a  religious  community.  The 
tension  between  the  Hasmoineans  and  the  Phari- 
sees at  last  became  so  keen  that  John  llyrcanus 
broke  decisively  with  the  latter,  and  openly  pro- 
claimed himself  on  the  side  of  the  Sadducees. 

From  their  first  appearance  in  history  as  a  dis- 
tinct party  (during  the  reign  of  John  Hyrcanus, 
B.C.  135-105),  the  Sadducees  were  the  devoted 
adherents  of  the  Hasmona'an  princes.  Under 
Aristobulus  L  and  Alexander  Janna^us,  the  im- 
mediate successors  of  John  Hyrcanus,  their  party 
was  supreme.  Under  Alexandra  Salome  the  Phari- 
sees were  for  a  short  time  in  possession  of  power  ; 
but  when  Aristobulus  II.  became  king  the  Sad- 
ducees once  more  came  to  the  front.  They  sup- 
ported him  in  his  conflict  with  Hyrcanus  II., 
Antipater,  and  the  Romans,  and  they  also  stood  by 
him  and  his  two  sons,  Alexander  ami  Antigonus,  in 
their  attempts  to  restore  the  Hasmona;an  dynasty. 
But  the  day  of  their  political  power  was  now  past. 
Their  numbers  were  also  considerably  reduced. 
When  Poinpey  captured  Jerusalem  (B.C.  63)  he 
executed  many  of  their  leaders,  as  did  also  Herod 
(B.C.  37).  Herod  further  diminished  their  influence 
by  appointing  and  removing  high  priests  accord- 
ing to  his  own  pleasure,  and  by  fliling  the  San- 
hedrin  with  his  own  creatures.  When  Juda;a, 
after  the  deposition  of  Archelaus,  came  under  the 
direct  rule  of  the  Romans,  the  Sadducees,  who 
now  included  the  families  raised  to  the  dignity  of 
the  high  priesthood  by  Herod,  again  attained  a 
measure  of  power  through  their  preponderance  in 
the  Sanhedrin,  to  which  the  Romans  committed 
the  internal  government  of  the  country,  reserving 
to  themselves,  however,  not  only  the  control  of  all 
military  matters  and  the  levying  of  customs,  but 
also  the  confirmation  and  execution  of  all  capital 
sentences.  Matters  remained  thus  down  to  the 
troubled  days  that  preceded  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem,  except  durin<'  the  short  reign  of 
Agripjia  I.  (A.D.  41-44),  \Wio  favoured  the  Phari- 
sees. But  the  latter  were  the  real  possessors  of 
power  ;  for,  in  order  to  render  themselves  tolerable 
to  the  people,  the  Sadducees  were  compelled  to  act 
in  most  matters  in  accordance  witli  Pharisaic 
principles.  And  when  Jerusalem  was  destroyed 
and  Israel  ceased  to  exist  as  a  nation,  they  speedily 
disappeared  entirely  from  history. 

According  to  Josephus  (Ant.  xin.  x.  6,  xvin.  I.  4),  the  Sad- 
ducees were  a  small  minority  of  the  Jews,  which  included  only 
the  rich  and  those  of  the  higlicst  dii^nity.  This  is  almost 
equivalent  to  identifying  them  with  the  priestly  aristocracy 
and  their  adherents.  During  the  aecond  half  o'f  the  Persian 
and  the  whole  of  the  Greek  domination  of  Israel,  the  high 
priesta  were  the  civil  aa  well  as  the  religious  lit-ada  of  the 
Jewish  community  in  Judaja,  and,  theirs  being  the  only 
hereditary  olllce  among  the  Jews  since  the  downfall  of  the 
Davidic  monarchy,  they  and  their  families  formed  a  kind  of 
B:u'crdotaI  nobility  fcf.  Jos.  Vita,  1).  We  are  expressly  told  in 
Ju8ephufl(^nf.  xi.  IX.  l)and  in  Ac  6"  (cf.  4'  231"),  that  in  NT 
ti  IMS  some  at  leaat  of  the  high  priesta  were  Sadducees.  It  was 
these  chief  priests  with  their  families  and  adherents  that  formed 
the  Sadducean  party.    This  part.v,  however,  waa  not  a  priestly 

fiarty  in  the  sense  that  the  uriests  gt-nerally  necessarily  be- 
onged  to  it :  some  of  these  (e.u.  Joscphus,  Vita,  1 1.;  see  also 
Vita,  39;  Taylor's  Sailings  of  the  Jewish  fathers^,  ii.  10, 
Hi.  2)  were  Pharisees  (cf.  Jn  V^-  "^i).  Nor  <iid  it,  aa  a  rule,  stand 
up  for  the  Bpecial  interests  of  the  priests.  The  opposition 
between  the  Pharisees  and  the  8adducces  was  not  an  o]>position 
between  the  strict  legalists  and  the  jiriesis,  but  between  the 
former  and  the  chief  priesta  and  their  adherents  (cf.  Schiirer, 
ajy^il.iWt.). 

ii.  Deiuvation  of  tiih;  name  'Sadducees.'— 

The  name  'Sadducees'  (D'pns,  sing,  'piiii,  -aiSov- 
Koioi)  is  now  almost  universally  derived  from  the 
proper  name  Xndiik.  The  derivation,  favoured  by 
many  of  the  Fathers  and  bv  a  few  moderns  (i-.q. 
Derenbourg,  Stanley,  ami  Kdersheim),  from 
the  adj.  pnj,  accordmg  to  which  the  Sadducees 
were  the  riqhteon.i,  so  called  either  because,  in 
op|iosition  to  the  Pharisees,  they  adhered  to  the 
written  law,  or  because  of  their  severity  as  judges^ 


350 


SADDtrCEES 


SADDUCEES 


must  be  abandoned,  owing  to  the  impossibilitjr  of 
accounting  for  the  change  of  i  into  u  (see  especially 
Montet,  Essai  s^ur  les  origines  des  partis  sadui'ien 
et  pharisien,  53  fl'.).  From  which  Zailoli,  however, 
did  they  derive  their  name?  According  io  Aboth 
de-  Rabbi  Nathan,  from  a  disciple  of  Antigonus  of 
Socho. 

•  Antigonus  of  Socho  received  from  Shime'on  ha-Caddiq.  He 
used  to  say.  Be  not  as  slaves  that  serve  the  Rah  on  the  terms  of 
receiving  recompense  ;  but  be  as  slaves  that  serve  the  Itab  not 
on  the  terms  of  receiving  recompense ;  and  let  the  fear  of 
Heaven  be  upon  j'ou  ;  that  your  reward  may  be  doubled  for  the 
time  to  come.  Antigonus  of  Socho  had  two  disciples,  who 
repeated  his  words ;  and  they  repeated  them  to  (their)  disciples, 
and  their  disciples  to  their'  disciples.  They  arose  and  refined 
after  them,  and  said.  What  did  our  fathers  imagine,  in  saj-ing 
that  a  labourer  might  do  work  all  the  day  and  not  receive  his 
reward  at  evening?  Nay,  but  if  our  fathers  knew  that  there 
was  the  world  to  come,  and  that  there  was  a  revival  of  the 
dead,  they  would  not  have  spoken  thus.  They  arose  and 
separated  from  the  Thorah  ;  and  two  sects  were  formed  from 
them,  Cadukin  and  Baithtmn ;  Cadukin  after  the  name  of 
Qadok,^aithuain  after  the  name  of'Baithos '  (Taylor,  I.e.  112  f.). 

This  legend,  though  adopted  by  Ewald  ((?K/' 
iv.  357),  is  of  no  historical  value.  It  is  tirst  found 
in  a  document  of  late  origin  ;  it  is  plainly  wron" 
in  what  it  says  of  the  Boethusians,  who  derived 
their  name  from  Boethus,  the  father  of  Simon, 
whose  daughter,  Mariamne,  Herod  married,  and 
whom  he  raised  to  the  high  priesthood  {./I  n<.  XV. 
ix.  3  ;  cf.  XVII.  iv.  2,  xvm.  v.  1,  xix.  vi.  2)  ;  it  is 
al.so  mistaken  in  asserting  that  the  Sadducees 
rejected  tlie  Law,  and  in  making  the  denial  of  a 
resurrection  of  the  dead  their  primary  and  funda- 
mental characteristic.  We  must  tlierefore  either 
derive  the  name  '  Sadducee '  from  an  unknown 
Zadok,  an  influential  member  or  head  of  the  party 
at  an  epoch  which  it  is  impossible  to  determine 
(Montet,  I.e.  59),  or  from  Zadok,  who  was  priest  in 
Jerusalem  in  the  days  of  David  and  Solomon  (1  K 
18-  26-  32ff-  2^> ;  cf .  4M  Ch  29"),  and  whose  descendants 
held  the  same  office  do\vn  to  the  Exile.  The  latter 
derivation  is  generally  regarded,  not  indeed  as 
thoroughly  established,  but  as  the  most  probable. 
In  his  ideal  picture  of  the  future  theocracy,  Ezekiel 
(40-16  4319  44*16  4811  .  jj,  all  these  passages  the  LXX 
lias  the  form  SaSooi'/c)  admits  only  the  'sons  of 
Zadok  '  to  the  right  of  officiating  as  priests  in  the 
new  temple  at  Jerusalem.  Though  after  the  return 
from  the  Exile  this  rule  w.as  not  strictly  carried 
out,  the  '  sons  of  Zadok '  formed  the  main  body 
of  the  post-exilic  priesthood  ;  and  more  especially 
it  was  from  among  them  that  the  chief  priests 
down  to  the  close  of  tlie  (IJreek  period  were  drawn 
(see  art.  PltlKSTS  AND  Levites,  p.  96').  In  the 
ahsenee,  therefore,  of  more  s[)ecifie  information,  it 
is  a.ssumeJ  that  the  family  name  '  Zadokites '  or 
'  Sadducees'  was  given,  probably  by  their  enemies, 
10  the  .sacerdotal  aristocratic  party,  which  included 
not  only  the  chief  families  of  the  legitimate  line, 
but  also  the  adherents  of  the  Ha.smona?an  princes, 
and,  in  NT  times,  the  families  raised  to  the  high 
priestly  dignity  by  Herod  and  his  successors.* 

This  derivation  of  the  name  '  Sadducees  '  ia  not 
inconsistent  with  what  we  know  of  the  behaviour 
of  many  of  these  '  sons  of  Zadok.'  As  early  as  the 
time  o^  Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  not  only  did  many  of 
the  common  priests  intermarry  with  the  Gentiles 
among  whom  they  lived  (Ezr  9'^),  but  Kliashib,  the 
high  priest,  and  members  of  his  family,  entered 
freely  into  alliances  with   the  neighbouring  aris- 

•  It  is  not  claimed  for  this  derivation  of  the  name  'Sadducee,' 
which  was  first  suggested  by  Geiger,  that  it  is  more  than  prob- 
able. Montet  (I.e.  51  f.)  argues  against  it  that  there  is  not  a 
single  trace  in  post-exiUc  literature  of  this  close  connexion 
between  the  Sadducees  and  the  Zadokites,  and  that  this 
unanimous  silence  is  fatal  to  the  hypothesis.  Kuenen,  whom 
he  cites  (p.  59  f.)  as  holding  substantially  his  own  view,  after- 
wards changed  his  opinion.  'The  name  "Sadducees,"  which 
the  priestlv  nobility  of  Jerusalem  received  later,  I  now  also 
identify  with  Zadokites.  In  the  not  unjustifiable  reaction 
against  Oeiger's  exaggeration  I  went  too  far"  (Gfammeltt 
Abhandlungm  mr  BMuchen  WUtert»cha/i,  496). 


tocracy  and  with  the  Persian  officials  {Neh  13"- "). 
They  were  evidently  more  concerned  for  their  own 

{irivileges  than  for  the  reformation  so  dear  to  the 
leart  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah.  The  position  of  the 
high  priests  as  civil  heads,  under  the  Persian  or 
Greek  governors,  of  the  community  in  Jndaea, 
almost  inevitably  led  to  their  gradual  seculariza- 
tion. They  were  necessarily  brought  into  close 
contact  with  their  Gentile  rulers  ;  and  their 
political  interests  tended  to  thrust  their  religious 
interests  into  the  background.  There  were  doubt- 
less some  of  these  high  priests  who  remembered 
what  was  due  to  their  position  as  the  servants  of 
Jehovah,  but  the  temptation  to  forget  must  have 
been  very  great.  Towards  the  close  of  the  Greek 
period  many  of  the  chief  priestly  families  were 
entirely  secularized  ;  they  felt  no  interest  in  what 
was  distinctively  cliaracteristic  of  the  Jewish 
religion  ;  for  the  sake  of  their  own  personal 
enjoyment  and  advancement  they  were  willing, 
and  indeed  eager,  to  adopt  the  manners  and 
customs  of  their  Gentile  masters.  'The  high 
priests  regarded  their  sacred  office  only  as  a 
pedestal  of  worldly  power'  (Wellhausen,  IJG' 
248).  There  is  nothing,  therefore,  improbable  in 
the  supposition  that  the  aristocratic  priestly  party, 
whose  interests  were  mainly  political,  and  of  which 
they  formed  from  the  beginning  a  considerable 
part,  came  to  be  known  by  their  family  name. 

iii.  Their  Opposition  to  the  Pharisees.— 
Though  the  Sadducees  were  the  priestly  nobility 
and  the  Pharisees  were  drawn  mainly  from  the 
ranks  of  the  common  people,  the  opposition  between 
them  was  not  a  mere  opposition  between  two  dif- 
ferent classes  of  society.  Nor  was  it  merely  a 
question  as  to  the  laxer  or  stricter  interpretation 
and  observance  of  the  Law.  It  was  an  opposition 
of  principles,  of  dispositions,  and  of  theories  of 
life  (Wellhausen,  I.e.  295).  The  Pharisees  were, 
in  their  own  peculiar  way,  intensely  religious ; 
their  great  desire  was  to  mould  their  fellow- 
countrymen  into  a  '  holy  '  nation  by  means  of  the 
Law ;  the}'  looked  forward  to  a  future,  in  which 
their  hopes  were  sure  to  be  realized,  and  could 
therefore  meanwhile  endure  the  foreign  dominion, 
provided  it  allowed  them  perfect  religious  freedom. 
The  Sadducees,  on  the  other  hand,  were  largely 
indiflferent  to  religion,  except  in  so  far  as  it  was  a 
matter  of  custom  ;  their  great  care  was  for  tlie 
State  as  a  purely  secular  State;  they  were  satisfied 
with  the  present,  so  far  as  it  permitted  them 
to  live  in  comfort  and  splendour.  The  acute 
opposition  between  the  two  parties  first  manifested 
itself  in  the  political  sphere,  in  the  struggle  for 
power  durin"  the  reign  of  John  Hyrcanus  and  hig 
successors.  When  the  Hasraonsean  dynasty  fell, 
the  animosity  still  continued ;  but  to  a  large 
extent  it  necessarily  ceased  to  be  political,  and 
concentrated  itself  upon  questions  as  to  the  Law, 
matters  of  ritual,  and  doctrine. 

(a)  Controversies  as  to  the  Law. — The  Sadduceei 
refused  to  acknowledge  the  binding  force  of  the 
oral  law,  the  'tradition  of  the  elders'  (Mt  15', 
Mk  7'),  to  which  the  Pharisees  attached  supreme 
importance.  They  held  that  only  the  written 
law  of  Moses  was  binding  (Ant.  xill.  x.  6,  XVUI. 
i.  4) ;  and  although,  as  judges,  and  in  order  to 
maintain  their  position  against  the  Pharisees,  they 
must  have  had  their  own  exegetical  tradition,  they 
did  not  regard  themselves  as  absolutely  bound  even 
by  it ;  they  held  it  praiseworthy  to  dispute  with 
their  teachers  (Ant.  xvm.  i.  4).  It  is  incorrect, 
however,  to  represent  them  as  acknowledging  onW 
the  Pentateuch  and  as  rejecting  the  rest  of  theOT. 
They  also  doubtless  agreed  with  the  Pharisees  on 
many  points  settled  by  the  oral  law  ;  only,  unlike 
the  Pharisees,  they  did  not  regard  it  as  binding 
(cf.  'Taylor,  Sayings  0/ Jewish  Fathers',  p.  115). 


SADDUCEES 


SADDUCKES 


351 


In  addition  to,  and  j.iartly  in  consequence  of,  thi8  fundamental 
differyiirc  Itetween  the  two  parties,  there  were  differences  as  to 
Indtviduiil  Ifj^l  questions,  (l)  Vrimiuai  Law,  Aa  judges,  the 
budducees  were  more  severe  tjian  the  Pharisees  {Ant.  xx.  ix.  1 ; 
cf.  xin.  X.  fl).  They  interpreted  literally  the  Ux  lalionis  (Ex 
2124.  |)t  1921),  whereas  the  Pharisees  mitigated  its  severity  by 
accepting  as  punishment  a  money  payment.  They  also  inter- 
preted literally  DC  2o''*  ('  spit  in  his  face  ')  ;  the  Pharisees  said 
It  was  enough  to  spit  before  the  offending  person.  As  regards 
Ex  2l^'''-^^'^lhey  went  beyond  the  requirement  of  the  Law  in 
exacting  compensation  not  only  for  the  damage  done  by  one's 
ox  or  ass,  but  also  for  that  done  by  one's  servants.  'They  were 
less  severe,  however,  than  the  Pharisees  in  punishing  false 
witnesses.  According  to  Dt  lyi^ff.  a  false  witness  was  to  suffer 
the  punishment  whicn  he  hoped  to  see  inflicted  on  the  per-ion 
falsely  accused  by  him.  The  Sadducees  held  that  this  punish- 
ment should  be  inflicted  on  him  only  if  the  falsely  accused 
peraon  had  been  punished  ;  the  Pharisees  demanded  his  puni.sh- 
ment,  provided  sentence  had  been  pronounced  on  the  accused, 
whether  the  sentence  was  executed  or  not. 

(2)  ijuiettioiu  oj  liituaL  The  Pharisees  laid  the  greatest  stress 
on  the  cleanness  of  the  vessels  ust-d,  and  on  the  various  actions 
being  perfonue<l  in  due  succession  and  with  strict  legal  corrc<-t- 
ness.  According  to  them,  all  the  vessels  of  the  temple  had  to  t)e 
purified  at  the  close  of  each  feast ;  the  scriptures  were  so 
precious  that  they  could  be  written  only  on  the  skins  of  clean 
animals,  and  any  one  who  touched  the  sacred  rolls  was  thereby 
rendered  imclean  ;  in  accordance  with  Lv  16*3  they  insisted,  in 
opposition  to  the  Sadducees,  that  on  the  Day  of  Atonement  the 
high  jiriest  should  not  kindle  the  incense  till  after  he  had 
entered  the  Holy  of  Holies  ;  at  a  Feast  of  Tabernacles,  Alexander 
Jannieus  was  attacked  by  the  people,  the  majority  of  whom  by 
that  time  favoured  the  Pharisees,  because,  as  high  priest,  he 
poured  the  water  of  libation  upon  the  ground  beside  the  altar, 
mstead  of  upon  the  altar.  The  Sadducees  scoffed  at  the 
Pharisaic    laws    relating   to    purity :    according   to    Pharisaic 

frinciples,  the  sacred  wTitinps  were  less  pure  than  the  books  of 
loiuer,  contact  with  which  did  not  defile  ;  the  Pharisees,  it  was 
said,  would  even  sjirinkle  the  sun  in  the  heavens  with  lustral 
water.  So  far  as  they  laid  stress  on  Levitical  purity,  it  was 
apparently  in  the  interest  of  the  priesthood.  They  insisted 
that  the  re<l  heifer,  from  whose  ashes  the  lustral  water  was 
pre(>ared  (Nu  19'1'>).  should  he  burned  only  by  priests  who  had 
been  thoroughly  cleansed  from  all  possible  defilement,  whereas 
the  Pharisees  laid  more  stress  on  the  act  performed  by  the 
priest  than  on  the  priest  himself,  whom  they  even  tried  to 
defile  by  contact  with  themselves.  The  Pharisees  demanded 
that  the  cost  of  the  daily  sacrifice,  which  was  offered  on  behalf 
of  the  whole  people,  should  be  defrayed  out  of  the  temple 
lreaaur>' :  while  the  Sadducees  maintained  that,  the  treasure 
in  the  temple  being  in  a  manner  their  property,  the  sacrificial 
victims  should  be  provided  from  the  free-will  offeringv  of  the 
Individuals  who  took  pirt  in  the  sacrifice. 

(:t)  Agio  the  Feaftn,  the  two  parties  differed  in  the  manner  of 
fixing  the  date  of  Pentecost.  According  to  Lv  2.'?11-  **  seven 
hill  weeks  ha<l  to  be  counted  from  '  Ine  morrow  after  the 
labbath '  upon  which  the  priest  waved  the  sheaf  of  first-fruits 
before  the  Lord.  The  Pharisees  followed  the  traditional  inter- 
pretation {e.g.  in  the  LXX,  ad  loc.  ;  cf.  Ant.  ill.  x.  6),  that  tlie 
'sabbath'  meant  the  first  day  of  the  feast,  and  that  conse- 
quently Pentecost  might  fall  on  any  dav  of  the  week.  The 
Sadducees  (or  rather,  according  to  Schiircr,  I.e.  413,  the 
Boethusians,  a  variety  of  the  .Sadcfucees)  held  that  the  'sabltath' 
meant  the  weekly  sabbath,  and  that  therefore  Pentecost  always 
fell  on  the  first  day  of  the  week.  They  naturally  also  refused 
to  acknowledge  as  binding  the  tradition  of  the  fathers  as  to 
the  way  of  observing  the  sabbath.* 

(A)  Doctrinal  diffcretices.  —(1)  According  to  the 
NT  (Mt  22-=',  Mk  12'",  Lk  20",  Ac  4'-»  23')  and 
Joseiilins,  the  Sadducees  denied  the  resurrection  of 
the  hii(hi,  to  whicli  .losophus  adds  tliat  they  denied 
also  future  rcivirrh  and  punishment.'!,  and  even 
maintained  that  the  soul  perishes  with  the  body 
{Ant.  XVIII.  i.  3f.  ;  BJ  II.  viii.  14).  The  doctrines 
of  a  hoilily  resurrection  and  of  future  retribution  in 
the  later  Jewish  .sense  are  not  found,  till  late,  in 
the  OT  ;  but  it  teaches  a  shadowy  existence  of 
Houls  ill  Sheol.  In  opixisition  to  the  I'hariseea, 
therefore,  the  Sadducees  held  substantially  the  old 
Hebrew  view,  save  (if  Jo.sephus  is  to  be  trusted)  as 
regards  continued  existence  after  death.  (2)  Ac- 
cording to  Ac  2:!'  they  also  denied  the  exi.itence  of 
anr/cls  and  spirit.-!,  i.e.  of  a  world  of  supcrinnndane 
sjiii^its.  SeeinR  that  they  accepted  the  OT,  it  is 
dilhcult  tounibTstand  their  position  on  this  subject. 
It  was  jirobably  due  to  their  general  indillerence 
to  religion  and  to  the  rationalistic  tenii)er  which 
led  to  the  extreme  limit  in  opposition  to  the 
angelology  of  their  adversaries.  (3)  According  to 
Josephus  [BJ  n.  viii.  14  ;  Ant.  XIII.  v.  9)  the  Sad- 
ducees denied  '  fate  '  altogether  ;  it  was  impossible 

•  For  a  full  account  of  these  controversies  see  Slontet,  I.e. 
M6II.,  where  the  authorities  arc  given  ;  also  Schiirer.  I.e.  i\Z  B. 


for  God  to  commit  or  to  foresee  anj'thing  evil ;  the 
doing  of  good  or  evil  was  left  entirely  to  man's 
free  choice  ;  man  was  the  fna.ster  of  his  own  destiny 
and  the  sole  author  of  his  own  happiness  or  misery. 
The  Pharisees,  on  the  other  hand,  made  everything 
dependent  on  '  late '  and  God  ;  still  they  did  not 
teach  an  absolute  fatalism  ;  it  had  pleased  God  that 
there  should  be  'a  mixture'  of  the  Divine  and 
human  elements  ;  there  was  a  co-operation  of  God 
in  all  human  actions,  good  and  evil,  but  the  doing 
of  good  or  evil  was  to  a  large  extent  iti  man's 
power  {BJ  11.  viii.  14  ;  Ant.  XVIII.  i.  3,  XIII.  v.  9). 
'  Projierly  understood,  the  real  ditieience  between 
the  Pharisees  and  Sadducees  seems  to  have 
amounted  to  this :  that  the  former  accentuated 
God's  preordination,  the  latter  man's  free-will ; 
and  that,  while  the  Pharisees  admitted  only  a 
partial  influence  of  the  human  element  on  what 
happened,  or  the  co-operation  of  the  human  with 
the  Divine,  the  Sadducees  denied  all  absolute  pre- 
ordination, and  made  man's  choice  of  evil  or  good, 
with  its  consequences  of  misery  or  happiness,  to 
depend  entirely  on  the  exercise  of  free-will  and 
self-detemiinatiofi '  (Edersheira,  The  Life  and  Times 
of  Jesus  the  Me-s-sirth,  i.  316  f.).  Though  Josephus 
is  our  only  authority  for  the  denial  of  Divine 
providence  on  the  part  of  the  Sadducees,  there  is 
no  good  reason  to  question  his  substantial  accu- 
racy. Thej'  felt  no  need  of  a  Divine  providence, 
but  relied  entirely  on  their  own  resources.  '  They 
claimed  nothing  from  God,  nor  lie  from  them ' 
(Wellhausen,  I.e.  29.''>). 

iv.  The  Saduucee.s  and  Jesu.s.— In  the  NT 
the  Sadducees  are  mentioned  by  name  only  in 
Mt  3'  16'-6->"-  (in  the  par.allel  passage,  Mk  8"if-, 
they  are  not  mentioned),  22-='- »^,  Mk  12'*,  Lk  20", 
Ac 4'  5"  23°-  '• '.  They  are  not  mentioned  by  name 
in  St.  John's  Go.spel,  where,  however,  we  lind  the 
e.\i)ression  '  chief  priests  and  Pharisees '  (7"--  •"  1 1"- " 
18^)  instead  of  the  '  Phari.sees  and  Sadducees'  of 
Mt  and  Mk.  It  was  only  towards  the  close  of  His 
life  that  our  Saviour  came  into  open  conflict  with 
them.  They  had  little  influence  with  the  jieople, 
especially  in  religious  matters  ;  His  criticism  was 
therefore  mainly  directed  against  the  Pharisees 
and  scribes,  the  supreme  religions  auUiorities, 
although,  according  to  Mt  16"- ",  He  also  warnetl 
His  disciples  against  the  leaven  of  the  Sadducees, 
meaning,  probably,  their  utterly  .secular  spirit. 
They,  on  their  part,  seem  to  have  ignored  Ilini, 
until,  by  driving  the  nKjney-ehangers  out  of  the 
temple  (Mt  21>=»^,  Mk  11'="-,  Lk  I'J"'),  He  inter- 
fered with  the  prerogatives  of  the  Sanhedrin.  His 
acceptance  of  the  Messianic  title  '  son  of  David ' 
also  filled  them  with  indignation  against  Him  (Mt 
21"').  They  accordingly  joined  the  scribes  and 
I'liarisees  in  oiijm.sition  to  Him,  and  sought  to 
destroy  Him  (Mk  U",  Lk  19-"),  first,  however, 
attempting  to  discredit  Him  in  the  ej'cs  of  the 
people, and  to  bringdown  11(1011  Him  thevengeanceof 
the  Romans,  bj-  their  questions  as  to  His  authority, 
as  to  the  resurrection,  and  as  to  the  lawfulness  of 
paying  tribute  to  C.tsar  (Mt  21-»'-  22^"'',  Mk  ll-'^''- 
12^'"';,  Lk  2U"f  'O"-  '"«■ ;  cf.  Jn  U""- »').  In  the  San- 
hedrin that  tried  Him  they  probably  formed  the 
majority,  and  the  'chief  priests,'  who  ]iresided, 
belonged  to  their  party.  The  ostensible  ground  on 
which  thej'  condemned  Him  was  His  claim  to  be 
the  Messiah  ;  this  was  blas]iliemy  against  God,  for 
which  they  decreed  Him  worthy  of  death  (Mt  26'"'' , 
Mk  M""-,  Lk  22""-).  But  the  Sadducees,  at  lea-st, 
were  doubtless  even  more  influenced  by  the  fear 
that  a  .Missiaiiic  movement  led  by  Jesus  might 
have  disastrous  political  consei|uence8(cf.  Jn  ll*™). 

After  our  Lord's  Ascension  tliey  persisted  in  their 
opposition  to  Him  in  the  person  of  His  disciples 
(Ac  4"'-  .')'"'•  2.3'").  We  are  not  informc<l  that  any 
of  them  joined  the  infant  Church  ;  for,  as  we  have 


352 


SADDUK 


SAINT 


Been,  the  priests,  a  great  company  of  whom  were 
obedient  to  the  faith  (Ac  6'),  were  not  necessarily 
of  their  party.  According  to  Josephus  (Ant.  XX. 
ix.  1 )  they  were  also  responsible  for  the  death  of 
James,  the  '  brother '  of  our  Lr)ril. 

LiTBRATiTRB. — See  literature  at  end  of  art.  Piiaribees. 

D.  Eaton. 

SADDUK  (B  2a55oi'.XouKos,  A  ^dSSomos,  AV 
S.uliluc),  1  F.s  8-. — Zadok  the  high  priest,  ancestor 
of  ICzra  (cf.  Ezr  7'). 

SADOC— 1.  [Sndoch)  An  ancestor  of  Esdras,  2  Es 
1'  =  Zadok  of  Ezr  7".  2.  (-aoJiK)  A  dcstendant  of 
Zerubbabel  and  ancestor  of  Jesus,  Mt  l'*. 

SAFFRON  (C33-I3  karkGm,  k/jAicos,  crocus).— KHr- 
kiiin,  the  Arab,  form  of  karkum,  is  defined  in  the 
Arab,  dictionaries  by  znfardn,  from  which  the 
Eng.  word  saffron  is  derived.  Three  sorts  of  plants 
are  known  in  Arab,  by  the  name  zdfar&n: — (1) 
The  genns  Colchicum,  of  the  order  Liliacete.  The 
three  stj'Ies  of  the  species  of  this  genus  are  long, 
and  often  orange-coloured,  but  are  not  used  in 
medicine  or  cookery.  The  corm  and  seeds  are 
medicinal.  (2)  Carfhmnus  tmctorius,  L.,  the 
Sattlower  or  Bastard  Saffron.  This  is  an  annual 
plant  of  the  order  Compositre,  3-5  ft.  higli,  having 
a  head  of  orange-coloured  flowerets  as  large  as  a 
walnut.  These  flowerets  are  employed  for  the 
same  purposes  a.s  the  true  safi'ron,  and,  being  much 
cheaper,  tliey  are  used  to  adulterate  tlie  more 
costlj'  commodity.  They  are  also  used  in  dyeing. 
The  safUower  is  cultivated  in  large  quantities  near 
Damascus.  (3)  The  genus  Croctis,  of  the  order 
Iridnce(s,  of  which  there  are  eight  species  in 
Palestine  and  Syria,  besides  the  cultivated  C. 
sativus,  L.  The  orange-coloured  styles  and  dis- 
sected stigmas  of  all  the  species  of  this  genus  are 
collected  and  dried,  and  used  as  a  colouring 
material  and  aromatic  in  the  preparation  of  food, 
esp.  to  impart  a  yellow  tinge  to  boiled  rice.  They 
were  formerly  employed  in  medicine  as  an  anti- 
spasmodic and  emmenagogue.  The  most  abundant 
of  tlie  wild  s|iecies  of  crocus  is  C.  cnncellatus, 
Herb.  Bot.  The  corms  of  this  are  edible,  and  are 
collected  in  considerable  quantities,  and  sold  in 
the  streets  of  Damascus  and  other  Oriental  cities. 
They  have  a  flavour  somewhat  like  that  of  the 
chestnut.  ZdfarAn  is  familiarly  used  for  all  the 
above-named  jilants.  On  the  other  hand,  kUrkiim 
is  not  commonly  used  for  any.  It  is  the  classical 
name  for  the  crocus  alone,  but  not  confined  to  any 
one  species.  In  the  only  passage  in  which  karkGm 
occurs  (Ca  4"),  i.e.  among  a  list  of  cultivated 
garden  aromatics,  it  prob.  refers  to  C.  sativus,  L. 

G.  E.  Post. 
SAHIDIC  VERSION.— See  Egyptian  Veksions, 
vol.  i.  p.  609^ 

SAINT.— This  stands  in  AV  for  two  Heb.  words. 
1.  tjnj  (Aram.  iJ'^p  in  Daniel) :  (a)  of  men,  Dt  33', 
Ps  16»34»  106i»,  Hos  11''- 1  [elsewhere  and  usually 
tr.  'holy';  see  HoLlNKSsj;  (6)  of  an(jels  (a  usage 
now  obsolete),  Dt  33=,  Job  5'  15",  Ps  89", 
Zee  14»,  DnS";  cf.  Jude  "  and  prob.  1  Th  3"  T 
[RV  in  all  except  last  '  holy  one(s),'  see  Driver 
on  Dn  8>s].  2.  rpo  1  S  29,  2  Ch  6",  I'r  2«-(-16  t. 
in  Psalms  [also  tr.  'godly,'  'holy,'  'merciful'; 
see,  more  fully,  Driver,  Par.  Psalter,  443  f.]. 
Both  these  words,  with  few  exceptions  (tcij  in 
Ps  4'  12'  Wit)  ^2'  86^  Mic  '\  1  S  2»(7),  Pr  28, 
Dt  33";  Bins  in  Ps  106",  but  this  is  hardly  an 
e.xception),  are  used  in  the  plural  or  with  a 
collective  noun,  i.e.  of  a  class.  Neither  in  the  OT 
nor  NT  is  it  usual  for  a  righteous  man  to  be 
called  individually  '  a  saint '  or  '  the  saint.'  Tlie 
reason  of  this  is  that  a  man's  standing  in  relation 
*iO  (lod  was  not  regarded  as  one  of  isolated  conse- 


cration or  holiness,  but  as  Sv.niething  attaching  to 
him  as  member  of  a  larger  whole,  to  which  the 
covenant  relation  in  the  first  instance  belonged. 
In  the  OT  this  larger  unit  was  Israel,  the  holy 
nation  ;  in  the  NT  the  Church,  the  holy  nucleus  of 
redeemed  humanity.  '  The  saints' — '  tlie  saints  of 
the  Most  High,'  'the  people  of  the  sainti,'  or 
most  fully  '  tlie  people  of  the  saints  of  the  Most 
High'  (Dn  718- 22- as- «  8")— were  the  members  of 
a  holy  community,  consecrated  to  a  holy  life  aa 
defined  by  the  covenant  on  which  the  relation 
depends.  Such,  then,  is  the  general  notion  ex- 
pressed by  the  words  DT"i?  and  □""cn,  and  their 
LXX  and  NT  eq nivalents,  57101  and  ficrioi.  But  thero 
are  further  distinctions  which  have  to  be  noted. 

"AyiBt  and  'irtti.  \Vhile  Cy'T^i^  is  rendered  in  the  LXX  b/ 
iiyiat,  D'l'cn  appears  as  oviot.  The  specific  idea  of  the  former 
is'  the  consecrated.' or  those  in  reliyrious  covenant  with  God  ;  of 
the  latter,  *  the  godly  '  or  '  pious,'  those  dutiful  to  the  religious 
relation.  While  ccytai  is  a  ver>  rare  word  in  classical  Greek, 
and  was  perhaps  for  that  very  reason  chosen  by  the  LXX,  to 
the  e.\clusion  of  the  usual  term  lipo! — so  com|iromised  by  its 
use  in  p.agan  religion — io-^oj,  on  the  other  hand,  largely  retains 
its  classical  meaiiitig.    Thus  Plato  {GoTfj.  p.  6u7i)  says,  xipi  f»iw 

et.vBpai^atji    To,  vpo^'.xo^Tot,  TrpuTTUv   iixeti'   i*  rr^flcTTOi,    iri^i  oi    BlouS 

oa-ta.;  and  elsewhere  he  makes  Stxwiat  the  generic  and  oo-ior  the 
specific  term  (cf.  also  Xen.  AuuO.  11.  vi.  2iJ).  Accordingly,  in 
the  OT,  it  is  objective  sanctity  that  is  expressed  by  «'  ityttt 
(=01  iytc^/jLiitot  =  o  >Me  oLuTou  In  Dt  333;  cf.  Ezr  828  u^i.f  icyai 
rS  ta^piu);  whereas  subjective  sanctity — response  in  feeling 
and  conduct  to  God's  non,  or  graciousness — is  usually  empha- 
sized in  the  use  of  ci  cc-iei  (=ej  o-yecT'SivrK  rof  Ki/ptaf  in  Pa  9610, 

where  we  have  also  fuXetv^n  KCpio!  rics  ^i't>x»f  t^k  eirian  etuTou, 
cf.  97^'*  :  80  turk  offiou  ariaiQi.^K,  lui't  /At-rac  i*ip6;  TlA(/o(/  TiXtiMUtiff^, 
««;  ituri  Uai«t«D  Uamto.-  i^,  '2  8  222iif=Ps  18™,  and  cf.  Dt 
Sas).  Of  course  the  gracious' conduct  of  'the  godly'  is  but  a 
realization  of  the  idea  of  their  relation  as  God's  'consecrated 
ones ' ;  but  it  is  this  their  conduct,  in  dutiiul  loyalty  to  the 
Covenant  shown  in  habitual  act,  that  marks  them  cirioi  (as  in 
Ps  5115  ruvocyecyiTl  ccuTu  Teyf  or.euf  a'jToZ,  "reu;  5iotT/fll,w:voi;;  Tr» 
JiaetfMJCTi*  a-iiou  IT/  Ovtr.xts).  This  agrees  with  the  fact  that  o«e* 
sometimes  renders  words  like  Til,  "•^•'^P,  Q^?,  O'PI?  ;  and  that  it« 
normal  equivalent  TCn  is  also  rendered  by  «>jii/**i'  (Jer  £1*, 
of  God),  lUi^i.s  (51ic  "-),  ii>.ccfeiuini  (Pr  28);  while  ^"I'pq 
is  paraphrased  by  oi  mo!  «u  in  2  Ch  6^.  Further,  Imsid  is  used 
only  of  persons  ;  and  here  one  remembers  the  title  IJdsUiiin,  by 
which  the  godly  called  themselves  in  Maccabaian  days ;  see 
art.  IlAsiD«A.Na.  The  opposite  holds  of  ci  ayioi,  in  which  the 
stress  falls  on  the  covenant  relation,  though  at  times  not 
without  suggestions,  in  the  conte.\l,  of  the  practical  loyalty 
thereto  of  those  thus  described.  These  distinctions  and  con- 
trasts also  persist  fairly  constantly  through  the  later  parts  of 
the  LXX,  including  the  Psalms  of  Solomon. 

When  we  reach  the  NT,  the  striking  thing  ia 
the  total  disappearance  of  oi  Saioi  as  a  title  of 
God's  own  people.  In  a  substantival  sense  l>(rio% 
is  used  only  of  Jesus  as  Messiah,  and  that  after 
Ps  16'"  (Ac  2"  13*^).  On  the  other  hand,  the 
prerogative  phrase  for  members  of  the  sacred 
Society  of  Israel,  o!  ^7101,  is  transferred  to  the 
members  of  Christ's  Ecclesia,  as  consecrated  to  the 
Messianic  Kingdom  in  keeping  with  the  lioly  call- 
ing of  God.  It  was,  in  all  probability,  the  over- 
shadowing sense  of  the  privilege  of  such  a  sta.tu8, 
and  of  the  Divine  action  as  bringing  it  about,  that 
caused  the  objective  side  to  obtain  such  exclusive 
emphasis  as  to  prevent  the  term  expressive  of 
human  devoutness  (oi  Strtoi)  from  emerging  aa 
before.  Christians  stood  as  men  called  out  or 
sanctified  by  electing  grace  (^kXe/troi  tcO  6(oi,  Col 
3'- ;  cf.  Epli  1*  ic\7,7-oi  37.01,  1  Co  1^  Uo  1 '),  their 
sainthood  determined  by  their  relation  to  Christ 
as  believers  (d7tot$  k.  iriaTois  iv  Xi}i(tt(^,  Eph  1*,  Col 
V ;  cf.  if  TOis  Tiyiacii^fOiS  Tricrrei  tij  eis  iiii,  Ac  26"), 
on  the  basis  of  His  .sacrificial  death  (He  lu'"- "), 
which  inaugurated  the  New  Covenant  (v."). 

'  Saints  by  effectual  calling '  is  thus  the  primary 
sense  of  '  the  saints.'  But  in  all  a  new  spirit  or  a 
renewed  heart  is  assumed  to  exist,  the  subjective 
rcsjionse  quickened  by  the  message  of  so  great 
redemption.  All  the  justified  are  '  saints,'  and  as 
such  are  marked  by  true  '  repentance  from  dead 
works  and  faith  towards  God.'  But  faith  towards 
God  in  Christ  involves  devotion   to  an  obedient 


SALAMIEL 


SALEM 


353 


walk  after  Christ's  example,  'as  befitteth  saints' 
(Epli  5^) ;  and  to  this  practical  aspect  of  saintship 
attention  is  growinf,'ly  directed  as  tiine  goes  on. 
bt.  raul  is  constantly  callin"  on  his  converts  to 
commit  themselves,  once  for  all,  to  conduct 
'worthy  of  the  Lord  unto  all  pleasing'  (Col  I'"). 
St.  Peter  keeps  before  his  readers  the  obligation 
of  saintliness,  after  the  pattern  of  the  Holy  Fatlier, 
and  in  remembrance  of  the  superlative  cost  of  llicir 
initial  redemption  from  their  former  vain  manner 
of  life  (1  P  1"--')  ;  and  he  refers  women  to  the 
example  of  '  the  holy  women'  in  the  OT  (3').  In 
the  Apocalypse  we  read  of  '  the  patience  of  the 
saints,  those  who  keep  God's  precepts  and  the 
faith  of  Jesus'  (14") ;  and  are  told  that  '  the  fine 
linen  is  the  righteous  deeds  {dixaiu/MiTa)  of  the 
saints'  (19*).  And  indeed  this  expectation  that 
fundaraentaJ  consecration  will  appear  in  conduct 
and  character,  is  a  necessary  corollary  of  the 
belief  that  the  believer  as  such  was  '  sealed '  a 
member  of  the  Messianic  community  by  the  Soly 
Spirit.  Here  lay  the  significance  of  Christian 
baptism  (1  Co  6") ;  and  St.  Paul  at  least  built  his 
whole  theory  of  sanctification  upon  the  abiding 
presence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  '  saint'  as  the 
immanent  principle  of  his  new  life  (Ro  8*-  '"■,  1  Th 
4'-*).  It  is  by  His  energy  that  the  regenerate  will 
wars  its  warfare  against  the  flesh  and  attains  fuller 
life  (8")  ;  it  i.s  in  virtue  of  His  indwelling  that  the 
saint  shall  enjoy  the  final  redemption  of  his  wliole 
man,  including  release  from  the  bondage  of  bodily 
corruption  (8"-^);  and  the  animating  impulse  of 
the  very  life  of  prayer,  whereby  saints  overcome, 
and  realize  full  manhood  in  Christ  (Eph  4'-''-).  is 
still  the  self-same  Holy  Spirit  (Ro  8^»-,  Eph  3""- 
4""  6'").     See  SANCTIFICATION. 

LlTERATlTRE.— Tlie  material  is  collected  in  Trench,  Synonvm* 
^  the  ST,  and  in  Cremer,  BUj.-TheoL  Lex.,  ».  kyiot  ami  ostoi. 

J.  V.  Bartlet. 
8ALAMIEL.— An  ancestor  of  Judith,  Jth  8'  (BA 
2oXa^7,\,  S  'La.tiaiuiiX).     See  ShELUMIEU 

SALAMIS  (SaXa/i/t;  Salamis),  the  first  place 
visited  by  Paul  and  Barnabas  on  the  first  niis- 
sioniiry  journey  (Ac  1.3'),  was,  as  early  as  the 
6th  cent.  li.C,  one  of  the  most  important  Greek 
towns  of  Cj'prus.  Under  the  Persians,  it  was  the 
scat  of  one  of  the  many  Greek  princes  of  the  island ; 
and  in  Roman  times  it  was  a  flourishing  mercantile 
town,  from  which  the  eastern  half  of  Cyprus  was 
governed.  Having  been  overthrown  by  an  earth- 
quake in  the  reign  of  Constantine,  it  was  rebuilt 
by  Con.Mtiintius,  and  under  the  name  of  Constantia 
became  the  ciiiiital  of  Cyprus.  From  A.D.  367-4U3 
the  bi.ihop  of  Constantia  was  Epiphanius. 

Under  the  Roman  empire  the  Jews  were  very 
numerous  in  Cyprus  ;  and  there  must  have  been 
•  large  colony  of  them  at  Salamis,  with  several 
synagojiues.  They  were  no  doubt  attracted  by 
the  facilities  for  trade  afforded  by  the  fine  harbour 
of  Salamis,  and  the  farming  of  the  copper  mines 
of  Cyprus  to  Herod  the  Great  (Jos.  Ant.  XVI.  iv.  5). 
The  word  was  preached  in  Cyprus  soon  after  the 
martyrdom  of  Stephen  (Ac  ll'"--"),  and  amongst 
the  e.arly  converts  was  Mnason  (Ac  21").  Barna- 
bas was  a  Cypriote  (Ac  4**),  and  so  possibly  was 
John  Mark,  who  accompanied  Paul  and  Barnabas 
toCyirus.  During  the  suppression  of  the  insur- 
rection of  the  Jews  in  the  reign  of  Hadrian, 
Salamis  suffered  greatly,  and  was  almost  deserted. 
Salamis  stoo<l  on  the  seashore  at  the  eastern 
end  of  the  great  fertile  plain — Salaminia — which 
stretches  westward  for  many  miles  between  two 
ranges  of  mountains.  Its  harbour  was  good,  and 
from  it  the  rich  products  of  Cyprus  were  shipped 
to  Seleucia  and  the  Syrian  coa.st.  The  harbour  is 
now  tilled  with  sand  and  overgrown  with  thorns 
•nd  thistles  ;  and  a  few  broken  columns  and  frag- 

VOL.  IV. — 21 


ments  of  mural  masonry  alone  remain  to  mark  the 
greatness  of  the  ancient  city.  The  site  is  about 
3  niUes  from  the  modern  Famagusta,  and  not  far 
from  it  is  the  Greek  monastery  of  St.  Barnabas. 

C.  W.  Wll.sON. 

SALASADAI An  ancestor  of  Judith,   Jth  8' 

(B  "ZapoLaaSai,  A  ZaKaaaSal,  X  Sapicroooi). 

SALATHIEL.  — 1.  The  father  of  Zerubbabel, 
1  Es  5'-  ■'"■  "  6-  (-aXofli^X,  and  so  in  the  genealogies 
of  Mt  1'=  and  Lk  3-'').  See  Shealtiel  and  Zerub- 
babel. 2.  Another  name  of  Esdras,  2  Es  3'  (Sala- 
thiel). 

SALECAH  (.-ipVP ;  'AcreXxa,  -eXx^.  2f)cxa(,  EXxcf, 
'Axd  ;  Salecha,  Salacha ;  AV  Salcah,  in  Dt  3" 
Salchah). — Salecah,  one  of  the  cities  of  Og  (Jos  12'), 
was  on  the  eastern  boundary  of  Bashan,  to  w  liich 
the  kingdom  of  Og  extended  (Dt  3'»,  Jos  13"). 
Though  not  specially  mentioned,  it  must  have 
been  included  in  '  all  the  kingdom  of  Og,  king  of 
Bashan,'  which  was  given  to  the  half  tribe  of 
Manassich  (Jos  13'»).  But  in  1  Ch  5"  the  children 
of  Gad  are  said  to  have  dwelt  '  in  the  land  of 
Bashan  unto  Salecah.' 

Salecah  was  held  by  the  Nabatteans  under  king 
Aretas  (B.C.  9-a.D.  40),  whose  coins  have  been 
found  in  the  ruins.  It  was  an  important  place  in 
Roman  times,  and  was  specially  sacred  to  Allat, 
the  mother  of  the  gods.  It  is  identical  with  the 
present  Salkhad — the  Sarkhad  of  Abulfeda,  who 
mentions  its  numerous  vineyards,  and  the  Selcath 
of  William  of  Tyre,  in  whose  day  it  was  a  strong 
fortress.  The  town  occupies  a  commanding  posi- 
tion a  little  south  of  the  last  spurs  of  Jehel  Uaurdn, 
at  the  point  where  the  p'cat  eastern  road,  that  led 
from  Gadara  to  the  Persian  Gulf,  entered  the  desert. 
In  the  town,  now  occupied  by  Druses,  there  are 
many  of  the  ancient  houses — some  almost  perfect. 
The  water-supply  was,  and  still  is,  derived  from 
rain  water  collected  in  reservoirs  and  cisterns.  A 
conical  volcanic  hill  rises  to  a  height  of  over  300  ft. 
above  the  town,  and  in  its  crater  stands  the  castle. 
It  was  built,  or  rebuilt,  by  the  Romans,  and  must 
afterwards  have  been  restored  by  the  Arabs  or  the 
Seljiik  Turks,  for  at  the  time  of  the  Crusades  it 
was  an  important  fortress.  From  it  the  old  Roman 
road  can  be  seen  running  straight  as  an  arrow  over 
the  plain  towards  Bosra  and  Gadara,  and  east- 
ward as  it  enters  the  desert  on  its  way  to  the 
Persian  Gulf  (Porter,  Giant  Cities  of  Boshnn,  p.  75  ; 
Heber-Percy,  A  Visit  to  Bashan  anil  Arqob). 

C.  W.  \VlLSON. 

SALEM  (ZdXTjMot,  AV  Salum),  1  Ks  8'  =  Sh:inuiii, 
an  ancestor  of  Ezra  (cf.  Ezr  7");  called  also  Sai.i - 
MAS  (?),  2  Es  1'. 

SALEM  (dS?»,  i.e.  Shalem  ;  2aXV  ;  Snlem).—i.  A 
place  of  which  Melchizedek  was  king  (Gn  14", 
He  V-  ^).  It  was,  apparently,  near  a  broad  open 
valley  ('cmek),  called  '  the  vale  of  Shaveh,'  or  '  the 
king's  vale'  (Gn  14").  Various  positions  have 
been  assigned  to  Salem.  Josephus  and  the  Jewish 
commentators  identilied  the  town  with  Jerusalem, 
and  believed  Salem  to  be  the  ancient  name  of  that 
city  (Jos.  Ant.  I.  x.  2,  BJ  VI.  x.  ;  Onkelos  and  all 
the  Targg.).  This  was  also  the  opinion  of  the 
early  Christians,  for  Jerome  {Qu.  in  Gen.)  writes 
of  Melchizedek  as  '  king  of  Salem,  which  was  the 
old  name  of  Jenisalem,'  and  he  alludes  to  the 
same  belief  in  Ep.  Ixxiii.  ad  Ev.  §  2.  (See  also  Eus 
Onom.  'IfpowaX^/n).  Jerome  himself,  however,  iden 
tified  Salem  with  a  place  called  Salumiits,  in  the 
Jordan  Vallev,  8  miles  south  of  Scythojiolis,  where 
the  ruins  of  tlie  palace  of  Melchizedek  were  shown 
[Ep.  Ixxiii.  ad  Ev.  §7  ;  Onom.  .i.  '  Salem,'  'Aenon  '). 
At  this  spot  there  is  now  an  artificial  mound  {tell), 
and  on  it  the  tomb  of  Slieikh  Halim,    In  a  frag- 


354 


SALEMA8 


SALMON 


ment  preserved  by  Ensebius  {Prmp.  Ev.  ix.  22)  the 
meeting  of  Abrani  and  Melchizedek  is  said  to  liave 
taken  place  in  'Ar-Garizin,  that  is,  Mt.  Gerizira. 
This  is  probably  a  tradition  derived  from  tlie  belief, 
current  in  the  times  of  Eusebius  and  Jerome,  that 
Shechem  was  the  Shalem  {AV,  RVm)  of  On  33" 
(Onom.  s.  'Salem,'  'Sichem').  This  view  was 
advocated  by  Dean  Stanley  (S.  and  P.  250).  The 
Samaritan  tradition  places  Salem  at  SAlim,  east  of 
N6hlus.  Bochart  (Phakq  ii.)  and  Ewald  (Gesvh. 
i.  410)  supposed  Salem  to  have  been  east  of  Jordan, 
between  Damascns  and  Sodom. 

The  most  probable  view  is  that  Salem  was 
Jerusalem.  The  arguments  in  its  favour  are : — 
that  Jerus.  is  so  called  in  Ps  76''  (see  below) ;  that 
Salem  as  the  residence  of  a  priest-king  must  have 
been  an  important  and  well-known  city,  and  that, 
if  it  be  not  Jerusalem,  it  is  only  once  mentioned  in 
the  OT  ;  the  similarity  of  the  names  of  the  two 
kings  ^lelchizedek  and  Adonizedek  (Jos  10',  if 
this  and  not  Adonibezek  is  the  correct  reading,  see 
Adonizedek)  ;  and  the  parallel  drawn  between 
Melchizedek  and  the  king  of  the  line  of  David 
ruiing  at  Jerusalem  (Ps  110').  In  the  Tel  el- 
Amarna  tablets,  which  are  earlier  than  the  con- 
quest of  Palestine  by  Joshua,  Jerusalem  appears 
as  Uru-salim,  that  is,  according  to  Sayce  [but 
this  interpretation  is  extremely  doubtful],  the  city 
of  the  god  Salim,  or  god  of  peace.  It  may  be 
added  that  Abrara's  route  on  his  return  from 
Damascus  to  Hebron  might  well  have  passed 
through  Jerus.,  and  that  the  vale  of  Shaveh  may 
have  been  the  broad  open  head  of  the  valley  of 
Hinnom  before  it  contracts  and  becomes  a  ravine 
(qni).  See,  further,  Dillm.  on  Gn  14" ;  Sayce, 
SCM  295  ff.,  EHH  28  ;  Horamel,  AHT  201. 

2.  (ip  dprifTj ;  in  pace)  There  is  a  general  agree- 
ment that  in  Ps  76-  '  Salem  '  is  Jerusalem.  Each 
of  the  two  names  Salem  and  Zion  indicates  Jeru- 
salem as  the  special  seat  of  Di\-ine  worship,  as 
Judah  and  Israel  each  stand  for  the  whole  nation 
in  Ps76'  114=. 

3.  The  valley  of  Salem  (tJk  ai\wi>a  2aX)}/i)  is 
mentioned  (Jth  4'')  as  one  of  the  places  to  which 
the  people  of  Judsea  sent  messengers  on  the  ap- 
proach of  Holofemes.  Reland  suggests  {Pal. 
p.  977)  that  the  original  Heb.  reading  was  ■iib"d'7 
dSp*?  {  =  eU  ai/Xii-a  tU  ZoXij^,  'into  the  plain  to 
Salem,'  that  is,  into  the  Jordan  Valley  {Av\uv)  to 
Salem),  and  that  the  Greek  translators  rendered 
without  the  repeated  els.  The  iilace  w.as  very  pos- 
sibly that  called  Saluniias  by  Jerome  {see  aoove), 
which  was  situated  not  far  from  the  point  at  which 
the  ancient  road  from  Bethshean  to  Shechem  left 
the  plain  of  the  Jordan  and  entered  the  hills. 

i.  In  Jer  41  [48]  »  the  LXX  (B)  reads  Salem  for 
Shiloh.  This  Salem,  if  the  readin"  be  correct, 
must  have  been  near  Shechem,  and  possibly  at 
Sdlim  to  the  east  of  N&blus. 

C.  W.  Wilson. 

SALEMAS  {Salame,  Salemas,  AV  Sadaraias), 
2Es  l'  =  Shallum,  an  ancestor  of  Ezra  (of.  Ezr  7^) ; 
called  also  Salem,  1  Es  8'.  There  is  some  doubt  as 
io  the  nominative  of  this  name  in  2  Esdras.  It 
occurs  in  the  genitive,  for  which  Dr.  James  reads  in 
the  text  Saleme,  with  note  '  Salema;  A.' 

SALIH  {loKetfi.  ;  Salim).— A  town  or  village 
named  (Jn  3^)  to  indicate  the  position  of  ^■Enon, — 
the  'springs' in  which  John  was  baptizing, — and, 
presumably,  a  well-known  place.  It  was  on  the 
west  side  of  Jordan  (cf.  Jn  3^  with  l"  and  10"), 
but  its  site  has  not  yet  been  determined.  Various 
identifications  have  been  suggested. 

(1)  Eusebius  and  Jerome  (Onutn.  s.  *  iEnon ') 
state  that  in  their  day  Mnou  was  shown  8  miles 
Bouth  of  Scythopolis,  near  Salim  (Salmnias),  and 
the  Jordan.    This  Salim  is  now,  apparently.  Tell 


Bidhghah  (see  Salem),  not  far  from  which  i)  • 
group  of  fine  springs  that  answer  well  to  the 
'  many  waters  '  of  /Enon.  It  has  been  objected  to 
this  site  that,  as  it  was  in  Samaria,  the  Jews 
^^ould  not  have  gone  to  it  to  be  baptized.  But 
it  is  probable,  from  its  position,  that  Saluniias 
was  in  the  district  of  Scythopolis  —  a  town  of 
Decapolis,  with  a  large  population  of  Jews  noted 
for  their  strict  performance  of  all  religious  observ- 
ances.    See,  further,  Westcott  on  Jn  3^. 

(2)  Robuison  (BRP  iii.  333)  and  Conder^fiK*. 
Work,  i.  91)  have  proposed  Sdlim,  east  of  Ndblus% 
but  this  place  is  4  niLfes  from  the  springs  lucDtitied 
•»  ith  Mnon,  and  separated  from  them  by  a  range 
of  hills.  It  is,  too,  in  the  heart  of  Samaria,  and 
not  far  from  Shechem. 

(3)  Barclay  (City  of  the  Great  King,  558-570) 
identities  .iEnon  with  the  copious  springs  in  W&dy 
fdrah,  to  the  N.E.  of  Jerusalem,  and  is  of  opinion 
that  Salim  was  in  the  Wddy  SiUeim  near  'Andta 
(Anathoth). 

(4)  Bii-scliing  identifies  Salim  with  'Ain  Karim, 
the  traditional  birthplace  of  St.  John. 

(5)  Alford  {Gr.  Test.  Jn  3^)  and  Riehm  (ElVB, 
s.  '  Salim  ')  suppose  Salim  and  ^Enon  to  be  ShUhim 
(LXX  rfXff/M)  and  Ain  in  the  Negeb  (Jos  15*=). 
But  these  two  places  in  the  southernmost  parts  of 
Judah,  as  yet  unidentified,  seem  to  be  too  far 
removed  from  what  is  known  of  the  scene  of  the 
Baptist's  labours.  C.  W.  Wilson. 

SALIMOTH  (B  2oXeiAtw9,  X'ha<ta\iii<ie,  due  to  • 
wTong  division  of  syllables  in  the  names  'Barl  | 
aa-ZaX^ix^e,    AV    Assalimoth),    1  Es   i^.      Called 
Shelomith,  Ezr  S"". 

SALLAI  (•'rg).— 1.  The  eponym  of  a  Benjamit* 
family  which  settled  at  Jerusalem  after  the 
Return,  Neh  11*  (-ri\ei).  2.  The  name  of  a  priestly 
family,  Xeh  12-"  (Bx*A  om.,  K°*  SoXXoi),  called 
in  V.'  Sallu. 

SALLU. — 1.  The  eponym  of  a  Benjamite  family 
which  settled  at  Jerusalem  after  the  Return, 
1  Ch  9'  (.x!i'5;  B  :SaXiiM,  A  Za\u),  Neh  11'  (»)i; 
B  IriKu,  ^"^  •  Zri\uii).  2.  The  name  of  a  priestly 
famUv,  Nell  12'  (i^p;  Bn*A  om.,  «■=•  •  2«X«uoi), 
called  in  v.^"  Sallai. 

SALLUMUS  (XiWoviiOi),  lEs  9»=Shallum,  Ea 

10-^  ;  called  Salum,  1  Es  S'^. 

SALMA.— See  Salmon. 

SALMAI  ('n^i?).— The  eponym  of  a  family  ol 
Nethinim,  Neli  7^  (B  •Za.Xa^el,  A  2eXAie(,  N  SaMoeO, 
called  in  Ezr  2"  Shamlai  (Kere  -h.^v  ;  Kethibh  •■q)^ 
followed  by  AV  text  Shalmai ;  B  ZanaAv,  A  X<Xa^), 
and  in  1  Es  ^  SuBAI. 

SALMANASAR  (Salmanauir).—2'EA  13«=ShAI^ 
MANESKK  (which  see). 

SALMON,  or  SALMA  dto'-;-  Ru  4",  np^tr  Rn  4» 
K-^-i-  1  Cli  2"  ""  »'•  ",  LXX  SaXMttK  Ru  B,  1  Ch  2"A  ; 
■faXfuibv  Ru  A,  1  Ch  2"  B  ;  SaXw^w"'  1  Ch  2'»-  " ;  NT 
SaX^iix  with  variant  Za\i  ({<*  B  Aeth. )  in  Lk  3").— 
The  father  of  Boaz  and  son  of  Nahshon  of  the 
tribe  of  Judah  (RU4*-"),  and  therefore  in  the 
direct  line  of  the  ancestry  of  our  Lord  (Mt  I*-', 
Lk  S**).  If  the  Salma  of  1  Ch  2»>- "  is  the  same 
iierson,  he  was  the  'father'  or  'founder'  of  Beth- 
lehem, but  it  is  to  be  noticed  that  that  Salma  ia 
reckoned  as  one  of  the  sons  of  Caleb  the  son  of 
Hur.*  From  Mt  P  we  learn  that  Salmon  married 
Rahab.     The  Salma  of  1  Ch  2"  had maiy  descend- 

•  This  cannot  mean  in  any  case  that  Salma  va*  lit«t&1}  ■ 
8on  o(  Caleb. 


SiVLMOXE 


SALT,  CITY  OF 


355 


aQtfl, — Bethlehem  and  the  Netophathites,  Atroth- 
beth-Joab,  and  half  of  the  Manaliathites,  the  Zor- 
ites, — but  the  text  of  the  verse  seems  to  have  been 
corrupted.  Some  have  wished  to  distinguish  be- 
tween Salma  and  Salmon,  in  order  to  lengthen  the 
genealogj',  but  it  is  scarcely  to  be  conceived  that  a 
oiUerent  person  is  intended  in  the  two  consecutive 
verses  of  Ruth  (4^-  ■^).  As  to  the  genealogy  of 
Christ,  Eusebius  (HE  ii.  7)  asserts  quite  distinctly 
that  genealogical  tables  of  various  families,  such 
as  that  of  David,  were  in  existence  up  to  the  time 
of  the  Herods.  That  this  is  possible  may  be 
gathered  from  the  care  exercised  at  the  time  of 
the  return  from  the  Babylonish  captivity  about 
noting  tliose  who  'could  not  show  their  fathers' 
houses,  and  their  seed,  whether  they  were  of 
Israel '  (Ezr  2*.  cf.  Keh  7"). 

H.  A.  Redpath. 
SALMONE  (2a^/uil'^);  Salmone). — The  name  of  a 
promontory  at  the  N.E.  end  of  Crete,  now  Cape 
Sidero,  on  which  stood  a  temple  of  Athene.  The 
Alexandrian  ship  in  which  St.  Paul  sailed  from 
MjTa  for  Italy, aft«rreachingCnidus  with  difficulty, 
mjt  the  full  force  of  the  N.W.  wind,  and  could  not 
continue  her  voyage  on  the  direct  track,  which 
passed  close  to  the  southern  points  of  Morea.  The 
captain,  consequently',  determined  to  alter  her 
course  and,  when  oU  (Kard)  Salmone  (Ac  27'),  to 
work  his  way  westward  under  the  lee  of  Crete. 
The  arguments  in  favour  of  a  N.  W.  wind,  and  its 
influence  on  tlie  course  of  the  ship,  are  well  stated 
by  Smith  of  Jordanhill  {Voyage  and  Shijuereck  of 
St.  Paul,  p.  35).  C.  W.  \\  ILSON. 

8AL0AS  (B  ZdXSat,  A  2oX(5at,  AV  Talsaa,  from 
the  Aid.),  1  Es  9~=Elasah,  Ezr  lO**. 

SALOM. — A  Greek  form  (SaXii/i)  of  the  name 
Khallu.m  (ciW).  Us  only  application  in  EV  is  to 
Salom,  the  father  of  IlUkiali,  Bar  1'. 

8AL0ME(2aX(i;[ii)).—l.  The  daughter  of  Herodiaa, 
Mt  14^-'=,  Mk  6"--;  see  Herod,  vol.  ii.  pp.  355, 
300.  2.  A  woman  present  at  the  crucifixion,  Mk 
15*°,  and  afterwards  a  visitor  at  the  sepulchre, 
Mk  10'.  The  comparison  of  the  former  passage 
with  Mt  27°'  leaves  little  doubt  that  aiie  was 
also  the  wife  of  Zebedee,  and,  if  bo,  she  figures 
in  the  incident  of  Mt  2iJ»-='.  Nothing  else  is 
known  of  her,  though  there  are  many  conjectures, 
of  which  the  principal  is  that  she  was  a  sister  of 
Mary,  the  mother  of  Jesus.  In  support  of  that 
view  may  be  cited  a  reading  of  the  Peshitta  version 
of  Jn  10^  (cf.  also  the  Jerus.  Syr.  lectionary),  and 
a  presumptive  unlikelihood,  on  account  of  the 
BimUarity  of  the  names,  that  Mary  the  wife  of 
Clopas  was  a  sister  of  the  mother  of  Jesus.  James 
and  John  would  thus  Ije  the  cousins  of  Jesus,  and 
the  silence  of  the  NT  as  to  so  close  a  relationship 
becomes  significant.  '  Many  other  women '  were 
present  at  the  crucifixion,  Sik  15"  ;  and  amongst 
these  unnamed  disciples  must  probably  be  sought 
the  sister  of  Mary,  tlie  identification  with  Salome 
being  precarious  in  the  extreme,  and  sustained  by 
no  real  evidence.  See,  further,  art.  Mauy,  vol. 
iiL  p.  278  f.  K.  W.  Moss. 

SALT  (n^7,  aXo«,  4Xt).  —  This  mineral  (sodium 
chloride)  is  in  such  general  use  as  a  condiment 
to  food  amongst  all  civilized  nations  that  it  has 
become  a  necessity  ;  and  undoubtedly  it  is  bene- 
ficial in  the  animal  economy  as  an  antiseptic,  and 
a  preventive  to  the  development  of  intestinal 
worms.  Even  wild  animals  feel  its  necessity  as 
well  as  domestic  cattle;  and  it  is  well  known  that 
in  former  times  when  the  bison  roamed  in  immense 
herds  over  the  plains  of  North  America  they  made 
long  journeys  to  the  'salt-licks,'  or  salinas,  for 


the  puriM>«e  of  licking  the  ground  coated  with  this 
nuneral.  Salt  of  commerce  is  one  of  the  most 
abuadani  of  substances,  and  is  found  to  a  greater 
or  less  eitent  in  nearly  all  countries,  especially  in 
England,  Germany,  Switzerland,  and  the  Austrian 
Alps  ;  in  India,  "both  in  the  salt  range  of  the 
Punjab  and  in  the  great  salt  lake  of  Sambur  in 
Rajputana;  in  China,  and  in  N.  America.  In 
Euiope  and  the  British  Isles  its  chief  source  is  the 
Triassic  formation.  It  is  also  the  most  abundant 
saline  ingredient  in  the  waters  of  the  ocean  *  and 
of  most  salt  lakes.  On  the  coasts  of  Spain,  Italy, 
and  some  other  countries,  salt  of  commerce  is 
largely  extracted  from  the  oceanic  waters  by 
evaporation.  Salt  is  found  also  in  the  waters  of 
nearly  all  rivers. 

The  chief  source  of  salt  in  Palestine  is,  and 
always  has  been,  the  terraced  hill,  called  Khashm 
Usdum,  on  the  south-western  shore  of  the  Dead 
Sea  (which  see) ;  and  this  trade  is  still  carried  on 
by  the  Arabs.  Here  a  cliff  of  solid  rock-salt  from 
30  to  60  ft.  high,t  capped  by  white  marl,  extends 
for  a  distance  of  nearly  7  miles  along  the  shore  of 
the  lake,  and  affords  an  inexhaustible  supply ; 
while  salt  is  also  obtained  from  pits  dug  into  tiie 
sand  or  slime  of  the  shore,  into  which  the  waters  of 
the  Dead  Sea  are  admitted  and  then  allowed  to 
evajiorate.  Theabundance  of  salt  was  of  thegreatest 
use  to  the  Israelites,  not  only  for  domestic  pur- 
poses, but  for  use  in  the  sacrifices  of  the  temple 
(Lv  2'»,  Ezr  6»,  Mk  Q'^);  and  so  Antiochus  tlie 
Great,  as  a  reward  for  the  alliance  of  the  Jews  in 
Ids  wars  \vith  Ptolemy  Philopator,  bestowed  upon 
them  gifts  for  their  sacrifices,  of  wine,  oil,  and  otlier 
articles,  amongst  which  were  375  medimni  of  salt.J 
Cf.  Ezk  47"  (RVm),  where,  in  the  pr()i)lietio  de- 
scription of  the  ideal  future,  after  the  Dead  Sea 
as  a  whole  has  been  sweetened,  the  marshes  are 
still  reserved  for  the  production  of  salt. 

Salt  trade  was  extensively  carried  on  in  ancient 
times  along  the  caravan  routes  in  Syria,  Palestine, 
and  Northern  Africa.  One  of  the  chief  of  these 
was  the  route  from  the  ports  of  Phccnicia  to  the 
Persian  Gulf  through  Palmyra.  The  Phcenicians 
manufactured  salt  by  evaporation  from  sea-water, 
and  used  it  for  salting  fish. 

Emhlcifiatic  Uses  vf  the  Term. — Owing  to  its 
purifying,  sustaining,  and  antiseptic  qualities, 
salt  became  an  emblem  of  fidelity  and  friendship 
amongst  Eastern  nations.  To  have  '  eaten  of  his 
salt,'  and  thus  partaken  of  his  hospitality,  was 
(ami  still  is)  regarded  by  the  Arabs  as  a  token  or 
pledge  of  eternal  amity.  So  in  the  Bible  it  is 
used  as  an  emblem  of  the  Covenant  ('a  covenant 
of  Kilt')  between  J"  and  His  people  (Nu  18", 
2  Ch  13°).  In  memorable  language  our  Lord 
applies  the  expression  to  His  disciples :  '  Ye  are 
the  j-alt  of  the  earth'  (Mt  5").  Again  He  says: 
'  Salt  is  good  ;  but  if  the  salt  have  lost  its  saltness, 
wherewith  will  ye  season  it?'  and  Ho  concludes 
with  the  injunction  :  '  Have  salt  in  yourselves,  and 
have  peace  one  with  another'  (Mk  9°"). 

Excess  of  saltness  in  the  ground  produces 
sterility  ;  hence  a  salt-land  becomes  emblematic  of 
barrenness  and  desolation  (l)t  2'J",  Jer  17",  Zeph 
2") ;  and  a  city  when  destroj'cd  was  sown  with 
salt,  in  token  that  it  was  never  again  to  be  re- 
stored. Thus  it  hai)i)ened  in  the  case  of  Shechem 
when  captured  by  Abimelech  (Jg  9"). 

E.  UxjhL. 

SALT,  CITY  OF  (n'??n  tv).— This  was  one  of 
the  cities  which  fell  to  the  lot  of  the  tribe  of 
Judah,   and    was  situated   in   the   wilderness    of 

•  In  the  proportion  o(  2S  to  29  gtummcs  per  litre. 

t  Hull,  iloiint  Seir,  3I1.  xiv.  p.  129;  Lartct,  Couoy*  d'Ex- 
ploration  dela  Mer  ilorU  :  TriMtram,  Land  oj  lifrafl,  3*26. 

t  JoH.  Ant.  xit.  ill.  3.  Revenue  woa  raised  by  a  tax  on  salt, 
the  remiwlon  of  which  wu  oSer«d  the  Jew*  by  Demetriiu^ 
king  of  Syria ;  ib.  ziu.  IL  S. 


356  SALT  SEA 

Beth-arabah  (Joa  15"-«).  It  was  al^o  ""^J" 
froiu  En-L'edi,  the  site  of  which  we  know  ;  hence 
t  may  te  inferred  to  have  occupied  «ome  pos^ion 
^,  fi,»  wp<itpm  shore  of  the  Dead  Sea,  between 
"E"n 'iV  andT-A^S  Usdum  (the  -It  -ounUm. 
See  art.  Salt).  ^-  "-""^ 


SALUTATION 


SALT  SEA.— See  Dead  SKA. 

QSTT     VALLEY    OF    (nS^-ifJ).  —  The  scene  of 
n,e™orIbJSies|f  David    or  of  Abif -,|;- 
liputenant  over  the  Edomites  2  S  8«   1  Ch  lb   ), 
L'ndTa^la^ter  period  of  Ama.iah  over  the  s^me 
hereditary  enemies  of  Judah  {2  iv  14  ,i  l>n  -a  j. 
The  position  of  this  valley  can  scarcely  be  a  matter 
/o   doub     both  on  account  of  its  historical  associa- 
tions  as  related  in  the  above  passages,  and  from 
he^o'tion  of  the  salt  mountain  M,„a.rf«m 
which  rises  from  the  western  sliore  of  the  Dead 
Sea     The  accounts  of  the  battles  would  lead  to  the 
inference  that  the  Position  was  some  valeyWg 
between  Jerusalem  and  Edomof  which  Petra(bela) 
t^Tthe  capital;  and  the  name  -dic-tes  th«  Pr"^" 
imitv  of  either  the  salt  mountain  or  the  salt  sea 
B^th  the  inferences  are  satisfied  by  identifying  the 
Valley  of  Salt  with  the  plain  extending  f  om  the 
southern  end  of  the  Dead  §ea  to  the  foot  of  the  c   tfs 
(the^cent  of  'Akrabbim),  t  which  cross  the  val^y 
from  side  to  side  and  form  the  southern  margin 
ofThe  Ghor.     This  plain  is  of  sufficient  extent  to 
be  the  battleground   for  large  armies      See  arts. 
Arabah  and  Dead  Sea.  k-  ^^^^ 

SALTWORT  (Job  30*  RV).— See  Mallows. 


charity  claims  that  he  shall  at  least  be  dismissed 
wth  /ktmmendation  to  the  ^'vme  car^  home^ 
thin-  of  formal  di;,'nity  mingles  al.-o  w  tU  tlie 
S  salutations  in  the  family  Some  of  the  chief 
occasions  of  salutation  are:  the  buth  ot  a  son  a 
marr1a°e,  the  meeting  of  relatives  away  from 
h^iiie  th;  return  of  a  friend  from  a  journey,  the 

norae,_tue  ict   ^ ^  ,^„„„„,.      Salutations  are  also 

appe 


SAJLU  (Ni'rc).— The  father  of  Zimri  the  Simeonite 
chief  who  was  slain,  along  with  the  Midianitish 
woman  by  Phinehas,  Nu  25"  (B  SaX^jci.,  A  2aXu,, 
ir  SaxZ).  1  Mac  2^  (SaX^M.  hence  AV  Salom). 

SALUM  (A  SaXo*;»    B  om.),  /  Es  5- =  Shallnm 
the  head  of  a  family  of  porters  (cf .  Ezr  2").    CaUed 
Sallumus,  1  Es  9^. 

'^'^"^bv'?.^  rir-  bt"? oVo^^ftfJ  [Utl^'^ask 
Ketea^of  ^    in  ^^^1,^^^^^^^^^^  ^ 
AV  '  sreet'l).— In  the  modem  East  some  word  or 
act  of  salutation  accompanies  all  social  intercourse 
tSe  phrases  and  gestures  be  ng  n^P^^'f  J.  ^/«°;^  °= 
to  tlie  occasion  and  the  relationship  of  the  parties 
It  is  against  all  the  courtesies  of  Oriental  life  to 
deliver'any  message.  ««k  information    or  pa^to 
any  matter  of  business,  without  some  form  of  salu- 
tation bv  which  inquiry  is  made  after  each  other  s 
weUare,  and  goodwill  is^expressed.   Thus  a  traveller 
Teekin^  direction  from  a  peasant  by  the  roadside 
mutt  Srst  hail   him   by  expressing  a  wish   that 
his  toU  may  bring  an  ample  reward.     Similarly, 
a  purchaser  on  entering  a  shop,  before  mentioning 
wl  at  he  wants  or  engaging  in  the  usual  sword- 
play  about  the  price,  must  salute  the  merchant 
(viti.  the  wish  that  the  day  may  prove  oneof  ^ess^ 
inc  and  profit.    Remoteness  from  cities  and  centres 
of  civUization  does  not  mean  ignorance  of  such 
etiouette,  as  the  Bedawin  of   the  desert  excel  in 
ffio  teness.    No  inferiority  of  position  is  aUowed 
to  excuse   the    omission    of    such   courtesy :    the 
^e.-ar    at    the  door  expects  a  salutation  along 
with  the  copper  or  piece  of  bread,  and.  if  refused 


oiicred  to  the  host  after  partakmg  of  refresti. 
monts  upon  meeting  a  feTlow-traveller  on  the 
rolld  anYon  visits  o1  respect  to  ecclesiastical  or 
govorniuent  officials.  „„,i„rT.    nwps 

^  Oriental  salutation,  ancient  and  modern  "wes 
much  of  its  originating  motive  and  d'^tinttn  en.ss 
of  character  to  the  toUowing  facts  of  Oriental 

^'^li^Th^  strong  sense  of  personal  <iionityo.mong 
OriLtals.-m  Job  29  there  is  an  enn™«J'\t^^°^  ° 
the  elements  of  Oriental  gie^tness,  and  a  destrip 
tion  of  the  happiness  of  the  man  who  is  met-  on 
every  side  by  the  reverence,  obedience,  and  loving 
eratftude  of  those  to  whom  he  has  been  a  bene- 
factor     The  same  sense  of  dignity  implies  a  quiche 
rec^mition  of  affront,   and  a    strong  feeing  of 
inKtion  when  the  claim  to  respect  is  repudi- 
ated     Hence  the  complaint  over  tfie  cessation  of 
the  wonted  reverence  i'n  Job  30      The  narrative  m 
the  Ck.  of  Esther  turns  upon  the  salutation  t^ia^ 
AtnrdMai  refused   to   Hanian.     Christ  s   urieui-ai 
Ers'would  be  deeply ^Uned  bv  the  appea    o 
the  affronted  guest    Lk  1»-^),  and  by  tie  list  oi 
indi^Ses  helped  upon  the  neglected  .k>ng  (Mt 
25^^).     The  ancient  sculptures  and  pa.nings  of 
Assyria  and  Eg>-pt  show  the  forms  of  prostration 
4  vChgods  SiS  kings  were  saluted  and  suppli^ 
cated      Similar  formalities  are  mentioned  in  the 
Bible  as  being   employed  in^ordinary^  sociaUife 


(Gn  32"-»;  33^  1  S 


oyeu   ui   uiiiii»'>'*j   — -■—        ^ 
5i)-3i)_     The   usual  salute  ot 


•  Both  these  pa'sages,  judging  by  the  context,  evidently  refer 
toth^^ele^^th^^^^ 
jranqu.Bhrf,  in   ''«  1^«"  't^'  i^^uld  have  been  encountered  at 

the  latter  U  the  correct  account,  and  that  the  lormer  u  an 
M  this  plac«. 


ikk5^of^=i^o^:s;iris=i 
!  Slt:^^/^i^  t!:n5=^S 

^  rrn  IsYr  Tite  ^mX  n,S:  f'm'ol 
Slu  rtion  i's  to'knelflnd  clasp  aU  kiss  the    et 

^telcetucitlUTn  bXalf  ^f  o^esJu  oTa  l^nd 
^  K  4")  When  words  fail,  and  there  are  no  more 
l!iL*t^;shed.thiso.toryof.^^^^^^^^^^ 

rner(Ps51>^).  if  is  the  power  o^f  weakness  over 
8tren<^th  through  the  confession  of  weakness 

Si's  -rr  j  .issv'srw^tS 

urgent  or  important  has  to  be  done,  the  early 
morning  is  chosen,  so  that,   if  possible,   Tff^°' 

S=r^^=^^v^rs^r'i"^^H^ 
£^'\=iniS-"Hrf^'s\i^f'^>^ 

bi^gfa'ense^T^e^dfd  comfort  in  the  salutation  of 
peace  io^'7V shdld^n,  elp^vv).  implying  both  the  safety 
r^iiine^totectio^^^^^^^^^ 

\Tl"^^^  S>5"49'.  1  ChV2-,  Mk  5-).     The  ques- 


SALUTATION 


SALVATION,  SAVIOUR 


357 


and  Cliristians  shrink  from  bcsto.viny  upon  each 
o'.her  the  sjilutation  of  peace.  To  the  Moslem 
especially  it  seems  heterodox  to  wish  peace  to  tlie 
iniidcl,  and  an  impertinence  to  be  thus  saluted  by 
him.  These  limitations  are  left  behind  in  Mt  5^'. 
Hence  the  directness  of  the  question,  '  Art  thou 
for  us,  or  for  our  adversaries?'  (.Jos  5"),  and  the 
an.xious  inquiry,  '  Is  it  peace  ? '  (2  K  O""**).  Hence 
al^o  ihe  abhorrence  of  deceitful  salutation  (Ps  28', 
Jer  e"  8",  Ezk  13'°).  The  ordinary  hail  of  travellers 
on  the  road  is  the  old  formula  mentioned  in  Ps 
US",  Mt  21"  23*',  'Blessed  is  he  that  conieth.' 
Among  relatives  and  familiar  friends  the  form  of 
Balutation  after  an  interval  of  separation  is  to  kiss 
on  both  cheeks,  or  on  each  side  of  the  neck.  It  is 
the  kiss  of  brotherly  love,  and  is  frequently  re- 
ferred to  in  Scripture  (Gn  27='  29"- "  31"  33-',  E.x 
4",  Ps  85"  ;  cf.  Ko  1G'«,  1  Co  16=°,  2  Co  13"  '  Salute 
one  another  with  a  holy  kiss,'  similarly  1  Th  5* 
'  Salute  all  the  brethren  with  a  holy  kiss,'  and  1  P 
5" '  Salute  one  another  with  a  kiss  of  love ').  In  the 
ca.se  of  children  saluting  their  parents,  scholars  their 
teachers,  and  servants  their  masters,  the  custom  is 
to  stand,  and,  bowing  down,  to  kiss  the  hand.  In 
Oriental  letters  the  opening  sentence  frequently 
begins  with  the  e.xpression,  'After  kissing  3'our 
hands,'  as  a  token  of  respect.  This  reverential 
salutation  of  ki.ssing  the  hands  is  always  given  to 
priests,  rabbis,  and  sheikhs  of  religion.  It  was  the 
salutation  claimed  by  the  Pharisees  (Mk  12**). 
Absalom  chan<'ed  the  salutation  of  respect  to  that 
of  equal  friendship  (2  S  15°-').  There  prevails  at 
the  present  time  a  compromise  of  courtesy  by  which 
one  seizes  the  li.and  of  a  friend  in  order  to  give  the 
kiss  of  veneration,  but  the  other  defeats  the  design 
by  quickly  withdrawing  his  hand  as  soon  as  his 
lingers  have  been  touched.    See  art.  Kiss. 

in  Bil)le  instances  of  salutation,  where  one 
person  falls  upon  the  neck  of  another,  the  Heb. 
word  for  '  neck '  (ik;?  znvvdr)  is  used  in  the  dual 
[probably  not  plural]  as  indicating  the  two  sides 
that  are  ki.s.sed  (tin  27'»  33*  45"  46=^*,  Ca  4»). 

In  Oriental  salutation  great  attention  is  paid  to 
asking  after  each  other's  health  and  general  wel- 
fare, in  the  course  of  a  call  of  courtcsj-  or  on  an 
occasion  of  meeting.  It  is  exceedingly  trying  to 
a  Western,  who  craves  some  exchange  of  tliought, 
to  have  to  answer  these  repeated  inquiries  after 
his  health,  more  especially  as  every  such  inquiry 
begins  another  circulating  decimal  of  devout 
commonplaces.  It  is  owing  to  the  prominence 
given  to  this  matter  that  the  visit  of  salutaLion  in 
the  Bible  is  often  described  as  a  health-inquiry 
( 1  S  lOMT"'  30-'  liV  gives  the  more  general '  salute ' 
instead  of  'ask  of  welfare'  in  1  Ch  18'°).  The 
union  of  reverence  and  all'ection  in  salutation  is 
exei.iplilicd  in  Ex  18',  IS  20'",  2S  14».  The 
Balutation  of  bowing  and  kissing  was  employed 
in  the  wcjrship  of  Baal  (Job  31-'',  1  K  19'"). 

The  injunction, 'Salute  no  man  by  the  way' 
(2  K  4»,  Lk  10*),  referred  to  the  inevitable  delay 
Imposed  by  common  courtesy  in  asking  and  answer- 
ing formal  inquiries  as  to  health,  family,  etc. 
The  special  responsibility  of  one  sent  by  another 
is  recognized  by  the  (Jrientals,  and  the  messenger 
is  saved  from  the  charge  of  rudeness  by  a  proverb 
which  says,  '  The  messenger  has  only  to  deliver  his 
message. 

(3)  T/te  deep-seated  convirtion  t/tat  both  blcsaing 
and  cursing  in  salutation  tend  to  work  out  their 
fulfilment. — It  was  of  inijiortance  to  give  or  to 
withhold  the  salutation  of  ]ieace.  The  sahitation 
»t  parting  took  the  form  of  a  benediction  (Ku  l"-  '*, 
1  S  20*^  2  S  ly"),  and  consequently  the  same  word 
might  mean  'rejoice 'or  '  farewell '  (I'li  4*).  This 
form  of  salutation  is  exemplitied  in  rich  fulness  at 
the  close  of  the  Pauline  Epistles.  When  Christ 
said  that  the  '  peace '  He  gave  was  not  after  the 


custom  of  the  world,  He  referred  to  the  emptiness 
that  had  come  to  mark  salutations  that  once 
expressed  a  precise  meaning  and  a  sincere  desire 
(Lk  24*",  Jn  14-''  20'").  The  disciples  were  told  that 
when  they  went  forth  in  His  name,  and  invoked 
the  Divine  blessing  on  a  house,  and  were  refused 
admittance  and  hospitality,  then  the  blessing 
returned  to  those  who  had  uttered  it.  It  was  their 
introduction  to  what  has  since  become  a  familiar 
law  in  the  Christian  service,  that  whatever  il 
forfeited  for  the  Lord  is  found  in  llim. 

G.  M.  Mackie. 
SALVATION,  SAVIOUR.— The  purpose  of  this 
art.  is  to  give  a  general  survey  of  the  doctrine  of 
salvation  as  developed  within  the  period  covered 
by  the  Biblical  writings.  Of  necessity  the  subject 
stands  in  close  relations  with  others  treated  in  the 
Dictionary,  and  the  reader  is  therefore  recom- 
mended to  consult,  in  addition  to  special  articles 
on  such  subjects  as  Faith,  Mediator,  Keueemer, 
ItANSo.^i,  Parousia,  etc.,  the  general  articles  on 
God,  Holy  Spirit,  Jesus  Christ,  IMessiah, 
Kingdom  of  God,  and  Eschatology.  It  will  be 
the  aim  of  this  article,  as  far  as  possible,  to  avoid 
unnecessary  repetition,  and,  passing  over  points  of 
detail,  to  conhne  itself  to  a  bird's-eye  view  of  the 
doctrine  as  a  whole. 

i.  The  Words, 
ii.  The  Idea  (in  ^neralX 
iii-  History  of  the  Idea. 

1.  In  the  old  Testament. 

2.  Between  the  Testaments. 
8.  In  the  Teachhifj  of  Jesus. 

4.  In  the  New  Testament :  (a)  In  general ;  (6)  St.  P»nl ; 

(t:^  St.  John. 
It,  Systematic  Statement. 

L  Nature  of  Salvation :  (ff)  temporal  and  spiritual ; 

(6)  individu.al  and  social ;  (c)  present  and  future. 

2.  Conditions  of   Salvation ;  (a)  on   the  Divine  side ; 

(6)  on  the  human  side. 

3.  Extent  of  Salvation  :  (a)  in  this  lite  ;  (6)  in  the  life  to 

come ;  (c)  in  the  universe. 

i.  The  Words.— 'Salvation'  is  in  OT  tr.  of  a 
number  of  words,  the  principal  of  which  are  :  •"'V'b';, 
VV:  or  yp;,  mvyiD  [only  Ps  68-"  HV  'deliverances'], 
n-i;ap,  from  the  stem  ys"  (lit.  '  to  be  broad,  spacious ' ; 
only  found  in  Niphal  and  Hiphil,  thelatter  with  the 
meaning  'ileliver') ;  in  the  N'T  it  is  tr.  of  awnjpla, 
from  awi'u  '  to  save '  (less  frequently  of  ri  awriipiov, 
neut.  of  the  adj.  awrqpioi ;  e.g.  Lk  2*"  3«,  Ae  28'", 
Eph  6" ;  cf.  Tit  2"  t)  x^P<-^  '''""  ^f""  <r<^p^oi,  '  the 
grace  of  God  bringing  salvation ').  Otiicr  words 
translated  '  save '  in  our  VSS  are  in  OT  n.'n  and 
■Xii'T  (l^iel  and  Hiphil  of  n;ij  'to  live,'  with  the 
meaning  'to  keep  living,'  'to  save  alive';  so  Gn 
12'- 19'"  45'  [liV]  50-°,  E.X  !"•  >»,  Nu  22^^  31'»,  Dt  '20'», 
Jos  2'"  0^,  Jg  8'"  21'*,  1  S  27",  1  K  18°  20",  2  K  7*, 
Ezk  Vi'"-  "•,  and  esp.  Ezk  3'"  18",  where  the  reference 
is  to  escape  from  penalty  through  repentance) ; 
VsT  (lit.  '  to  snatch  away,'  with  meaning  'deliver,' 
by  which  it  is  usually  rendered  both  in  AV  and 
KV  ;  i^.g.  1  S  12"  and  often.  The  tr.  '  save '  occurs 
in  AV  only  2  S  19").  t:^?  (Piel  of  unused  tj^v  'to 
slip  away,  '  to  escape,'  with  meaning  '  to  let  or 
cause  to  escape,'  hence  'to  deliver';  1  S  19",  2  S 
19',  1  K  1",  Job  20-°,  Jer  48'",  and  2  S  19°  KV,  Jer 
516. «).  y,^  (m  .j^  keep,'  'to  preserve';  Job  2", 
IIV '  spare ').  In  NT  the  word  'save'  is  usually  the 
translation  of  <ruf<j,  but  the  compound  Staauiu  is 
rcnilered  ' save '  in  three  instances  (Lk 7^  RV,  where 
AV  renders  'heal,'  Ac  27*»,  1  P  3-^  cf.  Ac  23«  '  to 
brinjj  safe';  elsewhere  'escape'  Ac  27**  28',  or 
'make  whole'  Mt  14*"),  and  the  same  is  true  in 
one  ca.se  (2  P  2°  AV)  of  (pfMnau  (lit.  '  to  guard,' 
'  to  preserve,'  so  RV).  The  jihraso  irfpijroiT/ffit 
fvxvi  in  He  lO"  is  rendered  '  saving  of  the  soul '  in 
iKjth  versions. 

'Saviour'  is  the  tr.  in   OT  of  the   Hiph.   ptcp. 
(VTiD)  of  VB>'  (so  Jg  3»'»,  Is  19-'°  43",  and  often); 
1  in  NT  and  LXX  of  jurrjp,  from  ffiij'ki. 


558 


SALVATION,  SAVIOUR 


SALVATION,  SAVIOUR 


ii.  The  Idea. — The  root  idea  in  salvation  is 
delit:errnice.  In  every  case  some  danger  or  evil  is 
presupposed,  in  rescue  from  whicli  salvation  con- 
sists. Since  in  ])rimitive  times  one  of  the  greatest 
dangers  to  be  feared  is  defeat  in  battle,  salvation 
is  often  used  in  OT  in  the  sense  of  '  victory '  {e.g. 
Ex  15»,  IS  11"  KV  'deliverance,'  19'  KV  'vic- 
tory,' Ps  2u'  RVm  'victory'),  and  successful 
warriors  are  called  '  saviours  (e.g.  Jg  o'-"  ",  Neh 
&").  But  this  is  only  one  modification  of  a  much 
broader  usage.  Men  are  said  to  be  saved  from 
trouble  (Ps  34»,  Is  33»,  Jer  14»  30' ;  of.  1  S  10",  Ps 
107"- '"),  enemies  (2  S  S'^),  violence  (2  S  22^  Ps  50= 
'bloodthirsty  men'),  reproach  (Ps  57'),  exile  (Ps 
106-",  Jer  30"  46-'',  Zee  8'),  death  (Ps  6\  cf.  v.»),  sin 
(Ezk  SG-^  cf.  Ps  130",  Mt  1=').  Since  all  deliverance 
comes  from  God,  He  is  frequently  spoken  of  as 
'SaWour'(so  esp.  in  Deutero- Isaiah  43'"  45'°-''^ 
43»>  60"  63»  ;  but  also  Jer  I4»,  Hos  13\  2  S  22',  Ps 
106-').  The  name  '  Saviour '  is  often  applied  to  God 
in  the  Apocrypha  {e.g.  Ad.  Est  15^,  Bar  4-,  Jth 
9",  Wis  16",  Sir  51",  1  Mac  4'"  ;  cf.  3  Mac  6-9-  ^  7'", 
Ps-Sol  3'  8'»  16*  17").  It  is  less  frequent  in  NT, 
being  found  only  in  Lk  1",  1  Ti  1>  2'  4'»,  Tit  1'  2'», 
Jude  '''.  Elsewhere  in  NT  the  title  is  .applied  only 
to  Jesus  Christ  (so  Lk  2"  and  often).  With  the 
growth  of  the  Messianic  idea  we  lind  the  tendency 
to  use  the  words  'save'  and  'salvation'  in  a 
technical  theological  sense  of  the  deliverance  to 
be  brought  in  with  the  Messianic  age  {e.g.  Jer  23*) 
or  at  the  last  day  (Is  25'').  This  usage,  which  is 
common  in  the  Apocalyptic  literature  {e.g.  Enoch 
62'"  99'",  Apoc.  Bar  68',  2  Es  8' ;  cf.  Ps-Sol  10"  12'), 
reappears  in  NT  in  such  passages  as  Mt  10'-  24"-  *• 
and  parall.,  Ro  IP"  13",  1  Co  3'^  2  Ti  4«>  RV,  He 
9.,._  I  p  15.1..W  fi,,.  ^,ord  is  still  used,  however, 
in  NT  as  in  OT,  in  the  wider  sense  of  deliverance 
from  f  rouble  (so  Ja  5"  of  the  healing  of  the  sick, 
and  ii.'ten  in  the  Gospels).  With  the  deepening 
sense  of  moral  evil,  '  salvation '  acquires  a  more 
jirofound  ethical  and  spiritual  meaniiiir.  It  in- 
cludes deliverance  from  sin  itself  as  well  as  from 
the  various  evils  which  are  the  consequence  of  sin, 
and  so  comes  to  stand,  in  the  spiritual  realm  as 
well  as  in  the  temporal,  for  a  present  experience 
as  well  as  for  a  future  expectation.  The  growth  of 
this  deeper  meaning  will  become  apparent  aa  we 
pass  to  a  brief  review  of  the  history, 
iii.  History  of  the  Idea.— 

The  Sources. — In  the  present  state  of  Biblical  criticism,  any 
attempt,  to  trace  the  development  of  a  theological  conception 
must  be  provisional.  As  a  p.art  of  general  history,  the  history 
of  doctrine  is  dependent  for  its  sources  upon  the  results  reached 
in  the  wider  disci])line,  and  the  uncertainty  which  still  obtains 
as  to  the  date  and  authorship  of  many  UT  passaijres  {e.g.  Psalms) 
hinders  the  theoloi^ian  in  his  attempt  at  constructive  statement. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  student  of  doctrine  haa  an  advantage 
over  the  general  hlstori.an.  For  there  is  an  inner  logic  of 
ideas  which  is  quite  independent  of  time  and  place.  And  it 
is  often  possible  by  the  aid  of  this  logic  to  trace  the  origin  and 
development  of  conce^itions,  even  where  external  e\idence  as 
to  their  history  is  lackmir  or  uncertain.  In  the  present  article 
the  general  results  of  Bitjlical  criticism  are  presupposed.  It  is 
assumed  thai  the  idea  of  salvation  has  hod  a  history,  the  broad 
outlines  of  uhich  we  can  truce,  and  that  the  record  of  this 
history  is  preserved  for  us  in  the  Biblical  writings,  which, 
to«:ether  with  the  contemporaneous  Apocryphal  and  Pseud- 
eplgraphical  literature,  constitute  our  sources.  In  what  follows 
we  shall  give  the  different  steps  in  the  development  of  the  idea 
in  their  natural  order,  even  if  the  particular  passages  which 
illustrate  a  special  usage  be  themselves  of  later  or  of  uncertain 
lata. 

1.  In  the  Old  Testament. — The  most  signal  in- 
stance of  the  Divine  salvation  in  the  early  history 
of  Israel,  and  the  one  which  made  the  deepest 
impression  on  the  national  memory,  was  the  de- 
liverance from  Eg3'pt.  The  prophetic  historian 
in  the  Pentateuch  (J)  relates  witli  triumph  how 
'J"  saved  Israel  that  day  out  of  the  hand  of  the 
Egjqitians ;  and  Israel  saw  the  Egyptians  dead 
upoL  the  seashore'  (Ex  14"').  The  same  glorious 
deliverance  is  celebrated  in  Pb  106  (cf.  esp.  w.'-  *• '"). 


In  these  ]).assages  we  have  the  simplest  meaning  ol 
'salvation.'  It  is  deliverance  from  jiresent  danger 
or  trouble,  more  especially  from  defeat  in  battle. 
J"  is  the  Saviour  of  Israel,  because  He  is  the  ona 
from  whom  such  deliverance  conies.  'J"  is  my 
strength  and  my  song,'  sings  the  author  of  the 
Song  of  Moses  (Ex  15-),  'and  he  is  become  my 
salvation.'  And  the  context  makes  clear  the  sense 
in  which  this  salvation  is  to  be  understood.  'J'  is 
a  man  of  war,  J"  is  his  name'  (v.',  cf.  the  title  /' 
Sabauth,  'J"  of  Hosts,'  i.e.  according  to  what  La 
probably  the  best  interpretation,  J"  the  God  of  the 
armies  of  Israel).  The  use  of  '  salvation '  in  this 
sense  of  victory  in  battle  is  frequent  in  the  UT, 
esp.  in  the  historical  books.  In  the  time  of  th« 
judges  J"  raised  up  '.saviours'  in  the  persons  of 
Othniel  (Jg  S'-*)  and  of  Ehud  (3").  He  sent  Gideon 
to  save  Israel  (0'^-  ",  cf.  vv.'"-"),  and  required  him 
to  reduce  his  force  to  300  men,  lest  Israel  should 
say,  '  mine  own  hand  hath  saved  me '  (7-).  In 
the  time  of  their  distress  at  Apliek  the  people  send 
in  haste  to  fetch  the  ark  from  ShUoh,  '  that  it  may 
come  among  us  and  save  us  out  of  the  hand  of 
our  enemies'  (1  S  4').  With  the  growth  of  the 
national  life  the  importance  of  such  deliverance 
increases.  J "  made  Saul  to  be  king  that  he  might 
save  the  people  from  the  Philistines  (1  S  9'*),  and 
tlie  same  is  true  of  David  after  him  (2  S  3"  '  By 
the  hand  of  .  .  .  David  I  will  save  .  .  .  Israel  out 
of  the  hand  of  the  Philistines  and  out  of  the  hand 
of  all  their  enemies ' ;  cf.  also  2  K  14^).  This 
view  of  J"  as  the  Saviour  of  Israel  in  battle  finds 
classic  expression  in  the  Deuteronomic  code  (Dt 
20- ■*) :  '  And  it  shall  be,  when  ye  come  nigh  unto 
the  battle,  tliat  the  priest  shall  approach  and  speak 
unto  the  people,  and  shall  say  unto  them.  Hear,  O 
Israel,  ye  draw  nigh  this  day  unto  battle  against 
your  enemies  :  let  not  j'our  lieart  faint ;  fear  not, 
nor  tremble,  neither  be  ye  affrighted  at  them  ;  for 
J "  your  Goil  is  he  that  goeth  with  j'ou,  to  fight  for 
you  against  your  enemies,  to  save  you.' 

Side  by  side  with  this  view  of  'salvation'  aa 
victory  in  battle,  goes  the  wider  conception  of  it  aa 
deliverance  from  trouble.  J"  not  only  delivers  Ilia 
people  from  their  enemies  (2  S  3'*),  but  from  all 
their  calamities  and  distresses  (1  S  10",  cf.  Ps 
107").  He  saves  the  poor  man  who  cries  to  Him 
out  of  all  liis  troubles  (Ps  34«,  cf.  37").  His  salva- 
tion brings  with  it  not  merely  deliverance,  but 
security  and  prosperity.  This  close  connexion 
with  prosperitj'  is  clearly  brought  out  in  such  a 
passage  as  Ps  118-*  'Save  now,  we  beseech  thee, 
O  J".  O  J"  .  .  .  send  now  prosperity'  (cf.  Ps 
106*-  '  '  O  visit  me  with  thy  salvation  :  that  I  may 
see  the  prosperity  of  thy  chosen ').  In  more  than 
one  instance  the  Hebrew  words  usually  translated 
'salvation'  are  rightly  rendered  in  EV  'welfare' 
(e.g.  Job  30"  n^'i?;)  or  'safety'  (i.e.  security,  cf. 
Job  5*-  ",  Pr  11"  VVl).  Especially  common  is  thia 
connotation  in  connexion  with  the  eschatological 
use  of  the  word.  Cf.  Is  61'"  '  I  will  greatly  rejoice 
in  J",  my  soul  shall  be  joyful  in  my  God ;  for  he 
hath  clothed  me  with  garments  of  salvation,  he 
liath  covered  me  with  the  robe  of  righteousness.' 
The  salvation  in  which  the  redeemed  Israel  is  here 
represented  as  rejoicin"  is  the  good  time  of  safety 
and  prosperity  to  be  usliered  in  with  the  Messianic 
age.  But  this  is  already  to  anticipate  the  next 
meaning. 

Thus  far  we  have  considered  salvation  aa 
deliverance  from  present  evil.  The  conception 
is  both  temporal  and  material.  But  with  the  rise 
of  Messianic  prophecy  *  we  note  a  new  develoj>- 
ment.     The  conception  of  salvation  is  still  more 

•  The  word  '  Messianic '  is  here  used  in  its  broadest  sense,  to 
Include  the  doctrine  of  a  future  Divine  deliverance  in  all  114 
forms,  whether  or  not  it  involves  the  belief  in  a  Messianic  king 
of  David's  line. 


SALVATION,  SAVKJUE 


SALVATION,  SAVIOUR 


359 


or  less  external.  It  involves  victory  in  battle,  the 
defeat  of  enemies,  and  worldly  jjrospeiity.  But 
this  victory  is  not  looked  for  in  the  present. 
There  is  a  preceding  judgment  to  take  place,  in 
which  unfaithful  Israel  shall  receive  from  J"  the 
just  recompense  of  her  sins.  Only  after  this 
impending  judgment,  and  then  only  for  the  faith- 
ful remnant,  will  J"  show  Himself  as  Saviour.  We 
have  thus  the  be'dnnings  of  the  use  of  the  word  in 
an  eschatologicar  sense,  as  one  of  the  features  of 
the  Messianic  age.  The  prominence  of  the  con- 
ception varies  greatly  in  the  diflerent  prophets. 
In  some  it  is  almost  overshadowed  by  the  message 
of  doom.  In  others  it  is  a  hope  which  burns 
bright  and  clear.  Often  judgment  and  salvation 
go  hand  in  hand,  as  in  such  a  pa.ssage  as  Is  So* 
'  Your  God  will  come  with  vengeance  ...  he 
will  come  and  save  you.'  The  Messianic  salvation 
is  the  theme  of  many  of  the  Psalms  (e.g.  53'  '  Oh 
that  the  salvation  of  Israel  were  come  out  of  Zion  ! 
Wlien  God  bringeth  back  the  captivity  of  his 
people,  then  let  Jacob  rejoice  and  let  Israel 
be  glad.'  Cf.  14'  69^- "  106"  133'«).  Especially 
common  is  the  use  of  the  word  in  the  eschato- 
logical  sense  in  the  later  portions  of  Isaiah  (e.g. 
25'  45"-  "  46"  49"-  "  51"  56^  61'"  62").  From  the 
prophets  it  passes  over  into  the  Apocalyptic  books 
(e.g.  Ps-Sol  10*  and  often),  and  reapiiears  in  the 
NT  with  deepened  ethical  and  spiritual  meaning. 

Looking  more  closely  at  the  content  of  this  future  salvation, 
we  find  that  it  boa  many  features  in  common  with  the  salvation 
already  experienced  in  the  podt.  It  i»  still  a  time  of  victory 
over  enemies,  of  worldly  prosperity  and  joy.  But  there  is  a 
new  element  which  enters  into  the  conception  throueh  the 
experiences  of  the  Exile.  Whatever  else  the  future  salvation 
may  hrin^r  with  it,  it  involves  restoration  from  captivity. 
Thus  Jeremiah,  looking  forward  to  the  day  when  God  'will 
raise  up  unto  David  a  righteous  branch,' who  'shall  reign  as 
King  and  deal  wisely  and  shall  execute  Judgment  and  justice 
in  the  land,*  goes  on  to  say  that  '  in  bis  days  Judah  shall  be 
saved  and  Israel  shall  dwell  safely.  .  .  .  They  shall  no  more 
say.  As  J"  livetb,  which  brought  up  the  children  of  Israel  out 
of  Eg>'pt ;  but  as  J"  liveth,  which  brought  up  and  which  led 
the  seed  of  the  bouse  of  Israel  out  of  the  north  country,  and 
from  all  the  countries  whither  1  have  driven  them ;  and  they 
shall  dwell  in  their  own  land  '  (Jer  23" ;  cf.  30'*  '»  '  Behold,  1 
will  turn  again  the  captivity  of  Jacob's  tents,'  31",  and  esp. 
4f>27  '  Fear  not  thou,  O  Jacob  my  serx'ant,  neither  be  dismayed, 
O  Israel.  For,  lo,  I  will  save  thee  from  afar,  and  thy  seed  from 
the  land  of  their  captivity  ;  and  Jacob  shall  return,  and  shall  be 
(guiet  and  at  ease,  and  none  shall  make  him  afraid ').  So 
Kzekicl  looks  for  a  day  when  God  shall  save  His  distressed  flock, 
and  gather  them  unncr  one  shepherd,  even  His  serxant  Dji\'id 
(3422. 'it).  And  Zechariah  confidently  expects  the  time  wlien 
God  shall  save  His  people  *  from  the  East  country  and  from  the 
West  country,' and  shall  'bring  them,  and  they  shall  dwell  in 
the  midst  of  Jerusalem'  (87- f,  cf.  Is  6620).  The  return  from 
captivity  is  the  theme  of  the  Psalmist's  prayer  (\Oti*T,  cf.  63") ; 
and  In  the  little  hymn  wlii<;li  forms  the  appendix  of  Is  11  the 
rtturnwi  exiles  are  rcjiresenlcd  as  praising  God  for  His  deliver- 
ance, and  drawing  wat«r  with  Joy  out  of  the  wells  of  salvation 

a2»). 

But  the  Jerusalem  to  which  the  exilei  return  is  not  to  be  in 
%\\  respvclB  the  same  as  the  old.  We  have  emplio-'^ized  the 
cxtcrnul  features  in  the  Messianic  ideal.  But  we  shull  greatly 
miBconneive  the  nature  of  Israel's  hope  if  we  rcjcrard  it  as  purely 
ext'-rnal.  The  revelation  of  God's  holiness  hatl  been  too  clearly 
appreliended  by  the  prophets  to  make  them  content  with  any 
ideal  which  was  not  ethical.  As  the  condition  of  enjoving  the 
future  salvation  ts  repentance  on  Israel's  part  (Is  1'''  '-W),  so  it 
Includeii  as  one  of  it«  chief  elements  the  righteousness  of  the 
nation  (Jer  ai^l-a*).  The  Meaaianic  age  is  to  bu  a  time  of 
juBti'-e  and  Judgment  and  of  the  pure  worship  of  God.  When 
thf  MeHHiah  comes,  he  will  he  not  merely  a  faithfid  shepherd 
(Hzk  S4^')  hut  R  just  Judge  (Is  ll*-5),  bindinjf  up  the  broken- 
hruirti'd,  settinfT  at  liberty  the  captives,  rinhting  the  wronged 
(la  01>).  but  at  the  some  time  puniahing  the  guilty  (Is  11^ 
Cl2) ;  In  short,  realizing  the  ethical  ideal,  the  failure  to  attain 
which  ho^l  been  the  cause  of  all  Israel's  mJHfortunes.  In  the 
great  eschatologii:al  passages  in  prophet  and  pHalniiat  alike,  sal- 
vation and  righteousness  go  bona  Ln  baud  (U  4(^  '7  4(i>8  &!& 
C1>0.  cf.  Ps  245  (lis  1329. 16), 

Such  being  in  general  the  nature  of  the  Messianic  salvation, 
how  widely  shall  we  conceive  its  ext«nt?  In  many  passagctf 
Indeed  the  prophftio  vision  seems  bounded  by  Isnief.  The  otd 
oppressors  are  to  l)e  ilestroyed  in  the  great  Jud^nncnt  of  the 
Dav  of  J"  (la  13.  34.  C;ii-8,  Ezk  38.  39.  esn.  aozi,  Ztph  '^*  i^).  or, 
If  tney  sun'lve  at  all,  it  is  as  captives,  holding  the  same  menial 
position  which  they  had  once  Imposed  ujion  Israel  (Jl  3",  cf. 
It  61*-  *).  Elsewhere,  however,  the  prophetic  hori/x)n  broadens, 
uid  «e  have  the  prediction  of  a  day  when   the  knowledge 


a.io  amice  of  J"  shall  be  shared  by  those  who  hitherto  havs 
knijwn  Him  no',  Jerusalem  is  to  be  the  s<:ene  not  only  of  ■ 
universal  dominion,  but  of  a  universjil  worship  (Mic  4*-*,  cf 
la  r-*-*,  la  tkJ.  00>^2i,  Ps  CS31  S2^  Zee  S'^  '-O  i4ie.  i^  Kay,  tht 
time  is  coming  when  the  Divine  worship  shall  not  be  confined 
to  Jerusalem.  The  author  of  Is  19  associates  Egypt  and 
Assyria  with  Israel  as  worshippers  of  the  one  true  God.  *In 
timt  day  shall  there  be  an  altar  to  J"  in  the  midst  of  the  land 
of  Egypt,  and  a  pillar  at  the  border  thereof  to  J".  And  it  shall 
be  for  a  sign  and  for  a  witness  unto  J"  of  hosts  in  the  land  of 
Eg^-pt;  for  they  shall  cry  unto  J"  because  of  the  oppressors, 
and  he  shall  send  them  a  saviour  and  a  defender,  and  he  shall 
deliver  them.  And  J"  shall  be  known  to  Egypt,  and  the 
Eg>-ptian8  shall  know  J"  in  that  day '  (vv.  19-21  c£.  Zeph  39-  lO, 
Ps  s7).  This  conception  of  a  salvation  wider  than  Israel 
culminates  in  the  great  passage  Is  495.  a.  Here  we  have  the 
sublime  conception  of  Israel  not  merely  as  the  recipient  but  as 
the  minister  of  the  Divine  salvation.  *  And  now  saith  J"  that 
fortued  me  from  the  womb  to  be  his  servant  to  bring  Jacob 
ai,'ain  to  him  and  that  Israel  be  gathered  unto  him  ,  .  .  yea, 
he  saith.  It  is  too  light  a  thing  that  thou  shouldat  be  my 
servant  to  raise  up  the  tribes  of  Jacob  and  to  restore  the  pre* 
eer\'ed  of  Israel ;  I  will  also  give  thee  for  a  light  to  the  Gentiles 
that  thou  mavest  be  my  salvation  unto  the  end  of  the  earth ' 
(cf.  Is  4521-^  551  6). 

Two  features  of  the  prophetic  teaching  still 
need  special  mention,  as  oearing  on  the  develop- 
ment of  tlie  doctrine  of  salvation.  The  first  is  the 
growing  transcendence  of  the  conception ;  the 
second,  the  increasing  stress  laid  upon  the  indi- 
vidual. 

In  the  earlier  prophets  the  Messianic  ideal  is 
essentially  earthly.  Jeremiah,  for  example,  looks 
for  the  re-estahlishnient  of  the  Davidic  monarchy, 
and  the  restoration  of  conditions  more  glorious 
indeed,  hut  essentially  the  same  as  tho.se  which 
preceded  tlie  Exile  (Jer  23*  30**  SS^^-^").  But  with 
the  lapse  of  time  we  note  the  tendency  to  magnify 
the  contrast  between  the  Messianic  age  and  that 
whicli  it  succeeds.  The  hope  of  Isaiah  (ch.  U)  of  a 
renewed  nature  is  taken  up  hy  his  successors  and 
developed  with  a  great  wealth  of  detail.  In  the 
Messianic  age  the  wilderness  and  the  solitary 
place  shall  be  glad,  and  the  desert  .shall  rejoice 
and  blossom  as  the  rose  (Is  35').  'The  wolf  and 
the  Iamb  shall  feed  together,  and  the  lion  shall 
eat  straw  like  the  ox  *  (65^.  The  voice  of  weening 
sliall  no  more  be  heard  in  Jerusalem  (05'").  Tnere 
shall  be  no  more  darkness  or  ^loom,  for  the  un- 
certain luminaries  of  earth  shall  be  super.se<led  by 
a  Divine  light  (60"-  ^) ;  the  years  of  life  sIiuU  be 
greatly  extended  {25^} ;  and  those  Israelites  who 
have  passed  away  in  the  glooiri  and  despair  of  the 
Exile  sliall  rise  iunu  their  graves  to  slinre  with 
their  brethren  in  the  Messianic  glory  (26^*, 
Dn  123). 

It  is  not  always  easy  to  tell  how  far  the  passages  which  speak 
of  a  renewed  nature  are  to  be  taken  literally,  and  bow  far  they 
are  merely  sj-mbolicnl  of  the  great  fertility  and  prosperity  of 
the  Mewiiaiiic  age.  Hut,  whatever  may  be  true  of  inclividual 
cjises,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  passages  cited  prepared 
the  way  for  that  transcendent  view  of  the  future  which  ia 
characteristic  of  many  of  the  i\pocnIypti(^  hooks.  The  pro- 
phetic hope  seemed  too  great  t<>  be  realized  under  existing 
conditions,  and  hence  could  be  ushered  in  only  by  a  complete 
transformation  of  the  present  order  of  things.  The  cleorest 
anticipation  of  this  new  point  of  view  is  given  by  the  unknown 
author  of  the  last  chapters  of  laaiah  in  bis  doctrine  of  new 
heavens  and  a  new  earth  (6517,  cf.  tH>22),  Where  such  a  view- 
point obtains,  the  Day  of  J  '  no  longer  has  its  significance,  as  in 
the  older  prophets,  as  ushering  in  a  new  stage  of  this  world's 
history.  It  marks  the  division  between  two  worlds  or  ages, 
separating  the  present  period  of  probation  and  distress  from 
the  final  age  of  fruition  and  Judgment  which  is  to  be  the  scene 
of  Israel's 'everlasting  salvation*  (Is  451'.  Cf.  Dn  71** :  Targura 
on  On  4918  (quoted  by  Uremer,  s.v.  a-uX'^) :  'My  soul  waiteth 
not  for  the  salvation  of  Gideon  the  son  of  Joaa,  for  that  is 
t«mporal,  nor  for  the  salvation  of  Samson,  for  it  is  passing, 
hilt  for  the  salvation  of  the  Messiah,  the  son  of  David,  which 
through  thy  word  thou  hast  jiromiscd  to  bring  to  thy  people, 
the  sons  of  Israel,  for  this  redemption  my  soul  waiteth  ;  for  thy 
redemption,  O  Jehovah,  ia  an  everlasting  redemption*). 

The  second  feature  which  demands  notice  is  the 
increasing  stress  laid  upon  the  individual.  In  the 
earlier  history  of  Israel  the  conception  of  salvation 
had  been  primarily  national,  but  with  the  destruc- 
tion of  the  nation  the  attention  of  the  prophets 
was  directed  more  and  more  from  the  people  aa  a 


360 


SALVATION,  SAVIOUR 


SALVATION,  SAVIOUR 


whole  to  the  units  which  composed  it.  Jeremiah, 
and  still  more  Ezekiel,  are  tlie  prophets  of  this 
growing  individualism,  which  appears  clearly  in 
Euch  passa<;es  as  Jer  SI-"-  ^'',  Ezk  18.  No  small 
part  of  Messiah's  work  consists  in  ri<,'hting  the 
wrongs  of  the  oppressed,  and  re-estahlishing  the 
widow  and  the  fatherless  in  the  rights  of  which 
they  have  been  defrauded  (Ps  72^-  '»,  Is  11'-  ■•  61'-»). 
Under  Him,  as  under  a  faitliful  shepherd,  all  those 
wlio  have  been  faithful  to  J"  during  tlie  period  of 
Israel's  misfortunes  shall  be  gathered  together  to 
form  a  new  tomnionwealth  in  which  righteousness 
shall  be  the  controlling  feature  (Ezk  34,  cf.  Is  60''). 
This  conception  of  God  as  the  Saviour  of  the  indi- 
vidual tincls  expression  in  the  Wisdom  literature 
{e.g.  Job  5'"  22-"  26=,  Pr  2(F),  and  in  many  of  the 
Psalms.  J"  is  the  deliverer  of  the  weak  and  the 
needy  (I09»',  cf.  IS"  T2>-  "),  the  Saviour  of  the 
meek  (Te'  149*.  cf.  Job  22^),  and  of  all  that  put 
their  trust  in  Him  (86'-,  cf.  88>).  The  poor  man 
cried,  and  J"  heard  him,  and  saved  him  out  of  all 
his  troubles  (34").  He  saves  the  upright  (37^'- '"'), 
and  such  as  be  of  a  contrite  spirit  (34'*).  He  hears 
the  cry  of  them  that  fear  Him,  and  fulfils  their 
desire  (145").  Whatever  may  be  the  true  inter- 
pretation of  many  of  the  later  Psalms,  there  can 
be  no  doubt  that  their  tone  was  much  influenced 
bv  this  growing  individualism.  There  is  a  sense 
oi  intimacy  in  relation  to  God,  a  confidence,  a  joy 
in  trust  in  Him  which  can  only  be  thus  explained. 
Out  of  their  own  experiences  in  personal  com- 
munion with  God  the  writers  have  gained  an 
insight  into  His  tenderness  and  love  which  they 
transfer  in  thought  to  the  nation.  It  is  no 
accident  that  later  ages  have  given  an  individual- 
istic interpretation  to  psalms  whose  reference  is 
clearly  national.  And  if  we  do  right,  witli  many 
recent  interpreters,  to  understand  tlie  suttering 
servant  of  Deutero-Isaiah,  of  Israel  the  nation,  it 
was  surely  through  some  personal  experience  of 
affliction  gladly  borne  for  another's  good  that  the 
prophet  was  raised  to  his  sublime  interpretation  of 
the  meaning  of  his  people's  deeper  sufl'erings. 

The  crown  of  this  individualism  is  reached  in 
the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection,  which  unites  in 
an  unexpected  way  the  conceptions  of  individual 
and  of  national  salvation.  In  most  of  the  OT, 
salvation  is  a  conception  which  has  meaning  only 
for  this  life.  There  is  indeed  an  existence  after 
death,  but  it  is  gloomy  and  uneventful,  without 
experience  of  God's  mercy  and  grace.  '  In  deatli 
there  is  no  remembrance  of  thee  (God)  :  in  Sheol 
who  shall  give  thee  thanks?'  (Ps  6").  This  earth 
is  the  scene  of  God's  salvation,  whether  present  or 
future  ;  and  even  the  gloi  ies  of  the  Messianic  age 
unroll  themselves  upon  this  platfonn,  and  will  be 
enjoyed  by  those  only  who  may  be  alive  when  the 
proniist'd  deliverance  comes. 

But  with  the  growing  sense  of  God's  greatness 
and  power  came  the  conception  that  even  the 
realm  of  the  dead  was  under  His  control,  and  that 
thy  riijhtuous  wlio  had  died  in  distress  might  still 
hope  aft  IT  death  to  see  the  salvation  of  Goa.  This 
hope,  which  appears  in  sporadic  utterances  in  the 
Psalms  {c.ff.  4'J"  73'-''- "),  and  finds  classic  expres- 
sion in  Job  19-''-''  ('  I  know  that  my  vindicator 
liveth,'  etc.),  culminates  in  the  doctrine  of  indi- 
vidual resurrection,  wliich  meets  us  for  the  first 
time  in  Is  20'",  and  is  repeated  in  Dn  12'''. 

But  this  growing  individualism  had  a  still  more 
important  consequence  than  in  extending  the 
range  of  the  Divine  salvation.  It  materially  modi- 
fied the  idea  of  its  nature.  The  conception  of  sal- 
vation with  which  we  have  tlius  far  been  dealing 
Is,  for  all  its  ethical  features,  more  or  lesi  ex- 
ternal. It  is  deliverance  from  the  consequences  of 
tin  rather  than  from  tin  itself.  The  projihets  call 
npon  men  to  repent  and  forsake  their  sins,  that 


they  may  become  worthy  to  receive  the  promised 
salvation.  But  with  the  deepening  moral  sense 
tlicre  conies  the  insight  that  even  for  repentance 
itself  Divine  help  is  needed,  and  the  cry  arises  to 
God  for  a  deliverance  whicli  shall  include  not 
merely  the  consequences  of  sin,  but  the  very  sin 
which  has  caused  them.  This  new  insight  finds 
expression  in  such  a  praj'er  as  that  of  the  51st 
Psalm  :  '  Create  in  me  a  clean  heart,  O  God  ;  and 
renew  a  firm  spirit  within  me.  Cast  me  not 
away  from  thy  presence  ;  and  take  not  thy  Holy 
Spirit  from  me.  Restore  unto  me  the  joy  ot  thy 
salvation  ;  and  uphold  me  with  a  willing  spirit ' 
(vv.'"-'-).  Here  the  salvation  for  which  the 
Psalmist  prays  includes  deliverance  from  sin  as 
one  of  its  elements  (cf.  Ps  130'-*  'O  Israel,  hope 
in  J"  :  for  with  J"  there  is  loving-kindness,  and 
with  him  is  plenteous  redemption.  And  he  shall 
redeem  Israel  from  all  his  iniquities';  cf.  Ps  39' 
79").  It  is  the  prophets  of  individualism,  Jeremiah 
and  Ezekiel,  who  give  clearest  expression  to  this 
idea  of  salvation  as  deliverance  from  sin.  '  Be- 
hold, the  days  come,  saith  J",  that  I  will  make  a 
new  covenant  with  the  house  of  Israel.  .  .  .  But 
this  is  the  covenant  which  I  will  make.  .  .  .  I  will 
put  my  law  in  their  inward  parts,  and  in  their 
heart  will  I  write  it ;  and  I  will  he  their  God,  and 
they  shall  be  my  people.  And  they  shall  teach  no 
more  every  man  his  neighbour,  and  every  man  his 
brotlior,  saying.  Know  J " :  for  all  men  shall  know 
me,  from  the  least  of  them  unto  the  greatest  of 
them,  saith  J"  ;  for  I  will  forgive  their  iniquity, 
and  tlieir  sin  will  I  remember  no  more '  (Jer  SP''**, 
cf.  33').  '  And  I  will  sprinkle  clean  water  upon 
you,  and  ye  shall  be  clean  :  from  all  your  filthi- 
ness,  and  from  all  your  idols,  will  I  cleanse  you. 
A  new  heart  also  will  I  give  you,  and  a  new  spirit 
will  I  put  within  you  :  and  I  will  take  away  the 
stony  heart  out  of  your  Hesli,  and  I  will  give  you 
an  heart  of  flesh.  And  I  will  put  my  spirit  within 
you,  and  cause  you  to  walk  in  my  statutes,  and 
ye  shall  keep  my  judgments,  and  do  them  .  .  . 
and  I  will  save  you  from  all  your  uncleanncsses ' 
(Ezk  SG-^'-*,  cf.  3'7-^).  Here  we  have  a  conception 
of  salvation  which  goes  deeper  than  any  external 
deliverance.  The  great  prophet  of  the  Exile 
carries  on  the  same  line  of  thought.  To  him 
the  chief  blessing  of  the  Messianic  age  is  the 
forgiveness  of  sins.  It  is  not  Israel  whose  right- 
eousness deserves  the  s.ilvation  of  J",  but  J"  who 
goes  out  after  His  erring  children,  to  forgive  and 
redeem  them  for  His  name's  sake  (Is  43--'-^  ;  cf. 
442-2  33Q2.  24  646-9  (551.  2^  Zec  P  13').  In  such  passages 
we  have  a  direct  preparation  for  the  profound  con- 
ception of  the  NT. 

2.  Between  the  Testaments. — In  the  Apocalyptic 
and  Pseudei)igraphical  literature  of  the  Jews  we 
find  a  further  development  of  the  tendencies 
already  noted  in  the  OT.  Extending  over  a 
periodof  some  three  centuries,  its  earlier  portion 
contemporaneous  with  the  later  parts  of  the  OT, 
its  later  (e.(/.  Apoc.  Baruch,  2  Esdras)  with  the 
NT,  it  bridges  the  gap  between  the  two  in  thought 
as  well  as  in  time.  This  is  especially  true  in 
connexion  with  our  doctrine.  In  not  a  few  places 
indeed   'salvation'  is  still  used   in   the  sense  of 

f resent  deliverance  {e.g.  Jth  8",  Ep.  of  Jer  36). 
n  general,  however,  the  use  of  the  word  is 
eschatological.  The  expected  salvation  is  that 
of  the  Messianic  age,  which,  with  the  lapse  of 
time,  is  conceived  of  in  more  and  more  tran- 
scendent manner.  Where  the  earlier  conception 
of  an  earthly  kingdom  still  survives,  it  is  usually 
in  the  form  of  a  millennium  or  preliminary  period 
of  blessedness,  preceding  the  final  triumph  which 
takes  place  in  ttie  other  world.  Side  by  side  with 
this  growing  transcendence  we  note  a  furthel 
development  of  individualism.     Not  only  has  tha 


SALVATION,  SAVIOUR 


SALVATION,  SAVIOUR 


36] 


doctrine  of  the  resurrection  become  a  familiar 
arti<-le  of  faith,  but  the  doctrine  of  rewards  and 
punishments  is  extended  to  the  period  iniraedi- 
atcly  after  death.  In  some  cases  the  hope  of 
individual  reward  is  associated  with  large  ex- 
pectations of  the  triumph  of  Israel,  or  extends 
even  beyond  this  to  take  in  the  conversion  of  the 
Gentiles.  In  other  cases  (as  in  2  Esdras)  the 
writer  despairs  even  of  the  conversion  of  Israel, 
and  is  fain  to  console  himself  with  the  thou^'lit 
that  the  righteous  at  least,  even  if  few  in  numlier, 
shall  at  tlie  last  receive  a  glorious  reward.  Amid 
such  a  wealtli  and  variety  of  material,  we  must 
conlino  our  quotations  to  a  few  typical  passages, 
referring  the  reader  for  fuller  information  on 
points  of  detail  to  the  books  which  deal  specially 
with  the  subject  (see  Literature  at  end  of  article). 

In  the  Apocalyptic  picture  of  the  Messianic 
kingdom,  the  old  and  the  new,  the  material  and 
the  spiritual,  are  blended  in  startling  and  un- 
expected combinations.  Sometimes  we  seem  to 
be  breathing  the  atmosphere  of  the  old  propliets  ; 
at  others  we  are  repelled  by  the  artiliciality  and 
unreality  of  the  conception.  Thus  in  the  earliest 
portion  of  the  Book  of  Enoch  (1-36,  dated  by 
Charles  B.C.  170)  the  picture  of  the  future  is 
cra-ssly  material.  At  the  resurrection,  the  riglit- 
eous  eat  of  the  tree  of  life  (2d^"),  and  as  a  result 
enjoy  patriarchal  lives  (5*  25°).  The  scene  of  the 
Messianic  kingdom  is  a  purified  earth  (10'  16-'), 
with  Jerusalem  for  its  centre  (25').  The  blessings 
of  the  kingdom,  in  which  the  converte<l  Gentiles 
share  (10-'),  are  of  a  sensuous  nature.  The  powers 
of  nature  are  increased  indelinitely.  Thus  the 
righteous  will  beget  1000  children  (10")  ;  of  all 
tlie  seed  that  is  sown  each  measure  will  bear 
10,000  grains,  and  each  measure  of  oIi\es  will 
yieUi  ten  presses  of  oil  (10",  cf.  Apoc.  Bar  29°, 
and  note  of  Charles,  p.  54).  The  aullior  of  the 
Pealms  of  Solomon  (n.c.  70-40),  on  the  other  liand, 
em])hasizce  the  etliieal  features  of  tlie  kingdom. 
He  looks  for  a  Messianic  king  of  the  hneage  of 
David  who  shall  break  in  pieces  them  that  rule 
unjustly  (17").  He  will  be  a  righteous  king,  and 
taught  of  God  (17^*),  pure  from  sin,  so  that  he 
maj-  rule  a  mighty  people  (17^').  '  He  shall  jnirge 
Jerusalem,  and  make  it  holy  even  as  it  was  in  the 
days  of  old '(17*').  '  He  shall  not  sillier  iniquity 
to  lodge  in  their  midst;  and  none  that  knowetn 
wickedness  shall  dwell  with  them'  (17-'").  In  both 
of  these  books  the  earth  is  the  scene  of  the  Mes- 
sianic Kingdom  and  Jerusalem  its  centre.  Else- 
where, however  {e.g.  Enoch  »2-S)U.  'JI-I04.  37-70, 
A.ssumption  of  Moses,  Apoc.  Barucli),  we  have  a 
more  transcendent  view  of  the  future.  Thus  tlie 
author  of  Enoch  82-90  sees  a  new  Jerusalem 
taking  the  place  of  the  old  (90^-  ^)  and  becoming 
the  centre  of  a  new  community  in  which  all 
the  members  shall  be  transformed  into  the  image 
of  the  righteous  Messiah  (90^).  The  author  of 
Enoch  91-104  takes  up  the  pro]>lu'tic  thought  of  a 
new  heaven  and  a  new  earth,  but  develops  it  on 
the  former  .side  only  (91'").  It  is  not  earth  but 
heaven  which  is  to  be  the  abode  of  the  redeemed 
(104').  'lie  hopiful,'  he  cries  to  his  despondent 
readers,  'for  aforetime  ye  were  put  to  shame 
through  ills  and  allliction  ;  but  soon  j'e  will  shine 
as  the  stars  of  heaven,  ye  will  shine  and  ye  will  lie 
eeen,  and  the  portals  of  heaven  will  be  opened  to 
you.  ...  Be  hopeful  and  cast  not  away  your  hope  ; 
lor  ye  will  have  great  joy  as  the  angels  of  heaven. 
.  .  .  And  now  fear  not,  ye  righteous,  when  ye  see 
the  sinners  growing  strong  and  prospering  in  their 
ways,  and  lie  not  like  unto  them,  and  have  no 
companionship  with  them,  but  keep  afar  from 
their  violence  ;  for  ve  will  become  companions  of 
the  hosts  of  heaven  (104'- *•").  Here  we  have  the 
sharpest  possible  contrast  between  this  world  and 


that  which  is  to  come.  The  salvation  of  which 
the  writer  speaks  has  become  purely  other- 
worldly. A  similar  view-point  meets  us  in  the 
Assumption  of  Moses  (cf.  esp.  10"- ")  and  in  tlie 
Slavonic  Enoch  (Paradise  as  the  abode  of  the 
righteous  ;  cf.  8.  9.  42^-  "  61"  65'"),  as  well  as  in 
portions  of  the  Apocalypse  of  Baruch  (21'"  44"-" 
ol'  85). 

The  most  striking  example  of  this  transcentJent  conception  of 
salvatiun  is  found  in  the  SiinililiKles  of  the  ISoak  of  Knoch  (;i7- 
70;  Cllarl^ia,  1J.C.  94-64).  In  tliis  rc-niarU:il)le  writing,  whicli  in 
many  resperta  anticipates  most  clearly  the  NT  concepliun  of 
the  ^lorilied  Christ,  the  Messiah  is  conceived  of  as  a  strictly 
supernatural  beinjj.  Clothed  with  wisdom  and  righteousness, 
he  sits  on  tlie  throne  of  his  glory  (4.^^)  to  judge  all  living  heings, 
whether  niwil  or  angi-ls  (40*  ;)1- 5.')4  02-').  liy  the  word  of  hia 
mouth  he  slays  the  wicked  (02-).  Heaven  and  earth  are  trans- 
formed (45*- °)  antl  made  fit  for  the  dwelling  of  the  redeemed 
community,  whose  memliers,  clothed  with  life(62i'J)»  resplendent 
with  light  (39"),  with  faces  shining  with  joy  (61^),  become 
angels  in  heaven  (.'»!*),  and  dwell  in  closest  communion  with 
their  redeemer  (Gii'-*),  in  the  glory  of  bis  eternal  kingdom 
(49-'). 

This  passage  is  specially  interesting  because  it  puts  the 
Messianic  Kingdom  in  the  world  to  come.  The  author  knows 
only  one  salvation,  even  the  eternal  salvation  of  the  new  world. 
In  other  books,  however,  we  have  a  difTerent  conception.  The 
Messiah "s  Kingdom,  which  is  of  temporary  duration,  belongs  to 
this  world,  not  to  the  next.  Thus  the  author  of  Enoch  91-104 
looks  for  a  millennial  kingdom  of  three  world-weeks  preceding 
the  transformation  of  nature  which  ushers  in  the  new  world 
(9;j^h').  The  same  idea  reappears  in  the  Slavonic  Enoch, 
Baruch,  and  2  Esdras.  For  aetaila  see  Millennium,  where 
references  and  quotations  are  givelL  Doubtless  this  idea  was 
the  result  of  a  compromise  between  the  earlier  and  simi)ler 
view  of  salvation  which  placed  it  upon  this  earth,  and  that 
later  and  more  transcendent  conception  whose  growth  we  have 
been  tracing.  Whatever  its  origin,  it  was  an  idea  which  had 
wide  currency,  meeting  us  not  only  in  Jewish  hut  in  early 
Christian  literature  as  well,  and  being  represented,  within  the 
NT  itself,  by  the  Millennium  of  the  Apocalypse. 

Side  by  side  with  this  growing  transcendence  we 
note  a  further  development  of  the  individualistic 
tendency.  This  appears  most  clearly  in  connexion 
with  the  life  after  death.  The  doctrine  of  the 
resurrection,  which  in  Isaiah  and  Daniel  is  applied 
to  some  men  only,  is  further  extended.  While 
the  older  sceptical  tendency  still  survives  in  Sad- 
duceeisni,  the  belief  in  a  universal  resurrection 
wins  more  and  more  adherents.  With  this  change 
the  character  of  the  conception  alters.  Instead  of 
exhausting  its  -significance  in  connexion  with  the 
Messianic  Kingdom  as  the  means  of  entrance  for 
the  righteous  upon  joys  which  they  could  not 
otherwise  enjoy,  it  becomes  the  channel  of  uni- 
versal retribution.  As  the  righteous  rise  to  be 
bles.sed,  so  the  wicked  are  raised  that  they  may 
receive  the  recompense  of  their  sins  (beginnings  in 
Dn  12- ;  cf.  also  Enoch  22"  51'-  -,  Ajioc.  Bar  SO'-" 
50.  61,  2  Es  7"'-'"  ;  yet  note  that  in  many  places 
resurrection  is  still  only  of  the  righteous,  e.g. 
Enoch  9U»''  01'°  923  ioqh,  Ps-Sol  3'»  14'-»-  15'»"-:  cf. 
on  this  whole  subject  Wendt,  Lehre  Jesu,  ii. 
45-49). 

But  the  moralization  of  the  life  after  death  does 
not  stoi>  here.  It  extends  also  to  the  intermediate 
state.  Little  by  little,  Sheol  loses  its  aspect  of 
colourless  monotony.  It  becomes  the  scene  of 
preliminary  rewards  and  punishments.  It  has  ita 
compartments  where  the  wicked  are  kept  separat* 
from  the  righteous— the  former  in  great  pain, 
waiting  the  eternal  judgment ;  the  latter  in  a 
bright  s]iot,  where  there  is  a  spring  of  water 
(Eiux^h  22"'  "  ;  yet  note  that  punishment  is  only 
for  those  who  have  died  and  hccii  buried  '  without 
incurring  judgment  in  their  lifetime,'  '").  In  the 
Similitudes  the  elect  are  represenletl  as  dwelling 
in  the  garden  of  life  (61",  cf.  70*  61 1"  •  the  garden 
where  the  elect  and  righteous  dwell,  where  my 
grandfather  was  taken  up,  the  seventh  from 
Adam';  GD-^  'the  garden  of  the  righteous';  77' 
'the  garden  of  righteousness').  'Ihis  place  of 
relimiiiaiy  blessedness,  at  lirst  tenanted  only  by 
h  and   Elijah,   afterwards   by  all   the   rights 


pre 
Ln 


362 


SALVATION,  SAVIOUR 


SALVATION,  SAVIOUR 


eons  (cf.  60*),  develops  into  the  Paradise  of  NT 
times  ;  see  Paradise.  Thus  side  by  side  with  tlie 
preliminary  blessedness  of  the  milleiinial  kiii^doiii 
we  have  the  rigliteous  enjoyiii};  foret;usles  of  saj- 
vation  in  the  life  immediately  after  death. 

The  efl'ect  of  this  new  view  of  the  life  after  death 
was  inevitably  to  diminish  the  relative  import- 
ance of  the  final  salvation.  In  those  writings 
which,  under  Greek  influence,  developed  the  idea 
of  immortality  (i.e.  Philo,  Wisdom,  4  Maccabees), 
tlie  doctrine  of  an  intermediate  state  falls  away 
altogether,  and  souls  are  repre.sented  as  entering 
upon  their  final  award  at  deatli  {cf.  Wis  3'"^  4'", 
cf.  v.»  4  Mac  13'"  53"  18=").  Even  where  this  is  not 
the  case,  as  in  Slavonic  Enoch,  we  •lind  the 
tendency  more  and  more  to  si>iritualize  the  earlier 
conceptions.  Resurrection  is  no  longer  a  return 
to  earthly  conditions,  but,  as  in  1  Corinthians,  the 
putting  on  of  a  new  organism  fitted  to  the  life  of 
the  heavenly  kingdom  (Enocli  22'"'").  Paradise  is 
no  longer  the  abode  of  the  righteous  in  the  inter- 
mediate state,  from  whicli  they  are  raised  to  enter 
a  higher  state  of  blessedness,  but  the  place  of 
their  eternal  habitation  (Apoc.  Bar  51",  2  Es  8"). 
Sheol  is  more  and  nmre  identified  with  Gehenna 
as  the  place  of  final  punishment  of  the  wicked 
(Enoch  56"  63'"  99"  103',  2  Es  8«),  and  loses  its 
character  as  an  intermediate  abode  of  righteous 
and  wicked  alike.  Thus  more  and  more  we  note 
the  tendency,  which  can  be  paralleled  in  Christian 
history,  to  break  down  the  middle  wall  between 
the  intermediate  and  final  states,  and  to  make 
death  the  real  dividing  line  in  human  destiny. 

A  further  evidence  of  the  growing  individualism 
is  to  be  found  in  the  definite  abandonment,  in 
certain  quarters,  of  the  hope  of  national  restoration 
which  liad  formed  so  prominent  a  feature  of  the 
prophetic  anticipation.  This  appears  most  clearly 
in  such  late  books  as  Apoc.  Baruch  and  2  Esdras." 
In  the  earlier  literature  the  national  ideal  still 
survives,  and  in  many  passages  [e.g.  Ps-Sol  17) 
finds  beautiful  expression.  Even  the  hope  of 
Gentile  participation  in  the  promised  -salvation  is 
not  without  its  representation  (e.g.  Enoch  10-''  ilO*", 
Ps-Sol  17^="**).  It  could  not  be  otherwise  with  a 
people  whose  daUy  study  had  been  the  prophetic 
literature.  But  as  time  goes  on  and  the  kingdom 
does  not  come,  we  find  men  more  and  more  losing 
sight  of  the  larger  aspects  of  tlie  Divine  salvation, 
and  concentrating  their  thoughts  upon  the  fate  of 
individuals.  Tlie  present  world  is  abandoned  to 
hopeless  corruption  (cf.  Apoc.  Bar  15'*  21""),  ami  the 
world  to  come  belongs  to  the  righteous,  and  to  them 
alone  (cf.  Apoc.  I?ar  15*  24'- '-',  and  esp.  2  Es  7*'-"'). 
When  the  seer  laments  the  sorrows  of  the  wicked, 
and  the  small  number  of  those  who  shall  finally  be 
saved,  he  is  bidden  to  look  away  from  them,  and 
to  consider  the  righteous,  for  whom  alone  God 
cares.  '  For  I  will  rejoice  over  the  few  that  shall 
be  saved,  inasmuch  as  these  are  they  that  have 
made  my  glory  now  to  prevail,  and  of  whom  my 
name  is  named.  And  1  will  not  grieve  over  the 
multitude  of  them  that  perish  ;  for  the.se  are  they 
which  are  now  like  unto  vapour  and  are  become  as 
flame  and  smoke  ;  they  are  set  on  fire  and  burn 
hotly  and  are  quenched'  (2  Es  7"". «i  Charles'  tr.  in 
Esrhntology ,  p.  292).  Here  we  have  the  individual- 
istic theodicy  in  its  most  extreme  form. 

No  doubt  this  growing  individualism  had  its 
good  side.  Within  the  OT  itself  we  have  already 
seen  how  it  deepened  the  moral  insight,  and 
heightened  the  sense  of  personal  responsibility. 
We  find  ill  the  period  in  question  the  same  stress 

*  It  seems  probable  that  both  o(  these  books  in  their  present 
form  are  of  composite  authorship,  the  earlier  portions,  written 
before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  retaining  the  national 
Messianic  hope,  the  Iat«r  having  definitely  abandoned  it.  For 
the  evidence  in  detaU  s«e  Charles'  edition  of  BariLch,  and  his 
Enchatoiogi/t  p.  '283  ff. 


on  individual  righteousness.  But,  on  the  othei 
hand,  we  note  also  the  tendency  to  conceive  the 
wlH>le  matter  of  salvation  in  a  more  or  les8 
external  and  legal  way.  Salvation  is  the  reward 
which  God  has  promised  to  those  who  faithfully 
keep  His  law.  "The  more  difficult  the  achievement 
the  greater  God's  delight  in  the  result.  This  is 
specially  apparent  in  the  later  books  (cf.  Apoc. 
Bar  51'  '  But  those  who  have  been  saved  by  their 
works  and  to  whom  the  law  has  been  now  a  hope, 
and  understanding  an  expectation,  and  wisdom  a 
confidence,  to  them  wonders  will  appear  in  their 
time';  14',  with  Charles'  note;  2Es  9'-'  '  Ar.d 
every  one  that  shall  be  saved,  and  that  shall  be 
able  to  escape  by  his  works  and  by  faith  whereby 
ye  have  believed,  shall  be  preserved  from  the  said 
perils,  and  shall  see  my  salvation  in  my  land  and 
within  my  borders  :  for  I  have  sanctified  them 
for  me  from  the  beginning ' ;  cf.  7"  8^).  Here  we 
find  ourselves  in  that  very  atmosphere  of  work- 
righteousness  which  culminates  in  the  Talmud, 
and  against  which  the  Gospel  came  as  a  protest. 

Summing  up  the  conceptions  of  salvation  which 
we  have  met  thus  far,  we  find  that  they  are  four  : 
(1)  salvation  in  this  life,  in  the  sense  of  deliver- 
ance from  present  danger  or  trouble,  especially 
from  defeat  in  battle  ;  (2)  the  salvation  of  the 
Messianic  Kingdom,  to  be  enjoyed  by  all  the 
righteous  who  may  be  alive  at  the  time,  as  well  as 
by  the  risen  saints ;  (3)  salvation  after  death,  in 
the  sense  of  a  preliminary  foretaste,  by  the  right- 
eous, of  the  enjoyment  of  the  age  to  come  ;  (4)  the 
final  salvation  of  the  heavenly  world,  when  the 
present  earth  has  been  destroyed,  and  the  period 
of  corruption  has  come  to  an  end.  These  different 
conceptions  live  on  side  by  side,  modifying  one 
another  in  various  ways,  shading  oil'  into  one 
another  by  almost  imperceptible  degrees,  the  old 
not  disjjlaced  by  the  new,  but  transformed  by  it, 
and  that  in  such  subtle  and  gradual  ways  that  it 
is  often  impossible  to  trace  the  separate  steps  of 
the  process.  Into  such  a  world  of  thought,  con- 
fused, changeful,  yet  rich  with  germs  of  fruitful 
and  inspiring  life,  Jesus  came  with  His  Gospel  of 
salvation. 

3.  In  the  teaching  of  Jesus. — The  word  '  salva- 
tion '  ((TioTTipia)  is  only  twice  used  by  Jesus — once 
in  the  conversation  with  Zacchajus  (Lk  19'  '  To-day 
is  salvation  come  to  this  house'),  and  again  in  the 
interview  with  the  woman  of  Samaria  (Jn  4^=  "  Sal- 
vation is  from  the  Jews').  But  the  verb  aih^eiv 
occurs  frequently  in  His  teaching.  Often  it  is  used 
to  denote  physical  healing  (e.g.  Mt  9--',  Mk  S''  5" 
10»,  Lk  e^S-'^'"  17"  W).  Elsewhere  it  has  a 
broader  meaning.  Not  to  mention  the  well-known 
passages  in  John  (5"  10'  12^'),  He  spoke  of  Himself 
as  come  'to  seek  and  to  .save  that  which  was  lost' 
(Lk  19'»,  cf.  Mt  18",  Lk  9«,  both  omitted  by  KV). 
Of  the  sinful  woman  who  washed  His  feet  in 
Simon's  house  He  declared  that  her  faith  had 
saved  her  (Lk  7°°),  and  in  more  than  one  passage 
concerning  the  future  of  His  Kingdom  He  uses  the 
word  aw^u  in  the  same  eschatolo"ical  sense  with 
which  we  are  already  familiar  (>It  10'-'^  24"- *=,  cf. 
Mk  13"-  =").  Salvation  is  indeed  only  the  reverse 
side  of  that  Gospel  of  the  Kingdom  which  was  the 
burden  of  His  preaching.  The  two  ideas  may  be 
used  interchangeably,  as  ajjiiears  from  such  pas- 
sages as  Mt  19=*-  =»,  iVik  10'-»-  -'*,  Lk  8'"  "  13^-  =».  If, 
then,  we  would  understand  Jesus'  view  of  salva- 
tion, we  must  take  our  departure  from  His  idea  of 
the  Kingdom. 

But  here  we  find  ourselves  involved  in  difficulties  growing 
out  of  the  criticism  of  the  sources.  These  centre  mainly  about 
two  points — (1)  the  relation  of  Jesus'  teachings  to  that  of  Ilia 
contemporaries;  ('2)  the  relation  of  His  teaching  to  that  of  Ilil 
successors. 

(1)  We  have  altcadv  noted  the  purely  transcendent  and 
esohatological  fortu  which  the  idea  of  the  Kingdom  bad  assumed 


SALVATION,  SAVIOUR 


SALVATION,  SAVIOUE  363 


In  contemporary  Judaism.  The  question  arises  how  far  Jesus 
felt  Himself  in  ej-mpathy  with  this  \iew.  Tliere  are  pas.-^:.:es 
In  the  Synoptics,  especially  in  the  so-called  Apocalypse  of  Jesus 
(Mk  13  and  parail.)*  wliich  have  marked  poiuls  of  resemblance 
to  the  conleni]toniry  Ap^xralj-pses.  The  Kingdom  is  spoken  of 
M  purely  future — a  miraculous  state  to  be  ushered  in  by  the 
Parousia  ol  Jesus,  and  involving  a  sudden  and  complete  trans- 
formation of  the  prejic-nt  order  of  tilings  (cf.  Mk  S^s  91,  Mt  19'-^, 
Lk  2(>^  ^).  What  sltall  we  think  of  these  passages  V  Do  they 
represent  the  genuine  teaching  of  Jesus?  and  if  so,  are  we  to 
think  of  nim,  with  many  recent  scholars,  as  holding  a  point  of 
view  essentially  the  some  as  that  of  His  contemporaries'/  or, 
following  Weitlenbach,  Wendt,  and  others,  are  we  to  regard 
these  apocalyptic  elements  as  later  additions,  derived  from 
Jewish  or  Jewish-Christian  sources,  and  therefore  to  be  disre- 
garded t  or,  linalty,  is  it  possible,  without  recourse  to  the  theorj- 
of  interpolation,  so  to  interpret  Jesus'  escliatological  teaching  as 
to  bliow  its  harmony  with  the  deeper  and  more  spiritual  views 
elsewhere  expressed?  This  is  one  class  of  questions  now  being 
actively  discussed,  a  fviU  answer  to  which  seems  necessapi' before 
It  is  j>ossible adequately  to  set  forth  Jesus'  doctrine  of  salvation. 

(2)  The  other  class  of  questions  leads  us  into  the  criticism  of 
the  Fourth  Gospel.  Here  it  is  the  absence  of  the  idea  of  the 
Kingdom  which  is  most  striking.  In  place  of  the  Kingdom,  the 
great  gift  which  Jesus  bnn;^  ia  eternal  life,  which  is  repre- 
sented, not,  as  in  the  ti>T)0ptic8,  as  a  blessing  to  be  enjoyed  in 
the  future  (.Mk  103^^),  but  as  a  present  posses.sion  (624  640.'47.  M). 
When  we  hear  the  Christ  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  saying,  '  He  that 
believeth  hath  eternal  life '(647),  we  seem  to  be  in  a  ditferent 
world  from  that  of  the  eschatological  discourses  of  the  Syn- 
optit'fi.  It  is  the  world  of  a  St.  Paul,  who  6.\vs,  '  If  any  man  is 
In  Christ,  he  is  a  new  creature '  (2  Co  ."i'T)  ;  of  a  St-  John,  who 
writes,  '  Whosoever  shall  confess  that  Jesus  is  the  Son  of  Ood, 
God  abidfth  in  him  and  lie  in  Ood '  (1  Jn  41^).  Are  we  to  believe 
that  the  s;une  Christ  spoke  ilt  2'i  and  Ju  14-16 ;  and  if  so,  how  is 
their  teaching  to  be  reconciled? 

Fortunately,  we  are  not  shut  up  for  our  ^iew  of  Jesus'  doctrine 
of  salvation  to  the  settlement  of  either  of  these  disputed  ques- 
tions. There  are  enough  perfectly'  plain  and  undisputed  ftas- 
sages — apart  from  these — to  give  us  a  clear  view  of  His  cetit^al 
teaching.  Possibly  we  may  find,  if  we  take  our  stand  upon  this 
more  cert-ain  ground,  that  before  we  have  Gnisbi-d  we  shall  have 
gained  li^iit  which  will  help  us  in  the  BOlutioa  of  the  more 
difficult  problems. 

If  we  would  understand  our  Lord's  doctrine  of 
Balvation  in  its  epoch-niaking  significance,  we  must 
consider  its  relation  to  llie  views  of  His  contem- 
poraries. While  it  i.s  true  that  Jesus  fed  His  spirit 
upon  the  writings  of  the  OT  prophets,  and  drew 
thence  many  truths  which  His  contemporaries  had 
for^'otten,  it  is  no  less  true  tliat  He  was  also  a  man 
of  His  own  time,  and  that  His  teaching  was  infiu- 
eneed,  not  merely  negatively  but  positively,  by  the 
development  whose  main  lines  we  nave  traced.  We 
may  illustrate  this  by  a  reference  to  the  two  points 
must  prominent  in  the  contemporary  view  of  the 
kingdom — (a)  its  transcendence,  and  (6)  its  indi- 
vidualism. 

(a)  We  are  often  tempted,  because  of  the  familiar 
human  features  in  Jesus'  teaching,  to  overlook  its 
transcendent  elements.  Yet  there  can  be  no  doubt 
that  our  Lord's  conception  of  the  Kingdom  is  dis- 
tinctly supermundane.  Whatever  may  be  the 
origin  of  the  phrase,  '  Kingdom  of  heaven,'  found 
only  in  the  first  evangelist,  it  cannot  be  denied 
that  the  idea  was  characteristic  of  Jesus.  The 
Kingdom  of  which  He  is  the  Mes.siah  belongs  to  a 
dilleient  and  higher  order  from  that  whicli  at 
present  obtains.  Its  blessings  are  not  earthlv  but 
heavenly.  The  evidence  for  this  may  be  found 
in  all  parts  of  HLs  teaching  (cf.  His  promise,  to  the 
persicuted  disciples,  of  reward  in  heaven,  Mt  5", 
cf.  Lk  10*  '  rejoice  that  your  names  are  written 
in  heaven';  the  comiiiand  to  lay  up  treasures  in 
lieaven,  Mt  6",  cf.  Mt  19",  Mk  10='.  Lk  12-'  10"; 
the  parable  of  the  Unjust  Steward,  Lk  l(i'";  the 
indillerence  which  He  showed  Himself,  and  which 
He  recommended  to  His  disciples,  with  reference 
to  this  world's  goods,  MtB'";  the  answer  to  the 
Sadducces  about  the  resurrection,  Lk  SO^"*";  the 
answer  to  I'ilate,  Jn  18^  '.My  Kingdom  is  not  of 
this  world';  as  well  as  sncli  distmctly  eschato- 
logical passa'-es  as  Mt  24*'  20"').  In  view  of  such 
tiUeiances,  sharply  contrasting  the  Kingdom,  as 
belonging  to  the  heavenly  world,  with  all  that  is 
earthly,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  .lesus'  con- 
ception stood  in  many  respectts  closer  to  the  tran- 


scendent views  of  His  contemporaries  than  to  the 
more  earthly  ideals  of  the  earlier  prophets. 

And  yet  it  is  at  this  very  point  that  the  origin- 
ality of  Jesus'  teaching  is  most  clearly  apparent. 
To  the  Jews  of  His  day  the  transcendence  of  the 
Kingdom  meant  its  removal  from  all  contact  with 
present  life.  Just  because  their  ideal  was  essenti- 
ally worldly,  involving  the  hope  of  earthly  triumph 
and  prosperity,  did  they  despair  of  its  realization 
under  existing  oonditions,  and  refer  it  wholly  to 
the  future.  To  Jesus,  on  the  other  hand,  the 
Kingdom  was  in  a  true  sense  present  already  (Mt 
12^,  Lk  11",  cf.  Lk  10'»,  and  comments  of  Holtz- 
mann,  Neuted.  Dieol.  i.  pp.  217,  218;  LkH-"-'' 
'The  Kingdom  of  tiod  is  within  you,'  or,  '  in  your 
midst ' ;  also  the  references  to  those  who  are  already 
in  the  Kingdom,  Mt  11",  cf.  Lk7=»,  Mk  10",  cf.  Lk 
18'«-  ",  Mt  23'^  and  esp.  the  parables  of  the  King- 
dom which  represent  it  as  a  growth  from  small 
beginnings — so  the  sower,  tares,  mustard  seed, 
leaven  [Mt  13  and  parall.],  and  esp.  the  seed  grow- 
ing secretly,  Mk  4-*"^).  Its  transcendence  is  the 
transcendence  of  a  higher  spiritual  order  (Holtz- 
mann,  I.e.  p.  190),  which,  so  far  from  being  incon- 
sistent witn  eartldy  conditions,  is  destined  to  be 
realized  in  and  through  them.  Thus  Jesus  in- 
structs Ills  disciples  to  pray  for  the  doing  of  God's 
will  on  earth  as  it  is  in  heaven  (Mt  6"),  and  declares 
that  wherever  men  show  the  (qualities  and  practise 
the  traits  which  are  characteristic  of  the  heavenly 
world,  there  the  Kingdom  is  present  in  germ  (com- 
pare Mk  lO'''  with  Mt  IS*). 

The  explanation  of  this  change  is  to  be  found 
in  Jesus'  view  of  God.  At  no  point  had  contem- 
porar3-  Judaism  departed  further  from  the  doc- 
trine of  the  OT.  The  idea  of  J"  as  a  living 
God,  actively  interested  in  human  all'airs,  had 
given  place  to  a  concejition  purely  transcendent. 
God  was  thought  of  as  a  being  remote,  inaccessible, 
mysterious,  living  in  a  distant  and  heavenly  world, 
to  be  approached  only  through  the  mediation  of  the 
ceremonial  law.  In  place  of  this  jiurely  tran.scen- 
dent  being,  Jesus  proclaimed  a  loving  Father,  pro- 
foundly concerned  in  all  that  atieets  His  children, 
watching  their  all'airs  with  a  tender  mterest,  in- 
finitely wise  and  great  indeed,  yet  inlinitely  conde- 
scending, more  ready  to  give  good  gifts  than  earthly 
fathers  to  their  children  (Mt  7"),  having  a  care  for 
Ilia  universe  so  miimte  and  detailed  that  not  a 
sparrow  falls  to  the  ground  without  His  notice 
(Mt  10^).  To  Jesus,  as  to  His  contemporaries, 
God  was  sttpremely  holy  ;  but,  unlike  them.  He 
did  not  hesitate  to  proclaim  this  holy  God  as  the 
model  for  men's  imitation  (Mt  o").  To  Him  this 
world  was  God's  world,  anil  hence,  in  spite  of  all  its 
sin  and  misery,  adapted  to  be  the  scene  of  the 
realization  of  Ilis  heavenly  kingdom.  It  is  in 
view  of  such  conceptions  of  the  relation  of  God 
and  man  that  we  must  understand  Jesus'  teaching 
concerning  salvation. 

To  be  saved,  according  to  our  Lord,  tneans  simply 
to  enter  upon  a  life  fitted  to  the  children  of  such 
a  Father — a  life  whose  marks  are  righteousness, 
brotherly  love,  and,  above  all,  trustful  dependence 
upon  God  ;  a  life  only  fully  to  be  realized  in  the 
future,  when  the  redeemed  shall  be  relea.sed  from 
earthly  limitations,  and  enter  the  new  conditions 
of  tlie  resurrection  life  (Lk  20**''"'),  yet  in  a  true 
sen.se  possible  even  now  for  all  those  who,  like 
Him,  have  learned  to  know  God  as  their  Father, 
and,  through  the  life  of  self-denying  service,  have 
entered  upon  a  blessedness  which  no  earthly  trial 
or  misfortutie  can  disturb. 

So  we  find  Jesus  siicaking  of  salvation  as  a 
present  experience,  'lo  the  sinful  woman  in  the 
Louse  of  Simon  He  declares  that  her  faith  hath 
saved  her,  and  bids  her  go  in  peace  (Lk  7"*).  To 
Zaccliwiu  He  says  that  this  day  is  solvation  come 


364 


SALVATIOX,  SAVIOUR 


SALVATION,  SAVIOUR 


to  his  house  (Lk  19').  Even  in  the  midst  of  this 
present  life,  with  its  sorrows  and  persecutions,  tlie 
rhiUlren  of  the  Kingdom  are  constantly  receiving 

food  gifts  from  their  heavenly  Father  (Mt  '")• 
lowever  much  they  may  have  given  up  they 
receive  an  hundredfold  more  (Mk  10*').  Through 
prayer  they  enter  into  daily  communion  with  God, 
and  receive  the  strength  and  help  they  need. 
They  have  the  assurance  that  no  evil  can  befall 
them  when  they  put  their  trust  in  Him  (Mt  6^'"^^). 
For  the  earthly  fellowship  which  they  have  sacri- 
ficed they  receive  a  .spiritual  fellow.ship  which  is 
far  more  .satisfying  (^lk  IC^  3*>).  From  the  bond- 
age of  the  ceremonial  law,  with  its  intolerable 
yoke,  they  have  entered  upon  the  service  of  a 
Master  whose  burden  is  light  (Mt  U*).  In  the 
healing  of  the  sick,  and  especiallj-  in  the  casting 
out  of  demons,  which  is  a  marlv  of  their  Master's 
ministry,  they  see  the  breaking  down  of  Satan's 
kingdom,  and  the  beginnings,  even  on  earth,  of  the 
era  of  blessedness  which  is  characteristic  of  the 
Kingdom  of  God  (Lk  U''"  lO'^). 

It  is  in  view  of  sucb  a  conception  that  we  must  understAnd 
Jesus'  teaching  in  the  eschatological  discourses.  Whatever  m.ay 
be  our  solution  of  the  critical  difficulties  involved  (for  a  full 
discussion  see  Parousia),  we  may  without  hesitation  reject  the 
view  of  those  who  see  in  Jesus'  teaching  simply  the  echo  of  the 
ideaa  of  contemporary  Judaism.  Our  Lord's  view  of  the  King- 
dom is  BO  far  eschatological  that  the  complete  fulfilment  of 
the  ideal  which  He  preaches  belongrs  to  the  future.  But  the 
ideal  itself,  as  essentially  moral  and  spiritual,  has  a  present  as 
well  as  a  future  apphcation.  To  Jesus  the  hope  of  the  Parousia 
meant  the  introduction  of  no  new  kind  of  salvation,  but  only 
the  complete  victory  of  the  principles  which  He  had  illustrated 
in  llis  own  life,  and  whose  embodiment,  imperfect  and  yet  real, 
in  the  little  band  of  men  whom  He  had  gathered  about  Him, 
constituted  the  beginning  of  His  Kingdom.  It  is  indeed  in  its 
combination  of  present  and  future  elements  that  the  originality 
of  Jesus'  doctrine  of  salvation  consists.  Wendt  has  well  ex- 
pressed this  in  his  Teaching  of  Jesu^  when  he  says  that  'the 
epoch-making  advance  made  by  Jesus  in  His  idea  of  salvation 
beyond  that  of  the  Psalmists  and  Prophets,  as  well  as  of  the 
Jews  of  His  time,  consisted  in  the  fact  that  He  not  only  con- 
ceived the  supreme  ideal  of  salvation  as  purely  supernmndane 
and  supersensuous, — a  heavenly,  not  an  earthly  ideal, — but  also 
that  because  of  this  determination  of  the  ideal  He  gained  a 
new  view  of  the  present  world  and  or  the  earthly  life — a  view 
according  to  which  it  is  possible  for  the  devout  to  have  even 
here  and  now,  not  merely  a  certain  hope  of  salvation  in  the 
future,  but  also  genuine  experiences  of  salvation  in  the  present ' 
(ii.  p.  1S7,  Eng.  tr.,  which,  however,  gives  an  inadequate  render- 
ing of  the  original,  i.  p.  '241 ;  cf.  the  whole  passage). 

In  view  of  such  considerations,  the  Johannine  conception  of 
eternal  life  as  a  present  possession  seems  no  longer  foreign  to 
Jesus'  teaching.  Whatever  may  be  the  ultimate  decision  of 
criticism  as  to  the  origin  of  tlie  discourses  in  which  the  phrase 
occurs,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  idea  is  one  which  accords 
well  with  what  we  learn  from  other  sources  of  our  Lord's 
doctrine  of  salvation.  Wendt  argues  strongly  for  its  genuine- 
ness on  the  ground  that  it  is  needed  to  account  for  the 
presence  of  similar  ideas  in  the  apostolic  age  {Lehre  Jeeii,  ii. 
p.  19S).  But,  even  apart  from  this,  some  such  conception  seems 
required  from  what  we  know  of  Jesus  Himself.  Holtzmann  is 
certainly  not  a  critic  who  can  be  charged  with  any  leaning  to 
conservative  views.  Yet,  speaking  of  the  Synoptic  teaching 
concerning  eternal  life  'as  gift  and  good  of  the  future  age,'  he 
writes  (AVuffjif.  Theol.  i.  t'l'l) :  '  Yet  it  {i.e.  eternal  life)  is  not 
thought  of  as  a  merely  form.al  definition  which  can  be  filled  up 
with  any  content  which  the  imagination  may  choose  to  give  it. 
On  the  contrary,  it  is  a  possession  of  the  present,  alrea<iy  well 
known,  which  has  been  projected  into  the  future.  The  highest 
and  most  intense  feeling  of  existence — a  feeling  of  incompar- 
able nowcr  and  richness  of  content  {unvergleicldich  kraft-uml 
gehallvoUes  Dasciiinge/iiht)  without  the  slightest  trace  of 
twilight  or  mortality,  of  dull,  hollow  flnite.Tcss, — this  is  Jesus' 
conception  of  life  and  blessedness.  Such  a  thought  could  be 
entertained  only  by  one  who  Himself  possessed  the  thing.  In 
this  sense  He  nmst  have  already  borne  the  Kingdom  of  God  as 
an  inner  good  within  Himself,  must  have  known  it  as  already 
present  on  the  ground  of  His  own  experience^  And  not  only 
80  ;  but  wherever  His  Gospel  is  preached  in  the  world,  wherever 
the  Spirit  of  God  is  manifest  either  in  miraculous  power  or  in 
the  hearts  of  men.  wherever,  in  the  sense  of  the  parables,  seeds 
spring  up  and  fruits  ripen,  there  also — with  the  righti-ousness 
which  makes  out  the  content  of  the  Kingdom— the  Kingdom 
itself  is  already  presenL' 

(6)  But  we  shall  not  fully  understand  the  origin- 
ality of  Jesus'  doctrine  of  salvation  until  we  have 
considered  it  at  the  other  point  where  it  is  most 
natural  to  compare  it  with  that  of  His  contem- 
poraries, i.e.  its  individualism.     'We  have  already 


studied  the  growth  of  the  individualistic  tendcncj-  in 
the  later  Judaism,  and  seen  its  ell'ects  in  subordinat- 
ing the  conception  of  national  to  that  of  individual 
righteousness,  and  in  extending  the  doctrine  of 
retribution  from  this  life  to  that  after  death. 
Here,  too,  we  find  points  of  contact  in  Jesus' 
teaching.  He  also  insists  strongly  upon  the 
necessity  of  individual  righteousness.  Most  of 
His  time  is  spent  in  dealing  with  individual  men, 
and  the  conditions  which  He  lays  down  for  en- 
trance to  His  Ivingdom  are  such  tliat  each  man 
must  fulfil  them  for  himself.  So  in  His  view  of 
the  life  after  death  Jesus  accepts  the  results  of 
the  intermediate  development.  Sheol  has  alto- 
gether lost  its  character  of  colourless  monotony. 
Death  involves  no  interruption  in  the  communion 
of  the  individual  with  Gocl.  Abraham,  Isaac,  and 
Jacob  are  even  now  enjo3-ing  a  resurrection  life 
with  God  (Lk  '20*'-^) ;  Lazarus  passes  at  once  from 
this  world  into  Abraham's  bosom  (Lk  16^)  ;  and  to 
the  dying  thief  on  the  cross  the  promise  is  made 
that  this  day  he  shall  be  with  hia  Master  in 
Paradise  (Lk  •23«). 

And  yet  it  is  just  in  His  dealing  with  individual 
men  that  the  contrast  of  Jesus'  view  of  salvation 
to  that  of  His  contemporaries  is  most  apparent.  To 
the  Pharisees  of  His  day  salvation  was  the  reward 
of  righteousness.  And  the  righteous  man  was  ha 
who  perfectly  conformed  his  life  to  the  require- 
ments of  the  ceremonial  law.  It  is  difficult  for  us 
to  appreciate  the  nature  of  these  demands  not  only 
upon  a  man's  good-will,  but  upon  his  time  and  upon 
his  means.  As  Holtzmann  has  well  shown  (I.e.  i. 
132  f}'.),  it  was  impossible  for  a  man  of  moderate 
means  to  be  righteous  in  the  full  legal  sense,  with- 
out sacrificing  all  hope  of  worldly  prosperity.  A 
ricli  man  might  indeed  keep  the  law.  A  few  less 
blessed  with  this  world's  goods — the  so  called  'poor' 
of  the  later  Jewish  literature — had  the  courage  to 
make  the  needed  sacrifice.  For  the  most  part  men 
felt  the  burden  too  heavy,  and  were  content  to  live 
as  they  could,  without  part  in  the  hopes  and  ideals 
of  their  religious  teachers,  despised  by  them  as 
sinners  and  outcasts,  without  share  in  the  Divine 
favour  or  interest  in  the  Divine  salvation.  (Cf. 
Jn  "■"  '  This  multitude  which  knoweth  not  the  law 
are  accursed,'  and  especially  2  Es  ?"•  "•  '^"'"). 

It  was  exactly  to  this  company  of  outcasts,  the 
poor  and  despised  in  Israel,  that  Jesus  directed  Hia 
preaching  (Lk  4>»- !»,  Mt  11=,  Lk  l^  ;  cf.  the  beati- 
tudes of  tlie  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  Mt  5'""  and 
parall.  Lk  6'"-^).  He  said  of  Himself  that  He 
was  come  to  seek  and  to  save  the  lost  (Lk  19'"). 
He  called  sinners  to  repentance  (Mk  2",  Mt  9'^ 
Lk  5'-).  He  declared  that  there  is  more  joy  in 
heaven  over  one  sinner  that  repenteth  than  over 
ninety  and  nine  just  persons  that  need  no  rejjent- 
ance  (Lk  15'- '").  He  ate  and  drank  with  publicans 
and  sinners  (Mk  2'°),  and  declared  to  the  self- 
righteous  Pharisees  tliat  the  publicans  and  harlots 
were  entering  into  the  Kingdom  of  heaven  before 
them  (Mt  21'').  He  swept  away  the  burdensome 
requirements  of  the  ceremonial  law,  and  invited 
men  to  the  service  of  a  Master  who.se  yoke  was 
easy  and  whose  burden  was  light  (Mt  ll^-*").'  He 
made  the  conditions  of  entrance  to  His  kingdom 
humility,  trustfulness,  the  childlike  spirit  (Alt  5* 
18^'  *).  In  place  of  a  God  who  cared  only  for  a 
spiritual  aristocracy,  whose  pleasure  it  was  to 
make  hard  conditions  that  He  might  incre.a.se  the 
value  of  the  few  who  were  saved  (2  Es  7'""  *'),  He 
proclaimed  a  compassionate  and  lo\ing  Father, 
willing  to  receive  back  the  returning  prodigal 
upon  the  first  evidence  of  repentance  (Lk  15*"). 
lie  revived  the  forgotten  prophetic  doctrine  of  the 
Divine  forgiveness,  and  made  the  chief  blessing 
of  His  Kingdom  to  consist  in  the  remission  of  sins 
(Mt  26'^,  cf:  Mk  2'»). 


SALVATION,  SAYIOUK 


SALVATIOX,  SAVIOUR 


365 


This  is  the  explanation  of  the  universalism  of 
Jesus.  A  Gospel  for  the  sinful  knows  no  race 
limitations.  A  Messiah  who  felt  Himself  specially 
Bent  to  the  lost  sheep  of  the  house  of  Israel  (Mt 
15**),  Jew  though  Ue  might  be,  could  not  turn 
away  from  bumble  penitence,  wherever  found. 
The  Samaritan  (Jn  4%  Lk  17"  ;  cf.  10»),  the  Syro- 
phaeniciau  (Mk  7^"),  even  the  Roman  (Mt  8'"),  shared 
His  blessing  and  Ills  praise.  The  teaching  of  the 
Fourth  Gospel  concerning  the  other  sheep  not  of 
the  Jewish  fold  (10'''),  and  the  hour  when  men  shall 
no  longer  worship  the  Father  either  in  Jerusalem 
or  on  Mt.  Gerizim  (4-'),  is  the  legitimate  outcome 
of  the  principles  on  which  Jesus  regularly  acted. 
The  Messiah  of  the  Jews  showed  Himself  to  be  in 
very  truth  the  Saviour  of  the  worUl. 

There  is  still  another  point  in  which  the  teaching 
of  Jesus  dili'ers  radically  from  'hat  of  His  contem- 
poraries :  this  is  in  the  emphasis  He  lays  on 
the  principle  of  service.  Here  the  individualism 
of  which  we  have  spoken  receives  its  needed  com- 
plement. Men  are  saved  one  by  one,  each  for 
himself  ;  but  they  are  saved  that  they  may  serve. 
As  members  of  the  Kingdom,  it  is  their  duty  and 
their  privilege  to  minister  to  one  another's  needs. 
Freely  forgiven  by  the  heavenly  Father,  they  also 
are  to  forgive  one  another  (^lt  IS'-''^).  He  that 
would  be  greatest  in  the  Kingdom  of  Christ  must 
show  himself  servant  of  all  (Lk  22^,  cf.  Jn  IS"). 
He  that  would  save  his  life  must  be  willing  to  lose 
it  (Mt  10»,  Mk  8^,  Lk  9**;  cf.  17^).  We  unduly 
limit  tliis  sentence  if  we  understand  it  simply  of 
the  conditions  of  entrance  to  the  Kingdom.  It 
expresses  the  law  of  the  Kingdom  all  the  way 
through,  the  law,  namely,  of  self-realization  through 
self-sacridce. 

In  th  is  con  ne.\  ion  we  find  our  Lord  re  viving  another 
forgotten  OT  truth.  When  the  great  propiiet  of  the 
Exile  first  proclaimed  the  doctrine  of  .salvation 
through  the  vicarious  sacrifice  of  the  good,  he  found 
few  hearers  (cf.  Is  53'  'Who  hath  believed  our 
report?'),  "rhe  connexion  of  salvation  with  pro- 
sperity had  been  too  long  and  too  close  to  make 
tlie  new  teaching  intelligible.  In  the  succeeding 
centuries  it  fell  altogether  into  the  background. 
Our  Lord  reasserts  it,  and  applies  it  to  Himself. 
He  compares  Himself  to  the  good  shepherd  who 
lays  down  his  life  for  the  sheep  (Jn  10").  He  de- 
clares that  He  is  come  to  give  His  life  a  ransom 
for  nmny  (Mk  10").  He  compares  His  death  to 
a  covenant  sacrifice,  sealin"  the  new  relationship 
between  His  disciples  and  God  (Mt  2G^).  The 
crucifixion  and  rejection  which  seemed  to  His 
disciples  to  mark  the  failure  of  His  mission  had 
no  such  meaning  to  Him.  They  were  but  a 
necessary  stej)  in  HLs  redeeming  work.  The  re- 
proachful word  of  His  enemies  had  a  deeper 
meaning  than  they  knew.  He  saved  others ; 
Himself  He  could  not  save  (Mt  27",  Lk  23",  Mk 
15*").  And  the  principles  which  He  applies  to 
Himself  He  extends  also  to  His  disciides.  Look- 
ing forward  to  their  approaching  persecutions.  He 
bids  them  not  be  dismayed,  since  if  they  would 
enter  into  His  glory  they  must  drink  lli.i  cup  (Mt 
2(P,  cf.  5'°-'=).  Thus  suflering  and  death,  which 
in  earlier  times  had  seemed  the  direct  opposite  of 
•alvation,  are  shown  by  our  Lord  to  have  a  neces- 
sary i)art  to  play  in  bringing  it  about. 

Summing  up  our  Lord's  teaching  concerning  sal- 
vation, we  may  say  that  it  is  deliverance  from  sin 
through  entrance  upon  a  new  Divine  life.  The 
marks  of  this  life  are  humility,  brotherly  service, 
and  filial  dependence  upon  God.  In  the  practice 
of  these  traits  consists  the  righteousness  of  the 
Kingdom,  and  in  their  experience  its  blessedness. 
1  his  new  Divine  life,  which  is  mediated  not  merely 
by  the  teaching  and  example  of  Christ  but  by  His 
■uiTerings  and  death,  begins  here,  continues  un- 


broken in  the  life  after  death,  and  will  be  finallj 
consummated  at  the  Parousia,  when  the  principlua 
of  Christ  shall  be  everywhere  accepted,  and  the 
will  of  God  be  done  on  earth  even  as  it  is  done  in 
heaven. 

4.  In  the  New  Testament. — The  salvation  brought 
by  Jesus  is  the  theme  of  the  entire  apostolic  age. 
Wlierever  we  turn  in  the  NT,  whether  it  be  Acts, 
Hebrews,  St.  I'aul  or  St.  John,  we  are  conscious 
of  a  note  of  confidence  and  triumph,  as  of  men 
possessing  a  supreme  good,  in  which  they  not  only 
themselves  rejoice,  but  which  they  are  anxious  to 
share  with  others.  Jlore  significant  than  any 
change  in  doctrine  is  this  consciousness  of  salva- 
tion as  a  glorious  fact,  dominating  and  transform- 
ing life.  None  the  less  is  it  true  that  on  this 
common  ba^sis  we  note  differences  of  conception. 
Not  all  the  disciples  grasped  the  teaching  of  Jesus 
with  equal  clearness.  In  not  a  few  parts  of  the 
NT  we  find  survivals  of  earlier  Jewish  ideas  and 
sympathies  (e.g.  Ac  1",  Rev  7^"'  etc.).  So  the  de- 
gree of  theological  development  varies  greatly  (cf. 
the  speeches  in  Acts  with  Romans).  Under  the 
circumstances  there  is  need  of  discrimination.  We 
shall  begin  our  treatment  with  a  brief  survey  of  the 
common  features  of  the  apostolic  teaching,  and 
then  pass  on  to  describe  the  more  distinctly  theo- 
logical views  of  St.  Paul  and  St.  .John. 

(a)  In  general. — The  central  theme  of  the  apos- 
tolic preaching  is  the  proclamation  of  Jesus  as 
Saviour.  Cf.  Ac  5^- ''  '  The  God  of  our  fathers 
raised  up  Jesus,  w  hom  ye  slew,  hanging  him  on  a 
tree.  Him  did  God  exalt  to  be  a  Prince  and  a 
Saviour,  to  give  repentance  to  Israel,  and  remis- 
sion of  sins'  (cf.  Mt  P',  Jn  3",  Ac  2-'  4'-  13-^  15", 
Eph  [5^,  Ph  3-",  2  Ti  l'».  Tit  1*  2'»  3«,  2  P  !'•  "  2-" 
3-'-  '^  1  Jn  4'^  He  2'°  Jesus  as  author  of  salvation). 
'Salvation'  hiis  become  a  technical  term  which 
sums  up  all  the  blessings  brought  by  the  Gospel 
(cf.  Eph  1'*  '  the  Gospel  of  your  salvation  ' ;  1  Co 
15'" '  '  the  Gospel  ...  by  which  ye  are  saved ' ; 
Ac  IS'"  '  the  word  of  this  salvation  '  ;  cf.  v."  16" 
'  the  way  of  salvation  ' ;  28^,  Ro  1"  '  the  power  of 
God  unto  salvation'  ;  10'°  'confession  unto  salva- 
tion'; 11",  2  Co  7'° 're|icntance  unto  salvation'; 
2  Ti  3"  'able  to  make  wise  unto  salvation  '  ;  He  6" 
'things  that  accompany  salvation';  Jude  '  'our 
common  salvation ' ;  Tit  2"  '  the  grace  of  God, 
bringing  salvation';  cf.  1  Ti  2'-*  '  Gcd  .  .  .  who 
would  have  all  men  to  be  saved,  and  come  to  a 
knowledge  of  the  truth ').  In  contrast  to  all  pre- 
vious deliverances  of  God  (He  1'-),  the  fuUilnunt 
of  that  for  which  the  OT  propliets  lookrd  ( 1  P  l'"'-'), 
the  earnest  of  the  age  which  is  even  now  at  the 
door  (Ac  2"'-  "  the  pouring  out  of  the  Spirit  as  ful- 
filment of  the  prophecy  of  Joel),  is  the  great  de- 
liverance which  God  has  wrought  through  His  Son. 
Jesus  is  not  only  Saviour  ;  He  is  the  only  Saviour. 
The  stone  which  the  builders  set  at  nought  has 
been  made  head  of  the  corner  (Ac  4").  '  And  in 
none  other  is  there  salvation  ;  for  neither  is  there 
an}'  other  name  under  heaven  that  is  given  among 
men,  wherein  we  must  be  saved '  (Ac  4"'). 

In  strict  conformity  with  the  teaching  of  Jesus, 
salvation  is  represented  primarily  as  deliverance 
from  sin.  Our  Lord  is  called  Jcsu-i  because  He 
'shall  save  his  people  from  their  sins'  (Mt  1-'). 
He  '  came  into  the  world  to  save  sinners'  (I  Ti  1"). 
The  blessings  of  His  kin^'dom  are  repentance  (Ac 
5"  11'*,  cf.  20-')  and  remission  of  sins  (Ac  '2^*,  cf. 
3'»  5"  10<»  W  2U'«,  and  esp.  3^  '  Unto  you  first 
God,  having  raised  up  his  Servant,  sent  him  to 
bless  you,  in  turning  away  ever}'  one  of  you  from 
your  iniquities').  So  the  Apocalypse  begins  with 
a  song  of  praise  'unto  him  that  loveth  us,  and 
loosed  us  from  our  sins  liy  his  blood'  (1°).  As 
death  is  the  consequence  and  penalty  of  sin,  sal- 
vation is  at  the  same  time  deliverance  from  death 


366 


SALVATION,  SAVIOUR 


SALVATION,  SAVIOUR 


(He  5^  cf.  2",  Ja  5™,  cf.  4"  '  he  who  is  able  to  save 
and  to  destroy ' ;  2  Ti  !■*  '  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ, 
who  abolished  death,  and  brought  life  and  incor- 
ruption  to  light  through  the  Gospel'),  and  from 
the  wrath  of  God,  of  which  death  is  the  Judicial 
consequence  (cf.  Ilo  5'  with  1'-).  More  particularly 
with  reference  to  the  individual,  in  contrast  to  the 
cosmic  salvation  taught  by  St.  Paul  (Ko  8"'),  it  is 
called  salvation  of  the  soul  (1  P  P-  '",  Ja  1-',  He 
10'^).  In  its  wider  relations  it  is  a  salvation  of 
the  world  (Jn  3'",  1  Jn  4"). 

Common  also  to  the  entire  NT  is  the  stress  laid 
upon  tlie  sufferings  and  death  of  Christ  as  mediat- 
ing salvation.  The  cross  which  had  been  such  a 
staggerin"  blow  to  the  disciples'  faith  at  the  first 
(Lk  24™-  ^'),  and  which  still  remained  a  stumbling- 
block  to  Jews  and  foolishness  to  Greeks  (1  Co  1'^), 
is  now  seen  to  have  a  necessary  part  to  play  in 
Christ's   saving  work  (He  2'"'-  5"  *  12%  1  Co    V\ 

1  P  !"• '»,  Rev  1»,  Ac  223  OQ^*,  Lk  24=«),  and  is  inter- 
preted in  till!  light  of  Is  53  (Ac  8=-,  1  P  2-'-=«.  Cf. 
also  the  title 'lamb'  in  Rev  5»- »  ?'■ '")  as  the  ful- 
filment of  prophecy  (Lk  24=',  Ac  3'»,  1  Co  15').  As 
a  result  of  this  new  Wew  of  Christ's  death,  we  find 
the  NT  ^^Titers  without  exception  rising  to  a  new 
conception  of  the  meaning  of  suttering  (Ac  5^' 9", 

2  Co  1»,  Ph  l'"-  ^,  He  5"  13'^,  1  P  1',  Ja  1-,  Rev  7"), 
and  applying  to  their  own  experiences  of  sorrow 
and  temptation  a  standard  which  they  have  learned 
from  Jesus  Christ  (1  P  2",  He  13'^  2"Co  1"  i*""  ;  cf. 
1  Co  4'"-",  Col  l**). 

If  we  compare  the  NT  teaching  ag  a  whole  with  that  of  Jesus, 
we  note  a  (greater  stress  upon  the  eschatoloyical  element.  This 
is  true  not  only  of  the  Apocalj-pse  and  of  the  early  discourses 
in  the  ActJi,  where  the  Farousia  is  the  centre  of  interest  {cf.  Ac 
320. 21)^  but  also  of  such  writings  as  James  (cf.  6**  with  112), 
Hebrews,  and  1  Peter,  as  well  as  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul  (cf. 
esp.  Tliess.  and  1  Co  15).  In  Hebrews  the  word '  salvation '  is  used 
in  a  purely  eschatological  sense  {e.g.  He  928  'Christ,  having  been 
once  offered  up  to  bear  the  sins  of  many,  shall  appear  a  second 
time,  apart  from  sin,  to  them  that  wait  for  him,  unto  salvation ' ; 
cf.  l"  2i  210  f,»  0").  The  same  is  frequently  the  case  in  1  Peter 
(e.f/,  1^-  8- 10  '  a  salvation  re.ady  to  be  revealed  at  the  last  time,' 
'  the  end  of  your  faith,  even  the  salvation  of  your  souls,'  but  cf. 
321),  and  in  the  letters  of  St.  Paul  (e.gr,  Eo  1311  '  Now  is  salvation 
nearer  to  us  than  when  we  believed ' ;  cf.  610,  1  Co  3^5  5^,  2  Ti 
4I8).  The  early  Christians,  almost  without  exception,  felt 
themselves  livinp  at  the  end  of  the  ages  (1  Co  lOH),  and 
looked  at  any  moment  for  the  return  of  their  Master  to  set 
up  His  heavenly  Kingdom  (see  Parousia).  Doubtless  the  resur- 
rection experiences  had  much  to  do  with  this.  The  revelation 
of  Jesus  in  glory,  the  assurance  that  He  was  even  now  sitting 
at  the  right  hand  of  the  Father,  tended  to  emphasize  the  tran- 
Bcendent  element*  in  His  teaching,  and  to  magnify  the  contrast 
between  this  present  evil  age  and  tfiat  which  was  to  come. 
Thus  St.  Peter  in  Acts  urges  his  hearers  to  save  themselves 
from  this  crooked  generation  (Ac  2-*0),  and  St.  Paul  declares 
that  if  in  this  world  only  Christians  have  hope  in  Christ,  they 
are  of  all  men  most  pitiable  (1  Co  1519).  The  contrast  in  both 
these  passages,  unlike  that  involved  in  the  Johannine  doctrine 
of  the  world,  of  which  we  shall  speak  presently,  is  a  temporal 
one.  The  time  of  present  distress  is  set  over  against  that  of 
future  glory.  At  the  great  day  of  the  Parousia,  which  is  im- 
pending,  there  is  to  be  a  transformation  of  the  universe  (Ho  821, 
1  Co  731),  new  heavens  and  a  new  earth  (Rev  fill),  and  believers, 
with  their  risen  brethren  who  have  gone  before  (1  Th  41^),  shall 
be  clothed  with  heavenly  bodies  (1  Co  16*7-iy),  and  enter  upon 
an  existence  adapted — as  the  present  cannot  t>e — to  the  enjoy- 
ment and  practice  of  the  spiritual  life  (Ro  S^,  cf.  v.H). 

It  is  at  ttiis  point  that  we  note  the  closest  contact  with  the 
ideas  of  contemponary  Judaism.  Coming  to  Christianity  from 
an  atmospliere  charged  with  the  hope  of  earthly,  even  if  of 
superhuman  prosperity,  it  was  impossible  but  that  the  dis- 
ciples should  show  some  traces  of  their  early  training.  The 
letters  of  St.  Paul  show  us  what  a  struggle  it  took  before 
Christianity  freed  itself  from  the  yoke  of  Jewish  legalism. 
Not  dissimilar  was  the  relation  to  the  eschatological  ideas  of 
Judaism.  The  thoughts  of  the  early  Christians  clothed  them- 
seh'ea  naturally  in  imager}'  taken  from  the  Jewish  apo<\alyptic 
books.  They  looked  for  a  heavenly  Jerusalem  (Rev  2r-'i',cf. 
also  He  Vi'--,  Gal  42i>),  Kitb  Its  streets  of  gold  and  its  gates  of 
pearl,  and  did  not  resign  without  a  struggle  the  hope  of  a 
millennial  Kingdom  on  earth  anticipating  and  preparing  the 
way  for  the  Joys  of  the  heavenly  Kmgdom  (see  .MiLtP..s'NnTM). 
The  Apocalj-pse  introduces  us  most  deeply  into  this  world  of 
Jewish-Christian  thought,  which,  however,  has  left  its  traces 
In  other  books  of  the  NT  (e.g.  2  P,  Jude),  and  is  not  wholly 
absent  even  from  him  who  did  the  most  to  overcome  It — the 
Apostle  Paul  (e.g.  Oal  4!«,  2  Co  2»). 

And  yet  it  is  easy  to  exaggerate  the  extent  of  this  influence. 
In  spite  of  all  the  points  of  contact  with  Judaism,  the  early 


Christians  lived  in  a  new  world.  To  them  as  to  their  Mastsi 
salvation  was  a  new  life  (Ac  2'-*,  cf.  3"*  ll^**),  entered  upon  bj 
repentance  and  faith.  It  was  a  life  of  forgiven  sin,  of  Hlial  trust, 
ol  brotherly  service,  of  present  comniuuion  with  Christ.  H  tha 
full  enjo,\'ment  of  the  promised  salvation  still  lay  in  the  future, 
they  were  yet  not  without  experience  of  Christ's  present  blessing 
and"  help.  In  the  miracles  of  healing  and  deliverance  which 
characterized  the  opening  days  of  the  Church  (Ac  31*^) ;  above 
all.  in  the  presence  and  power  of  the  Iloly  Ghost  (Ac  2i*  431 
10*1),  they  saw  the  pledge  of  their  Saviour's  power  and  rule. 
The  sanctification  without  which  no  man  shall  see  the  Lord 
(He  12'-*)  was  not  only  the  ideal,  but  to  a  large  extent  a  character- 
istic of  their  daily  living.  The  social  joys  of  the  Kingdom  were 
anticipated  in  daily  communion  with  the  brethren  (Ac  2'*^*''), 
Thus  the  life  experiences  of  the  earl}'  Christians,  even  as  re- 
vealed in  such  books  as  Acts,  are  truer  to  the  teaching  of  their 
Master  than  a  superficial  study  of  the  use  of  such  theological 
terms  as  'salvation'  and  '  kingdom '  would  seem  to  indicate. 
JIuch  more  shall  we  find  this  the  case  when  we  pass  to  the  mora 
developed  conceptions  of  St.  Paul  and  St.  Joim. 

(6)  St.  Paul. — We  have  already  touched  upon 
the  points  which  the  teaching  of  St.  Paul  .shares 
with  the  rest  of  the  NT^the  conception  of  salva- 
tion as  deliverance  from  sin,  the  emi)liasia  upon 
the  mediation  of  Jesus,  and  especially  upon  the 
significance  of  His  death,  the  importance  given 
to  the  eschatological  element,  the  Jewish  dress  in 
which  many  of  his  ideas  are  clothed.  Some  inter- 
preters have  indeed  carried  the  relation  to  Judaism 
so  far  as  to  contend  that  St.  Paul  was  a  cliiliast, 
distinguishing,  on  the  ground  of  1  Co  15^- '",  an 
earlier  resurrection  of  believers  from  the  later 
and  general  resurrection  (see  Parousia).  But 
this  view  cannot  be  successfully  mainlained.  So 
far  as  the  resurrection  is  concerneii,  St.  Paul's 
ideas  are  as  far  as  possible  removed  from  the  crass 
materialism  which  characterized  the  thought  of 
many  of  his  contemporaries  (cf.  1  Co  15"  '  That 
which  thou  sowest,  thou  sowest  not  that  body  that 
shall  be,'  etc.),  and  the  salvation  of  the  Par- 
ousia, which,  unlike  the  coming  in  Rev  19,  intro- 
duces the  final  blessL-dness  of  the  saints,  is  only 
the  working  out  to  their  full  completion  of  prin- 
ciples and  forces  already  active  in  this  present 
life.  Indeed  the  conception  of  salvation  as  a 
jiresent  experience  is  characteristic  of  all  St.  Paul's 
teaching,  and  gives  it  its  chief  significance. 

To  appreciate  St.  Paul's  doctrine  of  salvation, 
we  must  set  it  against  the  background  of  his  view 
of  the  Jlesh.  Whatever  be  the  exact  interpreta- 
tion given  to  the  terra  ;  whether,  with  Holsten,  it 
be  unJer.stood  metaphysically,  as  implying,  on  St. 
Paul's  part,  a  dualistic  view  of  tlie  universe,  or, 
with  most  interpreters,  be  regarded  simply  as  the 
synonym  for  corrupt  human  nature,  there  can  be 
no  doubt  that,  to  St.  Paul,  mankind  as  a  whole  is 
the  prey  of  a  power  of  evil  which  it  cannot  resist, 
and  from  -which  it  is  unable  to  escape.  From 
Adam  do}vnwards  all  men  have  sinned,  and  come 
sliort  of  the  glorj'  of  God  (Ro  3^).  Being  sinful, 
they  are  exposed  to  the  curse  of  the  law,  and  to 
the  death  which  is  the  inevitable  consequence  and 
penalty  of  broken  law.  The  glory  of  Christ's 
salvation  consists  in  the  fact  that  it  delivers  man 
from  this  sinful  flesh,  and  so  at  the  same  time 
from  the  law  which  is  its  judge,  and  the  death 
which  is  its  penal  consequence. 

Thus  salvation,  while  a  sinjrle  process,  involves 
different  elements,  and  may  oe  looked  at  from 
different  points  of  view.  In  the  first  place  (or,  to 
be  more  accurate,  in  the  last  place),  it  involves 
deliverance  from  death.  To  St.  Paul,  as  to  the 
other  apostles,  salvation  is  so  far  an  eschatological 
conception,  that  its  full  efiects  will  be  apparent 
only  at  the  Parousia.  In  that  great  day,  when 
the  terrors  of  the  Divine  wrath  shall  be  revealed 
from  lieaven  '  upon  every  soul  of  man  that  worketh 
evil '  (Ro  2S  cf.  1'*),  Christians  shall  be  safe.  The 
Parousia,  which  to  others  is  a  day  of  death  (2 
Th  1"  '  who  shall  sutler  punishment,  even  eternal 
destruction  from  the  face  of  the  Lord  and  from  th« 
glory  of  his  might '),  is  to  usher  them  into  the  pre* 


SALVATION,  SAVIOUR 


SALVATION,  SAVIOUH 


;3G7 


ence  of  their  Ion;;  expected  Saviour.  With  the 
I  isL-n  saints,  who  have  died  before  them,  they  shall 
be  caught  np  to  meet  the  Lord  in  the  air  ( 1  1  h  4"), 
and,  freed  from  the  last  trace  of  the  tiesli  which 
has  hitherto  haiiiiiered  them  (1  Co  15°""'-),  shall 
enter  into  the  joys  of  His  heavenly  kingdom.  It 
is  this  frlorious  exjierience — still  in  the  future — to 
■which  St.  Paul  refers  when  he  uses  salvation  as  an 
esihatolo'dcal  term  (e.y.  Ho  13"). 

But  salvation  is  not  merely  deliverance  from 
future  punishment.  It  includes  also  freedom  from 
sin  as  a  present  power.  Indeed  it  is  this  present 
deliverance  which  alone  makes  the  future  possible. 
Through  union  with  Christ,  the  believer  has  be- 
come a  new  creature  (2  Co  5").  He  has  died  to 
sin  (Ro  6^),  crucilied  the  flesh,  with  the  passions 
and  the  lusts  thereof  (Gal  5^),  and  entered  upon  a 
new  spiritual  life  of  righteousness,  peace,  and  joy 
(Ro  14'").  Already  he  is  a  saved  man  (Ro  8  , 
1  Co  1'8,  2  Co  2'"),  reconciled  with  God  (Ro  5'), 
claiming  and  receiving  the  privileges  of  a  son 
(Ko  8"  "),  rejoicing  in  daily  experiences  of  a 
Father's  grace,  knowing  how  to  glorj'  even  in 
tribulations  (Ro  5'),  siTice  he  has  learned  that  all 
things  work  together  for  good  to  them  that  love 
God  (Ro  8'").  No  doulit  he  still  has  his  conflict 
with  evil.  But  the  conflict  is  no  longer  a  dis- 
couraging one.  Wlieicas  lie  once  felt  himself  the 
slave  of  the  flesh,  sold  under  sin  (Ro  '"'■'),  now  he 
knows  himself  to  be  its  master.  Tne  law  o{  'he 
spirit  of  life  in  Christ  .Te.sus  has  made  hiu  f;ee 
from  the  law  of  sin  and  of  death  (Ro  8-).  And  ri-o 
day  is  coming  when,  through  the  transformation 
of  his  body,  he  shall  be  freed  from  whatever 
defding  contact  still  remains  (Ro  8"). 

Being  freed  from  sin,  the  Christian  is  also  free 
from  law.  Law  has  authoritj-  only  over  the 
sinner;  but  the  man  who  thmugh  union  with 
Christ  has  entered  upon  a  new  life  in  the  spirit  is 
free  from  law  (Ro  ti'*  7'  10*).  He  is  not  only 
delivered  from  the  fear  of  its  punishment,  but — 
what  is  more  important— he  lia-s  exchanged  the 
bondage  of  its  requirements  for  the  freedom  of  the 
new  man  in  Christ  Jesus  (Col  2",  Gal  5'-  "■  '»).  In 
place  of  the  spirit  of  fear  he  has  received  the  spirit 
of  a<lo|)tion,  whereby  he  cries,  '  Abba,  Kattier ' 
(Ho  S'').  Knowing  himself  to  be  heir  of  all 
things,  he  refuses  to  le  entangled  again  with  the 
beggarly  rudiments  of  ritual  prescription  under 
wliich  lie  was  once  held  in  bondage  (Gal  4^", 
Col  2*').  As  a  Christian  he  lives  on  a  higher 
plane,  and  breathes  a  different  atmosphere  from 
that  of  work-righteousness,  however  earnest  (Ro 
3*'-  ■-',  Gal  3--').  Thus  the  break  with  legalism, 
practically  begun  by  .Jesus'  teaching  concerning 
the  childlike  spirit,  is  theoreticallj'  completed  by 
the  Pauline  doctrine  of  a  justification  or  right- 
eousness by  faith  inste.'id  of  by  works. 

With  the  mention  of  faith  we  touch  the  heart  of 
St.  Paul's  doctrine  of  salvation.  We  are  saved  by 
faith.  And  faith,  to  St.  Paul,  means  more  than 
belief.  It  is  more  even  than  trust.  It  is  an  act 
of  the  will  by  which  the  believer  so  lays  hold  upon 
Christ  that  he  actuallj'  becomes  partaker  of  His 
risen  and  triumpliant  life  (Kph  3",  CJal  S^"- ", 
Bo  1 1"",  Col  2"- "  S'-* ;  cf .  McGillert,  Apoxtnlir  Age, 
pp.  141,  142).  For  the  Christ  whom  St.  Paul  knows 
as  meilintor  of  salvation  is  more  than  man,  even  the 
best  of  men  ;  more  even  than  the  .Jewish  Messiah, 
great  as  are  his  prerogatives.  He  is  a  jire-existent 
Divine  Being,  coming  into  the  world  from  a  higher 
realm,  and  imparting  to  those  who  are  subject  to 
the  law  of  sin  and  death  the  new  spiritual  vitality 
without  which  deliverance  is  hopeless. 

This  doctrine  of  Chriet  bb  the  Incarnation  of  a  pre-existent 
Divine  Heini?,  wiilch  is  common  to  St.  l*aiil,  tlie  writer  to  the 
Hel'rewB.  una  St.  Joiin,  pave  Chrifltianitx  ilB  ciiief  jtoiiu  of 
lonuol  with  oontemporuy  Oreeic  thought,  and  formed    the 


bridge  by  which  men  naturally  passed  from  the  titter  to  tlie 
former.  But  with  all  reco^'nition  of  the  point*"  of  similarity 
between  the  Lojros  doctrine  of  the  Alexandrian  pliilosopheni 
and  the  NT  teaching  concerning  the  pre-existcnt  Christ  there 
is  one  point  of  dilTerence,  whose  importance  cannot  be  over- 
estimated. The  interest  of  the  one  is  cosniolo-rical ;  it  grows 
out  of  a  desire  to  understand  the  world.  The  interest  of  the 
other  is  soteriological ;  it  sprin^^s  from  the  need  of  deliverance 
from  sin.  To  St.  Paul,  helpless  under  the  burden  of  tiie  flesh, 
finding  that,  when  he  would  do  good,  evil  is  present  with  him, 
seeking  in  vain  for  a  deliverer  from  his  intolerable  liond-i^'e, — 
to  St.  Paul,  we  repeat,  the  signilicaiice  of  the  heavenly  Man, 
revealed  to  him  in  the  experience  of  the  Damascus  road,  COQ- 
eista  in  the  fact  that  He  is  a  life-giving  spirit  (1  Co  1^*^). 

We  are  ready  now  to  understand  the  significance 
of  the  death  of  Christ.  It  is  the  means  by  which 
He  gains  the  victory  over  the  flesh  and  enters 
upon  the  new  resurrection  life.  No  merely 
forensic  conception  can  do  justice  to  St.  Pauls 
thought  at  this  point.  It  is  not  a  matter 
primarily  of  guilt  or  of  penalty.  In  sin  he  sees 
a  power  of  evil,  working  out  its  own  deadly  and 
inevitable  fruits.  Christ  took  to  Himself  this 
sinful  flesh,  and  let  it  work  out  upon  Himself  its 
natural  consequences.  He  submitted  to  death, 
which  is  the  rightful  wages  of  sin,  in  its  most 
aggravated  and  shocking  form.  In  the  striking 
words  of  Gal  3'"  He  became  '  a  curse  for  us  :  for  it 
is  written.  Cursed  is  every  one  that  hangeth  on  a 
tree.'  But  the  death,  which  to  an  ordinary  man 
would  have  ended  everj'thing,  was  to  Him  simply 
the  door  through  whitth  He  passed  into  the  higher 
life  of  the  heavenly  Kingdom.  Being  sinless,  it 
was  impossible  for  Him  to  be  holden  of  death. 
Rising  from  the  grave  in  newness  of  life,  He 
opens  the  way  for  like  escape  to  all  who  through 
faith  in  Him  become  parta.kers  of  His  Divine  and 
heavenly  life. 

No  one  can  understand  the  Pauline  doctrine  of  salvation  who 
does  not  c«ncei\e  it  primarily  as  present  union  wilii  the  Divine 
and  glorified  Christ.  Wli.it  our  Ix>rd  haj*  once  done  on  the 
great  theatre  of  the  universe,  that  each  individual  Christian  is 
to  repeat  on  the  le-^ser  Bta;;eof  his  earthly  life.  He,  too,  must  die 
to  sin  (Ito  ti2)  and  rioe  to  ri;;hteousness  (Ito  (>^- «).  He,  too.  nmst 
shan^  the  sufferings  of  Christ  (Col  V^),  and  sit  with  Iliin  in 
heavenly  jilaees  (ICph  2*').  The  life  whicli  he  lives  is  To  be  no 
longer  his,  hut  that  of  the  (!hrist  who  liveth  in  hiin(<:al  22ex 
Old  things  have  passefi  away,  and  all  things  are  become  new 
(2  Co  .^ti7).  Thus  already  hi-re  and  now  the  Christian  antici- 
pates the  blessings,  whose  full  realizjilion  remains  for  the 
Harousia.  Nothing  can  separate  him  from  the  love  of  Christ — 
neither  death  nor  life,  nor  angels  nor  priixupalities,  nor  things 
present  nor  things  to  come  (Fio  S^"*' ■-■').  If  he  die  before  the 
I'arousia.  it  matters  not.  Though  to  live  he  Christ,  to  die  is 
gain,  for  dying  means  departing  to  he  with  Christ,  which  is 
very  far  better  (Ph  123,  cf.  2  Co  68  'absent  from  the  bod.v,  at 
home  with  the  Lord '). 

It  is  clear  that  from  such  a  point  of  view  the  significance  of 
the  Parousia  is  very  different  from  that  which  it  has  in  Jewish- 
Christian  thought.  To  St.  Paul  it  is  not  necessary  to  watt 
until  the  Second  Coming  before  one  can  enjoy  the  salvation  of 
Christ.  His  greatest  lllessing  has  been  given  already.  The 
Spirit  who  shall  one  day  quicken  our  mortal  bodies  already 
dwells  within  us  as  a  transforming  power  (Ho  8"),  and  the 
redemption  of  the  body  for  which  we  still  groan  (Ko  823)  will 
onli,'  give  free  play  to  spiritual  forres,  with  the  working  of 
which  we  are  already  familiar.  Thus  we  see  that  here  also, 
OS  well  aa  in  his  doctrine  of  righteousness  hy  faith,  the  teaching 
of  the  apostle  is  true  to  the  new  insight  of  the  Master. 

Two  points  still  need  brief  mention  before  we 
leave  the  Pauline  teaching.  These  are  :  (a)  The 
emphasis  which  he  lays  on  the  social  side  of  sal- 
vation ;  (/3)  his  doctrine  of  a  cosmic  salvation. 

(a)  Nothing  is  more  striking,  in  view  of  the 
intense  personal  independence  of  St.  Paul,  than 
the  stress  which  he  lays  upon  the  social  side  of 
salvation.  This  comes  out  most  clearly  in  his 
doctrine  of  the  Church — a  conce|iti<)n  which  takes 
the  [ilace  in  his  teaching  of  the  juesent  Kingdom 
of  tlie  parables.  Through  union  with  Christ  a 
man  is  not  only  joined  to  his  Master  as  an  indi- 
vidual, but  becomes  a  member  of  His  body,  the 
Church  (Eph  1-').  The  new  Divine  life  whicli  he 
enjoys  is  snared  by  his  brothers  and  sisters  of  the 
Christian  family.  The  gifts  which  lie  receives  are 
for  the  purpose  of  ministering  to  theirnccessitie* 


368 


SALVATIOX,  SAVIOUE 


SALVATIOIs^  SAVIOUR 


(Eph  4"-  ").  If  he  suffers,  thev  suffer  with  him 
(1  Co  IS-")  ;  if  he  is  honoured,  they  are  partakers 
of  his  joy  (1  Co  12-").  The  end  of  all  is  the  build- 
ing up  of  the  Christian  community  in  the  know- 
ledge and  love  of  Christ  (Eph  4'3-'«),  and  the 
reward  for  which  the  apostle  looks  at  the 
Parousia  is  the  presence  of  his  converts  among 
the  company  of  the  redeemed,  spiritually  litted, 
because  of  his  ministrj',  to  enter  upon  the  enjoy- 
ment of  the  heavenly  kingdom  (1  Th  2'",  cf. 
1  Co  1"). 

It  is  not  strange  that,  holding  such  views,  we 
see  the  apostle  looking  u|>on  all  history  as  a 
training  school  for  the  Divine  salvation  (Ko  9-11), 
and  hoping  for  the  day  when  even  his  feUow- 
Israelites,  who  have  thus  far  turned  a  deaf  ear 
to  the  message  of  the  Gospel,  shall  repent  and 
become  partakers  of  its  blessings  (Ro  11-*). 

((3)  But  the  apostle's  view  reaches  out  beyond 
tills  earth,  and  takes  in  the  universe  as  a  whole. 
He  sees  the  whole  creation  groaning  and  travail- 
ing together  in  pain  until  now,  waiting  till  it  be 
delivered  from  the  bondage  of  corruption  into  the 
liberty  of  the  glory  of  the  children  of  God  (Ro8'-'). 
He  looks  upon  Christ  as  the  mediator  of  a  sal- 
vation truly  cosmic,  and  declares  that  it  is  God's 
purpose  '  through  him  to  reconcile  all  things  unto 
himself,  whether  things  upon  the  earth  or  things 
in  the  heavens'  (Col  I**,  cf.  Eph  1").  Thus, 
according  to  St.  Paul,  the  salvation  in  which  we 
here  share  is  only  part  of  a  great  world  process 
whose  end  shall  be  a  universe  redeemed  (cf. 
1  Co  15=«). 

The  teaching  of  St  Paul  had  a  profound  influence  upon  his 
contemporaries.  We  see  its  effect  most  clearly  in  1  Peter, 
which,  in  spite  of  the  emphasis  it  lays  upon  the  future  (1  P  l^), 
has  the  conception  of  salvation  as  a  present  experience  (a'^i,  cf. 
also  123  2*6  41).  And  yet  it  is  easy  to  overestimate  it.  Other 
inlluences  were  at  work  in  the  early  Church.  The  legal  con- 
ception of  religion  which  characterized  the  Jew  was  reinforced 
by  similar  conceptions  which  had  their  oriein  on  Gentile  soil. 
The  view  of  salvation  as  freedom  from  law  through  the  posses- 
sion of  a  present  spiritual  life  was  not  fully  adopted  even  by 
many  who  in  other  respects  were  profoundly  influenced  by  St. 
Paul.  The  letter  to  the  Hebrews  is  a  case  in  point-  Here,  as 
we  have  seen,  the  point  of  view  is  almost  wholly  eschatological. 
Salvation  is  conceived  as  a  reward  promised  to  those  who 
remain  faithful  under  their  present  trials,  and  faith,  instead  of 
being  vital  union  with  a  present  Christ,  is  simply  the  assurance 
that  God  will  keep  His  word  (He  111).  In  this  respect  the 
letter  to  the  Hebrews  is  tj-pical  of  the  fixture.  Wten  we  study 
the  Christianity  of  the  Fathers  we  find  the  Gospel  often 
presented  as  a  new  law,  and  salvation,  which  is  wholly  future, 
IS  the  reward  promised  by  God  to  those  who  kepp  it.  The 
doctrine  of  a  mystic  union  with  Christ  through  faith  tends 
more  and  more  to  fall  into  the  background,  only  to  be  revived 
in  a  sacramentarian  form,  foreign  to  the  Pauline  teaching. 
This  fact  must  be  borne  in  mind  if  we  would  appreciate  the  full 
significance  of  the  Johannine  conception  of  salvation. 

(c)  St.  John. — We  have  already  referred  to  the 
problem  raised  by  the  passages  in  the  Fourth 
Gospel  which  speak  of  eternal  life  as  a  present 
possession,  and  given  reasons  for  believing  that 
they  truly  represent  the  teaching  of  Jesus.  But 
however  much  we  may  be  convinced  of  the  his- 
toric foundation  of  the  discourses,  there  can  be  no 
aoubt  that,  in  their  jiresent  form  at  least,  they 
show  truces  of  the  reflexion  of  the  evangelist.  The 
connexion  between  the  Gospel  and  the  Epistle  is 
too  close  to  be  overlooked.  This  connexion  is 
evident  in  thought  as  well  as  in  language.  In 
lioth  we  have  a  single  conception,  clear-cut, 
uniform,  consistent.  We  have  to  do  with  a  form 
of  teacliiii^;  which  may  be  contrasted  with  other 
parts  of  tlie  NT  as  belonging  to  a  distinct  type. 
In  presenting  the  Johannine  te.iching,  therefore, 
we  follow  most  recent  scholars  in  using  both 
Gospel  and  Epistles  as  sources. 

In  St.  John  the  conception  of  salvation  as  a 
present  spiritual  experience  reaches  its  culmina- 
tion. There  are  indeed  traces  of  the  more  common 
eschatological  conception,  esp.  in  the  First  Epistle 
{e.g.  2"-«  3>  4";  cf.  Jn  S**  6"-»«  21*'),  but  they 


hold  a  comparatively  subordinate  place.  Salva- 
tion is  represented,  as  in  the  Synoptics,  as  eternal 
life.  But  for  this  life  a  man  need  not  wait  till 
the  Parousia.  It  is  already  the  possession  of  all 
who  believe  on  Christ.  lie  that  hears  Christ's 
word,  and  believeth  Him  that  sent  Him,  '  hath 
eternal  life,  and  cometh  not  into  judgment,  but 
hath  passed  out  of  death  into  life '  (5^  ;  cf.  w."'- " 
3™,  1  Jn  4"'  5'-).  Christ  is  represented  as  the 
bread  of  life  (6'-),  of  wliich,  if  a  man  eat,  he  shall 
live  for  ever  (v.").  He  is  the  resurrection  and 
the  life  ( 1 1'^),  and  whosoever  livetli  and  believeth 
on  Hhu  shall  never  die  (11^").  Cf.  also  the  passage* 
which  speak  of  regeneration  (Jn  3',  1  Jn  3"  5'). 

When  we  look  more  closely  into  the  nature  of 
this  new  life,  we  find  that  it  has  two  main  charac- 
teristics :  it  is  a  life  of  spiritual  insight  and  of 
holy  affection.  These  are  indicated  by  the  two 
words  ' light'  and  ' love.' 

Like  St.  Paul,  St.  John  makes  the  sharpest  possible  contrast 
between  the  sinful  world  without  Christ  and  the  new  spiritual 
society  brought  into  existence  by  His  redemption.  To  St.  John, 
as  to  St.  Paul,  the  whole  world  lieth  in  the  evil  one  (1  Jn  .118), 
and  the  greatest  need  of  man  is  to  be  delivered  from  the  bond- 
age of  sin  (Jn  sy+y*").  But  to  St.  John  the  characteristic  mark 
of  this  sinful  state  is  ignorance,  and  the  remedy  which  is  needed 
is  knowledge.  It  is  the  truth  which  must  make  men  free  (Jn 
8"-2,  cf.  e^).  The  world  lies  in  darkness  (!').  It  does  not  know 
God  and  His  Christ.  It  does  not  apprehend,  and  therefore 
will  not  receive.  His  message.  Into  such  a  world  the  Logos 
comes,  as  light.  His  influence  is  as  wide  as  humanity  (19).  In 
the  fulness  of  time  He  becomes  fiesh  and  dwells  among  men 
(lH),  and  they  behold  His  glory,  as  of  the  Only-begotten  from 
the  Father,  full  of  grace  and  tnith  (l").  He  declares  the  God 
whom  no  man  hath  seen  at  any  time  (l^^.  Nay,  more,  in  Hij 
own  person  He  clearly  manifests  Him ;  for  He  that  hath  seen 
Him  hath  seen  the  Father  (149).  He  is  the  light  of  the  world 
(8)2  95  1246),  and  the  condemnation  of  men  consists  in  the 
fact  that  when  light  was  come  into  the  world,  they  loved 
darkness  better  than  light,  because  their  works  were  evil 
(319 ;  cf .  1236  '  sons  of  light '  as  a  s.\-nonym  for  the  saved). 
For  this  is  etern.il  life,  to  know  God.  who  is  Himself  light 
(1  Jn  16),  and  Jesus  Christ  whom  He  has  sent  (ITS,  ot 
1  Jn  620). 

But  the  redeemed  life  is  not  merely  a  life  of  knowledge. 
It  is  also  a  Ufe  of  love.  God  is  love  (1  Jn  48)  as  well  as  light, 
and  every  one  that  loveth  is  begotten  of  God  and  knoweth 
God  (1  Jn  47).  The  clearest  proof  of  the  passage  of  the  disciple* 
from  death  to  life  is  the  presence  of  a  loving  spirit  (1  Jn  S", 
of.  Jn  IS*").  '  He  that  saith  he  is  in  the  light,  and  hateth  hi» 
brother,  is  in  the  darkness  even  until  now.  He  that  loveth  his 
brother  abideth  in  the  light,  and  there  is  none  occasion  of 
stumbUng  in  him'(l  Jn  2»- 10).  The  intimacy  of  the  relation- 
ships into  which  men  enter  through  the  Christian  life  is  often 
emphasized.  They  are  children  of  God  (1  Jn  3'-  2).  They  are 
Christ's  dear  friends,  to  whon),  unlike  those  who  are  merely 
servants.  He  makes  known  all  that  He  has  heard  of  His  Father 
(Jn  15'*).  The  one  commandment  which  He  lays  upon  them  i« 
that  thev  should  love  one  another,  even  as  He  has  loved  them 
(13»>,  cf.151'). 

The  secret  of  this  new  life  of  light  and  love  is 
union  with  Christ.  He  is  the  vine,  of  which  the 
disciples  are  branches  (Jn  15'*).  He  is  the 
heavenly  bread  upon  which  they  feed  (6*"-**). 
From  Him  comes  that  water  of  life  which,  when 
once  received,  never  faileth,  but  becomes  in  each 
man  a  well  of  water,  springing  up  unto  eternal 
life  (4",  cf.  6*>).  He  is  the  good  shepherd  who 
lays  down  His  life  for  the  sheep  (10") ;  the  grain 
of"  wheat,  which,  falling  into  the  ground  in  appa- 
rent death,  springs  up  to  bear  much  fruit  (12"). 
Nor  is  this  mediatorial  work  confined  to  His 
earthly  life.  If  He  leaves  the  disciples  at  death, 
it  is  to  return  by  the  Holy  Spirit  (14'»-'*),  the 
I'aradete,  wbo  shall  institute  a  yet  more  intimate 
relation  tlian  that  \vliich  has  gone  before  ( 10'- '■'•  "), 
bringing  to  remembrance  the  things  of  Christ 
(14^",  cf.  16"),  leading  the  disciples,  as  they  are 
able  to  bear  it,  into  all  the  truth  (16",  cf.  1  Jn  5'), 
becoming  the  bond  through  which  Christ  and  the 
Father  are  united  to  them  in  a  communion  that 
shall  know  no  end  (cf.  14-*  with  '«  17"-=^,  1  Jn  3=*). 

If  we  compare  St.  John's  view  of  the  mediatorial  work  of 
Christ  with  that  of  St.  Paul,  we  note  many  points  of  similarity. 
To  both  Christ  comes  into  the  world  from  a  pre -existent 
heavenly  life.    To  both  He  is  the  power  through  whom  sin  if 


SALVATIOX,  SAVIOUR 


SALVATION,  SAVIOUK 


361 


overcome,  and  the  redeemed  introduced  into  the  spiritual 
Kini^iom  of  righteousness,  of  peace,  and  of  joy.  In  both,  Ilia 
mediatorial  work  is  universal  in  iVi  e.\tent  (cf.  Ju  1^  'all 
thlnuii  were  made  through  him";  18'tlio  lik'ht  which  Hghteth 
every  man ' ;  10'«  '  other  sheep  .  .  .  not  of  tliis  fold ' ;  12^  '  I,  if 
I  be  lifted  up,  will  draw  all  men  unto  myself ' ;  i*^'  Saviour  of 
the  world*).  And  yet  there  iB  a  difference  of  emphasis.  St. 
I»aul  lays  chief  stress  upon  the  death  of  Christ,  The  earthly 
life  is  passed  over  li^,'htly.  Attention  is  focussed  upon  the 
preat  tnniedy  of  the  cross,  from  which  the  conquering  Saviour 
issues  victorious  in  the  resurrection.  To  St.  John,  the  death  is 
onl.v  an  incident  in  tlie  saving  work.  It  is  the  incarnation  oa 
such  which  is  redemptive.  Christ  enters  into  the  world  as 
iiifht,  and  His  mere  ai>pearance  carries  with  it  redeeming  or 
condemning  power.  To  as  many  as  received  Ilim,  to  them 
gave  He  the  right  to  become  children  of  Go<i  (1'2).  Those,  on 
the  other  hand,  who  believe  not,  are  condemned  already  by 
the  mere  fact  of  their  unbelief  (a"*).  St.  Paul,  (or  all  his  stress 
upon  present  salvation,  is  a  man  of  historic  sense,  quick  to 
apprehend,  and  apt  to  state,  the  contra.st  between  the  present 

Kriod  of  attliction  and  the  glories  still  to  be  revealed  at  the 
rousio.  To  the  mystic  intuition  of  St.  John,  time  relations 
fade  away,  and  we  face  two  contrasted  eternities— the  world  of 
light  and  of  darknes.-i,  of  righteousness  and  of  sin,  of  love  and  of 
hate.  Against  this  background  of  absolute  realities  there  is  no 
longer  any  place  for  the  apprehension  of  relative  values.  Who- 
soever is  begotten  of  Goa  siimeth  not  (1  Jn  5*8,  cf.  a**).  They 
that  reject  Christ  are  children  of  the  devil,  who  from  the 
beginning  was  a  liar  and  murderer  even  as  they  (8*3-H).  Here 
the  Pauline  dualism  is  carried  to  the  extremest  point.  The 
progress,  the  variety,  the  shatiing  by  which  the  latter  is 
relieved,  are  here  blotted  out  in  the  clear  white  light  of  eternity. 
Yet  the  very  sharpne.'is  of  the  presentation  is  the  means  of 
reviving  forgotten  Irnllis.  In  the  rarefied  atmosphere  of  the 
Johannine  Gospel,  all  traces  of  Jev^-ish  nationalism  and 
materialism  vanish.  Salvation  is  indeed  conceived  as  a  tran- 
Bcer.dent  good,  but,  as  in  the  case  of  Jesus  Himself,  the  tran- 
scendence is  that  of  a  higher  spiritual  order.  One  does  not 
need  to  wait  for  the  future  to  enjo.v  it.  Here  and  now  men 
may  become  partakers  of  light  and  life,  of  righteousness  and 
love,  of  peace  and  joy.  The  Parousia  is  conceived  less  as  a 
single  event  than  as  a  continuous  process  (cf.  PAROrsiA). 
Resurrection  and  judgment  are  present  experiences.  Even 
while  in  the  world,  Uie  disciples  may  enter  upon  a  life  which 
is  not  of  the  world.  The  prayer  of  the  Master  is  not  that  they 
mav  he  taken  out  of  the  worl^,  but  that  they  may  be  kept  from 
the  evil  {1-1»X 

We  have  thus  completed  onr  historicnl  survey  of 
the  Biblical  doctrine  of  salvation.  We  have  seen 
how  through  the  centuries  the  conception  h.as  been 
deepened  and  enriched,  as  the  more  e.xtern.al  and 
material  elements  have  more  and  more  given  place 
to  those  which  are  moral  and  spiritual.  We  liave 
noted  the  transformation  wrou^dit  by  the  life  and 
teachin"  of  Jesus,  and  seen  the  central  pl.ace 
assigned  to  His  person  and  work  in  the  thought 
and  experience  of  Hisdiscijjles.  Amid  all  varieties 
of  statement — in  spite  of  many  survivals  of  earlier 
and  less  spiritual  ideas  —  we  have  marked  the 
persistence  of  certain  permanent  features  which 
warrant  us  in  speaking  of  a  Itiblical  idea  of  8,alva- 
lion.  It  remains  to  gather  these  together,  and  to 
exhibit  them  in  their  relations  both  to  one  another 
and  to  those  which  are  more  transient.  This  will 
be  the  aim  of  our  concluding  section. 

iv.  Systematic  STATEMENT.— In  presenting  the 
Hiblical  conception  of  salvation  as  a  whole  we  liave 
to  connider  (1)  its  nature,  (2)  its  conditions,  (3)  its 
extent. 

1.  Suture  of  salvation. — AVe  have  seen  that  in 
every  cise  the  fundamental  idea  in  salvation  is 
deliverance.  Our  opening  statement  is  aa  true  of 
the  profound  utterances  of  a  St.  Paul  or  a  St. 
John  as  of  the  simplest  pa.ssages  in  the  OT,  that 
'  in  every  c.nso  some  danger  or  evil  is  presupposed, 
in  rescue  from  which  salvation  consists.'  If,  then, 
wc  would  understand  the  Biblical  conception  as  a 
wholi;,  we  must  recognize  clearly  what  is  the  great 
evil  from  which,  according  to  its  teaching,  man 
needs  to  be  delivered.  Tliat  evil  is  death.  No 
other  term  is  comprehensive  enough  to  unite  the 
various  elements  in  the  Biblical  teaching.  From 
the  Hrst  lines  of  the  UT  to  the  la-st  chapter  of 
the  NT,  salvation  stands  for  that  Divine  activity 
by  which  God  preserves  or  enriches  the  life  of  His 
children,  by  delivering  them  from  the  niuUiforiii 
dangers  and  evils  which  threaten  its  destnietion. 
The  content  of  the  conception  varies  indeed  with 
vou  IV. — 24 


the  deepening  apprehension  of  what  true  life 
means.  The  dangers  become  less  external,  more 
spiritual ;  less  transient,  more  permanent ;  less 
local,  more  universal,  but  the  underljing  thought 
abiiles.  We  may  illustrate  at  once  the  perma- 
nent elements  in  the  idea  and  those  that  are 
transient  by  considering  the  contrast  between  (a) 
the  temporal  and  the  spiritual ;  (h)  the  individual 
and  the  social ;  (c)  the  present  and  the  future. 

{a)  Salvation  as  temporal  a7id  spiritual. — In  the 
earlier  portions  of  the  OT  'life  is  used  in  the 
familiar  sense  of  animal  existence.  '  Death '  means 
phj'sical  destruction,  with  the  loss  of  all  that  that 
entails.  When  a  man  dies,  he  loses  everythin" 
worth  having  —  home  and  friends,  health  and 
strength,  national  relationships  and  responsibili- 
ties, the  privileges  of  Divine  worship  and  of  Divine 
communion.  We  misrepresent  the  OT  conception 
of  Sheol  when  we  speak  of  the  shadowy  existence 
in  the  under-world  as  life  after  death.  In  the 
gloomy  monotony  of  the  grave  the  Wgour  and 
vitality  whicli  gave  joy  to  life  are  lost.  Man 
exists,  indeed,  but  it  is  with  '  a  negative  existence, 
a  weakened  edition  of  his  former  self  ;  his  facultio 
dormant,  without  strength,  memory,  consciousness, 
knowledge,  or  the  energy  of  any  affection.  .  .  . 
The  colour  is  gone  from  everytliing  ;  a  washed-out 
copy  is  all  that  is  left'  (Salmond,  Imvwitality* 
(I'JUl),  p.  163).  It  is  not  strange  that,  where  this 
view  obtains,  the  great  evil  to  be  feared  is  physical 
death  (I's  6*-  °),  and  the  supreme  blessing  to  be 
coveted  a  long  life  (Ps  91").  The  Divine  salva- 
tion is  found  in  deliverance  from  all  that  threat- 
ens or  impairs  life,  all  th,at  weakens  its  vi''our  or 
vitality — violence,  oppression,  captivity,  calamity, 
trouldes,  and  distresses  of  every  kind.  The  great 
blessing  which  God  gives  is  prosperity — a  long 
life  and  a  full  one,  with  one's  wife  a  fruitful  vine, 
and  one's  children  as  olive  plants  about  the  table 
(Ps  128).  Greatest  of  all  evils  to  be  fe.ared  is  defeat 
in  battle,  since  in  the  stern  days  with  which  we 
have  to  do  it  carries  witli  it  the  loss  of  all  that  men 
count  dear,  both  for  the  individual  and  for  the 
nation. 

But  with  the  deepening  of  the  moral  insight 
we  note  the  rise  of  a  deeper  conception.  Life 
Ls  seen  to  involve  more  than  outwarcl  prosperity. 
It  has  an  inner  spiritual  meaning.  A  man  lives, 
in  the  full  meaning  of  the  word,  only  when  he 
enters  into  communion  with  God  in  righteousness 
and  love.  From  this  point  of  view  the  great  evil 
to  be  feared  is  not  physical  but  moral.  It  is  sin 
which  destroys  the  communion  between  a  man 
and  his  .Maker.  From  sin  therefore,  first  of  all,  a 
man  needs  to  be  delivered.  We  have  seen  how 
this  truth  comes  to  expression  in  the  latter  portions 
of  the  OT.  Jesus  puts  it  in  the  forefront  of  His 
teaching,  and  it  has  been  the  distinct  note  of  the 
Christian  Gos])el  ever  since.  Salvation  is  prinuarily 
deliverance  from  sin.  It  is  the  restoration  of  the 
interrupted  communion  between  the  Fatlier  and 
His  children  through  the  creation  in  the  latter  of 
a  new  spiritual  life.  Once  dead  in  trespasses  and 
sins,  they  are  made  alive  again  through  union  with 
the  living  Christ.  Thus  it  is  still  death  from 
which  men  need  to  be  delivered,  but  it  is  a  death 
which  is  B|)iritual,  not  i)hysical. 

One  mark  of  the  contrast  between  the  two  views 
is  found  in  the  changed  estimate  of  suffering.  To 
most  of  the  OT,  sull'ering  is  purely  evil.  It  is  a 
mark  of  that  destnietion  and  decay  from  which 
man  needs  to  be  delivered.  To  the  NT,  it  has 
become  a  means  through  whicli  man  may  enter 
into  a  more  abundant  life.  The  Christian  glories 
in  his  weakness.  He  '  takes  pleasure  ...  in  in- 
juries ...  in  persecutions,  in  distresses,  for 
Christ's  sake,'  knowing  that  when  he  is  weak, 
then  is  he  strong  (2  Co  12»- '»). 


370 


SALVATION,  SAVIOUR 


SALVATION,  SAVIOUE 


And  yet  we  must  not  exaggerate  the  contrast. 
We  misrei)rcsent  the  NT  teaching  if  we  limit  the 
blessings  of  the  Gospel  to  the  spiritual  realm.  The 
outer  world  as  well  as  the  inner  is  the  scene  of 
God's  rule.  The  common  physical  blessings  are 
not  to  be  despised.  Christ  healed  the  sick  as  well 
as  preached  to  the  poor.  The  Father  whom  He 
proclaimed  knows  that  His  children  need  earthly 
bread  as  well  as  the  bread  from  heaven.  St.  Paul, 
fur  all  his  contrast  between  flesh  and  sjjirit,  recog- 
nizes the  lawfulness  of  the  p'nj-sical  appetites.  The 
abstinence  which  he  practises  and  recommends  is 
out  of  regard  for  others'  consciences,  not  because 
of  any  inherent  evil  in  flesh  and  wine  (Ro  14,  cf. 
1  Ti  4'').  The  physical  universe  is  the  scene  and 
instrument  of  spiritual  training.  The  body  is  a 
temple  of  the  Holy  Ghost  ( 1  Co  6").  And,  however 
great  the  change  in  the  future,  it  is  to  no  disem- 
bodied existence  that  he  looks  forward,  but  to  a 
life  in  which  the  phj'sical  organism,  now  tainted 
by  sin,  shall  be  exchanged  for  a  new  body  better 
adapted  for  the  spiritual  life  (1  Co  15^"-).  Nothing 
is  more  characteristic  of  the  Biblical  view  of  the 
future,  NT  as  well  as  OT,  than  the  extent  to 
which  it  pictures  the  heavenly  life  in  imagery 
suggested  by  the  earthly.  The  heavenly  city,  the 
marriage  feast,  the  many  mansions,  the  tree  of 
life,  the  crystal  river, — these  form  the  setting  for 
spiritual  joys.  The  last  scene  is  not  the  destruc- 
tion of  the  universe,  but  its  transformation  and 
redemption  (Ro  8-'). 

(6)  Salvation  as  individual  and  social. — In  the 
earlier  portions  of  the  OT,  the  subject  of  the 
Divine  salvation  is  Israel  the  nation.  It  is  charac- 
teristic of  primitive  society  that  it  has  small  regard 
for  the  individual  as  sucli.  It  is  the  tribe,  tlie 
clan,  the  nation  which  is  the  centre  of  the  religious 
as  of  the  social  life.  So  markedly  is  tliis  the  case 
that  the  action  of  Ruth  in  leaving  her  own  people 
to  follow  he'  iUother-in-law  Naomi  to  Canaan  is 
the  cause  of  wonder,  and  is  made  the  theme  of  an 
entire  book.  It  is  only  natural,  tlierefore,  that 
we  should  find  the  interest  of  the  Biblical  writers 
centring  in  the  fortunes  of  the  people  as  a  whole 
rather  than  in  the  units  which  compose  it.  Even 
where  the  outlook  broadens,  and  the  prophetic 
vision  takes  in  other  peoples,  the  point  of  view 
is  still  national.  It  is  Egypt  and  Assyria  whom 
the  prophet  sees  standing  with  Israel  as  recipients 
of  the  Divine  salvation,  to  wliom,  as  to  Israel,  J" 
applies  the  endearing  title,  'my  people'  (Is  1&"-^). 
Where  this  point  of  view  obtains,  it  is  impossible 
to  rise  to  any  true  universalism.  For  a  universal 
religion  must  be  founded  in  the  nature  of  man  as 
such,  and  for  this  tliere  is  needed  a  profound  sense 
of  the  worth  of  the  individual. 

We  have  seen  how  this  sen.se  awakens  in  Jere- 
miali  and  Ezekiel  ;  how  it  is  deepened  by  the 
experiences  of  the  Exile  and  the  Restoration.  We 
have  noted  the  tender  and  beautiful  utterances  in 
which  it  finds  expression  in  the  I'salms,  and  seen 
how  its  later  development  tended  to  follow  the 
lines  of  legal  conformity  rather  than  of  the  fdial 
spirit.  The  individualism  of  the  Apocalyptic 
books  is  the  individualism  of  the  law-court  or  the 
market  -  place  rather  than  of  the  family.  Its 
language  is  that  of  bargain  and  sale,  of  reward 
and  punishment.  There  is  indeed  no  theoretical 
objection  to  the  reception  of  the  Gentiles,  if  they 
will  adopt  the  ceremonial  law  and  become  Jews. 
But  there  is  the  immense  practical  ditliculty  of  a 
condition  laid  upon  strangers  which  even  the 
children  have  not  been  able  to  bear.  If  the  sal- 
vation of  God  is  really  to  become  a  universal  good, 
some  deeper  foundation  must  be  found  than  that 
of  ceremonial  law.  It  must  be  grounded  in  con- 
ditions that  are  vital,  not  legal. 

Such  a  foundation  Jesns  laid  in  His  teaching 


concerning  the  childlike  spirit.  Reviving  the  old 
prophetic  teaching  concerning  the  forgiveness  of 
sins  through  the  mercy  and  love  of  God,  He  laid 
a  basis  for  His  Gospel  as  broad  as  humanity.  Men 
are  not  servants,  with  wliom  God  deals  on  terms 
of  law,  but  sons,  whom  He  is  willing  to  receive, 
whenever  they  turn  to  Him  in  penitence  and  faith. 
Thus  the  Gospel  of  Jesus  is  founded  in  an  intense 
sense  of  the  worth  of  the  individual.  In  the 
family  each  child  has  his  peculiar  place.  To  Jesus, 
salvation  means  the  bringing  back  of  the  child 
who  has  been  wandering  in  the  far  country  into 
the  plenty  and  peace  of  the  Father's  home. 

And  yet  the  Gospel  of  Jesns  is  a  social  Gospel. 
It  is  a  Kingdom  which  He  preaches,  not  a  collection 
of  individuals.  His  teaching  difi'ers  from  that  of 
His  predecessors  only  in  that  He  makes  the  con- 
ditions of  entrance  broader,  simpler,  more  catholic 
— in  a  word,  more  human.  Whether  or  not  He  used 
the  word  Church  in  Mt  16'*,  there  can  be  no  doubt 
that  He  intended  to  found  a  society  which  should 
body  forth  to  the  world  the  principles  for  which 
He  stood.  In  this  respect  the  Pauline  doctrine  of 
the  Church  is  the  legitimate  outgrowth  of  the 
teaching  of  Jesus  concerning  the  Kingdom.  In 
the  Christian  life  none  liveth  to  himself  and  no  one 
dieth  to  himself  (Ro  14').  The  sacramental  sign 
which  marks  the  separation  of  the  believer  from 
the  world  marks  also  his  entrance  into  the  Christian 
brotherhood,  and  the  feast  by  which  he  shows 
forth  the  death  of  Christ  until  He  come  is  eaten 
with  his  fellow-disciples  as  a  communion  meal. 
The  social  character  of  the  Christian  life  is  indi- 
cated in  a  thousand  unexpected  ways,  but  perhaps 
nowhere  more  beautifully  than  in  the  Pauline 
word  about  the  Parousia  in  1  Th  4"-  '*  '  We  that 
are  alive,  that  are  left  unto  the  coming  of  the  Lord, 
shall  in  no  wise  precede  them  that  are  fallen 
asleep  .  .  .  wherefore  comfort  one  another  with 
these  words.' 

(c)  Salvation  as  present  and  future. — We  have 
seen  that  the  earliest  conception  of  salvation  is 
present  deliverance.  This  must  be  the  case  if 
death  ends  all.  If  God  do  not  save  while  life 
lasts.  He  cannot  save  at  all.  The  conception  of 
national  salvation  does  indeed  open  the  way  for 
a  wider  perspective.  The  life  of  the  nation  is 
longer  than  that  of  the  individual,  and  God  may 
delay  His  deliverance  more  than  a  single  genera- 
tion and  still  be  in  time.  Yet  the  point  of  riew  is 
fundamentally  the  same.  If  God's  succour  is  not 
to  be  in  vain,  it  must  come  before  the  nation 
utterly  perishes.  There  must  be  at  least  a  remnant 
to  carry  on  the  national  life,  a  shoot  left  in  the  old 
stock,  which  may  spring  up  to  newness  of  life  (cf. 
Is  6'"). 

Yet  the  experiences  of  later  Jewish  history  made 
this  contact  between  present  and  future  increas- 
ingly dilficult  to  maintain.  The  old  national 
prestige  seemed  gone,  never  to  return.  More  and 
more,  men  despaired  of  present  deliverance  and 
concentrated  their  thoughts  upon  the  future.  The 
very  barrenness  of  their  present  experience,  tlie 
very  absence  of  all  evidence  of  God  s  present  in- 
terest and  help,  served  but  to  enlarge  their  ex- 
pectations for  the  distant  day  when  J"  should  at 
last  make  bare  His  arm  to  help.  What  if  indi 
viduals  died  ?  what  if  Israel  as  a  nation  should 
perish  ?  God  was  able  even  to  raise  the  dead. 
Some  day  He  would  stir  the  dry  bones,  and  tlie 
nation  would  rise  to  newness  of  life  (Ezk  37).  Nay, 
He  would  call  back  from  their  graves  the  very 
individuals  who  had  passed  away,  that  they  mi^ht 
share  the  joys  of  the  final  triumph  (Is  26'",  Dn 
12').  Thus  more  and  more  the  conception  of  sal 
vation  becomes  eschatological  and  transcendent. 
The  gap  between  present  and  future  widens.  Be 
tween  the  present  time  of  distress,  without  expert 


SALVATIONS  SAVIOUR 


SALVATION,  SAVIOUR 


371 


erne  of  God's  redeemine  grace,  and  the  future  age 
which  brings  His  great  aeliverance,  there  is  a  great 
gulf  fixed. 

This  gulf  Jesus  bridged  with  His  Gospel  of  a 
present  Kingdom.  He  restored  the  older  concep- 
tion of  a  living  God,  able  and  willing  to  help  His 
children  in  their  daily  need.  I5ut  He  saw  that  the 
great  need  was  spiritual,  not  temporal.  Conceiving 
of  salvation  as  deliverance  from  sin.  He  taught 
that  6u<^h  deliverance  was  possible  here  and  now. 
Prophet  and  psalmist  before  Him  had  had  their 
intimations  of  a  coniiii'.inion  with  God  possible 
e\en  in  the  midst  of  present  trouble  and  distress. 
He  made  tliis  communion  a  familiar  experience. 
Devout  spirits  even  within  the  OT,  finding  out- 
ward i)rosperity  too  little,  had  prayed  for  a  clean 
heart  and  a  contrite  spirit;  He  showed  how  this 
prayer  could  be  answered.  The  influence  of  the 
\laster  is  apparent  in  the  new  view-point  of  the 
disciples.  To  the  Christian  believer,  whatever  his 
thought  of  the  future,  salvation  is  a  present  ex- 
perience, introducing  a  man  into  a  fellowship  with 
God  which  no  earthlj'  sorrow  or  misfortune — not 
even  death  itself — can  interrupt. 

And  yet  here,  again,  we  must  beware  of  exag- 
geration. However  great  the  empliasis  on  present 
deliverance,  to  Christianity,  as  t«  Judaism  before 
it,  salvation  has  its  future  meaning.  We  have 
noted  the  eschatological  element  in  Jesus'  own 
teaching.  We  have  seen  it  repeated  in  that  of 
His  disciples.  It  is  present  in  St.  Paul  ;  it  is  not 
absent  even  from  St.  John.  He,  too,  rejoicing  in 
communion  witli  a  present  Christ,  looks  forward 
to  a  day  when  He  shall  be  yet  more  fully  mani- 
fested, and  believers,  seeing  Him  as  He  is,  shall  be 
transformed  into  His  image  (1  Jn  3-').  The  very 
,t)reciousnes8  of  the  present  experience,  the  very 
exaltation  of  the  spiritual  standard,  serve  but  to 
deepen  the  longing  for  the  day  wlien  all  that  now 
impedes  the  progress  of  Christ's  Kingdom  shall  be 
done  away,  and  God  be  all  in  all. 

2.  Conditions  of  .salvation. — These  may  be  con- 
Bidered  on  the  Divine  side  and  on  the  human. 

(n)  On  the  Divine  side. — The  ultimate  cause  of 
salvation  is  the  Divine  mercy.  This  is  the  uniform 
teaching  of  OT  and  NT.  Whether  in  the  simpler 
meaning  of  victory  in  battle  or  the  more  profound 
conception  of  spiritual  regeneration,  salvation  is 
undesen-ed.  (iod  does  not  treat  the  Israelites 
according  to  their  merits,  but  according  to  the 
riches  of  His  grace.  They  were  not  more  in  num- 
bi'r  than  other  peoples  when  He  chose  them  for 
His  own,  and  delivered  them  from  their  captivity 
in  Egypt  (Dt  7').  Kor  His  name's  sake  He  saved 
them,  that  He  might  make  His  mighty  power 
known  (Ps  10(i',  cf.  Jer  14').  When  they  forsook 
Him  and  wandered  from  Him,  Ho  did  not  give 
them  up.  His  lovo  endured  in  spite  of  their  un- 
faithfulness (Hosea).  He  was  inquired  of  by  tliem 
that  asked  not  for  Him,  found  of  them  that  sought 
Him  not.  He  spread  out  His  hands  all  the  day 
unto  a  rebellious  peojile  (Is  65'- '').  Even  His  judg- 
ments are  a  marlv  of  His  love  (Am  ;!-').  Not  only 
the  deliverance  from  enemies,  but  the  repentance 
which  makes  it  [lossible  is  His  gift  (Ps  51'"). 
*  The  same  conception  reappears  in  the  NT.  God 
U  not  the  stern  creditor  exacting  the  uttermost 
farthing,  but  the  loving  Father,  forgiving  His 
erring  children  ;  more  reiuly  to  give  good  gifts  than 
earthly  jiarcnts  to  their  cliildren.  The  disciples 
did  not  choose  Christ,  but  Ho  chose  them  and 
appointed  them  that  they  should  go  and  bear  fruit, 
and  that  their  fruit  should  abide  (Jn  15'").  The 
more  profound  and  spiritual  the  conception  of  sal- 
vation, the  deeper  the  conviction  that  it  is  unde- 
served. '  By  grace  have  ye  been  saved  through 
faith  ;  and  that  not  of  yourselves :  it  is  the  gift  of 
God'  (Eph  2»). 


In  many  passages  indeed,  esp.  in  OT,  the  Divine 
mercy  is  represented  as  an  arbitrary  thing.  Not 
only  IS  the  deliverance  of  God  contrasted  as  purely 
miraculous  with  all  human  instrumentalities  (cl. 
1  S  14"  '  no  restraint  to  J "  to  save  by  nianj'  or  by 
few';  Is  59'  '  J  "s  hand  is  not  shortened  that  it 
cannot  save';  1  S  XT'"  'J"saveth  not  with  sword 
and  spear '  ;  Hos  1'  salvation  by  J"  contrasted 
with  salvation  by  bow  or  by  sword,  or  by  battle, 
etc.  ;  cf.  Ex  14"  the  deliverance  from  Egypit  ; 
Jg  7^  the  defeat  of  the  Midianites  by  Gideon  ;  Ps 
33"  44'  57'),  but  it  often  seems  dependent  upon 
moods  of  the  Divine  feeling  which  man  cannot 
fathom.  There  are  times  when  J"  may  be  ap- 
proached ;  there  are  others  when  no  man  may  draw 
nigh  to  Him  (I's  32",  cf.  Is  55'').  When  the  great 
waters  overflow,  prayer  cannot  reach  Him  (Ps  32^?). 
At  such  a  time  the  part  of  wisdom  is  to  wait 
patiently  until  His  anger  be  past.  But  on  tlie 
whole  we  find  an   increasing  emphasis  upon  the 

Eermanent  character  of  God's  savmg  purpose.  It 
eloiigs  to  God's  nature  to  show  mercy.  However 
Israel  may  change.  His  purpose  towards  Israel 
changes  not.  So  we  find  increasing  recognition  of 
God's  use  of  means.  When  He  would  deliver  His 
people  from  the  Philistines  or  the  Midianites,  He 
raises  up  some  man  to  be  their  saviour.  Even  the 
experiences  which  seem  outside  of  His  control  are 
not  really  so.  The  Assyrian  boasts  of  his  defeat 
of  Syria  and  Samaria,  saying,  'By  the  strength  of 
my  hand  I  have  done  it,  and  by  my  wisdom '  (Is 
10"),  and  knows  not  that  he  is  but  the  rod  of  J"'s 
anger,  in  whose  hand  as  a  staff  is  His  indignation 
( lU'^).  This  broadeniu"  view  of  the  Divine  Provi- 
dence becomes  strictly  universal  in  the  NT. 
Nothing  can  separate  from  the  love  of  Christ 
(Ko  8*).  All  things  without  exception  work 
together  for  good  to  them  who  are  called  accord- 
ing to  God's  purpose  (Ro  8-").  History  is  a  mighty 
drama,  in  whicli  each  event  fills  its  appointed 
place,  preparing  the  way  for  that  dispens.-itiou  of 
the  fulness  of  the  times  in  which  it  is  God's  pur- 
pose to  sura  up  all  things  in  Christ  (Eph  1'°). 
Even  the  groanings  of  the  creation  in  its  present 
distress  are  but  the  travail  throes  of  the  new 
universe,  that  shall  be,  when  the  sons  of  God  shall 
be  revealed  (Ro  S^). 

Among  the  instruments  appointed  by  God  to 
mediate  His  salvation,  the  Jewisli  law,  with  its 
sacrificial  system,  holds  an  important  place. 
Through  its  precepts  men  were  trained  in  purity 
and  holiness,  and  in  its  sacrifices  they  saw  a 
pledge  of  God's  forgiveness  and  mercy.  To  the 
contemporaries  of  our  Lord  it  seemed  a  finality, 
and  the  salvation  of  the  Messianic  age  would 
but  serve  to  introduce  on  a  larger  scale  the 
worship  and  sacrifices  of  the  heavenly  Jerusalem. 
Christians,  following  their  Master,  recognized  the 
law  as  a  Divine  institution,  but  to  them  its 
authority  was  temporary.  It  was  a  tutor  to  bring 
men  to  Christ ;  but  after  Clirist  was  come  it  was 
no  longer  needed.  Its  significance  might  be  vari- 
ously conceived.  To  the  writer  to  the  Hebrews, 
it  had  a  positive  value,  as  typifying  the  higher 
righteousness  and  the  more  perfect  Atonement  of 
the  Gospel.  To  St.  Paul,  its  significance  is  chiefly 
negative.  It  reveals  the  futility  of  any  merely 
legal  righteousness,  and  points  men  to  the  better 
salvation  revealed  by  Christ. 

With  Clirist  we  reach  the  centre  of  the  Biblical 
doctrine  of  salvation.  He  is  the  Saviour  jmr  excel- 
lence, the  true  Mediator  between  God  and  man, 
the  fulfilment  of  all  the  promises,  the  realization 
of  all  the  hopes  of  the  earlier  dispensation.  Two 
distinct  lines  of  preparation  meet  in  Him.  There 
is  the  hope  of  the  Messiah,  a  human  deliverer 
through  whom  God  has  promised  to  deliver  His 
people,  and  to  set  up  on  earth  His  long  deferred 


SALVATION,  SAVIOUE 


SALVATION,  SAVIOUR 


kingdom.  There  is  also  tlie  expectation  of  a  special 
intervention  of  J"  Himself ;  tlie  coming  of  a  day 
when  He  shall  leave  His  heavenly  dwelling-place 
and  take  up  His  abode  in  the  midst  of  His  people, 
superseding  tlie  lesser  radiance  of  sun  and  moon 
and  stars  by  the  light  and  glory  of  His  presence. 
Jesus  is  at  once  Jewish  Messiah  and  God  in- 
carnate ;  S-^TJ  of  Mary,  and  the  Word  made  flesh. 

This  is  not  the  place  to  trace  the  development  of  the  NT 
doctrine  of  Christ  (see  art.  jEiii's  Curist).  It  is  sutlicient  to 
bay  that  it  runs  parallel  with  the  deepening  conception  of 
salvation.  In  Jewish-Christian  circles,  where  the  thought  of 
salvation  is  still  framed  on  the  older  lines  of  an  external 
deliverance,  it  is  the  Messianic  thought  which  is  most  promi- 
nent. Jesus  is  a  man,  approved  of  God  unto  men,  by  mighty 
works  and  wonders  and  signs  which  God  did  b}'  Him  (-\c 
222),  cnicifled  according  to  the  Scriptures  (Ac  .Si**),  raised 
from  the  dead  (Ac  2'^),  and  now  waitiui^  in  heaven  till  the  time 
of  the  restoration  of  all  things  (Ac  ;i'-l)  To  St.  Paul  and  St. 
John,  with  their  deeper  conception  of  salvation  as  a  new 
spiritual  life  of  righteousness  and  love,  Jesus  is  a  pre-existent 
Divine  being,  coining  into  the  world  from  a  higher  realm  as  a 
quickenirig  and  life-giving  principle  to  all  who  have  been  made 
one  with  Hiin  by  faith. 

The  contrast  ijetween  these  two  views  may  be  ilhistrated  in 
connexion  with  the  view  of  Christ's  death.  To  the  Jewish- 
Christians,  with  their  more  external  conception  of  salvation,  it 
is  an  arbitrary  appointment  of  God,  the  necessity  of  which 
they  recognize,  but  which  they  cannot  understand.  Christ 
died  that  the  Scripture  might  be  fulfilled.  To  St.  Paul  and  St. 
John,  the  death  is  a  necessary  step  in  that  great  proce.ss 
through  which  e\il  is  overcome  and  the  Christian  believer 
made  p.artiiker  of  Christ's  risen  and  glorified  life.  That  we 
ni.\v  become  like  Him  and  share  His  nature,  it  waa  necessary 
that  Hp  should  become  like  us  and  share  our  nature.  He  must 
sutler  death  uitb  us,  that  we  may  be  raised  to  Ufe  with  Him. 

The  conception  of  salvation  as  a  new  Divine  life 
finds  clearest  e.vnression  in  the  doctrine  of  the 
HoLV  Spirit  (which  see).  Here,  too,  we  trace  a 
development  from  the  conception  of  the  Spirit  as 
the  energy  of  God  coming  upon  men  to  fit  tlieiu 
for  special  work  in  connexion  with  the  Divine 
kingdom  (e.g.  Jg  11^  13'-^  14"),  to  that  which  sees 
in  Him  the  immanent  God,  entering  into  the  life 
of  men  tlirough  regeneration  (Jn  3"),  creating  in 
them  a  higher  life  of  holiness  and  love  (Gal  5'^), 
dwelling  witliin  them  as  an  inner  spiritual  prin- 
ciple (Ro  8"),  uniting  them  with  God  and  with 
Christ  (Ro  8"-  >»),  leading  tliem  into  truth  (Jn  16"), 
sanctifying  them  (Ro  15'"),  making  intercession 
for  them  (Ro  8-"),  more  and  nu)re  transforming 
them  into  the  image  of  their  Master  (Ro  8^),  and 
at  last  raising  them  from  the  grave  through  the 
transformation  of  their  mortal  bodies  into  tlie  new- 
glory  of  the  resurrection  life  (Ro  8").  Where 
such  a  view  is  held,  it  is  easy  to  see  how  futile 
is  any  thought  of  human  merit.  The  aspira- 
tions which  rise  toward  God,  the  graces  which 
fit  us  for  His  fellowship,  are  tlie  work  of  the 
Spirit.  The  very  life  which  we  live  is  not  onr 
own.  It  is  the  gift  of  God,  who  worketh  within 
tis  both  to  will  and  to  do  of  His  good  pleasure 
(Eph  2«-»,  Ph2'»). 

(b)  On  tlie  human  side.  —  Yet  it  would  be  a 
mistake  to  conclude  that  the  Bible  knows  no 
human  conditions  of  salvation.  The  same  St. 
J'aul  who  lays  such  stress  on  the  Divine  activity 
in  salvation  urges  his  readers  to  work  out  their 
own  salvation  with  fear  and  trembling  (I'h  2'=). 
As  on  the  Divine  side  salvation  is  a  new  life 
createii  in  man,  so  on  the  human  side  it  is  a  life 
which  manifests  itself  in  certain  distinctive  acti- 
vitiiv  These  may  be  summed  up  under  the 
three  beads  of — (a)  repentance,  (/3)  faith,  (7)  obedi- 
ence. 

(a)  The  first  and  indispensable  condition  of  sal- 
vation is  repentance  (which  see),  by  which  is 
meant  not  merely  sorrow  for  sin,  but  actual  for- 
saking of  sin  and  tumin';  to  righteousness.  This 
is  as  necessaiy  for  deliverance  from  Assyrian 
oppression  as  for  entrance  upon  the  new  life  of 
(jlirist's  Kingdom.  God  may  indeed  save  men  from 
their  sins,  but  He  cannot  save  them  in  their  sins. 


We  have  already  noted  the  deepening  estimate  o\ 
tliis  grace,  and  seen  how  from  a  mere  condition  of 
salvation,  which  a  man  can  achieve  for  himself 
without  God's  help,  it  conies  to  be  an  element  in 
salvation  itself — the  first  step  in  the  jirocess  whose 
end  is  perfect  holiness. 

(/3)  Faith. — The  obverse  of  repentance  is  faith 
(which  sec).  Man  turns  from  sin  to  God,  and  the 
means  by  which  he  lays  hold  of  the  Divine  deliver- 
ance is  faith.  Saving  faith  in  the  Biblical  sense 
is  always  more  than  belief  (Ja  2'").  It  involves  an 
act  of  tlie  will,  and  issues  in  obedience.  Yet  on 
this  common  ground  we  note  a  ditlerence  of  con- 
ception. In  much  of  the  Bible  faith  means  trust 
in  God's  word,  together  with  the  activities  which 
follow  it.  Its  object  is  God's  promise  rather  than 
His  person.  Abraham  had  faith  in  God — that  is, 
he  trusted  His  promise — and  'he  went  out,  not 
knowing  whither  he  went'  (He  11*).  Because  of 
this  trust,  he  shall  one  day  receive  his  reward ; 
but  this  reward  lies  still  in  the  future  (He  11"-  "). 
This  is  the  sense  in  which  faith  is  used  in  Hebrews. 
To  St.  Paul,  on  the  other  hand,  faith  has  a  deeper 
meaning.  It  is  the  means  of  obtaining  a  present 
blessing,  not  a  future  one.  Its  object  is  a  person, 
not  a  promise.  By  faith  a  man  lays  hold  ui>on 
Christ  as  his  Sa\'iour,  becomes  one  with  Him, 
liartakes  of  His  lieavenly  life,  shares  His  right- 
eousness, and  rises  witli  Him  into  His  eternal 
Kingdom.  It  is  thus  a  connirehensive  term,  which 
covers  the  entire  human  side  of  that  experience 
whose  Divine  side  is  the  working  of  the  Holy 
Spirit. 

(7)  But  repentance  and  faith  are  alike  vain,  save 
as  tliey  issue  in  oherhenre  (which  see).  This  is  the 
all-embracing  Biblical  virtue.  Man's  relation  tc 
God  is  sucli  that  his  righteousness  must  take  this 
form.  The  particular  content  may  vary  with  the 
growth  of  tlie  Divine  revelation.  In  OT,  for 
instance,  it  includes  the  faithful  observance  ol 
the  ceremonial  law  with  its  prescriptions  of  ritual 
and  sacrifice.  Yet  even  in  OT  these  are  sub- 
ordinate to  the  eternal  principles  of  justice  and 
mercy  (cf.  Mic  6*').  In  tlie  NT  the  law  has  been 
done  away.  The  only  sacrifice  required  is  the 
spiritual  sacrifice  of  prayer  and  praise  (He  13"), 
the  offering  up  of  the  person  in  life-service  to  God 
(Ro  12').  Tlie  burdensome  prescriptions  of  the 
Levitical  ritual  have  given  place  to  Christ's  new 
commandment  of  love.  Yet  this  love  is  no  vague 
or  indefinite  virtue.  It  shows  itself  in  the  willing 
acceptance  of  God's  fullest  revelation  ;  in  disciple- 
ship  of  Christ  and  membership  in  His  Kingdom. 
Beginning  with  faith,  it  manifests  itself  in  all  the 
social  virtues.  It  rejoices  to  minister  to  the  needy 
and  oppressed.  It  does  not  disdain  the  gatherings 
of  the  saints  for  prayer  and  praise,  and  it  finds  its 
public  marks  in  the  sacramental  signs  of  baptism 
and  tlie  Eucharist,  by  wliitn  the  believer's  mem- 
bership in  the  body  of  Christ  is  openly  showed 
forth. 

3.  Extent  of  salvation. — It  remains  to  consider 
the  extent  of  salvation.  Here  our  study  has  sliown 
a  constant  enlargement  in  man's  conception  of  the 
sweep  of  God's  purpose.  We  may  illustrate  this  , 
in  connexion  («)  with  the  present  life  ;  (i)  with  the 
life  after  death  ;  (c)  with  the  universe  as  a  whole. 

(a)  Salvation  in  this  life. — We  have  already 
noted  the  growing  universalism  of  the  Biblical 
teaching.  At  first  it  is  Israel  alone  for  whom 
God  cares.  He  is  J"'s  dearly  beloved  son.  Other 
nations  are  but  God's  servants,  instruments  in  His 
hand  through  which  He  accomplislies  His  sai  iug 
purpose  for  Israel.  Then  the  Gentiles  al.so  share 
the  blessings  of  the  Messianic  deliverance,  but  it 
is  only  by  becoming  subject  to  Israel,  and  adopt- 
ing the  Je-iN-ish  law  and  worship.  Yet  even  in 
OT  there  are  gleams  of  a  conception  more  truly 


SALVATION,  SAVIOUR 


SALVATION,  SAVIOUR 


373 


catholic.  To  Isaiah,  Egypt  and  Assj-ria  as  well 
as  Israel  are  chosen  of  God.  The  foundation  for  a 
true  universalisni  is  laid  in  the  prophetic  doctrine 
of  the  worth  of  the  individual.  Jesus  makes  tlie 
conditions  of  entrance  to  His  Kingdom  purely 
moral  and  spiritual— repentance,  trust,  humility, 
obedience,  the  childlike  spirit.  Where  these  are 
present,  tliere  is  a  son  of  God,  whether  he  observe 
the  ceremonial  law  or  not.  The  practical  univer- 
salism  of  Jesus  is  theoretically  completed  in  the 
Pauline  doctrine  of  the  abrog:ition  of  the  Jewish 
law.  This  wa-s  the  natural  consequence  of  the 
new  view  of  redemption.  When  salvation  is  re- 
garded as  a  new  Divine  life,  it  is  impossible  not 
to  recoOTize  the  Christianity  of  those  who  have 
received  the  Holy  Spirit,  even  if  they  have  not 
been  circumcised  (Ac  lO""^).  To  the  freedom  of 
the  Divine  Spirit,  like  that  of  the  wind,  blowing 
where  it  listeth,  no  man  may  venture  to  set 
bounds.  The  salvation  of  Israel  is  still  the  centre 
of  hope  and  prayer  (Ro  9'),  but  it  is  only  as  part 
of  a  process  wliieh  is  as  wide  as  humanity. 

With  the  widening  horizon,  we  note  a  correspond- 
ing change  in  the  depth  of  the  conception.  Salvation 
becomes  not  only  a  broader,  but  a  more  intensive 
term  ;  less  e.\tornaI,  more  spiritual;  less  local,  more 
permanent.  It  not  only  ali'ects  more  men,  but  it 
aflects  them  more  profoundly.  Its  subject  is  the 
whole  man.  It  reaches  soul  as  well  as  body.  It 
delivers  from  sin  as  well  as  from  suflering.  It 
3ot  only  removes  causes  of  evil ;  it  creates  forces 
ul  2ood.  As  nothing  is  too  large,  so  nothing  is 
too  small  to  fall  within  the  range  of  its  activity. 
Life  and  death,  things  present  and  things  to  come, 
are  alike  subject  to  the  control  of  that  Christ  who 
is  able  to  save  to  the  uttermost. 

This  double  prowth  may  be  well  illustrated  in  connexion  with 
the  doctrine  ot  election.  At  first  the  Divine  choice  centres  in 
Israel  the  nation,  or  in  those  heroes  or  prophets  whom  (Jud  has 
set  apart  for  special  service  in  connexion  with  the  national 
deliverance.  Tlien  other  nations  are  included  in  the  Divine 
plan.  God  chooses  E^^'pt  as  \vell  as  Israel.  Cyrus  the  Persian 
10  tits  servant,  set  apart  to  do  a  special  work  in  the  execution 
of  His  redemptive  purpose.  To  the  broa<ler  view-point  of  the 
NT,  \^■ith  its  juster  estimate  of  the  worth  of  the  individual, 
election  is  no  lonf^er  confined  to  a  few,  Alt  Christians  are 
elect,  called  to  be  saints(Ko  16)according  to  the  Divine  purpose. 
And  as  the  range  of  the  Divine  choice  widens,  so  its  content 
deepens.  Christians  are  elect  unto  salvation  (2  Th  213),  with 
all  the  richness  of  meaning  which  the  Christian  revelation  has 
put  into  the  word.  The  object  of  the  Divine  choice  is  not 
merely  deliverance  from  future  punishment.  Men  are  called  to 
the  Ciiristian  life  as  a  whole,  with  its  good  works  (Eph  21''),  its 
Joys  and  graces,  its  brotherly  service,  ita  missionary  zeal,  its 
willintrness  to  spend  and  be  spent,  yes,  if  need  be,  even  to  be 
cast  away  (Ro  9^),  if  thereby  others  may  be  saved.  Thus  the 
Individualism  of  the  NT  doctrine  of  election,  so  far  from  being 
ft  narrowing  of  the  conceptioo,  U  rather  a  mark  of  its  true 
anivervalism. 

(6)  In  the  life  after  death. — With  the  expansion 
of  the  conception  of  salvation  in  this  life,  we  find 
the  Biblical  outlook  reaching  across  the  grave,  and 
taking  in  the  life  after  death.  Nothing  is  a  more 
striking  witness  to  the  strength  and  richness  of 
the  Hebrew  conception  of  God  than  the  way  in 
which  it  succeeded  in  transforming  the  pagan 
conception  of  Sheol  which  at  the  first  the  Israelites 
had  snared  with  their  contemporaries.  We  have 
alreatly  traced  the  steps  in  tiiis  moralization  of 
the  life  after  death,  and  need  not  repeat  them 
here.  From  a  gloomy,  passionless,  joyless  exist- 
ence, Sheol  liriomes  the  scene  of  God's  presence 
and  power.  It  has  its  garden  of  life,  where  the 
righteous  await  contentedly  the  greater  joys  of 
the  resurrection.  Christianity  furtlier  emphasizes 
and  enriches  this  conception.  Whatever  new 
elements  Christ  has  brought  into  the  thought  of 
God  and  His  salvation  are  carried  over  into  the 
life  immediately  after  death.  Christ's  activity  is 
not  merely  contined  to  the  living.  In  the  spirit 
He  preaches  even  in  the  realm  of  the  dead  (1  P 
8").    The  shifting  and  uncertain  imagery  through 


which  the  human  imagination  had  endeavoured  ta 
picture  the  nature  of  '  that  undiscovered  country  * 
13  now  reinforced  or  superseded  by  a  definite  con- 
ception. To  die  means  to  depart  and  to  be  with 
Christ  (Ph  1^) ;  to  enter  into  the  Father's  home, 
where  the  elder  brother  has  gone  before  to  prepare 
a  place  and  a  welcome  for  each  returning  traveller 
(Jn  14^).  Whatever  the  joys  still  remaining  at 
the  Parousia,  they  are  not  diU'erent  in  kind  from 
those  upon  the  experience  of  which  one  enters 
immediately  after  death.  The  highest  blessedness 
of  heaven  will  consist  in  communion  with  Christ. 
'  It  is  not  yet  made  manifest  what  we  shall  be. 
We  know  that  if  he  shall  be  manifested,  we  shall 
be  like  him,  for  we  shall  see  him  even  as  he  is' 
(1  Jn  3^). 

(c)  The  Biblical  doctrine  of  salvation  reaches  its 
climax  in  the  conception  of  a  redemption  of  the 
universe.  Foreshadowed  in  the  OT  doctrine  of 
new  heavens  and  a  new  earth,  developed  in  the 
period  between  the  Testaments  in  extravagant 
and  non-spiritual  forms,  it  remains  an  element  in 
the  Biblical  conception  to  the  last.  It  is  not  God's 
purpose  merely  to  save  men  out  of  the  world,  but 
to  save  the  world.  Whatever  is  hopelessly  evil — 
whether  in  nature,  man,  or  spirit — shall  at  last  be 
utterly  destroyed.  No  foe  wUI  longer  remain  to 
dispute  the  authority  of  Christ  or  mar  the  glories 
of  His  eternal  Kingdom.  The  last  enemy  to  be 
destroyed  is  death  (1  Co  15^).  Not  till  then 
will  Christ's  saving  work  be  finished,  and  He 
restore  to  the  Fatlier  the  power  given  to  Him, 
tliat  in  the  redeemed  universe  God  may  be  all  in 
all  (1  Co  15^).  This  doctrine  of  a  cosmic  salvation, 
wrought  out  most  fully  by  St.  Paul,  but  implied 
also  in  other  parts  of  the  NT,  has  three  main 
elements:  (1)  the  redemption  of  physical  nature 
with  its  destruction  of  suffering  and  death  ;  (2)  the 
redemption  of  mankind  with  its  destruction  of  sin  ; 
(3)  the  redemption  of  the  angelic  world  with  its 
destruction  of  tlie  spiritual  forces  which  now 
oppose  the  Kingdom  of  God.  Thus  in  terms 
naturally  suggested  by  the  tliought  of  his  day, 
but  witli  a  vigour  and  breadth  of  conception 
worthy  of  the  largest  generalizations  of  our 
modern  science,  the  apostle  presents  the  work  of 
Christ  in  its  unity  as  one  great  process,  running 
through  the  ages,  reaching  out  to  take  in  the 
uttermost  bounds  of  space,  penetrating  to  the  pro- 
foundest  depths  of  spiritual  experience  in  order  to 
bind  together  all  thinm  in  earth  and  heaven  in 
one  universal  purpose  of  salvation  (Eph  1,  Col  1). 

LiTBRATDRK. — The  Literature,  which  Is  voluminous,  Is  widely 
scattered,  all  the  more  important  Commentaries,  as  well  aa 
works  on  Biblical  Thcologj',  contributing  directly  or  indirectly 
to  the  subject.  For  monographs  on  special  phases  of  the 
doctrine  the  reader  is  referred  to  the  literature  given  in  the 
special  articles  on  Escuatology,  Faitu,  Ji^stipicatics,  Parousia, 
IlANSoM,  RnuiuiiTiaK,  etc  Here  only  a  general  survey  can  be 
given. 

On  Salvation  In  general,  of.  Cremer,  mb.-Theol.  hex,  ». 
ra^ft-,  ftirr.fi,  rttrxpia.;  M'Clintock-Strong,  artt.  'Saviour'  and 
'Salvation':  Ilerzog,  ilK'-^,  artt.  '  Heil '  and  'Erlosung'; 
Uitschl,  Jiecht/frtitiunfj  xind  Vfrgithming,  vol.  ii. ;  Kithler,  'Zur 
Ijehre  von  der  Versuhnung,'  in  Dogmatuche  Xeit/raiien,  ii.  1898  J 
Gesa,  Chrigti  Perunn  und  Wfrk  (1870);  Thoraasius,  Chritti 
Perton  und  Werk  (18S0);  Bri^rgs,  'The  Biblical  Doctrine  of 
Salvation,'  in  Church  Ununx.  N.Y.,  Jan.  1897. 

On  the  doctrine  of  Salvation  in  OT,  cf.  the  Biblical  Theologies, 
esp.  Schultz,  6th  ed.  (p.  .102 ft.),  Dillniann  (p.  411 H.),  Kiehm, 
Smend,  Kayser-Marti,  Fiepenbring  (Eng.  tr.  p.  207  ff.);  Briggs, 
Meisianic  f'rovhfci/ ;  Duhin,  ThfohgU  der  Propheten  (18«5) ; 
Adeney,  The  llehn-w  Utopia  (1879). 

On  the  period  between  the  Testamonts,  cf.  Ofrorer,  Jahrhun- 
dert  den  lit^ils,  ii.,  esp.  chs.  8-10;  Drummomi,  Jewish  MevMah 
(1877);  Stanton,  Jeu-uh  and  Christian  M'Hsiah;  Schiirer, 
IIJP;  Weber,  JUdinche  Theolajie',  1897.  Much  informfttlon 
may  also  be  obtained  from  the  notes  in  Charles*  editions  ot 
Enoch,  Secrets  of  Enoch,  Apocalypse  of  Baruch,  and  Assump- 
tion of  Moses,  as  well  a»  from  his  Escht  '  ' 
anti  Christian,  18!>ll. 


'schatuh'jy,  Hebrew,  Jnpith, 


On  the  NT  doctrine,  besides  the  Biblical  Theologies  of  Weiss, 
Beyschlag,  Reuss,  Bovon,  Stevens,  Could,  and  esp.  Holtzmann 
cf.  Klaiber,  Nnitegt.  Lebre  von  der  .Siinde  urwf  KrlogiLntj  (1836)  ' 
Weudt,  Lehrt  Jwu;   Uorton,    Teaching   o/  Jews;  QUbert, 


374 


SAMAIAS 


SAM.iEIA 


Eevelafrono/  Jesxtg(\SOQ);  Pfleiderer,  Paulinifrmvs^;  McGiffert, 
Apostolic  Afje  ;  Briggs,  Messiah  of  the  Gottpeh,  Me&siah  of  the 
AiJOSties  ;  Stevens,  J^auliiie  Theology,  Johannitu  Theolo<jy ; 
Everett,  Gospel  of  Paul  (1S93) ;  du  Rose,  Soterwhijy  of  the  NT 
(1392);  M^n^soz,  La  Thiolngie  de.  L'£jtUre  aux  II ilhreux  (ISdi), 
Le  Pt'chi  et  la  Redemption  d'apris  St.  Paul  (18S2);  Nosgen, 
Uc-ediichte  der  NT  Offenbarunfi  (ii.  p.  300  IT.);  Cone,  The 
Gospel  and  its  earliest  interpretations  (lb9:j) ;  Baldensperger, 
Selbstbewusstsein  Jesu^  (1S02)  ;  Titius,  Vie  Ncutest.  Lehre  von 
der  Seligkeit  (1895) ;  M6negoz, '  Le  Salut  d'apr68  renseigneraent 
de  J&us-C;hri8t,'  in  Re«.  Chrit.  1899,  i.\.  pp.  401-421 ;  W.  Bousset, 
JesuPredifjt  inihreTnGe(jensatzzumJudt;ntttm{lii92')',  Uornack, 
Das  Wesen  des  Christentums  (1900 ;  En;;,  tr.  1901). 

On  special  points  in  connexion  witli  the  doctrine,  cf.  the 
various  monographs  on  the  Kingdom  of  God  by  Schnedermann, 
Schuioller.  Issel,  J.  Weiss,  Bnice,  Boardnian,  Toy  {Judaism  and 
Christianity,  pp.  303-371);  Schmidt,  Die  pautin.  t'hristol.  in 
ihrem  /.  usainvienhani^  tnit  der  Ileilslehre  des  Apostels  dargcs- 
(#^^((1870);  Cremer,  Die paulin.  Rechtfertigungslrhreim  Zusanl- 
vtenhang  ihrer  gesch.  Voraussetzun{ten  (19110);  Werille,  Der 
Christ  und  die  Siinde  bei  Pauius  (^1897)  ;  Kabisch,  Eschatologie 
des  Paulits  (1893);  Teiclimann,  Die  pautin.  Vorstelluiujen  von 
Aufrrstehuwj  uiid  Gfri^ht,  und  iJtre  Beziehunq  zurjiid.  Apoca- 
lyptik  (1890);  Schlatter,  Der  Glaube  iin  t}Ti  (1895),  'Der 
biblische  BegrifE  der  Hn&de'  (Schrift  und  Geschichte,  pp.  177- 
217);  Riehm,  Der  Be g riff  der  Siihne  im  AT  (1877);  Kuhl,  Die 
Heilshedeutung  des  Todes  Christi  (1890);  Seeberg,  Der  Tod 
Christi  in  seiner  £ledeulun{jfilr  die  Lrlostin'j(l&9^)  •  E.  Cremer, 
Die  stellvertretende  Iledeutung  des  Todes  Christi  (1892) ;  Gave, 
Scriptural  Doctrine  of  Sacrijice^  (1890) ;  Gunkel,  Die  Wirkungen 
des  HcUigen  Geistes  (1888)  ;  Weinel,  Die  Wirkungen  des  Geistes 
und  der  Geister  (1899) ;  M'C.  Edgar,  The  Gospel  of  a  Risen 
6'a(^ioiir  (1892) ;  Milligan,  The  Resurrection  of  our  7-ord(lS81); 
Salmnnd,  The  Christian  Doctriiie  of  Immortality,  4th  ed.  1901  ; 
Sch\v:i\\y,  Das Leben  nach  dem  Tode {\&92)',  Chaxlea,Eschatologi/, 
Hebrew,  Jewish,  and  Christian  (1S99). 

W.  Adams  Bkown. 
SAMAIAS   (So/ialos). — 1.  Shemaiah,  one  of  the 
chiefs  of  the  Levites  in  Josiah's  reign,  1  Es  1"  (cf. 
2Ch  35").     2.  1  Es8»''= Shemaiah,  of   the  sons  of 
Adonikain,  Ezr  8'^ 

SAMARIA.— 1.  d'nct!',  that  is,  ShomMn,  '  watch- 
mountain  ' ;  ^afidpeia,  ^enepijjv,  ^o/xepuiv,  'Zop.tjpujv, 
'Zoip.oiplliv  ;  Jos.  (Ant.  VIII.  xii.  5),  liniiapelv  ;  Euseb. 
(Onom.),  ^e/iTipuv  ;  Samaria)  The  capital  of  tlie 
kingdom  of  Israel.  The  Assyrian,  Samirina  (Ins. 
of  Tiglatli  -  pileser  III.,  Sargon,  etc.),  and  the 
<ireek  and  Latin  forms  of  tlie  name,  come  from  the 
Aramaic  in^y.  A  characteristic  derivation  of  the 
name  is  given,  in  1  K  16^  (KV,  cf.  Jos.  Ant.  VIII. 
xii.  5),  where  we  are  told  that  Samaria  was  built 
by  Oinri  who  bought  the  '  hill  of  Samaria '  from 
Snemer,  and,  having  fortified  it,  called  the  name  of 
the  city  that  he  built  Shomer6n  (Samaria)  after 
Shemer.  (See  discussion  of  etymology  by  Stade  in 
ZATWv.  lG.51f.) 

Commanding  the  roads  from  Shechera  northwards 
to  Esdraelon,  and  westwards  to  the  coast,  and 
situated  within  easy  reach  of  the  Mediterranean, 
no  better  sile  could  have  been  selected  for  the 
fortified  cipital  of  the  Northern  kingdom.  Tlie 
hill  ('mountain  of  Samaria'  Am  4'  6',  Sir  50^) 
rises  from  300  to  400  feet  above  the  bed  of  a  broad 
fertile  valley  (perhaps  the  '  field  of  Samaria'  Ob  " 
KV),  and  is  isolated  on  all  sides  but  the  east,  where 
it  is  connected  with  the  hills  ('  mountains  of 
Samaria'  Am  3',  Jer  31°)  by  a  low  narrow  saddle. 
On  three  sides  it  is  surrounded  and  overlooked  by 
hills  clothed  with  olive  and  vine,  but  they  are 
beyond  the  range  of  catapult  and  bow,  and  so 
were  not  a  source  of  danger.  On  the  fourth  side 
the  hill.s  are  low,  and  the  view  over  them  to  tlie 
west,  with  the  blue  waters  of  the  Mediterranean 
in  the  distance,  is  one  of  exceptional  beauty. 
This  charm  of  position,  in  a  ricli  'fat'  vallej', 
bordered  by  vine-clad  hills,  formed  part  of  that 
'  glorious  beauty  '  which  made  Samaria  the  '  crown 
of  pride  of  the  drunkards  of  Ephraim'  (Is  28'"*). 

From  the  7th  year  of  Orari,  Samaria  was  the 
capital  ('the  head  of  Ephraim '  Is  7",  '  Samaria  and 
her  daughters 'Ezk  16°*),  and  residence  of  the  kings 
of  Israel  (1  K  IG-" 20^*211-18 22",  2 K  1"  3'-»  10»«  IS'-i" 
1414.13  i5».  13.14.17.23.  27  171^  jg  78  iQS,  H08  10');  and 

it  was  also  their  burial-place  (1  K  16="  22",  2  K  Iff" 
J3».  a  1418).     Samaria  is  on  this  account  mentioned 


with  or  compared  with  the  capital  of  the  Southern 
kingdom  (2  K  21",  Is  10'"-",  Kzk  16°'  2,3*,  Am  6', 
Mic  l''°),  which  was  to  sh.-ire  its  fate.  Ezekiel 
calls  it  'the  sister'  (16°°  23^),  and  the  '  eldei 
sister'  of  Jerus.  (16").  The  city  was  surrounded 
with  strong  walls  (Ant.  VIII.  xiv.  I),  and  beautified 
by  the  kings  of  Israel.  There  w.as  a  fortified 
palace,  '  the  castle  of  the  king's  house '  (2  K  15* 
IIV),  with  a  'roof -chamber'  (2  K  1'-).  Tliis  probably 
stood  on  the  top  of  the  hill,  and  near  or  connected 
with  it  may  have  been  the  ivory  palace  built  by 
Ahab  (1  K  22**).  There  was  a  Syrian  (juarter  in 
Samaria  (1  K  20«) ;  and  a  city  gate  (1  K  22'",  2  K 
71. 18. 2o_  2  Ch  18')  and  pool  (1  K  22^«)  are  mentioned. 
At  Samaria,  Ahab  received  a  visit  from  Jehosha- 
phat,  and,  at  the  entrance  of  the  gate,  the  two 
kings  sat  to  hear  the  propliecy  of  Micaiah  (1  K  22'", 
2  Ch  18^- »).  There  the  70  sons  of  Ahab  were  slam 
(2  K  10'-');  there  Jehu  destroyed  all  that  remained 
unto  Ahab  (2  K  10'^- ") ;  and  there,  according  to 
one  account  (2  Ch  22',  cf.  2  K  O-"),  Aliaziah  was 
killed.  It  was  to  Samaria  that  Joash,  after  the 
capture  of  Jems.,  brought  the  vessels  for  the 
service  of  the  temple,  and  the  treasures  of  the 
king's  house  (2  K  14'*,  2  Ch  25^) ;  and  that  Pekah, 
at  least  according  to  2  Ch  28*-  "• '°,  returned  at  the 
head  of  his  army,  laden  with  the  spoil  of  Judah, 
and  accompanied  by  a  long  train  of  captive  Jews, 
who  were  afterwards  released. 

Samaria  became  the  religious  as  well  as  the 
political  centre  of  the  Northern  kingdom.  The 
marriage  of  Ahab  with  Jezebel,  and  the  consequent 
close  alliance  between  the  usurping  dynasties  of 
Israel  and  Phoenicia,  led  to  the  establisliment  of 
the  Phcenician  worship  on  a  large  scale  in  the 
capital.  Aliab  caused  a  temple  and  altar  to  be 
erected  to  Baal  (1  K  16*-;  Ant.  IX.  vi.  6),  and 
made  the  Asherah  (1  K  16^,  2  K  13"  RV).  The 
temple,  which  was  probably  of  great  size,  contained 
'  pillars  of  Baal,'  apparently  of  wood,  which  were 
torn  down  and  burned,  and  a  '  pillar  of  Baal,'  pos- 
sibly a  stone  pillar  with  an  efhgy  of  the  god  on 
one  of  its  faces,  which  was  broken  down  when 
Jeliu  destroyed  the  tem])le  after  slaughtering  the 
prophets  of  Baal  (2  K  3=  10='-  ^-■•"  [in  v.'^  read  prob. 
with  Klost.  t;^  adytum  for  Ty  'city']).  Tlie  Phoe- 
nician rites  were  celebrated  with  great  splendour, 
and  Jezebel,  who  had  slain  tlie  propliets  of  the  Lord 
(1  K  18'*),  fed  450  prophets  of  Baal  and  400  prophets 
of  the  Asherah  at  her  table  (1  K  18'»  RV).  The 
idolatrous  worship  was  strongly  opposed  by  the 
prophets  of  J",  some  of  whom  worked  and  preached 
in  the  city.  Elisha  had  a  fixed  residence  in  it 
(2  K  2^  5*  6*-,  cf.  v."),  and  Hosea  probably  pro- 
phesied there.  Isaiah  (10'-"  36'»)  alludes  to  the 
idols,  graven  images,  and  gods  of  Samaria ;  Hosea 
(7'  8°-'  10°),  to  its  wickedness,  and  to  the  calf- 
worship  which  existed  side  by  side  with  the  worship 
of  Baal ;  Amos  (8'*),  to  its  sin ;  and  Isaiah  (S*  0"), 
Hosea  (13'"),  Amos  (3'2),  Micah  (1«)  foretell  the 
penalties  that  it  would  have  to  suU'er  for  the  sins 
of  its  people.  Jeremiah  (23'*)  mentions  the  pro- 
phets of  Baal,  and  Ezekiel  (23')  can  find  no  tittei 
symbol  for  the  city  than  Oholah  the  harlot. 

Soon  after  Samaria  was  built,  it  was  probably 
besieged  by  Benhadad  I.,  who  forced  Omri  to  make 
'streets'  in  the  city  for  the  Syrians  (1  K  20**). 
During  Ahab's  reign  it  successfully  resisted  a  siege 
by  Benhadad  U.  (1  K  20'-=';  Ant.  VIII.  xiv.  1,2). 
In  the  reign  of  Jelioram,  after  a  minor  exi)editioD 
had  been  thwarted  by  Elisha  (2  K  6"'-»';  Ant.  IX 
iv.  3),  the  city  was  again  besieged  by  Benhadad. 
On  this  occasion  the  garrison  and  townsmen  were 
reduced  to  the  last  extremity  (2  K  6-'-'-  ^),  when  a 
panic  seized  the  Syrian  army  and  the  siege  waa 
raised  (2  K  7'"-*  ;  Ant.  IX.  iv.  4,  5).  In  the  7th  year 
of  Hoshea,  Samaria  was  besieged  by  Shalmaneser, 
but  it  was  actually  taken,  B.C.  722,  by  his  succes- 


SAMARIA 


SAMARIA,  TERRITORY  OF       375 


sor  Sargon  after  the  siege  had  lasted  three  years 
(2  K  17'-"  188-  '"•  ■",  cf.  21"  ;  Ant.  IX.  xiv.  1  ;  Inscrip- 
tions of  Snrgon).  The  Norihern  kingdom  fell  with 
its  capital,  and  the  people  were  transplanted  hy 
the  conqueror ;  hut  the  city  was  not  completely 
destroyed  (Jer  41^).  Two  jears  later  it  rose,  in 
alliance  with  Ilaniath,  Arpad,  and  Damascus, 
against  the  Assjrians  :  but  the  rising  collapsed  on 
the  overthrow  of  the  king  of  Hamath  (see  Insrrip- 
tiuns).  The  transplanted  Jews  were  replaced  by 
foreign  colonists  (2  K  17**,  Ezr  4'°)  under  Assyrian 
governors,  of  one  of  whom  the  name,  Nabu-achi-su, 
has  been  |)reserved  (III.  Kawlinson,  34,  col.  ii.  'J4  f.). 
In  B.C.  331  Samaria  submitted  to  Alexander,  who 
killed  many  of  its  inhabitants,  and  replaced  tliem 
by  Macedonian  colonists.  Later  it  was  dismantled 
by  Ptolemy  Lagi,  afterwards  rebuilt,  and  again 
destroyed  by  Demetrius  Poliorcetes.  The  walls 
must  soon  have  been  re.stored,  for  it  was  a  '  very 
strong  city'  when  taken  by  John  Hyrcanus,  B.C. 
120,  after  a  year's  siege  {Ant.  XIII.  x.  2,  3;  BJ 
1.  ii.  7).  Hyrcanus  is  said  to  have  completely 
destroyed  the  city  by  '  bringing  streams  to  drown 
it';  but  this  can  refer  only  to  that  portion  of  it 
which  lay  at  the  foot  of  the  hill.  Samaria  was 
rebuilt  by  Pompev,  who  made  it  a  free  city,  and 
attached  it  to  tlie  government  of  Syria  {Ant. 
XIV.  iv.  4 ;  BJ  I.  vii.  7) ;  and  it  was  further 
restored  and  strengthened  by  Gabinius  {Ant.  Xiv. 
V.  3 ;  BJ  I.  viii.  4).  Herod,  in  pursuance  of  his 
commercial  policy,  which  was  based  on  intercourse 
with  the  West,  and  of  his  plan  of  covering  the 
country  with  strongholds  garrisoned  by  Gentile 
soldiers  devoted  to  his  interests,  made  Samaria  a 
strong  fortress.  He  embellished  it,  built  a  temple 
of  great  size  and  magnificence,  and  settled  it  with 
veterans  from  his  army  and  people  from  the 
neighbourhood  (Ant.  XV.  viii.  5;  BJ  I.  x.vi.  2). 
The  city,  which  is  .said  at  this  time  to  have  had 
a  circumference  of  2J  miles,  was  re-named  Sebaste 
( .\ugu8ta)  in  honour  of  Augustus,  who  had  given 
it  to  Herod  {Ant.  XV.  vii.  3) ;  and  this  name  has 
survived  in  the  modem  Sebustich.  At  Samaria 
Herod  entertained  Agrippa  ;  there  he  killed  his 
wife  Mariamne,  and  there  also  he  strangled  his 
sons  {Ant.  XV.  vii.  5-7,  XVI.  ii.  1,  xi.  7).  During 
the  Jewish  revolt,  Samaria  and  Herod's  soldiers, 
called  Sehastencx,  went  over  to  the  Homans  {Ant. 
XVII.  X.  3,  9 ;  BJ  II.  iii.  4,  iv.  3,  xii.  5).  Many 
authorities  suppose  that  the  gospel  was  preached 
in  Samaria  (Ac  8°-  °- ") ;  but  it  is  possible  th.at 
some  town  in  the  district  of  Samaria,  of  which  the 
name  is  not  specihed,  is  intended  (note  the  absence 
in  V.'  of  the  def.  art.  in  some  MSS).  Septimius 
Severus  made  Samaria  a  Colonia,  but  it  rapidly 
declined  as  Shechem  (Neapolis)  rose  to  importance, 
and  in  the  4th  cent,  it  was  already  a  small  town 
(Euseb.  Onom.).  It  was  an  Episcopal  see,  and  its 
bishops  attended  the  Councils  of  Mcwa,  Constan- 
tinople, and  Chalcedon,  and  the  S3'nod  of  .lerusalcra 
(A.D.  .jnO).  According  to  Jerome  it  was  the  burial- 
place  of  Klisha,  Obadiah,  and  St.  John  the  Baptist 
iEj).  ad  Marccllnm,  Com.  ad  Obad.),  and  their 
tombs  were  shown  to  pilgrims  in  the  Middle  Ages. 
The  Crusaders  established  a  Latin  bishopric  in 
Samaria. 

The  modem  village  of  Srhuntinh  lies  at  the  E. 
end  of  the  terraced  hill  of  S.imaria,  which  is  now 
partially  cultivated  and  in  places  covered  with 
olive  groves.  The  old  city  wall  can  be  traced  for 
most  of  its  course,  following  irregularly  the  con- 
tour of  the  hill,  and  there  are  remains  of  the  west 
pate.  I'rom  this  gate  a  street  50  ft.  wide,  and 
lined  with  columns,  of  which  many  still  stand, 
ran  along  the  S.  side  of  the  hill  to  a  gate  on  tho 
E.,  which  has  disappeared.  To  the  W.  of  tho 
village  are  the  columns  of  a  largo  buried  tcmjilo  ; 
towards  the  S.W.  the  columns  of  a  smaller  temple  ; 


and  in  a  hollow  at  the  foot  of  the  N.E.  side  of  the 
hill  are  several  shafts  of  columns  that  formed  part 
of  a  quadrangle,  perhai)s  a  hippodrome,  622  ft. 
long  and  190  ft.  wide.  Close  to  the  site  of  the  E. 
gate  are  the  ruins  of  the  line  cathedral  chiuch  of 
St.  John,  built  between  A.D.  1150  and  1180,  over 
the  traditional  tomb  of  St.  Jojin  the  Baptist.  In 
the  neighbourhood  of  the  village  are  two  fine 
.springs,  ' Ain  lltlrim  and  'Ain  Kefr  Rinnn,  from 
which  small  streams  How  for  a  short  distance. 
These  streams  are,  apparently,  those  utilized  by 
Hyrcanus  to  undermine  the  lower  portion  of  tho 
city.  (Stanley,  S.  and  P.  243-240  ;  G.  A.  Smith, 
ffOITLpf.  346-349;  PEF  Mem.  ii.  160,  211-215; 
Gu^rin,  Samarie,  ii.  188,  etc.). 
2.  Samaria  (r;  "Zaiiipaa  ;  Samaria)  mentioned  in 

1  Mac  5""  cannot  be  the  well-known  Samaria,  and 
is  apparently  an  error.  The  place  intended  seems 
to  be  Marisa  (Marishah,  now  Kh.  Mer'ash  near 
Beit  Jibrin),  a  reading  found  in  an  ancient  Latin 
version.      See    Josephus,   Ant.   Xll.    viii.   6,   and 

2  Mac  12»».  C.  W.  Wilson. 

SAMARIA,  Territory  of  (■^  Sa/iapetTis  xi^po; 

Xafuipeia,  —afiapia  ;  .Jos.  x^P"'  Sa/iap^wi/  ;  Sanuiria). 
— At  an  early  period  the  name  of  the  city  was 
applied  to  the  kingdom  of  the  ten  tribes,  and 
as  the  limits  of  that  kingdom  varied  (2  K  lO^--" 
15^,  1  Ch  5-'),  so  did  those  of  the  territory 
called  Samaria.  Thus  the  '  king  of  Samaria ' 
(2  K  V,  Hos  10')  is  the  king,  and  the  '  cities  of 
Samaria'  (1  K  13'^  2  K  17"- ="  23'»)  the  cities,  of 
the  Northern  kingdom  ;  and  the  '  mountains  of 
Samaria'  (Jer  31°,  Am  3")  is  simply  anotlier  term 
for  the  hill-country  of  Ephraim  (A  V  Mt.  Ephraim). 
The  name  Samaria  is  used  in  its  extended  sense 
in  1  K  18^  2  K  IT-^  23i«,  2  Ch  25",  Ezr  4",  Nch  i\ 
Am  3'2. 

In  the  Apocrypha  (1  Es  2"'-  =»,  Jth  !»  4^  1  Mao 
310  50s  10^0. 3s  iiai.  M  2  Mac  I51)  and  in  NT  (Lk 
17",  Jn  i*-  »•  '•  »,  Ac  1"  8'  9")  the  name  Samaria 
denotes  the  central  of  the  three  districts — Judaea, 
S.amaria,  and  Galilee — into  which  the  country  west 
of  Jordan  was  divided.  According  to  Josephus 
{BJ  III.  iii.  1,  4,  5),  Samaria  was  bounded  on  the 
north  by  Galilee  and  the  territory  of  the  free  city 
of  Scythopolis,  its  most  northerly  village  being 
Ginica  {.Jen in),  in  the  great  plain  of  Esdraelon. 
It  extended  S.  to  the  toparchy  of  Acrabatta, 
'Akri'ibeh,  and  the  villages  of  Anuatli,  Kh.  'Aina, 
and  Borceos,  Bcrkit,  which  were  about  15  Roman 
miles  S.  of  Shechem,  and  belonged  to  Juda>a.  In 
the  Jordan  Vallev  the  boundary  ran  N.  of  Sartaba, 
Kurn  Surtaba  (Mishna,  llosh  /uish-shana,  ii.  3)  ; 
and  on  the  west  to  the  N.  of  Antipatris  (Talm. 
Bab.  Giitin,  76(i).  It  was  separated  from  the  sea 
on  the  W.  by  the  coast  district  of  Judaia,  which 
stretched  N.  to  Ptolemais  {BJ  III.  iii.  5). 

Samaria  is  a  land  of  hills  and  valleys,  with  here 
and  there  upland  plains  of  great  fertility.  Carmel 
and  other  hills  are  partially  clothed  with  dense 
thickets,  and,  in  places,  remnants  of  former 
forests  can  still  be  seen.  In  tho  plains  and  open 
valleys  the  rich  soil  yields  abundant  harvests  of 
wheat,  oats,  and  maize,  whilst  on  the  terraced 
hillsides  the  fig,  the  olive,  and  the  vino  bring  forth 
their  fruit  in  due  season.  Josephus  says  truly 
{B.T  III.  iii.  4)  that  the  country  was  fruitful  and 
well  wooded  ;  it  abouiuled  in  wild  fruit  and  in 
that  produced  by  cultivation  ;  its  water  was  good, 
and  in  consemienco  of  the  excellence  of  its  grass 
the  cattle  yielded  more  milk  than  el.sewhero. 

Samaria  is  an  open  country,  and  was  always  at 
the  mercy  of  ho.stile  invaders.  It  seems  to  nave 
ollcrcd  littleresistance  to  Joshua,  and,  after  the  con- 
quest, Canaanites,  Midianites,  Syrians,  Assyrians, 
Greeks,  and  Komans  overran  it  with  comparative 
ease.     No   great   battle  was    fought    within    its 


376       SAilARIA,  TERRITORY  OF 


SAMATUS 


limits,  and  the  stirring  episodes  of  mountain 
warfare,  so  frequent  in  Juila'a,  are  unknown  to 
its  annals.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  remarkable 
for  the  number  of  fortified  towns  or  'strong 
places '  that  guarded  its  approaches.  The  open 
character  of  Samaria  facilitated  communication. 
Great  hifjlnvays  of  commerce  passed  through  it, 
and  chariots  were  used  at  a  very  early  period. 
Amongst  the  trade  routes  were  that  from  the 
coast,  through  tlie  remarkable  pass  between  Ebal 
and  Gerizim,  to  the  districts  east  of  Jordan  ;  and 
those  from  the  Maritime  Plain  across  the  hills  to 
Megiddo  {Lejjiin),  and  En-gannim  (Jenin),  and 
thence  to  Baslian  and  Damascus.  To  these  Avell- 
travelled  roads  wa-s  due  in  great  measure  the  close 
connexion  that  has  always  existed  between  Samaria 
and  the  trans-Jordanic  regions,  and  the  readiness 
with  which  the  Jews  of  the  district  succumbed  to 
the  influence  of  the  surrounding  paganism. 

After  the  Assyrians  had  conquered  the  kingdom 
of  the  ten  tribes,  they  carried  away  the  people  to 
Assyria,  and  brought  men  from  '  Babjlon,  and 
from  Cuthah,  and  from  Avva,  and  from  Hamath 
and  Sepharvaim,'  and  placed  them  in  the  '  cities 
of  Samaria '  (2  K  17"-  "•  '^  ;  Ant.  ix.  xiv.  1 ).  At  a 
later  date,  during  the  reigns  of  Esar-haddon  and 
Assur  -  bani  -  pal  (Osnappar,  RV),  the  number  of 
Assyrian  colonists  in  Samaria  was  largely  in- 
creased (Ezr  4'- »■■").  In  2K  17=^  these  colonists 
are  termed  '  Samaritans.'  Josephus  says  {Ant. 
IX.  xiv.  3,  X.  ix.  7,  XI.  iv.  4)  that  they  were 
called  Cutha2ans  in  Hebrew,  from  Cuthah,  the 
city  of  their  origin,  and  Samaritans  in  Greek, 
from  the  country  to  which  they  were  removed  ; 
and  he  regarded  the  Samaritans  of  his  day  as 
their  descendants.  The  Cuthieans  and  others 
brought  their  national  gods  with  them,  an  act 
which  was  believed  to  have  brought  on  them  the 
yengeanco  of  the  God  of  the  land.  One  of  the 
captive  Jewish  priests  was  consequently  sent  to 
teach  them  'how  they  should  fear  the  Lord.' 
The  result  appears  to  have  been  that  they  adopted 
the  Jewish  ritual,  but  combined  the  worship  of 
J"  with  that  of  their  graven  images  (2  K  17^"*'  ; 
Ant.  IX.  xiv.  3).  Possibly,  many  of  their  high 
places  and  altars  were  destroyed  during  the  re- 
forms of  Josiah  (2  K  2319,  2  Ch"34«). 

The  Captivity  freed  the  Jews  from  their  old  sin 
of  idolatry,  and  intensified  the  exclusiveness  of  the 
Jewish  character.  When,  therefore,  the  Jews  re- 
turned from  Babylon,  and  the  Samaritans  ofl'ered 
to  assist  tliem  in  rebuildin"  the  walls  and  temple 
at  Jerusalem,  the  profi'ered  aid  was  refused,  and 
the  Jews  excluded  the  Samaritans  from  all  par- 
ticipation in  their  worship.  Quarrels  naturally 
arose,  and  led  to  a  nmtual  enmity  between  the 
two  peoples,  which  was  marked  by  frequent 
outbursts  of  active  hostility.  The  Samaritans 
were  generally  the  aggressors.  They  attempted 
to  prevent  the  rebuilding  of  Jerusalem  (Ezr  4'-", 
Nell  4'-'*  ;  Ant.  XI.  iv.  4);  seized  Jewish  lands, 
and  carried  Jews  off  as  slaves  (Ant.  XII.  iv.  1). 
On  one  occasion  they  brought  the  bodies  of  dead 
men  into  the  cloisters  of  the  temple  (Ant.  xvili. 
ii.  2),  and  on  another  they  killed  Galila'ans  who 
were  passing  through  Samaria  on  the  way  to 
Jerusalem.  This  last  outburst  gave  rise  to  dis- 
putes, which  were  referred  to  Rome  for  settlement 
(Ant.  XX.  vi.  1-3  ;  .BJ'II.  xii.  3-7).  TheSamaritans 
were  always  ready  to  claim  kinship  with  the  Jews 
when  the  latter  were  prosperous  (Ant.  IX.  xiv.  3, 
XI.  viii.  6)  ;  but  at  otiier  tiuies  they  repudiated 
the  relationship,  and  acknowledged  their  Assyrian 
origin  (Kzr  4'^  ;  Ant.  XI.  iv.  3,  9,  Xll.  v.  5).  The 
feeling  of  the  Jews  towards  their  enemies  is  indi- 
cated by  the  term  of  reproacli,  'Thou  art  a 
Samaritan,  and  hast  a  devil'  (.In  8**);  by  the 
words  of  Jesus  son  of   Sirach   (Sir  50*»'  =«) ';   and 


the  mutual  hostility  explains  Christ's  command 
to  His  disciples  not  to  enter  into  any  city  of  the 
Samaritans  (Mt  lU"). 

Samaria,  after  its  conquest  by  Assyria,  wa» 
ruled  by  Assyrian,  Babylonian,  and  Persian 
governors  until  Syria  and  Palestine  fell  to  Alex- 
ander after  the  battle  of  Issus.  The  Samaritaas 
hastened  to  prott'er  aid  to  the  conqueror,  and  in 
return  were  granted,  according  to  Josephus,  per- 
mission to  build  a  temple  on  ilt.  Gerizim  (A  nt. 
XJ.  viii.  4,  6,  XIII.  iii.  4,  ix.  1).  In  this  temple, 
which,  more  probably,  however,  was  built  by 
Sanballat  during  tlie  time  of  Nehemiah,  the 
Samaritans  ofl'ered  sacrifices  after  the  manner  of 
the  Jews.  But  when  Antiochus  IV.  Epiphanes 
took  Jerus.  and  desecrated  the  temple,  they  were 
quite  ready  to  address  him  as  god,  and  ask  his 
permission  to  call  their  place  of  worship  the  temple 
of  Zeus-Hellenius  (Ant.  XII.  v.  5).  After  having 
more  than  once  changed  hands  during  the  struggle 
between  Alexander's  successors,  Samaria  was  given 
by  Antiochus  III.  the  Great,  as  part  of  the  dower 
of  his  daughter  Cleopatra,  to  Ptolemy  V.  Epi- 
phanes(^n<.  XII.  iv.  1).  During  the  reign  of  the 
latter's  successor,  Ptolemy  VI.  Philometor,  the 
Samaritan  colony  in  Egypt,  which  owed  its  origin 
to  the  settlement  of  Samaritans  serving  in  Alex- 
ander's army  (Aiit.  XI.  viii.  6),  and  to  the  re- 
moval of  Samaritans  from  Palestine  to  Egypt  by 
Ptolemy  I.  Soter  (Ant.  XII.  i.  1),  maintained,  in 
controversy  with  the  Alexandrian  Jews,  that 
according  to  the  laws  of  Moses  the  temple  was 
to  be  built  on  Gerizim  and  not  at  Jerus.  (^4  nt,  XIII. 
iii.  4).  Samaria  was  conquered  by  Jolin  Hyrcanus, 
who  destroyed  the  temple  on  Gerizim  (BJ  I.  ii. 
6,  7)  ;  and,  after  passing  to  the  Romans  when 
Pompey  intervened  in  the  quarrel  between  Hyr- 
canus II.  aud  his  brother,  it  was  given  to  Herod 
by  Augustus  (Ant.  XV.  vii.  3).  On  Herod's  death 
it  was  granted  to  his  son  Arehelaus  (Ant.  XVII. 
xi.  4  ;  B.J  II.  vi.  3)  ;  but,  on  his  banishment,  it 
was  added  to  the  province  of  Syria  (Ant.  XVII. 
xiii.  5  ;  BJ  II.  viii.  1).  In  the  time  of  Pilate  a 
large  number  of  Samaritans  were  killed  when  on 
their  way  to  Gerizim,  and  to  I'ilates  action  on 
this  occasion  Josephus  ascribes  his  recall  (Ant. 
XVUI.  iv.  1,  2). 

In  the  days  of  our  Lord  the  Samaritans  formed 
an  important  element  in  the  population  ;  and 
though  thev  probably  had  a  strong  admixture 
of  Jewish  blood  in  their  veins  (2  K  23"'-  ^,  2  Ch 
34",  Ezr  6'S  Jn  4"  ;  Ant.  X.  iv.  5),  they  had  not 
lost  their  distinctive  character  as  aliens  by  descent 
(Lk  17'^  cf.  10''''"''),  and  apparently  in  religion 
(.In  4'--).  The  gospel  ajjjiears  to  have  been  first 
preached  to  the  Samaritans  by  Philip,  and  with 
some  measure  of  success  (Ac  8'"").  But  it  cannot 
have  been  very  generally  accepted,  for  the 
Samaritans  more  than  once  came  into  collision 
with  the  Roman  emperors  and  the  Christians. 
'Vespasian  quelled  a  tnreatened  rising  by  slaying 
11,600  of  them  on  Mt.  Gerizim  (BJ  UI.  vii.  32)  j 
and  they  were  so  severely  punished  by  Zeno  and 
Justinian  for  murdering  Christians  and  destroying 
churches,  that  they  never  afterwards  recovered. 
Benjamin  of  'Tudela,  A.D.  1163,  found  'Cutheang, 
who  observe  the  Mosaic  law  only,  and  are  called 
Samaritans,'  at  NiMus,  Ca;sarea,  Ascalon,  and 
Damascus  (Early  Travels,  p.  81).  They  are  now 
represented  by  a  few  families  at  Ndblus, 

LiTRRATiHE.— Condcr,  Tent-Work,  1.  80-109;  Stantey,  Sinat 
and  Palestine,  221>-248  ;  G.  A.  Smith,  UtSllL  S21-S43  ;  Gatna, 
Samarie  ;  Snhiirer,  IJJP  I.  i.  190  (.,  280,  11.  i.  6-8 ;  Baedelter- 
Socin,  Pal."  226ff.;  Buhl,  GAP,  207.         C.  'W.  WiLSON. 

SAMATUS  (SdAuiTos),  1  Es  9".— One  of  the  bom 
of  Kzora,  corresponding  to  Shemariah  or  Shallom 
in  Ezr  lu"- «. 


S.UIECH 


samso:n^ 


377 


SAMECH  (D).  —  The  fifteenth  letter  of  the 
Hebrew  alphabet,  and  as  such  employed  in  the 
119th  Psalm  to  designate  the  15th  part,  each  verse 
of  which  begins  with  this  letter.  In  this  Dic- 
tiouarj-  it  is  transliterated  by  f. 

SAMELLIUS  (B  Sa/^AXiot,  A  St/x-  -f/3-;  AV 
SeiMcUius),  1  Es  2'«-"-"»-*'=Shimshai  the  scribe, 
cf.  Ezr  4"  etc. 

SAMEUS  (B  ea/iotos,  A  Xa/iaTot;  AV  Sameitts).— 
Of  the  sons  of  Emmer  (1  Es  ff"),  answering  to 
Shemaiaii,  of  the  sons  of  Hariin,  £zr  10-'. 

SAMGAR-NEBO  ("i2n:^P).— An  officer  of  Nebu- 
chadnH/z;ir,  who,  according  to  the  MT  of  Jer  39 
[Ur.  46]',  took  his  seat,  along  ^vith  other  princes, 
in  the  middle  gate  of  Jerusalem  after  the  Chal- 
diEsn  army  had  forced  its  way  into  the  city.  If 
the  name  (LXX  Bx  Za/iayud,  A  Eliraafiayid)  is  to 
be  accepted,  it  may  he  =  Stimgir-Anbu,  '  be  gra- 
cious, O  Nebo  '  (Schrader,  COT  ii.  109).*  The  text 
has  in  any  case  sutiered  corruption,  as  is  evident, 
apart  from  other  considerations,  from  the  multi- 
tude of  variant  readings  exhibited  (cf.  Swete,  OT 
in  Greek,  ad  loc.)  by  the  LXX.  If  we  retain  the 
name  Samgar-nebo,  we  ought  perhaps  to  drop  the 
first  '  Nergal-sharezer,'  and  read  :  '  Samgar-nebo 
the  Sar-sechim  [a  title  as  yet  unexplained],  Nebu- 
shazban  the  Rab-saris  [cf.  v."]and  Nergal-sharezer 
tlieKab-mag'  (so  Sayce  in  art.  Nekgal-Sharezek 
above).  Another  course  la  to  reject  (with  Uiese- 
breclit)  the  name  Samgar  -  nebo  entirely,  taking 
"uoo  as  a  dittography  of  jd  2i,  and  joining  uj  to 
the  following,  CDanijuj  thus  =  [jiptn}  of  v.".  It 
must  be  confessed  that  the  means  are  not  yet  at 
our  disposal  for  pronouncing  with  confidence  on 
the  true  text,  bee,  for  another  expedient,  art. 
Bak.?i.ciii.\i.  J.  a.  Selbie. 

CAMLAH  (^^05'). — An  Edomite  king,  described 
fts  of  Miusrekah  '  (which  see),  Gn  SB^'-  (B  deest, 
A  ZaXai^,  D  i:oMo\d)  =  l  Ch  l*"-  (B  om.,  A  io^d). 

SAMMUS  (SoMMoi^,  B  SoM/wii),  1  E8  9"=Shema, 

Neh  8*. 

SAMOS  (Sd/iot),  one  of  the  most  important 
islands  in  the  ^•Ega,>an,  is  separated  from  the 
coast  of  Ionia  by  the  narrow  straits  in  which  the 
Greeks  met  the  Persian  lleet  and  won  the  decisive 
victory  of  Mycale,  B.C.  479.  It  was  the  centre  of 
Ionian  luxury,  art,  and  science  ;  and,  from  the 
moment  when  it  became  a  member  of  the  Ionic 
confederacy  to  the  time  when  it  was  deprived  of 
its  freedom  by  Vespasian,  its  history  is  full  of 
interest.  In  n.c.  84  it  was  united  to  the  province 
of  Asia,  and  in  B.C.  17  it  was  made  a  free  city  by 
Augustus.  This  was  the  political  status  when 
St.  Paul,  after  pa-^ising  Chios,  touched  at  Samos 
(Ac  20"  UV)  on  his  return  from  his  third  niis- 
■ionary  journey.  There  were  many  Jewish 
residents  on  the  island  (1  Mac  IS'"),  who  ob- 
tained numerous  privileges  when  Marcus  Agrippa 
and  Herod  visite<f  Samos.  The  latter  also  made 
presents  to  the  Samians  (Ant.  XVI.  ii.  2,  4  ;  BJ  I. 
xxi.  11).  Descriptions  of  the  island  and  its  his- 
toiy  will  be  found  in  Tournefort,  Vuyiige  de 
Lecanle,  ii.  103  etc.;  Boss,  lieise  an/  die  griech. 
Inndn,  iL  139  etc.  ;  Murray,  Handbook  to  Asia 
Minor,  etc.  pp.  359-361.  C.  W.  WiLSON. 

8AM0THRACE  CZaiioBpiKr,,  i.e.  the  Thracian 
Samos).— An  island  of  considerable  size  in  the 
ii^^gaan  Si:i,  lo  the  south  of  the  coast  of  Thrace, 
and  north-west  from  the  city  of  Troas.  St.  Paul 
*  Oil  the  Himilarity  of  the  Dames  Shamgar  aod  ^mgar  Me 
Voora,  Judiie4,  lua 


and  his  companions,  sailing  from  Troas,  made  a 
straight  run,  without  tacking  (see  Rhegium), 
across  the  sea  to  Samotlirace  (Ac  16") ;  and  the 
next  day  they  sailed  north  to  Neapolis,  on  the 
Thracian  coast,  which,  according  to  Pliny  {Xat. 
Hist.  iv.  23),  was  about  38  miles  from  the  island, 
though  the  actual  distance  is  hardly  more  than 
about  20  miles.  At  the  northern  end  of  the 
island  was  the  town,  called  by  the  same  name ; 
and  here,  doubtless,  it  was  that  the  ship  which 
carried  St.  Paul  cast  anchor  for  the  night.  Ac  20', 
also,  probably  implies  that  the  ship  anchored  for  a 
night  at  Samothrace  ;  but  no  details  are  recorded. 
There  was  no  good  harbour  at  anj-  point  round  the 
island,  which  therefore  was  ditiicult  of  approach 
{importuosi.ixima  omnium,  as  Pliny  says)  ;  but  the 
ancient  Greek  sailors  always  liked  to  amhor  for 
the  night,  if  convenient  or  possible  (Ac  20'''- '"). 

Samothrace  is  a  mountainous  island  ;  and  in 
the  view  from  the  Trojan  coast  it  forms  a  huge 
mass  behind  and  towering  over  the  intermediate 
island  of  Inibros.  Its  summit  rises  to  5240  ft.; 
and  there  Homer  describes  the  sea-god  Poseidon 
taking  his  seat  to  survei'  the  battle  before  Troy. 
In  a  similar  way  the  island  of  Samos  on  the  coast 
of  Ionia  forms  a  huge  mass  rising  boldly  out  of  the 
sea  ;  and  the  common  name  Samos  is  probably 
due,  not  to  colonization  from  one  to  tlie  other,  nor 
to  common  stock  in  the  inhabitants,  but  to  the 
character  of  the  islands,  each  in  the  distance  look- 
ing like  a  single  huge  mountain.* 

Samothrace,  being  unsuited  for  a  tradii^  centre 
by  its  harbourless  nature,  played  little  part  in 
Greek  history.  Its  only  importance  is  due  to  the 
cult  of  the  mysterious  gods  called  Cabiri,  who 
were  said  to  have  been  worshipped  by  the  original 
Pelasgian  inhabitants  of  the  island  (Herod,  ii.  51). 
The  Slysteries  of  the  Cabiri  rivalled  those  of 
Eleusis  in  reputation  and  attractiveness  during 
the  later  centuries  of  Greek  history  ;  and  Philip 
of  Macedon  was  initiated  at  Samothrace. 

W.  M.  Ramsay. 

SAMPSAMES  (nV  So/i^tdMlt,  which  is  followed  by 
A V  and  RV  ;  A  Zafi\pdi:ri^  ;  Lat.  VSS  Lampsacus). 
— One  of  the  places  to  which  the  Romans  are  said 
to  have  written  in  favour  of  the  Jews,  1  Mac  15^. 
It  is  usually  identilied  with  Samsun,  a  seaport 
town  on  the  Black  Sea,  between  Sinope  and  Tre- 
bizond  (cf.  Ramsay,  Mist.  Geog.  of  Asia  minor,  273). 

SAMSON.— 

i.  The  Dame. 
IL  The  narrativa. 
UL  The  sources. 
iv.  The  historical  hack(rround. 
V.  Historical  importance. 
vi.  Sijfnificance  lor  the  history  of  rellcrion. 
vii.  8iirni8cance  for  the  history  of  civilization, 
viii.  Mytbolojfical  traces. 
Literature. 

L  The  Name. — The  pronunciation  Samson  is 
derived  from  the  Vulgate,  which  follows  the  LXX 
Vo/i^iii',  using  a  vowel  older  than  the  {  of  the 
Heb.  |Wct;>  H/nnuihun.  The  name  is  not  to  be 
derived  from  po,  or  cc»,  or  a-v  '  serve  '  (cf.  Moore 
on  Jg  13**),  but  is  formed  from  a-:;'  '  sun  '  bj'  means 
of  the  denominating  ending  ['i ;  a  diminutive  sense 
=  ' little  sun'  (cf.  the  Arab,  name  Shumnis  in 
Niildeke,  ZDMG  xl.  p.  lOG)  is  less  probable  than 
a  derivation  with  the  sense  '  sunny,  '  sun's  man  ' 
(cf.  Ges.  -  Kautzsch,  Gram.^  §  86f.  g.).  It  is 
natural  to  think  of  the  Danite  city  Betiisiieme.sh, 
which  was  not  far  from  Samson's  birthplace.  The 
name  SanLson  is  cimlincd  in  the  OT  to  the  judge 
(but  cf.  •e'v*'  Shim.i/iai,  Ezr  4"'-  "•'^),  and  is  found 
nowhere  but  in   Jg   13-16,   which   have  him  for 

•  Oonstantine  Porphyr.  (I"-  p.  41,  Bonn  ed.),  Eustathlus,  and 
Strabo  (pp.  .'UO,  457)  say  ttiat  £«^u».'  meant  'hill';  and  the 
name  waa  comiuoo  in  tbe  Greek  world. 


378 


SAilSON 


SAMSON 


their  subject  (the  Syr.  and  LXX  Luc.  wrongly 
introduce  him  in  1  S  1'2")-  The  same  thing  is  true 
of  the  name  of  his  father  Manoa^  (oi3?  '  rest,' 
'resting-place'),  J"  13™-  16^';  but  after  the 
Captivity  the  inhabitants  of  Zor'ah,  Samson's 
native  towti,  are  called  (1  Ch  '2^^'^)  Manahe- 
THITES  ("Bnj;),  a  circumstance  which  luight  imply 
that  Manoah  was  the  heros  eponymos  of  a  Danite 
clan,  and  was  only  afterwards  assigned  as  father  to 
the  judge  Samson  (cf.  the  case  of  Jefhtuah  in 
Jg  U'). 
ii.  The  Narrative.— 

Ch.  13.  The  barren  wife  of  the  Danite  Manoali  of  Zor'ah  haa 
a  vision  of  the  auj;el  of  Jahweh  in  tlie  torni  of  a  man,  who  pro- 
mises to  her  a  son  who  from  his  mother's  womb  is  to  be  a 
'  consecrated  one '  to  God  (D'.iSx  Tn,  see  Nazirite),  and  who 
is  to  make  a  commencement  of  freeing  the  people  from  the 
Philistine  .yoke.  Therefore  his  motiier  is  to  abstain  from  all 
intoxicatiuf  hquors  and  guard  against  everything  that  defiles; 
no  razor  is  to  come  upon  the  head  of  the  child.  At  Manoah's 
prayer  the  angel  appears  a  second  time,  and  repeats  his  instruc- 
tions. Only  after  he  ascen'is  in  the  flame  of  the  offering  pre- 
sented to  Jahweh  and  disappears,  do  Manoa^  and  his  wife 
recognize  who  had  been  their  guest.  The  boy,  when  bom,  is 
Darned  Samson,  and  grows  up  under  the  blessing  of  Jahweh. 

Ch.  14.  Arrived  at  manhood,  Samson,  not  without  opposition 
from  his  parents,  makes  choice  of  a  Philistine  girl  at  Timnah  to 
be  his  wife.  On  his  way  there  he  kills  a  lion,  and  on  his  return 
journey  eats  of  the  honey  which  he  finds  in  the  carcase.  At 
the  wedding  feast  he  makes  this  the  subject  of  a  riddle  for  the 
young  men,  and,  when  his  young  wife  coaxes  him  into  telling 
her  the  solution  and  betra}^  it  to  them,  ho  leaves  her  in  ill 
humour. 

Ch.  15.  Having  recovered  himself,  Samson  will  visit  his  wife 
in  her  parents'  house,  but  finds  that  she  has  been  given  by  her 
father  to  another.  In  revenge  he  destroys  the  ripe  harvest 
fields  of  the  Philistines  by  foxes  with  burning  brands.  The  Philis- 
tines retaliate  by  burning  his  wife  and  all  her  house,  an  act 
which  Samson  again  avenges  by  slaughtering  many  of  them 
(vv.1-8).  Having  made  his  escape  to  the  territory  'of  Judah, 
which,  however,  owned  the  Philistine  suzerainty,  he  allows 
himself,  on  their  menaces,  to  be  handed  over  by  the  inhabitants 
bound,  but  bursts  his  bonds  and  slays  a  thousand  Philistines 
with  the  jawbone  of  an  ass.  The  wearied  Samson  is  re\'ived 
by  Jahweh  by  means  of  a  spring  flowing  from  the  jawbone 

(VT.9-19). 

Ch.  16.  While  Samson  is  visiting  a  harlot  at  Gaza  he  is 
betrayed,  and  his  enemies  think  to  seize  him  in  the  morning. 
But  he  catches  up  the  folding-doors  of  the  city  gate,  posts  and 
all,  and  carries  them  to  the  top  of  a  mountain  by  Hebron 
(w.i-^).  His  paramour,  Delilah,  in  the  Vale  of  Sorek  is  bribed 
by  the  Philistines  to  deliver  him  over  to  them  :  three  times  he 
deceives  her  as  to  the  source  of  his  strength,  and  bursts  the 
bonds  wherewith  she  has  bound  him.  At  last  he  confesses 
that  his  strength  lies  in  his  God-consecrated  hair,  and  after  he 
has  been  shaved  while  asleep  he  falls  defenceless  into  the  hands 
of  the  Philistines.  The  latter  put  out  his  eyes  and  set  him  to 
slaves'  work  in  the  prison  at  Gaza  (w.-*-^).  At  the  festival  in 
honour  of  their  god  Daoo.v,  the  conquered  foe  is  to  be  exhibited 
as  a  spectacle  to  the  assembled  people.  But  with  the  new 
growth  of  his  hair  the  blind  man  feels  his  strength  return,  and 
after  prajing  to  Jahweh  he  pulls  down  the  pillars  of  the  house 
in  which  the  Philistines  are  assembled,  so  that  they  all  perish 
alon^  with  himself  in  the  ruins.  His  body  is  buried  by  his 
relatives  in  the  family  sepulchre.  His  judgeship  had  lasted 
twenty  year*  (w.23.31). 

iii.  The  Sources. — Of  all  the  narratives  in  the 
Book  of  Judges,  that  about  Samson  is  the  only 
one  that  is  not  composed  from  the  two  ancient 
sources  which  supplied  the  material  of  the  book — 
in  all  probability  the  Judrean  source  (J)  and  the 
Ephraimitic  (K).  The  attempt  to  distinguish  two 
sources  throughout  has  only  once  been  made,  and 
that  superlicially,  by  von  Ortenberg,  but  cannot 
be  regarded  as  successful.  On  the  other  hand,  it 
has  been  rightly  recognized  by  van  Doominck 
(1879)  and  Stade  (1884)  that  ch.  14  has  undergone 
extensive  revision,  and  Bohme  (I8S5)  has  proved 
the  same  for  ch.  13.  In  both  chapters  the  aim  of 
this  revision  is  religious  ;  the  whole  personality  of 
Samson  is  meant  to  be  brought  under  the  religious 
point  of  view  more  than  is  the  case  in  the  par- 
ticular narrativea.  Bohme  has  .shown  at  the  same 
time  that  ch.  13  bears  marks  of  the  source  J,  and 
thus  the  whole  Samson  history  will  have  to  be 
assigned  to  this  source.  That  E  has  no  share  in 
it  is  explained  by  the  circumstance  that  for  the 
Ephraimitic  source  the  jud^e  who  '  began  to  deliver 
Israel  out  of  the  hands  of  the  Philistines'  (13°)  was 


not  Samson  but  Samuel  (1  S  7"^).  Whether  the 
Samson  history,  whose  scene  was  the  neighbour- 
hood of  Judah,  had  only  a  local  importance  such 
as  to  prevent  its  being  made  use  of  by  E,  or 
whether  that  history  Mas  too  repugnant  to  its 
theocratic  character  (cf.  Eb.  Schrader,  who  calls  E 
'  the  theocratic  narrator '),  in  any  case  Samuel 
takes  the  place  of  Samson  completely  in  E  (1  S  1-7; 
cf.  esp.  the  birth  story  in  1  S  1  with  Jg  13),  whereas 
in  J  Samuel  plays  no  part  at  all  as  judge  and 
military  commander. 

But  if  the  Samson  story  is  derived  from  only 
one  source,  yet,  apart  from  the  above-mentioned 
revision,  it  is  not  on  that  account  a  literary  unity 
in  all  its  parts.  On  the  contrary,  the  various 
anecdotes  about  Samson  were  originally  related 
separately  and  only  afterwards  collected  and 
arranged.  Later  than  any  of  them,  we  may 
assume,  is  the  story  of  his  birth  (ch.  13),  just  as  is 
the  case  with  almost  all  ancient  heroes,  even  those 
of  them  who  otherwise  appear  in  the  clearest  light 
of  history. 

Samson  Ls  included  by  the  Deuteronomistic  re- 
daction, to  which  the  Book  of  Judges  owes  its 
shape,  amongst  the  'great  judges';  but  thi-s,  it 
appears,  was  not  done  without  a  considerable 
amount  of  weeding  out.  The  concluding  formula 
of  the  Deuteronomic  redaction  as  to  the  duration  of 
Samson's  judgeship  appears  already  at  the  end  of 
ch.  15  (v.'-^),  and  is  then  repeated  in  16"^  This 
should  in  all  likelihood  be  explained  on  the  ground 
that  R"^  closed  his  history  of  Samson  with  ch.  15, 
and  did  not  admit  ch.  16  into  his  Book  of  Judges. 
The  reason  is  easily  discovered.  Down  to  the 
close  of  ch.  15  Samson  is  the  husband  of  one  wife, 
and  love  to  her  along  with  love  to  his  native  land 
is  the  motive  of  all  his  actions.  But  in  ch.  16  he 
appears  as  the  slave  of  sensual  passion,  caught  in 
the  toUs  of  a  succession  of  paramours,  to  the  last 
of  whom  he  even  betrays  the  secret  of  the  Divine 
strength  that  animated  him.  If  this  itself  must 
have  appeared  to  the  mind  of  R"  quite  unworthy 
of  a  God-called  judge  (cf.  2'*-  '*'•),  his  fate  also  was 
an  unfitting  one,  namely  that  he  should  end  his 
life  as  prisoner  and  slave  of  the  unbelievers. 
Hence  R"  excluded  ch.  16  in  the  same  way  as 
ch.  9  (the  story  of  Abimelech).  He  was  indiffer- 
ent to  the  circumstance  that  thus  the  account  of 
Samson's  death  disappeared  ;  neither  is  there  any 
mention  of  the  death  of  Barak  or  of  Deborah,  and 
only  a  supplementary  allusion  to  that  of  Ehud  (4'). 
It  was  not  tiU  the  last  redaction  of  Judges  that 
ch.  16  was  once  more  united  •with  the  preceding 
chapters,  but  the  first  concluding  formula  (15^) 
was  still  piously  allowed  to  remain.  How  much  of 
the  minor  alterations  of  the  old  text  is  to  be  attri- 
buted to  this  last  red.action,  cannot  be  determined. 

iv.  The  Historical  Background.— The  tribe 
of  Dan,  to  which  Samson  belongs,  possessed  not 
only  one  tribal  territory,  but  two, — the  one  west 
of  Jerusalem,  situated  between  Benjamin  and 
Judah  ;  the  other  in  the  extreme  north,  at  the 
lower  sources  of  the  Jordan,  bordering  upon  the 
territory  of  Naphtali.  Samson  comes  from  the 
southern  territory ;  his  native  town  Zor'ah  (nj^jy), 
one  of  the  principal  places  belonging  to  the  tribe 
(Jos  19*',  Jg  IS^-"-",  cf.  also  Neh  ll*"),  still  bears 
the  same  name  at  the  present  dav.  It  lies  on  the 
northern  slope  of  the  fertile  \VM'j  es  ■  Surar, 
through  which  the  railway  from  Jaffa  to  Jem- 
salem  now  runs,  opposite  the  ancient  Beth- 
shemesh  (cf.  G.  A.  Smith,  HGHL  218  f.).  But 
the  question  is,  whetlicr  Samson  lived  (or  is  sup- 
posed to  have  lived)  before  or  after  the  emigration 
of  the  600  Danitcs  who  founded  the  northern  set- 
tlement of  the  tribe.  The  history  of  this  expe- 
dition is  given  summarily  in  Jg  1"  (to  be  supple- 
mented by  Jos  19*'  [LXA]),  and  in  full  detail  in 


SAMSOX 


SMISOX 


373 


Jg  17.  18.  Since  the  account  of  it  in  the  last- 
mentioned  two  chapters  is  preceded  by  the  story 
of  Samson,  one  miylit  be  disposed  at  lirst  to  decide 
for  the  former  of  the  above  alternatives.  But  it 
must  not  be  forgotten  that  chs.  17-'J1  are  appen- 
dices to  the  Book  of  Judges,  and  that  their  present 
position  tells  us  nothinj;  about  their  order  in  time. 
When  tlie  600  Danites  struck  od'  to  tlie  nortli, 
their  tribe  was  still  contending  for  its  independ- 
ence, although  with  little  prospect  of  being  able 
to  asaert  it.  The  braver  and  more  resolute  mem- 
bers of  the  tribe  having  taken  their  departure, 
the  remnant  will  have  abandoned  all  further 
struggle  and  rested  content  that  their  foreign  lords 
shomd  leave  tlieni  in  possession  of  the  soil,  prob- 
ably upon  condition  of  paying  tribute.  But  this 
is  the  condition  of  things  which  we  meet  with  in 
the  story  of  Samson.  Tlie  Philistines  have  pene- 
trated far  into  the  Shephelah,  Timnah  (theniudern 
Tibne  only  4  or  5  miles  S.W.  of  5'or'a) 'belongs  to 
them.  Between  them  and  the  Danites  there  is  no 
state  of  war,  but  unrestricted  intercourse,  con- 
nubinm  and  comiitcrcium — nay,  tlie  whole  life  of 
the  Danites  appears  to  gravitate  towards  the 
Philistine  cities.  The  power  is  entirely  in  the 
hands  of  the  Philistines :  when  Samson  gets  into 
trouble  witli  them,  his  native  town  cannot  shelter 
him.  But  even  the  territory  of  Judah,  to  which 
he  flees,  oilers  no  security,  for  it,  too,  is  subject  to 
the  Philistines,  as  its  inhabitants  (Jg  15")  expressly 
aihrm  as  a  fact  generally  recognized.  Samson's 
own  demeanour  is  not  at  all  that  of  an  enthusiast 
for  political  inde[ieiidence  and  deliverer  of  his 
people  from  the  Philistine  yoke.  He  belongs,  on 
the  contrary,  to  that  class  amongst  his  country- 
men who  are  disjiosed  to  modern  and  liberal  ideas, 
and  wlio  have  no  scruple  about  entering  into 
rehitions  with  tlie  Pliilistines  and  even  connecting 
themselves  with  them  by  marriage.  This  strange 
conduct  is  already  excused  and  explained  in 
Jg  14*  as  being  in  obedience  to  a  Divine  commis- 
sion, in  order  that  Samson  might  find  an  oppor- 
tunity of  damaging  the  Philistines.  But  this 
verse  does  not  belong  to  the  oldest  form  of  the 
narrative,  and  is  actually  contradicted  l>y  otlier 
passages.  Samson  himself  ofl'ers  to  the  Judahites 
(1.5")  the  excuse  that  he  had  not  attacked  the 
Philistines,  but  simply  requited  the  wrong  done  to 
him  by  them.  And  in  precisely  the  same  fashion 
he  always  asserts  liis  innocence  to  himself  and  to 
his  enemies  (cf.  15'- ') :  if  they  would  only  leave 
him  in  peace,  thev  should  be  safe  from  liim,  so  he 
thinks  at  least,  fn  the  case  of  all  his  exploits,  then, 
we  have  to  do  not  with  conscious  attemi)ts  to  de- 
liver Israel,  but  only  with  the  involuntary  uprisinjj 
of  a  subject  people  against  the  alien  and  unloved 
oppres.sor,  with  little  '  pin-pricks,'  each  of  wliich 
is  regarded  as  a  heroic  deed  and  greeted  with 
malicious  joy.  But  ten  hot-blooded  and  foolhardy 
Samsons  would  not  have  been  able  to  loosen  the 
chains  of  Israel's  bondage.  This  was  only  accom- 
plished when  the  Philistines,  who  had  ventured  to 
attack  the  kernel  of  the  Isr.  territory,  were,  after 
some  initial  successes  (1  S  4),  completely  beaten  by 
the  uprising  of  Mt.  Ejiliraim  (IS  13)  and  after- 
wards of  all  Israel  under  the  leadership  of  Saul 
and  David,  and  driven  back  within  tiicir  own 
narrow  territory.  By  means  of  these  wars  Samson's 
home  became  once  more  free,  and  a  permanent  pos- 
session of  Israel.  The  Samson  stories  are  probably 
intended,  then,  to  be  understood  as  belonging  to 
the  period  which  immediately  preceded  the  Philis- 
tine war  of  1  S  4,  and  are  thus,  apart  from  the 
appendices  Jg  17-21,  in  the  right  place.  That 
implies  at  the  same  time  that  the  tradition,  at 
lirst  oral,  emlxidying  them  must  also  go  back  to 
the  same  period.  In  a  later  age  there  was  no 
possibility  of  their  arising. 


V.  Historical  Importance.— According  to  tha 
sclieme  of  the  Book  of  Judges  as  its  i)rogranime  is 
set  down  by  the  Deuteronomic  redactor  in  Jg  2"*-, 
Samson  was  'raised  up'  by  Jahweh  to  be  'judge' 
over  all  the  children  of  Israel,  in  order  to  deliver 
them  from  the  rule  of  the  Philistines,  to  which 
Jahweh  had  given  them  over  on  account  of  their 
unfaithfulness  (cf.  13').  We  saw  that  in  the  case 
of  Samsun  there  can  be  no  mention  of  such  deliver- 
ance, and  just  as  little  of  an  activity  on  behalf  of, 
or  any  judgeship  over,  the  whole  of  Israel.  What 
we  are  told  of  him,  at  all  events,  claims  nothing 
more  than  quite  a  local  importance.  We  need  not 
wonder,  then,  that  li"  left  out  eh.  16  (see  above), 
but  only  that  he  allowed  Samson  to  pass  as  a 
'judge'  at  all.  But  this  may  be  explained  as  due 
to  the  example  set  in  the  pre-Deuteronomie  Book  of 
Judges,  the  work  of  R''^  (cf.  Budde,  Kurzcr  Ildcom. 
xll'.,  XV  f.).  The  rank  of  a  divinely -sent  judge 
could  not  be  henceforward  taken  from  Samson. 
His  credentials  rest  especially  on  ch.  13,  the  Divine 

Eroniise  and  wonderful  accoiiiiilishiiient  of  his 
irth.  We  shall  have  to  regard  tlie  whole  of 
this  chapter  as  a  later  addition  to  the  particular 
Samson  narratives  which  were  gathered  from  the 
mouth  of  the  people  and  lie  before  us  in  chs.  14-16. 
As  a  literary  composition,  however,  that  chapter 
need  not  be  more  recent  tlian  these  others.  It  is 
worthy  of  note  that  even  it  stUl  conliues  the 
historical  importance  of  Samson  within  very  narrow 
limits.  All  that  is  said  of  him  in  v.°  is  that  '  he 
shall  begin  to  deliver  Israel  out  of  the  hand  of  the 
Philistines.' 

vi.  Significance  fob  the  History  of  Re- 
ligion.— The  glaring  contradiction  between  the 
Divine  call  of  Samson  and  his  far  from  exemplary 
manner  of  life  caused  much  racking  of  the  brains 
and  much  ollence  to  the  older  theologians.  A 
correct  judgment  of  his  personality  is  possible 
only  when,  on  the  one  hand,  we  leave  out  of  view 
the  Christian  standard  of  morality,  and  when, 
on  the  other,  we  take  into  account  that  Samson 
was  originally  not  a  religious  but  a  popular  hero. 
Still  there  remains  even  in  the  oldest  strata  of  the 
narratives  one  religious  trait,  and  it  is  this  which 
has  made  it  possible  to  represent  him  as  under 
theocratic  enlightenment.  Any  endowment  be- 
yond the  ordinary  human  standard,  or  any  con- 
duct quite  opposed  to  wliat  is  otherwise  recognized 
as  the  character  of  a  person,  is  explained  in  anti- 
quity, and  so  also  in  the  OT,  as  due  to  a  super- 
human being,  a  spirit,  having  taken  up  its  abode 
in  the  person.  On  this  account  all  who  are 
mentally  deranged  are  supposed  to  be  the  dwellinj;- 
place  of  a  spirit,  by  whom  they  are  possessed.  In 
this  waj[  also  the  superhuman  strength  of  Sam.soii 
is  explained  ;  and  as  the  Philistines,  the  enemies 
of  Israel,  sutler  through  his  deeds,  the  spirit  whidi 
works  through  him  is  the  spirit  of  Jahweh,  the 
God  of  Israel.  The  last  verse  of  ch.  13  notes  the 
lirst  occasion  upon  which  the  spirit  of  Jahweh 
moves  him,  without  telling  us  how  this  working 
showed  itself.  In  14"- '"  lo'*  '  the  spirit  of  Jahweh 
came  upon  him  '  to  enable  him  to  perform  the 
greatest  feats  of  strength.  It  is  noteworthy,  how- 
ever, that  this  expression  is  wanting  in  H".  This 
appears  to  point  to  a  dillerent  way  of  viewing 
the  matter,  and,  as  this  same  way  entirely  domi- 
nates ch.  16,  it  may  be  regarded  as  the  more 
original.  According  to  Samson's  own  statement 
in  16",  which  is  conlirmcd  by  vv.**-  ^,  his  strength 
is  not  a  new  thing  every  time,  imiiarted  at  the 
moment  of  need  through  his  being  lijled  with 
the  Divine  spirit,  but  is  a  constant  possession, 
connected  with  the  hair  of  his  head,  on  which 
no  razor  comes,  because  from  bis  mother's  womb 
he  has  been  a  consecrated  one  of  Grod,  a  Nazirita 
C'lJ). 


380 


SxUlSOJJ 


SAJklSON 


The  Nazirate  ifl  a  relifrious  institution  of  undoubtedly  the 
hiphest  anticiuity  ;  it  is  n:iinf(l  as  early  as  Am  2'if ,  along  with 
prophecy,  aa  one  of  the  speciaJ  blcssinLTs  which  Jahweh  haa 
bestowed  upon  His  people.  At  the  same  lime  it  persisted  in 
Israel  down  to  the  days  wtieu  Israel's  religion  had  undergone  a 
great  spiritualizing,  for  not  only  do  we  find  it  in  Nu  6  in  the 
legislation  of  the  post-exilic  period  as  a  firmly  e^itablished 
8acre<l  usage,  but  we  meet  with  its  practice  in  Jerusalem  al  the 
temple  even  in  the  lime  of  the  Aposlle  Paul  (Ac  21*^' ).  but  in 
the  OT  Samson  is  the  only  N'azirite  we  encounter;  for  the 
consecration  of  Samuel  is  of  quite  a  different  character,  and  l  he 
words  '  and  tliere  shall  no  razor  come  upon  his  head  *  in  I  S  l^* 
certainly'  do  not  belong  to  the  original  text.  From  the  story  of 
Samson,  now,  we  can  gather  that  the  essence  of  the  Nazirite 
vow  consisted  simply  m  allowing  the  hair  to  grow.  At  the 
expirj*  of  the  period  fixed  for  the  vow  the  hair  was  shorn  by  the 

Eriest  and  cast  into  thp  sacriticial  flame  (Nu  C><',  Ac  2124^.* 
ven  Samson's  lifelong  Nazirate  (Jg  la^-'O  can  scarcely  be 
understood  as  implying  tliat  he  is  to  carrj-  his  hair  with  him 
down  to  the  grave,  but  rather  that  he  has  it  shorn  from  time  to 
time,  and  each  time  consecrates  the  shorn  hair  to  Jahweh. 
But,  aa  the  Nazirite  bears  the  God-consecrated  offering  upon 
his  head,  he  naturally  requires  to  keep  his  body,  which 
ministera  nourishment  also  to  the  hair,  pure  from  everj-thing 
that  is  repugnant  to  the  Deity.  The  regulations  on  this  sub- 
ject will  undergo  change  and  enlargement  with  the  times; 
the  prohibition  of  wine  (including,  no  doubt,  all  intoxicat- 
ing liquors)  belongs  certainly  to  the  oldest  state  of  things, 
and  is  witnessed  to  already  in  Am  212.  An  intoxicated  man 
is  possessed  by  another  spirit  which  disputes  God's  authority. 
Samson,  indeed,  does  not  impress  us  as  one  who  practised 
self-restraint  in  any  direction  ;  his  taking  food  from  the  carcase 
of  the  lion  (Jg  Us"".)  ig  directly  opposed  to  the  enactments  of 
Nu  66S-,  for  the  term  'dead  body'  there  certainly  includes  a 
potiori  the  carcases  of  animals.  But  from  these  contradictions 
between  the  Samson  story  and  the  Nazirate  law  we  can  only 
conclude  that  the  story  does  not  proceed  throughout  on  the 
presupposition  of  his  being  under  a  Nazirite  vow.  The  contra- 
dictions must  have  been  early  observed,  and  this  explains  why 
what  was  wanting  in  the  case  of  Samson  himself,  namely 
abstinence  from  wine  and  from  unclean  food,  is  compensated 
for  in  13"*  i*  by  attributing  this  abstinence  to  his  mother  for  the 
period  of  her  pregnancy. 

According  to  ch.  16,  Samson's  strength  resides  in  the  unshorn 
hair  of  his  head,  a  belief  which  in  the  case  of  the  Nazirate  is 
explained  by  the  consecration  in  virtue  of  which  Jahweh  Him- 
self dwells  in  the  hair  consecrated  to^im.  Amos,  too,  appears 
to  attribute  special  powers  to  the  Nazirites  (2ilf ),  but  what  is 
the  nature  of  these  we  are  not  told.  But  the  notion  that  some 
mysterious  power  resides  in  the  hair,  apart  even  from  such 
Bjiecial  consecration,  is  extraordinarily  widespread.  A  large 
collection  of  facts  directly  connected  with  supposed  active  and 
passive  bodily  powers  may  be  found  in  J.  G.  yrazer,  The  Golden 
Bmtgh ',  iii.  390  f.  The  Sunda  Isles  of  the  present  day  con- 
tribute much  material  to  this  collection,  but  so  also  does 
Europe  of  the  Middle  Ages,  especially  in  the  matter  of  pro- 
cesses against  witches.  The  reader  may  note  also  what  is  said 
in  the  same  work  (i.  370  ff.,  cf.  also  p.  31)  about  letting  the  hair 
grow,  and  about  the  dangers  connected  with  the  cuttmg  of  it. 
The  fear  of  these  rises  to  such  a  pitch  that,  for  instance,  the 
chief  of  the  Namosi  upon  the  Fiji  Islands,  every  time  he  had  hia 
hair  cut,  had  to  devour  a  man,  in  order  to  ward  off  the  dangers 
which  threatened  him.  We  have  therefore  to  do  here  with 
convictions  diffused  over  the  whole  world,  and  which  certainly 
go  back  to  very  early  times.  Even  in  Israel  they  must  have 
been  much  older  than  the  religion  of  Jahweh,  but  they  were 
brought  within  its  scope  in  the  fonu  of  the  Nazirate.  From 
the  storj"  of  Samson  and  from  Am  S'^f-  we  may  infer  with  some 
probability  that  Israel  was  conscious  that  the  blessing  of  the 
Nazirate  gave  them  an  advantage  over  the  Philistines  and  the 
Canaanites ;  and  if  that  is  so,  we  must  hold  that  the  Nazirate 
was  established  in  Israel  prior  to  the  conquest  of  Canaan. 

vii.  Significance  for  the  History  of  Civili- 
zation,— The  story  of  Samson  is  specially  import- 
ant from  this  point  of  view.  Above  all,  we  see  from 
it  that  the  iaeal  of  the  country  hero  was  exactly 
the  same  iu  Israel  tlien  as  it  is  at  the  present  day. 
The  lion  of  a  village  must  be  first  in  success  with 
the  female  sex,  first  in  bodily  strength,  courage, 
and  fondness  for  brawling,  and  first  in  mother 
wit.  Samson  displays  the  last-named  quality  in 
his  riddle  (cli.  14),  in  his  ever -varied  devices 
against  the  Philistines,  and  in  the  witty  fashion 
in  which  he  ever  anew  deceives  Delilah.  Veracity 
by  no  means  belongs  to  the  list  of  virtues  of  the 
country  hero,  and  aa  little  does  faithfulness  in 
love.  Excess,  or  at  least  enormous  capacity  in 
eating  and  in  drinking  strong  liquors,  is  amongst 
the  things  that  may  almost  be  taken  for  granted. 
It  is  strange  enough  that  this  trait  is  not  strikingly 
displayed  in  Samson.     Who  knows  whether  from 

•  How  large  a  part  was  played  by  the  hair-offering  in  the  life 
of  ancient  peoples,  e8]ieciallv  of  the  Semites,  may  be  leanied 
from  W.  E-  Smith,  RS^  326-334,  cf.  also  p.  462  fl. 


the  store  of  legends  that  circulated  regarding  him 
there  may  not  have  been  dropped  this  or  that 
portion  dealing  with  the  subject  in  question?  Aa 
to  the  matter  of  his  enormous  bodilv  strength, 
every  village,  or  at  least  every  shire,  nas  still  its 
Samson,  whose  displays  of  strength,  as  recorded 
in  popular  stories,  speedily  go,  witliout  the 
calling  in  of  any  superhuuian  causes,  beyond 
what  is  possible  for  man.  Many  of  our  readers, 
especiall}^  tli<Kse  who  have  been  brought  up  in  the 
countr}',  will  be  able  to  substantiate  what  we 
have  said.  Sucli  conditions  of  life,  which  we  can 
still  detect  everywhere,  are  the  earliest  soil  oi 
the  Samson  stories ;  everything  else  is  only 
secondary. 

We  have,  further,  in  ch.  14  a  graphic  description 
of  the  wedding  festivities  in  ancient  Israel,  the 
only  one  which  has  come  down  to  us.  We  see 
from  it  that  on  such  occasions  the  proceedings 
Avere  essentially  the  same  as  in  the  modern  East, 
and,  in  some  important  points,  even  the  same  as 
at  our  own  Jewish  weddings.  There  is  a  seven 
days'  feast  (v.''),  above  all  with  plenty  of  eating 
and  drinking  of  wine  (nrifP),  in  which  the  whole 
community  takes  part.  The  thirty  companions 
(v."),  with  their  head,  who  is  probabl}-  meant  in 
14^  and  15%  are  the  conductors  of  the  bride  (cf.  the 

*  sixty  valiant  men'  of  Solomon  in  Ca  3',  and  the 

*  friend  of  the  bridegroom  '  in  Jn  3^).  They  would 
have  to  defray  the  expenses  of  the  wedding,  as  ia 
still  the  custom  in  Syrian  villages.  Samson  and 
the  young  wife  would,  as  is  also  the  custom  there, 
be  called  *king'  and  *  queen'  during  the  seven 
days  (cf.  Budde,  Kurzer  Hd'-om.  xvii.  p.  xviif.), 
Samson's  ritldle  is  only  a  small  part  of  the  amuse- 
ments of  all  kinds — songs,  dances,  games,  stories 
— with  which  the  seven  days  were  filled  up. 

Although,  however,  the  practices  at  Samson's  wedding  are 
the  same  as  are  usual  elsewhere,  the  same  caimot  be  said  of  the 
character  of  the  marriage  itself.  From  15if-  it  is  plain  that  the 
young  wife  did  not  go  aher  the  marriage  to  Zor'ah  to  Samson's 
house,  but  remained  in  the  house  of  her  parents  at  Timnah. 
And  even  if  this  might  appear  to  be  explained  on  the  ground 
that  Samson,  acconiing  to  H^^^,  parted  from  her  in  anger 
instead  of  personally  accompanj-ing  her  in  stately  procession  to 
Zor'ah  (cf.  l^-*),  there  is  not  the  slightest  hint  in  15if-  that  he 
purposed  subsequently  to  take  her  home  to  Zoi'ah,  but  only 
that  he  meant  to  visit  her  in  her  pareiUf^  house.  Nor  doe§ 
the  kid  which  he  takes  with  him  appear  to  be  an  extraordinary 
present  for  a  special  purpose,  such  aa  to  make  up  for  his  anger 
of  1411*,  but  seems  rather  to  belong  to  the  visit  as  such.  If  all 
this  be  so,  then  we  have  to  do  with  that  peculiar  ancient  form  of 
marriage  to  whith  W.  R.  Smith  {Kinnhip  and  Mnrriane  in  early 
Arabia,  pp.  70-76)  gave  the  name  mdika  marriage,  it  answers 
to  the  ancient  social  institution  of  the  matriarchate,  under 
which  the  wife  remains  with  her  relations,  the  husband  visits 
her  there,  the  children  belong  to  the  tribe  and  the  family  of  the 
mother.  One-sided  dissolution  of  such  a  marriage  and  the  con- 
tracting of  another  (cf.  Jg  152)  by  the  woman  is  also  witnessed 
to  amongst  the  Arabs  {I.e.  p.  65).'  If  Samson's  marriage  is  to  be 
understood  in  this  way,  this  does  not  of  course  imply  that  at 
the  time  when  these  stories  took  their  rise  all  marriages  in 
Israel  were  of  the  mdVca  tj'pe.  But  we  learn  again  from  the 
ancient  Arabic  materials  collected  by  W.  R.  Smith,  that,  even 
when  the  later  fomi  of  marriage  had  come  to  prevail,  such 
mdXka  marriages  were  still  contracted  when  the  ordinary 
inarfiage  was  not  possible,  as,  for  instance,  between  member* 
of  hostile  tribes  {I.e.  p.  71  f.).  This  may  be  the  explanation  in 
the  case  before  us,  where  a  man  belonging  to  the  territorj'  ol 
Israel,  which  was  subject  to  the  Philistines,  seeks  in  marriage  a 
girl  of  the  ruling  people.  We  should  perhaps  adopt  a  similar 
fnterp relation  when  it  is  said  that  Gideon  hod  a  concubine  in 
Shechem  (Jg  83i),  which  still  belonged  to  the  Canaanites;  and 
when  Abimelech,  her  son,  speaks  of  himself  as  a  Shecheniite 
and  not  as  an  Israelite  (9^).  If  any  one  thinks  it  worth  while,  he 
may,  upon  the  ground  of  this  ancient  social  custom,  view  more 
mildly  even  Samson's  relation  to  DeUlah  in  16*^-     It  is  sur- 

E rising  indeed  that  at  such  a  marriage  the  festivities  described 
1  ch.  IS  should  be  the  same  as  at  the  marriages  which  constitute 
the  man  the  possessor  (Vt'3)  of  the  woman  ;  but  it  may  well  be 
that  difTerent  points  of  view  have  here  become  confused. 

viii.  Mythological  Traces, — Samson's  extra- 
ordinary strength,  which  he  displays  in  a  number 
of  feats,  led  even  in  olden  times  to  a  comparison  of 
him  witli  Hercules,  and  recently  such  comparisons 
have  gone  the  length  of  vain  attempts  to  count  up 
exactly  twelve  exploits  A  Samson.     After  it  came 


sa:*iuel 


SAMUEL 


381 


to  be  reco^ized  or  believed  that  the  Hercules 
legend  is  a  solar  mj-th,  many  in  our  own  centurj' 
pioceeded  to  take  the  story  of  Samson  also  as  a 
sun-myth,  and  to  interpret  it  so  in  detail.  The 
derivation  of  the  name  prep  from  tbc'  tells  indeed 
rather  against  than  in  favour  of  this  view,  for  it  is 
not  the  way  with  a  nature-myth  to  borrow  or  even 
to  derive  the  name  of  its  hero  from  the  cosmical 
object  which  it  describes.  The  derivation  from 
Bcth-shemcsh  is  a  much  more  natural  one.  But 
such  mythical  explanations  are  not  capable  of 
being  refuted  in  detail,  because  the  elements  with 
which  they  operate  are  so  .simple  that  any  one  so 
disposed  may  lind  them  in  any  history,  and  for  the 
most  part  in  opposite  ways.  At  all  events,  the 
strength  of  Samson  requires  no  such  explanation  ; 
on  the  contrarj',  it  is  explicable,  as  we  saw,  by  con- 
siderations drawn,  on  the  one  hand,  from  the 
history  of  civilization,  and  on  the  other  from 
religion.  And  it  is  equally  certain  that  none  of 
the  narrators  of  the  story  is  conscious  that  he  is 
handing  on  a  myth  ;  the  features  of  the  contem- 
porary history  and  civilization  are  very  clearly 
marked.  This  does  not  prevent  the  supposition 
that  mj'thical  traits  may  have  found  their  way 
into  these  popular  narratives.  Undoubtedly  a  topo- 
logical [(iunlvel,  Genesis,  p.  xv,  incorrectly  gives 
this  the  name  'geological']  motive  for  a  legend 
appears  at  work  in  15",  where  the  name  '  Height 
of  the  .Jawbone '  is  to  be  expl.ained.  It  is  quite  re- 
markable, too,  that  the  fire-brand  foxes  (15'')  recur 
in  Ovid  {Fasti,  iv.  67911'.)  in  the  Roman  cultus, 
and  are  explained  (ii.  701  ff.)  by  the  act  of  a  mis- 
chievous boy  which  exactly  resembles  the  act  of 
Sanuson.  But,  in  t/iis  instance  at  all  events,  we 
have  not  to  do  with  a  solar  myth  ;  the  reader  may 
be  reminded  how  in  Poitou  '  the  spirit  of  the  corn 
appears  to  be  conceived  in  the  shape  of  a  fox ' 
iKrazer,  I.e.  ii.  283;  cf.  the  whole  chapter  entitled 
'The  corn-spirit').  The  attempt  to  give  a  con- 
tinuoui  mythological  interpretation  of  the  story 
of  Samson  is  tlierefore  to  be  abandoned,  althougli 
there  are  various  points  in  it  besides  the  above 
which  may  profitably  be  examined  from  this  point 
of  view. 

LiTRR^Ti-RK.— The  Comm.  on  Jnilgpn,  esp.  those  of  Moore,  in 
Intrrnnl.  Cril.  O'ln.  ISn.l ;  nudde  in  hnrzer  lldcom.  1897; 
Nowa<-k  in  Itdkmntn.  190(1;  and  the  authoriLius  cited  iti  these. 
The  older  iileratiire  will  be  found  LQ  Winer's  cxi-ellent  art. 
■  Simaoii '  in  his  AH  .03,  1848.  K.  BUDDE. 

SAMUEL  (SxiDy,  2:ajuom}X).— The  meaning  'name 
of  (;i)d,'  which  is  now  generally  accepted,  is  the 
only  one  that  can  be  upheld  on  philological  rounds. 
The  author  of  the  early  history  of  Samuel  ouviously 
connects  the  name  with  tlie  circumstances  of 
Siimuel's  birth  as  if  SmDE'='7ND  Sini?  (1^  'and  she 
called  his  name  Samuel,  snijing.  Because  I  have 
asked  him  of  the  Lord');  hut  it  is  impossible  to 
regard  this  explanation  as  giving  the  actual  deriva- 
tion of  the  name.  As  is  not  infrequently  the  case 
in  the  OT,  '  the  \vriter  merely  expresses  an  asson- 
ance, nat  an  etymology,  i.e.  the  name  '^nidc  recalled 
to  his  mind  the  word  ''ikp  n.tkcd,  though  in  no 
sense  derived  from  it'  (Driver,  Text  of  Sam. 
p.  13  f.).  The  derivation  'heard  of  God '  (Su  jjiDif*) 
18  also  et3'mologically  imiirobable.* 

The  history  of  Samuel  as  set  forth  in  the  first 
Bjok  that  hears  his  name  contains  so   many  dis- 

•  In  a  recent  article  on  'The  Name  of  .Samuel  and  the  Stem 
7KP'  {.IRL,  vol.  xix.  pt.  1.),  M.  Jaetrow,  jr.,  mairiUiins  that  the 
init  element  (i"17)  of  the  compound  nwne  Shihnu'H  (should  be 
rendcrwl  'ofTsprinif '  rather  than  'name,'  on  the  analojjy  of  the 
Afwyr.  ghumu,  which  occunt  frequently  in  the  former  senile  in 
prnnor  names  (.Vi-^u-ft/iurn-ulrin,  flr^-gAum -t/^ir,  etc.) :  ho 
explains  ^'annc**/ therefore  a8=' Bon  of  Go<l,' and  compares  the 
correlative  Abiel.  There  Is,  however,  no  evidence  lo  show  that 
the  Hell.  EC*  ever  bore  thia  meanlntf :  the  pasaanew  cited  by 
Jastrow  in  favour  of  It  readily  admit  of  the  usual  Hih^niflcation. 


crepancies  not  only  as  regards  the  history  of  the 
period,  but  also  as  regards  Samuel's  character  and 
position,  that  it  is  impossible  to  assign  it  to  a 
single  author.  These  inconsistencies  can  be  ex- 
plained only  on  the  theory  that  we  have  two 
accounts  of  the  history  of  Samuel,  which  have 
been  combined  by  a  later  editor  (see  following 
article).  In  order,  therefore,  to  obtain  a  clear  con- 
ception of  the  life  and  work  of  Samuel,  it  is  neces- 
sary to  treat  the  two  sources  separately. 

In  the  earlier  of  the  two  documents  from  which  the  Books  of 
Samuel  are  mainly  compiled,  Samuel  tlrst  appears  in  connexion 
with  the  election  of  Saul  as  itintf  at  Gilf,'al  tiin".).  He  is  there 
described  as  '  a  man  of  God  '  (D*-),  or,  more  accurately,  as  a  seer 
(.1X1  as  opposed  to  N'^J  &prophet.  99),  living  in  the  Land  of  Zuph 
(probably  in  the  hill-country  of  Ephraim).  The  narrative  opens 
somewhat  abruptly  wilti  the  story  of  Saul's  search  for  the  asses 
of  his  father.  After  three  days'  search  Saul  is  on  the  point  of 
returning  homewards,  when  he  is  urged  by  his  servant  to  con- 
sult the  man  of  God  living  in  that  clistrict  (it  is  not  until  v.'o 
that  we  learn  his  name).  Saul's  objection,  that  the  seer  will 
certainly  expect  a  present,  is  met  by  the  servant  producing  the 
fourth  part  of  a  shekel.  They  accordingly  enter  the  city  and 
inquire  for  the  seer,  whom  they  meet  on  his  way  to  the  high 
place.  The  meeting,  however,  was  no  accidental  one,  for 
Samuel  had  been  divinely  prepared  on  the  nrevious  day  for  the 
coming  of  the  Benjamite  stranger,  and  had  been  instructed  to 
anoint  him  to  be  prince  over  Israel;  for,  said  Jehovuli,  *he 
shall  save  my  people  out  of  the  hands  of  the  Philistines.' 
Samuel  accordingly  invites  Saul  to  the  sacrificial  meal,  at  which 
a  place  had  been  reserved  for  him,  and  on  the  tollowiiig  morn- 
ing ]>rivately  anointa  him,  and  informs  him  at  the  sauie  time  of 
his  Divine  mission  to  delic'er  Israel  from  its  opi)ressor8.  He 
adds,  further,  three  signs  by  which  Saul  may  prove  the  truth 
of  his  words,  and  bids  him  do  as  occasion  ser^'es  him  when  these 
have  been  fulfilled.  The  signs  are  fulfilled,  and  shortly  after 
Saul's  return  to  his  father's  house  the  occasion  foretold  by 
Samuel  presents  itself  in  connexion  with  the  siege  of  Jabesh- 
gilead  by  Nahash  the  Anmionite.  Saul's  prompt  and  successful 
action  in  relieving  the  besieged  city  arouses  the  enthusiasm  of 
his  countrymen,  who  crown  him  king  at  Gilgal. 

The  comp.aratively  subordinate  position  occujiied 
by  Samuel,  according  to  tliis  older  narrative,  and 
the  limited  extent  of  his  influence  on  the  alliiirs  of 
the  n.ation,  stand  in  striking  contrast  to  the  tradi- 
tional view  of  his  life  and  work.  He  is  here  repre- 
sented as  the  seer  of  a  small  town,  who  is  consulted 
in  matters  of  diiliculty  and  perplexity  by  the 
inhabitants  of  the  district  in  which  he  lives,  and 
who  is  in  charge  of  the  local  shrine  :  beyond  this 
district  he  is  unknown  to  the  rest  of  Israel. 
Further,  his  chief  claim  to  fame  lies  in  the  fact 
that  on  one  occasion  only  he  is  chosen  by  Jehovah 
as  His  instrument  in  carrying  out  His  phins  for 
tlie  deliverance  of  Israel.  Lastly,  it  is  noticeable 
that  he  has  no  voice  in  the  establishment  of  the 
monarchy  ;  his  interest  in  the  matter  ajiparently 
ceases  with  the  performance  of  his  part  in  anoint- 
ing Saul ;  nor  does  he  apjiear  to  have  been  consulted 
in  the  actual  election  of  the  king.  It  cannot,  how- 
ever, be  doubted  that  this  older  document  has  been 
preserved  to  us  only  in  a  very  fragmentary  form  ; 
and  we  may  infer  with  considerable  jiroLability 
that  it  originally  contained  a  longer  and  fuller 
account  of  the  life  and  work  of  Samuel,  which  was 
pa-ssed  over  by  the  editor  in  favour  of  the  (from  his 
point  of  view)  more  s.atisfactory  account  preserved 
in  the  later  document.  The  explanation  of  this 
selection  is  furnished  by  the  later  document,  which 
is  obviou.sly  colourcil  by  the  views  and  conceptions 
of  a  later  age,  and  as  sueli  ajiproximates  more 
closely  to  the  standpoint  of  the  editor  who  com- 
bined the  two  narratives.  It  remains,  therefore,  to 
examine  the  narrative  of  the  later  document,  and 
tt>  estimate  how  far  we  can  utilize  it  for  the  purpose 
of  supplementing  the  earlier  account. 

The  later  narrative  commences  with  the  birth  of  Samuel,  and 
relates  how  Hannah,  tlie  barren  wile  of  KIkanali,  on  the  occasion 
of  tile  yearly  feast  made  a  suleiiin  vow  to  the  LoRn  that  if  He 
would  fook  upon  her  atfiii'tinn  and  give  her  a  man  child,  she 
would  dedicate  him  to  the  8ervi<:e  of  the  sanctuary.  Samuel  is 
born  in  answer  to  her  prayer,  and  In  due  time  handed  over  to 
the  care  of  Eli,  the  aged' priest  at  Shiloh.  His  childhood  is 
thus  spent  within  the  precincts  of  the  ancient  Israelite  shrine. 


382 


SAMUEL 


SAMUEL,  I.  AND  LL 


where  'he  ministered  to  the  Lord  before  Eli  the  prieat'(2ii), 
and  'grew  in  favour  both  wth  the  Lord  nnd  also  with  men' 
(2*^).  But  the  sons  of  Eli,  who  in  the  natural  course  of  events 
would  have  succeeded  their  father,  proved  uinvorthv  of  their 
Bacrt'd  office,  and  provoked  the  wrath  of  Jehovah  by  tneir  abuse 
of  their  priestly  privileges.  In  consequence  of  their  sin  the 
destruction  of  the  house  of  Eli  is  decreed  by  Jehovah,  who 
announces  His  purpose  to  the  youthful  Samuel  in  a  vision  of 
the  night.  The  favour  of  Jehovah,  however,  which  is  openly 
displayed  towards  the  latter,  makes  it  apparent  that  he  has 
been  chosen  to  succeed  to  the  priestly  office,  and  all  Israel  recog- 
nized *  that  he  was  established  to  be  a  prophet  of  the  Lord  ' :  for 
through  his  agency  the  word  of  the  Lord  was  revealed  to  all 
Israel  ^:520_4ia).  in  the  history  of  the  defeat  of  Israel  at  Aphek, 
an<l  of  the  capture  and  restoration  of  the  ark  by  the  Philistines 
(42-7^),  there  is  no  mention  of  Samuel,  who  is  suddenly  re- 
introduced some  time  after  the  return  of  the  ark,  in  the 
character  of  a  'judge,'  rather  than  in  that  of  a  'prophet'  or 
•priest'  (T^f).  Like  a  second  Moses,  he  is  represented  ae 
exhorting  the  people  to  turn  from  their  idolatrous  practices 
and  to  serve  Jehovah  alone.  The  people  hearken  to  his  words, 
and  in  order  to  confirm  their  resolution  he*  summons  a  national 
assembly  at  Miz^iah,  where  they  make  public  confession  of  their 
eins.  The  purpose  of  this  gathering,  however,  is  misunder- 
Blood  by  the  Philistines,  who  at  once  collect  their  forces  to 
meet  what  appears  to  them  as  a  national  uprising.  Dismayed 
by  the  approach  of  their  hereditary  enemies,  the  Israelites 
beseech  Samuel  to  intercede  with  Jehovah  on  their  behalf.  In 
answer  to  Samuel's  prayer,  Jehovah  sends  a  violent  thunder- 
Btonn,  which  scattei-s  the  Philistines,  and  renders  thtm  an  easy 
prey  to  the  pursuing  Israelites.  To  commemorate  their  deliver- 
ance, Sanmel  sets  up  a  great  stone  and  calls  the  name  of  it 
Eben-ezer,  or  'stone  of  help.*  According  to  the  writer,  this 
victory  marks  the  downfall  of  the  Philistine  domination ;  for 
from  that  time  onwards  the  Philistines 'came  no  more  within 
the  border  of  Israel,'  while  the  cities 'which  they  had  taken 
from  Israel  were  restored  from  Ekron  even  unt<)Gath '(Ti-*).  In 
the  peaceful  times  that  followed,  Samuel  is  represented  as 
administrating  justice  throughout  Israel  by  means  of  a  yearly 
circuit  of  the  chief  sanctuaries  on  the  west  of  Jordan — Reth-el, 
Gilgal.  and  Mizpah.  As  his  years  increase,  he  naturally  asso- 
ciates his  sons  with  himself  in  the  office  of  judge  ;  but,  like  the 
sons  of  Eli,  they  '  walked  not  in  the  ways'  of  their  father.  For 
this  reason,  and  also  because  they  desire 'to  be  like  all  the 
nations,"  the  people  demand  that  a  king  should  be  set  over 
them.  Their  request  is  viewed  with  disfavour  by  Samuel,  who 
plainly  regards  it  as  an  act  of  rebellion  against  Jehovah.  But, 
m  compliance  with  the  Divine  command,  he  first  sets  clearly 
before  them  the  treatment  they  may  expect  at  the  hanc^  of  a 
king,  and  then,  as  they  still  persist  in  their  demand,  takes 
steps  to  grant  it.  For  this  purpose  he  once  more  summons  the 
people  to  Mizpah,  and,  after  pointing  out  their  ingratitude, 
directs  that  lots  should  be  cast  for  the  king  :  the  choice  falls  on 
Saul  the  son  of  Kish,  of  the  tribe  of  Benjamin  (821).  Samuel 
now  realizes  that  his  life's  work  is  at  an  end,  and  in  a  solemn 
farewell  speech  he  first  bids  the  people  attest  the  justice  of 
his  rule,  and  then,  by  means  of  a  brief  survey  of  the  national 
history,  warns  them  against  disobeying  the  word  of  Jehovah. 
His  exhortation  is  rendered  the  more  impressive  by  a  miraculous 
thunderstorm,  which  frightens  the  people  into  a  confession  of 
their  sin  in  asking  for  a  king.  Their  fears  are  allayed  by  Samuel, 
who  assures  them  of  Jehovah's  favour  if  they  will  serve  llira 
truly. 

The  election  of  Saul  as  king,  and  the  consequent  establish- 
ment of  the  monarchy,  seem  to  form  a  fitting  conclusion  to  the 
work  of  the  last  Israelite  '  judge ' ;  but  the  last  days  of  Samuel 
were  destined  to  be  embittered  by  the  foolish  action  of  the 
king  whom  he  had  been  chiefly  instrumental  in  appointing. 
In  accordance  with  the  command  of  Jehovah  as  announced 
by  Samuel,  Saul  wages  a  war  of  extermination  against  the 
Amalekites.  but,  in  deference  to  the  wishes  of  his  people,  spares 
Agag  the  king  and  the  best  of  the  spoil.  Samuel  la  divmely 
informed  of  the  king's  action,  and  openly  taxes  him  with 
disobeying  the  commands  of  Jehovah.  Saul  seeks  to  palliate 
his  offence,  but  Samuel  ignores  his  excuses  and  announces  his 
rejection.  He  thereupon  confesses  his  sin,  and  begs  for  for- 
giveness ;  but  Samuel  merely  reiterates  his  sentence,  interpreting 
the  rending  of  hia  cloak  by  Saul  as  a  sign  that  the  latter's 
kingdom  has  been  'rent'  from  him.  In  response,  however,  to 
Saul's  apjieal.  he  consents  to  honour  him  once  more  before  the 
people  by  joining  vnth  him  in  the  worship  of  Jehovah.  He 
then  slays  Agap  with  his  own  hands,  and  depart*  to  his  house  at 
Ramah.  This  incident  marks  the  close  of  Samuel's  public  life; 
for  'he  came  no  more  to  see  Saul  until  the  day  of  his  death,' 
but  remained  in  seclusion  at  Ramah  (see  art.  Ramau),  where  he 
died  and  was  buried. 

Tlie  above  sketch  of  the  contents  of  the  later 
document  shows  clearly  that  the  writer  rejjarded 
Saimiel  as  exercisin*^  a  far  wider  sphere  of  infhience 
than  the  unknown  seer  of  the  earlier  narrative. 
The  po^iition,  indeed,  which  he  a.ssi^s  to  Samuel  is 
that  of  a  second  Moses,  who  rules  over  the  people 
as  the  representative  of  Jehovah,  and  whose  mission 
it  is  to  win  the  people  from  their  apostasy  to  the 
service  of  the  only  true  God.  Further,  he  depicts 
him  as  exercising  the  office  of  a  *  judge'  (in  the 
sense  in  which  that  term  is  employed  m  the  pre- 


Deuteronomic  Book  of  Judges  (2^-16")),  and  de- 
livering Israel  from  the  hands  of  their  Philistine 
oppressors :  thus  Israel's  desire  for  a  king  can  only 
be  e.xplained  as  an  act  of  rebellion  against  Jehovah. 

The  contrast  between  the  two  representations  of 
Samuel  is  very  marked,  and  at  first  sight  it  would 
appear  as  if  the  one  must  necessarily  exclude  the 
other.  But  though  there  can  be  no  doubt  as  to 
the  greater  historical  value  of  the  earlier  narrative, 
w'hich  bears  all  the  marks  of  a  high  antiquity,  it 
by  no  means  follows  that  the  later  narrative  must 
be  rejected  as  unhistoriual.  For  it  must  be  re- 
membered (l)that  the  later  is  not  founded  on,  but 
is  clearly  independent  of,  the  earlier  narrative  ;  and 
(2)  that  the  view  which  is  taken  of  the  standpoint 
of  the  later  author  does  not  of  necessity  affect  the 
general  truth  of  his  narrative.  Hence,  though  the 
earlier  narrative  contains  no  account  of  Samuel's 
childhood,  of  his  connexion  with  Eli  at  Shiloh,  and 
of  his  intercession  on  behalf  of  the  people,  we  have 
no  grounds  for  regarding  these  facts  as  other  than 
historical.  It  cannot  be  doubted,  however,  that 
the/orwi  in  which  they  have  been  preserved  to  U3 
has  been  largely  coloured  bv  the  later  '  prophetic* 
point  of  view.  Interpreted  by  this  later  stand- 
point, the  establishment  of  the  monarchy,  or  rather 
the  election  of  David's  predecessor  as  king,  has 
little  to  recommend  it,  and  is  not  unnaturally 
described  as  one  of  many  acts  of  apostasy  on  the 
part  of  ancient  Israel.  For  the  purpose  of  this 
narrative,  it  must  be  remembered,  is  religiotis ; 
and  it  does  not  lie  within  the  writer's  scope  to 
estimate  the  importance  of  this  event  in  thepontical 
history  of  the  nation.  His  interest  rather  centres 
in  the  person  of  Samuel  the  prophet,  and  there 
is  on  this  account  a  marked  tendency  to  magnify 
his  office  and  to  overestimate  his  influence.  The 
extent  to  which  this  tendency  has  allected  the 
narrative  is  illustrated  in  a  very  striking  manner 
by  the  story  of  Samuel's  intercession  on  behalf  of 
the  people  at  Mizpah  {V"-).  That  Samuel  did 
intercede  for  the  people  may  be  inferred  from 
Jer  15^  ;  but  that  his  intercession  was  followed  by 
the  subjugation  of  the  Philistines  (7'^)  cannot  be 
reconciled  with  the  subsequent  history  (see  the 
account  of  Saul's  campaign  against  the  Philistines 
13*-I4*^  and  especially  14^^  'and  there  was  sore 
war  against  the  Philistines  all  the  days  of  Saul'). 
In  like  manner,  we  may  conclude  that  the  repre- 
sentation of  Samuel  as  a  *  prophet,'  and  his  aver- 
sion to  the  monarchy,  reflect  the  point  of  view  of  a 
later  age,  and  have  but  little  foundation  in  fact. 
Looking  back  over  the  past  history  of  Israel,  the 
writer  clearly  regards  Samuel  as  the  last  of  the  old 
order  of  jud^res,  and  also  as  the  forerunner  of  the 
new  order  of  prophets.  Tiiat  his  estimate  in  the 
main  is  a  correct  one  cannot  be  <lenied  :  it  is  clear, 
however,  that  it  has  largely  influenced  his  por- 
trayal of  Samuel's  life  and  work. 

In  conclusion,  it  may  be  pointed  out  that  the 
account  of  the  anointing  of  David  by  Samuel 
(16'"^^),  and  the  second  e.xplanation  of  the  proverb, 
'Is  Saul  also  among  the  prophets?'  (19^^"**),  can 
only  be  regarded  as  late  and  unhistorical  (see 
below,  p.  386  f.).  They  illustrate  that  tendency  to 
increase  the  importance  of  tlie  heroes  of  the  nation, 
and  to  connect  them  with  the  beginnings  of  later 
institutions,  which  in  later  times  became  especially 
characteristic  of  Jewish  writings. 

J.  F.  Stennino. 

SAMUEL,  I.  AND  II.— 

i.  Title. 

ii.  Contenta 
ill.  Sources  and  DatA, 
iv.  Analysis. 
Literature. 

i.  TiTLK. — The  two  Books  of  Samuel,  like  the 
two    Books  of    Kings,    formed   originally   in   the 


5 


Hebrew  Canon  a  ..in^le  book  called  Sko^t  (San me  ) 
The  LXX  translators,  however  regarded  the 
Book  of  Samuel  and  the  Book  of  Kings  as  a  com- 
Tae  historj-  of  the  two  kingdoms  of  Israel  and 
j  dah  and^divided  them  into  four  books,  which 
thev  entitled  'Books  of  the  kingdonis  (^I^Xo. 
ea^A«iW.  The  same  division  was  foUowed  by 
Jerome  in  the  Vulgate,  but  t'-t'^'^^^^f  *°ffe 
to  'Books  of  the  Kings'  Lihrv  ^'!J'"'%,t^'l 
compromise  which  now  obtains  in  printed  Hebrew 
Bibles?  viz.  the  division  of  the  boo'ks  into  four  in 
^cordance  with  the  LXX  !^"«1  Vulgate  and  he 
retention  of  the  Hebrew  titles  for  each  pair,  vas 
first  adopted  in  Daniel  Bomberg's  printed  edition 

"^Selection  of  the  title  is  due  to  the  fact  that 
the  open  n?' chapters  deal  mainly  with  the  history 
of  SaCeC  whi  stUl  plays  an  i">PO.tant  role  in 
those  that  follow  :  the  pronunent  part  taken  l-y 
him  in  the  establishment  of  the  monarchy  may 
aLo  have  contributed  to  the  chmce  of  his  na.i.e 
for  the  history  of  the  period  whic^h  is  chiefly  con- 
cemed  with  the  reigns  of  Saul  and  David 

ii.  CONTESTS.-In  their  present   form  the  two 
Books  of  Samuel  faU   most  naturally  into   four 
ma°n  sections:  (a)  I  1-15  SamufanJ  the  esUb- 
lishment    of   the    monarchy ;  (6)   I   16-11   8  Saul 
and   David ;    (c)  II   9-20  David  ;  {(l)  II  21-24    an 
Appendix.     That  this  arrangement  corresponds  to 
liiVintentionof  alater  editor  ,s  made  ev"l«rit  by 
the   three  concluding    summaries   by   ^^hicli    tlie 
various  sUges  of  the   narratives  are  marked  oi 
viz    I  14^-=^,  II  8   ("f  ^^I'ic''   ^       ^        original  y 
forined  part  ,  and  II  20^--«.     Since,  however    I  lo 
the  rejection  of  Saul  and   of  his  kingdom)  was 
clearlyTntendcdto  conclude  the  history  of  Sauls 
ret^    it  seems  better  to  attach  that  chapter  to 
the  ti'rst,  rather  than  to  treat  it  as  introductory  to 
the  second  section. 

The  four  main  section!)  arfmit  of  the  '""P"?"? '""^t^'^'rch 
„hiSi  brmfc'^t  more  clearly  the  course  of  the  history  wh.ch 

"'g')TJ-T5"'from  the  birth  of  Samuel  till  the  rejection  of 

an^n  Samuel's  birth  and  childhood  a"d  the  mi^ 
**'deed»  of  the  house  of  *^i  =  Sa.uue    succeeds  to  the 

office  of  Eli  (l>-»"):    th\''°'^J"i'  ^L'phihsS 
house,  and  the  capture  of  the  ark  by  the  Phllislmes 

a)%'^l^  Samuel  as  Judge  over  Israel  delivers  them 
^  from  their  Philistine  oppressors  :  in  answer  to  the 
I^uMt  of  the  iwople  (cl .  8),  and,  through  the  aaency 
Tbamue  (rh.'uf?  siul  after  deteatint:  the  Anunon- 
"to  (ch  11  is  mide  kin^.  Samuel  lays  <io«n  his 
Xith  ik.and  Saul  carries  on  -  ^-^fj^^^'„ 
with  the  Philistmca  (cha  13.  14)-  , '|V^^' ,  j'^ovah 
Aiualck  Saul  is  infonned  by  Samuel  that  •''="01  a  j 
h^  rejicS  him  because  of  his  disobedience,  and 
willL'ive  his  kingdom  to  another  (ch.l5X  ,  ^  , 
(M  116-11  8  Prom  the  first  appe.irance  of  P»^7  ,"L,  Jj 
*  '  flnnly    established   on   the    throne    of    Israel    ana 

0)"'no-31  History  of  David  during  the  «'f°  °'  S"';,"; 

*    Uc  is  secretly  anointed  by  *"""*'•  ""l^f'"rior 

«nice  of  Saul  (ch.  lU).     By  his  success  Ma  «arnor 

kin>r  ("ha  27  29.  30),  while  Saul  is  once  more  en- 
^'eiin%a;-wrth  tlie  Philistines,  and,  after  a  vam 
iuempt  to  obtain  a  Divine  oracle  (ch.  28),  perishts 
"  Ih  his  sons  at  the  battle  of  Ml.  Gi  boa  (=»■  31> 
mil  18  David's  laimnl  over  Saul  and  Jonathan 
^\ch  1).  In  the  civil  war  which  ensues  between 
feavid  and  the  ho.se  of  Saul,.the  "rmer  pro™, 
^ctirious.  an,l  finally  becon.es  "i-'g  ""^  '',^,^;,1 
Judal.  (i-SSV  "«  oaptures  Jerusalem  and  8>^«^-<l» 
Id  Ihrovring  off  the  Philistme  yoke  (oh.  6).    Tbejn 


(JvLri")  mentions  Simu/^l,  w<rm  no.  rfmorum  pnmum  el 
i^idum  dSi„,  »  the  thiWot  the  prophetic  hooka 


is  brought  to  the  capital  (ch.  6),  and  the  V«™«n™c, 

of  the  Uavidic  dynasty  assured  (ch.  .X    Concmoini 

sumuKiry  of  David's  ren,Tl  (ch.  8). 

(rt  n  9-20  Kunlier  history  of  David's  reifc'^rK,,!    n,„    „n  of 

ai9-12  David's   kindness    to    Meribbaal,  the    son  of 

^' Jonathan  (ch.  9) :  the  war  with  Ammon,  and  David  • 

m^ia'^o'Ab^iS'omUbeUion  (13-19),  and  the  revolt  of 
Shcha  (ch.  20).  .  ^.       „, 

Wn  21 -"4  The  Appendix,  consisting  or—  ,,„„„ 

m  historical   nridenU:  the  Gibeonites  and  the  house 
^'^^Saul^l-'"^)-.  e.vploiU  and  lists  of  David's  heroes 
/2116-.-J  23S35) ;  the  census  (ch.  24).  . 

(2)  poetical  f ra^-^nents :  a  psalm  of  David  (cb.  22),  and 
David's  '  Last  Words  CiJi')- 
The  history  set  forth   in  these  books  extends 
rougldy  overl  period  of  a  hundred  years,  during 
whTch  Israel  gra'thially  emerged  from  the  con.Ut.on 
of  national  disintegration  and  anaichy,  described 
in  the  Book  of  J"Jges.  and  acnuire.I   a  dehn ite 
national    existence.      The    establishment    of    the 
monarchy  was  at  once  the  external  sign  o     the 
union   wbich   was  ettected  between   the   hitherto 
scattered  tribes,  and  the  means  by  Nyhicli  it  was 
brought  about.'   Hence  the   mam  jnteres    of  the 
history   naturally  centres  round    the   jiersons  ot 
SaS   Saul,  ai/d  David,  who  were  the  principal 
aTnsn  the  work  of  consolidating  the  kingdom 
"iU    SOURCES  AND  DATE.-The  Books  of  Samuel 
in    heir  present  form  afford  a  striking  illn«"-afon 
of  the  methods  of  Hebrew  composition.     An  ex- 
amination  of  their  contents   at  ""ce  reveals  the 
fact  that  their  author,  after  the  manner  of  Hebrew 
historians    has  made  use  of   previously   existmg 
doCmlent;.     which,    though    covering    the    same 
crround     yet  present  the   materials  at  their  dis- 
fCl  in  vlry  litlerent  forms.     The  principle  winch 
eli.as  followed  in  the  compilation  of  his  woik  is 
ver-^  similar  to  that  with  which  we  are  already 
;  ^^aln" e.i  in  those  parts  of  the  H^XATKycH  where 
J  and  E  have  been  united  by  a  later  editor  (K    ) 
fnto  a  Composite  whole.     In  the  P--"    <^se  xv. 
have   also   two  narratives  which    togetlier    lorm 
the  m,ai^n  bulk  of  the  history.     These  narratives, 
however"    are    so  obvi.msly   independent    of    one 
an  ther     and   so    clearly   distinguished  by    their 
d"lh.'rent  rnir,t  of  view,  Uiat  there  is  now  consider- 
ae  unanimity  among  critics  with  regard  to  their 
respe^Uve  contents.      Moreover,   tliroughout   the 
ma^n  section  of  the  Books  of  Samuel,  the  editor  or 
redactor  has  made  but  little  elVort  to  harm.jnize 
the  varvin-   accounts  of  the  incidents  which  he 
relates^aml  has  contented  himself,    or  the  most 
part    with   reproducing    in   a   twoto Id    form    the 
Fcad  ng  events'  in  the  history  of  Saul  and  1  av^d 
Hence  arises  that  duplication  of  tnc.rfcni.  which 
8  e>^ec^ally  characteHstic  of  the  -'"]-f  7.  "^ 
the  irrcater  part  of  the  history  from  17-11  8      1  hus 
we  \i^d  two  independent  accounts  of  the  choice  of 
Saul  as  kill"  and  of  his  rejection.     In  like  manner 
tl^  com,  ilcT  has  preserved  to  us  a  double  account 
of  DiTvi.  '8  introduction  to  Saul,  and  ot  his    light 
?  „™   ,.n,.rt  •  of  the  sparing  of  Sauls  life  by  David, 
anTof  the  latter"  i/ight  to  the  Philistines  ;  and. 
lastly,  of  the  death  of  Saul.  „:„i,f 

In  nearly  all  these  cases  (to  which  others  might 
be  added)  both  accounts  have  been  preserved 
afmost  entire,  and  the  redactor  has  "o.^  aUempted 
to  connect  them  by  other  than  the  si i^  ttst  o 
links-  in  a  few  instances,  however,  he  «onl.l  sum 
to  have  shortened  or  condensed  the  one  narraUve 
while  transcribing  the  other  in  full  ;  in  no  case 
hals  he  wedded  thS  two  together  in  such  a  manner 
ns  to  rendc;r  analysis  inipos.sihle. 

It  remains,  therefore,  to  inve8tigato  these  two 
sources,  and  to  consider  their  probable  ongin  and 

m!  St  lav  siO^tro  clea/ly  marked  that  wo 
hav^^o  d'ii^^iilty  in  determining  the  relative  ages 
of  the  two  narratives.     On  the  one  hand,  in  what 


384 


SA]\IUEL,  I.  AND  II, 


SAMUEL,  I.  AND  II. 


we  may  provisionally  call  the  older  narrative,  we 
have  a  simple,  straightforward  history,  which, 
froiu  its  graphic  style,  and  its  vivid  description,  as 
well  as  from  its  religious  conceptions,  manifestly 
belongs  to  a  period  of  great  antiquity.  In  other 
words,  we  have  a  natural  representation  of  the 
state  of  society  and  of  religion  which  existed  in 
the  early  days  of  the  monarchy,  closely  akin  to 
that  which  we  find  in  the  earlier  portions  of  the 
Book  of  Judges.  The  later  narrative  tliroughout 
is  obviously  coloured  by  the  religious  teaching  of  a 
later  age,  and  the  standard  by  which  the  various 
incidents  are  judged  is  that  of  a  period  svibsequent 
to  the  prophetic  teaching  of  the  8th  century. 

Kuenen  (Hist.  ■  Krit.  Einleitung,  I.  ii.  p.  46  f.) 
and  Wellhausen  (Composition,  p.  238  f.),  who  are 
followed,  at  least  as  regards  1  S  7.  8.  10'"«-  12, 
by  Lohr,  held  that  this  later  narrative  was  derived 
from  a  Deuteronomic  source ;  but  Cornill  and 
Budde  have  shown  conclusively  that  it  is  marked, 
at  any  rate  in  part,  by  a  close  affinity  to  E.  The 
great  similarity  of  this  narrative,  both  in  language 
and  style,  to  the  E  of  the  Hexateuch,  has  led  these 
critics  to  regard  it  as  a  continuation  of  that  source. 
Budde,  indeed,  goes  further,  and  assigns  the  earlier 
narrative  to  the  older  source  J,  supposing  that  the 
two  sources  were  welded  together  by  R^^,  and 
afterwards  edited  by  a  Deuteronomic  redactor. 
Antecedently,  no  doubt,  this  theorj',  wliich  presup- 
poses that  the  HeKateuchal  sources  J  and  E  did 
not  cease  with  the  conquest  of  Canaan,  but  con- 
tinued the  history  dov.Ti  to  a  later  date,  if  not  to 
their  own  day,  has  much  to  commend  it  (see  Moore, 
Judges,  p.  xxvf.),  but  a  closer  examination  of  the 
resemblances  between  these  two  narratives  and 
the  Hexateuchal  sources  does  not  establish  their 
identity. 

The  question  at  issue  may  be  briefly  described 
as  follows  : — Excluding  for  tlie  time  being  2  S  9-24 
(see  Analysis),  we  find  that  the  main  bulk  of  the 
history  contained  in  1  S  l'-2S  8  has  been  preserved 
in  a  Jouble  series  of  narratives,  which  practically 
cover  the  same  ground.  These  two  narratives  are 
obviously  independent  of  one  another,  and  are 
clearly  distinguished  by  their  ^oui^  of  view,  and  in 
part  also  by  theiv  literary  style.  The  latter  feature, 
liowever,  is  more  especiallj'  prominent  in  the  first 
incident  (the  election  of  Saul,  7-12),  which  is  pre- 
served in  common  by  both  narratives.  Hero,  as 
Cornill  and  Budde  have  shown  (see,  however, 
Lohr,  p.  xxiif.),  the  later  narrative  (7.  8.  lO"'-  12) 
presents  noticeable  affinities  with  E,  and  has 
accordingly  been  assigned  by  them  to  that  source. 
But  it  is  to  be  noted  (1)  that  this  resemblance  to  E 
is  by  no  means  so  strongly  marked  in  the  latter 
portions  of  the  history,  wTiich  present  the  same 
point  of  view,  and  clearly  belong  to  tlie  same 
source  as  ch.  7f.  ;  and  (2)  that  the  affinity  does 
not  exclude  non-Elohistic  features,  notably  the 
aversion  of  Samuel  to  the  monarchy.  Budde,  to 
a  certain  extent,  evades  the  latter  difficulty  by 
assigning  the  larger  portion  of  the  later  narrative 
to  a  later  recension  of  E  (En),  which,  as  he  rightly 
recoOTizes,  has  been  largely  influenced  by  the 
prophetic  teaching  of  the  8th  cent.,  more  especi- 
ally by  Hosea.  It  is  clear  that  both  Cornill  and 
Budde  go  too  far  in  identifying  the  later  narrative 
with  E.  That  it  is  nearly  related  to  E  in  language 
and  thought  cannot  be  denied,  but  at  the  most  we 
can  only  conjecture  that  its  author  (or  authors,  for 
in  the  later  narrative  we  can  distinguish  certainly 
two  hands)  belonged  to  the  school  of  E,  and  that 
in  writing  the  histories  of  Saul  and  David  he  was 
animated  by  a  similar  spirit  and  similar  ideas. 
Budde's  identification  of  the  older  narrative  with 
J  is  closely  connected  with  his  view  of  the  source 
of  the  later  narrative.  The  points  of  contact  are 
not  so  strongly  marked ;  but  if  we  are  right  in 


regarding  the  later  narrative  as  the  work  of  ■ 
follower  of  E,  we  may  assume  with  considerable 

{irobability  tliat  the  older  narrative  was  composed 
ly  a  writer  belonging  to  the  school  of  J. 

The  okler  nanative  may  be  assigned  approxi- 
mately to  tlie  9th  cent.,  while  the  earlier  stratum 
of  E  (Budde's  EJ,  which,  though  old,  yet  treats 
tlie  histor}'  from  a  more  subjective  standpoint, 
dates  probably  from  tlie  following  century.  The 
later  stratum  (or  strata)  of  E  (Ej)  has,  as  we  have 
seen,  been  influenced  by  the  teaching  of  the 
propliets  of  the  8th  cent.,  and  will  belong  to  the 
end  of  the  8th  or  to  the  beginning  of  the  7th 
cent.  As  in  the  Hexateuch  and  in  Judges,  these 
sources  were  combined  and  welded  together  by  a 
later  editor  (R-"^),  who  has,  however,  carried  out 
his  work  in  a  less  tliorough  manner.  His  work  is 
in  an3'  case  prior  to  the  reforms  of  Josiah  (B.C.  621) 
and  to  the  influence  of  Deuteronomy,  and  must  be 
placed  in  the  7th  cent.  The  present  form  of  the 
Books  of  Samuel  is  largely  due  to  an  author  of  tlie 
Deuteronomic  school,  whose  hand  may  be  clearly 
traced  in  the  concluding  summaries  (I  14"",  II  8), 
and  in  various  chronological  notices  (I  V  13', 
II  2'°*- "  5*-  °).  To  him  also  we  probably  owe 
I  2^"*"  and  II  7,  while  he  has  expanded  other 
passages  (mainly  belonging  to  E2)  which  lent  them- 
selves to  this  treatment,  e.g.  I  3.  12,  II  8.  12'"'-. 
Lastly,  he  appears  to  have  omitted  II  9-20  as  in- 
compatible with  his  view  of  the  history  (compare 
tlie  very  simUar  action  in  the  Book  of  Judges*), 
though  these  chapters  undoubtedly  belong  to  the 
older  narrative  of  J.  The  older  work  of  JE,  how- 
ever, was  not  entirely  superseded  by  the  later 
recension ;  hence  a  later  editor  of  the  5th  or  4th 
cent,  was  able  to  utilize  the  earlier  form  of  the 
two  books,  and,  as  might  be  expected,  restorea 
those  parts  of  JE  which  D  had  excluded.  He  not 
improbably  also  transposed  II  3-'°  S'''"'"'  from  their 
original  position  after  II  8".  The  obviously  late 
insertions  I  I6I-"  17"- "  lO'*"**  21"-i«  may  have  been 
added  at  this  time,  or  possibly  even  later.  Finally, 
tlie  Appendix  (II  21-24),  a  collection  of  miscel- 
laneous fragments  belonging  to  dill'erent  periods, 
and  the  Sung  of  Hannah  (I  2'""),  were  added  after 
the  separation  of  the  Books  of  Samuel  from  the 
Books  of  Kings. 

Though  we  do  not  accept  Bndde's  identification 
of  the  older  and  later  narratives  with  J  and  E  ol 
the  Hexateuch,  we  have  retained  these  symbols  aa 
representing  approximately  the  age  and  character- 
istics of  the  two  sources  from  wliich  the  history  of 
these  books  is  derived.  Apart  from  minor  inter- 
polations and  additions,  the  parts  belonging  to  the 
respective  sources  are  as  follows  : — 

J  I  Q'-IO'*""  ll'->'-M  131-7*.  IJb-lS  J41-<«.  M  igi<-9 
J§5.«  (japtlrl-ll.  20-80  20''"'- •*"*•  ■"''  22''*"''*- 
2u-a  031-ito  26.  27.  29-31,  II  1 1-* '»"•"•  ■'-" 

01-«.  lOb.  I2-S3  3_  4^  gl-S.  •-».  17-211  g_  9-11.   12'"'' 

13-31  131-20^. 

J,         I   108  l^k-lH..  19-23, 

^  I  11-28  2n-22a.23-2«  3i^u  (all  Ej)  4"'-7»  7»-8« 
(Eo)  10"-«(Ej)  12.  (E„)  15--«  17'-"-  "■»  18>-*- 
13-19  291. «-«•»•"  21''*'22"  23"'-24"  25.  28 
jj  je-io.  is-16  'J 

RJB  I  lo-a-"   ll"-»'l5'  18='"   19'-»-'  20"-"-«-«»' 

22'»  (last  cl.)  23''"»-"'  24"  (in  part)  »■=», 

II  1». 
RD    I  4'8  (last  cl.)   V  (in  part)  13'   14"-»'  28», 

II  2'"*- "  5''- '  8  (based  in  part  on  older 

materials)  12'»-'».' 
Additions  of  the  latest  editor,  I  4"- »  B""-  "•  "• 

'«• '»  (the  larger  number)  ll*""  15'  (last  ed.) 

24"  30»,   II   S*  5»-  (last  cL)"^'"  15«  (in 

part)  2ff»-=«. 

•  The  Deuteronomic  redactor  of  the  Book  of  Judges  omitted 
l>-2'  9.  17-21,  perhaps  also  cb.  16  (see  Sanson,  p.  878>:V 


SAilUEL,  I.  AND  II. 


SAMUEL,  I.  AND  II. 


385 


Latest  na.l  it  ions,    I2'-'»-«"  16'""  17"-"    lO"*"" 
2110-18  003,  II 14M,  and  the  Appendix  21-24. 

iv.  Analysis. — (a)  I  1-15. — From  the  birth  of 
Samuel  to  the  rejection  of  Saul. 

(1)  l'-4'*(Eo).  Early  history  of  Samuel,  including 
the  liistory  of'KIi  and  his  house,  and  the  announce- 
ment of  its  downfall. 

These  chapters  serve  as  an  introduction  to  4i-7l,  and  appear 
to  l>e  eimiewiial  later  than  tliat  section.  From  their  represen- 
tation (1)  of  Samuel  and  his  office,  and  (2)  of  Israel's  subjection 
to  the  I'hilistines,  it  is  clear  that  they  both  belong  to  E,  though 
probably  to  dillcrent  strata.  The  Song  of  Hannah  (2ili>)  is 
undoubtedly  a  verj-  late  addition :  (a)  tjie  Song  is  probably  a 
triumphal  ode  composed  on  the  occasion  of  some  national  suc- 
cess (w.*.  10) :  (6)  there  is  no  special  reference  to  the  circum- 
stances of  Hannah— the  fact  of  its  being  attributed  to  her  is 
due  probably  to  a  misconception  of  the  motaphor  employed  in 
v."";  (c)a  comparison  with  the  LXX  text  of  2H"(  =  lleb.  lasb) 
shows  that  the  .Song  was  inserted  at  a  different  place  in  that 
version  (see  Driver  on  I  S  V^).  Another  insertion  is  222i>  (from 
and  how  that) ;  it  is  out  of  place  after  tv.»>-",  and  is  omitted 
by  the  LXX  (note  the  use  of  Va-.l  instead  of  VlK).  Tlie  an- 
nouncement of  the  anonymous  prophet  (227-sa^  cannot  also  in  its 
present  form  belong  to  the  original  narrative :  (a)  the  text, 
especiallv  of  w.^isi  (LXX  omits  v.3">  and  a2»).  Is  in  great  dis- 
order and  unintelligible  ;  (b)  tlie  establishment  of  the  monarcliy 
Is  presupposed  v. 35  ;  (c)  v. 36  clearly  dates  from  the  period  after 
Josiah's  reformation,  and  presupposes  the  central  sanctuary  at 
Jerusalem  (Oort,  ThT  xviii.  p.  3u9f.);  (rf)  the  'faithful  jiriest' 
of  V.85  is  not  Samuel,  as  we  might  exi>ect  from  ch.  3,  but  ^dok, 
who  superseded  Abiathar,  the  grandson  of  Eli,  under  Solomon 
(1  K  2*>).  The  passage,  which  has  obviously  been  expanded  by 
the  Deuteronomic  editor,  probably  foretold  the  destruction  of 
Eli's  house,  and  the  succession  of  Samuel. 

(2)  4"'-7'  (E).  The  defeat  of  Israel  by  the  Philis- 
tines at  Aphek  and  its  results,  viz.  the  death  of 
Eli  and  the  capture  of  the  ark  ;  farther  history  of 
the  ark  and  its  restoration. 

In  these  chapters,  which  form  a  closely  connected  whole.  It  Is 
noticeable  (1)  that  the  main  interest  centres  in  the  history 
of  the  ark  ;  (2)  that  Samuel  is  never  even  mentioned  ;  (3)  that 
the  destruction  of  ttie  house  of  Eli,  which  forms  the  real  sequel 
to  1MI»,  is  treated  merely  as  a  side  issue  of  the  defeat.  On 
these  grounds  it  has  been  argued  with  some  force  that  this 
section  is  independent  of  the  chapters  that  precede;  the  latter 
were  probably  added  with  a  view  to  supplementing  the  un- 
doubtedly old  account  of  the  fall  of  the  house  of  Eli,  and  of  the 
capture  of  the  ark.  The  original  beginning  of  the  section  (41'') 
is  to  be  restored  from  the   L.XX  {wi  iyuntiri  y  rait  fi^ipan 

ixtiimn  km'i  rvtatipoi^aiTou  it^^i^i/Xoi  lit  TeAl/xtfv  itri  'Irpxr.k);  4'^'  1^ 

(last  clause)  and  22  are  rejected  by  most  critics  as  redaction.^1 
glosses.  For  the  additions  of  the  L.\X  in  66  61,  and  its  various 
rewlings  in  6*-6,  see  Driver,  Heb.  Text  0/ Sam,  n.  47  f.  :  unless 
we  accept  the  readings  of  the  LXX,  6**  (to  the  land)  must  be 
rejected  as  a  gloss  ;  while  1"»-  (from  vrith  the  mice)  10- 17-  is*-  (to 
villaoet)  10  Ui/ty  thoiuand  men)  will  likewise  be  later  insertions. 

(3)  7'-"  (Ej).  Samuel  as  judge ;  the  rout  of  the 
Philistines  at  Mizpah ;  summary  of  Samuel's 
judicial  activity. 

The  position  here  occupied  by  Samuel  Is  that  of  m  Judge 
(o:,?),  in  the  sense  In  which  that  term  is  used  In  the  pre- 
Deuteronomic  Isook  of  Judges  (2«-1631 ;  see  Moore,  Judget,  p. 
xxiif.).  At  his  command  the  people  put  away  their  *  strange 
gods,'  and  assemble  for  rejientance  and  fasting  at  Mizpah ;  in 
answer  to  his  prayers  on  their  behalf,  the  Philistines  are  miracu- 
lously defeated  ;  and  so  complete  is  their  defeat,  that  'they  came 
no  more  within  the  borders  of  Israel.'  The  section  thus  gives  a 
similar  representation  of  the  position  of  Samuel  and  of  Israel's 
political  condition  to  that  of  the  later  {E.)  of  the  two  account* 
of  the  choice  of  Saul  as  king  (8.  IQi'"  1'2),  to  which  it  sencs 
as  an  introduction.  To  Ri^  is  probably  to  be  pssigned  the 
chronological  note  {for  it  wat  tO  i/*?on»)  in  v. 2,  the  name  Eben- 
ezer  In  v.i'^,  and  the  statement  as  to  Samuel's  jiuiicial  work  In 
V.16.  Ebenezer,  as  we  know  from  41  61,  was  the  scene  not  of 
Israel's  victor>',  but  of  its  defeat.  For  the  linguiHtic  resem- 
blances to  the  rwlaction  of  Judges,  see  Driver,  LOi"^  p.  177  f.  It 
seems  probable  that  the  present  section  has  been  inserted  here 
In  place  of  an  earlier  account ;  for,  as  Driver  points  out  (li. 
p.  174),  'the  existing  narrative  does  not  explain  (1)  how  the 
Philistines  reached  tlibeah(lu*  et«.)  and  secured  the  ascendency 
implied  (iai»'),  or  (2)  how  Shiloh  suddenly  disiiiipears  from 
history,  and  the  priesthood  located  there  reappears  shortly 
afterwttnis  at  Nob  (ch.  22).  That  some  signal  disaster  befell 
Shiloh  maybe  Inferred  with  certainty  from  the  allusion  In  Jer 
714  2jm  (cf.  Ps  78«i). '    See  art.  SniMill. 

(4)  8-12.  The  twofold  account  of  the  circtim- 
•tances  that  led  to  the  election  of  Saul  as  king. 

The  older  narrative  of  J  (9i-10'»'»"'l'^i-ll"- ") 
describes  how  Saul,  the  sou  of  Kish,  of  the  tribe  of 

VOL.  IV. — 2? 


Benjamin,  in  his  search  for  his  father's  asses,  is 
persuaded  by  his  servant  to  consult  a  seer  livinK  in 
the  district  to  which  they  had  wandered.  The 
seer  is  none  other  than  Samuel,  who  had  previously 
been  ivarned  by  Jehovah  to  expect  the  Benjaraite 
stranger ;  and  had  been  instructed  to  anoint  him 
as  kin";,  that  he  might  deliver  Israel  from  the 
Pliilistines  :  '  For,'  says  Jehovah,  '  I  have  seen  the 
oppression  of  my  people  (LXX),  because  their  cry 
has  come  unto  me'  {1)"").  On  the  foUowiii"  day 
Samuel  anoints  Saul,  and  assures  him  of  his  Divine 
call  by  means  of  three  signs  :  he  further  bids  him 
do  as  occasion  serves  him  after  the  fultilment  of 
the  signs ;  for  God  is  with  him  ( 10').  About  a 
month  later  (ICF"''-^^),  the  town  of  Jabesh-gilead 
is  besieged  by  Nahash  the  Ammonite,  and  mes- 
sengers are  despatched  '  unto  all  the  borders  of 
Israel '  to  obtain  assistance.  In  the  course  of  their 
journey  they  reach  Gibeah  in  Benjamin,  and  there, 
as  elsewhere,  make  known  their  errand.  On  learn- 
ing the  sad  plight  of  his  countrymen,  Saul  is  at 
once  seized  with  the  spirit  of  God,  and  promptly 
takes  measures  to  relieve  the  besieged  city.  By 
meansof  a  forced  march  he  surprises  the  Ammonites, 
and  delivers  Jabesh-gilead  and  is  thereupon  in- 
stalled as  king  at  GUgal  (11"). 

The  narrative  of  E  (Ej)  (8.  lO"""  12)  offers  a  very 
different  explanation  of  the  manner  in  which  Saul 
became  king.  After  the  signal  defeat  of  the  Philis- 
tines, described  in  ch.  7,  Samuel  continues  to 
judqe  Israel  in  peace  and  quietness  until  com- 
pelled by  old  age  to  delegate  his  authority  to  his 
sons.  But  the  latter  prove  unwortliy  of  their 
high  ofiice,  and  the  people  therefore  demand  that 
a  king  should  be  set  over  them  after  the  manner  of 
the  neighbouring  nations.  The  request  is  viewed 
with  disfavour  by  Samuel,  who  cnaracterizes  it 
as  rebellion  again.st  Jehovah.  At  the  bidding  of 
Jehovah,  however,  he  first  sets  before  the  people 
'  the  manner  of  the  king  that  shall  reign  over 
them  '  (cii.  8),  and  then  proceeds  to  carry  out  the 
election  of  a  king  by  lot  at  Mizpah  (10"""').  The 
account  concludes  with  the  farewell  speech  of 
Samuel,  in  w  hicli  he  solemnly  lays  down  his  office, 
and  hands  over  the  reins  of  government  to  Saul 
(ch.  12). 

The  two  narratives  which  are  here  combined  are  thus  not  only 
compute  in  tliemselves •  and  independent  of  one  another,  but 
also  inuttially  contradictor!/,  in  the  earlier  narrative  (1)  Samuel 
is  a  seer  living  in  a  certain  district,  who  is  unknown  to  the  rest 
of  Israel ;  (2)  he  is  employed  as  the  instrument  of  Jehovah's 
purpose  on  one  occasion  only ;  after  his  interview  with  Saul 
everything  is  left  to  the  working  of  the  Divine  spirit  In  the 
latter ;  (y)  Israel  is  oppressed  by  the  Pliilistines,  and  cries  to 
Jehovah  for  a  deliverer  (911);  (4)  the  eatalilishment  of  the  mon- 
archy is  the  means  chosen  by  Jehovah  for  the  deliverance  of  Uis 
f)eople ;  Samuel's  attitude  towards  it  is  merely  that  of  an  on- 
ooker.  In  contrast  to  this  representation  \vo  find  in  the  later 
narrative  (1)  that  Samuel  is  the  jH(/;/e  of  all  Israel,  who  rules 
over  the  people  as  the  representative  of  Jehovah ;  (2)  that  in 
accordance  with  this  position  he  hands  over  the  reins  of  govern- 
ment to  the  newly-elected  king  ;  (3)  that  the  exterjial  condition 
of  Israel  is  entirely  favourable  :  the  Philistines  had  been  finally 
subdued  by  Samuel  (ch.  7);  (4)  that  the  request  for  a  king  U 
regarded  as  an  act  of  apostasy  ;  it  is  duo  to  the  desire  to  bo  like 
other  nations,  and  is  displeasing  both  to  Jehovah  and  to 
Samuel. 

The  redactor  has  made  but  little  effort  to  reconcile  these  con- 
flicting accounts,  but  his  hand  may  be  traced  in  102»-27»  Mid 
llia-u,  according  to  which  the  ceremony  at  iJilgal  is  represented 
as  a  renewal  of  Saul's  former  election  at  Jlizpah  ;  lu'-"  »)"  refer 
back  to  ch.  8,  and  place  Saul  once  more  at  (Jilieah,  while  w.Mb, 

•  In  the  narrative  of  J  It  la  noticeable  that  the  name  of  the 
town  In  which  Samuel  the  seer  lived  is  never  mentioned.  It 
Is  probable  (so  Budde,  but  see  above,  p.  ll)8»)  that  the  name 
was  omitted  just  because  it  was  no(  Ramali,  the  house  of  Samuel 
the  Judge  (7"  etc.).  Since  also  the  identit »  of  Samuel  with  the 
seer  is  not  made  clear  till  O",  It  seems  probable  that  the  redactoi 
has  omitted  a  notice  which  both  Introduced  Samuel  and  made 
known  the  name  of  his  native  town.  In  E  there  U  no  account 
of  the  anointing  of  Saul  (cf.  12^  'his  anointing'):  this  w«» 
probably  omitted  because  of  the  already  existing  account  In 
J  (lOl).  The  narrative  probably  also  contained  some  notice  of 
the  conllnuatlon  of  the  choice  of  Saul  as  king  after  lO**,  which 
was  omitted  by  the  redaotor  in  vlaw  of  181^  ^. 


386 


SAMUEL,  I.  AND  IL 


SAIMUEL,  I.  AND  n. 


n.  wifh  their  sequel  in  11"-"  are  intended  to  explain  why  Saul 
te  n^t  reJocniled  a! Vrng  in  ch.  11,  and  why  it  was  necessary  t« 
?«J«,  the  kingdom,  liut  the  warriors  •  whose  hearts  t,ad  had 
touched/  and  f  ho  accompanied  Saul  '"'"VSr'tr- sTs  o'( 
as  a  bodyguard,  do  not  appear  m  ch  11.  Afc'am,  the  sons  oi 
wortlilessness'  who  refuse  to  aclinowledge  '>»"'•'"'?  ^V^,  i^^! 
rSion  a.-cording  to  the  view  ot  the  redactor,  prevent  hi -n  from 

:^  uminTthe  kiSgly  office,  "«/PP-^"|'T^^°3''"  t^^T  "sum^ 
thev  can  be  threatened  Willi  death  in  ll'^- 1"  .  yet  it  is  presum 
Ib?^  on  their  account  that  the  election  of  Saul  requires  cofi, 

fe  r '.'i^h^  r  L7Sre\t ^clol^^Tof  s^oS 

i„  fV,„  «mo  hand  are  822b.  gsb  '  from  his  shoulders  and  upward 
^e  It  ^"^tfl^yo.  the  people  •  (introduced  frorn^^^^ 

?etr,a:^KfTh?Utt;^^f  seTwr^a?^i|s  partly^^^^^^^ 

rpan    Jo9  24)    partly  with  the  redaction  of  J^'^^'^^v  ^^"/^^J' 
(^esp.  JOS  ''^^  f*'"  ■'r^mfl^  i77f\    With  this  agrees  the  strong 

Rmlflf  /;v«A(er  u  Sdm.  p.  184  f.).    That  the  narrative  is,  how- 
e"er  pre  Deutlronomic,  £  showi(l)by  themanner  in  «hich  the 

expansion  are  to  be  found  in  12»  (t?  cc«  12?'.!),  v."  (0=  3." 
y^-~)  tIU-C""?-"?  nnc):  to  the  Deuteronomic  redactor  must 
aJo'be  ^iimpd'the'  mention  of  Samuel  by  himself  (12"),  and 
toe  men?KJf?t  the  invasion  of  Naha^h  dS'^) '^„"'e  motw^^or 
the  demand  for  a  king;  this  disagrees  «'t''8«,  and  further 
oresucposes  a  knowle<ige  of  the  earlier  narrative  («!•  ID-     Ane 
I^^itraritvbothin  tan./^je  and  in  point  o/  ww  between  the 
?a?eohe°e  two  narratives  (E)  and  the  redaction  of  the  Book 
of  Judges  h^  been  already  referred  to,  and  shown  to  agree  with 
the  nrobable  origin  ot  that  narrative.     Both  works  are  pre- 
DeutMononac,3  interpret  history  from  the  point  of  view  of 
HosS  and  toe  prophets  rather  toan  from  that  of  Jeremiah  and 
toeDeu?eronomist:  the  formula  which  is  ^^Pf '^"y  ,<= '.'^Sf  ^ 
iatic  of  Judges  (cf.  Jg  12'  102-3  et«.    is  applied  to  Eli  (4i»),  and 
Tl  moS  form  U,  Samuel  (7.15),  while  the  use  of  the  word 
Mud^e'  is  entirely  analogous  to  its  sense  in  Judges,     lurther, 
.1  M^^rpr/SdoM  D  xxiiif.)haa  pointed  out,  'Samuel's  speech 
^h  1?)  wSco'u^in^a  retrospect  of  toe  neriod  of  toe  judges 
Cl  nj  and  solemn  words  of  warning  for  t^ie  futore  under  the 
n7wlv-ekSbliBhed  kingdom,  is  precisely  the  conclusion  which  we 
de^ef^r  the  book  of'toe  Histories  of  the  Judges   correspond- 
in?  admirably  to  the  parting  discourse  of  Joshua  (Jos  -4)  at 
tol  cl^S  the  period  o^f  toe  conquest'  (so  Graf,  «wA.  Bach  p. 
97l!Budde,  D,?ver).     We  may  thus,  assume  with  considerable 
Drobability  that  these  chapters  or.gini.lly  formed  part  of  Es 
Estor^-  of  the  Judges,  and  that  they  were  afte™''r4« /■'M^ted 
by  RJ  E  M  forming  a  smtable  introducl  ion  to  toe  history  of  the 
monarchy. 

(5)  13.  14  (J  with  the  excei.tion  of  13'^-'*-.''-" 
(Jo)  14*'-"  (R°))-     Saul's  struggle  with  the  Fhilis- 
tines.     These  chapters  describe  the  revolt  of  the 
Israelites    under    Saul    against    their    Philistine 
oppressors.      The  signal   for  revo  t   is    S^^^.^y 
Jonathan,  who  destroys  the  pillar  (?)  of  the  Philis- 
tines at  Giheah  (see  Gibeahi  ;  the  Philistines,  who 
had  doubtless  heard  of  Saul's  election  as  king,  at 
once  assemble  their  forces  at  AUchinash  on  the  M. 
side  of  the  Wftdy  Suweinit  over  against  Geba  (see 
Geba  and  Gibeah).     Alarmed  by  the  size  of  the 
Philistine  army,  the  followers  of  Saul,  who  had  re- 
treated to  Gibeah,  gradually  melt  awajr  until  only 
six  hundred  are  left  (13"»>) ;  the  Philistines  in  the 
meantime  overrun  the  country  in  three  directions. 
Jonathan  once  more  takes  the  initiative,  and  by  a 
bold  stroke  succeeds  in  overcoming  the  PhUistme 
garrison  at  Michmash  (14'-»).     This  success  is  at 
once  followed  by  a  general  attack  m  which  SaiU 
completes  the  rout  of  the  Philistines      Jonathan 
unwittingly  disobeys  the  command  of  his  father 
bv  eating  food,  and  is  with  difficulty  rescued  by 
the  people  from  death.     Apparently  Saul  was  not 
in  a  position  to  foUow  up  his  victory,  but  snfiered 
the  Philistines  to  retreat  to  their  own  land  (v«). 
The  section  concludes  with  the  remark  that    there 
was  sore  war  against  the  PhUistines  aU  the  days  of 
Saul." 

These  chaptere  form  the  continuation  of  the  earlier  narrative 
(J)coTt^neS  m  9i-10.».^n,-u.i.l»,  «h°»^"i  h""  Sairi  ^ned 
iut  the  object  for  which  he  wa3  appomted  (918).    That  they  do 


not  form  the  immediate  sequel  of  those  chapters  ie  evident. 
J>om  t™  description  of  Saul  in  ch.  9"^  we  should  not  expect  to 
find  him  described  as  the  father  ot  a  fuU-gro»;n  warnor  such  M 
Jonattan  is  here  represented  to  be,  and,  further,  the  introduo. 
tion  of  Jonathan  (iV^)  is  very,  sudden,  P;^"^,^"^;  «;|[^  "'^ 
the  redactor  has  omitted  the  intervening  ""'^''7iP5T^^6U 
favour  ot  ch.  12),  unless  we  suppose,  with  Kuenen  (Viia.'  ^  t>l), 
that  he  habere  incorporated  a  still  earher  amount  of  Saul  • 


fTll  ?ta"r,'intrrr  i^  eS^ariy^' Tate  insertion  J^. 
vteton's  (£XX)  here  ascribed  to  Saul  ^.«)  are  bo„owed^rom 
the  similar  summary  of  David's  reign  m  2  S  8  .  »P»"  ''°™  ™ 
campaign  against  Nahash  (ch.  11)  and  »e»'°!t '''^^^f-'^^'r,^ 
mT  ^t\  Siml's  reign  was  spent  in  constant  warfare  with  tne 
&stiAe9  In  TeviTwof  RD  the  account  of  Sau  s  reip, 
flni  hes  here,  and  is  followed  by  "lat  of  the  history  o  David. 
The  most  probable  view  of  toe  account  "'Saul  s  rejection  pre 
served  in  108  i37b-lt.  is  that  of  Budde  and  H.  P  Smith  (Aamwl, 
n^V who  regard  it  as  a  later  addition  inserted  m  the  narra- 
&vro'7beforftoe  union  of  J  and  E.  ,9° '»?  one  hand  the 
verses  cannot  belong  to  toe  origmal  narrative  •  '°/,(.l  ./'fj,^'*/,, 

SaysTo^)  i-learly  inconsistent  with  toe  exhor^^^^^^^ 
^s  rtfrtt  fVl^  Ji^chm^h^S'oi'be'^hl'^'thTt'ha^inlr. 

k?nc°e^tr;irn^iu3:,'w^r>?e^u^^^^^^ 

interrup?^toe  connexion,  and  appear  to  be  somewhat  exagger- 
ated ;  the  text  is  very  corrupt. 

(6)  Ch.  15  (E).  The  rejection  of  Saul.  .  The  new 
kin^  is  bidden  by  Samuel  to  ex  ermmate  the 
Amalekites  ;  but  he  and  the  people  spare  Aeag 
tlie  kin-  and  the  best  of  the  spoil,  and  Samuel  is 
therefor''e  commanded  to  announce  to  him  the 
DMne  sentence  of  rejection.  The  king  e^deavof^ 
to  minimize  his  fault,  but  in  vain.  The  senteuce^ 
pronounced,  and  Samuel  himself  slays  the  Amale- 
kite  king. 

The  chapter  Clearly  .o™sth^«,uelo«J^Jf^^ 

in  presenting  his  account  of  Saul  8  rejecnon.  k» 

serpent  to  the  prophetic  'e^son  (Jer  .^i  »^)  ^hich^he  vnsnesro 

?-^si^^t&;;«^r^|^« 

consonant  with  toe  actual  '^cls  (note    the  tneorei 

genuineness  of  his  •»<^"'."fhe  brS   beWeen  Samuel  and 

f^ld^'s^E')"  The  r'e'teSelo  toe^Lotntfng'ot  Saul  by 
(Budde s  E,).  t,  Jl  tZi\<4>  rinlwcUir  and  cannot  be  ad- 
Samuel  U  Pfh^bly  due  to  ^ 'f  JJ'^  \°b  „„  acquainted 
duced  aa  proving  that  toe  writer  oi  cu.  i"  •— « 

with  91  etc 

(6)  I  16-11  8.    Sanl  and  David. 
Sr^L^SinfoY'^Vvfd^taru^l^l  house 

of  11:  fatrrNf- (a  l^^e  Jdition, , 

of  David's  introduction  to  Saul  (16'*-  ) ,  i!- »  accouni 

of  the  same  (17M8»). 

At  first  sight  toe  secUonl.^;J'.  of  which  l^l^^ ^JJ^^^^l 
fragment  won  d  seem  likjljl^  to  bejon^  t^^  .^ 

conipanson  ot  these  '""' ,"=V  „„„„„iin<r  <a  17"  Jesse  haa  only 
presupposed  by  the  latter  :  ^^"'^"Sj^ikes  it  evident  that 
/our  sons,  in  161«  he  has  r,gM  »«»'o.  1'^  TaW^g  been  anointed 
David's  brotoers  had  no  knowledge  of  his  havrngwen 
(compare  also  toe  later  historv  of  David  »  Pe^'J"  jehovahi 
n  which  Saul  alone  U  regarded  M  "ie,»'°'';°^°V,„  jell-fi 
On  toe  otoer  hand,  the  influence  »<  "".f  ^PP^rirther.  tilt 
(ct.  n*^)  as  weU  as  Id  the  general  pomt  01  view,    ruruio  ■ 


SAMUEL,  I.  AND  II. 


SAMUEL,  L  AND  XL 


387 


Incident  to  hardly  consistent  in  itself ;  Samuel's  fear  of  Saul 
does  not  acree  wiih  the  character  of  the  latter  as  portrayed  in 
ch.  15,  and  he  so  lar  (ori^els  it  in  v,<Jf.  as  to  speak  openly  of  his 
xuission  ;  similarly,  the  bocritlce,  which  he  aJle^ed  as  the  cause 
of  his  coming,  is  never  per/omicd.  The  suggestion  of  Budde, 
that  the  section  is  an  unskilful  imitation  of  lOif-,  inserted 
lor  the  purpose  of  showing  tliat  David  also  was  Divinely  conse- 
crated, is  probably  correct  (cf.  Wellh.  IJist.  p.  2C9f.);  to  the 
tiuuie  h&nd  is  probably  due  the  gloes  IQ^^  (|xy^  "v^'^  which  is 
uith  the  she^p). 

In  the  earlier  narrative  of  David's  introduction 
to  Saul  Ike  is  described  as  a  skilful  musician,  as 
*a  mighty  man  of  valour,  and  a  man  of  war, 
ami  prudent  in  speech,  and  a  comely  pt^rson,  and 
the  Lord  is  witli  him '  (10^'^) ;  he  is  invited  by  Saul 
to  his  court  that  he  may  drive  away  the  *  evil 
spirit  from  the  Lord  *  by  his  playing,  and  is  given 
tlie  office  of  king's  armour- bearer. 

According  to  the  later  narrative,  during  one  of 
the  many  engagements  with  the  Phili>tines,  the 
army  of  Israel  is  defied  for  forty  days  by  the  giant 
Goliath  of  Gath.  Despite  Saul's  promises,  no  one 
will  venture  to  engage  the  Philistine  in  single 
combat,  until  David,  the  youngest  son  of  Jesse,  a 
Bethlehemite,  who  had  been  sent  from  the  sheep- 
fold  on  an  errand  to  his  brethren  in  the  army, 
expresses  his  willingness  to  accept  his  challenge. 
Saul  at  tirst  seeks  to  dissuade  him  on  the  score  of 
his  youth,  but  afterwards  gives  his  consent,  and 
oti'ers  the  loan  of  his  armour.  After  a  vain  attempt 
to  wear  the  armour,  David  goes  forth  to  the  en- 
counter armed  only  with  his  shepherd's  sling.  It 
is  not  until  the  combat  has  been  brouglit  to  a 
successful  conclusion  tliat  Saul,  on  inquiry,  ascer- 
tains the  parentage  of  the  youthful  hero ;  Jonathan, 
the  king's  son,  is  seized  witli  a  great  affection  for 
the  .shepherd  lad,  while  the  king  insists  on  his 
remaining  at  court  (17^-18^). 

It  is  impossible  to  reconcile  these  two  accountfl,  which  differ 
in  every  essential  feature.  In  the  earlier  account  David  is  of 
mature  age,  an  experienced  warrior,  and  a  player  of  some 
renown  ;  he  is  brought  to  court  on  account  of  his  musical  skill, 
and  is  attached  to  isaul's  person  as  his  armour-bearer;  lastly, 
Saul  is  well  acquainted  wiih  his  parentage.  In  the  later  account 
David  is  but  a  shepherd  lad,  uuused  to  warlike  weapons;  he 
attracU  Saul's  attention  by  his  bravery  in  meeting  Goliath ; 
Saul  does  not  learn  his  name  and  parentage  until  after  the 
duel.  The  phenomenon  is  the  same  as  that  which  confronta  us 
in  chs.  7-12.  litre  ttJE  has  attempted  to  harmonize  the  two 
narratives  by  ITl^^^Cnow  David  went  to  and  fro  from  Saul'), 
which  does  not  agree  with  lCl-*f-  (according  to  which  David 
receives  a  pennanent  otlice  at  court),  nor  with  IT^'t  (which 
describes  him  oh  living  at  Bethlehem  with  hie  father). 

It  is,  however,  noticeable  that  in  the  LXX  (B)  1712  si.  88b.  41. 48b. 
WBa_ia8« are  omitted.  Wellhausen  formerly  held  that  thisshorter 
text  was  the  more  original,  and  this  \-iewis  still  maintained  by 
Cornill,  Stade,  W.  R.  Smith,  and  H.  P.  Smith  ;  but  most  critics 
agree  '  that  the  translators — or  more  probably,  perhaps,  the 
»cribe  of  the  Heb.  MS  used  by  them — omitted  tne  verses  in 
question  from  harmonistic  motives,  withoiit,  however,  entirely  * 
securing  the  end  desired  '  (Driver,  lUh.  Text  of  Samuel,  p.  116 ; 
similarly  Wellhausen  and  Cl»c>7ie).  Thus,  according  to  17^, 
I>avid  is  still  but  a  youth  (not  tlie  full-grown  warrior  of  16J8), 
while  w.**ff.  describe  him  as  a  shepherd  lad,  unacquainted  with 
the  use  of  armour  (as  opposed  to  le^ib).  Further,  It  is  incon* 
ceivable  that  discrepancies  such  as  those  described  above  should 
have  been  introduced  into  the  text  after  the  union  of  J  and  E, 
nor  do  the  style  and  language  of  tbe  sections  omitted  by  the 
LXX  support  a  late  date. 

The  shorter,  simpler  account  of  David's  introduction  to  Saul 
given  in  J  (10i*-23)  is  obviously  more  in  accordance  with  the 
actual  facts;  it  forms  a  fitting  sequel  to  14^^^  and  aptly  illus- 
trates the  statement  '  that  whenever  Saul  saw  any  mighty  man, 
or  any  valiant  man,  he  took  him  unto  him.'  The  account  pre- 
served in  E  seems  to  be  derived  rather  from  popular  tradition 
than  from  actual  historj- ;  for  we  learn  from  2  H  21'*  that  no( 
David  but  Elhanan  slew  'Goliath  the  Gittite,  the  staff  of  whose 
spear  was  like  a  weaver's  beam.'  Later  tradition,  therefore, 
has  tranwferred  the  exploit  of  the  warrior  to  his  royal  master; 
the  rea/ling  o(  1  Ch  20*  is  clearly  due  to  a  barmonizcr  (see  Driver, 
Samuel,  p.  272). 

(2)  18»-»  (J  and  E  combined).  David's  life  at 
Saul's  court,  and  Saul's  growing  jealousy  of  him. 

It  is  clear  that  in  this  section  also  we  have  two  accounts  oom- 
bined,  though  it  is  not  easy  to  distinguish  the  various  parts. 
The  Darr»tive  as  a  whole  seems  drawn  from  the  older  source, 

•  Bv  its  omissions  B  removes  the  difficulties  caused  by  (1) 
Divid'B  residence  In  Bethlehem,  and  (2)  Saul's  IgnotftDoe  of 
David's  name  and  parentage. 


and  forms  the  continuation  of  \^*^  David  ts  here  represented 
OS  a  well-known  warrior  and  leader,  and  not  as  the  vouthhd 
hero  of  l?^*"-.  The  song  (v.7)  was  probably  treated  by  both 
sources  as  the  inunediale  caui^e  of  Saul's  jealousy,  but,  whereas 
the  second  intro<iiiction  in  v.iia  (ifAen  David  returned  from  tM 
«iati.'/Afer  0/ f  A** /'Ai/iJTfin^)  connects  it  with  the  Goliath  incident, 
we  require  some  further  exjiloit  as  the  occasion  of  tlie  song  in 
the  older  narrative ;  probably  the  first  introduction  in  v.*>  (as 
they  came)  is  a  fra^nuent  of  this  notice.  Vv.a-n^  the  evil  epiril 
from  God,  connects  these  verses  with  161-*''- ;  but  w.is-16  and 
W.1719  must  be  assigned  to  the  later  narrative.  In  w.  15-18  we 
have  a  parallel  account  to  that  of  v.fi  (belonging  to  the  older 
narrative),  while  vv. 17-19  clearly  refer  bock  to  17"-^,  according  to 
which  Saul  was  bound  to  receive  David  into  his  family:  this  is 
ignored  by  the  older  narrative,  \t.203o^  which  knows  notjhing 
of  David's  betrothal  to  Merab  (cf.  v.'.M,  where  David  seems  to 
regard  an  alliance  with  the  royal  family  as  beyond  the  bounds 
of  possibility).  Further,  since  the  later  narrative  must  have 
contained  an  account  of  David's  marriage  with  Michal,  it  is 
probable  that  the  redactor  has  treated  his  sources  more  freely 
than  usual,  and  omitted  part  of  E's  narrative ;  V.21I)  is  obWou.sly 
an  attempt  on  bis  part  to  harmonize  the  two  accounts  of  David's 
betrotiie! 

The  LXX  (B)  makes  considerable  omissions  in  this  chapter 
also,  \\z.  w.6.6».sb.io.  Ii.i2b.l7.ly.  2lb.2tib. 'iijb,  and  the  majority 
of  critics  accept  this  shorter  version  as  representing  the  original 
t«xt  (Wellh.,  Kuenen,  Driver).  As  Driver  {Notes  on  Sam.  p. 
120 f.)  points  out,  *the  sequence  of  events  is  clearer;  and  the 
gradual  growth  of  Saul's  enmity  towards  David  is  distinctly 
marked '  (cf.  vv.  ^'^  15-  '^) ;  further,  the  section  then  forms  a  con. 
nected  whole,  and  nearly  all  the  additional  passages  in  the  SIT 
admit  of  satisfactory  explanation.  The  fact,  however,  that 
throughout  this  portion  of  the  Books  of  Samuel  we  are  con- 
fronted with  two  accounts  of  the  same  incidents,  makes  it  more 
Erobable  that  the  LXX  omissions  here,  as  in  ch.  17,  are  due  to  a 
armonizer;  further,  we  may  argue  (with  Budde)  that  it  is 
inconsistent  to  reject  the  (unsuccessful)  recension  of  the  LX.\ 
in  ch.  17,  and  to  adopt  its  more  successful  attempt  in  ch.  18. 
(For  a  fuller  statement  see  David). 

(3)  19  (E).  20  (J).  Outbreak  of  Saul's  hostUity 
towards  David  ;  David's  llijrht. 

Later  account  of  Jonatlian's  intervention  on 
behalf  of  his  friend  (lli'"');  the  spear-tlirowing 
(w.^-'**) ;  witli  the  assistance  of  his  wife  Michal, 
David  escapes  from  his  house  (vv."*^") ;  David's 
fliglit  to  Kainah  (vv.*^*^") ;  earlier  account  of  Jona- 
than's intervention  (SO*"^), 

These  two  chapters  consist  of  several  short  sections,  in  which 
are  set  forth  various  incidents  illustrating  Saul's  enmity  towards 
David  00  the  one  hand,  and  on  the  other  the  affection  displayed 
towards  him  by  Jonathan  and  Michal.  The  redactor  haa 
apparently  expanded  the  account  of  E  in  19- S-  7,  which  are  in- 
consistent in  themselves,  and  are  clearly  influenced  by  the 
fuller  ac*;ount  of  J  in  ch.  20.  Vv.8-lO  jrive  E'a  account  of  the 
spear- throwing,  which  differs  but  little  from  that  of  J  in  ISior. ; 
vv.iii7have  been  rejected  by  Wellhausen,  Stade,  and  Cornill 
on  the  ground  o(  internal  improbability,  but  the  passage  both 
in  language  and  tone  bears  all  the  marks  of  E,  and  forms  a 
suitable  continuation  of  what  precedes  (for  another  view  see 
H.  P.  Smith,  Samuel,  p.  178 f.).  Vv.is^^-i,  which  offer  a  second 
explanation  of  the  proverb,  Is  Saul  also  among  the  prophets? 
are  rejected  by  nearly  all  critics  oa  a  late  interpolation,  similar  to 
that  in  W-^^.  The  grounds  for  this  view  are.  brietly,  (1)  that  an 
entirely  different  and,  as  it  would  seem,  more  genuine  account 
has  been  already  given  in  lO^Of. ;  (2)  that  David  would  mostnatnr 
ally  flee  southwards  to  Nob  (c(.  21i).  and  not  to  Ramah  in  the 
north ;  (S)  according  to  1683  a  further  meeting  between  Saul 
and  Samuel  is  excluded.  (1)  is  decisive  against  these  verses 
belonging  to  the  earlier  narrative,  while  (2)  and  (3)  equally 
exclude  E  as  their  source,  though  the  position  occupied  by 
Samuel,  as  well  as  tbe  place  (Kamah),  seem  to  argue  for  that 
narrative;  the  words  'from  Naioth  in  Ramah '  (20i»)  naturally 
form  part  of  the  preceding  account.  Ch.  20  describes  at  length 
tne  attempt  made  by  Jonathan  to  reconcile  his  father  to  David, 
and  the  means  by  which  ho  informed  the  latter  of  the  failure 
of  his  efforts.  The  section,  which  is  obviously  old  and  historical. 
Is  probably  a  duplicate  of  191-7,  by  which  it  has  been  displaced  ; 
for  (1)  the  situation  is  the  same  as  that  of  lO^f-,  and  (2)  David 
would  not  require  further  nroof  of  Saul's  hostility  after  the 
unmistakable  evidence  of  19ilf-.  These  dilliculties,  it  is  true, 
admit  to  a  certain  extent  of  explanation  (cf.  Driver,  LOT^yt. 
180),  but  the  recurrence  of  duplicate  accounts  throughout 
1  Samuel  renders  It  jirobable  that  we  have  here  a  further  ex- 
ample of  the  same  phenomenon. 

The  text  is  evidently  in  great  disorder,  and  the  passage  has 

Erobably  been  considirably  expanded  by  the  redactor.  Well- 
ausen  is  no  doubt  right  in  regarding  the  sign  of  the  arrow  ns 
part  of  the  original  narrative.  This  sign,  however,  would 
exclude  any  meeting  or  conversation  between  David  and 
Jonathan.  Hence  we  must  regard  vv.-*o-*2  (t^j  y^,^  ri'er)  as 
rer  I  actional.  Further,  vv.nn  interrupt  the  main  couive  of  the 
narrative,  and  reverse  the  relative  i>oititionB  of  Jonathan  and 
David,  the  latter  being  reganled  as  the  undoubted  successor  ol 
Saul ;  they  are  prolmblv  therefore  to  be  assigned  to  the  redoctoi 
(Budde  and  Klttcl  ascribe  all  w.^i7  to  the  same  hand). 

(4)  21  (E).  22  (J).  David  flees  to  Nob,  where  he  if 
received  by  Ahimelech,  who  gives  him  tbe  shew* 


388 


SAMUEL,  I.  AND  U. 


SA3*IUEL,  L  AND  IL 


bread,  and  the  sword  of  Goliath  (SO'*).  [David  flees 
to  Achish,  king  of  Gath,  vvj**-**].  David  takes 
refuse  in  the  stronghold  {read  nTixr?  at  v.*)  of 
AduTlara,  whence  he  sends  his  parents  to  Moab 
(2'2^**) ;  massacre  of  the  priests  at  Nob ;  escape  of 
Abiathar  (228-'-^). 

With  the  exception  of  211M8,  the  two  chapters  seem  to 
connect  quite  naturally.  But  a  closer  examination  makes  it 
plain  that  the  sequel  (ch.  22)  of  the  incident  narrated  in  Sl^iO 
iwlongrs  to  a  different  source.  (1)  Does'  the  Eklomite  is  differ- 
enti)'  described  in  22";  (2)  in  ch.  22  emphasis  is  laid  on  the  fact 
that  Ahimelech  had  '  inquired  of  God  '  on  behalf  of  David  (vMf-) ; 
21  If  ignores  this  fact,  and  lays  more  stress  on  the  sacred  char- 
acter of  the  bread  piven  to  Da\id  and  his  followers.  Of  the 
two  accounts  the  earlier  is  that  contained  in  22*^23.  The  later 
account,  of  which  only  part  is  given  in  21*-9,  doubtless  con- 
tained some  record  of  the  massacre  of  the  priests  at  Nob; 
probably  Budde  is  right  in  regarding  2219,  which  interrupts 
the  connexion,  as  part  of  this  later  account.  To  the  redactor 
may  be  assigned  22i0'>  ^Goliath's  sword)  and  *  and  a  sword '  in 
v.l^.  The  section  21l'^i5  interrupts  the  main  narrative,  and 
presupposes  IflilS  and  1018-24  (Wellh.,  Budde);  like  those  pas- 
sages, it  must  be  regarded  as  a  late  insertion.  Probably  it  waa 
designed  to  take  the  place  of  ch.  27  f.,  and  was  afterwards 
retamed  alongside  of  it  (Kuenen,  Budde) ;  to  the  same  band  we 
must  also  assign  22^  (the  prophet  Gad,  cf.  2  S  24iiX 

(5)  23-27  (J  23i->*»  26.  27  ;  E  23W-24'"  25).  David 
as  an  ontlaw. 

David  delivers  Keilah  from  the  Philistines ; 
then,  warned  by  the  oracle,  leaves  the  city  before 
it  is  besiejxed  by  Saul  (23^-")  ;  he  then  takes  refuge 
in  the  wilderness  of  Ziph,  where  he  is  visited  by 
Jonathan  {w."-^^) ;  the  Ziphites  inform  Saul  of 
his  whereabouts,  and  the  latter  seeks  to  capture 
liim  (w.^^--'^);  tidings  of  a  Philistine  invasion  give 
David  a  temporary  respite  from  Saul  (vv.^"'*^),  who 
on  his  return  continues  the  pursuit,  and  on  this 
occasion  falls  into  David's  hands.  David,  however, 
spares  the  king's  life,  and,  in  the  dialogue  that 
follows,  the  latter  admits  that  David  is  more 
rigliteous  than  he  is  (ch.  24).  The  incident  of 
Nabal,  the  wealthy  sheepo^vne^  of  Carmel  (ch,  25), 
separates  the  two  accounts  of  the  sparing  of  Saul's 
life  by  David;  for  it  is  generally  admitted  that 
ch.  20  merely  gives  another  version  of  the  same  oc- 
currence which  is  narrated  in  23^*'**.  As  a  last 
resource,  David  enters  the  service  of  Achish,  king 
of  Gath,  by  whom  he  is  assi^ed  Ziklag  as  a 
residence :  tnence  he  makes  a  series  of  raids  against 
the  tribes  dwelling  in  the  Negeb  of  Judah,  etc. 
(ch.  27). 

The  agreement  between  the  two  stories  narrated  in  23i- 1*-^ 
24  and  ch.  26  in  regard  to  (1)  Saul's  pursuit  of  David  in  the 
wilderness ;  (2)  the  sparing  of  Saul's  life  ;  and  (3)  the  dialogue 
that  ensues,  is  so  great  that  we  can  only  regard  them  as 
different  versions  of  the  same  incident  The  variations  only 
affect  the  details,  and  are  such  as  might  easily  have  arisen  in 
two  independent  narratives.  Moreover,  as  Driver  {LOT^  p. 
181)  points  out,  *  if  the  occasion  of  ch.  26  was  a  different  one 
from  that  of  231^-,  it  is  singular  that  it  contains  no  allusion,  od 
either  David's  part  or  Saul's,  to  David's  having  spared  Saul's 
life  before.' 

Of  the  two  accounts  the  earlier  and  more  original  Is  on* 
doubtedly  that  contained  in  ch.  26  (Kuenen,  Wellh.,  Driver, 
Stade,  H.  P.  Smith,  Lohr).  The  arguments  m  favour  of  this 
view  are  clearly  stated  by  Lbhr  (Sam.  p.  xlv)  as  follows:^!) 
the  detailed  information  supplied  as  to  (a)  David's  companions 
(26^,  contrast  *  David  and  his  men,*  24^f-),  and  (M  Saul  and 
his  camp  (26'>-7);  (2)  the  manner  in  which  Saul  falls  into 
David's  hands :  and  more  especially  the  old  religious  conception 
underl>ing  2619.  To  these  we  may  add  (3)  the  shorter  and 
more  genuine  reply  of  Saul  (2621-  26),  which  appears  in  a  more 
expanded  form  in  2417-^.  Budde,  however,  who  is  followed 
by  Comill,  Cheyne,  and  Kittel,  solely  on  the  ground  of  tin' 
guistic  evidence,  contends  for  the  later  origin  of  ch.  26  ;  but  the 
expressions  cited  by  him  are  not  sufficiently  characteristic  to 
outweigh  the  arguments  given  above ;  further,  he  ignores  the 
characteristic  npTnp  (2613,  cf.  On  2*1  W^;  see  Ldhr,  Sam. 
p.  xlv ;  H.  P.  Smith,  Sam.  p.  230). 

The  first  section  of  ch.  23  (w.iiJ)  carries  on  22"  and  belongs 
to  the  earlier  narrative.  V.fl  is  ob%'iou8ly  out  of  place  a^fter  v.a, 
and  is  probably  a  gloss  designed  to  introduce  v.^^,  while  the 
first  question  in  v.^f  is  repeated  by  error  from  v. I'. 

V.i«  properly  forms  the  commencement  of  ch.  26  (or,  accord- 
jig  to  the  view  of  Budde,  etc.,  of  23i9f).  Vv.Ub-i8  (the  inter- 
view  between  Jonathan  and  David)  are  clearly  a  redactional 
Insertion,  similar  to  2011-17. 40-42*.  To  the  redactor  must  also 
be  assigned  23id^(*  in  thewoodttn  the  bill  of  Hachilah,  which 
ts  CD  the  south  <h  the  desert'),  which  Is  Inconsistent  with  v.^, 


and  the  phrase  24i6  (and  Saul  $aid,  Is  this  my  $on  David  f\ 
added  from  261^  for  harmonistic  purposes. 

23"-ia-2S,  which  have  no  parallel  m  the  earlier  narrative  (ch.  26X 
contain  a  local  tradition  explaining  the  ori^n  of  the  nama 
Sela-hammahlekoth  (prob.  =  'The  rock  of  divisions'). 

The  order  of  24*-7  is  apparently  at  fault ;  and  Gaupp,  followed 
by  Comill  and  Budde,  would  rearrange  the  verses  as  follows : 
4ft.  a.  7ft.  4b.  6. 7b,  Possibly  the  disorder  has  arisen  by  inten^ola* 
tion  (H.  P.  Smith,  p.  217  f.).  and  we  should  omit  vv.4i'-*nthe 
incident  of  the  skirt).  24^3  is  omitted  by  Wellh.  and  Budde  as 
a  gloss  :  the  latter  also  regards  w.30-22ft  as  due  to  the  redactor. 

The  notice  of  the  death  and  burial  of  Samuel  (251*)  jg  clearly 
a  redactional  insertion  borrowed  from  28^-' ;  it  is  out  of  place 
here.  The  rest  of  the  chapter  connects  naturally  with  23"-^,  and 
fills  up  the  interval  of  time  required  by  that  verse  :  it  is  prob- 
able, therefore,  that  the  earlier  narrative  also  contained  some 
account  of  the  incident  narrated  in  2'S^-^.  The  present  position 
of  ch.  25  is  doubtless  due  to  the  desire  to  separate  the  two 
accounts  ^2318-23  24.  20).  2528-31  have  probably  been  expanded 
by  the  writer  from  the  point  of  view  of  his  later  knowledge. 

2"!  David's  decision  to  take  refuge  with  tlie  Philistines  fol- 
lows quite  naturally  after  ch.  26,  and  the  whole  chapter  clearly 
belongs  to  the  earUer  narrative  with  23l-l'*»  25.  26 :  with  this 
agrees  its  silence  as  regards  any  previous  visit  of  David  to  Gath 
(2110-15),  and  the  oracle  of  225. 

(6)  28  (E).  29.  30  (J).  The  Philistines  prepare  for 
battle  with  Israel  (28^-  ^) ;  Saul  being  unable  to 
obtain  a  Di\'ine  oracle,  seeks  out  a  woman  with  a 
familiar  spirit  at  Endor,  who  conjures  up  Samuel 
(28^'^) ;  in  spite  of  the  confidence  expressed  by 
Achish,  the  other  Philistine  leaders  mistrust 
David's  loyalty,  and  insist  on  his  dismissal  (29^""). 
On  his  return  to  Ziklag,  David  finds  that  his  city 
has  been  sacked  by  the  Amalekites ;  he  hastens  in 
pursuit,  and  recovers  all  that  the  Amalekites  had 
taken :  the  rest  of  the  booty  is  equally  divided 
among  his  men,  part  being  sent  as  a  present  to 
*  the  elders  of  Judah '  (ch.  30). 

281-  2  carry  on  the  narrative  of  ch.  27,  which  is  continued  in 
chs.  29  and  30.  283-^  are  usually  regarded  as  out  of  place. 
According  to  28-*  the  Philistines  are  already  at  Shunem  (in  the 
plain  of  Jezreel) ;  but  in  29^  they  are  assembled  at  Aphek  in  the 
Sharon  valley,  and  only  advance  to  Jezreel  in  vM  ;  similarly 
the  Israelites  in  291  are  encamped  by  the  spring  which  is  in 
Jezreel,  and  presumably  only  fall  back  on  Gilboa  before  the 
advance  of  the  Philistines ;  whereas  in  28*  they  are  encamped 
at  Gil  boa. 

Budde  (who  is  followed  as  regards  the  order  by  Driver) 
solves  the  difficulty  by  placing  2S325  after  chs.  29.  30.  He 
further  assigns  the  incident  to  the  same  source  (J)  as  the  rest 
of  the  section,  arguing  (1)  that  Samuel  is  here  represented  aa 
a  seer  (9lf),  and  not  aa  a  judge  or  prophet ;  (2)  that  the  general 
content*  of  the  passage  agree  with  tne  earlier  representation, 
and  (3)  that  it  has  many  points  of  contact  with  ch.  14 :  the 
undoubted  reference  in  w.iv-ifl*  (to  Philistine*)  to  ch.  16  he  re- 
gards as  a  redactional  insertion.  Buddes  theory,  however,  fails 
to  give  any  reason  for  the  present  order  of  these  chapters,  which 
admits  of  a  perfectly  simple  explanation,  if  we  assign  'JS'^^ftto 
the  Later  narrative.  In  that  case  the  historical  introduction  in 
28*  will  be  parallet  to  and  independent  of  the  similar  notices 
in  281-2  29111,  and  the  section  as  a  whole  will  form  the  sequel 
to  ch.  15  (Wellh.,  H.  P.  Smith).  On  this  view  we  might  retain 
w.i7-ifc  (with  H.  P.  Smith),  but  they  are  more  probably  to  be 
regarded  as  a  redactional  expansion,  suggested  oy  v.ifl,  which 
point*  hack  to  1623N-28  (gee  Ldhr,  p.  xlix).  As  in  the  case  of 
ch.  15  (Saul's  war  of  extermination  against  the  Amalekites),  a 
genuine  historical  incident  has  been  utilized  for  the  purpose  of 
mculcating  a  moral  lesson  from  the  prophetic  standpoint. 

(7)  I  31-11  1  (J.  except  II  l^"***-  "•").  Death  of 
Saul. 

The  defeat  of  Israel  on  Mt.  Gilboa  and  the 
death  of  Saul  and  his  three  sons  (31*"').  The 
Philistines  carry  off  the  bodies  of  Saul  and  hia 
eons  to  Beth-shan,  whence  they  are  removed  by 
the  inhabitants  of  Jabesh-gilead  (vv. **-*).  The 
news  of  the  death  of  Saul  and  Jonathaa  is  con- 
veyed to  Da%'id  at  Ziklag  by  a  fugitive  Amalekite, 
who  describes  how  he  slew  Saul  (2  S  V'^%  David 
fasts  till  evening,  and  then  orders  the  execution 
of  the  Amalekite  because  he  had  slain  '  the  Lord's 
anointed'  (w.""").  The  lament  of  David  over 
Saul  and  Jonathan  (w."-^). 

These  chapters  contain  a  double  account  of  the  death  of 
Saul.  The  earlier  narrative  (J)  describes  how  Saul  in  despair 
commits  suicide  after  his  armour-bearer  has  refused  to  slav  nim 
(I  31-11  1*):  in  the  later  narrative  ^E)  a  wandering  Amalekit* 
slays  him  at  his  request  while  be  is  suffering  from  cramp  (or 
giddiness),  though  unwounded  (II  l^-ld).  It  has  been  conjeo* 
tured  by  those  who  regard  the  two  chapters  as  belonging  t4 
the  same  Bource,  that  the  account  of  the  Amalekite  Is  untrue ; 


SAMUEL,  L  AND  IL 


SAMUEL,  L  AND  IL 


389 


F, 


but  this  conflict*  with  the  whole  narrative  of  lO-",  which  con- 
veys no  hint  of  such  bein^  the  case.  It  is  probable,  as  Budde 
Infers  from  41*^,  that  David  himself  slew  the  fufntive  who 
brought  him  the  tidings  of  Saul's  death.  This  latter  passage 
(4W)  knows  nothing  of  the  reason  assigned  for  the  execution  of 
the  mesiicnger  in  1^1^,  viz.  the  fact  that  he  hod  laid  hands  on 
•the  Lord's  anointed.' 

Ch.  31  has  been  excerpted,  with  slight  variations,  by  the 
compiler  of  Chronicles  (1  Cb  W),  who  has  in  part  preserved  a 
lurer  text  (see  Driver,  yotes  on  Sam,  p.  176  f.).  Budde  regards 
_1  18  as  a  redactional  insertion,  introducing  the  later  narrative ; 
vv.ll->^  belong  probably  to  the  earlier  narrative;  they  are  out 
of  place  in  their  present  context. 

n  117.vf7  the  lament  of  David  is  avowediv  taken  from  the 
Book  of  Jashar  (so  Jos  lO'^-H,  1  K  812'  (LXX)),  but  there  is  no 
reason  to  doubt  David's  authorship  (on  the  text  see  Driver, 
A<X»,  p.  IbOf.). 

(8)  2-4  (J).  The  straggle  beWeen  the  house  of 
Saul  and  the  house  of  Darid. 

David  is  anointed  king  of  Judah  at  Hebron 
(2'-'') :  he  thanks  the  men  of  Jabesh-gUead  for 
their  kindly  action  in  recovering  the  bodies  of 
Saul  and  his  sons,  and  at  the  same  time  informs 
them  of  his  coronation  (vv.*-').  Meantime  Ishbaal, 
the  sole  remaining  son  of  Saul,  is  set  on  tlie  throne 
of  Israel  at  Mahanaira  by  Abner,  the  captain  of 
the  host  (vv.»-")  :  then  follows  the  encounter  be- 
tween the  troops  of  Joab  and  Abner  at  Gibeon, 
which  results  in  the  defeat  of  the  men  of  Israel  ; 
in  his  flight  Abner  is  pursued  by  Asahel,  Joab's 
brother,  wliom  he  slays ;  Asahel's  death  puts  an 
end  to  the  pursuit  (vv. '--'*).  The  downfall  of  the 
house  of  Saul  is  caused  by  the  rupture  between 
Ishbaal  and  Abner :  the  latter  makes  a  league  witli 
David,  to  whom  he  restores  his  wife  Michal ;  and 
he  further  promises  to  bring  all  Israel  unto  him. 
Abner,  however,  is  treacherously  slain  by  Joab  in 
revenge  for  tlie  death  of  Asaliel,  and  is  mourned 
by  David  and  all  the  people  (ch.  3).  The  assassina- 
tion of  Ishbaal,  and  the  execution  of  his  murderers 
(ch.  4). 

These  chapters  continue  the  earlier  narrative  of  I  31  and 
U  1'-*.  the  conclusion  of  which  is  probably  lost.  210»  (to  two 
|/«ar«)H  (  =  6*)  are  obviously  insertions;  they  interrupt  the 
narrative,  and  are  doubtless  part  of  the  chronological  scheme 
of  the  Deuteronomic  editor.  3'^  (a  notice  of  David's  family 
at  Hebron)  are  out  of  place,  and  belong  properly  after  S**:  v.* 
is  continued  by  v.*i''-,  v.6»  concealing  the  insertion.  V.30  is 
omittfd  by  all  critics  as  a  later  inter])olation.  4*  is  certainly 
inter)"  lated:  probably  v.4i>  should  be  placed  after  93(WeUh., 
Budde). 

(9)  5'-8"  (J,  except  ch.  7  (E)).  David  as  king  of 
all  Israel. 

After  the  death  of  Ishbaal,  David  is  acknow- 
ledged as  king  by  all  the  tribes  of  Israel  &''). 
He  captures  the  Jebusite  city  Jerusalem ;  takes 
up  his  residence  there,  and  fortifies  it  C"'").  Hiram, 
king  of  Tyre,  aids  him  in  building  his  palace  ("• '-). 
[Notice  of  David's  family  (""")].  The  I'hilistines 
hear  that  David  has  been  iinointcd  king  over  Israel, 
and  imiiieciiatcly  attack  liim,  but  are  twice  defeated 
(17-iu)  'I'lm  removal  of  the  ark  from  Baale-judah 
(  =  Kiriath-jearim)  to  Jerusalem  is  checked  by  the 
untoward  death  of  Uzzah  :  the  ark  is  therefore  left 
at  the  house  of  Obedcdom  (O'"'").  After  an  inter- 
val of  three  uonths  it  is  brought  up  to  the  city 
of  David  in  solemn  procession,  in  which  David 
takes  part:  his  action  is  derided  by  Michal,  who 
is  therefore  cnrsed  with  barrenness  C'^).  David 
proposes  to  build  a  house  for  Jehovah,  but  is 
informed  by  Nathan  that  this  honour  is  reserved 
for  his  son  (7'"").  David's  prayer  (vv. "■'■*).  A 
summary  of  the  wars  waged  by  Daviil  (8'"'*)  ;  his 
judicial  activity  (v.") ;  and  a  list  of  his  olUcers 
(vv.i«-'«). 

It  is  obvious  that  the  war  with  the  Philistines  (.',1" ">)  follows 
lnime<Iiatcly  after  vv.i  3,  which  conUiin  u  twofold  introdurtion, 
viz.  vv  1-2  andv.3.  The  inter\'ening  suctions  (vv.*-i")  are  clearly 
mifrjilaccd :  w.4.»  (cf.  1  K  2l')  are  omitted  by  the  Chronicler, 
and  are  premature :  vv.o-»  the  account  of  the  capture  of 
Jerusalem  is  undoubtedly  old  and  genuine,  but  the  text  is 
unfortvinately  very  corrupt ;  Budde  would  place  it  after  6* : 
w.  n.  la  probably  oelong  to  the  latter  part  of  David's  reign,  if 
thov  are  not  an  addition  from  1  K  6  (see  S.  A.  Cook,  AJSL  xvL 
t,  p.  161) :  vv.in«  should  be  placed  like  8»»  afUr  »i*.    It  is  prob- 


able that  the  account  given  in  w.i7-25  should  be  supplemented 
by  the  detailssupplied  in  2115-2!  23*^  (see  below).  'That  vv.ir'a 
do  not  connect  with  vv.*-i6  is  shown  by  the  different  use  of  the 
term  '  the  hold '  (.Tilimn)  in  w."  and  17 :  the  use  of  this  term 
here  ond  in  231*  supports  S.  A.  Cook's  theory  (AJSL  p.  164  f.^, 
that  David's  encounter  with  the  Philistines  preceded  the  inci- 
dents in  chs.  2-4,  and  belong  to  the  period  'when  he  had  no 
army  (S'n)  or  host  (N3S),  as  chs.  8  and  10,  but  was  accompanied 
only  by  his  "  men  "  or  "  servonts  " '  (521  2116- 17.  i.".").  gl^  accord- 
ing to  Budde,  must  have  introduced  some  warlike  incident,  and 
he  therefore  prefixes  it  to  66-12 ;  the  rest  of  the  chanter  is  old 
and  genuine,  though  possibly  it  has  been  expanded  in  parts. 
Ch.  7  is  admittedly  later  than  chs.  6  and  6,  with  which  it  is 
clearly  connected :  the  section,  it  is  true,  dispLiys  certain  re- 
semblances both  in  thought  and  expression  to  iJcutcronomy, 
but  these  are  not  strongly  pronounced  ;  and  from  the  nature  of 
its  contents  the  chapter  would  easily  lend  itself  to  theocratic 
expansions.  Kuenen  assigns  the  chapter  to  a  post- Deuteronomic 
source  on  the  ground  of  vv.li»-13. 22.23.  24  ;  but  11*  is  omitted  by 
the  Chronicler  (1  Ch  171);  v.  13  is  certainly  due  to  the  Deutero. 
nomic  editor,  and  vv.22-24^  from  their  general  character,  may 
well  be  an  expansion.  Probably,  therefore,  Budde  is  right  in 
assigning  the  chapter  to  £. 

Ch.  8  forms  the  concluding  survey  to  the  history  of  David 
(cf.  1 S  14*fi-51  at  the  end  of  the  history  of  Saul)  :  in  its  present 
form  the  chapt***  represents  the  work  of  the  Deuteronomic 
editor,  who  seems,  however,  to  have  made  use  of  the  older 
sources.  The  wars  are  first  noticed:  with  the  Philistines  (v.l), 
with  the  Moabites  (v.2),  with  the  Aranixans  and  their  allies 
(vv.3.8);  then  follows  an  account  of  the  homa^je  paid  by  the 
king  of  Hamath  (w.9-10);  [the  spoil  dedicated  by  David  to 
Jehovah  (w.n.  12)];  the  subjugation  of  Edoni  (RV  Syria) 
^y^,,13.U),  The  notices  of  David's  family  at  Hebron  (3**)  and 
at  Jerusalem  (513-16)  should  be  inserted  here  (Wellh-,  Budde): 
Budde  would  also  insert  54-6  (RD).  The  chapter  concludes 
with  an  account  of  David's  administration  (v.i5),  and  a  list  of 
his  officers  (vv.  it>-i*'). 

A  fuller  account  of  the  two  campaigns  against  the  Aramseans 
Is  presented  in  ch.  10,  which  has  been  condensed  and  slightly 
altered  by  RD  in  w.3-8 :  he  has  also  inserted  vv.l*- 10  here, 
transferring  them  from  the  end  of  ch.  10  (see  below),  to  which 
VV.13  and  14  properly  belong  (cf.  the  similar  conclusion  '^  and 
i-ib).  Vv.ll-12  are  probably  a  late  insertion.  It  is  remarkable 
that  in  ch.  10  the  victories  over  the  Aram»ans  form  but  two 
episodes  in  the  war  with  Ammon ;  yet  this  war  is  ignored  in 
ch.  8,  and  in  its  stead  (v.2)  the  subjugation  of  Moab  is  described. 
This  fact  is  not  mentioned  elsewhere,  and  seems  inconsistent 
with  I  223f- :  it  is  far  from  improbable,  therefore,  that  Moab 
has  been  substituted  for  Ammon  in  S2  (Budde). 

(c)  II  9-20  (J)  [and  1  K  1.  2].  Life  at  David's 
court,  or  the  history  of  the  succession  to  David's 
throne. 

The  events  narrated  in  these  chapters  are  closely 
connected  with,  and  mutually  dependent  on,  one 
another  :  they  are  further  distinguished  by  unity 
of  plan  and  conception.  The  story  of  Meribbaal 
(ch.  9)  explains  the  action  of  Ziba(lU'-*)  and  the 
speech  of  the  former  (19'"-'»):  lO'-lli  with  12=«-»' 
explain  how  David  became  acquainted  with  Bath- 
sheba,  and  how  he  compassed  the  death  of  Uriah, 
while  tlie  whole  section  chs.  10-12  forms  the  neces- 
sary introduction  to  the  final  choice  of  David's 
successor  in  1  K  1.  2.  The  narrative  throughout, 
by  its  lifelike  touches  and  its  minutoiiess  of  detail, 
as  well  as  by  its  bright  and  flowing  style,  betrays 
its  early  origin,  ana  must  have  been  composed 
soon  after  the  events  which  it  describes. 

(1)  9'"".  David  on  inquiry  learns  of  the  exist- 
ence of  Meribbaal  (Mephibosiif.tii),  the  lame  son 
of  Jonathan  :  for  Jonathan's  sake  he  deals  kindly 
with  his  son,  and  retains  him  at  court ;  Saul  s 
estates  are  restored  to  his  grandson,  and  Ziba, 
Saul's  servant,  appointed  to  look  after  them. 

Budde  would  place  ch.  24  and  211 1'  before  this  chapter,  on 
the  ground  that  the  incident  narrated  in  '.ill'-  is  presupposed  in 
ch.  9  and  107'- 192<*,  and  that  the  census  (ch.  24)  would  naturally 
take  place  soon  after  David's  accession.  It  is  dilRcult,  how- 
ever, on  this  theor)',  to  explain  the  present  position  of  21il« 
and  24.  and,  as  Wellhausen  has  pointed  out.  the  popular  and 
legendary  character  of  these  chapters  is  very  different  from  that 
of  chs.  9-20 (for  a  fuller  discussion  of  this  point  see  on  ihs.  21- 
24).  More  probable  is  Buddo's  view,  that  44i>  should  be  placed 
after  v.*. 

(2)  10-12.  Owing  to  the  insult  oflercd  to  his 
ambassadors,  war  breaks  out  between  David  and 
Ammon  :  the  latter  call  in  the  Aramwans  to  their 
aid,  and  prepare  to  defend  their  capital.  Joab, 
with  the  pick  of  the  troops,  attacks  and  dcfeaW 
the  AJamajaus,  while  the  rest  of  the  army  undei 


390 


SAilUEL,  I.  AND  II. 


SAMUEL,  L  AND  II. 


Abisliai  successfully  engage  the  Ammonites  (10'""). 
Once  more  the  Aramaeans,  under  Hadadezer, 
assemble  against  Israel,  but  are  a},'ain  defeated, 
this  time  by  David  himself  :  Joab  is  then  sent  to 
besiege  the  Ammonite  capit.al  (lO^-ll'  ;  see  Rab- 
BAH).  David  remains  at  Jerusalem,  where  he 
commits  adultery  with  Bathsheba,  the  wife  of 
Uriah  the  Hittite,  one  of  his  warriors.  After  a 
vain  attempt  to  conceal  the  sin,  he  sends  a  letter 
to  Joab  instructing  him  to  bring  about  the  death 
of  Uriah  :  his  orders  are  carried  out,  and  David 
then  marries  Bathsheba,  who  bears  him  a  son 
(cli.  11).  The  prophet  Nathan  awakens  David  to 
a  sense  of  his  guilt  by  means  of  a  parable,  and 
announces  the  Divine  punishment:  the  child  of 
Bathsheba  dies  despite  David's  penitence  ;  but 
another  son  (Solomon)  is  born  (12''^).  Meantime 
the  siege  of  Kabbah  has  been  drawing  to  a  close, 
and  David  in  person  commands  the  final  assault : 
the  chapter  ends  with  an  account  of  the  spoil,  and 
of    the  punishment  inflicted  on   the  inhabitants 

Except  in  the  speeches  of  Nathan,  which  have  probably  been 
expanded,  the  narrative  appears  to  have  been  presented  in  its 
original  form  ;  after  ll'-^  we  must  restore  the  lontjer  text  of  the 
LXX  (see  Driver,  Text  of  Sam,  p.  224)  in  accordance  with 
w.  19-21 ;  1210-12  are  probably  due  to  the  Deuteronomic  editor, 
who  regarded  all  the  misfortunes  of  David's  bouse  as  resulting 
from  his  great  sin,  while  the  phrase,  '  the  house  of  the  Lord,'  in 
V.20,  seeuis  an  anachronism.  With  regard  to  the  relation  of 
101-111  and  122S-31  to  ch.  8,  it  is  noticeable  that  (1)  according  to 
lO^f-  the  Ammonites  hire  the  services  of  the  Aramaeans  of  Beth- 
rehob  and  Zobah,  the  king  of  Maacah,  and  the  men  of  'lob  :  in 
83-  ■*  the  Ammonites  are  not  mentioned,  and  there  is  only  an 
obscure  notice  of  a  victory  over  the  Aramaeans:  (2)  in  83 
Hadadezer  of  Beth-rehob  (for  son  of  Jifhob)  is  mentioned  by 
name  as  leader  of  the  Aramaeans :  in  lOif-  his  name  is  given  so 
abruptly  (V.  16)  that  he  must,  as  Budde  conjectures,  have  been 
mentioned  earlier  in  the  original  narrative  ;  (3)  both  accounts 
describe  a  second  campaign  :  in  S^  the  Ar.amaeans  of  Damascus, 
in  HH6  those  *  that  were  beyond  the  River'  came  to  the  assist- 
ance of  their  countrymen.  Budde  conjectures  verj'  plausibly 
that  when  the  detailed  account  lOlf-  was  appended,  the  editor 
attemjited  to  make  the  two  narrutives  dissimilar :  to  this  end 
he  omitted  the  name  of  Hadadezer  in  10*^,  and  substituted 
Damascus  for  '  beyond  the  River '  in  8^.  By  these  means 
he  was  able  to  transfer  the  notices  of  Ton's  homage  (8^-  lO) 
and  of  the  Edomite  war  (813- 14)  from  the  end  of  ch.  10  to  their 
present  position, 

(3)  1.3-20.  The  rebellion  of  Absalom,  its  cause 
and  cllects.  Amnon,  David's  lirstborn,  and  pre- 
sumably his  successor,  is  murdered  by  command 
of  Absalom  for  the  violation  of  his  half-sister 
Tamar :  Absalom  takes  refuge  with  his  maternal 
grandfather  the  king  of  Geshur  (ch.  13).  Joab,  by 
the  help  of  the  wise  woman  of  'Tekoa,  induces  the 
king  to  consent  to  Absalom's  return  :  the  latter  in 
his  turn  coerces  Joab  into  bringing  about  a  meet- 
ing between  himself  and  the  king,  which  results 
in  the  reconciliation  of  father  and  son  (ch.  14). 
Absalom  now  schemes  to  win  the  people  to  his 
side,  and  thus  secure  the  throne,  and  hnally  sets 
up  the  standard  of  revolt  at  Hebron.  David  at 
once  flees  eastward  from  Jerusalem,  accompanied 
by  his  bodyguard  and  Ittai  the  Giltite  :  he  sends 
back  Zadolv  and  Abiathar  with  the  ark  to  the 
capital,  and  arranges  that  tidings  should  be  brought 
to  him  by  their  two  sons :  he  further  persuades 
Hushai  to  return,  that  he  may  defeat  the  counsel 
of  Ahithophel  (ch.  15).  In  his  flight  David  learns 
from  Ziba  of  the  disafTection  of  Meribbaal,  and 
suliniits  to  the  insults  of  Shimei  the  Benjamite 
(IG'"'^).  Meantime  Absalom,  following  the  advice 
of  Ahithophel,  takes  possession  of  his  father's 
harem  (16''''^).  The  same  adviser  further  counsels 
the  immediate  pursuit  of  Daviil,  but  Absalom  de- 
clares in  favour  of  the  waitinj'  policy  advised  by 
Hushai  (17''").  The  news  of  his  decision  is  con- 
veyed to  David  by  the  two  sons  of  tlie  priests,  at 
the  risk  of  their  lives  :  he  at  once  withdraws  across 
Jordan,  and  is  met  at  Mahanaim  by  rich  Gileadites 
wit  ham  pic  supplies  for  his  army  (vv.  "■-"■').  Absalom, 
who  hau  already  crossed  the  Jordan,  is  confronted 


at  Mahanaim  by  David's  army  under  Joa\),  Abishai, 
and  Ittai.  In  the  battle  that  ensues  David's  forcei 
are  completely  victorious  :  Absalom  in  his  flight 
is  slain  by  order  of  Joab,  in  direct  disobedience  to 
David's  command  (18'"'*)  :  then  follows  a  graphic 
description  of  the  manner  in  which  the  news  was 
conveyed  to  David  ( vv.  '*"^).     The  death  of  Absalom 

E lunges  David  into  profound  grief,  from  which 
e  is  only  with  great  difticulty  aroused  by  Joab : 
public  opinion  and  the  politic  message  of  David  to 
the  men  of  J  uilah  are  the  chief  factors  in  bringing 
about  the  king's  return  (19'"'*).  At  the  passage  of 
the  Jordan  Shimei  asks  for  pardon  and  is  forgiven  ; 
Meribbaal  explains  how  he  had  been  slandered  by 
Ziba ;  and,  lastly,  the  aged  Barzillai  refuses  the 
king's  invitation  to  himself,  but  asks  his  favour  for 
his  son  Chimham  (vv.'*"^^).  The  men  of  Israel  are 
envious  of  the  favour  shown  to  the  men  of  Judah, 
and  a  quarrel  breaks  out  (vv.'"'"'").  In  consequence 
of  this  dispute  Sheba  the  Bichrite  stirs  up  Israel 
to  revolt  against  David.  Amasa,  the  newly- 
appointed  commander,  faUs  to  muster  the  men 
of  Judah  quickly  enough,  and  Abishai  (or,  perhaps, 
Joab,  see  art.  JOAli  in  vol.  ii.  p.  G59  note)  is  sent  w  ith 
all  the  available  troops  to  stamp  out  the  rebellion. 
Amasa  meets  the  royal  forces  oy  the  way,  and  is 
treacherously  slain  by  Joab :  the  two  brothers 
then  pursue  Sheba  northwards  to  Abel  of  Beth- 
maacah,  where  he  is  slain,  and  his  head  handed 
over  to  Joab  :  the  chapter  concludes  with  a  repeti- 
tion of  the  list  of  officers  given  in  S"*'-  (ch.  20). 

In  this  section  there  are  but  few  passages  whose  origin  haa 
been  called  in  question  by  the  critics :  lyi'^''  (to  apparelled)  is 
probably  a  misplaced  gloss  (Wellh.)  to  v.ia ;  it  interrupts  the 
connexion  between  vv.i7  and  !«*> ;  at  the  end  of  the  chapter 
the  right  order  of  the  verses  is  clearly  ^^^-  37a.  ySb.  sy^  si» 
being  due  to  the  scribe.  142»j  is  rejected  by  most  as  a  later 
addition  ;  Budde  omits  all  w. 25-27.  1524  appears  to  have  been 
worked  over  by  a  Deuteronomic  redactor  :  *  and  all  the  Levites 
with  him'  is  certainly  due  to  him,  while  the  phrase  *and 
Abiathar  went  up'  is  out  of  place  ;  Abiathar  must  originally 
have  been  mentioned  alongside  of  Zadok  (cf.  v.29)  ;  the  textual 
difficulty  in  v. 27  may  also  be  due  to  the  same  cause  (Budde 
reads,  'See,  do  thou  and  Abiathar  return':  Wellh.  'unto 
[Zadok]  the  high  priest,  do  thou  return,'  etc.ji  ISi****  (for  he 
vaid  to  reineinbraiice)  conflicts  with  1427,  and  must  be  rejected 
as  an  interpolation,  unless  w-ith  Budde  we  omit  1427.  Lastly, 
2023-28  are  repeated  with  some  variations  from  816f-,  or  more 
probably  (see  H.  P.  Smith,  Sam.  p.  a27f.)  are  original  here, 
and  were  borrowed  by  the  compiler  of  ch.  8  for  his  concluding 
panegyric.  It  seems  very  probable  (as  Budde  suggests)  that 
the  author  of  ch.  8  omitted  the  following  chapters  (9-20X 
because,  from  his  point  of  view,  the  family  history  which  they 
contained  did  not  redound  to  David's  credit,  and  that  they 
were  afterwards  restored  by  a  later  editor. 

The  unity  of  chs.  &-"20  (see  above)  has  been  admitted  by  nearly 
all  commentators  and  critics  (Kuenen,  Wellhausen,  Driver, 
Budde,  Cornill,  Kittel,  Lbhr,  etc.),  with  the  exception  of 
Thenius  (Coinm.^  p.  xiii),  who  rejected  ch.  9  (the  incident  of 
Meribbaal)  and  IQl-lll  1'226-31  (the  Ammonite  war)  as  later 
redactional  additions  to  the  history  of  David  :  but,  aa  we  have 
shown  above,  these  sections  are  necessary  to  and  presupposed 
by  the  following  narrative.  This  theory,  however,  has  been 
revived,  in  a  different  form,  by  S.  A.  Cook  in  his  analysis  of 
2  Samuel  (AJSL  (Heln-aica),  p.  15.1  f.).  According  to  the  latter"* 
view,  ch.  9  is  related  to  1  S  20i5f-,  and  is  therefore  to  bo 
ascribed  to  an  Ephraimite  source ;  while  '  the  story  of  David't 
sin  with  Bathsheba  and  the  birth  of  Solomon  (112-1226)  has  been 
inserted  in  the  account  of  a  war  against  Rabbath-ammon  of 
which  it  was  originally  independent.'  He  further  argues  that 
this  war  with  Amnion  should  follow,  and  not  piecede,  the 
events  recorded  in  chs.  13-20,  chiefly  on  the  ground  that  David's 
flight  to  and  hospitable  reception  at  Mahanaim  •  are  impos- 
sible after  the  sanguinarj-  war  recorded  (lOlf-) ;  and  pl.aces  it  at 
the  end  of  David's  reign.  Absalom's  rebellion,  he  contends, 
was  probably  confined  to  Judah  (see  Sayce,  Early  llist.  of  ths 
Hebrews,  p.  429  f.), — the  leading  men  (Amasa  and  Ahithophel) 
were  both  Judayins,  and  the  centre  of  revolt  was  at  Hebron,  the 
old  Judaean  capital,— and  followed  shortly  after  David  had  settled 
in  Jerusalem :  in  like  manner  the  extent  of  Sheba's  revolt, 
which  was  really  limited  to  the  Bichrites  (201*  LXX),  has  been 
exaggerated  so  as  to  include  all  Israel,  and  then  appended  to 
Absalom's  rebellion.  As  the  result  of  his  investigation  Cook 
concludes:  *(1)  that  the  union  of  Judah  and  Israel  under  one 
king  did  not  occur  at  any  early  date  in  David's  reign,  and  (2) 
that  the  narratives  in  2  Samuel  which  presuppose  any  close  re- 


•Cook  ingeniously  emends  1727  'and  ShobI  the  son  of 
Nahash'  (B'rij'p  '^Pi)  to  'and  Nahash,  etc.,  brought'  (1K!3;i 
C'rtj),  thus  supplying  (according  to  his  view  of  the  chronology) 
a  motive  for  David's  embassy  in  lun-. 


SAXAAS 


SANCTIFICATION 


391 


ttittonshtp  between  Judiib  and  Israel  (or  Bcnjaintn)  previous  to 
thiR  union  are  due  to  a  redactor  (HJE  ?),  and,  in  several  cases  at 
li-ast.  seem  to  be  derived  from  an  Kphralinite  source.' 

Tlie  evidence,  however,  on  wbicU  these  conclusions  are  based 
is  obtained  in  many  eases  by  a  very  subjective  treatuieut  of  the 
text,  an<l  cannot  be  said  to  outweij;h  the  (general  impression 
conveyed  by  chs.  1*^20  as  a  whole.  It  is  probable  that  t'ook 
is  rinht  in  certain  cases  (especially  in  the  story  ol"  Ahithopliel 
lij*'-i  r^)  in  tracing  the  dirticnlties  'of  the  narrative  Ut  the  com- 
bination of  two  sources ;  but  he  certainly  goes  too  far  when  he 
condemns  all  the  interviews  recorded,  viz.  those  with  Zibn, 
Meribbaal,  bhimei,  and  Uarzillai,  as  the  work  of  the  redactor. 

(d)  21-24.     The  Appendix. 

'i'hese  four  chapters  contain  a  number  of  hetero- 
peneoiis  fragments,  viz.  :  (ai  the  famine  in  Israel 
fxpiiited  by  the  death  of  the  sons  of  .Saul  at  the 
liands  of  the  Uibeonites  (21'-'-');  (6)  a  series  of 
exploits  asivinst  the  Philistines  (21'*--);  (c)  David's 
llyuin  of  Triumph  after  tlie  defeat  of  his  enemies 
(ch.  22  =  I's  la)  ;  {tl)  David's  '  Last  Words'  (2:3'-") ; 
(e)  further  exploits  against  the  Philistines,  and  list 
of  David's  lieroes  (23'^«')  ;  (/)  David's  census  of 
the  people,  and  its  result  (cb.  24). 

These  chapters  interrupt  the  main  narrative  of  chs.  9-20, 
whicli  IS  continued  in  1  K  l-'J,  and  must  therefore  have  been 
inserted  in  their  present  position  alYcr  the  division  of  the  Books 
of  Samuel  a!id  Kings.  It  is  notieeable  that  (/)  is  closely  related 
In  style  and  manner  to  («) :  '24'  clearly  continues  '21",  while 
ln.th' narnitives  have  a  .similar  conclusion  (21t*'>  ■24^'*).  The 
two  narratives  were  apparently  first  separated  by  (/*)  and  (c), 
the  contents  of  which  are  very  similar,  and  between  these  again 
were  inserted  the  two  INalins  chs.  22  and  2.S'-'. 

The  incident  narrated  in  21"-  evidently  belongs  to  the  begin- 
ning of  Davlil's  reign,  atrd  seems  to  be  alluded  to  by  Shitnei 
(Hi"- 8)  and  .\leribbiuil  (1*.|28),  but  is  entirely  ignored  by  ch.  !1. 
fh.  24  is  very  similar  to  21t-'*.  <(f  which  it  is  clearly  the  sequel: 
in  each  case  the  Divine  wrath  is  kindled  against  the  people 
owing  to  the  action  vf  the  king,  and  they  are  punished  with  a 
plague,  vv.'"  and  ''  (David's  repentance  and  his  prayer)  are  out 
of  place,  and  mav  linve  been  inserted  later:  Hudde  arranges 
the  verses  as  follows:  t''.  Ub.  IS.  13b.  Ilk.  Vim.  iie.  14.  u.  lea.  17.  140^ 
lie  (see  above)  assigns  both  sections  to  .1,  and  places  them 
belore  ch.  9  :  on  his  view  ch.  24  should  precede  21'*'*,  and  ho 
therefore  omits  24'*  as  a  Deuteronomic  gloss  ;  21-''  ho  assigns  to 
tiu-  mlactor,  and  rejects  21'  as  a  bite  insertion  caused  by  the 
ilis[ilaceinent  of  the  passage.  He  suggests  that  the  gloomy 
nature  t  f  tiieir  content.s  caused  the  sections  to  be  removed  l)y 
the  comniler,  and  that  they  were  atterwiirds  added  by  the 
etlilor.  The  character  of  these  and  of  the  other  sections  is, 
however,  very  different  from  that  of  chs.  9-20.  with  which  they 
exhibit  no  atiinity  :  hence,  though  '21'-'*  and  ch.  24  undoubtedly 
conljiln  old  traditions,  we  can  only  conjecture  that  they  were 
adiled  by  a  later  hand  after  the  completion  of  the  main  narra- 
tive. 2i'4-23  and  2Ji*-^  likewise  contain  olil  material,  ami  belong 
to  the  early  period  of  David's  reign  (see  5""-^):  possibly  they 
may  be  derived  from  the  register  of  the  '  reconler,'  as  Driver 
suggests  iLOT'*  pn,  !><),  IsT).  Budde,  who  regards  them  as 
part  iff  the  original  narrative,  places  them  after  'fi'^:  his  trans- 
liosltlon  of  2:il3-l^*  to  the  end  of  the  chapter  Is  prolmbly  correct. 
The  two  I'sulms  chs.  22  (=  I's  IS)  and  'lH'-'  (David's  'Last 
Words')  arc  atlmittediy  later  additions  to  the  book.  The  Da- 
vidic  authorship  of  ch.22  has  been  maintained  by  Kwald,  Hitzlg, 
etc.,  but  the  Internal  evidence  points  to  a  later  author.  Tlio 
*  Ijist  Words'  of  David  are  obviously  out  of  place  ;  the  majority 
of  cHtics  agree  that  they  are  the  work  of  a  later  hand  :  the  text 
is  in  ]»arts  very  corrupt. 

LiTKnATt;RR. — For  the  text  seeThenius.  />/>  lificher  Samtteh 
(in  Krj/.  Fathi.  //r/)ii/fc.),>ls4;i.  sis7:J, '(LohrllMis;  Wellhausen, 
T^rtil.  HuLhtr  Sinn.  1-.71  ;  Driver,  /Mi.  Text  itf  Sum.  ISIIO; 
Klostermann,  I>U  ftnrtter  Sum.  it.der  Ki'tuifjey^n  K',tf.  h'omm.), 
\^^1;  Kelt,  Die  Bitchfv  Sitm.*  Is7.%;  II.  P.  Smith,' .^r»(»c/ (In 
Iittfrnal.  I'rit.  I^(nnin.\  lsui»;  Peters,  Reitriinf  e.  Tevt-  ii. 
Lilfriirkritikdfr  ItucJifr  ±Sitm.  18it9.  For  the  critical  analysis 
see  esperiallv  Wellhausen,  Camp.  1889,  pp.  2:iH-260  ;  Kuenen, 
Ilint.Krit.  'Khilrituug{\^9»).  l.li.np.  !)7-l'i2  ;  Mudde.  Itiflittr  H. 
,^im.  1S90.  pp.  Iii7  2"n,  and  S/lOT\iii.  ;  Driver,  /.OT"  (1S97), 
pji.  172-iH.'>;  i:oridll,  Xlnclir./.  A:  WiHHrnnch.  n.k.  LfOtti,  IHS'i, 
!•  ll:itT.,  Kmiig„li.  .•<liirl.  Iss7,  [..  2,'.ir.,  XATW,  ISSIO.  p.  9(1  If.. 
Khilfilii}i:i  ill  A  T;  1n9()  ;  Klllel,  .^A',  lh92.  p,  44  IT.,  Genrli.iler 
Ihl.r.iir  1 1~92».  il.  li.  22  ff.  (Krig.  tr.)  vol.  ii.  p.  22  IT.  ;  Chevne, 
hr roiil .•il Hil ij i:f  rrilicimn ,\i\>,\-Vlf>\  Slndc,  ^I7M'<S'9,1. 19711.; 
l.'.iir,  \'i>rh,'mfrktiiiyfii  in  Mr4l  ed.  of  Thenills'/  'of/(wj.  (see  above); 
S.  A.  Cook,  AJSI.{  =  llehr,iica),  1900,  p.  I4,')f. ;  II.  A.  Wliltc, 
art.  David  In  present  work.  J.   F.   STKNNINO. 

_  SANAAS  (H  Zafii.  A  Saniaj  ;  AV  Annaas.  1  Ks 
'"i-^i. —  The  sons  of  Sana.Ts  returned  from  cajitivity 
under  Zerubbal)el  to  the  number  of  ,3:!:!0  (BJCUtl). 
In  Kzr  2^,  Ncli  T's  they  are  called  the  children 
of  .Sfiiaali.  In  Neh  :!■'  tlie  name  has  the  article 
Uassenaali.  The  numbers  given  are  30;30  (Ezr. ), 
•i'.m  (Xeh.). 

"Copi/rlaU,  1902,  6* 


SANABASSAR,  SANABASSARUS.— See  Siiehi 

BAZ/.Al;. 

SANASIB  (B  Zauapels,  A  'Avaretp),  1  Es  S^^.- 
Tlie  suns  of  .leddu  the  son  of  .Jesus  are  mentioned 
as  priests  who  returned  '  anionj;  the  sons  of  Sanasib' 
Willi  Zerubbabel.  The  name  is  omitted  in  the  par- 
allel Kzr  2'^  ;  the  Vulg.  probably  preserves  the 
correct  form  Eliasih. 

SANBALLAT  (-'???,  i:aTOj3aXXdT,  Sanahallat).— 
The  name  is  Assyr.  iShi-ballidh,  •  the  Moim-ood 
h:us  vivified.'  Sanballat  is  called  a  Iloronite  (Neh 
210.19  ];;2H),  but  the  locality  meant  is  uncertain: 
for  conjectures  as  to  it  see  art.  IIhI'.oniti;.  lie 
seems  to  have  held  some  office  in  Samaria  (Xeh  4'-) 
when  Xehemiah  arrived  in  .lerus.,  and,  aloni;  with 
Tobiah  the  Ammonite  and  Geshem  the  Arabian, 
was  bitterly  opposed  to  Nehemiah,  and  did  his 
best  to  thwart  his  endeavours  to  rebuild  the  walls 
of  the  .lewish  capital.  There  was  a  parly  inside 
Jerus.  itself  which  was  (-(lually  oppu.sed  to  the 
Tirshatha,  and  consjiiied  with  Sanballat  to  hinder 
Nehemiah  by  spurious  prophecies  and  other  means 
(Neh  (i).  One  of  the  party  was  the  higji  priest 
Ellasliib,  who.se  grandson  bad  married  Sanballafs 
daughter  (Xeh  13-8). 

.Josephus  {Ant.  .\l.  vii.  2)  transports  Sanballiit 
from  the  reign  of  Artaxerxes  Longimanus  to  that 
of  Darius  Codomannus,  the  last  king  of  Persia, 
wlio.se  officer  he  is  said  to  have  been  in  Samaria. 
His  daughter  Nikas6  was  married  to  Manasseh, 
the  brother  of  the  high  priest  Jaddua.  Manas.seh, 
being  threatened  with  expulsion  from  the  priest- 
hood unless  he  divorced  his  wife,  Hed  to  Sanballat, 
who  suggested  that  he  should  become  the  high 
priest  of  a  rival  temple  on  Mt.  Gerizim,  and  prom- 
ised to  secure  for  him  the  protection  of  Darius, 
.lust  at  this  time,  however,  the  invasion  of  Persia 
by  Alexander  the  Great  took  place  ;  Sanballat  went 
over  to  the  conqueror  with  7000  men,  and  induced 
him  to  allow  the  temple  on  Mount  Gerizim  to  be 
built.  Manas.seh  became  its  lirst  high  priest,  and 
soon  afterwards  .Sanballat  died.  The  whole  story 
seems  to  be  derived  from  some  apoci-yphal  .Icwish 
account  of  the  origin  of  the  Samaritan  temple. 

A.  II.  SayCE. 

"•SANCTIFICATION.— Of  the  tlirce  words  for 
'hiiliuess'  based  on  the  adjective  fi7ios,  one  only  is 
here  really  in  question,  viz.  dyiaanAi.  The  other 
two,  ayiuavvT],  the  abstract  qnnlitij  (saiirtitndo), 
and  iytdrris,  the  same  concretely  and  subjectively 
conceived  as  a  personal  quality  (sanctitas),  fall 
naturally  under  HoI.inkss.  Hut  ayiauiid^,  like 
'  sanctitication,'  connotes  slatf,  and  that  not  as 
native  to  its  subject,  but  as  the  outcome  of  action 
or  process. 

Tliere  is  no  need  to  deal  separately  and  at  length 
with  the  cognate  verbs  a-fid^em,  ayvt^eiii.  The  es- 
sential ideas  involved  havi^  already  been  discussed 
under  IIoi.lvKss  ;  while  what  they  have  to  contri- 
bute to  the  idea  of  sanetilieation  as  a  process  will 
ajipear  incidentally  in  the  body  of  this  article.  In 
general,  however,  it  may  be  said  (1)  that  d7idffii» 
is  late  (ireek  and  biblical  (d7i'(f£ii'  being  classical), 
and  has  meanings  determined  by  the  several  senses 
of  a^ios,  but  all  sjiringing  from  '  to  con,secrate,'  '  to 
render  sacro.sanct  or  appropriated  to  Divine  use  ' 
(in  contra-st  to  'profane'  or  'open  to  common 
u.se ')  ;  whereas  the  more  cla.ssical  iypl^av  means 
'to  render  jrare '  (no  longer  'unclean,'  or  hateful 
in  God's  sight).  (2)  Kacli  verb  p-is-ses  through  a 
ritual  stage  of  meaning  to  reach  .an  ethical  or  s])ir- 
itual  one.  In  the  case  of  ayviietv  the  tivo  are  clearly 
distinguishable,  a-s  in  .In  ll'ii,  Ac  2]^*^  24'8  ou 
the  one  hand,  and  .la  4»,  1  P  !'■«,  1  Jn  .1'  on  the 
other.  But  there  is  little  even  in  the  latter  series 
Chartt9  Scribner's  Honv 


392 


SANCTIFICATION 


SANCTIFICATION 


of  passages  on  which  to  base  a  doctrine  of  sanc- 
tificatiun.  In  the  case  of  ayid^eii>  (for  Heb.  see 
IIoLlN"K#s  IN  OT,  ad  init.  note)  the  senses  are 
more  varied  and  complex.  It  means  («)  to  render 
sacrosanct  by  ritual  inetliuds  appointoii  by  God 
(P:x  28^*  no-w-,  Mt  2:Ji'-i'',  He  it'^ ;  cf.  1  Co  f"),  or 
simply  by  act  of  the  Divine  will  (Jer  1^,  Jn  10'')  ; 
(?/)  to  hallow  ethically,  the  human  spirit  or  will 
being  directly  concerned  ;  (c)  to  realize  the  state 
of  ethical  devotion  to  the  Divine  in  concrete  con- 
duct (Jn  IT''-",  Hev  22";  cf.  Mt  &■>).  The  second 
sense,  ethical  hallowing,  has  two  subdivisions,  viz. 
(i.)  vicarious  or  sacrihcial,  e.y.  He  lO"'--'-"  l;!'-,  cf. 
!i"  10''',  Eph  0'^",  aud  (ii.)  intrinsic,  as  in  Jn  17'"-  '•', 
cf.  1  r  1---.  Ac  203^  (20'»),  1  Co  (ill.  Ho  lOiB. 
Intrinsic  hallowing  itself  is  either  initial,  as  in 
1  Co  (jii,  Ac  2(;i'',  or  mature,  as  in  1  Th  b-^.  In  all 
forms  the  determinative  part  is  played  by  the 
Divine  (Jn  lO^e  17i'i'-',  He  lOi"),  yet  tlie  human 
factor  is  fully  recognized  (Jn  17'^  a-yia^a  iiiavrbv, 
cf.  d-yWfcii'  of  man  in  Ja  4«,  1  P  1=^  1  Jn  33).  The 
working  out  of  these  two,  and  the  element  of  pro- 
cess involved,  will  appear  in  the  detailed  expoP'tion 
of  d7ia<riu6s  which  follows. 

A.  'AytacMOS  ;  — 

(i.)  Its  use  outside  the  NT. 
(ii.)  Its  NT  usage. 

B.  Saiictifioalion  as  taught  in  the  NT. 

By  («)  I'hrist. 
(ft)  .St.  Paul. 

(el  Tlie  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews. 
((/)  St.  Peter. 
(e)  St.  .John. 

C.  Connected  Suunnary. 

Literature. 

A.  'AriASMO'2.— (i.)  Its  vse  outside  the  .VT.— The 
form  of  the  word,  indeed,  suggests  that  emphasis 
should  lie  on  the  process  involved.  But  its  actual 
usage,  which  is  perhaps  exclusively  Biblical  and 
patristic,  does  not  bear  this  out.  It  is  true  that  the 
LXX  shows  traces  of  the  active  sense  ;  as  in  Jg  17^ 
where  A  has  ayiaa/j.!}  i]-ylacra  for  d7idfoi'a-a  r]yiaKa  of 
B  ;  Sir  7^'  Ovo-ian  d7ia!r/ioO  k.  airapx'f)''  ('the  sacrifice 
of  hallowing'  being  parallel  to  'first-fruits')  ;  Ezk 
4iS*  ftTTai  avTois  (rois  iepevaiv)  rdwos  et's  otKovs  d<pupitT- 
fi^vovs  T^J  dyiaafiu  avTwv  ;  2  Mac  2''  t6  {SaaiXeLOv  k. 
tA  lepiTcvixa  k.  rbv  ayiaap-bv,  the  covenanted  prerog- 
atives of  Israel,  and  14*^  ;  Hyie  Trarros  ayiaaixov 
Kypie,  oiaTT]pT)CTov  ei's  alCjva  dp.lavTov  rbvbe  tov  npotrtpd- 
Tus  KiKaSfpiafiivov  oIkov.  But  in  Am  2'1  eXa/iov  {k  tQp 
viuii'  V}xuiv  el's  TTpo(f>7]Tai,  K.  ^K  rCiv  yfa.vi<TKwv  vp.C)v  cis 
dyia.<rij.bv  (';'  =  'a  halhnved  thing,'  where  the  Heb.  has 
'for  Nazirites'),  the  passive  sense  seems  to  prevail 
(cf.  3  Mac  2'*  rbv  oIkov  tov  dyiaaiiov,  '  the  House  of 
Sanctihcation,'  contrasted  with  idol-liouses ;  per- 
haps also  Sir  17''''i"*  bvofia  dyi.a(7p.ov  alv^uovaLv^  on  the 
analogy  of  Mt  0^  dyiaffBrtTi^  rb  6voixd  aov.  So  of 
Messiali  it  is  said,  in  Ps-Sol  17^^  that  'he  shall 
cleanse  Jerusalem  with  (a  state  of)  .sanctilication 
{ill  ayiaa-iu.!?),  as  it  was  even  at  the  first.'  Similarly 
in  the  earliest  patristic  u.sage ;  as  in  1st  Ep.  of 
Clem.  XXXV.  2,  where,  as  gifts  of  God,  are  named 
i^ojTj  iv  d8avaffit}y  XapitrpbTTjs  iv  bLKaio(Tvvr] 
iyKpdreia  Iv  dyia(rp,i(,  and  xxx.  1,  dyla  (ivir.  lee. 
dylov)  o^v  fxepls  vtrdpxovTfi  irQiT)(Xiop.€v  rd  toD  dyiafffJioO 
irdvTa,  ipiiyovTf^  KaraXaXids,  k.t.X.  Hence  the  idea 
of  sanctilication  as  a  quality  or  state  sometimes 
attaches  to  dyi.a.<rp.b%.  even  outside  the  NT  ;  *  while 
in  the  NT  it  will  be  found  to  be  the  prevailing 
thought  in  one  form  or  another. 

(ii.)  Its  NT  usuije. — In  St.  Paul  the  word  occurs 
eight  times,  in  five  distinct  passages.  In  the 
earliest  of  these,  1  Th  4'i<",  it  means  a  state  of 
practical  or  realized  consecration  to  Goil's  will, 
conduct  conformed  to  the  ideal  attitude  or  stand- 
ing of  the  Christian,  as  'in  Christ.'  Such  a  state 
is  the  essence  of  God's  will  for  man  ;  and  it  is 

*  Thus  OCeumenius  on  t  Th  8i*  says,  toOto  aAT)0uf  aytatr^idv, 
TO  navjh^  pvirou  xadapbi'  cli-ai. 


defined,  in  one  connexion,  as  the  '  state  of  abstin- 
ence (dTT^x^'''^'")  from  fornication,'  the  ability  of  a 
man  to  possess  (see  art.  PossKss)  his  own  vessel 
in  a  condition  of  hallowedness  and  honour,  in 
contrast  to  one  of  lustful  passion.  For  '  God 
called  us  not  on  a  basis  of  unchastity,  but  in  (the 
status  of)  hallowedness '  (ou  .  .  .  tiri  dKadap<riq. 
d\\'  iv  dyi.aap.Cp).  Similarly  in  2  Th  2'^  he  says 
that  Christians  were  chosen  of  God  '  in  (the  .status 
of)  hallowedness  due  to  the  Spirit,  and  faith  based 
on  the  Truth'  (iv  07.  irvivp.a.Ta'i  k.  irlard  dX-qOelas)  — 
where  none  would  doubt  that  '  faith '  means  a 
state  of  soul.  This  divinely-determined  state  is 
set  forth  in  other  but  kindred  terms,  as  one 
wherein  the  soul  is  'sealed'  by  the  Holy  Spirit 
(2  Co  1--,  Eph  113)  as  something  devoted  to  God. 
This  idea  is  adopted  in  1  P  1-,  along  with  explicit 
mention  of  the  objective  or  sacrificial  basis  of 
man's  consecration,  '  the  blood  of  Christ ' — the 
aspect  emphasized  in  Hebrews  (tli"-  "■  ^  ;  cf.  2"). 
In  another  passage  St.  Paul  himself  refers  to  this 
more  objective  side  of  the  state  of  hallowedness, 
when,  in  1  Co  1^',  he  calls  Christ  as  crucified  (v.-^) 
God's  '  wisdom '  or  secret  as  regards  '  righteous- 
ne.ss  (justification)  and  sanctilication  and  redemp- 
tion.' Here  the  thought  is  not  of  sanctitication  as 
a  process,  but  as  a  status  into  which  a  man  is 
brought  by  God's  act  on  condition  of  faith  ;  as  is 
seen  from  1  Co  6'i  '  Ye  were  washed  clean,  ye 
were  sanctified,  ye  were  justified  in  (virtue  of)  the 
name  of  our  Lord  .lesus  Christ,  and  in  (virtue  of)  the 
Spirit  of  our  God.'  Every  Christian  as  such  has 
been  put  into  a  virtual  or  implicit  state  of  clean.sed- 
ness  from  his  sinful  past  and  consecration  to  God's 
holy  ends,  in  the  same  experience  of  faith  which 
ushers  hiin  into  the  state  of  justification.  These 
are,  indeed,  but  different  aspects  of  one  and  the 
same  spiritual  fact,  and  are  produced  by  the  same 
Divine  means,  both  objective  and  subjective. 

The  like  thought,  uinler  the  different  metaphors 
of  death  to  sin  and  life  unto  God,  corresponding  to 
Christ's  cross  and  resurrection,  reappears  in  Ko  (i. 
'He  that  hath  died  hath  been  justified  from  sin' 
(v.')  ;  'be  reckoning  your.selves  to  be  dead  indeed 
unto  sin  (purification),  but  living  unto  God  (con- 
secration) in  Christ  Je.sus'  (v.n).  So  saying,  St. 
Paul  passes  to  the  practical  consequences  of  the 
new  attitude  to  sin  and  to  God  implied  in  sjiiritual 
union  with  Christ  on  the  part  of  the  justified. 
Status  or  attitude  of  soul  must  express  itself  in 
moral  habit.  As  formerly  it  had  been  lawlessness 
that  had  expressed  itself  through  the  man's  actions, 
so  now  he  is  to  let  righteousness  sway  him,  with 
a  .state  of  hallowed  action  as  issue  (eis  dyiaaixSv, 
vv.i'J—2).  Accordingly,  the  same  apo.stle  teaches, 
in  1  Ti  21^,  that  an  abiding  state  of  faith,  love, 
and  hallowedness  of  living  must  characterize  the 
Christian.  And  the  like  is  taught  in  He  12i», 
which  alludes  to  the  pursuit  of  peace  with  all  men 
and  of  the  holy  habit  of  living  (dyiaffpbv)  befitting 
fellowship  with  God.  In  all  these  cases  no  stress 
falls  upim  process  as  entering  into  the  state  in 
question  ;  though  in  some  there  is  a  suggestion  of 
it,  in  the  notion  of  habit  or  state  to  be  realized  in 
conduct.  The  idea  is  that  of  constant  reattirniation 
of  the  underlying  attitude  of  consecration  to  God's 
will  and  ends.  But,  so  far,  there  is  no  suggestion  of 
progress  ;  rather  of  maintenance  (see  1  Ti  2")  of  a 
sound  attitude  or  condition.  Progressive  sanctifi- 
cation,  a  growth  from  less  to  more,  whether  in 
purity  or  range,  is  not  contemplated  in  the  word 
dyiaapJ)!  itself.  Yet  it  is  embraced  in  the  scope]  of 
apostolic  teaching,  as  we  see  when  we  proceed  to 
examine  other  references  to  the  subject  of  the 
Christian  life. 

B.  S.VNCTIFICATION  AS  TAUGHT  IN  THE  NT.— 
(a)  By  Christ. — Christ's  own  teaching  on  this  sub- 
ject is  too  ideal  or  timeless  to  yield  definite  results 


SANCTIFICATIOX 


SAXCTIFICATIOX 


393 


as  to  the  condiiions  imposed  by  human  frailty  upon 
the  ivalizatii'ii  of  Divine  sonship.  '  Ye  shall  be 
perfect  as  your  heavenly  Father  is  perfect '  (Mt  5**), 
is  tlie  siauilard  at  once  of  obli^'ation  and  possi- 
bility. Hut  it  stands,  like  the  Mosaic  precept  of 
wiiich  it  seems  to  be  the  equivalent.  '  Ve  sliall  be 
holy,  for  I  am  holy  '  (Dt  IS^^j,  uucouditioned  by  any 
how  or  ichen. 

{h)  .SV.  J*auL — Accordingly  it  is  to  St.  Paul, 
the  great  exponent  of  the  gospel  from  the  experi- 
mental or  appropriative  side,  that  we  have  to  look 
for  the  fullest  account  of  the  mailer.  There  is  a 
state  possible  to  Christians,  corresponding  to  the 
ideal  of  their  calling,  in  which  they  can  be  describeil 
as  'unblanieable  in  holiness'  {d^i^fjurrovs  iv  071^- 
avvri),  and  into  which  they  may  be  brought  by  the 
grace  of  (iod  in  this  life.  Therein  Ihey  stand 
hallowed  through  and  through  (oXoTeXcts),  every 
part  of  tlieir  being  {oKbKXr^pov  t6  ttwO^o  k.  i)  ^vxv  ^'• 
tA  ffuifxa)  abiding  by  grace  in  a  condition  fit  to  bear 
the  scrutiny  of  their  Lord^s  presence  without  re- 
buke {d^i/xvTUS  ivrrj  irapovo'i^  toO  Kvpiov  i}fi.a>v  'IrjaoO 
Xp.  T-np-n0€i-n).  Such  is  the  teaching  of  1  Th  3*3  51^1 
The  fidelity  of  God  to  His  purpose  in  calling  men 
to  be  Christians  is  pledged  to  this  achievement 
(5-^),  though  there  is  no  definite  time,  as  measured 
from  the  initial  hallowing  of  tlie  spirit  in  conver- 
sion, at  which  it  must  needs  be  accomplished. 
God,  who  begins  the  good  work  in  the  soul,  also 
continues  to  work  at  its  perfecting  (4TriT€\€tv),  right 
up  to  the  day  of  Jesus  Christ  (Vh  l^);  and  yet,  ere 
that  day  dawns,  Christians  may  become  already 
'  pure  in  i)urpose  (fiXiKpiveT^  =  Christ's  KaBapoi  T17 
Kapbiq.)  and  void  of  otfence,'  and  so  remain  *  until 
the  day  of  Christ  *  (1'*').  It  is  this  state  of  realized 
sanctiiication  of  conduct  or  '  walk,'  so  as  to  '  please 
God/  that  St.  Paul  has  constantly  in  view  in 
exhorting  his  converts  to  holy  living  {ejj.  1  Th  4^). 
This  is  what  he  means,  at  times,  by  his  use  of 
dyia.<jp6^.  Hut  the  conception  needs  to  be  carefully 
guarded  and  exphiined  by  other  aspects  of  his 
thought.  Thus  (1)  it  represents  a  growth  in  holi- 
ness rather  than  into  holiness  out  of  something 
else  ;  (2)  it  is  conceived  as  realizable  by  a  definitive 
act  of  faith — claiming  and  appropriating  its  right- 
ful experience  by  an  act  of  will  informed  by  the 
living  energ>'  of  the  Holy  Spirit — rather  than  as 
the  cumulative  result  of  a  slow,  instinctive  process 
after  conversion  ;  (3)  it  is  not  the  same  as  absolute 
moral  perfection  or  consummation  (Tc\cioO(r(?ot), 
but  is  rather  the  prerequisite  to  its  more  rapid  and 
steady  realization. 


(1»  :*t.  Paul  (like  the  XT  as  a  w hole )  bases  the  riiristtan  llfeon 
an  inltiiil  nn<l  most  ruiticnl  hallowing'  uf  the  spirit  or  liiniost 
st-ax  of  iKT^uiiality,  itM|>llcit  In  Jii>tiryln^  faith;  and  it  Is  In 
ronse<|Ufnco  of  this  iliat  the  (,'hristl:in  is  stylt-d  '  rcjreDerate.' 
Thus  the  prime  8[irin(f  of  life  is  renewed  ;  the  root  iin|uilf<e  or 
attitude  (tf  the  cj/o  Is  chanced  and  liallowed  ;  and  so  the  whole 
man  can  he  rejrarded  as  virtually  consecrati-d  to  Uod.  'I'he 
outward  hiillnwlntf  of  tiie  'walk'  or  conduct  proceeds  on  tlie 
basis  and  in  the  power  of  this  hallowed  'Inner  man'  of  the 
heart.  From  the  flrst  this  *  Inner  nuin  '  enjoys  the  salvation  of 
wliich  consecration  to  God's  will  and  ends  Is  one  aspect.  Itut 
thl>  salvation  neeijs  to  work  outwards,  through  the  spheres  of 
man's  life  more  nloselv  bound  up  with  his  sensuous  nature  and 
lis  fal>e  et'olsiii  (<Topf)— themau  asi//yyiic6t.  jtossessed  of  a  num- 
ber of  faculties  not  vet  adjusted  to  (iott  s  ends,  hut  often  biassed 
rattier  towanls  selfliood.  The  wh<de  man,  spirit,  soul,  arul 
IhkIv.  bus  to  be  leavened.  This  is  what  St.  Paul  means  when 
birhllni;  the  Phillp[>ians  *  work  out '  into  realization  (ftarrp- 
ya^taBt  I  '  tlu'lr  own  salvation,'  a  salvation  already  possessed  in 
principle,  ndylntr  upon  the  In-worklnir  of  <.;<«!  for  ability  so  to 
do  (Ph  "2\'*).  The  end  of  such  actuallzlnp  *>f  the  partly  latent 
salvation  Is  the  irnaire  of  Christ,  Just  set  forth  iti  majestic  and 
miivinc  terms.  Conformitv  to  the  lina^'o  of  God's  >son  Is  the 
hope  of  the  ("hrlstlan's  calhn^^  (Kos29i.  that  whereiinto  tends 
tin-  Intorcrsslon  of  the  Holy  Spirit  Immanent  in  the  human 
spirit  (v. 2«'.),  Not  until  this  has  been  realized  In  fulness  can 
simctllleatlon  become  perfection :  and  St.  Paul  himself  re- 
pudiates all  claim  to  having  attained  to  this  (Ph  :<13,.  Yet  In  the 
viiry  same  context  he  ranifes  himself  with  the  class  of  *  mature  ' 
believers  (r<A(io(,  ii'").  whose  settled  purpose  it  is  to  reach  that 
(fnal,  and  for  whom  the  one  preat  rule  Is,  'walk  according  to 
the  full  extent  of  your  presout  Ideal,  and  nothing  less.'     In  such 


persons,  as  in  himself  (t  Co -t*),  he  assumes  an  habitual  enjoy* 
ment  of  a  good  conscience,  the  absence  of  a  sense  of  yielding^  to 
sin.  Such  is  the  sanctiiication  of  Christian  maturity,  the  tvpe 
of  life  belonging  to  those  already  •  spiritual '  as  distinguished 
from  *  babes  in  Christ '  (.1  Co  8').  The  latter  are  still  largely  de- 
termined by  nature,  ill  contrast  to  grace  (o-apKti'Oii,  by  '  the 
He-^h,' In  its  contlict  with  '  the  Spirit'  (o-apxtKot,  cf.  tial  M'). 
They  have  not  yet  come  to  realize  their  own  position,  its 
dangers,  and  the 'resources  at  hand  in  tlie  Spirit,  in  obedience 
to  whose  impulse  they  are  bidden  consciously  to  walk  (Gal  5" 
iTvtvti.ari  TrepiiraTetr*  «ot  iTciOvpiiav  capjcor  ov  ^t»)  TeAeVi^Tc).  To 
such  St.  Paul  says  in  remonstrance:  *  If  it  bo  to  the  Spirit  that 
vou  are  fain  to  trace  any  true  life  you  possess,  why  do  ye  not 
habitually  walk  in  conscious  reliance  upon  Ills  promptings,  but 
rather  follow  promiscuously  the  lirst  instinct— whatever  that 
may  he,  whether  of  tlesh  or  Spirit?  The  principle  of  either  sort 
of  action  is  still  within ;  yet  if  you  yield  yourselves  delini- 
tively  to  the  Spirit,  an<l  wait  on  Ilis  illumination,  as  He  reveals 
the  things  of  Christ,  the  flesh  will  be  practically  neutralized  and 
not  affect  your  walk,  whicli  shall  then  be  ever  **  in  the  Spirit," 
relative  to  your  degree  of  enlightenment'  (Gal  S^e.  li-ss) 

(•J)  This  conscious  self-consecration  to  the  indwelling  Spirit,  to 
carry  out  God's  will  alone  umler  His  prompting,  and  so  to  bear 
only  *  the  fruit  of  the  Spirit '  (Gal  •^^■),  is  set  forth  under  various 
ligures,  but  is  uniformly  represented  as  a  single  act— whether 
of  breaking  deiinitely  with  sinful  habits,  or  of  self-devotion  to 
the  Divine  sway.  '  Let  us  (once  for  all)  cleanse  ourselves  (»ea(?o- 
pi(Ttafj.fv  eovTov?)  from  all  pollution  of  tieshand  spirit,  perfecting 
holiness  («iriT«AoyvTe5aYcw<rut'Ji»')  in  the  fear  of  (iod  '  (2  Co  T').  *I 
beseech  you  .  .  .  to  present  (irapaa-T^<rat)  your  bodies  a  living 
sacrilice.  hallowed,  acceptable  to  God,  as  your  spiritual  service; 
and  undergo,  not  a  process  of  conformity  to  this  age.  but  of 
transformation  in  mentnl  renewal,  that  ye  may  prove  what  the 
will  <)f  God  is — that  good  and  acceptable  and  perfect  will  '  (Ro 
12^'-).  Here  the  process  of  gradual  conformity  to  God's  will  is 
represented  as  following  upon  a  definite  self-surrender.  In  which 
the  virtual  or  ideal  relation  to  Gm!,  implied  in  trustful  accept- 
ance of  Christ  as  *  righteousness  and  sanctiiication  *  to  the 
sinful  soul,  is  consciously  realized  and  realHrmed.  As  united 
to  Christ  by  faith,  Christians  had 'died  to  sin.' and  their  '  old 
man  '  (ohi  moral  personality)  was  crucilied  with  Him  (Gal  b-*) 
and  virtually  'put  off';  coincidently  they  had  been  'raised 
together  with  Christ,'  in  the  power  o?  a  new  moral  jiersonalily, 
and  hail  virtually  'put  on  the  new  man  which  is  In  process  of 
renewal  unto  full  insight  after  the  image  of  Him  that  created 
him  '  (Uo  6--10,  Col  :ji>-U,  Eph  A---*).  But  to  this,  their  virtual 
state,  many  neeiJed  to  be  awakened,  in  order  to  put  themselves 
consciously  into  the  line  of  the  Divine  will  and  working,  and  no 
longer  ignore  the  Holy  Spirit's  inward  striving  to  work  out, 
in  realizeil  acts,  the  consecrate<l  attitude  of  their  inmost  being. 
And  such  awakening  and  real  consecration— such  arming  for 
the  iVay — was  rather  a  thing  of  definite  decision  (expressed  by 
aorists,  Ro  13'*,  Col  10i-,  Kph  C"-  i^-ifl)  than  of  vaguely  pro- 
tracted process  (expressed  by  presents). 

(3)  liut  such  definitive  self-surrender  is  no  prelude  to  a  life  of 
effortless  passivity.  The  true  altitude  once  definitively  assumed, 
it  is  to  bo  reattirmed  in  a  lifelong  process  of  conscious  acts  of 
obedience,  the  grounds,  bearing,  and  issues  of  which  are  now 
appreciated  (Epli  <P*^'  '*).  No  longer  will  it  be  marked  by  fre- 
quent'grieving  of  the  Spirit,'  who  has  'sealed'  the  soiil  for 
final  redemption,  but  by  a  *  filling  with  the  Spirit'  (Eph  4^  .V»). 
In  such  a  process  the  CJiristian  is  'consummating  holiness' 
(cTTtTtAwi'  ayiuttrvi-rit'),  being  hallowed  in  fresh  ranges  of  his  pow- 
ers, even  as  Christ  could  say,  '  For  their  sakes  I  hallow  myself, 
that  they  themselves  also  may  be  hallowed  by  (the)  truth  '  (Jn 
171a.  iTj  Such  hallowing  has  no  necet^sary  connexion  with 
purification  from  sin,  but  only  with  realization  of  the  possi- 
bilities of  devotion  to  God's  will  in  love.  It  was  here  (hat  St. 
Paul  felt  himself  not  yet  to  have  attained  or  to  have  been 
brought  to  perfection. 

(c)  The  EpiKtle  to  the  Jhhreirs, — It  was  probably 
of  this  positive  holiness^  resuliini;  from  deepened 
ccmsecration,  that  the  writer  to  tlie  Hebrews  was 
tliinkinf^  when  he  spoke  of  the  Divine  discipline 
of  Kiiftering  as  meant  to  issue  in  participation  in 
the  Father's  holiness  (l^'").  liut,  on  llie  whole, 
the  objective  aspect  of  sanctiiication,  that  of  a 
true  covenant-relation  established  by  the  offering 
of  the  Son's  holy  will  in  Ilis  life-blood,  i)revails  in 
this  Kpistle.  In  it  cleansini;,  consecration,  and 
perfecti(m*  (O'-'^f  IQio- "),  alPrefer  to  the  initial 
status  of  the  believer  (so  Ac  '2i\^^,  cf.  2(>'-').  Ji'>  one 
of  perfect  access  to  the  Father  throu;ih  tlie  perfect 
sacrifice  of  tlie  Mediator.  The  piesent  i>articiple, 
ol  dyta^6p€voit  does  not  refer  to  progressive  sanc- 
tiiication, but  expresses  a  constantly  growing  class, 
and  so  is  equivalent  to  ol  dytoi  (2*'  10**). 

{<!)  St.  Peter. — We  have  seen  already  how  his 
use  of  4v  dytafffitf  irvtvparos  refers  to  the  initial 
con.secration  wrought  and  sealed  by  the  Spirit. 
Similarly  in   1  1*  l--'  ras  yj/vx^s  vfiuv  i}yifiK6T€^  4v  tj 

•  Mo  Ti'  in't  TT)VT«\tt67'riTa  ^tpw^c^a  l«  only  a  seeming  excep- 
tion ;  for  It  refers  to  knowledge,  not  to  personal  characlor. 


39i 


SANCTIFICATIOX 


SANCTIFICATION 


Kap5ias  d\XT;Xoi/s  a'ya.iTjjaaTe  f^recufs,  a.va'yeyevvritJ.ivoL^ 
K.T.X.,  the  perfect.  ^7^iK6res  (like  anayeyefy-nix^uoi') 
'  refers  back  to  the  initial  ai-t  of  consecration,  of 
whicli  iheir  acceptance  of  baptism  was  tlie  out- 
ward sign.  The  working  out  of  tliis  .  .  .  remained  ' 
(llort);  and  it  is  represented  as  something  to  be 
taken  in  hand  once  for  all  (aorist).  With  this 
accords  the  other  pertinent  passage,  1  P  1  !■''', 
though  it  has  but  little  theoretic  significance. 
Ilort  lakes  its  imperative,  'become  ye  holy'  (£7101 
.  .  .  7enj(>7)r£),  to  refer  to  manifestation,  not  to 
essence.  The  thought  is,  '  show  yourselves  holy, 
as  you  are,'  'show  forth  in  your  converse  with 
others  the  holiness  that  attaclies  to  your  standing 
as  consecrated  by  the  Spirit's  touch.'  So,  too,  in 
2  P  ]  ^ff  believers  are  conceived  to  be,  through  the 
fulfilment  of  the  pri^cioiis  promises  of  the  gospel, 
'  sharers  in  (the)  Divine  nature,'  and  separate  or  hal- 
lowed from  the  corruptiou  of  worldly  desire.  But 
progress  is  still  requisite  in  order  to  ensure  the 
final  fruition  of  their  calling  and  election.  They 
are  called  diligently  to  add  to  their  faith  virtue, 
insight,  self-control,  patience,  piety,  brotherly 
affection,  and,  to  crown  all,  love.  These  are  re- 
garded as  fruit,  tokens  of  true  knowledge  of 
Christ.  Their  absence  argues  dull  vision  of  things 
divine,  and  a  forgetfulness  of  a  man's  initial 
cleansing  from  his  old  sins.  Here  the  fact  of 
progress  in  the  experimental  realization  of  the 
Divine  life  within  is  implied,  but  little  or  no 
theory  of  its  rationale  is  given.  Akin  to  this,  in 
its  practical  point  of  view,  seem  the  words  in  Kev 
2:i"  6  4710s  ayiajeriTu  en :  for  parallelism  with 
6  5iKaios  diKaioavvTji'  TTotijcrdTti}  en  tends  to  fix  its 
meaning  as  '  let  the  saint  still  (once  more)  act  as 
a  saint.' 

((?)  St.  John. — In  St.  John  we  meet  the  idea  that 
the  regenerate,  in  virtue  of  the  Divine  .seed  abiding 
in  them,  cannot  sin  habitually  (1  .In  3^  5*  '*,  cf.  3''). 
]5ut  a  progressive  imriHcation  of  life,  on  the  model 
of  Christ's  purity  and  as  the  conscience  is  en- 
lightened, is  taught  (irSs  6  ex""  ''')''  ^Xrr(5o  TavT-qv 
iir'  avT(^  ayvi^ei  eavrop  /ca^ws  4k€ivos  dyifdi  iaTiv^  '^'')* 
It  does  not,  however,  seem  to  iinjily  actual  sin  as 
a  condition  of  purification:  for  St.  John  writes, 
that  his  rea<lcrs  may  not  fall  into  any  single  act 
of  sin  (iVa  fir)  aniprriTe,  2').  If,  then,  a  man  walk 
in  the  light  of  a  good  conscience  illumined  by  the 
gospel,  it  is  possible  to  have  unembarra.ssed  fellow- 
ship with  God,  on  the  abiding  basis  of  the  cleansing 
effected  by  the  atoning  blood  of  Jesus  (!') — and  that 
in  spite  of  the  presence  of  sin  as  a  latent  force 
within  the  soul  (1*  apiapTlav  ex"")-  The  initial 
consecration  which  brings  free  access  (the  rapprjaia 
of  He  10''-')  suffices  to  neutralize  sin,  in  the  sense 
of  a  nature  prone  to  sin  ;  while  the  power  of  the 
Divine  seed  may  avail,  on  condition  of  the  will's 
abiding  in  Christ,  to  ward  off  actual  sin,  and  that 
indefinitely.  Meantime  .sanctilication,  in  the  sense 
of  the  effacing  of  old  evil  habits  and  self-consecra- 
tion to  new  forms  of  love,  will  go  forward  uninter- 
ruptedly on  the  model  of  Chrisfs  purity  (1  Jn  3^). 

C.  C'DNNECTKD  Sc.M.\[.vi:v. — In  Biblical  religion, 
as  elsewhere,  the  religious  conception  of  holiness 
precedes  the  ethical;  the  idea  of  special  relation 
to  God  and  His  service  antedates  the  idea  of 
intrinsic  human  goodne.ss.  The  former  is  at  first 
conceived  as  a  matter  of  ritual  duly  performed, 
which  places  the  worshipper  in  a  state  of  objective 
sanctity.  At  a  certain  stage,  however,  the  Divine 
will  became  defineii  in  terms  largely  concerned  with 
morality  :  henceforth  the  religious  relation  or  state 
of  holiness  could  be  measured  and  tested  by  obedi- 
ence to  such  divinely  sanctioned  forms  of  human 
conduct.  And  as  moral  aition  was  felt  to  derive 
its  value  from  internal  volition,  religious  holiness 
lost  something  of  its  strictly  objective  character, 


and  became  bound  up  with  the  subjective  state  ol 
man's  heart  or  volition.  This  is  the  stage,  roughly 
speaking,  to  which  the  prophets  brought  the  idea 
of  sanctification  in  Israel.  As,  moreover,  any 
striking  result  in  the  direction  of  the  Divine  will 
was  traced  to  the  action  of  the  Divine  Spirit, 
the  loyalty  of  heart  found  in  Israel  was  traced  to 
the  Spirit  of  Holiness  proceeding  from  Jehovah. 
It  does  not  seem,  however,  that  even  in  the 
prophets  the  piety  and  morality  of  the  ordinary 
individual  were  directly  traced  back  to  the  Sjiirit. 
The  first  suggestion  of  this  profound  idea  may  be 
found  in  Ps  51,  where  the  taking  away  of  God's 
Holy  .Spirit  seems  to  be  regarded  as  precluding  the 
possibility  of  the  'clean  heart'  or  'stedfast  spirit,' 
for  which  the  psalmist  supplicates.  Yet  in  one 
special  instance,  that  of  Messiah  Himself,  the 
.spiritual  qualities  which  mark  His  consecrated 
life  are  traced  to  the  action  of  the  Spirit  of 
Jehovah,  Is  11-.  When  we  add  that  an  ethical 
sense  by  this  time  attached  to  holine.ss  in  God, 
and  was  thence  transferred  to  the  holiness  in- 
cumbent upon  His  worshippers  ('Be  ye  holy,  for 
I  am  holy'),  we  have  already  all  the  rudiments 
of  a  doctrine  of  sanctification  such  as  emerges  in 
the  NT  under  the  creative  influence  of  Jesus  the 
Christ. 

The  decisive  advance,  whereby  each  individual 
is  sealed  as  a  hallowed  member  of  God's  new 
Israel,  appears  as  early  as  St.  Peter's  address  on 
the  Day  of  Pentecost ;  and  not  long  after,  the 
same  apostle  sees  in  the  gift  of  the  Spirit  to  Gentile 
believers  the  token  of  their  hallowing  also  unto 
God's  kingdom.  But  there  is  little  or  no  sign 
that  any  one  before  St.  Paul  saw  in  the  Spirit  the 
very  principle  of  the  consecrated  life  in  Christians, 
alike  in  its  inception  and  in  its  development.  His 
thought  here  was  bound  up  with  another  most  dis- 
tinctive conception,  viz.  the  mystical  indwelling 
of  Christ  as  the  essence  of  the  believer's  life.  How 
closely  these  twin  ideas  were  related  may  be  seen 
in  the  great  passage,  Eph  S"""''^,  in  which  he  treats 
the  strengthening  of  the  inner  man  by  the  Holy 
Spirit  as  the  condition  of  Chri.st's  inclwelling,  in 
such  wise  that  the  believer  is  filled  with  His  love, 
and  so  with  the  very  fulness  of  God  (cf.  Jn  14-17). 
Here  we  notice,  in  passing,  that  the  tenses  em- 
ployed point  to  the  possibility  of  such  an  experience 
being  attained  at  a  definite  stage  subsequent  to 
conversion.  It  answers  to  that  more  conscious  and 
deliberate  self-surrender  to  God's  sanctifying  grace 
which  we  have  already  recognized,  on  its  human 
side,  in  such  passages  as  Ro  12'.  But  we  observe  in 
particular  the  fact  that  love  seems  to  be  to  St.  Paul 
(cf.  1  Co  13,  Eph  1<,  Col  31*),  as  to  St.  John,  the 
all-inclusive  ethical  equivalent  of  personal  holiness, 
as  a  state  well-pleasing  unto  God,  and  indeed  parti- 
cipation in  His  own  es.sential  life  ('unto  all  the 
fulness  of  God,'  cf,  2  P  1*<). 

Thus  sanctification  begins  subjectively  as  faith 
(cf.  Ac  20'*),  or  trustful  self-abandonment  to  God's 
revealed  will ;  and  ends  as  love.  Attitude  pa.sses 
into  character,  the  soul  becoming  assimilated  to 
its  object,  the  God  to  whom  it  is  consecrated. 
This  means  that  Justification,  which  involves 
regeneration,  is  implicit  Sanctification  ;  and  actual 
Sanctification  means  the  subjective  attitude  of  the 
justified  become  explicit  in  moral  life.  Of  the 
relation  between  the  Divine  and  human  facti>rs 
active  in  sanctification  as  a  process  the  NT  gives 
no  formal  theory — any  more  than  in  the  case  of 
Faith  itself,  on  which  Sanctification,  no  less  than 
Justification,  is  made  to  turn.  It,  too,  begins  and 
ends  in  faith  :  St.  Paul  might  well  have  written 
6  fi7ios  4k  TrliTTfui  s'TjifeTai.  But  the  reality  of  each 
factor  is  .strongly  affirmed.  JIan  is  urged  to  '  work 
out '  the  grace  within  ;  yet  with  an  awful  .sense 
that  God  Himself  is  already  at  work,  prompting 


SANCTUARY 


SANCTUARY 


395 


and  aniiiiatiiis;,  and  so  in  utter  reliance  on  His 
miglity  initiative.  A  moral  conflict  there  is,  a 
stnijigle  that  taxes  tlie  nerves  of  the  soul  and  ex- 
ercises all  its  vigilance  ;  but  it  is  a  conflict  «/  faith 
(1  Ti  ()'-).  conducted  in  reliance  upon  Divine  re- 
sources (Christ,  and  the  Holy  Spirit  ever  taking 
of  His  things  and  inspiring  the  soul),  not  in  self- 
sufficiency  (see  Gal  2-'<>  in  contrast  to  Ko  10-f-  ""-8' 
3-").  The  normal,  and  not  only  the  intenuittent, 
issue  of  such  a  conflict  may  be  victory,  and  that 
without  prescribed  limit.  Failure  is  due  to  imper- 
fection of  receptivity,  intermittent  'abiding.'  Yet, 
where  this  is  understood,  failure  but  strengthens 
for  fuller  victory,  by  deepening  the  sense  of  de- 
pendence ;  '  for  when  I  am  weak,  then  am  1  strong ' 
(2  Co  12'»). 

LiTER.vTrBE.— The  general  literature  is  much  the  same  as  for 
Hr.GENERATliiN,  the  sections  in  Martensen's  Doymatic«  bein^' 
9|ie<lnllv  e"iHl  and  susgestive.  Much  bearinn  mi  our  tojiic  will 
al-ol.c  foumlin  books  on  the  llolvSjilrit,  e.g.  kuy|ier,  Tlie  Work 
'      there  cited. 


lilvrature  of  Its  own.  And  in  recent  times  a  large  literature  has 
arisen,  devoteil  to  the  e.\|)erimcntal  side  of  the  subject  as  phiced 
Id  relief  bv  the  so-called  '  Holiness  Movement,'  of  which  '  Perfec- 
tionism '  is  one  special  phase.  Hut  such  literature  is  not,  as  a 
rule,  marked  bv  much  exegetical  precision,  and  is  ant  to  confuse 
the  Biblical  and'  iloj-matic  standpoints.  The  most  scholarly  books 
of  this  type  are  those  of  I'rof.  11.  C.  G.  Moulo  of  (.'ambridge,  e.ij. 
ThoiliiUH  on  C/iriKliiin  Sn net i/i/  and  Outliuen  of  CkrlHtUm 
Jloclriiit.  There  is  a  painplilet  bv  .1.  A.  Beet,  entilled  '  Holiness, 
as  understood  bv  the  Writers  of  the  liiblo '  (H'^).  which  examines 
the  passages  bearing  on  Sanctiflcation  in  a  careful  and  scholarly 
wav.  Hut  In  few  t)ooks,  save  formal  Biblical  Theologies,  Is 
suliicient  account  taken  of  the  standpoint  and  emphasis  of  the 
several  Hlbllcal  writers,  and  In  general  of  the  psychological 
c.mditlons  Involved  in  reducing  their  experimental  language  to 
thcry.  J.  V.  BARTLET. 

SANCTUARY. —The  ideas  underlying  .' sanc- 
tuary,' a  sacred  or  'holy  place'  (•>:V'?°.  •>:'T  — the 
foriiier,  however,  is  rarely,  the  latter  never,  used 
ill  1 11"  of  the  local  sanctuaries,  for  which  the 
C'anaanit«  term  ^7?  is  regularly  employed  *),  form 
part  of  the  larger  group  of  ideas  associated  with 
'holy,'  'holiness,'  etc.,  which  have  been  analyzed 
and  "di.scussed  in  their  manifold  applications  in  the 
arti.le  ni>I.INi;ss  IN  <)T  (vol.  ii.,  see  esp.  p.  S<M>). 
In  dealing  with  early  tSemitic  religion,  the  term 
'  sanctuary '  is  used  in  a  wider  and  a  narrower 
application.  On  the  one  hand,  the  whole  territory 
ill  which  a  particular  deity  is  worshipped  was  in  a 
.sense  his  sanctuary;  in  this  sen.so  Canaan,  '.J"'s 
land'  (Hos<)3),  is  also  His  house  (8' fliii)  and  a 'holy 
land  '  (Zeph  3").  <  )n  the  other  hand,  in  every  such 
territory  there  were  particular  spots  which  were 
n".'arded  ;us  the  favourite  haunts  of  the  god,  at 
wliiih  he  had  manifested  his  power  in  the  past, 
and  was  supposed  to  be  still  peculiarly  accessible 
to  his  worshippers.  Such  primitive  sanctuaries 
consisted  of  imposing  natural  objects— in  particu- 
lar, mountains,  springs  of  water  with  the  fertile 
spots  around  them,  a  wide-spreading  tree  with 
the  ground  beneath  it.s  shade,  or  more  arbitrarily 
.sele(!led  sjjots  associated  with  visible  manifestalions 
of  the  deity  (theophanies).  When  the  Hebrews 
entered  r.ilestine  they  found  the  land  thickly 
studded  with  such  local  sanctuaries,  each  of  them 
a  centre  of  Canaanite  worship.  As  the  country 
gradually  came  under  their  control,  its  sacred  places 
111  came  ip.io  fnHn  sanctuaries  of  the  national  God, 
.lahweh.  Only  a  few  typical  examples  can  be  men- 
tioned lierc,t  reference  being  made  once  for  all  to 
the  special  articles  on  the  places  named. 

•  That  'sanctnarv'  <mH-rlt~iuh\  and  'high  jilace'  {Mmd/i)  are 
svnonvmous  In  the' older  literature  Is  evident  from  Am  '•«  and 
Is  nai.  Ct.  Kzk  202«f-  where  '  high  hill '  also  appears  as  a  syno- 
nvin  of  'high  place.' 

'  *  A  Oerriian  scholar,  Frelherr  von  Oall,  has  reoenUy  Investi- 
gated over  one  hnmlrfd.  V..  and  W.  of  tho  .Ionian.  In  Ills 
monograph  on  ancient  laraellte  sanctuaries  (Alliiirael.  Kult- 
uutttn,  m»). 


(a)  Comparativelv  Ihiiltcd  in  number  arc  the  Instances  where 
»pringM  and  uellD  are  attested  as  tho  sites  of  sanctuaries  in  our 
extant  literature.  The  best  known  are  the  ancient  sanctuary  ol 
Kkkiuiikha,  associated  by  tradition  with  Abraham  (Gn  -'131)  and 
Isaac  CJlSaS),  and  reuiining  its  sanctity  to  a  late  date  (see  below) ; 
Kauesii  (t:'.?!""  "holy  place'),  also  named  En-mishpator  Judfnncnt- 
spring  (14"),  and  Bkeb-lauai-roi  (10".  H).  Ginox,  the  modern 
Virgin's  fountain,  on  the  west  side  of  the  Kidron  ravine,  was 
the  site  of  Solomon's  consecration,  and  therefore  a  sanctuary  of 
repute  (1  K  133.  39) ;  bis  rival  Adonijah  assembled  his  friends  by 
another  sacred  spot.  '  the  Serpent  stone  '  (Zoiieletii),  which  was 
bv  En-rogel,  the  fuller's  spring  (1  K  19). 

"  (6)  More  numerous  were  the  Micred  trees,  which  played  an 
Imiiurtant  part  In  the  religion  of  tho  heathen  Semites,  and  are 
still  objects  of  veneration  among  the  fellahln  of  Syria,  as  the 
pieces  of  cloth  hung  on  their  branches  and  the  fragments  of 
liroken  pottery  underneath  amply  testify.  Abraham's  lirst  altar 
on  the  soil  o'f  Canimn  was  raised  beneath  the  shade  of  the 
terebinth  of  Moreu  (Un  ISC'  UVm)  at  'the  place  of  Shechem,' 
an  elo(|uent  witness  to  the  extreme  antiquity  of  this  oracular 
sanctuary.  Here  were  buried  the  objectionable  images  of 
.Jacob's  household  (36'1) :  and  the  same  tree,  no  doubt,  is  associ. 
uted  with  Joshua  (.Jos  '^420^)  and  Abimelech  (,lg  i)6).  Of  equal 
antiquitv  was  another  sanctuarv,  the  terebinths  of  Mamee  at 
Hebron '(Gn  181S).  These  tree-sanctuaries,  indeed,  figure  with 
peculiar  frequence  in  the  legends  of  the  patriarchs— a  fact  which 
is  to  bo  interpreted  as  imiilving  their  existence  long  before  the 
Hebrew  conquest.  Besides  those  already  noted  at  Shechem 
and  Hebron,  others  are  found  at  Beersheba  (Gn  2133),  at  a  spot 
near  Bethel  (:i58),  and,  from  alater  period,  at  0|>hrah  (.Ig  Mil-  24). 
The  fact  that  justice  was  uniformly  dispeni-cd  under  religious 
sanction  and  iirotection  Implies  the'  [iresence  of  a  sanctuary  at 
the  palm  of  Deborah  (.Ig  45)— by  several  recent  scholars  ideiili- 
fled  with  the  'oak  of  weeping'  (see  Aelon-Baci-tu)  of  Gn  :).)»— 
and  at  Gibeah,  where,  according  to  the  better  Greek  text,  Saul 
sat  under  the  tamarisk  'at  the  high  place'  (see  p.  liiTb  note), 
apparently  to  administer  justice.  Under  the  monarchy,  indeed, 
these  tree-sanctuaries  were  multiplied  indefinitely,  as  we  learn 
from  the  vigorous  polemics  of  the  later  [irophets  against  the 
'altars  upon  every  high  hill,  in  all  the  tops  of  the  mountains, 
and  under  every  green  tree  and  under  every  thick  oak,  the  |ilaco 
where  thev  did" ofl'er  sweet  savour  to  all  their  idols'  (Kzk  CIS; 
cf.  l)t  122,'  ,Ter  220  and  often,  Is  .')T-').*  For  the  sacred  [lolc  or 
'ilHhfrah,  wliieh  some  authorities  regard  as  a  substitute  for  the 
hving  tree,  see  Asuekaii,  vol.  1.  p.  16.').  ,   ,  .„ 

(<■)  The  special  sanctity  of  mouiila inn  anA  hig/i  hilbi  wui  a 
widespread  belief,  not  confined  to  the  Semites,  in  the  ancient 
world.  The  earliest  sanctuary  of  whh-h  wo  have  any  historical, 
as  distinguished  fl-om  legendary,  record  In  OT  is  the  mountain 
sanctuary  of  IIokeu-Sixai,  'the  mountain  of  (iod'  (KxS',  cf.  1  K 
lllS),  IIermos,  as  its  name  implies,  was  invested  with  similar 
sanctitv.  Within  tho  limits  of  Canaan  the  names  of  C'akmel 
1 1  K  lsl9ir.),  the  opposing  peaks  of  Khai.  and  Gekizim,  Taiiok 
(llos  .■>!),  and  tho  Mr.  or  Olives  (2  S  l.')32)  nt  once  suggest  theiu- 
selves.  These,  after  all,  are  insignificant  In  number  conipan  .1 
with  the  innumerable  'high  places'  or  .V/oi/.Wiwith  which  the 
land  was  studded  (see  Hi.oi  Place,  vol.  il.  ii.  «sl,  for  ample  retl.). 
Down  to  the  Vth  cent.  n.c.  the  religious  customs  of  the  Hebrews 
reciuired  that  everv  town  and  village  should  have  its  local 
sanctuarv,  just  as  In  Christian  lands  every  j-arish  has  its  church. 
Kroiii  th'e  interesting  narrative  1  S  !ll2tl'.  in-',  we  learn  that  these 
sanctuaries  were  situated  on  tho  nearest  commanding  eminence. 
Where  no  such  eminence  was  available,  the  sanctuary,  it  has 
been  supposed,  was  erected  upon  an  artillclal  mound  (cf.  .ler.  731, 
2  K  179).  The  usual  tvpo,  however,  of  the  artllicial  sanctuary, 
that  Is,  a  sanctuarv  created  bv  human  hands  to  mark  the  site  ol 
a  special  Divine  m'anifestation,  was  the  sacred  pillar  or  maszibah 
or  the  sacred  stone-circle  (y^,>)  or  cromlech  (see,  for  details. 
Pillar,  vol.  111.,  and  cf.  Altar,  vol.  I.  p.  75). 

Several  of  the  above-mentioned  sanctuaries  had 
a  more  than  local  reputation.  Those  of  greatest 
repute  in  the  Northern  Kingdom  were  Bethel,  the 
chief  'royal  sanctuary'  (1^5  i^'lC"?,  AV  'the  king's 
chapel,'  Am  T'*),  with  its  companion  sanctuary 
Dan  ;  Gilgal  (Am  4*,  Hos  41^  etc.);  and  the  far  dis- 
tant Beersheba  (Am  ifi  8'*),  A  favourite  sanctuary 
1  was  at  (Jibeon,  'the  great  high  place'  (1  K  :!<"), 
I  where  Solomon's  inaugural  .sacrifices  were  offered. 
In  the  period  from  the  comiuesl  to  the  building  of 
th(!  temple,  the  presence  of  the  ark  gave  a  special 
sanctity  to  the  place  of  its  location.  Thus  there 
can  be  no  doubt  that  Sim.oH  was  the  principal 
sanctuary  in  the  time  of  the  judges;  a  special 
temple  (T~ )  was  built  for  the  greater  safety  of  the 
ark,  with  the  house  of  F.li  as  its  miiiistrant  priests. 
Hence  the  annual  religious  festival  at  Shiloh  was 
one  of  exceptional  importance  (.Ig  21'^  1  S  I''-'). 
Whether  the  impculant  sanctuary  at  Nob  was 
contemporary  with  that  at  Shiloh   is  uncertaui ; 

•  We  do  not  Include  here  the  gmven  of  the  Hebrew  patrlarchn 
and  heroes,  since  It  Is  still  a  moot  point  to  what  extent,  If  at 
all,  these  were  places  of  worship  for  their  descendants. 


396 


SANCTUAKY 


SANCTUAEY 


the  first  mention  of  it  occurs  after  the  destruction 
of  the  latter  (1  S  2V''-),  but  this  may  be  accidental. 
All  the  sacred  places  of  the  South,  however,  were 
soon  eclipsed  by  the  royal  sanctuaiy  at  Jerusalem, 
raised  on  the  spot  consecrated  by  the  theophany 
at  the  threshing  -  floor  of  Araunah  (2  S  24'8-  "i, 
2Ch3'). 

Round  these  ancient  shrines  centred  the  religious 
life  of  the  Hebrews  in  early  times.  Hither  they 
flocked  as  the  annual  festivals  came  round,  at  the 
recurring  new  moons  and  sabbaths,  to  otter  their 
tithes,  their  fir?t-fruits,  and  their  sacrifices.  Un- 
fortunately, we  can  only  partially  reconstruct  either 
the  equipment  of  these  sanctuaries  or  the  cere- 
monies which  characterized  the  worship  of  an- 
tieiuitj',  with  its  sacrificial  meal  and  the  joyous 
intercourse  of  the  sacral  community.  ^\  ituout 
unnecessarily  repeating  the  facts  already  given  in 
the  article  High  Place  (§  iv.  vol.  ii.  p.  382),  we 
may  note  the  indispensable  altar  with  its  almost 
universal  adjuncts,  the  sacred  i>i\\a.r  [mazzibah)  and 
the  sacred  pole  ('asherah),  the  hall  (ns^'^  1  S  9*^)  or 
halls  in  wliich  the  sacrificial  feast  was  held,  a 
temple  or  shrine  (ni03  r"?  1  K  12^'  and  elsewhere) 
for  the  protection  of  the  sacred  images  which 
formed  part  of  the  equipment  of  some  sanctuaries 
at  least,  such  as  the  mysterious  Ephod  and  the 
almost  equally  mj'sterious  Teraphim (see  commen- 
taries on  Hos  3^ 


5h»llc*  Cutt.no  im  t»i  Roc 


20    Flet  


nQt(r  .    ^•l6)N.Dt(» 


til. 1. 1, 1. 1 


--4ti«.0tt*  IfiliiOtUk— 


PLA.N  OP  UIQH  PLACR,  PETRA. 

The  recent  discovery  of  what  must  have  been  the  royal 
Banctuan-  of  Ecioin,  close  to  the  ruins  of  Petra,  affords  very 
material  aid  in  the  reconstruction  above  desiderated.  Near  tli'e 
summit  of  a  mountain  overlooking  Petra  •  were  found  two  rock- 

*  The  following  is  bn-sed  on  an  article  by  Professor  Robinson 
of  Chicago  (who,  though  not  the  first  to  visit  the  site,  was  the 
flret  to  realize  its  importance,  April  1900\  entitled  "The  High 
Place  at  Petra  in  Edoin,'  in  the  Biblical  World,  Jan.  isni ;  and 
on  an  earlier  article  bv  Professor  Ives  Curtifis  (who  visited  the 
tife  in  July  1900)  in  PKt'St.  Oct.  1900. 


cut  *  obelisk -like  columns,'  about  IS  ft.  in  height,  and  soini 
100  ft.  apart,  clearly  the  mazzebahg  of  OT.  On  the  actuaj 
summit  was  a  large  court,  47  ft.  by  20,  hewn  in  the  rock  to 
the  depth  in  parts  of  18  in.,  and  approached  from  below  by 
a  etair  cut  in  the  rock.  Near  the  centre  of  the  court  sufficient 
rock  haa  been  left  to  form  a  raised  platform  5  It.  by  2^,  and 
4  in.  in  height.  It  has  been  suggested  that  here  the  wor- 
shipper stood  whose  victim  was  being  offered,  the  rest  of  the 
worshippers  standing  in  the  surrounding  court.  On  the  west 
of  the  latter,  facing  the  raised  platform,  stands  the  altar,  9  ft. 
by  6,  in  height  3  ft.,  cut  free  on  all  sides  from  the  surrounding 
rock,  and  furnished  on  the  side  towards  the  court  with  a  short 
flight  of  four  steps.  On  the  topmost  step,  which  is  considerably 
the  largest,  stood  the  officiating  priest.  In  the  centre  of  the 
upper  surface  of  the  altar  a  rectangular  depression  has  been 
hewn  out  to  serve  as  the  altar-hearth.  Immediately  to  the 
south  of  the  altar,  and  approached  from  it  by  steps,  the  rock 
presents  a  flat  surface  with  two  large  '  circxilar  and  concentric ' 
cups  hewn  out  with  vertical  sides,  the  larger  3  ft.  10  in.,  the 
smaller  1  ft.  o  in.  in  diameter.  Here  the  sacrifices  may  have 
been  prepared,  as  a  conduit  leading  from  the  lower  cup  seems 
to  have  sensed  to  carry  away  the  blood  of  the  victims.  For 
further  details  reference  must  be  made  to  the  articles  cited, 
both  of  which  ore  illustrated  by  photographs  and  drawings. 

From  the  time  when  the  Hebrews  served  them- 
selves heirs  to  the  sanctuaries  of  Canaan,  the 
worship  of  J"  was  there  celebrated  for  several 
centuries  with  the  full  approval  of  Israel's  religions 
guides  (see  1  S  7",  1  K  S-"  IS** and  oft.).  Such  local 
worship  is  alone  contemplated  in  the  oldest  Hebrew 
legislation  ('  in  every  place  where  I  record  my  name 
I  will  come  unto  thee  and  I  will  bless  thee,'  Ex  20**). 
But  by  this  multiplicity  of  sanctuaries  the  religion 
of  J"  was  exposed  to  two  great  dangers,  against 
which  the  prophets  of  the  8th  century  repeatedly 
utter  the  most  solemn  warnings.  In  the  first 
place,  there  was  an  ever-increasing  admixture  of 
lieathen  Canaanite  elements  with  the  purer  and 
more  spiritual  elements  of  the  true  Hebrew  cultus, 
until  Hosea  could  truthfully  declare  that  the 
worship  of  J"  had  practically  degenerated  into 
idolatry  (13-)  and  its  ministrants  into  idol-priests 
(see  Chemarim).  In  the  second  place,  the  native 
religion,  with  its  multiplicity  of  local  Baalim, 
exerted  a  baneful  influence  on  the  Mosaic  doctrine 
of  the  unity  of  J".  The  Northern  Kingdom  came 
to  an  end  before  a  reformation  could  be  eli'ected. 
In  the  South,  thanks  to  the  unique  position  of  its 
royal  sanctuary  and  the  comparative  purity  of  the 
cultus  as  there  practised,  this  twofold  danger  was 
not  felt  to  quite  the  same  extent.  Yet  the  de- 
struction of  Samaria,  the  strongest  possible  proof 
of  the  Divine  commission  of  her  prophets,  could 
not  fail  to  make  a  profound  impression  on  the  best 
religions  spirits  of  the  South,  while,  at  the  same 
time,  the  greatly  enhanced  importance  of  the 
temple  at  Jerusalem  would  gradually  tend  to 
diminish  the  popularity  and  prestige  of  the  local 
sanctuaries.  Whether  Hezekiah  really  made  the 
attempt  at  centralization  with  which  he  is  credited 
(2  K  IS'')  must  be  left  an  open  question.  The 
reform,  at  the  best,  was  shortlived.  Not  till  the 
far-reaching  reformation  of  Josiah,  under  the  im- 
mediate inspiration  of  Deuteronomy  (B.C.  622-621), 
were  eflective  measures  taken  for  the  destruction 
of  the  local  sanctuaries  and  the  deportation  of  their 
priests  to  Jerusalem  (2  K  23).  The  losses  as  well 
as  the  gains  of  so  drastic  a  measure  of  reform  have 
been  set  forth  under  the  article  HIGH  Place  (with 
which  compare  Deuteronomy,  Josiaii).  In  the 
Priestly  document  (P)  the  battle  has  long  been 
won,  and  scarcely  an  echo  remains.  The  law  and 
practice  of  one  central  sanctuary  are  transferred  to 
the  period  of  the  desert  wanderings  (see  Taber- 
nacle), an  unhistorical  presentation  of  the  religious 
history  of  the  Hebrews  which  dominates  the  whole 
subsequent  literature,  and  has  prevailed  to  our 
own  day. 

In  what  has  been  said  up  to  this  point,  the 

Eurely  religious  a.spect  of  the  ancient  sanctuaries 
as  been  properly  kept  in  the  foreground.  But,  in 
early  times  at  least,  these  sanctuaries  were  also 
the  seats  of  justice  [Siiut),  of  which  their  priests 


SAND 


SANHEDRIN 


397 


were  tlip  ailmiiiistraturs.  In  general,  where  the 
consueuuliiiary  hiw  ol  the  clan  ur  irlbe  proved 
inailcquate,  a  fresh  tonili  or  Divine  and  authorita- 
tive decision  was  sought  from  J'".;  representatives 
at  the  nearest  sanctuary  of  repute.  Tlie  extant 
law-codes,  further,  make  provision  for  the  inter- 
position ill  specilied  cases  of  tile  priests  of  the  local 
sanctuaries  in  their  judicial  capacity  —  whence 
their  peculiar  title  Elohim  (see  =  n'?.-!  in  Or/.  Heb. 
Zcr.),  though  .some  of  the  passages  in  iiuestion 
(Ex.  21«  22»f-  [lleb.  "■]  ;  cf.  W^« ,  1  S  2-0  are  of 
doubtful  interpretation.  More  explicit  are  the 
reconiniendations  of  Deut.  regulating  the  procedure 
of  the  supreme  court  at  the  central  sanctuary 
(l)t  17"'').  Passing  from  the  law-codes  to  the 
history,  we  finil.  as  has  been  pointed  out  above, 
repealed  eviileiice  of  the  leailers  of  the  people 
dispensing  ju-stiee  at  the  various  sanctuaries,  e.g. 
Mcses  at  Kn-niishpat  or  Kadesh  (see  Law  in  ()T, 
vol.  iii.  p.  07'),  Deborah,  Samuel, — who.se  circuit 
included  IJelhel,  Gilgal.  and  Mizjiah,  all  notable 
sanctuaries  (1  S  7"'), — and  Saul  (relT.  above). 

Every  i)rimitive  sanctuary,  further,  in  virtue  of 
its  inviolability  as  the  abode  of  deity,  was  an 
asylum  or  place  of  refuge.  This  riglit  of  a.sylum 
is  expressly  recognized  in  the  oldest  legislation, 
only  cases  of  premeditated  murder  being  excluded 
(Ex  21'»  »;  see  GOKI,,  vol.  ii.  p.  223f.  ;  ALT.vu. 
vol.  i.  p.  "7»).  The  later  institution  of  cities  of 
refuge  (see  Refugk)  was  the  necessary  corollary 
of  the  destruction  of  the  local  sanctuaries. 

For  the  so-called  'shekel  of  the  sanctuary,'  see 
MiiXEY  (vol.  iii.  p.  422).        A.  R.  S.  KliNNEUY. 

SAND  (""n  iniwt)  consists  of  an  aggregate  of 
iiicolnrent  grains  of  silex,  generally  mixed  with 
others  of  different  mineral  substances,  such  as 
mira.  felspar,  and  gems.  It  was  a  familiar  object 
witii  writers  of  the  Bible,  and  is  therefore  used 
emblematically,  the  expression  '.as  the  sand  which 
is  bv  the  seashore'  being  found  in  several  pa.s.sages 
(in  22's  Jos  US  1  S  l:;'-,  1  K4»'etc).  The  refer- 
ence is  to  the  line  of  sandhills  along  the  coast 
of  the  Mediterranean  (see  SEA  (GREAT))  and 
Lower  Egypt  (Ex  2'-). 

In  the  following  pa.s.sages  the  word  is  tised  to 
represent — (1)  Xiimbcrli'mint^ss,  vastHPss :  the  de- 
scendants of  Abraham  (Gn  22'",  .Jer  :',:i--,  Ko  0^, 
lie  11'-);  the  store  of  corn  gathered  by  .loseph 
in  Egj-pt  ((Jn  41*')  ;  the  nations  of  Canaan  (.Jos 
IP)  ;  the  I'hilistines  (1  S  i;5'')  ;  the  Lsraelites  (2  S 
1711,  1  K  4^'.  Is  102-*  48'»)  ;  the  captives  of  the 
Chakhcans  (Ilab  P)  ;  Solomon's  largeness  of  heart, 
i.f.  wisdom  (1  Iv429  [Ileb.  5'])  ;  (2)  heaviness  (Job 
0',  I'r  27')  ;  (3)  an  insecure  foundation  (Mt  7-'°). 

E.  llfLL. 

SANDAL.— See  DuEriS,  vol.  i.  p.  627. 

SAND  FLIES  (UVm  of  Ex  8'«  and  Wis  19"').— 
See  Lli  K. 

SAND  LIZARD.— See  Snail. 

•■SANHEDRIN  — 

I.  TIu»  nninc  and  Its  hUtory, 

II.  Origin  iinil  history  of  the  Institution, 
iii.    IMnt-i-  <if  iiu-fllnj;. 

Iv.  <'oiii]H>^ttion,  anil  qualltlcatlons  for  membor8hl[>. 
V.    Till'  [irfsldt-nt. 
vl.   Fiiiictloiis  utut  procoduro. 
vll.    halcfst  histnry. 
LIUTuturv. 

i.  The  Name  and  its  History.— ^nn/jciirjn 
(i.e.  avviipiov)  was  the  name  applied  to  the  highest 
court  of  justice  and  .supreme  council  at  ■Iiriisalem, 
and  in  a  wider  sense  also  to  lower  courls  of  ju.siice. 
In  the  .lewish  tradition-literature  this  designation, 
borrowed  from  the  Greek,  alternates  with  the  post- 
biblical  Heb.  jn  n'a  Aram.  »y\  o.     The  Ilebrew- 

"Cutiunuht,  IIWJ,  bu 


Aramaic  form  t'l'^'','?  (we  find  also  the  punctuation 
'"'77,'?)  sprang  from  the  Greek  word,  the  a-spiration 
of  the  second  vowel  (from  iSpa)  becoming  audible 
and  being  transcribed  with  n.  The  ending  -loi' 
was  pronounced  as  a  monosyllable,  with  elision 
of  the  0,  its  in  other  words  with  the  same  ending 
(cf.  jo-'D  =  iraXcLTLov,  i.e.  palatium).  The  word,  how- 
ever, is  found  written  also  without  n  (.see  Levy, 
WTirterb.  z.  den  Tarijumim,  ii.  17'>;  ^tUW'B  iii. 
o536).  From  jmnjo,  which  sounded  like  a  Semitic 
plural,  there  was  even  formed  a  sing,  form  '^''.^JP, 
which  is  met  with  not  infrecinently.  Both  forms 
were  treated  as  feminines.  From  '"'.■;7??  was  formeil 
the  jilur.  riN-nnjD. 

Owing  to  the  character  of  the  ancient  traditions 
embodied  in  the  Talmudic  literature,  it  cannot  be 
gathered  from  these  when  the  employment  of  the 
Greek  word  began.  In  the  halachic  tradition  it 
makes  its  appearance  as  completely  naturalized 
and  belonging  to  the  ancient  vocabul.try  of  this 
tradition.  The  first  historical  statement  in  which 
.Josephus  employs  the  word  cwiopiov  has  regard  to 
the  procedure  of  the  Roman  governor  of  Syria, 
(iabinius,  who  abrogated  the  constitution  of  the 
country  of  the  Jews,  and  divided  the  latter  into 
five  districts,  each  with  a  syncdrion  at  its  head 
{Ant.  XIV.  V.  4).  One  of  these  sijnedria  had  its 
seat  at  .Jerusalem,  and  was  of  exactly  the  same 
rank  iis  the  others.  But  it  is  not  likely  that  the 
name  fir.st  took  root  on  this  occasion  (li.c.  57),  and 
in  coiLsecjuence  of  the  action  of  Gabinius.  For 
if  the  term  was  fir.st  employed  in  his  decree 
degra<ling  tlie  .supreme  council  of  Jerusalem,  it 
would  surely  not  have  been  retained  when,  a  few 
years  afterwards,  the  Sanhedrin  at  .lerusalem  re- 
gained its  dignity  ;  nor,  if  it  had  had  so  hateful  an 
origin,  would  it  have  gained  the  popularity  which 
is  conspicuous  in  its  employment  in  the  national 
tradition,  and  especially  in  that  connected  with 
religious  legisl.ation.  But  a  diri'ct  proof  of  the 
earlier  origin  of  our  loan-word  may  be  drawn  from 
the  Alexandrian  translation  of  the  ()T.  In  the 
LXX  version  of  the  Book  of  I^roverbs  awdpiov  is 
used  pretty  frequently  :  so  in  1.5'"  to  rejjroduce  -^  D 
in  the  sense  of  'deliberative  a.ssembly '  (cf.  also 
ll"  an<l  ?)'--,  likewi.se  Jer  15'").  In  2t)-''  '■nfiD  is  ren- 
dered by  if  (Tvvedploii.  But  .specially  striking  are 
the  renderings  of  22">  and  31-".  In  the  former  of 
these  passages  the  translator  read  f-i  P'3  3-"i  for 
[<T  .-3-j"i,  and  rendered  accordingly  Srav  yap  KaOicrri 
iv  cvfeSpitp,  where,  however,  (rvpiSpiov  is.  as  in  the 
language  of  the  Palestinian  schools,  eciuivalent  to 
r"!  •"''?.  In  the  other  passage  the  second  half  of  the 
verse  is  rendered  iji-ka  in  KaOljri  iv  uwdpltf  nera 
Twv  yfp6vT(ijv  KaToiKuv  T7}s  yijs.  The  addition  iv 
avv(Spli)>  is  plainly  occasioned  by  the  mention  of 
the  'ehlers'  of  the  land,  for  the  members  of  the 
Sanhedrin  are  called  ^Vr.^  {irpeafiiTepoC),  and  the 
Sanhedrin  it.self  (see  below)  also  bears  the  title 
yepovala. — Now  we  do  not  know  when  the  Book 
of  Proverbs  was  translated  into  (ireek,  but  in  all 
probiibility  it  is  included  among  the  '  other  books,' 
besides  the  Pentateuch  and  the  Prophets,  whose 
translation  into  Greek  is  mentioned  in  the  Prologue 
to  Siraih.  In  that  case  the  Greek  translation  of 
Proverlis  would  have  been  in  existence  as  early  jus 
B.C.  130,  and  (rwidpiov  had  been  then  for  a  long 
time  the  common  property  of  the  Jewish  school 
speech,  into  which  it  nnist  have  found  its  way  at 
the  era  of  the  (irieco-Syriau  supremacy. 

ii.    OlIKJIN   AND   HlSTOKV  OK  TIM'.   iNSIITrTlON. 

— 1.  It  might  be  .i-s-sumed  beforehand  that  the 
institution  which  received  the  (ireek  title  awiSpiov 
in  the  2nd  cent.  B.C.  h.ad  also  an  existence  of 
some  kind  during  the  earlier  centuries  of  the 
.second  temple.  It  has  been  suggested  that  the 
(iltKAT  SVNAOOOfE  (nVnjn  .-oj:),  which  in  the 
school  tradition  (see  Aboth  i.  1)  forma  the  connect- 

Cfutrks  AtiOnci'tl  ^nt» 


398 


SANHEDPJN 


SANHEDRIN 


irig  link  between  the  last  of  the  Prophets  ami  the 
first  teachers  of  the  ],a\v  who  are  named  in  the 
(jrei'k  period,  was  nothing  else  than  tlie  supreme 
council  of  Jerusalem,  afterwards  called  the  San- 
hedrin.  Hut  it  is  to  be  noted  as  a  fact  that  the 
school  tradiiiuu  itself  understands  by  .T^njn  pdjj 
not  an  institution  persisting  f<n'  centuries,  lint 
that  exlreniely  important  assembly  held  under 
Kzra  and  Nehemiah  (Neh  8-10),  which  was  called 
the  'great,'  just  as  1  Mac  l-i"-*  gives  the  name 
<ri'>'o7w77)  lieyaXr)  to  the  assembly  wjiich  nominated 
t^iinon  hereditary  prince  and  higli  priest.  t)f 
cour.se  it  is  po.ssible  that  the  supreme  council  of 
.Jerusalem  was  thought  of  as  the  continuation  of 
that  great  assi'iubly,  or,  rather,  tluit  the  great 
assembly  was  thouglit  of  as  the  supreme  council, 
the  Sanhediin  of  the  period  between  the  last  of 
the  Prophets  and  the  beginning  of  the  Greek 
domination.  Such  a  conception  would  make  its 
■way  all  tlie  more  readily,  seeing  that  later  tradi- 
tion contracted  this  period  to  a  few  decades.  It 
Would  also  explain  the  circumstance  that  in  the 
Koll  of  Fasts  (Mcgillot  Taanith)  the  Sanhedrin  is 
called  ,s--^i"j3  ( =  noj;)  in  the  past^age  cited  below. 
An  actual  trace  of  the  highest  court  of  justice  as 
it  existed  in  .Jerusalem  at  the  close  of  the  Persian 
period  should  perhaps  be  discovered  in  the  de- 
scription of  the  college  of  judges  which,  according 
to  2  Ch  19',  king  Jehoshaphat  instituted  at  Jeru- 
salem, and  whose  functions  are  specified,  having 
regard  to  Dt  17*.  In  this  description  the  Chronicler 
had  before  his  mind's  eye  the  institution  as  it 
existed  in  Jerusalem  in  his  own  day. 

2.  In  the  records  relating  to  the  Greek  period 
we  find  the  supreme  council  of  Jeitisalem  bearing 
the  designation  yepovtrla.  It  is  so  named  by 
Antiochus  the  Great  (c.  200  B.C.)  at  the  head  of 
the  leading  classes  of  the  .Jews  who  are  freed  from 
all  imposts  and  taxes  (Jos.  Ant.  XII.  iii.  3). 
Antiochus  v.,  in  a  letter  to  the  Jewish  people 
(ii.f.  104),  offers  greetings  t^  -yepovaig.  twp  'lovdaiap 
(2  Mac  11-").  Elsewhere,  too,  in  the  narratives  of 
the  Maccaba^an  era  there  is  mention  of  the  yepovvta, 
or  we  find  the  first  place  assigned  to  the  '  elders ' 
(oi  Trpea^uTipoi)  of  Israel  (cf.  Schiirer,  GJV^  ii.  102 
[lUPn.  i.  167]).  In  the  Talmudic  tradition  the 
SaiUiedrin  of  the  Hasmonoean  period  is  called 
'Nji^rrn  ''•:•  j<-i  r^a  '  house  of  justice  of  the  Has- 
momeans'  {Ahnda  ziira  '■UVj ;  Sanhed.  82a).  Its 
history  coincides  partially  with  the  history  of  the 
conflicts  between  the  PllAKISEKS  and  S.vddi'ckes. 
When  .John  Ilyrcanus,  towards  the  end  of  his 
reign,  shook  himself  loose  from  the  Pharisees  and 
declared  their  enactments  to  be  without  force  (Jos. 
Ant.  -WI.  xi.  1),  he  is  not  likely  to  have  accom- 
])lished  this  without  having  expelled  the  Pharisaic 
members  from  the  Saidiedrin.  There  came  thus 
into  beinga  'Sadducean  lSanhedrin'(:v"s  ^!:r  j'-nn:D; 
cf.  a'pns  '^•ff  jn  ri'3  of  Bab.  Hanhed.  52?)),  as  it  is  called 
in  a  valuable  tradition  preserved  in  §  10  of  the  Koll 
of  Fasts  {MeijiUnt  Taanith)  which  is  of  importance 
for  the  history  of  the  Sanliedrin.  Here  it  is  said 
that  on  the  28th  of  the  month  Tebet  :  '^•;  NPi'>jD  nd'.t 
Nj'-i,  i.e.  'the  assembly  constituted  itself  according 
to  the  law,'  or  'the  assembly  sat  for  judgment.' 
According  to  the  accompanying  glo.ss,  which  re.sts 
beyond  doubt  on  historical  tradition,  this  event, 
whose  memory  was  thus  perpetuated  by  an  ainii- 
versary,  took  place  in  the  reign  of  Janufcus,  and 
consisted  in  the  expulsion  of  the  Sadducean 
members  from  the  Sanhedrin,  and  in  the  constitu- 
tion of  a  new  .Sanhedrin,  whose  deliberations  were 
conducted  on  Pharisaic  iirinciples,  under  the 
leadership  of  Simon  ben  Shetach.  Hut  this  victory 
of  the  Pharisees  was  soon  followe<l  by  the  bitterest 
conflicts  between  them  and  Alexander  Janiiieus. 
and  by  the  consequent  supremacy  of  the  Sadducees 
in   the   Sanhedrin,   which,   however,   had  to  yield 


in  turn  to  that  of  the  Pharisees  under  Jann;eus' 
successor  Salome  Alexandra. 

In  the  brothers'  quarrel  amongst  the  sons  oi 
Alexanilra,  the  Sanhedrin  must  again  have  played 
its  role.  This  strife  led  to  the  intervention  oi 
Rome,  and  not  long  afterwards  to  the  above, 
mentioned  degradation  of  the  Sanhedrin  by  Ga- 
binius.  This  degradation,  however,  was  only 
transient,  and  soon  we  find  the  Sanhedrin  sitting 
in  judgment  uiJon  Herod  the  young  son  of  Anti- 
pater  {Ant.  XIV.  ix.  4).  This  memorable  judicial 
sitting  was  destined  to  be  fateful  for  the  San- 
hedrin. those  who  took  part  in  it  falling  victims  to 
.  the  bloody  revenge  of  Herod  when  he  came  to 
power  (iV).).  The  institution  itself  Herod  allowed 
to  continue.  He  even  utilized  the  Sanhedrin  to 
get  sentence  of  death  pa.ssed  upon  the  aged  Ilyr- 
canus {Ant.  XV.  vi.  :',). 

3.  During  the  period  of  the  Roman  procurators, 
which  was  interrupted  for  a  few  years  {.\.\i.  41-44) 
by  the  reign  of  Agrippa  I.,  the  Sanhedrin  contiimed 
to  be  the  supreme  authority  of  the  Jewish  people. 
It  appears  as  such  in  the  NT  narratives  of  the 
trial  of  Jesus  (Mt  20^",  Mk  14^^  151,  Lk  226>i,  Jn  IP"), 
as  well  as  on  other  occasions  in  the  earlv  davs  of 
Christianity  (Ac  41"'  r.-'-'ir.  &^-«-  •2-2~»  23iff-  '24-'").  Jesus 
Himself  once  (Mt  5-)  names  the  Sanhedrin  as  the 
tribunal  called  on  to  give  judgment  in  the  Ciise  of 
capital  offences.  In  Josephus'  record  of  the  events 
that  occurred  in  the  times  of  the  last  procurators 
and  during  the  war  against  Rome,  the  .Sanhedrin 
is  mentioned  sometimes  as  avviopiov  and  sometimes 
as  fSovXri.  Or  he  speaks,  .as  is  almost  his  uniform 
practice  in  his  autobiography,  of  the  kolvod  tQiv 
'lepo<ro\vp.iT!bv  {Vita  12.  13.  38.  49.  70),  or,  shortly, 
rb  Koiv6v  {ib.  52.  fio),  meaning  by  this  especially  tlie 
Sanhedrin.  It  was  the  latter  that  during  the  fir.st 
years  of  the  war  with  Rome  guided  affairs  and 
organized  the  struggle.  But  when  the  Zealots 
seized  the  reins  of  power  in  the  besieged  .Jeru- 
salem, they  no  doubt  put  the  Sanhedrin  aside. 
In  order  to  procure  a  sentence  of  death  upon  a 
man  who  had  incurred  their  displeasure,  the 
Zealots  assembled  ad  hoc  a  tribunal  of  70.  in  which 
Josephus  {B.J  IV.  V.  4)  sees  a  caricature  of  tlie 
regular  court.  Amongst  the  traditions  relating 
to  the  melancholy  events  connected  with  the  fall 
of  the  .Jewish  State,  we  read  not  only  of  the 
destruction  of  the  Temple  but  of  the  '  cess.ation  of 
the  Sanhedrin '  ( Snta  ix.  end  ;  Efha  rahhuthi  on 
La  5'°).  '  With  it,'  we  are  told,  '  ceased  the  joyous 
song  of  the  feasts.' 

4.  As  the  Jewi.<!h  people  itself,  immediately  after 
the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  began  a  new  life  in 
Palestine  under  new  conditions,  so  also  the  Sanhed- 
rin of  Jerusalem  experienced  a  kind  of  resurrec- 
tion. At  .Jabneh  (Jaiiinia)  an  assembly  of  teadiers 
of  the  Law  constituted  itself  and  regarded  itself 
as  the  continuation  of  the  Great  Sanhedrin.  In 
the  first  instance  a  university  or  academy,  but 
then  an  a.ssembly  which  deliberated,  which  inter- 
preted the  laws  of  the  Jewish  religion,  and  thus 
became  really  a  legislative  and  judicial  body. — this 
new  Sanhedrin,  as  constituted  at  Jamnia,  had 
many  points  of  clo.se  contact  with  the  old  council 
of  Jerusalem.  And  when  Jamnia  cea.sed  to  bi'  tlie 
central  point  of  Jewish  scribism,  the  Sanhedrin 
migrated — so  the  tradition  expressed  it  {Rush 
hashana  31a  6,  upon  the  .authority  of  R.  Jochanan, 
t  279) — to  other  places,  till  it  settled  down  at 
Tiberias.  This  notion  of  the  persistence  of  the 
Saidiedrin  even  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem, 
and  of  its  continuance  in  the  high  schools  of 
Palestine,  has  largely  inflnenced  the  trjiditions 
about  the  Sanhedrin.  What  was  true  of  the  new 
institution  was  transferred  to  the  ancient  one,  and 
the  historical  picture  of  the  latter  was  thus 
essentially  changed.     Yet  it  may  be  assumed,  od 


SANHEDRIN 


SAXHEDRIN 


399 


the  other  hand,  that  faithful  adlicreiice  to  tradi- 
tion about  the  ancient  Saidiediin  secured  the 
retention  in  the  new  body  of  many  peculiarities 
of  the  institution  its  it  had  existed  in  its  last 
decades.  In  this  way  even  the  statements  about 
the  Sanhi-ilrin  preserved  in  Tannaite  tradition  and 
in  halachic  theory  may  be  treated  as  historical 
evidence.  It  is  hard,  to  be  sure,  to  briiii;  this 
evidence  into  harmony  with  the  statements  of 
Josephus  and  the  NT,  but  all  the  same  it  is  to 
the.se  first-named  witnesses  that  we  owe  our 
aci|uaintance  with  most  of  the  features  in  the 
l^icture  we  are  to  draw  of  tlie  character  and 
activity  of  the  Sanhedrin. 

5.  In  distinction  from  the  lesser  courts  of  justice 
■which  were  found  in  all  the  cities  of  the  Jew.s' 
country,  the  Sanhedrin  at  Jerusalem  was  called 
the  Great  Sanhedrin  (nSni  jmnjo  or  nSnj  '-nnjo,  the 
same  as  '■nj  pn  p'd).  The  Mishna  (SanhciJ.  i.  ti) 
says  on  this  point:  'There  was  a  great  Sanhedrin 
of  71  members  and  a  little  Sanhedrin  of  2:!.' 
Aocordini;  to  the  Tannaite  Jose  b.  Chalaftlia,  well 
known  as  a  chroiiologist  and  a  -source  of  historical 
information,  there  were  in  Jerusalem  itself,  besides 
llie  Great  Sanhedrin,  other  two  little  sijiti'dria. 
This  statement,  which  is  coupled  with  informa- 
tion about  the  activity  of  the  Sanhedrin  (To.sefta, 
Chnijiiia  ii.  0.  and  Sanhed.  vii.  1  ;  .Jerus.  SanUed. 
I'.ic  ;  I5al).  Sfinhi'il.  886),  agrees  with  the  anonymous 
statement  of  the  Mishna  (^Hanhed.  xi.  2)  and  the 
Sifre  (on  l)t  17*  §  1.52). 

iii.  Pl.ACK  OK  Mketixo. — ^The  seats  of  the  two 
lesser  courts  of  justice  of  Jerusalem  are  specified 
in  the  above  passages  as,  respectively,  '  the  entrance 
of  the  Temple  nioimt'  [in  one  version  'the  Temple 
mount'],  and  'the  entrance  of  the  Temple  court' 
[in  one  version  'of  the  C'hel,'  Middoth  ii.  ;i].  The 
legend  of  the  destruction  of  .lerusalem  (Eclia 
rah.  I'rocem.  n.  2:!,  ib.  on  La  2-  and  4''' ;  Kohfl. 
mil.  on  lOc  81"  ;  Bab.  GitdH  676)  also  speaks  of  the 
great  and  the  little  Sanhedrin. — As  the  seat  of 
tlie  Great  Sanheilrin,  the  Tannaite  tradition  (be- 
sides the  above-cited  passages,  see  Mishna,  Peiik 
ii.  6,  Eduijiith  vii.  4)  names  '  the  Hall  of  Hewn 
Stone'  (-'tjn  rx'S),  which,  according  to  Middoth 
V.  4,  was  on  the  south  side  of  the  great  court. 
This  hall  served  the  priests  also  for  the  disposing 
by  lot  of  their  functions  (.Mishna,  Tamid  ii.  end; 
Tosefta,  Yomn  ii.  10 ;  I5ab.  Toma  25n),  and  as 
the  place  for  the  recitation  of  the  Shema'  (Tumid 
iv.  end). 

Arconilntr  to  a  huraitha  of  llie  Bab.  Tahiiuil  (  Yomtt  ITya)  the 
'litill  of  lii-wii  Stone '  was  in  tlio  form  of  a  'prejil  l)U^iUcu.' 
Itiit  thi.H  .sliitLMiierit  iniiy  httve  arisen  from  tho  (lescriptioii  of  tlio 
bH.Hilk'a  at  Ak-xaiiiirla  In  which  the  Sanhedrin  thoro  held  U.s 
Hlttinirs  (Tos.  Siik'kft  Iv.  6;  liab.  Snkkut  Mh).  Ahavi,  a  Bab. 
Amorn  of  tlie  4th  cent.,  inferred  ft-om  the  Htatements 'about  Iho 
use  of  the  Hull  of  Hewn  Stone,  that  the  latter  lay  half  on  8acre<l 
f,'rotirid  an<l  half  ontnlde  tt.  In  any  case  the  Hall  must  bu 
thought  of  as  within  the  Temple  area",  and  the  view  of  .Schuror 
{O.rv  II.  8in  that  P'lJn  means  the  (varot  and  n'tjn  pjrS  the 
iiall  by  the  .\'i/t/uti,  and  that  the  latter  Is  Identical  with  tlio 
^ouA^  mentioned  by  .losejilms  (/V./  v.  Iv.  ii).  cannot  hold  irround. 
.lose|ihus  irlves  in  this  [lassace  tlie  situation  of  the  jilace  where 
the  'eoiincir  (Sanhedrin (  held  Its  sltllnu's  durlliir  the  last  years 
ofthe.tewlsh  State.  Hut,  accordlni?  to  a  tradition  which  is  to 
be  refranleil  as  In  Us  kernel  true,  duiirii;  the  last  years  of 
.lerusalem  the  slttlnirs  of  the  Sanhedrin  were  no  loiicer  held  in 
the  Hall  of  Hewn  Stone,  but  wore  removcil  from  it  to  a  [ilaee 
called  the  '  trade  hall '  (."Ijn,  r</r.  ler,.  pliir.  .i^'Un  •  trade  halls  '), 
and  from  there  af:ntn  to  'ilerusalern '  i.^hahhath  l.'wf ;  /lonh 
htiHtutna  'A\it  \  .^tnhftl.  4lrt  ;  Ahutta  zara  xh\.  Accordlni;  to 
this  autlirirltv  the  last  sltlliifrs  of  the  Sanhedrin  were  held 
outslflo  the  'remplc  area,  In  the  city  itself,  and  It  Is  to  this 
situation  that  .Iriseiihiis'  words  about  the  |3ovAi}  In  the  neigh- 
bourhood of  the  fuffToff  refer. 

iv.  Composition  OF  THKCori:T.—1.  The  Great 
Sanhetirin  consisted,  according  to  the  above-cited 
testimony  of  the  Mishna,  of  71  members.  It  is 
called  on  that  account  insiD'ya:''";'  i>iti;d  ( Slirl/iinth 
ii.  2),  or  inxi  sv^."  ":•-'  V  ^'^  (Jose  b.  Chalaftha,  I.e. ; 
cf.  also  Mishna,  Sanhed.  i.  5;  Tos.  Sanhed.  iii.  4). 


The  derivation  of  this  number  from  that  of  the  70 
elders  of  Nu  11"',  which  with  Moses  amounted  to  71, 
appears  to  be  old  (Mishiui,  Sanhed.  i.  6  ;  Sifre  on 
Xumhers,  §  92).  It  is  (luestionable  whether  it  was 
this  derivation  that  determined  the  number  of 
members,  or  whether  the  number  already  estab- 
lished found  its  sanction  by  thus  going  back  to 
the  Hible  narrative.  According  to  the  above-cited 
statement  about  the  basilica  of  Alexandria,  there 
was  in  that  city  also  a  Sanhedrin  of  71  members. 
The  same  number  w,as  retained  at  .Tamnia,  for,  as 
Simon  b.  Azzai  (before  A.Ii.  160)  relates,  there 
were  72  elders  present,  when  Kleazar  b.  Azarja 
was  associated  with  Ciamaliel  II.  as  president 
(Mishna,  Zebachimi.  3;  Yadaim  iii.  5,  iv.  2),  i.e. 
one  more  than  the  usual  number.  An  isolated 
tradition,  from  .Jehudah  b.  Uai,  fixes  the  total 
membership  at  70  (Mishna,  Sanhed.  i.  0 ;  'i"os. 
Sanhed.  iii.  9),  and  the  Great  Sanhedrin  is  called 
accordingly  z^;2y  Ss'  'D  (Sifre  on  Kuiabers,  S  92). 
.losepluis  likewise  cho.se  70  of  the  elders  of  the 
land  to  constitute  the  supreme  authority  in  the 
Iirovince  of  Galilee,  which  had  been  assigned  to 
him  (B.f  \l.  XX.  v)  ;  and  in  the  same  way  the  court 
.set  up  by  the  Zealots  (.see  above,  ii.  3)  numbered 
70  members.  The  vacillation  of  our  authorities 
between  the  numbers  70  and  71  is  no  doubt  due  to 
the  circumstance  that  the  president  might  be 
regarded  as  belonghig  to  the  total  number  or  not. 

2.  We  have  no  posiiive  information  as  to  wTio 
composed  the  Sanhedrin.  The  halachic  tradition 
on  this  ])oint  must  be  regarded  as  theory,  derived 
only  in  part  from  the  actual  condition  of  things. 
The  members  of  the  Sanhedrin  were  called  ''Ji"!', 
'elders'  ( =  irpc(7/3i}Tepoi ) ,  a  name  which  gained  its 
special  sense  from  the  fact  that  the  .Sanhedrin 
was  regarded  as  an  institution  set  up  by  Jloses 
when  he  nominated  the  70  elders  (Nu  11).  It  is 
members  of  the  Sanhedrin  that  are  meant  when  it 
is  said  that  tlie  preparing  of  the  high  priest  for 
his  functions  on  the  Day  of  Atonement  is  to  be 
attended  to  by  jn  n''3  'jpto  D'jpt  ( Ycima  i.  3,  5). 
Again,  I?.',  is  doubtless  to  be  taken  in  its  special 
•sense  of  member  of  the  Sanhedrin,  when  the 
epithet  li^V-  is  applied  to  Shammai,  Ilillel,  and 
liillel's  grandson  Gamaliel  I.  In  the  NT  the 
members  of  the  Sanhedrin  (irpeapuTepoi^  or  irpetr.  toO 
XaoD)  are  often  named  along  with  the  chief  priests 
{ipx^cpfts)  and  the  scribes  {ypafiixarcts),  for  the 
membership  of  the  Sanhedrin  was  recruited  from 
these  two  leading  clas.ses  (Schiirer,  I.e.  p.  200). 
.loseplius,  in  whose  writings  the  Sanhedrin  is 
frequently  called  povX-//,  also  calls  its  members 
l}ov\evTal  (BJ  II.  xvii.  1).  This  designation  prob- 
ably accounts  for  one  of  the  halls  of  the  Temple 
being  called  'unSia  n^i-S  'hall  of  the  povXevraU 

The  same  hall  afterward.s  boro  the  name  pitniD  P3'.:*'s  *  hall 
of  the  irpotSpoi'  (.Mishna,  Yoma  1.  1).  This  last  title,  which  lias 
been  handed  down  by  the  Tannaite  .leliudah  b.  llai  (Itab. 
Yowa  hO),  Is  <|llllo  worthy  of  cr4'dlt.  and  it  supports  the 
suggestion  of  Sehurer  that  by  the  irpotSpot  should  be  understood 
the  highest  In  rank  of  the  members  of  the  Sanhedrin,  the  *  lirst 
ten'  of  whoirl  wo  hear  under  the  procurator  Kestus  {Ant. 
XX.  vlll.  11,  roix;  npuiTovi  fieittt  ;  cf  Schiirer,  I.e.  p. 201  f.).  i'])on 
the  abnve-eited  authority  of  .Jehudah  b.  llai  wo  are  told  that 
the  irporjpoi  were  changed  every  twelve  months,  so  that  the 
rank  of  '  lirst  ten'  was  enjoyed' by  dltlerent  members  of  the 
Sanhedrin  every  year.  If  we.  further,  take  Into  account  that 
the  institution  <if  t'lie  npoeSpot  was  of  late  iirlglli,  we  can  readily 
understand  how  the  above  change  of  name  for  the  hall  also 
came  info  use.  The  circumstanco  that  the  '  hall  of  the  frpdt£poi ' 
was  the  private  residence  of  the  high  priest  Is  not  <llllicult  to 
ex|ilain,  considering  the  relation  of  tfie  high  priest  to  tito 
Sanhedrin.  Thi*  ^oeAevrat,  afterwards  the  Trpdefipoi.  mav  have 
assembled  In  the  house  of  the  high  |>rlest  (cf.  Mt2li«,  Mk  ll'>=) 
before  taking  their  placed  In  the  public  sitting  of  tliu  Sanhedrin. 

3.  Of  distinctions  of  r.ink  within  the  Saidiedrin 
wo  he.ar  nothing,  .apart  from  the  above-mentioned 
conjecture.  Neither  are  we  aware  on  what  |irin- 
ciple  the  members  were  nominated  or  how  the 
Sanhedrin  filled  up  vacancies  in  its  number.     Onlv 


400 


SAKHEDRIN 


SANHEDRIN 


two,  (divergent,  statements  have  come  down  to  us 
regarding  the  latter  point,  and  of  tliese  one  can 
refer  only  to  the  period  preceding  the  destruction 
of  Jerusalem,  whereas  the  other  has  in  view 
rather  the  school  of  Jamnia  and  its  successors. 
Tlie  first  statement  is  found  in  the  ahove-named 
narrative  of  Jose  b.  Chalaftha,  and  in  an  anony- 
mous precept  of  the  Tosefta  {Shi-h-tilim,  end), 
according  to  which  a  seat  in  the  Sanhedrin  is  the 
last  step  in  the  career  of  judge.  Any  one  who 
distinguished  himself  as  a  judge  in  his  place  of 
residence  was  advanced  to  be  a  member  first  of 
the  one,  then  of  the  other,  of  the  two  lesser 
synedria  at  Jerusalem,  and  wa.s  chosen  finally  to 
be  a  member  of  the  Great  Sanhedrin.  According 
to  the  other  statement  (Mislma,  Sanhed.  iv.  4 ; 
Tos.  SanlK'd.  viii.  2),  in  front  of  the  members  of 
the  Sanhedrin  .sat  in  three  rows  the  non-ordained 
scribes,  and  from  among  these  any  vacancies  in 
the  membership  were  filled  up,  the  recpusite 
number  being  chosen  and  ordained  according  to  a 
fixed  order.  It  is  plain  that  these  two  accounts  of 
the  filling  up  of  vacancies  relate  to  different  periods 
of  time.  In  the  first,  which  has  in  view  the  period 
before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  there  is  no 
mention  at  all  of  the  ordination  of  the  new  mem- 
bers, but  we  find  the  expression  3'U'in,  which  means 
'cause  to  sit,'  implying  simply  that  the  new  mem- 
ber had  a  seat  assigned  him  in  the  Sanhedrin. 
This  is  quite  intelligible,  for,  according  to  the 
view  we  are  considering,  those  who  became  mem- 
bers of  the  Sanhedrin  had  previously  officiated  in 
the  lower  courts,  and  were  thus  ordained  already. 

4.  As  to  the  qnaJificatUms  for  membership  in 
the  Sanhedrin,  the  oft-cited  narrative  of  Jose  b. 
Chalaftha  gives  a  list  of  the  personal  qualities 
which  the  candidate  for  this  high  rank  must 
possess.  He  had  to  be  learned  (a3n),  humble  (^vy;  ; 
Bab.  Sanhed.  88a  ti3  Va:-).  popidar  with  his 
fellow-men  (ucn  nmj  pin^n  nn).  In  the  different 
versions  of  the  passage  there  are  yet  further  moral 
qualities  specified.  In  the  ancient  exposition  of 
Nu  11"'  (Sifre,  § '.12)  it  is  inferred  from  the  word 
i:".s  ('man')  that  the  members  must  be  perfect 
men :  learned,  courageous,  strong,  and  modest. 
Jochanan,  the  Palestinian  Amora  of  the  3rd  cent., 
states  the  qualifications  of  a  member  of  the  San- 
hedrin thus :  tall  stature,  learning,  dignified  bear- 
ing, advanced  age.  Further,  in  order  to  be  able 
to  meet  the  demands  of  his  office,  he  must  be 
acquainted  with  foreign  languages  and  initiated 
into  the  my.steries  of  the  art  of  magic  (Bab. 
Sanhed.   l~b). 

As  the  high  court  of  juatice  described  in  2  Ch  19^  consisted  of 
*  I.evites,  priests,  and*  beads  of  Israelitish  families,'  so  in  the 
ancient  exposition  of  Dt  IT"  (Sifre,  tid  loc,  §  1.^  ad  init.)  it  Is 
stated  tliat  the  court  dealing  with  law  cases  must  have  priests 
and  T.evites  amongst  its  nienibers,  hut  that  even  without  tliese 
it  miglit  be  legitimately  composed.  A  rule  of  the  Mishna 
{Kidihithin  iv.  .'))  is  to  the  elVect  that  an  inijuiry  as  to  purity 
of  family  descent  Is  not  to  be  carried  lieyond  the  Sanhedrin, 
since  no'one  can  be  a  member  of  it  whose  origin  is  not  uiu]Ues- 
tionable.  It  is  actually  described  in  another  rule  {Satififd. 
iv.  21  that  iudgos  in  criminal  cases,  inclu<ling  therel'ore  meml>eis 
nf  the  Sanhedrin,  are  to  be  only  priests,  l-evites,  or  Israelites 
whose  daughters  may  be  inan-ieu  by  priests. 

V.  Tin-:  Pi:Ksn)KNT()F  Tin;  Saniif.duin'. — 1.  On 

this  point  the  tr,adition-literature  contains  state- 
ments which  it  is  ditficull  or  impossible  to  recon- 
cile with  the  report.s  of  Joseplius  and  the  NT. 
The  last  are  meagre,  indeed,  and  do  not  give  a 
distinct  ])icture  of  the  method  of  procedure  in  the 
Sanhedrin  and  of  the  action  of  its  president.  But 
from  Joseplius  we  learn  that  in  K.v.  47  the  Ilas- 
moniean  high  priest  and  prince  Hyrcanus  II.  called 
the  Sanhedrin  together  and  directed  the  procedure 
in  the  case  of  lierod  (Ant.  .x;iv.  ix.  4  f.),  and  that 
in  A.I).  (i2  the  Sadducean  high  priest  Ananus  11. 
summoned  the  Sanhedrin,  in  order  to  have  some 
sentences  of  death  passed  {ib.  xx.  ix.  1).    At  the 


trial  of  Jesus,  the  high  priest  Caiaphas  appears  at 
the  head  of  the  Sanhed'Mn  (Mt  •J(i'^'),  as  does  the 
high  priest  Anani;us  at  the  trial  of  St.  Paul  (Ac 
24').  Of  such  a  function  belonging  to  the  high 
priest  (cf.  also  2  Ch  19'i)  there  is  not  the  slightest 
trace  in  the  tradition-literature.  On  the  contrary, 
it  is  assumed  as  an  axiom  that  the  Sanhedrin  h.ad 
its  own  president,  making  up  the  number  of 
members  to  71  (see  above).  The  simplest  designa- 
tion of  the  president  is  pi  ro  Nr-i  '  head  of  the 
hou.se  of  justice  '  (Itonh  hxishana  ii.  7,  iv.  4),  which 
in  the  later  haggadic  literature  is  represented  by 
p-nnjD  ^£'  c's->  {Pernkta  rahbathi,  c.  xi.  p.  4:ib), 
jmnjD  'U\s-i  {TaHchiima,  ed.  Buber,  i.  17o),  'u-si 
pw-nn:D  (Esther  rab.  on  l'-').  But  the  title  that 
must  be  regarded  a.s  peculiar  to  the  president  is 
jn  n'3  3N  'father  of  the  house  of  justice.'  As 
liead  of  the  supreme  court,  the  'Ab  Beth  Din  is 
once  named  after  the  king  (^Yoma  vii.  5),  once 
after  the  'prince'  (Taanilh  ii.  1),  by  which  last 
title  is  meant  the  head  of  the  State,  who,  after  the 
usage  of  the  Pentateuch  and  especially  of  Ezekiel, 
is  frequently  called  in  the  halachic  literature  >*  ^'l 
'prince';  once  it  is  expressly  said,  with  allusion 
to  Lv  4--,  I'^'in  nt  N'ti'jn  int-si  (Jlordijolh  iii.  'A). 
Now,  remarkably  enough,  the  same  word  n-^'j 
became  the  title  of  the  president  of  the  Sanhedrin. 
The  sitting  arrangements  of  the  Satdiedrin  are 
thus  described  (Tos.  Sanhed.  viii.  1  ;  Jems.  Sanhed. 
19c)  :  'The  Sanhedrin  sat  in  a  semicircle  [lit.  'like 
the  half  of  a  circular  threshing-floor'];  in  the 
middle  sat  the  Xasi,  and  the  elders  [i.e.  the  mem- 
bers of  the  Sanhedrin]  sat  upon  his  right  hand  and 
upon  his  left.'  This  statement  appears  to  relate  to 
the  Sanhedrin  of  Jamnia,  for  it  is  followed  im- 
mediately by  the  reminiscences  of  a  teacher  of  the 
Law  regarding  that  Sanhedrin.  Eleazar  b.  Zadok 
reports:  'When  R.  Gamaliel  [Gamaliel  II.]  held 
the  presidency  at  Jamnia,  my  father  and  another 
sat  to  the  right,  the  others  to  the  left.' 

2.  It  is  not  till  the  post-Hadrianio  era  that  the 
'Ah  Beth  Din  appears  side  by  side  with  the  Xasi 
as  joint-president.  Jochanan  (t  279)  records — 
doubtless  on  the  basis  of  trustworthy  tradition 
— that  R.  Simon  b.  Gamaliel  (the  son  of  Gamaliel 
II.)  was  Nasi,  wdiile  R.  Nathan  was  'Ab  Beth  Din 
(Bab.  Horaijiith  13?;).  This  double  presidency,  to 
designate  which  the  two  titles  of  the  president  of 
the  Sanhedrin  are  utilized,  is  carried  back,  in  a 
quite  i-solated  notice  of  the  Mishna  (C'haijiija  ii.  2), 
to  the  time  when  the  Temple  still  existed.  We  are 
told  there  of  a  controversy  about  a  religious  law 
which  went  on  for  five  generations,  always  between 
two  teachers  of  the  Law.  The  five  pairs  of  teachers 
named  (the  last  pair  being  Hillel  and  Shammai)are 
the  same  who,  according  to  the  Mishna  (Aboth  i.  1), 
were  the  bearers  of  the  tradition,  and  who  are 
once  (Peah  ii.  5)  summarily  designated,  as  such, 
.-'Oi;  'the  I'airs.'  That  these  pairs  were  the  most 
noted  teachers  of  their  time,  the  Pharisaic  heads 
of  the  schools  of  the  2nd  and  1st  cent.  B.C.,  is 
known  to  us  also  from  other  traditions  about  mo.st 
of  them.  But  the  above  notice,  according  to  which 
the  first  of  the  pairs  was  always  Nasi  and  the 
second  'Ab  Beth  Din.  must  be  regarded  as  a  trans- 
ferring of  later  relations  to  early  times.  If  'pair' 
had  the  meaning  attributed  to  it  by  the  author  of 
the  notice,  it  would  be  incomprehensible,  apart 
from  anything  else,  why  the  series  of  pairs  came 
to  an  eiid  with  Hillel  and  Shammai.  Nevertheless, 
the  '  Pairs '  belonged  to  the  leading  members  of  the 
Sanhedrin,  as  is  witnes.sed  in  the  case,  for  in.stance, 
of  Simon  b.  Shetach,  from  other  quartfrs.  One 
of  the  pairs,  Shemayah  and  Abtalion,  is  mentioned 
also  by  Josephus  as  belonging  to  the  Sanhedrin 
(Ant.  .XV.  i.  1,  where  they  appear  as  PoUion  and 
Sameas). 

3.  Yet  another  transference  of  later  relations  t(» 


SAN  H  ED  KIN 


SANHEDRIN 


401 


early  times  took  place  witli  respect  to  the  title 
Xasi.  This  title,  which  fnnii  the  second  half  of 
the  2nil  cent.  A.I),  onwards  had  become  hereditary, 
was  also  attributed  to  the  forefathers  of  its  heredi- 
tary bearers.  It  was  said  (Bab.  Shahbuth  15a) 
that  Hillel,  his  son  Simon,  Simon's  son  Gamaliel, 
and  Gamaliel's  son  Simon,  held  the  position  of 
Nasi  during  the  last  century  of  the  second  Temple 
(B.C.  30-A.u.  70);  and  the  appointment  of  Hillel 
to  be  Nasi,  i.e.  president  of  the  Sanhedrin,  is 
described  in  a  narrative  emanating  from  the 
Tannaite  period  (Tos.  Pcsachim  iv.  end  ;  Jcrus. 
Pisai-h.  33a;  Bab.  J'luach.  6(;«).  Both  this 
narrative  and  the  above  chronological  notice, 
apart  from  the  title  Xasi,  have  a  historical 
foundation.  For,  although  we  hear  nothing  eLsc- 
where  of  Hillel's  son,  we  know  that  Hillel  himself, 
as  well  as  his  grandson  Gamaliel  l.  and  his  great- 
grandson  Simon  b.  Gamaliel  I.,  were  amongst  the 
leading  men  in  Jerusalem.  The  last  named  was 
cme  of  the  directors  of  the  war  against  the  Romans, 
as  We  learn  from  Josephus  (/j./iv.  iii.  !);  I'i7a,  38), 
who,  moreover,  mentions  that  he  was  descended 
from  an  illu.strious  family.  Hillel  and  Gamaliel  I. 
are  known  not  only  as  notable  scribes,  but  also  as 
the  founders  of  institutions  and  enactments,  which 
prove  that  they  must  have  played  a  leading  r61e 
in  the  supreme  court,  the  Sanhedrin.  That 
(ianialiel  I.,  at  whose  feet  Saul  of  Tarsus,  the 
future  Apostle  Paul,  sat  as  a  pupil  (Ac  22'),  took 
the  lead  in  the  Sanhedrin,  may  be  seen  from  the 
well-known  narrative  of  Ac  .3**-^^  Of  course,  all 
this  does  not  prove  that  Hillel  and  his  successors 
were  presidents  of  the  Sanhedrin.  The  statements 
of  Josephus  and  the  NT  about  the  presidency  of 
I  lie  high  priest  arc  too  definite  to  be  got  over, 
iiut.  on  the  other  hand,  we  may  not  summarily 
reject  the  supposition  that  in  a  body,  composed 
for  llie  most  part  of  scribes  and  called  on  to  decide 
.[ucstions  which  demanded  an  expert  accjuaintance 
with  the  Law,  the  heads  of  the  scribal  body  took 
the  lirst  place  side  by  side  with  the  high  priests, 
who  were  only  exceptionally  scribes  as  well,  and 
that  perhaps  the  Pharisaic  heads  of  schools  were 
even  formally  invested  with  a  certain  rank  in  the 
Sanhedrin,  approaching  closely  to  that  of  president. 

In  IhiR  way,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  the  tltlo  *  father  of  the 
b'jtiM- of  justice  '  ('.-16  Beth  I>in)may,as  has  been  held  by  many 
iiivfjttiu'atiirs.  have  been  In  nso  even  at  a  time  when  tlie 
pre.stilent  iiroper  of  the  Sanhedrin  was  still  the  hi^jh  priest.  On 
elo.ter  con.'iiderntion  one  cannot  escape  the  Impression  that 
neither  at  the  time  of  the  liu.smonu-au  Iil;,'h  priests  nor  at  that 
i>(  the  hlt;h  priests  appointed  by  Ilcrml  and  by  the  Ifoman 
procurators,  could  the  .Sanhedrin  hare  been  without  a  t'uldance 
not  identical  witll  the  presidency  of  the  hiph  priest.  The 
scliool  traditions  re^'ardln^'  the  position  lield  by  ttie  I'liarlsalc 
scliool  heads  In  the  .Sanhedrin  possess  thus  a  kernel  of  Idstorical 
irnth.  even  If  they  are  adapted  to  later  conditions  and  artitlciaily 
constructe<I. 

4.  Another  question  is  how  the  term  Nasi, 
which  is  used  for  the  head  of  the  State,  couhl 
comi^  to  be  the  title  of  the  president  of  the 
Sanhedrin.  Two  hypotheses  are  po.ssible.  (a)  The 
title  may  go  back  to  the  time  when  the  high 
priest  who  as  such  presided  over  the  .Sanhedrin 
was  also  actually  prince  (■■*'?'})  or  he.id  of  the  .State, 
i.e.  to  the  time  of  the  Ilasmonfean  rulers.  Or  (h) 
the  title  'prince'  may  have  been  given,  after  the 
ileslruriion  of  Jenr^ialeni,  to  the  president  of  the 
Sanhedrin  at  Jamnia,  (iamaliel  II.,  in  order,  as  it 
were,  that  at  least  in  the  iiainini;  of  the  head  of 
the  highest  authority  which  had  arisen  from  the 
ruins  of  the  national  independence,  there  might  be 
|)ie.served  a  symbol  of  thai  independence.  The 
second  hypothesis  is  the  more  likely,  because  the 
first  wouUl  imply  that  the  title  S'n.ii  conliiuied 
unused  during  more  than  a  whole  century  until 
it  was  revived  in  the  way  itidicated  in  the  second 
explanation,  after  the  fall  of  Jerusalein. 

6.  Theassuinptionof  the  title  ,Vosf  by  Gamaliel  II. 
VOL.  IV.— 26 


and  then  by  his  son  Sinxin  was  probably  connected 
with  the  belief  that  the  family  of  Hillel  was 
descended  from  the  Davidic  royal  house.  There 
was  thus  cou])led  with  the  title  in  an  esoteric  kind 
of  way  a  recollection  of  the  former  princes  of  the 
house  of  David.  It  was  not  till  the  time  of 
Gamaliel  II.'s  grandson  Jehudah  I.,  who  was  called 
Xa.ii  Kar'  i^oxv",  that  the  title  became  the  official 
designation  of  the  head,  recognized  even  by  the 
Koman  government,  of  the  Jews  in  Palestine,  i.e. 
of  their  patriarch.  Its  meaning  as  president  of 
the  Sanhedrin  then  fell  into  the  second  i)lace. 

vi.  FiscTloxs  AND  Pi:oci;i)Li;i;. — 1.  The  Grea/ 
Sanhedrin  at  .Jerusalem  was  primarily  the  supreme 
court  of  justice,  which  had  either  the  sole  right  of 
judgment  in  certain  specially  important  matters, 
or  was  appealed  to  on  questions  upon  which  the 
lower  courts  were  unable  to  come  to  a  decision. 
As  to  this  last  point,  we  learn  from  the  oft-cited 
report  of  Jose  b.  Chalaftha  (Tos.  Saiihcd.  vii.  1  and 
parall.)  the  following:  'When  the  lirst  competent 
tribunal  failed  to  come  to  a  finding,  the  litigant, 
accompanied  by  the  most  distinguished  member  t)f 
this  court,  betook  himself  to  Jeru-salem  to  submit 
his  case  in  the  first  place  to  the  two  lesser  si/netlria 
(see  above).  If  neither  of  these  could  come  to  a 
decision,  the  question  came  for  final  judgment 
before  the  Great  Sanhedrin.'  There  can  be  no 
doubt  that  a  kernel  of  historical  truth  underlies 
this  description  of  the  train  of  judicial  procedure 
(see  also  Mishna,  Sanlied.  xi.  2). — In  regard  to 
cases  reserved  for  the  sole  competence  of  the  Great 
Sanhedrin,  the  Mishna  (Sauhed.  i.  5)  enumerates 
the  following  points  upon  which  only  the  '  tribunal 
of  the  seventy-one '  was  entitled  to  judge  and  i)ro- 
nouuce  a  verdict :  (1)  A  process  affecting  a  tribe  ; 
(2)  the  process  against  a  false  prophet ;  (3)  a  pro- 
cess affecting  the  high  priest ;  (4)  the  sending  out 
of  the  army  to  a  non-compulsory  war ;  (5)  the 
extension  of  the  city  of  Jerusalem  ;  (0)  the  exten- 
sion of  the  Temple  courts  ;  (7)  the  appointment  of 
sijui'dritt  over  the  tribes  ;  (8)  the  judging  of  a  city 
which  had  lapsed  into  idolatry  (.see  Dt  13'^"').  Witli 
reference  to  the  fourth  point,  it  is  enacted  also 
amongst  the  decrees  affecting  the  king,  that  the 
latter  is  to  lead  the  army  out  to  war  only  upon  the 
authority  of  a  decision  of  the  (ii'eat  Sanhedrin 
(Mi.shna,  tS'anlicd.  ii.  4).  The  eight  points  bear, 
indeed,  a  theoretical  stamp,  and  even  presu]>pose 
the  continued  existence  of  the  tribes  (the  first  of 
them  has  for  background  the  naiTative  of  Jg  20  f.) ; 
but,  on  the  other  hand,  they  witness  that,  even  in 
hal.achio  theory,  the  Great  Sanhedrin  figures  not 
merely  as  a  court  of  justice,  but  also  as  the  body 
that  was  called  on  to  give  decisions  in  State 
matters  and  which  exei'cised  administrative  autho- 
rity, in  the  fa.shion  exhibited  to  us  by  the  state- 
ments and  nan-atives,  meagre  as  they  are,  contained 
in  other  sources.  A  Tannaite  rule  (Tos.  Sniihed. 
iii.  4)  pre.scribes  that  the  in.stallation  of  a  king  and 
of  a  liigh  priest  is  to  belong  only  to  the  tribunal  of 
the  seventy-one. 

2.  Cases"  affecting  life  and  death  came,  according 
to  the  Mishna  {tSnnhed.  i.  4),  before  the  little 
Sanhedrin  (of  23  members).  As  a  matter  of  fact, 
in  important  instances  the  Great  Sanhedrin  was 
called  together  to  pronounce  judgment.  Accord- 
ing to  a  Tannaite  tradition  (Jerus.  Saiihed.  18«, 
24/)),  the  right  of  judging  in  matters  of  life  and 
ileath  was  t.aken  from  Israel  (i.e.  from  the  Jewish 
courts)  forty  years  before  the  destruction  of  the 
Temple.  '  Forty  '  here  is  a  round  number  and  un- 
hi.storical,  but  the  circumstance  related  by  this 
tradition  and  confirmed  by  the  Gospel  accounts  of 
the  trial  of  Jesus  is  historical,  and  is  connected 
with  the  restrictions  impo.sed  on  the  competence 
of  the  Jewish  courts,  and  of  the  Great  Sanhedrin  in 
particular,  in  the  time  of  the  Roman  procurators. 


402 


SANHEDRIX 


SAPHUTHI 


:'..  The  decisions  of  tlie  Great  Sanbeilrin  'from 
which  wt'iit  forth  direction  for  all  Israel,'  were  of 
inviolable  force,  and  binilinj;  uijou  all  teachers  of 
the  Law  and  all  judges.  Any  one  of  these  who 
gave  a  judgment  in  opposition  to  its  decrees  was 
called  a  'rebellious  elder'  (rn^n  jpi),  and  was  con- 
dennied  by  the  tireat  Sanhedrin  (Sanhed.  xi.  2—4). 
The  rules  for  dealing  with  occa.sional  errors  of  the 
Sanhedrin  in  giving  decisions  or  in  interiireting 
the  Law  are  casuistically  exhibited  in  the  first 
chapter  of  the  Mishiiic  tract  llnniyoth. 

4.  The  Great  Sanhedrin  of  Jerusalem  sat  in 
the  Hall  of  Hewn  Stone  (see  above,  iii.).  Accord- 
ing to  the  report  of  Jose  b.  Chalaftha,  it  held  its 
sittings  from  the  time  of  the  offering  of  the  daily 
morning  sacrifice  till  that  of  the  evening  sacrifice 
(Tos.  Sanhcd.  vii.  1,  and  parall.).  On  the  Sabbath 
and  on  feast  days  no  sittings  were  held,  but  the 
members  of  the  Sanhedrin  assembled  in  the  school 
situated  on  the  temple  mount  (('i.;  in  Bab.  Snnlicd. 
88/>,  instead  of  the  ■  schocil '  [p'2  inj::'  c'-nsn  p>3]  it  is 
the  place  called  Che.l,  where  at  other  times  [see 
above,  iii.]  one  of  the  two  lesser  synedria  held 
its  sittings).  The  members  of  the  Sanhedrin  sat 
in  a  semicircle,  that  tliey  might  see  one  another 
while  deliberating  (Mishna,  Sanhcd.  iv.  2  ;  Tos. 
Sfiiihed.  viii.  1).  '  Two  clerks  of  court  (fJ""'^  ■■idid) 
stood  before  them,  the  one  to  the  right  and  the 
other  to  the  left,  and  took  down  the  wi^rds  of 
those  who  gave  their  voice  for  acquittal  and  of 
those  who  were  for  condemnation  '  (Mishna,  Saithed. 
iv.  2).  According  to  Jehudah  b.  Ilai  (H/.)  there 
were  three  clerks :  one  took  down  the  votes  for 
ac(|uittal,  one  those  for  condenniation,  while  the 
third  took  down  botli  (in  order  to  check  the 
lists  of  the  other  two).  In  the  report  of  Jose  b. 
Chalaftha  it  is  said  that,  when  a  question  came 
before  the  Great  Sanhedrin,  and  the  reply  could 
not  be  given  on  the  ground  of  a  tradition,  it  was 
tlecided  by  the  votes  of  the  majority.  As  to  the 
mode  of  deliberating  and  voting  and  the  distinc- 
tions which  were  oKserved  according  to  the  nature 
of  the  subject  under  consideration,  tradition  con- 
tains a  multitude  of  rules  which,  it  may  safely  be 
inferred,  are  based  upon  the  actual  praxis  of  the 
Great  Sanhedrin  of  Jerusalem.  Some  of  these 
rules  may  be  cited  : — In  questions  of  civil  riglit 
and  in  those  affecting  the  Ceremonial  Law,  the 
taking  of  the  vote  began  with  the  principal  mem- 
ber of  the  Sanhedrin  ;  in  judgments  affecting  life 
and  death  it  began  'at  the  side.'  i.e.  with  the 
younger  members,  in  order  that  their  vote  might 
not  be  influenced  b}'  that  of  the  leaders  (Mishna, 
Sanhad.  iv.  2  ;  'l"os.  Sanhrd.  vii.  2).  For  a  judg- 
ment affecting  life  and  death  an  attendance  of  at 
leiust  23  members  w;is  reiiuired.  If  the  result  of 
the  vote  showed  a  majority  of  only  one  for  'guilty,' 
the  court  had  to  be  increased  by  two  successively 
till  the  number  of  71  was  reached.  Only  when 
the  full  number  was  present,  was  a  majority  of  one 
(.'!(!  votes  against  ;!5)  .suflicient  to  procure  a  con- 
demnation (Mishna,  Saithed.  iv.  0). 

vii.  L,\Ti;sT  IIISTOUY  OF  THE  SANIIKDr.IN. — 
The  Great  Sanhedrin  of  Jerusalem,  as  we  have 
already  said,  revived,  after  the  fall  of  Jerusalem, 
in  the  schools  of  Palestine.  The  activity  of  the 
college  of  scribes,  in  which  the  tradition  of  the 
I'harisaic  schools  was  perpetuated  and  underwent 
vigorous  development,  attached  itself  to  the  work 
of  the  defunct  supreme  court  of  Jerusalem,  and  it 
strengthened  its  authority  by  adopting  the  name 
and  the  constitution  of  the  Great  Sanhedrin. 
Down  to  the  5th  cent.,  i.e.  down  to  the  cessation 
of  the  office  of  patriarch  or  Nasi,  which  was  heredi- 
tary in  the  house  of  Hillel,  tliere  existed  in  the 
Holy  Land  an  institution  which  could  be  regarded 
as  a  continuation  of  the  Great  Sanhedrin.  After 
Babylon  became  the  one  centre  of  Jewish  learning 


in  the  time  of  the  Gaons,  the  name  '  Sanhedrin' 
was  given  to  the  most  eminent  members  of  the  so- 
calle<l  Kalla  iussemblies,  the  70  scholars  who  sat 
in  the  first  seven  rows  and  who  at  all  events  were 
chosen  upon  a  fixed  principle. 

Even  recent  times  have  witnessed  a  revival  of 
the  name  of  the  ancient  Sanhedrin.  In  the  year 
1807,  at  the  summons  of  Xapoleon  I.  there  met  in 
I'aris  an  as.sembly  of  representatives  of  Judaism, 
which  at  the  invitation  of  the  Emperor  himself 
took  the  name  'Sanhedrin,"  and  constituted  itself 
upon  the  traditional  model  of  the  Great  Sanhedrin 
of  Jerusalem.  Apart  from  a  few  declarations  as  to 
the  relation  of  the  Jewish  religion  to  State  law  and 
of  Jews  to  non-Jews,  this  assembly  has  left  no 
permanent  traces. 

LlTERATCRE. — In  all  accounts  of  Jewish  history  at  the  time  of 
the  seeond  temple,  as  well  as  in  the  Histories  of  NT  times,  the 
Sanhedrin  is  treated  of  in  more  or  less  detail.  The  sources  aro 
the  wriliups  of  Josephus  and  the  NT  on  the  one  band,  and 
the  Jewish  tradition-literature  on  the  other.  Amongst  the 
latter  the  name  Sanhedrin  is  attached  to  the  tracts  of  the 
Mishna  and  Tosefta  dealinf^  with  .iustice  and  its  administration, 
as  well  as  to  the  correspondinj;  tracts  of  the  Jems,  and  Bab. 
Talmuds.  Of  the  Literature  cited  by  SchCircr  tfrVP' ii.  ISsf.) 
the  following  works  and  treatises,  dealing  specially  with  the 
.Sanhedrin,  may  be  selected  for  mention :  Selden,  rf«  5i/w#rfri/« 
et  Prcefecturi8J\iri<licU  veterum  Ehrwornm.  Lond.  1650-65; 
.Sachs,  '  Ueber  die  Zeit  der  Kntstehung  des  Synhedrins'  (in 
Frankel's  ZeitHclirift,  1&45,  pp.  801-3K') ;  Levy,  'Die  Pra'si- 
deutur  iai  Synedrium '  (in  Krankel's  Momi/i.M-fn'ifi.  1S55) ; 
Langen.  'Das  jfidische  Synedrium  und  die  ri'Miische  Procura- 
turin  Judiia'  (in  Tuhlng^r  Theofoffische  Quaytalsvhrift.  1S62, 
pp.  411—1(1.3);  Kuenen,  '  T'eber  dieZusammensetzung  des  Sanhe- 
drin '  {Gesam.  Ahhaiidl.  z.  bihl.  WiKSciiSfh.,  Budde's  tr.  pp. 
4!l-SIl;  D.  Hoffmann.  'Der  ober.sle  tterichtshof  in  der  Stadt 
des  Ileiligthums '  {Profinn/tm  deft  lidlihiiier'Semintires  zu 
BeyUn  for  1  s7T-TS);  ,IeUki. Die  in lu  re  Ein richtuu'jdefi grottsen 
Siftiedrionft  zu  Jernyiihin  niid  Hire  Entt^efzuiiu  i)/t  yjiuteren 
piildxtinenHitichen  Lehrhatffte  bin  zitr  Zeit  des  Jl.  Jehuda  ha- 
Xusi.  Breslau.  1S04.  Not  mentinned  by  Schurer  is  a  work  in 
Hebrew  by  the  well-known  Jakob  lleif'mann,  entitled  piinjD 
^01  iwges),"  published  at  Berditsehcw  In  ISSS.    W.  BACKER. 

SANSANNAH  (^•°.?°;  B  I;eO€VfiK,  A  Sawrdi-m; 
Seii.<!cniia).  —  A  town  in  the  Negeb  (RV  'the 
South')  allotted  to  Judah  (Jos  15^').  It  is  not 
mentioned  amongst  the  towns  in  the  Negeb  that 
belonged  to  Simeon.  But,  comparing  the  list  in 
Jos  l.")3i  with  the  parallel  lists  in  Jos  19^  and  1  Ch 
4'ii,  it.  will  be  seen  that  its  place  is  taken  in  the 
one  case  by  llazar-susah,  and  in  the  other  by 
Hazar-susim.  There  is  no  indication  of  its  posi- 
tion, a  question  upon  which  authorities  differ. 
Tristram  iilentifies  it  with  Beit  Siis'iii  on  the  road 
from  Gaza  to  Egypt;  Schwarz  {Heil.  Land,  p.  72), 
with  Simsim  on  a  height  N.E.  of  Gaza ;  and 
Gu6rin,  with  Sttsich,  E.N.E.  of  es-Semu'a  (Esh- 
temoa).  C.  W.  WILSON. 

SAPH  (1?;  B  2d0,  A  2c0Oi  called  in  Chronicles 
Sippai  (■??;  B  ^atpovr,  A  ^e<f><pl).- — One  of  four 
I'hilistine  champions  of  whom  it  is  related  that 
they  were  born  to  the  giant  in  Gath,  and  that 
they  were  slain  by  David's  heroes  (2  S  21'*,  1  Ch 
•20*).  There  is  no  difficulty  in  supposing  tliat 
he  was  a  son  of  the  (Joliath  whom  David  slew, 
but  it  is  perhaps  more  natural  to  understand  the 
term  'the  giant'  as  a  collective,  making  him 
merely  of  the  same  giant  stock  with  Goliath.  See 
Giant.  W.  J.  Beechek. 

SAPHAT.— 1.  (B  So0d7,  A  2o0dT,  AV  Sabat) 
1  Es  5^^.  His  sons  are  named  among  the  sons  of 
Solomon's  sen'ants  who  returned  with  Zerubbabel. 
There  is  no  corresponding  name  in  the  lists  of  I'^zr 
and  Neh.  2.  (B»  om.,  A  i:o0dT,  B'^  ™e'A(rd0)  1  Es 
5«  =  Shephatiah,  Ezr  2<. 

SAPHATIAS  (B  2o0ot/os,  A  om.),  1  Es  8»«  = 
Sheiihatiah  (cf.  EzT  8*);  called  Saphat  in  6". 

SAPHUTHI  (B  Sa4>v(l,  A  Za4,vet,  AV  Sapheth), 


SAPPHIRA 


SARAH 


403 


I  Es5''  =  Slie|iliatiah,  one  of  the  sons  of  Solomon's 
gervaiits,  Ezr  2". 

SAPPHIRA  (Sair(^6/p7().— The  wife  of  Ananias. 
She  lull  dead,  like  her  liusband,  at  the  rebuke  of 
St.  Peter,  Ac  5'*-.     bee  Anaxias,  No.  7. 

SAPPHIRE  (Heb.  tsb,  LXX  <r(£«-0e.po5,  Vuls. 
lapphiiuji)  is  mentioned  eleven  times  in  the  UT, 
once  in  the  Ajiocr.  (To  13'°),  and  once  in  the  NT 
(Kev  21").  It  is  one  of  the  stones  in  the  high 
priest's  brtastplate  (Ex  28'*  39"),  and  one  of  the 
foundations  of  the  New  Jerusalem  (Rev  21"'), 
the  latter  thought  arising,  no  doubt,  from  Is  54". 
It  was  of  considerable  value  (Job  28'",  Ezk  28'^). 
From  it  was  fashioned  the  throne  of  Ezekiel's 
visions  (Ezk  1»  10';  cf.  also  Ex  24'",  where  the 
pavement  under  the  feet  of  the  God  of  Israel  is 
of  'sapphire').  The  consistency  with  which  the 
VSS  adhere  to  a  uniform  transliteration  of  the 
name  is  remarkable  ;  Ezk  28'*  is  no  exception,  for 
altliou<;h  t?5  is  here  seventh  in  order,  and  aair- 
^fi/joi  fifth,  this  is  due  to  the  Greek  following  the 
arrangement  of  Ex  28'^ 

The  etyniology  of  the  Heb.  word  throws  no 
liglit  on  the  nature  of  the  stone.  Probably  tsd 
is  Semitic,  but  neither  of  the  roots  nro  or  -so  tells 
us  anything  as  to  colour  or  structure.  It  is,  how- 
ever, dithcult  to  believe  that  a  sapphire  was  one  of 
the  gems  in  the  high  priest's  breastplate,  for  this 
stone  is  not  easy  to  engrave,  the  diamond  being 
the  only  stone  that  will  scratch  it.  A  similar 
objection  might  be  brought  aj^aiiist  the  lapis  lazuli 
[Petrie's  identification  in  SroXES  (Peecious)], 
which  was  not  deemed  verj"  suitable  for  engraving 
because  of  the  hard  points  in  it.  But  the  olijection 
has  not  quite  so  much  force  in  this  case  ;  the  lapis 
lazuli  was  sometimes  engraved.  And  there  are 
good  reasons  for  thinking  that  this  is  the  stone 
referred  to  in  the  Bible.  Theophrastus  (Arr;?.  23) 
evidently  has  in  view  the  deep-blue  mineral  which 
is  'usually  mottled  with  white,  and  contains  gold- 
like specks  of  iron  i)yrites,'  wljcn  he  describes  the 
aiiripdpot,  ixTTTtp  xpi'ff4Ta<r7-05.  Pliny  (i/A'^  37,  119), 
writing  of  the  cyano.i,  states:  inesi  ei  aliguando  et 
aureus  pulvis  qualis  sappiris ;  by  the  sappirus  ho 
clearly  means  the  lapis  lazuli.  And  if  we  identify 
it  with  the  Heb.  Tsc,  the  requirements  of  all  the 
biblical  i)a-ssages  will  be  fairly  met. 

Two  varieties  of  lapis  lazuli,  a  natural  and  an 
artificial,  were  known  to  the  ancients.  The  former 
came  from  Cyprus  and  Scythia,  and  was  '  a  silicate 
and  sulphate  of  calcium,  sodium,  and  aluminium.' 
The  latter  was  made  in  Egypt :  it  was  an  alkaline 
silicate,  coloured  deep -blue  with  carbonate  of 
copper  ;  scarabs  and  signets  were  made  of  it,  and 
it  was  used  as  a  pigment. 

If  the  sapphire  of  our  Bibles  does  not  correspond 
with  the  gem  now  known  by  this  name,  it  yet  re- 
mains probable  that  this  gem  is  once  mentioned. 
RVni  suggests  *rt;)^/iirc  in  \i\aa%oi  jacinth  {ii6.Ki.ti0o^) 
in  Key"!'".  Middleton  {Engraved  Gems,  p.  132) 
and  King  {Antique  Gems,  p.  46)  are  in  favour  of 
the  identification.  Pliny  (HN  37,  125)  seems  at 
first  sight  to  be  against  it,  for  he  writes  of  the 
fiUgor  violaceus  of  the  hyacinthos  ;  but  his  view  is 
not  really  adverse,  for  the  less  valuable  sapphires 
are  amethyst  by  artificial  light.  King  (pp.  51, 
399)  quotes  the  lines  of  Marbodus  as  recognizing 
with  astonishing  clearness,  considering  his  date, 
the  fact  that  sapphires,  rubies,  and  Oriental  topazes 
are  all  of  them  varieties  of  the  same  mineral, 
namely,  the  hyacinth— 

'  T!^**^®  various  kinds  the  skilled  as  IJyacintht  nuXM^ 


Virj  ini-  in  colour  and  unlilic  in  fame 
One,  like  pome^mnatc  Howt-rs,  a  fler.  - ._ 
And  one  Ine  yellow  citron's  hue  disp'luya. 


One  charms  with  palsy  blue  tlie  gazer's  eye 
Like  the  mild  Unt  that  decks  the  northern  iky.' 


The  best  sapphires  are  now  obtained  from  Ceylon. 
The  Greeks  wore  these  stones  as  jewels.  A  few 
engraved  ones  have  survived,  mainly  from  the  age 
of  imperial  Home,  but  the  gem  was  too  hard  to 
be  much  used  for  this  purpose.  Cf.  art.  Jacinth 
in  vol.  ii.  J.  Taylcic. 


SARABIAS 

Neh  8'. 


(SopajSfat),     1  Es   9*»  =  Sherebiah, 


SARAH,  also  (to  On  17")  SARAI  ('Sarah'  means 
'princess,'  IK  11'  al.  ;  the  meaning  of  '  Sarai '  is 
doubtful:  perhaps  [Olsh.  Lchrb.  §  110;  Noldeke, 
ZDMG,  1886,  p.  183,  1888,  p.  484 ;  Konig,  Lehrg. 
ii.  1,  427]  it  is  an  older  form  of  'Sarah,'  formed 
with  the  unusual  fern.  term,  -ay).' — 1.  The  wife 
of  Abraham,  first  mentioned  in  On  11^  (.J).  Sarai's 
parentage  is  not  given  :  according  to  20'^  (E),  she 
was  Abraham's  half-sister,  the  daughter  of  his 
father,  but  not  the  daughter  of  his  mother.f  The 
incidents  of  her  life  have  already  been  narrated  at 
some  length  in  connexion  with  Abraham,  Haoar, 
Isaac,  and  I.SHMAEL  ;  so  that  a  risum6  will  be 
sufiicient  here.  Sarai  accompanied  Abraham  into 
Can.aan  (12°),  and  went  down  with  him  into  Egypt 
(12"''-":  J):  it  was  on  this  occasion  that,  feanng 
lest  her  beauty  might  indirectly  cost  him  his  life, 
Abraham  passed  her  oil  as  his  sister,  and,  being 
admired  before  the  Pharaoh  by  his  courtiers,  she 
was  sent  for  and  taken  into  his  palace.  This  was 
in  accordance  with  the  custom,  described  as  still 
prevalent  among  Oriental  princes,  of  arbitrarily 
selecting  beautiful  women  to  be  added  to  their 
harems.J  Abraham's  timidity  and  want  of  candour 
might  have  involved  him  in  serious  consequences ; 
but  the  Pharaoh  contented  him.self  with  rebuking 
him  for  his  untruthfulness,  and  appointing  an 
escort  to  conduct  both  him  and  Sarai  out  of  the 
country  (v.'O;  cf.  18"  3127). 

From  12^,  compared  with  17",  it  appears  that  Sarai  wa.i  at 
this  time  at  leuaL  05  years  of  age ;  and  it  has  often  been  won- 
dered why  Abraham  should  have  been  in  alarm  on  the  ground 
stated,  and  why  the  Pharaoh  should  have  been  attracted  by  her 
beauty.  The  difficulty  disappears  when  it  is  remembereii  that 
the  statements  about  Sarai's  age  belong  to  a  ditTerent  document 
(P)  from  the  one  (J)  which  narrates  the  visit  to  Egypt ;  the 
author  of  the  latter  evidently  pictured  Sarai  as  still  a  young 
woman.  (Cf.  for  similar  caaes  elsewhere  in  Genesis,  voL  ii. 
pp.  484  (No.  8),  SUSb,  bii>). 

Sarai  is  next  mentioned  in  ch.  16  (J,  except 
w.'»' '• '"•).  Being  barren  (cf.  ll*"),  she  induces 
Abraham  to  take  her  handm.-iid  Hagar  as  a  con- 
cubine; but  when  she  finds  that  Hagar  'despises' 
her,  she  passionately  and  unjustlj'  casts  the  blame 
upon  her  husband  :  '  The  wrung  done  to  me  be  upon 
thee  ;  J"  judge  between  me  and  thee.'  Abraham, 
however,  declines  to  interfere ;  and  bids  Sarai 
herself  deal  with  Hagar  as  she  pleases.  Her  harsh 
treatment  of  her  handmaid  compels  Hagar  to  take 
(light ;  and  only  the  voice  of  J"'8  angel  induces 
her  to  return,  and  'submit'  herself  to  her  mistress 
(see,  more  fully,  Hagar  and  ISHMAKL). 

In  the  existing  text  of  Genesis,  the  promise  of  a 
son  for  Sarai  is  first  distinctly  given  in  ch.  17  (P), 
vv.""*'.  Her  name  is  changed  to  Sura/t  (v.") ;  she 
is  to  be  blessed,  and  a  son  is  to  be  bom  to  her  ; 

*  Found  In  certain  words  in  the  cognat«  languages.  See 
Olsh.  and  Konig,  U.ce.;  NOld.  Sitr.  f.'r.  §  83;  Wright,  Arab. 
Gram.  i.  i  205,  Comp.  Oram.  13s;  Dillni.  Aeth.  Oram.  12"(j 
(of.  ;  1'20(;  $);  Barth,  Nominalh(M\iii<i.  385.  Soycc's  doubts 
(IICM  179)  are  unfounded.  The  ex]»Iatuitioii  (Jerome  and  oUIer 
scholars)  'my  princess'  is  philolngically  impossible.  The  LX.\ 
gives  for  Sarai  2!<x^«,  and  for  ^arah  ^pen. 

t  CI.  SlARRiAiiS,  vol.  ill.  p.  207'> ;  W.  H.  Smith,  Kinaliip,  102 1. 
The  tradition  (Jos.  Ant.  I.  vi.  6,  ai.)  that  she  was  the  same 
person  as  Isiam  has  no  probability  :  it  can  only  be  reconciled 
artillcially  with  2U'» ;  and  had  the  writer  of  ll^s  identilled 
Sarai  vv'iih  Iscoh,  he  would  certainly  have  worded  the  verve 
dilTerentty. 

1  There  Is  an  incident  quoted  by  Kbers  In  the  'Tale  of  the 
Two  Brothers'  which  partly  illustrates  this;  M<  Fetrie't 
Egi/ptian  TaUt,  2nd  ser.,  1806,  pp.  63-66. 


i04 


SARAH 


•she  shall  become  nations'  (cf    v.*  3o   ) ;     k  mgs 
of  people,  shall  be  from  her'  (cf.  v.«  3o>'  ;  and  >ee 
36»').     Abraham   'laughs'   in   ^"'^"'^"''ty  at    t   e 
idea  of  a  son  being  born  to  him  and  Sarah  in  Uu,r 
old  a^e ;  he  fixes  his  hopes  upon  Ishmael,  but  ib 
told  that,  though   Ishmael  will  become  a  '  great 
nation,'   the  covenant  vUl   be    established    ^vlth 
Isaac  (vv.'«-=M.     In  ch.  18  (J)  the  promise  of  a  son 
Isa-'a in  given  to  Abraham  ;  and  ^vhen  Sarah,  over- 
hearin.'  it,  '  laughs' inwardly  in  incredulity,  it  is 
repeated  to  herself  (w.»-)      This  narrative^  is  m 
reality  not  the  sequel  to  the  one  m  ch.  1;.  I"" 
parll  U>  it:  IS"*""  is  clearly  written  ^v■lthollt 
Reference  to  17"-,  and  the  writer  «  ev-idently  not 
conscious  that  a  promise  of  the  same  kind  had 
already  been  given.  ,.     „  o*  fi,o 

Ch    '>0  (E)  describes  Sarah's  adventure  at  the 
court    of    Abimelech,   in    Gerar,   i.c     (Trunibull. 
Puthe    Mini     Buhl    p.  89)  the  Wady  Jerfir,  70 
mUes  S.  of  Gak  and  55  miles  S.W.  of  Beersheba. 
As  before  {12'»-»')  in  Egypt,  Abraham,  m  fear  on 
account  of  his  own  life  (v."),  passes  Sarah  off  as 
his  Jester  :  Abimelech  takes  her,  but  is  warned  by 
God  in  a  dream  that  she  is  a  married  woman  ;  like 
Uie  Pharaoh  (12'«-),  tliough  in  stronger  tenns  he 
rebukes  Abraham   for   his  deceit  (v.^) ;  Abraliam 
excuses    (v.")    and    defends    (-■")    him^«" ',  ^"^'^ 
Abimelech  then  makes  reparation,  both  to  ADra 
ham  (v  »'•)  and  to  Sarah  (v.'«),  for  the  injury  he 
harunwittingly  done  them      The  narrative  is  m 
sub^^tance  remarkably   similar  to  those  in  1- 
Abra"am  and  the  P^-^^-"?'*)  ?"d  26-MIsaac  and 
Abimelech) ;   it  can  hardly  be  <l""bted  that  al 
three    are    variations  of    the   same  fundamental 
theme,-a  popular  story  told  of   the   patriarchs, 
and  attacbed^ometimes  to  one   '-^"d  sometimes, 
at  different  localities,  to  another  (cf.  ABIMELECH, 
vol.  i.  p.  9*:  Isaac,  vol.  u.  V-J^fi-  ,.  ^  r.  __..7 

Isaacs  birth  is  narrated  in  21>-'  (vv.'«-'«  J  ;  vv. 
£.  ^.yib.-jb-o  p).     The  exclamation  in  v.»  (  God 
lia'th  prepared   laughter  for   me;  every  one  that 
heareth  will  laugh  over  me')  i^'"f  "!,??„V  Vs^^ 
explanation  of  tlie  name  '  Isaac   (cf ._  1 , "  in  1 ,  18 
in  J  ;  and  see  Isaac,  vol.  u.  p..  4So,  No.  8);  \. 
the  a"ed  mother  gives  expression  to  her  jojous 
.lupHle  at  the  birtl  of  a  son.     Two  or  three  years 
afterwards  (21»),  upon  occasion  of  the  family-least 
held  to  celebrate  Isaac's  weaning,  Sarah  s  jealousy 
of  her  liandmaid  is  again  aroused  ;  she  peremptori  y 
deman<ls  the  expulsion  of  both  H'^g'^;; fjlt^.^^'^^^i  = 
and  Abraham  reluctantly  complies  (21»     ).  .  Ch  -d 
(P)  relates  the  death  of  Sarah  (cf.  the  allusion  of  J 
n^i"'")    at  the  age  of  127  years,  in  ^vinath-arba 
(yubron),  and  the  purchase  by  A^'rahani  of  a  cave 
in  the  field  of  Machpelah,  'in  front  of    Mamk  ■-, 
n  wtich  to  bury  her  (cf.  25'»  P,  49".  P).     The  only 
otle    reference  In  the  OT  to  Sarah  is  Is  5P,  where 
she  is  aUuded  to  as  the  mother  of  the  chosen 

""sarah  is  a  typical  but  not  an  ideal  character 
She  is  a  devoted  wife  and  mother  ;  but,  at  the 
same  time,  like  many  another  vomaii,  impenous 
hasty  in  her  judgments,  and  jealo...  :  vrrapt  up  in 
her  husband  and  her  son,  she  resents  the  smallest 
disparagement,  or  assumption  of  superiority,  on 
the  part  of  either  Hagar  or  Ishmael  and  does  not 
rest  satisfied  till  she  finds   herself  in  her  home 

"'in^NT*  Sarah  is  mentioned  Ro  i">  9>  iGnlS"*), 
He  U"  (her  faith),  1  P  3»  (her  conjugal  'obedience 
fo  Abraham,  calling  him  '  lord,'  Gn  18  ) ;  and  the 
narrative  of  Sarah  and  Hagar  and  of  their  respec- 
th-e  children,  is  treated  allegorical  y,  as  fore- 
shadowing the  freedom  of  Christians,  the  'children 
of  promisi,'  in  Gal4'^'-5>  (cf.  HagaR,  vol.  u.  ;.  2;*). 
2.  The  daughter  of  Raguel  and  wife  of  lobias, 
•  In  Gn  2i«"  the  very  strange  syntax  of  the  existing  Ileb.  text 
makei  it  proUble  thiS  '  o(  hi.  moOier  Sarah  •«  a  glow. 


SARDIS 
To  3'-"  and  oft.  [hXX^ippa).    See  Tobit  (BooK 

OF). 


SARAIAS.— 1.  (2apala5)  1  Es  5»,  Seraiah,  the  high 
priest  of  ZedekiaU's  time,  fatlier  of  Jehozadak,  and 
grandfather  of  Jeshua  (cf.  1  Ch  6»).  2.  inarms] 
2  Es  1',  the  fatlier  of  Ezra.  It  is  uncertain  whether 
he  is  the  same  person  as  the  AZAR.VIAS  of  1  Es  8  , 
where  the  following  Zechkias  takes  the  place  of 
Azaraias  of  2  Es  1'. 

S4RAMEL,  RV  As4ramel  (A  Sopa^A,  SV  'Aaap- 

au.i\  ;  ^6-f(r«m5/).-Saran,el  appears  to  be  a  worn 

°n  the  original  Heb.  or  Syr.  text  of  1  Mac.  which 

the    transtator    did    not    miderstand    when    pre- 

paring  the  existing  Or.  version.      Nearly  all  cmn- 

mentators  adopt  the  readmg  Asaramel.     By  some, 

Sding  Lutfier,  it  is  beTd  to  be  a  place-name 

and  to  have  been  the  spot  at  which  the  assembled 

Jews  made  Simon  Maccaba^us  'their  leader  and 

W^h  priest-  (1  Mac  14=«-«).     By  others  various 

reftorations  of  the  Hebrew  text  have   been  pro- 

poid  -1.  {We).9ar:am.'el, '  and  prince  of  the  people 

^f  God,'  understanding  this  as  a  tit  e  of  Simon 

The  original  we,  'and,'  is  supposed  to  have  been 

corrupte'd   into    be,    '  i°\  This  view     first    pro- 

nosed  by  Wemsdorf  (1747  ,  is  adopted  bj  Scholz. 

S^^mm%chiirer,  Z6ckler,,Kautzsch,  Kraetzschma^ 

and   others.      2.    {Bc)shdar-am-d,    'at   the   gate 

of  the  people  of  God,'  or-3.  j^'f  c^-"'""^-  •    ^° 

the  court  of  the  people  of  Go<i   (Ewald,  e   «i.).    4. 

A     R    S.    Kennedy    (Expos.    Times     Aug.    1900, 

p  ■523ff.)  proposes  either  (a)  ba'azar  [ath  lisra]  el. 

Pin   the  cEurt  of   Israel,'   wh  ch  was  incorre.tly 

decil>hered    baYcmr-ham-'el,   the    letters    n  and  • 

and'o  and  c  being  very  like  each  other  m  the  olde^ 

Phcen.  characters;  °\(b)  baa?art.am.a      in  ^ 

assembly  of  the  people  of  God.      He  P^-fers^the 

former. 

SARAPH  {1-17 ;  B  Soui,  A  T.ap6.<p).-A  descendant 
of  Shelah,  1  Ch  4=". 

SARCHED0NO3.-The  form  in  which  the  name 
Esae-haddon  (Which  Bee)  appears  in  To  l-  ihe 
misspelling  '  Sarchedonus '  ot  the  AV  has  been 
retailed,  surely  inadvertently  by  the  RV.  Ihe 
correct  form  is  '  Sacherdonus '  (BS  Zax^pSoy6s.  A 
Zaxff-Sd",  in  v.'^  -Zax^pSopocis). 

QxcniNV—At,  Rev  4'  AV  renders  tfuum  \iOip 
.aSy  MiTe  a  sardine  stone.'  The  reading  is 
Zt  of  the  TR.  It  is  rightly  -l-'^^-f  ^y  -o^-n 
editors,  on  the  overwhelmmg  '-^"t  'ority  of  ^AQ. 
etc.,  which  read  oapSiv  i  K)  has  like  a  sardius  . 
see,  therefore,  Sardius,  below. 

SARDIS  (SdpSeis).— The  capital  of  Lydia,  when  a 
Tv.Uan  kingdom  existed  before  B.C.  549,  was  one 
o?  r^reates  and  most  ancient  and  famous  cities 
o  Asia  Minor.  It  was  situated  on  the  northern 
skirts  of  Mount  Tmolos,  at  the  point  where  he 
small  river  Pactolos  issues  from  a  glen  in  the 
Tofntrinrto  join  the  Hermns  wh.eh  llows  we  t 
wards  about  two  or  three  mi  es  north  of  barais 
The  acropolis  of  Sardis  was  situated  on  a  spur  oi 
Tmolos  eparated  by  a  depression  from  the  moun^ 
tn  ns  on  the  south,  and  rising  sharply  from  the 
eief  Plain  on  the  north,  with  the  Pactolos  washing 
U  western  base,  and  formed  an  -^^■"o^';;-^^; 

Lto  which  the  province  of  Asia  was  divided 
Politi<ll  circumstances  had  been  as  favourtbl. 


SAEDIS 


SAKDIUS 


405 


to  it  as  fjeojjrapliical.  It  waa  the  residence  of  a 
Batrap,  after  the  Persians  conquered  Asia  Minor, 
and  the  burning  of  the  lower  town  in  501  b}'  the 
revolted  lunians  excited  veheiiiont  anger  in  Darius, 
OS  an  insult  to  his  goveriiiinMt  and  himself.  It 
surrendered  willingly  to  Alexander  the  Great  in 
334,  and  was  made  by  him  an  autonomous,  self- 
governing  city  of  the  (ireek  type,  electing  its  own 
mat'lstrates  and  striking,  presumably,  its  own 
coins :  tlie  Sardian  coins  of  earlier  date  were  not 
municipal,  but  regal,  and  perhaps  satrapal  coins,* 
struck  by  despotic  governors  resident  at  Sardis. 
After  the  death  of  Alexander,  in  322,  it  fell  under 
the  authority  of  Antigonus  till  301,  when  after  the 
battle  of  Ipsus  it  passed  under  the  domination  of 
Seleucus,  and  became  the  residence  of  the  governor 
of  the  western  part  of  the  Seleucid  empire  (called, 
doubtless,  satrap).  In  190  the  battle  of  Magnesia 
set  Sardis  free  ;  and  the  Romans  incorporated  it  in 
the  Pergamenian  realm  (in  wliich  there  was  much 
greater  municiiial  freedom  than  under  Seleucid 
rule).  The  known  coinage  of  the  city  begins 
under  the  Pergamenian  kings,  and  continues 
under  Koman  rule  in  increasing  quantities. 

Tlie  special  religion  of  Sardis  was  the  worship 
of  Cybcle,  the  ruins  of  whose  temple  with  two 
colunms  standing,  partly  are  seen,  partly  lie  buried 
in  the  glen  of  tlie  Pactolos  near  the  river-bank. 
Her  nature  and  the  character  of  her  worship  were 
very  similar  to  those  of  DiANA  at  Ephesus. 

Ihe  necropolis  of  Sardis,  where  its  chiefs  and 
kings  in  early  times  were  buried,  was  a  great 
group  of  tumuli,  some  small,  some  of  very  Targe 
size,  about  three  miles  north  of  the  Hermus,  on 
the  south  side  of  the  Gyga>an  Lake  (Mermere 
Giol).  There,  near  tlie  shrine  of  Gyg.-ean  Artemis, 
beside  the  Lake,  the  people  of  the  goddess  re- 
turned at  death  to  their  divine  mother. 

In  A.D.  17  Sardis  was  destroyed  by  a  great 
earthquake,  and  Tiberius  remitted  all  its  taxes 
for  live  years,  and  contributed  ten  million  .ses- 
terces towards  rebuilding  the  city.  Eleven  other 
cities,  which  had  been  its  partners  in  ruin,  and 
had  shared  in  tlie  emperor's  benefaction,  and  also 
two  later  sullerers,  joined  with  it  in  erecting  at 
Rome  a  monument  in  his  honour  ;  and  a  miniature 
copy  of  that  monument,  constructed  in  A.D.  30  at 
Putcoli  (the  harbour  for  the  Eastern  and  Asian 
trade  at  that  time),  is  still  preserved.t 

While  the  three  cities,  Pergaraus,  Smyrna,  and 
Epliesus,  vied  for  the  title  of  First  City  of  Asia, 
Sardis,  though  still  a  place  of  importance,  was, 
beyond  any  other  of  the  prominent  cities  of  Asia, 
a  town  of  the  past,  retaining  the  name  of  great- 
ness, but  decayed  from  its  former  estate.  The 
words  addressed  to  it  in  Rev  3'  are  singularly 
appropriate  to  its  history :  '  I  know  thy  works, 
tnat  tuou  hast  a  name  that  thou  livest,  and  thou 
art  dead.'  The  words  are,  of  course,  aildressed  to 
the  Church  of  Sardis,  and  must  be  understood  as 
describing  its  condition  about  A.D.  90-100,  alreadj 
decaying  from  its  original  high  promise  ;  but  it 
seems  clear  that  the  writer  must  have  been  con- 
scious of  the  historical  parallel,  and  chose  his 
words  so  as  to  express  it.  When  he  goes  on  to 
say,  'Bo  thou  watchful  .  .  .  for  I  have  found  no 
works  of  thine  fullillcd  ;  ...  if  therefore  thou 
slialt  not  watch  I  will  come  as  a  thief,  and  thou 
shalt  not  know  what  hour  I  will  come  upon  thee,' 
one's  thoughts  are  carried  back  to  the  two  occa- 
sions when,  through  careless  watching,  the  im- 
pregnable citadel  failed  to  keep  up  its  reputation 
knd  name  and  to  fnllil  its  works,  when  the  Median 

•  No  colm,  however,  are  known  itruck  »t  Sardii  either  by  the 
■atraps  under  Terelftn  rule  or  by  the  city  as  Ret  free  by  Alexander. 
Probably  AntlKoiius  deprived  It  of  treolom  and  the  riitbt  of 
colna|{e,  and  under  Beleucid  rule  It  continued  iu  that  oppreeaed 
eon.lition. 

t  See  CIL  z.  1624 :  Roibforth,  Latin  Uittorieal  Inter.,  Mo.  9S. 


soldier  in  549  and  the  Cretan  Lagoras  in  218  * 
climbed  the  steep  hill  and  stole  unobserved  into 
the  acropolis.  The  very  hill  itself  is  in  ceaseless 
decay,  washed  away  to  an  extraordinary  extent  by 
the  rains  and  frosts  disintegrating  the  soil  ana 
rock. 

These  historical  parallels  were  not  drawn  by  the 
writer  of  the  Apocalypse  from  literature :  the 
story  of  the  Median  and  the  Cretan  was  doubtless 
a  household  word  in  Sardis,  and  the  character  of 
the  city  as  faUing  to  keep  up  its  ancient  greatness 
and  promise  would  assuredly  bo  very  plain.  W^e 
may  fairly  infer  that  the  writer  was  personally 
familiar  with  the  place  ;  and  speaks  from  what  he 
had  learned  by  eye  and  ear  in  Sardis. 

When  about  A.D.  295  the  great  province  Asi.a 
was  broken  up  into  several  smaller  provinces, 
Sardis  once  more  became  the  capital  of  Lydia ; 
and  in  all  the  Byzantine  lists  the  bishop  of  Sardis 
is  mentioned  as  metropolitan  and  archbishop  of 
Lydia,  and  as  sixth  in  order  of  dignity  of  all  the 
bishops,  European  and  Asiatic,  subject  to  the 
patriarch  of  Constantinople.  The  acropolis  on  its 
lofty  hill  was  of  a  type  suited  for  the  frontier  war- 
fare of  Arab  and  Turkish  raids,  and  the  fortilica- 
tions  remaining  on  it  are  all  of  a  late  period.  It  is 
uncertain  when  it  passed  into  the  hands  of  the 
Turks.  Lydia  was  exposed  to  frequent  raids  at 
the  end  of  the  11  th  cent.,  and  again  after  the 
defeat  of  Manuel  Comnenus  In  1170.  In  1257  the 
Emperor  Theodore  II.  encamped  at  Sardis,  but  after 
1267  the  raids  of  the  Turks  became  bolder  and 
more  continuous  in  the  Hermus  valley  (Pach.  ii. 
p.  313  f.),  and  they  swept  the  country  down  to 
jlenemen  near  the  sea.  Alagnesiaand  Puiladeljihia 
were  then  the  two  chief  cities  of  the  valley  (as 
they  still  are),  and  Sardis  was  quite  a  secondary 
town.  In  1306  the  Turks  were  admitted  to  the 
Sardian  acropolis,  but  shortly  after  were  expelled 
(Pach.  ii.  403  f.)  ;  but  this  success  was  only  tem- 
porary, and  there  can  hardly  be  anj'  doubt  that 
Sardis  had  fallen  into  their  hands  before  1316, 
when  they  took  Nymphaion. 

In  1402  Sardis  was  captured  and  destroyed  by 
Tamerlane,  and  it  has  never  recovered  from  that 
crushing  blow.  It  is  now  only  a  ruin,  with  a 
tiny  village  called  Sart,  while  the  town  is  Salikli, 
about  live  miles  east.  Sart  is  a  station  on  the 
railway  from  Smyrna  to  Philadelphia  and  Kara 
Hissar.     Three  miles  south  are  great  hot  springs. 

The  bishopric  of  Sardis  is  mentioned  in  even  the 
latest  Notiti(B,  but  probably  it  ceased  to  have  any 
real  existence  soon  after  1300.  The  fourth  Notitia 
Episcopatuum  in  Partliey's  collection,  p.  132,  puts 
the  situation  plainly.  It  mentions  Sardis  in  its 
ancient  place  as  sixth  in  dignity,  but  adds  that 
the  bishop  of  Philadelphia  has  now  been  sub- 
stituted in  the  place  of  the  Sardian  exarchos.t 
The  substitution  was  later  than  1284,  when  Andro- 
nicus  Chalaza,  bishop  of  Sardis,  evidently  an 
influential  dignitary,  was  expelled  from  the  Council 
of  Adramyttium  (Pach.  ii.  p.  65 f.),  and  may  be 
dated  about  1316.  With  that  changeSardis  ceased. 
History  had  decided  against  it,  and  it  was  dead. 

W.  M.  Ramsay. 

8ARDITES.— See  Sered. 

SARDI08.— AV  uses  this  word  thrice  in  the  OT 
(Ex  28"  Sg'",  Ezk  28")  and  once  in  the  NT  (Rev 
21">).  In  the  OT  passages  RVm  has  'or  ruby.' 
The  Heb.  in  each  case  is  oni< :  see,  therefore,  Ruby, 
above. 

At  Rev  21*>  the  aipiioi  of  TR  or  aipSior  of  the 

*  In  £18  Antiochofl  the  Great,  after  a  year's  deffe,  oaptnred 
Bardis,  where  bis  URur)>lni;  rival  Achoius  maintained  himself. 

t  This  should  have  been  <}uuted  in  vol.  Hi.  p.  831  to  completa 
the  account  of  the  bishopric  of  Philadelphia;  Uu  relatloD  of 
Notitia  Ir.  and  xJ.  is  uncertain,  but  Iv.  la  iAt«r. 


406 


SARDOXYX 


SAKGON 


better  MSS  is  the  sixth  foundation  of  the  New 
Jerusalem.  Epiphanius  (quoted  by  Alford,  Or. 
Test.  iv.  505)  derives  its  naiue  from  its  resemblance 
in  colour  to  a  salted  tish  cjilled  sardion.  Theo- 
phrastus,  with  whom  King  {Antique  Gems,  p.  7) 
agrees,  traces  it  to  the  fact  that  the  gem  was  lirst 
imported  into  Greece  from  Sardis.  Middleton 
(Engraved  Gems,  p.  143)  thinks  it  comes  from  a 
Pers.  word  meaning  'yellow.'  He  does  not  give 
the  word  in  question,  but  the  Encyc.  Brit.'  (art. 
'  Sardonyx  ')  connects  sard  with  the  Pers.  sered, 
'  yellowish-red.'     There  does  not  appear  to  be  any 

euch  word :  the  nearest  approach  to  it  is  j, :  zerd= 
'yellow.' 

The  sard  is  one  of  the  crypto-crystalline  gems 
of  the  silic()n  family,  identical  in  chemical  coiiipo- 
sition  with  the  carnelian,  but  more  crystalline, 
more  transparent,  and  less  ruddy.  Its  colour 
varies  from  pale  golden-yellow  to  reddish-orange 
Pliny  (HN  37,  106)  justly  remarks:  Nee  fuit  alia 
gemma  apud  antiquos  usu  frequentior.  This  was 
owing  to  the  beauty  of  the  stone,  which  in  the  best 
specimens  is  brilliantly  transparent  and  very  line 
in  colour,  to  its  toughness,  its  facility  of  working, 
and  the  higli  polish  of  which  it  is  susceptible.  It 
also  retains  its  polish  longer  than  other  gems.  The 
finest  engravings  of  ancient  times  were  on  sards. 
Pliny  states  that  the  best  examples  came  from 
Babylon,  but  that  source  of  supjily  had  failed  in 
his  day.  Others  were  obtained  from  Paros,  Assos, 
India,  and  Egypt.  Theophrastus  (Lap.  56)  speaks 
of  two  principal  kinds — the  male,  brownish  in 
colour,  and  the  female,  transparent  red  :  t6  iih 
SiocpaWs,  ipvBpliTfpov  Si,  /caXeirai  6ij\v'  ri  di  dia<pai/is 
niv,  iieXavTfpov  Si,  KaXeirai  d/xro).  Considering  how 
largely  this  gem  was  used,  not  only  amongst 
Greeks  and  Romans  but  also  for  Assyrian  cylinders 
and  Phoen.  scarabs,  it  is  curious  that  there  should 
be  only  one  verse  in  the  Bible  where  it  is  unques- 
tionably mentioned,  and  that  not  as  an  engraved 
stone.  J.  Taylor. 

SARDONYX. — The  name  indicates  the  structure 
of  the  gem,  a  layer  of  sard  and  one  of  onyx.  Pliny 
(NN  37,  86)  says  :  Sardonyches  olim  .  .  .  intellige- 
bantur  candore  in  sarda,  hoc  est  veluti  came  ungui 
hominis  imposita  et  utroque  tralucido.  The  finest 
then  cauie  from  Arabia  and  India.  In  the  latter 
country  it  was  found  in  torrent-beds,  some  pieces 
being  larpe  enough  for  sword  handles.  It  is  better 
adapted  lor  cameos  than  for  signets,  but  was  much 
used  by  the  Romans  for  both  purposes,  and  it 
possesses  one  quality  valuable  for  a  seal :  wax  does 
not  adhere  to  it.  Juvenal  twice  refers  to  sardonyx 
seals — 

•  Ar^it  ipsorura  quog  littera  eremmaque  princeps 
Sardonycbum,  locuiis  qua  custoUitur  ebumis'  (SoL  xlU.  USX 

'  Ideo  conducta  Paullus  agebat 
Sardonyche  ,  .  .'  (i6.  vii  14-1). 

This  gem  has  always  been  easy  to  produce  artifici- 
ally, either  by  joining  together  layers  of  different 
stones  or  by  placing  a  sard  on  a  red-hot  iron,  when 
the  ■surface  exposed  to  the  heat  becomes  of  an 
opaque  white  colour. 

The  sardonjx  (aapSivvi)  is  the  fifth  foundation- 
stone  of  the  New  Jerusalem  (Rev  SI*").  RVni  gives 
sardonyx  as  an  alternative  for  diamond  in  trans- 
lating ciSn;  at  Ex  '28"  39",  but  at  Ezk  28"  RV  con- 
tents itself  with  the  diamond  of  the  text.  There 
is  no  sulKcient  reason  for  supposing  that  D'iSn; 
means  sardonyx.  The  Ox/.  Heb.  Lex.  is  inclined 
to  deri  re  oiSn;  from  D^n,  and  to  explain  the  name  as 
pointing  to  the  hardness  of  the  stone.  This  would 
not  favour  the  identification  with  the  sardonyx. 

J.  Taylor. 


and 


SAREA.— One  of  the  swift  scribes  who  wmte  t« 
the  dictation  of  Ezra  (2  Es  14-'). 

SAREPTA.— See  Zarephath. 

SARGON  (pilC  'Aped). — Once  mentioned  in  the 
Bible  (Is  20'),  when  it  is  said  that  he  sent  his 
Tartan  (turtannu)  or  commander-in-chief  against 
Ashdod  (B.C.  711).  The  name  had  been  borne  by 
a  famous  king  of  early  Babylonia,  who  founded 
an  empire  which  extended  to  the  Mediterranean 
(B.C.  3S00) ;  and  as  Sargon's  two  predecessors.  Tig- 
lath-pileser  III.  and  Shaliuaneser  iv.,  had  assumed 
new  names  after  seizing  the  Assyr.  throne,  it  seems 

frobable  that  Sargon  also  was  an  assumed  name, 
t  is  written  in  cuneiform  Sar-gina,  as  if  a  com- 
pound of  the  Semitic  sar,  '  king,' and  the  Sumerian 
gina,  'established,'  and  is  accordingly  rendered  by 
the  Semitic  Sami-kinu, '  the  established'  or  '  leCTti- 
mate  monarch '  ;  but  the  inscriptions  of  the  elder 
Sargon  show  that  the  name  is  really  a  corruption 
of  Sarganu,  '  the  strong  one '  (cf.  the  biblical 
Serug). 

when  Shalmaneser  IV.  died  or  was  murdered, 
during  the  siege  of  Samaria  (B.C.  722),  the  crown 
was  usurped  (on  the  12th  of  the  montli  Tebct)  by 
the  Assyr.  general  Sargon,  who  claimed  desci-nt 
from  a  semi-mythical  king  of  As.syria  cjillod  l!cl- 
bani.  Samaria  was  captured  soon  afterwards,  mid 
Sargon  transported  27,200  of  its  population  into 
captivity,  the  city  being  placed  under  an  Assyr. 
satrap.  Meanwhile  Babylon  had  been  seized  by 
the  k.alda  chief,  Merodach-baladan.  who  mahi- 
tained  himself  in  Chaldaea  for  Vi  years,  notwith- 
standing the  defeat  of  his  Elamite  "allies.  In  B.C. 
7^0  a  certain  Ihi-bihdi,  also  called  Y.ihubidi, 
arose  .at  Hamath.  and  led  Arpad,  Damascus,  .and 
Palestine  into  revolt.  This  was  easily  suppressed, 
however  ;  Hamath  was  colonized  by  4300  Assyrians, 
and  the  Philistines  and  Egyptians  were  defeated 
at  Raphia  on  the  borders  of  Egypt.  In  lie.  719 
the  Minni,  east  of  Ararat,  were  attacked  and  de- 
feated, and  two  years  later  Sargon  gained  a  great 
victory  over  the  combined  forces  of  the  Hittites  of 
Caichemish  and  of  Mita  of  the  Moschi  (Meshech). 
Carchemish  became  an  Assyrian  city,  its  tr.ode 
passed  into  Assyrian  hands,  and  Sargon  carried 
from  it  to  the  treasury  of  Calah  11  talents  and 
30  manehs  of  gold  and  2100  talents  of  silver. 

In  B.C.  716  Sargon  was  called  on  to  meet  a  con- 
federacy of  the  northern  nations — Rusas  of  Ararat 
or  Van,  Mita  of  the  Moschi,  and  many  other  tribes, 
the  Minni,  Tubal,  Milid  (MaUatiyeh),  etc.  In  the 
course  of  the  campaign  he  marched  into  the  land 
of  the  Medes  towards  the  Caspian  Sea,  and  re- 
ceived tribute  from  eight  of  their  chiefs.  The 
following  year  the  country  of  the  Minni  was  over- 
run, the  Minnoean  chief  Daiukku  (Deiokes)  being 
transported  to  Hamath,  and  the  Bediwin  of  jS. 
Arabia  were  chastised.  In  714  the  Minni  submitted, 
and  the  army  of  Rusas  of  Ararat  was  annihilated. 
Rusas  himself  committed  suicide.  In  713  forty- 
five  Median  chiefs,  including  Arbaku  (Arb.aces), 
were  made  tributary,  as  well  as  the  kingdom  of 
EUipi  in  which  the  city  of  Ecbatana  was  after- 
wards built.  Tubal  and  Cilicia  also  submitted, 
and  in  712  Milid  was  captured  and  destroyed.  In 
711  a  vassal  prince  was  established  at  JIarqasi 
(Mer'a.sh),  the  capital  of  Gurgum  in  N.  Syria,  and 
the  turtannu  was  sent  against  P.alestine,  where  a 
rebellion  had  broken  out.  A  league  had  been 
formed  between  Merodach-baladan  and  the  princes 
of  the  West,  including  Hezekiah  of  Judah,  but, 
before  the  confederates  could  move,  Ashdod,  the 
centre  of  the  revolt,  was  taken  by  storm,  and 
Judah,  Moab,  and  Edom  paid  homage  to  the  con- 
queror. The  turn  of  Merodach-baladan  came  in 
710-709,  when  he  Was  driven  first  from  Babylonia 


SAEID 

and  then  from  his  ancestral  city,  Bit-Yakin  in  the 
marshes,  and  Sarj^on  was  crowned  at  Babj'lon. 
After  this  he  sent  a  statue  of  himself  to  the  vassal 
princes  of  Cyprus,  which  was  set  up  at  Idalion, 
and  is  now  in  the  Berlin  Museum.  Kunimukh,  or 
Coma<;cn^,  was  annexed  to  Assyria  in  708,  and 
a  war  was  commenced  with  the  Klamites  in  707. 
Sargon  had  alreaily  built  his  palace  of  Dur-Sargina 
(now  Kliorsahad,  but  called  Sar},'hfln  bv  the  Arabic 
>;eo^Taphers),  about  10  miles  N.  of  Jsineveh.  He 
was  murdered  B.C.  705.  A.  H.  Sayck. 

SARID  (ili?  ;  B  'E(Te!i(Kyu\i,  ZeSSovK  ;  A  ZapBlS, 
Za/iS  ;  Sarid). — A  border  town  of  Zebulun,  situated 
to  the  west  of  Chisloth-tabor  (IksAl,  Jos  19">-  '=). 
Eusebius  and  Jerome  (Onum.  s.  -apld,  Sarith)  do 
not  identify  it.  Conder,  following  the  reading 
ZleSSovK,  and  that  of  the  ancient  Syriac  version, 
'Asdod,'  reads  'Sadid,'  and  identifies  it  with 
2'ell  Sliadud,  an  artificial  mound  with  fine  sprinfjs, 
on  the  north  side  of  the  great  plain  of  Esdraelon, 
and  about  5  miles  to  the  westward  of  Iks&l  {PEF 
Mem.  ii.  43,  70).  C.  W.  WlLSON. 

SAROTHIE  (B  ■ZapuBel,  A  Sopuffii?),  1  Es  S".— His 
sons  are  named  among  the  sons  of  Solomon's  ser- 
vants who  returned  with  Zerubbabel.  There  is 
DO  corresponding  name  in  the  lists  of  Elzia  and 
Nehcmiab. 

SARSECHIM  (D-:rij;  ;  BAX  'Sa^ovaaxip,  Q  NajSou- 
capax,  Q""  ~apaaxel,ii  ;  Vulg.  Sarsacldm). — One  of 
the  princes  of  the  king  of  Babylon  who  wius  present 
at  tlie  taking  of  Jerusalem  by  Nebuchadnezzar  in 
tlie  nth  year  of  Zedekiah,  Jer  3'J  [Gr.  46],^.  Ho 
seems  to  have  borne  the  title  of  Rais-SARIS,  'chief 
of  the  heads  or  princes.'  There  is  much  doubt  as 
to  the  original  form  of  the  name,  and  its  meaning 
is,  therefore,  likewise  obscure.  Schrader  (COT  ii. 
p.  110)  merely  remarks  that  the  first  part  of  the 
name  is  quite  clear  (v='king'),  and  queries  the 
reading.  In  all  probability,  testimony  to  its  in- 
correctness is  to  be  found  in  the  fact  that  the 
vocalization  is  practically  the  same  as  that  of  the 
Hebrew  form  of  Sennacherib  (Sanherlb,  Sarsechim  ; 
cf.  Nimrod,  Nisroch,  etc.).  If  the  first  element, 
snr,  be  regarded  as  certain,  the  original  form  may 
have  been  Sar-iskun,  '  he  (the  god)  has  made  a 
king,'  that  is,  provided  a  successor  to  the  throne. 
In  this  ea.se  the  original  form  of  the  name  would 
have  been  ir?"'7,*  which  would  go  back  to  a  time 
when  no  vowels  whatever  were  written.t  In  the 
present  state  of  our  knowledge,  however,  all 
identifications  of  this  name  must  be  regarded  as 
tentative  and  unsatisfactory,  presenting,  as  they 
do,  several  ditfieulties,  and  oeing  unsupjiorted  by 
the  monuments.  The  Greek  fonns  beginning  with 
No/3oi>  are  probably  due  to  the  name  Samgar- 
neho,  which  precedes.  If,  however,  they  have  any 
authority — and  sometimes  the  Greek  forms  are 
the  more  correct  (cf.  NiSROCH) — that  of  Q  Noj3ou- 
aapdx  would  be  the  best  for  comparison,  as  it 
resembles  very  closely  the  Nahti-Sar-dhS-S^u,  '  Nebo 
is  his  brothers'  king,'  of  the  inscriptions  (Strass- 
niaier,  In.irhriftcn  run  Nahurhodonosor,  172,  23;  J 
2lli,  12.1;  and  elsewhere).  See  also  artt.  Nkroal- 
Sharezer  and  Samqak-neuo.     T.  G.  Pincues. 

•  [OyiV  would  also  be  likely. 

t  Ah  the  Gn-ek  form  Saraois  shows,  the  name  of  Sin-iarra- 
iikun  ('  .sin  ha»  made  a  kinjf '),  the  lost  king  of  As-nyria,  could  Ijo 
pn>nouiice<l  without  the  name  of  the  deity,  and  would  then  he 
the  same  as  the  Har-iskun  here  sufff]^e8ted,  at  the  same  time 
lurniHhiriK  an  ohjenlion,  for  any  one  hearing  snch  a  name  would 
prohablv  have  heeii  regarded  o--*  ctainiing  the  throne. 

I  A'aMlardli/ltu,  son  of  Dikia,  and  father  of  NahtL-mvitlilf- 
um,  fifth  witness  to  a  contract  dated  in  the  27th  year  of 
Neliurh»<iner.7jir. 

S  Sal'it-iaT-dhi'-hi,  son  of  A'inunnda,  son  of  Iddina-Fap- 
«i*(i/.  thini  witness  to  a  contr»ot  (Utcd  In  tba  80U>  yo»r  of 
Nsbucliadnezzar. 


sata:^ 


407 


SATAN  (Heb.  \9v,  Arab,  ^'iaj^,  Syr.    U^CD 

Greek  o-oroi-as  [but  in  2  Co  12^  Xariv,  x**»  A" 
D**  EKLP  etc.— yet  the  evidence  is  doubtful,  and 
the  reading  Zaravd  (genit.)  is  preferred  by  Lachm. 
Tisch.s  and  \VH  on  the  authority  of  N*  A*  BD* 
FG  Copt.  It.  Vulg.  Orig.  Iren.  Tert.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  reading  SaTdi/  was  preferred  by  Meyer, 
though  there  is  no  analogy  to  it  in  the  NT,  and  in 
the  LXX  only  in  1  K  11"  23^*,  and  Aq.  on  Job  1^]. 
More  frequently  (especially  in  the  Gospels)  the 
Heb.  proper  name  is  simplj'  rendered  by  o  5id;3oXos, 
'  the  accuser '  or  '  calumniator.'  In  Kev  12'"  o  /cari)- 
yup  is  the  equivalent  used). — The  name  and  con- 
ception of  Satan  belong  to  the  post-exilian  age  of 
Hebrew  development.  Probably  Zee  3'  is  the 
earliest  instance  of  its  appearance  in  our  Canonical 
literature.  On  the  other  hand,  the  roots  of  the 
conception  can  without  difficulty  be  traced  in  the 
writings  of  pre-exilian  and  exilian  times. 

i.  Prk-exilian  Period.— (1)  The  Serpent,  who 
tempts  Eve  and  lures  man  to  his  doom,  is  a  demon 
in  animal  shape,  analogous  to  the  Arabic  jinn 
which  frequently  resided  in  serpents.  See  art. 
Demon  and  also  Magic  (vol.  iii.  p.  208,  footnote  J). 

(2)  The  Babylonian  Ti&mat,  the  dragon-monster 
of  the  great  abyss,  with  whom  Marduk,  god  of 
light,  contended  (see  art.  Cosmogony),  corresponds 
to  the  Hebrew  Leviathan  or  Rahab  in  exilian  and 
post-exilian  literature  (cf.  also  Am  1)^),  with  whom 
Jehovah  entered  into  conflict  and  whom  He  de- 
stroyed.   See  artt.  Rahab  and  Sea  Monster. 

(3)  The  individual  subject  might  be  possessed 
by  an  '  evil  spirit  '(IS  16",  cf.  Jg  9^),  which  drives 
him  to  commit  acts  of  violence  in  opposition  to  the 
Divine  will.  In  1  S  16"  this  'evil  spirit'  is  placed 
in  opposition  to  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  which 
departed  from  Saul  upon  its  advent.  This  evil 
spirit,  which  '  distressed '  (ni'3)  the  king,  is  also 
spoken  of  as  '  from  Jehovah.'  Wellhansen  draws 
attention  to  the  curious  distinction  that,  whereas 
•"■  nn  is  the  good  spirit,  '"■  t\hq  nn  (or  c-S.x  *  nn)  is 
a  bad  spirit.  The  former  expression  connotes  a 
closer  community  of  mind  and  purpose  between 
the  Deity  and  His  emi.ssary.  Kor  tlie  present, 
however,  it  is  sufficient  to  take  note  that  evil, 
whether  it  be  misfortune  or  sin,  is  referred  to  a 
Divine  causality  in  accordance  ^vith  the  intense 
feeling  of  dependence  on  God  which  characterized 
the  ancient  Hebrew,  1  S  P  18'"  19'-'  26'-',  2  S  24', 
1  K  22^',  Jg  9^,  Is  6'«  63",  I's  51"  (Max  Lohr).  In 
the  interestinjj  parallel  Jj^  9^  the  evil  spirit  shows 
itself  as  a  spirit  of  discord  between  Abiinelech  ami 
the  Shechemites,  just  as  it  exhibited  itself  in  Saul's 
outbreaks  of  violent  jealousy  against  David.  It  is 
thus  somewhat  analogous  in  character  to  the 
Homeric  'Att;,  daughter  of  Zeus.  Cf.  art.  Maqic 
in  vol.  iii.  p.  208*. 

(4)  In  Micaiah's  vision  the  emissary  who  goes 
forth  to  execute  Jehovah's  behest  is  a  lying  spirit 
(^;5l^  nn)  in  the  mouth  of  the  prophets  who  lures 
Ahab  to  his  doom  (1  K  22-"-).  It  would  lead  us 
beycmd  the  limits  of  our  subject  if  wo  were  to 
discuss  the  OT  conceptions  of  Jehovah's  character 
involved  in  this  naive  portrayal  of  the  relation 
subsisting  between  God  and  tlie  lying  spirit.  On 
this  passage  Kittel's  remarks  may  be  studied  with 
advantage  in  his  commentary,  'I'his  narrative  in 
1  K  22'"*'  forms  an  almost  continuous  section 
following  on  ch.  20,  and  there  are  no  sulfieient 
grounds  for  separating  vv."'"  or  other  |)ortions 
from  the  narrative  as  later  additions  (as  Seliwally 
proiioses  in  ZATW,  1892,  p.  15911".;  cf.  Marti  in 
SK,  1892,  p.  230). 

(5)  Of    subsidiary  significance    is    the   dilfi(ult 
*  D'n^K  is  not  so  distinctive  a  name  for  the  Qod   of  th« 

Hebrews,  linoe  it  may  even  dedipute  heathen  deities. 


1C8 


SATAN 


SATAN 


section  Gn  6'"*,  in  which  supernatural  causes  are 
assij;ned  to  growing  human  corruption  in  the 
fleshly  union  of  angels  and  women  and  the  rise  of 
a  race  of  nephilim.  Holzinger  (Commentary  on 
Gen.  p.  67)  suggests  that  it  contains  a  fragment 
of  an  old  cosmogony  with  a  conllict  of  higlier  and 
lower  deities,  parallel  to  the  Babylonian.  Note  the 
intluence  of  the  tradition  on  the  Book  of  Enoch. 

W'e  have  suHicienlly  indicated  the  roots  of  the 
conception  of  Satan  «  hich  are  to  be  found  in  prc- 
exilian  and  to  a  certain  extent  in  exilian  literature. 
The  word  ]p;'  occurs  in  pre-exilian  literature  in  the 
sense  of  'opponent'  or  'adversary.'  It  is  thus 
applied  to  David  by  the  Philistines  (1  S  29'),  and 
to  Hadad  the  Edomite  whom  God  raised  up  as 
Solomon's  adversary  (IK  ll",  of.  a  like  use  in 
Mt  16--').  Thus  an  angel  may  fullil  this  function 
■with  "ood  intent  (Nu  22--^). 

ii.  PosT-ExiLiAN  (Old  Testament)  Period.— 
When  we  come  to  post-exilian  literature  we  find 
the  existence  of  a  Satan  who  is  a  supernatural 
adversary  of  man  in  an  essential  sense,  whose  set 
purpose  it  is  to  work  vital  injury  either  to  the 
individual  or  to  the  race.  The  growth  of  this  con- 
ception was  probably  due  to  the  unconscious  opera- 
tion of  two  tendencies.  (1)  As  the  conception  of 
God  became  freed  from  the  limitations  of  primitive 
nationalism  and  also  more  ethically  exalted,  and 
His  sovereignty  over  the  world  regarded  as  uni- 
versal and  transcendent,  there  gradually  arose 
an  inevitable  tendency  to  interpolate  mediating 
angelic  agencies  between  this  transcendent  Divine 
sovereign  and  the  world  of  which  He  was  Lord. 
(2)  By  an  unconscious  logical  process  an  attempt 
was  made  to  solve  the  ethical  problem  of  the 
presence  of  evil  in  the  world  on  the  one  hand  and 
of  Divine  righteousness  and  absolute  sovereignty 
on  the  otlier.  To  post-exilian  Judaism,  as  the 
Books  of  Psalms  and  Job  clearly  testify,  it  was  of 
supreme  moment  to  vindicate  the  ways  of  God  to 
Israel  in  the  presence  of  dire  calamity  and  perse- 
cution. Though  the  problem  of  the  ultimate  origin 
of  evil  i.s  not  even  discussed,  evU  is  ascribed  to 
Satan  the  opponent  of  man  and,  to  a  certain  ex- 
tent, of  God's  beneficent  purpose.  He  is  a  spirit 
who  takes  delight  in  man's  misfortune,  and  is 
even  permitted  by  God  to  work  bis  fell  designs 
though  they  be  contrary  to  the  Divine  intention. 
Thus  in  Zee  3^  Jehovah  is  angered  against  Satan 
because  the  latter  is  not  yet  satisfied  with  all  the 
misfortunes  that  have  befallen  Jerusalem,  but  de- 
mands further  punishment.  In  the  Book  of  Job 
the  righteous  suti'erer  is  made  the  victim  of  Satan's 
malicious  purpose.  We  even  find  ourselves  in- 
volved in  an  apparent  contradiction :  Satan  takes 
his  place  in  the  heavenly  court  among  the  other 
sons  of  God,  and  gives  an  account  of  his  acts,  and 
receives  his  commands  from  his  Divine  Lord.  But 
a  contrary  spirit  is  manifest  in  the  Divine  Sovereign 
and  in  His  malignant  angel.  The  former  desires 
to  see  Job's  righteous  character  vindicated ;  the 
latter  denies  its  genuineness,  and  desires  to  see  it 
subjected  to  a  strain  that  will  ^^Teck  it.  Here  the 
characteristic  traits  of  Satan's  character  are  clearly 
visible,  implied  in  his  name  and  illustrated  con- 
tinually in  subsequent  litorature  :  (a)  He  is  the 
accuser  (SidjSoXos)  and  also  (6)  the  tempter  (4  irtipd- 
fui')  that  seeks  to  entrap  piety  and  work  its  ruin. 
It  is  in  this  latter  rOle  that  he  meets  us  in  1  Ch 
21',  where  he  tempts  David,  whereas  in  the  pre- 
exilian  form  of  the  story  (2  S  24')  it  is  God  Himself 
who  submits  David  to  the  test.  We  have  here  an 
interesting  indication  that  in  the  time  when  the 
Books  of  Chronicles  were  written  (4lh  cent.  B.C.) 
the  personality  of  Satan  had  become  distinctly 
realized.  Whereas  in  the  earlier  post-exilian  writ- 
ings, Zechariah  and  Job,  the  def .  article  is  attached, 
the  form  '  Satan '  in  1  Ch  21'  is  anarthrous  (Smend). 


iii.  Later  Judaism. — The  evolution  of  the  Jew- 
ish conception  of  Satan  is  marked  by  an  ever- 
growing tendency  to  a  dualism,  which,  however, 
always  stops  short  of  being  absolute  throuf'h  the 
all  -  controlling  limitations  imposed  by  Hebrew 
monotheism.  The  tendency  undoubtedly  existed, 
and  was  probably  fostered  by  Persian  influence; 
for  in  Persian  religion  the  dualism  of  good  and 
evil  is  more  accentuated  than  in  any  other  ancient 
sj'stem.  The  extent  to  wiiich  Persian  ideas 
moulded  the  Book  of  Tobit  has  been  recently  made 
the  subject  of  an  interesting  study  by  J.  H. 
Moulton  (Expos.  Times,  March  1900).  This  writer 
confirms  tlie  doubts  expressed  by  the  author  of 
the  present  article  (see  Apollyon)  tliat  the  As- 
nioda'us  of  Tobit  (or  the  Ashniedai  of  the  Talmud) 
is  identical  with  the  ASsUma  Daeva  of  the  Bunda- 
hesh.  This  identity  is  confidently  asserted  by 
Holtzmann  (Neutest.  Theol.  i.  p.  53),  but  it  cannot 
be  accepted  without  stronger  evidence.*  His  main 
contention,  however,  that  Persian  iuiluence  largely 
aU'ected  Jewish  satanology,  we  hold  to  be  well 
founded.  Twelve  years  ago  Cheyne  contended  for 
a  like  influence  in  the  realm  of  Jewish  eschatology 
(Expos.  Times,  ii.  202,  22-t,  248 ;  Bampton  Lect.  p. 
3941}'.).     Cf.  Kohut,  J«(/.  ^n7ci.  p.  62f. 

The  demonology  of  the  Book  of  Enoch  is  de- 
velojied  with  remarkable  fulness,  and  presents 
striking  analogies  to  that  of  the  NT.  Charles,  in 
his  art.  APOCALYPTIC  LlTERATUEE  in  the  present 
work  (cf.  his  edition  of  the  Book  of  Enoch),  would 
pl.ace  the  dates  of  the  different  sections  between 
180  and  64  B.c.t  The  demons  proceeded,  according 
to  16',  from  the  giants,  who  were  the  offspring  of 
the  fallen  angels  wlio  lusted  after  the  daughters  of 
men.  These  demons  accomplish  man's  moral  ruin 
until  the  day  of  final  judgment  arrives.  Satan,  as 
in  the  NT,  is  represented  as  the  ruler  of  a  rival 
kingdom  of  evil,  which  is  nevertheless  subject  to 
the  'Lord  of  spirits'  (65").  We  read,  moreover, 
not  only  of  Satan,  but  also  of  Satan«  ;  and  it  should 
be  noted  that  in  the  Similitudes  the  Satans  and  the 
fallen  angels  are  carefully  distinguished.  The 
latter  fall  in  the  days  of  Jared  according  to  chs. 
1-36  and  91-104,  while  in  ch.  69,  where  a  catalogue 
of  names  is  given  (cf.  6'),  the  functions  of  the  two 
classes  are  confused  (Charles).  Jekfln  is  the  first 
chief  '  who  led  astray  all  the  children  of  the  angels 
and  brought  them  down  to  earth.'  The  names  of 
other  tempters  follow.  The  name  of  the  Satan 
who  led  Eve  astray  is  Gadreel  (69").  He  is  third 
in  the  hierarchy  described  in  §32'.  The  Satans 
are  first  mentioned  in  Enoch  40',  where  we  read 
that  Eanuel,  one  of  the  four  chief  angels,  wards 
oH'  the  Satans  and  forbids  them  to  appear  (as  Satan 
in  the  Book  of  Job)  in  the  presence  of  the  Lord  of 
spirits  to  accuse  the  dwellers  on  earth.  These 
Satans  belong  to  a  counter-kingdom  of  evil  ruled 
by  a  chief  called  Satan  (53^).  They  existed  as  evil 
powers  before  the  'Watchers' J  fell  by  corrupting 
themselves  with  the  daughters  of  men.  The 
four  chief  angels,  '  Michael,  Gabriel,  Rafael,  and 
Fanuel  will  take  hold  of  them  on  that  great  day 
[i.e.  Judgment  Day]  and  cast  them  into  a  burning 
furnace,  that  the  Lord  of  spirits  may  take  venge- 
ance on  them  for  their  unrighteousness  in  becoming 
subject  to  Satan  and  leading  astray  those  who 
dwell  on  the  earth '  (54»).  These  Satans,  accord- 
ing to  40'',  have  the  means  of  access  to  heaven, 
which  the  'watchers'  or  other  fallen  angels  did 
not  possess  (13'  14°).  They  have  a  threefold  func- 
tion :  they  tempt  to  evil  (69*- "),  they  accuse  tha 

•This  U  »!so  the  view  of  Baudissln  In  PRE*  rub  com 
•Aamodi.' 

t  li.'ildensperger  (Selbstbewusttsein  Jetu*.  pp.  12-19)  would 
place  the  dates  considerably  later.  So  also  Schurer;  cf.  hi< 
Ol'/Siii.  pp.  195,  19»-201. 

:  Cf.  tlic  iyfiytpti  of  Dn  410 ;  ct  al*o  Book  of  JulnUtt  taa 
Testammta  o/the  XII  Patriarchs. 


SATAN 


SATAN 


409 


Inhabitants  of  earth  (40^),  and  they  punish  the  con- 
deinneii.  In  this  last  character  they  are  called 
'  anfitla  of  punishment '  (53^  56»  62"  63M  (Charles). 

Tills  multiform  activity  in  the  kingdom  of  evil, 
expressed  in  multiplied  personalities,  is  a  marked 
feature  of  the  Book  of  Knoch  ;  and,  viewed  from 
this  aspect,  there  is  a  close  resemblance  between 
the  demonolo^'V  of  the  liook  of  Enoch  and  that  of 
the  later  Judaism  expressed  in  the  treatises  of  the 
Talmud,  to  which  attention  will  presently  be 
called. 

In  the  Apocrypha,  apart  from  the  Book  of  Tobit, 
the  references  to  Satan,  though  signilicant,  are 
not  numerous.  As  in  the  Book  of  Knoch,  we  are 
in  the  presence  of  a  kingdom  of  demons.  Satan, 
accordmg  to  the  Book  o/'  Slrach,  so  takes  posses- 
sion of  the  ungodly  man  s  soul  that  when  he  curses 
Satan  he  may  be  said  to  curse  himself  (Sir  21"). 
In  the  Book  of  Wisdom  (2")  we  see  that  Satan  and 
the  Serpent  of  Gn  3  are  more  or  less  identified. 
Death  entered  into  the  world  through  the  envy  of 
the  devil  This  identilication  of  the  Serpent  and 
Satan  is  the  ever-recurring  featvire  of  Judaism  and 
Christianity  alike.  In  the  Book  of  Barttch.  {i''- ") 
the  deities  of  the  heathen  are  called  demons  (cf. 
Dt  32",  Ps  106"),  and  Israel  sutfers  punishment 
for  sacrilicing  to  them  (cf.  Kv  9-") ;  but  of  Satan 
there  is  no  express  mention.  In  the  Book  of  2'obit, 
Asmodi  (Asmod.Tus)  may  be  regarded  as  the 
equivalent  of  Satan  in  being  the  chief  personi- 
fication of  evil.  This  demon  is  conjured  by  the 
magical  jirescription  described  in  ch.  6,  viz.  burn- 
ing the  heart  and  liver  of  a  fish  with  the  ashes  of 
incense.  In  its  deraonology  this  book  stands  apart 
from  the  other  books  of  the  Apocrypha,  but  in  its 
ascription  of  lustful  qualities  to  Asmochcus  we  find 
a  close  parallel  to  later  Jewish  conceptions.  In 
the  Psalms  of  Holomon  we  have  only  a  slight  refer- 
ence to  the  supernatural  agency  of  evil.  Ryle 
and  James  have  noted  the  simplicity  of  the  reli- 
gious ideas  of  this  book.  There  is  only  one  clear 
allusion  to  angelology  (17^).  In  4'  the  prosperous 
man  is  compared  to  'a  serpent  speaking  with  the 
words  of  transgressors  words  of  deceit  to  pervert 
wisdom.'  Here  Gn  3  is  evidently  in  the  mind  of 
the  I'salmist.  In  PAi/o  J'urfeEM*  demons  and  Satan 
fall  into  the  background  and  disappear.  His 
attitude  is  exhibited  in  his  Treatise  on  Giants, 
c.  4,  where  his  rationalizing  tendency  is  manifest. 
Note  his  treatment  of  F»  77''°  LXX.  The  sources 
of  evil  are  found  in  the  liesh  and  its  passions,  in 
self-love  and  ignorance,  rather  than  in  sujiernatural 
personalities  (see  Drummond,  vol.  ii.  jip.  297-305). 

.Some  reference  may  hero  be  made  to  the  inter- 
esting Book  of  the  Secrets  of  Enurh  recently 
bro\i;;ht  to  light  in  its  Slavonic  form  by  Mr. 
Mortill.  It  has  been  supposed  that  it  was  origin- 
ally composed  about  the  beginning  of  the  Christian 
era.  Here  again  we  note  the  identification  of 
Satan  with  the  Serpent  in  Gn  3.  We  read  in  SI'"- 
'  The  devil  took  thought  as  if  wishing  to  make 
another  world  because  things  were  subservient  to 
Adam  on  earth  .  .  .  He  became  Satan  after  he 
left  the  heavens.  His  name  waa  formerly  Satanail. 
He  conceived  designs  against  Adam  in  such  a 
manner  that  he  entered  and  deceived  Eve.  But 
he  did  not  touch  Adam.'  29'"'-  graphically  por- 
trays how  Satanail  was  burled  from  the  heights 
with  his  angels  on  the  third  day  of  creation  :  '  One 
of  those  in  the  ranks  of  the  archangel.^  having 
turned  away  with  the  rank  below  him,  entertained 
an  impossible  idea  that  he  should  make  his  throne 
higher  than  the  clouds  over  the  earth,  and  should 
be  equal  in  rank  to  My  power.  And  I  hurled  him 
from  the  heights  witii  his  angels.  And  he  was 
flying  in  the  air  continually  above  the  abyss.' 
Hero  we  have  one  of  the  ultimate  sonrces  of 
Milton's  conception  of  Satan's  revolt. 


The  Jewish  ideas  reflected  in  the  Targums  and 
Midrash  present  a  close  resemblance  to  those  just 
described.  The  identification  of  the  Serpent  with 
Satan  was  expressed  in  Jewish  theological  writers 
by  the  name  bestowed  on  the  latter,  pc^isn  pnj. 
Ihus  in  iiifre  138A  the  heathen  are  called  the 
disciples  of  'linp?  c'Oi  who  seduced  Adam  and  Eve. 
In  Bcreshith  29  we  find  the  tradition  that  Sammael, 
the  highest  angel  that  stands  before  God's  throne, 
caused  the  Serpent  to  seduce  the  woman.  Thus 
Satan  and  Sammael  coalesce  into  one  personality. 
Sammael,  according  to  Dettt.  Rabba  11,  is  the 
angel,  the  wicked  one,  chief  of  all  Satans.  Here 
again  we  observe  the  same  divided  personalities 
as  in  the  Book  of  Enoch,  and  Satan  appears  to  be 
a  personified  generalization.  There  is  an  arch- 
Satan  called  Sammael,  and  there  are  Satans  who 
are  subordinate  to  him,  just  as  the  angels  who 
are  subject  to  God  as  His  attendant  ministers. 
According  to  Targ.  Jems.  I.  on  Gn  3"  Eve  saw,  at 
the  moment  when  the  Serpent  addressed  her,  Sam- 
mael, '  angel  of  death,'  and  became  afraid.  Envy 
is  made  the  motive  to  man's  temptation.  Accord- 
ing to  Sanhedrin  59,  the  Serpent  was  jealous  of  the 
services  rendered  to  man  by  the  angels.  In  Sota 
9a  and  Bcresh.  Babba  18,  the  temptation  is 
ascribed  to  the  motive  of  lustful  jealousy.  lb. 
24  relates  the  curious  legend  that  demons  held 
intercourse  with  Adam  and  Eve  during  the  first 
130  years  after  the  Fall,  and  other  demons  {a^'a, 
I'V^.  i'T'i,  and  ninn)  were  the  product  of  the  union. 
Bereshith  42  ascribes  the  birth  of  Cain  to  the  union 
of  Satan  with  Eve  (Weber). 

Freedom  of  will  is  ascribed  in  the  Talmud  to 
man  even  after  the  F'all.  He  can  therefore  choose 
either  good  or  evil.  The  evil  impulse  in  man  is 
designated  by  the  term  j,"!?  i)".  which  works  within 
him  like  a  leaven  (Berakh.  17a).  Satan  accom- 
plishes his  fell  purpose  by  the  instrumentality  of 
the  W}  "ly;  (Bammidbar  rabba  20,  Baba  bathra 
I5a).  Moreover,  Satan  is  not  only  tempter,  but 
also  accuser,  of  whom  the  individual  is  continually 
in  dread,  since  he  never  knows  what  is  his  stand- 
ing before  God,  whether  he  is  justified  in  His 
sight,  or  liable  to  condemnation  through  Satan's 
accusations.  A  similar  conception  underlies  1  Ti 
3'-'  and  Rev  12'". — Targums  frequently  foist  Satan 
into  the  OT  narrative,  e.g.  Targ.  Jon.  on  Ex  32" 
(Lv  9').  Eisenmenger,  Ent.  J\ul.  i.  p.  840,  quotes 
rabbinic  passages  in  which  the  angel  who  wrestled 
with  Jacob  is  identified  with  Sammael.  Similarly 
Belial  (Beliar),  according  to  Ascensiu  Jesaim,  enters 
into  Manasseh  and  accomplishes  the  martyrdom  of 
the  prophet. 

iv.  New  Testament  ideas  respecting  Satan. 
—These  follow  the  broad  outlines  of  contemporary 
Judaism,  but  are  without  its  grosser  and  more 
extravagant  elements,  and  are  generally  char- 
acterized by  simplicity.  The  epithets  bestowed 
on  Satan  are  various.  He  is  apparently  identified 
with  Beelzebub  *  (Beelzebul)  in  Mt  12^- ",  cf.  10» ; 

*  Instead  of  Bii*ti5«iii  the  better  attested  form  In  Mt  10* 
1234. 27,  Ilk  ■i'!:i,  Lk  lll»- 1«  is  \UiW'<->-  (sustained  by  B  «nd 
partly  by  N  ;  see  WH).  The  latter  is  obviously  a  corruption  of 
the  foniier,  and  the  fonner  (BiiAji^aiiX)  arnso  out  of  the  OT 
fomi  o^iopled  by  Jerome  and  Aramaized,  IleelzfOub.  How  did 
Bitxlti^ciK  iirise?  About  this  we  have  three  theories — (11 
olxc^iir^cTyt<  in  .Mt  10*-^  is  held  to  bo  a  reiulerinff  based  on  the 
Aramaic  Sinj^y^.  Tliifl  may  be  true  in  reference  to  ^i|^,  but 
that  S^f  means  '  house,*  *  dwellintj,'  is  doubtful.  In  1  K  813  the 
readin);  is  uncertain;  cf.  LX.\  and  Wcllh.  in  lileek's  /i'l'n- 
leitung*.  p.  2:)0.  See  also  Nownck  on  Hob  3".  (2)  S317j;3 
is  ref^anled  as  a  purjiosed  variation  with  a  contemptuous 
meaning,  'lord  of  nith.'  Su't  (  =  '7}1  Syr.  ZfM6)  meant  tteretu. 
Chevne  in  Kncycl.  liibl.  ar^^ucs  that  super«titiou8  Jews  would 
hardly  use  such  an  opprobrious  epithet  ajjainst  the  prince  of  the 
demons.  Moreover,  such  a  mode  of  pronouncing  the  name  is 
not  found  anywhere  but  in  the  NT.  (3)  More  probable  is  the 
view  of  Bauaissin  (art.  'Beelzebub'  In  Piitl^)  that  we  have  a 
change  of  flnal  consonant  in  popular  pronunciation  parallel  tc 


410 


SATAN 


SATAN 


but  this  is  doubted  by  Weiss  {Bib.  Tlienl.  of  NT, 
i.  p.  103,  footnote).  He  is  usually  called  6id;3oXos 
(a  literal  rendering  of  the  Hebrew  name)  ;  some- 
times 6  Toi'Tipis,  Mt  13"-  ^,  2  Th  3',  and  perhaps  in 
the  Lord's  Prayer ;  6<pis  apxaio;.  Rev  12'  20-  ;  i 
ixBpds,  Mt  13'^  ;  6  toC  Kbuiiov  flpx"".  Jn  '-l™  etc.  ; 
[6]  dpx*****  ^wt*  5cLiiiovltt3V,  Mt  12^  ;  6  dpxw*'  t^s  i^ovtriai 
ToD  aipo^,  Eph  2-. 

(a)  TAe  Synoptic  tradition. — Jesus  felt  Himself 
in  the  presence  of  demons  belonging  to  a  king- 
dom of  evil  ruled  over  by  a  supreme  \>er- 
sonality,  Satan  or  Beelzebub.  These  personal 
agencies  work  every  form  of  physical  and  moral 
calamity.  They  recognize,  however,  the  might 
of  Jesus  the  ^lessiah  gifted  with  the  power 
of  God  to  destroy  the  works  of  Satan  and  all 
his  personal  subordinates  (Mk  l"-  '^  3"-  '-•  '»• 
=*■"  6',  Lk  lO''-^"  11"-'"  13^=).  Jesus  on  H=»  side 
fully  recognizes  the  existence  and  power  of  the 
kingdom  of  Satan,  which  resists  the  establishment 
of  the  kingdom  of  God  (Mt  12=«,  Mk  S--").  In  the 
narrative  of  the  Temptation  tlie  world  is  regarded 
as  ruled  by  Satan  (cf.  Jn  \V) ;  but  in  the  Luke 
tradition  (4«  C"'  «i»"»)),  Satan,  on  the  other  hand, 
confesses  that  his  authority  is  not  original  and 
fundamental,  but  is  derived  (ip-ol  TapaSiSorai)  ;  and 
this  power  he  is  willing  to  transfer  to  Jesus  upon 
condition  of  His  allegiance.  The  narrative  illus- 
trates the  character  of  cunning  that  belongs  to 
Satan  as  the  tempter  of  mankind  (Gn  3'),  for  he 
quotes  Ps  91"-  '^  for  his  own  purposes  (Mt  4"),  and 
applies  the  words  to  the  Messiah.  Against  this 
subtle  deceit  Jesus  warns  His  disciples.  Satan  is 
eager  to  sift  Simon  as  wheat  (Lk  22^'),  and  enters, 
like  a  demon,  into  Judas  (v.^). 

The  prevailing  belief  that  physical  maladies 
were  due  to  the  direct  agency  of  evil  spirits  (see 
Demon)  was  recognized  by  Christ.  This  demonic 
power  that  works  physical  havoc  is  under  the  su- 
preme control  of  Satan,  and  is  ascribed  to  him  in 
the  case  of  the  afflicted  woman  (Lk  13'^).  In  the 
expulsion  of  demons  by  His  disciples  Christ  sees 
the  overthrow  of  Satan's  power  (Lk  10^*,  in  which 
utterance  our  Lord  recurs  to  the  well-known 
passage  in  Is  14'-'-).  Accordingly  the  dualistic 
tendency,  to  which  we  have  before  adverted,  is 
detinitely  limited  by  the  absolute  nature  of  God's 
righteous  rule,  whereby  a  definite  term  is  set  to 
Satan's  sway.  Meanwhile  the  anarchy  which 
prevails  works  its  baleful  effects  in  the  rival  king- 
dom which  Satan  sets  up  as  a  qunsi-god  of  this 
world  (cf.  2  Co  4").  This  evil  is  intellectual  and 
moral  as  well  as  physical.  The  devil  takes  the 
seed  of  the  Bivine  word  out  of  the  heart  of  man 
(Mk  4",  Mt  13"*-3»)  and  plants  the  spurious  wheat 
(darnel,  fifdna).  In  other  words,  to  borrow  Pauline 
phraseology,  he  shows  his  craft  by  beclouding 
the  understanding,  '  blinding  the  thoughts  of  the 
unbelieving,  so  that  they  are  unable  to  behold  the 
gospel  light  of  Christ's  glory '  (2  Co  4*). 

{h)  Pauline  tear/iing. — This  stands  in  perfect 
continuity  with  that  of  Jesus  reflected  in  the 
Synoptic  tradition.  We  are  still  in  the  presence  of 
many  of  the  ideas  that  prevailed  in  contemporary 
Judaism,  viz.  of  the  Book  of  Enoch  in  the  more 
remote  past ;  of  the  Book  of  Wisdom,  the  Testa- 
ments of  the  XII  Patriarchs,  and  of  the  Book  of 
Jubilees  in  the  age  that  immediately  preceded  the 
time  when  St.  Paul  wrote ;  of  the  Assumption  of 
Moses  coeval  with  the  time  of  his  literary  activity 
and  of  the  Apocalypse  of  Bartich,  which  immedi- 
ately followed  it.  The  apostle's  conceptions  re- 
specting angelology  and  denionology   have   been 

others,  e.g.  B&b  el  Maodel  (for  Mandeb). — The  theory  supported 
jy  Riehm  is  t^rtainly  worthy  of  consideration,  that  Beelzebub 
■o  the  time  of  Christ  was  understood  aa  H^^"^  hy^  *  lord  of 
.nmity'  — 3j«j3«Am  ;  see  Brockelmann's  Lex,  Syr.  tub  voce,  and 
•A.  Awyr.  Mi  doMM.    Of.  art.  Baalzkbub. 


carefully  examined  by  Everling  in  a  s\iecia] 
treatise,  and  abundantly  illustrated  from  the  litera 
tuie  just  mentioned. 

In  the  writings  of  St.  Paul  we  are  confronted  by 
an  array  of  supernatural  agencies  which  are  not 
all  definitely  evil  or  good,  but  some  of  which 
stand  in  relative  opposition  to  God  (Ritschl, 
Bcchtfert.  u.  Vers.^  ii.  p.  251,  quoted  by  Everling). 
In  Ro  8^,  1  Co  15-*  we  find  them  designated  by 
the  names  apxai,  4^ovjlai,  and  owdjufis.  Here  the 
dpxai  are  perhaps  to  be  identified  with  the  ipxa'Tci 
Tov  diuipoi  rovTov oi  1  Co 2^.*  Tliegodsof  the  heathen 
are  not  absolutely  non-existent  (see  Demon),  but 
have  a  subordinate  potency  in  heathen  sacra  as 
deal  Kal  Kvpioi  (1  Co  S*"",  cf.  12'-).  These  super- 
natural '  rulers  of  this  world '  have  a  certain 
wisdom  of  their  own  (1  Co  2°- *),  to  which  the 
eternal  wisdom  revealed  by  God's  Spirit  to  siniple- 
ininded  faith  appears  to  be  folly.  Such  wisdom 
will  be  brought  to  nought  (cf.  2  Co  10').  To  the 
Kuptoi  Kai  Oeoi  correspond  the  aroix^la  tov  K6(Tfjiov, 
which  may  be  considered  to  be  an  abstraction  t 
standing  in  place  of  the  personal  concrete  names 
(cf.  dpxo.1,  iiovaiai,  Spoyoi,  and  KvpiirrjTet),  or,  a» 
SpittaJ  would  interpret  the  phrase,  the  aroixfta 
represent  the  sphere  of  their  personal  activity. 
These  are  the  KO(T/j.oKpdTop(s  of  the  dark  spiritual 
world  against  which  the  Christian  is  to  arm  him- 
self (Eph  6'-) ;  over  which  Jesus  triumphed  in  the 
Cross  (Col  2=»,  see  Lightfoot). 

Over  all  this  world  of  evU  energy  Satan  reigns, 
and  all  its  collective  power  for  evil  is  gathered  up 
in  his  personality.     He  is  the  tempter  (6  Treipdiuv, 

1  Th  3^  1  Co  7= ;  cf.  Mt  i^'^  and  parallels).  Bodily 
diseases  are  ascribed  to  him  just  as  in  Lk  13"". 
Indeed,  in  one  remarkable  passage,  1  Co  5*- ',  we 
even  see  Satan  utilized  for  the  advantage  of  the 
individual  and  the  Church.  The  offender  in  a 
solemn  Church  assembly  is  to  be  delivered  over  to 
Satan  for  the  destruction  of  the  flesh,  in  order  that 
the  spirit  of  the  sinner  may  be  saved  in  the  day 
of  the  Lord's  appearing.  Satan,  as  the  inflicter 
of  physical  malady,  is  apparently  identified  with 
the  destroyer.  Ex  12=^  (LXX  A  dXeepevuv,  see  APOL- 
LYON),  Nu  16'i»-,  to  which  1  Co  lO'"  evidently 
alludes.      Compare  also  the  destroying  angel  of 

2  S  24",  2  K  19^,  and  also  Wis  IS-'.  According 
to  Wis  2-*  death  entered  into  the  world  througli 
the  devU,  an  idea  which  is  closely  related  to  the 
conception  which  prevails  all  through  biblical 
literature,  that  long  life  is  the  reward  of  the 
righteous  (Ex  20"  etc.),  while  the  wicked  are  cut 
ofl'  and  their  lamp  (of  life)  put  out.  Thus,  accord- 
ing to  St.  Paul's  own  belief,  surrender  to  Satan 
brought  death  as  its  ultimate  consequence  (1  Co  5', 
2  Co  2") ;  while  in  Jn  8"  Satan  is  dvdpuTroKTbvos  dv 
dpxni  (cf.  Gn  3").  This  power  Jesus  destroyed  by 
death  (He  2"). 

St.  Paul  ascribed  his  own  physical  maladies  to 
Satan's  agency.  '  The  stake  (<7k6\o\I/)  in  the  flesh ' 
he  calls  '  Satan's  messenger '  (2  Co  12').  The 
phrase  iv  daOeveltf  in  v.*  followed  by  if  dfrSevdcui 
clearly  points  to  some  bodily  aflliction,  probably 
chronic  fever  (see  Ramsay,  Expositor,  July  1899, 
pp.  20-23).  Here  again  Satan  is  made  subordinate 
to  God's  purposes  of  grace,  and  becomes  a  servant 
of  moral  discipline  which  St.  Paul  was  strengthened 
to  bear,  though  he  prayed  frequently  to  be  delivered 
from  it.  With  this  passage  and  1  Co  6*- '  cf. 
1  Ti  P». 

The  apostle,  like  his  contemporaries,  did  not 
think  of  the  demons  as  inhabitmg  subterranean 
regions  (as  the  Arabs  and  ancient  Babylonians 

*  Helnrid  doubts  this,  and  would  prefer  to  Identify  th« 
Stpx^iTK  here  with  those  of  Ac  1337. 

t  Identified  with  tl  xerii^xfinfit  in  Teit.  Saiam.;  sea  Ever 
ling,  p.  70. 

J  Der  ZuKiU  Britf  det  Petnu,  eto.  p.  S7a 


SATAN 


SATAX 


41i 


did).  The  angels  of  God  had  their  residence  in 
the  higher  regions  of  the  heavens  ;  and  even  Satan 
and  liis  retinue  dwelt,  not  beneath  the  earth 
(their  tinal  destination  after  the  last  judgment), 
but  in  the  lower  atmospheric  realm.  Thus  in 
Eph  2-  .Satan  is  called  6  dpx""  '"^5  iiowriat  toO 
aipoi.  Cf.  Eph  6"  '  the  wicked  host  of  spirits  4y 
Toil  iTTovpanioii.'  An  interesting  j>arallel  may  be 
found  in  the  Textitincnts  of  the  X II  Patr.,  Levi  3, 
where  it  is  stated  that '  he  who  fears  God  and  loves 
hiK  neighbours  cannot  be  smitten  by  the  spirit  of  the 
air  (rot'  aepiou  in-ei/^aros),  Beliar.'  Other  interesting 
illustrations  may  be  found  in  Everling's  treatise, 
p.  1U7  tl'.  The  most  signilitant  is  from  Asceivsion 
of  Isaiah  W  (ed.  Charles,  pj).  'i,  132),  in  which 
we  Teail  that  Jesus  descends  through  all  the  seven 
heavens,  assuming  at  each  stage  tlie  form  of  the 
angels  which  inliabit  that  special  region.  At 
length  He  comes  to  the  lirraanient  where  dwells 
the  '  prince  of  this  world'  (cf.  7*  11^). 

Beliar,  *  the  variant  of  the  name  Belial  (see 
Belial),  is  apjiarently  identihed  by  St.  Paul  in 
2  Co  6"  with  .Satan  ;  but  about  this  question  of 
identitication  we  have  the  greatest  divergence  in 
the  Jewish  and  early  Christian  tradition.  The 
subject  is  discussed  in  Bousset's  learned  mono- 
graph, Der  AntUhrist,  part  II.  ch.  iv.,  Anhang  i. 
(p.  iii)  fl'.).  Belial  seems  identical  with  the  'Man 
of  Sin '  in  2  Th  2"  (see  M.AN  OF  Sl\). 

St.  I'aul  follows  the  Jewish  tradition  in  identify- 
ing Satan  with  the  serpent  which  tempted  Eve. 
This  clearly  underlies  Ro  16-'"  '  The  God  of  peace 
shall  bruise  Satan  under  j'our  feet,'  obviously 
based  on  On  3"  (cf.  1  Ti  2"\  Kev  12'  20-).  This  view 
is  again  apparent  in  2  Co  11--',  where  the  apostle 
speaks  of  himself  as  though  he  were  Christ's  o  .vn 
irapavviiipio'i  (K.-sficJ),  to  guard  the  chastity  of  the 
Church  from  the  devil's  wiles  of  seduction  (on  the 
image,  cf.  Jn  S'"),  whereby  Satan  even  transforms 
himself  into  an  angel  of  light  (v."). 

(<•)  The  Book  of  Revelation  obviously  stands 
apart  from  the  rest  of  the  New  Testament  by 
reason  of  its  strongly-marked  Apocalyptic  char- 
acter. Into  the  recent  controversies  respecting 
its  original  form,  suggested  by  the  ingenious 
theory  of  Vischer  (supported  by  Harnack's  autho- 
rity), this  is  not  the  place  to  enter.  In  the  Book 
of  Kevelation  we  enter  a  transcendental  region 
where  the  world-drama  is  enacted  before  us  in  a 
scries  of  scenes  of  conflict  between  superhuman 
personalities.  It  is  a  xiXf^oj  iv  oipavtii  between 
tjod  with  His  angels  of  light,  and  Satan  or  the 
dragon,  the  'old  serpent,'  the  deceiver  of  the 
whole  world  (12"),  with  liis  hosts  of  darkness. 
Chapter  12  has  been  the  subject  of  much  dis- 
cussion since  Gunkel  wrote  his  stimulating  treatise, 
Scluipfung  u.  C'A/t'/.»  (pp.  171-398).  At  the  founda- 
tion of  the  story  he  sees  Babylonian  legend  thinlj 
veiled.  The  dragon  is  Tifimat,  the  woman  is 
Damkina,  the  mother  of  Murduk  (here  expressed 
by  Christ).  This  primitive  Habylonian  myth  was 
worke<l  im  into  Jewish  ajjocalyptic,  Chaos  or  the 
Dragon  CTiimat)  being  interpreted  as  Kome,  and 
the  entire  legend  transferred  to  the  end  of  the 
world.  But  such  a  theory  raises  certain  dilticulties, 
though  some  appear  to  be  solved.  Bous.set  (Anti- 
christ, Anhan<^,  p.  16'J)  is  by  no  means  disposed  to 
agree  to  the  dictum  that  no  essential  trait  in  the 
narrative  is  of  Christian  origin.  After  the  last 
great  overthrow  of  the  Bea-st  and  the  kings  of  the 
earth  (Kev  19),  Satan  is  imjirisoned  in  the  bottom- 
less pit  a  thousand  years  (20").  After  this  he  is 
loos^  and  deceives  the  nations,  but  at  length  ia 

•  In  Ak,  It,  O  he  appears  oa  Beliar,  and  in  7*  as  SammoeU 
Oe«.  Tha.  1.  210  notes  the  rendering  of  Belial  (Beliar)  by  domimu 
Qiru  in  Svriao  lexicOffmpherB.  Sense  as  well  oa  sound  f«v 
corresponds  to  the  ending)  contribut«d  to  this  translation, 
which  stxords  with  tradition  respecting  Beliar's  realm. 


finally  cast  into  the  lake  of  fire  and  brimstone 
where  the  beast  and  false  prophet  are  (20'",  cf. 
Enoch  54'- «,  2  P  V). 

(d)  In  St.  John's  Goxpel  ari'l  Epistles  such  legend- 
ary features  disappear.  We  move  in  a  serener, 
clearer  atmosphere  of  sharply-marked  antitheses. 
Satan  and  Christ  are  mutually  opjiosed.  Satan 
cannot  touch  hiiu  who  is  born  of  God  and  siuueth 
not  (1  Jn  5'*).  The  devil  is  the  ruler  of  this 
world,  and  has  nothing  in  Christ  (Jn  14™  16",  cf. 
12").  Sin  enslaves  through  the  power  of  the 
devil  (S**) ;  and  this  bondage  is  estaulislied,  as  St. 
John  and  St.  Paul  alike  taught,  through  the  tlesh, 
which  is  the  organic  point  of  human  attachment 
to  the  Kia/ios.  Satan  sinned  from  the  be":inning 
(I  Jn  3"),  and  was  the  cause  of  death  (Jn  8"). 
Falsehood  is  his  special  realm  (8").  Jesus  stands 
outside  the  world  that  is  ruled  by  him  (8^  11'*- '"), 
and  gradually  ^vins  individuals  from  him  into  the 
kingdom  of  God.  First,  Christ's  own  discijiles  are 
rescued  from  Satan's  worldly  dominion  (15'"  I7'-'  '^). 
One  only  lias  abandoned  himself  to  the  devil  to 
his  own  ruin  (G"").  The  world  is  at  present  in 
hostility  to  Jesus  and  His  disciples  (I4".i».22 
I518. 11.  J68  179^  1  Jn  2">-"  etc.),  but  we  are  as.sured 
of  Christ's  final  conquest  of  the  world  iJn  16",  cf. 
1721.83)  YoT  the  Son  of  God  was  manifested  for 
the  express  purpose  of  destroying  the  works  of  the 
devil  (1  Jn  3').  This  is  in  harmony  with  Christ's 
own  teaching  respecting  Satan's  overthrow  re- 
ported in  Lk  iO"*.  In  Jn  16"  the  judgment  and 
condemnation  of  the  devil  are  regarded,  according 
to  the  tense  usage  which  frequently  occurs  in  the 
NT,  as  already  finally  accomplished  {niKpiTai,  cf. 
12").  See  the  eloquent  remarks  on  this  passage 
in  the  Pulpit  Commentary  by  the  late  Dr.  H.  K. 
Reynolds. 

V.  General  Conclusions. — From  the  preceding 
exposition  of  the  biblical  conceiitions  respecting 
Satan  we  clearly  see  that  early  Christianity  shared 
in  the  prevailing  Jewish  belief  in  demons  and  Satan. 
The  attempt  has  been  made  by  Beyschlag  to  deny 
the  inference  to  which  the  Synoptic  narratives 
lead  us,  that  Jesus  accepted  the  belief  in  a  jicr- 
sonal  Satan.  And  with  the  elimination  of  a  per- 
sonal Satan  he  would  also  erase  a  belief  in  demons 
and  angels  from  the  inner  consciousness  of  Christ. 
'  It  is  certain  that  .lesus  did  not  recognize  as  jier- 
sonal  deWls  the  demons  in  whom  the  popular 
Jewish  belief  saw  personal  angels  of  Satan.'  '  The 
form  of  the  representation  is  undoubtedly  personi- 
fying, but  all  the  pas.sages  are  poetic  in  style.'  If 
lantjuage  is  to  be  manipulated  in  this  fashion,  it 
is  diflicult  to  see  why  Christ's  belief  in  a  personal 
God  may  not  be  eliminated  also,  or  why  such  a 
process  of  evaporation  might  not  be  successfullj' 
ap|died  to  all  contemporary  literature.  Jesus 
used  parabolic  language,  and  His  discourses  are 
steeped  in  similitudes  ;  out  when  He  used  a  symbol, 
it  was  understood  to  be  such,  or,  if  not  at  once  so 
understood,  its  actual  meaning  was  nearly  always 
di.sclosed  (Jn  3'-«  4"'-'»- »"•"•'  6'>"- »  11'"-,  but  in  2'» 
the  enigma  was  solved  by  the  close  of  His  earthly 
career).  But  to  suppose  that  Jesus  persistently 
and  consistently  used  the  ordinary  language  of 
angelology  and  deinonology,  and  even  acted  in 
accordance  with  it,  and  yet  all  the  time  held  in 
secret  opinions  totally  at  variance  with  those 
of  all  His  fellow-countrymen,  and  never  revealed 
them  by  a  single  hint, — surely  this  is  to  invalidate 
Christ's  claims  to  candour.  'Vet  there  is  not  a 
particle  of  evidence  adduced  by  Rcj-schlag  to  sup- 
port his  monstrous  contention  that  Jesus  did  not 
mean  by  the  words  Satan,  demon,  and  angel,  what 
His  contemporaries  meant  and  understood  Him  to 
mean.  See  Beyschlag,  NT  Tlicol.  vol.  i.  pp.  93- 
95. 

Our  argument  by  no  means  implies  that  Jesni 


412 


SATAN 


SAUL 


sbated  in  all  the  current  conceptions  respecting 
demons.  The  problem,  as  we  liave  already  indi- 
cated, is  a  complex  one.  We  liave  to  give  due  place 
to  two  considerations  :  (1)  that  Christ's  sa3'ings  and 
deeds  are  necessarily  coloured  by  the  representative 
human  media  through  which  they  are  conveyed  to 
us  ;  (2)  that  the  demonology  of  Christ's  belief  is 
scarcely  visible  in  the  Fourth  Gospel,  though  His 
belief  in  a  personal  Satan  is  clearly  apparent. 
There  can,  however,  be  no  scientific  Christology 
which  does  not  recognize  that  Christ's  hutnaiiity 
was  so  genuine  and  complete  that  He  shared  in 
the  cosmic  presuppositions  of  His  time.  His  Deity 
spoke  to  us  through  a  true  humanity.  It  was  veiled 
and  limited  during  His  earthly  ministry  by  those 
very  conditions  which  He,  in  His  Kivuim,  voluntarily 
assumed  when  '  He  took  the  form  of  a  slave,  and 
being  found  in  the  likeness  of  man,  emptied  Him- 
self (Ph  2').  Now,  demonology  was  a  necessary 
part  of  the  intellectual  apparatus  of  that  period. 
It  was  t)ie  latest  phase  of  that  animistic  inter- 
pretation of  the  universe  which  was  destined  still 
to  survive  for  centuries  until  the  gradual  growth 
of  our  inductive  methods  has  substituted  for  de- 
monology (as  formerly  understood)  a  rationally  co- 
ordinated nexus  of  physical  causality  and  law.  But 
the  ultimate  and  fundamental  truth  of  angelology 
and  demonology  has  not  been  and  never  can  be 
destroj'ed  by  the  march  of  modem  science.  Behind 
and  bej'ond  the  physical  nexus  of  interrelations 
there  must  lie  personality  and,  moreover,  per- 
sonalities. However  complex  the  material  con- 
ditions, at  both  ends — nay,  even  along  the  entire 
path — of  the  intricate  windings  of  the  phenomenal 
chain  there  must  ever  live  personal  power.  Our 
whole  life  rests  upon  the  presupposition  of  our 
own  individual  initiatives  of  volition  operating 
upon  one  another  in  the  phenomenal  world  and 
modifying  its  successions  and  coexistences.  That 
a  supreme  transcendent  and  personal  (and,  to  the 
Christian  consciousness,  righteous)  reason  and  will 
is  ever  present  and  potent  in  the  entire  realm,  is 
a  necessary  postulate  of  any  intelligible  universe. 
The  assumption  that  other  superhuman  as  well  as 
subordinate  agencies  are  at  work,  and  that  some 
among  these  are  embodiments  of  e^ol  influence,  adds 
no  fundamental  difficulty  to  those  which  already 
exist.  No  moral  world  is  conceivable  except  as  in- 
volving interrelations  between  personalities.  Now, 
it  is  matter  of  historic  notoriety  that  some  person- 
alities have  lived  in  this  world  that  might  be 
called  incarnations  of  evil  influence.  The  supposi- 
tion that  other  and  superhuman  personalities  may 
also  be  foci  of  evil  moral  energy,  and  operate  like 
ganglionic  centres  in  a  nervous  system,  presents 
no  fundamental  difficulty  in  addition  to  the  diffi- 
culties already  involved  in  the  problem  of  evil. 
That  Satan  exists  as  a  personal  centre  of  evil 
influence,  physical  as  well  as  moral  (for  the  two 
are  closely  associated),  is  the  undoubted  teaching 
of  the  Bible.  He  is  not  represented  to  us  as  the 
absolute  origin  of  evil  or  the  only  source  of  it,  but 
as  its  most  potent  superhuman  representative. 
See  Dorner,  Christliche  GlaubensUhre,  %  86,  3,  vol. 
ii.  p.  213  ff. 

LrrRRATURB. — Tn  ftddltlon  to  the  reff.  in  the  article,  see  art. 
•Teufel'  in  PRK^  and  'Satan'  in  Smith's  DB;  also  Dorner, 
Christliche  Glaubeiwlehre,  lid.  iL  pp.  183-217,  and  the  list  of 
literature  on  p.  189  ;  Martensen,  Chrintian  Dogmatics,  pp. 
188-203  ;  Kaftan,  Doftmatik,  pp.  348  ff.  (much  to  be  commended), 
478.  On  Bcclt^iofttical  teaching  (which  does  not  come  within 
the  Bcope  of  a  Bible  Diet.)  aee  esp.  Hamack,  Dogmengesch. 
(Index,  ».  *  Teufel'  and  '  Damonen  ):  Iren.  adv.  Ihrr.  v.  1.  1; 
Origen,  c  Celsuin,  vii,  17 ;  Nitzsch,  Lehrb.  der  Erang.  Dogm. 

§.;$33ff.;  Donier,  i6.  iL  p.  197  ff.  RespectiDC  the  Mohammedan 
octrine  (baaed  on  Jewish),  see  Hughes,  Diet,  of  Jstam,  s.v. 
*  Devil '  (where  Mi«hkat  i.  3  Is  cited).  Cf.  also  art.  *  Genii,'  and 
on  this  subject  (Jinn)  E.  W.  Lane's  elaborate  note  21  tx>  his 
Introduction  to  his  translation  of  the  'Thousand  and  One 
(Arabian)  Nights.'  The  Devil  was  called  IblU  (im^iXtt)  and 
Sdenti&ed  with  Satan  (as  in  NT)l    There  were  also  Shaititns 


(plur.),  lust  as  in  Jewish  belief. — In  Kordn  see  2i63f.  3SI  (oi 
Satan  '  driven  forth  by  stoninjj,'  cf.  Palmer's  note)  4-*2.  73  53211 
7-A)  1242  I42tiff.  igji.    Satan  is  constantly  called  man's  *  open  toa  ' 

OvvKN  C.  Whitehouse. 
SATHRABUZANES  CZadpafioviavn^),  1  Es  &^^■* 
(LXX-")  7'  =  Shcthar-Bozenai  (cf.  Ezr  5^-«  6«-"). 

SATRAP.— See  Lieutenant. 

SATYR.  — The  Heb.  original  ryi?  sdir,  plur. 
on'Viy  seirim,  is  usually  tr*"  '  he  goat,'  its  primitive 
meaning.  In  two  passages  (Is  13-'  34")  it  is  tr"*  in 
AV  and  RV  '  satyr,^  KVm  '  he  goat,'  LXX  in  both 
iai/^ofiarr'  demons.'  In  other  two  passages  (Lv  17', 
2Chll")  AV  renders  it 'devils,'  RV  'be  goats,' 
RVni  'satyrs,' LXX ^draia  =  ' foolish  things.'  Prob- 
ably in  all  these  passages  the  intention  is  to  refer 
to  some  demon  of  popular  superstition  believed  to 
have  a  goat-like  form  (cf.  art.  Demon).  The  Greek 
mythology  describes  the  satyr  as  a  creature  the 
upper  part  of  whose  body  is  tliat  of  a  gross,  sensu- 
ous man,  the  lower  that  of  a  goat.  He  is  the 
ravisher  of  the  wood-nymphs,  the  drunken  com- 
panion of  Bacchus  in  his  revels  (Hesiod,  fr.  ill). 
The  Roman  faun  is  similar,  and  is  represented 
with  horns  and  pointed  ears  (cf.  Verg.  Eel.  v.  73; 
Hor.  Ep.  II.  ii.  125,  Ars  Poet.  '233).  Disgustingly 
realistic  statues  and  paintings  of  these  creatures 
are  to  be  seen  in  the  Museum  at  Naples  (cf.  W.  R. 
Smith,  BS^  113 f.;  Bochart,  Hieroz.  ii.  844,  iii, 
825).  G.  E.  Post. 

SAOL  (V(N?»,  2ooi5X).— 1.  The  first  king  of  Israel 
The  son  of  Kish,  he  belonged  to  the  small  but 
warlike  tribe  of  Benjamin,  witliin  which  tribe  his 
family  had  its  seat  at  Gibeah.*  During  his  early 
years  the  Philistines  had  overrun  the  Southern 
tribes  of  Israel,  had  captured  the  ark,  had  de- 
stroyed Shiloh,  and  were  so  thoroughly  masters 
of  Judaea  that  they  maintained  an  outpost  in 
Benjamin  (1  S  13').  Yet,  though  the  tribes  were 
humbled  and  separated,  they  had  not  entirely  lost 
the  sense  of  belonging  to  one  race  or  of  havin"  a 
common  destiny  ;  and  the  oppression  of  the  I'liilis- 
tines  served  to  make  clear  to  them  that,  in  order 
to  assert  these  things,  a  single  leader  was  an  indis- 
pensable necessity.  To  have  discovered  the  un- 
Kno^vn  Saul,  to  have  recognized  his  fitness  for  this 
task,  and  to  have  nerved  him  for  attempting  it,  is 
the  large  service  of  Samuel,  whom  every  account 
agrees  in  connecting  with  the  rise  of  the  new 
king. 

According  to  one  account,  the  future  chief  was 
sent  by  his  father  to  seek  for  some  straj-ed  asses. 
Baffled  in  the  search,  he  turned  aside  to  ask 
Samuel,  an  inconspicuous  seer  in  the  land  of 
Zuph,  for  information  about  their  fate.  Samuel 
satisfied  this  anxiety,  but  roused  in  the  questioner 
the  conviction  of  a  greater  destiny.  Commanding 
him  in  J'"s  name  to  deliver  Israel,  he  confirmed  the 
message  by  certain  signs,  the  occurrence  of  which 
would  serve  to  remove  any  hesitation  in  attempt- 
ing 80  grave  a  task,  and  bade  Saul  then  wait  at 
home  until  his  opportunity  arrived  (1  S  9.  lO'"'' '"). 
The  opportunity  was  not  long  delayed.  Nahasli, 
a  chief  of  Ammon,  besieged  Jabesh-gilead,  and, 
when  the  inhabitants  ofl'ered  to  surrender,  would 
grant  no  mUder  terms  than  that  their  right  eyes 
should  be  put  out.  So  convinced  was  he  of  the 
helpless  condition  in  which  Israel  lay,  that  be 
even  allowed  them  to  send  messengers  asking  help 
from  the  tribes  west  of  Jordan,  for  tlius  would 
his  glory  be  increased  by  the  disgrace  inflicted  on 
all  Israel.  Tlie  news  reached  Saul  as  he  was 
driving  his  cattle  home  from  the  plough.     He  saw 

*  Unless  Gibeon  is  confused  with  Gibeah  in  1  Ch  S^sf-  the  clan 
hod  once  dwelt  in  Gibeon.  Zela  is  also  mentioned  (2  S  21»)  a4 
the  burial-place  of  Kish,  and  as  the  Boat  burial-place  of  his  son. 


SAUL 


SAUL 


413 


in  lis  own  wrath  at  the  insult  the  indignation  of 
I»raul,  and  in  the  inciJcni  the  very  means  needed 
to  stir  the  pride  of  his  people  to  a  strong  ell'ort. 
Slaying  the  oxen,  he  sent  a  species  of  liery  cross 
through  the  South,  and,  with  the  hastily-levied 
force  whicli  obeyed  the  summons,  defeated  Nahasli. 
The  grateful  peojile  at  Samuel's  bidding  brought 
tlieir  newly-found  leader  to  the  sacred  place  at 
Gilgal,  ana  solenmly  crowned  him  aa  their  king 
before  J"  (1  S  11,  onnt  vv."-  "•  >*>). 

The  other  account  represents  Samuel  as  the 
acknowleilged  head  over  Israel,  who  ruled  in 
Kainah  as  judge.  When  the  Israelites,  dissatisfied 
with  their  condition  and  %>ith  the  conduct  of  tlie 
judge's  sons,  desired  a  king,  he  at  first  refused  their 
request,  as  rejecting  God's  immediate  government 
in  the  nation,  but  at  J"'s  command  consented  (1  S  8). 
A  popular  assi'mbly  was  held  at  Miz|iah,  where 
Saul  was  elocied  prince  by  tlie  sacred  lot  (lO"''-'^). 
A  few  opposed  tlie  election,  and  Saul  withdrew 
with  his  supporters  to  Gibeah.  The  Nahash  in- 
cident oH'ered  the  new  king  the  occasion  which  justi- 
fied his  election,  and  silenced  all  opposing  voices. 
After  it  the  people,  convened  at  Gilgal,  renewed 
the  consecration,  while  Samuel  solemnly  resigned 
his  oflice  (11'-*-  12).  This  account  regarded  the 
kingship  not  only  as  a  novelty,  but  as  a  backward 
step  from  the  older  theo'iacy,  an  accommodation 
to  the  weakness  of  the  people. 

It  was  impossible  for  the  Philistines  to  view  with 
indifference  Saul's  election  (however  it  had  been 
brouglit  about),  and  not  to  dread  the  quickened 
national  life  which  the  victory  over  Nahash  was  sure 
to  produce  among  their  subject  people.  Realizing 
this,  and  prejjaring  for  the  inevitable  shock,  Saul 
retained  about  him  a  small  army.  He  chose 
30U0  men,  placed  ono-tliird  of  them  under  his  son 
Jonathan  at  the  home  of  the  clan,  but  kept  the 
other  two-thirds  under  his  own  orders  near  Bethel. 
Probably  he  intended  to  rouse  the  strong  tribe  of 
Ephraim  to  his  support.  The  impatient  courage 
o!  Jonathan  precipitated  the  struggle.  He  struck 
down  the  garrison  or  representative  i^^'fi)  which 
the  Philistines  had  in  Benjamin.*  The  Philistines 
replied  by  gathering  an  army,  which  thej'  marched 
up  the  valley  of  Aijalon  in  the  direction  of  Mich- 
mash.  They  thus  drove  themselves  like  a  wedge 
between  the  Northern  and  Southern  tribes.  Lest 
they  should  cut  him  oti'  from  Benjamin,  Saul  was 
forced  to  fall  back,  especially  since  the  majority  of 
his  troops  fled,  some  into  liiding,  others  across 
Jordan.  The  king  with  the  600  men  who  still 
clung  to  him  retired  on  Gilgal, +  in  which  position 
he  secured  a  safe  base  on  the  transjordanic  tribes. 
He  left  at  the  head  of  the  wady  and  opposite  the 
Philistine  position  a  small  outpost  under  Jonathan, 
who  .shiiuld  watch  t  he  movements  of  the  enemy  and 
warn  the  main  body  (13'"'). 

For  a,  time  there  was  hesitation.  Probably  the 
Phil,  wished  to  draw  the  Isr.  armv  from  its  strong 
position  and  from  its  supiiorts.  fiut  the  invaders 
were  too  proudly  conhuent  of  their  strength. 
Forming  a  camp  above  Michraash,  tliey  divided 
almost  their  wliole  force  into  detachments  and 
sent  these  northward  to  forage  and  to  check  any 
rising  which  Ejihraim  mifjht  attempt  (13"""-''). 
Jonathan  saw  his  opjiortunity  and  seized  it.  With- 
out delaying  to  request  support  from  his  father, 
he  struck  full  at  the  weakened  centre,  overwhelmed 
the  outpost  at  Michmash  which  had  been  set  to 
watch  him,  and  penetrated  to  the  camp.  Thence 
It  would  be  an  easy  task  to  crush  the  divided 

•  The  exact  senae  of  311}  (1  S  13»)  cannot  be  conaldcred 
pArtain,  but  in  this  connexion  it  is  enou^ii  to  know  that  it 
reiircsentcd  in  eome  way  the  Phil.  Buzcrainlv. 

t  See,  however,  Wellh.  Comp.  247  f.;  Budde,  Jticht.  u.  Sam, 
191 «.,  and  W.  R.  Smith,  OTJC'  181  n.,  aoa  to  whom  OUgat  Is 
lo  unhistorical  interpolation. 


detachments  in  detail.  So  sudden  was  the  defeat 
that  Saul  on  hearing  the  news  lia<l  no  time  even 
to  consult  the  oracle.  He  followed  instantly  his 
son's  assault.  The  Isr.  au.\iliaries  among  the 
enemy  deserted.  The  scattered  Philistines  were 
only  preserved  from  utter  ruin  by  the  exhaustion 
of  their  victors  ;  they  streamed  back  by  the  same 
pass  by  which  they  had  entered,  and  the  South 
country  was  for  a  period  free  (14'"'''). 

Here  it  would  appear  that  the  independent  record 
of  Saul's  reign  ceased.  Here  accordingly  (14^'"'-) 
have  been  inserted  a  brief  list  of  his  household,  and 
a  statement  that  the  struggle  between  the  young 
kingdom  and  the  Philistines  continued  <iuring 
his  entire  lifetime.  Most  of  the  remaining  in- 
formation about  the  reign  is  derived  from  accounts 
which  relate  it  as  introductory  to  the  ajipearance 
of  David  on  the  stage  of  Isr.  history ;  and  it  is 
only  just  to  the  first  king's  memory  to  remember 
that  the  rest  of  his  life  is  narrated  t'rora  the  point 
of  view  of  an  introduction  to  the  life  of  his  greater 
rival.  But  the  king  showed  his  prowess,  and 
turned  the  new  vigour  of  his  realm  against  other 
foes  than  the  Philistines.  Men  long  remembered 
his  victory  over  the  Amalekites,  jjartly  because 
the  motive  of  the  war  had  been  such  a  racial  and 
religious  antipathy,  as  the  quickened  self -con- 
sciousness of  the  young  nation  was  keener  to  feel 
(1  S  15).  And  something  of  the  same  feeling  must 
have  prompted  the  king  to  crush  the  Gibeonites, 
that  foreign  tribe  which  had  been  received  into 
the  Isr.  nation  (cf.  2  S  21"). 

About  this  period,  however,  Saul  lost  the  support 
of  Samuel,  who  had  done  so  much  to  set  him  on 
the  throne.  The  accounts  ditler  as  to  the  reason 
which  produced  the  quarrel.  One  referred  it  to 
the  victorious  campaign  against  the  Amalekites. 
These  borderers  had  long  troubled  the  South 
country  of  Judah,  ravaging  it  with»sudden  forays, 
since  t^ie  desert  offered  refuge  in  defeat  or  secure 
retreat  with  booty.  Samuel  commanded  the  king 
to  proclaim  a  religious  war  and  root  them  out ; 
and  Saul  obeying  delivered  a  blow  from  which 
the  people  never  again  recovered.  He  sjiari'd, 
however,  the  best  of  the  spoil,  and  especially 
Agag,  the  captured  king.  For  this  disregard 
of  the  exact  tuiiiis  of  his  command  Samuel  de- 
nounced the  fall  of  Saul's  house  in  the  very  hour 
of  his  triumph  (1  S  15).  The  other  account  dated 
the  strife  from  the  time  when  Saul  had  retreated 
on  Gilgal,  and  was  anxiously  expecting,  with  a 
handful  of  wavering  men,  the  assault  of  the  I'liilis 
tines.  Samuel  had  bade  him  wait  there  during 
seven  days,  with  the  promise  to  come  down  then 
and  offer  sacrifice  on  his  behalf.  As  the  prophet's 
arrival  was  delayed  beyond  the  set  jieriod,  and  the 
peoiile  were  threatening  to  desert  him,  the  king 
ventured  to  sacrifice  independently.  For  this  he 
brought  upon  himself  the  prophecy  of  the  fall  of 
hb  dynasty  *(13»-">'). 

Certainly,  Saul  through  this  quarrel  was  de- 
prived of  a  restraining  and  a  strengthening  influ- 
ence. The  victory,  too,  at  Jlichmash  could  not 
be  final,  it  was  only  introductory.  The  Philistines, 
with  their  organized  force  and  their  strong  cities, 
could  better  uear  such  a  defeat  than  the  Israelites 
such  a  victory.  What  was  required  from  the 
young  realm  was  no  longer  a  vigorous  rising 
followed  by  a  momentary  effort,  but  the  patient 
organization  of  a  steady  defence.  And  this,  because 
■  It  must  always  be  remcnibtTi'd  that  tbt*rc  wiut  a  tbeolof^col 
question  debated  in  these  matters.  Saul,  tlio  hcavi-ii-appointed 
kiii^',  failed  in  his  misuion  and  fell  on  Uilboo.  There  uinst 
therefore  have  been  something  in  hia  life  which  broutfht  uix)n 
him  the  disnlcasure  of  J",  wlio  would  otiierwise  iiave  given  him 
victory.  Tnus  the  Chronicler  (1  Oh  lOi^)  gives  as  an  luiditionaj 
cause 'for  the  king's  rejection  tlie  fact  that  ho  had  consulted  an 
evil  spirit  at  Endor  ;  and  Josephus  (A  nl.  Vl.  xiv.  »)  adds  also  aa 
a  cause  that  he  hod  destroyed  *  Ahimelecti  the  high  priest  and 
the  city  of  the  high  priests.' 


it  was  so  novel  in  Isr.  liistory,  must  have  severely 
tried  the  temper  of  trihes  not  yet  fully  weaned 
from  their  desert  instincts.  Intertribal  jealousies, 
further,  which  jilaywl  so  larjje  a  part  in  that 
early  period  (of.  .Ig  tf-""-  8'"'  12'-'  etc.),  and  which 
troubled  the  kinj,'dom  even  after  David's  reign 
had  consolidated  it  (f.gr.  1  K  12'"),  could  not  fail 
to  spring  up,  especially  since  the  chief  belonged 
to  one  of  the  smaller  tribes.  All  these  things 
are  enougti  to  account  in  a  sensitive  man  for  the 
deep  melancholy  which  clouded  the  king's  powers 
at  the  very  time  when  those  were  most  needed 
(1  S  W*]. 

David's  fame  as  a  skilful  harp  player  led  to  his 
being  brought  to  the  little  court,  where  his  music 
soothed  the  king's  vexed  mood.  The  charm, 
which  made  all  men  whom  he  met  love  the  future 
king,  laid  hold  on  Saul,  and  he  attached  the  young 
man  pLTinanently  to  liis  person  as  his  armour-bearer 
(l(i'^"-').  15y  this  time  the  war  against  Philistia 
had  changed  its  ch.aracter.  On  their  side  the 
Pliilistines,  taught  liy  the  disaster  at  Michmash 
not  to  despise  their  foes,  and  probably  considering 
the  subjugation  of  the  barren  hill-country  scarcely 
worth  the  trouble  it  cost,  were  content  to  keep 
open  their  trade-route  along  the  coast.  On  his 
side  Saul  recognized  the  folly  of  attempting  to 
besiege  the  five  strongly  fortified  cities  in  the 
valley.  In  the  new  border  warfare  which  sprang 
up  David  soon  proved  himself  an  adejit,  and  rose 
to  a  trusted  position  in  the  army.  Recognizing 
his  prowess,  Saul  gave  the  young  captain  his 
daughter  Michal  in  marriage,  and  asked  as  bride 
gift  the  present  of  100  Phil,  foreskins — a  gift 
significant  at  once  of  the  low  culture  of  the  period 
and  tlie  character  of  the  war  (IS'--"'-).  But  the  new 
Bon-in-law  proved  dangerouslj'  strong.  His  deeds 
in  the  field  and  the  personal  magnetism  which 
never  forsook  him,  won  him  the  love  of  Jonathan 
and  the  more  perilous  applause  of  the  multitude. 
To  the  darkened  mind  of  the  king  it  seemed  by  no 
means  impossible  that  ambition  might  prove  too 
strong  for  gratitude  anil  kinship.  By  guile  and 
liy  open  force  he  sought  to  get  David  into  his 
hands.  Each  eHbrt  failed :  even  his  daughter 
deserted  him  and  tricked  his  messengers,  while 
her  husband  escaped  (ch.  19).  After  that  open 
rupture  David  continued  to  linger  in  the  neigh- 
bourhood of  the  court,  while  etlbrts  were  made, 
esjiecially  by  the  leal-hearted  Jonathan,  to  heal 
the  breach  between  Saul  and  tlie  stoutest  of  his 
servants.  But  this  only  served  to  draw  upon  the 
jirince  the  suspicion  that  he  had  entered  into  a 
conspiracy  with  the  .son  of  Jesse  to  dethrone  the 
king,* — a  suspicion  which  Jonathan  was  too  proud 
in  his  integrity  even  to  deny.  The  jiroud  silence, 
howe\'(^r,  would  not  appeal  to  so  darkened  a  mind 
as  Saul's  hiid  become.  Such  a  position  could  not 
endure.  At  last  David  fled  to  Nob,  northward 
from  Jerus.,  and  thence  made  his  way  through 
the  country  of  the  Philistines  into  the  familiar 
South,  where  his  own  clan  were  sure  to  shelter 
him  (ch.  21). 

Saul,  'sitting  under  the  tamarisk-tree  at  Gibeah,' 
reproached  his  own  men  as  traitors  because  they 
had  not  betrayed  the  plotter,  and  as  fools  because 
they  failed  to  recognize  how  the  first  result  of 
setting  up  this  Judahite  would  be  the  loss  of 
power  and  jirestige  to  Benjamin.  He  forthwith 
took  a  fearful  vengeance  on  the  priests  wlio  had 
harboured  the  fugitive,  by  massacring  almost  the 
entire  household  of  Ahiraelech  at  Nob,  and  then 
pursued  the  refugee  in  his  retreat  (22"''). 

How  far  tills  quarrel  was  the  result  of  baseless 

suspicion  in  the  diseased  mind  of  the  king,  and 

how  far  it  may  have  been  justified  by  facts,  must 

always  remain   uncertain.      The    fulness  of    the 

•  Thi*  li  uitdoubtedly  the  roeaning  and  the  sting  of  1  S  2030t. 


details  which  we  possess,  both  over  this  period 
and  over  that  in  which  David  was  hunted  througli 
the  Negeb,  proves  that  the  hairbreadth  escapes  of 
the  great  king  before  he  came  to  the  throne  were 
a  favourite  subject  with  the  early  historians.  But 
all  the  accounts  were  written  from  a  standpoint 
which  regarded  David  as  the  divinely  appointed 
king  over  all  Israel.  And  it  is  not  an  impossibility 
that  the  active,  patriotic  mind  of  the  young  soldier 
may  have  seen  the  need,  if  his  country  were  to  bo 
delivered,  of  some  stronger  hand  upon  the  reins  of 
government  at  that  period.  It  is  also  possible 
that  he  may  have  been  betrayed  into  words  or  acts 
which  wrought  with  extra  power  on  the  morbid 
mind  of  Saul. 

The  first  intention  of  the  fugitive  seems  to  have 
been  to  settle  in  a  tract  still  occupied  by  the 
Canaanites  which  lay  between  Judah  and  Philistia. 
It  enjoyed  the  double  advantage  of  lying  near  the 
settlements  of  his  own  kindred,  and  of  olFering  the 
desert  for  a  last  retreat.  There  he  might  hope  to 
set  up  an  independent  principality  without  going 
over  to  the  hereditary  enemy ;  and  the  inter- 
mittent war  along  the  western  frontier  might  draw 
the  kind's  attention  away  from  his  escaped  captain. 
Once,  therefore,  he  attempted  to  settle  in  a  town 
at  Keilah  (23'^- )•  But  the  district  was  devoted  to 
the  king,  and  Saul  drove  him  headlong  from  this 
refuge.  He  then  betook  himself  to  the  pasture 
country  S.E.  of  Judah  and  adjoining  the  Dead 
Sea.  But  here  also,  though  he  allied  himself 
with  the  strong  clan  of  the  Calebites  by  his 
marriage  with  Abigail,  he  was  unable  to  maintain 
himself.  Saul's  government  was  powerful  enough 
to  expel  him  even  from  this  comer  of  the  realm  (chs. 
24-26),  and  he  was  finally  driven  to  find  refuge 
under  the  protection  of  Aciiish  in  Gath  (27-).  The 
Philistine  princes,  recognizing  his  worth,  and  especi- 
ally his  aptitude  for  the  border  warfare  in  wliich 
he  had  annoyed  themselves,  settled  the  fugitive  in 
Ziklag  (v."),  where  he  might  cover  their  unguarded 
flank,  and  keep  the  '  way  of  the  sea,'  the  trade-route 
for  Egypt,  against  the  unruly  tribes  of  the  desert. 

It  is  a  strong  proof  of  the  extent  to  which  the 
kingdom  had  been  consolidated  even  during  these 
years  of  war,  that  Saul  was  able  to  drive  out  of  this 
remote  part  of  his  government  one  who  combined 
with  his  popularity  as  captain  family  ties  in  that 
very  region.  The  young  realm  must  also  have 
included  much  on  the  eastern  side  of  the  Jordan, 
for  the  last  stand  of  Saul's  house  under  Ishbosheth 
was  made  at  Mahanaim  (2  S  2"'-).  It  now  began  to 
creep  along  the  backbone  of  the  hill-countrj"  and 
to  aim  at  overpassing  the  valley  of  Jezreel  into  the 
Northern  tribes.  Had  this  succeeded,  it  would  not 
only  have  gained  a  great  accession  of  strength 
in  linking  the  Northern  tribes  more  closely  with 
the  Southern,  it  would  also  have  cut  the  line  of 
communication  by  which  the  trade  of  the  Euphrates 
found  its  way  over  Damascus  and  Philistia  to 
Egypt.  This  would  have  meant  draining  one 
chief  artery  of  the  life-blood  in  that  trading  com- 
munity. (Only  on  this  view  of  the  problem  can  we 
understand  why  the  final  grapple  between  the  two 
powers  was  not  fought  in  the  South  near  tlie  head- 
quarters of  them  both,  but  in  the  comparatively 
far-off  North.) 

Threatened  in  their  most  vulnerable  point,  the 
Philistines  roused  themselves  to  action,  and 
marched  by  Sharon  and  Megiddo  into  Esdraelon  to 
clear  the  threatened  route.  Saul  followed  them 
along  the  hUIs,  and  crossing  by  En-gannim  posted 
his  army  on  Mt.  Gilboa  at  the  opposite  side  of  the 
valley  from  Shunem  where  his  adversaries  lay.* 

•  No  reference  has  been  made  to  the  other  positions  occupied 

by  Saul  and  the   Philistines,  because,  so  Iotij;  as  the  position 

of  Aphelt  depends  on  nothing  better  than  conjecture,  all  the 

I  rest  must  remain  uncertain  also.    For  a  careful  discussion  of 


SAUL 


SAVOUR,  SAVOURY 


ill 


In  this  position  he  commanded  both  Jordan  and 
K.ilraelon.  Thisi  was  no  longer  a  guerilla  contest, 
but  a  CTapple  of  sheer  bodily  strength  between 
the  two  Ivin^donis.  Sa\il  realized  it,  suspected  also 
that  the  I'hilislines  were  too  strong  for  him.  Ilis 
visit  to  the  witch  at  Endor  (ch.  28)  both  betrayed 
and  increased  the  agitation  with  which  he  faced 
the  battle.  Men  said  he  went  into  tho  fif;ht 
knowing  what  was  before  him  ;  that  the  evening 
before,  Samuel,  who  had  tirst  anointed  him  to  lead 
the  armies  of  Israel,  summoned  him  to  a  trj-st  at 
the  grave.  So  it  fell  out.  The  ground  on  which 
the  light  befell  was  not  such  as  could  protect  the 
Isr.  infantry  from  the  dreaded  chariots  of  the 
enemy.  The  Philistines  cros.sed  the  valley  and 
mounted  the  hill  slopes.  Saul  saw  his  army 
routed,  his  sons  slain,  and  retained  only  strength 
enough  to  command  his  own  death.  I'he  Philis- 
tines next  day  found  their  great  enemy  dead, 
consecrated  his  armour  in  the  temple  of  tlie  Ash- 
taroth,  and  hung  his  decapitated  body  in  the 
public  square  of  Bethshan.  But  gratitude  was  as 
strong  as  hate,  for  men  of  Jabeshgilead  crossed 
the  Jordan  in  the  night,  took  down  the  body  of 
the  prince  to  whom  they  owed  so  much,  and  buried 
it  on  the  site  of  his  first  victorj'  (ch.  31). 

Saul  had  been  called  to  the  task  of  freeing  Israel 
from  the  Philistines,  for  without  that  freedom  no 
advance  was  possible  for  the  nation.  And  what 
had  prompted  him  to  seat  himself  on  the  throne 
had  oeen  no  personal  ambition,  but  a  recognition 
of  this  fact,  a  very  call  of  J".  Because  they  could 
not  fail  to  recognize  this  and  the  excellence  of  the 
deed,  his  people  could  not  fail  to  reverence  his 
memory,  and  even  he  who  had  fared  worst  at  the 
king's  liands  sang  his  imperisliable  lament  over 
him  (2  S  !'»"•).  Yet  Saul  had  failed  in  his  attempt, 
and  died  on  Mount  Gilboa.  How  that  could  lie 
po.ssible  was  the  problem  which  long  puzzled  men 
in  Israel.  May  it  not  be  that  they  did  not  look 
w  idcly  enough  ?  For  Saul  had  done  his  work, 
despite  his  failure.  No  one  ever  questioned  but 
that  the  kingdom  must  continue ;  lie  had  proved 
its  value  too  well  for  that.  The  only  question 
which  still  remained  w.asas  to  the  man  who  should 
succeed  and  complete  the  imperfect  task.  That 
some  one  must,  was  a  foregone  conclusion.  The 
first  king,  though  outward  circumstances  h.ad 
proved  too  strong  for  him,  and  though  he  had  been 
unable  to  resolve  the  many  difliculties  which  the 
new  condition  of  all'airs  raised  within  Israel  itself, 
had  done  enougli  to  make  the  way  clear  for  his 
successor :  Saul  died  on  Gilboa,  but  he  made  David 
jwssilile. 

Saul  was  married  to  Ahinoam,  the  daughter  of 
Ahim.'iaz  (1  S  H*").  Most  of  his  sons  died  at  his 
side  (31-') ;  but  one  at  least,  Ishbaal  or  Ishbosheth 
(which  see),  escaped  from  CJilboa  to  meet  a  sadder 
fate  (2  S  4").  A  son  of  Jonathan,  Mephibosheth 
(which  see),  appears  in  the  history  of  David  (2S0'"- 
]9="'),  and  from  him  the  Chronicler  (1  Ch  9"") 
derives  a  long  line  of  descendants.  It  was  one  of 
Dean  Stanley's  suggestions  which  requires  nothing 
except  proof,  that  as  Zimri  anpears  in  that  list, 
the  rebellion  of  1  K  16"  may  tiave  been  the  last 
ell'ort  of  the  fallen  house  to  recover  its  positicm. 
Saul  also  left  issue  t)y  a  subordinate  wife  (2  S  21"), 
for  whose  fate  see  KizPAH. 

It  U  difllcult  to  accept  the  computation  ol  Ac  1.321,  which 
niAkoa  the  ienjfth  of  thiB  llrst  rei^n  in  lurael  40  j'cars.  Fr>r, 
within  two  years  o(  hia  fatlier's  iicceswion,  .lonattian  waa  able 
to  lca*l  troops  into  hattle  (1  S  131-3),  a  fact  wliich  arjfuca  lor 
Saul  an  age  of  40  ycara  at  his  'coronation,'  and  it  is  ahnost 
ImpoRMihle  to  believe  that  it  was  a  man  of  80  years  of  ajje  who 
toiiflit  at  Mount  Oilboa.  Josephus  (Ant.  x.'viii.  4,  vi.  liv.  ft) 
fives  the  lenf^th  of  the  reiicn  ui  20  years.     Wliile  this  may  be 

tho  question  and  a  KOod  statement  of  \ts  difflculty,  see  Smith, 
IKllll,  400  (t.,  (176.  and  cf.  ArliRK,  No.  3.  It  is  just  p08sil>le  that 
Bethshan  was  the  o))Jet-tive  of  t>olh  forees,  and  that  tiie  Philistines 
•outfht  to  relieve,  the  Israelites  to  cover,  the  8iei;e  of  the  town. 


merely  a  giiess,  It  does  not  present  the  above  difficulties,  and 
OL'rees  with  the  fact  that  Islibaal  was  4i)  yeant  old  at  his  father'l 
death. 

See,  further,  Bkv.tamix,  David,  and  the  Litera- 
ture at  end  of  the  latter  article. 
2.  Saul  of  Tarsus.    See  Paul. 

A.  C.  Welch. 
SAVARAN.— 1  Mac  6«  AV.     See  Avaran. 

SAVE,  SAVING.  — Both  'save'  and  'saving 
(from  Fr.  saiif,  its  force  being  seen  in  saiif  vmn 
(Iruit,  '  my  right  being  reserved,'  see  Skeat,  Elijmol. 
Diet.  3.V.),  in  the  sense  of  exixvt,  frequently  occur 
in  AV.  Thus  Ps  18"  '  For  w-ho  is  Uod  save  the 
Lord  ? ' ;  Lk  18'"  '  None  is  good,  save  one,  that  is 
God ' ;  Dt  15^  '  Save  when  there  shall  be  no  poor 
among  you';  Ac  20-^  'Save  that  the  Holy  tihost 
witnesseth  in  every  city';  Neh  4''^  'None  of  us 
put  oil'  our  clothes,  saving  that  every  one  put  them 
off  for  washing';  Ec  5"  'What  good  is  there  to 
the  owners  thereof,  saving  (Dx  •?)  the  [beholding]  of 
them  with  their  eyes  ? ' 

The  phrase  '  to  save  one  alive '  (Gn  1212  ijoa),  Ex  ll'- 18  22  etc.) 
is  used  8ynon>-mously  with  'to  Iceep  one  alive'  (Gn  61^-20  "a^ 
Jos  1410  etc.),  or  'to  preserve  one  alive'  (Dt  &^),  the  Heb.  being 
a  causative  form  of  .i;n  'to  be  alive.'  Cf.  -Mt  281-'  Tind.  '  If  this 
come  to  the  rulers  earea,  we  wyll  pease  him,  and  save  you 
harmeles.'  J.  HASTINGS. 

SAYIAS  (B  cm.,  A  Zaovlas),  lE8  8''=U2zi,  an 
ancestor  of  Ezra ;  cf.  Ezr  7*. 

SAVIOUR.— See  Salvation. 

SAVOUR,  SAVOURY.— Savour  comes  from  Lat. 
sapor  taste  (from  snpere  to  taste)  through  the  Old 
Fr.  savour  (mod.  saveur).  It  was  used  first  of  all, 
in  iccordance  with  its  derivation,  for  the  taste  or 
relish  of  a  thing  ;  then  it  passed  to  the  expression 
of  the  kindred  sense  of  smell ;  and  from  this  it  was 
easily  used  in  the  fig.  sense  of  name  or  reputation. 
All  these  uses  are  found  in  AV. 

(1)  Taste:  Mt  5'»  ||  Lk  W*  'If  the  salt  have 
lost  his  savour  {/lupavdy),  wherewith  shall  it  be 
salte<l?'  {a\ttr$r}a€Tai ;  in  Lk  ipTv6r,<j(Tai,  EV  'be 
seasoned').  The  tr.  in  both  places  is  from  the 
Geneva  version  of  1557.  The  meaning  is  probably 
more  than  mere  taste,  rather  'virtue,'  its  power  to 
make  food  'savoury'  (.see  the  quotation  from 
Udall's  Erasmus  at  tho  end  of  this  art.). 

(2)  Smell:  Jl  2"°  'His  stink  shall  come  up,  and 
his  ill  savour  shall  come  up'  (iniqs.  Gov.  '  his  lylthy 
corrupcion,'  Gen.  '  his  corruption  ') ;  elsewhere  in 
OT  always  '  sweet  savour '  (itob.  n-i,  except  Ezr  6'" 
'sacrifices  of  sweet  savcmrs,'  Aram.  |'n\n"i).  In  the 
Apocrypha  evuSlais  rendered  a  '  good  savour '  in  1  I'^s 
l'-',  a  '  sweet  savour '  in  Sir  35°  38"  ;  other  examples 
of  the  word  are  2  Es  2'-  '  for  an  ointment  of  sweet 
savour '  {in  odorem  unguenti).  Sir  39'*  '  give  ye  a 
sweet  savour '  ((vuBiaaoiTt  dafi-fi"),  50"  '  a  sweet- 
smelling  savour'  [6<rfLiiv  evwSiat).  In  NT  euwSia  is 
tr.  '  sweet  savour '  in  2  Co  2'°,  and  6<x/j.^  (vuSlat  is 
tr.  'a  sweet-smelling  savour'  in  Eph  5''  (but  in  Ph 
4"  'an  odour  of  a  sweet  smell');  elsewhere  we 
find  ia-ii-fi  alone,  2  Co  2'*  '  the  savour  of  his  know- 
ledge,' i.e.  the  sweet  smell  of  the  knowledge  of 
God  ((Sir/ijji'  T^s  yyuxTfui  airroO)  ;  and  2'°  'To  one  we 
are  the  savour  of  death  unto  death  ;  and  to  the 
other  the  savour  of  life  unto  life '  (ofs  fiiv,  6ir^^ 
6avdTov  eU  Odvarov'  oU  Si,  dufiij  i'wJJs  f/s  fwijf  ;  edd. 
iii.sert  ix  before  Oai/aTov  and  before  s""")'.  whence  KV 
'from  death  .  .  .  from  life').  Cf.  Mandeville 
Travels  (in  '  Macniillan's  Lib.  of.  Eng.  Classics, 
p.  113),  'And  at  the  foot  of  that  mount  is  a  fair 
well  and  a  great,  that  hath  odour  and  savour  of 
all  spices';  Jn  1'2'  Wye.  'the  hous  was  fulfillid 
of  the  savour  of  the  oynemento '  ;  Jer  48"  Gov. 
'  hir  taist  reinayneth,  and  bir  savoore  is  not  yet 


416 


SAW 


SCEPTKE 


changed ' ;  and  the  Note  to  Lv  1'  in  Matthew's 
Bible,  '  This  sv'cte  odoure  is :  the  sacryfyce  of 
fayth  and  of  |nire  aU'eccjron,  in  wliych  God  is  as 
delited,  as  a  man  is  delited  in  tlie  good  savoure 
of  meates,  as  it  is  said  of  Noe,  Gen.  viii.  d.' 

(3)  Figuratively,  rrputntiun.  Ex  5^^  '  Ye  have 
made  our  savour  to  be  abhorred  (AVm  'to  stink') 
in  the  eyes  of  Pharaoh.'  Cf.  also  Gn.  31*',  1  S  13^ 
2  S  10",  and  the  Eng.  '  to  be  in  {or  to  bring  into) 
bad  odour.' 

The  verb  'to  savour'  is  (1)  to  taste  or  smell  of, 
as  I'ref.  to  AV,  'Thus  to  minse  the  matter,  we 
tliought  to  savour  more  of  curiosity  than  wisdome.' 
(2)  To  seek  out  by  taste  or  smell,  as  Cranmer, 
Jforks,  i.  181,  '  By  this  you  may  soon  savour  what 
judgment  this  m.-in  is  of.'  So  in  AV  Mt  IG^"  ||  Mk 
8^  '  thou  savourest  not  the  things  that  be  of  God ' 
(oi5  (ppot'ch),  Vulg.  non  sapis,  whence  Wye.  'thou 
saveri-st  not,'  and  all  following  versions  till  RV, 
'thou  mindest  not.'  Cf.  Bunyau,  Soly  War,  p. 
25,  '  And  that  w  hich  made  him  yet  the  more 
ignoble  .  .  .  was,  that  he  never  could  savour  good, 
but  evil.' 

Tlie  ailj.  '  savoury '  occurs  in  AV  only  in  Gn  27'' 
7.  9.  u.  17.  31  Qf  {i,g  <  savoury  meat '  which  Isaac  loved 
(Heb.  c-;yL-D  always  plu.,  from  D*n  to  taste).  The 
word  is  also  found  in  Is  30-''  marg.,  and  accepted 
into  KV  text,  AV  '  clean,'  RVm  '  salted,'  in  refer- 
ence to  the  provender  of  oxen  and  young  asses 
(Heb.  i"-ri  ^'V?,  Oxf.  Hcb.  Lex.  '  provender  seasoned 
with  salt  or  a  salt  herb,  rendering  it  more  tasty'). 
Cf.  Udall,  Erasmus'  Paraph,  i.  19  (on  Alt  5'^),  '  It 
muste  nedes  bee  a  lively  and  a  piththie  thynge 
that  can  be  sufficient  to  sawce  and  make  savourie 
the  life  of  all  mankynde,  being  so  werishe  and 
unsavourye  thorowe  the  desyres  and  fond  opinions 
of  vayne  thynges.'  J.  Hastings. 

SAW.— TiJD  2  S  12",  1  K  7»,  1  Ch  20»  [but  in  this 
last  the  correct  text  is  niitm  '  axes '],  -\\so  Is  10'* ; 
LXX  irpiuiv.  From  1  K  7°  it  is  evident  that  saws 
were  used  for  cutting  stone.  In  Syria,  at  the 
present  time,  long  smooth  blades  of  iron  are  used 
to  cut  out  columns.  These  have  no  handles :  a 
heav}'  piece  of  wood  is  fitted  to  the  back  of  the  saw  ; 
this  is  grasped  by  two  men,  who  draw  it  backwards 
and  forwards,  sand  and  water  being  plentifully 
used.  It  seems  probable,  from  the  marks  on  the 
rocks,  that  the  ancient  Egyptians  used  bronze  saws 
with  emery  for  cutting  granite  (WOkinson,  Anc. 
Efjt/pt.  ii.  p.  254  n.).  The  ancient  Egyptian  car- 
penters in  cutting  wood  drew  the  saw  towards  them 
instead  of  pushing  it  from  them.  In  India  the 
same  custom  prevails.  English  saws  are  bought 
eagerly  by  the  Hindu  carpenters,  but  the  English 
handles  are  removed,  and  other  handles  fixed  at 
the  narrow  end  of  the  blades.  In  the  NT  the  verb 
used  is  tt/jIj-u,  He  11".  \V.  Carslaw. 

SCALL.— See  Medictne,  vol.  iii.  p.  329^  Scall 
is  the  AV  and  RV  translation  of  pnj  (Lv  13.  14") : 
Wye.  has  '  wem,'  Tind.  '  burning,'  Cov.  '  skyrfe,' 
Gen.  '  blacke  spot,'  Don.  '  spotte,'  Bish.  '  fret.' 
The  Eng.  word  is  of  Scand.  origin,  and  signified 
primarily  baldness  (Icel.  skalli,  a  bald  head),  but 
in  Middle  Eng.  (also  spelt  scalde)  it  is  a  scab  or 
eruption,  generally  of  the  head.  Cf.  Chaucer, 
Scrivener,  3 — 

'  Under  thy  longe  lockes  thou  maist  have  the  scalle' ; 

Spenser,  FQ  I.  viii.  47 — 

*  Her  crattie  head  was  altogether  bald. 
And,  as  in  hate  of  honourable  eld, 
Wae  over  growne  with  scnrfe  and  filthy  ecald*) 

and  Tindale,  Lv  21*  'Broken  handed,  or  croke 
backed,  or  perleved,  or  gogeleyed,  or  maunge,  or 
■kaulde' ;  Pt  28-''  '  And  the  Lorde  will  smyte  the 


with   the   botches  of   Egipte  and    the  emorodes, 
scalle,  and  maungynesse.'  J.  HASTINGS. 

SCANDAL.  — In  Wis  H""^-  the  Gr.  .rud^SoXo 
is  translated  'scandals' (text  'stumbling-blocks'). 
See  Offence,  vol.  iii.  p.  SSG"-  K  The  Rhem. 
version  uses  '  scandal '  as  the  tr.  of  aKdvoa^ov  (after 
Vulg.  scandalum),  in  Mt  IS'"  '  The  Sonne  of  man 
shal  send  his  Angels,  and  they  shal  gather  out 
of  his  kingdom  al  scandals,  and  them  that  \i  orke 
iniquitie  '—16^  18',  Ro  U"  ;  and  the  verb  '  scandal- 
ize' occurs  freq.  as  the  tr.  of  aKavbaW^u,  as  MtS" 
11«  15'-'  18»,  Lk  7^,  Jn  16'.  J.  HASTINGS. 

SCAPE-GOAT.— See  Azazel. 

SCARLET.— This  word  is  the  equivalent  in  AV 
of — 1.  ':y  shuni,  or  'Jsn  liashshuni  (the  latter  in 
Gn37*',  Ex  285  35=»-*>'38'^  39'- »,  Jos2"'-=',  Ca  4»>. 
2.  D-J5*  shdnim  (Is  l'»  [with  art.],  Tr  31=').  3. 
nt'Sin-'jip*  sheni-tOlaath,  and  ni''7iBn"'Jv'  shi'ni-lmttula- 
'aih  (Lv  14^-  "•  «"•  "•  "2 198).  4.  •jvi-ns.'ViB  tOln  ath-shOni, 
and  'J^'.Tny'piB  tCld ath-hashshanl  (Ex  2,5-39  ;)n-v.f(»i, 
Nu  4»)'.  S.  yViB  tela  (La  4*).  Once  (Jer  4*-)  only 
is  shdnim  tr*  AV  '  crimson,'  RV  '  scarlet '  (see 
Crimson).  In  one  passage  (Is  1'*)  AV  and  RV  tr. 
shdnim  ' scarlet'  (LXX  (jioifiKovs),  and  tula'  ' crimson ' 
(LXX  KOKKiKos).  6.  k6kkiuos  (Mt  27'-*,  He  9'",  Rev 
17*-*  18'--"').  As  our  Eng.  versions  do  not  rigidly 
preserve  the  distinction  between  crimson  and  scar- 
let, we  cannot  wonder  that  the  ancients  did  not 
always  do  so.  Tola'  originally  signifies  the  worm 
or  insect,  and  shdnl  the  colour.  In  point  of  fact, 
both  colours  are  produced  from  the  same  insect. 
Sometimes  one  of  the  two  words  is  omitted,  and 
sometimes  the  other,  and  sometimes  both  are 
given.  The  article  is  inserted  or  omitted,  witliout 
an  obvious  reason.  The  creature  alluded  to,  which 
produces  the  colour,  is  the  cochineal,  a  hemipter- 
ous  insect.  Coccus  ilicis,  of  which  the  male  in  the 
imago  state  is  winged,  and  the  female  wingless. 
This  insect  attaches  itself  to  the  leaves  and  twigs 
olQiicrcus  cocci/era.  An  allied  species,  Coccus  cacti, 
is  raised  on  the  leaf-like  branches  of  Cactus  Ficit* 
Indica,  Haw.,  and  C.  cochillinifera.  Mill.,  particu- 
larly in  the  neighbourhood  of  Nablfls.  The  female 
is  oval  in  form,  convex  at  the  upper,  flat  at  the 
lower  surface.  She  is  about  the  size  of  half  a 
cherry  kernel,  but  dries  up  to  that  of  a  grain  of 
wheat.  The  Arab,  name  of  this  bug  is  kirmtz, 
from  which  the  word  crimson  is  derived.  Other 
colours  besides  scarlet  and  crimson,  as  purple  and 
violet,  are  manufactured  from  the  cochineal.  See, 
further,  art.  Colours,  «.  '  Scarlet.' 

G.  E.  Post. 

SCEPTRE  is  AV  and  RV  tr.  of  1.  t:z?  shebet: 
Gn  49'"  ('  The  sceptre  [LXX  iSpx""]  s'la"  not  depart 
from  Judah,'  etc. ;  on  this  passage  see  art.  Law- 
giver in  vol.  iii.  p.  83,  and  Shiloii,  below,  p.  500f.), 
Nu  24"  ('  there  shall  come  forth  a  star  out  of 
Jacob,  and  a  sceptre  [LXX  ivSpiinroi]  shall  rise  out 
of  Israel,'  where  sceptre  and  star  [cf.,  for  the  latter 
figure.  Is  14'-,  Rev  22'*]  are  symbolical  for  a  mighty 
prince*),  Ps  45^C>  ('  a,  sceptre  [LXX  and  NT  /Id/iSos] 
of  equity  is  the  sceptre  of  thy  kingdom,'  quoted 
in  He  P),  Is  14°  (||  .he?  ;  '  the  Lord  hath  broken  the 
staff  of  the  wicked,  the  sceptre  [LXX  fir/it,  which 
is  used  also  for  'stall'  immediately  before]  of  the 
rulers '),  Ezk  19"  ('she [the  vine  symbolizing  Israel] 
had  strong  rods  for  the  sceptres  of  them  that  bare 
rule ' ;  cf.  v.",  where,  after  her  destruction,  '  there 
is  in  her  no  longer  a  strong  rod  to  be  a  sceptre  to 
rule '),  Am  l"- "  {'  I  will  cut  off  him  that  holdeth  the 
sceptre'  [LXX  here   and    in    the  two  verses  in 

*  ThiB  appears  decidedly  preferable  to  the  euggestion  of  Bal 
(in  SBOT,  on  Gn  49'i>)  that  rp'is  {'  star ')  may  here  mean,  like  the 
Sumerian  Muuiul, 'a  2an«e,  or  else  a  <^ui,nuu«,  or  mau^,  witk 
a  spiked  head.' 


SCEPTRE 


SCEPTRE 


417 


Ezekiel  has  <fiv\-/i,  taking  sfiebef  in  the  sense  of 
'trilie']),  Zee  10"  ('the  sceptre  [LXX  ffxijirT/joi'] 
of  Egj'i't  shall  depart  away  ).  2.  o's^y  sharbit, 
used  01  the  golden  sceptre  [LXX  17  XP'"'V  A^^So'] 
of  Ahasuerus,  Est  4"  o-''''  8*  [all].  Sharbtl  is 
dimply  an  Araniaism  for  s/ube(  (cf.  the  insertion 
of  r  in  Darmeself  for  Dammesel;  in  1  Ch  18', 
and  see  Siegfried,  Lehrb.  d.  neuheb.  Sprache, 
§18c). 

In  atldition  to  the  above  instances,  RV  in  Nu 
21"  corrects  AV  'by  direction  of  the  lawgiver' 
(LXX  iv  TB  /SafftXei?  ain-iif)  to  'with  the  sceptre.' 
The  Heb.  is  pjrt^'^  II  ojuyif'C?  '  with  their  staves.' 
SimUarly  RV  reads  in  Ps  60'W  =  108'*''-'^  'Judah  is 
mv  sceptre '  (same  Heb.  word)  for  A V  '  J  udah  is 


some  portrajals  of  the  Persian  monarchs  (see 
Rawlinson,  Anc.  Mun.  iii.  203  If.,  who  describes  the 
Persian  sceptre  as  a  rod  about  five  feet  lone, 
ornamented  with  a  ball  or  apple  at  its  upper  end, 
and  taperin"  at  its  other  extremity  almost  to  a 
point).  Probably  both  forms  of  '  sceptre '  are  in 
view  in  Gn  49'"  (where  bjs"  should  prob.  be  taken  as 
a  royal  emblem),  the  longer  one  being  repre-sented 
by  the  pEnij  (prop,  'commander's  stall"')  of  tlie  second 
clause,  and  the  shorter  one  by  the  e^;?  of  the  first 
clause.*  The  long  sceptre  is  simidy  an  ornamented 
staff,  the  .short  one  is  a  development  of  the  club 
or  mnnc  (cf.  art.  Rod,  and  see  liguies  in  Ball,  I.e. 
pp.  50,  199",  '217).  It  is  this  last-named  weapon 
that  is  called  shebet  in  2  S  23«  -=1  Ch  11^  (AV  and 


Msrmujf  Kiiia  wim  soipraB  (doo-rivbr  ihsoriptions^l 


my  lawgiver '[LXX  ^a(riK(ui\.  See  Lawgivek,  I.e. 
It  al.so  substitutes  'sceptre'  for  'rod'  as  tr.  of 
shlbet  in  Ps  125'  ('the  sceptre  [LXX  Ad/SSos]  of 
wickedness  shall  not  rest  upon  the  lot  of  the 
righteous'). 

'  Sceptre'  is  the  appropriate  rendering  of  shebe(, 
when  this  is  associated  with  a  kinrj  or  used  abso- 
lutely,* in  which  latter  instance  it  probably  always 
designates  a  ruyal  possession  (see  Driver,  Expua. 
July  1885,  p.  13).  S/iebe(,  in  this  sense,  may  stand 
cither  for  a  sliort  ornamental  sceptre  such  as 
ajipears  in  some  representations  of  the  Assyrian 
kmg  (see  illustration  above,  and  the  figures  in  Ball, 
Light  frifm  tlie  East,  pj).  160,  199\  217),  or  for  a  long 
stall  reaching  to  the  ground,  which  characterizes 

•  Id  Inst&ncofl  like  Jg  5**  (150  B^p*)  *  baton  '  would  t>e  a  very 
■uitAble  rendering. 

V01„  IV.— 27 


RV  wrongly  '  staff')  and  Ps  2'  23*  ( AV  and  RV  leas 
clearly  '  rod '). 

The  '  golden '  (xpiio'foi')  or  'gold-studded  '  (xpvatlott 
4X0171)  sceptre  (aKrfirTpoi/)  appears  fre<iuently  in  the 
pages  of  Homer  in  the  hands  of  kings  and  chiefs 
(e.g.  II.  i.  15,  246  ;  Od.  xi.  91,  569).  With  such  a 
'sceptre'  Ulysses  beats  Thersites  (II.  ii.  2G5I1'.); 
a  sceptre  is  put  by  a  herald  into  the  hands  of 
Menelaus  when  he  rises  to  address  the  Greeks  (ib. 
xxiii.  568,  cf.  Od.  ii.  37). 

On  the  ditliculty  of  approaching  the  presence  of 
the  Persian  kings  referred  to  in  Est  4",  cf.  also 
Herod,  iii.  118,  140.  J.  A.  Selbik. 

•  Dlllm. ,  Ball,  Ounkel,  et  al.,  make  ppha  and  o;5»  tynooymou 
here,  and  understand  both  to  refer  to  a  ionn  '•oeptre'  or  stall ; 
but  this  is  not  required  by  the  parallellim.  In  P»  110>  ."155  In 
llkoirlae  an  emblem  of  rule,  and  virtually >'Keptre. 


418 


SCEVA 


SCEYA 


SCEYA  (2/cctas,  Sceva),  Ac  lO^^— The  name 
{Blass,  ad  loc.)  was  probably  of  Latin  origin  Scaeva^ 
but  liad  been  assimilated  to  a  Greek  form  as  if 
derived  from  <tk€vos  ;  it  occurs  in  an  inscription 
at  Miletus  {CJG  ii.  2889.  5).  In  Ac  19>'--\  in  the 
account  of  8t.  Paul's  preaching  at  Epbesus,  we 
are  tola  that  God  wrougbt  special  miracles  by  the 
hands  of  Paul,  even  handkerchiefs  carried  from 
his  body  were  sufHcient  to  heal.  Hut  some  of  the 
wandering  Jewish  exorcists  tried  to  exorcize  in 
the  name  of  Jesus,  saying,  *  I  adjure  you  by  Jesus, 
whom  Paul  preaches.*  Tlien  is  recorded  the  special 
instance  of  the  seven  sons  of  Sceva,  described  as  a 
Jewish  high  pi'iest,  who  attempted  this  and  failed, 
tlie  evil  spirit  answering,  *  Jesus  I  know,  and 
Paul  I  know,  but  who  are  ye?'  and  the  man  driv- 
ing two  of  them  *  naked  and  wounded  out  of  tlie 
house.  This  caused  great  fear.  Many  who  had 
used  curious  arts  came  confessing  what  they  had 
done.  Many  also  burnt  magical  books  amounting 
in  value  to  50,000  drachmas  (about  £2000).  *  So 
mightily  grew  the  word  of  God  and  prevailed.* 

The  wiiole  paragraph  must  be  taKen  together. 
It  represents  St.  Paul's  miracles  and  spiritual 
power  in  contrast  to  the  magical  customs  which  so 
>\*idely  prevailed.  Many  Jews  especially  devoted 
themselves  to  sorcery,  and  Ephesus  was  noted  for, 
amongst  other  forms  of  sorcery,  the  Ephesia  gram- 
Tnata  (see  Ephksus  and  Magic).  St,  Paul's  power 
and  success  led  to  imitation  of  Iiim.  The  name 
of  Jesus  evidently  seemed  to  have  some  special 
efficacy,  and  so  was  adopted  by  the  sorcerers,  as 
every  other  name  in  turn  M-as  adopted  (on  the 
power  of  names  see  Frazer,  Golden  Bought  i.  403). 
The  discoveries  of  papyri  made  in  the  last  few 
years  have  enabled  us  to  realize  the  very  large 
extent  to  which  magical  practices  prevailed,  and 
the  number  of  magical  books  which  existed.  The 
name  of  Jehovah  in  some  form  is  common,  and  in 
che  following  extract  from  a  magical  papyrus  at 
Paris  the  name  of  Jesus  is  used.  The  papyrus  is 
of  the  4th  cent.,  and  the  original  cannot  be  earlier 
than  Hadrian,  who  is  mentioned  byname  ;  it  is  pub- 
lished by  C.  Wessely,  *  Griechische  Zauberpapyrus 
von  Paris  und  London,*  in  the  Denkschriften  der 
phil.  -hist,  Classe  der  kais.  Akad.  der  Wissen- 
schaften  in  Wien,  vol.  xxxvi.  (1888)  L  3007  if.).t 

fx.tTa  /3oT«v*)f  fMcffnyia.!  z/x,i  AoiTo/xr.rpctf  'i^u  u-tTCL  ycx.f^oCx^if 
a^yJaiT.Vrai*  .  ,  .  rritrcti  etvrtxpvf  ipzt-^t.  tffrip  it  i  opxttrfjtii  eZrof' 
epxiZai  rt  JtecTx  rev  Stav  rat  ' EtSpt^'Oiv  'Irttroo'  lot^a.'  <«»)•  ei^peutd' 
ecKx  :  Ooitt'  lAl'  t\at'  «*;«  IW  m^cctx,'  etizttpuat'  lu^otpotcu'  et^ik^iK' 
Xaf*a,'  ctiBp»'  f^iMpoiec'  fipeuuatv'  ffupKpettr;'  i  iv  fd^irn  ap«upvi(  xa.i 
X'ovtff  *xi  oi^'x^y;'  retttXTiS'  jutrccSuTot  irou  o  Siyyikoi  i  ocvacpctiTr.TOf 
x/z'i  tirxpivira/  ro*  iripiTTaictfo*  iaiiuavx  rev  'rXa.ffu.a.roi  rai,Tou  • 
ITAofl-lt  0  tiiai  it  T*  etytoi  trtuTOv  Tetpoihuw  (MS  TK^o^iffr^']  .  .  . 
cpx.^ot  «*■  r»y  fJifJMtBitva,  rw  'Icpeiiik  iw  rriiXat  ^mruyp  xett  vi^lA*) 
yif*.ipnn  X.T.JL. 

Both  the  evidence  of  papyri  and  the  incident 
recorded  in  the  Acts  imply  a  conviction,  even 
amongst  those  who  did  not  believe,  that  there 
was  power,  perhaps  snecial  power,  in  the  name  of 
Jesus.  It  would  imply  a  general  impression  that 
miracles  were  wTought  in  His  name,  and  bears 
witness  to  the  force  and  po^^e^  of  Christianity. 
It  is  instruc^tive  also  to  notice  how  from  the 
Ijeginning  Christianity  is  the  resolute  foe  of  all 
naagic. 

There  are  a  fiomber  of  critical  questions  connected  with  this 
rtarrative.  First  of  all  there  is  a  question  of  text.  The  RV 
(Codex  B)  reads  :  '  And  there  were  seven  sons  of  one  Sceva,  a 
Jew,  a  chief  priest,  which  did  this.  And  the  evil  spirit 
answered  and  said  unto  them,  Jesus  I  know,  and  Paul  I  know  ; 
but  who  are  ye?  And  the  man  in  whom  the  evil  spirit  was 
leaped  upon  them,  and  mastered  both  of  them,  and  prevailed 
against  them,  so  that  they  fleti  out  of  that  house  naked  and 
wounded.*    D  (supported  by  the  margin  of  the  Philoxenian) 

•  But  see  footnote  on  next  column, 

t  For  this  and  other  information  the  present  writer  is  In- 
d«btcd  to  Dr  F.  Q.  Kenyon  of  the  British  Museum. 


reads  :  '  And  among  those  also  the  sons  of  one  Sceva,  a  priest, 
winked  to  do  the  sayne  thiiuj,  who  had  a  cti^ttom  of  exorcizing 
sxich ;  and  haviiui  gone  in  unto  the  man  possessed  with  devUa^ 
tliey  began  to  call  upon  the  natne^  saying  :  We  c&minand  the€  in 
Jesus,  whmn  Paul  preaches,  to  come  forth.'  According  to 
Uamsay  (C'/turcA  in  the  Roman  Empire^p.  153):  'Codex  Beza 
here  g^ives  a  text  which  is  intelligent,  consistent,  and  possible  t 
the  accepted  text  is  badly  expressed  and  even  self -contradictory.* 
This  opinion  seeuis  to  be  largely  followed.  To  the  present 
writer  the  text  of  D  is  clearly  a  oad  paraphrase,  and  itp  growth 
can  be  shown.  The  statement  that  Sceva  was  a  Jewish  high 
priest  seemed  (as  it  is)  very  curious,  and  therefore  was  altered 
m  various  ways.  D  alters  a.^x**P'-^  into  Upivf,  and  omits 
'Uvhix,.ou,so  Giij.  reads  'sacerdotis,'  and  Cassiodorius  explains  by 
'  principis  synagogas. 

Then  again  in  the  text  of  B,  while  in  vM  we  have  seven  sons, 
in  v. 16  it  is  stated  that  the  man  '  mastered  both  of  them,'  im- 
plying only  two.  Gig.  therefore  substitutes  'duo'  for  '  srptem,' 
D  leaves  out  the  number  altogether,  while  the  majority  ot  later 
authorities  prefer  t-o  omit  or  alter  0Lfj4cr-.pa,f  in  vA*^,  the  fijahidic 
even  putting  eorum  septem.  The  remaining  alterations  of  D 
are,  as  is  generally  the  case,  mere  inept  expansions.  Ths 
narrative  of  St.  Luke  is  very  much  abbreviated,  and  the  para- 
phrast  or  translator  thought  that  he  could  make  it  more  clear, 
l)ut  he  does  not  add  a  single  point  which  could  not  be  guessed. 
Even  in  the  few  words  he  does  add  he  manages  to  introduce 
the  fonu  »»x«*  and  the  word  ieuf^tiZopLnof  which  are  not  Lukan, 
and  the  expression  'tTixccktye-tieu  to  ovof^^  which  does  not  occur 
unqualified  in  the  NT,  and  betrays  a  later  age.  It  may  be 
noted  that  the  word  Btu^Tipai*  is  undoubtedly  Lukan  (8  or  9 
times  in  Luke  and  Acts,  0  times  elsewliere  in  NT).  The  incon- 
sistency may  be  difficult,  but  it  is  quite  inconceivable  that  any 
one  who  had  the  D  text  before  him  should  have  taken  the 
trouble  to  insert  septem.  On  every  principle  of  textual  criti- 
cism the  text  of  B  must  be  the  original. 

The  statement  that  Sceva  was  a  Jewish  high  priest  is  un- 
doubtedly difficult,  but  we  have  no  right  therefore  to  correct  it 
away.  Vet  in  the  sense  of  a  member  of  a  high  priestly  family 
there  roust  have  been  many  who  could  claim  it,  and  as  Zeller 
(Acts  of  the  Apostles,  Eng.  tr.  ii.  p.  59)  says:  'It  is  quite 
possible  that  a  band  of  exorcists,  giving  themselves  out  for  eona 
or  disciples  of  a  Jewish  hi^h  priest,  may  have  made  an  experi- 
ence of  the  futility  of  their  arts  in  the  person  of  a  lunatic  who 
had  heard  something  of  Paul  and  of  Christ.'  The  difficulty 
about  the  discrepancy  of  numbers  is  more  interesting.  St. 
Luke's  narrative  is  obviously  very  much  shortened ;  only  the 
necessary  statements  are  made,  and  only  what  is  essential  is 
given.  He  never  tells  us  that  only  two  out  of  the  seven  were 
engaged  in  this  incident,  and  it  conies  out  accidentally  in 
a.LufoTipan.'*  Does  not,  this  small  point  imply  that  the  writer 
had  here  a  source,  almost  necessarily  a  written  one,  from  which 
he  abbreviated  his  narrative? 

It  has  been  suggested  that  w.n-20  have  been  added  to  the 
original  work.  Hil^enfeld  ascribes  the  passage  to  R.  Ramsay, 
who  has  taken  a  dislike  to  it,  says  :  '  If  there  were  many  such 
contrasts  in  the  book  as  between  vv,n-20  aiid  2J-4i,  i  should  be  a 
believer  in  the  composite  character  of  the  .A.cts'  (St.  Paul  the 
Traveller,  p.  273).  It  will  be  interesting,  therefore,  to  examine 
the  language.  It  will  appear  that  throughout  the  passage  we 
find  characteristic  Lukan  expressions. 

ou  T«(  vvx^ix^oi-iy  cf.  Ac  '^2. 

rvyX'^*^*'  7  times  in  Acts  and  Luke,  6  times  elsewherSb 

iT.(7-T«ji*«*,  10  t.  in  Acts.  6  elsewhere. 

ilk  x^f^^t  ''*'»  X»'^*.  S  times  in  Acts. 

5'V4ftf-Te»,  10  t.  in  Acts,  twice  in  Luke,  S  t.  elsewhere. 

Tois  xxToixeviri*  with  acc.  13  t.  in  Acts,  once  in  Luke. 

iTiTiTTti*,  10  t.  in  Acts  and  Luke,  4  elsewhere. 

^o$o(  ia-Ea-iriv,  cf.  Lk  l^*. 

fx.iyet\u^u;  6  t.  in  Acts  and  Luke,  3  elsewhere. 

01  rtTitrnvxcrti,  common  in  Acts. 

i»«kO',  29  times  in  Acts  and  Luke,  12  elsewhere. 

Tiu.vi,  or  rifAas  of  price,  5  times  in  Acts.     With  v.20  cf.  C  12'*, 

The  whole  structure  of  the  paragraph  is  exactly  in  the 
manner  of  the  writer  of  the  Acta,  with  the  final  clause  summing 
up  the  whole,  while  there  are  indications  that  here  as  else- 
where he  has  reproduced  partly  in  his  own  words  a  written 
narrative,  just  in  the  same  way  as  be  reproduces  the  Synoptic 
narratives  m  the  Gospels  with  signs  of  his  own  phraseology. 

Besides  the  special  point  touched  on  above,  the 
historical  character  of  the  narrative  has  been 
attacked  more  generally,  Ramsay  (St.  Paid  the 
'Traveller y  loc.  cit. )  finds  in  it  a  vulgarity  of  tone  com- 
pared with  the  great  scene  at  Paphos.  This  seems 
to  the  present  writer  purely  fanciful,  Zeller  {op. 
cit.  ii.  58)  says  :  *  Even  from  the  standpoint  of  the 
miraculous  faith  presented  in  our  book,  such  an 
utterly  crass  and  magical  representation  of  the 
healing  power  of  the  apostle  has  too  much  that 
is  otlensive.'  What  he  particularly  objects  to  is 
the  story  of   the  healing   power   in  the  handker* 

•  [In  Expos.  Times,  Dea  1900,  p.  144,  it  is  argued  by  Nestle 
that  atfi^oTipoiy  like  'both'  in  English  [see  editorial  note,  t&.], 
may  include  more  than  two,  and  is  at  times  equivalent  to 
»a»T«.  It  was  also  discussed  by  J.  B.  Bury  in  the  Classical 
liev.  xl.  393  (1897).  There  are  at  least  two  instaaces  in  Papyri  t 
Brit.  Mum.  Pap.  336 ;  Geneva  Pap.  67J. 


SCHISM 


SCOUEGE 


4U 


chiefs  of  St.  Paul,  and  this  is  supposed  to  be  a 
mere  parallel  to  flie  narrative  in  Ac  5"-".  The 
parallel  is  too  distant  to  have  any  weight,  and 
here,  as  elsewhere,  we  need  only  remarlc  about 
the  miracles,  that  even  if  the  liandkerchiefs  of 
St.  Paul  had  no  healing  power  it  would  certainly 
be  believed  that  thej'  pos.sessed  it,  and  that  if  the 
faith  of  the  recipient  was  a  condition  of  healing  it 
might  surely  act  equally  with  those  who  received  a 
handkerchief  in  the  virtue  of  which  they  believed. 
The  whole  narrative  must  be  criticised  and  judged 
from  the  point  of  view  of  the  time  and  place.  The 
remarks  of  Conybeare  and  Howson,  ch.  xiv.,  who 
hring  out  how  exactly  the  story  harmonizes  with 
the  atmosphere  of  Ephesus,  are  much  more  valuable. 
'  The  character  of  miracles  was  not  always  the 
same.  They  were  accommodated  to  the  peculiar 
forms  of  sin,  superstition,  and  ignorance  they  were 
required  to  oppose.  ...  So  on  this  occasion  gar- 
ments were  made  the  means  of  communicating  a 
healing  power  to  those  who  were  at  a  distance 
.  .  .  such  effects  thus  publicly  manifested  were  a 
signal  refut.ation  of  the  charms  and  amulets  and 
mysticietters  of  Ephesus.'         A.  C.  Ueadlam. 

SCHISM.— Only  1  Co  12»  '  That  there  should  be 
no  schism  in  tlie  body' :  Gr.  <rx'<''M",  which  means 
either  lit.  a  rent  in  a  gannent  (Mt  9"  =  Mk  2")  or 
fig.  a  division  in  a  community  (.In  7'"  9"  lO",  1  Co 
ift  1118  i2.a).  KV  retains  '  schism '  in  1  Co  12=»,  and 
in  the  marg.  of  11"*  points  <iut  that  the  Gr.  is 
'  schisms '  (text '  divisions ').  See  HERESY,  voL  ii. 
p.  351». 

SCHOOL See  Education. 

SCHOOLMASTER.  — Only  Gal  3«- »  AV  (Gr. 
Tai.Sayuy6!,  which  occurs  also  in  1  Co  4"  AV 
'  instructer ' ;  RV  in  all  places  'tutor').  The 
iratSayuyis  (Lat.  prnd'trjogtis)  was  a  person  (gener- 
ally a  slave)  who  had  charge  of  the  Greek  or 
Roman  boy  till  he  reached  manhood.  Tindale's 
translation  '  scholcmaster'  (Wye.  '  maister ')  is 
misleading,  as  the  vaibayuiybi  was  not  a  school- 
master or  teacher  (StSiaKoKoi).  Nor  is  the  apostle 
thinking  of  one  who  conducted  to  school,  though 
no  doubt  the  iraiStiyurylit  might  lead  the  boy  to 
school  if  he  went  there.  The  contrast  in  GaJ.  is 
between  the  restraint  of  boyhood  and  the  liberty 
of  manhood.  To  be  under  the  Law  is  to  be 
always  under  the  control  of  a  iraiJti7iiryiit,  to  be  in 
Christ  is  to  be  free  from  that  irksome  restraint. 

J.  Hastings. 

SCHOOLS  OF  THE  PROPHETS.— See  Educa- 
tion, vol.  i.  p.  647*,  and  I'EorUECV,  p.  109*. 

SCIENCE. — This  word,  as  used  in  AV,  means 

simply  knowledfje.  Wyclif  ( IForfe,  iii.  122)  renders 
1  Co  8'  'Science  blowes  men'  (AV  'knowledge 
pulieth  up ').  Cf.  Barlowe,  Dialoge,  109,  '  Tliere  is 
no  tnithe,  no  mercye,  nor  scyence  of  god  in  the 
yerth';  Golding,  Calvin's  Job,  571,  'Thou  shalt 
not  run  after  witchcrafts,  and  other  vaine  sciences ' ; 
and  Ro  2**  Rhem.  '  Having  the  forme  of  science ' 
(AV  '  which  hast  the  form  of  knowledge,'  Gr.  rflt 
yvuctut).  The  word  occurs  in  AV  only  Dn  1* 
'Children  .  .  .  understanding  science'  (rHi  "V")'. 
LXX  ypafMtjLaTtKovs,  Theod.  yiyvuxxKOfras  -y^'^^jfrt*')  ; 
and  1  Ti  6"  'Avoiding  .  .  .  opjiositions  of  science 
fal.sely  so  called'  (d^nWutis  tjjj  \pev5ioi>vfjLOv  yvuiacwt, 
Rhcni.  'oppositions  of  falsely  called  knowledge'). 
See  Knowi.edor  and  GNOSTICISM. 

Science  in  the  modem  sense,  that  is,  the  dis- 
covery and  chussilication  of  secondary  laws,  is 
unknown   to  the   Bible.      To   the   Hebrew   mind 

5>henonicna  were  immediately  due  to  the  word  of 
'ehovali.  See  P.  Thomson  in  Expos.  2nd  ser.  vol. 
L  pp.  161  ff.,  241  fr.  J.  Hastinqs. 


SCORPION  (:"HV  'nkrdbh,  rKoprlos,  scotpio,  Arab. 
'akrab). — There  has  never  been  any  reason  to 
doubt  the  identity  of  this  animal.  It  is  of  tlie 
order  Araihindte,  resembling  in  shape  a  lobster, 
except  that  it  has  a  long  tail,  at  the  end  of  whicli 
is  its  venomous  sting.  Its  claws  are  used  for 
seizing  its  prey,  which  it  kills  with  its  sting. 
When  the  animal  runs  it  holds  its  tail  upward  in 
readiness  to  strike.  It  is  carnivorous,  living  on 
insects  and  worms.  Scorpions  swarm  under  stones 
and  in  cliinks  of  walls,  and  often  conceal  them- 
selves under  beds  and  mats  in  houses.  Their  sting 
is  very  painful,  frequently  causing  a  night  of 
agony,  which  nothing  but  a  large  dose  of  morpliino 
will  assuage.  The  wound  is  dangerous  to  human 
life  only  when  in  a  situation  where  the  swelling 
obstnicts  the  respiration.  Not  less  than  a  dozen 
species  are  found  in  Palestine  and  Syria.  The 
largest  is  6  in.  long,  and  black.  Others  are  yellow, 
brown,  white,  and  red,  and  variously  striped. 

The  scorpion  is  frequently  mentioned  in  Scrip- 
ture. Allusion  is  made  to  its  residence  in  the 
desert  (Dt  8'°).  Rehoboam  threatens  to  chastise  his 
contumacious  subjects  with  scorpions  (1  K  12"-  ", 
2  Ch  10"'").  This  is  prob.  figurative  (see  next 
art.).  Again,  scorpions  are  alluded  to  figuratively 
with  briers  and  thorns  to  designate  a  rebellious 
people  (Ezk  2").  The  offer  of  a  scorpion  instead  of 
an  egg  (Lk  11'^)  is  mentioned  in  a  way  that  shows 
the  horror  Avhich  this  creature  inspired.  The  figure 
employed  by  our  Lord  in  this  passage  is  suggested 
by  the  egg-like  form  of  the  scorpion  when  at  rest 
(see  Plummer,  rtrf^oc).  The  pain  of  its  sting  (Rev 
9'),  the  organ  that  inflicts  it  (v.'°),  and  its  venomous 
quality  (v."),  are  noted.  The  scorpion  is  also  men- 
tioned in  Apocr.  (Sir  26'  Z^,  4  Mac  ll'»). 

G.  E.  Post. 

SCOURGE  (b'ie',  usually  translated  'scourge,'  six 
times[l  K  12"-»,2Ch  10''- ",Pr26»,Nah3=]' whip'; 
Gr.  nouns  and  verbs  fiiari^,  fuurriy&o),  na<rril^<i> ;  (ppay- 
AXjov,  ippayeXMo) ;  flagellum,  Jlagellare). — Among 
the  Hebrews  the  usual  mode  of  corporal  punish- 
ment, legal  and  domestic,  was  that  of  heating  with 
the  rod,  just  as  the  bastinado  ia  still  tlie  common 
method  in  Eastern  countries.  The  only  reference 
to  the  scourge  as  an  instrument  of  punishment  is 
found  in  1  K  12"-",  2  Ch  10"-".  Rehoboam  sig- 
nalized his  accession  to  the  throne  by  threatening 
that,  whereas  his  father  had  chastised  the  people 
with  whips  (or  scourges),  he  would  chastise  them 
with  scorpions.  The  scorpion  (^-jpv)  may  have  been 
a  more  terrible  kind  of  weapon  in  actual  use — 
either  a  knotted  cudgel  or  a  scourge  armed  with 
barlied  points,  just  as  the  Roman  Scorpio  was 
described  by  Isidore  as  virga  nodosa  et  aculeata. 
It  is  possible,  however,  that  the  king  was  only 
using  a  lively  figure  of  speech. 

Under  the  Roman  system  of  scourging,  the 
culprit  was  stripped  and  tied  in  a  bending  posture 
to  a  pillar,  or  stretched  on  a  frame  (divaricatio), 
and  tlie  punishment  was  inflicted  with  a  scourge 
made  of  leathern  thonfjs  weighted  with  sharp  pieces 
of  bone  or  lead.  This  is  what  Horace  calls  the 
horribile  flagellum  {Sat.  I.  iii.  119).  Jesus  was 
scourged  with  it  by  order  of  Pilate  before  being  led 
away  to  be  crucified  (Mt27=»,  Mk  15",  Jn  19').  He 
had  foreseen  and  foretold  tliis  indignity  (Mt  20'", 
Mk  10**,  Lk  18").  The  punishment  of  scourging 
usually  preceded  crucifixion  (see  references  in 
Swete,  St.  Mark,  adloc. ).  The  Porcian  law  forbade 
the  scourging  of  Roman  citizens ;  and  on  one 
occasion  St.  Paul,  after  being  actually  bound  in 
order  to  be  scourged,  escaped  the  inlliction  by 
demanding  if  it  was  lawful  to  scourge  a  man  who 
was  a  Roman  and  uncondemned  (.»\c  22-'^'  ^). 

Jesus  forewarned  His  disciples  that  they  would 
be  scourged  in  the  synagogues  (Mt  10"  23").  Tha 
Jewish  method  is  fully  described  in  the  Miahuib 


420 


SCRABBLE 


SCRIBES 


Tin;  scourge  consisted  of  three  thongs  of  leather, 
and  the  oUender  received  thirteen  stripes  on  the 
bare  breast  and  thirteen  on  each  shonlder  {Makhoth 
lii.  12).  St.  Paul  records  that  he  five  times  suti'ered 
this  punishment  at  the  hands  of  the  Jews  (2  Co 
11");  and  'others  had  trial  of  .  ,  .  scourgings' 
(He  11"). 

Legal  usages  apart,  Jesus  made  a  scourge  {<f>pa.- 
y4\\iop)  of  small  cords  before  cleansing  the  temple 
(Jn  2").  Opinion  differs  as  to  the  use  He  made 
of  it.  Meyer  thinks  He  drove  out  the  animals 
with  it,  not  the  persons  ;  Godet,  that  'it  was  not 
an  instrument  but  an  emblem,  a  sign  of  authority 
and  judgment.' 

'Scourge'  is  frequently  used  in  a  metaphorical 
sense.  The  Canaanites  were  a  scourge  {a~t')  in 
the  side  of  the  Israelites  (Jos  23") ;  Eliphaz  spoke 
of  hiding  from  the  scourge  of  the  tongue  (Job 
5^') ;  the  phigue  was  the  scourge  by  pre-eminence 
(Job  9^,  Is  lU-"};  and  by  a  fusion  of  metaphors  an 
invasion  was  called  an  overflowing  scourge  (Is 
28'"). 

For  literature  see  art  Chimes  and  PninsBUEirra. 

SCRABBLE.— 1  S  21"  only,  '  And  scrabbled  "on 
the  doors  of  the  gate '  (io;i.*  AVm  and  RVm  '  made 
marks ' :  the  subst.  ii?  a  mark  or  signature,  esp.  in 
the  form  of  a  cross,  became  the  name  of  the  Heb. 
letter  n ;  see  Mark,  §  6).  The  Eng.  word  comes 
from  the  Geneva  version,  where  the  marg.  is  *  by 
making  markes  and  toyes.' 

Though  the  same  in  meaning  as  •  Hcribble*  (from  Lat.  teribere 
to  write),  it  has  no  conne.xion  with  that  word  etjTnologically. 
Skeat  considers  it  to  be  a  dialectic  form  of  *sorappIe'  (a  fre- 
quentative of  'scrape'),  of  which  'scramble'  is  a  nasalized 
form.  Bunyan  uses  '  scrabble'  in  the  sense  of  ' scramble '  (/*/* 
p.  116,  see  Venables'  note  on  p.  467),  '  Now,  after  a  while,  Little- 
faith  came  to  himself,  and  getting  up,  made  shift  to  scrabble  on 
his  way.'  The  modern  word  'scrawl,' says  Skeat,  'appears  to 
be  nothing  but  a  careless  form  of  "scrabble."' 

J.  HAS'nNGS. 
SCREECH  OWL.— See  Owl. 

SCRIBES.— 1.  Origin  and  CHARACTERis-ncs.— 
In  the  time  of  our  Saviour  Jewish  piety  was  largely 
legalistic  and  formal.  The  whole  life  of  a  pious 
Jew  was  strictly  regulated  by  the  Law.  The  Law 
was  God's  greatest  gift  to  Israel  ;  it  was  the  com- 
plete revelation  of  His  will  and  the  basis  of  the 
covenant  into  which  He  had  entered  with  them  at 
Sinai ;  in  it  God  had  made  kno\vn  the  perfect  way 
of  life,  binding  Himself  by  its  terms  to  reward 
both  in  time  and  eternity  the  pious  Jew  in  propor- 
tion to  his  observance  of  its  precepts.  The  Law 
was  therefore  the  binding  norm  both  of  the  religious 
and  the  moral  life.  Religion  was  not  a  communion 
of  man  with  God,  but  a  legally  correct  walk  before 
God.  Love  of  the  Law  was  the  essence  of  piety  ; 
conformity  to  the  Law  was  the  standard  and  source 
of  all  righteousness.  The  aim  and  motive  of  this 
piety  was  the  hope  of  reward  in  the  present  age 
and  in  the  age  to  come  (cf.  Weber,  Jiid.  Theol. 
Iff.). 

This  legalistic  tendency,  which  dates  at  least  as 
fsi  back  as  Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  called  into  exist- 
ence a  class  of  men  who  specially  devoted  them- 
selves to  the  study  and  exposition  of  the  Law. 
These  were  the  sOphSrim  or  scribes.  The  earlier 
scribes,  however,  must  not  be  identified  in  all 
respects  with  those  of  NT  times.  The  latter  were 
mainly  jurists ;  the  former  were  men  of  (sacred) 
letters  :  copyists,  editors,  students,  and  interpreters 
of  Scripture,  and  more  especially  of  the  Law.  Ezra, 
'  the  scribe '  par  excellence  according  to  Jewish  tra- 
dition, is  the  great  typical  form  of  these  earlier 
scribes  or  exegetes  of  the  Law  (Ezr  !'■  "• ",  Neh 

•  We  shotild  probably  emend  to  Ifi.'^t  '  *°*^  he  drummed  on 
(the  doors).'  So  Driver,  Budde,  Ldhr,  tt  al.,  (oUowing  the  LXX 
in^urtitiZu  and  Yulg.  impingebcU, 


gi...  9. 18  i22»->8).»  He  is  described  as  'a  ready 
scribe  in  the  law  of  Moses'  (Ezr  7'),  i.e.  as  a  man 
of  letters  skilful  in  the  Law,  and  as  having  '  set  hi> 
heart  to  seek  the  law  of  the  Lord,  and  to  do  it,  and 
to  teach  in  Israel  statutes  and  judgments'  (v.'"). 
This  description  of  their  activity  doubtless  aijplies 
in  the  main  to  Ezra's  immediate  successors.  They 
occupied  themselves  in  gathering  together  and 
elaborating  Israel's  sacred  literature,  in  inter- 
preting it  to  the  common  people,  who  were  largely 
Ignorant  of  Hebrew,  and  in  making  the  Law  the 
rule  of  faith  and  life.t  But  down  to  the  Macca- 
baean  period  their  obedience  to  the  Law  was  not 
synonymous  with  the  narrowness  of  later  Judaism 
(see  Wildeboer,  Die  Spriiche,  xvi).  They  were 
the  '  wise,'  the  '  men  of  understanding,'  the  '  just 
men'  of  Proverbs  and  Ecclesiasticus  (cf.  Sir  6^*' 
91411.  i4a)ff.  382J-391IS,  Dn  ll**-"  12^).  It  would  seem 
from  1  Ch  2"  that  they  tended  to  form  themselves 
into  guilds  and  families. 

Like  Ezra  himself  (Ezr  7"  etc.),  the  scribes  were 
originally  found  among  the  priests  and  Levites  (cf. 
Neh  8'-  ",  2  Ch  34").  But  pious  '  laymen '  also 
naturally  devoted  themselves  to  the  professional 
study  of  the  Law,  so  that  there  was  gradually 
formed,  alongside  of  the  priests,  who  were  the  official 
interpreters  of  the  Law,  a  relatively  independent 
class  of  scribes.  During  the  Greek  period  this 
independence  developed  into  opposition,  not  indeed 
to  the  priesthood  generally,  but  to  the  priestly 
aristocracy,  several  of  whom  fell  away  to  Hellenism 
and  neglected  the  laws  and  customs  of  the  fathers. 
The  attempt  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes  to  suppress 
the  Jewish  religion  brought  matters  to  a  crisis. 
It  increased  the  scribes'  devotion  to  the  Law,  and 
made  them  more  narrow  and  exclusive.  It  also 
greatly  increased  their  reputation  among  the  people 
as  being  the  leaders  of  those  who  were  zealous  tor 
the  Law  (cf.  1  Mac  7'^'  for  their  connexion  with 
the  Hasidaeans),  and  as  men  who  were  ready  to 
sutler  martyrdom  for  their  faith,  '  welcoming 
death  with  renown  rather  than  life  with  pollution ' 
(2  Mac  6"*"^').  The  issue  of  the  Maccabee  rising 
in  the  Hasmonoean  State  intensified  their  narrow- 
ness and  exclusiveness ;  they  became  Pharisees. 
Under  John  HjTcanus  (Kuenen),  or  more  probably 
under  Alexandra  Salome  (Wellhausen),  their 
leaders  received  a  seat  in  the  Sanhedrin,  as  a 
separate  class,  alongside  of  the  chief  priests  and 
elders.  They  thus  gained  a  kind  of  official  position, 
and  assumed  a  new  character.  From  being  men  of 
sacred  letters,  they  became  mainly  jurists.  Amid 
aU  the  changes  that  followed  the  downfall  of  the 
Hasmonaean  dynasty  down  to  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem,  although  they  were  never  in  possession 
of  political  power,  they  were  the  real  leaders  of  the 
people,  sucn  as  we  find  them  in  the  time  of  our 
Saviour. 

In  the  NT  they  are  usually  called  ypa/jL/iaTett 
{'  scribes,' '  men  of  letters '),  occasionally  also  vo/ii/toJ 
('  lawyers')  and  ro/iodiSda-KaXoi  ('doctors,'  '  teacliera 

•  Scribes  are  mentioned  in  Jer  88,  where  the  prophet  accuses 
them  of  falsifying  the  Law  (cf.  Giesebrecbt,  ad  toe).    The  term 

Sopher  occurs  frequently  in  the  OT  in  other  significations,  e.g. 
g  6",  2  K  2519,  2  Ch  26",  Jer  37"-*>  6'2a»  •  muster-master,  an 
officer  who  had  charge  of  the  enumeration  and  enrolment  of  the 
troops;  a  kind  of  adjutant-general' (Moore  on  Jg  6^*);  Is  ;{3H 
the  official  that  rated  the  tribute  or  war-tax  that  had  to  be  paid 
to  the  oppressor;  Ezr  48t  (NiEp],  Ps  45i  [Heb.  2j,  Jer  SOW  as, 
Ezk  9>->  writer;  2S  8"  20»,  IK  48,  2K  1210  (Heb.")  1818.37 
192  223.  sir.,  1  Ch  1816  246  27M,  2  Ch  34I6- 18-  »>,  Est  3>2  89,  Is  36S-  ^ 
ST',  Jer  3610. 11 20. 21  secretary  of  the  king,  secretarj-  of  State. 
In  1  Mac  6*3  the  '  scribes  of  the  people '  are  also  militarj'  officers, 
the  'captains  of  thousands,  ancl  captains  of  hundieds,  and  cap- 
tains of  fifties,  and  captains  of  tens'  of  S".  In  Sir  KV" scribe' 
probably  means  prefect  of  the  people.  Of.  Deissmann  [En;, 
tr.),  liuff. 

t  The  tradition  regarding  the  Great  Synagogue,  which  is  said 
to  have  fixed  the  Canon  of  Scripture,  has  no  historical  founda- 
tion ;  see  Kuenen,  Ge^ammeite  Abhandtungeti,  125  ff. ;  Montet, 
Etisai  gur  let  wriginet  des  partit  $aditci«n  et  pharieien,  91  fl. 
and  art.  Stnaoooub  (Tob  Grkat). 


SCRIBES 


SCRIBES 


421 


of  the  law').  These  three  terms  are  used  almost 
synonymously  (see  art.  Lawyer).*  They  practi- 
cally formed  the  same  party  as  the  Pharisees, 
though  such  expressions  as  '  the  scribes  of  the 
Pharisees' (Mk  2")  and  'the  Pharisees  and  their 
scribes '  (Lk  5*",  of.  Ac  23')  show  tliat  some  of  the 
scribes  were  Sadducees  (see  art.  PliARISEKS,  §  ii. 
(1)).  The  main  seat  of  their  activity  was  Judoea  ; 
but  we  tind  them  also  in  Galilee  {e.g.  Lk  5") ;  and 
thej»  were  probably  to  be  found  even  in  the  Dias- 
pora. They  were  indispensable  wherever  there 
was  living  zeal  for  the  Law.  Though  any  one 
qualilied  might  be  called  on  by  the  ruler  of  the 
synagogue  to  read  and  expound  the  Scriptures  in  the 
Bvnagogues,  tlie  scribes,  when  present,  were  natur- 
ally most  frecjuenlly  invited  to  do  so  (cf.  Mk  1^). 

The  scribes  were  verj'  ambitious  of  honour  (Mt 
23'-",  Mk  125«'-,  Lk  11""  20«),  which  they  de- 
manded more  especially  from  tlieir  pupils.  'Let 
the  honour  of  thy  disciple  be  dear  unto  thee  as  the 
honour  of  thine  associate  ;  and  the  honour  of  thine 
associate  as  the  fear  of  thy  master ;  and  the  fear 
of  thy  master  as  the  fear  of  Ueaven'  (Ahoth  iv.  17 
in  Taylor,  !<ai/ing.s-  of  tlie  Jevnsh  Fathers^).  The 
claims  of  one's  teacher  were  to  be  preferred  to  those 
of  one's  father,  unless  the  latter  were  also  one  of 
the  learned.  If  one's  father  and  one's  teacher  had 
lost  anything,  or  were  bearing  burdens,  or  were  in 
captivity,  the  teacher  was  to  be  assisted  first  (Baba 
mezia  ii.  11  in  Schiirer,  GJV'u.  317,  and  Taylor, 
op.  cit.  71).  The  honour  which  they  demanded  was 
freely  accorded  to  them.  They  enjoyed  a  great 
reputation  not  only  anion"  their  pupils,  but  also 
among  the  people  generally.  They  were  usually 
addressed  as  Rabbi  {'yi,  literally  '  my  lord  ' ;  it  also 
meant  '  ma.ster'  in  the  sense  of  '  teacher,'  Jn  l^),t 
occasionally  also  as  Babban  or  Rahbon  (cf.  Rahboni, 
addressed  to  Christ  in  Mk  10",  Jn  20'"),  father 
(  =  abba)  and  »na«<cr  (  =  teacher,  Mt23'-'"). 

ii.  KUNCTlo.vs. — It  was  mainly,  though  not  ex- 
clusively, with  the  Law  that  the  scribes  occupied 
themselves.  In  respect  of  it  their  functions  were 
threefold:  (1)  they  ha<l  theoretically  to  develop 
the  Law  itself ;  (2)  they  had  to  teach  the  Law  to 
their  pupils  ;  and  (3)  they  had  to  act  as  judges  in 
the  Sanhedrin  and  in  the  various  local  courts.  J 

(1)  The  t/teoretical  development  of  the  Law. — 
Theoretically,  the  written  Law,  contained  in  the 
Pentateuch,  was  the  absolute  norm  of  life,  the 
religious,  civil,  and  penal  code  of  Lsrael.  The 
pious  Jew  wa-s  required  to  observe  it  in  its  minutest 
details.  But  it  was  impossible  for  an  average  man 
to  do  so  without  special  guidance.  For  this  guid- 
ance they  looked  to  the  scribes.  One  of  their 
chief  functions  was  to  study  the  exact  letter  of  the 
Law,  to  harmonize  and  develop  its  various  precepts 
into  the  minutest  details,  so  as  to  secure  its  com- 
plete fulliliuent,  and  to  show  how  its  precepts 
were  to  be  observed  in  daily  life.  This  they  did 
also  with  the  great  mass  of  urwritten  legal  tradi- 
tions, which  in  course  of  time  had  grown  up  along- 
side of  the  written  Law.  Ca-ses,  however,  were  of 
frequent  occurrence,  in  regard  to  which  both  (he 
written  Law  and  tradition  were  silent,  while  the 

•  ' "  Scribe  *'  (Ijvtt.  tcrUta)  unfortunately  lays  BtreM  on  the  ety- 
mological wnse  of  the  word  (>'^^^uiTi<'r  «  Dni^b);  '* lawyer" 
(mm^mc)  ig  scarcely  better;  Lc.'b  ttiJL^tiarxitXM  Is  perhaps  the 
moat  exact  title '(Swete  on  MI<  1*2).  Josephus  occanionally  calls 
them  »«c.«-T».  {DJ  i.  xxxiii.  2,  ll,  x\-\\.  8,  9).  "The  word  »»e»(, 
which  In  earlier  times  had  been  applied  to  one  who  woa  skilled 
In  any  of  tlie  arte  of  lile  .  .  .  ha<l  come  to  be  applied,  if  not 
exclusively,  yet  at  leant  chiefly,  to  one  who  was  slirewd  with 
practical  wlwloin,  or  who  I<new  the  thou((hts  and  8a\'in^'S  of  the 
•ndenW  (Hatch's  IliObert  Lfc(uret,  2e).  Hatch  also  reminds 
us  (p.  28)  that  *  by  Grammar  was  meant  the  study  of  literature.' 

f  AccordiDK  to  Schiirer  It  was  not  till  after  the  time  of  Christ 
that '  Rabbi  'became  a  title  ;  Id  the  Uospels  it  Is  not  a  title,  but 
a  reswrthil  form  of  address. 

:  Cf.  Atnth  I.  1:  The  men  of  the  Oreat  Sj-naKoiruo  'said 
three  tbint^s:  Be  deliberate  in  Jurl^^ment;  and  raise  up  many 
dladple* ;  a  id  make  a  fence  to  the  Toruh.' 


changes  that  were  taking  pl.ace  in  the  national 
life  rendered  some  of  the  old  enactments  highly 
inconvenient,  if  not  obsolete.  How,  under  these 
changed  conditions,  was  it  possible  to  live  in 
accordance  with  the  general  principles  of  the  Law  ! 
How  were  these  new  cases  to  be  met';  The 
solution  of  these  difficulties  was  one  of  the  leading 
occupations  of  the  scribes.  By  means  of  an 
exegesis  which  was  freqiiently  very  artificial,  they 
not  only  based  existing  legal  tradition  more  or  less 
directly  on  the  written  Law,  but  also  deduced  from 
it  rules  that  would  meet  the  new  case ;  or  they 
met  it  by  giving  to  some  saying  or  recent  custom 
of  the  'wise'  the  value  of  lixed  legal  tradition 
They  were  not  satislied,  however,  with  expound 
ing  the  Law  and  tradition  so  as  to  meet  actuallj 
occurring  cases.  They  busied  themselves  in  pro- 
viding for  all  conceivable  cases  that  might  occur, 
and  especially  in  making  a  hedge  or  fence  round 
the  Law,  i.e.  in  so  expanding  the  compass  of  legal 
precept  beyond  what  was  laid  down  in  the  Penta- 
teuch and  in  the  oldest  form  of  tradition,  that  it 
niijjht  be  impossible  for  a  man,  if  he  observed  all 
their  traditional  rules,  to  be  even  tempted  to  trans- 
gress the  Law.  *  From  being  '  exegetes  of  the  Law ' 
the  scribes  thus  became  legislators  ;  they  not  only 
made  the  Law  more  precise,  but  also  introduced 
into  it  many  innovations,  supplementing  and,  in 
some  eases,  abolishing  it,  by  ttieir  inferences  and 
traditions.  Still  they  had  no  intention  of  inno\at- 
ing  ;  they  were  great  sticklers  for  antiquity  ;  they 
only  meant  to  say  what  was  old  (cf.  Wellhausen, 
IJG'  284). 

This  ever-accumulating  mass  of  legal  traditions 
and  of  legal  determinations  was  called  Halacha.t 
It  was  equally  binding  with  the  written  Law,  the 
two  together  constituting  the  absolute  rule  of  life. 
It  was  given  by  God  to  Moses  at  Sinai ;  Moses 
delivered  it  to  Joshua,  and  Joshua  to  the  elders, 
and  the  elders  to  the  prophets,  and  the  projiheta 
to  the  men  of  the  Great  Synagogue  I,  A  both  i.  1, 
where  Torah  =  the  oral  law;  cf.  Weber,  op.  cit. 
88  ff.).  It  was  the  authentic  interpretation  and 
Buppleirent  of  the  Torah ;  Jehovah  not  only 
taught  Moses  the  Torah,  but  also  its  authentic 
interpretation,  or  the  lex  oralis  {Pes-ikta  38a,  in 
Weber,  89).  In  theory  the  written  Law  was  the 
highest  norm  ;  but  in  practi<.e  the  scribes  assigned 

freater  importance  to  the  oral  law  (cf.  Mt  IS*"', 
Ik  l'"-).  They  interpreted  the  Law  by  tradition, 
which  was  'the  fence  to  Torah'  (Aboth  iii.  20). 
'The  Bible  was  understood  by  the  help  of  the 
Halacha,  quite  as  much  as  the  llalacha  was  based 
upon  the  Bible '(W.  R.  Smith,  op.  cit.  64).  It  was 
more  necessary  to  learn  and  teach  tradition  than 
Scrii)ture.  The  transgression  of  Rabbinic  precei)t8 
was  sin.  Whoever  transgressed  the  words  of  the 
wise  was  worthy  of  death.  '  An  ott'ence  against 
the  sayings  of  the  scribes  is  worse  than  one  against 
those  of  Scripture'  (Snnh.  xi.  3,  quoted  in  Eders- 
lieim,  The  Life  and  Times  of  Jesus  the  Messiah., 
i.  98  ;  cf.  also  Weber,  op.  cit.  102  ff.).  They  never- 
theless maintained  that  tradition  was  essentially 
nothing  more  than  the  interpretation  and  more 
sjiecitic  determination  of  the  Torah,  from  which, 
tney  alleged,  all  legal  decisions  were  derived  (cf. 

•  Cf.  W.  R.  Smith,  OTJC  ei  13  47] ;  Taylor,  op.  at.  11 :  'to 
make  a  fence  to  the  Torah  means  to  impose  a(l<Iitional  restric- 
tions so  a-s  to  keep  at  a  safe  distance  from  forl)idden  ground.' 
Streane,  Th«  Age  0/  thf  Maccahfft,  22:  'The  tenn  means  the 
prohibition  of  things  innocent  in  themselves,  but  bordering  too 
closely  for  safety  on  tliiii^js  forbidden.'  Wel>er,  op.  cit.  133, 
gives  the  following  example  :  It  was  forbidden  to  drink  the 
wine  of  the  Oentiles,  because  they  were  never  certain  that  Ihej 
did  not  thereby  come  into  contact  witli  idolatry. 

t  lliUdchd  means  literuily  'going,'  *  way,'  hence  fig.  'custom, 
'  usage,'  '  rule,'  esp.  one  fixed  traditionally,  iue  a  majorUiu4 
tra4ii/»mOVeberl,03); '  Halacha  was  legal  teaching,  sj-stematiKed 
legal  precept  .  .  .  the  system  of  niles  applying  tin- I'entateuchal 
law  to  every  case  of  practice  and  every  detail  of  llfe'(W.  &. 
Smith,  op.  cit.  6S). 


422 


SCRIBES 


SCRIBES 


Weber,  96 ff.).  Whether  an  inference  or  a  custom 
should  become  a  binding  hnliichd  was  determined 
by  the  majority  of  those  distinguished  for  learn- 
ing. It  was  thus  also  that  they  decided  the 
diu'erences  between  the  rival  schools  of  Hillel  and 
Shammai.  Theoretically,  the  Iu1lach6th  were  un- 
cliaiigeable ;    but  for  various  reasons  it  was  im- 

Sossible  to  maintain  this  principle  in  practice, 
lut  a  hCddcha  could  be  cliangcil  or  abolished 
only  with  the  consent  of  a  majority  of  the  Wise. 
'  One  Sanhedrin  cannot  abrogate  the  decision  of 
anothei  Sanhedrin,  unless  it  be  superior  in  wisdom 
and  in  number'  (Eduyothi.  5,  quoted  in  Montet, 
op.  rit.  231). 

As  expositors  and  guardians  of  the  Law  the 
scribes  occupied  themselves  mainly  with  precepts 
regarding  sacriliics,  the  festival  celebrations,  the 
observance  of  the  Sabbath,  the  payments  to  be 
made  to  the  priests  and  the  temple,  and  more 
especially  with  those  relating  to  levitical  purity  in 
the  matter  of  foods,  purifications,  etc.  They  laid 
the  greatest  stress  on  these  ascetic  elements  because 
they  thereby  kept  Israel  separate  from  the  Gentiles. 
'  Tlieir  idefd  was  not  righteousness,  but  holiness ' 
(Wellhausen,  op.  cit.  150).  The  marks  of  a  religions 
Jew  were  fasting  (cf.  Lk  18"),  almsgiving  (Mt6'*-), 
and  prayer,  as  the  fulfilment  of  statutory  duties 
(cf.  Mt  6="-;  Aboth  ii.  17:  'be  careful  in  reading 
the  Shema  ,'  i.e.  Dt  6^"").  Really  ethical  duties 
■were  assigned  a  subordinate  place  (Mt  15*"-,  Mk 
7'*,  Mt  SS'^"-).  A  distinction  was  dra^vn  between 
greater  and  lesser  commandments  ;  but  they  were 
enjoined  '  to  be  attentive  to  a  light  precept  as  to  a 
grave'  (Aboth  ii.  1).  Great  stress  was  laid  on  the 
idea  of  reward  (Aboth  iv.  13 ff.  :  '  whosoever  fulfils 
the  Torah  in  poverty  will  at  length  fulfil  it  in 
wealth';  '  if  thou  lahourest  in  the  Torah,  He  hath 
mucli  leward  to  give  unto  thee  ' ;  'he  who  performs 
one  precept  has  gotten  to  liimself  one  advocate ; 
and  he  who  commits  one  transgression  has  gotten 
to  himself  one  accuser.'  Cf.  v.  llil'.,  where  seven 
kinds  of  punishment  are  shown  to  come  on 
account  of  seven  main  transgressions,  such  as 
dearth  from  failure  to  tithe). 

Piety  was  thus  reduced  to  an  external  and 
mei  hanical  formalism.  Nothing  was  of  value,  if 
not  strictly  regulated  by  an  external  law  ;  no 
room  was  left  for  moral  originality  or  spon- 
taneity ;  uniformity  and  formal  exactness  were 
all-important.  Life  under  the  Law  was  felt  to 
be  a  heavy  burden  ;  the  scribes  themselves  had  to 
devise  metliods  whereby  to  evade  some  of  tlieir 
own  precepts  (Lk  11",  Alt  23'™).  Instead  of  prov- 
ing a  help  to  men  in  their  moral  and  religious  life, 
tlie  Law  had  become  a  means  whereby  access  to 
God  was  cut  off  (Lk  11").* 

(2)  The  teaching  of  t)ie  Law. — With  a  view  to 
'  raising  up  many  discijiles'  (Aboth  i.  1),  the  more 
famous  rabbins  gathered  round  them  studious 
young  men,  to  whom  they  expounded  the  Law 
(cf.  Josephus,  Ant.  XV'II.  vi.  2,  BJ  I.  xxxiii.  2). 
Seeing  th.it  the  oral  law  was  the  main  theme  of 
their  instruction,  their  teaching  consisted  in  a 
constant  repetition  of  its  numerous  precepts,  so 
that  their  pupils  might  have  them  imprinted  on 
their  memory.  They  also  put  concrete  cases,  real 
or  ii  laginary,  before  their  pupils,  in  order  to  train 
them  in  the  application  of  legal  principles.  Their 
pupils  were  also  allowed  to  jjut  questions  to  them, 
and  to  attend  the  disputations  which  they  held 
among  themselves  over  difficult  questions.  The 
pupils  had  only  two  duties :  (a)  to  retain  every- 
thing faithfully  in  their  memory,  and  (b)  never  to 
teach  otherwise,  even  in  expression,  than  they  had 
been  taught  by  their  master  (cf.  Aboth  v.  18,  of 

•  For  the  Icpal  traditions  re^rarding  the  obsen-ance  of  the 
PaMiaih,  etc.,  see  Schiirer,  op.  ciL  U.  464 ff. ;  EderBheim,  op.  cit. 
i.  774  Q  ,  and  cf.  art.  Sabbath. 


the  four  characters  in  scholars,  'quick  to  hear, 
and  slow  to  forget,  is  wise ' ;  iii.  12,  '  wuen  a 
scholar  of  the  wise  sits  and  studies,  and  has  for- 
gotten a  word  of  his  Mishna,  they  account  it  unto 
him  as  if  he  were  guilty  of  death  ' ;  ii.  10,  '  Eliezer 
ben  Hyrcanus  is  a  plastered  cistern,  which  loseth 
not  a  drop').  Both  teachers  and  pupils  adhered 
rigidly  to  tradition.  On  any  subject  whatever, 
the  fact  that  the  rabbis  had  said  so  and  so  wai 
decisive  (cf.  Mk  9"). 

Both  for  the  disputations  of  the  scribes  among 
themselves  and  for  the  instruction  of  their  pupili 
there  were  special  academies  (beth  hammidrash), 
distinct  from  the  synagogues.  In  Jerusalem  their 
lectures  were  delivered  also  in  the  temple  (cf.  Lk 
2'»,  Mt  21^  26"  Mk  14«,  Lk  20'  21",  Jn  18^),  i.e. 
in  the  outer  court.  The  scholars  sat  on  the  ground, 
the  teachers  on  a  raised  bench  (cf.  Lk  2",  Ac  22*, 
Mt26",  Aboth  i.  4,  v.  21). 

(3)  As  judgen. — Although  in  NT  times  a  pro- 
fessional knowledge  of  the  Law  was  not  requisite 
on  the  part  of  a  judge,  the  scribes  would  naturally 
be  called  upon  to  fill  that  office.  In  the  Sanhedrin 
at  Jerusalem  the  '  chief  priests'  had  the  first  place; 
but  scribes  also  had  a  seat  in  it  (cf.  Mk  14*"-  **  15', 
Lk  22""  23'",  Ac  4'),  and  exercised  the  greatest  in- 
fluence (Ant.  XVIII.  i.  4).     See  art.  SANHEDRIN. 

Their  whole  professional  activity  both  as  teachers 
and  judges  was  understood  to  be  gratis.  '  R.  Zadok 
said,  Make  them  [i.e.  words  of  Torah]  not  a  crown, 
to  glory  in  them  ;  nor  an  axe,  to  live  by  them. 
And  tlius  was  Hillel  wont  to  say,  And  he  who 
serves  himself  with  the  tiara  [the  crown  of  the  Law] 
perishes.  Lo,  whosoever  makes  profit  from  words 
of  Torah  removes  his  life  from  this  world  '  (Aboth 
iv.  9  ;  cf.  Taylor,  op.  cit.  68).  They  had  therefore 
to  earn  the  means  of  living  in  other  ways.  Those 
of  them  who  were  not  jjossessed  of  private  means 
carried  on  a  trade  in  addition  to  the  study  of  the 
Law  (cf.  Ac  18').  But  they  had  to  make  the  study 
of  the  Law  supreme  (Sir  38-''-39"  ;  Aboth  ii.  ti, 
Hillel  said,  '  He  that  has  much  traffic  will  not 
become  wise';  iv.  14,  '  K.  Meir  said.  Have  little 
business,  and  l)e  busied  in  Torah  '). 

It  is  probable,  however,  that  they  received  pay- 
ment for  their  teaching  (cf.  our  Lord's  saying, 
Mt  10",  Lk  10',  and  St.  Paul's  assertion  of  his 
right,  seldom  exercised,  of  being  supported  by 
those  to  whom  he  preached  the  gospel,  1  Co  9'''°, 
2  Co  11"-,  Ph  4'»-'8),  and  that  they  knew  how  to 
enrich  themselves  at  the  expense  or  the  people  (cf. 
Mk  12'«,  Lk  20"  16'''). 

Though  it  was  mainly  with  the  Law  that  the 
scribes  occupied  themselves,  they  also  turned  their 
attention  to  the  historical  and  didactic  contents  of 
their  sacred  writings.  These  they  treated  with 
far  greater  freedom  than  the  legal  contents,  ampli- 
fying and  embellishing  them  in  the  most  arbitrary 
manner.  The  teacliing  that  was  thus  derived  from 
Scripture  was  called  Haggada.  '  Haggada  was 
doctrinal  and  practical  admonition,  mingled  with 
parable  and  legend.'  '  It  was  recognized  as  a 
rule  of  faith  and  life,  and  embraced  doctrinal 
topics,  practical  exhortation,  embellishments  and 
falmlous  developments  of  Bible  narratives  '  ( W.  R. 
Smith,  op.  cU.  58,  168  ;  cf.  Driver,  LOT''  487). 

Of  historical  haggada  we  have  an  example  in  the 
Books  of  Chronicles,  an  idealization  and  ami>lifica- 
tion  of  the  history  in  Samuel  and  Kings  (see  art. 
Chro.S'ICLES,  vol.  i.  395  tf.).  Later  Yiaggadists 
treated  mainly  of  the  history  of  creation  and  of 
the  lives  of  the  great  men  of  the  past.*    They 

*  For  Creation  cf.  Aboth  v.  1,  9  ;  for  Abraham,  cf.  Josephus, 
Ant.  1.  \*ii.  2,  Aboth  v.  4  with  Taylor's  note,  op.  cU.  HO  ;  an  to 
Moses  cf.  Ant.  ll.-iv.  and  what  is  said  in  the  NT  of  bis  culture 
(Ac  T^) ;  of  jAifSEs  and  Jambke8(2  Ti  3") ;  of  the  rock  (see  Uock) 
that  followed  the  Israelites  llirough  tlie  wilderness  (1  Co  lO*); 
of  the  Law  being  given  him,  not  directly  by  GDd,  but  throu,;h 
the  mediation  of  angels  (Ao  7U,  Uol  3U,  Ue  'i^ ;  of  MichaO' 


also  elaborated  the  ethical  and  religious  contents 
of  h>i.riiiture  in  an  altogether  unliistorical  and  fan- 
tasiitt  manner,  devoting  attention  especially  to 
angtiology,  theosophy,  and  escliatology.  Unlike 
legal  tradition  {hmdchd),  historical  and  doctrinal 
tradition  (haggddd)  was  not  hinding,  save  on  a 
few  points  such  as  the  creation  and  government 
of  the  world  by  God,  the  Divine  origin  of  the  Law, 
and  the  resurrection  of  the  dead. 
On  the  scribes  and  Jesus,  see  art  PHARISEES,  §  ill. 

LirERATt'Rii.— Schurer,  GJVa  ii.  305 ff.  (.IIJP  ii.  I.  812 ff), 
to  which  the  above  article  ia  (freatly  indebted ;  Wellhausen, 
IJfi^  l!»Jff.  and  piuaiiii ;  Weber,  JUd.  Theoloaie  avj Gnind  da 
Talmud,  etc.,  1  ff.  ;  SchultJ,  A  litest.  Theolngiei,  290  0.  ;  Hau9- 
rath,  Srxtlitt.  Zntgescliichte^,  87 ff.;  O.  Holtznmnn,  Nentest. 
Zrxtfjotchtchte,  151  IT.  ;  H.  J.  Hollzmann,  SetUcst.  Theotvjie, 
Mil.;  Morit«t,  Lfi  orUjviendfa partU aaducienct  phari8ien,&i  if., 
21Sff.,  and  pagsiin  ;  Marti,  Tlieuloijic  des  Alt.  Teslauients^, 
20911.  ;  the  article  '  Schrifti;elclirte '  in  Winer's  RII'D-i  ii.  425- 
423,  in  llerzof's  HE^  (by  Straok),  in  Schenkel'8  Bihrl- Lexikon 
(by  Klooper),  in  Uiehm'8  UWIi'^  (by  Schiirer);  Kdereheim, 
Life  a-nd  Tinice  of  Jct.-ii^  the  Mftigiaht  L  93 ff.,  ii.774ff.  :  Taylor, 
i'avinyn  0/ lAe  Jewisli  Falhrrs'^;  W.  R.  Smith,  OTJC^  66 ff. 
[542flf.];  Bacher,  Di'f  altcytt-  Terminal,  derjiid.  Schriftauslegunrj 
(l>.  3;iff.  on  Ua^'t'ada,  illustrating  further  what  is  quoted  on  the 
aerivacioa  io  LOT,  Lc,  and  which  ^chiirer^,  ii.  339,  accepts). 

D.  Eaton. 
SCRIP.— Scrip  occurs  once  as  the  tr.  of  b'p^: 
ynihiit  (from  t;pS  to  giean),  a  shei)herd'8  bag,  in 
Its  single  occurrence,  1  S  17''°;  and  six  times  as 
the  tr.  of  JTj/pa,  a  traveller's  leathern  bag  for 
iKilding  provisions  (cf.  LXX,  2  K  4«,  Jth  10° 
l:}'""),  Mt  10'",  Mk  6»,  Lk  9^  10'  22»-*',  all  the 
e.vaniples  of  that  word.  liV  retains  '  scrip '  in 
l)T,  but  changes  into  'wallet'  in  NT.  The  Eng. 
word  has  nothing  to  do  with  'scrip'  (formerly 
spelt  '  script,'  from  .wriptum),  a  schedule  :  it  is  of 
Scand.  origin  (Icel.  streppa),  and  is  allied  to,  if  not 
derived  from,  'scrap'  (Iccl.  skrap),  as  made  from 
a  scra]<  ol  skin,  or  as  used  for  holding  scraps  of  food. 
See  Uao.  J.  Hastings. 

SCRIPTURE.— The  words  so  translated  in  EV 
aie— 

1.  305,  only  Dn  10*'  'I  will  show  tliee  that 
which  is  noted  in  the  scripture  of  truth '  (UV 
'writing'),  where  the  reference  is  to  'the  book  in 
which  tiod  has  inscribed  Vieforehand,  as  truly  as 
they  will  be  fulfilled,  the  destinies  of  mankind' — 
Driver.  Elsewhere  this  word  is  tr''  '  writing,'  ex- 
cept Ezr  20-,  Neh  7"  (EV  '  register '). 

This  idea  of  a  Book  of  God,  tn  which  are  recorded  men's 
names  or  deeds,  runs  throujfh  OT,  the  Apocalyptic  lit.,  and 
NT.  It  appears  tfiat  burt'ess-rolls  of  cities  were  kept,  in  which 
were  enrolled  the  names  of  the  citizens,  with  their  families 
(Jer  22-"^  'Write  ye  this  man  childless')  and  their  vocations 
(the  priests'  roll  or  'refister'  in  Ezr  2f'-,  Neh  T**).  Such  rolls 
Buifjfested  the  figure  of  a  roll  or  book  kept  by  Go<l,  containinj; 
the  names  of  the  covenant  people  of  Israel.  In  Is  43 ('he  that 
rcmaineth  In  Jerusalem  shall  oe  called  holy,  even  every  one 
that  is  written  among  the  living  (U\'m  'unto  life']  In  Jeru* 
B-'ilem  ■)and  l'>,k  IS'^C  neither  shall  they  be  written  in  the  writing 
(RVm  *  register ']  of  Ihe  house  of  U/acl ')  wo  see  the  transition 
from  the  civil  to  the  religious  use,  or  at  least  from  the  actual 
to  the  ideal.  From  the  roll  or  b<>ok  the  name  of  the  citizen 
was  removed  at  death  ;  so  in  Ex  'i'i^i  M,-ses  says,  '  Blot  me,  I 

yray  th'-e,  out  of  thy  book  which  thou  iia.st  written,*  and  v. 33 
fhovah  answers, '  Whosoever  liaji  sinned  against  me,  him  will  I 
blot  out  of  my  book."    See  Charles,  Hook  of  Enoch,  p.  131  tt. 

2.  ypiii/ia :  this  »ord  is  used  in  NT  in  the  foil, 
•enscs — (1)  A  letier  of  the  alphabet,  a  written 
character.  Gal  6"  (where  AV  follows  Tind.  in 
rendering  'how  large  a  letter,'  but  KV,  accord- 
ing to  the  usage  of  ypcLij.ixaTa  ■ypd(ptLi/,  '  how  large 
letters,'  Wye.  and  Klieni.  already  had  '  what 
manner  cif  letters').  In  AV,  after  TK,  thissen.seis 
found  also  in  Lk  '23™,  but  omittcil  from  UV,  after 
the  best  MSS.  (2)  Any  written  document,  J>k 
16«-'  AV  •  bUl,'  UV  '  bond '  (TU  t6  ypi,i.^,  edd.  rd 

contending  with  the  devil  for  his  body  (Jude»);  Sa'ma  or 
SahiMin.  the  father  of  Floazd  Ch  2",  Uu  420'),  „•,„  ihe  hiKbanil 
ol  ltahab(Mt  1») ;  the  drciugbt  and  (amine  ol  1  K  17'  18'"  were 
known  to  have  lasted  three  and  a  hall  yean  (Lk  4>9,  Jt  517  ;  tee 
klao  Gal  4'°,  cl.  under  Ibuuakl). 


ypdix/iaTa).  (3)  An  epistle,  Ac  28^  {ypd^Lfxara.,  EV 
'  letters').  (4)  The  law  of  Moses,  Jn  5'"  (to  ^«ivo« 
ypaix/xara,  EV  '  his  writings ') ;  in  St.  Paul  as  written 
and  judicial  in  opposition  to  the  liberty  of  the 
law  of  life  in  Christ,  Uo  2"-^  7",  2  Co  S"- »■ '. 
(5)  The  sacred  Scriptures  of  the  OT,  2  Ti  3'»  (TR 
TO.  Upi.  ypdix/jtara,  edd.  omit  rd,  AV  '  tlie  holy  Scrip- 
tures,' UV  'the  sacred  writings').  (6)  Learning, 
Jn  7",  Ac  26". 

3.  ypti(pi.  Once  this  word  refers  to  NT  writ- 
ings, viz.  the  Epp.  of  St.  Paul,  2  P  3'";  elsewhere 
the  reference  is  to  a  passage  of  the  OT,*  or  to  the 
OT  Scriptures  in  general.  In  Gal  3'  '  the  Scrip- 
ture '  is  personified. 

The  question  whether  ypit^ri  in  the  sing,  is  ever  used  of  the 
OT  as  a  whole  is  much  disputed.  In  a  note  to  Gal  3'-'2  Lightfoot 
lays  down  the  rule  that  'the  sing.  ypat^.  in  the  NT  always 
means  a  partintlar  passage  of  Scripture.'  But  in  a  subsequent 
note  to  Ro  43  he  somewhat  modifies  this  statement :  '  Dr. 
Vaughan,'  he  says,  '  takes  a  different  view,  and  instances 
examples  from  St.  John.  The  usage  ol  St.  John  may  admit  ol 
a  doubt,  though,  personally,  1  think  not ;  St.  Pauls  jiractice, 
however,  is  ab.solute  and  uniform.'  Hort  (on  I  P  2^)  says  that 
in  St.  John  and  St.  Paul  ii  ypcc^  '  is  capable  of  being  understood 
as  approximating  to  the  collective  sense.'  See  Westcott, 
IJetireirs,  p.  4741f.  ;  Deissmann,  Ribelstudien,  lOSff.,  Eng.  tr. 
112 ff.;  and  esp.  Warlield  in  /"re*,  atid  lief.  Review,  x.  (July 
1»19)  p.  472  fl.  J.  HASTINGS. 

SCYTHIANS  (■S.KiBai,  Jg  1",  Jth  3'«,  2  Mac  4"  I2», 
3 Mac  7°;  Gn  14'- "  -k.  inSymm.  =dJi'j'). — A  nomadic 
tribe  of  Indo-European  origin  who  lived  between  the 
Danube  and  the  Don,  and  spread  over  the  region  be- 
tween the  Caucasus  and  the  Caspian.  In  the  time 
of  the  elder  Pliny  the  name  Scythia  was  a|)pUed 
vaguely  to  the  remote  regions  of  Central  Asia  and 
S.  E.  Europe.  Thecrnelty  of  the  Scythians  was  pro- 
verbial (Herod,  iv.  64),  and  their  injustice  (2  Alao 
4^',  cf.  3  Mac  7'').  Herodotus  mentions  (i.  103-103) 
that  a  horde  of  Scythians  invaded  Media,  became 
masters  of  Asia,  and  intended  to  attack  Egypt. 
Psaiumetichus,  the  king  of  Egypt,  met  them  in 
Palestine,  where  he  was  besieging  Azotns,  and 
prevailed  on  them  by  bribes  to  retreat.  It  is  not 
iminobable  that  the  description  of  the  foe  from 
the  north  in  Jer  4^-6*'  was  suggested  by  the  ravages 
of  these  Scythian  hordes,  and  that  the  imagery  of 
Ezk  38'"''  had  a  similar  origin.  Zeplianiah's  de- 
scription of  the  '  Day  of  the  Lord  '  may  also  rellect 
the  impression  produced  upon  the  jirophet's  mind 
by  the  news  of  the  advance  of  these  formidable 
hosts  (see  Driver,  LOT"  '252,  291  f.,  342,  and  cf. 
art.  Jeuemiah  in  vol.  ii.  p.  S/O*").  Thuc.  (ii.  96) 
connects  the  Scythians  with  the  GeUe,  their 
neighbours,  with  whom  they  afterwards  coalesced. 
Horace  (Oil.  III.  xxiv.  911.)  prai.ses  their  simplicity 
and  describes  their  nomadic  habits.  In  Col  3" 
(cf.  Gal  3^),  where  it  is  said  that  Christianity  does 
away  with  all  ethnical  distinctions,  Scythians  are 
mentioned  in  connexion  with,  and  probably  as  a 
synonym  for,  barbarians.  C.  H.  Piuchard. 

SCYTHOPOLIS.— See  Bethshkan.  Its  inhabit- 
ants are  called  Scythopolitans  i,~Ku6oiro\(e)XTai)  in 
2  Mac  123". 

SEA  (Ileb.  o; ;  Gr.  ii  9i\aaaa;  only  twice  tA 
XA070S,  Mt  18",  Ac  27").— Besides  the  literal  use, 
either  generally  or  specially,  with  often  a  descrip- 
tive epithet,  of  the  Mediterranean  (Ex  '23^',  Nu  34*, 
I)t  11-^),  the  Dead  Sea(Nu  34',  Jos  3'«,  Zee  14"),  the 
lied  Sea  (Ex  10'",  Ac 7**,  1  Co  10'.  He  IP'),  the  Sea 
of  Galileo  (Nu  34",  Jos  1'2\  Mt  4'*  15-"-',  Mk  l'«  7", 
Jn  21'  6'),  and  even  the  Nile  (Is  18'^  19»,  Ezk  3'2^ 
Nah  3«)  and  Euphrates  (Is  21',  Jer  Ol-"'),  and  the 
figurative  use  in  OT  for  xvc.st,  because  the  Mediter- 
ranean was  the  ivestcrn  limit  of  Palestine  (Gn 
'i8'^  Ex  lO"*  27",  Jos  8»  11-'),  there  are   poetical, 

•  Hort,  however,  holds  that  In  I  P  20  i»  -yp^^  cannot  mean 
'  In  S<Tipture,'  nur  even  '  in  a  pas.sage  of  Scripture,'  but  uuit 
meeu  simply  '  iu  writing,'  as  Sir  393a  42?  44^  eto. 


124 


SEA 


SEA,  BRAZEN 


mytholo<;ical,  and  apocalyptic  references  to  the 
sea,  which  in  several  passages  give  to  tlie  word  a 
theological  signiticance.  In  tliis  use  the  word 
'sea'  is  closely  allied  with  the  word  'deep'  (ciin 
LXX  and  NT  ^  S/iicrtros),  whicli  means  (1)  the 
primeval  sea,  from  which  all  arose  (Gn  1^,  Ps  24")  ; 
(2)  tlie  ocem  stream  and  subterranean  waters 
(Cn  7'-  8^  49'»,  Dt  33"  8')  ;  (3)  any  mass  of  waters 
(Ex  15',  Ps  42'  lO?-")  ;  (4)  the  depths,  the  deep 
plares  ot  che  underworld  (Ps  7P';  see  Chej'ne  on 
Ps  88''  and  148'),  as  the  abode  of  the  dead  generally 
(Ro  10'),  and  s^jecially  of  demons  (Lk  8^',  Itev  9'-  " 
11'  17*20').  ^^'  Idle  generally  used  only  in  the  third 
sense,  the  word  '  sea '  seems  in  some  passages  to 
hon'ow  the  fourth  sense  also  (Rev  13',  Dn  7*). 
Either  by  poetical  personihcation  or  as  a  mj-tho- 
logical  survival,  the  sea  is  spoken  of  as  a  monster 
over  which  God  sets  a  watt-li,  and  with  which  He 
wages  war  (Job  7'^,  see  Davidson,  Job,  p.  54  ; 
Is  27',  see  Cheyne,  Uainh,  i.  p.  158  ;  Is  51'").  The 
image  of  the  sea  is  used  regarding  man  and  his 
ways  :  the  wicked  are  as  the  sea  casting  up  mire 
and  dirt  (Is  57'*"),  man's  grief  U  af  the  unquiet  sea 


SEA,  BRAZEN  (nrnjn  o;  2K  25",  1  Ch  188,  Jei 
52"  ;  called  in  1  K  7*''  =  2  Ch  4=  Molten  Sea  [o 
pjpo] ;  also  called  in  1  K  7"  e<  al.  absolutely  'The 
Sea '  [o;.n]). — The  large  basin  *  of  copper  or  bronza 
(see  Brass)  which  stood  S.E.S.  of  the  house,  and, 
as  in  the  case  of  the  corresponding  laver  (li'j)  of 
the  tabernacle,  was  situated  between  the  altar  anl 
the  porch.t  The  metal  of  which  it  was  made  is 
said  to  have  been  taken  by  David  from  the  cities 
Tibhath  and  Cun.J  The  basin  was  itself  5  cubits 
high,  with  a  diameter  of  10  cubits  and  a  circum- 
ference of  30.§  It  was  a  handbreadth  in  thickness. 
Its  rim  was  bent  outward  as  in  that  of  many  cups, 
being  of  the  shape  of  a  lily.  That  is  all  we  are 
told  of  its  shape,  but  from  these  data  Josephus 
concluded  that  it  was  a  hemisphere :  others  have 
thourfit  of  it  as  cylinder-shaped.  Winer,l|  Riehm,1I 
and  Thenius**  hold  it  to  liave  been  a  kind  of 
cylinder,  in  which  the  lower  part  bulged  out. 
"Thenius,  Keil,  and  others  object  to  Josephus 
view  that,  if  the  basin  were  a  hemisphere,  it 
could  not  hold  2000,  much  less  3000  baths  of  water. 
The  same  might  be  said  of  the  cylinder  form  which 


-V  Cubits. 


J  lletrea. 


TRB  BRAZEN   8RA  (aFTBR  8TAI>BX 


(Jer  49"),  the  doubtful  man  is  as  a  wave  toss^ed  by 
the  wind  (Ja  1"),  wicked  men  are  raging  waves  of 
the  sea  foaming  out  their  own  sliarae  (Jude  '"), 
invading  hosts  are  compared  to  overflowing  streams 
(Is  8',  Jer  47'')  and  the  noisy  sea  (Is  17**).  In 
Rev  13'  the  beast  rises  out  of  the  sea  (as  in  Dn  7^ 
the  four  beasts  rise),  because  (1)  the  sea  as  a  wild, 
terrible  power  (Ps  107^^  ;  see  G.  A.  Smith,  HGHL 
bk.  ii.  ch.  vii.)  represents  heathenism  (Reuss  on 
Dn  7') ;  or  (2)  the  Roman  power  actually  carae  from 
the  sea,  or  the  west  (Holtzmann,  Handcom.  on 
Rev  13')  ;  or  (3)  the  sea  is  but  a  synonym  for  the 
abyss  (of.  Rev  11'  17*);  or  (4)  the  sea  represents 
humanity,  as  in  the  passages  noted  above  (so  in 
Rev  17"  the  many  waters  of  v.'  are  explained  as 
'  peoples,  and  multitudes,  and  nations,  and  tongues ' ; 
see  Carpenter  on  Rev  13'  and  17"  in  Ellicott's  NT 
Commentary,  xii.  pp.  167,  207).  The  words  in 
Rev  21'  'the  sea  is  no  more'  (RV)  will  mean 
accordingly  that  powers  hostile  to  God,  whether 
men  or  demons,  shall  be  brought  to  nought. 

See  also  art.  Sea  of  Glass,  and  for  '  brazen  sea' 
and  '  molten  sea '  next  article. 

A.  E.  Gabvie. 


some  give  it.  Benzingertt  points  out  that  2000 
baths  are  equivalent  to  72,800  litres,  and  that  a 
hemisphere  of  the  dimensions  of  the  brazen  sea 
could  contain  but  32,707  litres,  while  a  cylinder 
of  these  dimensions  would  contain,  at  the  utmost, 
49,062  litres.  It  is  possible  that  the  diameter  and 
circumference  are  taken  at  the  narrowest  part,  say 
immediately  beneath  the  rim ;  but  it  is  more 
probable  that  the  measurements  apply  to  the  rim, 
and  that  lower  down  the  vessel  bulged  ont  very 
much. 

Aocordin^  to  2  Ob  4^  and  Josephus,  ^n<.  vni.  iii.  5,  the  sea 
held  not  20uO,  but  SOOO  baths.  Keil  and  Thenius  trace  the  error 
to  a  tran8cril>er,  and  accordingly  alter  3000  to  2000.  There  is. 
however,  no  external  support  (or  the  change,  and  it  is  ex- 
ceedingly likelv  that  we  owe  the  larger  number  to  the  fondness 
of  the  Ciironicler  for  exaggeration — a  fondness  equalled  at  least 
by  the  Jewish  historian. 

Below  the  rim,  somewhere  near  the  middle  of 
*  The  Romans  called  large  vessels  lakes  (Zocim). 
t  Ex  3018. 

t  1  Ch  188,  of.  28  SB.    The  name*  of  places  differ  In  theu 
parallel  versea. 
J  LXX  33.  ||/!irB»U.6».  IfllTB'LSSe. 

••  Com.  tt  Com.  on  1  K  7«. 


SEA,  BR.VZEX 


SEA  OF  GLASS 


425 


the  vessel,  probablj'  two  rows  of  colocynths  *  were 
dfiured,  these  being  cast  with  the  basin,  and  not 
subsequently  carved,  btade  t  has  shown  on  gram- 
matical and  other  grounds  that  the  numeral  '  ten ' 
must  go  with  'cubits'  and  not  with  'colocynths,' 
and  that,  in  sliort,  the  words  constitute  a,  clumsy 
gloss,  and  had  far  better  be  left  out. 

The  brazen  Sea  rested  upon  12  brazen  oxen,  with 
their  heads  turned  towards  the  four  cardinal  jioints, 
3  looking  in  each  direction.  All  of  them  probably 
■tood  upon  one  basement  of  metal. 

It  is  likely  thiit  the  space  between  the  several 
groups  was  greater  than  that  between  the  several 
nienioers  of  the  group  ;  but  we  have  no  information 
on  this,  or  concerning  the  height  of  the  oxen  or 
tlieir  other  dimensions. 

Jose|ihu8  ;  »«ays  that  in  making  them  Solomon  broke  the  law 
of  Mo6es  which  loriiade  the  making  of  any  graven  image,}  as  he 
did  aUo  in  making  the  tions  that  were  about  his  throne,  tie 
migbt  furely  ha\e  added  the  cherubim,  which  come  under  the 
lame  category.  Uietim  says  the  6gure8  of  oxen  were  chosen 
to  form  a  rest  for  the  txisin,  because  oxen  formed  so  large  a  part 
of  the  offerings.  This  may  also  supplya  reason  for  the  horns  at 
the  four  cornerB,  as  Kranz  Delitzscb  suggests.  II  8tade,  Ben- 
einger,  Nowack.and  others  hold  that  the  oxen  have  a  connexion 
with  the  worship  of  Jehovah  in  the  form  of  a  bull,  which  pre- 
vailed in  the  North  ;  the  horns  of  the  altar  are  traced  to  the 
same  source.  Kostera  H  tries  to  prove  that  the '  Sea '  stands  for  the 
Di-ift — 'the  deep,'  one  source  of  water  supply,  and  that  the 
lavers**  represent  the  clouds,  the  source  of  the  rain  supply. 
Benzinger  gives  his  approval  to  this  theory,!  t  and  so  did 
Bmendit  before  him.     On  these  matters  the  Bible  is  silent. 

We  are  not  told  how  the  basin  was  supplied  with 
water,  nor  how  llie  water  was  got  out. 

As  to  the  lirst,  Keil  thinks  it  was  filled  by  means 
of  a  crane  which  raised  the  water  from  the  fountain 
close  to  the  altar  and  transferred  it  by  means  of 
some  vessel  to  the  'Sea'  wlienever  it  was  wanted. 
Witli  regard  to  the  second,  tliere  must  liave  been 
some  apertures  low  enough  to  be  reached  ;  possibly 
the  water  came  out  of  the  mouths  of  the  oxen 
through  pipes  supplied  with  taps.  For  the  opinions 
of  leading  rabbinical  writers,  see  Lundius,  Jiid. 
Heilig.,  Hamliurg,  1738,  p.  356. 

Not  a  word  is  said  in  the  older  and  soberer 
account  of  Kings  of  tlie  purpose  served  by  the 
Brazen  Sea.  Hut  in  2  Ch  4'  it  is  said  to  be  for 
the  priests  to  wash  in  :  that  is,  if  we  take  the 
account  of  tlie  f'S  or  laver  §§  of  the  tabernacle  to 
guide  us,  the  priests  washed  their  hands  and  feet 
with  its  water  before  they  proceeded  to  otter 
sacrifices. 

The  next  point  at  which  we  meet  the  Brazen  Sea 
is  in  2  K  16",  where  it  is  narrated  that  Ahaz,  for 
the  sake  of  their  value,  took  away  the  brazen 
3xen,  and  laid  the  'Sea 'on  the  stone  pavement. 
The  Chaldteans  at  a  later  time,  led  by  Nebuchad- 
nezzar, broke  the  '  Sea '  into  pieces  and  carried 
away  these  pieces  to  Babylon. |l|| 

.\tter  this  we  read  no  more  about  it.  Yet  Sir 
5«/111l  seems  to  show  that  in  the  mind  of  the  writer 

•  Tlie  addition  '  ten  colocynths  to  every  c\ibit '  has  no  sup- 
port in  the  MT,  nor  In  the  LXX,  though  Thenlus  and  Keil 
defend  this  rendering. 

t  XATWiii.  167  f. 

:  Ant.  vni.  vii,  n.  I  Ex  20<. 

r  Uiehni,  UWII''  I.  76».  He  compares  the  Greek  and  Roman 
alum  with  rams'  heads  at  the  oornere.  Cf.  TiutrLK,  Altar  <tf 
burnt-o'h-rin/t. 

•1  n  T.  1B79,  446  ft.  ••  See  1  K  71"  39,  and  cf.  La  vita. 

It  11  til.  Arch.  iSSH;  ct.  also  N'owack,  Ueb.  Arch.  U.  44  f.,  and 
Kittel,  KOnige,  p.  M. 

!t  Lrhrbueli  der  alttfut.  Religitmtquchichte,  p.  ISO  (not  In 
2nd  ed.,  Hmend  having  now,  as  he  informs  the  present  writer, 
abandoned  Kosters'  view  as  being  based  on  dogmatic  rather 
than  critical  considerations]. 

88  -"^ec  Ex  SO'sf  :  this  laver  Is  to  Ije  aharplv  distinguished  from 
the  llj  lavcrs  of  the  temple.  See  Lavrh,  an(l  cf.  a  very  elaborate 
article  bv  Stnde,  entitled  '  Die  Keaselwagen  des  satoni.  Tempels, 
1  K  TV 36,'  in  ZATW,  1901,  p.  145B. 

nil  2  K  2.'>i:i.  10,  Jer  621'- ».  In  the  last  passage  it  Is  stated  that 
the  ChaUluians  took  away  the  oxen  as  well.  This  is  not  said  in 
the  Book  of  Kings. 

•Ill  '  In  his  days  '  (those  of  .Simon  the  high  priest)  '  the  cistern 
to  receive  water,  being  in  compass  as  the  sea,  was  covered  with 
pkilee  of  brass  '  (but  see  the  lleb.,  and  cf.  Kautisch,  Apokr.]. 


the  second  temple  had  its  Brazen  Sea  too,  though 
apart  from  the  vague  hint  contained  in  this  verse 
of  the  Apoerj'plia  we  read  nothing  about  a  Brazen 
or  Molten  Sea  in  any  temple  except  Solomon's. 

LiTERATCRR.— Reland,  Antifj.  Sacr.  i.  6  fl. ;  Keil,  Temptl 
SalomvUy  118  II. ;  the  Bible  Dictionaries  of  Winer^,  Riehm'-^, 
and  the  works  on  Biblical  Archajology  by  Lundius,  Benzinger, 
and  Nowack  ;  Stade's  ijfsckickte  des  Volki's  Igrael,  i.  335  f.;  the 
Commentaries  of  Tlienius,  Kittel,  Benzinger  on  '  Kings ' — the 
Urst  very  full  and  able,  the  last  two  short,  compact,  and  up  to 
d«t«-  T.  \V.  Davies. 

SEA  OF  CHINNERETH,  SEA  OF  GALILEE.— 

See  Ualilee,  Sea  of. 

SEA  OF  GLASS  (AV),  GLASSY  SEA  (RV), 
0i\auaa  iiaklvq,  occurring  Rev  4°  15*'"',  has  no 
exact  parallel  in  previous  or  contemporary  litera- 
ture. But,  as  the  scene  in  Rev  4  .attaches  itself  to 
Ezk  1,  it  is  natural  to  find  in  the  'glassy  sea 
before  the  throne '  a  reproduction  of  the  picture  in 
Ezk  1^  'the  likeness  of  a  firmament  (Heb.  TJ)~i 
= '  expanse  ' ;  LXX  aTepiuiia.  =  '  solid  structure,' 
whence  Vulg.  firmitmentum)  like  the  colour  of  the 
terrible  crystal '  (LXX  ut  Spaatt  Kpu<rTd\\ou,  '  having 
the  look  of  crystal '),  extending  over  the  head  of 
the  living  creatures  and  under  '  the  likeness  of  a 
throne,  as  the  appearance  of  a  sapphire  stone ' 
(Ezk  1'^).  We  are  reminded  also  of  Ex  24''-  ", 
where  it  is  said  that,  when  Moses  and  Aaron  and 
the  elders  of  Israel  ascended  the  mount  and  '  saw 
the  God  of  Israel,'  '  there  was  under  his  feet  as  it 
were  a  paved  work  of  sapphire  stone,  and  as  it 
were  the  very  heaven  (LXX  (Uos  arepew/iaTos  Toii 
oiipai/oD,  '  the  appearance  of  the  heaven's  firma- 
ment') for  clearness.'  And  just  as  there  was  'fire 
on  the  top  of  the  mount'  (Ex  24"),  so  also  in  Ezk 
1-''  we  are  told  that  '  there  was  an  appearance  of 
fire  .  .  .  round  about,'  and  again  in  Kev  15-  the 
glassy  sea  is  '  mingled  with  fire.'  Another  im- 
perfect parallel  is  found  in  Enoch  14".  The  walls 
of  the  heavenly  house  from  which  Enoch  saw  in 
vision  a  second  house  and  a  throne  in  it  and  the 
great  glory  thereon,  were  '  like  a  mosaic  crystal 
tluor,  and  its  groundwork  was  of  crystal  .  .  .  and 
its  lloor  was  fire.'  Perhajis  the  most  nearly  exact 
parallel  occurs  in  the  Boo/c  uf  the  Secret.^  of  Enoch 
(the  Slavonic   fragment  of   the  Enoch  literature, 

Erobably  composed  in  its  present  form  in  the  first 
alf  of  the  1st  cent.  A.l).).*  In  3^  Enoch  tells  how 
the  angels  had  taken  him  up  into  the  lirst  heaven, 
next  above  the  a:ther :  '  and  they  showed  me  (he 
adds)  a  very  great  sea,  greater  than  the  earthly 
(i.e.  the  Mediterranean),  and  they  brought  before 
my  face  the  elders.'  Afterwards,  in  a  higher 
heaven  (tlie  seventh  in  Enoch)  he  saw  the  throne 
and  the  glory.  In  Test.  xii.  Pair.,  Levi  2,  tliis  sea 
is  said  to  lie  between  the  first  and  second  heavens, 
and  is  called  the  'water  hanging'  between  tlie 
two.  It  is  to  be  noted,  further,  tiiat  just  as  we 
have,  in  connexion  with  the  crystal  appearance, 
'living  creatures'  in  Ezekiel,  and  'holy  ones 'in 
Enoch,  and,  in  connexion  with  the  preat  sea, 
•elders'  in  the  Secrets  of  Enoch,  so  also  in  Rev.  we 
have,  in  connexion  with  the  glas!<y  sea,  '  living 
creatures  '  (ch.  4)  and  victorious  saints  (cli.  15). 

It  is  not  necessary  to  harmonize  all  these  apoca- 
lyptic images.  But  it  is  clear  that  the  writer  of 
ftevelatioii  is  in  contact  at  various  points  with 
previous  apocalyptic  literature  when  he  conceives 
of  a  wide  expanse  of  water  in  heaven,  stretching 
away  in  front  of  the  throne,  smooth,  clear,  bright 
with  a  golden  slieen  t  (21"),  like  a,  fire,  ujion  it, 
that  flashes  from  tlie  seven  burning  lamps  ;  while 
hard  by  (or  u[ion)  this  sea  stand  types  of  created 
life  (ch.  4),  and  a  trium|ihant  host  of  those  whose 
life  has  been  created  anew  (ch.  15),  glorifying  the 

*  See  Charles  and  MorHU's  edition. 
t  See  article  Glass. 


42G 


SEA  OF  JAZER 


SEAL,  SEALING 


Lord  God  Almighty.  It  is  possible  tliat  the  idea 
of  the  glassy  sea  may  have  come  from  the  temple 

Savenient  of  ornamental  polished  stones  (2  Ch  7' ; 
OS.  BJ  VI.  i.  8  and  iii.  2)  on  which  the  people 
bowed  themselves  in  thanks;;iving  to  the  Lord, 
and  the  gleam  of  which  tlie  Habhis  compared  to 
the  gleam  of  crystal.*  The  suggested  relation  to 
the  '  molten  sea'  (OaXaaaa  xoXxij),  the  large  copper 
reservoir  of  Solomon's  temple  used  for  the  ablutions 
of  the  priests  (2  S  S"  [LXX],  1  K  7^),  aeems  to  be 
more  remote.  If  not  quite  imaginary. 

J.  MAS.SIE. 

SEA  OF  JAZER See  vol.  ii.  p.  553»  nolet. 

SEA  OF  THE  ARABAH  (AV  'the  Plain').— See 
Dead  Sea. 

SEA  OF  TIBERIAS.— See  Galilee,  Sea  of. 

SEAH — See  WeiGUTS  AND  MEASURES. 

SEAL,  SEALING  (subst.  Dji'in  ;  (r<ppayU,  iroinfipi- 
yiff/xa  [LXX  twice] ;  specifically  siijnet-ring,  ntnn, 
nj;;?,  in  Aramaic  Ni'jil',  oa.KTv\ioi.  Verb,  onij  ;  aippay- 
if(4)  [ail  voices],  KaTa<x(ppayil;'o,aai  [act.  and  pass.], 
iwiff^payi^a  [act.  and  mid.]).— These  words  are  used 

(1)  in  a  literal,  (2)  in  a  figurative  sense. 

i.  LiTKEAL  Sense.— (a)  Use  of  Seals.— There  is 
evidence  of  the  general  use  of  seals  in  the  early 
ages  'extending  from  the  mists  of  Babylonian 
antiquit}'  to  the  decline  of  Koman  civilization ' 
{Enci/c.  Brit.  art.  'Gems').  We  know  from  the 
OT  that  seals  were  used  at  an  early  date  by  the 
Hebrews  (Gn  38"*-^  Judah's  signet),  by  the  Egyp- 
tians (Gn  41-"  Pharaoh),  and  by  the  Persians  (Est 
3'"  8=  Aliasuerus).  Herodotus  tells  us  (i.  195)  that 
the  accoutrement  of  a  Babylonian  was  incomplete 
without  a  staff  and  a  ring,  but  this  ring  was  prob- 
ably a  talisman  more  frequently  than  a  signet. 
And  the  literary  evidence  is  supported  by  that  of 
gems  and  inscriptions  dating  as  far  back  as  B.C. 
2000  and  3000,  and  sliowing  that  the  practice  e.x- 
tended  to  other  nations  (see  Riehm,  ElVB,  quoting 
Levy's  Tables,  and  de  Vogii^'s  Milanges  d  A  rchio- 
logie  orientale).  Arabs  and  Persians  of  to-day 
wear  sinular  seals.  In  the  NT  we  have  the  arppayls 
upon  the  stone  closing  the  mouth  of  the  Lord's 
tomb  (Mt  27""),  and  the  oaxTuXios  (probably  a  signet- 
ring  containing  the  father's  name)  put  upon  the 
finger  of  the  prodigal  (Lk  15^-);  probably  also  the 
gold  ring  of  the  rich  worshipper  in  Ja  2''  was  not 
only  an  ornament  but  a  signet-ring,  indicating  in 
itself  that  he  was  a  person  of  consequence. 

(6)  Structure  of  seals.  — \l  we  may  judge  from 
the  seals  and  signet-rinf;s  that  have  come  down  to 
us,  seals  were  of  two  kinds:  (1)  the  small  seal  of 
precious  stone  or  precious  metal  in  a  signet-ring ; 

(2)  the  more  ample  cone-shaped  or  round  seals, 
some  of  metal  (occasionally  set  in  stone),  some  of 
porcelain  or  terra-cotta  I  (.some  even  of  wood  are  in 
yogue  to-day  in  the  East),  large  enough  to  contain 
Inscriptions  and  animal  figures,  such  as  figures  of 
oxen  or  antelopes,  and  intended  to  be  hung  by  a 
cold  from  the  neck  or  from  the  arm  (Gn  38"*-  -°,  Ca 
3')  or  attached  to  the  thing  sealed  (a  door  or  a 
document,  for  example)  when  the  impression  was 
not  m.-ule  in  the  material  of  the  thing  itself.J 

(c)  The  material  used  as  the  medium. — Beckmann 

•  See  Bousset,  OfenfiantTuj,  in  loco. 

t  II  iy  very  doubtful,  however,  whether  the  'great  mass  of 
existing  (Babylonian)  cylinfiLTs'  could  have  been  used  aa  svals. 

J  Mr.  Ilumard  Grenfell  tolls  the  present  writer  that  sialint'S 
are  not  at  all  uncommon  on  Eio'ptinn  papyri,  sometimes  lari,'e, 
more  frei|uently  small.  He  believes  that  the  practice  of  sealing 
documents  went  back  in  Egypt  to  the  earliest  times,  tliough 
the  date  of  the  earliest  papyrus  seal  is  as  yet  uncertain.  Jar- 
stoppers,  however,  were  stamped  in  the  time  of  tlie  First 
Dynasty  (earlier  than  B.C.  400U,  according  to  Brufc-scli),  and 
papyri  of  the  Fourth  and  Fifth  Dynasties,  extant  in  Iragments, 
probably,  in  their  original  state,  contained  seolings. 


{Hist,  of  Inventions,  i.  140,  Bohn's  tr.,  quoted  in 
Smith's  Christian  Antiquities,  art.  *  Seals  ')  gives  it 
as  his  opinion  tliat  'in  Europe  wax  has  been  every 
where  used  for  sealing  since  the  earliest  ages. 
But  in  the  East  it  was  not  wax  but  clay  (Job  38'*), 
sealed  when  soft  and  then  made  hard  by  burning. 
When  a  door  or  a  stone  was  to  be  sealed,  a  clay 
seal  was  put  at  each  end  of  the  cord  stretched 
across  it  (cf.  Evnvrj.  Bet.  8,  tirixp^aav  iirTo.  cr<ppaylSas, 
with  J  n  9"-  ").  Some  stones  so  sealed  still  retain  the 
cord  marks.  But,  like  tlie  Arabs  and  the  Persians, 
the  Hebrews  also  seem  to  have  dipped  seals  or 
stamps  in  a  black  pigment,  a  paint  or  an  ink.  The 
picture  which  Ezekiel  draws  (9^)  of  the  man  '  with 
the  writer's  inkhorn  by  his  side,'  marking  the 
foreheads  of  the  men  that  sighed  and  cried  for 
the  abominations  in  Jerusalem,  is  doubtless  the 
source  of  the  sealing  picture  in  Rev  7. 

(d)  Burposes  of  sealing. — Sealing  was  sometimes 
a  substitute  for  signature  (and  conveniently  so  in 
days  when  writing  was  not  a  general  accomplish- 
ment), if  a  letter  had  to  be  authenticated  or  a 
document  to  be  ratified.  So  Jezebel  forged  Ahab's 
signature  (1  IC  21*) ;  and  in  Neh  9**  10'  the  sealing 
signified  adherence  to  the  contents  of  the  covenant 
there  and  then  made  with  God.  At  other  times  it 
denoted  an  inalienable  possession,  the  signet  itself 
being  also  the  t.ype  of  all  that  was  most  precious 
and  inviolable  (Ca  8",  Jer  22-').  This  comes  out  in 
the  figurative  application  2  Ti  2"  '  Having  this  seal, 
the  Lord  knoweth  them  that  are  his.'  (In  the 
same  sense,  perhaps,  are  the  <rrlyij,aTa,  the  '  brands ' 
of  the  Lord  Jesus,  Gal  6'").  Akin  to  this  idea  was 
that  ol  security  and  permanency,  as  when  the  stone 
of  the  lions'  den  was  sealed  by  the  king  with  his 
own  signet  and  those  of  his  lords,  '  that  nothing 
might  be  changed  concerning  Daniel' (Dn  6",  cf. 
also  Bel  '■*,  Mt  27"").  These  ideas  of  oiimership  and 
security  are  often  combined  with  that  of  destina- 
tion, as  in  Ezk  9''  and  Rev  7^,  where  the  persons 
sealed  were,  as  God's  people,  secured  from  imminent 
destruction  and  designated  for  future  reward. 
Finally,  connected  with  the  ideas  of  security  and 
destination  was  the  idea  of  secrecy  oi  jMstponejnent 
of  disclosure,  as  when  the  words  of  a  roll,  mora 
[larticularly  if  prophetic,  were  sealed  up  for  the 
uninitiated,  or  till  the  time  came  to  publish  tlieiu 
(Is  29",  Dn  12^  Rev  10').  Quite  in  harmony  with 
all  these  ideas  was  the  idea  of  authority  in  the  seal 
or  signet,  so  that  when  a  king  bestowed  his  signet 
he  thereby  invested  the  recipient  with  royal 
authority,  lending  him,  in  fact,  the  royal  name 
(Gn  41''^  Pharaoh  and  Joseph). 

ii.  Figurative  Sense. — In  illustrating  the  scope 
of  the  literal,  it  has  been  unavoidable  to  trench 
upon  the  figurative,  literal  sealing  being  emblematic 
of  one  idea  or  another.  But  we  have  still  to  deal 
with  the  religious,  the  spiritual  sense  of  seal  and 
sealing,  where  there  is  nothing  literal  at  all,  even 
in  vision.     This  comes  out  principally  in  the  NT. 

The  idea  of  authentication  is  |)rominent  when 
converts  are  called  the  seal  of  apostleship  (1  Co  9-), 
and  when  circumcision  is  named  a  seal,  i.e.  an 
authentication,  of  that  righteousness  by  faith 
which  existed  before  the  rite  was  performed  (Ro 
4").  The  solemn  authrnticntion  of  human  experi- 
ence lies  in  the  expression  that  he  who  h;us  received 
the  witness  of  the  Son  '  hath  set  seal  to  this  that 
(Jod  is  true'  in  what  He  promised  through  the 
Son  (Jn  3^) ;  while  the  saying  '  Him  hath  God  tlia 
Father  sealed'  sij^x'aes authentication  and  declina- 
tion to  convey  eternal  life  (Jn  6-'').  The  fignirativa 
sense  of  seal  in  the  passage  (2  Ti  2'"),  '  '1  he  firm 
foundation  of  God  ((TJod's  foimdation  of  firm  be- 
lievers) standeth,  having  this  seal.  The  Loid 
knoweth  them  that  are  liis,'  includes  ourner.thip, 
anthentication,security,  and  destination.  All  these 
ideas,  but  especially  destination,  are  present  when 


SEAL,  SEAL  SKIXS 


SEA-MO>,'STER 


42; 


it  is  said  tliat  believers  are  sealed  with  the  Holy 
Spirit  of  promise  (Eph  1'^)  ;  sealed  unto  the  day  of 
redemption  (4**)  ;  sealed  and  having,  in  the  Spirit 
within  us,  the  earnest  of  what  we  shall  be  (2  Co  l'"). 

Working  back  from  the  early  assimilation  of 
baptism  to  circumcision  as  a  seal  (Ueruius,  Sim. 
viil.  6  ;  2  Clem,  vii.),  some  have  interpreted  the 
sealings  just  mentioned  as  directly  referring  to  the 
baptismal  rite.  Hut  Lightfoot  seems  to  be  justified 
in  queslionin;:;  (2  Clem,  vii.)  whether  'St.  Paul  or 
St.  John  {e.g.  Rev  9*)  used  the  ima|je  with  any  direct 
reference  to  baptism.'  Hatch  (Ilibbert  Lectures,  p. 
295)  and  Hamack  {Dogmengesch.  I.  i.  151)  trace  the 
bajitism  sense  of  aippayit  to  the  Greek  mysteries ; 
but  Anrich  (Mystei-ienicesen,  p.  12011'.)  gives  in  his 
adherence  to  the  belief  that  the  origin  of  the  use 
is  tlie  Jewish  view  of  circumcision  as  a  seal  (see 
Anrich  for  illustr.,  and  Sanday-Headlam  on  Ro4"). 

One  peculiar  lij-Tirative  use  remains  to  be  noticed. 
St.  Paul,  in  speaking  (Ro  15^)  of  handing  over  the 
collection  to  the  saints  at  Jerusalem,  describes  his 
act  as  'sealing  to  them  this  fruit'  (of  his  ell'orts,  or 
of  the  spiritual  blessings  that  had  gone  fortli  from 
the  Jews).  The  simplest  explanation  seems  to  be 
that  of  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia  :  that  the  apostle 
is  referring  to  the  solemn  and  exact  formalities  of 
the  transaction — a  view  which  Deissmann  supports 
from  the  papyri  of  Fayyftm,  wliere  such  sealing  of 
wheat-sacks  and  the  like  stands  for  a  guarantee 
that  they  contain  the  amount  they  profess  to  con- 
tain. St.  Paul  desires  to  act  like  a  conscientious 
merchant,  and  to  guarantee  formally  that  he  hands 
over  the  amount  due  from  him.  The  suspicions 
w  hich  some  of  his  enemies  had  set  afloat,  tnat  he 
helped  himself  from  the  collection,  must  be  defi- 
nitely and  completely  foreclosed.         J.  Massik. 

SEAL,  SEAL  SKINS.— See  Bauger. 

SEAMEW  (RV  Lv  11",  Dt  14").— See  CuCKOW. 

SEA-MONSTER.— This  Eng.  term  occurs  only 
twice  in  RV  (text)  :  Gn  1"  '  God  created  the  great 
Bea-moiisters '  (AV  'great  whales,'  LXX  t4  k^t?;), 
and  Job  7'-  '  Am  I  a  sea  or  a  sea-monster  (AV 
'  whale,'  LXX  SpiKwv),  that  tliou  settest  a  watch 
over  me  ? '  The  Heb.  in  both  these  passages  is  p;B 
(plur.  cj';j3  and  crjn),  which  has  been  supposed  to 
come  from  an  (unused)  root  jjn  =  ' stretch,'  'ex- 
tend,' an<l  so  to  signify  properly  an  elongated 
animal  (see  (Jes.  TItes.  1511).  The  word  \'in,  in 
addition  to  these  two  occurrences,  is  used  of  ser- 
pents or  serpent-like  creatures  in  Ex  l'"-  [P  ;  JE 
and  R  use  rnj,  LXX  J^u,  in  the  similar  passages 
4^  and  ""],  Dt  32",  Ps  91"  ;  perhaps  the  crocodile 
is  in  view  in  Is  27'  51',  Ezk  29*  32^  (see  small  type 
below),  Ps  74" ;  large  water  animals  *  of  .some 
kind  are  designated  by  it  in  Jer  51  [Gr.  28]**,  Ps 
148'.  In  all  these  pa.ssages  the  LXX  tr.  j-je  by 
SpiKuv,  RV  has  '  dragon,'  except  in  Ex  "i"-  '  ser- 
|ient'  (RVm,  'Heb.  tannin,  any  large  reptile'); 
and  I's  91"  'serj)ent'  ;  in  Ps  74"  RVm  has  'sea- 
monsters,'  in  14S'  'or  sea-monsters  or  waterspouts.' 

In  Neh  2"  we  hear  also  of  the  '/!n  hattannln 
('  well  of  the  dragon,'  LXX  inrW)  '^^'  ovkQv, 
'  fountain  of  the  hgs,'  evidently  confusing  pjn 
Willi  z-;fa  '  figs'). 

Quite  a  difTerent  t«nn,  aIthou(;h  it  has  sometimes  been  con* 
fuwd  t  witli  it  botli  by  copyinta  (p;n,  LXX  };«j«.tm,  o(  La  4^  is 
a  iixiual  error  tor  D';n,  wliile,  conversely,  D';n  ot  Ezli  29>  32' 
(LXX  in  ali  )/>•«•>)  should  be  |';?J  and  by  interpreters,  is  O'JS 

'  Tile  creature  wliich  is  said  to  have  swailowed  Jonah  (see 
roi.  iL  p.  750)  is  called  simply  a  great  llah  ("^nj  jl),  Jon  1" 
lUeb.  and  Ur.  21J.  The  familiar  '  whale'  comes  from  LXX  xifnf 
*,jMym.\  rfpro<luced  in  the  xr,tM  of  Mt  Vi^. 

t  Pooouk  in  \i\s  Commentary  oti  Mic  l^*  (1077)flrbt8howed  that 
tlijse  two  worls  hwl  been  confused,  and  pointed  out  that  O'JJ 
must  denote  some  kind  of  jackal. 


(once  Mai  13,  if  the  text  is  correct,  Mia,  LXX  d«'juaT«  =  Heb. 
niK3 ;  cf.  Jer  99  ('"I,  Ps  6513),  the  plur.  ol  Cunusi.il)  [f,  which 
means  some  beast  that  haunts  solitary  placcji,  )»rol)ablv  the 
jackal.  Its  occurrences  are  Is  13'^^  34i»  35' 432<i_  Jer  g'"!''!  10'^ 
U»  493S  6137,  Mic  18,  Ps  4420(19)  (i(  the  text  U  correct,  but  sf-e 
Cheyne  or  Wellh.),  Job  3022  (in  all  these  passages  AV  has 
' dragons," •  KV  'jackals'],  La 4^ (AV [wrongly] ' sea-monsters," f 
m.  *  sea-calves,'  RV  '  Jackals  "X 

Another  monster,  belonging  to  the  same  cate- 
gory as  tannin,  is  Leviathan  (jci;;^  liwydthun, 
prob.  =  ' wreathed,'  'coiled'),  which  appears  as  a 
denizen  of  the  waters  in  Ps  104^  '  liwyatliun  whom 
thou  hast  formed  (if\i'.)  to  play  therein '  (or  '  with 
him,'  'la-pns"^,  LXX  ^/xTra/feiv  a-uTif),  and  Job  41"'- 
[Heb.  40^""].  In  the  first  of  these  passages  the 
whale  is  often  supposed  to  be  referred  to,  in  the 
second  the  crocodile,  which  last  may  be  the 
reference  also  in  I's  74'*,  where  liwyatlidn  is  ajj- 
parently  symbolical  of  Egypt.  In  Job  3*  [where 
it  is  not  necessary  to  read,  with  Gunkel,  d;  '  sea' 
for  Di'  '  day ']  magicians  are  supposed  to  be  able  to 
'  rouse  up '  (-nj/  ;  B  x^^P'^'""'^''^'-)  this  monster.  On 
Is  27'  see  below.  [LXX  in  ali  these  passages  tr. 
IC'l^  by  bf>6.Kwv,  except  in  Job  3",  where  it  has  ri 
(o^o  K77TOS ;  Aq.,  Symm.,  and  Tlieod.,  where  they 
are  extant,  always  transliterate  XcmaBav,  except 
in  this  same  passage  in  Job,  where  Theod.  has 
opditui"].  Leviathan  is  referred  to  also  in  Enoch 
60'-9,  2  Es  6*»-"  ;  cf.  Apoc.  Bar  29*. 

It  has  been  coiucuoed  that,  in  most  of  the  OT 
passages  where  tannin  and  liwydthdn  occur,  a 
mythological  or  semi  -  mythological  allusion  is 
present.  Such  an  allusion  is  discovered,  for  in- 
stance, in  Is  27' '  In  that  day  the  LoKD  with  his  sore 
and  great  and  strong  sword  shall  punish  liwydthdn 
the  fleeing  serpent  (oi;  s^'Ci,  LXX  t^is  ^fiVywc,  Aq. 
6<pi^  fjLOx^is,  Symm.  40(5  ffvyKXeiuf)  and  liwydthdn  tlio 
coiled  serpent  (pn^iTi:,  oqj,  LXX  i<pis  anoXiis,  Aq.  and 
Symm.  c0ij  iveaKiauiiiinos),  and  he  shall  slay  the 
tannin  that  is  in  the  sea.'  The  language  here  cer- 
tainly recalls  the  Babylonian  mytliology  with  its 
account  of  the  primeval  conflict  between  Marduk 
and  Tiamat  (see  art.  Cosmogony).  The  '  fleeing 
serpent '  (cf.  Job  26'-'-)  is  portrayed  on  a  Bab. 
seal,  with  Marduk  in  pursuit ;  the  '  coiled  serpent ' 
mi;;hl  be  the  earth-encircling  ocean.  These  two 
lixr yutlulns  are  held  to  be  simply  ditterentiations  of 
Tiamat,  whose  con.sort,  Kiiigu,  may  be  'the  dragon 
in  the  sea'  (so  tiunkel,  followed  by  Cheyne,  et  at.). 
At  the  same  time  Gunkel  (p.  40)  admits  that  they 
are  employed  by  '  Isaiah '  to  symbolize  kingdoms. 
In  Is  51'  (on  which  see  art.  Rahab)  the  "  dragon' 
(symbolical,  as  the  context  shows,  of  Egypt  at  tlie 
time  of  the  Exodus)  appears,  as  in  the  Bab.  cos- 
mogony, as  having  been  destroyed  by  God  long 
ago  (so  also  in  Ps  74'^'"  '  Thou  brakest  tlie  heads 
ot  the  tanninS7n  in  the  waters,  thou  didst  crush 
the  heads  of  liwyathdn  in  pieces,'  89'"  al.),  whereas 
in  27'  the  monster  is  thought  of  aiiparently  as  im- 
prisoned in  the  sea,  and  destined  to  ue  destroj'cd  at 
last  by  Jahweh's  sword  (cf.  Job  3",  where,  as  was 
noted  above,  magicians  have  the  power  to  '  rouse 
up '  liivydt/idn  ;  7'^,  where  watchers  are  set  over 
the  tannin ;  and  Am  9',  where  the  serpent  [oiji, 
opaKuf]  is  in  any  case  no  venomous  marine  snake, 
for  such  are  not  found  in  the  Mediterranean,  but 
'an  imaginary  monster,  supposed  by  the  Hebrews 
to  have  its  home  at  the  bottom  of  the  ocean,  and 
to  be  at  the  disposal  of  the  Almighty  '  [Driver, 
ad  loc;  similarly  Nowack,  who  has  no  doubt  that 
there  is  a  reference  to  the  sea-monster  of  myth- 
ology])- Again,  in  Kzk  "29'""  and  3'J""  the  tannin 
to  which  Pharaoh  is  compared,  althoujjh  it  has 
points  in  common  with  the  crocodile,  is  held  to 

•  The  word  •  dra^'on  *  In  A  V  should  probably  be  viewed  merely 
as  an  old  and  poc-tical  word  for  a  lur^'e  (tcn>ent  (not  necessarily 
a  fabulous  monster).  See  exain(>les  uf  its  use  in  this  sense  in 
old  writers  as  quoted  by  Murray  in  Ojif.  limj.  Dictionary^  »,v. 

t  This  is  the  only  occurrence  of '  sea-moubtor'  in  AV. 


128 


SEBA 


SECUKDUS 


find  its  only  true  equivalent  in  the  monster  Tiamat. 
The  treatment  to  be  meted  out  by  God  to  E^liaraoh 
recalls,  we  are  told,  the  way  in  which  Tiamat  and 
her  allies  were  vanquished  and  afterwards  treated 
by  Marduk  ;  compare,  for  instance,  EzU  3'2"  '  I  will 
spread  out  my  net  for  thee,'  etc.,  with  Creation 
tablet  iv.  11.  95,  112,  '  Bel  (Marduk)  threw  wide  his 
net,  made  it  encompass  her ' ;  '  In  the  net  they  lay, 
in  the  meslies  they  eat.'  But  the  net  is  a  common 
OT  figure,  and  may  be  used  here  independently. 
Upon  the  whole,  while  it  is  practically  certain 
tliat  the  Tiamat  myth  had  reached  Palestine  and 
tliat  there  are  allusions  to  it  in  the  OT,  it  will 
liardly  be  questioned  that  Guukel  exaggerates  its 
inlluence. 

The  'dragon'  of  Neh  2"  is  probably  a  serpent 
regarded  as  tlie  tutelary  deity  of  the  spring,  and 
believed  to  give  living  power,  perhaps  healing 
virtues,  to  its  waters  (of.  W.  K.  Smith,  RS^  156, 
IGl  P  172,  176]). 

It  does  not  fall  within  the  scope  of  the  present 
article  to  discuss  the  '  dragon  '  of  tlie  Greek  Book 
of  Daniel  (see  art.  BEL  and  the  Dragon),  the 
'  dragons  '  of  Ad.  Est  10'  11"  or  of  Ps-Sol  2^"-,  or 
the  'dragon  '  of  Rev  12'''-  13-  *•  "  16'^  20=,  for  which 
last  see  Revelation  (Book  of),  p.  256,  and 
Bousset's  Comm.  ad  loc.    See  also  art.  Raiiab. 

Literature. — Giinkel,  SckGp/un/j  u.  Chaos,  esp.  pp.  2&-90; 
Chevne'8  artt.  'Behemoth  and  Leviathan'  and  'Dragon'  in 
Enci/c.  BibL:  Weber,  Jiid.  Theol^  160,  202,  402,  404  (ou  Jewish 
fancies  about  Leviathan);  the  Comin.,  esp.  those  of  A.  B. 
Davidson,  Dillm.,  Budde,  and  Duhra  on  Job  ;  of  Cheyne, 
Dillm.  .Kittel,  and  Marti  on  Isaiah  \  and  of  Bertholet  and 
Kraetzschmar  (both  disinclined  to  admit  in  Ezk  293  322  the 
mythological  allusioas  contended  for  by  Gunkel)  on  EzekieL 

J.  A.  Selbie. 
SEBA  (N3P).  —  Son  of  Cush,  Gn  10'  =  lCh  1». 
SincR  Seba  is  mentioned  in  connexion  with  Cnsh 
in  Is  43'  and  45",  it  is  probable  that  this  genealogy 
is  a  gloss  on  the  pas.sages  of  Isaiah,  or,  at  any  rate, 
based  upon  them.  Of  Seba  this  author  knows  that 
its  inhabitants  were  tall ;  and  since  he  prophesies 
that  they  should  be  brought  in  chains  to  Jerusalem, 
it  seems  reasonable  to  identify  them  with  a  race 
mentioned  in  the  oracle  of  Is  18^- ',  who  were  to  be 
brought  as  an  offering  to  the  temple,  who  also 
were  connected  with  a  nation  living  bejond  the 
rivers  of  Cush,  and  who  are  described  as  'drawn 
out,  clean  -  shaven,  and  of  power  from  ancient 
times.'  The  rest  of  the  description  is  at  present 
unintelligible.  There  is  a  further  reference  to 
tliem  in  I's  72'",  where,  however,  they  are  merely 
typical  of  a  distant  race,  and  coupled  with  the 
familiar  Slieba  on  the  ground  of  the  resemblance 
of  their  niimes.  On  this  resemblance  Glaser 
(Skizze,  ii.  387  fl.)  bases  his  theory  that  they  repre- 
sent the  Sabajans  of  Jebel  Shammir  in  Nejd — a 
theory  which  is  to  be  rejected  on  the  ground  that 
the  only  autlior  who  knows  an3'thing  definite 
about  tlieni  keeps  them  carefully  apart  from  the 
Sabi-eans,  and  mentions  them  in  connexion  with 
Cush  and  E^ypt.  Since  from  the  8th  cent.  B.C. 
Cush  had  played  an  important  part  in  politics, 
it  is  probable  that  an  educated  man  would  have 
some  idea  of  the  locality  of  Cush,  and  therefore 
any  attempt  to  seek  for  Seba  anywhere  but  in  the 
heart  of  Africa  should  be  rejected.  The  researches 
of  Mr.  Theodore  Bent  (Ruined  Cities  of  Mashona- 
Innd,  1892)  have  certified  the  existence  in  the 
heart  of  Africa  of  tlie  vestiges  of  ancient  States, 
the  names  of  which  are  lost  to  history.  The 
description  given  by  him  of  the  ancient  State  of 
Mashonaland  bears  some  resemblance  to  that  given 
in  Is  18,  possibly  on  the  ground  of  Egyptian  de- 
spatches or  the  statements  of  Ethiopians  then 
dominant  in  Egypt.  '  There  is,'  says  a  Portuguese 
traveller  quoted  p.  207,  '  a  tower  or  edifice  of 
worked  masonry,  which  appears  evidently  not  to 
be  the  work  of  black  natives  of  the  country,  bat 


of  some  powerful  and  political  nations';  p.  231 
'  there  is  little  doubt  tliat  the  ancient  builders  01 
the  ruins  in  Mashonaland,  the  forts  and  towns 
between  the  Zambesi  and  the  Limpopo,  utilized 
the  Sabi  river  as  tlieir  road  to  and  from  the  coast. 
This,  like  other  African  rivers,  was  in  ancient 
times  suitable  for  large  craft,  but,  through  silting, 
is  no  longer  fit  for  it  (p.  231).  It  does  not  api)ear 
that  epigraphic  research  lias  as  yet  thrown  any 
light  on  this  name.  U.  S.  Margoliouth. 

SEBAM  (Dji? ;  Xepafti ;  Sahan).—A  town  in  the 

Sastoral  district,  '  a  land  for  cattle,'  in  which 
[eshbon,  Elealeh,  and  Nebo  were  also  situated 
(Nu  32^).  It  is  apjiarently  the  same  place  as 
Sibmah,  which  was  in  the  territory  of  Reuben, 
and  was  rebuilt  by  the  children  of  Reuben  (Jos 
13",  Nu  32^).  Sebam  probably  soon  fell  into  the 
hands  of  the  Moabites,  in  whose  possession  it  was 
in  the  days  of  Isaiah  and  Jeremiah.  It  was  then 
celebrated  for  its  vines,  which  were  destroyed  by 
'the  lords  of  the  nations'  (Is  16*-',  Jer  48'-). 
Jerome  {Onom.  s.  '  Sabama ')  calls  it  a  to^vn  of  Moab 
in  the  land  of  Gilead,  and  says  that  it  was  barely 
500  paces  from  Heshbon  {Com,  in  Is.  v.),  and  one 
of  the  stron"  places  of  the  district.  It  is  perhaps 
Sumia,  on  tne  south  side  of  Wddif  Hesb&n,  and  2 
English  mUes  from  Heshbon.  There  are  here 
some  ruins,  rock-hewn  sarcophagi,  and  rock-cut 
wine-presses  {PEF  Mem.  East  Pal.  p.  221). 

C.  W.  Wilson. 
SEBAT  C^a^ir)  1  Mac  16",  or  SHEBAT(o?f)Zec 
1'.— The  eleventh  month  ;  see  Time. 

SECACAH(np3p;  B  Aix'ofi,  A  2oxox<l ;  Sachacha). 
— One  of  six  cities  situated  in  the  'wilderness' 
(midbdr)  of  Judah  (Jos  15"'),  that  is,  in  the  waste 
land  west  of  the  Dead  Sea.  It  was  unknown  to 
Eusebius  and  Jerome  (Onom.  s.  'ZaKxi,  Scacha), 
and  there  is  no  clue  to  its  position.  Conder  (Ubk. 
to  Bible)  identifies  it,  doubtfully,  with  Khurbet  ed- 
Dikkeh,  also  called  Khurbet  es-Sikkeh,  '  ruin  of  the 
path,'  2  mUes  S.  of  Bethany.  This  is  too  near 
Jerusalem.  Secacah  was  probably  between  the 
Kidron  ravine  ( Wddy  en-Ndr)  and  En-gedi. 

C.  W.  Wilson. 

SECHENIAS  (A  Sex^'as)-— 1-  (B  om.)  1  Es  8«  = 
Shecaniah,  Ezr  8',  where  the  text  needs  rearrang- 
ing to  agree  with  1  Esdras.  2.  (B  ElexovLm),  1  Es 
8*"= Shecaniah,  Ezr  8». 

SECOND  COMING.— See  Paeousia, vol.  iii.  p.  674. 

SECT.— See  Heresy,  vol.  ii.  p.  351. 

SECD  (13^?,  with  the  article  ;  B  A>  ti?  St^ef,  A  iw 
SoKxw)- — A  plaice  mentioned  only  in  1  S  19^.  It 
was  not  far  from  Ramah  (Samuel's  residence), 
and  apparently  on  the  road  from  Gibeah  to  that 
place.  In  or  near  it  there  was  a  large  cistern 
(RV'the  great  well'  [Vnsn  ni2],  RVm  'the  well  cf 
the  threshing  floor '  [pS.i  '3,  LXX  ippiarm  toO  4Xw]) 
which  Saul  passed  on  his  journey.  The  place  is 
unknown,  and  its  site  depends  upon  the  position 
assigned  respectively  to  Gibeah  and  Ramah. 
Several  identifications  have  been  proposed :  for 
instance.  Sir  A'ebala,  near  Gibeon  (Smith's  DB), 
Khurbet  Shuweikeh,  a  little  S.  of  Bireh  (Conder, 
PEF  Mem.  iii.  52,  126),  and  the  ancient  reservoir 
at  Solomon's  Pools  (PEFSt,  1898,  p.  17),  but  this 
last  is  dependent  ujion  an  improbable  site  for 
Ramah  (see  above,  p.  198").  The  LXX  (B)  i^  t^ 
^eipel  implies  the  Heb.  -tifij  = ' bare  height' (often 
in  Jeremiah).  This  is  preferred  to  MT  by  Thenius, 
Driver  (Text  0/  Sam.  ad.  loc),  LOhr,  H.  P.  Smith, 
and  recent  writers  in  general. 

C.  W.  Wilson. 

SECUNDU8    (2«oC»Sot    [TR],    Z4icouy6ot   [WH, 


SECURE 


SEIR 


429 


IJldi.s]). — A  man  of  Thessalonica,  who  accompanied 
St.  I'siul  from  i'liilippi  to  Europe  (Ac 20''),  probably 
one  of  tlie  aposiks  of  the  Lhurclies  taking  the 
Macedonian  contributions  to  Jerusalem,  Ac  24", 
2  Co  8^.  The  name  (with  Sosipater)  occurs  in  the 
well-known  inscription  of  Thessalonica,  CIG  ii. 
lyUT,  which  gives  a  list  of  Politarchs. 

A.  C.  Headi-am. 

SECURE. — As  tised  in  AV  'secure'  means  'con- 
fident,' 'trustful,'  'not  anticipating  danger.'  It 
is  always  in  OT  the  tr.  of  n;;  to  trust,  confide,  or 
gome  of  its  derivatives.  In  NT  it  occurs  only  as  a 
verb,  and  only  in  Mt  28'''  'And  if  this  come  to 
the  governor's  ears,  we  will  jjcrsuade  him,  and 
secure  you,'  where  the  Or.  is  v^ids  d^epiiipovs  iroii)- 
eofjifv,  i.e.  '  make  you  free  from  care,'  which  corre- 
sponds e.\actly  with  the  derivation  of  the  Eng. 
word  (Lat.  securiis,  i.e.  se  'free  from,'  and  cura 
'  care ').  Cf.  Jg  18'  '  they  dwelt  careless,  after  the 
manner  of  the  Zidonians,  quiet  and  secure.'  How 
greatly  the  word  has  changed  its  meaning  may  be 
seen  from  Jg  8"  '  Gideon  .  .  .  smote  the  host:  for 
the  host  was  secure.'  Davies  (Bible  Eng.  p.  103) 
quotes  from  Sandys  (p.  210),  'There  is  no  where 
any  place  wherein  it  is  safe  to  be  secure.' 

Securely  (I'r  3=»,  Mic  2',  Sir  4'")  has  the  same 
meaning.  And  so  also  security  in  2  Es  7°*,  Sir  5'  ; 
biit  in  Ac  17'  '  when  they  had  taken  security  of 
Jason,  and  of  the  other,  they  let  them  go,'  this 
word  is  used  in  its  modem  sense  (Gr.  rb  Inaviv). 

J.  Hastings. 
8EDEKIAS  (Ze««(as,   AV  Zedechias),    1  Es  !«• 
(LXX  "),  Zcdckiah  king  of  Judah. 

SEDDCTION.— See  art.  Ceimes  AND  PUNISH- 
MENTS, vol.  i.  p.  52J''. 

SEED,  SEEDTIME There  is  a  threefold  usage 

of  tlie  words  rendered  by  EV  'seed.'  1.  Botaniciil 
ami  ugrieultnnd. — The  common  Heb.  term  is  yij 
(Aram,  m  Dn  2"),  usually  'seed,'  but  in  Gn  8'--' 
'  seed  time,'  and  in  Lv  2(5°  '  sowing  time.'  In  Ezk 
\-o  VT'T^i?  is  tr.  '  fruitful  field '  (KV  '  fruitful  soil '). 
'  Sowing  seed  '  (Lv  ll")and  '  things  that  are  sown' 
(Is  61")  are  equivalents  of  vni.  In  Jl  1"  nhn^  is 
tr.  •  seed '  (RV  '  seeds ').  '  Mingled  seed '  (Lv  l9'») 
and  'divers  seeds'  (l)t  22')  are  renderings  of  b:><^j. 
In  Is  1!»'  )rvp  '73  appears  in  AV  as  'every  thing 
sown,'  UV  'all  that  is  sown.'  The  usual  Gr.  word 
in  Apocr.  and  NT  is  airipiia,  but  awipos  also  occurs 
Mk  4-''  [cf.  Swete's  note],  Lk  8»' ",  2  Co  9'».  The 
most  interesting  Scripture  references  to  'seed'  in 
this  sense  are  the  poetic  figure  in  Ps  120"  and  our 
Lord's  parables  of  the  Sower  and  the  Tares.  See 
Aghicultuke,  vol.  i.  49*.  2.  Physioloqical.—Ihe 
phrase  nr"3?»'  i»  variously  tr.  in  Lv  IS'"'  "■  '*•"  18-' 
19'"  22*,  Nu  5".  'To  conceive  seed'  stands  in 
Lv  12'-'  for  the  Hiph.  of  jn;,  in  Nu  5^  for  the  Niph. 
with  the  noun  VIJ,  and  in  He  11"  for  eli  >cara/3o\7)i» 
OTripiioLTot.  ffHptm  has  this  meaning  in  Wis  7-,  and 
airiipa  bears  the  same  sense  in  the  metajdior  of 
1  r  1^,  where  Christians  are  said  to  have  been 
'  begotten  again,  not  of  corruptible  seed  (Ik  ciropat 
4>6apTrji),  but  of  incorrnptible  {dipOdprov),  through 
the  word  of  God.'  3.  A/itn/i/idriidl  for  oj/'xprin/j, 
whether  of  animals  (Jer  31-'')  or  of  man.  Here  the 
Words  are  n;  and  airipixa.  The  former  is  twice  tr. 
'  child  '  (Lv  22'^  1  S  1").  '  Seed  '  has  the  meaning 
of  genealogy  or  pedigree,  Ezr  2°",  Neli  7".  'The 
holy  .seed'  is  a  special  designation  of  the  people  of 
Israel,  Is  6",  Ezr  9",  1  Es  8'".  '  Seed,'  like  '  genera- 
tion,' is  sometimes  used  to  describe  a  class  of 
people  with  reference  to  character  rather  than  to 
descent.  Thus  we  have  '  seed  of  evil-doers  '  (Is  1*), 
'of  falsehood  '  (Is  57*),  '  blameless  seed  '  (Wis  10"), 
'accursed  seed'  (Wis  12"),  a  seed  'honoured'  or 
'dishonoured  '  (Sir  10'"). 

Two  NT   passages    call    for   separate  remark. 


(a)  The  words  airipua  aiVoC  iv  avrip  ij.{vei  (1  Jn  3°! 
have  been  interi)reted  to  mean  either  (1)  that 
Christians,  as  the  '  seed  '  or  children  of  God,  abide 
in  Ilim  and  are  thus  kept  from  sinning  ;  or  (2)  that 
a  Divine  [irinciple  of  lite  remains  in  the  Christian, 
which  secures  the  same  result.  The  latter  is  the 
view  now  almost  universally  accepted.  It  makes 
avTou  =  8tov,  and  the  mripixa  OcoO  is  much  the  same 
as  the  aropa  i<p0apTos  of  1  P  1^.  (i)  In  Gal  3'"  St. 
Paul  bases  an  argument  on  the  promises  of  Gn  13" 
17*,  and  lays  much  emphasis  on  the  use  of  the 
singular  aTripiinTi  rather  than  the  plural  airipixainv 
as  pointing  to  the  fulfilment  of  the  promi.ses  in  an 
individual,  viz.  Christ.  Now  it  has  to  be  admitted, 
first,  that  neither  in  Heb.  nor  in  Gr.  would  it  have 
been  natural  to  use  the  plural  form  of  '  seeds,'  even 
if  the  promises  had  been  meant  to  point  only  to  a 
jjlurahty  of  descendants  of  Abraham  ;  and,  second, 
that  St.  Paul's  Language  elsewhere  (lio  4'*  9') 
shows  that  he  did  not  regard  the  singular  crir^p/ian 
as  necessarily  excluding  the  plural  meaning.  St. 
Paul's  argument  in  Gal  3"  is  therefore  somewhat 
artificial  and  Rabbinical  in  its  form.  It  does  not 
logically  prove  that  the  promise  to  Abraham  7nust 
be  fulfilled  in  a  single  individual.  But  we  can 
take  from  it  the  thought  that  the  collective  noun, 
with  its  singular  form,  suggests  an  individual  in 
whom  the  destiny  of  Abraham's  posterity  is  summed 
up,  and  by  whom  their  mission  to  the  world  is 
carried  out.  The  terms  of  the  promise,  though 
not  incompatible  with  a  multiple  or  national  fulfil- 
ment, are  peculiarly  compatible  with  one  which 
centres  in  a  single  person,  as  Christ's  fulfilment 
does  (see  Lightfoot,  Beet,  Eadie,  Findlay,  Lip.sius, 
Meyer,  ad  loc).  James  Patiuck. 

SEER.— See  Prophecy,  p.  108. 

SEETHE.— To  seethe  is  to  boil,  as  Bemers, 
Froissart,  xvii,  'These  Scottish  men  .  .  .  take 
with  them  no  [lurveyance  of  bread  nor  wine,  for 
their  usage  and  soberness  is  such  in  time  of  war, 
that  they  wUl  pass  in  the  journey  a  great  long 
time  with  Hesli  half  sodden,  without  bread,  and 
drink  of  the  river  water  without  wine,  and  they 
neither  care  for  pots  nor  pans,  for  they  seethe 
beasts  in  their  own  skins.'  The  old  past  tense  is 
sod,  Gn  25'-*  '  Jacob  sod  pottage ' ;  1  Es  1  '=  '  As  for 
the  sacrifices,  they  sod  them  in  brass  pots  and  i)ans 
with  a  good  savour';  and  iiast  ptcp.  sodden,  Ex 
12"  '  Eat  not  of  it  raw,  nor  sodden  at  all  with  water.' 

J.  Hastings. 

SEGUB.— 1.  (aiJlf  ^erS,  Vi\f  Ketkibh  ;  B  Z«7oi'')3, 
A  -eyoOfi)  the  youngest  son  of  lliiCL  who  rebuilt 
Jericho,  1  IC  10"*.  The  death  of  Segub,  which 
synchronized  with  the  setting  up  of  the  gates, 
may  have  been  due  to  an  accident  in  the  build- 
ing opc'iations,  or  he  may  have  been  ollered  in 
saerihi'e  by  his  father — a  circumstance  purposely 
obscured  in  the  present  form  of  the  story.  See 
Foi;ndation  and  HiEL.  In  any  case,  popular 
opinion  finally  connected  the  death  of  Hiel's  two 
sons  with  a  curse  believed  to  have  been  pronounced 
by  Joshua  on  the  man  that  should  rebuild  Jericho. 
The  form  in  which  this  curse  is  expressed  in  .los 
6*'  is  moulded  by  a  knowledge  of  the  events 
recorded  in  1  K  10^.  See,  further,  Bertholct, 
and  esp.  Kittel  on  this  last-named  pas.sage.  2. 
(3jk' ;  B  Sfpoi^x.  A  i.'t7oi;/i)  son  of  Hczron  and  father 
of  Jair,  1  Ch  2-"-.  J.  A.  Seluik. 

SEIR  (vvf  'rough,'  'shaggy').— 1.  The  name 
of  a  mountainous  district  cast  of  the  'Arabah, 
j)eopled  by  the  Edomites.  It  was  originallj-  occu- 
pied by  liorites  or  'cave-dwellers'  (Gn  14"  [where 
read,  after  LXX  and  Sam.,  ryt?  -nci  for  b  oyin  of 
MT]  36''"  [in  the  latter  passage  Seir  is  personified  a) 
the  eponymous  ancestor  of  the  indigenous  inhabit- 


430 


SEIRAH 


SELA 


ants]).  As  Mt.  Seir  (-I'vi?  i?,  ri  tpos  (ri)  2i;(e)/(), 
Gn  36*'-,  Dt  2'- "  al.)  is  practically  synonymous 
with  Edom  (cf.  Gn  32'  '  the  hind  of  Seir,  tlie  field 
of  Edimi,'  DUN  rryf  Tyi"  [-in,  yri  ^rjclp  X'^P"'  'iioti/x), 
it  will  suHice  to  refer  for  further  details  to  art. 
Edom.  2.  Quite  ditrerent  is  the  Mt.  Seir  (tJ 
'Aa-ffdp,  A  --n^ip)  nientioned  in  Jos  15'°  amongst 
the  points  deliuinj;  the  boundaries  of  Judah.  The 
name  may  still  be  preserved  in  that  of  the  ruins 
at  Sdris,  S.W.  of  Kiriath-jearim  (cf.  the  name 
SupTit  in  LXX  A  [but  B  'Euiivs]  of  Jos  15").  See 
Robinson,  BJiP^  lii.  154  If.;  Buhl,  GAP  91,  167  ; 
Dillm.  Jos.  ad  loc.  J.  A.  Selbie. 

SEIRAH  (nTvi'C,  with  the  article  ;  B  ZfTEipiDffa, 
A  2feipui(?a  ;  SciriUh). — The  place  to  which  Ehud 
escaped  after  killing  Eglon,  king  of  Moab  (Jg  3-"). 
It  \\as  in  the  hill-country  of  Epliraim,  and  appar- 
ently not  very  far  from  Gilgal.  Its  site  was  un- 
known to  Eusebius  and  Jerome  {Onom.  Seipwfli, 
Sirotha),  and  it  has  not  yet  been  identified. 

C.  W.  Wilson. 

SELA  (yljo  'the  clilf  ;  irH-pa,  Is  16'  42"  ;  y^^n,  i, 
irirpa,  Jg  l^*,  2  K  14').— The  capital  of  Edom  or  Mt. 
Seir,  situated  in  a  valley  amidst  the  Edoraite  moun- 
tains, five  days'  journey  {of  12  miles  each)  by  the 
Arabah  from  'Akabah  (Elath),  and  6  from  the 
Dead  Sea  by  the  same  route.*  Its  identification 
as  the  capital  of  Edom  may  also  be  inferred  from 
its  proximity  to  Mount  Hor  (if  we  are  right  in 
identifying  this  with  Jcbel  Haronn),  which  rises 
in  a  grand  escarpment  immediately  to  the  N.W. 
of  the  ancient  city,  and  whicli,  as  observed  by 
Dean  Stanley,  is  one  of  the  few  spots  connected 
with  the  wanderings  of  the  Israelites  which  admit 
of  no  reasonable  doubt  (Sinai  and  Palestine,  86). 
According  to  Strabo,  Petra  was  the  metropolis  of 
the  Nabatffians,  and  it  is  described  as  a  city  situated 
in  a  valley,  decorated  with  gardens  and  toimtains, 
but  bounded  on  all  sides  by  rocks.f 

Description. — Petra  is  undoubtedly  one  of  the 
most  remarkable  of  the  ancient  cities  of  the  East, 
not  only  for  its  position,  shut  in  by  mountains 
and  formidable  rocky  precipices  from  the  outer 
world,  but  for  the  peculiar  character  of  its  archi- 
tecture and  the  degree  of  preservation  in  which 
the  structures  themselves  have  come  down  to  us 
through  many  centuries.  It  lies  along  the  course 
of  the  Wady  Masa,t  a  stream  which  descends  by 
a  narrow  gorge  called  the  StK  from  the  tableland 
of  Edom  at  the  margin  of  the  great  Arabian 
desert,  and  which  ultimately  finds  its  way  into 
the  wady  el-Jeib,  and  thus  to  the  Dead  Sea,  in  a 
north-westerly  direction.  On  issuing  from  the 
Sik,  the  valley  suddenly  opens  out  into  a  plain, 
about  1000  yards  across,§  bounded  by  stupendous 
cliffs  of  red  and  variegated  .sandstone,  into  which 
several  other  valleys  enter  from  the  north,  west, 
and  south,  also  lined  by  lofty  clifls,  through  one 
of  which  the  river  escapes  by  a  channel  almost 
as  narrow  as  that  by  which  it  entered.  This 
central  plain,  of  a  rudely  quadrangular  form, 
contains  several  ruined  temples  and  foundations 
of  habitations.  On  all  sides  the  nearly  vertical 
walls  of  rock  are  covered   by  works  of  art — not 

*  There  is  no  doubt  in  the  mind  of  the  present  writer  that 
Petra  of  tlio  present  day  is  the  Sela  of  the  OT,  the  Greelt  name 
being  the  equivalent  of  the  Semitic ;  and  the  importance  of  the 
place  in  ancient  times,  together  with  its  situation,  point  to  it 
afi  the  capital  of  that  part  of  Arabia.  But  see  Moore,  Judges, 
56 f.,  and  cf.  art.  Rock,  No.  4. 

t  Urbum  in  rejfiorie  plana,  et  hortis  fontibusque  instructom, 
cinctam  tamen  rupibiis  undique  (lib.  xvi.). 

t  How  this  stream  obtained  its  name,  unless  from  the  fancy 
of  the  Arabs,  it  is  impossible  to  say  ;  but  it  cannot  be  admitted 
that  it  ever  had  any  connexion  with  Moses,  the  Israelitish 
leader.  It  is  one  of  the  (grounds  on  which  Dean  Stanley  (Sinni, 
p.  92)  endeavours  to  make  out  that  Petra  is  Kadesh-barnea  ;  but 
to  this  point  we  shall  rttum  further  on. 

i  Measured  by  scale  from  Laborde's  plan  near  the  centre  of 
the  quadrangle. 


built  up  of  hewn  stone,  but  cut  out  of  the  living 
rock  itself  ;  while  a  few  ruined  structures  occupy 
sites  rising  directly  from  the  valley.  This  style 
of  architecture,  not  unknown  in  other  Eastern 
countries,  siuh  as  the  Valley  of  the  Nile,  Penin- 
sular Indi.t,  and  Asia  Minor,  here  attains  a  variety 
and  magnificence  elsewhere  unreached  ;  and  as 
tlie  tombs  appear  to  predominate  in  number  above 
other  kinds  of  structures, — not  excepting  the 
temples, — Petra  has  been  likened  by  travellers  to 
a  vast  necropolis,  where  the  inhabitants  could 
never  issue  fortli  from  their  dwellings  without 
being  confronted  with  monuments  of  death. 

It  would  be  out  of  place  here  to  attempt  to 
describe  even  some  of  the  finest  examples  of 
ancient  architecture  to  be  found  in  Petra,  which 
call  to  mind  the  varied  styles  of  Egypt,  Greece, 
and  Rome.  We  will  only  observe  that  in  hewing 
out  the  porticoes,  columns,  and  architraves  or 
crowning  parts  of  the  buildings,  the  architects 
commenced  at  the  top  and  worked  downwards  ;  so 
that,  as  the  face  of  the  rock  was  not  absolutely 
vertical,  the  hewn  portions  became  more  and  more 
deeply  set  into  the  mass  of  the  rock  itself.  To 
this  protection,  caused  by  the  projection  of  the 
original  face  on  either  side,  as  well  as  sometimes 
overhead,  may  be  attributed  the  degree  of  pre- 
servation of  the  structures  themselves.  The  fol- 
lowing are  the  more  important  of  the  monuments 
as  known  by  their  present  names  : — (1)  el-Khnznf, 
a  portico  of  a  tomb  with  Corinthian  columns  at 
the  entrance  to  the  Sik  ;  (2)  the  Theatre  ;  (3)  the 
Tomb,  or  Temple  of  the  Urn ;  (4)  Corinthian 
Tomb ;  (5)  Great  Tomb,  with  three  rows  of 
columns;  (6)  Tomb  with  Latin  inscription*;  (7) 
Ruin  of  Triumphal  Arch ;  (8)  Ruined  Basilica 
(Zob  Phiroun)  ;  (9)  Temple  {Serail  Pliirown)  ; 
(10)  Large  Tomb  (cd-Deir)  ;  (11)  Isolated  Column. 
All  the  lateral  valleys  entering  the  great  central 
plain  have  their  walls  perforated  with  tombs,  and  a 
few  habitations,  the  entrances  to  which  are  adorned 
with  soilptured  facades,  while  niches  for  statues 
are  to  be  observed  at  intervals.  Amongst  the 
most  interesting  objects  is  the  Roman  Theatre, 
cut  out  of  the  solid  rock  on  the  western  side  of 
the  city,  and  estimated  to  have  aHbrded  seats  for 
3000  sjiectators ;  and  lastly,  the  Circular  Arch, 
which  spans  the  Sik  high  above  the  floor,  which 
was  doubtless  constructed  as  part  of  an  aqueduct 
to  carry  the  waters  of  the  brook  to  the  higher 
parts  of  the  citv.t  For  figure  of  the  recently  dis- 
covered higli  pU'i;  e  of  Petra,  see  SANCTUARY,  p.  396*. 

Outline  of  the  history  of  Petra. — The  history  of 
Petra  has  yet  to  be  written.  The  following  are 
some  of  the  leading  historical  events  : — 

(1)  Its  history  commences  in  the  time  of  Abra- 
ham, when  Chedorlaomer,  king  of  Elara,  with  his 
allies,  swept  over  the  region  of  Mount  Seir,  then 
inhabited  by  the  Sorites  (or  cave-dwellers),  Gn  14". 

(2)  Esau  settled  in  Mount  Seir  on  separating  from 
his  brother  Jacob,  and  the  country  was  henceforth 
ruled  by  his  descendants,  the  Edomites  (Gn  36'). 

(3)  At  the  time  of  the  Exodus  the  Edomites 
appear  to  have  been  a  powerful  nation  under  a 
king  ;  and  on  the  Israelites  requesting  permission 
to  pass  through  Mount  Seir,  by  the  king's  higli- 
way,  on  their  journey  towards  the  plains  of  Moab, 
they  were  refused,  and  the  Edoiiiites  made  a  demon- 
stration of  force  to  resist  the  passage  (Nu  20"'"). 

•  Oi\'ing  the  name  of  the  Roman  ^vernor,  Quintus  P™- 
textus  Florentinus.  who  died  in  the  city  probably  in  the  rei^ 
of  Hadrian,  a.d.  117-180. 

t  A  rude  plan  of  the  city  is  riven  by  Burckhardt :  but  a  mucb 
more  full  and  perfect  one  by  Laborde,  together  with  numerous 
views  and  illustrations  of  the  works  of  art.  The  beautiful  draw- 
ing's of  David  Roberts  need  only  be  referred  to.  The  wonderful 
colouration  of  the  sandstone  rock  ('  the  Nubian  sandaUine '  of  the 
Cretaceous  age),  in  which  the  prevalent  red  is  varied  by  wavy 
hands  of  pink  and  yellow  in  one  direction  and  of  purple  to  blus 
in  the  other,  has  called  forth  the  admiration  of  all  travellers. 


4 


SELA 


SELAH 


431 


(4)  In  later  times  they  were  suHiciently  powerful 
to  maintain  wars  with  the  kings  of  Israel  and 
Judah.  At  an  early  stace  they  were  brought  into 
subjection  by  David,  who  put  garrisons  in  the 
Edoiiiite  strongholds  (2  S  8")  ;  but,  in  the  days  of 
Joraiii,  Edoiu  revolted  from  the  rule  of  .ludali 
(2  K  >)-■"),  and,  altliough  defeated,  maintained  their 
independence  and  set  a  kin^  over  themselves. 
After  their  defeat  by  Amazian  in  a  great  battle 
in  the  Valley  of  Salt  on  the  shore  of  the  Dead  Sea, 
Sela,  the  capital,  was  captured,  and  re-nanied  by 
the  conqueror  Jokthecl  (?  '  protection  of  God  '),  2  K 
14'.  At  the  end  of  the  4th  cent.  li.C.  Edom  came 
into  possession  of  the  Xabatwans,  one  of  the 
two  chief  tribes  descended  from  Ishmacl.  These 
established  a  powerful  dynasty,  successfully  re- 
sisting the  attacks  of  Antigonus  (Diod.  Sic.  xix. 
731,  ed.  1604),  and  encouraging  commerce  and 
works  of  art.  One  of  their  kings,  Aretas,  was 
father-in-law  of  Herod  Antipas,  and  durin"  tlieir 
sway  many  of  the  monuments  of  Petra  which  have 
come  down  to  the  present  day  were  constructed. 

(5)  The  sway  of  the  Nabatieans  was  terminated 
by  the  capture  of  the  city,  and  the  reduction  of 
Arabia  Petr.-ca  to  a  Koman  province  by  Trajan's 
general,  Hadrian,  from  wlioiii  the  capital  received 
the  name  of  Hadriana,  as  appears  from  the  legend 
on  the  coins  of  this  period  (Dion  Cass.  lib.  68). 
Under  the  fostering  care  of  the  empire  it  prob- 
ably attained  to  the  summit  of  its  commeicial 
prosperity  and  grandeur. 

(6)  Christianity  appears  to  have  been  introduced 
into  Petra  at  an  early  date,  though  it  is  impossible 
tc  verify  the  tradition  that  the  city  was  visited  by 
St.  Paul  on  his  retirement  to  Arabia  after  his 
conversion.  Petra,  however,  became  the  seat  of 
a  bishopric,  and  Athanasius  mentions  Astcrius  as 
bi.^hop  of  Petra  early  in  the  4th  cent.  (loin,  ad 
Antior.h.  10:  'AtrWpios  Wfrpuiv  t^s  'Apa^^ias,  et  al.)  ; 
again  we  find  Petra  mentioned  as  the  metropolis  of 
the  episcopal  province  of  Palestina  Tertia,  which 
included  a  large  number  of  towns  or  villages,  all 
of  which  seeni  to  have  since  disappeared.  {Ex- 
cerptn  from  MS  in  the  Vatican,  quoted  by  Keland, 
i  160). 

(7)  With  'the  decline  and  fall'  of  the  Roman 
empire  a  period  of  decadence  for  Petra  set  in, 
which  was  hastened  by  the  invasion  of  ChosroiJs, 
king  of  Persia,  in  the  middle  of  the  6th  cent.  ; 
and  its  ruin  was  consummated  by  the  desolating 
wave  of  Mohamme<lan  conquest  which  swept 
over  Arabia  Petra-a  from  A.D.  629  to  632.  The 
Christian  inliabitants  were  either  massacred  or 
compelled  to  embrace  the  faith  of  the  conqueror, 
and  their  temples  and  monasteries  were  reduced 
to  ruins.  Of  the  large  number  of  ecclesiastical 
buildings  which  existed  at  the  beginning  of  the 
7th  cent,  in  Arabia,  only  the  monastery  of  Mount 
Sinai  remains  to  the  present  day.  Henceforth 
Petra  became  a  city  of^  ruins,  absolutely  lost  to 
the  view  and  knowledge  of  the  outer  world  for 
several  centuries  during  the  Middle  Ages  till 
rediscovered  by  Sultan  Beybars  of  Egypt  towards 
the  close  of  the  13th  cent.  It  is  now  only  the 
home  of  the  liedawin  ;  and  the  terrible  predic- 
tions of  the  prophet,  'Thus  will  I  make  Mo)int 
Seir  an  astonishment  and  a  desolation  '  (E/.k  35'), 
have  been  lilenilly  fulfilled.  Dean  Hurgon  has  well 
expressed  this  desolation  in  the  following  lines: 

•  How  chanjfed— how  fallen  1    All  her  (florv  (led. 
The  Widow'd  City  inouniB  her  many  (k-au.  * 
Like  eome  fond  ht-art  which  (ravuit  disease  hath  loft 
Of  all  it  livi'd  for— all  it  loved— l.crclt ; 
Mute  in  iu  an^iHh  :  struck  wiih  pane's  too  deep 
For  wordji  to  utt«r,  or  lor  teara  to  weep.* 

Petra,  1846. 

*  On  the  coins  of  Potra  the  dty  ll  represented  as  a  veiled  and 
tnrTcU-<l  female  sittinK  on  a  roclt.  For  other  predictions  of  the 
desolation  of  tklom,  see  Is  84>'",  Jer  4Bi^»,  Ob  ixi. 


Petra  and  Kadesh-bamea. — The  suggestion  that 
these  two  places  were  identical  comes  from  Dean 
Stanley,  and  would  not  have  been  considered 
worthy  of  notice  had  it  emanated  from  a  les."? 
distinguishea  writer.  Both  topographical  and 
historical  reasons  are  siilficiently  clear  to  render 
the  view  untenable.  (1)  Kadesh  was  a  place  situ- 
ated in  immediate  proximity  to  the  Canaanitish 
inhabitants  (Nu  13^).  Tliis  does  not  apply  to 
Mount  Seir,  which  was  separated  from  them  by 
the  wide  valley  of  the  Arabah  (wilderness  of  Zin). 
(2)  Kadesh  was  in  the  wilderness  of  Paran  (Nu 
13^),  a  region  Ij'ing  to  the  west  of  the  Arabah, 
and  generally  corresponding  to  the  Badiet  et-Tih 
of  the  present  day  (cf.  On  21=',  Nu  lO"^  12'"'  13="). 
This  is  in  harmony  with  (1)  above.  (3)  As  the 
king  of  Edom  refused  the  Israelites  a  passage 
through  his  teiritory  when  about  to  leave  his 
neighbourhood,  is  it  conceivable  that  he  would 
have  permitted  them  to  occupy  the  capital  of  his 
kingdom  for  a  period  of  thirty-eight  (or  forty) 
years?  Dean  Stanley's  main  reason  for  his  sug- 
gestion is  the  name  Wady  Mftsa  (or  Moses'  Vallej-) 
attached  to  the  stream  along  the  banks  of  which 
Petra  is  situated.  But  however  dillicult  it  may 
be  to  account  for  the  name,  the  reasons  against 
the  suggestion  far  outweigh  whatever  evidence 
may  be  derived  from  this  source.  See  article 
Sanctuary. 

LiTERATi^s.  —  Burckhardt  ('Sheikh  Ibrahim"),  Traveli  in 
Si/ria  arul  the  Holy  Land  (1S'.!2) ;  de  Laborde,  Journal/  throuofi 
Arabia  Petroea,  etc.,  Eng.  tr.  2nd  ed.  (183S)  ;  Hull,  Muunl  Setr, 
Siiiai,  and  Wegtem  Palestine  {PEF,  1889)  ;  Reland,  Palestina 
ex  monumentis  p«f«ri//u«  iV^wfCraCa (Nuremberg,  1616) ;  Stanley, 
SP  (1860) ;  JBL,  1899,  p.  132  £f.  E.  H  ULL. 

SELAH  (n^;). — This  word  occurs  71  times  in 
the  Psalter,  17  of  these  occurrences  being  in  Book 
I.,  30  in  II.,  20  in  III.,  4  in  V.  The  majority  of  the 
psalms  wlierein  it  appears  are  Elohistic,  and  all 
of  them  ascribed,  in  the  titles,  to  David,  Korah, 
Asaph  or  Ethan,  except  Pss.  66  and  67,  the  latter 
of  which  has  ^aX/ti6s  t^;  AavdS  in  the  LXX.  In  16 
psalms  it  is  found  once,  in  15  twice,  in  7  thrice,  in 
1  four  times.  It  stands  also  three  times  in  the 
psalm  which  is  known  as  Hab  3.  In  the  so-called 
Psalms  of  Solomon  Sidyf'aX/io  is  used  twice  (17" 
18'"),  but  m,  one  of  the  eight  MSS  of  which  Swete 
has  availed  himself  (The  OT  in  Greek'',  vol.  iii.), 
omits  it  in  both  cases.  Its  usual  position  is  at  the 
end  of  a  poem  or  of  a  strojjhe,  the  only  instances 
of  its  occurrence  in  the  middle  of  a  verse  being 
Ps  55"  57',  Hab  3^  '.  These  exceptions,  however, 
are  api)arent  rather  than  real  :  the  first  passage 
is  full  of  impassioned  feeling,  and  the  ScCa/t  im- 
mediately follows  a  Divine  title  ;  in  the  second 
the  LXX  has  Jid^aX/ta  at  the  close  of  tlie  verse  ; 
the  other  two  are  connected  with  loose  quotations 
from  Dt  33''',  Ps  77"'-^'. 

It  is  universally  agreed  that  $clah  is  a  musical 
or  liturgical  sign  of  some  kind.  Nowhere  has  the 
word  any  grammatical  connexion  with  the  con- 
text. Ps  9'°  is  not  an  exception,  for  Higgaion, 
Setah,  are  botli  used  interjoctionally,  '  Resounding 
niu.sic  I  Up!'  It  is  not  found  in  the  prophetical 
writings,  and  its  reference  to  the  temple  music  is 
evinced  by  the  fact  that  31  of  the  39  jisalms  con- 
taining it  are  ascribed  in  their  titles  in^'jf';,  as  is 
Hab  3  at  the  close. 

The  derivation  and  precise  significance  of  the 
note  have  been  much  disputed.  (1)  One  sugges- 
tion is  that  we  have  in  it  simply  the  Heb.  form  of 
<ld\\€.  But  the  musical  signs  of  tlie  Psalter  date 
from  an  earlier  period  than  that  of  the  Greek 
influence.  Besicies,  if  the  word  had  come  from 
the  tlreek,  it  is  strange  that  no  tradition  to 
that  efl'ect  should  have  reached  any  of  the  Greek 
translators.  (2)  It  has  been  taken  as  aji  abbrevia- 
tion.    For  example,  VC  "I'V^  3b=da  capo,     but 


432 


SELA-HAiBIAHLEKOTH 


SELEUCUS  I. 


these  abbreviations,  however  ajrreeable  to  the 
taste  of  later  writers,  are  not  biblical.  (3)  It  has 
been  derived  from  a  verb  nho,  supposed  to  be 
equivalent  to  nVei :  the  imperative  would  be  n^9, 
with  rr  paragogic  nj'p,  in  pause  nJ>D.  The  inter- 
change of  D  and  o  is,  however,  rare  in  the  Heb.  of 
the  UT,  and  the  sense  thus  obtained,  '  Pause  ! ' 
does  not  suit  many  of  the  passages :  as,  for 
instance,  those  where  it  stands  in  the  middle  of 
a  verse  or  would  break  the  flow  of  thought  (Ps 
55"  67'-  *,  Hab  S'-"),  or  at  the  end  of  a  psalm  (Ps 
3.  24),  where  no  direction  to  pause  is  needed.  (4) 
Several  of  the  VSS  translated  it  by  words  which 
mean  '  for  ever.'  The  Targ.  has  n^'^si),  I'P^y^,  '^O^i 
Kzhs,  y^)si  'c'ri;^,  etc. ;  Aq.  dei ;  Tlieod.  del ;  Sexta 
Stairavrii,  once  eis  t^Xos  ;  Quinta  el!  toi)s  o/wxas  ; 
Jerome,  semper,  in  sempiterniim.  (5)  In  all  proba- 
bility it  is  connected  with  the  verb  h\^  =  to  lift 
up,  to  cast  up.  In  this  case  the  meaning  may  be 
(a)  '  Lift  up  !  Loud  ! '  a  direction  to  the  orchestra, 
which  had  nitherto  been  playing  a  soft  accompani- 
ment and  is  now  to  strike  in  with  loud  music, 
trumpets  and  cymbals,  whilst  the  singer's  voice 
was  hushed.  Additional  force  would  thus  be 
given  to  those  parts  of  the  psalm  where  it  seemed 
appropriate.  It  will  be  noticed  that  Selah  is  not 
found  at  the  beginning  of  a  psalm,  for  instru- 
mental preludes  were  in  all  probability  unknown, 
the  instruments  being  always  secondary  to  the 
voices.  Or  (6)  it  may  mean  '  Lift  up  your  bene- 
diction,' the  reference  being  to  a  doxology  '  sung 
after  every  psalm  and  section  of  a  psalm  which 
for  any  liturgical  reason  was  separated  from  a 
section  which  followed'  (Briggs,  JBL,  1899, 
p.  142). 

The  3ia-4'zXu«  of  LXX,  Theod.,  ftnd  Symm.  has  received 
almost  as  many  varying  interpretations  as  the  original  word 
itself.  'Quidam  diapsalma  commutationem  metn  dixerunt 
esse ;  alii  pausationem  spiritus ;  nonnulli  alterius  sensus  ex- 
ordium. Sunt  qui  rhythmi  distinctionem,  et  quia  psalmi  tunc 
teraporis  juncta  voce  ad  organum  canebantur,  cujusdam 
music®  varietatis  existimant  sUentium'  (Jer.  ad  Marcellam). 
It  seems  not  unlikely  that  the  true  meaning  is  *  an  interlude  ' : 
Hesycliius  explains  the  similarly  formed  word  iietiiktct  of  the 
fiute-playing  in  the  inten*al  between  two  choruses. 

B.  Jacob's  *  Beitriige  zu  einer  Einleitung  in  die  Psalmen ' 
(ZATW,  1896,  pp.  129-182)  is  a  very  full  discussion  of  the  word. 
Denying  the  possibility  of  an  etymological  explanation,  he 
reaches  two  main  conclusions :  (1)  *  '"^^  ?  signifies  a  pause, 
whether  in  the  temple  song  or  for  the  temple  song* ;  (2)  '  the 
meaning  of  'D  was  purposely  concealed  to  prevent  the  syna- 
gogues and  perhaps  also  the  churches  from  obtaining  one  of 
the  privileges  of  the  temple.'  Briggs'  article,  quoted  above, 
is  marlied  by  great  freshness  in  its  discussion  of  the  problem  : 
see  also  under  the  word  nVo  in  the  Os^f.  Beb.  Lexicon. 

J.  Tayxor, 
SELA-HAMMAHLEKOTH  (n\p\ntin  y^p ;  rirpaL  i, 
liepiaBetaa  ;  Petra  dividens  ;  '  the  rock  of  di^^sion8 
or  escape,'  RVm). — A  rock  or  cliff  in  the  wilder- 
ness of  Maon,  at  which  Saul  '  returned  from  pur- 
suing after  David '  (1  S  2S^).  The  '  rock  of  divisions' 
is  the  interpretation  of  the  Jewish  commentators 
{Midrash,  Rashi),  and  is  pronounced  probable  by 
Driver  (Text  of  Sam.  ad.  loc);  the  'rock  of 
escapes' that  of  Gesenius  (Thes.  485).  The  great 
gorge  of  W&dy  MalAki,  which  runs  eastward  be- 
tween Carmel  and  Maon,  would  be  a  suitable 
position,  and  the  name  may  be  a  corruption  of  the 
Hebrew  by  the  loss  of  a  guttural  (Conder,  PEF 
Mem.  iu.  314).  C.  W.  Wilson. 

SELED  (-1^;).— A  Jerahmeelite,  1  Ch  2*>.  The 
name  occurs  twice  in  this  verse:  B  has,  the  first 
time,  'WaaXai  ;  the  second  time,  SdXaS,  which  last 
is  the  reading  of  A  both  times. 

SELEMIA. — One  of  the  swift  scribes  who  wrote 
to  the  dictation  of  Ezra  (2  Es  14"). 

SELEUIAS  CZfKtidoit),  1  E8  9»=Shelemiah,  Ezr 
10". 


SELEUCIA  (StXeiJrao,  WH  SeXet^xk),  the  great 
maritime  fortress  of  Syria,  was  built  by  Seleucus 
Nikator.  It  ivas  the  seaport  of  his  new  capitjil 
Antioch,  and  in  it  he  was  buried.  The  town  was 
situated  on  the  southern  slopes  of  Mt.  Pieria,  and 
on  the  level  ground  at  its  foot.  On  three  sides  it 
was  protected  by  nature  as  well  as  by  art ;  and  on 
the  side  of  the  sea,  where  the  ground  is  level,  it 
was  strongly  fortified.  Seleucia  was  taken  by 
Ptolemy  Euergetes  (1  Mac  11*),  and  afterwards 
(c.  B.C.  220)  recovered  by  Antiochus  the  Great. 
It  was  one  of  the  most  important  mUitai-y  stations 
of  the  Seleucidoe,  and  was  greatly  improved  by 
the  Romans.  In  St.  Paul's  time  it  was  a  '  free 
city ' — a  privilege  granted  to  it  after  its  capture 
by  Pompey.  It  was  afterwards  greatly  favoured 
by  the  emperors,  who  enlarged  the  harbour,  con- 
structed moles,  etc.  The  geographical  position  of 
Seleucia,  at  the  mouth  of  tlie  Orontes  valley,  gave 
it  great  commercial  importance.  Thence  ships 
sailed  soutliward  along  the  Syrian  and  Phoenician 
coasts  to  Egypt,  and  w^estward  to  Cyprus,  the 
coast  of  Asia  Blinor,  and  the  Roman  world.  And 
it  was  in  one  of  these  trading  ships  that  Paul  and 
Barnabas,  after  coming  down  from  Antioch,  sailed 
for  Cyprus  on  their  first  missionary  journey 
(Ac  IS''). 

There  are  many  remains  of  the  old  walls, 
temples,  tlieatres,  and  other  buildings  of  Seleucia. 
The  walls  of  the  inner  harbour,  now  a  morass,  can 
be  followed  throughout ;  the  canal  through  which 
ships  passed  from  the  outer  to  the  inner  harbour 
can  be  traced  ;  and  the  piers  of  the  outer  harbour 
can  still  be  seen  beneath  the  sea.  The  most  re- 
markable relic  of  Seleucia,  however,  is  the  great 
rock-hewn  channel,  partly  a  tunnel,  which  was 
apparently  made  to  convey  to  the  sea  the  waters 
of  a  stream  that  might,  in  times  of  flood,  have 
endangered  the  city,  and  at  the  same  time  to  store 
water  for  the  use  of  the  people  (Chesney,  Euphrates 
Expedition ;  Conybeare  and  Howsou,  Life  and 
Epp.  of  St.  Paul ;  Baedeker,  Guide  to  Svria  and 
Palestine).  C.  W.  WILSON. 

SELEUCID^,  the  members  of  a  Syrian  dynasty 
founded  by  Seleucus,  one  of  the  generals  of 
Alexander.  They  ruled  over  Syria  from  B.C.  312 
to  B.C.  65,  their  empire  extending,  when  they  were 
at  the  height  of  their  prosperity,  from  Mesopotamia 
in  the  east  to  the  borders  of  Greece  in  the  west. 
The  Seleucid  era  begins  with  Olym.  117,  1,  A.tJ.  442, 
B.C.  312,  and  was  very  largely  used,  especially  in 
the  districts  round  the  Euphrates  and  Tigris.  The 
Seleucid  year  was  usually  regarded  as  beginning  in 
autumn,  out  Schiirer  (I.  i.  30-44)  argues  in  favour 
of  spring.  None  of  the  Seleucidse  are  expressly 
named  in  any  of  the  books  of  canonical  Scripture, 
but  in  Daniel  allusions  are  made  to  several  of 
them,  including  the  four  kings  bearing  the  name 
Seleucus.  In  the  Books  of  Maccabees  Seleucus  IV. 
is  mentioned  by  name.  From  certain  references  in 
Josephus'  Antiquities,  it  has  been  commonly  sup- 
posed that  the  Jewish  historian  had  written  a 
special  History  of  the  Seleucidse.  Destinon,  who 
in  his  Qudlen  des  Fl.  Josephus,  pp.  21-29,  has 
investigated  the  subject  carefully,  decides  against 
the  existence  of  such  a  work. 

LlTEBATtTRE.— Ewald,  Biit.  of  I^ael,  v.,  London,  1S80,  pp.  28©- 
864  ;  Schiirer,  BJP  I.  i.  1(;»-185,— for  genealogy',  I.  ii.  393  ;  Ryssd 
in  art.  '  Syrien '  in  PRE  3  xv.  176  f..  Driver,  Daniel,  pasniu. 

J.  Macpherso.v. 
SELEUCUS  I.  (Nikator),  the  founder  of  tha 
Seleucid  dynasty,  on  the  death  of  Alexander,  in 
B.C.  323,  after  a  successful  conflict  secured  recogni- 
tion for  himself  under  this  title  as  ruler  over  all  the 
countries  between  the  Hellespont  and  the  Mediter- 
ranean on  the  one  side,  and  the  Indus  and  Jaxartes 
(Sir-Daria)  on  the  other.      In   the  partition  ol 


SELEUCUS  II. 


SELF-SURRENDER 


433 


temtoriea  which  took  place  in  B.C.  321  he  obtained 
the  governorship  of  Babylon,  and,  though  driven 
out  by  Antigonus  in  B.C.  316,  he  succeeded  in  B.C. 
312  in  establishing  himself  in  the  Babylonian  pro- 
vinces in  the  east  as  well  OS  in  the  Syrian  provinces 
in  the  west.  He  then  founded  the  Seleucid  dynasty, 
which  held  its  place  for  about  two  hundred  and  hfty 
years.  He  died  by  the  hand  of  an  as.sassin  in  n.c. 
282.  He  is  the  captain  ( v)  of  the  king  of  the  South, 
I'toleniv  Soter  of  Kgypt,  referred  to  in  Dn  11'  as 
having  become  stronger  than  the  king.  Ue  founded 
several  cities  which  became  famous,  among  them 
Antioch  and  Apaniea  on  the  Oronte-s,  Laodicea 
and  Seleucia,  Edessa  and  Bera'a.  He  settled  many 
Jews,  who  had  served  their  time  under  him,  in 
Antioch  and  others  of  the  cities  founded  by  him, 
and  conferred  upon  them  all  the  rights  of  citizen- 
ship. 

LlTERATORE.— Josephus,  Ant.  xu.  iii.  1  ;  Srliiirer,  HJP  n.L 
U«,  ii.  271 ;  Ewald,  Ul  v.  237 ;  Drivur,  Daiii.l.  .t.x.vv.  I(i5t. 

.1.  M.\CP1IKRS0N. 
SELEUCUS  H.  (Callinicus),  king  of  Syria,  B.C. 
24G-2iJ,  son  of  the  grandson  of  Nikulor,  Antiochus 
II.  Tlieos.  His  mother,  Laodice,  having  murdered 
the  Egj'ptian  princess  Berenice,  Ptolemy  Euergetes, 
the  brother  of  the  murdered  lady,  in  order  to 
avenge  his  sister's  death,  invaded  the  territories  of 
the  njTian  monarch,  and  plundered  Syria  and 
Babylonia.  Keference  to  this  episode  is  made  in 
Dn  U'"*.  Ptolemy  took  possession  of  Seleuci.a, 
which  for  a  considerable  time  was  retained  by  the 
Egj'ptians.  Seleucus  afterwards  sought  to  retali- 
ate, and  for  this  purpose  led  an  expedition  against 
Egj'iit,  but  was  immediately  jmt  to  flight.  We 
have  no  particulars  about  the  close  of  his  reign. 

I.ITKRATCRB. — Bevan,  Short  Com.  on  Daniel,  1892,  pp.  174-177 ; 
Kwald,  UI  V.  271,  2S3 ;  Driver,  DanUI,  167  f. 

J.  Macpher.son. 

SELEUCUS  HI.  (Ceraunus),  king  of  Syria,  B.C. 
22i>-L'J3,  son  of  Callinicus  and  brother  of  Antioclius 
the  Great.  These  brothers  are  referred  to  in  Dn 
11'°  in  the  word  '  his  sons.'  Seleucus  did  not  make 
war  directly  with  Egypt,  but  his  campaign  in  Asia 
Minor  may  be  regarded  as  preliminary  to  the 
expeilition  carried  out  against  Egypt  by  his 
brother.  Seleucus  was  killed  in  that  camjiaign, 
after  a  reign  of  two  years,  before  the  accession  of 
Ptolemy  rhilopator,  against  whom  Antioclius 
fouglit  unsuccessfully  (cf.  Driver,  Daniel,  10811'.). 

J.  Macpheiko.v. 

SELEUCUS  lY.  (Philopator),  king  of  Syria, 
B.C.  187-175,  son  of  Antiochus  the  Great  and  brother 
of  Antiochus  Epiphanes.  Dn  11*"  refers  to  this 
Selencus,  whether  we  understand  the  writer  to 
speak  of  him  as  .sending  an  exactor,  or  (transposing 
two  words)  as  himself  the  exactor  who  rises  up  in  the 
place  of  his  father.  In  the  former  case,  we  shall 
unilerstand  by  the  exactor  Heliodorus,  whom  Sel- 
euiMis  Is  said  (2  Mac  3'  5'")  to  have  .sent  to  obtain  the 
money  trea.sured  up  in  the  temple  of  Jenisalein. 
Bevan  nrefers  the  above  transposition,  remlering 
tlie  paiwage  ttius :  '  And  there  shall  ari.se  in  his 
place  an  exactor,  who  shall  cause  the  royal  dignity 
to  pa.ss  away.'  Such  a  designation  would  be  very 
suitable  for  Seleucus,  who  was  notorious  for  his 
avarice.  He  is  spoken  of  in  2  Mac  3^  as  '  the  king 
of  Asia.'  In  1  Mac  ■?',  2  Mac  14'  he  is  alluded  to 
as  father  of  Demetrius,  and  in  2  Mac  4'  mention  is 
made  of  his  death,  and  of  the  fact  that  he  was 
Bucceeiled  by  Antiochus.  After  having  reigned 
twelve  years,  Seleucus  was  murdered,  some  say 
by  Heliodorus,  his  minister,  who  sought  to  win 
the  kingdom  to  him.self ;  but  others  say  at  the 
instigation  of  his  brother  Antiochus,  who  was  on 
his  way  from  Home,  where  he  bad  been  detained 
for  some  years  as  a  hostage.  This  latter  view 
seems  to  bo  most  agreeable  to  the  language  of 
Daniel. 

vol.  IV. — 28 


LrrERATUKR. — Bevan,  Short  Com.  on  Daniel,  p.  185  f. ;  Schiiror, 
HJP  I.  i.  172,  also  his  art.  'Seleucus'  in  Riehm,  Uamltrortrr- 
btich,  p.  1467;  Ewald,  Ul  v.  291  f.,  304;  Driver,  Danifl,  pp. 
xxxviii,  101  f.,  178  (.;  Fairweather  and  Black,  J  Sloe  pp.  14U, 
159,  189 ;  J08.  4»t.  XII.  iv.  10.  J.  MACPHERSON. 

SELF-SURRENDER.  —  By  this  title  we  may 
understand  to  be  indicated  the  fundamental 
principle  of  Christianity  on  its  subjective  side, 
riie  roots  of  it  may  be  traced  back  in  the  OT 
and  further  to  the  jirimitive  instincts  of  religion. 
Schleierniacher's  deUnition  of  religion  as  '  the 
sense  of  dependence'  is  defective  and  one-sided  in 
leaving  out  of  account  this  most  essential  element. 
It  is  seen  in  an  extreme  form  in  the  extravagance 
of  pagan  fanaticism.  The  Indian  fakir,  the  yogi 
who  abandons  himself  entirely  to  religious  devotion, 
aims  at  making  the  most  absolute  surrender  of  his 
life  and  person  ;  and  yet  it  is  seen  that  pride,  self- 
will,  vanity,  and  various  self-regarding  attections 
are  not  excluded  by  the  extremity  of  fanaticism, 
and  therefore  some  deeper  if  not  more  demonstra- 
tive experience  must  be  looked  for  in  real  self- 
surrender.  The  OT  prepares  for  this,  and  the  NT 
shows  the  way  of  completely  realizing  it. 

i.  Self-Surrender  in  the  OT.— (a)  This  is  an 
important  element  of  the  Hebrew  faith  in  its  various 
phases.  In  the  patriarchal  history  it  appears  in 
the  submission  and  obedience  of  Abraham  and  his 
family  in  leaving  Ur  of  the  Chaldees  and  migrating 
to  an  unknown  land  where  they  must  live  a  no- 
madic life  in  response  to  the  call  of  God  ((4n  I'2'"°), 
and  in  the  subsequent  conduct  of  I.saac  (2t;''*)  and 
Jacob  (28'""-).  In  the  prophets  it  is  apparent  as 
the  very  foundation  of  their  work  and  mission. 
The  prophet  is  not  an  involuntary  instrument  in 
the  hands  of  God  through  whom  the  Divine  will  is 
declared.  Before  he  receives  his  message  he  sur- 
renders himself  to  the  call  of  God  ;  he  must  be  a 
'  man  of  God  '  if  he  is  to  be  a  '  seer.'  Moses  sur- 
renders his  prospects  at  the  court  of  Pharaoh  in 
the  passion  of  patriotism ;  and  later,  receiving  his 
call  at  the  buniin'C  bush,  gives  himself  up  to  the 
service  of  God  as  His  ambassador  to  Pharaoh.  A 
spirit  of  complete  self-surrender  is  seen  later  in  his 
willingness  to  be  blotted  out  of  God's  book  that 
the  ollending  peoi)le  might  be  forj,'iven  (Ex  3'2'^). 
Kuth's  devotion  to  her  mother-in-law,  though 
issuing  in  a  great  act  of  .self-surrender  (Kii  I"'-"), 
has  only  a  secoiulary  bearing  on  the  giving  up  of 
self  to  (Jod.  Samuel  is  dedicated  to  God  from  his 
birth  by  his  mother  (IS  1"),  and  his  subsequent 
career  shows  that  he  confirmed  this  dedication  by 
his  own  conduct.  Elijah  throughout  his  adven- 
turous career  manifests  a  life  completely  given  up 
to  the  service  of  God  in  face  of  the  greatest 
dangers.  Elisha,  responding  to  the  call  of  the 
older  prophet,  takes  solemn  farewell  of  his  parents 
and  the  circle  of  his  friends  at  a  final  feast  (1  K 
19^'),  which  may  have  furnished  Levi  the  publican 
with  the  precedent  for  his  similar  action  (Lk  S-"-'). 
Amos  leaves  his  herds  and  his  orchards  to  go  as 
God's  messenger  to  the  dissolute  court  of  Jeroboam 
II.  at  Bethel.  But  the  typical  act  of  prophetic 
self -surrender  is  seen  in  the  case  of  Isaiah,  who 
gives  us  a  full  account  of  God's  call  and  liis 
response  in  a  vision  at  the  temple  (Is  0).  Jeremiah, 
shrinking  from  the  diflicult  task  laid  on  him,  but 
going  to  it  with  the  supreme  courage  of  a  naturally 
timorous  man  who  is  braced  to  face  danger  by  a 
strong  sense  of  duty  and  a  full  faith  in  God,  lives 
his  martyr  lifi'  in  the  spirit  of  entire  self-sacritice. 

(6)  When  we  turn  from  the  history  to  the  teach- 
ing of  the  OT,  we  find  that  this  supremo  act  of 
religion  is  repeatedly  insisted  on.  'The  prophets 
call  uiKjn  the  people  to  give  themselves  up  to  God- 
Hosea  invites  the  unfaithful  to  return  (Hos  14''  '•') 
Isaiah,  denouncing  the  sin  of  Jenisalem  as  unfaith 
fnluess  and  rebellion  (1'"'^),  calls  the  people  back 


434 


SELF-SUEREXDER 


SELF-SURRENDER 


to  their  loyalty,  and  promises  a  redemption  that 
implies  a  return  to  Goa  iu  the  spirit  of  submission 
(v.'-').  Early  in  the  Captivity,  Ezekiel  sketches  the 
ideal  of  a  restored  nation  fully  devoted  to  God, 
and  in  Deutero-Isaiah  the  restored  Israel  appears 
as  a  people  given  up  to  the  service  of  God.  The 
completed  Pentateuch  gives  a  large  place  to  the 
i<lea  of  self-surrender  on  the  part  of  the  Jewish 
people.  The  whole  nation  is  lioly,  i.e.  set  apart 
for  God  {e.a.  Ex  19»  22^').  The  Levites  and  the 
priests  are  dedicated  to  God  in  an  especial  way  for 
the  performance  of  specific  functions,  but  not  to 
the  exclusion  of  the  self-dedication  of  the  laity. 
Thus  the  people  generally  are  expected  to  '  sanc- 
tify '  themselves  and  to  be  '  holy '  {e.g.  Lv  20'). 
Among  the  sacrifices  the  bumt-otfering  (6lah,  i.e. 
'  that  which  goes  up')  was  especially  significant  of 
the  self-surrender  of  the  man  who  offered  it.  This 
was  entirely  consumed  on  the  altar  (therefore 
thought  of  as  a  '  whole  oft'ering'),  while  other 
sacrifices  were  eaten  in  whole  or  in  part  by  the 
priests  and  the  worshippers.  As  the  smoke  as- 
cended to  lieaven  the  essence  of  the  Wctim  was 
supposed  to  pass  up  to  Jehovah,  and  represented 
the  oii'erer,  who  was  thus  supposed  to  give  himself 
up  to  God  under  the  symbol  of  his  sacrifice  (see 
Bennett,  Theol.  of  OT,  pp.  148,  149,  and  art. 
Sacrifice). 

ii.  Self-surrender  in  the  NT.— (a)  This  is 
first  presented  to  us  in  the  life  of  Jesus  Christ, 
whose  whole  course  consists  in  the  abandonment 
of  self  and  self-interest  In  order  to  do  the  will  of 
God  ;  which  is  summarized  in  sayings  reported  in 
the  Fourth  Gospel,  '  My  meat  is  to  do  tlie  will  of 
him  that  sent  me,  and  to  accomplish  his  work  ' 
(Jn  4**);  '  I  came  down  from  heaven  not  to  do  mine 
own  viil,  but  the  wUl  of  him  that  sent  me  '  ((i^'), 
and  described  in  Hebrews  by  the  ajiplication  to 
Christ  of  Ps  40*  '  Lo,  I  am  come  to  do  thy  will ' 
(He  10').  The  agony  in  the  garden  reveals  the 
spirit  of  perfect  self -surrender  under  the  severest 
trial  when  our  Lord  cries,  'Howbeit,  not  what 
I  will,  but  what  thou  wilt'  (Mk  14**),  and  the 
endurance  of  the  passion  consummated  in  the 
crucifixion  completes  the  sacrifice. 

(6)  Jesus  Christ  invites  His  disciples  to  a  similar 
life  of  self-surrender.  That  is  seen  outwardly  in 
the  call  of  the  Twelve,  which  leads  each  to  give  up 
his  work  and  his  liome  in  order  to  follow  Christ. 
At  Cffsare.a  Philippi  the  underlying  principle  is 
made  a  rule  of  universal  application  when  our 
Lord  says,  '  If  any  man  would  come  after  me,  let 
liim  deny  himself  {aTraprriadcrBa  ^oi/rii'),  and  take  up 
liis  cross,  and  follow  me  '  (Mk  8",  Mt  16",  Lk  9"— 
Luke  has  '  take  up  his  cross  daily  ').  Plainly,  this 
means  much  more  than  what  we  commonly  under- 
stand by  self-denial,  i.e.  the  giving  up  of  certain  of 
the  conveniences  of  life.  The  essential  difference  is 
that  it  involves  the  abandonment  of  self  altogether 
as  the  end  of  life  (see  Swete,  St.  Mark,  in  loc. ). 
The  word  rendered  '  deny  '  {i-rapvioimi,  stronger 
than  ipvloiun,  and  meaning  a  more  thorough 
abandonment,  suggested  by  the  prefix  iirb)  is  used 
for  St.  Peter's  denial  of  Christ  (Mk  H**)  and  for 
the  denial  in  the  presence  of  the  angels  of  those 
who  deny  Christ  on  earth  (Lk  12").  But  while  the 
absoluteness  of  the  surrender  is  thus  demanded, 
certain  mistaken  forms  of  self-denial  are  excluded. 
The  notion  does  not  involve  asceticism  or  any 
form  of  self-torture.  Primarily  it  is  negative  ;  it  is 
requisite  as  a  preliminary  condition  to  following 
Christ,  which  is  the  real  object  to  be  aimed  at, 
not  commended  as  a  meritorious  act  on  its  own 
account.  Self  must  be  renounced  in  order  that 
Christ  may  be  followed.  Further,  there  is  no  idea 
of  the  abandonment  of  the  ego  in  the  destruction 
of  the  personality,  or  the  fusing  of  the  individual 
in  the  aniversal  being  of  God.     Christ's  teaxihing 


does  not  tend  in  this  pantheistic  direction.  Tlie 
very  appeal  to  the  act  of  self-renunciation  brings 
in  the  idea  of  the  will  that  is  to  perform  it  (el  m 
8i\ei),  and  that  will  is  equally  requisite  for  the 
following  of  Christ,  which  is  to  be  the  subsequent 
aim  of  His  servant.  The  disciple  is  to  follow  Christ 
as  an  individual  personality,  walking  after  his 
blaster,  though  in  the  Master's  footprints  ;  not  to 
merge  his  own  consciousness  and  activity  in  the 
being  and  life  of  Christ.  But  while  the  individu- 
ality of  the  ego  is  to  be  thus  preserved,  thesurrender 
of  the  will  in  submission  and  obedience  is  to  be 
unconditional  and  complete.  Probably  we  should 
regard  our  Lord's  hard  sayings  on  the  subject  of 
riches  in  the  light  of  this  primary  condition.  That 
He  did  not  lay  down  a  rule  of  poverty  as  a  uni- 
versal condition  of  discipleship  is  proved  by  the 
fact  that  some  of  His  disciples  who  possessed  pro- 
perty were  not  required  to  sacrifice  it,  e.g.  Zacchaeus, 
the  Bethany  household,  the  mother  of  St.  Mark — 
in  whose  house  the  Church  met  after  the  resurrec- 
tion. Therefore  the  difficulty  of  a  rich  man  in 
entering  the  kingdom  of  Goa,  concerning  whioli 
Jesus  spoke  with  great  emphasis,  must  be  found 
in  the  entanglement  of  worldly  goods  hindering 
the  complete  surrender  of  will,  and  not  in  the  hard 
necessity  of  giving  up  all  the  possessions.  The 
case  of  tlie  young  ruler,  who,  when  asked  what  he 
should  do  to  obtain  eternal  life,  was  told  to  sell  all 
he  possessed  and  give  it  to  the  poor,  stands  by 
itself :  we  have  no  other  instance  of  such  a  demand, 
and  therefore  it  is  just  to  conclude  that  it  had  a 
specific  application  to  this  man,  his  wealth  being 
his  fatal  hindrance,  and  a  career  of  discipleship 
being  open  to  him  if  he  would  abandon  all  his 
worldly  goods  to  follow  Christ  with  the  peasants 
and  fishermen.  Thus  riches  may  be  classed  with 
the  hand,  or  foot,  or  eye  that  is  to  be  cut  off  or 
plucked  out  if  the  member  offend.  Poverty />ers6 
IS  no  more  required  as  a  condition  of  membership 
in  the  kingdom  of  God  than  mutilation.  But  if 
any  hindrance  is  found  in  what  seems  most  valu- 
able and  our  own  by  right — even  a  limb  of  the 
body — so  that  the  precious  thing  must  be  aban- 
doned rather  than  that  the  life  should  be  mined, 
much  more  must  this  process  be  followed  in  the 
case  of  what  is  so  extraneous  as  material  wealth. 
For  a  full  discussion  of  this  position  see  Wendt, 
Lehre  Jesu,  pp.  376-389  [Eng.  tr.  ii.  58  ff.]. 

While  absolute  surrender  to  the  will  of  God  is 
thus  required  by  Christ  at  any  cost,  pure  altruism 
is  not  demanded.  The  '  golden  rule,'  which  may  be 
regarded  as  the  primary  law  of  Christian  ethics, 
enjoins  that  we  should  do  to  others  as  we  would 
wish  them  to  do  to  us,  on  the  principle  that  we 
should  love  our  neighbours  as  ourselves,  where 
some  self-regarding  thought  is  allowed,  since  this 
is  expressly  named  as  the  measure  of  our  feelings 
and  actions  towards  others.  Still  it  is  to  be  ob- 
served that  the  more  advanced  teaching  of  the 
Fourth  Gospel  carries  us  beyond  this  line  of 
measurement  >vith  the  '  new  commandment,'  — 
perhaps  new  in  contrast  with  the  old  command- 
ment about  love  to  our  neighbour, — inculcating  love 
like  Christ's  {'even  as  I  have  loved  you,'  etc.,  Jn 
13**),  because  His  love  involved  complete  self-sacri- 
fice for  the  saving  of  others.  In  the  same  way 
Jesus  spoke  of  the  necessity  of  bearing  the  cross, 
not  meaning  the  endurance  of  some  hardship,  but 
the  readiness  to  face  death,  like  the  condemned 
man  who  carries  his  cross  to  the  place  of  execution  { 
and  He  laid  Aovra  the  great  principle  contained  in 
the  words,  '  Whosoever  would  (or  rather  wishes  to, 
BiXj])  save  his  life  shall  lose  it ;  and  whosoever  shall 
lose  his  life  for  my  sake  and  the  gospel's,  shall  save 
it'  (Mk  S"  etc.).  Confusion  has  come  into  the 
interpretation  of  this  passage  through  the  two 
senses  of  the  word  f  tixi),  as  life  and  soul,  being 


SELF-SUEREXDER 


SENAAII 


435 


introduced ;  but  the  prenous  sentence  about  tlie 
cross,  an  instrument  of  capital  punishment,  should 
make  it  clear  tliat  it  is  not  the  soul,  especially  as 
we  now  understand  the  word  'soul,'  but  the  life, 
that  is  here  referred  to.  The  Gr.  word  is  used  in 
the  same  sense  in  Mk  lO'",  where  Jesus  speaks  of 
Living  His  ifvx'^,  i.e.  His  life,  in  the  sense  of  giving 
Himself  up  to  die.  The  piussage,  then,  means  that 
whoever  is  willing  to  face  martjTdom  for  his 
Christian  faith  shall  save  his  life— i.e.  live  on  in 
spite  of  being  killed,  by  entering  into  the  eternal 
life;  while  he  who  makes  it  his  aim  to  escape 
martyrdom  will  really  die,  because  he  will  miss 
the  eternal  life.  Here  the  self -surrender,  even  to 
the  e.\tent  of  suffering  a  martyr's  death,  i.e.  the 
surrender  which  will  face  that  extremity  if  neces- 
sary, is  what  Christ  requires,  not  in  every  case  the 
actual  endurance  of  the  martyrdom, — for  the  sen- 
tence is  hypothetical.  But  this  self-surrender  is 
not  tlie  end,  it  is  the  means  through  which  we  are 
to  enter  into  life.  In  a  larger  application  of  the 
essential  principle  it  may  be  said  that  we  must  re- 
nounce ourselves  in  order  to  realize  ourselves.  The 
end  then,  as  we  saw  above  in  another  connexion, 
IS  not  self-abnegation,  much  less  is  it  extinction  of 
being,  or  loss  of  personality  and  conscious  existence, 
Buddhist  iVirrana,  or  Hindu  absorption  in  Brahm, 
but  the  very  opposite — the  full,  enduring,  conscious 
activity  known  as  eternal  life. 

(c)  In  St.  Paul's  Epistles  this  principle  comes  out 
with  regard  to  the  mystical  union  of  the  Christian 
with  Christ.  He  die's  with  Christ  (Col  2«') ;  he  is 
crucified  with  Christ  (Gal  2™)  ;  through  the  cross 
of  Christ  the  world  has  been  crucified  to  him,  and 
he  to  the  world  (6") ;  the  old  man  is  crucified  with 
Christ  (Ilo  6").  The  last  of  these  phrases  throws 
light  on  the  others.  St.  Paul  is  thinking  of  the 
pre-Christian  condition,  the  life  of  sin  and  the 
world.  This  is  so  completely  put  away  in  Christ 
that  it  is  said  to  be  killed,  crucified.  The  apostle 
means  more  than  repentance  ;  he  is  thinking  of 
an  actual  end  of  tlie  old  thoughts,  aflectiims, 
desires,  habits.  But  the  peculiarity  of  his  teach- 
ing is  that  this  result  is  brought  auout  by  union 
willi  Cliiist,  and  especially  by  an  inward,  spiritual 
assimilation  to  His  death.  'Thus,  on  our  part,  the 
cause  is  self -surrender  to  Jesus  Clirist,  for  Him  to 
be  the  supreme  commanding  influence  over  the 
soul.  Then  this  same  surrender  to  Christ,  result- 
ing in  union  with  Him  and  assimilation  to  His 
experience,  carries  the  soul  on  to  a  resurrection. 
Accordingly,  St.  Paul  writes  of  Christians  as  being 
'raised  together  witli  Christ'  (Col  3')-  Writing  of 
his  own  experience,  the  apostle  declares  that  it  is 
no  longer  he  that  lives,  but  Christ  who  lives  in  him 
(Gal  2-*).  This,  which  may  be  called  the  mystical 
element  in  St.  Paul's  thought,  links  itself  to  his 
ralibinical  and  legal  view  of  redemption  as  an  act 
of  justification  by  God  which  we  rccc^ive  through 
faith.  The  bond  of  union  between  the  two  parts 
of  the  apostle's  teaching  may  be  found  in  his  ideas 
on  faith.  It  is  faith  that  secures  the  grace  of  for- 
giveness, and  so  places  the  guilty  person  in  a  state 
of  justification.  Now,  faith  with  St.  Paul  is  not 
merely  intellectual  a.ssent  to  dogma;  it  is  personal 
trust  in  and  adhesion  to  Christ.  But  such  a  con- 
dition of  soul  is  the  very  surrender  which  secures 
the  mystical  union  with  Christ.  Thus  the  two 
experiences — the  .subjective  dying  and  rising,  and 
the  objective  forgiveness  and  justification — spring 
out  of  the  same  act  on  our  part,  the  faith  that 
implies  self-surrender.  Further,  out  of  this  an<l 
its  results  arise  moral  obligations  to  continual  self- 
renunciation  for  the  service  of  Christ  and  the  l>enefit 
of  mankind.  Tlie  Christian  is  not  his  own,  because 
he  has  lieen  bought  with  a  price  (1  Co  0'»-  »).  There- 
fore a  special  obligation  is  on  him  to  spend  his  life 
in  unselfish  service.     For  the  same  reason  he  must 


avoid  unchastity,  since  his  bod 3-  is  a  temple  if  the 
Holy  Ghost  Christians  are  exhorted  to  present 
their  boclies  to  Goil  as  a  living  sacrifice,  an  act 
w  hich  the  apostle  calls  '  reasonable  service '  (XoytKiiv 
XaTptlaf),  perhaps  meaning  'spiritual  service'  in 
contrast  to  the  external  service  of  Judaism  (Ko  12'). 

((/)  The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  treating  cliieHy 
of  Christ  and  His  work,  does  not  devote  much 
attention  to  the  subjective  side  of  religion.  Still 
it  exalts  faith  as  the  secret  of  spiritual  power  and 
heroism,  and  this  faith  involves  the  renunciation 
of  self  in  accepting  the  help  of  God  to  do  His  will. 
Thus  one  instance  is  that  of  Moses,  who  gave  up 
the  treasures  of  Egypt,  enduring  '  as  seeing  him 
who  is  invisible'  (He  11"). 

(e)  St.  Peter  describes  Christians  as  persons  who 
were  going  astray  but  are  now  returned  to  the 
Shepherd  and  Bishop  of  their  souls  (1  P  2^) ;  and 
this  return  involves  surrender  to  obedience,  since 
the  sheep  of  the  flock  follow  their  shepherd. 

(/)  In  the  Johannine  writings  the  act  of  self- 
renunciation  does  not  come  fonvard  so  prominently 
on  its  own  account  as  elsewhere  in  the  NT ;  but  it 
is  even  more  completely  involved  in  the  require- 
ments that  correspond  to  the  Divine  side  of  religion 
than  in  the  other  apostolic  writings.  The  new- 
birth  of  which  Jesus  speaks  to  Nicodemus  (Jn  3'"') 
requires  the  surrender  of  self  in  the  abandonment 
of  pride  and  self-sulliciency,  in  order  that  it  may 
be  experienced.  To  drink  of  the  water  of  life,  to 
eat  the  bread  of  life,  to  follow  the  Light  of  the 
World,  are  actions  that  require  the  abandonment 
of  all  claims  to  self-sufficiency.  Then  St.  John 
demands  faith  as  the  great  condition  on  our  part 
for  the  reception  of  eternal  life  (1  Jn  5").  At  the 
same  time,  in  the  prominence  which  he  gives  to 
this  gift  of  eternal  life  as  a  present  possession,  it 
is  plain  that  he  does  not  teach  any  doctrine  of 
the  abandonment  of  the  human  personalitj'  for 
absorption  in  the  Divine.  W.  F.  Adeney. 

SEMACHIAH  (>.t;59  'J'  has  sustained').— The 
name  of  a  Korahite  family  of  gatekeepers,  1  Ch  26' 
(B  ^apx^ii,  A  Sa;iax'as).  It  is  not  improbable 
that  the  same  name  should  be  substituted  for 
Ismachiah  ('■"'""V  'J"  sustaineth'  ;  B  ^a/xaxeii,  A 
2a^Laxili)  in  2  Ch  31".    See  Gray,  HPi\  291,  295. 

SEMEI  (B  Zfiutt,  A  le/iel),  1  Es  9«'=Shimei  of 
the  sons  of  Hashum,  Ezr  10^. 

SEMEIA3  (B  SfAitetas,  sA  Zt^ela^ ;  AV  Semei), 
Ad.  Est  11'  (LXX,  A')  =  Shimei,  the  ancestor  of 
Mordecai ;  of.  Est  2°. 

SEMEIN  (B  SfM"'".  A  Xefuel ;  AV  Semei),  Lk  S'". 
— The  father  of  Mattatbias  in  the  genealogy  of 
Jesus  Christ. 

SEMEIS  (B  Zevaftt,  A  ZtfuU  ;  AV  Semis),  1  Es  9'" 
=  Shimei  the  Levite,  Ezr  10^. 

SENAAH  (nNJP;  B  laari,  Tavavir,  A  Zavavd. 
Ztyyad,  'Kciv  ;  Senari). — Amongst  the  '  people  of 
Israel'  who  returned  from  tlie  Captivitj'  with 
Zerubhabel  were  the  'children  of  Sennah.'  Their 
numbers  were  3630  according  to  Ezr  '2",  and  393(1 
according  to  Neh  7".  The  name  occurs  again,  with 
the  article,  hof-^enaah  (Neh  3'),  in  connexion  with 
the  rebuilding  of  the  walls  of  Jerusalem.  The 
people  of  Senaah  built  the  Fish -gate,  and  are 
mentioned  next  in  order  after  the  people  of  Jericho 
(cf.  Ezr  2").  From  this  it  may  perhaps  be  inferred 
that  Senaah  was  in  the  vicinity  ot  Jericho.  In 
thU  case  it  may  possibly  be  the  village  Mngdnl- 
senna,  lAcySa.Xatrri,  which  Eusebius  and  Jerome 
[nnom.)  place  7  M.P.  north  of  .lericho. 

In  the  lists  in  1  Es.  (5**)  the  name  is  given  as 


436 


SENATE 


SEPHAK 


Sanaaa  (AV  Annaas  ;  B  Za/j-i,  A  Sai-dos ;  Anaas), 
and  the  number  of  the  children  as  33.S0. 

C.  \V.  Wilson. 
SENATE  is  the  renderin<;  of  yepov<ria  in  Ac  5-', 
where  'all  tlie  senate  of  tlie  children  of  Israel' 
appears  to  be  epexegetical  of  the  preceding 
'council'  (aw^dpiov).  See  also  Ephesus,  vol.  i. 
p.  722",  and  Saxhedrin.  It  is  the  Jewish  '  senate ' 
that  is  meant  likewise  by  yepovala  in  2  -Mac  1'"  4". 
Tlie  allusions  to  the  Roman  senate  in  1  Mac  S""- 
will  be  found  handled  in  art.  Rome,  p.  306". 

SENEH  (rrj9  ;  2fwi£  ;  Sene).— One  of  two  jagged 

Soints,  or  '  teeth  of  the  cliff,' — the  other  being 
iozez,  between  which  the  '  passage  of  Michmash  ' 
ran.  It  is  mentioned  in  connexion  with  the  exploit 
of  Jonathan  and  his  ariiiourbearer,  and  was  to  the 
south  of  and  nearer  to  Geba  than  Bozez  ( 1  S  14''). 
Seneh  was  possibly  so  called  front  the  thorns  (cf. 
njp  of  Ex  3^-*,  Dt  33'»)  which  grew  upon  it  (cf. 
'  the  plain  of  thorns,'  &Kav6Cliv  auXiiv,  near  the 
village  of  Gabathsaul,  Jos.  BJ  v.  ii.  1).  The 
name  is  retained  in  the  Wddy  Suweinlt,  on  the 
right  bank  of  which,  not  far  from  Jeba,  the  rock 
Seneh  must  have  been.  A  good  description  of  the 
locality  is  given  by  Conder  {Tent-]Vork,  ii.  112- 
114).     See  also  Bobmson  [BBP"  i.  441). 

C.  W.  Wilson. 
SENIR  (TJ^  ;  "Eafdp;  Sanir). —The  Amorite 
name  of  Mt.  Ilermon  (Dt  3"),  and  one  of  the  few 
Amorite  words  preserved  in  the  Bible.  In  1  Ch 
5^,  Ca  4',  Senir  is  apparently  distinguished  from 
Mt.  Hermon,  and  probably  desiOTated  a  particular 
part  of  the  Hermon  range  (so  Briver,  Buhl).  In 
Ezelviel's  lamentation  for  Tyre  (27°)  the  builders 
are  said  to  have  made  planks  of  the  '  fir  trees  of 
Senir,'  and  in  1  Chronicles  .Senir  is  given  as  one  of 
the  limits  to  which  the  children  of  Manasseh  over- 
flowed from  Bashan.  In  an  inscription  of  Shal- 
maneser,  Hazael  of  Damascus  is  said  to  have  made 
Mt.  Sanir,  the  top  of  the  mountain  opposite 
Lebanon,  into  a  fortress  (Schrader,  KAT'  210). 
The  Arab  geo^aphers,  as  late  as  the  14th  cent., 
also  called  Anti- Lebanon  JcJ>d  Santr,  and  attached 
the  name  more  particularly  to  that  portion  of  the 
range  near  Damascus  and  between  Baalbek  and 
Hums.  Tliere  was  al.so  a  district  of  Sanir  in 
which  Baalbek  was  situated  (Guy  le  Strange,  Pal. 
under  the  Moslems,  32,  78,  79,  295-298).  See, 
further,  art.  Hermon.  C.  W.  Wilson. 

SENNACHERIB  (annjci,  ttwaxvpfll^,  Assyr.  .Sjn- 
akhi-erba,  '  the  Moon-god  has  increased  the  breth- 
ren,' from  which  we  may  infer  that  he  wa.s  not 
the  eldest  son  of  his  father,  Sargon). — Sennacherib 
succeeded  Sargon  on  the  12th  of  Ab,  B.C.  705. 
His  first  campaign  was  against  Babylonia,  where 
Merodach-baladan  (or  another  prince  of  tlie  same 
name )  had  reappeared.  (See,  however,  Merodach- 
BALADAN).  After  a  reign  of  six  months  the 
latter  was  forced  to  lly  for  his  life.  Sennacherib 
made  a  certain  Bel-ibni  king  of  Babylon,  and 
then  turned  against  the  Kassi  or  Kossieans  in  the 
western  mountains  of  Elam.  After  this  he  swept 
Ellipi,  north  of  Elam,  with  fire  and  sword.  In 
B.C.  701  came  the  campaign  against  Pale.stine, 
which  had  rebelled  after  Sargon's  death.  Lulia 
(EUikeus),  king  of  Tyre,  Hed  to  Cyprus,  and  Sidon 
and  other  Phuinician  cities  were  saiked  by  the 
Assyrians,  Ethbaal  being  appointed  king  of  the 
country.  Ashdod,  Amnion,  Aloab,  and  Edom  now 
Bent  tribute,  Judah  with  the  dependent  Philistine 
cities  of  Ashkelon  and  Ekron  alone  holding  out. 
Ashkelon  and  Ekron  were  captured,  and  Hezekiah 
was  compelled  to  restore  to  the  throne  of  the 
latter  city  the  anti-Jewish  prince  Padi,  who  had 
been  imjirisoned  in  Jerusalem.  The  Egyptians, 
now  ruled  by  the  Ethiopian  Tirhakah,  came  to 


the  help  of  Hezekiah,  but  they  were  defeated  at 
Eltekeh  and  driven  back.  Sen.  thereupon  swept 
the  country  of  Judah,  capturing  46  fortresses  and 
carrj-ing  into  exile  200,150  person.s.  While  he 
was  besieging  Lachish,  Hezekiah  sent  rich  presents 
to  him,  in  the  vain  hope  of  buying  oft'  his  attack. 
The  presents  consisted  of  30  talents  of  gold,  800 
talents  of  silver,  precious  stones,  couches  and 
seats  inlaid  with  ivory,  girls  and  eunuchs,  male 
and  female  musicians  (?).  But  all  was  of  no  avaU: 
Lachish  was  taken  and  plundered,  and  the  Rab- 
shakeh  or  Vizier  sent  a  letter  to  Hezekiah  de- 
manding the  surrender  of  his  city  (2  K  19' ff.). 
Then  came  the  catastrophe,  which  obliged  Sen. 
to  leave  Judah  without  punishing  his  rebellious 
vassal,  and  over  which  he  draws  a  veil  of  silence 
in  his  annals.  The  events  and  the  date  of  this 
campaign  are  fully  discussed  by  FrASek  in  a  series 
of  articles  in  the  Expos.  Times,  xii.,  xiii.  (1901-2). 
Prdsek  contends  that  there  were  two  campaigns  of 
Sennacherib  to  the  West  and  against  Judah. 

The  following  year  he  again  entered  Babylonia, 
of  which  he  maae  his  son  Assur-nadin-sum  king, 
and  drove  Merodach-baladan  out  of  the  marshes. 
A  few  years  later  he  had  a  Heet  of  ships  built  on 
the  Euphrates,  at  Til-Barsip  near  Birejik,  which 
he  manned  with  lonians  and  Phoenicians.  They 
then  sailed  across  the  Persian  Gulf  to  the  moutn 
of  the  Euheus,  where  the  followers  of  Merodach- 
baladan  had  taken  refuge,  and  burnt  and  plun- 
dered the  Chald:i;an  colony.  In  return  for  this 
Assur-nadin-sum  was  carried  off  to  Elam,  and  the 
Elaraites  made  Nergal-yusezib  king  in  his  place 
(B.C.  694).  The  usurper  was  defeated  and  captured 
by  the  Assyrians,  but  with  little  result,  since  the 
Elamites  remained  all-powerful  in  Babylonia  for 
a  time.  In  B.C.  691,  however.  Sen.  again  marched 
into  the  country.  At  the  battle  of  KhalulS  the 
Bab.  and  Elamite  forces  were  obliged  to  retreat 
after  a  hard-fought  day,  but  two  years  more  were 
required  before  Babylonia  could  be  finally  sub- 
dued. Sen.  had  already  attempted  to  invade  Elam, 
but  the  winter  had  set  in  before  he  began  his 
march,  and  the  snow  obliged  him  to  return.  At 
last,  in  B.C.  689,  Babylon  was  taken  and  razed  to 
the  ground,  and  the  canal  Arakhtu,  which  flowed 
by  it,  was  choked  with  its  ruins. 

On  the  20th  of  Tebet,  B.C.  681,  Sen.  wasmnrdered 
by  his  two  sons  (2  K  19^).  The  deed  seems  to 
have  been  prom])ted  by  jealousy  of  their  brother 
Esarhaddon,  who  was  at  the  time  conducting  a 
campaign  against  Ararat.  For  42  days  the  con- 
spirators held  Nineveh  ;  then  they  were  compelled 
to  Hy  to  the  king  of  Ararat  and  seek  his  aid 
against  their  brother.  (The  subject  of  the  assas- 
sination of  Sennacherib,  and  esp.  the  question 
whether  this  was  the  work  of  one  or  of  two  of  his 
sons,  is  treated  in  art.  Sharezer,  No.  1). 

Sen.  was  vain  and  boastful,  with  none  of  the 
military  skill  and  endurance  which  distinguished 
his  father.  He  built  the  palace  of  Kouyunjik 
at  Nineveh,  1500  ft.  long  by  700  ft.  broad,  and 
restored  a  second  palace  on  the  mound  of  Nebi- 
yunus.  He  constructed  brick  embankments  along 
the  sides  of  the  Tigris,  and  repaired  the  ancient 
aqueducts  which  had  gone  to  decay.  To  him  also 
Avas  due  the  great  wall  of  Nineveh,  8  miles  ia 
circumference.  A.  H.  Sayce. 

SEORIM  (oii'^  ;  B  'Ztwpelfi,  A  Teaplv). — The  name 
of  the  fomth  of  the  twenty-four  classes  of  priests, 
1  Ch  24». 

SEPARATION. — For  '  separation  *  In  the  sense  of 
.■nj,  see  artt.  RED  Hkifer,  p.  208",  UNCLEANNESS, 
and  in  sense  of  IJJ  art.  Naziritb. 

SEPHAR  {.Tj^q  [with  n  locale] ;  LXX  A  Za<t>^ipa\ 


SEPHARAD 


SEnUAGIXT 


437 


Gn  lO". — Given  as  a  limit  of  the  territory  occupied 
by  tho  Joktanides,  and  apparently  identified  with 
the  Eastern  mountain.  This  place  is  ordinarily 
identified  (since  tlie  time  of  Fresnel,  ap.  Ges. 
The.f.)  with  Zafar,  the  name  of  two  places  of  im- 
portance in  S.  Arabia — one  of  them  the  capital  of 
the  Himyarites,  near  Sana  in  Yemen,  the  other  a 
coast  town  in  the  district  of  Shihr,  to  the  extreme 
east  of  Hiidramaut,  and,  indeed,  a  place,  from  its 
situation  with  regard  to  Hadramaut  and  the  great 
Dabna,  likely  to  serve  as  a  landmark.  So  in 
the  Taj  al-'arua  (iii.  370)  this  place  is  said  to  be 
'  at  the  extreme  end  of  Yemen.'  Wellsted  ( Travels, 
n.  153)  says  of  it :  '  Dofar  is  situated  beneath  a 
lofty  mountain  ;  the  country  around  is  well  culti- 
vated,' but  it  only  deserves  to  be  called  '  a  miser- 
able village.'  Apparently,  then,  with  the  depopu- 
lation of  S.  Arabia  that  has  gone  on  for  some 
centuries,  the  place  has  declined  from  the  import- 
ance which  the  Arabic  geographers  sometmies 
assign  to  it.  Against  this  identification  Glaser 
(Skizze,  ii.  437)  urges  that  we  cannot  prove  Zafar 
to  have  existed  at  so  early  a  period  ;  liut  we  also 
have  no  record  of  its  foundation.  The  repre- 
sentation of  the  Arabic  Z  by  o  is  surprising,  out 
scarcely  constitutes  a  serious  objection,  when  the 
situation  of  the  place  corresponds  so  well  with 
what  the  Biblical  writer  intends. 

D.  S.  Margoliouth. 
SEPHARAD  (-019 ;  BA  'Etppadi,  Q*  Za<papi5,  Q* 
ZippaBd  ;  Vulg.  in  Bospuro). — Ob*"  speaks  of  Jews 
'  who  were  in  captivity  in  the  land  of  Sepharad. 
Sepharad  or  [see  Driver,  LOT'  320]  Siphan'd  is 
the  Saparda  of  the  Assyr.  inscriptions,  who,  in 
concert  with  the  Kiramerians,  Medes,  and  Minni, 
attacked  Assyria  in  the  reign  of  Esarhaddon.  Their 
allies  would  seem  to  indicate  that  they  came  from 
tlie  north-east  of  Assyria  ;  but  in  thi!  inscriptions  of 
Darius  H^staspis  at  Behistun  and  Naksh-i-Kustem 
the  province  of  Sparda  is  named  between  Ewpt 
and  Ionia  in  one  instance,  and  between  Cappadocia 
and  Ionia  in  another.  A  Bab.  inscription  (Km. 
710.  31,  36)  states  that  in  'the  37th  year  of 
Antiochus  and  Soleucu.s,  the  9th  day  of  Adar,  the 
governor  of  Chaldtea  and  an  ofHcer  of  the  king, 
who  had  gone  to  the  country  of  Sapardu  in  the 
previous  year  to  meet  the  king,  returned  to  the 
city  of  Seleucia.'  We  may  gather  from  this  that 
the  district  was  in  the  northern  part  of  Asia  Minor, 
though,  in  the  annals  of  Sargon,  Saparda  is  placed 
to  the  ea.st  of  As.syria.  The  Targum  of  Jonathan 
identified  Sepharad  with  Spain,  probably  in  con- 
sequence of  the  similarity  of  the  name  to  that  of 
Hesperis ;  hence  the  Spanish  Jews  are  at  i)rosent 
known  as  Sephardira,  as  distinguished  from  the 
Ashkenuzim  or  German  Jews.  See,  further,  art. 
Obadiah,  vol.  iii.  p.  579".  A.  H.  Savce. 

8EPHARVAIM  (D^rjs? ;  LXX  A  has  in  all  the 
passages  in  Kings  Zeip(papoviiii,  B  has  in  2  K  17" 
2fT0aDowfiAt,  in  V."  [where  MT  is  dub.]  ^eir<papo6v, 
in  18**  ~tiripapovnd.iv,  in  19"  Xt<p(papovdti' ;  in  the 
Isaiah  passages  B  has  'Eiripapovdiii,  A  Ziir((>apeln). 
— The  '  two  Sijipars,'  a  city  of  Babylonia,  called 
in  the  cuneiform  inscriptions  '  .Sipi)ar  of  the  Sun- 
god '  and  'Sippar  of  Anunit.'  Sippar  of  the  Sun- 
god  was  discovered  by  Hormuzd  Ka.ssara  in  1881 
at  Abu-llabba  on  the  Euplirates,  10  miles  S.E.  of 
Baghdad.  A  large  quantity  of  valuable  monu- 
ments and  tablets  have  been  found  in  the  ruins 
of  the  temple  of  the  Sun-god,  which  was  termed 
Bit-Uri  by  the  Semites,  E-Babnra  by  the  Sumor- 
ians.  The  Sumerian  name  of  Sippar  was  Zimbir. 
Among  the  colonists  transplanted  to  Samaria  were 
men  ot  Sepharvaim  (2  K  17'-""),  and  the  capture 
of  Sepharvaim  by  the  Assyrians  is  referred  to  in 
2  K  18"  19",  Is  36'»  37'».  According  to  lierosus, 
Xisuthros,  the  Chaldoian  Noah,  buried  the  records 


of  the  antediluvian  world  at  Sippara,  as  it  was 
called  by  the  Greeks.  Abydenus  {Fr.  9)  states  that 
Nebuchadnezzar  excavated  a  great  reservoir  there  ; 
and  Pliny  {HN  vi.  30)  afhrras  that  Sippar  (which 
he  calls  'ojipidum  Hipparenorum')  was  the  seat 
of  a  university.  In  the  reign  of  Nabonidos  the 
camp  of  the  Bab.  army  was  just  outside  its  walls, 
under  the  command  of  '  the  king's  son,'  and  the 
fall  of  Sippar  followed  immediately  upon  the  de- 
cisive battle  at  Opis,  which  laid  Babj-fonia  at  the 
feet  of  Cyrus.*  A.  H.  SaICE. 

SEPTUAGINT 

t.  Importance. 

ii.  Name. 

liL  Origin  and  History  of  the  legend. 
Iv.  Printed  liditions. 

v.  History  of  the  Septuagint. 
vi.  Maiiuscripls,  Versions,  Quotations. 
viL  Use  of  the  Septuagint. 
viii.  Literature. 

f  Abbreviations  in  this  article : — (B=Gr.  Text  of  OT ;  /D=Heb. 
Text  of  OT  ;  L.aff.  =  La^arde  ;  SSt.  =  hag.  St-ptuafjintaStudieni 
Set,  =  Nestle,  Septuarjintastudien ;  Svv.  =  H,  13.  Swete,  An 
Jntrod.  to  the  OT  in  (rreek  (Cambridge.  19U«);  Urt.  =  Unext 
ujid  UbergetzuTigen  der  Bibel  (Leipzig,  1897,  being  a  reprint  of 
the  art  *  Bibeltext  und  Bibelubersetzungen '  in  Herzog's  liE^)]. 

i.  Importance. — The  Greek  version  of  the  OT, 
called  Septuagint,  is  in  most  respects  by  far  the 
most  important  version  of  the  Bible  treated  in  this 
Dictionary.  To  the  Fathers  of  the  Greek  Church 
it  appeared  of  such  weight  that  they  praised  the 
Septuagint  with  one  accord  as  a  token  of  the 
special  providence  of  God,  as  a  link  in  the  Divine 
dispensation  for  the  salvation  of  mankind,  seeing 
in  it  the  work  of  direct  inspiration,  and  placing  it 
in  a  line  with  the  writings  of  tlie  prophets  and 
the  pleaching  of  the  apostles  (cf.,  for  instance, 
Irenitus  [ill.  xxi.  4],  '  unus  enim  et  idem  spiritus 
Dei,  qui  in  Prophctis  quidem  pra^conavit,  quis  et 
qualis  esset  advent  us  Domini,  in  Senioribiis  autem 
[i.e.  the  Seventy  Elders,  to  whom  this  version  was 
ascribed]  interpretatus  est  bene,  quie  prophetata 
fuerant,  ipse  et  in  Apontolis  prsedicavit. 

The  various  claims  which  call  for  careful  atten- 
tion to  the  LXX  are,  perhaps,  best  summed  up 
in  the  second  edition  of  it  published  in  England 
(Cambridge,  16G5,  12'),  by  John  Pearson,  after- 
wards bishop  of  Chester :  t  '  The  LXX  is  useful 
and  even  necessary  (titilis  atque  nec«?sar»a):  (1)  ad 
Hebraicam  veritatem  probe  perspiciendam  ;  (2)  ad 
auctoritatem  testimoniorum  Apostolicorum  con- 
firmandain  ;  (3)  ad  nativum  Novi  Foideris  stylum 
recte  intelligendum ;  (4)  ad  Gra»cos  Latinosque 
patres  rite  tractandos ;  (5)  ad  scientiam  denique 
lingnse  Griecie  ipsamque  criticen  adornandnm : 
quis  cam  doctis  omnibus,  pra'sertim  theologis  non 
videt  esse  commendatissimam  ? '  t 

•  (The  identification  of  Sepharvaim  with  Sippar,  which  has  the 
weighty  support  of  Schrader  (KA  'Vi  279  [COT  i.  '271  f.l),  bos  been 
challenged  by  Haliivy  {ZA  li.  401  ff.),  who  would  identify  it 
with  Stinbarain,  a  place  subdued  by  Shaluianeser  iv.  (B.c.  727- 
722).  llaltjvy  suggests  that  the  same  place  is  meant  by  the 
SniBRAlu  of  Ezk  47'*t.  See,  further,  the  Conim.  of  Bertholet  or 
Kittel  on  KingH,  and  of  Dillm.-Kittel  on  Isaiah,  ad  toco, — Kd.]. 

t  The  preface  of  his  edition  has  been  frequently  repeated — 
l(W:i,  1094.  1707,  1730,  1831,  1843;  at  last  scnarately,  Cambr. 
11*66,  cum  notulis  Ed.  Cburton  (by  Prof.  W.  Selwyn). 

I  Comp.  in  8w.  chs.  2-5  of  part  iii.  on  the  Literary  use  and 
Value  of  the  hXX,  p.  433:  ^No  question  can  arise  as  to  the 
greatness  of  the  place  occupied  i)y  the  Alexandrian  version 
in  the  religious  life  of  the  first  six  centuries  of  its  history.  The 
LX.\  was  the  Bible  of  the  Hellenistic  Jew,  not  only  in  Egypt 
and  Palestine,  but  throuj^hout  Western  Asia  and  Kurope.  It 
created  a  language  of  religion  which  lent  itself  readily  to  the 
service  of  Christianity,  and  became  one  of  the  most  important 
allies  of  the  gospel.  It  provided  the  Orcrk-spealtlng  Church 
with  an  authorized  translation  of  the  OT.  and,  when  OhristiAn 
missions  a<lvaiiced  beyond  the  limits  of  liclleni'jm,  it  served  ai 
a  basis  for  fresh  translations  into  the  vernacular. 

'The  LXX  has  long  ceased  to  fulfil  these  or  any  similar 
functions.  ...  On  the  other  hand,  this  most  ancient  of  Biblical 
versions  possesses  a  new  and  increasing  imporumce  in  the  field 
of  Biblical  study.    It  is  seen  to  be  valuable  alike  to  the  textual 


438 


SEPTUAGINT 


SEPTUAGINT 


ii.  Name. — The  name  'Septuagint'  is  shortened 
from  secundum  or  iuxta  Septuaginta  {interpntes  or 
seniorex),  and  is  based  on  tlie  legend  that  the 
translation  of  the  OT  from  Hebrew  into  Greek 
was  made  by  seventj',  or  more  exactly  seventy-two, 
elders  or  scholars,  whom  king  Ptolemy  Philadel- 
pliiis,  by  the  advice  of  his  librarian  Demetrius 
Phalereus,  sent  for  for  this  purpose,  from  the  high 
priest  Eleazar  of  Jerusalem. 

Martc  Twe  ifiiitfi7ix49Tm  stands  in  the  subscription  to  Genesis  in 
Codex  B ;  irapat  i^tf(jLt»;*«yT«  stands  at  the  end  of  Proverbs  in  C  ; 
ii  TMt  il3iofcKiuiiTet  txeteti  in  the  note  of  (^  before  Isaiah  ;  >-,  tu»  e 
tor  op')  ipfjtyittJtA  (or  ixio^t!),  and  shorler  oS  «'  (or  «^),  became 
a  common  expression,  especially  subsequent  to  the  labours  of 
Origen  in  textual  criticism  (ad  A/ricanurn,  §  5,  t^v  iptxytn'^a* 
TMy  i$iiu.r.3uiiTx  ;  in  ill.  XV.  14,  rracpii  roif  c) ;  see  Hexapla,  ed. 
Field,  i.  p.  xlviii  B. ;  and  the  '  testimouia '  at  the  end  of  Wend- 
land's  edition  of  Ari^teas. 

Augustine  [de  Civit.  Dei,  xviii.  42  =  Eugippius, 
p.  1018,  Knoell)  writes:  'post  Ule  (Philadelphus) 
etiam  interpretes  postulavit :  et  dati  sunt  septua- 
ginta duo,  de  singulis  duodecim  tribubus  seni 
homines,  linguje  utriusqutj  doctissimi,  Hebrsese 
scilicet  atque  Grajcje,  quorum  interpretatio  ut 
Septuaginta  vorctur,  iam  obtinuit  consuetudo.' 
Where  and  when  the  word  'Septuagint'  first 
makes  its  appearance  in  English  we  cannot  tell.* 
On  title-pages  of  editions  it  occurs  subsequent  to 
the  editio  Sixtina  of  1587:  n  iraXaia  SiaOriKT]  Kara. 
Tovs  ((i5oiJ.-r}KovTa,  Vetus  Testamentum  iuxta  Sep- 
tiKigiiita  (in  the  reprint  of  Paris,  1G28 :  secundum 
LA'X).  Tlie  London  reprint  of  1653  adds  Inter- 
prelum,  writing  ex  verHune  Septiutginta  Interpre- 
tum ;  and  this  has  been  retained  in  all  following 
reprints. 

An  edition  of  Bagster  (1821)  is  entitled,  sfcundum  Septua- 
ginta Seniorum  iiUertrrctationein  (  =  lren;eu9,  lii.  xxi.  2,  i^httu.^- 
*fl*T«  vptff^i,Ttpot,  in  L.atin  septuaginta  setiiores).i  The  English 
form  'Septuagint'  occurs  in  the  title  of  an  edition  of  Bagater, 
as  well  as  in  that  of  the  Cambridge  edition  of  Swete  (The  OT 
in  Greek  according  to  the  Septrutgint),  and  the  great  Oxford 
Concordance  of  iiat<:h-Redpath  (A  tjoncordance  to  the  Sep- 
tuagint  and  the  other  Greet:  Versions),  The  Dictionnaire  tie 
VAcadimie  Fran^aise^f  gives  only  the  plural,  Les  Septante, 
la  vertian  del  Septante,  la  traduction  da  SeplaiUe-t 

In  English  as  in  German  it  became  common  to 
use    the   word   as  singular,   supplying   '  version,' 

critic  and  to  the  expositor,  and  it«  serviceB  are  welcomed  by 
students  both  of  the  Old  Test,  and  of  the  New." 

From  this  point  of  view,  Prof.  Ferd.  Hitzig  of  Heidelberg, 
one  of  the  acutest  commentators  on  the  OT,  used  to  open  his 
academical  courses  on  OT  exegesis  with  the  question  to  his 
students:  'Gentlemen,  have  you  a  Septuagint?  If  not,  sell 
whatever  you  have,  and  buy  a  Septviagint.' 

Even  the  student  of  early  English  cannot  succeed  without  a 
knowledge  of  it.  When  he  reads  in  king  Aelfred  the  word  to  the 
serpent  (Gn  31-*),  'on  dinre  wauibe  07id  on  dinum  brei'ntuiii  du 
Bcealt  snican,*  he  ought  to  know  that  the  words  in  italio  go 
back  through  the  medium  of  the  Old  Latin  Bible  to  the  LXK, 
and  that  it  is  therefore  out  of  place  to  print  beside  them  the 
Latin  Vulgate  of  Jerome,  wliich  rest*  on  the  Hebrew,  as  has 
been  done  by  A.  S.  Cook,  Biblical  Quotations  in  Old  Ewjlish 
Prose  Writers  (Lond.  1898 ;  cf.  the  notice  of  Max  Foerster  in 
Knglinc-he  Studign,  xxviii.  p.  421).  The  English  Church  retained 
BubsLantially  the  LXX  in  the  Prayer-Book  version  of  the  Psalms 
and  in  her  Liturgy. — No  words  of  praise  are  spared  by  E.  W. 
Orinflel<J(^po;o<7)/):  he  calls  the  LXX  the  viaduct  between  the 
OT  and  NT,  the  vestibule  of  the  Christian  Church,  the  first 
interpreter  of  the  OT  and  the  sole  canonical  of  the  NT,  the 
bond  of  union  between  Jews  and  Gentiles,  the  morning  star 
before  the  sun  of  righteousness,  the  ke.v  of  the  8.acred  trcasur>', 
the  light  of  the  Alexandrian  Pharos,  the  sacred  amalgam ;  he 
who  studirs  the  L.\.\  is  declared  to  be  in  no  danger  of  falling 
into  neologj*  (p.  173).  Grinfield  also  riyhtly  refers  to  the  intro- 
duction of  ita  study  by  .Vlaltby  at  Durham,  .\rnold  at  Rugby ; 
to  its  recommendation  by  great  philologists  like  Valckenaer, 
Ueinsius  (Vot  exeinplaria  graca,  etc). 

•  On  book  titles  cf.  W.  Wall,  The  Ute  of  the  Septuagint 
Translation,  1730  ;  Charles  Hayes,  A  Vindication  of  the  History 
of  the  Septuagint,  1736 ;  Letters  to  a  Friend  conceniijuj  the 
Septuagint,  1769;  H.  Owen,  An  Enquiry  into  the  Present  State 
of  the  Septuagint  Version  of  the  OT,  17(J9.  OrmQe\d  (Apologt/, 
p.  157)  usee  the  adjective  '  Septuagintal  MSS,'  and  calls  Bp. 
Pearson  (p.  177)  '  the  best  Septuagintalist.' 

t  The  adjective  'sept\iagintaviralis'  we  have  found  In  titles 
of  dissertations  aince  lti.11,  1706,  etc. 

:  In  Italian, '  L&  Vcrsione  de'  Settaota,* '  t  Sett&Dtft. 


'  Ubersetzung,'  *  though  of  course  the  plural  is  also 
used,  especially  when  Septuaginta  is  translated 
into  the  vernacular,  'the  Seventy,'  'die  Siebenzig.' 
Many  scholars  now  prefer  '  tlie  Alexandrian '  or 
'  the  Greek  version  of  the  OT,'  or  '  the  OT  in 
Greek.'  We  retain  here  the  familiar  name  'Sep- 
tuagint,' for  which  'LXX'  has  been  hitherto  the 
usual  abbreviation,  but  for  which  the  modem 
sign  ffi  t  is  still  more  convenient. 

A  frequent  designation  among  the  old  Greek 
WTiters  was  also  i)  Koifii  iKOocnt,  or  merely  ij  xoin), 
'  the  common,  the  Vulgate  edition,'  in  contradis- 
tinction to  the  Hebrew  text  and  the  later  Greek 
versions ;  cf.,  for  instance,  Basil,  i.  447  D,  on  Is 
2--  fV  rots  dvTtyp(i(pots  rijs  koiptjs  iKbbaeoi^  oxi  KilroA 
raura,  dXV  iy  t<^  'E^patKy  Kci^j-evov  4k  twv  Aoiirdw 
lj.(T(KoixLir6rt.  In  the  writings  of  Jerome  i]  Koirq  has 
a  more  definite  signification  assigned  to  it,  on 
wliich  see  p.  445''.  Other  designations  are :  ^ 
iKKXriaiaoTiK^  ^/cSoffis  (Gregory  of  TAys&a.,,in  Psalm.  8) ; 
Td  dirriypa<pa  ttjs  iKKXricrias  (Origen) ;  rd  Tifurepa 
dirrlypaipa  (Eusebius,  in  Psalm,  ed.  Mai,  591). 

iii.  Origin  and  History  of  the  legend.— 
The  story  that  there  were  seventy  (or  ratlier 
seventy-two)  translators  was  first  told  by  Aristeas, 
who  claims  to  have  been  one  of  the  ambassadors 
sent  by  Philadelphus  to  the  high  priest  Eleazar 
of  Jerusalem,  to  ask  from  him  the  copy  of  the  Law 
and  the  men  to  translate  it. 

This  interesting  piece  of  literature  was  pub- 
lislied  first  in  Latin  in  the  famous  Roman  Bible 
of  Suueynheym  and  Pannartz  (1471,  fol.),  reprinted 
at  Nurnberg,  1475 ;  separately  at  Erfurt,  14S3. 
The  editio  princeps  oi  the  Greek  text  was  prepared 
by  Simon  Schard,  printed  at  Basle  1561  ;  subse- 
quent editions,  1610,  1691,  1692,  1705  (Hody),  1849 
(Oikonomos),  1869  (Moritz  Sclimidt  in  Merx, 
Archiv,  i.) ;  all  superseded  by  that  of  Mendelssohn- 
Wendland  (Aruitem  ad  PhUocratem  epistvla  .  . 
Lipsiie,  Teubner,  1900),  and  that  of  H.  St.  J. 
Th.ackeray  in  the  Appendix  to  Swete's  Introduction 
to  the  OT  in  Greek  (Cambridge,  1900).  L.  Men- 
delssohn had  begun  to  add  a  commentary,  only  a 
part  of  which  appeared  after  his  death,  edited  by 
M.  Kraschennikow,  Jurievi  (ol.  Dorpati),  1897. 
A  German  translation  (by  P.  Wendland)  opens  the 
second  volume  of  Die  Apokryphen  und  Pseudepi- 
qraphen  des  Alten  Testaments  icbersetzt.  .  ,  .  u. 
"herausgegeben  von  E.  Kautzsch  (Tiibingen,  1900, 
u.  1-31). 

Fresh  investigations  are  necessary ;  for  though 
it  is  now  generally  acknowledged  that  the  letter 
is  a  literary  fiction, — Constantine  Oikonomos  (irept 
Tuv  o'  fpfj.rjveuTOji'  ttjs  jraXotas  diadTjKTjs,  ^t^Xia  5', 
Athens,  1844-1849,  4  vols.;  cf.  also  E.  \V.  Grinlicld, 
An  Apology  for  the  Septuagint,  in  which  its  claims 
to  Biblical  and  Canonical  AutJiority  are  briefly 
stated  and  vindicated,  London,  1850)  is  the  last 
defender  of  its  genuineness,  —  scholars  disagree 
entirely  about  its  date  and  value.  E.  Schiirer 
places  it  not  later  than  c.  200  B.C.  ;  Herriot  (on 
Philo),  c.  170-150;  Wendland,  between  96  and  93, 
nearer  to  96;  L.  Cohn  (Neue  Jahrbiicher  fur  d'ts 
klass.  Altert.  i.  (1898)  52111".)  doubts  whether  it 
was  used  by  Philo  ;  H.  Willrich  {Judaica,  Gottin- 
gen,  1900,  pp.  111-130)  brings  its  composition  down 
to  '  later  than  A.D.  33.' 

Strange,  above  all,   are  the  varieties  of  form 

•  At  one  time  It  was  common  in  German  to  speak  of  the  '  70 
Dollmetscher * ;  cf.  J.  D.  Michaelis,  Programina  wuriune  er  row 
seinen  CoUcgiii  iiber  die  70  Dollmetscher  Sachri^it  gi<bt  (Gott 
1787);  the  translation  of  Owen's  Enquiry  (Untersuchui^  del 
grgeiiwdrtigen  Beschat^enheit  der  70  Dollmetscher,  1772).  Less- 
iiig  seems  to  have  formed  the  noun  'Siebziger'  (see  Grimm, 
Deutsclies  WSrterbuch,  x.  834) ;  in  Old  German  we  read  in  Isidore, 
7.  4,  in  dhero  siibunzo  trattunffum  =  '  in  translatione  LXX.' 

t  It  is  strange  that  Lie.  Kabisch  (Religinnjibuch,  i.,  Gottingen 
1900,  p.  2)  finds  the  sense  of  the  name  obscure,  and  thinks  of 
connecting  it  with  the  legend  ol  the  70  bidden  (or  apocryphal' 
books  in  1  Ezra  (2  Ksdras). 


SEPTUAGIXT 


SEPTUAGmT 


439 


wliiuli  the  story  assumes  in  the  writings  of  Epi- 
plianius,  tlioiiyli  he  refers  lo  Aristeas  as  his 
authority.  He  ni;ikes  the  number  of  books  in 
the  Alexandrian  Library  '54,SOO  xXeicj  i)  iXaaaui,' 
Aristeas  '  more  than  20  niyriails ' ;  he  lias  two 
letters  of  Philadelphus,  and  in  one  of  them  the 
saj'iiig  from  Sir  2ir*  •11"  Orfaavpou  KfKpvfifUfou  koI 
wrjyTJs  ia(ppa,yiciUvy)s  rii  un/>^\tta  ^y  d/xtporipoii.  He 
alone,  and  that  onlj'  in  the  Syriac  text  as  first 
published  by  Lagarde  {Si/mmicta,  ii.  HSU'.),  states 
that  it  was  '  the  sevuuth  year  of  Philadelphus, 
wore  or  less,'  when  the  translation  took  j)lace. 
He  makes  the  translators  work  by  pairs  in  36 
diderent  cells,  and  originated  the  statement,  re- 
peated as  late  as  15S7  in  the  preface  to  the  Sixtina, 
that  this  happened  '  trecentis  uuo  plus  annis  ante 
C'liristi  adventum'  (cf.  Sw.  p.  176;  Wendland, 
153,  159;  Nestle,  Sst.  i.  12).  Driieseke  believed 
that  Epiphauius  drew  from  the  lost  chronicle 
of  Justus  of  Tiberias,  and  that  Augustine  was 
lejiendent  on  Epiphanius ;  but  this  has  been 
rctuted  by  Wendlaiid  {liheiniscltes  Museum  56,  1. 
11211.).  On  the  use  made  of  this  story  by  Fhilo, 
Josephus,  and  the  ecclesiastical  writers  see  8w. 
12-17,  and  especially  the  'testimonia'  in  Wend- 
land's  edition,  pp.  85-166.*  That  the  number  70 
and  the  legend  of  their  wonderful  harmony  may 
be  due  to  Ex  24",  where  (E  reads  koX  rCm  itriXiK- 
Ttav  Tov  *\(jpari\  ov5^  Sic^uvT^frcv  ov5^  eis,  was  first 
pointed  out  by  Daniel  Ueinsius  in  the  Aristarckus 
sacer,  ch.  10. 

As  the  year  in  whicli  the  translation  originated, 
other  ecclesiastical  writers  give  the  2nd,  17th,  19lh, 
or  20th  year  of  I'hiladelphus ;  in  the  Chronicle  of 
Eu.sebius  the  MSSvary  between  the  years  1734, 1735, 
1736,  or  1737  of  Abraham  (see  Walton's  Prolego- 
iiieua).  As  therffiy,  the  Jews  name  the  8th  of  Tebet; 
according  to  the  letter  of  Aristeas  the  arrival  of 
the  interpreters  coincided  with  the  day  of  a  great 
naval  victory  of  Philadelphus  in  the  war  against 
Antigonus,  and  was  ordered  to  be  celebrated  for 
ever.  liabbiuical  Jews  called  that  day  the  fast  of 
darkness,  for  they  re^'arded  this  translation  as  a 
national  disaster,  *  like  the  daj'  on  which  the 
golden  calf  was  made'  (see  D.  S.  Maigoliouth, 
'  The  Calendar  of  the  Synagogue,'  in  the  Erpu.sUor, 
Nov.  1900,  p.  348  f.).  Philo  relates  that  in  his 
time  the  Jews  of  Alexandria  kept  an  annual 
festival,  Tb  x^piov  trep.i'vi'ovi'rss,  iv  t^  TrputTov  to  ttJi 
iplirineias  iii\ap.\p€  /coi  iraXaiac  ivcKiv  evfpyeaias  iel 
yca^oOarii  euxapiaTT^aafTts  t<^  Beip.  He  knows  that 
the  interpreters,  before  they  began,  asked  God's 
blessing  on  this  undertaking,  6  5'  iTnfiOa  raU  evxah 
Iva  TO  -rrXclov  f|  xal  t6  cru'jiirav  y^vo9  tui'  avOpwirwy 

•  That  the  predervatioti  of  Aristeas  goes  back  to  the  library 
of  Cu-uurea  has  been  Bu^jgewtcd  liy  Weiuiland.  It  may  have 
hhii  a  place  in  one  of  the  Bible  XISS  issued  by  Eiisebius  and 
FainphiluM.— Add  to  the  '  testimonia '  collected  by  MendelaHobn- 
Wendland  the  strant,'u  statement  from  pscndo-KuHcbiu!!  on 
the  .Star  (publ.  by  W.  Wright  in  Jouni.  uj  Sacred  Literature^ 
ISCit,  vol  ix.  117,  X.  150),  that  the  version  was  made  under  a 
king  didido-ih[S]  (  =  Artaxerxe«?);  and  the  notice,  translated 
from  Greek  into  Syriac  at  the  end  of  the  Fourth  Book  of  Kinpi 
in  the  Syro-Ilexapla,  that  the  men  came  from  Tiberiat  {OriffenU 
froiimenta,  ed.  Lagarde,  3.')6 ;  BMujlUcca  Synaca,  264).  Cf. 
further  the  notice  of  F.  Nau  on  '  Fragments  d'une  chronique 
Syriaque  Maronite' (/{«ru«  de  [Orient  Chrtlien,  iv.  (18MJ  318), 
In  which  the  names  are  given  of  the  72  translators  who  pro- 
duced 3tl  identical  versions.  Nau  has  not  printed  ttie  nameSL 
See  on  the  names  :  7'As  Hook  of  the  Bee,  by  Salomo  of  llasra,  ed. 
by  A.  WalliH  Budge  (Anealnfa  OxfmienJtia,  Semitic  Series,  vol.  i. 
part  ii.,  Oxt.  1S8I),  4'  p.  li!Of.).  The  last  but  one  of  the  inter- 
preters has  the  strange  name  'Aa-itiM  in  the  Greek  text,  Dia'3K 
ill  one  of  the  .Syriac  lists.  Ahhih/ii  in  another.  It  this  stands  for 
the  I  Jitiii  name  A  vitue,  the  list  would  be  late.  But  this  identi- 
hcAtion  is  ratiier  uncertain.  An  Arabic  chronicle  combines  the 
two  tlgiires  72  and  70  by  the  supposition  that  two  of  the  inter- 
preUTs  died  on  the  way.  On  the  Jemnh  notices  about  the 
origin  of  the  version  and  its  (^13)  deviations  from  the  Hebrew 
text,  see  the  literature  quoted  in  Vrt.  p.  (i3,  and  by  Oikonomos, 
11.  filkS,  lil.  43.  Zosiraus  l'ano|>olitanua  {de  Zythorum  coi\fectume. 
ed.  tininer,  1814,  p.  6)  relates  that  .Simon  the  high  priest  of 
Jerusalem  sent  to  Ptolemy  La^, '  Ei>u«t*.  u  ^^^r.riMri  wkwmt  rq« 
Uwuia  iUnorr,  aai  <><>vrTirT<  (UikODOmos,  IL  328)l 


Kal  irayKciXois  OiardypiaiTi. 

This  aspiration  was  fullilled  when  the  work 
became  one  of  the  chief  aids  to  the  spread  of 
Christianity.  As  this  was  at  the  same  time  the 
first  attempt  made  on  a  larger  scale,  in  the  domain 
of  Grajco- Roman  or  Mediterranean  culture,  to 
translate  a  literary  work  from  one  language  into 
another,  it  is  the  more  interesting  to  ask  w  hether 
this  attempt,  as  the  above  story  relates,  was  due 
to  the  literary  interest  felt  by  a  bibliophile  king — 
<pi\6Ka\os  Kal  <pi\6\oyos,  as  he  is  styled  by  Epiph- 
anius * — or  to  the  wants  of  a  religious  community. 
The  latter  view  now  generally  prevails  (cf.  Wend- 
land  in  Kautzsch,  P.cui/epigrciphen,  ii.  1;  ZNTWi. 
268).  A  third  view  is,  that  tlie  undertaking  was 
intended  as  an  aid  to  Jewish  propagandism.  This 
explanation  may  tiiid  some  support  in  the  words 
of  Philo  (who  expresses  the  hope  that  these  laws 
will  obscure  those  of  the  other  nations,  as  the 
rising  sun  obscures  the  stars),  and  in  the  very 
first  document  which  speaks  of  (E,  namely  the  pro- 
logue of  the  Bk.  of  Sirach  (compare  the  whole, 
especially  dXXd  koX  rots  ^ktos  buvao$ax  royy  0tXo/xa- 
douvTas  xpTjalp.ous  chai  Kai  Xiyovras  Kal  ypd^ovTas). 

This  last  passage  is  also  the  first  to  speak  of  all 
three  parts  of  the  Hebrew  Bible  [I'ip.os,  tt po<t>ffTai, 
Kal  TO,  axXa  viTpia.  pi^Xla)  as  already  extant  in 
Greek ;  Aristeas,  Philo,  and  Josephus  restrict 
their  language  to  the  Law,  a  fact  to  which  Jerome 
emphatically  called  attention.  H  the  LXX  version 
was  due  to  the  wants  of  the  synagogue,  it  is  all 
but  certain  that  the  Torah  was  the  first  part  trans- 
lated. How  soon  and  in  what  order  the  ether 
parts  of  the  OT  were  overtaken  is  not  made  out ; 
nor  has  even  the  question  how  many  dill'erent 
hands  may  be  distinguished  in  the  present  collec- 
tion yet  been  sutficiently  investigated.  Two  books 
only  contain  a  notice  bearing  on  this  point. 

{I)  Ejithcr  (see  Jacob,  ZATIV,  IS'JO,  241  ff.  ; 
Willrich,  Judaica,  Giilt.  1900,  211'.  ;  art.  ESTUER, 
vol.  i.  744).  Willrich  tliinks  that  the  fourth  year 
of  Ptolemy  and  Cleopatra,  in  which  a  priest  and 
Levite,  Dositheus  and  his  sou  Ptolemy,  are  said  to 
have  brought  ttiv  TrpoK€ifj.ivTjv  itriaToX^v  i^v  ^(poAraf 
thai  Kal  ipp,rivevK4vax  Avaip-axov  llroXc/xalov  tCiv  iv 
'ItpovaaXiiix  (Est  H'),  was  not  that  of  Philometor 
(B.C.  166-165)  nor  of  Soter  II.  (B.C.  114),  but  that 
of  Ptolemy  XIV.  (B.C.  48-47);  but  this  seems  very 
doubtful. 

(2)  The  second  note,  which  is  equally  obscure, 
stands  at  the  end  of  Job  (in  Cod.  A  even  twice, 
with  strange  variations) :  oOtos  ipixr)yeieTai  ix  n^s 
XvpiaKTii  /3i/iXou  (cf.  art.  JOB,  vol.  ii.  660,  where  it 
is  translated,  '  this  man  is  described  in  the  Syrian 
book  as  living,'  etc.). 

In  accordance  with  the  usage  of  the  ancienc 
Church,  we  include  in  this  article  not  only  those 
books,  the  original  of  which  was  or  is  in  the  Hebrew 
Bible,  but  also  those  which  were  originally  written 
in  Greek,  as  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon,  or  not 
received  into  all  MSS  or  editions,  as  the  Prayer 
of  Miinasses.  In  an  appendix  we  shall  refer  briefly 
to  similar  literary  productions,  as  the  Psalms  of 
Solomon,  the  Bk.  of  Enoch,  and  other  '  Pseudepi- 
grapha '  (see  p.  450''). 

As  (5  was  the  Bible  of  the  Early  Church,  it  has 
a  most  intricate  and  complicated  history  ;  it  seems 
practical  to  begin  with  the  history  of  the  printed 
text,  and  to  work  our  way  backward  as  far  as 
possible. 

iv.  Printed  Editions.— Long  before  the  first 
edition  of  the  New  Testament  in  Greek  ujipeared 
in  print,  a  Greek  and  Latin  Psalter  was  printed  in 
Milan  as  first  part  of  IS  (20tli  Sept.  1481),  contain- 
ing among  the  Canticles  at  its  end  the  Magnificat 

*  On  the  notlc«  of  Aristobulus  (Clement  Alex.  Strvm^  L  £2 
Euseb.  I'Tap.  Bv.  U.  Ii),  sev  t>otaurer>,  111.  3lU-8»i. 


440 


SEPTUAGIXT 


SEPTUAGINT 


and  Benedictus  from  Lk  I'"-*'.  On  the  following 
editions  of  the  Greek  Psalms  (Venice,  14S6  ;  Aldus 
[without  date,  c.  1407] ;  the  Polyglot  Psalters  of 
Justiniani,  Genua,  1516,  and  Potken,  Cologne, 
151S),  see  SU.  hi.  7.  30-3:2.  The  first  complete 
edition  was  the  Compliite.nsinn  Poh/qlot  of  Cardinal 
Ximenes  (1514-17  ;  the  OT  linishe^lOth  July  1517), 
in  wliicli  the  Latin  Vulgate  is  placed  between 
the  Hebrew  on  the  left  and  (5  on  the  right, 
'tanqunni.  duos  hi.ic  et  inde  latrones,  medium 
autem  Jesum.' 

See  on  it  Sw.  p.  171 :  Nestle,  hitrod.  to  Textual  Criticism  of 
NTt  p.  1.  On  the  '  Spanish  (.;reeU  '  of  this  liilile,  i.e.  the  places 
in  which  the  editors  translated  paasaq^es  niissintr  in  their  Oreelt 
JISS  for  themselves  into  La,  in,  see  urt.  64,  and  Field's  edition 
of  1859,  Append.  ;  Ceriani  on  Cod.  Marolmiianus,  Ezk  33^7. 

Its  text — best  signature  c — rests  chiefly  on  the 
MSS  lent  bj  the  Vaticiin,  Ho  108,  248,*  and  a 
copy  of  the  Venice  MS  Ho  68. 

The  Gomplutensian  was  repiinted  (1)  by  Arias  Montanus  in 
the  Antwerp  Polyglot  of  Pluntin,  1569-72 ;  (2)  in  Wolder's 
Polyplot,  Hambury,  159C ;  and  (3)  in  the  greatest  of  all,  that 
of  Michel  le  Jay,  Pahs,  1645.  On  (1)  and  (3)  see  Nestle, 
Jntrod.  lot 

The  second  great  Greek  Bible  was  that  of  Aldus 
Manutius  and  his  father-in-law  Andreas  Asolanus 
(1518,  mense  Februario), — signature  a, — based,  as 
the  editor  states,  '  multis  vetustissimis  exemplari- 
bns  collatis ' ;  as  far  as  is  a.scertained  as  yet,  on  the 
Venice  MSS  29,  68,  121.  An  interesting  commen- 
tary on  this  edition  i-  Steuchi  Augustini  Eugubini, 
VT  ad  Hib.  veritatem  coUata  editiune  Septuaginta 
interprete,  Ven.  1529,  4°. 

This  wag  reprinted  (1)  1529  by  Joh.  Loniccrus,  Strassbcrg,  in 

the  Lutheran  order,  with  the  addition  of  4  Mac.  [Ed.  Pr.]  and 
various  readings  from  Ho  44  ;  (2)  1645,  at  Basle,  with  Preface  of 
Melanchthon,  various  readings  and  restoration  of  the  common 
order  in  Proverbs  and  Sirach ;  (3)  1650,  at  Basle ;  (4)  in  the 
Heidelberg  Polyglot  'in  orticina  Santandreana,'  edited  bv  B.  C. 
Bertram,  16SlliJ7  (new  title-pages,  l.i99,  1616);  (5)  1597,  by 
Franciscus  Junius  (du  Jon  ;  others  say  Fr.  Sylburg),  with  altera- 
tions from  c,  and  useful  notes,  the  basis  of  the  Concordance  of 
Trommius  ;  (6)  16S7,  by  Nic.  Glykas,  Venice. 

The  third  and  best  edition  was  that  printed  at 
Rome,  1586  (most  copies  by  pen,  1587  ;  signature 
6),  'auctoritate  Sixti  V.  Pont.  Max.,'  ba.sed  chiefly 
on  the  Codex  Vatieanus  Kar  i^oxn"  (1209  =  HolI., 
now  B),  but  making  use  of  the  preceding  editions, 
o  c  1526,  1545,  1572,  and  of  the  MSS  Ho  16,  23,  51. 

The  prefatorj'  matter  is  reprinted  (partially)  by 
Breitinger,  Tischendorf,  and  others,  and  recently  by 
Swet«,  Introd.  Useful  are  the  '  Scholia '  at  the  end 
of  most  chapters  from  the  other  Greek  versions, 
and  the  Church  Fathers ;  and  an  important  com- 
plement is  the  Latin  translation,  published  1588, 
patched  up  by  Flaminius  Nobilius  (and  others) 
from  the  fragments  of  the  Old  Latin  (vol.  iii.  53'), 
with  additional  Notes  to  the  Greek  Text. 

Reprints  :  (1)  Paris,  1628,  by  Joh.  Morinus,  together  with  the 
Latin  of  Nobilius,  as  even  then  copies  were  rare  ;  (2)  1653, 
London,  R.  Daniel,  4*  and  8"  (and  Cambridge) ;  (3)  1657,  in  the 
London  Polyglot  of  Brian  Walton,  with  useful  additions  (colla- 
tions from  A  D  O,  Ho  60.  75),  and  valuable  Prolegomena,  the 
latter  reprinted  by  Wrangham,  Camb.  1828,  in  2  vols.  ;  (4)  1665, 
Cambridge,  with  the  line  Preface  of  J.  Pearson  (see  above) ;  (5) 
1683,  Amsterd.f  ;;  (6)  1607,  Lipsi»  (prepared  bv  Johannes 
Frick) ;  (7)  1709,  Fronekeno,  by  Bos,  source  of  many  reprints ; 
(8)  1725.  Amsterd.,  by  Mill  *  (facsimile  of  cod.  O  and  variants  col- 
lected by  Vossius,  Ho  13.3);  (9)  1730,  Lips.,  Reineccius*;  (10) 
1759-63,  Halio  •  ;  (11)  1798-1827,  Holmes-Parsons  (see  below) ; 
(12)  1805,  Oxford*,  3  vols.;  (13)  1817,  Oxford*,  0  vols.,  with 
Pref.  of  J.  G.  [not  B.,  as  on  the  title]  Carpzov,  and  variations 
from  A;  (14)  Londini  (without  date),  in  sedibus  Valpianis* 
(905  pp.);  (16)  1821,  Lond.,  Bagstert*  (very  small  print,  585 
pp.);  (16)  Ixind.,  Bagstert*  (without  date,  with  an  English 
translation,  1130  pp.) ;  (17)  1822,  Venice,  .Michel  Glykvs,  3  vols. 
(not  seen) ;  (18)  1824,  Lipsia),  van  Ess,*  and  often  ;  1887,  with 
Prolegomena  and  Epilegomena;  (19)  1831  (Olasgu»)t*;  1843, 
Londini,  Tegg  ;  two  very  small  vols.,  667,  703  pp.  f  •  ;  (20)  1839, 

•  On  this  designation  see  below. 

J  Editions  omitting  the  scholia  are  marked  *,  omitting  the 
Apocry-pha  t ;  no  edition  without  the  »^hoIia  is  to  be  recom- 
mended, because  they  supply  to  those  who  cannot  afford  to 
procure  Field's  Hexapta  a  minor  edition  of  the  latter. 


Paris,  Didot-Jager  *,  also  Greek  and  Latin ;  often ;  (21)  184(j* 
Oxford  *,  3  vols.;  1875,  improved  in  4  Mac.;  the  latter  ifprint  14 
the  basis  of  the  Concordance  of  Hatch-Redpath  ;  (22)  18.^0, 
LipsisB,  Tischendorf*,  8  80,  ^  87,  the  la-st  two  reprints  correctexi 
and  enlarged  by  collations  of  E.  Nestle ;  (23)  1874-76,  Londini, 
Bib/i'i  Uexagldtta  t*,  ed.  E.  R.  de  Levante ;  §  (24)  tht  latest 
Polyglot  advertised  from  Paris,  to  be  edited  by  F.  Vigouroux, 
printed  by  Didot,  published  by  Roger  &  Chemovitz,  has  nol 
been  seen  by  the  present  writer.  From  notices  in  the  periodi- 
cals (Vigouroux,  tUnieers,  4th  Nov.  189S;  F.  Nau,  Joum. 
Asiat.,  May-June  1899,  645  ff. ;  Fonck,  Zeilschri/t  /iir  Kath. 
Theol.  xxiii.  (1899)  174-lSO ;  P.  Th.  Calmes,  RB.  1900,  301,  302) 
it  is  apparent  that  it  is  only  a  mechanical  reprint  of  the  Greek 
column  in  the  Puh.nil'itttnbibel  ot  .Stier  and  Theile  (1847-66),  th« 
text  of  which  is  based  on  unsound  principles. 

A  merit  of  its  own  belongs  to  the  fourth  great 
edition  which  was  begun  by  Ernest  Grabe  (tl712), 
and  appeared  in  4  vols.  fol.  or  8  in  8°  at  the  Oxford 
University  Press,  only  the  first  (Octateuch),  1707, 
and  the  fourth  (Poetical  books),  1709,  during  his 
lifetime,  the  second  (Historical  books),  1719,  being 
linished  by  Fr.  Lee,  M.D.,  the  third  (Prophets), 
1720,  by  W.  Wigan,  D.D.,  '  ex  antiquissimo  codice 
Alexandrino  accurate  descriptum  et  ope  aliorum 
exemplarium  ac  jiriscorum  scriptorum  prsesertim 
vero  Hexaplaris  editionis  Origenian;e  emendatum 
atque  suppletum  additis  sa>pe  asteriscorum  et 
obelorum  signis,'  with  useful  Prolegomena. 

As  the  title  indicates,  Grabe  followed  a  twofold 
plan  :  (1)  to  represent  the  text  of  the  Codex  Alex- 
andrinus,  and  (2)  to  make  his  text  at  the  same 
time  correspond  with  the  Hebrew  text.  This  he 
accomplished  by  the  use  of  smaller  type  for  the 
changed  and  supplemented  passages,  placing  the 
readings  of  the  Codex  in  the  margins,  and  insert- 
ing the  critical  signs  of  Origen. 

Grabe's  text  was  repeated  (1)  by  Breitinger,  Turici,  4  vols.  4", 
1730-32,  compared  with  the  Vatican ;  (2)  by  Reineccius  in  the 
Biblia  quadnlingtda,  1750, 1751  ;  (3)  in  a  Bible  issued  by  the  Holy 
Synod  of  Russia  (Moscow,  1S21),  but  without  any  attention  to 
the  meaning  of  the  additions  in  small  type,  to  the  marginal 
readings  and  the  critical  signs,  thus  completely  spoiling  the 
work  ;  and  this  is  circulated  dj"  it/XA>-«x;  t^  kyi^ni-ntt  i,6iHev9xf 

ffvveiov  )r««-w,  rit  'Paxrtf'iar,  as  rcL^ctjet  [^i^dr.itY,]  Kargt  Tei/{  i^ia- 
/A^zovTx  IK  r«u  if   b1o»   ti   ctxpiSSif  ixioiii^Tot   aipx»*Bu   'AAt{tz»d;>i*oir 

Xtip'^PBt^t  and  was  repeated,  as  the  title  states,  (4)  iz  r«t/  jr 
^XoffX^  •  •  '  ixTt/^utiirrai  etpx^^f*  ' AXli»tipi*ou  K^i^xei,  in  an 
edition  of  4  vols,  printea  at  Athens,  ia-ratn  w  •»  'Ayy\.m 
irttipioLi  T->j:  Tpi;  iiaooffiw  T^c  XptfTixvfx^t  Titiiuxe  (1843,  46,  49, 
50),  The  5th  edition,  based  on  Grabe,  is  that  which  Fr.  Field 
prepared  for  the  same  Society  at  Oxford,  1859,  avoiding  as 
much  as  possible  the  faults  inherent  in  the  conditions  of  the 
task  enjoined  on  him  :  see  his  preface,  and  Lag.  .S,Sf.  i.  5-8. 

The  result,  so  far,  is,  that  we  have  up  to  the 
present  day  not  a  single  edition  of  G  based  upon 
sound  critical  principles ;  for  even  the  two  editions 
which  remain  to  be  mentioned  have  not  yet  at- 
tained this  end.  These  two  editions  we  owe  to 
the  two  great  universities  of  England — the  Vetut 
Testamenttim  Grcecum  cum  variU  Lectionibus,  ed. 
Robertus  Holmes  (  .  .  .  editionem  a  R.  H.  incho- 
atara  continuavit  Jacobus  Parsons),  Oxonii,  1798- 
1827,  5  vols.  fol.  ;  and  TKe  Old  Testament  in 
Greek  according  to  the  Septuagint,  edited  for  the 
Svndics  of  the  University  Press  by  H.  B.  Swete 
((Cambridge,  1887-94,21895-99,  3  vols.  8°). 

As  early  as  1779,  Joseph  White  published  a  letter  to  the 
Bishop  of  London,  suggesting  a  plan  for  a  new  edition  of  the 
L.\X.  In  1788  R.  Holmes  appealed  to  the  hberality  of  publio 
bodies  and  private  persons,  and  obtained  such  a  response  as 
enabled  him  to  procure  collations  from  all  parts  of  Europe. 
On  the  history  of  this  edition,  see  an  appreciative  article  in 
the  Church  tjuartertj/  Review,  April  1899,  lu2fT.,  and  Sw.  184 fl. 
It  was  the  greatest  attempt  ever  made  to  bring  together  a 
critical  apparatus  ;  the  list  of  MSS  at  the  end  of  vol.  v.  number* 
811.  Of  Versions  used  were  those  in  Arabic  (several),  Armenian, 
Bohemian,  Coptic,  Ethiopic,  Georgian,  Latin,  Slavonic.  Syriac: 
further,  the  quotations  of  the  ancient  writers  from  philo  and 
Josephus  downwards.  In  spite  of  some  points  in  the  plan  and 
in  the  execution  of  the  work,  which  are  open  to  criticism,  it  \m 
a  unique  monument  of  the  love  to  learning  of  the  editor  and  his 
nation,  and  remains  a  storehouse  of  materials,  indispensable  to 


S  The  edition  London,  1837  (ex  editione  Holmesii  et  Lambertl 
Bos,  in  2  vols.),  quoted  by  Sw.  182,  from  Urt.  67,  seem) 
identical  with  No.  19  ;  whether  the  date  1819  given  by  Urt.  67, 
8w.  182,  for  the  edition  of  Valpy  is  correct,  seems  doubtful ;  il 
is  taken  from  Gnesse's  Trisor,  where  editions  are  mentiotfwi, 
Glasgow  1822, 18'  (=No.  19),  and  London,  1827  (=Na  16  f> 


SEPTUAGIXT 


SEPTUAGINT 


441 


kD  who  hnve  to  do  with  the  OT  in  Oreek.*  The  work  as  sold 
at  present  ia  divided  into  5  vols.  *ol. :  1.  (Pent)  17RS,  H.  (Jos.- 
iChron.)  1810,  III.  (Ezra-Cant.)  1823,  IV.  (Propli.)  1S27,  V. 
(AiJOcr.)  16*27 ;  butitdoea  not  seera  to  have  been  puhli.sJied  in 
this  order  (see  Jac.  Amersfoordt,  De  variis  teclioiiihuA  llotm- 
etnawji  tnrnrum  quorundatn  Pentatexichi  Mosaici,  Lugd.  Bat. 
181S,  pi  45X 

The  text  in  the  work  is  a  reprint  of  b  ;  but,  aa 
it  seems,  after  a  copy  of  Bos,  corrected,  but  not 
evcrywliere  according  to  an  orifrinal  copy.  Its 
value  lie.s,  therefore,  e.^clusively  in  the  apparatus. 

The  advance  that  has  been  made  in  the  course 
of  the  19th  cent,  upon  the  work  of  Holmes- Parsons 
is  due,  on  the  one  hand,  to  the  discovery  of  new 
material.'* — for  instance,  the  Code.\  Sinaiticus — 
which  led  to  an  enriching  of  the  apparatus  ;  on  the 
other  hand,  to  greater  exactness  in  using  them, 
which  was  promoted  especially  by  the  progress 
made  in  the  reproduction  of  MSS  by  the  various 
methods  of  photography. 

Uf  both  advantages  use  was  made  in  the  Cam- 
bridge Sijptunijint  (Sw.  188-lilO).  The  text  is  no 
longer  that  of  b,  but  of  B  itself,  given  in  the  first 
ed.  after  tlie  so-called  (printed)  facsimile-edition  of 
Vercellone-Cozza,  revised  for  tlie  second  by  Dr. 
Nestle,  after  the  photograjdi  of  the  Codex.  In  the 
apparatus  the  variant.-*  are  given  of  such  uncial  MSS 
as  have  been  published  in  a  .similarly  trustworthy 
way ;  above  all  of  the  Codices  Alexandrinus,  Sinaiti- 
cus, Ambrosianus,  Marchalianus.  This  text  will  be 
repeated  in  the  larger  Cambridge  Scptuagint,  the 

i'oint  editorship  of  which  is  entrusted  to  A.  E. 
{rooke  and  N.  McLean.  Its  apparatus  will  em- 
brace the  evidence  of  all  uncial  MSS  and  of  a 
considerable  nuiiil)er  of  cursives  selected  after 
investigation,  with  the  view  of  representing  the 
dillerent  types  of  text ;  the  Old  Latin,  Egyptian, 
Syro-Hexaplar,  and  Armenian  versions;  and  the 
quotations  from  Philo,  Josephus,  and  tiie  more 
important  Christian  Fathers. 

It  is  clear  that  the  manual  and  even  the  larger 
edition  are  but  a  step  towards  the  ideal  of  a  truly 
critical  edition.  For  the  text  is  that  of  a  single 
MS  with  all  its  faults,  while  in  the  manual  edition 
the  grossest  blunders  are  corrected  only  occasion- 
ally {e.g.  Gu  6'-  ">  Xai^,IOS'  XtjO,  32'  S6et  for  valofs ; 
but  not,  for  instance,  36^'  'UpovaaX^/i  for  'lo-pa^X, 
37"*  iiTopivovTO  for  itrov-qpfvovTOf  etc.).  The  present 
wTitcr  cannot  but  repeat  his  wish  (.see  Proceedings 
of  the  9th  International  Oriental  Congress  held  in 
J-ondon,  ii.  (1892)  p.  5711.)  that  at  all  places  where 
the  text  of  the  MS,  and,  in  consequence,  of  the 
edition,  is  clearly  false,  the  better  readings  might 
be  placed  on  the  outer  margin. t  Tlius  the  ad- 
vantages of  Grabe's  plan  would  be  secured  and  its 
di.sad vantages  avoided  ;  we  should  get  at  the  same 
time  a  diplomatic  reproduction  of  the  MS,  and  a 
hint  as  to  the  true  reading.  The  Octatcmh,  form- 
ing the  first  volume  of  the  larger  edition,  may  be 
expected,  as  we  are  informed  (Sw.  189),  in  the 
course  of  a  few  years. 

Knnioss  of  sisoi.s  Books-.— A.  OAXoNioiL  Book*:— 
Genesis:— P«i<a(<uc/iu<  hebraici  el  grcece,  ed.  G.  A.  Schu- 
mann, Lips.  1829,  8*.  only  part  i.  (Genesis)  ;  GenfHf  firtecc  e  fide 
edilioniji  Sixtin/r  addita  ttcripturm  diicrepantia  e  librifi  manu 
teriptig  a  tte  coUatU  et  ediliitnibus  Compiutensi  et  Atdinaad- 
euratiMgim*  enotata,  ed.  P.  A.  do  La^arde,  Lips.  1808  (of  per- 
marient  vahic  tor  ita  Introduction  and  its  accuracy  ;  collations 
from  ADEFGS,  29,  81,  44,  122,  l:iO,  13.1,  abc). 

Joshaa: — Joauee  Imperatoris  Iluitoria  itluMrata  atmte  ex- 
p/^cato  ab  Andrea  Hasio,  Antv.  I.'i74,  tol.,  with  new  title-paf^e 
1G0»  (valuable  for  Ite  UitroduotioQ  and  Ita  use  of  the  Syro- 
Bexaplario  Version). 


*  Comp.  on  some  faults  in  the  new  edition  of  the  works  of 
Philo,  which  would  have  been  avoided  by  the  UTe  of  Holmes- 
Parsons,  PhU/jIofiujt,  11*00,  p.  260(1. :  or  Bee  Ulysse  Robert  in  bis 
Preface  to  the  Latin  Heptateuch  of  Lyon  (lOfJO,  p.  xxxiX 

f  To  quote  some  of  the  examples  pointed  out  in  the  paper 
mentioned — 

is  8^1  text  vivfiM,  which  is  nonsense,  for  r«rsz/>^*  Mdols*: 
1  Ea  4«>  min  for  .irfi ;  Ps  77  (78)80  ^yirrra,  for  lfimri>.< ;  Sir  7" 
271  421  «d(K^«^i>  fur  iioL^pw ;  Sir  10^  m^iru  for  Jir/n,,  etc 


Judges:— Z)«  graca  LXX  inferpretum  versume  Sj/nteMmtif 
J.  Usserii,  Lond.  iGS.*),  4',  in  Ussher'a  Works,  vol.  vii. ;  Libef 
Judicum  gee.  LXX  ititcrpreteti,  ed.  O.  F.  Fritische,  Turici.  I 
1867,  i' ;  P.  de  La^'ardc,  .S''i>tua(iinta.Sludien,  i.,  ISUl  (two  texts 
of  chs.  1-5):  ^^«  ^^"oi*  o/Jtul'jrs  in  Greek  accordinii  to  the  text 
of  Codex  Alexandrimts.  edited  ...  by  A.  E.  Brooke  and  N. 
McLean,  Camb.  1807.  On  a  promised  edition  see  Q.  F.  Moore 
in  the  '  Internat.  Crit.  Comin.'  on  Judneg,  p.  xlv. 

Ruth: — Bv  John  Drusius,  'ad exemplar  complutense,' Franek. 
1686,  8*,  1632,  «° ;  by  L.  Bos,  Jena,  1783,  'secundum  exemplar 
vaticanum.' 

Psalms :— The  Psalter  is  that  book  of  the  OT  which  wos  and 
is  most  used  in  the  Church,  e.spccially  in  the  Greek  Church. 
In  addition  to  the  32  editions  mentioned  in  Sw.  p.  102,  there 
have  come  to  the  knowledge  of  the  present  writer  editions  of 
1621,  Venice  (mentioned  by  Grabe,  Prol.  to  Psalms,  ch.  iii.  5  8, 
as  lent  to  liim  by  the  Bp.  of  V.\y ;  but  perhaps  this  may  be  a 
misprint  for  1524  ;  see  British  Museum  Catalogiu  of  Bibles, 
col.  800) ;  1525,  Venice ;  1,145,  4  editions  from  Basle,  Paris, 
Strassburc,  Venice;  1648,  Basle;  1684,  Antwerp;  1606,  Paris; 
1052,  London  (different  copies,  with  "^etX-n^ftt^  and  YaXri/ne,  on 
the  title-paije) ;  1673,  Venice;  1700  [s.i.  probably  in  Bucharest]; 
1706,  in  llontfaucon's  Collectio  nova,  i. ;  1740,  Blanchini's 
Pealterium  duplex ;  1743,  Venice  ;  1754,  with  the  Commentary 
of  Euthymius  Zigabenus,  reprinted  1857  in  Mice's  Patr.  (tt. 
vol.  128 ;  1786,  Paria ;  1798,  (Jonstantinople ;  1812,  Baber,  from 
Codex  A ;  1820,  Venice ;  1831  and  1836,  London,  Bible  Societx/, 
with  modem  Greek;  1835,  Smyrna;  1843,  London,  Biblia 
EcclegicE  Polyglotta  ;  1856,  Jerusalem  ;  1873,  Rome  (2  editions). 

Job:— From  Codex  A,  by  Patrick  Toung,  in  the  Catena  of 
Nicetas,  1037,  Franeker,  1662  (63). 

Proverbs :— 1564,  Draconites  (Polyglot). 

Esther: — Ussher,  in  his  Syntatima,  1665,  Works,  vol.  vii. 
(the  two  texts),  repeated  Leipzig,  1696;  O.  F.  Fritzache,  Ziiricb, 
1B48,  1840  (two  texts). 

Hosea:— Pareus,  Heidelberg,  1606 ;  Fhilippeaux,  Paris,  1636. 

Joel:— Draconites,  1605. 

Amos:— Vater,  1810,  Halle. 

Jonas: — Munster,  1624  ;  Artopoeus,  1643. 

Micah:— Draconites,  1566. 

Zecharlah:— Draconites,  1666. 

Malachi :— Draconites,  1!)64  ;  Hutter,  1601. 

Isaiah:— S.  llunatcr,  1640,  Polyglot;  J.  Curter,  1S80,  Pro- 
copii  Cotnmentarii. 

Jeremiah:— S.  Miinster,  1540;  O.  L.  Spohn,  1794, 1824. 

LamentatlODs: — Kyper,  1662,  Libri  tree  dere  gramm.  Heb. 
(Polyiilot). 

Ezeklel: — *IiCi»*]A  nnrm.  nut  c,  Rome,  1840  (important). 

Daniel: — (a)  The  received  text:  Melanchthon,  1646;  Wella, 
1716.  (bf  The  LX.X  text :  Rome,  1772  (Simon  do  Mofriatris  or 
A.  Ricchinio),  very  important ;  repeated  Gottingae,  1773,  1774  ; 
Utrecht,  1776  ;  Uahn,  Lipsise,  1845  ;  new  edition  by  Gozza,  1877  ; 
this  text  also  in  Holmes-Parsons,  vol.  iv.  1818;  Oxf.,  1848, 
1875  ;  Tischendorf,  1860  ;  Swetc. 

B.  Apocrypha  : — The  first  aeparate  edition  of  the  so-called 
Apocrj-pha  appears  to  be  that  of  PJantin,  Antwerp,  1666,  4* :  T« 
Ta>,  Bi^Aioiv  tctpat,  6  iiSpaiffTi  fjpii\  ci»  Imv.  This  edition  has  the 
strange  arrangement,  that  on  the  first  three  sheets  the  leaves 
are  numbered  and  the  lines  counted  on  the  margins,  on  the  fol- 
lowing sheets  the  pages  and  the  verses.  The  same  arrangement 
appears  in  the  copies,  which  have  the  title  :  Tu  to/,  HifiKiajv  fxipot, 
0  iipaiffTi  ypet^iv  cix  lup'^xirati ;  Bihliorvm  pars  Gr/xca,  V'te 
llebraiee  noji  injienitnr,  Antverpiie,  1684.  A  third  edition, 
'  cum  interpretatione  Latina  ex  Bibliis  Complutensibus  dep- 
rompta'(344  pp.),  followed  in  1612.  Oi  [sic!]  ccvoxpufpt  iSifiyci; 
Libri  VT  apocrijphi  omnes  Gr<ece  ad  exemplar  Vaticanum 
einendatiasiine  expressi.  Accedit  Oralio  .Manassis  et  Prologus 
incerti  auctoris  in  Eccleaiasticum,  Frankfurt,  1694.  Later 
editions  are :  Halle,  1740,  1708  (Kircher) ;  Leijizig,  1767  (Ilein- 
ecciua);  Leipzig,  1804  (Augusti);  Oxonii,  1806;  Leipzig,  1837 
(Apel);  London,  1871  (Greek  and  English);  Leipzig,  1871 
(Fritzsche ;  best  edition  hitherto).*  A  part  of  the  Aj^oerypha 
ia  given  in  Liber  Tobias,  Jtidith,  Oratio  Man(tss(F,  ^apientia, 
EccLesiasticus  GreRct  et  Latine,  cum  dictis  Heripturte  itarallelis 
.  .  .  et  ad  catena  Ecctesiastici  positum  duplex  alphabetum 
etliicum  Ben  Sira,  Frankf.  et  Lips.  1691. 

Tobit:— J.  Drusius,  Franeker,  1601,  4';  F.  H.  Reusch,  Frel- 
bur;;,  1870,  4". 

Judith:— A.  Scholz,  Commentar,  Wflrzburg,  1887. 

Wisdom:— M.  Iloberti  Ilolkoth  .  .  .  in  tibrum  Sapientia  .  .  . 
SoUotnonis  proelectiones  CCXIU.  ,  .  .  cum  inserto  Grceco  textu 
.  .  .  [ed.  by  J.  Ilytcrus],  1588,  fol. ;  Joh.  Faber,  Coburg,  1601 ;  in 
Greek,  Latin,  and  Armenian,  Venice,  1827 ;  F.  H.  Reusch,  Frei- 
burg, 1858  ;  W.  J.  Deane,  Oxf.,  1881. 

Slrach:- Sec  article  Siracii. 

Books  of  Maccabees:- Aiftffr  UasmoneFor^im  mii  vulgo 
prior  M aceabcKorum  Grcece  ex  editione  Itnmana,  et  Latinet  ca 
interpretatione  J.  Dnuii,  Franeker,  1800  ;  Maccabceorum  liber  I. 
Greece  tec.  ex.  Vat. . . .  recudi  curavit  P.  J.  Bruns,  Uelmstodii, 
1784. 

For  literature  see  Urt.  6411.,  Sw.  171-194. 

v.  Earlier  Hi.story  of  the  Septuaoint.— 
Much  more  complicated  is  the  earlier,  esjiecially 
the  earliest,  history  of   (5.     Of  its  pre-Curistian 

•  Other  editions  in  the  complete  (Polyglot)  Bibles  of  Plantin 
of  1684  :  1618,  10,  15 ;  Aureliu  Allobrogorum,  1609 ;  ObristiAO 
Bened.  Michoelia,  ZullichavitD,  1741,  40  (the  latter  the  only  00m 
plete  Bible  in  the  original  languages  hitherto  existlngji 


442 


SEPTUAGINT 


SEPTUAGINT 


times  we  know  next  to  notliing  ;  the  history  of  (5 
is  almost  entirely  its  history  in  the  Church.  A 
Hellenist,  Demetnus,  who  lived,  as  it  seems,  under 
the  fourtli  Ptolemy,  and  wrote  irepl  twv  ii>  ry 
'louSalf  /SoffiX^wv,*  is  the  first  known  to  us  who  used 
(5.  Tlie  fragments  preserved  from  other  writers, 
such  as  Euji'jleiiius,  Aristeas  (the  historian,  not  the 
author  of  nd  Philocratem),  Ezekiel,  Aristobulas, 
are  too  small  to  show  more  than  that  these  writers 
Avere  acquainted  with  G.  More  extensive  is  the 
use  made  of  (S  in  such  books  as  AVisdom  (16^ 
12»  6'),  Sirach,  2  Maccabees  (7"),  4  Maccabees  (18"), 
which  became  afterwards  parts  of  G,  or  in  the 
Jewish  portions  of  the  Sibyllines.  In  the  writinj;s 
of  Philo,  which  can  be  traced  back  only  to  tlie 
library  of  Origen,  and  have  been  transmitted  to 
us  probably  exclusively  by  Christian  copyists,  the 

?uotations  from  the  Law  are  very  numerous  ;  those 
rom  the  rest  of  the  OT  are  few  ;  (juotations  from 
Kuth,  Esther,  Ecclesiastes,  Canticles,  Lamenta- 
tions, Ezekiel,  Daniel,  are  entirely  alosent.  Yet 
it  is  difficult  to  get  a  clear  impression  of  the  Greek 
Bible  he  had  before  him.  This  is  owing  partly 
to  the  unsatisfactory  state  of  his  text  in  former 
editions,t  partly  to  the  loose  way  in  which  he 
sometimes  quotes  the  text :  it  is  apparent,  how- 
ever, that  already  his  copy  of  (5  cannot  have 
been  free  from  errors,  t 

E(iually  unsatisfactory  is  a  comparison  of  Jo- 
sephus ;  we  must  rest  content  with  knowing,  for 
instance,  that  for  his  description  of  the  Restora- 
tion he  used  what  is  now  called  the  First  Book  of 
Esdras  (vol.  i.  of  the  present  work,  p.  7G0) ;  but  as 
to  his  relation  to  our  chief  MSS  of  the  book  we  are 
uncertain. § 

Even  the  New  Testament,  with  its  great  number 
of  quotations,  does  not  permit  of  any  very  definite 
statements,  except  that  it  proves  again  that 
textual  corruption  had  already  found  its  way  into 
the  copies  used  by  the  writers  of  the  NT  (cf.  He  3' 
if  SoKifi-aa-lf,  12'  ivox^i).  Even  then  the  situation 
must  have  been  what  is  described  as  existing  in 
his  time  by  Origen— chiefly,  it  is  true,  with  refer- 
ence to  tlie  MSS  of  the  NT,  but  including  also 
those  of  (S — 

ti{iiffi^s  TMt  yfl»c<u.i*»n  ilri  lut't  (X7«  r»v  rm  utvrcit  d«»«v>T«  Ir   ryi 

This  variety  of  texts,  strange  as  it  may  appear, 
is  not  difficult  to  account  for.  (1)  G  was  liable  to 
all  the  dangers  connected  with  transmission  to 
which  literary  works  were  exposed  in   the  days 

•  In  Gn  ib^  he  had  the  additional  two  sons  of  Dedan  In  his 
text,  Raguei  and  Nadbeel,  and  traced  the  descent  of  the  wife 
of  Moses  to  Raguel ;  see  Eus.  frcep.  Ev.  ix.  29. 

f  Not  only  earlier  jjivestiprations  into  the  quotations  of  Philo 
(Homemann,  1773;  Siegfried,  1873),  but  also  the  latest  and 
excellent  work  of  11.  E.  Ryle  (,Philo  and  Holy  Scripture, 
London,  1895),  were  >itiat«d  at  the  outset,  because  even  Mangey's 
edition  of  Philo  proved  untrustworthy.  To  give  one  exiniplc. 
What  was  the  nanie  of  the  second  book  of  tne  Law  in  .'hilo's 
Bible?  Ryle  says  (p.  xxii):  'Philo  in  one  passage  states  that 
Moses  gave  to  "this  book  the  title  •K«><r>.B.  .  .  .^Elsewhere, 
however,  he  refers  to  it  by  its  familiar  (jreek  name  "E^o^ee  {f.g. 
i.  474,  609,  638).'  But  in  all  these  pass.iges  we  have  now  in  the 
edition  of  Oohn-Wendland  (iii.  4,  57,  -iiO)  the  reading  'Ei«5.»>-i!, 
as  offered  by  the  better  class  of  MSS.  The  poem  of  Ezekiel  was 
also  entitled  'E|«}«y)i,  not'  E=«J«£. 

J  A  well-known  instance  is  the  reading  rfc^i^i  In  On  16", 
which  is  found  in  all  our  MSS  of  ©  (for  rxtt^t,  not  6«^iif,  as 
Melanchthon  put  in  his  edition  of  1645),  presupposed  already 
by  Philo  (the  same  insertion  of  ^  is  illustrated  by  Codex  F,  spell- 
ing i9^«-4.«>  for  the  thirf  i««4«»  in  On  49^il  ;  see  Sw.'s  edition, 
p.  807) ;  compare  also  his  etymologj;  of  YSttfH  (On  16i<)  =  i.  ««»».t, 
which  presupposes  B«iw«,  a  reading  actually  found  in  7  MSS 
of  0.  including  the  Lucianic  ones,  and  in  the  Coptic  version. 

}  On  other  questiniis  connected  with  the  Bible  of  JosephuB, 
•ee  below,  p.  44(i«  note  ".  „  „    ,.  .  „.„,  „„„    ,. 

II  See  on  this  passage  A.  D.  Loman  (in  ThT  vil.  [18,31  233  ;  he 
Biahea  to  read,  i.Vi  i»»  »«x'''»'«''  ^-  '■  ^-  ""f-  """  *"  ^'^1'^  "■*" 
»•>)  and  Oikonomos  (iv.  4<iO ;  be  proposes  r«x.u<i<  »<>•>  muiuxnf 


before  the  invention  of  the  printing-press.  (2)  These 
dangers  were  increased  in  the  case  of  works 
which  were  frequently  copied  and  used  not  only 
privately  but  also  in  public  service.  (3)  (5  is  not 
an  original  te.xt,  but  a  translation,  or  rather  a 
series  of  translations,  and  therefore  much  more 
exposed  to  alterations  than  an  original  text;  for 
every  reader  possessed  of  some  knowledge  of 
Hebrew,  or  of  a  dirterent  exegetical  tradition  from 
that  embodied  in  ©,  might  change  his  text  (cf. 
the  changes  introduced  in  many  MSS  of  the  OT 
from  the  quotations  in  the  NT,  e.g.  in  Ps  13'  from 
Ro  3'"'").  (4)  If  the  situation  was  bad  enough 
before,  it  became  worse  when  other  Greek  versions 
of  the  OT,  especially  those  of  Aquila,  Symmachus, 
Theodotion,  appeared  and  began  to  influence  iS. 
At  last  a  comparison  of  ffi  with  l?l  and  the 
versions  just  named  was  carried  out  systemati- 
cally by  Origen  ;  but  what  appeared  to  him  a  safe- 
guard against  the  calamity  that  threatened  the 
text  turned  out — not  by  his  fault,  but  by  that 
of  later  ignorance  and  laziness — the  worst  aggra- 
vation of  it. 

Continuing  the  passage  quoted  above,  Origen 
goes  on  to  say — 

r^v  fjLit  cur  i>  riit  ittrtypoL^us  rri<  IlsJltcietr  Ai«0>^««lf  iia^*nt^9, 
dtoO  iiierrts,  tSfiofMt  iecretrt/en,  Xfitnrifiitt  ^frr,ffa)Mt1  rtttt  X*iwa*t 
iiditririi '  Tai,  yitp  af^^at>^cu.itatt  *atp»  voic  •'  ii*  r^»  Ta»»  «rTi- 
ypafait  iia^tmiet,  rrv  xfiirtf  VMr^ffctfMItt  etv*  rwv  ^*twah  ixZccian  T* 
wtxi»t  ixti*eu<  t^Aafdecav'  tuti  ntat  fiit  i^Aiffe^^ttt  I*  rai  '1:^^- 
jx^  fivj  KUf^*et,  Ml  ro^pt^rrtt  eti/reL  ircifnt  ripil^iit,  rifit  it  v-iT 
urrtp.ffxv*  TpoctSr.XiCfAt*,  t*tL  S^Ao,  r  OTj  fir,  Kii/iLt*tt  xetpit  T»IS  0 
ix  rin  \oi^Si  IJE^orfAi,  Fuuj$ii*^  ru  '  ^^pxiK^  vp»fftli*ixaf^>'  xai  i 
ftit  ^ouy.ofjLt*oi  vpor.f<iu  airo:,  ^  it  rpaffKcmu  r*  rtttZTtt,  «  p«vAiTaj 
ftp4  rrit  ir«/s«3o3;*)f  tti/rii,  ri  f^n  wtiYirif, 

We  can  sympathize  \vith  his  joy  (Beov  iMvTm) 
at  having  found  this  criterion,  thougli  he  used  it, 
according  to  our  Wew,  in  the  wrong  direction.  It 
is  of  lesser  weight  that  he  simply  took  the  Hebrew 
MSS  which  were  at  his  disposal,  and  the  Greek 
versions  that  agreed  with  them,  for  the  original 
text.  Whence  he  got  the  former  we  are  not  in- 
formed,* though  we  hear  something  about  his 
intercourse  with  a  Jewish  Patriarch  called  Julius 
(Hillel?);t  but  he  acted  on  a  more  dangerous 
principle  when  he  took  what  agreed  with  ^  or 
the  other  versions  for  the  true  text  of  G,  instead 
of  what  differed  from  them.  J    Animated  by  this 

firinciple,   and   instigated,   it  would  appear,   and 
lelped  by  his  iprfoSiuimi^,  Ambrosius,§  he  under- 

•  Eus,  (HE  vi.  16)  writes :  TtretOrwi  3i  ti^r.yir*  rS  '{Iptyttti 
rvf  fliiWf  Xoy^r  et^njxpi0aiLtitn  iiirxrie  «<  ««'  rr,t  '^Spxlix  yX^Tvmt 
ixLut6t7»,  r/r(  VI  irxcic  Toif  'louieutir  QtptiAitxf  xpttrer^tvf  eti/rttt 
'E^pxttt^  ffTUXl'O'^  ypx^xt  xrr,put  iit»>  v*ir.rxa-Oxt,  xux>tZetu  Cl 
rke  T*»  iripv*  rxpx  Toiii'E^itpir.K«i''rx  tx;  iipec;^  ypx^xi  iip/Mr^tw- 
MTw*  ixiaffUf,  Mxj  Titxi  iitpat  rxpit  r'xt  xxStjUx^tvfUtxf  ipfx,ntlimt 
i»aAA«TTOwffoef,  rxf  'AjewAtfw  xxi  ^fjUAXX'v  xxi  t^tahorianes,  tftvpUf, 
itt  »ix  •Ty  vxtSt9  t*  T,i«»  fM>x^'  r*r  rxXxt  XavSatioCffXi  XP^'*"  *** 
^i(  xiix*tvfx<  wponyxytt. 

t  Jerome,  .^Ipof.  adv.  Rv/.  1.  ii.  (from  the  SO  To^t  of  Origen 
in  Is),  and  Montfaucon,  Bexapla  prael.  pp.  21,  79.  Origen 
refers  elsewhere  to  instructions  he  received  from  the  Jewiab 
side  :  for  instance,  from  a  Jewish  convert  (in  Jer.  20,  Horn.  20, 
Op.  iii.  178).  Nor  do  we  know  where  he  got  his  Greek  text.  It 
differs  sometimes  very  strangely  from  that  of  bis  predecessor 
Clement. 

X  Comp.  the  significant  Mwn  in  the  scholion  belonging  to 
Origen's  edition  of  Proverbe  as  published  in  Tischendorfs 
Xotitia  edit,  codicit  Sinaitici,  p.  76,  arid  by  Oikonomos  (rtpi  nn 
#'  iv,  903) ;  trMt  «i  i3t)jii  wpcrxtifreu  frrtit,  tflrw  »i,m  tx4>tT»  tvn 
ru^  rait  A«(«7f  ipu.r,tvTa7(  »vrt  i,  t^  'E^pxixi.^x^x  txpk  M^wf 
r^f  #'•  XXI  'efC4(  M  xfftptrxt  irporxttrrxt  pnroit,  oitrjn  i»  fuw^  r«* 
*F.^pxix^  xxl   Te7f  XMTt'it  ipf*JK'tt/Txit  ifip**T*,  1,   it  T«jf  •'   tixiri, 

V-ith  the  third  axiom  of  Lagarde  (A  nmerkunpm  rtir  griechischen 
Ubertetzxtiuj  der  I'rovertnen,  Ibu'S,  p.  3  =}l\tthcilungen,  i.  21): 
'  Wenn  sich  zwei  Lesarten  nebeueinander  findeu,  von  deoen  die 
eine  den  JIasoretischen  Text  ausdriickt,  die  andre  nur  atia 
einer  von  ihm  abweichenden  Urschrift  erkliirt  werden  kann, 
BO  ist  die  leutere  fur  ur«prunglich  lu  halten.' 

8  Eua.  (HE  vi.  18);  'E»  T*i.rft,  xai  '  AfA,ip4rit,  rk  riit  OCxi.U' 
ritau  epirir  xiptfta*!  -rptt  Tr,;  ifirc  '  Qpiytnotft  rptff^tiHptirr,(  xXrdlixf 
lAfyrvwV,  xxi  tiffxt  uwi  parrot  xxrxt/yxs^tU  riir  iiatttxt  r*>  r^e 
lKX>.r,riMm3^l  ifiSi^olixs  wpcrrlSirxt  >.iy*i.  2S._*E€  'uuitmt  ii  ami 
'fiptytui  rif  tit  rxt  tfli«<  ypxfxt  vTtiMt:f*x*wf  iyiurt  xpx'it,  ' A^ 
0p»ficu  tit  rx  uxXirrx  xxptpuj^fnt  xi/ri,  iM/pixH  'irxit  •yt  wpvratwmt 
turxlf  iix  X«>«>  nxi  wxpaxXy^ftait  xur*  t**t*',  xkXx  mxi  x^*i9ttxf 
rmif  «■"»  iri»»l»>'»»  X'f^'"'-     »»t'0-/"«*"  r*^  '^•'  'A"*"*  S  ••"'• 


SEPTUAGINT 


SEPTUAGIXT 


443 


took  tlie  greate-:t  biblical  work  which  Christian 
antiquity  ever  saw— the  first  Polyglot  Bible,  the 
Bo-callol  Hexapla,  anil  a  smaller  edition  of  it,  the 
Tetrapla. 

In  the  first  column  he  placed  the  Hebrew  text  !n  Hebrew 
lettere,  in  the  second  the  same  in  Greek  trant^lileration ;  then 
loliowed  the  version  of  At^uiia  the  Jew, — no  doubt  because  it 
was  the  most  literal  one  ;  in  the  fourth  column  that  of  Sym- 
machus.  Then  followed  the  column  of  0  with  the  critical 
marks  ;  finally,  the  version  of  Theodotion,  as  bein^  a  recension  of 
C  tor  some  biblical  books,  especially  the  poetical,  he  added  a 
iyfth,  tixth,  and  even  a  seventh  version  ;  •  so  that  in  those  parts 
there  were  seven,  eipht,  and  even  nine  columns.  The  Tetrapla 
was  an  abridiLied  edition, — whether  later  or  earlier  is  nut  quite 
0|:rtaln, — contaiuini;  only  Aquila,  Symuiachus,  i3,  and  Theodo- 
Uou. 

Till  quite  recently  Origen's  great  work  was 
known  only  from  the  description  of  Eusebius, 
Kpii)lianiu3,  Jerome,  and  other  writers,  and  some 
specimens  preserved  in  scluilia  of  biblical  MSS  ; 
but  in  189G  Giovanni  Mercati  discovered  in  a  pal- 
imiiscst  MS  of  the  10th  cent,  at  Milan  tlie  first 
continuous  fragments  of  a  copy  of  the  Hexapla 
(Psalms).  These  helped  us  to  understand  what  an 
enormous  task  it  must  have  been  to  arrange  the 
whole  OT  in  such  a  way,  and  at  tlie  same  time 
showed  also  how  easily  mistakes  might  arise  in  it, 
and  whence  the  variants  come  which  are  found  in 
the  statements  about  tlie  Hexaplaric  text. 

And  now  there  has  been  pulilished  quite  recently 
by  C.  Taylor  another  leaf  from  among  tlie  Hebrew- 
Greet;  Cairo  Ge.nizah  Palimpsests  from  the  Taylor- 
Schechter  Collection  (Camn.  1900,  4°),  containing 
a  fragment  of  Ps  22.  From  this  double-leaf  the 
outer  columns  and  some  lines  of  the  top  are  cut 
away,  but  it  is  at  least  200  years  older  than  the 
MS  discovered  by  Mercati,  and  conlirms  the  view 
th.at  the  arrangement  according  to  coin  (oicXiij/  tc 
Trpis  Kui\ov),  of  which  Eusebius  speaks  IJiE  vi.  16), 
(onsisted  in  this,  that  Origen  generally  placed 
only  one  Ilebrew  word,  or  at  the  most  two,  in  one 
line,  and  was  careful  to  see  that  the  Greek  corre- 
»TH>nded  to  it  exactly.  Even  so  small  a  word  as  Vx 
i:»  Ilebrew,  nil  in  Greek,  had  a  separate  line.  In 
the  Cairo  Palimpsest  all  the  Hebrew  lines,  105  in 
Dumber,  consisted — they  are  cut  oil',  but  we  are 
quite  certain  about  their  extent — of  only  one  word  ; 
in  the  Milan-text  this  was  the  case  with  10  out 
of  17,  the  re.st  contain  two,  none  more  than  two. 
As  a  full  page  of  the  Cairo  Palimpsest  contained 
42  (or  43)  lines,  just  as  many  as  Codex  B,  wliirh, 
when  opened,  repre.sents  with  its  six  columns  the 
appearance  of  the  Hexapla,  a  manuscript  of  the 
Hexapla  Psalter  arranged  like  the  preserved  Cairo 
fragment  must  have  tilled  about  4o0  leaves ;  for 
I  he  Hebrew  Psalter  has  about  19,000  words.t  As 
the  Psalter  Ls,  furtlier,  something  like  the  14th  or 
15th  part  of  the  Hebrew  Bible,  the  whole  Hexapla 

Wt  kftBfUt  wmpmrmi  int^ytptdtf^i,  j^^ovnr  xtreLyfjuittif  it^J^iiXout 
«4Mj'y3«*Ti;  *  0iffXi»ypii^4  Tl  41^;^  rirrcuf,  ktJtM  xtti  Kepcut  in  T« 
KitX^.iypx^li*  ijrxr,/Mttti{'  Sf  etranrmi'  rr,t  htbusoit  rij»  iriTx^l'O'* 
kiOatoi  iiptourlett  i  'Au^peritt  witpiffTr.fecT*  .  .  .  ^McA.rra  acvro, 
wpalrplTIt  iri  ryjw  Ta»»  UTe/xifj/Mcnt,  ffu»Toe<i,.      It  is  true,  Etisehius 

■peaks  here  only  of  the  commentaries  of  Orijten ;  but  Kpiph- 
aiiius  refers  the  help  of  Ambrosias  uImj  to  tlie  Hexapla,  and 
'copyists*  {^i^XitypttSit)  and  '  typf-^'irls'  would  be  needed  by 
Ori^n  for  this  costly  work  even  more  than  for  his  connuen- 
taries 

'  husebiuB  {BE  vl.  16)  goes  on  after  the  words  quoted  p.  442^. 
note  ' ;  i^'  Mr  (the  other  versions  besides' Aquila,  Symmachus,  and 
Hicixlotion)  ilk  vv;*  klnkirr^a,  rAor  kp'  ttl*  outt  i.'d^,  «vra  rtur* 
fAbtty  iwT^^tar*,  irt  kpa  r^t  fju»  lOpoi  i>  rit  wpif  '  AurtM  NjJur«Ai,, 
vr,,  di  ii  inpv  ruiit  riwti^  It  yi  ij,r,*  ran  iixirX*7t  rail  ,]/MXfMi  lAtrk 
rat  iriry.utuf  ■rtrfatpat  txiirtil  *u  ixove*  wlf^mtr,  •AX«  «<xj  ixTiir 
mMi  x^4ur,i  rxpaOiic  ipmitlixt,  in  /jui(  xldit  rvtiuXArrtu,  atf  i* 
ll^iX**  qv^^rqf  i*  nv*p.  Hark  raie  ^pittvt  '  Air*ni,9l/  vtu  fj'eu 
^i^r.ptv.  rttirtti  di  kritfot  i«i  rxCri*  rviayayiii,  diiAWr  vi  wpit 
moika*,  mtu  kiTiw*p<Jiui  «XAr,Aajf  fAArk  tUil  etiiTr,t  «1K  'iL^paitn 
niu4i*truit,  rk  T^t  ktyaiMitan  fi/jur  iiarrXvt  kmypaica  MarttXiXaint, 
liiaH  riit  ' \kCX*u  sa^  £uufM(;(^«v  «ai  Hi«^*riw,a(  iMiorit  «/XA  r^  riir 
i^our.K«fT«  it  T»i{  TITPetrkait  iviK*riKffxiuat€»t, 

f  Kor  the  Ileb.  Psalt«r  the  ilas,sorelic  numljering  docs  not 
•eem  to  be  ]>reserved,  but  for  the  Svriac  Psalt«r  the  number  of 
words  is  |;iven  as  19,gil4,  of  letters  u  0U,B&2. 


would  have  filled  more  than  6000  leaves  or  12,000 
pages.  It  is  probable  that  these  ligures  go  beyond 
the  real  extent,  for  we  may  assume  tliut  other 
books  were  treated  less  luxuriously  than  the 
Psalms.  At  all  events,  the  Hexapla  was  much 
larger  than  even  the  latest  estimate  supposed.* 
These  Bpeciniens,t  besides  givin"  a  glimpse  of  tho 
whole,  show  at  the  same  time  that  tor  the  Church 
at  large,  and  even  for  its  most  learned  members,  so 
costly  a  work  was  not  necessary  ;  it  was  sufficient 
to  copy  the  C  column,  and  to  place  on  it«  margins 
the  most  notable  various  renderings  from  the  other 
versions.  This  was  done  partially  already  by 
Origen  himself,  and  especially  by  his  followers 
Pamphilus  and  Eusebius.  Such  manuscripts,  more 
or  less  carefully  copied  by  later  copyists,  trans- 
lated into  Latin,  Syriac,  and  Arabic,  and  excerpted 
by  the  commentators,  are  the  souries  from  which 
hitherto  our  knowledge  of  the  Hexapla  has  been 
derived,  thanks  to  Drusius  (1581,  1022),  Nobilius 
( 1587,  1588),  Mont faucon  (1713,  1769),  and  esjiecially 
Fred.  Field  (1875,  2  vols.) :  see  on  this  highly  de- 
serving scholar  Expos.  Times,  viii.  IGO,  274,  325. 

The  later  fate  of  the  original  is  unknown. 
Jerome  saw  and  used  it  in  the  library  of  C;esarea;J 
perhaps  it  was  destroj'ed  by  the  invasiin  of  the 
Arabs.  A  similar  fate  may  have  brought  the 
codex,  from  which  the  Cairo-leaf  was  saved,  into 
the  hand  of  the  Jew  wlio  used  it  in  the  eleventh 
cent,  for  a  Hebrew  liturgical  book.  In  these 
specimens  there  was  no  occasion  to  apply  eitlier 
ohelus  or  asterisk.  In  On  1  the  lirst  occasions  to 
use  the  obelus  occurred  v.*  -:-»toi  iydftro  ourusX,  v.* 
-r  Kal  elSei/  6  Oeds  6ti  KaX6v\,  v.*  ~-  Kal  ffvy^x^V  •  •  • 
7)  (ijpiX.  In  vv.'-  "  the  onlj-  document  known  which 
lias  preserved  the  obelus  in  the  text  is  the  Arabic 
version  made  from  the  Syriac  ;  on  xv."  and  '  Origen 
him.self,  Basil,  and  some  scliolia  testify  that  the 
obelized  passages  were  not  found  in  the  Hebrew. 
The  first  occasion  to  insert  a  piece  with  the 
asterisk  occurred  at  the  end  of  v.',  where  p  '-'i 
had  no  equivalent  in  G  and  Origen  supplied  ^  Kal 
i-yivfTo  ourwsX,  and  so  on. 

These  are  .simple  cases  ;  but  what  was  to  be  done 
when  there  was  variation  of  order  or  ditlerence  of 
sense!  In  the  former  case  (dillerent  arrangement 
of  ifl  and  ffi,  as  in  Exoilus,  Proverbs,  Jeremiali) 
Origen  adopted  a  twofoUl  course.  If  the  ditlerence 
was  not  too  great,  he  let  the  text  of  every  column 
follow  its  exemplar,  but  niurked  these  passages  by 
both  signs  at  once,  asterisk  and  obelus  (us  wapi. 
vaai  iiii>  (pepdfitya,  oiic  i¥  aurois  ii  riirois).    Elsewhere 

•  See  Sw.  p.  74  :  •  It  is  difficult  t«  conceive  of  a  codex  or  series 
of  codices  so  pigantic  as  the  Ilexaiila  ...  It«  bulk  would 
have  been  nearly  jive  times  us  preat  as  that  of  the  Vatican  or 
ijinaitic  OT.  It  may  be  roughly  estimated  that  the  Hexapla,  if 
written  in  the  form  of  a  codex,  would  have  filled  a'.J.'iO  k-axes  or 
ef»(M»  pages;  and  these  fljfures  are  exclusive  of  the  Vm'n'a  and 
Sexta,  which  may  have  swelled  the  total  considerably.  Even 
tne  Tetrapla  would  have  exceeded  ilUUO  leaves.' — According  to 
the  ediclum  OiocUtiani  cop.\  ists  were  paid  at  the  nile  of  26  or 
20  denarii  for  100  lines,  accoriling  to  the  quality  of  the  writing. 
From  the  Htichometrical  lists  of  the  llible  we  know  that  the 
I'salter  had  6iuo  lines,  a  complete  OT  about  80,000,  a  complete 
liible  about  100,000.  This  would  make  20.000  or  20,000  denarii 
for  thecop3iiii,'of  an  ortlinar)'  Bible.  In  the  time  of  Constanlitie, 
Epiphanius.  when  becoming  monk,  reserved  from  his  fortune 
for  buying  the  divine  and  life-giving  Scriptures  t*  itf^trfju^rm. 
(forty  gold  coins). 

t  See  p.  444  ;  also  the  examples  given  by  Field  (1.  p.  xiv  from 
2  K  l%*  in  7  and  I>s  109  (1 10)  a  in  «  columns. 

X  See  de  Vir.  III.  c.  64  ;  commeitlarioli  in  Pmlmoa  (ed.  Dom 
Moriu,  Atiecdota  MaredMtlana,  1N1.0  (iii.  1,  p.  6):  *  ntun  ifwAoi^f 
Origenis  in  Cujsariensi  bibliotheca  relugens  ;  and  p.  12  on  I's  4"* 
*  Id  tpiod  In  iiluriniis  codicibus  invenitur,  "ct  olel  corum,"  cum 
vctustum  Origenis  Hexaplum  I'salterium  relej^erem,  quod  ipsiua 
manu  fuerat  emendaluin,  nco  in  hebnuo  nee  in  ceteris  editioni- 
bus  liei  apud  ipmm  qxioqu*  Sepfuaijinta  interpreUt  repperi,' 
(All  MSS  have  it,  ami  the  Svriac  Hexapla  has  it).  It  may  have 
lielonged  to  those  fxioks  In  his  library  which  Aracius  and 
Kuzoius  took  care  *  In  mcmbranlH  instAurare,'  ■»  r^uAriait  «,«>i^ 
ruttieti,  to  transcribe  from  papyrus  on  vellum  {PliiUmit  opera 
ed.  CohD-Weudliuid,  i.  p.  Ui;  Jerome,  <U  Vir.  lU.  a  lU:  of 
84,  L). 


1 


444 


SEPTUAGINT 


SEPTUAGINT 


(for  instance  in  Jer  25"°'-)  he  followed  the  order  of 
IH,  as  did  Lucian,  Chrysostom,  and  all  modern 
editors  of  Polyglot  Bibles.  No  doubt  Origen  would 
make  a  note  on  this  diflierent  arrangement,  but 
this  is  missing  in  the  documents  as  we  now  have 
them. 
The  obelus  appears  under  various  forms,  mostly 


-:-,  but  also  with  two  dots  ~  or  -=-;  or  without  any 

dot  -Xj  ;  so  especially  in  the  Codex  Sarravianua. 
Tlie  form  -=-  was  called  XrnxvlnKos,  -r  iiro\r)fu'i(rKos  i 
their  exact  meaning  is  unknown,  for  what  Epi- 
phanius  says  about  tlieir  ditl'erence  is  nonsense  (sea 
Field,  Pruleg.  lix.).  The  metobelus  y  (a  mallet)  or 
:  signities  the  end  of  the  notation.     As  a  specimen 


PS  22  (21)  *>-2a  FROM  THE  CAIEO  PALIMPSEST.* 


Hebrew  (supplied 

Hebrew  in  Greek 

1 

from  Hebrew 

transcription 

Aquila. 

S}iumachii8. 

o 

(lostX          1 

1 

Bible). 

(lost). 

»        nrKi] 

(TV  5e 

<rv  5e 

av  Se  K* 

ni.T 

•  ** 

nini 

nini 

nini 

.„ 

^« 

... 

M 

fl7] 

pt7) 

.. 

pmn 

.« 

fjMKpVVTfS 

^Kpaif 

pLaKpVVTJi 

~ 

'ni'7'K 

.M 

IffXVpOTTJS  flOV 

yevT}  pjiv 

TTfv  ^07]diay  p,ov 

_ 

'n-iii'S 

... 

ct$  ^07]diav  fiov 

■jrpos  T-rjv  ^<yij$iaw  fiov 

€LS  r-qv  avTiKt^tj/Lv  pu)v 

— 

:  nam 

... 

<TT€V<TOV 

(Tirevaov 

irpoo-x^^ 

— 

n     n^-i-.i 

» 

pvcrai 

e^eXou 

pvaai 

~ 

anno 

.« 

airo  p-axo-t-pV^ 

airo  p.axo.ipT}S 

airo  pop.<f}aiat 

- 

Ts: 

*^ 

^vxV'^  P-ov 

T-qv  \pvxrjv  fiov 

T7}V   ^VXf}V  p^OV 

— 

TO 

... 

airo  xftpos 

€K  X^tpOi 

Kai  €K  x^f^po^ 

•• 

3^3 

•  K 

KVVOS 

KVVO^ 

KVfOS 

_ 

1  'm'n' 

... 

fiovaxv*'  MOW 

T7}V  p.0V0T1JTa  fJMV 

T7]V  pLOVOyeUT}  pLOV 

- 

»    •jV't?in 

... 

(Tioaov  fX€ 

(Toicroy  pte 

(Tiaaou  p.€ 

- 

'SD 

•  •a 

airo  OTOfiaTOi 

€K  OTOp-aTOt 

€K  <TT0p.aT0i 

«. 

nnK 

.*■ 

XeovTos 

XeovTos 

XeocTos 

M. 

•3ipai 

». 

/cat  airo  xeparup 

Kat  airo  Keparojv 

Kai  airo  KCparujp 

_ 

D'DT 

... 

pT}fJ,L/i 

p.OVQKepU}TWV 

pOVOK€pit)TU}V 

— 

[I  'jn-jy 

.— 

€L<yaKowxow  ftov 

TT)V  KaKdtfflV  flOV 

i^v  raireiviixriv  pLOV 

». 

iitrfixouffcte 

•  Whetheror  where  the  Quinta,  Sexta,  and  Septima,  which  for  this  Psalm  are  expressly  testified,  hod  found  a  place  in  this  cop,v, 
cannot  be  ascertained;  see,  on  theee  versions  for  this  Psalm,  besides  the  testimonies  collected  by  Field,  Jerome  {Anecdota 
Maredsol.  iii.  p.  33) :  *  quinta  et  sexta  editio  :  verba  clamoris  mei,  v.  2.' — On  the  transcription  of  mn*  by  lUni,  pipi,  and  its  curious 
consequences,  see  &  echoUon  of  Jacob  of  Edessa  in  ZDMG  xxxii  (1878)  465  ff. 


PS  46  (45)  ^'^  FROM  THE  MiLAN  PAUMPSEST. 


Hebrew. 

The  same  in 
Greek  Letters. 

Aquila. 

Symmaehus. 

a 

Theodotion. 

>       n-iah] 

\a^avcL(rffT} 

TW  VtKOirOiW 

eirii'iirtos* 

eis  TO  reXos 

ru)  viKoiroiu  "j^" 

mp  -inS 

[XJa^Scij-KO/) 

Ttav  vi.ij)v  Kope 

Tuv  vtwv  Kope 

ivTrep      Tuv      Viuy 
Kope 

TOty  VIOLS  Kope 

niD^y  Sy 

aX*  aX/tcjd 

eiri  veavionjTuy 

wrep  Tujv  aiujviuv 

inrep  TOir  Kpv<piuiy 

vrep  Tuv  Kpvtpiuv 

1-0 

(Tip 

afffia 

uSri 

^aX/40S 

wStJ    ^i-aXo^f 

•  uS  dmSk 

fXuiei/x-  "Kavov* 

• 

0  $eos  Jifuv 

0  deoi  -qfiuu  § 

0  8cOS  TJfJ.tJV 

lyi  nono 

ILace'  ovo^ 

eXirts  Kai  Kparoi 

veiroiOijats       Kai 

KaTa(fn>yTj         KOl 

Karacpiryrj         Kai 

ta-Xi'S 

dvva/j.it 

SvvafMi 

miy 

^tp      , 

^0T}8iia 

^OTjdeia 

PorjSos 

;807)90S 

nns3 

/Sffopu  8 

ev  d\i\l/e(rip 

«»  6\i^(air 

ey  8\i\j/e(ri 

ev  8\i\pe<tir 

T»ie  tuoouffeue  r.UMt 

IKD  KXD3 

yt/jura  fiuiS 

evpedtj  +  ffipodpa 

evpnTKO/icyos  atpo- 
Spa 

Tan        cupouffois 
i;/ios  ffipoSpa 

evpfSri  a<l>oSpa 

•       pSv 

oX-  yj"' 

cxt  Toin-ut 

Sia  TOVTO 

Sia  TOVTO 

Sia  TOVTO 

NT)  nS 

Xw-  vipa 

ov  4>o^ridTi(TOne8a 

ov  <po^ri8riffop.e8a 

ov  <f>opri9riao/ie8a 

ov  <po^Tidr\<Top.e8a 

Tona 

paafitp 

fv  TU  avToKKaj- 
aeadax 

evTutavyxdirSat 

ev  TO)  Tapafffftirdai 

cy  Til}  Tapa<Ta€(r8ai  , 

P" 

oops 

y-qv 

■n" 

rrtvyrio 

TTivyriy 

B1D31 

ov^a/uoT 

Kai   (V  Tftf  vftaX- 
Xcffflot 

Kai  K\ivia8ai 

Kai  /xcTOTi^etr^oi 

Kai  aaXeveffdai 

D'l.T 

opi/i 

opr, 

opV 

opr) 

opv 

3^3 

)3\e;S 

fv  KapSia 

ev  KapSia 

ev  KapSia 

tv  KapSia 

[d'D' 

ta/xift 

SaXaaauy 

8a\air<ruv 

OaXaaffuv 

SaXaffauy 

*  In  the  MS  >Mftu  came  in  the  third  column,  replacing  there  AquUa's  rendeiinff. 

t  MS,  by  a  frequent  mistake,  doubling  the  «-,  tvpi9K^. 

t  MS  vacis  (from  ran,  see  note  f ).  S  MS  first-hand  vw*. 


SEPTUAGINT 


SEPTUAGINT 


445 


■jf  the  use  of  these  signs  we  may  take  Gn  34"'''  from 
the  Codex  Sarravianus  * — 

Kcu  re 

ptrreiiovTO'  "Xj  tiji' 

'Vf  ffapKO.  TTjy  a/cpOjSif- 

afXTTjv  ;;C  iracTf 5  f^ep 
5}i  XOfifvoi  TTvXtjv  iro 
^  Xews  awou' :  eyeye 

As  It  la  of  Importance  to  have  a  view  of  the  documenta  from 
which  the  O  column  of  the  Hexnpla  can  be  recovered,  the  pres- 
ent writer  had  drawn  up  a  list  of  all  MSS  which  trace  back 
their  orijfin  to  the  Hexapla  and  Tetrapla,  and  desisted  etem- 
inata  for  them,  but  want  of  space  forbids  the  printing  of  them 
here.  One  of  the  most  important  means  is  the  Syriac  version 
made  by  Paul  of  Telia  in  the  year  (il7(  =  p),  and,  where  this  is 
defective,  the  Arabic  version  made  by  Uarith  ben  Sinan  ben 
itliabut  BO  late  as  Una  (see  Prajf.  of  Holmes,  vol.  I.).  The  Hexapla 
is  expressly  cited  in  still  exi.stini?  documents  as  the  source  for 
Ex.,  Josh.,  1  Kings,  Ezra,  Esth.,  Prov.,  Cant.,  Lain.,  Is.,  Ezek. ; 
the  Tetrapla  tor  Oen.,  Josh.,  Kuth,  Is.,  Ezek.,  Job,  12  Proph., 
ban.;  the  Heptapla  for  2  Kings.  The  'Ox-Tetri)^ticf  (Octapla)  is 
occasionallyquotedashavingadifferent  reading  from  the  T»t^«- 
tf-fAj2*r  (Tetrapla)  in  a  scholion  on  Ps  86^  Cu.*)  ryj  Ituv  (or  f^y,Tyip 
iiin).  Heptapla  is  used  in  p  at  2  K  16'^;  ni>T<M-i>j8»,  (not 
TiT^<wiiiJ«.)  in  Q  at  Is  3^.  Sec,  for  Genesis,  Field  on  On  47M ; 
fur  Ex.,  Josh.,  Judges,  Ruth,  1  and  2  Kings,  Job,  Prov.,  Eccles., 
Cant.,  12  Projih.,  Is.,  Lam.,  the  notes  of  p,  (or  Ezra  and  Esther 
the  notes  in  Cod.  S,  for  Is.  and  Ezek,  the  notes  in  Q  ;  for  Ezek. 
and  Dan.  the  Codex  Chisianus.  On  the  order  of  the  biblical 
lxK}k8  in  the  Hexapla  we  are  not  perfectly  informed  ;  in  C^  it  is 
Octoteuch,  Kings,  Chron.,  Ezr.(-Neh.),  Judith,  Tobit,  Psalms, 
Job,  Prov.,  Kccles.,  Cant.,  Wisd.,  Sirach,  12  Proph.,  Jer.,  Bar., 
Ep.  of  Jer.,  Dan.,  Sus.,  Bel,  Ezek.,  Isaiah. 

For  Exodus  a  cojiy  is  attested,  in  which  the  Hebrew  was 
compared  by  Eusebius  with  the  Hebrew  of  tlie  Samaritans. 
Seventeen  such  passages  ore  preserved  in  (B,  and  6  from 
Numbers.t  Curious  is  the  expression  ^Ti.\»;^^»-«r  i^'  St  tupofjt-iv 
•£«'>.»>  (Tischendorf,  Xotitia,  122);  the  note  in  8  at  the  end 
of  Esther  speaks  of  t«  iixr^x  'iiptyttout  ^r'  xi/r^v  iioeStfiuta.  At 
the  end  of  Ex.  ri  *«Ti  rut  ixicnit  i£«TAdc  ore  distinguished 
from  a  iTtp»»  iiarXjov*.  In  the  note  at  the  end  of  Proverbs 
(Sw.  p.  7b)  for  xati  r«A»  ecvrec  xtiP'  w'e  must  read  juti  T«?.(v 
mirextip't  'and  again:  by  Piimphilus'  own  hand.'  Strange  is 
the  Quotation  of  Urigen  on  La  117  (O;/.  ill.  252)  xark  UfAfjutx'i* 
Ml    Irtpctt   ixitrtt    rait'E^iofitKiutrti. 

If  the  copies  of  the  (5  column  of  the  Hexapla, 
which  it  was  the  task  especially  of  Pamphilus  and 
Eu.sebitis  to  prepare,  had  been  cojjied  with  all  its 
iriarks,  it  would  have  been  well ;  but  later  copyists 
m.'^'lected  these  completely,  and  produced  thus 
what  we  may  call  krypto-IlexriplarK  copies,  com- 
pletely spoiling  by  this  carelessness  the  value  of 
i1  —  such  a  co])y  is  found,  for  instance,  in  the 
Codex  Alexandrinus  for  1  and  2  Kin^s.  At  the 
same  time  we  have  no  right  to  coiiiidain,  seeing 
that  in  the  19lh  cent,  the  same  ^irocess  was  re- 
peated in  the  case  of  Grabe's  edition.J 

Now  it  is  clear  that  if  we  were  to  succeed,  by 
a  comparison  of  tliose  docunionts  which  go  back 
directly  or  indirectly  to  the  Hexapla,  in  restoring 
its  i5  (-olumn,  we  sliould  have  a  Septnagintal  text, 
but  not  the  original  one  ;  for,  as  indicated  above, 
the  principles  on  which  Origen  chose  his  text  are 
not  the  true  ones  ;  moreover,  it  would  appear  that 
he  even  further  introduced  little  changes,  so  as  to 
make  his  text  correspond  to  the  Hebrew,  for  instance 
in  the  matter  of  proper  names,  writing  Tyipauv  (Ex 
6")  for  VtSauv,  etc.§     We  must  therefore  look  for 

•  Origen  took  this  whole  system  of  notation  from  the  Alexan- 
drian critii.*»  of  Homer,  especially  Aristarchus  ;  see  the  passages 
qiiMt«d  by  Swete,  p.  ,1,  and  the  enumeration  of  the  passages 
''f  Proverbs  which  varied  in  order  from  the  Patmos  codex,  in 
Tischendorf's  Holitia,  p.  76.  How  inconvenient  this  was  before 
the  invention  of  numbering  the  verses  and  chapterv  may  be 
seen  there. 

I  On  other  po-isages  (On  48  IS"  etc.)  for  which  «  :U/^puriiUp 
is  ipi'.ted,  see  Field,  i.  p.  Ixxxii  ft.,  and  S.  Knbn,  'Samareitikon 
u?ul  S<ptuaginta'  in  Monatsschri/t  /iiT  M'txtifiinchajt  df«  Jtiden- 
tliums,  N.  F.  1.  (1804)  1-7,  4'J-07  ;  ZDMU,  1»«3,  060.  Kohu 
iM-lieves  that  there  was  originally  a  complete  Greek  translation 
of  the  Samaritan  Targum. 

!  See  above,  p.  440'',  on  the  Moscow  and  Athens  reprints  of 
Orube  8  edition  of  the  Codex  Alexandrinus  ;  and  ct.,  (or  ItJi  dis- 
astrous results,  e.g.  Olkonomos,  ii.  2£l,on  the  reading  $if  and 
X<ip*'  In  Ps  131". 

I  Cf.  Ps  11*,  where  lit  w,  wit^ra  has  nothing  answering  to  It 
In  Hebrew ;  a  scholion  remarks  that  it  ttuirt  it  nr  rix<ii  r«*  #' 
««•»  »)A^Mm  ;  Up,  184,  sah.,  Theodoret  have  for  It  •,'>  n:.  •;«<i^ 
p^t^t. 


other  sources.  These  have  been  found  in  the  re- 
censions which  Jerome  mentions  as  being  circulated 
in  his  times,  besides  the  copies  produced  by  Eusebius 
and  I'ampliilus.  Jerome,  who  was  almost  the  only 
one  who  opposed  the  popular  views  about  (5,  had 
also  the  right  insight  into  the  consequences  of 
Origen's  labours  in  textual  criticism,  when  he 
wrote  to  Augustine — 

'  Et  miror  quomodo  LXX  interpretum  libros  legaa  non  puros 
ut  ab  els  editi  sunt,  sed  ab  Origene  emendatos  sive  corruptos 
per  obelos  et  asteriscos.  .  ,  .  Vis  amator  esse  verus  Septuaginta 
mterpretum,  non  legas  ea,  qua)  sub  asteriscis  sunt,  imo  rade  de 
voluminibus,  ut  veteruni  te  fauturem  probes.  Ouod  si  feceris, 
omnes  ecclcsiarum  bibliothecas  damnare  cogens.  Vix  enio. 
unus  aat  alter  invenietur  liber  qui  ista  non  haneat.' 

He  mentions  several  times  three  sets  of  Bible 
texts  as  used  in  his  time  (PrcBf.  in  Paralip.,  adv. 
Ruf.  u.  27)— 

'  Alexandria  et  ^E^ypt"'  •"  Septuaginta  suis  Betychium  laudat 
auctorem,  Constantinopolis  usque  Antiochiam  Luciani  {var.  lee. 
Juliani)  martyris  exemplaria  probat.  medije  inter  has  provinciffl 
Paleostinos  (par.  Uc.  -nai)  codices  legunt  quos  ab  Origene  elabor- 
ates Eusebius  et  Pamphilus  vulgaverunt ;  tosusque  orbis  hac  inter 
se  trifaria  varietate  compugnat.' 

The  Gothic  priests,  Sunnja  and  Fretela,  who  had 
addressed  him  about  questions  in  textual  criticism, 
he  instructed  in  the  year  403 — 

*  Aliam  esse  editionem  quam  Origenes  et  Cajsariensis  Eusebius 
omnesque  Gneciffl  tractatores  xpittit,  i.e.  comniunem  appellant 
atque  vulgatom,  et  a  plerisque  nunc  Apvjux^ct '  dicitur,  aliam 
Septuaginta  intei-pretum  ijuaj  in  iixvke'it  codicibus  reperitur  et 
a  nobis  in  latinuni  semionem  fideliter  versa  est  et  Jerosolymae 
atque  in  orientis  ecclesiis  decantatur  .  .  .  xpitr,  autem  ista,  hoc 
est  communis,  editio  ipsa  estqua)  et  Septuaginta,  sed  hoc  interest 
inter  utramque  quod  *o/»>:  pro  locis  et  teniporibus  et  pro  voluu- 
tate  scriptorum  vetuscorrupta  editio  est,  ea  autem  qua)  babetur 
in  icaa-Aoff  et  quam  nos  vertimus,  ipsa  est  qua)  in  cruditorum 
libris  incorrupta  et  iuiuiaculata  Septuaginta  interpretum  trans- 
latio  reservatur.' 

About  the  person  and  the  work  of  Hesy chilis  we 
know  very  little.  He  may  have  been  (not  the 
lexicograplier  of  the  second  half  of  the  4th  cent., 
who  was  a  pagan,  but)  the  martyr-bishop  mentioned 
by  Eusebius,  HE  viii.  13,  together  wiMi  Phileas  of 
Ihmuis  (Sw.  79:  'It  is  pleasant  to  think  of  the 
two  episcopal  confessors  employing  their  enforced 
leisure  in  their  Egyptian  prison  by  revising  the 
Scrii)tures  for  tlie  use  of  their  flocks,  neany  at 
the  same  time  that  Pamphilus  and  Eusebius  and 
Antoninus  were  working  under  similar  conditions 
at  Cxsarea ').  The  fruit  of  his  work  is  now  .sought 
for  the  Octateuch  in  the  MSS  44,  74,  76,  84,  lOli, 
134,  etc.  (see  N.  McLean,  J'J'hSt,  ii.,  Jan.  19U1, 
p.  306) ;  for  the  Prophets,  at  least  for  Isaiah  ami 
the  XII,  in  Q  and  its  supporters,  20,  106,  1!>>S,  306 
(see  A.  Ceriani,  de  codice  Marchaliano,  Uonui', 
1800,  pp.  48ff.,  105  If.). 

More  clearly  defined  is  onr  information  about 
Lucian  and  his  work  (see  on  him  Sw.  p.  8011'.). 
Westcott-Hort  came  to  tlie  conclusion,  that  for 
the  NT  the  growing  diversity  and  confusion  of 
Greek  texts  led  to  an  authoritative  revision  at 
Antioch,  which  was  at  a  later  time  subjected  to 
a  second  authoritative  revision,  carrying  out  more 
coni])letely  the  purposes  of  the  first.  Of  known 
names,  they  wrote,  Lucian's  has  a  better  claim 
than  any  other  to  be  associated  with  the  early 
Syrian  revision.  These  revisers  of  the  NT  'evi- 
dently wished  their  text  to  be  as  far  as  possible 
eas}',  smooth,  and  complete,  and  for  this  purpose 
borrowed  freely  from  all  quarters,  and  as  freely 
used  the  file  to  remove  surviving  asperities '  (ed. 
inin.  p.  557).  This  description  agrees  fully  with 
our  information  about  the  Lucianic  revision  of  the 
or,  and  with  tlie  observations  we  can  gather  from 
the  existing  documents,  in  which  it  is  found  to  sur- 
vive, for  the  Octateuch  in  19,  82,  108,  118;  in  the 
Historical  books  93  is  to  be  added  ;  in  the  Prophets 
22,  .36,  48,  51,  62,  90,  93,  144,  147,  233,  308. 

The  Lucianic  recension  is  of  the  highest  value 
*  Olkonomos,  Iv.  99,  wishes  to  road  Ammmwh. 


446 


SEPTUAGINT 


SEPTUAGINT 


for  the  textual  criticism  of  tlie  Hebrew  OT ;  for 
tlie  Hel)row  MSS,  used  by  Lucian  at  Antioch, 
seem  to  liave  been  liilferent  from  those  whicli  were 
at  Origen's  (iis|iosal,  furtlier  removed  from  the 
traditional  Hebrew  text ;  but  it  must  not  be  con- 
founded, as  its  editor  P.  de  Lagarde  was  careful 
to  warn  ua  (see  especially  Mittheilungen,  ii.  171), 
with  the  Septuagint.  On  the  question,  whether 
among  the  materials  used  for  his  revision  the 
Syriac  version  was  also  included,  and  the  other, 
how  his  revision  is  related  to  the  Latin  versions. 
Bee  Nestle,  Intivd.  p.  182.  *  The  statement 
that  his  autograph  copy  in  3  columns  was,  after 
his  martyrdom,  found  at  Nicomedia,  we  see  no 
reason  to  doubt  (against  Sw.  p.  85). t 

No  express  statements  emanating  from  later  times 
are  known  to  the  present  writer  regarding  attempts 
to  revise  fli.  That  the  emperor  Constantine 
ordered  50  Bibles  for  his  churches  from  Eusebius, 
and  that  Athanasius  procured  for  Constans  irvirrla 
Tuv  0tluv  7po(/i(2i/,  may  be  mentioned  in  this  con- 
nexion. Later  emperors  and  empresses  showed 
their  religious  zeal  partly  by  waiting  copies  with 
their  own  hands.  The  history  of  G  passed  on  to  the 
nations,  which  received  it  in  the  form  of  translations. 

vi.    VERSIO.VS    made   from   the    SEPTUAGINT.— 

If  we  are  to  trust  the  statement  of  Zosimus  Pano- 
politanus  (see  Oikonomos,  ii.  328),  the  Hebrew  Bible 
was  translated  for  Ptolemy  at  one  and  the  same 
time  into  Greek  and  into  Egj-ptian  ;  but  Latin,  not 
Egyptian,  was  probably  the  first  language  into 
whuh  ffi  was  translated. 

On  the  Latin  versions  of  (5  see  the  exhaustive 
article  of  H.  A.  A.  Kennedy  in  vol.  iii.  p.  47  &.  X 
The  most  important  addition  to  note  is  the  publica- 
tion of  Hcptateuchi  partis  pontenoris  vcrsiu  latina 
antiquissima  e  codire  Luqdunensi  par  Ulysse 
Robert  (Lyon,  1900,  4°).  This  discovery,  already 
noticed  by  Kennedy  (p.  49),  called  by  McLean  the 
most  important  event  of  the  past  decade  in  con- 
nexion with  Sept.  studies  {JThSt,  ii.  30.5),  shows  the 
mixed  character  of  the  Latin  Bible  text,  already 
acknowledged  by  Kennedy,  in  the  mo.st  striking 
way ;  no  Greek  MS  or  group  of  MSS  being  known 
to  which  this  Latin  text  adheres  persistently.  And 
the  second,  not  less  puzzling  feature  of  these  Latin 
texts  becomes  once  more  apparent,  namely  their 
variety.  Cf.,  for  instance,  Dt  31  in  the  L[ugdun- 
ensis],  M[onacensis],  and  W[irceburgensis]. 

V."  Kari^fxjiia  comestio  L 

devoratio  M 
interitus  W. 
Koi  ffX/V'ij(-e«)  et  tribulatio  L 

et  tribulationes  W 
omitted  altogether  M. 

v.*  Kal  i^nr\i)a64vTei  Kop-qaovai 

et  repleti  recedent  (=xi^irh<'ov(ri)  L 
et  sjitiati  desiendent  ludentes  M 

(  =  ;^opet''(roi'(Ti,  or  ira/j"ofTcy) 
et  saturati  alienabuutur  W. 

•  E.  Klostermann  {Origenes'  HVrte,  iii.  p.  xi)  promisee  an  In- 
vestii^alion  on  the  Jeremiah  text  used  by  Orijren,  which  a^'rees 
frequently  with  the  group  of  MSS  which  are  considered  as 
Lucianic.  Adam  Mez  {Die  Bibfi  de«  Joacphus  untermchl  /iir 
Buck  v.-vii.  der  Archaologu,  IJasel,  1895)  notices  that  the  Bible 
used  by  Josephus  shows  in  Judges  and  Samuel  many  agreementa 
with  Lucianic  readings,  and  presupposes,  therefore,  an  *  Ur- 
Lucian.'  The  paper  on  '  Lucian's  recension  of  the  Septuagint* 
{Church  Qiiarterty  Review,  Jan.  1901,  pp.  37S)-398)  came  to  the 
knowledge  of  the  present  writer  too  late  to  be  used  for  this 
article. 

t  On  a  copy  going  back  to  Basil,  see  SyncelluB  (Chronogr.  p. 

382);  i.  ■»/  di  et*riyp<x^  ktcir  iixpi^nfMtai  M»ret  r<  vriyn,jt  met* 
wparmiioL,,  ix  vrit  i*  }\.our*puai  ^tSkidbiiXritj  i>  w  s«j  irlytyfiarrrt, 
it  iutytit  xai  0iro(  RaWXuof,  toe  i£   Z*  ucf'va  (tTI/Aa^,  «»ri^aA^v 

itMpSifar*.  In  this  copy  Syncellus  foimd  28  («*i  )  years  for  the 
reign  of  ts«ii  in  2  K  16^.  This  number  ia  found  to-day  in  the 
MSS  55,  6«,  84,  119,  245,  246. 

J  The  influence  which  O  exercised  on  the  formation  of  the 
mcdiajval  Ronmii  and  even  Teutonic  languages  through  the 
medium  of  the  Latin  Bible  version  can  be  only  hinted  at.  Even 
words  of  C(in*mon  life  like  oanap^,  eidre,  find  their  origin  ulti- 
DlaU:l.^  ill  i3. 


In  the  Bk.  of  Judges  the  new  text  side  j  regularly 
with  A  against  B  ;  in  some  cases  (1°  5*'-  *>)  it  alone 
offers  what  seems  to  be  the  original  reading  (see 
McLean,  I.e.).  On  Wisd.,  Sirach,  Esth.,  Job, 
Judith,  1  and  2  Mac,  Pas.sio  Maccaba-orum,  Bar., 
3  Es.,  Cant.,  see  Ph.  Thielmann,  '  Bericht  iibei 
das  gesanimelte  handschriftliche  Alaterial  zu  einer 
kritischen  Ausgabe  der  lateinischen  Ueberset- 
zungen  bibli.scher  Bucher  des  alten  Testamentes' 
(Silzungsberlrkte  der  K.  buyer.  Akad,  d.  Wisi. 
1899,  Bd.  ii.  Heft  2,  pp.  205-243). 

On  the  Egyptian  versions  see  Forbes  Robinson 
in  vol.  i.  p.  668  ff.  There  is  but  one  important 
addition  to  mention — The  earliest  known  Coptic 
Psalter,  edited  by  Wallis  Budge  (Lond.  1898). 
F.  E.  Briglitman  (JThSt,  ii.  275)  has  shown  that  it 
represents  the  complete  Greek  text,  of  which  U 
contains  fragments,  and  that  it  has  some  remark- 
able readings,  which  do  not  occur  in  the  common 
Greek  text  but  only  in  Latin  documents,  e.g.  i^aal- 
\evafr  diri  liJXou  in  Ps  95'",  which  is  quoted  from 
Justin  onwards.  Cf.  further,  Lieblein,  '  Thebansk- 
Koptick  Oversaettelse  af  Da\-ids  89.  90  Psalme' 
(Academy  of  Christiania,  1896);  W.  E.  Crum, 
'Coptic  Studies'  in  Eg.  Expl.  F.  Rep.  for  1897, 
1898). 

On  the  Ethiopie  versions  gee  R.  H.  Charles  in 
vol.  i.  p.  791.  With  the  fact  quoted  tliere  that 
the  Ethiopie  Bible  at  no  time  contained  the  books 
of  Maecaoees,  compare  the  parallel  fact  that  they 
are  unknowTi  also  to  the  Canon  in  the  39th  festal 
letter  of  Athanasius  and  in  Codex  B,  which  is  con- 
nected by  Rahlfs  ^vith  Athanasius  {GGN,  1899,  i. 
p.  72). 

Scarcely  any  addition  has  been  made  to  the 
Arabic  versions  since  they  were  treated  by  F.  C. 
Burkitt  in  vol.  i.  p.  13611". 

Of  the  Gothic  version  ascribed  to  Ulfilas,  only  a 
few  fragments  of  the  OT  are  extant,  from  Gn  S-''*", 
Ps  52=^,  Ezr  15.  16.  17  (not  28-'=) ;  but  these  are 
sufficient  to  show  that  Ulfilas,  as  might  have  been 
suspected,  followed  the  recension  used  in  Constan- 
tinople— that  of  Lucian.  The  best  edition  is  that 
of  Lppstrora  (Upsala,  1854,  1857,  4°),  the  most  con- 
venient that  of  Stamm-Heyne  ('1896,  in  which, 
however,  as  in  all,  the  order  in  Ezra  must  be  re- 
versed in  the  way  indicated  above),  or  E.  Bernhardt, 
1884.*  For  the  literature  see  Sw.  p.  116;  Urt. 
119-121. 

The  recension  of  Lucian  is  the  basis  also  of  the 
Slavonic  version  (first  printed  at  Ostrago,  1581). 
From  the  quotations  in  Holmes  (on  Gen.)  one 
might  almost  conclude  that  its  present  form  is 
based  on  the  Aldine  edition  of  1518,  so  frequently 
does  it  agree  with  it.  For  literature  see  Urt. 
p.  215  (Leskien) ;  Sw.  p.  120 ;  Holmes,  Prwf.  in 
Tent. 

The  Georgian  version  was  nsed  for  Holmes  (see 
Praef.  in  Pent.),  but  the  fust  edition  (Moscow, 
1743)  was  made  conformable  to  the  Slavonic  Bible 
by  the  Prince  Vakhusht,  son  of  Vakhtang,  king 
of  Georgia.     See  Urt.  p.  161  ;  Sw.  p.  120. 

The  Armenian  version  (sec  the  article  of  F.  C. 
Conybeare  in  vol.  i.  p.  151)  rivals,  in  importance 
for  the  textual  criticism  of  G,  the  Sjriac,  and  will 
be  used  for  the  larger  Cambridge  edition  of  C 

The  version  of  the  OT  which  came  into  common 
use  in  the  5yriac-speaking  churches  was  made 
from  the  Hebrew,  tnough  it  occasionally  under- 
went intluences  from  (E  (see  art.  SvRlAC  Versions). 
But  besides  this  common  version  (Pe-shitta),  the  zeal 
of  this  Church  produced  a  translation  of  Ci,  prob- 
ably the  most  literal  that  ever  appeared  in  any 
language,  and  therefore  of  the  greatest  importance 
for  the  textual  critic.  It  was  the  work  of  one 
Paul,  bishop  of  Telia  dhe  Mauzelath  (Coi  stantine 

*  An  American  edition  woj*  published  by  O.  11.  Balg,  UIl 
waukee,  1891.    That  of  Massmou  is  from  1865-1857. 


SEPTUAGIXT 


SEPTUAGIXT 


447 


in  Mesopotamia),  and  was  executed  by  liim  in 
Alexandria  in  the  years  GlG-617  There  he  liad  at 
his  disposal  several  MSS,  which  went  back — with 
few  intervening  links — to  tlie  very  Hexupla  or 
Tetrapla  of  Ori;,'en  ;  hence  the  usual  name  of  this 
version,  the  Sijro  •  Hexaplnr.  Andrew  du  Macs 
(Masius,  tl573;  see  on  his  merits  Sst.  i.  13-16) 
possessed  a  copy  containing  part  of  Deut.,  Josh., 
Judges,  1  and  2  Sam.,  1  and  '_'  Kings,  Chron.,  Ezr., 
Esth.,  Judith,  and  part  of  Tobit.  Unfortunately, 
this  codex  has  disappeared  ;  but  what,  in  all  likeli- 
hood, is  the  second  volume  of  it,  is  preserved  at 
the  Ambrosian  Library  at  Milan,  and  was  piven  to 
the  world  through  the  labours  of  Ceriani  and  a 
generous  gift  of  Frederick  Eicld  (see  above,  p.  443'') 
as  the  Codex  Syro-Hexaplaris  Ambrosianus  in 
a  photo-lithograiihic  facsimile  edition  as  torn.  vii. 
of  the  Monumenta  sncra  et  profaTia  [Milano,  1874, 
fol.);  while  the  other  parts  tliat  survived  of  this 
version  (from  Gen.,  Ex.,  Numb.,  .Josh,,  Judges, 
1  and  2  Kings)  have  been  most  carefully  edited 
in  the  la.st  work  of  P.  de  Lagarde  (Hililiutheca 
Syrincce  a  Paulo  de  Logardt  collects  quw  ad  Philo- 
loginm  Sacram  pertinent,  (iottingae,  1892,  4°, 
finished  by  A.  Kahlfs).  Of  the  former  publications 
— .see  the  list  in  Nestle,  Litt.  syr.  p.  29  f. — only 
that  of  Thomas  Skat  Uordam  {Librt  Jud'uum  et 
Ruth  secundum  versionem  syriaco  -  hexaplarem, 
Haunise,  1859-61,  4°)  deserves  mention,  on  account 
of  the  '  Dissertatio  de  regulis  grammaticis,  quas 
secutua  est  Paulus  Tellensis  in  Veteri  Testamento 
ex  Grneco  Syriace  vertendo'  (pp.  1-57),  together 
with  Field's  Olium  Norvicensc,  sive  Tcntamen  de 
Jicliquiis Aq^iilm  Symmachi  et  Theodotionis  e  lingua 
Hyriftra  in  Gracam  ronvertendis,  Oxon.  1S64,  4°. 
On  account  of  the  MSS  used  by  Paul,  and  the 
princiijles  followed  by  him,  this  version  forms  our 
chief  authority  for  the  text  of  Origen's  recension. 
Oa  the  Arabic  translation  based  on  it  see  above, 
p.  44;')'.  For  the  literature  see  W.  Wright,  art. 
'  Syriac  Literature'  in  Eney.  Brit.  vol.  xxii.  = 
Short  history,  p.  18  ;  Field,  llcxapla,  L  p.  Ixviitf.  ; 
Sw.  112ir.  ;  Urt.  117. 

On  other  attempts  to  translate  parts  of  (5  into 
Syriac,  by  Polycarp  in  the  5th  cent.  (Psalms), 
Jacob  of  Ede.ssa  in  the  years  704-5,  see  Sw. 
p.  115f. ;  Gwynn,  Dirt.  Chr.  /Hog.  iv.  433. 

On  the  fragments  of  translations  in  the  so-called 
Palestinian  ilialect,  we  may  refer  to  Sw.  p.  114  f., 
and  especially  to  F.  C.  I'.urkitt  ('Christian  Pale- 
stinian Literature'  in  JThSt,  ii.  17411'. ).  The  frag- 
ments enumerated  by  Sw.  p.  115,  from  Gen.,  Ex., 
Numb.,  1  Sam.,  1  kin"s,  Psalms,  Prov.,  Job, 
AVisd.,  Anuis,  Micah,  Joel,  Jonah,  Zech.,  Is., 
Jeremiah,  have  been  augmented  since  by  the 
publication  of  Palestinian  Syriac  texts  from  pal- 
impsest fragments  in  the  Taylor-Schechtcr  collec- 
tion, edited  by  A.  S.  Lewis  and  M.  I).  Gibson 
(l>ond.  1900,  4°),  containing  portions  of  Numb., 
Deut.,  Psalms,  Is.,  Jer.,  and — as  recognized  by  V. 
IJyssel— of  Sirach  (frag,  xviii.).  On  the  date  and 
place  of  this  whole  literature  see  liiirkitt,  I.e. 

Up  to  the  present  day  several  of  the  Churches 
in  which  these  various  versions  of  G  arose,  have 
never  emancipated  themselves  from  them.  But 
even  in  those  parts  where,  as  in  the  Latin  West 
through  Jerome,  or  in  modern  Europe  through  the 
influence  of  the  Reformation,  new  Bible  versions, 
based  on  the  Hebrew  original,  came  into  use,  there 
is  still,  in  greater  or  less  degree,  an  echo  of  (S  to  be 
licard  through  worship  and  theology.  It  may 
Kulliie  to  recall  tlie  Pnij'er-Book  version  of  the 
I'snims,  or  even  the  latest  revision  of  the  English 
Bible,  in  which  it  is  not  the  names  alone  of  the 
lM)oks  of  the  OT  from  Genesis  to  Ecclesiasticus  that 
tell  of  this  first  and  most  remarkable  of  all  bibli- 
cal versions. 

Matkuials  for  run  Restoration  op  ffi.— 


The  materials  for  the  restoration  of  (5  are,  as  can 
be  gathered  from  the  preceding  history,  (1)  manu- 
scripts, (2)  versions,  (3)  quotations. 

(1)  Manuscripts. — The  M.SS  used  for  the  work 
of  Holmes-P.arsons  arecountcil  at  the  end  of  vol.  v. 
as  311  ;  I. -XIII.,  being  uncial  MSS,  are  designated 
by  Roman,  the  rest,  being  cursives,  by  Arabic 
figures.  Tliere  are  some  mistakes  in  this  list :  23, 
for  instance,  the  Codex  Venetus,  is  an  uncial 
codex  ;  others,  counted  under  diH'erent  numbers, 
have  turned  out  to  be  parts  of  one  and  the  same 
MS.  Another  system  of  designation,  used  by 
Lagarde  and  in  the  Cambridge  Septuagint,  is  to 
denote  the  uncial  MSS  by  the  capital  letters  of  the 
Latin  (and  Greek)  alphabet ;  for  a  particular  class 
of  MSS  Lagarde  used  small  letters  of  the  Roman, 
Cornill  (in  Ezekiel)  of  the  tJreek  alphabet.  It 
will  be  tlie  task  of  the  large  Cambridge  Septuagint 
to  introduce  a  system  of  notation  that  will  be 
generally  accepted  ;  meanwhile  it  is  best  to  adhere 
for  the  uncials  to  the  system  of  Lagarde-Swete,  for 
the  cursives  to  Holmes- Parsons,  always  keeping  in 
mind  that  the  sharp  distinctiim  between  uncials 
and  cursives  is  in  no  way  justified. 

Ab  to  the  contents,  the  MSS  may  be  divided  into 
those  which  contain  the  whole  Bible  (OT)  or  parts 
of  it,  the  Octateuch,*  the  Historical,  Poetical,  and 
Prophetical  books.  Most  frequent  are  MSS  of 
the  Psalms.  The  arrangement  of  these  groups, 
and  of  the  books  within  each  group,  varies  greatly 
(see  Sw.  pp.  195-230  :  '  Titles,  Grouping,  Number, 
and  Order  of  the  Books '). 

The  books  of  Moses  seem  to  stand  at  the  head 
with  no  exception,  and  in  all  MSS  the  order  seems 
to  be  the  usual  one,  the  inverted  order,  Nu.  Lev. 
being  atte.sted  only  by  Melito  (Ens.  HE  iv.  26; 
Sw.  p.  203),  in  the  list  published  by  Mommsen 
(Sw.  p.  212),  and  by  Leontius  of  Byzantium  (Sw. 
p.  207).  In  Latin  the  tliird  book  is  sometimes 
called  Leviticurn,  the  fifth  Deuteronomi««.  Philo's 
designation  of  the  latter,  t)  'ETrii/o^/s,  is  taken  from 
the  book  of  Plato  so  inscribed  ;  Judges  he  calls 
il  Twv  Kpi/xaTuv  ^(/SXos.  The  counting  of  four  books 
of  Kings  or  rather  Kingdoms  (liaffiXfiui')  has  been 
retained  by  the  Latin  Bible,  partially  also  the 
name  llapaXeiTrdfiefa  for  Chronicles.  The  form 
napa\ttirifx(yai  occurs  not  only  in  Gregory  of 
Nazianzns  and  Leontius  (see  Sw.  [ip.  205,  207),  but 
also  in  Origen  (now  Berlin  edition,  iii.  74,  1.  15  ; 
not  decisive  io  tj  irpon-j  ISeurlpq.]  tQv  n.,  i.  341, 
ii.  374).  On  the  other  books  and  their  names  see 
Sw.  p.  216  ;  but  note  that  the  last  books  are  gener- 
ally called  ri,  JIoKxa/SaiVd,  books  treating  of  (Judas) 
Macc.aba'us ;  the  extension  of  the  name  to  the 
whole  family,  now  generally  in  use,  the  M,accabe&» 
(plural),  is  not  original.  On  the  groupin"  of  the 
books  (Historical,  mcluding  Pentateucli,  Poetical, 
Prophetical)  see  Sw.  p.  218  ;  on  their  number,  Sw. 
p.  219;  art.  CANON  in  vol.  i.  p.  348  ff.  ;  on  the 
internal  order,  Sw.  p.  226.  The  statement  of  J. 
M.  Fuller  [Upcaker's  Commentary  on  the Aporryphii, 
i.  308),  that  the  MSS  ordered  by  Constantino  From 
Euscbius  were  '  the  first  comtilete  Greek  Bible,' 
and  that  it  contained  apparently  the  books  of  the 
Ilelirew  Canon  and  the  Alexandrian  version  of 
the  Apocrypha  added  as  an  Appendix,  does  not 
seem  to  restx)n  sure  foundation.  When  Eu.sebius 
writes  that  he  sent  off  the  books  iy  rro\vTe\ui 
7}ffKr]fi4voii  Tfi'-x^^i  Tptaaa  Kal  TtTpoao-o,  the  most 
probable  explanation  of  the  much  disputed  closing 
words  seems  to  be,  that  each  Bible  consisted  of 
three  or  four  volumes.  In  a  note  at  the  end  of 
Esther  in  the  Codex  Sinaiticus  it  is  stated  that  it 

•  Orwli  MSS  moRtIv  count  Oen.-Ruth  u  booVn  1-8,  u  Jitr»- 

Tiyx«  ;  the  Latin  Msf>  (Icn.-Jtidgcn  an  IIrptate\ir/in8  ;  ttu'  word 

Hexat«iirh,  now  ho  tinich  In  unc  tliat  It  Iioh  an  ortirir'  dcvot«d 

to  it  in  the  preueut  worlc,  •eemi  to  be  An  Ixuiovation  of  t^e  late 

I  19tb  century. 


448 


SEPTUAGIXT 


SEPTUAGINT 


was  compared  witli  a  MS  beloiij,nng  to  Paniphilus, 
which  dpxv^  M^**  f^X^**  ^'^^  "^^s  vpjrnjs  tujv  UacrtXeiutVj 
el!  5i  TTji/  'E(r8rip  SXriyev.  From  this  it  is  [irobable 
that  it  was  an-anged,  not  like  B,  wliicli  inserts  the 
seven  Poetical  books  (the  five  Canonical  +  Wisdom 
and  Sirach)  between  Ezra  and  Esther,  nor  like  A,  in 
which  the  Prophets  follow  Chronicles,  and  after 
them  Esther,  but  like  S  and  N,  in  which  Ezra  and 
Esther  follow  in\mediately  upon  Chronicles.  This 
would  give  a  Bible  of  four  volumes  (Octateuch, 
Historical  books,  Prophetical  books,  Poetical 
books). 

As  regards  their  age,  the  MSS  range  from  the 
3rd  to  the  16th  cent.  To  the  3rd  cent,  is  ascribed 
a  scrap  of  papyrus  in  the  British  Museum,  yield- 
ing the  text  of  Gn  14"  (Pap.  ccxii.  ;  see  Sw.  p.  146) 
and  the  fragment  of  a  Psalter  (cont.  Ps  12''-15^), 
'  the  oldest  Bible  MS  in  any  language  in  the 
British  Museum  and  one  of  the  oldest  in  existence 
aiij'where'  (see  Facsimiles  of  Biblical  Manuscripts 
in  the  British  Museum,  edited  by  Fred.  G.  Kenyon, 
19U0,  pi.  i.  Pap.  ccxxx.). 

It  is  impossible  to  give  here  a  list  of  the  MSS  of 
(K,  or  even  of  the  uncials ;  some  of  them  have 
been  treated  under  separate  articles ;  see  the 
letter.s  AsBCL ;  we  must  refer  to  Sw.  p.  122  If. 
and  tile  literature  quoted  there  ;  only  some  supple- 
mentary remarks  may  be  ottered — 

In  A  (Alexandrinus)  the  Psalter  appears  not  to 
have  been  copied  from  the  same  original  as  the  rest 
of  theMS.but  taken  from  a  separateChurch-Psalter 
(just  as  in  the  Aldine  Bible  of  1518).  Hence  the 
additions  before  and  after  the  Psalms  (letter  of 
Atiianasius,  canon  of  morning  and  evening  psalms, 
etc.  ;  Canticles).  It  would  be  well  to  control  its 
use  in  the  Cambridge  Septuagint  by  comparison 
once  more  with  the  original  or  a  former  collation  ; 
see,  e.ff.,  1  Es  4'''  A  +  airnOv;  2  Es  7°  A  has  irpurov, 
not  Trarptpov), 

On  the  connexion  of  B  (Vaticanus)  with  Atiian- 
asius see  Th.  Zahn,  Athnnasiiis  und  der  Bibel- 
knnon  (Erlangen,  1901  :  Sonderabdruck  aus  der 
Festschrift  der  Universitiit  Erlangen  zur  Feier 
des  .  .  .  Prinzregenten  Luitpold  von  Baj-em),  p. 
33 :  'It  must  be  seriously  considered  whether  the 
famous  Codex  Vaticanus  is  not  that  Bible  which 
was  produced  by  Athanasius  at  the  order  of 
Constans  at  Kome  about  340  through  Alexandrian 
copyists'  (see  Nestle,  Introduction,  p.  181,  where 
in  the  note  read  '  Constantius '  for  'Constans'). 
Ceriani's  view,  that  B  was  written  by  a  Western 
scribe,  had  been  proposed  already  by  Richard  Simon 
[Hist.  Crit.  du  NT,  c.  32).  That  it  contains  the 
recen.sion  of  Hesychius,  was  for  the  first  time,  as 
it  seems,  stated  by  Grabe  ;  Masius  believed  it  was 
that  of  Lucian,  Montfaucon  that  of  Origen.  On 
the  text  of  Judges  in  this  MS  see  below. 

S  is  a  more  convenient  symbol  than  N  for  the 
Codex  Sinaiticus,  and  is  adopted  in  Swete.  That 
the  copyist  who  WTote  the  not«  at  the  end  of 
Esther  on  the  collation  with  the  Codex  of  Pam- 
pliilus  is  identical  with  the  corrector  K°  is  an  im- 
|iortant  hint  for  the  restoration  of  the  recension 
of  Eusebius-Pamphilus. 

D  (Cottonianus).  As  this  famous  MS  was  reduced 
by  fire  in  1731  to  a  heap  of  charred  and  shrivelled 
leaves,  it  would  be  worth  while  to  make  investiga- 
tions whether  the  collation  made  before  that  time 
by  Wetstein  (AT  i.  p.  134)  is  still  in  existence. 
On  the  relation  of  its  pictures  to  the  mosaics  of 
San  Marco  in  Venice,  see  J.  T.  Tikkanen,  Die 
Genesixmosaikenvon  San  Marco  in  Venedig  und  ihr 
Verhitltnis  zu  den  Miniaturen  der  Cottonbibel,  etc., 
Helsingfors,  1889,  4°  (Acta  Soc.  Scient.  Fenn. 
xvii. ). 

G  (Sarravianus).  Add  to  the  publications  men- 
tioned by  Sw.  p.  137  : — P.  de  Lagarde,  Semitica, 
Zweites  Heft,  Gbtt.  1879  (vol.  xxv.  of  the  '  Abhand- 


lungen,'    etc. :    '  Die    pariser    blatter    des    codei 
Sarravianus '). 

M  (Coislinianus),  collated  by  Wetstein  {NT  i. 
134),  for  a  great  part  by  Lagarde  (Hymrn.  ii.  142  j 
Ankitndigung,  iii.  27  ;  USt.  i.  8). 

Q  (Marchalianus).  The  distinction  established 
by  Ceriani  between  the  origin  of  the  text  and  of 
the  marginal  matter  in  this  MS,  the  latter  only 
being  Hexaplaric,  is  a  great  help  for  the  classifica 
lion  of  the  .MSS  of  G. 

On  the  23  uncial  MSS,  or  parts  of  such,  Avhich 
have  not  yet  been  used  for  any  edition,  and  remain 
for  the  present  without  a  symbolical  letter  or 
number,  see  Sw.  146  fl".,  170.  No.  14  (formerly  in 
the  possession  of  W.  H.  Heckler)  has  lately  been 
acquired  by  the  University  of  Heidelber",  and  will 
be  edited  by  Prof.  G.  Deissmann.  On  No.  6,  the 
oldest  biblical  MS  in  the  British  Museum,  see 
preceding  column. 

The  transition  from  the  uncials  to  the  cursives 
may  be  made  by  tlie  MS  E,  which  is  now  dispersed 
in  Oxford,  London,  Cambridge  (1  leaf),  and  St. 
Petersburg.  It  was  brought  by  Tischendorf  from 
the  East  in  1853  and  1859  ;  the  Oxford  part  written 
in  uncials,  the  Cambridge  leaf,  which  was  kept  back 
by  Tischendorf,  making  the  transition  from  uncial 
to  cursive  writing,  the  rest  in  cursives.  The  whole 
recent  history  of  this  MS  has  been  described  by 
A.  Rahlfs  in  GGN  (not  GGA  as  in  Kenyon,  Fac- 
similes, plate  v.),  1898,  98-112  ;  see  also  Sw.  134 f.  ; 
Lagarde,  SSt.  i.  1-11  ;  facsimile  in  Kenyon,  pi.  v. 

Most  cursives  await  careful  investigation ; 
some  will  repay  it ;  otliers  may  be  discarded  by 
it,  as  later  copies  of  MSS  still  existing,  like  33, 
97,  238,  which  belong  to  one  MS,  and  are  copied 
from  87,  or  even  as  copied  from  printed  editions. 
This  we  suspect  to  be  the  case  with  Ho  31 
(Genesis  with  catena),  at  Vienna  {Theol.  Gr.  4)  [on 
the  date  of  this  MS  Holmes  wrote,  '  videtur  esse 
xiii.  vel  xiv.  sasculi' ;  Sw.  p.  149  '  (xiv.)' ;  Lagarde, 
Genesis  grwce,  '  sseculi  xv.  a  me  non  collatus,  sed 
inspectus  tantum  '  ;  H.  Achelis,  '  Hippolytstudien ' 
in  Ti',  N.  F.  i.4,  p.  97,  places  it  in  the  16th  cent.], 
and  with  83,  a  Pentateuch  at  Lisbon  (formerly 
Evora)  '  of  the  16th  cent.'  Both  will  tuin  out  to 
be  copied  from  the  Aldine  edition  of  1518. 

See  on  the  cursives  the  list  of  Sw.  pp.  148-168,  and 
note  that  25  is  at  Munich  in  the  '  Staats-  (not 
Stadt-)  bibliothek '  ;  53  agrees  in  Numbers  fre- 
quently with  the  Old  Latin  Codex  Lugdunensis ; 
130  is  by  Lagarde  called  t,  and  ascribed  to  the 
13tli  'utvid.'.Sw.  '(?xi.)'  ;  93  in  3  columns,  with  2 
texts  for  Esther ;  facsimile  in  Kenyon,  pi.  viii.  ; 
155  'Cod.  Meermanni  ii.'  is  now  Bodl.  misc.  Gr. 
204 ;  156  the  only  Greek  MS  containing  in  Ps  95 
(96) '"  the  addition  a  ligno,  in  the  form  dri  rt^ 
^u\tp. 

( — )  A  Psalter  not  mentioned  by  Sw.  is  in  the 
Brit.  Museum,  Add.  MS  19,352  a.d.  1066,  valuable 
not  only  aa  a  dated  e.\aniple  of  Greek  writing  of 
the  11th  cent.,  but  especially  as  an  example  of  the 
best  style  of  Bj-zantine  decorative  art,  applied  to 
the  ornamentation  of  copies  of  the  Scrijjtures  [sea 
Kenyon,  Facsimiles,  pi.  vii.,  where  Jesus  Christ  is 
enthroned  between  two  cherubim  (or  rather  sera- 
phim) as  illustration  of  Ps  79  (80)  -]. 

On  the  Lectionaries,  which  must  be  classed  among 
the  MSS,  see  Sw.  p.  1G8  f.  Their  value  would  be 
increased  if  the  Lectionary-system  of  the  Greek 
Church  is  as  old  as  has  been  contended  for  recently 
by  C.  R.  Gregory,  Tcxtkritik  des  Neuen  Testa- 
mentes,  i.  (1901),  p.  327  11". 

In  spite  of  the  great  mass  of  witne.sses  thus 
used  for  the  great  work  of  Holmes-Parsons  and 
later  editions,  their  classification  is  still  a  problem, 
even  in  a  book  like  that  of  Judges,  where  the 
differences  are  most  marked.  Compare  the  judg- 
ment of  G.  Moore  (SBOT,  'Judges,'  p.  22):  'A 


SEPTUAGIXT 


SKPTUAGINT 


419 


comiilete  stemma  exhibiting  the  filiation  of  tliese 
M.SS  and  recensions  cannot  ue  made  from  the  colla- 
tions in  HP  ' ;  we  may  even  doubt  the  correctness 
of  the  remark  added  by  Moore :  '  it  would  be 
comparatively  easy  if  we  po^i>^es.sed  a  few  accurate 
collations  of  tj'pic-j.1  MSS  properly  arraiij^uj.' 

Perhaps  a  good  step  towards  this  end  would  be 
to  arrange  complete  lists  of  the  singular  and  sub- 
singular  readings  of  our  oldest  witnesses,  as  ABS, 
e?i)ucially  for  B,  because  this  MS  serves  as  standard 
for  the  collations  of  the  larger  Cambridge  Septua- 
gint. 

Another  fact  worth  mentioning  in  this  connexion 
is,  that  every  new  witness,  in  spite  of  the  great 
number  of  MSS  already  collated  and  the  still 
greater  number  of  variations  extracted  from  them, 
adds  a  new  reading,  even  for  the  I'salms,  for 
which  some  120  JISS  have  been  used  for  HP. 
See,  for  instance,  the  spelling  irpbaax^^  instead  of 
Tojcxes  first  making  its  appearance  in  Kenyou, 
tarsinnks,  plate  v.  Ps  79  (8U)''. 

(2)  (3)  The  same  is  the  case  with  the  Versions  and 
Quotations.  On  these  see  above,  §§  iv.  and  vi.  As 
but  few  of  the  Greek  Fathers  are  accessible  in 
trustworthy  editions,  a  large  field  waits  here  for 
patient  and  careful  workers.  But,  even  before  these 
viinutite  be  settled,  ffi  can  and  must  be  used  for 
that  purpose  for  which  it  is  of  the  greatest  import- 
ance, namely  the  textual  criticism  of  the  Hebrew 
Bible. 

vii.  Use  of  G.*  —  The  remark  of  Swete  has 
already  been  quoted— that  ffi  possesses  a  new  and 
incrcasint  importance  in  the  field  of  biblical  study 
(p.  437'' n.t).  Its  value  as  a  witness  to  the  Hebrew 
text  was  recognized  partially  in  the  time  of  Origen 
and  Jerome,  and  afresh  in  tlie  days  of  the  Renais- 
sance and  onwards  from  the  17th  cent.  ;  but  it  can 
be  fully  acknowledged  only  by  those  who  adopt 
the  views  maintained  chiefly  by  Olsliausen,  Lagarde, 
and  their  followers,  that  all  existing  MSS  of  the 
Hebrew  OT  go  back  to  a  single  official  copy  or  re- 
cension, made  up  somewhere  in  Palestine,  perhaps 
at  Jamnia,  about  the  2nd  cent,  after  Clirist.  To 
quote  only  one  statement.  G.  Moore  (SBOT, 
'Judges,'  p.  23)  writes — 

•The  other  Ancient  Versions  fexcept  O) — the  Latin  of  St. 
Jerome  in  iU  Vulj^ate  form  (.'^),  the  Sj  riof;  (S),  and  the  .Jewish 
TarjT^im  ("O  are  all  Ijiised  on  the  I'aleMijiian  Hebrew  Standard 
Tfil  0/  the  tnd  ceiii.  A.D.,  aji  are  also  the  new  Greek  transla- 
tixtis  of  'A!£H,  aiiri  the  revisions  of  (3  after  these,  and  in  the 
main  the  translation  found  (for  Jud^resl  in  ©BVUmN  [t.e.  B  and 
its  allifs).  The  pre-he^aplaric  O  alone  represents  a  Hebrew 
text  older  than  the  oJJldtU  rmnon  made  m  tlie  tchool  0/  £. 
AyiAa.' 

In  other  words,  ffi  represents  for  ns  (I)  the 
excgetical  tradition,  or  at  lea-st  the  exegetical 
opinions  of  a  Jewish  school,  or  —  if  that  name 
asserts  too  much — of  individual  scholars  more 
than  2U0(J  years  before  our  time ;  it  is  the  oldest 
commentary  on  the  Hebrew  Bible  in  existence  ; 
(2)  when  re-translated  into  Hebrew  —  with  the 
necessary  precautions,  of  course — it  represents  for 
UB  the  Hebrew  MS  (or  MSS)  lying  before  its 
authors,  which  is  1000  years  older  than  the  oldest 
MS  at  present  at  our  disposal,  and  300  years  older 
than  the  one  to  which  all  of  our  Hebrew  MSS  go 
back. 

In  the  first  instance,  it  is  sufficient  to  recall 
the  great  number  of  hnprtx  hqomena  which  occur 
in  the  limited  range  of  Old  Helirew  literature.  In 
the  second  iilace,  we  learn  first  that  the  pala>o- 
graiihical  cnaraotcr  of  the  pre-Massoretic  MSS 
was  very  dillerent  from  ours  :  few  matres  lertionis, 
no  vowels,  no  lilterii;  Jinnies,  no  separation  of 
words,  so  that  even  in  liturgical  books  there  was 
uncertainty  about  those  points  (cf.  I's  105  (100)' 
aVa/3oii'o>'T«!  =  D'^i.'   for  D-H') ;  perhniis  abbreviation 

*  Ct.  tor  the  following,  Sw.  ch.  t.  '  Tb«  S«ptaairint  M  • 
T«F«lon,'  pp.  314-841. 
VOL.  IV. — 29 


strokes  for  n,  o,  n ;  see   Lagarde,  Mitthcilicngen, 
i.  21 ;  Fel.  Perles,  Analckten  (18'Jo,  pp.  4-35). 
The  second  fact  that  comes  to  liglit  from  a  cora- 

S arisen  of  ffi  and  iB.  is,  that  there  is  a  great 
illerence  between  particular  books  or  seta  of 
books  in  the  OT.  This  arises  partly  from  the 
circumstance  that  all  the  books  are  not  due  to 
the  same  translators,  but  still  more  from  the 
ditlerent  character  of  the  text  Ijiiig  before  them. 
That  Isaiah,  for  instance,  found  an  interpreter  not 
worthy  of  this  book,  was  remarked  long  ago  oy 
Zwingli  ;  the  translator  of  Job,  saj-s  Swete,  p. 
316,  was  perhaps  more  familiar  with  Greek  pagan 
literature  than  with  Semitic  poetry;  where  the 
grandson  of  Jesus  Sirach  made  his  mistakes,  we 
can  judge  better  now  than  before.  I5ut  more  im- 
portant is  the  fact  that  already  the  Hebrew  texts 
used  by  the  translators  dillered  in  varying  degrees 
from  the  Massoretic  text. 

The  differences  between  (5  and  ffl  can  be  tabu- 
lated as  touching  the  sequence  or  the  subject- 
matter.  The  difierences  of  the  subject-matter  are, 
of  course,  of  greater  interest ;  they  are  of  a  tliree- 
fold  character — additions,  omissions,  variations. 

On  the  differences  of  sequence  see  Sw.  pp.  231- 
242.  There  are  unimportant  diflerences  in  Gn 
31.  36.  47,  Ex  20  (order  of  commandments)  ;  Nu 
1.  6.  26,  Jos  9.  19  (vol.  ii.  p.  782) ;  great  differences 
in  Ex  35^0,  3  Kegn.  4.  5.  6.  7.  10.  11,  Pr  15.  20.  24, 
Jer  25-41.  On  Ex.  see  vol.  i.  p.  810 f.;  on  Kings, 
ii.  862  If.  ;  on  Prov.,  Sw.  p.  241  ;  on  Jer.,  vol.  iii.  p. 
573  f.).*  Very  awkward  is  the  different  number- 
ing of  the  Psalms. 

On  the  difference  in  the  subject-matter  see  Sw. 
242  If.  If  we  were  to  have  a  complete  edition  of 
Origen's  Hexapla  with  its  critical  signs,  it  would 
be  convenient  to  see  at  a  glance  the  omissions  and 
additions. 

The  Law  offers  the  smallest  number  of  dif- 
ferences ;  but  besides  some  famous  additions,  as 
Gn  4'  SUXOw^fi'  els  rd  Treolox,  the  second  Kaivdv  (who 
has  been  erased  in  Cod.  A  10")  10-""  11"-" 
(1  Ch  l"-23  A) — his  addition,  in  connexion  with 
other  variations,  made  the  whole  chronology  of  the 
world  different,  see  vol.  i.  p.  397  If ;  Oikonomos, 
iii.  703-835 — there  are  smaller  additions  of  interest, 
as  8  sons  of  Japheth  for  7  in  Gn  10;  11  nations 
for  10  in  Gn  15"-  '■'''(the  addition  of  the  Ei/aioi,  either 
overlooked  by  Origen  or  wanting  in  his  copy)  ; 
5  sons  of  Dedan  for  3  in  25' ;  13  heinous  offences 
for  12  in  Dt  27  (on  v.*  see  Grintield,  Apology,  pp. 
xii,  191). 

On  Joshua,  which  does  not  seem  to  have  been 
translated  together  with  the  Pentateuch,  see  vol. 
ii.  p.  781  ff.,  and  Bennett  (SHOT).  On  the  word 
laTuoi — or  yaialis ;  this  is  the  accentuation  of  B"" 
— Oikonomos,  ii.  495  If,  551,  has  40  pages. 

For  Judges,  e.g.  16"- ",  it  is  sufficient  to  refer 
to  G.  Moore. 

The  chapters  1  Regn.  (Samuel)  17.  18  furnish  a 
good  example  of  how  much  difference  of  opinion 
still  prevails.  What  Kuenen  and  Wellhausen  call 
a  liarmonLstic  omission  on  the  part  of  G,  is  con- 
sidered by  others  as  a  later  interpolation  in  ilS. 

That  G  preserved  in  3  liegn.  (1  K)  8'^; "  a  quo- 
tation from  the  Book  of  Jashar  (see  vol.  ii.  p.  551), 
and,  with  it,  what  Kittel  (Ilnndkom.)  styles  the 
oldest  more  explicit  confession  of  Jahweh  in  Israel, 
should  alone  be  sufficient  to  prove  its  importance. 

For  the  Book  of  Psalms  even  cursive  MSS  of 
G  enrich  our  knowledge  almut  the  liturgical  use 
of  the  Psalms  (see  Sw.  250);  in  the  alphabetic  psalm 
145  the  missing  letter  1  is  restored,  perhaps  only 

•  B.  Pick  In  The  (Amerlc.)  Indtpmdent  (1897,  p.  1273)  wrltet 
on  OomlU's  edition  of  JureniiaJi  (in  SBOT):  'II  Ihave  counted 
ripht,  no  less  than  1S21  words  have  thus  Deon  eliminated  from 
the  t«xt ;  and  It  is  surprising  that  none  of  these  relegated  pas* 
sages  ooDoera  any  of  the  quoUUon*  from  Jar.  In  lbs  NT.' 


450 


SEPTUAGIXT 


SEPTUAGINT 


by  conjecture.  The  adilition  to  Ps  13'  quoted  in 
Ro  3"-'*  is  omitted  by  A  and  05  cursives  out  of 
105.  Already  Jerome  declared  the  codices  of  ffi 
■which  contain  it,  to  be  interpolated  from  Ko  3. 
If  this  be  so,  the  agreement  of  sB,  on  which  for 
the  XT  Westcott-Hort  laid  so  much  stress,  is  of 
no  great  value  at  least  for  the  I'salras ;  *  on  the 
other  hand,  it  is  to  the  credit  of  those  MSS  if  thty 
have  preserved  a  text  similar  to  that  in  the  hands 
of  St.  Paul.— On  Ps  151  see  Oikonomos,  iii.  634  f.; 
on  the  ecclesiastical  Canticles  and  the  Prayer  of 
Manassas  among  them,  Nestle,  S.it.  iii.  6  11'. ;  and 
note  that  tliis  piece  has  not  been  utilized  for  the 
Greek  Concordances  of  Trommius  and  Hatch- 
Redpatli  {cf.  dv€^txvla.(TTot,  dfirn-oaraTOS^  &ct€kto$). 

On  Proverbs  Lagarde's  early  book  of  1863  is 
still  useful. 

Whether  the  shorter  form  of  Job,  in  wliich, 
according  to  Jerome's  reckoning,  '  sei)tingenti 
ferme  aut  octingenti  versus  desunt,'  preserved  a 
primitive  form,  or  is,  on  the  contrary,  the  etiect 
of  abbreviation,  see  vol.  ii.  p.  164  ;  and  correct 
there  the  statement  from  Origen,  that  sometimes 
16  or  19  verses  were  missing,  into  14  or  15  (Ex- 
positor;/ Times,  X.  523  ;  Sw.  2o5). 

On  Esther  see  vol.  ii.  p.  774  ;  the  Greek  of  the 
book  reminds  one  of  2  Mac.  (cf.  Tpio-aXiTijpios) ;  on 
Jeremiah  see  ii.  572  ;  and  cf.  i.  252  as  to  the 
identity  of  language  in  Jer.  and  Baruch,  which 
book  in  all  MSS  of  C  is  immediately  connected 
with  Jer.  and  Lamentations.  On  the  heading 
of  the  latter  see  vol.  iii.  p.  22.  On  Daniel  see 
i.  557.  Dn  11^  is  the  only  passage  where  the 
name  of  the  'Pu^aioi  occurs  in  a  translation  from 
the  Hebre^^■  (for  d'b?  as  in  C  O"^  Xu  24~).  The 
affinity  of  the  Greek  of  this  book  with  that  of 
1  Esdras  has  been  justly  pointed  out  in  i.  761. 

In  .Jeremiah,  Esther,  and  Daniel  (5  oilers  con- 
siderable passages  not  to  be  found  in  Itl ;  hut  in 
addition  to  these  ffi  has  preserved  whole  books, 
some  of  them  of  the  highest  liistorieal  or  theo- 
logical interest,  which  are  not  to  be  found  in  the 
Hebrew  Canon,  partly  because  they  were  origin- 
ally WTitten  in  Greek,  partly  for  unknown  reasons. 

The  number  of  these  books  varies  greatly  in 
the  still  e.xisting  documents ;  of  others  only  the 
titles  have  survived  ;  a  certain  number  remained 
known  through  the  medium  of  the  mediajval  Bible 
as 'Apocrypha' even  in  the  Protestant  Churches. 
On  these  see  art.  Apocrvtha,  vol.  i.  p.  Ill  tl'.,  and 
the  special  articles,  as  Baruch,  i.  251  ;t  Bel  and 

THE  DRAGOX,   276;    ESDRAS,    FIRST    AND   SECOND, 

757,  763;  J  Jeremy,  Epistle  of,  vol.  ii.  p.  578; 
Judith,  822;  Maccabep^s,  books  of  (i. -v.),  vol.  iii. 
p.  187 ;  Manasses,  Prayer  of,  232 ;  further, 
SiRACH,  Three  Children  (Sono  of  the), 
Susanna,  Wisdom  of  Solomon. 
That  the  collection  of  these  books,  though  it  is 

*  Swete'8  statement,  that  Oripen  marked  the  passage  with  an 
•"telus,  lacks  reliable  testhnonv ;  the  words  of  Jerome  are 
curious :  •  in  hebraico  non  haberi  nee  etge  in  tfptua^inta  inffr- 
pretilnu,  sed  in  editione  vulgata,  quae  ^rffice  «/i..i  dlcitur  e^  in 
toto  orbe  diversa  est.'  The  words  in  italics  are  omitted  in 
Field's  quotation  from  e<L  Vail.  iv.  663. 

t  The  puzzlinif  fact  that  on  the  margin  of  the  Svro-Hexaplarlo 
text  of  Baruch  there  arc  3  notes  stating  that  certain  words  in 
]17  23  are  not  found  in  the  Hebrew,  which  has  been  quoted  for 
a  Hebrew  orijrin  of  this  part  of  the  book  (i.  '2,''i2 ;  Sw.  276,  n.  S 
from  Bevan  in  Encpc.  Bibl.  L  494),  is  in  contradiction  to  the 
remark  at  the  head  of  the  book,  that  the  whole  was  obelized  by 
Origen,  and  finds  a  very  simple  solution.  For  these  notes  do 
not  refer  to  the  text  of  Baruch,  hut  of  the  Hebrew  OT  iiuoted 
by  Baruch  2'  from  Dt  2853.  Ori^fn  called  attention  to  the  fact 
that  the  generalizing  '  every  man  '  «.«;•«■•»  in  Bar  2^  haa  no 
P'N  P'x  to  correspond  in  Dt  28".  Thus  these  notes  are  a 
token  of  the  great  care  which  Origen  bestowed  on  his  Hexapla. 

t  On  the  statement  of  Sw.  p.  266,  and  Thackeray  (DO, 
vol.  i.  p.  7,'i8),  that  Cod.  A  entitles  both  books  iifii^t,  cf. 'Nestle 
Marmnalien  (1893),  p.  28f.,  where  it  is  shown  that  this  is 
merely  due  to  the  knife  of  the  English  bookbinder,  who  cut 
away  in  both  cases  the  first  line  of  the  title  Er^«(  (or  IiyJ)«() 


transmitted  to  us  almost  exclusively  through  the 
Church,  began  to  form  itself  in  pre-Christian  times, 
is  clear  from  the  contents  (see  vol.  L  117,  iii.  35). 
A  trace  that  G  difi'ered  from  fH  in  its  order  and 
extent  may  be  found  in  Josephus  ;  for  he  uses  not 
only  the  Greek  Esdras  and  the  Additions  to  Esther, 
but  follows  also  the  order  of  G  (not  Ifl)  when  he 
counts  5  hooks  of  Moses,  13  Prophetical  and  4 
Poetical  books,  placing,  apparently.  Chronicles, 
Ezra-Nehemiah,  Esther  (from  the  Hagiographa) 
after  Kings  (see  Strack,  '  Kanon  des  AX,  in 
PRE^  ix.  752). 

On  some  lists  of  other  Apocryphal  books  see  Sw. 
p.  281  ;  the  Catalogue  of  the  Sixty  Books  begins 
after  the  canonical  and  so-called  'apocryphal'  books 
(the  two  Wisdoms,  etc.)  :  Koi  Saa  a.ir6Kpv(pa-  'Addfi, 
'Eni'x,  Aduext  ilarptapxai,  llpofffux'?  'Iwini0,  'EXSdS, 
AiaBi'iKij  yiwv(Tiuis,' AvaXTiif/i!  M.  etc.  It  is  an  interesting 
question,  whether  a  trace  of  this  apocryphal  tradi- 
tion is  not  to  be  found  already  in  Sirach  (49''''^*). 
For,  after  he  has  gone  through  the  whole  literature 
of  the  OT  down  to  Zorobabel  and  Nehemias,  he 
suddenly  returns  to  Enoch,  Joseph,  Shem,  Seth, 
and  Adam. 

In  an  appendix  to  the  Cambridge  Septuagint  at 
least  two  of  these  books  have  found  a  place — the 
Psalms  of  Solomon  (the  apparatus  being  much  en- 
larged in  the  2nd  ed.  (iii.  765  U'.))  and  the  Greek 
fragments  of  the  Book  of  Enoch  (for  the  first  time 
added  in  the  2nd  ed.  (iii.  789  ff.)).  On  the  Psalms 
of  Solomon  cf.  the  German  translation  of  Kittel  in 
Kautzsch,  Die  Pseudcpigrnphen,121-li8;  on  Enoch, 
the  new  Berlin  edition,  Das  Bitch  Henoch,  lieraus- 
gegebeu  von  Dr.  Job.  Flemminjr  und  Dr.  L.  Rader- 
macher,  1901.  Much  to  be  welcomed  would  be  a 
collection  of  the  OT  apocrypha  as  sketched  by  Sw. 
p.  285,  including  amongst  other  remains  the  Rest 
of  t/ie  IVoi-ds  of  Baruch,  the  Apocalypse  of  Baruch, 
the  Testament  of  Abraham,  parts  of  the  Oracul'i 
Sihyllina,  the  Testaments  of  the  XII  Patriarch'^, 
the  Latin  AscenMon  of  Isaiah  (with  the  new  Greek 
Fragments  published  by  Grenfell  -  Hunt  in  The 
Amherst  Papyri,  part  i.  1900;  see  on  it  F.  C. 
Burkitt,  The  Classical  Review,  xiv.  457-459) ;  per- 
haps also  the  Latin  versions  of  4  Esdras,  Assump- 
tion of  Moses,  Book  of  Jubilees. 

All  these  additions  and  omissions  cover  but  the 
smaller  part  of  the  differences  between  US  and  ffi  ; 
far  more  numerous  are  the  variations  in  the  proper 
sense  of  the  word,  the  passages  where  G  offers  a 
reading  different  from  Ifl.  On  this  point  cf.  Sw. 
part  ii.  ch.  v.  '  The  Septuagint  as  a  Version,'  and 
p.art  iii.  ch.  iv.  'The  Greek  Versions  as  aids  to 
Biblical  Study.'  A  thorough,  accurate,  and  cautious 
comparison  between  itl  and  G  will  exhibit  these 
variations.  The  comparison  must  be  cautious, 
else  there  is  the  risk  of  stating  variations  where 
there  are  none,  and  it  must  be  accurate  and 
thorough,  else  real  variations  might  be  overlooked. 
In  the  lirst  place,  care  must  be  taken  to  eliminate 
as  much  as  possible  from  G  all  intra-Greek  corrup- 
tions, i.e.  clerical  errors,  that  sprang  up  in  the 
course  of  transmission  of  the  Greek  text,  and  it  is 
a  mistake  of  many  Commentaries  to  rest  content 
to  take  the  text  of  the  small  Cambridge  Septuagint 
as  the  standard,  as  former  scholars  used  to  acqui»-so» 
in  that  of  the  Sixtina.  Take  as  example  the  la'.est 
German  Commentary  on  Genesis,  that  of  Gunkel 
(Gottingen,  1901),  and  the  very  first  note  touching 
the  textual  criticism  of  this  book.  It  concerns  the 
use  of  the  Divine  names  in  ch.  2,  and  runs :  '  .Tiir 
d'.iVk  is  found  in  Genesis  in  Hebrew  only  in  chs.  2.  3 
(LXX,  differing  from  the  Hebrew,  has  in  2»' '•»•"• " 
i  Sfis).'  Now,  this  is  true  of  the  Codex  Alezan- 
drinus :  if  Gunkel  had  used  the  editio  Sixtina,  he 
would  have  had  to  add  vv,'-  " ;  and  if  we  are  still 
more  circumspect,  as  commentators  ought  to  be,  and 
resort  to  Philo,  Field's  Hexapla,  the  collations  oj 


SEPTUAGINT 


SEnUAGINT 


451 


H  ;lmes,  the  versions  as  mtuesses  for  ffi,  we  must 
add  further  v.*;  i.e.  not  5  times,  but  8  times, 
G  omits  ■Ti.T  in  this  chapter,  and  liaa  it  only  twice 
(w."-").*  The  second  care  must  be  to  observe 
the  practice  of  these  translators  ;  cf.  Sw.  p.  325  : 
'The  Alexandrian  translators,  wliile  loyal  to  their 
original,  aometinios  even  to  a  fault,  manifest 
notliinj;  like  the  slavish  adherence  to  the  letter 
with  which  Aquila  has  been  charged.  They  often 
amplify  and  occasionally  orait ;  they  render  the 
same  Hebrew  words  by  more  than  one  Greek 
efjuivalent,  even  in  the  same  context ;  they  intro- 
duce metaphors  or  grammatical  constructions  which 
have  no  place  in  the  Hebrew  text,  and  probably  at 
no  time  had  a  place  there,  or  tliey  abandon  lifjures 
of  speech  where  the}'  exist  in  the  original.'  Tliere 
is  no  mention  here  of  the  fact  especially  urged  by 
Frankel,  that  the  translators  followed  some  sort 
of  exegetical  tradition  (L.  Frankel,  Vurstndien  zu 
der  Sc/itutiijiiifri,  1841  ;  Ueber  den  EinJIuss  der 
paldstitiixc/ieti  Exegese  auf  die  alexandrinische 
Hermrncitli/:,  1851).  We  must  further  bear  in 
mind  that  the  translators  were  accustomed  to  the 
Aramaic  speech  rather  than  to  the  Hebrew.  To 
the  examples  quoted  by  Sw.  p.  319,  add,  for  in- 
stance, Ps  59  (60)«  i'm  =  Ajrt$,  140  (141)'  D.i-riy5  = 
ivSoKlais  atnuv.  Already  Jerome  remarked  on  this 
word  in  Ec  l"  nijn  =  vpoalpcaa  :  '  non  hebraicum 
sermonem  expre.sserunt,  sed  syrum.'  On  meanmgs 
attached  to  Hebrew  roots  known  to  us  only  from 
Arabic  see  Sw.  p.  498,  Ps  83  (84) '  iiiaei,  Dn  "i^ 
(LXX)  to60ri=  ^Inzv. 

A  glance  into  modern  commentaries  or  the 
'Critical  Notes'  after  the  Hebrew  text  in  SBOT 
will  show  the  importance  of  G  in  this  direction. 
No  conscientious  commentator  on  the  Hebrew  OT 
can  dis|)ense  wth  constant  reference  to  (5.  We 
quote  some  examples  from  the  first  chapter  of  some 
books  in  SBOT— 


Ie  On  1  Ball  replace*  c^p^  by  mm^rvtuyi^t ;  but  he,  too, 
has  overlooked  the  interesting  vanant  in  v.  18  (like  all  commen- 
taries (to  our  knowlcdffe,  Dillmann,  Spurrell,  UolzLnger, 
Guokel),  except T.  G.  .Mt^intcl,  Crituche  PolyiiLotten-Cunferenztn 
uiier  dot  erste.  Buck  MoKe,  1790 ;  a  work  of  praiaeworthy  in- 
dustn),  no  fcnving  the  sing.  nJ'lJ'CC,  O  the  pL  ipx'",  <•<••  n'rif'"?, 
the  latter  being  condnned  by  Pe  135  (1.%)",  where  /ID  has  tlie 
[>liiral,  Q  il^tjff.Ki  the  singular.  The  same  difference  oncurs  2- 
!0  '  his  works') ;  and  tliuL  this  is  not  unintentional,  is  shown  by 
the  Targum  Jonathan,  which  understands  tile  passjige  of  those 
10  wondrous  works  whieh  (Jod  is  said  by  rabbinical  wit  to  have 
created. 

In  Lv  1  Driver  receives  readings  of  ©  into  the  text  in  w.l7.  »■  1« ; 
In  Nu  1  Paterson  in  v."  ^Niyi  lor  ^Kiyi,  /ID.  For  Jos  1  it  is 
sufficient  to  quote  Bennett's  remark  on  v.2  ;  '  in  this  and  other 
cases  glosses,  etc,  not  found  in  ©  art  probably  glosses  later 
than  the  MS  from  which  0  was  translated,  and  therefore 
better  treated  as  variations  of  the  text' 

A  remark  on  Judgeji  by  Moore  has  already  been  quoted ;  in 
!'•  he  reads  'p'jDyi  for  D]in  ;  one  witness  of  (5  and  the  Coptic 
offering  the  doublet  fura  nv  Juz^v  'A^j/mX^x.  The  original  read* 
ing,  the  simple  Amalec,  has  been  found  since,  for  the  first  time, 
in  the  Latin  Lugdunensis,  published  by  U.  Robert. 

On  Samuel,  after  what  has  been  done  byThenius,  Wellhausen, 
Driver,  Klosteruiann,  Budde,  II.  P.  Smith,  any  word  is  super- 
fluous ;  but  the  question  may  be  asked,  whether  one  would 
have  found,  r.g.,  in  1  S  l"  the  true  reading  E'^f  9  18?  tor  D'1?? 
.lyS'f  by  mere  conjecture  without  the  help  of  the  versions  (i» 
fi*rxtt  Tfi»tT>Xt>T,).  And  if  we  had  hit  on  it  In  this  way,  we 
should  not  have  had  the  same  confidence  In  Its  truth  as  we 
have  now,  when  it  is  attested  by  the  oldest  witness  attainabl& 

As  far  as  we  have  seen,  in  every  part  of  the  SBOT  that  has 
appeared  as  yet,  one  or  more  rtadiiujg  from  (3  have  been  received 
into  the  text  in  the  first  chapter  bv  such  different  scholars  as 
Comlll.Toy,  Wellhausen,  Siegfried,  Kamphausen,  Outhe,  Kittel. 
But  how  much  remains  to  be  done  may  be  illuiitrated  by  two 
examples  from  1  Ch  1.  On  v.»  Kittel  remarks :  '  O  +  VLijea ;  It 
bu  crept  In  '/y  error  from  v.'  after  )1'  (ct  (34,'  overlooking  the 


\l 


•  Even  in  t."  It  Is  omitted  by  a  few  witnenes  (Ood.  87, 
Ambroslus),  but  Augustine  testifies  to  it,  saying  expressly  : 
'  NuUo  modo  vacare  arbitror  .  .  .  auod  ah  Ipso  divini  libri 
huiiis  exordlo  .  .  .  umiue  ad  hunc  locum,  nuaquam  positum 
est  Dominus  Deua,  sed  tantunnnodo  Deus :  nunc  vero  ubi  ad 
Id  vontum  est  ...  it*  Scriptura  locut*  est:  Et  sumpsit 
Domiuus  Deua.* 


fact  that  (5  has  '  EUsa '  among  the  sons  of  Japheth  already  In 
Gn  lO'J.  Again,  in  v.»2  Kittel  omits  to  mention  the  additional 
names  Raguel  and  Nabdeel,  offered  by  man.v  witnesses,  just  aa 
in  Qenesia.  If  eart-juUii  compared  with  /ID.'O  turns  out  to  be 
(As  inott  wUuable  aid  fur  the  explanation  of  the  Hebrew  Bible. 

But  (5  is  not  less  indispensable  to  the  study  of 
the  XT :  see  on  this  point  S  w.  pp.  450-457 ;  Pearson  a 
judgment  (at  the  head  of  this  article) ;  Thayer's 
art.  Language  of  the  NT,  vol.  iii.  p.  40.  To 
quote  only  one  example  :  d7a7ri;T4s  and  p.oi/oyei'-/it 
both  correspond  in  G  to  Heb.  I'n;;  the  one  occurs 
in  the  Synoptic  Gospels,  the  other  in  John. 

Nor  can  the  student  of  Ecclesiastical  Literature 
succeed  without  familiarity  with  G  (see  Sw.pt.  iii. 
ch.  V.  '  Influence  of  the  LXX  on  Christian  Litera- 
ture,' p.  46111".).  The  doctrinal  as  well  as  the 
devotional  wTitings  are  full  of  its  influence.  Take 
a  book  like  Brightman's  Liturgies,  Eastern  and 
Western,  where  tlie  quotations  are  printed  in 
black  type,  or  an  edition  like  that  of  the  Apostolic 
Con-ititutions  bj'  Lagarde,  which  gives  at  the  foot 
of  the  text  the  references  to  the  biblical  pas- 
sages ;  the  index  of  the  latter  shows  more  quota- 
tions from  the  OT  than  from  tlie  NT. 

Even  many  works  of  Christian  art  cannot  be 
understood  without  recourse  to  G.  Cf.  D.  Kauf- 
mann,  '  Errors  in  the  Septuagint  and  the  Vulgate 
from  which  Illustrations  and  Scul|)tures  derived 
their  origin '  {JQli  xi.  163-160).  If  we  speak  of 
the  firmament,  we  do  so  because  G  used  rrepiufw., 
considering  the  heavens  as  frozen  water. 

One  side  of  tlie  importance  of  G,  which  Pearson 
was  not  yet  able  to  appreciate,  lies  in  the  value  it 
ha,^  ior  Semitic  philology,  apart  from  the  exegesis 
of  the  OT.  The  system  of^Hebrew  vocalization  is 
an  invention  of  about  the  7th  cent.  A.D.  ;  how  the 
words  were  pronounced  in  the  time  of  Christ,  or 
Isaiah,  or  king  Jlesha,— G  calls  him  Muiro,  see 
vol.  iii.  p.  349,— or  David,  or  Moses,  we  do  not  know. 
Our  oldest  witness  is  again  the  transliteration 
of  proper  names  and  other  words  in  G.  Whether 
nouns  of  the  form  ijin  inclek  were  still  heard  as 
monosyllables  (nmUc),  can  be  ascertained  by  the 
help  of  G.  To  have  pointed  out  this  importance 
of  G  is  one  of  the  merits  of  Lagarde  {Ucbersicht, 
etc. ) ;  the  Supplement  to  the  Concordance  of  Hatch- 
Red  path  (Fasc.  i.,  containing  a  Concordance  to 
the  I'roper  Names  occurring  in  the  Septuagint, 
1900)  helps  much  to  facilitate  studies  in  this  direc- 
tion. These  transliterations  have,  vice  versA,  their 
bearing  on  the  question  of  Gree/c  pronunciation  ; 
see  .some  remarks  in  this  directi(m  bj'  Kittel  {SBOT, 
'Chronicles,'  p.  52 f.)  and  Macke,  Era.imus  oder 
Beuchlin  (Siegburg,  Progr.  1900). 

On  the  place  which  G  occupies  in  the  history  of 
the  Greek  Language,  philologists  now  judge  mucU 
more  favourably  than  twenty  years  ago ;  cf.  ch. 
iv.  in  Sw.  289-314,  '  the  Greek  of  the  Septuagint,' 
and  add  to  the  literature  quoted  there,  p.  314,  a 
reference  to  I  v.  Korsiinskie,  Percvod  iA'A''(  Moskoa, 
1878,  704  pp.),  in  Kussian :  The  version  of  the 
Septuagint  and  its  importance  in  the  hiitory  of 
Greek  Language  and  Literature  ;  further,  Thayer  s 
art.  Language  of  the  NT,  vol.  iii.  p.  3611'.  ;  and 
Paul  Kretschmcr,  '  Uio  Entstehung  der  Koine ' 
{Sitzungsb.  d.  IVirner  A/c.,  phil.  hist.  KL,  vol.  143, 
and  sejiarately,  1900);  Albert  Thumb,  Die  griech- 
ische  Sprache  im Zi'italter (lis  llcllenismus:  Beitriige 
zur  Geschichte  unit  Beurtheilitng  der  Koii'r),  Strass- 
burg,  1901  (cf.  Ed.  Schwyzer  in  Ncue  Jahrh.  1901, 
I).  2;J311'.);  Oikonomos,  ii.  91411.  ;  Grinfield,  146; 
H.  A.  A.  Kennedy,  '  Kcccnt  Research  in  the  Lan- 
guage of  the  NT"  [Expos.  Times,  xii.  341,  455, 
557) ;  J.  H.  Moulton  (i/».  p.  362  in  the  notice  of 
G.  A.  Deissniann,  Bible  Studies;  Authorized  Tr. 
by  Alexander  Grieve  ;  Edinburgh,  Clark,  1901  *). 
*  Interesting  are  the  philological  remarks  of  Origcn  (now  ed-X 


452 


SEPTUAGINT 


SEPTUAGINT 


If  the  use  and  importance  of  (5  are  such  even  in 
the  unsatisfactory  condition  in  which  it  lies  at 
present  before  us,  how  much  more  will  these  be 
acknowledged  when  we  have  a  better  edition 
of  it.  In  such  an  edition,  also,  the  accessory 
matter  will  demand  due  attention,  the  capitula- 
tion, lections,  etc.  (see  Sw.  pp.  342-366,  'Text- 
divisions  :  Stichi,  Chapters,  Lections,  CateruB '). 

(o)  In  careful  MSS  of  the  classics  (as  in  iIkvsp  of  Demosthenes, 
Herodotus)  the  lines  have  been  counted  i^y  hundreds  or  by 
fifties,  and  their  total  stated  at  the  end,  because  the  copyist* 
were  paid  according  to  their  number,  the  normal  line  or 
(TT.'s;*?  being  the  Homeric  hexameter  of  16  syllables  or  37  to  38 
letters  on  an  average.*  This  has  been  introduced  into  Bible 
MSS.  One  of  the  copyists  of  B,  for  instance,  preserved  on  the 
margins  the  numbers  from  the  MS  which  he  copie<i ;  so  did 
Paul  of  Telia  from  the  copy  which  he  translated  (616)  into 
Syriac  Afterwards  the  numbers 'were  gathered  into  sticho- 
metrica)  lists  ;  the  most  important  of  those  lists  are  that  in  the 
Codex  Claromontanus,  the  one  lirstpublished  by  Mommsen,  and 
that  of  Nicephorus;  Me  Sandav,  Studia  Biblica,  iii.  266;  Sw. 
346 ;  Berger,  Uistoire  de  la  Vulgate,  1893,  pp.  316-327,  363 ; 
0.  H.  Turner  in  JTIiSt,  ii.  (Jan.  1901)  2a6.  For  books  like 
Sirach  and  Job  (with  asterisks,  2200  ;  without,  1600  stichi)  these 
lists  are  especially  valuable. 

(t)  Jerome  introduced  into  his  Latin  Bible  the  custom  ol 
writing  the  text  according  to  sense'linti,  k^Xo.  or  w^/wbtab, 
'quo<l  in  Demosthene  et  TuUio  solet  fieri';  the  same  was  done 
for  the  Greek  Dijde^:ajjrop/teton  by  Hesychius  of  Jerusalem, 
who  at  the  same  time  divided  the  text  into  chapters. 

(c)  Such  a  capitulation  is  found  already  in  some  of  our  oldest 
MSS,  as  ABS  ;  for  several  books  B  gives  even  a  double  capitula* 
tion,  dividing,  for  instance.  Proverbs  into  61  and  16,  Eccles. 
into  25  and  7,  Canticles  into  40  and  5  chapters.  Likewise  the 
Syriac  Urzapla  (apparently  from  the  copy  from  which  it 
was  taken)  has  in  Joshua  52  and  11,  Judges  65  and  7,  8  Regn- 
105  and  18  chapters.  In  the  same  version  and  several  Greek 
MSS  summaries,  t.tAoj  ot  xtfixJux-ix,  are  added,  and  lists  of  them 

grefixed  to  the  books  (Sw.  p.  354).  The  '  Synopsis '  ascribed  to 
hrj'Bostom  is,  to  a  large  extent,  nothing  but  a  collection  of 
such  *ijaAa<oE,  The  88  chapters  into  which  Hesychius  di\ided 
Isaiah  have  been  published  lately  by  M.  Faulhaber  {Uesyckii 
Hierosoliimitani  Interpretatio  Isaiie  prophette,  Friburgi,  1900). 
These  capitulations  may  become  important  hints  for  the 
classification  of  MSS.  In  Canticles  the  summaries  assume  the 
character  of  stage  directions  ;  see  Er.  Klostermann,  '  Eine  alte 
EoUenverteilungzum  Hohenliede'  (,ZATW  xlx.  (1899)  16S-182, 
from  Cod.  V). 

((Z)  The  beginning  and  the  end  of  the  Lessons,  which  were 
read  in  Church  already  in  the  times  of  Origen  and  still  earlier, 
were  marked  mth  otpxr.  and  TiA«,  the  occasion  sometimes  being 
added  on  which  the  lesson  was  read  (Sw.  p.  356).  An  early 
specimen  was  the  copy  from  which  Paul  of  Telia  made  bis 
version. 

On  the  division  of  the  Psalter  into  20  xa.BiirfiMrm  see  Sw.  p.  359, 
or  any  printed  Greek  Church-Psalter. 

Interesting  is  the  different  numbering  of  the  Commandments 
of  the  Decalogue  in  AB  (see  Sw.  p.  365),  and  the  division  of  the 
Book  of  the  Covenant  (Ex  20-23)  mto  77  sections  in  the  Codex 
Zittavieusis  (H.  A.  Bedpath  in  Expos.  Tim<4,  viii  383). 

All  these  particulars  must  be  attended  to  in  a 
future  edition,  somewhat  in  the  same  way  as  in 
the  edition  of  .Jerome's  Latin  NT  published  by 
Wordsworth-Wliite ;  but  the  chief  difficulty  is 
about  the  constitution  of  the  text.  For  some 
books,  as  Judges,  Esther,  Tobit,  it  will  be  indis- 
pensable to  give  parallel  texts.  In  the  closing 
chapter  of  his  Introdicrtion  Swete  has  sketched 
some  of  the  lines  on  which  a  future  edition  must 
be  prepared.  But  before  this  great  work  can  be 
finished,  and  for  the  benefit  of  all  wlio  cannot 
aftbrd  to  procure  it,  it  seems  desirable  to  put 
together,  either  on  the  outer  margins  of  the  minor 
edition  or  in  an  Appendix,  tliose  emendations  of 
the  errors  of  B  which  are  certain  or  all  but  certain. 
Still  better  would  be  a  Commentary  on  ffi,  which  is 
as  urgently  needed  as  a  Grammar  and  a  Lexicon.'^ 

etvrt  TvD  ut  rk  Zrat  hi^eu  ;  lit  159,  uitutriv  m  Itc  'E^fiadftuv  ifif-tv 
ttuTKtrK ^  f4,ii  tupovrtf  t-/>  Xiitv  xtiuitrjv  irafi'  ' EXXr,ri¥  «»(t«iTA«- 
xiteti  iit  ir*  KXAoir  ro\>.M<i  xtt'i  rxi'mv  kx)  •riroirxi^ecd  t^,  irpeirt' 

fttftririK  But  this  very  word  is  found  in  Cicero,  ad  Attic 
xiii.  29. 

"  By  a  happy  fortune  the  lines  in  the  Greek  NT  of  the 
Wiirtemberg  Bible  Society  at  Stuttgart  agree  as  closely  as 
possible  with  the  length  of  the  ancient  rT<x«;  see  Nestle, 
Jntroductiont  p.  49. 

t  Take  some  examples  at  haphazard.  In  8  Kegn.  IS'"  all 
texts  (MSS,  eto.)  give  xai  Uiwpniri^  tSr  /ittriUJmr  ('and  he  tmrtit 
the  kingdom  '>  flD  has  y^e'.Ti  (•  he  took  an  oath  of  the  king- 
dam  '>.     This  la  correct ;  the  translator  mistook  it  for  JTDb.ll  | 


Appesdix:  The  later  Gr.  Versions.— "Vhs 
question  whether  (5  was  used  also  in  Palestine  in 
the  synagogues,  has  been  answered  affirmatively 
and  negatively.  At  all  events  after  ffi  had  passed 
into  the  hands  of  the  Church,  and  an  official  Heb. 
text,  dillerent  from  the  old  one,  had  received  the 
ajiprobation  of  the  Rabbis,  attempts  were  made 
among  the  Jews  at  new  translations.  From  Justin 
we  learn  that  the  Jews  declared  G  to  be  wrong  in 
some  details  (/17J  e'tvai  Iv  naiv  d\j)9^),  and  that  they 
tried  new  translations  (oiW-o!  i^riye'iado.i  TreipCivrat). 
Irena^us  mentions  two  who  dared  such  a  thing  in 
his  time  (ujs  ivtoi  (paatv  rCiv  fieBep/xriveuELv  ToX(i.wviwv 
Tat  ypaipdi) — Theodotion  of  Ephesus  and  Aquila  of 
Pontus,  both  Jewish  proselytes.  Origen  was  so 
zealous  as  to  procure  both  these  translations  and, 
in  addition,  that  of  Symmachus  and  parts  of 
three  more.  With  those  materials  he  conipoBcd 
his  Hexapla  (see  above).  And  all  that  we  knew 
till  quite  recently  of  these  translations  —  apart 
from  a  few  Talmudic  translations  from  Aquila — 
we  owed  to  Origen.  It  was  only  in  1897  that 
the  first  fragments  of  a  separate  copy  of  Aquila 
were  found  among  the  palimpsests  of  tlie  Taylor- 
Schechter  collection  ;  but  even  those  may  go  back 
to  the  library  of  Origen.  For  brevity's  sake  we 
must  refer  to  Sw.  pp.  29-58. 

(1)  The  version  of  Aquila,  according  to  one  tradi- 
tion T(vd{pi3r)!  or  vev6ep6s  of  the  emperor  Hadrian, 
superintendent  of  the  buUdin"  of  Alia  Capitolina, 
won  for  Christianity,  but  finally  pupil  of  R.  'A^iba, 
is  the  most  literal  imaginable.  By  the  emperor 
Justinian  it  was  ordered  that  no  other  was  to  be 
used  in  the  JeAvish  synagogues.  It  is  therefore 
possible  that  the  copy  of  wliich  fragments  were 
found  among  the  Hebrew-Greek  palimpsests  from 
Cairo,  and  which  is  ascribed  to  the  6th  cent.,  may 
have  been  a  synagogue  copy.  But  as  it  has  been 
used  for  Jewish  purposes  apparently  by  the  same 
time  and  hand  which  turned  the  fragments  of 
Origen's  Hexapla  to  the  same  use,  both  Greek 
MSS  may  have  come  from  the  same  quarter  ;  and 
of  the  Hexapla  it  is  the  more  probable  that  it 
came  from  Christian  hands,  because  fragments  of 
Greek  MSS  of  the  NT  were  found  along  with 
tliem.  See,  besides  the  publication  of  Burkitt, 
Taylor's  new  book  mentioned  above.  On  plates 
iii-viii  it  contains  portions  of  Ps  90-92.  96-98. 
102.  103.  Another  small  but  interesting  fragment 
of  Aquila  (mentioned  by  Sw.  p.  170,  postscript)  has 
been  published  by  Grenfell-Hunt  in  The  Amherst 
Papyri,  part  i.  (Lond.  1900,  pp.  30,  31).  On  the 
top  of  a  letter  from  Rome,  \vritten  probably  be- 
tween 250  and  285  A.D.,  an  uncial  hand  of  the  late 
3rd  or,  more  probably,  early  4tli  cent,  has  written 
part  of  the  first  verse  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews, 
and  a  more  cursive  hand,  apparently  about  the 
time  of  Constantine,  the  first  5  verses  of  Genesis 
in  (5,  followed  by  the  version  of  Aquila.  These 
two  biblical  fragments  may  therefore  claim  *  to  be 
amongst  the  earliest  known,  and  the  Genesis  frag- 
ment is  the  oldest  authority  for  the  first  5  verses.' 
In  the  Aquila  fragment  the  beginning  of  v.*  and 
the  end  of  v.'  are  here  recorded  for  the  first  time. 

The  Hebrew  text  which  was  translated  hy 
Aquila  agrees  very  closely  with  fH ;  but  it  is 
interesting  to  observe  that,  of  his  few  variations, 
some  at  least  liave  the  support  of  still  existing 
Hebrew  MSS.  The  tetragrammaton  ni.T  is  written 
in  the  old  Hebrew  letters.  The  version  seems  to 
have  covered  the   whole   of   the  Hebrew  canon. 

('  and  he  taXisJied*  Uiwkrtrt).  Again,  we  have  in  1911  ir  rrtipt^n 
Kuptov  for  «tj«  I*  91.  xifiiei,  the  latter  {xuptoi)  being  read  in  A.  A 
rommentary  would  have  further  the  task  of  calling  attention  to 
the  interpunction  ;  cf.  Ps  44  (4ri)7,  where  it  Is  a  question  whether 
there  must  be  a  comma  before  and  after  «  0iof,  or  In  v.s  after 
ixpiru  n^^OT  in  Is  611  after  f;t:^"i'/^  and  cTirT«Xxir  ft*.  In  ll 
716  itxuSu  is  In  the  Concordance  of  Hatch-Redpath  re 


«cK0<(,  while  it  is  a  verb.  etc. 


9  of  Hatuh-Bedpath  retemd  U 


SEPTUAGIXT 


SEPTUAGIXT 


453 


Strange  is  the  statement  of  Origen  on  Lamenta- 
tions (new  edition,  iii.  256)  :  "E/cSocrtt  5^  'A<cAa  »taJ 
OioSoriutfOS  iv  TOfS  Op^fois  ov  ip^peratj  fxovov  o^  ^Vfi/xdx^^ 
Kal  tiSk  'B^So/iriKoi'Ta,  especially  when  we  compare 
the  same  author's  remark  on  4^  (p.  270) :  o  5i 
'Ajri^Aas  iifnj  irvfC^a  fivKTy)puv  ij/i^y,  ^Vfifiaxos  oi  vvoij 
II.  ii.  (see  Field,  ii,  743 11'. ). 

(2)  Theodotion's  work — on  his  date  see  Sw.  p. 
42  f.,  ami  Th.  Zahn,  PA'£'»  ix.  403  (on  Irena;us)— 
was  rather  a  revision  of  G  than  an  independent 
version,  the  revision  being  made  on  the  whole  upon 
the  basis  of  IB.  For  a  specimen  of  it  see  Jer  40"'" 
and  the  13k.  of  Daniel,  where  it  replaced  the  original 
G ;  see  S.  R.  Driver,  The  Book  of  Daniel,  in  the 
Cambridge  Bible  for  Schools,  1900,  pp.  xviii,  .\cviii-c. 
The  statement  that  his  version  seems  to  have  in- 
cluded Baruch  {Dui.  Ckr.  Biog.  iv.  44 ;  Sw.  p.  44, 
etc.)  is  to  be  corrected  after  the  explanation  given 
above,  p.  450,  note  t.  Cf.  on  Theodotion  (whose 
name  h.as  the  same  meaning  as  that  of  the  Tar- 
gumist  .Jonathan),  Rahlfs  in  GGN,  1898,  p.  109. 

(3)  The  works  of  Symmachus,  including  a  Com- 
mentary on  St.  Matthew,*  Origen  got  from  a 
Christian  woman,  Juliana,t  who  had  received 
them  from  the  author  liiraself.  If  Aquila  is  the 
most  important  of  the  three  because  of  his  literal- 
ness,  Symni.  is  in  many  respects  the  most  interest- 
ing for  his  attempt  to  produce  good  Greek  and  for 
many  of  his  interpretations ;  cf.  Gn  1-''  (KTtffer  6 
Oeds  Tie  SivOp'jjTrov  iv  ilKbvi  dtatpipui'  6p$ioy  [i  ^efis] 
(KTiaev  ainiv  with  1  S  28"  (Nestle,  Marginalien, 
p.  3). 

(4)  Besides  these  versions  of  the  whole  of  the 
OT,  Origen  had  at  his  disposal  for  single  books 
two  or  three  otlier  versions,  which  from  their 
place  in  tlie  Hexapla  got  the  designations  Quinia 
(e'  iri  iTTTTi),  Sexta  {t  (ktij),  Septimn  (f  i^SS/iTj).  As 
to  wlience  and  when  he  obtained  Siem,  tradition 
varies  (see  Sw.  p.  5311.):  one  at  Nicopolis  near 
Actium,  the  other  at  Jericho  ;  one  under  Caracalla, 
the  other  under  Alexander  Severus.  One  at  least 
is  reported  to  have  been  found  iv  irlBois ;  from  this 
and  from  the  expression  of  Eusebius,  ovx  oTo'  S8ev 
(k  Tivuv  pn'x^v  rdv  irdXai  Xac^at'OtVas  xpitvov  els  (puji 
di'ix'fi'ffo!,  it  has  been  concluded  that  they  were, 
perhaps,  hidden  during  a  time  of  persecution,  and 
that  the  one  found  at  Nicopolis  may  have  been  a 
relic  of  tlie  early  Christianity  of  Kpirus  (see  Sw. 
p.  55,  quoting  from  Lightfoot,  Bihlical  Essays,  p. 
432).  Hut  ir/ffoi — see  Sw.  p.  53,  n.  2 — are  mentioned 
elsewhere,  as  used  for  preserving  books  instead  of 
cistm  or  capsm.  Jerome  attributes  both  to  Jewish 
translators;  but  they  seem  rather  to  be  due  to 
Christians.  The  autlior  of  the  Quinia  is  charac- 
terize<l  by  Field  as  omnium  elegantissimus.  Which 
of  the  books  of  the  OT  were  preserved  in  them 
is  not  quite  clear  ;  in  the  Quinta  at  all  events 
4  Regn.,  Job,  Ps.alm8,  Canticles,  Minor  Prophets; 
in  tlie  Hexta  also  Job,  I'aaliiis,  Canticles,  Ilai)  3. 

A  kind  of  version  sometimes  seems  to  be  quoted 
as  (5  2i;po5  (see  Syriac  Versions)  and  A  'E^patot; 
but  under  the  latter  designation  are  to  be  under- 
stood Greek  quotations  from  the  Helircw,  due  to 
such  authors  as  were  acquainted  with  that  lan- 
guage. 

Tlie  so-called  Gracus  Venctus,  a  version  of  part 
of  the  OT,  preserved  in  a  single  MS  of  the  14th 
or  15th  cent,  at  Venice,  is  interesting  as  the  work 

•  On  the  hope  that  this  work  wna  still  in  existence  In  the 
loth  cent.  8<.'e  Urt.  p.  83.  On  tliL'  suet  of  the  Svmniiu;hiaiii 
Ke  l'hila»triu8,  d«  hceres.  c.  145  :  '  hmrftici  aiii  qui  Ihcodotionis 
etSymmachi  ibidem  iiiteri»retationem  diverso  modo  Bequutitur,' 
»nd  the  remark  of  the  »,>Tnc  writer,  a  116:  'est  hmrusis,  (|ua> 
iterum  poot  Aquilani  f  n'f/iHfahominum  interpretationein  oocipit, 
oon  illorum  Deatissiiuorum  Bcptua^nta  duorum  qui  intcgre 
Inriolutcque  de  Trinitate  Bcntientes  ecclesin  cathollcB  (unila- 
menta  certiisima  tradiderunt  interpretantes  scripturu  mens. ' 

t  Th  » tombstone  of  a  certain  Juliana  from  Antioch,  who  died 
»t  Oerasa,  haa  been  found  there  bj'  Merrill ;  see  lUi,  UJ95,  S86 ; 
ich'jrer,  GV  Y*  u.  liSn.,  83i 


of  a  medioeval  .Tew,  perhaps  a  certain  Elissens  at 
the  court  of  Murad  I.  at  -Vdrianople  in  the  2nd 
half  of  the  14tli  cent.  :  it  attempts  to  give  the 
Hebrew  in  Attic  Greek  and  the  Aramaic  parts  of 
Daniel  in  the  Doric  dialect,  and  renders  .ti.t  by 
(SfTwr^y,  oiaLoyrfjs,  dvrovpybs.  See  the  edition  of 
O.  V.  Gebhardt  (Leipzig,  1875,  with  a  Preface  by 
Franz  Delitzsch ;  Sw.  p.  56). 

The  Greek  column  of  the  Hebrew  -  Chaldee- 
Sjianish-Greek  Polyglot  of  the  Pentateuch,  printed 
at  Constantinople  in  Hebrew  characters  (1547),  has 
been  transliterated  and  printed  separately  ( 1S'J7)  by 
D.  C.  Hesseling,  and  described  by  Lazare  Belleli 
(Paris,  1897,  La  version  7i6ogrec(fue  du  Pcntateuche 
Polyglotte).  It  is  of  interest  tor  the  student  of 
modem  Greek,  and  so  are  the  translations  of  the 
whole  Bible  or  of  parts  of  it  into  modem  Greek ; 
but  they  do  not  fall  within  the  scope  of  the  present 
article.  Of  the  OT  as  a  whole  the  Catalogue  of 
the  British  Museum  mentions  but  one  edition  in 
modern  Greek  (London,  1840,  by  H.  D.  Leeves, 
assisted  by  N.  Bambas). 

Literature. — At  the  end  of  the  article  on  the  Greek  Bible 
Versions  (PltE^  iii  20=  Urt,  80)  tlie  present  writer  has  j^ven  a 
list  of  about  280-300  books  and  articles  treating:  of  these  versions 
from  1601  up  to  1897  in  chronological  order.  Swete  gives  in  his 
introduction,  at  the  end  of  most  chapters,  literary  references, 
amounting  to  about  600  in  number.  The  first  list  (i>-  27)  em- 
braces a  mere  fraction  of  the  vast  literature  selected  for  the 
purj^ose  of  representing  the  progress  of  knowledge  since  the 
middle  of  the  17th  cent-  It  begins  with  the  Critica  ^acra  o/  S. 
Cappellus,  1651;  Pearson's  Praijalio  and  Ussher's  Si/atajma, 
1().">3  ;  the  Prolegomena  of  Brian  Walton,  1857.  It  is  impossible 
to  repeat  these  lists  here.  A  few  remarks  must  sxitlict  The 
most  copious  work  on  O  that  appeared  in  the  Idth  cent,  is  that 
of  Constantine  Oikonomos  vt/>i  Tur  «'  I/>u*i>u/Ta>,,  4  vols.,  Athens, 
1844,  1845,  1846,  1S49,  more  than  3700  paf,'es.  Though  it  starta 
from  wrong  premises  (canonical  and  inspired  character  of  0),  it 
contains  much  useful  information  ;  in  voL  iii  130  pages  are 
devoted  to  the  difference  of  chronology  between  fl>  and  O,  in 
the  last  voL  170  pages  to  the  quotations  of  the  NT,  325  para- 
graphs to  a  list  of  the  writers  who  used  or  praised  O.  The 
author  may  be  compared  to  Grinfield,  whose  Apolorpj  for  the 
SeptuaqirU  (Lond.  1S50)  is  equally  wrong  in  its  principles, 
hut  still  useful  Of  Jewish  books  L.  Frankel's  V^orsludiea  zu 
dcr  Si'ptuaffinta  (Leipzig,  1841)  and  Ueber  den  Einjluss  der 
jfaMstinisdien  Exer/ese  auf  die  alexandrinisehe  Uermeneutik 
(18.^>1),  are  not  superseded^  A  standard  work  for  all  times 
remains,  H.  Hody,  de  biblir.rum  textibtu  oriffinatibus,  Oxf.  1705. 
On  the  views  of  the  ancient  Church,  especially  Jerome  and 
Augustine,  it  is  useful  to  compare  P.  Wendland,  '  Zur  iiltesten 
Oeschichte  der  Bibel  in  der  Kirche'  (.i^^Vri)'  (1900)  207  ff.).  On 
Augustine  see  also  Joh.  Haussleiter,  Ver  Aufhau  der  aUchrutt- 
lichen  Litteratur,  Eine  krilische  Uniersuchun<f  nehat  ^tudicn 
zu  Ci/priati,  Victorin^ia  und  Auguttin  (Berlin,  \&dS  =  GGA, 
1898,  V.  337-379).  Of  all  the  scholars  of  the  19th  cent  none  has 
done  more  in  this  field  than  Paul  de  Lagarde  (1827-1891).  Of 
his  publications  which  bear  directly  or  indirectly  on  O,  note : 
Libri  apocnjplii  syriace  1861,  Con^litutione^  Avosudicce  1SG2, 
Anmerkungen  zur  griechigchen  Ueber^etzung  der  ^ronerbifn 
1803,  Clementina  1885  (Preface),  Penlateuc/l  koplisch  1867, 
ilatcrialien  zum  Pentateuch  1807  (here  the  notice  on  the 
original  copy  of  /B)),  Genegia  grxce  and  Uierimfnni  gucestiones 
in  Gen.  1868,  On/imeutiea  sacra  1870,  21887,  Pmlterivm 
Uierontfmi  1874,  Psalterium  memphifictrm  1876,  Sipnmicta 
L  and  ii.,  Semitica  iL  1879,  Orientalia  ii.,  I'eleris  tegtamenti  ab 
Ori'jene  reoensiti  /raginenlff  Ib^li,  Ankun/lujuitn  einer  neuen 
Au^jabe  der  griecftinchen  Ubcrsctzung  1S82,  Litrrorwn  veteria 
teKtamenti  canonicorutn  parft  prior  grcece  1883  (cf.  GGA,  1883, 
1249-62),  jEgyptiaea  1883,  Miltheihmten  l-iv.  1884,  1887,  1889, 
1891,  Probe  einer  neucn  Auvjabe  der  lat.  Uebertiefzuwjen  det 
AT  1885,  Calence  aggpt.  1886,  Specimen  novm  ediL  pnalterii 
greed  \S87,SeptuagintaStudicn  i.-iii.,  1891,  Bihliothecfp  xgriacce 
qit/r  ad  phiiolngiam  sacrain  pertinent  1892,  Peatierii  graeci 
tpiinquwiena  prima  1892.  Among  the  MSS  he  left  there  is  a 
complete  collection  of  the  biblical  quotations  of  Augustine 
(13,176  from  OT  and  29,540  from  .VT,  now  in  the  University 
Library  of  Gdttingen),  MS  Lagarde  34,  and  others ;  see  UrU 
p.  77.     No  other  scholar  can  be  mentioned  beside  him. 

Among  articles  in  Kncvclopedios  add  :  Hoberg,  *  Septuoginta ' 
in  Wetzer-Welte'8  Encyklopaedic^  xL  (1899)  147-169. 

To  Sw.  p.  60  (Lit  on  Hexapla^  add  the  first  attempt  to  collect 
their  fragments  made  by  J.  Driesschus  (=Dru8iu6)  in  pnaimoa 
DaiyidiM  veterum  inlerpretum  fragyttenta,  Aiitw.  l.'iil  •  the 
enlarged  edition  of  the  collection  of  Nobilius  in  the  Latin 
translation  of  the  edilin  Sirtina  (Iloine,  1.VS8,  reprinted  by 
P.  Slorinus,  1624,  see  above,  p  440»);  Bahrdt'o  abridgment  of 
Montfaucon's  Uexapla  (Lips.  1769,  2  vols.) 

To  Sw.  p.  108  (Coptic  version)  odd :  J.  Goettsberger,  '  Dl» 
svro-koptischen  Oihelcitate  aus  deo  SchoUen  don  Borhebraus* 
(ZATW  xxl  (1901)  128-140), 

,,To  Sw.  p.  110  (ICthiopic)  add  ;  Osw.  Kramer,  Die  aethiopiteh* 
Cberrelzung  dee  /.acfiariae :  eine  \'oriiludie  zur  Ge.'-rhic/ite  und 
Kritik  d£a  i>ept%tagintaUxtea,  erstcs  Ueft,  Leipzig,  188& 


454 


SEPULCHRE 


SEPULCHRE 


To  Sw.  p.  119  (Armenian)  add :  J.  Ooettsberger,  '  Die  syro- 
innenischen  .  .  .  Bibelcitate  .  .  .  des  Barhebraua'  (.Z^rir  xxL 
I1901J 101-127). 

To  Sw.  p.  230  (Canon)  add :  H.  L.  Strack,  art  '  Kanon  des 
Alben  Testamentcs'  (/"/ii'S  ix.  741-767X 

To  Sw.  p.  2C3  (Canonical  Books),  on  Ecclesiastes,  add :  Dill- 
mann.  On  Canticles:  Wilh.  Riedel,  Die  Auslciund  des 
HohtnlUdes,  Leipzig,  1898,  pp.  105-11)9,  Die  Hdss.  iter  arin-lu 
Uberaetzuil']  des  UL.  On  Daniel  :  Uiessler,  Dus  ISudi  Daniel: 
Texthrilische  IfnlersiKfiung.,  HtnttsMt,  ISO!>,  pp.  02-.'.!>.  where 
the  close  relation  between  the  LXX  of  Dan.  and  1  Esdras  is 
recognized. 

To  Sw.  p.. 285  (non-Canonical  Books)  add:  W.  J.  Moulton, 
'iiber  die  Uberlicterung  imd  den  textkritischen  Wert  des 
dritten  Ezra-Buches  \ZATW,  1899,  iL  20911.;  1900,  i.  Iff.]. 
Judith  :  Willrich,  *  Esther  und  Judith,*  in  Jmlaica,  Gottingen, 
1900,  1-39.  On  Tobit :  41.  Luhr,  '  Alexandrinus  und  Sinaiticus 
zumBucheTcil)it'(^Jril'xx.  [1900)213-203).  On  Maccabees  ;  B. 
Niese,  Krilik  dcr  bpidcn  Makkabdcrlnic/ier,  Berlin,  1900  (reprint 
of  two  articles  in  llermes,  xxxv,  2BS-307,  4.53-627);*  Willrich, 
'  Jason  von  Kyrene  und  das  ii  Makkabaerbuch,'  in  Judaica,  pp. 
131-176. 

Sw.  p.  330  on  Philo.  Note  in  addition  to  the  paper  mentioned 
(374  n.  3)  from  the  Philolopus  the  answer  of  Wendland-Colin, 
pp.  621-636,  and  the  rejoinder  in  vol.  be  pp.  274-279.  On 
Josephus  the  earlier  treatises  of  Spittler  (1770)  and  J.  G. 
Scharfenberg  (17S0)  still  deserve  mention.  Oikonomos  has  a 
chapter  of  90  pages,  irj  xxi  vxpk  ro't't  ifx^'^'^  iB^tme  ro^'if 
utT^PXt  ywffTvi  fl  i/iu.*,*fix  t£ii  /,  u.  76S. 

Sw.  p.  404  (Quotations  in  the  NT).  The  extent  of  these  quota- 
tions has  been  csLi.natcd  by  Spearman  in  the  anonymous  Letter 
on  the  Septuagint  (1759)  as  equal  in  length  to  Ps  119;  by 
Grinfleld  (ISSn)  as  twice  that  length  or  the  extent  of  Hark. 
The  first  collection  seems  to  be  m  the  Greek  Testament  of 
E.  Stephen  (1550),  about  250  passages;  the  first  treatment  of 
thesu  quotations  in  England  by  Bishop  Wettenhall,  Scripture 
Authrntic  and  Faith  Certain  (166S);  further,  Randolph,  The 
Prophecies  and  other  Texts  cited  in  the  XT,  17S2,  1827 ;  Grin- 
fleld, p.  142.  On  lluhri  see  Ezims.  Times,  May  1901,  355.  Uf 
Dittniar,  Vettis  Testatnenlum  in  Sovo,  a  second  part  is  in 
course  of  preparation. 

Sw.  p.  477  (Influence  of  (B  on  Christian  Literature^  See 
Oikonomos,  vol  iv.  Eb.  NesTLE. 

SEPULCHRE  (-inp  '  grave,'  n-iiap  '  burying-plaoe ' 
[Mislm.  -i:,  a-::i3  ' burial  lairs  or  niches'];  Gr.  nvn/J-a, 
ixv-qtitlov  'tomb,'  'monument,'  rd^os  'sepulchre')  is 
represented  in  Scripture,  and  particularly  in  OT, 
not  only  by  these  Hebrew  and  Greek  equivalents, 
but  also  by  words  and  phrases  whicli  are  synonym- 
ous. It  is  the  pit  (113  Is  38'^),  the  stones  of  the  pit 
(i\2  ■jnx  Is  14'"),  a  man's  house  (n;;  Is  14'*),  his 
everlasting  house  (d)j7  n-3  Ec  12=),  t/w  house  of 
assemblage  for  all  living  (D-n  ^:h  n;;ia  n'3  Job  30^), 
a.nd  field  of  burial  (.TjUfn  n-\ifr  2  Cli  26-^). 

Of  the  terms  used  for  the  grave  by  the  later  Judaism  none  is 
more  significant  than  the  house  of  the  Uving  (D"nn  n-J),  and 
this  is  the  euphemism  by  which  the  burying-place  of  the  dead 
is  now  generally  designated  by  modern  Jews.  "We  are  the 
dead,  they  are  the  livmg,'  t  was  the  remark  octually  made  to 
the  present  writer  by  an  aged  Rabbi  in  Smyrna,  whose  oHice  it 
was  to  attend  at  the  burial  of  his  Jewish  kinsmen,  and  see  them 
laid  to  their  last  rest.  The  ancient  Egyptians  thought  of  the 
departed  as  the  living,  and  called  the  cotfin  the  cfiest  o)  the 
livinn.  The  Egj-ptian  conception  of  the  grave  as  the  everlast- 
ing house  was  not,  however,  inconsistent  with  a  strongly 
cherished  hope  of  resurrection.  But  there  was  no  expectatioii 
among  the  Jews  of  a  return  to  earthly  life  in  the  original  body, 
such  as  prevailed  among  the  Egyptians  and  led  among  them 
to  the  embalming  and  preservation  of  the  dead.  The  lat«r 
literature  of  Judaism  speaks  rather  of  a  general  resurrection, 
when  the  souls  of  the  departed  shall  enter  into  new  bodies 
and  live  on  in  them. 

The  terms  employed  to  describe  the  grave  are 

"  Niese  begins  with  the  remark,  that  the  origin  of  the  common 
text  in  Holmes  -  Parsons,  Tischendorf,  etc,  was  apparently 
accidental  and  arbitrary  Collenbar  zicmlich  zufallig  und 
willkiirlich  entstanden ') ;  Kautzseh,  Apokri/phen,  p.  32,  gives 
'  an  <  'Xi.  V.  und  aus  nicht  niiher  bezeicbneten  Minuskelcotliccs" ; 
Fritmche,  Libri  apocryphi,  p.  xix,  'nescio  uiide  desumptus.' 
Now  take  the  edition  of  1688,  where  Nobilius  remarks  on 
1  Mac  420  'Addendum  est  ex  codice  qtum  potissimum  in  his 
libris  srqiiuti  suiniut  et  multis  aliis  «i  irifii  'loCiat9';  on  8* 
'  deleiidum  est  ex  aucturitate  cudicum  quos  sequuti  sujmts  et 
vulgataj  illud  i>«,  quod  in  multis  antecedit  et  io  nostram 
editionem  per  typographi  incuriam  irropsit'  These  and  similar 
passages  confirm  the  present  writer's  suggestion  (see  Sw.  p. 
181,  u.  2),  that,  besides  the  Aldine  edition.  Cod.  Ho  19  has  been 
used  for  the  Sixtine  edition.  To  these  there  must  perhaps  be 
added  64  (03): 

t  It  is  natural  to  connect  such  an  expression  with  the  argu- 
ment which  Jesus  summed  up  in  the  memorable  words,  'God  is 
not  the  God  of  the  dead,  but  of  the  living'  (Mk  12''".)  Cf.  also 
the  striking  words  4  Mac  I62S  'Those  who  die  on  behalf  of  God 
live  unto  God,  as  do  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob.' 


used  often  to  describe  the  Underworld  where  the 
dead  live  on.  The  gathering-place  of  the  departed 
in  the  world  bej'ond  is,  as  above,  the  pit  (Is  38'*), 
the  nether  parts  of  the  earth  (Is  44^),  Sheol  and 
Abaddon  (Job  26',  Pr  15"),  tlie  pit  of  destruction 
(Ps  55=^),  the  place  of  silence  (Pa  94"  115>'),  the 
land  of  darkness  and  of  the  shadow  of  death  (Job 
10-').     '  lleuce,'  says  Ur.  Salmond,* 

'the  distinction  is  occasionally  sunk  in  the  OT,  and  it  became 
confused  in  the  later  usage  of  the  Targums.  IJut  that  Sheol 
denotes  a  definite  realm  of  the  dead,  and  is  not  identical  with 
the  grave,  appears  from  the  usage  of  the  term,  and  is  recognized 
by  the  ancient  Versions.  It  is  to  Sheol  that  Jacob  speaks  of 
going  to  join  the  son  whose  death  he  mourns,  but  of  whose 
burial  he  knows  nothing.  It  is  Sheol  that  swallows  up  Korah 
and  his  company  alive.  That  a  common  habitation  of  the  dead 
like  the  Sualu  of  the  Babylonians,  the  Hades  of  the  Greeks,  the 
Orcus  of  the  Romans,  is  meant,  is  indicated  also  by  the  fact  that 
the  expressions  to  be  gathered  to  oiw's  people  or  to  one's  fathers, 
to  go  to  one's  fathers,  to  sleep  with  one's  fathers,  are  used  in 
cases  like  those  of  Abraham,  Jacob,  Aaron,  Moses,  David,  and 
others,  where  the  temporary  or  permanent  resting-places  were 
far  removed  from  the  ancestral  graves.' 

A  touching  illustration  of  the  father  looking 
forward  to  a  meetin"  in  another  world  with  a 
departed  child  is  David's  '  I  shall  go  to  him,  but  he 
shall  not  return  to  me '  (2  S  1'2^).  But  while  Sheol 
is  thus  '  the  house  of  assemblage  for  all  living,'  it 
was  in  the  sepulchre  of  his  fathers,  in  the  ancestral 
bur3'ing-place  and  with  his  departed  kindred,  that 
the  ancient  Israelite  desired  to  be  buried.  And 
there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  wish  to  be  reunited 
with  parents  and  children  in  Sheol  had  to  do  with 
the  desire  to  be  buried  in  the  famUy  sepulchre.  The 
object  of  buiial,  not  merelj'  in  a  grave  but  in  the 
family  grave,  was  to  iulroduce  the  departed  into 
the  society  of  his  kinsfolk  and  ancestors.  In  the 
earliest  times  this  society  was  supposed  to  exist 
either  in  the  family  grave  or  in  its  immediate 
neighbourhood. t  '  Bury  me  not,  I  pray  thee,  in 
Egypt,'  said  the  dying  Jacob  to  Joseph,  '  but  I 
will  lie  with  my  fathers,  and  thou  shall  carry  me 
out  of  Egypt  and  bury  me  in  their  burying-pl.ace ' 
(Gn  49-"- ^0,  cf.  Joseph's  burial,  Jos  24^-).  And 
nothing  could  be  more  pathetic  in  this  reference 
than  the  request  of  Barzillai,  who  declined  king 
David's  invitation  to  live  with  him  at  court,  and 
said,  'Let  thy  servant,  I  pray  thee,  turn  back 
again,  that  I  may  die  in  mine  own  city,  by  the 

frave  of  my  father  and  my  mother '  (2  S  19"  RV). 
t  was  a  duty  of  piety  to  see  the  bones  of  the  dead 
placed  in  the  family  sepulchre,  as  David  did  for 
the  bones  of  Saul  and  his  sons  (2  S  21'^'")  ;  and  it 
was  the  proper  punishment  of  disobedience  to 
the  command  of  Jehovah  that  a  man's  carcass 
should  not  come  into  the  sepulchre  of  bis  fathers 
(1  K  IS''').  To  be  deprived  of  burial  was  the  last 
indic;nity  and  the  greatest  of  calamities  ;  the  spirits 
of  tlie  unburied  dead  were  believed  to  wander 
restlessly  abroad,  or  to  lie  in  recesses  of  the  pit,  ii 
they  were  admitted  into  Sheol  at  all  (Ezk  32^"-, 
Is  14'°).  For  this  reason  the  possibility  of  death 
at  sea  was  regarded  with  horror.  So,  too,  no 
vengeance  upon  enemies  could  be  more  cruel  than 
to  throw  their  bodies  to  the  dogs,  or  to  allow  them 
to  rot  upon  the  battlelield,  or  to  be  left  as  a  prey 
to  the  fowls  of  heaven  and  the  beasts  of  the  held 
(Ezk  39*,  2  K  9^«).  Of  Jason,  who  '  slaughtered  hia 
own  citizens  without  mercy,'  it  is  said  (2  Mac  5'°), 
'  he  that  had  cast  out  a  multitude  unburied  had 
none  to  mourn  for  him,  nor  had  he  any  funeral  at 
all,  or  place  in  the  sepulchre  of  his  fathers.'  But 
the  humane  prescription  of  the  law  of  Moses  was 
that  the  criminal  hant;ed  upon  the  gaUows  should 
be  buried,  and  buried  at  all  hazards,  on  tlie  day 
of  execution  (Dt  21'-^) ;  and  in  the  case  of  the 
enemies  of  Israel  captured  and  hung  we  find  the 
law  precisely  carried  out  (Jos  8^  10°").     The  treat- 

•  Christian  Doctrine  of  Immortality,  p.  199  [1901  cd.  p.  161). 
t  R.  ll.Ch^T\ea,Eschatology :  Hebrew,  Jeunsh,  and  Christian 
p.  31  ff. 


SEPULCHRE 


SEPULCHRE 


455 


nent  of  the  body  of  Jesus  (Jn  19"),  and  the  burial 
of  John  the  Baptist  (Mt  14'-),  and  of  Stejilien  (Ac 
8*),  by  their  friends  are  later  illiistr.itions.  Even 
Bnicides  received  tlie  ordinary  rites  of  burial,  as  is 
seen  in  the  case  of  Ahithopliel  (2  S  IT'^).  It  was 
the  dtity  of  anj'  one  who  found  a  corpse  in  tlie  open 
field  to  "ive  it  burial  (To  1"*  2»,  cf.  1  S  •21"') ;  and 
it  is  creditable  to  Jewisli  feeling  that  tlie  bodies 
of  the  (ientile  dead  were  allowed  to  rest  in  the 
Jewish  burying-place  side  by  side  with  Je%vish 
remains.* 

Into  the  family  grave  only  members  of  the 
family  were  admitted.  In  the  Naliat;v:in  sepul- 
chral inscriptions  t  a  curse  is  pronounced  upon  the 
man  who  defiles  or  sells  a  grave,  or  who  buries  in 
it  any  who  are  not  members  of  the  family.  And 
the  tamous  inscri|)tion  on  the  tomb  of  Eshmun- 
azar,  king  of  Sidon,  pronounces  doom  upon  any 
who  may  disturb  his  repose,  or  open  or  carry  oil' 
his  coHin  for  the  .sake  of  treasure, — niav  they  have 
no  rest  among  the  departed,  maj'  they  be  buried  in 
no  grave,  and  may  they  liave  no  prosperity  in 
their  city  !  t  The  family  grave  was  holy  ground 
and  a  permanent  possession.  The  family  might 
lose  their  estate,  out  never  the  ancestral  tomb ; 
for  in  .selling  land  no  Jew  could  dispose  of  the 
buryingjilace,  to  the  use  of  which  his  descendants 
were  entitled  to  all  tirae.§ 

WTien  the  Jewi.sh  people  came  to  be  dispersed  amon^  the 
natiuns  it  was  an  object  of  solicitiido  and  anibilion  to  be  l)uried 
in  the  sacre<l  soil  of  Canaan.  '  Wlioever,'  says  the  Talmud,  'ia 
buried  in  Palestine  is  as  if  he  were  buried  under  the  altar.' 
And  a'.;ain  :  '  Whoever  is  interred  in  Babylonia  is  as  well  off  as 
if  he  lay  in  Palestine,  and  whoever  is  buried  in  Palestine  lies 
the  same  as  under  the  altar.'  H  About  the  :jrd  cetit.  it  became 
'  a  pious  custom  to  be  buried  in  Jud;na's  holy  earth,  to  which 
was  attribute  an  exjiiatory  power.  The  resurrection  was  con- 
lidcntly  expected  to  take  place  in  that  country,  which  it  was 
also  believed  would  be  the  scene  of  the  coming  of  the  Messiah. 
Those  who  had  dic<l  in  unhallowed  countries  would  roll  about 
in  the  light  loose  earth  until  they  reached  the  Holy  I.and, 
where  they  could  be  revivified.  Id  place  of  living  inhabit^ints 
who  were  continually  decreasing,  Judaea  was  becoming  every 
day  more  thickly  jiopulated  with  cori>ses.  The  Holy  Ijand, 
which  had  formerly  been  an  immense  temple,  inspiring  great 
deeds  and  noble  thoughts,  was  now  a  holy  grave  which  could 
render  noUiing  holy  but  death.' ^ 

Burinl  was  the  universal  mode  of  disposing  of 
the  dead  at  all  periods  of  Jewisli  history  [see 
BfRIAI,].  Bnrninri,  which  was  the  Babylonian 
and  Roman  usage,  was  among  the  Jews  a  death 
punislinii-nt  intlicted  for  aggravated  transgressions 
rathi-r  than  a  mode  of  disposing  of  the  dead  (Gn 
38«,  Lv  20"  21",  Jos  7",  I  K  13-,  2  K  23-"").  Even 
when  criminals  had  sutlered  the  last  penalty  of  the 
law  by  stoning  or  burning,  or  where,  as  in  the 
ca.se  oi  Saul  and  his  sons,  slain  in  b.attle,  necessity 
required  that  tlieir  bodies  should  be  burned  (1  S 
31"-  '•'),  their  remains  or  aslies  were  provided  with 
a  resting-place  in  the  bosom  of  the  earth.**  There 
was  great  variety  in  the  choice  of  a  burying-iilace 
among  the  Jews,  at  least  in  the  earliest  times. 
Abraham  buried  Sarah  in  the  cave  of  the  field  of 
Machpelah  (Gn  23"');  Deborah,  Rebekah's  nurse, 
was  buried  under  an  oak  (Gn  35") ;  Jacob  buried 
Rachel  (.see,  above,  p.  193*)  by  the  wayside  (On 
35");  they  buried  Joshua  'in  tlie  liorifer  of  his 
inheritance  in  Timnath-serah,  wliich  is  in  Mt. 
Ephrnim '  (Jos  24*')  ;  and  the  men  of  Jabesh- 
gilead  Imried  the  bones  of  Saul  and  his  sons 
under  a  terebinth  (1  Ch  10'-).  Burial  in  the  open 
street  or  at  cross  ro.ids  was  expressly  forbi<hlen 
by  the  enactments  of  later  times.  ThiTO  does 
not  ai)pear  to  be  evidence  in  the  Scripture  his- 

•  Hamburger,  RE,  vol.  i.  VH. 
t  Studia  liibKca,  i.  212  fl. 
I  Levy,  '  Phonizische  Studlen,'  p.  2. 
J  Tristram.  Kmtem  Cuttoim  in  Bible  Land*,  p.  100 
H  Hamburger,  t.c.  ji.  476. 

^  Oraet!:,  History  oftht  Jewt,  vol.  11.  648  (American  edition). 
••  Cf.  Hamburger,  '  Feuerbestattung  der  Toten,'  Supplement. 
Band.  Abt.  ii.  40.  ^'^ 


tory  to  warr.ant  the  statement  that  the  family 
grave  was  originally  in  the  house.*  This  belongs, 
so  far  as  it  aiipears  to  have  been  the  case,  to  a 
later  time,  and  is  represented  as  an  exceptional 
honour  reserved  for  Icings,  prophets,  and  other 
outstanding  personages  (1  S  25',  1  K  2*',  2  K  21'8, 
2  Ch  33-").  In  B.abylonia  and  Assyria,  at  all  events, 
'only  members  of  the  royal  family  were  permitted 
to  be  buried  within  the  precincts  of  the  town. 
Their  bodies  miglit  be  burned  and  entombed  in 
one  of  the  many  palaces  of  the  country.  We  are 
told  of  one  king,  for  instance,  that  he  was  burned 
or  buried  in  tlie  palace  of  Sargou  ;  of  another,  tliat 
he  was  burned  in  his  own  palace.  The  practice 
throws  light  on  what  we  read  in  tlie  Books  of 
Kings  ;  there,  too,  we  are  told  tliat  Maiiasseli  "  was 
buried  in  the  garden  of  hisown  house"  (2  K  21"),  and 
Anion  in  the  "garden  of  Uzza"  (2  K  21-").  Private 
burial  in  the  palaces  they  had  inliabited  when 
alive  was  a  privilege  reserved  for  the  kings  alone. 't 
The  seiiulclaes  set  ajiart  for  the  kings  of  .ludah 
(D'r^^rr  nnap)  are  specially  mentioned  (2  Ch  21-°  24^ 
28'-").  Not  all  the  kings  were  privileged  to  re- 
ceive interment  in  the  royal  mausoleum.  Neither 
Joash  nor  Jehoram  was  buried  in  the  sepulchres  of 
the  kings  (2  Ch  21"»  24«),  wliilst  Jehoiada  was 
accorded  the  honour  'because  he  had  done  good  in 
Israel  and  towards  God  and  his  house'  (2  Cli  24"). 
The  remains  of  Uzziah  were  not  admitted  to  the 
sepulchres  of  the  kings,  but  were  interred  in  '  the 
field  of  burial  which  belonged  to  tlie  kings,  be- 
cause they  wiid  he  was  a  lei)er'  (2  Ch  20^).  It  is 
not  possible  to  locate  '  the  sepulchres  of  the  kings ' 
in  Jerusalem.  It  seems  to  be  implied  in  a  state- 
ment of  the  prophet  Ezekiel  (43'"")  that  certain 
kings  of  Judah  were  buried  close  to  the  tenii)le,  if 
not  actually  within  its  precincts;  and  though 
there  is  no  record  of  such  a  thing  in  the  historical 
books,  the  statement  is  jusfilied  by  the  fact  that 
the  royal  palaces,  within  which  some  of  tliem  were 
interred,  and  the  first  temple,  stood  virtually 
within  the  same  enclosure.  There  were  also 
common  burying- places  called  'the  gr.aves  of  the 
children  of  the  people '  (2  K  "23^  Jer  2U'-''),  into  which 
the  dead  were  sometimes  cast  in  dishonour  and 
contempt. 

To  prep.are  for  himself  a  tomb  in  his  lifetime 
has  been  the  custom  of  every  right-thinking  Jew 
from  early  times  down  to  the  present  day.  Slu^bna, 
whose  Jewish  origin,  however,  is  doubtful  ( ls'i'2""-), 
Asa  (2  Ch  16'*),  Joseph  of  Arimatliica  (Mt  27™), 
are  instances  in  point.  The  cu.stom  was  not  con- 
lined  to  the  Jews,  for  we  find  it  followed  by  the 
Pharaohs,  who  built  pyramids  to  receive  their 
remains,  by  Eshmunazar,  ly  the  Caliphs,  and 
others. 

Of  the  sepulchres  and  sepulchral  monuments  of 
the  ancient  Hebrews  and  tlie  later  Jews  it  is  pos- 
sible now  to  give  an  adequate  description  and  a 
fairly  complete  history.  \\  e  owe  this  to  the  labours 
— often  skilled  labours — of  residents  and  travellers 
in  Palestine,  and  especially  to  the  orpinizod  and 
persevering  eil'orts  of  the  Palestine  Exidoration 
r'und  and  the  kindred  German  Palas/iyia-  Vcrcin. 
The  sepulchral  remains  of  Western  Palestine,  in 
particular,  have  been  in  many  ca.ses  carefully 
examined  and  measured  and  described,  with  plans 
and  sketches,  in  the  Reports  and  Memoirs  of  these 
societies.  Wo  can  now  classify  the  sepulchral 
remains  according  to  tho  type  which  they  repre- 
sent, and  even,  with  some  measure  of  certainty, 
a-ssign  them  to  the  period  to  which  thoy  belong, — 
to  the  Phmnician  or  Hebrew,  Jewish,  Herodian, 
Roman,  Byzantine,  Saracenic,  or  Crusading  periods. 
There  are  three  principal  types  of  ancient  tombs 

•  So  K.  H.  Charles,  Esohaloloav,  p.  82. 
t  Kayce,  Social  Life  among  th»  Auvriant  and  Babiilonian$, 
p.  67. 


456 


SEPULCHRE 


SEPULCHRE 


found   in   Western    Palestine:*    (i.)  Rock-hewn 
Tombs;  (ii. )  Masonry  Tombs  ;  (iii.)  Sarcophagi. 

i.  KoCK-HEWN  Tomhs. — These  are  by  far  the 
most  numerous,  and  they  are  found  in  many 
varieties.  They  are  also  the  earliest  in  date.  The 
soft  limestone  ranges  of  Western  Palestine  and 
Syria  were  honeycombed  with  natural  caves,  admit- 
ting of  easy  enlargement  and  adaptation.  They 
had  been  available  for  the  shelter  of  the  living 
before  being  used  for  the  reception  of  the  dead 
(1  S  22'  243).  The  usual  form  of  Hebrew  tomb 
in  the  earliest  period  took  advantage  of  these 
caverns  in  the  soft  strata  of  limestone.  In  this 
the  Hebrews  copied  the  Phoenicians,  whose  prin- 
ciple of  architecture,  Kenan  tells  us,t  was  the 
carved  rock,  not  the  column,  as  with  the  Greeks  ; 
but  in  point  of  architectural  taste  and  skill  they 
were  far  behind  their  masters.  In  striking  con- 
trast to  the  Egyptian  sepulchral  monuments, — 
massive  pyramids  and  vast  underground  chambers, 
— the  Hebrew  tomb,  wliether  single  or  more  com- 
plex, was  marked  by  extreme  simplicity.  In  fact, 
simplicity  of  construction  and  absence  of  archi- 
tectural ornament  are  the  surest  notes  of  tlie 
antiquity  of  a  Hebrew  sepulchre.  No  less  remark- 
able IS  the  contrast  between  the  inscriptions  and 
wall-paintings  on  EgA  _)tian  tombs — as  at  Beni- 
Hassan  and  elsewhere — and  the  plain  and  un- 
adorned simplicity  of  Hebrew  tombs,  which  until 
a  late  period  are  entirely  devoid  of  inscriptions. 
In  some  eases  tombs  are  found  singly  on  the  hill- 
sides, as  though  individuals  chose  to  have  their 
last  resting-place  in  their  own  vineyard,  like  Joseph 
of  Arimathfea,  who  had  his  own  new  tomb  in  his 
garden.  More  often  they  form  a  regular  burying- 
ground  or  cemetery.  Tombs  of  notable  person- 
ages, like  the  so-called  Tomb  of  Joshua,  have  gener- 
ally other  tombs  around  them,  the  desire  being 
strong  among  all  Orientals  to  be  laid  near  to  some 
holy  man  or  national  hero. 

(1)  The  simplest  form  of  rock-he^vn  tomb  is  that 
in  which  a  grave  has  been  sunk  in  the  surface  of 
the  rock  to  receive  the  body,  and  fitted  witli  a 
slab,  let  in  round  the  mouth,  to  cover  it,  the 
cover  being  sometimes  flush  with  the  flat  surface 
of  tlie  rock,  and  sometimes  raised  and  ornamented 
like  the  lid  of  a  sarcophagus. 

(2)  Another  simple  form  of  tomb  is  an  excava- 
tion driven  into  tue  face  of  a  rock  —  called  iiis, 
plural  D'5i3 — just  large  enough  to  receive  a  corpse, 
the  mouth  being  closed  hy  a  rough  stone  slab. 

(3)  The  most  common  description  of  tomb  is  that 
in  wliich  a  number  of  kokini  are  grouped  together 
in  one  or  more  chambers  of  the  same  excavation. 
These,  again,  are  in  tliree  varieties  :  (a)  A  sepulclire 
consisting  of  a  natural  cavern  in  one  of  the  softer 
strata  of  limestone,  having  kukim  cut  in  its  sides 
with  their  beds  on  a  level  with  the  floor,  the 
mouths  of  these  being  closed  by  rough  stone  slabs, 
either  made  to  fit  close,  or  only  resting  against  the 
perforated  face  of  rock,  (b)  A  sepulchre  where 
a  square  or  oblong  chamber  has  been  cut  in  the 
rock,  and  kokim  ranged  along  three  of  its  sides, 
their  mouths  closed  by  neatly  dressed  stone  slabs 
fitting  closely,  the  entrance  to  the  chamber  itself 
being  by  a  low  square  opening,  fitted  with  a  slab 
in  the  same  manner,  or  with  a  stone  door  turning 
on  a  socket  hinge,  and  secured  by  bolts  on  the 
inside.  In  this  kind  of  tomb  there  is  usually  a 
bench  running  in  front  of  the  kukim,  and  raised 
from  1  ft.  6  in.  to  3  ft.  above  the  floor  of  the 
excavated  chamber,  (c)  A  sepulchre  in  which  one 
entrance  leads  into  a  number  of  chambers,  each 
containing  kokim.     Such  tombs  generally  have  a 

•  We  follow  SirCharlee  Wllson'sclassiflcation  :  Bee  The  Survej/ 
»/  Wrgtem  Pale*tim,  Volume  of  Special  Papers,  p.  280  £f. ;  and 
PEFftt,  1869,  p.  «6fl.,  where  there  are  useful  plans. 

t  iliasion  de  PMnicU,  p.  822. 


sort  of  porch  or  vestibule  hewn  in  the  rock,  tha 
front  of  the  roof  being  often  supported  by  pillan 
of  natural  rock  surmounted  by  a  frieze,  and  bear- 
ing other  kinds  of  ornamentation.  From  thia 
porch  a  low  door  leads  into  an  antechamber,  with 
or  ■\vithout  tombs,  from  which  access  is  obtained 
to  the  tomb  chambers,  all  of  which  have  raised 
benches  running  in  front  of  the  kokim  openings. 
Some  of  the  chambers  have,  instead  of  kokim,  arched 
'ecesses  (arcosolia)  cut  out  in  their  sides,  in  which 
the  body  was  laid,  or  perhaps  a  sarcophagus  placed. 
The  so-called  Tomb  of  Joshua  at  Tibneh,  on  the 
Roman  road  from  Antipatris  to  Jerusalem,  is  of 
this  class.  It  is  prominent  among  the  nine  tombs 
that  make  the  rock  cemetery  of  the  place,  and  haa 
a  portico  supported  on  rude  pieces  of  rock  with 
very  simple  capitals.  There  are  niches  for  over 
two  hundred  lamps,  arranged  in  vertical  rows, 
giving  the  appearance  of  an  ornamental  pattern, 
and  all  smoke-blacked.  '  Entering  the  low  door,' 
says  Conder,  '  we  find  the  interior  chamber  to  be 
a  square  with  five  loculi,  not  very  perfectly  cut,  on 
their  sides.  The  whole  is  quite  unomamented, 
except  by  four  very  rough  brackets  supporting  the 
flat  roof.  On  becoming  accustomed  to  the  dark- 
ness, one  perceives  that  the  central  lociUus  at  thu 
back  forms  a  little  passage  about  7  ft.  long,  2  ft. 
6  in.  high,  and  3  ft.  4  in.  broad,  through  which  onb 
creeps  into  a  second  but  smaller  chamber,  9  ft.  3  in. 
by  8  ft.  1  in.,  and  5  ft.  5  in.  high.  In  this,  opposite 
the  entrance,  a  single  loculus  runs  at  right  angles 
to  the  wall,  and  a  single  niche  is  cut  on  the  left 
for  a  lamp.'  * 

Conder  (,PEFSt,  1878,  p.  31)  classifles  the  rock-cut  tombs  a* 
follows  :— 1.  Kokim  tombs.  2.  Locidus  tombs,  3.  Sunk  tombg. 
The  first  two  classes  he  believes  to  be  of  Hebrew  and  Jewish 
ori^Mn.  but  the  third  more  likely  to  be  Christian  of  the  Byzan- 
tine period.  The  word  kok  and  its  plural  kokim  desij^nate  the 
pi^^eon-holes  or  tunnels  running  in  from  the  side  of  a  sepulchral 
chamber,  each  having  room  for  a  coq^s'.  and  nothing  more. 
The  designation  toeuius  {tocui  in  sepuU'hro)  is  applied  to  the 
shelf,  or  trough,  or  bench  receptacle  for  the  corpse,  which  is  of 
later  use  than  the  kokim.  In  many  tombs  which  have  been 
examined  there  is  a  mixture  of  both  kokim  and  loculi,  indi- 
cating a  transition  period  about  the  Christian  era  or  earlier. 
'The  kukim  tombs,  Conder  explains,  'are  those  which  have 
parallel  tunnels  running  in,  three  or  four  side  by  side,  from  the 
walls  of  a  rectangular  chamber.  The  bodies  lay  with  their  feet 
towards  the  chamber,  and  stone  pillars  for  raising  the  heatls  are 
often  found  at  the  farther  end.  The  kokim  vary  in  number 
from  one  or  two  up  to  fifteen  or  twenty,  and  are  of  various 
len;;tbs,  from  3  or  4  to  7  ft.  There  is  no  system  of  orientation, 
and  the  entrance  door  is  in  the  face  of  the  cliff,  the  chamber 
within  being  directed  according  to  the  lie  of  the  rock.  This 
kind  of  tomb  is  certainly  the  niost  ancient  in  the  country,  for 
the  kokiiTt  are  sometimes  destroyed  in  enlarging  the  tomb  on 
a  different  system.'  These  tombs  were  used  by  the  Jews. 
This  is  proved  by  a  rare  Hebrew  inscription,  by  a  representation 
of  the  seven-branched  golden  candlestick,  and  by  the  fact  that 
some  of  them  are  sacred  to  modern  Jews  as  the  tombs  of  their 
ancestors,  and  that  their  measurements  agree  with  the  pre- 
scriptions in  the  Talmud.  The  kokim  are  not  sufficiently  large, 
as  a  rule,  to  admit  of  the  supposition  that  the  bodies  were 
embalmed  or  swathed  in  bandages  like  those  which  make  the 
Egjiitian  munmiy  so  bulky  when  preserved  untouched.  There 
is  nothing  in  the  sepulchral  remains  of  Palestine  any  more  than 
in  the  Bible  itself  to  lead  us  to  believe  that  the  embahning  of 
tlie  dead  was  a  Hebrew  custom  (Conder,  Syrian  Stotn'  Ltir<',  p. 
Vi'i).  For  another  classification  of  tombs  see  Benzinger,  Lleb. 
Arch.  p.  22.'t,  which  follows  Tobler's  in  SWP,  Volume  of  Special 
Papers,  p.  2S8  f. 

We  have  seen  that  the  simple  tombs  belong  to 
the  earlier  period,  and  that  the  portico  at  tha 
entrance,  with  its  ornaments,  is  usually  a  note  of 
more  recent  origin.  It  is  to  the  Herodian  Age 
that  the  ancient  tombs  on  the  east  side  of  the 
Kidron  Valley,  Absalom's  Pillar  (possibly  the  tomb 
of  Alexander  Janna'us),  the  Tombs  of  St.  Jaiiiea 
and  Zechariah,  and  the  monolith  known  as  tha 
Egyptian  Tomb,  are  to  be  assigned.  The  so-called 
Toiiib  of  St.  James,  now  known  as  the  Tomb  of  the 
Hene  Hazir,  with  its  Aramaic  text,  Doric  pillars, 
and  triglyphs,  and  inner  chamber  containing 
kokim,  is  perhaps  the  earliest  of  the  group,  and 
belongs  to  the  Ist  cent.  B.C.     The  others  are  prob 

•  PEFSt,  1873,  p.  i«. 


SEPULCHRE 


SEPULCHRE 


457 


ebly  Inter.  Tlie  fine  monument  to  the  north  of 
Jerusalem,  couiinonly  called  tlie  Tombs  of  the 
Kings,  but  known  to  the  natives  as  Kubfir  es- 
Salattn  (Tombs  of  the  bultans),  has  been  identi- 
fied hy  Robinson  as  the  tomb  of  Helena,  queen 
of  Adiabeue.  It  contains  that  mixture  of  kokim 
and  luditi  which  would  seem  to  date  it  on  the 
border  of  tlie  Christian  era.  In  one  of  the  lower 
chambers  of  the  tomb  was  found  a  sarcophai^us 
■with  an  Aramaic  inscription  containinj;  the  words 
Sara  Meleka.  It  is  not  impossible  that  this  was 
the  native  name  of  Helena  herself,  and  that  the 
remains  found  in  the  sarco|)hagus  were  her  own. 

ii.  Masonry  Tombs. — 'I  hese  are  rarelj'  found  in 
Palestine,  SJid  thej'  are  later  than  the  rock-hewn 
Bepulihres.  They  are  confined  to  the  northern 
portion  of  the  country.  Tlie  most  famous  are 
described  by  Sir  Charles  Wilson  (S(rP283).  He 
mentions — (1)  a  building  at  Kedes  (Kedesh- 
naphtuli),  34  ft.  4  in.  s<niare,  with  a  doorway  on 
its  southern  side  leading  to  a  chamber  containing 
kokim,  which  have  been  used  for  interments 
down  to  a  late  period  ;  (2)  two  tombs  at  Tell 
l^uni  (one  of  the  possible  sites  for  Capernaum), 
the  one  of  which  has  26  kokim,  and,  being  subter- 
ranean, is  closed  with  a  door  of  basalt,  the  other 
of  which  ha.s  lucuU,  and  is  built  of  coursed  basaltic 
rubble;  (3)  a  tine  tomb  at  Malal,  near  Nazarelh, 
with  4  kokim  and  attached  semi-pillars  of  the 
Ionic  order  outside ;  (4)  a  square  tomb  at  Teifislr 
with  three  lociili,  a  domed  roof,  and  pilasters 
on  each  side ;  (5)  the  remains  of  a  building  at 
Ain  el  B'aineh,  which  had  stone  over  rock-cut 
tombs.  To  these  Conder  has  added  four  more,  three 
ot  them  at  or  near  Jerusalem. 

iii.  Sakcophagi. — hetween  the  6th  and  the  4th 
cent.  H.C.  the  Phoenicians  buried  in  sarcojihagi 
called  anthropoid,  having  a  human  head  and  even 
an  entire  recumbent  form  on  the  li(^,  the  body  of 
the  sarcophagus  being  shaped  like  a  mummy  case. 
Such  is  the  famous  tomb  of  Eshmunazar  with  the 
celebrated  Phoenician  inscription.  In  the  great 
discovery  of  sepulchral  remains  made  at  Beyrout 
Borne  years  ago,  sarcophagi,  njunimy  shaped,  some 
in  white  and  some  in  black  marlde,  were  found. 
Among  the  sarcophagi  discovered  in  the  excava- 
tions was  a  si)leiidid  sarcophagus  in  black  stone 
resembling  that  of  Kshmunazar,  and  bearing  an 
inscription  purporting  that  it  is  the  tomb  of  Tab- 
nitli,  priest  of  Ashtoreth  and  king  of  the  Sidonians, 
Bon  of  Fsliniunazar.  Some  of  those  sarcophagi 
were  maile  of  pottery,  recalling  the  slipper-shaped 
plnzed  earthen  coffins  found  hy  Loftus  *  on  the 
ancient  liabylonian  mounds  at  Warka.  Although 
the  Hebrews  copied  from  the  I'lucnicians  in  their 
rock-hewn  tombs,  they  did  not  follow  them  largely 
in  the  use  of  sarcophagi.  We  have  already  men- 
tioned the  Barcoiihagus  of  queen  Sara  found  in 
the  Tomb  of  the  Kings.  Of  others  found  in 
Palestine,  those  di-scovered  at  Kedes  are  the  most 
ornamented.  The  material  out  of  which  they  are 
hewn  is  hard  white  limestone,  almost  like  marble, 
ttnd  the  workmanship  is  excellent.  Some  of  them 
had  been  made  for  two  bodies  laid  in  opposite 
directions,  and  at  the  bottom  of  the  locuU  were 
amall  raised  pillars  to  receive  the  heads.  With 
the  exception  of  those  great  anthropoid  sarcophagi, 
there  is  nothin"  to  show  a  very  marked  distinction 
between  the  Hebrew  and  Phccnician  tombs  from 
the  earliest  to  the  latest  age.  The  history  of  the 
Bepulchres  found  in  Phcenici'a  agrees  perfectly  with 
the  chronological  series  which  has  been  established 
independently  in  Palestine.! 

In  the  Greek  age  monuments  erected  over 
torn  1)3  became  common,  the  tombs  beneath  being 
rock-cut.     In  such  cases  there  is  a  combination  of 

*  W.  K.  Lottus,  ChiihUM  and  Sutiana,  p.  202. 
f  Conder,  Syrian  Stone  Lore,  p.  97. 


the  masonry  and  sarco|>liagus  type  of  tombs. 
Hiram's  Tomb,*  about  three  miles  from  moilem 
Tyre,  containing  a  tomb  or  sarcophagus  formed 
out  of  a  huge  block  and  emplaced  on  a  pedestal 
made  of  three  courses  of  grey  limestone,  most 
probably  belongs  to  this  period  ;  and  tomb  towers 
containing  sarcophagi  are  to  be  found  throughout 
Syria.  At  Palmyra  those  structures  consist  some- 
times of  four  or  five  storej-s.  Tombstones  and 
sculptured  sepulchres  have  been  found  atUabbath- 
ammon,  in  Eastern  Palestine,  belonging  to  the 
age  of  the  Antonines,  but  are  to  be  classed  among 
pagan  funerary  monuments.  Sometimes  solid 
monuments  were  erected  near  tombs  like  the 
Kammuat  el-Hirmil,  east  of  the  Jordan — a  solid 
tower  in  two  storej's,  with  pyramidal  roof  and  bas- 
reliefs  representing  the  hunting  of  the  stag,  the 
bear,  and  the  wild  boar,  which  date,  it  is  supposed, 
from  the  3rd  or  4th  cent.  Of  sepulchral  monu- 
ments we  have  a  notable  example  in  the  mauso- 
leum erected  at  Modin  by  Simon  the  Maccabee  for 
his  father  and  his  brother.  '  Simon,'  .says  the 
writer  (1  Mac  13-'"^),  '  built  a  monument  upon  the 
sepulchres  of  his  father  and  his  brethren,  and 
raised  it  aloft  to  the  sight,  with  polished  stone 
behind  and  before.  And  he  set  up  seven  pyramids, 
one  over  a<;,ainst  anotlier.  for  his  father  and  his 
mother  and  his  four  brethren.  And  for  these  he 
made  cunning  devices,  setting  about  them  jjreat 
pillars,  and  upon  the  pillars  he  fashioned  all 
manner  of  arms  for  a  perpetual  meinory,  and 
beside  the  arms  ships  carved,  that  they  should  be 
seen  of  all  that  sail  on  the  sea.'  Of  this  famous 
structure  all  trace  has  been  lost  since  the  4th 
cent.,  and  its  site  has  not  yet  been  identified.  (See 
Modin). 

In  this  connexion  we  recall  the  stinging  words 
of  Jesus  describing  the  Pharisees  as  whited 
seinilchres,  outwardly  beautiful,  but  inwardly 
full  of  the  bones  of  the  dead — as  building  the 
tombs  of  the  prophets  and  garnishing  the  sepulchres 
of  the  righteous,  but  being  of  a  totall.v  dilferent 
spirit  from  tho.se  they  seemed  to  honour  (Mt  23-''- 
2a.  BU)  Whited  sepulchres  were  evidently  sepulchral 
erections  whitewashed  or  plastered  over  to  render 
tlieiii  c(mspicu(ms,  and  to  preserve  passers-by  from 
the  ceremonial  defilement  they  might  contract  by 
approaching  them.  That  some  such  distinguish- 
ing mark  was  necessary  we  gather  from  a  similar 
Raying  in  St.  Luke's  (iospel,  in  which  Jesus  describes 
the  scribes  and  Pharisees  as  '  graves  which  appear 
not'  (Lk  11").  The  reference  m  this  passage  must 
be  to  the  humbler  class  of  graves  simply  dug  in 
the  earth,  and  with  no  monument  of  any  kind  to 
m.ark  the  spot.  At  the  jiresent  day  the  white- 
wa.shed  slabs  covering  Moharninedan  graves  around 
Jerusalem  glitter  in  the  sunshine  and  easily  attract 
notice.  (See  for  cairns  or  stones  heaped  on  graves 
art.  Burial). 

There  are  two  sepulchres  in  particular  which 
must  always  have  a  special  interest  to  the  Bible 
student,  and  which  are  both  alike  enveloped  in 
a  certain  degree  of  mystery — the  cave  of  Mach- 
pelah,  the  burial-place  of  Sarah,  Abraham,  Isaac 
and  Kchekah,  Jacob  and  Leah  ;  and  the  Holy 
Sepulchre  at  Jerusalem,  where  the  body  of  Jesus 
was  laid  and  remained  for  '  three  days  and  three 
nights  in  the  heart  of  the  earth.'  As  regards 
the  grave  of  the  patriarchs,  now  covered  hy  the 
mosmie  at  Hebron,  see  art.  Machpelaii  [cf.  also 
Stanlev's  Sermnns  in  the  JCrixt  (pp.  141-16!))  and 
/Vi'f.Si  for  1882  (pp.  1<.I3-214)].  Touching  the 
Holy  Sepulchre  for  which  Saracens  and  Crusaders 
contended,  and  regarding  whose  site  heated  con- 
troversies still  rage,  it  seems  impossible  to  attain 
to  certainty.  The  tradition  of  more  than  fifteen 
centuries  located  it  within  the  Church  of  the  Holy 
•  Bm  It  flirurcd  in  Sifrian  Stone  Lore,  p.  M. 


t58 


SERAH 


SEEAPHIM 


Sepulchre.  This  tradition  has  been  called  in 
question  since  the  days  of  Robinson.  Its  truth 
would  require  the  site  to  have  been  without  the 
wall  of  the  city,  for  it  is  said  that  'Jesus  bear- 
ing the  cross  went  forth  unto  the  place  called  the 
place  of  a  skull'  (Jn  19"-  '*),  and  that  '  lie  sullered 
without  the  ^'ate  '  (He  13'-).  But  tlie  Church  of  the 
Holy  Sepuldire  is  not  only  near  the  very  heart  of 
the  city  as  it  is  now  occupied,  but  it  must  always 
have  been  within  the  line  of  the  second  wall.  The 
latter  contention  is  opposed,  however,  ainong  recent 
authorities  by  Conrad  Scliick,  who,  after  liaviiig 
resisted  tlie  traditional  site  for  nearly  forty  years, 
has  been  led  to  accept  it  as  the  true  site.  He 
professes  *  to  have  ascertained  by  excavations  and 
measurements  that  Calvary  and  the  tomb  in  the 
garden  wliere  Jesus  was  laid  were  without  the  line 
of  the  wall  thougli  very  close  to  it,  just  as  wu  read 
in  Jn  19-".  The  site  favoured  by  recent  authorities 
is  a  knoll  of  rock  of  rounded  form  and  covered 
with  shallow  soil  and  grass,  just  outside  the  north 
wall  of  the  city,  and  a  little  distance  from  the 
Damascus  Gate.  Under  it  is  the  cave  called 
'  Jeremiah's  Grotto,'  and  there  are  two  holes  in 
the  face  of  the  steep  and  rocky  bank  terminating 
the  knoll,  which  look  like  the  sockets  of  eyes  in 
a  skull.  Dr.  Selah  Merrill,  long  United  States 
Consul  in  Jerusalem,  the  late  General  Gordon,  the 
late  Sir  J.  W.  Dawson,  and  Colonel  Conder,t  have 
given  their  support  to  this  site  (see  art.  Jerusalem, 
vol.  ii.  p.  596",  and  cf.  Survey  of  Weatem  Palestine, 
vol.  on  Jerusalem,  pp.  429-438).  Thomson, J  after 
examining  all  the  evidence  on  both  sides,  attained 
to  no  certainty  as  to  the  site :  '  Far  better,'  he 
says,  '  rest  contented  with  the  undoubted  fact  that 
somewhere  without  the  walls  of  this  limited  plat- 
form of  the  Holy  City  the  Son  of  Man  was  lifted 
up,  "  that  whosoever  believeth  on  Him  should  not 
perish,  but  have  eternal  life." ' 

LnERATHRK. — Keil,  Bib.  Arch.  ii.  199 ff.;  Benzingrer,  Efh. 
Ari-h.  iiji.  103 ff.,  224-227;  Stade,  GVl  i.  pp.  14,  15 fl.;  Schwally, 
Das  LeU'ii  nach  devi  Tvd^,  pp.  54-fi6 ;  Conder,  Syrian  Stmie 
Lore ;  K.  H.  Cll.arles.  Eschatolofry :  Hebrew,  Jewish,  and 
Christian;  Thomson,  Land  and  Book;  Bliss,  Eaxavatimis  at 
Jerws.;  SlfP, vols.  i.  andiv.;  PEFSt, passim;  ZDPV,paisim. 

Thomas  Nicol. 
SERAH  (n-ii;').— A  daughter  of  Asher,  Gn  46"  (A 
laap,    JJ  i:dppa),  Nu   26«i»l  (B   Kdpa,  B"'' AF  £dpa, 
AV  Sarah),  1  Ch  ?*>  (B  Sipe,  A  Zdpai). 

SERAIAH  (t-i.Tf,  "n'r.  LXX  Sapotos  or  Sapaid).— 
1.  Scribe  or  secretary  in  the  reign  of  David,  2S 
8"  (B  'A(Td,  A  2apaias).  In  2  S  20'^  he  is  called 
Sheva  il^erS  Nitr,  Keth.  k'P),  B  Ttjitous,  A  'I<roCs.  In 
1  K  4'  the  name  appears  as  Shisha  x'i"P  (B  -afii,  A 
-fi<rd).  This  form  or  Shasha  would  be  restored  else- 
where by  Thenius,  Wellhausen,  and  Stade  ;  while 
Klostermann  prefers  the  form  Shavsha  kv'ic'  (B 
'l7)(roCs,  X  2oi)s,  A  -oi'ffd),  which  is  found  in  1  Ch 
18".  2.  High  priest  in  the  reign  of  Zedekiah.  He 
was  put  to  death  with  otlier  distinguished  captives 
by  order  of  Nebuchadnezzar  at  Kiblah,  2  K  25"*--', 
Jer  52-''".  He  is  mentioned  in  the  list  of  high 
priests,  1  Ch  G".  Ezra  clainjed  descent  from  him, 
Ezr7'  (1  Es8'  Azaraia8,2Es  1'  Saraias).  His  name 
also  occurs  in  1  Es  5''  Saraias.  3.  One  of  '  the  cap- 
tains of  the  forces  '  who  joined  Gedaliah  at  Mizpah 
after  his  ajipointment  as  governor  by  Nebuchad- 
nezzar, 2  K  2.5'^,  Jer  40*.  The  text  of  Kings  is  evi- 
dently abridged  from  that  of  Jeremiah.  The  epithet 
'the  Netophathite' applied  to  his  father  in  Kings 
really  lielongs  to  a  dili'erent  person.  4.  Second  son 
of  Kenaz,  and  brother  of  Othniel,  1  Ch  4"-  ".  He 
was  father  of  Joab,  who  was  the  'father 'of  the 

•  PEFSl,  1893,  p.  119  ff. 
t  Handbook  to  the  Bible,  p.  856. 

t  The  Land  and  the  Book  (Southern  Palestine  and  Jeru- 
salem). 


Valley  of  Craftsmen,  cf.  Neh  11''.  5.  Grandfather 
of  Jeliu,  a  prince  of  Simeon,  1  Ch  4".  6.  One  of 
the  twelve  leaders  who  returned  with  Zerubbabel, 
Ezr  2-.  In  the  corresponding  list,  Neh  V,  he  is 
called  Azariah  (1  Es  5*  Zaraias).  7.  A  priestly 
clan,  probably  named  after  the  high  priest  of 
No.  2.  This  course  of  priests  was  lirst  in  order 
in  the  times  of  Zerubbabel  (Neh  12-,  1  Es  5'), 
Joiakim  (Neh  12i=),  and  Nehemiah  (Neh  10").  This 
family  is  noted  as  one  of  those  that  .settled  in 
Jerusalem  (Neh  11").  In  the  corresiionding  list, 
1  Ch  9",  Azariah  is  substituted.  '  Very  probably 
they  were  father  and  son,  and  the  two  lists  hava 
selected  ditlerent  names  to  represent  the  priestly 
house,  cf.  1  Ch  7"'  (Ryle).  8.  One  of  the  three 
princes  whom  Jehoiakim  sent  to  ai)prehend  Jere- 
miah and  Baruch  (Jer  36-").  9.  Son  of  Neriah  and 
brother  of  Baruch,  Jer  SP""**.  He  held  the  office  of 
.irii:p  Hi'  (AV  'a  quiet  prince,'  ni.  'or  prince  of  Me- 
nuclia  or  chief  chamberlain '  ;  RV  '  chief  chamber- 
lain,' m.  'or  quartermaster').  TheVulg.  tr.  prinre/js 
prophelke;  the  Targ.  (N.7?-ip-n  an)  and  LXX  (S.px'^' 
Siipux),  followed  by  Gratz  and  Cheyne,  read  '  in 
command  over(tlje)gifts,'i.e.  r.:n:z-yj.  In  this  official 
capacity  he  attended  Zedekiah  when  that  prince 
went  to  Babylon  to  pay  homage  to  Nebuchadnezzar. 
Like  his  brother  Baruch,  he  was  a  friend  of  Jere- 
miah ;  and  the  prophet  having  written  in  a  book 
the  denunciations  against  Babylon  that  are  now 
contained  in  Jer  50-5P*,  entrusted  the  volume  to 
Seraiah,  and  bade  him  on  his  arrival  at  Babylon 
to  read  the  prophecies,  publicly,  as  it  would  seem, 
and  then  with  the  symbolic  action  of  a  prophet  to 
cast  the  book  into  the  Euphrates  and  proclaim, 
'  Thus  shall  Babylon  sink,  and  shall  not  rise  again 
because  of  the  evil  that  I  will  bring  upon  her.' 
This  scene  suggested  to  St.  John  the  imagery  of 
Rev  WK  N.  J.  D.  White. 

SERAPHIM  (D'9-i!7  ;  2fpa0c(;U  and  ^epatpelv  ;  sera- 
phim).— The  seraphim  are  an  order  of  celestial 
ueings  referred  to  only  in  Is  6-"'.  In  his  vision  of 
.1 "  the  prophet  sees  them  as  attendants  of  the 
heavenly  court,  ministers  of  the  ideal  sanctuary. 
They  are  apparently  human  in  form — they  have 
faces,  hands,  and  feet  (w."-');  each  of  them  has 
three  pairs  of  wings  (v.^) ;  they  stand  or  hover 
above  J"  as  He  sits  upon  His  throne  (v.-) ;  and 
they  proclaim  His  holmess  in  antiphonal  chant 
(v.»). 

Opinion  varies  as  to  the  origin  of  the  word 
and  the  conception.  Gesenius  was  doubtful,  but 
thought  it  best  to  connect  the  term  with  the  Arab. 

i__j-..i  'to  be  noble,'  thus  viewing  the  seraphim 
as  the  princes  or  nobles  of  the  heavenly  court. 
A  considerable  number  of  Jewish  writers,  such  aa 
Abulwalid  and  Kimchi,  derived  the  word  from  •p.-;', 
regarding  the  seraphim  as  bright  or  shininrj  angels. 
But  ''{Vf  means  'to  bum,'  not  'to  shine,'  and  ac- 
cordingly others  have  supposed  the  word  to  denote 
the  ardent  love  or  burning  zeal  of  the  Divine 
attendants.  The  verbal  root,  however,  is  not  in- 
transitive, but  active ;  it  means  not  to  rjlotv  with 
heat,  but  to  consume  toith  fire.  Hence  the  seraphim 
would  have  rather  to  be  regarded  as  agents  of 
purification  by  fire.  This  is  in  accordance  with 
Is  6',  where  one  of  the  spirits  is  represented  as 
carrying  celestial  fire  from  oft'  the  altar  to  purify 
the  lips  of  the  prophet  and  purge  away  his  sin  (but 
see  Dillm.-Kittel,  ad  loc). 

It  is  now  usual  to  bring  the  prophet's  conception 
into  relation  with  popular  Hebrew  mythology 
The  sarCtph  of  Nu  21«,  Dt  8">  is  a  'hery,'  i.e. 
venomous,  serpent,  which  bites  the  Israelites  in 
the  desert  (see  Sebpent).  In  Is  14**  30«  allusion  is 
made  to  a  '  flying  fiery  serpent '  {adrdph),  which  hns 
its  home  in   the  desert    between    Palestine  and 


SERAE 


SERPENT 


459 


Egypt.  The  latter  is  certainly  a  creation  of  popu- 
lar imajrinution.  As  the  analogous  cherub  was 
primarily  a  person ilication  of  the  thundercloud,  so 
the  ser!i])h  waa  of  the  serpent-like  lightning.  Now- 
just  as  a  psalmist  represents  J"  as  making  the 
flaming  fire  His  ministers  (Ps  104''),  so  the  prophet 
seize.',  the  popular  notion  of  tlie  seraph  and  trans- 
fers il  to  tue  realm  of  pure  spiritual  ideas.  Not  a 
trace  of  the  serpentine  form  is  left  in  his  conception. 
His  sera])him  are  the  guardians  of  J'"8  holiness, 
who  kcej)  the  profane  and  unclean  at  a  distance, 

■  nd  purge  from  dehlement  that  which  is  to  be 
taken  into  J"'s  service.  Bj-  means  of  this  splendid 
Bvmbolism  the  prophet  \-ividly  expresses  the  truth 
tliat  '  J"  is  a  consuming  fire '  (Dt  4-^  He  12-"5). 

Another  view  has  been  started  by  Dillm.-Kittel 
and  Marti  owing  to  the  discovery  in  an  Egyptian 
tomb  of  the  12tli  dynasty  at  Beni-Hassan,  of  two 
winged  griffin  figures  placed  as  guardians  at  the 
entrance.  The  griffin  is  represented  in  Demotic 
bj-  the  word  sere/,  and  Marti  suggests  that  the 
seraphim  in  Isaiah's  vision  are  to  oe  thought  of 
as  guarding  the  threshold  of  the  temple.* 

The  'living  creatures'  of  Rev  4'"',  which  are 
partly  like  Ezekiel's  cherubim,  resemble  Isaiah's 
seraphim  in  possessing  six  wings  and  in  proclaiming 
the  Trisa-'ion.  But  Cheyne  has  remarked  that 
'  the  popular  notion  of  the  seraphim  as  angels  is, 
of  course,  to  be  rejected.  They  are,  indeed,  more 
like  Titans  than  placid  Gabriels  or  Raphaels' 
{Prophecies  of  Isaiah,  i.  32). 

The  similarity  of  the  word  seraph  to  the  Egyp- 
tian Serapis  led  Hifzig  and  others  to  identify  the 
two.  Tliis  idea  has  found  little  acceptance  (cf., 
against  it,  Dillm.-Kittel,  Jes.  ad  loc),  and  still 
less  has  Knobel's  suggestion  that  seraphim  is  a 
false  reading  for  crn.v'i  an  imaginary  Heb.  word 
meaning  'ministers.' 

LnF.RATURE. — See  art.  Cherubim,  and  cf.  the  Coram,  on  Isaiah, 
eep.  Cht-yne,  DiUm.-Ki5^l,  and  Marti.         J.   STRACHAN. 

SERAR  {-Zipip,  AV  Aserer),  1  Es  5»2  =  Sisera,  Ezr 
2»,  Neh  7». 

SERED  (-110).— A  son  of  Zebuhin,  Gn  46"  (A  S(?pf 5, 
/>"Ej/)€0),  Nu  2«2«i-i  (B.V  Sdpeo). 

SERGIUS  PAULUS.— See  Paclus  (Seroius). 

SERJEANTS  is  used  in  Ac  16'^'-»«  as  an  approxi- 
mate English  rendering  of  fta!i5ovxoi  (  =  ' rod- 
bearers'),  which  represents  in  Greek  the  Latin 
liitores,  officials  whose  duty  it  was  to  attend  the 
Roman  magistrates,  to  execute  their  orders,  and 
especially  to  administer  the  punishments  of  scourg- 
ing or  beheading.  For  this  purpose  they  carried,  as 
their  mark  of  office,  the  fasces,  a  bundle  of  rods 
with  an  axe  inserted.  At  Philippi  they  were 
attached  to  the  arparriyoi,  i.e.  the  duvinviri,  or 
prmtores,  who  administered  justice  in  that  Roman 
colony  (Marquart,  i.  47511'.);  but  who  found  on 
this  occasion  that  by  summarily  inflicting  stripes 
and  imprisonnunt,  without  due  trial,  they  had 
violated  the  rights  of  Roman  citizens,  and  so  had 
to  undo,  as  be.-^t  they  might,  the  effects  of  the 
rash  action  for  which  they,  rather  than  their 
instruments  the  lictors,  were  responsible. 

William  P.  Dickson. 

SERON  (2i)/)wi').— 'The  commander  of  the  host 
of  Syria'  (4  ipxi^v  rijt  Jwd/ifojj  'Lvpias),  who  was  de- 
feated by  Judas  Maccabieus  at  Beth-horon,  1  Mac 
S**-"'-;  Jos.  Ant.  XH.  vii.  1. 

SERPENT.  — Eight   Heb.   words   are    used   for 

•  On  the  E(tjT>tian  ciiatom  of  Iteeplng  a  live  snake  In  the  laiTjcr 
lenip'.cs  as  the  representative  of  the  tutelary  demon,  see  Chevne's 

■  Isaiah '  in  FB  u.  Vi'J.  when  the  (uuoiu  Bla«k  Omiite  Serpent 
of  Atbribitis  is  flared. 


serpent.     One  Gr.  word  only  (Ix^Sva,  'the  viper'), 
which  is  not  used  in  the  L.XX,  occurs  in  the  NT. 

1.  e'.7J  ndhdsh,  is  supposed  by  some  (identifying 
roots  cm  and  erni)  to  mean  '  the  hisser.'  It  is  generic 
for  a  serpent  or  snake.  The  Arab,  equivalent 
luinash  is  clearly  the  same  word,  with  a  trans- 
position of  the  first  two  radicals.  Its  meaning  is, 
however,  far  more  general  than  that  of  tlie  Heb. 
term.  The  root  signifies  'to  hunt  or  capture.' 
Hanash  is  defined  'anything  that  is  hunted  or 
caught  or  captured,  of  birds  or  flying  things,  or 
venomous  or  noxious  reptiles,  such  as  scorpions  and 
serpents,  or  vermin,  such  as  hedgehogs  and  lizards, 
and  the  rat  and  mouse,  and  any  animal  the  head 
of  which  resembles  that  of  a  serpent.'  It  even 
includes  the  common  fly.  But,  in  popular  usage 
at  the  present  day,  it  is  applied  to  serpents  only. 

2.  I'ii?  taymin,  plur.  D'j'jn  tannintm.  This,  which 
is  usually  tr.  'dragon,'  sometimes  otherwise  (see 
Dragon,  4),  is  tr.  '  serpent '  in  AV  and  RV  of  Ex 
-9. 10. 13  [y  10  jjVm  '  Heb.  tan>}in,  any  large  reptile '], 
and  in  RV  of  Ps  91"  (AV  '  dragon ').  It  is  inter- 
esting to  note  that  while  P  in  the  above  passages 
of  Exodus  uses  tannin  for  the  creature  into  which 
Moses'  rod  was  changed,  E  in  ch.  4^  (cf.  7"  [?  R]) 
uses  ndhdsh.  The  LXX  tr.  tanntn  by  opdKuu  and 
ndhdsh  by  di^is.  It  would  have  been  better  if  our 
versions  had  preserved  a  similar  distinction  in 
terms. 

3.  njicc;  ''pKeh.  The  Arab,  'a/'a  is  defined  as  '  a 
certain  serpent  of  a  malignant  kind,  spotted  white 
and  black,  slender  in  the  neck,  broad  in  tlie  head. 
It  is  said  that  it  will  not  quit  its  place.'  There 
is  nothing  in  this  de.scrijition  which  fixes  the 
species  or  even  genus  of  the  serpent  referred  to. 
AV  and  RV  tr.  'epiich  in  the  three  places  in  which 
it  occurs  (Job  2U'»,  Is  30»  59=)  'viper,'  LXX  {(/.is, 
dffjrfs,  BaaCKUrKos.  "Tristram  believes  that  this  may 
be  Ecliis  arenicola,  Boie. 

4.  xa;):  'akshitbh,  cunrh,  aspis  (Ps  HO*),  AV  and 
RV  'adder.'  St.  Paul,  (juoling  the  passage  in  Ro 
3"  according  to  the  LXX,  gives  d<rTrls=' asp.' 

5.  ]7ispetlien.  This  word  occurs  6  times  (Dt  32", 
Job  20"- ",  AV  and  RV  '  asp '  ;  Ps  5S^  AV  and 
RV  '  adder,'  AVm  '  asp' ;  91'"  AV  and  RV  'adder,' 
AVm  'asp';  Is  11'  AV  and  RV  'asp').  In  all 
of  these  the  LXX  has  aniris,  excejit  Job  20" 
where  it  gives  ip&Kuv,  and  Ps  91"  whore  it  has 
paaM<TKos.  These  discrepancies  of  truiislation, 
ancient  and  modern,  show  the  uncertainty  as  to  the 
serpent  intended  by  pclhcn.  'Xanh  seems  to  have 
been  the  equivalent  in  Gr.  of  more  than  one  species. 
The  repeated  mention  of  the  venomousnesa  of  the 
pethcn,  and  the  allusion  to  its  being  used  in  the 
tricks  of  serpent  charmers  (Ps5S'),  led  Tristram  to 
think  that  the  animal  intended  is  the  Egyp.  cobra, 
Naj'a  haje,  L.,  on  the  ground  that  snake  charmers 
usually  nave  one  or  more  cobras.  It  is  common  to 
see  a  cobra,  on  each  side  of  a  winged  globe,  in  the 
attitude  of  striking,  chiselled  over  the  doors  of 
Egyp.  temples.  The  Eng.  'asp'  is  derived  from 
the  Gr.  and  Lat.  aspis.  It  is  usually  understood 
in  those  langu.iges  of  the  Vipera  axpis,  L. 

6.  i'S'j  zcph/i ,  'i\\itt  ziph'uni.  These  words  occur 
5  times  (Pr  2,3^-  LXX  Kipiarr,^,  AVand  RV  'adder,' 
AVm  'cockatrice,'  RVm  'basilisk';  Is  11"  H-'" 
iKyova  ia-rliuv,  AV  'cockatrice,'  m.  'adder,'  RV 
'basilisk,'  ni.  'adder';  59*  iuiris,  AV  'cockatrice,' 
m.  'adder,'  RV 'basilisk,'  m.  'adder';  Jer  8"  Bava.- 
ToDi'To!  =  ' deadly,'  AV  'cockatiices,'RV  '  ba.silisks,' 
m.  'adders').  Tlie  meaning  of  the  root  of  the  Heb. 
word  is  unknown,  and  hence  gives  no  clue  to  the 
species  intended.  Both  cockatrice  and  basilisk  are 
fabulous.  Neither  the  LXX  nor  our  translators 
have  been  able  to  fix  on  any  species. 

7.  \\s'!)-4  shi^phiphfin  (Gn  49"  '  adder,'  AVm  '  arrow- 
snake  '  [given  by  RV  in  Is  34"  for  /.ippOz,  A V ' great 
owl ' ;  see  Owi.l,  RVm  '  homed  snake,'  LXX  /cua 


l60 


SERPENT 


SERPENT  CHARMING 


57i;iiei'(w='one  in  ambush').  By  general  consent  this 
serpent  has  been  iilentiHed  with  Cerastes  Hassel- 
qiiistii,  Straucli,  the  horned  serpent,  a  desert  species 
of  the  most  venomous  kind,  which  hides  in  depres- 
sions in  the  way,  as  those  made  by  a  camel's  foot. 
This  would  explain  the  allusion  to  biting  '  the 
horse's  heels.'  It  is  a  foot  or  IS  in.  long,  of  a  sandy 
colour,  with  bro\vn  or  blackish  spots.  It  has  a 
pair  of  hornlike  processes  above  the  eves.  The 
Arabs  of  the  desert  call  it  i7(Cj(/««,which,  tliough  not 
classical,  seems  to  be  a  survival  of  its  ancient  name. 

8.  v.'  sdraph,  '  fiery  serjient,'  from  a  Heb.  root 
signifying  '  to  burn,'  hence  i)oisonous  from  intlam- 
mation.  It  is  usually  an  adjective  to  other  words 
signifying  serpent,  as  nahdah  (Nu  21'  LXX  Sai-a- 
TodvTai),  but  also  appears  as  a  substantive  (Nu  21*, 
Is  \A'^  30"  LXX  fi^is,  do-iris?).  The  '  fiery  serpents ' 
(Nu  21"-  *),  which  were  sent  to  torment  the  Israelites 
in  the  desert,  may  have  been  any  or  all  of  the 
venomous  species  of  et-Tih,  as  the  cobra,  the 
cerastes  or  sand  snake.  The  '  fiery  flying  serpent ' 
(Is  14-'"  30"),  ^Diyo  r\-rf  sdraph  meOpheph,  is  probably 
to  be  understood  of  some  fabulous  serpentine  crea- 
ture with  wings,  such  as  are  sculptured  on  Egyptian 
monuments ;  out  the  expression  flijinq  may  nave 
been  intended  to  indicate  the  rapid  dartin"  with 
which  a  venomous  snake  strikes  its  prey.  One  of 
the  snakes  of  Syria,  called  by  the  Arabs  'akd-el- 
jauz,  is  also  called  et-tayy&rah,  because  of  its 
arrow-like,  darting  motion. 

9.  'Ex'Sya  is  used  only  in  the  NT,  and  is  tr^ 
'  viper '  (Mt  3'  12^  23^3,  Lk  3',  Ac  28^).  It  is  prob- 
ably generic  for  poisonous  snakes.  Tristram  thinks 
that  the  one  which  fastened  on  St.  Paul's  hand 
may  have  been  Vipera  aspis,  L.,  which,  although 
now  extinct  in  Malta,  whence  venomous  ser[ients 
have  entirely  disappeared,  may  have  been  there  in 
the  apostle's  day. 

A  review  of  the  above  critical  analysis  shows  (1) 
that  the  translators  have  been  at  little  pains  to 
render  the  Heb.  terms  by  the  same  Gr.  and  Eng. 
words  in  dill'erent  places  ;  (2)  that  to  only  one  Heb. 
word,  shephiphon,  is  it  possible  to  give  a  scientific 
name  with  any  degree  of  certainty.  Of  another, 
petken,  the  most  probable  but  not  certain  equivalent 
IS  the  cobra.  Of  the  others,  three,  'akshuoh,  zephd 
or  ziph'dni,  and  'ep/ieh,  are  wholly  uncertain  or 
indefinite  ;  one,  tanntn,  had  perhaps  better  be  tr^, 
as  elsewhere,  '  dragon  '  ;  one,  nd/ihsh,  is  generic  ; 
and  one,  sdrdph,  is  primarily  of  adjective  not  sub- 
stantive force. 

The  following  is  a  list  of  the  prineip.al  venomous 
serpents  in  Palestine  and  Syria  and  Sinai :  Daboia 
xanthina,  Graj',  a  nocturnal  species,  lar<;e  enough 
to  swallow  a  hare  ;  Cerastes  Hasselauistii,  Straueh, 
the  horned  snake  ;  Naja  kaje,  L.,  tlie  Egyp.  cobra, 
a  very  deadly  species  ;  Echis  nrenico/a,  Boie,  also 
extremely  deailly  ;  Vipera  Euphrntira,  Martin, 
and  V.  ammodt/tas,  L.,  both  widely  ditl'used  and 
highly  poisonous.  Besides  the  above  there  are 
numerous  species  of  non-venomous  snakes,  among 
which  are  Zanienis  viridiflavus.  Dura,  et  Bibr.,  a 
species  of  a  greenish-yellow  to  tobacco-leaf  colour, 
often  6  ft.  Ion'',  the  variety '•arionaruM,  Bonap., 
being  black ;  Z.  dahlii,  of  a  bluish  colour  mottled 
with  black  spots,  and  various  species  of  Ablabes, 
Coluber,  etc.;  in  all,  27  non-venomous  kinds.  It  is 
probable  that  the  Hebrews  regarded  all  snakes 
with  abhorrence,  and  that  the  common  people 
supposed  most  or  all  of  them  to  be  venomous. 

The  reputation  of  the  serpent  has  alwaj's  been 
double.  It  was  the  emblem  of  Mercury  and 
.,Esculapius.  A  serpent,  to  this  day,  figures  on 
devices  and  badges  pertaining  to  the  healing  art. 
The  Phoenicians  worshipped  the  serpent,  and  the 
Chinese  do  so  now.  The  Egyptians  also  wor- 
shipped Kneph  under  this  form.  They  embalmed 
the  bodies  of  serpents.     The  Scripture  allusions  to 


the  wisdom  of  the  serpent  are  two :  Mt  10",  which 
refers  to  its  caution  in  avoiding  danger,  and  On 
31.  4.  i3_  in  which  guile  and  malice  are  plainly  in- 
tended (cf.  2  Co  ll^  Rev  12").  Heathen  mythology 
also  attributed  to  the  serpent  such  qualities  of 
diabolism.  And  just  as  Israel  came  to  worship 
the  brazen  serpent,  which,  according  to  tradition, 
was  made  to  remind  them  of  the  \enom  and  de- 
stroying properties  of  its  prototype  (2  K  IS'),  so 
the  heathen  have  come  to  worship  the  creature 
they  most  fear.  This  is  not  to  be  wondered  at, 
as  all  heathen  worship  is  a  compound  of  super- 
stition and  fear.  Most  of  the  Scripture  allusions 
to  the  serpent  are  to  its  evil  qualities.  It  is 
treacherous  (Dan  is  a  serpent  in  the  way,  Gn  49"); 
venomous  (Ps  SS'') ;  skulking  (oi?  bariah.  Job  26'', 
AV  '  crooked,'  RV  '  swift,'  m.  '  fleeing '  or  '  glid- 
ing'; Is  27',  AV  'piercing,'  m.  'crossing  like  a 
bar,'  RV  '  swift,'  m.  '  gliding  '  or  'fleeing  ' ;  the 
expression  seems  to  refer  to  its  habit  of  skulking 
noiselessly  away)  ;  *  crooked  (pri^SJJ,  Is  27',  RVm 
'  winding,'  referring  to  the  wavy  motion  with 
which  he  glides  out  of  danger)  ;  it  bites  (Pr  2.V*, 
Ec  10'- ",  Am  5'^).  Christ  compares  the  scribes 
and  Pharisees  to  serpents  (Mt  23*"  6<pei! ;  cf.  the 
remarkable  phrase  yevv-qixnTa  ix'^"^"  i"  Mt  3'  12**). 
The  power  to  take  up  and  tread  on  serpents  un- 
harmed was  promised  to  the  disciples  ('Mk'  16"*, 
Lk  10").  On  the  whole  subject  of  the  serpent  of 
Gn  3  and  the  NT  reference  to  that  narrative,  see 
artt.  Fall  and  Satan.  The  mystery  of  the  serpent's 
motion  did  not  escape  Agur  (Pr  3u"*),  and  only  in 
modern  times  have  we  fully  understood  its  solution. 
The  fact  that  serpents  are  produced  from  eggs  is 
also  noted  (Is  69'').  They  were  tamed  (Ja  3'). 
Sirach  alludes  to  those  bitten  by  serpents,  presum- 
ably poisonous  (12'»).  G.  E.  POST. 

SERPENT  CHARMING.— It  is  said  in  Jer  8"  '  I 
will  send  serpents,  cockatrices,  among  you,  which 
will  not  be  charmed,  and  they  shall  bite  you ' ;  and 
in  Ps 58*  'they  are  like  the  deaf  adder  that  stoppeth 
his  ear,  which  will  not  hearken  to  the  voice  of 
charmers,  charming  never  so  wisely.'  The  refer- 
ence here  is  clearly  not  to  any  species  as  distin- 
guished from  other  serpents,  but  to  indivi<lual9 
not  amenable  to  a  general  law.  It  need  not  be 
taken  literally,  as  it  may  be  that  any  snake,  pro- 
perly charmed,  would  be  subject  to  the  mj'sterious 
fascination  of  the  cunning  masters  of  the  art.  The 
object  being  to  show  the  extreme  malignity  of  the 
wicked,  a  case  beyond  the  range  of  experience  is 
invoked  to  point  the  moral.  Were  it  a  normal 
thing  for  a  pethcn  not  to  be  capable  of  being 
charmed,  the  comparison  would  lose  its  force.  An 
uncharmable  serpent  is  a  monstrosity.  The  stop- 
pin"  of  the  ears  is  clearly  wilful.  To  attempt  to 
explain  this  literally  by  the  fable  of  the  snake 
applying  one  ear  to  the  ground,  and  stopping  tha 
other  with  its  taU  (Rabbi  Solomon),  is  childish. 
The  snake  has  no  external  ear  to  stop,  and  no 
tympanic  cavity.  The  only  tenable  explanation 
is  that  the  moral  monsters,  so  graiihically  de- 
scribed by  the  psalmist,  are  comparable  to  such 
an  exception  '  as  a  (not  (he)  deaf  adder,'  etc. 

The  art  of  charming  serpents  is  a  very  ancient 
one,  and  has  been  brought  to  a  high  state  of  per- 
fection in  Egypt  and  India.  The  apparatus  is  very 
simple.  It  consists  of  a  shrill  pipe  or  gang  of  pipes, 
and  a  basket  or  bags  in  which  the  snakes  already 
trained  are  kept.  These  are  of  various  species, 
some  highly  venomous,  others  harmless.  Tha 
former  have  their  fangs  extracted,  or  else  th« 
lower  jaw  sewn  to  the  upper  ^vith  silk  thread  or 
silver  wire.     When  the  piper  has  played  a  shrill 

•  On  the  supposed  mythological  allusions  in  JoV  20"  and 
Is  271  see  the  Camm.  ad  loc,  and  Ounkel,  Schopfung  u.  Chaot, 
esp.  p.  40 1. 


SERUG 


SEKVAKT,  SLAVE,  SLAVEKY   461 


air,  the  snakes  crawl  out  of  the  basket  or  bag, 
and,  coiling  the  tail  end  of  their  bodies,  erect 
their  heads,  and  sway  backwards  and  forwards. 
The  charmer  winds  some  of  them  around  his  body 
or  arms  or  legs.  Mishaps  sometimes  occur  to  the 
charmer  witli  serpents  which  have  not  yet  had 
their  fangs  extracteil.  Lane  [Mud.  Egyptians,  401) 
tells  of  a  charmer  who  had  a  venomous  snake 
brought  to  him  from  the  desert.  He  put  it  in  a 
basket,  and  kept  it  several  days  to  weaken  it. 
He  then  put  his  hand  into  the  basket  to  withdraw 
it  in  order  to  extract  its  fangs,  when  the  snake  bit 
him  on  the  thumb.  His  arm  swelled  and  turned 
black,  and  in  a  few  hours  he  died.  Some  serpent 
charmers  pretend  to  have  the  faculty  of  discovering 
serpents  in  a  house  or  ruin,  or  in  tlie  rocks  or  fields, 
and  luring  them  by  their  music,  so  that  they  can 
catch  them.  Doubtless  in  nianj-  cases  the  snake  is 
introduced  into  the  place  by  the  charmer  or  his 
confederates ;  yet  it  is  undeniable  that,  in  broad 
dayliglit  and  surrounded  bj-  keen-eyed  spectators, 
he  does  cause  serpents  to  emerge  from  their  holes 
or  dens,  and  so  fascinates  them  by  the  music  that 
they  become  subject  to  his  will.  Sometimes  he 
grasps  a  serpent  by  the  nape  of  its  neck,  and  bites 
pieces  out  of  its  head  and  neck.  G.  E.  Post. 

SERUG  (y^,  lepofrx)- — Son  of  Eeu  and  father  of 
Nabor,  Gn  U^-'---^,  Lk  3^.  Etlinologically  the 
name  is  tliat  of  Saruj,  a  district  and  citj'  north 
of  I,laran  (see  Dilhu.  Gen.  adloc.  and  the  authorities 
quoted  there). 

SERVANT,  SLAYE,  SLAVERY.— 

1.  The  hired  servant. 
U.  The  slave. 

1.  Kame  and  meaning. 

2.  Orijjin  of  slavery. 

8.  Slavery  and  ancient  civilization. 

4.  Slavery  in  ancient  pre-exilian  Israel. 

6.  Legislation  respecting  slaves :  (A)  pre-exilian,  (B) 

post -exilian,  (C)   compensation  for  injury  to 

slaves,  (D)  runaway  slaves. 

6.  Status  of  female  slaves. 

7.  Price  of  slaves. 

8.  History  of  slavery  from  Jeremis>b  onwirds. 

9.  Christian  attitude  to  slavery. 

10.  Religious  use  of  the  term  *  slave '  0  servant  *). 
Literature. 

i.  Hired  Servant. — The  word  employed  in  Hebrew 
for  a  servant  wlio  worked  for  hire,  a  hired  servant, 
is  v;v',  a  term  also  employed  in  Jer  46^'  for  a 
mercenaiy  soldier.  Sucli  a  hired  servant  was, 
however,  free  to  render  such  service  or  not  aa  ho 
pleased.  There  was  no  constraint  over  his  activity 
except  for  the  stipulated  time  and  mode  of  it,  for 
whicli  payment  or  wages  ("i;;")  was  received.  It  is 
verj'  ditUcult  to  determine  what  place  the  hired 
servant  or  worknuin  tilled  in  the  earlier  period  of 
Israel's  pre-exilian  history.  There  are  no  regula- 
liona  about  him  in  the  primitive  compend  of 
laws  called  the  Book  of  the  Covenant  (Kx  21-23). 
The  wild  followers  whom  Abimeluch  hired  (Jg  9*) 
scarcely  come  under  this  category,  and  the  same 
remark  applies  to  the  priest  hired  by  Micah  (.Ig 
18^).  I!ut  it  is  otherwise  when  we  come  to  the 
more  developed  code  of  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy, 
w  liich  reflects  a  more  advanced  state  of  civilization. 
There  we  lind  distinct  provision  made  that  the 
hired  xervant  is  to  be  paid  regularly  everj'  evening 
(Dt  24")  l)efore  sunset,  and  this  rule  is  made  to 
ajiply  to  both  Hebrew  and  foreign  lal)ourer  alike. 
In  tlie  post -exilian  legi.shition  contained  in  the 
Book  of  Leviticus  (19")  this  instruction  is  main- 
tained in  full  force.  In  fact,  in  post-exilian  times 
an  ell'ort  becomes  clearly  apparent  in  legislation  to 
make  the  lot  of  the  slave  approximate  to  that  of 
the  hired  servant  (Lv  25'").  In  the  post-exilian 
literature  the  references  to  the  hired  servant  are  not 
infrequent.     See  the  Lexicons,  s.  t:;".     The  (Jrcek 


equivalent  is  /ilaSios,  luaduirbi.  The  former  is  the 
term  employed  in  Lk  lo"-'".  The  diflcicnce  be- 
tween the  relation  of  the  -\'y^  or  hired  servant  to 
the  Hebrew  household  and  that  of  the  slave  (i?i;), 
or  of  the  stranger  or  resident  alien  (ij),  was  that 
the  relation  of  the  hired  servant  was  looser ;  see 
Family. 

ii.  SlaTB.— L  Name  and  Meaning.— The  ordi- 
nary Hcb.  equivalent  of  '  servant '  was  the  word 
which  properly  desijjnates  slave,  iji',  ebcd,  a  word 
common  to  all  Semitic  languages,  includin-;  Sabcean. 
It  is,  however,  seldom  found  in  Assyro-lijibylonian, 
in  which  the  equivalent  more  frequently  used  is 
ardu.  The  Gr.  equivalent  is  SovXos  (also  eipdwuv, 
jrafs,  otKir-rjs).  The  word  ^5l;  is  as  common  in 
Phoenician  as  in  Hebrew,  and  enters  into  Phccn. 
proper  names  (compounded  with  the  name  of  deity 
precisely  as  in  Heb.).  See  Bloch,  Phonicisches 
Glossar,  pp.  47,  48,  both  pages  being  entirely  lilled 
with  examples.  The  Tel  el-Amarua  tablets  give  us 
further  evidence  of  Canaanite  names  of  the  15th 
cent.  (circ. ),  viz. 'Abd-Addi,'Abd-Uras,'Abd-'Asirta, 
"Abd-Milki,  etc.  For  similar  names  compounded 
with  'Abd  (fem.  Amat)  in  Arabic,  see  Wellhausen, 
lieste',  pp.  2-4.  The  verbal  root  of  the  substantive 
i3y  connotes  fundamentally  the  idea  of  working. 
In  primitive  life  this  meant  chielly  the  tilling  of 
the  soil  (Gn  2'  3=^  4^,  2  S  Q").  Then  it  came  to  be 
specially  associated  with  the  conception  of  working 
for  (Heb.  ^)  another.  Accordingly,  the  subst.  nj;; 
is  based  on  this  special  meaning,  and  therefore 
signifies  one  who  labours  for  another  and  remains 
permanently  subject  to  this  relationship. 

This  is,  in  fact,  the  cardinal  distinction  between 
a  free  man  whoso  activity  is  not  restricted  by  any 
compulsion  to  serve  the  interests  of  another,  and 
the  slave  whose  activity  is  so  restricted. 

2.  Origin  of  Slavery.— Slavery  was  probably 
a  necessary  element  in  all  ancient  industrial  life. 
Slavery  arises  from  two  main  causes,  viz.  Want  and 
War.  Privation  and  famine  compel  a  man,  a  family, 
or  a  clan  to  accept  terms  of  service  and  maintenance 
from  others  to  which  under  normal  conditions  they 
would  never  submit.  War,  a  yet  more  potent  cause, 
brings  in  its  train  foreign  captives  who  are  forced 
to  enter  a  lot  of  subjection  to  the  will  of  their 
conquerors.  War,  moreover,  carries  in  its  track 
desolation  of  house  and  home  and  of  all  means  of 
subsistence.  Whole  populations  are  rendered  des- 
titute, and  Jlee  for  protection  and  maintenance  to 
some  friendly  but  alien  race,  and  thus  voluntarily 
enter  into  the  position  of  bond-slaves  as  a  refuge 
from  famine  and  death.  'The  greatest  of  all  divi- 
sions,' says  Tylor,*  'that  between  freeman  and 
slave,  appears  aa  soon  as  the  barbaric  warrior 
spares  the  life  of  his  enemy  when  he  has  him  down, 
and  brings  him  home  to  drudge  for  him  and  till  the 
soil.  How  low  in  civilization  this  begins  ai)pear8 
by  a  slave-caste  forbidden  to  bear  arms  forming 
part  of  several  of  the  lower  American  tribes.'  We 
shall  presently  see  how  this  condition  of  slavery 
belonged  to  the  old  -  world  life  of  ancient  Heb. 
society,  where  the  male  and  female  slave  rank  next 
above  the  ox  and  the  ass.  The  terms  used  for 
both  were  sometimes  closely  similar,  and  indicated 
that  they  were  regarded  a.3  pronrrtt/  that  had  been 
acquired.  The  oxen  were  called  by  the  Hebrew 
his  nji;5,  his  acquired  proiierty  or  possessions  (Lat. 
pcculium,  Gr.  rr^i-os).  I'he  slave,  on  the  other 
hand,  was  his  purchased  possession  or  hd^  njp';  (Gn 
1712. 13.  a  Kx  12"  2P">).  Tylor  (i6.)  thinks  that 
the  hired  labourer  arose  out  of  the  more  ancient 
slave,  the  hired  servant  out  of  the  ancient  servus. 
'The  master  at  first  let  out  his  slaves  to  work  for 
his  prollt,  and  then  free  men  found  it  to  their 
advantage  to  work  for  their  own  profit,  so  that 
there  grew  np  the  great  wage-earning  doss.'    Tho 

•  A  nthropotogy,  p.  434  ft. 


462   SERVANT,  SLAVE,  SLAVERY 


SERVANT,  SLAVE,  SLAVERY 


reader  will  not  fail  to  note  that  this  theory  is 
confirmed  by  the  results  of  critical  imiuiry  in  the 
OT,  for  at  the  commencement  of  this  article  we 
showed  good  grounds  for  believing  that  the  t:^ 
or  hired  servant  hardly  appears  in  the  earlier 
stages  of  pre-exilian  Hebrew  history. 

3.  Slavery  and  ancient  Civilization.— It 
can  hardly  admit  of  doubt  that  the  advance  of 
early  human  society  in  the  arts  of  life  was  largely 
aided  by  the  in.stitution  of  slavery.  Through  slave 
labour,  agriculture  and  industrial  life  progressed, 
wealth  accumulated,  and  leisure  was  given  to 
priests,  .scribes,  philosoi;hers,  and  literati  to  reflect 
and  raise  the  level  of  human  intelligence.  What 
modern  machinery  accomplishes  for  man  now, 
slave-labour  accomplished  then.  In  a  word,  early 
civilization  rested  upon  slavery  as  a  basis.  With- 
out servile  toil  such  vast  structures  as  the  pyra- 
mids and  the  siiliinx  of  Gizeh  would  never  have 
been  reared.  Tliis  is  confirmed  by  the  tradition 
of  Heb.  bondmen  employed  by  the  Egyp.  Pharaoh 
in  the  erection  of  his  granaries  (Ex  !"■ ").  And 
when  we  turn  to  the  Assyr.  monuments  the  same 
features  of  slave-labour  powerfully  impress  us. 
The  Assyrian  empire,  unlike  the  Babylonian,  was 
essentiallj'  military,  and  the  captives  obtained  by 
foreign  conquest  were  employed  in  executing  the 
laborious  task  of  dragging  colossal  monuments 
into  position.  The  vivid  reliefs  discovered  at 
Kouyunjik,  portrayed  in  Layard's  Nineveh  and 
Babylon  (pp.  25,  27),  clearly  exemplify  the  character 
of  those  heavy  tasks  executed  in  an  almost  tropical 
climate.  We  see  the  Assyrian  king  superintend- 
ing the  removal  of  an  enormoiis  bull.  Several 
hundreds  of  slaves,  provided  with  a  rope  which 
passes  over  their  shoulders,  are  struggling  in  a 
long  succession  that  ascends  in  single  file  up  a 
steep  declivity,  dragging  into  position  an  immense 
bull  which  has  been  landed  from  the  river.  By 
that  river  it  has  evidently  been  conveyed  from 
the  stone  quarries  where  it  has  been  hewn  and 
probably  shaped.  Other  slaves  are  portraj'ed 
carrying  saws,  picks,  and  shovels.  A  pair  of 
them  are  dragging  along  by  a  rope,  passing  over 
the  shoulder  of  each,  a  cart  laden  with  planks  or 
levers.  At  inter\'als  a  task-master  can  be  seen 
^Welding  a  stick. 

But  slaves  were  employed  not  only  in  the  more 
laborious  forms  of  manual  exertion,  but  al.so  in  the 
arts  requiring  manual  dexterity  and  artistic  skill. 
According  to  Wilkinson  (i.  p.  457),  the  monuments 
testify  that  the  Egyptian  male  and  female  musi- 
cians and  dancers  were  slaves,  just  as  we  know  to 
have  been  the  case  in  ancient  Greece  and  Rome. 
The  maidens  who  formed  the  chorus  of  the  Helene 
of  Eiiripides  were  slaves  brought  to  the  Egyptian 
market  by  Pliojnician  traders.  In  Egyptian 
banquets  the  men  were  attended  by  slaves,  while 
the  women  were  waited  upon  by  handmaids  who 
were  female  slaves.  '  An  upper  maidservant  or  a 
■white  slave  had  the  office  of  handing  the  wine  or 
whatever  refreshment  was  offered  to  the  ladies 
wlio  were  present  at  a  banquet,  and  a  black  woman 
followed  her  in  an  inferior  cap.ioity  to  receive  an 
empty  cup.'  Female  slaves  are  easily  recognized 
in  Egyptian  portrayals.  For  they  were  not  per- 
mitted to  wear  the  same  dress  as  the  ladies,  and 
their  hair  was  adjusted  in  a  difterent  fashion.  We 
find  it  tied  at  the  back  of  the  head  into  a  kind  of 
loop  or  arranged  in  long  plaits  at  tlie  back,  wliile 
eignt  or  nine  others  hang  down  on  either  side  of 
the  neck  and  face.  Also  they  wore  a  long  tight 
gown  tied  at  the  neck,  with  short  close  sleeves 
reachin';  nearly  to  the  elbow,  or  they  wore  a  long 
loose  robe  thrown  over  it.  On  the  other  hand  the 
lowest  meni.ils,  i.e.  the  men-slaves  who  toiled  in 
the  country,  wore  '  rough  skirts  of  matting  which 
they  were  wont  to  seat  with  a  piece  of  leatlier' 


(Lepsius,  Wilkinson),  while  those  who  were  com- 
pelled to  adopt  a  more  active  mode  of  life  wore 
nothing  but  a  simple  fringed  girdle,  like  that 
which  is  stiU  worn  by  many  African  tribes,  'a 
narrow  strip  of  stufl'  with  a  few  ribbons  or  the 
end  of  the  strip  itself  hanging  down  in  front.' 
Under  the  New  Empire  we  even  find  that  the 
young  slaves  who  served  wealthy  nobles  at  feasts 
wore,  as  their  only  article  of  clothing,  a  strip  of 
leather  which  passed  between  the  legs,  and  wsig 
held  up  by  an  embroidered  belt  (Erman). 

4.  Slavery  in  ancient  pre-e.>cilian  Israel. 
—  In  the  primitive  social  conditions  of  ancient 
Israel  the  ditt'erent  ranks  of  the  community  moved 
easily  and  freely  amongst  each  other  and  came 
into  hourly  contact.  The  courtesies  and  etiquette 
of  life,  especially  in  salutations  and  meals,  were 
certainly  not  neglected  ;  yet  the  gulfs  created 
between  class  and  class  by  our  higldy  developed 
modern  ci\'ilization  were,  fortunately  for  human 
happiness,  then  unknown.  In  the  life  presented 
to  us  in  the  Books  of  Judges  and  Samuel  we  find 
high  and  low  equally  engaged  in  pastoral  or  agri- 
cultural employment.  We  are  reminded  of  the 
genial  state  of  society  in  Ithaca  as  depicted  in  the 
Odyssey.  When  the  deputies  of  Jabeshgilead 
came  in  quest  of  Saul,  they  found  the  Benjamite 
chief  and  Israel's  future  King  returning  with  a 
yoke  of  oxen  from  his  field  (1  S  IP).  We  associate 
Saul  witli  the  figure  of  the  Roman  Cincinnatus 
summoned  straight  from  the  plough  to  a;ssume  the 
office  of  dictator. 

Thus,  in  that  early  and  simple  Hebrew  civiliza- 
tion, slavery  was  free  from  half  the  terrors  with 
which  the  later  Roman  civilization  and  the  con- 
ditions of  our  modern  life  have  invested  it.  It 
cannot  be  said  that  in  the  earlier  pre-exilian 
days  the  lot  of  a  Hebrew  bond-slave  among  his 
countrymen  was  oppressive  or  even  irksome.  The 
description  given  by  Donyhty  of  slaverj'  in  the 
remoter  parts  of  Arabia  corresponds  in  many  par- 
ticulars with  the  conditions  of  the  early  Hebrew 
bond-servant  (Arabia  Deserta,  i.  p.  554) — 

'The  condition  of  the  slave  is  always  tolerable  and  is  often 
happy  in  Arabia ;  bred  up  as  poor  broLliers  of  the  sons  of  the 
household,  they  are  a  manner  of  God's  wards  of  the  pioua 
Mohammedan  householder  who  is  ammij  [properly  *'  my  uncle  "] 
of  their  sen'itude  and  a^I/("  my  father").  ...  It  is  not  many 
years  *'  if  their  houselord  fears  Allah  "  before  he  will  ^ve  them 
their  libert\' ;  and  then  he  sends  them  not  away  empty  ;  but  in 
upland  Arabia  (where  only  substantial  persons  are  slave-holders) 
the  jjood  man  will  marry  out  his  free  servants,  male  and  female, 
endowing  them  with  somewhat  of  his  own  substance,  whether 
camels  or  palm-stems.' 

We  shall  note  the  close  par.illel  between  the  latter 
part  of  this  extract  and  the  details  of  Hebrew 
usage  prescribed  in  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy. 

A  slave  could  attain  to  a  high  position  in  his 
master's  household.  He  might  even  become  his 
heir  in  default  of  off'sjiring  (Gn  15-- ').  The  im- 
portant place  filled  by  the  slave  Eliezer,  though  a 
foreigner  (Damascene),  in  the  household  of  Abra- 
ham, is  not  without  parallels  in  the  narratives  of 
antiquity.  The  Hebrew  captive  Joseph  becomes 
the  prime-minister  of  Pharaoh.  In  1  Ch  2**  we 
read  the  interesting  fact  that  Sheshan  in  default 
of  male  issue  married  one  of  his  daughters  to  the 
Egyptian  (?)  slave  Jarha'.  In  case  of  an  emergency, 
the  master  of  a  household  might  seek  counsel  from 
his  slave  as  from  a  trusted  friend.  Abigail  has 
recourse  to  one  of  Nabal's  slaves  for  advice  in 
order  to  appea.se  Darid's  anger  (1  S  25'*'-).  A 
homely  episode  of  this  character  occurs  in  the  life 
of  Saul  (1  S  9'"'°,  belonging  to  the  older  stratum 
of  the  narrative  called  by  Budde  G  ;  cf.  Richttr  u. 
Samuel,  p.  169  ff.).  Saul,  in  his  baffled  search  for 
his  father's  lost  asses,  turns  at  length  for  counsel  to 
his  slave.  The  slave  gives  the  right  advice,  and 
directs  his  master's  steps  to  the  seer  Samuel.     A 


SERYAXT.  SLAVE,  SLAVERY 


SERVANT,  SLAVE,  SLAVERY   463 


fee  is  requisite  for  the  consultation,  and  tlie  slave 
lends  his  master  a  quarter  of  a  shekel  (about  SJd.). 
Saul,  in  resjionse  to  his  slave's  advice,  says,  '  Your 
advice  is  good  :  come,  let  us  go.'  This  vivid  narra- 
tive reminds  us  of  Gn  24  (J;  according  to  Ball  J^, 
but  Kuenen  regards  it  as  J'),  in  which  Abraham 
sends  Eliezer  on  an  important  mission  to  secure  a 
■wife  for  his  son,  and  exhibits  in  the  clearest  manner 
the  conlidontiai  relations  which  subsisted  between 
the  liead  of  a  household  or  the  sheikh  of  a  clan  and 
liis  slave.  Krom  tlie  above  narrative  respecting 
Saul,  in  which  he  borrows  a  siii.iU  sum  from  his 
slave,  we  gather  the  significant  hint  that  slaves 
mi::ht  even  be  the  owners  of  property. 

The  position  of  a  slave  in  a  household  would 
largely  depend  on  his  origin,  viz.  whetlicr  of  He- 
brew or  of  foreign  nation.-ility.  In  the  latter  case 
his  .situation  would  certainly  not  be  so  favourable, 
unless  indeed,  as  in  the  case  of  Eliezer,  he  had  been 
born  and  bred  in  tlie  household,  and  thus  came  to 
be  incorporated  in  the  clan  to  which  he  was  locally 
attached,  sharing  in  its  hospitality  and  protection, 
and  taking  his  due  part  in  its  sacra.  The  position 
of  a  recently  purchased  slave  taken  captive  in  war 
would  be  far  diltcrent.  In  a  Roman  or  Greek 
household  he  would  be  set  to  do  the  most  menial 
tasksof  drudgery;  and  liis  jd.ace  in  a  Hebrew  family 
■would  be  similar,  though  not  so  forlorn.  The 
Canaanites,  as  we  learn  from  Jg  1^-  *••  **•  **,  were 
employed  in  hard  task-work  {cz).  These  lower 
employments  are  described  in  Dt  29"  as  gathering 
firewood  and  drawing  water.  The  laws  respecting 
warfare  in  Dt  20'"'''-  prescribe  th.at  the  inli.abitants 
of  those  cities  which  surrendered  voluntarily  to 
Israel  should  be  taken  as  slaves,  while  in  case  of 
resistance  the  male  inhabitants  were  to  be  slain 
with  the  sword,  and  the  women  and  children  with 
the  cattle  were  to  be  taken  as  a  prey  (cf.  Nu31"'-''"). 
In  the  time  of  David,  through  his  numerous  foreign 
wars,  there  came  to  be  a  large  number  of  these 
foreign  helots  engaged  in  laborious  task-work  (ot). 
From  2  S  20'^  we  gather  that  it  became  necessary 
to  appoint  an  ollicer  to  superintend  this  special 
department  of  national  life,  viz.  the  ^3y  op  (On  49") 
or  forced  service  exacted  from  the  slave-labourer. 
This  was  probably  true  of  the  reign  of  David's 
successor  Solomon  (1  K  9-'),  who  did  not  find  it 
necessary  to  exact  any  bund-service  from  Hebrews 
(save  for  the  special  work  mentioned  in  S^i'^i"-),  since 
tlie  foreign  slaves  abundantly  sufficed  for  all  needs. 
Inileed,  slaves  of  foreign  origin  were  very  numerous 
in  the  East,  and  this  became  especially  true  in  the 
9tli  and  following  centuries.  A.ssj-rian  inscriptions 
and  portrayals  abundantly  testify  to  the  barb.irous 
practices  that  prevailed  in  ancient  Asiatic  warfare 
when  cities  were  stormed  and  sacked.  We  know 
from  numerous  inscriptions  tliat  a  large  number  of 
the  i)risoners  *  were  carried  away  cajitive.  Many 
of  these,  of  whom  female  cajitives  constituted  a 
considerable  proportion,  would  inevitably  find  their 
way  to  foreign  markets.  The  great  mercantile 
Canannite  or  Phojnician  peoples,  who  had  their  cele- 
brated emporia  of  commerce  at  Tyre  and  Sidon, 
shared  with  the  I'liilistines  the  unenviable  notoriety 
of  being  the  chief  slave-dealing  race  of  antiquity. 
Thus  in  the  middle  of  the  8th  cent.  Amos  brings 
this  accusation  against  the  Philistines,  who  passed 

*  The  Amyrlan  t«nn  wag  lallatu  (VSe>)  and  kiiittu  (kiiidtu, 
loot  1173).  The  foniinr  tcnn,  characteristically  enough,  is  In- 
cluilvo  o(  gpoll  (temnilly  ( I  iKlath-pilcscr  I.  I'rism  In»c.  col.  il. 
80,  hi.  06,  85  (B.O.  11001),  But  the  meaning  Ih  only  too  clear  In 
AJurna^irabal's  Annals,  I.  108  (c.  880  B.C.),  where  we  read  that 
ho  itormcd  the  fortress  o(  IJulai,  and  III  11  iallamtnu  ina  iiati 
atrup,  '  I  consumed  with  flre  HOOO  of  their  captives  and  left 
not  one  soul  alive,'— ti'*((u,  on  the  other  hand,  means  dcnnitclv 
war-captives.  These  were  employed  by  Eaarhoddon  in  buildini; 
temples  (Prism  Inscc.  A  and  0,  col.  iv.  44-46).  BespectiiiK 
•laverj-  In  Bobylonio,  see  Tiele,  Bab.-Auyr.   Qeteh.  (1888)  IL 


on  their  captive  Israelites  to  the  Edomites  (Am  !•). 
We  may  conjecture  that  the  last-named  sold  them 
again  to  traders  who  shipped  them  from  Elath  for 
foreign  shores  and  markets.  It  is  nearly  certain 
that  these  traders  would  be  I'hcenicians,  for  '  trader' 
and '  I'lucnician '  (Cantianite)  were  almost  synonym- 
ous terms  in  those  days  (Uos  12',  Is  23')  and  later 
(Zeph  1",  Ezk  17^  Pr  31=").     Hence  the  same  pro- 

Ehet  brings  a  similar  charge  against  the  Phcenicians 
ecause  they  forgot  the  covenant  of  'brethren' 
which  subsisted  between  Phoenicia  and  Israel  from 
the  days  of  Solomon  (Am  I'-'").*  In  post-exilian 
times .) oel  (3  [ Heb.  4] ')  denounced  both  these  nations 
for  selling  the  captives  of  Jerusalem  beyond  seas 
to  the  sons  of  Javan,  i.e.  to  the  Greek  poijulations 
which  covered  the  western  shores  of  Asia  Minor. 

In  contrast  with  the  forlorn,  though  far  from 
hopeless,  lot  of  a  foreign  slave  in  a  Hebrew  house- 
hold, the  condition  of  a  home-born  and  Israelite 
slave  would  be  far  more  tolerable.  The  Hel)rew 
slave  frequently  came  into  his  unfortunate  position 
through  the  exigencies  of  tlie  harsh  laws  of  debt 
(see  Debt)  which  prevailed  then  and  prevail  still 
in  Oriental  countries.  This  is  clearly  shown  in  Lv 
2525.  aa^  which  exhibits  the  case  of  a  man  volun- 
tarily entering  the  state  of  servitude  in  order  to  dis- 
charge the  debts  which  his  poverty  and  embarrass- 
ments had  contracted.  During  the  regal  period 
Canaanite  civilization  had  spread  and  had  become 
absorbed  by  the  Hebrew  inliabitants,  the  population 
of  towns  h.ad  increased,  and  the  power  of  the  rich 
landowning  class  was  seriouslj'  felt.  The  creditor 
became  sometimes  so  harsh  and  exacting,  that,  if 
the  father  died,  the  sons  might  be  sold  into  slavery 
to  pay  his  debt  (2  K  4').+  These  social  evils  must 
have  been  aggravated  in  the  9th  cent.  B.C.,  when 
the  Syrian  wars  desolated  the  borders  of  both 
Kphraiin  and  Judah,  and  the  small  farmers  lost 
their  crops  and  cattle  through  the  ravages  of  the 
invader  (cf.  Is  1',  Jer  O'-'),  and  were  driven  to 
borrow  at;  the  oppressive  rate  of  even  20  per  cent. 
It  is  not  surprising,  therefore,  that  the  miserable 
lot  of  the  ojipressed  peasantry  awakened  both  the 
pity  and  indignation  of  the  prophets  of  the  8th 
cent.,  who  rebuked  the  overbearing  avarice  of  the 
wealthy  landowner.  Amos  upbraids  the  harsh 
creditor  who  sells  his  helpless  victim  into  slavery 
for  a  paltry  debt  equivalent  in  value  to  a  pair  of 
sandals  (Am  2"  8").  A  generation  later  Isaiah  de- 
nounces the  aggravated  evils  of  his  own  time,  the 
accumulation  of  the  smaller  properties  consequent 
on  tlie  dispossession  of  the  smaller  owner  (Is  5*). 
Meanwhile  wealth  increased  with  rapid  strides  in 
spite  of  the  Assyrian  invasions.  In  the  days  of 
Amos  the  nobles  lived  in  luxuiy  in  their  summer 
and  winter  houses  (Am  3'^  cf.  ch.  G).  In  the 
Northern  kingdom  houses  were  erected  of  hewn 
stone  instead  of  the  common  brick,  and  of  cedai 
in  place  of  the  coniiiion  sycamore  (Is  9'").  '  T'he 
land  was  full  of  silver  and  gold,  and  there  was  no 
end  to  the  treasures'  (2').  Young  foreign  slaves 
were  sold  into  Israel  in  considerable  nuinbers.:^ 
5.  Leqi.slation  ke.spkctinq  Slaves. —This  is 

•  For  a  different  interpretation  of  the  'covenant  of  brothers,' 
see  Driver,  J  ml  and  A  mus.  p.  137. 

t  '  A  young  family  is  sometimes  an  insupportatilo  burden  to 
poor  parent*.  Ucnce  it  is  not  a  very  rare  occurrence  in  Kjrvjtt 
for  children  to  be  publicly  carried  aliout  for  sale  by  tlieir 
mothers  or  by  women  employed  by  the  fathers ;  but  tiiis  very 
seldom  happens  except  in  ca^es  of  great  distress '  (Lane,  ilamicri 
and  Cuntomji  qf  the  Modern  t^'jtiptiant,  p.  206). 

]  So  we  should  prol)ably  iindcrstana  the  doubtful  passage 
Is  281',  which  runs  in  the  Hebrew  ip'Biy  D'lDJ  -lY  [3)1  ' and 
they  abound  in  young  foreign  (slaves).'  It  is  probably  rendered 
witii  fair  correctness  by  the  LXX  xai  riKtti  wtXXm  «AA*;it.x« 
iyt*r,tht»CTt7t.  That  the  Ilipb'il  of  psi?  probably  meant  *  abound 
is  confirmed  by  the  Aram.  «0-^XD  ej/'unit  est,  talitfuitt  and 

T 

(loI  In  1  K  201I>.  Moreover,  this  meaning  harmonizes  with  mju 
and  M?:;?)  in  the  context 


t64    serva:nt,  slave,  slaveey 


SERVANT,  SLAVE,  SLAVERY 


to  be  found  in  all  three  codes  of  the  Torah,  viz. 
(a)  tlie  Book  of  the  Covenant  in  Ex  21'-";  (6) 
its  subsequent  development  in  the  Deuteronomic 
legislation  in  Dt  15'-"'* ;  (c)  lastly,  in  the  post- 
exilian  Book  of  Leviticus  (P)  in  Lv  25*'-».  All 
these,  except  I.v  25"'",  deal  with  the  conditions  of 
a  Hebrew  slave  in  the  possession  of  a  master  of  the 
same  nationality,  and  not  with  the  case  of  a  foreign 
slave.     This  must  be  considered  separately. 

A.  We  shall  deal,  first,  with  the pre-exUian  legis- 
lation contained  in  the  two  sections  {a)  and  (6). 
The  period  of  service  is  fixed  as  six  years  ;  in  the 
seventh  there  is  tlie  year  of  release.  The  question 
has  been  asked  whetlier  the  six  years  may  not  be 
regarded  as  a  maximum  period.  It  is  certainly 
quite  possible  that  when,  as  in  the  case  of  debt, 
the  sum  to  be  earned  by  service  could  be  worked 
out  in  a  shorter  term,  the  six-years'  period  might  be 
abridged,  but  we  have  insufficient  data  in  the  OT 
to  guide  us  on  this  point.  The  legislation  appears 
to  contemplate  six  years  as  the  least  period  for 
which  service  could  be  entered.  So  Rabbis  in 
their  interpretations  have  inferred.  Jacob's  seven 
years'  bondage  to  Laban  (Gn  29'")  seems  to  point  to 
a  somewhat  divergent  tradition.  It  is  evident  that 
the  six-years'  period  corresponds  to  the  six  days  of 
work  followed  by  the  day  of  Sabbath  rest.  So 
with  agricultural  land,  which  in  the  seventh  year 
is  to  lie  fallow.  Jer  34*-^^  is  interesting  and  sig- 
nificant, since  it  shows  that  these  laws  respecting 
slaves  were  constantly  ^nolated  by  the  owners. 

In  the  pre-exilian  legislation  the  special  cases 
are  duly  provided  for.  But  this  is  more  particularly 
true  of  the  earlier  conipend  of  laws  (Book  of  the 
Covenant).  In  £x  2P-^  the  case  of  a  man  who 
enters  bond-service  unmarried  is  distinguished  from 
that  of  a  married  man.  Under  the  latter  case  there 
are  two  varieties.  If  the  marriage  took  place  prior 
to  the  term  of  service,  husband  and  wife  become 
free  together.  But  if  the  slave  marries  one  of  the 
slave-girls  in  his  master's  household,  the  wife  and 
the  children  born  to  him  by  her  do  not  accompany 
the  husband  in  his  year  of  release.  This  last  stipu- 
lation is  not  mentioned  in  the  Deuteronomic  legis- 
lation. Are  we  to  understand  that  the  express 
provisions  of  the  earlier  legislation  are  tacitly 
assumed  in  the  later?  This  is  scarcely  probable, 
since  (1)  the  Deuteronomic  legislation  consistently 
repeats  the  earlier  provisions  of  the  Book  of  the 
Covenant,  when  adopted  into  its  own  code.  Their 
omission,  when  tacitly  understood,  would  have 
greatly  abbreviated  tne  later  legislation  in  its 
written  form.  (2)  We  note  a  striking  contrast 
between  the  express  provision  in  Dt  15'"  (viz.  that 
the  ceremony  described  in  Ex  21",  Dt  15"'  should 
apply  to  women  as  well)  and  the  hard  injunction  of 
Ex  21'  tliat  the  daughter  who  is  sold  as  a  bond- 
woman shall  not  go  free  as  the  bondman  does.  It 
is  true  that  the  case  here  contemplated  is  that  of 
concubinage ;  but,  as  Driver  in  his  commentary 
pertinently  observes,  the  terms  in  l>t  15'^  "  are  quite 
general,  and  we  are  not  therefore  justified  in  intro- 
ducing exceptions  out  of  the  earlier  legislation. 
Tlie  code  of  Deuteronomy  is  evidently  separated 
from  the  Book  of  the  Covenant  by  several  centuries 
during  which  the  Hebrew  race  advanced  both 
socially  and  politically.  The  humanitarian  ten- 
dency which  was  already  conspicuous  in  the  more 
primitive  legislation  had  advanced  still  furtlier. 
It  may  even  be  true,  as  Driver  suggests,  that 
Deuteronomy  belongs  to  an  age  so  far  advanced 
on  tliat  of  the  earlier  code  that  the  case  no  longer 
practically  occurred  of  a  woman  being  sold  into 
slavery  for  concubinage,  or  at  all  events  this  was 
not  contemplated  or  recognized.  This  could  hardly 
have  been  true  at  a  date  earlier  than  B.C.  622. 

It  sometimes,  perhaps  not  infrequently,  liappened 
that  a  slave  loved  his  master,  or  was  impelled  by 


the  strong  motives  which  the  sustenance  and  pro- 
tection of  liis  master's  home  ailorded,  not  to  avail 
liiniself  of  the  opportunity  of  the  seventh  year  of 
release.  Under  the  terms  of  the  earlier  legislation,  a 
wife,  married  when  lier  liusband  was  living  in  bond- 
age in  his  master's  household,  and  the  family  reared 
under  these  conditions  could  not  pass  into  freedom 
with  the  man  when  the  seventh  year  of  release  had 
come.  This  would  furnish  an  even  stronger  in- 
ducement not  to  avail  himself  of  the  freedom  wliich 
the  seventh  year  permitted.  The  master  would 
tlien  take  the  slave  and  bring  him  to  God  (i.e.  to 
the  local  priest  in  the  nearest  sanctuarj'  *),  and  bore 
tlirough  his  ear  in  token  of  the  fact  that  the  slave 
was  now  the  property  of  his  master  in  perpetuity 
(Ex  21'').  This  should  not  be  understood  to  mean 
merely  until  the  year  of  jubilee,  as  Josephus  (Ant. 
IV.  viii.  28)  and  Rashi  assume,  since  this  would 
introduce  an  arbitrary  qualification.  The  year 
of  jubilee,  as  we  shall  have  subsequent  occasion  to 
see,  belongs  to  a  later  stage  of  national  life. 

■The  growing  humanitarian  tendency  which  is 
characteristic  of  the  Deuteronomic  legislation 
shows  itself  in  the  addition  of  an  express  stipu- 
lation (Dt  15"-")  that  the  master  on  releasing 
his  slave  was  to  provide  him  liberally  from  his 
flocks,  his  com,  and  his  winet  (cf.  the  modem 
Arabian  usage  cited  from  Doughty,  above,  p.  462''). 

The  special  case  must  now  be  considered  of  a 
father  selling  his  daughter  into  slavery  to  another. 
To  this  the  Book  of  the  Covenant  refers  (Ex  21'""). 
This  was  done  under  the  stipulation  that  the 
maiden  should  become  the  master's  concubine  or 
that  of  liis  son.  If  she  fail  to  please  her  master 
(or  his  son)  who  has  destined  her  for  himself  (read 
iS  with  Kere  in  place  of  ti^),  she  sliall  be  redeemed 
[by  her  father  or  some  near  relative].  Under  no 
circumstances  is  she  to  be  sold  into  the  hands  of  a 
foreigner.  If  she  be  the  concubine  of  the  master's 
son,  she  is  to  be  treated  as  a  daughter  of  the 
master's  household.  But  if  another  woman  is 
married,  she  is  in  no  way  to  be  defrauded  of  her 
food,  dress,  or  conjugal  rights.  If  any  of  these  three 
rights  of  food,  dress,  etc.,  be  not  preserved  intact, 
she  may  claim  her  freedom  and  depart  without 
any  redemption  money  being  paid  as  compensa- 
tion. As  aJready  stated,  the  case  of  a  concubine- 
slave  does  not  arise  in  the  Deuteronomic  code. 

Budde  In  ZATW,  1891,  p.  100 f.,  discusses  the  difflCTiltie«  ol 
Ex  21*".  After  remarking  that  Dt  16i-  17  indicates  an  artvanc* 
in  civilization,  he  compares  Lv  1920,  which,  however,  contem- 
plates a  different  set  of  conditions.  Budde  suggests  an  ingeni- 
ous emendation  of  the  doubtful  my'  k'7  ib-k  into  nv;;  «>  is-H 
'provided  that  he  has  not  known  her  (carnally).'  The  LXX 
;;  xWi!  jMtfl^^Xffyrtf-flE",  *has  promised  or  pledged  herself  to 
him,'  appears  to  sustain  the  reading  of  the  A^.  We  might,  on 
the  other  hand,  also  render  the  Heb.  text  (^irf)  '  to  whom 
(one)  has  destined  her.'  W.  R.  Smith,  however,  in  ZATW, 
1S92,  p.  162,  supports  Budde's  reading  of  ^Sjl),  and  makes  the 
further  suggestion  that  k'?  did  not  originally  stand  in  the  text, 
which  was  simply  njT  IPK.    This  involved  a  primitive  usag* 

•  This  is  the  view  taken  by  most  commentators ;  Q'n7Nrr7(< 
does  not  mean  'to  the  judges,'  as  Dillm.  seems  disposed  to 
understand  it.  For  Jg  6*,  1  S  225  (see  Ixihr,  ad  loc.),  and  Ex 
227- a 28  are  passages  where  D'n'?K  should  be  rendered  by  'God' 
not  'Judges,'  God  being  regarded  as  the  fountain  of  true  justice, 
who  spoke  through  the  priest  and  witnessed  the  transaction. 
Hence  LXX  ••/^«  ri  *?mpic,  nZ  6ui.  Nowack  would  under- 
stand by  D'nSft  here  the  '  family  ancestors'  (cf.  1  S  28",  Is  S"). 
The  slave  was  taken  to  the  family  sanctuary  and  adopted  pe^ 
manently  into  the  possessions  of  the  family.  But  this  is  a  far- 
fetched theory,  and  the  employment  of  CT17K  in  a  code  a< 
legislation  in  a  sense  so  exceptional  is  certainly  improbable. 

The  boring  ol  the  ear  (probably  the  right  ear,  Lv  S^"-  U'*-  ") 
was  also  practised  bv  other  Oriental  peoples,  t.g.  the  llesopo- 
tamians  (Juven.  1.  104),  Arabs  (Petronius,  Sat.  102),  LydiaM 
(Xenoph.  Anab.  m.  L  31),  and  Carthaginians  (Plautus,  PxnuL 
V.  ii.  21).     For  other  parallels  consult  Dillm.  on  Ex  21^. 

t  This  humane  Deuteronomic  law  was  fully  maintained  in  thi 
later  Jewish  usage.  According  to  ^iddtuliin  17,  the  worth  of 
these  parting  pifts  to  the  released  slave  must  amount  to  M 
tdaim  or  78  shillings  (Hamburger). 


SERVA^'^T,  SLAVE,  SI^VVERY 


SERVAXT,  SLAVE,  SLAVERY      465 


whereby  the  heir  (or  son)  Inherited  marital  right3(ff»n*Aip  and 
Mnrrio'jf,  p.  89  (.).  The  Btorj'  of  Absalom  shows  that  this 
might  occur  even  in  the  lifetime  of  the  lather  without  shock- 
ing  puhlic  feeling.  But  to  the  later  Jewish  ideas  this  was 
ftbborrent.  Hence  the  insertion  of  kV  into  the  text.  Subse- 
quently another  textual  tradition  arose  through  the  nj^^'V 
of  v.P,  which  caused  .lyr  to  be  corrected  to  .11;",  which  found 
Its  way  into  our  Massoretic  text.  K*?  of  the  K^thib  thus  re- 
mained unintelUyible,  and  it  was  extremely  easy  for  the 
Jewish  scholars  to  assume  that  here  as  in  so  muny  passages 
it  stands  in  place  of  iV.  The  reading  .1^1*  i^'N  is  confirmed 
by  (1)  the  phrase  .13  ni33,  which  obviously  presupposes 
sexual  intercourse,  (2)  best  explains  '3'V3  n>i.— If  we  accept 
W.  R.  Smith's  emendation,  it  would  seem  to  show  that  the 
Book  of  the  Coven.int  arose  considerably  earlier  than  the  Sth 
cent.  For  in  Am  :;'  the  prophet  denounces  the  profanation  of 
the  'holy  name*  by  the  inlcrcourse  of  father  and  son  with  the 
same  paramour  (cf.  Gn  oj-***  (P),  49*).  Here  the  nii^J  may 
probably  refer  to  the  -iv  ~J7  of  some  local  high  place.  The 
sentiment  which  underlies  the  verse  is  unmistakable, 

B.  The  post-exilinn  legislation  of  the  Book  of 
Leviticus  (So*"'")  was  disitinct,  and  was  desi<rned 
to  meet  the  special  conditions  of  the  post-exilian 
times.  The  institution  of  the  year  q/ jubilee  now 
takes  the  place  of  the  old  pre-e.\ilian  law  respect- 
ing the  seventh  year  of  release.  An  express  dis- 
tinction is  made  between  Hebrew  slaves  and 
foreigners.  The  latter  are  to  be  slaves  for  life, 
and  do  not  come  under  tlie  operation  of  the  law  of 
jubilee,  whereby  the  Hebrew  slave  with  his  family 
in  the  fiftieth  jear  passed  out  of  bondage  and 
returned  to  his  own  kindred  and  to  his  own 
inherited  property,  where  he  was  enabled  to  main- 
tain himself  and  liis  family  in  freedom. 

The  older  biblical  scholars  attempted  to  reconcile  the 
Levilical  legislation  with  the  older  codes.  Thus  Saalschiitz 
held  the  view  that  the  le^-islatioo  of  Exodus  and  Deut  re- 
ferred to  the  tribes  related  to  the  Hebrews,  while  the  law  of 
jubilee  applied  to  Israelites  only.  But  this  distinction  is  an 
artificial  *  Nothbehelf,'  and  the  same  remark  applies  to  Dill- 
niann'H  attempt  to  harmonize  Levit.  with  the  earlier  legislation 
h\  assuming  that  the  former  was  designed  to  secure  to  those 
who  had  not  made  use  of  their  right  of  release  in  the  seventh 
year  through  utter  impoverishment,  that  they  should  not  be 
slaves  for  ever,  but  obtam  their  release  in  the  fiftieth.— But  both 
these  theories  are  baaed  on  a  failure  to  recognize  that  the 
Levitical  regulations  were  a  completely  new  constructive  effort 
to  settle  the  conditions  of  Hebrew  bond-service. 

It  is  not  by  any  means  clear  how  far  the  slave 
benclited  by  the  new  conditions.  Indeed  the  old 
Deuteronoiiiic  law  seems  more  favourable,  if  the 
year  of  jubilee  was  over  six  years  distant.  The 
object  of  tlie  new  law  seems  to  have  been  to  fix 
a  universally  valid  date  of  release,  and  thus  to 
unite  the  lot  of  tlie  individual  to  the  collective  life 
of  the  nation.  Moreover,  an  ex|)res3  injunction  was 
made  (v.*'"-),  that  Hebrew  slaves  should  be  re- 
deemed from  bondage  to  a  foreign  owner  by  the 
nearest  kin  (first  brotliers,  then  uncle  or  cousin), 
80  that  a  foreign  master  had  not  tlie  unconditional 
right  of  possession  towards  the  Hebrew  slave  until 
the  year  of  jubilee.  The  slave  was,  if  possible, 
to  be  redeemed  before  that  time,  the  price  of  re- 
demption being  regulated  by  (1)  the  original  sum 
of  purchase  ;  (2)  the  distance  of  the  year  of  jubilee. 
We  thus  find  that  the  fumlaniental  pnnci|ile  was 
recognized  that  the  Hebrew  slave  was  rather  to 
be  regarded  as  a  hired  workman,  and  the  price  of 
his  purchase  or  redemption  was  to  be  considered 
as  a  kind  of  hire  paid  for  in  advance.  The  Hebrew 
master  was,  moreover,  exhorted  to  treat  him  rather 
OS  a  brother,  or  a  '  hired  servant '  and  *  soiouruer ' 


(w.' 


"). 


The  ciiiidition  of  foreirjn  {i.e.  non-Hebrew)  slaves 
has  been  already  referred  to,  and  will  now  be  con- 
sidered in  further  detail.  The  captive  taken  in 
war  naturally  bore  a  somewhat  heavier  lot  than 
the  Hebrew  slave  who  had  pa.ssed  into  tliat  con- 
dition by  iin]ioverisliinent  or  debt.  But  there  were 
mitigations  even  in  tlic  lot  of  a  foreign  slave.  A 
foreign  captive  woiimn  taken  in  war  and  made  a 

VOL.  IV. — 30 


concubine  was  to  be  treated  with  a  certain  defer- 
ence by  her  captor  (Dt  21 '""•).  The  fact  that  the 
slaves  of  the  household  were  circiuucised  meant 
much.  They  were  thereby  received  into  a  re- 
ligious community,  and,  by  taking  part  in  its 
sacra,  shared  in  its  protection.  Thus  from  Dt 
jQia.  IS  16"- 1»  we  learn  that  they  partook  of  the 
passovcr  and  other  sacrificial  meals,  and,  as  we  can 
easily  infer  from  Ex  20'",  tliey  enjoyed  their 
Pabhatli  rest  from  toil  in  common  with  their 
Hebrew  masters.  According  to  Rabbinic  tradi- 
tion a  slave  could  not  be  compulsorily  circumcised, 
anil,  if  he  was  circumcised,  he  was  not  to  lie  sold  to 
a  foreigner,  i.e.  he  was  treated  as  though  he  were 
a  Hebrew  and  not  a  foreign  slave.  Uut  if  he 
refused  circumcision,  he  was  to  be  sold  after  the 
expiration  of  a  year.  On  the  other  hand,  if 
before  entering  service  he  made  the  express  stipu- 
lation that  he  was  not  to  be  circumcised,  he  might 
remain  in  bondage  for  an  indefinite  period  ;  see 
Jlielziner,  Die  Verhdltnisse  der  ISklaven,  bei  den 
alten  Uebraem,  p.  68. 

C.  Compensation  for  vnjury  to  slaves. — The 
earliest  code  of  legislation  sought  to  protect  the 
Hebrew  slave  from  maltreatment,  and  the  rules 
we  find  on  this  subject  (Ex  21»-2'-2«-")  are  very 
explicit  on  the  whole.  Smiting  a  slave  so  as  to 
entail  loss  of  eye  or  tooth  entitled  the  slave  to 
complete  enfranchisement,  and,  in  case  death  im- 
mediately ensued,  a  sure  vengeance  for  such  an 
act  would  be  taken.  If,  however,  tlie  slave  sur- 
vived for  a  day  or  two  before  his  di!.ath,  the  punish- 
ment of  his  loss  by  death  was  considered  penalty 
enough,  for  the  money-value  of  the  slave  was  the 
measure  of  the  master's  loss. 

We  note  here  some  vagueness  as  to  what  the 
'  sure  vengeance '  (v.-*),  to  be  wreaked  on  the 
slave-owner  who  murdered  his  slave,  was  to  be. 
We  cannot  fail  to  remark  that  the  expression  falls 
considerably  short  of  tlie  explicit  language  of  v.", 
where  the  murder  of  a  free  Hebrew  citizen  is  to 
receive  the  death  penalty  as  its  award.  When  we 
turn  to  tlie  post-exilian  legislation  we  observe  the 
contrast.  In  Lv  24"*  -'■'  all  distinctions  and  special 
provisos  are  swept  aside.  Even  the  national 
barriers  were  discarded  in  this  case  by  the  post- 
exilian  Jew.  Bond  and  free  came  under  the  same 
law  as  well  as  the  foreigner  and  Jew.  Every 
murdered  man's  death  was  avenged  by  death. 

D.  Law  respect  ill  rf  runaway  slaves. — The  benefi- 
cent legislation  in  Deuteronomy  on  this  subject  is 
based  on  the  sacred  rights  of  hospitality  which  we 
find  not  only  amon"  primitive  Semitic  nations,* 
but  also  in  ancient  Orreece.  It  runs  :  '  Thou  shalt 
not  deliver  up  a  slave  to  his  master,  who  escapes  to 
thee  from  his  master.  With  thee  shall  he  abide 
in  thy  midst  in  the  place  that  he  chooses,  in  any 
one  of  thy  cities  that  he  likes.'  It  may  therefore 
be  readily  inferrc<l  that  the  recovery  of  a  runaway 
slave  in  ancient  Israel  was  far  from  easy.  This 
we  know  to  have  been  the  case  (cf.  1  K  2™).  This 
was  another  circumstance  that  tended  to  mitigate 
the  slaves'  lot,  by  making  it  incumbent  on  the 
owner  of  slaves  to  make  the  conditions  of  their 
life  tolerable. 

6.  Status  of  Female  Slaves.— This  varied 
considerably.  As  in  the  case  of  male  slaves,  the 
lot  of  the  foreigner  was  not  so  favourable  a«  that 
of  a  Hebrew  or  home -born  slave.  Vet,  on  the 
whole,  even  the  foreign  captive  might  enjoy  a 
position  of  comparative  comfort.  The  humane 
legislation  of  Dt  ai'""-  ordained  that  a  foreign 
captive  woman  taken  in  war  and  made  a  concubine 

*  Ues|iecting  this  law  of  the  OBr  see  JiS*  p.  76,  '  From  the 
eorlicst  times  of  .Semitic  life  the  lawlessness  of  the  desert,  in 
which  every  stranger  is  an  enenij,',  has  been  tempered  with  the 
principle  that  the  guest  is  inviolable.  A  man  is  safe  in  tbs 
ini<lst  of  enemies  as  soon  as  he  enters  a  tent  or  even  touches 
the  tent-rope ' ;  c(.  also  p.  270. 


466   SERVANT,  SLAVE,  SLAVERY 


SERVANT,  SLAVE,  SLAVERY 


«-n.s  to  be  treated  with  a  certain  chivalrous  de- 

?erenoe   the  recite  of  a  month  hein- a  lowed  her 

,v  her 'captor.     Note  the  position  of  the  eai.t.ve 

ifraete  maiden   in   the  Syrian   gfe-ls  house- 

slaves  in  pre-exilian  times  evidently  pre^allea 
amonc  other  Semitic  races  besides  the  HeWews. 
■""a  Heb  ew  female  slave  isdescribed  by  various 
ternis  according  to  the  position  she  held.  If  she 
became  the  concubine  of'^her  master  or  of  his  son^ 
she  w^  designated  by  the  more  dignified  term 

HDMAssyr.  amtu,  Syr.  1ASd|,  Arab.  <U^  Phcen. 

nD«  ■  in  fact  the  word  is  common  to  all  Semitic 
UnKua°es,  rendered  in  LXX  by  5o^X^  or  eepi^a^va.) 
Under  Uie  adverse  circumstances  brought  about 
bv  poverty,  to  which  reference  has  akeady  been 
mar   it    not    infrequently    happened    that    tl>e 
SauA\ter  couJd  not  L  disposed  of  as  freebom  in 
ordhiary  marriage,  because  the  utter  poverty  o 
the  parents  constituted  a  social  barrier       But  if 
t le  daughter  was  dowered  with  good  looks,  she 
could  easily  be  sold  as  a  slave,  and  the  pnce  she 
vouW  obtain  might  not  fall   far    shor     of    the 
ordinary   mohar  or    purchase  -  money   of    a.    tree 
"Cian,^  which  in  the  7th  cent,   amounted  to   50 
rekels    or  nearly  £7  (Dt  22"-»).     Under  any  nr- 
cuni'tawes  the  transaction   in    primitive    Israe 
would   not   have    differed    essentially  from    that 
wh"ch  took  place  when  a  marriage  was  contracted 
•til    a  free  ^voman   for  whom    purchase-n.oney 
called  »oAar  was   paid    as    though    she  were  a 
chattel*     She  would  thus  take   her   place   as  a 
concubine,  and,  if  she  bore  children,  her  position 
sensblv   improved.     But    if,   as    in    the    case  of 
Ha^ar.^he  was  simply  the  property  of  her  mis- 
tresf  knd  was  introduced  into  this  relation,  the 
ri'htsof  the  mistress  might  impose    somewhat 
'allin^   restraints.      AccorSinglv,   she    ni'ght  ^^ 
called  mx.  as  the  concubine   who   bore  c^nldren 
to   her  liiaster.  and   entitled  to   the  rights  of  a 
married  woman  (see  above),  or,  by  the   inferior 
e^l'nationof  annrp  or  '  bond-slave,'  called  upon 
trifo  menia^l  tasks  (Gnl6^cf.  on  the  other  hand 
"11"   where  Sarah  herself  calls  Hag.ar  njijt),  since 
;ie  still  remained  under  the  control  of  the  freeborn 
and   superior   wife   (16»).      n^.  is  .tl^^  «M;>e;^'o° 
which  i  woman  does  not  hesitate,  in  the  ordinary 
et^uette  of  social  intercourse,  to  employ  respect- 
?n'  herself   when  she   is  addressing  a  superior 
This  corresponds  to  the  expression  J?V.  emp  o^ed 
l,v  fl  man  under  similar  circumstances.     1  ms  Qis 
ti^ncti^r  he  rank  and  dignity  of  the  two  terms 
made  clear  in  the  speech  of  AbigaU  to  DW    „ 
I  S  "5"     With  true  womanly  dignity  and  courtesy 
combined  she  calls  herself  ntij,  and  yet  consents  to 
beS.me  a  nn.,.  and  do  the  menial  task  of  washmg 
theTet  of  Pavid's  slaves.    It  was  to  the  no?*'  that 
the  laborious  dutv  was  assigned  of  g^'"f '°g  ^t  the 
mill      This  is   the  word   used   to  designate   the 
sUve-gi  1  behind  the  millstones  in  Ex  11=    where 
t  e  t«rm  is  employed  to  describe  the  lower  end  of 
the  ,ocTal  scale!^  The  LXX  render-So^X,,  9epd.a..a, 

"'"x^ilrel;   another   interesting  word    employed 


mere    in    nuuuuci    .••~- o        . 

in  Hebrew  to  express  slave-concubine, 

(SjVs).     No  satisfactory  Semitic   etymology  can 

•See  art.  MiRRUOK.  vol.  iii.  P-  ^'O"-  ""4^  'Dowry.'  .nd 
-h.  21  E  preJen  the  UOe  .niJN  tor  Hagar. 


be  found  for  the  word,  and  its  form  strongly 
suggests  a  tJreek  origin  .aXXa.Is  (-f,^^««- «*;  I^\'|>", 
neflex)  The  Greek  race  was  called  ]V.  by  tl  e 
^nc  ent  Semites.  It  is  found  in  the  Race-table 
Gn  W-*  (P)  and  in  the  Assyr.  inscriptions  of 
Sar-on  and  in  the  Tel  cl-Amama  tablets.  See 
art  J  "van.  The  tern,  therefore  originally  meant 
^foretgn  slave-concubine  (cf.  Is  2-  and  tootnote 
above  p  463).  The  references  Gn  So'',  JR  !»• 
"  S  15'«  ''O"  seem  to  suggest  that  the  piUegesh  was 
of  a  lower  class  and  lax  in  morals. 

7  Price  of  Slaves.— According  to  the  Book  ot 
the  Covenant  (Ex  2P»)  this  was  30  shekels,  or 
about  £45",  which  was  evident^ly  the  average 
price  in  the  p^e-exilian  period.  The  money-value 
woJd  of  course  vary  with  the  slave's  age  and 
;Crcal  condition.  Jo^«P'^'\^«t'iren  were  con^ 
tent  with  20  shekels  when  he  ^vas  soW  to  the 
Midianite  (Ishmael.te)  traders  (Gn  37  ).  Ihis 
was  due  to  his  youth  According  to  the  vost 
exilian    Jexvish   legislation    (Lv    2,     >•  Z*^    «^[^' 

shekels  (nearly  £3)  w^  ^^'^'T/oO  tears  old 
redemption  of  slaves  between  5  and  .20  years  ow. 
We  find  the  same  price  (J  nmneh)  paid  for  a  slave 
from  Suri  mentioned  in  a  very  early  .contr.act- 
tablet  of  Babylonia.*  The  ordinary  price  how- 
ever  for  an  kdult  slave  prevading  in  \\  e.stem 
AsTa  d^ng  several  centuries  was  that  stated  in 
Ex  21»^vil  30  shekels.  This,  accordmg  to  the 
most  probable  computation  of  the  money -value  of 
a/,<.m.rand  a  lethech,  .v^  ^'^J^'se^e   Nowack 

n^^^^St'^^diSnerv^z.-'^fdrSr 
in  EOT},f  ^i'^„l^Vac8»'^»  we  read  that  Nicanor 
Lttenipfed  to  detay  the  Roman  tribute  of  2000 
ta  ents  bv  the  sale  of  Jews  at  the  rate  of  90  per 

i"or^%reLrot'fd  ^as  sold  by  His  traitor- 

Ionia  we  find  like  sums  and  even  lower  paid  for 
a  slave  The  values  also  range  in  special  cases 
much  h  "her.  Thus  in  the  time  of  Nebuchadnezzar 
we  hear"  f  a  woman.  Sakinna,  and  her  daughter 
r  littte  girl  of  3  years  of  age,  being  sold  for  3o 
shekels  fOT  nearly  £5].  In  another  case  a  husband 
and  his  wife  fetch  55  shekels  [or  about  £7  10s  ] 
fsavcef  Mr.  Pinches  has  transcribed  a  contract- 
tabLt  in  which  a  slave  is  sold  for  2§  manehs  of 
sth4r  ormore  than  £22;!  while,  accordmg  to 
T  elP  a  slave  might  even  cost  as  much  as  i05.§ 
7nbothtleIelTst  instances  the  slave  must  have 
leen  particutarly  valuable,  probably  owing  to  hiB 
possession  of  skilled  qualihcations 

8  Si'BSFouENT  History  of  Slavery  from  the 
n»Y^  OF  JFREMIAH.-In  .Ter  34«-  we  read  of  the 
unsuccessful  attempt  which  was  made  in  the  re.gn 
nf  7p,lekiah  to  carry  out  the  provisions  of  the 
^DU^r^mmiic'^code  feting  the  seventh  ^ear 
of  release  the  ph  lanthropic  efforts  ol  tne  Kin„ 
bein-  thwarted  ly  the  avarice  of  the  owners.  On 
the  other  hand.  Nehemiahs  strenuous  endeavours 
n  the  "'ears  that  followed  the  return  from  ex  le 
"ere  crowned  with  better  success.     Acting  m  U.e 

fe^-^irn:^H^fr:^"^^| 

to  pay  the  royal  tribute  upon  our  fields  and  our 


•  Schrader.  Klli  iv.  p.  44  (iU.^ 
(  Jos.  Ant.  xu.  ii.  3. 
J  nrtiraica,  vui.  p.  13*";„ 
I  Bab.-AwyT.  Qach.  p.  607. 


SERVANT,  SLAVE,  SLAVERY 


SERVANT,  SLAVE,  SLAVERY  46i 


vineyards  .  .  .  and,  lo  !  we  reduce  onr  sons  and 
our  daugliters  to  slavery,  and  it  is  not  in  our  power 
to  help  it ;  for  otlier  men  have  onr  lieUls  and  our 
vineyards'  (Neh  5'"").  Nelieniiah's  request,  that 
the  fields,  vineyards,  oliveyards,  and  houses  sliould 
be  restored,  was  complied  with.  Doubtless  in 
later  times  there  was  full  scope  for  the  operation 
o.  this  injunction  to  redeem  the  Israelite  slave 
from  bondage  to  a  foreign  master,  for  we  read  that 
in  the  wars  of  the  Ptolemies  and  the  Seleuoidre 
large  numhers  of  Jewish  captives  were  taken 
(1  Mac  3*',  2  .Mac  8"). 

It  would  be  an  interesting  object  of  investigation 
to  endeavour  to  determine  how  far  the  philan- 
thropic tendencies  of  Nehemiah  and  of  the  post- 
exilian  legislation  were  influenced  by  the  humane 
civilization  of  Babylonia.  That  that  civilization 
was  humane  is  clearly  attested  in  the  OT.  Jere- 
miah's advice  to  the  Jewish  captives  in  Babylonia, 
'Build  ye  houses,  and  dwell  in  them  ;  plant  gardens, 
and  eat  the  fruit  of  them  ;  take  ye  wives,  and 
beget  sons  and  daughters'  .  .  .  (Jer  29'- *),  would 
have  been  impracticable  under  any  other  than  an 
enlightened  and  humane  polity.  And  the  fact 
that  large  numbers  of  Jewish  residents  preferred 
to  remain  in  the  land  of  exile  instead  of  availing 
themselves  of  the  edict  of  Cyrus  to  return  to  their 
own  land,  is  a  significant  hint  in  the  same  direc- 
tion. Babylonia,  as  Sayce  has  pointed  out,  was  a 
land  where  agricultural  pursuits  were  carried  on, 
as  in  Egypt,  by  industrious,  peace-loving  freedmen 
(not  by  slaves,  as  in  Assyria,  where  the  pursuits 
preferred  by  the  conquering  race  were  trade  and 
war).  In  manj-  instances  we  learn  from  the  clay 
documents  of  purchase  or  sale  that  mother  and 
child  were  sold  together.  Indeed,  rights  were 
accorded  to  women  in  possessing  projiertj'  superior 
to  those  of  their  Hebrew  sisters  m  pre-exilian 
Canaan.  '  The  ancient  Accadian  law  ordered, 
that  if  children  had  been  bom  to  slaves  whom 
the  former  owner  bad  sold  while  still  keeping  a 
claim  upon  them,  he  should,  in  buying  them  back, 
take  the  children  a.s  well  at  the  rate  of  IJ  shekels 
each  '  (Sayce,  Horial  Life  among  the  Assyrians  and 
Babylonians,  p.  79). 

The  number  of  slaves  In  Palestine  at  any  time  down  to  the 
lat  cent.  a.d.  was  probably  small  in  coinpririson  uilh  that  which 
was  to  be  found  in  ancient  Greece  or  in  Konie  in  the  later  days 
of  the  Itepublic.  From  the  report  of  a  census  made  in  B.C.  a(i», 
the  male  citizens  of  Athens  numbered  45,0(X»,  and  the  slaves 
V.o.fXjo.  It  must  be  confessed,  however,  that  the  accuracy  of 
this  computation  mi|,'ht  be  questioned.  That  the  number  was 
very  oofuiderable  cannot  be  denied.  For  even  the  poorest 
citizen  had  a  slave  for  his  household,  and  a  (rrcat  number  were 
employed  in  the  occupations  of  bakintf.  cookinj;,  tailoring,  etc. 
The  father  of  Demosthenes  possessed  60  slaves.  Others  owned 
many  more  (cf.  Xenoph.  Vect.  t.  88  14,  15).  They  were  em- 
ployed in  workshops  or  mines.— In  ancient  Rome  large  portions 
of  the  a^rr  publiciu  began  to  be  held  by  patricians  as  the 
Roman  .State  extended  its  confines.  These  land-possessions 
were  cultivated  to  a  large  e.\tent  by  slaves  (cf.  Liv.  vi.  12). 
Thus  slaves  increased  in  number,  displaced  the  poorer  class  of 
freemen  and  peasant  proprietors,  and  in  the  Licinian  Rogations 
(B.C.  3C7)  a  provision  became  neccssarj'  that  a  certain  nu[nl)er 
of  freemen  should  Ije  employed  on  every  estate.  In  the  later 
days  of  the  Republic,  and  under  the  first  emperors,  the  number 
of  household  slaves  increased  greatly  (cf.  Juv.  Sat.  iii.  141). 
Horace  seeuis  to  regard  ten  slaves  as  a  moderate  number  for  t, 
person  in  comfortable  circumstatices  to  keep  iSat.  l.  iii.  12, 
ri.  7X  These  would  l>e  largely  sui>plied  from  the  vast  number 
of  captives  token  in  war.  From  Cms.  BO  iii.  IB  we  gather 
that  slave-dealers  followed  in  the  track  of  an  anny,  and  after 
a  victory,  when  a  sale  nf  slaves  took  place  {ntb  corona  veiididit), 
purehued  at  a  cheap  rale. 

The  treatment  of  slaves  ttecame  more  inhuman  both  in  Greece 
and  Ilome  as  their  nuntber  increased.  In  some  respects  their 
position  in  Athens  was  worse  than  it  was  in  Rome.  For  in 
Athens  the_  manumission  of  slaves  did  not  take  place  so  fre- 
quentlyas  in  Rome.  .Mnn-over,  their  position  as  manumitted 
•laves  (iriXn>'i(>«,)  was  inferior  to  that  which  they  enjoyed  in 
Rome  I  for  instead  of  becoming  citizens  thev  paiied  into  the 
condition  of  mere  ;^i>><u.,  and  were  otiligcd  to  honour  tlieir 
tomier  master  as  their  patron  (r^rTciTt),  and,  if  thev  neglecteil 
ctrtain  iluties  which  they  owed  towards  him,  might  even  forfeit 
their  moiilied  condition  of  freedom.  Even  Aristotle  regurfls  a 
•lave  a>  a  mere  possession  or  iluitlel  (Knu.t),  or  an  i^i%ti,x". 
•*»«•».  an  Instrument  endowed  with  lite  (i'tA.  iVio.  vliL  13, 


Pol.  i.  4).  The  bad  treatment  of  Greek  slaves  (■  evidenced 
by  the  fact  that  they  often  mutinied  (Plato,  Leqij.  vi.  777  C). 
Tile  insurrections  under  the  Republic  in  Ital^  and  Sicily 
attained  formidable  proportions.  The  two  ser\ile  revolts  in 
Sicily  in  B.C.  13.^  and  102  taxed  all  the  resources  of  Itome,  and 
were  with  ditftculty  suppressed,  while  the  rebellion  under 
Sjjartacus  carried  devastation  throui;h  the  Italian  peninsula 
(B.C.  7;i-71).  Nor  are  we  in  any  degret-  sur}>rised  when  we  take 
account  of  the  harsh  penalties  intlicted  on  slaves  by  their 
Roman  masters,  e.g.  working  in  chains  and  fetters  (Plautus, 
Stout.  I.  i.  18 ;  Terence,  J'horm,  il  i.  10),  suspension  by  the 
hands  while  heavy  weights  were  tied  to  the  feet  (Plautus, 
Asin,  u.  ii.  31).  We  read  also  of  hard  labour  in  the  ergas- 
ttUum,  and  of  such  harsh  penalties  as  the  /urea,  crux,  and 
notatio  (or  branding  inflicted  on  runaway  slaves).  Even  ladies 
treated  their  slave  attendants  harshly  in  the  days  of  the 
Empire,  as  .Martial  and  Juvenal  testify  (Juven.  Sat.  vi.  219£r., 
492 ;  Mart.  Epiij.  ii.  66 ;  cf.  Ovid,  Am.  i.  14,  15).  Varro,  in  his 
de  lie  Ku.itica  (i.  71),  expressly  classes  slaves  with  beasts  of 
burden  :  and  even  the  gentle  and  refined  Cicero  feels  constrained 
to  apologize  to  his  friend  Atticus  for  feeling  'more  than  a 
)>ecoiiiiiig  grief*  for  the  death  of  hia  slave  iSosithcus * (i:.'p.  ad 
Attic.  I  12). 

But  as  we  enter  Jewish  society  we  pass  into  a 
new  and  happier  world.  In  the  first  place,  the 
number  of  slaves  was  far  smaller  in  relative  pro- 
portion. At  the  return  of  the  exiles  there  were 
42,360  Hebrew  freemen,  and  only  7337  slaves,  or 
one  slave  to  5"72  freemen.  The  teachers  of  the 
Talmtid  looked  with  disfavour  on  the  ownership 
of  many  slaves.  The  more  slaves,  so  much  the 
more  thieving ;  the  more  female  slaves,  so  much 
the  more  uncliastity  (cf.  Babd  meztd  606>.  The 
Essenes  and  Therapeutie  did  not  tolerate  slavery, 
OS  being  contrary  to  man's  dignity  (Philo,  ii.  4.58, 
482).  The  later  literature  of  the  OT  reveals  the 
humane  attitude  of  Judaism  towards  the  slave,  and 
the  religious  ba-sis  on  which  it  rested,  The  latter 
is  vividly  expressed  in  Job  31'^"".  Humane  and 
gentle  treatment  of  a  slave  from  liis  early  youth 
will  engender  a  lilial  feeling  in  him  towards  his 
master  (Fr  29'"--').  On  the  other  hand,  it  wae 
clearly  realized  that  there  were  dangers  from  undue 
laxity. 

'  Set  thy  servant  to  work,  and  thou  shalt  And  rest ; 
Leave  his  hands  idle,  and  he  will  seek  liberty  .  .  . 
Send  him  to  labour,  that  he  be  not  idle  ; 
For  idleness  teachetb  much  mischief '  (Sir  33*- *7). 

And  the  same  writer  advises  even  severe  disciplin- 
ary measures — 

*  Yoke  and  thong  will  bow  the  weak  : 

And  for  an  evil  servant  there  are  rocks  and  tortureB*(v.a6). 

It  is  necessary  to  bear  the  last  passage  in  mind  if 
we  are  to  gain  a  true  and  complete  picture  of  this 
a.spect  of  Jewish  social  life  (cf.  Mt  25^",  Lk  12^«, 
the  latter  passage  showing  that  very  severe  corporal 
chastisement,  falling  short  of  loss  of  limb  or  life, 
might  be  meted  out  to  an  '  evil  servant  ').t  Accord- 
ing to  the  Mislina(ya(/a»(i  iv.  7),  it  was  a  subject 
of  discussion  among  Pharisees  and  Sadducees  as  to 
whether  a  slave  who  had  committed  an  injury  on 
another  was  himself  responsible  or  his  master. 
According  to  the  contention  of  the  Pharisees,  the 
master  was  not  responsible,  though  he  was  resiion- 
siblo  if  the  injury  were  committed  by  his  ox.  Thus 
the  Pharisees  (in  contrast  with  the  Koman  Varro 
above  cited)  emphasized  the  distinction  between 
an  unreasoning  brute  and  a  slave.  They  argued, 
moreover,  that  a  slave  might  otherwise  easily 
wreak  his  spite  on  his  master  by  committing  an 
injury  on  another  which  the  master  had  to  pay. 
According  to  Babd  kammd  (viii.  4),  the  slave,  if  he 
committed  an  injurj'  on  another,  was  liable  to  make 
compensation  when  he  obtained  his  release. 

liespecting  the  conditions  of  release  of  Gentile 
slaves  owned  by  a  Jewish  master  we  have  not 
many  data  to  guide  us  ;  see  al)Ove,  under  5  B,  ad  Jin. 
Every  facility  was  all'orded  for  the  manumission  of 

•  '  Me  plus  quam  sen'i  mors  drhere  videbatur  conimoveniU' 
t  We  are  led  to  suspect  that  tiirse  sterner  traits  o(  Jewish 
treatment  reflect  Gnoco-Koman  intlueDC& 


468   SERVANT,  SLAVE,  SLAVERY 


SERVANT,  SLAVE,  SLAVERY 


Gentile  slaves.  According  to  the  prescriptions  of 
the  Talmud,  the  Gentile  slave  received  release 
through  (1)  redemption  purchase  (Maimonides, 
*Abadin^  v.  2),  (2)  letters  of  manumission  (ib.  3), 
(3)  testamentary  disposition,  (4)  siluut  reco<,^nition 
of  his  freedom  {Peahj  iii.  8),  (5)  by  becoming  a 
Jew  {i.e.  a  proselyte),  (6)  by  marriage  with  a 
free  woman,  etc.  (Uamburger). 

In  Schurer,  GJV^  (iii.  p.  53),  interesting  details  are  furnished 
respecting  the  influence  of  Greek  legal  procedure  on  Jewish 
practice  in  the  release  of  slaves.  The  act  of  release  took  place 
iT(  T»jf  Tfiofuix^f*  *■«-  in  the  synagogrue  before  the  assembled 
congregation  (probably  with  some  reference  to  Ex  21*>;  see 
above).  Full  freedom  was  granted  to  the  slave,  xo'P'f  *f  t^^^l 
T>,»  Tflcrtux*:^  BaiTiioci  n  xa.'t  irooffKtt^Tipr.Jia^  [cf.  ■rpoiixaipiipi'iM  in 
Ac  2-*i«  114  6*.  Ro  1212,  Col  42],  i.e.  with  the  exception  of  regu- 
lar worship  in  the  synagogue  to  which  the  slave  was  bound. 
Accordingly,  this  mode  of  release  in  a  sacred  place  involved  a 
definite  pledge  on  the  part  of  the  released  slave  to  honour  its 
religious  usages.  We  have  a  parallel  in  Hellenic  custom, 
whereby  the  procedure  took  place  in  a  temple,  and  consisted  in 
a  fictitious  sale  of  the  slave  by  the  master  to  the  deity,  the  slave 
himself  bringing  the  purchase -money.  This  did  not  in  reality 
make  the  emancipated  slave  mto  a  temple  servant.  He  became 
.actually  free,  and  only  morally  appropriated  by  the  deity. 
These  facts  are  certified  by  documents  discovered  at  Panti- 
capajuni  and  Qorgippia  (cf.  Schurer,  ib.  p.  18).  The  same  tradi- 
tion p;i^sed  into  the  Christian  Church  m  the  eastern  provinces 
of  the  Roman  empire,  and  was  called  manumissio  in  ecclesia  ; 
see  Schiirer,  p.  53,  footn.  63. 

The  treatment  of  slaves  in  the  Jewish  household 
was  not  only  humane,  but  under  a  good  and  pious 
master  it  would  be  even  brotherly.  Of  the  most 
distinguished  personages  it  is  related  that  they 
readily  feasted  their  slaves  with  the  same  food  of 
which  they  themselves  partook,  addressed  old 
slaves  as  'father'  or  'mother,'  and  regarded  their 
death  as  that  of  a  beloved  relative  {Bcra/c/uJth  166  ; 
Kcthitboth  61;  Jems.  Babd  kammd  6).*  Ace.  to 
Bcrakhvth,  passim^  slaves  are  placed  with  women 
and  children  in  exemption  from  shenid  and  wearing 
phj'lacteries,  though  bound  in  other  matters  of 
ritual. 

9.  The  Chri^^tian  Attitude  to  Slavery.— This 
may  best  be  described  as  the  religious  attitude  of 
Judaism  expanded  to  the  dimensions  of  Christ's 
gospel  of  universal  redemptive  love  to  man.  With 
its  advent  new  powers  had  entered  into  the  world — 
new  conceptions  of  human  duties  and  relationships. 
All  these  lie  implicit  in  Christ's  Gospel  of  the 
Kingdom.  *  To  the  poor  the  gospel  is  preached ' 
(Mt  IF).  St.  Paul  expressed  the  new  consciousness 
in  the  words  :  *  All  are  sons  by  faith  in  Christ  Jesus 
.  .  .  As  many  of  you  as  have  been  baptized  into 
Christ  have  put  on  Christ.  .  .  .  There  is  neither 
Jew  nor  GreeK,  there  is  neither  slave  nor  free  .  ,  . 
for  ye  are  all  one  in  Chri.st  Jesus'  (Gal  3-*'^,  cf. 
Col  .3'°'  *').  And  so  the  doors  were  thrown  open 
wide  to  a  world  that  yearned  for  salvation. 

'The  kingdom  of  God  with  its  sublime  universalism  offers  its 
invitation  to  all  men  as  children  of  a  heavenly  Father,  and  liinda 
those  who  follow  His  call  into  a  society.  ...  In  the  Christian 
Church  the  poor  man  found  the  civic  rights  of  the  Divine  king- 
dom accorded  to  him  without  resene  as  God's  own  child.  .  .  . 
To  the  slaves,  that  lowest  and  most  unhappy  class  of  Gncco- 
Roumn  society,  the  rights  of  man  were  restored.  In  the 
Church  they  heard  the  magic  tones  of  the  words ;  "  Ye  are  men 
for  whom  also  Christ  has  died;  redeemed,  to  whom  the  same 
position  belongs  in  the  kingdom  of  God  as  to  your  masters." 
Masiers  also  heard  in  the  Church  the  solemn  admonition  that 
they  were  the  brethren  of  their  slaves,  since  both  had  taken 
upon  themselves  bv  voluntary  choice  the  voke  of  obedience  to 
Christ  (I  Co  721^-,  Eph  Vfi«-).  When  Paul  uttered  thoughts  like 
these  in  his  letter  to  Philemon,  in  which  he  interceded  for  the 
runaway  slave  of  the  latter,  he  was  writing  the  charter  of 
emancipation  for  the  many  millions  of  slaves  who  were  held 
down  by  a  minority  In  a  degrading  bondage.'  t 


*  On  the  humane  treatment  of  slaves  by  Moslems  see  Lane's 
Araf/ian  Nights,  vol.  i.  p.  64  fl.  (ch.  i.  note  13).  Nevertheless, 
we  are  told  that  'a  master  may  even  kill  his  own  slave  with 
impunity  tor  any  offence,  and  he  incurs  but  a  slight  punishment 
(as  im|irisorunent  for  a  period  at  the  discretion  of  the  judge) 
il  he  kills  hini  wantonly'  (p.  63). 

t  Mangold,  UumaniUit  und  ChrUtfnihum,  Rede  beim  An- 
trit.t  des  Kectorats  der  Rheinischen  Fricderich  Wilhelms  Uni- 
rersitat,  tm  18  October  1S76.     Bonn,  Adolph  MarcuA. 


Nevertheless,  the  Church  issued  no  authoritative 
mandate  that  masters  were  to  liberate  their  slaves. 
On  the  contrary,  obedience  to  masters  was  incul 
cated  (Eph  6^  cf.  parallels),  as  well  as  forbearance  U- 
slaves  (v.^).*  The  leaven  was  to  work  slowly  and 
surely,  witliout  external  compulsion  by  ecclesias- 
tical authority,  through  eighteen  centuries,  until 
in  tlie  19th  cent,  slavery  was  abolished  in  all  the 
ten'itories  of  Christian  European  peoples.  In  the 
20th  the  leaven  will  work  its  course  in  society  to 
yet  larger  issues  ! 

10.  Religious  Use  of  theTerm'Slave'CSer- 
VANt'). — The  word '  servant '  or  '  slave '  is  constantly 
employed  in  the  etiquette  of  daily  intercourse  in 
ancient  Semitic  society  and  among  Arab  popula- 
tions at  the  present  day.  '  Thy  servant'  (or  if  a 
woman,  *thy  handmaid  )  is  the  language  of  ordi- 
nary courtesy  employed  by  an  individual,  w.hen 
he  speaks  of  himself,  in  addressing  a  superior  or 
even  an  equal.  In  relation  to  God,  this  term  is 
universally  used  by  the  worshipper.  The  root  inp 
expresses  the  dependent  relation  of  subordination 
and  obedience  on  the  part  of  the  individual  to 
his  Divine  patron  and  Lord.  And  it  has  been 
sho^vn,  under  ii.  1,  how  constantly  this  expression 
enters  into  proper  names  compounded  with  the 
name  of  deity,  whether  Canaanite  or  Hebrew. 
That  collective  and  idealized  Israel  was  so  desig- 
nated is  especially  apparent  in  Deutero-Isaiah. 
Tlie  term  had  been  already  employed  in  Ezk  28^ 
37^,  and  also  in  Jer  SO^'^-  46-'7ff-.1-  The  passages 
in  which  the  expression  occurs  in  its  most  charac- 
teristic form  within  the  collection  designated  by 
the  term  Deutero-Isaiah  (chs.  40-56)  are  specially 
called  the  *  servant'  passages,  and  are  regarded  by 
most  critics  as  distinct  in  authorship.^  via.  42^"* 
491-6  504-9  52i3-53»^. 

The  portrayal  of  the  servant  in  these  four  sections  is  distinct 
from  that  which  prevails  in  the  rest  of  Deutero-Isaii*h.  In 
the  former  the  servant  is  idealized,  personal  and  sinless.  He 
is  Jehovah's  disciple,  chosen  to  minister  to  the  heathen  as  well 
as  to  his  own  people  (49t»),  going  about  his  own  mission  with 
quietness  (42'^  J  53^,  suffering  like  Jeremiah  and  Job  through 
the  scorn  of  the  unfaithful,  and  so  offering  a  propitiation  for 
the  guilt  of  his  race  (53^^).  On  the  other  hand,  in  the  rest  of 
Deutero-Isaiah,  the  'serv'ant  Jacob'  is  blind,  deaf,  a  prisoner 
plundered,  despised,  full  of  sin,  though  chosen  by  God,  pro- 
tected and  destined  for  a  glorious  future.  Yet  these  two  por- 
trayals have  their  essential  features  in  common.  Accordingly, 
*ser\'ant  (or  slave)  of  Jehovah,'  as  a  religious  tenn  applied  to 
Israel,  is  a  name  of  honour.  Israel  is  chosen  as  God's  messenger 
as  well  as  servant.  In  fact  the  difference  between  Jacob  as 
God's  ^i<^?  and  as  His  own  personal  slave,  called  to  a  high  and 
honourable  mission,  is  very  slight.  The  two  expressions  st-and 
in  parallelism  in  421^.  The  servant  is  the  chosen  one  in  whom 
God  takes  pleasure.  We  are  reminded  of  the  relationship  of 
Abraham  to  God  as  the  *  friend  of  God '  (2  Ch  207,  ja  223, 
cf.  Konin,  sur.  4124).  See,  further,  art.  Isaiah,  and  Smend, 
A  Tliche  Reli'jiongesch.^  p.  352  ff.  In  fact  the  expression  is  con- 
stantlv  employed  in  the  OT  as  a  name  for  God's  messengers, 
especially  the  prophets  (Am  3"^.  Jer  7^^  25*  26^  etc.).  cf.  Rev  107 
1118.  It  is  used  of  Moses  (Dt  34^,  J03  V),  of  Isaiah  ^Is  2o3). 
Furthermore,  it  is  used  of  the  Messiah  in  Zee  3*,  and  of  the 
angels  in  Job4i8(on  the  other  hand,  in  Ps  10321  1044  the  terra 
employed  is  D'^lvP,  which  properly  expresses  honourable, 
voluntary,  and,  moreover,  priestly  service  to  God). 

*  It  should  not  be  forgotten  that  the  distinction  between  bond 
and  free  is  cancelled,  according  to  St.  Paul's  conception,  only  in 
Chrut^  i.e.  within  the  conhnes  of  the  redeemed  society— the 
Church.  Outside  the  Church  the  <listinction  might  st  ill  prevail, 
and  even  be  re^rded  as  valid.  St.  Paul  hardly  contemplate 
any  reorganization  of  society  that  does  not  rest  on  redemption 
and  sanctifi cation  of  individual  life  as  a  basis.  In  that  outsid* 
world  St.  Paul  might  conceivably  still  regard  Roman  law  ac  ft 
quasi  n-ajii«y*5-cf,  and  hold  that  slavery,  as  a  human  instituti'-n, 
under  certain  guarantees,  might  be  under  temporarv  Di\ino 
sanction.  Modern  missionaries  of  the  Cross  in  heathendom, 
with  its  more  primitive  social  conditions,  have  been  compelled 
to  adopt  this  view. 

t  It  can  scarcely  be  held  that  either  of  these  latter  passage*  is 
genuine.  In  Comill's  text  (SBOT)  they  ore  relegated  to  the  foot 
of  the  page. 

t  But  see  Budde,  Die  sogeTtannten  Ebed-Jahwe-Lieder,  1900L 
Marti  also  argues  against  separating   the  coiii-eptions  in  the 
Servant-passages  from  the  rest  of  Deutero-Isni;ih  ;  .'iee  hiscora 
mentary,  p^  289  L  ;  wa  also  CoruiU  in  Theolog  liundadiau,  Nov 
IVUO. 


The  transition  from  this  OT  use  to  the  NT 
apiilication  of  the  corresponding  term  SodXot  is 
very  slight.  It  is  applied  to  himself  by  Symeon 
(Lk  2'-'')  in  his  prayer  to  God  {Nunc  DimittU),  Who 
13  consistently  addressed  as  Scawinrt^  (a  master  of 
slaves,  cf.  Ac  4-",  Rev  6'°),  and  similarly  the 
Virgin  Mary  speaks  of  herself  as  God's  SovKri 
(.■i:n),  Lk  1». 

This  term  St.  Paul,  in  the  introduction  to  his 
Epistles,  not  infrequently  uses  with  reference  to 
himself  (Ro  1',  Ph  1') ;  and  that  it  is  employed  as 
an  honourable  designation,  like  the  n?i;  of  Lzekiel 
and  Deutero- Isaiali,  is  evident  from  the  corre- 
eix)nding  use  of  d^riaroXos  in  1  Cor.,  2  Cor.,  GaJ., 
Epb.,  and  Col.  (equivalent  to  %><)-,  see  above). 

The  relation  of  service  to  God  is  one  of  freedom 
and  sonship  (vlodeala),  as  we  learn  from  Ro  8^'.  We 
have  been  emancipated  from  the  older  relationship 
to  the  law,  which  was  one  of  fear  and  constraint, 
summed  up  in  Ro  8",  in  the  phrase  ircf  D/ia  SovXelat 
.  .  .  tts  06/301-.  These  two  contrasted  states  of 
relationship,  belonging  respectively  to  the  new 
covenant  of  freedom  and  to  the  old  covenant  of 
bondage  to  the  law,  are  compared  by  way  of 
allegory  to  I.sa;ic,  son  of  the  freewoman  Sarali,  and 
Ishmael,  son  of  the  bond-.slave  (Traiolir/c?))  Ha";ar. 
The  one  is  represented  W  the  heavenly  Jerusalem 
and  the  other  by  Mount  Sinai  (Gal  4'^-5').  By  His 
death  Christ  has  freed  us  from  subjection  to  bond- 
age throughout  our  life  through  fear  of  death 
(He  2").  Obviously,  such  a  relationship  of  free, 
loving  service  to  Christ  is  not  adequately  expressed 
by  SouXfla.  The  slave  has  no  proper  cognizance  of 
his  master's  thoughts,  but  Christ  has  conlided  all 
His  Father's  purposes  of  love  to  His  disciples. 
'  Henceforth  I  do  not  call  you  servants  (slaves),  but 
I  have  called  you  friends '  (Jn  15"). 

LiTKRATTRB. — Nowack,  TTfb.  Arch,  and  the  correeponding 
work  ot  BenzinRer;  Kwnld,  AlterihilmT^,  pp.  280-2bS  (Eng. 
tr.  p.  210  ff.);  the  articles  on  Slaves  in  PRE,  in  Kiehm's 
im  B,  and  in  HambufKer'd  RE;  Mielziner,  Die  VerhaUmase 
der  Sklanen  bfi  di'n  alien  Uebrdem;  Mandl,  Da*  Sklavenrfcht 
de»  AT.  All  these  have  been  duly  utilized  in  the  preuent 
article.  Suptjestive  for  the  OT  is  ch.  vi.  on  'Society,  Morals,' 
eta,  In  McCurdy,  BFil  ii.  168fl.  On  Or»co-Koman  Society 
cf.  Smith's  Diet,  oj  Or.  and  Rom.  Ant.'\  and  the  Coticiee 
Diet,  by  Warre  Comish  (from  which  materials  have  been 
drawn).  Other  works  have  been  referred  to  in  the  course 
of  the  article.  On  Arab  slavery  see  I.ane's  Arabian  NighU, 
ch.  i.  note  13 ;  on  slavery-  in  the  light  of  Christian  ethics 
•ee  JuL  Kostlin,  ChruUiche  FAhik,  pp.  318,  400 IT.:  Lightfcot, 
Philmvm(\D\,rad.).  OWEN  C.  WuiTEHOUSK. 

SESIS  (B  Sfcreis,  A  Zeaatit).  1  Es  9"  =  Shashai, 
Ezr  10". 

8ESTHEL  (SwffTiX),  1  Es  9"  =  Bezalel  of  the  sons 
of  Pahath-moab,  Ezr  10*>. 

SET.— The  Eng.  verb  to  'set'  is  properly  a 
causative  form  of  '  sit,'  bat  it  has  been  confused 
with  'sit'  (partly  through  spelling  both  'set'), 
and,  like  other  monosyl.  verns,  has  come  to  be 
used  very  freely.  1.  Observe  the  foil.  pas.sage8 : 
Gn  30"  '  And  he  set  three  days'  journey  betwixt 
himself  and  Jacob'  (Wye.  'And  putte  a  space  of 
thre  daies  weye  betwixt,'  1388  'settide  the  space 
of  weie  of  tlire  daies  betwixt') ;  Ex  19"  'And  thoa 
shalt  set  bounds  unto  the  people  round  about' 
(Wye.  'ordeyn  termes,'  1388  '  sette  term<'8';  Tind. 
'sett  marks  rounde  aboute  the  peojile');  Ps  73" 
'Surely  thou  didst  set  them  in  slipperj  places'; 
Sir  10'  '  Such  an  one  setteth  his  own  soul  to  sale' 
{t^v  iavTov  i/'i'x^*'  fKirpoLKTov  irotfi) ;  Lk  7*  *  I  als(j  am  a 
man  set  under  authority  '  (To/raVo-ot) ;  He  12'  '  the 
race  that  is  set  before  ns '  (t6i'  irpoKtlfuvor  ^liiv 
i-lCira) ;  I'J'  '  for  the  joy  that  was  set  before  him  ' 
(drri  r^5  Tponeifjjyijt  airrifi  xt^P^t). 

2.  To  '  lie  set '  is  sometimes  used  a«  an  equivalent 
for  to  '  Bit,'  like  Scot.  '  be  seated,'  as  Lk  7"  Rhera. 


'  As  she  knew  that  he  was  set  downe  in  the 
Pharisees  house.'  So  Dn  7'°  'The  judgment  was 
set'  (2--  x:-^,  LXX  Kpnripioi'  iKdBiffe,  Vn]".  judicium 
sedit.  Wye.  'the  dom  -sate');  Sir  38^  'Who  is 
alway  carefully  set  at  his  work ' ;  Mt  5'  '  When  h» 
was  set,  his  disciples  came  unto  him' ;  27"  ;  Lk  2* 
'  This  child  is  set  for  the  fall  and  rising  a^ain  of 
many  in  Israel'  (KeiraO ;  Jn  13'"  'So  after  he  had 
washed  their  feet  .  .  .  and  was  set  down  again ' ; 
Ph  1"  'I  am  set  for  the  defence  of  the  gospel' 
(Ke7ixaL)  •  He  8' ;  Rev  3"  '  To  him  that  overcoraeth 
will  I  grant  to  sit  (raffdrai)  with  me  in  my  throne, 
even  as  I  also  overcame,  and  am  set  down  (iK6.8i(ja.) 
with  my  father  in  his  throne.' 

3.  To  set  means  to  arrange  in  proper  order,  in 
2  Ch  20"  '  Set  yourselves,  stand  ye  still,'  Ps  2* 
'  The  kings  of  the  earth  set  themselves '  (-ayn'. 
Driver  [Par.  Psalt.],  'take  their  stand'),  Ca  5'" 
'  His  eyes  are  .  .  .  fitly  set,'  Is  3**  '  Instead  of 
well  set  hair,  baldness.'  Cf.  E.\  25'  Tindale, 
'  Onix  stones  and  sett  stones  for  the  Ephod ' ; 
Chaucer,  Duchesse,  828 — 

'So  had  aba 

Surmounted  hem  alle  of  beaute. 

Of  maner  and  of  comlinessc. 

Of  stature  and  wel  set  gladnessa.* 

4.  The  sense  of  '  fix,'  '  determine,'  arises  natur- 
ally from  the  original  idea  of  'cause  to  stand.' 
Thus  Nell  2"  '  It  pleased  the  king  to  send  me  ;  and 
I  set  him  a  time  ;  so  Gn  17"'  '  At  this  set  time  in 
the  next  year'  (cf.  21',  Ex  9") ;  '  set  office'  (njiDx), 
1  Ch  9»-  "*  ",  2  Ch  SI"-  "  ;  and  esp.  '  set  feast '  (as 
the  tr.  of  n^to,  lit.  'appointed  time'  [of  sacred 
seasons])  Lv  IS'"-  RV  (7  such  are  enumerated  in 
this  ch.),  Nu  lO'"  (RV)  29»  al.  Cf.  Judgement  of 
the  Synode  at  Dort,  p.  4,  '  Hee  hath  chosen  in 
Christ  unto  salvation  a  set  number  of  ceitaine 
men,  neither  better  nor  more  worthy  then  others.' 

5.  The  following  phrases  are  mostly  bihlical : 
(1)  Set  one's  hand  to,  I)t  23="  'In  all  that  thou 
settest  thine  hand  to'  (RV  'puttest  thine  hand 
unto  '),  28".  Cf.  Ac  12'  Rhem.  •  And  at  the  same 
time  Herod  the  king  set  his  handes,  to  afflicto 
certaine  of  the  Church.'  (2)  Set  one's  heart  to, 
Ex  7"  'Neither  did  he  set  his  heart  to  this  also' 
(RV  'lay  even  this  to  heart,'  RVm  'ifeb.  set  his 
heart  even  to  this ') ;  Dt  'A2^  '  Set  your  hearts  unto 
all  the  words  which  I  testify  among  you  this  day'; 
1  Ch  22'"  '  Now  set  your  heart  and  your  soul  to 
seek  the  Lord  your  God';  Job  7"  '  What  is  man 
.  .  ,  that  thou  shouldest  set  thine  heart  upon 
him  ? ' ;  Ps  78'  '  A  generation  that  set  not  their 
heart  aright';  Jer  31"  'Set  thine  heart  toward 
the  highway ' ;  Dn  6'*  '  Then  the  king  ...  set  hia 
heart  on  Daniel  to  deliver  him.'  Cf.  1  Ch  29"  'I 
have  set  my  affection  to  the  house  of  my  God.' 
(3)  Set  one's  face.  This  is  one  of  the  many 
Hebraisms  in  which  the  *  face '  plays  its  part. 
It  has  two  meanings :  (a)  Turn  toward.i  unth  a 
purpose  or  resolution,  determine,  Nu  24'  'Rut  he 
set  liis  face  toward  the  wilderness ' ;  2  K  12"  '  And 
Hazael  set  his  face  to  go  up  to  Jerusalem';  Ezk 
21"  'Go  thee  one  way  or  other  .  .  .  whitherso- 
ever thy  face  is  set';  Jer  42"  '  If  ye  wholly  set 
your  faces  to  enter  into  Egypt,'  42'' ;  Lk  9"  '  He 
stedfastly  set  his  face  to  go  to  Jerusalem '  (rd 
Tpdffuvoy  irrtipiatr).  (b)  To  take  up  an  antagonistic 
position,  Lv  17'°  '  I  will  even  set  my  face  against 
that  soul  that  eateth  blood,'  20»  »• » ;  Jer  21'» 
'  1' or  I  have  sot  my  face  against  this  city  for  evil ' ; 
Ezk  6'  '  Son  of  man,  set  thy  face  toward  the 
mountains  of  Israel,  and  prophesy  against  them,' 
13"  15'  20«  21"  25"  28"'  29"  35"  38".  (4)  To  set 
eyrs  on,  Ac  13*,  is  not  as  now  '  to  catch  a  glimpse 
of,'  but  to  'fix  one's  eyes  upon  ' :  '  Then  Saul  (who 
is  also  called  Paul),  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  set 
his  eyes  on  him '  (irtriaat  tit  ainir,  KV  '  fastened 
his  eyes  on  him '). 


470 


SET 


SEVENEII 


6.  Tlie  verb  to  '  set'  is  used  with  certain  adverl)S 
in  a  SMiise  that  is  antiquated  or  Hebraistic:  (1) 
Set  at,  that  is,  'valued  at,'  2  K  12^  'The  money 
that  every  man  is  set  at'  (RV  'the  money  of  the 
persons  for  whom  each  man  is  rated,'  RVm  '  Ilcb. 
eacli  man  the  money  of  tlie  souls  of  his  estima- 
tion'). Cf.  Lv  Ti^  Tind.  '  Yf  any  man  will  geve  a 
eyngoler  vowe  unto  the  Lorde  acordynge  to  the 
value  of  his  soule,  then  shall  the  male  from  xx. 
yere  unto  Ix.  be  set  at  fyftie  sycles  of  sjlver ' ; 
and  Shaks.  Hamlet,  I.  iv.  C" — '  I  do  not  set  my  life 
at  a  pin's  fee.'  (2)  Set  at  nought,  i.e.  despise, 
treat  with  contempt  or  mockery,  Pr  1^  'But  ye 
have  set  at  nought  all  my  counsel,"  Mk  9",  Lk  23", 
Ac  4"  lO'",  Ro  U'".  (3)  Set  by,  i.e.  esteem,  2  Mac 
4"  '  Not  setting  by  the  honours  of  their  fathers, 
but  liking  the  glory  of  the  [Grecians]  best  of  all '  (in 
oidei/i  TiUiij.ei'Oi,  RV  '  making  of  no  account ').  Cf. 
Ps  15*  Pr.  BU.  '  He  that  setteth  not  by  hym  selfe, 
but  maketh  moche  of  them  that  fear  the  Lorde' ; 
Ridley,  Works,  27,  'Lest  I  should  seem  to  set  by 
mine  own  conceit,  more  than  is  meet';  Babees 
Book,  p.  72— 

•  He  that  good  mannere  seemes  to  Iftck, 
No  wyse  man  doth  set  by  ; 
Wythout  condicions  vertuoiis. 
Thou  art  not  worth  a  tlye.' 

So  set  much  by,  1  S  IS™  '  His  name  was  mach  set 
by,'  26="'» :  cf.  1  P  3*  Tind.  '  With  a  meke  and  a 
quyet  sprete,  wiiich  sprete  is  before  God  a  thinge 
moche  set  by.'  So  also  set  little  by  or  set  light  by, 
Dt  27"  '  Cursed  be  he  that  setteth  light  by  his 
father  or  his  mother';  Ezk  22',  Jth  11'^.  Cf.  Jer 
50'-  Cov.  '  She  shall  be  the  least  set  by  amonge 
the  nacions ' ;  Tindale,  Expos,  p.  229,  '  Called  the 
least,  that  is  to  say,  shall  be  little  set  by  and 
des])ised  :  called  great,  that  is  to  say,  shall  be 
mucli  set  by  and  had  in  reverence.'  Even  set  at 
light  is  found  iu  the  margin  of  2  S  19"^.  Cf.  Fisher, 
A  S/iiritual  Consolation  (in  Morley's  .Eni/.  Religion, 
p.  140),  'Such  as  we  set  but  at  light,  full  greatly 
shall  be  weighed  in  the  presence  of  his  most  high 
Majesty';  Knox,  Hist.  49,  'Perchance  this  hand 
of  Godl  will  make  them  now  to  magnifie  and 
reverence  that  word  which  before  (for  the  fear  of 
men)  they  set  at  light  price.'  (i)  Set  forth.  This 
phrase  has  various  meanings :  (a)  Begin  a  journey, 
Nu  2»  '  These  shall  first  set  forth'  ;  Ac  2P  'We 
went  aboard,  and  set  forth'  (df^x"'?/^"' .  RV 'get 
sail').  Cf.  Bunyan,  Boly  War,  68,  'The  time, 
therefore,  of  his  setting  forth  being  now  ejipired, 
he  addressed  himself  for  his  march';  Melvill, 
Diary,  172,  '  Sa,  parting  from  Berwik,  hartlie 
recommendit  to  the  blessing  and  grace  of  God,  be 
manie  godlie  men  and  women,  and  be  sum  sett  and 
convoyet  a  guid  way  on  our  jorney,  wo  cam  that 
night  to  Anweik.'  (b)  Bring  forward  or  cause  to 
be  seen,  Ps  141'  '  Let  my  prayer  be  set  forth  before 
thee  as  incense'  (psp,  LXX  KaTtvdm$-iiTti),  Vulg. 
dirigatur) ;  Ezk  27^°  '  They  hanged  the  shield  and 
helmet  in  thee  ;  they  set  fortli  thy  comeliness ' 
("03,  LXX  (buKav);  Dn  11""  'And  he  shall  set 
forth  a  great  multitude'  (Tc^ni) ;  Am  8"  'When 
will  tlie  new  moon  be  gone,  that  we  may  sell  corn  ? 
and  the  sabbath,  that  we  may  set  forth  wheat?  ' 
(i:-.nrinr)i,  AVm  and  RVm  '  open ') ;  Lk  1'  '  To  set 
forth  in  order  a  declaration  of  those  things'  (draTaf- 
aaSai) ;  Ro  V'  '  Whom  God  hath  set  forth  to  be  a 
projiitiation '  (ii>  Trpoidero  o  Seit,  AVm  '  foreordained,' 
RVm  '  purposed  ') ;  1  Co  4"'  For  I  think  that  God 
hath  set  fortii  us  the  apostles  last'  {iviSciiev) ;  Gal 
3'  '  Before  whose  eyes  Jesus  Christ  bath  been 
evidently  set  forth  '  {wpoeypdpri,  RV  '  was  openly 
set  forth  ') ;  Jude  '  '  Even  as  Sodom  and  Gomorrha 
.  .  .  are  eet  forth  for  an  example'  {■rpiKeti'Tai 
Se'iyij.a).  Cf.  Pr.  Bk.  Exhort,  to  Confession, 
'  When   we  assemble  and  meet  together  ...  to 


set  forth  His  most  worthy  praise,  to  hear  Ilia 
most  holy  word ' ;  Shaks.  King  John,  II.  i.  2'J5 — 

•  Up  higher  to  the  plain,  where  we'll  set  forth 
1b  best  appointment  all  our  regiments.' 

The  same  phrase  is  used  technically  of  placing 
food  before  one,  Jn  2'°  '  Every  man  at  the  begin- 
ning doth  set  forth  good  wine '  (TWr)aiv).  (c)  Praise, 
Sir  11  •"="""8  ■  We  may  not  vaunt  or  set  forth  our- 
selves.' Cf.  Pr.  Bk.  i549  (Canticle  foil.  Te  Deum), 
'  Speak  good  of  the  Lord  ;  praise  him,  and  set  him 
up  for  ever ' ;  and  Shaks.  Lucrece,  34— 

'  Beauty  itself  doth  of  itself  persuade 
The  eyes  of  men  without  an  orator  : 
What  needeth  then  apolo},'ies  he  made 
To  set  forth  that  which  is  so  singular?* 

(5)  Set  forward.    See  Forward  in  vol.  il.  p.  60. 

(6)  Set  on  means :  [a]  Place  on  table,  Gn  43^'- " 
'And  he  washed  his  face  .  .  .  and  said.  Set  on 
bread';  Bel  "  'Set  on  the  meat,  and  make  ready  the 
wine.'  (b)  Incite  or  urge  to  some  course  of  action, 
Jer  38**  '  Thy  friends  have  set  thee  on,  and  have 
prevailed  against  thee '  (Tn'sn) ;  43'  '  But  Baruch 
the  son  of  Neriah  setteth  thee  on  against  us '  (n'ro). 
(c)  As  a  ptcp.  bent  on.  Ex  32-^  '  They  are  set  on 
mischief.'  (d)  To  attack,  Ac  IS'"  '  No  man  shall 
set  on  thee  to  hurt  thee '  (dnSrideTal  (roi).  (7)  Set  to, 
meaning  affix,  of  a  seal,  Jn  3^  '  He  that  hath 
received  his  testimony  hath  set  to  his  seal  that 
God  is  true '  (iff,ppdyi.,7(i').  Cf.  Ex  21»'  Tind.  '  Yf  he 
be  sette  to  a  summe  of  money,  then  he  shall  geve 
for  the  delyveraunce  oft'  his  lyfe,  accordyng*  to 
all  that  is  put  unto  him';  Adams,  ]yuiks,  i.  18, 
'  In  testimony  whereof  I  have  set  to  my  hand,  and 
sent  it  you  as  a  token  of  the  gratitude  of  my 
heart.'  (8)  Set  up,  meaning  establish,  Mai  3'° 
'  They  that  work  wickedness  are  set  up.' 

J.  Hastings. 

SETH  [no,  i.e.  Sheth  ;  LXX  and  NT  2^9  [in  1  Ch 
V  A  has  2jjs]).— The  third  sou  of  Adam,  Gn  4^  (J) 
5»(P),  ICh  1',  Lk  3^.  In  the  first  of  these  pits- 
sages  J  assigns  a  characteristic  etymology  for  the 
name.  Eve  being  made  to  say  '  God  hath  set  [shoth] 
for  me  another  seed  insteaid  of  Abel,'  for  which 
reason  she  called  him  Sheth  {i.e.  '  setting '  or  '  slip,' 
Dillm.).  In  Sir  49'"  Seth  is  coupled  with  Shem  as 
'glorified  among  men.'  A  heretical  Jewish  sect, 
whose  tenets  afterwards  found  acceptance  in  Chris- 
tian Gnostic  circles,  derived  its  name  from  Seth. 
These  Sethians  or  Sethites  held  (like  other  Gnostics, 
Jemsh  and  Christian)  that  the  material  universe 
was  the  creation  of  angels  and  not  of  the  supreme 
Dynamis,  to  whom  Seth  owed  his  birth.  Theo- 
doret  (Hccr.  Fab.  1.  14)  appears  to  identify  thera 
with  the  Ophites  :  Sijffiavoi  oOt  'Oipiavous  fi  'O^irai 
Tites  (5vo/idi'ou<rt.  Some  of  the  Jewish  Sethites 
believed  Seth  to  have  been  the  Messiah,  and  later 
Gnostics  held  that  Jesus  Christ  was  a  re-incarnation 
of  Seth.  For  further  information  as  to  this  sect  and 
its  relations  to  the  Ophites  and  Cainites  (a  subject 
beyond  the  scope  of  this  art.),  see  Friedliinder,  Der 
rorchri-stliche  judische  Gnusticisiiiiis,  189S,  p.  18  ft".  ; 
Prenschen,  Die  apokr.  gnost.  Adamsrhriften,  IHCO, 
passim;  and  cf.  Epiphanius  (ado.  J/ar.  xxxix.), 
pseudo-Tertull.  (viii.),  and  Philast.  (iii.). 

J.  A.  Selbie. 

SETHUR  (TW?,  SofloiJ/)).— The  Asherite  spy,  Nu 

1313, 14|_ 

SETTLE  (.T)jn).— See  Temple,  p.  TlOi-n. 

SEVEN,  SEVENTY.  — See  Numrer,  voL  iii 
pp.  562  f.,  56o*. 

SEVENEH  (nji? ;  Gr.  ^vijvri,  Syene ;  Egyp.  Swn, 
Dem.  Swne,  Copt,  coyan  [Swan] ;  Arab.  ^^'^ 
[Asioan]).—A  city  on  the  east  hank  of  the  Nile 


SEVER 


SHA^VEAI.M 


471 


immediately  above  the  First  Cataract,  the  southern 
frontier  post  of  Egypt.  For  some  distance  north 
of  Aswan  the  cultivable  portiim  of  the  Nile  Valley 
is  extremely  narrow.  At  A.swan  the  hills  draw 
in  rapidly  on  either  side,  and  the  town  is  built 
against  a  rocky  barrier  of  sandstone  supported 
by  a  dvke  of  granite  that  crosses  the  Nile  and 
forms  tlie  cataract.  Here  there  is  no  cultivation 
on  either  bank  beyond  that  of  a  few  palm  trees  and 
tiny  p.atches  of  t-'arden  ;  but  the  little  island  of 
F.lepliantine  in  the  middle  of  the  stream  oppo.site 
Aswan  is  almost  clothed  with  vegetation,  and 
formed  the  ancient  capital  of  the  lirst  nome  of 
Upper  Egypt.  West  of  the  river  are  cliffs, 
shrouded  with  sand,  but  pierced  by  countless 
tombs  of  the  former  inhabitants  of  the  island. 
Ele|)hantine-Syene  must  have  formed  an  almost 
ideal  frontier  fortress.  Immediately  above  this 
point  the  narrow  passage  of  the  Nile  was  rendered 
dangerous  and  very  tedious  for  boats  by  the  rocks 
and  islands  and  rushing  currents  of  the  cataract. 
On  the  west  bank  there  is  not  even  a  path ;  the 
adventurous  sightseer  must  clamber  over  the 
rocks  ;  on  the  east  bank  there  was  only  one  clear 
road,  and  this  led  through  a  long  narrow  defile 
p.ir.illel  to  tlie  river  into  the  open  ground  opposite 
I'liiUc.  Elephantine,  the  island,  was  the  secure 
metropolis  of  the  district,  the  residence  of  the 
governor,  and  the  centre  of  the  local  cult  of  the 
cataract  gods.  Its  name  in  Ei'yptian  was  'bw, 
'  elephant,'  demotic  1/6  (ItjiS),  a  name  which  seems  to 
have  been  applied  not  only  to  the  island  but  also 
to  the  surrounding  district,  including  the  quarries 
of  gianite.  Syene  itself  was  probably  considered 
a-s  only  a  mainland  suburb  of  Elephantine.  '  Wine 
of  su'ii '  is  mentioned  in  very  early  inscriptions, 
but  it  is  doubtful  whether  the  reference  ia  to 
Syene.  In  the  Egyptian  inscriptions  the  name  of 
the  town  is  known  only  at  a  very  late  date  ;  its 
temple  is  of  Ptolemaic  age.  Gradually  the  im- 
portance of  Elephantine  waned,  and  that  of  Syene 
rew  ;  with  the  fall  of  paganism  even  the  name 
Vi  (Elephantine)  was  given  up  and  that  of  Sionn 
took  its  jilace.  It  is  remarkable  that  Ezekiel 
employs  the  name  Suieneh  and  not  Yeb  for  the 
Boutliem  frontier ;  the  references  are  Ezk  29'° 
30*  ;  the  reading  of  RVni  '  from  Migdol  to  Syene' 
is  the  best.  (See  MlGDOl,).  Herodotus  often 
refers  to  'EXf^oj'Tli'j;.  In  ii.  30  he  speaks  of  Ele- 
phantine, Daphnre  near  Pelusium,  and  Marea  as 
the  garrison  cities  re.sj>eetivcly  against  the  Ethi- 
opians, against  the  Syrians  ancf  Arabs,  and  against 
Libya.  His  only  reference  to  Syene  is  in  li.  28, 
where  he  mentions  '  hills  between  {sic)  Syene  and 
Ele|ihantine '  in  a  fantastic  passage  which  is  no 
guide  to  facta  ;  his  geography  in  L  pper  Egypt  ia 
always  faulty.  F.  Ll.  Griffith. 


BEYER.— The  verbs  to '  aever '  and  to  '  separate ' 
lK)th  come  from  Lat.  separare,  the  former  tlirough 
Old  Fr.  sevrer,  the  latter  directly.  The  form 
'sever'  now  expres.ses  a  sharper  stroke  than 
'  separate,'  but  in  older  Eng.  no  distinction  waa 
observed  between  them.  All  the  verbs  tr^  'sever' 
in  AV  are  also  tr^  'separate.'  Cf.  Bacon,  Adv.  of 
Lenrn.  ii.  307,  '  We  see  the  chatV  may  and  ought  to 
be  severed  from  the  corn  in  the  ear'  ;  and  Khem. 
NT  (note  on  Ac  10^),  '  But  when  Heretikes  began 
to  rise  from  among  the  Christians,  who  professed 
("hrist'a  name  and  sundry  Articles  of  faith  as  true 
believers  doe,  the  name  Christian  was  to  common 
to  sever  the  Heretikes  from  true  faithful  men  : 
and  thereupon  the  Apostles  by  the  holy  Ghost 
imposed  this  name  Catholike  upon  the  Heleevera 
which  in  al  pointa  were  obedient  to  tlie  Churches 
doctrine.'  J.  HASTINGS. 

SEVERAL.  —  Juat  as  'sever'  in  AV  meana  to 


% 


appointed  to  be  kept  in  several  places'; 
wood.  Hist.   107,   '  Their  [elders]  office  is 


separate,  so  '  several '  means  separate,  distinct,  at 
2  K  15'  '  He  was  a  leper  unto  the  day  of  his  death, 
and  dwelt  in  a  several  house';  Mt  25"  'to  every 
man  according  to  his  several  ability.'  So  aevcr- 
ally,  1  Co  12"  '  dividing  to  every  man  severally  aa 
he  will.'  Cf.  Dt  7«  Tind.  'Tlie  Lorde  thy  God 
hath  chosen  the  to  be  a  severall  people  unto  him 
silf;  Tymme,  Calvin's  Genesis,  8S2  (Gn  49^), 
'  Every  one  of  them  blessed  he,  with  a  severall 
blessing ' ;  Kidley,  Works,  390,  '  Our  own  servanta 
were  taken  from  ua  before  and  ...  we  each  one 

Calder- 
is  as  well 
severally,  as  conjunctly,  to  watch  diligently  over 
the  flock  committed  to  their  charge.' 

J.  Hastings. 

^  SHAALABBIN  (r?^es» ;  B  SoXaiSe/.-,  A  Za\aft.di> ; 
Vulg.  Sdchin).  —  A  town  of  Dan  mentioned  be- 
tween Irshemesh  (Beth-shemesh)  and  Aijalon  (Jos 
19").    It  is  apparently  the  same  place  as  Shaaldim. 

C.  W.  Wilson. 
SHAALBIM  (D-3^iji ;  in  Joshua  LXX  B.4  have 
QaXa^dv,  in  1  Kings  B  has  Bij5a\o/ifi,  A  ^aXa/Stl/x  ; 
Vulg.  Salabim,  Salebim). — A  town  mentioned  with 
Mt.  Heres  and  Aijalon  as  being  occupied  by  the 
Amoritea  who  had  driven  the  Danites  into  the 
hills  (Jg  1").  It  was,  with  Makaz  and  Beth- 
shemesh,  in  the  district  of  one  of  Solomon's 
commissariat  officers  (I  K  4');  and  if  it  be  the 
same  place  as  Shaalabbin,  it  is  mentioned  with 
Aijalon  and  Betli-shemesh  in  Jos  ig".  It  is  prob- 
ably identical  with  Shaalbon,  the  home  of  one  of 
David's  heroes.  Eusebius  and  Jerome  (Onom.  s. 
ZaXafitU,  Salabim)  identify  it  with  Salaba,  a  large 
village  in  the  territory  of  Sebaste  ;  but  this  is  too 
far  north  of  Aijalon.  Elsewhere  (Com.  ad  Ezek.  48) 
Jerome  mentions  'the  towers  of  Aijalon,  and  Selebi, 
and  Eiumaus '  in  connexion  with  Joppa  and  the 
territory  of  Dan.  From  this  Conder  (I'EF  Mem. 
iii.  52)  identifies  Shaalbim  with  Selbit,  about  8  miles 
N.  of  Beth-shemesh,  3  miles  N.W.  of  Aijalon,  and 
2  miles  N.  of  Eiumaus.  Possibly  (see  Driver, 
Text,  of  Ham.  54)  Shaalbim  should  be  read  for 
Shaalim  in  1  S  9*.  C.  W.  Wilson. 

SHAALBONITE,  THE  CjskTn;  in  2  S  4  2aXa- 
pupelTris  ;  in  1  Ch  B  6  'Ofid,  A  0  ZaKa^uii/t ;  de 
Salboni). — Eliahba,  the  Shaalbonite,  one  of  David's 
heroea  (2  S  23^''',  1  Ch  IT"),  was  a  native  of  Shaal- 
bon, —  a  place  not  mentioned  elsewhere.  See 
Shaalbim.  C.  W.  Wilson. 

SHAALIM,  THE  LAND  OF  (D-fey-nx ;  B  rt,,  rht 
'EaaaKi/i,  A  t.  7.  ZaaXei^x ;  terra  Salim). — Saul, 
when  searching  for  his  father's  asses,  passed 
through  the  land  of  Shaalim  (IS  9*)  after  he  had 
traversed  the  hillcountrv  of  Ephraim,  and  the 
land  of  Shalishah,  and  before  he  readied  the  '  land 
of  Jemini '  (KV  and  AV  '  land  of  the  IJeiijamites ') 
— probably  part  of  the  territory  of  IJenjaiuin.  If 
Saul  started  from  Gibeah,  and  Shalishah  was,  aa 
seems  probable, in  thewes  tern  hills(seeSHALIsilAH), 
the  land  of  Shaalim  must  have  been  a  portion  of 
the  hill-country  east  of  Lydda,  and  not  far  from 
the  boundary  of  Benjamin.  It  is  possible,  how- 
ever, that  Shaalim  ia  a  textual  error  for  Shaalbim 
of  Jg  1",  Jos  19*".     See  Driver,  Text  0/  Sam.  p.  54. 

C.  \V.  Wilson. 

SHAAPH  (rii's*).— 1.  The  son  of  Jahdai,  a  Caleb- 
ite,  1  Ch  2".  2.  A  son  of  Caleb  by  his  concubine 
Maacah,  1  Ch  2".  In  both  passages  B  haa  Ziyat, 
A  Zdyatp. 

SHAARAIM  {a:isi^  ;  ZaKaptln  ;  Saraim,  Saarim). 
— 1.  A  town  of  Judali,  in  the  Shephfilah  (lowland), 
mentioned  (Jos  15")  in  the  same  group  with 
Adullam,  Socoh,  and  Azekah.  It  waa  unknown 
to    Eusebiua   {Onom.   s.   Zapaely).      Conder   (PA'/ 


472 


SHAASHGAZ 


SHALLUM 


Mnn.  iii.  194)  suirgests  Khurhet  S'nireh,  west  of  Beit 
AtAb  ;  others  identify  it  with  Zakariya  (Riehm, 
HWB).  Shaaraim  is  perhaps  mentioned  again  in 
the  pursuit  of  the  Philistines  after  the  death  of 
Goliath  (1  S  17°-),  when  '  tlie  wounded  Philistines 
fell  down  by  the  way  to  Shanraim  (KVni  '  the  two 
gates '),  even  unto  Gath  and  Eliron.'  The  meaning 
of  the  word  is  '  two  gates,'  and  the  LXX  takes 
it  in  this  passage  to  mean  the  gates  of  (Jath  and 
Ekron.  See,  further,  art.  Gai,  and  Wellh.  Savi. 
ad  loc. 

2.  A  town  of  Simeon  (1  Ch  4")  which  appears  as 
Sharuhen  in  Jos  19^,  and  as  Shilhim  in  Jos  15^. 
It  was  situated  in  the  Negeb,  and  was  possibly  the 
same  place  as  the  Canaanite  '  fortress  of  the  land 
of  Sharuana,'  mentioned  in  the  annals  of  Thothmes 
in.  (RP  ii.  38).  This  indicates  that  the  form 
Sharuhen  is  correct.  C.  W.  \\'1LS0N. 

SHAASHGAZ  (iJfl?).— A  chamberlain  of  king 
Ahasueriis,  Est  2'''.  The  LXX  reads  Val,  tlie  same 
name  as  it  gives  to  the  official  referred  to  iu  vv.*- '°. 
See  Hegai. 

SHABBETHAI  (vsr).  —  A  Levite  who  opposed 
the  action  of  Ezra  in  the  matter  of  the  foreign 
marriages,  Ezr  10"  (B  ^afiaOal,  A  Ka/3,3a9af)  = 
Sabbateus  of  1  Es  9".  He  is  mentioned  also, 
along  with  other  Levites,  in  Neh  8'  (LXX  om.), 
as  explaining  tlie  law  to  the  people  (in  1  Es  9^ 
Sabateus)  ;  and  in  11'"  (B.Vn*  om.,  «=•*  2o/9/3a- 
Saios)  as  one  of  '  the  chiefs  of  the  Levites  who  had 
the  oversight  of  the  outward  business  of  the  house 
of  God." 

SHACHIA  (.xrf,   so  Baer;    the  MSS  show  the 

variants  n;;?',  n--s,  x;r^',  .n;=y,  the  last  being  sup- 
ported by  the  Syr.  and  the  LXX  [B  ^afiia,  A 
2f/3t(i,  but  Luc.  2cx"i],  while  the  forms  in  :  instead 
of  2  can  claim  the  support  of  the  Vulg.  Sechia). — 
A  son  of  Shaliaraim,  a  Benjamite,  1  Ch  8'°. 

SHADDAI.— See  art.  God,  vol.  ii.  p.  IDS'. 

SHADRACH  (:ni;r,  SeJpdx).— The  name  given  to 
Hananiah,  one  of  Daniel's  companions,  by  the 
prince  of  the  eunuchs,  Dn  1'.  It  is  related  in 
Dn  3  how  Shadrach,  along  with  Meshach  (Mishael) 
and  Abed-nego  (Azariah),  all  of  whom  had  been 
advanced  to  high  offices  (2^"),  resisted  the  command 
to  pay  homage  to  Nebuchadnezzar's  golden  image, 
how  all  three  were  in  consequence  cast  into  a  tiery 
furnace,  and  how  they  were  miraculously  delivered. 
See  Hananiah,  No.  2,  and  Three  Children 
(Song  of  the). 

The  etymoloCT  of  the  name  Shadrach  is  un- 
certain. Frd.  IJelitzsch  (Lib.  Dan.  xii.)  suggests 
that  it  is  a  variation  of  the  Bab.  Siidur-Al;u, 
'  command  of  the  moon-god,'  comparing  the  Assyr. 
TSm-ilu  =  ':K-c]K,  and  tlie  Heb.  '■incit.  This  view- 
is  pronounced  by  Sehrader  (KAT'  429  [COT  ii. 
125])  to  have  'considerable  probability.' 

J.  A.  Selbie. 

SHAGE  (k;?»  ;  B  SuXd,  A  Soy.)).— The  father  of 
Jonathan,  one  of  David's  heroes,  1  Ch  11".  See 
Aqee  and  Shammah,  No.  3. 

SHAHARAIM  (D-Jjjs*  ;  B  Zaap^\,  A  2aapi),u).— A 
Benjamite  who  is  said  to  have  begotten  chOdren  in 
the  '  field  of  Moab '  after  he  had  sent  away  two 
wives,  Hushira  and  Baara,  1  Ch  8«  (KVm).  The 
passage  is  obscare. 

SHAHAZUMAH  (.ip'smj*  Kethibh;  AV  Shaha- 
zimah,  after  Kerg  nc'yqs*;  B  XaXel/j.  kot4  ed\a(r<ra.u,  A 
Soffeiuafl,  Sehesima). — A  town  allotted  to  Issacliar, 
which  was  apparently  between  Mt.  Talxir  and  the 
Jordan    (Joa    19'^).       Its    site  was    unknown    to 


Eusebius  and  Jerome  (Onom.  s.  Zaci/id,  Sasima), 
and  it  has  not  yet  been  identified. 

C.  W.  Wilson. 
SHALEM  {ahv  ;  f/s  2aXi)/i  ;  in  Salem).— Accoid- 
ing  to  AV  (cf.  Luther's  translation),  which  followB 
tlie  LXX,  the  Pesh.,  and  the  Vulg.,  'Shalem' 
(Gn  33")  is  a  proper  name,  and  considered  to  be  a 
town  near  Shechem.  Eusebius  and  Jerome  (Onom.) 
believed  Shalem  and  Shechem  to  be  the  same  place. 
But  if  Shalem  was  a  town,  it  must  have  been  Sitlim, 
4  mUes  east  of  Ndblus  (Shechem).  In  Gn  28^  c^?-? 
bl-slullem  is  translated  'in  peace,'  and  in  Gn 
33"*  we  should  probably  translate  '  in  peace  to  the 
city  of  Shechem,'  as  in  KV  which  follows  the 
Targums  of  Onkelos  and  pseudo-Jonathan,  the 
Samaritan  Codex,  the  Arabic  Version,  and  the 
great  Jewish  and  other  commentators  of  modem 
times.    See  Dillm.  ad  loc.  C.  W.  Wilson. 

SHALISHAH,  THE  LAND  OF  (^Vp? ;  B  ^  -y^ 
SeXxa,  A  17  77J  SaXiffo-d  ;  terra  Salisa). — Saul,  when 
searching  for  his  father's  asses,  passed  through 
the  'land  of  Shalishah' (1  S  9'')  after  crossing  the 
'  hill-country  of  Ephraim,'  and  before  reaching  the 
'land  of  Shaalim.'  Leaving  Gibeah  he  must  have 
crossed  Mt.  Ephraim  in  a  northerly  direction,  and 
the  '  land  of  Shalishah '  must  consequently  have 
been  in  the  western  hills.  Baal-shalishah  (2  K 
4''-'),  which  was  very  probably  in  the  land  of 
Shalishah,  is  said  by  Eusebius  and  Jerome  (Onom. 
s.  Baidijaptadd,  Bethsalisa)  to  have  been  in  the 
Thamnitic  toparchy,  15  M.P.  north  of  Lydda. 
This  points  to  Khurbct  Sirisict.,  or,  according  to 
Conder  (PEF Mem.  ii.  285),  to  Khurhet  K^-Jj  Thilth. 
See  Shaalim.  C.  W.  Wilson. 

SHALLECHETH,  THE  GATE  (nr'-tr  iiP ;  ^  xAi, 
iracTToipopiov,  porta  quce  ditcit). — One  of  the  gates 
of  the  '  house  of  Jehovah  '  which  Solomon  was  to 
build  after  the  death  of  David  (1  Ch  22).  It  is 
mentioned  only  in  1  Ch  26'*,  in  a  list  of  the  gate- 
keepers (AV  'porters')  of  the  sacred  enclosure  as 
settled  by  David.  The  gate  was  on  the  west  side 
of  the  outer  court,  behind  the  temple  buildings, 
and  apparently  at,  or  near,  the  head  of  the  ramp 
or  causeway  (■■'^?t^)  which  led  up  to  the  sanctuary 
from  the  ravine  which  Joseiihus  calls  the  Tyropoeon 
Valley.  It  has  been  suggested  (cf.  Smith's  DB,  s.v.) 
that  the  causeway  was  at  '  Wilson's  Arch  ' ;  but,  in 
the  uncertainty  which  still  exists  with  regard  to 
the  site  of  the  temple,  and  the  condition  of  the 
hill  in  the  time  of  Solomon,  this  can  only  be  re- 
garded as  speculation.  Some  authorities  (e.g. 
Riehm  [HfVB],  Speaker's  Com.),  from  the  meaning 
of  the  word  Shallecheth,  '  casting  forth,'  consider 
the  gate  to  be  that  by  which  the  ashes  and  the  otial 
of  the  victims  were  thrown  out.  It  is,  however, 
probable  that  the  refuse  of  the  temple  was  carried 
out  on  the  east  or  south  side,  and  burned,  or  other- 
wise disposed  of,  in  the  Kidron  Valley.  The  LXX 
rendering,  '  Gate  of  the  Pastophorion,'  appears  to 
point  to  a  building  with  chamoers,  of  which  there 
were  several  round  the  outer  enclosure  of  the 
temple.  C.  W.  WiLSON. 

SHALLUM  (mV  and  dScI).— 1.  One  of  the  kings 
of  Israel,  2  K  IS'"""  (rcXXoO/n).  He  headed  a  con- 
spiracy against  Zechariah,  the  last  king  of  Jehu's 
dynasty,  murdered  him,  and  usurped  his  throne 
(c.  740  B.C.).  After  the  short  period  of  a  month, 
he  himself  fell  a  victim  to  MenaHEM  (see  vol.  iii. 
p.  340»).  2.  It  is  not  improbable  that  in  Jer  22" 
(ScXXtJm)  d^  (AV  and  RV  'Shallum')  is  meant  to 
be  an  epithet,  'the  requited  one,'  applied  to 
Jehoahaz,  or  it  may  be  that  Shallum  was  the 
original  name  of  the  latter  (see  Jehoahaz,  No.  2). 
I'lie  Chronicler  takes  (perhaps  from  this  passage) 
Shallum  as  a  proper  name,  and  makes  nim  th« 


SHALLUN 


SHAME 


473 


fourth  son  of  Josiah,  1  Ch  3"  (B  Za\oin,  A  2a\- 
XoiJ/x).  3.  The  husband  (or  son,  LXX  in  2  Kings) 
of  HULDAII  the  prophetess,  2  K  22"  (B  LeXX^^, 
A  ^tWo^M).  2  Ch  34"  (BA  i:c\XiM).  4.  A  Judahite, 
1  Ch  2*'-  (B  i:aXor.^,  A  in  v."  ZaWoi'n).  5.  A  de- 
scenilant  of  Simeon,  1  Ch  4'^  (^aX^M)-  6.  A  hi^h 
priest,  son  of  Zadok,  1  Ch  6"- 1»  (B  ^aXJi^i,  A  i;«X- 
Xoi'm),  Ezr  7'  (B  ZeXoO/x,  A  ^cXXoi^m)  =  Salem  of 
1  Es  8'  and  Salemas  of  2  Es  1'.  7.  A  son  of 
Naphtali,  1  Ch  7"  (B  ^aXuni^ii-,  A  ^cWou^l),  called 
in  Gn  46=*  and  Nu  26'"'  Shillem  (cV?* ;  in  former 
passage  A  ^vW-^/a,  in  latter  B  IDcXXt),  A  i:«XX^/i), 
with  the  gentilic  name  Shilleniites  ('Dferi ;  B  6 
2<XXi)Mei,  A  0  ^fXXjjMi),  Nu  2G".  8.  The  eponym 
of  a  family  of  gatekeepers,  1  Ch  Q'""*  (B  laXli/i, 
A  first  time  2aXXci/i),  Ezr  2*'  =  Neh  7"  (B  2aXoi'./x, 
A  SfXXoi;/i),  called  in  1  Es  5'-*SalUM,  and  (possibly) 
in  Neh  12^  Mkshullam.  9.  A  Korahite  gate- 
keepur,  1  Ch  9'"  (B  SaXu^ii^,  A  raXci/.) "  (BA 
'l^iaXJifi),  called  in  26'- '- '  Mesiielejiiah  and  in 
20"  Siielemiah.  It  is  not  at  all  unlikely  that 
this  name  should  be  identified  with  the  preceding. 
10.  Father  of  Jehizkiah,  an  Ephraimite  chief,  2  Ch 
28"  (I'fXX^/i).  11.  One  of  the  porters  Avho  had 
married  a  foreign  wife,  Ezr  10"  (B  TeWrifi.,  n  TaiX- 
Xei/i,  A  SoXXtJm).  12.  One  of  the  sons  of  Bani  who 
had  committed  the  same  offence,  Ezr  10"  (B  i;aXoi''/i, 
A  ZeWovfi).  13.  The  son  of  Uallohesh,  ruler  of  a 
district  of  Jerusalem.  He  and  his  daughters  are 
recorded  to  have  assisted  in  the  repairing  of  the 
wall,   Neh  3"  (B  SaXoil^,   A   SaXXouM,   N   OaXov/i). 

14.  The  uncle  of  Jeremiah,  Jer  32  [Gr.  39] '  (SaXii^i). 

15.  Father  of  Maaseiah,  the  keeper  of  the  threshold, 
Jer  35[Gr.  42]*(-f^'iA').  J.  A.  Selbie. 

8HALLUN  (p^s').— The  son  of  Col-hozeh,  the 
ruler  of  the  di.strict  of  Mizpah,  who  took  part  in 
the  repair  of  the  wall  and  gates  of  Jerusalem, 
NehS'MLXXom.). 

8HALMAI See  Salmai. 

SHALMAN  (15^).— Hos  l<fl*  (only)  '  as  Shalman 
gpolled  Betharbel  in  the  day  of  battle.'  The 
identity  of  Shalman  and  of  Binn-AliUKL  (whicli 
see)  are  botli  doubtful.  The  former  name  may  be 
a  contraction  of  S/uiimaneser,  although  the  pro- 
phet's language,  implying  some  event  fresh  in  the 
memory  of  his  hearers,  does  not  suit  the  reign  of 
Shalmaneser  II.  (n.c.  860-825)  or  even  Shalmancser 
III.  (783-773).  If  Shalmaneser  IV.  (727-722)  be 
referred  to,  the  words  must  be  a  later  gloss  (so 
AVullliauseii,  Kl.  Proph.  ad  toe).  To  the  sug- 
gestion of  Schrader  [KAT*  441  [COT  ii.  140])  that 
the  reference  may  be  to  an  incursion  (cf.  2  K  IS'-"") 
of  the  Moabite  king  Salamanu,  mentioned  in 
Tiglath-pile.ser'8  great  triumphal  inscription  (II 
Rawl.  ()7,  line  60),  both  Wellh.  and  Nowack 
object  that  such  an  occurrence  would  have  been 
too  insignificant  to  supply  material  for  the  pro- 
phet's comparison.  The  versions  give  us  no  help, 
the  LXX  li  reproducing  '?k31!<  n'j  \::\v  it'?  by  us 
ipXuo  [i.e.  ■ft'  for  tr]  laXo^uiF  it  toO  oiKov'lepo^od/x 
(A  'ltpo§ia\),  while  the  V^ulp.  has  Hcut  vaxiatus 
est  Salmnna  a  domo  ejus  qui  jtidicavit  B<tnl,  think- 
ing apparently  of  the  slaughter  of  Zalnninna  by 
Gideon  (Jenjhbaal),  Jg  8.  J.  A.  Seluie. 

SHALMANESER  (ifKffl't',  ZaXa^»o<rff(fp,  Snl- 
maruuiiir). —  The  name  is  abbreviated  from  As.syr. 
Sulman-a.saridu,  '  the  god  Sulman  (of  peace)  is 
chief.'  In  2  K  17'  it  is  said  tliat  'SlialnianuHer, 
king  of  Assyria,'  came  up  against  Hosliea  of 
Samaria,  who  submitted  at  Brst,  but  afterwards, 
being  detected  in  a  conspiracy  to  revolt  with  the 
aid  of  the  Egyptians,  was  deposed  and  imprisoned. 
Shalmaneser  then  besieged  Samaria,  n.c.  725.  This 
was  Shalmaneser  IV.  of  the  Assyr.  monuments. 


whose  original  name  was  UluIA,  which  he  changed 
to  Shalmaneser  when  he  seized  the  throne  (on  the 
25th  day  of  Tebet,  B.C.  727)  after  the  death  of 
Tiglathpileser  III.  He  seems  to  have  been  • 
successful  general,  and  to  have  had  no  hereditary 
rights  to  the  crown.  Josephus  (Ant.  IX.  xiv.  2), 
quoting  from  Menander,  states  that  he  attacked 
Elukeus  of  Tyre,  and,  though  tlie  Assyrian  lleet 
of  60  vessels  was  destroyed  by  the  Tyrian  fleet 
of  12,  the  city  was  closely  invested  on  the  land 
side.  Shalmaneser  died  at  the  beginning  of  the 
month  febeth  during  the  siege  of  Samaria,  B.C.  722, 
after  a  reign  of  only  5  years.  See,  also,  art. 
Shal.man.  a.  H.  Sayce. 

SHAMA  (ir^xf;  B  ZaiiaBi,  A  ZomauI).— One  of 
David's  heroes,  1  Ch  ll". 

SHAMBLES 1  Co  I0=»  'Wliatsoever  is  sold  in 

the  sliambles,  that  eat'  (Gr.  ^idKfXXoi',  from  Lat. 
macclium,  a  provision  market).  The  word  'sham- 
bles' is  now  used  of  the  slaughter-house,  but  for- 
merl}-,  according  to  its  origin,  denoted  the  place 
wliere  the  meat  was  sold.  It  is  the  Anglo-Sax. 
scamel,  a  stool,  from  Lat.  scamcllum,  a  little  stool 
or  bench.     Cf.  Congreve,  Juvenal's  Satires,  xi. — 

'  Many  there  are  of  tfie  same  wretclied  Kind, 
Whuiu  llieir  desi'uiriii*,'  Creditors  nia.v  find 
Lurking  in  Shanililes  ;  where  with  borrowed  Coin 
They  buy  choice  Meats.' 

J.  Hastings. 
SHAME  (Heb.  e'"i3  '  to  be  ashamed,'  n;^3  'shame,' 
also  other  words  ;  Gr.  o/irxw7j,  artfila,  etc.). — In 
the  biblical  use  of  the  word  '  shame '  there  is  a 
blending  of  several  meanings  :  besides  the  sense  of 
shame  proper,  felt  for  oneself  (Job  IP,  Lk  14', 
2  Th  3")  or  for  another  ( Ezr  9»,  Pr  10»  17^  2  Co  g-"), 
there  is  included  the  feeling  of  disappointment 
(Job  6»,  Ps  3^)^  Jer  14»  22-2  .  cf  jj,,  gi)  ^^  deception 
(Ps  14',  Jer  2^''),  the  experience  of  disaster  (Job  8--, 
Ps  40")  or  disgrace  (including  reproach,  rebuke,  or 
insult)  (Jg  IS',  Ru  2",  Job  16>»  19»,  Ps  22«  35''  69', 
Pr  25'",  Ph  3") ;  and  thus  are  combined  the  sub- 
jective sense,  the  inward  feeling,  and  the  objective, 
its  outward  cause.  This  feeling  is  ascribed  figur- 
atively to  a  fountain  (Hos  13"),  Lebanon  (Is  33"),  the 
sun  (Is  242"),  and  a  vessel  (Ro  9'^',  2  Ti  2^).  Shame 
is  awakened  by  the  exposure  of  some  parts  of  the 
body  uncovered  literally  (compare  Gn  2^  with  3' 
9^-",  Ex  3225,  2  S  6-"  \b\  Is  20^,  Mic  1"),  or  figur- 
atively (Is  47»,  Jer  13»,  Nab  3»,  Rev  3'»  W),  by 
outrage  on  &  woman's  person  (2  S  13"),  by  dis- 
honouring treatment  of  the  body  (Is  50",  Mk  \2*, 
Lk  20",  1  Th  2-),  as  crucifixion  (He  6"  12-),  and 
even  by  the  appearance  of  a  corpse  (1  Co  15"). 
Poverty  may  make  ashamed  (Pr  13'*,  1  Co  U"),  so 
beggary  (Lk  16^),  defeat  in  battle  (2  Ch  322',  pg  44a 
80"),  or  even  disea-se  (Nu  12").  A  wicked  wife 
(Pr  12<),  or  a  bad  child  (Pr  10"  29"),  may  cause 
shame.  Shame  arises  from  any  breach  of  acknow- 
ledged rules  of  propriety,  as  a  woman's  being 
shaven  (I  Co  11'),  or  speaking  in  church  (1  Co  14*"), 
or  a  man's  having  long  hair  (1  Co  11'*).  Sins  so 
unseemly  are  found  among  men,  that  not  only  the 

Sractice  of  them  awakens  shame  (Ro  l-^- •'*  6-', 
udo  '*),  but  even  the  very  sight  or  mention  of 
them  (Ezk  16",  Eph  5'^).  Among  the  sins  men- 
tioned as  bringing  shame  are  folly  (Pr  3"  14"  18"), 
refusal  of  instruction  (Pr  13"),  ignorance  of  truth 
of  God  (1  Co  15»*),  nuarrelsomeness(Pr25",  1  Co  6'), 
haste  in  speech  (Pr  18"),  riot  (Pr  28'),  idleness 
(Pr  10»),  wilfulness  (Pr  29"),  lying  (Pr  13°),  dis- 
honesty (2  Co  4»  ;  cf.  RV  and  AV),  theft  (Jer  2-'«), 
disrespect  to  parents  (Pr  19*),  ingratitude  (1  Co  4'*), 
pride  (Pr  11»). 

Shame  in  one  or  other  of  its  senses  is  regarded  aa 
the  Divine  punishment  of  sin,  which  God  threatens 
(Ps  132'",  Jer  23"  48"),  and  which  the  pious  in  OT 


474 


SHAMEFACEDXESS 


SHAMMAH 


are  sure  will,  in  answer  to  prayer,  fall  on  His  and 
their  enemies  (Ps  S'"  44'  53'  70-  86").  On  the  other 
hand,  God  promises  (Ps  37'"),  and  the  pious  are 
assured,  that  tliis  experience  will  either  not  be 
theirs  at  all  (Ps  25'  31"  34'  69«  119^'),  or  if  ever 
theirs,  that  tliey  will  be  delivered  from  it  (Is  29" 
54*  61',  Jl  2-"').  Even  God's  cliosen  people  may  be 
exposed  to  disgrace  and  disaster,  making  tliem 
first  of  all  asliamed  of  their  state  (2  Ch  30",  .ler 
jois  143)^  and  then  truly  ashamed  of  the  sin  that 
has  brought  it  on  them  (Ezr  9^  Jer  3V^,  Ezk  16'", 
Hos  10*) ;  but  sometimes  it  is  long  before  this 
feeling  is  aroused  (Jer  3^  0"  8"- '-).  Fidelity  to 
God's  cause  may,  however,  also  bring  shame  (Ps 
441s  (jy?)  The  sm  tliat  most  surely  is  followed  by 
shame  is  idolatry  (Is  l^  42"  44"  45'8,  Jer  17"  48'^ 
Hos  4'  10°),  or  alliance  with  idolators  (Gn  34", 
Ezr9«).  The  idol  itself  is  sliameful  (Jer  3**  11", 
Hos  9'" ;  perhaps  Hos  4'  reading  witli  Targ.  Pesh. 
'  the}'  liave  exchanged  their  glory  for  infamy ' ;  cf. 
Jer  2"  and  Ps  106-°),  and  its  worship  shameful, 
perhaps  because  often  licentious  (see  Chej'ne  on 
Hos  4'  and  9'°).  Worthy  of  note  in  this  connexion 
is  the  change  of  the  names  Eshbaal  (1  Ch  8^), 
Meribbaal  (1  Ch  S^),  Jerubbaal  (Jg  e^-),  to  Ish- 
bosheth  (2  S  2»),  Mephibosheth  (2  S  4''),  and  Jerub- 
besheth  (2  S  IP').  Although  the  alterations  show 
the  prophetic  editor's  aversion  to  idolatry,  yet  the 
names  in  tlieir  original  form  are  not  necessarily  a 
proof  of  idolatry,  as  the  name  Baal  may  be  xiaei  as 
a  title  of  J"  (Hos  2'^).  Akin  to  the  sin  of  idolatry 
was  trust  in  any  foreign  alliances  for  safety  instead 
of  in  J",  and  this  too  brings  '  shame,'  i.e.  disappoint- 
ment (Is  20'  SC-',  Jer  2^;  cf.  Ezr  8-).  See, 
further,  Driver,  Par.Psalt.  (Glossary.*,  'abashed,' 
'  ashamed '). 

In  NT  the  sense  of  shame  is  often  mentioned  by 
St.  Paul.  He  is  not  asliamed  of  the  gospel  (Ro  1"), 
of  his  converts  (2  Co  7'* ;  cf.  9*),  of  his  hope  (Ro5»), 
of  his  faith  (Ro  9^  10"),  of  his  trials  (Ph  1^,  2  Ti  1'=), 
of  his  boasting  (2  Co  10*).  Onesiphorus  was  not 
ashamed  of  Paul's  chain  (2  Ti  1'*),  and  Timothy  is 
called  on  not  to  be  asliamed  of  the  witness  of  the 
Lord,  or  of  Paul  His  prisoner  (2  Ti  1*).  The  unruly 
are  to  be  brought  to  shame  by  exclusion  from  the 
cliurch  (2Th  3'*).  While  the  enemies  of  Christ  are 
put  to  shame  (Lk  13"),  and  the  false  accusers  of 
His  disciples  (Tit  2*,  1  P  3'«),  they,  although 
slandered  and  ill-treated  (2  Co  6*),  need  not  be 
ashamed  to  sufl'er  for  His  name  (1  P  4")  j  for,  if 
they  are  ashamed  of  Him  now.  He  will  be  ashamed 
of  them  in  the  day  of  judgment  (Mk  S^,  LkO'-");  but 
if  they  are  faithful  they  need  not  fear  shame  in  that 
day  (1  Jn  2^),  for  Christ  is  not  ashamed  to  call  the 
sanctified  brethren  (He  2"),  and  God  is  not  ashamed 
to  be  called  tlie  God  of  those  who  seek  a  better 
country  (He  11") ;  but  the  wicked  and  unbelieving 
shall  awake  to  shame  (Dn  12' ;  cf.  Jn  5^). 

A.  E.  Garvie. 

SHAMEFACEDNESS.— The  adj.  'shamefaced' 
occurs  in  Sir  26"-^  32"'  41'»-«,  and  the  subst. 
'  shamefacedness '  in  Sir  41",  I  Ti  2'.  But  in  the 
1611  editions,  and  for  some  time  after,  the  spelling 
is  always 'shaniefast' and  'shamefastness.'  Davies 
says  he  has  not  found  '  shamefaced,'  '  shamefaced- 
ness' earlier  than  1661. 

Trench  (On  AY  of  NT^  p.  66)  says  :  '  Shame  fastnesi  is  formed 
upon  shamejast,  that  is,  fait  or  established  in  honoiirabie  sham^. 
To  chuni^e  tills  into  shamefacedness  is  to  allow  all  the  meaning 
and  force  of  the  word  to  run  to  the  surface,  to  leave  it  ethically 
a  far  inferior  word, — and  marks  an  unfaithful  guardianship  of 
the  text,  both  on  their  part  who  first  introduced,  and  theirs 
who  have  so  long  allowed,  the  change.'  And  Davies  (Bible 
Bjvjlish,  p.  12),  after  describing  'shamefastness'  as  'that 
modesty  which  is  fast  or  rooted  m  the  character,'  adds,  *  Tlie 
change  is  the  more  to  be  regretted  because  shamefacedness  is 
seldom  employed  now  in  a  verv  good  sense  ;  it  has  come  rather 
to  describe  an  awkward  ditflrlence,  such  as  we  sometimes  call 
sheepishness.'  But  the  confusion  between  'shaniufafitness'  and 
'shamefacedness'  is  as  old  as  ICll.  Shaks.  does  not  use  the 
lubsi.,  but  he  has  Uie  adj.  twice :  io  ///  Henry  VI.  iv.  viii  63, 


'shamefaced'  is  the  only  spelling:  in  RicK  I.I.I.  Iv.  142,  th« 
folio  has '  shamefaced.'  the  quartos  *  shamefast.'  In  the  Rhemish 
NT  (note  on  Lk '2450)  we  read,  'S.  Augustine  saith  that  Christ 
him  self  not  without  cause  would  have  bis  sign  to  be  fixed  in 
our  foreheads  as  in  the  seat  of  shamefastnes,  that  a  Christian 
man  should  not  be  ashamed  of  the  reproach  of  Christ,'  which 
shows  how  the  confusion  could  arise.  And  James  MelviU 
(Diary,  79)  uses  the  word  'shamefastness'  practicaUy  in  the 
modern  sense  of  '  shamefacedness,'  '  Vit  my  guid  God,  of  his 
free  grace,  and  love  towards  me,  a  vean,  vyll,  corrupt  youths ; 
partlie  by  his  fear  wrought  in  my  heart,  partlie  by  necessar 
occupation  in  my  calUng.  and  partlie  be  a  certean  schamfastnes 
of  a  bashful!  nature,  quhilk  he  pat  in  me,  sa  keipit  me  that  1 
was  nocht  overcome  nor  miscaned  be  na  woman  offensivlie  to 
his  kirk,  nor  grievuslie  to  my  conscience,  in  blotting  of  my 
bodie.'  For  the  proper  sense  of  'shamefastness,' cf.  Ohaucer, 
Doctor's  Tale,  65— 

'Shamefast  she  was  in  mayden's  shamefastnessa ' ; 

Spenser,  FQ  iL  ix.  43 — 

'  She  is  the  fountain  of  your  modestee  : 
You  shamefast  are,  but  Shamefastnes  it  selfe  is  shea  * ; 

Elyot,  Governour,  i.  61 — 'The  moste  necessary  thinges  to  be 
obser^'ed  by  a  master  in  his  disciples  or  scholars  ...  is  sham- 
fastnes  and  praise.  By  shamfastiies,  as  it  were  with  a  bridell, 
they  rule  as  well  theyr  dedes  as  their  appetites." 

J.  Hastings. 
SHAMGAR  (n3p?>,  Sa/ne-yttp).— Son  of  Anath,  and 

i'udge  in  the  south  of  Israel  between  Ehud  and 
)eborah.  He  slew  600  Philistines  with  an  ox- 
goad  (Jg  3"  5').  The  name  is  Assyr.  like  Samgar- 
nebo  (Jer  39^),  and  is  a  shortened  form  of  some 
such  name  as  Sumgir-Bel,  '  be  gracious,  O  Bel,' 
with  the  divine  name  omitted.  Anath  is  also  the 
Assyr. -Bab.  Anatu,  the  wife  of  the  god  Anu  (see, 
however.  Babylonia,  vol.  i.  p.  215"'),  unless  we 
are  to  read  Ben-anath,  '  the  son  of  Anatu,'  which 
is  the  name  of  a  Canaanite  in  one  of  the  Tel  el- 
Amama  tablets.  Tlie  names  show  that  Bab. 
influence  lingered  in  the  south  of  Palestine  for 
some  time  after  the  period  of  the  Tel  el-Amarna 
tablets,  when  Bab.  names  were  not  uncommon 
there  (see  Moore's  Judges,  p.  106). 

A.  H.  Sayce. 
SHAMHUTH  (mnap  ;  B  2aXoii9,  A  Zo^aci^).— The 
fifth  captain  for  the  fifth  month,  1  Ch  27*.  He  is 
called  the  Izrahite  (B  6  'E<Tp3.e,  A  o  'lefpaA),  and 
is  the  same  as  Shammoth  the  Harorite  (a  scribal 
error  for  Harodite)  of  1  Ch  ll'"  and  Shammah  the 
Harodite  of  2  S  23". 

SHAMIR  (t:5>,  2omi}/>)-— a  Kohathite,  son  of 
Micah,  1  Ch  24«. 

SHAMIR  (I'cif' ;  Taiulp ;  Samir). — The  name  of 
two  places  in  Palestine. 

1.  (A  'Za<l>eip)  A  town  in  the  hUl- country  of 
Judah  (Jos  IS"**),  which  is  mentioned  in  the  same 
group  with  Jattir  and  Socoh.  Eusebius  and 
Jerome  from  the  reading  of  A  alter  the  name  to 
Shaphir  (see  Nowack,  Kl.  Provh.  on  Mic  1"). 
Conder  (PEF  Mem.  iii.  262)  identifies  it  with 
Khurbet  SOmerah,  which  lies  west  of  Dcbtr,  and  in 
this  agrees  with  Gu^rin  (Judie,  iii.  364,  'Sumra'). 

2.  (A  Sa^dpeio)  The  home  and  burial-place  of 
Tola,  a  man  of  Issachar,  who  judged  Israel  for 
twenty-three  years  (Jg  10''*).  Shamir  was  in 
Mt.  Ephraim,  and  Schwarz  (151)  identifies  it  with 
Sanilr,  a  picturesquely  situated  village  between 
Samaria  and  En-gannim  (Jenin). 

C.  W.  Wilson. 
SHAMLAI.— See  Salmai. 

SHAMMA  (K'::5* ;  B  Zepui,  A  2a/i/ti).— An  Aaherite, 
1  Ch  7". 

SHAMMAH  (.i':c>).— 1.  The  son  of  Renel  the  son 

of  Esau,  and  a  tribal  chief  {"-iM)  of  Edora  (Gn  36'»'  " 
[■So/i^,  in  V."  D  i'o/xai],  1  Ch  I"  [B  2om^,  A  Zofi/ifi). 
2.  (B  in  1  S  )6»,  2  S  13«  SaM,  2  S  13»,  1  Ch  2"  20' 
Zafiai,  2  S  2P'  S^Ai"! ;  A  in  1 S  16"  17"  2a^M<i,  1  Ch 
2"  Xaiuui,  1  Ch  20'  2a/«ids)  The  third  son  of 
Jesse  and  brother  of  David.     Like  his  two  eldet 


SHAM.MAII 


SHAPIIAX 


475 


brothers,  he  joined  Saul's  forces  in  the  campaign 
Bgainst  tlie  Philistines,  and  was  with  the  Israelite 
army  in  the  valley  of  Elah  when  Uavid  overcame 
Goliath  (1  S  17"'").  According  to  a  later  writer, 
he  was  present  at  the  anointing  of  David  bj* 
Samuel  (1  S  16'"").  He  was  the  father  of  Jonadab, 
the  friend  and  adviser  of  Aninon  (2  S  13"-),  and 
also  of  that  Jonathan  whose  exploit  against  a 
Philistine  giant  is  recorded  in  2  S  21-"'-.  His  name 
is  variously  given  as  Shammah  (~!7  1  S  16'  17"), 
Shimeah  (li'^y  2  S  13^-  ^-'),  Shimei  (•;=?',  ^ire  kv??* 
2  S  21-'),  and  Shimea  (K::;ci-  1  Ch  2'^  20'). 

3.  (2  S  23"  B  la/xaid,  A'2oM/«ds  ;  23»»  B  -Zaiiwiv,  A 
SaMi-ds;  1  Ch  ll-**  B  ^uiXi,  A  Zayi))  The  son  of 
ACEE,  a  Hararite  (read  ii.nn  in  2  S  23",  see  v."^, 
1  Ch  11"),  one  of  David's  famous  'Three.'  The 
special  act  of  bravery  to  which  he  owed  Ids  position 
is  briefly  recorded  in  2  S  23"-  •=.  The  Philistines, 
in  the  course  of  a  foray,  had  driven  the  Israelites 
from  a  held  of  lentils  (1  Ch  11"  barley)  at  Lchi 
(read  n;n^  to  Lelii  (Jg  IS""")  for  .1;^^  to  the  troop  {?), 
80  most  moderns;  see  Driver,  ad  loc).  The 
Israelites  lied  before  the  enemy,  but  Shammah 
held  his  ground,  and  by  his  courageous  stand 
brought  about  a  victory  for  Israel.  The  succeed- 
in"  incident  which  is  narrated  in  2  S  23'"'-,  viz.  the 
well-known  exploit  of  David's  three  mighty  men, 
who  broke  through  the  hosts  of  the  I'hilistines 
and  brought  him  water  from  the  well  of  Beth- 
lehem, ha.s  been  frequently  ascriljcd  to  Shammah 
and  the  two  other  members  of  'the  Three';  but 
the  tliree  heroes  who  performed  this  feat  are 
clearly  stated  in  v."  to  belong  to  'the  Thirty.' 
Since  no  previous  mention  has  been  made  of  '  the 
Thirty,'  it  is  probable  that  vv."-"»  are  not  in  their 
original  place,  and  that  v.'"''  really  forms  the 
continuation  of  vv."-"  (so  Wellh.,  Driver).  In  the 
parallel  narrative  (1  Ch  11""-)  Shammah  is  not 
mentioned  by  name,  and  the  exploit  which  made 
his  name  famous  is  wrongly  ascribed  to  Eleazar 
the  son  of  Dodo.  Klosteriuann  plausibly  suggests 
that  the  incorrect  reading  in  v."  '  into  a  troop' 
(■\'"'r)  represents  an  original  'to  battle'  (.TpnSv'?), 
and  that  the  Chronicler  accidentally  passed  ^rora 
this  phrase  in  v.*  to  the  same  phrase  in  v.", 
omitting  the  intervening  narrative. 

According  to  the  most  probable  reading  of  2  S 
23'--  *  Shammah  was  the  father  of  Jonathan,  one 
of  David's  'Thirty.'  In  this  pas.sage  the  word  sun 
has  been  accidentally  omitted,  and  we  must  restore 
'  Jonathan  the  son  of  Shammah '  ("iTf*-!?  injVi;,  so 
Driver,  Budde,  Kittel,  Klost.,  Lohr)  ;  the  parallel 
pas-sage  (1  Ch  11")  gives  'Jonathan  the  son  of 
Shage '  ('iV'Yi  fnj'i'),  but  the  reading  '  Shammah  '  (for 
SImge)  is  conlirmed  by  Lucian  (iio/jaid).  Possibly 
Shuge{;:\i)  has  arisen  from  a  confusion  with  'Age' 
(KiK)  in  2  S  23".  Wellhausen  (Text  d.  B.  Sam.  p. 
216)  prefers  the  reading  of  the  Chronicler  (kjj'  or 
';y|5),  and  supposes  that  Jonathan  the  Hararite 
was  the  son  of  Shage  (which  he  would  restore  in 
V."  for  Agee)  and  brother  of  Shammah.  Klostcr- 
mann,  adopting  the  reading  of  Lucian  in  2  S  23" 
('H\d  =  .T''i<),  identihes  Shammah  with  Shimei  the 
son  of  Elah,  one  of  Solomon's  twelve  monthly 
ollicers  ( I  K  4'"). 

4.  (2S  23»  B  Sot/id,  A  Sa^/Mit;  1  Ch  11"  B 
raMOcitf,  A  'ZaiiwO ;  27"  B  SaXaiitf,  A  raMoiiC)  A 
Ilarodite,  i.e.  probably  a  native  of  'Ain-liarod  (see 
Harod),  one  of  'the  Thirty,'  and  captain  of 
Solomon's  fifth  monthly  course.  In  the  parallel 
lists  he  is  called  '  Shammoth  the  Ilarorite'  (1  Ch 
1 1"  "!\-\^ri  nits' ;  read  'inq.T  the  Ilarodite)  and 
'  Shamhuth  the  Izrahite'  (1  Ch  '.i7'  n-irrr  nin;p). 

Since  the  lists  of  heroes  given  in  2  S  23  and 
1  Ch  1 1  are  a<lmittedly  in  confusion,  it  is  po8.sible 
that  (3)  and  (4)  are  identical,  and  that  the  obscure 
*  Hararite '  (2  S  23"- »)  is  a  mistake  for  '  Harodite.' 

J.  F.  StenniKQ. 


SHAMMAI  (•rf).—i.  A  Jerahmeelite,  1  Ch  2» 
(B  Sa/iai,  \  ^a^nal).  In  v.»  the  LXX  runs  the 
Heb.  'ss*  TJ<  ('brother  of  Shammai')  together  as 
' Axaadfias  (B)  or  ' Ax'caiJifii  (A).  2.  The  'son'  of 
Kekem  and  '  father'  of  Maon,  1  Ch  2*"-  (B  ra/ioJ, 
A  ZaiJitia.1).  3.  A  Judahite,  1  Ch  4"  (B  ilffj.ii',  A 
Xefifial).     See  Genualogy,  I'V.  54. 

SHAMMOTH.— See  Shamhuth,  and  Shammah 
No.  i. 

SHAMMOA  (yi=i^).— 1.  The  Reubenite  spy,  Nu 
13*  (B  ^apLomiX,  A  :So/«iXi7;\).  2.  One  of  David's 
sons,  2S  5'*  (B  liaAc/ioCj,  A  ^a/j./iod(),  1  Ch  14*  (B 
—a/ida,  A  ^afifiaoO,  H  2a/iaid)  ;  called  in  1  Ch  3' 
Shimea  (k-jIZV  ;  B  Sd^ai',  A  -afiad).  3.  A  Levite, 
Neh  11"  (I'ttMouel)  =  Shemaiah,  Xo.  6.  4.  The 
head  of  a  priestly  family,  Neh  12'*  (BAj**  om., 
tt'-  *  Zya^oOe). 

SHAMSHERAI  (1?'=9  ;  B  'Ufuurapii,  A  Za/iaapid). 
—A  Benjamite,  1  Cii  8'-^. 

SHAPE. — In  AV,  as  in  earlier  Engli.sli  generally, 
'  sh.ipe  '  is  less  definite  and  less  material  than  now. 
In  Wis  18'  the  mod.  meaning  is  nearly  approached, 
'  Not  seeing  their  shape '  (/io/)0^,  Vulg.  Jigura),  but 
even  there  it  is  'outward  form'  generally.     In  Lk 
3'--  '  The  Holy  Ghost  descended  in  a  bodily  shape 
like  a  dove   upon   him,'   the  meaning   is  simply 
'appearance'  (Gr.  cwixa.TiK(}  fioei,  KV  'in  a  bodily 
form ') ;  so  Jn  5"  («rSos,  liV  '  form ').     The  only 
other  occurrence  is  liev  9'   'The  shapes  of   the 
locusts  were  like  unto  horses  prepared  unto  battle ' 
(rd  o/jLOiw/jLara,  KVm  'the  likenesses').     Cf.  Shaks. 
Samlet,  1.  ii.  80  — '  All  forms,  moods,  shapes  of 
grief '  (folios  '  shews ') ;  Jtd.  Cces.  II.  L  253 — 
•  It  will  not  let  you  eat,  nor  talk,  nor  sleep  ; 
And,  could  it  work  so  much  upon  your  shape 
As  it  hath  much  prevailed  on  your  condition, 
I  should  not  know  you,  Brutus.' 

In  Rhera.  NT  Mk  W  is  tr"  '  And  after  this  he 
appeared  in  another  shape  to  two  of  them  walking,' 
and  on  this  word  there  is  a  note,  '  Christ  thougli 
he  have  but  one  corporal  shape,  natural  to  his 
person,  yet  by  his  omnipotencie  he  may  be  in 
whatsoever  forme,  and  appears  in  the  likenesse  of 
any  other  man  or  creature,  as  he  list.  Therefore 
let  no  man  think  it  strange,  that  he  may  be  under 
the  forme  of  bread  in  the  B.  Sacrament.' 

The  old  pass.  ptcp.  of  the  verb,  '  shapen,'  is  found 
in  Pa  51°.  So  Tind.  uses  the  old  past  tense  '  shope' 
in  Gn  2'  'Then  the  Lorde  God  shope  man,  even  of 
the  moulde  of  the  erth.'  J.  Hastings. 

SHAPHAM  (D55» ;  B  So/Sdr,  A  Xaipdfi).—A  Gadite, 
1  Ch  5'^ 

SHAPHAN  (!??»  'coney  or  rock-badger';  LXX 
^a<pdv,  -acfxpdf,  X((p<t>dv  ;  Vulg.  Saphan :  on  this 
name  as  evidence  that  '  superstition  of  the  totem 
kind  had  still  a  hold  on  Israelites  in  the  last  years 
of  the  independence  of  the  kingdom  of  Judali,' 
see  W.  U.  Smith  in  the  Journal  of  Philo/ogi/, 
18S0,  p.  75,  and  Gray,  JfPN  p.  103).—!.  Scribe 
or  finance  minister  (Ewald)  in  the  reign  of  Josiali. 
He  is  brought  prominently  before  us  in  the  story 
of  the  discovery  of  '  the  book  of  the  law '  in  the 
temple,  2  K  22^"-,  2  Ch  .'U"-^.  The  system  of 
raising  money  for  the  repairs  of  the  temple  which 
had  been  instituted  by  Jehoash  (2  K  12),  seems 
from  this  narrative  to  have  been  in  regular  ojiera- 
tion  since  that  time.  The  money  chest  which  had 
been  set  up  by  Jehoiada  was  emptied  periodically 
undtr  the  supervision  of  the  high  priest  and  of  the 
king's  scribe.  It  was  on  one  of  these  occasions 
that  Hilkiah  communicated  to  Shanhan  his  great 
discovery  of  '  the  book  of  the  law.'    The  Chronicler 


176 


SHAPHAT 


SHAEEZER 


(2  Ch  34')  represents  Shaphan  as  having  been 
accompanied  by  two  other  ollicials.  In  any  case 
it  was  to  Sliaplian  that  Hilkiah  entrusted  the 
precious  volume,  and  it  was  from  Shaphan's  lips 
that  Josiah  heard  the  words  that  so  deeply  moved 
him.  Shaphan  also  formed  one  of  the  deputation 
that  subsequently  visited  the  prophetess  Huldah. 
Assuming  that  this  was  tlie  Shaphan  who  was 
father  of  Ahikam  (2  K  22'-,  2  Ch  34™,  Jer  26'^),  he 
was  grandfather  of  Gedaliah  (2  K  25--,  Jer  39'* 
40»-  »•  i>  41=  43'*).  The  only  objection  to  this  sup- 
position lies  in  the  fact  that  Ahikam  seems  to 
take  precedence  of  his  father,  it  is,  of  course, 
possible  that  he  may  have  tilled  a  higher  office. 
Wliatever  tlie  truth  may  be  concemin<;  Shaphan's 
connexion  with  the  discovery  of  '  the  book  of  the 
law,'  it  is  at  least  certain  that  he  belonged  to  the 
party  of  reform  whose  inspiration  was  derived 
from  that  book,  and  who  were  friendly  to  Jere- 
miah. One  of  his  sons,  Ahikam,  protected  the 
prophet  from  the  fury  of  the  hostile  priests  and 
prophets  (Jer  26-'').  Another,  Elasah,  was  one  of 
the  two  whom  Jeremiah  employed  to  carry  his 
letter  to  the  captives  in  Babylon  (Jer  29').  From 
the  windows  of  the  chamber  of  j'et  another  son, 
Gemariah,  Baruch  read  '  the  words  of  the  Lord 
in  the  ears  of  the  people '  (Jer  36'°),  words  which 
were  given  still  further  publicity  by  the  action  of 
Gemariah's  son,  Micaiah  (\t."-  '-).  And  when  the 
last  agony  of  Jerusalem  was  over,  it  was  wth 
Shaphan's  grandson,  Gedaliah,  that  the  aged  pro- 
phet found  an  honoured  asylum  (Jer  39'''). 

2.  Father  of  Jaazaniah,  who  was  ringleader  in 
idolatry  of  the  seventy  ancients  of  the  house  of 
Israel,  as  seen  by  Ezekiel  (8"). 

N.  J.  D.  White. 

SHAPHAT  (D?ir).— 1.  The  Siraeonite  spy,  Nu  13» 
(BA  Za^ir,  F  ^a<pai').  2.  The  father  of  the  pro- 
phet Elisha,  1  K  ig'"-  (B  ZtK^dS,  A  Za0dr) '«  (BA 
2a0(iT),  2  K  3"  (B  'Iuffa0dfl,  A  i:a0dT)  6^'  (B  om., 
A  Ilaipdr).  3.  A  name  in  the  royal  genealogv  of 
Judah,  1  Ch  3-^  (B  Sa^tiff,  A  Sa^dr).  4.  AGadite, 
1  Ch  5"  (LXX  [?  confusing  with  isd]  6  ypau.fj.aT(vs). 
3.  On?  of  David's  herdmen,  1  Ch  27="  (B  Zuipiv, 
A  Zoitpir). 

SHAPHIR  (T??> ;  LXX  raXCj  ;  Vulg.  pnlchra).— 
One  of  the  towns  or  villages — none  of  them  very 
far  from  Eleutheropolis — which  the  prophet  Micali 
addressed  (Mic  1").  According  to  Eusebius  and 
Jerome  (Onom.  ta^xlp,  Saphir),  it  was  a  village 
of  Judah  in  tlie  hUl-conntry  between  Eleuthero- 
polis and  Ascalon.  Robinson  {BMP''  ii.  34,  note), 
van  de  Velde  {S.  and  P.  159),  and  Conder,  doubt- 
fully {PEF  Mem.  ii.  413),  identify  Shaphir  with 
one  of  three  mud  villages,  called  es-SudJir,  which 
stand  near  each  other  about  3i  miles  S.E.  of 
Esdud,  Ashdod.  This  appears  to  be  the  place 
referred  to  in  the  Onomasticoti,  but  the  identifica- 
tion is  uncertain.  On  the  possible  identity  of 
Shaphir  with  Shamir  of  Jos  IS**  see  Nowack  on 
Mic  1".  C.  W.  Wilson. 

SHARAI  {it ;  B  2o/Koi),  A  'Aooi,  K  SomCe).— One 
of  the  sons  of  Bani,  who  had  married  a  foreign 
wife,  Ezr  10«. 

SHARAR.— See  Sacab. 

SHAREZER  (lixii' [see  Baer,  ad  loc."];  lapiaap, 
B.A.  in  2K  19"  and  Zee  7^  B  in  Is  37»« ;  i:a/)dcro, 
Luc.  in  2  Kings,  SAQ  in  Isaiah.  In  its  original 
Assyrian  form  the  name  is  probably  =  tor-u.?ur, 
'  protect  the  prince ' ;  in  meaning,  a  prayer  addressed 
to  some  god  whose  name  is  omitted.  Bel-sharusur, 
Marduksharusur ,  and  similar  Assyrian  names  are 
then  unabbreviated  parallels.  1 1  has  been  suggested 
that  the  full  name  of  the  Sharezer  of  2  K  19  i;  =  ls 


37]  was  Kergal-sharttsur,  a  Babylonian  name  whick 
occurs  in  Jer  39'  [Nekgal-shaf.ezer].  The  origin 
of  the  conjecture  is  an  untenable  identification  of 
Sharezer  with  the  Nernilus  of  the  historian  Aby- 
denus  [see  below].  In  Zee  7"  the  complete  name  ia 
very  pioliably  Bel-sharezer). 

1.  In  conjunction  with  a  brother,  Adeammelech, 
named  as  the  assassin  of  the  Assyrian  king  Senna- 
cherib (2  K  19"=  Is  3'^).  The  murderers  are 
described  as  Sen. 'a  sous,  and  the  scene  of  the 
assassination  is  given  as  the  temple  of  NiSKOCH. 
According  to  the  Babylonian  Chronicle,  Sen.  was 
killed  during  an  insurrection,  and  the  date  was 
towards  the  close  of  the  year  681  (20th  Tebeth). 
The  other  records  of  the  assassination  are  an  in- 
scription of  Nabuna'id,  an  extract  from  Polyhistoi 
(Berosus)  in  Eusebius,  and  another  from  Abydenus. 
These  agree  with  the  Chronicle  in  stating  that 
Sen.  was  killed  by  one  of  his  sons.  They  contain 
no  reference  to  the  complicity  of  two  sons.  Even 
Abydenus  is  explicit  in  saying  that  one  son  was 
the  murderer.*  Of  the  two  names  given  by  the 
Hebrew  narrative,  that  of  Sharezer  is  most  affected 
by  this  preponderance  of  negative  testimony. 
Adrammelech  has  the  support  of  the  names 
Adramelus  and  Ardumuzanus  (Ardumus.anus), 
which  are  given  by  Abydenus  and  I'olyhistor 
respectively.  One  of  Sen.'s  sons,  also,  has  a 
name  [ASSiir-S^nn-uiubsi)  which  is  said  to  be  cap- 
able of  readings  approximately  the  same  as  these 
variants  (Scheil  in  ZA  xi.  425-27).  There  is 
nothing  of  a  definite  character  to  be  said  on  the 
other  side  in  favour  of  Sharezer.f  Yet  the  nega- 
tive argument  is  so  much  e  silentio  that  an  explana- 
tion of  the  appearance  of  the  name  in  the  Hebrew 
text  is  pressingly  required  before  an  error  can  be 
granted.  W.  M.  Miiller  imagines  too  improbable 
a  history.  He  supposes  that  Adrammelecli  was 
'  Assyrianized  '  into  Sharezer  by  some  archieologist. 
Adrammelech  was  regarded  as  a  translation,  Shar- 
ezer was  a  retranslation  put  alongside  of  it  in  the 
text  (ZATW  xvii.  332).  It  can  only  be  said,  mean- 
time, that  Sharezer's  name,  his  part  in  the  assassi- 
nation of  Sen.,  and  his  relationship  to  the  king, 
all  rest  on  the  authority  of  the  Hebrew  narrative. 

The  revolt,  in  which  Sen.'s  murder  was  an  inci- 
dent, was  obviously  designed  to  secure  the  throne 
for  the  rebel(s),  and  to  prevent  the  accession  of  the 
desiunated  heir  Esarhaddon.  In  this  it  failed. 
Esarhaddon  triumphed  within  six  weeks,  by  the 
second  of  Adar,  although  for  an  unknown  reason 
he  did  not  formally  assume  tlie  crown  until  three 
and  a  half  months  later  (18th  Sivan).  The  murderers 
lied  to  Armenia,  according  to  the  OT  narrative. 
There  was  likely  to  be  a  welcome  for  such  exiles 
there.  TThe  fragment  of  Abydenus  says  that  Esar- 
haddon put  Adramelus  to  death. 

•  '  Qui  a  jUio  Adrameio  eft  iTtteranptut.'  By  a  transposition 
of  this  sentence  and  the  preceding,  an  attempt  has  been  made 
to  bring  a  certain  Nerfjttu^  there  mentioned  into  some  con- 
nexion with  the  assassination  of  Sennacherib.  But  even  then 
he  is  neither  Sen.'8  son  nor  his  assassin.  It  ia  inadmissible  to 
read  the  statement  regarding  him  in  the  light  of  the  weaiier 
rather  than  of  the  stronger  testimony.  The  supposition  that 
Kergilus  ia  Sharezer  is  a  conjecture  from  an  emended  text 
(supporters  of  the  h,VTJ0the8is  are  named  in  Schrader.  COT 
ii.  16).  Equally  possible,  and  even  more  probable,  ^  is  the 
suggestion  that  the  sentence  '  dein/>'ps  autein  post  eum  Sergilui 
rtgjMvU  '  is  a  reference  to  the  Babvlonian  king  Nergal-ushezib. 
This  identification  is  mode  by  Wiucliler  (ZA  li.  3»2  ff.X  But 
it  is  easier  to  suppose  that  the  context  is  imperfect  than  to 
adopt  his  combination  with  another  context. 

t  Sar.t(iT-Aiiur  is  a  son  ol  Sen.  whose  name  might  be  idenU- 
fled  with  Sharezer  (Winckler,  Altor.  Forech.,  2nd  Series  [1888), 
i.  69).  It  can  also  be  urged  that  Polyhistor  and  Aliydenol 
mav  have  got  their  names  of  the  assassin  from  the  Heb. 
Adrammelech.  Moses  ot  Chorene  gives  more  positive  tesO- 
monv,  but  is  not  eulBoiently  reUable.  Ue  names  two  assass  sa. 
In  tile  Whistons'  Latin  version  (Txindon,  1736)  the  forms  are 
AdraniL-lus  or  Ariiamozanus  and  Sanasarus  ^i.  22).  Th;« 
settlement  in  Armenia  is  the  occasion  of  their  heme  mention »L 
Boscawen's  r«cent  identification  (Bab.  and  Or.  Recorx ,  viii. 
259  ff.)  seem*  to  depend  too  much  on  a  resemblance  to  tha 
conjectural  fonu  Nenroi-sharezer. 


SHARON- 


SHARON 


477 


2.  One  who  consulted  the  spiritual  heads  of  the 
Jcwibh  community  on  the  question  wliether  the 
fast  observed  on  the  anniversary  of  the  burning 
of  the  pre-exilio  temple  was  appropriate  after  its 
restoration  (Zee  T"). 

The  gr&mmatical  construction  of  v.\  and  consequently  the 
purport  of  the  verse,  is  very  uncertain.  liV  nmkca  *  Bethel  * 
subject  and  Sharezer  and  t)ie  others  mes^eiif^ers  from  Bethel. 
Such  a  person! lication  seems  without  parallel  in  pro.se.  AV 
follows  Vulif.  in  making  *  Bethel '  accvisative  of  direction  and 
tr.  '  to  the  house  of  God.'  Hut  the  temple  is  never  called 
Uth-'H.  The  ditflculty  is  removed  by  finding  in  these  letters 
the  Divine  name  which,  according  to  analogy,  is  required 
to  complete  the  compound  tiar-uixtLT,  The  text  may  origin- 
ally have  read  Bel-Sharczer  (Siegfried-Stade,  UWB).  The  n 
may  be  accounted  for  as  a  dittography  of  K  in  the  early 
Hebrew  character.*  .\fter  this  correction  has  been  made,  v. 8 
suggesta  that  the  author  of  the  inquiry  is  one  individual, 
namely  (Bel-)  Sharezer.  Kcgem-melech  and  the  others  are 
then  messengers  whom  he  seuu 

Sliarezer's  question  is  explained  by  the  new 
situation  which  the  restoration  of  the  temple 
ireated.  Since  Zechariah  addresses  his  reply  to 
the  'people  of  the  land,'  it  may  be  argued  that 
Sharezer  \v;is  spokesman  on  their  behalf.  Uut  v.' 
more  naturally  expresses  individual  perplexity. 
V.'  implies  tliat  the  inquiry  came  from  outside 
the  commimity  in  Jeru.salem.  The  question  itself 
comes  naturally  from  one  who  is  not  in  touch  with 
movements  in  tlie  cai)ital ;  it  is  artificial  and  un- 
likely when  regardea  as  an  attempt  to  brin"  local 
discussions  to  an  issue  (Nowack's  view).  Zechariah 
ad<lresse8  the  priests  and  the  whole  Jewish  com- 
munity ('  people  of  the  land,'  as  Hag  2^).  The 
priests  are  doubtless  named  because  'instruc- 
tion '  (turuh)  had  been  asked  of  them,  and  formally 
they  have  yet  to  reply  (in  v.'  the  words  'and  to 
tlie  jiropliets '  may  be  an  insertion,  anticipating 
the  tact  that  actually  Zechariah  comes  forward  to 
reply).  The  people  also  are  addressed,  to  secure 
fur  the  prophet's  words  a  wider  currency. 

Babylon  is  more  likelv  to  have  been  .Sharezer's  home  than  any 
part  of  Judah.  Hi.s  Babylonian  name,  liel-eharwfur,  is  one 
argument ;  the  foniiulity  of  iiis  deputation  another.  The  h>T>o. 
tbt-»is  accounts  most  simply  for  the  purpose  and  motive  of  the 
inquiry.  It  does  justice  also  to  all  tne  points  of  the  narrative. 
The  primary  object  of  Sharezer's  deputation  (v.!*)  was  to  olfer 
saorilices  at  the  restored  sanctuary  ('  to  entreat  the  favour  of 
the  l^rd').  The  question  to  the  priesta  was  incidental  to  this  main 
purj)03e,  although  prompted  by  the  same  good  news.  Thusearly 
the  spiritual  authority  of  Jerusalem  was  acknowle<Igcd  by  the 
diojtjifira.  The  incident  is  dated  in  the  year  51S  (v.J^  The 
temple  was  completed  in  616  (Czr  6'^) ;  its  restoration  had 
conunenced  in  520  (Hag  U^).  Either  the  news  which  reachcil 
ltal)ylon  anticipate*!  the  complete  restoration  midway  (aasinn- 
inu'  the  dates  to  be  correct) ;  or  the  rebuilding  waa  so  far 
advanced  aa  to  Justify  Sharezer  in  taking  action. 

It  is  noteworthy  that  Zechariah's  prophecy 
(vv.*-')  has  no  special  application  to  the  circum- 
stances of  the  time.  It  depreciates  or  disavows 
the  practice  of  fasting  as  such.  Zee  8"'  "  seems 
more  appropriate  as  a  reply  to  Sharezer's  envoys. 

LiTKRATUR*.— On  2  K  1937;  Schrader,  COT  ii.  1»-17  :  Winck- 
ler,  XA  ii.  (18S7)  3»2-lt8 ;  Johns,  Expot.  Tiiiut,  vii.  (April 
l8»tJ).  For  Polyhislor  and  Abvdenus  see  Euscbius,  ed.  Schoene, 
i.  27  and  i.  35  ;  the  IJab.  Ch'ron.  tr.  by  Wincklcr  in  TrxWueh 
t.  AT,  ltt92 ;  and  Nabuna'id,  by  Mcsserschmidt,  Stele  Sahun- 
aid$,  Berlin,  1898.  W.  B.  STEVENSON. 

SHARON.— 1.  (ih^n  [with  art.],  prob.  for  fii;»-n 
'till'  h'vel,'  'the  plain,'  from  le'  to  be  level;  LX^ 
in  1  Ch  27»»,  Ca  2'  rb  ntSiov,  but  in  Is  33"  35'  65'» 
6  dpvfids  [see  below])  the  name  applied  in  Scripture 
to  that  part  of  the  Maritime  Plain  which  stretches 
from  .Juppa  to  Mt.  Carmel  (55  miles).  It  is  of  an 
undulating  cliaracter,  none  of  its  hills  exceeding 
250-3U0  feet  in  height.  The  following  streams 
cross  it  in  their  course  to  the  Mediterranean  :  Aahr 

•  Marti  limply  detaches  '«  from  W(A  and  Joins  It  to 
Sharezer  :  '  the  family  of  El-Sharezir '  (.s'A",  1S92,  p.  732).  O. 
A.  Smith  adopts  Kl.Nharezer,  but  supposes  'J" 'to  b«  wanting 
afUr  btlh :  '  to  the  temple  ol  i" '  (Tmtve  Propluti). 


es-ZerhA  (the  Crocodile  River),  Nahr  Mcfjlr  (the 
Dead  River  of  the  Crusaders),  Nahr  Iskanderfineh 
(their  Salt  River),  Nahr  el-Fillik  (their  Rochetaille). 
The  plain  proper,  between  the  Crocodile  River  and 
Joppa,  varies  in  breadth  from  8  to  12  miles. 

The  LXX,  as  above  noted,  reproduces  j'nj'n  in 
three  passages  by  6  Jpu/iis,  a  term  which  is  applied 
to  Sharon  also  by  Josephus  {BJ  I.  xiii.  2 ;  in  Ant. 
XIV.  xiii.  3,  plur.  ol  5pvfiol)  and  Strabo  (xvi.  :  Spvfi.6s 
^^aj  Tis).  This  designation  is  very  appropriate  to 
a  district  which  has  still  a  large  oak  wood  at  its 
northern  extremity,  and  which,  even  so  late  as 
Crusading  times,  would  have  appeared  from  the 
top  of  Mt.  Ebal  as  a  vast  forest  of  oaks  from  coast 
to  mountain  {IIGffL^  122).  *  The  Crusaders  called 
it  the  Forest  of  Assur  (Vinsauf,  Itin.  Ricardi,  iv. 
16) ;  it  is  the  enchanted  forest  of  Tasso  (Gerus. 
Liberata,  ii  and  xiii) ;  it  was  called  by  Napoleon 
the  Forest  of  Miksi  (from  the  modern  village  of 
Miksieh).  The  southern  half  of  the  plain  is,  and 
must  always  have  been,  far  more  cultivated  than 
its  northern  portion.  Throughout  its  whole  extent 
it  is  gay  with  myriads  of  brightly  coloured  Uowers. 

The  "beauty  and  the  fertility  of  Sharon  ^ive 
point  to  Is  35',  where  the  'glory  of  Lebanon  is 
coupled  with  the  '  excellency  (iin  '  splendour '  [see 
Driver,  Daniel,  p.  33])  of  Carmel  and  Sharon,'  the 
special  allusion  perhaps  being  to  the  magnificence 
of  its  oak  forests.  We  have  the  opposite  picture 
in  Is  33",  where  '  Lebanon  is  ashamed  and  withereth 
away,  Sharon  is  like  the  (waste)  Arahah,  and 
Bashan  and  Carmel  shake  off  their  leaves.'  Again, 
in  Is  65'"  the  description  of  the  re.stonition  of  Lsrael 
contains  this  feature  :  '  Sharon  shall  be  a  pasturage 
for  flocks.'  In  1  Ch  27^  we  read  of  Shitrai  the 
Sharonite  (')nyn,  4  2a/)wy(e)lT?)s),  who  was  over  king 
David's  Hocks  that  fed  in  Sharon.  The  excellence  of 
the  pasturage,  the  superiority  of  the  cattle  and  the 
wine  of  Sharon,  are  celebrated  by  Jerome  (Comm. 
on  Is  33  and  65)  and  the  Talmud  (Bab.  Mcnahuth 
87a,  Shahbath  70(i).  Its  pottery  and  the  bricks 
used  for  building  are  repeatedly  referred  to  in  the 
Mishna  as  of  very  inferior  quality,  the  instability 
of  the  houses  in  Sharon  being  proverbial  (see 
references  in  Neubauer,  Geog.  da  Talm.  48  f. ). 

Neubauer  appears  to  be  right  (against  Graetz,  Gesch.  d. 
Ju<it-n%  iii.  IS'2)  iu  cotitcnding  that  it  is  the  inhabitants  of  the 
maritime  Sharon  and  not  of  the  Galilasan  5arofias  [see  l)elow], 
on  whose  bt-balf  a  special  petition  is  said  to  have  been  intro- 
duced into  the  high  priest's  prayer  for  the  people  on  the  Day  of 
Atonement.  This  petition  ran:  'May  God  watch  over  the 
inhabitanta  of  Sharon,  that  tiiey  be  not  buried  iu  the  ruins  of 
their  houaes.' 

The  Shulammite  compares  herself  to  the  '  rose 
[an  unfortunate  rendering;  njivsn  is  the  tchite 
narcissus,  see  Cheyne  on  Is  35'  and  cf.  art.  Rose 
above]  of  Sharon'  and  the  'lily  [[nob.  some  flower 
of  a  red  colour]  of  the  (Jordan)  valleys'  (Q'poy), 
Ca2'. 

There  is  some  doubt  as  to  the  identity  of  the 
Sharon  of  Jos  12"  [where  read  pi}'^  pji;  iVj  'king 
of  Aphelf  in  Sharon';  see  Lassuakon].  It  has 
been  proposed  (e.g.  by  Dillm.  ad  loc.)  to  find  here 
the  Saronas  which  Eusebius  (Onomast.  296.  6)  says 
was  the  name  given  to  the  region  between  ^U. 
Tabor  and  Tiberias — a  statement  confirmed  by  the 
name  San'ma  still  attaching  to  a  ruin  on  this 
plateau  [PEF  Mem.  vol.  i.  sheet  vi.).  This  pro- 
positi appears,  however,  to  be  unnecessary,  especi- 
ally in  view  of  the  evidence  (see  0.  A.  Smith, 
IldllL* 300,  401  f.,  and  s.v.  ' Aphek'  in  Em-i/i:  liibl.) 
in  favour  of  the  existence  of  an  ApheV  in  the 
maritime  Sljaion  (cf.  W.  R.  Smith,  OTJC  273, 
435, audi.!).  '  XyXwV' \n  Enrijc.  liibl.  ;  H.  P.  Smith, 
Saiiiud,  31.     Buhl,  GAP  212  f.,  218,  leaves  it  un- 

*  It  Is  not  at  all  likely  that  the  title  i  ipvfxii  Is  due  to  any 
connexion,  real  or  supposed,  between  the  Ueb.  thdrun  and  the 
Qr.  r»pt,„t,  a  verv  rare  term  for  an  oak  (Pliny,  UH  iv.  6,  quoted 
by  Beland,  Pat.  100). 


•478 


SHARONITK 


SHAVSHA 


decidcii  whether  it  is  the  maritime  or  the  Galiliean 
Sharon  tlirit  is  meant  in  Jos  12"). 

The  only  NT  reference  to  Sharon  is  Ac  9"  (4 
^apiiv,  whence  AV  Saron),  in  connexion  with  St. 
Peter's  stay  at  Lvdda.  For  further  details  regard- 
ini;  Sharon  see  Buhl,  GAP  103  ff. ;  and  G.  A.  Smith, 
HGHL  '  147  fi'.,  where  a  full  account  is  fjiven  of  its 
strategic  importance  and  the  part  it  played  in  post- 
biblical  history. 

2.  (in?  [without  art.] ;  B  Ttpii/j.,  A  lapuv)  1  Ch 
5".  This  Sharon  (||  Gilead  and  Bashan)  is  prob- 
ably the  same  as  the  Mishur  (also  from  root  iw-), 
or  elevated  plateau  between  the  Arnon  and  tlie 
Jabbok  (Dt  3'»  4«  Jos  139.  is- 17.21  20",  .Jer  488- =', 
2  Ch  26'").  See  vol.  ilL  p.  30^^  footnote,  and  p. 
893'',  s.  5.  J.  A.  Selbie. 

SHARON  ITE.— See  preceding  article. 

SHARUHEN  (innp  ;  ol  i.-/po\  airCJv  ;  Sareon).—A 
town  in  .Jndali  which  was  allotted  to  Simeon  (Jos 
19*).  It  appears  as  Shilhim  in  15*  and  as  Shaaraim 
in  1  Ch  4="  ;  see  ShaaraIM  (2). 

SHASHAI  i'^v ;  BA  Xerel,  Luc.  Sei-ffWp).— One  of 
the  sons  of  Bani  who  had  married  a  foreign  wife, 
Ezr  lU«=SESisof  1  Es9«. 

SHASHAK  (pp?*).— The  eponyra  of  a  Benjamite 
family,  1  Ch  8'-'-  (B  S(.))c^X)=»  (B"Xa.n)/c ;  in  both  pas- 
sages A  has  ZoKT^K,  Luc.  Zurdx)- 

SHAUL  (SiKji,  2ao!!\).— 1.  A  king  of  Edom,  On 
36"'-  [JE]  =  1  Ch  l'^'-  He  belonged  to  '  Rehoboth 
by  the  River.'  See  Rehoboth.  2.  A  son  of 
Simeon,  Gn  461"  [R]  (A  SaMow?X,  D  •"  ^no.'X,  B  den-i), 
Ex  6'^  Nu  26"  [both  P],  1  Ch  4^".  The  clan  of 
which  he  is  the  eponyra  was  of  mixed  Isr.  and 
Can.  descent,  hence  Shaul  is  called  in  Gn  46'°  and 
Ex  6'=^  'the  son  of  the  Canaanitess.'  See  Gene- 
alogy, II.  2.  In  Nu  26''  the  patronymic  Shaulites 
(-SLsrn,  Sijfios  i  ^aoi'\ei)  occurs.  3.  An  ancestor  of 
Samuel,  1  Ch  6=^  f>  (called  in  v.^  (^'i  Joel.  See  Joel, 
No.  3). 

SHAYEH,  The  Vale  of  (.11^  ptE  ;  A  Trji-  Koi\dda 
Ti]i'  -aO-ijv,  D  T.  K.  T.  Zavfi;  vallis  Save). — A  broad 
valley  (one/:),  known  also  as  '  the  king's  vale'  ((Jn 
14"),  which  was  near  Salem.  It  is  apparentlj'  the 
same  place  as  '  the  king's  dale]  (^^-n  P:?V  2  S  18"), 
in  which  Absalom  set  up  a  pillar  or  monument. 
According  to  Josephus  {Ant.  VU.  x.  3),  this  monu- 
ment was  two  statlia  from  Jerusalem.  If  the  view 
that  Salem  was  Jerusalem  be  correct,  the  valley  of 
Sliaveh  was  possibly  the  broad  open  head  of  the 
valley  of  Hinnom  which,  lower  down,  contracts  to 
a  ravine.     See  Salem.  C.  \V.  Wilson. 

SHAYEH-KIRIATHAIM  (:n.np  .-rip ;  i,  Za,-i,  rg 
v6\ei ;  Save  Cariathnim). — A  place  in  which  Chedor- 
laomer  smote  the  Emim  (Gn  14°).  If  the  reading 
in  AVm  and  RVm  'the  plain  of  Kiriathaim'  be 
correct,  the  spot  must  have  been  near  Kiriathaim 
(Jer  48'-  =^,  Ezk  25')  in  Moab,  which  has  been  identi- 
iied  with  el-Kureiydt  between  Dibon  and  Medeba. 

C.  W.  Wilson. 

SHAVING.— Two  Heb.  words  are  used  with  this 
meaning,  it;  '  cut  oil',' '  shear '  (wool,  1  S  25^), '  shave ' 
(one's  head,  Joli  V,  Mic  1") ;  n^3  to  make  smooth 
or  bald,  to  shave  or  shear  (Nu  6'-",  Dt21>=etc.). 
The  ancient  Egj-ptians,  according  to  '\^'ilkinson 
{Anc.  Egyp.),  considered  shaving  the  hair,  not  of 
the  head  only  but  of  the  whole  body,  necessary 
to  cleanliness.  Joseph,  when  summoned  to  the 
presence  of  Pharaoh,  '  shaved  himself  and  changed 
Ills  raiment,'  Gn  41".  The  same  custom  is  ob- 
served by  many  Hindu  sects  at  the  present  time. 
In   cases   of   mourning   the  hair  was  allowed  to 


grow.  Among  the  Israelites  the  custom  was 
different.  The  hair  seems  to  have  been  allowed 
to  grow  to  a  moderate  length,  and  to  have  been 
cut  at  intervals.  Absalom,  we  are  told  (2  S  14"), 
polled  his  head  every  year.  The  beard  was  held 
sacred  among  the  Israelites,  as  it  is  to  this  day 
among  the  Arabs  ;  and  the  insult  that  Ilanun,  king 
of  the  Ammonites,  otfered  to  the  ambassadors  of 
David,  by  sha%dng  half  of  their  beards  (2  S  10*), 
could  be  atoned  for  only  by  the  conquest  and 
slavery  of  the  Ammonites.  The  Nazirites  were 
commanded  to  let  no  razor  pass  upon  tlieir  heads, 
but  to  allow  the  hair  to  grow.  When  the  time 
fixed  by  their  vow  had  expired,  or  if  they  were 
accidentally  defiled,  then  they  were  commanded  to 
shave  the  whole  head  (Nu  6°-  '•  '*'■).  In  Syria 
the  priests  and  monks  of  the  Greek  Orthodox  and 
Greek  Catholic  Churches  never  allow  the  hair  of 
the  head  or  beard  to  be  cut  even  in  sickness. 
Many  Christian  parents  dedicate  a  child  to  a 
particular  saint  for  a  certain  period  of  time, 
and  during  that  period  the  hair  of  the  child  is 
never  cut.  These  children  are  distinguished  from 
others  by  their  black  clothes  as  well  as  their 
long  hair.  Among  the  Israelites  and  Arabs  shav- 
ing  the  head  was  a  sign  of  mourning  (Job  1*, 
Dt  21'2,  Ezk  44-*'),  and  with  the  neighbouring 
nations  it  was  the  custom  to  shave  the  '  comers 
of  the  beard,  which  the  Israelites  were  expressly 
forbidden  to  do  (Lv  21»).  (See  CUTTINGS  in  the 
Flesh,  vol.  i.  p.  537*  ;  and  for  shaving  of  the  head 
as  a  sacrificial  act,  W.  R.  Smith,  RS  306). 

W.  Carslaw. 
SHAVSHA  (Npip.  In  2S  20»  Kithib  k-v,  Keri 
Kipi,  EV  Sheva,  are  proved  to  be  in  error  by  LXX. 
Similar  to  the  Keri,  however,  are  B  2a,9d  of  1  K  4' 
and  BA  ioi»^d  of  1  K  2-""'.  Of  LXX  forms  given 
below,  'Ii;ffou5='I<roCs  is  a  familiar  name  read  for  one 
unfamUiar,  perhaps  under  the  influence  of  a  ditto- 
graphy  from  the  preceding  nal). — Royal  or  State 
secretary  in  king  Da\'id's  reign  (1  Ch  18'*  B  'IijtroPs, 
A  and  Luc.  Zoivl,  N  2oDs ;  2  S  20^  B  'Inaous,  A 
'IiroCs,  Luc.  "Zovaa). 

2  S  8'*-18  is  a  third  passage  containing  a  list  of  David'a  officers 
of  State.  In  MT  Seraian  now  stands  in  place  of  Shavsha. 
But  the  list  of  1  Chron.  is  dependent  on  that  of  2  Sam.,  ia 
identical  with  it  except  in  this  one  particular,  and  most  probably 
has  preserved  the  original  reading.  B  'Aca.  seems  to  be  a  trace 
of  the  older  text.  1  K  43  and  2-*6h  may  be  counted  against 
Seraiah  (see  below).  This  name  seems  to  have  obtained  cur- 
rency in  the  7th  century.  It  may  be  supposed  that  the  familiar 
.T-ic  is  a  misreading  of  the  possibly  foreign  name  HVip. 

The  oflice  held  by  Shavsha  is  one  of  a  group 
created  by  the  monarchy  in  Israel.  It  dates,  how- 
ever, from  the  time  of  David,  like  others  of  a 
similar  character,  for  Saul's  '  kingdom '  was  not 
an  organized  State.  It  was  David  who  made  it 
80.  When  he  ranged  himself  among  the  princes 
of  southern  Syria  his  position  forced  on  him  the 
creation  of  certain  offices  of  State.  The  occa- 
sions, for  instance,  of  communication  and  corres- 
pondence with  neighbouring  States  multiplied. 
The  example  of  contemporary  princes  suggested 
the  appointment  of  a  State  secretary.  Other 
prospects  of  usefiilness  must  have  commended  the 
precedent.  In  these  circumstances  Shavsha  was 
appointed  first  holder  of  the  oifice,  as  it  seems. 
It  is  noteworthy  that  of  all  those  who  are  named 
in  the  best  list  of  David's  officers  of  State  (1  Ch 
18'*-"  =  2  S  8"-'*)  he  is  the  only  one  who.se  father 
is  unmentioned.  Pos.sibly  he  did  not  belong  to 
a  family  of  standing  in  the  country,  like  the 
others.  Possibly  he  was  a  foreigner.  If  foreign 
correspondence  were  in  a  forei;^  lanOTiage  it  may 
not  have  been  easy  to  find  a  Hebrew  with 
the  necessary  qualifications.  David  was  not  in- 
disposed to  nave  foreigners  round  his  person  (see 
art.  Fokeigner,  vol.  ii.  p.  SO*").  Shavsha's  name 
may   be    Aramtean.      Foreign    extraction    would 


SHE^\X 

account  for  the  name  of  one  of  his  sons  being 
ICIiliorepli  (1  K  4').  It  seems  to  iniliciite  his  wor- 
ship of  a  pod  other  thnn  J". 

In  Solomon's  rei^Ti  tliere  were  two  secretaries  of 
State,  Eliliuroph  and  Ahijah.  They  are  called  sons* 
of  Shisha  (1  K  4').  Although  the  evidence  for  the 
correct  form  of  this  name  is  very  divergent  (B  2o/3d, 
A  Tfiffd,  Luc.  -(Kpar),  it  may  be  identified  with 
Shavsha.  Others  of  Solomon's  chief  officers  of 
State  were  sons  of  those  who  held  siniilar  office 
under  David.  If  Shavsha  was  chosen  secretary 
because  Aramaic  was  his  native  tongue,  it  is  speci- 
ally likely  that  his  children  would  inherit  this 
qualification  and  be  chosen  for  a  similar  reason. 
There  is  a  second  list  of  Solomon's  officers  in  the 
LXX  (B)  text  of  1  K  2«'>.  In  it  Shavsha (BA  :^ovpi, 
Luc.  Zovtra)  is  given  as  Solomon's  secretary.  Ben- 
zinger  (on  1  K  4 )  has  made  the  attractive  suggestion 
that  this  list  names  those  in  office  during  the 
earlier  part  of  Solomon's  reign.  It  would  then 
be  evidence  that  Shavsha  continued  for  a  time 
Solomon's  secretary,  died  during  Solomon's  reign, 
and  wa-s  then  succeeded  by  his  sons.  But  there 
does  not  seem  to  be  evidence  to  establish  this 
view  of  the  two  lists.  It  is  probable  that  they 
are  duplicates,  and  that  in  1  K  2*""  the  names 
of  the  sons  have  dropped  out  before  the  word 
Shavsha.  W.  B.  SteveN-SON. 

SHEAL  (Sk7,  B  2aXow(£,  A  Zai\),  Ezr  10=^.— One 
of  the  sons  of  Hani,  who  had  married  a  'strange' 
wife  ;  called  Jasaelus  in  1  Es  9**. 

SHEALTIEL  (Wk;^;  in  Hag  !"•»  2'  Sx-n^c> ; 
LX.\  and  N  r  always  2aXa(?iii\,  lience  Salathiel  of 
1  Es  5»"-"  G-,  AV  of  Mt  1'=  and  Lk  3-'').— The 
father  of  Zerubbabf.l,  Ezr3=-«5',  Neh  12',  Hag 
p.  ij.  M  cyi.  a.  According  to  1  Ch  3"  Shcaltiel  was 
the  eldest  son  of  king  Jcconiah.  In  v.'^  the  MT 
makes  I'ediiiah  (a  brother  of  Shealtiel)  the  father 
of  Zerubbabel  ;  but  BA  of  LXX  read  here  also 
Za\a6iri\,  although  Lucian  has  ■i'adaid. 

SHEARIAH  (npiT).— A  descendant  of  Saul,  1  Ch 
8«  (I!A  i;apoid.  Luc.  i;epid)  9«  (BA  2opid,  Luc. 
£aaptd). 

SHEARING-HOUSE,  The  (a-yiri  ipjt  n's  ;  B  BaiSd- 
itaff  Twv  voifj.(i>wf,  A  BaiOdKaS  t.  it.  ;  Vulg.  camera 
pantonim ;  RV  tr.  'shearing-house  [lit.  binding- 
liouse,'  cf.  Gn  22'J  of  the  sliepherds,'  KVm  '  house 
of  gathering  [so  Targ.  but  improbable]  of  the 
shepherds'). — A  place  at  which  Jehu,  on  his  way 
from  .lezreel  to  Samaria,  met  and  slew  the  brethren 
of  Ahaziah,  king  of  Judah  (2  K  lO'^- ").  Eusehius 
and  Jerome  {Onum.  s.  Baitfoitdfl)  place  the  shearing- 
house  in  the  Great  Plain  (Esdraelon),  15  M.P.  from 
Lcgio :  and  in  this  position,  3  m.  east  of  Jcntn,  is 
the  village  of  Beit  AV/rf  (Hobinson,  BRP'  ii.  316). 
This  is  possibly  the  site  of  the  shearing-liouse 
(Conder,  PEF  Mem.  ii.  83).  C.  W.  Wilson. 

8HEAR-JASHUB  (2>o;  ik^  'a  remnant  shall  re- 
turn, l.W  6 KaTa\ei<p0eit'la(ro/'P,  Is"'). — A  symboli- 
cal name  given  to  a  son  of  Isaiah  to  signify  the 
return  of  the  remnant  to  God  after  the  punishment 
at  the  hands  of  the  As.syrianB.  See  8"  10"- "',  and 
cf.  7"  8'-\ 

SHEBA  (vjy).— 1.  A  Benjamite  who  headed  a 
new  revolt  against  David  immediately  alter  the 
su|ipression  of  Absalom's  rebellion.  He  was  be- 
sieged by  Joab  in  Abel-beth-maacah,  whose  in- 
haliitants  were  persuaded  to  procure  their  own 
safety  by  casting  the  head  of  the  rebel  from  the 
battlements  of  the  city  (2  S  20"-  «'■  '"■  "•  ■"■ :  B  uni- 
fom.ly  ^lit(,  A  occasionally  "A/Sor).  See,  further, 
■  LXX  '  ion.'  appljlnf;  to  Ahijah  only. 


SHEBA 


479 


art.  David,  vol.  i.  p.  570\     2.  A  Gadite,  I  Ch  .'5" 
(B  Z^;iei,  A  Z:;io.Oe,  Luc.  ::d;3«). 

SHEBA  (k;;-),  more  correctly  Snh'i  (LXX  rajSd, 
Jos.  i:d;3as),  the  name  of  a  race  (the  Sabaeans)  several 
times  mentioned  in  the  OT.  In  the  genealogical 
tables  it  is  given  three  pedigrees  (Gn  10'  son  of 
Ka'uiah,  cf.  Ezk  27-''',  where  these  two  names  are 
juxtaposed  ;  Gn  10^  son  of  Yoktan,  and  juxta- 
posed with  IJa^arniaveth  [Hadramaut];  Gn  25' 
son  of  Yokslian).  Ezekiel  (27--')  mentions  Eden 
(Aden),  I.laran  (I.Iirran),  and  Canneh  (Kaniieh)  as 
connected  with  it;  and  of  these  jdaces  the  first 
two  are  known  to  be  in  S.  Arabia.  At  the  time 
of  Israel's  highest  prosperity,  Solomon  waa  visited 
by  the  queen  of  Saba  (1  K  10'""),  an  event  which 
gave  rise  to  a  number  of  legends,  none  of  them 
perhaps  of  high  antiquity  in  the  form  wherein  we 
possess  them.  The  Saba'ans  were  known  to  the 
Israelites  as  exporters  of  gold  (Is  60",  Ps  72'"), 
precious  stones  (Ezk  I.e.),  perfumes  (Jer  6-",  Isaiah 
and  Ezekiel),  and  perhaps  slaves  (Jl  4(3)').  In 
the  Bk.  of  Job  (6")  there  is  an  allusion  to  their 
trading  caravans,  with  at  least  a  suggestion  that 
their  capital  was  Tema  (Tayma) ;  and  also  to  their 
raiding  other  Arab  tribes  (i"). 

Till  the  attention  of  Orientalists  was  called  by 
Wellsted  and  Cruttenden  to  certain  in.scriptions 
discovered  by  them  in  S.  Arabia,  our  knowledge 
of  Saba  was  confined  to  the  meagre  and  often 
unintelligible  matter  collected  by  the  Greek  ge- 
ographers and  Pliny.  But  since  the  middle  of  the 
century  large  finds  of  inscriptions  have  been  made 
in  various  parts  of  Arabia,  in  the  old  Arabic 
character  (of  which  a  co^iy  was  given  liy  the 
Arabic  bibliographer  Al-rv.idini,  in  his  Fihrist, 
A.D.  978),  and  dealing  with  Saba  and  various  in- 
stitutions conne<tted  with  it.  The  attempt  made 
in  England  to  decipher  these  inscriptions  was 
utterly  incompetent ;  but  German  .scholars  were 
more  successful,  and  the  honour  of  having  founded 
the  study  of  Sahrpan  is  shared  by  Rodiger  and 
Osiander,  whose  papers  in  the  ZDMG,  vols.  xx. 
and  xxi.,  laid  the  basis  for  the  right  understand- 
ing of  these  texts.  A  full  and  accurate  account 
of  the  literature  of  the  subject  down  to  1891  was 
given  by  Fr.  Hommel  in  \\\s  Siid-Araliische  Clircs- 
tomathif,  Munich,  1893.  Next  in  importance  to 
the  collection  published  by  Osiander  was  that 
brought  back  by  Halevy,  and  edited  by  him  in 
the  Journal  Asiatiijue,  S6rie  6,  vol.  ix.  ;  since  then 
great  finds  have  been  made  by  Glaser  in  his  vari- 
ous journeys  in  S.  Arabia,  not  many  of  which 
have  as  j-et  been  given  to  the  public.  In  the 
fourth  part  of  the  CIS,  edited  by  J.  and  H. 
Derenbourg,  of  which  three  fasciculi  (containing 
308  inscriptions)  have  as  yet  appeared  (18S9-1'.I(I0), 
the  material  for  the  study  will  be  eventuallj'  re- 
corded in  the  most  trustworthy  form  ;  at  present 
tiie  works  of  the  eight  or  nine  .scholars  who  pur- 
sue it  (esp.  Derenbourg,  Glaser,  Halivy,  Hommel, 
Mordtmann,  I).  H.  Miiller,  Proetorius,  Winckler) 
are  all  indispensable. 

Besides  inscriptions,  considerable  finds  of  coins 
have  also  been  made.  The  first  Sabiran  coin  ever 
interpreted  was  described  in  the  lirrnc  Numi.t. 
mntique,  1S68,  pp.  169-176;  but  for  this  part  of 
the  subject  the  most  important  stage  was  marked 
by  the  work  of  Scliluniberger  (Le  trf.mr  de  Sun'n, 
Paris,  1880),  who  gave  an  account  of  some  200 
coins  that  had  been  discovered  at  Sana'a,  an<l  pur- 
chased by  him  of  a  dealer  in  Constantinople. 
Many  of  these  coins  contained  the  monograms  of 
kings  whose  names  also  figure  in  inscriptions  ; 
whence,  though  these  signs  were  puzzling  at  first, 
they  lijive  all  since  been  interpreted  :  a  list  of  the 
monograms,  with  their  interpretations,  is  given  by 
I  I).  H.  Miiller  in  his  Burgen  u.  SelUvsser,  \\.  p.  995. 


480 


SHEBA 


SHEBA 


The  date  of  the  coins  described  by  Schlumberger 
was  fixed  by  him,  on  numismatic  grounds  (i.e.  tlie 
evolution  of  the  style  from  Attic,  Seleucid,  and 
Roman  models),  at  from  about  B.C.  150  to  A.D.  150, 
and,  while  he  derived  the  style  of  the  art  from  the 
sources  named,  he  regarded  the  weight  as  fixed  by 
Persian  models.  The  purity  of  the  silver  and  tlie 
accur.aey  of  the  weight  were  greatly  admired  by 
this  numismatist;  other  coins  that  liave  been  dis- 
covered are  described  by  Mordtmann,  ]l'iener 
N  amis"mtische  Zeitschri/t,  1S80,  pp.  2S9-320.  The 
researches  of  Glaser  and  others  were  also  rewarded 
by  the  discovery  of  a  variety  of  other  objecbs, 
illustrative  of  Sabjean  civilization,  of  which  de- 
scri|itions  have  been  given  by  Mordt  mann  (Himyar- 
uche  Inschriften  in  den  iconiglichen  Museen  zu 
Berlin,  1893)  and  others  (e.g.  Derenhourg,  Les 
Monuments  Sab6ens  du  Music  d' Archfulogie  de 
Marseille,  1899  ;  D.  H.  Miiller,  Siidarabische  Al- 
terthiimer  im  Kunsthistorischen  So/museum,  Wien, 
1899 ;  Hommel,  '  Die  siidarab.  Altertiimer  des 
Wiener  Hofmuseums,'  in  Aufscitze  u.  Ab/uind- 
langp.n,  ii.,  1900). 

Finally,  the  works  of  the  S.  Arabian  geographer 
and  archieologer  Hamdani  (Abu  Muhammad  Al- 
Hasan)  have  been  brought  to  Europe,  his  Descrip- 
tion of  the  Arabic  Peninsula  in  a  number  of  copies, 
and  his  Iklil  in  portions  ;  both  these  works  have 
been  edited  by  D.  H.  Miiller,  the  former  at  Leiden, 
1891,  the  latter  in  the  Sitzungsberirhte  der  Wiener 
Akademie,  Ph. -Hist.  Kl.  xciv.,xcvii.,  and  in  MUller's 
Sudnrab.  Alterthumer,  p.  8  ff.  The  lexicon  of 
Neshwan  the  Himyarite,  which  is  of  some  value 
for  the  interpretation  of  the  texts,  is  as  yet  un- 
published. In  the  following  paragraphs  a  few  of 
the  chief  results  of  the  study  will  be  collected. 

[The  following  abbreviations  recur  below:  A  A  =010861^3 
Abegsiiver  in  Arabi>n  (Munich,  1S95) ;  HI  =  Uimyariache 
Inschriften ;  MM  =  Mordtmann  and  Mtiller'a  Sabaisrhe  Deixk- 
mater ;  M I'AS  =  Mittheil.  d.  vorderas.  Gesetlschuft ;  SA  = 
MUller's  Siidarabiscke  Alterthumer]. 

i.  History.  —  On  this  subject  an  authentic 
chronicle  of  a  few  pages  could  give  ns  more  in- 
formation than  all  the  inscriptions  together  ;  it  is, 
however,  clear  that  they  cover  an  enormous  length 
of  time — it  can  scarcely  be  made  less  than  1300 
years.  The  dated  inscriptions  of  the  mound  at 
Marib  (published  by  Glaser,  MVAS,  No.  6)  are  of 
the  5th  and  6th  cents.  A.D.,  one  of  them  being 
Christian  and  another  perhaps  Jewish  ;  and  the 
final  destruction  of  the  Saba.'an  State  is  known 
to  have  taken  place  in  the  6th  cent.  A.D.  On 
the  other  hand,  tlie  name  of  Itharaara  the  Sabiean, 
occurring  in  the  inscriptions  of  Sargon  of  B.C.  715 
(ed.  Winckler,  p.  97),  was  identified  with  justice 
by  Lenorniant  with  the  Yetha'amixra  of  the 
Sab.tan  inscriptions.  That  name  belongs  to  no 
fewer  than  six  Saba-an  potentates  (Glaser,  AA 
p.  29)  ;  and  there  seems  no  probability  that  Sar- 
gon's  contemporary  Ls  the  first  of  these.  The  in- 
scriptions, however,  are  not  divided  equally  over 
this  vast  expanse  of  time  ;  so  far  as  tliey  are  at 
present  accessible,  it  is  only  for  the  period  just 
before  and  just  after  the  commencement  of  our 
era  that  they  render  the  writing  of  a  continuous 
chronicle  possible  ;  an  attempt  of  this  sort  has 
been  made  by  H.  Winckler,  '  Die  Inscliriften  des 
Alhan  Nahfan  '  (MVAS,  No.  5),  perhaps  without 
conspicuous  success.  The  greater  number  of  the 
texts  published  are  devoid  of  political  interest, 
and  indeed  emanate  from  members  of  two  fami- 
lies or  clans,  the  Bakilites  of  '.Vmran,  and  their 
leaders  the  IBanu  Marthad,  and  the  Ilashidites  of 
Na'it,  and  their  leaders  the  Banu  Haiudan.  Tliese 
great  families  are  said  to  exist  still  in  S.  Arabia 
m  the  neighbourhood  of  their  ancestral  seats 
;Mordtmann  in  MM  p  9). 

Saba  is  the  name  of  a  nation  or  political  unit, 


not  of  a  city,  though  the  classical  writers  speak 
repeatedly  ot  a  city  Saba.  The  Arabic  etymologists 
derive  its  name  from  .ifibCi,  'to  take  captive' ;  but 
they  might  with  greater  probability  have  derived 
it  from  the  Sabtean  verb  saba^a,  '  he  raided  ' ;  and 
indeed  in  CIS  84.  3,  the  Sabaeans  are  mentioned  aa 
normal  raiders,  somewhat  as  in  Job  1'°.  The 
Sabaean  name  for  'nation'  is  k/ttons,  'a  fifth,'  and 
it  is  ajjplied  by  them  to  other  nations  as  well  as  to 
their  own,  e.g.  '  the  two  Khums,  Saba  and  Himyar' 
(MM  5).  These  nations  or  'fifths'  were  divided 
into  '  tribes  '  *  (shi'b),  which  again  were  sometimes 
divided  into  'thirds'  (CIS  187,  where  Derenhourg 
gives  us  the  names  of  two  'thirds'  of  the  tribe 
.Sama'i),  and  sometimes  perhaps  'tenths'  (CIS 
128).  There  might  be  some  ground  for  su.specting 
that  the  word  jifth  implies  the  original  existencb 
of  five  nations  who  shared  S.  Arabia  between 
them  ;  at  the  latest  period  of  the  inscriiitions, 
Saba  has  swallowed  the  others  up.  In  these  the 
kings  style  them.selves  kings  of  Saba,  Dhu  Ilaidan, 
yadramaut,  and  Yamanet.  The  earliest  king  who 
assumed  this  title  was,  according  to  Glaser  (AA 
p.  31),  Shammir  Yuhar'ish,  about  A.D.  281  (others 
would  place  him  some  200  years  before).  Before 
this  he  and  his  predecessors  called  themselves  kings 
of  Saba  and  Dhu  Raidan,  a  title  which  implies  the 
conquest  of  Raidan,  which  the  combinations  of 
Glaser  and  H.  Winckler  place  about  u.c.  70. 
Prior  to  this  last  date  the  kings  style  themselves 
sometimes  malik  ('  king'),  sometimes  mukarrib,  a 
word  of  uncertain  meaning,  but  of  a  root  which 
forms  an  element  in  many  proper  names,  and  is 
the  source  of  Makorabah,  the  old  name  for  Mecca. 
It  is  customary  to  place  the  Mukarrib  period  before 
the  Malik  period,  and  it  is  certainly  noticeable  that 
Sargon  does  not  bestow  the  title  '  king '  on  his 
Sabaian  contemporary,  though  the  Assyrians  are 
ordinarily  rather  lavish  with  the  title.  Naturally, 
such  a  point  could  not  be  settled  without  better 
documents  than  are  at  our  disposal.  The  residence 
of  the  king  was  at  Maryab  or  Marib  (in  Beled  Al- 
Jihaf),  and  sometimes  at  Ghaiman.  But  Marib 
had  also  a  king  of  its  own,  probably  dependent  on 
the  kings  of  Saba,  since  in  CIS  37.  7  the  two  are 
mentioned  simultaneously ;  and  kings  of  Kamna 
(SA  12)  and  other  places  are  mentioned. 

In  the  time  of  Eratosthenes  (B.C.  240)  Saba  was 
one  oifour  nations  which  shared  S.  Arabia  between 
them — Mina;ans  with  cajiital  Kama,  Sab;eans  with 
capital  Marjab,  Kattabanians  with  capital  Tamna, 
and  yadramaut  with  capital  Katabanon.  The 
Greek  writer  adds  that  these  were  all  monarchies, 
but  that  they  were  not  hereditary,  the  succession 
falling  to  the  first  male  bom  to  one  of  the  leading 
families  after  a  king's  accession.  How  such  a 
system  would  work  it  is  impossible  to  conjecture; 
but  a  study  of  the  texts  makes  it  certain  that 
Eratosthenes'  account  contains  some  truth,  though 
he  may  have  omitted  important  details.  So  about 
the  time  of  the  Aelius  Gallus  expedition  (B.C.  24) 
we  find  kings  of  the  Ilamdanide  family  preceded 
and  followed  by  kings  of  another  family.  Alhan 
Nalifan  seems  to  disclaim  the  title  '  king  of  Saba ' 
himself,  while  giving  it  to  his  two  sons  (A A  42. 
1),  though  he  allows  it  to  be  given  him  by  others 
(ib.  24),  and  in  another  inscription  (III  2G98) 
appears  as  a  subject  of  the  then  kin"  of  Saba, 
and  in  yet  another  (CIS  2,  10)  is  called  simply 
Hamdanite  and  Bata'ite  by  the  men  who  put  up 
a  votive  tablet  for  help  received  in  his  service. 
Quite  similarly  Il-Sharh  (Elisaros),  who  in  some 
inscriptions  figures  as  king  of  Saba  and  son  of  a 
king  of  Saba,  in  others  is  called  Kabir  of  AVj'an, 
a  title  of  which  the   import   is   not   known,  but 

•  This  name  (tribe)  Is  also  sometimeB  applied  to  Sal)a  (SA 
p.  17),  The  term  'fifth'  is  also  found  in  other  divi»'0D8  (ib. 
p.  38). 


SIIEBA 


SHEBA 


481 


which  seems  to  have  been  coiiibine<l  with  fome- 
thinp  like  roynl  functions  (^/l  S2  and  1(I5).  What 
we  slioulil  infer  from  tliese  facts  is  that  the  king- 
ship was  held  by  the  leading  families  in  some  sort 
of  rotation.  This  inference  is  further  supported 
by  the  nature  of  the  kings'  names,  which  Jo  not 
appear  to  differ  in  form  from  those  of  other  eminent 
men ;  they  are  ordinarily,  though  not  always, 
double,  consisting  apjiarently  of  a  name  and  an 
epithet  (rarely  of  a  name  and  two  epithets),  and 
arc  ordinarily  retained  unaltered  by  those  persons 
fcho  ligure  in  dillerent  inscriptions  as  kings  and  in 
ifome  other  capacity.  Finally,  the  fact  that  the 
in.icriptions  otten  speak  of  '  the  kings  of  Saba," 
and  tliat  as  many  as  three  appear  as  Icings  simul- 
taneously, implies  that  the  sense  which  attached 
to  the  word  'king'  in  tliis  community  was  different 
from  that  which  attached  to  it  elsewhere.  And 
this  not  only  explains  the  great  number  of  the 
kings  who  hgure  in  the  inscriptions,  —  Miiller 
(Burgcn,  ii.  p|).  982-986)  counted  33,  and  some 
have  since  been  added  to  the  number, — but  har- 
monizes with  the  fact  that  Sargon  does  not  give 
the  Saba'an  the  title  '  king.' 

Besides  the  kings,  there  were  eponymous  magis- 
trates, after  whom  the  years  were  named,  till  the 
adoption  of  an  era,  which  (ilaser  fixes  at  B.C.  115 
(AA  p.  29 ;  Ge.tch.  i.  3),  whereas  others  regard  it 
as  the  Selcucid  era  (see  CIS  p.  18)  ;  the  text  CIS 
46  seems  to  date  '  in  the  year  386  from  the  year 
of  Mubih  son  of  Abu-IJubb,'  an  era  of  wliich 
nothin"  is  at  present  known.  The  tribes  of  which 
the  Sabajan  communitv  consisted  had  sometimes 
their  kings  (as  the  Sam  ai,  CIS  37),  but  more  often 
chieftains  called  haul  (in  .Arabic  kail) ;  another 
titl<»  is  fojfiir  (' great '),  which  in  one  case  appears 
lo  be  given  to  the  eponymous  magistrate  (CIS  80), 
but  is  also  held  by  the  king  Il-Sharh,  probably 
before  his  accession  (CIS  46).  Since,  however, 
this  person.age  has  a 'minister'  (muktawi,  A  A  p. 
10.5),  while  he  is  still  hibir,  we  clearly  (\annot  yet 
settle  the  precise  meaning  of  these  terms.  A  dis- 
tinction which  pervades  the  inscriptions  is  that 
between  '  lords  '  and  '  men,'  analogous  to  that  be- 
tween '  royalties  '  and  '  men  '  which  is  found  in  the 
I'hcenician  inscriptions  :  probably  the  former  were 
what  Eratosthenes  calls  'distinguished,'  i.e.  quali- 
lied  to  particinate  in  the  sovereignty.  In  most  of 
the  votive  tablets  the  author  prays  the  god  for  the 
favour  of  his  lords,  who  sometimes  are  the  whole 
of  a  family,  sometimes  one  or  more  members  of  it. 
A  ditlicult  constitutional  term  is  that  rendered 
'  heirs '  or  '  coheirs  '  (CIS  95.  5)  in  the  same  con- 
text in  which  '  lords '  usually  ti^ures  ;  and  indeed 
the  number  of  terms  which  imidy  some  unknown 
status  or  caste  is  very  considerable. 

The  state  of  society  seems  in  general  to  have 
borne  some  resemblance  to  that  of  feudal  Europe. 
The  great  families  possessed  towers  and  castles, 
the  building  of  which  is  commemorated  in  many 
inscriptions  ;  and  the  word  hnit,  which  in  ordinary 
Semitic  means  '  house,'  would  seem  with  this  com- 
munity to  have  meant  '  tower.'  The  Iklil  of  the 
archa'ologer  Ilamdani  contains  a  description  of 
these  feudal  dwellings,  portions  of  which  are  still 
to  be  seen.  The  right  to  build  a  castle  was 
sometimes  given  by  the  head  of  a  family  (CIS  145, 
1.53),  sometimes  bv  a  king  (CIS  172)  ;  in  some  of 
the  texts  amjile  details  (not  as  a  rule  intelligible) 
are  given  of  the  manner  in  which  the  building  was 
carried  out  (CIS  17,  29,  40),  and  these  .seem  to 
have  involved  measurements  of  land  and  technical 
distributions  of  it.  In  each  case  the  building  is 
put  under  the  protection  of  a  deity.  Many  of  the 
texts  also  commemorate  renewals,  repairs,  the 
digging  of  wells  and  other  domestic  operations,  in 
all  of  which  the  deity  had  some  sliare. 
Owing  to  a  far  larger  portion  of  S.  Arabia  being 

Vol  .    IV.     -31 


under  cultivation  in  ancient  times  than  now,  the 
extent  of  territory  covered  by  these  feudal  estates 
was  very  great,  and,  as  we  have  seen,  ere  the 
final  extinction  of  the  Salwan  State  bv  the 
Abyssinians  in  the  6th  cent,  it  had  swallowed 
up  the  other  States  in  its  neighbourhood.  Hence 
the  inscriptions  which  tell  of  its  former  glories 
are  found  all  over  South  Araliia,  except  perhaps 
in  yadramaut,  and  some  even  in  the  far  north 
of  the  peninsula.  Many  indeed  have  been 
transplanted  from  the  buildings  which  they 
originally  adorned  to  distant  towns,  but  of  the 
vast  extent  of  the  country  which  at  certain  times 
was  subject  to  the  Saba^ans  there  can  be  no  doubt. 
Certain  episodes  of  the  reign  of  Alhan  Nahfan,  as 
mentioned  above,  have  been  enucleated  from  his 
inscriptions  by  Glaser  (AA)  and  Winckler  (I.e.); 
but  even  in  these  results  there  is  much  that  is 
problematic,  and  little  that  is  sharply  defined  ; 
while  for  the  rest  of  Saba-an  history  the  inscrip- 
tions which  have  as  yet  been  published  contain 
far  less  material.  Arabic  writers  have  only  vague 
recollections  of  certain  events  of  great  importance, 
s\ich  as  the  bursting  of  the  dam  at  Marib,  which 
they  strangely  fancy  led  to  the  ruin  of  the  State, 
and  of  a  few  names  and  words  of  the  old  language  ; 
even  the  Avell-informed  Hamdani  has  only  fables 
and  fictions.  Hence  for  a  history  of  Saba  the 
materials  are  still  wantin". 

ii.  Civilization. — Tlie  listof  goods  said  to  come 
from  Saba  in  Is  60'  bears  a  striking  likeness  to 
that  given  by  Sargon  (I.e.) :  '  Gold,  precious  stones, 
ivorj',  perfumes  of  all  sorts,  horses,  camels,'  and 
the  gold  and  perf\inies  were  associ.ited  with  Saba 
liy  classical  writers  also.  It  is  remarkable  that 
gold  and  perfume  were  called  by  the  .same  name 
in  Saba;  for  the  suggestion  of  IJ.  H.  Miiller,  that 
dhahab  meant  perfume  as  well  as  gold,  has  been 
confirmed  by  a  document  brought  to  light  by 
Count  LanJberg  (SA  p.  30).  The  inscriptions 
reveal  a  lavish  use  of  gold,  if  indeed  the  precious 
metal  be  meant  thereby.  AJhan  Nahfan  oilers 
thirty  statues  of  gold  at  once  (AA  p.  42),  and 
numerous  inscriptions  commemorate  the  employ- 
ment of  this  metal  for  images  of  gods  and  of 
animals  (e.;].  camels  and  gazelles,  MM  1).  Other 
gifts  were  of  .silver,  called,  in  this  language,  sir/; 
and  a  variety  of  objects  used  for  devotional  pur- 
poses is  enumerated  by  Alhan  Nahfan  (I.e.),  not 
many  of  wliii'h  can  at  present  bo  identified  with 
certainty.  l^erfumes  are  also  mentioned  with 
considerable  frequency,  and  various  sorts  are  enu- 
merated. D.  H.  Miiller  has  devoted  many  pages 
to  the  description  of  them  (Burqi-n,  ii.  975  ;  MM 
26  ;  SA  48).  The  greater  number  of  the  texts  deal 
not  with  the  commercial  side  of  the  Saba'ans'  life 
(though  there  may  be  allusions  to  that),  but  with 
the  agricultural  and  military  sides.  Prayers  for 
crops  and  vegetables  are  mixed  «  ith  supplications 
for  male  children.  The  sorts  of  fruits  which  they 
desire  to  thrive  are  sometimes  enumerated.  In 
some  we  learn  a  little  of  the  artilicial  system  of 
irrigation  whereby  the  fertility  of  the  fields  was 
maintained.  I5ut  more  cummemorate  successful 
raids,  or  successful  repulses  of  raids  by  other 
tribes ;  and  once  it  would  .seem  a  disaster  conse- 
quent on  delay  in  the  fiillilment  of  a  vow  is 
commemorated  (C/5  81).  The  position  of  women 
would  appear  to  have  been  little  inferior  to  that 
of  men,  it  we  may  judge  by  the  number  of  texts 
in  which  they  ligure  as  authors  or  joint-authors  of 
inscriptions.  One  woni.an  (CIS  179)  appears  to  be 
called  mistre.ss  of  a  castle  ;  and,  though  a  queen  of 
Saba  has  not  apparently  been  discovered  in  the 
inscriptions,  queens  of  other  Arabian  tribes  occur, 
both  in  Arabian  and  Assyrian  texts  (D.  II.  Miiller, 
E[)ir/raphische  Denkmdlcr  ini.i  Arahien,  p.  3).  The 
honourable  title  '  consort,'  by  which  they  are  often 


482 


SHEBA 


SHEBA 


called,  confinns  this.  There  are,  however,  texts 
which  imply  the  practice  of  concubinage,  though 
not,  api)arently,  of  polygamy.  It  is  observable 
that  the  women  make  oti'erings  to  the  same  gods 
as  the  men,  describe  themselves  by  similar  family 
names,  and  profess  to  have  received  similar 
benefits. 

The  Sabfean  art,  which  in  some  respects  is  highly 
praised  by  experts,  appears  to  have  been  greatly 
affected  at  dilFerent  times  by  contemporaneous 
civilizations,  i.e.  those  of  Assyria,  Persia,  Greece, 
Rome,  and  Parthia ;  and  the  formuliB  of  the 
inscriptions  appear  here  and  there  to  exhibit 
Assyrian  influence.  The  caligraphy  of  the  in- 
sciiptions,  especially  those  first  brought  to  Europe, 
has  won  much  adniuation  ;  the  alphabet  in  which 
they  are  written  varies  somewhat  in  different 
places  (see  especially  D.  H.  Miiller,  Epigraphische 
Denkmaler,  ad  fin.),  but  the  present  writer  sees  no 
reason  to  doubt  that  it  represents  the  earliest 
form  of  the  Semitic  alphabet,  whence  the  others 
are  derived,  partly  by  the  suppression  of  a  number 
of  unnecessary  signs.  The  excessive  vigour  with 
whieli  the  consonants  are  pronounced  in  S.  Arabia, 
on  which  several  writers  nave  commented,  would 
make  that  the  likeliest  country  for  the  invention 
of  a  S3stem  of  writing  in  which  the  consonant  was 
the  element. 

iii.  Religion. — The  nreater  number  of  the 
tablets  at  present  accessible  are  dedicated  to  two 
deities,  IlMakkih  and  Ta'lab.  The  latter  appears 
to  have  been  a  specially  Hamdanite  deity,  and  is 
ordinarily  described  as  Ta'lab  of  Riyam.  He  is 
called  not  'god,'  but  shayydm,  'patron'  or  'pro- 
tector,' a  title  which  is  also  given  to  Wadd  [HI  7), 
who  is  sometimes  ascribed  to  Kibab  (ib.  also 
in  CIS  30)  and  Khatban  (CIS  293),  and  ^Jajar 
('stone';  CIS  49-69).'  The  former  of  these  'pat- 
rons '  also  figures  in  pre-Islamic  antiquity.  If  we 
may  judge  by  the  honours  lavished  on  Ta'lab,  the 
position  of  '  patron '  can  have  been  little  inferior  to 
that  of  god.  The  god  of  the  Bakil  was  II- JIakkih, 
probably  '  the  hearing  god,'  whose  name  seems 
connected  with  a  verb  WKH,  which  figures  often 
in  the  votive  tablets.  Dili'erent  forms  of  Il-Mal>kili 
were  worshipped  in  dirterent  sanctuaries.  The 
places  with  which  he  is  most  frequently  associated 
are  Awam  in  Aiwa  {on  which  see  especially  A  A 
p.  16  tl'.),  IJirran,  and 'Irran.  Next  in  importance 
to  him  was  probably  Athtar,  the  male  form  of 
Ashtoreth,  often  called  Sharljan,  which  is  thought 
to  mean  'Oriental.'  He  had  a  divided  person- 
ality :  in  CIS  293  no  fewer  than  four  forms  of  him 
are  mentioned  simultaneously  —  Athtar  lord  of 
Thanain,  Athtar  lord  of  Ta'aUulf  (?),  Athtar  lord 
of  Jnmdan,  and  Athtar  Shar^an.  Two  other 
deities  whose  names  are  of  interest  are  Saini  (CIS 
282)  and  JCawim  (CIS  194),  which  seem  to  be  per- 
petuated in  the  epithets  'the  Hearing'  and  'the 
Sustaining,'  which  the  Koran  gives  to  Allah.  Con- 
siderable popularity  was  also  enjoyed  by  Ramnian 
(who  figures  in  the  Bible  as  Rimmon),  sometimes 
called  lord  of  "Alam  of  Ashkur  (CIS  140,  by  a 
^imyarite).  The  sun  was  also  much  worshipped, 
and  IS  a-scribed  to  a  number  of  places  (e.g.  Barrat, 
CIS  293.  2;  other  places  40,  132,  294),  and  also 
to  particular  tribes  and  persons,  e.g.  '  Il-Ma^tih 
and  their  sun'  (CIS  143.  5),  and  indeed  the  plural 
'  their  suns '  is  of  occasional  occurrence,  implying 
that  the  sun  was  regarded  as  of  divided  person- 
ality, like  Athtar.  The  Sab.T?an  worship  of  the 
gun  was  sufficiently  famous  to  be  known  to  the 
author  of  the  Koran  (xxvii.  24).  A  similar  deity 
is  Dhu  Samai,  '  lord  of  Heaven,'  ascribed  to  Bakir 
(MM  1);  and  there  are  some  goddesses  whose 
names  are  similarly  formed — Dhat  Hima,  Dhat 
Badan  (CIS  41  etc.).  Other  gods  are  called  Bashir 
('  bringer  of  good  tidings,'  CIS  41.  3],  Uauhas  (172, 


etc.),  Rahman  {'merciful,'  perhaps  of  monotheistic 
times,  CIS  6),  Hainan  (8)  and  others  whose  nam* 
is  thought  to  signify  water-nymphs  (153,  etc.). 

This  pantheon  appears  to  resemble  that  of  the 
Italians  before  Greek  influence :  the  gods  were  to 
some  extent  hypostases  of  operations  or  objects, 
and  there  was  supposed  to  be  some  special  merit 
in  enumerating  them.  Of  this  last  process  the 
terminations  of  many  inscriptions  offer  illustra- 
tions. The  more  important  of  their  temples  had 
names,  after  which  the  god  was  often  called.  The 
oti'erings  to  them  consisted,  as  we  have  seen,  of 
lavish  gifts  to  the  temples;  but  sacrifices  of  tin 
ordinary  sort  (CIS  290)  and  offerings  of  incense 
(194)  also  form  the  subject  of  allusions.  Sometimes 
it  took  the  form  of  self-presentation  on  the  part 
of  the  worshipper,  whatever  may  have  been  the 
import  of  that  act.  The  earliest  instance  is  said 
to  be  in  a  bustrophedon  inscription  (ZD3IG  xxii. 
425),  and  the  most  elaborate,  that  contained  in  the 
inscription  of  Hadakan  (CIS  37),  in  which  the 
author  declares  that  he  puts  the  god  in  possession 
of  himself,  his  famUy,  his  and  their  property,  and 
all  the  property  belonging  to  his  clan.  If  the 
inscription  HI  2678  (p.  26)  be  rightly  interpreted 
by  Mordtmann,  this  act  could  be  performed  re- 
peatedly ;  and  the  inscr.  CIS  126  would  probably 
explain  it  more  clearly,  if  we  knew  the  meaning 
of  the  words.  The  plan  of  erecting  stones  ia 
honour  of  the  gods  also  finds  illustration  (CIS  100); 
and  most  of  the  texts  we  have  are  musnads,  or 
tablets  dedicated  to  the  gods,  sometimes  with  other 
oti'erings.  The  office  of  priest  (iiym)  seems  some- 
times to  have  been  united  with  that  of  tribal  head 
(CIS  41.  1),  but  at  other  times  was  probably  dele- 
gated to  humbler  individuals.  That  pUgilmages 
were  made  in  honour  of  the  gods  appears  from  the 
month  Dhu  Hijjat  or  Mahajjat ;  the  former  of 
which  is  the  only  month-name  which  the  Saba;ans 
share  with  the  Moslems  (the  Sakean  twelve  are 
enumerated  by  Midler  in  MM  51).  Prayers  are 
ordinarily  designated  by  the  common  Semitic  word 
for  petition,  but  the  other  word  (amid),  which 
occurs  often,  perhaps  implies  stereotyped  formulae. 
From  the  inscr.  CIS  126  it  would  appear  that  the 
gods  were  also  appeased  |by  certain  forms  of  per- 
sonal abstinence,  and  from  one  of  those  edited  by 
Winckler  (I.e.)  it  might  appear  that  they  had 
some  share  in  the  administration  of  justice.  The 
Sah:eans  also  had  certain  ideas  of  ceremonial 
purity,  violation  of  which  had  to  be  atoned  for 
by  public  acknowledgment  on  tablets  placed  in 
temples :  some  curious  specimens  of  these  are 
given  in  SA  pp.  20-25. 

iv.  Language. — Of  the  S.  Arabian  inscriptions, 
a  few  are  couched  in  a  dialect  scarcely  distinguish- 
able from  classical  Arabic.  This  is  the  case  with 
the  texts  dealing  with  ceremonial  purity,  to  which 
reference  has  been  made.  The  Sabaean  texts  seem 
to  resemble  most  closely  the  dialect  known  as 
Ethiopic  ;  and  indeed  Ethiopic  may  be  regarded  as 
the  form  of  Saba^an  first  given  literary  shape  by 
Christian  missionaries,  altuough,  unless  the  dates 
on  the  Marib  inscriptions  (Glaser,  MVAS  6)  are 
absolutely  misleading,  Sabajan  must  have  con- 
tinued in  use  for  a  centmy  or  two  after  the  com- 
mencement of  Ethiopic  literature.  Owing  to  the 
absence  of  vowels,  we  know  little  of  the  pronun- 
ciation or  the  grammatical  finesse  of  Saba^an  ;  but 
it  clearly  differed  from  the  classical  Arabic  idiom 
in  many  particulars ;  in  some  of  which  it  pre- 
served what  classical  Arabic  lost,  while  more  often 
it  seems  to  represent  a  later  stage  of  development 
tlian  the  latter.  Its  alphabet  retains  a  sioilant 
lost  to  Arabic  ;  and  in  certain  cases  the  weak 
letters  have  still  consonantal  value  in  Sabsean  (as 
in  Ethiopic)  where  they  have  lost  it  in  Arabic 
Instead    of    the    prefixed    article  which  govenu 


SHEBA 


SHEBNA 


483 


Arabic  syntax,  Sabsean  has  an  affix,  similar  to 
that  in  ase  in  Aramaic ;  both  of  which  bear  a 
curious  likeness  to  the  Armenian  system.  For  the 
nunation  which  in  Arabic  supplies,  to  some  ex- 
tent, the  place  of  an  indefinite  article,  Sabacan  has 
miinnticm.  Probably  in  this  matter  Arabic  retains 
the  older  termination,  whereas  the  two  languai:es 
may  have  developed  or  borrowed  their  definite 
articles  independently.  The  emploj-ment  of  the 
dual  would  appear  to  have  been  as  regular  in 
Sabxan  as  in  ^Vrabic,  though  the  mode  of  express- 
ing it  differed  somewh.at.  The  Salxpan  syntax 
has  also  some  remarkable  peculiarities,  to  which 
nothing  in  Arabic  corresponds,  thouyh  they  might 
be  illustrated  from  Helirew.  We  have  already 
seen  (in  art.  Language  of  the  OT)  that,  like 
Ethiopic,  Sabsan  occasionally  agrees  in  its  vocabu- 
lary with  Canaanitish  against  Arabic ;  and  there 
are  also  cases  in  which  it  agrees  remarkably  with 
the  Aramaic  vocabulary,  although  in  the  most 
striking  of  these  (see  CIS  79)  the  common  words 
are  perhaps  borrowed  from  Aramaic,  since  the  in- 
scription shows  signs  of  having  been  written  by 
a  foreigner.  Though  there  is  still  much  about 
both  grammar  and  vocabulary  that  is  obscure, 
the  progress  made  in  the  study  since  Osiander's 
time  compares  favourably  with  that  achieved  in 
other  regions  of  epigraphy. 

D.  S.  Maegoliouth. 

SHEBA  (MP ;  B  ^i/ica,  A  Zd;3ef ;  Sal)ee).—A  town, 
according  to  AV,  wliich  was  allotted  to  Simeon 
(Jos  19-),  and  is  mentioned  between  Beersheba  and 
^Ioladah.  This  was  apparently  the  view  of  Euse- 
bius  and  Jerome  (Onom.  s.  Za^t).  RV,  however, 
and  the  edition  of  1611,  read  '  Beersheba  or  Sheba' ; 
and  this  is  in  agreement  with  the  number  of  towns 
(13)  said  to  have  been  allotted  to  Simeon  (Jos  19^"*), 
and  with  the  omission  of  Sheba  from  the  list  in 
1  Ch  4**.  It  is  not  unlikely  that  yjy]  is  due  to 
dittograpby  from  vzv  ixn,  or  it  may  be  a  corruption 
of  PDPi  (cf.  LXX  B)  of  Jos  W\    So  Dillm.  ad  loc. 

C.  W.  Wilson. 

8HEBANIAH  {.t»i?  ;  in  1  Ch  15"''  ?.i;;av)— 1-  The 
name  of  a  Levite  or  a  Levitical  family  that  took 
part  in  the  religious  services  which  followed  the 
reading  of  the  Law,  Neh  9^  (B  Zapa^id,  A  Zaxavid, 
K  2o/)o5id)'(LXX  om.).  The  name  appears  in  Neh 
10'"  amongst  those  who  sealed  the  covenant  (B 
Zafiani,  XA  2f^and,  Luc.  [in  both  verses]  Sexfylas). 
2.  A  priest  or  Levite  who  sealed  the  covenant, 
Neh  10»(B'E,3oi'W,  A  2«;3aW,  Luc.  Bo^ofos)  12"(Bs*A 
om.,  N°- •  ilfxf  XtoiS,  Luc  Sexf'aj).  See  SheCANIAH, 
No.  8.  3.  Another  Levite  who  sealed  the  cove- 
nant, Neh  10'^  (BA  Xepavid,  Luc.  Sa/JaWas).  4.  A 
priest  ia  David's  time,  1  Ch  IS'* (]i  Zofwid,  K  Zoftyftd, 
A  Zapertd,  Luc.  Za/Soyid). 

SHEBARIM  (in??>n,  with  art.  ;  /to!  [Lnc.  ttn] 
fwirpi^av  aiToi/t ;  Sabarim). — A  place  mentioned 
(Job  7°)  in  the  description  of  the  pursuit  of  the 
Israelites  by  the  men  of  Ai.  RVm  (so  also  Keil, 
Jotua)  tr.  hash-shibarim  by  'the  quarries,'  a  ren- 
dering which  .Steuernagel  (in  Nowack's  Hdkomm.) 
is  also  inclined  to  accept.  The  place  was  on  the 
descent  from  Ai  to  the  Jordan  Vallev,  but  the 
name  has  not  been  recovered.  The  LXX  (cf.  Pesh. 
and  Targ.  Di.^yrnv)  does  not  recognize  a  proper 
name,  but  takes  the  meaning  to  be  '  [they  pursued 
them]  till  they  were  broken,"  i.e.  completely  routed 
and  mistly  destroyed.     See,  further,  Dillm.  ad  loc. 

C.  W.  Wilson. 

SHEBAT.— Zee  1'.     See  Sebat  and  Time. 

SHEBER  {T^?i ;  B  Zi^tp,  A  2/^fp,  Lnc.  2d^o/>).— 
A  son  ( f  Caleb  by  his  concubine  Maacah,  1  Ch  2". 

SHEBNA  (m^,  in  2  K  IS"-"  njjj'  BHEBNAH  ; 


LXX  ZiM^as  [in  Is  .*?G'  B  26;9»at,  and  so  Q"»«  in 
36"]). — A  major-domo  or  palace-governor  of  king 
Hezekiah,  against  whom  is  directed  one  of  the 
recorded  utterances  of  Isaiah  (Is  22""").  The 
prophet's  language  implies  tliat  Shebna  possessed 
wealth  and  high  position.  His  chariots  and  their 
splendour  drew  remark  (v.'*).  He  had  begun  the 
construction  of  a  tomb  such  as  princes  made  for 
themselves  (v."*).  The  office  he  held  was  domestic 
in  origin,  but  had  become  one  of  the  highest  in  the 
State.  Control  of  the  royal  household  and  man- 
agement of  the  affairs  of  the  palace  brought  the 
holder  of  the  office  into  intimate  relations  with  the 
king,  and  placed  in  his  hands  the  dispensing  of 
much  favour  and  patronage.  The  palace  guards 
were  probably  under  his  control,  so  that  the  im- 
portant element  of  a  certain  military  power  was 
added  to  his  position.  Isaiah  refers  to  the  suprem- 
acy of  his  authority  in  the  palace  (v.^).  He  also 
implies  that  tlie  office  (3K  as  in  Gn  45')  had  duties 
beyond  the  palace  precincts,  in  Jerusalem  and  even 
in  Judah  (v.*').  ^^'hen  Jerusalem  was  threatened  by 
the  Assyrian  king,  the  holder  of  this  otiice  was  one 
of  three  chosen  by  Hezekiah  to  negotiate  for  him 
(2  K  18  f . ).  The  palace-governor,  in  short,  was  one 
of  the  principal  ministers  of  State. 

The  fuU  significance  of  Isaiah's  prediction  re- 
garding Shebna  is  ajjparent  only  if  it  he  remem- 
bered, firstly,  that  he  was  a  foreigner,  and,  secondly, 
that  he  was  just  then  constructing  for  himself  a 
tomb  which  should  be  his  monument  and  resting- 
place.  It  was  probably  on  a  day  when  he  was 
viewing  complacently  the  progress  of  this  work 
that  the  prophet  came  to  him  with  his  disturbing, 
disconcerting  message.  He  will  not  rest  in  the 
sepulchre  he  is  making,  He  has  not  even  found,  as 
he  had  thought,  an  adopted  country.  He  will  be 
cast  out  from  the  land  of  Judah,  and  die  and  be 
buried  far  away  from  the  tomb  he  is  preparing. 

The  simplest  way  of  regarding  Isaiah's  message  is  to  take  it 
as  a  special  case  of  the  warning,  '  He  putteth  down  the  mighty 
from  their  seat,  he  exalteth  them  of  low  degree.*  Shebna's 
pride,  his  arrogant  splendour,  and  his  confidence  in  the  future 
are  marked  features  in  his  character  as  it  is  presented  to  us. 
His  fate  is  not  represented  as  retribution  for  what  he  has  done. 
Rather,  it  is  the  contrast  between  his  present  haughty  inde- 
pendence and  his  future  humiliation  which  exposes  him  to 
rebuke  and  brings  upon  him  the  prophet's  warning.  It  might 
be  argued  that  the  application  of  the  words  'my  Ber%'ant'  to 
his  successor  (v.20),  and  the  evidence  of  vM,  imply  that  he  had 
transgressed  J'"s  law.  It  is  certainly  probable  that  a  man  of 
Shebna's  spirit  would  in  his  position  be  guilty  of  conduct  which 
Isaiah  elsewhere  resents.  But  the  prophecy  does  not  denounce 
judgment  on  him  for  this  reason.  It  has  been  suggested  that 
Hhenna's  policy  was  not  in  accordance  with  Isaiah's,  that  he 
was  one  of  those  who  instigated  the  king  to  a  breach  with 
Assyria.  Tliis  also  is  possible,  but  is  merely  conjecture.  Even 
the  interpretation  of  the  *  large  country '  of  v.^  as  Assyria  ia  no 
support. 

The  date  of  the  prophecy  may  be  inferred  from 
2K  18f.  (  =  I8  36f.),  where  Eliakim  appears  as 
holder  of  the  office  of  major-donw.  That  was  in 
the  year  B.C.  701.  Some  time  before  this,  accord- 
ingly, Shebna  had  been  removed  from  his  office. 
The  prophecy  was  delivered  still  earlier.  The 
argument  implies,  in  accordance  with  Is  22^""^, 
that  Eliakim  a  tenure  of  office  followed  Shebna's 
(see  Eliakim).  But  this  same  narrative  mentions 
also  a  certain  'Shebna  the  scribe'  (2  K  is'*- '•'*•" 
19'  =  l8  36»-  "• "  37').  It  is  unlikely  that  there  was 
more  than  one  Shebna  among  Hezekiali's  officers 
of  State.  The  subject  of  Isaiah's  prophecy  appears, 
accordingly,  to  have  held,  later  on,  the  otlice  of 
royal  secretary.  One  of  two  conclusions  may  be 
drawn  :  either  the  prophecy  was  unfulfilled  in  701, 
or  there  is  a  mistake  in  describing  it  as  directed 
against  Shebna. 

A  third  view  has  been  maintained,  to  the  effect  that  change 
of  offlce  from  maiOT-d<nno  to  secretarj'  ts  degradation  equivalenc 
to  futtllmentot  the  prediction.  There  is  not,  however,  sutllcient 
proof  that  the  oiBce  of  State  secretary  was  lower  than  that  of 

govemorof  the  palace.     But,  besides,  Isaiah  foretells  as  Shebna'e 
ht«  muob  more  than  low  of  offlce.    That,  indeed,  k  merely  part 


484 


SHEBUEL 


SHECnEM 


et  the  implication  of  a  sentence  of  exile  and  banisliment.  I/n-is 
of  office,  or  rather  transference  to  another  office,  is  by  no  mians 
tlie  same  a3  exile.  Isaiah  mentions  it  as  a  part  of  Shebiia'a 
misfortune.  It  is  less  easy  to  decide  between  the  alternatives 
which  remain.  If  the  spirit  and  essence  of  Isaiah's  prophecy 
be  considered,  Shebna'a  change  of  office  was  not  in  the  slifrhtest 
dei^ree  its  fulfilment.  This  conclusion  may  be  declared  im- 
possible on  theological  grounds.  But  Shebna's  history  did  not 
end  with  the  year  701.  His  exile  may  have  come  after  that 
date.  Delay  in  the  fulfilment  of  the  prediction  or  premature 
anticipation  of  its  fulfilment  is  all  that  need  be  assumed.  The 
alternative  conclusion  is  that  the  governor  of  the  palace  in 
Is  22  is  wrongly  named  Shebna.  In  support  of  this  it  may  be 
argued  (Dulim,  (tdloc,  and  others)  that  tlie  last  clause  of  v. 15  is 
ir  its  wroni^  place,  was  orifjinally  an  editorial  heading  to  the 
section,  and  may  be  in  error.  The  words  •  against  (7j;)  Shebna 
the  palace-governor'  certainly  read  like  a  heading  and  leave 
an  improved  text  when  removed  from  their  present  position. 
But  the  suirgestion  that  an  editor  took  the  name  from  2  K  18  is 
improbable,  since,  (1)  Shebna  is  secretary  there,  and  (2)  the 
identitl'-ation  creates  evidence  against  the  fulfilment  of  the 
prediction.  The  difficulty,  therefore,  that  Shebna  was  royal 
secretary  in  701  remains  the  only  reason  for  ehminatiug  the 
name  from  Is  22". 

The  designation  pb  in  Is  2210  has  not  been  referred  to.  The 
title  occurs  only  here  in  the  OT.*  In  1  K  1*.  4  the  fenjnine 
is  used  (AVm  *  cherisher ').  In  a  Phceniciao  inscription  about 
80  years  older  than  Isaiah's  prophecy  (?)  (CIS  i.  p.  25)  it  is  used 
possibly  in  the  sense  of  city-governor.t  This  may  be  its  raean- 
mg  here.  It  harmonizes  sufficiently  with  the  designation  of 
Shebna  as  palace-governor.  The  domestic  office  may  have  in- 
cluded the  other  (cf.  v.2i).  The  cognate  in  Assyr.  denotes 
•governor '(Del  HH'B s.  \3V).  W.  B.  STEVENSON. 

SHEBUEL  (Sxn:;').— 1.  A  son  of  Gershom  and 
grand.soQ  of  Moses,  1  Ch  23i»  (BA  2oi>/3aiiX,  Luc. 
Sou^iijA).  He  was  '  ruler  over  the  treasuries,'  26^ 
(B'lw^X,  A  2oi//3a^X,  Luc.  Su/3f^\).  He  is  called  in 
24™  Shubael  (Sxiib*;  B  'Iw/3a?)\,  A  Sou/Sa^X,  Luc. 
2ouj3ii5X),  whicli  is  prob.  the  original  form  of  the 
name  (see  Gray,  HPN  310).  2.  A  son  of  Heman, 
1  Ch  2.5^  (BA  2oir;3a7iX,  Luc.  Zoi/^i^X),  called  in  v.*» 
Shubael  (LXX  as  in  v.''). 

SHECANIAH  (ti:;?  ;  inl  Ch24»  2Ch31"(n;j3?»). 
—1.  A  descendant  of  Zerubbabel,  1  Ch  3^-"  (B 
2ex"''<i.  A  and  Luc.  Sexf '"5,  which  is  the  reading 
of  Luc.  also  in  all  the  following  passages).  It  is 
probably  the  same  Shecaniah  who  is  named  in  Ezr 
iS'  (B  Savaxii,  A  Zaxavia.)  ;  see  Ryle,  ad  loc.  2.  Ac- 
(wrding  to  the  MT  of  Ezr  8*,  '  the  sons  of  Sheca- 
niah '  were  amongst  those  who  returned  with  Ezra ; 
but  a  name  appears  to  have  dropped  out  of  the 
text,  and  we  should  read  '  of  the  sons  of  Zattu, 
Shecaniah  the  son  of  Jahaziel '  (cf.  1  Es  8*"  '  of  the 
sons  of  Zathoes,  Sechenias  the  son  of  Jezelus'). 
Ezr  8'  is  wanting  in  15 ;  A  has  dirA  vlHv  Za9ojjs 
Zexovlas.  3.  Chief  of  tlie  tenth  course  of  priests, 
1  Ch  24"  (B  'Icrxacid,  .-V  Se«wd).  4.  A  priest  in 
the  reign  of  Hezekiah,  2  Ch  31"  (BA  ^exoi-ias). 
S.  A  contemporary  of  Ezra,  who  supported  him  in 
liis  action  in  connexion  with  the  foreign  marriages, 
Ezr  10^  (Xexevlas).  6.  The  father  of  Shemaiah, 
'  the  keeper  of  the  east  gate,'  Neh  3^  (B  'Ex^ii, 
XA  Sex^ni).  It  is  possible  that  he  and  No.  1  are 
identical.  7.  The  father-in-law  of  Tobiah  the 
Ammonite,  Neh  6'*  (^exf'd).  8.  The  eponym  of  a 
family  wliich  returned  with  Zerubbabel,  Neh  12* 
(Sfxf'd)-  It  is  the  same  name  which,  by  inter- 
change of  3  and  3,  appears  as  Shebaniab  (see 
Shebaniah,  No.  2)  in  Neh  10''  12'''. 

SHECHEM.  — 1.  (tj^ti)  Gn  S^'»  34>-«  etc.  See 
Hamor.  2.  (05^,  2i<xfMl  the  name  of  a  Manassite 
clan,  Nu  20^' W  (the  Shechemites  'o?;rr,  Stj/uoj  i 
ZyxeiJi{ee)i},  Jos  17",  1  Ch  7'".  The  various  con- 
flicting schemes  by  which  these  three  passages 
(P,  J,  and  the  Chronicler)  connect  Shechem  with 
Manasseh  are  discussed  in  art.  Manasseh,  vol.  iii. 
p.  231  f. 

•  Cheyne  (ExpoHtor,  ix.  [189D]  p.  464)  would  read  this  word 
•Uo  in  2  3  8"  202«,  1  K  4»  (1  Oh  ISIT),  but  see  art  Pribsts  and 
Lbvitkh,  p.  73b. 

t  Quoted  and  to  translated  by  Wmckler,  Ot$chioht«  Itraelt, 
1. 120. 


SHECHEM  (DD-.f'  ' -slioulder  •  ;  ^vxi/i,  i)  Sxijita 
(1  K  l-i--'),  Td  ZlKiiia  (Jos  24^-),  2i)Ki/xa,  2^Xw  (Joa 
241. 25)_  ^iKtiiov,  ZlKi/xa  (Josepii.)  ;  Sichem,  Sirima 
(Jerome,  Onom.)). — There  are  two  views  with 
regard  to  the  name.  One,  held  by  Eusebius  {Onuin. 
s.  :ivx^f-),  is  that  Shechem,  the  son  of  Hamor,  '  the 
Hivite,  tlie  prince  of  the  land '  (Gn  33'*' "),  gave 
liis  name  to  the  town.  In  this  case  the  name  is 
used  in  Gn  12"  by  anticipation.  The  other  view  ia 
that  Sliechem  received  his  name  from  the  to\vn, 
which  was  so  called  from  the  shechim,  '  saddle,'  or 
'  shoulder '  (cf.  Gn  48'--),  between  Ebal  and  Gerizim, 
which  separates  the  waters  of  the  Mediterranean 
from  those  of  the  De.ad  Sea.  The  latter  supposi- 
tion is  the  more  probable.  The  name  occurs  in  the 
'  Travels  of  a  RIohar,'  if  Max  Miiller's  reading, 
'  Mountain  of  Sakaraa,' — the  mountain  of  Sichem, 
i.e.  Ebal  or  Gerizim, — be  correct  {Asien  u.  Europ. 
p.  394).  Eusebiusand  Jerome  (0»io;«.)  held  the  view 
tliat  Shechem  was  formerly  called  Salem ;  but  this 
opinion  is  apparently  based  on  a  wrong  interpre- 
tation of  Gn  33"  (see  Shalem). 

The  position  of  Shechem  is  clearly  indicated  in 
the  Bible.  It  was  west  of  Jordan  ;  in  the  territory 
allotted  to  Joseph  (see  Gn  48-^,  where  '  portion  '  is 
the  translation  of  shSch(ni) ;  in  the  hill-country 
of  Ephraim  (AV  Mount  Ephraim),  within  the 
limits  of  the  tribe  of  Ephraim  (Jos  20'  21^, 
I  K  12'",  1  Ch  G^  T^,  cf.  Jos  17'),  and  immedi- 
ately below  Gerizim  (J^  9').  It  was  beyond  Shiloh 
on  the  high  road  from  Jerus.  to  the  north  (Jg  21'"), 
to  the  west  of  Michmethath  (Jos  17'),  and  not 
very  far  from  Dothan  (Gn  37""").  The  evidence 
outside  the  Bible  is  decisive :  Josephus  distinctly 
says  (Ant.  IV.  viii.  44)  that  Shechem  was  between 
Ebal  and  Gerizim.  Eusebius  {Onom.  s.  2ux^^,  Aoufd, 
'tepi^ifffos)  places  it  in  the  suburbs  of,  or  close  to, 
Neapolis;  whilst  Jerome  (jBp.PdM.  xvi.),  Epiphanius 
[adv.  Hcvr.  iii.  1055),  and  later  writers  identify  it 
with  Neapolis,  the  present  Niibliis.  Shechem  is 
supposed  to  have  been  destroyed  during  the  Jewish 
War,  and  to  have  been  rebuilt  by  Vespasian,  who 
named  it  Flavia  Neapolis.  It  is  so  called  on  coins 
(Eckhel,  Doc.  Num.  iii.  433),  and  by  Justin  Martyr, 
who  was  a  native.  Joseplius  says  {B.I  IV.  viii.  1) 
that  Neapolis  was  anciently  called  Mabortha,  or 
Mabartha — a  name  which  Pliny  gives  {HN  v.  13) 
in  the  form  Mamortha.  This  word  has  been 
variously  explained.  Reland  conjectures  (Z)ti.  Mis. 
i.  138-140)  that  the  readings  should  be  corrected 
from  coins  which  have  Morthia — the  classical  form, 
according  to  his  view,  of  Moreh.  Tomkins  (^Aro- 
/11m  and  his  Aqe,  p.  90)  connects  Mabortha, 
Morthia,  with  Rlartu,  the  Sumerian  form  of  the 
name  Amorite,  and  takes  it  as  evidence  of  a  pre- 
Semitic  occupation  of  the  site.  He  quotes  the 
view  of  Sayce,  wlio  sees  Martu  in  '  the  terebinth 
of  Morel).'  Ritter  {Pal.  646)  considers  that  the 
name  refers  to  the  'pass'  or  valley  in  which  the 
town  is  situated.  Olshausen,  Hitter  (as  above), 
Gu^rin  {Samarie.,  i.  420),  and  Riehm  {HWB)  take 
it  to  mean  a  '  thoroughfare,'  or  place  of  '  passage ' 
or  'crossing'  (Hn-iji'p  mndbartd)  —  a  name  very 
applicable  to  a  town  situated  in  the  natural  pas- 
sage or  valley  from  the  Mediterranean  to  the 
Jordan,  or  on  the  caravan  road  from  Judaea  to 
Galilee.  Neubauer  {Gfog.  du  Talm.  169)  sees  in 
the  word  a  corruption  of  the  Aram.Tan  unsiia 
{mabarakhta),  '  blessed  town,'  .and  supports  his 
view  by  the  statement  in  the  Talmud  that  the 
Samaritans  called  their  mountains  '  the  mountains 
of  blessing.' 

When  Abram  entered  the  land  of  Canaan,  he 
camped  by  the  oak  (AV  *  plain,'  RVm  'terebinth") 
of  Moreh,  at  or  near  '  the  place  of  Shechem  '  (AV 
Sichem),  and  there  built  '  an  altar  unto  the  LoriD 
(Gn  12«-').  Some  authorities  maintain,  from  the 
expression  'place  of  Shechem,'  that  the  city  did 


SHECHEil 


SHECHEM 


4S.j 


act  then  exist ;  but  the  word  '  place  '  (Gesen.  Lex.) 
is  applied  to  inhabited  towns  in  Gn  IS'-"  19'-  and 
29-.  It  is  also  most  unlikely  that  the  Cananiiites, 
who  were  '  then  in  the  land,'  would  have  overlooked 
or  neglected  to  occupy  a  well-watered  site  which 
possessed  so  many  natural  advantages.  The  oak  of 
Moreh,  or  a  successor,  is  apparently  mentioned  aa 
'  the  oak  which  was  by  Shecheni '  (Gn  SS*), '  the  oak 
that  was  in  the  sanctuary  of  the  Lord'  (Jos  24'-*), 
'  the  oak  of  the  pillar  that  was  in  Shecheni '  (Jf;  9"). 
'The  oak  of  Meonenim'  (Jg  9"'  'the  diviners' 
tree  ')  is  possibly  also  the  tree  of  Gn  12",  but,  Moore 
thinks,  not  of  Jg  9". 

When  Jacob  '  came  from  Paddan-aram,'  Shechem 
was  a  Hivite  city  under  the  rule  of  Hamor  the 
father  of  Shechem.  The  patriarch  pitched  his 
t€nt  to  the  cast  of  the  city  on  ground  wliidi  he 
afterwards  purchased  from  Hamor,  and  bequeathed 
to  the  children  of  Joseph.  Here  Jacob  erected  an 
altar,  and  sunk  a  well  for  his  family  and  cattle; 
and  here  Joseph  wa-s  buried  (Gn  33'*"-"  34=  48-,  Jos 
24*",  Jn  4»-  «■  '■■',  Ac  7'").  The  size  of  the  '  parcel '  is 
unknown,  but  it  possibly  included  the  oak  beneath 
which  Jacob  concealed  the  gods  and  trinkets  of  his 
household  before  moving  to  Bethel  (Gn  35*).  From 
the  account  of  the  capture  and  pillage  of  Shechem, 
perhaps  alluded  to  in  Gn  4S-,  and  of  tlie  events 
which  followed  the  defilement  of  Dinah,  it  would 
appear  that  the  Shecliemites  were  a  peaceful,  un- 
circumcised  people,  who  possessed  sheep,  oxen,  and 
other  wealth  (Gn  3410.  ^i •  »■  as-as  ;  Jos.  Ajit.  1.  \\i. 
1).  The  mas.sacre  of  the  Shecheinites  (if  indeed  it 
belongs  to  the  patriarchal  period,  but  see  arts. 
Ha.Mor,  Simeon)  does  not  seem  to  have  aroused 
the  ill-will  of  the  surrounding  tribes,  for,  whilst 
Jacob  lived  at  Hebron,  his  sons  pastured  his  flocks 
at  Shechem  in  peace  (Gn  37'=''*). 

Shechem  acquired  additional  importance  and 
sanctity  from  the  promulgation  of  the  Law  in  its 
immediate  neighbourhood  (Dt  27'*"'*,  Jos  8^"'*) ; 
and  from  the  renewal  of  the  covenant  with  God 
when  Joshua,  towards  the  close  of  his  life,  gathered 
all  the  tribes  of  Israel  to  Shechem  and  set  up  a 
^eat  stone,  as  a  witness,  under  '  the  oak  th.at  was 
in  ( AV  by)  the  sanctuary  of  the  Lord  '  (Jos  24'-  "■^--'']. 
Joshua  made  Shechem  a  city  of  refuge,  and  gave  it 
to  the  Levites  (Jos  20'  21-',  1  Ch  (i'" ;  cf.  Hos  6" 
(RV);  Jos.  Ant.  v.  i.  24).  Yet  under  the  Judges 
we  find  a  temple  of  Baal-berith  in  or  near  the  town 
(Jg  '.)*■*'},  and  the  population  is  plainly  Canaanite. 

After  Gideon's  death,  the  men  of  Shechem  made 
Abimclccli,  his  son  by  a  Shechemite  concubine, 
king  by  the  oak  (IIV  '  plain  ')  of  '  the  pillar  that 
was  in  Shechem  '  ;  and  it  was  during,  or  immedi- 
ately after,  the  ceremony  that  Jotham  delivered  his 
parable  of  (he  trees  from  Mount  Gerizim  (Jg  8^' 
yi-3.  «-Mj  When  Abimelech  had  reigned  three  years 
the  Shechemites  rose  against  him,  but  he  soon  re- 
took the  city,  and,  after  destroying  it,  sowed  the 
iite  with  s.ilt.  He  also  set  lire  to  and  burned  the 
temple  of  15aal-berith,  in  which  a  portion  of  the 
garrison  had  taken  refuge  (Jg  9*^"°'^;  Jos.  Ant.  v. 
vii.  4).  In  consequence  of  its  central  position  and 
■acred  associations,  all  Israel  assembled  at  Shechem 
to  make  Rehoboam  king  (1  K  12',  2  Ch  10');  but 
the  LTuat  disruption  followed,  and  the  ten  tribes 
revolted,  and  made  Jeroboam  their  king.  Jeroboam 
rebuilt  or  fortiticd  the  town,  and  built  himself  a 
palace  there  (1  K  12'";  Jos.  Ant.  vill.  viii.  4).  The 
position,  however,  wn.s  not  a  strong  one,  and  the 
cajiital  of  the  new  kingdom  wa.s  first  moved  to 
Tirzah  and  then  to  Samaria— sites  more  capable 
of  defence  against  the  attack  of  an  enemy.  \Vlien 
Samaria  became  the  political  and  religious  centre 
of  the  Northern  Kingdom,  Shechem  lost  its  import- 
ance, and  it  is  not  once  mentioned  during  the 
monarchy.  The  town  wa.s,  however,  inhabited 
after  the  fall  of  Jerusalem  (Jer  4P),  and  became 


the  chief  town  of  the  Samaritans  (Sir  50-';  Jos. 
Ant.  XI.  viii.  6).  About  u.C.  132  it  was  taken  by 
John  Hyreanus,  and  the  temple  on  Mt.  Gerizim 
destroyed  (Jos.  Ant.  XIII.  ix.  1 ;  BJ  I.  ii.  6). 

Shechem  was  probably  destroyed  during  the 
Jewish  War,  and  its  place  taken  by  Flavia  Nea- 
polis,  built  by  Vespasian  a  short  distance  to  ihe 
west  of  the  ancient  site.  Coins  struck  at  Neapolis 
during  the  reign  of  Antoninus  Pius  represent  Geri- 
zim with  a  large  temple  on  its  summit,  approached 
by  many  steps  cut  or  built  in  the  side  of  the  moun- 
tain. This  temple,  according  to  the  Samaritan 
Chronicle,  Dion  Cassius  (xv.  12),  and  Damascius 
(Phot.  Bihl.  p.  1055),  was  built  by  Hadrian,  and 
dedicated  to  Jupiter.  In  the  reign  of  Zeno  the 
.Samaritans  attacked  (A.D.  474)  the  Christians  at 
Pentecost,  and  wounded  the  bishop,  Terebinthus, 
whose  name  was  perhaps  taken  from  the  terebinth 
or  oak  of  Moreh.  In  consequence  of  this,  the 
emperor  deprived  the  Samaritans  of  Gerizim  and 
gave  the  mountain  to  the  Christians,  who  built  a 
church  on  it  which  they  dedicated  to  the  Virgin. 
Justinian  afterivards  surrounded  the  church  with  a 
strong  wall,  and  rebuilt  five  churches  in  Neapolis 
which  the  Samaritans  had  destroyed  (Procop.  De 
.£iUf.  v.  7).  The  only  known  bishops  of  Neapolis 
areGermanus,  who  attended  the  Councils  of  Ancyra 
and  Nicjea,  Terebinthus,  Procopius,  Ammonas, 
and  Joannes,  who  was  present  at  the  Council  of 
Jerusalem  (A.D.  536).  In  1184  Ndblus  was  pill.aged 
by  Saladin,  and  in  1834  by  the  soldiers  of  Ibrahim 
Pasha.  In  12U2  and  again  in  1837  the  town  sutlered 
greatly  from  severe  earthquakes. 

Near  the  centre  of  Palestine  the  range  of  hills 
which  traverses  the  country  from  north  to  south 
is  pierced  by  a  remarkable  pass — the  only  one 
conspicuous  irom  the  sea.  The  pass,  w  Inch  lies 
between  Ebal  and  Gerizim,  is  the  Vale  of  Shechem. 
The  valley  rises  gradually  eastward  to  a  grand 
natural  amphitheatre,  with  its  southern  end  re- 
cessed in  Gerizim  and  its  northern  in  Ebal.  Here 
the  gently  swelling  ground  of  the  arena  separates 
the  waters  of  the  >Iediterranean  from  those  of  the 
Dead  Sea ;  and  here,  in  all  probability,  was  held 
'  the  great  inaugural  service  of  all  Israel  on  taking 
possession  of  the  country.'  Eastward  of  the  water- 
parting,  the  ground  falls  gradually  between  Ebal 
and  Gerizim  to  the  rich  level  plain  of  el-Mukhna  ; 
and  near  the  spot  where  the  valley  merges  into  the 
plain  are  the  traditional  sites  of  ^Jacob's  Well  and 
Joseph's  Tomb.  The  beauty  of  the  Vale  of 
Shecliem  and  its  exuberant  fertility  have  often 
been  described.  The  soft  colouring  of  the  land- 
scape, the  fresh  green  of  the  gardens  that  slope 
down  on  either  side,  the  gi'ey  olive  trees,  the  joyous 
notes  of  the  numerous  birds  of  song,  and  the 
'  mighty  burst  of  waters  from  the  flank  of  (iirizim,' 
make  the  vale  the  most  beautiful  spot  in  (.^cntral 
and  Southern  Palestine.  Amidst  tliis  wealth  of 
verdure,  clinging  as  it  were  to  the  lower  slopes 
of  Gerizim,  lies  Nablus  [Ncnpulis),  the  '  little  Da- 
mascus' of  the  old  Arab  writers,  and  a  little  to 
the  east,  between  the  modern  town  and  the  water- 
parting,  probably  lay  Shechem.  The  natural 
attractiveness  of  the  locality,  its  central  position 
on  the  highland  road  from  north  to  south,  and 
the  facilities  for  communication  on  tlie  one  hand 
with  Sharon  and  the  Mediterranean,  and  on  the 
other  with  the  Jordan  Valley  and  the  trans-.lordanio 
regions,  marked  it  out  as  a  place  of  importance 
from  the  remotest  period.  A  trade  route,  to  which 
allusion  is  made  in  Hos  6°,  and  which  the  Psalmist 
may  have  had  in  his  mind  when  he  connected 
Shechem  with  the  valley  of  Succoth  (Ps  OH"  108'), 
ran  at  a  very  early  date  from  the  coast  districts, 

Sast  Shechem  to  Gilead.     The  connexion  with  the 
istricts  east  of  Jordan  remained  almost  to   the 
present  day,  for,  until  recently,  Gilead  was  gov 


486 


SHECHEM 


SHEEP 


erned  from  Ndblus,  which  is  still  the  connecting 
link  between  the  telegraph  system  east  and  west 
of  Jordan.  The  modem  town  contains  three 
churclies  built  by  the  Crusaders  which  are  now 
mosques,  the  synagogue  of  the  Samaritans,  and  a 
few  fragments  of  the  Roman  city.  Immediately 
outside  the  to\\Ti,  on  the  S.W.,  there  is  a  small 
mosque  on  the  traditional  site  of  Jacob's  mouraing 
when  Joseph's  coat  w;vs  brought  to  him.  In  the 
minaret  close  by  there  is  a  stone  with  a  Samaritan 
inscription  containing  the  Ten  Commandments. 

Envirnns. — There  are  three  spots  in  the  neigh- 
bourhood of  Shechem  which  require  some  notice  : 
the  Well  of  Jacob,  the  Tomb  of  Joseph,  and  the 
site  of  the  '  oak '  of  Moreh.  A  tradition  that  goes 
back  to  the  early  part  of  the  4th  cent.,  and  in 
which  Jews,  Samaritans,  Christians,  and  Moslems 
agree,  identihes  Jacob's  Well  with  Bir  Y'akiib. 
This  well,  sometimes  called  Bir  es-  Hamai-ieh,  '  well 
of  the  Samaritan  '  (woman),  is  situated  in  the  level 
plain  of  el-Mukhna,  about  H  m.  from  Ndblus  on 
the  road  to  Jerus.,  and  a  little  beyond  the  vUlage 
of  BaU'ita.  The  well  is  sunk  to  a  great  depth, 
partly  through  alluvial  soil  and  partly  through 
limestone,  so  as  to  secure,  even  in  exceptionally 
dry  seasons,  a  supply  of  water.  By  its  construction 
in  his  own  '  parcel '  of  ground,  the  patriarch,  with 
great  prudence  and  forethought,  made  himself  in- 
dependent of  the  springs  which  probably  belonged 
to  the  Shechemite  villagers,  and  avoided  those 
quarrels  about  water  which  are  so  common  in  a 
country  where  the  population  is  partly  sedentary 
and  partly  nomadic.  Eusebius  (Onom.)  and  the 
Bordeaux  Pilgrim  (A.D.  333)  mention  the  well  in 
connexion  with  Sychar,  a  place  which  they  distin- 
guish from  Sicliem  and  Neapolis.  Jerome  (Onmn.) 
adds  that  there  was  a  church  at  the  well  which  was 
visited  by  St.  Paula  (i?;j.  Paul.  xvi.).  Antoninus 
Martyr  (A.D.  570),  Arculfus  (A.D.  670),  and  Willi- 
bald  (A.D.  754),  mention  the  well  and  church,  and 
Arculfus  adds  that  the  church  was  cruciform,  the 
well  being  in  the  centre.  The  church  was  appar- 
ently destroyed  before  the  arrival  of  the  Crusaders 
and  rebuilt  in  the  12th  cent.  It  was  again  destroyed 
after  tlie  battle  of  Hattin,  and  remained  a  heap  of 
rubbisli  until  a  few  years  ago,  when  it  became  the 
property  of  the  Greek  Church,  and  its  foundations 
were  uncovered  by  excavation.  The  stone  on  which 
our  Lord  sat  is  said  to  have  been  taken  to  Con- 
stantinople in  the  reign  of  Justinian  (see  Sychar). 

Jewish,  Samaritan,  and  Christian  tradition  iden- 
tifies the  Tomb  of  Joseph  with  a  modem  building, 
called  Kabr  YHsuf,  situated  in  the  plain  about  | 
m.  north  of  Jacob's  Well.  Moslem  traditions  vary 
— one  accepting  the  Kabr  Ynsuf,  another  placing 
the  tomb  in  the  cemetery  Eijal  el-  Amud aX,  the  foot 
of  Gerizira.  The  latter  place  was  apparently  sho\vn 
to  Maundrell  (A.D.  1697).  Eusebius,  the  Bordeaux 
Pilgrim,  and  Jerome  {Onom.)  place  the  tomb  to  the 
east  of  Neapolis  and  close  to  Sichem.  Jerome 
elsewhere  {Ep.  Paul,  xvi.)  saj^s  that  St.  Paula, 
after  leaving  Jacob's  Well,  visited  the  'tombs  of 
the  twelve  patriarchs.'  The  tradition  that  the 
twelve  sons  of  Jacob  were  buried  at  Shechem  rests 
on  the  words  of  St.  Stephen  (Ac  7"'- '").  Joseplius 
{Ant.  II  viii.  2)  saj's  they  were  buried  at  Hebron. 
Nearly  all  later  writers  refer  to  the  tomb  without 
distinctly  indicating  its  position  ;  but  all  Jewish 
travellers  place  it  in  the  immediate  neighbourhood 
of  tiie  village  of  Baldta. 

Two  sites  have  been  suggested  for  the  •  oak  '  of 
Moreh.  At  the  foot  of  Gerizim,  in  the  recess  which 
forms  part  of  the  natural  amphitheatre  already 
described,  there  is  a  small,  well-kept  cemetery, 
with  a  mosque,  a  courtyard,  a  well,  and  several 
tombs  of  which  one  is  the  tomb  of  Sheikh  YHsuf. 
The  place  is  called  Rijal  el-'AmUd,  'the  men  of 
the  3olumn,'  or  simply  el- Amud,   'the  column.' 


Here,  according  to  one  tradition,  Joseph  and  hia 
brethren  were  buried,  or,  according  to  another, 
several  Jen-ish  prophets.  A  tliird  tradition  finds 
in  it  the  spot  wnere  Jacob  buried  the  idols  of  his 
household,  whilst  the  Samaritans  believe  it  to  be 
the  place  where  Joshua  set  up  a  great  stone  under 
the  '  oak  '  that  was  in  the  sanctuary  of  the  Lord 
(Jos  24^).  The  other  site  is  Baldta,  a  small  hamlet 
\vith  a  beautiful  spring,  not  far  from  Jacob's  \\'ell. 
The  village  is  mentioned  in  the  Samaritan  Book  of 
Joshua  under  its  present  name,  which  contains  the 
radicals  of  the  Aramaic  word  for  'oak.'  The  place 
is  also,  apparently,  that  mentioned  by  Eusebius 
and  Jerome  {Onom.)  as  Balanus  (translated  by 
them  •  oak ')  near  Joseph's  Tomb,  and  identified  by 
them  with  the  oak  of  Shechem. 

LiTKRATCRB. — Descriptions  of  Ndblus  and  ita  environs,  and  of 
the  importance  of  Shechem  in  the  history  of  the  Jews,  will  bo 
found  in  PEF  Mem.  ii.  172-178,  203,  etc. ;  Stanley,  ^P  p.  233, 
etc  ;  Smith,  HGIIL  332,  etc ;  Gutirin,  Saviarie,  L  p.  372,  etc ; 
Robinson,  BRP*  iii  p^  96,  etc. ;  Wilson,  PEF  St.  1873,  p.  06,  etc. 

C.  W.  Wilson. 
SHEDEUR  (nisnc' ;  the  first  part  of  the  word  is 
probably  ns*  Hhnddai,  cf.  Gray,  BPN  169,  197). 
— The  father  of  Elizur,  the  chief  of  Reuben,  Nu  1' 
2'°  (B  and  Luc.  in  both  Seoioi'p,  A  'E5ioi)p)  7" 
(B  'E5i(7oup,  B'^AF  ZcSiaovp)  10'*  (XfSioiJp). 

SHEEP.— The  generic  name  for  'sheep'  is  jrfx 
z6n  (properly  '  small  cattle ').  The  unit  is  expressed 
by  .117  seh,  which  also  applies  to  goats.  V:x  'aytl 
signifies  'a  ram';  Vht  rdlicl,  'a  ewe';  0^2  keh)ies 
(feni.  kiblisah  and  ^reWwaA),  or  by  transposition  nb-a 
kcf:cbh  (Lv  3',  fern,  klsbah),  '  a  (yearling)  lamb '  ;  n^p 
faleh  (1  S  7"),  and  13  kar  (Ps  37-'"),  '  a  young  lamlj.' 
See,  further,  Lamb. 

The  sheep,  as  supplying  most  of  the  wants  of  a 
pastoral  people,  was  their  chief  possession,  and  a 
measure  of  their  wealth  and  prosperity.  Job  had 
7000  head  of  sheep  at  first,  then  14,000  (Job  P  42'2). 
Abraham,  Isaac,  Jacob,  and  Esau  had  vast  flocks 
of  them.  Sheep  furnished  their  owners  with  cloth- 
ing, mUk,  butter,  cheese,  meat,  and  a  medium  of 
exchange.  The  king  of  Moab  (see  art.  Mesha)  paid 
an  annual  tribute  of  100,000  lambs  and  the  same 
number  of  rams  to  the  king  of  Israel  (2  K  8*). 
Reuben  took  from  the  sons  of  Ishmael  250,000 
sheep  (1  Ch  5=').  Solomon  sacrificed  120,000  sheep 
at  the  dedication  of  the  temple  (1  K  8*^).  His 
household  consumed  100  sheep  a  day  (1  K  4^). 
The  Israelites  entered  Egypt  as  shepherds  (Gn 
47'-*),  and  left  it  with  much  cattle  (Ex  12^).  The 
same  regions  which  furnished  the  vast  flocks  in 
ancient  times  are  still  noted  for  their  sheep.  All 
the  plateaus  east  of  the  Jordan,  and  the  moun- 
tains of  Palestine  and  Syria,  are  pasture-grounds  for 
innumerable  flocks  and  herds.  In  the  spring,  when 
the  ewes  bring  forth  their  young,  the  succulent 
grasses  furnish  suitable  nourishment.  Later  on, 
when  the  rain  has  ceased,  the  sheep  still  nibble 
the  dried  herbage  and  stubble,  and  flourish  where 
to  a  Western  eye  all  is  barren  desert.  They  require 
water  but  once  a  day,  and,  where  they  cannot  get 
it  from  perennial  streams  as  the  Leontes,  the 
Orontes,  the  Jordan,  the  Yermuk,  the  Zerka 
(Jabbolf),  the  Zerka-Ma'in,  the  Mu'jib  (Arnon), 
etc.,  they  find  it  in  the  innumerable  wells,  foun- 
tains, and  cisterns  known  to  the  Arabs.  The 
descendants  of  the  same  shepherds  who  tended 
docks  in  Bible  days,  still  occupy  the  great  sheep- 
walks  of  Palestine. 

The  male  of  sheep,  as  of  other  animals,  was 
usually  chosen  for  sacrifice,  as  being  the  repre- 
sentative sex,  and  because  the  female  was  reserved 
for  breeding.  The  leper,  however,  ottered  two  he- 
lambs  and  one  ewe  (Lv  14">).  Similarly,  while  the 
sin-oliering  of  a  ruler  was  a  male  kid,  that  of  on« 
of  the  common  people  was  f-  'emale  kid  or  lamb 


(Lv  i'^^'-").  The  idea  of  sacrifice  has  not  dis- 
RIil)eare(l  wholly,  even  trom  Islam.  On  important 
occasions,  as  the  opening  of  a  new  road,  or  the 
erection  of  an  important  building,  sheep  are  sacri- 
6ccd,  and  tlieir  flesh  given  to  the  poor.  There  is  a 
'  I'east  of  the  Sacrilice '  at  Mecca  every  year,  in 
connexion  with  the  haj,  when  many  thousands  of 
sheep  and  other  animals  are  killed,  and  their  Uesh 
distributed  among  the  poor.  The  milk  of  sheep  is 
especially  mentioned  (Dt  32'-',  1  Co  9').  Wool  was 
and  is  a  staple  of  commerce  (2  K  3*,  Ezk  27").  It 
U  very  frequently  mentioned.  The  priests  had  the 
first  of  the  clip  (bt  18*).  Good  housewives  spun  it 
and  wove  it  (Pr  31").  Sheep-shearing  was  a  festival 
(Gn  31"  38",  1  S  25,  2  S  13==--'').  The  ram  lias  long 
recurved  horns,  wliich  were  used  for  trumpets  (Jos 
6')  and  oil-llasks  (1  S  16').  They  are  now  u.sed  as 
powder-liorns.  Uams'  skins,  dyed  red,  were  used 
in  the  construction  of  tlie  tabernacle  (Ex  2t)'''). 
Sheep  skins  were  and  are  fasliioned  into  a  baggy 
kind  of  coat  (He  11^).  Such  a  garment  is  the 
protection  of  every  Syrian  shepherd  against  the 
wind  and  rain. 

Tlie  broad-tailed  breed  of  sheep,  now  universal 
in  Palestine  and  Syria,  was  prob.  there  from  ancient 
times.  The  immense  tail  is  a  great  desideratum. 
It  is  the  'runiii'  of  Ex  29-'-,  Lv  3''  (UV  'fat  tail'). 
It  furnishes  as  much  as  10  pounds  of  pure  fat. 
This  is  tried  out,  usually  mixed  with  fine  morsels 
of  lean,  about  as  large  as  a  white  bean,  and  packed 
away  in  earthen  jars  for  winter  use.  Tliis  mixture 
is  the  main  reliance  of  the  peasants  of  Lebanon  in 
the  way  of  animal  food  for  several  months  of  each 
year.  It  is  called  kauramah.  To  increase  the 
amount  of  adipose  matter  in  the  tail,  the  sheep 
is  fattened  by  forced  feeding  with  mulberrj-  leaves. 
A  bolus  of  these  leaves  is  made  up  by  the  woman  or 
girl  in  charge,  and  crammed  between  the  teeth  of 
the  animal,  which  is  then  compelled  to  masticate 
and  swallow  it.  Towards  the  middle  of  October  the 
sheep  become  so  fat  that  they  are  often  unable  to 
stand. 

The  care  of  sheen  is  a  subject  of  frequent  allu- 
sion in  Scripture.  Ihey  are  exposed  to  tlie  vicissi- 
tudes of  weather,  winter  and  summer,  frost  and 
drought,  in  the  immense  treeless  plains  where  they 
are  most  rai.sed  (Gn  31*) ;  to  the  attacks  of  beasts 
and  robbers  (v.'»,  1  S  17",  Jn  10'-  '"•  ").  The  shep- 
herd leacli  (not  drives)  them  to  pasture  and  water 
(1*8  23.  77^7H'''-' 80') ;  protects  them  at  the  risk  of 
ins  life  (Jn  10").  To  Keep  them  from  the  cold  and 
rain  and  beasts,  he  collects  them  in  caves  (1  S  24') 
or  enclosures  built  of  rough  stones  (Nu  32'",  Jg  5", 
Zeph  2*,  Jn  10').  The  sheep  know  the  shepherd, 
and  heed  his  voice  (Jn  10*).  It  is  one  of  the  most 
interesting  spectacles  to  see  a  number  of  flocks  of 
thirsty  sheep  brought  by  their  several  shepherds 
to  be  watered  at  a  fountain.  Each  tlock,  in  obedi- 
ence to  the  call  of  its  own  shepherd,  lies  down, 
awaiting  its  turn.  The  shejjlierd  of  one  flock  calls 
his  sheep  in  squads,  draws  water  for  them,  pours  it 
into  the  troughs,  and,  when  the  squad  lias  done, 
orders  it  away  by  sounds  which  the  sheep  perfectly 
nnderstiind,  and  calls  up  another  squad.  \Vhen 
the  whole  of  one  flock  is  watered,  its  shepherd 
signals  to  it,  and  the  sheep  rise,  and  move  leisurely 
away,  while  another  flock  comes  in  a  similar 
manner  to  the  troughs,  and  so  on,  until  all  the 
flocks  are  watered.  The  sheep  never  make  any 
mistake  lus  to  who  whistles  to  them  or  calls  them. 
'They  know  not  the  voice  of  strangers' (Jn  10°). 
Sometimes  they  are  called  by  names  (v.').  It  was 
such  a  scene  that  greeted  Jacob's  eyes  when  he  fell 
in  love  with  Kachel  at  lirst  sight  (Gn  29'<'-"). 
Moses  met  his  wife  and  her  sisters  at  the  water- 
ing troughs  (Ex  2"'''").  The  shepherd  often  carries 
the  smaller  lambs  in  liLs  bosom,  or  under  his  arm, 
or  in  the  folds  of  his  cloak  (Is  40").    Dogs  are  indis- 


pensable to  shepherds  (Job  30').  They  protect  the 
Hock  from  wild  animals  and  robbers.  They  are  the 
unkempt,  savage,  shaggy  originals  of  the  city  dogs 
of  the  East.  Tliey  help  to  keep  the  sheep  together 
like  the  Scotch  collies.  Syrian  sheep  are  usually 
white  (Ps  147'",  Is  1",  Dn  7"),  but  some  are  brown 
(GnStf'--"  RV  'black'). 

No  animal  mentioned  in  Scripture  compares 
in  symbolical  interest  and  importance  with  the 
sheep.  It  is  alluded  to  about  SOO  times.  Tha 
people  of  God  are  His  sheep  (Ps  95'  100^  Jn  21'»-"), 
and  His  ministers  pastors,'  i.e.  shepherds  (Jer  23', 
Eph  4"  ;  cf.  our  Lord's  charge  to  St.  Peter  Jn  21'»i'-; 
see  art.  Peter,  vol.  iii.  p.  7U1).  Christ  is  the  Good 
Shepherd  (Jn  10"),  and  '  the  Lamb  (6  d/xvis)  of  God, 
which  taketh  away  the  sins  of  the  world  '  (Jn  V). 
The  song  of  the  redeemed  is  '  the  song  of  Moses 
and  the  Lamb'  (Rev  15'),  of  the  law  and  the  gos- 

Eel.  Satan  and  his  hosts  'made  war  with  the 
amb,'  and  the  Lamb  overcame  (H'*).  The  last 
act  of  the  drama  of  redemption  is  '  the  marriage 
of  the  Lamb'  (Rev  19"  21''- '*),  and  thereafter 
'God  Almighty  and  the  Lamb  are  the  temple' 
(v.^),  and  'the  Lamb  is  the  light  thereof  (v.^). 
Those  who  are  written  in  '  the  Lamb's  book  of 
life '  (v.")  enter  into  His  rest.  The  last  vision  of 
Revelation  is  'the  throne  of  God  and  the  Lamb' 
{rd  ipvlov,  22').  G.  E.  Post. 

SHEEP  FOLD.— See  Fold  and  Sheep. 

SHEEP  GATE,  Neh  S'*"  12''.— See  Jerusalem, 
vol.  ii.  p.  593.  For  the  Sheep  Gate  (AV  Sheep 
Market ;  Gr.  i)  vpojianni)  [sc.  irvXi)  as  in  LXX  of 
or  passages])  of  Jn  5-,  see  ib.  and  art.  Betuesda. 

SHEERAH  (.Tix?)).— A  'daughter'  of  Ephraim, 
who,  according  to  the  MT  of  1  Cli  7",  built  the  two 
IJeth-horons  and  a  place  of  doubtful  identity  t  called 
Uzzen-sheerah  (.t;.'j:^-]ix=' portion  [?  lit.  something 
weighed]  of  Shceiah').  In  v.^  while  A  and  Luc. 
recognize  a  proper  name  in  •"!■;•■<?'>  H,  reading  ap- 
parently •ilNB'Ji  instead  of  .tinb'  ib;i  (A  <toi  i)  Oir/aTrip 
ainov  i]aapd,  Luc.  — apad),  renders  khI  iv  ^kcIvols  tois 
KaTaXoiiroLi,  and  makes  Ephiaira  himself  the  builder 
of  the  upper  and  the  lower  Peth-horon.  In  v."""  the 
LXX  gives  quite  a  ditt'erent  turn  to  the  passage. 
Instead  of  the  place-name  Uzzen-sheerah,  it  reads 
icoi  viol  'OfaK-  :Zeripa  (  =  .TJ(;{'  |JN  -J^!). 

J.  A.  Selbie. 
SHEHARIAH    (n.-in^J;    B   and    Luc.    2ap<ud,  A 
Saopid).— A  Benjamite,  1  Ch  8"". 

SHEKEL.— See  artt.  Money  and  Weights  and 

Measures. 

BHEKINAH  (Heb.  nj-y^  'that  which  dwells  or 
resides'). — The  word,  as  well  as  the  conceiition, 
originated  after  the  close  of  the  Hebrew  Canon, 
and  is  characteristic  of  Judaistic  theology,  though 
the  con':eption  occurs  also,  with  deeper  connota- 
tion, in  NT  writings.  The  word  is  never  used 
except  of  God  ;  and  implies  what  we  should 
designate  '  the  Divine  Presence,'  or  '  the  Divine 
Manifestation.'  The  two  most  rtniarkablo  features 
of  Judaistic  theology  wore  its  development  of  the 
doctrine  of  Divine  '  aloofness,'  and  the  way  in 
which  it  then  sought  to  bridge  the  chasm  which  it 
had  created  between  God  and  man.  It  was  felt  to 
bo  an  indignity  to  God  that  He  should  be  sup|io.sed 
to  have  direct  contact  with  inert  matter,  and  iiu- 
mediatfl  intercour.se  with  sinful  man  ;  and  He  was 
gradually  pushed  further  away  from  His  world. 
The   transcendence  of  God,   and   His    exemption 

•  The  same  mtBlearlini^  tr  oocuni  also  in  Jcr  2*  81*  lO^i  17H 
222a  ".SS-  *  in  nil  <)(  wliich  RV  altera  to  '  shepherd." 

t  It  is  identities  in  B&rtllolomcw-Sniith'BmHpof  Palestine  (1901) 
with  Beil  Sira,  a  little  to  the  B.W.  of  tile  lower  Betb-horun. 


<88 


SHEKINAH 


SHEKINAH 


from  all  limitations,  was  insisted  on  with  increas- 
ing vigour,  until  it  reached  tlie  ne  plus  vltra  in 
I'liilo,  who  maintains  that  to  assign  any  quality  to 
Goil  would  be  to  limit  Him  ;  and  that  He  is  the 
absolutely  unlimited,  since  He  is  eternal,  un- 
changeable, simple  substance.  'Of  Cod,  we  can 
only  say  that  He  is,  not  ivkat  He  is'  (Drummond, 
Phllo  Jud.  ii.  23-30).  Having  thus  umlciliud  God, 
in  their  endeavour  to  dehumanize  Him,  the  object 
of  philosophic  Jews  was  to  posit  some  one  or  more 
intermediary  Hypostases,  who  might  occupy  the 
place  wliich  had  previously  been  assigned  to  God, 
in  the  world  of  matter  and  of  mind.  Of  these 
the  most  prominent  were  the  Metatron,  the  Word, 
the  Spirit,  Wisdom,  and  the  Shekinah.  It  is  the 
last  of  tliese  whicli  now  calls  for  investigation. 

In  the  Hebrew  religion,  even  in  its  least  de- 
veloped form,  Jehovah  is  always  the  God  of 
lieaven  as  well  as  of  earth.  In  times  of  storm, 
God  was  very  near  and  very  real  to  the  Hebrews. 
They  conceived  of  Jehovah  as  sitting  on  the  storm- 
cloud,  which  they  designated  3n|  :  '  He  rode  upon 
a  cherub  and  did  fly.  He  flew  swiftly  on  the  wings 
of  tlie  wind '  (Ps  IS'")  :  and  the  brilliance  gleaming 
forth  behind  and  through  the  black  cloud  was  con- 
ceived to  be  due  to  the  very  presence  of  God  :  the 
light  being  the  body  or  garment  of  God.  When 
'  the  Lord  of  (the  heavenly)  hosts '  was  described 
as  dwelling  in  the  midst  of  the  earthly  '  hosts'  of 
His  favoured  people,  we  are  told  that  cherubim 
overlaid  with  gold  were  prepared  for  His  throne  ; 
and  that  a  brilliance  shming  behind  and  through 
clouds  was  His  mundane  manifestation,  as  He  is 
also  seen  in  the  clouds  of  heaven  (Ex  40**"^).  On 
the  summit  of  Sinai  a  cloud  rested  six  days,  amid 
wliich  the  glory  of  the  Lord  was  like  devouring 
lire,  and  Moses  entered  into  the  midst  of  the 
cloud  (Ex  24'^"'*).  And  when  the  tabernacle  was 
linished,  '  the  cloud  covered  tlie  tent  of  meeting, 
and  the  glory  of  the  Lord  filled  the  tabernacle ' 
(Ex  40**).  '  By  day  the  cloud  was  upon  the 
tabernacle,  and  thei-e  was  fire  therein  by  night' 
(Ex  40*-'). 

It  was  these  celestial  and  terrestrial  phenomena 
wliich  suggested  to  the  Jew  the  conception  of  the 
Sliekinah.  The  desideratum  was  to  find  some- 
tliiug  which  is  Divine  but  is  not  God.  God  was 
very  far  away ;  literally  '  beyond  all  knowledge 
and  all  thought ' :  yet  He  rules  the  world  mediately, 
if  not  immediately ;  and  being  a  monotlieist  the 
Jew  could  not  let  go  his  belief — that  only  that 
which  is  Divine  can  rule  the  world.  This,  then, 
was  the  problem  ;  to  discover  a  mediator,  or  medi- 
ators. Divine,  but  not  God.  How  can  this  be 
made  thinkable?  Well,  the  wind  (ruah)  is  the 
breath  of  God,  whether  in  the  zephyr  or  the 
storm  ;  and  if  so,  it  is  Divine.  So  thought  the 
Jew  ;  and  in  course  of  time  the  ruah,  which  first 
meant  'breath'  or  'wind,'  was  supposed  to  be 
endowed  with  the  attributes  of  God  —  power, 
wisdom,  holiness — and  then  'spirit'  becomes  its 
more  appropriate  rendering.  God's  ruah  is  thus 
Divine — an  ettluence  from  Deitj' — and  is  thus 
fitted  to  be  intermediary  between  God  and  the 
world  of  nature  and  man.  Further,  there  was  the 
Divine  Word.  The  sacred  Hebrew  books  assigned 
great  importance  to  Divine  utterances  or  words. 
'  God  said,  "  Let  light  be"  ;  and  light  was' (Gn  P). 
It  was  a  peculiarity  of  the  ancient  world  to  ascribe 
causal  efliciency  to  an  uttered  word,  as  is  seen  in 
the  potencj'  ascribed  to  magical  formulie.  When 
later  Judaism  exjiounded  such  passages  as  the  one 
we  have  just  quoted,  it  assigned  to  the  uttered 
word  a  causal  etticacy  in  the  physical  realm. 
The  very  words  '  Let  there  be  light '  were  to  them 
a  vera  causa  in  the  natural  sphere,  and  were 
instrumental  in  causing  the  light  to  come  into 
being  ;   as  Zee  5*  speaks  of  an  uttered    '  curse ' 


entering  a  house  and  '  consuming  its  timbers  and 
its  stones.'  An  utterance  of  God  is  something 
Divine  :  as  potent  as  God  Himself,  and  therefore 
'  Word  '  lends  itself  to  Jewish  philosophy  as  a 
suitable  expression  for  a  Divine  intermediary 
between  God  and  the  world.  This  helps  us  to 
understand  how  Judaism  came  to  its  conception  of 
the  Sliekinah.  The  glory  in  the  storm-cloud,  in 
and  over  the  tabernacle,  is  a  manifestation  of  God. 
The  brilliance  is  not  God  ;  for  it  was  a  matter  of 
fixed  Jewish  belief  that  God  is  invisible,  and  yet 
the  brilliance  is  an  effluence  from  Deity.  When 
the  Jew  had  banished  God  from  his  universe,  the 
recorded  manifestation  of-  the  Divine  Presence  in 
the  ark  and  elsewhere  seemed  to  him  a  tcriium 
quid  between  God  and  Nature :  Divine,  but 
separable  in  thought  from  God. 

The  word  Shekinah  is  used  very  often  in  the 
Jewish  Tar^ums.  It  does  not  indicate  the  radi- 
ance or  brilliance,  but  the  central  cause  of  the 
radiance.  This  centre  was  conceived  to  be  Divine. 
The  Heb.  Scriptures  often  speak  of  '  the  glory '  of 
the  Lord,  but,  with  one  exception  (Zee  2"),  the  Tar- 
gnmists  never  use  the  word  Shekinah  to  translate 
the  Heb.  word  for  'glory.'  They  understood  tuj 
to  be  the  ett'ulgence  of  the  substantial  glory,  i.e. 
of  the  Shekinah.  The  Shekinah  is  used  in  the 
Targiims  as  the  equivalent  for  the  Divine  Being, 
not  for  His  glory.  A  good  illustration  of  this 
occurs  in  Is  60^  where  the  Heb.  reads,  '  The  LORD 
shall  arise  upon  thee,  and  his  glory  shall  be  seen 
upon  thee,'  and  the  Targ.  renders,  'In  thee  the 
Shekinah  of  the  LORD  shall  dwell,  and  his  glory 
shall  be  revealed  upon  thee.'  Whenever  the  Heb. 
text  would  seem  to  impose  any  limitations  of  space 
upon  God,  the  Targ.  substitutes  for  '  God,'  '  his 
Shekinah.'  In  every  instance  where  God  is  said 
to  dwell  in  a  place,  the  Targ.  renders  that  God 
'  causes  his  Shekinah  to  dwell '  there  (Gn  9-"', 
Ex  25«  29-^,  1  K  6's  8'^  Zee  8«).  Every  expression 
which  w  ould  in  any  sense  localize  God,  is  scrupu- 
lously altered  by  all  the  Targumists,  who  believed 
that  the  Shekinah  can  be  localized,  but  not  the 
omnipresent  God.  When  Jacob  says  (Gn  28'*), 
'God  is  in  this  place,'  Targ.  renders,  'The  glory 
of  the  Shekinah  of  J"  is  in  this  place.'  So  Ilab  2^ 
'The  Lord  is  in  his  holy  temple,'  becomes  'J' 
was  pleased  to  cause  his  Shekinah  to  dwell,'  410. 
When  J"  is  said  to  '  sit  upon  the  cherubim '  (1  S  4*, 
2  S  6-)  the  Targ.  must  needs  read,  '  the  Shekinah 
of  J"'  for  'J'":  and  Jerusalem  is  the  place  where 
J"  causes  His  Shekinah  to  dwell  (1  K  8'" '"  14'", 
Ps  74-).  Similarly,  when  the  Heb.  text  says  that 
any  one  saio  God,  or  that  God  appeared  to  any 
one,  the  Targ.  can  only  permit  the  glory  of  the 
Shekinah  of  J"  to  be  visible  to  mortal  man  (Is  6' 
'  My  eves  have  seen  the  glory  of  the  Shekinah  of 
the  King  of  the  world' ;  cf.  Ex  3",  Ezk  1',  Lv  9*). 

The  Targumist  even  shrinks  from  saying  that 
J"  is  or  dwells  in  heaven.  The  Heaven  of  Heavens 
cannot  contain  God  ;  and  therefore  it  is  not  God, 
but  His  Shekinah,  which  can  be  localized,  even  in 
heaven.  Is  33'  '  He  dwelleth  on  high,'  becomes 
in  Targ.  '  He  has  placed  his  Shekinah  in  the 
lofty  heaven '  (cf.  Is  32"  SS'*).  In  Dt  4»  '  J "  is 
God  in  heaven  above  and  on  earth  beneath,'  Onlf. 
renders  'God,  whose  Shekinah  is  (Targ.  Jerus. 
'  dwells ')  in  heaven  above,  and  who  rules  on  earth 
beneath  ' ;  so  Dt  3^. 

If  a  rigorous  conception  of  God's  ubiquity  for- 
bade His  dwelling  in  a  place,  so  also  must  it  pre- 
clude His  removal  from  a  place.  When  Hos  5* 
says,  '  J"  has  withdrawn  himself  from  them,' 
Targ.  reads  'J"  has  removed  his  Shekinah  from 
them.'  This  phrase  is  also  used  of  God's  'hiding 
his  face'  (Is  8"  57"  59-,  Jer  33'),  and  'hiding  his 
eyes'  (Is  l").  The  words  'Thou  art  a  God  that 
hidest  thyself'  (Is  45'°)  are  rendered,  'Thou  hast 


SHEKIXAII 


SHEKINAH 


489 


placed  thy  Shekinah  in  the  lofty  fastness.'  Cf. 
Hab  3*. 

It  was  the  belief  of  the  Jews  that  the  glory  of 
the  Loud  did  not  dwell  in  the  Most  Holy  Place 
in  the  second  Tein|ile.  The  Talmud  ( Ymna  9/t) 
explains  this  on  the  ground  that  (!od  only  dwells 
in  the  tents  of  Sheni ;  not  of  Japheth,  of  whom 
Cyrus  was  a  descendant.  This  was  deplored,  and 
the  promises  of  more  intimate  fellowship  to  be 
enjoyed  by  tlie  Church  in  the  Messianic  age  are  in 
the  I'arg.  all  n\.i<lo  lo  predict  the  presence  of  the 
Shekinah  (Jl  3(4)"  'I  will  place  my  Shekinah  in 
Zion  ' ;  so  Ezk  43'- »,  Hag  1»  2",  Zee  2'"). 

It  would  be  difficult  among  all  these  passages 
from  the  Targura  to  point  to  one  in  which  activity 
or  personality  is  assigned  to  the  Sliekinah.  Under 
the  conception  that  '  Uod  is  Li^ht,'  the  Skekinah 
is  God's  mere  '  manifestation-form.'  Wlieu  we 
pass,  however,  from  the  Targ.  to  the  Midrash  and 
ralmud,  the  Shekinah  ceases  to  be  inactive,  and 
has  functions  a-ssigned  to  it  wliich  belong  rather 
to  the  Logos  or  the  Spirit.  Lv  26'=  'I  will  walk 
among  you,  and  be  your  God,'  becomes  in  Targ. 
*  I  will  place  the  glory  of  my  .Shekinah  among 
you,  and  my  Mcinra  (word)  shall  be  with  j-ou.' 
lit  12'  Targ.  Jerus.  '  Tlie  place  whicli  the  Memra 
of  J"  shall  choose  to  place  his  Shekinah  there'; 
but  in  Midr.  and  Talm.  the  Mcinra  almost  dis- 
appears, and  His  functions  are  assigned  to  the 
Shekinah.  We  tind  in  Pesacliim  73  that  it  was 
the  Shekinah  which  spoke  to  Amos  and  the  pro- 

£hets;  and  the  expression  inV  niDio  ('a  P.salm  of 
lavid')  means  that  the  Shekinah  came  down  upon 
David,  and  he  then  spake  forth  the  Psalm  (Pes. 
114).  The  Shekinah  is,  in  the  Talmud,  regularly 
the  source  of  inspiration.  The  reason  wliy  Eli 
mistook  Hannah's  grief  for  inebriety  was  that  the 
Shekinah  had  departed  from  him.  The  Mishna 
was  given  through  Moses  under  the  auspices  of 
the  Sliekinah.  Pir/fe  Aboth  iii.  3  u.ses  Shekinah 
in  the  Christian  sense  of  the  word  Spirit :  '  When- 
ever two  men  sit  together  and  are  occupied  with 
words  of  the  Torah,  the  Shekinah  is  with  them.' 
In  the  Talmud  (IScniklioth  Ga)  the  number  is 
raised  to  'ten.'  The  Shekinah  is  always  picseut 
in  8}-nagogues,  in  schools,  and  in  the  homes  of 
the  pious  (Suta  \'n).  '  He  that  eats  with  the 
Wise  enjoys  the  Shekinah  '  (Weber,  182  [- 188]). 

We  have  s  en  that  it  was  usually  taught  that 
the  Shekinah  was  not  visible  in  the  second  Temple. 
Yomn  1  mentions  the  Sliekinah  in  a  list  of  things 
absent  from  it.  But  others  teach  that  the  She- 
kinah is  inseparable  from  Israel.  When  Israel 
was  in  Babylon  the  Shekinah  was  there.  The 
Shekinah  was  under  the  yoke,  when  Israel  so 
suHered.  Wherever  Israel  is  scattered,  the  She- 
kinah dwells.  When  Titus  destroyed  the  Temple, 
the  Shekinah  could  not  desert  it,  and  it  is  still 
there  behind  the  remaining  western  wall  (Weber, 
60[»ti2J). 

The  activity  of  the  Shekinah  was  conceived  to 
extend  not  onlj'  to  earth,  but  to  .Sheol.  There 
were  some  of  the  Kabhis  who  held  the  doctrine 
now  known  as  Miual  restoration.'  K.  Joshua  ben 
Levi  was  one  of  thcx;.  He  believed  that  the 
bound  in  Gehinnom  will  one  day  see  the  Messiah, 
and  all  who  bear  the  mark  of  the  covenant  will 
loose  their  chains  and  ascend  from  the  darkness. 
Hut  in  liercshilh  I}(ihbn  to  Gn  44'  the  Shekinah  is 
the  deliverer.  It  alliinis  that  the  wicked  Jews 
now  '  bound  in  (iehiniioiii  will  ascend  out  of  hell, 
with  the  Hhelcinak  at  their  /uead'  (Weber,  351 
[•  368]). 

We  turn  now  to  the  NT  where  the  word  n)'j;f 
occurs  both  transliterated  and  translated.  There 
can  be  no  reasonable  doubt  that  the  Greek  word 
ffKTji'TJ  (  =  ' tabernacle')  was  from  its  resemblance  in 
Round   and  meaning   used   by  bilingual  Jews  for 


the  Heb.  She/cinnh  ;  e.g.  in  Rev  21'  '  Behold  the 
ffitiji'j)  of  God  is  with  men,  and  he  will  tabernacle 
((TfCT/xiifffi)  with  them.'  The  allusion  is  equally 
clear  in  Jn  l"  'The  Logos  .  .  .  tabernacled 
{/(TK-^vaae")  among  us,  and  we  beheld  his  glory.' — 
The  concept  ion  of  the  Shekinah  appears  in  Greek 
dress  under  the  word  Sli^a..  In  several  instances 
56Ja  is  used  of  Deity  or  a  manifestation-form  of 
Deity,  and  thus  shows  itself  to  be  the  equivalent 
of  Shekinah.  We  will  first  cite  one  or  two  pas- 
sages from  the  Apocrj-pha.  In  Enoch  14^  we 
read,  'And  the  Great  Glory  sat  thereon,  and  his 
raiment  shone  more  brightly  than  the  sun'; 
Enoch  102^  '  The  angels  will  seek  to  hide  them- 
selves from  the  presence  of  the  Great  Glory'; 
To  3'"  '  The  praj'er  of  both  was  heard  before  the 
glory  of  the  Great  One,'  ivibwiov  t^s  o6^r)s  toO 
fieyaXov  [Query :  Since  Tobit  was  translated  from 
a  Semitic  source,  is  it  not  likely,  with  Enoch 
before  us,  that  the  Greek  ought  to  be  ipuiriov 
T^5  5o'f ijs  T^s  ixcyaXi)'! :  '  before  the  Great  Glorv '  ?] ; 
Sir  17"  'Their  eyes  saw  the  majesty  of  the  glory.' 
In  the  NT  there  are  several  instances  in  which 
56Jo  is  used  as  more  or  less  the  equivalent  of 
Shekinah.  In  Ko  9',  where  St.  Paul  is  enumerat- 
ing, with  patriotic  fervour,  the  privileges  of  the 
Jew,  and  amongst  others  mentions  '  the  giving  of 
the  law'  and  'the  glory,'  he  evidently  means  'the 
Shekinah-glory ' :  as  in  He  9'  'the  cherubim  of 
glory'  means  'the  cherubim  on  which  the  She- 
kinah w.is  enthroned.'  So  in  He  P  when  the  Son 
of  God  is  said  to  be  '  the  ellulgenee  of  the  glory ' 
(not  'of  /ii.9  glory')  it  seems  probable  that  the 
Shekinah  was  intended,  in  the  sense  of  'the  mani- 
fested Deity.'  The  personality  of  the  Sliekinah 
is  implied  in  2  P  1",  where  we  read  (translating 
literally),  '  when  such  a  voice  was  borne  iu  to 
him  by  (inrb)  the  majestic  glory.'  The  word  inrb 
denotes  the  agent.  '  The  glory '  is  the  speaker  : 
as  in  Targ.  Jerus.  of  Gn  28"  the  glory  of  J"  says, 
'  I  am  the  God  of  Abraham ' ;  and  as  is  possibly 
implied  in  Mt  17°  '  A  bright  cloud  overshadowed 
them,  and  there  eaiue  a  voice  out  of  the  cloud.' 
2  Mac  2",  in  anticipating  the  fullilment  of  OT 
propliccj%  says,  '  The  glory  of  the  Lord  shall  be 
sun  and  the  cloud.' 

There  are  three  other  NT  passages  where  an 
allusion  to  the  Shekinah  is  probable,  though 
exegetes  are  divided  on  the  matter.  Ko  6'  '  Christ 
was  raised  from  the  dead  by  means  of  (oid)  the 
glory  of  the  Father.'  'Glory'  may  of  course 
here  mean  'glorious  power,'  as  commentators  say  ; 
but,  with  the  passage  from  the  Midrash  before 
us,  in  which  the  Shekinah  is  said  to  release  cap- 
tives from  Sheol,  it  seems  to  the  present  writer 
probable  that  St.  Paul  was  thinking  of  the  She- 
kinah piercing  with  its  radiance  tiie  gloom  of 
Sheol,  and  co-operating  with  God  to  release  the 
Divine  captive  from  the  power  ot  Satan  and  '  the 
gates  of  Sheol.'  The  second  disputed  passage  is 
1  P  4'^  ri  TTjs  56^77?  Kai  rb  tov  O^oH  TrvcG/ia,  which 
UV  renders,  '  The  (Spirit)  of  glory  and  the  Spirit 
of  God,'  where  Bengel  is  probably  correct  in  re- 
garding Sb^t)!  as  an  ajipcllation  of  Christ.  If  this 
be  so,  it  helps  to  elucidate  our  third  passage,  viz. 

Ja    2'    T7}V    TTiartV    TOV    KVpioV    1]f.lulV    'llJffOU     XpiaTOV    T^S 

66{j;s,  which  Mayor  correctly  renders,  'the  faith 
of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  i!hc/,inah.'  The 
context  refers  to  an  assemlilj'  of  Christians,  where 
the  Shekinah  was  believed  to  be  present.  Thus 
interpieted,  the  passage  blends  together  Mt  18™ 
and  tlie  words  cited  above  from  Pir/cc  Aboth,  iden- 
tifying Jesus  with  the  Shekinah. 

LiTBRATURB. — Weber,  Lehrm  d«  Talmnd  (2nd  ed.  under 
title  Jud.  Theol.  au/  Grutul  dct  Talmud,  etc);  Ofrorvr, 
U rchriiUnthiim,  i.  301  IT. ;  Laiit^en,  Judenthutn  zur  Zrit  Christi, 
201  IT. ;  Levy'8  and  Buxtori'n  Lexicoiu  ;  0.  Taylor,  Sai/iiujt  nf  thi 
Jewith  Father,\  p.  43.  J.  T.  MaI£.SI1.VLI,. 


490 


SHELAH 


SHE^SIAIAH 


SHELAH  (n'-s).—i.  The  youngest  son  of  Jmlah 
by  Shua,  Gn  3's»-  "•  »• »"  46"  (A  l.r,\w^.  Uic.  i:'W), 
Nu  26'-"  ''"I  (BA  and  Luc.  SrjXiiv,  F  i:7)XciM),  1  *-»  - 
(StiXui-)  4=1  (BA  27)Xii/x,  Lui---  SiXii"').  lie  gave  his 
name  to  the  family  of  the  Shelanites  (•;?-?,  Sfifios  o 
SiiXu^f)'),  Nu  26^" C'''.  Probably  'the  Shelanite 
should  be  read  also  for  'the  Shilonite  Ci^iO 
or  •^■^^)  of  Neh  U'  (Luc.  STjXwei,  B  AtjXu^^ 
X  ATiXui-ei,  A  'HXuW)  and  1  Ch  d^  (27)Xuv(«)0.  2. 
(nSs-)  the  son  or  (LXX)  grandson  of  Arpachshad 
ami  father  of  Eber,  Gn  lO'^'""  ll'»("i- ■^- '»,  1  Ch 
118.24  (VaXd,  Luc.  in  Gn  10-"  in  second  occurrence 
^aXSs),  Lk  3"  (::a\i). 

SHELAH,  The  Pool  OF{n^^n  nji?;  B  Ko\vii^-^epa 
tQv  Kuoiuv,  X  +  ToC  SiXwdft,  Luc.  t,  Kpnvn  ''."^  ^/^"l^  ' 
Piscina  ,St/oe).— This  uame  occuis  only  in  Neh  A  , 
where  it  is  given  in  AV  as  '  Siloah.'  '  Shelal.i  la 
probably  a  corrupt  form  of  Siloam,  the  "'O'lfn 
SUwan.  See  Siloam,  Pool  of.  Perhaps  in  Neh 
3"  we  should  punctuate  o?*Ci  as  in  Is  8". 

C.  VV.  Wilson. 
SHELANITES.— See  Shelah. 

SHELEMIAH  (.toS;  ).— 1.  (B  ZcXfftii,  A  SfXf/x/os) 
One  of  the  sons  of  Bani,  who  married  a  '  strange 
wife  in  the  time  of  Ezra,  Ezr  lO^" ;  called  Selemias 
in  1  Es  9^.  2.  (B  TtXe/i'i.  S  TeXe^'as)  Father  of 
Hananiah,  who  restored  part  of  the  wall  of  Jeru- 
salem, Neh  3^".  His  son  is  perhaps  '  Hananiah,  one 
of  the  apothecaries'  (Neh  3*,  AV  'son  of  one  of 
the  apoth.'),  i.e.  makers  of  perfumes,  who  restored 
another  portion  of  the  wall.  3.  A  priest  who  was 
appointed  by  Nehemiah  to  be  one  of  the  treasurers 
over  the  treasuries,  to  distribute  the  Levitical 
tithes,  Neh  13".  i.  The  father  of  Jehucal  or 
Jucal  in  the  time  of  Zedekiah,  Jer  37',  38'  ;  in  the 
latter  passage  his  name  appears  in  the  longer  form 
in-oW.  S.  The  fatlier  of  Iriiah,  the  captain  of  the 
ward  who  arrested  Jeremiah  as  a  deserter  to  the 
Chalda;ans,  Jer  37".  6.  (•.■^:^^s^  B  Zo.\a^l(L6.,  A  2e- 
Xe^id)  1  Ch  26"  =  Meshelemiah,  MeshuUam,  or 
Shallum,  the  head  of  a  family  of  porters.  7.  An- 
other of  the  sons  of  Bani  who  married  a  '  strange 
wife  in  the  time  of  Ezra,  Ezr  10*'.  8.  Ancestor  of 
the  Jehudi  who  lived  in  the  time  of  Jehoiakim, 
Jer  36'''.  9.  (LXX  om.)  Son  of  Abdeel,  and  one 
of  those  sent  by  Jehoiakim  to  take  Baruch  and 
Jeremiah,  Jer  SO"*.  H.  St.  J.  Tuackeray. 

SHELEPH  (I'j?'  [pause] ;  LXX  A  2aX^./>).— Son 
of  .loktan,  On  'lO-»,  1  Ch  P°.  The  word  is  evi- 
dently  identical  with  the  Arabic  salaf,  salif,  etc., 
which  figure  as  the  names  of  several  places  in 
Arabia  ;  Yakut  mentions  a  place  called  '  the  two 
Salafs,'  quoting  for  it  a  ver-se  of  a  pre-Moham- 
medan  poet ;  places  called  Salf,  Salif,  and  Salnfah 
are  noticed  in  the  S.  Arabian  geography  of  Ham- 
dani  ;  and  a  province  called  Salif  is.  mentioned  by 
Mukaddasi  among  those  of  Yemen  (p.  'JO).  The 
Arabic  genealogists  further  discovered  a  sub- 
division of  the  Himyarites  which  had  the  name 
Sulaf,  and  which  they  identified  with  the  son  of 
Joktan  (Taj  al-arus,  vi.  143).  The  Arabic  salaf 
means  simply  '  ancestor,'  while  salif  or  silf  means 
'  a  sister's  husband ' ;  there  would  therefore  be  no 
improbability  in  the  name  in  the  text  being  not 
geographical  but  personal.  Some  further  guesses 
are  "recorded  by  DQlmann  (Genesis,  ad  luc). 

D.  S.  Makgoliouth. 
SHELESH  (»'?!> ;  B  Se/xiJ,  A  2eXX^s,  Luc.  ^iXen). 
—An  Asherite,  'l  Ch  7". 

SHELOMI  (-^V;  B  SeXfM*'  I><M  sup  ras  B'], 
A.F  2fX<M').— father  of  an  Asherite  prince,  Nu 
34". 

8HEL0MITH  (n-?V;  in  Ezr  S'"  n-p^V)-— !•  The 


mother  of  the  man  who  was  stoned  to  death  foi 
having  blasphemed  'the  Name,'  Lv  24"  (B»AF 
^a\aij.eie,  Luc.  ^aXfutd).  2.  Daughter  of  Zenib- 
babel,  1  Ch  3"  (B  ^aXu/ifed,  A  ZaXuixeBi,  Luc. 
^aXu/ilS).  3.  One  of  the  '  sons  of  Izliar,'  I  Ch  23" 
(B  ^aXoiniie,  A  ^aXov/xuS,  Luc.  ZaXu/iie),  called  in 
24'*'  Shelomoth.  4.  The  name  of  a  family  whose 
representatives  returned  with  Ezra,  Ezr  S'"  (B 
ZaXfiMoi)tf,  Luc.  2aXiM<i«).  It  is  probable  that  a 
name  has  dropped  out  of  the  MT,  and  that  vire 
should  read  'of  the  sons  of  Bani,  Shelomitli  the 
son  of  Josiphiah  '  (cf.  A"''  dird  vi^v  liaavi  ':Le\ei.ujj.oiO, 
and  1  Es  ti^*^  '  of  the  sons  of  Banias,  Salimoth  son 
of  Josaphias'). 

SHELOMOTH  (ntoV).-l.  An  Izharite,  1  Cli  24a 
(BA.  ZaXoi/Miie,  Luc.  2aXwM'«)  =  Sheloraith  of  23". 
2.  A  descendant  of  Moses,  1  Ch  26^  [A'crc  n--^]  ■■"•" 
(in  the  last  Heb.  n'cV.  B-'^  ">  all  ^aXuin^ie,  Luc.  m 
first  two  2aXa/xiO,  in  last  i:aXa>Mif ).  3.  A  Gershointe, 
1  Ch  23^*  (Kere  a-t^hf  ;  B  'AXu/ieie,  A  SoXui/xtitf,  Luc. 
2aXuMie).  ' 

SHELUMIEL  (Sx-o^.  a  name  exhibiting  a  late 
and  artificial  formation  [Gray,  HP.\'  -MU] ;  LXX 
raXa^iTiX).- Prince  of  the  tribe  of  Simeon,  ^U  1* 
212  7^6. 41  1019  (cf.  Jth  8').    See  also  SuEMUJSL. 


SHEM.— See  Ham  and  Japheth. 

SHEMA  (y-y).— 1.  A  Reubenite,  1  Ch  5'  (BA 
^a^,  Luc.  SfM"').  See  Shimei,  No.  8.  2.  One  of 
the  heads  of  'fathers'  houses'  in  Aijalon  who  put 
to  flight  the  inhabitants  of  Gath,  1  Ch  S'-*  (BA 
Sd/^a,  Luc.  Zafiad).  He  is  called  in  v/"  Shimei. 
3.  One  of  those  who  stood  at  Ezra's  right  hand,  at 
the  reading  of  the  law,  Neh  S*  (2a/«ias).  He  is 
called  in  1  Es  9*"  Sammus. 

SHEMA  {v'-4 ;  A  Zafiai,  Luc.  Zo,ai).—A  town  of 
Judah,  situated  in  the  Negeb  or  South,  and  men- 
tioned between  Amani  and  Moladah  (Jos  15  ). 
Some  authorities  suppose  it  to  be  the  same  place  as 
Slieba(Jos  19=),  being  a  corruption  of  that  name. 
On  the  other  hand,  if  Sheba  and  Beersheba  be 
identical  (see  SilEliA),  this  cannot  be  the  case,  for 
Shema  and  Beersheba  are  both  found  in  the  list  of 
towns  in  Jos  15.  The  site  is  unknown  It  is 
probably  this  Shema  which  appears  in  1  Ch  :«"  aa 
a  '  son '  of  Hebron. 

SHEMAAH  (njfo^n;  B  'AM.  A  SaMod,  Lnc,  'Aa-^). 
—A  Beniamite,  father,  according  to  M 1 ,  of  Ahiezer 
and  Joasli,  but,  according  to  the  LXX  (i/i6s=l^ 
instead  of  -j?),  of  Joash  alone,  1  Ch  12^. 

SHEMAIAH  (.13,5?' ;  in  2  Ch  11'  17»  31<»  35',  Jer 

26="  29=*  36'»  ins?T* !   '  •>"    ^^    ''^'^'"'^  '•"  V    / 
twenty-four  persons  who  bore  this  name,  only  four 
can  be  certainly  said  to  have  belonged  to  other 
than  prophetical  or  priestly  families. 

1.  6  -aM/oalas,  A  2aMa(a5  (2  Ch  12'- '  .  A  prophet 
who  with  AhiJAII  guided  the  revolution  which 
deprived  Rehoboam  of  the  ten  tribes.  Accordin<' 
to  the  MT,  he  does  not  come  on  the  scene  until 
Rehoboam  was  on  the  point  of  leading  a  vast  army 
against  the  revolters.  He  then  appears  ( 1  lv  li  , 
2  Ch  U=-*)  to  give  the  Divine  sanction  to  tlie  re- 
beUion.  '  Thus  saith  the  LORD  .  .  .  this  thing  la 
from  me.'  But  the  second  Greek  account,  which 
omits  aU  mention  of  Ahijah  in  this  connexion, 
introduces  Shemaiah  at  the  assembly  at  bliechem, 
before  the  people  entered  into  negotiations  with 
Rehoboam.  'The  word  of  the  Lord  came  to 
Shemaiah  the  Enlamite  (cf.  Jer  29«  LXX).  saying. 
Take  to  thee  a  new  cloke  which  hath  not  gone  into 
water,  and  rend  it  into  twelve  pieces ;  and  U.ou 
Shalt  give  it  to  Jeroboam,  and  shalt  say  unto  hiin, 


SIIKM.UAII 


SHEMER 


491 


Thus  saith  the  Lord,  take  to  thee  twelve  pieces  to 
cover  thee.  And  Jeroboam  took  them,  and  Shema- 
iah  said.  Thus  saith  the  LORD  concerning  the  ten 
tribes  of  Israel'  (1  K  12**°).  This  is  evidently 
another  version  of  the  story  told  of  Ahijah,  1  K 
jl»ff._  Theie  is  another  mention  of  Sheraaiah  in 
2  Ch  12*'*,  in  which  he  points  the  moral  of  the 
invasion  of  Shishak,  and  at  the  same  time 
announces  the  mitigation  of  it  in  view  of  the 
repentance  of  KehoLoam.  The  Chronicler  also 
cites  '  the  history  of  Shemaiah  the  prophet'  as  an 
authority  for  the  reign  of  Kehoboaiu,  2  Ch  12". 

2.  Son  of  Sheeaniah  (1  Ch  3^  Sa^iaid) ;  ap. 
parently  a  descendant  of  Zerubbabel.  It  is  tempt- 
ing to  identify  him  with  '  the  keeper  of  the  east 
gate,'  who  helped  to  repair  the  wall  under  Nehe- 
miah  (Neh  3^  BA  Za^aud,  X  Zefiad).  On  the  other 
hand,  Ryle  conjectures  that  the  latter  was  a  Levite, 
and  that  '  the  east  gate  was  the  eastern  approach 
to  the  temple  precincts.'  Lord  A.  Hervey  {Geneal. 
p.  107)  would  remove  the  opening  words  of  1  Ch  3-^, 
and  read  Shimei  for  the  second  Shemaiah,  see  v.**. 

8.  A  Simeonite  (1  Ch  4"  B  Zv/iciif,  A  Zafialat), 

rrhaps  identical  with  the  Shimei  of  1  Ch  4^- ". 
A  Keubenite  (1  Ch  5*  B  2eMtei,  A  SeMf'"),  called 
Shema  in  v.*.  3.  A  Merarite  Levite  (1  Cli  9", 
Neh  U"  Zafiaii),  one  of  those  who  dwelt  in  Jeru- 
salem. 6.  A  Levite  of  the  family  of  Jeduthun, 
father  of  Obadiah  or  Abda  (1  Ch  9'»  B  Zaaeid,  A 
Za/iias,  called  Shammua  in  Neh  11").  7.  Head  of 
the  Levitical  Kohathite  clan  of  Elizaphan  in  the 
time  of  David  (1  Cli  15«  B  Zafialas,  A  Ze/uud, 
X  Zan^as  ;  v."  B  ~atiaiat,  A  Sf^f'^s,  N  2o/tai).  He 
is  possibly  identical  with — 8.  The  scribe  (1  Ch  24' 
J5  lo/ittJas,  A  Zafi/iaiat),  the  son  of  Nethanel,  who 
registered  the  names  of  the  priestly  courses.  9. 
A  Korahite  Levite,  eldest  son  of  Obed-edom  (1  Ch 
26*-  •  B  £o/«iios,  A  Xandas  ;  v.'  B  I'a/zai,  A  Zefifid). 
10.  A  Levite  (2  Ch  17'  B  So/ioiJos,  A  Za/iovlas),  one 
ot  the  commission  employed  by  Jehoshapliat  to 
teach  the  book  of  the  law  in  Jndah.  11.  A  Levite 
ol  the  family  of  Jeduthun  in  the  reign  of  Heze- 
kiah  (2  Ch  29"  B  Zafiatas,  A  Zandas),  one  of  those 
who  took  a  leaHing  part  in  the  purifying  of  the 
temple.  He  is  possibly  identical  with  12,  one  of 
those  who  were  '  over  the  freewill  otierings  of 
Uod'  (2  Ch  31"  Ztfjitel).  13.  One  of  '  the  chiefs  of 
the  Levites'  (2  Ch  3'y'  Zia.uofaj  ;  'captains  over 
thousands,'  1  Es  1"  where  he  is  called  Samaias). 
14.  One  of  the  'oliief  men'  sent  by  Ezra  to  fetch 
Levites  and  Nethinim  (Ezr  8"  Za/xaid,  A  Zefuid  ; 
Haasmas,  Samaias,  1  Es  S'"-  **)  j  possibly  the  same 
as  — 15.  A  member  of  the  family  of  Adonikam, 
(  Kzr  8"  B  Zaijuud,  A  Xatmud ;  Samaias,  1  Es  8^).  16. 
17.  Two  of  tlioHe  wlio  had  married  foreign  wives, 
a  priest  and  a  layman  respectively  (Ezr  1U-'  Zaimii, 
V."'  B  Zafiatd,  X  Zefiei,  A  Za/ialat ;  Sameus,  SabbeaB, 
1  Es  9-'- »■•').  18.  A  prophet  (Neh  6'"-'*  11  Ze/Kel, 
A  le^iei)  who  had  been  hired  by  Sanballat  and 
Tobiah  '  to  put  Nehemiali  in  fear.'  His  father's 
name,  Delaiah  (see  1  Ch  24"),  wouUl  suggest  that 
he  belonged  to  a  priestly  house.  The  circumstance 
is  evidently  mentioned  b}'  Nehemiah  as  a  typical 
one.  The  governor's  answer  to  Sheniaiah's  sug- 
estion  indicates  that  his  design  was  at  once  to 
ring  Nehemiah  into  contempt  as  a  coward,  and 
also  to  expose  him  to  the  charge  of  sacrilege, 
which  would  be  certainly  raised  if  he,  a  layman, 
were  to  intrude  where  priests  alone  might  tread. 
19.  One  of  the  24  courses  of  jiriests,  16th  under 
Zerubbabel  (Neh  12"  XA  Ztfidas),  15th  under 
Joinkim  (Neh  12"  X.\  Xe/ittd),  and  21st  under 
Nehemiah  (Neh  W  Za^ii).  It  is  probably  this 
c'.an,  and  not  an  individual,  that  is  mentioned  as 
taking  part  in  the  ceremonies  at  the  dedication 
of  the  wall  (Neh  12"  Bs  Zapaid,  A  Zaimlat).  20. 
Prol)ab!y  a  Levite,  descendant  of  Asaph  (Neh  12" 


E 


Za/iaid).  21.  Probably  a  Levitical  clan  of  singeri 
that  took  part  in  the  dedication  ceremonies  (Neh 
12^  Za/uiid;  v.«  ^'•^'^  Ze/ielat).  We  may  sup- 
pose that  half  of  it  went  in  one  procession  and  hali 
in  the  other.  22.  Father  of  the  prophet  Urijah 
(Jer  26  [Gr.  33]  >"  BA  So/ialat,  N  Ma«as).  23.  A 
prophet  at  Babylon,  one  of  those  who  had  been 
brought  into  captivity  with  Jehoiachin  (Jer  29 
[Gr.  36] "-^  Zafiaids,  N^oMtdt).  He  is  called  'the 
Nehelamite'  (which  see).  He  belonged  to  the 
party  opposed  to  Jeremiah,  and  it  is  evident  that, 
likeHANANIAH  (Jer  28),  he  had  predicted  a  speedy 
termination  to  the  Captivity.  Enraged  at  the 
letter  of  Jeremiah,  in  which  the  exiles  had  been 
counselled  to  acquiesce  cheerfully  in  a  prolonged 
stay  in  Babylon,  Shemaiah  sent  letters  to  Jeru- 
salem taxing  Zephaniah  the  second  priest  and  the 
other  ecclesiastical  authorities  with  supineuess,  in 
that  they  did  not  visit  Jeremiah  with  the  punish- 
ment due  to  a  false  prophet.  It  would  seem  from 
this  that  it  was  the  special  duty  of  the  '  second 
priest '  to  enforce  order  in  the  temple  (see  art. 
Priests  and  Levites,  p.  74*).  'Jehoiada  the 
priest'  may  possibly  be  the  name  of  Zcphaniah's 
predecessor  in  the  office  of  '  second  priest,'  or  more 
probably  he  may  be  the  great  high  priest  of  that 
name  whose  zeal  in  God's  service  Shemaiah  bids 
Zephaniah  emulate.  The  punishment  denounced 
against  Shemaiah  for  this  action  was  even  more 
severe,  according  to  Hebrew  ideas,  than  that 
awarded  to  Hauaniah.  The  latter  was  visited 
in  his  own  person  with  premature  death,  but 
Shemaiah  was  punished  not  only  with  exclusion 
by  death  from  such  blessings  as  might  fall  to  the 
lot  of  the  exiles  in  Babylon,  but  with  the  complete 
excision  of  his  family.  24.  Father  of  Delaiah,  who 
was  one  of  the  princes  in  the  reign  of  Zedekiah 
(Jer  36  [Gr.  43] '-  BA  ZiXe/ilas,  N  ZtoeKias). 

N.  J.  D.  White. 
SHEMARIAH  (.i.-ic-.^  and  !nn;f ).— 1.  A  Luujamite 
warrior  who  joined  David  at  Ziklag,  1  Oh  12' 
(B  Zafiapaidf  HA  Zafiaptdy  Luc.  Za/xapias).  2.  A 
son  of  Rehoboam,  2  (ih  11"  (Sa/iopias).  3.  One  of 
the  sons  of  Harim  who  had  married  a  foreign  w  ife, 
Ezr  10"  (B  ZafMpeid,  nA  Zafnapid,  Luc.  Za/xapias). 
4.  One  of  the  sons  of  Bani  who  had  coniiuitled  the 
same  offence,  Ezr  10"  (B  2o/«ipeid,  A  Za/iapeias,  Luc. 
Zafiaptas), 

SHEMEBER  (ti(<D5»).— King  of  Zeboiim,  one  of 
the  Jive  kings  defeated  by  Chedorlaomer,  Gn  14^ 
(A  Zvub^op,  Luc.  Zvfxdp,  Syr.  ;  .(^n  »,  Josephus 
Zv/ifii^opot).  The  Samaritan  ha-s  izuza,  which  may 
have  arisen  from  a  confusion  between  i  and  n,  or 
may  be  due  to  an  attempt  to  play  upon  the  name. 
It  has  even  been  suggested  (cf.  Hall  in  SHOT)  that 
the  name  in  the  text  may  have  originated  from 
a  marginal  gloss  i3t<  ao  ('  name  lost'). 

SHEMED.— See  Shemer,  No.  4. 

SHEMER  (-C5').  —  1.  The  owner  of  the  hill 
purchased  bv  Omri,  upon  whiili  Sa.maria  was 
afterwards  built,  1  K  10"  iZiixjjp,  Luc.  IVyn^ijp). 
Difficulties  both  etymological  and  liistorical  attach 
to  the  statement  in  the  same  passage  that  the 
name  Snvtaria  (piY*^)  ^^'f^s  derived  from  an  indi- 
vidual instead  of  a  chin  name  (but  see  Kittel, 
Kbnige,  ad  loc),  an<l  tliat  it  was  first  given  to 
the  place  by  Omri  (see  Stade  in  ZATW  v.  (1885) 
16011'.).  2.  A  Merarite,  1  Ch  6»' i"l  (Z(p.p.rip).  8. 
An  Asherite,  1  Ch  7"  (H  Ziixurip,  A  and  Luc. 
Zu/M-qp),  called  in  v."*  Shomer  (cf.  tlie  names 'iTierf 
and  'abed).  4.  A  Beujaiiiite,  1  Ch  8"  (B  Ziiijir,p, 
A  Z4nfxvp,  Luc.  Za/iaiiiX).  The  Heb.  MSS  show 
here  some  confusion  between  i  and  t  as  the  final 
letter  of  the  name.      The  AV  (Shamed)  and  RV 


td2 


SHEMIDA 


SHESHACH 


(Sheraed)  retain  the  reading  of  the  Geneva  version, 
■which  is  based  on  the  Vulg.  Samad. 

SHEMIDA  (yrcy).— A  'son'  of  Gilead,  according 
to  Nu26='-  [P]  CZvuMip);  called  in  Jos  17=  [JE]  a 
'son'  of  Manasseh  (B  ^v^Lapet/x,  A  Se/u/ja^,  Luc. 
^aiuSai)  ;  his  descendants  are  enumerated  in  1  Ch 
7"  {-eij.(()ipd,  Luc.  Za/ifiSd).  Tlie  gentilic  name 
Shemidaites  ("yi'Pvn,  6  2u/taep{e)i)  occurs  in  Nu  26^'. 
See,  further,  art.  Manasseh,  vol.  iii.  p.  231  f. 

SHEMINITH See  art.  Psalms,  p.  154*. 

SHEMIRAMOTH  (ni=T=;';  in  2  Ch  17*  Kethlbh 
niD'i:::;' ;  ^e/iic'iipa/jniO). — The  name  of  a  Levitical 
family.  In  1  Ch  15'*-  ^  16'  Sheiuiramoth  appears 
in  the  list  of  tlie  members  of  David's  choirs,  while 
in  2  Ch  17'  the  same  name  occurs  amongst  the 
Le\'ites  sent  by  Jehoshapliat  to  teach  in  the  cities 
of  Judah.  In  both  cases  a  guild  or  family  rather 
than  an  individual  is  probably  to  be  thought  of. 

SHEMUEL  (SxiOy',  the  name  which,  following 
the  LXX  and  Vulg. ,  is,  in  the  case  of  the  prophet, 
transliterated  in  EV  Samuel  [AV  has  Shemuel  in 
1  Ch  6^ ;  on  the  derivation  and  meaning  of  the 
name  see  art.  Samuel,  and  Gray,  HPN  200,  n.  3]). 
— 1.  The  Simeonite  appointed  to  assist  in  the  divid- 
ing of  tlie  land,  Nu  34-".  It  is  not  improbable  that 
the  MT  should  be  corrected  to  '^x'.-J';-  (Shelumiel), 
the  form  in  I^  2'=  1^-  *"  10".  The  LXX  in  all  the 
six  passages  has  1a.\aij.iifK.  2.  Grandson  of  Issachar, 
1  Cn  7'  (B  lua/ioi/^X,  A  and  Luc.  1,aii.ovq\), 

SHEN  (\m  hash-shen,  the  'tooth'  or  'crag';  rtii 
iraXoias ;  Sen). — A  well-known  place,  'the  Shen,' 
named  witli  Mizpah  to  indicate  the  position  of  the 
stone,  called  Ebenezer,  which  was  set  np  by 
Samuel  to  commemorate  the  defeat  of  the  Philis- 
tines (1  S  7'-).  The  site  is  unknown.  It  is  not  im- 
probable, however,  that  the  LXX  Tjjs  s-aXmSs  puts 
us  on  the  track  of  the  original  reading,  n:ifr\  or 
njp;  (Jeshanah,  2  Ch  13'").  So  Wellh.,  Driver, 
Budde,  et  al. ;  cf.  art.  Ebenezer. 

C.  "W.  Wilson. 

SHENAZZAR(-re!<;si;  BA  Zaveaap,  Luc.  Zava(Tdp). 
—  A  sou  of  Jeconiah,  1  Ch  3".  See,  further, 
Sheshb.^zzar, 

SHEOL.— See  Eschatology,  Hades,  and  Hell. 

SHEPHAM(D9if';  2eir^(l/«ip;  5epAn>na).— A  place 
on  the  eastern  botindary  of  the  Promised  Land 
(Nu  34'°-  "),  and  apparently  to  the  north  of  Kiblah, 
now  Ribleh,  between  B<iitlbck  and  Boms.  The 
site  has  not  yet  been  identilied.  In  the  Targum  of 
pseudo-Jonathan  the  name  is  rendered  by  Apaineia, 
but  this  place  is  much  too  far  to  the  north.  Per- 
haps Zabdi,  the  Shiphmite, — one  of  David's  house- 
hold who  was  '  over  the  increase  of  the  vineyards 
for  the  wine-cellars'  (1  Ch  27-''), — was  a  native  of 
Shepham.  So  Siegfried-Stade,  who  would  vocalize 
"?Sif  instead  of  'psp.     But  see  Siphmoth. 

C.  W.  Wilson. 

SHEPHATIAH  (nejv'and  '.ir-'Sr'  *  Jah  has  judged'). 
—1.  One  of  David's  .sons,  2  S  3MB  SoSareid,  A 
ZaipaeLi.,  Luc.  2a0aT(as)=l  Ch  3'  (B  and  Luc.  as 
before,  A  Sa^ar/as).  2.  A  family  of  which  372  re- 
j>resentatives  returned  witli  Zerubbabel,  Ezr  2*  (B 
A.(ji<p,  A  and  Luc.  i;o0aTi(i)  =  Neh  7'  (2a0aTi(i),  and 
84  besides  their  head  with  Ezra,  Ezr  8'  (i;o<;)aT(f  )id). 
The  name  appears  in  1  Es  5'  as  Saphat  and  in  8^ 
as  Saphatias.  3.  A  family  of  the  'sons  of  Solo- 
mon's servants,'  Ezr  2"= Neh  7"  {Za0aT(f )td).  4.  The 
eponym  of  a  Judahite  family,  Neh  W*  (BA  1a<f>aTti, 
Luc.  latparlai).  5.  The  eponym  of  a  Benjamite 
family,  1  Ch  9*  (So^arid).  Eitlior  this  or  the  pre- 
ceding should  perhaps   be   identilied  with   No.   2 


above.  6.  A  contemporary  of  Jeremiah,  Jer  3S 
[Gr.  45]'  (BAS  i:a0aWa$,  Cj*  Zaipa-T,  Q"8  "Za^xiTULi). 
7.  A  Benjamite  warrior  who  joined  David  at  Ziklag, 
1  Ch  12'  (2a0aTtd,  Luc.  ^a^arias).  8.  A  Simeonite 
prince,  1  Ch  27"  (So^arias).  9.  A  son  of  king 
Jehoshaphat,  2  Ch  21^  (2o0aT(E)ias). 

J.  A.  Selbie. 
SHEPHELAH.— See  Plain,  vol.  iii.  p.  893  f. 

SHEPHER.— Mount  Shepher  (•\ta  in)  is  a  station 
in  the  journeyings  of  the  children  of  Israel,  men- 
tioned only  Nu  33^-  **.  Nothing  is  known  about 
its  position. 

Id  both  verses  nsd  being  in  pause  is  pointed  Shapher,  the 
form  that  appears  in  AV.  The  LXX  in  B  Luc.  has  2«^oe/j,  taking 
no  account  of '  mount,'  which  is  represented  in  A  by '  Apfd^xp  and 
1etpirK^a.p,  and  in  F  by 'A^ira^atJ ;  Vulfr.  has  Sepher.  The  word 
(which  means 'beauty ')  occurs  (as  a  noun)  only  in  Gn  4921  'giving 
goodliz-woTda'  (words  of  beauty  or  elegance);  but  see  DittnianDor 
Spurrel],  ad  loc^t  for  an  alternative  rendering  of  this  verse. 

A.  T.  Chapman. 
SHEPHERD.— See  Sheep 

SHEPHI  (•?•;';  B  Stift  A  2w^dp,  Luc.  2ajr0f(), 
1  Ch  !*> ;  or  SHEPHO  (isr  ;  A  Z^<p,  D  1u<piy,  E  Ziip, 
Luc.  Zu^iav),  Gn  36'-''.— A  Horite  chief. 

SHEPHUPHAM  {a^^s-i' ;  BA  2w0di.,  Lnc.  So^di-), 
Nu  2GS»  («>  ;  or  SHEPHOPHAN  (i?!Sf ;  B  Za<!>ap<pi.K, 
A  loKpav,  Luc.  -fir0d/i),  1  Ch  8°. — The  eponym  of  a 
Benjamite  family.  The  name  appears  in  Gn  46*' 
as  MUPPIM  and  in  1  Ch  7*^  "  26'«  as  Shuppim.  The 
proper  form  of  the  name  must  remain  doubtful. 
The  gentilic  Shuphamites  ('-i:'i;c,  BA  o  'Zaipav{e)l, 
Luc.  6  Zo(!>avl)  appears  in  Nu  26^»i<^». 

SHERD.— See  Potsheed. 

SHEREBIAH  (n;?-;?).— One  of  the  Levites  who 

joined  Ezra  at  the  river  Ahava,  Ezr  8"  (LXX  om.). 
Along  witli  eleven  others,  he  was  put  in  charge  of 
the  silver  and  gold  and  the  vessels  for  the  temple, 
V.-''  (BA  Zapaid,  Luc.  'Zapa.plai).  He  assisted  Ezra 
in  the  exposition  of  the  law,  Neh  8'  ;  took  part  in 
the  public  confession  and  thanksgiving,  Q* ;  and 
sealed  the  covenant,  10'-<"'  (B  Zapa/3id).  He  is 
named  also  in  12'- ■■^.  In  all  these  last  passages 
except  10'- 1'''  BA  have  2a/)a/3ia,  Luc.  Sapo/Siat.  The 
name  appears  in  1  Es  S'"  as  ASEBEBIAS,  v."  EsERE- 
BIAS,  and  ff"  Sarabias. 

SHERESH  (cHci ;  B  lovpo^,  A  26/jo!,  Luc.  ^ipet, 
<I>6/)os). — The  name  of  a  Manassite  clan,  1  Ch  7". 
See  Manasseh,  voL  iii.  p.  232''. 

SHERIFF.— In  Dn  3»- ' '  sheriffs '  is  the  EV  tr.  of 
Aram.  KjTirfi,  a  word  of  quite  uncertain  meaning. 
Bevan  and  Driver  regard  it  as  improbable  that  it 
has  any  connexion  with  the  Arab,  afta  '  to  notify 
a  decision  of  the  law'  (ptcp.  mufti, '  a,  jurisconsult '). 
This  supposed  connexion  probably  underlies  the 
RVm  '  lawyers.'  Bevan  thinks  it  possible  that  the 
word  may  be  a  mutilated  form  of  some  Persian 
title  ending  in  pat '  chief.'  For  an  account  of  other 
conjectures  see  Driver  or  Prince,  ad  loc.  Perhaps 
Theod.  and  LXX  render  by  oi  iir'  iiowiCiv,  but  it  is 
impossible  to  be  certain,  as  their  text  contains  only 
seven  names  of  officials  as  against  eight  in  the 
Aramaic  text.  J.  A.  Selbie. 

SHESHACH  {^'^).  —  This  name,  which  occurs 
only  in  Jer  25  (32) »«  51(28)«  (LXX  om.  in  both 
passages),  is  generally  taken  to  be  a  designation 
of  Babylon  (cf.  the  parallelism  in  the  latter  pas- 
sage :  '  How  is  Sheshach  taken,  and  the  praise  of 
all  the  earth  surprised  !  How  is  Babylon  become 
a  desolation  among  the  nations  !').  It  is  probable, 
in  fact,  that  Sheshach  is  simply  a  crj'ptical  wav  of 
writing  Babel.     By  the  device  known  as  AtSash 


SHESHAI 


SHESHBAZZAS 


493 


{rzr.K)  whereby  K  =  n,  :  =  r,  and  so  on,  the  last  letter 
of  tlie  Heb.  alphabet  being  substituted  for  tlie  first, 
the  second  last  for  the  second,  etc.,  "uc  would  be 
written  for  S^d.  An  example  of  tlie  same  thing 
should  probably  be  discovered  in  'cp  zh  of  Jer 
51  (-S) ',  wliich  apparently  has  been  substituted  for 
an  original  C"^;';  (LXX  XaXooious).  See,  further, 
A.  Berliner,  Beitrdoe  zur  ITeb.  Gramm.  aus  Tal- 
mud und  Midrasch,  pp.  12-14.  It  is  right  to  add 
that  Frd.  Delitzsch  [Paradies,  214  tr.)  rejects  this 
explanation  of  Sheshach,  holding  that  it  represents 
SisJcii-KI  of  an  ancient  Bab.  regal  register,  which 
may  have  stood  for  a  quarter  or  division  (perhaps 
Borsippa)  of  the  city  of  Babylon  (cf.  Lautli  in 
r::>IlA,  1881,  p.  47  f.).  Schrader  {A',1  T-  415  [COT 
ii.  108  f.])  objects  that  tlie  name  quoted  bj'  Delitzsch 
is  not  found  in  the  later  Bab.  literature  (dating 
from  the  time  of  Nebuchadnezzar),  and  that  even 
the  reading  of  the  name  Is  by  no  means  settled. 

J.  A.  Selbie. 
SHESHAI  (■;■?). — A  clan,  possibly  of  Aramaic 
origin,  resident  in  Hebron  at  the  time  of  the 
Hebrew  coni|uest  and  driven  thence  by  Caleb 
(Nu  l,^-'^  n  iifo-ffff,  A  Zefid  ;  Jos  15"  B  ±o,'<reL,  A 
Soitrai;  Jg  l'"  B  :ie<rael,  A  reSei).  See,  further, 
AiiiM.vs,  No.  1. 

SHESHAN  {]t^).—A  Jerahmeelite,  who,  having 
no  sons,  gave  liis  daughter  in  marriage  to  his 
Egyptian  slave  Jarlia,  1  Cli  2^'-»*-*>  (A  has  2u(rdf, 
Luc.  ^iffdi-,  throughout;  B  has  Suud/i  in  v.*"^, 
elsewliere  Zuady). 

SHESHBAZZAR  (•!>•;;■?').— There  is  some  uncer- 
tainty as  to  tlie  correct  form  of  this  name,  and  still 
more  as  to  the  identity  of  the  man  who  bears  it  in 
the  MT. 

Ezr  1^  B  ^xSattaLiriip,  A  S«fiE8a^riz^(,  LuC  IS^UTttSasrip^t 

which  id  read  by  Luc.  throughout  Kzra. 
„     111         B  nn».,  A  'S.^rot&ajrira.p, 

1  Ed  213(11)  B  '^^o.u.ifffBtfM,  A  1tt>tx^ettrffet.f>« ,  which  is  read  by 
A  throughout  1  Esdras,  Luc.  Xit.ira.^ir\MTretpr,t. 
,,     21^  f^^'  B  £«iiat^«<rra^«<,  Luc.  ^ZcLrxiixkiffrctpct, 
„     6'S|17|  B  ^&t>airffa/n<,  Luc.  2x^a^aXa<r(ra^,£. 
,,     6-^(1^1  B  ^^taf2»rffxpct ,  Luc.  2Affx3x>.etffirupijs. 

JosephuA  exhibits  a  similar  variety :  ' A^itrfxpof^  Im^irnfiett 

The  above  variations  (apart  from  'Rayaaip  and 
2op;3o7dp)  may  be  reduced  Ui  two  types  :  (1)  Shesh- 
ba?^r  or  Sasab(al)az?ar,  (2)  Sanaba??ar.  If  we 
adopt  the  first  of  these,  the  name  may  stand  for 
Bab.  Snmai-bil  [or  ■bal'\  -uzur,  '  O  sun-god  protect 
the  lord  [or  the  son] '  ;  so  van  Hoonacker  {Zoroba- 
bel,  43;  Noumlles  Hudc-<:,  30;  cf.  Acadeim/,  30th 
Jan.  1892),  followed  by  Wellhausen  [IJG^  153  n.), 
Cheyne  {Academy,  6th  Feb.  1892),  Ryle  (Ezra  and 
Xchemioh  in  Cainb.  Bible,  32),  Sayce  [BCM  539), 
et  al.  Tlie  Sanaba??ar  type,  again,  may  represent 
an  original  Sin-bal-uzur,  '  O  moon-god  protect  the 
son  '  ;  so  esp.  Ed.  Meyer  (Etitstehung  des  Juden- 
thum.1,  77),  cf.  also  Sayce  (I.e.). 

Slieshba??.ir  is  mentioned  in  Ezr  !••"  (the  work 
of  the  Chronicler,  who  has  just  quoted  what  pur- 
purls  to  be  an  edict  of  Cyrus  authorizing  the 
return  of  the  Jews  and  tne  rebuilding  of  the 
temple)  as  entrusted  by  Cyrus  with  the  vessels  of 
the  liouse  of  the  Lord  whicli  had  been  carried  away 
by  Nebuchadnezzar,  and  which  were  now  to  be  re- 
stored. These  vesselsare  said  to  havr  lieen  brought 
up  by  Sheshl)a??ar  'when  they  of  the  captivity 
were  brought  up  from  Babylon  unto  Jerusalem ' 
(<f.  1  Es  2''-- ").  The  same  particulars  regarding 
him  are  repeated  in  5>'- '»  (where  the  Chronicler 
uses  an  Aramaic  source,  which  professes  to  contain 
a  tr.anscript  of  the  letter  of  Tattenai  and  others  to 
Darius),  in  whicli  he  bears  the  familiar  Bab.-Assyr. 
titlt!  pe/mh  ('  governor'),  and  is  said,  further,  to  have 
laid  the  foumlations  of  the  temple  (cf.  1  Es  6"-  *). 


It  is  probably  *  Shesliha??ar  also  that  is  called  in 
Ezr  2«  (  =  Neh  7'"),  Neh  V  by  the  Persian  title 
tirshdthd. 

It  is  a  very  difficult  question  whether  Sheshbazzar 
is  to  be  identified  with  Zcruhbabel.  Their  identity 
was  commonly  accepted  till  lately,  and  has  still 
the  support  of  weighty  names,t  but  the  tendency 
of  modern  scholars  %  is  to  deny  it. 

In  fa\our  of  the  identification  (which  appears  to 
be  made  by  Jos.  A  nt.  XI.  i.  3)  the  two  strongest 
arguments  are  (a)  the  occurrence  elsewhere  (e.f/. 
2  K  23"  24",  Dn  1')  of  double  names,  and  (b)  tlie 
fact  that  the  laying  of  the  foundation  of  the  temple 
which  in  Ezr  3"  is  ascribed  to  Zerubbabel  is  in  5'* 
ascribed  to  Shesliba?<;ar. 

But  in  answer  to  (a)  it  may  be  urged  that  the 
case  of  Daniel  and  his  companions  is  not  strictly 
parallel,  for  there  we  have  native  names  (Daniel, 
Hananiah,  etc.)  and  foreign  names  (Beltesha?zar, 
Shadracli,  etc.),  whereas  Zerubbabel  (which  see)  and 
Sheshbazzar  are  in  all  probability  both  foreign  (sc. 
Babylonian)  names.  The  names  in  2  K  23**  24" 
really  furnish  an  argument  against  identifying 
Slieslib.  with  Zerubbabel.  It  is  true  that  in 
Eliakim  -  Jehoiakim  and  Mattaniah-Zedekiali  we 
have  two  couples  of  Hebrew  names,  but  the  author 
of  these  passages  at  least  takes  care  to  let  us  know 
that  Eliakim  is  identical  with  Jehoiakim,  and 
Mattaniah  with  Zedekiah,  just  as  in  Jg  7'  we  read 
'Jerubbaal  which  is  Gideon,'  and  in  Dn  2-"  4" 
'Daniel  whose  name  was  Beltesha??ar.'  In  view 
of  the  usage  elsewhere,  it  is  surely  strange  (and 
van  Hoonacker's  argument,  with  all  its  skill  and 
ingenuity,  does  not,  to  our  mind,  remove  the 
strangeness)  that  in  Ezr  3"  there  is  not  a  hint  by 
the  Chronicler  that  Zerubbabel,  who  then  comes 
upon  the  scene  for  the  first  time,  is  identical  with 
Sheshba??ar,  who  had  been  mentioned  in  1'.  More- 
over, it  is  hard  to  believe  (and  here  again  van 
Hoonacker's  argument  appears  to  us  unconvincing) 
that  Zerubbabel  could  be  spoken  of  in  5-  and  Shesli- 
ba??ar  in  5>-'-i6  in  the  way  they  are,  if  the  two 
names  stood  for  one  and  the  same  person. § 

As  to  (6),  reason  will  be  shown  in  art.  Zekub- 
BABEL  for  suspecting  that  Ezr  3*an<l  5'"  both  ante- 
date the  laying  of  the  foundation  of  the  temple, 
transferring  it  from  the  second  year  of  Darius 
Hystaspis  (B.C.  520)  to  the  second  j'ear  of  Cyrus 
(537).  But  whatever  view  be  held  as  to  that,  the 
identity  of  Sheshb.  with  Zerub.  does  not  aiipear  to 
us  to  follow  from  a  comparison  of  3'  with  5''.  All 
that  we  need  to  assume  is  that  the  two  returned 
from  Babj'lon  at  the  same  time,  and  that  .Sheshb. 
was  the  oilicial  head  (pehah)  of  the  coiumunity, 
while  Zerub.  was  the  moving  spirit  in  the  rebuild- 
ing of  the  temple,  whatever  may  have  been  tlie 
date  when  this  work  was  undertaken.  If  Ezr  .3' 
(the  Chronicler's  own  account)  and  5'"  (a  professedly 
official  account)  be  historical,  they  contain  the 
names,  respectively,  of  the  actual  (Zerubbabel)  and 
the  official  (Sheshba;f?ar)  founders  of  the  temple. 

Assuming,  now,  that  the  two  names  designate 
two  different  men,  was  Sheshbazzar  a  foreigner  or 

*  Uulcsa  one  holds  with  Kosters  that  the  list  of  names  in 
this  pa.Hsage  really  belongs  to  Nehemiob's  time,  and  that  the 
tirshttthd  is  Nehemiah  himself. 

t  Notably  van  Hoonacker  {Zorobabel  et  le  tfcond  temple, 
29 ff.;  cf.  his  NoitvfUes  itttde^  gur  la  rentauration  Juxve,  80, 
also  'Notes  sur  I'hist.  de  la  restauration  Juivc'  in  liB,  Jan. 
1001,  p.  7  IT.)  and  Rvie  {h'zra  and  y^hemiah,  \xx\.  12  f.). 
Kuenen  (0)id«r2o<il: »  11887),  437.  408,  60:i)  was  also  at  one  time 
disposed  to  favour  the  identification,  although  latterly  he 
abandoned  it.    See  next  note. 

t  Stode  (GT/  ii.  OSff.),  Kucncn  (OMOm.  AhhatuU.  2IS  U.), 
Renan  {llist.  du  pruple  d'Israi-l,  iii,  f>19  f.),  .Sinend  {Listen 
etc,  19),  Kosters  (//.-(  heratel  van  Itrait,  8211.),  Wellh.  (Ui}* 
158),  Sayce  iUCil  630),  and  many  others. 

g  We  refrain  from  citing,  as  an  argument  against  the  Identifl. 
cation,  the  occurrence  of  the  trco  nameg  togetJier  in  1  Eb  Ol**!!?) 
( Zop«^i>c/?iA  Mai  'SMimSaaretp*!),  because  it  is  probable  that  the 
llrst  of  these  names  la  Interpolated  (not«  the  following  sing, 
pronoun  »irf). 


494 


SHETH 


SHEW 


a  Jew?  It  has  been  contended  (by  de  Saulcy, 
Stude,  ct  al.)  that  he  waa  a  Persian.  But  his 
Babylonian  name  does  not  Increase  the  probability 
of  this  view,  and  the  appointment  of  a  Jew  to  head 
the  return  and  to  act  as  pehah  of  Judah  would  be 
quite  in  harmony  ^^•ith  the  policy  of  Cyrus  towards 
the  conquered  races  of  the  ein|iire  he  had  over- 
thrown. Hence  the  view  has  lately  been  gaining 
ground  that  he  was  a  Jew  (Ed.  Meyer,  Wellh., 
Clieyne,  et  al.).  It  is  a  tempting  suggestion, 
although  of  course  it  has  not  been  made  out,  that 
Sheshbazzar  is  the  Shenazzak  of  1  Ch  3'",  one  of 
Juhoiachin's  sons  and  uncle  of  Zerubbabel  (Imbert, 
Ronan,  Kosters,  Ed.  Meyer,  et  al.).*  If  this  were 
so,  it  would  justify  the  epithet  'prince  of  Judah' 
(.TiiiT^  tc\i-,r\)  applied  to  him  in  Ezt  1*,  a  title  which 
those  who  take  him  to  be  a  foreigner  have  to  ex- 
plain asdue  to  a  mistake  (Kuenen)  or  an  intentional 
transformation  on  the  part  of  the  Chronicler.  The 
nephew  rather  than  the  uncle  appears  from  the 
first  to  have  played  the  leading  role,  and  his  ser- 
vices, especially  in  connexion  with  the  rebuilding 
of  the  temple,  gave  him  such  a  place  in  the  memo- 
ries of  his  countrymen  that  in  Ezr  2^  ( =  Neh  7') 
Zerubbabel  stands  at  the  head  of  the  list,  while 
Shesliba?zar  [may  the  heathenish  character  of  his 
name  have  also  given  offence  to  the  puritan  zealots 
■who  compiled  the  list  ?]  is  not  mentioned  at  all. 

How  long  Sheshba?zar  held  office  is  uncertain, 
but  at  all  events  in  the  second  year  of  Darius 
Hystaspis  (n.c.  520)  he  had  given  place  to  Zerub- 
babel, who  is  known  from  contemporary  evidence 
(Hag  1'-  "  2^)  to  have  been  then  2>ehah  of  Judah. 
See,  further,  Zerubbabel,  and  the  Literature 
cited  at  end  of  that  article.  J.  A.  Selbie. 

SHETH.— In  Nu  24"  (only)  AV  and  RVm  tr. 

n-i'  •33  '  chUdren  (sons)  of  Sheth '  (LXX  ^f,e,  Vulg. 
Seth),  but  there  can  be  little  doubt  that  the  correct 
tr.  is  that  of  RV,  '  sons  of  tumult.'  In  that  case 
pp  would  stand  for  nxi?  (from  root  hne'),  and  would 
be=pi<P  of  the  parallel  passage  Jer  48"  (AV  and 
RV  '  tumultuous  ones').  G.  Hoffmann  {ZATWiii. 
97)  takes  nj  to  be  a  textual  error  for  pN?',  which  he 
supposes  in  both  these  passages  as  well  as  in  Ara  2- 
{2K\a  ]iNv'3  nps)  to  be  a  Moabite  place-name,  perhaps 
that  of  the  acropolis  of  Ar.  See,  further,  DiUm. 
on  Nu  24". 

SHETHAR  (in?',  Bn  Luc.  2ap<ro9aioi,  A  2opi?(r- 
6eos). — One  of  the  seven  princes  who  'sat  first  in 
the  kingdom '  and  had  the  right  of  access  to  the 
royal  presence  (Est  1",  cf.  Admatha).  The  deriva- 
tion and  meaning  of  the  name,  which  ia  presumably 
Persian,  cannot  be  determined. 

8HETHAR-B0ZENAI  CjiS  yv^  [meaning  doubt- 
ful]).— Named  along  with  Tattenai  and  others  in 
connexion  with  the  correspondence  with  Darius 
about  the  rebuilding  of  the  temple,  Ezr  5'- '  6'-  ■* 
(B  Zaeap^ovl;avi  except  in  6"  Soeop^oufdx ;  A 
Zafiap/Soufoi'al  in  5'  6",  SaOap^ovfiinjs  in  5«,  laBap- 
pov^avi  in  6' ;  Luc.  throughout  GapjSovfaKoioi), 
called  in  1  Es  e'-'-"  7'  Saturabuzanes. 

SHEYA.— 1.  {NIC';  B  "Laoi,  A  SaoiiX,  Luc.  J.ovi) 
A  son  of  Caleb  by  his  concubine,  Maacah,  1  Ch 
2<*.  See  Wellh.  de  Gentibus,  18,  note  1.  2.  See 
Shavsha. 

SHEW. — Both  verb  and  snbst.  (always  spelt 
'shew,'  the  modem  spelling  'show'  had  not  yet 
come  in ;  both  are  found  in  early  copies  of  Hooker, 
though  '  shew '  is  even  then  most  frequent)  are 
used  in  AV  with  greater  freedom  than  now. 

For   the  verb  we   find  :   1.  Make  to  see  (or  of 

•  It  is  Bcarcelv  worth  mentioninff  that  a  Jewish  tradition 
(Jalkut  OD  Ezr  1)  identifies  Sbeshba^^r  with  Daniel. 


things  make  to  he  seen),  literally,  as  now.  Thus 
Ex  33"  '  I  beseech  thee,  shew  me  thy  glory ' ;  Jn 
14*  '  Lord,  shew  us  the  Father.'  So  Bacon,  Essays, 
'  Of  Death '  (Gold.  Treas.  ed.  p.  6),  '  Groanes  and 
Convulsions,  and  a  discoloured  Face,  and  Friends 
weeping,  and  Blackes,  and  Obsequies,  and  the  like, 
shew  Death  terrible.'  2.  Make  to  be  seen  ligura- 
tively,  declare,  reveal  (cf.  Driver,  Daniel,  pp.  18  f., 
47 ;  Par.  Psalt.  481).  Thus  1  S  22"  'They  knew 
when  he  fled,  and  did  not  shew  it  to  me  ('V:  liS^ 
*JTN'nK,  LXX  ovK  6.TrQKa\v\liav  t6  urtov  fiov ;  Vulg. 
non  indicaverunt  mihi ;  KV  'did  not  disclose  it 
to  me');  Job  32""  'Hearken  to  me;  I  also  will 
shew  mine  opinion';  Ps  19^  'Night  unto  night 
sheweth  knowledge ' ;  Sir  37™  '  There  is  one  that 
sheweth  wisdom  in  words,  and  is  hated ' ;  1  Co 
11^  'Ye  do  shew  {Karayy^WcTe,  RV  'ye  proclaim') 
the  Lord's  death  till  he  come '  ;  15"  '  I  shew  you 
a,  mystery'  (X^w,  RV  'I  tell').  Cf.  Shaks.  All's 
Well,  IV.  i.  93— 

'  O,  let  me  live  ! 
And  all  the  secrets  of  our  camp  I'U  show.' 

3.  To  gh'e  or  do  something  to  one — a  natural  exten- 
sion of  the  general  sense  cause  to  appear.  Thus 
Ac  4^  '  The  man  was  above  forty  years  old,  on 
whom  this  miracle  of  healing  was  shewed '  (Gr. 
^e76i'ei,  edd.  7e76cei,  RV  'was  wrought');  24*' 
'  Felix,  willing  to  shew  the  Jews  a  pleasure,  left 
Paul  bound'  {9i\uir  re  x''/'"''''  [edd.  x''/'"''']  xa''"- 
eiadai,  RV  'desiring  to  gain  favour  with').  Cf. 
Babees  Book,  2 — 

'  And  eke,  o  lady  taya,  Facecia  I 
My  penne  thow  guyde,  and  helpe  unto  me  shewe.' 

The  subst.  means  :  1.  Outward  appearance.  Is 
3'  'The  shew  of  their  countenance  doth  witness 
against  them '  (on-j?  nir.i,  RVm  '  their  respecting 
of  persons ') ;  Sir  43'  '  The  beauty  of  heaven,  with 
his  glorious  shew '  (^i-  bpAiuni  ScSJiis,  RV  '  in  the 
spectacle  of  its  glory');  Gal  6"  ' A»  many  as 
desire  to  make  a  fair  shew  in  the  flesh '  (fiVpoo-- 
bnrriaai).  Cf.  Pref.  to  A  V,  '  Some  peradventure 
would  have  no  varietie  of  .sences  to  be  set  in  the 
margine,  lest  the  authoritie  of  the  Scriptures  for 
deciding  of  controversies  by  that  shew  of  uncer- 
taintie,  should  somewhat  be  shaken';  and  Drayton, 
Sol.  Song,  ch.  5 — 

•  His  eies  be  like  to  doves' 
On  rivers'  banks  below, 
Ywasht  with  milk,  whose  collours  are 
Moat  gallant  to  the  shew.' 

2.  Spectacle,  Col  2">  '  He  made  a  shew  of  them 
openly'  {iSeiyixdriaev  ivTappr]<Tlg.).  Cf.  Ezkl2'Cov., 
'  Hyde  thy  face  that  thou  see  not  the  earth,  for  I 
have  made  the  a  shewtoken  \into  the  house  of  Israel.' 

3.  Semblance,  Ps  39'  'Surely  every  man  walketh 
in  a  vain  shew '  (D^s?,  RVm  [implying  false  etym. 
connexion]  'as  a  shadow')  ;  Col  2-'  'which  things 
have  indeed  a  shew  of  \vi8dom  '  (\i70i'  aoiptaf).  Cf. 
Fuller,  Holy  State,  158,  'Travell  not  too  early 
before  thy  judgement  be  risen,  lest  thou  observest 
rather  shews  than  substance,  marking  alone 
pageants,  pictures,  beautiful!  buildings,'  etc. 

4.  Pretence,  Lk  20"  '  Which  devour  widows' 
houses,  and  for  a  shew  make  long  prayers'  (jrpo- 
ipiaa,  RV  '  for  a  pretence ').  Cf.  Purchas,  Pilgrim- 
age,  386,  '  In  shew  to  kecpe  the  straits,  in  deed  to 
expect  the  event ' ;  and  Paraph.  25'° — 

'  Who  can  his  generation  tell? 

From  prison  see  him  led  I 
With  impious  shew  of  law  condenu'd 

And  number'd  with  the  dead.' 

Sheuring  is  used  as  a  subst.  in  Lk  l*  '  Till  the 
day  of  his  shewing  unto  Israel'  (Jut  itiUpai  iva- 
Sel^eus  airrov).  The  Eng.  word  is  quite  unusual, 
and  is  simnly  a  literal  tr.  (after  Vulg.  osfensio 
and  Wvclif's  'schewynge')  of  the  Gr.  dniJEcfit, 
wliich  does  not  occur  elsewhere  in  NT.  On  com- 
paring Lk  10'  '  The  Lord  appointed  {iviiaity)  other 


SHEWBREAD 


SHEWBEEAD 


495 


seventy  also,'  and  Ac  1**  '  Sliew  {avdlti^of)  whether 
of  these  two  thou  hast  chosen,'  we  see  that  the 
reference  is  to  the  entrance  of  Jolin  on  his  public 
ministry.  J.  Hastings. 

SHEWBREAD.— 'Shewhread,' formed  apparently 
on  the  pattern  of  Luther's  Schaubrot,  is  the  tr. , 
first  adopted  by  Tindale,  of  the  Heb.  D-)p(n)  cnji 
'  bread  of  the  presence  [of  J"],'  of  which,  accord- 
infrly,  the  more  correct  tr.  is  that  proposed  by 
RVra,  viz.  '  presence-bread.' 

It  has  been  usual  hitherto  to  assign  the  introduction  of  the 
terra  'shewbread'  to  Coverdale  (see,  e.g.,  Phinimcr's  Luke, 
167),  But  it  is  found  as  early  as  1626  in  Tindale's  New  Testa- 
ment, He  02  '  and  the  shewe  breed  which  is  called  wholy '  (Offor'B 
feprint).  Curiously  enouph,  Tindale  not  only  uses  other  render- 
ings in  the  Gospels  ('  the  halowed  loves,'  Mt"l2'*,  Mk  2-*i ;  *  loves 
of  halowed  breed,'  Lk  6*),  but  retains  the  same  inconsistency  in 
his  reviseil  e<iition  of  1534,  after  he  had  adopted  'shewbred'  in 
his  Pentateuch  of  1530.  In  the  latter  on  its  lirst  occurrence  (Ex 
263")  he  adds  the  marpnal  note :  '  Shewbrod,  because  it  was 
ftlwa^  in  the  presence  and  sight  of  the  Lorde '  (see  Mombert's 
repnnt,  in  he,),  Wyclif  had  naturally  followed  the  Vulgate 
(•ee  below)  with  'breed  of  proposicioun.'  The  Protestant 
translators  and  revisers  who  succeeded  Tindale  |^ve  '  shew- 
bread '  in  OT,  '  shewe  loves,'  '  shewbreads,'  and  '  sbewbread '  in 
NT,  the  last  by  the  end  of  the  16th  cent,  being  firmly  estab- 
lished in  both  Testaments  (the  Itheims  version,  however,  retain- 
ing *  loaves  of  proposition '). 

L  NosiENCLATTJHE. — On  the  occasion  of  the  ear- 
liest historical  mention  of  tlie  presence  -  bread 
(0'jf,T  nnS  1  S  21»  (h«1'  'D  it  is  nl.so  termed  '  holy 
bread  '  (ch^  onS  ib,  »•  ••  («•  1  KV  ;  AV  '  hallowed 
bread ').  The  former  terra  is  that  used  through- 
out the  Priests'  Code  (P)  of  the  Pentateuch, 
with  the  addition  of  the  name  '  continual  bread  ' 
(TSB  "i  Nil  4'"  ;  cf.  '  bread  '  only  Ex  40-^).  In  the 
post-exilic  period  we  meet  with  another  desig- 
nation, viz.  '  the  pile-bread '  (n;-iy^i:rr  on^  1  Ch  9^- 
23^,  Neh  I0»,  but  with  the  terms  reversed  2  Ch 
13",  cf.  He  9- ;  also  nDivo  alone  2  Ch  2').  This 
name  is  due  to  the  fact  that  the  loaves  were 
arranged  upon  the  table  in  two  ])iles  (n^D-i;;??  Lv 
24* ;  this,  the  rendering  of  RVm,  suits  the  facts 
better  than  the  '  rows '  of  the  text  of  EV).  The 
tr.  varies  considerably  in  the  Gr.  versions,  the 
most  literal  rendering  of  the  older  designation  is 
iproi  ToD  irpoawTTou  1  S  21*,  2  Es  20^  (hut  cf.  Aquila's 
&p.  TrpoautTruv),  &p.  ivuiwioi  Ex  25^,  ol  &p.  ol  irpoKti^iivoi 
Ex  39'* ;  elsewhere  most  frequently  &p.  tt)?  tt/jo- 
Biatui,  '  loaves  of  the  setting  forth.'  This,  the 
term  used  in  the  Gospels  (Mt  12*,  Mk  2=«,  Lk  Q*), 
reflects  the  later  Hebrew  designation  above  men- 
tioned (cf.  TrportO^vau  in  LXX  to  render  rtTj  '  to  set 
in  order,'  '  set  forth  '  [a  meal  upon  a  table]).*  The 
variant  tj  TpiBttrit  t.  ipruiv  (He  U'^)  follows  2  Ch  13", 
2  Mac  IC)".  Still  another  rendering,  o!  4p.  ttj^  Trpexr- 
00005,  is  confined  to  some  MSS  of  the  Greek  of  1  K 
■7*  (Lucian  has  irpoBicriwt).  The  Vulgate  also  re- 
flects botli  the  Hebrew  designations  with  panis 
fariemm  (cf.  Aquila,  above)  and  panis  proposi- 
tionia. 

The  table  of  shewbread  has  likewise  in  Hebrew 
a  twofold  nomenclature  :  in  P  cijn  jnSc*  '  the  pres- 
ence-table '  (Nu  4'),  but  in  Chronicles  r;"iv,'SC  "'=' 
(2  Ch  29")  ;  in  both  we  also  find  ^^^5;n  "d  '  the  pure 
table'  (Lv  24",  2  Ch  13"),  proljably  because  over- 
laid with  pure  cold.  For  other  designations  now 
disguised  in  M'T  see  next  section. 

ii.  The  Shewbread  in  the  Pre-exilic  Period. 
— The  earliest  historical  mention  of  the  shewbread 
occurs  in  the  account  of  David's  flight  from  Saul, 
in  which  he  secures  for  his  young  men,  under 
conditions  that  are  somewhat  obscure,  the  use 
of  the  shewbread  from  the  sanctuary  at  NoB  (1  S 
SI"-).  It  is  here  described,  as  we  have  seen, 
both  as  'presence-bread'  (v.'l^))  and  as  '  holy  '  or 
'sacred  bread'  (vv.*- 'I'-l),  in  opposition  to  ordi- 

•  Codox  BeziB  (D)  has  w^trhewt,  with  which  comp.  rfio^riOtim 
for  wg*t,6.  In  some  MSS  of  the  LXX  (paMim),  See  for  I)"b  read- 
ing. Nestle,  Introd,  to  Text,  Criticiim  of  Or,  JVr(lOOl),  287. 


nary  or  unconsecratcd  bread  (Sin).  The  incident 
appears  to  have  happened  on  the  day  on  which 
the  loaves  were  removed  to  be  replaced  by  fresli 
or  '  hot  bread  '  (en  cnV  v."  PI). 

It  must  not  be  inferred  from  this  narrative  that  the  regu- 
lation of  the  Priests'  Code,  by  which  the  stale  shewbread  was 
the  exclusive  perquisite  of  the  priests,  was  already  in  force, 
although  this,  naturally,  is  the  standpoint  of  NT  times  (see 
Mt  12*  and  paralls.).  Ahimelech,  in  requiring  and  receiving  the 
assurance  that  David's  young  men  were  ceremonially  '  clean ' 
(see  art.  Uncleanxess),  seems  to  have  taken  all  the  precautions 
then  deemed  necessary.  The  narrative  is  further  of  value  as 
giving  us  a  clear  indication  of  the  meaning  originally  attaching 
to  the  expression  '  presence-bread,'  for  the  loaves  are  here  e> 
pressly  said  to  have  been  '  removed  frojn  tfte  presence  c/  J'' 
("  -jdV?  onyisn  MT,  v.7 ;  cf.  the  similar  expression  Ex  2530). 

We  next  meet  with  the  rite  in  connexion  witli 
Solomon's  temple,  among  the  furniture  of  which  ia 
mentioned  in  our  present  text  '  the  table  where- 
upon the  shewbread  was'  (1  K  7**  RV).  This 
table  is  here  further  said  to  have  been  '  of  gold,' 
by  which  we  are  to  understand  from  the  context 
'  of  solid  gold'  (cf.  Ex  25-*  in  LXX,  and  .Josephus' 
[Ant.  Vlll.  iii.  7]  description  of  the  temple).  But 
it  is  well  known  that  in  this  section  of  the  Book  of 
Kings  the  original  narrative  has  been  overlaid 
with  accretions  of  all  sorts,  mostly,  if  not  entirely, 
post-exilic  ;  these  are  due  to  the  idea  of  this  later 
time,  that  the  interior  decoration  of  Solomon's 
temple,  and  the  materials  of  its  furniture,  could 
in  no  respect  have  been  inferior  to  those  of  the 
tabernacle  of  P.  See  Stade's  classical  essay,  '  Der 
Text  des  Berichtes  ueber  SaJomo's  Bauten,'  in 
ZATW,  1883,  129-177,  reproduced  in  his  Akacl. 
Reden  u,  Abhandlungen  (1899),  143fl'.  Stade's 
results  have  been  accepted  in  the  main  by  all 
recent  scholars.  Thus  he  .shows  that  the  original 
of  1  K  e^""-  -'  i)robiibly  read  somewhat  as  is  still 
given  in  the  middle  clause  of  the  better  Gr.  text 
of  A  {^iroiTjaev  dvaiatrrripLOv  KiSpov  ,  .  ,  Kara  Trpuffwirov  rod 
Sa^lp),  viz.  T3in  '}t^  i-jk  n;ip  fvn  'and  he  ) Solomon] 
made  an  altar  of  cedar-wood  (to  stand)  in  front 
of  the  sanctuary  (the  'Holy  of  Holies'  o'f  P).' 
Whether  we  should  retain  or  discard  the  words 
'  and  overlaid  it  with  gold,'  is  of  minor  import- 
ance.* 

The  altar,  therefore,  of  v.20b  {s  not  to  be  understood  of  the 
altar  of  incense,  which  first  appears  in  the  latest  stratum  of  P 
(see  Tabernacli'.),  but,  as  in  the  passage  of  Ezekiel  presently  to 
be  considered,  of  the  table  of  sliewbread.  The  express  mention 
of  the  latter  by  name  in  1  K  7*3''  is  also  part  of  an  admitte<lly 
Ute  addition  to  the  original  text  (see  authorities  cited  in  foot- 
note). The  same  desire  to  enhance  the  glory  of  the  Solomonic 
temple  is  usually  assigned  as  the  ground  for  the  tradition  fol- 
lowed by  the  Chronicler,  who  states  that  Solomon  provided  the 
necessary  gold  for  ten  tables  of  shewbread  (I  Ch  2816;  cf.  2  Ch 
48. 16),  This  writer,  however,  is  not  consistent,  for  elsewhere 
we  read  of  'the  ordering  of  the  shewbread  upori  the  pure  table 
(2  Oh  1311),'  In  his  account,  further,  of  the  cleansmg  of  the 
temple  under  Hczckiah,  only  *  the  tablf  of  shewbread,  with  all 
the  vessels  thereof '  is  mentioned  (ib.  '^iOi"^),— a  view  of  the  case 
which  is  undoubtedly  to  be  regarded  as  alone  In  accordance 
with  the  facte  of  history. 

This  table  fell  a  prey  to  the  (lames  which  con- 
sumed the  temple  in  the  19th  year  of  Nebu- 
chadrezzar (2  K  25",  Jer  52").  The  tale  related 
by  the  Byzantine  chronicler  (Synccllus,  409),  that 
it  was  among  the  furniture  concealed  by  Jeremiah 
on  Mount  Pisgah,  is  but  a  later  addition  to  the 
earlier  form  of  the  same  fable,  which  we  already 
find  in  2  Mac  2'"-.  Notwithstanding  these  un- 
certainties, the  continuance  of  the  rite  under  the 
monarchy  is  sullicicntly  assured. 

iii.  The  Post-kxilic  Period. — Ezekiel  in  his 
sketch  of  the  ideal  sanctuary  likewise  contem- 
plates the  perpetuation  of  the  rite,  for  in  a  passage 
of  his  booK,   which  on  all   hands   is  regarded  as 

*  See  besides  Stade.  op,  cit.,  the  Commentaries  of  Klttel  and 
Bcnzinger,  esp,  the  latter's  Introduction,  p.  xviff.,  where  an 
intiTesting  study  will  be  fotind  of  the  gradual  growth  of  the 
accretions  with  which  I  Kiil"*-*!  is  now  overgrown  ;  also  Humey'l 
art.  Kings  in  the  present  work,  vol.  il.  m;i\  and  his  Holes  'on 
the  Ucbrew  Text  oj  the  Books  of  Kings,  in  toe. 


496 


SHEWBREAD 


SHEWBREAD 


corrupt,  but  capable  with  the  help  of  the  LXX  of 
easy  emendation,  we  read  thus  (as  emended)  :  '  In 
front  of  the  sanctuary  [this  also=P'3  'Holy  of 
Holies']  was  something  liUe  an  altar  of  wood, 
three  cubits  in  hei;L;ht,  and  the  len<;th  thereof  two 
cubits,  and  the  breadth  two  cubits  ;  and  it  had 
corners,  and  its  base  and  its  sides  were  of  wood. 
And  he  said  unto  me :  This  is  the  table  that  is 
before  J"  '  (Ezk  41-'-  — ;  so  substantially  Comill  and 
all  recent  commentators).  Here,  then,  we  have  not 
the  altar  of  incense,  but  once  more  the  table  of 
shewbread.  The  twofold  circumstance  that  it  is 
here  expressly  termed  an  altar,  and  is  of  plain 
wood  without  a  gold  covering,  is  a  strong  argument 
in  favour  of  Stade's  restoration  of  the  text  of  1  K, 
discussed  above.  Ezekiel's  table  of  shewbread 
resembled  in  its  general  outline  the  similar  altar- 
tables  so  often  seen  on  the  Assyrian  monuments 
(see  last  section)  ;  its  height  was  half  as  much 
again  as  its  length,  and  in  section  it  formed  a 
square  of  at  least  3  ft.  in  the  side.  The  projec- 
tions or  '  horns  '  were,  no  doubt,  similar  to  those  of 
the  Assyrian  altars  (see,  e.g.,  Perrot  and  Chipiez, 
History  of  Art  in  Chaldca  and  Assyria,  i.  pp.  143, 
255,  etc. ). 

In  the  temple  of  Zerubbabel,  consecrated  in  the 
6th  year  of  Darius  (B.C.  516),  the  table  of  shew- 
bread, we  may  safely  infer,  had  its  place  in  the 
outer  sanctuary,  although  we  have  no  information 
as  to  whether  or  not  it  was  modelled  on  Ezekiel's 
altar-table.  After  the  introduction  of  the  Priests' 
Code  it  may  have  been  remodelled  according  to 
the  instructions  there  given  (Ex  2o'-"'-);  we  may 
at  least,  with  some  measure  of  certainty,  suppose 
that  it  was  then  overlaid  with  gold,  since  Antiochus 
Epiphanes,  when  he  carried  off  the  spoils  of  the 
temple  (1  Alac  1"),  would  scarcely  have  taken  the 
trouble  to  remove  a  plain  wooden  altar.  The  well- 
informed  author  of  1  Maccabees,  in  the  passage 
cited,  includes  among  the  spoils  not  only  the  table 
itself,  but  '  the  flagons  and  chalices  and  censers  of 
gold '  used  in  the  ritual  of  the  table  (see  for  these 
art.  Tabernacle,  section  on  Table  of  Shewbread). 
The  provision  of  the  shewbread,  it  should  be 
added,  was  one  of  the  objects  to  which  were  de- 
voted the  proceeds  of  the  tax  of  one-third  of  a 
shekel  instituted  by  Nehemiah  (10*',  cf.  Jos.  Ant. 
III.  X.  7,  §  255). 

Here  atteDtion  may  b«  called  to  two  non-canonical  Jewish 
writers  who  allude  to  the  subject  of  this  article.  The  earlier 
of  the  two  is  pseudo-Hccatit-us,  whose  date  is  usually  assumed 
to  be  the  Rri  cent.  B.C.  (Schiirer,  GJV  iii.  465  ;  but  Willrich, 
Juden  u.  Griechen,  etc.,  20  f.,  argues  for  a  date  in  the  Macca- 
b:»an  period).  This  writer,  in  a  passage  preserved  (or  us  by 
Josephus  (c.  Apion.  i.  22),  describes  the  second  temple  as  'a 
large  edifice  wherein  is  an  altar  (jSmui;),  and  a  candclalinim 
(Xt/x^'o*).  both  of  gold,  two  talents  in  weight.'  The  former  term, 
in  the  light  of  what  has  been  said  above  with  regard  to  the 
altar-tables  of  Solomon  and  Ezekiel,  we  must  identify  with  the 
table  of  shewbread.  The  other  writer  referred  to  is  pseudo- 
Aristeas,  whose  date  falls  within  the  century  200-100  b.c.  In 
his  famous  letter,  purporting  to  give  an  account  of  the  origin  of 
the  Alexandrian  version  of  the  OT,  he  gives  the  rein  to  a  lively 
imagination  in  his  description  of  a  shewbread  table  of  unex- 
ampled magnificence — all  of  gold  and  precious  gems,  and  of 
unsurpassed  artistic  workmanship — which  Ptolemy  Philadelphus 
i«  said  to  have  presented  to  the  temple  at  .Jerusalem  (see 
Wendland's  or  Tliackeray's  edition  of  Aristeas'  letter^tr.  by 
the  former  in  Kautzsch's  Apokri/phen  u.  Pseiidfpiffrapheii,  ii, 
6  ff.).  This  table  is  admitted  to  have  bad  no  existence  outside 
the  pages  of  Aristeas. 

To  resume  the  thread  of  our  narrative,  we  find 
tliat  on  the  re-dedication  of  the  temple  (B.C.  165) 
Judas  Maccabanis  had  new  furniture  made,  includ- 
ing the  shewbrea<l  table  (1  Mac  4"), — now,  we  may 
be  sure,  constructed  in  entire  conformity  to  the  re- 
quirements of  Ex  25^"-, — upon  which  the  loaves 
were  duly  set  forth  (v.").  This  table  continued 
in  use  till  the  destruction  of  the  temple  by  Titus 
in  A.D.  70.  Rescued  from  the  blazing  pile,  it 
figtired  along  with  the  golden  candlestick  and  a 
roll   of  the  law  in  the   triumph  a>\arded  to  the 


victorious  general  (Jos.  B-T  vil.  v.  3-7,  esp.  5,  §  148). 
Thereafter,  these  were  all  deposited  by  Vespasian 
in  his  newly  built  temple  of  Peace  (ib.  v.  7),  while 
a  representation  of  the  triumph  formed  a  conspicu- 
ous part  of  the  decoration  on  the  Arch  of  Titus, 
erected  subsequently.  Few  remains  of  classical 
antiquity  have  been  so  frequently  reproduced  as 
the  panel  of  the  arch  on  which  are  depicted  the 
table  and  the  candlestick,  borne  alott  on  the 
shoulders  of  the  Roman  veterans  (see  illustration 
under  MusiC,  vol.  iii.  p.  462).  Both  seem  to  have 
remained  in  Rome  till  the  sack  of  the  city  by 
Genseric,  king  of  the  Vandals,  in  455,  by  whom 
they  were  transferred  to  Carthage,  the  site  of  the 
new  Vandal  capital  in  Africa.  From  Caithage 
they  were  transferred  to  Constantinople  by  Beli- 
sarius,  in  whose  triumph  they  again  ligured.  On 
this  occasion  a  Jew,  it  is  said,  working  on  the 
superstitious  awe  felt  by  Justinian  for  these  sacred 
relics,  induced  the  emperor  to  send  them  back  to 
Jerusalem.  They  probably  perished  finally  in  the 
sack  of  .lerusalem  by  Chrosroes,  the  Persian,  in 
614  (see  Reinach,  '  L'Arc  de  Titus,'  in  HE  J  20,  p. 
Ixxxvf.,  in  book  form,  1890;  Knight,  27ie  Arch  of 
Titus,  112ff.). 

iv.  Preparation  OF  THE  Shewbread.— Accord- 
ing to  the  express  testimony  of  Josephus  {Ant.  m. 
vi.  6),  the  Mishna,  and  later  Jewish  writers,  the 
shewbread  was  unleavened.  Nor  does  there  seem 
to  be  anj- valid  ground  for  the  assertion,  frequently 
made  by  recent  writers,  that  it  was  otherwise  in 
more  primitive  times.  The  absence  of  leaven  best 
suits  the  undoubted  antiquity  of  the  rite,  and, 
moreover,  is  confirmed  by  the  B.abylonian  practice 
of  offering  'sweet' (i.e.  unleavened)  bread  on  the 
tables  of  the  gods  (see  below).  The  material  in 
all  periods  was  of  the  finest  of  the  flour  (Lv  24°), 
which  was  obtained,  according  to  ilenahoth  (vi.  7), 
by  sifting  the  flour  eleven  times.  The  kneading 
and  firing  of  the  loaves  in  the  time  of  tlie  Chronicler 
was  the  duty  of  the  '  sons  of  the  Kohathites,'  a 
Levitical  guild  (1  Ch  9**) ;  in  the  closin"  da3S  of 
the  second  temple  their  preparation  fell  to  the 
house  or  family  of  Garmu  (Yoma  iii.  11,  Shclfal. 
viii.  1).  The  quantity  of  flour  prescribed  by  the 
Priests'  Code  for  each  loaf  (n^n  halld)  was  '  two 
tenth -parts  of  an  ephah '  (Lv  24'  RV),  which  — 
reckoning  the  ephah  roughly  at  a  bushel — repre- 
sents about  ^ths  of  a  peck  (c.  7J  litres),  a  quantity 
sufficient  to  produce  a  loaf  of  considerable  dimen- 
sions, recalling  the  loaves  which  gave  their  name 
to  the  Delian  festival  of  the  MfyoXdpTio. 

In  the  earlier  period,  at  least,  the  loaves  were 
laid  upon  the  table  while  still  hot  ( I  S  21").  The 
later  regulations  required  that  they  should  be 
arranged  in  two  piles  (no-ii^s,  see  sect.  i.  above). 
On  the  top  of  each  pile,  apparently, — on  the  table 
between  the  pUes,  according  to  another  tradition, — 
stood  a  censer  containing  '  pure  frankincense  for 
a  memorial  (firix,  for  which  see  comni.  on  Lv  24'), 
even  an  offering  by  fire  unto  the  I.ORD.'  Alex- 
andrian writers  give  salt  in  addition  (Lv  I.e.  in 
LXX;  hence,  doubtless,  Philo,  Vit.  Mos.  ii.  151). 
The  stale  loaves,  by  the  same  regulations,  were 
removed  and  fresh  loaves  substituted  every  Sab- 
bath. According  to  Sukka  (v.  7f.),  one  half  went 
to  the  outgoing  division  of  priests,  the  other  to  the 
incoming  division,  by  whom  they  were  consumed 
wthin  the  sacred  precincts.*  In  order  to  avoid 
repetition,  further  examination  of  the  details  given 
by  post  -  biblical  Jewish  writers — many  of  them 
clearly  wide  of  the  mark  —  regarding  the  shape 
and  size  of  the  loaves  and  their  arrangement  on 
the  table,  as  well  as  regarding  the  nature  and 
purpose  of  the  vessels  mentioned.  Ex  25^,  Nu  4', 
is    reserved    for    the    section    on    P's    table    of 

*  It  is  a  mere  conlecture  that  the  shewbread  was  originally 
bumtd  (Stade,  Akadem.  Redm,  etc,  180,  note  15). 


SHIBAH 


SHIELD 


497 


ehewbread  and  its  vessels  in  the  general  articli! 
Tauern-aclk. 

V.  SlUXIFICANCE  OF  THE  RlTE.  —  The  rite  ot 
•the  prt'Sfiice-bread'  is  one  of  the  fairl}'  nuiiierons 
survivals  from  the  pre-Mosaic  sta;,'e  of  the  religion 
of  the  Hebrews,  and  coes  back  ultimately  to  the 
naive  conception  that  tlie  god,  like  his  worsliipjiers, 
required  and  actually  partook  of  material  nourish- 
ment. No  doubt,  as  W.  U.  Smith  hn.^  pointed  out, 
this  idea  '  is  too  crude  to  subsist  without  niodilica- 
lion  bejond  the  savage  state  of  society '  (ii6''  212). 
In  the  case  of  the  shewbread,  it  may  be  suggested 
that  the  odour  of  the  '  hot  bread  '  (on  cnji  1  S  21«t'i) 
was  regarded  in  ancient  times  as  a  '  sweet  savour,' 
like  the  smell  of  the  sacrilice  to  J"(Gn  8=',  Lv23"'). 
Id  any  case  the  custom  of  presenting  soli<l  food  on 
a  table  as  an  oblation  to  a  god  is  too  widespread 
among  the  peoples  of  antiquity  to  permit  of  doubt 
as  to  the  origin  of  the  rite  among  the  Hebrews. 

The  tectigtemia,whlch  the  Romans  borrowed  from  the  Greeks, 
afToril  the  most  familiar  illustration  of  this  practice  (see  Smith's 
Z)iV/.  of  iir.  and  Horn.  Antiqs.'-i  r.  v.).  In  the  OT  itself  we  hear 
of  Jeremiah's  contenijioraries  kncadinp  cakes  for  the  queen  of 
heaven  (Jer  7***),  and,  at  a  later  date,  of  the  table  which  even 
Jews  spread  to  Fortune  ((iAl»,  Is  6511  \i\).  In  the  reli^jious 
literature  of  the  ancient  Babylonians,  a;:ain,  parti<rularly  in  the 
ritual  tablets  to  which  the  attention  of  scholars  has  lately  been 
turned,  we  find  numerous  references  to  the  various  items  of 
foo<l  and  drink  to  be  presented  to  the  deities  of  the  Babylonian 
pantheon.  The  tables  or  altars,  also,  on  which  the  fo<Kl  was  set 
out  are  frequently  represented  on  the  monuments  (see,  t.fj., 
HenzinKer,  lltb.  Arch.  3S7  ;  Kiehm's  HUB'  i.  143,  etc.).  And 
not  only  so,  but,  as  Zimmern  has  recently  shown,  the  loaves 
of  sweet  or  unleavened  bread  thus  presented  are,  frequently  at 
least,  of  the  number  of  12,  24,  or  even  as  many  as  30  (see  the 
rcfl.  in  Zinnnem's  Beitrdge  ztir  Knintmn  tier  liafJulon.  lieliition, 
lyOl,  p.  94  f.).  These  numbers,  we  can  hardly  doubt,  have  an 
ostronomicol  signilicance,  12  being  the  number  of  the  signs  of 
the  Zodiac,  24  the  stations  of  the  moon,  and  3fi  those  of  the 
planets  (see  2  K  233  ItVm,  Job  3S*'2,  and  art.  Hahvlonia  in  vol. 
L  p.  218»).  The  knowledge  of  this  an<'ient  pra<-ti<re  of  offering 
I'KkJ  on  the  tables  of  the  gods  survived  to  a  late  period  ;  see 
tpist.  of  Jeremy,  v.26ff.,  and  the  fragment  of  Bel  and  the  Dragon 
(esp.  v.U  ;  note  also  that  the  food  of  Cel  comprise<l  '  twHvp  great 
measures  of  fine  flour*).  Hence,  if  the  loaves  of  the  presence- 
bread  were  12  in  number  from  the  earliest  times, — though  of 
this  we  have  no  early  testimony, — we  should  have  another  of 
the  rapidly  increasing  instances  of  early  Babylonian  influence 
in  the  West  (of.  Josepnus'  association  of  the  12  loaves  with  the 
12  months,  Ant.  in.  rii.  7). 

While,  however,  it  must  be  admitted  that  the 
rite  of  the  presence-bread  had  its  origin  in  the 
circle  of  ideas  just  set  forth,  it  is  not  less  evident 
that,  a.s  taken  up  and  preserved  bj'  the  religious 
guides  of  Israel,  the  rite  acquired  a  new  and  higher 
signilicance.  Tlie  bre.ad  was  no  longer  thought  of 
as  J"'8  food  ("  Dn^)  in  the  sense  att.achcd  to  it  in  an 
earlier  age,  but  as  a  concrete  exjire.ssion  of  the  fact 
that  .J"  was  the  source  of  every  materi.tl  blessing. 
As  the  'continual  bread  '  (Tsn  cn^  Nu  4'),  it  became 
the  'taiiding  expression  of  tlie  nation's  gratitude 
to  the  Giver  of  all  for  the  bounties  of  His  provi- 
dence. The  number  twelve  was  later  brought  into 
connexion  with  the  number  of  the  tribes  of  Israel 
(cf.  Lv  248),  and  thus,  Sabb.ath  by  Sabbath,  the 
priestly  representatives  of  the  nation  renewed  this 
outward  and  visible  acknowledgment  of  man's 
wontiiiual  dependence  upon  God.  The  jucsence  of 
the  shewbread  in  the  developed  ritual,  therefore, 
was  not  without  a  real  and  worthy  signilic.ance. 
It  may  here  be  added,  in  a  word,  th.at  the  explana- 
tion ot  the  shewbread  hitherto  in  vogue  among  the 
disciples  of  Hiihr,  according  to  which  the  '  bread  of 
the  face '  was  so  named  because  it  is  through  par- 
faking  thereof  that  man  attains  to  the  sight  of 
Gud,  accords  neither  with  the  true  sigiiilication  of 
the  term,  nor  with  the  historv  of  the  rite. 

A.  K.  S.  Kknnedv. 

SHIBAH  (■ly??'!  LX.X  apKos[U.L.  iuramentum]; 
Aq.  Symm.  irXTjcr/toi'^s  [Vulg.  aliuni/dntui]). — 'I'he 
well  du;,'  by  I.saac,  from  which  IJeer-sheba  took  its 
name,  tin  26'^'  (.1,  who  apparently  makes  r[]iiv  = 
"Vrr  'oath').  The  well,  according  to  this  view, 
derived  its  name  from  the  '  swearing' (v.")  of  the 
vou  IV. — 32 


oath  by  which  I.saac,  on  the  one  part, and  Abimelech, 
with  his  friend  Ahuzzath,  and  his  chief  captain 
Phicol,  on  the  other,  ratilied  the  covenant  they 
had  made  (vv.-*-*").  According  to  another  account, 
Gn  2r---^'  (E),  the  well  was  dug  by  Ahraham,  and 
Beer-sheba  was  so  called  because  it  was  there  that 
he  and  Abimelech  '  sware  both  of  tliein.'  In  the 
latter  pas.sage  there  is  also  manifestly  a  \i\iiy  upon 
the  word  I'sy  '  seven,'  seven  lambs  having  been 
used  (v.^"')  in  the  ceremony.  l'"or  a  description 
of  the  existing  wells  see  DEElt-.silEBA,  and  add  to 
Literature  :  Gautier,  Expos:  'Times,  1S91»,  pp.  328  f., 
478  f. ;  and  esp.  ti.  L.  Robinson,  Bihl.  World,  Apr. 
1901,  pp.  247-255  (with  jilan  and  photo.s.):  an 
abstract  at  the  end  of  Driver's  Joel  and  Amos*. 

C.  \V.  Wilson. 
SHIBBOLETH  (n^Sp),  Jg  12«.— The  Ephraimite 
fugitives  at  the  Jordan-fords  betrayed  themselves 
by  pronouncing  this  word  sibbolcth  (nSnp) — an 
interesting  proof  of  the  dill'erence  in  dialect  which 
distinguished  the  western  tribes  from  those  on 
the  east  of  Jordan.  15y  confusion  of  sounds 
shibboleth  (nSns)  would  become  sibboleth  {rh'io),  and 
so  ^ibbnleth  (nVno)  ;  see  \\'right,  Comp.  Gram.  p. 
58.  Etj'inologicaily  D  (i)  is  quite  distinct  from 
l7  («),*  but  the  two  are  not  infrequently  confounded 
in  Heb.,  e.a.  i:>v_3  and  oys,  :id;  I's  44'''  arid  j'li?}  2S  1'-'^, 
mSp;'  for  mS^o  Ec  1"  etc. ;  by  using  D  (.y)  rather  than 
to  (s),  the  author  of  Jg  12*  simply  wished  to  make 
the  sound  as  distinct  from  a  {sh)  as  possible.  In 
illustration  of  tliis  peculiarity  of  the  Ephraimite 
speech,  it  may  be  noted  that  the  Heb.  a  {sh)  as  a 

mle  =  the  Arab,  ^/w  (*),  e.g.  yj:^,   «_a_:  ;  and  vice 

versa,   the   Heb.    t  (.s)  =  Arab.    (i  {sh),  e.g.  «ir, 

^-v.i.    tiimlii,  in  his  commentary,  in ?oc.,  mentions 

another  local  peculiarity  in  the  pronunciation  of 
the  .sibilant :  the  people  of  Sarejjta  sounded  e>  (sh) 

as  n  (</i);   so  frequently  Heb.  b>  («A)  =Arab.  •■  *•  ' 
((/t)  =  Aram.  L{th). 
The  Cr.  versions  of  the  passage  are  interesting :  B  (*t«  iii 

Koc'i  xetTvi^Ovirai/  x.r.\.  In  both,  the  Kphr.'iiniites'  reply  is  omitted. 
'  hucian '  (ed.  Lagarde):  nVari  h^  ^{/*Uriu^.  nttt  tl-n*  "^rocxut 
X.T.K.     Codd.  54,  59,  75,  82  (Moore,  M):  hVkti  Ot  ri^OmfjM  x^i 

yiyortt  ffuitlr.fjuc  et/  xxTriulJuvKii  K.r.K  By  tri/*Si^fMt  is  meant 
'watchword,'  'countersign';  see  2  Mac  8^  13'^.  The  Or. 
versions,  of  course,  could  not  imitate  the  change  of  the  Heb. 
sibilants,  as  the  'i'arg.  and  Syr.  do.  Vulg.  Die  ergo:  .Scibboleth, 
aiiod  interpretatur  spica.  Qui  rftpondebat :  Sibboleth,  Mdejn 
liltera  spicam  ezprimere  non  vaUiu. 

The  meaning  of  the  word  is  unimportant ;  it  may 
be  either  'ear  of  wheat'  (Assyr.  .sii/niltu),  Gn  41°"-, 
Is  17"  etc.,  or  'Hood,'  'stream,'  Is  '27",  Ps  69"- '^ 
In  the  latter  sense,  which  is  suitable  to  the  context, 
the  \vord  appears  only  in  late  passages;  in  this 
ancient  story  it  would  probably  be  understood  'ear.' 

JIarquarl  (7.ATW,  1888,  161  fT.)  attempts  to  prove  that  the 
Ephraimites  did  not  pronounce  V  {sh)  as  £7  («)  (cf.  the  name  of 
their  chief  town  p"lDt7  Shvmerdn,  Samaria),  and  that  t?  (*) 
could  not  pass  into  0  (f)  in  old  Hebrew.  He  thinks  that  t)te 
Qileodites  said  nSju*  {ahibhClfth)  and  meant  '  Hood,'  but  the 
Ephraimites  said  n'^zn  (tliiblwlcth)  and  meant  'ear'  (cf.  KSain 
Jerus.  Targ.  Gn  41'*"'-).  This  n  (f/0  was  represented  by  C 
(cf.  'I  and  Bib].  Aram,  '"l)  for  want  of  a  closer  equivalent.  But 
jMarquart's  arguments  are  not  eon\  incing,  and  bavj  not  gener- 
ally been  accr-pteri.  We  have  no  means  of  kuowi'..^  what  the 
Ephraimite  dialect  was. 

l'"or  ]iarallcls  from  European  history  see  art. 
jEriiTiiAii,  vol.  ii.  p.  CU8  a.  G.  A.  Cooke. 

SHIELD  (or  BUCKLER)  is  EV  tr.  in  OT  of  the 
following  Heb.  words.  1.  (Most  commonly)  1:9 
mdgin,  a  small  round  shield,  a  buckler ;  the  Gr 

*  The  exact  relation  between  the  two  sounds  is  still  undeter- 
mined ;  see  Ges.-Kautzsch,  lUb.  Ur.  p.  SO,  D.  2  (Eng.  ed.). 


498 


SHIELD 


SHIHOK 


dffTrfs  and  Lat.  clipcus.  2.  nj?  zinndh,  a  large  oval 
or  rectangular  shield.  3.  n-inb  soherdh,  '  buckler,' 
oiil}' in  I's  91  [00]*;  the  word,  however,  is  prob- 
nbly  a  |iai  ticiple  (LXX  KvxXJitrei) ;  tr.  with  a  slight 
tnienilalioii,  'His  truth  is  an  enconij)assing  shield.' 
4.  [ITS  khidn,  'shield,'  1  S  17*'  AV,  'target'  v.« 
A\  ,  siiiiilarlj-  LXX  ;  KV  correctly  'javelin.'  5. 
D'c^;;*  s//tVu/iTO,  'shields,'2S8'=lCh  18',  2K  11"'  = 
2  Ch  23",  Ca  4*.  Jer  51",  Ezk  27"  (only  in  these 
places,  and  only  in  tlie  plur.),  more  correctly  '  suits 
of  armour,'  Jer  51"  KVm  (see  Expository  Times,  x. 
(1898)  4311'.).  nhyj/af/fildh,  u.sually  tr.  'wagon,' 
means  in  I's  46°  [Heb.'"]  perhaps  '  shield  '  (so  LXX, 
Vulg.,  Targ.);  EV,  Jerome  (Psalter,  iuxta  Hch.), 
Pesliitta,  '  chariots.'  In  the  NT  '  shield  '  occurs 
once,  Eph  6'°,  as  tr.  of  Bvpeo!,  the  large  Rom.  shield. 

1.  Material  and  Construction. — The  material  of 
which  the  shields  known  to  the  Hebrews  were 
commonly  made  can  only  be  inferred.  Solomon 
prepared  200  'targets'  (mf,  i.e.  large  shields)  and 
300  'shields'  ([jc,  i.e.  bucklers),  which  were  either 
made  of  gold  or  else  heavily  overlaid  with  gold 
(1  K  10"'').  When  these  were  carried  off  by 
Shishak,  Relioboam  made  '  brazen '  (bronze)  shields 
to  take  their  place  (ib.  14^-").  The  'shields' 
found  among  the  treasures  of  Hezekiah  were  also 
probably  made  of  one  of  the  precious  metals,  or  at 
least  adorned  with  it  (2  Ch  32-'').*  Both  tlie  golden 
shields  and  the  bronze  were  probably  used  only  for 
state  ceremonial :  the  war  shield  was  doubtless 
either  like  the  Roman  scutum  of  leather  stretched 
over  a  wooden  frame,  or  like  the  Persian  yippov  of 
wickerwork.  That  shields  were  largely  composed 
of  some  inflammable  substance  may  be  inferred 
from  such  passages  as  Ezk  39",  Ps  46'  [45'»]  LXX 
(cf.  Is  9'  RV).  A  shield  was  overlaid  with  plates, 
perhaps  of  bronze  (cf.  Job  41'^  RVm,  where  the 
scales  of  the  crocodile  are  compared  with  the 
plates  of  a  shield) ;  it  was  also  furnished  with  a 
boss  (cf.  Job  15^"),  such  as  is  shown  on  the  Assyr. 
reliefs,  passim.  The  Assyr.  shields  were  highly 
convex  and  sometimes  round,  sometimes  irregular 
in  shape,  i.e.  rectangular  at  the  foot  (for  planting 
firmly  against  the  ground)  but  pointed  at  the  top. 

2.  Use. — The  shield  was  kept  in  a  case  wlien  not 
in  use  (Is  22" ;  cf.  Aristophanes,  Ach.  574,  and 
Euripides,  Andr.  617).  It  was  anointed  before 
battle  to  make  its  surface  slippery  (Is  21';  cf. 
Driver  on  2  S  P',  who  quotes  Vergil,  /En.  vii. 
626).  In  battle  it  sometimes  had  a  '  red '  appear- 
ance (Nah  2^  l''l),  either  because  it  was  dyed  red 
(A.  B.  Davidson,  ad  toe),  or  because  it  was  over- 
laid with  burnished  copper  (Nowack,  Ileb.  Arcluto- 
loffie,  i.  364),  or  again  because  the  leather  itself  might 
be  described  as  '  red,'  cnx  'adorn  being  apiilied  to 
the  colour  of  the  human  skin  (La  4').  The  large 
shield  was  much  used  in  siei'es  as  a  stationary 
screen,  from  behind  which  tlie  garrison  on  the 
walls  might  be  a.ssaileil  with  arrows  (2  K  19'-=  Is 
37^,  Sir  37'  Heb.).  A  large  shield  was  sometimes 
carried  in  battle  by  an  attendant  in  front  of  his 
master  (1  S  17*'  Heb.,  LXX  [A  and  Luc],  Peshitta, 
a  verse  om.  in  LXX  B,  but  probably  genuine).  In 
limes  of  peace  shields  were  hung  in  armouries,  to 
the  admiration  of  beholders  (Ca  4*,  Ezk  27'"). 

3.  Metnpliorical  use  of  the  term  'shield.' — In  the 
OT  God's  favour  (Ps  S^^tisj)  and  His  faithfulness 
(Ps  91*  [90''])  are  compared  to  a  shield,  cf.  '  the 
shield  of  thy  salvation'  (Ps  I8*>  [17"»]).  By  a 
still  holder  metaphor  in  several  other  places  God 
Himself  i.s  called  the  'shield'  (p^)  of  His  people 
or  of  His  saints:  Gn  15',  Dt  3.'!=s,  Pa  33  HJ  182- »" 
[17'- "1  33  [32]="  59"  [58'=]  849"  [SS'"- '=]  115"-'" 
[113"''-'].  Pr  2'  30*  [24'^].  In  all  these  pa.ssages 
the  LXX  tr.  p?  either  by  v-n-epaainaTTii  (once  Ps  3* 
by  ivTiXriin-trTbip)  or  by  some  form  of  the  verb  uitp- 
affrlfui.     The  Peshitta  follows  a  sinnlar  course.     It 

*  But  lee  note  ad  luc.  in  the  Camb.  Bible. 


is  true  that  p?  taken  as  Hiphil  partic.  of  pj  is  ■ 

Sossible  nomcn  arjcntis,  but  it  is  probable  that  tha 
leb.  metaphor  was  too  bold  for  the  Gr.  and  Syr. 
translators.  Thus  in  Ps  84"  [83'-]  the  Heb.  and 
Aq.  give  '  The  Lord  is  a  sun  and  shield,'  while  tha 
LXX  (followed  by  the  Vulg.)  timidly  paraphrases 
fXeoK  <cai  oKijBeiav  ayairi^  Ki'pios.  Symm.  (if  rightly 
given  in  Field)  is  also  timid,  f[Kiov  yap  xai  iirepaa- 
iriaiihii  Kt>/)ios  (a  transitive  verb,  probably  iiiaa 
from  the  next  clause,  being  understood).  Jerome 
(Psalter,  iuxta.  Hch. )  gives  '  Sol  et  scutum  Dominus' 
here,  and  'clipeus'  in  some  other  places  quoted 
above,  but  in  Ps  59"  I'^l  115»-"  "'-'»i  he  has  'pro- 
tector' ( =  iiTrepocrTiffT^s).  Ben  Sira  (i,l'*=('°l  Heb.) 
writes,  'Give  thanks  to  the  fllitii  cl  Abraham' 
(in  allusion  to  Gn  15'). 

In  the  one  passage  of  the  NT  in  which  '  shield ' 
occurs,  the  word  is  metaphorically  applied  to 
Christian  faith  (Eph  6'°  avaXa^ovra  rbv  dvpeiv  t^i 
Tlareiiis,  sumentes  scutum  fdci).  In  1  Th  5'  the 
apostle  had  urged  his  converts  to  put  on  OihpaKo. 
ttIotcus  Ka.1  ayaiTTii,  '  a  coat  of  mail  of  faith  and 
love '  (see  Brea.stplate)  ;  but  during  his  Roman 
imprisonment  his  imagination  was  struck  with  tho 
great  Roman  shield,  and  he  changed  his  metaphor, 
without,  however,  abandoning  the  thought  that 
faith  is  the  Christian's  vital  defence.  In  the  OT 
(Ps  91  [90]  ■*)  God's  faithfulness  is  man's  shield  ;  in 
the  NT  the  identification  of  faith  with  the  shield 
gives  us  the  neces.sary  complementary  thought 
that  on  man's  side  faith  is  needed  in  order  that 
God's  proH'ered  protection  may  be  embraced. 

AV.  Emeky  Barnes. 
SHIGGAION,  SHIGIONOTH.— See  art.  Psalms, 
p.  154"  f. 

SHIHOR  (Tn-?',  nin-.;>,  -ins).  —  A  word  meaning 
'  black  '  or  '  turbid.'  from  inyi  to  be  black  (Ca  1'). 

1.  In  1  Ch  13'  Shihor  of  Egypt  (iipia  .Kiyinrrou ; 
Sihor  jEgypti)  and  the  entering  in  of  Hamath  are 
mentioned  as  the  southern  and  northern  liuiits  of 
the  kingdom  of  Israel  in  the  time  of  David.  The 
same  (or  similar)  limits  recur  in  1  K  8"°,  where  '  the 
wady  (nahal)  of  Egypt'  takes  the  place  of  'Shilior 
of  Egypt.'  In  Jos  13'  (^  doki;Tos  i)  Kara  Trpojunrou 
kiyviTTov,  fluvius  turbidus)  the  southern  limit  of  the 
land  that  had  not  been  conquered  when  Joshua  was 
grown  old  is  said  to  have  oeen  'the  Shihor  which 
is  before  Egypt,'  and  the  northern  one  was  the 
entering  in  of  Hamath  (v.').  El.sewhere  the  S.W. 
limit  of  the  Promised  Land  is  '  the  wAdy  of  Egj'pt': 
Nu  34=  »;  cf.  Ezk  47"'--''  48'- *■ »,  and  see  Egypt 
(River  of).  The  southern  boundaiy  of  Judah, 
also,  which  corresponded  with  that  of  the  Promised 
Land,  '  went  out  at  the  wfldy  (nahal)  of  Egypt, 
and  the  goings  out  of  tht  border  were  at  the  sea* 
(Jos  15*).  In  the  same  chapter  (v.*')  the  territory 
of  Judah  is  said  to  have  extended  '  unto  the  wiidy 
of  Egypt  and  the  great  sea.'  In  each  of  the  above 
passages  the  tiahal  referred  to  as  forming  the 
southern  boundary  of  the  Promised  Laud  is  the 
same,  and  it  must  have  been  a  well-known  and 
well-defined  feature.  Such  a  feature  is  found 
in  the  Wiidy  el-'Arish,  which,  with  its  many 
branches,  drains  nearly  the  whole  of  the  desert 
ct-Tih.  The  '  nahal  of  Egyi)t '  (2  K  24',  Is  27'^)  and 
the  '  iroTo/xiSs  of  Egvpt'  (Jth  1')  are  also  of  course 
the  Wddy  el-'Aris)i.  In  Isaiah  the  LXX  reads 
'VivoKopovpuiv,  now  el-'Arish.  Whether,  however, 
this  is  the  same  as  the  Shihor  is  disputed.  It  is 
so  taken  by  some  (e.g.  Knobcl,  Keil,  Konig  [Fitnf 
neue  arab.  Landschaftsnamcn  im  AT,  1902,  p.  37]), 
but  Del.  (Farad.  311)  and  Dillm.  regard  it  as  the 
easternmost  or  Pelusiac  arm  of  the  Nile  ;  while, 
according  to  Brugsch  [Steininschrift  u.  Bibclwort, 
153],  it  is  Shi-Uor,  or  tlie  '  Horus  canal,'  mentioned 
in  lists  of  the  Ptolemaic  period  as  flowing  by  th« 
border-city  of  Thiru  or  Tar  (see  under  Shur). 


SHIIIOK-LIBNATH 


SllILull 


499 


2.  Shihor  is  certainly  the  Nile  in  'the  seed  of 
Shihor'  (Is  23^  a-ripiia  /lerapSXuv  [inr  confused  with 
inD ;  see  vv.'-  ">],  A'ihis)  ;  and  in  '  the  waters  of 
Shilior'  (Jer  2"  Coup  I'ljiii'  {aqtia  turbula)). 

C.  \V.  Wilson. 

SHIHOR -LIBNATH  (n:?V  ■'^iT;  B  7<?  Ztiiov  kq! 
Aa^iivaO,  A  ZaC^p  k.  A.  ;  Sichor  et  Lahnnrith). — A 
natural  feature  near,  and  ajiparently  to  the  south 
of,  Carniel,  to  which  the  territory  of  Asher  ex- 
tended (Jos  19™).  Eusebius  and  Jerome  (Onoin.) 
take  Shihor  and  Libnath  to  be  two  distinct  places  ; 
but  modem  commentators  consider  Shihor-libnatli 
to  be  a  river.  Tlie  meaning  of  Libnath  is  '  white,' 
and  some  autlioritica  have  taken  tlie  words  to 
mean  '  the  glass  river,'  whicli  they  identify  with 
the  Belus  (Plin.  v.  19), — now  the  ^ahr  Na'm/ln, — 
a  little  south  of  Acre.  The  IJelus,  however,  is  to 
the  north  of  Carmcl,  whilst  the  boundary  of  Asher 
included  Dor  (Joa  IT"),  which  lay  to  the  soutli. 
The  Shihorlibnath  wjus  most  probably  the  Nahr 
ez-Zerl:a,  which  has  been  identilied  with  the  river 
Crocodeilon  (of  Ptolemy,  v.  xv.  5,  xvi.  2 ;  Plinj', 
V.  19) — the  southern  boundary,  according  to  Pliny, 
of  Phoenicia  (so  Keil,  Dillmann,  et  al.).  Hhihor,  one 
of  the  names  of  the  NUe  (Is  23',  Jer  2"),  may  liave 
been  given  to  this  river  because  there  were  crocodiles 
in  it; — they  are  still  found  in  the  Nahr  ez-Zerka. 

C.  VV.  Wilson'. 

8HIKKER0N  (pi??';  B  ZoKX'ie,  A  ' A.KKapuv6. ; 
Si'c/inina). — A  place  on  the  northern  boundary  of 
Judah,  mentioned  between  Ekron  and  Mount 
Baalali,  the  next  place  westward  being  Jabneel 
(Jos  15").  The  Targum  has  the  form  Shimron, 
Eusebius  (Onom.)  Saxupai',  Jerome  (Onon.)  Harho- 
rona.  The  site  is  unknown  (so  Dillm.).  Tobler 
{Drit.  Wand.  p.  25)  identilied  it  with  Khitrhet 
Sukercir ;  but  this  place  lies  between  Jabneel 
{Yehnah)  and  Aslidod  {Esdiid),  and  is  about  4 
miles  south-west  of  Jabneel.         C.  W.  Wilson. 

SHILHI  (•n^5i;  BA  in  2  Chron.  ZaXd,  B  in 
1  Kings  le/Kel,  A  in  1  Kings  ZaXaKd,  Luc.  in  both 
2(\fti). — Father  of  king  Asa's  wife  Azubah,  who 
was  queen-mother  in  the  reign  of  Jehosha])hat 
(1  K  22«,  2  Ch  20").  It  is  unusual  for  the  queen- 
mother's  father  to  be  named  in  the  summaries 
of  the  earliest  reigns.  Besides  Shilhi,  Ahsahjm 
(1  K  1.5,  Abishalom)  and  (2  K  8'»-  =")  Ahab  (or  Omri) 
are  the  only  certain  cases. 

SHILHIM  {CT^^  ;  LXX  B  Za\^,  A  2fX«(/i ;  Vulg. 
SiHm).  —  A  town  of  .ludali,  in  the  Ncgeb,  or 
South,  wliich  is  mentioned  between  Lebaoth  and 
Ain  (Jos  15'-).  The  site  was  unknown  to  Eusebius 
and  .Jerome  (Onom.  s.  ZaKtel,  Selci),  and  has  not  yet 
been  recovered.  In  the  list  of  towns  allotted  to 
Simeon  (Jos  19")  its  ])lace  is  taken  by  Sharuhen, 
anil  in  1  Ch  4"  by  Shaaraim  (see  Shaahaim,  No.  2). 

Prom  the  reading  of  the  LXX,  it  has  been 
erroneously  supjiosed  that  Shilhim  and  Ain  are  the 
Salini  and  Aenon  of  Jn  3=*.    See  Salim. 

C.  W.  WIL.SON. 

8HILLEM,  SHILLEMITES.  —  See  Siiallu,m, 
No.  7. 

8HIL0AH.— See  SllELAH  and  Sll.OAM. 

SHILOH  (usually  nhi\  8  times  'iVp,  thrice  'iS's',  On 
49'"  [see  tlie  next  art.]  rh'V ;  originallv,  as  the 
gentilic  -jV;'  'Shilonite'  shows,  p'?»' ;  L.XX  ZriXu, 
Zr,\uii,  Jg  21'-''  -'  15  ZtjXwi').— The  situation  of 
Shiloli  is,  in  Jg  21",  described  with  unusual  min- 
nteness  :  it  is  .said  to  lie  'on  the  north  of  licth-el, 
on  the  cast  side  of  the  highway  that  giielh  up 
from  lieth-el  to  Shechem,  and  on  the  south  of 
LebAnah.'  The  position  of  the  modern  Seiliin 
corresiionds  exactly  with  this  de.scrijilion  :  as  the 
traveller  now  journeys  along  the  great  north  roa<i 


which  leads  to  Nflblus  (the  ancient  Shechem),  ha 
passes  Beitin  (Beth-el)  at  10  miles  from  Jerus. ; 
at  about  8  miles  N.  of  Beitin  (near  Sinjil),  if  he 
turns  to  _the  right  for  about  a  mile,  and  tlien,  at 
Turmus'A3-a,  turns  northwards  and  crosses  a  small 
plain,  he  will  see  rising  before  him,  at  9J  miles 
N.N.E  of  Beitin,  the  large  rounded  Tell,  on  the 
summit  of  which  is  the  ruined  site  of  Seilfln  ;  N.  of 
tlie  Tell  runs  the  Wady  Seilfln,  and  going  down 
this  to  the  W.  he  will  rejoin  the  high  road  at  a 
point  10  miles  N.  of  Beitin,  and  a  little  E.  of 
el-Luli/ian,  evidently  the  Lebonah  of  Jg  21",  3 
miles  N.N.W.  of  Seilfln.  The  most  noticeable 
feature  in  the  natural  situation  of  Seilfln  is  its 
seclusion.  '  On  the  E.  and  N.  it  is  shut  in  by 
bare  and  lofty  hills  of  grey  limestone,  dotted  over 
with  a  few  li^-trees ; '  only  on  the  S.  is  it  open  to- 
wards the  plain  just  mentioned.  The  'Tell  on 
which  Seilfln  stands  is  some  ISOO  ft.  in  length  from 
N.  to  S.,  and  900  ft.  from  E.  to  W.  ;  the  Wady  on 
the  N.  is  a  deep  vallev,  in  the  sides  of  which  are 
many  rock -cut  sepulchres;  at  the  head  of  the 
valley  on  the  E.,  about  3  mUe  from  the  Tell, 
there  is  a  tine  spring  of  water.  The  site  consists 
of  nothing  more  than  '  the  ruined  houses  of  a 
modern  village,  with  here  and  there  fragments  of 
masonry  which  may  date  back  to  Crusading  times, 
especially  one  sloping  scarp.'  The  vineyards  (Jg 
2\io.  21)  (,f  yiiiloli  have  disappeared  ;  but  the  traces 
of  terraces,  still  visible  on  the  sides  of  the  Tell, 
show  that  once  it  was  actively  cultivated.  Below 
the  top  of  the  hill,  on  the  N.  of  the  ruins,  a  kind 
of  irregular  quadrangle,  some  400  ft.  from  E.  to 
W.,  and  SO  ft.  from  N.  to  S.,  has  been  hewn 
roughly  out  of  the  rock ;  it  has  been  conjectured 
that  this  was  the  site  of  the  ancient  sanctuary  (see 
below).  Leaving  the  Tell  on  the  S.E.,  traces  of  an 
ancient  road,  about  10  ft.  wide,  are  visible.  At  the 
S.E.  foot  of  the  Tell  there  is  a  small  disused 
mosque,  shaded  by  a  line  oak  tree  ;  and,  some  500 
yds.  S.E.  of  this,  a  building  which  seems  to  have 
\)een  once  a  synagogue,  37  ft.  square,  built  of  good 
masonry  (see  further  particulars  in  Guirin,  Sainarie, 
ii.  (1S75)  21-23 ;  PEt'Mem.  ii.  367-370,  with  a  plan 
of  the  Tell  ;  Conder,  Tent  Wur/c',  44-46). 

.Shiloh  is  mentioned  frequently  in  the  earlier 
history  of  Israel.  It  laj'  in  the  territory  of  Eph- 
raim,  12  miles  S.  of  Shechem.  It  was  the  spot  at 
which,  after  leaving  Gilgal,  the  ark  and  tent  of 
meeting  were  stationed,  and  where  also,  according 
to  tradition,  Joshua  divided  the  liind  by  lot  be- 
tween the  tribes  (Jos  18«-  »■  '"  J  E  ;  hS'  19"  21-  229- '« 
P).  It  continued  to  be  the  principal  Isr.  sanctuary 
throughout  the  period  of  the  Judges  (cf.  Jg  18'' 
'all  the  time  that  the  house  of  God  was  in  Sliiloh') 
till  the  age  of  Samuel  (1  S  1-4).  The  narrative  of 
Jg  2I''°"--— which,  whatever  m.ay  be  the  case  with 
some  other  parts  of  Jg  19-21,  is  certainlj-  ancient — 
introduces  us  to  a  primitive  stage  of  religious  feel- 
ing and  practice  in  Israel :  we  hear  of  '  Jahweh's 
pilgrimage,'  held  annually  in  Shiloh,  and  of  the 
nuiidens  of  Shiloh  coming  out  to  dance  in  the 
choruses  (cf.  Ex  \r,^  32'") ;  the  feast,  to  judge  from 
the  terms  in  which  it  is  spoken  of,  seems  (like  that 
of  Shechem,  Jg  9")  to  have  been  at  this  time 
hardly  more  than  a  local  village  fe.stival,  though  it 
maj'  have  already  been  attended  bj'  pilgrims  from 
the  neighbourliood,  and  in  1  S  1-2  ajipears  to  liava 
develdjicd  into  an  early  form  of  what  is  called  in 
JE  the  '  pilgrimage  of"  Ingathering'  (Ex  23'«  34*'), 
or  (1>,  P,  and  later)  the  '  jiilgrimage  of  Booths'  (cf. 
Wellli.  Hist.  94)  t  on  the  imrticular  occasion  referred 
to,  the  Benjamitcs,  lajing  wait  for  the  women  in 
the  vineyanis,  captured  them,  and  carried  them 
home  as  wives.  In  1  S  1-4  (cf.  14',  1  K  2-'')  Eli  and 
his  two  sons  are  priests  at  Shiloh  ;  the  ark  is  still 
there,  till  it  is  carried  oil'  (4"')  to  be  a  protection 
to  the  Israelites  in  their  battles  with  the  Philis 


500 


SHILOH 


SHILOH 


tines ;  a  pilgrimage  is  matle  to  it  '  from  year  to 
year'  (n:-?;  d-C'D  V2^'  [of.  P'] :  so  Ex  13",  Jg  11** 
21'*),  for  purposes  of  sacrilice,  at  the  '  coming 
round  of  the  days'  (1»  cf.  Ex  34-=),  i.e.  at  the 
arrival  of  the  new  year,  when  the  pilgiimage  of 
Ingathering  (TCsjri  in  Ex.  I.e.)  was  held  ;  Elkanali 
ami  his  household  go  up  to  it  regularly  (1-'  2''-"') 
from  tlieir  home — probably  (see  Ramaii,  6)  either 
at  Rfim-iillah,  12  miles  to  the  S.W.,  or  at  Beit 
Rima,  12  miles  to  the  W".  ;  and  the  youthful 
Samuel  is  presented  there  to  Jahweh,  to  ministir 
before  Him  ( l^--^  2"  etc. ).  Tlie  sanctuary  in  which 
the  ark  is,  is  however  no  lon^'er,  as  in  the  Pent., 
a  '  tabernacle '  or  '  tent '  ('?"n)  ;  it  is  a  fixed  structure, 
a  'temple'  (Sj-n  P  3»)  or  'house'  (I'-''"),  with  a 
'door-post'  (ni!>D  1')  and  'doors'  (mnSi  3"):  see, 
further,  Tabkrnacle.  The  representation  in  1  S 
1-4,  taken  as  a  whole,  points  to  the  existence 
of  a  luore  considerable  religious  centre,  and  a 
more  fully  organized  system  of  religious  observ- 
ances, thau  appear  to  be  implied  by  the  terms 
of  Jg  21'"-'.  The  sanctuary  of  Shiloh  is  not, 
however,  after  1  S  1-4,  again  referred  to  in  the 
history  ;  and  it  seems  in  fact  that,  shortly  after 
the  events  narrated  in  these  cliaplers,  it  was  de- 
stroj'ed,  probably  by  the  Philistines;  inch.22(v."cf. 
with  14^),  itmaj'be  observed,  the  priesthood  settled 
formerly  at  Shiloh  appeals  at  Nob.  The  recollec- 
tion of  this  disaster  was  so  vividly  impressed  upon 
the  people's  memory  that  long  afterwards  Jeremiah 
could  refer  to  it  as  a  token  of  what  J "  might  do 
then  to  His  temple  in  Jerusalem  (Jer  1"  '  But  go 
ye  now  to  my  place  [i.e.  my  sacred  place],  which 
was  in  Shiloh,  where  I  caused  my  name  to  dwell  at 
the  first,  and  see  what  I  did  to  it  for  the  wicked- 
ness of  my  people  Israel,'  v.'*;  26'  'I  will  make 
this  house  like  Shiloli,'  v.') ;  and  it  is  alluded  to 
also  by  a  late  psalmist  {Ps  78'"  '  He  forsook  the 
dwelling-place  of  Shiloh,  the  tent  he  liad  caused 
to  dwell  among  men').  It  is  indeed  very  possible 
that  the  narrative  of  this  disaster  formed  the 
original  sequel  of  1  S  4"'-7',  and  that  when  the 
Book  of  Samuel  assumed  its  present  form  it  was 
omitted  to  make  room  for  7--S.  Shiloh  itself, 
however,  continued  to  be  inhal>ited  ;  for  the  pro- 
phet Ahijah,  who  promised  Jeroboam  the  kingdom 
of  the  ten  tribes,  was  a  native  of  it  (1  K  ll-"^  12" 
[  =  2  Ch  10"]  15^  ;  cf.  2Ch  9=*)  ;  and  Jeroboam's  wife 
went  there  to  consult  him  when  her  husband  was 
ill  (1  K  W-*) :  see  also  Jer  41». 

_  Though  a  few  mediBBval  writers  were  acquainted  with  the 
site  of  Shiloh  (Moore,  Jiui'je«,  p.  461  n.),  it  w;w  i)nicticaliy  un- 
known from  the  time  of  Jerome  till  it  w:is  rediscovered  by 
Robinson,  BRP  ii.  t!iiS-270.  Ct.  Sunley,  A/>  231-3.  Jerome 
spealts  of  the  remains  of  an  altar  aa  just  visible  there :  Epi- 
taph. Pauice  (iv.  2,  p.  676,  ed.  Bened.),  'Quid  iiarrem  Silo,  in 
qua  altare  dirutum  hodieque  nionstraturV  ;  Vimitiu  ou  Zeph 
l'*(iii.  1655),  *  vix  oltarid  fuudamenta  monstrtiiitur.' 

S.  II.  Driver. 

SHILOH  (!^^,  Sam.  .iSpi),  Gn  49'". —i.  In  ex- 
amining the  various  interpretjitions  that  have  been 
given  of  this  passjvge,  it  will  be  convenient  to 
take  first  those  adopted  by  AV  and  RV,  or  admitted 
into  RVm.     There  are  four  of  tliem. 

(1)  '  Until  Shiloli  come.' — This  rendering  did  not 
appear  in  any  translation  of  the  Bible  before  the 
16th  cent.,  though  some  authority  for  it  might 
have  been  found  in  a  fanciful  Talm.  passage,  "f  he 
Wyclif  VSS  followed  the  Vulg.  {qui  mittcnrliis  est, 
reading  apparently  nh^) :  '  till  he  come  that  sliall  be 
(oris  to  be)  sent.'  Coverdale's  Bible  of  1535  has 'till 
the  worthye  come.'  Seb.  Munster's  version  (1534) 
was  the  first  to  treat  the  word  as  a  name  :  quuusque 
vcniat  Silo.  John  Rogers  (1537)  has  'until  Sylo 
come.'  Matthew,  Tavemer,  the  Great  Bible,  and 
the  Bishops'  Bible  all  adopt  it :  '  till  Shiloh  come.' 

The  dithculty  in  the  waj'  of  this  rendering  is  to 
find  a  meaning  for  Shiloh  as  a  designation  of  the 
Messiah.    The  only  indication  of  a  desire  to  make 


it  a  proper  name  appears  in  the  Talm.  passags 
alluded  to  above.  Sank.  986  :  '  Rab  said,  The  world 
was  created  only  for  the  sake  of  David  ;  Samuel 
said.  It  was  for  the  sake  of  Moses  ;  R.  Yochanan 
said,  It  was  only  for  the  sake  of  the  Messiah. 
What  is  his  name?  Those  of  the  school  of  R. 
Shila  say,  Shiloh  is  his  name,  as  it  is  said  "  Until 
Shiloh  come."  Those  of  the  school  of  R.  Yannaisay, 
Yinnon  is  his  name,  as  it  is  .said  (Ps  72'),  Before 
the  sun  let  his  name  be  propagated  (mnnon).  Those 
of  the  school  of  R.  Chaninah  say,  Chaninah  is  hia 
name,  as  it  is  said  (.Jer  16"),  tor  I  will  give  you 
no  favour  (Jianlna).'  This  attempt  to  connect 
the  Messiah's  name  with  that  of  some  favourite 
teacher,  of  course  renders  the  passage  worthless  as 
an  authority. 

Even  as  a  title  Shiloh  cannot  be  legitimately 
supported.  It  has  been  taken  as  an  abstract  noun 
put  for  a  concrete,  '  till  re.it  (or  a  rest-  or  peace- 
giver)  come.'  This  interpretation  has  been  adopted 
by  Vater,  Justi,  Rosenmiiller,  Winer,  Baumgarten- 
Crusius,  Hengstenberg,  Reinke,  Gesenius  (Lex.), 
Murphy,  and  others,  though  many  of  these  wTiters 
understand  by  the  pcacc-giver  Solomon  or  some 
other  earthly  ruler,  not  the  Messiah.  But  the 
philological  difliculties  in  its  way  are  very  great. 
The  form  .1^!?  presupposes  a  verb  'f^v  or  V-y  wliich 
does  not  exist.  It  cannot  be  legitimately  derived 
from  .iSy.  Besides,  this  verb  is  so  often  associated 
with  the  idea  of  careless,  worldly  ease,  that  a  title 
of  the  Messiah  is  not  very  likely  to  have  been 
derived  from  it. 

A  ditierent  justification  of  Shiloh  =  Messiah  is 
attempted  in  tlie  Targum  pseudo-Jonathan,  and 
tlie  AIT  rh-a  may  rest  on  it.  It  makes  it  mean 
'his  son.'     But  there  is  no  Heb.  word  Vv. 

Even  could  these  difliculties  be  surmounted,  a 
greater  one  remains  in  the  way  of  the  AV  and 
RV  rendering.  The  announcement  of  the  Messiah 
by  name  or  title  is  out  of  place  in  a  patriarchal 
blessing.  Even  a  late  editor  would  not  so  glar- 
ingly have  violated  the  proprieties  of  time.  The 
absence  of  NT  reference  is  also  strongly  against 
such  an  interpretation. 

(2)  '  Until  lie  come  to  Shiloh.'  This  has  much 
in  its  favour.  Sliiloh,  wherever  else  it  occurs, 
denotes  the  Ephraimite  town.  It  is  natural  to  take 
it  so  here.  Tlie  construction  of  the  sentence  and 
the  parallelism  both  suggest  this  rendering.  In 
1  S  4'^  the  very  phrase  occurs,  n^p  ^i3;!. 

Taken  so,  tlie  clause  is  understood  to  refer  to 
the  assembling  of  Israel  as  a  nation  at  Sliiloh 
(Jos  18'),  when  Judah  may  be  supposed  to  have 
lost  the  pre-eminence  or  tribe-leadership  held  by 
it  in  the  wanderings  (Nu  10'^  Jg  V-  '",  Jos  15). 
This  interpretation  does  not  necessarily  afl'ect  the 
Messianic  character  of  the  whole  passage,  though 
it  no  longer  attaches  the  thought  to  tlie  word 
Shiloh.  The  Wew  is  undoubtedly  an  attractive 
one.  We  see  Judah,  the  honoured  of  his  brethren, 
marching  in  triumphal  progress  to  the  national 
sanctuary,  and  there  laying  down  the  emblems  of 
authority  in  order  to  enjoy  the  fruits  of  peace, 
while  the  nations  around  bow  submissive  to  his 
sway.  And  if,  as  seems  not  unlikely,  an  etlbrt 
was  made  to  constitute  Shilnh  a  jiolitical  as  well 
as  a  religious  centre,  thus  anticipating  Jerus.,  tliLi 
interpretation  becomes  still  more  attractive. 

The  objections  to  it  are  twofold.  First,  djs'  and 
pcno  seem  to  suggest  sovereignty  rather  than  mere 
tribal  pre-eminence  (see  art.  Lawgiver,  vol.  iiL 
p.  83*).  The  historical  difficulty  is  still  greater. 
^fo  particular  place  is  assigned  to  Judah  in  the 
histories  in  connexion  with  Shiloh.  Indeed  its 
rflle  took  it,  not  to  ShUoli,  but  to  Hebron  and  its 
ni-ighbourhood.  To  obviate  this  difficulty  some 
commentators  supply  a  general  subject  to  the  verb, 
'till  one  or  the  people  come-'      But,  even  so,  an 


SHILOH 


SlILMEATH 


501 


objection  remains.  It  is  out  of  keeping  with  the 
spirit  of  the  patriarchal  blessings  to  affix  a  limit 
to  the  prosperity  of  a  tribe.  In  the  case  of  Juiiah 
especiallj',  we  should  expect  a  further  outlook,  and 
it  seems  too  violent  to  explain  '  Judah  will  lead  till 
Caua^in  is  subdued  and  after.'  [Cf.,  however,  tlie 
use  of  ly  in  Ps  110'  112' ;  see  Oxf.  Ileb.  Lex.  s.  iv, 
U.  \h\ 

Many  good  names,  however,  support  the  render- 
ing just  discussed.  Among  them  are  Eiclihorn, 
Ileruer,  Ewald,  Bleek,  Delitzsch,  Dillmann  [pro- 
visionally ;  but  thinking  (so  also  Holz.)  that  a 
really  sjitisfactory  explanation  is  not  to  be  found], 
S.  Davidson,  Strack  (and  Rodiger,  Thcs.,  giving  pro- 
minence to  the  idea  of  peace  or  rest  in  Shiloh). 
Intluenced  by  the  objections  stated  above,  Hitzig, 
Tuch,  and  G.  Baur  would  translate  '?'iy  as  lonq  as, 
on  the  analogy  of  Hor.  Od.  iii.  30.  (7-9) ;  cf.  V'crg. 
jEn.  ix.  446--449.  But  Shiloh  had  been  destroyed 
long  before  Judali  obtained  real  supremacy.  It  is 
as  a  fallen  rival  to  Jerusalem  that  propliets  allude 
to  the  place. 

(3)  'Until  that  which  is  his  shall  come.'  This 
follows  the  reading  rAy,  a  poetical  equivalent  of 
iS  i^'Si-  It  was  presumably  the  reading  of  the  LXX 
(and  Theod. ),  who  render  ?a)s  Si*  l\Ori  to,  aroKciiMci'a 
airnf,  '  till  the  things  reserved  for  him  come.'  This 
is  adoijted,  with  some  hesitation,  by  Driver.  But, 
a.s  Dillm.  says,  c*  for  the  relative  in  an  apparently 
Jud:ean  text  would  be  very  strange.  Ihe  inde- 
terminate expression  of  the  Messianic  hope  is  in 
its  favour. 

(4)  '  Until  he  come  whose  it  is.'  This  follows  a 
variant  reading  of  LXX  6  dir^KeiTai,  a  reading  lend- 
ing itself  so  readily  to  Christian  exegesis  that  we 
do  not  wonder  at  its  adoption  by  the  Fathers, 
e.g.  Justin,  Ap.  i.  32  (supplying  shortly  after  t4 
(3affiX«o>'),  ignat.  P/iil.  (longer  form),  Iren.  IV.  x. 
2,  Origen  (frequently).  It  was  adopted  also  by 
Onkelos  ('the  Messiah,  whose  is  the  kingdom'), 
the  Peshitta,  and  Saadya  (lutli  cent.).  The  ren- 
dering is,  however,  a  doubtful  one,  tliough  it  is 
adopted  hy  Gunkel ;  for  tlie  subject  'it'  (mn)  is 
missing :  Onkelos'  version  is  a  paraphrase  which 
may  or  may  not  be  legitimate.  Ezk  2P*  (Ileb.) 
presents  a  somewhat  similar  plira.se  iS  nyx  ><3  ij; 
E?T ?r ;  but  the  subject  in  the  relative  clause  is 
here  expressed.  Still,  whether  original  or  not, 
this  reading  seems  to  express  a  right  sense;  cf. 
(6)  below. 

ii.  Other  suggestions  are — (1)  'Till  tranquillity 
come.'  This  assumes  the  existence  of  a  very 
possible  n^cJ  or  rt'jii  =  peace.  But  it  leaves  tlio 
sentence  without  an  explanation  of  'iSi,  and  the 
parallelism  sutlers.  It  has  the  support  of  Keuss, 
Knobel,  Friedliinder. 

(2)  '  Till  he  comes  to  peacefulness  or  a  place  of 
rest'  (also  '^h-^).     So  Kurtz,  Oehler,  and  Perowne. 

(3)  '  Till  he  comes  to  that  which  is  his  own.' 
So  OrcUi  (Altlcst.  Weiss,  von  d.  Vollcndu?!;/  des 
Gottej.reuhi'j<,  1882,  p.  137  ff.  [  =  0T  Pronh.  117  fl'.]), 
comparing  Dt  33'  ;  and  apparently  Ball. 

(4)  Lagarde  {Onom.  Harm,  1870,  ii.  06),  compar- 
ing Mai  3',  conjectures,  as  Matthew  Hillei  had  done 
before  him,  rS'x^'=his  desired  one.  This  is  accepted 
bv  Bickell  {Cann.  VT Metrice,  1882,  p.  188).  Driver 
objects  that  the  word  savours  of  Syr.  ratlier  lliaa 
Hell.,  and  that  the  sense  asked  is  not  suital)le  here. 

(5)  WelUiausen,  in  his  Geschichte,  p.  375  (1878), 
threw  out  the  suggestion  that  I'j]  was  a  gloss 
explanatory  of  nV,;'.  '  Till  he  come  to  whom  is  tho 
obedience,'  etc.  But  this  destroys  the  parallelism 
and  the  symmetry  of  tlie  verse. 

(6)  Wellh.  (Comp.  321),  abandoning  (5),  thinks 
that  the  verse  denotes  in  some  way  an  ideal  limit 
of  time,  the  coming  of  the  Messiah,  and  pre- 
supposes (as  in  fact  the  terms  of  vv.*-  •  do  likewise) 
the   Davidic   monarchy  [lie  does  not  say  clearly 


how  he  understands  n'?-=*].  This  view  of  the  pas- 
sage certainly  seems  correct.  In  spite  of  the  dilfi- 
cuTties  connected  with  .T?t,  the  words  do  seem  to 
refer  to  the  transition  of  the  power  of  Judah  into 
the  hands  of  an  iileal  ruler. 

(7)  Clieyne  (Isaiah,  ii.  [1S84]  Essay  iv.)  thinks  the 
text  was  once  fuller,  and  would  read  nS  ng'v  or  Dsv. 

(8)  Neubauer,  At/wnwum,  May  30th,  18S5,  pro- 
poses to  read  dW,  i.e.  Jerusalem,  'until  he  come 
to  Salem'  (cf.  Ball),  with  allusion  to  the  establish- 
ment of  tlie  Davidic  kingdom.  This,  of  course, 
implies  that  B3ir  lias  the  meaning  'leader's  staft",' 
nui  'sceptre'  (cf.  j).  oOO""  bottom). 

It  maj'  be  noticed  that  the  Messianic  tone  of 
the  passage  is  independent  of  the  reading  of  this 
clause,  being  conveyed  by  the  clause  succeeding  it. 

LiTERATURB.  —  Besides  above  citationa  and  references  see 
Driver  in  Cainb.  Journal  of  I'hU.  vol.  xiv.  No.  27,  1S83 
(synopsis  and  explanation  of  Rabbin,  and  other  interpretations), 
and  Expositor,  3rd  series,  vol.  ii.  IIHS;')]  p.  10  ff. ;  S.  Davidson, 
Introd.  to  OT,  vol.  i. ;  kurtz,  llixt.  Old  Covenant,  vol.  ii. ; 
the  Comm.  on  On  4910 ;  and  the  hist,  and  exeg.  discussion  in 
O.  Baur,  Alttest.  Weistagung  (ISUl),  227-200. 

A.  S.  Aglen. 
SHILONITE  (•iVp' ;  in  2  Ch  9=»  'ih'v  ;  lO'-,  Neh 
IP  •:i'7;;'). — Gentilic  name  from  Shiloh  (which  see 
ad  init.  p.  449-'').  It  is  applied  in  the  UT  to  1. 
AlllJAH  (see  vol.  i.  p.  56').  2.  A  Judaliite  family, 
settled  at  Jerusalem  after  the  Exile,  Neh  IP  (Av 
wrongly  Shiloni),  1  Ch  9°.  In  these  last  two 
passages  we  should  prob.  read  'iha  Slulanite  (cf. 
Nu  20-°),  i.e.  descendant  of  Shelah,  one  of  the 
sons  of  Judah.  The  LXX  readings  are  :  B  ilr/Xu- 
odT-n,  (IK  11=»  12i»  15-^  2Ch  9'^  10">),  ^T/Xui-cJ 
(1  Ch  9'),  AtjXui-^  (Neh  11")  ;  A  (in  the  same  three 
groups  of  passages,  respectively)  SijXoij'tTijs,  Sj/XwW, 
'UXuW  ;  Luc.  (in  Neh  IP)  'Z-qXai/d. 

SHILSHAH  (n\i'')v  ;  BA  ZaKturi,  Luc.  ZeXe/urdi-).— 
An  Asherile,  1  Ch  7". 

SHIMEA  (n;;^bI).— 1,  See  Shammca,  No.  2.  2. 
A  Mciarite,  1  Ch  (S^m  (B  SoMfd,  A  Zaixi,  Luc. 
Sa^ad).  3.  A  Gershonite,  1  Ch  6^"  ("»  CZeixai).  4. 
See  SiiAMMAH,  No.  2. 

SHIMEAH  (mr<> ;  B  Ztma.,  A  So/iei,  Luc.  So/iod). 
— A  descendant  of  Jeliiel  tlie  'father'  of  Gibeon, 
1  Ch  8»^  called  in  ^  Shimeam  (a^V ;  Bk  Luc. 
Za/iad,  A  Xa^a), 

SHIMEAM.— See  Shimeah. 

SHIMEATH  (u-~.v  or  nics*;  LXX  in  2  Kings 
'k/ioi/dtf,  B  in  2  Chron.  -a;i«i,  A  ZafiAO,  Luc.  'XaimiB). 
— One  of  the  murderers  of  king  Joash  of  Judah  is 
called  son  of  Shimeath  (2  K  12-'  (Ileb.  ^2),  2Ch  24««). 
His  own  name  in  1  Kings  is  given  as  Jozacar.  But 
the  evidence  of  2  Chron.,  and  in  a  less  degree 
the  witness  of  Heb.  MSS,  suggest  that  the  name 
was  originally  Jehozahad  (see  JozACAR).  This  is 
tlie  name  of  the  second  assassin  also.  It  is  there- 
fore signilicant  that  in  the  text  of  2  Chron.  the 
one  is  njcc^p  and  the  other  n•^c;;-I2.  It  becomes 
highly  probable  that  the  historian  nanu?''  one 
assassin  only,  and  tliat  a  second  has  been  createil 
by  dittography  and  textual  corruption.  If  so, 
Ishimeath  is  probably  the  original  of  tho  variants 
Shomer,  Shimrith,  and  Shiinentli.  In  the  present 
text  of  2  Chron.  Shimeath  is  plainly  a  woman,  an 
Ammonitess.  But  in  the  light  of  the  hypothesis 
here  maintained  there  is  equal  reason  to  adopt  the 
alternative  '  Moabite '  from  tlie  following  clause, 
and  tlio  one  throws  doubt  on  the  other.  Probably 
Sliimeath's  Amnionite  nationality  belongs  to  a 
later  amplilication  of  the  iiariative.  It  is  then 
most  natural  to  sup|>()se  that  the  lather  of  Jozacar 
(Jehozabad)  was  named  Shimeath,  and  nut  his 
I  mother,    voe'  *  to  hear  '  is  the  root  of  a  number  ol 


502 


SHIMEATUITES 


SHLMOX 


proper  names  both   in   Hebrew  and  the  cognate 
lan<;uages  (Shiiuea,  Shimei,  etc.). 

W.  B.  Stevenson. 
SHIMEATHITES  (D'ny=»i ;  BA  2ajna9ie(^,  Luc. 
Tlafiadclv). — A  minor  subdivision  of  the  Calebites 
(1  Ch  2").  They  are  representoil  as  belonging 
to  that  section  or  generation  which  inhabited 
districts  near  Jerusalem.  They  appear  to  be  a 
dependency  of  Bethlehem  as  the  text  stands  (cf. 
v.").  Possibly  they  are  named  as  one  of  the 
'  families  of  the  scribes  which  dwelt  at  Jabez.' 
In  that  case  it  is  unlikely  that  the  name  is  derived 
from  the  name  of  a  place.  The  Vulgate  does  not 
transcribe,  it  translates  resonantes.  Wellh.  (rfc 
Gentihus,  1870)  implicitly  suggests  the  meaning 
'  traditionists'  (p.  30).  This  would  no  doubt 
stamp  the  record  as  a  description  of  the  post- 
exilic  distribution  of  the  population  of  Judah 
(vv."''-"  according  to  Wellh. 's  conjecture).  Simi- 
larly, but  in  appearance  less  logically,  the  state- 
ment :  canenles  (Vulg.  tr.  of  '  Tirathites ')  et 
resonantes  idea  scribuntur  eo  quod  assidue  in 
Lege  Dei  et  in  Prophetis  versabantur  (Jerome, 
Opera,  ed.  Vallar."  iii.  855).  But  the  ShLmeathites 
may  be  distinct  from  the  'families  of  the  scribes,' 
and  the  name  may  denote  the  inhabitants  of  a 
locality  other  than  Jabez.  The  state  of  the  text 
even  suggests  that  they  were  a  dependency  of 
some  other  town  than  Bethlehem,  now  unnamed. 
It  is  not  clear  who  are  designated  '  Kenites '  by 
the  last  clause  of  v.".  The  Kenites  were  closely 
allied  to  the  Calebites.  See,  further,  Wellh.  de 
Gentihus  ;  also  art.  GENEALOGY,  §  IV.  39. 

W.  B.  STEVtNSON. 

SHIMEI  ('I'cp' ;  B  Zffieel  always,  A  "Ze/j-ei  always 
except  in  Samuel  and  Kings). — 1.  Second  son  of 
Gershon,  Ex  6",  Nu  3i8-  =',  1  Ch  G"  23'-  i».  In 
Zee  12'^  '  the  family  of  the  Shimeites '  (ipvKTt  tov 
'^vfj.suv)  is  specified  merely  as  a  typical  instance  of 
a  division  of  the  tribe  of  Levi,  which  would  mourn 
apart  from  the  other  divisions.  In  1  Ch  23" 
shimei  must  be  a  mistake  for  one  of  the  sons  of 
Libni  or  Ladan  mentioned  in  the  previous  verse. 
2.  '  A  man  of  the  family  of  the  house  of  Saul,' 
2  S  16"-"  ig's-^s,  1  K  2S-  »■  Ssff-.  He  is  called  son  of 
Gera,  by  which  it  is  probably  meant  that  he  was 
descended  from  Gera,  son  or  grandson  of  Benjamin 
(Gn  46-1,  1  Ch  83-  ").  The  incident  so  graphically 
described  in  2  S  16™-  must  not  be  regarded  as  an 
isolated  outrage  committed  by  an  individual  acting 
on  a  momentary  imjmlse.  Its  true  significance 
will  be  seen  when  it  is  taken  in  connexion  with 
the  rebellion  of  Sheua  a  Benjamite  (2S  20),  which 
occurred  very  shortly  afterwards.  The  Benjamitcs 
never  quite  forgave  David  for  his  having  prevailed 
over  the  house  of  Saul ;  and  later  on,  when  the 
great  schism  took  place,  the  most  important  of 
the  Benjamite  towns,  such  as  Bethel  and  Jericho, 
sided  against  the  Davidic  dynasty.  David  cer- 
tainly was  not  directly  responsible  for  the  death 
either  of  Abner  or  of  Ishbosheth  (2  S  3"  4"),  but 
his  complicity  in  their  murders  may  very  possibly 
have  been  suspected  by  Saul's  adherents.  It  would 
be  remembered,  too,  that  David's  men  had  origin- 
ally formed  a  division  of  the  Philistine  army  ( 1  S  28' 
29-)  that  killed  Saul  and  his  three  sons,  and  more 
recently  seven  of  Saul's  sons  had  been  sacrificed 
ly  the  Gibeonites  with  David's  sanction  (2  S  21'). 

When  the  king  was  returning  in  triumph, 
Shimei  was  among  the  first  to  greet  him,  '  the 
first  of  all  the  house  of  Joseph.'  Josephus  (^In/. 
VII.  xi.  2)  says  that  he  assisted  Ziba  and  the  men 
of  Judah  in  laying  a  bridge  of  boats  over  the  river 
Jordan.  In  any  case  he  poured  forth  an  abject 
apology  for  his  past  misconduct,  and  obtained  a 
promise  that  his  life  would  not  be  forfeited  for  it. 
As  David's  strong  sense  of  submission  to  God's 
will  had   previously  made  him   restrain  Abishai 


from  taking  sunmiary  vengeance  on  the  insulter, 
so  now,  realizing  that  by  the  mercy  of  God  he  was 
beginning  his  reign  afresh,  he  felt  that  it  was 
fitting  that  the  occasion  should  be  marked  by  the 
customary  exhibition  of  royal  clemency  (cf.  1  S 
11",  2  K  25-'').  Perhaps  David  never  forgot  that 
'  grievous  curse,'  every  letter  of  which  was  signifi- 
cant, as  was  afterwards  said  (Jerome,  Qu.  Hcb.),  or 
forgave  the  utterer  of  it;  and  a  Iate(?)  wTiter  in 
1  K  2  records  that  years  afterwards  he  recalled  it 
in  his  dying  charge  to  Solomon,  and  bade  him 
devise  some  means  whereby  Shimei's  hoar  head 
might  be  brought  down  to  the  grave  with  blood. 

This  narrative,  if  talien  as  historical  (which  Wellh.,  Stade, 
and  otliera  deny  it  to  be),  has  given  rise  to  much  discussion. 
It  has  often  been  urged  that,  in  acting  as  he  did,  David  'kept 
the  word  of  promise  to  the  ear,  and  broke  it  to  the  hope.'  Let 
it  at  once  be  acknowledged  that  the  spirit  of  David,  if  he  gave 
the  charge  ascribed  to  him,  was  not  that  of  Christ.  Is  there 
not  an  anachronism  involved  in  the  supposition  that  it  should 
be  ?  But,  even  apart  from  that,  it  does  not  seem  likely  that 
David's  promise,  as  recorded  by  the  historian,  •  Thou  shalt  not 
die,"  or,  as  recollected  by  himself.  '  I  will  not  put  thee  to  death 
with  the  sword'  (*  non  te  interticiam  gladio  sed  lingua,'  Jerome, 
Qu.  Hfb.),  could  have  been  understood  by  Shimei  as  an  un- 
conditional one :  and  in  fact,  however  strongly  we  may  con- 
demn Dand's  unforgiving  spirit,  it  cannot  be  denied  that 
Shimei's  execution  was  solely  due  to  his  own  folly.  '  His  blood 
was  upon  his  own  head.'  It  should  be  noted  tbiit,  in  the  agree- 
ment that  Solomon  made  with  him,  '  the  brook  Kidron  '  (1  K  237) 
is  to  be  understood  as  meaning  the  city  boundaries  in  any  direc- 
tion.   Shijiiei  would  not  cross  the  Kidron  when  going  to  Gath. 

3.  An  eminent  man  who  remained  loyal  to 
David  when  Adonijah  rebelled  (1  K  1').  It  is 
very  uncertain  who  he  was.  Jos.  (Ant.  VII.  xiv.  4) 
vaguely  calls  him  '  David's  friend.'  Jerome  (Qa. 
lleb.  in  loc.)  identifies  him  with  No.  2.  Other  con- 
jectures are  that  he  was  the  same  as  No.  4  or  No.  S. 

4.  A  brother  of  Davnd  (2  S  2P'),  otherwise 
known  as  Shammah  (1  S  16»  17"),  Shimeah  (2  S 
13'),  and  Shimea  (1  Ch  2"  20').  5.  The  son  of 
Ela,  one  of  Solomon's  commissariat  ofticers.  His 
district  was  Benjamin  (1  K  4'*).  6.  Brother  of 
Zerubbabel  (1  Ch  3'",  B  om.).  7.  Apparently 
grandson  of  Simeon  (lCh4-*-").  He  had  six- 
teen sons  and  six  daughters,  and  is  specially  noted 
as  having  been  the  most  prolific  of^  all  his  tribe. 
8.  A  Reubenite,  son  of  Joel  (1  Ch  5''.  A  has  'Zeixelv 
in  the  first  occurrence  of  the  name) ;  possibly  the 
same  as  Shema  in  v.*  9.  B  2o/iei,  a  Levite,  son 
of  Merari  (1  Ch  6^).  10.  A  Levite,  in  the  pedi- 
gree of  Asaph,  David's  precentor  (1  Ch  6^).  He  ia 
omitted  in  v.'".  11.  A  Benjamite  chief,  1  Ch  8^'. 
See  Shema,  No.  2.  12.  B  'E/xeci,  son  of  Jeduthun, 
who  gave  his  name  to  the  tenth  course  of  Levites 
(1  Ch  25").  His  name  is  omitted  in  MT  of  v.», 
but  the  LXX  has  it  there  after  '  Jeshaiah.'  13. 
The  Kamathite  (1  Ch  27"'),  one  of  David's  officers. 
He  was  '  over  the  vineyards.'  14.  A  Levite  '  of  the 
sons  of  Heman,'  in  the  reign  of  Hezekiah  (2  Ch 
21)'*)  ;  one  of  those  who  took  a  leading  part  in  the 
purification  of  the  temple.  Perhaps  the  same 
person  is  meant  in  2  Ch  31"",  where  he  is  the 
second  Levitical  superintendent  over  the  '  oblations 
and  tithes '  which  were  stored  in  the  house  of  the 
Lord.  IS.  A  Levite  (Ezr  10^  BA  lafioii,  x  SaMoi/J  ; 
1  Es  9^  Semeis).  16.  A  lavman  '  of  the  sons  of 
llashum  '  (Ezr  10«',  1  Es  g'-^Semei).  17.  A  layman 
'of  the  sons  of  Bani '  (Ezr  lU^,  1  Es  9"  Soroeis). 
These  last  three  are  in  the  list  of  those  who 
married  foreign  wives.  18.  A  Benjamite  in  the 
pedigree  of  Mordecai  (Est  2»),  called  in  Ail.  Est  11' 
Semeias.  N.  J.  D.  White. 

SHIMEON  d'ly??',  the  name  that  appears  else- 
where as  Simeon). — One  of  the  sons  of  Harim,  who 
had  married  a  foreign  wife,  Ezr  10^' ;  BA  StyueuK, 
Luc.  'Lvy.fiiiv. 

SHIMON  (iiD-i?  ;  B  'Ztiuiiv,  A  2e^€iiip.  Luc.  2a/i(). 
— The  eponym  of  a  Judahite  family,  1  Ch  4". 


SHIMRATH 


SHIXAK 


503 


SHIMRATH  (n^tl?  ;  BA  Zaiiapde,  Luc.  So/xopti).— 
A  Bciijuiuite,  1  Ch  8-'. 

SHIMRI  (n^v*).— 1.  A  Simeonite,  1  Ch  i^  (B 
2o/idp,  A  Za/iop(as,  Luc.  "Zaiuipd).  2.  The  father 
of  one  of  David's  lieroes,  1  Ch  II"  (B  -a/^epi,  A 
and  Luc.  -a/iapi).  3.  The  eponym  of  a  familj-  of 
gatekeepers,  1  Ch  20'°  (BA  ^uXdiriroi'Tej  [translating, 
as  if  ■-;:=■],  Luc.  :iafiapl).  i.  A  Levite,  2  Ch  29"  (B 
'^aii.fipti,  A  and  Luc.  Zafiflpt). 

SHIMRITH.— See  Shimeath. 

SHIMRON  (p-cp).— The  fourth  son  of  Issachar, 
Gn  40"  (A  Za^liipan,  D  ^a.p.,ipav,  Luc.  "Zaix^pa.  xai 
Za^fiply),  Nu  26--' I-"'  (B*  Zap-apaii,  B''F  'lap.papL,  A 
'Klijipa.v,  Luc.  'Afifipdpi),  1  Ch  7'  (B  -efiepwv,  A 
Zafipapi,  Luc.  ZoiJ.^pav).  The  gentilic  name  Shim- 
ronites  (-ii:;-.!;  15*  Za/iapavd,  B'""  ^afipa/tel,  A 
'kli.iipap.ll,  Luc.  ' Aiijipaiii)  occuis  in  Nu  26'-" <-'"''. 

SHIMRON  (i^-c?»  'watch-height';  B  SuMoiii-,  A 
SfMP-J"  iJos  19'^),'  A  Zoiiepwy  (II'),  A  ZaMpii"  (12™); 
Semeron,  Semron). — One  of  the  towns  whose  kings 
Jabin,  king  of  Hazor,  called  to  his  assi.stance 
when  lie  heard  of  Joshua's  conquest  of  Southern 
Palestine  (Jos  II').  It  was  afterwards  allotted 
to  the  tribe  of  Zebulun  (Jos  19"*).  Its  site  is  un- 
known ;  Dillra.  enumerates  various  conjectures. 
Neubauer  (0(og.  du  Talmud,  p.  189)  identilies  it, 
very  improbably,  with  tlie  Simonia  {k-:ic'd)  of 
the  Talmud,  the  Simonias  of  Josephus  {Vit.  §  24), 
now  Semunich,  a  small  village,  5  miles  west  of 
Nazareth,  and  not  far  from  Bethlehem  {Beit 
Lalim),  which  is  mentioned  with  it  in  Jos  19" 
(PEF  Mem.  i.  339).  Riehm  (HWB)  considers  a 
site  so  far  south  in  Lower  Galilee  unlikely,  and 
would  identify  it  with  es-Semeiriych,  a  village 
about  3  miles  north  of  Acre,  and  nut  far  from 
K'ifr  Yasif.  C.  W.  WiLSON. 

SHIMRON  -  MERON  (i'ni?  j'nni!' ;  B  Zviioiiv  .  .  . 
Ma/ipu;^,  A  ^a/ipkjf  .  .  .  'I'a(T7d  .  .  .  MaptiJi' ;  Simeron 
Maron). — A  Canaanite  town,  west  of  Jordan, 
whose  king  was  amongst  those  whom  Joshua 
smote  (Jos  12-*).  Comparing  its  position  in  the 
list  with  that  of  Shimron  in  the  list  given  in  Jos 
II',  it  seems  proljable  that  the  two  places  are 
identical.  The  I, XX  treat  Shimron  and  Meron 
as  two  places,  and  in  this  they  are  followed  by 
Eusebius  (Onont..).  Possibly  Sliimron-raeron  was 
the  full  name  of  Shimron.  Schrader  (KAT'  p. 
163;  cf.  Del.  Paradics,  286  f.)  identifies  it  with 
Samsiuiuruna,  a  Canaanite  roj-al  city  inentiimed 
in  inscriptions  of  Sennacherib,  Esarhaddoii,  and 
Assurbanipal,  and  places  it  at  es-Semeirti/ch, 
following  Socin  (in  Baedeker's  Pal.).  See  also 
SHI.MRON.  C.  W.  Wilson. 

SHIHSHAI  (•;;'=?').— The  scribe  or  secretary  of 
Rehuni,  Ezr  4»- »•' "•  =»  (B  '^a/iaaa,  ra/io^,  i;a^£als, 
^afifjd  ;  A  has  ^a/xo-ol  and  Luc.  -afuiias  through- 
out).    He  is  called  in  I  Es  2>'  Sameluus. 

SHIN  (L")  and  SIN  (b»).— The  twenty-first  letter 
of  Wtv  Hebrew  aljihuliet,  and  as  such  employed  in 
the  119th  Psalm  to  designate  the  21st  part,  each 
verso  of  which  in  Heb.  begins  with  this  letter  in 
one  or  other  of  its  two  forms.  These  are  trans- 
literated in  this  Dictionary  by  *Aand»respeotiveIy. 
On  the  question  when  the  two  forms  of  the  letter 
began  to  be  distinguished  by  the  so-called  dia- 
critical point,  and  for  a  strong  plea  in  favour  of 
the  order  shin-sin,  instead  of  the  customary  sin- 
shin,  in  Hob.  Grammars  and  Dictionaries,  see 
Nestle  in  Transactions  of  the  IXth  and  Xlth 
International  Congress  of  Orientalists  (Semitic 
section). 


SHINAB  (:x;?,  -(viiadp,  Scnnaab). — The  king  of 
Admah  who  was  attacked  bj-  Chedorlaomer  and 
his  allies  (Gn  14-).  The  name  has  been  supposed 
(cf.  Frd.  Delitzsch,  Parcidia;  294)  to  be  the  same 
as  that  of  Sanibu  who  is  mentioned  by  Tiglath- 
pileser  III.  as  king  of  Ammon.  The  reading,  how- 
ever, is  quite  uncertain,  the  LXX  form  havmg  the 
support  also  of  the  Sam.  ittia, 

SHINAR  i^-j-.v;  LXX  Zcvv<xdp,Y,  ^e^adp  Gn  14'; 
7^  —it'adp  [Thcod.  ~cyi'a.dp]  Dn  1- ;  Sennanr). — The 
name  given,  in  the  OT,  to  the  country  known  as 
Babylonia,  elsewhere  called  Babel  or  land  of  Babel 
('ires  Babel),  from  the  name  of  its  chief  city.  In 
Gn  10'°  it  is  described  as  the  district  in  which 
were  situated  the  four  great  cities  of  Babylonia, 
namely.  Babel,  Erech,  Accad,  and  Calneh,  whi^h 
were  tlie  beginning  of  Nimrod's  kingdom,  and 
in  Gn  11-  it  is  spoken  of  as  a  place  where  there  was 
a  plain,  wherein  early  migrants  in  the  east  settled, 
founded  the  city  Babel  or  Babylon,  and  built  a 
tower,  afterwards  known  as  '  the  Tower  of  Babel.' 
In  Is  11"  the  Heb.  Shin'ar  is  rendered  bj'  the  LXX 
as  '  Babylonia,'  and  in  Zee  5"  by  '  the  land  of 
Babylon,'  thus  showing  that  the  two  terms  were 
practically  synonymous.  To  all  appearance  EUasar 
or  Larsa,  and  the  district  of  which  it  was  capital, 
does  not  seem  to  have  been  included  in  this  term 
(Gn  14'- ').  In  Syriac  Sen'ar  was  used  of  the 
country  around  Baghdad  (Ges.  s.v.). 

The  most  common  explanation  of  the  word 
Shinar  is,  that  it  is  derived  from  an  earlier  form 
of  the  Babylonian  ,iunier,jBi  dialectic  form  of  an  as 
yet  unfound  non-Semitic  Senger,  just  as  dimmer  is 
the  dialectic  form  of  the  non-Semitic  dingir,  '  god.' 
It  cannot  be  said,  however,  that  this  explanation, 
plausible  as  it  seems  to  be,  is  entirely^satisfactory. 
Jensen  objects  (ZKSF  ii.  419)  that  Sumer  stands 
for  south  Babylonia,  whilst  Shinar,  on  the  con- 
trary, indicates  the  north,  and  he  puts  forward  for 
consideration,  whether  Tindir,  the  name  of  the  city 
of  Babjlon  as  the  '  Seat  of  Life,'  may  not  go  back 
to  an  original  form  Singar  (Singir),  comparing,  for 
the  interchange  between  d  and  g,  agar  and  its 
dialectic  form  adar.  Like  most  of  Jensen's  pro- 
posals, this  is  .suggestive,  but  at  the  same  time 
Iiardly  convincing.  Hommel,  in  the  art.  Baby- 
lonia (vol.  i.  p.  224''),  derives  Shinar  from  A'i- 
Iingir  through  the  intermediate  forms  Shingar, 
Shtimir  (  =  Sunier),  and  Shimir,  Ki-Im"ir  being  an 
older  form  of  Ki-Ingi,  '  the  region  of  Ingi,'  wiiich 
was  rendered  Sumer  by  the  Semitic  Babj'lonians. 
It  will  thus  be  seen  that  he  does  not  recoRnizc  the 
force  of  Jensen's  objection  with  regard  to  the 
geographical  position. 

One  thing,  liowever,  is  certain,  and  that  is,  that 
the  Heb.  Shinar  to  all  appearance  ro|)resents  the 
whole  of  Babylonia,  exceptmg  the  district  of  which 
Larsa  was  the  capital  (see  above).  This  being  the 
case,  it  corresponds  with  the  Kingi-Uraof  the  non- 
Semitic  texts,  which  is  translated  in  the  bilingual 
inscriptions  by  the  expression  '  Sumer  and  Akkad ' 
— that  is  to  say,  not  only  N.  Babylonia,  but  S. 
Babylonia  also.  The  question,  therefore,  naturally 
arises,  whether  a  modili(-ation  of  Ilommel's  theory 
would  not  furnish  the  best  explanation.  That  « 
changed,  in  the  non-Semitic  idiom,  into  i,  is  proved 
by  the  post-position  for  '  to,'  which  was  pronounced 
either /.:«  or  i«.  This  would  produce  the  torui  iiingi- 
Ura,  from  which  the  Heb.  Shin'ar  {Siiiar)  might 
easily  have  been  derived.*  It  is  noteworthy  that, 
from  the  geographical  point  of  view,  such  an  ex- 
planation of  the  word  would  leave  nothing  to  be 
desired. 

The  latest  or  one  of  the  latest  identtflcAtions  of  Shinar  ii 
with  5anJor  of  the  Tel  el-Amama  tablets  (Winckler  25  =  London 


*  At  least  one  compound  group  indicates  the  possible  value  ol 
ii  lor  the  character  Ki,  whilst  two  others  suggest  that  ol  Mc. 


504 


SHINAR 


SniXAR 


No.  5).  This,  however,  requires  much  further  li^^ht  before  it 
can  be  admitted  into  the  bounds  of  likely  theories.  The  only 
statement  with  regard  to  Sanhar  made  by"  the  letter  in  question 
is  a  reference  to  pifts  which  the  kinj^  of  IJatti  (Heth,  the 
Hittites)aiid  the  kmg  of  Saniiar  had  made  to  the  writer,  the 
king  of  ^laiia.  W.  Max  Muiler  (Aifuni  und  Europa,  p.  279) 
identifies  Sanhar  with  :iiyyotpx,  the  modern  Sinjar. 

Sumer,  jjeuerally  retrarded  as  the  Habylonian  orijrinal  of 
Shinar,  is  usually  found  coupled  with  the  name  of  the  sister- 
province  Akkad,  of  which  the  Accad  of  (Jn  10i">  was  the  capital. 
As  stated  ahove,  the  two  provinces  toj^ether  are  called  Kingi- 
Ura  in  the  non-Semitic  inscriptions,  rendered,  in  the  bilingual 
texts,  by  the  words  mdt  hu-ine-ri  u  Ak-ka~di-i^  'the  land  of 
Sumer  and  Akk.ad-'  The  first  component  of  the  non-Semitic 
equivalent,  Kitigi  (also  written  Keiiijt\  is  explained  as  jndtu, 
'country,'  and  t/ra  as  Jkkadu  or  Akkad.  Kiiufi  therefore 
meant  'country '  par  exceiteiiee — in  fact,  in  the bilint;ual  inscrip- 
tion of  SamaS-sum-ukin  (5  R.  62,  40ab),  kimji-Ura  is  translated 
by  the  words  mdt  Akkadi,  '  the  land  of  Akkad-* 

The  original  language  of  the  country  of  Shinar 
was  to  all  appearance  non-Semitic,  and  it  is  very 
likely  that,  as  already  indicated,  the  Heb.  word  in 
question  may  be  derived  from  that  idiom.  It  is 
true  that  several  Assyriologists  (notably  Halevy, 
the  leader  of  the  school)  regard  this  language  as 
being  more  or  less  artificial  (see  art.  AccAD) ;  but 
that  it  should  be  so  is  hardly  likely,  the  idiom  in 
question  (often  called  Akkadian  in  England,  and 
generally  called  Sumerian  on  the  Continent)  ditler- 
mg  considerably  from  Semitic  Babylonian,  not 
only  in  words,  but  also  in  grammatical  forms. 
Among  the  chief  differences  may  be  cited  tlie  use 
of  suttixes  instead  of  preh.xes  to  express  the  pre- 
positions {ea-ni-iu  or  ea-ni-ku,  'to  his  house,'  lit. 
'house-his-to'),  the  use  of  long  strings  of  verbal 
prefixes,  suffixes,  or  infixes  (innan-lal  for  inna-in- 
lal,  '  it  he  weighed,'  gab-indaria,  'he  opposed,'  lit. 
'breast-hini-with-(he)-set'),  the  use  of  compound 
woTiXa  (ki-dur,  'seat,'  lit.  '  place- (of )-sitting,'  (lu)- 
qubbri-igi,  '  attendant,'  lit.  '  (man)-standing-before,' 
sa-bat,  '  sabbath,'  lit.  '  heart-rest,'  ia-hula,  '  heart- 
joy,'  and  many  others),  and  the  numerical  system, 
■vhich  goes  up  to  5,  and  then  begins  a  new  series, 
combining  the  numbers  of  the  first  {dS  for  ia-as, 
'  live-one '  =  ' six,'  tmina  for  ia-mina,  'five-t%vo'  = 
'seven,'  etc.).  The  objection  that  this  ancient 
idiom  cannot  be  a  real  language,  but  only  a  system 
of  writing,  because  the  same  or  similar  words  occur 
in  it  and  in  Semitic  Babylonian,  is  easily  explained 
away  by  the  fact  that,  when  two  nationalities  live 
together,  in  close  intercourse,  words  and  phrases 
are  extensively  borrowed  on  both  sides :  and  this 
was  certainly  the  case  here. 

In  support  of  the  contention  that  there  was 
another  race  and  another  language  in  the  land  of 
Shinar  than  the  Semitic,  may  be  cited  the  fact 
that  tlie  oldest  sculptures  give,  to  all  appearance, 
examples  of  a  race  not  possessing  the  Semitic  tj'pe 
of  the  later  Babj'lonians.  but  one  differing  con- 
siderably from  it.  The  Semitic  inliabitants  of 
Shinar  were  thick -set  and  muscular,  as  the 
cylinder-seals  of  Semitic  work  and  the  later  monu- 
ments, such  as  the  boundary-stone  witli  the  bas- 
relief  of  king  Marduk-nadinahi,  show.  Tlie  type 
of  at  lea.st  one  section  of  the  non-Semitic  inhabit- 
ants, on  the  other  hand,  was  slim  and  spare,  and 
is  illustrated  by  the  bronze  statuettes  of  the  time 
of  king  f;udea{c.  2700  B.C.),  representing  a  kneeling 
fifpire  holding  what  is  generally  regardoil  as  a  fire- 
stick  ;  the  human  figures  found  in  bas-rcliofs  from 
Lagas ;  and  those  on  a  large  number  of  cylinder- 
seals.  It  would,  moreover,  seem  tliat  the  ancient 
inhabitants  of  .Sliinar  were  accustomed  to  do  a 
thing  which  the  Semites  do  only  under  foreign 
influence,  namely,  shave  the  hair  from  the  face 
and  head.  This  is  shown  not  only  by  the  heads  of 
statues  and  statuettes  from  Tel-loh  (the  ancient 
Lagas),  but  al.so  from  numerous  cylinder -seals 
and  impressions  of  cylinder -seals  of  the  later 
Akkadian  (or  Sumerian)  period,  in  which  an  olli- 
cial  is  represented  bein^;  introduced  to  the  god 
whom  lie  worshipped.     The  KO<l  himself,  however. 


generally  wears  a  beard.  Whether  they  regar  led 
the  licads  of  tlieir  divinities  as  being  shaved  or  not 
is  uncertain,  as  they  are  commonly  represented 
wearing  hats. 

In  connexion  with  this  may  be  mentioned,  that  the  frreab 
majority  of  the  names  of  the  deities  of  the  Babylonian  pantlieoa 
are  non-Semitic,  and  thisshows  what  a  preponderating  inflnenco 
that  part  of  the  population  must  have  had.  Indeed  the  reli'.noui 
system  of  the  Assyro-lJahyloniaiis  was  probably  to  a  great  e-vtent 
alien,  and  the  comparatively  few  Semitic  divine  names  which 
are  found  are  to  all  appearance  often  applied  to  deities  which 
were  at  first  non-Semitic. 

As  to  the  order  of  precedence  of  the  two  races— 
the  non-Semites  and  the  Semites — in  occupying 
the  country,  we  have  no  certain  information.  It 
is  worthy  of  note,  however,  tliat  Nimrod,  the 
founder  of  the  great  cities  of  the  land  of  Shinar,  is 
represented  as  a  son  of  Cush  (Gn  10*),  and  that 
in  Gn  IP  the  name  Sliinar  is  spoken  of  as  if  it 
existed  before  the  foundation  of  Babylon  and  ita 
tower, — in  other  words,  botli  passages  suggest  that 
the  non-Semitic  occupation  of  Shinar  preceded  that 
of  the  Semites.  This  seems  also  to  be  confirmed 
by  the  indications  of  the  ancient  monuments  of 
tlie  country.  The  fiojures  of  non-Semitic  type,  for 
the  most  jiart,  precede  those  of  the  Semitic  period 
in  chronological  order  ;  the  earliest  inscriptions  are 
in  the  language  which  the  majority  of  Assyriolo- 
gists regard  as  the  non-Semitic  (Sumerian  or  Akka- 
dian) idiom  ;  the  contract-tablets  of  the  dynasty 
of  Ur,  called  by  Radau  the  fourth,  are  written  in 
it,  as  are  also,  wholly  or  partlj',  numbers  of  tablets 
of  the  dynasty  of  Babylon  (that  to  which  Ham- 
murabi belonged),  though  Semitic  Babylonian  at 
tliis  period  begins  to  take  its  place.  The  Semitic 
renderings  of  the  early  non-Semitic  texts  are  some- 
times as  much  of  the  nature  of  glosses  as  of  real 
translations,  for  they  are  written,  where  possible, 
in  the  blank  spaces  left  for  that  purpose  between 
the  beginning  and  the  end  of  the  line.j  of  the 
original  text.*  Wlien  not  arranged  thus,  the  non- 
Semitic  te.xt  of  these  bilingual  tablets  occupies  the 
first,  third,  and  remaining  alternate  lines  of  the 
inscription,  or  the  left-hand  (or  first)  column. 

The  early  languages  of  Shinar  (Sumerian  or 
Akkadian)  are  mentioned  more  than  once  in  the 
inscriptions  of  Babj'lonia  and  Assyria.  Thus  the 
tablet  S.  1190  is  described  as  containing  'two 
Sumerian  incantations  used  (seeminglj')  for  the 
stUling  of  a  weeping  child';  another  fragment 
.«a.ys  'the  tongue  of  Sumer  (?assumed)  the  likeness 
(of  the  tongue)  of  Ak(kad) ' ;  whilst  a  third  informs 
us  that  '  Akkad  is  above,  SH(mer  below),'  but  what 
this  refers  to  is  doubtful, — perhaps  the  position  of 
the  tablets  of  each  dialect  on  tlie  library  shelves, 
or  in  the  rooms.  The  tablet  K.  11,856,  a  fragment 
which  refers  to  'the  great  tablet- house,'  states 
that  '  the  tongue  of  Akkad  is  in  the  third  .  .  .' 
(?room,  space,  division).  What  these  di-sconnected 
statements  refer  to  in  reality  will  probably  for 
some  time  be  a  matter  for  discussion,  but  the 
existence  of  other  languages  than  Semitic  Baby- 
lonian in  Sliinar  or  ancient  Babylonia  can  no 
longer  be  doubted.  To  the  above  indications  that 
this  was  the  case  may  be  added  the  fact  that 
Sumer  was  called  also  kura  Emc-laha,  '  the  land  of 
the  noble  (or  pure)  tongue,'  as  well  as  Kiiigi. 

The  bilingual  lists  of  Babylonia  and  Assyria  distinguish  th« 
two  dialects,  but  do  not  mention  by  what  name  the  standard 
idiom  (probably  the  older  of  the  two)  was  known.  The  other, 
generally  called  by  modem  scholars  *  the  dialect,'  is  distin- 
guished in  the  bilingual  lists  by  the  term  eine-sala,  generally 
translated  '  tongue  (of)  the  woman,'  or  '  women's  tongue,'  per- 
haps so  called  because  it  was  softer,  being  more  affected  by 
phonetic  decay.  The  possibility  that  this  refers  to  women  of  ft 
conquered  race  taken  as  wives  by  the  conquerors  has  been  sug- 
gested, but  seems  unlikely. 

To  all  appearance  the  non-Semitic  idiom  and  it* 

•  The  tablet  inscribed  with  the  bilingual  story  of  the  Creation 
is  written  almost  wholly  in  this  way,  and  haa  therefore  th« 
appearance  of  a  text  in  three  columns. 


SHIOX 

dialect  pave  way  to  Semitic  Babylonian  about  tlie 
time  of  the  dynasty  to  which  Oaiuniurabi  belonged, 
but  when  it  linally  ceased  to  be  spoken  is  not 
known.  Compositions  were  probabf}-  made  in  it 
from  time  to  time  until  a  very  late  date.  This  is 
shown  by  the  existence  of  a  i)ilinf;ual  hymn  con- 
taining tlie  name  of  As.5ur -bani  -  apli  or  Assur- 
bani))al,  though  the  text  bears  the  appearance  of 
an  ancient  composition  into  which  that  king's 
name  has  been  introduced.  His  brother  Samas- 
sum-uktn  (Saosduchinos),  king  of  Babylonia,  how- 
ever, seems  to  have  had  original  com|iositions  in 
this  olil  language  made  for  him,  as  in  tlie  case  of 
the  text  referred  to  above  (5  R.  pi.  62).  It  is 
noteworthy  that  all  these  late  inscriptions,  made 
when  the  non-Semitic  idiom  was  a  dead  language, 
are  in  the  'dialect.'  There  is  not  much  doubt 
that  Semitic  Babylonian  was  the  language  of  tlie 
country  from  aliout  B.C.  2000  onwards,  and  con- 
tinued in  use  until  about  the  Christian  era. 

Besides  the  archaic  historical  inscri|)tions,  of 
which  the  best  examples  come  from  the  French 
excavations  at  Tel-loh  ;  the  brick-inscriptions,  of 
which  most  really  ancient  Babj'loiiian  sites  furnish 
many  examples  ;  and  numerous  short  inscrijitions 
on  cylinder-seals,  the  bulk  of  the  non  -  Semitic 
literature  of  Shinar  consists  of  incantations, 
lij'mns,  and  penitential  psalms.  Several  interest- 
ing but  fragmentary  liistorical  inscriptions  exist 
(accompanied  by  translations  into  the  Semitic 
idiom),  together  with  the  remains  of  a  chrono- 
logical text  supposed  to  be  that  made  use  of  by 
Berosua  in  his  nistory.  It  is  also  worthy  of  note 
that  several  fragments  of  a  glossary  of  the  Semitic 
story  of  the  Creation  (art.  Bahvlonia,  vol.  i. 
p.  2io'>,  and  NuiKOD,  vol.  iii.  p.  523»),  or  the  story 
of  Bel  and  the  Dragon,  imply  that  tliat  composi- 
tion existed  in  the  old  language  of  Shinar,  and 
that  it  was  a  '  dialectic '  text.  Classified  lists  of 
words,  ^vithout  Semitic  translation,  are  also  found. 
In  all  probability,  however,  many  other  inscrip- 
tions known  only  in  their  Semitic  dress  are  really 
of  non-Semitic  origin.  For  an  account  of  these, 
as  also  for  a  descriiition  of  the  country,  its  historj', 
etc,  see  the  article  Babylonia. 

LnTRATCRR.  —  Radau,  Early  Babylonuzn  ffUtftrtf ;  Lenor- 
manl,  f:iuda  Accafli'-nnft,  U.  3,  p.  70;  Schnider,  KAT^  llSlt., 
AViViiwcAr.  u.  Qe^cUicktgforgchuiyj ,  2^,  533;  Weistibach,  jiur 
Lofuitfj  der  Sumfriscften  Fra^f,  Lcijizij;,  1897  ;  Piiicbes,  *  Lun- 
ffua^cs  of  the  Early  Inhabitant'^  of  .Mesopotamia'  in  J  HAS, 
1S84,  p.  301  a.,  'Sumerian  or  Cr}n>toi,'raiili.v,'  ilt.  1900,  p.  7511., 
iiZ,  344,  651,  652 ;  and  the  works  mentioned  at  the  end  of  the 
urticles  Accad  and  Babtlonu.  X.  G.  PINCHES. 

8HI0N  (i^KT' ;  B  Z^wvi,  A  Setrfv  ;  Seon).—A  town 
of  l.ss.icliar  (.Jos  19")  mentioned  between  Hapha- 
raim  and  Anaharath.  Eusebiusand  Jerome  (Oywm.) 
place  it  near  Mount  Tabor,  (ts  identilication  by 
Eli  Smith  with  'Ayiin  es/i-S/iatn,  about  3  miles 
east  of  Nazareth,  has  been  verv  generally  accepted. 

'    C.  W.  Wilson. 

SHIPHI  Ci-C^  ;  B  Sa^dX,  A  IZiixlf,  Luc.  2u0«i). 
— A  Sinieonite  prince,  1  Ch  4"  '*"'. 

BHIPHMITE.— See  Shepham  and  Siphmoth. 

SHIPHRAH  (n^c^  ;  LXX  Zev-pupi,  tlie  rendering 
also  of  .t;d»  ZippOrdh,  in  Ex  2-').— One  of  the  two 
Hebrew  midwives.  Ex  1"  (E).  The  name  is  prob- 
ably connected  with  the  root  tto  '  to  be  beautiful ' 
(Bacntsch  in  Nowack's  Hdkom.).  It  is  unlikely 
that  it  is  a  HeViraized  form  of  an  Egyptian  name. 
See,  further,  Dillm.-Rys.sel,  ad  loc. 

8H1PHTAN  (ipcif*;  B  Za^aOi,  A  So/Jofldi-,  F 
'S,a<paT<iv,  Luc.  [S]a^a(?d). — An  Ephraimite  prince, 
Nu  34". 

SHIPS  and  BOATS  (.t)|;,  nj-ei?  [only  Jon  1»],  •»; 


SHIPS 


bOl 


KoOs  [only  Ac  27'"],  wXaiov,  rXoidpiov,  aKiip-q  [only 
Ac  27"'- *"• '-]). — These  are  often  referred  to  in  the 
Bible,  but  to  a  verj'  small  extent  in  connexion 
with  Israelitish  history.  In  OT  the  most  im- 
portant instances  connected  with  this  people  are 
the  building  of  the  lleet  of  Solomon  at  the  port  of 
Eziongeber,  at  the  head  of  the  /Elauitic  arm  of 
the  Red  Sea  (1  Iv  9-*) ;  and  another  undertaking  oi 
a  similar  kind  in  the  reign  of  Jehoshapliat,  which 
had  a  disastrous  result  (1  K  22**).  In  NT  we  have 
the  voj'ages  of  St.  Paul,  especiallj-  the  last  into 
Italy  (Ac  27).*  The  voyage  of  Jonah  oelongs  to 
another  category. 

The  Pluenicintis  were  by  far  the  most  successful 
navigators  of  ancient  times ;  and  the  history  of 
the  art  of  shipbuilding  amongst  Eastern  nations 
can  be  very  clearly  followed  in  connexion  with 
the  history  of  this  remarkable  people  (see  Great 
Sea).  Originally  settled  on  the  sliores  of  the 
Erj'thraian  Sea  (Persian  Gulf),t  tliey  had  become 
familiar  with  naWgation  in  a  rude  form  before 
their  migration  to  the  shores  of  the  Mediterranean 
about  B.C.  1500,  and  carried  with  tliem  the  art  of 
shipbuilding;  to  tlieir  new  honie.t  Perhaps  in 
both  countries  this  art  did  not  extend  beyond  the 
construction  of  rafts,  or  canoes  hollowed  out  of 
trunks  of  trees  (MonoxyUc) ;  but  as  time  went  on 
these  would  give  place  to  lioats,  built  with  a  keel, 
and  ribs  covered  with  canvas  and  daubed  with 
pitch.  The  models  of  boats  found  amongst  PIub- 
nician  remains  are  of  a  very  rude  and  simple 
form.§  From  a  Cyprian  model,  represented  by 
Count  L.  di  Ccsnola,  and  believed  to  be  of  early 
Phienician  date,  the  ships  appear  to  have  con- 
siste<l  of  a  hull  of  wood  with  a  liigli  curved  stern 
and  an  upright  bow  ;  from  the  centre  rose  a  mast 
not  very  high,  supjiorting  a  yard-arm  for  carrying 
a  sail ;  from  the  stem  projected  two  steering  oars 
with  broad  shovel-shaped  blades  passing  through 
the  timbers  of  the  ship.||  The  use  of  sails  was 
probably  preceded  for  a  long  period  by  tliat  of 
oars.  A  boat  of  large  size  is  represented  on  cer- 
tain coins,  regarded  by  some  as  PhnMiician,  by 
others  as  belonging  to  Cilicia,  in  wliich  the  bow 
is  low,  the  stern  elevated  and  accompanied  by 
steering  oars.  It  was  impelled  by  one  bank  of 
oars,  such  as  was  called  liy  the  Greeks  a  '  tria- 
contcr'  or  '  penteconter,'  and  it  was  destitute  of  a 
mast.lT 

About  B.C.  700  a  great  advance  seems  to  have 
been  made  in  navigation  by  the  Phcenicians,  owin" 
to  the  introduction  of  two  sets  of  oarsmen  seated 
on  benches  at  dillerent  levels,  and  using  double 
banks  of  oars ;  these  were  called  by  the  Greeks 
'  bireiiies ' ;  and,  at  a  later  period,  a  further  ad- 
vance was  made  by  the  introduction  of  a  mast 
and  sail,  somewhat  of  the  shape  of  a  'square-sail' 
of  our  own  times.  These  ships  must  have  resem- 
bled the  Chinese  junks  of  the  present  day. 

The  Phccnician  ships  dcscribeil  by  lUcrodotus 
were  of  two  kinds :  those  used  in  war,  and  those 
employed  in  mercantile  trallic.  The  former  were 
broad  of  beam,  and  impelled  both  by  oars  and 
sails.  The  sails  were,  from  their  shape,  of  use 
only  when  sailing  before  the  wind.  The  war 
ve.ssels  were  tlioso  which  the  Greeks  called  tria- 
contcrs  and  penteconters,  each  impelled  by  fifteen 
to  twenty-live  oars  on  either  side.  They  were 
long  open  boats  in  which  the  oarsmen  sat  all  on 
the  same  level ;  each  galley  was  armed  at  its  head 
witli  a  sharp  metal  spike  or  beak,  intended  for 

*  On  the  Sea  of  Galilee,  in  the  time  of  our  Lord,  small  tnding 
vesuelH  and  flshing  buat8  appear  to  have  been  ver>'  numerous, 
and  some  of  the  most  interesting  events  in  Ills  life  are  con- 
neoted  vdth  this  lake  and  the  saitora  on  it«  waters  (Ml  8^ 
)AV.  4»i,  Lk  6>ii,  Jn  (l.a  SI*"). 

t  Herod,  i.  2,  vii.  89.  t  Pliny,  BX  vli.  M. 

i  I'errot  et  Chipicz,  UM.  dt  VArt,  iii.  517. 

II  Ceflnola,  Cyprtu,  pL  xlv.  H  llawUiuoo,  rhaenicia,  27S 


506 


SHIPS 


SHITEAI 


ramming.*  Afterwards  these  were  superseded  by 
biremes,  whicli  were  decked,  liad  masts  and  sails, 
and  double  banks  of  oarsmen.  Later  still,  tri- 
remes, impelled  by  three  banks  of  oarsmen,  came 
into  use  ;  and  about  the  end  of  the  Utii  cent.  B.C. 
boats  with  additional  banksof  oars  were  invented.t 

l'"or  some  centuries  the  Phoenicians  confined  their 
navigation  to  the  shores  of  the  Mediterranean, 
Projiontis,  and  Euxine ;  but  before  the  time  of 
Solomon  (c.  B.C.  930)  they  had  launched  out  into 
the  deep,  had  p.a.ssed  the  pillars  of  Hercules,  and 
opened  a  trade  with  Tartessus  (Tarshish)  on  the 
Atlantic  coast  of  Spain.  Coasting  along  Africa, 
they  had  visited  the  Senegal  and  Gambia ;  and, 
in  the  opjiosite  direction,  had  crossed  the  Bay  of 
Biscay  and  the  English  Channel,  and  opened  a 
trade  for  tin  with  the  Cassiterides.  It  is  no  less 
certain  that  they  reached  the  Canaries  (Fortunate 
Islands),  lying  170  mUes  off  the  coast  of  Africa. 
In  Ezk  27  we  liave  an  eloquent  description  of  the 
glories  of  Tyre  and  Sidon,  and  the  construction 
of  their  ships. 

The  Greeks. — Ships  with  four  ranks  of  oarsmen 
were  first  constructed  by  the  Greeks  about  the 
year  B.C.  400,  when  Dionysius  I.  of  SjTacuse  built 
the  first  quadriremes  (rcrp^peis),  with  which  he 
had  probably  become  acquainted  through  the  Car- 
thaginians.J  After  the  time  of  Alexander  the 
Great,  ships  with  four,  five,  and  even  more  ranks 
of  rowers  became  general ;  and,  according  to  Poly- 
bius,  the  first  Punic  war  was  chiefly  carried  on 
with  quinqueremes.§ 

Assyrian. — While  the  Phoenicians  were  making 
progress  in  naval  architecture,  their  old  neigh- 
bours and  probably  rivals,  the  Babylonians  and 
Assyrians,  were  also  at  work  in  the  same  direc- 
tion, but  not  to  any  important  extent.  As  Kaw- 
linson  observes,  it  is  only  as  fresh-water  sailors 
that  the  Assyrians  come  within  the  category  of 
navigators  at  all.||  They  left  the  navigation  of 
the  Persian  Gulf  and  Mediterranean  to  the  Baby- 
lonians and  Phojnicians,  contenting  themselves 
with  the  profits  without  sharing  the  dangers  of 
sea  voyages ;  their  attention  being  concentrated 
on  the  navigation  of  their  two  great  rivers — the 
Tigris  and  Euphrates.  This  was  effected  at  first 
by  rafts  of  timber  supported  on  inflated  skins ; 
and  these  are  still  in  use  on  the  rivers  of  Meso- 
potamia.H  Bas  -  reliefs  from  the  most  ancient 
palace  of  Nimroud  show  two  kinds  of  boats :  the 
larger  contains  the  king  in  his  chariot  with  his 
attendants,  and  is  navigated  by  two  men.**  It  is 
considered  by  Rawlinson  to  have  resembled  in 
structure  the  Welsh  coracle,  round  in  form  and 
made  of  wicker  -  work  covered  with  skins  and 
smeared  over  with  bitumen.  To  have  carried 
such  heavy  loads  they  must  have  been  of  large 
size.  The  smaller  was  used  for  the  conveyance 
of  merchandise. 

In  the  sculptures  of  Sargon,  who  reigned  from 
B.C.  722-705,  we  have  a  representation  of  a  ship 

•  These  were  probably  the  kind  of  boats  in  use  amongst  the 
Greeks  in  Homer's  time,  in  which  he  represents  the  descent  of 
the  Grecian  warriors  on  the  coast  of  Ilium  (Iliad,  i.  SCO,  ii.  j8.^>, 
030;  Smith's  Diet.  Greek  and  Jioman  Antiquities,  a.Tt. '^Q.ves,' 
T83  (1849).  in  which  the  subject  is  very  fully  treated). 

t  The  Phtenioians  had  a  practice  of  placing  at  the  bow  of 
their  boats  the  fi^'ure  of  some  monstrous  form  gaudily  painted, 
in  order  to  strike  terror  into  the  natives  whose  country  thi.'y 
were  invading.  We  seem  to  have  something  of  the  kind  in  the 
case  of  the  Greek  ships  invading  Asia  Minor,  *  Twelve  ships 
with  scarlet  bows '  {Iliad,  ii.  739). 

:  Pliny,  Uti  vii.  5.  7 ;  Diodor.  xiv.  41,  42. 

§  Polybius,  i.  63;  Haltaus,  Genrhichte  Horns  im  Zeitalter  der 
Punischer  Kricge,  Leipzig,  607  (1SJ(>). 

I  Ancient  Monarchies,  i.  644. 

^  Layard^  Sineceh,  ii.  96 ;  Kawlinson,  Anc  Mtm.  L  545.  A 
representation  of  such  a  raft  carrying  blocks  of  stone  for  buiUt- 
ing,  taken  from  Kouj-unjik,  is  given  ib.  p.  333.  The  raft  is 
impelled  by  two  oarsmen. 

**  Ib.  p.  546.  Boats  similar  to  these  an  also  described  by 
Herodotus,  1.  o.  194. 


of  a  more  advanced  type.  Here  four  rowers  stand- 
ing to  their  oars  impel  a  vessel,  having  a  figure- 
head of  a  horse,  and  for  the  stern  the  tail  of  a 
fish ;  but  it  is  possible  that  this  vessel  may  have 
belonged  to  an  invading  force,  not  that  of  the 
Assyrian  inhtibitants.  * 

The  sculptures  of  Kouyunjik  represent  ships  in 
great  perfection.  One  of  these  represents  a  naval 
battle,  as  may  be  gathered  from  the  introduction 
of  marine  forms,  such  as  star-fish  and  jelly-fish, 
not  found  in  rivers.  Layard  recognizes  in  these 
vessels  a  resemblance  to  those  used  to  a  compara- 
tively late  period  by  the  inhabitants  of  the  cities 
of  Tyre  and  Sidon  on  the  Syrian  coast. t  That 
the  Clialda?ans  were  skilful  shipbuilders,  and  were 
proud  of  their  attainments  in  this  art,  may  be 
gathered  from  the  statement  in  Isaiah  (43'^),  where 
they  are  referred  to  as  rejoicing  in  their  sliips.J 

Christian  era. — The  ships  in  NT  times,  chiefly 
belonging  to  the  Romans,  were  galleys  impelled 
by  oarsmen  and  using  square  saDs.  They  were 
sometimes  of  large  size  ;  that  which  carried  St. 
Paul  containing  in  all  276  souls,  besides  cargo.§ 
Their  timbers  were  so  badly  put  together,  that 
when  subjected  to  the  strain  arising  from  a  storm, 
they  required  to  be  undergirded  (or  braced)  by 
means  of  strong  ropes  ;  and  they  seldom  ventured 
far  out  of  sight  of  land,  or  some  port  into  which 
they  could  be  run  in  stress  of  weather. 

E.  Hull. 

SHISHA.— See  Shavsha. 

SHISHAK  (pe^T  [in  1  K  li"^,  Keth.  pf^o,  J^lri 
p;''!;'j,  ZovaaK(e)lii.). — Shishak  is  Sheshonk  I.,  the 
first  king  of  the  22nd  or  Bubastite  Dynasty. 
He  belonged  to  an  important  family  of  chiefs 
of  Libyan  mercenaries,  who  by  degrees  attained 
to  very  high  position.  His  grandtather  married 
a  princess  named  Mehtenusecht,  doubtless  of 
the  21st  or  Tanite  Dynasty.  The  successors  of 
Sheshonk  were  much  attached  to  Bubastis,  and 
his  dynasty  is  named  Bubastite  by  Manetho  ;  but 
it  is  doubtful  whether  he  himself  had  much  con- 
nexion with  that  city.  In  his  21st  year  he 
began  building  a  new  court  in  the  great  temple 
of  Karnak,  and  close  to  it  caused  to  be  sculptured 
a  representation  of  himself  sacrificing  figures  sym- 
bolic of  the  conquered  cities  in  Palestine.  In  all, 
156  place  -  names  were  thus  recorded,  and  most 
of  them  are  still  legible.  There  are  few  important 
cities  amongst  them.  They  include  Rabbath  and 
Hapharaim  in  Issachar,  and  Mahanaim  on  the  ea-st 
of  the  Jordan,  besides  towns  in  Juda-a.  From 
the  biblical  account  (1  K  14^),  it  had  been  con- 
cluded that  Shishak  attacked  only  the  kingdom  of 
Rehoboam  and  spared  tliat  of  Jeroboam,  who  had 
lived  many  years  in  exUe  in  Egjpt ;  but  this 
interpretation  is  not  necessary.  Since  Ramses  lU. 
no  Pliaraoli  had  ventured  to  transport  an  army 
across  the  eastern  desert  and  to  attack  Palestine. 
Later,  even  Taharka  and  Psammetichus  did  not  go 
so  far  ;  onlj'  Necho  went  farther.  But  Sheshonk's 
expedition  was  insignificant  compared  to  the  ex- 
peditions of  the  18th  dynasty.  For  the  absence  of 
the  title  '  Pharaoh '  in  the  biblical  record  see  above, 
vol.  iii.  p.  819. 

LiTERATDRB. — For  Shishak's  campaign  against  Judah  see  W. 
.Ma\  Miiller,  Asien  u.  Europa,  166 ff.;  Blau  in  ZVMG  xv. 
■i.'ua.;  .Meyer,  Gesch.  i.  385  f.;  Stade,  Gesch.  u  363  f.;  Maspero, 
StruqrjU  of  the  ^atums,  772 ff.;  Driver  in  Hogarth's  Authority 
andArchieolugy.&TL  F.  Ll.  GRIFFITH. 

SHITRAI  (n??'  KSthtbh,  •air  ^ir6;  B'Affaprais, 
A  Luc.  XcLTpai). — A  Sharonite  who  was  over  king 
David's  herds  that  fed  in  SHARON,  1  Ch  27*. 

*  Lavard,  yiiirveh,  ii.  383. 

♦  Layard,  vol.  ii.  384,  385. 

i  KV  '  In  the  sliips  ol  their  rejoicing.' 
i  Ac  27". 


SHITTAH  TREE 


SHOBAI 


507 


SHITTAH  TREE  {n-^  s/iit/dh,  jri-Jot,  spirta,  Is 
41"  i:V  'acacia  tree');  SHITTIM  WOOD  (;-:;;-sy 
dzf-shittim,  (i\a  iaarra,  liqna  sctim,  Ex  i)'-  '"■  '^ 
26"- »  27'«,  Dt  10'  UV  'acacia  wood').— ^ViiVW/i 
is  modified  from  shintdh,  as  hitidh,  '  wlieat,'  from 
hintdh.  The  cognate  Arab,  equivalent  for  shintdh 
is  sont,  a  name  identical  with  the  old  Ejjyp.  name 
of  this  tree,  and  is,  like  it,  generic  fur  Acacia, 
but  particularly  applied  to  A.  Silotirn,  Del.  The 
desert  acacia,  of  which  the  Ark  of  the  Covenant, 
and  the  boards,  tables,  ete.  of  the  Tabernacle  were 
made,  is  no  doubt  j4.  Scyal,  Del.,  and  A.  tor/ His, 
Hayne,  if  the  two  be  not,  as  we  suspect,  varieties 
of  the  same  species.  Both  are  called  sei/i/dl.  Sciiil 
means  '  torrent,'  and  prob.  the  ellipsis  '  tree  '  should 
be  supplied-  It  is  the  torrent  tree,  i.e.  the  char- 
acteristic tree  of  the  desert  wadis  of  Sinai,  et-Tih, 
and  the  Dead  Sea.  The  conius  of  these  trees 
resembles  that  of  the  apple.  It  is  about  15-2j  ft. 
high,  and  a  little  broader  than  its  height.  It  has 
stitf,  thorny  branches,  bipinnate  leaves  with  leaf- 
lets 1-2  lines  long,  and  A  line  broad,  and  more  or 
less  spirally  twisted,  necklace-shape  pods,  3-4  in. 
long.  lt.s  wood  is  heavier  than  water,  exceedingly 
hard,  of  tine  grain,  the  sap-wood  yellow,  the  heart- 
wood  brown.  It  is  not  attacked  by  insects.  It 
was  therefore  eminently  suited  for  furniture  such 
as  that  for  which  it  was  employed,  in  a  climiite 
where  insects  commit  such  ravages  as  in  the 
desert  and  in  Palestine.  These  trees  must  have 
been  very  numerous  in  ancient  times,  perhaps 
filling  most  of  the  desert  valleys,  and  growin-j  in 
clefts  of  the  rocks  on  the  now  bare  mountain  sides. 
Even  now,  after  they  have  been  so  extensively  cut 
by  the  charcoal  burners,  there  are  large  numbers 
of  them.  They  form  quite  a  characteristic  feature 
of  the  desert  landscape.  The  trunks  are  now  not 
infrequently  2  ft.  thick,  and  old  trees  may  have 
been  much  thicker,  quite  suUiciently  so  to  supply 
planks  10  cubits  long  and  IJ  wide  (Ex  36-')-  If 
any  dilliculty  existed  on  this  point,  it  would  be 
easily  met  oy  supposing  that  the  planks  were 
joined.  Arab,  carpenters  do  this  now  very  cleverly 
in  Egypt  and  Syria.  Besides  the  wood,  so  valuable 
on  account  of  its  durability  and  the  excellent 
charcoal  which  can  be  niaile  from  it,  the  tree 
yields  the  famous  '  gum  arable  '  in  considerable 
quantities.  Its  astringent  bark  is  used  for  tanning 
yellow  leather. 

A  number  of  places  were  named  from  this  tree, 
as  Shittim  (Jos  2'  al.),  perhaps  the  modem  Ghor 
es:S(iisabdn,  where  there  are  still  plenty  of  acacia 
trees,  and  Abfl-Shittim  (Nu  3^*"),  i.e.  the  I'lain 
of  the  Acaciaa,  which  is  the  .same  as  the  above. 
The  Valley  (Srjj '  wady  ')  of  Shittim  (Jl  3  (4) '»)  may 
have  been  the  lower  part  of  the  Wddij  en-Ndr,  the 
continuation  of  Kidron,  into  which  flows  the  water 
from  tlip  neighbourhood  of  Jerusalem.  This,  as  all 
the  va'leys  debouching  on  to  the  Dead  Sea,  would 
nat'irrtlly  have  acacia  trees  growing  in  it. 

G.  E.  PO.ST. 

SHITTIM  (cryn  always  with  def.  art.  'the 
acacias,'  see  preceding  article). — One  of  the  limits 
of  the  camping-ground  of  the  children  of  I.srael  in 
the  plains  of  Moab,  Nu  SS"  (here  only  it  is  called 
AnKL-SHlTTlM).  According  to  Nu  25'  the  anger 
of  the  Lord  was  there  kindled  against  Lsrael  for 
joining  him.self  unto  Baal-pcor.  The  spicH  were 
sent  out  from  Shittim  (Jos  2'),  and  from  thence  the 
children  of  Israel  moved  to  Jordan  before  cro.ssing 
the  river  (Jos  3').  These  are  the  only  places  where 
the  word  occurs  in  the  Ilexateuch.  The  LXX  in 
the  last  three  passages  has  i:o7-Ttl>'  in  B  (v  is  omitted 
in  .\  of  Jos  2').  In  Nu  XV  I!«X<rd  in  B  and  BtXcrarW/i 
in  A  are  renderings  of  Abel-ahi(tim. 

The  word  occurs  twite  in  the  Prophets  :  (1)  Mic 
6*  'from  Shittim  unto  Gilgal.'  By  some  this  is 
regarded  as  a  gloss  ;  others  suggest  that  a  part 


of  the  text  has  been  lost  here — '  [remember  that 
which  I  did]  from  Shittim  unto  Gilgal ' — with  refer- 
ence to  the  wonders  manifested  at  the  passage  of 
the  Jordan.  (2)  Jl  3'"  '  the  valley  of  Shittim.'  The 
Heb.  word  hero  used  for  '  valley  '  (^-}  '  wady ' ;  see 
Bkook)  is  never  api)Ued  to  the  broad  open  space 
immediately  N.  of  the  Dead  Sea  in  which  Shittim 
was  situated.  The  idea  in  the  pa.ssage  is  similar 
to  that  in  Ezk  47'-'^  Zee  14",  and  Rev  22'— waters 
(of  life)  issuin"  from  the  house  of  God  w<mld  reach 
the  Eastern  (the  Dead)  and  the  Western  (the  Medi- 
terranean) seas.  The  ordinary  cour.se  of  waters 
from  Jerusalem  to  the  Dead  Sea  would  be  along 
the  Wady  Silti  M'triaui  and  Wady  ca-N&r,  the 
ancient  Kidron  called  %i  2  S  15^  (cf.  Driver,  ad 
lac,  in  Camb.  Bible  for  Schools  and  Colleges). 

The  LXX  renderinjf  in  both  these  passages  is  Tai»  ffx^'ivim.  It 
has  been  proposed  (ttie  8n£;t;e-stion  is  as  old  as  Jerome)  to  rend 
ffX'*^,  and  then  the  translators  would  have  considered  tiie 
shitVah-tfee  as  equivalent  to  the  niasticli.tree  {axt^a,  PUtachia- 
lenlUcxu),  a  tree  common  in  Me<iiterranean  countries.  Tlie 
aerreement  between  these  two  passajres,  and  their  variation 
from  the  renderings  in  the  Hex.,  are  noteworthv  (cf.  Rvssel  on 
MicOi).  A.  T.  Chap.man. 

SHIZA  (NIV ;  B  Sacfd,  A  ISex",  N  -ff<i,  Luc. 
-iial). — The  father  of  a  Keubenite  chief,  1  Ch 
11«. 

SHOAd'ic";  'B1ovi,A.Zo{iS;  tyranni). — Apparently 
a  race-name.  It  is  mentioned  in  connexion  witn 
the  Babylonians,  Chalda?ans,  Pekod,  Koa,  and  all 
the  As.syrians  (Ezk  23-'),  whose-  relations  with  Jeru- 
salem had  been  intimate,  and  who  were  to  come 
up  and  sit  in  judgment  tijjon  her.  According  tc 
Schrader  (KAT-  p.  425),  Shoa  is  the  Assyrian 
Suti'i,  the  name  of  a  people  who  are  constantly 
associated  in  the  inscriptions  with  the  Kutii.  The 
land  of  Sntil  is  identitied  by  Delitzsch  [Par.  p. 
233,  etc.)  with  the  district  that  extends  eastward 
from  the  Tigris  to  the  southern  declivities  of  the 
Medo-Elamite  mountains.  C.  W.  WlLSON. 

SHOBAB  (3;iB»).— 1.  One  of  David's  sons,  2  S  5" 
(B  ■^Lwpa^,  A  la^aUv,  Luc.  'IffffffjSdy),  1  Ch  3' 
(B  ru/Jdi/,  A  Luc.  Za^afi),  14'  (B  "Iiro/SodM  [i.e. 
cjic'i  '  and  Shobam  '  ?],  A  'Zui^ifl,  Luc.  T^ufiri^).  2. 
A  Calebite,  1  Ch  2"  (B  'lacroii/S,  A  2uj3dj3,  Luc. 
2ou^d^). 

SHOBACH  (^3W;  B  Sw^Sdit,  A  2a;3dit;  Sobach).— 
A  general  in  the  army  of  Hadadezcr,  king  of 
Syria,  at  the  time  of  the  war  with  Amnion  (2  S 
10'").  Ho  is  not  mentioned  as  taking  part  in  the 
battle  near  Habbah,  where  Joab  and  Abishai  routed 
the  combined  forces  of  Ammon  and  Syria,  and  we 
may  infer  that  he  did  not  become  '  captain  of  the 
host  of  Hadadezcr'  until  after  that  event.  The 
victory  of  Joab  docs  not  seem  to  have  been  fol- 
lowed up  (see  KAUliAH),  and  before  long  the 
Syrians  aj^ain  prepared  to  attack  the  newly- 
founded  king<loni  of  Israel.  For  this  purpose 
Hadadezcr  gathered  all  the  forces  at  his  com- 
mand, even  the  distant  tribes  from  'beyond  the 
river':  the  latter  were  led  by  Shobach,  who  was 
apparently  placed  in  command  of  the  whole  Syrian 
arm}'.  In  the  engagement  that  ensued  at  Helam 
on  the  east  of  Jordan,  David  commanded  the 
Israelite  army  in  person,  and  utterly  defeated  the 
Syrians.  Shobach  was  mortally  wounded  in  the 
battle,  and  his  fall  doubtless  contributed  to  tlie  rout 
of  the  Syrians(2  S  lO'"'").  In  the  parallel  narrative 
(1  Ch  ly"-'")  his  name  is  given  as  Shophach  (■51=' ; 
B  Zaxpdp  and  :^a<txi8,  A  Zui^ix  and  -u,idx,  N* 
'Eauipdp,  N<^'  'Eaoxpdx).  J.  F.  SteNNING. 

SHOBAI  Cjy).— A  family  of  gatekeepers,  Ezr  2** 
(B  'AjSooi),  A  Luc.  2(.>^oi)  =  Neh  7"  (B  2o/Sfi,  A 
2a;3ai,  Luc.  Zufiai) 


508 


SHOBAL 


SHOPHACH 


SHOBAL  (Syr).—!.  A  'son  '  of  Seir  the  Ilorite, 
and  one  of  the  'dukes'  of  the  Iloiites,  Gn  36-"- 
=3-  29  (::w3d\)=  1  Ch  1»;  ■">  (BA  :^w;ia\,  Luc.  roi'/SaX). 
2.  A  Calebite  f.imily  in  the  tribe  of  Judah.  This 
Shobal  is  called  in  1  Ch  4'-=  (BA  i:ou;idX,  Luc. 
^ui3a\)  a  'son'  of  Jiulah,  and  in  2»-  (B  "^w^ap,  A 
2w^d\,  Luc.  2«/3d)»2  (BA  2w;3dX,  Luc.  2«;3d)  '  son  ' 
of  Caleb  and  'father'  of  Kiriath-jearini.  The 
name  is  proltablj'  to  be  connected,  if  not  identiliod, 
with  No.  1 ;  see  Wellh.  de  Gentibus,  etc.  39. 

SHOBEK  (F?ic' ;  BA  Zui^vk,  Luc.  ^wftHp).-  One  of 
the  chiefs  of  the  peojile  who  sealed  the  covenant, 
Neh  10=*  R. 

SHOBI  Csy  ;  OiWjSfi ;  Sobi).— From  2  S  17="-  we 
learn  that  Shobi  the  son  of  Nahash  of  Kabbah  of 
the  children  of  Amnion,  to^'ether  with  two  other 
influential  and  wealthy  landowners  of  the  trans- 
Jordanic  country,  came  to  meet  David,  when  lie 
fled  from  Absalom,  at  Mahanaim,  bringing  with 
them  large  quantities  of  stores  and  provisions  for 
the  Israelite  army.  It  seems,  however,  very 
doubtful  wliether  such  a  person  as  Shobi  ever 
existed.  His  name  is  not  mentioned  elsewhere, 
and  it  is  diflicult  to  reconcile  this  action  on  the 
part  of  a  son  of  Nahash  with  the  insults  ofl'ered 
by  Hanun  the  son  of  Naliash,  king  of  Amnion,  to 
David's  ambassadors  (2  S  10"-),  and  with  the  sub- 
sequent war  between  Israel  and  Ammon,  which 
resulted  in  the  siege  and  capture  of  Kabbah. 
S.  A.  Cook  (AJSL  xviii.  3,  p.  155 f.)  suggests 
very  plausibly  that  we  should  read  'Nahash,  etc., 
brought '  (£"0:  'N':;;!),  in  place  of  '  Shobi  the  sou 
of  Nahash,'  etc.  (Prin?  'Ji?!).  This  emendation 
restores  a  natural  constniction  to  the  verse  at  the 
expense  of  the  words  '  Shobi  son  of ' :  in  its  pres- 
ent form  the  construction  is  involved  and  un- 
usual (see  Driver,  ad  loc).  If,  however.  Cook's 
emendation  is  accepted,  it  is  difficult  to  resist  his 
further  contention  tliat  the  section  dealing  with 
the  Ammonite  war  (2  S  lO'-ll'  12-«-»')  has  been 
misplaced,  and  that  it  should  follow  and  not  pre- 
cede chs.  13-20.  J.  F.  Stenning. 

SHOE  (Si'3  na'al,  <ravSd\i.or,  irrSSruxa). — The  na'al 
of  the  modem  Arabic  shoe  means  the  sole,  thus 
indicating  the  sandal  character  of  the  ancient 
Heb.  na'al,  usually  tr.  'shoe.'  Similarly,  the  Gr. 
term  I'TrdS-nfj.a  means  something  tied  on  or  under 
the  foot,  that  is,  a  sandal.  Sandals  must  have 
varied  in  material  and  appearance  according  to 
the  station  and  occupation  of  the  wearer,  those  of 
shepherds  being  strongly  made  as  a  protection 
agamst  thorns  and  rocks,  while  those  worn  by 
women  of  rank  would  be  of  a  lighter  and  more 
ornamental  pattern  (Ca  7')-  Cf.  art.  Dress,  vol.  i. 
p.  G27.  The  shoes  of  the  present  day  in  Syria 
exliibit  various  transition  forms,  from  the  single 
strap  of  leather  or  embroidered  cloth  over  the  toes, 
and  the  leather  sheath  for  the  front  of  the  foot,  to 
the  complete  upper  in  dilferent  colours  of  leather, 
and  covering  the  whole  foot.  Sandals  of  the 
original  form  are  still  worn  by  Bedawin  and 
monks.  Peasants  when  on  a  journey  prefer  to 
press  down  the  leatlier  at  the  heel-end  of  the  shoe, 
and  thus  make  them  more  loose  and  open,  like  the 
sandals  of  primitive  tinics.  In  this  way  also  the 
dust  of  the  road  can  from  time  to  time  be  shaken 
out  without  the  trouble  of  removing  the  shoe. 
The  act  of  repudiation  mentioned  in  Mt  10",  Mk 
(i",  Lk  9'  10",  Ac  13=',  meant,  along  ^vith  the 
implied  release  from  all  moral  responsibility,  that 
the  connexion  thus  dissolved  was  one  of  defilement 
and  worthlessuess. 

1.  Putting  on  and  removal  of  shoes. — From  the 
Oriental  habit  of  sitting  and  moving  about  in  the 
house  with  the  feet  uncovered,  the  possession  of 


shoes  became  one  of  the  essential  requirements  foi 
a  journey,  and  the  wearing  of  tliem  one  of  tha 
symbols  of  travel  (Ex  12").  The  Gibeonites  drew 
attention  to  their  feet  bandaged  with  rags  in  order 
to  keej)  their  out- worn  sandals  together  and  protect 
their  feet  (Jos  O"-  '^).  A  similar  appearance  ia 
presented  by  Turkish  troops  at  the  present  day 
when  returning  from  a  jiunitive  expedition  against 
the  Arabs  of  the  desert.  In  the  parable  of  the 
Prodigal  Son  the  absence  of  shoes  is  noted  (Lk  15-). 
In  the  apostolic  injunction  to  have  the  feet  '  shod 
with  the  preparation  of  the  gospel  of  peace '  (Eph 
6'*),  the  s3nibol  of  travel  is  introduced  among 
the  leading  truths  of  the  Christian  life,  making 
progress  one  of  the  permanent  features  of  the 
Christian  Church. 

As  Oriental  peasant  life  has  always  been  in 
villages  and  not  in  solitary  houses,  the  shoes  were 
constantlj-  covered  with  dust  and  defiled  with  mud 
and  refuse,  and  consequently  were  left  at  the  door 
of  the  house.  This  custom,  beginning  with  ordinary 
comfort  and  cleanliness,  received  a  new  emphasis 
w^hen  the  entrance  was  into  a  house  of  prayer  and 
into  the  presence  of  One  who  required  cleanliness 
of  heart.  Hence  the  removal  of  the  shoes  on  holy 
ground  (Ex  3°,  Jos  5'^,  Is  20=,  Ac  7**).  The  custom 
IS  still  observed  in  Oriental  churches  and  mosques. 
It  was  the  inevitable  result  of  such  connexions 
that  any  reference  to  the  shoe  and  the  thong  or 
latchet  that  passed  through  the  sandal  loops  was 
one  of  implied  inferiority  and  contempt  (Mk  1", 
Jn  1",  Ac  13=^).  'You  are  my  shoe  !  'You  are 
under  my  shoe  ! '  are  exclamations  of  abuse  often 
heard  in  the  streets  of  Oriental  villages  and  towns. 

2.  The  shoe  of  witness  (Dt  259- '»,  Ru  4'-  8).— From 
the  latter  passage  we  learn  that  it  was  an  ancient 
custom  in  Israel,  when  property  was  sold  or  any 
right  given  up,  to  take  oft'  the  sandal  and  hand  it 
to  the  purchaser  or  the  person  to  whom  the  right 
was  transferred.  In  the  former  passage  the  hus- 
band's brother  allows  his  sandal  to  be  taken  oflF  by 
the  widow,  who  at  the  same  time  reproaches  him 
both  by  act  and  word  for  renouncing  an  honourable 
privilege  and  duty.  The  removal  of  the  shoe 
became  a  sort  of  documentary  evidence.  The 
possession  of  one  shoe  bj-  the  widow  was  to  her 
like  a  bill  of  divorce  to  a  betrothed  or  married 
woman,  setting  her  free  to  marry  another  ;  and  the 
possession  of  the  corresponding  shoe  by  the  man 
remained  his  protective  proof  that  all  claims  had 
been  formally  settled. 

3.  '  Upon  Edom  will  I  cast  my  ihoe'  (Ps  60*= 
lOS"). — From  the  context  the  leading  idea  in  this 
expression  appears  to  be  Ihat  oi  tn Icing  possession 
of  oT  claiming  as  one's  uini.  Possibly  the  casting 
of  the  shoe  upon  a  piece  of  land  may  have  been  a 
legal  symbol,  similar  to  that  considered  above,  of 
a  claim  to  ownership.  Or  the  meaning  may  be, 
'  Unto  Edom  do  I  cast  my  shoe,'  Edom  being  then 
represented  as  the  slave  to  whom  his  master  tosses 
his  sandals  (see  Driver,  Par.  P.mU.'d.  169).  Duhm 
also  suggests  that  the  allusions  to  Edom  and  Moab 
are  designedly  contemptuous,  the  latter  being 
represented  as  a  washing-basin  for  the  feet,  while 
Edom  is  thought  of  as  a  kind  of  corner  into  which 
dirty  shoes  may  be  cast. 

The  '  shoes '  (AV  and  RVm)  of  Dt  33=»  should  be 
'bolts'  or  '  bars'  (KV).  The  Heb.  is  '7^:-  (cf.  'jiyju 
of  Ca  5',  Neh  3'-  «■  "•  "• ").  G.  M.  Mackib. 

SHOHAM  (nny  [on  this  word  see  art.  0nyx]j 
B  'Iffod/i,  A  'I<r<rod/i,  Luc.  'leaain). — A  Merarite, 
1  Ch  24". 

SHOMER.— 1.  1  Ch  7".  See  Shemer,  No.  a 
2.  2  K  12-'.     See  Shimeath. 

SHOPHACH.— See  Shobach. 


SIIOSHAXXIM 


SnU.MATHlTES 


509 


SHOSHANNIM,    SHOSHANNIM    EDUTH.— See 

Psalms,  p.  155'. 

SHOVEL.— 1.  [v;],  only  in  plur.  O'y;  (from  root 
.-j"=  '  swecji  together,'  with  collat.  idea  of  carrying 
atcay.  Is  28"  toiily]),  occurs  9  times  (Ex  27*  38^ 
Nu  4"  [all  V],  1  K  T*"-",  2  K  25",  2  Ch  4"-",  Jer 
52'*),  always  in  a  list  of  utensils  belonging  to  the 
tabernacle  or  the  temple.  Tliere  is  no  re.ison  to 
doubt  tliat  shovels  for  removing  tlie  ashes  from 
the  altar  are  meant  (cf.  AVm  note  at  Jer  52'*). 

The  LXX  hug  in  IK  T*)-  «» (M.  H)  »,fix^rrput  ('  tonffS  or 
pincen'  for  taking  hold  of  hot  metal  or  coals),  in  2  K  25'^  it 
transliterates  i^fjLi^t  (so  B ;  A  strangely  luMTta.).  In  the  other 
passages  uf  tile  LXX  either  the  Heb.  word  is  not  represented  at 
all,  or  it  is  dillicult  to  say  what  stands  for  it  in  the  Gr.  text, 
which  differs  from  the  MT  both  in  the  order  and  in  the  number 
of  utensiU  mentioned. 

2.  nr-i  Is  30^  [only].  This  stands  for  the  broad, 
shallow  winnowing  shovel  (the  irrioi'  of  Mt  3'-,  Lk 
3" ;  cf.  the  use  of  tlie  Gr.  word  [not  found  in 
LXX]  in  Horn.  //.  xiii.  588  ;  Aeschyl.  Fr.  194  ; 
Sophocl.  Fr.  931  ;  Theocr.  vii.  156)  with  wliich 
com  after  threshing  was  thrown  up  against  the 
wind  to  clear  it  of  the  chatl'.  It  is  to  be  distin- 
guished from  the  'T;!?  (Arab,  midra)  mentioned 
along  with  it  in  Is  30"  (elsewhere  only  Jer  15' 
fig.  of  winnowing,  i.e.  chastising,  the  people),* 
which  was  a  fork  with  5  or  6  prongs,  used  in  the 
process  of  winnowing,  along  with  the  nn-i,  in  the 
way  described  in  art.  AGRICULTURE,  vol.  i.  p.  51*, 
where  both  instruments  are  figured  (cf.  Wetzstein 
an.  Del.  Jes.-  707fl".).  The  EV  of  I.s  30=^  would 
therefore  be  improved  by  reading  '  winnowed  with 
the  shovel  and  with  the  fork '  for  '  winnowed  with 
the  shovel  and  with  the  fan.'  The  word  'fan,' 
which  is  misleading  at  best,  ought,  if  retained 
in  our  version  at  all,  to  be  used  for  nrn,  not  for 
Tip.  J.  A.  Selbie. 

SHREWD.— Sir  8'"  only,  •  Open  not  thine  heart 
to  every  man,  lest  he  requite  thee  with  a  shrewd 
turn'  (itai  fiii  dvaifiep^Tu  cot  x^-P'" '■  tbe  sense,  saj's 
Bissell,  is  given  correctly  bj'  AV,  x"/""  meanin" 
here  '  an  ill  turn  '  ;  but  RV  renders  literally,  '  And 
let  him  not  return  thee  a  favour.'  [Is  '  shrewd  '  a 
tr.  of  \p(i'oij,  which  is  read  before  x"/""  i"  some 
good  M.SS  and  by  the  'La.t.falsam  gratiam':]). 

The  Eng.  word  'shrewd'  iB  a  participial  adj.  meaning 
'maliciouB,  originally  the  ptcp.  of  Mreic^n,  to  curse.  The  verb 
$hreieen  was  formed  from  the  subst.  'shrew,'  an  Anglo-Sax. 
word,  meaning  a  scolding  or  cursing  person,  usually  a  woman. 
Id  Shaks.  '  shrewd  *  has  the  general  sense  of  '  bad  ' ;  it  is  applied 
to  the  contents  of  a  paper,  to  news,  to  days  and  nights.  The 
modern  sense  of '  clever '  perhaps  occurs  in  Troit.  and  C'rens.  I.  ii. 
200 — '  He  has  a  shrewd  wit,  I  can  tell  you.'  But  the  usual 
meaning  is  ' sharp-tongued,"  'shrewish,'  as  in  Much  Adn,  ii.  i.  20, 
'Thou  wilt  never  get  thee  a  husband,  if  thou  be  so  shrewd  of  thy 
tfmgue.'  The  expression  in  Sira<;h  (a 'shrewd  turn')  occurs  in 
All  I  WrII,  III.  V.  71  and  Uenn/  VIII.  v.  iii.  178.  So  Latimer, 
6Vwn  A>r7/ioii*,  96,  'The  greatest  man  in  a  realme  can  not  so 
hurte  a  judge  as  the  poore  wj'ddow,  suche  a  shrcwcde  tunie  she 

cwidobiin.'  J.  Hastings. 

SHRINE.- See  under  Diana,  vol.  i.  p.  6(i6'. 

SHROUD. — Coming  from  the  Anglo-Sax.  scrud,  a 
gainient  (connected  with  shred,  as  a  portion  tnrn 
off  for  some  purpose),  'shroud'  meant  originally 
any  piece  of  clothing.  Thus  Piers  Pluwiimn, 
I'lol.  i— 

'  I  shope  me  in  shroudes  as  I  a  shepe  [  ■shepherd]  were. 
Id  habitti  as  an  hereniit«  unholy  of  workes ' ; 

•The  verb  .111  In  the  sense  of  'fan,'  'winnow,* 'sift,' occurs 
(In  (Jal  and  Piel)  as  follows :  Ru  S>,  Is  30«  41'«  (mountains  as 
object).  Jer  4"  (Og.  of  purillcatlon,  I  Ijn'-)  16'(ng.,  see  above), 
Ps  1308  (fig.,  'thou  siftest  (or  winnowest,  i.e.  ecrutini^est  nar. 
rowly]  my  path  and  my  couch,'— Driver,  Par.  Pmlt.  ad  l->c.). 
Elsewhere  the  root  haw  the  sense  of  'acatter,'  'disperse'  (<^al, 
Piel)  or  ■  be  scattered '  (Niph.,  Pual). 


and  Chapman,  Odi/sscys,  vi.  274 — 

'Give  my  nakedness 
Some  shroud  to  shelter  it,  if  to  these  seas 
Linen  or  woollen  you  have  brought  to  cleanse.* 

Bnt  the  meaning  was  soon  restricted  to  clothing 
for  the  dead,  a  winding-sheet.  So  usually  ia 
Shaks.,  as  Love's  Labour's  Lost,  V.  iL  479 — 

*  Die  when  you  will,  a  smock  shall  be  your  shroud.' 
There  was,  however,  a  side  application  of  the  word, 
to  express  covering  or  shelter  of  any  kind.     Thus 
Milton,  Comus,  147 — 

'  Bun  to  your  shrouds,  within  these  brakes  and  trees  ; 

and  PL  x.  1067— 

"The  winds 
Blow  moist  and  keen,  shattering  the  gr.aceful  locks 
Of  these  fair  spreading  trees  :  which  bids  us  seek 
Some  better  shroud,  some  better  warmth  to  cherish 
Our  limbs  benumb'd.' 

This  is  the  meaning  of  the  word  in  Ezk  31',  its 
only  occurrence  in  AV,  '  Behold,  the  Assyrian  was 
a  cedar  in  Lebanon  with  fair  branches,  and  with  a 
sh.idowing  shroud'  (Heb.  v-<n,  a  thicket  or  forest; 
LXX  omits;  \ u]g.  frondibus  nemorosn.9). 

J.  Ha.stings. 
SKUA  (P!?).— The  father  of  Judali's  Canaanite 
wife,  Gn  38--  '^  (A  ^aia,  Luc.  SoiV),  who  appears 
in  1  Ch  2''  (RV)  as  Bath-shua  (B  evyd-njp  ACas, 
A  .  .   .   -alias,  Luc.   .   .  .   Zoiie). 

SHUAH  (ncJ).— A  son  of  Abraham  and  ^Cetnrah, 
Gn  25-,  1  Ch  l**  (A  ^aie,  Luc.  SoOt,  B  in  latter 
passage  ZQc).  The  tribe  represented  by  this  name 
may  perhaps  be  the  Suchu  of  the  cuneiform  in- 
scriptions, on  the  right  bank  of  the  Euphrates 
.■iouth  of  Carclieniish  (so  Dillm.,  Holzinger,  ct  at.). 
BlLDAD  the  Shuhite  ("tod)  of  Job  2"  (o  lavxaluv 
Tipavvoi)  8'  18'  25'  4'2"  (6  1avx(c)iTTi%)  is  prob.  intended 
to  be  thought  of  sis  belonging  to  this  tribe. 

SHUAL  (Si'v;' ;  B  ZouXd,  A  ZoviX,  Luc.  Zoviv).— 
An  Asherite,  1  Ch  7"*. 

SHUAL,  The  Land  of  (S^ie'  px  '  the  land  of  the 
jackal ' ;  B  ^  -uydX,  Luc.  t;  717  i;arydX). — When  the 
Philistines  encamped  at  >iichmash,  they  .sent  out 
three  foragin"  parties.  One  of  these  '  turned  unto 
the  way  that  leadeth  to  Ophrah,  unto  the  land  of 
Shual'  (1  S  13").  Another  iiarty  went  westward 
towards  Beth-horon,  and  the  tliird  apjiarently  east- 
ward toward  tlie  wilderness.  The  road  to  Ujihrah 
must  have  run  northward  between  the  last  two 
routes,  and  the  'land  of  Shual'  must  conseijuently 
have  been  to  the  north  of  .Michmash  {Mulhmds), 
and  not  far  from  Opiirali,  wliich  is  very  generally 
identified  with  the  village  et-Taiyibeh,  to  the  east  of 
Bethel  {PEF  Mem.  ii.  293).  C.  W.  Wilson. 

SHUBAEL.— See  Shebuel. 

SHUHAH  (nij:c»).— A  brother  of  Chelub  (».«. 
Caleb),  1  Ch  4".  Instead  of  'Chelub  the  brother 
of  .Shuhah,'  LXX  MA  read  XaW/3  Tra-rijp  'A(rxi, 
'Caleb,  father  of  Ascha'  (i.e.  AcilsAll,  Jos  IS'"-, 
Jg  !"»•,  1  Ch  2*») ;  Luc.  has  XoXt';3  i  dSe\<pit  Sowo. 

SHUHAM  (criie»).— A  son  of  Dan,  Nu  26«  (B  lap^tl, 
A  Za/ieioi'i,  V  ^aftl,  Luc.  :LatU),  called  in  Gn  46" 
HusiiiM.  The  gentilic  name  Shuhamites  ('"Twci; 
B  6  Sa/ifl,  .\  6  -afjidSiil,  F  i  ^afii,  Luc.  4  2oM«i)  also 
occurs  in  Nu  '26". 

SHUHITE.— See  Shuah. 

SHULAMMITE.— See  Song  of  Songs. 

SHUMATHITES  (-nv^ij ;  B  ' Baafmetlpi,  A  'Baaua- 


510 


SHUXAilMITE 


SHUSHAX 


6ely,  Luc.  6  ^a/ia$i).  —  One  of  the  families  of 
Kiriath-^earim,  1  Cli  2°*.  Nothing  is  known  of 
this  family,  or  the  origin  of  its  name. 

SHUNAMMITE.— See  next  article. 

SHUNEM  (cri?  ;  in  Joshua  B  :S,ovi>ip,  A  ^owdfi, 
Luc.  —wij/i ;  in  I  Sam.  I!  ami  Luc.  Zmi-idf,  A 
Vufajxif  ;  in  2  Kinf;s  B  -ovfiai',  B"  ""»  Luc.  Xuiyudp, 
A*""  SiuKi/i,  A'  -iw/id/t). — A  place-name  men- 
tioned three  times  in  the  OT  (Jos  19'^  1  S  28S 
2  K  4*).  In  Jo.shua  it  is  named  in  the  enumeration 
of  the  towns  and  villages  belonging  to  I.ssachar. 
Eusebius-Jerome  identify  it  with  a  village  5 
Koman  miles  south  of  Tabor,  in  their  time  called 
ZouMti  (Lag.  0710111.'  pp.  183,  284).  There  is  still  a 
hamlet  in  this  same  locality  named  Siilc7H  or 
Sulam.  It  lies  on  the  slopes  of  Jebel  Dalii,  the 
hill  which  faces  Jezreel  from  the  north.  It  looks 
across  to  Gilboa,  which  bounds  the  southern  side 
of  the  valley  that  lies  at  the  foot  of  Jebel  Dahi. 
It  has  therefore  been  identihed  with  the  camping- 
ground  of  the  Philistines  before  their  victory  over 
Saul  (1  .S  28'').  Saul's  army  is  supposed  to  have 
occupied  the  ground  at  the  foot  of  Gilboa.  If  so, 
the  valley  laj-  between  the  hostile  armies.  It 
runs  eastward  from  Jezreel  (Zer'in)  to  the  Jordan. 
Shunem  is  almost  at  its  N.W.  extremity.  The 
district  is  described  in  Robinson,  BllP  iii.  168  ff. 

There  il  precedent  for  distinf^ishing  the  Shunem  of  2  K  4^ 
from  that  already  identified.  Kusebius-Jerome  eay  it  was  a 
place  in  the  territorj'of  Sebaste (Samaria),  i.  iptoK  5.,  within  the 
district  of  Akrabatta  (Lag.  Onom.^  pp.  184,  24i.5).  They  give 
Sanim  as  the  later  name.  If  Akrabatta  is  the  'toparchy' 
earlier  known  as  part  of  Judiea,  lying  considerably  south-east  of 
Samaria,  it  is  too  far  from  Cxrmel  to  be  very  probable.  But 
even  Sdlam  is  not  within  the  easy  reach  of  Cannel  implied  by 
v.22ir..  The  statement  that  Elisha  frequently  passed  Shunem 
(v.9)  gives  more  help  than  any  other  in  determining  its  situa- 
tion. It  seems  to  nnply  that  Shunem  was  a  place  near  his 
home  or  on  the  direct  road  to  a  locality  which  he  frequented. 
Now  Samaria  was  Elisha's  home  (6^5^-9,  cf.  t'^),  and  Carmel 
appears  to  have  been  a  favourite  resort  and  the  destination 
of  his  journeys  when  he  passed  through  Shunem  (4^^,  cf.  2^5). 
But  Sulam  is  8  or  9  hours  from  Samaria,  and  decidedl.v  off  the 
road  from  there  to  Carmel.  The  claim  of  Sanira  should  there- 
fore perhaps  be  left  open.  Whether  it  was  near  Samaria  or  not, 
if  it  lay  on  the  way  to  Carmel  the  situation  would  be  more 
appropriate  than  that  of  Solam.  Near  Taaiiach  a  place  Salim 
is  marked  on  the  maps.  It  is  not  far  from  the  eastern  ex- 
tremity of  Carmel,  and  might  be  made  a  stopping-place  on  the 
way  from  Samaria. 

An  inhabitant  of  Shunem  is  a  Shunammite  (n-SK' 
n'EjiB'  ;  B  ZufiapelTis,  A  (in  Kings  generallj')  -ovfxai'- 
(t7)5,  Luc.  Zu^a^irij),  jjcrhaps  .also  called  a  Shnlam- 
mite  (see  SoNG  OF  SoNGS,  p.  532*').  The  vowel  of 
the  second  syllable  is  in  both  cases  a,  as  it  is  in 
the  oldest  spellings  of  the  place-n.ime  also  (LXX 
and  the  Egyptian  tr.'iiiscri|)tion  Sbanama  [Shanmii] 
given  by  W.  M.  Miiller,  Asieti  u.  Eiiropa,  p.  170). 
The  interchange  of  the  /  and  the  n  is  further  ex- 
emplified in  the  modern  name  SOlam  compared 
with  Shunem.  The  former  may  be  a  variant 
which  existed  even  in  biblical  times. 

Two  women  are  designated  Shunammites  in 
the  Old  Testament.  One  is  AbisiiaG  (1  K  !»• " 
on.  21.  22)  xhe  other  is  simply  named  '  the 
Shunammite  '  (2  K  4'"  "•  *").  She  is  one  of  those 
who  play  a  part  in  the  history  of  Elisha  (2  K  4'" 
8'").  Her  own  history  is  interesting  as  a  picture 
of  domestic  and  social  life,  and  particularly  as  an 
example  of  the  position  a  Hebrew  woman  might 
occupy  at  the  head  of  a  household.  Her  power 
of  initiative  and  freedom  to  act  are  prominent 
features  in  the  narrative.  It  would  almost  appear 
as  if  she  were  proprietor  of  the  land  which  belonged 
to  the  family,  or  perhaps  rather  an  heiress  who 
had  brought  wealth  to  her  husband  (4'  'a  great 
woman,'  cf.  1  S  '2'>-,  2  K  4'"  8').  It  has  been  supposed 
that  by  the  date  of  the  events  recorded  in  ch.  8  she 
was  a  widow.  Even  in  these  circumstances  her  in- 
dependence is  notable.  W.  B.  Stevexson. 


SHUNI  Cjic').— A  son  of  Gad,  Gn  46"  (A  Zawlt. 
I)  and  Luc.  Za.n-Ws),  Nu  2G'»<">  (B  Zomd,  AF  2oi/»(, 
Luc.  "Zuvvl).  Tlie  gentilic  name  Shunites  (•)'»■!) 
also  occurs  in  the  latter  passage. 

SHUPHAM,  SHUPHAMITES,   SHUPPIM.— See 

MUPI'I.M  and  Shei'HUPHAM. 

SHUR  (■»=> ;  LXX  usually  lovp,  but  Gn  25"  ZonjX, 
1  S  15'  AcTffoi'p,  27'  a  confused  doublet  -\toD/j  ■.•treixiff- 
liivuv). — The  name  of  a  place,  or  district,  on  the 
N.E.  border  of  Egypt.  It  is  mentioned  Gn  16' 
(where  the  angel  hnds  Hagar  '  by  the  fountain  on 
the  way  to  Shur'),  20'  (Abraham  dwelt  '  between 
Kadesli  and  Shur,  and  sojourned  in  Gerar'),  25" 
(the  Ishmaelites  dwelt  'from  I;Iavilah — prob.  N.E. 
Arabia — unto  Shur  that  is  in  front  of — i.e.  east  of 
—Egypt' ;  cf.  1  S  15'  27»),  and  Ex  15=^  (where  the 
Israelites,  after  the  passage  of  the  Red  Sea,  go  out 
into  '  the  wilderness  of  Shur,'  t.e.  the  wilderness 
bordering  upon  it).  The  '  way  to  Shur '  was  no 
doubt  the  principal  caravan  route  leadin"  from 
Uebron  and  Beersheba  into  ECTpt,  and  liaving 
close  to  it  (Gn  16'^)  the  well  Beer-Iahai-roi. 
Though  the  general  position  of  Shur  is  thus 
clear,  the  precise  meaning  of  the  expression  is, 
however,  uncertain.  A  line  of  fortresses,  if  not, 
as  others  think,  an  actual  wall  (anhu),  had 
been  built  at  a  very  early  date,  as  a  defence 
against  invaders  from  the  East ;  *  and  as  the 
Heb.  -f.-j  means  a  wall,  it  has  been  often  thought 
that  this  is  what  the  term  denotes.t  Others, 
starting  from  the  same  meaning  of  '  Shur,'  have 
supposed  it  to  denote  a  long  range  of  white  clift's, 
running  parallel  with  the  coast,  some  12-14  miles 
E.  of  the  Gulf  of  Suez,  now  called  Jebel  er-Rrdiah, 
which  at  a  distance  presents  the  appearance  of  a 
wall  (so  F.  W.  Holland  in  Recovery  of  Jems,  ail ; 
Porter  in  Kitto,  iii.  1079  f.;  Palmer,  Desert  of 
Exodus,  i.  38  f.,  and  others) :  it  is  said,  indeed,  that 
this  range  is  still  called  by  the  Arabs  Jebel  es-Sftr 
(Rowlands  in  "Williams'  Holy  City,  i.  465).  It  is, 
however,  some  objection  to  both  tlie.se  views  that 
i-c'  is  an  Aramaic  (Ezr  4'^-  "• '")  rather  than  a  Heb. 
word  (it  occurs  in  Heb.  only  in  poetry,  and  there 
but  rarely,  Gn  49",  Ps  18-'»=2  S  22^"),  and  also  that 
it  has  not  the  art.  (as  is  usual  with  topographical 
terras  possessing  an  appellative  force,  e.g.  ■iJTiCi 
I'-tj'C).  The  most  important  of  the  border  fortresses 
referred  to  above  was  Ta-ru  (Tor),  the  Selle  of  the 
classical  writers,  often  mentioned  as  the  starting- 
point  of  military  expeditions  (Ebers,  I.e.  80  f.  ; 
Maspero,  I.e.  75  [map],  201  ?!.  4,  and  esp.  Struggle 
of  the  Nations,  122f.,  370,  371  i.;t  Erman,  537),  now 
tell  Aba-S6feh,  20  miles  S.  of  Port  Said  ;  and  \V. 
M.  Miiller  (PSBA  x.  [1888],  476,  As.  u.  Eur.  102) 
would  identify  this  fortress  with  Shur,  supjiosin" 
'Shur '(wall)  to  be  its  original  name,  represented 
in  Egyp.  by  Ja-ru  {Ior).i  S.  R.  DRIVER. 

SHUSHAN  (\<?>^,  Zoma,  Zou<rd»).— The  Snsa  (Ad. 
Est  IF)  of  the  Greeks,  now  Sus  or  Shush  in 
S.W.  Persia,   between  the  Shapur  and  the  river 

•  .Masi)ero,  Dawn  of  Ciiyil.  351  f.  Il  is  mentioned  in  the 
Flight  of  Sinuhit,  under  Usertesen  i.  (B.C.  275S-2714,  Petrie) ; 
iljid.  489  n.,  471  ;  Petrie,  F.qi(p.  Tales,  i.  100  f. ;  \V.  M.  .Miiller, 
^».  «.  Kur.  43 f. ;  Sajce,  UC'M  203  ;  Hogarth,  .4 uf A.  awl  .itch. 
67  f.  See  also  Ebers,  Af^].  u.  die  Bb.  Mose's,  78-82 ;  Trumbull, 
Katlesh-Bariua,  44  ff.  The  names  and  destinations  of  persons 
passing  these  fortresses  were  taken  down  by  officers :  see 
Erman,  Life  in  Ancient  Equpt,  537  f. ;  Hogarth,  i.e.  60. 

t  Brumich,  Uist.  of  Eiiypt,  ed.  IS91,  p.  97  ;  Sayce,  EBH  187 ; 
Tnimbull,  46,  57.     Dillni.  also  thinks  it  probable. 

J  With  representations  (from  Kamak)  of  Seti  I.  returning  to  il 
in  triumph  after  his  Syrian  expedition,  in  the  course  of  which 
he  is  said  to  have  annihilated  the  Shasu  (Bedawin)  'from  the 
fortress  of  Ta-ru,  as  far  as  Pa-Kan* ana"  Iprob.  a  little  S.  of 
Hebron!  (Brugsch,  I.e.  244  ;  Hogarth,  68). 

$  Hommel  conjectures  that  Shur  is  abbreviated  from  A'shOr 
(cf.  Gn  2.=i3),  the  name  of  a  trit)e  mentioned  by  the  side  of  Egypt 
(and  Gaza)  in  t\vo  Mimean  inscriptions  (AHT  2:ii^-45,  249,  -.'.2, 
253).    But  see  Konig,  Fun/neue  arab.  Landxchafttnainen,  17  • 


SHUSHAN 


SIBRAIM 


511 


of  Dizful  (the  ancient  Koprates).  It  was  for 
many  centurioj  the  capital  of  Elara,  ami  after- 
wards one  of  the  three  capitals  of  tlie  Persian 
empire,  and  is  sometimes  uescrihed  as  standing 
on  the  Choaspes  (Hdt.  v.  49;  Strab.  xv.  3.  4), 
sometimes  on  the  Eul.-eus  (Arr.  Exp.  Alex.  vii. 
7  ;  rtol.  vi.  3 ;  I'lin.  UN  vi.  27).  This  was  due 
to  the  fact  that  the  Choaspes  (now  the  Ker- 
khah)  originally  bifurcated  at  Pai  Pul,  20  miles 
above  Si:sa,  its  riglit  branch  fol!owin<,'  its  present 
course,  while  tlie  left  branch  flowed  east  of 
Susa,  ab>orbin;^  the  Shapur  12  miles  to  the 
south  and  afterwards  joining  the  Pasitigris  (now 
the  Karun).  The  ruins  of  Susa  were  excavated  by 
Williams  and  Loftus  in  1851-1802,  and  more  re- 
cently l)y  Dieulafoy  and  de  Morgan.  They  covered 
a  space  about  6000  ft.  long  from  E.  to  W.,  by  4.')00 
ft.  broad  from  N.  to  S.  The  greater  part  of  them, 
however,  cover  the  buildings  of  the  Persian,  not 
of  the  Elamite,  city.  On  the  west  is  the  high 
mound  which  marks  the  site  of  the  Elamite  cita- 
del. East  of  it  are  the  remains  of  the  palace  of 
Darius  Hj'sta.spis,  and  immediately  to  the  nortli 
the  ruins  of  the  Apadana  or  audience-chamlier, 
also  the  work  of  Darius,  which  was  restored  by 
Artaxerxes  Longimanus  after  a  lire,  and  again  by 
Artax.  Mnemon.  The  walls  of  the  Apadana  and 
palace  were  adorned  with  exquisite  friezes  of  enam- 
elled brick,  much  of  which  is  now  in  the  Louvre,  i 

Susa  is  probably  referred  to  in  Bab.  documents 
of  the  age  of  the  second  dyn.asty  of  Ur  [c.  H.C. 
2400)  under  the  name  of  Sas  and  Sisa,  which  is 
stated  to  be  a  city  of  Elam,  but  the  native  name 
was  Susiin.  This  seems  to  be  connected  with  the 
words  suse-ti  and  sassa,  which  in  the  older  and 
later  Susian  dialects  signilied  'former,'  and  so 
would  mean  'the  old'  city.  In  the  early  d.ays 
of  Bab.  historj',  however,  the  chief  city  of  Elam 
was  not  Susa,  but  Anz.an.  Already  in  n.C.  22S.J, 
Kudur-Nankhundi,  king  of  Elam,  carried  away 
the  image  of  the  goddess  Nana  from  Erech  to  Susa. 
Susa,  however,  has  been  shown  by  the  recent  exca- 
vations of  de  Morgan  to  have  still  been  at  this 
time  a  province  of  Babylonia,  inhahited  by  a 
Semitic  popul.ation.  It  was  not  until  after  the 
rise  of  the  Kassite  Dynasty  in  Babylonia  that  the 
kings  of  Anzan  made  themselves  masters  of  it. 
Prom  this  time  forward  Susa  was  the  capital  of 
the  non- Semitic  Elamite  sovereigns,  many  of 
whose  names  have  been  recorded  in  the  inscrip- 
tions of  Babylonia  as  well  as  in  those  of  Elam 
itself.  These  latter,  though  written  in  the  Bab. 
cuneiform  characters,  are  in  the  agglutinative  lan- 
guage of  Elam,  which  was  closely  allied  to  the 
Amardian  or  Neo-Susian  dialect  of  the  second 
colunm  of  the  Acha'menian  inscrijitious,  and  is 
Btill  l)Ut  partiall}'  deciphered. 

About  B.C.  047,  after  a  long  and  desperate 
struggle,  the  Elamite  forces  were  annihilated  by 
the  Assyr.  army  of  Assurbanipul,  and  Susa  was 
captured  and  razed  to  the  ground.  The  images 
of  its  gods  and  kings  were  taken  to  Assyria, 
and  the  monuments  of  its  former  jirinces  were 
destroyed,  the  bones  of  their  occupants  being 
scattered  to  the  winds.  When  Susa  rose  again 
from  its  ashes  we  do  not  know;  Xenophon  {t'l/r. 
viii.  6.  22)  and  Strabo  (xv.  3.  2)  state  that  Cyrus 
made  it  his  cajiital  (see  also  Hdt.  iii.  30.  Gj,  70) ; 
but  its  palace,  according  to  inscriptions  found  on 
the  site,  was  built  by  Darius  Hystaspis.  In  Dn  a'' 
the  prophet  is  said  to  have  had  a  vision  '  at 
Shushan  the  palace'  in  'the  third  year  of  Bel- 
shazzar,'  but  Belshazzar  never  actually  reigned 
over  Babylonia.  An  account  of  the  palace  in  the 
time  of  -Xerxes  is  given  in  Est  1-''.  When  Su.sa 
was  entered  by  Alexander  the  Creat,  he  found  in 
It  twelve  millions  sterling  and  the  Persian  regalia 
(Arr.  Exp.  Alex.  iii.    16).     After  the  rise  of  the 


kingdom  of  the  Seleucids,  Susa  gradually  fell  intc 
decay,  being  superseiled  by  Baljyion  and  Seleucia. 
When  the  kingdom  of  tlie  !Sa.s.sanids  was  conquered 
by  the  Arabs,  the  site  of  Susa  was  linally  deserted. 
(Loftus,  Chdidfvn  and  Stisiaiin,  1857;  Dieulafoy,  La 
Pcrsc,  la  ChiiUUe  ct  la  Siisiime,  1.S87,  L'Acrojmle 
de  Susc,  1890  ;  Billerbeck,  Susn,  18il3  ;  de  Morgan, 
DiUgation  en  Perse,  vol.  ii.,  lontaining  the  .Semitic 
inscriptions  found  at  Susa,  edited  by  Seheil,  I'JOO). 

A.  II.  Savce. 
SHUSHANCHITES  (N:?J?hc* ;  B  Zomwaxo-'^oi,  A 
SoKcroi'ttxaioi). — The  Shushanchitesor  inhabitants  of 
SuusHAN  (Susa)  are  mentioned  in  Ezr  4"  amongst 
the  colonists  settled  by  O.SNAPPAU  (Assurbanipal) 
in  Samaria  (cf.  KAT^  375 f.,  610 f.). 

SHUSHAN  EDUTH.— See  Psalms,  p.  155*. 

SHUTHELAH  {nh:^>a;  B  SoirrdXa  in  Numbers, 
lijiBiXaB  in  1  Chronicles ;  A  BuirovaaKa.  and  9oi>- 
aoKa  in  Numbers,  ^utidXa  and  '^uBiXe  in  1  Chron- 
icles ;  Vulg.  Siit/iala  ;  gentilic  name  Shuthelah- 
ites  "n^fv'C  ;  B  6  -om-aXael,  A  6  Qoi'aaXal).  —  In  Nu 
•2(335-37  (psj  Shuthelah,  Becher,  and  Tahan  are  given 
as  the  clans  of  Ephraim,  and  Eran  as  a  'son'  or 
subdivision  of  Shuthelah.  In  the  LXX  Becher  is 
omitted,  Tahan  becomes  Tanach,  and  Eran  (pj?) 
becomes  Eden  (pv).  The  parallel  passage  1  Ch 
yjo-as  i^g^g  been  variously  altered  and  expanded  ; 
instead  of  a  Ii.st  of  three  co-ordinate  el.ans  and  one 
subdivision,  MT  has  a  genealogj'  beginning  with 
Ephniim  and  extending  to  Joshua,  into  which  is 
inserted  an  episode  concerning  certain  descendants 
of  Ephraim  (for  which  see  Beeiah).  Instead  of 
Shutiielah,  Becher,  and  Tahan  as  clans  of  Epliraim 
we  have  Shuthelah  as  the  son,  Bered  the  grand- 
son, Tahath  the  great-giandson  of  Ephraim.  As 
the  genealogy  proceeds  the  names  repeat  them- 
selves. There  is  a  second  Shuthelah,  and  tlie  'and 
Telali '  (nSni)  of  v."  is  probably  a  tor.so  of  a  third. 
Tahath  occurs  again  in  v.*,  and  Talian  of  v.^  is  a 
variant  of  Tahath.  Eleadah  and  Elead  (v.™'-)  are 
variants  of  the  same  name  ;  Zabad  is  a  variant  of 
'and  Bered.'  Ladan  (p>'^)  may  be  a  variant  of 
Elead  (lySx),  and  also  represent  the  'to  Eran' 
(py'7)  of  Numbers.  Thus  in  r."  'Shuthelah.  .  . 
Ele.adah,'  (v.-'»')  '[Tahath]  .  .  .  Elead,'  (v.'^') 
'[Shu]T[li]elah  .  .  .  Ladan,'  we  seem  to  have  three 
versions  of  the  same  genealogy  variously  supple- 
mented, all  three,  perhaps,  ultimately  based  on 
Nu  20'"'"'',  combined  with  some  other  source,  in 
which  Ezer  and  Elead  were  subdivisions  of  the 
clan  Shuthelah.     Cf.  Genealogy,  VII.  4. 

LXX  B  has  for  v.a>f-  'And  the  sons  of  Ephraim:  Sothalath. 
The  801)8  of  Laiula.  Noomc  his  son,  Zabed  his  son.  the  nion  of 
Guth,'  etc.  The  oinis44ioiis  may  he  due  to  tlie  earelessiiess  of 
scribes,  but  it  is  also  possilile  that  the  nanus  oiuitlerl  by  L,\.\ 
were  a  very  late  addition  to  MT.  W.  11.  BEN'NE'I'T. 

SHUTTLE.— Only  Job  7«  '  My  days  are  swifter 
than  a  weaver's  shuttle  '  (J^K,  prop.  '  loom  '  ;  cf.  Jg 
16"  [the  only  other  occurrence  of  the  Ueh.  wordj 
and  Alooro's  note  there).     See  art.  Weavi.vg. 

SIA  (KV'c),  Neh  7",  or  SIAHA  (xny/p),  Ezr  2".— 
The  name  of  a  family  of  Nethinim  (called  in  1  Eb 
5""  Sua)  who  returned  with  Zerubbabel. 

LXX  in  Neh  7^^ :  B  'Arcuni,  A  ^au«,  X  'I«#mw«,  Luc  'Ittr^eu; 
in  Ezr  2" ;  B  2*ijA,  A^'J  'Aeaet,  Luc.  'lurtat. 

SIBBECAI.— See  Mebunnai. 
8IBB0LETH.— See  Shibboleth. 

SIBMAH  (n;3i;' ;  ^e^aiii,  in  Jcr.  uatp-riiixi ;  Snhama 
Sibama). — See  Seham. 

SIBRAIM  (on?; ;  B  :;j^/)d^.  A  i^eppi/i,  Q,  ZKppalm 


5i: 


SICCUTH 


SIGN 


Sa/jarim). — One  of  the  points  on  the  ideal  nortlu'in 
boundary  of  tlie  Holy  Land,  described  by  EzeUiel, 
was  to  be  '  Sibiaini  which  is  between  the  border 
of  Damascus  and  the  border  of  Ilaniath'  {Ezk47"'). 
Its  site  is  uncertain.  Von  Kasteren  (Huhl,  67) 
would  identify  it  plausibly  with  Khurbet  Som- 
barii/i:,  between  Merj  Ayyun  and  Herinon. 

C.  W.  Wilson. 
SICCUTH.— See  CuiUN  and  Kephan. 

SICKLE  stands  in  EV  of  OT  for  two  Heb. 
words,  the  distinction  between  which  is  not  ap- 
parent.—1.  cb-in  Dt  16^  iP^i  2.  S;?  (cf.  Aram. 
magaltd,  Arab,  'manjal)  Jer^  50  (27) '«,  Jl  4  (3)  " 
(lig.  of  jud{;ment).  The  LXX  in  all  these  pas- 
sages has  opiiravov,  which  is  also  the  XT  word  for 
'sickle'  (Mk  4=^  Rev  U"- '=•'«■  i?- '8 »'»  i»).  See, 
further,  art.  Acricultuue,  and  fig.  in  vol.  i.  p.  50". 

SICYON  (SiKutic,  '^vKvwv,  or  'ZvKiuv). — This  name 
occurs  in  a  list  of  places  in  1  Mac  15^,  to  which 
Lucius,  the  consul,  on  behalf  of  the  Komans,  wrote 
(D.c.  139)  to  beg  them  to  be  friendly  to  the  Jews, 
and  to  deliver  up  to  Simon  tlie  high  priest  any 
fugitives  from  the  Jews  that  had  taken  refuge  with 
them.  All  the  places  mentioned  in  this  passage 
were  constantly  visited  by  the  trading  vessels  from 
Syria  on  their  way  to  Italy.  The  matter  of  the 
letter  is  most  probably  authentic,  though  the  form 
cannot  be  correct. 

Sicyon  is  a  town  on  the  Gulf  of  Corinth,  a  few- 
miles  to  tlie  N.W.  of  Corintli.  The  name  seems 
to  mean  '  cucumber-town.'  Tlie  town  stood  ori- 
ginally on  the  shore  with  an  acropolis  above  it, 
and  this  latter  formed  the  town  in  the  time  of  the 
Maccabees.  In  their  time  it  was  always  to  be 
found  on  the  side  of  the  Romans,  and  the  direction 
of  the  Isthmian  games  was  assigned  by  them  to  the 
inhabitants  of  Sicyon,  though  afterwards  they  were 
deprived  of  it.  It  appears  to  have  been  the  centre 
of  Roman  power  for  that  part  of  the  world. 

H.  A.  Redpath. 

SIDDIM,  YALE  OF  (D«!isTr  ppy  ;  LXX  r,  fdpayi  (or 
/toiXas)  7)  dXuKi) ;  Onk.  Sam.  vale  of  fields  [i.e.  cy^-r}] ; 
on  Aq.  Theod.  see  Field.  The  meaning  of  d--;' 
is  obscure ;  a  connexion  with  Arab,  sidd,  '  dam,' 
'mound' (Conder,  Tent  iryc/v, '208), is  very  doubtful). 
— The  place  in  which  the  kings  of  the  live  cities  of 
the  Kikkar  joined  battle  with  Chedorla'omer  and 
his  allies  (Gn  14^-*) ;  said  in  v."  to  be  full  of  wells 
of  Bitumen  (which  see).  In  v.'  it  is  identilied 
with  the  Salt  Sea ;  but  this  (if  the  entire  sea  is 
meant)  is  geologically  impossible ;  for  the  Dkad 
Sea  existed  ages  before  the  t  ime  of  Abraham  : 
either  therefore  the  clause  v."'  is  a  late  and  in- 
correct gloss,  or  the  reference  (if  the  narrative  is 
historical)  is  to  the  shallow  S.  part  of  the  Dead 
Sea  (from  the  peninsula  el-Lisan  S. -wards),  where, 
in  the  time  of  Abraham,  there  may  have  been  dry 
land.  This  view,  already  allowed  by  Nbldeke  in 
ISO'J,  has  also  been  adopte.l  by  the  two  geologists 
who  have  written  most  recently  upon  the  subject. 
Blanckenhom,  in  an  elaborate  geological  study 
'  On  the  Origin  and  Uistory  of  the  Dead  Sea ' 
^ZDPV,  1896,  1-59),  says  (pp.  51-53)  that  to  the 
'critical  geologist'  the  matter  is  'extremely 
simple  ' :  at  the  beginning  of  the  post-glacial  period 
what  is  now  the  shallow  S.  part  of  the  Dead  Sea 
was  fertile  soil  (like  the  present  Ghur  es-Si)fii/eh, 
at  its  S.E.  corner  [see  Zoar])  ;  but  an  earthquake 
took  place,  which  caused  a  subsidence  of  the 
giounil,  and  overthrew  all  the  cities  except  Zoar  ; 
the  '  Vale  of  Siddim '  was  engulplied  by  the  S. 
)art  of  the  Dead  Sea,  and  the  site  of  the  four  cities 


became  the  present  saline  morass  (6  m.  broad  by 
10  long),  es-Sebkha,"  S.  of  the  Dead  Sea  ;t  a  tradi- 

•  The  word  '  Sebkha '  means  salt  and  watery  grouruL 

I  Against  the  view  that  these  cities  were  at  the  Sorth  CDd  of 


(ion  of  this  prehistoric  event  is  preserved  in  Gn  19, 
wlieie  it  is  connected  with  the  history  of  Lot 
IJlanckeuhorn  considers  that  this  earthquake  wa< 
'  lekl'jnic,'  i.e.  connected  with  a  dislocation  of  the 
earth's  crust,  taking  place  at  a  'fault'  (such  as 
pass  along  both  the  E.  and  the  W.  sides  of  ths 
Dead  Sea).*  Diener,  in  a  criticism  of  his  article.t 
while  agieeing  that  it  was  an  earthquake  which 
destroyed  the  four  cities,  regards  it  not  aa 
'  tektonic,'  but  rather  as  a  local  suljsidence,  accom- 
panied by  an  effusion  of  underground  water,  which 
may  well  have  taken  place  in  the  age  of  Abraham 
(pp.  13-16,  '22) ;  as  a  [larallel  he  quotes  the  earth- 
quake near  Lake  Baikal  (in  Central  Asia)  in  1862, 
which  broke  up  a  large  area  of  the  atljacent 
alluvial  soil,  so  that  it  sank,  and  the  lake  covered 
it.  Blanckenhorn  in  his  reply  (ZDPV,  1898,  H.  2, 
pp.  65-83)  maintains  (pp.  70-76)  that  this  view  is 
improbable,  and  inconsistent  with  the  fact  that  all 
the  conditions  for  a  'tektonic'  earthquake  are 
present  in  the  Jordan  Valley  ;  and  he  supports  his 
opinion  by  quotations  from  two  high  geological 
authorities,  SUss  and  Homes.  Which  of  these  two 
views  is  the  more  probable,  a  writer  who  is  no 
geologist  is  naturally  not  in  a  position  to  say  ; 
perhaps  some  one  sulhciently  conversant  with  the 
geology  of  the  district  could  explain  whether  it 
might  not  be  possible  to  combine  them,  or,  in  other 
word.s,  to  sup]  lose  that  the  '  tektonic '  dislocation, 
producing  the  broader  features  of  the  S.  end  of  the 
Dead  Sea,  took  place  at  the  beginning  of  the  post- 
glacial period,  while  the  local  subsidence,  producing 
the  submergence  of  the  '  Vale  of  Siddim '  under 
the  present  lagoon,  and  overthrowing  the  four  cities, 
may  have  followed  long  aftierwards,  in  the  dajs  of 
Abraham-t  S.  R.  DRIVER. 

SIDE  {'ZlSri ;  Side).— One  of  the  towns  to  which 
the  Roman  Senate  sent  letters  in  favour  of  Simon 
Maccabiieus  and  the  Jews  (1  Mac  15'-^).  It  was 
colonized  by  Cyme,  surrendered  to  Alexander,  be- 
came the  chief  port  of  the  pirates, — who  used  it  as 
a  market  to  dispose  of  their  plunder, — and  was  an 
important  town  under  the  Roman  emperors.  It 
was  closely  connected  with  Aradus  in  Phoenicia, 
and  the  men  of  Side  and  Aradus  fought  side  by 
side  in  the  fleet  of  Antiochus  the  Great  when  it 
was  defeated  by  the  Rhodians  off  the  harbour  of 
Side.  The  town  occupied  a  low  triangular  pro- 
montory on  the  coast  of  Pamphylia.  It  had  two 
harbours,  and  was  strongly  fortified.  The  ruins, 
now  known  as  Eski  Adalia,  are  about  10  miles  east 
of  the  Kcu/iri  Sti,  the  river  Eurymedon,  and  are 
extensive  and  interesting.  They  include  the 
remains  of  a  very  large  theatre,  the  city  walls  and 
their  gates,  temples,  a  nymphiBum,  streets  A-ith 
covered  porticoes,  etc.  (Murray,  Hbk.  to  Asia 
Minor,  p.  173).  C.  W.  WiLSOS. 

SIDON,  SIDONIANS.— See  Zidon,  Zidonians. 

SIGN  (n'lN,  atinetov,  signum)  is  used  throughout 
the  IJible  of  any  sj'mbol  or  token,  but  more  especi- 
ally of  such  as  mark  the  relation  of  man  to  God 
anil  the  providential  care  which  God  lavishes  upon 
men.  Tlie  rainbow  was  the  first  sign  of  this  (Gn 
9'-)  as  the  token  of  a  Divine  covenant.  The  Jews, 
from  the  beginning  of  their  chequered  hiscory, 
counted    themselves    God's    chosen    people ;    and 

the  Dead  Sea,  see  vol.  iii.  p.  151»-  >>,  and  art.  Zoar  ;  it  is  at  the 
S.\V.  corner  of  the  Dead  Sea,  also,  that,  accordintr  to  Blancken- 
hom (pp.  60,  63,  and  Profll  iv.  in  Tafel  iv.),  bitumen  deposit* 
(cf.  Gn  141^)  are  particularly  abundant. 

•  See  Blanckenhorn's  Geol.  map. 

t  ilMh.  der  kaU.  kiin.  Uuogr.  GV«.  in  Wim,  1897,  pp.  1-22. 

i  Prof.  Hull  does  not  seem  either  in  his  PEF  Memoir  nn  tht 
Geol.  0/  Arabia  I'etrma  and  PaJestiru  or  in  ilount  Seir  (pp. 
inDff.,  133)  to  have  discussed  the  special  question  of  the  forma- 
tion of  the  Sebkha.  Ulanckenhorn  (1898,  p.  76)  denies  that  it 
U  a  purely  alluvial  formation. 


SIGNET 


SIHON 


513 


circumcision  wiia  the  sign  of  the  covenant  relation 
in  wliich  a  .Jew  stood  to  the  God  of  Abraliam  (Gn 
17",  Ko  4").  Living  under  the  direct  rule  of  J", 
they  looked  for  signs  of  His  power  and  pledges  of 
Uis  care  at  every  crisis  of  their  fortunes.  Such 
were  the  plagues  of  Egypt  (Ex  10-) ;  such  was  the 
visitation  vouchsafed  to  Gideon  (Jg  6") ;  sucli  were 
the  events  b^'  which  Saul  was  assured  of  his  future 
dignity  as  king  (1  S  lU').  The  projihets  frequently 
allege  their  forecasts  of  the  future  as  signs  that 
their  message  is  from  J"  (Is  7"  38',  Jer  44=^,  Ezk 
14").  St.  Paul's  observation  that  '.lews  ask  for 
signs'  (1  Co  I—)  is  abund.antly  illustrated  by  the 
Gospels  (Mt  12™  16',  Lk  ll''*- =»,  Jn  4«) ;  they 
demanded  of  Christ  credentials  of  His  authority 
to  speak  in  the  name  of  God.  It  will  be  observecl 
that  a  sign  need  not  nccessarilv  be  miraculous  (see 
I  S  2",  and  esn.  Is  8"  20*  where  the  expression 
sign  and  wonder  is  applied  to  events  which  were 
only  extraordinary  because  unexpected) ;  the  dis- 
tinction between  nntunU  and  supernatural  pheno- 
mena was  not  clearly  conceived  by  the  simple  piety 
of  the  Jews.*  But  (although  Joiin  did  no  si^n, 
Jn  W)  a  sign  is  closely  associated  with  the  idea 
of  prophetical  prediction  and  warning.  That  was 
the  motive  of  the  sign  of  Jonah  (Mt  12").  A  sign 
was  given  to  the  shepherds  (Lk  2'-);  Simeon  de- 
clared that  Jesus  Himself  was  tls  a-rjfietoi'  di'TiXeyi- 
luvov  (Lk  2^).  Christ's  miraculous  works  are 
spoken  of  all  through  St.  John's  Gospel  as  His 
signs  (Jn  3'  4"  etc.) ;  they  are  the  signs  of  one  who 
declares  'His  almighty  power  most  chiefly  in 
showing  mercy  and  pity.'  So  signs  were  >vrought 
in  His  name  by  the  apostles  (ilk  16-*,  Ac  4'"),  by 
Stephen  (Ac  6*),  and  by  Philip  (Ac  8«-  ") ;  and  the 
signs  of  an  apostle  are  claimed  by  St.  Paul  (2  Co 
12'*,  cf.  Ac  15'*).  And,  though  we  m.ay  not  recog- 
nize them  when  they  come,  the  end  of  the  present 
dispensation  shall  be  ushered  in  by  signs  (Mt  24'", 
Lk  21",  2  Th  2»,  Rev  12'  \Z^  15'  16"  ly-"*).  To  seek 
a  sign  is  not  necessarily  a  mark  of  faithlessness 
(see  Jn  6*) ;  on  the  contrary,  faith  will  naturally 
look  for  .such  tokens  of  the  Divine  protection.  It 
is  the  demand  for  prodigies,  ripara,  which  is  the 
mark  of  an  ill-instructed  and  undisciplined  mind 
(Jn  4*").    See  Miracle,  Nature. 

J.  H.  Bernard. 
SIGNET. — In  the  e.arly  days  of  civilization  the  art 
of  writing  w.is  practically  limited  to  a  class  of  pro- 
fessional scribes.  Every  one  outside  that  class,  from 
the  king  downwards,  needed  a  signet  to  authenticate 
the  documents  with  which  he  was  concerned.  Hero- 
dotus, i.  l'J.j,  saj-s  of  the  Babylonians,  <r<ppriyT5a  Si 
JrooTot  fx".  An  immense  number  of  these  seals 
have  come  down  to  us,  Egypt  and  Assyria  being 
the  two  great  sources  from  which,  directly  or  by 
imitation,  the  leading  types  have  been  derivetl. 
One  of  the  earliest  and  most  persistent  forms  is 
that  of  the  scarab,  originating  in  Egypt,  but  imi- 
tated by  the  Phoenicians  and  others.  These  scarabs 
were  often  made  of  clay  or  steatite,  and  bore  the 
owner's  name  on  the  flat  side.  Another  verj'  early 
variety  is  the  Assj'rian  and  Babylonian  cylinder  of 
jasper,  chalcedony,  or  other  stone,  J  of  an  inch  to 
li  mches  long  and  from  h  inch  to  1  in.  diani.,  pierced 
longitudinally,  and  worn  on  a  linen  or  woollen  cord 
round  the  neck.  Ball  {Light  from  the  East,  p.  24) 
figures  some  of  these,  which  are  said  to  range  from 
B.C.  4500  downwards.  The  name  of  the  owner  and 
of  the  deity  whom  he  specially  worshipped  were 
engraved  on  them  ;  sacred  emblems  and  scenes  are 
also  common,  such  as  a  god  slaying  a  lion,  a  tree 
guarded  by  genii,  (/"onical  signets,  with  the  device 
on  the  broad  end  and  the  attachment  at  the  top, 

•  At  Ex  7*  the  IiXy  tnuiBlatcs  nc'io  a  wonder,  by  mfMin,  show- 
iDK  thai  there  was  no  very  sharp  distinction  between  rnfuin  and 
rifmt ;  c(.  also  Lk  238.    Sn  Trench,  Miraclet,  pp.  1-a,  for  the 
■ubject  ol  this  article. 
VOU  IV.— 33 


have  also  come  down  to  us  from  very  early  ages. 
Amongst  what  are  classilied  as  'Hittite'  gems 
there  are  several  other  shapes ;  some  almost  hemi- 
spherical, with  hole  near  the  top;  some  nearly 
annular;  a  few  stone  rings  ;  tablets  with  a  device 
on  the  lower  side ;  lenticular  gems ;  square  or 
polygonal  tablets,  with  a  design  on  each  side 
seals  with  handles.  Some  very  ancient  Greek 
signets  are  gold  rings  with  large  bezels,  on  which 
are  designs  that  originated  in  Assjria  or  Egypt. 
In  the  ^gean  Islands  and  elsewhere  engraved 
bean-shaped  pebbles  of  various  materials  have  been 
found,  to  which  the  names  '  island  '  or  '  lenticular ' 
gems  were  given.  The  signets  found  in  Palestine 
are  mainly  oval  in  form.  Such  of  them  as  bear  a 
device,  in  addition  to  a  name,  are  either  of  Phcen. 
workmanship  or  imitations  thereof.  And  the  Phoe- 
nicians themselves  were  under  the  influence  of 
Babylonian  or  Egyptian  craftsmen.  Amongst  the 
designs  may  be  mentioned  the  Phoenician  palm- 
leaf,  a  border  of  pomegranates,  a  bull,  a  worshipper 
whose  attire  reminds  us  of  the  Egj-ptian  priests,  a 
winged  circle.  The  matter  on  wliich  the  signet 
was  pressed  was  wax  or  prepared  clay.  Tliere  is 
an  allusion  to  the  latter  at  Job  38'\  and  excellent 
illustrations  are  to  be  found  in  the  photographs  of 
jar-se.alings  given  by  Flinders  Petrie  in  Emjid 
Tombs  of  the  First  Dynasty. 

Judah's  signet  (cpn,  n;nn  Gn  38"-  *)  is  worn  by  a 
cord  C^'n;)  round  his  neck,  as  the  inhabitants  of  the 
Arabian  towns  wear  their  seal-rings  still.  He 
gives  it  as  a  pledge,  because  it  was  the  one  thing 
wliich  could  be  proved  to  belong  to  him,  and  would 
serve  to  identify  liim.  Pharaoh  (Gn  41''^)  took  oif 
his  signet-ring  (ni'jE)  from  his  hand  and  put  it  on 
Josepli's  ;  it  w.as  the  Egyptian  custom  to  wear  the 
signet  on  the  finger  (cf.  Jer  22^).  Josei)h  was  now 
enabled  to  sign  decrees  on  behalf  of  the  king.  Jer 
22^,  Hag  2-a,  Sir  17~  49"  indicate  the  v.iltie'of  the 
rings  in  question.  Sir  38-''  shows  that  in  the  2nd 
cent,  before  Christ  the  seal  engravers  must  have 
occupied  a  prominent  place  amongst  the  artisans 
of  the  day.  2  Ti  2'°  refers  either  to  the  two  in- 
scriptions which  were  sometimes  engraved  on  two 
sides  of  a  seal,  or  to  the  authentication  of  a  docu- 
ment by  each  party  allixing  his  signature.  Such 
passages  as  2  Es  2^,  To  9^  imply  tliat  the  signet 
was  used  as  a  mark  of  proprietorship.  W  hen 
Darius  ( Dn  6")  seals  the  den  with  his  own  signet 
(kb^V)  and  that  of  his  lords,  and  when  the  Jewish 
authorities  (Mt  27°")  'made  the  sepulchre  sure, 
sealing  the  stone,'  the  idea  was  that  if  the  impres- 
sion was  broken  the  fact  could  not  be  hidden,  for 
the  culprits  would  not  be  able  to  reproduce  the 
stamp.  In  this  connexion  it  should  be  remembered 
that  one  of  Solon's  laws  forbade  gem  engravers  to 
keep  an  impression  of  any  gem  they  had  sold,  lest 
another  should  be  made  exactly  like  it  (Diog. 
Laert.  i.  57,  in  Middleton,  Engraved  Gems,  p.  22). 
Greek  and  Roman  letter-writers  were  also  so  much 
afraid  of  their  letters  being  tampered  with,  that  at 
the  close  of  the  epistle  they  oUen  described  the 
seaL    See  also  RiKO  and  Seal.         J.  Taylor. 

SIHON  (|n't)  and  i^n-p,  cf.  for  the  ending  I^S3^; ; 
BA  Sijiii",  Luc.  Xiuv  ;  Vulg.  Sehon). — A  king  of 
the  Amorites  defeated  by  tlie  Israelites  at  Jahaz 
after  crossing  the  Arnon.  This  battle  marks  the 
commencement  of  the  struggle  for  the  possession 
of  the  land,  and  the  end  of  the  journeyings  past 
friendly  tribes  with  which  Israel  was  forbidden  to 
contend.  The  account  of  Sihon's  defeat  is  given 
in  Nu  21^-*,  and  is  followed  by  a  poetical  extract 
from  an  older  source  commemorating  a  defeat  of 
Moab.  The  account  is  repeated  in  Dt  2"-"  [with 
the  additional  statement  that  the  country  was 
treated  as  oyy  (see  Curse)],  and  in  Jg  ll'»-»». 
References  are  made  to  Silion's  defeat  and  tha 


614 


SILAS 


SILAS 


assicmment  of  tlie  laml  in  Nu  32**,  Dt  1^  3-  "  4"-  ■" 
29"  31^  Jos  2'»  9'"  12-  13'»-!'>-  =",  1  K  4^^  Nell  9-,  Ps 
135"  13(5".  '  Silioii '  in  Jer  48"  is  in  parallelism 
with  '  Heshbon,'  and  equivalent  to  tlie  city  of 
Sihon. 

In  tliese  passages  the  name  of  Sihon  occurs 
almost  invariably  in  close  connexion  with  that  of 
Og,  king  of  Bashan.  The  territories  of  these  two 
kin^s  became  the  inheritance  of  Israel  on  the  E. 
of  the  Jordan,  and  were  assigned  to  Reuben,  Gad, 
and  the  half  tribe  of  Manasseh.  According  to 
Nu  21*  the  Amorite  king  Sihon  had,  before  the 
coming  of  Israel,  taken  from  the  Moabites  the 
portion  of  their  kingdom  lying  to  the  N.  of  the 
Arnon.  For  the  criticism  of  this  passage  and  of 
the  song  in  Nu  21""*',  and  discussion  of  the  wars 
of  Sihon  against  Moab  and  Israel,  see  art.  MOAB 
in  vol.  iii.  p.  409  f.  A.  T.  Chapman. 

SILAS  (2(\oj,  in  Acts),  SILYANUS  (XiXorai-is,  in 
Epp.  ).* — A  prophet  and  leading  member  (riyovfievos) 
of  the  primitive  church  of  Jerusalem  (Ac  15"-'*), 
who  seems  to  have  possessed  the  Roman  citb.enshipt 
(16").  He  was  sent  as  a  delegate  of  that  church  to 
Antioch,  along  with  Judas  Barsabbas  as  colleague, 
and  in  company  with  Paul  and  Barnabas,  in  order 
to  convey  to  the  converted  Gentiles  of  Syria  and 
CUieia  a  brotherly  greeting,  and  the  epistle  which 
embodied  the  decrees  of  the  Council  of  .lerusalem  ; 
and  also  to  '  tell  them  the  same  things  by  mouth,' 
with  any  necessary  explanations  (Ac  15--"^).  SUas, 
as  well  as  Judas,  remained  at  Antioch  '  for  some 
time,' and,  in  the  exercise  of  the  gift  of  '  prophecy,' 
'  exhorted  the  brethren  with  many  words,  and 
confirmed  them  '  (15'-).  Thereafter  he  returned  to 
Jerusalem  ;  t  but,  prior  to  St.  Paul's  Second  Mis- 
sionary .lourney,  Silas  came  again  to  Antioch, 
perhaps  along  with  St.  Peter,  on  the  occasion  of 
the  latter's  visit  recorded  in  Gal  2",  or  at  St. 
Paul's  invitation  after  the  rupture  with  Barnabas 
(Ac  1.5^').  St.  Paul's  choice  of  Silas  as  missionary 
colleague  (15^°)  was  particularly  appropriate  in 
view  of  the  projected  tour  '  through  Syria  and 
Cilicia'  (15^'),  to  the  Gentile  Christians,  for  which 
Silas  had  been  accredited  by  the  church  of  Jeru- 
salem (15'^).  If  SUas  possessed  the  Roman  citizen- 
ship, tliis  may  also  have  led,  in  part,  to  his  being 
selected,  in  view  of  missionaiT  '  perils  from  the 
Gentiles,'  as  well  as  from  the  Jews.  The  accept- 
ance of  St.  Paul's  invitation  by  a  leading  member 
of  the  church  of  Jerusalem,  even  after  the  apostle's 
ecclesiastical  as  well  as  personal  ditt'erence  (Gal 
oi3(.)  ^vith  Barnabas,  the  trusted  ambassador  of 
that  church  (Ac  U'-'-'),  testifies  to  the  fulness  of 
confidence  reposed  at  that  time  in  St.  Paul  by  the 
more  liberal  Je^vish  Christians. 

Ill  company  with  St.  Paul,  Silas  journeyed  not 
only  through  Syria  and  Cilicia,  but  in  Lvcaonia, 
Phrygia,  Galatia,  and  the  Troad  (Ac  16'-8).  He 
crossed  over  with  the  apostle  to  Macedonia,  shared 
his  varied  experiences  at  Philippi  {16'-''-),§  accom- 

•  Silag  may  be  ft  contraction  of  Siivantu  (ct  Apollos  from 
Apolloniiis),  or  the  orii,^inal  name  (perh.  =  8*^17  1  Ch  7^,  but  see 
Zahn,  Einl.  i.  22  f.),  of  which  Silvanus  is  a  Latinized  fomi.  Several 
liersons  called  Silas  are  mentioned  by  Josephus  (Ant,  xiv.  iii.  2, 
xviii.  vi.  7 ;  Vita,  17).  The  identity  of  Silas  and  the  Silvanus 
of  1  Th  11.  2  Th  11,  and  2  Co  lis,  ja  generally  accepted  (cf. 
Ac  171  1S5);  althou;;h  pseudo-Doroth.  (6th  cent.)  in  his  ^Cy 
j,^jea,tM6  represents  them  as  separate  individuals;  and  Weizsaclter, 
with  some  hesitation  {Apost.  Age,  i.  292  f.),  surest*,  without 
reasonable  prounds,  that  the  author  of  Act«  lias  substituted 
Silas  of  Jerusalem  for  the  Pauline  Silvanus,  *  in  onler  to  signalize 
the  apostle's  connexion  with  the  primitive  Church.' 

t  So  Ew. BI  vii.  361 ;  Mey.  Comm. ;  Uamsay,  St.  Paul,  p.  17fl ; 
McOiflert,  Ap.  Aye,  242,  etc.  On  the  other  side,  see  Wendt 
(Comm.),  who  regfards  the  inclusion  of  Silas  with  St.  Paul  io 
Ac  163^f-  as  due  to  *  Inaccuracy  for  the  sake  of  brevity.' 

t  Ac  1534  is  ))rob.  an  interpolation  ;  it  is  not  found  in  NAB. 

5  For  vindication  of  the  credibihty  of  Ac  162M4  (assailed  on 
Internal  sfrounds  bv  Weizs.,  Wendt,  and  R  Weiss)  see  Giesckke 
In  SK,  1S9S,  p.  348 It.,  and  Kxp.  Tiimt,  March  1888,  p.  274 f. 


panied  him  to  Thesijalonica,  and  thence  to  Beroea, 
where  he  remained  with  Timotheus  after  St. 
Paul's  departure  for  Athens  (17").  He  rejoined  St. 
Paul,  apparently,  not  at  Athens,  as  originally 
had  been  intended  (17"),  but  (owing  probably  to 
the  apostle's  early  departure  from  that  city)  at 
Corinth  (18').*  His  evangelistic  service  there  ia 
referred  to  in  2  Co  1'*.  In  the  two  letters,  sent 
by  St.  Paul  from  Corinth  to  the  Thessalonians, 
Silvanus  is  associated  with  him  in  the  opening 
salutations.  His  name  then  disappears  from  the 
history. 

That  he  did  DOt  leave  Corinth  in  company  with  St.  Pan] 

appears  to  be  indicated  by  Ac  1818,  and  by  the  absence  of  all 
reterence  to  him  in  the  record  of  the  remaining  st.at;e8  of  St. 
Paul's  Second  Missionary  Journey  (IS^^ff-).  That  he  did  not 
settle  at  Corinth,  in  permanent  charge  of  the  church  there  (aa 
suggested  by  pseudo-Doroth.,  who  calls  him  bishop  of  Corinth),! 
maybe  inferred  from  the  omission  of  any  greeting  to  him  in 
1  and  2  Cor.,  and  also  from  the  fact  that  both  Timotheus  and 
Titus  act  as  deputies  of  St.  Paul  in  Corinth  a  few  years  later 
(1  Co  417,  2  Co  86  1218).  Probably  Silas  left  Corinth  during  St. 
Paul's  protracted  sojourn  of  18  months  (Ac  181^).  He  may  not 
have  been  prejiared  for  longer  absence  from  Jerusalem.  More- 
over, at  Corinth,  where  the  Jewish  element  in  the  churt^ 
was  weak  (Ac  IS^),  St.  Paul  does  not  seem  to  have  felt  bound  to 
impose  the  decrees  of  the  Jerusalem  Council  (1  Co  8).  These 
decrees  were  intended,  immediately  at  least,  for  the  churches 
of  Syria  and  Cilicia ;  they  were  '  delivered  for  to  keep '  in 
Lycaonia  (Acl6-*) ;  but  at  Corinth  the  circumstances  were  dif- 
ferent. We  can  readily  undei-stand,  however,  that  the  bearer 
of  the  Council's  communication  might  deem  it  improper  for 
him  to  take  part  in  any  deliberate  disreg:ard  of  the  Council's 
compromise  between  liberty  and  restriction,  and  would  feel 
constrained,  without  any  personal  quarrel,  to  separate  from 
one  who  went  beyond  what  Silas's  own  fellow-churchmen  of 
Jerusalem  would  approve.  The  addition  of  Timotheus,  also,  to 
the  missionary'  party,  and  the  strong  personal  attachment  of 
St.  Paul  to  him,  may  have  caused  Silas  to  feel  that  he  was  no 
longer  indispensable  to  the  apostle,  and  may  thus  have  loosened 
the  tie  between  the  two  men.  Beyond  question,  the  attitude  of 
the  Jewish  Christians  towards  St.  Paul  changed  considerably 
prior  to  the  Third  Missionary  Journey.  It  was  about  this  time 
that  the  Judaistic  counter-mission  to  Galatia  and  elsewhere 
originated  ;  and  the  same  broadened  ecclesiastical  policy  of  St. 
Paul,  which  aroused  the  hostility  of  the  narrower  party  in 
Jerusalem,  probably  also  cooled,  to  some  extent,  the  cordiality 
previously  subsisting  between  the  apostle  and  the  more  Uberal 
section  to  which  Silas  belonged,  t 

It  is  higlily  probable,  although  not  certain,  that 
the  SUas  or  Silvanus  who  was  St.  Paul's  associate 
is  the  Silvanus  referred  to  in  1  P  5'-  as  the  bearer  § 
of  St.  Peter's  Epistle  from  Rome  II  to  the  Christians 
of  Pontus,  Galatia,  Cappadocia,  Asia,  and  Bithynia. 
The  separation  of  Silas  from  St.  Paul  would 
naturally  lead  to  the  resumption  of  the  former's 
intimate  relations  wth  St.  Peter,  between  whom 
and  Silas,  as  both  Jewish  Christians  of  liberal 
views  on  the  whole,  there  would  be  full  sympathy  ; 
and  the  description  of  St.  Peter's  Silvanus  as  'a 
faithful  brother'  to  the  Christians  in  the  above- 
named  provinces,  fits  in  -with  the  experience  of  St. 
Paul's  colleague,  who,  long  before,  had  visited  a 
portion,  at  least,  of  the  churches  now  addressed  by 
St.  Peter,  and  would  be  probably  knowm  by  repute 
to  all.  More  than  ten  years  had  passed  since 
Silvanus  had  parted  from  St.  Paul.  The  apostle's 
last  visit  to  Jerusalem,  his  charitable  errand,  his 

•  It  is  possible,  however,  that  Silas  (as  well  as  Timotheus) 
may  have  come  to  Athens,  and  returned  to  Macedonia  for  some 
special  purpose.  1  Th  31*^  is  not  decisive  on  the  point.  Silaa 
and  Timotheus  are  probably  the  brethren  referred  tx>  in  2  Co 
111'  as  having  brought  from  Macedonia  what  supplied  St.  Paul's 
needs. 

t  The  same  designation  is  given  to  Silaa  In  the  uTo,uvr,iut,  or 
Memorial  of  Peter  and  Paul  (a  compilation,  ascribed  to  the  9th 
cent.,  but  embodying  more  ancient  material ;  seeLipsius,  Apok, 
Apost.  ii.  9,  10).  The  testimony,  however,  of  both  docunientJ 
is  discredited  by  their  representation  of  Silvanus  as  bishop  of 
Thes-salonica,  apparently  owing  to  1  Th  li,  2  Th  li. 

I  This  coolness  is  perhaps  suggested  by  the  summary  manner 
in  which  St.  Paul's  visit  to  Jerusalem  is"  referred  to  in  Ac  18" 
(see  Farrar's  Life  of  St.  Paul,  ii.  p.  6) ;  and  it  manifests  itself, 
on  that  apostle's  side,  in  the  somewhat  disparaging  tone  ol 
Gal  2«.  written  from  Ephesus  during  St.  Paul's  Third  Journey. 

§  Pos-sil)ly.  but  not  necessarily,  the  amanuensis  also  of  St, 
Peter  (see  vol.  iiL  p.  790,  and  Ewald,  liJ  vii.  404). 

II  The  Babylon  of  1  P  5>3  is  usually  inteii>reted  u  me'inlng 
Rome  (see  voL  L  ZUt,  iii  769X 


SILK 


SILOAM 


51f 


conciliatory  attitude  on  that  occasion,  and  his 
subsequent  sullirings  for  the  truth,  had  doubt- 
less improved  the  reLations  between  him  and 
Jewish  believers  (Ac  21.  24").  The  majority  of 
St.  Paul's  extant  letters,  moreover,  had  prob- 
ably by  this  time  come  into  circulation,  and  pro- 
duced a  favourable  impression  on  Hebrew  Chris- 
tians. In  1  Peter  extensive  use  is  made  of  Pauline 
ideas  and  phr.nseology,  especially  those  of  the 
Epistles  to  the  PLomans  and  Epliesians  (see  vol.  iii. 
7S8).  Accordingly,  since  at  the  time  when  1  Peter 
was  written  St.  Paul  either  was  a  prisoner  at 
Kome,  or  had  recently  sull'ered  martyrdom,  the 
mission  of  Silvanus,  as  representative  of  both 
apostles,  may  have  been  part  of  an  Apostolical 
eirenicon,  expressly  designed  to  undo,  in  Galatia 
and  in  Asia  Minor  as  a  whole,  the  efVect  of  earlier 
rivalry  and  friction  between  the  Pauline  and  the 
Jewish  parties  in  primitive  Christendom.  (See 
vol.  iii.  p.  791). 

The  names  of  both  Silas  and  Silvanns  are 
included,  as  different  individuals,  in  the  list  of 
the  'Seventy'  compiled  by  pseudo- Dorotlieos. 
The  position  of  Silas  as  a  Jr/oi'Mf""  of  the  church 
at  Jerusalem  renders  it  fairly  probable  that  in  this 
instance  the  catalogue  is  correct.      For  the  con- 

i'ecture  that  Silas  is  the  author  of  Hebrews  (Bohme, 
ilynster)  there  appears  to  be  no  foundation.  The 
adoption  of  the  name  Silvanus  by  Constantine,  the 
founder  of  the  pseudo-Pauline  Paulician  heresy  in 
the  7th  cent.,  indicates  a  conviction  that  SUas 
remained  faithful  essentially  to  Pauline  views. 

LtTBRATiTRB. — Acta  Sanet.  13th  July  (xxx.  452);  Oellarius, 
d£  Sila  ;  Lipsivig,  Apok.  Ay<je9ch,  i.  p.  203,  ii.  9ff.,  iii.  27rtf. ; 
Ewalil,  III  vii.  36111.,  4C4;  Wcizsacker,  Ap<ist.  Aije  (Index); 
McOiilert,  Apoit.  Age,  pp.  230-242, 42U.  H.  COWAN. 

BILK.— See  Dress  in  vol.  i.  p.  624*. 

8ILLA  (K^p  ;  B  TaaWd,  A  raoXXoJ  ;  Sela).—.Joash 
was  murdered  'at  (AV  'in')  the  house  of  Millo, 
on  the  way  that  goeth  down  to  Silla'  (2  K  12»'). 
Millo  was  possibly  either  the  acropolis  of  Mount 
Zion  or  one  of  its  towers,  and  Silla  was,  appar- 
ently, in  the  valley  below.  There  is  no  clue  to  its 
position.  It  has  been  suggested,  from  the  reading 
of  the  LXX,  that  the  Hebrew  name  may,  origin- 
ally, have  commenced  with  gni  '  ravine,'  as  in  the 
case  of  Ge-hinnom.  For  other  conjectures  see 
Benzinger  in  Kurzer  Hdcum.  ad  loc. 

C.  W.  Wilson. 

SILOAM. — A  place  mentioned,  apparently,  four 
times  in  Scripture:  (1)  Is8"  the  waters  of  Shiloah  ' 
(n^wn  'shooting  forth'  or  'sent  forth' ;  B  -tiXwd/i, 
A  2iXud/i  ;  Luc,  Aq.,  Svmm.,  Theod.  -i\ud  ;  Vulg. 
Siloe).  (2)  Neh  3"  '  the  pool  of  Siloah '  (RV 
Bbelah,  n^^'n  ;  BA  KoXv/xfiriOpa  tuv  kuSIuv  :  •  piscina 
Siloe).  (3)  Jn  9'  '  the  pool  of  Siloam '  («.  toC 
ZiXud^i;  natatoria  Siloe).  (4)  Lk  13*  'the  tower 
in  Siloam  '  (6  Trvpiyot  4v  rif  SAudyu  ;  turris  in  Siloe). 
The  Rabbis  and  early  Jewish  travellers  use  the 
word  with  the  article  (mS-p.i  Iuish-Slul6ak)  as  in  the 
Bible.  Josephus  gives  the  name  as  2i\wd,  StXioSt, 
and  SiXwd/j ;  the  Greek  Fathers  have  SiXwd^  ;  and 
the  Latin  Fathers,  following  the  Vulgate,  have 
Siloe  and  Syloe  ;  Arabic '.4  m  Siltnin. 

Excepting  the  statement  in  Neh  3"  that  the 
wall  of  the  '  pool  of  the  Shelah  '  was  close  to  the 
king's  gardens,  which  were  on  the  south  side  of 
Jerusalem,  and  the  fair  inference  that  the  wall  of 
the  pool  formed  part  of  the  fortifications  of  the 

•  Shelah  Is  pomlbly  a  oomipt  form  of  the  earlier  ShUDai,  due 
to  a  change  in  the  pronunciation,  or  In  the  Hpcllinp  of  the  word 
during  tlif  pcriixl  that  interM-nwi  liotween  Isiiiali  anil  Ni'hcniiali. 
The  nii-aniin;  ot  nhelah  in  IKhriw  in  'dart,'  Init  in  Tahnudic 
Hebrew  'akin' ;  and  the  L.\.\  adopted  the  latter  interpretation. 
They  and  the  earlier  Rabbid  appear  to  have  reganJed  the  pool  of 
the  Shelab,  or  of  the  '  ■beep-akina,'  u  being  distinct  from  the 
Vool  of  SUoam. 


city,  the  Bible  gives  no  indication  of  position. 
Ju.sephus,  on  the  other  hand,  distinctly  states  [BJ 
V.  iv.  1)  that  the  spring  {irriy^)  of  Siloam  was  at 
the  end  or  mouth  of  the  Tyropoeon  ravine,  which 
separated  the  hill  of  the  upper  city  and  the  lower 
hill.  This  position  is  indicated  in  other  passages 
(BJu.  xvi.  2;  V.  iv.  2,  vi  1,  xiL  2;  VI.  viiL  5), 
and  agrees  with  the  statements  of  Jerome,  who 
writes  of  the  fans  Siloe  as  flowing  '  in  radicibus 
Montis  Moria'  (in  Matt.  10),  and  'ad  radices 
Montis  Zion  '  (in  Is.  8*) ;  and  also  as  watering  the 

fardens  of  Hinnom  and  Tophet  {in  Jer.  8.  19*  32''). 
he  Bordeaux  Pilgrim  (A.D.  333)  and  all  later 
pilgrims  place  Siloam  near  the  mouth  of  the  valley 
that  runs  through  the  midst  of  Jerusalem,  and 
there  is  every  reason  to  believe  that  its  general 
position  is  represented  by  the  present  'Ain  Silwdn 
and  Birlrt  Suwdn. 

The  Birket  Silwdn,  situated  in  the  narrowest 
part  of  the  Tyropceon  ravine,  is  an  artificial  pool, 
which  receives  its  supply  of  water,  by  transmission 
through  a  roek-hewn  tunnel,  from  the  'Ain  Sitti 
Mariam,  or  Fountain  of  the  Virgin — an  inter- 
mittent sprin"  in  the  Valley  of  the  l^idron.  A 
little  below  the  B.  Sihvdn,  at  the  very  mouth  of 
the  ravine,  which  is  here  closed  by  a  dam  of 
masonry,  there  is  a  second  and  larger  pool,  known 
as  the  Birket  el-Hamra.  This  pool,  long  filled 
with  soil,  and  now  an  open  cess-pit,  received  the 
surplus  waters  of  SUoam  oefore  they  were  utilized 
in  the  irrigation  of  the  gardens  which  once  tilled 
the  open  space  below  the  junction  of  the  Tyropoeon 
with  the  VaUey  of  the  Kidron. 

The  Fountam  of  the  Virgin,  the  only  true 
spring  at  Jerusalem,  Ls  very  generally  identified 
with  GlHON,  and  the  changes  made  in  tlie  distribu- 
tion of  its  waters  are  intimately  connected  with 
the  history  of  Siloam.*  After  the  capture  of  Jeru- 
salem by  the  Hebrews,  possibly  during  the  reign 
of  Solomon,  the  water  of  the  spring  was  impounded 
in  a  reservoir  in  the  ^f  idron  Valley,  and  used  for 
irrigating  the  king's  gardens,  which  filled  the 
valley  to  the  south.  "This  reservoir,  the  site  of 
which  is  lost,  is  called  by  Josephus  (BJ  v.  iv.  2) 
'Solomon's  Pool.'  After  a  time  the  water  was 
carried  by  a  rock-hewn  coniluit  (discovered  by  Dr. 
Schick,  PEFSt,  1886,  p.  197  «.  ;  1891,  p.  13  11".)  down 
the  west  side  of  the  ^idron  Valley,  and  through  the 
extremity  of  Mt.  Moriah,  to  a  pool  in  the  Tyropax)n, 
so  that  it  might  be  more  accessible  to  dwellers 
in  the  lower  parts  of  the  city.  To  this  conduit, 
with  its  sliglit  fall  and  gently  flowing  stream, 
Isaiah  possibly  referred  when  lie  compared  (Is  8") 
'  the  waters  of  Shiloah  that  go  softly ' — typical  of 
the  unseen  working  of  God  and  of  the  prosperity 
that  would  follow  the  confidence  in  Jehovah  which 
he  was  urging  upon  the  people — with  the  turbulent 
waters  of  the  mighty  Euphrates  overtlowing  their 
banks, — an  emblem  of  the  overwhelming  violence 
of  the  great  world-power,  As.syria,  with  which  the 
people  were  seeking  alliance. 

At  a  later  period  the  winding  rock-hewn  tunnel 
which  connects  the  Fountain  of  the  Virgin  with 
the  Birket  Silwdn  was  made,  and  the  water  of  the 
spring  was  collected  in  the  two  reservoirs  in  the 
"Tyroijceon  Valley.  The  execution  of  this  remark- 
able work  may  be  ascribed  with  much  probability 
to  Hezekiah,  who,  prior  to  the  Assyrian  invasion, 
stopped  '  the  upper  sjiring  of  the  waters  of  Gihon, 
and  brought  it  straight  down  to  (or  on)  the  west 
side  of  the  city  of  David'  (2  Ch  32»,  cf.  2  Ch  3'2*, 
Sir  48").  In  June  1880  a  Hebrew  inscription  (see 
Literature  at  end)  in  old  Semitic  character  wa* 
discovered  on  the  east  side  of  the  tunnel,  about 
25  ft.  from  its  exit  at  Siloam.  The  inscrijition 
records  that  the  tunnel  was  excavated  from  both 

■The  Targ.  Jon.,  Pcsb.,  and  Arab.  VSS  read  'Shiloah'  fot 
'Oihon'lnl  K  133.  ^ 


516 


SILO  AM 


SILVER 


ends,  that  the  workmen  met  in  the  middle,  and 
that  tlie  length  was  1200  cubits.*  Tliere  is  no  name 
of  any  king,  and  this,  witli  the  absence  of  a  date, 
seems  to  indicate  that  the  inscription  was  cut  hy 
one  of  the  workmen  employed,  and  had  no  otticial 
character.  The  form  of  the  letters  is  not  opposed 
to  the  view  that  the  tunnel  was  made  during  the 
reign  of  Hezekiah.  The  serpentine  course  of  the 
tunnel  is  attributed  by  M.  Clermont-Ganneau 
{Lcs  Tomheaux  dc  David  et  des  rois  de  Juda  et  le 
Tunnel- A qnednc  dc  Siloe,  1897)  to  the  prior  exist- 
ence of  the  rock-hewn  tombs  of  the  kings,  wliich 
he  places  immediately  north  of  the  great  southern 
bend.  The  view  that  this  curve  is  due  to  design, 
and  not  to  accident  or  bad  workmanship,  is  sup- 
ported bj'  the  existence  of  shafts  from  the  surface 
which  determined  its  direction  at  two  important 
points  {PEFSt,  1882,  plan,  p.  123). 

Excavation  has  shown  tliat  the  present  BirJcet 
Silwdn  has  been  constructed  witliin  the  limits  of 
the  ancient  pool  of  Siloam.  The  original  pool 
measured  71  it.  from  N.  to  S.  and  75  ft.  from  E.  to 
W.,  and  was  for  the  most  part  excavated  in  the 
rock.  A  flight  of  rock-hewn  steps  led  do^vn  to  it 
from  the  city,  and  it  could  be  emptied  by  a  sluice- 
gate at  its  southern  end.  After  the  return  from 
the  Captivity,  possildy  during  the  reign  of  Herod,  a 
covered  arcade,  12  ft.  wide,  22J  ft.  high,  and  roofed 
with  larfje  flat  slabs  of  stone,  was  erected  in  the 
pool,  and  ran  round  its  four  sides.  This  was  prob- 
ably the  condition  of  the  pool  when  Christ  told  the 
blind  man  (Jn  9')  to  go  and  wash  'in  the  pool  of 
Siloam  (which  is  by  interpretation,  Sent).'  + 

In  the  5th  cent,  a  three-aisled  church  waa  built,  with  its  high 
altar  directly  above  the  point  at  which  the  stream  issued  from 
the  tunnel,  and  its  south  aisle  over  the  northern  arcade  of  the 
pool.  The  church  was  entered  from  the  north,  on  which  side 
there  were  an  atrium,  and  a  narthex  with  a  flight  of  steps 
leadinj;  doivn  to  the  level  of  the  north  aisle.  It  appears  to  have 
hecii  the  work  of  the  empress  Eudocia,  who  is  said  to  have 
included  the  pool  of  Siloam  within  the  city  wall.  In  the  reign 
of  Justinian  the  basilica  was  converted  into  a  domed  church, I 
which  is  noticed  by  Antoninus  Martyr  (c.  570),  the  only  pilgrim 
who  mentions  a  church  at  Siloam. §  Tlie  church  must  after- 
wards have  been  destroyed,  probably  during  the  Persian 
invasion  (C14),  for  it  is  not  again  mentioned  (Bliss,  Ezcavatuttis 
at  Jerusalem,  pp.  132-210 ;  Quthe,  '  Ausgrabungen  bei  Jeru- 
salem,' in  ZDPVv.  p.  52  ff.). 

The  larger  pool,  Birkct  el-IIamra,\\  has  not  been 
completely  examined,  but  excavation  has  shown 
that  it  is  partially  cut  in  the  rock,  and  that  the 
dam  of  masonry  at  its  lower  end,  wliich  has  a 
thickness  of  20  to  8  ft.,  and  is  strengthened  by 
buttresses,  is  at  one  point  44  ft.  high.  The  con- 
struction of  the  dam,  and  the  manner  in  which  its 
masonry  is  bonded  into  the  rock  at  either  end, 
shows  that,  like  the  dam  of  the  Birket  Israil,  it 
formed  part  of  the  defences  of  the  city  (Bliss,  I.e.). 
The  pool  is  probably  the  work  of  llezekiah,  and 
referred  to  (Is  22")  as  the  mikveh,  or  'ditch  (IIV 
reservoir)  between  the  two  walls  for  the  water.s  of 
the  old  pool.'  The  dam  is  apparently  the  wall  of 
the  'pool  (birekhah)  of  the  Slielah '  repaired  by 
Shallun  (Neh  3").  This  pool  is  mentioned  by  the 
Bordeaux  Pilgrim,  by  Antoninus  Martyr,  and 
other  pilgrims,  and,  in  the  Middle  Ages,  it  was 
frequently  called  Natatoria  Siloe,  to  distinguish 
it  from  the  upper  pool  of  Siloam.     The  tunnel  and 

*  Conder,  in  his  very  complete  description  of  the  tunnel 
(PEFSt,  1882,  p.  122ff.),  gives  its  length  as  1706-8  ft.,  or, 
»rpro.viMiately,  1200  cubits  of  17  in.,  and  states  that  the  point 
of  junction  wa.s  944  ft.  from  the  Siloam  end.  See  aino  PEFJletn. 
'Jerusalem,'  p.  Si5. 

t  On  the  play  upon  the  meaning  of  the  word,  and  on  the 
pftrallelism  between  'the  sent  one'  and  'the  sent  water,*  see 
Risil  on  Is  8. 

I  The  position  of  the  church  with  regard  to  the  pool  is  not 
unlike  that  of  St.  Mary  in  probatica,  in  the  Pool  of  Betliesda 
near  the  Church  of  St.  Anne. 

ft  The  church  is  also  mentioned  in  the  life  of  St.  Peter  the 
Iberian  (409-488). 

I  This  name  is  derived  from  the  hard  red  cement  full  of 
pounded  pottery  which  is  used  for  lining  cisterns,  and  is  locally 
called  hamra. 


the  pools  are  possibly  referred  to  in  2  Ch  32*,  Ii 
22»,  and  Sir  48". 

The  water  of  Siloam  is  described  by  Josephus  aa 
bein"  sweet  and  abundant  (5/ V.  iv.  1);  and  by 
the  Kabbis,  who  attributed  digestive  properties  to 
it,  as  being  clear  and  sweet.  On  the  last  day  of 
the  Feast  of  Tabernacles,  water  from  the  spring 
was  poured  upon  the  altar  (Neubauer,  Giofj.  du 
Talmud,  p.  145  f.).  In  985  Mukaddasi,  a  native  of 
Jerusalem,  calls  the  water  '  fairly  good '  ;  but  the 
author  of  the  Marasid  (c.  1300)  says  that  it  was 
then  no  longer  sweet.  Writers  of  the  15th  and 
16th  cents,  call  it  brackish  but  wholesome.  As 
the  sprin"  depends  upon  the  annual  rainfall  for  its 
supply,  the  water,  which  percolates  through  vast 
accumulations  of  refuse,  must  to  a  certain  extent 
be  impure,  but  it  is  still  used  for  drinking  pur- 
poses by  tlie  villagers  of  Silwdn  and  by  tlie  poor 
of  Jerusalem.  In  consequence  of  the  miracle 
wrought  on  the  blind  man,  the  water  and  pool  are 
held  in  much  honour  by  Jews,  Christians,  and 
Moslems.  Healing  properties,  especially  in  the 
case  of  eye  diseases,  have  been  attributed  to  tlie 
water  from  the  early  days  of  Christianity,  and 
numerous  legends  have  gathered  round  it.  (Chris- 
tians believed  that  it  came  from  Shiloh  or  from 
Mt.  Zion  ;  Moslems,  that  on  the  night  of  'Arafat  it 
came  underground  from  the  holy  well,  Zemzem, 
at  Mecca.  A  small  perennial  stream  flows  from 
the  Fountain  of  the  \  irgin  to  the  Pool  of  Siloam, 
and  its  volume  is  increased,  at  uncertain  times,  by 
a  sudden  rush  of  water  from  the  spring.  The 
Bordeaux  Pilgrim,  Jerome  (in  Is.  8'),  and  most  of 
the  pilgrims,  write  of  the  increased  flow  as  periodic ; 
but  in  reality  it  varies  greatly,  and  is  dependent 
upon  the  rainfall  and  the  season.  During  a  wet 
winter  the  stream  swells  two  or  three  times  a 
day,  whilst  in  summer  the  rise  takes  place  only 
once  in  two  or  three  days.  All  knowledge  of  the 
tunnel  through  which  the  stream  runs  was  lost  for 
several  centuries,  and  it  was  first  rediscovered  in 
the  13th  cent.  It  may  perhaps  even  be  inferred 
from  the  silence  of  Josephus  that  the  Fountain  of 
the  Virgin  was  unknown  to  him,  and  that  it  was 
first  opened,  after  its  closure  by  Hezekiah,  some 
centuries  later. 

After  the  capture  of  Jerusalem  by  the  Arabs  a  village  sprang 
up  in  the  valley  below  the  pool.  In  1047  Nasir-i-Khusrau  found 
an  endowed  hospital,  with  salaried  ph,vsicians,  and  man.v  build- 
ings, erected  for  charitable  purposes,  near  the  spring.  Karly  in 
the  12th  cent,  there  was  a  small  monasterv  at  Siloam,  but  about 
1300  the  buildings  were  in  ruins,  and  the  irrigated  gardens, 
wliich  had  been  bequeathed  by  one  of  the  Khalifs  to  the  poor  of 
Jerusalem,  had  disappeared.  By  the  middle  of  the  17th  cent, 
the  pools  were  filled  with  rubbisli,  and  the  tradition,  which  had 
lingered  into  the  16th  cent.,  that  a  church  dedicated  to  the 
SaTvator  Uiuminator  had  once  stood  above  the  mouth  of  the 
tunnel,  was  lost.  The  village  of  Siloam,  Kefr  Sihrdn,  on 
the  left  bank  of  the  Kidron  Valley,  at  the  foot  of  the  Mount  of 
Olives,  is  of  comparatively  recent  growth.  Christian  anchorites, 
and  afterwards  .Moslems,  are  alluded  to  as  living  in  the  caves ; 
but  (^uaresniius,  in  the  17th  cent.,  is  the  first  to  distinctly 
mention  the  village  by  its  present  name  (Guy  ie  Strange,  PaL 
under  the  Moslems ;  Tobler,  Die  SiluahqtteUe  und  der  Oetberg ; 
P.P.  Text  Society  translations). 

The  '  tower  in  Siloam '  (Lk  13*),  of  which  nothing 
further  is  known,  may  have  been  one  of  the  tower* 
in  the  city  wall  near  the  pool. 

LrrSRATURR. — The  principal  authorities  for  the  site  and  the 
description  of  the  pool  have  been  cited  in  the  article.  For  the 
inscription  and  its  nearing  on  the  history  of  the  Ileb.  alphabet, 
see  esp.  Driver,  Text  o.f  Sajniu^I,  p.  14ff".  (with  fa/'jiinilf.  tran- 
scription, and  translation) ;  Weir,  Short  Iligt.  of  the  lleh.  Text 
of  OT,  9ff. ;  Euting  in  Ges.-Kautzsch's  Heb.  Oram.;  Socio 
(plate  8  in  ZDPV  iv.,  and,  in  an  amended  form.  Die  Siloahin' 
schrift,  Freiburg,  1899) ;  Lidzbarski,  Handb.  d.  nordsein.  Epi- 
graphik,  1S98 :  cf.  Oheyne  In  PB, '  Isaiah,'  143. 

C.  W.  WIL.SON. 

SILYAND8.— See  Silas. 

SILVER  (np|  [Aram.  10?],  ipyvpos,  ipyipiov)  comet 
next  to  gold  in  the  list  of  precious  metals.     Iti 


SILVEB 


SIMEON 


5i; 


Talue  arises  parti j'  from  its  comparative  rarity,  and 
partly  from  its  properties  of  resistance  to  corro- 
.aion,  brilliant  wliitL-  lustre,  malleability,  ductility, 
and  tlie  like,  ^Yhic'h  make  it  a  specially  suitable 
material  for  artistic  workmanship.  The  kuow- 
led''e  and  use  of  silver  in  classical  and  Bible  lands 
go  Lack  to  prehistoric  times.  This  metal  appears 
in  Homer  as  put  to  a  great  variety  of  purposes. 
Vessels  and  ornaments  maile  of  it  were  found  by 
Schlicmann  at  MyceinB.  Silver  la  equally  in  evi- 
dence among  the  remains  of  the  ancient  Egyp- 
tians, Assyrians,  and  Hittites.  It  is  repeatedly 
mentioned  in  the  Tel  el-Amarna  tablets. 

Silver  is  rarely  found  in  the  native  state,  and 
has  almost  always  to  be  extracted  from  some  form 
of  ore.  The  principal  Asiatic  source  of  it  in 
ancient  times  was  in  the  mountains  of  Armenia 
and  Kurdistan.  Homer  (II.  ii.  857)  refers  to  the 
special  excellence  of  the  silver  brought  from 
AlybS  in  Pontus.  The  mines  of  these  regions 
have  been  wrought  by  the  Turkish  Government  in 
modern  times.  In  Europe  the  silver  mines  of 
Laurium  in  Attica  were  of  considerable  import- 
ance, and  proved  a  rich  source  of  wealth  to  Athens. 
There  were  also  mines  in  Thrace  and  Epirus.  But 
the  most  abundant  8up|ilies  of  silver  were  obtained 
from  Spain.  The  workings  there  were  at  lirst  in 
the  hands  of  the  Carthaginians,  and  it  was  when 
the  Iiomans  obtained  posse.ssion  of  them  that 
silver  first  became  plentiful  in  Italy,  though  it 
had  previously  been  used  in  art  by  the  Etruscans, 
who  may  have  derived  their  supply  of  the  metal 
from  Gaul  or  from  the  Phoenicians. 

Silver  waa  obUiined  from  its  compounds  by 
smelting  along  with  other  metallic  ores,  of  which 
that  of  lead  was  essential  to  the  process.  At  a 
high  temperature  the  lead  combined  with  the  im- 
purities in  the  silver  to  form  a  heavj'  'slag,'  which 
separated  by  its  weight  from  the  molten  silver, 
lejiving  the  latter  pure. 

The  relative  values  of  gold  and  silver  varied  in 
ancient  times.  As  long  as  the  supply  was  restricted 
to  Asiatic  sources,  silver  was  scarcer  than  it  after- 
wards became.  There  are  indications  of  a  struggle 
for  supremacy  between  the  two  metals  at  lirst, 
and  even  of  a  preference  for  silver  to  gold  in  some 
places.  In  Egypt  silver  is  always  mentioned  before 
gold  in  the  inscriptions,  and  silver  objects  are  rarer 
than  golden  ones  in  the  tombs.  Kroni  a  fragment 
of  Agatharcides  it  appears  that  in  ancient  Arabia 
silver  was  reckoned  10  times  more  valuable  than 
gold.  The  laws  of  Menes  in  Egypt  fixed  the  value 
of  gold  as  2J  times  that  of  silver.  Herodotus  (iii. 
05)  makes  cold  equal  in  value  to  13  times  its  weight 
of  silver.  The  Egyptian  (ts-e/n  (Gr.  ^XexT/jof  [or  -os], 
Lat.  elc'trum)  was  a  highly  prized  alloy  of  gold 
and  silver. 

Silver  was  an  early  form  of  currency,  and  at  first 
was  reckoned  by  weight  (see  MONEY,  vol.  iii.  p. 
418  (T.),  coiii.-ige  bein^  miknown  among  the  Hebrews 
before  the  Exile.  Hence  in  OT  155  is  frequently 
tr.  ipyvptov  by  LXX,  and  'money'  in  EV.  It  is 
al.so  oicasionally  rendered  '  price,  and  once  (Is  7^) 
'silverlings.'  Similarlj'  in  Apocr.  and  NT  ifryupiov 
is  often  tr.  'money.'  'Piece  of  silver'  stands  in 
one  passage  (Lk  15^)  for  SpaxM--fi. 

The  mention  of  silver  in  Scripture  as  a  medium 
of  exchange  goes  back  to  the  time  of  Abraham 
(Gn  23"- '").  .Silver  is  an  item  constantly  enumer- 
ated in  accounts  of  wealth,  spoil,  and  tribute. 
The  wealth  of  Solomon  is  indicated  by  his  making 
silver  as  plentiful  as  stone  in  Jerusalem  (1  K  10", 
Sir  47"),  and  that  of  the  restored  Jerusalem  is 
described  in  the  promise,  '  for  iron  I  will  bring 
silver'  (Is  CO").  So  Tyre  (Zee  9»)  and  the  wicked 
man  (Job  27")  are  s-aid  to  '  heap  up  silver  as  dust." 
Idols  were  made  of  silver  or  plated  with  it.  It 
WIS  the  material  of  various  parts  of  the  Taber- 


nacle (sockets,  fillets,  hooks,  etc.),  of  the  trumpets 
of  the  priests,  and  of  many  of  the  sacred  ve-ssels 
of  the  temple.  Vessels  of  silver  were  a  form  of 
votive  ottering  (Nu  T  passim),  and  were  part  of  tho 
furniture  of  wealthj'  private  houses  (2  Ti  2^). 
Josephs  divining  cup  was  of  silver  ((in  44^-). 
This  metAl  was  used  tor  chains  (Is  40'")  and  orna- 
ments ('jewels,'  Gn24";  '  pictures,'  Pr25").  Silver 
•shrines,'  or  models  of  the  temple  of  Diana,  werii 
largelj-  made  and  sold  at  Ephesus  (Ac  19").  Silvei 
mines  are  referred  to  in  Job  28',  and  the  process 
of  refining  is  alluded  to  in  Pr  17*  27"  25^  Zee  IS', 
Mai  3'  etc.  It  is  described  with  special  fulness  in 
Jer  6^*"  (where  it  is  represented  as  fruitless)  and 
in  Ezk  22""*'.  In  both  of  these  passages  .special 
emphasis  is  laid  on  I  he  presence  of  lead  among 
the  other  metallic  ores.  These  other  metals  and 
the  impurities  combined  with  them  are  the  '  dross ' 
of  silver.  2  Ch  9"  tells  how  Solomon  obtained 
silver  from  Arabia.  Tarshish  is  named  as  the 
source  of  the  metal  in  2  Ch  Q'",  Jtr  10',  Ezk  27'^ 
the  second  of  these  passages  referring  specially  to 
the  silver  being  '  spre.id  into  plates.'  In  1  Mac  8' 
the  acquisition  of  the  Spanish  mines  by  tho  Romans 
is  mentioned.  Silversmiths  are  mentioned  in  \Vis 
15"  (apyvpoxios)  and  Ac  19'''*  (ipyvpoKdiros).  Tliere 
was  a  guild  of  this  craft  at  Ephesus,  of  which  in 
St.  Paul's  day  Demetrius  was  a  leading  member. 
In  LXX  ipyiipoKbiros  is  the  tr.  of  "Ji's  ('founder,' 
Jg  17*)  and  of  '■y^  (AV  '  founder,'  RV  [as  inf.  abs.] 
'  refine,'  Jer  6^,  where  also  fif  =  ipr/vpoKOTretv), 
'  Silver  plate'  is  the  equivalent  of  apyipa^a  in  J  tli  12' 
15",  1  ^Iac  15'^  The  plumage  of  doves  in  snnlifjht 
is  described  in  Ps  GS'^  as  '  wings  covered  with 
silver.'  Wisdom  and  instruction  are  frequently 
compared  for  preciousness  to  pure  silver,  as  are 
also  the  words  of  God  (Ps  12").  The  refining  of 
silver  is  a  figure  for  the  discipline  of  tiie  righteous 
(Ps  06"',  cf.  also  Is  48'").  Silver  turned  to  dross  is 
a  metaphor  for  moral  deterioration  (Is  l'",  Jer  &"). 
For  questions  connected  with  currency  and  coin- 
age see  Money. 

LiTEKATrRB.— Polybios,  xxxlv.  e ;  Pliny,  nS  xxxiiL  23,  81 ; 
Enn;iM,  Life  in  Ancimt  Kf/i/pt,  461  ;  Layardj  SineL't'h,  iL  264; 
Perrot  and  Chipiez,  But,  0/ Art  in  Sardinia^  Judcea,  etc.  ii. 
2ta  ;  lluMiilton,  Knearchet,  L  2S4  ff. ;  Del  Jlar,  Hist,  of  Precimu 
MefaU,  tilSL  ;  Sdirader  aud  Jevous,  Prthietoric  Antiquities, 

isufl.  James  Patrick. 

8ILVERLING.— See  Money  in  vol.  iiL  p.  432*. 

SIMEON  d'll'c?';  LXX  and  NT  SuMeiix,  whence 
RV  form  usually  employed  in  NT,  Syraeon). — A 
common  name  amongst  the  Jews,  esp.  in  its  later 
(Greek)  form  Simon  (see  art.  Peter  (Simon),  ad 
init.).  The  Heb.  name  is  used  of — 1.  The  second 
son  of  Jacob  and  Leah,  Gn  29".  The  etymology, 
or  at  all  events  the  original  signification  of  the 
name,  is  unknown.  J,  in  Gn  29"''",  characteristi- 
ca'ly  derives  it  from  j;';?'  (  =  'hear'),  and  reports 
that  '  Leah  said.  Because  the  Loiu)  hath  heard 
(shdmd)  that  I  am  hated,  he  hath  therefore  given 
me  this  son  also,  and  she  called  hLs  name  Simeon 
(Shinidn).'  Only  two  incidents  in  the  history  of 
Simeon  are  related  in  the  Book  of  (ienesis.  In 
conjunction  with  his  brother  Levi  he  is  said  to 
have  mas.sacred  the  Shechemites  in  revenge  for  the 
dishonour  of  his  sister  Dinah  (Gn  34).  The  details 
of  the  story  are  obscure,  and  are  drawn  from 
several  sources,  whose  standpoint  is  not  always  the 
same.  The  real  significance  of  this  narrative  we 
shall  seek  to  appreciate  in  art.  SiMicoN  (TninE). 
The  other  occa.sion  upon  which  Simeon  b  mentioned 
is  when  Joseph  determined  to  detain  one  of  his 
brothers  in  Egypt  as  security  that  tliey  would 
return  with  Benjamin  (Gn  42**).  From  tho  circum- 
stance that  Simeon  is  selected  for  this  purpose,  it 
has  been  supposed  that  the  narrator  means  to 
insinuate  that  he  had  been  the  chief  actor  in  the 


518 


SIMEON 


SIMEON 


tragedy  that  led  to  .Joseph's  servitude  in  E^'ypt. 
The  truciJeut  character  of  Simeon,  as  vouched  lor 
by  the  massacre  at  Sheclieiii,  miglit  also  be  sup- 
posed to  furnish  the  justilication  for  his  severe 
treatment;  but  it  is  questionable  whether  the 
narrator  (E)  of  his  detention  in  Egypt  had  any 
sucli  reference  in  his  mind,  seeing  that  among  the 
sources  of  Gn  34  E  has  no  place,  and  consequently 
he  may  have  been  ignorant  of  that  story.  It  is 
more  probable  that  in  Gn  42'-^  Simeon  the  second 
son  of  Jacob  is  detained  as  a  hostage  rather  than 
Keuben  the  firitborn,  because  the  latter,  according 
to  E  (Gn  37'^),  had  acted  a  more  friendly  part  than 
tlie  rest  of  Joseph's  brethren,  and  had  sought  to 
deliver  him  out  of  their  hands. 

The  rape  of  Diiiah  and  the  massacre  of  the  Shechemites  were 
commemorated  in  verse  by  the  Jewish  or  Samaritan  poet 
Theodotus  (c.  200  B.C.).  It  is  instructive  to  compare  the  judg- 
ment pxssed  uitoii  the  act  of  the  two  brothers  in  Gn  49  (cf.  34% 
with  what  we  find  in  some  of  the  literary  productions  of  post- 
exilian  Judaism.  Words  of  disapproval  and  severe  censure  ^'ive 
place  in  th.-  latter  to  hearty  approval  and  warm  eulogr>*.  The  con- 
trast is  strikin^dy  displayed  in  the  Uook  of  Judith,  whose  heroine 
belongs  to  the  tribe  of  Simeon,  and  whose  estimate  of  the  char- 
acter and  conduct  of  her  progenitor  is  as  different  from  that 
ascribed  to  Jacob  in  Genesis  as  her  language  is  oSeiuive  to 
good  taste  (Jth  O-f- ;  cf.  Book  oj  Jubilees,  ch.  30). 

2.  The  great-grandfather  of  Judas  MaccabiBns, 
1  Mac  2'.  3.  An  ancestor  of  Jesus,  Lk  S^".  4.  The 
'righteous  and  devout'  (6(/coios  xal  cuXa/?^!)  man 
who  took  the  infant  Jesus  in  his  arms  and  blessed 
Him,  on  the  occasion  of  the  presentation  in  the 
temple  (Lk  ^''■).  The  notion  that  this  Simeon  is 
to  be  identified  with  a  Rabbi  who  was  the  son  of 
Hillel  and  the  father  of  Gamaliel  I.  is  as  precarious 
as  the  apocryphal  legends  about  his  two  sons 
Charimis  and  Leucius ;  see  Nicodemus  (Gospel 
OF).  The  ven*  existence  of  a  Rabbi  Simon  ben 
Hillel  is  doubtful  (see  Schiirer,  HJP  II.  i.  363),  and 
in  any  case  he  was  not,  as  late  legends  assert, 
piesident  of  the  Sanhedrin,  an  office  which  in  the 
time  of  Christ  was  always  held  by  the  high  priest 
(see  Sanhedrin,  p.  401).  If  the  Simeon  of  St. 
Luke  had  been  HiHel's  son,  is  it  conceivable  that 
he  would  have  been  introduced  simply  as  '  a  man 
in  Jenisalem  whose  name  was  Simeon'?  5.  A 
prophet  and  teacher  at  Antioch,  whose  surname 
was  Niger  (Ac  13').  6.  Ac  15",  2  P  1'  (RVm). 
See  Peter  (Simon),  vol.  liL  p.  756. 

J.  A.  Selbik. 

SIMEON  (Tribe).— The  history  of  this  tribe, 
which  theoretically  traced  its  descent  to  the  second 
son  of  Jacob  and  Leah,  is  involved  in  considerable 
obscurity.  From  the  fact  that  Shanl,  the  eponym- 
ous head  of  one  of  its  families,  is  called  '  the  son 
of  the  Canaanitish  woman '  (Gn  46'",  Ex  6"),  we 
may  infer  that  it  contained  a  considerable  admix- 
ture of  non-Israelitish  elements.  From  Jg  !'•  " 
we  learn  that,  at  the  beginning  of  the  conquest  of 
Canaan,  Simeon  joined  his  forces  with  those  of 
Judah.  It  was  probably  not  long  thereafter  that 
Simeon  and  Le^^  together  sought  to  gain  a  settle- 
ment in  Mount  Ephraim,  which  was  then  occupied 
by  the  Canaanites.  Such  at  least  is  a  plausible 
interpretation  of  the  tradition  which  underlies  the 
narrative  of  Gn  34.  Upon  any  theory  it  is  dithcnlt 
to  disentangle  the  details  of  that  storj',  for  the 
chapter  in  question  is,  in  its  present  form,  not 
homogeneous,  and  the  different  narratives  date 
from  did'erent  periods,  and  are  inspired  by  different 
motives  (cf.  artt.  Hamor,  and  Jacob  in  vol.  ii.  p. 
530  f.).  None  of  these  narratives  is  at  all  suitable 
to  pre-Mosaic  times,  and  there  is  much  plausibility 
in  the  theory  of  Wellhausen,  that  we  have  here  a 
reminiscence  of  an  attempt  on  the  part  of  Dinah 
b.at-Leah  (a  branch  of  Simeon)  and  the  other 
Simeonites,  in  conjunction  with  Levi,  to  possess 
themselves  of  the  town  of  Shechem  by  treacher- 
ously taking  advantage  of  the  friendly  relations 


that  had  hitherto  subsisted  between  them  aad  th« 
Canaanites. 

Whatever  degree  of  success  may  have  attended 
the  enterprise  at  first,  its  ultimate  consequences 
were  most  tlisastrous,  for  the  Canaanites  of  the 
surrounding  districts  appear  to  have  attacked  and 
practically  annihilated  the  invaders  '(cf.  Moore, 
Judges,  240).  Tliis  explains  the  insignificance  or 
the  entire  ab.sence  of  Simeon  in  the  subsequent 
history  of  Israel.  The  shattered  remnants  of  this 
tribe,  which  liad  begun  its  warlike  activity  in 
alliance  ^vith  Judah,  now  fell  back  upon  tlie  latter 
for  protection  and  a  share  of  the  land  (Jos  19"). 

In  the  Song  of  Deborah  (Jg  5),  in  which  the  tribes  of  Israel 
are  praised  or  blamed  according  to  the  part  they  had  played  in 
the  struggle,  both  Judah  and  .Simeon  are  passed  over — judah 
probably  because  at  this  period  it  pursued  its  own  aims  in 
complete  separation  from  the  northern  tribes  (cf.  Gn  38),  Simeon 
because  it  was  practically  part  of  Judaii. 

The  absence  of  Simeon  in  the  Blessing  of  Moses  (Dt  33)  has 
been  felt  to  be  more  surprising,  and  various  explanations  have 
been  offered,  or  attempts  made  to  supply  the  omission.  A  and 
some  other  MSS  of  the  TA'X,  indeed,  insert  Simeon  in  v.6b  '  Let 
Reuben  live  and  not  die,  and  let  Simeon  be  many  in  number' 
{^vfiiatv  irrTot  jreXw?  iv  ccpSfj.!^).  This,  however,  may  be  simply  a 
deliberate  correction  of  the  text,  devoid  of  any  support  from 
Heb.  MSS.  Other  solutions  of  the  difficulty  have  been  proposed 
by  Kobler  {Der  Segeji  Jacob's,  5)  and  Graetz  ('ics-r/j.  d.  Jtulen,  il. 
i.  4S6f.)  which  have  been  accepted  with  modifications  by  Heil- 
prin  (Hist  Poetry/  of  the  Hebrews,  i.  113  IT.)  and  Bacon  (Triple 
Tradition  of  the  Exodus,  270  f.).  Founding  upon  the  unnatural 
shortness  of  the  blessing  of  Judah,  and  tlie  character  of  Levi's 
blessing,  which  seems  too  warlike  for  a  non.secular  tribe,  Kohler 
conjectures  that  v.'  has  fallen  out  of  its  place  and  should  follow 
v. 10,  80  that  wX  II  would  form  the  blessing  of  Judah.  Graetz 
boldlj'  substitutes  '  Simeon '  for  '  Judah '  in  v.7,  a  method  of 
procedure  which  is  approved  by  Heilprin  and  Bacon  as  far  aa 
v.7i»  is  concerned,  while  at  the  same  time  they  change  the  order 
of  the  verses  as  Kohler  proposed.  We  thus  obtain  (v. -■»)  as  the 
blessing  of  Simeon,  '  Hear,  O  Jehovah,  the  voice  of  Simeon,  and 
bring  him  to  his  people '  (the  latter  prayer  perhaps  referring  to 
the  Simeonites  who,  according  t^  1  Ch  4^21.,  found  a  settlement 
in  Mt.  Seir).  The  blessing  of  Judah  would  then  be  contained 
in  v.Tb' Judah  with  his  bauds  contends,"  etc.,  and  v. n  'Bless, 
Lord,  his  substance,'  eto. — But,  however  plausible  these  explana- 
tions may  be,  there  will  probably  be  little  hesitation  in  assenting 
to  the  judgment  of  Dillmann  (approved  by  Driver),  that  the 
corrections  of  the  text  which  they  involve  are  '  too  violent  *  to  he 
probable.  The  death-blow  whicli  Simeon  received  so  earlj-  in  his 
career  is  quite  surticient  to  account  for  the  non-mention  of  him  in 
Dt  33,  even  if  we  ascribe  a  considerable  antiquity  to  that  chapter. 

The  early  decadence  of  this  tribe  is  implied  also 
in  the  priestly  narrative  of  the  Hexateuch,  for 
while  at  the  nrst  census  (Nu  1^)  Simeon  counted 
59,300,  at  tlie  second  (26")  it  had  fallen  to  22,200. 
Knowing  the  methods  and  the  motives  of  the 
Chronicler,  we  can  of  course  attach  no  import- 
ance to  his  introducing  the  tribe  of  Simeon  as 
numerous  in  the  time  of  David  (1  Ch  12"),  especi- 
ally when  we  observe  tliat  el-sewhere  even  he  is 
compelled  to  acknowledge  its  feebleness  (1  Ch  4"). 

The  question  has  been  needlessly  raised.  To  which 
of  the  two  divisions  did  the  tribe  of  Simeon  attach 
itself  at  the  disruption  of  the  kingdom  ?  The 
truth  is  that  long  before  that  event  this  tribe  had 
ceased  to  have  any  independent  existence,  having 
been  practically  absorbed  by  Judah.  The  Chron- 
icler, indeed,  perhaps  in  order  to  make  up  the 
number  ten,  appears  to  reckon  Simeon  as  belong- 
ing to  the  N.  kingdom  (2  Ch  15"  34" ;  cf.  Ezk 
4gM. ».  a^  j^gy  77J  There  is  probably  more  founda- 
tion for  the  tradition  which  he  has  preserved  of 
conquests  made  by  Simeonites  in  the  time  of 
Hezekiah  (1  Ch  4»-*S). 

The  list  of  the  sons  of  Simeon  is  given  in  Gn  46" 
and  Ex  6".  A  different  list  appears  in  1  Ch  4"'-, 
which  is  practically  identical  with  another  in  Nil 
26"'".  Simeon's  towns  are  named  in  .Jos  19^"*  and 
(with  the  exception  of  some  deviations  due  prob- 
ably to  copyists'  errors)  in  1  Ch  4^'-.  All  these 
towns  are  in  Jos  15^""- "  reckoned  to  Judah,  and 
to  the  same  tribe  are  elsewhere  reckoned  such  of 
them  as  Ziklag  (1  S  27"),  Hormah  (1  S  30"),  and 
lieersheba  (1  K  W).  This  is  in  perfect  harmony 
with  the  conclusion  already  reached,  that  Simeon 
was  absorbed  by  Judah ;  and  this  same  conclusion 


SIMILITUDE 


SIMON 


519 


U  strengtiiened  by  the  circumstance  that  after  the 
return  from  the  Exile  there  is  no  mention  of 
Sinieonites,  but  only  of  Juilahites  as  dwelling  in 
any  of  the  above  cities  (Neh  11-*'-). 

In  addition  to  what  id  contained  in  the  OT,  the  Pal.-Jewisb 
literature  supplies  a  multitude  of  details  re^^^rding  the  tribe  of 
Simeon  and  it3  eponyn»ou»  head  (cf.  especially  Tfnt.  of  Twttve 
Patr.  and  Bk.  of  JuhilefM).  These  stories  are  too  manifestly 
apocryphal  to  merit  serious  consideration  ;  and  the  basis  is  not 
more  substantial  u|x>n  which  Dozy  {lif  l&rtwtu-ten  te  Mekka) 
builds  his  theory  that  the  sanctuary  at  Mecca  was  founded  by 
tiinieonites  in  the  time  of  David.  In  his  important  monograph. 
<Ur  Slatitm  Sijruon  (Meissen,  ISCtJ).  Graf  not  only  rejects  this 
opinion  as  wholly  devoid  of  historical  support,  but  subjects  to  a 
searching  examination  the  attempt  of  Movers  and  Hitzig  to 
discover  other  OT  allusions  besides  those  of  the  Clironicler  to 
Simeonite  conquests  and  settlements  outside  Palestine.  The 
words  of  Mic  l^^  *The  glorj'  of  Israel  shall  come  even  unto 
Adullam'  have  been,  stran^'ely  enough,  connected  with  the 
histor>*  in  1  Ch  4**-*^.  The  exegesis  by  which  this  result  is 
reached  is  exceedingly  strained,  and  the  iuter]>retation  also 
Involves,  what  was  not  the  case,  that  Simeon  belonged  to  the 
N.  kingdom.  PIqually  unsuccessful  is  the  attempt  to  prove 
that  it  is  the  Sinieonites  of  .Mt.  Seir  who  put  the  question  in 
la  21"  ('Watchman,  what  of  the  night?').  The  title  of  the 
oracle,  '  Burden  of  Dumah,'  has  been  sought  to  be  connected 
with  the  Dl'mao  of  Gn  2ji*,  mentioned  as  a  family  of  the 
Ishmaclites  side  by  side  with  Mibsam  and  Mishma,  which  last 
are  in  1  Ch  425  the  names  of  Sirnt-omte  families.  The  latter 
circumstance  may  leijitimately  be  ur^ed  in  favour  of  the  proba- 
bility of  large  admixtures  of  Ishniaclite  as  well  as  Can.  elements 
in  the  tribe  of  Simeon.  But  none  of  the  localities  known  to  us 
by  the  name  Dumah  will  suit  the  topographical  necessities  of 
Ij  21"^,  and  it  is  far  more  probable  that  non  is  a  textual  error 
for  onx  (Cheyne  in  SBOT ;  Marti,  Jei.  ad  loe.),  or  that  Dumah 
('  silence ')  is  in  this  instance  a  symbolical  designation  of  Edoin 
(Del.,  Dillm.,  and  many  others). 

Side  by  side  with  Dumah  we  I5nd  in  Gn  25t4  Massa,  to  which 
Httzig  finds  a  reference  in  Pr  30'  yp.  By  an  emendation  of  the 
text  he  makes  the  former  read,  '  Words  of  Agur,  the  son  of  the 
queen  of  Massa,'  while  the  latter  is  rendered  '  Words  of  (to) 
Lenniel,  king  of  Massa,  which  his  mother  taught  him.'  Hitzig 
endeavours  lo  connect  Massa  with  the  Simeonite  settlement  in 
Ml  Seir;  but  the  very  most  that  the  e^'idence  entitles  us  to 
infer  is  that  there  may  have  been  an  Ishwafdle  kingdom  of 
Massa,  and  that  its  queen,  like  the  nueen  of  Sheba,  may  have 
had  a  traditional  reputation  for  wisriom.  That  this  kingdom, 
however,  had  any  connexion  with  the  Simeonitcs  of  1  Cb  442  is 
not  proved,  and  is  on  many  grounds  unlikely. 

LrrERATL'RB. — Especially  Grafs  monograph,  d<rr5famTn.9im«m; 
cf.  also  his  (Juch.  BB.  d.  AT,  221  ;  Kuenen,  Gemm.  Abfiamll. 
255 ff. ;  Wellh.  Compot.  d.  i/fi.» 312 ff., S.Mf.,  IJGiSit. ;  Stadc, 
GVI  i.  164  ;  Ewald,  BM.  ii.  287 f. ;  Oraetz,  Gesclt.  d.  Juden,  ir. 
i.  486  f. ;  Kittel,  HiH.  of  Hi-brrwt,  ii.  69;  the  Commentaries  of 
Del.,  Dillm.,  Gunkel,  and  IPilzinger  on  Genegis,  and  of  Dillm., 
Driver,  Steuernagcl,  and  Dercholet  on  Deut. ;  see  also  .Moore, 
Jmiget,  12,  36,  240  L  J.  A.  SeLBIE. 

SIMILITUDE,  as  used  in  AV,  usually  means 
'image'  or  Mikenes.s.'  Cf.  Gn  \^  'find.  'Let  us 
nmke  man  in  our  symUitude  and  after  ouie  lyck- 
nesse,'  and  Ezk  8'  Cov.  (wliere  the  Heb.  is  n-jiB), 
'  The  symilitude  stretched  out  an  honde,  and  toke 
me  bv  the  hayrie  lockes  off  my  heade.'  The  words 
so  tr^  arc  (1)  n-;:B  (Ps  106^  144'=),  for  which  see 
under  I'attkrn  ;  (2)  .ijiCB  (Nu  12',  Dt  4"-  "''«),  for 
which  see  under  Image  ;  and  (3)  niDi  (2  Ch  4',  Dn 
10"),  widch  is  u.sually  tr^  'likeness.''  The  last  is 
the  only  word  tr''  'similitude'  in  RV.  The  words 
tr'' '  similitude '  in  NT  are  :  ofiolu/m  (Ro  5"),  inoluxris 
(Ja  .S»),*  and  ifioidrris  (Ho  7") ;  in  each  case  RV 
substitutes  '  likeness.'    See  under  Pattern. 

But  'similitude'  occurs  once  in  the  sense  of 
illustration,  parable,  proverb:  Hos  12""  'I  have 
nmltijdied  visions,  and  used  similitudes'  (•"i^Tf',  from 
n:^  (tlie  root  of  niD-i]  'to  be  like,'  Piel  'to'  liken'). 
Cf.  iMt  13'  Tind.  'And  he  spake  many  tliynf,'e8  to 
them  in  similitudes';  He  9*  Tind.  'Which  was  a 
•imilitude  for  the  tyme  then  present' ;  and  Lk  4^ 
Rhciii.  '  Certes,  you  wil  say  to  me  this  similitude, 
Physicion,  cure  iheyself.'  J.  Hastings. 

SIMON  {Zlfiuv),  one  of  the  commonest  names 
aiiiuii^;>t  tlie  Jews,  is  a  later  (Greek)  form  of  Simeon 
(cf.  Ac  15",  wliere  St.  James,  in  referring  to  St. 
Peter,  u.ses  tlie  archaic  fonn  of  his  name).  This 
form  is  naturally  confined  to  the  Apocr.  and  NT. 

*  For  the  distinction  between  iu4.t>ftt  and  ■.'»»  see  Mayor  on 
J»  35. 


i.  In  the  Apocrypha.— The  name  belongs  to — 
1.  Simon  I.,  the  higli  |irie.st  who  succeeded  Onias  I. 
during  the  Ptolemaic  domination  (c.  300  B.C.). 
According  to  Joseplms  (Ant.  xil.  ii.  5)  he  obtained 
the  surname  of  '  the  Just'  (4  oiicaios),  a  designation 
intended,  probably,  to  emphasize  his  strict  legalism 
in  opposition  to  the  Hellenizing  tendency  of  the 
majority  of  the  high  priests  of  the  Greek  period. 
In  Fir/ce  Aboth.  (i.  2)  he  is  said  to  have  been  one  of 
the  la.st  of  the  Great  Synagogue,  and  tlie  saying 
is  attributed  to  him  :  '  On  three  things  the  world 
is  stayed,  on  the  Torah,  on  the  Worship  [cf.  ^ 
Xarpela  in  Ro  9'],  and  on  the  bestowal  of  Kind- 
nesses' (Taylor,  Sayings  of  the  Jeipish  Fatliers^, 
p.  12).  It  is  verjr  doubtful,  however,  whether 
Josephus  is  right  in  identifying  Simon  I.  with 
Simon  the  Just.  Herzfeld  (ii.  18911".,  377 f.)  and 
others  claim  the  title  for  —  2.  Simon  II.  (Jos. 
Ant.  XII.  iv.  10),  the  successor  of  Onias  II.  (c.  2-20 
B.C.).  The  same  doubt  exists  as  to  the  subject  of  the 
panegyric  contained  in  Sir  50"''.  He  is  designated 
simply  'Simon  the  son  of  Onias  the  high  priest,' 
a  title  applicable  either  to  Simon  I.  or  to  Simon  II. 
The  graphic  description,  however,  contained  in 
this  passage  leaves  the  impression  on  one's  mind 
that  Ben  Sira  (c.  180  B.C.)  is  speaking  of  an  elder 
contemporary  (Simon  II.)  of  his  own  rather  than 
of  a  high  priest  who  had  died  a  century  before 
(Cheyne,  Job  and  Solomon,  180 ;  see,  further, 
Kuenen,  Gesam.  Abhandl.  153  f.;  Schurer,  GJV* 
ii.  355 f.  [IIJP  II.  i.  355 f.];  Graetz,  'Simon  der 
Gerechte  und  seine  Zeit,'  in  Munatsschrift,  1857, 
pp.  45-56).  3.  A  temple  official  who,  out  of  ill-will 
lo  the  high  priest  Onias  III.,  suggested  to  Seleu- 
CUS  IV.  tlie  plundering  of  the  temple  treasury, 
2  Mac  3'.  See  Heliodorus.  4.  Simon  the  Mac- 
cabee. — See  Maccabees,  vol.  iiL  p.  185.  S.  1  Es 
9'=.     See  Cuosameus. 

ii.  In  the  NT.— 1,  The  Apostle  Peter.— See 
Peter  (Simon).  2.  See  Simon  Magus.  3.  Another 
of  the  apostles,  Simon  theCANAN.*;AN  (which  see). 
4.  A  brother  of  Jesus  (Mt  13",  Mk  6^).  It  is  very 
doubtful  whether  he  should  be  identified  with  the 
Symeon  who  is  said  to  have  succeeded  James  '  the 
Lord's  brother'  as  bishop  of  Jerusalem  (Euseb  HE 
iii.  11,  iv.  22),  and  to  have  suU'ered  martyrdom 
under  Trajan  (ib.  iii.  32).  Hegesippus,  whom 
Euseb.  protes.ses  to  quote,  describes  this  Symeon 
as  .5071  of  Clopas,  and  calls  him  dxei/'iis  of  the  Lord, 
while  James  and  Jude  are  spoken  of  as  the 
Lord's  iSeXtpol.  See  art.  Brethren  of  the  Lord, 
vol.  L  pp.  320*.  321'>.  6.  Simon  '  the  leper,'  in 
whose  house  a  woman  anointed  Jesus,  ^It  26°, 
Mk  14'.  The  question  of  the  identity  of  our 
Lord's  host  and  tlie  cognate  questions  connected 
with  the  incident  of  the  anointing  are  exhaustively 
discussed  in  art.  Makv,  vol.  iii.  p.  27911'.  6.  A 
Pharisee  who  invited  Jesus  to  eat  with  him,  Lk 
7*"''.  On  this  occasion  we  read  that  a  woman  that 
was  'a  sinner'  (a/iaproiXiit)  anointed  Jesus'  feet. 
For  the  relation  of  this  incident  to  the  narratives 
of  Mt  26,  Mk  14,  and  Jn  12,  see,  again,  art.  .Mary 
as  just  cited,  and  cf.  Bruce,  Parabolic  Teaching  of 
Christ,  250  fl'.  7.  The  father  (?)  of  JuDAS  IsCARIOT. 
In  all  the  passages  (Jn  6"  13*'  *•)  wliere  this  Simon 
is  named,  the  Greek  text  ('loilSas  'Zliiuvoi,  '  Judas  of 
Simon')  leaves  it  uncertain  what  wits  his  relation- 
ship to  the  traitor,  but  the  EV  'Judas  the  son  of 
Simon '  is  probably  correct.  It  is  very  precarious 
to  identify  Simon  Iscariot  (Jn  6"  13-")  with  Simon 
the  Cannna-an.  8.  A  Cyrenian,  who  was  compelled 
by  the  Roman  soldiers  to  bear  the  cross  of  Jesua 
(Mt27'",  Mk  15^',  Lk  23-»).  He  is  described  by 
St.  Mark  as  the  father  of  Alexander  and  RuFOS, 
names  evidently  well  known  in  the  early  Christian 
Church.  The  story  in  the  Gospels  waa  perverted 
by  some  of  the  Docetic  sects,  the  Basil  idians  going 
the  length  of  maintaining   that  Simon  not  only 


620 


SIMOX  MAGUS 


SlilON  MAGUS 


bore  the  cross,  but  was  actually  crucified  in  mis- 
take for  Jesus.  9.  The  tanner,  with  whom  St. 
Peter  lodged  at  Joppa  (Ac  9^  10»-  "•  '^j. 

J.  A.  Selbie. 
SIMON  MAGUS.— The  name  usually  given  for 
the  sake  of  distinction  to  that  Simon  who  is  men- 
tioned in  only  one  place  in  the  NT,  but  to  whom, 
both  in  Patristic  literature  and  in  modern  criticism, 
the  part  assigned  is  very  considerable.  There  are 
some  features  in  the  story  of  the  NT  which  e.xcite 
our  curiosity ;  the  early  Fathers  have  detailed 
ai:counts  of  liis  false  te.iching,  and  give  him  the 
doubtful  honour  of  being  the  first  of  the  heresi- 
arclis,  the  source  and  spring  of  all  later  heresy ; 
early  Christian  romance  writers  embellished  his 
history  Mith  many  wonderful  details,  and  made 
him  the  antagonist  of  Simon  Peter,  both  in  verbal 
disputations  and  in  the  e.\hibition  of  magical  arts  ; 
while  a  school  of  modern  critics  has  found  in  his 
career  and  the  stories  concerning  him  the  chief 
support  for  a  far-reaching  reconstruction  of  our 
conceptions  of  early  Christianity.  In  order  to 
obtain  a  sound  basis  for  our  investigations,  it  will 
be  useful  after  examining  the  account  in  the  NT  to 
go  carefully  tlirough  the  Patristic  evidence  in 
chronological  order,  and  after  that  consider  the 
fuller  narratives  of  uncertain  date  contained  in 
tlie  Clementine  literature  and  Apocryphal  Acts. 
"We  shall  thus  be  in  a  better  position  to  estimate 
the  force  and  value  of  modem  criticism,  and  be 
able  to  otl'er  a  probable  explanation  of  the  various 
ditliculties  that  the  problem  presents. 

i.  Simon  in  the  New  Testament, 
ii.  Simon  in  Patristic  literature  Co  A.D.  400. 
iii.  Tlie  Clementine  literature  and  Apocr^'phal  Aet8. 
iv.  Modern  critical  views. 
V.  The  growth  of  the  lepend. 
vi.  The  affinities  of  Simon's  system, 
vii.  Simon  Magus  and  simony. 
viii.  Simon  Magus  and  the  Fauat  legend. 
Literature. 

i.  Simon  in  the  NT.  —  In  Ac  8»-",  where  the 
preaching  of  Philip  in  Samaria  is  described,  we 
are  told  that  '  there  was  a  certain  man  called 
Simon,  which  beforetime  in  the  city  used  sorcery, 
and  bewitched  the  people  of  Samaria,  giving  out 
that  himself  was  some  great  one '  (\4yui'  dial  nya 
iavTiv  fiiyav).  All  tlie  people  followed  him,  and 
described  him  as  '  tliat  power  of  Gpd  which  is 
called  great'  (oCiris  i(7nv  j)  Svv»iui  toD  SeoD  ^  itaXou- 
IxivTi  ixeydXr]).  When  the  rest  of  the  city  was  con- 
verted, Simon  also  believed  and  was  baptized,  and 
continued  with  Philip,  amazed  at  his  miracles. 
When  Peter  and  John  came  down,  they  laid  hands 
on  the  converts,  wlio  received  the  floly  Ghost. 
Simon  then  ollered  Peter  money,  saying,  'Give  me 
also  this  power,  that  on  whomsoever  I  lay  hands,  he 
may  receive  the  Holy  Ghost.'  Peter  sternly  re- 
buked him.  'Thy  money  perish  with  thee  .  .  . 
thou  hast  neither  part  nor  lot  in  this  matter  .  .  . 
thou  art  in  the  gall  of  bitterness,  and  the  bond  of 
iniquity.'  Simon  entreated  him  to  pray  the  Lord 
that  none  of  those  things  might  come  upon  him. 

It  will  be  more  convenient  to  postpone  comments 
on  tliis  passage  until  we  have  collected  further  in- 
formation on  the  subject. 

ii.  Patristic  Evidence.— The  earliest  informa- 
tion outside  the  NT  comes  from  Jtistin  Martyr,  c. 
150  (Apul.  i.  26,  56  [cf.  Eus.  HE  ii.  13.  14] ;  Dial. 
120).  He  tells  us  that  Simon  was  a  Samaritan,  of 
the  vill.age  of  Gitta  ;  he  came  to  Rome  in  the  time 
of  Claudius  C;esar  ;  by  the  power  of  the  demons  he 
worked  miracles,  and  was  honoured  in  Rome  as  a 
god,  so  that  a  statue  was  erected  in  his  honour  by 
order  of  the  Senate  and  people,  between  the  two 
bridges,  bearing  the  inscription  SIMONI  DEO 
S.-VNCTO.  Almost  all  the  Samaritans  and  a  few 
of  other  nations  honour  him  as  the  first  god  (xpiro! 
peos).     He  took  about  with  him  a  woman  called 


Helena,  who  had  formerly  be'»n  a  prostitute,  and 
whom  he  is  said  to  have  called  the  first  conception 
[trpJini  Ivfota)  which  came  forth  from  him.  He  ia 
described  as  God  above  '  all  rule  and  authority  and 

f)ower.'  We  also  gather  that  Justin  looked  upon 
lim  as  the  originator  of  heresy  and  the  source 
whence  all  later  heresies  were  derived. 

As  regards  one  part  of  this  story  an  interesting 
discovery  has  been  made.  In  the  year  1574  tliere 
was  dug  up  in  the  place  indicated  by  Justin, 
namely,  in  the  island  of  the  Tiber,  a  marble  frag- 
ment, apparently  the  base  of  a  statue,  with  the 
inscription  SE^fONI  SANCO  DEO  FIDIO.  It 
is  now  generally  agreed  that  Justin  mistook  a 
statue  dedicated  to  a  Sabine  deity  for  one  dedi- 
cated to  Simon  (Gruter,  l7isc.  Ant.  i.  p.  95,  n.  5), 
although  whether  the  mistake  was  his  own  or  was 
earlier  than  himself  we  cannot  say.  But  nothing 
in  this  mistake  need  invalidate  his  testimony  about 
Simon  in  Samaria.  J  ustin  himself  was  a  Samaritan ; 
he  draws  attention  at  least  once  {Dial.  120 ;  cf. 
Apol.  ii.  15)  to  the  fact  that  he  nad  spoken  the 
truth  to  his  own  disadvantage.  On  the  subject 
of  the  sect  which  called  itself  after  the  name  of 
Simon  he  must  he  taken  as  first-hand  evidence. 
And  there  are  strong  grounds  for  thinking  that 
we  have  a  fuller  account  which  emanates  from 
him.  Accounts  of  Simon  Magus  are  contained  in 
the  following  heresiological  works :  Iren:i'us  (I. 
xvi.),  pseudo-TertuUian  (i. ),  Hippolytus  (Refutatio, 
vi.),  PhUaster  (29),  Epiphanins  {Panarion,  21). 
Of  these,  that  in  Hippoljtus'  Ecfutatio  consists  of 
two  parts  ;  that  from  §  7  to  §  18,  containing  extracts 
from  a  work  called  ^  iiey6.\ri  dTro^oiris,  '  the  Great 
Revelation,'  presents  a  ditl'erent  system  from  that 
found  elsewhere,  and  will  be  noticed  further  on ; 
that  in  §  19  and  §  20  is  derived  from  the  same  source 
from  which  the  greater  part  of  the  matter  in  all 
the  other  heresiologists  comes.  It  is  now  gener- 
ally agreed,  and  probably  on  good  grounds,  that 
this  common  source  was  a  treatise  (uivTayfia.)  on 
heresies  written  by  Justin  and  referred  to  by  him- 
self (Apol.  i.  26).  The  following  is  the  account  put 
together  from  these  different  sources  : — 

Simon  was  said  to  have  taught  that  he  was  the  highest 
God,  the  most  elevated  virtue  {rr,v  irlp  fravTat  HvotLut,).  He 
carried  about  with  him  Helena,  who  he  said  was  the  first 
conception  of  his  mind,  the  mother  of  all,  by  whom  he  con- 
ceived in  his  mind  to  create  the  angels  and  archan|,'els.  She 
was  also  called  Wisdom  (a-o^ix),  according  to  pseudo-Tertullian, 
and  Holy  Spirit  and  Prunicus  (<rfoi«.««),  according  to  Epi- 
phanius.  She,  knowing  her  father's  wish,  leapt  forth  from  hira 
and  created  the  angels  and  powers  by  whom  tliis  world  and 
man  were  created.  She  was  unable  to  return  to  her  father 
because  of  the  envy  and  desire  of  those  whom  she  had  created, 
and  suffered  contumely,  and  waa  compelled  to  assume  human 
form.  She  passed  through  the  centuries,  as  it  were,  from  one 
vessel  to  another,  transmigrating  from  one  female  form  to 
another.  She  was  the  Helen  about  whom  the  Trojan  war  WM 
foui^ht;  the  wooden  horse  representing  the  ignorance  of  the 
nations.  After  that  she  passed  from  form  to  form,  and  lajitly 
became  a  prostitute  in  a  brothel  at  Tyre :  she  was  the  lost 
sheep.  But  since  the  rulers  of  the  world  ruled  it  ill,  and  in 
order  to  redeem  her,  the  Supreme  Power  descended  to  the 
lower  world.  He  passed  through  the  regions  ruled  by  the 
principalities  and  powers,  in  each  region  making  himself  like 
to  those  in  it,  and  so  among  men  he  appeared  as  a  man.  He 
appeared  among  the  Jews  as  the  Son,  in  Samaria  as  the  Father, 
in  other  nations  as  the  Holy  Spirit.  In  Judiea  he  had  seemed 
to  suffer,  but  ha<I  not.  lie  allawed  himself  to  be  railed  by 
whatsoever  names  men  liked.  He  thus  succeeded  in  saving 
Helena,  as  she  expected.  He  brought  man  to  a  knowledge  of 
himself,  and  liberated  the  world  and  those  who  were  his  from 
the  rule  of  those  who  had  made  the  world.  The  Jewish  pro- 
phecies, he  said,  were  mspired  by  the  anijels  who  made  the 
world.  Therefore  those  who  had  hope  in  him  and  Helena  need 
no  longer  care  for  them,  but  might  freely  do  as  they  would,  for 
men  were  saved  according  to  his  pnw^e  and  not  according  to 
good  works.  There  was  no  real  dilference  between  good  and 
bad,  they  were  merely  accidental  distinctions  made  by  the 
creators  of  the  worid.  The  morality  of  the  sect  was,  we  or« 
told,  in  accordance  with  these  principles.  Their  priests  (mjjKlyd 
mcerdotet)  lived  lascivious  lives,  used  magic  and  incantations, 
made  philtres,  had  tamili.ir  spirits,  and  had  images  of  Simon 
and  Helena  made  in  the  form  of  Zeus  and  Athena. 

Hef/csippus  (c.  180),  in  a  corrupt  passage  quoted 
by  Eus.  IV.  22,  speaks  of  Simon,  from  whom  (*ma 


SIMON  MAGUS 


SIMON  MAGUS 


521 


the  Simoniaiis ;  Cleobius,  whence  the  Cleobians ; 
aii'i  llositheus,  wlience  the  Dositheans ;  and  Gor- 
thii'us,  whence  the  Gortlieni  ;  and  Masbotheus, 
whence  the  Masbotlieans — from  these,  he  says, 
came  tlie  followers  of  Menander;  and  lie  then  enu- 
merates the  later  heretics.  It  would  be  interesting; 
to  know  if  this  heretical  genealogy  is  independent 
of  Justin. 

TcrtiU/ian  (c.  200)  does  not  seem  to  have  any 
original  information.  He  knows  the  story  al)out 
the  statue  (Apol.  13).  He  gives  a  long  account  of 
Simon's  system.derived  apparently  from  Irena'us((i'e 
Aninia,  34).  He  siij's  that  even  in  his  own  day  the 
presumption  of  the  sect  of  Simon  is  so  great  that 
they  even  presume  to  raise  the  souls  of  the  prophets 
from  the  lower  regions  (Ecce  kodie  eUisdem  Simunii 
hiercticos  tanta  preiuinjitio  artis  extollit,  ut  eCiam 
pruphctarum  animas  ab  in/erii-  movere  se  spon- 
deant). 

Clement  of  Alexandria  (c.  200)  gives  us  little 
information  about  Simon.  There  is  a  chronological 
remark  in  Strom,  vii.  17  which  is  quite  inexplicable, 
and  in  .Strom,  ii.  11  he  tells  us  that  the  followers 
of  Simon  \vi.sh  to  be  made  like  the  '  Standing  One ' 
whom  they  worship. 

In  Ilippolytus  (Rcfutatio,  vi.  7-18)  (r.  230  A.D.) 
extracts  are  given  from  a  work  which  evidently 
described  a  somewhat  dill'erent  system,  and  was 
called  '  the  Great  Revelation.' 

The  first  principle,  according  to  this,  is  called  kvipat^^ot 
dC«cu4E,  it  is  lire  or  silence ;  tiie  fire  is  of  two  sorts.  ^»i^o» 
anrl  Kfii/trit,  that  which  is  hidden  Iteing  tlie  secret  principle 
which  causes  that  which  is  open.  The  world  Is  derived  from 
the  unborn  tire  (>'i»>rTo;  if  kyi^^ritrnj) ;  first  came  six  roots  in 
pairs,  male  and  female,  viz.  ^aZi  and  i-r.>«ix,  ^»»i  and  i^ofjM,^ 
XoytruM  and  ivt/iiirff-'f.  Corresponding  to  these  are  six  visible  or 
realized  counterparts  cvpaoo;  and  >r,  ^Xiof  and  ff-iAr,,*:,  «<'.*>  and 
Ccvp.  A  larpe  part  of  the  work  is  devoted  to  provinfj  the 
system  by  an  allegorical  use  of  the  OT,  but  it  is  interesting  to 
notice  tliat  there  are  elements  derived  from  Aristotle,  especi- 
ally the  distinction  which  nms  through  the  whole  of  SC^afxtt 
and  itipynx.  Simon  calls  himself  i  i<nui,  i  rrecg^  i  ^Tr^auiyflf, 
impljing  his  pre-existence  and  his  immortality.  A  abort  ex- 
tract wiil  be  sullicient  to  show  the  character  of  the  book  :  *  To 
vou  then  1  say  what  I  say,  and  I  write  what  I  write.  The  writ- 
ing is  this.  There  arc  two  ofTshoote  of  the  complete  .^^.ons, 
having  neither  begiiming  nor  end,  from  one  root,  which  is  the 
Invisible,  incumprt-hensible  power  silence,  of  which  the  one  is 
manifested  from  above,  which  is  the  great  power,  the  intellect 
of  the  universe,  that  administers  all  things,  the  male  principle  ; 
but  tlie  other  is  from  below,  vast  thought,  tlie  female  principle, 
generative  of  all  things.  Whence  corresponding  to  one  another 
tliey  funn  a  pair  (rv^vy tec),  and  they  reveal  the  iiiiddle  space  as 
an  atmosphere  wliich  cannot  be  comprehended,  having  neither 
beginning  nor  end.  But  in  this  is  the  father  who  hears  and 
nniirinhes  all  things  that  have  beginning  and  end.  This  is  he 
who  sto(Mi,  who  standeth,  who  will  stiind,  being  a  bisexual 
|x»wer,  the  reflex  of  the  pre-existent,  unlimited  power  which 
nath  neither  beginning  nor  end,  being  in  solitude ;  for  trom 
this  the  thought  wliich  pre-existed  in  solitude  came  forth  and 
became  twain.* 

Besides  the  extracts  from  this  hook,  Hippolytus 
also  tells  us  (vi.  20)  that  Simon  went  .-is  far  as  Koine, 
where  ho  seduced  many  by  his  magical  arts,  but 
was  opposed  by  Peter.  This  is  the  earliest  refer- 
ence to  a  contest  with  St.  Peter  at  Rome,  unless 
the  notice  in  I'hilaster  (see  below)  was  derived 
from  the  earlier  treatise  of  Hippolytus,  in  wliich 
case  it  would  belong  to  the  close  of  the  2nd  cent. 
Hippolytus  goes  on  to  give  an  account  of  his 
death,  diltcicnt  from  any  that  we  have  in  other 
sources.  At  the  end  of  his  life  Simon  stated  that 
if  he  were  buried  alive  he  would  rise  on  the  third 
day.  He  ordered  his  disciples  to  dig  a  grave  and 
to  bury  him.  They  did  as  they  were  ordered, 
'  but  ho  remained  away  even  to  tlie  present  day. 
For  he  was  not  the  Christ.* 

(h-iijoi  (c.  249  A.D.),  in  the  contra  Celsum,  v.  62, 
tells  us  that  Celsus,  enumerating  all  the  Christian 
heretics,  speaks  of  Simonians  who,  worshippiii'; 
Helena,  or  a  teacher  Helenus,  are  called  Ileleniani. 
Origen  points  out  that  Celsus  has  omitted  to  notice 
that  the  Simonians  never  confess  Jesus  as  the  Son 
01  (lod,  but  say  that  Simon  is  the  power  of  God. 


In  vi.  11  Driven  points  out  that  Simon  has  nc 
followers,  and  Dositheus  not  more  than  thirty, 
lie  adds  that  this  is  all  the  more  marvellous,  aa 
Simon  had  taken  away  for  his  disciples  the  danger 
of  death,  saying  that  to  sacritice  to  idols  was  a 
matter  of  indillerence.  In  the  same  work  (i.  57) 
we  are  told  that  Simon  has  not  thirty  followers,  or 
that  that  is  an  e.\.iggerated  number. 

Commodian  (c.  2.")U),  in  Cnrm.  apol,  p.  613,  speak- 
ing of  beasts  which  have  had  the  power  of  speech 
by  the  power  of  God,  tells  ns  of  the  dog  which 
St.  Peter  made  to  speak  to  Simon.  This  story  is 
found  in  the  Apocryphal  Acts. 

The  author  of  the  treatise  de  Itebaptitmate,  ch. 
16  (c.  2U0  A.D.),  tells  us  of  followers  of  Simon  who 
make  tire  appear  in  the  water  when  they  baptize. 

In  the  Si/riac  Didascalia  (end  of  3rd  cent.),  vi. 
8  and  9  (Lagarde,  Syriac  text,  and  in  Bunsen,  Ana- 
lectn  Antenirtena,  ii.  p.  325),  we  have  a  reference 
to  Simon  and  Cleobius  and  others  of  his  followers, 
and  an  account  of  the  linal  destruction  of  Siinon 
in  the  contest  with  Peter  at  Rome.  As  this  work 
is  almost  inaccessible,  and  its  evidence  is  import- 
ant, the  following  extracts  are  given  in  full :  * — 

Syriac.  p.  100,  I.  18  *  (Concerning  Simon  the  sorcerer).  For 
the  beginning  of  heresies  was  on  this  wise.  Satan  clothed  him- 
self with  .Simon,  a  man  who  was  a  sorcerer,  and  of  old  time  was 
his  servant.  And  when  we,  by  the  gift  of  the  Lord  our  God, 
and  by  the  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  were  doing  powers  of  lieal- 
ing  in  Jerusalem,  and  by  means  of  the  laying  on  of  hands,  the 
coiumuniejition  of  the  Holy  Spirit  was  given  to  those  who 
presented  themselves,  then  he  brought  to  us  much  silver,  and 
desired  that,  as  he  had  deprived  Adam  of  the  knowledge  of  life 
bv  the  eating  of  the  tree,  so  also  he  might  deprive  us  of  the 
pift  of  God  by  the  gift  of  silver,  and  might  seize  our  uniierstand- 
ings  by  the  gift  of  riches,  in  order  that  we  might  give  to  him  in 
exchange  for  silver  the  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  And  we  were 
all  trouDled  about  this.  Then  Peter  looked  at  Satan,  who  was 
dwelhng  in  Simon,  and  said  to  him,  "Thy  silver  shall  go  with 
thee  to  destruction,  and  thou  shaJt  not  have  part  m  this 
matter."  * 

P.  101  *  (Concerning  false  apostles).  But  when  we  divided  t« 
the  twelve  parts  for  all  the  world,  and  went  forth  among  the 
Gentiles  in  all  the  world,  to  preach  the  word,  then  Satan 
wrought  and  disturbed  the  people  to  send  after  us  fal.se  apo.stles 
for  the  refutation  of  the  word.  And  he  sent  out  from  the 
people  one  whose  name  was  Cleobius,  and  joined  him  to  Simon, 
and  also  others  after  them.  They  of  the  house  of  Simon  followed 
me,  Peter,  and  came  to  corrupt  the  word.  .\iid  when  he  was  in 
Uonie  he  disturbed  the  Church  [much],  and  turned  away  many. 
And  showed  himself  as  though  Hying.  And  lie  laid  hold  of  the 
Gentiles,  terrifying  them  by  the  power  of  the  working  of  his 
sorceries.  And  in  one  of  the  days  I  went  and  saw  liiiii  Hying  in 
the  air.  Then  I  rose  up  and  said,  "  By  the  power  of  the  name 
of  Jesus  I  cut  away  thy  powers."  And  he  fell,  and  the  ankle  of 
his  foot  was  broken.  And  then  many  tunied  away  from  him. 
But  others  who  were  worthy  of  him  clave  to  him.  And  thus 
first  was  established  and  became  that  heresy  of  his.  And  also 
by  means  of  other  false  apostles,'  etc". 

(Brackets  as  io  Syriac  text). 

Amohius  (c.  310,  contra  Gentcs,  ii.  12)  knows  of 
the  story  of  the  contest  of  Simon  and  I'eter  at 
Rome.  '  For  they  had  seen,'  he  says,  '  the  chariot 
of  Simon  M.agus  and  the  four  flaming  horses 
scattered  by  the  inouth  of  Peter,  and  di.sapneiiring 
at  the  name  of  Christ.'  He  had  been  hurled  down, 
and  his  legs  broken  ;  then,  taken  to  IJninda,  worn 
out  with  tortures  and  with  shame,  he  had  again 
thrown  himself  down  from  a  lofty  siimmit. 

Eu.irhius  (c.  324  A.D.,  IIE  ii.  13.  14)  gives  on 
account  of  Siinon  drawn  from  Justin  Martyr  and 
Irena'us,  and  embellished  with  somewhat  strong 
vitujierativo  langua''e.  He  then  goes  on  to  refer 
to  a  contest  with  Peter,  first  in  Juda>a,  then  in 
Rome. 

•Forthwith,*  he  says,  'the  above-mentioned  impostor  was 
smitten  in  the  eyes  of  his  mind  by  a  Divine  and  wonderful 
light,  and  when  "flrst  he  had  been  convicted  in  Judiea  by  llie 
Apostle  Peter  of  the  evil  deeds  he  \\vkA  committed,  he  departed 
ill  (light  on  a  great  Journey  over  the  sea  from  the  lOiust  u>  the 
West,  thinking  in  this  way  only  he  would  be  able  to  live  as  be 
wished.*    Ue  tells  us  that  he  come  to  Homo,  was  assisted  there 

•  The  writer  is  indebted  for  these  extracts  to  the  Rev.  W.  C 
Allen  of  Kxeter  College,  Oxford,  who  Is  engaged  on  a  translation 
of  the  Syriac.  The  passage  is  also  contoiueu  in  the  \auu  Frag 
nient,  x'xxii. 


522 


SIMOX  MAGUS 


SIMON  MAGUS 


by  the  devil,  obtained  freat  influence,  and  waa  honoured  by  a 
Btatue.  But  during;  the  rei;^  of  Claudius,  Peter  himself  name 
there.  *And  when  the  Divine  word  thus  made  its  dwellinff 
there,  the  power  of  Simoa  and  the  man  himself  were  immedi- 
ately quenched.' 

Eusebius  and  the  author  of  the  Syriac  Didaar.alia 
quoted  above  are  tlie  lirst  writers  who  speak  of 
both  a  contest  in  Judiea  and  also  one  in  Home  ;  but 
there  does  not  seem  to  be  any  reason  for  thinking 
that  either  of  them  had  any  other  source  for  the 
former  tlian  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  We  do  not 
know  Eusebius'  source  for  the  overthrow  of  Simon 
by  Peter,  and  his  Kaiigua^e  is  curiously  ambiguous. 
Probably  he  is  giving  tne  common  story,  drawn 
from  mere  apocryphal  writing,  the  wortldessuoss 
of  which  he  knows  quite  well.  This  makes  him 
avoid  botli  a  quotation  and  direct  details. 

Cyril  of  Jerus.ilem  (c.  347,  Cat.  vi.  14,  15)  gives 
an  account  based  upon  the  Acts  and  Justin.  He 
also  gives  an  account  of  the  destruction  of  Simon 
■when  he  attempted  to  fly.  It  is  interesting,  as 
we  shall  see,  to  notice  that  he  ascribes  the  final 
catastrophe  to  the  joint  agency  of  Peter  and  Paul, 
showing  that  he  possessed  a  story  which  contained 
the  names  of  them  both. 

The  work  de  excidio  Hierosolym.  iii.  2  (A.D.  368), 
ascribed  to  Hegesippus,  but  probably  by  Ambrose, 
gives  an  account  of  a  contest  at  Rome  of  Peter 
and  Paul  with  Simon.  It  narrates  a  con.siderable 
number  of  incidents  contained  in  the  Latin  Acts. 

Philaster  (c.  380  A.D.),  in  his  account  of  heresies 
{fftnr.  xxix.),  knows  of  the  contest  at  Rome  with 
Peter  before  Nero.  He  tells  tis  that  Simon  fled 
from  .Jerusalem  to  escape  Peter,  and  came  to 
Rome,  and  then  narrates  the  contest.  If  this  came 
from  his  source,  the  early  treatise  of  Hippolylus, 
it  would  throw  the  evidence  for  it  into  the  2nd 
cent. ;  but  as  it  is  absent  in  the  parallel  passage  of 
Epiphanius,  and  as  Hippolytus  in  liis  later  treatise 
knows  the  story  in  anotlier  form,  it  is  not  prob- 
able that  it  did. 

Jerome  {in  Matt.  24')  (387  A.D.)  tells  us  that 
Simon  said,  '  Ego  sum  sernio  Dei,  ego  sum  spe- 
ciosus,  ego  paracletus,  ego  omnipotens,  ego  omnia 
Dei.' 

Tlie  Apostolic  Constitutions,  which  date  from 
Antioch  about  the  year  400,  give  the  legend  of 
Simon  Magus  in  what  we  may  call  its  complete 
form  (vi.  7-9) — 

The  source  of  all  heresy  is  Simon  of  Gitta.  First  of  all,  the 
story  in  the  Acts  is  given.  Then  comes  an  account  of  all  the 
false  teachers  who  went  forth  into  the  world.  Then  of 
the  contest  between  Simon  and  Peter  at  Caisarea,  where  the 
companions  of  Peter  were  Zaccheous  the  publi(^n,  and  Barnabas, 
and  Nicetas  and  Aquila,  brothers  of  Clement,  'bishop  and 
citizen  of  Home,  who  ha<i  been  the  disciple  of  Paul  and  co-apostle 
and  helper  in  the  gospel.'  They  discoursed  for  three  days  con- 
cernin;;  prophecy  and  the  unity  of  the  Godliead.  Then  Simon, 
bein;;  defeated,  fled  into  Italy.  Then  comes  an  account  of  the 
contest  at  Rome  of  the  same  character  aa  we  shall  come 
across  shortly  in  the  Apocrj-phal  Acts. 

This  account  is  very  much  fuller  than  the  narra- 
tive contained  in  the  Syriac  Didascalia,  A\Titten 
probably  rather  more  than  a  century  earlier,  and 
seems  to  imply  a  considerable  grov/th  of  the  legend. 
As  will  shortly  be  seen,  it  implies  a  knowledge  of 
the  Clementine  literature  in  some  form,  and  of  the 
Apocryphal  Acts. 

In  reviewing  this  catena  of  passages  certain 
points  become  clear.  During  the  2nd  cent,  all  the 
information,  as  far  as  we  know,  that  existed  about 
Simon,  is  derived  from  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles 
and  the  writings  of  Justin.  Tliere  seems  to  be  no 
knowledge  of  the  contest  with  Peter  at  Rome, 
although  Justin  believed  that  Simon  had  visited 
Rome.  In  the  3rd  cent,  we  begin  to  get  an  account 
of  the  contest  with  Peter,  which  we  lind  in 
Hippolytns,  Commodian,  the  authors  of  the  Syriac 
Didascidin,  and  Auielius.  Eusebius  and  the  Did- 
ascalia con\.«k\ji  this  legend,  with  an  account  of  a 


contest  in  Palestine,  but  do  not  imply  anjahing 
beyond  the  narrative  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apo.stles ; 
Cyril's  account  seems  of  much  the  same  character. 
It  is  not  until  Ave  reach  the  close  of  the  4th  cent, 
that  we  find  in  the  Apostolic  Constitutions  what 
we  may  call  the  completed  legend,  combining  tha 
stories  which,  as  we  shall  see,  are  derived  from 
the  Clementine  liteiature  with  those  derived  from 
the  Apocryphal  Acts  and  the  narrative  in  the  Acta 
of  the  Apostles.  The  contrast  between  the  earlier 
Didascalia  and  the  later  Constitutions  is  from  this 
point  of  view  most  instructive.  We  are  now  in  a 
position  to  study  the  fuller  legends. 

iii.  The  Clementine  Literatuke  and  Apoc- 
ryphal Acts.— (a)  Tub  Clementine  Homilies 

AND  liECOGNITIONS. — These  are  two  forms  of  what 
appear  to  be  an  early  Cliristian  romance,  containing 
the  story  of  the  wanderings  of  Clement  in  search  of 
truth,  the  preaching  and  missionary  journeys  of 
Peter,  his  contest  with  Simon  Magus,  and  the  re- 
union of  Clement  with  the  lost  members  of  bis 
family — his  father,  mother,  and  two  brothers.  The 
Becognitiom  we  possess  only  in  a  translation  made 
by  Ruiinus  about  tlie  year  400 ;  the  Homilies  con- 
tain a  somewhat  difl'ertnt  form  of  the  same  story 
in  Greek.  There  are  also  a  Syriac  version  and 
later  epitomes  which  need  not  trouble  us.  Neither 
the  Recognitions  nor  the  Homilies  contain  the  story 
in  its  original  form,  both  presenting  later  features  ; 
and  there  is  no  acceptetl  opinion  concerning  the 
date  or  the  sources  of  the  booK.  But  the  completed 
work  must  belong  to  a  time  when  the  controversy 
with  Marcion's  teaching  and  the  preservation  of  the 
Divine  fiovapxta  were  of  interest  in  the  Church,  i.e. 
to  the  early  part  of  the  3rd  cent. ;  and  some  of  the 
sources  may  be  earlier.  The  earliest  quotations 
come  from  Origen  (c.  230).  The  work  is  clearly 
not  orthodox  in  doctrine,  but  presents  Ebionite 
features  tinged  with  the  Gnosticism  it  combats. 
We  will  give  the  account  contained  in  the  Homilies, 
stating  at  the  conclusion  tlie  main  ditterences  in 
the  narrative  of  the  Recognitions. 

The  Homilies  begin  with  an  account  of  Clement,  of  his  early 
religious  impulses,  of  the  desire  that  he  had  to  hear  of  the  new 
prophet,  and  of  his  meeting  with  Peter  at  Casarea  in  Palestine. 
He  finds  that  Peter  is,  on  the  next  day,  to  dispute  with  a 
certain  Simon  of  Oitta  (Bk.  i.).  The  history  of  Simon  is  then 
related  by  Aquila  and  Nicetas,  who  had  formerly  been  his 
pupils.  His  father's  name  was  Antonius,  his  mother's,  Rachel. 
He  was  a  Samaritan  of  the  village  of  Gitta  or  Gitths,  six  miles 
from  Samaria.  lie  was  educated  at  Alexandria,  and  sliilled  in 
the  wisdom  of  the  Greeks  and  in  magic.  He  wishes  to  be  con- 
sidered the  highest  virtue  (iva/TotTTi  rtt  Kteifi-ii),  higher  than  the 
Creatorof  the  world.  He  calls  himself  the  Standing  One  («'E<rTfl^), 
as  signifying  that  he  will  always  be  firmly  established  (alf  iy.  rirtri- 
fAitos  ii<)i  and  having  no  cause  of  corruption  in  him.  The 
Creator  of  the  world  is  not  the  highest  God.  nor  will  the  dead 
1>€  raised.  He  denies  Jerusalem  and  substitutes  Mt.  Geriziin. 
He  puts  himself  in  the  place  of  Christ.  He  perverts  the  Law 
bv  his  own  interpretation  of  it.  He  was  the  chief  of  the 
disciples  of  John  the  Hemerobaptist.  As  our  Lord  had  12 
apostles  symbolizing  the  12  months  of  the  year,  so  John  had  30, 
of  whom  one  was  a  woman  named  Helena,  thus  symbolizing  the 
29^  days  in  a  month.  The  death  of  John  occurred  during  the 
absence  of  Simon  in  Alexandria,  and  Dositheus  succeeded  to 
his  place.  Simon,  on  his  return,  desiring  the  headship,  pre- 
tended to  be  a  disciple,  and  then  accused  Dositheus  of  not 
deUvering  the  teaching  correctly.  Dositheus  then  attempted 
to  beat  him  with  a  rod,  whereupon  Simon  became  a  cloud  of 
smoke.  Dositheus,  knowing  that  he  was  not  himself  the 
'Standing  One,'  said,  'If  you  are  the  Standing  One,  I  will 
worship  vou.'  Simon  claims  that  he  is,  becomes  head  of  the 
sect,  and  Dositheus  shortly  afterwards  dies.  Simon,  taking 
Helena  with  him,  goes  about  disturMng  the  people.  Helena, 
he  says,  had  come  down  from  the  highest  heavens ;  was  mistress 
(xtipixv),  the  All-mother, and  Wisdom  (Txuu.r, ■iifux. aviniti  xtx.',  <rof  <'aO: 
for  her  sake  the  Greeks  and  barbarians  fought,  having  tonned 
an  image  of  the  truth,  for  she  was  really  then  with  the  highest 
God.  To  aid  him  in  his  magical  arts,  he  had  killed  a  boy,  and 
separated  the  soul  from  his  l)ody,  and  made  an  image  which  he 
kept  concealed  in  an  inner  room  by  which  he  divined.  A 
description  is  given  of  his  miracles.  He  made  statues  walk 
He  appears  wrapped  in  Are  without  being  burnt.  He  is  able 
to  fly,  to  make  bread  out  of  stones.  He  becomes  a  serpent  or  a 
goat.  He  shows  two  faces.  He  can  open  and  shut  doors.  He 
makes  vessels  In  his  house  which  wait  upon  him,  without  its 
appearing  how  thev  are  moved  (Bk.  U.). 

After  some  dels}',  during  which  Peter  has  explained    Jia 


SIMON  MAGUS 


SIMOX  MAGUS 


523 


mystical  meanin;:  of  Scripture,  the  disputea  between  him  and 
Siiiion  take  place ;  Simon  imdertakinp  to  prove  from  the 
bcriptunrf  that  there  is  more  thiui  one  Uod,  and  that  he  whom 
Peter  colled  God  U  not  the  hi^^hejit  God,  fur  be  is  without 
foresight,  imperfect,  inojraplete,  and  exposed  to  every  form  of 
human  passion  (iii.  38).  The  disputations  last  three  days. 
On  the  fourth  day  it  vfoa  found  that  Sinion  had  Hcd  bjr  nifcht  to 
Tyre,  and  was  there  deceiving  the  people  by  his  magic  (hi.  68). 
Clement,  Nicetas,  and  Aquila  are  sent  on  to  Tyre,  and  Simon 
flees  to  Sidon,  leaving  some  of  his  disciples  (iv.  6),  who,  at 
T>'re,  discuss  with  Clement  the  Greek  fables  concerning  the 
gods  iBks.  iv. -vi.).  Peter  comes  to  Tyre  and  Sidon,  when 
bimon  goes  on  to  Berytua.  Peter  follows  hini,  and  after  a 
elight  altercation  Simon  goes  to  Tripolls.  Peter  again  follows 
(Bk.  vii.)  him,  and  Simon  flees  into  Syria. 

At  Tripolis  Peter  remains  a  long  time.  Tliere  Clement  is 
baptizctl,  and  then  they  go  on  towards  Antioch  in  Syria  by 
Orthosia  and  Antoradus  (viii.-xi.X  Then  comes  the  story  of 
Clement's  family  (xii.-xv.),  and  they  go  on  by  Batanis,  Paltus 
and  Gabala  to*  Laodicea.  To  Laomcea  comes  Simon  from 
Antioch,  and  a  long  dispute  takes  place  between  him  and 
Peter  concerning  the  unity  of  the  Godhead  and  the  existence 
of  evil  (x%i.-xix.).  Then  Kaustus,  the  newly-<li3Covered  father 
of  Clement,  goes  to  see  Simon.  Simon  by  his  magical  arts 
succeeds  in  making  the  face  of  Faustus  like  his  own,  and  then 
departs  to  Antioch,  where  he  accuses  Peter  of  being  a  magician. 
C'jmelius  the  centurion  has  been  ordered  by  the  emperor  to 
arrest  all  ma^cians.  It  is  for  this  reason  that  Simon  has 
changed  the  tacc  of  Faustus,  and  he  escapes  to  Judma.  Faustus 
then  goes  Co  Antioch,  and  uses  the  appearance  which  Simon  has 
given  him  to  destro3'  the  latter's  inlluence.  The  people  think 
that  be  is  Simon.  In  Simon's  name  he  recants,  confesses  his 
deceit  and  imp  wturos,  and  Peter  is  sent  lor  to  come  to  Antioch. 

The  main  differences  which  concern  us  in  the  Recuijnition* 
are  as  follow  :  Xothing  is  said  about  Simon  being  a  pupil  of 
John.  Helena  is  called  Luna  (ran**;).  Simon  says  that  Itachel 
was  not  really  his  mother,  but  that  he  had  previously  been 
conceived  by  a  virgin.  The  main  difference  in  the  hook  is  one 
of  order :  instead  of  two  disputes  between  Peter  and  Simon — one 
at  CiBsarea,  the  other  at  Laodicea — we  have  one  dispute  at 
Ciesarea,  and  there  most  of  the  matters  discussed  in  the  llomi- 
lies  at  Laodicea  are  placed  by  this  editor  (ii.  19-72,  iii.  12-48). 
Reference  is  made  (in.  t>3)  to  Simon  having  said  that  he  would 
1^  to  Uome,  and  that  there  he  would  be  looked  on  as  a  (<;od  and 
honoured  with  statues,  and  in  iii.  64  it  is  said  that  he  had  been 
there.  The  voyage  along  the  Syrian  coast-line  is  treated  very 
shortly,  in  iv,-vi,  we  have  discourses  of  Peter,  in  vii.-ix.  the 
story  of  Clement.  Then  at  the  end  of  x.  Simon  comes  on  the 
stage  again,  we  have  the  same  story  as  at  the  close  of  the 
Uuinilies,  only  that  the  father  of  Clement  is  c^ed,  not  Faustus 
but  Faustinianus. 

It  will  be  noticed  th\t  this  work  seems  to  fall  very  easily  into 
separate  elements.  Bks.  i.  and  vii.-x.  51  are  concerned  with  the 
story  of  Clement.  Bks.  ii.  and  iii.  with  tlie  story  of  the  contest 
of  Simon  and  Peter.  Bks.  iv.-vi.  with  sermons  of  Peter.  Bk. 
X.  52 ff.  contains  the  concluding  story  concerning  Simon,  which 
hardly  fits  in  with  this  version  of  the  hist^>ry.  The  journey 
along  the  Ph'iinician  coast  is  very  much  attenuated,  and  there 
are  suggestionstliat  originally  Simon  wentstraight  to  Rome  after 
the  contest  at  Cauuarea. 

(b)  The  LEtiESDARY  Acts  of  St.  Peter  and 
St.  Paul. — The  story  of  Simon  in  these  Acts 
diifers  from  that  in  the  Clementine  literature. 
Both  alike  are  concerned  with  contests  between 
Simon  Magus  and  Simon  Peter ;  but  while  the 
latter  place  the  scene  of  tlie  contest  in  Syria,  the 
Arts  place  it  in  Rome.  The  le;::cnds  appear  in  two 
forms:  the  one  is  that  contained  in  the  Actus 
Petri  cum  Sirnone,  a  document  of  Gnostic  origin, 
believed  to  ha%'e  belonged  to  the  collection  known 
as  Leucian  ;  the  other  is  the  Arts  of  Peter  and 
Paul  {vpa^ct.%  Tuiv  ayiuiv  diro<TT6\wv  llirpov  xal  IlavXov). 

(1)  According  to  the  Actus  Petri  cum  Simone,  after  St.  Paul 
had  left  Home,  a  stir  arose  in  that  city,  about  a  man  called 
•*iinoii,  who  was  at  Aricia,  who  had  worked  many  miracles,  and 
said  he  was  the  great  power  (inagnam  m'rtw/em)  of  (Jod,  and 
without  God  did  nothing.  Ue  receives  a  summons  :  'Tliou  art 
ill  Italy  God,  thou  art  the  saviour  of  the  Romans;  hasten 
quickly  to  Rome.'  He  promises  to  come  the  next  day  at  the 
•eventh  hour,  flying  through  the  air  at  the  city  gate.  At  the 
apiwintcd  time  smoke  is  seen  approaching,  and  suddenly  Simon 
aiijtears  tn  the  midst.  The  brethren  arc  in  a  state  of  great 
con8t«rnation  because  Paul  is  away,  and  they  are  left  without 
any  to  comfort  them,  and  the  gi-cater  nimiber  tall  away.  Mean- 
while the  twelve  years  of  Pet<.'r"8  s'>J..urn  in  Jerus;dem  are 
fuinUed,  and  Christ  bids  him  go  to  Rome,  for  Simon,  whom  he 
had  driven  out  of  Judma,  had  antiiipated  him  there.  Wo 
may  pass  over  the  account  of  Peter's  voyage  and  arrival  in 
Rome.  He  flnds  Simon  living  in  the  house  of  Man:elhis,  a 
Roman  senator  of  great  phiUnthropy,  whom  he  hod  ^lerverled 
by  his  magic.  When  Peter  hears"  of  the  manner  m  which 
Marrelliis  has  been  deceived,  he  begins  an  attack  on  Simrm, 
dewribing  him  as  a  *  ravening  wolf,  stealing  the  sheep  which 
are  not  his."  It  was  he  who  inspired  Judas  to  betmy  Christ, 
uul  hardtued  the  heart  of  Uerod  and  Caiaphas.     He  then  goes 


to  the  house  of  Simon.  Being  refused  admittance,  he  looses 
a  dog  and  bids  him  carr>"  a  message.  The  dog  goes  in,  raises 
his  forefeet,  and  in  a  loud  voice  bids  Simon  come  forth 
Marcellus  at  once  recognizes  his  sin,  and,  going  out,  falls  at 
Peter's  feet  and  asks  pardon.  He  explains  how  he  had  beei 
persuaded  to  erect  a  statue  SIMONI  IVVeNI  DEO :  *To  Simon, 
the  youthful  god."  Further  conversations  of  Simon  and  of 
Peter  with  tlie  dog  follow  ;  then  it,  having:  fulfilled  its  mission, 
dies.  Peter  then  turns  a  dead  sardine  into  a  hve  flsh,  and 
Marcellus,  overpowered  by  these  miracles,  with  the  help  of  his 
servant  turns  Simon  out  of  his  bouse.  Simon  then  goes  to 
Peter's  home.  Peter  sends  him  a  message  by  means  of  an 
infant  seven  months  old,  who  speaks  and  bids  him  leave  Rome, 
and  keep  silence  until  the  following  Sabbath. 

Peter  then  narrates  the  story  of  how  he  bad  rescued  a 
woman  named  Eubola  from  Simon  in  Palestine.  Further  mir- 
aoles  and  discourses  of  Peter  are  narrated,  and  the  night  before 
the  contest  is  spent  in  prayer  and  fasting.  On  the  day  of  the 
contest  all  Rome  comes  togetlier,  the  senators,  the  prefect,  and 
the  officers.  First  comes  a  verbal  disputation,  and  in  the  speech 
of  Peter  we  notice  apparently  a  Gnostic  tendency.  The  contest 
begins  by  Simon  making  a  young  man  die  by  his  word.  An 
interruption  occurs.  A  woman  rushes  in  saying  that  her  son 
is  dead,  and  some  young  men  are  sent  to  fetch  him.  Peter 
then  raises  the  young  man  whom  Simon  had  put  to  death,  a 
favourite  of  the  emperor,  and  the  son  of  the  widow  who  had 
been  brought  to  him.  Again,  the  mother  of  a  certain  senator, 
Nicostrates,  osks  Peter  to  heal  her  son.  The  dead  body  is 
brought.  Peter  challenges  Simon  to  raise  it.  Simon  makes  it 
seem  to  move,  but  Peter  really  raises  it.  Ail  the  people  then 
follow  Peter. 

Simon  still  tries  to  deceive  the  people  by  pretended  miracles, 
but  Peter  exposes  him.  As  no  one  believes  him,  he  explains 
that  he  is  going  to  God  :  'ilen  of  Home,  do  you  think  that 
Peter  has  shown  himself  stronger  than  me,  and  has  overcome 
me?  And  do  you  follow  him ?  You  are  deceived.  To-morrow, 
leaving  you  impious  and  godless  men,  I  will  fly  to  Ood,  whose 
power  I  am,  having  been  weakened.  II,  then,  you  have  fallen,  I 
am  he  that  standeth  (o  'Eirra^),  and  I  go  to  the  Father,  and 
will  say  to  him,  "Me,  the  Standing  One,  thy  son,  they  wished 
to  overthrow;  but  ha\ing  refused  to  agree  with  them,  I  have 
come  to  thyself."*  The  people  come  together  to  see  him  fly. 
He  appears  flying  over  Home.  Peter  prays,  and  he  falls  down, 
having  his  leg  broken  in  three  places.  The  people  stone  him, 
and  all  follow  Peter.  Simon  is  taken  to  Ancia,  and  then  to 
Terracina,  where  he  dies. 

(2)  The  Acta  Petri  et  Pauli  occur  in  two  forms,  the  Ma^- 

rCptof  riv  kyiaiv  a.TofToka/f  lliTp^u  Kcci  IIcc^^Xal' and  the  Tpa^ui  t«* 

iy;*r»  «!rflffTc;<AFi'  UiTfou  Mai  tlxCXcv,  but  the  variations  betw-een 
them  do  not  affect  the  story  of  Simon.  The  main  point  of 
dillerence  between  this  story  and  that  which  we  have  just 
narrated  is  that  St.  Paul  is  here  made  the  companion  of  St. 
Peter  instead  of  being  represented  as  having  left  Uome. 

Owing  to  the  success  of  the  preaching  of  Peter  and  Paul,  the 
Jews  and  priests  stir  up  Simon  o^^ainst  Peter.  Simon  is  sum- 
moned before  Nero,  and  by  his  miracles  convinces  Nero  of  the 
truth  of  his  claims  to  be  Son  of  God,  and  Nero  orders  Peter  and 
Paul  to  be  brought  before  him.  The  contest  is  first  one  of 
words,  in  which  St.  Peter  quotes  a  letter  of  Pontius  Pilate 
about  our  Lord,  then  it  passes  into  miracles.  Each  challenges 
the  other  to  say  what  is  in  their  thoughts.  Peter  blesses  and 
breaks  a  loaf  of  bread,  and  has  it  prepared  to  give  to  the  dogs 
which  Simon  sends  against  him  to  devour  him,  thus  disclosing 
that  he  knew  what  waa  in  Simon's  thoughts.  Simon  then 
demands  that  a  lofty  tower  should  be  erecteii.  Nero  remem- 
bers how  once  Simon  liatl  appeared  to  raise  hiniself  from  the 
dead  after  he  had  been  killed  three  d.iys,  and  still  expects  his 
victory.  This  Simon  ha<l  done  by  making  the  executioner  who 
had  been  sent  to  execute  him  cut  otf  the  head  of  a  ram 
instead  of  his  own.  At  this  point  tliere  is  inserted  a  conversa- 
tion between  Nero  and  Paul,  and  then  a  dispute  on  the  subject 
of  circumcision.  Then  comes  the  final  test.  While  Paul  prays, 
it  is  the  part  of  Peter  to  oppose  Simon.  Simon  sturtj*  flying. 
Peter  then  says,  *  I  adjure  you,  angels  of  Satan,  who  bear  hint 
to  the  air  to  deceive  the  hearts  of  the  unbelie\ers,  by  God  the 
creator  of  all,  and  Jesus  Christ,  whom  on  this  liay  He  raised 
from  the  dead,  from  this  hour  no  longer  bear  him,  but  let  him 
go.'  He  then  falls  and  dies.  Nero  puts  Peter  and  Paul  in 
prison,  but  keeps  the  body  of  Simon  to  see  if  it  will  rise  on  the 
third  day. 

It  will  be  noticed  in  this  narrative  that  the  part  played  by 
St.  Paul  is  clearly  subordinate.  His  name  and  his  action  mi^hC 
really  be  omitted  without  serious  injury  to  the  narrative. 
This  suggests  that  very  probably  the  story  in  its  original  form 
came  from  a  source  sinntar  to  the  Actus  Petri  cum  iiiimone.  In 
which  St.  Paul  is  entirely  absent. 

iv.  Modern  critical  Views.— We  have  now 
gone  sutViciently  minutely  tlirough  all  the  v.-irioua 
vicissitudes  which  the  legends  about  Simon  Miigus 
experienced  during  the  early  centuries,  and  can 
l)as8  to  some  equally  curious  devolopmeuta  of 
modern  criticism. 

Tliere  is  no  doubt  that  the  Clementine  litera- 
ture is  to  some  extent  Ebionite  in  character, 
and  might  naturally  contain  anti-Pauline  teach- 
ing. Starting  from  this  point  of  view,  Uaur  tii*- 
covered  certain  passages  in  which  Simon    rcpre 


524 


SIMON  MAGUS 


SIMON  MAGUS 


sented,   or  seemed   to  represent,   St.    Paul.      He 
tlieu    propounded    tlie  view   tliat   Simon   the   Sa- 
maritan was  not  a  historical  character,  but  a  term 
of  reproach  invented  for  the  Apostle  Paul.     The 
contest  between  Simon  Peter  and  Simon  Magus 
really  represented  the  original  conflict  of   Peter 
and   Paul.      "Wherever  Simon   Magus  occurs  we 
should  read  Paul.     At  first  it  was  clearly  under- 
stood who  this  person  designated  as  Simon   the 
Samaritan  really  was,  but  as  the  two  parties  more 
and   more  came   together    the  original  meaning 
was  forgotten,  and  hence  we  find,  even  in  a  book 
like  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  written  in  a  con- 
ciliatory interest,    fragments  of  the  old  contest 
still  embedded.     But  we  have  to  recognize  that 
tlie  whole  of  our  accepted  history  of  early  Chris- 
tianity   is    really    a    conventional    ecclesiastical 
legend,  and  the  real  history  of  the  period  must 
be  disentangled  from  the  Clementine  literature. 
It  is  mr.rveilous  with  what  ingenuity  the  parallel 
was  worked  out  when  once  the  idea  was  started. 
Simon   called   himself  the  great  power  of   God. 
Paul  claims  that  he  lived  by  the  power  of  God 
{•2  Co  12^  13^).     When  Simon  offers  money  to  buy 
the   power  of    conferring   the  gift  of    the   Holj 
Gliost,   tliis  is  an   allusion  to  Paul,  who  by  his 
contributions   for  the  poor   saints  at  Jerusalem 
was  attempting  to  obtain  the  apostleship.      Peter 
telling  Simon  tliat  he  has  neither  part  nor  lot  m 
this  matter,  is  really  Peter  telling  Paul  that  he 
has  not  the  KXijpos  ttjs  dTrojToX^s. 

Lipsius,  who  had  worked  out  this  theory  in  the 
most  ingenious  manner,  did  so  mainly  in  con- 
nexion with  his  researches  into  the  early  history 
of  the  story  of  St.  Peter's  martyrdom  at  Kome. 
The  original  idea  of  Peter  bavin"  visited  Rome 
was  Ebionite.  '  Tlie  tradition  of  Peter's  presence 
in  Rome,  which,  unhistorical  as  it  is,  can  only  be 
e.xplained  by  an  anti  -  Pauline  interest,  is  most 
universally  connected  in  the  most  ancient  records 
with  his  relation  to  Simon '  (Zeller,  Acts  of  t/ie 
Apostles,  i.  p.  267,  Eng.  tr. ).  Rome  must  be  claimed 
for  true  Christianity  and  the  Jew^sh  prince  of  the 
apostles,  so  a  story  was  invented  describing  the 
manner  in  which  Peter  had  visited  Rome  and 
there  won  a  great  victory  over  the  false  apostle, 
the  Samaritan,  i.e.  Paul.  Ultimately,  the  Roman 
Church  realized  how  important  for  their  prestige 
was  the  visit  of  Peter  to  llome  and  his  martyrdom 
there,  and  they  adopted  this  legend  in  a  Catholic 
.sense,  Peter  and  Paul  being  represented  as  the 
first  founders  of  the  Ronuin  Cliurch.  The  diffi- 
culty about  this  tlieory  is  that  in  the  documents 
which  we  possess  the  Catholic  theory  is  really  the 
oldest,  and  therefore  it  is  necessary  to  invent  an 
early  Ebionite  Acts  of  Peter  which  contain  the 
Ebionite  form  of  the  legend.  This,  according  to 
Lipsius,  was  the  common  source  of  the  Simon 
legend  and  the  Apocryphal  Acts,  and  he  devoted 
great  ingenuity  to  reconstructing  it  in  accordance 
with  his  theory.  Rut  in  his  later  works  Lipsius 
has  given  up  much  of  his  former  theory,  although 
lie  still  holds  to  the  existence  of  early  Ebionite 
Acts  of  Peter. 

This  theory  of  the  identity  of  Simon  Magus 
and  the  Apoitle  Paul  is  gradually  ceasing  to  be 
held,  and  many  scholars  summarily  dismiss  it ; 
it  is,  however,  we  notice,  still  accepted  by 
Schmiedel  (Encyc.  Bibl.  i.  p.  913),  and  will,  no 
doubt,  be  fully  worked  out  by  him.  At  first 
si'dit,  from  the  point  of  vie\y  of  common-sense,  it 
se'ems  absurd,  and  as  a  matter  of  fact  it  has  very 
little  evidence  in  its  favour.  The  evidence  that 
tliere  seemed  to  be  arose  from  a  certain  method  of 
looking  at  facts  owing  to  preconceived  ideas. 
Without  going  into  the  question  more  thoroughly 
than  space  permits,  we  may  touch  upon  the  fol- 
lowing points : — 


(i.>  It  is  very  doubtful  whether  the  Simon  ot  the  Clementina 
eona-vls  the  Apostle  Paul.  .^.  .. 

(ii.)  There  is  Uttle  or  no  evidence  for  early  Ebionite  Aett  V 
Peter 

(iii  )  The  evidence  for  the  Catholic  history  of  the  visit  of 
Peter  to  Rome  is  earUer  and  better  than  that  for  his  visit  to 
Rome  to  combat  Simon  Magus.  That  is  a  later  story  (not  ap- 
pearing until  the  3rd  cent.),  arising  from  the  combination  ol 
two  or  three  stories.  . 

(iv.)  The  catena  ot  Patristic  evidence  given  above  suggesu  > 
quite  different  account  of  the  growth  ol  the  legend. 

(i.)  ffmafar  does  the  Simon  of  the  Clementities 
conceal  the  Apostle  Paul  .'—It  is  quite  natural  that 
the  writer  of  the  Clementines,  who  was  probably 
an  Ebionite  by  extraction,  should  be  anti-Pauline, 
and  any  teaching  that  he  would  consider  erroneous, 
he  would  put  into  the  mouth  of  Simon.  But 
how  far  does  the  masque  of  Simon  really  conceal 
Paul? 

(a)  In  Horn.  xvil.  12-19  Simon  defends  the  thesis  that  the 
belief  obtained  by  visions  is  more  cerUin  than  that  from  per- 
sonal intercourse.  Peter  maintoins  that  the  personal  know- 
ledge that  he  possesses  is  more  trustworthy.  This  may  very 
naturally  be  referred  to  the  claim  of  St.  Paul,  that  he  was  an 
apostle  because  he  hod  seen  the  Lord  in  a  vision  ;  nor  are  there 
wanting  verbal  paraUels.  Peter  says  (ch.  19; :  „  _««Tiv.a.r^>'i'«« 
^u  Xi^u!,  cf.  Gal  211  ;  so  apin,  •!  Viu^  .«..«"  f"f  "''.=  '^°''' 
Zz-,  u^lhTtMk  ifr<i»T.X«  ir'.-«',  and  we  know  that  St.  Paul 
clauncd  to  have  visions  (2  Co  12i).  This  explanation  is  quite 
possible:  but  has  not  the  whole  passage  probably  very  much 
more  meaning  when  applied  to  the  claims  made  by  heretics  to 
have  a  speciaf  revelation  superior  to  the  Church  revelation? 

(M  In  Ham.  ii.  17  Simon  is  said  to  be  «  too  i/""  ui  »«  '>>"i 
T»iT«  ^aW..  He  preaches  the  false  doctrine,  the  coming  of 
which  must  precede  the  true  which  Peter  taught.  Is  not  thia 
Paul  coing  among  the  heathen  and  teaching  them  falsely,  to 
be  followed  by  Peter,  who  teaches  them  what  is  true?  So 
again  Horn.  ui.  69  Peter  says  that  when  he  wished  to  teach 
the  heathen  the  beUef  in  one  God.  Simon  went  further,  and 
Uught  them  to  believe  in  many.  In  vu.  4-8  Peter  teUs  the 
people  of  T^•re  that  they  have  been  deceived  by  his  forerunner 
Simon.  Tlie  second  instance  clearly  Ukes  away  from  the  force 
of  the  first,  because  the  faUe  teacher  is  made  to  teach  the  behc-l 
in  more  than  one  God,  and  is  clearly  the  first  dissenunator  ot 
Marcionism.  ^  ^.       _.  . ,- 

(c)  In  ifom.  xviii.  6-10  we  have  a  condemnation  of  indis- 
criminate teaching.  This  is  Peter  condemning  Paul ;  but  real  v 
it  will  have  equal  meaning  if  we  suppose  it  introduced  to 
e.vplain  why  this  special  doctrine  of  the  Clementines  has  only 
been  known  to  a  few.  ,    ,  •™,-„ 

(d)  In  Recoo.  iii.  49  Simon  is  colled  a  vas  etecticmu  .  .  . 
jno^no.  a  chosen  vessel  for  evil,  cf.  Ac  91= ;  and  in  Recog. 
U  18  he  is  said  to  be  ma'.ujnus  traii^fonnaM  se  m  si>lcndorem 
lucis,  ct.  2  Co  U".  But  nothing  can  be  drawn  from  the  last 
sentence,  and  the  first  does  not  mean  much  W  hy,  it  PaiU 
U  called  a  chosen  vetsel  in  a  good  sense,  should  not  &imoD  be 
cMed  a  chnsf  II  vessel /or  emll  . 

(e)  SoniLthing  more  may  be  said  for  the  expression  in  the 
letter  of  Peter  prefixed  to  the  book  in  which   he  speaks  ol 

,«1....-Here  Paul  may  weU  be  referred  to  as  'the  enemj 
whose  doctrine  waa  Uwless;  but  why  should  not  the  enemy  he 
simplv  Simon,  who  was  by  tradition  the  source  of  all  false 
teachin.'?    Lawlessness  does  not  mean  breakmg  the  law,  but 

'*?/'5'ieTorsiJiLflcant  passage  i»  Reccg.i.  70  (a  curious 
episode  peculiar  to  the  Reco.piUiom).  James  hv  his  preac  nng 
his  verv  nearlv  persuaded  the  high  priest  and  all  the  people  M 
be  baptized  when  '  homo  inimicus '  appears  and  bids  them  not 
to  be  deceived  byamagician.and  attacks  theni.  He  was  clearly 
intendeil  to  be  Saul  (in  his  unconverted  davs),  tntl  he  if 
tpedalbi  disHiuimshed  from  Simon,  who  is  introduced  as  som^ 
™e  different  in  the  next  chapter  but  one.  Paul  is  qmte  clearly 
not  Simoa  here. 

It  seems  very  doubtful,  indeed,  whether  Simon 
is  ever  intended  to  represent  Paul,  nor  is  there 
any  Pauline  teaching  put  into  Simons  mouth. 
The  above  passages,  which  are  all  the  more  im- 
portant quoted,  are  hardly  sufficient  to  establish 
the  theory  that  Simon  U  Paul.  The  author  or 
compiler  of  the  Clementines  really  starts  from  the 
belief  that  the  Simon  of  the  Acts,  whom  1  eter 
combated,  was  the  source  of  all  heresy,  and  so  ha 
makes  his  favourite  apostle  travel  from  place  to 
place  combating  in  tlie  person  of  Simon  the  talse 
Marcionit*  teaching  of  which  he  was  believed 
to  be  the  originator.  This  will  explain  the 
whole  situation,  and  is  much  less  far-fetched 
than  the  explanation  which  finds  St.  Paul  every 

where.  ...       _  j  „j 

(ii.)  But  without  forcing  this  too  tal,  and  ad- 


II 
I 


SIMON  MAGUS 


SIMON  MAGUS 


523 


initlinp  that  the  writer  may  possibly  have  been 
inteudiug  somewhat  delitiitJly  to  attack  Pauline 
teaching,  there  is  a  furtlier  question  :  Is  tliere 
any  ernlcnce  for  early  Ebionite  Acts  which  con- 
tained a  narrative  of  Peter  and  Simon  (concealing 
Paul)  ? 

The  theory  of  Lipsius  formerly  was  that  there 
was  an  ori^iiiial  Ebionite  Acts  which  was  the  com- 
mon source  ol  both  the  Roman  le,:.'eiul  and  the  Clem- 
entines. He  found  an  external  support  for  this 
statement  in  tlie  passage  given  above  from  the 
Apoxtolic  C/mstittitwns,  wliich  he  boldly  said  be- 
lon^^ed  to  tlie  earlier  portion  of  that  work.  This 
is  an  admirable  illustration  of  the  danger  of  such 
statements,  and  how  very  untrustworthy  are  the 
attempts  of  any  critic,  however  able,  to  guess  at 
the  ori''inal  portions  of  a  work.  Some  years 
l)efore  Lipsius  wrote  thus,  Lagarde  had  already 
published  his  Greek  version  of  the  Didnscnlia,  the 
earlier  fm-m  of  the  Constitutions,  and  disproved  the 
whole  lueorj'.  There  is  no  external  evidence  for 
the  existence  of  early  Ebionite  ^ci*  as  the  source 
of  the  whole  story,  and  Lipsius  has  given  up  the 
theory  in  this  form,  but  he  still  believes  in  early 
Ebionite  Arts.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  there  seems 
verv  little  evidence  for  their  existence.  He  finds 
Ebionite  tendencies  in  some  passages  of  the  Acts 
of  Peter  and  Paul,  but  the  controversy  there  is  not 
with  Jewish  Cliristianity,  but  with  Judaism — and 
Simon  Magus  is  the  champion  of  Judaism.  Th.atis 
the  position  that  he  occupied  in  the  Leucian  Arts, 
and  the  mssages  suggest  much  more  a  Leucian 
than  an  Ebionite  origin.  It  is  even  more  dillicult 
to  .speak  of  the  sources  of  the  Clementines,  but  it 
is  very  doubtful  if  it  is  necessary  to  assume  an 
Ebionite^c^?  which  contained  an  account  of  Simon. 
The  contest  between  .Simon  and  Peter  along  the 
Syrian  coast  is  almost  absent  from  the  Recognitions, 
perhaps  the  earlier  form.  With  the  exception  of 
the  concluding  incident,  which  was  clearly  not 
part  of  the  original  work,  the  portion  concerning 
Simon  resolves  itself  into  the  account  of  his  career, 
which  is  obviously  based  largely  on  Justin,  and  the 
disjiutes  with  Peter  at  Ca-sarea,  in  which  Simon  is 
made  the  protagonist  of  Marcioni.sm.  The  latter 
would  probably  be  the  direct  work  of  the  author, 
and  does  not  demand  a  source.  On  no  subject  con- 
nected with  the  Clementines  is  it  possible  to  speak 
with  certainty ;  but  this  much  seems  clear,  that 
there  is  no  evidence  of  Ebionite  Acts,  and  no  need 
to  suppose  that  they  existed.  They  are  merely  a 
hypothesis,  invented  to  support  preconceived  views. 

(lii.)  If  we  examine  the  clironological  order  of 
the  development  of  the  legend,  the  Catholic  account 
of  the  first  work  of  Peter  and  Paul  at  Rome  is  older 
than  the  storij  of  Simon  and  Peter.  Both  Dionysius 
of  Corinth  and  Irenaius  know  the  story  of  their 
visit,  and  both  ascribe  to  them  the  foundation  of 
the  Roman  Church.  There  is  no  certain  trace  of 
till"  story  concerning  the  contest  of  Simon  and  Peter 
at  Rome  before  the  3rd  cent.,  although  as  a  matter 
of  fact  it  probably  existed  in  the  Leucian  Arts  not 
later  than  the  close  of  the  2nd  century.  Chrono- 
logically, the  Catholic  story  caused  the  legend,  not 
rice  vcrsh. 

(iv.)  The  same  is  true  of  the  whole  growth  of  the 
•tory.  Wo  first  of  all  trace  the  various  elements 
of  it  as  existing  in  dilVerent  sources  and  varj'ing 
forms.  The  more  complicated  and  fuller  stories 
are  the  result  of  later  growth,  and  not  the  original 
source.  The  simple  n.irrative  of  the  Acts  is  the 
earliest,  not  the  latest  account.  This  will  come 
out  more  clearly  in  what  follows. 

V.  The  Growth  of  the  Legend. — We  are  now 
in  a  position  to  sketch  tentatively  the  growth  of 
the  whole  legend.  Our  primary  authorities  must 
be  the  .Vets  and  Justin  Martyr,  because  thej'  are 
chronologically  the  earlier,  and  because  the  accept- 


ance of  them  explains  the  rest.  Justin  Martyr, 
who  lived  in  Samaria  less  than  100  years  after  the 
time  of  Simon,  was  writing  about  something  that 
he  would  know.  Whether  the  fully  developed 
system  as  described  bj'  Justin  comes  directly  from 
the  founder  of  the  heresy  or  was  the  product  of  a 
later  member  of  the  school,  may  of  course  still  be 
doubted,  but  the  system  harmonizes  with  what  we 
read  in  the  Acts ;  nor  are  there  anj'  a  priori  reasons 
for  doubting  the  story  about  Simon  and  the  woman 
he  chose  to  call  Helena.  The  later  account  of  tlie 
system  which  we  find  in  Hippolytus  was  probably 
the  production  of  some  meiiilier  of  the  sect ;  but  it 
is  on  the  same  lines  as  the  older  work,  .and  we  must 
remember  that  the  essence  of  Gnosticism  was  not 
orthodoxy  but  speculation.  Dilierent  members  of 
the  school  of  BasUides  produced  very  dilierent 
Rj'stems,  and  in  the  same  way  some  members  of  tiie 
school  of  Simon  produced  the  later  development 
described  above.  The  main  source  of  the  Clemen- 
tine literature  was  directly  or  indirectly  Justin, 
possibly  also  Hegesippus,  and  some  of  the  personal 
details  of  his  life  and  connexion  \vith  Dositheus 
may  be  authentic. 

AVe  now  pass  to  the  Roman  visit.  Are  there  any 
grounds  for  thinking  that  this  really  took  place  ? 
Probably  not.  Of  what  linp[)eiied  in  Samaria, 
Justin  18  a  first-hand  authority  ;  on  m.atters  in 
Rome  he  would  be  ignorant  and  misinformed. 
He  saw  the  statue,  anil  jumped  to  the  conclusion 
that  Simon,  of  whom  he  had  known  so  much,  wa.s 
here  represented.  It  maj' be  noticed  th.at  Justin 
gives  no  autliority  for  the  Roman  visit  except  the 
statue.  In  another  direction  Justin  is  rcsjionsible 
for  the  Simon  legend,  namely,  by  making  him  the 
source  and  originator  of  heresy.  How  far  there 
is  an  actual  historical  basis  for  tlie  idea  that 
Gnosticism  was  directly  or  indirectly  derived  from 
him  may  be  doubtful.  His  sj'stem  exhibits  all  the 
elements  which  go  to  make  up  Gnosticism  ;  especi- 
ally we  may  notice  that  there  we  first  find  the  idea 
that  the  highest  God  was  not  the  creator  of  the 
world  ;  but  then  such  tendencies  and  ideas  were 
in  the  air.  The  same  infiuences  of  dualism  and 
syncretism  which  worked  in  his  case  would  work  in 
others.  But,  anyhow,  Simon  w.as  the  one  clear  in- 
stance of  a  heretic  mentioned  in  the  NewTestanient. 
It  was  natural,  therefore,  to  represent  him  as  the 
typical  arch-heretic,  the  originator  of  heresy,  and 
the  place  which  Justin  assigned  to  him  at  the  he.id 
of  his  heretical  genealogy  was  one  in  which  lii^ 
position  was  uncontested. 

Next  comes  the  Roman  contest  with  Peter. 
The  materials  out  of  which  this  was  constructed 
were  (1)  the  contest  of  Peter  and  Simon  in  the 
Acts  ;  (2)  the  Rom.an  tradition  that  the  Churcli 
was  founded  by  Peter ;  (3)  the  story  of  the  Simon 
statue  ;  (4)  a  story  contained  in  Suetonius  (Nem, 
12).  At  games  initiated  by  Nero,  some  one,  per- 
sonating Icarus,  attempted  to  fly,  and  the  emperor 
was  sprinkled  with  blood  when  he  fell.  The 
story  of  Simon's  (light  towards  heaven  was  prob- 
ably invented  at  Rome  before  the  close  of  the  2nd 
cent.,  not  later  at  any  rate  than  the  beginning 
of  the  3rd.  Whether  the  author  of  the  Leucian 
Acts  of  Peter — a  Gnostic — was  the  first  originator 
or  not  we  cannot  say  ;  very  probably  he  was,  as  he 
seems  to  have  helpeil  to  give  Simon  Magus  a  pro- 
minent place.  According  to  Photius  [Cod.  cxiv.) 
that  work  taught  that  the  God  of  the  .Jews  was 
evil,  whose  minister  Simon  was.  This  woulil  make 
it  very  natural  that  the  author  wo  call  Leucius 
sliduld  have  invented  the  episode;  and  the  date 
which  we  assign  later  than  Justin,  but  not  later 
than  the  end  of  the  2nd  cent.,  harmonizes  with 
other  indications.  This  story,  like  manj'  other 
Leucian  inventions,  was  attractive  to  the  orthodox, 
and  therefore  we  find  it  here  worked  up  in  a  com- 


626 


SIMOX  MAGUS 


SniON  MAGUS 


paratively  speaking  ortliodox  dress.  Paul  was  in- 
troduced as  a  companion  of  Pett-r,  not  because 
there  had  been  anything  anti-Pauline  in  the  original 
story,  hut  because  the  combined  activity  of  Peter 
and  I'aul  became  a  favourite  subject  of  legend. 
For  an  Ebionite  form  of  this  legend  there  apjiears 
to  be  no  evidence.  There  remains  a  certain  chrono- 
logical confusion  to  discuss.  According  to  Justin, 
it  was  in  the  reign  of  Claudius  that  Simon  came  to 
Kome.  The  origin  of  this  date  was  probably  the 
date  on  the  statue  which  he  saw.  The  earlier  form 
of  the  story,  then,  would  bring  Peter  to  Rome  in  the 
days  of  Claudius;  and  in  the  Actus  Petri  cum 
Simone  nothing  is  said  about  Nero.  But  the 
martyrdotn  of  Peter  was  by  tradition  under  Nero, 
so  that  at  a  later  date  the  legend  was  changed  to 
Nero's  time.  Eusebius,  however,  had  before  him 
the  earlier  account.  He  brings  Simon  to  Rome 
under  Claudius,  and  Peter  Immediately  after  him. 
Is  not  this  probably  the  origin  of  the  25  years' 
episcopate  of  Peter  at  Rome  ? 

The  origin,  then,  of  the  Roman  legend  was  prob- 
ably the  Leucian  Acts.  These  are  represented  for 
us  mainly  by  the  Actus  Petri  cum  Simone,  the 
Leucian  affinities  of  which  have  been  shown  by 
James  (Apocrypha  Anecdota,  ii.  p.  xxiv);  the  irpdffts 
TliTpov  Kal  Ilai'Xou  are  an  orthodox  recasting  of  the 
story,  with  the  exaggerated  miraculous  tendency 
omitted. 

A  separate  line  on  which  the  legend  developed 
is  represented  by  the  Clementine  literature.  A 
combination  of  arguments  would  incline  us  to  put 
its  date  at  the  beginning  of  the  3rd  cent,  and  its 
origin  in  Syria.  The  sources  out  of  which  it  was 
composed  must  be  very  doubtful,  as  we  have  little 
to  go  on,  hut  the  story  is  obviously  made  up  of 
different  elements.  There  is  a  story  of  Clement 
and  his  relations;  there  is  a  story  of  a  dispute  with 
Apion,  which  sometimes  seems  to  have  been  put 
into  the  mouth  of  Peter,  but  in  our  texts  is  put  into 
the  mouth  of  Clement.  There  are  certain  K-qpiy- 
nara.  or  Preachings  of  Peter,  and  there  is  an  account 
of  the  travels  of  Peter.  But  how  much  of  this  was 
derived  from  earlier  sources  and  how  much  was  the 
work  of  the  compiler  of  the  legend  we  have  no 
means  of  determining.  The  story  of  the  travels  of 
Peter  contained,  obviously,  an  account  of  his  journey 
from  Cwsarea  to  Antioch,  of  the  Churches  that  he 
founded  during  that  journey,  and  the  bishops  and 
presbyters  tliat  he  instituted.  This  is  preserved  in 
both  our  texts ;  but  was  the  dispute  with  Simon 
Magus  part  of  the  original  document?  It  is  usually 
supposed  that  it  must  have  been ;  but  in  tlie  Recog- 
nitions, which  is  generally  considered  the  older 
form  of  the  story,  the  part  of  Simon  is  confined 
to  Caesarea,  and  is  an  episode  by  itself.  Again,  does 
the  author  know  of  the  Roman  contest  ?  The  refer- 
ences to  Rome  occur  mainly  in  the  Recognitions, 
and  may  have  been  introduced  to  adapt  the  story 
to  a  Roman  audience.  It  is  quite  possible  that 
the  introduction  of  Simon  Magus  is  due  to  the 
compiler  of  the  work,  and  that  his  only  historical 
source  of  knowledge  about  Simon  waB  Justin 
Martyr  and,  possibly,  Hegesippus. 

But  if  his  sources  are  doubtful,  his  purpose  is 
more  clear.  He  is  an  Ebionite  Christian  by  ex- 
traction, who  has  been  influenced  by  the  specula- 
tive ideas  which  we  associate  with  Gnosticism,  and 
he  WTites  to  reconcile  the  conflicting  claims  of 
Judaism  and  Christianity.  His  main  tenet  is  the 
Divine  unity,  and  therefore  he  combats  the  poly- 
theism of  the  heathen,  the  dualism  of  Marcion, 
and  Trinitarianism  (if  we  may  use  the  term).  This 
last  feature  gives  us  his  date,  the  period  of  the 
Monarchian  controversy  early  in  the  3rd  cent.; 
and  for  this  date  there  is  also  external  evidence. 
Within  the  limits  of  a  common  Monotlieism  he 
hopes  to  find  room  for  both  Jews  and  Christians,  and 


his  references  to  the  establishment  of  bishops  and 
presbyters  by  Peter  show  that  he  wishes  to  adopt 
the  existing  ecclesiastical  organization.  There  ia 
a  certain  amount  of  art  in  bis  choice  of  characters. 
The  defender  of  polytheism  is  Apion,  perhaps 
the  traditional  opponent  of  Judaism  ;  the  attack 
is  put  into  the  mouth  of  Clement,  as  obviously 
more  fitted  for  such  work  than  Peter.  The  one 
heretic  of  the  apostolic  age,  Simon,  who  was  the 
traditional  source  of  all  heresj*,  is  made  tlie 
exponent  of  all  false  Christian  teaching,  and  his 
natural  combatant  is  Peter.  Paul  is  never  men- 
tioned by  name,  but  anything  like  an  overt  attack 
on  him  would  have  been  quite  beside  his  purpose. 
There  are  no  doctrines  which  were  ascribed  to  Paul 
attacked  in  the  person  of  Simon.  Simon  is  not 
Paul,  nor  intended  by  the  author  to  be  Paul.  He 
was  obviously  a  WTiter  witli  considerable  powers 
of  invention ;  he  had  a  certain  amount  of  history 
or  legend  or  tradition,  but  he  may  very  likely  ba 
himself  responsible  for  most  of  the  personal  episodes 
he  describes,  and  for  the  use  he  has  made  of  Simon. 
There  is  no  evidence,  at  any  rate,  for  any  Ebionite 
Acts  which  he  is  supposed  to  have  useu,  nor  any 
need  to  imagine  them.  One  more  feature  must  be 
referred  to.  Simon  is  \vith  him  the  magician  as 
well  as  the  false  teacher,  and  a  great  deal  is  said 
about  the  magical  element,  which  requires  all 
Peter's  miraculous  powers  to  dispel.  The  whole  of 
this  side  of  the  legend  appears  absurdly  puerile  to  a 
modern  reader.  But  we  are  apt  to  forget  that  all 
the  tricks  Simon  claimed  to  perform  were  believed 
in  at  the  time,  and  that  those  who  claimed  to 
perform  magical  rites  were  among  the  most  deter- 
mined opponents  of  Christianity.  Majjio  was  a 
real  danger,  and  a  very  subtle  form  of  false  teach- 
ing. It  was  the  true  spiritual  force  of  Christianity 
which  overcame  it ;  but  numerous  writers  always 
ascribed  this  triumph  to  the  exhibition  of  vulgar 
miraculous  power. 

It  is  maintained  that  this  reconstruction  of  the 
history  of  the  Simon  legend  represents  a  much 
more  probable  and  consistent  account  of  the  origin 
of  the  story  than  the  distorted  and  complicated 
theories  which  have  appeared  since  the  time  of 
IJaur,  and  have  rested  chiefly  on  unproved  hy^K)- 
theses  of  sources  and  fanciful  reconstructions  of 
the  early  historical  period.* 

vi.  The  Affinities  of  Simon's  System.— The 
historical  nucleus  of  the  legend  is,  as  we  have  seen, 
tlie  narrative  in  the  Acts,  part  of  the  story  in 
Justin,  the  system  as  described  by  him  belonging 
either  to  Simon  himself  or  an  earlier  f(>Jlower, 
and  perhaps  some  incidents  recorded  by  the  Clem- 
entines. When  we  accept  this  as  origin!>l,  the 
affinities  of  the  system  suggested  by  Baur  and  his 
followers  become  a  legitimate  explanation.  Sam- 
aria was  a  country  in  which  a  sort  of  bastard 
Judaism  came  in  contact  with  the  old  Syrian 
and  Phoenician  religions  and  the  newer  Hellenic 
paganism.  All  these  different  elements  are  present 
in  Simon's  system.  That  the  relation  of  himself 
and  Helena  is  a  reminiscence  of  the  Syrian  male 
and  female  deity  is  equally  natural,  whether  Helena 
be  a  real  person  (as  is  probable)  or  only  the  per- 
sonification of  an  idea.  The  fact  that  in  one 
account — that  of  the  Recognitions — she  is  oslled 
Luna  (a  translation  of  <re\-/ii/Ti),  makes  the  parallel 
to  the  Sun  and  Moon  worship,  the  Baal  and 
Astarte,  more  close.  Simon  represents  an  aJmost 
pre-Christian  Gnosticism,  and  it  is  significant  that 
only  here  do  we  find  this  very  repulsive  dualistio 
element.     Simon  represents  the  impostor  of  the 

*  It  may  be  objected  tlmt  nothing  haa  been  said  »bo«t  th« 
Simon  of  C.\'prus  mentioTied  in  Jos.  ArU.  xx.  vii.  4.  In  the 
opinion  of  the  present  writer  the  two  Simons  have  nothing  to 
do  with  one  another,  and  the  resemblance  of  names  count*  tof 
nothing.  There  are  said  to  be  twenty-four  SimoiiB  In  the  IndeK 
to  Josephus. 


SIMON  MAGUS 


SDIPLICITY 


527 


period,  wlose  claims  are  even  more  improbalile 
than  those  of  Apollonius  of  Tyana  or  Alexander 
of  Abonoteiclins.  His  mind  is  a  medley  of  Hellen- 
ism, Judaism,  and  Orientalism ;  out  of  this  he 
forms  a  system,  in  which  he  himself  occupies  the 
first  position.  The  influence  of  Christianity  and 
then  the  opposition  to  it  give  a  certain  vitality 
and  force  to  tlie  ideas  he  sujrgests,  and  in  other 
hands  they  become  fertile  and  prolilic.  Later 
Gnostics  were  more  definitely  Cliristian.  The 
founders  of  the  sects  never  claimed  Divine  honours 
for  themselves.  They  discarded  more  extravagant 
features.  Uiit  they  shared  with  Simon  the  funda- 
mental doctrine  that  the  Creator  of  the  world  was 
an  inferior  and,  perhaps,  a  malevolent  deity.* 

vii.  Simon  Magus  and  simony.  —  In  another 
direction  the  name  of  Simon  has  become  used 
universally  for  the  sin  of  attempting  to  purchase 
spiritual  gifts  or  spiritual  preferment  for  money. 
Both  sorts  were  included  under  the  sin  of  Simon. 
The  earliest  example  seems  to  be  from  the  Apos- 
toliial  Canonx,  where  it  is  said :  '  If  any  bishop, 
presbj'ter,  or  deacon  obtain  this  dignity  for  money, 
both  he  that  is  ordained  and  the  ordainer  shall  be 
deposed,  and  also  cut  oil'  from  all  communion,  as 
Simon  Magus  was  bj'  Peter.'  And  the  instance 
is  often  quoted  in  later  canons.  The  use  of  the 
term  appears  to  have  arisen  through  the  Canon 
Law. 

viii.  Si.MON  Magus  and  the  Faust  Legend.— 
There  are  some  curious  coincidences,  if  they  are 
nothing  more,  between  the  legend  of  Simon  and 
the  story  of  Faust.  The  hero  of  that  legend  is  sup- 
posed to  have  been  a  certain  Dr.  Fau.st,  of  Knitt- 
lingen,  who  died  in  1540.  The  legend  appears  first 
in  a  written  form  in  15S7,  and  was  obviously  tlie 
result  of  a  fertile  imagination.  It  is  quite  possible 
that  in  building  up  tlie  story  reminiscences  direct 
or  indirect  of  the  legend  of  Simon  Magus  may 
have  come  in.  The  following  are  points  of  re- 
semblance:  (1)  firsth'  and  most  clearly  the  intro- 
duction of  Helena  in  both  ;  (•!)  the  name  Faustus  ; 
(3)  the  hoinuncuhis ;  (4)  in  Simon  Magus  himself 
we  may  have  a  suggestion  of  Mephistopheles. 
This  connexion  may  be  due  to  direct  literary  in- 
fluence, or  we  may  have  here  two  dill'erent  versions 
of  a  theme  whicli  has  been  common  at  various 
times,  the  contest  between  Religion  and  Magic — a 
contest  which  we  have  to  believe  is  far  older  and 
more  universal  than  was  once  thought. 

LiTRRATURB. — (1)  On  Simon  Majrus  generally.  The  two  most 
coniplete  expositionH  of  the  two  opposing  points  of  view  are  by 
Slnller  in  Herzog,  /i£2  xiv.  «.».,  and  by  Lipsius  in  Sciienlicl's 
lliMLfxiatn,  v.  301-.S21.  For  older  works  see  Mosheim,  Iiut. 
hist.  eccl.  i.  389.  There  are  accounts  in  all  the  works  on 
heresies  in  the  I'jirly  Church,  of  which  the  most  useful  is  that 
of  Uilgcnfcld,  die  KeUtrieju-hichte  des  UrchrixUnthums,  pp.  163 
and  453.  The  most  cnmplete  account  in  English  is  that  by 
Salmon  in  Did.  Chr.  llinr).  iv.  681.  Other  treatises  referred  to 
are  Simson, '  I.ieben  und  Lehre  Simon  des  Magiers,'  in  Z.  /.  Airt. 
Theol,  1841,  iii.  39 ;  Baur,  Das  Manichdische  JidigioTuuti/stem, 
Tiibin^en,  1831,  467,  Die  Chrittliche  Gnosie,  Tubingen,  1836, 
p.  SOOfl. 

('2)  On  Simon  and  Paul  see  Baur,  'Die  Christuspartie  in 
Korinth,"  in  Tiibinger  Zeittchri/t,  1S31-34,  p.  116 ff.,  J'autut 
(1845),  p.86fl.,  -nsa.  |2pp.  97ff.,'.;4Clt.],B(W  Chriitenthum  der 
drei  eriten  Jahrhunderie^,  p.  8511. :  Hilgenfeld,  Die  ClemerUin- 
When  Ilceonnitionen  und  Homilien  (1848),  p.  317(1.,  'Der 
Magicr  Simon,"  in  ZFWTh,  1808,  p.  867  fl.  ;  Zeller,  Apottel- 
ayrhichte,  108(1.  (i.  p.  260,  Eng.  tr.);  Volkmar,  '  iibcr  den 
bimon  Magus  der  Apostelgcschicbte,'  in  Theot.  Jahrbiicher, 
1866,  p.  270  IT. 

(3)  The  Apocryphal  Aete  may  be  KoA  in  Lipsius,  Acta 
Apott4>torujti  Apocrypha,  which  supersedes  all  previous  editions. 
Lipsius'  criticism  will  be  found  in  Die  QueUen  der  rimieclicn 

•The  criticisms  of  Renan  (il.  164)  are  interesting  and  worth 

auoting.  'Simon  de  Getton  fut  le  chef  d'un  mouvement  re- 
gieux,  para]l6te  &  celui  du  Ohristianisme^  qu'on  peut  regarder 
comme  une  sorte  de  contrefa^on  Samaritainc  rfe  I'osuvre  de 
Jtmt .  .  .(ft.  269).  HiJltne,  significant  par  14  qu'elle  6Ult  I'oblet 
de  I'unlvervclle  pursuite,  la  cause  Atemelle  de  dispute  entrcles 
homines,  celle  qui  sc  venge  de  sea  ennemls  en  les  rendant 
aveuglcs  :  th{>me  bizarre  oui  mal  compris  ou  travesM  A  deasein, 
drona  lieu  chei  les  p6res  de  I'iglise  aux  oontea  lea  plui  banals.' 


Pelna-Sa{je  krititch  untersucht,  Kiel,  1872,  and  In  Die  Apohy- 
phen  Apoetelgetchichten  und  Apostetterjfnden,  ii.  1,  Braunsch- 
weijj,  Ibi".  In  the  latter  volume  he  very  much  modifies  hil 
earlier  conclusions. 

(4)  On  the  Clementines  may  be  mentioned  Schliemann,  Die 
Clementinen,  Hamburg,  1844;  Uhlhom,  Die  Homilien  und 
Becognitionen  des  Clemens  Jiomantis,  Gottingen,  1S54  ;  Hilgen- 
feld, Die  Clementinischen  liccojnitionen  und  Homilien^  Jena, 
1S48,  and  in  Theol.  JahrltHcher,  18.'4,  1868;  Lehmonn,  Die 
Clementinisehen  Schri/ten ;  Lipsius  in  Frotestantiiche  Kir- 
chenzeitunrj ,  1SC9,  pp.  477-4S2 ;  and,  in  English,  Salmon's  art.  in 
the  Diet.  ChT.  Biog. 

(5)  On  Simon  and  the  Faust  legend  see  Zahn,  Cyprian  von 
Anfiochien  und  die  dcutsche  Fausttage,  Erlangen,  1882;  and 
Kuno  Fischer,  Die  Fausteafje.  A.  C.  HeaDLAM. 

SIMPLE,  SIMPLICITY.— The  words  ti^  '  simple ' 
in  AV  are  (1)  "PS  (from  n-j  to  be  open),  'openness,' 
inexperience,  descending  to  '  hei'dlessness.'  In  Pr 
1**  tlie  abstract  use  occurs  and  tlie  word  is  tr* 
'  simplicity,'  elsewhere  the  meaning  is  personal, 
and  the  translation  '  simple' or 'simple  one.'  In 
Pr  9'  the  translation  is  'foolish'  {KV  'simple 
ones ').  ■  It  occurs  chiefly  in  Proverbs  (see  Oeliler, 
Theol.  of  Of,  ii.  446 ;  "Cheyne,  Devovt  Study  of 
Criticism,  388;  Schultz,  Old  Test.  Theol.  ii.  '283  f.). 
(2)  nvns,  only  Pr  9'*,  of  Folly  personified.  (3)  S.KaKos, 
'guileless,' Wis 4'^  Ko  16'".  (4)  aKipaios,  'sincere,' 
lit.  'unmixed,'  Ko  16"  (see  Trench,  Syn.  §  Ivi.). 

Simplicity  is  the  tr.  of  (1)  -ns  in  Pr.  l^^.  (2) 
Dn  (of  which  the  plu.  is  D'pij,  the  Thummim  of 
Heb.  oracles)  completeness,  uprightness  (from 
CT?  to  finish),  only  2  S  15".  (3)  dirXimis,  '  one- 
foldedness,'  'singleness,'  'sinceritv,'  Wis  1',  1  Mac 
2^-",  Ko  128,  2  Co  1"  1I».  (See  Sandav-Headlam 
on  Ro  128 .  G.  Montefiore  in  JQM  vi.  469). 

The  Eng.  adj.  *  simple'  (used  also  as  a  subst.)  signifies  '  one- 
fold,' 'single'  (from  Lat.  simplex,  through  Old  Fr.  viniple). 
This  original  meaning  is  seen,  c.y. ,  in  its  application  to  medicines : 
thus  Gosson,  School  of  Abuse  (Arber,  p.  37),  'Chiron  was  ...  a 
reader  of  Phisicke,  by  opening  the  natures  of  many  simples.* 
And  we  still  speak  of  a  matter  being  'simple'  wheij  it  is  not 
complicated.  When  applied  to  persons  the  meaning  is  now 
'  weakrainded,'  'foolish.'  But  in  AV  and  older  Eng.  generally 
the  meaning  is  never  quite  so  strong  as  tiiat,  and,  when  it 
approaches  it,  always  implies  moral  blame. 

1.  Itwxptfrienced  or  unsophisticatt'd,  as  Gn  25^  Tind.  'Jacob 
was  a  simple  man  and  dwelled  in  the  tentes.'  This  is  perhaps 
all  that  is  expressed  by  the  word  in  Pr  !■*  'To  give  subtilty 
(ItVm  ' prudene-e ')  to  tfie  simple';  14(5  'The  simple  believeth 
every  word ' ;  and  especially  Ro  1U19  '  I  would  have  you  wise  unto 
that  which  is  good,  and  simple  (AVm  'harmless')  concerning 
evil.' 

2.  This  inexperience  may  be  ignorance  to  be  instructed,  or 
weal<ness  to  be  defende^l.  Thus  Ps  197  'The  testimony  of  the 
Lord  is  sure,  making  wise  the  simple';  llu*^  'The  Lord  pre- 
serve! h  the  simple.'  Cf.  Hamilton, Ca(cc/iw/j,  fol.  xv,'Yelhat 
are  simple  and  unleirnit  men  and  weraen  suld  expresly  beleif  al 
the  artikils  of  your  Crede';  Is  ^>3^  Cov.  'He  shalbe  the  most 
symple  and  despised  of  all ' ;  60^^  Cov.  '  The  yongest  and  leest 
shal  growe  in  to  a  tbousande,  and  the  symplest  in  to  a  stronge 
people.' 

3.  But  in  Proverbs  the  tendency  is  t«  regard  inexperience  as 
Ae^rf/^*(fru'«A'andalmost/o/;y,  thus  14lf' The  sini]ilc  inherit  folly' ; 
and  as  bl.imeworthy,  tliu.')  i22  *  How  long,  ye  yiiiiple  ones,  will  ye 
love  simplicity?'  Cf.  Itunyan,  Holy  War,  1'29,  '  I  heard  him  say 
it  in  Fotiy  Yard,  at  the  house  of  one  Mr.  Simple,  next  door  to 
the  sign  of  the  SelJ-deceivcr.' 

Simplicity  has  not  quite  the  same  range  of  meaning  as 
'sin.ple.'  1.  Ignorance  or  wcakncsK,  descending  to  folly,  as 
Pr  1-.^,  cf.  Adams,  Works,  i.  29 — 'God,  in  regard  to  thy'sim- 
phcity,  brings  to  naught  all  their  machinations.'  2,  GuilelatS' 
nest,  rising  to  innocence  and  sincerity,  as  2  S  isn  'Tliey  went 
in  their  siiniilicity';  Wis  1(  'Think  of  the  Lord  with  a  good 
heart,  and  in  simnlicity  of  heart  seek  him  ' ;  1  .Mac  2^"  ;  Ro  128 
'  He  that  giveth.let  him  do  itwith  simplicity*  (i,  aTAirrTi, A Vm 
'liberally.'  HV  'with  liberality,'  KVni  'with  singleness');  2  Co 
1^2  'in  simplicitv  and  go<IIy  sincerity '  (ItV  [reading  with  edd. 
kyiitTTiTi  for  otTklniTi  of  TRJ  'in  holiness');  11^  'the  simplicity 
that  is  in  Christ.'  Cf.  Elyot,  Govcrnour,  i.  220,  'Trewely  lu 
every  covenaunt,  bargayno,  or  promise,  ought  to  be  a  siniplicitie, 
that  is  to  saye,  one  playne  underntandinge  or  meaning  bctwene 
the  parties' ;  and  Ac  '2*^  Rheni.  'Tliey  tuoke  their  meate  with 
Joy  and  siniplicitie  of  hart.'  It  is  to  he  obsen-eti  that  'sini])li- 
ciiy'  in  its  modem  sense  does  not  occur  in  AV  or  UV :  to  take 
2  Oo  11^  la  the  mod.  sense  is  wholly  to  misunderstand  the 
passage.  J.  HASTINGS. 

SIMPLICITT  (iTXAnjt, '  singleness,'  LXX  tr.  of  cb 
as  also  of  i^')  is  the  characteristic  attribute  of  the 
man  who  is  whole-hearted  and  single-hearted. 
The  word  drXoSs  is  applied  by  Plato  to  God,  ivho  is 


528 


SIN 


SIN 


'  perfectly  simple  and  true  both  in  word  and  deed  ' 
(Rep.  ii.  382  E).  It  is  used  to  describe  the  man 
wlio  plays  only  one  part  and  does  one  thing,  in  con- 
trast to  liini  whose  energies  are  not  concentrated 
but  divided  over  a  variety  of  pursuits  {I{ep.  iii. 
o'.)7  IC).  Simplicity  is  a  mark  of  the  just  man  who 
wishes  to  be  and  not  to  seem  good  {lii-p.  ii.  3(il  B), 
while  the  man  of  an  op]X)site  type  who  lacks  the 
true  virtue  of  a  '  unanimous  and  harmonious  sold '  is 
finrXoOs,  for  he  is  at  war  with  himself,  and  is  virtu- 
ally two  men,  not  one  {lirp.  viii.  o.j-l  D).  Its  close 
relationship  to  aKaxla  (guilelessness)  is  indicated 
by  the  fact  that  in  many  passages  where  the  LXX 
has  d7rX(5T?)s,  Aq.  has  dKotcia  as  tr.  of  tlie  same  word 
(I's  7'''  2()i-ii  411^  "S"'-)  ;  its  relationship  to  ei/9uT7)s 
(rectitude),  by  the  fact  that  in  J>XX  ^V"  is  tr.  by 
both  words  (1  K  !H,  1  Ch  21)'").  Simplicity  describes 
the  moral  and  mental  altitude  of  the  man  who  is 
absolutely  at  one  with  himself  in  motive,  aim,  and 
eml,  whether  in  relation  to  God  or  Ins  felloW-men. 
This  unity  and  concentration  of  the  inner  nature 
pives  fulness  of  spiritual  perception,  as  our  Lord 
shows  by  a  comparison  taken  from  another  sphere 
of  vision.  '  If,  therefore,  thine  eye  be  single 
(dirXoCj),  thy  whole  body  shall  be  full  of  light' 
(Mt  ()--,  Lk  \\^).  Such  a  man  is  incapable  of  in- 
sincerity, or  artifice,  or  malice,  or  finesse.  Hence  he 
is  opposed  to  the  two-souled  man,  who  is  driven  now 
(Joilwards,  now  earthwards  (Si^^uxos,  Ja  1*),  to  the 
double-hearted  (Ps  12-)  and  the  double-tongtted 
(5.\47os,  1  Ti  .S8;  SlyXwairo^,  Pr  lli».  Sir  b'')^  In 
Ills  walk  he  does  not  try  to  go  upon  two  ways 
(Sir  2'-),  but  goes  straight  to  the  goal,  with  his 
face  set  thitherward,  neither  halting,  nor  lingering, 
nor  diverging.  In  his  obedience  to  Christ  there  is 
no  reservation,  no  element  of  calculation,  only  un- 
conditional loyalty  (2  Co  11^).  In  his  devotion  to 
(iod  there  is  no  bargaining  as  to  the  minimum 
of  disobedience  which  He  may  permit  (2  K  oi*),  in 
his  work  for  men  is  no  taint  of  eye-service  (Col  3-^, 
Ki)h  ti»).  In  his  giving  there  is  no  admixture  of  any 
base  element  (Ro  12*).  For  he  gives  as  God  gives, 
without  any  afterthought  (Ja  1''),  for  no  end  .save 
the  good  of  the  receiver.  The  simple  one  is  guile- 
less, and  as  such,  though  not  free  from  prejudice, 
he  is  open  to  conviction  (Jn  1*').  Himself  incapa- 
ble of  being  swayed  by  ignoble  motives,  he  attrib- 
utes a  similar  incapability  to  others,  and  thus  may 
be  easily  deceived  ;  in  this  way  simplicity  may  so 
degenerate  that  it  becomes  not  merely  opposed  to 
craftiness,  but  to  prudence  (2  S  lo'i). 

In  the  NT  conception  prudence  is  consistent  with 
sinijilicity,  and  .should  be  in.separably  associated 
with  it  (Mt  10i«,  Ho  lOi'  aKipaioi).  In  the  Test,  of 
the  Twelve  Patriarchs  there  is  a  graphic  picture  of 
the  man  of  simplicity.  He  is  not  a  busybody  in 
his  doings,  nor  malicious  and  slanderous  against 
his  neighbours.  He  never  speaks  against  any  one, 
nor  censures  the  life  of  any  one,  but  walks  in  the 
yimplicity  of  his  eyes.  lie  is  free  from  lustful 
desires  ;  he  is  unselfish  in  his  beneficence.  '  The 
simple  coveteth  not  gold,  defraudeth  not  his  neigh- 
bour, longeth  not  after  manifold  dainties,  de- 
lighteth  not  in  varied  apparel,  doth  not  picture 
to  himself  to  live  a  long  life,  but  only  waiteth  for 
the  will  of  God,  and  the  spirits  of  evil  have  no 
power  against  him'  (Testament  of  Issachar,  c.  3-4, 
Sinker's  tr.). 

Literature.  —  Sulcer,  Tfi^nnuruH',  Cremor.  Bib.-TheoL 
Lex.\  Troncli,  KT  Hyuoiiymtt,  pp. '.i)»4-209  ;  Kliiiir  in  Jlerzoj.'^^ 
vol.  Iv.  135,  180 ;  Lcuiinu  iu  llerzog^,  vol.  v.  ihX-i'i^. 

John  Patkick. 

*•  SIN.— I. /.v  r//^  Old  TKsr.iMK.vT.—Prefa- 
torij. —  The  doctrine  of  sin  in  the  OT  nnisl  be  con- 
sidered as  there  given  ;  that  is  to  .say,  the  historical 
method  forbids  our  taking  into  account  NT  inter- 
pretations ol  it — such,  for  instance,  as  St.  Paid's 
comments  in  Romans  on  the  sin  of  Adam  and  its 

"Cnpiirlltlit.  \:«K.  by  V 


consequences.  The  same  method  requires  that  the 
chronological  order  of  theOT  should  be  followed, 
but  the  attempt  to  do  this  precisely  would  so  com- 
plicate the  treatment  that  it  seems  best  to  examine 
the  main  divisions  of  the  Heb.  Bible  as  they  stand 
—  (1)  the  Law,  (2)  the  Prophets,  (.'J)  the  Hagio- 
grapha,  leaving  open  such  cjuestions  as  what  amount 
of  the  Priestly  legislation  may  be  considered  to  be 
pre-exilic,  and  wiiat  dates  arc  to  be  assigned  to 
Deuteronomy  and  the  Books  of  Kings. 

Sin  is  a  negative  conception,  and  involves  a  pre- 
ceding idea  to  which  it  is  contrary,  namely  Rights 
eousness,  first  attributed  to  Noah,  Gn  U'.  The 
righteousness  of  God  is  His  confornnty  to  the 
moral  law  which  is  II  is  nature,  and  to  His  cove- 
nants with  num.  The  righteousness  of  man  is 
conformity  to  the  same  moral  law  and  the  same 
covenants.  '  Walking  with  God  '  (Gn  5-')  is  but  an- 
other phra.se  for  righteousness.  Sin  as  the  contrary 
of  righteousness  is  disobedience  to  God,  departing 
from  God,  self-assertion  again.st  God.  Thus  the 
fundamental  GT  conception  of  sin  is  not  sin  against 
other  men,  or  against  a  man's  self,  but  sin  against 
God.  The  GT  anticipates  what  modern  Christian 
tluiught  has  a-sserted,  that  the  nearest  relation  of 
the  human  soul  is  its  relation  to  God  (Miiller,  Chr. 
Duct,  of  Sill,  tr.  vol.  i.  p.  81). 

i.  The  L.vw.  —  starting  with  this  hypothesis, 
let  us  first  see  how  far  it  is  borne  out  in  the  tradi- 
tions of  jji-e-JIosaic  religion. 

(1)  There  is  no  occa-sion  to  enter  into  the  question 
whether  the  story  of  the  Fall  is  to  be  regarded  as 
both  historical  and  symbolic  (Aug.  de  Civitate  Dei, 
xiii.  21)  or  merely  symbolic  (Origen,  de  Prin. 
iv.  10).  One  point  comes  out  clearly  :  sin  is  set 
before  us  at  its  very  beginning  as  disobedience  to 
Divine  law,  an  exercise  of  human  free  will  in  con- 
scious opposition  to  that  law,  a  departure  from  an 
original  state.  There  is,  however,  nothing  to  imply 
that  that  state  was  a  perfect  one,  as  scholastic 
theology  described  it.  The  free  communications 
with  (iod,  (ui  which  much  stress  has  been  laid  as 
evidence  of  a  lofty  state,  continue  after  the  Fall. 
(On  the  supposed  contradiction  between  the  results 
of  anthropological  science  and  the  idea  of  a  Fall, 
see  Illingworth's  2?«m/)<o;i  Lectures,  Lcct.  vi.).  It 
must  also  be  observed  that  the  OT  does  not  any- 
where teach  a  corruption  of  human  nature  derived 
from  Adam,  still  less  an  imputation  of  his  gudt. 
All  that  it  teaches  is  the  universality  of  sin  in 
Adam's  offspring.  But  if  the  descent  of  all  man- 
kind from  Adam  is  taken  as  a  fact,  then  the  univer- 
sality of  sin  may  be  presumed  to  have  some  relation 
to  descent  from  Adam  (see  Mozley's  Lectures  and 
TheoUxjical  Papers,  Lect.  on  '  Original  Sin  ').  And 
the  prevalent  feeling  that  the  nation  rather  than 
the  individual  was  the  subject  of  sin  (see  Clemen, 
Lehre  von  der  Sihide,  p.  42  ff.)  would  prepare  the 
way  for  the  thought  of  all  mankind  being  involved 
iu  the  guilt  and  penalty  of  Adam  and  Kve,  when 
religious  thought  came  to  reflect  on  the  relation 
to  God  of  mankind  generally,  and  not  merely  of 
Israel.  This  reflexion,  however,  belongs  to  a  later 
date  (2  Esdras  and  Roma  us),  ami  the  absence  of 
reference  to  the  Fall  in  OT  is  remarkable.  The 
three  passages  usually  quoted,  J(.)b  31-'^  (see  RVm), 
llos  (>'  (.see  RVm).  Is  43-"  (see  Dillmann.  ad  !oc.), 
are  not  to  the  point.  Cf.,  further,  Thackeray,  iSt. 
Paul  and  Jeicish  Thouijht.  31  ff. 

(2)  The  interest  of  tiie  Cain  narrative  is,  (n)  that 
man  is  not  left  to  himself  either  before  or  after  sin. 
There  are  voices  of  God  warning,  promising,  con- 
deuniing.  And  (/<)  sin  is  already  personified  ;  it 
has  gained  a  positive  existence  instead  of  being  a 
mere  negation  :  '  If  thou  doest  not  well,  sin  couch- 
eth  at  the  door,'  Gn  4"  ;  cf.  Sir  27'". 

(3)  The  next  point  is  the  development  and  in- 
crease of  sin  (Gn  C-  "•'').    Sin  is  a  parasitic  growth 

7/«r/A»  .StTiffner't  Sons 


SIX 


SIX 


529 


which  mulliplies  in  its  appropriate  soil.  It  is  not 
luert'ly  a  number  of  isolated  rebellions,  but  results 
in  a  state  of  sin  both  in  the  individual  and  in  the 
race.  This  state  of  sin  takes  posses.siou  of  the 
thoughts  of  the  heart,  and  its  outward  effect  is 
violence  (°f7)  between  man  and  man. 

(4)  At  the  Flood  the  method  of  God  is,  so  to 
speak,  changed.  He  recognizes  (Gn  O'')  the  pre- 
dominance of  -the  evil  imagination'  (-t?  ''?.■),  a 
term  which  afterwards  plays  an  imporiant  part  in 
.lewisli  theology  (see  Weber,  Jihl.  Tlieul:-  p.  213  ff., 
and  Dillniann,  a(/ ?oc.).  Sin  must  be  dealt  with  in 
other  ways,  by  an  election  and  a  covenant.  The 
one  righteous  man  is  taken,  special  relations  are 
established  with  him,  and  a  covenant  given.  This 
covenant  is  followed  by  those  with  Abraham,  and 
with  Israel  at  Sinai.  But  these  covenant-s,  while 
designed  for  salvation,  open  out,  each  of  them, 
new  possibilities  of  sin.  It  is  no  longer  a  matter 
of  transgression  against  undefined  moral  law,  but 
there  are  definite  ordinances.  Sin  is  not  merely 
the  breach  of  the  universal  relation  between 
creature  and  Creator,  but  the  breach  of  covenant, 
A  revolt  (■•^■?)-  Moreover,  with  patriarchal  re- 
ligion, the  contrast  of  faith  and  unbelief  comes  in 
in  a  definite  way  (Gn  15*).  Esau's  sin  also  is 
plainly  unbelief.  This  is  gradually  shown  to  be 
the  root  of  sin.  and  every  particular  sin  is  regarded 
as  a  manifestation  of  it.  When,  with  Abraham, 
we  reach  the  distinction  between  those  within  and 
those  without  the  covenant,  the  question  arises. 
Is  there  a  recognition  of  the  moral  law  and  a  con- 
sciousness of  sin  in  the  Gentile  world  ?  Tlie  <iues- 
tion  is  answered  in  the  aftirmalive  by  the  case  of 
Abiinehch  (Gn  20),  and  the  existence  of  such  a 
law  outside  the  covenant  is  implied  throughout 
theOT.  e.f/.  Am  1.  Thus  there  is  nothing  in  the 
or  claim  of  uiii^ue  revelation  to  Israel,  which  is 
inconsistent  with  that  con.sciousness  of  sin  which 
is  to  be  found  in  Babylonian,  Persian,  Vedic,  and 
Greek  sources,  though  there  it  is  sin  against  Istart, 
Ahuramazda,  or  Varuna,  not  against  Jehovali. 
As  to  what  conduct  is  sin,  the  range  is  narrow, 
and  the  moral  standard  within  the  covenant  does 
not  materially  differ  from  that  outside  it.  Deceit, 
sensuality,  and  cruelty  are  not  yet  distinctly  felt 
as  sinful. 

(;■>)  'Die  Miisnir  rnminnt.  The  terminology  of 
ftin  now  increa.st'S  and  becomes  definite,  and  it  will 
therefore  be  necessary  to  examine  it  in  detail. 
The  three  most  important  terms  occur  together  in 
one  ver.se,  Kx  .'U'  (cf.  I's  32'-),  iniquity  (I'v),  trans- 
gression (■•p?),  sin  C¥;q,  •''«:;•?,  *<^d). 

(a  I  Sin. — Tlirce  cof;nntu  fonnAln  Heb.,  with  no  distinction  of 
liivantrij,',  uxlin-ss  ^i^  as  miHuitig  oiie'n  iibu,  nni!  correspond  to 
a^aprla  nnd  its  cojjnatcs  in  NT.  Tlie  etyinoloj,'y  does  not 
fil(t(?est  ft  person  nf^ftinst  wlioni  tlie  sin  is  eoinmltted,  and  does 
not  necessarily  imply  intentional  wronc-doinp.  Hut  tile  use  <if 
tlie  word  Is  not  Hniited  liv  its  ctvMioiojry.  and  the  sin  may  bo 
A^lnst  man  ((in  4oi,  1  S  iio'j  or  nua'insl  t»oil  ( lix  :12™).  Clemen's 
concession  yLfhre  run  der  Silttt/i',  pp.  2'i,  'i3),  tliftt  sin  ,ind 
Inl4|ulty  meant  failure  to  coinpiv  with  national  custom  (  Vntn-n- 
»itU).  must  be  ipiallfied  tiy  the  consideration  that  national 
custom  was  praclicaily  relijfion,  and  was  always  associated 
with  snpernatitnd  sanction,  so  that  sin  against  It  was  considered 
Bin  ajfainst  (itKl,  even  where  (toil  is  not  mentioned.  It  Is  no 
doubt  true  tliat  this  implicit  thoiifrht  that  sin  Is  against  God, 
comes  ru'Kii  more  distinctly  to  the  surface  In  Deulerononiy.  Tw<» 
sul)sidiary  uses  of  .~N':n  must  be  noticed.  Like  IV,.  U  Is  used  for 
the  punlslimcnt  of  sin,  as  well  as  for  sin  itself  (Zee  14't',  Iji  339). 
The  passntre  from  one  sense  to  the  other  Is  seen  in  Nu  :V.;**. 
These  instances  open  the  <iuestion  of  the  meanint;  of  TN'jn  (and 
I'i^l  In  a  class  of  passages  In  the  Psalms,  where  modern  ex- 
positors lake  them  to  sicnifv  not  Hin  or  {fuilt.  but  ptiDinhvifut. 
See  thoyne  on  l"s  :<1".  This  doulile  sense  of  l>oth  wi.rds  Is  a 
witness  to  the  lleb.  view  of  the  close  connexion  of  sin  and 
•utferlnc.  which  will  demand  special  altenUon  In  .lob.  Secondlv, 
rKOn  Is  use<l  for  tin-nfftring  (I,v  4').  This  use  of  the  some 
won!  for  the  offence  and  the  olferlng  meets  us  a(-aln  under  DC*N 
(trespass), 

(Al  Iniiiuily  (!'!)),  literally  '  perversion,'  '  distortion  '  [but  see 
Driver,  Slim.  i:|.'i  n.,  who  follows  Uigarde  In  dlstinpulsldni;  two 
roots  •"liy,  nne:>!  'bi-nd.  twist,'  llie  otlier  (the  root  of  I''^)  =  'err 

VOL.  IV.— 34 


(from  the  way)'].— It  is  to  be  distinguished  from  (a)  as  bcinfr  a 
iiuatity  of  actions  rather  than  an  act,  and  it  thus  acquires  the 
sense'of 'puilt,'  which  might  well  have  been  adopted  l>y  liV  as 
the  rendering  of  IV.  O'uiH  as  distinguished  IVom  ^in  tuny  bo 
described  as  the  sinner's  position  in  regai-d  to  (lod  wiiicli  results 
from  his  sin.  Guilt  involves  punishment,  and  thus  tiie  eoiuuita- 
tion  of  I'>  is  enhlrged  still  further.  As  :>cliultz  says  (C/'  Thcot. 
li.  p.  30(1),  'in  the  consciousness  of  the  pious  Israelite,  sin, 
guilt,  and  punishment  are  ideas  so  directly  connected  that  the 
words  for  them  are  interchangeable.'  See  esp.  Gn  4'^,  Lv  26*'. 
An  illustration  of  this  connexion  is  the  phmse  'bear  iniquity* 
(less  frequently  '  bear  sin  ').  first  occurring  tin  4'^,  and  fVeque'nt 
in  IC/.eliiel,  II  and  I*.  The  idea  is  that  of  being  involve«l  in  guilt 
with  the  inevitable  consequence  of  ]>unishment  (Nu  14^),  and  the 
phrase  is  nearly  equivalent  to  the  verb  D'J'N  ;  cf,  Lv  y-*.  It  must, 
however,  be  noticed  that  the  verb  translated  '  bear'  (N'J'J)  some- 
times has  for  its  subject  the  person  offended  against,  and  Is 
used  In  the  sense  of  "  taking  away '  sin.  Kor  refT.  ,sce  Ox/,  ilib. 
Lex.  p,  (>"t.  In  Lv  l('r^  the  goat  for  Azazel  'bears  iniquities' 
into  a  land  not  inhabited,  llere  both  the  senses  above  men- 
tioneil  are  implied :  and  the  same  uiay  be  said  of  the  n]t>ru 
important  passage  in  Is  5;3'2,  where  tlie  Servant  oi  the  Loud 
both  bears  and  takes  away  the  sin  of  many.  Thus  this  phrase 
lies  at  the  root  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Atonement, 

tc)  Tranttgretmioii  i>^P). — The  original  sense  of  the  noun  ia 
clear  from  the  use  of  the  verb  (cf.  1  K  l'J'(*  '  Israel  rebelled 
against  the  house  of  David').  It  is  a  breaking  away  froui  law 
or  covenant,  and  thus  it  implies  a  law  and  lawgiver.  It  im- 
plies what  r'H'jri  does  not  necessarily  imply,  namely,  the  volun- 
tariness of  sin.  This  distinction  comes  out  clearly  iu  .Job  »4^ 
•  lie  addelti  rebellion  unto  his  sin.' 

(</)  }\'ic/i'ednf*is  tV'^'?.).— This  is  sin  become  a  habit  or  state. 

Its  adjective  >"w'i  In  phir.  describes  sinners  as  a  doss,  '  tha 

wickc<l ' ;  and  is  invariably  the  correlative  of  p'ts  ('  righteous  ')  j 

cf.  Gn  1S». 

Besides  the  foregoing,  three  other  words  require  brief  notice, 

D'lTN  with  '^j.'S  and  >"^.  AV  does  not  sufliciently  distinguish 
thom,  rendering  '''/'O  'trespass,'  ' tran.sgression,'  and  C'C'N  or 
."IC'J'N  *  trespass,'  *  trespass-offering' ;  whereas  '?>in  is  strictly  an 
act  of  unfaithfulness  or  treachery  towards  God  or  man,  pro- 
ducing a  state  of  guiltiness  designated  by  O'y'N,  requiring  an 
ollering  to  atone  for  it,  which  offering  is  also  expressed  by  the 
same  word  =PS  (KV  '  guilt-offering  ').  See  Oehler,  OT  'fheol. 
§  l.t".  ^>'5  is  a  word  of  limited  range  belonging  to  the  priestly 
termii.ology  (see  Driver.  LOT  Vi't  [«  1:34]).  while  DU'N  and  its 
cognates  run  througli  OT,  There  is  In  the  latter  word  the 
sense  of  a  need  of  compensation,  and  the  guilt-ottering  is  to  bo 
regarded  os  a  compensatory  offering  for  an  injury  done  (see 
O-cf.  lleb.  Lex.  p,  711), 

We  now  proceed  to  the  Mosaic  covenant,  not 
merely  as  contained  in  Ex  20-23,  but  as  developed 
in  the  whole  of  Ex.  -  Lv.  -  Xitmbers,  keeping  in 
mind  the  widely  different  dates  to  which  iliffetcnt 
portions  may  belong.  The  object  of  this  law  .as  a 
whole,  if  we  regard  it  as  providentially  developed, 
ai)pears  to  be  not  so  much  dirctaly  to  advance 
morality  or  to  deepen  a  sense  of  moral  imperfec- 
tion, as  to  create  a  nati(jn  within  which  comiimiiion 
with  the  One  God  might  be  realized  and  prosorved, 
— or,  in  other  words,  to  f(U'in  a  hard  external  .shell, 
within  which  a  higher  religious  life  might  be  gradu- 
ally and  .securely  evolved.  Hence  the  jiolitical 
and  ceremonial  elements  were  the  prominent  ones. 
And  hence  sin  under  the  Law  meant  much  more 
negli^ct,  conscious  or  uncon.sciou.s,  of  ceremonial 
regulations  than  moral  transgression,  and  no  dis- 
tinction was  drawn  between  the  two.  This  was  a 
necessary  first  stage.  Again,  God  was  the  King 
of  the  new  nation.  Thus  there  was  no  room  for 
non-ri'ligious  law.  His  purview  embraced  all  acts. 
Therefore  there  was  no  ilistinctioii  between  sin  and 
crime.  In  the  present  day  there  are  sins  which 
are  not  regarded  by  English  law  as  crimes  or  torts. 
It  was  not  so  in  Israel.  If  an  act  was  outside  the 
Law,  it  was  not  sin.  He  who  kept  the  Law  w.ts 
lilamele.ss.  Conversely,  there  are  offences  against 
the  law  of  England  which  the  most  conscientious 
would  hardly  regard  .as  sin  ;  but  in  Lsrael  all  enact- 
ments were  jiart  of  the  Divine  law,  and  the  breach 
of  any  of  them  was  sin.  This  religious  character 
of  law  was.  of  cour.se.  not  peculiar  to  Israel.  It  is 
characteristic  of  early  Brahmanic  law  (see  Maine, 
Kitrh/  Law  ami  Custom,  c.  ii.  esp.  p.  42  £t.)  and 
of  other  systems. 


530 

~Tl    ■,<  seems  urobable.  Deut.  U  cavlior  in  dale 

S""™.!,  .a.  calk,!  aa  .<;»»...-«  ;™ 

r.:-,rarSx^tE4Sr9=i 

/sr.,  Eng.  U.  p.  000). 


--rr  S?ii^  *^^!^'<;r  z>:^  '^^ri;^  rp 

"""  r  ;;?  «^i'h  n^ted  to  what  »as  clean  P'H,.)  and  unclean 
:r4'  T  :  e  coVeen,ed  not  only  food,  but  persons  and  tMn.s. 
^teslnrespeetor,hese^ve«.^J^a^d^n.aWew,^^^ 

There  are  tl""  c-M^a.-t-';^  f^tf:,  ftTi^possible  to  regard 
be  set  aside.    Taking  tnem  as  ,  designedly 

them  as  bavins  »J'";  "^^^^cTose  this  character  they  possess 
,,i<*!,or«v</     bo  foi  as  theyi  ao  ^^^^__     ^^^  ^^ 

it  not  by  virtue  "'.,"'7?^,,  ,  J' |  °  „  J'  Thev  grew  out  of  man  s 
origin  long  before  t'"^.!''''^  "' '^^""for  t  Lis  consciousness  of 
sense  of  the  unseen  his  'f  "■,*"';,^t  °^  'jni  The  proof  of  this 
physical  and  spiritual  dangers  b  setting  Imn.  1^^_  ,|eanness 

lies  in  the  e^i*"-"",,"'  e  sriS  as  foi  instance  in  the  Vendidad 
and  '■"'il''J"T7A,TArK,i  "r  .narmesteter,  vol.  iv.).  Thirdly. 
(.S,.c,Yd  •«"."*"'; 'r„f'';'iundean  was  not  a  «/».7«r.v  one. 
the  conception  of  clean  »""  "o^.  f "  '  incidentallv)  with  modern 
,„d  had  nothing  n  common  (",^''P'^;,^^^;^X''Vertain  things. 
,„„i„„s  of  cleanliness.  ^,''-  "^',,,[,"1,'  yAu  and  death,  carried 
c,i.,.cially  -verythmg  Conn«^led   wUh  b'rtn  ^^^  ^^^ 

-^.:^;:srrt3U  i^- e  -;^f  -  - 

doctrine  of  sin  i«  as  Mlo«    .  ( J    Ah  m^^^^  _^_^._^,j,  ,,„, 

the  area  of  sin  lUo  o-  ),  )f '];'■",  j.  j^  ,  At  the  same  time 
""^  '''■f,'effi1haT\5hos[A,hooteerved  them  they  also 
it  must  be  aildcd  that  l"J^"°'-  „„(  ,i,e  opportunities  of 

increased  the  area  of  "f?''''^* ."»"«'; '^™i„„  of  the  hoUness  of 
conscious  joyf"!  ""'-'lienc^  <p ^^^^  an  unclean  had  a  close 
God,  to  which  ">«  .fy»'e™.  "  ,e"°?"„i"",s.  especially  by  Isaiah, 
relation,  was  so  """"'"^.'j^ ','°, '"°  .'ten  or  their  equivalents 
that  the  terois  ^"X!f  th^  ocabul^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
came  to  supply  nuicli  of  the  Y"'"""'-  j      ^  „.„r,is  as  xaSapos, 

l^Jil^rnor tndli^toSTv^i^hJ^  recalling  their  source  in 
the  I.aw 


^"irT.iK  l>uorilETS.-(a)  The  Former  Prophets.- 
If  the  esse,  cef  .in  istleparture  froii.  U0.I,  iben, 
In  wUateve.  forui,  laolatry  must  be  the  wt.rst  s.u 
^:.c:ur:he  lU  compute.  That  .s  Its  posiuon 
ihiou-hout  the  histcncal  bo.jks  lu  -""d  es  .t  is 
the  catise  of  all  Israel'.s  s>'fi«'"«';-  1°  /  ""^^J, 
^anmel  it  Is  comparatively  ahse  t  .  m  c  n^ 
.ttently  there  is  ^^^^^^  ^^^^ 

repression  of  '^;''^y^„,.^  "^/'Continuance   and 
S"-  the    in  o    Jer'oboam,  and  the  ...rd  -sin' 

msmwmm 

rh^  Yet  this  view  was  loo  concentrated  to  be 

^'^  1      u  t  not  to  the  retrospective  record  in 

faTd  2  Kinis  fhat  we  look  for  li,,ht  on  the  progress 

of   the  na  ional  conscience,  but  to  contemporary 

^ntWit^es    t he   so-called  Later   Prophets,  ,e    the 

danger  of  sin. 


The  next  matters  for  consideration  are  tbe  pun- 

;;t^^hn.:nt  for  almost.all  sin  is  deatl.  Jn  U^^ry, 
at  -mv  rate,  the  seventy  of  the  Law  is  ama^'"-- 
u-l  I  is  taken  into  account  is  not  so  much  the  1  1 
de^rt  of  tlie  individual,  as  bis  guilt  i.ivolvmg  the 

Hiir^'-^^^aS=^T;fr 

Tl  V  4-(}')  •  see  Westcott,  Ep.  to  Ileb.  p.  -!S8      lie 

n  V  Y  OF  ATOSI-.MK.N'T  must  also  be  taken  into  con- 

c^Z.C«h  its  main  o;'!'^"  appears^  to  h^ 

S^^b;cb^wrtt3r'rh4iii:^^^c^ 

Tf^ec   w^s  that  God  was  thought  of  as  injured  by 

-  en  •  and  the  cnilt^oSering  had  in  it,  as  we 

havVseen'  the  no  ton  of  compensation  for  in  u.y 

one      In  Job  (T^'  350)  we  find  the  hrst  explicit 

conuadl^i^  ohhis  tiUght.  «^'  ";;^-;3 


The  history  of  I>»vi<»  ^PPJ-^ -^''^::;^nr^lnf/  'riTe 
one  flagrant  and  "-e  other  dithcu  I  to  ^^-^  ^^^i,a  are  UU-ossi- 
points  which  come  out  ui  ''•» ''''' 'l™  ,\.,,H.e ;  (2)  punishment 
iility  of  immediate  f--!f;«";f  ,  "^^^^P'.^V  8)  the  .unish.neut 
after  forgiveness,  ^f •''•%»"'.=  '"',";  othVrs.  Thii,  however, 
of  the  sinner  involves  ^""'^"''1;.,  Y,[,  °„"e  that  of  the  census 
appears  more  clearly  in  tie  "1"' "'^i"',',,!,'!  the  sin  is  ascribed 
(i  's  •«.).  Tlu>  point  to  ^r^^^^^lZ.  ,vay  as  the  evil 
to  the  causation  ot  J  "'"'?*  i  J  iJ  1'  scribed  as  -from  God.' 
spirit  which  came  "I""  »" "'  t^  a^  of  the  same  character. 
Several  other  passages,  e.g.  ■'".fT-J'S'"'  '  1.2.S  iT.^  builds  the 
On  them  Clemen  (/.«/.re  "'"f/„f"C  author  (  r«-«  ".'«''<■'■) 
conclusion  that  (Jod  "as  regarded  as  the  a  tuor  i  ^^.^^^^„„, 

of  sin.     It  is  more  "?",'^f  '  't.^  .."ct  on  of  Divine  control  an.l 

of  that  r«-'-V'«">',"H'"i'  "'t  ill  Vimes  been  felt,  and  not  alone 
human  freedom  which  has  at  ajlimes  net       ^        ^_^^^_^  ^__^,^ 

in  Israel.  For  l'^*.':  J'^'J  Cnd"'  a  1  iS«  What  was  in  Hebn-w 
c-iprcssions,  see  Mr  1.)"-^  anil  -'"^  ;  .,  .  ,  ,.„  produced 
■cl  gion  only  a  hesitation  and  V"r^l^^';,,Xi,  fatal  to  ■>>"■■»"'>■ 
dangerous  results  became  in  Islam  ?  ™^;l'^^.  '^^  )„  lo,,,,  a„d 
•The  unbelief  of  the  "nbebeier  the  i.nput>  oi  i^^.^ 

bad  actions.  "•!"«';: J"- (T^*"  Z  ^^  wi?h  His  'satisfaction 


„  approvB 

,.l„.o..  leads  the  way  in  bringing  moral  offences 

to  the  front.     He  carries  on  one  side  of  I.Iijali  _s 

.V   ami  the  trans-ressions  denounced  m  Am  1.  i 

work,  and  the  tatiste-,  |,t„„anity  between 

are  offences  against  jusiiti m"'  , „    '  -i^  iio-i"! 

sxr-TiSi,S£;;2si£,  e„ 

because  it  is  sin  "S=""^V;'o  1  lohn      AVI  a    H-sea 
have  the  OT  counterpart  to  1  .John.      »>  n-n  ', 
rand  indeed  all  the  prophets)  did,  was  to  enlai^e 

^ss  obvious  contributions  and  developments.     See 
also  Clemen,  Lehre  von  der  bunde,  p.  .0  1- 


Another  point  in  the  teaching  of  the  prophets 
as  to  sin  is  tlieir  preaching  of  repentance,  both 
national  and  individual,  outside  the  covenant  (cf. 
Jonah)  as  well  as  within  it.  The  development 
of  individualism  by  Jeremiah  and  Exekiel  is  a 
moment  of  great  importance  in  the  doctrine  of  sin. 
Hitherto  the  prominent  thoutiht  has  been  that  of 
sin  affectini;  tlie  nation  through  the  individual,  and 
entailing;  N'uilt  on  succeeding  generations,  though 
it  nuist  be  noticed  that  the  heredity  of  guilt  is  not 
allowed  as  a  ground  for  private  revenge  (I)t  24''', 
2  K  14'',  but  cf.  2  S  21'').  Ezekiel  attaches  his 
teaching  to  that  of  Jeremiah,  and  works  it  out. 
His  result  is  well  summed  up  by  A.  U.  I)avid.son 
in  his  note  on  Kzk  18,  'the  individual  man  is  not 
involved  in  the  sins  and  fate  of  his  people  or  his 
forefailiers.'  Hut  even  Ezekiel  did  not  dissolve 
entirely  the  great  predominant  OT  thought  of  the 
soli<larity  of  Israel  in  respect  of  sin.  There  wa-s 
work  for  that  conception  to  do  in  the  NT.  It  made 
possible  the  thought  of  the  vicarious  atonement  of 
Christ,  as  representative  of  the  nation  and  the  race 
(Jn  ll'"'- •"'-).  For  a  strong  instance  of  the  sense 
of  sin  as  national,  .see  Is  (!4.  The  feeling  has  been 
well  exiiresscd  by  Montefiore  :  '  At  his  worst  the 
individual  felt  he  belonged  to  the  people  of  God, 
and  shared  their  righteou.sne.ss  ;  and  at  his  best 
he  still  felt  the  depressing  burden  of  Lsrael's 
national  sins'  {Ilihbert  Lert.  p.  512).  The  whole 
(piesllon  was  deeply  affected  by  the  obscurity 
and  comparative  unimportance  of  the  Heb.  ex- 
pectation of  a  future  life.  When  that  dawned 
clearly,  the  importance  of  the  individual  dawned 
with  it. 

iii.  TliK  IlAr.ior,R.\pii.\.  —  The  Psalms  belong 
largely,  though  not  entirely,  to  the  prophetic 
school  of  thought,  and  either  anticipate  or  develop 
its  teaching,  according  to  the  view  we  may  take  of 
their  respective  dates.  It  is  in  the  Psalms  that 
we  first  have  a  deep  view  of  sin  from  the  sinner's 
side.  In  the  Prophets  we  have  the  historian  or 
preacher  deriouniing,  but  in  the  Psalms  the  sinner 
confessing  sin,  either  personal  or  national.  This 
deep  sen.se  of  sin  arises  invariably  out  of  the  pres- 
sure of  suffering  in  some  form  ;  and  in  some  cases, 
at  any  rale,  is  due  to  the  national  suffering  of  the 
Captivity  and  Exile.  The  Psalmist  does  not  re- 
pent for  fear  of  future  punishment,  but  from  the 
pres.sure  of  present  aflliction.  It  is  true  that  we 
find  the  consciousness  of  uprightness  and  sincere 
purpose  .OS  well  as  the  consciousness  of  sin  (e.r/.  Ps 
2H).  but  this  does  not  contradict  the  general  im- 
pression. A  special  aspect  of  sin  in  the  Psalms  is 
that  of  falsehood.  The  service  of  J"  is  thought  of 
as  truth,  i)ractii'al  truth,  much  in  the  same  way  as 
in  the  (iospel  and  Epp.  of  St.  John  ;  hence  sin,  its 
opposite,  is  untruth,  vanity,  lies.  In  the  P.salms, 
as  in  the  Prophets,  sin  is  no  longer  a  matter  of 
strict  legalism,  of  failure  to  obey.  Emotions  and 
affections  cunie  in  largely  (as  in  some  degree  in 
Hosea  and  Dint.;.  The  Psalmists  love  (joil,  and 
look  on  sin  ius  breaking  this  happy  relation,  hiding 
His  face  and  shutting  up  His  mercies.  All  this 
reaches  its  highest  point  in  Ps  .01,  with  its  pro- 
found consciousness  of  sin  in  the  individual  and  in 
the  race  (v.'',  cf.  Job  14'),  hatred  of  it  for  its  own 
sake,  not  merely  for  its  conse(|Uences,  and  hopeful 
assurance  of  forgiveness  and  renewal. 

M.  llnlzrnikn  ([.n/ariiH  And  MelnlhaVn  Zfitticfiri/t/rtr  ViiU'fr- 
pKychulngie.  H*l.  XV.  ISSt)  contrnsl.s  the  (ioclrltic  of  r^itl  In  tho 
Kig  Vc<Ia  Willi  tlmt  of  tho  IVsalnip  in  lllo  followlriir  respt-clt, : 
(I)  Vaninii  (tin-  k''«l  ailflrcsacd)  is  rccunlt-d  ns  liimscif  tlio  rimso 
"f  mnn'i*  liclnir  (li-rolvod  Into  plnninj;;  ('21  rcn-nri'irilnl  itlTcnpi'S 
ftrn  n't:nnl«Hl  ah  on  tlii'  hahio  lovol  witli  niorAl,  wliirii  if*  rerlninlv 
not  III,.  a\tD  In  the  P»Alins ;  (8|  cnllt  \»  <lr>'Aili'<l  not  for  Itstlf, 
Imt  .toI,'ly  for  itf.  lulnlsliinrnt. 

In  Prnrerhs  the  a.spect  of  sin  is,  of  course,  wholly 
different.  It  is  i)ractical  religion  which  is  treated 
here,  and  this  from  an  external  and  an  intellectual 


point  of  view.  Righteousness  is  wisdom,  and  sin 
is  folly.  The  sinner  is  (1)  simple  ('•??),  (2)  ajhul 
(y^j,  see  article  KOOL),  or  (3)  a  scorner  (i  7). 

Two  cliarflcloristifs  may  be  specially  notice<l.  (l>  Men  are 
sharply  (lividofl  into  trood  tind  bail ;  Anil  though  in  ehs.  1-9  tlio 
possibility  of  change  is  assumed,  there  is  no  relerence  to  sorrow 
for  sin,  or  conversiim  from  bad  to  j^ood  (see  Toy,  ProcerOs^ 
Intrmi.  p.  xiii).  This  is  the  .ittitude  towar4ls  sinners  which  is 
developed  And  hardened  in  Siracli,  as  noticed  below.  ('.'I  In 
Proverbs,  and  still  more  distinctly  in  -Job,  it  is  the  moral  state 
of  the  individual  whicli  occui)ies  intention  ;  for  even  if  .lob  bo 
tvi>ical  of  Israel,  tho  tyjie  is  worlced  out  with  thorou^'h  dramatic 
ti-uth.  'Tho  result  is'that  we  obtain  in  these  books  far  more 
detailed  ethical  rertexions  than  are  found  elsewhere  in  the  OT. 
Althou^'h  tho  religious  consciousness  of  sin  cannot  bo  said  to  bo 
lirominent,  yet  it  docs  find  expression  in  a  verse  which  is  tho 
strongest  statement  in  OT  of  the  universality  of  liunian  sinful- 
ness, namely  Pr  'JO" ;  and  throuRhout  Pr  l(i-'J4  the  approval  or 
disapproval  of  the  Lord  often  recurs  as  the  standard  of  action. 

The  Book  of  Job  presents  features  of  far  greater 
interest,  and  represents  the  furthest  advance  in 
the  doctrine  of  sin  prior  to  the  N'T.  Its  results 
may  be  classed  under  three  heads.  (1)  The  Law 
being  designedly  excluded  from  the  drama,  the 
sins  which  come  in  question  are  purely  ethical  and 
nowhere  ritual.  The  spread  of  sin  is  delinitely 
acknowledged  as  universal;  it  is  inherent  in  human 
nature  (Job  i^'  RVm,  14*  I.')'*-"'),  and  it  includes 
sins  of  thought  and  desire.  This  latter  point  comes 
out  mo.st  fully  in  Job  31,  where  we  get  the  author's 
conception  of  sin,  a  very  wide  and  penetrating 
one,  not  less  remarkable  for  inwardness  than  the 
Sermon  on  the  Mount.  (2)  The  close  relation 
between  sin  and  suffering,  believed  in  by  Israel 
in  early  times,  and  implied  by  the  double  sense  of 
.-Ncn  find  iV'v  (see  above),  is  in  this  book  .shown  to 
be  at  any  rate  not  a  necessary  one.  Sin  does  not 
always  bring  suffering,  and  suffering  does  not 
always  imply  sin.  But  this  result  is  something 
very  different  from  denying  altogether  such  a  re- 
lation between  the  two,  a  denial  which  would  at  a 
blow  cut  aw.ay  the  ground  from  under  the  religious 
life  of  Proi)liets  and  Psalmists.  {:',)  The  character 
of  sill  as  affecting  God  comes  in  for  treatment  inci- 
dentally. Expression  is  given  to  two  false  gues.ses : 
(a)  that  (iod  watches  man's  transgressions  with 
somelhing  apin-oaching  satisfaction.  Job  14'''-  ''  ; 
(h)  that  human  sin  cannot  affect  llim,  Job  "-'  UV  ; 
cf.  Eliliu  in  'Mfi.  Of  these  (a)  is  merely  one  of  the 
rash  words  which  fall  from  the  sufferer,  but  (';),  as 
continued  by  Elihu.  shows  Jewish  thought  .strongly, 
perhaps  dangerously,  in  reaction  against  its  earlier 
anthropop:itliic  conceptions. 

EfcU'siHsti's  contributes  little  except  the  final  de- 
cisive conviction  of  the  univei-sality  of  sinfulness, 
'  Surely  there  is  not  a  righteous  man  upon  earth 
that  doeth  good  and  sinueth  not'  (Ec  7-"). 

II.  IN  Tin:  At'ocnrrilA.  —  Siradi. — As  in  Pro- 
verbs, so  in  Sirach  the  righteous  and  the  wicked 
under  various  names  form  two  great  classes  over 
against  one  another  (331-"'),  and  it  is  to  the  former 
chiss  only  that  the  writer  a<ldresscs  himself.  Fools 
are  incapable  of  amendment.  Turning  fioni  sin 
(8'^)  is  only  the  repentance  of  the  righteous;  and, 
with  the  exception  of  17-^'-,  the  attitude  of  Sirach 
prefigures  that  attitude  towards  sinners  which  it 
was  the  great  work  of  Jesus  to  challenge  and  set 
aside  by  His  examiile  (Lk  lo-).  Yet  Sirach  denies 
to  sinners  the  excuse  that  they  cannot  liel])  them- 
selves. It  is  not  God  who  causes  man  to  sin  (.see 
above,  I.  ii.).  The  author's  a.ssertion  of  human 
freedom  and  responsiliility  is  striking  and  powi^rful, 
if  somewhat  too  broad  (Sir  l.'i" •-'").  It  is  not  in  any 
degree  limited  by  the  statement  of  2.'>-<  that  K.ve's 
sin  brought  deatii  upon  the  race,  for  the  inherilance 
of  death  by  every  man  does  not  necesstirily  imply 
a  doctrine  of   original   sin.*      The   philo.sophy  of 

•  See  important  art.  bv  F.  K.  TennAnt  {Journal  Tlintt. 
SliKliea,  ii.  fp.  p.  20").  pti'lillslied  since  this  Art.  was  wrItliMi. 
lie  sums  up  thus  :  '  Tlie  Fall  (According  to  SirAch)  was  the  eduM 
of  death,  but  only  tho  beginning  of  sin.'    Cf.  ThackcrAy,  l.o. 


SiracU  accouuU  for  physical  evil  in  creation  as  a 
necessary  complement  to  moral  evil  '"  "»»' ,f "^ 
designed  for  its  punishment ;  see  Sir  39-»-^'  4U'     . 

Wisdom  of  Solomon.  —  In  tliis  book,  iiutwitli- 
standin"  the  totally  different  atmosphere  produced 
\)V  (1)  a  hope  full  of  immorlality  (o').  ^"'^  (-)  V'.*^ 
practical  identilioation  of  Wisdom  with  the  Spirit 
of  God  (91"),  tlie  ground  tliouglit  is  the  same  as  that 
of  Sirach,  namely,  that  sin  is  ignorance,  and  that 
it  is  the  intellectual  side  of  man  tliat  must  by 
•discipline'  be  fortified  against  it.  The  character 
of  the  book  is  therefore,  at  first  sight,  ni  tlie 
strongest  contrast  with  the  words  ot  Clirist,  I 
lliaiik  thee,  O  Fatlier.  Lord  of  heaven  and  earth, 
tliat  thou  didst  hide  these  things  from  the  wise 
and  understanding,  and  didst  reveal  them  unto 
babes'  (Mt  U-^).  Yet  if  the  above-mentioned 
identification  of  Wisdom  with  the  Holy  Spirit  be 
pressed    a    little    further,    tlie    contradiction    di.s- 

appears  (cf.  1  Co  -i'^O-  It  «''""1'1  ^^  ^''^"'^  ""1 
Wis  law-,  which  appears  to  make  for  a  doctrine  ot 
inborn  sin,  applies  only  to  the  Canaanites.  and  not 
to  mankind  at  large.  The  idea  of  the  derivation 
of  a  universal  taint  from  Adam's  transgression  is 
altogether  wanting. 

Pni'/er  of  Mnnasges.—We  here  encounter  the 
first  unquaiified  presentation  of  the  later  Judaic 
belief  in  the  complete  sinlessness  of  the  patriarchs 
C  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob,  which  have  not  sinned 
aoainst  thee,'  4).  This  attribute  was  extended 
afterwards  to  many  other  t)T  personages  (see 
Weber,  Jiid.  Tlwoi:^  pp.  32  and  r,4  fi.).  Lk  15'  does 
not  necessarily  admit  the  existence  of  absolute 
human  sinlessness,  and  must  be  interpreted,  nrf 
liomim'm,  as  addressed  to  Pharisees  and  scribes 
/see  15-)  in  a  spirit  not  far  removed  from  irony. 
St  Paul  exi5resslv  dissociates  himself  from  the 
above  tendency  (Ro  3-=^),  but  Rev  14i-'  seems  to 
show  traces  of  it.  ,..»•,. 

"  E'idrax  (chs.  3-14).— This  book  ought  in  strict- 
ness to  be  dealt  with  separately,  as  being  post- 
Christian  (prob.  A.u.  81-UO).  Its  close  relation 
(along  with  Apoc.  Baruch,  see  BAi:t-ciI  [Al-ciA- 

1  YPSK  OFl)  to  the  line  of  thought  in  the  Kp.  to 
Romans  has  been  fully  brought  out  in  Sanday- 
lleadlam,  Eomans  ;  see  esp.  p.  loi  •      "  e  learn  trom 

2  Esdras  that  at  the  time  at  which  it  was  written 
there  was  in  Judaism  a  doctrine  of  inborn  inherited 
sin.  It  is  hard  to  see  how  such  a  doctrine  could  be 
expressed  more  definitely  than  is  the  case  m  2  Ls4-' 
'a  grain  of  evil  seed  was  sown  in  the  he.art  of 
Adam  from  the  beginning,  and  how  much  wicked- 
ness hath  it  brought  forth  unto  this  time.  In  the 
li^vht  of  this  pa.ssage  the  less  clear  utterances  of 
'''Es  S'-if'  and  T**  become  unambiguous.  On  the  side 
of  human  free-will  Sanday-Ueadlara  (I.e.)  quote 
2  Es  8^"  '.!"  and  esp.  Apoc.  15ar  bi^'-  i».  They  truly 
remark  that  both  works  'lay  stress  at  once  on  the 
inherited  tendency  to  sin,  and  on  the  freedom  ot 
choice  in  those  who  give  way  to  it  (p.  l-H).  li 
the  biblical  doctrine  of  sin  finds  its  most  important 
expression  in  Romans,  then  2  Esdras,  as  illustrat- 
ing Romans,  has  a  special  value  for  the  study  ot 
tliT-  subject.     Cf.  Thackeray,  I.e. 

m.     I.v    TiiE   New    Te^tamext.—  TermiH- 

oloyij.  —  ' 

1    The  i>i«pii".v  group.    •.\^.pTia  nwy  mean  sin  as  a  habit 
a  stale,  a  pmver  ^so  fie.i,  in  Kou.ans),  an,l  also  a  single  act  of 
"in;  while  i^ap'^^M.  Is  re.tricte,!  to  the  latter;  see  Westcott, 
EPD  ,/oAn,  .idil.  Note  on  1  .In  1".  ,  „  „, 

•i  ^apa^aatt.  tnn,>.gre«»io,i ;  ^api„r^^a.  trfspam  (more 
precisely,  fall  or  declinalwn).  •  These  two  wonts  are  cl..sel> 
Luie.1,  referring  respectively  to  the  <=""^<^1"<'",'^';?,  ""  "'"  "F;"', 
anrt  to  the  line  tran>presse.l.  I!..th  presnpposc  »he  existemo  or 
a  law.'  (LiKhtfoot.  .V..^f«  o«  K/tp.  .-.V.  Punt.  r.o.V«),  and  herein 
?hV^difrer  fro,n  iAapr.a.     While  law  multiplies  transgression, 

"  3  ' TvoA'"'  AV  ini,,mt>j.  The  word  had  been  so  coloured  by 
Its  LXX  use,  as  a  frequent  rendering  of  I^>;  and  other  words 
meaning  sin,  that  its  proper  sense,  violation  of  '""•j  f "  fe 
certainly  recognized  only  in  one  passage,  1  Jn  i*.     In  Us  strict 


sense  it  trulv  represents  the  conception  of  sin  given  in  the  Epji 

so  ia.^e.a  is  the  same  attitude  towards  liod's  Person.  Itex- 
nresses  the  insult  and  blasphemy  involved  m  sin.  t-  1. 1. 

■^  5  i5.".a  This  word  brings  forward  that  side  of  sin  which  Is 
aL-iinst  our  nei'-hbour  and  does  him  a  wrong,  and  as  such  is 
;!:,mmon  to  hu.mm  and  to  IMvine  law  (see  Westcott,  Epp.  John 
f)".  note  for  relation  of  iSiKio  to  ojiapTia).  .„„„i„i  !,„ 

G  iAeiAwa.  Though  occurring  but  once,  it  has  a  spec  mi  im- 
porianJc  from  being  the  term  for  sin  chosen  by  the  L"^^  "jn'^^" 
to  t)e  used  bv  us  in  our  dailv  prayer  for  lorgiveness,  the  Lulvan 
f  rm  i^T  «  (Lii  If)  being  'probabiy  a  paraphrase  isee  Chase, 
77  e  LorU'H  Praytr.  p.  .>!  If.)  -  Other  words  for  sin  are  rather 
aspects  or  it,  su?h  a.s  falsehood,  darkness,  Ignorance,  and  do  not 
come  under  terminology 


i    Syxoi'TIC  Gospel?.— Looking  back  on   the 
of  as  a  whole,  we  are  struck  willi  the  range  and 
completeness  of  the  doctrine  of  sin  which  it  pre- 
sents.     This    accounts  for  a  feature    in   Christ  s 
teaching  as  given  in  the  Synoptic  Gospels  which 
would  otlierwise  be  surprising,  namely,  the  pa,ucity 
of  teaching  about  sin.     Sin   is  mentioned   almost 
exclusively  in  connexion  with  its  forgiveness.    Jesus 
appears  as  one  who  forgives  sin,  and  not  as  insist- 
in"  and  enlarging  on  it,  or  as  convicting  ot  it.     It 
is  obvious  how  different  would  have  been  the  effect 
of  His  ministry  on  the  world,  if  it  had  been  primarily 
a  ministry  of  conviction  of  sin.     In  the  1- ourth  Gos- 
pel He  explicitly  disclaims  such  an  aim  (Jn  12''), 
thus  confirming  the   impression  derived  from  the 
Svnoptists.     At  the  same  time  it  is  forgiveness   not 
indifference.    There  is  no  trace  of   the  lutschlian 
view     that   till   He   came   all  sin   was  practically 
ionorance,   and  that  sinners  only   needed   to  lay 
a'side  their  sense  of   guilt.     That   ignorance    even 
where  it  exists,  is  but  a  partial  and  not  a  sufficient 
excuse,  appears  in  Lk  U*",  and  the  explanation  of 
that  passage  is  that  moral  ignorance  is  never  tota, 
and  onlv  comes  near  totality  by  nian'.s  own  fault. 
The  sharp  distinction  between  sins  of   ignorance 
which  are  forgivable,  and   sins  without  ignorance 
which  are  not,  is  untrue  to  life.     The  nian  who  sins 
from  ignorance  has  still  some  spark  ot  knowledge 
which  is  enough  to  condemn  him,  and  the  man  who 
sins  against  light  has  still  some  ignorance,  for  how 
can  a  man   in  his  present  limitati.ms  realize  the 
.rravitv  of  the  issues  which  are  presented  to  him 
here  »"   For  the  first  point  see  Lk  2:5«  ;  the  soldiers 
in  their  ignorance.  neverthele.<is,  need  forgiveness ; 
and  for  tlie  second  see  the  lament  over  Jerusalem, 

The  Lord's  teaching  as  to  sin,  so  far  as  He  touched 
it  was  not  so  much  to  correct  OT  doctrine  regard- 
ing it,  as  much  rather  to  get  rid  of  a  spurious  tle- 
velopment  of  it,  represented  by  the  legalism  and 
casuistrv  of  the  Jewish  scribes.  The  ch.aracter  of 
prophetic  invective  appears  in  one  class  ot  discourses 
o„lv— those  addressed  to  the  Pharisees.  We  are 
next  led  to  consider  what  exceptiinis  must  be  maUe 
to  the  general  statement  above  as^  to  the  absence 
in  the  Gospels  of  denunciations  of  sin.  The)  are 
as  follows : — 

(O  Hypocrisy,  (2)  offences  ((T.irSaAal.  (3)  sin  against  the^lloly 
r.l .  't  it  wilfbe  seen  that  two  of  these  are  closely  cognate, 
am    I  i  tl-ree  a  tach  more  or  less  to  the  same  class  of  persons. 

T^^z:^'  ^^^^:^^^^^^'^^'^^- 

t';h:w  r-Srin  OT  i;.'" hy  ,ocHte''have  not  that  "-jmng^see 
art  IveorBlTFl  Yct  nltliough  no  correspon.ling  Heb.  word 
"ccnrs  he  c!u  iition  of  soul  is  described  it.  Is  -..".  ""d  .s  quo  ted 
as  s ucli  bv  Christ  (Mk  7«).  Further.  It  had  already  been  brought 
Ts  a  ciarge  against  the  Saddncees  b.v  «"-  fhansees  a.Sp.- 
,r<ip.<r«oi  being  used  to  denote  I'.vpocrites  (1  s■^ol  J»  ).  1  Hi. 
we^e  now  to  Imve  the  reproach  cast  back  "l'"" /hemsehes  b^ 
Clirist  -Ci)  OffenceK.  This  sin  is  fairly  prominent  in  01  ,  as.  lor 
instance   the  sin  of  Hophni  and  Phinehas,  who  made  the  Lord  s 

«jrisdJ4^::^^Sf"h^ 
Sb.»t^s.s^  rsis-f  ^r  e!  rr^f 

cause  of  stumbling  mav  be  in  itself  !'"«"r'''>  »'"''•,„","  'of  he 


from  Him.  AtlutliiT  ilistuncu  i>  that  of  >iiiioii  IVtur.  whoso 
couiisol  was  iiu  'olli-lioe'  to  Christ  Ilimsi'll'  (Mt  1C=1.  Or, 
mmmiikHv,  the  cuuso  of  ottonce  mav  be  in  itsflf  ijiiite  an  iiinocont 
act,  as  111  Ko  14*,  aiul  only  sinful  because  of  its  easily  foreseen 
eonse^iuenues  (Ko  14=^).  'I'liis  principle  explains  the  ollierwi.fo 
unnecessary  payment  of  the  half-shekel  (Mt  1"-').  Yet,  further, 
the  act  cjiusinj;  offence  may  be  not  only  inntteent,  but  necessary 
In  itself,  io  which  ease  its  incidental  consequences  cannot  make 
It  sinful.  Christ  Himself,  His  sayings.  His  cross,  are  all  described 
in  NT  as  'offences.'  The  f;eneral  teachiiii:,  if  we  anticipate  and 
incluilo  St.  Paul's  development  of  the  subject,  is  that  we  are 
bound  to  look  forward  to  the  probable  conseiinences  of  our 
actions,  even  when  those  ciuisciiuences  are  far  IVom  our  inten- 
tions. Ko  14  grows  naturally  outof  Mt  ls'\  Nothing  is  gained 
by  c«infi>undlni;,  as  Clemen  docs  {Lehre  ron  t/er  iS««(/c,  p. 
airilf.i.  the  sin  of  causing  otTences  with  the  general  topic  of 
the  self-pri>p:igalioii  of  sin,  anrl  its  power  to  bring  men  into 
bondage,  on  which  see  below,  §  ii.  2. — C-i)  ^in  afjainxt  t/ie  liulij 
(ikoiii.  This  was  cxemplilicd  in,  but  is  not  t*)  be  limited  to, 
the  attribution  to  evil  spirits  of  the  work  of  the  Holy  Si-irit  in 
the  actions  and  wonls  of  Christ.  For  a  pndmble  explanation 
of  the  different  judgments  pronounced  by  Christ  on  blasphemy 
against  the  Utily  Spirit  and  that  against  the  Son  of  man,  see 
art.  Blasi'Mkmv'  T  he  persistent  denial  of  the  inspiration  of 
Jesus  by  those  who  in  some  measure  felt  the  truth  of  His 
claims  was  an  unpai-donablc  sin.  The  three  passjiges,  .Mt  I'i^i-  ^-, 
Mk  'i'^-  =*,  Lk  1-"".  are,  like  most  of  the  Lord's  teaching,  not  a 
new  unrelated  utterance,  but  rather  a  republication  and  .idapta- 
tlon  to  the  Kingdtim  of  Ood  of  the  ancient  law  of  blasphemy, 
Lv  '24'".  It  must  he  aiided  that  the  unpardonable  sin  does  not 
consist  in  the  utterance  of  particular  words,  but  in  the  condi- 
tion of  soul  which  Is  expressed  by  them,  namely,  that  persistent 
resistance  to  the  Holy  Ghost  which  was  afterwards  emphasized 
by  Stephen  (Ac  T"). 

Tiikin;;  a  general  survey,  it  may  be  said  that 
there  are  three  points  which  appear  specially  in 
the  Synoptists  of  wliich  the  last  is  by  far  the  most 
iniportiint.  (1)  An  extension  of  the  ari'a  of  sin  by 
the  spiritual  inlerpretation  of  the  Mosaic  law,  and 
by  the  new  retiiiirements  of  the  Kingdom  of  God. 
(2)  A  limitaticiii  of  its  area  by  the  great  principle 
now  clearly  formulated,  that  sin  cannot  be  con- 
tracted by  physical  contact  with  things  ceremoniall.y 
unclean,  but  must  proceed  from  within  (Mk  7"', 
Mt  15").  (:!)  The  Lord's  own  attitude  towards 
sin  in  man  a.s  a  revelation  of  God's  attitude  to 
it,  namely  forgivencs,s.  The  message  which  lie 
brought  and  which  He  entnistod  to  the  apostles 
(I,k  "24")  was  the  fnrgivene.ss  of  sins,  and  it  is 
this  which  wi'  lind  them  declaring  in  Acts  and 
cxpaniling  in  the  Epistles. 

ii.  Till;  KiifliTH  G  isPKL. — The  same  note  is 
struck  by  St.  John  at  the  outset :  '  Behold  the  Lamb 
of  God,  which  taketh  away  the  sin  of  the  world ' 
(Jn  1^).  Yet  His  coming  and  gracious  work  opened 
the  pcssibilily  of  a  new  sin,  that  sin  of  rejection  of 
salvation  wliich  overshadows  so  largely  the  first 
twelve  cliaplci's  of  the  Fourth  (iospel,  and  re- 
appears under  other  circumstances  in  the  Ej).  to 
the  Hebrews  (He  2»  -l'  V,^  '-  10*). 

1.  In  short,  the  principal  teaching  as  to  sin  in  the 
Fourth  Gospel  is  the  capital  nature  of  the  sin  of  un- 
belief in  ilesus  as  the  Christ  the  Son  of  (iud.  There 
had  heen  unhilief  in  Galilee,  and  that  unbelief  had 
called  forth  the  severe  denunciation  in  Lk  10'--'". 
But  the  unbelief  of  Jud;ea  was  far  more  marked 
and  genei-al,  and  the  gospel  of  the  .ludiean  mini.stry 
i.-»  darkened  everywhere  by  collision  with  it.  This 
i»  the  sin  of  wliicli  the  Holy  Spirit  will  specially 
convict  men,  'of  sin  because  they  believe  not  on 
me.'  Could  this  sin  be  regarded  as  a  sin  of  igno- 
rance'i"  It  could  not,  for  Christ  had  come  and 
manifested  Himself.  'if  I  had  not  come  and 
spoken  unto  them,  they  had  not  had  sin  :  hut  now 
they  have  no  excuse  for  their  sin'  (.In  l.V--).  We 
are  here  clo.se  to  the  sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost, 
wliich  has  been  already  treated.  'I'liat  is  a  special 
and  aggravated  form  of  the  more  general  sin  of 
unbelief. 

It  may  be  added  thiit  the  sin  of  unbelief  in  .Tesus 
a.s  the  Christ  the  Son  of  God  holds  in  the  Nl'  much 
the  .'ian'.e  position  which  idolatry  holds  in  the  ()T. 
In  each  ca.se  the  sin  is  the  worst  sin  that  can  be 
coiniiiitted,  because  it  cuts  off  the  soul  from  God, 
and  so  from  the  source  of  its  life  and  peace.     It  is 


an  evil  heart  of  unbelief  falling  away  from  the 
living  God  (He  3'-). 

2.  The  second  important  point  in  the  Fourth 
Gospel  is  its  emphasis  on  sin  as  boiuUKjc.  The 
direct  teaching  is  brief,  contained  in  six  ver.ses  iu 
Jn  S""'-,  but  the  development  afterwards  given  it 
by  St.  Paul  in  Ko  0  places  it  in  the  front  of  NT 
teaching  on  sin.  It  is  perhaps  anticipated  in  Mt 
6^  '  ye  cannot  serve  God  and  mammon.' 

3.  There  are  also  les.ser  points  worthy  of  notice. 
The  old  iiuestion  of  tln!  connexion  of  sin  and  suffer- 
ing is  raised  in  Jn  9,  and  its  universality  is  there 
denied  ;  while,  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  clear  that  it 
holds  good  in  some  cases,  as  appears  in  o'''  '  sin  no 
more,  lest  a  worse  thing  befall  thee.'  The  pas- 
sage in  Lk  If)  as  to  the  slaughter  of  the  Galila,>ans  is 
not  precisely  to  the  poiiit,  as  what  is  there  taught 
is  the  general  .guilt  of  the  nation  of  which  only 
these  few  had  as  yet  paid  the  penalty.  Another 
class  of  passages  bearing  on  the  subject  is  that  dis- 
tinctive one  in  which  this  Gospel  gives  us,  far 
more  fully  than  the  others — the  Lord's  dealings 
with  individual  souls.  What  is  remarkable  is  His 
gentleness  towards  their  sins,  as,  for  instance,  Jn 
4''- 1»  and  8". 

Lastly,  we  must  observe  that  the  principal  teach- 
ing as  to  sin  in  the  Gospels,  taken  as  a  whole,  is 
that  which  result.s  from  the  revelation  of  a  perfect 
standard  of  life  as  shown  in  Christ.  As  Kitschl 
says  (vol.  iii.  Eng.  tr.  p.  329),  '  The  only  way  in 
which  the  idea  of  sin  can  be  formed  at  all  is  by 
comparison  with  the  good.'  It  is  true  that  RitschI 
presses  this  too  far,  and  seems  to  imjily  that  no 
competent  standard  of  morality  had  existed  before 
the  preaching  of  the  Kingdom  of  tiod.  '  But  to 
aOirm  the  absolute  standard  is  not  to  deny  the 
relative  standard.  God  was  in  the  preparation 
for  the  Kingdom  of  God  as  in  the  realization  of 
that  Kingdom  in  Christ'  (Garvie,  liitscltlian  7'he- 
oloijii,  p.  uO.'S).  We  must,  nevertheless,  allow  that 
the  coming  of  Christ  and  the  preaching  of  the 
gospel  did  give  a  new  character  to  sin.  Sin  was 
thus  placed  in  a  new  relation,  that  of  opposition  to 
the  Kingdom  of  God,  and  yet,  further,  it  was  shown, 
as  in  the  parable  of  the  I'rodigal,  to  be  not  only 
sin  against  power  and  wisdom,  but  also  against 
goodness  ami  love. 

iii.  ElMSTl.Ks. — 1.  St.  James. — Three  passages  de- 
serve special  consideration.  («)  The  genesis  of  sin 
in  the  individual  (Ja  I''-  '■'•).  It  comes  from  the  will 
consenting  to  a  desire  for  something  not  lawful. 
The  desire  in  itself  may  be  innocent  (see  art.  LfsT), 
but,  in  the  case  supposed,  it  can  only  be  gratified 
at  tlie  expense  of  transgression  of  moral  law.  The 
will  surrenders,  and  the  desire  is  fulfilled  in  an 
act  of  sin  (cf.  4'-).  Desire  {iiriOviila)  here  corre- 
sponds nearly  to  '  the  fie.sh'  of  St.  Paul's  theology. 
To  understand  the  bearing  of  the  passage,  see  Sir 
IS'"" ,  which  perhaps  .suggestetl  il.  There  the  source 
of  evil  lies  in  the  freedom  of  the  will.  The  fact 
that  tills  freedom  is  God's  gift  does  not  make  Him 
the  author  of  evil,  for  it  is  freedom,  {h)  Sin  iu 
relation  to  law.  The  Law,  rather  than  Christ, 
is  the  central  thought  of  the  Epistle,  but  it  is 
the  Law  as  revealetl  and  interpreted  by  Christ  in 
the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  and  in  His  life.  It  is  a 
lierfecl  law  (l-'-)  ;  a  law  of  freeiloni,  j.e.  not  enforced 
from  without,  hut  freely  accepted  as  the  aim  and 
desire  of  the  subject  of  it  (1^  2'-)  ;  a  royal  law  (2"). 
There  is  also  the  thought  of  the  solidarity  of  the 
Law,  with  its  consequences  on  the  doctrine  of  sin. 
(Jonscious,  wilful  transgression  of  any  one  jioint  is 
tantamount  to  transgression  of  the  whole,  for,  all 
being  God's  will,  any  transgression  is  defiance  of 
God's  will  (2'").  This,  so  far  from  being  a  pedantic 
conc<'])lion,  is  founded  on  a  truesiiiritual  view  of  tlio 
relation  of  man  to  God.  It  is  applietl  to  an  appa- 
rently small  matter— respect  of  persons  withiu  the 


534 


SIN 


SIN 


Church,  and  pri'ference  jiiven  to  the  rich  over  the 
poor.  It  must  be  added  that  the  passage  does  not 
justify  >is  in  inferring  the  equality  of  all  sins.  It  is 
rather  a  warning  against  regarding  lesser  sins  as 
of  no  consequence,  (c)  Forgiveness  of  siu  (y'''--*). 
Two  points  deserve  notice.  (1)  The  uiediiitiou  of 
the  Christian  connuunity,  not  of  the  elders  only,  in 
the  forgiveiie.ss  of  sins  (fi/xeo-tfe  inrep  dWr/Xwi',  V."'). 
This  mediation  is  elfeeted  by  mutual  confession 
anil  prayer.  It  may  extend  even  to  the  case  of  a 
Christian  who  has  actually  forsaken  the  truth 
(v.'-*),  and  every  member  of  the  Church  is  bidden 
to  consider  the  blessing  which  may  attend  his 
efforts.  The  sins  covered  are  certainly  those  of 
the  sinner  who  is  converted  (see  Toy  on  I'r  10'-). 
(2)  The  close  connexion  in  the  writer's  mind  be- 
tween forgiveness  of  sin  and  healing.  The  i>assage 
begins  simply  with  the  idea  of  a  ciise  of  sickness 
(v.H),  and  goes  on  to  assume  that  it  may  perhaps 
be  occasioned  by  sin  (cf.  the  forgiveness  of  the 
paralytic,  .Mt  9'^).  The  removal  of  the  chastise- 
ment and  the  forgiveness  of  the  sin  which  occa- 
sioned it  go  together ;  cf.  Ps  103^,  which  was 
interpreted  in  this  sense. 

2.  Hcliriws.  — The  persons  addressed  had  to  the 
full  the  sense  of  sin  which  the  OT  had  prepared 
and  developed,  and  they  had  had  to  part  with  the 
ritual  which  had  hitherto  cleansed  them  and 
brought  them  nigh.  A  main  purpose  of  the 
Epistle  is  to  show  them  that  better  provision  than 
the  Law  could  offer  is  made  for  these  needs  in 
Christ  and  His  priestly  sacrifice.  Hence  the 
prominent  aspect  of  sin  in  this  Epistle  is  that  of 
sin  as  guilt,  as  the  cause  of  the  separation  between 
man  .and  God,  barring  access  to  Him.  The  work 
of  Christ  is  the  restoration  of  communion,  and  the 
earlier  portion  of  the  Epistle  reaches  its  goal  in 
He  101^  Besides  the  general  teaching  as  to  the 
removal  of  guilt,  the  Epistle  deals  with  a  particular 
form  of  sin,  that  of  falling  away  from  grace.  It  is 
written  to  men  in  danger  of  lapsing  into  their 
former  Judaism,  not  merely  as  individuals,  but  as 
a  body  (.see  6'*  lO^''*').  The  sin  as  to  which  the 
Hebrews  are  warned  is  not  ordinary  sin  after 
baptism  to  which  every  Christian  is  liable,  but 
nothing  less  than  apostasy.  It  should  also  be 
observed  that  He  2''  sets  a  final  seal  on  the 
gradually  developed  conviction  that  much  of 
human  suffering  is  not  a  consequence  of  sin,  but 
a  means  to  perfection. 

3.  .S't.  Piiul. — Lechler  (Apiistolic  Tim'S,  Eng.  tr. 
vol.  i.  p.  341))  asks  what  is  the  kernel,  the  life- 
centre  of  St.  Paul's  Christian  feeling  and  doctrine, 
and  replies,  'God's  grace  in  Christ  towards  the 
guilt-laden  sinner.'  It  is  not  merely  that  St. 
I'aul  as  a  theologian  felt  that  the  most  important 
aspect  of  the  gospel  was  that  of  a  remedy  for  sin, 
but  that  the  gospel  Wiis  that  remedy  for  himself. 
He  had  felt  ius  few  men  have  felt,  his  own  sinful- 
ness. In  this  respect  we  recognize  a  contrast  be- 
tween him  and  other  NT  writers.  If  it  is  in  the 
Epistle  to  the  Homans  that  we  find  the  full  develop- 
ment of  St.  Paul's  hamartiology,  it  is  because  the 
(juestion  there  propounded  is,  How  is  man  to  be 
righteous  before  God  ?  For  that  purpose  man's 
present  sinfulness  must  first  be  set  forth,  and  that 
is  done  systematically  in  Ro  l-:i-',  and  incidentally 
throughout  the  Epistle.  The  teaching  of  St.  Paul, 
esp.  in  Romans,  on  the  subject  will  be  considered 
under  the  following  heads  :  (a)  universality  of  sin  ; 
(ft)  heredity  of  sin  ;  (c)  the  seat  of  sin  ;  (d)  .sin  a.s 
a  power  ;  (<?)  sin  and  law  ;  (/)  sin  and  death  ;  (g) 
death  to  sin. 

(a)  Universality  of  sin. — The  Jewish  and  the 
Gentile  worlds  had  to  be  dealt  with  separately.  In 
the  Jewish  world  there  had  been  preparation,  but 
sin  against  ceremonial  law  had  been  .so  exaggerated 
as  to  put  out  of  sight  sin  against  moral  law.     Here 


St.  Paul  follows  Christ  Him.self,  and  his  exposure  in 
Ko  2'""'  reminds  us  of  Mt  'S.i  and  many  scattered 
sayings  in  the  Gospels.  Another  point  regarding 
Jewish  sinfulness  has  already  been  noticed  under 
II.  {Pniin'r  of  Manas.ies).  St.  Paul  rejects  the 
supposed  sinlessness  of  the  patriarchs.  \Ve  next 
take  his  condemnation  of  the  Gentile  world,  which 
in  Romans  comes  first.  This  had  become  necessary 
now  that  the  gospel  of  forgiveness  was  offered  to 
the  Gentiles.  It  was  true  that  they  had  had  their 
preparation.  The  notion  of  sin  is  clear  enough  in 
Habylonian,  Egyptian,  and  Persian  religion,  but 
it  is  mainly  ceremonial  sin.  In  Greek  religion 
there  was  a  truer  conception  of  sin,  which  reaches 
its  highest  representation  in  vEschylus,  the  poet 
of  Divine  retribution  on  the  sinner.  'The  '•Pro- 
metheus," the  "Seven  against  Thebes,"  and  the 
"  Orestes  "  contain  a  natural  testimony  of  the  soul 
to  the  reality  of  sin,  and  the  inevitable  penalty 
which  it  carries  in  itself  (Westcott,  Jieligious 
Thouijlu  in  the   West,  p.  94). 

But  to  accompany  a  gospel  of  forgiveness  some 
clear  arraignment  was  needed.  So,  in  an  epistle 
addressed  to  the  centre  of  the  Gentile  world,  this 
clear  arraignment  stands  in  the  front.  And  here 
the  doctrine  of  the  universality  of  Gentile  sin  is  .set 
on  a  true  foundation,  not  on  the  popular  Jewish 
conception  that  every  Gentile  was  a  sinner  sim))ly 
as  not  knowing  the  Mosaic  law  (cf.  Gal  2'^  and 
Lightfoot,  in  loc).  But,  as  the  sin  of  the  Gentiles 
did  not  consist  in  not  having  the  Mosaic  law.  so 
neither  did  their  want  of  it  excuse  them.  They 
had  the  law  of  conscience  or  reason  (Ro  2'''  "'),  and 
sin  again.st  this  was  sin  against  God. 

(It)  Heredity  of  sin. — Here  we  must  distinguish 
two  separate  ideas,  both  of  which  find  expression 
in  Romans,  namely,  (1)  participation  in  guilt ;  (2) 
inheritance  of  sinful  disposition. 

(1)  In  the  OT  (to  use  Dorner's  words.  System  Chi: 
Doct.,  Eng.  tr.  vol.  ii.p.  325)  are  already  found  'the 
materials  for  a  conception  of  moral  evil  as  a  generic 
characteristic,  and  not  merely  a  matter  of  the  in- 
dividual person.'  A  family,  a  tribe,  a  nation  are 
conscious  of  a  solidarity  in  respect  of  guilt  and 
innocence  difficult  to  realize  in  an  age  of  strongly 
developed  individual  responsibility.  It  is  enough  to 
refer  to  the  guilt  in  the  sense  of  liability  to  puni.sh- 
ment  brought  about  by  the  sin  of  Achan,  and  by 
David's  census  ;  and  to  the  effect  of  sin  on  the  land 
itself  (Dt  2i*}.  So  St.  Paul,  contemplating  not 
merely  a  family,  tribe,  or  nation,  but  all  mankind, 
sees  them  all  affected  by  the  sin  of  Adam — all  recon- 
ciled by  the  obedience  of  Christ  (Ro  5'---'  and  cf. 
Sir  25-*).  The  correspondence  between  Adam  and 
Christ  lias  taken  hold  of  his  mind,  it  helps  him  to 
set  forth  the  work  of  salvation  which  the  Lord  has 
accomplished.  It  is  not  that  Adam's  siu  is  actually 
reckoned  against  us,  but  that  we  are  because  of  it 
involved  in  punishment.* 

This  effect  on  mankind  of  the  sin  of  Adam  may 
be  inferred  (according  to  Ro  5")  from  the  death  of 
Adam's  descendants  who  lived  before  the  law  was 
given.  In  the  absence  of  law  they  were  not  liable 
to  puni.shment.  To  account  for  their  mortality, 
'generic'  guilt  mu.st  be  assimied.  It  is  evi<lent 
that  such  an  argument  cannot  be  pressed  abso- 
lutely, but  must  be  correlated  with  the  statement, 
as  to  Gentile  responsibility  without  the  Law  (Ro 
21216)  J  see  Sanday- Headlam  on  Ro  5". 

(2)  But  besides  generic  participation  in  Adan\'s 
guilt  we  have  also  to  consider  the  doctrine  of  the 
inheritance  from  Adam  of  a  sinful  nature.  In  OT 
the  transmission  of  a  sinful  nature  from  [larent  to 
child  is  clearly  admitted  (Ps  51»,  Job  14'),  but  it  i.s 
not  traced  back  to  Adam.  It  is  a  question  whether 
St.  Paul  so  traces  it,  for  neither  Ro  5'-  n<ir  5"  is 
decisive  on  the  point.     Taking  the  section  (Ro  5'-'-') 

•  See  TuUueh,  Chrhtian  Doctrine  o/Sitt,  p.  193. 


as  a  whole,  it  is  difficult  to  (liseiilaiijile  with  ciTtainty 
the  idtas  of  a  tiansmitttti  sinful  disposilicui,  or  of 
an  actual  sinfulness  of  all  men,  from  the  idea  of 
the  generic  i;uill  of  mankind  (described  above)  with 
which  they  are  closely  interwoven.  The  latter  is 
certainly  tiie  lea<lini;  thoujjh  not  the  only  thought 
(cf.  v.'-  iip  If  TToi-Tfs  T^ixapTov)  of  tlic  passagB,  which 
is  occupied  much  more  with  the  reign  of  death 
than  with  the  reign  of  sin.  The  view  taken  of  the 
sin  of  Adam  is  not  so  much  that  thereby  human 
nature  w;us  infected  in  itself,  but  rather  that  there- 
by sin,  an  alien  power,  got  a  footing  in  the  world, 
and,  involving  all  men  in  actual  sin,  brought  death 
upon  all.  This  is  verj'  far  short  of  tlie  Augusliniau 
doctrine  of  Original  Sin,  which  appears  to  be  a 
development  of  2  Ks  3-'  4'»  rather  than  of  anything 
to  be  found  in  XT.  The  language  of  St.  I'aul  ('sin 
came  into  the  world,'  Ho  o'-)  leaves  room  for  the 
comnmnication  of  a  sinful  tendency,  not  only  by 
heredity  in  the  strict  sense  of  the  word,  but  also 
by  all  that  interpenetration  of  the  individuals  by 
the  race  which  makes  it  inipo.ssible  to  regard  them 
a.s  isolated  atoms  dependent  only  on  birth  for  their 
characteristics.* 

((•)  Tlie  feat  iifsiii. — Strictly  .speaking,  this  is  in 
the  will  ;  but  in  a  wider  sense  its  seat  is  in  that 
which  moves  the  will,  namely,  in  'the  flesh.' 
'The  flesh'  in  St.  Paul  denotes  not  merely  senisual 
desires  and  appetites,  but  '  man's  entire  life  .so  far 
as  it  is  not  determined  by  the  Spirit  of  God.'  It 
may  thus  denote  ahso  man's  rational  nature.  The 
fleshly  mind  is  '  the  (lod-resi.stiug  disposition  in 
virtue  of  which  man  in  self-sufficiency  and  pride 
opposes  himself  to  God,  and  withdraws  himself 
from  the  spirit  of  Divine  life  and  love.'t  In  .short, 
'  the  flesh "  is  man  in  his  .sclfi.sline.ss.  But  neitlier 
the  flesh  in  the  material  .sense,  nor  human  nature 
on  the  whole,  are  in  themselves  evil ;  for  the  body 
may  be  brought  into  subjection  (1  Co  9-'),  may 
become  a  temple  of  the  Holy  Ghost  (1  Co  0'»),  and 
its  members  may  be  'servants  to  righteousness 
unto  sanctitication.' 

(il)  Sin  (IS  a  pawer. — St.  Paul  regards  sin  not  as 
an  i.solated  act,  nor  as  an  accumulation  of  acts, 
but  as  a  power  which  has  gained  a  lodgment  in 
man  (Ro  7'"),  enslaving  and  paralyzing  his  will. 
'The  flesh'  is  oidy  the  material  medium  in  which 
it  works.  Cf.  above,  Pri'/nldrij  (2),  and  .In  8^',  and 
see  csp.  Sanday-IIeadlam  on  Ko  S"^'--',  p.  145. 

(e)  Sin  and  law. — Here  we  have  something 
new,  new  as  the  re.sult  of  conscious  reflexion,  yet 
the  result  of  what  h;is  gone  before.  St.  Paul 
looks  back  on  the  hist(jry  of  the  nation,  and  of  his 
ownspiritual  experience,  and  .sees  (Ko  H')  rd  aSiimToti 
To5  y6iiov  (the  inability  of  the  Law)  for  the  restraint 
of  sill.  The  result  of  law,  by  itself,  must  always 
be  sin  rather  than  righteousness.  It  provoked 
and  revealed  sin.  '  The  strength  of  sin  is  the 
law'  (1  Co  \-,'>'). 

(/)  Sin  and  death. — St.  Paul,  as  stated  above 
('/),  regarded  physical  death  as  the  con.sequence  of 
the  Fall,  and  argues  from  this  premiss  in  Ko  5'^-'. 
Hut  it  is  probable  that  he  (like  the  author  of 
Wisdom)  did  not  .separate  strictly  the  conception.s 
of  physical  an<l  moral  ileaih.  lie  u.ses  the  words 
'death'  an<l  'life'  with  a  breadth  which  makes  it 
difficult  to  say  in  any  particidar  civsi'  which  kind 
of  death  he  is  attributing  to  sin  as  its  effect,  <\(j. 
Ko  «-'  il.  To  him  physicid  death  is  but  tlie 
symbol  of  its  far  more  lerril)le  moral  counterpart, 
final  separation  from  God,  and  the  extinction  of 
the  life  of  the  Spirit;  cf.  Ja  l'^.  See  Bey.schl.ig, 
NT  Thiol.,  Kng.  tr.  vol.  ii.  p.  fi.'jff. 

((/'  Dfath  to  nin. — The  wide  use  of  the  idea  of 
'  death,'  illustrated  above,  enabled  it  to  be  applied 

•  Cr.  nornnr,  Si/nlfin  Chr.  Dnclr.,  ICnj.  tr,  viil.  Ill, ji.  .Mi  IT, 
+  Di.rn.T.  .<iiiHlrw  Vh  r.  Pnclr.,  Etik.  tr.  vol.  II,  p.  .S19.  The  whole 
po.ssatfr  un  (Tapf  !th(iiil4  bi"  rofprred  to.     8co  olso  ftrt.  Flksii. 


to  any  absolute  final  separation  of  objects  hitherto 
closely  related.  Hence  the  entry  into  union  with 
Christ  is  death  to  sin  (Ro  0'-").  All  that  St,  Paul 
has  to  say  on  the  sinfulness  of  tin;  flesh,  on  sin  a.s 
an  inmate  of  the  soul,  on  sin  as  a  riding  power, 
relates  to  the  state  before  justification.  The 
Christian  is,  as  such,  dead  to  sin.  St.  Paul  con- 
templates the  Church  (as  in  Eph.  passim)  and  the 
Christian  in  their  ideal  state.  But  he  is  no 
dreamer  ;  he  knows  how  incompletely  the  ideal  is 
realized.  His  delineation  of  il  is  his  mode  of  ex- 
pressing the  imperative.  His  hopefulness  as  to  its 
realization  is  not  mere  opinion,  but  the  experience 
of  a  man  who  himself  had  felt  what  he  taught,  of 
a  teacher  who  had  entered  into  the  heart  of  the 
gospel.  The  doctrine  of  St.  .John  (see  below)  con- 
verges to  the  same  goal,  starting  from  a  different 
]ioiiit,  and  expressed  in  different  phra-ses.  And  it 
must  be  remembered  that  'death  to  sin'  is  not 
ei|iiivalent  to  insensibility  to  temptation  ;  it  is 
rather  deliverance  from  bondage. 

4.  St.  John  (Epistles). — (a)  The  great  contribu- 
tion which  1  John  makes  to  the  doctrine  of  sin  is 
a  i)aradox.  Nowhere  is  the  reality  of  sin  more 
strongly  insisted  on  as  occurring  in  the  Christian 
life,  and  nowhere  is  the  sinlessness  of  tlie  Christi.an 
miu'e  distinctly  asserted.  In  1  .In  1  the  sinfulness 
of  Christians  is  presented  in  three  different  aspects 
(reality,  responsibility,  fact ;  see  Westcott,  in  lor.). 
Again,  it  is  involved  in  the  very  piirpo.se  of  the 
Epi.stle  (1  Jn  2',  and  cf.  T)]").  But  in  1  .In  3"  "  and 
&'*  he  who  is  begotten  of  God  and  abides  in  God 
does  not,  cannot,  sin.  St.  .John  is  not  intention- 
ally putting  the.se  opposing  statements  side  by 
side,  but  they  are  called  out  by  different  forms  of 
error  (TrXtii'T;).  While  some  denied  in  various  ways 
the  reality  of  sin,  others  were  under  the  delusion 
that,  for  the  enlightened,  conduct  is  a  matter  of 
indifference.  The  answer  to  the  first  was  this  : 
we  have  sin  (1');  and,  to  the  second,  whosoever 
abideth  in  Him  sinneth  not  (;!'').  .So  far  as  we  sin 
we  fall  short  of  our  position  as  children  of  God 
abiding  in  Him.  There  must  be  inlirmities  need- 
ing rejieated  advocacy  and  propitiation  (2'-),  but 
the  choice  of  the  man  is  against  all  sin,  anil 
towards  complete  conformity  to  the  will  of  God. 
He  still  needs  to  purify  himself  (3');  but  sin  is  no 
longer  at  the  centre  of  the  inner  life,  it  has  been 
driven  out  to  the  circumference.  Further,  St. 
.lolin  goes  on  to  teach  a  certain  security  again.st 
sin,  regarded  .as  coming  from  without.  'The  evil 
one  toucheth  him  not '  (•')'*).  The  Christian  abides 
in  Christ  and  is  '  kejit.'  The  agency  of  Satan  in 
occasioning  human  sin  is  strongly  marked  in  this 
Epistle  (3*-'-  5'*-  W),  as  it  had  been  also  in  the  Lord's 
teaching  recorded  by  St.  .fohn  (.In  S**).  On  the 
whole  section  cf.  above  iii.  3  {(/).  (b)  A  second  but 
less  important  point  in  1  John  is  the  sin  unto  death 
(o"').  It  is  inconceivable  that  this  should  be  some 
particular  kind  of  sin,  the  name  of  whieh  is  con- 
cealed. A  chissilicatiun  of  sins  as  mortal  and 
Venial,  though  n<it  without  its  grounds  and  its 
u.ses,  is  alien  from  the  spirit  of  the  gosjiel,  which 
teaches  us  that  the  guilt  of  sins  is  estimated  by 
their  conditions  rather  than  by  the  actual  thing 
done.  The  sin  unto  death  is  nearly  related  to, 
but  not  the  same  as,  the  sin  against  the  Holy 
Ghost  ;  again,  it  is  also  nearly  related  to  the  sin 
of  wilful  apostasv.  already  treated  under  Ep.  to 
Ilihrevs.  But  the  three  must  not  be  identified. 
Any  sin  wilfully  persisteil  in  would  satisfy  the 
conditions  of  1  Jn  Ti'",  and  the  'sin  unto  death  '  is 
perhaps  to  be  regarded  as  a  genus  under  which  the 
two  sins  above  mentioned  are  to  be  cliusseii.  St. 
.lolin  docs  not  forbid  intercession  for  such  ,a  ca.se, 
he  only  says  that  such  a  case  is  not  what  he  is 
speaking  about,  and  that  he  cannot  attach  a 
distinct  promise  to  such  intercession,     (c)  Another 


536 


SIX 


SINAI,    MOUNT 


characteristic  of  these  Kpistles  is  the  lepreseiita- 
tioii  of  sin  and  righteousness  ill  the  aspect  of  false- 
hood and  truth  (cf.  above.  Sin  in  I'xalms).  Sin  is 
falsehood.  It  came  in  with  the  primal  lie,  '  thou 
shall  not  die'  (cf.  Jn  S-i').  It  rests  for  its  power 
upon  deceit.  But  the  life  of  love  is  the  life  of 
truth  :  it  corresponds  with  the  movement  of  the 
Divine  government,  with  its  purposes  of  mercy, 
with  the  Being  and  attributes  of  God  (2  Jn  !-•). 

LlTEKATiEE.— or.— Ochlcr,  r/ieol.  of  OT,  Eng.  tr.  vol.  i. 
l>p.  ■.'•J'.l-2-45 (very  valuablf);  Schultz,  OT  Tlieol.;  Clomen,  Leitre 
Ton  tier  Siintle  ;  TiiUocU.  Ofa'intitai  Voclritie  o/Sitl ;  *.>T  com- 
mentaries, e-sp.  DiUmann  ou  llf.vateiicb,  Davidson  on  Job  and 
Kzekiel,  Ctieyue  on  Psalms. 

-V7'.— Dorncr.  Si/aleui  «f  C/ir.  JDnrtrine,  En-r.  tr.  vols,  ii.,  iii. 
(i-xcellent)  ;  liey.schlas,  AT  T/ieot.,  Eng.  tr.  vol.  ii.  bk.  iv.  o.  »  ; 
LechltT,  Apotytolic  Timen,  Eng.  tr,  vol.  i.  pj).  342--Si;G  (verv 
useful);  Weber,  ,/«rf.  Thi:ot.-i%i6-iA:  WeniW,  Derf/irist  iiin/ 
die  S<'ni<lei/ei  J'aiitiiK  ;  Kitsclil,  Juntijication  and  Jlemiiciliii- 
thill,  V.ng.  tr.  pp.  .SiT-'SCfi;  Tliacliera.\',  SI.  Paul  and  Conlem- 
porari/  JeicUk  Thoitghty  ch.  ii.  ;  Commentaries,  esp.  Sandav- 
lleaillain,  Roman.\{^i;Q  'Sin'  in  index);  We.stcott,//e^r^?fSve.sp. 
pp.  ul,  »-'l.  and  Kjip.  John  (esp.  pp.  .'JT-IO) ;  Mayor.  St.  Jniitet. 
<  )n  the  .subject  as  a  whole,  Muller,  ('hristiaii  Doctrine  o/Sin,  is 
still  the  only  comprehensive  worlc  known  to  the  writer.  It 
contains  much  valuable  thotiirht,  but  is  unattractive  in  form 
and  style,  and  is  largely  open  to  ciiticisiu,  e.ff.  in  its  recourse  to 
a  theory  of  pre-existctice  of  souls  to  account  for  the  origin  of 
inborn  sinfulness,  bk.  iv.  ch.  4.  E^  R^  BEIiX.\UD. 

SIN  (I'D;  Sdis,  2y7ij/77,A  in  Ezk  .Sm^  Tdms ;  Vuls. 
I'l'lnxium). — A  city  in  Kgypt  mentioned  in  Ezk  3o'^''- 
along  with  Patliros  (Upper  Egyiit),  Zoan  (Tanis), 
.Sin,  No  (Thebes),  Jioph  (Memphis),  Aven  (Helio- 
polis),  I'i-beseth  (Bubastis),  and  Tehaphnehes 
(Daphn*).  Arranging  these  in  geographical  order, 
we  hnd  them  to  be  the  mo.st  important  cities  in 
the  N.E.  of  the  Delta  and  along  its  eastern  edge 
leading  to  Memphis,  the  capital  of  Lower  Egypt, 
followed  by  Pathros  (Upper  Egypt)  and  its  capital 
No.  Sin  is  characterized  by  Ezek.  as  '  the  strong- 
hold of  Egypt'  (RV),  yet  it  is  not  mentioned  by 
.lereiuiah.  LXX  tr.  it  by  .Sais  (the  capital  of  the 
2()th  Dynasty,  in  power  at  the  time  of  the 
prophecy),  or  Syene,  the  southern  frontier.  The 
latter  identification  is,  however,  impossible.  In  all 
probability  Sin  is  Pelusium.  The  name  Sin  seems, 
like  I'elusiiim,  to  be  connected  with  '  mud '  ;  and 
a  modern  name  that  clings  to  the  neighbourhood 
of  Pelusium  j.s  et-'Pineh.  whicli  is  from  the  same 
root  as  .Sin.  Unfortunately,  nothing  is  known  of 
the  history  of  Pelusium  before  the  time  of  Hero- 
dotus, in  whose  days  it  w'as  a  place  of  importance 
owing  to  the  development  of  commerce  by  sea ; 
and  soon  it  became  the  key  of  Egypt  on  the  N.E., 
as  in  the  Persian  war  and  long  afterwards  (Her. 
ii.  17,  1.54,  iii.  10).  From  the  wording  of  Ezek.  it 
would  seem  to  have  held  this  position  at  a  date 
when  Daphnie  was  still  a  great  garrison  city, 
guarding  tlie  approach  to  Memphis.  The  ancient 
Egyptian  name  of  Pelusium  is  still  unknown.  In 
Coptic  it  is  Perfmiin,  in  Avuh-el-Feniiit.  The  ruins 
are  about  a  mile  distant  from  the  sea  in  the  ex- 
treme N.E.  corner  of  the  Delta.  They  consist  of 
a  long  narrow  mound  parallel  to  the  sea,  containing 
ruins  of  a  temple  and  a  large  red  brick  enclosure, 
evidently  a  Byzantine  or  Arab  fortress.  At  the  E. 
extremity,  after  a  slight  gaji,  is  anotlier  high 
mound,  ntarly  touching  the  desert,  and  crowned  by 
a  structure  of  red  brick.  These  brick  buildings  are 
of  the  Arab,  period.  West  and  south  all  is  barren 
salt  marsh,  without  a  living  .soul  for  miles ;  the 
marsh  is  now  indeed  intersected  by  the  Suez  canal, 
whicli  brings  human  beings  within  20  miles.  Yet 
even  down  to  the  11th  cent.  A.l>.  el-FermS  was  a 
large  city,  and  the  country  round,  though  marshy, 
was  to  u  great  extent  cultivated  and  populous. 
Near  the  shore  were  salt-pans,  and  places  for 
salting  fish.  F.  Ll.  Gi{1KI--itii. 

SIN,  'Wll.DKIiN'KSS  OF  (fP'"'17':;  LXX  J)  (pTjMOS 
^{()lf ;  Vulg.  desertum  Sin). — This  '  wilderness  '  is 


described  in  Ex  IG^  as  between  Elim  and  Sinai ;  in 
17'  an  encanipment  in  Hephidira  is  mentioned 
between  .Sin  and  the  wilderness  of  Sinai ;  and  in 
the  itinerary  of  Nu  ;)8  an  encampment  by  the  Red 
Sea  is  inserted  between  Elim  and  tlie  wilderness 
of  Sill,  and  two  other  eam])i!ig-places  besides 
Rcjihidim  between  the  wilderness  of  Sin  and  the 
wilderness  of  .Sinai.  On  the  supposition  tliat  the 
traditional  site  of  Sinai  is  the  correct  one,  the 
encamimient  by  the  sea  is  generally  placed  at  the 
end  of  Wililij  Tayibrh,  near  Ras  Ahu  Sclimeh,  and 
the  wilderness  of  Sin  may  be  the  open  plain  a 
little  to  the  south  of  this  headland.  Others  put  it 
in  Wddij  ScheUal  or  Wddij  Budrrih.  Tliis  wilder- 
ness appears  to  be  different  from  the  wilderness  of 
Zl.N-  (Nu  i:3-i  20'  27"  ;!8*i  U^*,  Dt  32''>.  Jos  \5<"), 
in  which  the  Lsraclites  encamjied  after  leaving 
Mt.  Sinai,  but  the  student  cannot  fail  to  notice 
the  close  similarity  of  the  three  names  Sinai,  Sin, 
Zin.  A.  T.  Chap.man. 

SINAI,  MOUNT  (•:•?,  2(e)ini).— The  impressions 
derived  from  a  study  of  the  wanderings  of  the 
children  of  Israel  <as  they  are  recorded  in  the 
Scriptures,  are  found  to  undergo  important  modi- 
fications as  soon  as  the  biblical  tradition  is  supple- 
mented by  an  actual  topographical  survey  of  the 
peninsula  at  the  bead  of  the  Red  .Sea,  which  takes 
its  name  from  Mt.  Sinai,  and  is  supposed  to  contain 
the  famous  mountain  where  the  Law  was  said  to 
have  been  given  to  Israel.  For  w  hile  the  student 
of  the  Scriptures  without  their  toiiographical 
supplement  would  conclude  th.at  the  route  of  the 
Exodus  lay  entirely  outside  the  pale  of  civilization, 
the  student  of  the  country  is  able  to  affirm  witli 
certainty  that  there  was  an  actual  civilization  in 
the  peninsula  itself ;  that  there  were  important 
mines,  with  at  least  one  port  of  debarkation  for 
ships  coming  from  Egj-pt ;  and  that  the  country 
was  intersected  by  trade  routes  which  connected 
the  upper  end  of  the  Red  Sea  with  regions  lying 
farther  nortli  and  e.a.st ;  the  mines  alluded  to  being 
contemporary  with  the  earliest  Egyptian  dynasties, 
and  the  tnade  routes  behig  also,  in  all  probability, 
of  extreme  antiquity.  And  not  only  are  there 
within  the  limits  of  the  so-called  Sinaitic  peninsula 
the  marks  of  an  astonishingly  early  stage  of 
civilization,  but  there  is  al-so  the  indication  of  the 
existence  of  early  forms  of  religion,  far  removed 
from  the  semi-fetishism  of  wandering  Arab  tribes. 

One  of  these  forms  of  religion  was  the  Egyptian, 
represented  by  the  temples  at  Sarbut  el-Kadeem 
on  the  northern  route  to  Mt.  Sinai  ;  it  was  the 
natural  concomitant  of  the  imported  Egyptian 
influence  which  came  in  with  the  officials  who 
had  charge  of  the  mining  operations  in  the  west  of 
the  peninsula.  But  besides  this  form  of  religion 
there  is  reason  to  siLspect  th.at  Babylonian  religion 
was  also  represented,  for  there  are  traces  in  the 
Babylonian  literature  of  mining  and  quarrying 
operations  in  the  ea.stern  part  of  the  i)eniiisula  and 
in  the  adjacent  country  of  Mitlian.  and  these 
traces  are  very  suggestive  of  religious  concomi- 
tants, especially  wlien  we  find  a  reflexion  of  the 
Babylonian  theology  in  the  very  name  of  the 
sacred  mountain.  Mount  Sinai,  in  fact,  is  named 
after  the  moon-god  Sin  (cf.  the  formation  of 
ilordccai  from  the  name  of  Marduk)  ;  and  if  this  be 
so,  it  was  from  the  earliest  times  a  place  of  .sanctity, 
ami  the  routes  that  converge  upon  it  would  easil.v 
acipiire  the  character  of  haj  routes  or  pilgrim 
ro;ids.  There  is  therefore  no  a  priori  difficulty 
in  tlie  account  of  the  wandering  of  tlie  children  of 
Israel  to  a  s,acred  mount,  nor  any  need  to  regard 
the  sanctity  of  the  pl.ace  as  acquired  in  the  time  of 
the  Exodus,  or  projected  back  upon  the  story  by 
later  chroniclers. 

The  real  problem  lies  in  the  identification  of  the 


SINAI,  MOUNT 


SIXAI,  MOUNT 


331 


mountain  described  in  the  Pent.,  especially  in  view 
of  tlie  fact  that  the  whole  of  the  penin>ula  is  a 
mass  of  mountains,  manj-  of  which  are  conspicuous 
objects  in  the  landscape,  and  certain  to  have  early 
attracted  attention  and  invited  nomenclature.  \\  e 
are  a.<.-^iiriunr;  that  Mt.  Sinai  is  somewhere  in  the 
tongue  of  laud  at  tlie  head  of  the  Ked  Sea,  between 
the  two  arms  of  that  .sea  which  constitute  respec- 
tively the  Gulf  of'Akaba  and  the  Gulf  of  Suez. 
It  should,  however,  be  remembered  that  Sayce 
thinks  he  has  grounds  for  locating  Mt.  Sinai  outside 
the  peninsula  and  in  the  land  of  Midian  itself. 
In  this  he  is  following  in  some  points  an  earlier  and 
more  fantastic  suggestion  of  IJcke.  The  advantage 
of  such  a  theorj'  lies  in  the  fact  (1)  tliat  Mt.  Sinai 
is  closely  connected  with  the  land  of  Midian  in  the 
biblical  account.  Thither  Moses  escapes  from  the 
wrath  of  Pharaoh,  and  while  engaged  in  pastoral 
occupations  in  that  land  he  sees  the  theopliany  of 
the  ouniing  bush.  Moreover,  his  wile  and  her 
relations  are  Midianite.  The  general  opinion  is 
that  Midian  is  on  the  farther  side  of  'Akaba  to  the 
ea.st  and  north,  and  that  si)ecial  evidence  is  needed 
if  we  would  include  in  it  the  surroundings  of  the 
traditional  Mt.  Sinai.  (2)  The  theory  furnishes  a 
new  explanation  of  the  encampment  of  the  Israelites 
by  the  sea,  which  on  this  theory  is  the  Gulf  of 
Akaba ;  (3)  it  finds  a  site  for  the  much-disputed 
Eliiii  in  the  modem  Aileh  (ancient  Elotli) ;  (4)  it 
explains  why  nothing  is  .said  about  the  exquisite 
valley  of  Feiran  by  a  writer  who  is  so  careful  to 
record  the  palm-trees  and  springs  (certainly  of  a 
much  inferior  c|ualitv)  at  Klim  ;  the  identification 
of  I{epl)idim  witli  Feiran  is,  on  this  hypothesis, 
incorrect  1}'  made. 

The  theory  is  not  lightly  to  be  set  aside ;  the 
main  objection  to  it  lies  in  the  itinerary  (wliicli 
appears  to  have  been  one  of  daily  marches  aloni;  a 
conventional  road).  Xo  satisfactory  attempt  has 
been  made  to  trace  this  itinerary  to  the  E.  or  N. 
of  the  Gulf  of  'Akaba. 

Setting  aside,  then,  the  theorj'of  a  (trans-'Aljaba) 
Midianite  Sinai  as  inconsistent  with  the  most 
natural  interpretation  of  the  biblical  traditions,  we 
proceed  to  determine  the  most  likely  spot  within 
the  peninsula  to  which  those  traditions  can  be 
referred.  And  first  of  all  we  may  clear  away  the 
apparent  confusion  between  Horeb  and  Sinai  whicli 
occurs  in  the  Pent.,  and  has  often  been  perplexing 
to  commentators  who  had  to  reconcile  such  ex- 
pressions as  '  to  the  minintain  of  God,  even  to 
Horeb'  (Ex  3'),  with  which  cf.  1  K  19*,  where 
Elijah  is  said  to  have  come  '  to  tlie  mountain  of 
God,  even  to  Horeb.'  Here  and  in  otlier  places 
'the  mountain  of  God '  is  identified  with  lloreb, 
i.e.  Sinai  and  Horeb  are  practically  interclian''e- 
able.  An  examination  of  the  sources  of  tlio 
narrative  will  show  that  Horeb  is  the  term  used 
for  the  seat  of  the  Deity  in  E  and  D,  while  Sinai  is 
the  term  used  in  J  and  P.  According  to  the  sources, 
then,  we  can  only  say  that  the  centre  of  the  worship 
of  J"  is  in  Hoieb  according  to  the  northern  tribes, 
and  in  Sinai  according  to  the  southern  ;  and  no 
further  help  is  forthcoming  for  the  location  of 
Horeb  (which  may  simi>ly  mean  'waste'). 

Heturning  to  the  ijuistion  of  the  actual  moun- 
tain involved  in  the  trailition,  we  have  a  remark- 
able divergence  of  opinion  amongst  critics  and 
travellers,  not  a  few  of  whom  (especially  Lepsius 
anil  Ebers)  have  sought  to  identify  the  biblical 
Sinai  witli  Mt.  Serbal,  which  rises  just  above  the 
oasis  of  Feiran  to  the  south.  It  ma}'  be  admitted 
that  Serbal  is  a  much  more  conspicuous  object 
than  Jebel  Miisa  (the  traditional  mountain  of  the 
Law),  altliough  it  is  not  so  lofty.  It  is  also 
true  that  tlie  centre  of  early  Christian  life 
in  the  peninsula  in  the  first  centuries  of  the 
occupation  of   the  holy   jilaces  is  in    the   Wady 


Feiran,  which  stands  for  the  ancient  Paran,  the 
seat  of  an  episcopate  and  the  home  of  iniiiiiuer- 
able  ascetics,  whose  caves  and  rude  dwellings  may 
still  be  traced.  We  need  not  be  surprised,  then,  if 
it  should  be  maintained  that  the  special  place  of 
sanctity  in  the  peninsula  was  not  far  from  the 
Wadj'  Feiran,  in  which  case  Serbal  can  hardly  fail 
to  be  the  holy  mountain.  In  further  support  of 
this  it  is  urged  that  immediately  after  the  battle 
witli  Amaiek  the  Israelites  are  said  (Ex  I'J-)  to  have 
come  to  Mt.  Sinai,  or  at  all  events  to  the  wilderness 
which  bears  the  name  of  that  mountain,  and  it 
would  therefore  seem  that  the  mountain  w;us  at 
no  great  distance  from  Kephidiin,  which  is  almost 
universally  identified  with  the  Wady  Feiran.  So 
that,  when  we  combine  the  biblical  statement  of 
the  proximity  of  Itepliidim  to  Alt.  Sinai  with  the 
undoubted  fact  that  Feiran  is  the  primitive 
Christian  metropolis,  a  strong  case  is  made  out  for 
identifj'ing  the  beautiful  and  imposing  Mount 
Serbal  with  the  biblical  Sinai.  Various  attempts 
have  further  been  made,  by  means  of  quotations 
from  Cosmas Indicopleustes, Eusebius,  Jerome,  etc., 
to  show  that  there  has  been  a  monastic  translation 
of  the  accepted  site  of  Sinai  from  Serbal  to  Jebel 
Musa  (cf.  Lepsius,  Tour  from  Thebes  and  the 
Peninsula  of  Sinai,  1846,  tr.  by  Cottrell  ;  and 
Eber.s,  Durch  Gosen  ztim  Sinai,  2nd  ed.  Leipzig, 
ISSl).  And  it  has  been  afiirmed  in  accordance 
witli  this  liypothesis  that  there  was  no  monastery 
or  monastic  settlement  in  the  neighbourhood  of 
Jebel  Musa  before  the  convent,  called  popularly 
after  the  name  of  St.  Catherine,  was  buUt  by 
Justinian. 

Unfortunately  for  this  ingenious  hypothesis,  it 
has  been  reduced  almost  to  absurdity  oy  the  dis- 
covery of  a  document  which  is  in  itself  one  of  the 
most  interesting  of  pilgrim  itineraries,  and  which 
for  the  settlement  of  the  early  Christian  tradition 
has  immense  weight.  We  refer  to  the  document 
known  as  the  Peregrinatio  Silniw,  edited  in  Koine 
in  1887  by  Ganiurrini  from  an  imperfect  JIS,  and 
since  re[)rinti'd  by  J.  H.  Bernard  as  a  volume  of  the 
Palestine  Pilgrims'  Text  Society.  The  pilgrimage 
in  question  is  dated  in  the  j'ears  385-388  by  its 
editor,  and  its  authorship  is  assigned  with  good 
reason  to  a  lady  from  Aquitaine.  The  imperfect  MS 
opens  with  topographical  details  which  certainly 
identify  the  plain  of  er-Kahah  in  front  of  Jebel 
Musa  (' vallem  infinitam  ingens*  planissima  et 
valde  piilchraiii,  et  trans  valleni  apparebat  nions 
sanctus  Dei  Syna').  And,  in  fact,  the  whole  of  the 
route  which  Silvia  describes  between  Egypt  and 
Sinai,  and  the  holy  places  which  she  visits,  coincide 
closely  with  the  route  and  the  sanctities  recorded 
in  modern  hooks  of  travel.  The  theory  of  the  dis- 
placeiiiciit  of  tlie  traditional  Sinai  from  Serbal  to 
Jebel  Musa  in  the  early  Christian  centuries  may 
therefore  be  abandoned,  and  this  practically 
amounts  to  the  final  abandonment  of  the  Serbal- 
Sinai  theory  itself  and  the  acceptance  of  the 
traditional  site.  Any  residual  dilliculties  which 
are  connected  with  the  account  of  the  Exodus 
and  the  last  stages  of  the  journey  to  Sinai 
are  probablv  due  to  unhistorical  elements  in  the 
tradition.  \lt.  Sinai  must  therefore  be  sought  in 
the  cluster  of  eminences  which  includes  .lebel 
Katerina,  Jebel  Musa,  etc.  Of  these  the  highest 
is  Jebel  Katerina,  but  it  docs  not  appear  that  any 
attempt  has  been  successful  to  find  at  the  foot  of 
Jebel  Katerina  a  suitable  place  for  an  Israelite 
encampment.  And  in  so  far  as  this  is  the  ea.se, 
(lie  traditional  site  must  be  allowed  to  retain  the 
identilication  until  further  light  can  bo  thrown  on 
the  subject  from  unexpected  quarters. 

*  Ingena-valde  in  thU  document  rrequentl>"f  but  here  In  ita 
natural  sonsa,  tor  Bhe  nuj-ii  a  little  later  valte  Uta  quam  dixi 
iuyeiu. 


53S 


SINCERE 


SINITES 


Tlie  traditional  Sinai  is  bounded  on  the  north 
side  by  the  Rreat  plain  er-Rahah,  out  of  wliich  it 
rises  iirecipitonsly  ;  on  its  east  and  west  sides  are 
wadis  named  respectively,  the  one  on  the  east 
M'ady  ed-Deir  antl  the  one  on  the  west  Wady 
el-Leja.  The  former  takes  its  name  (Valley  of 
the  Convent)  from  the  celebrated  convent  of  St. 
Catherine,  which  stands  upon  the  slope  of  the 
mountain ;  the  derivation  of  the  other  name  is 
more  obscure.  In  tliis  western  wady  are  the 
remains  of  the  convent  of  the  Forty  Martyrs  [Dcir 
d-Arbdin)  and  a  number  of  otlier  traces  of  early 
monastic  life,  and  by  tliis  vallej-  it  is  customary  to 
make  the  ascent  of  Johol  Katerina,  which  lies 
to  the  S.W.  of  Jebel  Musa.  The  northernmost 
peak  of  Jebel  Musa  is  called  Ras  esSufsafeh 
('  Head  of  the  Willow,'  probably  from  a  tree 
growing  in  one  of  its  gullies),  and  is  commonly 
taken  !is  the  place  of  promulgation  of  the  Law, 
for  which  it  is  a  very  striking  and  suitable  site. 
The  height  of  Sufsafeh  is  6937  ft.,  while  the  south- 
ern peak  is  somewhat  lower.  The  latter  is  the 
true  holy  place  according  to  the  Greek  and  Arab 
tradition.  There  is  an  ascent  to  it  by  a  flight  of 
rude  steps  commencing  not  far  from  the  convent, 
and  extending,  with  slight  intermission,  almost  to 
the  summit. 

Abditional  Notb. — Objectiimg  to  the  traditimuil  site  of  Mt, 
Sinai.— In  the  foregoing  we  have  found  ourselves  closely  in 
accord  with  the  traditional  view  of  the  route  of  the  Exodus, 
and  of  the  location  of  Mt.  Sinai.  If  the  Israelites  really  went 
into  the  Sinaitic  peninsula,  the  route  and  the  goal  of  their 
wandering's  have  probably  been  correctly  identified.  We  have 
shown  that  the  tradition  in  favour  of  Jebei  Mii^a  is  earlier  and 
more  constant  than  has  generally  been  recognized.  But  the 
real  dithculty  begins  with  the  question  whether  the  biblical  .Mt. 
Sinai  was  in  the  peninsula,  after  all.  Objection  after  objection 
has  been  raised  under  this  head,  and  some  of  theui  are  not  easy 
to  refute.  (1)  The  biblical  references  to  Mt,  Sinai  do  not  seem  to 
warrant  an  identification  in  the  limits  of  the  peninsula.  Dt  12 
gives  a  distance  of  11  days  from  Horeb  to  the  mountains  of  Seir, 
and  this  would  agree  well  enough  with  the  distance  from  Jebei 
Musa.  But  in  other  passages,  such  as  Dt  33^,  Hab  3S,  the 
contiguity  between  Sinai  and  Edom  seems  to  be  more  pro* 
Lounced  :  even  if  we  grant  a  certain  freedom  of  expression  to 
poetical  passages,  still  such  language  as  Dt  33^ — 

J"  came  from  Sinai, 

And  rose  from  Seir  unto  them, 
might,  in  view  of  Heb.  parallelism  of  the  members,  imply  more 
than  that  Sinai  was  in  the  direction  of  Seir.    It  might  be  urged 
In  reply  that  the  passage  continues — 

He  shined  forth  from  Mt.  Paran, 
And  came  from  Meribah  Eadesh, 

and  Paran  has  been  commonly  identified  with  Feiran  in  the 
peninsula.  But  this  identification  has  also  been  questioned  on 
account  of  the  parallelism  with  Kadesh  and  other  references. 

(2)  Some  of  the  places  in  the  itinerary  of  Exodus  have 
apparently  been  found  outside  the  limits  of  the  peninsula,  as 
Elini  in  Elath-Eloth,  and  the  encampment  by  the  sea  in  tlie 
Oulf  of 'Akaba. 

(3)  Mt.  Sinai  is  suspiciously  connected  with  the  land  of  Midian, 
ind  it  has  to  be  shown  that  the  Sinaitic  peninsula  could  be  thus 
iescribcd.  At  the  time  of  the  Exodus  it  was  an  Egyptian 
province. 

These  and  other  objections  have  been  raised  against  the 
traditional  theory ;  their  resolution  depends  upon  the  final 
discrimination  of  the  dociuuents  underlying  the  Pent,  and  upon 
the  results  of  further  archreological  investigations,  not  only  in 
the  peninsula  of  Sinai  but  to  the  N.  and  E.  of  it. 

LiTERATtmi!.— Robinson,  BRP^i.  9011.,  119  ff.;  Stanley,  SP 
42  f.  ;  Palmer,  Desert  of  the  Exodus,  passim  ;  Hull,  Mount  Seir, 
Sinai,  etc.,  61  flf.  [all  these  8ul>port  the  identitication  of  Sinai 
with  Jebel  Musa);  Lepsius,  Brie/e,  345 ff.,  41tj;  Ebei-s,  Dutch 
Gosen  zum  Sinai,  302  ff.  (both  advocate  the  claims  of  -Mt.  Serbal] ; 
Sayce,  liCM  203  ff.  (his  view  is  discussed  above).  There  is  a  full 
account  of  the  controversy  as  to  the  identity  of  Sinai  in  Dillm.- 
Rvssel  on  Ex  19*.  For  the  sacred  character  of  Mt.  Sinai  see 
W.  R.  Smith,  RSi  117(.,and  Smend,  Alttest.  Rtlinioruiges<J.:i, 

82  ft.  J.  Rendel  Harris. 

SINCERE.— In  1  P  2^  'sincere'  is  used  in  the 
sense  of  '  unmi.\ed,'  '  pure ' :  '  Desire  the  sincere 
mUk  of  the  word '  (tA  XoytKbv  45o\oy  fiXa,  Vulg. 
sine  dolo,  Wye.  '  with  out  gile,'  Tind.  '  which  is 
without  corrupcion,'  Cran.  '  which  is  with  out 
disceat*,'  Gen.  '  syncere,' Rhem.  'without  guile'; 
BV  goes  back   to    Wye.   and    Rhem.    '  which  is 


witliout  ^uile').  For  'sincere'  in  this  sense,  cf. 
Khem.  N  1',  Preface,  p.  IG,  'We  translate  that 
text  which  is  most  sincere,  and  in  our  opinion, 
and  as  we  have  proved,  incorruiit';  and  Cranmer, 
Wor/c:,  i.  134,  'If  there  be  none  otlier  otieuce 
laid  ay;ainst  them  than  this  one,  it  will  be  much 
more  tor  the  conversion  of  all  the  fauters  hereof, 
after  mine  opinion,  that  their  consciences  may  be 
clearly  averted  from  the  same  by  communication 
of  sincere  doctrine  .  .  .  than  by  the  justice  of  the 
law  to  suller  in  such  ignorance.       J.  Hastings. 

SINGERS,  SINGING.— See  artt.  Praise  in  OT, 
and  Priests  and  Levites. 

SINGULAR  is  properly  that  which  concerns  a 
single  prrson  or  thing  ;  so  AV,  after  Tindale,  in 
Lv  27'^  '  When  a  man  shall  make  a  singular  vow' 
(T1J  n'pe;,  liV  '  shall  accomplish  a  vow,'  ItV'm  '  make 
a  special  vow').*  So  also  Knox,  Works,  iii.  141, 
'  \\  ithout  harnes  or  weaponis  (except  my  sling, 
staf,  and  stonis)  I  durst  interpryes  singular  battell 
aganis  him ' ;  Bp.  Davenant,  Life,  329,  '  For  my 
part,  I  am  of  opinion  that  there  is  no  sane  or 
possible  \Vay  for  any  singular  person  to  attein  to 
the  comfortable  persuasion  that  hce  is  Elected  unto 
Salvation,  but  a  Posteriori.'  Ct.  the  phrase  '  all 
and  singular,'  as  in  the  Act  of  Uniformity  in  K. 
Edward  VI.  Second  Prayer-Book  (1552),  'And  for 
their  authority  in  this  behalf,  be  it  further  likewise 
enacted,  by  the  authority  aforesaid,  that  all  and 
singular  the  same  Archbishops,  Bishoi>s,  and  all 
other  their  officers  exercising  Ecclesiastical  juris- 
diction, as  well  in  place  exempt,  as  not  exempt, 
within  their  dioceses,  shall  have  full  power  and 
authority,  by  this  act,  to  reform,  correct,  and 
punish,  by  censure  of  the  Church,  all  and  singular 
persons  which  shall  oll'end  within  any  their  juris- 
dictions or  Dioceses.' 

Then  the  single  person  or  thing  may  be  regarded 
as  special  and  remarkable,  as  Wis  14'*  '  the  singu- 
lar diligence  of  the  artificer.'  Cf.  Ridley,  Brefe 
Declaration,  144,  '  Origen  .  .  .  was  compted  and 
judged  thi  singular  teacher  in  his  tyme  of  Christes 
religion '  ;  Mt  O'"  Tind.  '  And  yf  je  be  frendly  to 
youre  brethren  onlye,  what  singular  thynge  doo 
ye?'  J.  Hastings. 

SINIM  (D'rp;  Hifxrai;  de  terra  australi). — The 
'land  of  Sinira'  (Is  49'^)  must,  from  the  context, 
have  been  in  the  extreme  south  or  east  of  the 
known  world.  In  the  south.  Sin  [Pelusiiun,  Ezk 
30'°'-)  and  Syene  (Ezk  29'"  30")  have  been  suggested 
(the  former  by  Saadya,  Bochart,  and  Ewald  ;  the 
latter  by  ChejTie  [In'trod.  to  Li.  275,  and  in  SHOT], 
who  would  read  D'ii;,  with  J.  D.  Michaelis, 
Klostermann,  Marti),  but  these  places  are  perhaps 
too  near.  "The  LXX  favours  the  view  that  a 
country  in  the  east  was  intended,  and  modern 
commentators  have  identified  Sinim  with  China, 
the  land  of  the  Sinae.  The  name  Tsin  was  known 
as  early  as  the  12th  cent.  B.C.  ;  and  it  was  not 
improbably  familiar  to  the  Phienicians.  There 
was  a  trade,  at  a  very  early  date,  between  the 
extreme  east  and  southern  Arabia  and  the  Persian 
Gulf.  This  interpretation  of  the  name  i!inim  as 
referring  to  China,  which  was  first  suggested  by 
Gesenius,  is  strongly  opposed  by  Dilliu.  (Jesaja, 
ad  he),  Duhm,  and  Rit-lithofen  {China,  i.  436f., 
504).  Dillm.  e.g.  points  out  that  no  Israelites 
could  have  been  in  China  at  the  time  of  this 
prophecy,  that  we  should  expect  d':'s  not  'd,  and 
the  name  Tsin  (derived  from  a  dynasty  of  255  B.C.) 
could  not  have  been  yet  in  use  in  Babvlon. 

C.  W.  Wilson. 

SINITES  O-cri;  A  4 'Affevyoios,  Luc.  i  'Aaefvcl).— 

*  Od  the  vocalization  and  meaning  of  the  Ueb.  Tord  see  the 
Oomm.,  especially  Dillm.-Ryssel,  ad  toe 


six-OFrp:RmG 


SIEACII  (LOOK  OF) 


534 


A  Cannanite  people,  Gn  10"=lCh  1".  Dilliii. 
{Gew'^in,  ml  luv.)  (.ompares  tlie  name  of  the  ruineii 
city  Sin,  mentioned  by  Jerome  (Qiiccst.),  as  not  far 
from  Arfea  at  the  foot  of  Lebanon.  Strabo  (XVI. 
ii.  18)  al.-io  names  a  mountain  stronghold  Si>tna(n) 
{'Zivpar,  accus.)  on  Lebanon,  and  a  I'hcen.  city 
Sidnu  is  named  alonj;  with  Semar  and  Arka  in  an 
Assyr.  inscription  (Del.  Paradies,  2S2 ;  cf.  W.  M. 
Miiller,  As.  u.  Eiirop.  2Si)). 

SIN-OFFERING.— See  Sacrifice,  p.  337''. 

SION.— 1.  (jh-i?;  LXX  Sijwk)  A  name  of  Hermon, 
Dt  4".  Sion  is  taken  by  some  to  be  a  textual 
error  for  SluiON  (['■)•),  tlie  Zidonian  name  of  the 
same  mountain,  Dt  3".  This  view  is  supported  by 
the  reading  of  the  Syr.,  which,  however,  is  as 
likelj'  to  be  a  correction  of  the  Hebrew  te.\t 
(Driver,  ad  loc).  Like  Senir,  Siuti  may  have 
originally  been  the  designation  of  a  particular  part 
of  Hermon.     2.  See  ZlON.  J.  A.  Selbik. 

SIPHMOTH  (n*=cv";  B  2a^ef,  A  2a^f«is ;  Se/iha- 
mot/i). — One  of  the  places,  '  where  David  ami  his 
men  were  wont  to  liaunt,'  to  which  a  portion  of 
the  spoil  of  the  Amakkites  was  sent  after  David's 
return  to  Zikla^  (1  S  30=*).  It  is  mentioned  with 
Aroer,  now  'Ararah,  to  tlie  east  of  Beersheba, 
and  Eshtemoa,  now  es-Semii'a,  in  the  hill-country 
S.  of  Hebron.  The  site  was  unknown  to  Eusebius 
and  Jerome  (Onom.  s.  ^a(piifiu6,  Sofamo(h),  and  it 
has  not  yet  been  recovered.  It  was  probably  in 
the  Negeb  to  the  S.  of  Eshtemoa.  Rielim  {IlU'B) 
suggests  that  Zabdi,  the  Shiphmite  (1  Ch  27='), 
was  a  native  of  Siphmoth  and  not  of  Shepham — 
the  cliangc  from  ,S'A  to  S  being  easily  made,  and  a 
few  MSS  reading  Shijih-  for  Sijih-  in  1  Samuel. 
See  Shepuam.  C.  W.  Wilson. 

8IPPAI.— See  Saph. 

8IRACH  (BOOK  OF).— 

L  History. 
ii.  Importance. 

tii.  Name  and  Place  In  the  Bible. 
Iv.  Name  of  ttie  Autlior. 
V.  Editions, 
vi.  Orecli  Text, 
vii.  Versions  and  Quotationi. 
viii.  The  Svrioc  Text 
ix.  The  Hebrew  Text*. 
X.  CoDtentA  and  Theology. 
Literature. 

(Abbrevlationa  In  this  article  : — Ed.  =s  Edersheim,  Commentary 
on  Sirach  in  Wace,  Apocrypha,  ii. ;  U-N  =  CowIcy-Neubauer, 
The  ttri'jinal  llebrew  of  a  portion  of  Ecilftiiaglicu*  ;  R-  Uyssel, 
Translation  of  Sirach  %vith  Notes  in  DU  Apokryphrn  ul><'ritflzl, 
.  .  .  ed.  by  E.  Kautzsch  (1900,  i.)and  In  SK  mtO,  1901 ;  S-T=7Vii! 
WUdoiit  o/  Ben  Sira,  Portiona  oj  the  Look  EcctesiwitictiS,  ed.  by 
Schechter-Taylor  (1S99) ;  ^  the  Orcelt,  {g  the  Hebrew,  g  the 
Latin,  &  the  Syriao  Text,  n  the  Syriac  translation  of  Paul  of 
Tellal.  ^ 

i.  History. — The  history  of  the  book,  which  in 
the  English  Bible  retained  the  Latin  name  Ecclesi- 
astictis,  while  it  is  called  in  German  the  book  (of) 
Jesus  Sirach  or,  abbreviated,  Sirach,  falls  into  two 
periods,  the  second  beginning  on  13th  May  18'JG, 
when  S.  Schechtcr,  Tahnudic  reader  in  the  Uni- 
versity of  Cambridge,  wrote  in  a  letter  to  Mrs.  A. 
S.  Lewis  there,  that  the  fragment  of  a  Hebrew  MS 
of  her.-),  which  he  liad  taken  with  him,  represented 
'  a  piece  of  the  orif/imtl  Hebrew  of  Ecclesiastic ms. 
It  is  the  first  time  that  such  a  thing  was  discovered ' 
(see  .\.  S.  Lewis,  In  I  fie  Shadow  of  Sinai :  A  Story 
of  Travel  and  Research  from  18'J5  to  1897  ;  Cam- 
bridge, 1898,  p.  174).  Since  that  day,  39  out  of  the 
51  chajiters  of  whicli  the  book  consists  have  been 
recovered  totally  or  in  part  in  Hebrew  from  4 
dillorcnt  MSS,  and  a  new  period  in  the  history  of 
this  book  has  thus  been  opened.  \Vhat  we  knew 
about  it  before  that  time  or  believed  we  knew,  is, 


perhaps,  best  summed  up  in  the  Introduction  and 
Commentary  of  A.  Edcnsheim,  in  the  Spcnhcr't 
Commentarij  ('Apocrypha,'  ed.  by  Henry  Waca 
(London,  18SS),  ii.  I-l'39). 

ii.  Importance. — In  many  respects  this  book  is 
the  most  important  of  the  so-called  Apocrypha. 
It  is  important  for  the  student  of  history  who 
wishes  to  trace  the  Jewish  religion  in  its  transition 
from  the  OT  to  the  NT,  and  it  is  important  on 
account  of  the  influence  it  exercised  and  still  exer- 
cises on  the  religious  life  of  generations.  Both 
the  Jubilee  lUiythm  of  St.  Bernard  of  Clairvaux 
(partially  translated  in  Hi/mns  Ancient  and 
Modern,  178,  177),  and  what  may  be  called  the 
German  Te  Deum,  S an  dunket  atle  Gott  (ih.  379), 
are  taken  from  this  book.  How  much  has  been 
lost  bj-  tlio.se  parts  of  the  Church  which  excluded 
it  from  tlicir  Bibles  may  be  gathered  from  the  use 
made  of  it  in  other  parts,  not  only  in  the  Greek 
and  Roman,  which  place  it  on  the  same  footing 
as  the  whole  Bible,  but  also  in  the  Lutheran, 
which  placed  it  among  the  Apocrypha  but  made  a 
verj'  large  use  of  it. 

On  the  Latin  Church  compare  especially  Auj^stine.  When 
he  culleeted  from  the  Bible,  tow;irds  the  end  ot  his  life,  his  so- 
cilkHl  Speculum,  i.e.  those  passages  which  he  considered  useful 
for  the  guidance  of  the  religrioua  life,  he  found  in  this  book  more 
for  his  puri^ose  (.plura  huic  open  necessana)  than  in  any  other 
book  of  the  OT  or  NT  (no  fewer  than  3C  pages  out  of  2b."»  in  the 
edition  of  Weihrich  [C.'^KL,  vol  xii.  1S67J ;  from  Proverbs  21 
pafjes,  from  Matthew  IS).  After  the  excerpts  from  those  books 
'quosetJudffii  canonicos  habent,' he  goes  on  to  say  '  sed  non 
aunt  omittendi  et  hi  quos  quidem  ante  salvatoris  adventum 
constat  esse  couscriptos,  sed  eos  non  receptos  a  Ju<l;uis  recipit 
tanien  ciusdem  s.\lvatoris  ecclesia.  in  his  sunt  duo  qui  Salonioriis 
appellantur  a  pluribus  propter  quandam  sicut  existiino  eloquU 
sniiilitudinem.  nam  Salomonis  non  esse  nihil  dubit-iuit  (|uique 
docliores.  nee  tamen  eius  qui  Sapientife  dicitur  quisnani  sit 
autor  apparet.  ilium  vcro  alterum  quem  vocamus  Ecclesi- 
asticum,  quo<l  Jesus  quidam  scripserit,  qui  co;,'nominatur 
Sirach,  constat  inter  eos  qui  eundeni  librum  totum  Icf^erunt.' 

As  to  the  Lutiieiun  Church  it  may  be  noted  that  tlie  protocols 
of  the  Meistursini;jer  of  Niirnberg  alone  mention  about  100  songb 
all  bcpnning  Mcsus  Sirach'  or  'Sirach  (the  wise  man)'— see 
the  Indexes  published  by  K.  Drescher  in  vol.  214  (1S97)  of  the 
Literarische  Vercin.  In  1676  a  preacher  published  the  themes 
and  dispositions  of  170  sermons  on  this  book,'  and  the  Bible 
Society  of  llalle  (founded  by  Francke-Caastein)  circulated  from 
1712-1823  no  fewer  than  77,105  copies,  t 

iii.  Name  and  Place  in  the  Bible.— (a)  Place. 
(1)  The  book  had  at  no  time  a  place  among  the  24 
(or  22)  books  of  the  Hebrew  Bible,  thou"li  it  is 
quoted  in  one  passage  of  the  Bab.  Talmud  (ISerakh- 
oth,  48a)  with  the  quotation-formula  ^-nri  '  as  it  is 
written,'  which  is  used  elsewhere  only  of  the 
acknowledged  books  ;  but  in  the  parallel  passages 
the  name  of  the  book  is  addeif.  In  two  otlier 
passages  two  rabbinical  authorities  actually  quote 
from  our  book,  while  believing  themselves  to  be 
(luoting  from  Scripture  (.see  Strack,  '  Kanon  des 
AT  '  in  PllE^  ix.  753).  The  book  is  therefore  not 
mentioned  in  those  lists  of  the  canonical  books 
which  profess  to  give  the  Jewish  Canon,  as 
Melito,  Origon,  Cyril  of  Jeru.salcm,  Gregory  of 
Nazianzus,  Ainpliilocliius,  pseudo  -  Athanasius' 
Si/nopsis,  Canon  of  Laodicea,  capitulus  (Zalin, 
Geschichte  dr^  Kanons,  vol.  ii.).  Epiphanius,  de 
Mens.  4  (Lagarde,  Symmicta,  ii.  li)7),  says  on  tlie 
two  books,  mentioned  above  by  Augustine,  Wis- 
dom and  Sirach  :  aiVoi  x/xictM"'  l'^"  f'"''  "O'  uxp^^'P-oi, 
d\y  eli  if)t$p.6if  Twv  I)7jtujv  ovk  ai'a<p^jtofTai'X  3i'  6  ou5i 
ill  TV  dpiin  (i"t<)  li>eTiBr)(rai>,  tout'  iarlv  iv  rg  T^s  &o- 

(2)  But  Sirach  had  a  sure  and  prominent  place 
among  the  books  of   the  Bible  in  the  Greek  and 

*  Sacrarwn  U 'nniliariim  Thejmiticarum  e  Sapuint'a  llata- 
^1T»,  tive  EceleniOKlico  Jem  filii  Sirach  ctnlinn  el  septuw/inla 
digpogitioTva,  atinfitati'milnm  texluatibit*  itlxtgtratip,  gxiiMi4 
prajlxiu,  lilier  Siracidii  'jrttctu  cum  miriin  leelionibtu  .  .  . 
autore  .  .  .  W.  M.  Stissoro,  Lipsioi,  2  pts.  (1U76).  Ito. 

t  On  the  use  made  of  the  book  in  the  English  Church  see 
below,  p.  GPOi". 

t  Compare  with  this  assertion  Luther's  definition  of  the 
Apocrypna,  as  '  Bucbcr,  so  der  HeiliKen  Schrilt  nlcht  gleitl 
gehalteu,  und  doch  uiitzlich  uiid  gut  zu  lesen  siud.' 


340 


SIRACH  (BOOK  OF) 


SIRACH  (BOOK  OF) 


still  more  in  the  Latin  Cliiirches.  Tn  the  MSS  of 
the  (ireek  Bibles  it  was  most  commonly  jjronped 
with  the  other  Poetical  hooks  (see  the  lists  in 
Swetii's  Introduction,  pp.  108-214)  ;  the  order  being 
in  cod.  S:  Psalms,  Proverbs,  Ecel.,  Cant.,  Wisd., 
Sirach,  Job  ;  in  B:  Ps.,  Prov.,  Eccl.,  Cant.,  Job, 
AVisd.,  Sirach,  Esth.  ;  in  AN  :  Ps.,  Job,  Prov., 
Eccl.,  Cant.,  Wisd.,  Sirach. 

On  the  question  whether  Clement  of  Alexandria  had  Wisdom 
and  sirach  as  an  .\ppendix  to  the  NT,  see,  on  the  one  side, 
Credner-\'olkniar,  Gescltichte  den  nvritpKt.  C'anomt,  ji.  ^87  ion  the 
Btren^fth  of  Photius,  cod.  109,  e  3s  i)A«  (rtutrtoi  [of  his  'ExXaycct] 

rot/  dc/ou  tlxd^u  TAiv  iTio-roXC/v  xati  7^v  K.xOu>jxui)/  xx'i  rov 
"Exx\y:riitrTi7cevj,  and  H.  Eiokhoff,  Das  ST  del  Clnnens 
(Proj^r.  Schleswig,  1900,  p.  22);  on  the  other  side  Zahn, 
Ge^c/iichte  dfs  Kaitont;  ii.  223. 

The  8.5th  of  the  Apostolic  Canons  orders:  l^uOev 
S^  vfiLf  irpouiffTopiiaBii)  ^avBdv^iv  ii^idv  toj>s  viovs  t^v 
1.o^lav  ToO  7ro\rna^oi}s  Sctpdx- 

The  Coptic  Church  counts  6  books  of  Wisdom 
(fjdffoi/ios)  ;  see  I.  Guidi,  '  II  cauone  biblico  della 
chiesa  copta'  (Revue  bililtmic,  x.  2,  166,  169)  =  Job 
+  Salonione51ibri  (Prov.,  Wisd.,  Eccl.,  LaS.ipienza 
di  Brij;or  ben  Bagy  (  =  np'  p  ^lj.^•),  Cant.)  ;  after  the 
Prophets  follows  La  Sapienza  di  Gesii  figlio  di 
Sir.-M'h  sr.riba  di  Salomone. 

(3)  In  the  Western  Church,  too,  it  became  at  a 
very  early  date  common  to  group  these  5  books 
(Prov.,  Eccl.,  Cant.,  Wisd.,  and  Sirach)  together 
and  presently  to  count  them  all  as  Solomonic. 
One  passage  from  Augustine  has  been  already 
quoted  [§  1] :  in  de  Doct.  Christ,  ii.  13  he  says  of 
Wisdom  and  Sirach  :  '  de  quadam  similitudine 
Salomonis  esse  dicuntur  .  .  .  qui  tamen  quoniam 
in  auctoritatem  recipi  meruerunt  juxta  pro- 
pheticos  enumerandi  sunt.'  Innocent  I.  (Ep.  ad 
Exsiiperiiim)  counts  expressly,  after  Prophetarum 
libri  xvi.,  'Salomonis  libri  v.,'  then  Psalterium ; 
80  also  Cassiodorius  [de  Inst.  Div.  litt.  14  ;  but  see 
Zahn,  Gejieh.  d.  Kan.  ii.  270,  271  n.  5,  272),  the 
Council  of  Carthage,  A.D.  397  (can.  47  =  39),  the 
stichometrical  list  from  Freisingen  published  by 
C.  H.  Turner  (JThSt  ii.  240),  while,  in  the  list  of 
the  MS  of  F.  Arevalo  (I.e.  p.  241),  in  pseudo- 
Gelasius  and  in  Isidore,  '  Salomonis  libri  iii.'  is 
followed  by  Wisdom  and  Sirach  (in  pseudo-Gelasius 
in  the  order  Sirach,  Wisdom).*  The  same  arrange- 
ment is  found  in  media?valBiblesand  translations — 
for  instance  in  the  famous  Wenzel  Bible  at  Vienna 
(on  which  see  Kurrelmeyer,  Amer.  Journ.  of  Phil. 
.\xi.  62,  69) ;  and  this  custom  of  placing  Sirach  and 
Wisd.  in  company  with  Prov.,  Eccl.,  and  Cant., 
and  of  reckoning  all  five  as  books  of  Solomon, 
became  so  prevalent  that  as  late  as  the  sixteenth 
and  seventeenth  centuries  several  .separate  editions 
of  this  group  were  pulJished,  not  only  in  Latin 
but  also  in  English,  either  with  the  express  head- 
ing '  libri  Salomonis  '  or  without  it. 

See  in  the  Catalo^e  of  the  British  Museum  'Bible'  (OT)  the 
remark  before  Haj^ioi^rapha  (col.  323,  comp.  with  71S,  720,  where 
Sirach  by  mistake  is  called  'the  Book  of  Wisdom').  Latin 
editions  cont,ainin;r  these  6  books  are  in  the  Rrit.  Mus.  from 
Antw.  1537  ;  Paris,  1537  ;  Lyons,  1643  ;  Paris,  1504  ;  Antw.  1591 ; 
with  Psalms,  1G29 ;  Psalterium  Davidis  et  Libri  sapientiales 
(without  Cant.),  Leiden,  1G59.  Of  English  editions  the  two 
oldest  are  :  The  Bakex  of  Salomon,  namely,  Proverbia.  Ecclesi- 
asUs,  Sapientia,  and  Ecclcgianticiis  or  Jesua  the  Sonne  of 
Sifraeh  (The  atory  of  Belt,  whjch  is  the  xiiij  chapter  of  Daniel 
after  the  l.atin),  E.  Whytchuroh,  London  [1,1407],  8vo  (in  the 
copv  of  the  Itr.  Mus.  a  few  MS  notes  by  King  Henry  Tin.;  the 
text  follows  that  of  the  ISihle  of  l.iSS  ;  a  reprint  154.'i.  lOmo) ;  J'he 
bokes  of  Salomon,  namely,  Proverbia,  JtCccUsiastett,  Cantica 
Canticorum,  Ecdet-iagticus  or  lesxte  the  Sonne  of  Sirrach,  W. 
Bonham,  London  (1.142  ?],  8vo(text  follows  Great  Bible  of  1539  ; 
another  ed.  Wyllyam  Copland,  London,  Jan.  1650  (1561],  8vo). 

The  order  in  the  present  English  editions  of  the 
Apocrypha  (1  Es.,  2  Es.,  Tobit,  Judith,  the  Rest 
of  Esther,  The  Wisdom  of  Solomon,  Sirach,  etc.) 

•  On  Mommsen's  list,  the  Catalogs  Clarmnontanu»,  the  Liber 
tacramentorum  of  Bobbio,  see  Swete,  Introd.  p.  212  fT.  See  alBO 
the  Damasine  list  published  by  0.  U.  Turner,  JThSt,  i.  667. 


seems  to  go  back  in  the  last  instance  to  the  German 
(Zurich)  translation  of  Leo  Jud  (Ziirlch,  1529,  fol. 
and  8vo  ;  Strassburg,  1529-30),  which  separated 
'die  Bio'hrr  die  by  den  alten  onder  Biblischi 
gesrhrill't  nit  rjezelt  sind,  auch  bij  den  Ebreern  nit 
gefiinden  '  from  tlierest  of  the  Bible,  and  arranged 
them  1-2  Es.,  Tob.,  Jud.,  Bar.,  Wisd.,  'das  Buch 
Ecclesiasticus  das  man  nennen  mag  die  weisen 
Spriich  Jesu  des  Suns  Sirach,'  1-3  Mac,  Sus.,  Bel 
and  Dragon. 

The  lir.st  Greek  edition  of  the  Bible,  which 
separated  'AiruKpvtpot.  at  Trap'  E3aLois  [sie]  4k  tov  rCiv 
d^tOTriaruiV  dptd^ou  avyKaditXTavTat,  is  that  of  Lonicerus 
(Argentorati,  Cephaleus,  1524,  26).  Its  order  is : 
Tob.,  Jud.:  Bar.,  Ep.  Jer. ;  Song  of  the  Three 
Children,  Esdras,  2o0la  2o\o/iai;'Tos,  Zo^Ia  'IijiroO 
vioO  -etpdx.  The  ground  of  Luther's  (1534)  arrange- 
ment (Judith,  Wisd.  ;  Tob.,  Sirach)  becomes  clear 
only  from  his  Prefaces,  which  are  now  omitted  in 
almost  all  German  Bibles :  the  story  was  made  to 
be  followed  by  the  fabula  docet. 

In  Syriac  Lexicographical  Notes  on  the  Bible 
the  order  is:  Kings,  Kuth,  Wisd.,  Eccl.,  Cant., 
Sirach,  Prophets  (see  Opuscula  Nestoriana,  ed.  G. 
Hoffmann). 

(6)  Name. — Luther  saj's  in  his  Preface :  '  This 
book  has  been  called  hitherto  in  Latin  Ecclesi- 
asticus, which  has  been  rendered  the  spiritual 
discipline  [die  geistliche  Zucht).  Elsewhere  its 
true  name  is  Jesus  Sirach,  after  its  master,  as  it  is 
stykd  in  its  own  Preface  and  the  Greek,*  in  the  same 
way  as  Moses,  Joshua,  Isaiah,  and  all  the  books 
of  the  Prophets  are  styled  after  their  masters.' 
In  our  documents  it  is  styled  (1)  -o4>i.a  ~etpax  in 
codex  B  (inscr. );  (2)  Zo(pia  lri<xov  viov  Zeipax  (or 
2i-)  in  codd.  ACS,  and  in  the  subscription  of  B. 
Ch.  50  has  the  inscription  Upotreirxi}  Irjo'ov  vtou 
Zeipax,  and  occurs  separately  under  tliis  heading, 
e.g.  in  cod.  Bodl.  misc.  gr.  205  (xiv  cent.) ;  (3)  -o0io 
7j  Traraperos  lijaov  I'tou  ^eipax  stands  in  the  edition 
of  Caraerariiis,  1551,  before  the  so-called  Prologus 
incerti  auctoris.  The  expression  iravdpeTos  is  applied 
to  Proverbs  (Eus.  HE  iv.  22),  to  Wisd.  (Athan., 
Synops.,  Epiph.,  subscr.  in  codex  SjTo-hexaplaris 
Ambrosianus),  to  Sirach  (Eus.  DE  viii.  2,  Jerome). 

Clement  of  Alexandria  quotes  :  tprialv  i]  tou  "Itj^ov 
"Zotpia,  T)  ypa<pr}  {Str.  ii.  180),  i]  ^o(pla,  trapd  rt^ 
^oXoixuivTt  (ii.  160),  Trapd  — oXo/tuJiros,  nat5a7W76s. 
Origen  (ii.  77)  :  toO  t6  auyypafifjLa  ri]v  1o(piav  ri^tv 
KaTa\nr6vT0%  'IijffoD  vlov  1.ipdx  ;  (iii.  48)  (prjaif  ycLp  ij 
^0(pLa,  (1.39)  \€'yotjfftjs  t7)s  ypa<pT]s. 

In  the  official  editions  of  the  Latin  Bible  the 
book  has  the  heading  Ecclesinsticus ;  then  follows, 
'  In  Ecdesiasticum  Je.su  tilii  Sirach  Prologus.' 
Ch  50  has  the  heading  '  Oratio  Jesu  lilii  Sirach.' 
In  the  codex  Amiatinus  the  inscription  and  sub- 
scription is  Liber  Ecclesiastirum  Halomonis ;  the 
8ubscrii>tion  standing  after  3  Kegn.  8--'",  which 
follows  in  this  MS  immediately  after  ch.  51.  The 
same  arrangement  is  found  in  mediaeval  Bibles,  aa 
the  Wenzel  Bible,  the  hrstGerman  Bible  (Eggestein, 
Strassburg,  c.  1461). 

Very  strange  is  the  heading  'Y,KK\r]in.auTiKis  (be- 
cause hitherto  found  only  in  Latin  and  the  pas- 
sage of  Photius  quoted  above)  t  in  cod.  248  before 

•  Of  printed  Greek  texts  Luther  knew  probably  only  the  edition 
of  Lonicerus  just  mentioned,  1526 ;  the  other  texts  printed  at 
that  time  wore  in  tlie  Pulyplot  Bible  of  Ximenes,  1514,  and  in 
the  Greek  Bible  of  Aldus,  1618 ;  Melanchthon's  edition  of  the 
Greek  Hiblc  appeared  a  few  months  before  Luther's  death,  1645. 
Frz.  l>elitzsch  {Studien  zur  Knlatehun'jsneschichte  der  Poly- 
gtttttentnhel  des  Cardinals  Xirnenes,  Leipzig,  1871,  p.  5)  states 
that  Luther  nowhere  mentions  the  Bible  of  Ximenes,  but  that 
Melanclithon  refers  to  it  while  Luther  was  living,  and  that  the 
library  of  Wittenberg  possessed  the  copy  dedicated  to  the 
Elector ;  two  years  after  the  death  of  Luther  it  passed  into  the 
library  of  Jena. 

t  Besides  the  statement  of  Zahn,  GesrJi.  d.  ffan.  ii.  233,  cL 
Oikononios,  irifii  raif  e  ifi,wri»iuraii,  ii.  679.  On  the  adjectlw 
ixMXr.ffiatrrtx^  see  Clement.  Str.  vi  125  (ed.  Dind.  iii.  217) 
xavwt  ixjAr,9-itifTixie,  Origen,  IL  97. 1,  iii.  44. 1 ;  Rufinus  {Expo$, 


SIllACH  (BOOK  OF) 


SIRACH  (BOOK  OF) 


511 


the  text  of  the  book  and  the  Prologus  inceiti 
auctoris,  the  latter  being  inscribed  2o0io  'iTjffoi/  uioO 

The  common  Latin  designation  since  Cyprian  is 
Eeclesiaxtinis,  and  means,  most  probably,  the 
Church-book  kot'  iioxri",  from  its  frequent  use  in 
the  Church,  esijccially  for  the  instruction  of  cate- 
chumens. 

Ecdisiaftiau  U  used  in  Cyprian  once  of  Ecclesiastes  {Tt*t. 
S,  88.  61),  once  ot  WisU.  (3,  112  cod.  A),  ot  our  book  (3, 1.  95.  lia 
111):  it  is  asi-ribed  to  Solomon  in  3,  8.  12.  20.  53.  113,  Op.  5,  Sent 
27,  Bp.  3,  2  ;  it  is  both  ascribed  to  Solomon  and  called  Hcclcsi- 
BSticus  in  2,  1.  3.  35.  61.  fW.  97.  109  (see  Ronsch,  "die  Alttest. 
CiUtc  bei  C.\-prian'  in  Zcitschri/t  JiXr  hittor.  Theot.  1S76,  Oo). 
Ambrose  writes ;  '  In  Ecclesiastico  S>Tach,  in  libro  S^picntia 
Syrach ' ;  Lact-iritius  (£./).  25),  *  In  Ecclesiastico  per  Salomonem  ' ; 
it  is  referred  to  Solomon  also  by  Viprilius  of  Thapsus,  Anicctus 
of  Buruch  ;  Hilary  ('qui  nobiscum  Salomonis  inscribitur,  apud 
Gneco6  atfitu  llehrceon  [!)  Sapicntia  Sirach  babetur'X  Jerome 
■ays,  *  In  Sapientia  qua  Sirach  inscribitur.* 

The  (wrongly)  abbreviated  inscription  of  codex  B 
and  the  editio  Si.\tina  have  become  prevalent  in 
modem  books,  even  in  those  of  lioman  Catholic 
authors. 

(r)  Kame  of  the  original  work. — Jerome  (in  the 
Preface  to  the  books  of  Solomon)  writes :  '  Fertur 
et  irai'dpeTos  Jesu  lilii  Sirach  liber,  et  alius  tj/evS- 
trriypa<j>oi  qui  Sapientia  Salomonis  inscribitur  ;  qrio- 
rum  priorcm.  Hcbraicum  reperi,  nee  Ecclcsiasticum, 
ut  apud  Latinos  sed  Parnimlas  pncnotatuni  ;  cui 
juncti  rraiit  Ecclesia.stes  et  Canticum  Canticorum, 
ut  similitudincra  Salomonis  non  solum  libiorum 
numero,  sed  etiara  materiarum  genere  adu'ijuaret,* 
Kecundus  apud  Hebioeos  nusquam  est.'  This  rai.ses 
the  question,  What  was  the  original  title  of  the 
work  ?  The  Syriac  version,  wliioh  is  based  (see 
§  viii.)  on  the  Hebrew,  is  in  Lagarde's  edition 
(frnm  cod.  12,142  of  the  Brit.  Mus.,  vi  cent.)  in- 
scribed NTa  -ill  nn-DH  '  Wisdom  of  Bar  Sira';  in 
Walton's  Polyglot,  N:n3  i.t  NnpnCT  ntdk  pyscn  kzhd 
KTDK  -i:i  n,T::n  '  Book  of  Simeon  Asira,  w-liich  book 
is  called  tlie  Wisdom  of  Bar  Asira.'  At  the  end 
we  read  {'i)  Hitherto  the  words  of  Je-m  bar  Simeon, 
irho  is  rriU:d  linr  .l.sirat  and  (i)  '  Eiideth  to  write 
t he  Wl-idum  of  15:u-  Sira.'  Walton  has  (seo  Lagarde, 
1'.  ix)  '  Endeth  the  Wisdom  of  Bar  Asira.  In  2t) 
ihaiiters  and  to  (lod  glory  in  eternitj'.'  The  MSS 
of  rococke  and  U.s>her  add  after  (a)  instead  of  (i) 
'  Endeth  the  book  of  the  Widom  of  Jesus  the  son 
of  Simeon  who  is  called  Bar  .Asira  (cod.  Usslier  2, 
•SiV'f/.).  in  which  are  iJ.jilO  words.' 

In  the  Ilibirw  text  we  read  at  the  end,  '  Ilitlierto 
the  words  of  Simeon  ben  Jeshua  who  is  called  ben 
Sirii.  The  Wisdom  (n2:n)  of  Simeon  ben  Jeshua 
ben  Eleazar  ben  Sira.  Tlie  name  of  Jahweh  be 
blessed  from  now  and  till  eternity.' 

From  these  Greek,  Syriac,  and  Hebrew  state- 
ments it  would  apjx-ar  that  the  title  of  the  book 
was  ■  Wisiloin,'  '^oipia,  in  Heli.  -"rri  (or  ic'") ;  tut 
how  is  this  to  be  recuncilud  with  the  statinient  of 
Jerome  that  the  title  was  in  Hebrew  Parabolcc 
(i.e.  "^fp)?  Is  this  a  confusion  with  Proverbs,  a 
solution  recommended  by  the  fact  that  in  the 
Hebrew  seen  by  .lerome  Keel,  and  Cant,  followed  ; 
or  was  tin.'  copy  seen  Ijy  .Jerome  not  a  copy  of  the 
original,  hut  a  retranslation  from  the  (ireek,  as 
already  Scaliger  suggested  ?  And  then,  Jewish 
i| notations  from  Sirach,  where  they  mention  not 
only  the  name  of  the  author  as  ktd  [3  nax,  or  in 

in  Sj/mh.),  after  the  canonical  books  of  the  OT,  amonp  which 
he  mentioned  '.Salomonis  vero  tres':  'Sciendum  tamcn  est, 
<l(iod  et  alii  liliri  sunt,  qui  non  canonici  sed  ecclvtdailici  a 
maiuribus  ap)>ellati  sunt,  ut  est  Sapientia  Salomonis  et  alia 
.Sapientia  qviro  dicitur  fllii  Syrach,  qui  liber  apud  latinos  hoc 
i|M*o  jfenerali  vocabulo  I-Jccleifiastiatji  appcllatur,  quo  vocabuto 
non  auctor  libri,  sed  Scriptural  qualitas  co^^nominata  est.' 

•  How  are  these  words  to  be  understood  ?    Just  as  there  are 

three  liooksof  Solomon (I'rov.,  EccL,  Cant.),  so  there  were  cxtra- 

«nonical  books  equal  In  number  and  contents  (Siraeh-l-Eccl.-f 

Oant.  T). 

t  Thus  also  Opiucula  I'atoriana,  p.  107,  and  after  a  remark, 

enilctti  Bar  Sira.' 


Aramaic  kto  id,  or  ntd  p  nsD,  have  twice  "v'k  'ri'in 
'  the  Parabolint  said,'  or  kto  p  tsn  nSna  '  a, proverb 
said  ben  Sira'  (see  C-N,  p.  xxiv  n.  v.  liv  and  p.  xx 
n.  X.).  The  same  word  x^nD  '  proverbs  '  occurs  in  the 
Syriac  VS  at  50-'' ;  the  Heli.  text  has  there  ^za  noio, 
and  the  book  is  quoted  as  i:i3  "iSD  by  Saadia  (C-N, 
p.  ix  n.  4).  The  question  of  the  original  title  is, 
after  all,  a  puzzle,  and  new  puzzles  as  to  the 
author's  name  arise  from  the  newly  discovered 
texts. 

iv.  The  Name  of  the  Author.— (a)  Hitherto 
it  has  been  generally  held  that  the  author's  name 
was  Jesus  the  son  ot  Sira  (Jesus  lilius  Sirach,  Jesus 
Siracida).  Especially  subsequent  to  the  Reforma- 
tion this  name  became  current  instead  of  the 
Latin  book  -  name  Ecclesiasticus.  Compare  the 
title  of  the  first  separate  edition  of  the  book  in 
Greek  by  Joachim  Camerarius  (Basilea;,  1551), 
'  Senti'ntiae  Jesu  Siracidje  Gnece.'*  But  now  new 
difficulties  arise.  In  the  Greek  text  the  author 
himself  (50'-'')  gives  his  name  as  'Iijcrovj  i/ios  -apax 
'EXeaj'ap  6  'IfpoaoXv/uirris ;  t  instead  of  the  last  word 
the  first  hand  of  codex  S  had  Upeui  6  ZoXup-eirris ; 
the  name  'EXeofap  is  omitted  by  cod.  248  and  the 
Complutensian  and  Sixtine  editions  ;  'EXcafapou  is 
written  in  cod.  68  and  the  Aldine  Bible,  'EXcdfapot 
in  V  253.  The  Syriac  Hexapla  has  'Jesus  son  of 
Sirach  of  Eliezer'  (^IV■^N^)  ;  the  Pesh.  omits  the 
iw.ssage  altogether  ;  in  the  Latin  Vulgate  it  runs, 
'  Jesus  lilius  Sirach  .Jerosoljinita ' ;  and  now  in  the 
Hebrew  in  the  twice-repeated  colophon,  p  \vjau'7 
NTO  p  -wiihtt  p  yiB"  '  by  Shimeon  son  of  Jesus  son 
of  Eleazar  son  of  Sira.'  And  .so  the  author  is 
called  also  by  Saadia  (see  S-T,  p.  65).  Many  recent 
writers  thiiiK  the  Hebrew  pedigree  Simeon — Jesus 
— Eleazar — Sira  a  mere  clerical  error  for  the 
sequence  Jester — Simeon — Eleazar — Siru.  But  it 
must  be  pointed  out  that  the  name  Simeon  is 
firmly  attached  to  the  author  of  this  book  in  the 
S3'riac  Church.  There  he  was  identified  with  the 
-rp.(iiv  6  0(000X0!  of  the  NT,  the  author  of  Nunc 
iliinittis.  On  this  identification  see  especially 
Geor",  bishop  of  the  Arabs  (Brieft  iind  Oedichte, 
ed.  llyssel,  p.  59  f.,  80  f.,  159  f.),  who  ojiposes  the 
identification  for  chronological  reasons,  the  author 
of  the  book  having  lived,  according  to  Georg,  244 
years  before  Christ,  in  the  65th  year  of  the  Greek 
era,  under  Euergetes.  Cf.  furtlier,  Gregory  Bar- 
hebneus  (Scholien,  cd.  Kaatz),  who  identifies  hira 
at  the  same  time  with  Simeon  (II.)  son  of  Onias; 
Opiiseula  Nestoriana  (ed.  G.  Holl'mann,  p.  107, J 
139  §);  History  oj  I  he  Blessed  Virgin  Mary,  ed. 
Budge  (p.  36),  where  cod.  B  for  'Simeon  the 
old '  has  '  Simeon  Asira ' — he  becomes  priest  after 

•  There  Is  a  Rood  story  told  by  Slelanchthon,  which,  whether 
It  refers  to  this  edition  or  not,  on^jlit  not  to  he  suppressed : 
'(^liilam  sacriticulus  cum  in  bibliopolio  vidis-^et  S^racidem 
cditnm  dixit:  c^uam  uiali  liomines  sunt  Luthcrani ;  etiam 
Christo  nomen  aliud  afflngrunt :  antea  vocabatur  (.'hristus  Jesus, 
nunc  illi  vocant  eum  Jesus  Syrach'  (see  GGN,  1S94,  ISO). 

t  AV  'Jesus  the  son  of  Sirach  of  Jerusalem ' ;  KV  '  Jesms  the 
son  of  Sirach  Eleazar  of  Jerusalem.'  Note  the  Grecized  form  of 
the  name  (instead  of ' \%fiauirtt>.v,u.). 

t  '  That  be  was  called  bar  Sirft  ;  they  relate  that  he  called  hia 
father  NTDx,  because  he  is  the  Simeon  whose  tongue  wai 
bound  (KI.'CN)  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  till  he  should  see  the  Christ, 
and  when  he  had  seen  Him,  he  spoke.  Let  me  now  part  in  jcace 
to  my  fathers.* 

5  "The  He])Luagint  is  said  here  to  have  been  made  'sixyeorf 
after  the  return  of  the  cliil<lrcn  of  Israel  from  Babel,  which 
was  the  17th  year  of  the  death  of  Alexander  the  Greek,  and 
1400  years  after  the  Law  was  jfiven  to  .Moses.  Simeon  the 
old  (K3D),  the  father  of  Je.sus  bar  Sira,  the  Wise,  was  one  of  the 
seventy-two  old  men  just  mentioned  ;  and  he  was  the  Simeon 
bar  Xe'thaniah  bar  Chonja  (  =  Sir  60'),  and  Simeon  was  brother  of 
the  priest  Eleazar  ;  and  it  was  lie  who  carried  our  Lord  in  liif 
arms,  and  his  life  was  stretched  over  210  years,  and  he  called 
himself  with  a  contemptible  name  (KTCD  N2i;'3),  like  Abraham, 
who  called  himself  dust  and  ashes,  and  David,  who  said,  I  am  a 
worm  and  no  man,  KTO,  i.e.  dust  from  the  white-waaluny, 
which  is  beaten  off  the  walls.  Instead  of  Sira  th«  Greek  aayi 
./l»ira(K-)'CK).' 


542 


SIRACH  (BOOK  OF) 


SIRACH  (BOOK  OF) 


Zecliariah  the  father  of  John  the  Baptist,  Protev. 
Jnrobi,  ch.  24 ;  'I'/te  Book  of  the  Bee  (p.  71) : 
'  Simeon  the  son  of  Sira  died  in  peace  in  his  own 
town.'  In  one  Greek  recension  of  the  Lives  of  the 
Prophets,  ^vneCiv  6  lepevs  found  a  place  towards  the 
end  between  Zechariah  the  son  of  Barachiali  and 
Nathan  (see  Nestle,  M(ir(j.  unci  Mat.  p.  33).  That 
Simeon  Beodoxot  was  one  of  tlie  Seventy,  is  stated, 
among  Greeli  writers,  by  Euth3'mius  Zigabenus, 
Kedrenns,  Ni  ;eiihorus  Kallisti. 
The  pedigrees  we  tlius  obtain  are — 


lb 

Simeon. 


Jesua 

I 
Eleozar. 


Sira. 


Jesus. 

I 

Sirach. 

I 

[Eleozar]. 


S 

Jesua 


SimeoD. 

I 

Sita. 


Jesus  Bar-Sira. 

I 

Simeon. 


It  lias  been  suggested  by  Blan  that  '  the  two 
traditions,  that  of  the  Greek  and  that  of  the 
Syriao,  are  mutually  complementary.'  Thus  we 
should  have  in  5{)  a  combination  of  both,  what 
textual  critics  call  a  conflation.  The  decision 
depends  on  the  general  question  of  the  value  of 
|S,  see  §  ix.  As  to  whether  Simeon  or  Eleazar  can 
be  identified  with  one  of  the  known  bearers  of 
these  names,  see  below. 

(i)  The  name  Sirach. — The  latest  contribution 
to  Hebrew  lexicography,  M.  Jastrow's  Di.iliunary 
of  the  Targitmim,  etc.,  contains  the  following 
words  which  come  into  consideration  for  the 
explanation  of  this  name:  (1)  to  'pot';  (2)  ntd 
=  Heb.  rrny  'coat  of  mail';  (3)  ntd  'thorn'; 
(4)  xTD=the  present  proper  name :  (5)  ii";"?,  sy:i. 
(a)  '[degenerate  growth],'  'thorn,'  '  thornbush,' 
(6)  'refuse,'  'foul  matter';  (6)  n-i'P,  N-i-pf.  'sur- 
rounded place,'  'court,'  'prison.'  From  Thes.  Syr. 
we  may  add  (7)  -i'2  =  avp,  '  Sir' ;  (8)  Kfz  =  tTet.pa  ;  and 
(9)  the  explanation  of  the  name  given  by  the 
Syriac  lexicographers  =k'v?'  'thin  dust  from  the 
walls.'  If  there  was  not  the  constant  tradition 
that  the  initial  letter  was  o,  the  Greek  1  might 
correspond  also  to  other  letters,  as  i,  or  s,  or  a, 
and  the  name  might  be  connected  with  .^TiM,  xyi'S, 
'small,'  'little,'  'lesser,'  i";.]  or  ntv!  being,  in  fact, 
the  name  of  several  Jewish  Amoraim. 

Tlie  X  ^t  tlie  end  of  the  Greek  form  may  corre- 
sjwnd  to:  (cf.  Tlepovx,  <!>a\epc),  n(Ka\ax,  '*''"''f3ax),  to 
T|  (many  names  In  -fieXex).  to  i'(Ba\ox),  to  p  {'A/juiXtjx, 
Bapax),  to  still  other  letters,  as  i  {KecEX.  Maux)  or 
r  {BaiOafax,  Aeirax) ;  but  it  is  most  probably  a  mere 
representation  of  the  mater  lectiotus  k  ;  cf.  'AkeX- 
SffAax,  "iwarix  Lk  3-"  =  'cv,  the  spelling  'AXXax  = 
Allah  [Schlatter  takes  it  for  u=i)iijs].  A.  Meyer 
{Miittersprrirhe  Jesu,  p.  39)  takes  the  word  (o  mean 
coat  of  mail  or  irns  oculi;  I?yssel  (p.  234),  'more 
probably  thorn  or  thorn-hedge  than  mail-coat,' 
referring  to  Le^'y,  NHWB  iii.  519,  520.  Ryssel 
takes  bar-Sira  as  name  of  the  family ;  we  should 
thus  have  only  three  generations:  Jesus,  Simeon, 
Eliezer — not  four  as  in  JIJ.*  In  view  of  the  Pro- 
logue, '6  iriTTTTos  /aoy 'It/o-oPs,' it  seems  certain  that 
the  author  was  Jesus  (the  .son  of  Simeon),  and  not 
Simeon  the  son  of  Jesus.  Whether  the  translator, 
loo,  bore  the  name  of  his  grandfather,  as  is  stated 
by  the  Prologus  incerti  auctoris,  is  not  certain. 
This  second  Prologue,  which  was  first  printed  from 
cod.  248  in  the  Complutensian  Polyglot,  and  was 
first  shown  by  Hoeschel  (1604)  to  be  part  of  the 
BO-called  pseudo-Athanasian  Synopsis,  begins — 

•  .  .  e  «t/»  vutTT^t  ttiiTou  .  .  .  ^tkevovt!  Tl  yiy6*t*  eivxp  iv  'E^fixiOi; 
.  .  .  iTlJ  »t/»  Tr.v  ^'i^Xoy  TaCTr,v  6  trp-jjTot ' \nffou!  ffX'^^*  ■"  cvvti?.ly- 
lu'rnr  SdcToAiirw*  ii  tcnQpai^mt  Zxi^».   -'^^X  «?T«(  /ait'   «^t«v  ir(K>.i» 


*  This  is  possible ;  cf.  Joseplius,  Vita,  1 :  i  wpirxwvu  nf^* 

'.'m^it  ivrljb'   TtvTain   iffTi/    MxToieu   i    'Hfee^sv  (v.2.    'H^A/cv)  Ai>^ 


tS  tf*z!.'w  vetiii  xttriXfTti'  *Imii '  at  3n  cti^.s  }.et^iuttis  lit  ]• 
eiret^Kv  tteceucnot  a^i-vvayuec  o'v^zyayi  Sa^<«v  Er/  TC  ixv'«v  xeti  rm 
r«u  fretrfac   a^Aie  /^r.l'  tuti  -rot  ^as-^df*  iycfjutri  (j:)ueXt;x^;. 

Thus  we  have  the  pedigree  :  Jesus  [11,  the  trans- 
latorJ^Sirach  [11] — Jesus  [I,  the  author]— Sirach 
[I,  Eleazar]. 

Another  enlargement  has  taken  place  in  the 
translator's  Preface,  as  it  seems,  in  Latin  MSS, 
though  it  is  known  to  the  present  wTiter  only  from 
the  pre-Lutheran  German  Bible.  There  it  is 
stated  that  the  'anherre'  (aims,  Trawiros)  was  a  son 
of  Josedek  (see  ch.  49'-),  and  one  of  the  Seventy, 
and  that  the  grandson  Jesus  the  son  of  Sirach 
pursued  higher  studies.  Finally,  Euergetes  is 
stated  in  the  same  connexion  to  have  reigned  after 
Philadelphus,  his  brother,  under  whom  the  Bible 
had  been  translated  from  Hebrew  into  Greek  (see 
Nestle,  '  Zum  Prolog  des  Ecclesiasticus '  in  ZA  T IV, 
1897,  p.  123  f.).  Already  Isidore  of  Seville  identihes 
Jesus  the  son  of  Sirach  with  Jeshua  the  son  of 
Jozedek.  This  is  of  course  impossible.  For  the 
translator  states  :  ^i^  yap  raJ  dydoip  /cat  TpiaKoirri^  Itru 
iirl  ToO  Ei'e/ry^Toi'  /^afftX^ajs  wapayevriOeU  fls  Atyvwrop 
Kal  (Tuyxpovicras  eupov  ov  fitKpds  TratScias  d(p6fioLoy. 
This  date  is  not  to  be  understiood  of  the  38th  year 
of  the  life  of  the  translator  (Camerarius)  nor  of 
any  unknown  era,  but  of  the  reign  of  Euergetes  (see 
especially  Deissmann,  Bibelstudien,  i.  255  [Eng. 
tr.  339  tt.];  R  235;  Ed.  4  ft".  As  only  Euergetes 
II.  reigned  more  than  38  years  (from  B.C.  170  with 
his  brotlier,  from  145  alone,  reckoning  his  years 
from  17U),t  it  is  the  year  B.C.  132  ;  and  as  he  states 
that  he  stayed  some  time  in  Egypt  (avyxpoi>iixii%) 
before  he  undertook  his  task,  we  may  place  the 
translation  about  180,  and  the  original  some  forty 
or  hfty  years  earlier  (B.C.  190-170).  Then  we  must 
understand  the  high  priest  Simon,  who  is  so  highly 
praised  in  Sir  50"-,  from  personal  knowledge  as  it 
seems,  to  be  Simon  II.  Others,  taking  TroTTTros  in 
the  sense  of  '  ancestor,' prefer  to  place  the  author 
more  than  a  hundred  years  earlier,  under  Simon  I. 
In  the  former  case  it  would  be  possible  to  identify 
our  author  'l-qaovs  with  the  high  priest  'liauv  (,175- 
172) ;  but  beyond  the  identitj'  of  the  time  and 
name  nothing  leads  to  this  identification.  That 
the  author  of  our  book  was  high  priest  is  stated  by 
Syncellus  (Chron.,  ed.  Dindorf,  i.  525) ;  the  reading 
Ifpei's  6  ^oXvi/elTTi!  by  the  hrst  hand  of  S  cannot  be 
more  than  a  clerical  error.  J 

V.  Editions.— (n)  The  hrst  editions  of  the  Greek 
text  are  in  the  Complutensian  Polyglot  (c)  1514, 
from  cod.  248  §  (see  below,  p.  544"),  in  the  Aldine 
Bible  (a)  1518,  which  has  been  taken  for  this  book 

*  The  word  rawwet  used  liere  and  in  the  Preface  may  have  the 
more  general  meaning  '  ancestor,'  but  in  tliis  connexion  it  will 
be  'gi-andfather.'  In  the  Concordance  of  Hatch-B«lpath  it  is 
quoted  from  SjTnmachue  on  Zee  1^,  where  it  seems  to  belong  to 

t  On  the  reign  of  Euergetes  we  are  well  informed  through  the 
inscriptions  of  the  temple  of  Edfu  (see  Dumichen,  Die  ergte 
bis  jetzt  au/ge/undcne  gicJiere  Angabe  uber  die  Regierungs- 
zeit  eines  Agi/pti^chen  KSnig8  aus  dem  alten  Reiche,  Leipzig, 
1874,  p.  20  ff.  ;  and  Xlschr.  /.  dg.  Sprachf,  1870).  There  the 
years  28,  30,  46,  48,  54  (as  the  last  of  this  king)  are  mentioned  ; 
the  first  Toth  of  his  2Stb  year  fell  on  the  '^Sth  Seiit.  B.C.  143,  the 
first  Payni  (rise  of  Sirius)  on  the  20th-19th  July  142. 

J  Here  it  may  be  mentioned  that  in  a  late  compilation  (see 
C-N,  I'p.  xivf.,  xxix)  Hen-Sira  is  made  the  son  or  grandson  of 
Jeremiah,  and  has  a  son  Uziel  and  a  grandson  Joseph.  See 
Procerbia  lien-Sirce  Auturis  antiquigsimi,  qui  creditur  /uiste 
neitits  leremitr  prophetOB,  Opera  J.  Dmeii.  Franeker,  1697.  In 
the  Preface  Drusius  thinks  it  a  ]>robable  inference,  '  interpretem 
Orsecum  Ecclesiastici  Josephum  fuis-se  Vzielis  filiunL'  Cf.  on 
this  literature  the  edition  of  Steiuschneider,  Ali/habetum  Siraei- 
dis  ulnimque,  BeroHni,  18.S8  ;  and  Schiircr,  GJV^  ii.  181. 

In  other  legends  he  has  been  brought  into  connexion  with 
Solomon  as  his  wezlr  or  secretary  ;  see  above,  p.  540*  :  a  legend 
about  Aphkia  (the  wife  of  Sir.ich)  and  Solomon  has  been  pub. 
lislied  in  Arabic  by  Mrs.  M.  1).  (jibson  in  number  viii.  of  the 
Studia  Sinaitica,  Londcn,  1001. 

§  Sirach  was  committed  with  the  rest  of  the  '  libri  Sapien- 
tiale.s'  to  the  care  of  Johan  de  Vergara,  who,  at  the  end  of  bis 
life,  bad  no  greater  wish  than  to  illustrate  Sirach  by  note- 
(Alvarus  Gomex,  de  rebus  gettie  a  Franc.  Ximenio,  lib.  2). 


SIHACH  (BOOK  OF) 


SIRACH  (BOOK  OF) 


543 


1 


without  any  doubt  from  cod.  68;  and  cod.  68  it.self 
is,  to  all  appearance,  for  this  book  a  copy  of  cod. 
B,  so  that  a  represented  the  text  of  cod.  B  in  many 
passage.-i  more  faithfully  than  tlic  Sixtine  of  1.SS7.* 
A  reprint  of  a  is  the  edition  of  Lonicerusf  i.-Vrpent. 
1526);  but  the  editor  introduced  many  changes: 
for  instance,  in  3',  where  a  has  ifioO  roC  rar^iit, 
riOnicerus  put  (from  the  Latin)  Kpl/ia  tov  irarpos. 
That  Loniierus  changed  his  text  has  Vieen  over- 
looked bj'  sul>sei|ui'nt  editors  and  commentators, 
hence  in  later  books  a  number  of  misstatements 
a-s  to  the  text  of  a  ;  J  I.onicerus  in  turn  was  followed 
by  Melanchtlion  (Hasle,  154j),  Melanchthon  by  the 
eclition  of  Wechel  (1597,  see  art.  Septuagixt,  p. 
440*).§  The  editors  of  the  Sixtine  {/>)  made  use 
not  only  of  B,  but  of  c  a  I.onicerus,  jlelanchthon, 
and  the  coild.  V  106,  l.'i.i,  2531!  (see  on  6,  above,  p. 
44U*) ;  on  Grabe's  edition,  see  p.  440''. 

(A)  Separate  etlilions  i if  the.  ApKi-ryph/i  are  men- 
tioned, p.  441''.  The  edition  of  Fritz.sche  (1871)  is 
the  best,  but  for  our  partic\dar  book  quite  un- 
satisfactory (see  Nestle,  Marg.  1892,  pp.  48-58). 

(e)  Of  separate  editions  of  Sirach  alone  the 
oldest  is:  Sentcntice  Jesu  Siraci</ir,  Grtrci  summa 
(iilifjeniia  et  stm/io  singulari  cditm,  ivm  nercs- 
tariis  Annotalionihu.i,  Joachimo  Camerario,  Pabe- 
pergen.,  autore,  Basileae,  1551,  8vo.1I 

It  has  both  Prolopuea,  is  the  first  which  numbers  the  verses, 
and  lias  u»t;ful  notes,  especially  parallels  £roni  the  classics,  but 
also  various  readiii;rs.  In  the  Prolujcue,  Canierarius  writes 
i;«9ia,  (or  the  doubtml  etiiiuio*  (v. I.  liruoiot  and  ct^csur.i),  which 
reading;  has  been  mentioned  in  ttie  notes  of  b  and  other  editions 
and  received  into  the  text  by  Grabe. 

Then  comes  -o^ia  Seipox,  sive  Ecclexiastinis 
Greece  ad  exemplar  Eomanum,  et  Latine  ex  inter- 
pretatione  J.  Drusii,  cum  castigationibus  sive 
notls  eiusdem,  Ad  Keverendissimuni  in  Christo 
palrem  D.  Johannem  Whitgiltum  archiepiscopum 
Cantuariensem,  etc.,  Franekene,  1.596,  4to  ;  with  a 
double  appendix,  '  Proverbia-Bensine  '  and  '  Ad- 
agiorum  Ebraicorum  Decuri»  aliquot  nunquam 
antehac  cdita;.' 

Besides  the  previoue  printed  editions — among  them  *  Biblia  R, 
Stephani  'fucB  fui(io  t'fl/o6toot(rt6uu)i/wr,' apparently  the  edition 
(Geneva,  Ist  .March]  1557-5S— Dnisius  ni.ide  use  from  ch.  20  on- 
ward of  a  collation  sent  to  him  through  .Ian  Gruter  from  Heidel- 
ber(?.  '  Huius  enini  hortatu  Jacobus  Kiinedontius  iunior  .  .  . 
crKlioem  Paiatiuio  bibliotheca)  vetustissiniuni  membranaccum 
cvim  editione  Camenirii  anno  1678  [nic ;  in  liis  nota)  he  writes 
1.^70]  Lipsi.-e  cusa  Hiligentissime  contulerau'  This  is  apparently 
the  codex  286  of  HP. 

A  most  conscientious  edition  is  that  of  Hoeschel : 
Snpicntia  Sirar/ii  sive  Ecclesitisticus,  Collatis  lecti- 
onil»i-f  vnriantibus  membranartim  Auguslanarum 
vetiixtisximanim  et  xiv  prnlerea  exemplarium. 
Addita  versione  Lntina  vulgntn,  ex  editione  Ho- 
niaiifi,  rum  notis  Davidis  Hueschelii  Augustani. 
In  quihiis  multa  SS.  Patrum  loca  illustrantur, 
Augustje,  1604. 

His  codex  Au[ni8tanus  ('  H '  in  the  edition  of  Fritzsche,  p. 
xxii)  is  api>arently  codex  70  of  UP,  now  at  Munich  651,  and 
deserves  the  more  a  fresh  collation,  as  HP  gave  it  only  for  the 

•  More  than  thirty  readings  quoted  by  Holmes-Parsons  as 
singular  from  a  turn  out  to  be  in  reality  readings  of  B.  How 
did  tin  really  read  In  these  passaf^esV  it  seems  very  badly  col. 
lated,  for  Hulnies-Parsons. 

t  See  ntjove.  pjt.  44i>,  t>W^. 

i  Comp.  Hretsctineider  on  :jl '  Aldina,  Melanth.  et  Has.  minor: 
mp4fut  jtl  T(t7fioi  quwi  et  codd.  qxiidam  Hoeschelii.'  The  first  and 
last  statements  are  cpiite  incorrect. 

%  0.  Moeschcl  quotes  amongst  the  editions  used  by  him  fre. 
quently  *  liiblia  Parisiis  impressa  a  R.  Stephano,  A  1."».'.5.'  From 
his  quotations  it  would  appear  that  it  is  in  Greek  and  Latin  with 
notcH.    Is  there  such  an  eilition? 

a  Tliis  follows  from  a  comjiarison  of  the  scholia  and  the  Notes 
of  Nohilius  in  the  edition  of  I.'>8$ ;  com)>.  on  :il  '  in  aliquibus 
libriH  est  v0-(*  rtv  waTfiti '  I  s:cod.  263],  '  in  aliquibus  aliis  xpi/Mt ' 
I  =3  Loniccnis].  Nobillus  quot^-s  at  least  a  dozen  readings  from 
a  and  MSS  which  are  not  found  in  HP. 

•I  Kolde  (art.  'Canierarivis'  in  PRE^  iii.  689)  mentions  only 
the  (tecond  edition  (Lipsiie,  16118);  the  same  year  is  given  l)y 
lloesrhel  (inM):  but  lirusius  (1696)  and  the  Caulogue  of  the 
British  Museum  give  1570,  2  vols. 


first  chapter,  and  as  the  code.x  is  closely  reL-ited  to  253  and  the 
•Syriae  Ilexapla. 

Tile  source  and  present  place  of  another  MS  use<l  by  Hoe.schel 
(■Fnignientuin  AI.S  v.iri:i'lectionisaliciuol  capitumescidis  Fr. 
Sylburgii')  are  unliiiown  to  the  present  writer. 

From  Hoe.schel  till  Fritzsclie  not  much  was  done 
for  the  text  mil  criticism  of  a  book  which  needed  it 
greatly.  We  have — Senteniice  Jesu  Siracidm,  Grfe- 
ct(m  texttim  ad  fidem  codirum  ct  verxionuvi,  emen- 
davit  et  illustravit,  Linde  (Gedani,  1795) ;  and 
Liber  Jesu  Siracidce  Greece,  Ad  fidem  codicum  et 
versionum  emendatus  et  perpelna  annotntione  illns- 
trtitiis,  a  C.  G.  Bretschneider  (Ratisbonae,  1S04), 
xvi.  758  pp. 

Br.  is  not  accurate  enough,  but  he  has  the  merit  of  having 
called  attention  to  a  witness  in  textual  criticism,  tlie  Florilegitnn 
of  .^ntonius  and  Maxiinus,  neglected  by  most  workers  in  this 
field. 

Hart's  edition  must  find  its  place  among  the 
MSS  (see  below). 

vi.  Thi:  Grf.kk  Text.— The  problem  of  textual 
criticism  in  this  book  is  of  exceptional  interest. 
Luther  declares  in  the  Preface  to  his  translation 
(what  pains  it  had  taken  him  to  translate  this  book 
may  be  jud^'ed  from  a  comparison  with  all  other 
coj)ies,  Greek,  Latin,  or  German,  old  or  new): 
'  There  have  come  so  many  "  Kliig/ingc  "  over  this 
book,  that  it  would  be  no  wonder  if  it  were  totally 
disligured,  not  to  be  understood,  without  any  u.se. 
Like  a  torn,  trampled,  and  scattered  letter,  we 
have  gathered  it,  wiped  oH"  the  dust,  and  brought 
it  as  far  as  can  be  seen.'  Some  idea  of  this  m.ay 
be  gathered  bj'the  F.ngli.sh  reader  from  a  glance  at 
the  margins  of  KV.  There  are  about  eighty  mar- 
ginal notes  ;  fifty  times  it  is  stated  that  a  verse  or 
ijart  of  a  veise  or  even  a  series  of  verses  is  omitted 
by  many  or  by  the  best  or  the  oldest  authorities 
(cf.  P-  "*•  ^') ;  once  only  (17'")  '  this  line  is  added  by 
the  best  authorities';  at  other  places  we  read, 
'The  Greek  text  here  is  probably  corrui)!.'  'the 
Greek  text  is  here  very  confused.'  The  numbering 
of  verses  and  even  of  the  chapiters  does  not  agree. 
The  latter  is  caused  by  the  misplacement  of  some 
leaves  (Rys.sel  says  'two';  and  it  may  have  been 
two,  which  must  have  been  the  inner  leaves  of 
a  layer,  and  somewhat  more  closely  written  than 
A  and  still  more  tlian  l!S')  in  the  coiiy  from 
wliich  all  the  Greek  MSS  hitherto  known  have 
been  derived.  This  fact,  (irst  i>ointed  out  by  O.  F. 
Fritzsche  {Ausleg.  169,  170),  who  was  led  to  his 
discovery  by  a  similar  observation  of  H.  Sauppe 
on  a  Heidelberg  MS  of  Lysiast,  would  not  have 
been  recognized  with  such  certainty  but  for  the 
Latin  and  Syriae  texts,  m  lucli  have  the  dillerent 
order.  J  Already  Nobilius  declared  the  Latin 
order  to  be  the  better,  calling  attention  especially 
to  the  reading  KaraKXrjpoi'iij.ricroi'  '  in  noli  nullia 
(libris),' '  quod  optime  convenit,  si  conjungatur  cum 
illis  qua;  in  vulg.  c.  36'  (a  reading  received  into 
the  text  by  Grabe,  but  not  to  be  found  elsewhere 
in  HP,  quoted  by  Hoeschel  from  his  codex 
Augustanus ;  Camerarius  put  KaTaK\■qpovtl^L■r}(ra^). 
Where  did  the  llimian  editors  get  it  from?  and 
which  is  the  '  un\is  vetustus  codex,'  which  accord- 
ing to  their  repeated  statement  has,  like  the  Com- 
plutensian,  the  Latin  order?     It  isnut  the  cod.  248, 

•  Toy  i,Encyc.  [lihl  vol.  ii.  col.  1173)  siieaks  of  the  displace- 
ment of  roUs  of  the  »B  MS,  or  possibly  of  tlie  Hebrew  JIS  from 
whicli  the  Gr.  translation  was  ma<le. 

(  This  accident  occurs  very  often  in  ancient  MSS.  In  the 
British  Mus.  there  is  a  German  Bible  which  has  Mt  11-5'*  after 
Deuteronomy ;  at  Gotha  there  is  another  with  the  same  mis- 
placement. On  a  misplacement  in  co(L  S  see  Swete.  Introd 
p.  131 ;  in  a  MS  of  ecclesiastical  cjinons  see  Turner,  JThSt  ii 
2(19  ;  in  the  Church  History  of  Zacharios  of  Mitylene  see  the 
edition  of  Brook. Hamilton  ;"in  tlio  llouiilicsol  Origenon  .Icr.  see 
E.  Klostemiann  (Or.  ill.  p.  xiii).  For  other  examples  (Plautus, 
Mostetlaria,  etc.)  see  Ed.  p.  154. 

!  The  strange  confusion  Melanchthon  produced  in  his  edition, 
by  placing  the  verse  xai  x«rix>.r,e«*ca<ir«  in  the  middle  of  i-h.  33 
and  liauTpi  KrfTt.it  in  the  middle  of  ch.  SO,  ho«  been  partially 
amended  in  the  edition  of  1697. 


544 


SIEACH  (BOOK  OF) 


SlRACn  (HOOK  OF) 


in  spite  of  the  definite  statement  of  Edci'srieiii: 
and  others*  (see  Nestle,  ilnriiinnlu-n,  Vi'yi,  p.  i%; 
J.  K.  Zenner,  '  Ecdesiasticus  nach  Cod.  Vat.  3;B  ' 
mZ.f.  Kath.  T/ieol.  1895;  Kyssel,  p.  xxviii ;  and 
now  the  edition  of  Haitj.t 

Parsons  nsed  for  this  Ijook  fourteen  MSS ;  the  two 
nncials  iii.  and  '23,  i.e.  AV,  but  eod.  70  (Hoeschel's 
Angustanus)  only  for  the  Prologue  and  th.  1.  In 
the  .Addenda  is  to  be  found  for  the  Prologue  the 
collation  of  a  fifteenth  MS  {2;)4).  Fritzsche  ex- 
cerpted the  ap])aratus  of  Par.soiis,  but  in  an  in- 
suliicient  waj*,  and  added  the  collation  of  C,  S,  and 
Hoeschel's  Augustanus  from  his  edition  of  l()04.t 

In  Swete's  01'  in  Greek  we  have  a  faithful  repre- 
.sentation  of  the  readings  of  BACS  (  =  N);  but  it 
is  now  generally  acknowledged  that  the  text  of 
these  uncials  is  a  ver3-  bad  one  in  Sirach.§  It  is 
therefore  a  great  boon  that  the  Syndics  of  the 
Cambridge  University  Press  are  to  publish  shortly 
an  edition  of  the  lodex  Vaticanus  346  (  =  HP 
248,  the  basis  of  c)  by  J.  H.  A.  Hart,  who,  with 
the  assent  of  the  Syndics,  had  the  kindness  to 
communicate  to  the  present  writer,  for  the  benefit 
of  this  article,  the  proofs  before  publication.il 

Of  MSS  not  .vet  laid  under  contribution  there  are  known  to 
the  present  writer : — (1)  A  palimpsest  of  the  6th  or  7th  cent. 
at  St.  Petersburg,  written  in  three  ookimns  (see  Urtrxt,  p.  74  ; 
Swete,  Introd.  p.  147  n.  12).  (2)  Two  paHmpsest  leaves  belonging 
to  cod.  2  in  the  Patriarchal  Library  at  Jerusalem,  ascribed  to 
the  Gth  cent ,  containing  Prol  and  li-i*  129-311,  published  by 
J.  R.  Harris,  Biblical  Fragments  from  Mount  Sitiai.  No.  5. 

(.•!)  The  <,fcirivzr,  (ch.  51)  is  to  be  found  in  Cod.  Bodl.  ilise.  205 
(xiv  saec.)  ■  see  Coxe.  Catalovis,  i.  762.  This  chapter  is  missing 
in  the  MSS  296  and  ;i08*  of'  HP  and  (at  present)  in  the  codex 
S>ro-Hexaplaris  Anibrosianus ;  but  there  only  through  the  de- 
plorable loss  Df  a  leaf. 

Of  minuscles,  two  Vienna  MSS,  Cod.  Tlieol.  Gr.  xi.  and  cxlvii., 
both  of  which  were  brought  by  Busbecq  from  Const.antinople, 
h.ave  been  partiail.v  collated  i)y  Edw.  Hatch  and  quoted  as 
Vienna  1  and  2  in  his  Essay  on  the  text  of  Eoclesiasticus (t'.wai'fi 
in  Bi'dical  Greek,  p.  247  ff.).  On  the  confusion  al)outthe  308  (or 
308*)  in  HPsee  Hatch,  I.e.  24S ;  and  Swete,  Introd.  p.  lo9.  No.  141). 

Now  comes  the  strange  fact  that  our  Greek 
MSS — which,  as  stated,  go  back,  without  any  ex- 
ception, to  one  and  the  same  copy,  in  which  the  dis- 
location had  tn  ken  place — show  the  greatest  diverg- 
ences. For  instance,  after  I''  two  lines  are  inserted 
by  six  MSS  of  HP  (23,  5.5,  70.  In6,  248,  253)  ;  after 
v.^  again  two  lines  'by  five  MSS  (the  above  without 
248) ;  after  v.'"  and  v."  two  lines,  but  only  bj'  two 
MSS  (70,  253) ;  after  v."  one  line  by  two  MSS 
(here,  however,  not  70  and  253,  but  70  and  248) ; 
after  v.^  two  lines  by  four  MSS  (70,  106,  248,  253) ; 
in  v.'"  two  words,  djr'  aiV^s,  by  one  MS  (70).  How 
is  this  possible  if  all  go  back  to  the  same  original? 
And  the  variation  is  increased  by  the  second  and 
thiid  class  of  our  witnesses,  the  ancient  Versions 
and  Patristic  Quotations. 

vii.  Veksions  and  Quotations.— (a)  In  the 

•  e.fj.  C.  H.  Toy  (art.  *  Ecdesiasticus '  in  Encyc.  Bibl.  voL  U. 
col.  1173). 

t  At  present  the  Latin  order  is  found  in  the  edition  of 
Camerarius  ;  can  this  be  meant? 

;  Bret.schneider,  p.  694  : '  Cum  Compl.  textu  maxima  ex  parte 
coTisentit  codex  Augustanus,  cuius  lectiones  Hoeschelius  in 
crilidn  sacris  t.  v.  nobis  dedit,  quod  modo  accuratius  ac  clarius 
fei'isset  voluerim.  ,  .  .  quum  .  .  .  baud  raro  lectiones,  neque  eas 
epernendas  baboret,  quorum  nullum  in  rdiquis  deprebenditur 
vc.-tigium.'  That  Hoeschel's  codex  E  is  identical  with  *  Drusii 
JIS  Huidelbergense'  Bretschneider  failed  to  recognize. 

§  Edw.  Hatch  closes  his  examination  of  the  text  of  Sirach 
with  the  remark,  that  as  one  of  the  points  established  by  his 
investigation  will  be  acknowledged  'tne  inferior  value  of  some 
of  the  more  famous  uncial  Mt;S  as  compared  with  some  cursives ' 
(E8isa;/s,  p.  '2^1). 

i!  One  of  the  characteristics  of  this  MS  Is  the  insertion  of 
about  130  plosses,  to  guard  the  text  against  misunderstanding, 
especially  m  chs.  1-30 ;  see  1^^  it  aAr6i/«,  2*  artjutm;,  321  ^^xt^ifY,. 
rv:  and  oL^pcrunr.,  22  iff-;^  and  ^XJffHv  o^tlxXucit^  **  «  /Mtrxict,  4^ 
iAi™,-,  25  xctri:  u.Y.i'i  <'.,  5"  ifH<,  637  TiA«/»f,  88  liputfS:,^  1310 
ecxfitrait,  16*  iv  Tatrii.   11  J,i  Tft^t^ey.',  20  i|,&i;,   17»  tl/vfrSc,  29  cff.vi. 

Interesting  is  19'^  woWaxit  yitp  yiitrttt  3i«)9«Ar  u^Txiiz,  because 
the  motive  is  quite  the  same  as  led  to  the  addition  of  i*'**:  in 
Mt  6'^.  Some  of  them  are  fovmd  in  ttie  S.vro-Hexaplaric  'MS 
nnder  asterisks,  one  of  these  (511)  alao  in  one  of  the  Hebrew 
texts,  others  in  the  Latin  texts. 


nr^':  plnce  ba.i  to  be  mentioned  the  Syri.io  versioa 
\.v  I'au!  of  i'ella  i.e..  616  .4.L).),  the  so-called  Syru- 
!-iei»pi«r,  preserved  to  us  through  the  codex 
.^>T(>- tl?::a|'lariE  Anibrosianus.  If  we  retain  the 
designatitrr,  Sy^oUexaplar,  we  must  bear  in  mind 
that  Sirach  had  no  place  in  Origen's  Hexapla  ; 
but  in  one  jiarticular  respect  this  .Syriac  version 
reminds  us  of  the  Hexapla  :  one  of  the  critical 
marks  of  Origen,  the  asteriscus,  ajipears  also  in 
Sirach,  at  least  in  its  first  part  up  to  ch.  13.  There 
are  altogether  45  asterisks,  and  they  mark  just 
some  of  the  additions  mentioned  above.  No  Greek 
MS  of  Sirach  seems  to  have  been  found  as  yet  with 
asterisks ;  but  there  is  scaicely  a  doubt  that  the 
asterisks  were  not  added  by  Paul  of  Telia,  but 
were  taken  over  by  him  from  the  Greek  M.S  which 
he  translated.  This  MS  contained,  before  the  text 
of  tlie  book,  the  capitulation,  which  is  found  in  the 
so-called /Syno^wis  of  Chrysostom  (Jligne,  Patr.  Gr. 
Ivi.  575),  and  some  good  corrections  of  the  printed 
text  may  be  gathered  from  it.  Now  the  question 
arises  the  more  :  Where  did  these  additions  com* 
from  in  this  Greek  copj'  ?  Take  the  very  first  one, 
which  has  an  asterisk  in  p,  I'  d?r'  aiV^s,  given  in 
the  text  in  Syriac  as  .-ijoij:,  and  on  the  margin, 
to  remove  any  ambiguity,  in  Greek  letters  as 
AIIATTHS.  Tliere  is  a  slight  difference  bet-ween 
p  and  the  solitary  Greek  witness,  from  which  this 
addition  is  known  hitherto,  Hoeschel's  Augustanus 
(70),  inasmuch  as  the  latter  gives  it  after  /xerd 
irdiTTjs  aapKit  ('alii  non  agnoscunt  has  voculas  neque 
Athanasius  Orat.  3.  contra  Arian.'),  while  p  has 
it  after  Kara,  ttji'  Sdcriv  airroO.  This  makes  no 
dift'erence  of  sense  ;  in  both  cases  djr'  avrrji  is  a 
limitation  of  the  preceding  avrriv  (retained  by 
70  p)  :  God  does  not  shed  out  His  whole  wisdom 
(oi>r^i')  on  all  flesh,  but  only  dir'  aiJr^s;  it  is  a 
mere  dogmatical  correction  ;  but  while  appearing 
hitherto  only  in  a  single  and  late  Greek  MS— 70 
is  of  the  loth  cent. — it  gains  suddenly  in  strength 
when  sho^i'n  by  p  to  be  perhaps  1000  years  older  ; 
nevertheless  it  is  a  mere  gloss,  which  might  be 
added  by  any  copyist  from  his  own  brain,  without 
any  source.  But  what  about  the  lines  immedi- 
ately following,  put  in  p  under  asterisks  in  quite 
the  same  way  ?— 

H;  and  he  gives  it  to  them  that  love  him, 

^  the  gift  of  the  Lord  is  Wisdom, 
Hi  glorious, 

^  to  them  to  whom  he  appears  he  deals 
^  it  in  his  appearance  ; 
or  ■with  the  two  lines  after  v.''', 

Hi  the  fear  of  the  Lord  is  a  gift  from  the  Lord, 
for  on  love  he  raises  ])aths.  * 

Both  additions  are  found  not  in  70  alone,  but  in 
70  and  253.  Where  do  these  additions  come 
from  ?  t  We  must  look  for  more  witnesses- 
versions  and  quotations. 

The  versions  to  be  mentioned  are  the  Armenian, 
Georgian,  Ethiopic,  Coptic,  Arabic. 

On  the  Armenian  version  and  its  complicated 
history  see  PJiE^  ii.  68,  69  (  =  Urtext,  p.  128  f.); 
liyssel,  p.  129;  Margoliouth  -  Edersheim,  §  ix.; 
Conybeare  (vol.  i.  p.  153")  ;  Herkenne,  pp.  28-33. 
The  older  text  rests  on  the  authority  of  a  single 
MS,  which  breaks  off  at  42-'',  and  has  a  lacuna  from 
35"'-38''',  and  several  omissions  besides — e.g.  the 
whole  of  ch.  8. 

*  That  the  critical  marks  are  not  absolutely  to  be  trusted  is 
shown  b.v  these  examples  ;  in  the  first  a  line  is  placed  under 
asterisk  (*  and  he  gives  it,'  etc.),  which  ought  to  be  free  from  it : 
in  ttie  second,  the  second  line  ('  for  on  love,'  etc.)  ought  to  have 
the  asterisk. 

t  Starting  from  the  same  observation,  that  some  of  the  char- 
acteristic additions  of  the  cursives  106,  248,  253  are  to  be  found 
in  the  Syr.-He.v.  with  asterisks  prefixed,  the  editor  of  cod.  248 
raises  (in  a  private  communication  to  the  present  writer,  8th 
June  1901)  the  question  :  Is  it  possible  that  Sirach  ilso  was 
found  in  Origen's  Hexapla,  atid  that  he  ktiew  a  Hebrtuj  oriijinai 
and  compared  the  Gruk  teict  therewith  t 


SIEACH  (BOOK  OF) 


SlKACn  (BOOK  OF) 


545 


Un  llie  Georg'um  \eision  no  more  is  kiiowu  to  the 
present  writer  tlian  what  is  stated  hy  Holmes  at 
the  end  ol  the  Prief.  in  Pent. :  '  In  Bibliis  Georgianis 
Mosciue  curutis,  liber  Ecclesiastici  et  duo  libri 
^lucchaboioruiu,  critico  Usui  forte  hand  inser- 
vient.' 

The  PaloBO-Slavonic  version,  says  Margoliouth, 
'  follows  a  text  similar  to  that  of  the  Cuinplu- 
tensian  version,  but  with  only  a  portion  of  the 
additions.'  As  in  other  books  it  is  revised  from  a, 
the  (question  must  be  put,  whether  this  be  not  the 
case  in  Sirach  also. 

The  Ethiopic  version  was  published  in  1S94  as 
the  last  work  of  A.  Dillmann  ( Veteris  Testainenti 
^thiopici  tomus  quintus,  quo  contincntur  libri 
Apocrt/phi,  Baruch  .  .  .  Judith,  Ecclesiasticits, 
Sapientia  .  .  .  Berolini,  1897,  4to.  On  its  confused 
state  see  Nestle,  Marginalien,  p.  58  ;  Dillmann's 
Epilogus,  p.  11311".  ;  iferkenne,  pp.  33-38:  Margo- 
liouth believed  lie  could  find  in  a  few  places  signs 
of  contamination  from  the  Syriac  (8°  22"  38**  etc.) ; 
but  they  are  ol  rather  doubtful  character. 

Of  Cuptic  versions  the  one  in  the  Sakidic 
dialect  is  almost  complete,  existing  in  a  unique 
MS  of  the  Gth  cent,  at  Turin,  and  published  by 
P.  de  Lagarde  in  his  ^Egyptiaca  (tlottingen,  1883  ; 
Anastatic  reprint,  1897  ;  see  his  MitthcUungen,  i. 
p.  17G  n.).  From  a  MS  in  the  Museo  Borgiano, 
A.  Ciasca  published  short  fragments  from  clis. 
1  and  2  (Sacrorum  Bibliorum  J'ragiiienta  Copto- 
Sa/iidiia,  vol.  ii.  (1889)  p.  218);  and  the  same  by 
E.  i\.meiiiKa.a  (Finginenisde  la  Version  Thibaine  de 
VEcrilure  Ancien  Testament,  Parisiis,  1889),  to- 
gether with  two  leaves  from  a  MS  at  Berlin,  con- 
tainin-'  6"-7'",  21*"^  supplying  and  emending 
some  defects  in  Lagarde's  codex  (see  Herkenne,  pp. 
23-27,  and  Norb.  Peters,  Die  snhiilvich-kijptiwM 
Vbcrsctzung  des  Buc/ies  Ecclesiasticus  auf  ihren 
Mxihren  H'ert  fur  die  Textkritik  untersucht 
I'Vciburg,  1898).— A  fragment  in  the  Bohairic 
dialect  (ch.  2'"")  has  been  published  by  Lagarde, 
Orientali't,  i.  (1879)  p.  09;  the  same  piece  with 
some  more  fragments  (chs.  1.  4»>-5-  12'*-13>  22''"' 
23'-u  24''")  by  U.  Bouriant,  Becueil  de  travattx 
relalifs  d  la  pnilologie  et  a  Varchiolugie  (gyptiennes 
et  assgriennes,  vol.  vii.  (Paris,  1886),  p.  81  11'.  — One 
piece,  finally,  has  been  published  by  U.  Bouriant 
in  the  dialect  of  Akhmliii  in  the  Mcmoires  publiis 
par  les  membrcs  de  la  misHon  ardiiolngUnte  fran- 
<^aise  an  Caire  sous  la  direction  de  M.  Mnspero,  I.  2. 
(Paris,  1885),  255  If.,  containin'^  22"'-23''. 

In  Arabic  there  seem  to  exist  several  versions. 
One  M.S,  said  to  be  corrected  from  tlie  Greek,  is 
preserved  in  the  Mcdicuan  Library  at  Plorence  : 
in  the  Prologue  the  grandson  is  made  to  say  that 
he  translated  the  work  into  Syriac.  A  com- 
pendium of  the  Arabic  version  in  an  imperfect 
state  (5  pages)  is  prescn'ed,  according  to  Mar- 
goliouth, in  the  Bodleian  Library  (Hunt.  260). 

The  version  contained  in  Kiirshuni  in  cod.  Syr. 
179,  i.,  at  Paris,  is  said  to  be  due  to  Basilius, 
bishop  of  Tiberias,  but  goes  back  to  the  Syriac, 
not  tlie  Greek  text  of  Sirach. 

All  these  versions,  except  the  last,  rest  on  the 
oomiuon  Greek  text ;  and  so  do  most  of  the 
quotations  in  Greek  Patlier.s.  An  exceptional 
position  among  them  is  held  by  Clemens  Alex- 
andrinus,  whose  quotations  in  important  details 
agrie  with  cod.  248,  253,  and  the  monks  Antu/iius 
ami  Maximum. 

Of  greater  importance  than  the  other  versions, 
and  of  gieater  value  than  for  other  parts  of  the 
Greek  OT,  is— 

(i)  T/ie  Latin  Version.  It  is  true  that  the  suji- 
gestion  first  broached  by  the  Roman  Catholic 
commentator  Cornelius  a  Lapide  (tl037,  Comm.  on 
Sirach,  2  vols.,  1631),  next  mooted  by  Sahaticr, 
then  discussed  in  a  special  paper  by  Ernst  Gottlob 
vou  IV.— 35 


Bengel  (1769-1826),*  that  the  Latin  version  Wi». 
based  imiiiediatelj'  on  the  lost  Hebrew  original, 
has  turned  out  to  be  wrong ;  but  even  the  latest 
investigation  (H.  Herkenne,  de  Veteris  Latince 
Ecclesiastici  capitibus  i-.\liii,  Leipzig,  1899)  has 
arrived  at  the  result :  '  Nititur  Vetus  Latina  textu 
vulgari  gra'co  ad  tcxtum  hebraicum  alius  recen- 
sionis  Greece  castigato.'  It  is  all  the  more  to  be 
regretted  that  its  text  has  not  yet  been  published 
in  a  satisfactory  way. 

It  is  generally  believed  that  the  text  in  our 
ordinary  editions  of  the  Vulgate  is  the  Old  Latin 
untouched  by  Jerome.t  But  his  expression  '  calamo 
temperavi'  does  not  exclude,  in  our  opinion,  those 
stylistic  emendations  which  we  perceive  when 
comparing  the  current  Latin  text  with  older  docu- 
ments, either  MSS  or  quotatioiis.:^ 

The  most  convenient  edition  of  the  Latin  Vulgate 
is  that  of  van  Ess  (pub.  1S24),  which  gives  on  the 
margin  the  variations  of  the  Sixtina  and  Clemen- 
tina after  the  Vatican  editions  of  15'J0,  1592,  1593, 
and  1598. 

Sabatier  (see  vol.  ii.  53)  reprinted  the  official 
text  with  the  collation  of  four  MSS  '  optimte 
nota;'  (i6. 389,  '  Corbciensesduos,  unum  Sangerman- 
cnseni,  &  alium  S.  Theoderico  ad  Rhenium'). 
The  Corbeiensis  I.  is  now  Paris  11,532  (9th  cent.; 
Berger,  Histoire  de  la  Vulgate,  104,  107) ;  Sanger- 
nianensis  15,  now  Paris  11,553  (9th  cent.;  Berger, 
65,  4US). 

In  1740  J.  Blancliiiius  published,  in  his  Vindicim 
canon,  script.  Vulgatm  Latina:  cditiunis,  a  collation 
of  the  codex  Toletanus,  with  Hciiten's  edition 
(1509) ;  repeated  in  Migne,  Patr.  Lat.  xxix.  9S5. 

After  the  collations  of  the  Amiatinus  by  Heyse- 
Tischendorf  (Lips.  1873)  the  whole  text  of  this  JIS 
was  jjublished  for  Wisd.  and  Sirach  by  Lagarde, 
Mitth.  i.  283-377  ;  see  also  p.  191. 

Ph.  Thielniann  devoted  to  the  Latin  Sirach  two 
articles  in  Wollilin's  Arrhiv,  and  showed  that  chs. 
44-50  were  due  to  another  hand  than  the  rest  of 
the  book  ;  the  former  of  European,  the  chief  part 
of  African  origin  {Archiv  fur  lat.  Lexikogr.  viii. 
501-561,  ix.  2,  247  11.) ;  see  vol.  ii.  p.  10. 

The  text  published  by  C.  Douais  {une  ancienne 
version  latine  de  I' Ecclisiastimie,  Paris,  1895,  4to) 
is,  according  to  Thielniann  and  Kennedy,  an  appar- 
ently Spanish  text,  a  revision  of  the  primitive 
African  version  (ch.  21"-22-''-).  In  the  judgment  of 
the  present  writer  it  maj'  be  just  as  well  a  new 
translation,  indepeii<li;iit  of  the  former. 

Ph.  Thielmanu  ('iJericht  iiber  das  "esammelte 
handschriftliehe  Material,  zu  einer  kritischen  Aus- 
gabe  der  lateiuischen  Llbersetzungen  biblischer 
BUcher  des  alten  Testameutcs'  in  Miinchener 
Sitz.-Ber.,  1899,  ii.  2,  20511.)  gives  for  Sirach  the 
collation  of  twenty-three  MSS  (1-4  S[ianish,  6,  6 
Anglo-Saxon,  7-12  French  before  Ch.-irlemagne, 
13-16  St.  Gall  and  Italy,  17-19  Theodulf,  20-23 
Aleuin),  and  specimens  from  fourteen  MSS  more ; 
some  fragments  cod.  Veron.  i.  and  cod.  Ambr. 
U.  50  f.  (olim  Bobb.)  are  of  the  6tli  cent.  But 
still  older  are  the — 

Quotations  of  the  Latin  FATnERS.  —  Ang- 
ustiiie's  .Speculum  is  mentioned  above  ;  it  contains 
whole  chapters  from  Siraeh,  and  its  text  agrees 
closely  with  that  of  the  codex  Amiatinus;  but 
other    quotations  in   the   writings  of    Augustine 

•  '  Ueber  die  muthmaaslifhe  Quelle  tier  alton  latcinischen 
UebtTHftzung  dc8  Buclms  Sirach '  in  Kiciihurii's  AUijtineine 
liHilu.lhfk  der  b\bl.  Lilt,  17011,  vii.  pp.  832-804. 

f  Kiicrshcim  :  'Jerome  ttlls  us  exprciwily  tiiat  he  hod  left  th« 
text  of  the  Vetus  Latina  uiitouolied  (ralamii  (rmperavDin  the 
(apocryphal)  Wisdom  of  Solomon,  and  in  Sirach '  (Proi/.  in  edit, 
liiir.  .S'alotn.  iiixta  Sept.  itUerj/r.,  ed.  Vallarsi,  10,4UU). 

t  Comp.  the  siiTHf  expression  on  his  version  of  tlie  LatlD 
Oospelw  in  the  IJpiahtia  ad  Damtuvm:  'qum  ne  multuni  a 
lerlionis  Latinm  consnetudine  discroparent,  it*  eaiamo  temper* 
aritnu4,nt  ilia  tAntum  quo)  Bensum  videbantur  mutare  correctis, 
reliqua  manere  pateremutf  ut  fuuiunU' 


646 


SIRACH  (BOOK  OF) 


SIRACH  (BOOK  OF) 


(collected  by  Sabatier  and  Lagarde)  show  strange 
variations. 

See,  for  instance,  lo^  * laxamentum  peccandi'  (or'spatiiim  p.' 
('  spalium '  also  in  the  Speculum}.*  Not  a  single  one  of  his  MSS, 
OS  Tliiehimnn  informs  the  present  writer,  has  tiiis  word  *  la.\u- 
mentuni ' ;  yet  it  is  found  for  this  p;i.vsage  also  in  that  other 
i^pecutum  falsely  n^t'ribed  to  Au^rustine,  now  called  iiber  <fc 
divhiis  script uriji (etiilcd  tojjetherwilh  the  former  by  Weihrich), 
and  nmst  for  internal  reasons  be  considered  as  the  ori^al  read- 
in^  of  the  Latin  version. 

For  'opprobrium,'  20^,  this  Speeuium  has  ' supervacuitas ' 
(In  no  MS  of  ThielnmnD);  further,  22'^  'conservationem'  in- 
stead of  'custotliara'  (no  I3iblical  MS)  ;  Augustine 'si^ac'ulum 
astutum  '  instead  of  *  cerium ' ;  2o>^  instead  of  *  beatificat  virum 
suum'  the  liihirr  has  *consentit  in  anj^stio  virosuo';  in  this 
case  Uomplutensis  I  agreeinjj  with  it  (only  *  an^istiis ') ;  285  in. 
stead  of  'dum  caro  sit  servat  iram'  {cecfii  att)  the  Liber  has 
*cujpit  retinere  ir:im '  (  =  <i/;x*'*)*.  2911  we  find  in  the  Liber  tlie 
imperative  'anim;e(niitarda'  (=  ttocaccoyy ;*»:«*),  a  word  to  be 
added  to  the  new  Thesaurus  Latiiuv  li/ujuce  for  'animo  fort.ior 
esto'  of  the  Vul^te,  or  'animxquior  esto'  of  Compl.  1,  Metz  7 
(first  hand,  second  hand=Vulgate).  Here  we  ha\'e  tliree  stajjes 
of  subsequent  reviaiotis. 

The  greatest  surjtrise  is  31^  By  a  comparison  with  the  Syriac 
it  seemed  clear  that  instead  of  iia^Stpa.^  we  must  read  Jia^o^a, 
and  vXxirMffi-^ctt  instead  of  ^'/.xrHr^ciTtci  (see  Ball,  Variorum 
Apocrypha ;  Nestle,  Mar<jinalien^  p.  56.  The  KV  does  not 
materially  alter  the  AV :  *  he  that  f olloweth  destruction  shall 
have  the  fill  of  it');  *qui  insequitur  destructionem  replebitur 
ea' :  for  this  the  Liber  has  'qui  ins.  uiului,  in  illis  imptana'ji- 
tur*  i.e.,  just  as  proposed,  oja^s^a  and  v>.et>v,S*iFtTcu.  Of  all 
MSS  collated  by  Thielmann,  only  the  first  hand  of  Metz  7  has 
preserved  a  remembrance  of  tliis  rendering,  reading  *7nulta  in 
iliis  inplicabitur'  (sic).t 

Now  the  questions  arise — (1)  How  have  this  quo- 
tation and  tlie  codex  of  Metz  preserved  this  true 
reading  ?  (2)  How  did  the  wrong  te.\t  find  its  way 
into  all  the  other  MSS  ?  Is  the  latter  circumstance 
due  to  an  intentional  revision,  and  may  this  re- 
vision have  been  made  through  Jerome?  The 
former  may  be  due  either  to  a  Greek  MS  which  pre- 
served the  original  te.\t,  or  to  recourse  to  tlie  Syriac 
ver.«ion,  or  to  derivation  from  the  original  Hebrew.  J 

In  all  cases  the  importance  of  iL  in  its  original 
form  and  of  the  early  quotations  is  evident — the 
worse  therefore  the  neglect  of  these  studies ;  but 
still  more  evident  is  the  value  of  the  Syriac  and 
the  Hebrew  texts. 

viii.  The  Sykiac  Text. — In  his  edition  of  the 
Libri  Veteris  Tcstamcnti  Apocriiphi  (or  dentero- 
canonici,  as  he  wished  to  read  afterwards)  syriace 
(1861),  Lagarde  gave  to  Sirach  the  first  place,  to 
show  that  he  believed  with  Bendtsen  (Specivien 
exercitationum  crilicarum  in  V.  T.  libros  apocry- 
phos  e  scriptis  patrum  et  antiquis  versionihus, 
Gbttingen,  1789),  that  this  version  was  not  maile 
fiom  the  Greek,  but  from  the  'Hebrew'  (see 
Lagarde,  Symm.  i.  88,  17  ;  Mifth.  i.  191).  As  this 
view  is  now  almost  universally  accepted — it  was 
still  debated  by  Bretschneider  and  I'ritzsche — it 
need  no  longer  be  proved.  The  question  is  only 
whether  the  translation  was  not  influenced,  like 
other  books  in  the  Peshitta,  here  and  there  by  the 
Greek  version,  and  whether  its  text  has  come 
down  to  us  in  good  preservation. 

It  was  first  published  in  the  great  Polyglot 
Bibles  of  Paris  and  London, — in  the  latter  on  the 
basis  of  three  MSS  of  Ussher  and  Pococke  ;  then 
by  Lagarde  from  the  cod.  12,142  in  the   British 

•The  variations  are  partially  mere  lexical:  4**  'Veritas'  in. 
stead  of  'iustitia';  636  '  limen' instead  of 'gradua';  14l3'gj©cu- 
lum  '  instead  of  '  mundus ' ;  others  touch  the  sense  or  even  the 
underlying  Greek  text,  as  3S18  * ^ectet /vrlHudiiiem'  (=<^v») 
against  '  flectet  cervicein  '  (»ix'*«  ^)' 

t  Another  trace  of  this  reading  is  found  in  the  2f>th  epistle 
of  Pauliims  (p.  167e):  'qui  terrenas  possessiones  concupiscit. 
In  illis  implanabitur.'  Sabatier,  who  quotes  this  paWge, 
remarked  :  'at  hsec  postrema  ex  alio  loc^  desumpta  videntur.' 

I  For  mere  conjectural  emendation  the  rendering  seems  too 
clever,  or  rather  not  clever  enough,  for  the  proper  meaning 
of  Jia?i>^='pror>erty'  has  not  been  recogTiizM-  It  is  quite 
the  same  with  the  preservation  of  the  original  order  in  chs. 
81~S6  in  X.  This  may  be  due  either  to  ttie  fact  that  X  was 
made  from  a  Greek  MS  which  was  independent  of  the  one  from 
which  our  present  O  texta  are  derived,  or  it  may  have  been 
restored  after  the  Syriac  or  after  the  Hebrew.  X  shares  some 
of  the  strangest  miss-pellings  with  (3  ;  see  40-^  'dominus  Jhevus' 
'^igr«w  instead  of  *nf*u(  '  intuias'  (in  the  official  Vulg.). 


Museum,  which  belongs  to  the  6th  cent,  (with  • 
collation  of  Walton's  text),  and  lies  before  ua 
further  in  Ceriani's  photo-lithographic  reproduction 
of  the  codex  Ambrosijinus  of  about  the  same  age 
(Milano,  1876-83,  folio).  It  sutlered,  of  course, 
some  textual  corruptions,  but  on  the  whole  there 
are  no  such  difficulties  as  arise  in  connexion  with 
(S  and  5L.  The  other  question  whether  it  was 
influenced  by  (5  must,  it  seems,  be  answered  in  the 
alhrmative.  This  may  have  been  the  case  already 
when  the  version  was  made,  or  at  a  later  though 
very  early  and  only  partial  revision.  The  former 
view  seems  the  more  probable  (see  Ryssel,  p.  253). 
It  is  a  drawback  for  our  purposes  that  S  is  rather 
a  paraphriise  than  a  version ;  nevertheless,  the 
great  progress  made  in  the  explanation  of  Sirach 
by  Margoliouth  -  Edersheim  depends  on  the  use 
made  especially  of  S  for  the  corroboration  oi 
correction  of  G  and  the  restoration  of  the  original 
Hebrew.  These  two  texts  were,  so  to  speak,  our 
Rontgen  apparatus,  enabling  us  to  see  the  Hebrew 
text  underlying  them. 

ix.  The  Hebrew  Texts. — Especially  among 
those  who  knew  the  precarious  state  of  the  present 
Greek,  Latin,  and  Syriac  t<;xts  of  Sirach,  the 
surjirise  and  joy  were  great  when  the  news  spread 
that  a  fragment  of  the  original  Hebrew  text  had 
been  discovered,  and  when,  after  its  publication, 
more  and  more  parts  of  a  Hebrew  Sirach  came  to 
light,  of  which  in  the  Church  at  least,  since  the 
days  of  Jerome,  nobody  had  heard  or  seen  any- 
thing, while  even  among  the  Jews  few  scattered 
quotations  had  survived,  partially  in  Hebrew  and 
partially  in  Aramaic  (see  their  collection  in  C-N). 
It  is  impossible  to  notice  all  that  has  been  pub- 
lished on  these  finds.  Suffice  it  to  say  that  after 
the  first  private  communication  (see  above,  p.  539") 
the  first  public  announcement  appeared  in  the 
Amdemyot  16th  May  1896.  (1)  The  first  publication 
of  the  text  was  in  the  Expositor,  July  1896,  1-15 
(see  on  it  D.  S.  Margoliouth  in  the  same  periodical, 
Aug.,  140-157);  (2)  then  came  nine  leaves,  which 
had  found  their  way  into  the  Bodleian  Library, 
published  by  Cowley  and  Neubauer,  1897,  and  re- 
published by  R.  Smend  (Ablumdlunijen  der  K.  Ges. 
der  Wiss.  zu  Gottingcn,  N.F.  ii.  2) ;  after  this  (3)  the 
chief  publication  oi' Taylor-Schechter(Camb.  1899), 
containing,  besides  fourteen  pages  from  the  first 
MS  (now  called  B),  eight  pa^-es  from  a  new  MS, 
now  called  A  ;  (4)  in  the  Jewish  Quarterly  Review 
for  Oct.  1899,  G.  Margoliouth  gave  four  pages 
from  MS  B,  acquired  by  the  British  Museum ; 
(5)  I.  Levi  published  in  the  Sevue  des  Etudes 
Juives  for  Janvier-Mars,  1900,  two  pages  from  a 
third  MS  (C)  and  two  from  a  fourth  MS  (D),  both 
in  the  library  of  the  Consistoire  Israelite  at  Paris. 
The  JQR  for  April  1900,  finally,  gave  four  pages 
of  MS  A  published  by  E.  N.  Adler  and  four  of 
MS  C  by  S.  Schechter  (6,  7),  and  (8)  in  the  number 
for  July  1900  (p.  688 IT.)  two  pages  of  C  belon^g 
to  M.  Gaster.  All  the  publications  were  at  last 
brought  together  most  conveniently — if  it  may  be 
called  convenient  to  study  torn  and  faded  leaves 
of  Hebrew  MSS — in  a  splendid  publication.  Fac- 
similes of  the  Fragments  hitherto  recovered  of  the 
Book  of  Ecclesiasticus  in  ZTciretr  (Oxford  and  Cam- 
bridge, MDCCCCI,  60  plates  in  case).*  C,  it  should 
be  added,  consists  only  of  excerpts  (see  p.  548''). 

But  in  the  meantime — between  the  second  and 
third  publications — there  had  suddenly  fallen  a 
bitter  drop  into  the  general  joy.  D.  S.  Margo- 
liouth, who  had  published  in  1890  as  his  Inaugural 
Lecture  an  Essay  on  the  place  of  Ecclesiasticus  in 
li>emitic  Literature,  and  before  that  time  had  con- 
tributed largely  to  the  commentary  of  Edersheim, 
declared  in  a  paper  on  The  Orif/in  of  the  '  Original 

•  With  '  New  York,  Frowde,  6  dollars,'  mentioned  by  W.  IIus» 
Amolt  in  the  Theot.  and  Sem.  Lit. /or  1900,  p.  82. 


SIEACH  (BOOK  OF) 


SIEACH  (BOOK  OF) 


547 


Pi 


ffebreW  of  Ecclesiasticvs  (Parker,  ISOO,  20  pp.), 
that  the  newly-discovered  Hebrew  was  not  the 
original,  but  a  retranslation  ;  a  certain  reading, 
43",  appeared  to  him  to  be  a  translntion  of  a 
corrujDttun  of  a  Persian  translation  of  a  corrupt 
reaclmr/  in  the  Greek,  the  work  of  a  Jew,  whose 
native  language  was  Arabic,  about  the  10th  cent. 
He  closed  his  paper  with  the  remark  that  'Mrs. 
Lewis  by  her  precious  discovery  has  hit  biblical 
criticism  harder  tlian  it  was  ever  hit  before,  or  is 
ever  likely  to  be  hit  again.  For,  the  next  time  we 
proceed  to  parcel  out  Isaiah,  will  not  our  \ery 
street  boys  call  out  to  us,  "You  who  misdate 
by  1300  years  a  document  before  you,  what  do 

•ou  know  of   the  dates  of   the   Prophecies  and 

•salms"?' 

Startling  even  as  this  was,  a  similar  verdict  was 
pronounced  bv  such  a  scholar  as  Bickcll,  who  in 
earlier  years  liad  discovered  under  the  Greek  dis- 
guise that  the  closing  chapter  must  have  been  an 
alphabetical  poem  ('  l^in  alphabetisches  Lied  Jesus 
Sirach's.  Naehgewiesen  von  G.  B.'  in  Z.  f.  hith. 
Theohriie,  vi.  319-333),  and  had  tried  to  restore  the 
verj-  metres  of  the  Hebrew  ('Die  Strophik  des  Ec- 
clesiasticus '  in  Zeilschrift  fiir  die  Kundc  des  Mor- 
genlandes,  1892,  87-96).  Bickell  published  hia  view 
in  a  sliort  paper  on  this  aljihabetical  poem  ('  Der 
hebriiische  Sirachtext  eine  RUcUiibersetzung,'  ib. 
1899,  2.51-250).  Other  scholars  took  upthe  challenge 
of  Prof.  Margoliouth — among  them  Th.  NiilJeko 
(' Bemerkungen  zum  hebraischen  Ben  Siia'  in 
ZATW  XX.  [1900]  81-94);  Smend  {T/iL/C,  1899, 
col.  506) ;  M.  v.  Gibson  (The  Record,  June  23,  1899, 
p.  641) ;  Ed.  Koiiig  in  a  series  of  papers  in  the 
Expos.  Titnes,  1900,  and  6ei)arately  (see  Literature, 
6,  at  end  of  present  art.)  and  in  other  periodicals  ; 
•ce  Muss-Amolt,  p.  33. 

Fortunately,  the  new  documents  which  came  to 
light  afterwards  enable  us  to  place  our  judgment 
cc  a  broader  basis.  The  four  MSS  seem  to  be  all 
of  alwut  the  same  age,  the  11th  cent.  D  is 
apparently  the  oldest  of  them,  but  even  on  C 
Adler  remarked  :  '  From  a  comparison  of  paper 
and  character  with  my  earliest  fragment  from  the 
Genizah,  dated  8.32,  there  is  nothing  to  induce  one 
to  assume  that  its  date  is  later.'  Some  pas.sages 
of  Sirach  occur  in  these  four  MSS  twice,  a,  few 
even  three  times.  Now  if  JlJ — to  use  this  sj^mbol 
for  the  Hebrew  texts — u-cre  the  original,  the  MSS 
of  '^  must  aqree, — apart,  of  course,  from  such 
transcriptional  variations  as  are  common  to  the 
transmission  of  works  before  the  invention  of 
Gutenberg, — according  to  the  rule  laid  down  by 
Jerome  on  the  Latin  texts  of  the  Gospels  as 
compared  with  the  Greek,  ver-um  non  esse  quod 
variat.  But  what  do  we  iind  ?  One  of  the  first 
rerses  now  lying  before  us  in  two  MSS  of  JtJ  is 
4* — 

(S     M^l  '"S'  <I>s  X/uv  iv  T(p  otKif  (v.l.  t5  olKii/.)  aov 
Kdl  ^at'TacrioKO-iruv  iv  toTs  olKtrais  sov. 

1>    Noli  esse  sicut  leo  in  domu  tua  ; 

evertens  domesticoa  tuos  et  opprimens 
subiectos  tibi. 

"  be  not  a  daij  in  thy  house, 

and  rehukinf)  B.nd  fearful  in  thy  work*.' 

Nobody  doubted  that  *  •«  xi«ft '  and  '  a  dog '  went  back  to  ao 
original  '375,  read  n^'S  by  S,  and  that  'a»  a  lion"  waa  right. 
Ag«in,  In  the  Bccond  member  It  appeared  necessary  to  seek  a 
common  Hebrew  equivalent  (or  ;a>T<criM«»^>  on  the  one  hand, 
•nd  'rebuking  anil  tearful'  on  the  other;  Turther,  (or  'alavcs' 
»nd  '  works.'  The  latter  waa,  so  It  seemed,  (ound  easily  :  D'njy^ 
Irom  i^i;,  would  ^  ' slaves,"  from  15^^  (Ec  B')-' works';  the 
other  was  more  difflr;ult  to  guess,  because  #«ir«v»«»ri;.  Is  a 
tapax  leyommon  in  the  Greek  Bible,  and  a  rare  word,  with 


doubtfiil  meaning ;  some  ^oo<l  examples  o(  it  (rom  Ecclesiastical 
authors  may  be  tound  in  the  editiou  of  LloesuheL* 

And  now  for  the  te-\ts  of  J^ — 
A  yy'22  2^22  'nn  S« 

C  in'aa  .tind  '.in  Sit 

i.e.  A  '  be  not  like  a  doff  in  thy  house, 

and  [ — ?]  and  fcaiful  in  thy  labour.' 
C  '  be  not  like  a  strong  lion  t  in  thy  house, 
and  raffing  over  thy  works.' X 
Can  there  be  any  doubt  that  A  agrees  with  S  and 
C  with  (5  1  Compare  especially  the  second  clause, 
where  5  has  two  words,  A  has  also  two,§  C  for  one 
word  of  (5  has  one  word.  What  is  more  natural  than 
the  conclusion  that  A  and  C  are  not  the  original, 
but  dependent  upon  S  and  <5,  rctranslations,  aa 
Margoliouth  aflirnied  of  B?  But  we  must  not  be 
too  rash  :  we  ask.  How  would  a  late  Jewish  trans- 
lator hit  upon  ir.sna  to  render  so  obscure  a  word 
as  (parToaiOKoiruv^.  ina  is  rare  in  biblical  Hebrew 
(Gn  49*,  Jer  23^*) ;  it  suits  the  context  very  well  ; 
it  might  be  easUy  confounded  with  ins  '  fear,'  and 
thus  explain  the  rendering  of  5,  and  it  is  a 
favourite  word  with  Sirach  (.see  ^j  8-  19^  41""«- 
4210  mg.^  S  192  23''- »■'»•") ;  it  ma!/  therefore  hare 
preserved  the  oriffinal.W  This  supposition  gains 
probability  from  a  comparison  of  Zeph  3'-  *  '  her 
princes  are  lions  in  her  midst  .  .  .  her  prophets  are 
D'lqs,'  where  the  two  words  stand  together  just  aa 
here  in  clause  a  and  h.  Schechter  has  shown  that 
the  whole  text  of  l)  is  full  of  allusions  to  the 
OT  (cf.  p.  548'':  11=^  a  reminiscence  of  Gn  42"). 
These  are  used,  of  course,  also  by  pious  Jews  of 
later  times  ;  but  when  the  grandson  testifies  in  his 
prologue  that  his  giandfather  '  having  given  him- 
self to  the  reading  of  the  Law  and  the  Prophets 
and  the  other  books  of  our  fathers,  and  having 
gained  great  familiarity  therein,  was  drawn  on 
also  himself  to  write  somewhat  pertaining  to 
instruction  and  wLsdom,'  why  should  we  hesitate 
to  consider  those  characteristics  as  belonging  to 
the  original  ? 

Take  the  next  verse  which  lies  before  as  in  two 
MSS  of  it)— 

4*^  ffi  ti,i)  fffTco  if  x'^tp  aov  iKT€Tafxivij  (Is  t6  Xa/3etV 
xal  iv  Tift  dTroOi5i}vai  ffvv^(rra\t^vtj. 

SnnS  KD'sp  m.ini 

•  In  the  T/ieiaitrtu  of  StephanusIIase  '  Eocl  4'  and  'Sir  *»' 

are  quoted  as  difTerent  ^o-ssau'es  I  The  wrong  (orm  ^tran*- 
r«*«i,  is  translated  mispicaz  by  Qrotius.  Nobilius  gives  arre- 
pticiuM',  even  Uybscl  translates  as  if  it  came  (rom  viwrtit,  'Oe- 
KI>('n8teraeher,'i.f.  argwohnisch,  misstrnuischohnethatsaohlichen 
Grund.  AV  'frantick'  (see  vol.  ii.  06),  UV  'fanciful*;  Fraakel 
translated  n;:t<  'cniel' (for 'lion'  t':'p)  ;  p  n'xri'9}  IK^'^  'boister- 
ously rebukelul'  (whether  intluenccd  by  S?  or  reading  $i/rj«-T): 
on  the  Coptic  see  Ilerkenne,  who  thouglit  for  O  of  some  word 
(rom  ^/lysi  (Job  413),  for  X  of  ^/qvo  (Is  10»3),  and  adduced 
(rom  the  Apophtheffjiuxta  Anl<mix  et  ilaxiiiii,  p.  602  ('morosus') 

I,  voif  OIK.  ff«u  tuii  rctwiit^f  rout  vteoxupiouf  ffou  (  —XX 

t  The  Hebrew  word  is  diiTerent  (rom  N'D*?. 

t  Or  tlavu.  If  we  derive  muy  (rom  ni:y^  (Job  1»),  aa  sug- 
gested to  the  present  writer  by  Dr.  Driver',  and  independently 
to  the  e<iitor  by  Dr.  A.  It.  Davidson. 

}  The  Unit  o(  them  1110  is  not  clear ;  see  0-N  and  K  (.SK, 
1900,  o7y) ;  the  latter  compares  1*8  00".  We  suspect  a  corrup- 
tion o(  rii  =  rjyi,  see  Expot.  Timet,  xl.  330  note ;  (or  NTnD  B 
proposes  pn^  or  j'rip  '  ruwartend,  lan;:s;un '  I 

I  The  piuuiage  Is  discussed  with  a  ditfercnt  result  by  Taylor 
(JThSl,  I.  678).  He  considers  n'1«  an/cA  and  NTnD  mithyari  to 
be  the  original ;  O  may  have  turned  the  latter  Into  nKinC ; '  the 
synonymous  nnrnD  with  a  clerical  error  accounts  for  incnD  O. 
The  first  two  suppositions  ore  natural,  but  when,  where,  and 
why  should  KVno  have  been  tomed  Into  inunD,  to  ••  to  arrira 
at  inBnD? 


548 


SIEACH  (BOOK  OF) 


SIKACH  (BOOK  OF) 


jj  agrees  in  the  first  clause  completely  with  &,  in 
the  second  it  has 

KD'Sp  I'Js'ji 

Kow  take  A  and  C— 

A  nnpS  nmna  -t  "•"in  Vit 

[no  linn  n^-api 
C  nica'7  ncsno  it  "nn  ^M 

miBp  ncn  nyai 

that  is  to  say  :  instead  of  a  common  orifjinal  we 
have  two  versions  differing  mxire  from  one  nnotJicr 
than  the  two  Syrian,  every  word  for  which  there 
is  more  than  one  Hebrew  eciuivalent  available  being 
rendered  dillerently — 

stretch  out  ^/  nna  and  bb*' 
receive  "p^  and  xo) 


in 

give  (back) 
shut 


■T|in3  and  nya 
jni  and  Tun 
f  sp  and  lap 


A  third  passage  is — 

5^^  (G  Kai  iir]  iropcvou  iv  Ticr-g  irpaxi} 

A  n'?i:E'  iiT  n:!n 

C  Vne-  SdV  iSn  '7NI 

A  is  translated  by  Taylor,  '  and  turning  the  way 
of  the  stream,'  C  agrees  with  (£. 
Further,  v." — 


C  =  (5  with  the  addition  ipBriv,  which  is  found  otdy 
in  248,  253  and  p  «^«6  -Jf. 

S  SboDT  p  T3  '  through  him  that  is  speak- 
ing.' 

KBI3    TI'S 

nsu  T3 
^  vrZffis  avTutv 
Iin*?  ND-i  '  throws  them  down ' 

IB'SiO 


A 
C 


A 

C 
V.isb  ffi 

S 
A 
C 


(C  being,  of  course,  a  corruption  of  A). 

72s  15  iiipTiaai  avT-ftv 

S  n"3n  give  her 

A  (nnn  join  her 

C  m3i  grant  her.* 


What  follows  from  these  passages?  That  the 
question  is  a  very  complicated  one.  Not  even  of 
C  is  it  possible  to  say  that  it  is  a  simple  retrans- 
lation  of  <&,  for  even  in  C  there  are  pa.ss.iges 
which  are  at  variance  with  (5.  On  tlie  otiier 
hand,  it  is  equally  impossible  to  maintain  that  11) 
has  preserved  every^vhere  the  original,  iniieiiendent 
of  ffi  and  S.  There  are  passages  in  It)  wliicli  can- 
not be  explained  in  any  other  way  than  by  the 
supposition  that  they  rest  on  a  corrupt  and  glossed 
text,  sometimes  of  C&,  sometimes  of  ». 

A  passage  which,  for  the  present  writer  at  least, 
is  perfectly  convincing  is — 

25".  'The  wickedness  of  a  woman.  .  .  darkeneth 
her  countenance  like  sackcloth,'  AV  (mg.  '  Or,  like 
a  bear'),  RV  a.?  a  bear  doeth  (without  even  men- 
tioning the  other  reading). 

•  72»  AC  p':V  K!i"l  n3  NSin,  (3  ««'  in  niAn^  Ifyf  fi.iya, 
S  K'plK'V  plEJl,  AC  pDV  NS'I ;  'anrt  the  trouWe  (or  strife,  see 
B-T  p.  47)  has  pone  ■ ;  c(.  the  witty  though  rude  saying 
of  Schopenhauer  at  the  death  of  an  old  woman  whom  he  had 
to  care  for  :  obit  anut,  abil  onut.  It  Is  clear  that  here  0  cannot 
rest  on  (3. 


©  B,  etc.  lis  aiKKOv  ;  G  AS,  etc.  is  dpiros. 

IL  combining  both  readings  :  tanquam  ui-sw,  et 

quasi  saccum.  r     1      j    _j 

«,  'makespale  thefaceof  Ajr  AMSftomrt  and 

mrkes'it  black  like  the  colour  of  asacky-,*  now 
C  has  ="'7  **33  Tip-i  '  makes  black  (Aw  or  her  ;  the 
letters  are  torn  away)  face  .  .  .  to  a  6ear.' 

All  rules  of  textual  criticism  (the  general  one : 
scriptioni  proclivi  pra-stat  ardua,  and  the  special 
one  for  Sirach,  the  agreement  between  C  and  5) 
must  be  nought,  or  C  is  here  tlit  retranslatwn  oj  a 
corrupt  Greek  text.  .  ,   _  .  .       4.  j 

The  close  connexion  of  C  with  (5  is  corroborated 
by  other  passages.  The  very  first  words  preserved 
in  C-it  begins  4^  (ina^n  nx)  p-pn,  for  which  A  has 
the  synonymous  pB.n-do  not  "C'^^r.  't  is  true  m 
the  received  Greek  text,  but  in  the  MSS  106,  248 
053  (c)  •  C  even  preserved  such  glosses  (mentiouea 
Ibove,  p.  544'')  as  S"  ylvovraxOs  (C  F!  =  ?)/''  «'^P»- 
d<r«  aov  +  aya8v  (C  naiB=106.  218,  253  p),  ^ai_^ 
fMKpoevidq.   ipeiyyoo  iTrixpiaiv  +  ipeiii'  (O  m-i-.Vi, 

"^A"2m,  all  rules  of  textual  criticism  are  nought 
if  such  additions  be  not  glosses,  and  glosses  added 
to  the  Greek,  not  to  the  original  Hebrew  text ;  and 
yet  they  occur  in  C.  ISjC,  therefore,  is  dependent 
—partially  at  least— ona  glossed  text  of  ffi,  as  it 
V}  represented  by  248,  253.  .        . 

It  is  to  be  hoped  that  scholars  will  agree  in  tins, 
and  thev  may  do  so  the  more  because  this  con- 
cession does  not  decide  the  question  for  the  other 
MSS  ABD,  nor  even  for  the  whole  content  ot  y; 
C  bein<'  an  exception  also  in  this  respect,  that  it 
does  not  give  a  continuous  text,  but  mere  excerpts 
from  chs.  r-^-r^  18»i-20';  then  come  suddenly 
3719. 22. 24.  28  f  followed  by  20",  and,  finally,  '-'o  --0  . 

If  1)0  is 'chiefly  dependent  on  G,  there  abound 
in  the  other  MSS  JtJABD  traces  of  the  influence 
of  S,  especially  in  so-called  doublets,  passages 
appearing  twice.     Cf.  U" — 

In  G  we  have  two  lines— 

n^pSiJ  eripfvTTis  iv  KapriWip,  oOrws  KapSla  iirtptf 

(pdvov 
Kal  lis  KOTilo-KOTros  ivi^Mvei  rruxrir. 

In  3L  three — 

sicut  perdix  inducitnr  in  caveam  {v.l.  foveam) 
et  vt  caprea  in  laqueo.  sic  et  cor  superborum 
et  sicut  prospector  videns  casumi^roxinu  sut. 

In  S  five— 
like  a  partridge  caught  in  a  cage  is  the  heart 

of  the  proud, 
and  like  a  spy  who  looks  on  the  faU  ; 
How  many  are  the  iniquities  of  the  ungodly  I 
[cf.  ffi  v.^'S]  .  , 

like  a  dog  which  enters  into  every  house  and 

Bo'^enters  the  ungodly  into  every  house  and 
disturbs. 


In  ^  six  or  more — 
As  a  bird  caught  in  a  cage  so  is  the  heart  of 

a  proud  man ; 
As  a  wolf  that  lieth  in  wait  to  tear. 
How  many  are  the  iniquities  of  the  covetous 

man !  i,    ^      *  •     .i,„ 

As  a  dog  is  he  among  those  that  eat  in  tne 

bouse. 

•  It  is  difficult  to  understand  how  Bickell,  Zockler,  K.v^seU 
RV  couM  Irefe  the  hear,  which  crept  in  fron>  the  u»;n  .on  ng 
S  lion  aui  dragon  in  the  co.itext ;  S  be".S  ■nJepcm  ent  o^  6 
deci.k-8  for  the  sack  ;  and  then  compare  parallel  '''''' J^" 
612,  i,ut  espcciaUy  1  Clem,  ad  Cor.  8,  -.  •W'';"  "'^'■■ii^um. 
,«-V«  «i*.u;   see   on   these  variants  Nestle,  ilargiruuxen, 

^'\\t,  is  omng  to  this  insertion  that  we  have  these  tiugmeati 
three  times  in  B,  0,  D,  with  sUght  Turialioas. 


SIRACH  (BOOK  OF) 


SIRACH  (BOOK  OF) 


549 


He  doeth  violence  to  all  .  .  . 

The  covetous  man  coiueth  and  luakoth  strife 

in  all  their  jjoods  ; 
The  tale-bearer  lieth  in  wait  as  a  bear  for 

the  house  of  the  scorners  ; 
And  as  a  spy  he  seeth  nakedness. 

On  the  two  lines  of  G  Bochart  has  written  a 
whole  chapter  in  his  Uierozoiiinn.  More  than  one 
article  would  be  necessary  on  the  correspondence 
between  (toriio-itoTros  (and  its  equivalents  »O0>  = 
3m=3n)  and  the  otlier  equivalents.  It  seems  clear 
th%t  the  dog  ^'73  owes  its  existence  to  the  Ki/n-aWos 

On  tbe  an^menla  adduced  by  Mar^oliouth  from  the  Persian 
we  must  refer  to  Noldekc  (ZA  TW  1900,  p.  94) ;  on  the  question 
raised  l>y  Mir^olioulh,  wliether  the  Scphfr  ha-gatuy,  wliich 
betrays  linowieaffe  of  the  Cairene  texts,  is  by  Saadia  or  not ;  and 
on  the  aK't'  of  the  Tahnudic  quotiitions  from  Ben-Siru,  cf.  tiie 
papers  of  Mar^'olioutli  on  the  one  hand,  and  Konig,  Scliecbter, 
Abrolianis,  Uacher,  Harliavy,  etc.,  on  the  other  (see  UteracureX 

But  that  even  in  C  fragments  nf  the  original  are 
preserved,  see  above  on  7^.  Wliat  Jew  of  later 
times,  who  had  nothing  before  him  except  (5, 
tKSou  Bvyaripa  /cai  (<r-(i  TerfXc/tuj  fi^ya.  (pryov,  co\ild 
have  hit  on  fdv  kxt  nn  Ksin?  Even  with  the  help 
of  *  it  would  have  been  difficult  to  arrive  at  this 
text.  But  there  are  jiassages  where  }1»  oilers  read- 
ing's dillerent  alike  from  G  and  S. 

A  good  exanijjle  occurs  in  tbe  very  first  leaf  dis- 
covered of  Jti,  41)'" — 

©  for))  airrapKOVs  ipyirov  yXvKavB-finerai 
Kal  Inrip  d^npirepa  i  eOplsKuv  0r]ffavp6r. 

The  very  context  shows  that  C5  is  WTong ;  in- 
stead of  the  one  member  airrdpKovs  ipyarou  there 
must  have  been  two.  Grotius,  Grabe,  l'"ritzsche, 
A\',  UV,  inserted  koI  and  spoiled  the  sense ;  for 
the  life  of  the  aurdpKTjs  is  sweet  [ipue  suii  pollens 
opihus,  Luiretiu.s),  but  not  that  of  tlie  working  man. 
i  (rave  no  hel]) ;  for  the  first  member  is  wanting. 
What  a  pleasure  then,  to  read  in  |t! — 

irnD'  -i^o\  ("  "n 

a  life  of  vrine  and  strong  drink  if  sweet ;  cf.  the 
same  pair  in  v.'"  in  ]1),  where  ffi  had  oTj-oj  rai 
^oiwutt  =  Tr,  and  5  xp'ny  K-cn  'old  wino.'  And 
what  a  surprise  to  find  on  the  margin  an  additional 
(though  wrong)  reading  :  '^dc  •im'(C-N  =  ' that  excels 
in  prudence';  but  "Jiv  perhaps  =  ai>r(ip»ti)s).  The 
gr.Tudson  mistook  i:y  '  strong  drink '  for  ■i(')r7 
'hired  worker.'*  What  a  surprise,  again,  to  find 
the  whole  margin  of  this  leaf  covered  with  various 
readings,  spellings,  notes — one  in  Persian  referring 
toadilfiniit  MS. 

v."",  where  we  h.ad  read  in  ffi  that  'better  than 
wine  and  nmsic  is  the  love  of  wisdom,'  in  5  'better 
than  old  wine  the  love  of  a, friend,'  we  now  find 
that  the  grandfather  had  written,  'Wine  and 
strong  drink  make  the  he.art  exult,  but  the  love 
of  liircrs  (n-^ii)  is  above  them  all.' 

Surely  it  is  not  going  too  far  to  say  that  with 
the  finiling  of  these  texts  a  new  period  begins  in 
the  historj'  of  our  book.  Where  wo  hitherto  were 
hill  (7^)  to  bow  down  th«  ner/c  of  o<ir  children  from 
their  J'outh  {Kdp.-^ai  t6v  Tpdxri\ov  avrdv — but  rbv 
Tpixv'^o'  ai-Tuv  is  correctly  omitted  by  li  and 
CliTiiens  Alexandrinus  (i.  180,  2,  ed.  Dind.t), — we 
are  now  advised  to  nwirnj  tliem  early  (S  }ljAO  =  con- 
fusion  between  n^  and  nc). 

It  is  neither  possible  nor  ncccssafy  to  go  on 
multiplying  examples  of  this  kind.     A  great  field 

•  Baoher,  Ryssel,  Smcnd  are  not  satisflod  with  'wine  and 
■tronK  drink.'  Bacher,  coniparin};  lix  fiU,  wishes  lo  read  [v*; 
T5V'] '  who  can  Hlt-ep  and  has  work  * ;  Ryssel  with  Smeud,  lor 
I^C'i  'who  has  plenty,  and  lias  paying  work.' 

t  Tile  aifreomont  between  X  and  Clement  Is  of  great  import- 
ance. 


waits  for  patient  workers.  The  task  for  futura 
editors  of  Sirach  will  be  to  conijiare  most  care- 
fully— (1)  the  witnesses  for  O  (MSS,*  Versions, 
Quotations  t) ;  (2)  the  witnesses  for  S  —  on  the 
wliole,  an  easy  task  ;  (3)  the  witnesses  for  JljABCD; 
and  the  quotations  to  be  compared  with  each  other, 
where  there  is  more  than  one,  then  with  C  ?. 
Tlie  text,  in  translation,  would  have  to  be  given 
in  parallel  columns:  in  tlie  middle  what  is  common 
to  all,  at  the  right  and  the  left  the  variations,  at 
the  bottom  would  be  shown  how  the  variations 
originated. 

On  the  lang^tane  of  lb  see  in  0-N  p.  xxxi  (I.  the  *  Glocsar>'  of 
Words  not  found  in  the  Hebrew  of  the  OT,  or  found  in  it  only 
in  the  passages  quoted  or  referred  to ' ;  and  cf.  Noldeke  {ZA  TW, 
1900,  p.  94),  who  was  at  first  in  favour  of  the  Oxf.  Ucb.  Lex. 
beginning  to  take  notice  of  Ben  Sira,  but  aftenvards  thought 
it  a  safer  course  that  his  words  should  he  gathered  into  an 
Appendix.  The  Concordance  to  the  Septuagint  by  Hatch- 
lic'dpalh  promises  for  the  second  part  of  the  Supplement  '  A 
Short  Confordance  showing  the  Hebrew  equivalents  to  the 
Greek  in  the  lately  discovered  fragments  of  Ecclesiasticus.' 
lliis  will  be  very  welcome.  To  learn  what  interesting  questions 
are  raised,  see,  for  instance,  1010  n^no  |*ac'=^x/>ov  ai,pfirryifjux.\X 
18^'- (C)  juyn  j-DC=/m»^»  tfi^'i;  D'D3i!>=/t!/»i  3718  (cf.  Gn48~); 
S'Sy  (see  I.  Low,  'Marginalien  zu  Kohut's  Aruch'  in  Semitic 
Stiidieg  in  M^'mori/  of  A.  Knhut,  p.  374);  D'OD.X  6027  with  '33K 
50^  and  Pr  262.  Xhe  similarity  to  the  language  of  tbe  'Pai- 
tanim,'  tbe  late  Jewish  hymn-writers,  seems  to  militate  against 
the  originality  of  lb ;  hut  even  Schechter  cannot  dfiiy  it :  'If 
he  thought  like  a  Rabbi,  he  wrote  like  a  Paitan'  (ef.  Toy  in 
Enciic.  tiilit.  p.  1167 f.;  D.  Strauss,  SpracfiL  Stud,  zu  dm  fieb. 
SirachJ'ni'juienten,  Zurich,  1900 ;  W.  IJ;ujher,  Die  ulteste  Ter- 
minal, derjiid.  Schrijtauslegung,  Leipzig,  1899,  p.  207). 

X.  Contents  and  Tiikoi.ogy.— 1.  It  is  clear 
that  in  many  details  our  views  about  the  contents 
of  the  book  must  be  revised  since  the  recent  finds  ; 
but  on  the  whole  the  standpoint  of  the  book  has 
been  correctly  estimated.  It  li.as  been  considered 
as  the  clwf  inoniiment  of  primitive  Sadduceism, 
and  this  found  corroboration  in  an  unexiiected 
way. 

C.  Taylor  wTote  (1877)  in  the  first  edition  of  the  Sayings  oj 
the  Jet'nsh  Fathers :  '  It  has  been  suggested,  with  a  certain 
plausibility,  that  the  Book  Ecclus.  approximates  to  the  stand- 
point of  the  primitive  Qaduqim  as  regards  its  theology,  its 
sacerdotalism,  and  its  want  of  sympathy  with  tlie  modern 
Soforim.  The  name  of  Ezra  is  significantly  omitted  frotn  its 
Catalogue  of  Worthies.'  At  the  same  time  he  called  attention 
to  the  fact  that  the  Book  of  tbe  Sadducees  and  the  Book  of  Ben 
Sira  are  placed  side  by  side  on  tbe  'Index  Expurgatorius ' 
(5nn/(.  100^).  It  must  have  been  gratifying  to  be  able  to  publish 
twenty  years  later,  at  the  end  of  the  llehrew  Ren  Sira,  a  hymn, 
not  to  be  found  in  the  earlier  texts,  which  ends  with  praise  of 
the  Sons  of  Sadok.    See  S-T  p.  41,  the  hymn  (after  ch.  601'-)— 

•O  give  thanks  unto  the  I^ord,  for  he  is  good ; 
For  his  mercy  endureth  for  ever.* 

O  give  thanks  unto  him  that  maketh  to  bud  a  horn  tor  the 
house  of  David ; 
For  his  mercy  endureth  for  ever. 
O  give  thanks  unto  him  that  chose  the  sons  of  Sodok  to  be 
priests ; 
For  his  mercy  endureth  for  ever." 

I.idS  pns  'J33  inu^. 

*  Special  attention  is  due,  amongst  these,  to  those  of  the  longer 
recension,  called  'Alexandrian'  by  Ryssel ;  cf.  A.  Schlatter,  Das 
netiqc/uudntc  hebruische  Sliick  drs  Sirach.  Dcr  (ylusmttn-  dfi 
grieehiscMcn  Sirach  und  seine  .'^teliung  in  der  Geschicltte  der 
jiidischen  Theuivf/ie,  OUtersloh,  lb97  (  = '  Beitrage  zur  Fiirderung 
cbristliclier  Theologie.'  i.  5,  0).  On  the  passage  20"*T',  especially 
'  the  tower  of  death '  (=2  Mac  13^^ ;  Valerius  Maximus,  ix.  2),  see 
Nestle,  Marginalien,  p  52. 

t  On  tbe  (piotations  of  Clement  see  csp.  O.  Stiihlin,  Clement 
AlexaiuMnus  und  die  Sepluaginta  (Nurnberg,  lUOl,  I'rogr.), 
pp.  40-68  ;  note  in  18*2  puxpil. 

J  fjMMfii*  afip.  all  Greek  .SiSS ;  most  «:«ttii.  four  ««ttii  or 
Uxeirrii,  one  rmoru ;  instead  of  tarpit  Ilitzig  and  the  corrector 
of  8  ittrpiv ;  AV  '  The  plivsician  culU-'tli  off  a  long  disrase  ' ;  R V 
'It  is  a  long  disease,  the  pliysifian  mocketb';  %,  combining 
both  readings,  '  Languor  pro'lixior  gravat  medicum  ;  brevcin 
languorem  pnecidit  mediciis' ;  S  '  and  bis  bowels  the  physician 
tears '  (xnsi) ;  but,  with  Ilerkeune,  we  may  perhaps  read  KISJ 
(  =  ^«*TTu>).  Adler's  translation  of  13  ('of  course  ^uite  tenl« 
tive ')  is,  '  A  trace  of  disease  that  niaketii  the  physician  serene 
(3'nx').  It  seems  best  to  combine  the  translation  of  Ilitzig 
with  the  reading  /xmfit : '  A  little  disease  bafHcs  the  physician 


550 


SIRACH  (BOOK  OF) 


SIRACH  (BOOK  OF) 


2.  Among  former  descriptions  of  its  contents  see 
especially  T.  K.  Cheyne,  Job  and  Solomon,  or  Tlie 
Wisdom  of  the  OT,  1887,  pp.  179-198,  247  (ch.  i.  : 
Tlie  wise  man  turned  Scribe — Siracli's  moral  teach- 
ing ;  ch.  ii.  :  his  place  in  the  movement  of 
thought) ;  then  the  Introduction  of  Edersheim, 
and  now  the  article  of  C.  H.  Toy  (Eticyc.  Bibl. 
11U4-1179). 

3.  In  its  form  and  substance  the  book  is  a  fine 
example  of  Hebrew  ^otmaA-literature,  with  its 
liglits  and  shadows.  It  is  no  longer  the  propliet 
that  speaks  in  it,  neither  the  prophetic  speaker 
of  earlier  times,  nor  even  the  prophetic  writer  like 
Ezekiel  or  jMalachi ;  nor  is  it  a  j>uet  like  the  author 
of  Job ;  on  the  other  hand,  the  liahbi  of  the  Tal- 
mud has  not  yet  taken  their  place ;  there  is 
scarcely  a  trace  of  Haggadah  and  Halachah  in  the 
book.  The  author  is  full  of  respect  for  the  religious 
literature  of  the  past ;  he  knows  himself  to  be  an 
epigone,  but  nevertheless  he  dares  to  give  some- 
thing  of  his  own.  He  does  not  preach  as  yet  from 
given  texts  (."3'^  'I  awaked  up  last  of  all,  as  one 
that  gathereth  after  the  grape-gatherers ;  by  the 
blessing  of  the  Lord  I  profited  (got  ahead)  and  filled 
my  winepress  like  a  gatherer  of  grapes ' ;  cf.  also 
the  Prologue).  What  he  has  to  give  is  Hokmah, 
Wisdom,  an  outcome  of  that  Divine  Wisdom  which 
is  from  the  Lord,  and  is  with  Him  for  ever,  but 
given  by  Him  to  them  that  fear  Him,  especially 
among  His  chosen  people  Israel  (17'''''  24"^-).  But 
the  author  does  not  dwell  long  in  those  lofty 
regions,  but  turns  himself  to  the  wisdom  of  daily 
life,  gi^ang  counsels  for  all  kinds  of  emergencies, 
and  communicating  his  observations  on  men  and 
women,  rich  and  poor,  high  and  low. 

4.  The  book  has  not  received,  apparently,  its 
final  shape  ;  its  contents  at  least  are  so  varied  and 
loosely  arranged  that  it  is  difficult  to  give  a  table 
of  contcrts. 

See  tile  hea.lln^,  which  are  partially  preserved  in  the  book 
itself,  in  tlie  Cireek  text  from  IS^'^  onwards  (tyxpixTeiot  ^J'^x''^  > 

•iO^  ripi  Tixva/t  ;  16*1^1  ^paiu^r^t  ;  44'  fltcrf^,  Cu.vo;  ;  51*  llpe^tuxit 

'lr,ff*uvi6v  ^upax)j  the  capitulations  placed  before  the  bnok  in 
ancient  Greek  and  Latin  texts ;  tlie  Synopsia  of  pseudo-Chry- 
sostom  ;  the  headiji);:s  of  the  AV,  which  are  dropped  instead  of 
revised  in  the  RV  ;  careful  superscriptions  in  thc-tJernum  trans- 
lation of  Ryssel ;  the  attempts  in  the  Couim.  to  find  out  a  plan 
of  the  book. 

But  it  would  be  a  pleasant  task  to  give  more 
than  a  sketch  of  its  moral  and  religious  teachings. 

(a)  The  author's  idea  of  God  shows  an  interest- 
ing combination  of  Jewish  i>iety  and  Greek  philo- 
sophy, the  former  decidedly  predominating.  What 
Edersheim  considered,  on  account  of  its  jiantheistie 
ring,  as  a  bold  later  addition  of  the  younger  Siracide, 
namely  43"  '  We  may  speak  much  and  yet  come 
short :  wherefore  in  sum  he  is  all '  (ri  irai/  i(mv 
airrds),  is  found  in  |i|,  and  means  nothing  more  than 
that  God  is  to  be  found  in  all  His  work ;  it  does 
not  deny  His  unit}'  or  [lersonality,  which  isemplias- 
ized  by  the  new  readin<;  in  |^  42-'  '  he  is  one  from 
everlasting'  (efs  instead  of  las  or  lis  or  6s).  God  is 
the  absolute  Lord,  the  righteous  judge,  the  wise 
ruler,  rich  in  forbearance,  though  the  full  concep- 
tion of  Divine  fatherhood  finds  no  expression 
(18'»f-). 

(6)  Of  artgels  and  demons  there  is  scarcely  any 
mention,  quite  in  agreement  with  the  Sadducean 
stanilpoint  ;  the  central  idea  is  the  personified 
Wisdom,  which  is  seen  in  nature  and  history, 
especially  in  the  history  of  Israel,  first  of  all  in 
the  Law.  The  prominence  given  to  the  Law,  both 
its  moral  and  ritual  jiarts,  is  one  of  the  features 
which  distinguish  lien  Sira  from  Proverbs,  leading 
over  to  the  later  Kabbinism.  But  from  the  latter 
our  autlior  is  far  removed,  especially  in  his  attitude 
towards  the  heathen  world.  He  does  not  despise 
it,   like  the   Pharisees,   nor  does  be  expect  any 


special  manifestation  of  Jahweh  for  the  benefit  of 
His  people  or  the  conversion  of  the  nations.  Aa 
regards  the  individual,  he  speaks  neither  of  the 
resurrection  of  the  body  nor  of  the  immortality  of 
the  soul— dSafoffia  occurs  only  in  the  glossed  text 
ly'**  yvuiffis  ivToKCiv  Kvpiou  TraiSeia  i'u>/}s,  ol  0^  TroiOufTei 
Ta  dpeara  adri^  dOavaaias  ohdpov  Kapirouvrtu  ;  see  on 
this  point  especially  Schlatter,  pp.  110,  170; — of 
death  and  Sheol  be  thinks  like  the  psalmists. 

5.  A  much  larger  space  is  taken  up  in  the  book 
by  the  ethical  ami  social  teachings.  Through  their 
pointed  form  many  of  lien  Sira's  sayings  have 
remained  popular.  Mucli,  of  course,  is  to  be 
taken  cnm  grano  salts ;  to  guard  against  mis- 
understanding, the  glosses  liave  been  added  in 
MSS  like  248,  253.  The  author  is  '  generally 
acute,  sometimes  a  little  cynical,  never  pessimistic' 
(Toy,  I.e.  1178).  Most  unfavourable  is  his  judg- 
ment on  the  female  sex  (25''"'-) ;  friendly  is  that  on 
physicians  (ch.  38) ;  he  does  not  despise  wine  and 
music.  A  great  rdle  is  played  by  money  matters 
and  trade ;  but  almsgiving  is  the  chief  part  of 
righteousness,  and  readiness  to  forgive  is  a  primary 
condition  of  obtaining  Divine  forgiveness.  In 
some  of  his  precepts  he  comes  near  to  those  of  the 
gospel ;  the  Golden  Rule,  however,  does  not  occur. 
No  wonder  that  this  book  was  used  in  the  Church, 
especially  for  instruction  of  the  young,  almost  like 
a  catechism  of  morals  and  religion  (Soth  Can. 
Apost.),  and  that  Augustine  embodied  so  many  of 
its  sayings  in  his  Speculum.  In  modern  times 
one  of  the  few  attempts  made  in  England  to 
employ  its  teaching  for  religious  instruction  is 
the  small  selection  published  by  E.  J.  Edwards, 
Sclwol  Lessons  from  Ecclcsiasticus  (1853).  It  is  to 
be  hoped  that,  when  the  critical  questions  about 
the  book  are  settled,  it  may  gain  in  popularity. 

Note.— I75E  OF  THE  BOOK  IN  TBE  Christian  Cbubch—OL 
Daubnev,  The  Use  of  the  Apocr.  in  the  Christian  Church 
(London,  1900).  For  the  use  of  Sirach  in  NT,  he  comjiarea 
about  20  passages,  e.g.  Mt  fiH  with  24"-,  61"  with  29'3,  lu-"^  with 
32'-^.  On  Lk  117  Eeni^el  quoted  iS^^  and  remarked:  *Minime 
proletarium  esse  SiraL-idaj  librum,  convenientia  eius  cum  an^eli 
sermone  docet."  For  the  Kpistle  of  James,  J.  R  Mayor  (lsy7) 
collected  thirty-two  resemblances  to  Sirtwsh.  The  qutsiion 
whether  St.  Paul  did  not  quote  from  the  Hebrew  Sirach  In 
1  Co  15-"'  has  been  raised  by  Miiller  ('  zam  Sirachproblem,'  in 
the  Orientalistische  Literaturzcitung,  June  1900). 

Early  Christian  writers  made  such  extensive  use  of  Wisdom, 
Sirach,  and  liaruch  that  they  ai>pear  more  familiar  with  them 
than  with  several  books  of  the  NT.  Allusions  to  Sirach  may  1)6 
discovered  in  Polycarp,  L  (tS^'  SO) ;  Didache,  iv.  6  (43') ;  un- 
doubted quotations  from  Sirach  occur  in  Barnabas,  Teitulli;in, 
etc. ;  Eusebius  introduces  a  quotation  from  32»  by  the  formula: 

iioacxtiXM  ;t^wa£>c,-  irxpayyiyfiari  6t.^  5j5a^««,Ti  (Z)f7ft.  Ev.  I.  i-X 
On  the  use  made  of  Sirach  in  the  Roman  Church  (Brevian.-  and 
Missal)  see  \V.  Schenz,  Einleitung  in  die  katuinischen  liiicher 
des  alien  'I'cMamentes  (Regensburg,  18S7,  409).  In  Britain, 
Alfred  (t  lOOi)  seems  to  have  been  the  first  writer  to  make  any 
investigations  touching  the  Canon,  especially  the  two  booki 
Wisd.  and  Sirach,  '  placed  with  Solomon's  works  as  if  he  iiiada 
them  ;  which  for  likeness  of  style  and  profitable  use  have  j^oue 
for  his  ;  but  Jesus  the  Sun  of  Sirach  composed  them  ...  v  cry 
large  books  and  read  in  the  church,  of  long  custom,  for  niu'-h 
good  instruction."  In  the  Prayer-Book  of  1649  there  were  108 
daily  lessons  from  the  Apocrj-pha  ;  that  of  l.'>52  had  110,  that  of 
l;")js  had  125.  On  the  use  of  Sirach  in  the  'Homilies'  see 
Daubney,  p.  67  ;  on  that  made  by  English  dinnes,  p.  71  ff.  To 
Archbishop  Whitgift  (t  n:04),  who  (Icclarcd  the  Apocrypha  '  Parte 
of  the  Bible,'  and  gave  command  for  them  to  be  bound  up  with 
the  Bible,  Drusius  dedicated  his  edition  of  Sirach  (1590). 

LiTBEATURB.  —  Only  a  selection  can  be  given.  L  Commen- 
taries :  Camerarius,  i)rusius,  lirelschneider  (see  p.  643),  tiruliu* 
(best  e<lition  :  Hug.  Grolii  Annotationes  in  VT,  curavit  (Ua 
Jo.  Lu.  Vogel,  Hala),  t  iii  1780,  pp.  03-230, 4to),  Cornelius  a  Lai.id* 
(Antw.  10ci4  f. ;  often,  at  last  Paris,  1869  f.),  tVitzsche  (Kg/, 
exrg.  II db.  zu  den  Apokryphen,  vol.  iii.  1859),  E.  C.  Bissel 
(The  Apocrypha,  New  Vork,  18S0);  the  place  of  a  Commentary  to 
tilled  bv  the  Notes  in  the  Variorum  Apocrtipha,  ed.  by  C.  J. 
Ball  (Eyre  &  Spottiswoode,  no  date);  Edersheim  (in  W  ace, 
'  Apocri-pha,'  see  p.  639i'),  Zockler  (in  Strack-Zockler's  Kqf.  Koin- 
vieiuar,  1891,  weak  in  textual  criticism),  Ed.  Reuss,  ms  .4U« 
Testament  Hbenetzt  (voL  vi  1894,  p.  289  £f.),  Ryssel  (m  '  Die 
Apokrvphen  und  Pseudepigraphen  des  AT  .  .  .  liberseut  una 
herausgegeben  von  E.  Kautzsch,'  i.  1900,  pp.  230-475). 

2.  Monographs :  Tctcns,  Disquisitiones  qenerales  in  Sapien- 
tiam  Jet.  Sir.,  Hauniie,  1779;  B.  G.  w'iner,  D«  utriusgru 
Siracida  ataU,  Erlangen,  1832;  H.  Ewald,  'Uber  das  gne 


SIRAH 


SISERA 


651 


Ihlscbe  Spruchhurh  Jesus'  des  Sohnes  Siraohs,'  In  Bibluche 
Jahrlmcher,  iii.  n»l  :  ct  («>«  ■A../i(<'  Israrla,  if.  340  If.); 
V»Uiiuk'er  in  ^K,  Iso",  93ff.  ;  A.  iicii;i.r,  '  Wuruiii  gehort  Sirach 
lu  den  Apoknphtir  {ZDllG  xiL  llsiSl  yMO.);  Horowitz 
'Dm  liuch  Jesus  Siracli,'  in  iloiMlsichriJt  /lir  Ueschichtf  i/nd 
Wiunuiclia/t  del  J  uilriUhuiris,  xiv.  and  8eparatc(lire8lau,  1885); 
H.  Unitz,  '  Uie  Suline  des  Tobias,  die  Uellciiisleu  und  der 
Sliruclidichter  Siracli'  (ib.  1872);  A.  Aslier.  Inlrud.  au  tivre  de 
rliccl^tiattique  (Strassb.  13U1) ;  Merguct,  Vie  Glaubens-  und 
SillenU/ire  Je>  BucJia  Jettu  Sirach  (Konigsberg,  i.,  1874 ;  ii., 
iwl);  Scliginann,  Dm  BucIi  der  Wrifheit  det  Jtmt  Sohn  da 
Hirach  (Jojsua  ben  iira)  m  irim-m  Verhullniis  zu  den  saiomon- 
itchen  Spruchen  imrf  seiiier  ItUtorisehm  Uedeulung  (Breslau^ 
18S3) ;  F.  E.  Dauhanton,  '  Uet  apokr>-phe  boek  2;«;.«  'lyitrau  vttu 
2,a«r  endeleertvpedaarinven'at'(iu  Theol.  Ultulim,  18S0-1887). 
3.  On  the  m'Uuu  of  the  Book :  Dahne,  DarXellung  Oct 
jwlUch-aiezatuirinuichm  Retijionsphilumphie  (1837);  J.  F. 
Bruch,  WeL<lititslehre  der  H ebrcirr  (isil);  Kaure,  La  sanesse 
dintte  dans  la  litl^ralure  didaclufxi^  det  Uibrrux  et  deiJmfi 

(Moiitaulian,  Inauf.  Uiss.  190U,  73  pp.). 

4  On  questions  of  textual  criticism  :  B.  Bendtsen  (see  p.  548*) ; 
E.  O.  Ben^-el  (see  p.  6451') ;  J.  Fr.  Gaab,  De  lucis  quxbusdam 
tenlentiarum  Jem  SiraciiUe  (TubingiB,  1799),  and  Versio 
eanninuin  uuorundam  Arabicorum  .  .  .  cum  animadversxonv- 
but  ad  unlentiat  Jefu  Siracidce  (Tiib.  181l)i;  Uyserinck,  De 
SpretUcen  ron  Jeatu  den  Zoon  can  6'iracA  (1S70);  Edw.  Hatch, 
•on  the  text  o(  Ecclcsiasticus,'  in  Etsaijs  in  Uildical  (Jrn-k, 
ISsfl.  pp.  248-282;  Elj.  Nestle,  .War;finaii«i  (Tub.  ISiO,  p.  4811.); 
I'h.  Thielmann, '  Die  lattniische  Debersetzunitdis  Duches  Sirach,' 
iu  ArclUv  Jur  tat.  LrxiKmjraiMe,  viii.  6lil-i01  (1803),  and 
•  Die  curopiiischen  BcsUndtheile  den  lateinischen  Sirach '(id.  ix. 
ISiKii;  H.  Hcrkenne, />«  Veteris  Lafince  EccUtsia^tici  capitibus 
i.-xlii'i.  Una  ram  notix  ex  eiasdein  lihri  translatimibus 
<j'(Ai.i/iVa,  anneniaca,  copticU,  la!i7ul  altera,  tttru-hexaplari 
drpr.m.jjiis  (Leipzig,  1899),  and  "Die  Textiilierliuferung  des 
Duches  Sirach,'  in  HUjlisdie  Studien,  ed.  Bardenhewer,  \i.  1,  2 
(1901),  129  140;  Norb.  Peters,  "Die  sahidisch-koptische  Ueber 
Betziiii'.;  des  Buches  E<_-clesiasticus  auf  ihren  wahren  Werth  flir 
die  Textkritik  untersm-lit"  (*.  iii.  3  [1895]). 

.■;.  On  the  Alphabet  of  Ben  Sini  cf.  I.  Low,  Aramdieche 
i'<onj<-nmim«n(Lcip!:ii,-,  1881,  pp.  'iff.,  417)." 

8.  Literature  since  the  discovery  of  the  Hebrew  texts :  On  the 
puiilication  o(  the  text*  by  Schechter,  C'owley-.N'eubauer  (Siuend, 
l,evi),  Schechter-Taylor,  G.  Margoliouth,  I.  Levi,  E.  N.  Adler, 
Schechter,  Caster,  sec  above,  p.  54(j'>.  The  Hjrpuftlnnj  Times, 
\o\.  vii.,  has  two,  voL  viii.  again  tvio  references  to  Sirach  (p.  2152, 
a  review  of  Uogg  on  C-N),  vol.  ix.  one,  vol.  x.  seven,  vol.  xi. 
tweiitv-four  such  references  (by  the  editor,  Kuiiig,  D.  S. 
Mir  iliouth,  8.  Schechter,  J.  A.  Selbie,  I.  Alirahams,  Eh. 
N.  .  • .  U.  Taylor,  W.  Bacher).  The  record  of  'Theological  and 
.-i.  ii./ic-  Literature  for  the  year  1900,'  publislled  liy  Musa-Arnolt 
(Chii.Mfc'o,  llKXJ),  enumerates  thirty  papers,  published  (1900)  in 
tweiitv-two  different  periodicals.  See  also  JQR:  Adler, 
llarkavy,  D.  S.  Margoliouth,  Levi,  Schechter,  Tyler;  /.'A'.'; 
Bacher,  Chajes,  Laiiiiiert,  L.ivi  ;  ZATtt' :  Bacher,  Nbldeke; 
Jill:  Condauiin,  Oriinme,  Touzard.  Ed.  Konig,  in  addition  to 
his  lupcrs  in  the  lixj>oi:it:>ri(  Timeii,  which  were  pulilished 
«ep.initclv  in  Oemian  (Die  Orininatitdt  des  neiUicli  enuhrklni 
Siraclilizles),  wrote  in  four  other  iieriodicals.  Cf.,  further,  in 
.Minuf-Arnolt,  pp.  S2-34,  the  names:  Bulil,  Klournoix,  llalevy, 
Uoul.xina,  M^cbineaux,  NoordtziJ,  rctcrs,  Byssel  (in  .S/i,  !9(Kl, 
3,  4,  19"1,  1,  2,  4,  a  very  careful  comparison  of  lb  with  <S  ar.d  S, 
to  be  continued),  Schlogl,  Strauss,  Wilson,  Zcnner.  U.  UaenUf  A, 
In  'J'heol.  Jahresb.  tor  1900,  notes  01  books  or  papers  on  Sirach. 
Even  on  the  Strophic  structure  ot  Sirach  several  papers  have 
liecn  published  by  H.  Orinmic  (at  first  in  lili,  1900-1901 ;  llieri 
separatclv,  Leipzi;,',  Harrassowitz) ;  by  Norb.Tt  Peters  (Thrnl. 
I^iuirlals'chri/I,  lUDO,  pp.  180-19:1) ;  f  by  Nivard  S^-lilogl  in  ZDMO 
lili.  (IsW.O.pp.  (i<iil-0s2,  and/i'ci;;i'»ia<(icu*(:i»'--lli"i;up>>ar(i/icni(. 
et  metr.  infonnam  originalem  rMactus,  Wieli,  1901,  xxxv.72,4to. 
It  will  be  a  long  time  before  all  the  questions  connected  with 
Sirach  are  settledand  a  critical  edition  becomes  pos.sible 

Eb.  Nfjstle. 

SIRAH,  The  Well  of  (n-ipn  ■i\3 ;  BA  t6  (pp^ap  toO 
Zeeipdfi.,  Luc.  Xeeipd). — Tlie  place  at  wliicli  .loab's 
mesBcngers  overtook  Abner,  and  brought  him  liack 
to  Hebron,  where  lie  wa.s  a-ssa-ssinateJ  bj-  Joab  (2  S 
3";  .Jos.  Ant.  VII.  i.  5,  l?7)iT<pd).  It  lay  on  the  road 
from  Hebron  to  Jerusalem,  and  is  now  probalily 
'Ain  Hdrah,  near  Hebron,  the  '  spring'  ('ain)  having 
taken  the  place  of  the  'well'  (bir).  The  spring 
Buw»  from  a  spout  into  a  small  tank,  and  stands 
liack  from  the  road  in  a  little  alley  with  walls  of 
dry  stone  on  either  side  (I'EF  Mem.  iii.  314). 

C.  W.  Wilson. 

SIRION  {tiv  in  Dt  3» ;  plv'  MT  and  haer,  but 
Mieli.  p-!»',  in  Pa  21)").— The  name  said  to  be  given 

•  N'cbuchadnezzar  wishes  to  know  whether  Ben  Sira  is  a 
piophet,  and  a.ik«  of  him  the  number  of  trees  in  the  royal 
ganlens.  Ben  Sira  answers  that  there  are  thirty  kinds  :  of  ten 
the  whole  fruit  may  be  ealen ;  of  ten  the  kernel;  of  ten  the 
outer  narta.  Low  gives  the  list,  which  is  found  also  in  the 
Bund'heah,  on  the  basis  of  five  text«. 

1  A  great  work  on  Sirach  by  Norbert  Peters  lj  advertised  for 
laoi  by  Herder  ot  Freiburg. 


by  the  Zidonians  to  .Mr.  Hermon,  Dt  3»  CZavuL-p). 
Like  Senik,  it  may  have  originally  been  the  desig- 
nation of  a  particuhtr  part  of  the  mountain.  In 
I's  '2'/,  where  Sirion  is  coupled  with  Lebanon,  the 
LXX  (confusing  with  \i-\v'  Je-^/iurun  ;  cf.  its  render- 
ing in  Dt  32'^  33'-  ^,  Is  44*)  reads  o  rryaTrrjiUvos. 

SISERA  («!;•? ;  2ei<rapd,  meaning  doubtful ;  cf. 
AssjT.,  sasiir  'progeny,' — Sayce,  Hibbert  Lecti.  373. 
Ball,  Light  from  the  East,  s.v.,  gives  the  As.syr. 
form  sUseru,  seseru,  'child.'     Moore,  Judges,  112, 
thinks  that  the  name  is  not  Semitic,  and  compares 
Hittite  names  endin"  in  -sira,  5tasira,  Maiirasira, 
etc., — W.  Max  MUUer,  Asien  u.  Europa,  332). — 
1.  Jg  4  and  5,   1  S   12»,   Ps  83".     The  hisUiry  of 
Sisera  is  told  in  a  poetic  (Jg  5)  and  a  prose  form 
(.Jg  4).      In  the  main  particulars  both  agree,  but 
they  differ  considerably  on  some  important  points. 
The  Song  of  Deborah,  as  being  nearer  in  date  to 
the  events  recorded,  must  be  treated  as  the  more 
authentic  source.    (1)  In  4*"'^  Jabin,  king  of  Ilazor, 
is  introduced  into  the  history  of  Sisera.     He  is  not 
mentioned  in  ch.  5,  he  takes  no  part  in  the  battle, 
and  his  city  Hazor,  \l=^Mcrj  Hadire  (or  near  it),  a 
little  S.  of  Kedesh  and  W.  of  the  lake  of  IJuleh, 
is  far  away  from  the  scene  of  the  conflict,  and 
brings  imjiossible  situations    into  the   narrative. 
Sisera  is  throughout  the  actual  and  independent 
leader  ;  his  forces  are  his  own  (cf.  4"  with  4") ;  to 
slay  hini  is  to  carry  off  the  honours  of  the  tight 
(4").     This  Jabin-tradition  is  of  the  same  charac- 
ter as  the  fragments  preserved  in  Jg  1,  and  forms 
the  ba-sis  of  the  history  in  Jos  II'-"[JE].    How  it 
came  to  be  combined  with  the  Sisera-tradition  is 
not  clear ;  perhaps  because   both  were  concerned 
with   lighting   in    Upper  Palestine,   and    because 
the  nortliern  tribes  and  Canaanites  -were  the  com- 
batants in  both  cases.*    The  combination  must  be 
earlier  than  the  work  of  the  redactor  (4'-^- ■">■»«• 
1*1.  -.21.  -^4)^  ^viiQ  provided  the  narrative  with  an  intro- 
duction and  conclusion  (vv.'-*-  '•^'•),  and  gave  Jabin, 
who  is  called  merely  king  of  Hazor  in  v.",  the  un- 
historical  title  of  'king  of  Caniuan'  (4-- ="'•).     It  is 
noticeable  that  1  S  12*  and  Ps  83"  imply  the  com- 
bination of  the  Jabin-  and  Sisera-traditions.     (2) 
In  order  to  harmonize  these,  Sisera  had  to  be  made 
the  general  of  .labin's  army  (4'''-  ') ;  and  this  must 
liave  been  done  before  the  redactor  dealt  with  the 
narrative.     (3)  The  campaign  is  on  a  larger  scale 
in  ch.  5  than  in  ch.  4.    In  the  former  Sisera  appears 
at  tlie   head  of  a  federation  of  Canaanite  kings 
(5'°),  and  attacks  the  six  tribes  bordering  on  the 
Central  Plain.     In  ch.  4  only  Naphtali  and  Zebu- 
lun   are  engaged  (v.") ;  the  mention  of  tlie.se  two 
tribes  only  and  of  Kedesli  their  headquarters  (v.'") 
was  probably  an  element  in  the  Jabin-story.     (4) 
The  scene  of  the  battle  in  o"  is  the  left  bank  of 
the   Kislion ;    this   implies   that  Barak   advanced 
against  Sisera  from  the  S.W.  and  fell  upon  him 
from  the  Carmel  range.     In  4'--  '•■  Barak  attacks 
the   Canaanites  from  Mt.   Tabor,  and  the  battle 
apparently  takes  place  at  its  foot,    (o)  The  accounts 
ol  Siseia's  murder  present  a  striking  divergence. 
In  ch.  .5  Jael,  by  an  ingenious  stratagem,  kills  him 
with  a  tent-mallet  while  he  is  sUinding  and  drink- 
ing out  of  a  deep  bowl ;  in  ch.  4  slie  hammers  a 
tent-peg  through  his  temples  while  he  lies  asleep 
in  her  tent.     Some  explain  this  divergence  as  a 
prosaic  misunderstanding   of    the   iiarallelism    of 
.')-"  (so  Wellhauscn,   Composition  222;   Kobertson 
Smith,  OTJC  132),  but  it  is  more  likely  to  be  due 
to  a  different  tradition.     One  important  detail  is 
proserved  in  ch.  4  alone— that  Sisera's  stronghold 
wa.s  yaroslieth  hag-goyim  (4'^-  '*"•).    'Phis  place  has 
been   plausibly   identiiicd   with  cl-IJ((rit/it!/eh,   on 

•  Budde  (Richter  u.  Samuel,  00)  thinks  that  the  person  of 
Barak  was  the  link  which  connected  the  two,  and  that  tndl- 
tioD  ascribed  both  victories  to  hlni  (cf.  Jo*.  Ant.  7.  T  <X 


t)52 


SISINNES 


SLANDER 


the  right  bank  of  tlie  Kishon,  commanding  tlie 
road  from  the  Central  Plain  to  the  sea.  Perhaps 
41s.  16  imply  tliat  I;Iaroshetli  was  at  some  distance 
from  the  battlefield ;  so  the  identification  cannot 
be  called  certain,  and  the  resemblance  of  the 
names,  thou^li  philologically  correct,  may  be  ac- 
cidental (see  Buhl,  GAP  2^).  See  arts.  DEBORAH 
and  Jaiiin. 

2.  A  family  of  the  Nethinim,  Ezr  2'^  (B  om.,  A 
^Kepad,  Luc  i^KTapd),  Neh  7"  (B  ^mtipdO,  A  ^eaiapid, 

Luc.  om.).  G.  A.  Cooke. 

SISINNES  [Zi<Thp7,s).—The  governor  (firopxos)  of 
Coele-SjTia  and  Phoenicia  under  iJarius,  and  a 
contemporary  of  Zerub.,  1  Es  o^-'-'  7'.  In  Ezr  5', 
etc.,  he  is  called  Tattenai,  'the  governor  (nri?)  be- 
yond the  river,'  i.e.  satrap  of  the  whole  of  Syria 
west  of  the  Euphrates. 

SISMAI  {'zw,  BA  2offo/io{,  Luc.  2aaa/te/).— A 
Jerahmeelite,  1  Ch  2*'>. 

SISTER See  Family. 

SITH. — The  Anglo-Sax.  prep,  sith  (originally  an 
adverb= '  after ')  with  tlie  pron.  dam  =  them,  formed 
siththan  '  after  that '  ( =  Ger.  seitdcm).  Then 
siththan  was  contracted  to  sithen,  which  again 
became  sometimes  Hth  and  sometimes  sin.  The 
adv.  suffix  s  being  added  to  sithen  gave  middle 
Eng.  sitheiis,  afterwards  spelt  sithence  to  keep  the 
s  sharp  in  pronunciation,  like  pem-c  for  pens,  dice 
for  dies ;  and  this  was  contracted  to  since,  the 
contraction  being  helped  by  the  form  sin.  'Sith' 
was  used  as  a  prep.,  an  adv.,  or  a  conjunction. 
Thus  as  adv..  Wye.  Works,  iii.  114,  '  Ffyrst  they 
trow  in  the  Ffadyr,  for  he  ys  fyrst  persone  ;  aftyr 
they  trow  in  Jesus  Crist,  be  dyvers  artyclys ;  and 
svtthe  they  trow  in  the  Holy  Gost';  as  prep., 
Knox,  Works,  iii.  278,  '  Transubstantiation,  the 
byrde  that  the  Devel  hatched  by  Pope  Nicolas, 
and  sythe  that  time  fostered  and  nurryshed  by  al 
his  children';  and  as  conj.,  Berner,  Froissart, 
Pref.,  'Among  all  other  I  read  diligently  the  four 
volumes  or  books  of  sir  John  Froissart  of  the 
country  of  Hainault,  written  in  the  French  tongue, 
which  I  judged  commodious,  necessary  and  profit- 
able to  be  h.ad  in  English,  sith  they  treat  of  the 
famous  acts  done  in  our  parts.' 

'Sith'  occurs  in  AV  1611  in  Jer  15'  23'«,  Ezk 
35«,  Zee  4i°'°^-,  2  Es  7'"',  and  Ko  5'"»""''«,  and 
'  sitheuce '  in  2  Es  lO''.  As  early  as  1616  '  sith- 
ence'  was  changed  into  'since,'  and  'sith'  was 
in  time  changed  (by  Paris  or  Blayney)  into  the 
same  mod.  form  in  all  places  except  fizk  35",  Ko 
5  bead  For  '  sithence  '  of.  Lk  20'=  Khem.  'In  the 
resurrection  therefore,  whose  wife  shal  she  be 
of  them  ?  sithens  the  seven  had  her  to  wife.' 
'Sith'  often  occurs  in  the  Psalms  in  metre,  viz. 
16»  22'  ai*  33=1  50"  (both  versions)  73"'  S(i^  100-> 
IIQ'"',  always  as  a  conjunction.        J.  Hastings. 

SITHRI  (-i,iD  ;  B  2e7pd,  A  -ZaOpd,  Luc.  2£T/.I).— A 
grandson  of  Kohath,  Ex  0~  (P). 

SITNAH  (n;?i7  '  enmity' ;  'Ex^pia  ;  Inimiciticc).— 
The  second  well  dug  by  the  servants  of  Isaac,  and 
for  which  they  strove  with  the  herdmen  of  Gerar 
(Gn  26-').  The  name  of  the  well  is  derived  by  J 
from  the  disputes  over  its  construction.  The  site 
is  unknown,  but  it  is  supposed  to  have  been  in  the 
valley  of  Gerar,  though  this  is  not  distinctly 
stated  in  the  narrative.  Palmer  (PEFSt,  1871, 
p.  35)  finds  a  reminiscence  of  the  name  in  Shutnct 
er-Rnkeiheh,  a  small  valley  near  Kuheibeh  (Reho- 
both).  Riehm  {HWB)  apparently  means  the  same 
place,  which  he  calls  Wddy  ah-Shetein. 

C.  W.  Wilson. 


SIYAN 


-The  third  month,  according  to  th» 


later  (Babylonian)  mode  of  reckoning.     See  TI.ME. 

SKILL. — Skill  comes  from  a  Scand.  root  meaninj 
to  separate,  discern,  and  means  discernment,  under- 
standing. The  verb  to  skill,  i.e.  to  discern  or 
understand,  has  now  gone  out  of  use,  but  occurs  in 
AV  in  1  K  5^  '  There  is  not  among  us  any  that 
can  skill  (so  RV,  Amer.  RV  '  knoweth  how ')  to 
hew  timber,'  2  Ch  2'- "  (all  vi;  to  know),  and  2  Ch 
34'-  '  all  that  could  skill  of  (Amer.  RV  '  were 
skilful  with ')  instruments  of  musick '  (\'Z7t  to 
be  skilled  in,  Hiphil  of  ps  to  separate,  under- 
stand). Cf.  Milton,  Areopag.  (Hates'  ed.  p.  39), 
'  A  wealthy  man  addicted  to  his  pleasure  and  to 
his  profits  finds  Religion  to  be  a  traitick  so  entangl'd 
and  of  so  many  piddling  accounts,  that  of  all 
mj'steries  he  cannot  skill  to  keep  a  stock  going 
ujion  that  trade';  Elyot,  Goccrnour,  ii.  181, 
'  Whether  he  be  a  gentyll  man  or  yoman,  a  r3-che 
man  or  a  poore,  if  he  sitte  nat  suerly  and  can  skill 
of  ridynge,  the  horse  casteth  him  quickely ' ;  and 
Lk  12'*  Tind.  '  Ypocrites,  ye  can  skyll  of  the 
fassion  of  the  erth  and  of  the  skye.' 

J.  Hastings. 

SKULL,  PLACE  OF  A.— See  Golgotha. 

SLANDER  or  EVIL-SPEAKING  (noun  ny\,  from 
i-'ii]  'glide';  verbs  [i?'^],  lit.  'use  the  tongue'; 
^y~i,  lit.  'slink  about,'  and  other  roots.  Greek 
p\a(T<prip.4u,  'speak  injuriously';  adj.  and  subst. 
fSXdaipiji^os ;  subst.  f}\a<T(pTip.ia  ;  Sta^dWu,  '  throw 
over,'  '  slander' ;  5id}io\os,  adj.,  and  subst.  6  Sio^oXos 
=  ;2i;n). — This  sin,  of  which  the  tongue  is  the  organ 
(Pr  18-',  Ja  3®"),  springs  from  the  heart,  as  the 
seat  of  inner  life  (Mt  l^^^-  ^  15i»,  Mk  7-',  Lk  6«). 
As  a  rule,  its  mental  feature  is  falsehood  (Pr  10" 
12"  14=- 25)  and  its  emotional  hate  (1  P  2') ;  but  even 
truth  may  be  circulated  from  motives  of  malice, 
and  falsehood  may  be  told  simply  from  a  perverse 
pleasure  in  lying.  Hence  all  tale-bearing,  whether 
false  and  ill-tempered  or  not,  is  blameworthy  and 
injurious  (Lv  19",  Pr  11'^  26™  18»,  Ezk  22"). 
Against  slander  and  evil  -  speaking,  from  which 
arises  much  strife  (Pr  16-'''^  30'°),  warnings  abound 
in  the  OT  (Ps  34'^  Pr  15=«  302=  24=^)  as  in  the  NT 
(Eph  431,  Col  3s,  Ja  4",  1  P  3"),  and  threats  of 
punishment  are  not  wanting,  alike  from  God  (Pa 
50'»--2  109-'»  140",  Pr  S'^  21-")  and  from  man  (Ps  lOP, 
Pr  19' ;  cf.  Ro  3*).  Slander  is  a  sign  of  moral 
corruption  (Jer  &^  9*,  2  Ti  3^).  As  angels  abstain 
from  all  reviling  (2  P  2",  Jude  *),  so  proneness  to 
slander  is  regarded  as  disqualifying  for  citizenship 
in  the  Hebrew  commonwealth  (Ps  15^  24^)  and  for 
membership  or  office  in  the  Christian  Church 
(Tit2^  1  Ti  3").  Instances  of  slander  are  recorded 
(2  S  19",  Dn  3^  Neh  6",  Ezr  4'')  against  persons, 
and  even  against  a  land  (Nu  13^-  14*').  Among 
other  forms  of  persecution  to  which  the  pious  in 
Israel  were  exposed  was  slander  (Ps  31'^  41'  27" 
35",  Jer  20'°),  from  which  also  the  members  of  the 
Christian  Church  (1  P  2"  4''),  and  especially  the 
apostles,  suffered  (Ac  19"  24'  28",  2  Co  6*),  even  aa 
Christ  Himself  did  (Lk  2**,  Mk  9'\  Mt  11"'),  and 
as  He  foretold  tliat  they  would  (Mt  5'|,  Lk  6--). 
Christians  are  Avarncd  to  give  no  occasion  for  it 
(Tit  2»  3=,  1  P  3"),  as  thereby  they  may  bring 
discredit  on  the  gospel  and  the  Church  (Ro  14'* ; 
cf.  Ro  2^,  2  P  2-,  Tit  2»,  1  Ti  G').  Among  charges 
later  brought  against  them  falsely  were  cannibal- 
ism, incest,  atheism,  hatred  of  human  race,  licen- 
tious orgies.  When  sufl'ering  from  such  slander 
innocently,  they  are  urged  to  bear  with  patience 
(1  P  3";  cf.  1  Co  4'2)  even  as  Christ  did  (1  P  2^; 
cf.  Mt  27*",  Mk  15**,  Jn  9-"),  and  even  to  rejoice 
therein  (1  P  4"). 

False  witness  is  but  slander  carried  into  a  court 
of  justice,  and  against  this  sin  the  ninth  command- 


SLAVE,  SLAVERY 


SMYKXA 


653 


ment  is  directed  (Ex  20"  ;  cf.  23',  Dt  5»).  Its 
pruvaleiice  in  the  Kast  (Ezr  4",  Lk  3"  19*)  necessi- 
tated great  severity  in  punishing  it,  and  in  tlie 
IVntateucU  the  law  of  retaliation  is  literally 
enforced  regarding  it  (Dt  19'*"'").  To  avoid  mis- 
carriage of  justice,  the  testimony  of  one  person 
was  nut  accepted  as  auflicieiit  by  the  Jewish  law 
(Nu  35*',  Dt  IT''  19"),  and  this  rule  was  adopte<l  in 
the  Christian  Church  (2  Co  13',  1  Ti  5"* ;  cf.  Mt  IS'"). 
When  the  charge  involved  a  death  sentence,  the 
witnesses  liad  to  be  first  in  carrying  it  out  (Dt  17' ; 
cf.  Ac  7").  Yet  false  witnesses  could  be  found 
(l)n  6«,  1  K  21'°),  as  against  Jesus  (Mt  2f)»»- «», 
Mk  I4»-"),  Stephen  (Ac  6'^),  and  Paul  (Ac  24'^). 

The  heinousness  of  slander  is  shown  by  the  use 
of  the  same  lir.  word  in  NT  for  sins  of  specc  li 
against  God  and  man  (Mt  27^,  Lk  23^»  22<»,  Ac  13" 
18"  20",  1  Ti  1-=",  Tit  3-,  Ja  2") ;  by  our  Lords 
warning  about  the  unpardonable  sin  (Mt  12-", 
Mk  3",  Lk  12'") ;  and  by  the  name  6  5id/3o\os,  given 
to  the  spirit  of  evil,  who  is  represented  as  playing 
the  part  of  slanderer  against  .fob  (Job  1°'"),  Josliua 
the  high  priest  (Zee  3'),  and  Christians  (Kev  12'"). 

A.  E.  Garvie. 

SLAVE,  SLAVERY.— See  Servant. 

SLAVONIC  VERSIONS.— See  Veksions. 

SLEIGHT.— Eph  4><  'By  the  sleight  of  men'  ((?v 
TT)  Ku,iti(f  [  Tiscli.  WH  Kvj3i<f]  Twv  dvOpunroii',  lit.  '  by 
tile  (iiee-playing  of  men,'  from  avjios,  a  cube,  die). 
Tindale  translates  '  by  the  wylynes  of  men,'  which 
is  tlie  meaning  of  AV  '  sleight.'  It  is  of  the  same 
root  as  '  sly,'  as  if  for  slt/th  =  '  slyness.'  Cf.  Ridley, 
Works,  31,  'The  slcigiits  and  shifts  which  craft 
and  wit  can  invent';  Tymme's  Calvin's  Gencsii, 
5<)9,  '  Nowe,  seeing  a  lye  is  damnable  of  it  selfe, 
therein  she  sinned  the  more,  that  she  durst  iiso 
such  decciveable  slightes  in  so  holy  a  matter.' 
But  the  word  properly  means  a  device,  and  may 
be  used  in  a  good  sense,  as  Udall's  Erasmus' 
Paraph,  i.  lOG,  '  If  this  invencion  and  sleight  be 
brought  unto  your  presidente,  we  will  perswade 
liyni,  and  deliver  you  from  all  daunger  of  this 
matter';  Elyot,  Govemour,  i.  173,  'It  hath  ben 
Bene  that  the  waiker  persone  by  the  sleight  of 
wrastlyng,  hath  overthrowen  the  stronger.  We 
Btill  have  the  phrase  'sleight  of  hand.' 

The  adverb  sleightly  is  used  in  tlie  Preface  to 
AV,  'Now,  when  the  father  of  their  Church,  who 
gladly  would  healc  the  soarc  of  thedaugliter  of  his 
pcoide  softly  and  sli'ightly,  and  make  the  best  of 
It,  findeth  so  great  fault  with  (litm  for  their  oddes 
and  jarring,  we  hope  the  children  have  no  great 
cause  to  vaunt  of  their  uniformitie.' 

There  is  no  connexion  cither  in  origin  or  mean- 
ing with  'slight,'  'slightly,'  which  means  originally 

•flat,' 'smuuth.'  J.Hastings. 

SLIME.— See  Bitu.men  and  MoUTAR. 

SLING  (y^i5  keln',  <r(pcyS6yri). — A  weapon  used  by 
the  Hebrews,  Eg3'ptians,  As.syrians,  and  other 
Ea.stern  nations,  from  whom  it  passed  over  to  the 
later  Greeks.  During  the  best  days  of  Bome, 
Blingcrs  appeared  only  among  the  foreign  auxili- 
aries —  Greek,  Syrian,  and  African.  We  know 
nothing  delinite  concerning  the  form  of  the  Hebrew 
sling,  but  on  the  Assyr.  reliefs  slings  are  shown, 
niaje  of  two  thongs,  one  of  which  was  doubtless 
released  in  the  act  of  discharging  the  stone.  The 
hollow  in  which  the  stone  was  placed  was  called  the 
ham/  [-2  kajili,  'the  bent  hand').  Smooth  stones 
(I  S  17",  Job41«'i»i)''  were  used  by  the  Helirews, 
Btonivs  or  leaden  bullets  (;to\i//i5i5es)  by  the  Uonian 
auxiliaries,  as  missiles.     Slings  were  emi)loycd  in 

*  Cf.  '  Tcretes  lapidei  de  lunda  vel  (ustibalo  deatinati  (Vege- 
Uui,  L  lOX 


attacking  fortresses  (2  K  3^,  1  Mac  6").  Among 
the  Israelites  the  Benjamite  leit-lianded  slingera 
were  famous  (Jg  '20'",  1  Ch  12-) ;  David  the  Juda'an 
ajipears  as  a  slinger  only  in  his  contest  with 
Goliath  (1  S  17*,  Sir  47*).  From  the  prominence 
given  to  David's  'staff'  in  IS  17"- **  it  is  not 
improbable  that  his  'sling'  was  mounted  on  a  stall'; 
the  weapon  may  in  fact  have  been  that  descrilied 
by  Vegetius,  iii.  14,  '  Fustibalns  fustis  est  longus 
pedibus  quattuor,  cui  per  medium  ligatur  funda 
de  corio,  et  utraq^ue  manu  inipulsus  prope  ad  instar 
onagri  (a  powerlul  military  engine)  dirijrit  saxa.' 
The  'sling'  of  v."  is  a  gloss  on  'stall/  just  as 
'  scrip  '  is  a  gloss  on  '  shepherd's  bag.'  The  sling- 
stones  might  be  carried  either  in  a  bag  (so  David, 
1  S  17")  or  in  the  bosom  of  the  outer  garment  (so 
the  Bonian  slingers).  Abigail  (1  S  25-'-')  predicts 
that  God  will  take  the  lives  of  David's  enemies 
out  of  the  bag  or  purse  (■'ns  zeror)  in  which  He 
holds  the  lives  of  men,  and  will  'sling  them  out,' 
i.e.  cast  tliem  away.  In  Zee  9"  hailstones  are 
spoken  of  as  God's  slingstones  (tr.  '  and  [His] 
slingstones  shall  devour  and  subdue';  cf.  v.'* 
'  His  arrow  shall  go  forth  as  the  lightning').  On 
the  dillicult  verse  Pr  26'  '  As  he  that  bindcth  a 
stime  in  a  sling'  (nira  margemah),  see  Toy  in 
Intcmat.  Crit.  Comrn.  and  RV  ('a  heap  of  stones'). 

\V.  EMi;r.Y  liAKNKS. 

SMITH.— enij  an  artificer,  a  workman,  1  S  13'^ 
18  54'*;  Sns  u-ir\  a  smith  (lit.  a  worker  in  iron).  Is 
44'-;  13;?  (lit.  locksmith?)  2  K  24'-'- '^  Jer  '24'  29-. 
The  name  smith  is  common  to  several  metal 
workers:  the  goldsmith,  the  silversmith,  the  copper- 
smith, and  the  ironsmith.  The  most  important  of 
tliese  in  ancient  times  was  the  coppersmith.  Tliou"h 
iron  seems  to  have  been  known  at  a  very  eany 
period,  it  did  not  come  into  common  use.  Cojiper, 
being  more  easily  worked,  was  the  universal  iiuna! 
for  tools,  arms,  and  all  kinds  of  utensils.  Alloyed 
with  tin  it  became  hard,  and  w.as  cap.iUle  of  taking 
a  sharp  edge :  thus  it  was  suitable  for  knives,  swords, 
sjiears,  axes,  etc.  The  eopjiersmith  is  still  a  very 
important  workman  in  SjTia,  for  almost  all  domestic 
utensils  are  made  of  that  metal.  Pans,  pots,  trays, 
caldrons  for  boiling  the  grape  juice,  are  made  of 
copper.  The  goldsmith  and  silversmith  are  next 
in  importance,  and  their  methods  of  workin"  are 
almost  the  same  as  the  pictures  on  tlie  tombs  in 
Egyjit  show  to  have  been  followed  by  the  ancient 
Eg3'ptians.  The  silversmith  is  usually  also  the 
tinsmith  of  a  Lebanon  village. 

Iron  ore  of  the  very  best  quality  is  abundant  in 
the  I.eliaiion  range,  and  has  been  worked  for  ages 
by  the  smiths.  The  forests  around  supplied  the 
fuel,  and  the  iron  obtained  was  similar  to  what  is 
known  as  Swedish  iron.  It  was  probably  from 
this  iron  that  the  smiths  of  Damascus  made  their 
famous  steel.  Nearly  every  village  in  Syria  has  its 
smith,  whose  business  it  is  to  make  and  repair 
ploughs,  pickaxes,  hoes,  and  the  tools  for  the 
masons  and  carpenters.  He  makes  shoes  also  for 
horses,  mules,  donkeys,  and  for  the  oxen  used  for 
ploughing.  The  fuel  of  the  smith  is  charcoal,  and 
two  very  large  circular  bellows  keep  up  a  steady 
blast.  Smiths  in  ancient  as  w  ell  as  in  niddern  times 
were  noted  for  the  strength  of  their  arms,  Is  44". 

The  discovery  of  the  smith's  art  is  ascribed  in  Gn 
4*-  (J)  to  Tubal-cain  (which  see)  the  son  of  Lamech 
(.see  Dillmaiin,  ad  lor.,  and  Benzinger,  Ilcb.  Arch. 
214).  A  smith  at  work  is  graphically  portrayed  in 
Sir  38'".  W.  CAltsi,A\v. 

SMYRNA  {luf'pva)  was  an  ancient  city  in  the 
west  of  .Vsia  Minor,  situated  at  the  head  of  a  gulf 
which  runs  up  about  30  miles  into  the  country. 
It  was  at  liist  a  colony  of  Aeolic  Greeks,  but  was 
Uiken  by  an  attack  from  tho  Ionian  colony  of 
Colophon    and   truusformcd    into  an    Ionian  city. 


554 


SMYRNA 


SMYRNA 


The  original  Aeolic  nnd  Ionian  Smyrna  was  cap- 
tured by  tlie  Lyilians,  who  broke  u\>  its  constitu- 
tion as  a  Greek  city  about  tlie  end  ot  the  7tli  cent. 
H  c  •  and  it  existeil  as  a  mere  (jriental  town  or 
series  of  villages  lor  more  tlian  three  centuries, 
till  Lysimachus  (301-281)  refounded  it  as  a  Greek 
city  in  a  new  situation  alioiit  3  miles  soutli- 
west  from  the  ancient  site.  It  has  continued  ever 
since  an  unbroken  history  as  one  of  the  greatest 
cities  of  Asia. 


Smyrna  was  a  faithful  ally  ot  Rome,  from  the  time  when  the 
ereiil  Italian  republic  hegun  to  interk-re  w,  the  affairs  of  the 
Kisr  choosin.'  that  side  before  Rome  had  become  all-powerful, 
a;S  i-emS^ned-'true  to  it  even  during  the  Mithridatjc  »ars  when 
a  Smyrna^an  assembly,  hearing  ot  the  distressed  cond  t,o .  of 
Sulla's  army,  stripped  off  their  own  clothes  and  sent  them  to 
clothe  the  soldiers ;  and  it  was  according  y  '^™iired  m  the 
lioman  poUcv,  though  it  suffered  durmg  the  Civil  W  ar  aft«r 
the  death  ot'Ciesar.  That  early  appreciation  of  the  value  o 
the  Koman  alliance  was  undoubtedly  due  to  the  position  of 
Smyrna  as  a  great  trading  oty  :  the  exact  circumstences  are 
unknown  to  us,  but  Smyrna  must  have  been  as  earij  as  B.C.  200 
b'ou'°ht  int<.  s'uch  relations  with  the  general  Mediterranean 
trade  that  its  interest  lay  in  supporting  «°™« '«^,';f,.^''^"'S 
and  the  allied  Seleucid  kings  of  Syria,  a.nd  against  R  odes 
(just  as  the  old  friendship  of  Ma-vsilia  and  Rome  was  due  to 
their  common  dread  of  the  competit.un  of  Carthaginian  mer- 

"''smvrnawas  the  port  at  the  end  of  one  of  the  great  roads 
leadmgtrom  the  inner  country,  I'hrygia  GalaUa  <=tc  across 
Lvdia  towards  the  west.  It  was  also  the  harbour  for  "«  »ho  ^ 
tride  of  the  fertile  Hermus  Valley,  and  was  probab  y  hardly 
second  even  to  Kphesus  as  an  exporting  city.  Its  great 
wealth  i.  attested  by  its  abundant  coinage.  It  was  the  chief 
citv  of  a  coiuf,it«»,  and  was  one  of  those  cit.es  that  were 
.ii.-nifled  with  the  title  of  mHropolis.  It  vied  with  I'ergamus 
ami  Ephesus  tor  the  title  of  '  First  (city)  of  Asia  w^ij, 
"aLo;  and  the  contests  between  the  three  great  cities  were 
carried  to  a  great  height,  as  each  invented  new  titles  lor  itself 
or  appropriated  the  titles  of  the  other.  In  one  case  at 
least;  their  jealous  rivalry  led  to  an  appeal  to  the  imperial 

"^^Ta  D  23  the  cities  of  Asia  obtained  permission  to  found  a 
temple  in  honour  of  Tiberius  and  his  mother  Juha  Augusta, 
and  in  26  several  contended  for  the   privilege  o    having  the 
Umple  within   their  walls.      The  pleadings  of   the   dilte  ent 
cities  which  claimed  that  honour  throw  considerable  ''gl'    °" 
the  state  of   the   great  Asian   cities  under  the  early  Roman 
emperors,  though  only  a  very  brief  report  has  been  preserve<l 
InTacitus  (Annah.  iv.  65,  56).    The  claim  of  Pergamum  was 
rejected  because  it  alrea<ly  had  the  temple  dedicated  by  the 
province  to  Augustus :  that  of  Ephesus  because  it  was  suHic  ei a  j 
weighted  bv  the  worship  and  the  temple  of  Artemis    that  of 
Laodicea  Tralles,  etc.,  because  they  were  not  sufficiently  gie.it. 
ILalicarnassus  was  carefully  considered,  but  at  last  the  choice 
lay  between  Sardis  and   Smyrna.      Sardis  relied  especially  on 
its-  past  history,  and  quoted,  amidst  other  evidence  on  its  si.ie, 
a  decree  passed  in  its  honour  by  the  twelve  ancient  EtrMscan 
cities.      But  the  Smyrnajans  could  appeal   to   their  laithml 
friendship  and  alliance  with  Rome  ;  and  they  mentioned  lliat 
they  had  dedicated  a  temple  to  the  goddess  Rome  in  Bc   19.,, 
before  the  eastern  cities  had  learned  by  experience  that  Ronie 
was  the  one  supreme   iwwer    in    the  worTd       The  ;;!»""  of 
Smvma  was  preferred   to  that  of  Sardis,  thus  niarking  the 
superior  dignity  of  the  former  in  the  province.     The  temple 
was  erected  by  the  provin.Mal  council  (see  AsiARcii)  in  Smyrna, 
which  henceforward  could  claim  the  Imperial  ^eokorate,  i.f. 
the  title  ot  temple-wariien  (,i..o,=or)  ot  the  emperors.    The  title 
wi,  not  so  much  prized  in  the  Isl  cent.  ;  and  the  eariiest  proof 
that  SiuN'ma  ha<f  assumed  it  is  in  A.n.  98-102.     A  second  and 
a  third  Veokorate  were  alter\vards  granted  to  Smyrna  (.as  to 
Per-amum  and  Kphesus>-the  second  by  Hadrian  (though  not 
menlioned  on  coins  till  the  reign  of   his  successor  Pius)    the 
third  by  Severus  towards  the  end  ot  hia  reign  (along  with  the 
same  compliment  to  Ephesus) 

In  the  Roman  time  Smyrna  was  perhaps  the  most 
brilliant  and  splendid  of  the  cities  of  Asia.  No 
other  city  of  the  province  could  vie  with  it  for  the 
handsomeness  of  its  streets,  the  excellence  of  the 
oavint'  and  the  skill  with  which  it  was  laid  out  in 
i-ectaiu'ular  blocks  ;  but  it  was  badly  drained,  and 
the  streets  were  liable  to  be  Hooded  in  rain.  It 
stretched  along  the  southern  shore  of  the  gulf,  not 
far  from  its  eastern  extremity.  On  the  west  a  lull 
which  overhangs  the  sea  was  enclosed  witlun  lU 
walls  •  and  on  the  south  a  still  loftier  elevation 
called'  Pagos,  '  the  hUl,'  *  460  ft.  high,  served  as  its 

•  P;."os  is,  indubitably,  an  ancient  name  ;  but  the  hill  appears 
also  to  have  had  the  special  name  Mastusia,  alluding  to  its 
iilpe  as  seen  from  the  sea  (though  the  likeness  to  a  breast  is 
wento  be  iUusor^-  when  one  goes  round  it.  or  ascends). 


acropolis,  and  ailbrded  a  strong  line  of  defence  foi 
the  walls  of  Lvsimaclius.  The  modern  city  stretches 
beyond  the  ancient  walls  on  the  east  side,  but 
leaves  out  part  of  the  ancient  city  on  the  west. 
On  the  lower  ground  west  from  Pagos,  about 
tlie  south-western  extremity  of  the  city,  was  the 
'Ephesian  Gate,' whence  issued  the  ancient  road 
to  Metropolis,  Ephesus,  and  the  south  generally. 

Another  gate  near  the  modern  station  of  the 
Hermus  Valley  Railway  is  still  called  the  Black 
Gate  (Kara  Kapu).  The  most  splendid  street  in 
ancient  Smyrna  was  called  the  Golden  Street ;  it 
led  perliaps  from  the  temple  of  Zeus  on  tbe  hiU 
over  the  sea  to  the  temple  of  Cybele  on  the  liUlock 
east  from  SmjTna  called  Tepejik  (if,  as  is  probable, 
the  temple  stood  there),  issuing  from  the  city  prob- 
ably through  Kara  Kapu.  . 

There  was,  in  addition  to  the  moonng-groiuid  in 
the  open  gulf,  an  inner  harbour  nearly  land-locked, 
which  was  sufficiently  commodious  for  ancient 
vessels.  It  was  in  the  heart  of  the  modern  city ; 
and  the  Bazaars  now  occupy  part  of  its  area.  In 
A  D.  1402  the  entrance  to  it  was  blocked  by  lamer- 
lane  with  a  mole,  to  facilitate  his  assault  on  the 
stronghold  of  the  Rhodian  Knijrhts  beside  the  sea. 
Even  before  that,  it  had  probably  been  a  good  deal 
neglected  in  the  troubles  and  the  weak   govern- 


ment  that  prevailed  for  centuries  ;  and  afterwards 
under  Turkish  rule  the  harbour  became  more  and 
more  choked  up,  till  in  the  18th  century  it  hnalJy 
disappeared.  ,         i  » 

Smyrna  has  sutiered  much  from  earthquakes.  A 
severe  one  occurred  in  A.D.  ISO,  and  great  shocks 
seem  often  to  be  felt  in  the  latter  part  of  a  century. 
The  last  was  in  1880. 

There  was  no  specially  famous  cultus  at  Smyrna.  The  '  Mother 
of  Sipvlos' was  worshipped  in  a  great  temple,  which  probably 
stood  on  the  alreadv  mentioned  mound  outside  the  city  on  the 
east  side  ;  the  priest'ess  of  the  goddess  in  ironl  of  the  cit>  .jipim 
nf«To/.i«<;)  is  mentioned  in  an  inscription  ;  and  the  ileur  -yip'.l- 
U,us  is  a  common  type  and  legend  on  the  coins  of  i'°i3>n^ 
But  her  cultus  was  common  to  other  cities  round  lit.  faipj  los, 
and  the  Smvrnaian  worship  did  not  become  famous  and  im- 
porunt  like"  those  ot  Ephesus,  Magnesia  etc  The  temple  of 
She  .Nemescis,  or  Fates,  and  a  Hieron  of  the  hledona.  in  which 
divination  was  practised  from  chance  words  or  Phrases  or  acts 
are  mentioned;  but  it  seems  very  probable  that  those  t»o 
foundations  may  have  been  only  a  single  hol.v  place.  According 
to  the  legend,  the  two  Nemeseis  had  appeared  to  Alexander  the 
Great  in  a  dream,  and  ordered  him  to  rebuild  Smyrna.  In 
Sm.\rna  alone  was  the  ordinary  singular  conception  ot  Nemesis 
ilouliled  as  a  pair  of  divine  figures.  .     ^    ♦>,.  KirfhnH,-,. 

Smyrna  wii  one  ot  tlie  cities  claiming  to  be  the  birthplace 
ot  Uonier  The  poet  is  often  represented  on  its  coins  ;  and 
there  wL  a  building  in  or  near  the  city,  calkd  the  flo.»eroon. 
Trwlition  connected  him  with  the  sacred  river,  «> 'ed  Meles 
The  descriptions  of  the  river  by  Aehus  Anstidea,  and  -^  f«^red 
character,  show  that  it  was  not  any  ol  the  ™--.ving  streamy 
dry  in  summer  and  torrents  in  the  rainy  season  which  lave 
been  identified  by  different  authorities  as  the  Meles  (especially 
the  s  reau,  on  the  eastern  skirts  of  the  -nodern  city,  crossed 
by  Caravan  Bridge  on  the  great  road  leading  to  the  cast).  1  he 
^ieU■s  was  the  unvarying  stream  rising  in  ti"*^  ^P^^*^ -J,""^ 
springs  called  Dianas  Bath,  more  than  a  mile  east  'rom  Cara- 
van Bridge,  and  flowing  in  a  steariy  uniform  stream  through 
a  partly  artificial  channel  (as  Aristides  says)  into  the  go It^ 
The  whole  character  of  the  localities,  both  springs  and 
channel,  has  been  changed  by  modern  engineering  opeiations. 

The  Church  of  Smyrna  has  had  an  honourable 
history.  The  message  sent  to  it  anumg  the  letters 
to  the  seven  Churches,  Rev  2  and  3,  is  more  uni- 
formlv  laudatory  than  those  sent  to  the  other 
Churches ;  even  Philadelpliia  is  hardly  praised  so 
hi.'hlv  as  Smyrna,  and  the  others  are  all  blamed 
iirvaryiu"  degrees.  But  the  Smyma^an  Church 
was  apparently  kept  pure  by  contmnal  siittenng  : 
the  Church  was  poor  and  oppressed  :  it  was  not 
exposed  to  the  dangers  of  riches,  but  was  rich 
spiritually.  The  Jews  of  Smyrna  are  described 
as  bitterly  hostile.  Few  or  none  of  them  seem  to 
have  adopted  Christianity,  and  they  are  described 
as  not  being  really  Jews,  but  merely  a  synagogue 
of  Satan.  This  probably  means  both  (1)  that  the 
GentUe  Church  of    Smyrna  represents  the    true 


SftfYRNA 


SMYRNA 


555 


Block  of  Abraliam,  while  the  Jews  say  they  are 
Jews,  cl  uiiin^'  the  name,  but  losing  the  reality 
of  Jc\vi>  I  inliuritunce ;  and  (2)  that  the  Jews  in 
the  fit'/  had  piveu  way  to  the  temptations  of 
luxury  nd  civilization,  and  degenerated  from 
Jewisl/  ■  urity  and  religion.  It  is  an  interesting 
point  'I  it,  in  an  inscription  of  the  2nd  century 
(6/1/  31  i),  we  lind  mentioned  as  one  of  the  classes 
of  the  ,.opulation  'the  erstwhile  Jews'  (ol  wori 
'Ioi;ooio.,.  an  enigmatic  phrase  which  probably 
means  those  who  formerly  were  the  nation  of 
the  Je'vs,  but  who  have  lost  the  legal  standing 
of  a  8L[  arate  people  and  are  now  merged  in  the 
numerous  class  ol  resident  slrangers,  sprung  from 
various  parts  of  the  empire.'  * 

In  the  popular  outburst  which  led  to  the  martyr- 
dom of  Polycarp,  bishop  of  Smyrna  in  A.D.  I55,t 
the  Jews  are  described  as  playing  a  prominent 
part.  The  Asiakch  I'hilippus,  who  was  presiding 
at  the  games  (which  therefore  must  have  been  those 
called  Koii-d  'Aaias,  celebrated  by  the  provincial 
council  called  the  Koinon,  and  held  at  the  various 
metropoleis  in  turn),wa3  very  unwilling  to  authorize 
the  deed,  and  ^vithout  his  permission  it  could  not 
have  been  carried  out  in  the  stadium  on  the  occa- 
sion of  the  games  ;  but  the  popular  clamour  con- 
strained him.  The  Jews  were  active  also  in  fetching 
and  arranging  the  wood  to  burn  the  aged  bishop. 
The  view  that  the  Jews  of  Smyrna  are  described 
in  the  Apocalypse  as  degenerate  from  the  pure 
religion  of  their  race  seems  to  be  coiilirmed,  when 
we  observe  that  I'olycarp's  martyrdom  occurred 
on  a  Saturday  afternoon,  and  the  Jews,  who  were 
so  active  against  him,  must  have  appeared  in  the 
statiium  at  games  which  should  have  been  an 
abomination  to  them  on  the  Sabbath  day. 

It  is  a  noteworthy  coincidence,  which  may  be 
inlintional,  that  the  Divine  Sender  of  the  message 
to  Smyrna,  the  city  which  had  been  destroyed 
and  after  340  years  refounded,  calls  himself  '  the 
(irst  and  the  last,  which  was  dead  and  lived  again.' 
Tlie  various  titles  which  the  Sender  of  the  messages 
to  the  Seven  Asian  cities  assumes  in  eacli  case 
have  sonictinies  at  least  an  olmous  relation  to  the 
circumstances  of  the  city  to  which  the  me.ssage  is 
addressed  :  that  is  evidently  the  ease  at  TllYATlRA, 
and  may  be  in  otlier  cases,  though  we  cannot  trace 
the  relation.  Here,  however,  it  seems  very  clear. 
That,  of  course,  is  not  inconsistent  with  the  equally 
olivious  relation  of  the  title  to  the  immediate  cir- 
cuiiist.ances  of  the  Smyrna'an  Christians  as  de- 
scribed in  Rev  2'°"  'Fear  not  the  thing  which 
thou  art  about  to  sufl'er;  behold,  a.ssiiredly,  the 
devil  is  about  to  cast  some  of  you  into  jjrison  that 
ye  may  be  tried  ;  and  ye  shall  have  tribulation 
for  a  term  of  tun  days  [i.e.  a  time  not  unlimited, 
but  with  an  end  fixed].  Be  thou  faithful  unto 
•leath  ;  and  I  will  give  thee  the  garland  of  life 
[i.e.  tlio  prize  which  consists  in  life].  As  your 
city  was  destroyed,  and  lived  again  more  glorious 
than  before,  so  I  who  died  and  lived  again  will 
give  to  thee  [each  individual  Christian  is  singled 
out  and  addressed],  if  thou  be  true  to  death,  the 
reward  of  the  true  life  (t^s  fw^}!).' 

On  the  othor  hand,  it  seems  highly  improbahle  that  there  Is 
h«ro  intcndt-'l  any  '  allusion  to  the  ritual  of  the  piitf.in  niysteries 
which  iiri,-vailed  in  that  city'  (aa  is  KUg(;c8tca  by  Kev.  J. 
W.  Ulnkesley  in  Smith's  Uli  iii.  p.  i:!36) :  '  the  story  ot  the 
violent  death  and  reviviscence  of  Dionysos'  waa  notupecially 
ehiiract«ristic  of  Smyrna,  or  likely  to  he  specially  familiar  to 
the  Smymioan  Christians.    It  seems  quit«  unnatural  that  the 

•  See  Mommson  In  lIMoHschc  Zeilnchr.  xxvili.  p.  417.  The 
meaning  'who  were  once  Jews,  but  have  abandoned  their  ru- 
ligion,'  seems  quite  impossible  :  renegade  Jews  would  not  be 
calle<l  so  in  an  inscription  which  mentions  them  in  a  compli- 
ni'-nlary  way. 

t  Till"  diite.  as  flxcrt  by  VVaddington,  is  nearly,  but  not  abso- 
lutely, cerl-iin.  Uarnack  considers  Wwldington's  reasoning  to 
t>e  entirulv  erif^neous,  but  accepts  the  date  ou  dllTcrent  grounds 
IChronoL  der  ilUliriM.  Lilt.  I.  pp.  856,  721). 


Divine  Sender  of    the  message  should  be  represented    in    ■ 
c;haracter  desijined  to  recall  that  of  Uionysos. 

It  Is  probable  that  the  writer  had  In'his  mind  the  prize  of 
victory  (as  in  the  Greek  games),  when  he  spoke  of  the  '  garland 
of  life.'  It  is  indeed  quite  out  of  keeping  with  his  usual  custom 
to  take  a  metaphor  from  such  a  source  :  he  was  not,  hke  St. 
Paul,  brought  up  in  Greek  surroundings  and  accustomed  to 
draw  his  illustrations  from  the  social  life  of  the  Greek  cities, 
liut  that  special  metaphor  had  entered  so  completely  Into 
current  language  tliat  the  writer  was  hardly  conscious  of  its 
source  :  he  was  probably  thinking  more  of  St.'  Paul's  garland  of 
righteousness  (2  Ti  48),  St.  Peter's  garland  of  glory  (1  P  6*),  and 
above  all  St.  James's  garland  of  life  *  (!''-),  than  of  the  athlete's 
garland.  At  the  same  time  it  is  possible,  and  even  probable, 
that  onother  pagan  us.ige  was  also  in  his  mind.  The  worship- 
per, while  engaged  in  tlie  service  of  a  deity,  wore  a  garland  of 
the  kind  sacred  10  that  deity,— myrtle  in  tlie  service  of  Aphro- 
dite, ivy  in  that  of  Dionysos,  wild  olive  in  that  of  Zeus  Olympius 
(out  of  which.  Indeed,  developed  the  victor's  garland  in  the 
Olympian  games),  and  so  on.  The  meaning  then  would  be  : 
*  Be  thou  faithful  to  death,  and  I  will  give  thee  the  garland  of 
my  service,  which  is  of  life.'  Yet  the  idea  of  7>rc<r  or  rtward 
seems  inseparable  from  the  passage  ;  and  it  is  only  through  the 
victor' •>  L[arlaud  that  the  Stephanos  acquired  that  connotation. 
Probably  tioth  ideas  are  united  in  this  passage.  The  magis- 
trates of  hieratic  origin,  called  SfephanvpfiQroi,  who  were 
found  In  Smyrna  and  the  other  Asiatic  cities  generally,  are  not 
alluded  to  in  this  passage  (as  baa  been  suggested):  such  an 
allusion  lends  no  point  to  the  words. 

Again,  we  notice  that,  whereas  Sardis,  the  city 
whose  impregnable  fortress  had  twice  been  cap- 
tured while  its  people  slept  and  neglected  to 
watch,  is  advised  to  '  be  watchful,'  Smyrna,  the 
city  which  boasted  of  its  faithfulness  to  the  lldiiian 
alliance,  is  counselled  to  '  be  faithful  [not  now  to 
an  earthly  power,  but  to  God].' 

Throughout  the  messages  to  the  Seven  Cities  it 
is  evident  that  the  writer  knew  the  circumstances 
of  each  city,  and  alluded  to  many  facts  of  its 
present  or  past  life.  The  references  to  past  historj- 
are  not  gathered  from  reading  and  literature.  The 
facts  alluded  to  are  of  that  marked  tyjie  which 
would  be  universally  known  in  each  city,  and 
would  be  appealed  to  by  orators  addressing  popular 
assemblies. 

The  Cliurch  in  Smyrna  is  addressed  rather  as 
separate  from  (and  persecuted  by)  the  city,  than 
as  forming  part  of  the  city  and  characterized  by 
its  qualities  and  sharing  in  its  works  (like  Sardis 
and  Laodicea).  Only  the  faithfulness  and  the 
resurrection  of  the  city  are  alluded  to  as  jiroper  to 
the  Church.  In  its  separation  from  and  superiority 
to  the  society  by  which  it  was  surrounded  lay  the 
glory  of  the  Smynia*an  Church  ;  and  life  is  to  be 
its  reward  for  its  faithfulness  and  its  patient 
endurance.  Life  is  the  dominant  tone  in  the 
letter  to  Smyrna,  death  in  that  to  Sardis,  weak- 
ness and  indecision  in  that  to  the  l^lirygian 
Laouicea.  It  is  remarkable  how  later  history 
has  conlirmed  the  prophecy  and  the  character 
ascribed  to  the  Church. 

Smyrna  had  a  chequered  history  during  the  Turkish  wars ; 
and  It  was  the  last  Independent  Christian  city  in  the  whole  of 
Asia  Minor.  It  was  thrice  cyiptured  by  the  Seljuk  Turks  In  the 
end  of  the  11th  and  beginning  of  the  12th  cent.,  but  was 
recovered  by  the  Hyzantine  government ;  and  the  emperor 
John  III.  Ducos  Vatat::es,  who  resided  freijuently  at  Smyrna 
or  at  Nymphaion,  rebuilt  the  castle  on  Mount  Pogos  (12*21- 
12^4).  Early  in  the  Nth  cent.  It  passed  Into  Alohamniedan 
possession,  and  fonned  a  part  of  the  dominions  of  Aidin,  the 
lorrl  of  Guzel-iiissar,  '  the  Beautiful  Costlc '  of  Tralles  ;  but  the 
Knights  of  Uhodes  seized  the  lower  city,  and  strengthened  the 
fortilications  of  the  horl>our,  though  the  castle  on  I'agos  over- 
hatigiiig  the  city  remaine<l  In  T^irkish  hands.  Two  Osmanli 
Sultans,  Amurath  I.  and  Uayezid,  besieged  the  city  and  castle 
ot  the  Knights,  but  without  success.  At  last  in  M(r>  the  hosts 
of  Tamerlane  captured  the  castle  ;  and  after  he  retired  the  city 
piwsed  quietly  under  the  power  of  the  Seljuk  chiefs  of  Ayasaluk 
(Kphesns)  and  Gu/.el  -  IIii>sjtr,  until  they  were  reduced  by 
Amurath  11.  under  the  Osmunll  sway. 

The  last  stronghold  of  Christianity  in  Asia 
Minor,  Smyrna  si  ill  is  more  occidental  in  char- 
acter and  more  solidly  lloiirishing  than  any  other 
city  of  Turkey.  It  is  called  by  the  Turks, 
accordingly.  Giaour  Isniir,  Inlidel  Smyrna.     The 

*  Zcller's  Idea,  that  St.  James  lmlta^ed  this  passage  of  the 
Apocalypse,  seems  not  acoeptabl«. 


656 


SNAIL 


SNOW 


Mohammedans  number  less  than  a  quarter  of  the 
population,  which  totals  over '250,000 :  more  tlian  a 
half  is  Greek  :  there  are  lar^e  Jewish  and  Armenian 
quarters  :  colonies  from  all  the  chief  countries  in 
Europe,  from  tlie  United  States,  and  from  Persia, 
also  are  settleil  there.  The  views  from  the  sea, 
and  from  the  summit  of  Mount  Pagos,  are  among 
the  most  exquisite  in  the  whole  Mediterranean 
lands ;  an<l  the  prosperity  within  tlie  city  is,  in 
comparison  with  all  other  Turkish  towns,  plain  to 
the  eye.  As  in  the  message  to  the  Cliurcn,  so  at 
tlie  present  day,  life  is  the  prominent  note. 

In  the  early  ecclesiastical  system  Smyrna  was 
a  bishopric  under  the  authority,  probably,  of 
Ephesus ;  but,  soon  after,  it  was  raised  to  be 
independent  and  antokephnloa.  In  the  later 
Notitice  it  appears  as  a  metropolis,  having  six 
bishoprics  suliject  to  it — Phoca?a,  Clazomena;, 
Magnesia  ad  Sipylum,  Archangelos,  Sosandra, 
and  Petra. 

Literature. — Though  Smyrna  has  been  so  frequently  visited 
by  European  travellers  of  every  kind,  very  little  has  been 
written  on  its  history,  and  no  proiur  study  has  ever  been  made 
of  the  literary  and  monumental  evidence  on  the  subject.  The 
account  given  in  Sir  Charles  Wilson's  Handbook  to  Turkey 
(.Murray)  is  the  best,  thouj^'h  necessarily  very  brief.  In  the 
Uistorical  Geographi/  of  Asia,  Minor,  Ranisa^*,  there  are  only 
some  inadequate  notes,  pp.  107-109,  115,  116.  An  old  book  in 
French,  by  Slaars,  on  Smyrna,  published  there,  is  practically 
unprocurable.  An  article  by  Arist.  M.  Fontrier,  in  BaUetin  de 
Corresp.  iicU^hiique,  xvi.  pp.  37&-410,  on  le  Monast^re  de 
Lemboa  (five  miles  east  of  Smyrna  and  one  south  of  Bunar- 
Bashi)  is  by  far  the  best  study  that  has  been  written  on  the 
subject.  Numerous  picturesque  descriptions  of  the  beauty  of 
the  scenery  may  be  found  in  the  books    of    travellers  and 

tourists.  W.  M.  Ramsay. 

SNAIL Two  Heb.  words  are  tr''  '  snail '  in  AV. 

1.  a-zn  hornet,  cravpa,  lacerta  (Lv  11**).  There  seems 
to  be  no  foundation  for  the  AV  'snail.'  Other 
ancient  VSS  besides  the  LXX  and  Vulg.  under- 
stand the  word  as  referring  generieally  to  the 
lizard.  It  is  in  a  list  of  those  animals,  and  prob. 
one  of  them.  RV  tr.  it  by  '  sand-lizard,'  which 
is  Lacerta  agilis,  L.,  a  species  of  wide  distribution. 
This  rendering,  however,  is  a  mere  surmise. 

2.  SiSs'i'  shabhelrd,  K-qpos,  cera  (Ps  58*).  The  Heb. 
is  Shaph.  form  from  the  root  b^?  bcdal,  similar  to 
the  Arab.  Iialla,  '  to  moisten.'  The  rendering 
'wax,'  of  the  LXX  and  Vulg.,  is  amplified 
by  the  expressions  tVfire  rup,  supcrccridit  ignia 
(from  a  c<infusion  of  n::'N  Srj  with  v\  '75;).  Never- 
theless, the  modern  VSS  are  unaninmus  in  the 
rendering  '  snail.'  The  allusion  to  '  melting  away ' 
is  explained  in  two  ways :  (a)  that  a  snail,  in 
moving  from  one  place  to  another,  leaves  a  slimy 
track,  which  -was  popularly  referred  to  the  dis- 
solution of  its  body.  The  Arab,  popular  name  for 
the  snail,  hizzAk,  'the  spitter,'  is  derived  from  tliis 
cliaracteristic ;  (b)  Tristram  explains  it  by  the 
fact  that,  in  the  dry  season,  snails  attach  tliem- 
selves  to  rocks,  tree.s,  shrubs,  or  the  soil,  if  possible 
in  a  moist  situation,  or  at  least  one  sheltered  from 
(lie  direct  rays  of  the  sun.  If,  however,  a  snail 
be  long  exposed  to  the  sun,  it  will  be  dried  up  in 
its  shell.  Tristram  thinks  that  this  explains  the 
metaphor  of  the  text. 

A  large  number  of  species  of  land  and  fresh- 
water snails  are  found  in  Palestine  and  Syria. 
They  emerge  from  their  hiding-pl.aces  after  the 
early  ruins,  and  are  collected  by  the  natives,  and 
boiled  and  eaten  with  great  relish. 

G.  E.  Post. 

SNOW  (j''?':  Aram.  3''n[Dn7''];  Gr.  x'"")*  ismen- 
tioned  in  Scripture  with  a  degree  of  infrequency 
corresponding  to  the  rarity  of  its  appearance  in 
Palestine  proper.  Of  an  actual  fall  of  snow  we 
read  only  t'.vice  in  the  biblical  narrative — in  2S  aS-" 
•  The  verb  J  ('y*  occurs  in  Ps  GSi-*  and  Is  tr.  in  LXX  by  ;tioyoi>tf^«j, 
:Vif  is  tr.  by  IfUti  in  Pr  26',  and  in  Pr  31*1  x^'"??  appear*  to  be 
%  corruption  of  x'*"*?** 


=  1  Ch  11--,  where  Benaiah,  one  of  Davii's  mighty 
men,  is  descrilied  as  going  down  and  slaying  a  lion 
in  a  cistern  on  a  snowy  day ;  and  in  1  Mac  13-^, 
wliere  the  horsemen  of  Tryphon,  the  usurper  king 
of  Syria,  were  prevented  from  attacking  Simon  at 
Adora  (or  Adoiaimi  by  reason  of  'a  very  great 
snow '  which  fell  in  the  night. 

Snow  is  unknown  on  the  seaboard  of  Philistia, 
Sharon,  and  Phieuicia,  and  seldom  whitens  the 
ground  inland  below  an  elevation  of  2000  feet.  In 
the  Gh6r  and  the  plain  of  Jericho  it  never  falls. 
South  of  Hebron  it  is  rare.  Along  the  summits 
of  the  central  ridge  of  Palestine  and  on  the  high 
tableland  east  of  the  Jordan  snow  falls  nearly 
every  winter. 

The  snowfall  at  Jerusalem,  which  is  2500  ft  above  sea  level, 
m.\v  be  taken  as  t.'i'pical  of  the  whole  central  ridge.  A  table  ia 
given  by  Dr.  Chaplin  in  the  PEFSt  (vol  for  1S83,  p.  3'2),  coverinjf 
the  winters  from  ISUO-lSOl  to  1SS1-18S2.  Out  of  the  twenty-two 
seasons  to  which  his  report  refers  there  were  eight  when  no  snow 
fell,  four  of  these  being  consecutive  (1883, 1864, 1865,  ISOO).  It  is 
not  wonderful  that  in  1864-1S66  (see  Jerusalem,  vol  it  pp.  586, 
586)  the  water  supply  from  the  chief  spring  entirely  failed. 
From  Dr.  Chaplin  s  table  we  learn  that  the  last  few  daj'S  of 
December,  the  months  of  January  and  February,  and  the  first; 
fortnight  of  Starch  make  the  period  within  which  the  snow  falls 
in  and  around  Jerusalem.  In  1870  there  was  a  fall  of  nearly  two 
inches  on  April  7th  and  8th,  but  this  was  a  very  remarkable  and 
extraordinary'  occurrence.  '  For  the  most  part,'  says  Dr.  Chaplin, 
'  the  snow  is  in  small  quantity  and  soon  melts,  but  heavy  snow- 
storms sometimes  occur,  and  the  snow  may  then  remain  unmelted 
in  the  hollows  on  the  hillsides  for  two  or  three  weeks.  The 
deepest  snowfall  was  in  Dec.  iS,  and  '29,  1879,  when  it  measured 
17  inches  where  there  was  no  drift-  In  Feb.  1874  it  was  SJ  inches 
deep,  and  on  March  14,  5  inches.'  Sir  J.  W.  D.awson  {E;it/pt  and 
i>;/ria,  p.  113)  reports  that  at  the  Jaffa  Gate  in  Jan.  18*4  there 
w-ere  snowdrifts  5  ft  deep.  Wallace  {Jerusalein  the  llolij,  pi 
25'2)  mentions  that  three  heavy  falls  of  snow  occurred  during 
Jan.  and  Feb.  1898,  when  the  weather  was  exceptionally  cold, 
and  much  suffering  was  endured  by  the  people. 

Galilee,  with  a  general  elevation  of  2000  to  2500 
ft.,  is  less  liable  to  snowfalls.  But  sometimes  these 
are  heavy.  In  March  1884  a  party  riding  through 
N.  Galilee  was  overtaken  by  a  snowstorm  which 
covered  the  ground  to  the  depth  of  several  inches. 
It  lay  during  the  night,  and  wlien  the  members  of 
the  party  set  out  next  day  after  a  comfortless  en- 
campment the  snow  still  Lay  white  over  the  land- 
scape, and  its  glare  was  almost  blinding  as  the  sun 
poured  down  his  rays  in  a  blaze  that  threatened 
sunstroke. 

The  snow  of  Lebanon  was  proverbial  (Jer  18", 
Ca4"').  It  is  'the  tnhite  mountain,' probablj' because 
tlie  snow  never  fails  altogether  from  its  summits 
(for  another  explanation  of  the  name  see  Lebanon, 
ad  init.).  On  the  highest  cultivated  lands  the  snow- 
covers  up  the  wheat  sown  by  the  peasantry  and 
protects  it  from  the  cold  in  winter.  1  he  lofty  dome 
of  Hermon  is  white  all  the  winter,  and  through  the 
summer  broad  patches  and  long  streaks  of  snow  are 
to  be  seen  upon  its  wi<lely-extended  mass. 

Snow  is  an  emblem  of  refreshment  in  Scripture. 
It  may  be  the  glowing  aspect  of  the  distant  moun- 
tain tops  that  is  in  the  mind  of  the  psalmist  when, 
speaking  of  the  scattering  of  Jeliovah's  enemies 
and  the  consequent  elation  of  the  people,  he  says, 
'Then  fell  snowonZalmon  '  (PsBS"  ;  see  Delitzscli, 
in  lor.).  Lebanon  and  Ilermon  with  their  snowy 
sides  have  a  dcliglitfully  refreshing  aspect  as  the 
inhabitants  of  the  siiltrj'  lowlands  look  up  to  thera 
from  afar.  '  The  cold  of  snow  in  the  time  of  har- 
vest' (Pr  25'')  may  refer  to  the  sight  of  snow  upon 
the  mountain,  but  more  likely  to  the  snow  wliich 
is  preserved  and  stored  to  m.'ike  cooling  drinks  in 
the  heat  of  summer.  Jn.st  as  snow  from  Lebanon 
and  Hermon  was  carried  as  a  luxury  in  Jewish 
times  to  Tj're  and  Sidon  and  Tiberias,  so  it  is  to- 
day used  in  Bovrout  and  Damascus  for  mixing  with 
beverages.  '  AV'ater  like  snow '  is  still  the  beverage 
most  grateful  to  the  fcUahln  or  to  the  tliirsty 
traveller.  Snow-water  is  mentioned  for  its  cleans- 
ing properties  (Job  EP :  but  the  text  is  doubtful, 
see  Dav.  ad  loc);   and   the  rapidity  with  which 


SXUFFERS,  SNUFFDISH 


SOAP,  SOPE 


557 


the  snow  disappears  in  the  heat  of  the  sun  is 
aotieeil  by  tlio  sacred  writers  (Job  0'"  24").  Snow 
by  reason  of  its  rarity  and  beauty  is  one  of  the 
wonders  of  God's  power  (Job  37",  Ps  147'°) ;  tlie 
hail  and  the  snow  are  conceived  to  be  stored  in  the 
heavens  for  use  by  God  in  the  productiveness  of 
nature  (Is  So'"),  and  in  tlie  accomplishment  of  moral 
ends  (Job  3S--  ==  ;  of.  Jos  10"  and  1  Mac  13-).  To 
he  prepared  against  its  coming,  seeing  that  it  keeps 
its  season  so  precisely,  is  one  of  the  virtues  of  the 
ideal  woman  (I'r  31-'  2C').  Snow  is  taken  to  ex- 
press whiteness  in  the  realm  of  nature — the  \\  hite- 
nes.s  of  wool,  hoary  hairs,  leprosj',  milk  (Rev  I''',  cf. 
l)u  7",  Ex  4",  Nu  12'»,  2  K  5-',  La  4').  Snow  is  the 
chosen  Scripture  emblem  of  stainless  moral  purit3\ 
We  are  perhajis  not  at  liberty  to  say  it  is  used  of 
the  transli^jured  Christ  (Mk  ir),  because  the  best 
MSS  omit  ws  x"^"-  But  it  is  taken  to  describe  the 
purity  of  the  Nazirites  of  Zion  (La  4'),  of  the 
Ancient  of  Da3-s  (Dn  7-'),  of  the  Angel  of  the  Resur- 
rection (Mt  2S'),  of  the  Risen  Lord  (Rev  1").  As 
against  the  dehlement  and  condemnation  and  per- 
sistence of  sin,  it  describes  the  righteousness,  for- 
giveness, and  complete  acceptance  of  the  penitent 
believer  (Ps  51',  Is  l'»). 

LiTERATrRE. — Mackie,  BtliU  Manners  and  Customt,  v.  p.  8 ; 
Condtr.  /laiiMook  to  the  Bible,  p.  221 ;  O.  A.  Smith,  IIGUL  p. 
64  (.,  y^KM,  1SS3,  p.  32.  T.  NiCOL. 

SNUFFERS,  SNUFFDISH.— In  three  passages 
of  the  Priests'  Code  mention  is  made  of  two 
utensils  connected  with  the  K'l'flen  caudlestick, 
named  respectively  Dirfj^a  melkuluiijim,  and  nnr? 
muhtUh,  and  rendered  by  AV  in  E.'c  37"^  '  snutlers ' 
and  '  snutldishes,'  in  25*  Nu  4'  '  tongs '  and 
'  snufl'dishes '  (so  IIV  also  in  Ex  I.e.).*  Tlie  -nuih- 
tilth  bear  the  same  name,  and  were  prolialily  of 
the  .same  shape,  as  the  censers  or  lireiiaiis  (so 
Tindale,  1530,  '  snutlers  and  fyrepanns').  In  them 
were  deposited  and  removed  from  the  sanctuary 
the  burnt  portions  of  the  wicks  (see  Censer  and 
TAnERNACLi;,  section  on  the  Candlestick).  The 
nullcdhdijim,  as  the  etymology  and  the  dual  form 
show,  was  clearly  a  snutlers  (Vulg.  emitnrtoria, 
forcipe.%  LXX,  Ex  38",  Nu  4»  Xo/3I5£s),t  resembling 
in  shape  a  pair  of  tongs,  like  the  Roman  fun-cps 
(illiistrs.  in  Smith,  Diet,  of  Gr.  and  Itum.  Ant.' 
i.  87'J),  since  the  same  word  is  used  of  the  tongs 
with  wliicli,  in  Isaiah's  vision,  the  live  coal  was 
lilted  from  the  altar-hearth  (Is  6").  It  was  used 
to  trim  and  adjust  the  wicks  of  the  lamps,  like 
the  acun  (the  pin  for  pushing  up  tlie  wick)  which 
figures  in  representations  of  Roman  lamps.  In 
later  times  we  hear  of  a  wool  or  llax  coml),  re- 
du(i!d  to  a  single  tooth,  being  used  for  this  purpose 
(Mishna,  Krlitn  xiii.  8  end).  The  same  instrument 
(mdkulidijim)  is  mentioned  (I  K  7*")  in  connexion 
with  the  lamps  of  Solomon's  temple,  in  a  lale 
addition  to  1  K  7  (for  7*'""'  see  Kings,  vol.  ii.  p. 
8G4\  the  commentaries  of  Kittel  and  Benzinger, 
and  esp.  Stade's  essay  cited  there),  and  its  ijarallel 
2  Ch  4-',  in  both  passages  tr^  '  tongs '  in  A V  and  RV. 
It  will  thus  he  seen  that  in  RV  'tongs'  is  now 
the  uniform  rendering  of  mclh'ihdyim  in  all  llie 
passages  where  it  occurs,  '  snullers  '  being  reserved 
for  another  word  ni:j;p  mezrimmcriJth  (from  it;  to 
prune,  trim),  also  mentioned  among  the  temple 
furniture  (1  K  1'"=2  Ch  4",  2  K  12'>r5iTn]^  25''  = 
Jer  52").  Thi.s,  as  the  etymology  again  shows, 
also  denotes  some  species  of  scissors  or  snullers  for 
trimming  the  lamp-wicks.  Prom  a  survey  of  the 
passages  cited  in  this  art.  it  would  ai)pear  that 
mizummirCth  is  the  older  term  of  the  two,  mcllinh. 
dijim  being  found  first  in  P,  and  in  the  later  addi- 

*  The  .\mericftii  Revisers,  however,  prefer  •snufleni*  In  all 
three  )»a«sni;e8. 

t  Hut  lix  '.i5^  and  elsewhere  iwtifivfrri^  ami  itttfiurtpit,  a 
(UDDel  o.»  other  appliance  tor  (ceding  the  lanii)8  with  oil. 


tions  influenced  by  it,  in  which  indeed  both  terms 
occur  side  by  side.  In  all  these,  furtlier,  the 
material  is  given  as  gold,  and  even  '  perfect  gold  ' 
(2  Ch  4-"),  while  in  the  older  and  historical  sources 
the  material  is  bronze  (cf.  1  K  7^'). 

A.  R.  S.  Kennedy. 

SO  (king  of  Egypt  [il/i"?mi;ii] ;  d'Tjo  -)-.  k-c,  LXX 
-rf/wp,  Vulg.  .Sua).— According  toi  2  K  17''  (AV 
and  RV),  Slialmaneser,  '  king  of  Assyria,  found 
conspiracy  in  Hoshea  (king  of  Israel) ;  for  he  had 
sent  messengers  to  So,  king  of  ]'"gypt,  and  offered 
no  present  to  the  king  of  Assyri.i.'  This  was  the 
cause  of  the  invasion  that  ended  in  the  captivity 
of  Israel.  Kings  of  the  Ethiopian  dj'nasty  (2.5th) 
were  reignin"  at  this  time  in  Egypt,  and  it  has 
been  supposed  that  one  of  these,  either  Shabaka  or 
Shaljataka,  was  intended  by  'So.' 

From  cuneiform  sources,  however,  we  learn  that 
there  was  at  this  time  a  certain  Piru,  king  of 
Musri,  and  that  in  li.c.  720,  shortly  after  the  fall 
of  Samaria  in  722,  Sib'i,  iarton  (commander-in- 
chief)  of  Musri,  was  sent  by  him  to  the  help  of 
Hanno,  king  of  Gaza,  against  Sargon.  It  was 
formerly  thought  that  '  Pir'u,  king  of  Musri,'  must 
he  '  Pharaoh,  king  of  Egypt,'  Musri  corresponding 
in  general  to  the  Hebrew  Mi?raim  ;  but  Wiucklcr 
has  recently  shown  that  this  Musri  nmst  be  distinct 
from  Egypt,  and  belong  rather  to  North  Arabia,  in 
the  country  of  the  Nabatoeans.  He  hnds  the  same 
Musri  also  in  the  Rible  under  the  name  Mizraim, 
and  identifies  the  biblical  'So,  king  of  Egypt' 
(Mi^fraim)  with  Sib'i,  the  tartan  of  the  North 
Arabian  Musri,  proposing  to  read  n:d  sh'  for  kid 
.«o'  (So)  (see  his  art.  '  Pir'u,  king  of  Mu§ri,'  in 
Mittheil.  d.  vorderas.  Gcscllmh.  IS'.IS,  5). 

The  identification  of  So  with  Sliabaka  or  Shab- 
ataka  seems  impossible.  Shishak  of  the  22nd 
dynasty,  who  invaded  Judah  and  Israel  in  the 
reign  of  Jerolioam,  is  indeed  entitled  in  tlie  Bible 
Dns?  -^7  '  king  of  Mi?raim,'  as  were  the  later 
'  Pharaohs,'  Necho  and  Hophra.  But  the  position 
of  the  somewhat  obscure  25th  dynasty  with 
regard  to  the  throne  of  Egypt  was  peculiar. 
Tirhaka,  who  was  the  last  important  king  of 
Shabaka's  djmasty,  is  entitled  to  '^J'?  '  king  of 
Cush  (Ethiopia)'  in  2  K  liV',  and  in  the  cuneiform 
'king  of  Cusi';  we  might  expect,  therefore,  to 
find  the  other  kings  of  that  dynasty  bearing  the 
same  title  '  king  of  Cush,'  rather  than  '  king  of 
Egypt,'  if  referred  to  in  any  Helnew  or  As- 
syrian record.  This  is  a  .slight  additional  argu- 
ment in  favour  of  Winckler's  theory.  To  the 
Egyptians  themselves  every  king  of  Egypt  in  these 
later  times,  whether  the  Persian  Darius,  the 
Macedonian  Alexander,  the  Roman  Augustus, 
or  the  Ethiopian  Tirhaka,  was  known  as  the 
'  Pliaraoli,'  and  this  is  the  title  whicli  they  all  boie 
in  E'-yptian  legal  documents.  To  the  rest  of  the 
world  Sliabaka,  the  Ethiopian  conqueror  of  Egypt 
and  the  founder  of  the  25th  dynasty,  presumal>ly 
would  be  known  as  '  king  of  Ethiopia.' 

F.  Ll.  Griffith. 

SOAP,  SOPE  (iS,  nns  ;  to(o)  is  a  "eneral  name 
for  tlie  class  of  substnnces  obtained  by  decompos- 
ing fats  or  oils  by  an  alk.ili  such  as  soda  or  potash. 
Fat.s  and  oils  are  comiiounds  of  certain  'fatty 
acids'  with  glycerine,  and  in  the  jnocess  of 
'saponification' the  alkali  combines  with  the  acid 
to  form  a  soap,  while  the  glycerine  is  set  free. 
Sonjis  dissolve  readily  in  water,  imparting  to  it  a 
peculiar  slippery  or  greasy  feeling,  forming  a  lather 
easily,  and  adding  greatly  to  its  cleansing  powers. 

According  to  Pliny  {II X  xxviii.  51),  soap  was  an 
invention  of  the  Gauls,  who  prepared  it  from 
tallow  and  ashes.  They  had  two  kinds  of  it,  the 
hard  and  the  liquid.  Soap-making  is  the  chief 
industry  of  modern  Palestine.  It  is  carried  on  in 
Jaffa,  N&blus,  Jerusalem,  and  elsewhere,  and  the 


558 


SOBER,  SOBRIETY 


SODOM 


product  is  exported  along  the  coast,  and  even  to 
Egypt  and  Asia  Jliiior.  Olive  oil  is  used,  and  tho 
poorer  qualities  of  it  especially  are  turned  to 
account  in  this  wav.  The  alliiili  employed  is 
potash,  and  is  locally  known  as  kulij.  It  is  ob- 
tained by  burning  certain  saliferous  desert  plants, 
the  chief  of  which  is  Salsola  kali.  This  alkali 
resembles  cakes  of  coarse  salt,  and  contains  many 
impurities,  and  these  accumulate  to  form  great 
rubbish  heaps  in  the  places  where  soap  is  made. 
The  potash  obtained  from  the  ashes  is  in  the  form 
of  a  carbonate.  This  is  dissolved  in  water,  and 
made  caustic  by  treatment  with  lime.  The  solu- 
tion or  '  lye '  is  then  boiled,  the  refuse  from  the 
oil-press  being  used  as  fuel.  Olive  oil  is  added, 
and  after  repeated  boilings  and  additions  of  oil 
the  solution  is  allowed  to  cool,  when  the  soap  sets 
in  a  solid  mass. 

'Soap'  (AV  'sope')  appears  tmce  in  EV  (Jer 
2^,  Mai  3-).  In  each  case  it  is  the  translation  of 
nnii,  a  word  connected  with  the  root  t:?  '  to 
cleanse.'  The  previous  clause  in  Jer  2P  refers  to 
"inj  or  mineral  alkali  (see  Nitre).  LXX  translates 
n'"!i)  in  both  places  by  iroia  ('grass').  These  facts 
suggest  that  vegetable  alkali  is  to  be  understood 
rather  than  soap  in  the  strict  sense.  The  carbonate 
of  potash  contained  in  the  ashes  of  plants  has 
detergent  properties  similar  to  those  of  washing- 
soda. 

Another  word,  "13,  from  the  same  root,  usually 
rendered  '  cleanness,'  is  tr.  '  lye '  in  KVm  in  Job 
9**,  Is  r-"*,  on  the  supposition  that  it  means  the 
same  thing  as  nn^,  vegetable  alkali  or  a  solution 
of  it. 

LiTERATdKH.— Thomson,  Land  and  Book,  L  130;  Warren, 
Underground  Jerusalem,  600  fl. ;  SWP,  Flora,  39& 

James  Patrick. 
SOBER,  SOBRIETY.— Both  'sober'  and  '  temper- 
ate' are  used  in  AV  in  tlie  narrower  meaning  of 
'not  drunk'  or  'not  drunken,'  and  in  the  wider 
meaning  of  '  moderate,'  '  reasonable.'  The  earliest 
sense  of  'sober'  is  'not  drunken'  (from  Fr.  sobre, 
Lat.  sobrius,  i.e.  se-ebrius),  and  that  is  now  its 
only  meaning ;  but  it  early  adopted  the  wider 
signification,  as  Piers  Plowman,  B.  xiv.  53 — 

*  Be  sobre  of  syghte  and  of  ton<j:e, 
In  etynge  and  in  handJ^-nge  and  in  alle  thi  fyne  wittis.' 

For  an  example  of  sober  =  not  drank,  take  Tindale's 
tr.  of  Nu  6'"  '  And  the  absteyner  shall  shave  his 
heed  in  the  door  of  the  tabernacle  of  witnesse,  and 
shall  take  the  heer  of  his  sober  heed  and  put  it 
in  the  fyre  which  is  under  the  pease  otl'erynge.' 
Soberly  (Wis  9",  Ro  12»,  Tit  2"),  soberness  (Ac 
26'^'),  and  sobriety  (1  Ti  2»-  ")  are  all  used  in  both 
senses.  Cf.  Tindale,  Pent.  (Prologe),  'Behold  how 
soberly  and  how  circumspectly  both  Abraham 
and  also  Isaac  behave  them  selves  amon^e  the 
infideles';  Tindale,  Expos.  127,  'With  their  fast 
the}'  destroy  the  fast  which  God  comniandeth, 
that  is,  a  perpetual  soberness  to  tame  the  flesh ' ; 
Ac  26=*  Rliem.  '  I  speake  wordes  of  veritie  and 
sobrietie' ;  Ro  12'  Rnem.  'For  I  say  by  the  grace 
that  is  given  me,  to  al  that  are  among  you  not  to 
be  more  wise  than  behoveth  to  be  wise,  but  to  be 
wise  unto  sobrietie.' 

The  words  rendered  'sober,'  etc,  or  'temperftte,'  etc..  In  AV 
ftnd  RV,  arc  the  following  : — 
L  (o)  i.;,»i.,  1  Th  5"  8,  2  Ti  4»,  1  P  I"  47  6«  (all '  be  sober'  In  AV 

except  2Ti  4»  'watch';  In  RV  all  'be  sober').      In 

every  case  the  Greek  word  has  the  wider  meaning  of 

'moderate.' 
(f>)  .r*..Ai«.-,  1  Ti  8»  (AV  '  vigilant '),  3"  (AV  '  sober  'J,  Tit  23 

(AV  'sober';    all  'temperate'  in  RV).      In  all  these 

cases  the  meaning  of  the  Greek  is  '  not  drunken.' 
1  (a) •-«;/»>,  1  Ti  32  (AV  'sober'),  Tit  18  (AV  'sober'),  23 (AV 

' tf-nperate '),  2^  (AV  'discreet' ;  idl ' 8ob«r-miiided '  in 

RV). 

(b)  .rj,Cf «i«,  Tit  2'2  (AV  and  RV  '  soberlr '). 

(c)  »«^.i»,  Mk  [.15  =  Lk  8»(A V and  KV  •  in  his  right  mind '), 

IU>  123  (j^on,"",  ij'f  ri  rv9f>c>t7»,  AV  and  RV  '  to  think 
soberly'),  2 Ck>  613  (AV  'be  sober'),  Tit  28  (AV  'be 


sober-minded '),  1 P  47  (AV '  be  sober  * ;  RV  in  last  thn« 
*  be  of  sober  mind'). 
(d) rtifpcrin,,  Ac  20-"  (AV  and  EV  'soberness'),  1  Ti  2»-U 
(AVandRV  'sobrietj  '). 
8.  (o)  iyxficTiia.,  Ac  2425,  Qal  rAi,  2  P  18  Ma  (AV  and  RV  always 
'  temperance,"  RVm  alw.ivs  '  self-control '). 
(b)iyxpx^„-.  Tit  18  (AV  and  RV  'temperate'). 
(e) iyxfstTi{.i>f.uct,  1  Co  7y  (.W  'contain,'  RV  'have  oonti. 
neney '),  925  (AV  and  RV  '  be  temperate  '). 
It  thus    appears    that  in   RV  'sober,'  'subcr-minded,'  etc., 
represent  rii^fa/v  and  its  derivatives,  as  well  a^  >v,^u\  '  temper- 
ate'is  the  tr.  of  »»:fla>jof  and  of  the  derivatives  of  iyApa.Tti»' 
while  for  iy.  itself '  temperance '  is  retained  from  AV,  with  the 
marg.  'self-control.' 
For  the  difference  between  iyxpttriis  and  ffu^pm  see  Page  OD 

Ac  2420.  J   Hastings. 

SOCO,  SOCOH  CiDSfe-,  ni^b  '  branches ' ;  Soccho, 
Sof/to).  —  The  form  of  the  name  varies  in  the 
LXX  (see  below),  and  quite  needlessly  in  AV. 
RV  has  Socoh  everywhere  except  in  1  Ch  4"  and 
2  Ch  28'»,  where  it  has  iiuco. 

1.  A  town  in  the  lowland  of  Judah,  mentioned 
with  Adullam  and  Azekah  (Jos  15"  B  Saoixu,  A 
Zuxii).  The  Philistines,  before  the  battle  in  which 
Goliath  was  slain,  assembled  at  Socoh,  and  camped 
between  Socoh  and  Azekah,  at  Ejihes  -  dammim 
(IS  17';  Jos.  Ant.  VI.  ix.  1).  It  was  in  the 
district  of  Ben-hesed,  one  of  Solomon's  conimis- 
-sariat  officers  (I  IC  4'") ;  and  was  fortified  by  Reho- 
boam  (2  Ch  11' ;  Ant.  Vlll.  x.  1).  In  the  reign  of 
Ahaz  it  was  taken  by  the  Philistines  (2  Ch  28"*). 

Eusebius  and  Jerome  {Oiiom.)  mention  two 
vill.iges — one  in  the  mountain,  the  other  in  the 
plain,  or  an  upper  and  lower  Socoh — which  were 
9  Roman  miles  from  Eleutlieropolis,  on  the 
road  to  Jerusalem,  and  were  called  Socchoth 
(-0Kxii8).  Socoh  was  passed  by  St.  Paula  on  her 
way  from  Jerusalem  to  Eleutlieropolis  (Horra;i, 
Ep.  Paul,  xviii.).  This  place  is  now  Khurbet  Shu- 
wcikch  (a  diminutive  of  Shaukch,  the  Arabic  form 
of  Slioco),  on  the  left  bank  of  WArly  es-Sunt,  '  the 
Valley  of  Elah.'  The  position,  strong  by  nature, 
was  of  strategical  importance,  for  it  commanded 
one  of  the  gieat  highways  from  the  coast  to  the 
hill-country  of  Judah.  Beneath  Skutveikeh,  the 
WAdy  es-Sunt  makes  a  great  bend,  and  runs  west- 
ward instead  of  from  south  to  north.  And  here, 
at  the  foot  of  the  highland  district,  the  roads  from 
Jerusalem  and  Hebron  unite,  before  running  on- 
wards down  the  valley  to  the  plains  of  Philistia. 
The  important  part  played  Ijy  Socoh  in  the  wars 
between  tlie  Jews  and  "the  Philistines  is  clearly 
indicated  in  the  l?ible  narrative  (Rob.  BRP^  ii.  21 ; 
PEF  Mem.  iii.  12o  ;  Gu6rin,  JtuKe,  i.  201,  332). 

2.  A  town  in  the  hill-country  of  Judah,  named 
with  Jattir,  Dannah,  and  Debir  (Jos  IS''^  B  2wx<'» 
A  2wxu).  The  Soco  of  1  Ch  4'*  is  apparently  the 
same  place.  It  ia  now  Khurbet  Shuweikeh,  to  the 
S.W.  of  Hebron,  and  near  Esbtemoa.  There  are 
some  insignificant  remains  (Rob.  DRP*  L  494 ; 
PEF  Mem.  iii.  410). 

At  Socoh,  according  to  the  Talmud,  was  bom 
Antigonus, — the  first  Jew  known  to  have  taken  a 
Greek  name, — who  was  noted  as  the  disciple  of 
Simon  the  Just,  and  the  master  of  Sadok,  the 
reputed  founder  of  the  Sadducees.  It  is  not,  how- 
ever,  known  of  which  of  the  two  Socohs  he  was  • 
native  (Neubauer.  Gcug.  du  Talmud,  p.  121). 

C.  W.  Wilson. 

SOD,  SODDEN.— See  Seethe. 

SODI  ('^^D,  perh.  =  ."I'Tio  '  intimacy  of  Jab  '). — The 
father  of  the  Zebulu'nite  spy,  Nu  13"  (B  2oi/«e<, 
A  2oi/Sl). 

SODOM  (D-ip,  26Jo.(ui).— One  of  the  five  'cities 
of  the  Plain'  in  the  time  of  Abraham  and  Lot, 
destroyed  by  fire  from  heaven  (On  19")  for  the 
wickedness  of  the  inhabitants.*     Its  position,  ia 

•  Tlie  five  cities  were  Sodom,  Gomorrah,  Admah,  Zeboiin,  and 
Zoar  (Gn  142,  Dt  2923).      That  tlie  language  of  St  Jude  is  not 


SODOM,  VINE  OF 


SOLOMON 


559 


the  ojiinion  of  the  present  writer,  was  on  the 
Anibab  north  of  the  Dead  Sea  not  far  from  Go- 
MORRAll  (whicli  see).  Weijjhty  authorities,  how- 
ever, can  be  cited  in  favour  of  a  site  at  the  S.  enil  of 
theSea(Dillm.  Genesis,  111  f.  ;  Kobinson,  BnP-\\. 
187  H.  ;  G.  A.  Smith,  //G/7I.  505  tr. ;  Blanckenhorn, 
ZDPV  \\x.  (ISlHi)  53 ir.;  Baedeker-Socin,  Pn/.  3, 
140;  Buhl,  GAP  117,  271,  274;  see  also  art.  Zoar). 
Tho  wickedness  of  tlie  Sodomites  apjiears  to  have 
been  so  heinous  and  debasing  as  to  liave  become 
proverbial  (Gn  13'^  IS*",  La  4«,  Is  3»,  cf.  2  P  2«, 
Jude  ').  The  term  '  Sodomite '  (ir-ij)  is  used  in  Scrip- 
ture to  describe  oU'ences  against  tlie  laws  of  nature 
which  were  frequently  connected  with  idolatrous 
practices  (cf.  Dt  23",  1  K  14"  15",  2  K  2.3' ;  see 
art.  Sodomite).  The  fate  of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah 
is  referred  to  by  our  Lord  as  a  warning  to  those 
who  reject  tlie  olfer  of  the  gospel  (Mt  10" ;  cf. 
Jude',  2  P  2").  A  spiritual  or  typical  meaning 
is  applied  to  the  word  in  Revelation  (11^). 

E.  Hull. 
SODOM,  VINE  OF.— See  Vine. 

SODOMITE  (s'-'j,  lit.  'sacred '  ;  fern.  np>ip,  inade- 
quately tr.  by  EV  'harlot,'  see  note  in  RVm  at 
Gn  38-^).— Tlie  Eng.  word  is  derived  from  SODOM 
[in  2  Es  7"  'Sodomites'  of  AV  is  used  in  lit.  sense 
for  '  people  of  Sodom '  (so  RV)],  where  unnatural 
offences  prevailed.  But  the  Heb.  kadcsh  and 
kidhihah  nave  in  view  not  ordinary  immorality 
hnt  religious  prostitution,  i.e.  '  immorality  practised 
in  the  worship  of  a  deity  and  in  tlie  immediate 
precincts  of  a  temple'  (Driver,  Deut.  264,  where 
see  references  to  authorities  for  the  widespread 
existence  of  this  practice).  Such  Upubov\oi.  of 
either  sex  were  not  tolerated  in  Israel  by  the 
Deuteronoraic  law  (Dt  23"*- '"  i"-  '»0-  The  /cec/lihim 
are  said  to  have  been  banished  from  Judali  by 
Asa  (1  K  15'°).  References  to  tliem  are  found  also 
in  1  K  14=^  22''(«),  2  K  23',  Job  SG'\  while  we  meet 
with  IfidcshOth  in  Gn  38="-  and  Hos  4". 

J.  A.  Selbie. 

SODOMITISH  SEA,  THE  (mare  Sodomitimm), 
2  Es  5'. — A  name  for  tlie  Dead  Sea.  One  of  the 
signs  of  the  times  to  come  there  "iven  is  that  '  the 
Sodom  sea  shall  ca-st  out  lish  (cfT  Ezk  47*  for  the 
belief  that  fish  could  not  live  in  its  waters),  and 
make  a  noise  in  the  night  which  many  have  not 
known.'  This  is  the  only  passage  in  the  Bible  or 
the  Apocr.  which  directly  connects  the  lake  with 
the  Cities  of  the  Plain;  and  even  liere  the  name 
may  be  derived  from  the  closeness  of  Sodom  to 
the  lake,  and  not  from  the  incorrect  theory  of 
that  city  having  been  submerged  by  the  Dead 
Sea.  H.  St.  J.  Tuackebay. 

SOJOURNER.— See  Ger. 

SOLEMN,  SOLEMNITY.— Derived  through  Old 
Fr.  solenipne  from  Lat.  sotteimtis  (from  sollus, 
entire,  and  annus,  a  year),  'solemn'  means  pro- 
perly that  which  occurs  annually,  and  is  tlicnce 
applied  to  any  stated  or  regular  occurrence.  Thus 
Mt  27"  Wye.  '  But  for  a  solempne  day  (Rhem. 
'upon  the  solemne  day')  the  justise  was  wonte  to 
delyvere  to  tlie  puple  oon  bounden';  Lk  2"  Wye. 
'And  his  fadir  and  raodir  wenten  eclie  j-eer  into 
lerusalcm,  in  the  solenipne  dale  of  pask'(Rheni. 
'at  the  solemne  day  of  Pasche').  And  tlien,  as 
that  which  was  stated,  especially  when  public,  was 
frequently  grand  or  ceremonious,  '  solemn  '  assumes 
this  nieanin"  ;  thus  Shaks.  Tit.  Andron.  II.  i.  112, 
•A  solemn  hunting  is  in  hand';  Macbeth,  III.  i. 
14,  'To-night  we  hold  a  solemn  supper,  sir.'    Such 

•T«ratr«ined  in  dcscribinp  the  hablta  of  the  Gentile  Inhabitanta 
of  Eutirrn  countries  will  be  clear  from  tho  account  given  by 
Prof.  Kawlinson  of  the  character  of  even  the  highly  civilized 
PhaDiduis  of  Tyre  and  Sldon  :  Uitlory  9/  Phwnwia. 


an  occasion  might  be  merry  or  sad,  according  to  it« 
nature  ;  whence  Chaucer,  Prologue,  209 — 

•  A  Frere  ther  won,  a  wantoun  and  a  merye, 
A  limitour,  u  ful  solenipne  man.' 

Chaucer  uses  the  word  simply  in  the  sense  of 
'public'  in  Persones  Talc,  105,  'The  spyces  of 
Penitence  been  three.  That  oon  of  hem  is  sol- 
enipne, another  is  commune,  and  the  thriddo  is 
privee.' 

These  examples  illustrate  the  use  of  the  word 
in  AV.  In  all  its  numerous  occurrences  it  signifies 
'stated'  or  'public,'  having  no  Heb.  word  corre- 
sponding to  itself,  but  being  used  along  with 
assembly  or  meeting  for  n^y;'  or  rryi'i  (see  Driver  on 
Am  5°') ;  with  feast  or  rfay  sometimes  (as  Nu  10'", 
La  I'',  Hos  2")  for  lyio*  (prop,  stated  time,  then 
used  esp.  of  stated  sacred  seasons  [see  Lv  23-  RVm 
'  appointed  seasons '])  '  solemn  feast ' ;  also  thrice 
in  AV  (Nah  1",  Mai  2^,  Ps  81»)  for  Jn,  and  (with 
^•ce/))  for  j:ri Dt  6" [RV omits  'solemn,'  harmonizing 
with  Lv  23^1t  It  is  easy  to  understand  how  the 
modem  sense  of  '  serious,'  '  grave,'  or  '  gloomy ' 
arose,  but  in  AV  that  sense  is  never  present. 

The  expression  '  with  a  solemn  sound '  occurs  in  Ps  92^  ('  tTpon 

the  hari;*  with  a  solemn  sound  '),  on  wliicli  de  Witt  remarks, 
*  Heb.  hi'jQditon,  from  the  verb  hdfjdh,  whii-li  is  iniitutivc  of  any 
low,  su]>inC3sed  sound,  and  especially  applicable  to  the  soft  trill 
of  the  liar)).  The  Enjflish  Bible  has  the  rendering  "  solemn 
sound,"  which  does  not  at  all  represent  tho  meanmg  of  the 
word.'  Not  now,  for  the  next  verse  says,  '  r<jr  thou,  Lord,  haat 
made  me  ^\aA. ' ;  but '  solemn  '  once  expressed  gladness  as  readily 
as  (gravity.  Elyot  (Govenioitr,  i.  41)  s-peal<s  of  the  theatre  as  '  an 
open  place  where  aj  the  people  of  Rome  behelde  solemne  actis 
and  playes.' 

In  accordance  with  the  meaning  of  'solemn,' 
solemnity  always  means  a  sacred  or  ceremonious 
occasion.  It  is  tlie  tr.  of  Aay,  a  feast,  in  Is  30-* 
('in  the  night  when  a  holy  solemnity  [RV  '  a  holy 
feast']  is  kept')  ;  and  of  mut-d,  a  (sacred)  season, 
in  Dt  31'<'  (RV  '  set  time  '),  Is  33»  (RV  '  solemnity,' 
RVm  '  set  feast '),  Ezk  45"  (RV  '  appointed  feast '), 
46"  (RV  'solemnity,'  RVm  'appointed  feast'). 
The  word  also  occurs  in  Sir  50"  '  the  s.  of  the  Lord ' 
((t6<r/ios  'K.vplov,  RV  'worship  of  the  Lord,'  RVm 
'  Gr.  adornment') ;  and  2  Mac  15^''  'in  no  case  to 
let  that  day  iiass  without  s.'  [aTrapaajitiavTov ,  RV 
'undistinguished').  Cf.  Shaks.  Mids.  NighVs 
Dream,  V.  i.  376— 

'  A  fortnijjht  hold  we  this  solemnity. 
In  nightly  revels  and  now  jollity. 

And  so  also  solemnly  means  sacredly  or  cere- 
moniously, (in  43^  'The  man  did  solemnly  protest 
untou8'(AVm  'Heb.  protesting  he  did  protest'); 

1  S  8*  '  Howlieit  yet  protest  suleiunly  unto  them  ' ; 

2  Mac  \i*  '  of  the  boughs  which  were  used  solemnly 
in  the  temple'  (tCiv  voixi^otiivuv  SoWif  tov  lepov). 
Cf.  Fuller,  Ilobj  War,  338,  'His  [the  prince's] 
clothes  are  such  as  may  beseem  his  Greatnesse, 
es|iecially  when  he  solemnly  appears,  or  presents 
himself  to  forrein  Embassadours. 

J.  HAS'HNOS. 
SOLOMON  {nbS^  ;  BA  ZaXw^'i",  I>uc.  :Lo\oiiiiv  and 
SaXo^uii',   NT   and  Josephus  -o\o/»iij'). — The  third 
king  of  Israel,  a  son  of  David  and  Bathsheba. 

1.  The  JVanM.— Another  name  Jedldlah  (i,"'!"';  '  beloved  of 


Jah 

pro] 


';  B'Ui^i.',  A  E'tSf^Kx,  Luc.  'Ii^^i^idt)  wiuj  given  him  by  the 
,)het  Nathan  OH  a  pledvre  that  the  Lord  would  be  specially 
gracious  to  him,  and  ttiat  liis  fulher  was  restored  to  the  Divine 
favour.  Ah  that  name,  however,  occurs  only  once  (2  8  12'^),  we 
may  infer  that  it  never  camo  into  common  use.  Not  improl>. 
ably  it  niay  have  been  deemed  too  sat-Ted  for  such  use.  The 
name  Jedidiah  haa  tho  same  root  as  David,  viz.  in  '  a  primitive 
caressing  word. 'J  Wellhausen  ami  others  conform  the  Heb. 
text  of  2  S  12"-^  to  tho  Vulg.  and  represent  l>fivid  as  the 
originator  of  tho  name.  The  hypothesis  is  unlikely  consider- 
ing the  diirerence  of  tho  relations  of  David  and  Natiian  to  J"  at 

*  lyte  ODce  also  of  itolnnn  auembly, 

t  On  tho  distinction  of  i:)  and  ly^O  Me  vot  1.  p.  8fXK 

X  See  Oxf.  lidi.  Lex.  :v. 


060 


SOLOMON 


solo:mon 


•he  time  when  the  name  was  given,  and  that  the  name  was  a 
sacred  one  and  the  vehicle  of  a  Divine  message.  Chej-ne  (art. 
•  Jediiliah  '  in  i'HC.  Bibl.)  not  only  alters  the  text  but  makes  for 
it  a  new  context,  and  so  arrives  at  the  original  and  remarkable 
result  tli:it  Jcdidiah  was  David's  first  son  by  Bathslicba,  and 
that  he  called  his  second  son  byhernot  Shclomuh, bnt  '  bhillumS 
(lO*".:',  i.e.  'his  compensation')  because  of  Jedidiah.'  Accord- 
in-'  to  that  finding,  Solomon  was  never  called  Jedi.liah.  Nor 
was  he  entitled  to  the  name  of  Solomon.  His  rc.-vl  name  was 
Shillumo,  although  no  Hebrew  kin-  is  known  to  ha\e  borne 
that  name.  It  is  difficult  to  see  where,  on  the  hypothesis  of 
Chcvne,  the  consolation  of  David  could  come  in.  Nor  is  it 
probable  that  any  Hebrew  king  would  call  his  son  by  the  name 
Shillumo.  Shillumah  is  only  used  in  the  OT  once  (Ps  91<=),  and 
it  is  in  the  sense  not  of  coinpainatiou  but  of  rcinbulion,  the 
reward  of  the  wicked  (so  shillum  in  Hos  9',  Is  348).  Shitlum 
and  Bhalmmlm,  are  also  each  used  once  (Mio  7S,  Is  l-*)  of 
'  rewards '  in  the  sense  of  bribes.  „  „    ,_  .      ^.    ^ 

According  to  one  reading  of  2  S  12=4,  it  was  Bathsheba  that 
gave  her  son  the  name  of  Solomon.  She  may  have  done  so.  In 
the  OT  more  instances  are  mentioned  of  the  names  of  children 
beint'  given  bv  their  mother  than  by  their  father.  In  a  num- 
ber of  cases  the  names  are  said  to  have  been  given  by  both 
parents,  and  that  may  have  been  so  as  regards  Solomon, 
althou-h  the  evidence  for  David's  p.articipation  in  the  act  is 
positive,  and  that  for  Bathsheba's  only  problematical.  Accord- 
in-  to  one  account  of  David's  naming  of  Solomon,  he  is  repre- 
sented as  having  acted  under  the  belief  that  God  had  expressly 
tlirectod  him  to  give  the  child  the  name  he  did.  The  Chronicler 
(1  Ch  229)  describes  him  as  telling  his  successor  that  he  had 
himself  proposed  to  build  a  temple  to  J",  but  that  the  word  of 
J"  had  forbidden  him  because  of  the  blood  he  had  shed,  while 
promising  him  that  the  work  would  be  accomphshed  by  a  son 
who  would  bear  the  name  of  Solomon,  and  have  a  rei-n  of  peace 
and  quietness.  Whether  that  statement  be  histoncaUy  accurate 
or  not  cannot  he  decided  by  the  merely  historical  evidence  in 
our  possession.  There  is,  however,  no  internal  impossibihty  in 
the  account  of  the  state  of  mind  ascribed  to  David.  On  the 
contr.an-,  that  is  psycholo-ically  quite  natural.  The  name 
Shilijmiih  (Solomon)  means  '  peaceful,'  '  pacific"  like  the  Gr. 
Jreiueus  and  Ger.  Friedrich.  And  when  Solomon  was  born, 
David  was  a  man  whose  strength  had  been  exhausted  in  war- 
fare, and  who  was  keenlv  sensible  of  the  blessings  of  peace  both 
for  a  kin-  and  a  kingdom.  Hence  it  was  altogether  natural 
that  at  tSat  period  of  time  he  should  have  given  the  name 
Solomon  to  a  son  on  whom  he  placed  high  expectations  and  for 
whom  he  desired  a  happier  life  than  his  own,  and  very  con- 
ceiv.able  even  that  he  may  have  felt  that  God  directed  him  to 
name  his  child  as  he  did.  The  name  was  certainly  one  which 
indicated  well  a  prominent  and  distinctive  feature  of  both  the 
character  and  reign  of  Solomon.  Althou-h  he  ruled  as  on 
absolute  monarch,  allowed  no  rivals,  and  did  not  hesitate  to 
crush  dangerous  adversaries,  he  was  not  naturally  cruel,  and 
had  no  taste  for  war.  He  was  a  man  of  peace— the  most 
peace-loving,  perhaps,  of  the  Hebrew  kings;  and  under  his 
swav  there  was  for  about  forty  years  in  Palestine,  not  absolute 
peace  indeed,  either  as  regards  contentment  within  or  cessation 
ot  hostility  from  without,  but  such  peace  as  the  Hebrew  nation 
had  never  known  before  or  was  ever  to  know  again. 

2.  The  Svurces.— The  chief  sources  of  informa- 
tion regarding  the  life  and  rpi<;n  of  Solomon  are 
rontained  in  the  books  of  Kings  and  Chronicles. 
The  narrative  in  Kings  (1  K  1-11-")  is  clo.sely  con- 
nected with  a  section  of  the  books  of  Samuel 
(2  S  11-20).  The  latter  is  also  a  continuous  nar- 
rative. It  leads  steadily  up  to  the  story  in  Kings, 
and  shows  in  a  graphic  and  picturesque  way  what 
obstacles  blocked  the  way  of  Solomon's  accession 
to  the  throne,  and  how  unlikely  it  was  that  he 
would  have  reached  it  had  J"  not  specially  loved 
and  favoured  him.  Along  with  the  narrative  in 
Kings  it  forms  a  whole  in  which  there  is  both 
unity  of  plan  and  simUarity  of  style.  Both  of  our 
oldest  sources  arc  far  frou\  being  contemporary 
documents.  The  record  in  King.s  is  historically 
much  the  more  valuable  ;  but  the  compilation  even 
of  Kings  cannot  have  been  completed  until  about 
400  years  after  the  death  of  Solomon.  The  com- 
pilation of  Chronicles  was  not  completed  until  at 
least  three  centuries  later. 

The  author  of  the  account  in  Chron.  made  use  of  the  account 
in  Kin-s  and  added  to  it  onlv  little  information  of  a  strictly 
historical  character.  The  author  of  the  account  in  Kings  refers 
(1  K  ll'")  to  an  older  account  '  the  book  of  the  annals  of 
Solomon.'  The  author  of  the  account  in  Chron.  refers  (2  Ch 
»»)  to  (0)  ■  the  words  of  Nathan  the  prophet,  (6)  the  pro- 
phecy of  Ahiiah  the  Shilonite,'  and  (c)  'the  vision  of  Iddo  the 
seer '  See  artt.  Kisos  and  CllROSiCLBS.  Through  the  hands 
of  what  authors  and  editors  Kings  and  Chron.  pa^ed  before 
they  reached  their  present  form  no  one  knows,  and  even  the 
process  by  which  thev  became  what  they  are  has  been  only 
vaguely  Ascertained.  The  loss  of  older  records  than  those 
wluch  we  possess  i»  all  the  more  to  be  regretted,  u  both  Kiiigi 


and  Chron.  were  written  largely  under  the  influence  of  religiom 
motives  and  with  a  view  to  religious  edification.  Merely  to 
record  events  and  trace  their  comicxiona,  causes,  and  course  01 
movement  had  no  mterest  for  the  authors  of  them.  What 
thev  were  chicHv  concerned  with  was  how  they  might  make 
kno'wn  the  hand  and  voice  of  God  in  His  dealings  with  Israel, 
and  with  her  friends  and  foes.  The  authors  of  the  accounts  in 
Samuel,  Kings,  and  Chron.  were  manifestly  men  of  limited 
views,  men  of  their  tuue,  and  much  infiuenced  in  what  they 
wrote  by  the  feelings  and  beliefs  prevalent  in  their  social 
medium  They  are  entitled,  however,  to  be  credited  with 
honesty  and  piety  In  mtcntion.  Their  account  has  its  faults. 
Although  they  assign  a  comparatively  large  space  to  Solomon, 
thej-  give  us  no  very  precise  or  vivid  description  either  of  his 
private  life  or  public  career,  and  no  distinct  view  of  the  order 
of  succession  of  events  in  his  reign.  They  may  not  be  wholly 
to  blame  for  that,  nor  may  it  be  much  to  be  rc-retted  that  they 
did  not  succeed  better.  Seemingly,  the  character  of  Solomon 
was  one  exceptionaUv  difficult  to  portray.  Saul  and  David 
were  far  more  interesting  personages,  and  it  is  natural  that 
they  should  have  been  presented  in  a  far  more  lifelike  manner. 
Solomon  is  left  bv  his  biographers  an  imposing  but  very  in- 
distinct figure.  Was  that,  however,  not  just  as  it  should  be? 
Was  not  want  of  reality  his  great  want  ?  If  so,  could  he  have  been 
more  truly  and  wisely  represented  than  he  was?  The  accounts 
given  of  him  in  both  Kiu-s  and  Chron.  are  priestly  in  tone  and 
tendencv,  but  that  in  Chron.  is  much  more  so  than  that  m 
Kin-s.  'The  general  view  given  of  the  character  and  rcign  of 
Solomon  in  the  latter  is  far  more  discriminating  than  that  m 
the  former.  \\Tiile  m  Kings  the  glory  of  Solomon  is  dwelt  on 
with  patriotic  pride,  the  mischievousness  of  his  conduct  is  also 
clearly  set  forth,  whereas  in  Chron.  what  tends  to  glonfy  him 
is  alone  dwelt  on,  and  what  was  unworthy  of  his  reputation, 
jud-ed  of  from  a  Levitical  point  of  view,  is  either  passed  over 
unnoticed  or  very  slightly  mdicated.  There  are  no  traces, 
however,  of  conscious  dishonesty  in  the  Chromcler,  no  grounds 
for  holding  him  to  have  stated  what  he  did  not  beheve,  while  it 
is  of  great  advantage  to  have  two  accounts  which  so  far  agree 
and  so  far  differ.  The  Chronicler  assumed  certain  preconcep- 
tions current  in  his  age  as  to  the  history  of  his  people  to  be 
unquestionably  true,  and  wrote  his  history  in  conformity  with 
those  preconceptions.  That,  however,  is  what  all  historians 
do,  even  the  most  advanced  and  critical.  History  cannot  be 
written  without  preconceptions,  and  preconceptions  cannot  but 
lead  to  conclusions  which  must  appear  to  those  who  do  not 
accept  them  falsifications  of  the  historical  data.  The  Chronicler's 
pride  in  the  glorv  of  Solomon  and  in  the  position  attained  by 
Israel  under  him,  the  exaggerated  importance  which  he  assigned 
to  priests  and  priestly  things,  his  prodigaUtyas  regards  number, 
and  other  peculiarities,  are  themselves  most  instructive,  because 
characteristic  of  him  not  as  an  individual  merely,  but  also  as  » 
representative  of  the  time  and  society  to  which  he  belonged. 
H&  estimate  of  the  conduct  of  Solomon  does  not  substantiaUy 
differ  from  that  given  in  Kings.  It  amounts  to  a  severe  con- 
demnation—one all  the  more  severe  coming  as  it  does  from  a 
writer  so  biassed  in  his  favour— of  the  evil  which  he  had  done 
notwithstanding  bis  vast  means  and  opportmuties  of  domg 
good. 

The  fragments  of  ancient  historians  quoted  by 
Josephus  (Ant.  Vlll.  ii.  6),  by  Eusebius  of  Ca>sarea 
(Prwp.  El',  ix.  34),  and  by  Clemens  Alex.  {Strom. 
i.  386)  add  little,  if  anything,  to  our  knowledge  of 
Solomon  beyond  what  is  stated  in  Kings  and 
Chronicles.  The  narrative  of  Josephus  himself 
in  Ant.  vm.  i.-viii.  depends  almost  entirely  on 
the  Biblical  records.  Where  he  deviates  from 
them,  he  is  rarely  to  be  trusted.  It  is  noteworthy 
tliat  he  describes  Solomon  as  a  powerful  sorcerer. 
That  liad  already  become  in  his  time  a  generally 
accepted  belief  among  the  Jews,  and  probably  was 
not  confined  to  them.  It  is  especially  as  a  sor- 
cerer and  lord  over  the  elements,  animals,  aphrcets 
and  jinn,  that  he  is  renowned  in  the  East.  The 
Oriental  imagination  has  run  riot  in  the  invention 
of  legends  regarding  him.* 

The  writinns  long  attributed  to  Solomon,  to  be 
found  in  the''OT  or  the  Apocryplia,  cannot  in  the 
present  state  of  opinion  among  Biblical  critics  as 

•  Jewish  legends  of  the  kind  referred  to  are  to  be  found  in  the 
Targum  on  Ecdes.  an.l  II.  Targ.  on  Esther.  For  those  ii.  the 
KorM  see  suras  21.  27.  28.  37.  For  the  ^TlT^l^.n  it 
Rabbis  see  Eisenmen-er,  Entdeck.  Jvd.  Solff.,  "",«■ .  ^°' 
Mohammedan  stories.  Weil,  JliM.  ^">^  (UrilutielmannfT. 
226  ff.;  Baring  Gould,  Legends  o/  OT  Charactfrt  vol.  u.  ch. 
XNxvii.  f.:  and  Lane's  Thousand  and  One  i\ighu  ilndey.  t 
^Suleiman  ibn  David').  Hettinger's  H,^  Or.,  berbelots  /Mt 
Or  333  and  the  historians  AbuUeda,  Tabari,  ond  Ludolpn 
(IJist.  Eth.)  may  also  be  referred  to.  M.  D.  Conw^v  in  ha 
hiloinon  and  Solomunic  Lileralnre  (Open  Court  Pub.  Co., 
Chicago,  1900)  deals  with  the  Solomon  mythology  as  a  whole  m 
an  ingenious  but  often  very  arbitrary  way.  He  considers  tie 
external  and  historical  data  insutbcient  to  prove  certainly  IBM 
on  individual  Solomon  ever  existed '  (p.  1> 


SOLOMON 


SOLOilOX 


561 


to  tlieir  autliorsliip  lie  assumed  to  supply  materials 
for  Ills  biography.  He  may  have  been  the  author 
of  a  few  of  the  Vs:ilms  and  a  number  of  the  I'ro- 
verbs,  but  to  prove  him  so  and  to  establish  which 
are  his  i^  difhciilt.  The  Sokg  of  Songs  cainiot 
be  his,  but  it  has  a  historical  value  deponilent 
neither  upon  its  date  nor  its  authorshij),  hut  on 
its  testimony  to  the  impression  which  Solomon's 
character  had  left  on  certain  Jewish  minds.  The 
Wisdom  of  Solomox,  which  professes  to  have 
Solomon  for  author,  shows  what  impression  he 
had  left  on  a  very  dillcrcnt  class  of  minds  at  a 
otill  later  date.  As  to  the  relation  of  KCCLESI- 
USTF.."!  to  Solomon,  see  art.  in  the  present  work 
and  in  Enc.  Bihlii-a ;  of.  also  Sir  42""^.  Con- 
siderable sideliglit  has  been  cast  on  the  Solomonic 
age  in  Israel  by  ar(,h<L'ologicaI  and  historical 
investigations,  but  it  has  not  so  much  incniased 
our  knowledge  of  Solomon  himself  as  of  his  build- 
ings, the  topo^Taphy  of  his  capital,  the  geography 
of  his  kingdom,  the  ethnology  and  ancient  history 
of  it,  and  the  state  of  the  countries  with  which 
the  Israel  of  his  time  was  brought  into  contact, — 
subjects  which  cannot  be  dealt  with  in  this  article. 
Modern  criticism  of  the  Hibli('al  sources  haa  dis- 
pelled many  erroneous  views  regarding  Solomon's 
life  and  reign  ;  b\it  it  has,  of  course,  not  increased, 
and  cannot  be  e.\pected  to  increase,  that  know- 
ledge of  positive  facta  regarding  them,  which  is 
the  great  desideratum. 

3.  Birth,  parentrirje,  and  traininrj. — The  account 
of  the  birth  of  Solomon  in  2  S  12-''-  '•*  conveys  the 
impression  that  he  was  tlie  second  child  of  David 
and  Bathsheba.  The  lists  of  their  childnn  in 
2  S  3",  1  Ch  3»,  and  1  Cli  l^^  on  the  otlier  hand, 
Beem  to  imply  that  he  was  their  fourth  child,  their 
youngest  son,  and  that  Shammua  (or  Shiinea), 
Shobab,  ami  Nathan  had  been  previously  born  to 
them,  as  in  all  those  lists  his  name  is  mentioned 
last.  No  (juite  satisfactory  e.xiilanation  of  the 
ipparcnt  discrepancy  has  yet  been  given.  The 
likeliest,  perhaps,  is  that  Solomon  was  mentioned 
last  .-us  being  tlie  most  important  muTnl>cr  of  the 
family  group,  the  heir  to  his  father's  throne. 

Nathan,  by  his  rebuke  of  David,  lost  none  of  his 
influence  with  either  him  or  Uathslieba,  and  con- 
tinued to  be  the  friend  of  both.  He  prophesied 
good  for  their  child,  and  strongly  supported  his 
cause  at  the  moment  when  it  was  most  in  danger. 
Owing  to  that  and  the  vagueness  of  a  plirase  in 
2  S  12-^,  he  has  very  generally  been  held  to  have 
had  the  charge  of  Solomon's  education.  There 
is,  however,  no  real  foundation  for  the  opinion. 
Scarcely  any  information  is  given  us  regarding 
Solomon  previous  to  his  elevation  to  the  throne. 
It  may  safely  be  infirrffl  from  what  he  was  in 
manhood  that  his  I'llncat  ion  liad  not  been  neglected 
in  youth,  and  that  he  must  have  lncn  very  recep- 
tive of  learning  and  ciger  to  excel  in  accomplish- 
ments;  but  there  is  nothing  to  indicate  that  he 
was  trained  under  any  prophet,  or  that  he  was  in 
sympathy  with  anything  distinctive  of  prophetic 
toiicliini.'  or  prophetic  ideals  of  life.  Tlicre  is  no 
trace  of  Nathan,  or  any  other  proi>het,  having  had 
any  inllueme  over  him  when  king.  The  prophetic 
ministry  almost  disappeared  duiiiig  his  reign. 
What  prophets  there  were  in  Israel  in  his  day 
were  opposed  to  his  policy.  Far  more  probably 
ho  waa  educated  in  his  father's  palace.  In  various 
respects  the  court  of  David  must  li.ave  been  the 
best  school  possible  for  the  education  of  David's 
successor,  while  in  others  one  most  apt  to  develop 
the  defects  so  conspicuous  in  Solomon's  aftirlife. 
The  atmosphere  of  a  court  presided  over  by  David, 
and  agitated  by  the  internal  dissensions  and  con- 
flicting pa.ssions  to  which  despotic  power  and 
polygamy  combined  necessarily  gave  rise,  cannot 
have  been  favourable  to  his  healthy  moral  growth. 

VOL.  l1l.—■^6 


There  is  no  definite  inform.ition  given  us  as  to 
how  far  or  in  wliat  ways  he  was  induenced  by 
his  mother  ;  but  tiiere  can  be  no  reasonable  doubt 
that  her  inlluence  was  considerable.  To  have 
retained  the  hold  which  she  had  upon  David 
and  the  rank  which  she  held  among  his  wives, 
she  must  have  been  more  than  merely  'a  very 
beautiful  woman'  (2  S  11).  She  must  have 
been  also  a  talented  and  sagacious  one.  That 
she  was  in  close  alliance  with  Nathan,  that 
.•\dimijah  sought  her  aid  on  his  behalf  in  the 
belief  that  her  son  would  refuse  nothing  that  she 
asked,  and  that  Solomon  received  her  with  the 
utmost  reverence  when  she  presented  herself 
before  him,  are  indications  of  fact  which  all 
point  in  one  direction.  We  may  accordingly  infer 
that  she  had  considerably  contributed  to  the  for- 
mation of  Solomon's  character. 

4.  Adur)ij<ik's  rebellion.  —  There  is  very  little 
further  intormation  given  regarding  Solomon  pre- 
vious to  his  accession  to  the  throne.  The  account 
in  1  Ch  22-'"'  describes  David's  [ireparation  for  the 
building  of  the  temple,  and  records  his  charges  to 
Solomon  and  the  princes.  If  it  be  in  its  proper 
place  in  the  book — a  point  on  which  there  is  room 
lor  ditierence  of  opinion — it  clearly  shows  that 
Adonijah's  rebellion  was  inexcusable.  There  is, 
however,  nothing  elsewhere  to  correspond  to  it, 
nor  are  there  any  means  allbided  us  of  verifying 
what  needs  verilication  in  it.  The  rebellion  of 
Adonijaii  was  wliat  necessitated  the  elevation  of 
Solomon  to  the  throne  before  his  father's  death. 
Adonijah  was  then,  perhaps,  his  father's  eldest 
son,  and  may  natuially  have  considc^red  himself 
to  have  had  on  that  ground  a  preferential  claim 
to  the  throne.  There  was  at  that  time,  however, 
no  authoritative  law  or  settled  precedent  to  regu- 
late the  succession. 

.Adonijah  tiimself  docs  not  seem  to  have  rested  his  claim  on 
rij^lit  or  precedent,  but  on  the  goodwill  of  the  pi-ople.  'Thou 
knowest,'  he  said  to  Batlishcba  when  obviousl.v  trying'  to  ni.ike 
tile  most  of  his  owii  eause, — '  thou  knowest  that  the  kin;,'(ioni 
was  mine,  and  that  all  Israel  set  their  faces  on  me,  that  1  sliuuld 
relj^n  :  howheit  the  kinj^doni  is  turned  about,  and  is  become  my 
brother's:  for  it  was  his  from  the  Lord*  (1  K  '.ilC).  That  is  a 
very  intelligible  view,  and  all  the  more  so  that  we  know  thn 
people  of  Israel  in  the  time  of  David  and  Solomon  vinqucstion- 
ably  felt  that  they  had  some  ri^'ht  to  consideration  in  the 
appointment  of  their  kings.  The  Northern  tribes  unmistakably 
showed  that  when  they  rejected  Solomon's  only  son.  It  i"a 
none  the  les.s  very  mislc-wling  to  speak  of  Adonijah  as  •  the 
riirhtful  heir'  to  the  throne,  as  Stade  and  some  other  critics  do. 
The  'rightful  heir  to  the  throne*  in  an  absolute  monarchy  such 
as  Israel  had  become  under  David,  was  the  son  nominated  by 
the  reiLTiing  monarch.  It  has  been  so  in  all  such  monarchies  ; 
and  wherever  polyfjamy  has  prevailed  in  these  monarchies, 
yovniger  sons  have  been  often  appointed  to  the  exclusion  of  the 
eldest.  The  present  Shah  of  Persia  is  an  instance  of  'a  ri(;htful 
monarch,'  altnou^'h  he  has  an  older  and,  it  is  said,  exceptionally 
able  brother.  The  appointment  of  the  youngest  son  to  the 
throne  was  very  common  in  the  despotisms  of  India. 

Adonijah,  it  would  seem,  was  '  a  very  goodly 
man,'  captivating  in  his  manners,  fond  of  display 
and  magnilicence,  ambitious,  and  scheming.  He 
made  it  (juite  apjiarent  that  he  wished  to  be  kin'', 
assumed  royal  honours,  and  gained  over  to  his  side 
powerful  allies,  in  Joab  the  general  of  the  army, 
Abiathar  the  ]uiest,  and  the  jirinces  of  the  royal 
house.  In  a  word,  he  beg.in  to  play  the  lAle  of 
the  ill-fated  Absalom.  The  conspirators  may 
possibly  have  deemed  that  his  seniority  of  birtb 
or  superiority  of  qualifications  gave  him  a  right  tn 
reign.  They  may  also  have  possibly  deemeil  that 
it  was  expedient  for  him  to  ascend  the  throne  at 
once  owing  to  David's  budili'  weakness.  ]!ut  I  hey 
were  certainly  engaged  in  a  real  and  formidahle 
consjiiracy  kept  secret  from  the  king,  and  meant 
to  .set  him  aside  and  to  thwart  his  wishes.  Their 
attemjit  does  not  seem  to  have  been  either  skil- 
fully i>laniied  or  strongly  supported  in  pojiular 
feeling.  The  account  given  of  it  and  of  its  failure 
in    1  K   l'"*"  distinctly  convej's   that  impression. 


562 


SOLOMON 


SOLOMOJN 


As    soon    as  divulged,    the   whole   plot   came   to 
naught.* 

5.  Commencement  of  reign  and  first  acts. — David 
Koou  afterwards  died,  and  .Solomon  succeeded  him 
without  opposition.  The  year  in  which  he  hegan 
to  reign  has  not  been  determined,  nor  are  there 
yet  known  data  for  doing  so  exactly.  He  is  said 
both  in  Kings  and  Chron.  to  have  reigned  forty 
years ;  but  that  may  be  a  round,  not  an  exact, 
number.  If  exact,  however,  we  may  assign  about 
B.C.  970  as  the  time  at  which  he  began  to  reign, 
since  there  are  good  reasons  for  considering  B.C. 
930  as  about  the  first  year  of  Jeroboam's  reign — 
the  year  in  which  Solomon  died. 

The  Jewish  and  Arabic  tradition  that  Solomon  was  only 
twelve  years  old  when  he  began  to  rei^,  obviously  orij^nated 
in  misconception  of  the  meaning  of  the  words  in  1  K  3'  '  I  am 
but  a  little  child  ;  I  know  not  how  to  go  out  or  come  in,'  etc.; 
words  not  to  be  taken  literally,  but  as  a  humble  confession  of 
inatlequacy,  owing  to  youth  and  inexperience,  for  the  great 
task  of  royalty.  The  generally  received  view  that  he  was 
about  twenty  years  old  when  he  began  to  reign  cannot  be  far 
amiss.  According  to  Josephus,  Solomon  began  to  reign  when 
le  waAjourteen  years  of  age  ;  but,  in  the  same  sentence  he  tells 
as  he  reigne<l  eijhty  years,  and  died  at  the  a?e  of  ninety-four 
{Ant,  vin.  vii.  8).  He  does  not  mention  the  source  of  his 
information. t 

The  first  concern  of  Solomon  as  king  naturally 
was  to  make  his  seat  secure.  The  Chronicler 
characteristically  says  nothing  regarding  the  way 
in  which  he  established  himself  in  his  kingdom. 
The  whole  account,  however,  in  1  K  2'^-3*  seems 
worthy  of  credence.  It  represents  Solomon  as 
acting  with  great  decision  and  vigour,  and  yet  as 
not  inflicting  punishment  beyond  what  was  deemed 
necessary.  He  struck  only  at  the  heads  of  the 
conspiracy  which  had  been  formed  against  him. 
Considering  that  he  was  an  Oriental  ruler,  not  his 
cruelty  but  his  clemency  was  exceptionak  David 
is  not  recorded  to  have  advised  the  taking  of  any 
strong  measures  against  Adonijah,  and  Solomon 
had  granted  him  a  pardon  accompanied  with  a 
stern  warning.  Very  naturally,  however,  and 
probably  quite  correctly,  he  interpreted  his  re- 
quest to  have  Al'ishag  for  a  wife  as  a  proof  that 
he  had  not  abandoned  his  pretensions  to  the 
throne.  Bathsheba,  it  has  been  argued,  would 
not  have  communicated  the  request  to  her  son  if 
she  had  deemed  it  trea.sonable  in  intention.  Per- 
haps not,  but  perhaps  al.so  she  did  not  act  in 
earnest  for  the  good  of  the  son  of  Haggith. 
Abiathar  was  leniently  dealt  with  in  considera- 
tion of  his  past  loyalty.  David,  according  to 
1  K  2",  had  advised  the  putting  to  death  of  Joab  ; 
but,  even  if  he  did  not  do  so  (see  art.  JoAB), 
Solomon  could  not  have  been  expected  to  spare 
his  life.  Joab  was  the  mo.^t  dangerous  enemy 
he  could  possibly  have  in  all  Israel.  He  was  so 
resolute,  so  able,  so  much  a  favourite  with  the 
army,  that  even  David  had  not  been  able  to 
keep  him  in  check.  Not  inferior,  and  seemingly 
even  superior,  to  David  as  a  commander,  there 
was  no  one  left  in  Israel  to  compare  with  him  in 
military  ability.  His  successor  Benaiah  was  a 
valiant  warrior,  and  an  eliicient  tool  for  an  abso- 
lute ruler  to  have  at  hand,  but  there  is  no  evidence 

•  Wellhausen,  Stade,  and  other  eminent  critics  represent 
Nathan  and  Bathsheba,  Zadok  and  Benaiah,  as  conspirators, 
and  the  choice  of  Solomon  by  David  as  the  result  of  a  palace 
intrigue.  It  is  possible  to  think  so,  but  the  supposition 
appears  to  the  present  writ«r  to  be  merely  conjectural.  As  to 
what  is  related  of  David's  advice  to  Solomon  in  I  K  21"  and 
1  Ch  SX**!"  and  28-'291-2l!,  see  the  art.  Davu)  in  the  present 
work,  and  A'jic.  /Ji6.,  and  the  commentatorfl  mentioned  under 
heading  of  Literature, 

t  Perhaps  1  K  S"  sufficed  to  suggest  to  him  the  eighty  years' 
reign  and  ninety-four  years  of  life.  It  is  not  unlikely,  however, 
that  earlier  Jewish  authors  may  have  written  to  the  same  effect. 
The  promise  of  length  of  days  was  a  merelv  conditional  one, 
and  Solomon  did  not  fulfil  the  condition.  Stade  rightly  holds  it 
as  certain  that  Solomon  must  have  reigned  over  thirty  years, 
but  inconclusivel^v  infers  from  1  K  151  and  2  Ch  1218  ttiat  be 
could  not  have  reigned  forty  years  (see  his  G  VI  L  307X 


that  he  was  a  great  general.  Joab  could  neither 
have  respect  for  the  character  of  a  man  like 
Solomon,  nor  sympathy  with  his  policy;  indeed 
a  reign  like  that  of  Solomon  could  hardly  hav« 
been  possible  so  long  as  Joab  was  at  the  head  ol 
the  Hebrew  army.  The  view  of  Guthe  and  others, 
that  David  and  Solomon  hoped  that  the  putting 
of  Joab  to  death  would  avert  the  vengeance  which 
his  crimes  might  otherwise  bring  upon  the  house 
of  David  may  be  correct,  but  it  is  not  necessary  to 
account  for  his  death.  Resentment  and  policy  are 
sufiicient  to  account  for  it.  They  also  account 
best  for  the  way  in  which  Shimei  was  dealt  with. 
It  does  not  appear  that  he  was  implicated  in  the 
conspiracy,  but  he  liad  been  a  bitter  enemy  of 
David,  was  suspected  of  being  still  disloyal  and 
hostile  to  the  house  of  David,  and,  on  account  of 
his  influence  with  the  Benjamites,  was  deemed 
dangerous  to  the  peace  and  comfort  of  the  new 
monarch. 

6.  Convocation  at  Gibeon,  dream  and  request. — 
The  way  in  which  Solomon  dealt  with  the  enemies 
whom  he  had  recently  feared  could  not  fail  greatly 
to  '  strengthen  him  in  his  kingdom.'  He  not  only 
thereby  got  rid  of  them,  but  showed  to  his  sub- 
jects that  young  as  he  was  he  was  neither  weak 
nor  foolish,  but  a  shrewd  and  capable  man  who 
could  ett'ectively  discharge  the  functions  of  a  king, 
and  might  be  hoped  to  act  neither  capriciously 
nor  cruelly.  To  have  gained  so  great  a  triumpii 
at  the  very  commencement  of  his  reign  was  enough 
to  secure  his  popularity,  for  with  the  populace  of 
all  times  and  places  '  nothing  succeeds  like  suc- 
cess.' When  he  felt  himself  secure  on  his  throne 
he  resolved  to  make  manifest  his  gratitude  to  J", 
and  proceeded  to  do  so  on  a  scale  Ludicative  of  his 
taste  for  magnificence  and  display  in  worship,  as 
in  other  things.  He  called  a  convocation  of  hia 
captains,  judges,  governors,  and  heads  of  houses, 
at  the  ancient  city  of  Gibeon,  where  was  a  famed 
bamdh,  'a great  high  place,' and  there,  surrounded 
by  his  dignitaries,  he  ottered  in  thanks  to  God  a 
thousand  bumt-ort'erings — 'a  thousandfold  holo- 
caust'— on  the  brazen  altar  which  stood  befoie 
the  sanctuary  and  could  be  seen  from  afar.  On 
the  following  night  the  king  dreamed  that  J" 
appeared  to  him  and  asked  wliat  He  should  give 
him,  and  that  he  replied  by  asking  '  an  under- 
standing heart  to  judge  aright '  tlie  great  people 
entrusted  to  his  charge  while  so  young  and  m- 
experienced.  He  dreamed  also  that,  liecause  such 
had  been  his  request,  God  promised  him  not  only 
what  he  asked  for — wisdom  and  knowledge— but 
also  wealth  and  honour,  and,  conditionally,  how- 
ever, on  conformity  to  the  Divine  law,  length  of 
days.  The  dream  was  naturally  accepted  by  the 
king  as  a  Divine  communication.  To  Solomon 
there  seems  to  have  never  been  vouchsafed  any 
clearer  or  higher  form  of  Divine  revelation  than 
the  dream. 

7.  Solomon's  judgment. — According  to  his  bio- 
graplier  in  Kings,  lie  was  soon  attbrded  an  oppor- 
tunity of  disjilaying  the  wisdom  whicli  he  liad 
asked  for  and  received.  From  Gibeon  he  returned 
to  Jerusalem,  where  the  ark  of  the  covenant  waa 
now  located  in  the  tabernacle  erected  by  David  on 
Mount  Zion,  and  there  also  presented  otterings  to 
J",  and  likewise  made  a  feast  to  all  his  servants. 
AtJeru.salem  he  was  forthwith  called  to  pronounce 
a  decision  between  two  harlots  who  both  claimed 
the  same  live  child  while  each  affirmed  that  a  dead 
one  was  her  neighbour's.  The  way  at  which  he  at 
once  arrived  at  the  trutli  immediately  made  him 
famous,  and  has  greatly  helped  to  maintain  his  re- 
putation for  wisdom  ever  since.  It  showed  an  in- 
stinctive insight  into  the  workings  of  the  human 
heart  very  remarkable  in  so  young  a  man,  and  a 
keenness  of  practical  discf  rnment  of  a  kind  iuvaiu- 


SOLOMON 


SOLOMUX 


Oils 


able  in  one  whose  c-hief  duty  was  to  act  as  the 
fiipreme  judge  in  all  disputed  casus  throughout 
Israel.  That  'all  Israel  heard  of  it,  and  feared 
the  king,  for  they  saw  that  the  wisdom  of  God 
was  in  him,  to  do  judgment,'  may  well  be  be- 
lieved. That  there  was  nothing  miraculous  in  it 
may  as  reasonably  be  admitted.  Innumerable 
examples  of  the  same  kind  of  wLsdom  as  remark- 
able and  as  well  authenticated  miglit  easily  be 
Kiven.  Far  more  wonderful  stories  of  a  similar 
kind  are  told  of  Solomon  himself,  but  they  are 
entirely  fictitious.  The  story,  as  told  in  I  K  :V--^, 
can  alone  be  regarded  as  historical  narrative. 
Josephus  {Ant.  VIII.  ii.  2)  seems  to  have  had  no 
other  source  of  information,  yet  he  gives  a  very 
distorted  version  of  it.  He  represents  the  king 
as  proposing  to  divide  botli  the  dead  and  the  live 
child,  and  the  people  as  privatelj'  laughing  at  the 
proposal  as  that  of  a  mere  youth.* 

8.  Solomon's  policy  dependent  on  Davids. — The 
task  which  fell  to  Solomon  was  that  of  building  n\) 
H  kin"doni  on  a  foundation  already  laid  and  on  lines 
already  drawn.  A  reign  like  his  was  only  made 
possible  by  what  Samuel,  Saul,  and  David  had 
accomplished.  Samuel,  the  last  of  the  Judges, 
was  also  the  first  of  them  whose  influence  extended 
over  all  Israel,  and  was  powerful  enough  to  recon- 
struct the  theocracy  on  a  mon.-irchicat  basis.  Saul, 
by  his  struggles  with  the  Philistines,  Moabites, 
Ammonites,  Edomites,  and  Amalekites,  rendered 
comparatively  easy  the  consolidation  of  all  the 
tribes  of  Israel  into  a  nation  under  David.  It 
■wa-s  David,  however,  who  made  the  policy  of 
Solomon  feasible,  who  indicated  both  by  his 
counsels  and  example  how  it  could  be  carried 
into  effect,  and  who  enabled  him  to  start  with  a 
sulliciency  of  the  means  necessary  to  enter  on  his 
schemes  of  ambition  and  to  revolutionize  the 
manners  and  the  ideals  of  Israel.  Solomon  seems 
to  have  done  little  which  his  father  had  not  in- 
itiated :  both  imitated  the  doings  and  methods  of 
Oriental  despots. 

9.  His  milit'tnj  policy.  —  Solomon  had  not  the 
genius  requisite  to  extend  his  kingdom.  He  seetns 
to  have  had  no  military  taste  or  talent ;  and  cer- 
tainly the  glory  of  the  conqueror  lie  but  little 
sought  and  little  won.  He  was  content  to  main- 
tain and  develop  what  he  hatl  inherited,  and  to 
abstain  from  d;ingcrous  adventures.  The  weak 
condition  of  the  surrounding  States  would  have 
presented  to  an   ambitious  warrior-king  a  strong 

*  There  [b  no  mention  of  the  incident  iu  Chronicles.  The 
•tory  told  by  Ltioduriu  Siculus  of  Ariopliancs,  kinij  of  Thrace, 
in  i^eneml  cn:tr;ictiT  rcscnit^lcs  very  closely  tliat  of  Kind's,  uii 
the  death  of  the  kinir  of  the  Cinnnerians,  three  yoiinff  men 
appeftrwi  before  Ariophanes  claiming  to  be  the  only  son  of  the 
deceuiied  kinjf,  without  producing  adequato  evidence  for  the 
Imth  of  their  claims.  Ariopluines  ordered  them  to  hurl  a 
lavelin  at  the  corpse  of  their  alleged  father.  Two  cunaeiilcd, 
but  one  refused,  and  he  was  declared  to  be  the  true  son  and  heir 
of  the  dece.i»e<I  monarrh.  Anotlier  parallel  is  the  account  which 
buetoniuBgive»  uf  a  Juduaneiit  of  Claudius  (Lif:t'j(  of  ttie  Tweice 
CamaTg).  A  wontan  refused  to  acknowledge  that  a  young  man 
who  claime^l  to  be  her  son  was  80.  In  the  absence  of  other 
means  of  deciding  on  which  side  wa»  the  truth,  the  enii'cror 
ordere<l  the  woman  to  marry  tlie  youth,  and  so  obliu'ed  luT  to 
acknowle'lge  that  the  latter" was  her  son.  Most  of  the  oriental 
parallels  have  a  manifestly  mythifml  and  fabulous  setting.  In 
•ome  of  them,  however,  i  he  resemblance  is  so  cluse  as  to  auioimt 
almost  to  verbal  repetition.  See  Benfev's  J^antuchaluidia,  L 
BW-siM),  ii.  644,  also  KUine  Schriften,  3fd  Abt.  171 II. ;  hug.  tr. 
of  the  'Kah-lij-ur'  (Triibncr's  Or.  Ser.)— the  talo  of  Vi>sil(hii; 
Weber's  IndxKhr  Slreifrn,  iiL  60  (also  T.  Steele's  An  Kimtcm 
Lone  Sfon/,  Triibner,  is71,  pp.  218  f.,  24Sf.);  Ilcinh.  Koliler, 
G(JA,  lb72,  pp.  1210-1221 ;  Fausboll,  Buddhut  Birth  HlmUs,  tr. 
by  Uh^-8  Davids,  vol.  i.  xiv-xvi ;  and  Jtev.  de  VilUtoire  de  lid. 
xxxviii.  (1898),  art.  by  Leclire,  '  Une  version  cambodgicnne  du 
Juifement  de  SaloTiion,'  17tV-lS7.  In  the  last-mentioned  version, 
%  m'^thcr,  her  child,  a  female  ogress  in  woman's  fonn,  and  a 
Buddliist  Solomon,  'the  noble  Mohosoth,'  are  the  parties.  To 
the  questions  whether  the  stories  of  the  judgments  of  Solo- 
nion,  Ariophanes,  and  Claudius  are  legendary  or  historical,  and 
whether  the  judgment  of  Solomon  originated  in  the  Indian 
■tones  or  had  its  origin  in  India,  definite  answers  du  not  seem 
to  have  been  as  >  et  arrived  aU 


temptation  to  attempt  to  create  a  powerful  Seiiiilic 
empire,  which,  if  unified  and  vivified  by  faitli  in 
J",  niiglit  liave  anticipated  Islam  by  a  millennium 
and  a  half  and  given  the  history  of  Israel  a  very 
ditl'erent  direction.  Yet  Solomon,  far  from  being  a 
feeble  or  incapable  monarch,  was  an  able,  shrewd, 
and  enterprising  one,  who  knew  well  how  to  mag- 
nify his  oUice,  further  his  interests,  and  attain  his 
ends.  He  must  have  had  very  exceptional  adminis- 
trative talent,  and  he  applied  it  to  military  as  well 
as  civU  organization.  Isot  otherwise  could  he  have 
preserved  for  fortj'  years  the  sccuritj'  and  unity  ol  a 
nation  so  recently  and  loosely  constituted ;  kept 
down  its  strong  ilisruptive  tendencies ;  and  prose- 
cuted a  policy  which  must  have  been  obnoxious  to 
the  majority  of  his  subjects.  Although  he  did  not 
increase  his  territory,  he  kept  a  firm  hold  of  it,  and 
made  his  sphere  of  inliuence  mucii  wider  than  his 
father's  had  been.  His  troubles  with  Hadad, 
Rezon,  and  Jkuohoam  prove  nothing  to  the  con- 
trary. The  account  of  them  given  in  1  K  IP"" 
is  placed— obviously  with  a  view  to  religious  edifi- 
cation— in  the  closing  period  of  his  reign,  instead 
of  at  or  near  its  commencement ;  and  tlie  informa- 
tion which  it  conveys,  although  it  may  be  received 
as  trustworthy  so  far  as  it  goes,  is  scanty,  and  can- 
not be  supplemented  either  from  other  Ciblical  or 
non-Biblical  sources.  It  does  not  ajipear  that 
Solomon's  adversaries  "ained  much  advantage  over 
him.  Hadad  was  doiuitless,  and  very  excusably, 
as  troublesome  a  neighbour  to  him  and  his  people 
as  he  could  be,  and  did  them  all  the  '  mischief  in 
his  power  ;  but  there  is  no  evidence  that  he  became 
king  of  Edom,  or  that  Edom  under  him  secured 
independence.  The  fact  that  the  port  of  Elath  re- 
mained in  Solomon's  hands  sliowcd  that  tlie  king 
of  Israel  was  the  overlord  of  Edom.  As  regards 
Rezon  ben-Hadiada,  he  may  have  made  himself 
master  of  Damascus  even  in  the  lifetime  of  David. 
There  is  no  evidence  of  David's  having  had  an 
acknowledged  and  efi'ective  suzerainty  over  Syria. 
And,  besides,  although  we  are  told  that  Kezon 
'  was  a  foe  to  Israel  all  the  days  of  Solomon,'  it 
does  not  ajipear  that  he  succeeded  in  seizing  any 
portion  of  Israelitish  territory.  Jeroboam's  attempt 
to  stir  up  sedition  against  liim  can  still  less  rele- 
vantly be  referred  to  as  evidence  of  his  weakness, 
seeing  that  it  was  a  failure,  and  Jeroboam  did  not 
venture  to  return  from  Egypt  until  he  heard  that 
Solomon  was  dead. 

Solomon  left  out  of  his  military  calculations  the 
possibilities  neither  of  invasion  from  without  nor 
of  insurrection  from  within.  He  strengthened  his 
'  apital  by  the  construction  of  fortilications  which 
David  had  only  begun  or  merely  contemplated. 
See  art.  MiLLO.  ile  establislied  fortified  cities, 
well  -  garrisoned  and  well  •  provisioned,  at  well- 
chosen  strategic  points  (see  HaZou,  Mkoiddo, 
Gezi;i!,  liKTii-iiORON,  Baalath,  Tamau).  He 
thus  guarded  the  kingdom  against  attack  at  all 
its  more  vulnerable  points,  as  well  as  increased 
the  safety  of  the  sacred  city.  By  adding  to  his 
army  a  force  of  12,0UO  horsemen  and  1400  war 
chariots,  he  must  have  greatly  increased  its  eflici- 
encj'.  The  innovation  was  unpopular  among  the 
ultra-consi.rvative  and  superstitious  portion  of  the 
community,  but  it  was  a  real  iinprovenient.  In 
the  plains  of  N.  Palestine,  on  the  borders  of  Phil- 
istia,  and  in  most  directions  beyond  the  national 
bounilaries,  cavalry  could  not  fail  to  be  of  great  ad- 
vantage. The  Canaanites  had  employed  it  with 
success  against  the  Israelites  in  the  time  of  the 
Judges.  Before  its  adoption  by  Solomon  it  had 
come  into  u.se  in  all  the  neighbouring  States.  Onco 
introduced,  it  was  adhered  to  so  long  aa  Israel  and 
Judali  retained  their  indejicndence. 

10.  A  prominent  feature  of  Solomon's  ]iolioy  was 
his  full  recognition  of  the  iiiiportanco  of  interna- 


564 


SOLOMON 


SOLOMON 


tioval  aUinnces.  He  imniensel}'  increased  his  power 
and  influence  by  the  treaties  wliich  he  formed  with 
the  rulers  of  nei^'hbouring  States.  The  most  ailvan- 
tagcous  of  them  was  that  formed  with  Iliram,  kin" 
of  Tyre — the  continuation  of  an  alliance  formed 
in  the  time  of  David,  but  utilized  by  Solomon  to 
an  immensely  greater  extent  than  by  David. 
Without  it  Solomon  could  not  have  jriven  elleet 
either  to  a  commercial  policy  or  to  his  desire  to 
build  the  temple  and  beautify  Jerusalem.  It  was 
for  tlie  manifest  benefit  of  both  the  contracting 
parties.  To  Hiram  it  ensured,  in  case  of  attack 
from  the  landward  side  of  his  kingdom,  the  aid  of 
a  powerful  army  in  its  defence ;  an  abundant  supply 
at  all  times  ot  su  h  commodities  as  corn,  oil,  and 
wine  ;  an  enlarged  traffic  with  the  Hebrews  by  way 
of  Joppa  ;  and  the  opening  up  of  the  Ydin  Suph 
(so-called  Red  Sea),  and  of  the  ocean  bej'ond  it,  to 
the  enterprise  of  his  mariners  and  merchants.  To 
Solomon  it  was  equally  advantageous.  It  enabled 
him  to  enter  into  mercantile  copartnership  with 
Hiram,  and  in  conjunction  with  liim  to  have  ships 
trading  both  in  the  Mediterranean  and  the  Red 
Sea.  Whatever  may  have  been  the  exact  position 
of  T.VRSiiisH  and  Ophir,  Solomon  must  have  had 
vessels  on  both  seas.  If  Elath  and  Ezion-geber 
were  open  to  him,  Joppa  or  Dor  was  still  more  so. 
He  was  not  the  man  to  make  a  foolish  bargain,  or 
to  prefer  doing  business  on  a  small  to  a  large  scale. 
That  he  derived  annually  from  his  foreign  trade  as 
much  revenue  as  his  historians  (1  K  10",  2  Ch  9'^) 
state  is  very  difficult  to  believe.  The  trade,  how- 
ever, may  well  have  been  a  very  lucrative  one. 
And,  obviously,  without  the  aid  of  Hiram  and  his 
subjects  Solomon  could  have  found  neither  the 
ships  nor  the  men  necessary  to  him  for  engagin" 
in  it.  Nor  was  he  less  dejiendent  on  the  skill  and 
tastes  of  Phoenician  artists  and  artisans  for  the 
construction  and  ornamentation  of  the  buildings 
on  which  his  desires  were  set,  and  to  which  he 
was  to  owe  so  much  of  his  fame  in  future  ages. 
His  own  subjects  were  incapable  of  supplying 
workmen  of  the  kind  needed,  whereas  the  Phoe- 
nicians were  famous  for  their  proficiency  in  archi- 
tecture and  the  plastic  arts.  It  was  chiefly  from 
I'hcenicia  that  Hebrew  art  was  derived.  In  that 
sphere  the  influence  of  Egypt  on  Israel  was  not 
direct,  but  through  Phoenicia.* 

Next  in  importance  to  the  Tyrian  was  the  Eg>jp- 
tian  alliance  (1  K  3').  The  Pharaoh  witli  whom 
Solomon  entered  into  alliance  is  not  named  in  tlie 
Bible,  but  must  have  been  one  of  the  last  of  the 
Tanitc  Pharaohs  (perhaps  the  last — Pasebcbanu  II., 
called  by  Manetho  •if ovaevfj^).  Solomon  obtained  a 
daughter  of  the  Pharaoh  for  his  wife,  and  received 
with  her  as  a  do\vry  the  town  of  Gezer,  which  her 
fatlior  had  captured.  Gezer  was  a  valuable  gift, 
and  the  marriage  itself  seems  to  have  flattered  the 
pride  both  of  Solomon  and  of  his  subjects.  In  the 
age  of  the  Chronicler  and  of  the  Jews  of  later  times 
the  marriage  came  to  be  regarded  by  the  pious  as 
disastrous,  but  there  is  no  trace  of  such  a  feeling  in 
the  older  historical  sources.  The  first  great  edifice 
which  Solomon  caused  to  be  built  was  not  the 
temple  of  J",  but  a  palace  for  the  Egyptian  prin- 
cess. The  daughter  of  Pharaoh  was  always  the 
chief  personage  in  his  haiem.  In  all  probability 
slie  had  received  a  much  more  comprehensive  and 

*  In  the  Histories  of  Phffinicia  by  Kenrick.  Ilawlinaon,  Movers, 
Pietsoliinann,  ill  Renau's  Mission  en  Phinicit,  in  CIS  ii.  tome 
1  and  2,  and  in  Perrot  and  Cliipiez"  Hist,  de  I'Arl,  much  infor- 
mation is  to  be  obt-iiiied  as  to  the  relations  between  the  I*h<B- 
nicians  and  the  Hebrews.  The  reigns  of  Hiram  and  Soiomon 
a^ipear  to  have  been  contemporary  almost  all  through,  as  the 
former  is  said  (Menander,  fr.  1)  to  have  begrun  to  reij?n  when  nine- 
teen years  old  and  to  have  been  fifty-three  years  old  when  he  died. 
The  enumeration  jrivcn  in  1  K  7'^"'  of  the  qualifications  of  the 
Hiram  who  was  Solomon's  chief  architect  and  artist,  indicates 
what  the  PhcsniciaDi  could  teach  the  Hebrews  duriug  the  rei^ 
sf  Solomon. 


refined  education  and  training  th.an  his  Moabite, 
Ammonite,  Edomite,  Sidonian,  and  Hittite  wives 
anil  ( oncubines.  His  own  tastes,  indeed,  were  of  a 
kind  which  would  have  disposed  him  to  imitate  the 
style  of  life  of  a  Pharaoh,  but  they  must  have  been 
strengthened  by  his  marriage  with  a  Pharaoh's 
daughter.  However  explained,  his  ideal  of  king- 
ship was  the  ideal  which  had  for  ages  been  con- 
spicuously exemplified  in  Egypt.  Like  the  Tj-rian 
alliance,  the  Egyptian  alliance  was  uninterrupted 
throughout  his  reign,  and  of  the  latter  as  of  the 
former  he  would  seem  to  have  taken  tuU  advan- 
tage.* That  he  bought  droves  of  horses  and  largo 
numbers  of  chariots  in  Egypt  and  sold  them  at 
high  prices  to  Hittite  and  Syrian  kings  may  be 
fairly  inferred  from  1  K  10=«--5  and  2  Ch  l'«-  ",  if 
by  Mizraim  in  those  verses  Egypt  be  meant.f 
He  also  promoted  and  protected  the  carrying  and' 
caravan  trade,  which  extended  almost  from  the 
Nile  to  the  Euphrates.  He  saw  that  the  geo- 
graphical position  of  Palestine — between  the  Medi- 
terranean, Red  Sea,  and  the  Desert — gave  him 
command  of  the  chief  highways  of  Asiatic  com- 
merce, and  power  to  secure  to  himself  a  share  of 
the  profits  of  the  greatest  markets  of  the  then 
known  world  (those  of  Egypt  and  Chald;ca),  fully 
recognized  the  importance  of  trade  and  commerce, 
and  acted  accordingly.  Therein  lay,  perhaps,  his 
greatest  originality  as  a  Hebrew  riiler.  His  pre- 
decessors— the  Judges,  Saul,  and  David — could  not 
do  so,  continually  engaged  as  they  were  in  fierce 
struggles  with  their  enemies  in  and  around  Pales- 
tine. The  general  result  of  their  struggles  made 
his  wider  and  more  humane  views  and  schemes  of 
policy  possible  and  so  far  realizable  ;  but  to  himself 
belongs  the  credit  of  their  inception  and  prosecu- 
tion.! Looked  at  in  itself,  his  foreign  policy  must 
be  pronounced  on  the  whole  a  reasonable  one.  And 
it  had  good  results.  It  was  a  policy  of  peace ;  it 
saved  his  subjects  from  the  miseries  of  war ;  it 
enriched  certain  classes  and  benefited  in  some 
degrees  other  classes  ;  it  made  the  Hebrews  better 
accjuainted  with  the  greatness,  the  wealth,  and  the 
state  of  ci\ilization  of  the  world  around  them, 
widened  their  %news,  corrected  sundry  prejudices, 
suggested  improvements,  and  stimulated  acti\'ity. 
It  was,  perhaps,  the  chief  factor  in  making  the 
Solomonic  age  the  period  of  greatest  material  pro- 
gress in  the  history  of  Israel.  Yet  it  is  quite 
possible  to  estimate  too  highly  the  external  policy 
of  Solomon,  while  quite  impossible  to  estimate  it 
aright  without  viewing  it  in  relation  to  his  internal 
policy.  There  is  no  evidence  that  it  was  disapproved 
of  by  his  subjects,  and  he  did  not  enter  into,  what 
woiJd  have  been  abhorrent  to  them, any  alliance  with 
the  Can.aanites  ;  but  it  was  the  expression  merely 
of  the  king's  will,  not  of  the  national  desire,  and 
when  the  king  died  no  one  thought  of  continuing 
his  policy.  On  the  contrary,  so  long  as  the  nation 
retained  its  national  e.xistencc,  it  tended  increas- 
ingly to  self-isolation. 

11.  As  regard-s  the  domestic  poliet/  of  Solomon, 
the  list  of  his  chief  officials  in  IK  4  is  of  special  in- 

*  Neither  the  peneral  Histories  of  Antiquity  nor  the  special 
Histories  of  .\ncient  Esrypt  make  any  appreciable  addition  to 
what  the  Biblical  historians  tell  us  of  the  connexion  between 
Israel  and  E),^>Tt  during  the  reign  of  Solomon.  The  lack  of 
information  is  stran^'e. 

t  Winckler  holds  that  by  Mirraim  a  N.  S\-rian  Mu^ri  is  meant 
(Alltest.  Untersuch.  lOS  fl.,  and  Altor.  Forfch.  i.  24-41,  XiT,  3:iS)i 
Kittel,  Benzinger,  and  others  have  accepted  his  view.  Valuatile. 
however,  as  his  new  facts  are  in  themselves,  they  do  not  prova 
his  Mu^  to  be  the  Mizraim  of  Kiri'.,'s  and  Chronicles. 

I  According  to  Eu]iolemus,  as  quoted  by  Eusebius  {Prctp.  Ev. 
Ix.),  David  began  the  maritime  trade.  Thestatemeri  appears 
to  be  merely  a  conjecture  suggested  by  the  fact  recorded  m  'i  3 
8^*,  1  K  111*- 16,  and  1  Ch  lsi3,  that  David  conquered  the  kingdom 
of  Edom.  Possibly  David  foresaw  and  suggested  the  use  to  which 
his  conquest  might  be  put.  It  is  very  unlikely,  however,  that 
at  so  late  a  stage  of  life  he  should  have  begun  such  an  enierj'rise, 
and  still  more  unlikely  that,  if  he  had  b<-gun  it,  he  should  not 
have  got  the  credit  of  it. 


SOLOMON 


SOLOMON 


565 


terest,  particularly  when  compared  with  the  lists 
of  those  of  David  in  2  S  S'""'*  and  2(P-^,  allliough 
of  too  gemral  a  nature  to  be  delinitely  referable 
to   any  particular  period.      The  comparison  will 
ehow  that  David  in  the  later  years  of  his  life  had 
gone  far  in  the  direction  followed  by  his  sou,  and 
that   between   thoiii   they   had    efi'ected    a    great 
revolution— economic,  social,  and  jjolitical — in  the 
national  life  of  Israel.     The  old  trilial  system  had 
been  un<ierniined  and  shattered,  and  a  monarchical 
despoti.sm  of  the  only  kind   known  in  the  East — 
one  none  the  less  a  despotism  in  reality  for  being 
a  theocracy — had    been    Imilt   up.      The   will   of 
Solomon  was  practically  the  supreme  law  of  his 
people,  and  neither  priests  nor  prophets  ventured 
to  oppose  it  or  to  attempt  to  limit  it.     Through- 
out his  reign  all  power  in  Israel  was  centred  in 
himself   and   carried   into   effect  bv  his  officials. 
The  list  of  his  sarim  (princes  or  cliief  ministers) 
in  1  K  4^"'  does  not  contain  the  name  of  a  single 
individual  who  can  be  supposed  to  have  been  an 
independent    adviser.       'I  he    name    of    Abiathar 
should  not  be   in  it,  as   he  was  a  degraded  and 
bani^-licd  man  during  Solomon's  reign.     The  sons 
of  Nathan  mentioned  were  much  more  probably 
the  king's  own  nephews,  the  sons  of  his  brother 
Nathan,  than  the  sons  of  the  prophet  Nathan  [but 
see  vol.  iii.  p.  488''].     There  was  no  projihet  among 
Solomon's  princes,  nor  any  man  not  directly  and 
entirely  dependent  upon  him.      We  are  not  told 
that  he  mn!de  any  direct  attack  on  the  old  tribal 
systems.     It  seems  erroneous  to  represent  as  such 
his  division    of   the  territory  of    Israel   (that  of 
Judah  was  exempted)  into   twelve  districts,  over 
which  were  appointed  twelve  'otticers'  (nizsfibim), 
each   bound   to  provide   in  regular  monthly  suc- 
cession victuals  lor  the  king  and   his  household, 
and   provender  for   his   horses   and   dromedaries. 
Those    districts  were   not    coextensive   with    the 
tribal  territories.     The  otiicers  to  whom  they  were 
a.ssigned  did  not  displace  the  tribal  chiefs,  and  had 
only  a  definite  specific  duty  to  perform.      They 
were  merely  'purveyors'  or  'providers'  for   the 
Icing,  his  annona;  curatores.     But,  although  the  old 
tribal  system   and  its  chiefs  may  not  have  been 
assailed,  the  claims  of  the  monarchy  were  asserted 
and  its  powers  exercised  independently  of  them. 
Olie    tribal   .s3'steni    and  tlje   monarchy  coexisted 
under  Solomon,  but  the  latter  was  so  dominant 
that  the   kiti"  could  introduce  what  changes  he 
pleased.      Tribal  and   personal  privileges,  rights, 
and  liberties  were  at  his  mercy.      Doubtless  the 
nation  realized  only  slowly  that  such  was  the  case, 
and  how  dan''erous  a  state  of  things  it  was.     The 
monarchy  had  been  a  great  success,  and  was  re- 
garded  as  a  sacred   institution.      The   king  was 
'the  Lord's  anointed.'     The  new  king  was  young, 
beautiful  in  person,  a  rarely  brilliant,  attractive, 
and  imposing  jiersonality  ;  to  outward  .seeming  a 
perfect  king.      He  was  well  aware  that  a  great 
trust  had  been  assigned  to  him,  and  he  set  a  high 
value  on  equity  in   judgment  and  orderliness  in 
admini-stration.      Many  of  his   innovations   must 
have    been    improvements.      Some   of   his    enter- 
pnses  were  largely  successful.     For  a  season  the 
Bun  of  prosperity  shone  so  brightly  on  his  reign 
that  there  may  well  h.ave  been  ijreat  contentment 
and  rejoicing  in  Israel.      1  K  4»'-»-»*  may  be  re- 
garded as  echoes  of  that  time.      But  disillusion- 
ment was  bound  to  come,  and  gradually  came  as 
what   was   radically   evil   in    the    government    of 
Solomon    gra<lii.illy   displayed    itself.      Entrusted 
with  unlimited  power,  he  yielded  to  the  tcmjita- 
tion  to  abuse  it,  and  to  enjoy  it  mainly  for  w  hut 
he  deemed  his  own  honour  and  advantage.      His 
policy,  although  not  uninlluenccd  by  worthy  and 
pious  asjiiratiiins,  must  be  pronounced  essentially 
■ellisli.     The  chief  motives  of  it  were  the  love  of 


l)leasure  and  power,  of  wealth  and  splendour  and 
fame  ;  its  main  object  was  to  promote  his  own 
interest,  to  enrich  and  glorify  himself,  and  to 
strengthen  and  magnify  the  Davidie  dj'nasty.  To 
obtain  his  ends  he  recjuired  to  have  recourse  not 
only  to  measures  obnoxious  to  chiefs  of  tribes, 
elders  of  cities,  and  holders  of  landed  property, 
but  to  such  as  were  most  oppressive  to  the  poorer 
classes.  He  reduced  the  Canaanites  to  slavery, 
and  eiuployed  1GU,000  of  them  in  quarrying  stones 
and  bearing  burdens.  From  the  Israelites  he 
exacted  less  labour;  but  they,  too,  were  constrained 
to  give  personal  services  and  to  submit  to  heavy 
exactions.  Thirty  thousand  of  them  were  required 
to  work  by  relays  of  ten  thousand,  every  third 
month,  in  the  forest  of  Lebanon.  The  statement 
to  the  contrary  in  1  K  t)--  and  2  Cli  8^  is  an  in- 
structive, patriotic  gloi»,  inconsistent  with  the 
general  narratives  either  in  Kings  or  Chronicles. 
The  Hebrews  under  Solomon  were  no  longer  a  free 
people.  While  not  slaves  in  the  strict  sense  of 
the  word,  they  were  subject  to  forced  labour,  '  the 
levy,'  the  7nas — a  term  as  hateful  to  them  as  were 
its  equivalents,  corvic  or  Frohn,  in  mediteval 
Europe.  David  had  introduced  the  form  of  servi- 
tude denoted  by  it  (2  S  '20'"),  but  Solomon  greatly 
increased  it.  The  favouritism  which  he  showed 
towards  Judah  in  connexion  with  it  must  have 
made  it  all  the  more  offensive  to  Israel,  while  it 
was  doubtless  one  reason  whj'  Judah  diil  not  join 
Israel  in  the  revolt  against  Ilehoboam.  The  evils 
of  the  '  levy '  could  not  fail  to  make  themselves 
increasingly  felt  in  the  cour.se  of  the  building 
oj)eralions  which  were  so  conspicuous  a  part  of  the 
king's  domestic  policy.  One  of  his  chief  aims  was 
to  have  a  stroiig  and  magnilicent  capital.  It  was  a 
very  reasonable  aim  within  proper  limits,  but  these 
he  failed  to  recognise.  To  render  Jerusalem  as  far 
as  possible  impregnable,  and  to  make  it  a  capital 
worthy  of  Israel  and  of  being  the  centre  ol  its 
political  and  especially  of  its  religious  life,  was 
manifestly  desirable.  The  fortifications  and  the 
temple  ot  Jerusalem  were  foi  the  benefit  of  all 
Israel.  Like  so  many  kings  of  his  type,  however, 
Solomon  failed  to  see  that  there  should  be  limits 
set  to  expensive  building.  He  did  not  adequately 
realize  that  the  territory  of  Israel  was  a  very  small 
one,  and  that,  a^though  he  and  those  around  him 
were  rich,  the  general  population — one  in  a  transi- 
tional stage  from  pastoral  to  agricultural — was  not. 
The  cost  of  the  superb  buildings  erected  for  himself 
and  his  dependants,  added  to  the  provisioning  of  a 
household  containing  manj"  thousands  of  per.sons, 
the  supply  of  what  was  required  besides  food  to 
gratify  the  desires  of  his  wives  and  concubines,  and 
the  expenditure  on  his  splendid  pageants,  must 
have  been  an  enormous  burden  on  his  subjects. 
No  truly  wise  king  would  have  persisted  in  such  a 
jiolicy.  The  natural  result  of  it  was  just  what 
actually  hapjiened.  Whatever  Judah  thought,  all 
Israel  felt  his  yoke  to  h.ive  been  intolerable  ;  and 
when  his  son  refused  to  li'ditcn  it,  cried  out, 
'What  portion  have  we  in  David?  neither  have 
we  inheritance  in  the  son  of  Jesse  :  to  your  tents. 
O  Israel :  now  see  to  thine  own  house,  David ' 
(1  K  12'").  Solomon  was  re.siumsiblo  for  the  dis- 
ruption of  the  united  kingdom  of  Israel  and  Judah, 
and  for  the  consequences  of  it.  That  disruption, 
which  led  to  the  loss  of  the  independence  of  both, 
was  the  natural  result  of  the  policy  on  which  he 
acted  throughout  a  forty  years'  reign. 

12.  The  foregoing  observations  raise  the  ques- 
tion, Wluit  really  wrnt  the  wisdom  which  lite 
liihliral  historians  attributed  to  Sidomon  ?  Cer- 
tainly it  was  not  wisdom  in  the  higher  significa- 
tions in  which  the  term  is  useil  either  in  the  OT 
or  the  NT.  There  is  teaching  in  .lob,  Proverbp, 
Ecdesiastes,  and   a  few  of  the  Pualms  w   to  a 


566 


SOLOMON 


SOLOMON 


'  wisdom  '  which  is  nowhere  in  Scriptme  attributed 
to  Solomon.  The  wLsdura  of  Solomon  as  described 
either  in  Kings  or  Chron.  has  very  little  in 
common  with  the  wisdom  inculcated  by  St.  Paul, 
St.  Peter,  and  St.  James.  Further,  in  what  the 
Biblical  writers  say  of  the  wisdom  of  Solomon 
there  is  nothing  which  implies  that  it  included 
any  of  the  supernatural  attainments  attributed 
to  him  in  Jewish,  Arabian,  and  Persian  traditions, 
or  even  of  any  scieutilic  or  pliilosophic  knowledge 
properly  so  called.*  And  it  must  be  added,  that 
although  they  ascribe  his  '  wisdom  '  to  God,  a  gift 
in  answer  to  prayer,  they  do  not  represent  piety — 
the  fear  and  love  of  God — as  a  prominent  feature 
in  his  '  wisdom.'  While  declaring  him  to  be  tlie 
wisest  of  all  men,  they  do  not  represent  him  as  an 
especially  devout  or  righteous  man.  In  that  respect 
David,  notwithstanding  his  many  defects  and 
crimes,  was  regarded  by  them  as  far  superior  to 
him.  So  much,  then,  as  to  what  the  wisdom  of 
Solomon  was  not.  As  to  what  it  was,  it  compre- 
hended at  least  the  following  elements  : — (a)  Pos- 
session of  the  qualities  of  mind — the  quickness  and 
accuracy  of  dLscernraent  and  the  practical  sagacity — 
which  are  most  indispensable  to  one  who  constantly 
rei]  uires  to  decide  readily  and  correctly  on  which  side 
truth  and  justice  lie  in  disputed  cases.  Those  quali- 
ties were  of  the  utmost  importance  to  a  Hebrew 
king.  Judicial  functions  had  been  the  chief  function 
of  the  '  judges,'  and  continued  to  be  so  of  the  kings. 
The  king  was  the  chief  justice  of  the  realm. 
Da\ad  in  his  later  years  had  been  blamed  for 
neglecting  his  judicial  duties.  The  prayer  of  his 
son,  on  his  accession  to  the  throne,  was  for  the 
knowledge  and  wisdom  which  would  qualify  him 
for  the  fulHlment  of  those  duties.  The  judgment 
which  he  pronounced  on  the  dispute  between  the 
two  liarlots  was  regarded  by  the  people  as  evidence 
that  his  prayer  had  been  wanted.  Seeking  justice 
was  by  the  Hebrews  held  to  be  sacred,  inasmuch 
as  it  involved  'inquiry  of  God.'  Almost  all  the 
Oriental  legends  regarding  Solomon's  wisdom  which 
are  not  utterly  extravagant  are  those  which  give 
the  same  kind  of  instances.  An  excellent  and  able 
judge,  however,  may  not  be  an  eminently  good 
and  wise  man.  He  may  be  sadly  lacking  in  true 
wisdom.  (6)  Possession  of  comparatively  exten- 
sive knowledge  and  varied  culture  for  a  man  of 
the  time  in  which  he  lived.  That  Solomon  was 
widely  observant  and  inquisitive,  interested  in  all 
that  came  under  his  notice  and  was  likely  to  add 
to  his  knowledge,  and  that  he  could  talk  instruc- 
tively on  a  great  variety  of  subjects, — on  trees  and 
plants,  beasts  and  fowls,  creeping  things  and 
fishes,  etc., — must  be  admitted.  '  The  largeness  of 
heart  (rohabh  lebh),  even  as  the  sand  that  is  on  the 
seashore,'  ascribed  to  him  in  1  K  4^  [Heb.  5*], 
means  merely,  if  properly  understood,  a  compre- 
hensiveness of  mind,  a  many-sidedness  of  intelli- 
gence, of  gieat  and  indehnite  extent.  There  is 
nothing  exaggerated  or  incredible  in  the  phrase, 
which  may  perhaps  have  suggested  what  has  been 
so  finely  said  of  Plato  :  '  His  piiant  genius  sits  close 

•  The  knowledfje  of  the  lan|]ruage  of  birda  attributed  to 
Solouion  in  Jewish,  Arabic,  and  l^t-r^ian  traditions  was  in  Greek 
iDj'thology  ascribed  to  Tiresios.  The  Itabbis  represented  Solo- 
mon as  tiie  originator  of  the  science  and  pliilosophy  of  the 
Greeks,  Romans,  and  their  successors.  Aristotle  was  supposed 
to  have  gained  his  knowledge  of  natural  history  by  appro- 
priating Solomon's  MSS  when  Alexander  entered"  Alexandria. 
The  Spanish  theologian  J.  de  Pineda,  in  hb.  iii.  pp.  111-203 
of  his  Dc  Rebut  Saiomonii^  attributes  to  him  mathematical, 
physical,  astronomical,  botanical,  economic,  ethical,  and  politi- 
cal writings,  as  well  as  many  scientific  discoveries.  Theophilus 
Gale,  Phil.  Gener.  §  8,  maintains  that  Pythagoras  and  Plato  got 
their  symbolical  and  the  Stoics  their  ethical  philosophy,  Hippo- 
crates'his  knowledge  of  medicine.  Aristotle  of  animals,  and 
TheophrostUB  of  plants — ex  Solomonic  tchota.  How  greatly  ex- 
aggerated, down  even  to  recent  times,  bos  been  his  knowledge 
of  theology  may  be  learned  from  many  of  the  commentaries 
published  on  the  'Snitg  of  Solomon,'  and  eveo  from  the  'bead- 
mga '  of  our  AV  of  that  book. 


to  universal  reality,  like  the  sea  which  fits  into  all 
the  sinuosities  of  the  land.  Not  a  shore  of  thought 
was  left  untouched  by  his  murmuring  lip' (Ferrier, 
In^t.  Met.  p.  165).  The  wisdom  of  Solomon  waa 
wisdom  at  a  very  different  stage  from  the  wisdom 
of  Socrates  or  Plato  ;  but  they  may  have  been 
alike  in  implying  '  largeness  of  heart,'  universality 
of  intellectual  interests  and  activity,  (c)  There 
have  also  to  be  included  in  the  wisdom  of  Solomon 
skill  in  propounding  and  solving  riddles,  in  put- 
ting and  answering  hard  and  abstruse  questions, 
and  the  faculty  of  expressing  himself  in  mCs/ullun, 
similitudes  and  parables,  and  proverbial  or  gnomic 
sentences  which  sum  up  in  a  pithy  and  memorable 
form  the  findings  of  prudential  sagacity  and  moral 
refiexion.  1  K  4^*  states  that  he  '  spake  three 
thousand  proverbs.'  One  reason  given  for  the  visit 
of  the  queen  of  Sheba  to  his  court  was  her  desire 
to  test  the  report  ^\  hieh  she  hatl  heard  of  him  by 
'  proving  him  with  hard  questions.'  The  Phoeni- 
cian historians  quoted  by  Josephus(.^n<.  VIII.  v.  3) 
relate  that  the  Hebrew  and  the  Tyrian  king 
entered  into  a  contest  to  determine  which  of  them 
could  solve  riddles  best,  and  that  the  former  waa 
at  first  successful,  and  won  largely  from  his  oppo- 
nent, until  the  latter  got  the  assistance  of  a  very 
acute  youth  called  Abdemon,  when  Solomon  was 
always  defeated,  and  had  to  pay  much  money  back 
to  Hiram  (see  art.  RIDDLE).  In  the  time  of  Solo- 
mon, Israel  passed  from  its  heroic  and  imaginative 
age  into  a  positive  and  practical  one,  resembling 
the  stage  in  Hellenic  history  in  which  originated 
the  practical  maxims  of  the  Greek  '  sages '  and  the 
verses  of  the  Greek  'gnomic'  poets.  The  result 
in  Israel  was  the  rise  of  a  new  way  of  thinking  and 
the  beginnings  of  a  new  kind  of  literature,  the 
whole  development  of  which  must  have  been 
greatly  intluonced  by  the  character  and  reign  of 
Solomon.  How  much,  if  anything,  he  personally 
contributed  by  speech  or  writing  to  the  '  Wisdom 
literature '  we  do  not  know,  and  yet  perhaps  the 
whole  of  it.  Biblical  and  Apocryphal,  may  be  not 
inappropriately  termed  Solomonic.  At  the  same 
time  no  one  has  probably  been  so  overpraised  for 
'  wisdom '  as  he,  and  that  alike  by  Mohammedans, 
Jews,  and  Christians.*  See,  further,  art.  Wisdom. 
13.  Solomon  is  represented  as  excelling  all  con- 
temporary kings  in  wealth  as  well  as  in  wisdum. 
His  father  is  said  to  have  left  him  for  buildiu"  the 
temple  '  one  hundred  thousand  talents  of  gold  and 
a  thousand  thousand  talents  of  silver'  (1  C'h  '22"),  a 
sum  calculated  to  be  equivalent  to  £1,025,000,000 
sterling,  t  His  annual  revenue  in  money  is  stated 
(1  K  10'^  '2  Ch  9'=)  to  have  amounted  to  GUO  talents  of 
gold,  equal  to  i:4, 095,900  (see art.  MoXEV,  vol.  iii.  p. 
420*") ;  and  besides  payments  in  money  he  received 
large  paj'ments  in  kind,  both  from  his  own  subjects 
and  from  foreigners.  Hence  he  was  able  to  spend 
vast  sums  in  luxury  and  display.  His  great  ivory 
throne,  w  hich  came  to  figure  so  largely  in  Oriental 
tradition,  was  overlaid  with  pure  gold  ;  the  shields 
of  his  bodyguard  and  the  uten^Us  of  his  jialace 

•  For  an  admirable  comparative  study  of  Hebrew  and  Greek 
proverbial  literature  see  H.  Bois,  La  Poisie  Gnomique  cliez  lei 
Hetjreux  et  les  Grecs :  Salomon  et  Thetxjnis^  Toulouse,  1S06.  A 
careful  comparative  study  of  Hebrew  and  Egyptian  proverbial 
wisdom  is  a  great  desideratum.  Wisdom  books  akin  to  the 
Proverbs  of  the  OT,  and  partly  to  Kccltsiastes,  were  produced 
in  Egj-pt  from  about  B.C.  3500  until  about  a.d.  200.  It  cannot 
re;isonably  be  supposed  tliat  in  the  age  of  Solomon  they  were 
wholly  unknown  to  the  Hebrews.  The  sayings  in  the  oldest  of 
them  —  the  liutructions  or  Maxims  of  itahhotep  —  often 
strikingly  resemble  those  in  Proverbs,  Before  and  during  the 
reign  of  Solomon  Eg>'pt  was  open  both  to  Greeks  and  Jews.  It 
does  not  follow  that  any  of  the  Hebrew  Wisdom  books  wer« 
composed  in  the  time  or  Solomon. 

t  Prideaux's  estimate,  long  generally  accepted,  was  consider- 
ably less,  viz.  £«t;3,000,000.  Yet  he  added,  '  the  sum  is  80 
prcKligious,  as  to  give  reason  to  think  that  the  talents  whereby 
the  sum  is  reckoned  were  another  sort  of  'alenls  of  a  tar  less 
value  than  the  Mosaic  talents,  of  which  an  account  is  given  IB 
the  preface '  (Old  and  New  Testament  Connected,  p.  6). 


SOLOMON 


SOLOMON 


567 


were  all  of  gold.  Silver,  we  are  told,  was  nothing 
accnunti'd  of  in  his  days  ;  he  made  silver  to  he  in 
Jerusalem  as  stones.  Such  is  the  account  given  us 
of  his  wealth.  What  are  we  to  think  of  if;  The 
statement  as  to  the  sum  amassed  by  David  for  the 
building  of  the  templeis,  of  course,  incredilily  lar"e. 
The  amount  of  annual  revenue  assigned  to  Solo- 
mon is  not  so,  although  very  large.  Probably  it 
may  have  been  his  income  merely  for  an  excep- 
tional year  or  j'ears.  That  he  was  the  wealthiest 
king  known  to  his  Hebrew  contemporaries  may 
well  be  believed.  But  even  what  is  said  of  his 
wealth  in  Kings  and  Chron.  suggests  that  he  was 
only  rich  after  the  fashion  of  Oriental  kings.  His 
golden  targes,  golden  utensils,  and  throne  overlaid 
witli  gold,  seem  to  imply  that  he  could  find  little 

f)roductive  use  for  his  gold.  Gold  came  into  circu- 
ation  as  money  among  the  Hebrews  only  in  the 
time  of  David,  and  probably  it  was  little  used  by 
them  as  such  in  the  time  of  Solomon.  Various 
peoples  have  passed  through  a  stage  in  which  a 
pound  of  gold  was  willingly  exchanged  for  a  pound 
of  silver  or  even  of  copper.  The  Shahs  of  Persia 
and  Emirs  of  Scinde  were  not  wealthier  than  are 
European  monarchs,  although  they  had,  as  a  rule, 
vastly  more  treasure  in  the  form  of  jewels  and  the 
precious  metals.  The  value  of  the  material  of 
money  depends  largely  on  its  purchasing  power 
and  rapidity  of  circulation.  Had  Solomon's  silver, 
and  still  mure  had  his  gold,  much  of  either?  It  is 
not  likely  that  they  had.  Although  he  may  have 
made  silver  as  stones  'in  Jerusalem,'  there  is 
nothing  to  indicate  that  it  was  plentiful  outside  of 
Jerusalem.  There  was  gold  in  abundance  at  the 
court  and  among  the  king's  officers  and  favourites, 
but  there  is  no  evidence  of  its  having  reached  the 
farmers  and  peasants  of  Palestine.  Probably  in 
the  form  of  money  most  of  it  got  into  the  hands  of 
the  Phoenicians  and  other  foreign  traders.  By  the 
(jreat  extension  of  the  royal  domains  during  liis 
reign,  Solomon  must  have  increased  his  real  wealth 
more  than  by  the  importation  of  gold  ;  but  such 
enrichment  of  himself  implied  the  impoverishment 
of  his  subjects,  .and  that  in  a  country  of  very  small 
extent,  and  of  which  the  real  prosperity  mainly  de- 
pended on  agriculture.  The  money  spent  on  mag- 
nilicent  buildings  must  have  been  to  a  large  extent 
wa-sted.  We  may  believe,  therefore,  almost  all 
that  we  are  told  about  the  wealth  of  Solomon,  and 
yet  believe  also  that  even  his  economic  policy  was 
foolish,  and  tended  to  national  bankruptcy  and  the 
ruin  of  his  dynasty. 

14.  Closely  connected  witli  the  wisdom  and  wealth 
of  Solomon  was  his  'fame'  and  ' glury.'  The 
'fame'  of  Solomon  denoted  by  the  Hebrew  words 
them  (1  K  4^').  shimt'tnh  (1  k  lu',  2  Ch  9"),  and 
shima  {,\  K  10',2Ch  9'), — name,  hearing,  report, — 
was,  like  all  fame,  an  external  thing,  'a  fancied 
life  in  others'  breath.'  The  'glory'  of  Solomon, 
although  denoted  in  the  NT  by  the  same  term 
(doxa)  as  'the  glory  of  the  Son  of  Man,'  was  a 
vei-y  dill'ercnt  kind  of  glory.  It  was  not  glory  of 
the  highest  order,  the  glory  of  essential  excellence, 
but  a  superficial  glory  attainable  by  striving  after 
etl'ect,  by  the  lavish  display  and  expenditure  of 
wealth,  by  showy  talents,  by  courting  popularity, 
and  the  like.  I'he  glory  which  Solomon  sought 
for  he  obtained  in  an  extraordin.iry  measure  in 
Ilia  lifetime,  and  it  grew  in  the  couise  of  ages  to 
the  most  extravagant  proportion.  Orientals  are 
fond  of  display  and  pomp,  and  doubtless,  at  least 
for  a  lengthened  pericxl,  Solomon,  with  his  good 
di^position  and  brilliant  gifts  and  conspicuous  suc- 
cess, must  have  seemed  to  his  subjects  an  almost 
ideal  king.  He  gave  Israel  a  place  among  the 
nations  which  it  had  never  previously  held,  secured 
to  it  i)eace  and  prosperity,  perfected  its  organiza- 
tion   and    administration,    and    so    transformed, 


adorned,  and  enriched  Jerus.alcm  as  to  make  it 
appear  the  central  city,  the  joy  and  pride  of  the 
wliole  earth.  Not  only  to  the  Hebrews  but  to 
all  the  peoi>les  of  the  Semitic  world  he  must  have 
seemed  the  foremost  monarch  of  the  age.  His  in- 
tellectual gifts  and  acquisitions  were  so  displayed 
as  to  cause  him  to  be  regarded  as  a  paragon 
of  wisdom,  one  whose  knowledge  and  judgment 
had  never  been  equalled,  a  sage  and  ruler  superior 
to  all  others  on  the  earth.  Hence  we  are  told 
many  princes  and  renowned  men  came  from  afar 
to  visit  him,  to  see  the  grandeur  of  his  court,  to 
hear  the  wisdom  of  his  words,  and  to  pay  him 
lioin.age  and  present  him  with  gifts.  Of  all  his 
visitors,  the  queen  of  Sueba  naturally  made  the 
greatest  impression.  She  was  a  much  iiioie  ex- 
alted personage  than  the  princes  and  sheikhs  with 
whom  the  Israelites  were  familiar.  She  came  from 
'  the  uttermost  parts  of  the  earth'  (Mt  IS''-) ;  came 
in  hi^h  slate  '  ^\■ith  a  very  great  train  with  camels 
that  bare  incense  and  very  much  gold  and  precious 
stones'  (1  K  lO'')  ;  came,  it  would  appear,  attracted 
purely  by  the  fame  of  the  wisdom,  and  especially 
of  the  religious  wisdom,  of  Solomon  ;  and  departed 
leaving  magnilicent  gifts,  confessing  that  what  she 
had  heard  was  not  half  of  what  she  had  found  to  be 
true,  and  thanking  and  blessing  the  God  of  Israel. 

The  above  is,  in  subsUance,  all  that  is  related  of  the  famous 
visit  of  the  Sabx'aii  queen  to  Solomon  ;  and  it  is  also  the  oriyrin 
and  basis  of  all  that  has  been  fabled  about  herself  and  her 
visit  by  the  Kabbis,  Arabs,  Persians,  and  Abvssiiiians.  Many 
modern  critics  pronounce  even  the  Biblical  account  of  it  (1  K 
lOMy,  repeated  in  2  Ch  !)1-12)  to  be  manifestly  lej^endary.  And 
it  may  be  a  Icj^end.  There  is  no  historical  eviden<:e  to  the 
contrary'  except  the  clear  and  positive  statement  made  by  Kinj^ 
But  it  is  certainly  not  manifestly  legendary.  Wellhausen, 
Stade,  Klostennann,  Benzinger,  and  other  eminent  critics  all 
content  themselves  with  mere  assertion  to  that  effect. 

The  fame  of  the  glory  of  Solomon  was  largely  posthumous. 
Great  as  it  w-as  amonjj  his  contemj>orarie3,  the  whole  course  of 
BXibsequent  Hebrew  history  tended  to  increase  it.  After  hie 
reign  the  Hebrew  people  passed  through  stages  of  humiliation 
and  aflliction  while  clinging  tenaciously  to  the  belief  that  they 
were  tiod's  elect  and  had  a  glorious  future  before  them.  To 
endure  the  present,  they  were  always  providentially  constrained 
to  magnify  the  past.  The  more  they  sank,  the  more  they  com- 
forted themselves  by  thinking  of  what  they  had  been  and 
imagining  what  they  could  be.  And  the  age  of  Solomon  was 
the  golden  age  of  their  history,  and  Solomon  himself  their 
most  brilliant  and  renowned  king.  Hence  there  was  in  the 
OT  an  idealiziition  of  kingship  founded  on  the  character  of  the 
personality,  life,  and  reign  of  Solomon,  and  inijtelled  and  guided 
by  a  truly  tliviiie  inspiration  which  has  been  of  immense  signifi- 
cance to  the  world,  it  forms  a  large  and  precious  portion  of 
Messianic  pro])hecy.  The  initial  impulse  to  the  close  connexion 
of  Solomon  with  it  may,  perhaps,  have  been  Nathan's  jiromise 
to  Uivid  (2  8  7"  16  and  1  Ch  n'OH)  that  J"  would  raise  up  to 
him  a  seed  that  should  build  up  the  bouse  of  the  Lord,  and 
whose  kingdom  and  throne  would  bo  established  for  ever.  As 
soon,  howe\er,  as  we  go  further  we  find  ourselves  in  an  alto- 
gether unreal  world.  Jewi.sh  liabbis  indulged  in  the  most  ex- 
travagant exaggerations  as  to  the  gifts  and  glory  of  Solomon. 
Christian  writers  followed  suit,  and  showed  themselves  almost  as 
credulous  and  inventive. 

15.  Religion  of  Solomon. — The  Biblical  historio- 
graphers who  have  tre.-ited  of  the  reign  of  Solomon 
regarded  him  as  having  fallen  far   short   of   his 
father  in  piety.     While  pronouncing  David  a  man 
according  to  God's  own  heart  (1  S  I'J",  1  K  ll"""), 
they  have  so  spoken  of  Solomon's  death  (I  K  11", 
2  Ch  U^')  as  to  have  given  rise  to  a  long  controversy 
among  the  Church  Fathers  as  to  his  salvation.* 
•  St.  Augustine  and  the  Latin  Fathers  generally  pronounced 
against,  and  St.  Chrysostom  and  the  Greek  Fathers  in  favour 
of,  belief  in  his  salvation.    Calmet,  in  his  Did.,  s.v.  'Salomon, 
Nouvelle  Dissert,  de  la  salut  du  Salomon,'  has  collected  the 
opinions.     Dante  unites  liim  in  Paradise  with  the  four  (^e&G 
schoolmen,  and  makes  Aquinas  thus  describe  him : — 
'The  mth  light. 
Goodliest  of  all,  is  by  such  love  inspired. 
That  all  your  world  craves  tidings  of  his  doom : 
Within  there  is  the  lofty  light,  endowed 
With  sapience  so  jirofound,  if  tnitli  be  truth. 
That  with  a  ken  of  such  wide  amplitude 
Ko  second  has  arisen.' 

—Par.  X.  108-114  (0«ry  •  tr.) 
The  third  line  is  the  rendering  of  Dante's : 
*Ghe  tutto  11  mondo 
Lag^A  no  gola  di  taper  novella.' 


5C8 


SOLOMON 


SOLOMOJS" 


Now,  tlii.t  Solomon's  piety  was  not  so  warm  and 
intense  as  UaviU's  is  wliat  no  one  will  iiuestion,  j'ct 
that  it  was  in  some  respects  superior  may  well  be 
maintained,  and  can  even  scarcely  l)e  denied  by  any 
one  who  attempts  to  judge  of  David  and  Solomon 
from  a  Christian  standpoint.  With  good  gifts  and 
great  qualities,  David  had  terrible  defects.  While 
intensely  real,  his  faith  in  J"  was  coinpar.-itively 
crude  and  unenlightened.  Hence  his  piety  was 
compatible  with  such  horrid  deeds  as  his  conduct 
towards  Uriah,  his  allowing  the  innocent  sons  of 
Saul  to  be  '  hung  up  unto  the  Lord  in  Gibeon ' 
(2  S  2P- »),  and  his  ruthless  treatment  of  the  Moab- 
ites  (2  S  8-)  and  Ammonites  (2S  12^'). 

The  memory  of  Solomon  is  unstained  by  such 
acts.  His  faith  in  J",  however  otherwise  inferior 
to  David's,  was  so  much  more  rational  and  ethical 
as  to  save  him  from  much  which  David  did.  He 
too  had  faith  in  J",  but  a  considerably  ditierent 
faith,  and  one  implying  a  higher  and  worthier 
conception  of  J".  I'lie  general  tendency  of  his 
reign  was  towards  spiritual  enlightenment.  The 
Solomonic  age  was  not  one  of  spiritual  decadence 
on  tiie  \\  hole,  but  a  distinct  spiritual  advance  in 
important  respects  on  the  age  of  the  'judges'  and 
of  the  lirst  two  kings ;  and  doubtless  Solomon 
contributed  more  to  its  being  so  than  any  other 
person.  The  interest  of  revelation  required  a 
Solomon  as  well  as  a  Samuel,  Saul,  or  David. 
David's  signilicance  as  a  king  in  relation  to  the 
Messiah  was  as  a  victorious  warrior ;  Solomon's 
as  the  prince  of  peace — no  inferior  honour.  There 
is  no  warrant  for  reckoning  Solomon  among  the 
sceptics.  The  son  of  David  could  not  fail  to  have 
been  taught  to  revere  and  honour  J".  The  com- 
mencement of  his  rei"n  was  marked  by  a  display 
of  ardent  piety  towards  J",  and  the  expression  of 
humble  dependence  on  His  guidance.  Tlirougliout 
his  reign  he  acted  as  temporal  head  of  the  Hebrew 
theocracy,  as  chief  of  the  ministers  of  J"  in  Israel. 
He  delighted  in  the  offlces  of  Divine  worship. 
Some  have  denied,  but  without  apparent  proof, 
that  he  took  part  in  what  have  been  called  dis- 
tinctly priestly  acts— slaying  the  victims  and  oti'er- 
ing  incense.  All  the  other  acts  of  worship— all 
those  which  the  Hebrew  prophets  deemed  most 
sacred  and  spiritual  —  he  is  clearly  recorded  to 
have  performed.  In  connexion  with  the  building 
of  the  temple,  he  showed  his  anxiety  to  render  to 
J"  a  worth}- expi-ession  of  gratitude  for  His  kind- 
ness towards  David  and  himself.  His  praj'er  at  the 
dedication  of  the  temple,  the  substantial  authen- 
ticity of  which  there  seems  to  be  no  reason  to  doubt, 
is  one  of  the  grandest  devotional  utterances  to  be 
found  in  pre-Christian  devotional  literature. 

Solomon  evidently  desired  to  render  the  service 
in  the  temple  beautiful  and  impressive,  the  temple 
itself  the  chief  and  central  sanctuary  in  the  land, 
and  Jerusalem  not  only  the  royal  residence  and 
national  capital,  but  the  holy  city.  He  thereby, 
however,  displeased  those  who  disliked  changes  in 
religion  and  preferred  the  old  simjjlicity  and  rude- 
ness of  worship  to  innovations.  They  included 
probably  most  of  the  uncultured  tribesmen  of  the 
north.  The  seer  Ahijah  was  at  their  head.  They 
may  have  had  a  considerable  amount  of  truth  and 
reason  as  well  as  piety  on  their  side,  but  not  more 
than  the  innovators — Solomon,  the  priests,  and  all 
others  who  were  in  favour  of  progress.  The  changes 
introduced  by  Solomon  tended  to  further  the  sjiiri- 
tual  education  of  the  Jewish  people,  to  suggest  to 
rece[)tive  minds  among  them  larger  and  worthier 
thoughts  of  God,  and  to  contribute  to  the  perman- 
ence and  progressiveness  of  religion  in  Israel. 

16.  Alleged  Apostastj  of  Sohmion. — The  age  of 
Solomon  w,as  in  the  main  one  of  intellectual  libera. 
tion  and  religious  euligiitenment,  although  to  many 
of  his  subjects  it  may  have  appeared  one  of  scepti- 


cism and  impiety.  That  the  king  abandoned  hil 
faith  in  J"  and  became  an  idolater  is  dillicult  to 
believe,  while  it  is  easy  to  conceive  how  the  /'«/««  to 
that  ett'ect  may  have  arisen.  Solomon  built  altars 
for  his  foreign  wives,  and  allowed  them  to  worship 
their  national  gods  on  earth  brought  from  their 
native  lands  and  in  the  language  and  forms  of  de- 
votion Avhich  were  familiar  and  sacred  to  them. 
He  did  not  allow  them  to  proselytize  or  to  attempt 
to  act  the  part  which  was  afterwards  played  by 
Jezebel  ;  and  it  is  even  very  unlikely,  seeing  that 
they  were  all  members  of  his  own  huuseliold,  that 
he  permitted  either  the  cruel  or  the  licentious  acts 
sometimes  practised  in  the  worship  of  certain  of 
their  deities.  But  to  Ahijah  and  his  partisans 
toleration  of  any  worship  in  Israel  except  that  of 
J"  appeared  tantaraoimt  to  apostasy  from  J",  and 
the  worship  of  a  strange  god.  They  necessarily 
saw  therefore  in  Solomon's  conduct  proof  that  his 
heart  was  turned  away  from  J"  and  given  to  the 
foreign  gods  whom  he  allowed  his  wives  to  worship. 
They  judged  of  it  by  a  crude  and  immoral  concep- 
tion of  J",  while  Solomon  himself  must  have  seen 
in  it  no  treason  against  J",  and  believed  it  to  be 
reasonable  and  right.  The  religious  toleration 
granted  by  him  to  his  wives  was  an  almost  inevit- 
able consequence  of  his  policy  of  alliances  with 
foreign  rulers  through  marriages.  There  was, 
however,  apparently  no  opposition  given  or  oflence 
taken  by  his  subjects  either  to  his  polygamy  or 
his  marriage  with  foreign  women.  They  seem  to 
have  regarded  his  multitude  of  wives  complacently 
as  ,a  sign  of  his  wealth  and  grandeur.  In  his  poly- 
gamy he  only  followed  the  example,  and  probably 
the  advice,  of  his  father.  Nor  was  his  oll'ence 
marriage  with  foreign  wives,  altho\igh  he  is  not 
recorded  to  have  married  any  of  his  own  subjects. 
Perhaps  few  of  them  would  have  been  considered 
suitable  wives  for  so  great  a  king,  and  marriages 
with  them  could  have  had  no  political  advantages. 
It  was  his  religious  toleration  per  se  which  was 
condemned,  ami  held  to  imply  disloyalty  to  J"  and 
the  worsliiij  of  other  gods. 

That  he  should  have  been  guilty  of  the  apostasy 
and  sin  alleged  seems  incredible  and  inexplicable 
on  an}-  supposition  except  one,  viz.  that  his  mode 
of  life  bad  left  him  prematurely  worn  out  both  in 
body  and  mind,  so  as  to  be,  even  in  the  fifth 
decade  of  his  age,  in  a  senile  condition,  and  hardly 
responsible  for  his  actions.  That  is  little  if  any- 
thing more  than  a  sujiposition.  '\'et  it  seems  to 
be  hinted  at  by  the  author  of  1  K  ll'-^  who  writes 
as  if  willing  to  excuse  and  yet  unwilling  to  express 
himself  plainly,  when  telling  us  of  Solomon's 
'cleaving  in  love  to  many  strange  women,'  and 
that  '  his  heart  was  turned  away  after  strange 
gods  when  he  teas  old '  (say  over  fifty  years  of  age). 
The  erotic  element  in  the  Song  of  Songs,  so  far  as 
it  refers  to  Solomon,  is  also,  perhaps,  in  this  con- 
nexion not  to  bo  overlooked.  The  apocryphal 
book  Sirach,  while  otherwise  glorifying  Solomon 
in  the  most  generous  manner,  distinctly  singles 
out  for  conilemnation  his  sensuality  as  '  what 
stained  his  honour  and  polluted  his  seed,  brought 
wrath  on  his  children,  divided  Israel,  and  made 
Ephraim  a  rebel  kingdom '  (42>=-^).  The  censure 
was  fully  deserved.  However  numerous  ind 
attractive  may  have  been  the  gifts  and  good 
qualities  of  Solomon,  he  had  two  great  faults — 
self-love  and  self-indulgence.  He  was  blind  to  the 
claims  of  self-.sacrilice  and  self-restraint,  and  hence 
was  no  wise  man  in  the  highest  sense,  but  merely 
the  wisest  fool  of  his  day.  His  harem  may  sutlice 
for  proof.  If  his  wives  and  concubines  together 
really  amounted  to  a  thousand  women,  it  would 
seem  to  have  been  the  largest  of  which  there  is 
any  record  in  historj  It  was  doubtless  mon- 
strously  large,  and   '  eunuchs '  were  among  th« 


SOLOMOX 


SOLOJrO]S^'S  SERVANTS 


569 


attendants  in  it.  Yet  Solomon  had  only  one  son, 
and  that  so',  was  Kehoboam — ' ample,'  as  IJen 
Sira  siiys,  'in  foolishness  and  lacking'  in  under- 
btandin;,',  who  by  his  counsel  let  loose  the  people ' 
(isir  47--').  God's  violated  law  of  married  love 
clearly  avenged  itself  on  Solomon  and  condemned 
his  polygamy. 

17.  Clune  uf  Solomon's  Career. — Before  his  death 
Solomon  had  largely  lost  the  popularity  which  he 
had  enjipyed  in  the  earlier  years  of  his  reign.  He 
had  overta.xed  and  overburdened  his  subjects,  and 
made  a  lavish  and  wasteful  use  of  the  nation.il 
resources,  and  the  sellishness  which  led  him  to  do 
80  had  defeated  its  own  ends.  He  had  given  ollenoe, 
in  a  considerable  measure,  perhaps  unnecessary 
oll'ence,  to  the  prophets  and  their  adherents  and  to 
tlie  Ephraimites  generally.  But  the  fame  he  had 
actjuired  could  not  be  forgotten,  and  he  had  done 
too  much  for  Israel  to  be  despised  or  assailed.  His 
reputation  was  a  part,  and  a  lar;;e  part,  of  that 
of  the  nation.  Hence  none  of  his  '  adver.saries 
rose  against  him.'  The  recollection  of  what  he  had 
been  protected  him  even  against  his  bitterest  ene- 
mies among  the  Ephraimites ;  and  Ahijah  himself 
preached  the  very  strange  doctrine  that  Uod  desired 
Solomon's  sins  to  be  overlooked  for  David's  sake, 
and  Kehobo.im  punished  for  the  transgressions  of 
Solomon  (1  K  11-''"*').  But,  even  although  left  un- 
molested, he  must  surely,  when  he  began  to  realize 
that  death  was  not  far  awaj',  have  looked  back  on 
his  lengthened  reign  with  great  dissatisfaction. 
He  had  abundant  cause  for  contrition  and  regret. 
He  had  not  been  a  good  shepherd  of  his  people. 
He  had  sought  his  own  glory  far  more  than  tliuir 
good.  He  liad  preferred  low  aims  to  high,  and 
could  not  fail  to  be  conscious  thereof.  He  had 
impoverished  and  oppressed  large  numbers  of  his 
subjects.  He  had  not  made  Israel  a  thoroughly 
consolidated  nation,  as  he  might  and  should  have 
done.  He  had  talked  wisdom  and  practised  folly. 
He  had  through  selCshness  failed  to  take  advan- 
tage of  the  precious  gifts  and  grand  op])ort unities 
for  usefulness  which  J"  had  granted  him.  He  had 
professed  piety  and  preached  righteousness,  yet 
dishonoured  Uod,  degraded  himself,  and  set  an 
evil  exam])le  to  others  by  his  luxury  and  licentious- 
ness. Looking  seriously  over  his  past,  he  could 
not  but  realize  that,  with  all  its  appearance  of 
splendour,  it  had  been  es.scntially,  so  far  as  he 
wa-s  concerned,  a  deplorable  failure,  a  vanity  of 
vanities,  whatever  might  be  made  of  it  by  an  over- 
ruling Providence.  He  may  have  been  spared  the 
misery  of  foreseeing  that  immediately  on  his 
deatli  his  son  would  be  so  foolish  as  to  provoke  a 
disruption  of  the  kingdom,  and  therefore  bring 
inrmmerable  woes  both  on  Judah  and  on  Israel, 
but  he  can  hardly  have  failed  to  forecast  that 
troublous  times  for  the  monarchy  were  approach- 
ing. Throughout  almost  the  whole  of  his  reign 
the  relations  between  Israel  and  Egypt  had  lieen 
friendly  ;  by  the  time  of  his  death  the  Pharaoh 
Shi^liali  was  meditating  war,  and  live  years  later 
he  captured  Jerusalem,  plundered  Solomon's  temple 
and  palace,  and  left  Kehoboam  to  substitute  shields 
of  brass  for  his  father's  shields  of  gold.  The  dis- 
ruption of  Israel  and  Judah  was  fatal  to  both,  and 
Seilomon  even  more  than  Kehoboam  was  respon- 
Bible  for  it.  It  is  luit  surprising,  therefore,  that 
both  in  Kings  and  Clironicles,  when  his  death  is 
recorded,  he  should,  notwithstanding  all  the  glory 
he  had  gained,  receive  no  word  of  commendalion. 
All  that  is  said  is  that  '  he  slept  with  his  fathers, 
and  wa^  buried  in  the  city  of  David  his  father; 
and  Kehoboam  his  son  reigned  in  his  stead'  (1  K 
11",  '2Ch9»'). 

I.ITKRATORB.  —  Milni»n,  Uitt.  of  tht  Jew>  (18i>6),  1.  30711.; 
BUinliy,  Hut.  nfJtuUh  Church,  IL  1398.;  Fr.  Newman,  UM. 
Vf  Uel.  Monareliy,  ch.  iv. ;  tbe  Hlstorie*  oJ  Ewald  (iii.  2(M  ff.), 


Starte  (1SS4,  p.  ST4ff.),  A.  Kohlcr  (1SS4,  ii.  374  ff.),  A.  Klostcr 
manli  (ISIO,  p.  KWtT.),  \Vellli.luseil  (ISlfT,  p.  65  If.),  Outhe  (ISHs), 
p.  llOlf.),  (Jornill  (ISaS,  p.  bUIV.),  Kent  (1690,  p.  ICail.).  KiCtel 
(ii.  177  If.),  Kenan  (ii.  9(iff.),  Piepenbrinj^  (ISOS,  p.  lt;7fr.);  c(. 
aisc  Wiiiekler, -U/fpef.  UrUersucl'Uiuien,  (ls:>2)  iiOl.,  (1^94)  Iff.; 
McC.inl.v,  IIP.V  i  205 ff. ;  B.  W.  Bacon,  'Solomon  in  Tradition 
and  in  Fact,*  in  }few  IKorW,  June  1S98,  p.  212 If. ;  and  articles 
in  Herzoff,  iticilm,  and  i>clieiikcl.  Asre^aidscoinnieularies,  etc., 
on  the  sources,  see  the  hihlio^'raphicol  lists  appended  lo  articles 
on  Kings  and  CimoNict.Es.  K.  EUKT. 

SOLOMON'S  PORCH.— See  PoKCii,  and  Temple, 
p.  713". 

_  SOLOMON'S  SERVANTS  (.^b^:^■•^:l•;  LXX  usually 
douXoi  -aXufiuiv  [hut  see  fit/ Jin.]). — In  the  two  lists 
of  r.\iles  who  returned  to  Jerusalem  from  Babylon 
with  Zerubbaliel,  (he  sons  o/ Solomon's  serixt7its  mo 
lirst  mentioned  immediately  after  the  Nc/./dnim 
(Ezr  2^-"',  Neh  7"-'^),  and  then  included  with  them, 
as  though  they  were  suljdivisionsof  the  same  class  : 
'  All  the  Nethinim,  and  the  children  of  Solomon's 
servants,  were  three  hundred  and  ninetj--two' 
(Ezr  2=»,  Neh  I"").  At  Neh  10^  the  sons  of  Solo- 
mon's servants  appear  to  ho  included  amongst  the 
Nethinim.  At  Neh  IP  they  are  again  mentioned 
along  with  them  ;  but  the  parallel  list  of  1  Ch  9- 
contents  itself  with  using  the  more  familiar  of  the 
two  titles,  as  though  the  person  who  inserted  this 
list  did  not  distinguish  between  Nethinim  and 
sons  of  Solomon's  servants.  As  to  their  position 
and  functions  it  will  therefore  be  suthcient  to 
refer  to  art.  Nkthixim. 

It  is  clear  from  Ezk  44*'-  that  non  -  Israelites 
were  employed  for  many  menial  duties  connected 
with  the  temple  service.  The  caste  of  foreigners 
thus  referred  to  may  bnve  originated  from  the 
body  of  forced  lalioureiT.  whom  Solomon  is  said  to 
have  used  in  building  the  temple  and  other  struc- 
tures (1  K  9-'"-').  'I'liese  would  not  unnaturally 
be  called  Solomon's  slaves  or  servants.  After  the 
temple  was  linished,  some  of  them  might  he 
retained  for  the  inferior  otlices  of  the  house  of 
God,  and  the  title  originally  bestowed  on  them 
would  cling  to  them.  In  succeeding  generations 
the  comjiosition  of  the  class  would  vary  from  a 
number  of  causes :  some  families  would  die  out, 
others  would  he  added  from  prisoners  of  war  and 
other  sources.  Nor  is  there  anj-  dilliculty  in  con- 
ceiving of  them  as  holding  together  in  the  E.\ile. 
We  can  readily  imagine  members  of  the  minor 
orders  in  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  doing  so  in 
like  circumstances.  Torrey  (Coiiip.  and  Hist. 
Value  of  Ezrn-Nche7ninh,  p.  4U)  thinks  tliat  the 
mention  of  them  is  .simply  an  instance  of  the 
Chronicler's  determination  to  connect  every  insti- 
tution 'uelonging  to  his  own  day  with  David  and 
Solomon.  But  it  may  fairly  be  argued  that  the 
very  lowliness  of  the  title  'Solomon's  slaves'  is 
in  favour  of  its  genuineness.  No  body  of  men 
would  have  been  willing  to  bear  it  if  it  had  been 
arbitrarily  imposed  from  without  in  the  days  of 
the  second  temple.  But  if  it  were  inherited,  the 
disagreeable  connotation  would  be  worn  oil'  in  tlie 
process  of  time. 

The  remark  made  respecting  the  family  names 
of  the  Nethinim  must  be  repeated  here.  They 
indicate  a  foreign  origin.  There  can  have  been 
only  a  small  number  of  persons  in  each  of  the 
families,  as  will  be  seen  \>y  dividing  (he  total 
number  l)y  that  of  the  families.  The  spelling  of 
the  names  varies  slightlv  in  the  two  lists,  but 
there  is  no  ground  for  the  distinction  Pochercth 
of  Zebaim  (Ezr  2")  and  Poehereth  Zehaim  (Neh  1") 
in  AV ;  in  both  places  R'V  rightly  reiirodmes 
1'o'hereth-lia.zzebaim.  The  Pesh.  dillers  from  MT 
in  two  points.  At  Ezr  1"' — but  not  at  Neh  7* — 
it  gets  rid  of  Solomon's  servants  entirely,  reading 

y>  I  \>    .  I  m  iCil.  JLlo  ;  LXX  B  has  vloi 


570 


SOMEIS 


SON  OF  GOD 


•A3Sn<TfK,  v.»,  and  i-io! ' ApSr,<r(\i^i,  v.".     At  Neh  11 
it  makes   them  dwell  at  Jerusalem,   not   m   the 
cities  of  Judah.  J-  Tayi.ok. 

SOMEIS  (So/nee(!,  AV  Samis),  1  Es  934  =  Shimei, 
Ezr  lU^. 

SOMETIME,  SOMETIMES. -These  forms    are 
u<ied  indiscriminately  in  AV,  and  (except  bir  d,    ) 
always    in    the    sense    of    'once    upon    a    time, 
.  forn'ievly.'    The  Gr,  is  always  "[/•,,  %tS 
in  every  case  :  in  ^^  is  5^  Col  3',  Tit  3»,  1  F  S    into 
'  aforetime' ;  in  Eph  2''  5«  into  'once    ;  m  Col 
into  '  in  time  past.'     For  the  indiscriminate  spell-  | 
inc,  cf.  Melvill,  Diary,  Ix.,  '  He  tuik  him  to  rest, 
an'd  passed  oucr  that  haill  day,  sum  tyme  in  rest, 
as  it  seimed,  and  sum  tymes  in  pa.ne      For    some- 
time,' meanin-  '  formerly,"  cf.  La  P  Gov.     Alas, 
how  sitteth  the  cite  so  desolate,  yt  some  tyme 
was  full  of  people  ?' ;  and  for  '  sometimes,^  bhaks._ 
nich  II  I  li.  54,  '  Thy  sometimes  brother  s  w-ife. 
Abhott   [Shaks.  Gram.   p.   51)  thinks  this  is  the 
meauiug  also  in  Merch.  of  Venice,  I.  i.  IbA— 
'  Sometimes  from  her  eyea 
I  did  receive  fair  speechless  messages. 
In   the  mod.   sense  of   '  occasionally '  the  only 
example  in  AV  is  Sir  37"  (Gr    ^Wore)      But  that 
meaning  was  quite  common  at  the  time.     Ihus 
Elyot,  Governour,  ii.  225,  '  feome  tyme  it  [Jde^^ 
may  be  called  faythe,  some  tyme  credence,  other 
whyles  truste'  ;  Tindale,  Expos.  30,  '  Centnrion  is 
a  /aptain  of  a  hundred  men  ;  whom  I  call  some- 
time a  centurion,  but  for  the  '^ost  VB.yt^\mudeT. 
captain."  •*•  HASTINGS. 

SON.— See  Family. 


SON  OF  GOD.— 

Une  of  the  title  '  Son  of  God'  In— 

L   OT  iND  JBWISU  WeITINOS. 

\.  OT. — Title  applied  to : 
(o)  angels ; 
(6)  judges  or  rulere ; 

(c)  the  theocratic  king ; 

(d)  the  theocratic  people ; 

(e)  the  Messiah— Ps  89  and  PI  1. 
8.  Jewish  Writings :—  .     .        ^ 

(i.)  Apocr\-plia  and  Pseudepigraph*. 
(u.)  The  Tahnud. 
n.  NT. 

1.  Tlie  Gospels.  .  „  j  , 

(a)  Use  of  the  term  '  Son  ol  God." 
(i.)  Incidental  uses, 
(li.)  St.  Peter's  confession, 
(iii.)  The  voice  from  heaven  at  the  Eapuum 
and  at  the  Transfiguration  : 
(a)  The  textual  question. 
(^)  Nature  of  the  manifestation. 
(6)  The  correlative  terms  '  Father'  and  '  Son.' 
t.  Rest  of  NT.  „  _.  , 

(11)  The  title  '  Son  of  God. 
((/)  The  titles  '  Father '  and  '  Bon. 
Note  on  the  use  of  t«7[  Oisi. 
8.  The  significance  of  tlicse  titles—  ,    _,  u 

(a)  For  contemporaries,  Jewish  and  non-Jewun- 
(i.)  The  populace, 
(li.)  The  centurion, 
(lii.)  The  ruling  classes, 
(iv.)  The  disciples. 
(6)  For  Jesus  Himself— 

(i.)  The  filial  consciousneM  of  Jesua. 
(ii.)  The  testimony  of  the  Father. 
(iii.)  Mcssiahship  and  DivinltJ. 
(iv.)  Pre-existence. 
(e)  For  the  j^postles— 
Hel'-3. 

Col  1I'S|.15. 

Note  on  "the'  origin  of  the  CSirtatUui  tue  of  the  tlUe 
'  Son  of  God.' 
m.  TnE Earlv  CmKcii. 

1.  The  sub- Apostolic  Fathers.  . ,    ^^     .       .,  _,  ~       . 
Note  on  the  meaning  of '  SOD '  In  the  ApoeUef"  Creed. 

2.  Marcellus  of  Ancyra. 

Conclusion. 
Literature. 

I  The  Old  Testament  and  Jewish  WRmNos. 
.-"The  history  of  the  term  *  Son  of  God '  in  the  pre- 


Christian  period  is  the  historj-  of  a  gradual  height- 
ening' and  concentration  of  meaning  in  connexion 
with"  the  culminating  point  of  biblical  revel.ation. 
The  use  of  the  term  is  at  first  rather  poetic  or 
rhetorical  than  in  the  strict  sense  theological.  It 
is  iipplied  to  a  number  of  objects  m  such  a  way  aa 
to  invest  them  with  a  special  dignity  and  value,  or 
to  liint  at  a  special  relation  of  nearness  and  appre- 
ciation on  the  part  of  God  ;  but  it  did  not  denote 
any  essential  partaking  in  the  Divine  nature.  Unly 
in  Christian  times  does  this  latter  sense  come  to 

attach  to  it. 

1  OLD  TESTAMENT.  —  In  OT  the  phrase,  or 
something  like  it,  is  used  of  angels,  of  human 
iud"es  of  the  theocratic  king,  of  th^  theocratic 
people,  and  of  the  Messiah.  It  is  this  last  use 
which  is  taken  up  and  further  developed  in  Chris- 
tianity. ,  ,  r-     r"  4 

(f()  In  the  first  passage  that  meets  us,  Gn  b- 
(ascribed  to  the  9tli  cent,  document  J),  the  terin  is 
applied  to  the  race  of  demigods  or  angels  beings 
which  is  conceived  as  existing  before  the  Flood. 

This  passaste  proved  rather  a  stumbling-block  to  the  later 
Jewish  efe^sis,  and  was  variously  explained.  The  mambody 
of  Septuagint  MSS  (K  B  are  not  extant)  tr.  hterally  «  "-  ■"<> 
e,.Z  (so  also  Theodotion).  A  group,  in=""l"'g.,t',''"f,'M''^^ 
this  (in  v.2  but  not  in  v.-i)  as  ..'  aw'.x*.  Aquila  tr.  si  1  more 
literaUy  .;  .^i  -rS.  e^S.,  leaving  an  opening,  as  .t  wouKi  seem. 

or  some  such  sense  Ls  that  riven  in_  the  next  P^^ragraph^ 
S^TTirn  intenirets  less  equivocally  «'  M  ■""  Ji-votc-riw.™.,  aa 
fCugh  Ihe  rTferenie  wasV  the  profligate  sons  of  the  upper  or 
™Sn|  classes.  Some  modem  Jewish  c°n"!«"'^*°„7'^'j.'^-''?he 
Dr  Field  (Hexapla,  i.  22),  make  the  'sons  of  God  -the 
descendants  of  Seth,  and  the  '  daughters  of  men '  =  the  descend- 
ams  of  Cain  But  there  can  be  Uttle  doubt  that  the  sense  is  aa 
in  Job  1»  21  387,  Ps  291  etc. 

(6)  In  one  remarkable  verse  the  title  seems  to  be 
applied  to  judges  or  rulers  (Ps  82«)  '  I  said,  \e  are 
gods ;  and  all  of  you  sons  of  the  Most  High  (cf 
v  1  ■  klso  Jn  lO**).  And  in  a  number  of  places 
' judges'  are  in  some  way  or  "ther  equated  wth 
'gods'  (Ex  21«  RVm  and  AV,  22«-»  RVm  and  AV, 
IS  2'^  RVm  and  AV  ;  in  all  these  places  God  in 
RV  is  lit.  '  gods,'  •elOhim,  according  to  the  familiar 
idiom). 


The  origin  of  this  latter  usage  is  not  quite  clear.  It  appeare 
to  be  coSfe^ted  with  the  fact  that  J^"  Vrln^ot'li^i^t  ft 
decisions  were  given  in  early  tunes  in  the  form  of  oracia  at 
some  sacred  place  and  in  the  name  of  the  dei^. 

It  is  a  further  quest  on  whether  or  how  tar  M  »i°  wae 
sutirested  bv  this  usage.  That  it  was  so  suggested  was  the 
oS  Wew:  and  Duhm  (e.g.)  still  explains  of  the  Hasmon^a^ 
nrinces  Baethgen,  of  heathen  rulers.  But  some  recent  wntere, 
princes  ,  caeuifeeii.u  ...i;.,  davs  of  criticism,  take 


T/iwi"p""394fl!)?orthe  g;>dk"oTthese'i.ations.    Most  commea 
tators  comparers  58,  reading 'O  ye  gods   m  v.i. 

(c)  Of  more  importance,  and  indeed  on  the  direct 
line  of  Messianic  promises,  is  the  designation  as 
applied  to  the  theocratic  king,  ^o^t^.s  the  lead- 
inci  passage  is  the  assurance  given  by  Nathan  to 
Davl^d,  '  I  will  be  his  father,  and  he  shall  be  ray 
«nn '  C  S  V).  Many  other  places  point  bacK  w 
this,  esp.  Ps  89-«- ".   'But  these  wUl  meet  us  again 

""(^Tciosely  associated  with  the  application  to 
the  theocratic  king  is  that  to  the  iAc«cm<^.  people 
For  this  we  go  back  primarily  to  Ex  4*'  Ihou 
Shalt  say  \^U>  Pharaih,  Thus  saith  the  LOKD 
Israel  is  my  son,  my  firstbom,'-an  announcement 
thit  soems"^to  have  been  present  to  the  mind  of  the 
p  ophet  Hoseawhen  he  wrote  '  \Vhen  Israel  was 
a  ctiild,  then  I  loved  him,  and  called  my  son  out 

°'(?)^[rt'hl"tHl"''L'  is  given  both  to  the  theo- 
cratic kin.'  and  to  the  theocratic  people  where 
the^  ar^^clearly  distinguished  from  each  other 
tU  more  inevitable  wi^s  it  that  the  Bame  title 
would  belong  to  them  when  the  two  ideas  coalesce 
into  one,  as  they  do  in  the  passages  that  may  be 
caUed  m^e  directhj  Messianic.  Conspicuous  among 
these  are  Pss  89  and  "J. 


S0^"  OF  GOD 


SOX  OF  GOD 


571 


Ps  89. — This  j)salnj  is  based  uiion  the  promises  of 
2  S  7,  but  also  in  v."  clearly  takes  up  Ex  4--. 
Hence,  while  it  is  agreed  that  both  King  and 
p»'>[)le  are  in  view,  oiiinions  dilier  somewhat  as  to 
the  <legrce  of  jjrominence  to  be  assigned  to  each. 
Cheyne  (Conini.  on  v.^")  has  'no  doubt  that  the 
Davidic  king  (or  rather  'the  Davidic  royalty')  is 
meant.'  IJut  'the  Davidic  house  has  long  been 
overthrown,  and  the  fate  of  the  nation  has  a  more 
practical  interest  for  the  writer,  whose  description 
partly  lits  the  king,  partly  the  people,  now  become 
the  heir  of  the  old  Davidic  promises.'  In  OP  p. 
118  he  pronounces  more  decidedly  for  the  'post- 
exile  Jewish  Church'  in  the  Persian  period  (Arla- 
xerxes  II.  and  III.).  Strack  points  out  a  close 
resemblance  to  the  state  of  things  under  Josiah ; 
Duhm,  to  that  under  Alexander  Jannffius(c.  88  B.C.). 
Wellhausen,  like  Cheyne,  explains  of  the  com- 
munity, which  '  in  the  history  of  the  theocracy 
BQcceeded  to  the  place  formerly  occupied  by  the 
kings.' 

Ps  2. — Even  more  central  in  its  bearing  upon 
the  history  of  Christian  thought  is  Ps  2,  esp.  v.'^ 
Opinion  is  leaning  r.ither  more  than  it  did  to  the 
view  expressed  by  Cheyne,  tliat  this  psalm  has 
not  •  a  contemporary  historical  reference  '  (though 
Duhm  believes  it  to  have  been  composed  at  the 
accession  of  Aristobulus  I.  or  Alexander  Jannseus  ; 
Cheyne  liinmelf  thinks  that  the  writer  '  throws 
himself  back'  into  the  age  of  David  or  Solomon, 
to  which,  according  to  Strack,  he  belongs).  What 
might  be  called  the  most  modem  view  is  concisely 
stated  by  Wellhausen  (PB,  'Psalms,'  ad  lor..): 
'The  Messiah  is  the  speaker,  and  tlie  whole  psalm 
is  composed  in  His  name.  It  is  not  merely  the 
hopes  concerning  the  future  to  which  he  gives 
expression  ;  it  is  the  claims  to  world-wide  dominion 
nlready  cherished  by  the  Jewish  Theocracy.  All 
the  heathen  are  destined  to  obey  the  Jews;  if 
they  fail  to  do  so,  they  are  rebels.  The  Messiah 
is  the  incarnation  of  Israel's  universal  rule.  He 
and  Israel  are  almost  identical,  and  it  matters 
little  whether  we  say  that  Israel  has  or  is  the 
Mes.siah.  .  .  .  On  the  day  when  Jlivn  founded 
the  Theocracy,  He  gave  it  the  right  to  unlimited 
earthly  dominion.  This  right  is  involved  in  the 
very  idea  of  the  Theocracy.  Zion,  as  being  the 
seat  of  the  Divine  rule,  ia,  ipso  facto,  the  seat  of 
universal  rule.' 

It  V  ill  be  seen  how  the  most  advanced  science  of 
our  time  is  by  degrees  giving  back  a  full  equiva- 
lent for  the  old  naive  conception  that  would  make 
the  passages  above  quoted  direct  unmediated  pre- 
dictions of  the  persjonal  Messiah.  As  ajiplica  to 
the  Messiah  the.se  prophecies  are  not  unimili.ited. 
The  steps  are  one  thing,  the  shrine  to  which  iliey 
lead  is  another.  The  Scriptures  of  which  we  have 
been  speaking  mark  so  many  separate  contri- 
butions to  the  total  result ;  but  the  result,  when 
it  is  attained,  has  the  completeuess  of  an  organic 
whole.  A  Figure  was  created  —  projected  as  it 
were  upon  the  clouds — which  was  invested  with 
all  the  attributes  of  a  per.son.  And  the  minds  of 
men  were  turned  towards  it  in  an  attitude  of  ex- 
pectation. It  makes  no  matter  that  the  lines  of 
I  Ills  I'igure  are  drawn  from  dill'erent  originals. 
They  meet  at  last  in  a  single  portraiture.  And  we 
should  never  have  kiiuwii  bow  perfectly  they  meet 
if  we  had  not  had  the  NT  picture  to  coiiii)are  with 
that  of  OT.  The  most  literal  fullilmeiit  of  pre- 
diction would  not  be  more  conclusive  prool  that 
all  the  course  of  the  world  and  all  the  threads  of 
history  are  in  one  guiding  Hand. 

2.  JEWISH  WJUTjyGS.—l'a  2,  as  it  has  been 
rightly  observed,  stands  at  the  head  of  a  long  lino 
ol  subsequent  development.  The  conception  of  the 
Messiah  as  also  '  Son '  became  a  fixed  part  of  the 
tradition,  not  perhaps  quite  so  widely  extended  as 


might  have  been  expected, — it  does  not  figure  at  all 
largely  in  the  Tuliaud, — and  yet  sulUeiently  attested 
in  those  forms  of  Judaism  which  present  the  nearest 
alliiiities  to  Christianity. 

(i.)  The  Ajjocrijpha  and  Pseudepif/rapha. — The 
title  'Son' as  aiiplied  to  the  Messiah  occurs  only 
once  in  the  Book  of  Enoch  (105-')  in  a  passage  the 
origin  and  date  of  which  are  uncertain.  It  does 
not  occur  at  all  in  Ajioc.  of  Barucli.  But  in  4  Ezra 
(2  Esdras)  it  seems  to  be  fairly  well  established. 
This  book  is  lost  in  the  original  (Gr.  or  Heb.  '!),  but 
ispreserved  in  no  fewer  than  live  versions,  Lat.,  Syr., 
Atli.,  Arab,  (two  forms),  Arm.,  which  are  com- 
monly supposed  to  rank  in  this  order,  though  the 
subject  has  not  yet  been  thoroughly  investigated. 

The  text  printed  in  our  Bibles  is  from  the  Latin.  In  7®-  29 
this  version  has  e\idently  passed  through  Christian  han<ls  ;  Syr. 
has  twice  and  Arab,  once  '  my  Son  Messiah,"  .'Eth.  once  '  my 
St-n-ant  Messiah'  (perhaps  =  ffa7f),  and  Arm.  once  'the 
Messiah  of  God.'  From  this  rough  statement,  wlxioh  can  hardly 
he  pursued  into  close  detail,  it  will  he  seen  that  there  is  some 
douhc.  In  133-  and  87  Lat.  Syr.  Arab.,  and  in  lo-'~  i-at.  Syr. 
identically,  and  .^th.  Arab,  approximate]}-,  all  have  '  Son,"  which, 
however,  does  not  appear  in  the  Armenian.  A  like  relation 
is  found  in  14^,  where  Lat.  Syr.  .d£th.  Codd.  Arab,  have  '  Son " ; 
jV.lh.  Co<ld.  '  sons,"  while  Arm.  drops  and  paraphrases.  The 
edd.,  including  Hilgenfeld  and  Gunkel  in  Ivautzsch,  ApokT.  u. 
I'seudepig.  d.  A T,  read  *  Son  'in  all  these  places  ;  hut  the  reading 
cannot  be  regarded  as  quite  secure  (cf.  Drummond,  JewuJi 
jyt-ftft'ia/i,  pp.  2^.'.-'ifti>). 

The  strongly  Messianic  passage  in  Ps-Sol  1723-51  has  not  the 
title  '  Son,"  but  clearly  borrows  from  Ps  2  in  v.'-W. 

(ii).  I'he  Talmud. — Apart  from  the  above  instances 
there  is  not  much  evidence  for  the  Messianic  inter- 
pretation of  Ps  2  in  the  Rabljinic  literature.  Dal- 
inan  (Wurtc  Jcsu,  p.  222)  gives  three  examples  of 
this,  one  dating  c.  2i0  and  another  c.  350  a.l>. 

Two  other  connnenta  quoted  by  him  are  of  some  interest. 
The  Midrash  on  Ps '2^2  concludes  thus:  *  To  whom  is  this  like? 
To  a  king  who  is  %vroth  with  his  subjects,  and  the  subjects  go 
and  make  their  peace  with  the  king's  son,  that  he  may  make 
jieace  for  them.  Then  when  the  subjects  go  to  give  thanks  to 
the  king,  he  saith  to  them :  Would  .\'e  give  thanks  to  meV  Go 
and  give  them  to  my  son  ;  smce,  but  for  him,  I  shoidd  long  ago 
have  blotted  out  the  people.  So  saith  God  to  the  nations  of  the 
world  when  they  wouhl  give  thanks  to  him.  Go  thank  the 
cliiUlrun  of  Israel,  for  without  them  ye  would  not  have  continued 
for  a  single  hour.' 

A  late  comment  in  Midr.  Tchill.  ii.  7  is  e.vpressly  directed 
against  the  Christian  interpretation  :  '  From  this  pa.-^sage  (Ps  '27) 
an  answer  may  be  given  to  the  Minim  (Christians)  who  say  the 
Holy  One — blessed  be  He — has  a  Son,  and  thou  canst  reply  to 
them  ;  it  does  not  mean  '*  A  Son  art  Thou  to  Me,"  but  "  Thou 
art  My  Son";  like  a  servant  whom  his  master  encourages  by 
saying  to  him,  "I  love  thee  as  my  son  1 " '  Although  this  is  se*t 
down  as  '  very  late,"  it  is  just  the  interpretation  that  would  be 
natural  to  a  Jew. 

II.  The  New  Testament.— In  passing  over  to 
NT  it  is  important  to  observe  th.at  we  should  not 
form  an  adequate  conception  of  the  significance  of 
the  title  'Son  of  God'  if  we  were  to  confine  our- 
selves to  the  use  of  that  title  alone.  It  is  true  that 
it  occurs  in  some  central  passages,  and  true  that 
in  these  pas.'<ages  the  phrase  is  invested  with  great 
depth  of  meaning.  But  we  should  not  adequately 
apjiieciate  this  depth,  and  still  less  should  we 
under.stand  the  mass  and  volume  of  NT  teaching 
on  this  head,  if  we  did  not  directly  connect  w  ith  the 
explicit  lelerciices  to  the  'Son  of  God'  that  other 
long  series  of  references  to  God  as  pre-eminently 
'  the  Father,'  and  to  Christ  as  pre-eminently  '  the 
Son.'  These  two  lines  of  usage  are  really  conver- 
gent. And  we  must  first  consider  them  separately 
before  we  bring  them  together.  It  has  seemed 
best  first  to  collect  and  sift  the  evidence  before 
seeking  to  penetrate  further  into  its  meaning. 

1.  Tllli  GOSPELS.— {a)  Use  of  the  term  '  iion  of 
God.' — The  use  of  this  term  is  perhaps  more  sixiring 
than  we  might  suppose.  And  the  number  of  in- 
stances on  which  we  can  really  lay  stress  will  be 
found  to  shrink  .sotnewhat  on  exannnation. 

(i.)  Incidental  k.vc.s. — Only  in  the  Fourth  Gospel 
(6«»  Q"  [var.  Icct.]  10*«  11')  is  the  title  '  Son  of  God  ' 
used  by  our  Lord  expressly  of  Himself.  And 
although  three  at  least  of  tne  places  in  which  it 


572 


SOX  OF  GOD 


SON  OF  GOD 


is  described  as  used  of  Ilim  are  of  salient  import- 
ance, tills  is  not  the  case  willi  others.  Instances 
like  Mk  1'  (where  the  readin"  is  also  not  quite 
certain),  Jn  3'*  20'"  belong  to  the  evangelists,  and 
are  therefore  evidence  lor  a  later  stage  of  lielief 
than  that  of  the  narrative.  And  we  must  allow 
for  the  possibility  that  lo  this  later  .stage  are  really 
to  be  assigned  words  sueh  as  those  Jiscribed  to  the 
Baptist  in  Jn  !*•  and  to  Nathanael  in  Jn  1<*.  Nor 
can  we  be  too  conlident  as  to  the  exact  wording  of 
the  discourses  or  sayings  in  Jn  3"  5^  JP  [v.l.']  10-" 
11'.  St.  John,  even  more  than  the  other  evange- 
lists, was  so  intensely  absorbed  in  his  own  belief  in 
the  Godhead  of  Christ  that  it  was  natural  to  him 
to  antedate  expressions  which  really  would  be  ex- 
ceptional at  the  time  to  which  they  are  referred. 
Even  in  the  First  Gospel  (Mt  14^  26"^)  the  absence 
of  the  phrase  from  the  Synoptic  parallels  must  cast 
some  doubt  upon  its  originality. 

On  the  other  hand,  in  the  cases  of  the  demoniacs 
(Mk  3"  II  5'  il)  and  of  the  centurion  at  the  Cross 
(.Mk  15™ II)  the  attestation  indeed  is  excellent,  but 
Ave  cannot  deduce  anything  very  tangible  (see 
below,  3  {n)). 

(ii.)  St.  Peter's  Confession. — We  cannot  be  sur- 
prised if  by  an  application  of  similar  critical 
methods  some  scholars  {e.c/.  Dalman,  ]i'orie  Jesu, 
p.  224)  should  also  cancel  the  phrase  in  the  more 
important  connexion  of  Mt  16'*.  Here,  in  the 
version  of  Matthew,  Peter's  confession  runs:  'Thou 
art  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living  God  '  ;  wliere 
Mark  has  only,  '  Thou  art  the  Christ,'  and  Luke 
'The  ChrLst  of  God.'  And  no  doubt  it  follows 
from  this  that  the  Marcan  document  had  no  more 
than  our  present  Gospel.  Still  this  passage  is  not 
really  on  all  fours  with  the  others  that  have  come 
before  us.  For  the  context  clearly  proves  that 
Matthew  had  before  him  some  further  tradition, 
possibly  that  of  the  Lonia,  but  in  anj^  case 
a  tradition  that  has  the  look  of  being  original. 
Whether  this  originality  extends  to  the  whole 
phrase  may  be  more  than  we  could  assert  posi- 
tively, but  to  the  present  writer  it  appears  to  be 
probable  that  it  does.  We  should  more  easily 
understand  the  apostolic  use  of  the  title  'Son  of 
God  '  if  there  had  been  precedents  for  it  on  im- 
portant occasions  like  this,  when  it  is  represented 
as  receiving  the  sanction  of  Christ  Himself.  The 
whole  phrase  as  it  stands,  including  the  epithet 
'  living  God,'  calls  up  such  a  host  of  OT  associa- 
tions, and  at  one  step  sets  the  confession  so 
conspicuously  in  its  place  amid  the  whole  series 
of  biblical  revelations,  that  we  may  be  loth  to  let 
it  go. 

(iii.)  The  voice  from  heaven  at  the  Baptism  and 
Transfiguration. — The  next  two  places  that  we 
have  to  deal  with  are  encircled,  like  the  last,  with 
critical  considerations.  It  may  be  well  first  to 
state  the  textual  facts,  so  that  the  reader  may 
have  the  evidence  fully  before  him. 

a.  The  textual  question. — 

Thi  Baptism  :— 

Mt  3'7  z^'i  ;2oy  taiti;  ix  raiw  avfietfSi  \iytvrx'  OZrit  im»   i  tilie 

U.6V  0  0tyatTyiT6!  i*  M  liiexr.fx. 
Mk  f  lULi  ^*>i  vt  rit  tipx*Mf'  Su  |7  «  Mfr.   fiau  i  iyttrttric ,  i> 

Lk  3-''  .  .   .   futi  Cftivr*    i£    ovfxftu   ylyifffjtu'    Sv    |7   4  viil  fi4u   i 

2w  ir,  «.T.x.  codd.  (ircEC.  et  vera.  (inc.  Sjt.  Bin.)/ere  omn. 
Tit;  fjt«ij  it cOi.-^'  otyctMrtToi,  Clem.  Alex.),  iyii  ri,pup9^  yly\fty\tti.  n, 

Dabcff2»  1  r. 
Banc  lectionem  t^iuui  evangelicam  agnoscunt  (nisi  pgalmum 

aticuiii    respiciani).  Just.    Mart.,  Clem.    Alex.,   Method., 

Juvenc,  TycOD.,  Aug.    Babet   etiatn,  Ev.    Gbioait.    ap. 

Epiph.  1/2. 

The  Transfioukation  : — 

Mt  17^  Juci  i'34v  $«r*ti  f«  f^  tlfl'Xqr  Xiytvrtt'  Ouref  irrjr  i  uiit 
Mk  0^  JMci  iyt*%r*  ^tv  •«  rijt  n^iX%t'     OZrit  ifrif  i  yiit  ftau  i 


Lk  9^  xvi    ^tntj  iyivSTO   ix  r-^;    vifiXtiC  kiyavr:^'  OZrif   im*  < 

vUt  fjuu  6  xxklXlyfiiyotf  etCrau  etxo'Jtrl. 
We  may  also  compare  Ac  133^  .  .  .  itta.ffrr.rat  'ItiVoZt^  ie  xttiu 

xu    ^J'aAUA«    yiyfe^TTau   VM  ilvTipw  {v.i.    I*  Tw    vpaiToi    ■^ctXu.Z 
yiyp.)'  Tiot  /^u  ii  rC,  lyot  ffr.u.ifiot  ytyiiifiX^  n.     Cf.  He  1^  5^. 

The  main  question  here  is  as  to  the  reading  of  Lk  3— ;  iyM 
ffy.utpor  ytyiKfr.xa  tri  is  clearly  Wtslern,  with  strong  Latin  sup. 
port,  though  even  here  the  whole  family  is  not  included,  e  I 
poin;;  the  other  way ;  the  absence  of  Syriac  evidence  is  also 
unportant.  The  natural  inference  would  be  that  the  reading, 
although,  no  doubt,  very  ancient,  was  not  really  primitive.  And 
when  we  think  how  strong  the  temptation  would  be  to  assimi- 
late the  text  of  the  Gospel  to  that  of  the  psalm,  and  how  readily 
this  latter  text  would  fall  in  with  ideas  that  are  known  to  have 
been  current  in  the  2nd  cent.,  the  presumption  against  ita 
originality  is  increased.  In  any  case  Luke  is  the  only  Gospel 
affected.  The  agreement  of  Matthew  and  Mark  is  sutticient 
guarantee  that  the  reading  found  in  them  was  found  also  in  the 
common  S^Tiop.  document.  Luke  can  at  most  represent  only 
a  separate  tradition,  which  hardly  in  this  instance  carries  with 
it  so  much  weight  as  the  others. 

If  the  common  reading  is  to  be  preferred,  then  the  first  hall 
of  the  words  presents  a  coincidence  with  Ps  'T',  the  second  half 
with  Is  421.  The  words  heard  at  the  Transfiguration  also  pre- 
sent a  general  resemblance  to  Ps  2.  That  psalm  ia  directly 
quoted  in  Acts  and  Hebrews. 

/S.  The  nature  of  the  Manifestai ion. — It  is  char- 
acteristic of  the  OT  prophets  that  the  revelations 
made  to  them  sometimes  took  the  form  of  remark- 
able sights  and  sometimes  of  remarkable  sounds. 
At  least  these  are  the  terms  in  which  they  are 
described  to  us ;  what  exactly  were  the  ps3'cho- 
logical  phenomen.a  corresponding  it  is  beyond  our 
power  to  say.  They  belong  to  the  peculiar  experi- 
ence of  the  Hebrew  prophets.  The  Jewish  notions 
about  tlie  Bath  Kol  are  an  extensijn  of  the  same 
idea  (Weber,  JUd.  Theol?  p.  194  f.). 

It  is  natural  to  suppose  that  the  manifestations  at 
the  Baptism  and  at  the  Traiisliguralion  were  similar 
in  kind.  It  is  possible  that  tlicy  were  known  only 
to  Jesus  Himself,  perhaps  in  the  one  case  also  to 
the  Baptist,  and  in  the  other  to  one  or  more  of  the 
apostles  who  possessed  the  prophetic  endowment. 
Through  such  a  channel  as  this  the  Divine  ap- 
proval of  the  Son  was  in  all  probability  communi- 
cated to  men.  The  significance  of  this  Divine 
testimony  will  come  before  us  later. 

(6)  The  correlative  terms  '  Father'  and  ' Son.' — 
We  are  told  (Dalman,  Worte  Jcsu,  p.  156)  that 
it  is  contraiy  to  Jewish  usage  to  speak  of  God  as 
'  the  Father  simply  without  some  such  addition 
as  '  who  is  in  heaven.'  The  only  exceptions  occur 
in  prayers.  It  also  appears  that  great  care  and 
reserve  were  used  in  the  application  of  this  title 
generally.  The  Targunis,  where  they  have  occa- 
sion to  refer  to  it,  adopt  a  parajdirase. 

In  this  respect  the  Gospels  show  a  marked  con- 
trast. Our  Lord  does,  indeed,  make  use  of  the 
Je\rish  form  (which  is  found  most  frequently  in 
Matthew,  but  cf.  also  Mk  11-",  Lk  11")  ;  and  it  i8 
probable  enough  that  the  real  instances  of  this  use 
may  have  been  more  numerous  than  would  appear 
from  our  Gospels. 

At  the  same  time  the  Christian  use  goes  far 
beyond  the  Jewish  limitations.  And  besides  the 
general  use  as  applied  to  the  disciples,  there  is  a 
special  use  in  wliich  our  Lord  reserves  it  in  a 
peculiar  manner  to  Himself.  He  nowhere  speaks 
of  '  our  Father,'  numbering  Himself  with  His  fol- 
lowers. The  Lord's  Prajer  is  not  an  exception, 
because  it  is  a  form  prescribed  to  the  disciples,  and 
constructed  entirely  for  them.  The  prayers  of  the 
Son  to  the  Father  are  diUerent. 

On  the  other  hand,  our  Lord  constantly  speaks  of 
'  my  Father,'  whether  with  (Mt  7-'  ItP^  15'»  16" 
Igiu.  i».  S5)  Qr  without  addition.  And  this  use  ap- 
parently goes  back  even  to  His  childhood  (Lk  2"). 

The  use  in  question  is  illustrated  in  a  number 
of  ways.  So  in  the  parable  of  the  Wicked  Hus- 
bandmen, where  the  '  beloved  son  '  (Alk  12*),  who 
is  also  '  heir,'  is  distinguished  from  aJl  other  mes- 
sengers. So  again  in  the  parable  of  the  Marriage 
Feast,  which  the  king  makes  for  liis  son  (Mt  22'')  ( 


SON  OF  GOD 


SON  OF  GOD 


572 


where,  thonj,'Ii  the  parallel  in  Lk  14'"  may  point  to 
this  descri])tion  as  acKled  later,  the  instant-o  just 
given  wouki  at  least  show  that  it  lay  near  at  hand  ; 
and  some  further  support  is  given  to  it  bv  the  part 
plaj'ed  by  the  '  bridegroom  '  in  the  parable  of  the 
Ten  Virgins. 

in  any  ease  the  whole  argument  of  Mt  17™  turns 
ou  the  distinction  between  'son'  and  'stranger.' 
And  the  point  of  the  discussion  about  Ps  110'  (Mk 
12"'")  is  just  to  prove  that  tlie  Mcssiali  is  not 
'  son  of  David  '  in  tlie  same  sense  in  which  otlier 
members  of  his  lineage  are  spoken  of  as  sons.  We 
shall  have  occasion  to  come  back  to  some  of  these 
passages  presently. 

We  observe  in  our  Lord's  use  of  the  titles 
'Father'  and  'Son'  in  connexion  with  Himself 
an  ascending  scale.  First,  there  are  the  i)lace3 
where  Ho  speaks  of  God  as  His  heavenly  Father, 
or  Father  in  heaven,  after  ordinary  Jewish  usage 
(Mt  "-'  etc.,  see  above).  Then  tliere  are  the  places 
where  He  speaks  of  God  as  'my  Father'  witliout 
addition,  which  are  too  numerous  to  need  specifica- 
tion. Then  we  come  to  a  smaller  numlier  of  pas- 
sages in  which  '  the  Son '  and  '  the  Father  '  are  at 
once  opposed  and  associated.  And  lastly,  there 
are  the  ea.ses  in  which  mention  is  made  of  '  the 
Father'  and  'the  Son,'  where  the  correlation  is 
not  expressed  but  implied.  The  last  two  classes  of 
passages  alone  will  re^juire  some  discussion. 

The  ila.ssical  jiussage  in  tlie  Synoptic  Gospels  for 
the  correlative  use  of  '  tlie  Father'  and  '  tlie  Son  ' 
is,  of  course,  Mt  1 1-''  II.  By  the  side  of  this  we  have 
Mk  13^^11  [«./.]  and  the  important  and  much  de- 
bated verse  Mt  28'". 

Dalraan  (see  pp.  231-235)  allows  the  first  of  these 
passages  to  stand,  explaining  it  as  a  figurative 
application  of  the  relation  of  '  father  and  son.' 
The  relation  of  Jesus  to  Him  whom  we  call  'the 
Father'  is  such  a  relation,  and  therefore  implies 
mutual  knowledge.  But  the  other  places,  lie 
thinks,  bear  too  close  a  resemblance  to  the  theo- 
logical language  of  the  Early  Church  ;  and  he 
would  set  them  down,  in  their  present  form,  to 
the  reflex  influence  of  that  l.-inguage.  lie  ques- 
tions the  use  by  our  Lord  Himself  of  either  phrase 
as  a  theological  term.  And  this  kind  of  view  is, 
no  iloubt,  widely  spread  in  critical  circles. 

Now,  in  the  lirst  place,  we  note  that  the  passages 
just  referred  to  are  not  the  only  evidence  for 
winging  the  use  in  question  within  the  cycle  of 
Synoptic  language.  We  may  fairly  add  to  these 
for  this  purpose  Ac  l*- '  2-" ;  for  not  only  is  the 
author  of  Acts  the  author  also  of  one  of  our 
Synoptic  Gospels,  but  it  is  probable  that  these 
early  chapters  are  based  upon  a  document  that  is 
very  mucli  upon  the  same  level  with  the  sources 
used  in  the  Synoptics. 

Next,  we  o^iserve  that  if  the  use  of  '  the  Father  ' 
and  •  ihe  Son  '  as  theological  terms  belongs  to  the 
Karly  Church,  it  at  least  goes  back  to  the  very 
lirst  moment  at  which  we  possess  contemijorary 
evidence  for  the  vocabulary  of  tliat  Churcli,  and 
indeed  to  a  date  which  is  not  more  than  23  years 
from  the  Ascension  (see  1  Th  1').  And  at  the 
time  when  we  thus  first  meet  with  it  the  use  is  no 
novelty,  but  already  firmly  and  deeply  rooted, 
a  tiling  generally  understood  in  all  the  I'auline 
Churches,  and,  so  far  as  we  can  see,  without  any 
hint  of  question  or  ilispute  beyond  their  borders. 
As  we  shall  have  to  illustrate  this  more  at  length 
in  the  next  section,  we  need  not  pursue  the  point 
further. 

These  facts  demanil  an  explanation.  How  are 
we  to  account  for  the  rapid  growth  within  some 
23  to  2fi  years  of  a  u.sage  already  so  lixcd  and 
Htcieotyped  ?  Where  is  the  workshop  in  which 
it  was  fashioned,  if  it  did  not  descend  trom  Christ 
Himself';    When  we  think  of  the  way  in  which 


the  best  authenticated  records  of  His  teachin" 
lead  us  up  to  the  very  verge  of  the  challenged 
expressions,  it  seems  altogether  an  easier  step  to 
regard  them  as  the  natural  continuation  of  that 
teaching  than  to  seek  their  origin  wholly  outside 
it.  Of  the  two  alternatives  the  former  seems  not 
onlv  in  other  ways  the  more  satisfactory,  but 
really  the  easier  and  the  more  critical. 

2.  'Tllli  liKST  OP  TUB  New  TlisTAMi:XT.—1\\e 
same  two  convergent  lines  of  doctrine  may  be 
traced  in  the  rest  of  the  NT  as  in  the  Gospels. 
Here  again  we  have  two  groups  of  passages,  the 
one  introducing  the  title  '  Son  of  God,'  and  the  other 
speaking  rather  of  'the  Father'  and  'the  Son.' 
And  here  again  we  find  the  two  groups  approach 
and  mutually  support  each  other. 

The  main  ditlerence  between  the  Gospels  and 
the  rest  of  the  literature  is  that,  whereas  we  have 
seen  that  in  the  Gospels  there  is  an  ascendin" 
scale  of  expression,  corresponding  to  the  gradual 
unfolding  of  the  new  conception  in  the  course  of 
the  history,  in  the  Epistolary  and  other  books 
(which  though,  as  writings,  for  the  most  part 
earlier  than  the  Gospels  in  point  of  composition, 
are  later  than  them  in  the  stage  of  development  to 
which  they  have  reference), — in  these  books  the 
process  retiected  in  the  Gospels  is  seen  as  complete. 
Both  titles,  or  sets  of  titles,  '  Son  of  God  and 
'  Father  and  Son,'  have  come  to  represent  definite 
thcdlugumena.  'I'licir  content  is  lixed,  and  carries 
with  it  a  distinct  doctrinal  meaning.  The  clunax 
to  which  we  have  been  advancing  h.is  been  reached, 
and  now  simply  perpetuates  itself.  The  point 
gained  is  not  lost  again. 

(n)  The  title  '  Son  of  God.'— We  open  the  Epistle 
which  stands  at  the  head  of  the  collection  in  our 
Bibles,  and  the  state  of  belief  implied  in  it  is 
revealed  to  us  in  the  very  lirst  verses  (Ko  I''*). 
We  read  there  that  the  main  subject  of  the  Gospel, 
or  new  announcement  to  mankind,  is  just  tliis, 
'  the  Son  of  CJod.'  And  the  nature  of  the  announce- 
ment respecting  Hiui  is,  that  while  on  one  side  of 
His  Being  He  satisfies  the  conditions  exjiected  in 
the  Jewish  Messiah  by  His  descent  from  David, 
on  another  side  of  ilis  Being  He  is  delined  or 
marked  out  as  attaining  to  a  higher  designation 
still.  He  is  nothing  less  than  '  Son  of  God.'  And 
the  incontrovertible  proof  of  His  higher  nature  is 
to  be  seen  in  His  victory  over  death  by  the  Re- 
surrection . 

The  term  'Son  of  God'  is  evidently  by  this 
time  chosen  and  established  as  the  standing  formula 
to  express  what  we  m(;an  by  the  Divinity  oj 
CJirist.  If  in  the  OT  the  term  did  not  necessarily 
imidy  Divine  origin  in  the  strict  sense  at  all,  that 
state  of  things  has  once  for  all  been  left  beliind  ; 
and  this  particular  formula  has  been  fixed  upon  by 
the  Christian  consciousness  as  the  shortest  and 
most  decisive  expression  for  the  proposition  in 
wliich  its  whole  laitli  centres. 

The  inference  which  we  thus  draw  from  the 
opening  verses  of  F,p.  to  Romans  is  confirmed  on 
all  hands,  and  shown  to  hold  good  for  every 
branch  of  the  Church.  Wo  need  not  stay  to  illus- 
trate it  further  from  such  passages  as  {!al  2-'",  Eph 
4"  for  the  Ejip.  of  St.  Paul.  But  Ac  9="  shows  that 
to  pre.ich  'that  Jesus  is  the  Son  of  God'  was  a 
current  way  of  describing  the  gospel.  A  like 
result  follows  from  1  Jn  3"  (where  '  the  Son  ol 
(iod  was  manifested*  is  a  name  for  what  was  after- 
wards called  'the  Incarnation '),  and  1  .In4"'5''- '"■  " 
prove  cleaily  that  the  confession  of  .lesus  as  the 
Son  of  Go<l  was  the  cardinal  point  in  the  Chris- 
tian faith.  Somewhat  more  indirectly  the  same 
conclusion  follows  from  He  4'*  lU-"'  and  Rev  2'* 
(taking  up  the  description  of  1""").  The  (Jospel  of 
St.  tlohn  (1"-"*)  identities  the  Only-begotten  with 
the  Logos  of  God. 


674 


SON  OF  GOD 


SUN   OF  GOD 


(6)  The  titles  'Father'  and  '5.-n.'— In  the  Pro- 
logue to  the  Fourth  Gospel  we  are  in  tlie  region  of 
Iiigli  theology.  Uut  the  fundamental  assumptions 
of  the  Epistles  (Pauline,  Petrine,  Johannean, 
Hebrews)  are  on  the  same  plane.  From  the  first 
we  have  in  the  greetings  of  such  as  begin  with 
greetings  frenuent  reference  to  the  staniliiig  cor- 
relatives '  the  Father'  and  '  the  Son.'  There  never 
was  a  time  within  the  range  of  this  literature 
when  the  two  correlative  terms  were  not  under- 
stood and  accepted  as  part  of  the  essential  voca- 
bulary of  Christianity. 

When,  therefore,  we  read  in  Mt  28"  the  com- 
mand to  baptize  in  the  name  of  the  Father  and 
the  Son,  this  combination  is  one  proved  to  have 
been  in  common  use  less  than  25  years  after 
the  command  is  said  to  have  been  given  ;  and  the 
complete  triad  is  proved  to  have  been  recognized 
very  little  later. 

We  repeat  that  the  matured  form  in  which  these 
conceptions  are  found  in  tlie  earliest  Epistles  seems 
to  us  abundantly  to  justify  not  only  the  few  places 
in  which  they  enter  into  the  Synoptic  Gos])els, 
but,  in  principle  at  least,  the  more  numerous  [ilaces 
in  which  they  occur  in  the  Gospel  that  bears  the 
name  of  St.  John  (see  below,  3  6  i). 

Sole  on  the  u3e  of  -raif  $iou. — We  must  reckon  with  the  possi- 
bility that  rrix7i  (fli&y)  in  Ac  313-  26  4'i7. 30  was  intended  to  be  taken 
in  tlie  sense  of  *  Son.'  It  certainly  has  this  sense  in  a  number 
of  places  in  the  Apostolic  Fathere  (see  below,  III.  1).  It  is, 
however,  more  probable  that  (as  in  Sit  12t**)  the  earlier  writers 
distinctly  have  in  view  the  'Servant  of  Jehovah'  of  Is  421  etc. 
Only  when  the  preaching  of  the  gospel  left  Jewish  ground  and 
began  to  spread!  amon'jr  peoples  ignorant  of  Heb.  were  the  two 
senses  wholly  confaseii.  This  process,  indeed,  was  rapid ;  and 
the  effect  was  so  far  good  that  it  blended  with  the  conception 
of  Christ  as  'Son'  a  quantity  of  valuable  teaching  relating  to 
the  '  Servant '  which  was  moj^t  truly  applicable  to  Him  (tiiough 
under  another  name),  and  which,  but  for  this,  might  have  met 
with  less  attention.  On  the  passages  iu  Acts  see  esp.  an 
excellent  note  by  Knowling  on  Ac  31^ ;  cf.  also  what  ifl  said  by 
the  same  writer  on  '  St.  Peter's  Discourses,'  p.  119  ff. 

3.  TBE  SIGXIFICANCE  OF  THESE  TITLES.— 
We  have  now  collected  most  of  the  data  bearing 
upon  our  subject.  The  next  step  must  be  to  con- 
sider their  significance  under  the  difierent  condi- 
tions in  which  wc  have  found  the  titles  used.  In 
other  words,  we  shall  have  to  ask  what  the}'  really 
meant,  in  the  fulness  of  their  meaning,  (<t)  for  the 
contemporaries  of  Jesus,  both  Jewish  and  non- 
Jewish  ;  (6)  for  Je.sus  Himself  ;  (c)  for  the  apostles, 
looking  back  upon  and  interpreting  them. 

(«)  For  contemporaries,  Jewish  and  non-Jetmsh. 
— (i.)  The  populace. — Not  much  can  be  extracted 
from  the  witness  of  the  demoniacs  (Mk  3"  ||  5'  II). 
If  we  read  into  it  a  higher  me.aning  than  the  words 
conveyed  to  the  mind  of  the  sjiuaker,  it  could  only 
be  by  assuming  a  providenti.-il  action  outside  the 
working  of  ordinary  laws.  TheprophecvofCaiaph.as 
(Jn  1  !■'"■'-')  is  perhaijs  sutriciently  parallel  to  justify 
us  in  introducing  ttiis ;  and  it  is  a  common  belief 
that,  where  the  human  will  is  most  dormant, 
Divine  intluences  are  felt  most  readily.  But, 
looked  at  p.^j'chologic.ally,  the  confessions  of  the 
demoniacs  could  not  mean  more  than  that  they 
believed  themselves  to  be  in  the  presence  of  the 
expected  Messiah. 

(ii.)  The  centurion. — In  spite  of  the  divergent 
report  of  the  words  of  the  centurion  at  the  cross 
iu  Lk  '23",  there  can  be  little  doubt  that  the 
common  source  of  theSj-noptic  narrative  is  rightly 
reproduced  by  Mark  and  Matthew,  *  Truly  this 
was  the  Son  of  God.'  As,  however,  there  is  no 
obvious  reason  why  Luke  should  have  altered  this, 
and  as  there  are  other  details  in  the  historj'  of 
the  P.assion  for  which  he  appears  to  have  inde- 
pendent authority,  it  is  po.ssible  that  another 
version  of  the  words  may  have  reached  him  ; 
and  that  version  may  have  as  good  a  chance  of 
being  true  as  that  which  competes  with  it.  If 
the  words   'Son  of  God'  were   really   used,   the 


sense  attaching  to  them  would  depend  to  some 
extent  on  the  nationality  of  the  centurion,  in 
regard  to  which  we  are  in  the  dark.  Probably 
what  was  in  his  luiiid  would  be  an  undefined  feel- 
ing of  awe,  and  a  consciousness  that  events  were 
happening  that  transcended  his  experience  and 
apprehension. 

(iii. )  The  rulinfj  cla.sses. — The  question  was 
directly  put  to  our  Lord  by  the  high  priest,  '  Art 
thou  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  Blessed  ? '  (Mk  W^). 
And  the  assenting  answer  was  treated  as  bias- 
pliemy.  Still,  it  would  not  follow  that  this  was 
taken  as  an  assertion  of  full  Divinity.  It  prob- 
ably was  taken  as  a  claim  to  be  the  Messiah. 
But  if  the  Jews  in  general  thought  of  the  Messiah 
as  superhuman  indeed,  but  not  strictly  Divine,  the 
high  priest  (unless  it  were  by  such  an  overruling 
as  we  have  considered  above)  is  not  likely  to  have 
meant  more  than  this.  The  claim  might  well 
seem  so  audacious  as  to  amount  to  blasphemy 
even  without  this  aggravation  (cf.  Holtzmann, 
Neutest.  Thcol.  1.  266),  more  esi)ecially  as  it  in- 
cludes the  prophecy  of  a  second  coming  as  Judge. 

(iv.)  The  dijciples. — The  highest  point  of  recog- 
nition of  our  Lord's  true  nature  was  no  doubt 
reached  in  St.  Peter's  confession.  We  have  seen 
that  there  is  some  presumption  (the  extent  of 
which  we  would  not  exaggerate,  though  it  seems 
to  us  real)  that  St.  Peter  liid  actually  use  the 
words  attributed  to  him  by  Matthew.  If  so,  'the 
Son  of  the  living  God '  would  be  stronger  still  than 
the  more  common  phrase  without  the  epithet. 
Not  only  (as  we  have  suggested)  does  this  at  once 
bring  before  the  mind  a  whole  ma^s  of  most 
central  OT  teaching,  but  by  the  very  fact  of 
varying  from  and  adding  to  the  current  phrase 
it  prepares  us  for  a  variation  from  and  addition  to 
the  meaning.  '  The  Son  '  is  emphatically  taken 
out  of  the  common  category  of  all  others  who  may 
be  described  as  'sons.'  And,  'the  Son  of  the 
living  God'  is  as  much  as  to  s.ay  'the  Son  of 
Jehovah  Himself,'  the  God  of  Kevelation  and 
Redemption,  .and  the  expression  of  His  Personal 
Being.  We  are  on  the  way  to\\ards  the  iLravyaana 
TTjs  oo^Tjs  Kal  xapa/CTTjp  Tijs  uiroaTaffiuis  of  He  1*. 

(b)  For  Je.iiis  Himself. — But  the  question  that 
concerns  us  most  is,  of  course,  What  sense  did  the 
title  and  its  equivalents  bear  for  Jesus  Himself? 
And  here  again  we  shall  have  to  regard  the  ques- 
tion from  several  distinct  points  of  view.  We  shall 
do  well  to  look  at  it,  (i.)  in  the  light  of  our  Lord's 
own  filial  consciousness;  (ii.)  in  the  light  of  the 
external  testimony  borne  to  Him  by  the  Father; 
(iii.)  with  reference  to  the  two  distinct  things, 
Messiahship  and  Divinity;  (iv.)  and  lastly,  with 
reference  to  the  extent  to  which  the  Divine  Son- 
ship  is  to  be  carried  back  behind  the  Incarnation. 

(1.)  The  Jilial  con.iriousness  of  Jexu-t. — We  have 
expressed  our  reluctance  to  sjieak  too  freely  of  the 
human  consciousness  of  our  Lord  (art.  JESUS 
Christ,  ii.  603).  But  there  can  be  no  question 
that  the  central  constituent  in  that  consciousness 
was  the  complete  and  unclouded  sense  of  the 
filial  relation,  evidenced  at  once  by  perfect  mutu- 
ality of  knowledge  between  the  Son  and  the 
Father,  and  perfect  submission  and  response  on 
the  iiart  of  the  Son  to  the  Father's  will.  On  this 
head  it  may  bo  said  that  critics  of  all  shades  are 
agreed  (.see,  e.r/.,  Holtzmann,  Neutest.  Theol.  i. 
2SIf.,  with  numerous  authorities  quoted  on  p. 
282 ;  also  Harnack,  li'hnt  is  Christianity  i  p.  127  fl'. ) 

But,  that  being  so,  it  is  r.ather  strange  that  tht 
references  to  this  filial  relation  in  the  Synoptic 
Gospels  should  be  so  conijiaratively  few.  It  is 
indeed  implied  in  the  many  places  in  which  (as 
we  have  seen)  Jesus  speaks  of  '  My  Father '  in  a 
sense  peculiar  to  Himself.  But,  apart  from  these, 
there  are  but  two  conspicuous  passages  in  which 


SON  OF  GOD 


SON  OF  GOD 


the  relation  in  question  is  described     On  tl.e  sule 

wlrd  converse  thiwit'l'""*  ^"=  1  '^s^"?"  '''''  ,■"  ■ 

^"'"'      And  on  U.  .de  of . J^r^^^i^'^ol^  ^^J:!^ 

t  Zl  ^Zr  tErSher^nVither  aoti.  any  know 

:  l"tl,".  save  the  Son   and  he  to  ^<^^^_ 

Fatlier  who  sent  Him  (Mlv  9^11). 

In  the  Synoptic  Gospels,  with  these  tew  excep 
tions  the  filiaf  relation  is  rather  felt  as  an  under- 
gng  presupposition  of  the  narrative  than  direct 
exnressed  in  it.     But  when  we  turn  to  the  l'"""'. 
GospeT  wl  at  has  been  hitherto  of  the  nature  o 
in"  de   tal  con.ment  or  in.pHcation  ^ecoiue.  nut lan^ 
l"ss  than  a  standing  theme,  worked  out  in  gicat 
variety  of  detail. 

The  Son  U  come  forth  from  Ood,  from  th^^Jj*?' l^i-lf 
l,^-;  li) ;  He  is  not  come  of  U.msel  .  t>"t'THe  returns  to  God 
ind  as  lie  comes  '""^ '^X.  Fathl?s  L^me  (6«)Tnot  W 
fia:>18*0.     lie    3  come  m  the  r«»<''^*  "„.     L.ii,'A8  ,481  17161- 
fltso\^lin.  hut  the  will  of  "■"- '^at  sent  llm,  n^  63J  H     1      )  , 

to.ao  that  will  is  t''J..^"l'>~5^;„l»S  the  "on  does  not  seek 
H,s  whole  hcng  (i-^)-     'ii°''.°77i5^so  174);  and,  as  the  con- 

roeak  Iron,  himself      hut  "'h-''  '™ "''^„^' "he  lif e  and  cliur- 
tLse  shall  he  ^1'<--^J  /Ifg' ='-tit1,''a«  a  «Lle,  i^^^^^^^  » 

i':;rwtt"e«  L'l.im  (U.  8.S  lt't'h":"sorhy 'the^Kat-her  iS 
the  »"'U-''~„''^„.''., „,".'•.  ,,,„  ,',„„„,  „(  both  DosseasinK  and 


most  critical  of  critics  they  supplied  the  real  key- 
note to  the  whole  history.  A  scient.hc  exaiiuna- 
Uon  ol  the  Gospels,  whatever  else  U  brings  out, 
brin.'sou  this, 'that  the  root-element  in  the  con- 
sdou^ne-ss  of  Jesus  was  a  sense  of  Sonship  to  the 
D  vinri'-ather,  deeper,  clearer,  more  intiniat* 
more  all  embracing  [ind  all-absorbing,  than  ever 
was  vouchsafed  to  a  child  of  man 

(ii.)  The  tctimomi  of  </";  ,''' «""^'^; ,-,  V,f„ ''"j^ 
spoken  so  far  of  what  might  be  called  the  sub- 
ject ve  consciousness  of  Jesus.  As  nmch  at  least 
^.^  hts  not  only  follows  f™m  the  logic  ot  le 
history  but  is  distinctly  revealed  to  us— in  the 
Svnoptc  Gospels  sulliciently,  in  tlie  Fourth  Gospel 
aOantlv.  But  to  this  sub  ective  conviction  on 
His  part  tie  narratives  tell  us  that  t^iere  was  also 
added  an  objective  eonlirination.  The  conl.rn.a- 
tion  w^s  civen  in  the  two  voices  at  the  Baptism 
and  Tthe  Transfiguration  (Mk  I"  II  9' ID,  and  also 
i  we  take  in  St?  John-by  the  voice  heard  at 
Uie^^t  of  the  Greeks  (Jn  1%-).     How  are  we  to 

pxnlain  these  utterances?  

If  the  narratives  are  well  founded,  we  are  not 


limite  in  our  explanation  by  any  inquiry  as  to 
the  current  contemporary  interpretation  of  such 
texts  a"  Ps  2^  Is  4-i',  Dt  18'»,  however  much  the 
v'rds  said  to 'have  been  spoken  contain  rem.nis^ 
cences  of  or  allusions  to  t-l><'f,,^^ext3.  1  or  Uie 
hearin"  of  the  voices  was  what  might  be  caiieu  a 
i^oDlJlic  hearing.  The  probability  is,  as  we  h.ave 
E'dTbive  (p.: 572'.),  t  lat  .J-^  -  -  -  third 
occasion  whUe  the  crowd  said,  It  thundcrea,  or 
'in  angd  spake  to  him,'  either  in  the  '>rs  ins  ance 
the  Baptist,  or  in  the  second  instance  the  three 
apostlefor'  perhaps  in  all  tbrce.  Jesus  Cbnst 
riimself  alone  was  aware  of  ^''""^''liing  that  con 
veyed  a  more  articulate  sense  than  this.  Hut  in 
Iny  ca^e  the  sense  thus  conveyed  -as  conveyed  to 
the  spiritual  ear  by  a  method  analogous  to  that  of 
prophetic  inspiration.  Cnirit  of 

And  if,  on  the  occasions  in  question,  the  Spirit  ot 
God  did  intimate  prophetically  t"«l'f  f 'X"^-'^  ; 
more  or  fewer,  a  revelation  couched  partly  in  the 
anAa-e  of  the  ancient  Scriptures  it  would  by  no 
S^follow  that  the  meaning  of  the  revelation 
was"  mUed  to  the  meaning  of  those  older  bcrip- 
Tures  On  the  contrary,  it  would  be  likely  enough 
that  the  old  words  would  be  charged  with  new 
eanin^-that,  indeed,  the  revelation  contained  in 
them,  though  linking  on  to  some  message  of  the 
I  ast  would  yet  be  in  substance  a  new  revelation, 
'we   have  seen   that   the  ancient  Scriptures  of 


We  have  seen   tiwi-t   li^;  u-..v,.w.v  ^-.-i- 

j.d-rm-ntj.          H^J^Yia.  19  171;  cf.lJ);  or  that  the  Son  IS  top        .  j^,     j^,       appreliending    eye   and   niiml, 

\:C::^i;f^^fJaf;Pr.-nm..^^  -^;,\,„   JiLginations  of , the  contem- 
manl<..,d  are  invted  to    comt    to  the  son                        ^^^^^^ 


hiih^ri.nJ^m^n^Jc^^^'i^).'^-^^  w^  -  "-o  ^'"'" 
(fli?.  u.  a  146). 

It  is  open  to  us,  if  we  will,  to  think  tl.at  «i  this 
collection  of  sayings  there  is  an  ^l^"'*:;;^  ~^^ 
a  somewhat  considerable  «'e"»^nt-that  reprtscnls 
not  so  nmch  what  was  actually  spoken  a-s  enlargt 
n.ent  or  comment  embodying  the  experience  and 
rcHexion  of  the  growing  l-'''"^'^''-  ^^  '^"';'^^'t  "^1 
if  we  will,  to  think  that  the  part  played  by  such 
I,  «i,i>iii,  ly        ,„,.,„,rt  nnntidy   frcatcr 


re  exion  ol  ine  grown.;;  v.i....v...    •  ,-v-'|  ,  ,  if  ,„i„l,t  well  content  us  lo  pu.-  ."1.^  ^--^  ••- 

if  we  will,  to  think  that  the  part  played  by  such        U  lui.  ^^^^   .^  ^^  ^,^,^^,1^,      ,,„,,   ,,« 

Hayings  in  the  Gospel   is   l>r';l'"^t'""^.';^'y  f^m^e  ^  JuBti''"'  '"  supposing-not  by  way  of 

thkn  they  wouldhave  seemed  tobeartoa^nyaveia,^^     ^  a  scrtion,  but  by  way  of  pious  belief-  n 


pora  iJ  oF  Ji.;..;.  To  Jesus  Himself  it  reached 
[he  fnllest  dimensions  of  which  it  was  capable. 
And  we  may  assume  that  to  His  mind  the  an- 
nounccni'nt  'Thou  art  my  Son'  meant  not  only 
aU  that'it  had  ever  meant  to  the  "-^t  enlightened 

l;sl:ftl^i;:^'.^ia"i---^-^- 

^/i-Jil^atueontentus^toputintoUie^ords 

f 


si,K,;r=-^»f.w  t../KCT  s«fSiFi;iS^iiH:'=i:5'd: 

be  so  would  be  I'erfcctlyconsistent  with    heGospU     ^^ov  o  ^,,^^^  4,,^  ,,,„,,,,  ,vere  intended 

duction  of  the  events  as  to  fill  up  gaps  and  del  i- 
encies  in  the  records  of  preceding  e7"!|« 'f  l^.,,/'^,^; 
when  every  deduction  ,s  ma,le      he  fact  rm^^ 


t:C"  "rn^^^uU;  norhitherto  made  known. 
rVat  the  Son  was  Son  not  on  y  in  the  sens 


VIZ.  that  tno  aou  >;«•»  ^""  ■ :•  .■  ,  ,,„„,.„   i,„t 

nf  the  Messianic  King,  or  of  an  I.leal  1  eoT  le,  but 
?iat  Uieideaof  Sonship  was  f.ilfiUed  m  l(.m  in  a 
way  vet  more  mysteriolis  and  yet  more  essential ; 
in  other  words,  that  He  was  Son,  not  merely  in 
when  every  ucuuctiou  .s  "'•"';,•■"■'";•,-  ertainly  propheliccontemplation  but  in  .-.ctual  r.^nscenacm 
'J:;eraTd^r/on.rsl;:b:tr  Ur;r:'inrorthl  l  U  before  the  foundation  of  the  worlds. 


576 


SOX  OF  GOD 


SON  OF  GOD 


(iii.)  Are.ixiahjhip  rind  diviniti/.—Thifilant  possi- 
bility Urine's  ua  to  the  question,  •\vhii-li  in  any  case 
we  shall  have  to  face:  What  exactl)-  is  the  mean- 
ing of  the  title  '  Sun  of  (loil '  ?  There  is  no  (loul)t 
that  it  means  the  expected  Messiah, — that  at  least. 
But  how  much  more  does  it  mean  than  tliat?  In 
particular,  does  it  mean  the  .Son  as  incarnate,  or 
does  it  go  behind  and  beyond  the  Incarnation  ? 

We  reserve  the  last  part  of  this  question  for  a 
moment.  In  the  meantime  we  must  attempt  to 
define  rather  more  exactl}'  the  relation  of  the  title 
'  Son  of  God '  to  the  conception  of  the  Messiah.  In 
the  po]iular  mind,  at  the  period  with  which  we  are 
conceini'd,  the  two  things  would  he  simply  iden- 
tical. IJnt,  as  we  so  constantly  see,  our  Lord  was 
not  content  merely  to  take  a  popular  idea  with  the 
conventional  stamp  upon  it.  In  His  hands  the 
popular  idea  is  nearly  always  remoulded,  renewed, 
brought  into  harmony  with  some  fresh  ami  jiower- 
ful  reality,  and  reissued  with  the  signature  of  that 
reality. 

He'  had  done  this  with  the  title  SON  OF  Man. 
For  the  author  of  the  Similitudes  in  the  Book  of 
Enoch  and  for  those  who  inherited  his  tradition, 
the  Son  of  Man  w.as  just  the  Messiah  as  Judge. 
But  our  Lord  went  back  to  the  original  sources  of 
the  title,  Dn  7"  and  Ps  S^ ;  and  He  thus  brought  it 
into  living  contact  with  the  conception  of  Man  as 
Man.  In  His  lips  it  was  the  Messiah  »s  Man,  the 
perfect  Man,  in  tliu  sense  of  being  more  man — more 
completely  embodying  in  Himself  the  essence  of 
all  that  went  to  make  man,  more  utterly  in  touch 
with  everything  in  man — than  any  who  had  ever 
borne  the  name  of  man  before. 

So,  too,  with  the  title  '  Son  of  God.'  Its  meaning 
was  very  far  from  being  exhausted  by  the  holding 
of  a  certain  office  or  function,  such  as  that  of  the 
Messiah.  For  Jesus  the  phrase  means  the  absolute 
fulness  of  all  that  it  ouglit  to  mean — the  perfection 
of  Sonship  in  relation  to  God  ;  in  a  word,  just  all 
that  sum  of  relations  and  habitudes  of  feeling  and 
thought  and  action  that  we  have  seen  so  amply  set 
before  us  in  the  Gospel  of  St.  John.  It  is  the  pic- 
ture of  a  mind  lying  ojien  without  flaw  or  impedi- 
ment to  the  stream  of  Divine  love  pouring  in  upon 
it,  and  responding  to  that  love  at  once  with  exquisite 
sensitiveness  and  with  entire  com|)leteness.  It  is 
indeed  the  very  perfection  of  what  we  mean  by 
religion  and  the  religious  attitude  of  the  soul  to 
God. 

It  thus  appears  that  in  the  mind  of  Christ  the 
.Jewish  conception  of  the  Messiah  parted  in  two 
directions — one  covering  all  the  relationships  of 
man  to  m.an,  and  the  other  in  like  manner  covering 
all  the  relationships  of  the  perfect  Man  to  (Jod.  It 
parted  in  these  directions,  and  it  was  resolvable 
into  the  two  complementary  ideals  to  which  they 
led.  .\nd  as  a  matter  of  fact  the  life  of  Christ  on 
earth  was  the  consummate  realization  of  those 
ideals.  [Compare  with  the  above  an  admirable 
paragraph  in  Holtzmann,  JVeute.it.  Theol.  i.  281  f.]. 

The  Jewish  title  '  Messiah '  had  upon  it  the 
stamp  of  something  local  and  temjiorary;  and  as 
sucli  it  has  lost  much  of  its  interest  for  the  modern 
«orld.  But  the  two  other  titles  of  which  we  have 
leen  speaking  imply  what  is  neither  local  nor 
temporary,  but  as  permanent  as  Humanity  itself. 
It  is  therefore  specialK-  under  these  titles  that  our 
Lord  most  freely  revealed  Himself. 

There  is,  however,  something  in  the  title  'Mes- 
hiah  '  which  although  present  was  not  quite  so 
prominent  in  the  other  two.  They  convey  to  us 
as  fully  as  it  could  be  convcj'eil  what  Jesus  was 
in  Himself.  But  they  do  not  bring  out  in  the  same 
relief  the  historical  mission  that  He  had  in  the 
first  instance  for  His  contemporaries  and  through 
Ihem  for  all  after-ages.  The  wonderful  birth,  the 
wonderful  works,  the  crucifixion,  the  resurrection. 


and  the  ascension  maj-  be  viewed  as  aspects  of  th» 
work  of  the  Son  of  JSlan  and  of  the  Son  of  God,— 
they  are  aspects  of  the  work  of  salv.ation  and  of 
the  coming  forth  from  and  return  to  the  Father, — 
but  as  enacted  in  space  and  time  they  might  be 
more  ajipropriately  described  as  belonging  to  the 
manifestation  of  the  Messiah. 

Wliat  deeper  implications  are  there  in  the  title 
'  Son  of  God '  ?  Were  the  4th  cent.  Fathers  right  in 
claiming  that  He  who  bore  this  title  was  not  only 
in  the  full  sense  '  Son  '  but  in  the  full  sense  '  God,' 
— that  to  be  the  Son  of  God  implied  identity  of 
nature  or  of  essence  V 

We  may  say  with  confidence  that  a  Sonship  such 
as  is  described  in  the  Fourth  Gospel  would  carry 
with  it  this  conclusion.  How  could  any  inferior 
being  either  enter  so  perfectly  into  the  mind  of  the 
Father  or  rellect  it  so  perfectly  to  man?  Of  what 
created  being  could  it  be  said,  '  He  that  hath  seen 
me  hath  seen  the  Father  '  ?  We  need  not  stay  to 
pick  out  other  expressions  that  ailmit  of  no  lower 
interpretation,  because  the  evangelist  has  made  it 
clear  by  his  Prologue  what  construction  he  himself 
put  upon  his  own  narrative. 

But,  although  this  conclusion  can  really  be  mada 
good  independently  of  the  next  and  last  point  that 
we  have  to  consider,  it  is  to  some  extent  mixed 
up  with  it,  and  it  may  be  well  to  pass  on  to  this 
point. 

(iv.)  Pre-existence. — When  we  use  the  title  'Son 
of  God,'  how  much  does  it  cover  ?  Is  it  strictly  and 
properly  applied  to  the  incarnate  Christ,  or  does 
it  extend  backwards  before  the  Incarnation  ?  In 
other  words,  does  it,  or  does  it  not,  imply  pre- 
existence  ?  We  cannot  discuss  this  question  ade- 
quately without  taking  in  the  rest  of  the  NT. 
^\'e  may,  however,  provisionally  ask  what  infer- 
ence would  be  drawn  from  the  Gospels. 

And  in  regard  to  these  there  is  no  doubt  that 
in  the  great  majority  of  cases  the  words  would  be 
satisfied  by  a  reference  to  Christ  as  incarnate.  All 
the  instances  in  the  Synoptic  Gospels  would  come 
uniler  this  head.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  equally 
little  oj)en  to  question  that  in  the  Fourth  Gospel 
Christ  is  conceived  as  pre-existent.  Nothing  could 
be  more  explicit  than  the  opening  verse.  Christ  as 
the  Lo''Os  was  in  the  beginning  with  God,  and  was 
God.  But  does  this  hold  good  of  Him  also  as  the 
Sim  ?  That  is  more  debatable.  We  have  to  look 
about  somewhat  for  expressions  that  are  free  from 
ambiguity.     Perhaps  there  are  not  any. 

The  clearest  would  be  the  verse  Jn  1"  (which 
belongs  to  the  evangelist),  if  we  could  be  sure  that 
the  common  reading  is  correct :  '  the  onlj'-begotten 
Son,  which  is  in  the  bo.som  of  the  Father,'  seems 
to  speak  of  this  jne-existent  condition  (=irp6s  rbr 
6ebv  of  v.')  as  though  it  belonged  to  Him  as  Son. 
l)Ut  then  we  are  confronted  by  the  well-known 
question  of  reading.  It  must  be  enough  to  refer 
to  the  elaborate  note  in  WH,  and  to  Dr.  Hort's 
dissertation  (INTO),  with  which  the  present  writer, 
so  far  as  his  judgment  goes,  would  express  his 
agreement.  But  the  reading  would  then  be  not 
'  the  only-begotten  Scm,'  but  '  God  only-begotten.' 
Places  like  3"-  [u.^]^',  which  are  unambiguous  ^.s 
to  lire-existence,  do  not  clearly  connect  it  with  '  the 
Son.'  Indeed  the  first  of  these  introduces  some- 
what unexpectedly  not  the  '  Son  of  God,'  but  the 
'  Son  of  Man,'  who  must  be  the  Son  incarnate.  At 
tlie  same  time  the  terms  '  Father '  and  '  Son  '  are  so 
correlative  that  the  frequent  occurrence  of  such 
phrases  as  '  My  Father  which  sent  me,'  '  Not  any 
man  hath  seen  the  Father  save  he  which  is  from 
(Jod,*  '  I  speak  the  things  which  I  have  seen  with 
my  Father,'  would  seem  to  suggest  that  the  relation 
of  Father  and  Son  existed  before  the  Son  became 
incarnate.  At  any  rate  the  great  emiihasis  on  the 
two  terms  would  seem  to  show  that  the  relition  to 


SON  OF  GOD 


SOX  OF  GOD 


577 


wliicli  they  point  is  not  a  passing  phase,  but  some- 
thing that  goes  deep  don'n  into  the  essence  of 
being. 

Or  perhaps  the  case  might  be  stated  thus.  The 
burden  of  proof  really  seems  to  lie  with  those  who 
would  refuse  to  associate  the  idea  of  pre-existence 
with  that  of  Sjnship.  The  many  examples  in 
which  the  term  '  Son '  is  used  without  any  such 
implication  go  but  a  very  slight  way  to  exclude 
it  where  it  is  really  suggested.  In  the  case  of  St. 
John  there  is  a  clear  presumption  that  it  is  so 
suggested ;  whUe  in  the  Synoptic  Gospels  it  is  prob- 
able that  the  writers  had  nut  rcHected  upon  the 
subject  at  all,  and  did  but  reproduce  a  portion  of 
our  Lord  s  teaching  upon  it.  The  decision  as  to 
how  far  the  Johannean  presentation  is  to  be 
accented  will  depend  upon  the  general  estimate 
of  tlie  Fourth  Gospel  as  a  historical  authority. 
To  the  pre.-ient  writer  it  seems  in  this  instance, 
as  in  so  many  others,  just  to  supply  what  the 
other  Gospels  lead  us  to  the  verge  of  without 
directly  supplying. 

(c)  For  the  apostles.  —  We  have  seen  that  the 
apostolic  writers  freely  make  use  of  the  title 
'Son  of  God'  as  a  formula  to  express  their  Chris- 
tian faith,  or,  as  we  may  say  in  other  words,  in 
order  to  bring  out  their  belief  in  the  Divine  side 
of  the  nature  of  Christ.  What  tliey  meant  would 
be  very  similar  to  the  well-known  exordium  of  the 
Secona  (so-called)  Epistle  of  Clement :  '  Brethren, 
we  ought  so  to  think  of  Jesus  Christ  as  of  God  (lit 
xcpi  GeoD),  as  of  the  Judge  of  quick  and  dead.'  The 
phrase,  in  each  case,  is  vague ;  to  define  it  more 
exactly  will  be  the  work  of  centuries ;  but  the 
frame  or  mould  has  been  provided  by  which  the 
work  of  those  centuries  is  to  be  circumscribed. 

The  principal  question  that  meets  us  is  the  same 
as  that  with  which  we  have  just  been  dealing  in 
regard  to  the  Gospels.  Does  the  term  '  Son  of 
God,'  as  used  by  the  apostles,  contain  any  implica- 
tion of  pre-existence,  or  is  it  limited  to  Christ  as 
incarnate  ? 

Here  again  by  far  the  greater  number  of  p.issages 
are  ambiguous;  if  they  do  not  sugge.^-t  preixi^teiice 
and  pre-existeut  relations,  they  also  do  not  exclude 
them.  There  are,  however,  two  passages  that  bear 
upon  the  ouestion  more  directly. 

One  is  tlie  opening  of  the  £p.  to  the  Hebrews  : 
'  God,  having  of  old  time  spoken  unto  the  fathers 
in  the  prophets  .  .  .  hath  at  the  end  of  these  days 
spoken  unto  ua  in  his  Son,  whom  he  hath  appointed 
heir  of  all  things,  through  whom  also  he  made  the 
worlds  ;  who  being  the  etl'ulgence  of  his  glorj',  and 
the  very  image  of  his  substance,  and  upholdmg  all 
things  liy  the  word  of  his  power,  when  he  had  made 
purilication  of  sins,  sat  down  on  the  right  hand  of 
the  majesty  on  high.' 

Two  ways  of  taking  this  passage  are  possible. 
On  the  one  hand,  if  we  argue  strictly,  it  may  be 
urged  that  there  is  but  one  principal  clause  in  the 
sentence,  to  which  all  the  otlier  subordinate  and 
relative  clauses  are  referred.  This  principal  clause 
speaks  of  the  Son  [of  God].  It  would  tlierefore 
follow  that  all  the  relative  clauses  point  back  to 
Uim  as  Son.  That  is  to  say,  that  as  Son  Ho 
made  tlie  worlds';  as  Son  He  is  the  elViilgence 
of  the  Divine  glory,  the  image  of  the  Divine  sub- 
stance ;  as  Son  He  upheld  and  upholds  all  things. 
That  would  carry  luick  the  Sonship  to  tlie  time 
before  creation,  and  would  make  it  an  attribute 
pertaining  to  the  essence  of  Christ's  Godhead. 

But,  on  the  other  hand,  it  may  be  questioned 
whether  we  ou''ht  in  this  case  to  argue  strictly. 
Because  the  relative  clauses  refer  to  the  Son,  it 
does  not  quite  necessarily  follow  that  they  refer  to 
Uim  as  Son.  It  may  be  urged  that  the  main 
contrast  in  the  passage  is  between  the  previous 
revelations  through   the  prophets   and  the  final 

VOL.  IV. — 17 


revelation  through  the  Son,  i.e.  the  incarnate  Son, 
and  that  this  contrast  dominates  the  whole  pas- 
sage, many  parts  of  which  do  indeed  point  to  the 
Son  as  incarnate  ('  whom  he  appointed  heir  of  all 
things,'  'when  he  made  purification  of  sins,'  'sat 
down  at  the  right  hand ').  The  other  clauses, 
which  imply  pre-existence,  would  then  be  referred 
to  the  Son  not  strictly  as  such,  but  by  a  slight 
and  quite  natural  laxity  of  language  to  Him  who 
[afterwards,  in  ^^ew  of  His  incarnation]  came  to 
be  specially  called  '  Son.'  This  second  way  of 
taking  the  passage  is  not  really  stretched  beyond 
what  is  common  enough  in  language,  though  the 
first  would  be  more  accurate. 

The  other  passage  is  Col  1'"'- "  '  the  Son  of  his 
love  .  .  .  who  is  the  image  (eiiriii')  of  the  invisible 
God,  the  firstborn  of  all  creation'  [wpoir&TOKO! 
Trdar/t  Krlaeut).  Now,  it  is  true  that  in  biblical 
usage  the  leading  idea  in  jrpti)T6ro\os  is  that  of  the 
le"al  rights  of  the  firstborn,  his  precedence  over 
all  who  are  bom  after  him  (cf.  Ko  S^).  But  in  a 
context  like  this,  in  view  of  the  defining  genitive 
Trdatji  KTlacus,  it  seems  wrong  to  exclude  the  idea 
of  priority  as  well  {irpi  jrdtrTjs  xriaeui  yevvriSds, 
Tlieodrt. ;  otherwise  Haupt,  Gefanrjenschn/tsbriefe, 
p.  27).  There  is  not  a  direct  allusion  to  Ps  SO"*"'*, 
though  it  is  very  possible  that  the  Messianic 
application  of  that  verse  led  by  several  steps  to 
the  use  of  the  term  here.  It  brings  in  another 
cycle  of  expressions  which  help  to  carry  back  the 
conception  of  sonship  from  the  hi.storic  to  the  pre- 
historic stage.    See,  further,  Lightfoot,  Col.  ad  loc. 

Ro  8',  where  the  Son  does  not  become  the  Son 
by  being  sent,  but  is  already  '  God's  own  Son ' 
(emphatic)  before  He  is  sent,  tends  the  same  way. 

In  the  Epp.  of  St.  John  there  is  nothing  quite 
conclusive.  We  are  really  at  tlie  same  level  as  in 
the  Gospel.  But,  as  there,  the  absolute  use  of  '  the 
Father '  and  '  the  Son '  and  of  '  God  the  Father  ' 
(1  Ju  2~-«  4"  5'^  2  Jn  »••'• »,  cf.  1  P  l^,  Jude')  sug- 
gests a  conception  of  Sonship  which  dates  bacK 
behind  the  historic  iiiaiiifestation.  On  Jn  I"  set 
above. 

2iote  on  the  origin  of  the  Christian  use  of  the  title  '  Son  of 
God.'  —  In  his  able  and  interesting  but  far  too  confident  and 
sweeping  book,  Die  AnfUiu)e  unaerer  licliifion  (Tiibingen  u. 
Leipzig,  1901),  p.  !i95,  Prof.  Wernle  of  Basel  commits  himself  to 
the  proposition  that '  from  the  OT  and  from  Rabbinimn  there  ia 
no  road  that  leads  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Divinity  of  Christ.' 
He  allows  that  the  title  'Son  of  God'  is  strictly  Jewish,  but  he 
appears  to  think  that  the  further  step  'Son  of  God  =  God'  was 
taken  upon  Gentile  ground,  through  the  lax  ideas  brought  in  by 
the  converts  from  paganism,  and  their  readiness  to  admit  new 
divinities  to  the  Pantheon.  Against  this,  indeed,  ought  rightly 
to  be  set  the  fact  that  the  Iirst  lesson  that  they  leamt  on 
coming  over  to  Christianity  was  the  great  lesson  that  God  is 
One.  But  it  was  not  really  left  to  the  Gentile  Christians  to 
crown  an  edifice  that  was  incomplete  without  them.  Wernle 
himself  evidently  feels  that  St.  Paul  had  already  gone  far  by 
identifying  Christ  with  the  '  Lord  '  of  OT.  He  isohliged  further 
to  say  that  in  his  Christology  St.  Paul  is  not  really  a  Jew,  and 
to  set  down  this  side  of  his  teaching  to  a  supposed  '  mytho- 
logical tendency '  which  he  himself  is  unable  to  an;ount  for. 

it  is  one  of  the  ground  fallacies  of  Wenile's  book  to  attribute 
far  too  much  to  the  initiative  of  St.  Paul.  It  the  deiflcption  of 
Christ  had  been  really  due  to  him,  and  if  in  carrying  it  out  be 
had  been  acting  in  opposition  to  the  sense  of  the  Christian 
community,  we  should  most  certainly  have  hoard  of  it.  But  it 
is  quite  beyond  question  thatChrist  iliinself  was  accused  before 
the  Sanhedrin  of  an  extreme  form  of  blaijphemy,  and  that  it 
was  upon  that  charge  that  He  was  condemned  (Mk  I4"'i-'J^1).  In 
the  Fourth  Gospel  we  are  expressly  tolil  that  the  Jews  rtganled 
the  claim  of  Christ  as  'making  himself  equal  with  Qcri'  (Jn 
61**).  It  is,  however,  another  of  Wenile's  ground  fallacies  to 
treat  especially  the  Jewish  element  in  this  Gospel  with  great 
one-sidedness  (see  SynopU  Frage,  p.  255,  a  real  blot  upon  on 
otherwise  excellent  book). 

The  only  at  all  coiiteinpomry  attempt  known  to  the  present 
writer  to  distin^aiish  radically  between  vlir  Guu  and  6wf  ia  in 
Clem,  Ilotru  xvu  15,  10  (cf.  x.  10).  It  is  characteristic  of  the 
teaching  of  that  curiously  isolated  production.  At  a  later  date 
the  distinction  became  the  main  fulcrum  of  Arianism. 

III.  The  Early  Ciiukch.— We  might  sum  up 
at  the  point  we  have  reached  ;  but  it  seems  better 
to  pass  on  a  few  steps  beyond  the  close  of  NT. 
which  is  not  a  real  break. 


578 


SON  OF  GOD 


SON  OF  GOD 


1.  Thr,  sub-Apostolic  Fathers. — In  the  sub-Apos- 
tolic writings  we  find  a  state  of  tilings  very  similar 
to  that  which  we  have  just  left  behind.  There  is 
no  doubt  a  certain  amount  of  usage  in  which  the 
term  '  Son '  may  be  appropriately  explained  of  the 
Incarnate. 

Such  would  be,  e.g.,  Ignatius,  Smyrn.  i.  1,  'per- 
suaded as  touching  our  Lord  that  he  is  truly  of 
the  race  of  David  according  to  the  flesli,  but  Son 
of  God  by  the  Divine  will  and  imwer,  truly  born 
of  a  virgin.'  This  is  clearly  modelled  on  Ro  l* 
(.similarly  Barn.  v.  9,  11). 

But  even  in  this  writer  there  are  instances  where 
a  less  restricted  sense  would  seem  to  be  intended, 
as  in  the  Trinitarian  passage,  Magn.  xiii.  1,  'that 
ye  may  prosper  in  all  things  ...  in  the  Son  and 
rather  and  in  the  Spirit'  (iv  vlf  kclI  irarpl  Kal 
iv  TTvevixaTi) ;  and  in  Kom.  inscr.,  '[the  Cliurch] 
which  I  also  salute  in  tlie  name  of  Jesus  Christ, 
the  Son  of  the  Father'  (vlou  rarods).  We  seem 
to  have  here  the  absolute  use  of  '  Father '  and 
'  Son '  as  correlative  to  each  other,  without  refer- 
ence to  the  Incarnation.  Cf.  Magn.  vi.  1,  'Jesus 
Christ,  who  was  with  the  Father  before  the  worlds 
and  ajipeared  at  the  end  of  time ' ;  if  the  Father- 
hood is  i>re-niundane,  the  Sonship  must  also  be 
pre-mundane. 

All  ambiguity  is  removed  in  Bam.  vi.  12,  where 
we  have  the  first  express  reference  of  the  plural  in 
Gn  1-'  to  '  the  Son,'  '  For  the  scripture  saith  con- 
cerning us,  how  he  saith  to  the  Son  :  Let  us  make,' 
etc.  (cf.  V.  5).  The  strange  reading  'Son  of  God,' 
foisted  into  the  free  quotation  of  Ex  17'*  in  Barn. 
xii.  9,  can  hardly  be  adduced,  because  Joshua 
is  regarded  as  a  type  by  anticipation  of  the  In- 
jarnate. 

Another  quite  clear  passage  is  Herm.  Sim.  ix. 
12.  2,  where  the  Son  of  God,  co  nomine,  is  described 
as  'anterior  to  all  creation,  so  that  he  became  the 
Father's  ad\-iser  in  his  creation  '  (6  /lif  vl&s  toS  6eoO 
TrdtTT/s  r^s  KTiVews  aiVoD  Trpoyey^^yrepds  itTTiv,  k.t.X.). 
This  evidently  takes  up  the  irpuTuTOKos  TrdtrTjs  Krlaeus 
of  Col  1'^,  as.suiuing  the  doctrine  if  not  actually 
referring  to  the  words. 

Of  the  group  of  passages  in  Patr.  Apost.  where 
rah  is  certainly  used  in  the  sense  of  '  Son,'  one  at 
least.  En.  Diogn.  viii.  9-11,  refers  unequivocally  to 
the  pre-Incarnate,  '  having  conceived  a  great  and 
unalterable  scheme,  he  communicated  it  to  his 
Son  alone '  (dye/coii'unTaTO  fi6ycp  ti^  ttcllSI).  The  state 
of  the  case  appears  to  be,  that  while  in  Patr.  Apost. 
the  title  is  still  predominantly  referred  to  the  in- 
carnate state,  the  writers  have  no  sense  of  being 
confined  to  this,  and  are  quite  prepared  to  go  be- 
yond it. 

When  we  come  to  Justin  all  distinction  is  ob- 
literated, and  tlie  Son  is  frankly  identified  with 
the  Logos ;  Apol.  ii.  6,  '  But  to  the  Father  of  all, 
who  is  uiibegotten,  there  is  no  name  given.  .  .  . 
And  his  Son,  who  alone  is  i)roperly  called  Son,  the 
Word,  who  also  was  with  him  and  was  begotten 
before  the  works,  when  at  first  he  created  and 
arranged  all  things  by  him,'  etc.  (6  Si  Mi  iKdvov, 
6  fi6vos  Xeyifxevos  Kvpiuji  vlos,  i  X6yo^  irpd  tuiv  woitj- 
IiAtuv  Kal  (Twuv  Kal  y(vvwfifvo%,  k.t.X.).  Here  we  not 
only  have  '  Son '  and  '  Word '  used  as  convertible, 
but  a  special  stress  is  laid  on  the  idea  of  '  genera- 
tion '  as  involved  in  'Sonship,'  which  a  little  later 
in  Origen  took  shape  in  the  doctrine  of  the  Eternal 
Generation  (de  Princ.  I.  ii.  4,  9).  Before  this,  in 
Ignat.  Eph.  vii.  2,  both  words  yefi'iiTds  and  d7^i'i'i;Tov 
(v. I.  yevip-is  and  ayivrp-os)  had  been  applied  to 
Christ,  but  with  quite  untechnical  freedom  (cf. 
Lightfoot,  ad  lor.,  and  ii.  90-94;  also  Kobertson, 
Athnnasius,  pp.  149,  475  n.). 

The  passage  of  Justin  is  very  important  as  a 
landmark.  Prom  that  time  forwards  what  might 
be  called  the  metaphysical  treatment  of  the  title 


'  Son '  becomes  more  and  more  common  until  it 
reaches  its  climax  in  the  writers  of  tiie  4tli  century. 

Xote  on  the  meaning  of  'Son'  in  the  Apostteg'  Creed. — 
There  arose  in  Gemmny  in  the  years  1892-1894  a  rather  sharp 
discussion  about  the  Apostles'  Creed,  begun  by  Harnack  and 
taken  up  by  Zahn,  Kattenbusch,  Cremer,  and  others.    This  also 

Eroduced  in  England  an  admirable  little  volume  of  lectures  by 
T.  Swete  {The  Apostles'  Creed,  Cambridge,  1S91),  which  gives 
a  concise  account  of  most  of  the  points  at  issue.  Among  these 
was  the  question  as  to  the  interpretation  of  the  term  '  Son '  in 
the  Creed,  which  Harnack  wi.shed  to  limit  to  the  historic,  aa 
contrasted  with  the  prehistoric,  Sonship.  Dr.  Swet«  perhaps 
(p.  :i6ff.)  a  little  overstates  both  Harnack's  contention  and  the 
strength  of  the  arguments  against  it.  And  yet  that  contention 
is  really  too  sweeping,  though  the  point  made  by  Kattenbusch 
in  his  recently  completed  larger  work  {Das  Apost.  Symbol,  ii. 

566f.),  that  the  clause  tov   yiwyiDivra  ix  wvvjfz.  ay.  X.  Mitp.x!  Tx! 

vetpQ.  shows  that  the  historic  yutxris  was  in  the  author's  mind, 
appears  to  be  valid.  It  is  true  that  the  first  interest  in  thia 
paragraph  of  the  Creed  is  in  historical  facts.  But  at  the  same 
time,  as  Kattenbusch  also  verj'  rightly  observes,  there  is  no 
antithesis  to  the  Christology  of  Pre-e.\istence.  The  question  is 
not  really  raised ;  and  yet,  as  we  might  perhaps  put  it,  the 
conception  of  Sonship  is  le.ft  open  on  that  side.  We  are  re- 
minded that  the  Creed  is  in  its  origin  Western  and  not  Oriental, 
And  for  Western  thought  more  especially,  the  denial  of  a  purely 
natural  birth  may  be  taken  to  imply  pre-existence. 

It  should  be  added  that  recent  research  places  the  origin  of 
the  Creed  with  confidence  in  the  first  lialf  of  the  2nd  cent.,  and 
many  would  say  in  the  first  quarter ;  so  that  it  would  be 
strictly  parallel  to  the  .Apostolic  Fathers. 

2.  Marcelliis  of  Anci/ra.  — One  episode  in  the 
controversies  of  the  4th  cent,  has  a  not  incon- 
siderable rellex  bearing  on  the  interpretation  of 
NT. 

Marcellus  of  Ancyra  was  one  of  the  keenest 
supporters  of  Nicene  doctrine.  lie  seems,  how- 
ever, to  have  asserted  it  on  dillerent  grounds  from 
those  commonly  brouglit  forward.  The  position 
he  took  up  was  in  the  first  instance  biblical.  We 
have  seen  that  the  Arians  exploited  in  their  own 
interest  the  title  'Son.'  They  inferred  from  it 
the  posteriority  and  inferiority  of  Him  by  whom 
it  was  borne.  Marcellus  appears  to  have  met 
them  by  sa3'ing  that  the  use  which  they  made  of 
the  title  was  unwarranted  and  indeed  altogether 
wide  of  the  mark.  According  to  him,  the  title 
'  Son  '  had  no  reference  to  origin  or  to  the  pre- 
existent  relation  of  Christ  to  the  Father.  The 
proper  term  to  denote  this  relation  was  in  his  view 
not  'Son,'  but  'Logos.'  It  appears  to  be  a  mis- 
take to  say  that  he  denied  the  '  Trinity '  or  the 
distinct  hypostatic  existence  of  the  Logos,  though 
some  of  his  speculations  were  not  quite  easily 
reconcilable  with  this.  But  his  main  contention 
was  that  '  Logos'  was  the  proper  name  of  the  pre- 
Incamate  and  'Son'  of  the  Incarnate,  and  that 
the  biblical  writers  observed  this  distinction,  the 
only  apparent  exception  being  cases  in  which  the 
title  '  Son  '  was  used  '  prophetically.'  Eusebius  of 
Ca^sarea,  who  replied  to  liim,  marshals  an  impos- 
ing array  of  no  fewer  than  thirty  separate  desig- 
nations which  he  maintains  to  have  been  also  used 
of  the  Son  before  the  Incarnation  ;  but  they  are 
nearly  all  wide  of  the  mark,  and  it  must  be  con- 
fessed that  on  this  ground  the  victory  rests  rather 
with  his  opponent  (see  Euseb.  de  Eccl.  Theol.  i. 
17-20,  Migne,  Pat.  Gr.  xxiv.  856-896  ;  and  on  the 
wliole  controver.sy,  esp.  the  monograph  by  Zahn, 
Marcellus  von  Ann/ra,  Gotha,  1867  ;  and  Moberly, 
Atonement  and  Personality  (London,  1901,  pp. 
208-215). 

Conclusion. — From  what  has  been  said,  it  will 
be  seen  that  the  assertion  of  Marcellus  in  regard 
to  the  biblical  usage  was  really  very  much  in  the 
right  direction,  though — as  is  so  often  the  case 
with  the  ancients,  when  they  have  got  hold  of  a 
riglit  principle  in  criticism  or  exegesis  —  it  is 
rather  too  sweeping  and  unqualified. 

As  compared  with  Marcellus  and  the  modem 
revivers  ot  his  opinion,  our  own  conclusion  from  the 
evidence  passed  in  review  would  be,  that  while  it 
is  undoubtedly  true  that  the  biblical  writers  and 
the  other  early  Christian  -WTiters  before  Justin, 


SOX  OF  MAX 


SOX  OF  MAN 


579 


start  from  the  Incarnation  and  are  thinking 
prinia/ily  of  this,  tlieir  tliought  does  not  neces- 
sarily end  with  it.  It  seems  to  point  liaikwards 
into  tlie  dim  past  beliind  it.  Certainly  there  is  no 
sharp  line  of  demarcation  restricting  the  meaning 
of  the  title  to  the  incarnate  state  and  no  other. 
The  writers  are  so  far  from  guardin;;  themselves 
against  any  reference  beyond  the  Incarnation  that 
they  seem  rather  naturally  to  suggest  it.  The 
Son  is  so  called  primarily  as  incarnate.  But  that 
which  is  the  essence  of  the  Incarnation  must  needs 
be  also  larger  than  tlie  Incarnation.  It  must 
needs  have  its  roots  in  the  eternity  of  Godhead. 
[See  esp.  a  very  instructive  and  carefully  balanced 
discussion  in  Moberly,  Atonement  and  Person- 
ality,-p^.  18511.,  211-215]. 

LmnLATURE. — The  most  important  literatiire  will  have  been 
sufficiently  indicated  in  the  couree  of  the  article.  The  worka 
to  which  the  writer  himself  owes  most  are  Dalnian's  Worte  Jestt 
(Leipzig,  1898),  and  H.  J.  Holtziuann's  Seute^t.  Theotogie  (Frei- 
burg I.  B.  u.  Leiiizip,  1897).  To  these  should  now  be  added 
Haruack's  Das  II  e^en  des  Chrigtentums  (admirably  translated 
under  the  title  What  i«  Chrittianity  1  London,  1901),  which  has 
a  very  sugcestive  treatment  of  the  subject,  thoutjh  too  im- 
patient of  formulated  doctrine ;  and  the  portion  of  Moberly, 
Atonement  and  Personality,  just  referred  to.  Younger  students 
should  not  fail  to  have  recourse  to  Dr.  Swete's  Ajiostls^  Creed 
(Cambridge,  lt94).  W.  SANDAY. 

SON  OF  MAN.  —  1.  An  expression  occurring  in 
both  OT  and  NT,  and  used  in  the  following 
applications.  (1)  A  poet,  synonym  of  '  man,'  found 
in  parallelism  with  '  man'  (the  word  for  '  man  '  in 
the  two  clauses  being  in  the  original  a  ditlerent 
one).  See  the  occurrences  in  §  6  ;  and  add  Ps  144^" 
(for  diiN-i^;  II  cin).  (2)  In  Ezek.  the  title  under  which 
the  prophet  is  regularly  addressed  by  J",  2'- '3'-' 
and  upwards  of  90  times  besides.  Ezek.  has  a  pro- 
found sense  of  the  majesty  of  J" ;  and  the  expression 
is  no  doubt  intended  to  mark  the  distance  which 
separated  the  prophet,  as  one  of  mankind,  from 
Him.  The  title  is  borrowed  from  Kzek.  in  Dn  8". 
(3)  In  the  vision  in  Dn  7  the  glorious  being  whom 
Dan.  sees  brought  '  with  the  clouds  of  heaven  '  to 
the  AJmightj',  after  the  fourth  beast  (representing 
the  empire  of  the  Seleucid;c)  is  slain,  to  receive  an 
everlasting  and  universal  dominion  (v."),  is  de- 
scribed as  '  one  like  unto  a  son  of  man  '  (Aram.  1;? 
cjK).  The  expression  means  simply  a  figure  in 
human  form.  What  the  ligure  was  intended  to 
denote  has  been  the  subject  of  much  controversy. 
At  an  early  date  (see  §  II)  it  was  undoubtedly  in- 
terpreted of  the  Messiah,  and  the  same  view  has 
been  largely  held  down  to  the  present  time  (e.q.  by 
Ewald,  Kiehin,and  Bchrmann);  but  in  the  authors 


own   interpretation   of   the   vision   (vv." 


^)  the 


'saints  of  the  Most  High'  take  tlie  place  of  tlie 
'one  like  unto  a  son  of  man  ' ;  and  this  constitutes 
a  strong  ground  for  concluding  that  he  himself 
understood  by  it  the  glorified  and  ideal  people  of 
Israel  (see,  further,  the  present  writer's  Comm.  on 
Dan.  p.  10311'.).  The  same  exjiression  in  Greek  (B^oioj 
iil(jj  ivOpCmov  :  see  RV)  is  applied  also  in  Kev  1"  14" 
to  the  risen  and  gloriiied  Christ. 

2.  *  The  Son  of  man '  (i  vlbi  toO  ivOfiwirov)  is  a 
designation  of  Christ,  though  one  confined  to  the 
Gospels  and  Ac  7°",  and,  excejit  Ac  7'"  (where  it 
occurs  in  Stephen's  dying  exclamation  *),  found 
only  in  the  mouth  of  Christ  Himself  (the  quota- 
tion in  .In  12**  forming  no  real  exception). 

3.  Tlie  following  is  a  synopsis  of  the  occurrences 
in  the  Synoptic  Gospels,  in  the  order  given,  or 
suggested,  by  St.  Mark  : — 


Ml 


12" 


Hk 


2» 


Lk 
53* 


(hath  authority  on  earth  to  forgive 

sins) 
(la  lord  of  the  sabbath) 


Mt 
l-.!aa. 

m. 

isasfj 

Lk 
1210. 

15"  tl 

«a 

loaj 

(lOSSfU 

128 

1119 
820 

Iie*"j 

12-10 
13" 

(S"*"! 

7S4 
9M 

1-1130I 

13« 
lOlS 

[SS'tl 

[9i8tl 

[1021(1 

831 

922 

16" 

83« 

»» 

16» 

I9M] 

(82'tl 

17» 

98 

[93') 

1-ia 

912 

17ffl 

931 

9M 

19ffl 

[1029»J 

I182S' 

20H 

1033 

1831 

2028 

1D«  let.  2227] 
ITU 

24^ 

17« 

2430» 

(1328») 

(212'" 

2430b 

ISM 

2127 
2136 

24" 

ITM 

24» 

P72I' 

244« 
2531 

ICf.  ISSSf) 

263 

(141-) 

2C.24« 
2U24I> 

1421. 
14211. 

20« 
12049') 

1441 
[14«-J 

26« 

1462 

(28»'l 

[16«') 

(whosoever  shall  speak  sword  against 

the  Son  of  man,  etc.) 
(when  men  reproach  you,  etc,  for  the 

Son  of  man's  sake) 
(shall  not  have  finished  the  cities  of 

Israel,  till  the  Son  of  man  be  come) 
(him  shall  the  Son  of  man  also  confess 

before  the  ancrels  of  God^ 
(came  eatini;  and  drinking) 
(hath  not  where  to  lay  his  head) 
(as  Jonah  was  three  days,  etc.  [Mt] ;  as 
Jonah  became  a  sign  unto  the  Niiiev- 
ites,  etc.  [Lk]) 
(he   that   soweth    the   good   seed    \a 

the  Son  of  man)  || 
(will  send  forth  his  angels,  etc.)H 
(who  do  men  say  that  the  Son  of  man 

is?) 
(must  suffer  many  things,  be  killed, 

and  rise  again) 
(of   him    shall    the    Son    of   man    bo 

ashamed,  when  he  cometh  in  the 

glory,  etc.  [Mk,  Lk] ;  for  the  Son  of 

man  shall  come  in,  etc.  [Mt]) 
(shall  not  taste  of  death,  till  they  see 

the  Son  of  man  coming,  etc.) 
(to  tell  the  vision  to  no  man  till  the 

Son  of  man  be  risen  from  the  dead) 
(to  suffer  like  Elijah  [John  the  Bap- 
tist]) 
(shall  be  delivered  Into  the  hands  of 

men,  etc.,  and  [Mt,  Slk]  rise  again) 
[18^*]  (in  the  regeneration,  when  the  Son  of 

man  shall  sit  on  the  throne,  etc.) 
(to  be  delivered  to  the  chief  priests, 

etc.,  and  rise  again) 
(to  give  his  life  a  ransom  for  many) 
(when  ye  shall  desire  to  see  one  of  the 

days  of  the  Son  of  man) 
(as  the  lightning  .  .  .  so  shall  be  the 

coming  of  the  Son  of  man) 
[2127"]  (then  shall  appear  the  sign  of  the  Son 

of  man) 
(shall  see  the  Son  of  man  coming  in 

(on)  the  clouds  of  heaven) 
(watch  .  .  .  that  ye  may  be  able  .  .  . 

to  stand  before  the  Son  of  man) 
(as  were  the  days  of  Noah,  so  shall  be 

the  coming  of  the  Son  of  man) 
p,727*J  ([as  they  were  in  those  days  .  .  .,]  so 

shall  be  the  coming,  etc.) 
([as   the   days  of   Lot   .    .  .,]  so  shall 

it  be  in  the  day  tliat  the  Son  of  man 

is  revealed) 
(when  the  Son  of  man  cometh,  shall 

he  find  faitli  on  the  earth  Y) 
(came  to  sock  and  to  save  that  wtiicb 

was  lost) 
(in  an  hour  that  ye  think  not,  etc.) 
(when  the  Son  of  man  shall  come  in  his 

glory) 
(after  two  days  the  passover  cometh, 

and  the  Son  of  man  is  delivered,  etc.) 
2222f*    (goeth  even  as  it  is  written  of  him) 
[22^1*1]  (woe  unto  that  man  through  whom 

the  Son  of  man  is  betrayed) 
(is  betrayed  into  the  hands  of  sinners) 
(betrayeat  thou  the  Son  of  man  with  a 

kiss  Y) 
(from  now  ye  shall  see  the  Son  of  man 

sitting  at  the  right  hand  of  power) 
(saying  that  the  Son  of  man  must  be 

delivered,  etc,  and  rise  again) 


17»o 


188 
IQio 


1240 


1221'] 


22« 

82«8 


M7 


30 


14 


26 


=  69  timet 


•  Cf.  the  words  spoken  by  James,  the  brother  of  the  Lord, 
lust  before  hiu  martyrdom,  u  reported  by  iiegesippUB,  ap. 
nueb.  11.  23  (see  vol  il.  p.  642^). 


Mt  18"  (I  Lk  1610,  though  In  a  very  different  connexion).  In 
Mt  2fjl3  the  words  *  in  which  the  Son  of  man  cometh,'  and  in  Lk 
9^  the  clause  '  For  the  Son  of  man  came  not  to  destroy  men's 
lives  but  to  save  them,'  are  not  in  the  best  MSS ;  cf.  liVm  on  Mt 
lti>l,  LkOW. 

The  occurrences  In  the  Fourth  Gospel  are  Jn  1^  S'Si* 
62MAea  828  9»  (kBD:  cf.  RVm),  1233.34  (gee  8»*  8»),  v.m  1331 
(11  [or  12]  times).  None  of  these  occurrences  are  parallel  to 
any  of  those  In  the  Synoptists.    See,  further,  {  23. 

4.  If  tlie  occnrrences  in  the  Synoptic  Gospels  are 
analyzed,  it  will  be  seen  that  tlie  expression  is 
attriuuted   to   Christ  upon  (probably)  40  distinct 

•  The  corresponding  clause,  or  verse,  entirely  omitted  (in  Mk 
828  either  omitted  or  modified  ;  see  p.  688). 

t  'Son  of  man'  represented  by  a  pron.,  or(&fk  01,  Lk  flST)  by  a 
paraphrase  ('  the  kingdom  of  Cod  '). 

J  In  instnictions  to  the  disciples,  attached  to  10l*-'**-l*-Mk 
07-ii  =  LkO»-0- 

j  Observe  that  Lk  ll»i>-both  Mt  16*  and  Mt  12:»,  and  thai 
Lkliai.8a=Mt  12*2-«i. 

S  In  the  explanation  of  the  parable  of  the  Tares  (no  |  lo  Ilk,  Lk^ 


^80 


SON  OF  MAN 


SON  or  MAN 


occasions,*  of  wliicli  8  are  reported  bj-  the  three 
Gospels,  13  by  two,  and  19  by  one.  No  instance 
is,  however,  reported  in  Mark  which  is  not  in  one 
(or  both)  of  the  otlier  two  Gospels.  The  occasions 
fall  naturally  into  two  great  gronps :  (1)  those  in 
which  the  reference  is  to  some  aspect  or  other  of 
the  carthUj  work  of  Christ,  in  the  time  of  His 
humility  (including,  in  particular,  His  sufferings 
and  death)  ;  (2)  those  in  which  the  reference  is  to 
His  future  co.nmrj  in  (jlory.  It  is  important  to 
bear  in  mind  the  ifact  of  tliese  two  applications  of 
the  expression  ;  for  it  has  some  bearing  upon  recent 
discussions  of  the  subject.  On  the  crucial  passage, 
Mt  1613,  see  §  19. 

5.  Before,  however,  we  can  proceed  to  examine  the 
meaning  of  the  title,  a  prior  question  must  be  con- 
sidered, which  has  assumed,  within  recent  years, 
great  prominence.  Jesus,  it  is  not  doubted,  spoke, 
at  least  as  a  rule,  not  Greek  hat  A  ramaic  ;  a  proper 
method,  therefore,  it  is  urged,  requires  that  we 
should  begin  by  inquiring  how  the  title  Avould  be 
expressed  in  Aramaic,  and  what  meaning  it  would 
there  possess.  And  when  we  proceed  to  trans- 
late back  6  ui6s  tov  dvOpwirov  into  Aramaic  an  unex- 

Eected  and  startling  result  discloses  itself,  which 
as  involved  students  of  the  NT   in  great  per- 
plexity. 

6.  Let  us  first,  for  clearness,  explain  briefly  the 
usage  of  the  expression  in  Biblical  Hebrew. 

In  Biblical  Hebrew,  din  -js  or  oixn  -ja  '  sons  of 
man'  (or  'of  men,' — onsj  being  a  collective  term) 
occurs  frequently, —  though  not  so  frequently  as 
ci!;(rt)  alone,  and  chiefly  in  poet,  and  later  Heb., — 
to  denote  mankind  in  general  (Gn  10',  1  S  26'^  2  S 
7>S  Ps  ll^(°l  12'-8t--«»  14=  etc.j.t  The  sing,  din-js 
'sen  of  man'  {i.e.  not  son  of  an  individual  man, 
t  ut  son  {i.e.  member)  of  the  germs  man)  also  occurs, 
viz.  (a)  in  the  address  to  Ezekiel  2'- '  3'- ',  and  more 
than  90  times  besides  (so  also  Dn  8"  ;  cf.  Enoch  60'» 
71")  ;  (i)  occasionally  in  poet,  parallelism  with  i:"n 
or  c'i:N  Nu  23'9,  Is  5P  56%  Jer  49'«  (  =  v.'O  =  50"'  = 
(nearly)  51«),  Ps  8*m  80"i'»»  146'  (II  Q-anj  'nobles'). 
Job  16=1  (II  -na  '  man  ')t  25"  35». 

7.  In  Aramaic  mn  is  not  found.  §  The  term 
which,  speaking  generally,  corresponds  is  b'jx,  ayx 
(in  some  dialects  contracted,  without  difference  of 
meaning,  to  ai),  in  the  status  emphaticus  (corre- 
sponding to  the  def.  art.  in  Heb.)  «?.;«,  Kf'r!?  (contr. 
KjJi).  'Enasha  (ndshd)  mostly  denotes  '  man  '  in  a 
general  or  collective  sense,  though  it  occurs  occa- 
sionally (p.  582'')  in  an  individual  sense  :  'enc'is/t, 
{ndsh),  on  the  other  hand,  not  infrequently  pos- 
sesses an  individual  sense,  and  also  often  sinks  to 
express  nothing  more  than  ns,  or  'one'  (as  in 
'  every  one,'  '  no  one '). 

In  some  Aramaic  dialects,  however,  though  not 
in  all,  '  son  {or  sons)  of  man  (men) '  is  common — in 
prose,  and  not  merely,  as  in  Heb.,  chiefly  in 
poeti-y  —  in  the  ordinary  sense  of  man  (or  men), 
(lie  distinctive  force  of  bnr,  '  son,'  being  no  longer 
felt.  The  following  are  the  main  details  of  this 
usage  : — 

(a)  Judaean  Aramaic.  —  In  Biblical  Aramaic,  the  plur.  'JJ 
NyiN  '  80na  of  men '  occurs  Dn  2^  521  (<  driven  from  the  sons 
of  men,'— interchanging  with  'driven  from  men  '  (nc:n),  va.si. 
83  (22. 2».  SO))  :  elsewhere  'endshii  is  used,  2-*3  ('  the  seed  of  men ')  ; 
416  (13)  (' changed  from  (the  heart  of)  men');  41'- 25  3J  (14. 'Ji  29) 
621;  425, 32.33(22.28. 80)  (just  quoted);  78  (' eyes  Hke  the  eyes  of 
men'):  Ezr4ll(B':N  determined  by  the  foil.  gen.).  '£'«««/(  occurs 
in  the  indeterm.  sense  of  '  a  man,'  65  6'- 12  (8  131  (•  of  any  god  or 
man '),  T-i  n  ;  and  in  '  every  man," '  no  man,"  210  310  55  6'2  (13), 

•  Holsten  and  Oort  reckon  42  occiMions,  distinguishing  Lk  II80 
bom  Mt  wo,  and  MU  8^  Lk  S»  from  Mt  1627. 

t  So  Bi'  N  -J?  Ps  42  (3)  492  (3)i>  629  (10),  La  333. 

J  But  read  here  prob.  DHK  |5'  ('  and  between  a  man,  and,'  etc). 

JThe  Targ.,  where  it  has  Dix  13  (as  in  Ezek,  for  OiN-p, 
ftod  occasionally  besides),  means  '  son  of  Adam.' 


Ezr6ii.*  Bar  *^m7sft, 'a  son  of  man,' occursoniy  in  the  passaa-e 
of  which  more  will  be  said  below,  Dn  T'*  'one  like  unto  a  son  0} 
man.' 

In  the  Targ.  of  Onltelos  the  plur.  ttVYK  "33  occurs  On  6'  11», 
Nu  2319,  Dt  326-28;  tile  biiig.  bar '^ndsh  does  not  occur  at  all, 
'man' — where  it  is  not  expressed  by  'Qi,  NH^a  {vir)  —  being 
represented  alwaj'8  by  'endsh,  'indshd. 

In  the  Targ.  of  Jonathan  (on  the  prophets)  the  plur.  'J^ 
NV'l'N  occurs  at  least  20  times  (as  1  S  1529  io7. 7  2Jio  2619); 
•cni'isli  freiiuently  (as  Jos  15  211  gn  108) ;  bar  'fiulsh  only  Is  5112 
(cod.  Kcuchl.,  in  ed.  Lag.,  mx  m]  662,  Jer  491s- S3  6040  5143,  Mic 
Sii — in  each  case  being  suggested  directly  by  the  Hebrew. 

(b)  In  Nabat(ean  Aramaic  (some  30  inscriptions,  chiefly 
sepulchral,  mostly  of  &-14  lines  each,  dating  from  B.C.  9  to 
A.D.  76),t  bar  '^ndnh  does  not  occur  at  all.  Enush,  indah 
occur  pretty  frequently,  very  much  as  in  Daniel,  in  '  every 
one;  'no  one,'  etc.  (see  CIS  II.  i.  1977  '2063-8  2095- «  2103- '  2127 
etc.). 

(c)  Galiltxan  Aramaic. — In  the  Palest.  Talm.  (3-4  cent,  a.d.) 
bar  nush  (determ.  bar  ndshd)  occurs  with  great  frequency,  and 
means  simply  a  (single,  individual)  man,  slsv/i  "id  nn  '  a  certain 
man  (did  so  and  so),'  tfci  "13  Kin  '  that  man,'  xc:  n3  |nn  '  this 
man,"  and  in  a  weakened  sense,  with  a  neg.  or  73  '  all,'  as  '  h« 
went  out  eii  -\2  nDiyfi  x'^l  and  found  no  one,'  ai  n3i  ci  11  Sj 
(  =  late  Heb.  P'Nl  B"N  ^3)  '  every  one.'  }  Obviously,  in  all  these 
cases  it  would  be  absurd  to  render  bar-ndshifi)  by  'son  oj 
man.' 

In  the  Palest.  Lectionary  (the  '  Evangeliarium  Hierosoly- 
mitanum,'  ed.  Erizzo,  1861,  ed.  Lagarde,  in  his  Bibl.  Syr. 
1892),  of  the  5th  cent,  a.d.,  the  usage  is  similar ;  barndish 
standing  regularly  for  *a  man'  (as  B'313  'yn  =  oi^tjpairtin  or  Sti/dfitrref 
ris,  Lk  225  433  66  1030  15"  etc.) ;  and  larnashd  (determ.)  for 

i  i.,Upi,Ti>l,  as  Mt  44  1235.  35  2624-  24,  Lk  829-  33.  35  etc. 

The  same  usage  prevails  in  the  Palest.  Targums  on  the 
Pent.§,  and  on  the  Hagiographa  (c.  7lh  cent,  a.d.):  see,  for 
instance,  bar  ndsh  in  Lv  21  42  61-2.4. -jl  etc.  ('if  a  man  do  so 
and  so ' :  Onk.  in  all  such  passages  iri'K),  Ps  80i»>'  (for  [3 
DTK)  1154  118*5-  8  1443a.  4  etc.  ;  U  and  bar  ndshd  in  '  that  man,' 
Lv  720i>-  21b.  art  174.  9  198  etc.  (Onk.  always  sm'a),  Ps  85- «  66" 
6013  ii9i;:4. 

(d)  In  Syriac,  bamdsk,  bamdshd,  in  the  meaning  *  man,'  are 
very  common.  Examples  :  for  DIK  Ex  1313,  is  4413,  Jer  26  1014, 
Ezk  !»•  10-  -6  108. 14,  Dn  78 ;  tor  i»»euT«,  Curet.  and  Pesh.,  Mt  44 
1212  43  1511. 11. 18  196,  Pesh.  Mk  S**  37,  Jn  226  r^'L  23.  23,  and  (in 
'  every  man  ')  Ro  2^  34  1218  i6i9  (i,V  riii>T»f),  and  elsewhere. TI 

8.  It  thus  appears  that  bar  nds/i{a)  is  a  common 
Aramaic  expression,  in  which  the  force  of  the  '  son  ' 
has  been  so  weakened  by  time  as  virtually  to  have 
disappeared,  so  that  it  practically  means  nothing 
more  nor  less  than  man  (homo,  Mensch, — not  vir). 
The  natural  Aramaic  original  of  A  uiis  toO  avdp. 
would,  however,  seem  to  be  barndsha.  If,  now, 
our  Lord  spoke  Aramaic,  and  denoted  Himself  by 
this  expression,  what  meaning  can  He  have  in- 
tended to  convey  by  it?  To  this  question,  which 
is  by  no  means  a  simple  one,  different  answers  have 
been  given. 

(1)  C.  B.  E.  Uloth,  who,  it  seems,  was  the  first  to 
set  himself  to  answer  it,  came  to  the  conclusion 
that  Jesus  called  Himself  'the  man,'  meaning  by 
the  expression  to  point  to  His  creaturely  frailty 
and  humility.** 

(2)  Eerdmans  argued  that  the  expression  was  not 
in  the  days  of  Christ  a  Mess,  title,  and  was  not 
used  by  Him  as  such.  In  opposition  to  the 
prevalent  Mess,  expectations,  Jesus  called  Himself 
'  the  man,'  meaning  it  to  be  understood  that  He 

•  Of.  Dalman,  Aram.  Dialektproben,  1896,  p.  8  (from  the 
Megillaih  Ta'anith,  of  1-2  cent.  A.D.;  see  Oi.  p.  82,  Oramm.  del 
Jud.-Pal.  Aram.Tt.  7). 

t  See  Euting,  Sab.  Jnschriften  (1885).  ed.  and  tr.,  witli  notes 
by  Noldeke ;  or  CIS  11.  i.  196-224  ;  se\  cral  also  reprinted  in 
Lidzbarski,  Nordsem.  Bpigr.  pp.  450-456. 

J  See  numerous  examples  m  Lietzmann,  .34-7  ;  and  cf.  Dal- 
man, Aram.  Diatektproben,  pp.  28-30.  The  usage  of  the 
Palest.  Midrashim  is  similar  {xb.  p.  15  ff.). 

§  In  which  bar  ndshia)  occurs  much  more  frequently  than 
would  be  supposed  from  the  terms  used  by  Dalman  {Vie  Wane 
Jemi,  194). 

n  And  so,  in  the  '  Fragmentary  '  (Palest.)  Targ  to  the  Pent.,  in 
the  recension  from  a  Paris  MS  edited  by  Oinsburger  (1899),  even 
in  Gn  126  ([moia  n  -O  ••\2i) :  of.  Ex  19"  (for  r'K ;  Onlf.  NoyK), 
Nu  12'  ns'D  '■\2V  pj  133  n-S  (in  the  Leipz.  MS  [p.  85)  p:k  133). 

H  On  the  Samaritan  see  Fiebig  [}  24  end],  p.  14  fl. 

••  Godgeleerde  Biidragea,  1862,  p.  467  ff. 


SON  OF  MAN 


SOX  OF  MAN 


581 


was  a  man,  and  not  more.  Translated  literally 
into  Greek,  it  was  not  understood,  and  under  the 
influence  of  apocalyptic  phraseology  (Dn  7"  etc.) 
made  into  a  title  of  Christ.* 

(3)  Wellhauson,  in  1S94  and  1897,  also  considered 
that  Jesus  intended  by  the  term  to  speak  of  Him- 
self as  'the  man,'  meaniuir,  however,  by  the  ex- 
pression the  one  who  completely  fulfilled  the  idea 
of  man,  and  who  as  such  was  in  specially  close 
relation  to  the  Father ;  and  the  early  Christians, 
not  understanding  how  He  could  have  so  described 
Himself,  in  translating  rendered  barnaxha  falsely 
by  A  vlbi  Tov  di/dputirov  instead  of  by  6  AvOpojiros :  tlie 
expression  was  thus  brought  into  connexion  with 
Dn  7",  and  so  became  a  standing  Messianic  desig- 
nation of  Christ.t 

(4)  Arnold  Meyer  J  called  attention  to  the  fact 
that  in  Aramaic,  in  particular  in  the  Aramaic 
spoken  in  Galilee,  it  was  not  unusual  for  a  person 
to  speak  of  liim-  (or  her-)  self  as  '  this  man,'  '  this 
woman '(k"i:j  xinn,  Knn'K  tcnnjig  and  also  that  there 
are,  even  in  the  OT,  passages  in  which,  tliou^h  the 
general  term  '  man '  is  used,  the  reference  is  clearly 
to  the  speaker  (Job  3^  IG'-') ;  and  he  applied  this 
principle  to  the  explanation  of  at  least  some  of  the 
passages  in  the  Gospels :  sometimes,  in  usin"  the 
expression,  Jesus  spoke  of  men  in  general  (as 
Mk  •2-^  'Therefore  vian  is  lord  of  the  sabbath,' 
12^^),  sometimes  He  pointed  by  it  to  Himself  (as 
Mk  2'"'  '  that  ye  may  know  that  a  man  hath 
authority  on  earth  to  forgive  sins,' Mt  8™,  11'"  a 
man  came  eating  and  drinking,' etc. )  :  the  early 
Greek-speaking  Christians,  translating  it  by  6  uids 
rou  ivSpuiTTov,  combined  ^vith  it  associations  derived 
from  Dn  7".  This  explanation  does  not  carry  us 
very  far.  It  is  true,  it  might  in  the  abstract  (see 
§  2-2)  be  adopted  for  some  of  the  passages  cited  ; 
but  otherxvise  the  expression  used  in  the  Gospels  is 
not,  as  in  the  Galila-an  phrase  quoted,  'this  man  '; 
nor  does  Meyer  make  any  attempt  to  show  how 
in  the  numerous  other  passages  concerned,  the  pre- 
dictions of  suilerings  and  the  escliatological  utter- 
ances, the  exiires.sion  '  a  man '  could  have  been 
naturally  employed  by  Christ  (cf.  Fiebig,  p.  74  f.). 

(o)  Lietzmann,  as  the  result  of  a  careful  ex- 
amination of  the  existing  evidence,  literary  and 
philological,  rejecting  the  .solutions  of  his  prede- 
cessors, reached  the  startling  conclusion  ||  that 
'Jesus  never  applied  to  Himself  the  title  "son  of 
man"  at  all,  because  it  does  not  exist  in  Aramaic, 
and  upon  linguistic  grounds  cannot  exist,' — on 
account,  viz.,  of  tlie  fact  mentioned  above,  that 
barnujthd,  though  it  is  lit.  '  tlie  son  of  man,'  in 
actual  usage  means  simply  'the  man,' so  that  the 
distinction  made  in  the  tireek  between  6  Snidpunrot 
and  A  Mi  Toii  avBpilmov  could  not  have  existed  in 
Aramaic  (both  expressions  being  translations  of 
the  same  word,  hariidjihd).  The  evangelical  tradi- 
tion wliich  attributes  to  Christ  the  use  of  this 
title  is  consequently  false.  The  title  arose  in 
Greek  :  vl6s  avOpurov,  as  a  translation  of  bamdsh 
in  such  passages  as  Mk  2"'-*,  sounded  strange  ;  it 
was  consequently,  under  the  influence  of  Dn  7", 
turned,  under  the  form  b  uIAs  toO  d.,  into  a  title  of 
Christ,  first  in  the  apocalyptic  discourses  declaring 
llis  future  napovala,  and  afterwards  more  generally 
in  other  di.scourses  (])p.  91-95).  And  Lietzmann 
supports  this  conclu.-^ion  by  various  subsidiary 
arguments,  of  which  the  principal  are  :  (1)  the  fact 
that  'the  son  of  man'  was  no  accepted  Messianic 
title  in  the  age  of  Christ ;  (2)  the  absence  of  the 
expression  from  the  writings  of  St.  Paul,  which,  he 
claims,  is  scarcely  conceivable  had  it  really  been 

•  Thful.  Tiidtchr.  1804,  pp.  153-176 ;  1896,  pp.  49-7X. 
t  /«-.  u.  Jiid.   Getch.  (ISW)  p.  312  ;  ed.  3  (1897),  p.  8S1 ;  cf . 
Ski2Zm  und  V.n-arbfUn,  vi.  (1S99)  p.  200f. 

1  Jetn  MutUrtprac/if  (IbDC),  pp.  91-101,  140-149. 
I  Dahiiun.  Oramtnatil:,  77  I. ;  DU  WorU  Jem,  204L 
I  Dei  i/«ucA«nnAn,  18»6,  p.  8» 


used  habitually  by  Christ ;  (3)  its  absence  likewise 
from  the  literature  of  the  sub-aiiostolic  ages,  the 
Didarhe,  Clement,  I'olycarp,  tlie  Sliejiherd  of  Her- 
nias, etc.,  after  a  review  of  which  Lietzmann  findsit 
to  be  first  alluded  to  by  the  Gno.stic  sect  of  Ophites 
(pp.  62-G9),  Marcion  (c  120-1511  A.D.),  and  Ignatius 
{Ephes.  XX.  2,  ry  vlw  dvOpuirov  Kal  vl(^  $€ov).  And 
Wellhausen,  though  for  long  he  could  not  bring 
himself  to  such  a  tour  de  force  ('Gewaltstreich '), 
was  forced  ultimately  to  agree  with  Lietzmann. 
The  sense  in  which  he  formerly  (see  abovel 
supposed  Christ  to  have  used  the  expression  he 
now  considered  to  be  too  abstract,  and  could  eon-s^e- 
quentlj'  lind  no  alternative  left  but,  bold  as  the 
step  might  appear,  to  deny  that  Christ  used  the 
expression  at  all.  The  title  originated  in  Dn  7", 
being  attributed  first  to  Jesus  in  the  eschatological 
passages  (cf.  Mk  13^,  where,  as  Wellh.  observes, 
'  the  son  of  man '  is  not  expressly  identified  with 
the  speaker)  ;  and  its  adoption  afterwards  as  a 
"eneral  self-designation  of  Jesus  was  perhaps 
facilitated  by  a  misapprehension  of  passages  such 
as  Mk  2^,  in  which  bamdsha,  though  meant  gener- 
ally, was  interpreted  as  referring  specially  to 
Christ.* 

The  general  conclusion  that  Christ  had  not  Himself  used  the 
title  had  been  reached  before,  tboujrh  without  the  use  of  the 
argument  ba^ed  upon  the  .\ramaic,  by  Volkraar  in  1870,  and 
especially  by  Oort  (in  De  Uitdrukkitvj  i  lIk  tcv  a.  in  het  AT, 
1893),  who,  though  he  allowed  that  Jesus  might  have  used  the 
expression  as  a  pjTubol  of  the  future  kingdom,  argued  that  He 
did  not  use  it  as  a  self-designation  ;  it  wa.s  intnHiured  first  oa 
a  personal  title  by  the  early  (Christians  from  aj)ocalyplic  litera- 
ture, and  was  ascribed  afterwards  to  Jesus  Hiuiself  by  the 
evangelists. 

9.  Such  a  conclusion,  conflicting,  as  it  does,  with 
all  the  direct  evidence  that  we  possess  on  the 
subject,  could  not  be  accepted,  except  upon  the 
clearest  and  strongest  grounds ;  and  it  is  not  sur- 
prising to  find  the  leadinjr  NT  scholars  on  the 
Continent,  including  even  those  who  approach  the 
Gospel  records  from  a  thoroughly  critical  stand- 
point, opposed  to  it.  The  principal  objections 
may  be  thus  summarized.  (1)  The  variations  be- 
tween this  title  and  the  personal  pron.  presented 
by  many  of  the  parallel  narratives  (.see  the  Talile), 
show,  indeed,  that  there  are  occasions  on  wliich 
we  cannot  be  sure  whether  the  term  was  actually 
used  by  our  Lord  or  not,  and  it  might  be  admitted 
(see  §  '22)  that  there  were  even  other  passages  in 
which  it  had  been  attributed  to  Him  incorrectly; 
but  that  an  expression  which  in  the  Gosjiels  is 
attribute<l  solely  to  Him,  and  is  never  used  by 
the  evangelists  themselves,  slioiUd  in  reality  have 
been  never  used  by  Him,  but  have  been  introduced 
into  the  Gospels  entirely  by  the  evangelists, 
implies  an  inversion  of  the  facts  which  is  hardly 
credible.  (2)  The  attribution  of  the  expression 
to  Christ  does  not  depend  upon  isolated  texts  in 
individual  Gospels ;  it  has  in  many  cases,  as  the 
Table  shows,  the  support  of  the  double,  and  even 
of  the  triple,  Synoptic  tradition.  (3)  Exactly  the 
same  usage  is  found,  moreover,  in  the  Independent 
tradition  represented  by  the  Fourth  Gospel ;  and, 
as  Dr.  Drumiiiond  [§  '24]  remarks,  '  there  seems  to 
be  no  particular  rea.son  for  its  appearance  in  this 
Gospel,  except  the  fact  that  it  was  at  least  believed 
to  be  a  common  expression  in  the  mouth  of  Jesus.' 
Direct  jiersoiial  reminiscences  unquestionably  un- 
derlie both  these  traditions ;  and,  as  the  same 
authority  further  remarks,  'the  apostles  must 
have  known  whether  their  Master  siioke  of  Him- 
self in  the  way  recorded  in  the  Gospels  or  not ;  and 
the  Gospels  aresufliciently  near  apostolical  .sources 
to  make  us  pause  before  admitting  that  the  Church 
is  responsible  for  the  appearance  of  so  striking 
a  characteristic '  as  this  title  in  the  mouth  ot 
Christ.  (4)  Even  as-suming  that  the  title  was  intro- 
duced into  the  escliatological  passages  in  the  inannei 
■  Skuun  u.  Forarlieiun,  vL  (1899)  pp.  188,  2001.,  206,  214. 


B82 


SON  OF  MAN 


SON  OF  MAN 


Bupposed,  it  is  difficult  to  conjecture  a  motive  for 
extending  tlie  usajje  to  a  number  of  other  passages 
of  an  entirely  ditferent  character  (lialdensperger 
[§  24],  p.  254).  (5)  As  regards  the  supposition  that 
the  ascription  of  the  expression  to  Christ  was  due 
to  the  early  Churcli,  Dr.  Drummond  ob.serves : 
'The  Church  was  more  likely  to  omit  than  to 
insert  the  phrase.  Reliance  is  placed  on  the 
sUence  of  Christian  writers  to  show  that  the  plirase 
was  not  known.  The  Gospels  conclusively  prove 
that  it  icas  known  ;  and  to  imagine  that  it  was  a 
favourite  expression  just  durin";  the  period  when 
the  Gospels  were  composed,  and  that  before  that 
time  it  was  not  known,  and  after  that  time  it 
was  not  in  common  use,  is  to  construct  liistory 
to  suit  the  h}'pothesis.  The  Church  would  have 
preferred  some  title  apparently  higher  and  more 
dignified.'  (6)  St.  Paul,  it  is  urged,  never  uses 
the  title.  But  neither  do  the  evangelists  in 
speaking  of  Christ,  and  yet  their  own  narratives 
show  that  they  were  acquainted  with  it,  and 
believed  it  to  have  been  used  by  Christ.  Unless 
Ac  7°*  is  to  be  eliminated  as  unhistorical,  along 
with  the  numerous  occurrences  of  the  title  in  the 
mouth  of  Christ  found  in  the  Gospels,  it  must  have 
been  known  at  the  time  of  Stephen's  martyrdom 
as  a  designation  of  Jesus ;  for  otiierwise  there 
would  be  no  sufficient  cause  in  Steplien's  exclama- 
tion to  account  for  the  fury  of  tlie  Jews  (Drum- 
mond). Schmiedel,  moreover,*  argues  at  length 
tliat  the  use  made  of  Ps  8  in  1  Co  15"  and  He 
2*'"  presupposes  the  acquaintance  of  the  a]jostles 
with  the  expression  as  a  designation  of  Clirist ; 
the  fact  that  they  do  not  use  it  more  frequently  is 
not  difficult  to  explain.  They  wrote  largely  for 
converts  from  heathenism,  wlio  would  be  liable  to 
misunderstand  it;  and  they  naturally  chose  by 
preference  terms  which  would  give  prominence  to 
the  Divinity  of  Christ.  The  case  would  be  similar 
with  the  sub-apostolic  writers.  Barnab.  12'''"', 
however,  which,  it  had  been  alleged,  was  proof 
tliat  the  wTiter  was  unacquainted  with  the  title, 
had  been  wrongly  explained  (as  Lietzmann  after- 
wards admitted  t). 

10.  All  tliese  considerations  would,  however,  un- 
doubtedly have  to  yield,  if  it  were  philologieally 
certain  that  '  the  son  of  man '  could  not  have  been 
an  expression  used  by  our  Lord.  The  reasons  ad- 
duced in  support  of  this  conclusion  are,  beyond 
question,  weighty ;  we  must  consider  carefully 
whether  they  are  conclusive. 

In  the  first  place,  it  must  be  clearly  understood 
that  we  have  no  actual  knoirledqe  of  the  Aram, 
original  used  (presumably)  bj  Christ.  We  have 
no  records  of  ttie  Galila-an  dialect  as  early  as  the 
first  cent.  A.D.  ;  and  hence  the  Aram,  original  of 
'  the  son  of  man '  is  a  matter  not  of  actu;U  know- 
ledge, but  of  inference.  Tliree  possibilities  nuist 
lie  kept  in  view.  (1)  Wellh.  says  that  bamasli[d) 
in  the  sense  of  'man'  is  common  to  Aramaic 
dialects  in  general  ;  but  this  statement  is  in  excess 
of  the  evidence ;  its  occurrence  in  the  exceptional 
passage  Dn  7''  (in  whicli  a  semi-poetical  expression 
wonlcl  be  but  natural)  is  not  proof  that  it  was  in 
general  use  in  that  sense  in  Bibl.  Aramaic ;  and 
it  is  not  found  in  other  passages  of  Dn.  (as  7*'), 
in  wliich,  if  it  were  as  commonly  in  use  as  it  is  in 
the  Jerus.  Talm.,  it  might  be  naturally  expected. 
It  does  not  occur  in  the  Aram,  of  Ont.,  and  oitcurs 
but  rarely  in  that  of  Jon.  (§  la);  and  tliough 
Wellh.  (pp.  vi,  195)  explains  its  absence  from  these 
Targums  by  the  fact  that  their  authors  adhered 
closely  to  the  Heb.  (in  which,  as  pointed  out  in  §  6, 
the  sing.  '  son  of  man '  is  of  rare  occurrence),  yet 
it  is  not  certain  that  this  explanation  is  the 
;orrect  one.     The  Pal.  Targ.  on  the  Psalms  and 

•  Prot.  ilonaUhf/le,  Juli  1898,  p.  260  ff. 

t  Theol.  Arl:  aus  dcm  Ithein.  Pred.-Verein,  1898,  H.  2,  p.  8. 


Job,  and  the  Pesh.,  are  also  in  general  literal 
translations,  and  yet  bar  nash(d)  occurs  in  both 
frequently  (cf.  above,  §  7  (c),  {d}}. 

Onlj.  uses  regularly  CJ'M  for  'soul'  (=per80n),  Lv  2*  i**l 
51-  i  ••  etc. ;  and  Kinn  ke-j-n  for  '  that  soul,'  On  17H,  Ex  31i«, 
Lv  720  21. 27  198  20«  and  elsewhere.  In  all  these  passage* 
pseudo-Jon.  uses  as  refjutarly  'barnash,'  'barnasha.'  So  in  Dt 
f"  s  (for  0"1N.^)  pseudo-Jon.  has  KB'3  ^3,  while  Onk.  has  KB'O'K ; 
and  in  the  expression  'the  work  of  man's  {or  men's)  hands' 
DIN  is  rendered  bj  batnashiii)  in  the  Palest.  Targruras  (Ps  llM 
)3.6ii>,  2  Ch  sal"),  "but  by  fmleha  in  Onk.  (Dt  42»)  and  Jon. 
(2  K  1918,  Is  3718).  Similarly  isnjx  is  rendered  in  the  Pal. 
Targums  bv  bamdslHa),  Ps  8'  ff^.o  103I6  1041»  etc.,  but  by 
Yiulnha  in  Jon.  (Is  13'  246  51 .2  662).  ct.  also  Ps  1188>'  (Pal. 
Targ. :  C'3  ID)  with  Jer  17»  (Jon. :  nBTN).    So  Fiebig,  p.  11. 

It  is  true  (V>7jd*(Ad  is  used  mostly  as  a  collective  terra ;  but 
Wellh. 's  argument  (p.  v)  to  shou  "that  it_  is  used  so  always, 
and  that  consequently,  unless  bar  ('(*)?uis/i(a)  were  in  use.  there 
would  have  been  no  means  of  expressing  the  idea  of  (a  single, 
particular)  man  {homo)  in  Aram.,ia  surely  not  conclusive;  for 
in  Onlj.  Kl.in  Kf  3'n,  as  has  been  just  shown,  occurs  repeatedly 
in  the  sense  of  thai  mun  (oonip.  in  Heb.  the  analogous  indi- 
\'idual  and  collective  applications  of  C"N).     So  Fiebig,  p.  11. 

The  Aram,  dialects  do  diller  from  one  another  in 
details  of  linguistic  usage  ;  *  and  though  barndsh(a,) 
is  common  in  the  Galila^an  dialects  of  the  3rd  or  4th 
cent.  A.D.,  it  may  not,  as  Dalraan  points  out,  liave 
been  equally  common  in  the  1st  cent.  ;  and  if  usage 
had  not  at  that  time  obliterated  the  distinctive 
force  of  the  first  part  of  the  compound,  bar  nclsha 
might  have  been  used  by  Christ  in  the  sense  of 
'the  Son  of  man.'  It  must,  however,  be  allowed 
that  Fiebig  [§  24]  has  made  it  probable  (pp.  33-36, 
59  f.)  from  quotations  in  the  Jerus.  Talm.  that  bar 
iKVihid)  = '  man  '  was  current  in  Galilee  in  the  2nd 
cent.  A.D. 

(2)  In  the  Sin.  (Curet.)  and  Pesh.  versions  of 
NT,  '  the  Son  of  man  '  is,  for  distinction  from  the 
barnd.'ihd  which  stands  for  o  SLvBpuiro^,  alwaj's  repre- 
sented by  b'reh  d'lidshdf  (lit.  hii  son,  that  of  man, 
— the  pleonasm  being  an  idiom  very  common  in 
Aram. J), — grammatically  (Nbld.)  'a  more  strongly 
determined  form  of  harnd.ihd.'  If  in  the  Aram, 
spoken  in  the  time  of  Christ  barncLsh(d)  was  really 
in  common  use  in  the  sense  of  '  man,'  there  does 
not  seem  to  be  any  sufficient  reason  why,  if  our 
Lord  desired  to  express  the  idea  of  '  the  Son  of 
man,'  He  should  not  have  made  use  of  this  expres- 
sion. There  would  be  nothing  unsuitable  in  ita 
being  an  unusual  and  emphatic  one  ;  and  that  there 
was  some  Semitic  expression  bearing  this  meaning 
appears,  as  Hilgenfeld  has  pointed  out,§  from  the 
fact  that  in  the  Gospel  ace.  to  the  Hebrews,  which 
Jerome  himself  translated  from  Aramaic  (or,  as  he 
elsewhere  says,  from  Hebrew),  there  was  a  saying 
of  Christ,  addressed  to  James,  which  (in  Jerome's 
tr.)  reads,  '  Frater  mi,  comede  panem  tuum,  quia 
resurrexit  ^/w«  /wminis  a  dormientibus.'!! 

From  a  comnumication  printed  by  Dr.  Dnimniond.K  it  appear! 
that  Prof.  Noldeke  also  is  disposed  to  agree  with  Wellhausen. 
To  differ  from  Prof.  Noldeke  on  a  point  of  Aramaic  or  Arabic 

*  See,  for  some  illustrations,  Dalm.  Oramm.  34-40. 

t  B^rSh  d'baimdshd  'Son  of  the  son  of  man'  is  certainlv  ■ 
'  theological  barbarism ' ;  it  does  not,  however,  occur  (as  Wellh., 
by  an  oversight,  says,  p.  194n.)  in  the  Pesh.,  but  in  the  Palest. 
Lectionary. 

}  See,  e.g.,  Dalm.,  Dialektproben,  p.  15, 1.  2,  [NOT  an3  =  whos« 
son?  .Tpim  an3  =  the  son  of  Hezekiah.  So  Dn  2«>  38- *>  rtc, 
and  constantly  in  Syriac  (a-s  Mt  1'  [thrice)).  According  to  Wellh. 
6'rM  d'rutsha  (on  account  of  the  sing.  suff.  and  the  following 
virtual  plural)  is  '  unmoglich '  (p.  vi).  But  svy»  is  regularly 
in  the  Tj,'g.  constnicd  with  a  sing. ;  and  Job  720  14I9  3316,  Pesh., 
are  precise  /ormn/ parallels  (see,  further,  Fiebig,  p.  48  tf.):  more- 
over, if  the  expression  were  'impossible'  in  Synac,  would  the 
Butbi>rs  of  the  Svriac  versions  of  the  Gospels  have  employed  it? 

?  X.  f.  Wiss.  fheol.  1897,  476  (ct.  Berl.phUol.  Wochenschr.  1897, 
Heft  4"9) ;  ISDO,  150. 

i|  Jerome,  de  Virit  III.  c.  2  eTid  (ed.  Bened.  rv.  li.  lOi ;  ed. 
Vail.  ii.  817;  Migne,  ii.  613);  see  Hilgenf.  Evangg.  sec.  Uebr. 
etc.  q\im  supersunt  (1866),  pp.  17 ff.,  29.  Lietzniann's  reply 
(Theol.  Arb.  p.  10)  is  to  the  effect  that  even  here  the  title  miul 
be  of  Greek  origin,  because  it  i--^  only  in  Greek  that  the  con- 
ditions for  its  having  arisen  can  be  shown  to  have  existed. 

1l  Joum.  0}  Theol.  Studies,  Apr.  1901,  p.  857 1. 


SOX  OF  MAN 


SON  OF  MAN 


583 


usage  would  be  to  court  certain  error ;  but  from  tbe  terms  in 
wiiich  he  expresses  himself,  it  does  not  seem  that  he  nieiiiis  to 
pronounce  an  absolute  philolo^cal  veto  a^^ainst  the  position 
tliat  Jesuji  may  have  spoken  of  Himself  in  Aramaic  as  *  the  Son 
of  man.' 

(3)  No  doubt  our  Lord,  as  a  rule,  spoke  in 
Aramaic;  but,  as  I'rof.  Sanday  has  remarked  to 
the  jireseiit  writer,  it  is  quite  jiossihle  that  He 
may,  ujiOii  occasion,  have  sjioken  also  in  Greek. 
In  this  case,  which  is  more  than  a  mere  abstract 
possibility,  tlie  expression  6  vib^  rov  avBptjmov  may 
actually  have  been  sometimes  heard  upon  His  lips. 

11.  Uriqin  and  meaning  of  the  term  as  used  in 
ST. — Hero  we  must  lirst  consider  the  question 
whether  the  term  is  used  in  previous  or  contem- 
porary Jewish  literature,  and,  if  so,  in  what  sense. 
In  Dn  7",  as  has  been  already  remarked,  the  'one 
like  unto  a  son  of  man '  denoted  ori^'inally,  in  all 
probability,  the  glorified  people  of  Israel  ;  but  the 
expression  was  undoubtedly  interpreted  at  an  early 
date  of  the  Messiah.  The  most  remarkable  evi- 
dence of  this  is  all'iirded  by  that  part  of  the 
(composite)  Hook  of  Enoch  (ch.  37-7ti),  which  is 
commonly  known  as  the  'Similitudes,'  and  which 
is  attributed  sc'^'rally  to  the  1st  cent.  B.C.  (see 
vol.  i.  pp.  707''-708').  Enoch  is  here  represented 
as  carried  in  his  vision  into  heaven,  where  he 
sees  the  'Head  of  Days'  (a  title  of  the  Almighty 
sii;:gcsted  by  Dn  7'')  surrounded  by  an  innumer- 
able company  of  angels  (40'),  and  beside  Him  the 
Messiah,  sitting  on  'the  throne  of  his  glory' 
(62" '• '  69-'''-*),  and  executing  judgment  upon 
wicked  men  and  anj^ids.  The  ^iessiall  is  often 
spoken  of  as  tlie  '  Elect  One'  (Is  42') ;  but  in  ch. 
4ti  he  is  introduced  in  terms  which  more  particu- 
larly concern  us  here — 

461  'And  there  I  saw  One  who  had  a  head  of  days  (i.e.  an 
aped  head),  and  his  head  was  white  like  wool  (Dn  7"),  and  with 
him  was  another  one  whose  face  was  as  the  appearance  of  a 
man,  and  his  face  was  full  of  prxiciousness,  like  une  of  the  holy 
afii,'els.  '<*  And  t  asked  the  angel  who  went  with  me,  and  sliowed 
me  all  the  hidden  tilings,  concerning  that  sttn  of  vuin,  who  he 
was,  and  whence  he  was,  and  why  he  went  with  the  Head  of 
Days.  And  he  answered  and  said  unto  me,  ^  This  is  the  son  of 
man  who  hath  righteousness,  with  whom  dwelleth  righteous- 
ness, and  who  reveals  all  the  treasures  of  that  which  is  hidden, 
because  the  Lord  of  Spirits  hath  chosen  him,  and  his  lot  before 
the  Lord  of  Spirits  hath  surp;uised  everything  in  uprightness 
for  ever.  *A!id  this  ton  of  man  whom  thou  hast  seen  will 
arouse  *>je  kings  and  the  mighty  ones  from  their  couches,  and 
the  »*>ong  ones  from  their  thrones,  and  execut«  judgment 
opon  ?<iem.' 

The  judgment  is  described  most  fully  in  ch.  62 — 

62^  '  And  the  Lord  of  Spirits  seated  him  (the  Elect  One)  on 
the  throne  of  his  glory,  and  the  spirit  of  righteousness  was 
IM)ured  out  upon  him,  and  the  word  of  his  mouth  slew  all  the 
siimcrs  [Is  ll^J,  and  all  the  unrighteous  were  destroyed  before 
his  fa<-c.  .  .  .  ^And  their  countenance  will  fall,  and  pain  will 
seize  them,  when  tliey  see  that  ion  of  man  sitting  on  the  throne 
of  his  glory.  .  .  .  "And  all  the  kings  and  the  mighty  and  the 
exalted  and  those  who  rule  the  earth  will  fall  down  on  their 
faces  before  him,  and  worship,  and  set  th<--ir  hope  upon  that  ton 
of  man,  and  will  petition  him  and  supplicate  for  mercy  at  his 
hands.'  But  it  will  be  too  late:  the  'angels  of  punisliment' 
t\ill  take  them  incharge,  and  carry  them  away  to  their  appointed 
doom.  But  the  righteous  will  he  saved  on  that  day;  l*'and 
the  Lord  of  Spirits  will  abi'le  over  them,  and  with  that  Kon  of 
man  will  they  cat  and  lie  down  and  rise  u]>  for  ever  and  ever.' 
Cf.  C'.l37  '  And  he  sat  on  the  throne  of  his  glory,  and  the  smn  of 
Judgment  was  committed  \nito  him,  the  son  of  man,  and  he 
caiiNcd  the  sinners  and  those  who  have  led  the  worUi  astray 
to  pass  away  and  be  destroyed  from  off  the  face  of  the  earth.* 

The  '  son  of  man '  of  the  '  Similitudes '  is  thus  an 
angtist,  suj)erhuman  being,  who  is  seated  on  his 
throne  beside  the  Almighty,  and  exercises  in  jmr- 
ticularthc  fiinctionsof yui/i/c.  Thisrepresentation, 
it  is  to  be  observed,  though  based,  no  doubt,  uiiun 
that  of  Dn  7,  is  not  identical  with  it :  in  Daniel  it 
is  God  who  is  the  judge  ;  the  'one  like  unto  a  son 
of  man '  appears  upon  the  scene  only  after  the 
judgment  is  completed,  and  ho  comes,  not  to 
exercise  judgment,  but  to  receive  a  kingdom. 

It  has  been  much  disputed  whether  '  the  sod  of 
man  '  is  a  t-tle  in  the  Similitudes  or  not. 


The  expressions  used  are, '  that  (zeku  or  ve'etu)  son  of  man 
(4*5*-  48'-  ti25  (see  Charles,  or  Beer,  in  Kautzsch's  Apoknrphen, 
ad  luc],  vv.».  14  6,^11  60ai-  29.  29  701  7117),  •  this  son  of  man'  (40«), 
and  '  thesonof  man'(4<;3|6ceI)illm.-K(A.  Gram.  §  194)027  00^). 
On  the  one  side,  it  is  argued,  Enoch  sees  in  his  vision  a  human 
form  (400,  which  is  afterwards  (46'-  etc)  referred  to  as  'that 
(or  this)  son  of  man,' — '  son  of  man,'  rather  than  simply  '  man,' 
being  (presunjably)  employed,  partly  on  account  of  l>n  7'^  (which 
the  context  shows  to  be  in  the  writer's  mind),  partly  as  being  a 
rather  more  distinct  and  individual  term.  '  The  son  of  man  of 
4&f  fi*27  69'-*"  might  similarly  be  nothing  more  than  an  expression 
referring  back  to  401  ;  and  the  same,  it  is  urged,  might  be  said 
even  of  0  uiot  T«i>  ct^dpa/rov,  if,  as  is  possible  (.see  esp.  Charles, 
E^chatolo'jii,  p.  214  f.),  this  were  the  Greek  which  lay  before  the 
Ethinj.ic  translator."  On  the  other  hand,  the  somewhat  marked 
prominence  of  the  terra  is  an  indication  that  some  significance 
attachfs  to  it :  else  why  does  the  writer  not  say  '  the  Elect  one ' 
(as  48^  4  513-  »  628-  »  of.).  Or  '  the  Anointed  one '  (as  4S"'  oa-")? 

On  the  whole,  it  may  probably  be  fairly  said,  as 
is  claimed  by  Baldensperger  ([§  24],  p.  246),  and 
admitted  by  Dr.  Drummond  (p.  544),  that  the  ex- 
pression, even  if  not  a  title  in  Enoch,  is  next  door 
to  becoming  one,  and  that  the  step  of  making  it 
a  title  is  one  which  at  any  time  afterwards  might 
be  readily  taken.  If,  however,  the  view  of  '  the 
son  of  man'  adopted  in  this  art.  (§§  17,  21)  be  the 
correct  one,  it  will  be  seen  to  be  a  matter  of  in- 
dillerence  whether  the  expression  was  a  '  title '  in 
Enoch  or  not. 

The  reader  ought,  however,  to  be  aware  that  it  can  hardly 
be  said  to  lie  certain  that  the  '  Similitudes'  are  of  pre-Christian 
origin  ;  though  this  is  the  view  taken  i)y  the  great  majority  of 
critics,  who  urge  in  particular  tliat,  hail  they  been  written  (or 
interpolated)  under  Christian  iiilluence,  the  allusions  to  the 
historical  Christ  would  have  been  more  definite.  See  Schiirer^, 
iL  626(3iii.  201  f.). 

12.  Another  passage,  which,  though  of  post- 
Christian  date  (probably  A.D.  81-96),  seems  to 
show  no  traces  of  Christian  influence  (see  vol.  ii. 
p.  766"),  and  deserves  to  be  quoted  in  the  same 
connexion,  is  2  (4)  Es  IS-'""-.  Here  Ezra  is  repre- 
sented as  seeing  in  a  dream  the  sea  disturbed  by  a 
wind,  and  a  'man,'  who  is  declared  afterwards 
(v.^")  to  be  God's  appointed  judge  and  deliverer 
(i.e.,  though  tlie  word  itself  is  not  used,  the 
Messiah),  ascending  out  of  it — 

'  And  1  beheld,  and,  lo,  this  wind  caused  to  come  up  from  the 
midst  of  the  sea  as  it  were  the  likeness  of  a  man,  and  I  beheld, 
and,  lo.  that  man  Hew  with  the  clouds  of  heaven  [cf.  l>n  71-*] : 
and  when  he  turned  his  countenance  to  look,  all  things  trembled 
that  were  seen  under  him.'  In  the  se()uel,  the  same  '  man  that 
came  up  out  of  the  sea,'  ns  he  is  termed  (v. 5,  cf.  vv.28.  Bl), 
destroys  by  a  '  flaming  Ijreatii,'  jiroceeding  out  of  his  mouth, 
the  multitudes  which  assemble  against  him,  and  calls  bock  to 
the  land  of  Israel  the  ten  tribes  (vv.lOf.  la.  39-4U). 

Here  then  at  least  the  Messiah  is  described,  with 
evident  reference  to  Dn  7'^  as  a  '  man.' 

Dr.  Charles  has  called  attention  also  to  4  Es  61  In  the  Syr., 
Eth.,and  .\rab.t  versions  (the  world  to  be  judged  finally— first  by 
(Arab,  on  account  of)  a  'man'  [Syr.  KCjnD  T3],— or,  to  judge 
from  the  Eth.  vers.,  by  a  '  son  of  man,'— and  afterwards  by  Ood  : 
see  ililgenf.  Mrss.  Jud.  pn.  22;t.  27o,  334);  but  the  stateilient  is 
inconsistent  with  Vfi,  and  is  open  to  the  suspicion  of  being  a 
Christian  interpolation  (cf.  llilgenf.  p.  .04  n.). 

13.  In  spite,  however,  of  the  usage  of  the  '  Sim- 
ilitudes,' and  of  2  Es  IS'"-,  it  seems  clear  that  '  the 
Son  of  man  '  was  no  generally  accepted  title  of  the 
Messiah  in  the  days  of  Christ.  Dalm.  (Die  IVurle 
Jesu,  197-204)  shows  that  nothing  exists  in  Jewish 
authorities  in  favour  of  such  a  supposition.  The 
same  conclusion  is  supported  by  the  testimony  of 
the  Gospels.  '  It  is  inconceivable  that  the  Eord 
should  have  a<iopted  a  title  which  was  pojiularly 
held  to  be  synonymous  with  that  of  Alessiah, 
while  He  carefully  avoided  the  title  of  Messiah 
itself  (Westcott).  The  reply  that  Ho  used  it 
enigmatically  is  not  to  the  point ;  for  though  He 

•  The  Eth.  zeku  and  ur't'tn  not  infrequently,  in  translatlonf 
from  the  Oreek,  represent  the  tlreek  art.  (Charles,  I.e.  ;  Dillra. 
yJilh.  Li-x.  col.  1067,  919).  They  are  not,  however,  used  In  the 
Eth.  NT  in  the  tr.  of  i  wJt  toD  itOfirai.  (Dr.  Charles,  in  his  tr. 
of  60'Ji'.  29. '.»  701,  has  not  ri|>rcsented  the  Eth.  'that'). 

t  The  Arab  ?ersion  published  bv  Ewald  (Dot  vifrtt  EzrcUfUch 
1863) :  that  published  by  Uildcmeister  (1877)  Is  different. 


584 


SON  OF  MAN 


SOK  OF  MAN 


might  have  sitrnified  by  it  Bomethiiis  difrerent 
I'lom  the  popular  conception  of  tlie  Messiah,  it 
would  still  {ex  hi/p.)  havr  liecn  the  Messiah,  wliicli 
those  who  heard  Him  would  have  uiulerstood  llini 
to  mean.  Upon  the  same  supposition,  moreover, 
His  use  of  it  could  not  but  have  excited  the  hos- 
tility of  the  Jews,  of  which,  however  (in  this  con- 
nexion), the  Gospels  atlord  no  trace:  the  'blas- 
phemy' of  Mt  2U'''  =  Mk  16"*  consisted  evidently 
not  in  His  use  of  this  title,  but  in  the  Divine 
prerogatives  predicated  of  Himself  as  the  bearer 
of  it.  The  most  that  might  be  supposed  is,  that 
though  not  generally  current  as  a  title  of  the 
Messiah,  it  was  familiar  in  that  sense  in  the 
particular  circle  to  which  the  '  Similitudes '  be- 
longed (above,  vol.  ii.  622'',  cf.  616"). 

14.  In  considering  the  meaning  of  the  title,  it 
ought  to  be  clearly  understood  that  it  is  not  any- 
where explained  in  the  NT,  so  that  whatever  view 
of  it  be  adopted  must  be  a  matter  of  conjecture 
and  inference.  To  the  same  cause  is  due  what  is 
generally  allowed  to  be  the  great  difficulty  of  the 
question,  and  also  the  wide  divergence  of  the  con- 
clusions which  have  been  reached  regarding  it. 
The  question  is  further  complicated  l^y  the  fact 
that  there  are  two  possible  starting-points  for  the 
investigation;  is  the  name  a  mere  title,  taken,  as 
it  were  mechanically,  from  Dn  7",  and  so  a  mere 
periphrasis  for  '  Messiah  '  ?  or  does  the  significance 
of  the  title  lie  in  the  four  words  of  which  it  con- 
sists, and  is  the  meaning  which  our  Lord  intended 
to  convey  by  it  to  be  ascertained  by  an  analysis  of 
these  words  ?  Or  may  the  interpretations  suggested 
by  these  two  opposite  points  of  view  be  in  any  way 
combined  ?  Or,  on  the  other  hand,  whichever  of 
these  interpretations  be  adopted,  does  it  logically 
render  the  other  unnecessarj'  and  superfluous  [cf. 
§20.12]?  Still  further  difficulties  arise  when  the 
details  of  its  usage  in  the  Gospels  are  considered, 
as,  for  instance,  the  very  ditierent  predicates 
associated  with  it ;  and  further  divergent  con- 
clusions are  arrived  at,  corresponding  to  the  view 
taken  by  the  individual  critic  of  the  chronology 
of  our  Lord's  discourses,  and  other  questions  of 
Gospel  criticism.  , 

15.  Two  main  views  may  be  said  to  have  been 
advocated.  According  to  one  view,  the  title  has 
no  meaning  of  its  own,*  it  is  intended  simply  to 
point  to  the  '  one  like  unto  a  .son  of  man '  in  Dn 
7'^t  and  so  to  express,  directly  and  distinctly, 
tlie  Messiahship  of  Jesus.  According  to  the  other 
view,  the  title,  though  it  may  have  been  chosen 
with  an  eye  to  Dn  7",  expressed  primarily  the 
thought  that  Jesus  was,  in  .some  special  sense,  a 
man  above  other  men,  the  supreme  representative 
of  humanity,  and  only  indirectly,  especially  towards 
the  close  of  His  ministry,  sugge.steu  in  addition  the 
thought  of  His  Messiahship.  Higli  authorities  can 
be  quoted  for  both  these  views.  Thus  lloltzmann 
writes  [NTTheol.  1897,  p.  247),  'The  title  certainly 
originates  in  Dn  7".  Jesus  adopts  Daniels  view  of 
the  future  kingdom :  close  beside  this  is  in  Daniel 
the  figure  of  tlie  "one  like  unto  a  son  of  man" 
who  receives  the  kingdom  from  God,  and  in  whom 
therefore  it  was  natural  for  Jesus  to  see  Himself  pre- 
figured :  even  though  in  Daniel  the  figure  synihol- 
ized  only  the  kingdom  (and  not  its  head),  still  here 
was  the  person  who  would  establish  it :  Jesus,  by 
His  adoption  of  the  title,  implied  that  it  would  not 
be  established  apart  from  Himself.'  He  did  not, 
however,  this  being  the  sense  of  the  title,  use 
it  before  Peter's  confession  (pp.  250  top,  260,  263 

•  Schintedel,  p.  204 :  '  The  name  is  (riven  (viz.  by  Dn  T'SJ ; 
what  it  eignillus  is  matter  not  tor  an  analytical  Judgment,  hut 
for  a  synthetical  one,' ».e.  it  is  to  be  ascertained  from  'prfdicates 
defining  the  work  or  otflce  of  the  Messiah.'  C(.  Uollziu.  p. 
IM  bottom,  264  n.  ;  Wellh.  p.  214. 

t  C(.  H.  A.  W.  Ueyer  on  Mt  8»  (klterwl  In  the  8tb  ed.  by 
B.  Weiss).  ' 


[cf.  below,  §  10]).  '  Jesus,"  Holtzniann  continues, 
'  throws  into  the  title  whatever  is  characteristic  of 
His  mission  and  ministry.  He  makes  it  the  exclu- 
sive designation  of  the  person  who  is  to  represent 
and  realize  the  ideas  e.xpresseil  by  it.  .lust  because 
He  is  conscious  that  this  mission  brings  with  it 
earthly  privation  and  suffering,  and  even  death, 
the  "Son  of  man"  become'  the  subject  of  pre- 
dications relating  not  only  m  future  glory,  but 
also  to  earthly  humiliation  and  death.  Thus 
Jesus  is,  and  is  called,  the  "  Son  of  man,"  on  the 
one  hand  wherever  by  forgiving  and  healing,  by 
teaching  and  suffering.  He  proclaims,  represents, 
or  extends  the  kingdom ;  on  the  other  hand,  and 
especially,  when,  coming  in  glory,  He  completes  it. 
As  the  kingdom  is  a  present  as  well  as  a  future 
reality,  so  the  title  "Son  of  man"  bears  reference 
to  His  work  in  the  present  not  less  than  in  the 
future '  (pp.  250-3,  abridged). 

Upon  this  view  the  first  art.  (e)  points  to  Dn  7^3  (Holtzm. 
p.  2G4  n.  ;  Schraiedel,  p.  2(J4),  the  second  {toZ)  results  simply  by 
a  kind  of  attraction,  from  the  presence  of  the  first  (Schniiedel, 
l.c. ;  Winer,  Gramm.  5  19,  26-4). 

16.  In  what  is  here  said  of  the  use  of  the  title, 
there  is  much  that  is,  of  course,  perfectly  just; 
but  to  tlie  view  taken  of  its  origin  there  seem  to 
be  objections.  In  the  vision  of  Daniel  the  '  one 
like  unto  a  son  of  man '  is  represented  as  a 
glorified,  heavenly  being,  and  the  kingdom  is  a 
triumphant  kingdom.  No  account  is  taken  of  the 
long  period  during  which,  as  a  matter  of  history, 
the  kingdom  was  gradually  and  slowly  to  extend 
itself  among  men  ;  it  has  been  finally  and  univers- 
ally established  in  the  earth  (7''').  Now,  if  the 
passages  in  which  our  Lord  first  used  the  expres- 
sion had  been  those  in  which  He  describes  His 
future  advent  in  glory,  there  would  have  been  a 
direct  point  of  contact  with  the  vision  in  Daniel, 
sufficient  to  account  for  the  title  being  adopted 
from  it  ;  but,  as  it  is,  it  is  impossible,  without 
most  arbitrary  treatment  of  the  Gospel  narratives, 
to  suppose  that  to  have  been  the  case  ;  and  thus, 
with  tlie  passages  in  which  He  is  actually  repre- 
sented as  first  using  it,  and  which  all  deal  with 
various  aspects  of  His  life  in  humility  upon  earth, 
there  is  no  point  of  contact  in  Daniel  at  all.  As 
Westcott  {Sjica/cer's  Comm.  on  St.  John,  p.  34)  says, 
'  It  is  out  of  the  question  to  suppose  that  the 
definite  article  simply  expressed  "  the  prophetic 
son  of  man."  The  manner  in  which  the  title  ia 
first  used  excludes  such  an  interpretation.'  There 
is  nothing,  viz.,  in  the  manner  in  which  the  title  is 
first  used — or  indeed  chiefly  used — in  the  Synoptic 
Gospels,  to  suggest  a  reference  to  Daniel,  or  to 
lead  to  the  supposition  that  our  Lord  intended  by 
His  use  of  it  to  bring  before  His  hearers  the  tran- 
scendent, heavenly  being  represented  in  Daniel. 
A  being,  conscious,  indeed,  of  his  authority  and  of 
the  high  mi.ssion  entrusted  to  him,  but  presenting 
all  the  outward  marks  of  earthly  humility,  and 
only  in  the  future  destined  to  as.sume  heavenlj' 
majesty,  is  surely  what  the  title  denotes  in  the 
Gospels.  Iloltziiianns  identification  of  the  king- 
dom pictured  in  Daniel,  not  with  the  kingdom  of 
Christ  in  its  final  glory,  but  with  the  kingdom  at 
the  time  of  His  rounding  it  during  His  earthly 
ministry,  is  not  natural.  There  is  equally  little, 
not  to  say  less,  to  suggest  that  the  title  is  borrowed 
from  the  'Similitudes'  of  Enoch.  It  is  also  diffi- 
cult not  to  think  (in  spite  of  Holtzm.  p.  253  f.) 
that  it  is  intended  to  express  primarily,  and  also 
more  fully  and  distinctively  than  even  Holsten 
(§20.  11)  allows,  some  meaning  directly  involved 
in  the  words  of  which  it  consists  (analogous,  for 
instance,  to  that  of  its  correlative,  the  '  Son  of 
God '). 

17.  The  other  main  view  may  be  stated  sut)- 
stantially,  as  is  done  by  B.  Weiss  {NT  Theol.  1884, 


SON  OF  IMAN 


SON  OF  MAN 


585 


§  16).  (1)  Our  Lord  adopted  this  title  just  because 
it  wns  not  a  current  title  of  the  Messiah.  In  view 
of  the  expectations  of  a  personal  Messiah  wliiih 
prevailed  at  the  time,  Dn  7'*  could  certainly  in 
His  daj-  be  interpreted  only  of  the  Mes.siah  ;  but, 
even  so,  He  could  not  a.ssunie  that  this  particular 
passa<;e  would  be  so  ■.'enerally  known  that  the 
exjiression,  'the  Son  of  man,'  would  be  at  once 
unilerstood  as  referring:  to  it.  The  case  would  be 
ditl'erent  if  we  could  presuppose  the  use  made  of 
Daniel  in  Enoch  ;  but,  even  if  the  jjre-Christian 
origin  of  the  'Similitudes'  be  granted,  it  is  far 
from  clear  that  they  were  familiarly  known  in  the 
circles  in  which  our  Lord's  ministry  principally 
lay.  Only  when  Jesus  in  the  e.schatological  pas- 
sages directed  attention  to  Dn  7"  could  the  title 
be  understood  gener.ally  as  a  Messianic  designa- 
tion. This  view  of  His  use  of  the  title  agrees  with 
the  manner  in  which,  during  all  the  earlier  part 
of  His  ministry,  He  avoided  any  direct  announce- 
ment of  His  ilessiahship,  in  order  not  to  lend 
encouragement  to  the  unspiritual  ideas  attaching 
to  the  popular  conception  of  the  Messiah.  (2)  For 
His  hearers  the  idea  expres.sed  by  the  title  wouKi 
be  that  He  was  not  a  '  son  of  man  '  like  all  others, 
but  that  He  was  'the  son  of  man,'  one  who,  in 
virtue  of  His  character  and  personality,  held  a 
unii|ue  position  among  men.  It  did  not  designate 
merely  Ills  humanity  (for  this  must  have  been 
evident  to  all  who  saw  Him),  but  it  marked  Him 
out  as  in  some  sense  a  sj)ecinl  or  representative 
man.  (3)  Christ's  statements  resi)ecting  the  'Son 
of  man,'  the  functions,  oHice,  and  divinely  ajipointed 
destinies  tussigned  to  him,  jioint  to  one  wlio  has 
a  mission  higher  than  that  of  an  ordinary  |>rophet, 
i.e.  indirectly  to  one  who  is  also  the  Messiah. 
They  speak  of  Him,  for  instance,  as  in  various 
ways  proclaiming  or  establishing  the  kingdom 
of  God.  He  has  authority  to  forgive  sins ;  and 
He  gives  His  life  a  ransom  for  many.  He  is  con- 
trasted with  John  the  Baptist,  who  is  merely  a 
forerunner.  The  sufterings  of  tlie  Son  of  man  are 
divinely  appointed  (Sei, — Mk  8"  |;  II,  al.),  because  it 
is  imnlied  in  the  OT  that  God's  plan  of  salvation 
would  not  be  linally  realized  upon  earth  without 
the  sull'cring  and  death  of  the  servant  of  God  by 
whom  it  would  he  accomplished.  (4)  Lastly,  in 
the  prophecies  of  the  Second  Advent,  our  Lord 
alluded  so  clearly  to  Dn  7"  that  though  He  does 
not  expressly  identify  Himself  with  the  '  one  like 
unto  a  son  of  man '  there  spoken  of,  those  who 
heard  Him,  and  who  identified  the  figure  in  Daniel 
with  the  Messiah,  could  not  but  conclude  that  He 
meant  by  the  term  that  particular  'son  of  man' 
who  was  to  be  the  Messiah.* 

Upon  Ihia  view  the  second  art.  {raZ)  is  pcncric  or  collective 
(Winer,  8  27.  1 ;  Gn  G6  '  v:i'  V\  2  S  7'»,  Ml<  2-1,  Jn  2!»),  Uie  flist 
ftrt,  (o)  sjiecilies  the  individual  of  the  gniHg  meant  (Weiss,  §  10/*). 

18.  This  opinion,  that  the  title,  viz.,  even  though 
it  may  have  been  siiqrjested  by  Dn  7",  was  never- 
theless intended,  ami  even  intended  primarily,  to 
express  in  some  manner  the  relation  of  .lesus  to 
humanity,  has  been  largely  held  (see  §  20  ;  and 
the  lefeiences  in  Hollzm.  pp.  2'A,  '255).  It  has, 
however,  been  objected  to  it  that  if  the  title 
denoted  the  'ideal'  or  'representative'  man,  the 
predicjitcs  alliniied  of  it  could  be  only  tlio.se  which 
were  involved  in  the  idea  itself, — i.e.,  to  speak 
technically,  were  the  predicates  of  analytical,  not 
of  Hj-ntlietical  judgments,  which  obviously  is  not 
the  ca.se  with  the  predicates  allirmed  of  the  '  Son 
of  man  '  in  the  Gospels.  This  would,  no  doubt,  he 
true  if  the  title  were  understood  to  be  a  designa- 
tion of  the  '  ideal '  man,  but  not  if  (abandoning 
this  abstract  expression)  it  be  understood  to  dcsig- 

•  The  views  of  Bruce.  Kingdom  o/  (Iml  2  (1890).  172-78,  and  of 
Steiens,  XT  Tlttul.  (Is'.IO),  61-53,  while  siuiiiwlmt  diSercntl)' 
put,  do  not  differ  materially  from  that  of  Weiss. 


nate  a  pnrtinihtr,  inifivirlual  man,  embodying  in 
their  highest  perfection  the  attributes  of  hum.anity. 
And  this  is  the  sense  in  which  Weiss  and  West- 
cott  (§  '20),  for  instance,  understand  the  title. 
There  will  then  be  no  diilicultj'  in  understanding 
the  predicates  allirmed  of  the  '  Son  of  man '  as 
synthetical  judgments  :  they  will  result,  in  other 
word.s,  not  from  an  analysis  of  the  idea  of  '  man,' 
but  from  the  experience,  |)i'esent  or  future,  of  the 
particular  individual  actually  denoted  by  the  term. 
As  Holtzmann,  though  himself  preferring  the 
other  view,  writes  (p.  2.">-l),  'The  ])ossibility  is  by 
no  means  excluded  that  the  conception  of  the 
Messiah  was  rooted  in  the  idea  of  man,  and  that 
Jesus,  in  choosing  this  designation,  instead  of 
others  that  were  open  to  Him,  intended  theiebj-  to 
express  His  relationship  to  humanity.' 

The  fact  just  mentioned  has  been  made  the 
ground  of  a  further  objection  to  the  same  opinion. 
As  has  just  been  shown,  if  we  start  from  the  idea 
of  '  man,'  none  of  the  predicates  apjilied  in  the 
Gospels  to  the  '  Son  of  man  '  can  be  obtained  from 
an  analysis  of  that  idea.  Hut  if  we  start  from  the 
e(|u,'ition  (given  by  Dn  7") '  Son  of  man' =  '  Messiah,' 
then  all  these  predicates  become  analytical  judg- 
ments ;  they  are,  it  is  s.iid,  derivable,  at  least 
largely,  from  the  idea  of  '  Messiah  '  itself  ;  they 
are  expressions,  not  of  Jesus'  conception  of  '  man,' 
but  of  His  conception  of  His  Messiahship.*  And 
hence  it  is  concluded  that  the  term  was  used  by 
Him  as  properly  and  primarily  signifying  '  Messiah.' 
It  may  be  doubted  if  this  conclusion  necessarily 
follows  from  the  premises.  If  the  term  denoted 
Jesus  primarily  as  a  Man  above  other  men,  a  Man 
with  a  unique  position  and  mission,  tins  jiosition 
and  mission  would,  from  another  ])oiiit  of  view, 
be  also  those  of  the  '  Messiah  ' ;  and  the  juedicates 
describing  dill'erent  aspects  of  His  work  and 
ministry  would  accordinglj'  be  those  belonging  to 
Him  as  'Messiah.'  Tlie  offices  and  functions 
ascribed  to  the  '  Son  of  man '  in  the  Gospels  are 
deduced  by  Weiss,  starting  from  the  idea  of  '  man,' 
not  less  naturallj'  than  by  Holtzmann,  starting 
from  the  idea  of  '  Messiah. 

I'J.  Two  questions,  intimately  connected,  remain 
to  be  considered,  which  also,  as  will  appear,  have 
a  bearing  njion  the  question  of  the  origin  of  the 
title.  At  what  period  in  His  ministry  did  our 
Lord  first  use  the  title  ?  And  in  what  sense  was  it 
understood  by  those  who  heard  it?  Or,  to  put  the 
possible  alternatives  unambiguously,  did  it  veil  or 
reveal  His  Messiahship';  It  is  clear  that  our  Lord 
only  declared  His  ^lessiahshi[)  gradually.  The 
question  put  by  Him  to  the  discijiles  at  (^a'sarea 
Philiiq>i,  and  I'eter's  reply  (Mt  l(i'»-"'  =  Mk  8-'--»  = 
Lk  l'J'"'-°),  jiarticularly  when  taken  in  connexion 
with  our  Lord's  comment  in  Mt  IG",  make  it 
evident  that  up  to  that  time  He  had  not  openly 
declarcil  Himself  as  the  Messiah  ;  and  the  prohibi- 
tions in  Mt  l(i-"  =  Mk  8»"  =  Lk  9-',  and  Mt  17"  = 
Mk  9",  cf.  Lk  9*',  show  that  He  still  did  not  wish 
the  fact  to  be  known  to  the  pco[ile  generally.  In 
the  .Synoptic  Gosjiels  there  are,  however  (.see  the 
Table,  §  3),  9  passages  in  Matthew,  2  in  Mark, 
and  4  in  Luke,  in  which  the  title  'Son  of  man'  is 
ascribed  to  our  Lord  before  the  occasion  at  t^icsarea 
I'hilippi.  If,  then,  the  title  was  a  current  Mess. 
title,  or  even  if  His  hearers,  when  He  used  it, 
were  likely  at  once  to  perceive  a  reference  to  Dn 
7",  it  is  clear  that  He  must,  by  His  use  of  it,  have 
revealed  His  Messiahslii]),  from  virtually  the  begin- 
ning of  His  ministry,  both  to  His  di.sciples  and  to 
the  people  at  large.  This,  however,  as  we  have 
just  seen,  was  inconsistent  with  His  avowed 
l)urpose.  Hence  those  who  believe  that  it  was  a 
current  Mess,  title  are  obliged  to  get  rid  of  those 
passages  in  the  Gospels  which  represent  our  Lord 
*  Unlnten  ({  10.  Ill,  |>p.  30-39 ;  cf.  LieUniaim,  14,  15,  24. 


686 


SOX  OF  MAX 


SOX  OF  MAN 


as  using  it  before  Peter's  confession  at  Csesarea 
I'hilippi.  Matthew  (in  whom  most  of  the  pas- 
sages occur)  is  the  evangelist  who,  generally, 
displays  the  least  regard  for  historical  sequence, 
and  sometimes  groups  incidents  and  sayings  to- 
gether merely  on  account  of  material  resemblances  ; 
he  even  represents  the  disciples  as  owning  Jesus  to 
be  the  'Son  of  God'  (14^:  no  1!  in  Mk  6^"-  Jn  6-^ 
bt'fore  the  confession  at  Ca'sarea  Philippi.  Hence 
there  is  no  ditrunilty  in  supposing  that  5lt  10^  13^' 
[\n  which,  whatever  view  be  taken  of  the  meaning 
of  the  title,  tlie  predicates  api)licd  to  it,  describ- 
ing the  Second  Advent,  show  that  the  Messiah  is 
referred  to)  are  placed  too  early  in  our  Lord's 
ministry;*  and  the  same  supposition  might  be 
reasonably  made  {upon  the  assumption  that  '  the 
Son  of  man '  was  a  Mess,  title)  in  the  case  of  some 
other  passages,  as  Mt  8-^  12"**^  ;t  but  it  is  difficult 
to  think  that  Mk  2'«  =  Mt  9«  =  Lk  5-*,  Mk  2-^  =  Mt 
128  =  Lk  Qi^  [jMi^  3-s'=]  Mt  12^2=  Lk  12'^  can  be  so 
misplaced.  Nevertheless,  those  who  believe  *  the 
Son  of  man '  to  be  an  exjdicit  Mess,  title  are 
obliged  to  assume  this  {cf.  §  20.  12),  or  else  to  hold 
either  that  Jesus  never  used  the  title  at  all,  or  (so 
Holtzm.  p.  263,  cf.  256  f.)  that,  on  at  least  the 
three  last-named  occasions.  He  spoke  of  *  man'  in 
general  (see,  further  on  these  passages,  §  22).^ 

The  second  of  these  alternatives  we  have  already 
found  ourselves  unable  to  accept ;  but  does  either 
the  first  or  the  third  suffice  to  remove  the  diffi- 
culty? Is  it  really  credible  that  our  Lord  Jirst 
used  the  expression  of  Himself,  after  Peters  con- 
fession at  Ciesarea  Philippi?  Is  not  the  familiar 
manner  in  which  He  used  the  title,  if  not  in  the 
question  put  to  Peter  (Mt  16'^  but  not  Mk  8-^ 
Lk  9^«),  yet  directly  after  it  (Mk  S^S  Lk  9"),  with- 
out exciting  any  comment  or  surprise,  sufficient 
evidence  that  it  must  have  been  often  used  by  Him 
previously,  and  that  it  was  an  expression  which, 
whatever  special  ideas  it  may  have  been  intended 
to  convey,  was  well  understood  to  denote  Himself? 
These  considerations,  as  it  seems  to  the  present 
writer,  constitute  a  strong  argument  against  the 
supposition  that  it  Avas  a  current  Mess,  title,  or 
even  (without  supposing  as  much  as  this)  that  it 
was  adopted  by  our  Lord  as  a  Mess,  title,  for  the 
purpose  of  proclaiming  His  Messiahship. 

The  title,  we  thus  seem  forced  to  conclude,  was 
used  by  our  Lord  in  His  Galiloean  ministry  ;  but 
it  did  not  suggest  to  those  who  heard  it  Mess, 
associations,  until  it  came  to  be  connected  with 
liredictions  of  the  Second  Advent ;  it  thus  did  not 
reveal,  but  veil,  His  Messiahship.  Christ's  use  of 
the  term  was  pctdafjogic.  It  veiled  His  Messiah- 
ship  during  the  earlier  part  of  His  ministry,  till 
the  time  was  ripe  for  Him  to  avow  it  openly.§ 
I»y  His  adopti»m  of  it,  He  found  a  means,  on  the 
one  hand,  of  not  denying  even  in  public  His  con- 
sciousness of  His  unique  mission,  and,  on  the 
other  hand,  of  lending  no  countenance  to  the  crude 
and  illusory'  hopes  which  attached  to  popular  ideas 
of  tlie  Messiah  (Weiss,  Lchen  JcsUy  i.  429). 

20.  The  following  summary  (which  makes  no 
pretension  to  be  exhaustive)  may  be  useful  to  the 
reader,  partly  as  illustrating,  especially  when 
taken  in  connexion  with  the  views  that  have  been 
already  stated,  the  gruat  diversity  of  opinion 
which  has  prevailed— and  in  part  prevails  still — 
with  regard  to  the  meaning  ot  the  title,  partly  as 
exemplifying  the  lines  along  which  attempts  have 

•  Som-j  other  passaj^es  in  Matthew,  involving  the  avowal  of 
Jesus'  Mtssiahship,  though  not  with  the  use  of  this  title,  are 
also  probahlv  ant«-<lated  ;  cf.  Uoltzmann,  p.  259. 

t  In  Lk  6-'^tcontrast5It6ii],7W=Mt  ll'^,  Holtzmann  (p.  251) 
doubta  whether  the  title  (which  he  regards  as  Mess.)  is  original. 

t  Fiebig,  however  (5  24],  thinks  that  in  these  cases  it  was 
t)niplymisunderstood(a3='nian,'  'a man') by  those  who  heard  it. 

{  Keini.  Similariy  Baur,  Hase,  Lange,  Ritschl,  Uarnack,  and 
others,  as  cited  by  Uoltzmann,  p.  261  n,  1,  262  n.  6. 


been  principally  made  to  solve  the  problems  which 
it  presents. 

1.  Neander  {Lfben  Jem,  1S37.  129ff.;  Eng.  tr.<  p.  99).  The 
title  denotes  Jesus  on  His  huu)an  side,  as  One  belonging  to 
huinaiiii.\',  uho  in  His  humanity  has  done  so  much  Ifor  it, 
through  whom  it  is  glorified,  and  who  has  realized  most  com- 
pletelv  the  ideal  ('  Urbild ')  of  humanity. 

2.  liaur  iZ.  Wins.  Theol.  1800,  274-292 ;  AT  Theol  ISM, 
77-S;i)-  Not  at  the  time  a  current  titl«  of  the  Messiah,  but 
chosen  by  Jesus  in  opposition  to  prevalent  Jewish  conceptions 
of  a  victorious,  earthly  Messiah.  It  emphasized  His  humanity, 
His  subjection  to  the  needs  and  experiences  of  ordinary  men  ; 
and  denoted  Him  also  as  one  who  made  all  the  deepest  human 
interests  His  own,  and  bad  the  wide  human  sympathies  ex- 
pressed, for  instance,  in  tlie  Beatitudes.  It  was  suggested  by 
Dn  7I8 ;  and  Jesus  adopted  it  as  a  title,  which,  while  possessing 
no  popular  Mess,  associations,  was  adapted  to  express  the  Mess. 
idea  in  its  higher  significance. 

3.  Hilgenfeld  (if.  WUs,  Th.  1S63.  327-334;  cf.  1894,  16f.X 
Not  a  current  Mess,  title.  Suggested  by  Dn  7'3,  but  used  by 
Jf'suswith  the  object  of  givingpromuience  to  His  humanity,  and 
vf  emphasizing  the  humility  and  external  lowliness  which  in  His 
person  were  combined  with  the  exalted  dignity  of  the  .Messiah. 
It  thus  in  a  veiled  manner  pointed  to  His  Messiahship.  Jesus, 
by  uniting  spiritual  loftiness  with  earthly  lowliness,  *  trans- 
figured' the  popular  Jewish  idea  of  the  Messiah. 

4.  Weizsacker  (Evann.  Gesch.  1864,  420-431).  Not  a  current 
Mess,  title  (for,  if  it  had  been,  Jesus  would  have  been  attacked 
for  appropriating  it) ;  and  adopted  by  Jesua,  not  from  Dn  7is, 
but  from  Ezekiel,  to  designate  Himself  specially  as  a  prophet. 
The  Mess,  sense,  derived  from  Dn  7^'\  was  attached  to  it  only 
at  a  later  period  of  our  Lord's  life. 

5.  Holtzmann  (in  18G5  ;  if.  Wiss.  Tfu  212-237).  Not  a  current 
title  of  the  Messiah  (for  else  Jesus  would  have  been  attacked 
for  using  it),  but  borrowed  by  Him  as  a  Mess,  title  from  Dn  7^3, 
'  the  expression  used  by  Dn.  reflecting  itself  in  His  conscious- 
ness in  a  universal  and  human  sense.'  It  thus  denoted  Him 
not  merely  as  the  Messiah,  but  as  '  the  bearer  of  all  human 
dignity  and  rights,'  as  '  one  who  held  a  peculiar  and  central 
position  among  the  we*  rv*  eoOp^raiy.'  Not  being  a  cuJrent 
Mess,  title,  it  was  a  riddle  to  those  who  heard  it,  and  served  to 
veil,  not  to  reveal,  His  Messiahship. 

6.  Keim  (Der  Gesch.  Cli  rictus,  IS60,  p.  105  f.;  Jesti^  of  yaz, 
tr.  iiL  79-92).  The  title  had  a  double  aspect :  on  the  basis  first 
of  Ps  S'*'-,  though  aften\'ards  also  of  Dn  7^^^  n  expressed  Jesus^ 
sense  on  the  one  hand  of  His  human  lowliness,  on  the  other 
hand  of  His  Messianic  dignity :  in  particular.  He  inten'ied  by 
His  use  of  it  to  show  that  even  in  His  capacity  as  Messiah  He 
was  part  and  parcel  of  humanity,  and  to  teach  His  disciples 
that  it  was  pre-eminently  His  vocation  to  6er\'e  and  suffer  for 
humanity. 

7.  Wittichen  (1S6S).  In  Dn  7^3  the  '  son  of  man '  represent* 
the  ethical  character  of  the  future  Isr.  dominion,  as  opposed  to 
the  worldly  heathen  dominions;  this  idea  is,  however,  first 
embodied  in  an  individual  in  Enoch,  from  which  book  Jesus 
adopted  the  title.  He  designated  Himself  by  it  as  the  perfect 
representative  of  the  idea  of  man,  especially  on  its  ethical  side, 
and  at  the  same  time  as  the  Messiah,  the  chosen  organ  for  the 
fuller  realization  of  this  idea  in  the  world.  The  idea  as  pre- 
sented in  Enoch  is  spiritualized  and  morally  deepened  by  Jesus, 
and  also  combined  by  Him  with  associations  derived  from  the 
OT  *  servant  of  Jehovah.' 

8.  Westcott  (l.c.  1S80).  The  title  is  a  new  one,  not  derived 
from  Dn  7'3  ;  and  it  expresses  Christ's  relation  not  to  a  family, 
or  to  a  nation,  but  to  all  humanity.  There  is  nothing  in  the 
Gospels  to  show  that  itwas  understood  as  a  title  of  the  Messiah. 
The  idea  of  the  true  humanity  of  Christ  lies  at  the  foundation 
of  it  He  was  the  representative  of  the  whole  race,  in  whom  the 
complete  conception  of  manhood  was  absolutely  attained,  and 
who  exhibited  all  the  truest  and  noblest  attributes  of  the  race. 
Cf.  Stanton,  The  Jeu-ij<h  aiid  the  Christiari  Messiah,  1SS6,  p.  246 ; 
'It  is  clear  that  Christ  by  His  phrase  represented  Himself  u 
the  head,  the  tvpe,  the  ideal  of  the  race.' 

9.  Wendt,  IhiiQiThe  Teachin{j  of  Jes\i8,  ii.  139-151).  Not  « 
current  Mess,  title.  Dn  7^3  suggested  the  combination  of 
creaturely  frailty  and  lowliness  with  high  dignity  ;  and  so  Jesus, 
when  He  used  the  title,  taught  that  He  was  a  frail  humatj 
creature,  and  yet  showed  that  He  remembered  the  proph.  word 
that  the  Mess,  dignity  was  to  belong  to  *one  like  unto  a  son  of 
man.'  It  was  no  announcement  of  His  Mess,  claims,  but  rather 
propounded  a  problem  for  His  hearers  to  reflect  upon. 

lU.  J.  E.  Carpenter  (7*Ae  First  Three  Gospels,  their  Orujin  atid 
delations,  1890,  pp.  llS-120,  244-257,  372-38S).  Jesus  never 
used  the  expression  to  designate  Himself :  He  employed  it  only 
in  the  eschatological  pass:iges,  and  in  these  it  was  used  by  Him 
s^Tiibolically  to  denote  the  estabUshment  of  God's  kingdom  of 
righteousness  upon  earth.  The  primitive  Church  anderstood 
the  expression  m  a  personal  sense,  and  then  ascribed  it,  as  ft 
Mess,  title,  to  Jesus  Himself. 

11.  Holsten  (Z.  /.  Wiss.  Theol.  1891,  pp.  1-79).  The  title, 
though  not  a  current  Mess,  one,  was  understood  by  Jesus 
in  that  sense,  as  appears  from  the  fact  that  He  always  uses  it  to 
express  some  aspect  of  the  work  or  activity  of  the  Messiah  (cf. 
Holtzmann :  g  15),  It  was  adopted  from  Dn  Ti^*,  though  this 
passage  gave  only  the  outer  form,  the  contents  being  supplied 
by  the  experience  and  knowledge  of  the  historical  Jesus  (afl 
teacher,  sufferer,  redeemer,  etc):  only  thus  did  lie  convert 
'  the  visionarj*  form  of  a  Messiah,  which  He  found  in  Daniel, 
into  His  own  living  Mess,  personality '  (p.  68,  of.  60X    He  wouid 


SON  OF  MAN 


SON  OF  MAN 


587 


not,  however,  have  appropriated  the  title,  had  He  not  desired  to 
dcsijjnate  Himself  as  a  member  of  the  gentu  'man,'  and  also 
reoOK'nized  Himself  as  the  uieinber  of  the  genus  referred  to  in 
Dd  -13  (p.  47).  The  dilHculty  (cf.  6  18)  of  understanding  how 
Je»U9  could  have  denoted  Himself,  under  the  conditions  of  Hia 
earthly  life,  by  a  term  suifgestinjf  only  the  transcendent  Beinp; 
of  Paniel,  is  met  by  the  supposition  (which,  however,  lacks 
support  in  the  text  of  I)n.  it^elO  that  the  '  one  like  unto  a  son 
of  man '  in  0n  7*3  is  really  to  be  conceived  as  having  been 
broujjht  before  God,  and  invested  by  Him  with  power  and 
prealness,  out  of  a  previous  state  of  earthly  humility  and  weak- 
ness (pp.  61,  67  f.).  The  title  was  used  by  Jesus  in  His  Cialilaian 
ministry  (Mk  2">  etc.)  ;  for  though  He  Himself  understood  it  in 
&  Mess,  sense,  this  was  not  iieceagarily  placed  upon  it  even  by 
scripture-students,  esp.  if  His  owTi  a]>pearance  and  manner  of 
life  did  not  suggest  it :  it  would  be  taken  naturally  by  those 
who  heard  it,  including,  up  to  the  time  of  Peter's  confession, 
even  the  disciples,  to  signify  simply  '  the  man.'  And  this 
would  OCTee  with  His  own  purpose  of  keeping  for  a  while  His 
Messiahship  a  secret  (pp.  20,  2'1,  ,S1  f.,  70f._). 

12.  Baldensperger  iha«  SHbAtbf.umsslgein  Je^it  im  lAchte  der 
iloi.  Hofnunijen  geiner  Zeit-,  l!j92)  emphasizes  strongly  the 
prevalence  of  apocalyptic  conceptions  in  the  time  of  Christ.  He 
rejects  emphatically  the  opinion  that  the  title  concealed  Jesus' 
Messiahship,  and  also  the  view  that  it  was  intended  to  express 
any  aspect  of  His  humanity.  It  was  (through  the  influence  of 
Daniel  and  Enoch) a  known  Mess,  title  in  the  time  of  (Christ; 
and  Jesus  adopted  it  with  the  express  object  of  proclaiming 
His  .>fessiahship.  It  was  a  triumphant  designation  of  the 
Messiah  ;  and  .lesus  connected  it  with  declarations  respecting 
His  humiliation  and  sufiferings  for  the  express  purpose  of  show- 
ing (in  opposition  to  current  Jewish  iJeaw)  that  these  were 
integral  elements  in  His  conception  of  the  Messiah.  As,  how- 
ever, it  was  an  open  proclamation  of  His  Messiahship,  He 
cannot  have  used  it  before  Peter's  confession  at  Cajsarea 
Philippi :  the  passages  in  the  Gospels  which  imply  that  He  did 
this  must  be  chronologically  misplaced.  Baldensperger  closes 
with  a  severe  criticism  of  Holsten  for  admitting  in  again  *  by  a 
back-door'  (see  above,  No.  11)  any  reference  in  the  title  to  the 
humanity  of  Jesus,  which  he  had  himself  shown  to  be  out  of  the 
question,  as  well  as  unnecessary,  in  view  of  the  direct  derivation 
of  the  title  from  Dn  718  (pp.  182-189) ;  and  of  Wendt  for  dis- 
covering in  the  expression  anything  of  the  nature  of  creaturely 
weakness  or  humilitv  (pp.  lS'j-192). 

13.  J.  V.  Bartlet  (Vi.c;)o«.,  Deo.  1892,  427^43).  The  title  may 
have  been  suggested  by  Dn  713;  but  as  used  by  Jesus  it  denotes 
Him  as  the  ideal  representative,  partly  of  humanity  in  general, 
partly  of  the  Kingdom  of  God  in  particular,  especially  under 
those  aspects  of  character  which  belong  to  the  suffering  servant 
in  Dcutern-Isaiah. 

14.  Dalnian(i)i«  (Forts  ./fsu.  1898,  191-219;  cf.  Exp.  Titnm, 
X.  438-443).  Not  a  current  iless.  title,  but  adopted  bj*  Jesus 
from  Dn  718,  and  very  probably  also  with  the  thouglit  of  Ps  b^r. 
at  the  same  time,  because  He  was  the  destined  .Messiah.  It 
veiled  His  Messiahship  behind  a  name  which  emiihasized  the 
humanity  of  its  bearer.  It  implied  that  He  was  in  some  sense 
a  man  '  above  other  men,'  but  not  that  He  was  the  *  ideal '  man 
— a  conception  foreign  to  Jewish  thought,  and  not  at  all  sug- 
gested bv  the  teaching  of  Jesus.  Ho  avoided  the  term 
'.Messiah  on  account  of  the  false  ideas  associated  with  it 
i>y  the  Jews :  the  '  son  of  man '  in  Daniel,  on  the  other  hand, 
was  one  who  was  not  to  win  the  kingdom  by  his  own  strength, 
but  to  receive  it  at  the  hands  of  God,  and  might  have  to  do  this 
through  suffering  ond  death  :  Jesus  thus  assumed  the  title  as* 
'  a  frail  child  of  man,  whom  God  would  make  Lord  of  the  world.' 
Probably  not  used  before  Peter's  confession ;  the  jiassages  in 
the  Gosjiels  which  imply  that  it  was,  being  chronologically 
misplaced. 

1,'..  Gunkel  (,Z.  WUl.  Theot.  1899,  632-690)  ogrees  that  In 
Aram,  the  tenn  meant  only  'the  man,'  but  thinks  that  there 
may  have  l>een  an  esoteric  eschat.  tratlition  undcrl.\ing  both 
Daniel,  Enoch,  and  other  apocalypses,  in  which  (like  other 
apoc.  expressions,  as  ■  the  end,'  '  the  woes,'  the  '  elect,'  i  xari- 
X*»,  etc.)  'the  man'  (perhaps  orig.  'the  man  of  God,'  or  'of 
heaven  ')  may  have  come  to  ne  used  conventionally  as  a  mystic 
synonym  of '  the  Messiah  '  :  Jesus  might  thus  have  adopted  it 
as  a  self-designation ;  to  outsiders  It  would  mean  simply  '  the 
roan.'  ond  might  be  understood,  for  example,  of  an  ancient 
prophet,  returned  to  life(Mt  1614);  by  the  initiated,  it  would  be 
understood  to  be  a  covert  title  of  the  Messiah. 

16.  J.  Dnimmond,  1901  (see  9  24).  The  tenn  is  used  elastic- 
ally :  starting  from  Dn  "'8  Jesus  may  have  regarded  it  as  a 
t.vpical  expression  for  the  ideal  people  of  Go(l,  with  which 
a-ssociations  rlerived  from  the  'servant  of  God'  in  Is  6213- 
6.'il'^  woulii  rcadilv  connect  themselves  :  conscious  Himself  of 
His  Messianic  calling.  He  would  naturally  regard  Himself  as 
the  Heaxi  of  this  ideal  class.  The  central  i<iea  of  the  expression 
would  thus  be  that  of  the  trtie  gervant  o/G'od,— pre-eminently 
Hiniftelf,  but  not  necessarilv  and  uniformly  exclusive  of  others 
(«o.  e.,<7.,  In  Mt  82"l'J^i,  Mk  2l»-'-«,— in  Mt  111"  the  expl.  'a  man' 
15  8.  4]  nia^v  i>e  mlopted).  The  eschat  passages  may  be  viajons 
of  the  spintual  conquest  of  the  world  by  a  Divinely  commissioned 
humanity,  personified  as  '  the  son  of  man.' 

'21.  Most  of  these  opinions  contain  elements  of 
truth  ;  but  the  diverL'ence  as  regards  the  funda- 
mental idea  denoted  by  the  exiiressiou  in  remark- 
ttble.  Still  those  views  wliicli  see  in  the  title  .lame 
relation  to  humanity  decidedly  predominate.    The 


present  writer  must  own  that  he  is  most  attracted 
by  the  views  of  Westcott  and  Weiss  (to  which 
those  of  Neander,  B.iur,  and  Holtzmann  in  1865 
lead  up).  The  expression,  understood  in  the  natural 
sense  of  the  words,  denotes  one  who,  though  a 
Man,  holds  nevertheless  a  unique  position  among 
men  ;  and  this,  it  seems  to  him,  is  the  proper 
-starting-point  for  investigatin;  its  meaning,  and 
discovering  the  further  ideas  (u  any)  attaching  to 
it.  He  cannot  think  that  the  title  was  first  used 
by  Christ  in  the  eschat.  passages,  or  even  after 
Peter's  confession :  whatever  its  sj)ecial  signifi- 
cance may  have  been,  it  must  have  been  an  ex- 
pression heard  frequently  upon  our  Lord's  lips, 
and  the  discijiles  must  have  first  become  familiar 
with  it  in  comparatively  neutral  or  colourless  pas- 
sages, not  in  tho.se  foretelling  either  His  future 
sullerings  or  His  future  glory.  The  title  may  have 
lieen  liorrowed  by  our  Lord  from  Dn  7"  ;  but  He 
did  not,  at  least  when  first  using  it,  intend  to 
bring  before  His  hearers  the  figure  there  portrayed  : 
He  adopted  it  as  a  mere  shell  or  form,  suggestive 
of  His  humanity,  into  which  He  threw  a  new 
import  and  content  of  His  own  :  more  special 
associations  derived  from  Dn  7" — perhaps,  also, 
in  Mt  16"  1928  2531  from  Enoch  *— came  first  to  be 
attached  to  it  in  the  eschat.  passages.  I's  8,  with 
its  strikingly-drawn  contrast  between  the  actual 
lowliness  and  the  ideal  dignity  of  man,  may  also 
well  have  contributed  to  the  adoption  of  the  title 
by  our  Lord.  The  title,  as  it  seems  to  the  present 
writer  (though  he  would  avoid  such  expressions 
as  the  '  ideal'  or  'representative'  man),  designates 
Jesus  as  t/ic  Man  in  wliom  human  nature  was  most 
fully  and  deeply  realized,  and  who  was  the  most 
comjilete  exponent  of  its  cajiaeities,  warm  and 
broad  in  His  sympathies,  ready  to  minister  and 
suffer  for  others,  sharing  to  the  full  the  needs  and 
deprivations  which  are  the  common  lot  of  humanity, 
but  conscious  at  the  same  time  of  the  dignity  and 
greatness  of  human  nature,  and  destined  ulti- 
mately to  exalt  it  to  unexampled  majesty  and 
glory.  He  would  in  general  endorse  cordially 
what  is  written  on  this  subject  in  vol.  ii.  p.  023*"'' 
(cf.  also  p.  850''). 

2'2.  We  append  a  few  remarks  on  some  particular 
passages  in  which  the  title  is  used. 

a.  Mk  S-<'  =  Lk  ll''*  (' the  foxes  have  holes,' etc.). 
As  Sclimiedel  remarks  (p.  2'J3),  Mej'er's  '  a  man ' 
{i.e.  Jesus)  t  is  exegetically  impossible  ;  Lietz- 
mann's  '  man  '  (generally)  J  is  out  of  the  question. 
The  contrast  is  evidently  between  the  external 
lowliness  and  the  inlierent  dignity  of  Uim  who  in 
a  special  sense  was  the  '  Son  of  man.' 

i.  Mt  !)''=Mk  2'»  =  Lk  5".  There  is  no  neces- 
sity, for  the  purpose  of  understanding  this  passage, 
to  sujipose  that  the  title  was  a  Mess.  one.  Jesus, 
in  order  to  meet  the  objection,  '  Who  can  forgive 
sins,  but  God  only'/'  heals  the  paralytic,  thereby 
showing  that  He  holds  an  extraordinary  coninus- 
sion  from  God  upon  earth  sullicient  to  satisfy  the 
Jews  tliat  He  is  justified  in  claiming  also  to  possess 
autliurity  to  forgive  sins.  The  jia-s.^age,  it  is  irue, 
is  one  in  which  an  Aram,  original  '  that  a  ni.an 
hath  authority  on  earth  to  forgive  8ins'§  would 
be  (juite  possible,  and  yield  a  suitable  sense, — the 
word,  though  in  form  general,  being  meant  to  be 
limited  to  Jesus  Himself ;  but,  if  '  the  Son  of  man  ' 
be  admitted  as  a  title  of  Jesus  elsewhere,  there  is, 
of  course,  no  necessity  for  having  recourse  to  the 
supposition  here. 

c.  Mt  1'2»  =  Mk 2^=  Lk 6».  Here  in  Mk  we  read  : 
'  (v.")   And  he  said  unto  them,  The  sabbath   is 

•  For  (}  11)  it  is  only  here  (and  not  in  Daniel)  that  the  '  son  of 
man '  appears  as  judge. 

t  P.  96  t.  (cf.  al)ovc,  ;  8.  4). 

t  P.  90  (but  allowing  that,  in  Its  present  connexion,  only  Jesui 
can  be  meant :  so  Well.  p.  2U6), 

S  Meyer,  p.  94  (cf,  S  3.  4) ;  Lletzm.  p.  89 ;  WeUb.  p.  208. 


588 


SON  OF  MAX 


SOX  OF  MAX 


made  for  man,  and  not  man  for  the  sabbath  : 
(v.^)  so  that  tlie  son  of  man  is  lord  even  of  the 
sabbath,' — the  statement  that  the  son  of  man  is 
lord  of  the  sabbath  bein^'  based  upon  tlie  prcmist'S 
contained  in  v.-''.  But  in  the  premise,  '  the  sabbath 
is  made  for  man,'  '  man  '  is  evidentlj'  meant  gener- 
ally, so  that  thr  only  logical  conclusion  from  it  is, 
not  that  a  particular  man,  but  that  man  gener- 
ally,—or,  at  least  (since,  from  the  nature  of  the 
case,  the  worldly,  unspiritual  man  would  not  be 
thought  of),  the  religious  man,  who  weighed 
reasons,  and  could  judge  how  to  use  rightly  what 
was  instituted  for  the  benelit  of  man, — is  'lord  of 
the  sabbath';  .lesus.  by  His  argument,  though 
He  would  include  Himself,  would  not  delude 
others.  And  such  a  conclusion  Avould  be  in  agree- 
ment not  only  with  the  general  teaching  of  Christ, 
but  with  the  context,  which  shows  that  Jesus  is 
defending  not  His  own  action,  but  that  of  His 
disriples.  Hence,  as  Schmiedel  also  allows,  the 
supposition  that  '  the  son  of  man '  has  arisen  out 
of  a  misinterpretation,  or  false  limitation,  of  the 
Aram,  barndsliii*  is  here  certainly  plausible.  At 
the  same  time,  it  is  possible  that  tlie  argument  is, 
'  The  sabbath  was  made  for  man ;  and  therefore 
the  Son  of  man,  as  holding  a  unique  position 
among  men,  and  knowing  what  their  welfare 
requires,  may,  for  a  suHicient  reason,  dispense 
with  the  obligation  to  observe  the  sabbath'  (cf. 
Stanton,  247  f . ).  It  must,  however,  then  be  sup- 
posed that  the  action  of  the  disciples  in  plucking 
the  ears  of  corn  had  been  implicitly  authorized  by 
Jesus. 


between  Himself  and  the  Holy  Spirit),  has,  upon 
intrinsic  grounds,  a  far  higher  (daim  to  originality 
than  the  renuirk  of  the  narrator  in  Mk  3**  (which 
makes  blasjihcmy  against  Jesus  tantamount  to 
blasphemy  against  the  Holy  Spirit)  ;  while  the 
declaration  that  blasphemy  against  Himself  was 
pardonable  is  one  which  no  evangelist  would  h  ivt 
ventured  to  place  in  Jesus'  mouth,  had  He  lot 
reallv  uttered  it.  Mt  12'-  is  not  necessarily  a 
parallel  recension  of  12",  or  superlluous  beside  it ; 
it  would  be  perfectly  in  place  if  it  stated  with 
explicit  reference  to  the  '  Son  of  man '  what  is 
inaeed  implicit  in  v.",  but  is  not  there  e.xpressed 
explicitly.  Mark  '  may  have  liad  before  him,  not 
indeed  our  Matthew,  but  Mt  12"'-  in  a  similar 
form,  and  have  re-cast  v.^-',  on  account  of  its  seem- 
ing inconsistency  with  reverence  for  Jesus,  in  a 
form  influenced  by  the  phraseology  of  v.".'  But 
the  correctness  of  the  comment  in  Mk  3**  must, 
upon  this  view,  be  given  up  ;  and  indeed  (Schmiedel) 
it  is  not  certain  that  Mk  S^s'-  (  =  Mt  12'")  is  his- 
torically  connected  with  the  preceding  narrative  ; 
the  parallel  in  Lk  (12'")  stands  in  a  very  ditVer- 
ent  connexion.  The  impossibility  of  questioning 
the  originality  of  Mt  VS-'- =  Lk  12'"  thus  consti- 
tutes to  Schmiedel  a  conclusive  argument  against' 
explaining  the  variations  between  the  Synoptists 
here  by  means  of  the  Aramaic. 

23.  In  the  Fourth  Gospel  the  title  is  still  found 
only  in  our  Lord's  mouth  ;  but  it  is  lifted  into  a 
higher  plane,  and,  in  agreement  with  St.  John's 
predominant  point  of  view,  is  used  commonly  in 
more  distinct  connexion  with  His  Divine  nature. 


Mk32*«>. 

Mt  12SI. 

Mt  1233. 

Lk  1210. 

•               All  sins  and 

Even'  sin  and 

And  whoso  speaketh 
a  word 

And  every  one  who  shall  speak 

blasphenues 

blasphemy 

a  word 

shall  to  the  sons  of  mtn 

shall  unto  men 

against  the  son  ofman^ 

against  the  son  o/marif 

be  forgiven. 

be  forgiven; 

it  shall  be  forgiven  him ; 

it  shall  be  forgiven  him ; 

wherewithsoever  they 

blaspheme  : 

29  But  whoso  blasphemeth 

but  the  blasphemy 

but  whoso  speaketh 

but  unto  him  that  blasphemeth 
against  the  Holy  Spirit 

against  the  Holy  Spirit 

of    the  Spirit 

o^inst  the   lioiy  Spirit, 

hath  not  forgiveness 

aball  not  be  forgiven. 

It  shall  not  be  forgiven  him. 

it  shall  not  be  forgiven. 

for  ever  (f*f  tov  aei  v*«X 

neither  in  this  age  {ettan) 

but  is  guilty  of 

nor  in  that  which  is  to 

an  eternal  sin. 

come. 

80     Because  lliev  said.  He 

hath  an  unclean  spirit 

Here  Mt  12"- '"  certainly  wear  the  appearance  of 
being  duplicate  versions  of  one  and  the  same  say- 
ing, V."  agreeing  with  Mk  3'^',  and  v.^'  with  Lk 
12'"  ;  and  the  contrast  expressed  in  Mk  3-*'-  Mt 
12"  between  '  men '  in  general  and  the  Holy  Sjarit 
becoming  in  Mt  12'-  Lk  12'"  on.>  between  the  '  Son 
of  man  '  and  the  H<dy  Spirit.  It  is  not  diflicult  to 
understand  how  these  du|)licates  might  have  arisen 
out  of  dillercnt  recensions  of  the  original  saying, 
of  which  one  read  koi  'h  ('men'),  and  the  other 
ei  t2  ('a  man,' — intended  in  a  general  sense). t 
Accordinf;  to  Wellli.  the  version  in  Mk  3^  Mt  12" 
is  the  original,  the  contrast  (as  Mk  3*'  shows) 
being  brtween  blasphemy  against  men  and  blas- 

Shemy  against  the  Holy  Spirit  [cf.  1  S  2'-^  KV] ; 
esus,  therefore,  if  this  view  be  correct,  never 
declared  blasphemy  against  Him.self  to  be  pardon- 
able. Schmiedel,  in  his  acute  discussion  of  these 
passages,  replies  that  although  no  doubt  Mark,  as 
a  rule,  has  the  greater  originality  than  Matthew, 
that  is  not  the  ease  universiilly  [cf.  vol.  ii.  p.  241'] ; 
and  in  the  jire.sent  instance  the  words  of  Jesus  in 
Matthew  12'^  =  Lk  12'°  (in  which  He  distiyiguishes 

'  Meyer,  p.  63;  Lietzm.  p.  89 ». ;  Wellli.  p.  MS:  cX.  Holtnu. 
p.  25«. 
t  The  tabular  arranj^einenC  la  Schmiedel't  (p.  808X 
J  LicUm.  p.  87-89  ;  Wellh.  p.  203 1 


It  is  thus  applied  to  Him  not  only  with  reference 
to  events  in  His  life  on  earth  as  a  man,  but  also 
with  reference  to  His  jire-existence  with  God.* 
The  uniquene.ss  of  the  '  Son  of  man '  consists  in 
His  having  '  come  down  from  heaven  '  (3"),  whither 
also  He  will  return  again  (6^),  and  in  virtue  of 
which  those  who  'work'  that  they  may  apjiro- 
priate  Him,  and  who  further  eat  His  flesh  and 
drink  His  blood,  have  eternal  life  (e"-"",  cf. 
yy  w).  61.  6»)  AVhile  on  earth.  He  remains  in  con- 
stant spiritual  intercourse  with  His  I'^ather  in 
Heaven,  as  those  whose  eyes  are  oiiencd  may 
see  by  His  life  and  works  (1").  He  will  be  '  lifted 
up'  on  the  cross  in  order  that  those  who  believe 
in  Him  may  have  eternal  life  (3'"),  and  that 
men  may  perceive  who  He  is  (8'^) ;  and  His  ap- 
proaching death  is  the  hour  of  His  glorilieation 
(1023  i33i)_  The  multitude  understood  Him  to  claim 
to  be  the  Messiah  ;  and  ask  (12**)  to  have  it  ex- 
plained to  them  how,  if  the  Son  of  man  is  thus 
to  be  '  lifted  up,'  He  can  be  the  Messiah  w  ho  ia 
to  'abide  for  ever'  (as  head,  viz.,  of  an  earthly 
kingdom).  In  9",  according  to  the  reading  of 
{<I!1),  the  unique  position  occujiied  by  the  'Soil 
of  man  '  is  attested  by  the  impc  rtance  attached  to 

*  In  connexion  with  our  Lord's  future  Adveol,  it  ii  not  uMd 
at  all  ia  St.  John. 


SONG  OF  SONGS 


SONG  OF  SONGS 


58S 


beli-f  in  Hira.*     Cf.,  lurther,  Holtzra.  ii.  426-30; 
Weiss,  §  144c. 

24.  LlTERATUEB.— Holtzmann,  NT  Thtot.  (1897),  i.  240-64,  is 
Indispensable  for  all  further  study  of  the  subject :  it  is,  un- 
fortunately, not  very  clearly  written,  the  writer's  literary 
method  leaving  it  sometimes  uncertain  how  (ar  he  identities 
himself  with  the  alternative  views  stated  :— Reuss,  TMoL  Chrit. 
1860,  tr.  i.  197-20<i  (as  realizing  the  moral  ideal  of  humanity),  ii. 
410,  412  :  Weiss.  1S84  (above,  §  17)  ;  Baldensper^er,  11888,  -W.ri 
(above,  {  20.  VI);  Holsten,  1891  (}  2a  11);  .S-amlay.  Expos.  Jan. 
1891,  18-3i  (crit.  of  Carpenter,  {  20.  10) ;  RirtUt.  1892  (§  20. 13) ; 
Charles,  If'OJt  of  Enoch,  1893, 312-17 ;  Oort,  lSi)3(§  8  emf) ;  WeUh. 
Itr.  u.  JM.  Gach.  11894,  312,  21895.  340,  31897,381 ;  Eerdmans, 
1894-6  (S  a  2);  N.  Schmidt,  JBL  1896,  36-63,  'Was  KPJ  12  a 
Mess.  Title?'  [Answer,  No,  on  grounds  of  Aram,  usage];  A. 
Mever,  ISi^B  (§  8.  4);  Lietzmann,  1896  ({  8.  6)  Ipp.  1-29,  survey 
and  criticism  of  previous  views);  Hilitenfcld,  1897  ({  10 n.); 
Nestle,  Kxpoa.  Times,  Feb.  1900,  p.  2;«  (on  I's  SO""  18  L.\.\ 
(where,  however,  «»  ui  rau  at.  does  not  occur]) ;  Schmiedel,  Prot. 
ilonalsht^U,  1S9S,H.  77262-67,  H.  8,  291-308  (crit.  of  .Meyer, 
Lietzm.,  and  Wellh.  Gencli.);  Lietzmann,  Theul.  Arbciten  aim 
dtinHhein.  Wins.  Pred.-Verein,  1898,11.  2, 1-14  (reply  tx)  llil^ren- 
feld  and  Schmiedel) ;  Dalman,  1898  ({  20.  14)  ;  Wellh.  .^kizzeii  u. 
Vorarbfiten,  1S99,  1S7-21.'),  and  v,  vi ;  Klopper,  Z.  Wise.  Tk. 
1899,161-86;  Gunkel,  1899  (§20.  16);  Homnicl,  Expos.  Timrs, 
Slay  1900,  341-."^  (develops  Gunkel's  view,  and  traces  title  back 
to  the  Bab.  Adapa);  Fialdensperger,  I'htol.  Ruiulschau,  June 
1900,  201-10,  July  1900,  243-5.^  (survey  of  recent  discussion); 
J.  Drunmiond,  Joum.  o.f  Thfol.  Studies,  Apr.  and  July  1901, 
lor  the  loan  of  which  in  MS  the  writer  of  the  preceding  article 
is  (fre.itly  indel)te<l  to  the  author;  Fiel>ig,  Der  MeiiKclu'mohn, 
19  ■!  [.ii>pcared  since  thig  art.  was  in  type.  Impartial  and  inde- 
pendent :  very  clear  and  thorough,  esp.  on  the  Aramaic  side  ; 
thinks  the  title  was  a  current  Mess,  one,  meaning  '  the  man,' 
based  on  Dn  713,  but  enlarged  and  enriched  by  Jesus  and  adopted 
by  Ilim  because  (cf.  $  19)  it  did  not  rwcfssarily  point  to  llim- 
self,  and  also  was  not  specifically  national]. 

S.  R.  Driver. 
SONG  OF  SONGS  (d-i'??  •'V  ;  B  po-mo,  X  C  i<Tiia 
gV^druji',  \  ^(jfj.o.ra  (^fffiiiTojv ;  Vulg.  Canticiun  Ganti- 
roriiii),  vlience  the  common  name  Canticles;  AV 
Song  of  Solomon). — 

i.  Name  and  place  in  the  Canon. 

II.  Methods  of  Interpretation.     An  allegorical  sense  maintained 

both  in  Jewisli  and  Christian  Church  :  Targum,  St.  Ber- 
nard, Luther  ;  Seh.  Castellio  (opposed  traditional  view) ; 
Grotius,  R.  Simon,  Clericus,  Whiston,  J.  D.  .Michaelis  (all 
opposed  at  least  to  the  exclusively  allegorical  sense) ; 
Herder  (regarded  the  book  as  a  collection  of  separate  love- 
songs)  ;  allegorical  interpretations  of  Keil,  Uosenmiiller, 
Hengstenberg,  Halin,  Goltz,  Hug,  G.  P.  0.  Kaiser ;  views 
of  Jacobi.  Delitzscb,  von  Orelli,  Ewald  ;  two  distinct  typea 
of  the  dramatical  theory,  represented  by  Delitzsch  and 
Ewald  respectively  ;  a  new  era  in  interpretation  of  the 
Song  inaugurated  by  J.  G.  Wetzstein,  whose  views  have 
been  most  fully  carried  out  by  Budde ;  Budde'a  view 
stated  and  criticised  ;  the  present  writer's  own  view. 

III.  Authorship,  Place  of  composition,  and  Date. 

Literature. 

i.  Name  op  the  Book  and  its  place  in  the 
Canon.  — '  Sonj;  of  Songs,'  wliioji  is  the  exact  render- 
ing of  the  Hel)rew  title  of  this  liltle  book,  does  not 
mean  '  a  .nong  of  the  songs  {sc  of  Solomon),'  as  Ibn 
Kzra  an<l  Kimchi  supposed,  but,  bj'  a  not  uncom- 
mon periphrasis  for  tne  superlative,  is  equivalent 
to  '  the  hneat  song,'  that  which  is  superior  to  all 
other  gongs,  that  which  unites  in  itself  the  excel- 
lencesof  everything  that  is  called  .song.  The  title, 
which,  as  we  shall  find,  did  not  originally  stand  at 
the  head  of  the  book  but  w.ts  introduced  after- 
wards, thus  contains  a  signilicant  expression  of 
opinion  reganling  t  he  composition.  It  is  explicable 
only  on  the  ground  of  the  view  which  a  later  age 
thought  it  necessary  to  hold  as  to  the  real  sense  ofa 
work  which  had  now  gained  a  place  in  the  Canon  of 
the  OT.  Nay,  it  is  only  the  jirevalence  of  the  same 
view  that  will  explain  how  the  Song  ever  found 
entrance  at  all  into  the  circle  of  Sacred  Writings. 

This  pregnant  title  corresponds  with  the  high  estimate  of  the 
book  expressed  by  R.  Akiba(cf.  .fadaim,  iii.  .1),  about  the  end 
of  the  1st  cent.  a.d.  :  *Ood  forbid  !  No  one  in  Israel  has  ever 
doubted  that  the  Song  of  Kongs  dotUcs  the  hands  [i.e..  that  it  is 
a  holy  canonical  book  t],  for  the  whole  world  is  not  worth  the 

*  In  Jn  6^  the  expression  la  dilTerent,  '  because  he  la  a  son  of 
man '  {uiit  itOt.),  i.e.  (see  Westcott,  or  Meyer,  ad  toe. ;  and  Holtz- 
mann,  11.  427f.)  because  of  His  true  humanity,  adapting  Him 
si>ecially  to  be  a  Judge  of  men.  Cf.  the  human  sympathy  of 
the  Judge  in  Mt  26^46. 

♦  On  'deflle  the  hands'  see  Delitzsch  in  Zeitsdi./.  luth.  Th.  u. 
K.  XT.  0864)  280  ff.,  and  W.  R.  Smith,  OTJC*  186,  note  1. 


day  on  which  the  Song  was  given  to  Israel.  For  all  the  Writingl 
(I.e.  the  Hagiograpba]  are  holy,  but  the  Song  of  Songs  is  a  holy 
of  the  holies.'  Ilenceforw.ird  this  idea  of  the  incomparable  value 
of  the  book  continued  to  be  the  only  prevailing  one  amongst  the 
Jews,  and  thus  passed  over  also  into  the  Christian  Church. 

ii.  Methods  of  Interpretation. — The  above 
Talmudic  citation  shows,  however,  that  this  hi^h 
estimate  of  the  Song  of  Songs  did  not  succeed  in 
establishing  itself  without  oiijio.sition.  The  ques- 
tion whether  they  'dulile  the  hands'  received  a 
vacillating  answer  esijecially  in  regard  to  the  Song 
and  Ecclesiastes.  And  it  is  easy  to  account  fur 
this.  The  plain  language  of  the  book,  soberly 
interpreted,  does  not  suggest  that  we  liave  to  do 
with  0,  work  of  high  religious  value  or  with  a  sacred 
poem.  It  was  neces.sary  to  wrest  the  language 
and  to  assume  that  a  deeper  seu.se  underlay  the 
literal  meaning,  before  one  could  justify  the  pres- 
ence of  such  a  book  and  gain  an  abiding  place  for 
it  amongst  the  Sacred  Writings.*  What  we  hear 
of  is  eartlily  love,  that  of  betrt)thed  or  married 
persons,  and  nowhere  does  the  natural  eye  detect 
a  single  indication  that  would  call  it  away  from 
this  and  compel  it  to  see  in  the  liguies  presented 
to  it  images  of  a  higher  love.  But  at  the  time  the 
step  was  taken  of  admitting  the  Song  into  the 
Canon,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  amongst  those 
scribes  whose  intlnence  was  greatest  in  the  collect- 
ing of  the  Sacred  Writings,  it  had  long  been  the 
custom  to  find  in  this  exijuisite  work  an  allegory, 
and  in  the  bond  of  love  there  presented  to  .see  the 
bond  of  love  between  J"  and  Israel.  Suliictient  in- 
ducement to  such  an  interpretation  was  supjjlied 
by  Scripture  itself,  for  at  least  since  the  time  of 
the  prophet  Hosea  the  representation  of  the  cove- 
nant between  J"  and  His  peoiile  under  the  figm-e  of 
the  relation  between  husband  and  wife  had  becoma 
frequent  and  popular.  When  in  cciM.sc(iuence  of 
the  allegorical  interpretation  the  book  had  been 
received  into  the  Canon,  objections  to  its  being 
allowed  to  remain  there  could,  of  course,  arise 
only  from  the  strong  impression  which  its  lan- 
guage makes  upon  the  reader,  and  the  removal  of 
such  objections  was  facilitated  in  pro|iortiou  as 
the  allegorical  interjiretation  obtained  accei)tance. 
The  latter  interpretation  was  bound  to  triumph  in 
the  end,  for  the  more  the  true  conception  of  the 
origin  and  character  of  Scripture  was  lost  and  a 
false  notion  of  its  inspiration  came  in,  the  more 
did  the  need  make  itself  felt  th.at  all  writin<;s 
received  into  the  Canon,  the  Song  included,  should 
be  viewed  and  interpreted  in  such  a  way  as  to 
entitle  them  to  rank  as  holy  writings  inspired  by 
God's  Spirit. 

One  result  of  the  triumph  of  the  allegorical 
interpretation,  and  of  the  extravagant  estimate 
of  the  book  (so  well  illustrated  by  the  above  words 
of  K.  Akilia),  was  the  introduction  of  the  liturgical 
use  of  the  Song  into  the  Jewish  Church.  Canticles, 
along  witli  Until,  Lamentations,  Kcclesiastes,  and 
Esther,  made  up  the  five  Mi:;fill6th  ('  rolls')  which 
were  read  to  the  congregation  at  certain  festivals. 
The  liturgical  use  of  Canticles  deserves  all  the 
more  careful  consideration,  because  it  heljis  us  to 
decide  what  view  of  its  contents  was  entertained 
by  the  .Jewish  congregation  in  the  earliest  times. 
For  un(h)ubtedly  the  contents  of  each  book  were 
intcndiil  to  be  brought  into  close  connexion  with 
the  fcsliv.tl  at  which  it  was  read.  Now,  Canticles 
was  a])))ointed  to  be  read  on  the  8th  day  of  the 
ye.ost  of  the  Passover.t  But  this  feast  com- 
•  See  Aboth  0/  R.  Nathan,  c.  1.:  'At  first  they  said  that 
Proverbs,  Cantideji,  and  Ecclesiastes  were  apocryphal.  They 
said  they  were  parabolic  writings  an<l  not  of  the  lIagiograj>hft 
.  .  .  till  the  men  of  the  Great  Svnagnguo  canio  and  explained 
them'  (cf.  W.  R.  Smith,  OTJC^  181,  note  1). 

t  Ruth  Is  read  on  the  2n<l  day  of  the  Feast  of  Weeks  or 
Pentecost,  Lamentations  on  the  9th  Ab  (i.e.  the  anniversary  of 
the  burning  of  the  temple  by  the  Chaldieans),  Ecclesiastes  on 
the  3rd  day  of  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles,  and  Esther  on  the  ISth 
Adar  (the  opening  day  of  the  Feast  of  Purim). 


590 


SONG  OF  SOXGS 


SONG  OF  SOXGS 


meniorated  the  time  when  J"  delivered  His  people 
from  the  oppression  of  a  stran»^e  lord  in  order  to 
unite  them  to  Himself  jit  Sinai  by  an  everlasting 
covenant.  J"  then  is  the  belovud,  and  the  people 
of  God  or  the  congregation  of  Israel  are  His  loved 
one. 

According  to  the  paraphrase  of  the  Targuni,  the  poem  por- 
trays the  history  of  Israel  from  the  Exodus  to  its  redemption 
and  glorification  in  Messianic  times,  when  the  full  and  tinal 
union  of  J"  with  His  people  shall  be  realized.  This  is  certainty 
a  profound  interpretation,  and  one,  too,  wliich  could  6nd  its 
roots  in  the  Prophetic  literature  (cf.  Hos  1-3,  Jer  2i«"  S'"', 
Ezk  16,  Is  501  54r.ir.  etc.).  But  this  explanation  puts  difficulties 
in  the  way  of  the  plain  natural  understandinj^r  as  soon  as  it  is 
sought  toapply  it  to  individual  features  of  the  poetical  repre- 
seutation.  These  everywhere  indicate  too  strongly  that  what 
we  have  to  do  with  is  really  earthly  love  and  a  product  of 
erotic  poetry.*  The  consciousness  of  this  had  certainly  not 
been  lost  even  by  the  Jews.  It  was  felt  that  one  required  ripe- 
ness of  relipioua  and  moral  insight  and  streng'th  in  order  to 
understand  the  Song  not  in  a  false  and  morally  pernicious 
fashion,  but  according  to  its  hidden  deeper  meaning.  Thus  we 
must  explain  the  Jewish  regulation,  reported  to  us  by  Origen 
and  Jerome,  that  no  one  was  to  read  the  book  till  he  was  30 
years  of  age  (the  age,  according  to  Nu  43,  at  which  the  Levite  is 
ready  to  enter  upon  his  sacred  duties). 

The  allegorical  interpretation,  which  had  been 
adopted  by  the  Jews,  gained  acceptance  also  in  the 
Christian  Church,  chiedy  through  Ori^en's  exposi- 
tion of  the  Song,  and  all  through  the  Middle  Ages 
this  continued  to  be  the  prevailing  interpretation. 
Nay,  until  quite  recently  it  has  maintained  its 
supremacy  in  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  and  has 
found  defenders  even  in  the  Churches  of  the  Refor- 
mation. The  allegorical  interpretation,  indeed, 
speedily  assumed  here  a  mystical  character.  It 
was  supposed  that  one  could  discover  in  the  poem 
a  (proplietical)  description  beforehand  of  the  loving 
relation  between  Christ  and  His  people  or  between 
Him  and  the  individual  believing  soul,  and  of  the 
yearning  desire  of  the  latter  for  loving  union  with 
the  Lord.  The  most  notable  witness  to  this  alle- 
gorico-mystical  view  is  to  be  found  in  the  86  sermons 
of  St,  Bernard,  which,  however,  do  not  extend  be- 
yond Ca  3^  Of  course  there  are  particular  features 
in  the  poem  which  give  abundant  scope  for  nij'stical 
fancies.  It  was  only  with  tlie  Reformation  that 
an  era  dawned  which  created  the  conditions  neces- 
sarj-  for  a  more  correct  understanding  of  the  Song. 
It  should  not,  indeed,  be  forgotten  that  Theodore 
of  Mopsuestia,  who  belonged  to  the  exegetic  school 
of  Autioch,  had  long  before  sought  to  do  justice  to 
the  literal  sense  of  the  Song,  by  teaching  that  it 
treats  simply  of  earthly  love.  But  he  stood  alone 
with  his  interpretation  over  against  the  prevailing 
allegorical  view,  and  was  anathematized  for  holding 
it  at  the  fifth  (Ecumenical  Council  atConstantinople 
{A.D.  553).  Even  in  the  Churches  of  the  Reforma- 
tion a  more  natural  understanding  of  the  Song 
made  its  way  at  first  very  slowly.  In  general  the 
allegorical  interpretation,  borrowed  from  the  Jews, 
and  subjected  to  Christian  modifications,  continued 
to  reign  :  especially  within  the  Reformed  Church 
was  there  a  tendency  to  adhere  closely  to  the  ex- 
planation of  the  synagogue,  and  to  see  in  the  Song 
a  prophetical  pre-description  of  the  development  of 
the  history  of  the  Church.f 

A  unique  view,  which  deservedly  gained  no  adherents,  was 
put  forward  by  Luther  :  'Solomon  intends  by  these  discourses 
of  the  lover  and  his  beloved  to  show  that,  where  obedience  and 
cood  government  are,  God  dwells  and  kisses  and  embraces  His 
Bride  by  His  word  ;  in  short,  he  means  to  sing  the  praises  of 
obedience  as  a  gift  of  Ood.'t— It  was  still  a  dangerous  thing, 

*  According  to  another  interpretation.  Canticles  portrays 
Solomon's  love  to  Wisdom.  fThe  last  representative  of  this 
view  is  Rosenmiiller,  in  his  Scholia  in  Vet.  Test.  ;  the  Peshitta 
•ubstitutes  ^^"^0  for  "I'l?  in  the  title  of  the  book).  Are  we  to 
infer  from  Wis  83  that  the  author  of  the  Wisdom,  of  Solomon 
already  held  the  same  view? 

t  As  a  notable  representative  of  this  view  we  may  specify 
Cocceius  (fl669),  whose  federal  theology  this  view  of  the  Song 
suited  admirably. 

t  Cf.  Kostlin,  if.  Luther,  tein  Ltben  u.  aeine  Schriften^t  ^  P- 
610  f. 


even  in  the  century  of  the  Reformation,  to  dej  art  from  the 
traditional  allegorioU  interpretation.  Seb.  Cast^Ilio  of  CJeneva 
learned  this  to  his  cost  when,  on  account  of  having  seen  in  the 
Song  a  'geistlich  Buhllied,'  and  having:  pronounced  it  unworthy 
to  stand  in  the  Canon,  he  was  accustd  (not,  it  is  true,  simply 
for  holding  this  opinion)  by  Calvin  and  banished  from  Geneva 
(1544).— A  more  decided  movement  in  favour  of  an  interpreta- 
tion correspondint,'  to  the  original  sense  of  the  poem,  woa 
inaugurated  by  Hugo  Grotius  (t  1*345).  Even  he,  to  be  sure, 
does  not  yet  break  absolutely  with  the  traditional  view,  for  he 
does  not  simply  reject  an  allegorical  exegesis,  but,  primarily  and 
according  to  the  literal  sense,  the  Song  is  for  him  concerned 
only  with  earthly  love,  in  fact  the  love  of  Solomon  for  the 
Egyptian  princess,  his  wife.* — The  number  of  those  who  under- 
stood the  subject  to  be  earthly  love  and  rejected  the  allegorical 
interpretation  continued  to  grow  ;  in  particular  the  pioneers  of 
the  critical  study  of  the  OT,  men  like  R.  Simon,  Clericus, 
Whiston  (Cambridge),  belonged  to  this  categorj*.  "Die  first  to 
oppose  the  allegorical  interpretation  by  weighty  arguments 
was  J.  D.  ilichaelis  (in  his  edition  of  R.  Lowth's  De  sacra  porsi 
HebrcEoruni  prcelectioius,  Gottingen,  1753-61,  Notes,  p.  (iiiaff., 
be  even  excluded  the  Song  from  his  translation  of  tlie  Bible). 
But  to  J.  G.  Herder  belongs  the  credit  of  having  helped  to  its 
triumphant  recognition  the  only  true  view  of  the  fundamental 
character  of  Canticles  as  a  product  of  genuine  and  pure  erotic 
poetry.  In  his  work,  entitled  Lieder  der  Liebe,  die  ulU'Sten  uiid 
scfionsteii  aiis  detn  Morgenlande;  nebsi  U*  alien  Minneliedem 
(177S),  he  contends  that  the  book  is  a  collection  of  separate  love- 
songs  of  an  impassioned  and  morally  pure  character,  and  this 
view  of  his  has  continued  to  gain  adherents  (Reuss,  Budde, 
et  al.',  see,  further,  below) down  to  the  most  recent  times. 

But  the  allegorical  interjiretation  also  found  champions  not 
only  among  Roman  Catholic,  but  also  among  Protestant 
theologians.  In  itself  this  is  not  at  all  surprising,  for  any  one 
who  took  his  stand  upon  the  ground  of  the  old  orthodox 
doctrine  of  inspiration  would  feel  compelled  to  do  justice  to 
the  simple  fact  that  the  Song  is  included  in  the  Canon.  He 
would  have  to  bring  it  into  relation  with  the  system  of  revealed 
truth,  and  discover  revelation,  that  is,  prophecy,  in  its  contents 
as  well ;  for  in  no  other  way  could  he  explain  its  reception  into 
the  Canon.  Accordingly,  we  find,  on  the  one  hand,  a  movement 
in  the  direction  of  the  old  Jewish  interpretation.  So,  in  par- 
ticular, Keil  {t'inleitujig,  1S53,  p.  373)  holds  that  in  Canticles 
'  in  dramatico-lyric  responsive  songs,  and  under  the  allegorj'  of 
the  betrothed  love  of  Solomon  and  the  Shulammite,'  we  have 
portrayed  'the  loving  intercourse  between  the  Lord  and  His 
people  in  their  ideal  character  resulting  from  Israel's  choice  to 
this  privilege,  according  to  which  all  disturbing  of  this  inter- 
course by  unfaithfulness  on  the  part  of  Israel  only  leads  to  an 
establishing  more  firmly  of  the  co\enant  of  love,  through  return 
to  the  true  covenant  God  and  His  unchangeable  love.'  But,  as 
he  himself  expressly  notes,  Keil  does  not  mean  by  this  that  we 
can  discover  in  the  Song  a  literal  reflexion  of  the  actual '  history 
of  the  covenant  relation'  or  *  an  allegorical  veiling  of  the 
principal  features  of  the  theocratic  history.'  On  the  contrarj*. 
It  is  the  loving  intercourse  of  the  Lord  'according  to  its  Divine 
idea '  that  is  portrayed.  In  this  way  Keil  obtains  for  the  Song 
a  Messianic  character  in  so  far  as  it  describes  a  relation  'which 
was  first  realized  through  Christ.'  Accordingly,  he  insists  also 
upon  the  inspired  character  of  the  book,  which  is  'no  product 
of  the  soil  of  the  natural  development  of  the  theocratic  God- 
consciousness,  but,  like  the  prophetical  Psalms,  one  due  to  the 
supernatural  working  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  mind  of  Solomon, 
and  so  constructed  that  the  mutual  love  of  king  Solomon  and 
the  ideal  Shulammite  undergoes  transfiguration  and  becomes 
an  allegory  of  the  marriage  of  tlie  Heavenly  Bridegroom  with 
His  elect  bride  on  earth.'  Of  course  Keil  considers  that  this 
allegori co-prophetical  view  is  amply  supported  by  the  above- 
mentioned  Biblical  description  of  the  covenant  relation  be- 
tween Jahweh  and  Israel  under  the  figure  of  a  marriage  union. 
— The  same  principle  of  interpretation  lay  at  the  root  of  Rosen- 
muller"s  original  view  (cf.  Keil  and  Tschirner's  Analekten,  i. 
[1813]  p.  138fE.  ;  for  his  later  \'iew  see  preceding  col.,  note*), 
OS  well  as  at  that  of  Hengstenberg  (/>a«  Hohe  Lied,  1853)  and 
others.!— Another  set  of  interpreters  reier  the  contents  of  the 
Song  (in  a  Messianic  sense)  to  the  mission  of  the  kingdom  of 
Israel  to  heathendom  (H.  A.  Hahn,  1852),  or  of  Christ  to  the 
presently  divided  Church,  whicli  is  to  be  brought  back  to  the 
perfection  which  belonged  to  it  in  the  apostolic  age  (O.  F. 
Goltz,  1850). 

The  attempts  to  convert  the  Song  into  a  political  allegory 
may  be  pronounced  completely  mist:iken.  For  instance,  it  has 
been  supposed  by  J.  L.  Hug  (1813)  to  be  a  fancy  poem  in 
which  the  longing  of  the  ten  tribes  for  a  reunion  with  king 
Hezekiah  is  set  forth  under  the  figure  of  the  love  relations  of 
the  Shulammite  with  Solomon.  According  to  G.  P.  C.  Kaisef 
(1S'J5)  the  Song  of  Songs  is  'a  collective  song,  addressed  to 
Zerubl>abel,  Ezra,  and  Nehemiah,  as  ttie  restorers  of  a  Jewish 
constitution  in  the  province  of  Judah.' 

*  The  form  in  which  Grotius  states  the  traditional  view  la 
worthy  of  note:  *Crrdittir  autem  Salomon,  quo  magis  peren- 
narethoc  scriptum,  ea  arte  id  composuisse,  ut  sine  multa 
distortione  allegoric  in  eo  inveniri  possent,  qua  Dei  amorem 
adversus  populum  Israelit.  exprimerent.  Ille  amor  typus  cum 
fuerit  amoris  Christi  erga  ecclesiam.  Christian!  ingenia  sua  ad 
applicanda  ad  earn  rem  huius  carminis  verba  exercueniot, 
laudabili  studio.' 

t  E.  Rupprecht  (Einlcit.  in  d.  ATy  1898,  p.  853 ff.)  still  walks 
quite  in  the  footsteps  of  Hengstenberg. 


SOXG  OF  SOXGS 


SONG  OF  SONGS 


591 


The  allegorical  interpretation  has  all  alon» 
started  with  presupposing  the  internal  unity  of 
the  poem,  and  has  uniformly  seen  in  Solomon  its 
author  and  its  hero.  On  this  view  of  the  Song, 
moreover,  the  dramatical  element  in  its  construc- 
tion, which  makes  itself  felt  not  indistinctly,  i8 
preserved,  even  if  it  is  not  always  recognized. 
Over  against  not  only  the  allegorical  explanation 
but  also  that  view  of  the  Song  which  Weaks  it 
up  into  -separate  songs  or  fragments  of  songs  in 
the  fashion  so  brilliantly  inaugurated  by  Herder, 
another  manner  of  inttrpretation  began  to  givin 
always  wider  currency  and  acceptance.  This 
agreed  with  the  second  of  the  views  just  named, 
in  holding  that  it  is  earthly  love  that  is  the 
subject  of  the  Song,  and  witli  the  first  in  main- 
taining the  literary  unity  of  the  poem.  It  ceased 
to  search  in  Canticles  for  deep  secrets  of  revela- 
tion, prophetico-symbolical  glances  into  the  de- 
velopment of  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  preferred 
to  take  its  contents  realistically,  as  the  rellexion 
of  a  historical  occurrence.  What  the  poem  lost 
in  tills  way  ot  the  value  which  the  allegorical 
interpretation  had  sought  to  impose  upon  it,  was 
richly  compensated  by  the  ethical  significance 
which  it  gained  upon  the  new  theory.  The  man 
who  led  the  waj;  in  this  mode  of  interpretation 
was  J.  C.  Jacobi  (in  his  anonymous  work,  Das 
durch  einc  leirhte  Erlcldrunq  von  seinen  Voncilrfen 
gercttcte  Hohclicd,  1771).  He  saw  in  the  Song  a 
pancgj'ric  on  conjugal  fidelity,  for  he  considers 
that  its  subject  is  the  steadfastness  with  which 
a  wife  who  had  been  carried  oflf  from  her  husband 
maintained  her  fidelity  to  the  latter,  in  face  of 
the  seductive  attempts  of  Solomon.  Afterwards 
the  adherents  of  this  system  of  interpretation 
deviated  from  Jacobi  in  one  point.  They  saw  in 
the  heroine  of  the  poem,  not  a  married  woman, 
but  a  virgin,  who,  in  spite  of  all  the  insidious 
arts  of  Solomon,  remained  true  to  her  lover  or 
betrotlied,  and  who  finally  received  the  reward  of 
her  faithfulness  in  her  union  with  her  beloved. 

Those  who,  in  spite  of  dillerences  in  detail, 
which  it  is  impossible  to  describe  more  fully  here, 
held  the  same  general  view  (just  described)  of  the 
Song,  were  not  all  agreed  also  in  regarding  it  as 
a  dramatic  poem.  Some  took  it  to  be  an  epic 
poem  ;  others,  in  view  of  its  strongly  pronounced 
lyric  character,  would  have  it  that  it  is  a  collection 
of  ballads,  or  even  an  operetta,  with  choruses, 
duets,  and  solos.  But  the  majority  of  the  ad- 
herents of  the  above  theory,  especially  amongst 
the  most  distinguished  exegetes,  took  the  view 
that  the  Song  is  a  drama,  or  it  might  be  a  melo- 
drama. We  may  specify  such  names  as  Ewald 
(1820,  1867),  Umbreit  (1828,  1839),  Hitzig  (1855), 
Renan  (1800),  even  Delitzsch  (see,  further,  below), 
Stickel  (1888),  Oettli  (1889),  Driver  (1891,  etc.), 
Bruston  (1891).  Amongst  many  others  the  present 
writer  has  given  in  his  adliesion  to  this  opinion 
(1893).  But  as  to  the  internal  structure  of  the 
poem  there  is  by  no  means  complete  agreement, 
although  the  dillerences  that  exist  are  no  evidence, 
as  has  been  supposed,  that  there  is  nothing  in  the 
dramatic  theory.  The  absence  of  scenic  indica- 
tions in  the  text,  and  the  necessity  of  inferring 
•imply  from  the  contents,  or  the  form  of  exprcs- 
«ion,  who  is  the  speaker  in  particular  sentences 
or  sections,  are  quite  sulficient  to  account  for  the 
surprising  dillerences  in  the  dramatic  arraiigenient 
of  the  Song  proposed  by  dillerent  exegetes.  These 
difl'erences  are,  of  course,  due  also  in  large  measure 
to  the  very  great  diiliculties  that  beset  the  ex- 
position of  the  Song  of  Songs. 

The  main  ditl'erence  amongst  the  adherents  of 
the  dramatical  theory  is  the  following.  Starting 
with  the  primary  assumption  that  Canticles  is  a 
dramatic  poem,  exegetes,  in  answering  the  ques- 


tion as  to  the  principal  dramatis  persona,  part 
company  in  two  quite  dili'erent  directions.  De- 
litzsch (1851,  1875),  and,  in  essential  agreement 
with  him,  Zockler  (in  I.ange's  Bibelwerk,  IS68), 
and  von  Orelli  (in  I'li'E-  vi.  p.  24511".,  art.  '  Holies 
Lied  Salomos,'  1880),  hold,  in  harmony  with  the 
traditional  view,  that,  apart  from  certain  sub- 
ordinate figures,  there  are  only  two  principal 
persons  to  be  recognized,  namely,  Solomon  and 
the  Shulammite,  and  that,  where  a  shepherd  is 
spoken  of,  Solomon  is  here  al.so  to  be  understood. 

The  poem  is  supposed  to  describe  the  bond  of  love  between  the 
two,  from  the  lirst  uiouieiit  of  mutual  burning  passion  ^1~2^, 
and  mutual  seeking  and  Ilndinjj  (^^-S^J,  down  to  the  reahzation 
of  the  desire  for  love  in  the  marriajre  union  (3tt-5i);  and  then, 
a(t«r  a  passing  estrangi-inent,  the  mutual  return  (62-6^),  tile 
praise  of  the  cnanus  and  beauty  of  the  bride  now  raised  to  be 
queen  (61*'-S^),  and  the  confiniiing  of  the  love  covenant  ij>  tht 
home  of  the  Shulammite  (!;'■'■').  Delitzsch,  however,  finos  in 
the  whole  poem  a  deeper  idea  expressed.  He  says  (Cornm,^ 
p.  6):  'the  Shuiamniite  is  a  historical  person  .  ,  ".  a  country 
maiden  of  lowly  rank,  who  by  her  physical  beauty  and  purity 
of  soul  awakened  in  Solomon  a  love  which  elevated  him  above 
the  wantonness  of  polyL^amy,  and  gave  him  a  personal  experi- 
ence of  the  Paradise  idea  of  marriage  as  this  is  expressed  in 
Gn  223f-  with  reference  to  the  first  created  woman.  It  is  this 
personal  experience  that  he  celebrates,  at  the  same  time  ideal- 
izing it  in  the  manner  of  poets  by  stripping  off  the  husk  of  all 
that  is  accidental,  and  presenting  the  kernel  and  essence.  .  .  . 
The  Song  is  a  protest  against  polygamy,  although  only  to  the 
extent  that  one  could  expect  from  the  Mosaic  standpoint.'  He 
finds  in  the  Song  a  reflexion  of  the  /-t'-yct  fiurri.piov  of  Eph  532. 
But  he  claims  for  it,  not  only  a  historical  and  ethical  but  also 
a  tyT>ico-mystical  significance.  Solomon  is  to  him  a  type  of 
Christ,  and  accordingly  he  sees  in  the  love  relations  between 
Solomon  and  the  Shulammite  *  the  mysteries  of  the  love  of 
Christ  and  His  people  shadowed  forth '  (p.  5),  remarking  at 
the  same  time  that  the  typical  exegesis  must  bear  in  mind 
that  t>Te  and  antiti-pe  do  not  exactly  coincide,  and  the 
miintiral  that  'the  heavenly  stomps  itself,  indeed,  upon  the 
earthly,  and  yet  is  poles  asunder  from  it.'^Von  Orelli  differ* 
from  Delitzsch  only  in  so  far  as  he  holds  the  subject  of  the 
Song  to  be  '  not  marriage  as  a  permanent  bond  and  condition, 
t)ut  betrothed  love  winch  finds  simply  its  climax  and  goal  in 
the  marriage  union '  {I.e.  p.  252).  Accordingly  in  Si^Sl,  upon 
his  view,  there  cannot  be  already  an  allusion  to  the  marriage 
union,  as  Delitzsch  holds.  In  his  t.vTiical  view  of  the  Song 
Orelli  is  otherwise  essentially  at  one  with  DeUtzsch  {I.e.  p.  24'J>. 

Apart  from  the  fact  that  such  exegesis  as  the  above  is 
dominated  by  considerations  supposed  to  be  involved  in  the 
history  of  revelation,  there  are  serious  objections  to  the  view 
that  there  are  only  two  principal  persons  in  the  Song,  and  to 
the  idenlifj'ing  of  the  sliephero  with  the  king.  Above  all,  it 
is  bard  lo  comprehend  how  the  Shulammite,  even  after  lier 
marriage  has  taken  place,  should  continue  to  treat  and  to 
address  the  king  as  sheplierd,  and  should  even  inquire  (1*) 
where  he  pastures  his  flocks.  To  discover  'an  essential  feature 
of  tlie  spiritual  beauty '  of  the  Song  in  the  circumstance  'that 
the  ideal  virgin  loves  him,  not  as  king,  but  loves  in  him  the 
shepherd,  and  longs  to  share  with  him  the  innocent  simplicity 
of  her  former  manner  of  life,  a  desire  to  which  he  joyfully 
yields,'  is  possible,  hideed,  but  in  the  highest  degree  unnatural, 
and  may  be  regarded  rather  as  an  outcome  of  a  mystical 
deepening  of  the  sense  of  the  Song  than  as  the  result  of  a 
sober  interpretation  of  the  actual  words  of  the  text. 

Far  more  support  has  been  accorded,  and  rightly 
BO,  we  consider,  to  the  view  represented  above  all 
by  Ewald.  According  to  it,  besides  Solomon,  the 
kmg  who  is  courting  the  love  of  the  Shulammite, 
we  must  distinguish  a  .shepherd  who  was  the 
real  object  of  her  passion,  and  the  beloved  of 
her  heart. 

The  fascinatingly  beautiful  Shulammite  is  supposed  to  have 
been  met  by  the  king  on  the  occasion  of  a  tour  of  his  in  the 
north  of  his  kingdom  (OH^-),  and  placed  in  his  harem.  The 
king  seeks  by  enticing  flattering  speeches  to  win  her  love,  but 
from  the  very  first  nieetiiig  (ch.  1)  she  gives  him  to  understand 
to  whom  her  heart  belongs.  While  tiie  king  then  presses  her 
with  ever  renewed  words  of  love  ami  admiration,  the  emotion 
of  love  thus  stirred  within  her  pours  itself  forth  in  words 
addressed  to  her  lover  far  away.  Nay,  in  the  intensity  of  her 
feelings,  she  imagines  she  sees  him  come  from  afar  to  her 
prison,  she  hears  his  words  meant  for  her  (2^^"-  J""'-  .'»-"■),  and 
In  a  dream  seeks  for  him  by  night  in  the  streets  (SUf  b'^f). 
Even  the  prospect  of  becoming  the  favourite  xvifo  of  the 
splendid  monarch  cannot  shake  her  fidelity  to  her  absent 
lover,  and  even  when  the  king  Imagines  he  has  gained  bis 
point  she  remains  firm,  and  refuses  to  ent^'rtain  tlic  idea  ot 
allowing  any  one  to  enjoy  her  love  but  the  object  of  her  heart's 
affections  (SQ-f)**).  A  last  attempt  of  Solomon  to  win  her  heart 
fails  (chs.  a.  7).  finally,  the  king  magiianimouslv  gives  her 
back  her  liberty,  and  in  her  home  in  union  with  tier  beloved 
shepherd  she  finds  the  consummation  of  her  bappiness.    Ob 


492 


SONG  OF  SONGS 


SONG  OF  SONGS 


this  view,  the  Sontr  reaches  its  ideal  goal  in  the  impassioned 
eulo^ium  on  true,  pure  love  in  ^^^■.* 

It  is  quite  true  that,  even  upon  this  inter- 
pretation, whidi  at  all  events  docs  fuller  justice 
to  the  text  than  the  traditional  view  adopted 
anew  by  Delitzsch,  there  are  still  ditliculties 
enough  in  points  of  detail.  But  it  is  question- 
able whether  these  difticulties  are  sufficiently  great 
to  make  bliis  explanation  inadet]uate  alike  from 
the  formal  and  the  material  point  of  view,  and 
thus  to  demand  its  rejection.  The  present  writer 
does  not  think  so. 

The  principal  difficulty  is  In  the  so-called  Third  Act(3«-6l). 
Tile  (luestioii  is  whether  the  conclusion  (51)  is  intended  to 
mark  the  longed-for  marriatre  union  as  actually  consummated. 
Hitzip  held  that  this  <iuestion  must  he  answered  in  the  alhrrna- 
tive,  and  supposed  the  marriage  in  view  to  have  been  one  that 
Solomon  contracted  with  a  woman  of  Jerusalem,  but  not  with 
tlie  Shulatnniite.  Bruston  is  also  of  opinion  that  in  this  Third 
Act  we  have  to  do  with  the  marriacje  of  the  kin;^  to  another — 
in  fact,  as  he  thinks  may  be  gathered  from  4"^,  with  a  Tynan 
princess.  This  actually  accomplished  marriage  with  another 
woman  would  thus  place  on  a  still  higher  level  the  invincible 
fid<.-Iity  of  the  Shulammite.  But  there  is  really  no  necessity 
to  take  the  Shulamniite's  words  in  4l6b  as  formally  different 
from  her  words  in  ch.  1.  She  is  thinking  in  botli  passages, 
not  of  the  king,  but  of  her  true  lover,  and  it  occasions  no 
dilficulty,  but  onlj'  marks  the  climax  of  the  conflict  that  the 
king  believes,  of  course,  that  the  object  of  his  desires  is  now 
about  to  yield  to  him,  whereas,  as  the  very  next  scene  shows, 
such  an  idea  haa  never  entered  her  mind.  Ewald  himself  held 
that  from  4t*  onwards  we  have  again  words  of  her  lover,  which 
the  Shulammite  imagined  she  heard,  as  in  281"  ;  he  even  sup- 
posed that  two  lines  have  dropped  out  before  v.8,  their  con- 
tents being,  *  Behold,  my  beloved,  behold,  there  comes  he! 
Hark  how  he  speaks  to  me  his  words  .  .  .  ,'  or  the  like.  But 
it  is  unnecessary  and  hardly  justifiable  to  suppose  that  a 
different  subject  speaks  in  i*^^-  from  the  speaker  in  v.itf  f — 
Stickel,  too,  denies  that  4fff-  are  words  of  Solomon,  but  he 
thinks  to  escape  all  dithculties  by  the  strange  assumption  that 
in  V-  s  115-2*  4"-5i  there  are  three  scenes  that  are  to  be 
separated  from  the  rest  of  the  poem.  In  these  he  supposes 
a  second  pair  of  lovers,  a  shepherd  and  a  shepherdess,  to  be 
introduced,  who  actually  arrive  at  a  marriage  union,  this  inter- 
lude having  the  effect  of  setting  Solomon's  wooing  of  the 
Shulammite  in  a  peculiar  light.  J  Otherwise,  the  relation  of 
Solomon  to  the  Shulammite  and  her  relation  to  him  remain 
the  same  as  on  Ewald's  theory.  But  this  view  of  Stickel's, 
which  destroys  the  unity  of  the  poem,  presupposes  far  too 
great  skill  in  producing  stage  effects  ('  Biihnengeschickticftkeit ') 
on  the  part  of  the  author  to  be  well  founded. 

A  very  important  turn  of  opinion  as  to  the 
literary  character  of  the  Song  of  Songs  has  been 
brought  about  in  the  most  recent  times.  J.  G. 
Wetzstein,  %\ho  was  for  long  Prussian  consul  at 
Damascus,  and  who  has  rendered  much  service  in 
the  way  of  increasing  our  knowledge  of  Oriental 
life  and  contributing  to  the  understanding  of  the 
OT,  availed  himself  of  bis  opportunities  of  making 
acquaintance  with  the  marriage  customs  in  modern 
Syria.  In  this  way  he  met  with  some  things  which 
are  certainly  calculated  to  throw  light  on  certain 
portions  of  the  Song  of  Songs.  He  published  in 
Hastian's  Zcitschrift  f.  EthnoTor/ie  (1873,  p.  27011.), 
an  article,  entitled  'Die  syrische  Dreschtafel,'  in 
which  he  describes  the  manifold  uses  made  of  the 
threshing-board,  and  amongst  others  its  symbolical 
employment  in  the  so-called  '  king's  week,'  i.e. 
d\iring  the  seven  days'  marriage  festival  (p.  287  fl'.). 
It  was  partly  from  this  artitde  that  the  'Bemer- 
kungen zum  Hohenliede '  in  Delitzsch's  Commentary 
were  taken,  but  the  author  contributed  further 
important  materials  to  the  elucidation  of  the  sub- 
ject.     To  the  same  category  belongs  an  earlier 

*  The  reader  will  find  an  exact  account  of  the  scheme  of  the 
Song  proposed  by  Kwald,  in  Driver's  LUT'i  p.  4-11)  ff. 

t  It  may  be  noted  that,  in  the  opinion  of  the  present  writer, 
4^  is  not  now  in  its  original  place.  It  is  not  till  v. 7  that  the 
description  of  the  chan.is  of  the  Shulammite  (vv.l-^)  closes. 
Perhaps  v. 6  should  follow  v. 7,  and  formed  originally  the  con- 
nectin;c  link  with  v.s'r.. 

1  Cf.  Stickel,  Dot  HoJulied,  p.  46;  'Antithesis,  that  india- 
pensat4e  art  of  the  drama,  by  presenting  so  vividly  the  un- 
disturbed happy  shepherd's  love  in  contrast  with  the  sorely 
tried  heroine  of  the  Song,  awakens  warm  sympathy  with  the 
latter,  and  a  feeling  of  suspense  and  compaflmon,'  etc.  Further, 
this  interlude  is  su)>posea  to  mark  and  fill  up  various  spaces 
of  time  in  the  course  of  the  main  transaction. 


article  by  Wetzstein,  entitli'd  '  Spracbliches  aui 
den  Zeltlagern  der  syrischen  Wii.-te,'  in  ZDMG 
xxii.  (1868),  p.  69  ff.,  containing  valuable  notes  on 
a  story  written  down  from  oral  communication. 
The  remarkable  similarity  between  certain  songs 
sung  at  moilern  niarria''e  celebrations  and  certain 
portions  of  the  Song  of  Songs,  naturally  enough 
forced  upon  him  the  conclusion  that  the  latter  ia 
not 'a  dramatic  unity,' but  rather  a  collection  of 
'  beautiful  nuptial  songs'  which  were  received  into 
the  Canon  'to  furnish  good  models  to  the  occasional 
poets  whose  productions  may  in  Hebrew  antiquity, 
as  at  the  present  day,  have  transgressed  the  bounds 
of  decency  and  good  taste.'  The  allegorical  or 
mystical  interpretation  is  held  to  have  come  in 
afterwards  (cf.  Delitzsch,  Camm.  p.  172,  note). 
After  Stade  {Gesrh.  Isr.  ii.  [18S8]  197)  had  referred 
approvingly  to  Wetzstein's  '  most  helpful  contri- 
bution to  tlie  understanding  of  this  (juite  unique 
book,'  Budde,  in  an  article  on  '  The  Song  of  Solo- 
mon'  in  the  New  World  (Boston,  U.S.A.  1894,  p. 
56  ti'.;  cf.  Preuss.  Jahrbucher,  1894,  p.  92  if.),  went 
in  the  fullest  detail  into  Wetzstein  s  communica- 
tions, and  sought  with  their  help  to  win  its  natural 
sense  for  the  Song  of  Songs.*  His  arguments 
gained  complete  assent  from  Kautzsch  ('  Abriss 
der  Gesch.  d.  alttest.  Schrifttums'  in  the  'Beilagen' 
to  his  ATy.  210 f.  [in  the  ' Sonderabdruck ' of  1897, 
p.  134  f.]),  and  in  specially  emphatic,  confident 
fashion  from  Cornill  (Einleitung^,  p.  256  :  '  In  this 
way  the  enigma  of  our  book  is  definitively  solved  ').t 
Whether  this  confidence  is  really  justified  is  open 
to  doubt.  With  reference  to  Budde's  claim  (I.e.  p. 
9)  that  he  has  cut  away  the  roots  of  the  dramatical 
interpretation  of  the  Song  by  his  explanation  of 
'Solomon'  and  'the  Shulammite,'  which  stand 
simply  for  bridegroom  and  bride,  husband  and 
wife,  Bruston  (cf.  Le  Xo  cungris  des  Orientalistes 
et  I'ancicn  'Testament,  Paris,  1895,  p.  13  tf.)  declares, 
'  I  fear  that  this  is  a  huge  and  extraordinary 
illusion,'  a  judgment  with  which  the  present  writer 
agrees. 

Budde  attempts  first  of  all  to  prove  that  by 
Solomon,  or  the  king,  the  Song  means  not  the 
real  king  Solomon,  but  that  we  have  here  only 
a  tvpe,  a  poetical  designation  of  any  and  every 
britlfgrooiii.  In  order  to  give  a  worthy  title  to  the 
latter  on  his  wedding  day  and  in  his  wedding  dress, 
the  figure  of  Solomon  is  supposed  to  have  been 
employed  as  that  of  the  monarch  whose  riches  and 
splendour  had  become  as  proverbial  as  his  •\visdom. 
The  case  is  similar  with  the  Shulammite.  '  She  is, 
indeed,  no  other  than  Abishag  the  Shunammite, 
but  only  as  the  representative  of  her  qualities'  (p. 
8).  The  maiden  from  Shunem  (the  modern  Sholam, 
a  pronunciation  to  which  the  Heb.  Shulammith 
also  goes  back),  who  was  brought  to  the  aged  king 
David,  and  on  whose  account  Adonijah  had  to  die 
(I  K  2''"'-),  was  admittedly,  according  to  the  cor- 
rect sense  of  1  K  P'-,  the  niirest  virgin  to  be  found 
in  the  whole  land,  and  continued  to  enjoy  tliia 
reputation  in  the  memories  of  the  people.  Hence, 
argues  Budde  (p.  9) :' ...  as  the  bridegroom  is 
compared  with  king  Solomon  in  his  glory,  or  even 
named  with  his  name,  and  would  not  exchange  bis 
fortune  with  Solomon,  so  for  the  beauty  of  the 
bride  no  less  a  woman  could  be  named  than  the 
fairest  of  whom  the  ancients  spoke,  and  one  who 
was  also  a  queen  [Solomon  may  have,  at  least 
according  to  the  legend,  introduced  her  into  his 
harem],  which  certainly  was  not  an  unwelcome 
fact.  That  she  should  be  called  the  fairest  of  all 
is  the  right  of  every  bride  on  her  wedding  day, 
however  she  may  be  outshone  by  hundreds  a' 
other  times.' 

The  present  writer  has  no  difficulty  in  admitting 

*  C.  his  Oomm.  in  Kurzer  Bdcom.  1898,  and  art.  PoErai. 
t  Cf.  also  Siegfried's  Comm.  in  Nowack's  Udkom  18&0. 


SONG  OF  SONGS 


so:n'g  of  songs 


593 


tliat  the  situation  moy  be  understood  in  the  aboie 
way,  that  is  to  say,  that  it  is  not  nei-essarj'  to  pre- 
suppose absolutely  that  the  Song  of  Songs  is  based 
upon  an  actual  lii;-torical  occurrence  ;  but  he  fails 
to  see  liow,  on  this  view,  the  dramatical  theory  of 
the  iMjem  in  its  present  form  is  wounded  unto 
death.  If  Budde  is  right  in  holding  that  in  later 
times  the  two  outsUiiuling  tigures  in  the  popular 
recollection  were  emploj'ed  as  above  described  in 
the  poetry  of  marriage  celebrations,  this  very  cir- 
cumstance might  also  lead  a  poet  to  give  a  dramatic 
fashioning  to  the  material  supplied  by  1  K  1.  2,  and, 
in  so  doing,  to  utilize  the  further  development  the 
story  had  undergone  in  the  popular  memory.  Now, 
Budde  himself  (p.  8)  remarks  that  the  circumstance 
that  Solomon  had  his  brother  put  to  death  on 
Abishag's  account,  may  have  given  rise  to  the 
legend  that  he  himself  loved  her  and  made  her 
his  wife,  and  that  the  execution  of  his  brother 
was  thus  an  act  of  jealousy.  But  if  we  admit 
the  possibility  of  this,  there  is  another  possibility 
we  slioulil  not  leave  out  of  account.  In  1  K  2  we 
hear  nothinrj  of  Abishag  having  really  become  the 
wife  of  Solomon.  Wky  may  not  this  circumstance 
have  given  rise  in  poetical  legend  to  the  conception 
that  the  lovely  virgin  refused  to  become  Solomon's 
wife,  nay  even  to  the  conception  that  her  refusal 
teas  based  upon  her  unconquerable  love  for  a  youth 
in  her  native  district  ?  Moreover,  when  the  notion 
wa.s  once  seized  that  she  had  not  chosen  to  be  the 
wife  of  Solomon,  it  was  no  great  stretch  of  poetic 
fancy  to  assume  that  her  first  introduction  into  the 
aj/artments  of  David  by  his  servants  was  not  a 
willin;;  one  on  her  part,  and  the  presupposition 
that  from  tlie  Jirst  she  succeeded  in  defending  her 
honour  fnds  its  firm  basis  in  tlie  express  statement 
of  I  K  1'  {'  and  the  king  knew  her  not '). 

AVe  see  then  that  the  narrative  of  1  K  1.  2 
supplies,  especially  if  we  take  into  account  the 
influence  of  inventive  i)opular  reminiscence,  <|uite 
sufficient  material  for  developing  the  story  which 
the  dramatical  theory  of  the  Song  of  Songs  con- 
siders to  be  unfolded  in  it.  It  reqviired  at  all 
events  no  very  great  gift  of  poetic  construction  to 
give  a  dramatical  form  to  this  material  borrowed 
from  recollections,  in  which  all  the  points  necessary 
for  a  simple  dramatical  development  were  con- 
tained and  spontaneously  ollered  themselves  to  the 
poet's  notice.  But,  we  repeat  emphatically,  this 
does  not  absolutely  exclude  the  possibility  that  in 
later  times  it  was  customary  in  a  poetical  and 
symbolical  form  of  address  to  call  a  bridegroom 
and  a  bride  '  Solomon  '  or  '  king,'  and  '  Shulam- 
niite.'  *  At  the  same  time  we  think  it  only  right 
and  j)roper  to  emphasize  the  other  possibility,  that 
an  unknown  man,  of  a  poetical  turn  and  moved 
perhaps  al.so  by  special  circumstances,  found  in 
this  very  custom  the  motive  for  working  up  tlie 
material  that  lay  to  his  hand.  The  one  supposi- 
tion does  not  exclude  the  other.  The  question 
ihether  we  have  really  to  do  with  a  dramatical 
poem  must  be  settled  from  the  book  itself,  and 
in  any  case  the  matter  is  not  so  ea-sily  settled  as 
Biiclde  and  those  who  agree  with  him  suppose. 

BuiJde  flmls  '  the  solution  of  the  problem  of  our  book  '  (p.  10) 
In  the  customs  reported  by  Wetzstein  in  connexion  with 
we<lilirii,-8  ajnuiigst  the  Syrian  Budawin,  namely,  in  the  festive 
proiicwlinKS  ol  the  so-cullcd  'kiiiit's  wtek.'  The  book  con- 
tains.  iici:nrding  to  him,  'sontrs'  suntt  at  the  weddini;  (estivilies, 
during;  which  bridegroom  and  bride  (or  husband  and  wife)  are 
honoure<l  for  seven  days  as  kinp  and  queen,  whoso  throne  is  the 
thre»bingl>oard,  set  on  the  Ihrishing-noor  of  the  place  and 
decki-d  out  with  can>ets  and  pillows.  A  principal  elcnient  in 
these  songs  are  the  i™«/«  or  lyrical  descriptions  of  the  nliysical 
chamis  and  wedding  attire  of  the  young  pair.  Kvpecialiy  im- 
pressive, mccording  to  Wetzstein's  account  (cl.  DcliliMch.  f.'oinm. 


•By  the  way,   Budde's  view  la  not  at  all  favoured  by  the 
drcumsuncc  that  in  the  Song  of  Songs  the  Shulammite  or  the 
bride  is  never  called  '  queen.^    The  •  daughter  of  a  noMe '  (7') 
doe*  not  take  the  place  of  this. 
VOU  IV. — 38 


p.  171),  is  the  so-called  swortl  dance  of  the  bride  on  the  evening 
before  the  bridal  night.  In  this  dance,  which  is  acconqKinied 
by  the  soug  of  a  double  chorus  of  men  and  women  in  praise  ot 
her  physical  beauty,  she  seeks  in  the  light  of  the  high-leaping 
flames  of  a  lire  to  display  to  the  bridegroom  the  charms  of  het 
person,  brandishing  all  the  time  a  sharp  sword  in  her  right 
hand,  and  holding  a  handkerchief  in  her  left.  The  whole  per- 
formance is  an  imitation  of  the  dance  that  celebrates  a  victory. 
Now,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  the  ira.«/"sung  during  the  sword  dance 
corresponds  in  Canticles  to  7if-  (:is  far  at  least  as  v.7).  The  uat; 
referring  to  the  young  wife  (i.e.  the  queen)  after  the  consum- 
mation of  the  marriage  on  the  bridal  night,  on  the  flret  day  of 
the  '  king's  week,"  is  found,  according  to  Uudde,  in  41-*'.  It  is 
put  in  the  mouth  of  the  young  husband,  and  is  partially  re- 
peated in  0*-7,  There  is  also  a  panegyric  on  the  physical  charms 
of  the  husband  or  king,  tiie  iwi^  referring  to  which  is  put  in 
the  mouth  of  the  wife  in  o'-"*^-,  v.-^-  being  supposed  to  be  intended 
simply  to  sen*e  as  an  introduction  to  this  wa^/'with  a  pleasing 
dramatical  movement.  Next,  according  to  this  mode  of  in 
terpretation,  :l*'-Al  contains  a  description  of  the  fettive  train  o' 
the  gorgeously  dressed  bridegroom  -  king,  and  their  joyous 
greeting  to  him  on  the  morning  alter  the  bridal  night,  wher 
the  threshing-board  has  been  placed  and  decked  out  as  the 
throne;  here  the  name  'Solomon'  is,  of  course,  not  meant  to 
be  taken  literally.*  The  'sixty  mighty  men"  are  the  'com- 
panions of  the  bridegroom,'  who,  as  Wetzstein  with  the 
approval  of  liudde  suggests,  were  perhaps  originally  charged 
with  the  duty  of  protecting  the  festival  against  attacks, 
especially  during  the  night  (33,  ct.  Delitzsch,  Comm.  p.  170).t 
The  '  fiaughters  of  Jerusalem '  are  of  course,  in  the  same  way, 
not  ladies  of  the  royal  harem,  but  virgins  from  the  same 
neighbourhood  as  the  bridal  pair,  who  take  part  in  a  variety 
of  ways  in  the  wedding  celebration.!  The  circumstance  that 
it  is  with  Jerusalem  in  particular  that  they  are  brought  into 
relation,  proves,  according  to  Hudde,  that  the  home  of  the 
wedding  songs  which  are  brought  together  in  Canticles  is  to 
be  sought  in  this  city  or  its  environs. 

But  now,  as  liudde  further  supposes,  the  passages  just  named 
have  not.  in  their  present  order,  the  chronological  succession 
demanded  by  the  course  of  the  marriage  celebrations.  At  all 
events,  the  song  that  accompanied  the  sword  dance  ("i*^-)  must 
stand  before  ^ti""-,  the  greeting  addressed  to  the  approaching 
bridegroom-king.  Budde  suggests,  however,  that  perhaps  ita 
proper  pLoce  is  after  3*'  u  and  before  4-0,  if,  as  is  possible,  the 
subject  of  36-n  ig  not  the  proces-^ion  to  the  throne  on  the  day 
a/trr  the  marri.age,  but  the  ceremonial  arrival  of  the  bridegroom 
a't  llie  marriage  itself  on  the  evening  of  the  wed<ling  day.  (If 
51  alludes  to  the  coining  actual  consummation  of  the  marriage 
covenant,  the  latter  supposition  appears  to  the  present  writer 
to  be  the  only  suitable  one).  From  all  this  it  follows,  according 
to  Budde,  'that  the  songs  are  brought  together  irregularly, and 
the  last  trace  of  an  orderly  arrangement  thus  appears.'  It  is  a 
question,  however,  whether  the  premisses  ui)on  which  this 
conclusion  rests  are  in  all  respects  correct.  The  present  writer 
does  not  think  so. 

In  the  remaining  portions  of  Canticles  also  there  is  of  course, 
in  Budde's  opinion,  no  connexion  to  be  discovered,  but  still 
less  any  progressive  history.  These  passages,  on  the  contrary, 
may  be  readily  broken  up  into  a  number  of  songs,  which,  as 
NVe'tzstein's  information  showed,  may  have  been  used  during 
the  '  king's  week '  in  praise  of  love  in  general,  and  of  the  love 
of  the  present  pair  in  particular  (Budde,  p.  16  f.). 

But,  after  the  Song  of  Songs  has  been  thus 
resolved  into  a  number  of  .separate  songs,  the  ques- 
tion iarises,  W/iat  judgment  is  to  be  passed  on  the 
book  in  its  present  form  ?  IVas  it  originally  nothing 
more  titan  a  collection  of  wedding  songs,  or  was  a 
species  of  editing  carried  out  in  the  arrangement  of 
them  with  the  intention  of  establishing  an  internal 
connexion  f  Budde  decides  in  the  main  in  favour 
of  the  first  of  these  alternatives,  holding  that  we 
have  to  do,  at  least  originaUy,  only  with  a  collec- 
tion. Some  one  who  felt  an  interest  in  this  species 
of  lyric  poetry  is  sujiposed  (like  Wetzstein  in  our 
own  day)  to  have  written  down  these  songs,  and 
then  the  collection  would  be  piissed  on  to  ]>osterity 
in  this  form,  i)erli;i)is  without  indication  of  their 
origin  and  without  any  exact  distinction  of  the 
limits  of  the  dillerent  songs.  In  this  w.ay  the  l)Ook 
would  be  exposed  to  the  greatest  danger  of  falling 
into  disorder.  Of  cour.se  this  is  in  itself  a  i)Ossible 
view.     But  that  the  question  as  to  the  origin  of 


tlie  book  in  its  present  form  is  not  settled  in  this 
simple  fashion,  liuilde   is   well    aware.     He   finds 


k  in  Its  present  torm  is  not 
fasliion,  Builde   is   well    awf 
here  and  there  short  pieces  which  [lossess,  in  his 

*  This  approach  of  the  bridegroom  is  recalled,  u  Budae  ex- 
pressly notes,  by  the  figure  in  Ps  19fl. 

f  Samson  had" thirty  such  'companions'  about  him  (Jg  14"), 
who  were  headed  by  onf  who  nod  the  S7>ec!al  title  of  the 
'  friend  '  of  the  bridegroom  (cf.  Jg  U*  and  also  Jn  8-''). 

1  Their  greeting  addressed  to  the  approaching  bridegroon 
(3>>)  finds  a  parallel  in  the  parable  of  Ut  ilA". 


594 


SOISG  OF  SONGS 


SONG  OF  SONGS 


opinion,  small  poetic  value,  which  he  holds  it  to 
be  impossible  to  bring  into  any  connexion  with 
the  surrounding  and  originally  independent  songs 
and  soiiglets.  One  trace  of  the  later  origin  of 
these  he  linds,  aliove  all,  in  the  circumstance  that 
the  composer  of  them  misunderstood  the  real 
meanin*;,  and  in  particular  the  symbolically  in- 
tendetl  expressions,  in  older  passages  and  took 
these  in  a  literal  sense. 

The  most  strikinfr  instance  of  this  Is  discovered  by  Budde  in 

48,  where  the  purely  tyjiical  Lebanon  of  vv.n.  15  js  alleged  to  be 
converted  into  the  real  Lebanon  and  associated  with  other 
mountain  heights.  The  author  of  48  is  thus  supposed  to  have 
been  STuilty  of  a  crude  misunderstanding,  and  it  is  declared 
that,  when  closely  examined,  the  list  of  mountains  is  so  little  in 
place  and  yields  so  little  sense,  white  the  whole  verse  is  so  weak 
from  the  poetical  point  of  view,  that  it  is  most  natural  to  infer 
•  misunderstanding^  and  insertion/  But  this  is  a  purely  subjec- 
tive verdict.  It  may  reasonably  be  asked  how  any  one  was 
likely  to  introduce  such  an  addition  at  this  particular  place. 
And  what  compels  us  to  understand  the  names  of  the  mountains 
here,  'the  lions'  dens' and  *the  leopards'  mountains,'  literally 
and  not  symbolically?  This  symbolical  sense  is  as  sxiitable  to 
them  as  it  is  to  '  the  clefts  of  the  rock '  and  '  the  covert  of  the 
eteep  place'  in  2l*.  Other  sentences  which  are  supposed  to 
have  orig-inated  in  a  similar  way  are  found  by  Budde  in  S*-*,  cl. 
2*6.  He  also  holds,  strangely  enough,  that  2^$-^  is  an  addition 
introduced  on  account  of  vM,  for  plainly  (?),  be  argues,  the 
words  '  Hark,  my  beloved  1 '  (v.^a^)  should  be  connected  immedi- 
ately with  the  words  of  v.t*t>  ('there  he  stands  behind  our 
wall  ')•  But  here  a^-ain  the  question  may  be  asked,  Why  should 
it  have  occurred  to  any  one  to  insert  the  wonis  in  v.s,  which 
at  least  are  so  evidently  poetical  and  out  and  out  original? 

A  similar  judgment  is  passed  by  Eudde  upon  8?*,  cf.  2*f  ;  85 
is  due  to  a  misunderstanding  of  3^.  He  makes  a  special  allusion 
to  fii  ■■*,  arguing  that  what  was  intended  in  6S-  9  to  serve  simply 
as  a  transition  to  the  wa^/otlhe  bridegroom  is  here  transferred 
to  the  sphere  of  actuality,  and  that  the  figures  borrowed  from 
the  plant-world  (5^3)  are  likewise  misunderstood  and  taken  in 
their  literal  sense,  the  beloved  becoming  the  gardener  who  has 
gone  into  his  garden,  etc.  But,  says  Budde,  if  the  Shulainmite 
really  knew  this,  why  does  she  search  so  long  for  her  lover  and 
call  for  help  to  find  him?  Here,  again,  'genuine  phrases' like 
17f.  -2,16  QUI  are  supposed  to  have  been  worked  up  in  a  way 
opposed  to  their  proper  meaning.  It  is  quite  natural  that 
Budde,  with  his  view  of  the  Song  of  Songs,  can  make  nothing 
of  these  verses  (61-3),  which  beyond  a  doubt  are  as  genuine  as 
27-  8.  AVe  must  ask  here  once  more,  How  can  it  have  occurred 
to  a  later  editor  to  introduce  such  sentences?  What  motive 
could  have  led  him  to  do  so?*  Even  Budde  feels  the  above 
difficulty,  but,  for  all  that,  he  i8  unable  to  give  a  satisfactory 
answer  to  the  question.  '  What  reasons  led  him  [the  redactor 
to  whom  we  are  supposed  to  owe  these  strange  interpola- 
tions] .  .  .  what  suppositions  and  intentions,  of  coui-se  we 
do  not  know.*  Of  course,  if  an  author  is  to  be  held  capable  of 
Buch  misunderstandings,  it  is  dithcult  to  give  any  satisfactory 
account  of  the  motives  that  actuated  him.  And  yet  Budde 
repeats  that  one  can  recognize  '  the  plain  effort'  of  the  redactor 
'  to  introduce  itwceinent  and  action  where  none  were.' 

The  author  of  these  later  additions  is  held,  then, 
to  have  meant  to  bring  Tnovement  and  action  into 
the  whole  work.  May  he  then  have  been  guided 
bj*  draniatizinrf  aims?  May  it  be  that  elsewhere 
too  he  is  not  without  responsibility  for  the  present 
form  of  the  Song  of  Songs,  but  actually  brought 
movement  and  action  into  the  material  of  the 
work,  i.e.  that  he  perhaps  worked  up  the  latter 
from  the  dramatical  point  of  view?  These  ques- 
tions are  very  readily  suggested  by  Budde's  own 
words.  True,  he  does  not  actually  raise  them, 
although  he  afterwards  concedes  tliat  the  addi- 
tions just  described  (with  which  also  may  have 
been  coupled  trilling  alterations  and  corruptions 
of  the  text)  have  ^iven  to  tlie  dramatical  view  of 
Canticles  *a  certain  justification  from  antiquity 
downwards,  because  separated  matters  were 
thereby  connected  and  a  certain  inovement  and 
development  brought  in,*  Of  course  he  no  longer 
gives  the  dramatical  view  the  benoiit  of  this 
excuse,  now  that  he  has  Bhown  what  the  Song 
of  Songs  really  is. 

It  is  interestins:  to  note  the  manner  in  which  Budde  supposes 
it  possible  that  the  book  assumed  its  present  disordered  form. 
It  was  originally,  as  we  have  been  told,  a  collection  of  wedding 
Bongs.  This  collection  came,  of  course  in  manuscript  form. 
into  the  hands  of  a  later  writer,  torn  into  single  leaves  and 

•  We  shall  Bee  afterwards  that,  on  »  rnrr*>cf,  view  of  the  Book 
tit  Canticles,  these  TerBes  [6^'']  show  themselvei  to  be  unques- 
tionably orifinaL 


damaged.  He  supposed  that  he  had  before  him  not  a  collection 
of  songs,  but  a  literary  unity,  of  whose  contents  and  aim  be 
had,  however,  'only  an  obscure  idea.*  He  attempted  a  restora- 
tion of  the  unintelligible  work  by  putting  together  as  be  best 
could  the  separate  leaves,  and  trjing  to  amend  the  text  by 
additions  and  supplements  of  the  kind  described  above.  But 
this  is  a  very  strange  account  of  the  matter,  a  real  hypothesis 
of  despair.  There  is  one  point,  above  all,  to  which  exception 
must  be  taken.  By  way  of  supporting  his  general  view  of 
Canticles,  Budde  insists  with  much  emphasis  that  the  marriage 
customs,  and  of  course  also  the  peculiar  character  of  the 
marriage  songs,  have  continued  essentially  unaltered  in  Syria 
and  Palestine  from  early  times  down  to  the  present  day.  Nov, 
how  is  it  conceivable  that  an  author  hving  in  Palestine  (for  it  if 
there  that  we  are  supposed  to  look  for  the  '  redactor  *)  as  early 
as  the  pre-Christian  era  should  either  have  failed  to  recognize 
the  contents  and  aim  of  songs  which  had  been  handed  down  for 
the  most  part  nitliout  any  corruption,  or  should  have  had 
'  only  an  obscure  idea '  of  their  true  character?  Might  we  not 
assume  that  this  Judxan  redactor  would  have  recognized  the 
so-called  wa^fs  as  readily  as  Wetzstein  has  done?  Here,  then, 
Budde  brings  us  face  to  face  with  a  serious  problem.  The 
extremely  mechanical  explanation  of  the  origin  of  the  present 
Song  of  Songs,  which  he  considers  to  be  'a  satisfaction  of  all 
just  demands,"  appears  to  the  present  writer  to  condemn  itself. 
Andy  as  a  matter  of  fact ^  Budde  himself  by  the  diaracteristia 
he  assigns  to  the  redactor  points  the  way  again  past  his  own 
hypothesis  to  the  draynatical  view  of  the  Song.  His  merit  thus 
comes  to  be,  not  that  of  having  cut  the  thread  of  hfe  of  the 
dramatical  explanation,  but — and  it  is  a  service  not  to  be  under- 
valued— of  having  laid  the  foundation,  by  the  aid  of  Wetzstein'a 
information,  for  a  more  correct  opinion  of  the  character,  and 
perhaps  even  of  the  origin,  of  the  Song  of  Song-a. 

The  present  writer  recognizes,  then,  the  possi- 
bility tnat  older  wedding  songs  (as,  for  instance, 
t!ie  ivasfs)  are  worked  up  in  the  Song  of  Songs. 
Rut  this  does  not  exclude  the  supposition  tliat  the 
Song  in  its  present  form  is  of  a  dramatical  nature, 
and  that  its  author  (not  a  redactor  or  *  reviser') 
introduced  'movement  and  action'  or  'develop- 
ment '  into  the  material  of  which  it  is  composed. 
At  all  events,  this  view  is  not  set  aside  by  simply 
pointing  to  passages  in  certain  parts  of  the  book 
which  are  marked  by  the  characteristics  of  cus- 
tomary wedding  songs,  and  which  were  perhaps 
taken  o\er  by  the  author  ready  made.  If  an 
examination  of  the  separate  parts  of  the  book  and 
a  study  of  the  connexion  of  the  whole  tend  to 
show  that  everywhere,  and  not  merely  in  the 
passages  attacked  by  Budde,  there  is  draraaticnl 
movement  and  expression,  however  great  or  small 
this  maj'  be,  then  the  question  is  decided  in  favour 
of  the  conectness  of  the  dramatical  view,  whatever 
may  be  urged  to  the  contrary.  Of  course  a  dra- 
matic poet  who  utilizes  older  material  in  his  work 
cannot  have  the  full  credit  of  originality  allowed 
him,  but  a  dramatic  poem  is  the  result  of  his 
work  all  the  same.  Moreover,  it  is  by  no  means 
certain  that  the  oong  of  Songs  contams  foreign 
matter  which  did  not  proceed  from  the  pen  of  one 
and  the  same  writer ;  on  the  contrary,  there  are 
not  wanting  indications,  both  in  thought  and  ex- 
pression, which  point  to  an  identity  of  authorship 
for  the  whole  work.* 

As  to  the  general  view  of  Canticles  that  ought 
to  be  taken,  there  can  be  no  doubt,  in  the  judg- 
ment of  the  present  writer,  that  it  is  a  poem  whose 
subject  is  love,  or  more  specifically  that  it  is  a 
carmen  nuptiale  or  wedding  song.  'llie  crucial 
question^  however,  if  whether  the  poem,  viewed  as  a 
wholCy  sets  out  from  a  marriage  as  an  accomjilished 
fact, — in  other  words,  w/iether  its  subject  is  married 
love, — or  whether  a  rnarriage  is  the  goal  at  which  it 
aims,  in  which  case  it  is  intended  to  glorify  betrothed 
love  andfdelity.  Tiie  i)resent  writer  is  convinced 
that  the  second  nlternative  is  the  correct  one,  and 
hopes  in  what  follows  to  substantiate  this. 

We  have  already  pointed  out  (p.  592  f.)  how  the 
story  which  Ewald  s  interpretation  discovers  in  t)ie 
Song  of  Songs  might  be  readily  developed  in  the 
popular  memory  and  by  a  poetically  inventive 
disposition  from  the  history  of  Ahishag  of  Shunem. 
Budde,  citing  a  word  of  Goetlies,  reminds  us  that 

•  A  careful  reading  of  the  bcok  itself  will  readily  aupplj  the 
necessary  evidence  of  this. 


SONG  OF  SOXGS 


SONG  OF  SONGS 


595 


If  we  are  to  understand  the  poem  which  we  call 
the  Son''  of  Sonfis,  we  must  visit  the  poet's  own 
land.  1  his  is  what  we  propose  now  to  do.  If 
Budde  himself  had  continued  his  journey  further 
and  looked  more  carefully  around  him,  he  might 
have  discovered  the  story  of  two  lovers,  Hahblls 
and  ^amda,  which  bears  a  very  close  resemblance 
to  what  we  find  in  Canticles.  The  storj'  is  ;;iven 
by  Wetzstein  in  the  Arabic  text  with  German 
translation  (see  ZDMG  xxii.  [1S68]  p.  7411'.),  and 
waa  taken  down  by  him  directly  from  oral  communi- 
cation. In  any  case,  this  beautiful  love  romance 
proves  that  under  special  circumstances  even  at 
the  presi-nt  day  amongst  the  Eedawin  the  possi- 
bility of  love  entanglements  is  contemplated,  such 
as  are  presuj)posed  in  ancient  times  in  the  Song  of 
Songs,  if  we  adoi)t  the  dramatical  view  of  Ewald 
and  others.  I;Iamda  is  said  to  have  loved  Habbfts, 
who  lived  far  away  and  belonged  to  another  tribe. 
Her  heart  remains  true  to  this  love,  although, 
after  long  separation  in  time  as  well  as  place  from 
him  whom  her  soul  tnily  loves,  she  is  destined  to 
become  the  wife  of  her  cousin  Ali,  and  the  wedding 
day  (or  rather  evening)  with  all  its  festal  celebra- 
tions has  arrived.  Nay,  she  has  not  omitted  even 
to  tell  her  cousin,  Ali's  sister,  how  it  is  with  her 
heart,  and  litis  given  her  such  a  description  of  her 
lover's  stature,  his  physical  excellencies,  and  his 
beauty  that  even  she  must  have  been  able  to  pick 
him  out  of  a  crowd  (cf.  I.e.  p.  103).  And,  in  point 
of  fact,  the  lover  drawn  from  afar  by  his  love 
conies,  accompanied  by  a  true  friend  (Pusein), 
while  there  is  yet  time  to  prevent  the  closing  of 
the  marriage  bond  between  yamda  and  Ali,  and 
to  win  his  true  love  for  himself.  And  he  does  win 
her  and  takes  her  home. 

No  one  who  reads  this  story,  which  is  given  in 
its  most  general  outlines,  will  be  able  to  avoid  the 
impression  that  here  there  is  |)artially  the  same 
iiroblem  before  us  as  is  presented  in  the  Song  of 
Songs.  Gudde  (p.  4)  insists  again  with  much 
emphasis  that  in  neither  the  modem  nor  the 
ancient  East  has  a  real  betrothal  and  an  intimate 
intercourse  between  the  betrothed  parties  been 
permitted  or  possible  prior  to  marriage,  and  that 
there  is  no  place  for  such  a  natural  growth  of 
affection  as  the  dramatical  view  postulates.  Well, 
of  course  we  must  be  on  our  guard  against  apply- 
ing rules  borrowed  from  the  West  and  from  the 
condition  of  things  amongst  ourselves.  But  the 
Btory  communicated  by  Wetz.stein  shows  that  such 
affections,  even  if  tlicse  are  surrounded  a  little 
with  the  halo  of  romance,  are  still  possible  at  the 
present  day,  and  evidence  may  be  brought  from 
the  OT  it.self  to  show  that  even  in  ancient  times  it 
was  not  an  impossible  thing  for  two  young  people 
(especially  leading  a  country  life)  to  make  each 
other's  ac(iuaintance  and  fall  in  love,  and  then  to 
gratify  their  inclinations  by  personal  meetings, 
even  if  these  had  to  be  stealtliily  contrived.*  The 
present  writer  must  confess,  then,  that  in  his 
opinion  no  real  objection  to  the  dramatical  view 
01  the  Song  of  Songs  can  be  taken  on  the  j^round 
of  the  contents  which  this  view  discovers  in  the 
Song.  Moreover,  the  structure  which  is  formed 
ant  of  these  contents  presents  so  close  a  parallel 
to  the  story  communicated  by  Wetzstein,  that  one 
can  only  feel  thus  conlirmed  in  one's  opinion  that 
Canticles  is  a  dramatic  poem,  taking  for  granted, 
of  course,  that  in  the  contents  of  the  latter  there  is 
really  a  dramatical  progress  or  structure  discover- 
able. That  this  last  assumption  is  well  founded 
IB  our  firm  conviction  ;  and  even  Budde  himself,  as 

•  In  favour  of  such  a  possibility  may  be  cited  in  the  first  place 
Jjr  14''- 7'-,  and  then  IcrbI  cnaitmenU  like  Ex  22'i>f,  Dt  22air  ; 
ei.  also  On  341- -.  It  may  he  held  as  certain  that  even  in  ancient 
Israel,  In  bpite  of  the  strictneHs  of  morality,  nay,  perhaps  even 
beoauM  ol  It,  then  waa  uo  lauk  of  a  geauine  romantic  side  to 
lore. 


we  have  seen,  is  not  so  very  far  removed  from 
this  opinion,  since  he  cannot  deny  that  at  least  his 
assumed  redactor  (or  '  reviser ')  sought  to  introduce 
movement  and  action  into  the  older  material  whose 
peculiar  character  is  supposed  to  have  passed  un- 
recognized by  him.  This,  however,  is  tantamount 
to  saying  that  he  gave  it  a  dramatic  form,  even  if 
he  did  so  in  an  imperfect  fashion.  Of  course  the 
objection  that  the  Semites  had  no  dramatic  poetry 
at  all  (cf.  art.  PoETKY,  p.  9*)  has  no  force,  for  it 
starts  by  assuming  as  an  axiom  the  very  point 
whose  universal  application  is  disputed  on  the 
ground  of  the  Song  of  Songs.  The  proof  that  the 
dram.atical  view  of  Canticles  is  the  correct  one 
cannot  be  otlered,  of  course,  through  j.'eneral 
considerations  ;  but  it  is  otlered,  and  that  with 
tolerable  certainty,  if  we  succeed  in  formulating  a 
theory  of  the  contents  and  structure  of  the  Song, 
which  is  natural  on  all  sides  and  capable  of  ex- 
plaining, at  least  in  the  main,  all  the  particular 
phenomena  exhibited  by  the  book. 
The  ideal  goal  of  the  whole  poem  appears  to  the 

S resent  writer  to  have  been  found,  from  Ewald 
ownwards,  in  8°- '.  The  real  aim  of  the  Song  of 
Songs  is  to  glorify  trvc  love,  and,  more  specifically, 
true  betrothed  love,  which  remains  steadfast  even  in 
the  most  dangerous  and  most  seductive  situations. 
The  author,  as  we  may  perhaps  assume  with  cer- 
tainty, found  the  material  for  his  work  in  the 
story  of  Abishng  of  Shunem  (1  K  1.  2),  and  that 
in  the  form  which  we  described  above  (p.  502  f.). 
She  rem.ained  true  to  the  beloved  of  her  lieart,  she 
steadily  repelled  all  the  advances  of  Solomon,  into 
whose  harem  she  had  been  brought,  and  finally 
she  triumphed  (8"  and  8""'),  was  conducted  home 
and  restored  to  her  lover  perfectly  pure.  The 
poem  makes  two  presuppositions — one  being  that 
the  Shulammite's  heart  belonged  to  a  youth  in  her 
own  home,  and  the  other  that  meanwhile  against 
her  will  she  has  been  brought  into  the  royal  apart- 
ments (1^).  The  dramatical  exposition  commences 
at  the  time  when  the  first  meeting  of  the  king 
with  the  maiden  is  close  at  hand  and  actually  takes 
place  (P).  The  dialogue  between  the  Shulammite 
and  the  'daughters  of  Jerusalem  '  (the  wives  and 
maidens  belonging  to  the  royal  harem,  cf.  6*'-)  in 
12-8  •  gerves  to  pave  the  way,  in  true  dramatic 
fashion,  for  that  meeting,  and  at  the  same  time  to 
explain  the  real  inward  disposition  of  the  Slmlam- 
mite  towards  tlie  approaching  royal  suitor,  which 
the  poet  henceforward  makes  her  retain  without 
wavering.  If,  now,  we  would  understand  aright  the 
further  structure  of  the  poem,  it  must  be  observed 
that  the  scheme  chosen  by  the  author  for  the  poetical 
disposition  of  his  material  is  based  wy/oji  the  different 
stages  in  the  courtship  and  the  marriage  fcstirities, 
down  to  that  moment  when  alone  the  real  victory  of 
loyal  love,  the  preservation  of  hridely  honoxtr  in 
face  of  all  temptations  and  asiaults,  tvas  evidenced, 
and  could  be  evidenced,  namely,  the  morning  after 
the  bridal  night  pas.ied  toith  the  real  lorcr.i 

The  Song  of  Songs  is  in  fact  a  lore-  or  marrinqe- 
drama,  but,  by  reason  of  the  lyrical  tone  wliich 
rules  in  its  various  parts,  we  may  more  appro- 
priately call  it  a  melodrama. 

If  now,  kfepinj;  In  view  the  lejfend  derived  from  the  story  of 
Ahiwliai,',  aiirl  the  progressive  sta^'es  of  the  marriat'e  procccdinpi, 
we  look  at  the  whole  poem,  it  falls,  alike  in  point  of  mutter  and 


•  The  way  In  which  the  particular  sentences  are  to  be 
assigned  to  the  rcspfclive  speakers  will  be  found  exhibited  in 
the  present  writer's  work  Das  Lloke  Lied,  to  which  be  beg«  to 
refer  the  reader. 

t  As  bearin(f  on  this,  the  reader  may  be  reminded  of  the 
le^slative  enactment  of  Dt  '22iy-.  The  cloth  with  its  irrefrag- 
able proof  of  the  virginity  of  a  newlv  married  woman  points  to 
a  very  serious  transaction  in  the  early  morning  after  tlie  bridal 
night.  The  nra^'ticc  forms  even  at  tiie  present  day  part  of  the 
proceedings  in  connexion  with  a  wedding,  and  is  described  b? 
Wetzstein  (*  Die  syriwhe  Ureschtafel '  In  liastian's  ZUchr.  * 
Mtlinot.  1873,  p.  280). 


596 


SOXG  OF  SONGS 


SONG  OF  SCNGS 


form,  into  two  nearly  equal  parts.    The  dividins  point  is  reached 
in  51,  wlierc  also  the  ilranmtic  entan};lement  readies  its  climax. 
Up  till  then  the  king  is  tlie  suitor  for  the  maidens  love,  and  in 
61  the  course  of  development  leads  to  the  point  where  every- 
thin"  apiiears  to  point  to  the  certain  consummation  of  the 
marriage  Imnd  in  the  coming   night.*    From  the  very  first 
encounter  (IK-S')  the  king,  as  intended  by  the  poet,  goes  away 
with  the  impression  that  the  fair  maiden  longs  wilh  intense 
passion  for  union  with  him ;  he  does  not  notice  that  the  out- 
bursts of  passionate  Ion  jing  called  forth  by  his  words  are  meant 
not  for  him,  but  for  another  whom  she  loves.    The  reader  or 
the  spectator  of  the  play  can  have  no  doubt  on  tins  point,  for 
already  in  I''-*  (cf.  especially  v.8)  it  comes  out  clearly  enough 
how  the  heart  of  the  maiden  is  engaged,  and  tlie  Second  Act 
(98-35)  confirms  this  in  the  strongest  way  by  tlie  two  dream 
visions.    The  Third  Act  (36-5')  corresponds  to  the  first  of  the 
fesUl  proceedings  on  the  day  (evening)  before  the  bridal  night. 
Tlie  kiiv  proceeds,  in  his  wedding  attire,  surrounded  by  his 
truslv   nun,  and  amidst  greetings  from  the  women,  to  the 
house  where  the  lovelv  maiden  is  detained.    This  answers  to 
the    joyous  proces,-.ion  in  state   by  the  bridegroom  and  bis 
friends  to  the  place  where  the  feast  was  celebrated,  on  tlie 
occasion  of   weddings   amongst   the   common    people.      The 
equally  pompous  conducting  of  the  bride  in  the  evening  to 
the  same  place  and  to  the  performance  of  the  sword  dance, 
wliich  characterized  popular  weddings,  is  wanting  here  ;  nor  18 
this  surprising,  since  the  bride  is  already  in  a  place  where  she 
belon'^s  to  the  king.    We  may  probably  assume  also  that  a 
king's"  marriage  was  not  celebrated  in  exactly  the  same  way 
as  tiiat  oi  one  of  the  common  people.    The  sword  dance  and 
other    poriular  customs  may  have  been  wholly  absent.)     Of 
course  this  does  not  prevent  the  poet  from  introducing  into 
his  description  certain  features  borrowed  from  these  customs, 
simplv  because  these  were  calculated  to  introduce  movement 
into  the  material.    Thus  he  makes  the  king  draw  near  m  all 
his  splendour,  with  his  sixty  heroes  and  friends,  and  (5i)  eien 
go  in  to  the  festive  meal  exactlv  after  the  fashion  of  popular 
wedding  festivities.:    On  the  other  h.and,  the  enticing  sensu.ally 
flattering  words  of  the  king  in  41ff-  convey  the  impression,  since, 
as  we  have  said,  we  can  hardly  think  of  the  sword  dance,  that 
they  are    the  transition  link   to  the    bridal    night   with    its 
mj-steries.    The  same  inference  is  supported  by  the  context,  as 
far  as  the  contents  of  4'6-5i  are  concerned  ;  from  the  Shiilam- 
mite's  reply  in  4i6b  to  bus  longing  desire  to  enjoy  the  fruits  of 
the  garden  that  is  supposed  to  belong  to  him,  the  king  has 
concluded  that  she  waits  for  him  in  order  to  accord  hiin  the 
enjovmcnt  of  her  love  (whereas  she  is  thinking  of  her  true 
beloved),  and  in  this,  of  course,  mistaken  assurance  he  calls 
his  friends  to  give  themselves  up  to  the  joys  of  the  marriage 
festival.      At  this  point  the   king  disappears.      This    is   not 
speciallv  noted,  indeed,  but  it  was  unnecessary  that  it  should 
be,  on  a  correct  understanding  of  the  story  of  the  poem,  and 
with  an  actual  dramatical  presentation  of  it.    As  in  the  story 
of  Habbas  and  Hamda  related  by  Wetzstein,  the  fortune  of  the 
maiden  turns  at  the  last  moment,  just  when  the  final  consum- 
mation of   the   marriage    union  with    the  unloved   one   was 
imminent.    The  king  has  learned  in  the  night  shrouded  with 
mv-.tery  that  she  does  not  belong  and  cannot  belong  to  him, 
and  he'is  magnanimous  enough  not  to  claim  what  only  violence 
could  procure,     lie  has  set  her  tree,  as  All  did  with  Hamda. 
and  the  next  section  (:.-<;•')  of  the  Fourth  Act  conducts  us 
slowly  awai-  from  the  lung's  domain.     The  poet  retains  the 
scheme  of  the  wedding  celebration,  but  now  we  have  to  do  with 
the  celebration  of  the  marriage  of  the  Shulamniite  with  the  object 
of  her  heart's  affections.    Between  5'  and  52,  properly  speakinp, 
there  intervenes  a  space  of  time,  which,  to  be  sure,  required  in 
the  dramatical  construction  of  the  poem  no  further  indication 
than  the  p.assing  from  one  scene  to  another.     In  what  will  be 
conceded  to  be  an  extremely  skilful  manner  the  poet  moves  on 
to  the  goal  of  his  task,  by  placing  us  in  a'^"'-  at  the  same  stage 
in  the  celebration  of  the  marriaije  of  the  Shulamniite  with  her 
lover  as  we  had  reached  in  3^5^  in  connexion  with  the  abortive 
attempt  of  Solomon.    The  passage  &'i-&'',  rightly  understood, 
foniis  the  introduction  to  the  principal  part  of  this  Act,  which 
reaches  its  climax  in  S^-  '.     We  hear  in  it  the  outpouring  of  the 
burning  longing  of  the  Shulamniite  for  union  with  him  whom 
she  loves.    The  women,  '  the  daughters  of  Jenisalem,'  by  whom 
she  is  surrounded,  are  called  on  by  her  to  assist  her  search  for 
the  beloved  of  her  soul,  who  is  portrayed  in  glowing  colours. 
In  this  wav  a  perfect  movement  is  given  to  the  action,  which  is 
conceived  of  after  the  mo<lel  of  a  marriage  celebration. 

For  the  correct  understanding  of  the  further  context  it  is 
necessary,  above  all,  to  take  C  >  rightly.  In  6»  there  is  an 
allusion,' e.xpre.ssed  in  a  beautiful  figure,  to  part  of  the  festal 
pro<-edure  of  the  marriage  evening  having  already  taken  place. 
The  beloved  has  alreadv  gone  down  to  enjoy  the  fruits  of  his 
garden  (a  plain  allusion'  to  4i«),  i.e.  he  has  already  gone  to  the 
place  of  the  festival,  and  is  present  there  with  his  escort.    The 

~*  It  is  impossible  to  understand  the  perfects  in  6>  as  real 
preterites.  Thev  are  perfects  of  certain  expectation  (per/ecla 
coniiileiitkF,  cf.'Gcs.-Kautzsch,  Gram.^  §  IWin.).  The  mis- 
understanding of  these  perfects  has  been  the  occasion  of  much 
conhision.  ,_        *,.      j 

♦  How  kings  married  daughters  of  the  people  may  be  gathered 
from  2  S  ll'«,  while  Ps  4.-.  may  give  light  in  regard  to  the  pro- 
cedure when  a  foreign  princess  w.-is  concerned. 

J  The  following  of  these  popular  customs  also  shows  irrcfut- 
»blv  that  the  call  to  eat  and  drink  and  intoxicate  themselves 
refers  not  to  the  enjoyment  of  love,  but  to  an  actual  banquet  at 
which  the  friends,  too,  are  to  do  their  part. 


ceremonial  procession  of  the  bridegroom,  which  was  exprc?slj 
mentioned  in  the  case  of  the  king  in  36«-,  is  thus  presupposed 
ill  the  present  instance.  The  search  for  the  beloved,  in  which 
the  women  (B')  are  prepared  to  help  the  shulamniite,  corre- 
siionds  to  the  ceremonial  conducting  of  the  bride  in  the  evening 
to  tlie  festal  spot.  64-'<i  [vv.6b-7  are  to  be  struck  out  as  having 
been  introduced  by  mistake  from  ch.  4)  conUin  the  songs 
which  greet  the  approaching  bride  and  describe  in  strikmg 
Bgures  her  unique  overpowering  beauty.  61'- "  are  words  of 
the  Shulamniite.  She  is  apparently  surprised  at  coming  upon 
the  festive  companv,  she  still  acts  as  if  she  did  not  notice  that 
the  object  of  her  search  is  in  their  midst.  She  had  gone  down, 
she  savs,  to  the  nut  garden  to  refresh  herself  by  the  ( njoymcnt 
of  it,  i.e.  she  too  has  gone  out  to  find  her  beloved  and  to  enjoy 
his  love,  and  has  all  at  once  come  upon  the  crowd.  We  are  to 
suppose  now  that  she  makes  as  if  she  would  turn  back,  wnere- 
upon  the  chorus  breaks  out  (V  (Eng.  6i^)),  '  Turn  round,  turn 
round,  O  Sbiilanimite,'  etc.  Then  the  short  inviution  and 
di.nlo^'ueof  this  verse  lead  directlv  to  the  sword  dance,  in  which 
the  bride  dances  in  a  sense  to  her  beloved  and  presents  herself 
to  him  symbolicallv  with  all  her  charms,  while  the  double  choruj 
ranging  itself  behind  her  proclaims  her  physical  attractions  u 
a  highlv  realistic  Jrasf.  Now  she  is  ready,  as  7"f-  show,  to 
yield  to  the  wishes  of  her  beloved  (7»-10),  and  herself  mntea 
him  to  go  with  her  where  she  will  grant  him  her  love.  Tiie 
last  section  of  this  Act,  S-",*  shows  the  loving  pair  on  their 
wav  to  the  house  where  the  bridal  night  is  to  be  p.assed  ;  they  are 
received  by  the  festal  chorus  with  the  words  of  8=»,  which  find 
their  echo 'in  the  alternating  song  of  the  lovers  with  Us  glorious 

panegl-ric  on  true  love  (vv.i> 'O.  .    i       u  

\nd  now  the  moment  had  come  when  it  must  be  shown 
whether  the  Shulammite  had  really  maintained  her  love  true 
and  unimpaired,  whether  the  lofty  ode  to  love  in  which  she  had 
joined  IbS  7)  was  reallv  suitable  to  her  love.     8»ir  t  transport  us 
to  the  morning  after  the  bridal  night.     In  the  space  of  time 
between  v.v  and  v.8  we  are  therefore  to  place  not  only  the  bridal 
night  with  its  mvstcries,  but  also  the  transition  to  the  serious 
transaction  earh'  in  the  following  morning  (see  above,  p.  69.5, 
note  t).    The  litter  is  brought  directly  before  us  in  vyS-io, 
which  proclaim  the  triumph  of  steadfast  loval  love  over  all  the 
difficulties  and  fears  that  have  beset  it.    We  hear  in  vv.8.»  the 
brothers  of  the  Shulamniite  declaring  what  they  mean  to  do  to 
their  sister  according  as  she  has  shown  herself,  in  face  of  the 
seductive  whispers  of  love,  firm  and  inaccessible  as  a  wall,  or  open 
and  easilvapproachable  like  a  door(!.e.  easily  led  into  mchastity). 
These    of  course,  are  words  which  the  brothers  have  spoken 
before  the  commencement  of  the  severe  period  of  probation 
and  danger  exhibited  to  us  in  the  Song  of  Songs.    We  are  thus 
rividlv  reminded  of  16,  and  in  point  of  fact— as  is  showii  also 
bv  8'2«  which  in  like  manner  looks  back  to  l"— the  author  m 
his  beautiful  closing  section,  S'lf-,  attaches  his  words  once  more 
to  the  opening  of  the  poem,  thus  indicating  not  only  that  tliis 
resolute  maiden  has  succeeded  in  maintaining  her  childhood  s 
puritv,  but  also  that  the  Song  of  Son^  is  really  a  well-rounded 
whole     The  brothers  have  a  direct  interest  in  the  issue  of  the 
test  of  their  sister's  virginity,  and,  besides,  have  the  duty  of 
maintaining  the  honour  of  the  family.     lint  while  they  are 
utterin"  the  language  of  anxious  expecUtion,  which  is  finely 
put  inU)  their   mouth,  reganling  the  result  of  the  test,  Uie 
actual  piece  of  evidence  is  brought  forward  (this  we  must 
suppose  to  be  done  between  v.9  and  v.lO),  and  in  face  of  tins 
irretra'-able  proof  the  Shulamniite  breaks  forth  m  the  confident 
triiimp'hant  words  of  v.io.    She  has  been  found  inviolate  she 
has  kept  herself  as  an  impregnable  fortress,  there  being  perhaps 
in  the  last  words  of  the  verse  a  delicate  allusion  to  Solomon, 
and  the  fact  that  even  he  had  finally  to  recognize  that  this 
vir-in  was  unimpressed  by  himself,  his  splendour,  his  allure- 
ments, and  that  he  must  thus  let  her  go  in  peace     The  words 
in  V  12  connect  themselves  closely  with  v.  10 ;  she  has  kept  her 
own'vinevard,  i.e.  herself,  her  honour,  her  love,  for  heijelf  and 
her  beloved ;   Solomon  may  rest  content  with  the  abundant 
resources  he  possesses  for  gratifjing  his  love. 

So  ends  the  dramatical  development  of  t'j« 
material  used  in  the  Sonj;  of  Sony's.  The  present 
vriter  considers  that  in  the  scheme  of  interpreta- 
tion just  proposed  everything  proceeds  in  t.">od 
order  and  exhibits  a  perfectly  natural  connexion. 
He  thinks  it  well  to  say  natural,  because,  as  a 
matter  of  fact,  the  dillerent   parts  of  the  Sorg 


•  It  may  be  noted  that  8S  *  have  been  wrongly  placed  :n  their 
present  position,  where  they  do  not  at  all  suit  the  context. 
Their  insertion  after  vv.1.2  is  readily  intelligible  on  the  ground 
of  a  certain  similaritv  of  thought  in  2-"r- :  but  see  the  next  note. 

)  In  this  List  section  the  present  writer  regards  v.ii  as  an 
archicological  and  in  any  case  very  prosaic  gloss,  occasioned  by 
the  '  thousand  '  of  v.".  In  like  manner  v.>*  is  a  later  insertion 
bv  one  who  misunderstood  the  Song  of  Songs  in  so  far  as 
he  believed  that  the  Shulamniite  in  the  end  became  the  wife 
of  Solomon.  In  no  other  way  can  the  strange  invitation  l*.^  tho 
beloved  be  understood.  The  same  hand  which  added  v.»  mav 
also  through  a  similar  misunderstanding  have  inserted  vv.a-«. 
In  8'2  which  is  unquestionably  genuine,  the  Sbulammit« 
manifestlv  contrastshcrself  with  the  thousand  wives  of  Solomon 
V  IS,  which  we  also  hold  to  be  genuine  (cf.  214),  doses  the  Song 
of  Sony's,  but  serves  at  the  same  time  as  an  introduction  to  the 
merry  songs,  dances,  and  games  which  followed  at  a  marriage 
feast,  and  which  lasted  for  seven  days. 


SO^"G  OF  SO^'GS 


SONS  OF  GOD 


597 


torresponU  exactlj-  in  tlieir  progress  to  the  various 
stages  in  a  niarriajre  felubration.  Even  the  transi- 
tion from  the  lirst  to  tlie  second  half  of  the  poem 
is  dramatically  heautiful  and  essentially  uncon- 
strained, and,  as  deserves  to  he  once  more  empha- 
sized, has  a  remarkable  resemblance  to  the  turning- 
point  in  the  narrative  of  the  loves  of  Hamda  and 
llabhSs.  So  also  in  the  progress  from  one  Act  to 
another  or  one  Scene  to  another,  everj'thing  has 
an  unconstrained  flow,  there  is  nothing  abrupt  or 
unnatural.  We  may  then  be  permitted  to  exjiress 
our  conviction  that  if  the  Song  of  Songs  be  taken 
in  the  sense  above  indicated,  not  only  will  it  be 
found  to  be  perfectlj-  intelligible  in  every  part  of 
its  contents,  but  it  will  also  prove  itself  bej'ond 
question  to  be  a  dramatical  unity  and  constructed 
with  dramatical  skill. — Whether  this  melodramatic 
marriage-play  was  ever  actually  performed,  say  at 
wedding  celebrations,  or  whether  it  was  simply 
the  product  of  a  jjoet's  leisure  (composed  with  a 
didactic  aim),  cannot  of  course  be  determined,  but 
at  all  events  it  was  capable  of  being  so  jiresented. 

iii.  AUTiioii.siiiP,  I'LACE  OF  Composition,  and 
Date  of  riiii  Song  of  Songs.— The  title  at  the 
head  of  the  work  means,  of  course,  to  point  to 
Solomon  himself  as  the  author  of  the  poem, 
and  down  to  the  most  recent  times  this  view 
lias  been  closely  bound  up  with  the  allegorical 
interpretation  and  has  been  widely  held.  But 
it  is  out  of  the  question,  alike  on  the  theory  of 
Herder  and  on  that  inaugurated  especially  by 
Ewald.  As  a  matter  of  course,  the  Solomonic 
authorship  is  excluded  also  if  Budde's  view  be 
accepted.  The  juescnt  writer  is  equally  com- 
pelled, in  view  of  all  that  has  been  said  above, 
to  regard  the  traditional  opinion  as  erroneous. 
Solomon  is  indeed  partly  the  subject  of  the  poem. 
Out  it  is  quite  impossible  that  he  himself  sliould 
have  composed  it.  And  it  is  of  course  beyond 
our  power  so  much  a-s  to  hazard  a  conjecture  as 
to  who  the  actual  author  was. 

Nor  can  much  be  said  as  to  the  place  of  com- 
position. Budde  has  sought  to  infer  from  the 
mention  of  the  '  daughters  of  Jerusalem'  that  the 
poetical  material  contained  in  the  Song  of  Songs 
liad  its  birthplace  in  Jerusalem  or  the  neighbour- 
hood of  it.  But  every  hint  that  can  be  utilized 
for  locating  the  poem  appears  to  point  to  the  north 
of  Palestine.  Tliere  and  nowhere  else  is  the  stage 
upon  which  the  movement  takes  place  in  most 
parts  of  the  \moni  that  contain  geographical  allu- 
Bions.  This  does  not,  however,  imply  that  the 
actual  composition  of  the  poem  must  nave  taken 
place  in  North  Palestine.  It  was  extremely 
natural  that,  even  if  the  author  lived  in  Juda;a, 
the  locality  of  the  dramatic  poem  should  be  fixed 
in  the  north,  if  its  material  was  suiqdied  by  the 
Btory  of  Ahishag  of  Shunem  in  tne  developed 
form  explained  above.  In  the  first  part,  accord- 
ingly, we  should  find  ourselves,  of  course,  in  the 
royal  palace  at  Jeru.salem,  and  this  agrees  ad- 
mirably with  2"''-  '"',  where  it  is  presuiqiosed  that 
the  place  of  residence  of  the  Sliiilamniito  is  sepa- 
rated from  that  of  her  beloved  by  a  number  of 
mountain  heights.  While  there  is  nothing  in  the 
contents  of  the  Song  of  Songs  to  justify  any  cer- 
tain inference  as  to  the  place  of  composition,  the 
iiresent  writer  considers  it  probable  that  it  was 
uda;a,  perhaps  even  Jerusalem.  This  conclusion 
is  perhaps  supported  al.so  by  the  decision,  so  far  as 
My  such  is  possible,  regarding — 

The  (late.  It  has  been  supposed  that  the  Song 
of  Songs  originated,  if  not  in  the  Solomonic  era,  at 
least  at  a  time  not  far  removed  from  it.  The  life- 
like conception  of  the  conditions  of  that  time,  on 
the  one  hand,  and  the  occurrence  of  Tirzah,  the 
ancient,  capital  of  the  Northern  Kingdom,  along- 
Bide  of  Jerusalem  (6*),  on  the  other  hand,  are  sup- 


jiosed  to  necessitate  the  fixing  of  the  date  of 
composition  of  the  Song  of  Songs  in  the  early 
decades  after  the  reign  of  Solomon.  Neither  of 
these  arguments,  however,  proves  anything,  for 
tliere  is  nothing  in  them  but  what  is  readily 
explicable  even  on  the  view  of  a  late  date, 
especially  if  we  may  regard  it  as  settled  that  the 
author  derived  his  material  from  the  story  of 
Abishag.  Besides,  it  is  very  questionable  whether 
the  conceptions  of  local,  personal,  and  other  rela- 
tions are  so  lifelike,  and  in  general  so  accurate,  as 
to  pciinit  or  justify  the  inference  that  the  poet 
lived  near  to  the  time  with  which  he  deals.  Tirzah 
and  other  places  that  enter  on  occasion  into  his 
descriptions  were,  of  course,  not  outside  the  sphere 
of  knowledge  even  of  a  poet  belonging  to  a.  later 
age. — The  strongest  objection,  however,  to  placing 
the  Song  of  Songs  so  early  is  presented  by  cer- 
tain linrjuistic  phenomena  that  characterize  it. 
The  form  of  the  relative  pronoun  (i:')  and  other 
peculiarities  of  expression  may,  indeed,  be  ex- 
plained on  the  view  that  the  Song  of  Songs  was 
composed  in  North  Palestine,  the  language  of 
which  was  doubtless  dialectically  dillerent  from 
that  of  Juda'a,  and  more  akin  to  the  neighbouring 
Ar.imaic  dialects.  But  the  Persian  loan-word  cna 
(4")  and  the  word  IVien  (3"),  which  in  all  jiroba- 
bility  is  borrowed  from  the  Greek  ipopuov,  cannot 
possibly  be  explained  at  so  early  a  period,  liut 
rather  compel  us  to  come  down  to  the  Macedonian 
era  (cf.  on  this  point  especially  Driver,  JMT^  p. 
449  f.).  The  poet  was  tnen  in  all  i)robabiIity  a 
member  of  the  Jewish  community  in  Jerusai  jin, 
and  lived  at  a  time  when,  through  contact  with 
the  Greek  world,  the  adopticm  of  Greek  terms  had 
become  possible  not  only  in  the  language  of  daily 
life,  but  also  in  literary  usage.  It  is  of  course 
dilTicult,  or  rather  impossible,  to  fix  the  ti.rminiis 
ad  quern  for  the  composition,  and  we  do  not  intend 
to  propose  even  a  tentative  date.  One  point,  how- 
ever, may  be  noted.  The  general  tone  of  the 
whole  poem  appears  to  imply  that  the  time  when 
the  Song  originated  was  a  time  of  peaceful,  we 
might  say  happy,  repose  for  the  conimunity,  when 
love  coulil  unhindered  follow  after  love  ana  finally 
rejoice  in  the  full  possession  of  its  object. — And 
now,  perhaps,  at  last  we  may  hazard  a  conjecture. 
It  is  true  that  purely  dramatic  poetry  is  in  general 
alien  to  the  Semitic  mind,  and,  although  we  felt 
compelled  to  maintain  the  dr.imatical  cliaracter  of 
the  Song  of  Songs  against  all  objections,  yet  we 
found  it  necessary  also  to  make  our  recognition  of 
the  presence  in  it  of  the  lyrical  element,  which 
is  the  fundamental  charactsristie  of  all  Semitic 
poetry,  by  calling  Canticles  a  melodrama.  The 
question  naturally  arises.  Whence  came  the 
author's  stimulus  to  compose  this  melodramatic 
])oem  ?  Was  it  from  a  wiile  contact  with  the 
(Jreek  world  ?  This  appears  to  the  present  writer 
not  impossible. 

LiTKRATCRR.— All  the  principal  aiittioritiea  are  mentioned  in 
the  body  of  the  article.  We  may  add  Chuyne's  art.  *  Canticles  * 
in  Encyc.  iIiV>/tca  (practically  in  ayreeinunt  with  Kuiide),  wiiich 
appeared  since  the  abo\  c  was  written  ;  and  W.  Ricdel,  Di« 
iiiieMf,  Aitntegung  d.  Ilnhdxi.  1S98.  Fnrtiier  rcfercnccB  to 
literature  may  W  found  in  Driver'fl  LOT^  p.  43(1 ;  C.  D.  (Jine 
burg,  Ttu  .^owi  oj  Son'iu,  with  a  Cotnm,  hutoric^l  and  crilv-ai, 
1867;  and  E.  Keuus,  Getch.  d.  heil.  Schriflen  all.  Trtl.  %  is.) ft. 

.1.   W.  HuTllSTKIN. 

SONG  OF  THE  THREE  CHILDREN.— See  Tukee 

CHII.DKKN  (SONO  OK  THE). 

SONS  OF  GOD.  — This  expression  is  nsed  in 
Scripture  in  two  distinct  senses.  l'"or  one  of 
these  see  articles  Adoption,  and  GOD  (CHILDREN 
OF).  The  other  is  found  in  six  passages  :  Gn  C, 
Job  1«  2'  38'  (all  o-,-iSi<(n)  •}? ;  LXX  in  first  three 
ol  i.yyt\oi.  ToC  dtov,  in  last  i-f^e\oi  iiov),  Pi>  29' 
89' W   (both   o''?t<   -11;   LXX  viol  Otov) ;  cf.   in   the 


598  SOOTHSAYER,  SOOTHSAYING 


SOOTHSAYER,  SOOTHSAYING 


fing.  Dn  3™  ri^^-i;,  RV  'a  son  of  the  gods.' 
The  meanin"  is  '  sons  of  tlie  'ilohim  or  'dim '  in 
the  sense  of  niem))ers  of  that  class  or  race  (cf. 
'  sons  of  the  prophets '  =  members  of  the  projilietic 
guiki)  of  which  God  Himself  is  the  preeminent 
'£/dhim  (see  A.  B.  Davidson's  note  on  Job  1"). 
Hence  the  expression  is  practically  synonymous 
\vith  '  angels '  (cf.  LXX  above).  The  only  passage 
where  any  difficulty  has  been  felt  (and  that  only 
for  dogmatic  reasons)  about  interpreting  the 
phrase  in  this  way  is  Gn  6'^.  On^elos,  Beresh. 
rah.,  Saadya,  Ibn  Ezra,  et  at.,  take  it  to  mean 
there  'sons  of  princes,'  'uitghty  men';  Theod., 
Chrj-s.,  Jerome,  Aug.,  Luther,  Calvin,  Hengsten- 
berg,  et  al.,  understand  by  'the  sons  of  God'  the 
^>ious  (Sethite)  portion  of  the  human  race,  which 
IS  opposed  to  the  (Cainite)  'daughters  of  men.' 
Neither  of  these  interpretations  suits  either  the 
context  or  the  usage  of  the  Heb.  phrase.  The 
interpretation  '  angels '  is  coiTectly  taken  in  Jude  * 
and  2  P  2*,  in  the  Books  of  Enoch  and  Jubilees,  as 
well  as  by  PhUo,  Jos.  {Ant.  I.  iii.  1),  and  most  of 
the  older  Church  Fathers.  J.  A.  Selbie. 

SOOTHSAYER,  SOOTHSAYING.— 

The  Heb.  for  '  soothsaying '  is  cp;?.  Qppp,  Gr.  /^arvi/*,  ^c«vn7«v, 
tiatttefjLeL  (the  last  term  being  also  used  to  tr.  [?0J  '  augxiry,* 
Nu  2323  II  Crp).  'Soothsayer*  is  Drp,  which  in  Is  32  is  rendered 
by  rr6x»f^'-('  The  Arab,  kaiama  means  properly  *  divide  or 
portion  out.*  Hence  kisjnet  is  a  man's  apportioned  lot  or 
destiny.  The  word  piy^  is  another  a1t«mative  expression  not 
easy  to  distinguish  from  opp  (see  below).  The  term  V^>'^' 
is  always  closely  connected  in  the  OT  passages  with  3iK,  and 
will  be  dealt  with  under  *  Necromancy '  in  art.  Sorcery.  The 
other  terms  cb"in  (see  below)  and  the  Aram,  jntj  (Dn  227  4'  6^ 
do  not  possess  a  clear  connotation. 

Soothsaying,  though  separate  from  magic,  is 
nevertheless  very  closely  associated  with  it  (see 
Magic).  It  niaj'  be  defined  as  involving  an  abnor- 
mal mode  of  obtaining  knowledge.  Just  as  magic 
is  the  abnormal  method  of  obtaining  control  over 
persons  or  events  by  means  of  some  supernatural 
Divine  or  demonic  agency,  so  soothsaying  involves 
the  corresponding  abnormal  method  of  obtaining 
information.  The  soothsayer  is  to  be  found  in 
every  primitive  religion,  and  ancient  Semitic 
culture  formed  no  exception  to  the  rule.  The 
comp.irison  of  early  Arabic  religion  with  that  of 
primitive  Israel  conducts  us  irresistibly  to  the 
conclusion  that  the  Hebrew  priest  in  early  times 
was  also  a  soothsayer.  For  the  Heb.  jnb  is  tlie 
Arab,  kd/iin,  'soothsayer,'  who  owned  the  local 
shrine  and  kept  watch  and  ward  over  it,  and  gave 
replies  to  the  inquiring  pilgrim.  We  thus  observe 
how  the  priest  and  the  prophet  in  primitive  Semitic 
antiquity  started  from  a  common  base  and  blended 
their  functions.  The  priest  ofi'ered  sacrifices,  and 
likewise  gave  answers  to  satisfy  the  worshipper 
who  came  to  seek  information  and  guidance.  Both 
functions,  that  of  sacrifice  and  that  of  divination, 
were  united  in  one  person.  Indeed,  as  we  know  in 
the  case  of  the  soothsayer  and  propliet  Balaam, 
sacrifices  accompanied  the  declarations  which  he 
made*  (Nu  22-"'  2.3'- *•  "• '^- »).  Accordingly,  the 
combination  of  the  functions  of  divination  and 
sacrifice  may  be  assumed  to  be  characteristic  of 
primitive  Israel  as  it  was  of  ancient  Arabia.  To 
the  priest  belonged  the  function  of  giving  replies 
by  (a)  Urim  and  Tuummim,  (6)  by  Teuaphim, 
and,  lastly,  (c)  by  El'HOD. 

Much  obscurity  Invests  the  actual  nature  of  all  these  objects. 
The  most  probable  view  is  that  the  Uraphim  were  anct^stral 
images  and  of  human  shape  (to  which  I  S  1913.16  irresistibly 
points,  cf.  Gn  3119-  *>),  and  that  the  ephod  waa  a  plated  itna/e 


used  as  a  symbol  of  Jehovah,  This  seems  clear  from  Jg  8261"-,  in 
which  we  are  told  that  Gideon  made  it  of  the  p'old  ring* 
captured  from  the  Ishmaelites  and  Midianites.  Both  ephud 
and  teraphim  are  mentioned  together  in  Hos  3-* ;  and  Ezk  21'^ 
and  Zee  102  clearly  prove  that  the  teraphim  were  employed  in 
the  act  of  divination.  Reference  to  the  emploj-ment  of  the  ephod 
is  to  be  found  in  a  series  of  ancient  OT  passages  which  describe 
the  consultation  of  Jehovah  in  special  emergencies.  A  series  of 
interrogations  was  put  to  the  deity,  one  following  in  logical 
sequence  on  the  other,  each  capable  of  being  answered  in  the 
alternative  form  of  'yes'  or  'no.'  Of  this,  perhaps  the  most 
instructive  example  is  to  be  found  in  1  S  23^^,  in  which  DaWd 
inquires  through  the  priest  Abiathar  by  means  of  the  ephod, 
and  a  series  of  categorical  affirmative  (or  in  other  cases  negative) 
replies  are  given  (cf.  1  S  307-  **.  and  Benzinger,  Heb.  Arch.  pp.  3S2, 
4US).  Obviously,  information  could  be  eked  out  by  this  process 
only  very  slowly,  and  in  one  ca^e  we  read  that  Saul  was  com- 
pelled by  the  exigencies  of  war  (1  S  1419)  to  interrupt  the  tardy 
procedure  of  the  priest  as  the  timiult  of  the  advancing  Philistine 
army  increased.  Sometimes  the  omens  were  unfavourable  for 
obtaining  Divine  answers  (lA.  143^.  The  close  connexion  which 
certainly  subsisted  between  the  ephod  which  was  carried  by  the 
priest  (1  S  236)  and  the  divination  which  he  practised,  seems  to 
point  to  the  conclusion  that  the  ephod  was  m  some  way  a  part 
at  least  of  the  apparatus  of  inquirj-.'  But  it  is  not  necessary  to 
suppose  that  it  was  more  than  the  symbol  or  idol  which  repre- 
sented the  deity  whose  presence  gave  validity  to  the  whole 
procedure.  The  actual  apparatus  of  soothsaying  probably  con- 
sisted in  blunted  arrows  or,  in  primitive  times,  small  tViirs; 
and  it  is  to  this  rude  mechanism  of  inquiry  that  Rosea  (4i2) 


refers  under  {'y  (cf.  Arab. 


c;^- 


in  WeUh.  BetW,  p.  132) 


•  '  In  petitioning  the  deity  a  sachflce  was  naturally  offered. 
Throu;;h  the  sacrifice,  whicn  was  rendered  acceptable  to  the 
deity  by  the  mediation  of  the  priest,  the  desired  answer  to  a 
question  was  obtained'  (Morris  Jastrow,  ReOgion  oS  H^Jtbylonia 
tnd  Aajfria,  p.  331). 


and  72?,  while  Ezk  2121  mentions  the  arrows. 

Early  Arabic  cultus,  as  Wellhausen  has  pointed 
out  (I.e.  p.  141),  bears  an  unmistakable  family 
likeness  to  the  Hebrew,  and  it  is  to  ancient  Arabic 
usage  that  we  turn  for  the  most  instructive  illus- 
trations of  our  subject.  Among  primitive  Arab 
warrior  tribes,  as  in  ancient  Israel,  campaigns 
were  never  conducted  without  constant  resort  to 
the  kdhin  or  priest-soothsayer,  who  usually  be- 
longed to  a  family  which  on-ned  the  sanctuary 
and  kept  guard  over  its  treasures. 

Ordinarily  the  answer  to  the  inquiry  consists  only  in  *  yes '  or 
'no,'  indicated  by  one  arrow  for  aflinuative  and  another  for 
negative.  There  "might  also  be  complicated  alternatives.  The 
arrows  might  be  marked  to  meet  every  possible  range  of 
inquiry,  and  the  arrow  drawn  forth  or  shaken  out  was  the 
answer  to  the  question.  Soothsaying  was  constantly  resorted  to 
before  a  militarj-  expedition.  It  is  said  of  nearly  all  the  clan 
chiefs  of  the  Kuraish  that  they  consulted  the  lots  before  their 
departure  to  Badr,  although  Abu  Sufian,  for  whose  deli\  eranoe 
the  expedition  was  made,  liad  sent  them  word  that  they  were 
not  to  begin  by  consulting  the  lots.  Strictly  speaking,  this 
consult.ition  takes  place  in  the  sanctuary  bejtyre  tAe  idol  (Well- 
hausen)^ 

Amono;the  Arabs,  money  was  paid  for  divination, 
and  sacrifices  (as  of  a  camel)  preceded  or  accom- 
panied the  divinin"  ceremony.  In  these  respects 
we  find  close  parallels  in  the  Balaam  narrative, 
to  which  allusion  has  already  been  made.  Accord- 
ingly, in  this  episode  we  do  not  fail  to  note  that 
the  deputations  were  provided  with  money  pay- 
ment for  the  soothsaving  (called  D-ipfi?  Nu  22'),  a 
feature  in  the  story  wliich  reminds  us  of  2  K  5'. 

As  the  ancient  Hebrews  in  early  times  called 
the  soothsayer  nx-i  or  '  seer,'  so  the  primitive  Arabs 
called  him  a  'gazer.'  When  'gazing'  he  would 
veil  his  face.  Hence  the  epithet,  dhul  chimar,  or 
'  the  (man)  with  the  veil,'  applied  to  several  seers.t 
We  naturally  revert  to  the  veil  of  the  prophet  Moses 
(Ex  34'"'-).  Under  the  influence  of  the  super- 
natural spirit  or  demon  a  series  of  short  sentences 
would  be  uttered,  of  which  four  to  six  would  be 
united    together  in   a  strophe   by  rhyme.      This 

is  called  in  Arabic  Saj'  ,  comp.  the  Heb.  yji'lj 
applied  to  a  prophet  (2  K  9").  "This  wild  ecstatic 
condition  often  characterized  the  primitive  Hebrew 
propliet  in  pre -exilic  times  (IS  10""},  and  thi« 
became  contagious,  and  allected  those  who  wit- 
nessed it  (1  S  19" ■••»•■■",  cf.  18'").  What  the  OT 
ascribed  to  possession  by  the  spirit  of  God  (Jehovah) 
the  Arab  in  primitive  times  ascribed  to  the  spirit 

•  So  Moore,  art.  *  Ephod  '  in  Kncye.  Biblica. 
t  The  root  of  the  word  for  '  seer'  in  Arabic  corresponds  to  th« 
Heb.  .Iinl 


SOOTiiSAYKll,  SOOTllSAYIXG 


SOOTHSAYER,  SOOTHSAYi:\G     599 


01  demon  that  dwelt  in  liim.  Amon^  the  Moslems 
a  dLiuon  vas  called  a  shaiti'in  (see  under  Satan). 

The  connexion  betwein  t\\a  jinn  in  early  Arabia 
(and  in  later  times  the  sluiit&n)  and  serpents  throws 
iiybl  upon  the  serpent  of  Gn  3  as  well  as  the  '■p,^  of 
Is  C-.  Theytn» were  con^^idered  to  reside  in  ser- 
pents, and  the  name  shaitdn  is  applied  to  a  serpent.* 
They/nn  were  not  necessarily  evil.  Some  might  be 
well  disposed  to  truth  (JJoran,  46'''''),  like  the  great 
male  serpent  which  met  Mohammed  on  the  way  to 
Tabiik  (cf.  Baudissin,  Studicn  zur  semit.  licligions- 
gesrli.  i.  p.  279  11'. ). 

Tliose  illustrations  from  ancient  Arabic  belief 
enable  us  to  understand  the  use  of  the  Heb.  tfrt}  for 
'  divine '  (from  c'rij  '  serpent ')  and  rnj  for  '  divina- 
tion '  (2  K  17"  21»,  Dt  18'»,  Lv  19-»,  Gn  30-''  44'"). 
This  association  of  the  art  of  divination  with  the 
Berpent  arose  from  a  variety  of  causes.  This 
reptile  springs  mysteriously  from  holes  in  the 
eartli  with  the  hissing  or  whispering  sound  char- 
acteristic of  incantations  (see  MAGIC,  vol.  iii.  p. 
210''  and  footnote),  and  with  a  fascinating  power  of 
the  ej-e  which  made  it  inevitable  that  a  serpent 
should  be  regarded  as  the  embodiment  of  a  demon. 
Hence  cunning  and  wisdom  were  ascribed  to  ser- 

Sents  (Gn  3',  Mt  10'").  Thus  it  w  as  natural  that  the 
enora.  Piel  wnj  came  to  bo  emploj'ed  of  the  sooth- 
sayer, who  was  considered  to  be  demon-possessed 
(like  the  sorcerer  or  necromancer,  'ji'T  and  z\«  Si';). 
Both  in  Arabia  and  in  ancient  Assyiia  the  desire 
to  know  the  course  of  future  events  in  their  bear- 
ing upon  the  interests  of  the  inquirer,  more  espe- 
cially with  respect  to  the  success  or  non-success 
of  some  enterprise,  impelled  him  to  find  clues  of 
information  in  the  moxements  of  nature,  more 
especiallv  of  animals,  ^ince  these  were  held  to  be 
possessed  by  demons.  The  Arabs  believed  that  tlie 
animal  is  mu'inur,  i.e.  is  subject  to  some  higher 
behest,  and  has  open  eyes  to  see  (like  Balaam's 
ass)  when  human  eyes  are  without  vision.  Tiie 
wolf,  the  dog,  the  hare,  and  the  fox  were  omen- 
giving  animals.  Comiii"  from  the  right  hand,  one 
of  these  animals  would  be  hailed  as  portending 
good ;  from  the  left,  bad  (Wellh.  p.  201  f.).  Birds 
were  especially  considered  to  convey  omens,  viz. 
the  raven,  goose,  starling,  and  hoopoe.  The  raven 
was  the  bird  which  heralded  misfortune,  especially 
the  separation  of  friends  from  loved  ones. 

The  cuneiform  records  exhibit  the  wide  preva- 
lence of  a  jrreat  mass  of  similar  beliefs  ana  prac- 
tices in  Bftlji/lunia,  but  with  this  ditlerence,  that 
the  omen-tablets  mark  the  distinctions  in  special 
cases  with  a  wearisome  excess  of  detail  which  we 
do  not  find  in  the  simpler  civilization  of  the 
Western  Semitic  lands,  Palestine  and  Arabia. 
The  omens  may  be  divided  into  difierent  classes  : 

(1)  tliose  concerned  with  da3'8  and  heavenly  bodies ; 

(2)  those  concerned  with  the  features  of  human 
childbirth  and  also  with  those  of  birth-giving  by 
animals  ;  (3)  omens  concerned  with  movements  of 
animals. — These  will  be  found  fullj'  treated  in 
Morris  Jastrow's  instructive  work,  Edigion  of 
Jifihylonia  and  Assyria,  chs.  xix.  and  xx.  The 
following  is  a  good  example  of  (1) — 

*  Sun  and  moon  arc  Bccn  apart  (t.0.  at  differeot  ttmes) ; 
The  kini,'  of  the  country  will  numifest  wifldom. 
On  tile  fourteenth  day  Mun  and  mooD  ore  seen  together ; 
Tliere  will  be  loyalty  in  the  l.ind, 
The  gods  of  Babylonia  are  favourably  inclined, 
The  soldiuo'  will  be  in  accord  with  tlic  kind's  denlrv, 
The  cattle  of  Babylonia  will  pasture  in  safety. 

On  the  fifteenth  day  the  Bun  and  moon  are  seen  tojjether ; 
A  powerful  enemy  raises  his  weapons  affainst  the  land. 
The  enemy  will  uiiatter  the  great  gate  of  the  city.' 

Omens  were  likewise  derived  from  the  particular 

•  I'/IU  (  =  iiuSo>.»€)  is  not  BO  frecpiently  employed  lo  the  sing. 
OS  the  ptur.  fomi  of  n/mi/dn,  which  takes  the  plsoa  of  jinn 
Cplur.)  ('Wellh.  l.c.  p.  167  footnote). 


day  of  the  month  on  whicli  an  eclipse  takes  place; 
from  the  appearances  ordisajipearances  of  the  planet 
Venus  (Islitar).  In  Eawl.  iv.  pi.  32,  33  we  have 
a  calendar  of  the  intercalated  month  Elul.  The 
deity  is  mentioned  to  which  each  day  is  sacred, 
and  certain  sacrifices  are  prescribed  and  precau- 
tions indicated.  The  7th,  I4th,  21st,  and  28th 
days  are  called  evil  [limnu) ;  see  art.  Sabbath, 
p.  319*;  and  cf.  Schrader,  COT  L  p.  19f.,  and 
Jensen  in  ZA  iv.  (18S9)  p.  274  If. 

(2)  Varied  forms  of  abnormal  birth  are  specified, 
and  the  events  which  they  portend — 

*  If  a  woman  gives  birth  to  a  child  with  the  right  ear  missing, 
the  days  of  the  ruler  will  be  long.  If  a  woman  givea  birth  to  a 
child  with  the  left  ear  missing,  distress  will  enter  the  land  and 
weaken  it.' 

Ttie  abnormal  features  in  the  birth  of  young  Iambs  were 
carefully  noted  and  interpreted — 

'  If  the  young  one  has  no  right  ear,  the  rule  of  the  king  will 
come  to  an  end,  his  palace  will  be  uprooted,  and  the  jjopuiation 
of  the  country  will  be  swept  away.  The  king  will  lose  judg- 
ment, the  produce  of  the  country  will  be  slight,  the  enemy 
will  cut  olT  the  supply  of  water.  If  the  left  ear  of  the  young 
one  is  missing,  the  deity  will  hear  the  prayer  of  the  king,  tlie 
king  will  cajiture  his  enemy's  land,  the  palace  of  the  enemy  will 
be  destroyed.* 

(3)  The  number  and  variety  of  cases  here  as  in 
(1)  and  (2)  are  endless. 

*  If  a  dog  enters  the  palace  and  crouches  on  the  throne,  that 
palace  will  suffer  a  distressful  fate.  If  a  dog  enters  a  palace 
and  crouches  on  the  couch,  no  one  will  enjoy  that  palace  in 
peace.' 

The  colour  of  a  dog  that  enters  a  palace  or  of  the  locusts  that 
enter  a  house,  will  aflect  the  precise  form  of  good  which  is  por- 
tended by  the  occurrence. 

The  gods  were  constantly  approached  with  ques- 
tions involving  the  future  interests  of  the  State  or 
ailecting  the  fate  of  a  military  campaign.  Knud- 
tzun  in  his  Assijr.  Gcbete  an  den  tionnengvti  fiir 
Staat  und  koniglickes  Uaus,  has  devoted  a  careful 
examination  to  these  questions  addres.sed  to  Samas 
the  Sungod,  which  are  sliown  to  follow  a  fixed 
pattern.  Fir.st  we  have  a  series  of  questions  which 
the  god  is  petitioned  to  answer.  The  god  is  then 
implored  not  to  be  angry,  and  to  jjrotect  the  sup- 
pliant against  errors  unwittingly  committed  in  the 
sacrificial  rites — 

*0  Shamash,  great  lord,  as  I  ask  thee,  do  thou  In  true  mercy 
answer  me. 

'  From  this  day  the  3rd  day  of  this  month  of  lyyar  to  the  11th 
day  of  the  month  Ab  of  this  year,  a  period  of  one  hundred  days 
and  one  hundred  nights,  is  the  prescribed  term  for  the  priestly 
activity. " 

'  VVill  within  this  period  Kashtariti,  together  with  his  soldiery, 
will  the  army  of  the  Giniirri,  the  army  of  the  Medes,  will  the 
army  of  the  Manneans,  or  will  any  enemy  wliat.>^never  succeed  in 
carrying  out  their  plan,  whether  by  stratagem  (V)  or  main  force, 
whether  by  the  force  of  weapons  of  war  and  battle  or  by  the 
axe,  whether  by  a  breach  made  with  war-machinery  or  battering- 
rams  or  by  hunger,  wliether  by  the  powers  residing  in  the  name 
of  a  god  or  goddess  .  .  .  will  these  aforementioned,  as  many  as 
are  required  to  take  a  cit.v,  actually  capture  the  city  Kishsossu, 
in-iictiate  into  the  interior  of  that  same  city  Kislisassu.  .  .  . 
Thy  great  divine  power  knows  it.  .  .  .  Will  it  actually  come 
to  )>as8?' 

We  observe  that  all  jiossiblo  contingencies  are  specifled  as  in 
a  lawyer's  deed,  and  no  loophole  is  left  by  whieli  tlie  deity  may 
escape  the  obligation  of  a  detlnite  answer.  (See  Jastrow,  p. 
834  B.) 

How  far  Israel,  and  more  particularly  Judah,  at 
the  do.seof  the  8th  cent,  became  inlluenced  by  IJab. 
or  Assyr.  practices,  it  would  be  very  diliicult  to  say. 
That  theolder  and  more  highly  developed  civilization 
of  the  Euphrates  and  Tigris  should  have  afiected 
the  Palestmian  tribes  at  this  time  is  surely  more 
than  possible.  In  the  loth  and  earlier  centuries 
B.C.  that  influence  was  powerfully  felt  through- 
out the  Western  border  (mM  amnrri),  as  the  Tel  el- 
Amarna  tablets  clearly  testify,  and  it  spread  into 
Egypt  itself.  Moreover,  we  may  infer  from  cer- 
tain indications  that  some  inlluenccs  from  Bab.  and 

*  This  expression  is  interpreted  to  mean  tliat  the  priest  Is  only 
asked  to  give  a  reply  ooDoeming  the  events  of  the  hundred  days 
specifled  In  the  text. 


600     SOOTHSAYER.  SOOTHSAYING___JOOT^^ 


Assyr,  divination  not  improbably  lound  iboir  ^^a^ 
into  tl,e  S<,uthem  kin;4<lom.  (1)  \\e  know  tbat 
Ahaz  was  particularly  .susceptible  to  foreign  re- 
f^^  i".'-nco^^  ^a  not ^.csrtate  to  bo.^w 

^^T^^'tL^^^   show^   tllai.tl. 

relation,  between  Judah  and  Babyloma  .er^  int. 

mate  (*>  K  20'='-).     (3)  The  proneness  of   A  laz  to 

Suance  with  AW-ia  at  an  earUor  Per-d  may 
have  opened  the  way  for  the  entrance  of  Absyro- 
Kabylonian  traditi..us.  (4)  If  we  co'"^>"«  .  f  ^,^^ 
facts  with  Is  ■2\  where  relerence  is  made  o  the 
Buperstiliuus  tendencies  vh.cli  lY'^Vp ^^. ',™^'; 
and  where  these  arc  ascribed  to  the  '  .1^^  ^^  "  ^inaj^ 
find  the  true  clue  to  the  >m-anin<;  of  this  tfJ^J"^^^ 
The  true  readin"  here  lias  been  conjectuiallj  re- 
stored y  crTtics  with  some  probabUity  in  the  term 
f  °r,::.-Jp) -nrp  inSd  -d  'for  they  are  tull  of  south- 
savers  from"  the  East,'  which  harmonizes  with 
thf  parallel  clause  that  foUow;s  Tenian  (Edom 
also  had  its  soothsayers  (Jer  49',  Ob »).     W  as  tue 

T.;:,tpres:nted  parallel  phenomena.   Divination 
andt-he  practice  of  occult  sciences  prevailed  in  t  e 
Dlains  of  the   Nile  as  much  as  in  those  of   the 
Snates     In  E.TPt  the  division  of  time  among 
the  hit'her  divine  powers  was  earned  to  such  an 
Pv?en["that   even   every  hour  of   day   and   night 
'vas°  Uotttl  to  some  goddess  (thougli  not  to  the 
r»ew"°  deities).      The  character  of   the  divinity 
determined  the  destiny  of  the  period  over  w-hich 
that  divinity  presided.     By  turning  up  the  calen- 
dar of     he  days  of   the  month   it  was  thought 
Dossible  to  -ail.  a  glimpse  into  futuntv  and  decide 
vheUier  a  particuhir  day  was  favourable  or  unfav- 
ourable     w-hat  should  be  done  and  what  omitted  ; 
and  wlmt  prospects  awaited  the  d'f  j'^"  ^l^'''^ 
born  upon  it.      We  have  an  example  of  such  a 
calendar"n  the  papyrus  Sallier  iv.  belonging  to  the 
19th  dyn     in  whicl.  there  are  instructions  cover- 
J^,' several  months  of   the  year.      ^^  e  select  the 
following  in  reference  to  one  montli— 

.  4th  Paophi :  unfavourable,  favourable,  ta™"™^'^^*;'',^'-' X' 

'"f=.?h  ■     •  unfavourable,  unfavourable,  unfavourable.     By  no 

the  crocodile."  _  . 

To  what  particular  mode  of  divination  allusion 
ia  made  in  G^n  44»,  where  the  silver  bowl  with  which 
Joseph  practised  the  art  is  referred  to,  cannot  be 
determined  from  ancient  Egyptian  sources.  It  has 
been  supposed  that  some  form  of  Y^'X^JoUet 
"spoaa^Tdl  was  in  the  writer's  mind.  Ihe  goblet 
vSled  with  water  and  the  sun's  rays  were  ad- 
mtued  and,  as  the  goblet  was  moved  the  circles 
^f  li'-ht  Uiat  were  formed  were  closely  observed 
aambiichus.  de  n.jsteriis,  ■^^■M\-\l^^l<^Z^^l 
marked  with  letters  and  a  divining-ring  toucliea 
Suliere  or  there  and  conclusions  were  deduced 
therefrom  (Amm.  Marcellinus,  29)  ;  'f-  ^  '"""•  «" 
loc.     These  are,  however,  conjectures  onlj  ■ 

Knl»^^   variously   rendered   in   LXX   ^^ao.So. 
■;  I    A„.K^»(  rin    Dn   1™  <ro<4i(TTal,  Theudotion 

S:  .  '^ir?  ib  word  is  prob^ably  derived  froni 
t^Xstyi^  for  graving  words,  since  the  arts  o    the 
■'  •  Wiedenmnn,  JHe  lidigion  dtr  alten  Aegypter,  p.  Ul. 


ma.'ician  or  soothsayer  were  based,  in  the  mor« 
elaborate  systems  of  Babylonia  and  Egypt,  upon 
carefuUv  written  rituals.  ,.  ,   , 

Dreams.-In  ancient  ^m6ic  belief  sleep  was  con- 
si.fJred  in  a  mysterious  sense  to  be  f  ^J^d  'md 
subject  to  the  control  of  demons.*  All  Arabs 
revirence  a   man  sleeping  ;    he  is,  .as  it  were,  in 


Z^:Xi^^ ;;:  z:i;M;of  i:^ids  they  pious^, 

withdraw,  nor  will  they  lightly  molest  !>"".■  +ft 
s  not  surprising,  therefore,,  that  the  s.gnilc^nce 
attached  to  dreSms  is  a  universal  feature  ot  anti- 
quHy  Tl"e  ancient  Eg,jptuins  believed  in  the 
^i'nfl^cance  of  the  dream  as  the  state  of  mind 
t  frou  d.  which  deities  entered  into  persona  re- 
lition-ship  with  men  and  gave  t  leni  |;»^  »"^«- 
Thus  Ka  Harmachis  appeared  to  king  /''Othmes 
IV  when  he  rested  in  the  chase  near  the  l^reat 
Sphinx  and  commanded  him  to  have  the  statue 
^  o,.t  of  the  sand.  A  sure  means  of  obtaining 
a  l°oi  letic  dream  was  to  betake  oneself  .to  one  of 
Ui'e  temples  that  were  sacred  to  divinities  -ho 

vouchsafed  oracles,  and  t>i<=i^« /l<^f  ;  Jj^^^f S 
of  Serapis  was  one  of  the  most  celebrated  of  these 
^hrSike  the  temple  of  -«-"W.ius  a  Epidauru^ 
where  dreams  were  bestowed  m  "'"'h  ^rnedes 
were  communicated  agamst  d'^f^f  .  >™^*;°'^ 
as  a  last  resort  magic  was  appealed  to  in  o^de^  «>_ 
pvtort  the  dream  from  the  reluctant  deity.  W  lede- 
mann  (i'<^ion  der  aUcnAcg>ij>ter,  p..  144)  cites  one 
of  ?he  magical  texts  from  a  ^"f  !«  OTe^f^"^ 
rnmiiarati\^elv  late  date  preserved  in  tjie  Lejaen 
Mu?eum!  entitled  '  AgrctLles'  Recipe  for  sendtng 
a  Dream,'  which  runs  thus— 

Mommom  Thoth,  ^''''Vrwho  is  a"o«  the  heaven  [other  name, 
j!;;i<^%rt»n^?o=£j  W  -^t -M..  the 
said  dream)  ""fSle  world  fier^gST,  put  thyself  Tn  con- 
power.  Lo-d/ '''''^"^anhrr  thamara  tlat'ha  mommom  thana- 
nexionwith  N.M.     ,^"^",     '„"     „„  for  I  wUl  pronounce  the 

Sea^'^^r-SS  "^^q^fX  name^or 

all  needs.     Put  thyself  in  conne>L.on  with  N.N 

Here  we  find  soothsaying  passing  over  into  magic, 
to  which  it  stands,  as  we  have  already  explained 
so  closely  related       The  apparently  meaningless 
mi  innatyn'of  syllables  which  the  "lagi-n  e- 
r,lnvs  contains  the  names  of  deities,     ^onipare  tne 
Fiame  .W,«a/<  borrowed  from  the  Jewish  Ho  y  bcrin- 
tmes   to  which  a  mysterious  potency  was  ascribed. 
'Ties;  must  be  reproduced  in  their  exact  original 
f.rn!      No  translation  was  tolerated  :  not  only  did 
rr^nde^UieTarm  inoperative   J^J't  br-^^-f  ,-> 
evils  upon  the  magic^  'tt'^E-jitilns,   atCl^ed 
J  UnniXnc":'to  d'^eat!     cff^JhU  wi  have  two 

^^«ll€^'Ent^e^--" 
,  Sb^ni^SS^  ^^l-ria,  and  tliou  ..^t^ 

tS  from  tha  day. onl.  heLnciu''ered  the  Kinv 
mtrians  who  had  attacked  the  people  of  his  land 

Hues  95-105).-The  other  passage  occurs  m  col  v. 
0^-11  Aim-banipal's  troops  feared  to  cross  the 
?did6  but  mar  of  Arbela  appeared  to  them  in  a 
in,  and  said-  'I  go  before  Asurbanipal,  the 
■ng"wirm  r,^'liands^iave  -ade.^     Conliding  m 

this  dream,  his  troops  crossed  the  IdidS  saieiy. 

•  Wcllhausen,  i.e.  p.  163fl.  ,  „  ojoff 

t  Douthly,  Araiia  Deserta,  voL  L  p.  24»n- 


SOOTUSAYER  SOOTHSAYING 


SOOTHSAYER,  SOOTHSAYING  GOl 


It  should  be  noted  that  one  special  branch  of 
the  art  of  the  priest-soothsayer  in  Biib5'lonia  con- 
sisted in  the  interpretation  of  the  manifold  appear- 
ances in  dreams.  A  considerable  portion  of  the 
oinen-documeuts  in  cuneiform  consists  of  the  rules 
laid  down  as  to  what  the  dili'erent  features  in  a 
dream  may  portend. 

If  a  lion  appear?  to  a  man,  it  means  that  a  man  will  carry  out 
bia  |)ui'poiif.  If  a  jackal,  tliat  he  will  suciire  favour  in  the  cyca 
of  llu-  '^-aLj.  a  dOs'  portcnda  sorrow  ;  a  muuutaiii  {;oat,  that  "the 
nianV  son  will  die  uf  some  disease  ;  a  stap,  that  his  daughter 
will  die,  etc  (Bezold'e  Catalogve,  pp.  1437,  1438,  cited  by 
Jastrow). 

To  this  special  function  of  the  Babylonian  temple 
ollicials  we  have  reference  in  Dn  2^,  where  they  are 
summoned  by  Nebuchadnezzar  to  discharge  the 
per[)lexing  ta.sk  of  not  only  interprei  inj;  but  also 
of  first  recalling  a  dream  which  the  monarch  had 
forgotten  (cf.  Gn  41*''-).  iris  is  the  proper  word  in 
Hell,  for  interpreter  of  dreams. 

Divine  revelation  through  dreams  constantly 
meets  us  in  the  OT  (Gn  2U»-»  SI'"-  "  37'  40"^-  41'*- 
42",  1  K  3»'»,  Dn  2'»  "',  Nu  12«,  Job  33",  Jg  7'», 
and  in  NT  Mt  l-»  2",  Ac  23"  27=^).  Dreams  were 
a  legitimate  mode  of  Divine  manifestation,  though 
we  lind  warnings  against  the  dreams  of  false  pro- 
phets, as  against  magic  and  soothsaying  (Jer  23^-^^ 
2'A  Zee  10-,  Sir  34'-  =•  »• ').  It  is  worthy  of  note  that 
among  the  Hebrews,  as  among  the  Egyptians,  im- 
portance was  attached  to  the  dreams  «  hich  came 
to  a  man  w  ho  slept  in  a  sanctuary  or  sacred  spot. 
The  dream  of  Jacob  might  be  included  among  such 
visions  (Gn  28'-'"),  since  the  scene  was  at  Bethel, 
tlie  renowned  sanctuary.  The  dream  recorded  in 
1  IC  S*-"  was  vouchsafed  to  Solomon  at  the  high 
place  of  Gibeon,  where  lie  had  olTered  saerilices. 

Just  as  among  the  Arabs  the  art  of  soothsaying 
began  to  decline  after  tlie  advent  of  Mohammed 
and  the  monotliei-sm  which  he  taught,*  so  among 
the  ancient  Helirews  the  prophetic  teacliing  from 
the  8th  cent,  onwards  constantly  declaimed  against 
the  arts  of  the  soothsaj'er,  and  the  burden  of  this 
prcohetic  TOrah  became  embodied  in  legislation 
,:••'"  IS""-,  cf.  Lv  20»-  -'').  In  Is  2«  we  find  mention 
of  c^iij^"]  among  the  other  modes  of  foreign  Eastern 
superstition  with  wliicli  Judali  by  the  time  of  Isaiah 
had  become  familiar.  But  in  tliis  special  case  the 
original  source  probably  lay  at  Israel's  doors,  and 
the  tradition  was  borrowed  from  the  Canaanites. 
Of  this  we  have  clear  evidence  in  Dt  18'*,  and 
in  the  'terebinth  (oak)  of  diviners'  (D'3:'iyo  Meo- 
NKNl.M)  mentioned  as  a  well-known  sacred  spot 
with  a  8acre<l  tree  (Jg  SF).  There  is  a  similar 
•  sootlisayer's  tree '+  (see  MoREH)  mentioned  in 
Gn  12«  (.Tiio  pSx).  To  this  we  may  find  a  parallel 
in  the  oaks  of  Dodona,  sacred  to  Zeus,  whose 
rustling  branches  were  supposed  to  utter  oracles 
(Odijss.  xiv.  328)  ;  of.  2  S  sK  In  Dt  18'»  the  p'y? 
stands  in  close  conjunction  with  the  '  diviner  of 
divinations'  (O'CJp  ccp)  and  the  pnjo.  The  Greek 
equivalent  of 'v^  is  KXitSon^biuvot,  meaning  one  who 
judges  from  omens  (K\-qbuv) ;  cf.  Is  2*.  The  ety- 
mology of  the  Hebrew  Poel  form  [jiy  is  not  easy 
to  determine.  To  connect  it  with  ;}!(  '  cloud '  has 
no  foundation  in  the  known  practices  of  the  ancient 
Israelites.     More  probable  is  the  etymology  which 

eonnecta  it  with  the  root  which  In  in  Arabic  ^i 

•  For  demonolofo^  and  Boothaaying  were  closely  interwoven 
(as  in  the  caae  of  ma^fic).  Now,  occordini;  to  .Mulminmedan 
Idt-'aa,  the  devils  after  Mohammed's  advent  were  prevent*-'!  (roin 
minKJiiii;  with  the  sons  of  Uod  and  learning;  the  s'.'creU  of 
heaven  (f'f.  8ATAII  and  ref.  to  Hook  of  Enoch)  When  mo  dett-cted, 
the  aiiKels  pelt  them  with  meteorites  and  drive  them  away  : 
ice  Sur.  S31  ad  fin.,  37"- ;  and  cf.  Wellhausen,  Jifjilf^,  p.  138. 

t  It  Is  by  no  means  certain  that  the  Beb.  .n^K,  [<?K  may  not 
to  used  genenlly  lor  ■  tree,' llk«  Sjr.  ]Aj:>-t|,    |  1  \  » | 


'  to  snuffle '  (cf.  the  use  of  the  Heb.  O'cscss  Is  8" 
29*) ;  scarcely  probable  is  the  suggestion  o^  Well- 
hausen to  regard  this  Poel  form  as  a  denominative 
from  the  subst.  py  'eye.'  Cf.  Nowack,  Beb.  Arch. 
ii.  274  footnote.  The  form  of  soothsaying  which 
the  word  [ino  represents  may  have  been  akin  to 
that  which  was  practised  by  the  Roman  augur.i  or 
/uiriis/iices.  In  fact  it  is  diflicult  to  say  how  far  the 
[j'lyE  dill'ered  from  the  int  or  primitive  llebrew  '  seer,' 
or  from  the  Dcp.  As  to  the  lirst,  we  do  not  know 
what  was  his  mode  of  procedure,  whether  it  con- 
sisted in  the  examination  of  the  entrails  or  general 
appearance  of  the  victim  in  the  saerilices,  as  was 
done  by  the  Assyrian  priests  (Jasirow,  I.e.  p.  337) 
and  the  Roman  hartispiccs  or  extUjihcs.  Or  it  may 
have  taken  the  form  of  observing  closely  the  move- 
ments of  animals,  as  w'as  done  by  the  Philistine 
diviners  (o-ppp)  in  the  case  of  the  two  cows  yoked 
to  the  cart  on  which  the  ark  of  God  was  ]ilaced 
(1  S  &"■)  ;  or  it  may  have  consisted  in  observing 
the  sounds  produceil  by  wind  (as  the  sound  amon^ 
the  tops  of  the  balsam  trees  in  2  S  o'-*)  or  the  special 
action  of  rain  or  dew  upon  objects  (cf.  .Ig  C"-). 

The  8th  cent.,  as  well  as  the  7tli,  wit  icssed  the 
wide  prevalence  of  these  arts  as  well  as  that  of 
necromancy  (Is  S""-)-  Probably  the  Assyrian  in- 
vasions and  the  disasters  which  they  entailed  drove 
the  panic-stricken  people  to  resort  to  abnormal 
practices  of  magic  and  sooths.aj'ing.*  From  Is  3- 
we  learn  that  the  soothsayer  held  an  important 
place  in  national  life,  and  was  regarded  as  one  of 
the  props  of  the  social  fabric.  He  takes  his  place 
by  tlie  side  of  the  judge,  prophet,  and  elder.  The 
attitude  of  prophecy  towards  soothsayinjj  was  uni- 
formly uncompromisiu";  and  hostile  (Mic  5",  cf. 
Jer  27"  and  Is  57^  this  last  passage  bting  descrip- 
tive of  the  degenerate  practices  that  still  went  on 
in  Palestine  alter  the  return  from  the  Exile).  In 
l'"zk  21-"'-  we  have  a  vi\id  description  of  the  king 
of  Babylon  standing  at  the  crossways,  shaking  the 
arrows  {^cXo/iavrela).  We  may  assume  that  there 
were  two  arrows  in  the  quiver,  one  bearinj'  the 
name  Jerusalem  and  the  otlier  Rabbali,  and  the 
result  was  determined  by  the  particular  arrow  that 
was  drawn  out  by  the  right  hand  or  shaken  out. 
lie  also  inquires  of  the  teraphim  and  looks  into  the 
liver.  The  reference  to  the  teraphim  is  a  Pales- 
tinian trait  (the  LXX  yXwroU  suggests  D'3sv  rather 
than  c'D-in).  When  we  compare  this  with  Is  47*"" 
with  its  closing  references  to  the  soothsaying,  we 
can  clearly  see  that  the  latter  writer  had  become 
yet  more  familiar  with  the  practices  in  divination 
carried  on  in  Babylonia,  and  portrays  tliem  with 
remarkable  vividness  :^ 'Thou  art  wearied  with 
thy  counsels  ;  yes,  let  them  stand  by  and  save  you, 
they  who  divide  the  heavens,  who  gaze  at  the  stars, 
announcing  month  by  month  whence  they  {i.e.  the 
events)  are  to  come  upon  you.'  The  account  given 
in  the  earlier  portion  of  this  article  of  tlie  omen- 
tablets  of  Babylonia  and  the  calendars  of  the  days 
of  the  month,  with  its  lucky  and  unlucky  days, 
clearly  illustrates  the  accurate  delineation  given 
us  in  Deutero- Isaiah.  The  phrase  'dividers  of  the 
lu'avens  '  (C'~V  "izh  Kt'n')  <:i)ntains  a  reference  to 
the  custom  of  the  Baliyhmian  astrologers  of  divid- 
ing the  heavens  into  districts  to  take  a  horoscojie 
(cf.  Jastrow,  Rdigian  uf  liahylunia,  p.  309  11.). 
See  also  art.  DIVINATION. 

LiTKUATi'KK. — This  has  been  Indicated  In  the  course  of  the 
article.  The  reader  eliouki  consult  art.  '  WahrsuKerei '  in 
Kiclnn's  ItW'B'^;  Nowack's  and  Hciizinjfcr's  Heb.  Ar<^h.;  art. 
*  Oivinatiun  '  in  Knci/c.  liil'lica  ;  Snicnd,  A  T  JUtijjiousnt'Sih.  pp. 
78  ff.,  113,  178,  10,'),  27(1.  200;  W.  K.  Smith,  ap.  Driver  on  Ul 
18'»'-,  and  in  Journal  nf  I'liilolmiil,  xiii.  273  9.,  xiv.  113  ft.  On 
Dreams  cf.  Brecber,   />«■«   'IVanscevdentalf  ...    im   Taimuttt 

H37-«7.  Owen  C.  Whitehouse. 


*  Of.  W.  R.  Smith,  Kinship  and  ilarriage,  p.  808,  In  nterence 
to  the  mystic  piacuUr  rites  of  the  7th  cent.  B.c. 


602 


SOP 


SOKCERY 


SOP. — A  sop  (Anglo-Sax.  [s"/'/""],  from  .iiipan,  to 
sup)  is  a  morsel  of  food  soaUed  in  liquid.  Cf. 
Chaucer,  Marc/umtes  Tale,  599 — 

'  Anc  then  he  taketh  a  sop  in  fj-n  clarrce.' 

The  word  was  used  by  Tindale  to  translate  ypufilov 
{from  vf-uM-ifu,  to  feed)  in  Jn  l ,■?-'"''»■"■ -",  the  only 
occurrences  of  the  Gr.  word.  (Wydif  had  already 
used  it  in  13'^-  ",  givin<;  '  bread  '  and  '  morsel '  in 
the  other  places.  The  Vulg.  has  burcella  in  13"-  '", 
but  simply  panis  in  ssfcij^  anj  tije  Kheinis  follows 
with  '  bread  '  in  »  "",  and  '  morsel '  in  '"■ «').  The 
mod.  meaning,  '  something  given  to  keep  quiet,'  is 
also  found  in  early  writers,  as  Howard,  Committee, 
iv.  1,  'Why,  you  unconscionable  Kascal,  are  }'ou 
angry  that  I  am  unlucky,  or  do  you  want  some 
fees  ?  I'll  perish  in  a  Dungeon  before  I'll  consume 
with  throwing  Sops  to  such  Curs.' 

J.  Hastings. 
SOPATER  (SciTTOTpos,  Sopater). — A  man  of  Beroea 
who  in  St.  Paul's  third  missionary  journey  accom- 
panied him  from  PhUippi  (Ac  20'').  He  is  called 
in  the  older  MSS  son  of  Pyrrhus.  He  was  com- 
memorated June  25  and  July  12.    See  also  SosiP- 

ATER. 

SOPE.— See  the  modem  spelling  SOAP. 

SOPHERETH  (m,Dt :  BA  1a<t>6.pae,  K  ^a<papaet, 
Luc.  'A(jo<p4ped). — A  family  of  Nethinira  that  re- 
turned with  Zerubbabel,  Neh  7".  In  the  parallel 
passage,  Ezr  2°°,  the  name  appears  as  Hasso- 
phereth  (n"i?bn ;  B  'k<Te4>ijpa.0,  A  'A<Te<)>6pa8,  Luc. 
Acru(p4p(e),  and  in  1  Es  5*^  as  ASSAPHION. 

SOPHONIAS The  form  in  which  the  name  of 

the  prophet  Zephaniah  occurs  in  2  Es  1*". 

SORCERY. — The  subject  of  sorcery  has  already 
been  treated  in  most  of  its  aspects  under  Magic. 
There  remain,  however,  certain  features  in  this 
extensive  department  which  are  reserved  for  treat- 
ment in  the  present  article. 

The  wide  prevalence  of  sorcery  in  pre-exilian 
Israelite  life  is  only  partially  revealed  in  the  OT. 
That  the  underlying  motive  of  the  Brazen  Serpent 
in  Nu  21*""  was  the  same  as  that  of  the  Tn-inged 
colossal  and  human-headed  bulls  or  genii  (lamassu 
or  lamaiiu,  cf.  the  cherubim  in  Gn  3^*,  and 
Schrader,  COT,  ad  loc.)  which  were  set  up  at  tlie 
doors  of  the  Assyrian  palaces  to  prevent  the  access 
of  demons,  of  disease,  or  other  calamity,  seems  to 
be  fairly  probable.  In  this  connexion  we  must 
bear  in  mind  the  undoubted  fact  that  the  serpent 
was  associated  not  only  with  demons  to  whom  a 
destructive  power  belonged  (cf.  Gn  3  and  Is  14^  27' 
and  Am  9'),*  but  also  with  those  endowed  with 
beneficent  powers.  Mohammed  held  that  serpents 
might  be  inhabited  by  good  as  well  as  by  evil 
jinn,  and  among  the  ancient  Greeks  the  serpent 
was  held  to  be  sacred  to  the  healing  god  jEsculapius. 
Also,  as  Robertson  Smith  reminds  us,  the  South 
Arabs  regard  medicinal  waters  as  inhabited  by 
jinn,  usually  of  serpent  form  {RS'^  p.  1G8,  cf.  172). 
On  this  subject  interesting  facts  have  been  col- 
lected by  Baudissin,  in  his  Essay  on  the  Symbolism 
of  the  Serjient,  in  Studien  zur  sem.  Religions- 
gesch.  i.  p.  257  il'.  The  brazen  image  of  the  serpent 
(l^jy'nj),  worshipi>ed  in  the  rei'Ti  of  Hezekiah,  and 
the  occurrence  of  the  name  Nahash  among  Canaan- 
ite  peoples,  point  to  the  prevalence  of  the  serpent- 
cult.     See  Nehushtan. 

Again,  the  law,  to  which  the  modem  Jew  pays 
so  much  deference,  contained  in  Dt  6*-  •,  involves 
an  ancient  belief  in  the  magic  potency  of  written 

•  Here  Gunkel  {Seh&pfung  li.  Chaos)  has  shown  that  we  have 
remnanU  ol  the  old  BabylonioQ  chaos-myth  {Tidrntu,  '  draj-on 
ol  thede«p'X 


words  and  names,  of  whi(-h  Lane  [Modern  Efji/p- 
tinns,  1871,  i.  pp.  7  ft". ,  319  11. )  gives  valuable  illus- 
trations. The  ^hemn',  as  well  as  the  following 
precept,  '  And  thou  shalt  love  Jehovah  thy  Goa 
with  all  thy  soul  .  .  .,'  were  to  be  bound  as  a  si"n 
upon  the  hand,  and  for  frontlets  between  the 
eyes.  They  >\'ere  also  to  be  ^vritten  upon  the 
doorposts  of  the  house  and  on  the  gates.  The 
Jews  in  the  present  day  use  the  name  nuzi'izah, 
which  in  the  original  Deuteronomic  sense  meant 
'  doorpost,'  for  the  small  metal  case  which  con- 
tained a  piece  of  folded  parchment,  upon  which 
the  words  aforesaid  were  ^^Titten,  viz.  Dt  6''"'  as 
well  as  Dt  11""-',  in  twenty-two  lines.  This  would 
be  placed  at  the  right  of  the  entrance,  on  the 
upper  part  of  the  doorpost.  Like  an  amulet  in- 
scribed with  words  or  names  of  mysterious  potency, 
this  piece  of  parchment  was  held  to  possess  a 
magic  and  protective  eHieacy.  See  Edersheim, 
Life  and  Times  of  Jesiis  the  Messiah,  i.  p.  76.  The 
tephillin  or  phylacteries,  on  the  left  arm  and  fore- 
head, are  of  like  cl)aracter  (see  art.  Phylacteries). 

Again  we  have  an  instructive  example  of  the 
all-prevailing  faith  in  magic  in  the  case  of  the 
afflicted  woman  who  came  to  Jesus  in  the  midst 
of  the  crowd,  believing  that  His  garments  were 
possessed  of  mysterious  healing  virtue  (Lk  8",  see 
Plummer,  ad  loe.).  The  same  idea  underlies  the 
narrative  of  Ac  19'^,  where  we  read  that  hand- 
kerchiefs and  aprons  were  conveyed  from  St.  Paul's 
person  to  tlie  diseased,  who  were  thereby  cured, 
and  the  demons  expelled.  A  man's  clothing  was 
supposed  to  convey  with  it  some  charm  or  efticacy 
from  the  owner.  Mohammed  was  besought  to 
give  his  shirt  that  a  dead  man  might  be  buried  in 
it.  The  character  of  the  wearer  and  his  clothing 
were  identified  in  some  nivsterious  way.  Prob- 
ably in  this  way  we  are  to  interpret  the  reference 
to  the  mantle  of  Elijali  (2  K  2"'"'^  cf.  *),  and  such 
expressions  as  'robe  of  righteousness,'  'garments 
of  s.alvation'  (Is  61'°),  'of  vengeance'  (59"),  etc. 
See  Wellhausen,  Reste  ',  p.  196. 

In  A  rabia  sorcery  was  even  employed  in  digging 
for  treasure.  Doughty  relates  a  story  that  a 
Moor,  who  was  regarded  as  specially  proficient  in 
magical  arts,  '  sacrificed  to  the  jdn  in  the  ni^ht  a 
black  cock,  and  read  his  spells,  and  a  great  black 
fowl  alighted  beside  him.  .  .  .  The  earth  rumbled, 
and  rose  as  it  were  in  billows,  gaping  and  shutting, 
and  in  that  earthy  womb  appeared  an  infinite 
treasure  '  (Arabia  Deserta,  ii.  p.  103).  But  we  hear 
even  more  frequently  of  counter-spells,  whereby 
the  demons  were  coerced  or  terrified  into  im- 
potence. And  this  specially  applies  to  the  various 
diseases  which  the  j&n  were  supposed  to  inflict. 
The  remedies  are  in  almost  every  case  magical  in 
character,  and  were  carried  out  by  the  physician 
called  tabib  or  wise  man,  who  was,  in  fact,  a 
magician.  The  methods  of  the  raagic-healing  art 
were  the  same  as  those  of  the  sorcerer  who  worked 
the  evil.  There  was  stroking  and  rubbing  of  the 
part  aflected  ;  most  frequently  we  have  the  tying 
of  knots,  spitting,  and  breathing. 

'A  young  mother,  yet  a  slender  girl,  brought  her  wretched 
babe,  and  bade  me  spit  upon  the  child's  sore  eyes.  This  ancient 
Semitic  opinion  and  custom  I  have  afterwards  found  wherever 
I  rame  to  Arabia  [cf.  Jn  9*^].  Meteyr  nomads  in  El  Kasim  have 
brought  me  bread  and  salt  that  I  should  spit  in  it  for  their  sick 
friends. — Also  the  Arabians  will  spit  upon  a  lock  which  cannot 
easily  be  opened"  (Doughty,  Arab.  Dei.  i.  p.  527).  'Another 
time  I  saw  Salih  busy  to  cure  a  mangy  theliU  (riding-camel). 
He  sat  with  a  bowl  of  water  before  him,  and,  mumbling  there- 
over, he  spat  in  it  and  mumbled  solemnly,  and  spat  many 
times,  and,  after  a  half  hour  of  this  work,  the  water  was  taken 
to  the  sick  beast  to  drink '  {ih,  il  p.  16-1). 

This  strange  custom  may  be  combined  wif'< 
the  prevalent  notion  that  the  more  repulsive  an.* 
disgusting  the  remedies,  the  more  eilicaciouB  they 


SORCERY 


SORCERY 


603 


They  will  take  o(  the  unclean  nnd  even  abominable,  and  say, 
liairii,  *'  it  is  medicine."  These  Hwhniin  pive  the  sick  to  eat  of 
the  i*oX'Aom  or  smuU  white  carriun  eaj^'le.  L'pun  a  day  I  found 
a  poor  woman  of  our  menzil  seething  uas&i'  dunj;  in  the  pot^ 
She  would  ^ive  the  water  to  drink  with  milk  to  her  sick 
brother '{Doughty,  L  p.  255). 

Mafjic  devises  strange  remedies.  The  person  of 
tlie  kin"  has  a  supornatural  character  (Frazer, 
Gvl'len  Bough^,  \.  p.  StV.),  and  it  is  owing  to  tliis 
belief  that  we  constantly  find  the  royal  personality 
or  his  family  invested  with  a  priestly  function. 
Thus  in  Arabia  it  was  believed  that  hydrophobia 
was  to  be  cured  by  royal  blood,  i.e.  not  merely  the 
blood  of  the  reigning  monarch,  but  also  that  of 
the  royal  family.  Even  sorrow  for  the  dead  had 
its  magic  remedy.  Dust  from  the  grave  of  the 
deceased  beloved  one  was  to  be  drunk,  mingled 
with  « ater ;  and  the  same  remedy  was  employed 
as  an  antidote  to  love-sickness,  for  a  man  who  was 
in  love  was  held  to  be  possessed  or  bewitched. 
By  the  spells  of  a  sorcerer,  too,  lovers  may  be 
parted. 

It  may  here  be  remarked  that  the  introduction  of 
Islam  ditl  even  less  to  destroj'  belief  in  m.agic  than 
the  growth  of  Jewish  monotheism.  We  can  only 
say  in  both  ca.ses  (that  of  the  Arab  and  of  the  Jew) 
that  the  belief  in  spirits  entered,  as  Wellhausen 
savs  of  the  Arab  [ib.  p.  157),  'upon  another  stage.' 
'  The  old  gods  are  deposed  and  degraded  into  the 
position  ofdemons.  The  latter  thereby  change  their 
character  and  become  hellish  creatures,  bitterly 
hostile  to  Allah  and  his  heavenly  surrounding.' 
Thev  became  Satans  {Shaitdn.s-),  with  Iblis  at  tlieir 
heaJ,  opjiosed  to  prayer  and  the  cry  of  the  muezzin, 
loving  uncleanliness  and  dirt,  and  therefore  de- 
barred by  washings  and  the  burning  of  incense. 

Consequently  sorcery  was  just  as  prevalent  after 
Islam  as  before  it.  Mohammed  placed  the  interior 
bark  of  the  Samara  tree  on  the  arm  of  Dhul 
Bigadain  to  render  him  invulnerable.  Gum  resin 
from  this  tree  was  constantlj- carried  as  an  amulet. 
The  ankle-bones  of  a  hare  are  effective  to  ward  off 
the  jinn  of  the  camp,  the  ghoul  of  the  desert,  and 
Satan  himself.  They  are  also  effective  in  quelling 
fever.  Similar  efficacy  belonged  to  the  teeth  of  a 
cat  or  a  fo.\.  The  magic  of  the  knot-tying  was 
encountered  by  tlie  protectiv  e  spell  of  the  amulet. 
One  species  of  amulet  was  called  tatiijis  (defiling), 
and  contained  dirt,  bones  of  the  dead,  and  other 
repulsive  objects.  Many  amulets,  however,  con- 
sisted of  ornaments,  often  precious  stones,  deemed 
on  this  account  sacred.  Their  object  seems  to  be 
to  divert  the  attention  of  the  demons  from  the 
wearer.  Thus  a  mark  on  the  face  of  a  woman, 
or  even  tattooing,  served  this  purpose ;  also  the 
fragrant  berries  carried  by  children,  tlie  silver  and 
old  plates  worn  by  horses,  and  the  bells  carried 
y  camels  (cf.  Zee  14""),  which  diverted  or  scared 
away  the  demons  by  their  sound.  Cf.  Wellhausen, 
Rested,  p.  164  ff. 

Ancient  Jewish  magic,  to  which  Blau  has 
devoted  a  special  treatise,  presents  many  features 
which  are  analogous  to  those  of  early  Arabia  just 
described.  Indeed  it  is  by  no  means  an  easy 
problem  to  determine  how  much  of  the  latter 
came  from  Jewish,  Babylonian,  and  Aramaic 
•O'lrces,  and  how  far  the  .Jewish  in  ttirn  became 
affected  in  very  early  times  by  Arabia.*  There 
cac  be  little  doubt  that  the  main  source  of  Jewish 
tradition  in  magic  and  demonology,  in  and  after 
the  Exile,  was  Babylonia,  and  that  Babylonia 
also  influenced  Arabia. 

The  magical  effect  of  spitting,  to  which  Doughty 

•  According  to  the  Talmud  (SanJiedrin  61b,  Ola)  the  Arabs 
were  regarded  &a  endowed  with  magical  powers.  In  the  lir^t 
poattogc  it  is  related  that  an  Arab  sorcerer  cut  his  camel  in 
pieces  and  then  restore<l  it  to  life.  In  the  latter  jiasnape  it  la 
9tat«d  that  Abraham  coinniunicatcd  t^)  the  sons  of  his  concubines 
the  unclean  name,  i.e.  the  names  of  deities  potent  in  magic  ;  cf. 
Blau,  p.  48,  and  footnote  2. 


I 


has  referred  (in  the  passages  cited),  was  also  an 
element  in  Jewish  superstition.  But  what  is  most 
significant  in  Jewish  sorcery  is  the  belief  in  the 
magic  power  of  words  and  names  which  was  held 
almost  universally,  in  the  time  of  Christ,  by  the  Jews 
in  common  with  other  contemporary  nations.  Pas- 
sages from  Scripture  were  considered  to  be  espe- 
cially effectual.  These  were  constantly  employed 
in  bringing  about  cures.  Thus  the  words  in  Lv  13' 
nv]>'  ;■;:  and  also  Lv  1'  were  considered  etiicacious, 
thou"h  forbidden  by  Rab  and  Kabbi  Chanina 
{SnnJtcdrin  lOlor).  fix  15-°  was  employed  in  heal- 
ing wounds  ;  but  when,  in  addition  to  this,  sjiitting 
was  resorted  to,  this  was  regarded  as  a  forl>idden 
form  of  magic,  and  whosoever  attempts  it  has  no 
part  or  lot  in  the  future  life  (Mishna  Srinhed.  xi.  1  ; 
fosrfta  xii.  10).  Of  course  special  force  belonged 
to  the  words,  'For  I,  Jehovah,  am  thj-  healer.' 
Unclean  water  has  a  magical  influence,  which  can 
be  increa.sed  or  arrested  by  some  incantation. 
Magic  influence  of  a  deterrent  character  was  also 
attributed  to  iron.  Iron  has  the  power  to  wanl  off 
evil  spirits  and  to  break  spells.  Spirits  stand  in 
fear  of  iron  (cf.  Blau,  p.  159;  and  Bernkhoth  6r/, 
cf.  Tosefta  vi.  13).  Tlie  iron  is  cast  between  the 
graves,  and  the  word  hnda  is  pronounced  ;  for  the 
graveyard  has  always  been  the  place  where  sorcery 
is  practised,  since  the  spirits  of  the  departed  dwell 
there.  Thither  Canidia  and  Sagana,  the  sorceresses 
of  Horace's  muse,  repair  in  the  moonlight  \,Sat. 
I.  viii.);  and  Wellhausen  {Ilcste^,  p.  157)  considers 
that  close  relations  subsisted  between  jitin  and 
spirits  of  dead  men,  the  spirits  of  the  departed 
becoming  /inn. 

The  Talmud  gives  special  recipes  for  turning  a 
bad  dream  into  one  of  good  omen.  One  of  these 
consists  in  repeating  9  verses  (3  x  3)  of  the  Bible. 
If  .'i  man  sees  a  river  in  a  dream,  let  him  recite 
Is  GO'-  (in  which  peace  is  compared  to  a  flowing 
stream)  before  he  thinks  of  Is  59"  '  When  the 
enemy  comes  like  a  river.'  It  is  dangerous  to 
drink  water  on  Wednesday  or  Friday  night.  If, 
however,  one  is  comiielled  to  drink  it,  it  is  recom- 
mended that  Ps  29'"'"  should  be  recited,  where  the 
voice  of  Jehovah  is  mentioned  seven  times  and 
also  the  waters,  and  it  is  said  that  Jehovah  is 
enthroned  above  the  flood. 

Incantations  were  constantly  employed  in  the 
art  of  healing.  Most  of  these  spells  are  derived 
from  the  teachers  of  the  Talmud,  who  also  prac- 
tised the  medical  art.  As  the  remedy  was  applied, 
the  incantation  was  whispered  in  tlie  ear  of  the 
patient.  The  head  of  the  operating  physician  was 
anointed  with  oil,  and,  if  any  unbidden  or  tin- 
initiated  person  heard  tlie  spell,  its  magical  power 
was  lost.  Two  examples  of  these  magical  remedies 
may  be  found  in  art.  Magic,  vol.  iii.  p.  211,  and 
further  illustrations  will  be  found  in  lilau's  mono- 
graph, pp.  72-77,  l.Wfl'.,  and  Breclier's  Das  Tran- 
sccn(lcnt(de,Magie  u.mngischcHeilarlenimTalmud, 

p.  198  ir. 

Sorcery,  in  the  narrower  sense  of  ma"ic  em- 
ployed with  malignant  or  evil  intent,  would  seek 
to  accomplish  such  ends  as  causing  one's  neigh- 
bour's house  to  catch  fire,  bringing  a  hailstorm  on 
his  field,  depriving  his  cows  of  milk,  making  his 
child  die  of  illness,  causing  domestic  brawls,  or 
visiting  himself  with  sudden  death.  In  fact  the 
.ancients  were  accustomed  to  attribute  all  such 
disasters  to  a  malignant  demon,  sorcerer,  or 
witch  ;  and  the  possession  of  any  unusual  phy.xical 
or  mental  quality,  especially  an  uncanny  look 
about  the  eyes,  would  expose  the  male  or  female 
possessor  of  these  characteristics  to  the  unenviable 
reputation  of  being  a  sorcerer  or  sorceress.  Espe- 
cially old  women  of  unusual  ugliness  were  credited 
with  dealings  with  the  dark  supernatural  world. 
Even  men  distinguished  by  brilliant  acquirement« 


t04 


SORCERY 


SORCERY 


or  clever  play  would  be  liable  to  the  suspicion  of 
Borcerj'. 

The  chief  motives  to  sorcery  were  love  and 
hatred,  and  the  result  was  frequently  death  or 
unfaithfulness  to  tiie  marriage  vow.  .\fagic  was 
employed  to  win  forbidden  love.  Tlie  chiel  means 
to  compass  this  end  was  mantlratjura,  wliicli  was 
universally  regarded  as  an  erotic  plant  (hence  the 
Heb.  name  CNin  Gn  30''"-).  It  was  customary  to  re- 
cite verses  from  the  Bible  over  this — a  practice  which 
the  Talmud  forbids  {^/labbnf.k  86,  19).  Tying  of 
knots  was  sometimes  resorted  to  in  order  to  prevent 
childbirth.     Cf.  l,voran  113  (blowing  on  knots). 

Simon  ben  .Jochai  had  the  reputation  of  being  a 
magician,  and  tradition  relates  that  when  he  with- 
drew from  his  cave,  after  residing  there  for  thirteen 
years,  he  transformed  every  one  upon  whom  he 
gazed  into  a  heap  of  bones ;  and  it  is  reported  that 
he  destroyed  a  heretic  in  this  way  (Pcsilta  90i, 
137a). 

Amulets  were  employed  as  prophylactics,  i.e. 
as  a  means  of  counterworking  the  evil  iniluences 
of  witchcraft  and  demons.  The  cx'n^,  to  which 
Is  3-"  alludes  as  one  among  the  articles  of  feminine 
attire,  may  be  considered  to  be  this  simply  and 
solely.  These  were  not  forbidden,  though  they 
partook  of  a  ma'dcal  character.  It  is  only  in  cases 
where  the  amulets  were  heathen  in  origin  tliat 
they  were  strictly  forbidden.  Thus  in  2  Mac  12^" 
the  amulets  discovered  on  the  slain  came  from  the 
idol  temple  at  Jamnia,  and  were  on  this  account 
objectionable.  The  name  by  which  the  amulet 
was  called  in  later  Jewish  literature  is  Ip'mi'd 
(Ji'Cij).  The  kam'ri  is  mentioned  with  the  tcphillin 
or  phylacteries.  Both  were  covered  with  leather. 
Similarly,  the  amulets  of  the  Greeks  and  Romans 
were  contained  in  capsules  (bulbce).  The  Jewish 
amulet  consisted  either  of  some  inscribed  object  or 
of  certain   roots  of   plants,  or,  in  some  cases,  of 

f  rains  of  corn  bound  uj)  in  leather.*  It  may  here 
e  remarked,  in  passing,  that  every  vegetable  was 
supposed  to  have  a  subtle  connexion  with  a  planet 
in  heaven  (see  Blau,  p.  160  f.).  Anything  otl'ered 
with  incense  to  the  gods,  or  shavmgs  from  the 
Asherah  tree,  were  considered  to  have  a  special 
healing  virtue.  Metal  plates  consisting  of  an 
upper  and  lower  plate  were  constantly  employed 
as  amulets.  A  pearl  wrapped  up  in  leather  was 
regarded  as  a  healing  remedy  for  cattle. 

In  all  spells,  charms,  incantations,  amulets,  and 
other  prophylactics,  stress  is  always  laid  on  the 
mysterious  potency  and  significance  of  the  name. 
NuiHcn  involves  omen.  Name  to  the  ancient 
Semite  involves  reality  and  personal  power.  And 
the  superstitious  dread  of  the  ancient  Greek  who 
cried  ev4nifiuTc  at  solemn  crises  or  functions,  and 
of  the  Roman  who  under  like  circumstances  said 
favcte  Unguis,  was  founded  on  this  same  belief  in 
the  underlying  dread  potency  of  words  or  names 
to  summon  forth  catastrophes.  To  this  tendency 
the  etymologizin"  efl'orts  and  plays  on  words  in 
the  Ol"  are  probably  due,  viz.  to  the  endeavour  to 
discover  in  the  name  a  clue  to  the  underlying 
power  that  shapes  individual  destiny.  '  As  his 
name,  so  is  he,'  says  Abigail  of  her  wrong-headed 
husband  Nab.al.  '  Fool  is  his  name,  and  folly  is 
with  him '  (1  S  25^).  The  combination  of  the  name 
of  deity  with  a  newborn  child  was  therefore  quite 
explicable.  Even  the  names  of  angels  in  later 
Judaism,  like  those  of  individuals,  contained  the 
name  of  deity  {'yx),  e.g.  Michael,  Raphael,  etc. 
Heaven  and  earth  are  perishable,  but  '  Thy  great 
name  liveth  and  abideth  for  ever'  {Berak/tuth  Sin). 
Hence  tliose  names  (especially  of  angels)  which 
contain  the  name  of  deity  possess  a  special  potency. 

•  On  this  subject  of  amulets  consult  Winer,  RWB^  i.  p.  66  ; 
Com.  on  On  S6<  and  U  Sis"- ;  Hamburger,  HE,  Supplem.-Baud, 
U.  pp.  8-11. 


Particular  power  was  assigned  to  the  mysterious 
tBtragrammalun,  which  could  be  pronounced  only 
on  the  Great  Day  of  Atonement  in  the  temple  by 
tlie  high  priest.  Hence  it  is  called  in  the  Talmud 
c-jirpn  D^  (in  Aramaic  Nv"n;.'3  n?v')i  the  name  pro- 
lumnced  (cf.  I'ael  ^■'-?)  then,  and  then  onl3'.  Ibis 
name  later  Judaism  believed  to  have  been  inscribed 
on  the  wonder-working  statl'of  Moses.  The  tcliiim 
no  longer  overflows  when  a  potsherd  engraved  with 
the  tetragramniatrm  is  thrown  into  it.  Ashmodai 
(cf.  Apollyon),  the  prince  of  demons,  was  bound 
by  a  chain  and  a  seal  ring,  on  which  was  inscribed 
the  Divine  name  {Gittin  68,  bottom).  By  mark- 
ing this  name  on  the  mouth  of  the  idol  calf  of 
Jeroboam  it  was  made  to  speak. 

This  mj'sterious  and  potent  name  was  designated 
in  Hebrew  as  c^'n,  by  the  Greeks  ri  jcojua,  also 
called  fippT/TOK— on  magic  papyri  (.see  Wessely)  fi-o/ia 
KpvTTTbv  Kal  &ppy)Tov,  or,  as  in  the  inscription  of 
Iladrumetum  (see  art.  Magic,  and  Deissmann, 
Bible  Studies,  14611'.,  lO(iK.),TbdyiOi>  SvopiaSovXiyerai 
(line  20),  also  t6  Kpinrrbv  ofo/ia  Kal  dpptjTof  iv 
dfdpdnrois  (Dietrich,  Abraxas,  195,  line  7),  or  it  is 
called  t6  TeTpdypafi/jLov  livop-a  t6  iiv(Ttik6v.  The 
Hebrew  rm'.,  in;,  .^;  is  reproduced  in  a  variety  of 
forms  in  Greek  (see  Deissmann,  ib.  p.  4).  The 
manifold  employment  of  the  letters  of  the  tetrn- 
grammaton,  as  well  as  of  the  seven  vowels 
a  e  r;  I  0  u  o),  played  a  considerable  part  in  magic 
jiapjai ;  and  it  is  impossible  within  the  space  at  our 
disposal  to  enter  into  the  maze  of  details  on  this 
subji^ct,  which  may  be  found  in  Blau's  treatise, 
pp.  141-146. 

The  belief  in  the  power  of  words,  especially  those 
of  Scrijiture,  is  exhibited  by  the  custom  of  repeat- 
ing a  plirase,  as,  for  example,  the  Ultemd,  or  some- 
times in  inverting  the  order  of  letters,  as  in  the 
Gnostic  gem  referred  to  by  Schwab  (Vocabulaire 
de  I'Angclologie,  p.  303),  in  which  is  inserted 
OvKXiaXi  j,  which  is  the  expression  Njp  Sx'?  "3  inverted. 
The  belief  underlying  these  inversions  is  that  the 
reversal  of  the  order  ell'ects  the  retreat  or  over- 
throw of  tlie  demons  and  of  the  sorcery  they  em- 
ploy. According  to  Rabbi  'Akiba,  special  potency 
belongs  to  the  letters  of  the  ali)habet  to  which  special 
meanings  by  acrostics  were  assigned.     Thus  i^n  = 

Belief  in  the  power  of  the  eyil  eye  was  just  as 
prevalent  in  Semitic  lands  as  in  those  of  classical 
antiquity.  Especially  were  women  with  an  ugly 
squint  or  strange  look  or  contracted  heavy  eye- 
brows considered  to  possess  powers  of  the  evil  eye 
(see  art.  Magic,  vol.  iii.  p.  208'). 

Tradition  ascribed  the  belief  in  the  power  of  the 
evil  eye  to  Babylonia.  Rab  lived  in  Babylonia, 
where  the  evil  eye  is  often  found  (Jerus.  Shabbath 
14c**;  cf.  Bnba  mezin  1076,  above).  It  is  said  of 
Hananiah,  Mishael,  and  Azariah,  that  after  they 
were  delivered  from  the  fier3-  furnace  they  fell 
victims  to  the  many  eyes  which  were  fixed  on 
them.  According  to  Baba  bathra  i.  18,  Joshua 
commanded  the  sons  of  Joseph  to  conceal  them- 
selves in  the  wood  in  order  that  they  might  not  be 
overpowered  by  the  evil  eye  (Jos  n'").  Men  of 
distinction  were  specially  exposed  to  this  evil. 
But  the  tradition  prevailed  that  descendants  of 
Joseph  were  exempt.  Thus  when  the  distinguished 
and  handsome  Raljbi  Jochanan  was  asked  whether 
he  did  not  fear  the  evil  eye,  he  replied,  '  I  am  of 
the  seed  of  Joseph,  who  are  not  injured  by  the 
evil  eye '  (BerakhOth  20a,  below).  It  was  recom- 
mended as  a  precaution,  if  one  is  about  to  enter 
a  town  and  is  afraid  of  the  evil  eye,  to  place  the 
right  thumb  in  the  left  hand  and  the  left  thumb 
in  tlie  right  hand  and  say,  '  I  am  N.  son  of  N.,  and 
am  descended  from  the  seed  of  Joseph.'  Another 
preservative  was  to  look  <in  the  left  side  of  the 
nose. 


SORCERY 


SORCERY 


605 


Horses  were  preserved  from  the  power  of  tlie 
evil  eye  by  hanging  a  fox's  tail  or  a  scarlet  thre:iil 
between  the  ej-es.     Children  were  more  frequently 

{)rovided  with  amulets  than  adults,  and  those  tlu-y 
leld  in  their  hand  (Shabbath  106,  616).  Children 
have  naturally  a  weaker  power  of  resistance  to 
evil  influence  or  fascination  than  adults.  Hence 
an  in.scribed  card  or  leaf  (TiTTdKioi-)  or  other  kind 
of  amulet  was  hunn;  around  the  neck.  A  Jewish 
amulet  would  contain  the  letters  of  the  nrime  of 
Deity  and  various  extracts  from  the  Torah.  It 
would  also  contain  the  name  of  the  person  to  be 
protected. 

Kven  articles  of  furniture  or  vessels  were  pro- 
tected in  this  manner.  Handles  and  pedestals 
were  inscribed  with  the  Divine  name.  Especially 
the  betlstead  was  guarded  in  this  way  against  en- 
chantment. The  blessing  in  Nu6""^was  intended 
to  protect  Israel  against  the  evil  eye.  Indeed  the 
Torah  itself  was  designed  by  God  as  a  defence 
against  evil  (Wmjiiikra  rabbn,  c.  25,  ndinit.). 

The  magic  of  the  evil  ej'e  is  a  topic  avoided  in 
the  Mishna,  and  the  attitude  of  orthodox  Judaism 
towards  the  entire  subjrct  of  sorcery  was  hostile, 
and  in  this  respect  coincided  with  the  spirit  and 
teaching  of  St.  Paul,  who  regarded  sorcery  as 
belonging  to  the  sphere  of  the  Mpycia  tou  -aTanS. 
and  ^pfiahla  as  one  of  the  products  ((pya)  of  the 
Itesli  (Gal  S-"").  This  attitude  of  Judaism  rested  on 
the  ancient  precepts  of  the  Torah,  even  the  most 
primitive  code  (Ex  22",  cf.  Dt  18'")  containing 
prohibitions  and  death  penalties  directed  against 
sorcerer  and  sorceress. 

The  causes  of  this  ancient  antagonism  between 
religion  and  magic,  which  certainly  existed,  though 
far  from  universal,  e\'idtntly  lie  in  some  funda- 
mental distinction  betwcm  tlie  two,  which  we  h.ave 
all  jady  endiMvoured  to  elucidate  in  the  opening 
pages  of  the  art.  Magic.  The  subject  has  been 
ably  discussed  in  Frazer's  Golden  Bou(jh(\.  ]>.  61  ft". ), 
but  not  with  complete  success,  since  the  writer 
refuses  to  admit  what  the  researches  of  Tj'lor  and 
others  liave  m.-ide  clear,  viz.  that  ancient  culture 
in  all  its  manifold  forms  rests  upon  a  primitive 
basis  of  animism,  an  interpretation  of  life  wh(?reby 
man  surrounded  him.self  with  a  cosmic  society  of 
personal  agencies.  Krazer  considers  that  the  few 
cases  cited,  '  in  which  the  operation  of  spirits  is 
assumed,  and  an  attempt  made  to  win  their  favour 
by  prayer  and  sacrifice,'  are  exceptional.  '  Wher- 
ever sympathetic  magic  occurs  in  its  pure  un- 
adulterated form,  it  assumes  that  in  nature  one 
event  follows  another  necessarilj'  and  invariably 
without  the  intervention  of  any  spirit^ml  or  personal 
agency.'  The  (inal  negative  clause  of  this  sen- 
tence, which  we  have  italicized,  lacks  historic 
proof.  The  most  ancient  inscribed  documents  of 
human  life,  discovered  in  Babylonia  and  Egypt, 
point  to  the  opposite  conclusion,  that  in  man's 
primitive  condition  magic  was  closely  interwoven 
with  a  belief  in  gods  and  demons.  That  in  some 
more  recent  examples  of  sympathetic  magic  the 
primitive  elements  of  spiritual  belief  have  dis- 
appeared, and  nothing  apparently*  remains  but 
the  assumption  that  'in  nature  one  event  follows 
another  necessarily  and  invariably,'  we  may  with 
certain  limitations  admit  to  be  true.  In  some 
exponents  of  '  modern  .science '  we  observe  a  similar 
process  of  the  attrition  of  a  belief  in  or  recogni- 
tion of  an  ultimate  Personal  Cause  which  sustains 
'  nature's  unchanging  harnionj'.'  But  without  the 
assumption  of  a  primitive  belief  in  personal  agen- 
cies, how  can   we  explain   the  constant  employ- 

•  We  nay  *ap|iarently,'  because  miHsionaries  from  Central 
Africa,  where  iim^'ic  abounds  (we  refer  particularly  to  the  Rev. 
Hurry  Johnson),  have  informed  the  present  writer  that  natives 
•re  vcr)'  reticent  with  rejrard  to  their  beliefs  on  to  what  under- 
lies their  frvctlce.  Moreover,  belief  in  spirits  thev  certainly 
paneM. 


ment  of  incantations  and  of  formula?,  spoken  or 
written,  a.s  well  as  the  close  relations  which  in 
ancient  culture  undoubtedly  subsisted  between 
magic  and  reli;;ion,  the  priest  combining  in  his 
own  person  tlie  normal  functions  of  worship 
with  those  of  soothsaying  and  magic?  But  our 
critici.sm  does  not  in  reality  obscure  the  illumin- 
ating value  of  Frazer's  statements,  which  we  now 
cite. 

'  Its  (und.imental  conception  is  identical  with  that  of  modern 
science.  Underlying  the  whole  system  is  a  faith,  implicit  but 
real  and  firm,  in  the  order  and" uniformity  of  nature.  The 
maj^cian  does  not  doubt  that  the  same  causes  will  always 
produce  the  same  elTects,  that  the  performance  of  the  propel 
ceremony  accomj>anied  by  tlie  aj^propriate  spell  will  inevitably 
be  attendwl  by  the  desired  results,  unles.s,  indeed,  his  incanta- 
tions should  chance  to  be  thwaru^  and  sjioiled  by  the  more 
potent  chonns  of  another  sorcerer.  .  .  .  Tlie  fat.il  flaw  of  ma^nc 
lies  not  in  its  general  a.->suiiiption  of  a  succes-sion  of  events* 
.  .  .  but  in  its  total  misconc:e])tions  of  the  nature  of  .  .  .  that 
succession  ...  In  ancient  Kjjypt.the  ma^cians  claimed  the 
power  of  compellintr  even  the  liit,'hest  gods  to  do  their  bidding.' 

Hence  arose  a  radical  conflict  between  ma^c  and  religion. 

*The  hauj;hty  self-sufficiency  of  the  majrician  .  .  .  and  his 
unabashed  claim  to  exercise  sway  could  not  but  revolt  the  priest. 
Sometimes,  we  may  suspect,  lower  motives  concurred  to  whet 
the  ed^e  of  the  priest's  hostility.  He  professed  to  be  the  proper 
medium,  the  true  intercessor  between  God  and  man,  and  no 
doubt  his  interests  as  well  as  bis  feelings  were  often  injured  by 
a  rival  practitioner.'  f 

We  may  here  briefly  advert  to  the  prevalence  of 
magic  and  sorcery  in  ancient  Greece  and  in  ancient 
Greek  settlements.  Aristotle  (Probl.  xx.  34)  refers 
to  the  superstition  of  the  evil  eye  {/3a<rKaii'u  and 
/Siiritoi'os,  ySaffxai'io  through  the  <i0fla\^6s  (ta<6!).  This 
particularly  aH'ccted  children  and  cattle  (Verg. 
Eel.  iii.  103).  Theocritus  (Idyll,  ii.  throughout, 
and  vi.  39)  clearly  proves  how  prevalent  sorcery 
was  in  the  beginning  of  the  3rd  cent.  B.C.  A 
century  earlier  Plato  (Re.p.  ii.  364  B)  describes  the 
wandering  beggars  and  sooths.ayers  who  go  about 
to  rich  men's  doors  persuading  them  that  they 
have  power  from  the  gods  to  avenge  any  man  on 
his  enemies,  and  can  induce  the  gods  to  do  their 
bidding  by  certain  enchantments  and  magic  knots 
(iTraywrfah  Kal  KaTaoifffioii).  Herodotus  (in  the  5th 
cent.),  ii.  181,  tells  the  story  of  Amasis,  king  of 
Egypt,  who  believed  he  had  been  spell-bound  by 
his  wife  Ladica.  The  Greeks  believed  in  and 
practised  the  magic  KardSea/ioi  {KaraSiad!)  or  knots 
as  much  as  the  Hebrews  their  -Qn  (cf.  Euripid. 
Medea,  1136-1230). 

These  KardSfafioi  (Lat.  dirw)  were  inscribed  on 
their  leaden  tablets  or  on  strips  of  p.apyrus  or 
talc  (Tacitus,  Annals,  ii.  69).  The  first  actually 
known  were  discovered  at  Athens  in  ISU  liy  I\l. 
Kauvel,  and  two  years  later,  in  the  public  ceme- 
tery of  the  Pir.-cus,  by  Mr.  Dodwell.  Recently  they 
were  found  among  the  tombs  in  Cyprus  (of  tlie 
Ist  cent.  A.D.).  The  character  of  the  inscription 
or  incantation  which  is  scratched,  is  mainly  as 
follows  :  '  I  bind  with  this  spell  (KaToScJ)  So-and-.so, 
his  shop  and  all  his  property.'  In  the  formula 
employed  on  one  of  the  two  Athenian  leaden 
tablets  the  writer  binds  over  his  enemies  by  name 
to  Hermes  Cthonius,  r^  kotoxos,  and  Persephone. 
In  the  other  we  read  :  '  I  bind  over  such-and-such 

fiersons  to  thee,  Onesime.'  Onesime  may  perhaps 
lave  been  the  occunant  of  the  tomb  where  the 
tablet  was  discovered. 

In  addition  to  this  method  of  writing  the  name 
of  the  enemy  on  a  tablet  and  marking  it  vith 
magical    signs  or  characters,   we    have   another, 

•  We  prefer  to  omit  here  all  reference  to  '  law.'  The  belief  of 
ancient  magic  in  the  uniformity  of  nature  can  only  have  been 
of  a  very  partial  and  rudimentary  kind,  viiL  in  the  limited  sphere 
of  magical  practice. 

t  Another  contributing  cause  to  the  hostility  of  religion  and 
of  the  priesthood  towards  magic  was  morally  Justifiable.  Alagia 
and  the  popular  faith  in  it  anned  the  oorcerer  with  awful 
powers  over  his  fellow-men,  which  he  often  used  for  unscrupu. 
lous  ends.  Thu.s  in  early  Konie  wo  find  a  law  in  the  Twelve 
Tables  which  forbids  charming  away  a  neighbour's  crops  by 
Incantations  (excatUarf). 


606 


SORCERY 


SORE 


Mhich  at  once  reminds  us  of  Babylonia  (cf.  Magic). 
A  waxen  image  of  tlie  obnoxious  person  was  made 
and  caused  to  melt  away  in  order  that  that  person 
might  melt  away  likewise  (sympathetic  magic). 
Cf.  Verg.  Ed.  viii.  80;  Horace,  Hat.  I.  viii.  32; 
Tlieoc.  Jdj/ll.  ii. 

Theie  is  good  reason  to  suppose  that  these  magic 
practices  were  introduced  from  Babylonia  into 
Greece  through  Persia,  ^schylus  and  Sophocles 
show  no  trace  of  them,  but  Euripides  alludes  to 
the  yinp  and  iiriiiSds.  In  Antiplion  (end  of  5th 
cent.)  we  read  of  a  love-potion  or  <pi\Tpov,  while 
Plato  speaks  of  magicians  [Si/itip.  20,'i  D)  and  of  the 
Thessalian  women  who  are  said  to  draw  down  the 
moon  (Gorg.  513  A). 

Necromancy,  or  the  special  mode  of  obtaining 
aid  or  knowledge  by  the  conjuration  of  the  dead, 
was  a  form  of  divination  and  magic  which  may 
be  appropriately  treated  under  the  head  of  sorcery, 
since  the  sorcerer  or  sorceress  would  likewise 
become  the  medium  of  communication  with  the 
departed  spirit.  Necromancy  is  a  practice  which 
is  linked  to  the  belief  in  the  continued  existence 
of  spirits  in  the  dark  underworld  or  She61.  Hence 
among  the  ancient  Greeks  vcKvla,  or  the  summon- 
ing of  the  dead  for  interrogation  about  the  future, 
became  locally  associated  with  caves  and  volcanic 
regions,  where  communication,  it  was  supposed, 
would  be  easily  established  with  the  lower  regions. 
Such  a  spot,  called  veKvo/iavTeiov  or  \pvxoTroij.irtiov, 
was  the  lake  Aomos  in  Thesprotian  Epims  (Herod. 
v.  92),  Lake  Avemus  in  Campania,  and  Tsnarus 
in  Laconia.  There  is,  however,  no  clear  proof  that 
conjuration  of  the  dead  in  Canaan  was  associated 
with  any  special  spot.  It  seems  ratlier  to  have 
been  associated  with  the  personality  of  the  con- 
jurer than  with  special  places.  Nevertheless  we 
might  expect  that  caves  or  dark  spots,  and  more 
especially  sepulchres,  would  be  selected  by  tlie 
Canaanite  necromancers  for  the  practice  of  their 
rites. 

The  Heb.  name  for  the  spirit  to  whom  the 
summons  was  given  was  din,  a  word  which  is  prob- 
ably no  other  than  that  which  is  used  in  Job 
32'"  for  a  skin-bag  for  holding  water.  The  term 
would  lie  a}>pliod  to  the  spirit  on  account  of  the 
mysterious  hollow  sound  which  he  was  supposed 
to  make,  as  though  speaking  from  some  hollow 
cavity.*  This  a^x  or  spirit  was  considered  to 
reside  in  the  necromancer,  who  was  for  the  time 
identified  with  it.  The  term  properly  used  to 
describe  the  necromancer  was  3in  Syj,  or  for  the 
female  sorceress  3iN  n^j;?.  We  might  compare  the 
0';v3  n'ji^s  of  Nah  3^  sin  n'pj;;  is  tlie  term  applied 
to  the  witch  of  Endor  (1  S  28'),  who  summons 
Samuel  from  his  grave  at  the  request  of  Saul 
(,.y  12-u)  and  plays  the  part  of  clairvoyante  as  well. 

Anotiier  obscure  term  frequently  combined  with 
3\v  is  'Ky.,  and  it  is  exceedingly  difficult  to  say 
w  licther  anj-  actual  distinction  of  meaning  properly 
belonged  to  the  use  of  either.  Tlie  etymology  of 
the  latter  word,  corresponding  to  our  English  word 
wizard,  suggests  the  divining  function  of  the  spirit 
inhabiting  the  necromancer,  whereas  a'lK  was  rather 
a  term  which  indicated  the  ventriloqiiizing  and 
hollow  tones  of  his  utterance.  The  LXX  usually 
render  iSn  or  'k  Syj  by  iyyiurTpiiivSos,  once  (Is  IJr) 
by  iK  yrit  tpuvCiv ;  whereas  'jjrj:,  which  they  hardly 

•  This  derivation  Is,  however,  disputed  by  Nowack  and  others. 
Hitzig,   in  his  Comnientarv  (on  Is  8'"),  connect*  it  with  the 

Arabic  <__)  I  (.i.e.  t_jl!,  rex>ermi  fuiV),  and  thus  regards  it 
as  mcanini;  'returnin(r  one.'  CI.  Baudissin,  Stud,  tut  semil. 
Retigiomciriich.  i.  p.  143  footnote.  On  the  whole,  we  agree  with 
Dillm.  on  Lv  1931  that  the  connexion  with  aiK,  '  bag,'  is  the 
most  probable.  The  interpretation  of  the  word  as  connected 
with  :i:k,  and  as  signifying  '  enemy  (ol  Ood),'  ia  the  least  prob- 


understood,  is  variously  rendered  by  TepaTotrKS-roi, 
^waotSds,  and  yvioar-qs  (yviopiffTi^s)^  and  apparently  in 
one  instance  (Is  19^)  by  iyyaaTplixvdos.  In  Dt  18" 
there  is  a  curiously  amiililied  pliraseology  which 
ought  not  to  be  presseil,  viz.  'interrogator  (Sxr) 
of  the  lis,'  'i>y.,  and  the  'inquirer  of  the  dead' 
(D"n?rr'?N  irni).  In  this  as  in  the  preceding  verso 
(v.'")  we  have  a  fairly  exhaustive  phraseology,  but 
each  term  employed  does  not  cover  an  altogether 
distinct  conception,  but  is  more  or  less  a  synonym. 

During  the  closing  decades  of  the  8th  cent., 
amid  the  dangers,  apprehensions,  and  calamities 
occasioned  by  the  Assyrian  invasions,  the  people 
resorted  in  large  numbers  to  these  occult  modes  of 
inquiry.  To  this  Isaiah  refers  in  scathing  terms 
of  rebuke  (S'*''-).  Instead  of  turning  their  faces 
heavenwards  to  Jehovah  and  to  the  words  of  the 
Torah  committed  to  faithful  prophets,  many  were 
saying  in  these  degenerate  days,  'Consult  the 
conjurers  of  the  dead  and  the  necromancers,  who 
chirp  and  whisper,  Shall  not  a  people  inquire  of 
their  manes*  on  behalf  of  the  living,  of  the 
dead  ? '  t  To  this  pitiful  and  degrading  appeal  to 
popular  superstition  the  prophet  replies  in  tones  of 
tliunder:  'To  the  instruction  and  testimony!' 
The  wide  prevalence  of  necromantic  practice  is 
illustrated  by  a  vivid  simile  employed  by  the  same 
prophet.  In  a  beautiful  and  graphic  oracle  (eh. 
29)  Jerusalem  is  threatened  with  all  the  horrors 
soon  to  impend  over  the  city  in  the  siege  of  Sen- 
nacherib :  '  And  thou  shalt  lie  prostrate,  speaking 
from  the  earth,  and  from  the  dust  shall  thy  speech 
sound  low,  and  thj-  voice  shall  be  like  a  ghost  (:m) 
from  the  earth,  and  from  the  dust  shall  tny  speech 
twitter' (v."). 

Thus  the  higher  prophetic  teaching  was  as 
hostile  in  its  attitude  towards  necromancy  as  it 
was  towards  magic  and  soothsaying ;  and  this  tone 
of  reprobation  is  echoed  in  the  stem  penalties  of 
death  denounced  against  it  in  the  legislation,  Dt 
18"  (cf.  1  S  2S'),  Lv  igs'  20»- '.  The  attitude  of  the 
teachers  in  the  Talmud  is  not  so  uncompromising, 
i'liough  they  regarded  it  as  the  work  of  the  devU, 
they  believed  in  the  validity  of  the  art  of  necro- 
mancy [BerakkCt/i  59a",  Shnbb.  1526).  The  dead 
can  only  be  conjured  in  the  first  year 'after  burial. 
It  is  said  of  Rab  that  he  even  himself  inquired  of 
the  dead  (Baba  mezia  1076). 

LiTERATtTRK. — ^This  has  been  indicated  throughout  this  article. 
On  Jewish  magic  Blau's  work  is  the  main  authority.  On  Greek 
magic  consult  Warre -Cornish's  Concise  Diet,  o/  Greek  and 
Sioman  Antiq.,  * Superstitio ' :  and  Miss  Macdonald  in  PSBA, 
vol.  xiii.  (Feb.  3, 1891),  art.  '  Inscriptions  relating  to  Sorcerj-  in 
Cyprus.'  In  this  instructive  art.  there  are  useful  citations  from 
W'essely's  Griechische  Zaitherpapyri.  A  good  illustration  is 
given  of  a  recipe  for  a  xaraht^/Mit  taken  from  his  edition  of 
Papyrus  Anastasi  in  the  British  Museum.  On  the  subject  of 
maffic  in  general  Frazer's  GtMeii  Bought  should  be  consulted, 
and  A.  Lang  in  Fortnvjhtlj/  lino.  Feb.  and  April  1901.  The  litera- 
ture has  been  indicated  already  in  art.  Maoic,  bv  reference  to 
the  exhaustive  list  in  Schiirer,  GVFS  iii.  pp.  300-304. 

Owen  C.  Whitehouse. 
SORE.— This  word  is  used  freely  in  AV  as  adj., 
suhst.,  or  adverb. 

The  Anglo-Saxon  adj.  Mr,  meaning  'painful,'  develops  a 
subsu  stir,  meaning  '  a  sore,'  as  that  which  caused  the  pain ; 
from  this  subst.  another  adj.  was  formed,  sdrig,  in  the  sense  of 
'  sad.'  .Vdr  became  in  later  Eng.  'sore,'  as  hdn  became  '  bone,' 
hdm  '  home,' etc  Sdruf  became  '  sorry,' the  double  r  being  a 
mistake,  due  to  a  fancied  connexion  with  the  subst  'sorrow.' 
Between  '  sorrj- '  and  '  sorrow '  (Anglo-Sax.  $oTg)  there  is  no 
etymological  connexion. 

Thus  the  adj.  comes  first,  and  its  primary  mean- 
ing is  painful,  which  is  the  only  sense  it  now 
retains.  Job  5"  '  For  he  maketh  sore,  and  bindeth 
up'  (n"Nj:,  LXX  d\7fri'  TToie?).  But  this  literal 
meaning  is  rare,  the  word  having  early  adopted 

•  Comp.  the  similar  use  of  D'n^K  in  1  S  281>. 
t  These  verses  (i.«.  '8  20)  are  without  adequate  reason  declared 
by  Duhm  and  Cheyne  to  be  non-Isaianlc. 


SOREK 


SOSTHEXKS 


607 


the  (ig.  sense  of  severe,  (jrietwus.     The  transition 
may  be  illustrated  from  Shaks.  Tempest,  v.  i.  288 — 

*  Steph. — O  toiicb  me  not ;  1  am  not  Stephano^  but  a  cramp. 
Pr<jg. — You'd  be  king  o*  the  isle,  sirrah? 

Steph. — 1  bhould  have  been  a  sore  one,  then  * — 

where  there  is  a  play  on  the  word. 

Is  27'  '  In  that  day  the  Lord  with  his  sore  and 
great  and  strong  sword  shall  punish  leviathan ' 
(•■^FrC  ^^"^Tr»  IjXX  rrjif  ^d;^aipaf  tt^v  dylav)  ;  Ezk  14^ 
'when  I  send  my  four  sore  judgments  upon  Jeru- 
salem' (C"'"!C,  LXX  rdf  TToi-Tjpds)  ;  -Wis  10'^  'In  a 
Bore  contliet  slie  gave  him  the  victory'  (d^ii'a 
laxvf^v)  ;  He  lO-^  '  Of  how  much  sorer  punishment, 
suppose  ye,  shall  he  lie  thought  wortliy?'  (Triircf) 
X<'povoi).  Even  when  the  reference  is  to  sufiering 
or  disease,  'sore'  almost  always  means  severe 
rather  than  literally  painful,  as  Dt  28^  'With  a 
sore  botch  '  {Tl  I'Df?).  Cf.  Udall,  Erasimis,  i.  21), 
'  Making  the  law  more  heavy  and  sore ' ;  Tavemer's 
Bible,  3  Mac  3  '«»<"''«  '  The  kyng  maketh  a  sore 
decree ' ;  Lk  15"  Rhem.  '  And  after  he  had  spent 
al,  there  fel  a  sore  famine  in  that  countrie '  (XimJs 
iax^pos).  In  the  passage  just  quoted  Tindale  and 
otliers  have  merely  '  great  ( AV  and  KV  '  mighty '), 
and  it  is  probable  that  the  word  '  sore '  itself  often 
means  no  more  than  that.  Cf.  Is  24'"  Cov.  '  The 
earth  shal  geve  a  greate  crack,  it  shal  have  a  sore 
ruyne,  and  take  an  horrible  fall.'  But  this  is 
most  fre(]uently  seen  in  the  adverb. 

The  adv.  'sore'  ('sorely'  occurs  twice)  never 
means  in  AV  lit.  '  painfully,'  often,  however, 
severely,  grievously,*  as  1  S  1*  'And  her  adversary 
also  provoked  her  sore  '  (oyj-cj  .^nny  .nnpy;!) ;  Mt  17" 
'He  is  lunatick,  and  sore  vexed'  ((taituJs  iriaxc, 
KV  '  suftereth  grievously').  But  the  usual  mean- 
ing is  greatly,  exceedingly  (Germ,  schr),  as  Is  38-'  = 
2  K  2l^  '  Hezeki.ah  wept  sore'  (Vnj  -j^  '■i.'pir'  Ti?'!, 
LXX  (K\av<T€i'  'Efe/clat  K\avfffii}  /ieydXif).  The  adv. 
nto  in  Heh.  is  often  tr''  '  sore,'  and  aipliSpa  occa- 
sionally (1  Mac  2'''  &  9»8  16--,  Mt  17«)  in  Greek. 
Cf.  Chaucer,  Prologue,  148— 

*  Of  sraale  houndes  had  she,  that  she  fedde 
With  rocsted  (lesh,  or  milk  and  wostel-breed. 
But  sore  weep  slie  if  oon  of  hem  were  deed. 
Or  if  men  smuot  it  \vith  a  yerde  smerte.' 

The  phrase  'lie  sore  on'  occurs  in  Jg  14".      See 
LiK  in  vol.  ii.  p.  113. 

The  subst.  occurs  rarely  :  Lv  13"- ",  Ps  38"  (»JJ 
a  plague-spot) ;  Ps  77*  '  My  sore  ran  in  the  niglit ' 
('^.'i  ")'.,  Rv  •  my  hand  was  stretched  out ') ;  Is  1' 
'wounds  and  bruises  and  putrifying  sores'  (n;5 
n;-!;p  RV  '  festering  sores,'  RVm  '  fresh  stripes  ') ; 
Lk  10="  '  full  of  sores '  (riXxu/wSi-os) ;  16'-',  Rev  16»-  " 
(Altos).  J.  Ha.stings. 

SOREK,  The  Valley  of  (piMy  Sijj ;  B  'K\awp-hx,i 
A  XdndppoKs  -wp.Jx  ;  vallis  Sorer). — The  valley  or 
tvAdy  (Heb.  nnhnl)  in  which  Delilah  lived  (Jg  16'). 
Eusebiua  and  Jerome  (Otunn.)  connect  the  valley 
with  Caphtiftorcc,  a  vill.ige  to  the  north  of 
Elentheropolis  and  near  Saraa  {Zadp),  that  is, 
Zorah  (Sur'ah),  the  home  of  Samson's  father. 
Capharsorec  is  now  Khvrhet  Snrik,  to  the  north  of 
M7irly  SurAr,  which  is  identilied  with  '  the  valley 
of  Sorek,'  and  not  far  from  Utir'ah. 

The  W'Ady  iStirdr  is  one  of  the  great  features  of 
Southern  Palestine.  It  rises  to  the  N.  of  Jerus., 
near  liireh  (Beeroth),  and,  running  between  Nchy 
Snmwil  and  Jems.,  passes  KuJCnick  and  'Ain 
Kdrim.  It  now  becomes  deep  and  narrow,  and 
below  'Akur  is  joined  by  Wddy  cs-Sikkeh,  which 
rises  in  the  valley  of  Kephaim,  close  to  Jerusalem, 
and  passes  Bittir.  Nortli  of  Kliurbct  'JSrma  (one  of 
the  sites  proposed  for  Kiriath-jearim)  it  becomes  a 

*  In  the  Scotch  Litur^^y  '  Kore '  is  cbaneed  into  '  grievously  '  in 
the  '  ('Ommunion  * — '  whereas  you  offend  God  so  sore  in  retusini; 
this  holy  baiK|Uct.' 

t  The  Ai-  probably  represent*  the  last  port  of  S'<x«^- 


narrow  gorge  with  precipices  on  its  northern  side, 
and,  a  little  lower,  it  emerges  from  the  hill-country 
of  Judah  and  enters  the  Shephelah,  or  lowland. 
Here,  in  a  fertile  well-watered  basin,  it  is  joined 
by  Ifddy  Ghurab,  which,  after  passing  Kuryet  el- 
'£nab  (another  proposed  site  for  Kiriath-jearim), 
runs  in  from  the  jS.W.,  and  by  Wddy  enNajil, 
which  comes  from  the  south.  On  the  northern 
slopes  of  the  basin  are  Zorah  and  Eshtaol,  and 
between  them  '  the  camp  of  Dan  '  (Mahaneh-dan), 
the  early  liome  and  buri;il -place  of  Samson  (Jg  13'-'' 
10^').  Un  the  southern  slope  is  Beth-shemesh  (Ain 
5/i«;«.s),  prettily  situated  above  the  rich  corn lields, 
and  commanding  a  line  view  down  the  broad  fertile 
valley  which  runs  past  the  vinej'ards  of  Timnath, 
Makkedah,  and  Jaoneel  to  the  sea. 

The  '  valley  of  Sorek '  oilers  an  easy  and  natural 
line  of  approach  to  Jerus.  and  the  highlands  of 
Judah.  I'lie  Philistines  followed  it  in  the  days  of 
t!ie  Judges  and  of  David  ;  up  it  the  kine,  lowing 
as  they  went,  dragged  the  cart  with  the  ark  to 
Beth-snemesh  ;  and,  at  the  present  day,  it  is 
followed  by  the  railway  from  Jallii  to  Jerusalem. 
In  or  near  the  basin,  according  to  several  authori- 
ties, were  fought  the  battles  in  which  the  ark  was 
taken  by  the  Philistines,  and  in  wliich  the  Philis- 
tines were  defeated  by  Samuel  (1  S  7). 

In  Hebrew  the  word  sorek  means  a  particular 
kind  of  vine,  which  produced  a  purple  grape,  and 
'  the  valley  of  Sorek  '  may  have  derived  its  name 
from  the  growth  of  this  vine  in  the  vineyards  that 
covered  its  slopes  (PEF Mem.  iii.  53  ;  G.  A.  Smith, 
ZrC?//i  218  fi".  ;  Cornier,  Tent-Work,  i.  172). 

C.  W.  Wilson. 

SOSIPATER  (Zuff(jraTpos,  Sonpater).—\n  Ro  16" 
called  a  kinsman  of  St.  Paul,  i.e.  a  Jew,  and  joined 
with  him  in  greetings  at  the  close  of  the  Epistle. 
The  name  is  the  same  as  Sopater  (Ac  2u'),  and 
the  two  m.iy  be  identical,  as  Jason,  another  of 
those  mentioned  in  Ro  16-',  may  be  identical  with 
the  Jason  of  Thessalonica  (Ac  17");  two  Mace- 
donian Christians  might  naturally  be  with  St. 
Paul  at  Corinth.  The  name  Sosipater  occurs  in 
the  well-known  inscription  of  Thessalonica  (CIG 
ii.  1967)  giving  a  list  of  Politarchs,  as  also  does  that 
of  Secunuus  [Kc  20-').  For  later  traditions  see 
Acta  Sanctorum,  June  vol.  v.,  June  25,  p.  4. 

A.  C.  Headlam. 

SOSITHENES  (Swo-Wi-ijs).  —  A  name  occurring 
twice  in  the  NT,  but  under  circumstances  which 
leave  it  doubtful  wliether  it  denotes  one  or  two 
persons.  1.  In  Ac  IS",  when  the  Jews  at  Corinth 
rose  against  St.  Paul  and  brought  him  to  the 
tribunal  of  Gallio,  tlie  proconsul  of  Achaia,  and 
the  latter,  refusing  to  be  a  judge  in  questions  of 
their  law,  dismissed  them  from  his  bar,  we  learn 
that  '  they  all,'  i.e.  the  bystanders  or  assembled 
crowd,  '  laid  hold  on  Sosthenes,  the  ruler  of  the 
synagogue,  and  beat  him  before  the  judgment- 
seat,  without  interference  on  the  part  of  Gallio, 
who,  in  his  indilference  to  Jewish  disputes,  gave 
himself  no  concern.  In  the  best  critical  texts  the 
word  'air  (Trdi-rts)  stands  without  any  defining 
noun,  which  has  accordingly  been  supplied  by  the 
insertion,  in  some  MSS,  of  an  explanatory  gloss, 
cither  ol  'loioafoi,  as  though  the  a.ssailants  were  the 
Jews,  visiting  the  failure  of  their  comjilaint  on  the 
head  of  their  own  leader,  or  oftener  and  more 
feasibly  ol-EXXT/i-fs,  the  (predominantly)  Greek  on- 
lookers. Sosthenes,  described  as  'ruler  of  the 
synagogue'  (which  see),  was  doubtless  the  chief 
representative  and  mouthpiece  of  the  complainants. 
Ho  was  probably  the  successor  in  oHlce  ot  Crispus, 
who  had  become  a  convert  to  Christianity  (.\c  18"). 
The  theory  of  Chrysostom,  which  identilies  him 
with  Crispus,  and  ascribes  his  maltreatment  to  his 
being  a  Christian,  is  wholly  arbitrary  ;  and  hardly 
less  so  are  the  conjectures   that   he  had   been   a 


508 


SOSTRATUS 


SPAIN 


collea-ue  in  'rule'  will.  Cri.pus  (.ee  '  r"l"«'  j" 
the  plural,  Ac  13'»),  or  had  presided  over  anuthci 

syna;:o^'ue^    1'  Sosthenes  stands  alongside  of  St. 

Paul  in  the  inscription  of  the  Epi.tle.    He  ,s  s.mply 

designated  as  '  the  brother,'  whu-h  would  seen,  to 

tZfy  that  his  person  and  CUrisUan  standing'  ^^e.e 

wellhnown  to  the  readers  of  the  letter      He  has 

been  often  identilied  with  the  synagogal  ru  er  of 

Ac  18,  who  is  assumed  to  have  heeomea  eon  ert  m 

the  interval ;  but  such  an  assumption  is  aibitiaiy, 

hen  the  name  was.  confessedly,  a  con.uion  one ; 

and  St   Paul's  associate  was  now  at  Ephesus,  not 

at  Corinth.     Many  1-ve  assumed  hun  to  be  the 

apostle's  amanuensis  in  tl'e  Eiustle    to  ^  huh     e 

appends  an   autograph   salutation  (  fa   ) ,    but  he 

n  ust    have  been   something   more    ll»'i"._f  . '»^r« 

amanuensis  to  be  thus  honouraby  co-ordinated  in 

So^.r-'' '~'°'  sarfwa."' 

SOSTRATUS  (A  ZJi-rrparos,  V  26,rTpaTos).-The 
covernur  of  the  citadel  (6  Tijs  d^•poJ^.\cu>s  f'^W'  at 
Jerusalem,  who  in  vain  demanded  on  behalf  o 
Anliochus'Emphanes.  the  money  .^vlu^h  Mene.  us 
hadpromisei  to  pay  on  being  raised  to  the  hi;,h 
priesthood  in  place  of  Jason,  2  Mac  4"  *-«'•    • 


SOTAI  C^iD  and  -.=)  -The  ^V°'^y"\'>l!',l^fXh 
'Solomon's  servants,  who  .^^'urne^  w  th  Zerub 
babel,  Kzr  2"  (B  ^arel,  A  and  Luc.  2arral)-.^ell  / 
(BA  ioirrel,  Luc.  Zoiral). 

SOUL  is  throufrhout  a  great  part  of/^'e  Bible 
simply  the  equlva'ient  of  'life'  eni^^f'"-!  '°     \\"f, 
creatures.     In  the  earlier  usage  of  the  OT  it  has 
no  Snce  to  the  later  philosophical  meaning- 
the  animating  principle,  still  le.ss  to  the  ifea  of  an 
•  immaterial  nature'  which  will  survive  the  body 
■A  livin-  soul-   in  Genesis  and  o  her  records  is 
Bimi       an  'animated  being,'  and  the  word  ,s  ap- 
plied e.iuallv  to  the  lower  animals  and  to  man. 
^Vhen  tl"e  life  is  emphasized  as  human,  rt  signi  les 
life   in   the   individual.      This  meaning    it  takes 
especially  when  c>rj,  ^vx^  is  put  in  contrast  with 
m    TT.^cL,  'spirit,'  which  then  comes  to  signify 
the  principle  of  life.     In  this  way    soul'  acquires 
more  precisely  the  idea  of   the  individual  life  in 
man!  the  Self,  the  Kgo,  although  it  may  denote 
other  aspects  of    man  than  the  '"tellec  ua  1,  and 
in    fact,  is  sometimes  ei^i^'H"*  t°      ''^'V'^   t,'^' 
xvell  as  to   '  mind  '   (see  analysis  below).     In   tlie 
NT  the  emphasis  on  the  personality  becomes  most 
marlced  in  such  sayings  of  our  Lord  as  Mt  16        , 
Mk  8» 


^Sit^  ^-^^^^'^^"^^^  ^^ 

Svvf  •  L^%  soul  •  P.  107»,  Pr  27V  :  in  Is  6H  ,t  is  said  that 
•Iheol  enlarged  her  appetiu'imi  ^■^^V-  «■">' -'.v  .t  .s    he 

■  '•'"'='•  ,f -??"'. ,  '■''^  m"^'  nl  ,i.«Aj  ™is  assimilated  in  meaning 
Stt  'i  r'ti  i';^la"de^■^nt°eL'cr^n|«Sl  a.  wen  aa  feeUog  (.,. 
Dt  4=9  2616, 1  K  8«,  2  K  23^).    See  Heart.  ^.,..,. .  ,KVm^ 

2.  n?ni  tr.  in  AV  ot  Job  30>r^ '  soul,'  means  nobil.tj;  (R^  m) 
•  .K  .„•  mv\  3  n-fl  lit.  'breath,'  is  once  in  EV  (I« 
;^c  rrTsL.'*u  is  tdtnVhe  same  absolute  way  in  Jos  10« 

.nrt  pVi506  (both  nCv'Sn-S?  'every  breathing  bemg  ). 

'"The  LXX  S,d  NT-  tz^  follow,  very  closely  the  above  u««e. 

ot  mphesh  (see  Cremer  or  Grimm, «.».). 

The  development  of  a  double  expression  for 
man's  inner  Fife  (^ux^J,  -.eDua)  gives  throughout 
X  whlBible  aTisSge  which  is  often  not  much 
more  than  a  vaijuc  parallelism,  as,  e.?/.,  m  Is  -U  , 
Vn«  «  Ph  1^*^  (KV).  It  undoubtedly,  however, 
contains  a  hint  everywhere  of  t'-  antitl.esis  be^ 
tween  the  life-principle  and  tliemdnidual  lite. 
AYhere  the  two  are  set  side  by  side,  as  in  He  4  , 
tic  actmaf  relation  subsisting  between  the     son 

usa-e  a  threetoldness  :  t6  ^ei-Ma  the  Dnine  lite 
mfnciple  i,  i'vxv  the  individual  life  in  which  the 
rSs  >uanifested,  ri  .raMa^the  material  organism 

^•'\^i:^K^i^^-t  Antithesis  occurs  i^in 
the  ulfe  of  the  adjective  ,>s,jMc  or  souhsh  (^vx^^6^y 


The  following  is  an  analysis  (abridged  from  (W.  Heb.  Lex.)  of 
the  usa"e  ot  the  Hcb.  terms  for  '  soul   :—  ^      ^.. 

1.  S%/.^«^  lit.  -that  which  breathes,-  ) the  breathing 
mibstance  or  being  •  =  4.x^«"'";«(o!n;-^'«^^^^^^^ 
''■  T'^-.^kn^lun  hrSedTnto  th?,',os' ri'otlts  6fl«lr  by  God 
Tn  2')   'n\"?^   "ol"  which^nir^        b,con,es  a  ^>^^^^ 

?,^,ri7."t',V^her  (alot'animal.  p'r  12.0,''or  (6)  of  man  On  40^ 
S  2l»,  Lv'24.7  ee  a!.:  hence  .L^ J  .i-T.i  =  •  sm.te  morfUly  Gn 
3721  Dt  10«  ",  Jer  40ii- '»  T  :  ':>  n,lS  '  take  away  l.te  1  KW. 
Jon  43  Ps  3114,  Pr  m;  ni'??  '^^i  ^'"'^  '''''"'"  ''"  '""' 
..     .,..'l„=913   P»  3319  6,-.14t;  ":  0^0  IS  19".  2S   196?«<<to-, 

^,T:.tyZT:Jt;inL  the  persona,  .'--"Jj -'-"/^^S 
and  ornat*  discoui-se  :  e.g.  •;TJ  = '  me   (Gn  498,  Nu  .3    .  Jg  IB- 
^  3«),  ^^^=J='thee'  (is  434  61«).  etc  ;  or  it  may  represent 


he  use  ot  tne  aaieciive /wyw....^  —  .  -..    •-       _ 

the  only  places  in  wliich  Vi'X">i'  occurs  in  OT 
rreekVMac  4"  H"-^)  it  means  '  hearty.'  In  4  Mao 
P^^onJeUdng  more  purely  Pyr'-l^f-^'Vl"  NT 
but  this  is  hardly  bibhcal  V'Tw^ix  instances 
another  interest  comes  in  In  the  ->^  ;"^'an'=^^ 
where  ^vxiKis  occurs  (not  wholly  Paulme),  an 
Ito' ether  new  antithesis  is  introduced.  \Miat 
'i^  ratual  or  human  in  the  ivxv  is  contrasted  with 
what  is  Divine  and  divinely  gnven  in  the  Tr.ec^a 
6  Is  So  that  ■I'vx^Kds  has  acquired  a  meaning 
a  most  eVivalent  ''to  '  carnal '  or  '  sensual.'  b^ 
whch  latter  word  it  is  twice  --f  dered  in  AV 
Rut  since  the  TytOixa  and  ir^evfLaTtiiis,  \Mth  wliicn  iL 
fstntrast'ed,  is  the  Divine  ^V\r^\  ^^^^^'^ 
it  seems  fair  to  render  ^pvxi'^i^  vv,,[„  the  other 
does  in  four  of  tj-se  places,  and  Myn^in^the  o^ther 

Chri  tUa'nity  hal  enriched  this  wordf.^..*.  -Iding 
to  its  psychological  sense  an  ethical  or  even  a 

^"S?H:^ai'l?TSnees  of  the  use  of  ^^n  in 
coniosiUon  are  ^^..^a  '  soulless  or  '  1'  e  ess  1  Co 
14'-  ■n'uiti'Yoi  'of  one  accord,  Ih  -  ,  Krofvxop 
Mike-nimle'd,'  Ph  2- ;  «(> -xo'  'double-minded. 
Ja  1«  4».     See  also  art.  PsvCHCLOOV.^  ^^^^^ 

SOUTH. -See  Negeb. 


SOW.— See  Swine. 

SOWER,  SOWING. -See  AORICULTURK. 

SPAIN  (i:iraWa).-The  S.-W.  peninsula  of  Europe 
1  .nvvn  to  the  Greeks  as  'EcrTepIo  or  'I^W'".  t  « 
Jitter  nn?e  be  ng  derived  from  the  river -I^^P  (tlie 
moder  Ebro)  The  Roman  name  was  //«;>«»,a^ 
The  i-  \ormation  of  the  tJreeks  .about  the  .oun  y 
w  s  somewhat  vague.  «i^^>altar  was  one  of^the 
Pillars  of  Hercules,  and  Herodotus  (iv.  8)  sp^^k 


SPAN 


SPEAK 


609 


of  Gades  (TiSapa)  as  lying  beyond  these.  Spain 
!iad  lieen  colonized  In  very  early  times  by  the 
I'hoonirians.  Strabo  (I.  iii.  2)  refers  to  settlements 
beyond  the  I'illars  of  Hercules  soon  after  the 
Trojan  war.  The  country  first  comes  into  the 
clear  light  of  hi.story  in  connexion  with  its  con- 
quest by  the  CarthaLjinians,  a  Phoenician  jjeople, 
between  B.C.  237  and  218.  In  the  second  Tunic 
war  (li.C.  21&-2UO)  the  Romans  conquered  that 
portion  of  Spain  which  had  been  subdued  by 
Carthage,  and  divided  it  into  Ilispania  cilerior 
and  Hixpania  ulterior,  \\\e  Ebro  being  the  boundary 
between  the  two.  The  northern  and  western 
parts  of  the  peninsula  remained  unsubdued,  and 
the  conquest  of  them  proceeded  only  gradually. 
It  was  greatly  advanced  by  the  operations  of 
Pompej'  and  Caesar,  and  was  finally  completed 
under  Augustus,  who  divided  the  country  into 
three  provinces,  Birtica  in  the  south,  Tarraconensis 
in  the  north,  and  Lusitania  (the  modern  Portugal) 
in  the  west.  The  first-named  province  was  sena- 
torial, and  the  other  two  were  imperial. 

The  mineral  wealth  of  Spain  is  greater  and  more 
varied  than  that  of  any  other  country  in  Europe. 
Copper,  lead,  and  quicksilver  are  abundant,  an<l 
silver  and  gold  are  also  found.  It  was  the  mines 
of  Spain  which  "ave  the  country  its  chief  >alue 
for  its  ancient  colonists  and  conquerors. 

The  river  Ba:tis  (Guadalquivir),  and  also  the 
surrounding  country,  had  the  name  Ta/jTijirffis, 
which  was  derived  from  that  of  the  inhabitants 
{Turti)  (Herod,  iv.  152;  Strabo,  III.  ii.  11  ti'.). 
With  this  locality  the  c-pnn  of  the  Hebrews  is 
generally  identifieii  (but  see  Tarshish). 

The  other  Scripture  references  to  Spain  are  few, 
and  in  all  of  them  liravla,  a  form  of  the  Roman 
name,  takes  the  place  of  the  older  Greek  ones. 
1  Mac  8'  refers  to  the  Roman  conquest,  and  to  the 
acquisition  of  the  gold  and  sliver  mines.  On  his 
third  Missionary  Journey  the  Apostle  Paul  formed 
the  purpose  of  extending  his  evangelistic  labours 
into  the  lands  west  of  Greece.  In  writing  to 
the  Corinthians  from  Macedonia  he  indicated  his 
intention  of  preaching  the  gospel  in  '  the  ii.'uts 
beyond'  them  (2  Co  10") ;  and  in  writing  a  little 
later  from  Corinth  to  Rome  he  explained  his  pur- 
pose as  specially  including  Italy  and  Spain  (Ko 
J524.211)  whether  he  ever  carried  out  this  inten- 
tion as  regards  Spain  is  a  matter  of  much  disjiute, 
and  the  question  is  important  only  from  its  con- 
nexion with  that  of  the  authenticity  of  the 
Pastoral  Epistles.  St.  Paul  certainly  did  not 
visit  Spain  before  his  first  Roman  iniprisunment. 
On  the  hypothesis  of  his  liberation  and  second 
imprisonment  he  may  have  done  so  at  a  later 
time.  The  Pastoral  Epistles  themselves  only  refer 
to  his  journeyings  in  the  eastern  iiart  of  the 
Mediterranean  ;  but  if  the  fact  of  his  liberation  be 
admitted,  credence  may  be  given  to  the  statement 
of  Clement  of  Rome  (1st  Ep.  i.  4),  that  the  ajiostle, 
before  his  martyrdom,  preached  the  gosi>el  '  to 
the  extremity  of  the  west '  {(irl  t4  ripii-a  t^s  Suaewt). 
Clement's  expression  naturally  suggests  Si)ain, 
and  the  Muratorian  Canon  shows  that  the  apostle's 
visit  to  Spain  was  an  accepted  tradition  of  the 
Church  before  the  end  of  the  2nd  cent.  It  says 
that  l.uke  in  the  narrative  of  the  Acts  omits 
'  profcrtionem  Pauli  ab  urbe  ad  Spaniam  prolicis- 
centis'  (see  PAUL,  vol.  iii.  p.  714').  See,  further, 
Lightfoot,  Clement,  I.e.,  and  Bihlicnl  Essays,  423 11"., 
where  the  whole  of  the  evidence  is  collected. 

Jamks  Patrick. 

SPAN See  Weights  and  Measures. 

SPARROW    (-i^Dir    fippCr). — There    is    only    one 

pas.snge  where  the  context  makes   it  reasonably 

certain   that  the  house  sparrow  is  intended   by 

tippOr  (Ps   84*  [LXX  (npovdlov],   where  AV  and 

VOL.  IV. — 39 


RV  both  tr.  'sparrow).'  The  ' pppSr  alone  upon  a 
housetop'  (Ps  102'  [LXX  pvKTiKopa^])  may  also  be 
this  biro.  It  is  true  that  this  is  one  of  the  most 
gregarious  of  birds,  and  that  it  is  usually  seen  in 
large  Hocks,  Hitting  from  branch  to  branch,  and 
from  the  ground  to  tlie  roofs  of  houses  and  stables. 
Hut  it  ha])peiis  soinetinies  that  a  single  bird 
perches  alone  on  a  hrandi  or  on  the  roof.  The 
tact  of  its  generally  sociable  habits  would  make 
this  the  more  phenomenal  and  illustrative  of  the 
loneliness  of  the  psalmist.  The  attempt  to  identify 
it  with  the  blue  thrush  Petrocossi////ius  cynnciis, 
Boie,  is  strained.  If  it  does  not  refer  to  a  solitary 
house  sparrow,  it  is  probably  intended  to  indicate 
any  small  solitary  bird.  In  addition  to  the  above 
two  pa.ssages,  RV  tr.  zippdr  '  si)arrow,'  in  Pr  26' 
[LXX  6pi'(a],  unhapjiily,  for  the  sparrow  never 
wanders.  Elsewhere  in  the  40  or  more  passages 
where  it  occurs,  both  Eng.  VSS  render  it  bj 
'bird'  or  'fowl.'  In  some  of  these  passages  it  is 
doubtless  generic  for  small  birds,  corresponding  to 
the^  Arab,  'usfxir  (.Job  41»  [LXX  dpytov},  Ps  II' 
[LXX  <TTpovBiov'\,  etc.).  It  is  also  used  for  such 
birds  as  are  caught  by  fowlers  (Pr  6°  1'^,  Am  3° 
[LXX  in  all  three  tpyeov]),  which  would  exclude 
the  house  sparrow,  as  it  is  notoriously  far  too 
cunning  to  bo  so  taken.  The  Arabs  have  a  pro- 
verb, '  tlie  duri  (house  sparrow)  cannot  be  taken 
with  bird-lime,'  applying  it  to  persons  who  are  too 
shrewd  to  be  entrapped  by  guile.  Zippdr  is  also 
used  generically  for  birds,  and  even  for  birdi  of 
prey  (Ezk  39'",  see  Fowl).  The  meaning  of  the 
Hei).  root  to  twitter  or  chirp,  which  caused  its 
original  aiiplication  to  the  passerines,  has  been 
overlooked  in  this  broader  apiilication.  The  con- 
siderable number  of  LXX  renderings  shows  this. 
The  NT  aTpovSiov  (Mt  10=»,  Lk  12«  ')  refers  to  the 
sjiarrow  Passer  domcstiens,  L.,  or  two  closely  allied 
sjiecies,  P.  Italica,  Vieill.,  the  Italian  sparrow,  and 
P.  /ij.57<anio/cj!sis,Temm.,  theSpanish  sparrow.  The 
latter  is  found  in  great  abundance  in  the  Jordan 
Valley,  where  it  breeds  in  Zizyplms  bushes.  The 
house  s]iarrow  is  .so  familiar  that  any  allusion  to 
its  habits  would  be  sui)erlluous.  G.  E.  POST. 

SPARTA.— See  LaceDjEmonians. 

SPEAR. — The  spear  of  antiquity  was  a  near 
relation  of  the  sword.  The  primitive  knife  might 
be  littcd  with  a  short  h.andle  and  become  a  sword 
Ijr(i|ier,  or  be  mounted  on  a  pole  and  become  a 
spear  ;  hence  possibly  the  doubt  whether  the 
pop.<f>ala  (see  SwoRD)  waa  a  sword  or  a  spear. 


|||«V^^ 


BRONZR  SI'KAR-nilAD  FBOli   TBUL  E1.-1IK8Y  (LAI:BIBD). 

(liy  kind  permission  of  the  PEF). 

The  spear-hcad  was  of  flint  or  bronze  (see  the 
illustrations  in  Bliss,  Monnd  of  mnny  Cities,  pp. 
36,  37)  or  of  iron  (1  S  17':  Bliss,  pp.  106,  107). 
Egyptian  spears  (perhaps  only  for  hunting  and 
lishing)  have  been  found  made  of  wood  throughout. 
Dili'erent  kinds  of  spears  were  : — 1.  The  javelin 
(|\T3  kldOn)  :  RV  of  Jos  8'»- "-«  ( A V  '  spear ') ;  1  S  17« 
(AV  'Urget'):  v.«  (AV  'shield');  Jer  6-'  (EV 
'  spear ') ;  .W-  (A V  '  lance ') ;  Joli  39^  ( AV  '  shield  ') ; 
41  Jiiail  (KV  .  iiie  rushing  of  the  javelin  '  ;  AV  '  the 
shaking  of  a  spear ').  This  weapon  was  for  ertsfinrj. 
In  the  Heb.  Sirach  (46-')  /cidOu  preserves  the  refer- 
ence to  Jos  8'",  which  is  lost  in  the  Or.  ^on<pala  (EV 
'  sword '). 


610 


SPEAEMEN 


SPICE 


2.  The  lance  (n-h  romah,  cf.  Arab,  ntinh),  perliaps 
a  lighter  weapon  than  the  spear  proper.  In  1  Iv 
lS'-«"roma/i.  is  tr"  in  AV  'lancets'  ('  lancers  in  the 
earlier  editions).     See,  further,  Driver's  note  on 

Jl  3'". 

3.  The  spear  (proper)— once  a  tr.  of  i:s  kayin  (2  S 
21'«  where  H.  P.  Smith  accejjts  the  emendation 
V3\s'  kobhd  'helmet');  generally,  however,  the 
rende'rinn-  of  n-jn  hanith.  This  (heavy)  spear  was 
used  probably  in  close  array,  when  an  army  was 
drawn  up  shield  touching  sliield,  and  with  spears 
at  the  charge  to  repel  a  threatened  attack.  *  roiu 
this  array  champions  advanced  to  issue  their 
challenges  (1  S  IT'^'- «),  and  back  to  it  upon  occasion 
they  retreated.  In  Ps  35-  »  the  Psalmist  seems  to 
think  of  himself  as  such  a  champion  defeated  and 
retiring.  The  hanttk  was  used  by  Saul  (IS  22'=)  as 
a  '  sceptre '  (b3?  shebhct,  the  shepherd  s  staff).  •  The 
cutting  up  of  the  spear  (Ps  46»)  is  a  sign  of  the  end 
of  wa?.     The  two   parts  of  .t'je  spear  were   the 

'staff'  or  butt  (yj.  '<?  'wood,'  1  s  1'' f '-;•;.;,", ,^ 

0119  •  or  rn  hez  '  arrow '  or  '  shaft,'  1  S  17'  KcthM) 
and 'the   'head'    (nanS    lahebheth    or    2^    lahahh 

'flame,' Job 39-»).  ,        ,,     ,n34r*i,    ^,,w  I 

In  NT  'spear'  represents Xi-zXI  (Jn  19" [the on  y 
occurrence]:  Vulg.  lancca).  In  Jr.  19=»  F  tieW 
(Notes  on  the  Translation  of  the  A  T,  pp.  lOo-l'.*' 
points  out  that  iaaiir-f  irepie.^.'res  corresponds  with 
the  Trepi^fis  K^\6.^f  of  Mt  27«;  accordingly,  re- 
vivin"  an  old  conjecture,  he  suggests  mtv  ^repi- 
eivT^Z  '  putting  [a  sponge]  upon  a  spear  (^,T<ros_ 
pilum);  certainly  'a  sponge  upon  hyssop  is  a 
diflacult  phrase  to  explain. 

^  W.  Emery  Barnes. 

SPEARMEN.— 1.  Incorrectly  for  njp  /aineh, '  reeds,' 
in  the  phrase  njij  n;-  hayyath  kcineh  '  the  company 
Df  spearmen,"  Ps  68="  [G7-"]  AV  (similarly  Pj.  Bk.)  ; 
RV  '  the  wild  beast  of  the  reeds'  [LXX  tois  flTjpiois 
ToO  Ka\i,xov],  i.e.  probably  the  crocodUe  or  the 
hipitopotamus  (cf.  Job  40-')  as  the  symbol  of  t-gypt. 
2.  For  5e^oXd;3ow  (Ac  23'^  EV  ;  \  ulg.  laiiccnru), 
Lachmann,  following  cod.  A  and  the  Peshitta 
(1 1  .  Vn  .  o  ^^),  reads  here  SeJio^dXout,  'right- 
handed  slingers.'  E.  Egli  {ZWTh  xxvii.  pp.  20,  21) 
proposes  to  take  the  word  in  a  passive  sense  (o^'o- 
XaSos,  sic  proparoxytone,  '  recta  captus  ),  lelt- 
handed  slingers '  (cf .  Jg  20>»).  See  Blass  in  loc. 
"  \V.  Emery  Barnes. 

SPECKLED  BIRD Jer  12'  (only).     If  the  MT 

of  this  passage  (.7-!?^  3-39  ^'^'^  '7  'f^HJ  5!'3>  B-y:t)  is 
correct,  the  tr.  can  hardly  be  other  than  '  Is  niine 
heritage  unto  me  (i.e.  to  my  sorrow,  a  datinus 
ethicus  [Cheyne,  ad  loc.])  (as)  a  speckled  bird  of 
prev  ?  Are  (the)  birds  of  prey  against  her  round 
about?'  (so,  substantially,  KV).  The  people  of 
Israel  is  compared  to  a  bird  of  prey,  just  as,  on 
account  of  its  hostility  to  Jehovah,  it  is  compared 
in  v  »  to  a  lion.  But  as  a  speckled  (yiny,  cf.  Jg  5*') 
bird  attracU  the  hostile  attention  of  other  birds 
(Tac.  Ann.  vi.  28;  Suet.  Casar,  81;  Pliny,  U^ 
X  19)  Israel  becomes  a  prey  to  the  heathen  (so 
Cheyne,  Eeuss,  et  al.).  Cornill  (in  SBOT)  alters 
the  text  slightly,  changing  •'?  into  •?  (originally 
proposed  by  Graf)  and  pointing  the  n  of  the  second 
D-yn  as  the  art.  instead  of  the  interrogative  particle. 
This  does  not  seriously  affect  the  tr.,  which  would 
now  be  '  Is  niv  heritage  a  speckled  bird  of  prey, 
that  the  birds  of  prey  are  against  her  round  about  ? 
It  need  scarcely  be  said  that  the  rendering  '  mine 
herita"e  ia  unto  me  t/u.  ravenons  hycena  (see  art. 
Hy.En'a)  cannot  be  obtained  from  the  present  text. 
It  is  a  fair  question,  however,  whether  the  M  1  is 
correct.  The  LXX  has,  B  ari,\o.ioo  i-a(^7,s  ('  liyiena  s 
den'?  =  i''3»  mj;?),  A  <riri)\aioi'  XTjcrTiii-  ('robbers 
den'').  Siegfried  -  Stade  suggest  viK  nsio  'torn 
(prey)  of  the  hyiena.'  J-  A.  SELlilE. 

•  C(.  Pauaanias,  ix.  40.  11,  where  it  1»  said  that  Agamemnon's 
fcncestnil  cKY.Trftt  waa  also  called  iipv. 


SPELT.— See  Rye. 

SPICE     SPICES.— Three    Heb.    words    are    so 

translated  in  OT.  1.  D-sp  sammim.  This  is  a 
treneric  word  (peril,  loan-word  from  Arabic)  for 
Odoriferous  substances.  It  is  used  alone  in  Ex 
SO*-  (LXX  7,SiV/«ira),  and  with  n-ap  ;.c<(/re<A= 
'incense'  in  Ex  30'  (<rw9eTos)  40",  Lv  4'  16'». 
Nu4"'etc.  i<Tvi'eeai.i  =  '  composition  ).  In  tlie  nrst 
na^sa-e  cited  is  a  list  of  three  of  the  substances 
included  under  this  heading.  Of  these,  two  are 
known,  qalbanum,  a  gum  resin,  and  onycha,  the 
operculum    of   a   Strombus:    for   the    third    see 

2.  D^=  basam  (Ca  5^  RVm  '  balsam  '  LXX  dpu- 
adro),  cVa  bosem,  c^  bescm,  pi.  o-^p  besaimm.     A 
list  of  some  of  the  aromatics  included  under  this 
.generic  name  is  given  in  Ex  30^  (LXX  7,6.»7.aTa)  : 
nivrrh,  cinnamon,  calamus,  and  cassia,  and  mtn 
two  of  them,  cinnamon  and  calamus,  besem  and 
bosem  are  construed  as  adjectives,  to  denote  swee^ 
ness      Such  are  spoken  of  as  a  sign  of  wealth  (2  It 
'>0'*  2  Ch  32-''),  and  were  given  as  tokens  ot  royal 
favour  (1  K  10^  etc.).     They  were  objects  of  com- 
merce (Ezk  27=2).     Asa  was  laid  in  a  bed  of  spices 
('>Ch  IG"  AV-  RV  'sweet  odours').     Some  nave 
supiiosed  that  the  expression   '  and  they  made  a 
vev  "reat  burning  for  him'  mdicates  that  Asa 
was  cremated.     As  the  previous  part  of  the  verse 
says,    however,    that    they    buried    hmi    in    t  e 
sepulchre,  and  laid  him  in  a  bed  of  spices,  the 
better  explanation  of  the  burning  is  that  it  was  a 
bonlire  m  his  honour.      Such  hres  are  favourite 
expressions  of  popular  enthusiasm  on  least  days  m 
Bible  lands.      Spices  were  stored  in   the  temple 
(1  Ch  9-n,  and  used  for  the  purifying  of  wonien 
(Esf^'-  Ca4"'etc.).    '  Mountains  ot  spices  (La,  8  ) 
may  refer  to  the  hillsides  around  Jerusalem,  ^vhere 
were    Solomons    Botanical    Gardens,    containing 
beds  of  spices  (5"  6;).      Bcscn  and  bosem  m^y 
have  signified  originally  the  same  as  their  Arab. 
cogn.ate  6«^AAm  =  the  Balsam  ot  ^I<^;>^.«'-V  t-^^e  .^„f : 
saZwdendron  Opobalsamum,  Kth.,  which  is  defined 
in  the  Arab,  lexicons  as  '  a  certain  kind  of  odor- 
iferous  tree,  of  sweet  taste,  t''^  ''^•'^y;!;«„f.  ^'^'?^. 
pounded  and  mixed  with  henna,  blacken  the  hair 
'Phis  confines  it  to  a  single  tree  or  group  of  trees 
(see  Balm).     But  the  analysis  of  the  use  of  bosem 
and  6escm  given  above,  with  the  fact  that  a  specia 
word  =5ri  is  used   for   Mecca  Bals.aui,  makes  it 
evident  that  these  two  words  are  not  to  be  taken 
L  any  such  restricted  sense,  but  to  be  understood 
crenerally  of  aromatics,  which  would  be  a  better 
translation  than  that  of  our  Eng.  VSS  '^Piees. 

3.  n«Dj  nekijth.  This  w.as  a  substance  or  sub- 
stances carried  by  the  Ishmaelite  traders  from 
GU^ad't^  Egyptian  37-).  -^ a1"rM'is':^^' 
sent  some  as  a  present  to  Joseph  43").  It  is  asso- 
ciated ^n  both^^^ages  with  balm  and  ladanum 
(see  artt.  on  tbese  words),  and,  in  the  latter, 
with  honey,  pistachio  nuts,  and  almonds,  which 
were  products  of  Gilead  proper.  Some  have  sup- 
posed  «.^-<5'M  to  be  the  same  as  the  Arab  7UT^a  a  A 


posed  neKum  w  uc  ui.<=  =»."--.  —  'iVJ-V  .,;„,ilQr  tn 
or  vakdath.  This  is  defaned  as  a  plant  similar  to 
the  turthith.  The  latter  is  defined  by  Avicenna 
as-'  Pieces  of  rotten  wood,  with  an  astringent 
ta.te  it  is  said  that  they  are  brought  from 

the  desert.  Its  medicinal  properties  are  astringent 
iisl)  The  plant  is  defined  in  the  dictionaries 
as  'a  slender,  oblong  plant,  inclining  to  redness, 
servingtrastomachfc'included  among  medicines 
a  plant  of  the  sands,  similar  to  a  fun-us  .  .  . 
iiavin.'  no  leaves.'  ThU  corresponds,  with  con- 
sSde  accuracy,  to  the  characteristics  of  Cyno- 
ZTum  coccineuni,  L.,  a  parasitic,  leathery  plant. 
oT  the  order  Balanophoracea:,  with  a  crinison. 
club-shaped  spadix,  3-4  in.  long,  and  i  in.  to  1  in. 
?l,Ud<!  borne  on  a  cylindrical  stalk.     It  grows  xn 


SPIDER 


SllKlT 


611 


»and  on  the  coast,  and  in  tlie  salt  marshes  of  the 
inferior.  We  have  been  unable  to  lind  in  the 
Arab,  dictionaries  sulliiient  authority  for  the  tr. 
'  f;uiu  tragacanth '  (UVni  On  37-^)  for  nnkd'nih 
and  nakdnth.  Moreover,  the  tragacanth  bears 
no  resemblance  to  the  ahove  description  of  tlie 
turthith.  It  has  also  a  special  name  kcthtrd, 
■which  is  defined  as  'a  liquid  exuding  from  a  tree 
in  the  mountains  of  BeirQt  and  Lebanon.'  This  is 
undoubtedly  the  qum  tragacanth,  which  exudes 
from  a  number  of  the  mountain  species  of  Astra- 
jalus  in  Syria  and  other  parts  of  the  Orient  as 
A.  gummifi'r,  Lab.,  A.  echinus,  DC,  etc.  The 
genus  Astragalus  is  represented  by  over  120 
species  in  Palestine  and  Syria.  We  are  inclined  to 
reject  the  idea  of  any  connexion  between  naka'ath, 
naka'ath,  and  nik6'th.  If  by  the  former  two  were 
meant  the  Cynomorium  coccineum,  it  would  not 
have  been  an  article  of  commerce  important  in  the 
Egyptian  trade.  Could  it  be  proved,  wliich  we 
believe  impossible,  that  they  meant  tragacanth, 
the  same  remark  would  apply.  The  quantity 
exuded  from  all  the  Astragali  of  Lebanon  and 
Hernion  would  not  load  a  dozen  camels.  We 
have  no  reason  to  lielieve  that  it  was  ever  more 
abundant.  We  incline,  on  the  authority  of  the 
LXX  in  both  the  aliove  passages  (Sc^uiti.ua),  to 
render  the  word  nckoth  '  (jerfumcs '  or  '  aromatics,' 
which  better  expresses  the  Gr.  than  '  spices,'  and 
corresponds  to  the  grouping  of  articles  enumer- 
ated. See,  further,  Ox/.  Heb,  Lex.  s.v.,  and 
Literature  there  cited. 

As  to  ni)  nek6th  (2  K  20"  =  Is  39'),  the  meaning 
is  uncertain,  although  the  context  dcnianil.s  some- 
thing like  'treasure.'  Possibly  the  word  is  of 
Assyr.  origin  (see  Oxf.  Heb.  Lex.  s.v.):  read  then 

Spices  (apiiiaTo.)  are  mentioned  in  NT  in  con- 
nexion with  the  burial  of  our  Lord  ('  Mk'  16^  Lk 
23'«  24',  Jn  IQ").  In  Rev  18"  AV  tr.  d/iuMO"  by 
'odours,'  RV  '  spice,'  m.  '  Gr.  atnomum.' 

G.  E.  Post. 

SPIDER.— Two  words  are  tr"  '  spider '  in  A V.  1. 
r';;y  'akkdhUh  (Arab,  'ankabut),  dpdx"'?,  aranai. 
In  both  the  passagesin  which  this  word  occur.s  (Job 
8",  Is  59°-')  the  allusion  is  to  the  gossamer  web  of 
the  spider,  as  an  emblem  of  frailty  and  speedy 
destruction,  Bildad  declaring  that  the  hope  of 
the  wicked  is  as  the  spider's  web  (m.  '  house  ;  cf. 
beit'ankabiH  in  Arab.),  and  Isaiah  saj'ing  that  the 
tenuous  web  cannot  be  wrought  into  a  garment. 
The  number  of  species  of  spiders  in  Palestine  and 
Syria  is  very  large. 

2.  n'tc^  simamith  (Pr  30-').  This  word,  from  an 
obsolete  root  c;;'  sdmam,  'to  poison,'  refers  to 
some  noxious,  reputedly  poisonous  creature,  which 
is  probably  some  species  of  lizard  (so  RV  ;  see, 
furliier.  Toy,  Proverbs,  ad  loc.).  The  L.\X  /ta\a- 
fiuirT)!  signilies  a  newt,  gecko,  or  spotted  lizard. 
The  latter  may  he  the  abu  hurcis  of  tlie  Aralis. 
Stcllio  in  the  Vulg.  signihes  tlie  newt  or  gecko. 
Several  species  of  lizards  frequent  houses,  as  the 
gecko,  wall  lizard,  green  lizard,  etc.  See  Chamkl- 
EON,  Gecko,  Lizaud.  G.  E.  Post. 

SPIKENARD  (1-1}  ncrrf,  vipSn,  narrlus).  —  A 
fragrant,  essenti;i(  oil,  from  Nrirdostachi/s  Jata- 
mansi,  DC,  a  plant  of  the  order  Valerianacem, 
growing  in  India.  The  shaggy  stems,  branching 
from  their  base,  resemble  the  tail  of  an  ermine. 
The  perfume  is  procured  from  this  part  of  the 
plant.  It  is  called  by  the  Arabs  Sunhiil  Hindi, 
the  Indian  Spike.  It  is  mentioned  3  times  in  the 
OT  (Ca  1"  4"-  [pi.  nUradim]^*),  and  once  in  the 
NT  (Mk  14«  II  Jn  l'«),  where  it  is  called  i-dpSoj 
ri<rTi/[i).  The  root  meaning  of  ^i.v<tr  is  fluid.  AVm 
gives  '  pure'  or  '  liquid  nard,'and  RVm  'genuine' 
or  '  liquid  nard,'  or  considers  that  pistic  may  be 


a  'local  name.'  As  the  perfume  is  an  oil,  the 
etymological  signilication  is  eminently  appropriate, 
and  shiiuld  be  retained.  The  Romans  used  it  in 
this  state  for  anointing  the  head.  It  was  exceed- 
ingly valuable  (Jn  I.e.),  that  used  to  anoint  Jesus' 
feet  being  worth  about  £12.  Pliny  gives  100 
denarii  as  the  value  of  a  pound  of  it.  That  used 
for  our  Saviour  must  have  been  of  a  very  superior 
grade.  The  tests  of  genuineness  given  by  Pliny 
are  lightness,  red  colour,  sweet  smell,  taste  which 
leaves  a  dry  sensation  but  pleasant  flavour  in  the 
mouth  (HN  xii.  26).  G.  K.  Post. 

SPINNING.— The  notices  of  spinning  in  the  Bible 
are  very  meagre,  being  found  only  in  Ex  35^-  -°  P  ( nip 
'spui.'and  ni^?  'yarn')  and  Mttj-",  Lk  12-''  (vtiOui'') ; 
but  the  art  is  implied  in  many  other  passages,  such 
as  where  the  curtains  and  hangings  of  the  taber- 
nacle are  mentioned ;  and  the  various  garments, 
the  materials  for  which  must  have  been  spun. 
The  description  of  the  virtuous  woman  in  Pr  31'""" 
includes  it  as  one  of  her  chief  accomplishments 
(vv.'^-");  and  the  Heb.  women  were  certainly 
skUled  in  working  the  spindle,  as  is  evident  from 
the  articles  which,  ace.  to  P,  they  prepareil  for  the 
tabernacle  (Ex  So-'''-).  They  used  a  haiui-siiindle, 
such  as  was  in  use  in  Egypt,  and  sucli  as  the 
women  of  Syria  and  Palestine  still  emjiloy.  This 
consisted  of  a  whorl  or  hemispherical  disc  of  wood, 
amber,  or  other  material,  for  steadying  the  motion 
of  the  pin  which  passed  througli  the  centre  (Wilkin- 
son, Anc.  Egyjj.  i.  317,  ed.  1878).  The  Egyp. 
sjiindle  was  over  a  foot  long  [ib.  ii.  171,  172),  and, 
tliougii  generally  of  wood,  was  also  made  of  rushes 
and  palm-leaves.  The  distaff'  w.is  no  doubt  em- 
ployed, but  the  word  so  tr"*  in  Pr  31"  means  more 
properly   the  whorl,   or  the    spindle  itself.     (See 

Dl.STAIF). 

In  Egypt  men  as  well  as  women  engaged  in 
spinning,  but  among  the  Hebrews  women  only  are 
mentioned  in  this  connexion.  Tlie  materials  they 
used  were  wool  and  llax  (l'r31'"),  goats'  hair  (Ex 
35-"),  and  possibly  cotton,  wliich  was  known  in 
Egypt  (Wilkinson,  ii.  l.')9).  Even  silk  may  have 
been  used  (cf.  Ezk  IC'"- '«  and  Pr  31--),  as  Kenrick 
(Phan.  p.  246)  says  that  raw  silk  was  brought  to 
Berytus  and  Tyre  by  the  Persian  lucrchants,  but  it 
was  too  rare  to  have  been  much  emiiloyed.  Raw 
silk  is  spun  quite  extensively  at  present  by  the 
Syrian  women,  and  tliej'  use  the  spindle  to  iill  up 
leisure  hours  much  as  Western  womcjii  do  the 
knitting-needle.  H.  Porter. 

SPIRIT. — Besides  its  use  for  the  Supreme  Spirit, 
— the  Spirit  of  God,  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord,  the 
Spirit  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  Iloly  Spirit,  the  Spirit 
ot  truth,  etc., — this  word  is  occasionally  used  for 
the  extreme  opiiosite,  as  weuixa.  Saiixoviou  anaBiprov 
(Lk  4'').  Then  there  is  its  secondary  use  for  an 
influence,  or  power,  as  'spirit  of  error'  (1  Jn  4"), 
'  spirit  of  the  worlil '  ( Eph  2^),  '  of  bond.ige '  and  '  of 
sonship'  (Ilo  8"),  etc.,  yet  often  with  a  refer- 
ence to  the  spiritual  personality  controlling  these 
influences.  But  the  main  use  of  it  is  ]isychologicaI, 
where  it  is  immensely  indebted  to  the  Bible  and 
to  Christianity.  Indc<'d  it  may  be  said  to  be  an 
expression  created  by  Cliristianity. 

Two  Heb.  terms  are  tr.  In  EV  '8|>irit.'  I,  nn,  lit.  "wind' 
(80  often  in  OT) ;  used  of  the  breath  of  life  (rfia/i  hayyim) 
whi(;h  animates  (io<i'8  creatures,  (in  »I'7  "lo  (Iwth  1*;  cf.  with- 
math  haijyim  in  2^  (JJ)  ;  the  medium  of  consciousDCSH,  1  S  Sol-, 
.I(r  16'",  Job  918 ;  the  seat  ot  emoUonn,  1  K  21»,  Is  («-',  I'r  lr,i;i, 
Kzk  31*,  Jos  2"  (coumpe ;  and  so  .'i'.  I'r  ISl*  Is  B7'i>) ;  and  of 
intelligence  and  will,  Kzk  'M»'',  Pr  \lfii  21'  2412,  Dt  2™,  Job  209; 
of  an  inexplicable  or  unoontrollabto  impulse,  Nu  61-1- 30,  Is  10'* 
288  2010  87\  Hos  4ia  6'.  When  used  with  reference  to  God,  riial^ 
is  usedot  the  brooding  (ncniD)  and  creative  activity  of  His  spirit 
(On  13,  Ps  10430),  which  imparts  itself  to  men  with  the  result  of 
capacitating  them  for  the  performance  of  extroordinarv  deeds,  Jf 
SW  (Gideon)  14«^  1«  (Samson),  and  is  specially  noted  as  flttiug  thf 


612 


SPIRIT 


SPY 


prophet*  for  their  work.  Is  4S^6  5921^  Hqs  9'  (the  prophet  is 
the  man  of  the  siiirit"),  Ezk  371  (and  often).  See,  more  fully, 
vol.  ii.  p.  402  S. ;  and  add  Schultz,  ii.  243  ff.  (249  on  distinction  of 
rm  and  C£j);  Wendt,  Notioiiei  camU  et  spiritug  guomodo  in 
VT  adhibeanlur ;  Brings,  "The  uses  of  nn  in  OT'  In  JBL,1901, 
p.  133  fl.  (sjTiopsis  of  passages  arranged  and  translated). 

2.  n:v'}  is  twice  in  EV  (Job  26',  Pr  20-'')  tr.  'spirit.'  Its  lit. 
meaning  is  *  breath.*    See,  also,  under  SorL. 

The  tXX  and  NT  t.iCu*  follows  the  usage  of  rtiah.  In  the 
two  passages  (Mt  142t>,  Mk  6'^)  where  #a»Taw,u«  occurs,  the 
AV  tr.  '  spirit '  is  replaced  in  RV  by  '  apparition.' 

So  far  as  it  depends  on  physiological  suggestion, 
in  all  the  languages  '  spirit '  is  the  same, — the 
inhaling  of  the  '  breath,'  and  so  '  wind,'  and  more 
remotely  '  life,'  and  so  is  closely  allied  to  '  soul ' 
(tl'i'X'n),  which  depends  npon  a  similar  physiological 
derivation.  In  one  respect  the  two  words  soul  and 
spirit  ditl'er  widely.  jr»eC/xa  is  far  less  than  ^vxri  con- 
nected with  the  life  of  man  in  the  Greek  classics. 
irneviia  is  never  used  in  classical  psychology  for  one 
of  the  elements  of  man's  inner  life,  whereas  'pvx'/i 
is  invariably  so  used.  Indeed  it  is  one  of  the  chief 
distinctions  of  biblical  from  all  other  psychology 
to  give  iryfOfui  the  supreme  place  as  an  element  in 
the  life  of  man.  Only  in  the  LXX  and  in  the 
NT  has  iryeC^o  the  sense  of  a  spiritual  being, 
or  refers  to  man  in  his  higher  inward  aspects. 
Thus  it  is  a  good  example  of  the  language-building 
and  enriching  power  of  the  Bible  religion.  The 
suggestion  depends  mainly  upon  two  biblical  ideas, 
viz.  the  attribution  of  spirit  in  man  to  Divine  gift 
or  creation  (Ec  12'),  and  the  parallel  or  analogy 
between  'spirit'  in  man,  and  the  Divine  Spirit 
(lCo'2",  R08"). 

Sufficient  attention  has  already  been  called  to 
the  frequent  and  intimate  association  of  the  two 
terms  '  Soul '  and  '  Spirit '  (see  art.  SoUL)  occurring 
so  often  in  the  Bible  as  nearly  parallel  psyclio- 
logical  expre.ssions  ;  yet  each  implying  all  tnrough 
the  characteristic  distinction :  'soul,'  the  individual 
and  personal  life  ;  '  spirit,'  the  principle  of  life. 

There  is  another  antithesis,  more  peculiarly 
Pauline,  of  the  '  spirit '  over  against  the  '  flesh.' 
The  more  obvious  antithesis  of  '  body '  and  '  spirit' 
(Ja  2^)  is  upon  purely  natural  ground.  But  the 
Pauline  is  a  moral  distinction,  and  belongs  to 
specially  Christian  doctrine.  It  occurs  chietiy  in 
those  passages  where  St.  Paul  is  describing  the 
conflict  of  tlie  old  nature,  or  the  '  old  man '  as  he 
calls  it,  with  the  new  nature  or  the  new  man. 
Human  nature,  as  it  comes  to  any  one  through  the 
ffdpf,  manifests  itself  in  the  (rdpj,  is  determined  by 
it,  and  called  after  it,  comes  to  stand  in  contrast 
with  '  spirit '  (Tri-cD/ia),  the  Divine  nature,  or  the 
divinely  originated  and  sustained  new  nature. 
Thus  ffip^  came  at  length,  in  distinct  and  pre- 
supposed antithesis  to  vfevfUi,  to  signify  the  sinful 
condition  of  human  nature,  and  in  such  a  manner 
that  this  same  <r(£p{  mediates  or  efl'ectuates  that 
sinful  condition — the  adp^  a/iaprlat,  '  the  flesh  deter- 
mined by  sin  '  (Ro  8').  In  this  antithesis  there  is 
progress  or  intensification  in  the  meaning  of  irveO/ia 
as  well  as  of  <rdp^.  The  rvevfia  in  man,  which  is 
the  element  originally  created  by  God,  and  which 
ought  to  rule  or  govern  his  whole  nature,  is  used 
by  St.  Paul  for  the  new  nature  divinely  originated 
in  the  Christian,  so  that  a  direct  antithesis  is 
brought  out  between  '  flesh '  and  '  spirit,'  and 
everything  wvev/iaTiicdy,  spiritual,  is  a  Divine  pro- 
duct or  creation,  according  to  that  new  nature. 

This  use  of  Trv(vtiaTiK6i>  for  ever3'tliing  determined 
orinfluenced  by  the  Divine  Tticvixa  extends  beyond  St. 
Paul's  \mtings,  and  is  quite  general  in  the  Epistles 
of  the  NT.  There  is  the  'spiritual  house'  (o'aos  irycu- 
*ioTi)t45,  1  P  2')  because  '  built  up  of  living  stones ' ; 
'  spiritual  sacrifices,' i.e.  ofTeringsCxed  or  determined 
bv  the  Spirit  (t6.) ;  'spiritual  tmderstanding '  (Col 
1') ;  '  spiritual  songs '  (45al  ri/evfuiTiKal,  Col  3") ; 
'epiritiial  food,  drink,  rock'  {^puiia,  ■wifta,  rh-pa, 


1  Co  10'-  *).  In  two  sets  of  passages  St.  Paul  con. 
trasts  it  with  tfuxiKdv  (1  Co  2'-'  lo"-  *>).  There  is 
one  curious  exception  from  this  Pauline  use  of  it 
for  divine,  viz.  Eph  6'^  ra  rveviJiariKa  rrjs  iroin}ptat  = 
'  wicked  spirits,'  or  something  equivalent. 

There  is  another  antithesis  in  which  St.  Pan] 
places  it  as  contrasted  with  xoCs  or  aiviffis,  where 
the  intention  plainly  is  to  contrast  tlie  action  of  the 
'understanding'  in  man  with  that  of  spiritual  or 
ecstatic  impulse  even  in  a  Christian  (1  Co  W*-^). 
It  is  also  once  or  twice  opposed  to  ypiniia,  where 
inwardness  or  reality  is  the  thing  to  be  brought 
out  (Ro  2=»  7«,  2  Co  3^). 

There  are  two  things  mainly  noticeable  and  dis- 
tinctive in  this  biblical  use  of  '  spirit.'  The  first 
is  the  habit  of  biblical  writers  to  explain  the 
•  spirit '  in  the  natural  man  as  the  product  or 
creation  directly  of  God,  and  as  accounted  for  only 
by  the  direct  contact  of  man  with  the  Almighty 
in  his  origin.  This  is  peculiarly  prevalent  in  the 
OT  (Gn  2',  Is  42').  Then  there  is  the  assertion  of 
a  parallelism  and  communication  between  the  self- 
conscious,  inner  life  of  man — his  spirit — with  the 
Spirit  of  God  (1  Co  2"'  '=,  Ro  8'-",  Philem  "). 
There  is  a  foundation  laid  in  this  way  for  the 
whole  spiritual  life  of  man,  and  especially  for  the 
renewed  and  redeemed  life  of  whicn,  according  to 
Christianity,  he  is  made  a  partaker. 

See  also  art.  HOLV  SPIRIT  :  for  '  unclean  {or  evil) 
spirit '  cf .  art.  DEMON,  vol.  i.  p.  593  ;  for  '  familiar 
spirit '  art.  SORCERY,  p.  606  ;  for  '  spirits  in  prison ' 
see  voL  iii.  p.  795.  J.  Laidlaw. 

SPITE.  — Like  Despite  (which  see),  'spite' 
means  in  AV  'injury'  (rather  out  of  contempt 
than  malice).  It  occurs  only  Pa  10"  '  Thou  be- 
boldest  mischief  and  spite'  (0^1,  properly  'vexa- 
tion ').     Cf.  Child's  Ballads,  v.  299— 

*  Da.v  and  night  he'll  work  my  spigbt. 
And  hanged  I  shall  be.' 

The  adv.  '  spiteftilly '  is  used  in  the  same  sense ; 
the  phrase  is  '  entreat  spitefully,'  Mt  22",  Lk  18" 
(u^pifoi,  RV  '  entreat  shamefully  '). 

J.  Hastings. 

SPONGE  (AV  spunge,  <nriyyoi,  spongia). — The 
medium  by  which  vinegar  or  sour  wine  was  carried 
to  the  mouth  of  Jesus  on  the  cross  (Mt  27**,  Mk 
15",  Jn  19^).  This  well-known  substance  is  a 
porous,  fibrous  framework,  composed  of  a  material 
called  keratode,  invested  by  a  fleshy  covering  and 
lining  of  amceboid  bodies.  Sponges  grow  only  in 
sea  water,  near  the  coast,  and  mostly  in  the 
warmer  seas  of  the  globe,  although  some  kinds  are 
found  even  in  the  jiolar  regions.  Sponge  fishin" 
is  a  considerable  industry  along  the  coasts  of 
Syria,  Asia  Minor,  and  the  iEgean  Sea.  The 
divers  go  out  in  row-boats  or  sailboats,  a  short 
distance  from  the  shore ;  they  then  strip,  and 
holding  in  their  hands,  high  above  their  heads,  a 
heavy  stone  attached  to  a  rope,  fill  their  chests 
with  air,  and  then  plunge,  stone  downmost,  and 
so  rapidly  reach  the  bottom.  They  often  dive  to 
a  depth  of  60  ft.  or  more.  They  then  walk  or 
creep  quickly  along  the  bottom,  holding  the  stone 
to  steady  themselves,  and  tear  the  sponges  oil  tho 
stones  to  which  they  are  attached,  and  put  them 
into  a  netted  bag  hung  around  their  neck.  When 
they  are  exhausted  they  jerk  the  rope,  and  their 
companions  quickly  haul  them  to  the  surface. 
Few  can  stay  under  water  more  than  60  seconds, 
none  as  long  as  100.  Their  occupation  usually 
develops  emphysema,  and  other  diseases  of  the 
lungs,  from  which  they  are  apt  to  die  early. 

G.  E.  Post. 

SPRING.— See  Fountain,  vol.  iL  p.  62. 

SPY.— See  Ebpy,  vol.  i.  p.  767. 


STACHYS 


STEPHEN 


613 


STACHYS  (i:Tdxi'r).— The  name  of  a  Christian 
greeted  by  St.  Paul  in  Ko  IG-',  and  described  as 
'  my  beloved.'  The  name  is  rare,  but  found  among 
members  of  the  Imperial  household  (OIL  vi.  8GU7). 
He  -s  commemorated  Oct.  31,  and  later  legends 
will  be  found  in  Acta  Sanct.,  Oct.,  vol.  xiii.  p.  US/. 

A.  C.  Headlam. 

STACTE  (•;?}  natfiph).— The  Heb.  word  occurs 
twice  :  Ex  30=»  (cf.  Sir  24"'),  L.XX  (ttokti),  Vulg. 
ttactc,  KVm  opobalsnmum  ;  Job  36-'  (LXX  arayovei, 
Vulg.  stillw,  both  of  which  signify  'drops,'  and 
refer  to  water).  The  Heb.  '■|¥j  nalaph  (  =  Arab. 
na(a/)  signilies  to  drop  or  dUtU.  As  the  exuda- 
tion of  all  gums  U  in  drojis,  the  etymology  does 
not  help  us.  But  it  is  evident  from  the  context 
in  Exodus  that  a  fragrant  gum  is  intended. 
Many  identify  the  ffTo/tr?)  here  mentioned  with 
the  gum  from  the  lilmeh  {=sturiix,  see  POPI.AK). 
But  <rra.KT-fi  means  primarilj-  myrrh.  Myrrh,  how- 
ever, is  mentioned  b^'its  proper  narae"c  m6r{v.'^), 
coupled  with  "ih-  dcrur,  which  AV  tr.  '  i)ure,'  and 
RV  'flowing.'  The  LXX  tr.  this  expression  by 
duSos  aiiiipvris  ixXcKTiji ;  Vulg.  primcB  myrrhcB  et 
electa;.  Dioscorides  describes  two  kinds  of  stactr, 
one  of  which  is  pure  myrrh,  and  the  other  made 
from  storax  and  fat.  It  is  unlikely  that  any  such 
inferior  compound  as  the  latter  would  be  used  in 
making  the  sacred  incense.  It  is  most  likely 
then  that  nd(a/ih,  and  its  LXX  and  Vulg.  equiva- 
lent stacte,  refer  to  myrrh  in  drops  or  tears,  which 
is  the  purest  form.  G.  E.  Post. 

STAFF.— See  Rod  and  Sceptue. 

STAGGER.— In  Ro  4»>  '  stagger  '  has  the  mean- 
ing of  '  stumble,'  and  so  literally  '  waver '  (as  IIV), 
'  He  staggered  not  at  the  promise  of  God  through 
unbelief  (oi)  SieKplO-q).  Tindale  uses  the  stronger 
form  of  the  same  word,  'He  stackered  not'; 
Khem.  is  the  first  to  use  'stagger.'  The  word  is 
of  Icel.  origin,  strakra,  freq.  of  stnka,  to  push.  Cf. 
Mt  2P'  Rhem.  'Amen,  I  .say^  to  you,  it  you  shal 
haue  faith,  and  stagger  not,  not  only  that  of  the 
figtree  shal  you  doe.'  J.  Hastings. 

STALLION  (rTTiros  ch  ixflav,  only  in  Sir  33').— 
Most  of  the  horses  used  for  riding  and  driving,  and 
many  of  those  employed  as  pack  animals,  in  the 
East,  are  entire.  Geldings  are  made  only  of  the 
inferior  breeds. 

STANDARD.— See  Banner  and  Polk. 

STAR. — The  Bible  treats  the  stars  as  the  noblest 
work  of  the  Creator  (Ps  8»  10',  Job  2.">',  Wis  7-"), 
insisting  on  their  brightness  (Dn  12'),  their  heiglit 
above  the  earth  (Is  14",  Ob  *,  Job  22'-),  and 
especially  their  number  (Gn  15»  22"  26\  Ex  3'2'3, 
Dt  1'"  1U«  28«^  Jer  33-'^,  Neli  9=»,  He  11'^  etc.). 
They  are  sometimes  poetically  rejiresented  as  living 
beings  ('sang  together,'  Job  38';  'fought  against 
Sisera,'  Jg  5*),  and  the  darkening  of  the  stars  is 
treated  as  a  sign  of  coming  distress  (Jl  2'"  3'°,  Am 
8»,  Is  13'»  34«,  Ezk  32'  »,  Mt  24-»,  Mk  13-»,  Lk  21'«>, 
Rev  pass.),  liut  tliey  were  created  by  God  (Gn 
1'*,  Am  5",  Ps  74"  13G',  Job  9',  Sir  43")  to  give 
light  (Gn  1'",  Jer  31"°) ;  He  gave  them  their  paths 
according  to  fixed  laws  (Jer  33^,  Job  ,38^),  and 
Uiey  are  .subject  to  Him  (Job  9',  Is  4.')'^  Ps  147*, 
Bar  3",  Ep.  Jer  '"),  who  calls  tliem  by  tlieir  names 
(Is  40").  It  follows  that  star-worship  is  rigorously 
forbidden  (Dt  4'»  17"-");  though  introduced  by 
Manasseh  (2  K  21»,  cf.  23<- »• "  ;  Am  .5^  does  not 
nece».sarilj|  imply  its  existence  at  an  earlier  date, 
cf.  Driver  in  Smitli,  Dll,  art.  'Amos'),  and  several 
times  mentioned  at  a  later  date  (Zcph  1",  Jer  7'"  19" 
44",  Wis  13'),  it  is  always  spoken  of  with  reproba- 
tion (cf.  also  2  K  17",  Jer  44'"-").     On  the  sources 


of  this  star-worsliip  among  the  Jews  see  W.  Lotz 
in  Hcrzog,  BE-  xiv.  ()"J4.  For  the  stars  known  to 
the  Israelites  and  for  astrological  views  see  Astro- 
nomy AND  Astrology  ;  for  the  star  of  the  Magi 
see  Magi.  P.  V.  M.  Benecke. 

STATER.— See  Money,  vol.  iii.  p.  428^ 

STEALING.— See  Crimes  and  Punishments, 
vol.  i.  p.  522'',  s.  '  Theft,'  and  Man-stealing. 

STEEL  is  a  form  of  iron  intermediate  in  com- 
position between  cast  iron  and  wrought  iron,  and 
combining  the  most  useful  properties  of  both  (see 
Iron).  The  word  occurs  thrice  in  AV  for  nvin: 
(2S  22",  Job  -JO'^,  Ps  18"),  and  once  for  nii'n; 
(Jer  15'-).  In  these  eases  the  reference  is  not  to 
steel  but  to  brass  (so  RV)  or  bronze  (see  Brass). 

'  Steel '  appears  in  RV  only  in  Nali  2',  where  it 
is  the  translation  of  mS?  (AV  'torches').  The 
word  ni^^  occurs  nowhere  else,  but  its  Arabic  and 
Syriac  cognates  have  the  meaning  of  steel,  or  iron 
of  fine  quality.  The  '  fire '  or  '  flashing '  of  steel  in 
this  passage  may  be  understood  either  of  the  appear- 
ance of  the  metal-plated  chariots  themselves  or 
of  the  glitter  of  the  'scythes'  attached  to  their 
wheels.  Against  this  latter  supjiosition  is  the  fact 
that  such  scythes  are  never  represented  on  Assyrian 
chariots,  but  appear  to  have  been  introduced  for 
the  first  lime  by  the  Persians  (see  Chariot). 

James  Patrick. 

STEPHANAS  (Sre^oi'as,  Step/uina.<: ;  the  name 
occurs  CIO  ii.  3378).— A  Christian  of  Corinth,  1  Co 
J 16  igi5. 17.  St.  Paul  mentions  the  household  of 
Stephanas  as  one  of  the  few  exceptions  to  the 
practice  which  he  had  followed  of  not  personally 
baptizing  his  converts.  At  the  end  of  the  Epistle 
the  same  household  are  spoken  of  as  the  first-fruits 
of  Acliaia.  They  are  said  to  have  given  them- 
selves to  the  ministry  of  the  saints,  and  the  Cor- 
inthians are  exhorted  to  obey  such  persons  and 
all  who  work  and  labour  witli  them.  From  the 
next  verse  we  gather  that  Stephanas  himself  was 
with  St.  Paul  at  Epiiesus  at  the  time  when  the 
Epistle  was  written.  In  Clement  of  Rome's 
Epistle,  ch.  xlii.,  we  are  told  that  the  apostles, 
]iieacliing  from  city  to  city  .and  country  to 
country,  appointed  their  Jirst-Jruits,  having  tested 
them  by  the  spirit,  to  be  bishops  and  deacons  of 
those  that  should  believe  (KaBlcTavov  rds  avapxia 
avTujv  .  .  .  ei'y  iiTLffK^Trovi  Kcd  SiaKbvov^  twv  fxiWuvTwi' 
TTiffTfcfii',  Clem.  Rom.  i.  42).  It  would  be  bcsi<le 
our  purpose  to  discuss  the  exact  meaning  of  this 
passage,  but  it  may  reasonably  be  held  that 
Stephanas,  and  perhaps  some  members  of  his 
household,  had  been  appointed  to  a  position  in 
the  nascent  church  at  Corinth,  which  implied  on 
the  one  side  ministry  (SiaKovla),  on  the  other  side 
some  recognition  of  their  authority.  If  this  was 
not  a  local  ministry,  in  the  later  sense  of  the  term, 
there  were  here  the  germs  out  of  which  it  grew. 

A.  C.  Headlam. 

STEPHEN  (2r^0a>'os),  Ac  6-8-.— Some  dissatis- 
faction having  been  expressed  by  the  Grecian 
Jews  or  Hellenists  in  the  infant  Church  at  Jeru- 
salem regarding  the  distribution  of  alms  aiiioii^' 
their  widows,  seven  brethren  were  chosen,  and 
solemnlj'  set  apart  by  the  apostles,  to  undertake 
the  administration  of  the  poor-table.  Of  the  seven 
(.see  Deacon),  Stephen  is  the  first  named  (Ac  G"*), 
and  the  most  distinguished,  though  in  a  sphere, 
strictly  speaking,  beyond  his  ollice,  viz.,  as  a 
preacher  and  a  worker  of  miracles — characteristi- 
cally apostolic  functions.  Nothing  is  known  of 
his  conversion  to  Christianity,  though  Epiphanius 
{Ilwr.  XX.  4)  records  that  he  was  one  of  the 
Seventy.  It  is  not  certain  that  he  was  a  Hellenist, 
though  his  Greek  name,  the  fact  that  a  committee 


614 


STEPHEN 


STEPHEN 


larjjc'ly  Helk'nistic  would  probably  be  cbosen  to 
deal  witli  the  ^aiuvances  of  the  jiarty,  and  to  some 
extent  his  oi>inious,  make  the  supi)Osition  very 
probable.  His  cliaracter  and  abilities  as  given  in 
Ac  li  are  of  the  hijjhest :  '  a  man  full  of  faith  and 
of  the  Holy  Spirit'  (v.^  of.  7"),  '  full  of  grace  (AV 
faith)  and  power'  (v.*),  'the  wisdom  and  the  Spirit 
by  which  lie  spake'  (v.'");  tf.  also  the  qualilica- 
tions  necessary  for  the  othie  (v.'),  and  St.  Paul's 
words,  'Stephen  thy  witness'  (22-'').  Stephen 
seems  to  have  aroused  the  hostile  notice  of  the 
Hellenistic  synagogues  (see  below)  by  the  wonders 
and  signs  which  he  wrought  among  the  people  {6"), 
but  probably  also  by  the  substance  and  manner  of 
his  [ireaching ;  in  any  case  they  challenged  him  to 
dis|iutation.  But  bis  skill  in  maintaining  his 
opinions  was  so  irresistible,  that  his  adversaries, 
discomtited  in  argument,  rai.sed  the  charge  of 
blasphemy,  procured  witnesses  to  testify  to  it,  and 
thus  succeecfed  in  having  him  arrested  and  brought 
before  the  Sanhedrin.  Here  he  was  formally 
accused  of  speaking  blasphemous  words  against 
the  Temple  and  the  Law,  having  said,  as  the  false 
witnesses  maintained,  that  Jesus  of  Nazareth 
would  destroy  '  this  place,'  and  change  the  customs 
delivered  by  Moses.  Stejihen  was  unperturbed  by 
these  accusations ;  his  face  appeared  to  those 
present  '  as  the  face  of  an  angel '  (6'-*"'°).  Being 
asked  by  the  high  priest  to  answer  to  the  charges, 
Stephen  made  a  long  speech,  traversing  the  greater 
pa.,  ~{  the  history  of  the  chosen  people,  from  the 
call  of  Abraham,  tlirough  Joseph  and  Moses,  to 
David,  and  the  building  of  the  Temple  by  Solomon. 
Towards  the  close  he  fearlessly  turned  to  his 
judges,  rebuked  them  as  'stitlhecked  and  uu- 
circumcised  in  heart  and  ears,'  and  as  those  who, 
carrying  on  the  unholy  work  of  the  persecutors 
of  the  prophets,  had  become  the  betrayers  and 
murderers  of  Him  whom  the  prophets  had  foretold 
(-1-53)  These  words  were  the  occasion  of  a  furious 
outburst  of  wrath  on  the  part  of  the  assembly  ; 
and  when  Stephen,  undismayed,  looked  upwards, 
and  declared  that  he  saw  the  heavens  opened  and 
the  Son  of  Man  standing  on  the  right  hand  of 
God,  the  exasperated  hearers  violently  rushed 
upon  him,  dragged  him  forth  by  one  of  the  gates 
ol  the  city,  and  stoned  him  to  death.  The  witnesses 
(who  according  to  Dt  IT'  had  to  take  the  lead  in 
casting  the  stones)  placed  their  garments  in  the 
keeping  of  a  youn"  man  named  Saul  (cf.  22-") — 
the  first  historical  mention  of  a  great  name. 
Among  the  last  words  of  Stephen  were,  '  Lord 
Jesus,  receive  my  spirit,'  and  'Lord,  lay  not  this 
sin  to  their  charge,'  which  are  very  similar  to  two 
of  our  Lord's  sayings  on  the  cross,  Lk  23"'-  '^.  In 
fact,  the  bearing  of  Stephen  throughout  —  his 
courage,  his  calm,  his  patience,  his  gentleness — 
accords  remarkably  with  the  demeanour  of  his 
Master  in  like  circumstances.  The  mutilated  body 
was  reverently  interred  by  'devout  men'  (7'^-8-). 

The  vividness  of  the  narrative  hardly  leaves  room  for  tiie 
Bupposition  that  tlie  stoninjj  of  Stephen  was  a  lef,'al  execution, 
i,e.  one  carried  out  with  tlie  sanction  of  the  Roman  authorities, 
or,  indeed,  that  it  was  other  than  a  murder.  But  the  Sanhe- 
diin  may  have  been  able  to  represent  the  whole  incident  as  a 
mere  tvunultuous  outbreak,  for  which  they  could  not  officially 
be  called  to  account 

A  few  other  minor  points  require  notice:  (1)  As  to  the  number 
of  synagogues  implied  in  6^,  whether  five,  or  three,  or  two,  or 
only  one  (each  number  has  hud  its  advocate  amonf^  expositors), 
the  Greek  seems  to  support  the  view  of  VVendt,  viz.  that  two 
8ynaf;o;rues  are  meant :  (a)  of  the  Libertines  (Cyrenians  and 
Alexandrians),  and  (6)  of  those  from  Asia  and  Cilicia.  See 
LiuKKTlNES;  Sanday.  Expovitftr,  viiL  p.  827  (third  series):  also 
Winer-Moulton,  Gvammar,  \\  160  note.  (2)  The  date  of  Ihc 
martyrdom  of  Stephen  can  be  determined  only  approximately  : 
Bengel  ^ves  A.  D.  ao,  Kwald  A.  D.  38,  and  ever>'  intervening:  year 
has  had  its  supporter.  Acts  seems  to  place  the  event  shortly 
before  St.  Paul's  conversion ;  certainly  nearer  to  that  event 
than  to  the  terminus  a  quo,  the  Crucifixion  (say  20-30).  Recent 
chronolo;;ists  have  somewhat  narrowed  the  tennini  of  St.  Pauls 
conversion  :  von  Soden  31-35,  Harnack  80,  Ramsav  .'l;l ;  see 
OuRO.voLoaT  Of  NT,  viL  L  p.  424  (C)  and  Table.    (3)  Who  are 


the  persons  covered  by  the  term  'devout  men,'  iv*,oii  tl\tSiA 
(s-)'.'  Hardly  proselytes  (Renan,  Apostlrs,  viii.)  of  either  class, 
as  St.  Luke  regularly  uses  wpoiriiXvroi  and  ^oM-^ui^o:  (or  vi^ou.imi,<\ 
T«»  Hio¥  for  proselytes  of  the  higher  and  the  lower  ran  respec- 
tively, and  elsewhere  applies  liXuSiCi  to  Jews  (Lk  225,  Ac  2^  22'* 
RV),  It  is  also  unlikely  that  they  were  Christians,  else  we 
>hould  have  expected  the  designation  to  be  ,tMt'/r;Ta.  or  aiikcoi. 
Jlost  probably  they  were  Jews  who  took  a  sympathetic  interest 
in  the  fortunes  of  the  Church,  and  who  may  have  known  and 
respected  Stephen.  Cf.  Joseph  of  Arimatha^a  and  Nicodcn  ua 
(Jn  19  "*■  39),  and  see  KnowUng  in  Expositor's  Greek  Testtk- 
vxent,  ii.,  ad  loc.  (4)  Traditions  about  Stephen.  According  to 
an  early  tradition,  the  scene  of  the  martyrdom  was  the  open 
ground  outside  the  Damascus  Gate  on  the  north  ;  but  about  the 
15th  cent,  this  gave  place  to  the  popular  belief  that  it  was  on 
the  east,  where,  accordingly,  St.  Stephen's  Gate  is  now  located 
(see  Conybeare  and  Howson,  St.  Paul,  sniall  ed.  p.  61).  Another 
legend  relates  that,  through  the  friendliness  of  Gamaliel,  the 
body  of  Stephen  was  buried  at  Kafr  Gamala,  a  day'e  journey 
from  Jerusalem,  all  the  apostles  being  present.     This  story 

{>robably  origin.ated  after  the  so-called  *  Invention  and  Trans- 
ation  of  the  Relics  of  St.  Stephen,'  the  chief  details  of  which 
are  that  in  the  year  415  Gamaliel  appeared  in  vision  to  Lucian, 
parish  priest  of  Kafr  Gamala,  and  indicated  the  resting-place  of 
the  remains  of  Stephen,  which  were  then  disinterred,  carried 
to  Jerusalem,  and  buried  in  the  church  of  Mount  Zion  ;  it  was 
also  said  that  the  exhumation  disclosed  a  tablet  bearing  the 
Aramaic  name  of  Stephen,  Kel'U  (Syr.  kelila,  '  crown '  =  rTt^a:»«). 

The  Speech  of  Stephen. — The  historical  narrative 
given  by  Stephen  shows  a  considerable  number  of 
divergences  from  the  OT  account ;  e.g.  according 
to  Ac  7-"*  Abraham  receives  his  call  before  his 
migration  to  Haran,  in  Gn  12'  while  in  Haran ; 
the  giving  of  the  Law  is  connected  with  angels 
in  Ac  7*',  while  Ex  19  has  no  mention  of  angels. 
'  Remphan  '  in  7'"  sliows  that  Stephen  was  quoting 
from  the  LXX ;  the  Hebrew  has  '  Chiun '  (Am 
5-^)  ;  see  Chiun.  A  full  list  of  these  variations  is 
given  by  Farrar,  St.  Paul,  small  ed.  p.  92  note. 

The  authenticity  of  the  speech  has  been  much 
canvassed ;  e.g.  Weizsiicker  (and  he  is  representa- 
tive of  many  more)  regards  the  speech  as  a 
'doctrinal  exposition,'  i.e.  a  later  composition  ;  but 
see  Acts,  vol.  i.  p.  33  f .  There  has  been  an  almost 
equal  diversity  of  opinion  regarding  the  purpose 
of  the  address.  Now,  this  very  diversity  seems  a 
remarkably  convincing  proof  of  its  substantial 
historicity  ;  a  mere  fabricator  would  surely  have 
taken  care  to  leave  his  readers  in  little  doubt  as 
to  his  'tendency.'  Was  the  speech  completed? 
Was  it  intended  as  an  answer  to  the  charges  made 
by  the  false  witnesses?  Or  was  it  meant  as  a 
vindication,  in  whole  or  in  part,  of  the  opinions 
by  which  Stephen  had  originally  provoked  opposi- 
tion? As  to  the  first  of  these  (juestions,  it  may 
be  said  that  the  speech  has  all  the  appearance  of 
being  complete  ;  the  fact  that  Stephen  did  not 
proceed  to  recount  the  nation's  story  beyond  the 
building  of  Solomon's  temple  is  sufficiently  ex- 
]ilaincd  if  we  remember  that  the  legal  and  institu- 
tional status  quo  was  traditionally  held  to  have 
been  but  little  altered  subsequent  to  that  event. 
As  to  the  second,  it  is  certainly  difficult  to  main- 
tain that  the  address  is  a  counter-plea  to  the  very 
dehnite  charges  of  6"-".  It  remains,  then,  to 
seek  an  answer  to  the  question  whether  the  speech 
was,  .so  to  speak,  a  ple.a  of  Veritas,  i.e.  a  re-declara- 
tion of  what  Stephen  had  .said  against  the  Temple 
and  the  Law.  If  we  answer  affirmatively,  the 
climax  will  be  found  in  vv.-**-'",  where  it  seems  to 
be  suggested  that  the  building  of  the  Temple  w.os 
an  act  contrary  to  God's  will,  a  continuation  of 
the  contumacy  that  hiid  fashioned  the  golden  calf, 
and  taken  up  the  tabernacle  of  Molech  (yv.'"""); 
while,  if  we  answer  negatively,  the  essential  point 
will  lie  in  vv."",  where  Stephen  declares  that 
(not  he  and  his  brethren,  but)  his  hearers  ami 
judges  were  the  real  violators  of  God's  commands. 
The  former  view  is  usually  adopted  by  those  who 
regard  Stephen  as  the  hrst  to  discern  that  the 
gospel  could  not  be  confined  within  the  bonds  of 
.ludaism,  as,  in  fact,  the  forerunner  of  St.  Paul. 
But  it  should  be  ob.served  that  if  Stephen  had 
spoken   (as  ihe  false  -n-itnesses  said)  a  ainst  tie 


STEPHEJf 


STOCKS 


015 


Temple,  and  had  affirmed  that  Jesus  would  cliange 
the  tustora>*  of  Moses,  his  adversaries  would  have 
been  liis  own  <  l.ristian  brethren,  whereas  he  was 
held   in   the  hiyiiest  repute   by   them.     Further, 
Buch  words  aa   'the   Most  High  dwelleth  not  in 
temples  made  with  hands'  can  hardlv  be  taken  as 
implying  any  disparagement  of  the  temple,  since 
similar  language   was  used   by  Solomon   himself 
(1  K  S-',  2  Ch  6'').     Finally,  Stephen  speaks  of  the 
Law  in  terms  of  the  highest  res]>ect  (T-"'**);  and 
his  references   to  the  call  of  Abraham  in  Meso- 
potamia (v.-),  to  the  Divine  favour  vouchsafed  to 
Joseph  and  Moses  in  Egypt,  and  to  the  subsequent 
revelation  accorded  to  the  latter  in  Midian  (v.-"f), 
while   they   might  be   interpreted    as    signifying 
that  the  Divine  purpose  and  blessing  were  not 
limited  to  the  Holy  Land,  are  rather  to  be  under- 
stood in  the  light  of  the  fact  that  Stephen  repre- 
sents Canaan   as  the  destination   of  the  Chosen 
People  from  the  first;  the  patriarchs  are  buried 
there  (v.'")  as  in  a  country  really  their  own  ;  and 
the  sojourn  in  Egypt  (still  more  the  deportation  to 
Babylon)  is  plainly  regarded  as  a  misfortune.     On 
the  other  band,  if  Stephen  was  at  one  with  his 
opponents  (as  with   his   brethren)   in   their  high 
appreciation  of  the  Holy  Land,  the  Law,  and  the 
Temple,  how  could  the  enlarge  of  blasphemy  arise  ? 
The  witnesses  might  be  false,  but  there  must  have 
been  some  colourable  reason  for  an  accusation  so 
definite.     But  it  seems  a  quite  satisfactory  answer 
to  this  to  say   that  Stephen   had   attacked    the 
trailitional  Law  (as  did  Je-sus  Himself,  Mt  10'-"  = 
Mk  7''^),  which  was  freely  held  to  have  authority 
equal   with   the   Mosaic,   and   that   he  may  have 
urged,   in   the  manner  of   Isaiah,   that   '  temple- 
trending'  and  external  observances  did  not  ensure 
acceptance  with  God.     It  is  quite  conceivable  that 
such  teaching  would  be  misunderstood,  and  even 
misrepresented  as  blasphemy  against  '  tlie  law  and 
this  holy  place,'  or  even  against  God   (6").     On 
this  view,  then,  the  speech  was  not  so  much  the 
advancing  of  a  new  theological  position  against  an 
older  ;  its  purpose  was  rather  etliical  and  personal. 
God  had  vouchsafed  great  privileges  to  the  nation, 
-  the  land,  an  ordained  leader  (Moses),  the  Law, 
tht   Tai^ernacle,   and  the  Temple, — but  they  had 
been  rendered  of  none  ellcct  by  the  people  s  con- 
tumacy and  disobedience.      Doubtless,  as  Spitta 
makes  out,  there  is  an  unmistakable  intention  to 
draw   or   suggest   a  parallel    between    Moses   and 
Jesus,  '  the  prophet  whom  the  Lord  will  raise  up 
unto  you  .  .  .  like  unto  me'  (7"),  and  the  treat- 
ment accorded  to  each  ;  but  this  is  meant  to  give 
point   to   the   general   theme   of   the   speech,   viz. 
that  the  members  of  the  council,  and  all  in  league 
with  them,  had  proved  themselves  to  Ije  only  too 
truly  the  children  of  ungrateful   and   unworthy 
tord'ather?      It  is  thus  questionable  how  far  wo 
fcre  entitled  to  speak  of  Stephen  as  the  forerunner 
of  St.  Paul.     Even  if  we  accept  Spitta's  view  that 
the  erection   of    the    Temple    is    represented    by 
Stephen  aa  an    unauthorized   and    presuniptuotis 
act,  this  is  something  very  dillerent  from  St.  Paul's 
conception  of  the  national  institutions  as  having 
had  validity /or  their  own  time.    Certainlj'  Si  ephen 
never  asserts  the  secondary  and  provisional  char- 
acter of  the  Law,  nor  does  he  suggest  the  call  of 
the  I  Jentiles — two  of  St.  Paul's  most  characteristic 
tenets.     In  short,  Stephen  seems  to  regard  Chris- 
tianity (as  did  the  apostles  gt/.ierally)  as  the  con- 
tinuation and  development  of  the  Divine  purpose  in 
the  history  of  Israel ;  St.  Paul  sees  in  it  the  begin- 
ning of  a  new  order  of  things — another  dispensation. 

LiTKRATUKK.— Farrar,  St.  Paul,  ch.  viii. ;  Con^'bt-arc  and  How- 
ion,  .vf,  Paul,  ch.  ii.  :  Wcizsucker,  Aposttihc  Arte,  L  U-IT.  ; 
l!'<;i(fert,  Cfirigtianitt/  in  the  Apoglitlii:  Afjf,  81-9;t ;  Spitta, 
Aii'is'fiieicliichte,  p.  105 ft.  ;  Kxpovitftr'ii  Greek  Testament,  ii., 
R.  J.  Knowling,  Actt;  and  commentariej)  cited  at  Acth,  vol  t 
p.  S6,  on  relevant  chapters.  A.  GUIKVE. 


STEWARD  occurs  six  times  in  AV  of  OT.  It 
is  used  in  Gn  15-  of  Eliezer,  where  for  'steward 
of  my  house '  RV  rightly  substitutes  '  he  that  shall 
be  possessor  of  my  house '  (Heb.  -n-s  pB'^-ji.  For  the 
correct  text  and  meaning  of  this  verse  see  Kautzsch- 
Socin's  Genesis,  Comm.  of  Del.  and  DUlm.  ad  loc, 
and  above  all  Ball's  note  in  Haupt's  OT).  In  Gn 
4319  441.4  -steward 'is  tr°  (both  AV  and  RV)  of 
vi'3  "7!;  iK'K  '  he  who  was  over  his  (Joseph's)  house.' 
The  same  tr°  is  given  by  RV  in  4.'5"',  wliere  the 
Heb.  is  the  same,  but  A  v  arbitrarily  and  incon- 
sistently gives  'ruler.'  See  art.  Joseph,  vol.  iL 
p.  772".  In  1  K  IG'-"  for  AV  '  steward  of  hif  (Elah's) 
house'  RV  substitutes  'who  was  over  <Ae  house- 
hold' (n-;n).  See  art.  Kl\t;,  vol.  ii.  p.  843".  The 
only  remaining  instance  in  AV  is  1  Ch  28^  The 
Heb.  is  c'Tf,  which  RV  tr.  'rulers.'  In  Dn  1", 
where  AV  gives  Mklzai:  as  a  jirop.  name,  RV 
is  perh.  correct  in  translating  'the  steward'  (is^?? 
with  the  article  shows  at  least  that  we  have  lieie 
some  title,  although  its  meaning  is  not  certain). 

In  NT  'steward'  is  tr"  of  iviTponoi  in  Mt  20* 
(the  steward  of  the  lord  of  the  vineyard),  Lk  8* 
(Herod's  steward).  This  word  occurs  also  in  Gal  4' 
(AV  '  tutors,'  RV  'guardians')  and  twice  in  Apocr., 
2  Mac  IP  13-  (AV  '  protector,'  RV  'guardian'). 
Elsewhere  in  NT  it  is  the  tr"  of  olKovop.oi,  which 
is  used  both  literally  and  metaphorically,  Lk  12^ 
l(ji.3.B  (ti,g  eogn.  vb.  oiKoiio/j.4ui  occurs  v.-,  cf.  2  Mac 
3'),  1  Co  41-  -,  Tit  1',  1  P  4'".  In  Gal  4-  olKoubp.01.  is 
coupled  with  (Trirpoiroi  (see  above),  and  is  ti""  in  AV 
'governors,'  RV  'stewards.'  The  former  of  these 
Gr.  terms  occurs  also  in  Ro  IG'^,  where  RV  has 
'treasurer'  (cf.  1  Es  4'"'),  AV  'chamberlain.' 

Stewardship  (oiKofofiia)  in  lit.  sense  occurs  in  Lk 
l(jj.  3. 4  (^v  and  RV),  and  in  metai)horical  sense  is 
substituted  by  RV  for  AV  '  dis|jeiisalion '  in  1  Co 
9".  So  RVm  gives  'stewardship'  in  Eph  3^  Col 
1-",  1  Ti  1*  w  here  '  dispensation '  stamls  in  the 
text.  J.  A.  SELBIE. 

STILL.  —  1.  As  adj.:  the  general  meaning  is 
silent,  as  Ps  40"  'Be  still'  (52-i.i,  RVm  'Let  be,' 
LXX  ffxoXdffore);  Ps  83'  'Be  not  still,  O  God'; 
Is  42'''  '  I  have  been  still,  and  refrained  myself ; 
now  will  I  cry ' ;  Mk  4*"  '  Peace,  be  still '  lir«j>i/iuao, 
lit.  '  be  muzzled  ').  Cf.  Ac  18"  Wye.  '  Speke  and 
be  not  stille'  [fxit  o-iuTr^a-ps).  Or  it  means  a  low 
sound,  as  1  K  I'J'-  'A  still  small  voice'  (n??'i  S'lp 
r:;:-\,  lit.  as  RVm  '  a  sound  of  gentle  stillness,'  LXX 
(pufT)  aOpas  XeTTTTJs)  ;  Ps  23-  '  He  leadclh  me  beside 
the  still  waters'  (nra;:p  ■="''1',  RVm  'waters  of  rest,' 
LXX  ^iri  vSaToi  di/aTroi'fff us :  the  idea  is  'waters 
that  refresh,'  or  'waters  that  are  resting-places' 
[Del.,  Cheyne],  not  'softly  flowing  waters  as  in 
Is  8"). 

From  meaning  'silent'  the  word  passes  naturally 
to  mean  inavlive,,  as  Jg  18"  'Are  ye  still?  be  not 
slothful  to  go' ;  1  K'22^  '  Know  ye  not  that  Ramoth 
in  Gilcad  is  ours,  and  we  be  still,  and  take  it  not 
out  of  the  hand  of  the  king  of  Syria?' 

2.  As  .adv.:  the  idea  of  persistence  is  more  pro- 
minent than  in  modern  usage.  Cf.  Il:ill,  Works, 
ii.  14,  'God  u.ses  still  to  goe  a  way  by  himselfe'  ; 
Adams,  2 Peter,  ]i.  40,  '  If  the  hand  be  still  striking 
and  stabbing,  tlicre  is  a  bloody  heart';  Shaks. 
hamlet,  II.  ii.  42— 

'  Thou  still  hast  been  the  outhor  o(  good  tidings.' 

So  1  S  26-^  '  Thou  shalt  both  do  great  things,  and 
also  shalt  still  prevail '  ;  2  S  16'  '  He  came  forth, 
and  cursed  still  as  he  came  ' ;  Ps  84*  '  They  will  be 
still  praising  thee';  and  Jer  '23"  'They  say  still 
unto  them  that  despise  mo'  (RV  ' They  say  con- 
tinuiilly').  J.  Hastings. 

STOCKS.— See  Cuimes  and  Punishments,  vol 


816 


STOICS 


STOICS 


STOICS  (SrwiVoO.— When  St.  Paul  at  Athens 
encDuntered  the  Stoics  (Ac  17'*),  they  regarded  liis 
teaching  as  an  interesting  novelty  :  and  so  in  some 
respects  it  was.  Jesus  and  the  liesurrection  were 
indeed  '  strange  gods,'  but,  for  all  that,  there  was 
more  in  common  between  St.  Paul  and  his  liearers 
than  either  party  was  perhaps  aware  of.  To 
begin  with,  the  Jews  had  a  natural  aftinity  with 
Stoicism.  What  nation  indeed  could  stand  more 
in  need  of  the  philosophy  of  endurance  than  that 
whose  whole  history  was  one  long  record  of  perse- 
cution ?  The  '  courage  never  to  submit  or  yield,' 
which  animated  Stoicism,  was  the  moral  also  of 
the  story  of  the  '  seven  brethren  with  their 
mother'  (2  Mac  7).  The  Jews  claimed  kindred 
with  the  Spart.ans,  who  were  the  ideal  of  Stoicism, 
and  admired  the  Konians,  of  whom  Stoicism  was 
the  ideal  (1  Mac  12).  But,  in  the  next  place. 
Stoicism,  as  has  been  shown  by  Sir  Alexander 
Grant,  was  not  a  genuine  product  of  Hellenic 
thought,  but  an  importation  from  the  East.  '  Its 
essence,'  he  says,  '  consists  in  the  introduction  of 
the  Semitic  temperament  and  a  Semitic  spirit  into 
Gr.  philosophy'  (Ethics  of  Arist.  vi.).  Not  one  of 
the  famous  Stoic  teachers  was  a  native  of  Greece 
proper.  Zeno,  the  founder  of  the  school,  who 
nourished  about  B.C.  278,  was  a  native  of  Citium 
in  Cyprus,  a  Greek  town  in  which  there  was  a 
large  infusion  of  Phoenician  settlers  (Diog.  Laert. 
vii.  §  1).  Hence  Zeno  is  sometimes  called  'the 
Pliojnician '  {ib.  ii.  §  1 14),  and  his  master  Crates, 
the  Cynic,  used  jocularly  to  address  him  as  ^oivi- 
kLSiov.  His  successor,  Cleantlies  (about  B.C.  2(J3), 
was  a  native  of  Assos.  The  third  head  of  the 
school,  Chrysippus  (B.C.  280-207  ;  ib.  vii.  §  184), 
whose  intellectual  ability  caused  him  to  be  re- 
garded as  its  second  founder,  came  from  Cilicia, 
either  from  Soli  or  from  St.  Paul's  native  city. 
Tarsus.  Tarsus,  indeed,  was  a  very  stronghold  of 
Stoicism.  To  it  belonged  Zeno,  a  disciple  of 
Cliiysippus,  who  seems  himself  at  one  time  to 
have  been  head  of  the  school  (ib.  vii.  §§  35,  41,  84). 
Though  Strabo  in  his  account  of  Tarsus  (xiv.  p. 
674)  says  nothing  of  this  person,  he  mentions 
among  the  Stoic  teachers  who  had  adorned  that 
city,  '  Antipater,  Arcliedemus,  and  Nestor,  and 
further,  the  two  Athenodori.'  Of  tliese  Antipater 
was  a  disciple  of  Diogenes  of  Babylon  (Cic.  de  Off. 
iii.  §  51),  one  of  the  three  philosophers  who  were 
sent  on  the  famous  embassy  to  Rome  in  B.C.  155 
(Aul.  Gell.  Nort.  Att.  VI.  xiv.  9).  He  was  himself 
the  instructor  of  Pana'tius  of  Rhodes  (Cic.  de  Div. 
i.  §  6),  who  was  the  friend  of  the  younger 
Africanus,  and  the  teadier  of  Posidonius  (of 
Apaniea  in  Syria),  who  in  his  turn  numbered 
Cicero  among  his  hearers.  Arcliedemus  is  men- 
tioned by  Diogenes  Laertius  (vii.  §§  40,  68,  84)  in 
away  that  would  lead  us  to  think  that  he  followed 
Chrysippus.  Of  Nestor  the  Stoic  nothing  more  is 
known.  Of  the  two  Atlienodori,  the  earlier,  known 
as  Cordylion,  died  in  the  liouse  of  Cato  Uticensis  ; 
the  later,  who  was  also  known  as  '  the  Kananite,' 
from  a  village  (Kanna)  in  Cilicia,  was  the  friend  and 
adviser  of  Augustus.  In  his  old  age  he  was  given 
power  to  restore  civil  order  in  his  native  city. 

St.  Paul  then,  coming  from  Tarsus,  the  home  of 
BO  many  of  the  Stoics,  was  not  likely  to  have  been 
a  stranger  to  their  way  of  thinking.  In  his  speech 
on  the  Areopagus  he  seems  to  have  addressed 
himself  more  directly  to  the  Stoic  part  of  his 
audience.  He  deftly  quoted  part  of  a  line  with 
which  they  were  familiar,  '  His  offspring,  too,  are 
we,'  probably  thinking  of  the  Hymn  of  Cle.anthes, 
though  the  precise  form  in  which  he  quotes  it 
comes  from  the  contemporary  poet  Aratus.* 
Another  point  in   which   the   apostle's  language 

•  It  mmy  be  remarked  that  the  language  of  He  4^'  is  etronj^ly 
•uggeetlve  of  the  Hymn  o»  Cleanthes  (lines  9-13),  which  might 


is  coloured  by  the  presence  of  Stoic  auditors,  is  in 
the  appeal  he  makes  to  their  senti-rent  of  cosmo- 
politanism— 'and  he  made  of  onf  ■  very  nation  of 
men  for  to  dwell  on  all  the  face  of  the  earth,' 
while  the  words  which  follow,  '  having  determined 
their  appointed  seasons,  and  the  bounds  of  theil 
habitation,'  express  a  conception  of  fate  and  pro- 
vidence, which  was  common  ground  to  the  apostle 
and  his  hearers. 

The  constructive  era  of  Greek  thought  had 
already  passed  away  before  the  Stoics  aiipeared 
upon  the  scene.  Neither  they  nor  the  Epicuream 
extended  the  bounds  of  thought,  but  only  empha- 
sized certain  aspects  in  the  philosophy  of  tneir 
predecessors.  Both  schools  were  intensely  prac- 
tical, and  endeavoured  to  make  philosophy  a  'life,' 
as  Christianity  afterwards  announced  itself  to  be. 
Both  also  were  systems  of  materialism,  and  agreed 
in  discarding  the  abstractions  of  earlier  thought. 
The  Stoics  adopted  the  physical  theory  of  Hera- 
clitus,  the  Epicureans  that  of  Democritus.  With 
both,  however,  physics  were  a  mere  scaffolding  for 
ethics  ;  but  the  Stoics  paid  great  attention  to  logic, 
while  the  Epicureans  neglected  this  department  of 
philoso]iliy.  What  was  special  to  the  Stoics  was 
the  exalted  tone  of  their  morality,  their  grim 
earnestness,  and  their  devout  submission  to  the 
Divine  will.  Of  the  Stoic  physics  we  seem  to 
have  a  trace  in  the  doctrine  of  the  destruction  of 
the  world  by  fire  (2  P  ?,'"''■  '""'S).  Tlie  idea  of  the 
soul  going  up  to  heaven  at  death  is  not  alien  to 
their  philosophy.  For  death  with  them  was  the 
resolution  of  man's  compound  nature  into  its 
elements,  and  the  soul,  w  hose  natui-e  was  tire  (cf. 
Verg.  ^n.  vi.  730,  '  igneus  est  ollis  vigor  et 
cajlestis  origo'),  struggled  upward  to  its  native 
home  in  the  empyrean.  Witliout  dogmatizing  on 
disputed  ground,  it  is  at  least  interesting  to  com- 
pare Ec  12'  '  And  the  dust  return  to  the  earth 
as  it  was,  and  the  spirit  return  unto  God  who 
gave  it,'  with  what  Velleius  Paterculus  (ii.  123), 
echoing  the  Stoic  doctrine,  says  of  the  death  of 
Augustus :  '  in  sua  resolutus  initia  .  .  .  animam 
cselestem  c;e1o  reddidit.' 

The  doctrine  of  the  Logos  may  not  have  come 
exclusively  from  Greek  sources  ;  but  at  all  events 
Lactantius  (Div.  Inst.  iv.  9)  admits  that  Zeno  had 
anticipated  the  Christian  teaching:  '  Hunc  ser- 
inonem  divinum  ne  philosophi  quidem  ignorave- 
runt :  siquidem  Zenon  reruiii  naturae  dispositorem 
atque  opificem  universitatis  Xoyoi/  prsedicat,  quern 
et  fatum  et  necessitatem  rerum  et  deum  et  animum 
Jovis  nuncupat.'  The  words  5i'  Sx  rd  Trdr-To,  ap- 
plied to  God  in  He  2'",  are  suggestive  of  the  Stoic 
explanation  of  the  name  of  the  Supreme  Being : 
'  Aia  fiiv  yap  (paai,  Bl  dv  to.  TrdvTa,'  while  the  words  m 
St.  Paul's  sermon,  '  in  him  we  live,'  recall  the 
explanation  otlered  of  the  other  form  of  the  name  : 
'  Zrjva  d^  KaXoOffif  Trap'  6(Xov  tov  ^riv  atTibs  iffTtv.^ 

The  problem  of  fate  and  freewill,  which  was 
hardly  rai.sed  by  the  Socratic  philosophers,  was 
much  discussed  by  the  Stoics.  In  this  also  they 
display  an  atlinity  with  Semitic  speculation.  For 
this  was  the  philosophical  problem  which  divided 
the  Jewish  schools,  as  it  has  since  divided  the 
Christian  Churches.  The  Pharisees  leaned  strongly 
to  predestination,  as  we  can  see  from  the  senti- 
ments of  Gamaliel  (Ac  5'")  and  from  those  of  St. 
Paul  himself.  Josephus,  himself  a  Pharisee,  says 
that  that  sect  was  very  like  the  sect  of  the  Stoics 
among  the  Greeks  (Vila,  ch.  ii.). 

Another  point  of  resemblance,  which  justifies 
this  remark  of  Joseplius,  is  the  Stoic  belief  in  a 
future  life.     It  is  true  they  did   not  regard  the 
souls  even  of  pood  men  as  being  absolutely  in* 
mortal.     But  Uiey  held  that  the.se  were  dcstinea 

be  used  aa  an  argument,  so  far  as  it  goes,  in  favour  of  th4 
Pauline  authorship  of  that  Kpistle. 


STOMACH 


STONE 


en 


lO  last  until  the  next  re-alisorjition  of  all  things 
into  the  Divine  nature.  Goii  was  delineil  by  the 
Stoics  OS  '  an  individual  made  up  of  all  being, 
incorruptible  and  ungenerated,  the  fashioner 
of  the  ordered  frame  of  the  universe,  who  at 
certain  periods  of  time  absorbs  all  being  into 
hinisel/,  and  a"ain  generates  it  from  himself ' 
(Diog.  Laert.  vii.  §  137). 

Instead  of  drawing  out  further,  as  might  be 
done,  the  parallelism  between  Stoicism  and  Chris- 
tianity, we  will  liere  close  with  a  caution.  It 
does  not  follow  that,  because  we  find  a  Stoic 
notion  in  the  Uible,  it  has  got  into  it  from  the 
Stoics.  It  may  originally  have  come  to  the  Stoics 
from  the  Jews,  or  both  may  have  borrowed  from 
the  same  source. 

LiTSRATCRB.— The  chief  ancient  authorities  for  a  knowledfre 
of  the  Stoics  are  Cicero's  philosophical  works,  especially  de 
l'\nibua,  Book  iii. ;  I>iogeDe8  Laertius,  Book  vii.;  Stobajus,  Ect, 
Kth.  pp.  Ifi6-184 :  PlutArch,  de  R^iujnantiU  StoicU,  and  de 
Ptaeitts  Fhiiotophwum ;  Se.\tu8  Einpiricus,  adversus  ilathe- 
maticos.  Among  modern  works  may  be  mentioned  Zuller, 
Stoicn  and  Kyicureaiis  ;  Sir  Alexander  Grant,  The  Hlhica  of 
AriMotlt,  Essay  vL;  Lightfoot,  i'Ai^tjJpiaii-K,  Kxcursns  on  'St. 
Paul  p.nd  Seneca.'  ST.  (jEOKOE  STOCK. 

STOMACH.— In  modern  Eng.  'stomach'  is  con- 
fined to  its  literal  meaning  o?  the  receptacle  for 
food  in  the  body.  In  this  sense  it  occurs  in  1  Ti 
5^  '  Use  a  little  wine  'or  thy  stomach's  sake'  (5ia 
t6v  arbiuixof).  But  in  older  Eng.  the  word  was 
used  figuratively,  as  we  u.se  '  heart '  or  '  spirit,'  and 
expressed  either  courage  or  pride. 

The  transition  from  the  literal  to  the  fi^^  sense  was  the  easier 
that  'stomach'  was  freely  used  for  appetite.  Thus  Fuller, 
Uoly  Slate,  185,  'A  rich  man  told  a  poore  man  that  he  walked 
to  get  a  stomach  for  his  meat :  And  I,  said  the  poore  man,  walk 
to  get  meat  for  my  stomach.'  The  sense  of  cow rn/;.'  ('heart')  is 
seen  in  Ridley,  Iforfc*.  ^59,  'Blessed  be  God,  whifh  was  and  is 
the  giver  of  that  and  all  godly  strength  and  stomach  in  the 
time  of  adversity ' ;  and  in  Coverdale's  tr.  of  Jos  21*  '  And  sence 
we  herde  therof,  oure  hert  hath  failed  us,  nether  is  there  a  good 
stomocke  more  in  eny  man,  by  the  reason  of  youre  commyn^e.' 
Cov.  even  applies  the  word  to  Jehovah  in  Is  4'2i^  '  The  Lorde 
«hal  come  forth  as  a  g^-aunte,  and  take  a  stomocke  to  him  like 
a  fresh  man  of  warre.'  The  sense  of  pride  is  seen  in  Knox, 
Wurhi,  iiL  187,  '  And  ye  half  a  Queue,  a  woman  of  a  stout 
stomak,  more  styfTe  in  opinioun  nor  tlexibill  to  the  veritie'; 
Oolding,  Calvin'*  Job,  bH,  '  Therefore  when  wee  come  to  beare 
a  sermon,  let  us  not  carie  such  a  loftie  stomocke  with  us,  as  to 
cliecke  agaviist  God  when  we  be  reproved  for  our  sinnes' ;  and 
Fuller,  Iloly  Warre,  90,  '  A  man  whose  8tom:u:h  was  as  high  as 
his  birth.'  This  is  the  meaning  of  the  woni  in  I's  1U17,  Pr.  Bk, 
'  a  proud  look  and  high  stomach,'  where  Earle  quotes  in  illustra- 
tion Katharine's  character  of  Wolsev  from  ilenry  VIH.  iv. 
ILSS— 

'  He  was  a  man 
Of  an  tmbounde<l  stomach,  ever  nuking 
Himself  with  princes.' 

The  word  occurs  lignratively  in  the  sense  of 
courage  in  2  Mac  7"'  '  Stirring  up  her  womanish 
thoughts  with  a  manly  stomach '  (ip<Tei't  dv/jn^i,  KV 
'  witii  manly  patssion ').  J.  HASTINGS. 

STOMACHER  is  the  EV  tr.  of  S'it?,  Ib  3«  (only). 
The  dcriviition  of  tlie  Hebrew  term  is  very  un- 
certain. There  is  no  probability  in  the  sujiposition 
that  it  represents  two  words,  "n?  '  wiiltli '  and 
''■)  'mantle,'  although  the  sense  thus  obtained 
would  yield  an  etlective  contrast  with  the  fol- 
lowing ?>■  n^jqp  :  '  instead  of  a  flowing  mantle, 
a  girding  of  sackcloth'  (Cheyne,  PB,  cf.  Dillni.- 
Kittcl,  Jes.  ad  loc).  Others  think  th.'it  the 
antithesis  suggests  that  Vj-nn  is  a  kind  of  orna- 
mental girdle  (see  art.  Dkess,  vol.  i.  p.  (WS"). 
The  La\  tr.  by  ;^tTwi'  fieffordpcftvpos,  Aq.  ^uivr] 
ayaWidaeui,  S^-mm.  onjdojfcr/iils,  Vulg.  facia  pec- 
tornlis. 

The  Kig.  word  '  stomacher '  was  applied  to  that 
purt  of  a  woman's  dress  which  covered  the  breast 
and  the  pit  of  the  stomach.  It  was  usually  much 
ornamented,  and  looked  upon  as  an  evidence  of 
wealth.  Coverdale  translates  Is  iV  ("f  the  de- 
graded daughter  of  Babylon),  '  Thou  shall  bringe 


fortli  the  querne,  and  grynede  i7ioul,  put  downe  thj 
stomacher,  make  bare  thy  knees,  and  slialt  wailu 
thoiow  the  water  rj'vers.'  J.  A.  Seldie. 

STONE.— 1.  A  fragment  of  rock  of  any  size  from 
a  pebble  up  to  the  most  massive  block.  In  AV 
'  stone  '  usuallj'  stands  for  px  or  \i0o^ ;  but  it  also 
occurs  as  the  tr.  of  y''=  (Ps"l37*  141«,  KV  'rock'), 
of  nis  (E.\  4^,  AV  'sharp  stone,'  KV  'flint,'  Job 
2-2-^),  of  cin  (Job  41*',  KV  '  potslierd '),  of  ini-  (2  S 
17",  Am  9^  AVm),  of  T^rpos  (2  Mac  I'M'",  Jn  1'-), 
and  of  ^iriipot  (Rev  2").  'Gravel  stones'  is  for  i'yn 
(La  3'*)  ;  '  corner  stones'  for  m-ii  (I's  144'-) ;  'chief 
corner  stone'  for  aKpoyuvrnto^  (Epli  2-'",  1  P  2") ;  'a 
heap  of  stones '  for  nir^a  (I'r  26"  KV) ;  and  '  iiewn 
stone '  for  n-u  (Ex  20"",  1  K  5"  6*  V-  "• '-,  Is  tC",  La 
3",  Ezk  4(»'-,  .-Vm  5").  Conversely  px  appears  in 
EV  as  '  weight'  (Lv  19™,  l)t  'Jo'^-  '\  2S  14-^  I'r  11' 
16"  20"''^,  Mic  G",  Zee  5")  and  as  'plummet'  (Is 
34"  KV). 

The  stones  referred  to  in  Scripture  may  be 
classified  according  to  their  size  and  the  uses  to 
which  they  were  put.  Among  tlie  smaller  stones 
mentioned  are  'gravel  stones'  (La  3'")  and  'stones 
of  the  brook  '(IS  n-"",  Job  2'2-').  The  smoothness 
of  the  latter  is  noted  in  1  S  17'"',  and  the  ctiect  of 
water  in  wearing  them  is  alluded  to  in  Job  14'". 
Stones  in  the  soil  interfered  with  its  fertility,  and 
it  was  part  of  the  husbandman's  work  to  gather 
them  out.  On  the  other  hand,  to  scatter  stones 
over  the  fields  was  one  way  of  devastating  an 
enemj''s  country  (2  K  3'"-  ^).  Tlicse  are  probably 
the  opposite  circumstances  referred  to  in  Ec  3''. 
The  'stony  ground'  (rd  TrerpiiSi;,  rb  jrfrpiiSfs)  of 
Mt  hS"--"!!  is  not  soil  full  of  stones,  but  sh.allow 
soil  with  rock  near  the  surface  (KV  'rocky'). 
Stones  were  convenient  missiles  for  tlie  hand  (Ex 
21'",  2  S  IG"- '',  Sir  22-^''  '27",  2  Mac  1'"  4",  Mk  12^), 
for  the  sling  ( Jg  •20"',  1  S  \V-  ■■"■ "»,  1  Ch  1-2-,  2  Ch 
'20",  Pr  20",  Jth  6'-,  Sir  47*),  or  for  larger  military 
engines  (2  Ch  26'°,  1  Mac  6").  Joseplius  (B.I  III. 
vii.  23,  V.  vi.  3)  "ives  an  account  of  these  engines 
as  used  in  the  sieges  of  Jotapata  and  Jerusalem. 
Stone  projectiles  roughlj'  spherical,  and  13  or  14  in. 
in  diameter,  have  been  found  at  Banids  (Merrill, 
E.  of  Jordan,  p.  524).  A  stonccast  was  a  rougli 
measure  of  dist.-mce  (Lk  22'").  Stone- throwing 
might  prove  fatal  (Nu  35"-'^),  and  was  a  common 
metliod  by  which  death-sentences  were  executed, 
and  in  which  popular  violence  found  vent.  The 
verbs  Spp,  cii,,  XtOdi'u,  KaraXtOd^oi,  \iOo:io\iu,  are  used 
to  denote  this  practice.  A  heap  of  stones  was  some- 
times rai.sed  over  the  bodies  of  those  who  were 
thus  put  to  death  (Jos  7^' '-''),  or  who  were  other- 
wise executed  (Jos  8-'")  or  slain  (2  S  18").  This  is 
perhaps  the  fate  referred  to  in  Is  11'",  La  3".  Such 
Iieaps  were  also  placed  over  ordinary  tombs  for  pro- 
tection or  to  mark  the  spot  (.see  IJuniAL,  vol.  i.  p. 
333").  The  density  of  stones  (Pr  '27^)  made  them 
convenient  for  use  as  weights  (see  list  of  passages 
above)  and  plummets  (Is  .'U"),  and  also  for  attach- 
ing toanytliing  to  be  sunk  in  water,  like  Jeremiah's 
book  of  prophecy  (Jer  .')l"='),orthe  body  of  a  criminal 
to  be  executed  by  drowning  (Mt  18"!;).  Sharp  stones 
were  u.sed  as  knives  (Ex  4*,  Mk  5°).  In  the  former 
case  the  reference  is  probably  to  artificially  fash- 
ioned knives  of  flint  such  as  have  been  recently 
found  among  the  prehistoric  remains  of  Egypt 
(see  Flint,  vol.  ii.  ]>.  1.5  ;  Knifi;,  vol.  iii.  p.  8;  and 
Petrie  and  (^uibell,  AagtiacCa  and  Dallas,  pp.  .55- 
59).  Ve.ssel8  of  stone  are  mentioned  in  Ex  7", 
Jn  2".  In  connexion  with  the  former  passage, 
see  Wilkinson,  Amiint  Efi;ipt,  ii.  8;  Petrie  and 
^\\'\he\\,  Naquada  and  Iiallas,V-  10.  Small  stones 
or  ]iebliles  wore  originally  used  in  voting,  and  the 
counters  of  metfl.1,  etc.,  afterwards  emjiloyed  were 
still  called  ^^r,<pol.  (4  Mac  15^,  Ac  '20'"). 

Among  larger  stones,   besides  niill-stonea  (for 


618 


STONE 


STOXE 


which  see  MILL,  vol.  iii.  p.  369),  mny  lie  noticed 


;hose  which  covered  wells  (Gii  29-'- '• 


iind  de- 


posits of  treasure  (Sir  29'"),  and  those  which  closed 
the  mouths  of  caves  (Jos  10'*- "),  pits  used  as  dens  ( On 
6"),  and  rock-hewn  tombs  (Mt  27°").  The  entrances 
of  tombs  were  closed  sometimes  by  stone  doors  hunj; 
on  stone  pivots,  and  sometimes  by  circular  slabs 
like  milLstones  set  on  edge,  which  rolled  in  grooves 
athwart  the  openings,  the  grooves  being  sloped  so 
as  63  luaks  the  stone  easj-  to  roll  to  the  door  and 
difficult  to  roll  away  again.  The  entrance  to  the 
Tombs  of  the  Kings  at  Jerusalem  has  both  kinds 
of  stone  doors  (see  Tristram,  Land  of  Israel,  pp. 
406-7,  and  SU'P  Special  Papers,  p.  28011'.).  Og's 
'  bedstead  of  iron'  (Dt  3")  was  probably  a  sarco- 
phagus of  basalt,  such  as  have  been  found  in  abund- 
ance E.  of  the  Jordan  (see  Driver,  Deut.  in  loc). 

Certain  large  stones  served  as  landmarks,  such 
as  the  great  stone  in  Gibeon  (2  S  20'),  the  stone  of 
Bohan  the  son  of  Reuben  (Jos  15°  IS"),  the  stone  of 
Zoheleth  (1  K  V),  the  stone  Ezel  (1  S  20"  MT). 
Other  large  stones  had  a  more  or  less  sacred  char- 
acter. Rude  stone  monuments  of  religious  origin 
are  still  plentiful  E.  of  the  Jordan,  though  they 
are  not  found  W.  of  it  except  in  Galilee.  They 
have  been  divided  into  four  classes,  menhirs  or 
pillars,  dolmens  or  stone  tables,  cairns  or  stone 
heaps,  and  cromlechs  or  stone  circles.  Examples 
of  the  hrst  class  are  the  'pillar'  which  Jacob  set 
up  at  Bethel  and  anointed  (Gn  2S'°  35"),  and  that 
wliich  he  erected  at  Mizpah  (Gn  Sl''^).  In  early  Sem- 
itic religion  these  pillars  were  associated  with  the 
presence  of  a  deity,  and  were  smeared  with  blood 
or  oil  as  an  act  of  worship  (see  PlLLAR,  vol.  iii.  pp. 
S79-S1).  In  some  cases  a  rude  stone  pillar  seems 
to  have  served  simply  as  a  memorial  (Jos  2i-'>-  -'', 

1  S  7'-)  or  as  a  monument  to  the  dead  (cf.  1  Mac  13'-", 

2  K  23"  RV,  Ezk  39'^).  While  at  tirst  the  sacred 
stone  representing  the  deity  served  also  as  an  altar, 
the  latter  came  to  be  distinct  at  a  very  early 
period.  It  might  be  a  natural  rock  ( Jg  6™-  -'  13's,  1  S 
gu  1433)  Of  artificially  built  of  stone.  In  the  latter 
case  the  stones  were  unhewn  (Ex  20^,  Dt  27'' '', 
Jos  8").  Elijah's  altar  on  Carmel  was,  no  doubt,  of 
this  kind  (1  K  IS^'"-).  Under  the  Maccabees  the 
stones  of  the  altar  of  burnt-oli'ering  in  the  temple 
were  laid  aside  as  defiled  and  a  new  altar  was  built 
(1  Mac  4*^-*''].  Ezekiel's  ideal  temple  was  to  be 
provided  with  hewn  stone  tables  for  slaj'ing  the 
sacrihces  (Ezk  40^-)  (see  ALTAR,  vol.  i.  pp.  75,  76, 
and  Robertson  Smith,  US  184  tt.,  214).  The  narra- 
tive in  Gn  31  mentions  a  cairn  (S;)  as  well  as  a  jiillar 
at  Mizpah.  The  stones  set  up  by  Joshua  at  Gilgal 
(Jos  4)  were  an  example  of  a  circle  with  a  memorial 
significance  (Conder,  Syrian  Stone-lore,  220  ;  Ben- 
zinger,  Meb.  Arch.  56  H".,  379,  380).  Inscriptions 
might  be  placed  upon  monumental  stones  (Dt 
27''- "),  on  altars  (Jos  8^'-),  or  on  stone  tablets  such 
as  those  on  whicli  the  Law  was  engraved.  Stone, 
like  wood,  was  among  the  commone.st  materials 
out  of  which  idolatrous  images  were  made  (Jer  2-', 
Hab  2'"  etc.).  Such  images,  as  well  as  sacred 
pill.irs,  were  forbidden  in  Lv  26^. 

Tliu  most  important  use  of  stone  was,  of  course, 
for  Imildin".  For  this  purpose  it  was  regarded  as 
superior  toljrick  (Is  9'"),  which  was  substituted  for 
it  in  Babylonia  (Gn  IP).  The  chief  references  to 
stone  as  a  building  material  are  in  connexion  with 
the  temple.  Stone  was  among  the  preparatory 
stores  collected  by  David  (1  Ch  22"- 1»  29-).  The 
foundation  of  the  temple  consisted  of  great  costly 
hewn  stones  (1  K  5"-  "*  7'°),  and  the  superstructure 
was  also  of  stone,  though  covered  with  wood  ( I  K 
gi8  -».  11. 12)  -piig  stones  were  brought  to  the  site 
in  a  prepared  state  (1  K  6').  Hewn  stone  is  men- 
tioned in  connexion  with  the  repairs  executed  by 
Joash  (2K  12'=)  and  Josiah  (2K  22«,  2  Ch  34"), 
and  stone  was  among  the  materials  of  the  second 


temple  (Hag  2'=,  Ezr  5^  6*,  1  Es  6»- =»).  The  size 
and  s]ilendour  of  the  stones  of  Herod's  temple  are 
referred  to  in  Mt  24'- -||.  Contrasted  with  the 
process  of  building  is  that  of  deniolisliing  (Mic  1", 
La  4').  The  stones  in  the  ruins  of  Jerusalem  were 
dear  to  the  exiles  (Ps  102").  The  opponents  of 
Nehemiah  laughed  at  the  idea  of  rebuUding  the 
city  walls  with  stones  from  among  the  rubbish 
(Neh  4-"). 

Some  of  the  great  stones  in  the  foundation  wall 
of  the  temple  are  visible  in  the  Jews'  Wailing 
Place.  Other  jiarts  of  the  wall  have  been  reached 
by  recent  excavation,  notably  at  the  S.E.  comer. 
The  lowest  stone  at  this  point  is  14  ft.  long  and 

3  ft.  8  in.  high,  'squared  and  polished,  with  a 
finely  dressed  face.'  If  the  present  foundation, 
which  rests  on  the  solid  rock,  be  really  that  of 
Solomon's  temple,  then  this  stone  is  the  '  founda- 
tion'  or  'chief  corner  stone'  so  often  referred  to 
in  Scripture  (Is  2S'°,  Ps  118--,  Mt  21*^  ||  Ac  4",  1  P 
2").  While  the  'head  of  the  corner'  is  a  founda- 
tion stone,  the  'head  stone'  (■i»ni  jjk  Zee  4')  is  the 
highest  and  the  last  to  be  placed.  Large  as  the 
temple  stones  are,  they  are  small  compared  with 
some  found  in  the  ruins  of  Baalbek.  Three  of 
these,  forming  one  course,  are  the  largest  hewn 
stones  in  the  world.  They  are  all  13  ft.  high 
and  as  many  thick,  and  their  respective  lengths 
are  64,  63^,  and  63  ft.  A  still  larger  stone,  70  ft. 
long,  14  ft.  thick,  and  14  ft.  high,  lies  in  the 
adjacent  quarry.  For  methods  of  transporting 
such  stones,  see  WDkinson,  Anc.  Eg.  ii.  3U2-10. 
The  remains  of  quarries  are  visible  in  many  places 
in  Palestine,  and  their  extent  aflords  a  measure 
of  the  antiquity  of  the  building  sites  near  them. 
The  greatest  quarries  at  Jerusalem  are  the  caverns 
under  Bezetha,  from  which  a  great  part  of  the 
stone  work  of  the  city  has  been  excavated.  Traces 
of  the  process  of  working  the  quarry  still  remain. 
The  blocks  were  separated  from  the  rock  bj'  cut- 
tings from  3  to  6  in.  wide  made  all  round  them 
with  some  instrument  like  a  pick.  The  margins 
of  the  stones  were  dressed  with  toothed  chisels 
(Benzinger,  Heb.  Arch.  238).  In  the  basaltic 
rocks  of   Bashan   there  are  many   circular   holes 

4  or  5  ft.  deep,  and  as  great  in  diameter,  from 
which  millstones  have  been  quarried  (Merrill,  E. 
of  Jordan,  p.  25). 

A  few  references  to  stone  are  of  a  symbolic 
character.  Jeremiah  was  directed  to  hide  some 
great  stones  in  the  clay  of  a  brick-kiln  at  the 
entrance  to  Pharaoh's  house  at  Tahpanhes,  to  be 
a  foundation  for  the  throne  of  Nebuchadnezzar, 
which  would  be  set  up  in  that  place  (Jer  43"- '"). 
In  Zee  3'  a  stone  with  seven  eyes  (or  facets)  is  set 
before  Joshua  the  high  priest,  and  an  inscription 
is  to  be  placed  upon  it.  This  stone  has  been  vari- 
ously understood  as  referring  to  the  foundation 
stone  of  the  temple,  the  '  head  stone'  of  Zee  4',  a 
jewel  in  the  high  priest's  breastplate,  or  in  Zerub- 
babel's  crown,  or  the  finished  temple  as  a  whole 
(see  G.  A.  Smith,  Twelve  Prophets,  ii.  296).  The 
white  stone  with  a  new  name  written  on  it  (Rev 
2'")  is  likewise  an  obscure  symbol.  From  the 
reference  in  the  same  verse  to  the  '  hidden  ni.anna ' 
the  'white  stone'  has  been  connected  with  the 
Roman  tessera  hospitalis — the  token  divided  be- 
tween two  friends  who  had  entered  into  hospitium, 
and  handed  down  to  their  descendants,  so  as  to 
secure  perpetual  mutual  hospitality  ;  or  with  the 
tessera  frumentaria — the  token  in  exchange  for 
which  a  free  grant  of  corn  was  given  to  the  poorer 
citizens  of  Rome.  Putting  aside  the  reference  to 
the  manna,  a  possible  explanation  may  be  found 
in  the  texsera  gladiatoria,  an  oblong  token  of  ivory 
given  to  a  gladiator  when  he  had  passed  success- 
fully through  a  certain  number  01  contests.  It 
had  inscribed  on  it  the  name  of  the  combatant  ant) 


STONES,  PKECIOUS 


STONES,  PRECIOUS 


619 


tliat  of  his  trainer,  the  date  of  his  first  victorj'  and 
the  letters  SI'  (-ipectutus).  In  Uev  IS-'  the  de- 
etruction  of  '  Babylon  '  is  symbolized  by  an  angel 
casting  a  great  stone  into  the  sea. 

The  various  properties  of  stone  give  rise  to 
numerous  comparisons.  The  Egyptians  sank  in 
the  sea  like  a  stone  (Ex  1.5',  Neh  t)'').  Eear  made 
the  enemies  of  Israel  still  as  a  stone  {Ex  13'"). 
Nabal  became  as  a  stone  before  his  death  (1  S  25^). 
The  heart  of  leviathan  is  linn  as  a  stone  (Job  4r-''). 
The  strength  of  stone  is  also  alluded  to  in  Joii  6''. 
Ice  is  compared  to  stone  (Job  3S™).  Other  figura- 
tive usages  are  frequent.  The  dcadness  and 
sterility  of  stone  gives  point  to  the  Baptist's  say- 
ing in'Mt  3°  II;  so  with  its  dumbness  (Hab  2'', 
Lk  I9«),  and  inedibility  (Mt  4»  7"  ||).  Its  weight 
suggests  what  Jerusalem  will  be  to  the  nations 
(Zee  12^),  and  what  wisdom  is  to  the  unlearned 
(Sir  6^').  Its  hardness  supplies  a  metaphor  for 
hardness  of  heart  (Ezk  11"'  30-").  As  a  contr.ist 
to  this,  Ezekiel's  figure  is  combined  with  an  allu- 
Bion  to  the  inscribed  tables  of  the  Law  in  2  Co  3'. 
The  new  name  IHrpot  given  to  Simon  (Jn  1*-) 
denoted  the  firmness  of  his  character  in  the  future. 
A  slothful  man  is  compared  to  a  'defiled  stone' 
(Sir  22' I.  God  is  called  '  tlie  stone  of  Israel '  (Gn 
49^).  The  Messiah's  kingdom  is  represented  in 
Du  2**  as  a  stone  cut  out  of  the  mountain  without 
hands,  wliich  breaks  in  pieces  the  composite  image 
symbolizing  the  kingdoms  of  this  world.  Christ 
uses  a  similar  figure  regarding  Himself  (Mt  21" 
TR,  Lk  20").  Isaiah  describes  the  Deliverer  of 
Judah  as  a  'foundation'  and  a  'corner  stone.' 
Christ  applies  Ps  1I8--  to  Himself  (Mt  21«  |l),  and 
similar  applications  are  found  in  Ac  4",  1  P  2*"'. 
In  the  latter  passage  Chri-st  is  called  a  'living 
stone,'  and  Ciiristians  are  also  called  '  living 
stones.'  The  same  ideas  of  Christ  as  the  corner 
stone  and  Christians  as  forming  a  building  along 
with  Him,  appear  in  Epli  2-""--. 

2.  .Vnatoniical— a  testicle,  Lv  21*'  {t4<<),  T>t  2P 
(in  a  free  tr.  of  n-ri'i^p),  Job  40"  (i-j,  RV  '  thigh '). 

James  Patuick. 

STONES,  PRECIOUS. —This  subject  is  both 
obscure  and  complex,  and  one  on  which  no  help 
is  to  be  gained  by  relying  on  modem  traditional 
results.  The  only  satisfactory  way  to  treat  it 
is  as  a  series  of  quite  independent  stages  of  re- 
search : — i.  The  actual  stones  known  to  {a)  the 
ancient  Egyptians,  (6)  the  early  Greeks,  (»•)  the 
Roman  writers,  ii.  The  equivalence  of  Hebrew 
and  Greek  names,  iii.  The  substances  designated 
by  the  Greek  names,  iv.  The  sidolightson  the  sub- 
ject from  («)  the  Arabic  or  other  versions,  (i)  the 
colour  arrangement,  (c)  beliefs  about  stones,  etc. 

i.  It  is  obviously  useless  to  attempt  to  identify 
gems  wliicli  were  unknown  before  the  lioman 
age  witli  any  of  the  earlier  names,  and  hence 
the  diamond  and  the  sappliire  are  outside  of 
the  question.  It  is  also  (juite  useless  to  e-xpcct 
the  same  distinctions  between  stones  tliat  we  now 
make  by  chemical  and  crystallograpliic  classifica- 
tion. DiHerent  materials,  if  of  the  same  a|)pear- 
ance,  were  doubtless  classed  under  the  same  name, 
such  as  beryl  and  green  felspar,  or  camclian  and 
fleshy  felspar.  On  the  other  hand,  the  same 
material,  under  dill'erent  appearances,  would  have 
dillerent  names,  such  as  the  many  difiercnt  aspects 
of  quartz,  in  rock-crystal,  amethyst,  clial(ciiony,car- 
nchan,  red  jasper,  green  jasper,  and  yellow  jasper. 

The  stones  commonly  known  to  the  Egyptmna 
for  jewellery  and  engraving  are  as  follows,  those 
not  known  as  engraved  being  in  brackets.  These 
are  arranged  according  to  the  colours,  which  would 
be  natural  cla.s»ification,  and  which  shows  wliat  is 
lialile  to  be  confounded  under  a  single  name.  Tlio 
transparent  stones  are  in  italics,  according  to  the 
varieties    actually    found.      BLACK :    [hajmatite], 


obsidian.  El.UE :  amclhyst,  lazuli.  Green  : 
serpentine,  felspar,  [beryl],  jasper,  turquoise. 
Yellow  :  agnte,  jasper.  Brown  :  sard,  [corun- 
dum]. Red:  red  sard,  [garnet],  fdspdr,  carncli'cn, 
jasper.  White  :  quartz,  milky  quartz,  chalcedony. 
Two  stones  that  might  reasonal)Iy  be  expected  in 
early  use,  but  have  never  yet  been  found  in  Egypt 
before  Greek  times,  are  the  onyx  or  nicolo  (known 
to  the  Romans  as  .Egyptilla),  and  the  olivine  = 
peridot  (modern  chrysolite),  from  tlie  Red  Sea. 
And  the  beryl  is  rare  before  Grreeo-Roman  times. 

The  early  Greeks,  down  to  Theophrastus,  appear 
to  have  had  much  the  same  series  as  the  Egyp- 
tians ;  but  in  Roman  times,  with  extended  com- 
merce, more  of  the  stones  became  known  wliich  we 
now  class  as  gems.  With  these,  however,  we  are 
not  here  concerned  in  OT  usage. 

ii.  Tlie  second  consideration  is  the  equivalence 
of  the  Hebrew  and  Greek  names.  For,  as  we  have 
only  a  few  vague  indications  of  the  meanings  of 
the  Hebrew  names,  or  connexions  of  those  with 
other  languages,  it  is  really  the  tradition  of  the 
times  of  the  LXX  that  has  to  be  almost  entirely 
trusted.  Of  lists  of  stones  there  are  five  to  be 
considered,  —  The  list  of  the  breastplate  (Ex 
28"--»),  that  of  the  king  of  Tyre  (Ezk  28'^),  the 
translation  of  these  two  lists  in  the  LXX,  and  the 
foundations  in  Rev  21"'--''.  All  these  lists  are 
certainly  connected,  as  we  shall  see  by  the  state- 
ment of  them. 


3  Bareketh 
6  Vahllom 
9  'AhlsTimh 
12  Yashc-iihch 


5  YahJlom 

6  Vaslicpheh 
09  BarC'kath 


The  Brkastpuate, 

2  I'itdah 

6  Sappir 

8  .Sheho 
11  Shoham 


1  'Odem 
4  Kophekh 
7  lA>licm 
10  Turshish 


Tub  Kiso  of  Ttrb. 

2  I'iUIali  1  'Odem 

6  Sliohain  4  Tarshish 

8  Nophekh  7  Sappir 


BllEASTPLATE  A.ND  Kl.NO  OP  TVRE.      LX.Y. 

3  Smaragdoa             2  Topazion  1  SardioD 

OS 6  la^^pis                      5  Sappheiros  4  Anthrax 

9  AmethystOB           8  Achates  7  Lifrurion 

12  Onychion              11  Beryllion  10  Chrysolithos 

The  Foundations. 

2  Sappheiros  3  Chalkedon 


;  Suniiou 
»  T..p;izif,n 
1*2  .\inetliyst08 


1  laspis 

4  SnianipdoB  5  Sardonyx 

7  Chrysolithos  S  I!cryll..'s 

10  Clirysoprasos  11  Hyakinthos 

Several  iiroblems  meet  us  here.  The  LXX  must 
either  have  found  the  lists  of  Ex.  and  ICzek.  alike, 
or  else  have  altered  one  into  conformity  with  the 
other.  There  is  one  sign  of  confusion  in  tlie  LXX, 
where  silver  and  gold  are  interpolated  in  the 
midst  of  the  series  (marked  S  and  G  here) ;  where- 
as the  Ileb.  in  Ezek.  has  (j<ild  at  the  end  (markeil  G 
here);  so  far  the  Hebrew  is  the  more  consistent. 
On  the  other  hand,  it  is  evident  that  the  list  in 
Ezek.  has  been  written  with  the  list  in  Ex.  in  view  : 
the  first  two  names  being  the  .same,  the  '2nd  lino 
being  tlie  4th  line  in  ICx.,  and  the  3rd  line  being 
.'),  4,  3  of  Ex.  in  inverted  order,  all  show  that  Ezek. 
is  apparently  a  corrupted  copy  of  Ex.,  perhaps 
changed  by  the  iirophet  (luoting  from  memory. 

But  liere  another  dilliculty  arises:  the  yCisluphch 
12  in  Ex.  cannot  but  be  intended  by  inxpii  6, 
while  the  yashephch  is  6  in  Ezekiel.  Here  LXX 
nijrees  with  Ezek.  ;  while,  in  snppir  5  in  Ex.  and 
7  in  Ezek.,  the  LXX  agrees  with  Ex.  in  ,5  sn/i/dieirus. 
In  another  point  probably  Ex.  agrees  with  LXX; 
bareketh,  the  'Hashing'  or  'lightning'  stone,  is 
probably  quartz  crystal  ;  and  sinaraijdu.i,  whicli 
It  ii.arallels  in  Ex.,  is  also  probably  (luartz,  as  we 
shall  see  further  on.  On  the  whole,  it  seems 
safest  to  take  Ex.  and  LXX  as  equivalent  lists ; 

•  The  Greek  fonna  are  kept  here  to  avoid  confusion  with 
Englisli  naincH  derived  from  ttiein,  wliich  now  denote  difTonint 
stones. 


620 


STONES,  PRECIOUS 


STONES,  PRECIOUS 


granting  a  transposition  oi  12  and  6,  probab'y  in 
the  Hebrew. 

iii.  Next  we  come  to  the  third  section  —  tlie 
meaning  of  the  Greek  name? ;  and  for  this  we 
must  remember  that  tlie  series  should  correspond 
to  the  stones  actually  in  use  in  early  times,  and 
not  to  those  which  may  have  had  those  names  in 
Gra?co-Koman  writings.  (1)  Sardios  =  'odcin,  is 
the  '  blood '-coloured  stone  (Heb.) ;  and  as  none  of 
the  early  ones  except  red  jasper  can  be  so  de- 
scribed, it  seems  that  this  must  be  intended. 

(2)  Tojiazion  =  pitdah,  is  reputed  to  be  the 
peridot,  because  of  its  being  described  as  imported 
from  the  Red  Sea,  as  of  a  greenish -yellow  colour, 
and  as  the  softest  of  precious  stones.  The  diffi- 
culty in  this  is  that  no  instance  is  known  of 
peritlot  in  Eg}'ptian  work  ;  and  this  would  lead  us 
to  look  for  some  similar  stone  as  the  earlier  repre- 
sentative of  pitdah.  The  transparent  precious 
serpentine  was  in  use  in  Egypt,  and  is  of  closely 
the  same  colour  ;  in  fact,  of  the  same  composition, 
but  hydrated.  This,  then,  has  the  best  claim  to  be 
the  original  stone,  for  which  the  harder  olivine, 
peridot,  was  later  substituted.  The  Arabic  has 
asfar,  '  yellow,'  which  corresponds  with  peridot. 

(3)  Smarcifjdos  =  bdrekcth.  This  is  commonly 
supposed  to  be  emerald  ;  but,  as  there  is  beryl  also 
in  the  list,  it  is  unlikely  that  a  slight  variety  of 
purer  and  less  pure  colour  should  give  occasion  to 
repeat  the  same  stone.  There  are  two  indications 
that  in  smaraydos  is  included  rock-crystal.  Pliny 
mentions  the  shortsighted  Nero  using  an  eye-glass 
of  smaragdus ;  the  difficulty  of  getting  emerald 
free  from  tlaws  and  large  enough  for  an  eye-glass, 
the  depth  of  colour  (for  this  was  not  the  lighter 
beryl),  and  the  greater  hardness  of  emerald,  all 
make  that  stone  very  unlikely.  The  colourless 
rock-crystal  is  far  more  probably  the  material 
used.  And  in  Rev  4'  there  is  described — a  rain- 
bow like  a  smaracjdus :  now  a  colourless  stone 
is  the  only  onq  that  can  show  a  rainbow  of  pris- 
matic colours ;  and  the  hexagonal  prism  of  rock- 
crystal,  if  one  face  is  not  developed  (as  is  often  the 
case),  gives  a  prism  of  60°,  suitable  to  show  a 
spectrum.  The  confusion  with  emerald  seems  to 
have  arisen  from  both  stones  crj'stallizing  in 
hexagonal  prisms ;  and,  as  the  emerald  varies 
through  the  aquamarine  to  a  colourless  state, 
there  is  no  obvious  separation  between  it  and 
quartz  crystal.  The  meaning  of  bdreJceth,  the 
'flashing'  or  'lightning'  stone,  agrees  with  the 
brilliancy  of  rock  -  crystal.  The  Arabic  has 
sam  uruU  =  smaragdus. 

(4)  Anthrax  =  nophekh.  The  former  name  is 
generally  agreed  to  be  the  carbuncle,  which  is  the 
(lark  clear  red  garnet.  Garnet  was  a  favourite 
stone  in  Egjpt  for  beads,  but  is  not  found  en- 
graved, at  least  not  till  late  times. 

(5)  Sappheiros = .mjipir.  There  can  be  no  doubt 
of  the  eciuivalence  of  these  names ;  yet  they  do 
not  mean  our  sjipphire  or  corundum,  as  tliat  was 
quite  unknown  in  early  times,  and  probably  too 
hard  to  be  engraved.  Plinys  description  of  it  as 
opaque  and  speckled  with  gold,  shows  it  to  have 
been  our  lapis-lazuli,  which  was  used  and  greatly 
valued  in  early  times. 

(6)  As  we  cannot  sever  the  iaspis  from  the 
yd.fh^pheh,  we  must  assume  a  corruption  in  either 
the  Heb.  or  Greek.  The  Greek  is  more  probably 
correct,  as  the  iaspis  was  certainly  opaque,  and 
would  well  consort  with  the  opaque  lazuli.  We 
must  restore,  then,  (6)  iaspis=ydshipheh.  The  ear- 
liest jaspers  mentioned  by  Greek  writers  appear 
to  have  been  green  ;  and  a  dark  green  jasper  was 
a  favourite  stone  among  early  Greek  engravers, 
and  used  also  by  Egyptians.  This  is  probably, 
then,  the  iaspis. 

(7)  Ligurion  =  leshem.     The   ligurion  is  a  cor- 


ruption of  li/ncurion,  described  as  brilliant  yellow, 
and  in  Greek  times  apparently  identified  with  the 
jacinth  =  zircon.  As  tliis  is  unknown  in  Egyptian 
work,  probably  yellow  quartz  or  agate  (R.)  was 
intended  by  leshem. 

(8)  Achates  =  shebo.  This  is  agreed  to  be  con- 
nected with  some  varieties  of  modern  agates.  The 
black  and  white  banded  is  said  to  be  probably  the 
variety  earliest  known  as  achates  to  the  Greeks  ; 
but  this  is  little,  if  at  all,  known  in  Egypt  until 
Greek  times.  From  the  contrasts  of  colour  in  the 
series  a  red  agate  would  be  the  more  likely  here  ; 
but  a  grey  and  wliite  is  the  only  closely-banded 
agate  that  occurs  in  Egj-ptian  work.  If  possible 
we  should  expect  the  carnelian  here,  as  it  is  a 
usual  stone,  and  yet  does  not  appear  elsewhere  in 
the  list. 

(9)  Amethystos=^ahldniah.  There  is  no  question 
as  to  this  being  the  modem  amethyst,  which  was 
frequently  used  in  Egypt  at  an  early  date,  and 
well  engraved. 

(10)  Chr)jsolithos  =  tarshtsh.  This  stone  among 
later  Greeks  is  probably  the  topaz ;  but,  as  that 
was  quite  unknown  in  earlier  times,  some  other 
golden-coloured  stone  must  be  intended.  As  clear 
yellow  quartz  is  already  fixed  to  the  ligurion,  that 
IS  not  in  question  ;  nor  would  a  transparent  yellow- 
stone  be  so  appropriately  termed  '  golden '  as  an 
opaque  one.  The  bright  yellow  jasper  was  finely 
engraved  by  the  Egyptians  of  the  ISth  dynasty 
and  onward,  and  that  may  well  be  the  'golden 
stone '  or  chri/sulithos. 

(11)  Beri/llion=sh6ham. — It  is  generally  agreed 
that  this  IS  the  modern  beryl,  the  opaque  green 
variety  of  the  emerald  ;  and  with  this  was  doubt- 
less confused  the  green  felspar,  which  is  only  dis- 
tinguished in  appearance  by  its  brighter  cleavage 
and  lustre.  As  the  felspar  was  far  more  usual 
for  jewellery  than  the  beryl  in  early  times,  it  is 
pretty  certain  that  it  was  the  shoham,  afterwards 
confused  with  the  beryl. 

(12)  As  we  have  already  noticed,  the  ydshfphth 
has  probably  changed  places  in  the  Hebrew  with 
yahalOm,  and  therefore  ( 12)  onyrhion  =  yahdlom 
seems  to  be  the  probable  equivalence.  This  is 
usually  accepted  as  being  the  modem  onyx ;  but 
such  a  stone  in  layers  was  apparently  not  known 
to  early  engravers,  the  first  dated  example  being 
of  the  26th  dynasty.  There  is,  however,  no  other 
stone  which  seems  more  probable  for  this  name. 

It  may  be  as  well  now  to  state  what  stones  that 
were  used  for  early  engraving  stand  outside  of  the 
identifications  we  have  arrived  at,  and  appear  not 
to  have  been  used  in  the  breastplate.  The  follow- 
ing were  all  wrought  in  Egypt :  obsidian,  black 
jasper,  ha?matite,  fawn-colouretl  chert,  milky  quartz, 
chalcedony,  and  turquoise.  Thus  no  striking  or 
important  stone  is  omitted  from  the  list  of  Ex. 
except  turquoise,  which  was  mainly  used  before 
4tJuO  B.C.,  and  in  late  times.  But  we  have  in 
several  cases  put  down  two  stones  to  one  name, 
where  they  were  such  as  were  likely  to  have  been 
confounded  in  one  class  together. 

iv.  We  now  turn  to  the  question  of  colour.  The 
breastplate  woirid  apparently  have  stood  thus — 

3  White  quartz  2  Yellow  gerpentine      1  Red  jasper 

6  Green  jasper  6  Blue  lazuli  4  Red  garnet 

9  Purjtie  amethyst       8  Red  carnelian  7  Yellow  ajjate 

12  White  and  black  11  Green  felspar  10  Yellow  jasper 

onyx 

Here  there  is  good  contrast  maintained  except  in 
the  right  column,  where  there  are  two  reds  together 
and  two  yellows  ;  but  none  of  these  are  in  serious 
doubt,  and  if  any  change  is  suggested  it  would  be 
by  transposing  two  of  these.  Tlie  first  entry  seema 
well  fixed  in  the  lists  ;  and  the  fourth  cannot 
change  with  the  seventh  without  bringing  red 
garnet  and  carnelian  together.     If,  however,  the 


STONES,  PRECIOUS 


STORK 


62\ 


fourth  and  tenth  interchanged,  then  tlie  opaque 
yellow  jasper  would  be  next  to  the  opa<]ue  lazuli 
and  in  line  with  oj)a<iue  green  jasper,  which  would 
be  harmonious.  Should  this  bo  acce|)ted,  then  the 
red  garnet,  anthrax,  would  be  tarshish  (K.)  ;  and 
the  yellow  jasper,  chrysolithos,  would  be  nophekh. 

There  now  remains  the  question  of  the  relation 
of  the  stones  in  Rev.  to  those  in  the  OT.  They 
have  evidently  some  connexion  ;  but  sometimes  in 
the  object  order,  sometimes  in  the  verbal  order, 
the  Heb.  reckoning  running  contrary  to  Greek. 
Thus  there  is — 


Ex.  LXX  6  laspis 
Rev.  1  laspis 


Ex. 
Rev. 

Ex. 

Rev. 


8  Smara<^do0 
4  Smura''cio9 


6  Sappheiros 

5  Sappheiros 

2  Topazion 

6  Sardonyx 


1  Sardion 
6  Sardion 


11  Bcrvllion 
8  Berjilos 


12  Onychion 
9  Topazion 

8  Achates  9  Amethystos 

11  Hvakinthofl    12  Amethvstos 


10  Chrysolilho* 
7  ChrysohthoB 

Ex.  7  Lijurion 

Rev.         10  Chrysoprasos 

Here  topnziun  and  sardonijx  ajijiear  to  have 
changed  places  ;  as,  if  so,  the  topaziun  would  agree 
in  both,  and  the  oni/c/iion  compare  with  the  *«/•- 
donyx.  The  c/iri/xoprasos  may  well  be  a  later 
name  of  the  liguriun.  There  is,  in  any  case,  a 
strong  influence  of  the  LXX  lists  on  the  \iev.  list ; 
but  yet  it  seems  much  like  the  ap])arent  relation 
by  memory  of  the  Ezek.  list  with  the  Ex.  list  in 
the  Hebrew. 

A  few  stones  occur  in  Rev.  that  are  not  in  LXX. 
(3)  Chalkedon  was  a  green  stone  according  to 
I'liny,  from  the  copper  mines  near  Chakedon.  Aa 
it  was  only  found  in  very  small  pieces,  the  sugges- 
tion that  it  was  dwpta.ic  (silicate  of  copper)  seeins 
not  unlikely,  as  that  is  in  small  crystals.  (5) 
S'irdoiii/x  is  doubtless  the  red  and  white  onyx. 
(7)  Chnj.mlilhos  in  the  Roman  age  was  the  present 
topaz  ;  while  (9)  topnziun  was  the  present  chrysol- 
ite ^/'iciWo^  (10)  Chrijso]trn3os  w&a  probably  the 
green  chalcedony,or  the  plasma.  (II)  Hyakmthvs 
^^  as  the  i)resent  sapphire,  according  to  the  account 
of  it  by  Solinus.  Of  the.se  stones  in  Rev.  there  is 
far  less  doubt  than  of  those  in  OT,  as  the  writers 
on  gems  are  nearly  contemporary  with  Rev.,  and 
describe  the  gems  in  detail. 

The  shdmir  of  Ezk  3"  'harder  than  flint'  is 
evidently  connected  with  the  Egj'ptian  a.fmer  and 
the  Greek  i-miris,  both  of  which  mean  corundum 
or  emery.  The  hardness  of  that  stone  aj-'reeing 
with  the  description  in  Ezek.,  leaves  no  douut  that 
it  is  the  s/tdmlr. 

Finally,  we  may  here  summarize  the  results — 

Ueb.       Greek  (LXX).  Early.  Late. 

Odcin  Sardion  Red  jasper  Sard 

'Ahlumch     Amtttiysto*  Amethyst 

Bareketh     Sinaragdo*  Quartz  crysuxl  Emerald 

Lcshem        Li^irion  Yellow  a^te 

Nophekh      Anthrax  Oatnet  =  CarhuncIe 

(or  Chrj'soUthOB?     Yellow  jasper  Topaz) 

Pitdab         Topazion  Yellow  -  grreeo  Peridot 

serpentine 
Sappir  Sappheiroc  Lazuli 

^hiimir         Sniiris  Corundum 

SbobA  Achates  A^teT  Islack  and 

Red  camellant  wliite 

and  felspar?  a;;at6 

Shdham        Berj'llion  Green  felspar  Beryl 

Tarshish       Chrysolitho«  Yellow  jas])er  To]>az 

(or  Anthrax  Garnet=CorbunoIe) 

Y&shCpheh  laspia  Dark  green  jasper 

YahAlom      Onvcbion  Onyx?  Onyx 

Auo  in  iiev. 

Hyakinthoa  Sapjihire 

ChalkedSn  Dioptasef 

Chrysoprasoa  Green  cbal. 

cedony  or 
plasma 
Sardonyx  Red  and 

white  onyx 

The  lists  of  stones  anciently  used  in  pro-Greek 
times  are  from  the  writer's  own  observation.  For 
the  greater  part  of  the  information  on  Greek  names 
Uid    gems,   King's   Antique   Gems   has    been   the 


source  here  used.  But  for  corroborations  and 
modihcations  of  the  general  views,  the  results  of 
Prof.  Ridgeway's  private  studies  have  been  most 
generously  communicated,  especially  in  points 
marked  (it.) ;  and  it  must  be  remembered  that  the 
details  of  the  reasons  for  some  of  the  identilications 
cannot  be  fullj-  stated  or  discussed  in  a  brief  out- 
line like  the  present. 

See,  furtlier,  the  separate  artt.  on  the  EV  names 
of  the  precious  stones  mentioned  in  the  liilile. 

W.  M.  FLINDEK.S  I'KTRIE. 

STONING.  —  See  Crimes  and  Punishments, 
vol.  i.  p.  527". 

STONY.— 1.  In    the   Preface   to  AV  the   word 

'  stony  '  is  used  with  the  meaning  '  made  of  stone ' : 
'Although  they  build,  yet  if  a  fox  go  up,  he  shall 
even  break  down  their  stony  wall.'*  Cf.  Shaks. 
Jul.  Ccesar,  I.  iii.  93,  '  Nor  stonv  tower,  nor  walls 
of  beaten  brass.'  2.  In  Mt  13'-  -»,  Mk  4=-  '«  '  stony ' 
means  'rocky'  (to  veTptiSr),  AV  'stony  places,' 
RV  '  rocky  places  ').  This  is  the  meaning  also  in 
Hs  141'  '  When  their  judges  are  overthrown  in 
stony  places '  (vS?  n-j,  RV  '  by  the  sides  of  the 
rock ').  Cf.  Raleigh,  Guiana,  69,  '  The  inaine 
banks  being  for  the  most  part  st<mie  and  high.' 
So  '  stone '  is  used  for  '  rock '  in  Peres  the  Plutigh- 
mans  Credo,  8U6 — 

*  And  sythen  his  blissed  body  was  in  a  ston  byried. 
And  descended  a^ioune  to  the  dark  belle ' ; 

and  by  Coverdale  in  Is  51'  'Take  hede  unto  the 
stone,  wherout  j'e  are  liewen,  and  to  the  grave 
wherout  ye  are  digged.'  3.  In  Ezk  11'*  36-""  and 
Sir  17'"  '  stony  '  means '  hard  as  stone,'  as  in  Shaks. 
Merch.  of  Venice,  IV.  i.  4 — 

•Thou  art  come  to  answer 
A  stony  adversary.' 

J.  Hastings. 
STOOL.— 1.  A  chair  of  honour  for  a  guest,  2  K  4" 
'  Let  us  set  for  him  there  a  bed,  and  a  table,  and  a 
stool.'  (So  RV,  thougli  the  Ileb.  is  nbj,  which 
elsewhere  means  a  rojal  throne  or  other  .seat  of 
state :  the  LXX  gives  Sl<ppo^,  which  is  tr"*  '  stool ' 
in  AV  of  2  Mac  14-'',  but  in  RV  '  chair  of  state '). 

In  older  English  'stool'  was  used  freely  for  any  kind  of  seat, 
as  in  Chaucer,  Wife  of  Hath' s  ProL  287,  'Spones  and  stoles,  and 
al  swich  housbotKlrye' ;  Mk  ll^^Tind.  'the  stoles  of  them  that 
sold  doves'  (xacth^ptt?,  AV  'scats');  1  S  1^  (Jov.  'Eli  the  prest 
sat  upon  a  stole  by  the  poste  of  the  temple  of  the  I.orde ' 
(A V  '  upon  a  seat ') ;  Job  20^  Gov.  'lie  holdeth  back  his  stole, 
that  it  cannot  be  seen'  (n?3-*^D,  AV  and  RV  'the  face  of  his 
throne'):  Jer  17^  Gov.  'Then  shal  there  ^o  thorow  the  ^ates 
of  this  cite,  kinges  and  prynces,  that  shall  syt  ui>on  the  stole  of 
David  '  (k;3,  AV  and  RV  'throne  ')  ;  29iii  Co'v.  ;  3317  Cov. '  David 
shal  never  want  one,  to  syt  upon  the  stole  of  the  house  of 
Israel '  (k;:?'^^,  AV  arid  RV  '  upon  the  throne,'  which  is  Cover- 
dale's  own  tr.  of  the  same  Heb.  in  v.^). 

2.  Mother's  bearing  stool  (but  see  Holzinger  in 
loc,  and  Expos.  'Times,  xii.  I()5),  Ex  1'°  'upon  the 
stools,'  RV  'upon  the  birtlistool '  (Ileb.  o-j^Nrr-Sv, 
found  only  in  dual,  its  only  other  occurrence 
being  .ler  IS',  where  it  describes  the  potter's 
wheel,  'two  discs  revolving  one  alnive  the  other'  ; 
cf.  vol.  iii.  p.  3G7').  J.  IIa.stings. 

STORAX.— See  MvRiiii,  Poplar,  Stacte. 

STORK  (ii'cq  /i(T.vW(i/0.— Although  one  of  the 
comn^onest  and  the  largest  birds  of  liible  lands,  the 
LXX  translators  do  not  seem  to  have  known  its 
name,  as  they  render  hitsiildh  in  the  si.\  jiassages 
where  it  occurs  bv  four  dill'erent  words  (Lv  II'-', 
Ps  104"  (^pwSiis,  l)t  14"*  we\(K6.i>,  Jer  8',  Job  39" 
offiW  [transliterated],  Zee  5"  Ino^jj).  There  is,  how- 
ever, no  doubt  as  to  its  identity.  Two  species  arc 
found  in  the  Holy  Land — the  lilack  stork,  Ciiania 
nigra,  L.,  and  the  white  stork,  C.  alba,  L.     The 

*  In  the  text  of  Neh  4'  It  is  '  their  stone  wall,'  tlie  form  '  tluii 
•tony  wall '  being  from  Coverdale  and  the  Geneva  Bibla 


622 


STORY 


STRANGE,  STRAKGER 


former  is  a  little  smaller  than  the  latter,  and  less 
common  in  the  soutliern  and  western  districts. 
It  is  more  common  towards  the  north-east.  Its 
colour  is  black,  and  it  is  a  shy  bird,  fre<iuenting 
the  desert,  where  it  lives  in  flocks.  The  wliite 
stork  is  44  in.  lonf;  and  has  black  wings,  but  the 
coverts  and  rest  of  its  phimaye  are  white.  The 
beak,  leps,  and  skin  about  the  eyes  are  red ;  the 
iris  is  dark  brown. 

Few  as  are  the  passages  in  which  the  stork  is 
mentioned,  we  can  gather  from  them  some  of  its 
chief  traits :  (1)  It  was  an  unclean  bird  (Lv.  and 
T)t.  I.e.);  this  corresponds  to  its  food,  which  con- 
sists of  reptiles,  aiiipliibians,  and  garbage.  (2)  In 
the  ob.scure  passage  {Job  39'-')  there  may  be  a 
reference  to  the  contrast  between  the  supposed 
indifference  of  the  ostrich  to  its  young  and  the 
proverbial  affection  of  the  stork.  This,  however, 
IS  uncertain  ;  see  the  Cumm.  ad  loc.  (3)  The  stork 
nests  in  fir  trees  (Ps  104").  Most  storks  in  Pales- 
tine now  nest  in  the  tops  of  ruins.  In  many 
places  in  otlier  countries  they  build  on  chimney 
tops.  But  there  is  abundant  evidence  that  tliey 
even  now  sometimes  nest  in  trees  in  the  Holy 
Land,  as  well  as  in  other  countries.  It  has  been 
well  observed  by  Tristram  that,  in  ancient  times, 
■when  there  were  fewer  ruins  and  more  trees,  storks 
must  perforce  have  resorted  to  the  trees  and  rocks. 
He  says  that  the  black  storks  still  always  prefer 
trees.  (4)  The  migrations  of  the  stork  at  definite 
times  (jer  8')  did  not  escape  notice.  At  such 
times  it  flies  high  'in  the  heaven.'  There  are 
abundant  illustrations  of  the  regularity  with  whicli 
these  birds  return  to  their  old  haunts  year  after 
year,  and  repair  the  very  nests  which  they  had 
before  occupied  both  as  otispring  and  parents.  (5) 
Their  power  of  wing  and  the  sound  as  of  wind 
made  by  their  flight  are  alluded  to  (Zee  5').  The 
spread  of  their  wings  is  nearly  7  feet. 

G.  E.  Post. 

STORY.— In  older  Eng.  'story'  and  'history' 
(of  which  '  story '  is  an  aphetic  form)  were  used 
interchangeably.  We  accordingly  find  '  history ' 
applied  to  romance,  and  '  story '  to  continued  his- 
torical narrative.  In  Pref.  to  AV  the  translators 
even  use  the  word  'story'  of  history  in  general, 
'  This  will  easily  be  granted  by  as  many  as  know 
storie,  or  have  any  e.xperience.  The  word  'story' 
occurs  in  AV  (outside  the  Apocr.)only  in  2  Ch  13-- 
24",  for  which  see  art.  Commentary  in  vol.  i. 
p.  459^  In  the  Apocr.  it  is  used  as  tlie  tr.  of 
IcTopia  in  2  Mac  2"''-  *'•  "'y  of  oi);77;<ris  in  2^-,  and  of 
(TiJrrafis  in  15^- '",  and  in  1  Es  1^  ^  /3//3\ot  tQiv  Ioto- 
aov^4v(jjv  Tepl  TuJc  ^offiK^wv  ttjs  'lovSaias  is  tr**  'tlie 
book  of  the  stories  of  the  kings  of  Judah.'  Cf. 
Rheraish  NT,  note  on  Jn  5^  '  The  force  of  divers 
waters  in  the  world  is  justly  attributed  by  our 
forefathers  and  good  stories  to  the  prayers  and 
presence  of  Saincts,  which  profane  incredulous  men 
referre  onely  to  nature.'  Tindale  says  (Expos.  201) 
'We  believe  not  only  with  story  faith,  as  men 
believe  old  chronicles.' 

Storywriter,  for  'historian'  (i.e.  chronicler), 
occurs  in  1  Es '2"  (6  7/ja/i/xaTei)j ;  RVm  'recorder'), 
and  2'-^  (6  ypdipuv  t4  Trpoairlin-ovTa) ;  in  the  latter 
verse  ypap./j.aTeui  is  tr''  'scribe.'        J.  Hastincs. 

STOUT,  STOUTNESS.-^The  modern  meanijig  of 
the  Kng.  word  '  stout,' viz.  solid,  substantial  (and 
then  corpulent),  suggests  a  connexion  with  Lat. 
stolidus  and  the  root  sto,  to  stand  ;  but  the  word  is 
of  Low  Germ,  origin  (coming  to  us  tlirough  tlie 
French),  and  in  its  earliest  use  signified  'brave,' 
'bold,'  'impetuous.' 

In  AV  the  meaning  is  hold  in  Job  4",  Dn  7"°,  and 
presumptuous  in  Is  10",  Mai  3".  Stouthearted 
occurs  in  Ps  76*,  Is  46"  with  the  former  meaning 
(Heb.  3^  "i';!<).     The  sabst.  stoutness  is  found  in 


Is  9°,  also  with  the  meaning  of  boldness,  as  in 
Golding,  Calvin's  Job,  570,  '  For  what  is  the  cau,s« 
that  oftentymes  wee  dare  not  undertake  a  good 
quarell,  but  for  that  we  have  not  the  stoutnesse 
and  skill  too  resist  so  stedfastlyas  were  requisite?' 

J.  Hastings. 

STRAIT.— The  Eng.  words  'strait'  and  'strict' 
are  doublets,  the  latter  coming  directly  from  Lat. 
slrictus,"  ptcp.  of  stringere,  to  draw  tight;  the 
former  through  the  Old  Fr.  estrcit  or  estrait  (mod. 
Hroit).^  'Strait'  is  an  adj.,  an  adv.,  a  subst.,  and 
a  verb. 

As  an  adj.  'strait'  means  in  AV  either  lit. 
narrow,  confined,  or  fig.  strict,  rigorous. 

1.  yarrow,  conjined:  e.g.  2  K  61  *The  place  where  we  dweU 
with  thee  is  too  strait  for  us '  O^^P  "ly,  LXX  rrtii;  «^'  n^cu*) ; 
Mt  713-  i-l  '  Enter  ye  in  at  the  strait  gate  .  .  .  because  strait  \a 
the  gate'  (irTfvoj). 

2.  Strict,  rigorous. — The  transition  from  the  lit.  to  the  fig, 
sense  is  seen  in  2  Es  7^^  1**  &w,  thus  718  '  The  righteous  shall  suffer 
strait  things,  and  hope  for  wide  (/ercnt  angunta  speraates 
spatiofsa) ;  for  they  that  have  done  wickedly  have  suffered 
the  strait  things,  and  yet  shall  not  see  the  wide.*  Then  the  fig. 
sense  appears  in  7^1  'God  hath  given  strait  commandment' 
iiiiundans  inandai-it ;  RV  '  straitly  commanded '). 

As  an  adv.  '  strait '  means  closely,  narrowly.  It 
occurs  in  1  Es  5'-  '  The  heathen  .  .  .  holding  them 
strait'  (TToKLopKouvTet,  RVm  '  besieging  them ') ;  and 
1  Mac  13«. 

As  a  subst.  :  e.g.  La  1"' All  her  persecutors  over- 
took her  between  the  straits '  (D'iy?ir  I"3,  RV  '  within 
the  straits '). 

As  a  verb  '  strait '  occurs  only  in  Sus  ^  '  I  am 
straited  on  every  side,'  where  mod.  editions  give 
'  straitened  '  [<mva  p.OL  TavroOev). 

The  verb  straiten  is  used  both  literally  and 
figuratively. 

1.  Literally  it  means  (1)  to  shorten  or  Tiarroip,  e.g.  Job  371« 
'  The  breadth  of  the  waters  is  straitened '  (p^lDS,  lit  *  in  narrow- 
ness,' i.e.  *in  a  narrow  channel,'  RVm  'congealed'). 

2.  Figuratively,  'straiten'  means  narrow  (opp.  'enlarge')  or 
confine,  and  so  hamper :  Job  12^  '  He  enlargeth  the  nations  and 
sti'aiteneth  them  again'  (Heb.  as  RV  'bringeth  them  in,*  RVm 
'  leadeth  them  away '),  IS",  Pr  412  (both  of  the  straitening  of 
steps—'  Widening  of  the  steps  is  a  usual  Oriental  figure  for  the 
bold  and  free  movements  of  one  in  prosperity,  as  straitening  of 
them  is  for  the  constrained  and  timid  action  of  one  in  adversity ' 
— Da\idson  on  Job  18"). 

The  adv.  straitly  means  either  (1)  closely,  Jos 
6'  'Jericho  was  straitly  shut  up'  (nnjjrpi  n-ijb, 
RV  '  shut  the  gates,  and  was  shut  in ') ;  Wis  17" 
'was  straitly  kept'  (etppovpuTo,  RV  'was  kept  in 
ward ') ;  Sir  20'"  '  keep  her  in  straitly '  {(TTcpiwiroy 
(puXaKriv,  RV  '  keep  strict  watch  ') :  or  (2)  strictly, 
as  Ac  4'"  '  Let  us  straitly  threaten  them '  (TR 
OTreiXp  aTrei\r](Tiific8a  ;  edd.  omit  ivciXy,  whence  RV 
'  let  us  threaten  them  '). 

Straitness. — Dt  28^  'In  the  siege  and  in  the 
strait ness,  wherewith  thine  enemies  shall  distress 
thee '  (RV  '  shall  straiten  thee '),  so  vv."- ",  Jer  19". 
The  word  also  occurs  in  Job  SG'"  opposed  to  'a 
broad  place,'  and  2  Mac  12=i  {(TTeySrrit).  Cf.  Is  58' 
Cov.  '  Wherfore  fast  we  (saye  they)  and  thou  seist 
it  not  ?  we  put  our  lives  to  straitnesse,  and  thou 
regardest  it  not?'  J.  HASTINGS. 

STRANGE,  STRANGER Both  these  words  have 

shades  of  meaning  in  AV  which  are  now  almost 
obsolete,  and  tliey  are  also  used  to  represent 
various  Heb.  terms,  whose  significations  are  materi- 
ally distinct.  On  the  other  hand,  the  word  'strange' 
has  a  connotation  in  modem  English  which  it 
never  possesses  in  the  OT,  and  very  rarely  in  the 
NT.  Hence  in  many  passages  considerable  con- 
fusion,  which   might   have    been    obviated  by   a 

*  Chaucer  uses  the  pt<'p.  in  its  lit.  sense,  'drawn,*  applying  it 
to  a  sword  :  Nonne  Pree&tcs  Tale,  537 — 

'  Pirrus  with  his  streite  swerd 
When  he  hadde  bent  king  Priam  by  the  herd. 
And  slajTi  him.' 
t  '  Straight '  is  a  distinct  word,  from  Anglo-Sax.  Btreht,  ptcp 
of  streccan,  to  stretch. 


STRANGE,  STRANGER 


STRAW 


623 


change  of  rendering  in  the  RV,  is  produced  in  the 
mind  of  the  En<'lish  reader. 

'Strange  '  (Old  Fr.  estrange,  Lat.  extraneus)  and 
'stranger'  mean  in  a  great  many  instances  simply 
'  foreign '  *  [a  word  unknowTi  to  AV  except  in 
1  Mac  15',  2  Mac  10=^ ;  but  introduced  by  RV  in 
Zeph  1',  Ac  2G"  in  place  of  A\'  'strange']  and 
'foreigner'  (AV  only  Ex  12"  [wrongly  for  'so- 
journer,' :yiB],  Dt  15',  Ob  ",  Eph  2'!*  [wrongly  for 
'sojourner,'  Trdpoiicos] ;  but  introduced  by  RV  in 
Lv  22-=»,  Dt  17"  23*  29-,  by  Anier.  RV  m  Ru  2" 
and  2  S  lo'"  for  AV  '  stranger,'  and  by  RV  in  Dt 
14"'  for  AV  'alien').  It  would  conduce  to  clear- 
ness if,  in  the  great  majority  of  instances  where 
(as  in  all  the  above  OT  pas.sages  except  Ex  12"  as 
noted)  derivatives  of  the  root  n::  are  employed,  the 
renderings  '  foreign '  and  '  foreigner '  were  adopted. 
Thus  we  should  have  '  foreigner(s) '  for  ■i;;(n)-;2  (lit. 
'  son  of  foreignness')  or  ':(n)  -j^i  in  Gn  17'-  (defined 
by  the  ||  '  not  of  thy  seed ')  =',  Ex  12«  [all  P],  Lv 
'22='[H],  2S22'»«  =  Psl8"-*',  Ezk44'-9'*',  Neh9-, 
l8  56^-'>  60'"  61°  628,  pg  1447.11.  ana  'foreign  (not 
'  strange ')  god(s) '  ("in  'jn  Dt  32''',  Mai  2",  FsSl'"; 
'3  ^hx  Dn  ll**;  '3(.i)-rSx  Gn  Zo~\  Jos  24-'<'- » [all  E], 
Jg  10",  1  S  7',  Jer  5'",  2  Ch  33' ;  xy^T^-i  "■r'^S  Dt 
31");  'foreign  vanities,'  i.e.  idolatries  (':  '^zn  Jer 
8'") ;  '  foreign  altars '  ('1  ninsp  2  Ch  U-) ;  '  foreign 
soil'  ('3  rc-ix  Ps  ISi') ;  'everything  foreign'  {'yi^ 
Xeh  IS'"). 

The  same  reudering  would  reproduce  "!::  in  Gn 
31^  [but  here,  perhaps,  in  narrower  sense  of  '  not 
of  one's  father's  family '],  Dt  14-'  [II  ii]  15'  (of.  '3  s'-x 
17")  23"  [o])p.  'thy  brother']  29'-'  [+  '  who  cometh 
from  a  far  distant  land '],  Jg  17'-  (defined  liy  '  who 
is  not  of  the  children  of  Israel'),  Ru  210,  2S  15'^ 
[II  n^3  '  exile '],  1  K  8*'  [  -f-  '  who  is  not  of  thy  peoi)le '] 
=2Ch  a'^,  v.«=2Ch  6»,  Is  2«,  La  5=,  Ob"  [both 
1;  Di;].  So  we  should  have  a  '  foreign  (not '  strange ') 
)>eople'  ("!:}  ci'  Ex  21*  [E]),  'foreign  apparel' 
('3  ci:^5  Zeph  1"),  '  foreign  land '  {■in:}  j-ix  Ex  2-"-  [.J] 
18'  [E]) ;  note  esp.  ni'i;;  C'?'3  of  '  strange  {i.e.  foreign 
[non-Isr.])  wives  '(IK  11'- »,  Ezr  10--  '"•  "■  '*•  "•  '»• ", 
Neh  13-'- ").  A  '  strange  woman '  (n.'i:;)  is  a  teclin. 
term  in  Proverbs  for  a  harlot  (jierhaps  because  in 
Israel  harlots  were  originally  chiefly  foreigners) : 
Pr  2'«  7'  5="  [all  ||  n-j)  (nyx)]  G*"  [II  ST]  n:?x]  23"  [II  n;ii]. 

The  word  ij,  which  is  also  frequently  rendered 
'  stranger '  in  AV,  can  in  some  of  its  usages  hardly 
be  distinguished  in  sense  from  'i;j  (see  art. 
FoRKlGNEK),  but,  if  a  distinctive  Eng.  term  be 
desired,  we  wouM  suggest  '  alien '  (used  in  AV  in 
Ex  18'  [wrongly  for  '  sojourner,'  ger],  Dt  14'-',  Job 
19",  Ps  69»i"i,  La  5»  [all  n;}].  Is  61'  [ijj  -i?].  He 
1 1*^  [dWirpiot],  Eph  2'*  [aTrrt\\uTpiiiifiit>oi  ||  l^voi]  ;  anil 
introduced  by  RV  in  Pr  5'»  [ii],  Ezk  44'  [vn?],  and 
by  Amer.  RV  in  Ps  144'-  "  [-gi  'J?]). 

Zdr  may  denote  '  alien '  or  '  strange '  in  a  nar- 
rower or  a  wider  sense  ;  (a)  strange  to  a  person : 
Job  19'"  '  and  mine  eyes  shall  behold,  and  not 
another'  (m.  '  as  a  stranger'),  a  passage  of  doubtful 
meaning ;  Pr  14'°  '  The  heart  knoweth  its  own 
bitterness,  and  a  stranger  doth  not  intermeddle 
with  its  joy '  ;  27'  '  Let  another  man  praise  thee 
...  a  stranger  .  .  .  '  ;  cf.  the  '  alien  woman '  (."if  x 
■Tj!)  of  Pr  2"'  5'- »  7»  22"  23"  [several  times  ||  nnjj, 
see  above].  (6)  Strange  to  a,  family,  i.e.  belonging 
to  another  household  :  Dt  25^  1  K  3",  Job  19'*,  P» 
109",  Pr  5'»-  "  6'  1 1"  20"  27"  ;  tig.  of  anotfier  house- 
hold than  God's,  Hos  ."5' ;  esji.  of  another  family 
than  the  priests  (Ex  29-'^  30",  Nu3"'-'»  17' [Eng.  16*"] 
18'  [all  P],  Lv  22'»-  '2-  "  [all  II]),  or  of  another  tribe 
than  Levi  (Nu  1"  18*  [toth  P]).  (c)  Strange  to  a 
land,  i.e.  foreign ;  so  freq.  plur.  D'lj  '  foreigners,' 

•  Cf.  Udall,  Erairm.  Paraph.  1.  fol.  65,  'the  itraunjje  woman' 
(of  the  Syro-PhajDlclan) ;  Uomilwg,  p.  612,  '»  certain  strange 
pbiloeopher ' ;  Shalu.  Henry  V'lll.  11.  iv.  16 — 

'  I  am  a  most  poor  woman,  and  a  straogw. 
Born  out  of  your  dominione. ' 


'aliens'  (often  with  the  implication  of  hostility): 
Hos  7'  8',  Is  1'  •>"  25"»  29'  61»,  Jer  5'»  SO'  51--  ",  La 
5^  Ezk  7-'  11'  16"  28'-'"  30'=  31'-,  Jl  4  (3)",  Ob". 
Job  15",  Ps  54'!'' ;  note  esp.  tlie  phrases  a  '  strange 
god'  (IJ  "^x  Ps  442' I-*!  SI'"!-'!,  la  4312  [1,  alone,  cf. 
D'"!;  'strange  ones'  in  Dt  32"  and  in  Jer  2-"  3"]), 
'strange  (i.e.  foreign)  waters'  (2  K  19**,  Jer  18"), 
'strange  slips'  (ii  nT^i,  lit.  '\'ine-slip  of  an  alien,' 
Is  17'°)  ;  God's  tOrah  is  counted  as  alien  ('^ynj  "ino? 
Hos  8'-);  'his  work-is  alien '(Is  28'-',  see  below). 
((/)  Strange  to  the  Law :  '  strange  incense '  (tji  n^bp 
Ex  30'  [P]);  'strange  fire'  (.-n.j  i?x  Lv  10',  Nu  3* 
20'^'  [all  P]).     See  Nadab. 

Tlie  LXX  and  NT  equivalents  of  '  strange '  and 
'stranger'  in  the  senses  discussed  above  will  be 
found  under  art.  FoitElGNER. 

Tlie  idea  of  foreign  naturally  leads  to  that  of 
unfamiliar  or  unknoiim  :  Job  19"  '  I  am  become 
a  foreigner  (n?;)  in  their  ej'es';  Ps  69"!''  'I  am 
become  estranged  (ij'O)  unto  my  brethren,  and  a 
foreigner  ('i;;)  to  my  motlier's  children ' ;  Ec  6' 
'a  stranger  (-i;;)  eateth  it' ;  Is  2S-'  '  foreign  ('TI^j) 
is  his  task,  alien  (ii)  his  act'  [cf.  the  common  ex- 
pression '  tliis  is  foreign  to  one's  nature ' ;  or  is  the 
meaning  here  that  he  acts  as  if  dealing  with 
(foreign)  enemies?] ;  Jer  2'-"  a  foreign  vine '( nn^j  [js 
fig.  of  degenerate  Israel) ;  Pr  20'^  27",  where  ii  and 
••i?j  are  both  used  of  persons  unknown  to  one.* 

This  last  usage  approaches,  but  does  not  reach, 
the  modern  sense  of  'strange,'  namely /jcch/mt  or 
wonderful,  a  sense  wliich  is  pretty  near  to  tliat  re- 
presented by  fci'ifoi'rd  Tiva  (' certain  strange  things') 
of  Ac  17™  (cf.  fcKifoi/ffai  ffv/i.4)opal,  '  strange  suB'er- 
ings'  of  2  Mac  9"),  fei'ifoi'Tai  ('they  think  it 
strange')  of  1  P  4*,  and  pLri  ^evlifcree  ('  think  it  not 
strange')  of  v.".  Once  only  is  this  sense  unmis- 
takably conveyed  bj'  '  strange '  in  canonical  Scrip- 
ture, naniuly  in  Lk  5^  '  We  have  seen  strange 
things  to-day.'  The  Gr.  is  Trapdooios,  which  occurs 
in  tlie  same  sense  in  the  Apocrypha  in  Jtli  13", 
Wis  5-  19'  (cf.  v.8  ffau/xajTos),  Sir  43'-^,  2  Mac  9^  [EV 
in  last  'contrarj'  to  expectation']. 

It  is  most  unfortunate  and  confusing  that  AV 
uses  'stranger'  also  to  represent  na  or  (thrice,  Lv 
2-,6.  4S.  47)  ^ijg  allied  term  Dv'''^,  words  whidi  would 
be  much  more  happily  rendered  'sojourner.' 
'Stranger'  might  suitably  be  retained  as  tr°  of 
both  ijj  and  i;  in  the  few  instances  where  their 
specific  renderings  '  foreign(er) '  and  '  alien  '  hardly 
suit  the  idiom  or  the  context.  The  standing  and 
privileges  of  the  ger  (the  familiar  'stranger  within 
thy  gales')  are  described  fully  in  art.  Ger. 

J.  A.  Selbie. 

STRAW  (inn  teben,  in  Is  25'°  pna  mathhen  ;  &xi'pov, 
palea). — Tlie  Hebrew  tcben  is  the  same  as  the 
Arabic  tibn,  which  is  the  straw  of  wheat  and 
barley  cut  by  the  thresliing  machine  into  pieces 
from  i  to  2  in.  long,  and  more  or  less  split  and 
torn,  and  mixed  witli  eliafl'.  It  is  the  universal 
accompaniment  to  the  i)ruvender  of  the  domestic 
herbivorous  animals.  It  is  usually  mixed  with 
barley,  and  takes  the  place  of  hay.  It  was  mixed 
with  clay  in  the  manufacture  of  unbaked  bricks 
(see  Dillm.-Ryssel  on  Ex  5').  In  one  passage  (Jer 
23-'")  AV  tr.  It  'chafl','  RV  'straw'  (see  ClIAFF). 
In  one  (Job  21'»)  AV  and  RV  tr.  it  'stubble.'  In 
all  tlie  rest  (Gn  24='-  '*,  Ex  5'- '°-  "•  "•  "  '"• '»,  .Ig  19'", 
1  K  4'-",  Job  41-',  Is  11'  05'^)  both  VSS  tr.  it 
'straw.'  As  '  straw' in  Western  languages  refers 
to  whole  stalks  of  the  cereals,  it  might  be  better 
to  adopt  the  Arab,  tibn,  a  word  now  well  uiider- 

•  The  denom.  verb  133  occurs  In  Hithp.  in  sense  of  '  make 
oneself  Btranfjc,'  'act  aa  a  straiiijer'  in  Gn  427  (of  Joseph's 
attitude  to  liis  hrnthcra)  and  1  K  11^  °  (of  Jerobuam's  wife  teinn- 
ing  herself  to  be  a  stranger).  In  Dt  a2-''  the  words  to-iy  "?J7i3 
(A  V  '  lest  their  adversaries  should  behave  themselves  strangely ') 
appear  to  mean  *  lest  .  .  .  shoulft  niJKdeein'  (ItV),  i.e.  fail  l<i 
recognize  the  truth  tlit.  'treat  os  luri-iyn,*  cf.  Jer  \9*]. 


624 


STREAil 


STRIKE,  STROKE 


stood,  and  which  is  Letter  tlian  'cut  straw,'  as  it 
includes  tlie  cliafl'.  There  is  no  reason  for  the 
rendering  'stubble'  or  'cliafi'.'  Whole  straw  is 
seldom  used  for  any  purpose  in  the  East. 

G.  E.  Post. 
STREAM.— See  Brook  and  River. 

STREET. — In  Oriental  towns  the  streets  seem  to 
owe  their  form  and  direction  more  to  accident 
than  design.  The  houses  are  built  \\'ith  a  view  to 
seclusion  and  comfort  within,  and  with  little  care 
as  to  what  is  without.  Space  is  precious,  so  the 
streets  are  narrow  ;  and  as  no  order  is  enforced  in 
building,  they  twist  and  turn  among  the  houses 
with  bewildering  effect.  They  are  usually  un- 
paved,  and  go  swiftly  to  mud  in  rainy  weather. 
Often,  in  spite  of  the  industiy  of  innumerable 
dogs,  the  refuse  cast  out  is  at  once  otiensive  and 
dangerous  to  health.  The  upper  storeys  frequently 
project  over  the  street,  leaving  only  a  narrow 
opening  overhead.  This  utilizes  space,  and  forms 
a  shelter  fiom  heat  In  unwalled  towns  and  vil- 
lages, in  obedience  to  the  instinct  of  defence,  the 
houses  are  crushed  closely  together  :  the  openings 
between  them  are  rather  alleys  than  streets. 
Schick  gives  the  average  width  of  the  streets  in 
Jerusalem  as  2-75  m.  (ZDPV,  1884,  iv.  217);  the 
cTcfuwoi  of  Josephus  (BJ  v.  viii.  1)  would  still 
accurately  describe  most  of  them.  Where  a  town 
is  built  on  a  steep  slope,  as,  e.g.,  in  Safed,  the  roofs 
of  the  lower  houses  sometimes  form  the  street  in 
front  of  the  higher. 

Tobit  (13")  sees  the  streets  of  the  future  Jeru- 
salem '  paved  with  beryl,  and  carbuncle,  and 
stones  of  Ophir '  (cf.  Rev  21-').  Herod  the  Great 
laid  a  main  street  in  Antioch  with  '  polished 
stone'  (Jos.  Ant.  XVI.  v.  3).  This  is  the  first 
mention  of  actual  pavement.  Ag^'ippa  ll.  con- 
sented to  the  paving  of  Jerusalem  with  white 
stone  (,ib.  XX.  ix.  7).  The  two  spacious  thorough- 
fares characteristic  of  Syro-Greek  and  Syro-Roman 
cities,  which  cut  through  the  city  at  right  angles, 
were  commonly  paved  with  stone.  Their  remains 
can  be  traced  in  Bozrah,  Damascus,  etc.;  but  by 
far  the  finest  example  is  found  at  Shuhba,  on  the 
north  -  western  shoulder  of  Jebel  Haurin.  In 
some  cases  the  central  roadway  was  separated 
from  the  passage  for  foot  passengers  on  either 
side  by  a  stately  colonnade.  The  imposing  effect 
of  this  arrangement  may  still  be  seen  among  the 
ruins  of  Jerash. 

Men  of  the  same  trade  are  usually  found  in  one 
street.  In  Jer  37-'  we  read  of  the  '  bakers'  street.' 
Josephus  (BJ  V.  viii.  I)  says  Titus  entered  through 
the  second  wall  '  at  the  place  where  are  the  mer- 
chants of  wool,  the  braziers  and  the  market  for 
cloth.'  So  in  Cairo  and  Damascus,  for  instance, 
we  have  the  bazaars  of  the  braziers,  the  silver- 
smiths, the  saddlers,  etc.  The  goods  are  exposed 
for  sale  in  little  shops  whose  fronts  are  entirely 
open.  The  bazaars  are  frequently  roofed  with 
glass.  As  strictly  business  streets,  they  are  shut 
at  sunset,  and  closely  guarded. 

pn,  'what  is  without,'  is  the  Heb.  word  which 
properly  corresjionds  to  strct :  aiiri  is  unhappily 
often  so  rendered,  esp.  in  AV  (less  often  in  KV), 
but  it  really  means  broad  or  open  place  (cf.  Driver 
on  Am  5"  or  Dn  9^).  For  pn  L\X  gives  6S6s  (Is 
5=»  etc.),  l^oSos  (2S  1»  etc.),  SioSos  (Is  1^),  r^areta 
(Ps  IS"  ete.)  ;  for  pn-j^-Vs;  (Job  18''),  ^iri  Trpiauroi' 
i^uripuj,  where  the  sense  is  obviously  '  on  the  face 
of  the  earth'  (Davidson,  Job,  ad  loc).  In  each 
case  AV  and  KV  render  'street.'  This  is  right 
when  the  reference  is  to  the  outside  of  the  house. 
The  context  determines  the  meaning.  In  Ps  144" 
RV  gives  correctly  'in  our  fields.'  a'lrri  is  repre- 
sented in  LXX  by  AJAs  (Is  59"),  SloSot  (Dt  13'«), 
firai/Xit   (Ps    144'*) ;    but   the   usual   equivalent    is 


TrXaTfia,  in  which  the  root  idea  is  the  same  It 
applies  to  the  open  space  at  the  gate  (see  Open 
Place)  where  assemblies  met,  cases  were  tried, 
and  business  done  ;  also  to  any  square  or  open 
space  in  the  city,  as,  e.g.,  before  the  house  of  God 
(Ezk  10>»).  ?!!?  occurs  in  Pr  7*,  Ec  12*-»,  Ca  3-. 
In  the  first  LXX  renders  5io5os,  'thoroughfare'; 
in  the  others  ayopi.  This  corresponds  with  Arab. 
4«/v  = 'niaiket,'  or  'place  of  concourse':  zukak  is 
used  for  the  common  passages  between  the  houses. 
In  NT  irXarefa  and  pOixrj  are  practically  synony- 
mous. Although  in  Lk  14-'  we  read  TrXortias  iral 
pi'Mas,  possibly  here  implying  distinction  in  breadth, 
and  rendered  'streets  and  lanes,'  yet  the  street 
called  Straight  in  Damascus  is  called  pi/jui;  (Ac  9"), 
and  it  was  one  of  the  finest  streets  in  Syria.  For 
ayopd  (Mk  6"*)  RV  gives  correctly  '  market  place.' 

W.  EWINQ. 

STRENGTH  OF  ISRAEL The  EV  tr.  of  the 

Divine  title  '7s<-;v":  nsj  in  IS  15'-^.  The  word  mi 
occurs  parallel  with  ^l■■^,  n-iNr.-i,  m_n^,  .i^ia,  in  a 
list  of  Divine  attributes  in  1  Ch  29",  where  it  is 
tr.  in  EV  'victory'  (so  LXX  vUri).  Driver  (Heb. 
Text  of  Samuel,  p.  98)  points  out  that  the  proper 
meaning  of  the  root  nsj  is  splenduit,  and  argues 
that  the  sense  of  victory  is  a  special  and  derived 
one.  He  adopts  for  Sxic"  nsj  the  tr.  '  the  Glory  of 
Israel '  (similarly,  Lbhr).  H.  P.  Smith  (following 
the  Vulg.  triumphator)  renders  '  the  Victor '  ; 
Wellh.  'the  Faithful  one.'  The  LXX  in  1  S  Ip^" 
has  Kal  5iaLpe$ri<reTai  '\7pai)\  els  Svo,  which  implies 
that  the  Gr.  translator  Fead  or  misread  nsn-  for  nsi. 

J.  A.  Selbie. 

STRIKE,  STROKE.— The  verb  'to  strike'  is  of 
AngloSax.  origin,  coming  from  strican  'to  ad 
vance  swiftly  and  smoothly  '  (Middle  Eng.  .ttriken),* 
though  it  is  allied  to  Lat.  stringere  '  to  touch 
swiftly  and  lightly,  graze.'  It  is  thus  properly  an 
intrans.  verb,  its  trans,  form  being  '  stroke  '  (from 
Anglo  -  Sax.  stracian,  causal  of  strican).  But 
'  strike  '  early  adopted  a  transitive  sense,  and  the 
two  verbs  were  not  kept  distinct. 

1.  In  A  V  '  strike '  occurs  transitively  in  the 
phrase  'strike  through.' 

For  example :  Jg  62^  '  VTben  she  had  pierced  and  stricken 
through  his  temples '  On^"]  '"i^^C't  ^^  '  she  struck  throuf::h  hia 
temples ' ;  Moore  '  she  .  .  .  demolishes  his  temple,  lit.  mokes  it 
vanish,'  with  a  long  note  justifying  the  tr.;  the  Oj/.  Heb.  Lex, 
gives  'pierce' ;  the  Heb.  vh.  is  usually  intrans.  'pass  on  or  away,' 
but  here  and  in  Job  202^  it  is  trans.  '  pass  through ')  ;  Job  203* 
'The  bow  of  steel  shall  strike  him  through,'  Ps  110°,  Pr  "'•O, 
La  49,  Hab  3'*  (RV  'pierce').  It  is  a  strong  phrase  meaning 
to  cni^h,  and  the  verb  'strike'  has  its  origineu  meaning'  of  swift 
motion.  C(.  Milton,  Re/onn.  in  Enij.  i,  '  The  bnght  and 
blissful  Reformation  (by  Divine  Power)  strook  through  the 
black  and  settled  Night  ol  Ignorance  and  Anti  •  Christian 
Tyranny.' 

2.  Through  the  confusion  between  '  strike '  and 
'  stroke,'  the  former  came  to  mean  rub  smoothly. 
There  are  some  examples  in  AV. 

Ex  12'  '  They  shall  take  of  the  blood  and  strike  it  on  the  two 
side-posts'  (>:n;,  LXX  Bi,<ra,r„,  RV  'put  it');  so  1222;  also 
2  K  6^1  '  He  will  surely  come  out  to  me,  and  stand,  and  call  on 
the  name  of  the  Lord  his  God,  and  strike  his  hand  over  the 
place,  and  recover  the  leper'  (D'ip^n-'?N  S-i;  f]'4n,  LXX  iwi8r.ru 
Tti,  zitp*  ati-Tov  tTi  rir  T«*c»,  RV  *  wave  his  hand  over  the  place ' 
—because  it  is  the  same  Heb.  verb  that  is  used  for  '  waving '  the 
'  wave-ofJering '  (Ex  '2934.  w  etc  ],  for  wa\ing  the  hand  as  a  signal 
[Is  132],  and  the  like— see  Oa/-  II fb.  Lex.  a.  ']il);  To  11"  '  He 
strake  of  the  gall  on  his  father's  eyes*  (T^os-iTaj-i  Tr,>  x*^^'^  **^ 
ToU  e^tia.\u.o-j;).  Cf.  Holland,  J'tiJii/,  ii.  313,  'If  the  side-poets  or 
doore-cbeeks  of  any  house  be  striked  with  the  said  bloud,  'fhere- 
soever  magicians  &re  busie  with  their  (eats  and  Juggling  casta, 
they  shall  take  no  eflect.' 

*  This  early  meaning  is  most  nearly  seen  in  the  phrase 
stricken  in  age  or  in  years:  On  18**  'Now  Abraham  and 
Sarah  were  old  and  well  stricken  in  age*  [D'p,*5  D'N?,  which  if 
alwavs  the  Heb.  whether  the  Eng.  be  '  age '  (Gn  18"  241,  Jo« 
23'  2)  or  'years'  (Jos  13'  bis)] ;  Lk  1' J  They  both  were  now  well 
stricken  in  years'  (Tpc^i^rjuTK  it  ratt  Kfj.ipau<  aii/v£i\  lit*.  Cf. 
Robinson's  Morels  Utopia,  29,  *  1  chaunced  to  espye  this  fore- 
sayde  Peter  talkynge  with  a  certayne  Straunger,  a  man  weD 
stricken  in  a^ee.' 


STRIPES 


SUCCEED,  SUCCESS 


625 


3.  To  '  strike  sail '  is  sinii>ly  to  haul  it  down  in 
order  to  ease  the  ship:  Ac  27"  '  strake  sail,'  Gr. 
XaXdiTai'Tes  t6  ffKeCos,  11  V  '  they  lowered  tlie  {,'ear ' — 
see  Smith,  Vuijaqe  and  Hhipivrevk,  p.  1U5  ff. ; 
Ramsay,  St.  Paul  the  Traveller,  329  f.;  and  the 
notes  by  Page  and  b3-  Knowling. 

4.  To  '  strike  hands '  is  to  become  security,  as 
Pr  17'*  'A  man  void  of  understanding  stnketh 
hands,  and  bctonieth  suret}'  in  tlie  presence  of  his 
friend,"  so  6'  It""-  22-»,  Job  17»,  Ad.  Est  14«.  The 
expression  is  Heb.  and  arises  from  tlie  action. 

5.  In  the  Pref.  to  AV  occurs  the  rare  but  intel- 
li<;ible  phrase  '  strike  the  stroke ' ;  '  The  vintage 
ofAbiezer,  that  strake  the  stroke  j  yet  the  glean- 
ing of  grapes  of  Ephraim  was  not  to  be  despised.' 

G.  The  verb  '  to  strike '  is  used  for  the  action  of 
God's  hand  in  disease  or  death,  and  the  result  is  • 
'stroke.' 

Strila :  t  S  12i»  '  The  Lord  struck  the  child  that  Uriah's  wife 
bare  unto  David,  and  it  was  ver>'  sick ' ;  2  Ch  13"-o  '  The  Lord 
struck  him,  and  he  died ' ;  Is  1^  '  VVhy  should  ye  be  stricken  any 
more!";  KfJ ' Surely  they  are  stricken'  (D'n;j""N,  KV  'utterly 
stricken ') ;  63*  '  We  did  esteem  him  stricken  * ;  538  <  For  the 
transgrressions  of  my  people  was  he  stricken'  (\0^  v;^.  RVm 
•to  whom  the  stroke  was  due' — see  Cheyne's  and  Skinner's 
notes).  Cf.  Knox,  Workt,  iii.  231,  'I  can  not  but  feir  Ivke 
plagues  to  Btrj'ke  the  realme  of  England' ;  Bunyan,  lluiij  If'ar, 
27,  '  My  brave  Lord  Innocent  fell  down  dead  (with  yrief,  some 
•ay ;  with  bcin^  poisoned  with  the  striking  breath  of  one  lU* 
Pause,  as  say  others).' 

Stroke :  Job  23- '  My  stroke  is  heavier  than  my  groaning '  (so 
RV  ;  Heb.  lit.  as  AVm  'my  hand' :  but  it  is  scarcely  possible, 
says  Davidson,  that  'my  hand'  should  mean  'the  hand  of  Uo<l 
upon  me,'  i.e.  '  my  stroke ' ;  see  his  note)  ;  '66^'^  '  Beware  lest  lie 
take  thee  away  with  his  stroke'  (p^V'?  "iJ^'Prir*  ^^  *lesl  thou 
be  led  away  by  thy  sufflciency,'  RVm  *  lest  wrath  lead  thee  away 
into  mockery ')  ;  I's  3910  •  Remove  thy  stroke  away  from  me ' ; 
Is  14*  *  lie  who  smote  the  people  in  WTath  with  a  continual 
stroke';  Ezk  241*  •!  take  from  thee  the  desire  of  thine  e\t'8 
with  a  stroke.'  The  'stroke'*  of  OT,  as  of  Is  534-  s,  was  prob- 
ably leprosy  ;  In  modern  language  a  *  stroke '  is  paralysis.  See 
art.  I'LAOfs  in  vol.  iii.  p.  887".    Cf.  Shaks.  Ricit.  II.  in.  i.  31— 

'  More  welcome  is  the  stroke  of  death  to  me 
Thau  Dolingbroke  to  England.' 

Timan  of  Athem,  rv.  i.  23— 

*  Plagues,  incident  to  men. 
Your  potent  and  infectious  fevers  heap 
On  Atiiens,  ripe  for  stroke.' 

J.  Hastincs. 
STRIPES. —  See   Crimes   and   Punishmenis, 
vol.  i.  p.  527. 

STUBBLE.— In  one  place  (Job  21")  this  is  the 
unfortunate  tr"  (AV  and  KV)  of  tehen  (see  Straw). 
In  all  other  places  it  is  the  equivalent,  in  both 
Eng.  VSS,  of  cs  hash.  The  LXX  tr.  thi.^*  word 
in  two  places  (Job  13^  41''*)  x^P'^"^ '•  '"  eiglit 
KaXifiTt  { = '  stubble '  or  '  straw '),  and  in  four  ippv- 
yaya  ('dry  sticks'  and  'stems,'  including  stubble, 
such  as  are  gathered  for  fuel).  This  is  the  current 
(not  classical)  meaning  of  the  Arali.  cognate  it«.s7t. 
Once  (Is  33")  the  expression  'ye  shall  bring  forth 
stubble' is  tr.  by  LXX  aiV«7)«7)«(r9e  (B),  '  ye  shall 
perceive,'  or  aiax^^O-fiataBe  (X°' '),  'ye  shall  be 
a.shaiiied,'  evidently  a  ditl'erent  reading.  Grain  in 
Uible  lands  is  not  cut  by  the  sickle,  but  pulled  up 
by  the  roots,  or  the  straw  broken  oil'  short  near 
them.  Con-sequently  there  is  little  stubble  in  the 
harvest  field,  in  our  sense  of  the  term.  When 
teMcn  wat  withheld  from  them,  the  Israelites  had 
to  utilize  Ifask  for  the  nianufacture  of  their  bricks. 
Ifasli  refers  to  such  remnants  of  grain  stalks,  with 
sticks  and  stumps  of  small  pliiiils,  iia  are  ex- 
pre.'*sed  by  (ppOyaoa.  Such  furnish  the  pasturage 
of  countless  herds  of  cattle  and  Hocks  of  sheep. 
They  are  liable  to  catch  lire  and  burn.  Most 
of  the  allusions  to  stubble  are  with  reference  to 
such  conllagrations  (Ex  15',  Is  S",  Jl  2"  etc.).  It 
is  liiiully  rooted  uji  and  carried  away  by  the  wind 

*  In  the  same  way  the  subst.  *  blow'  Is  used  In  Ps  3010  and 
Jer  1417.    In  the  former  passage  RV  retains,  the  Heb.  being 
louDd  only  there  ;  in  the  latter  it  changes  into  '  wound.' 
VOL,  IV. — to 


(Job  13^,  Is  40=",  Jer  13"  etc.).  One  of  the  most 
characteristic  spectacles  witnessed  in  passing  over 
the  breezy  plains  of  Syria,  after  the  harvest  is 
over,  is  that  of  the  uprooted  plants  of  the  large 
Umbclliferm,  Compusita,  and  others,  often  with  a 
spherical  contour,  dried  to  excessive  lightness  by 
the  hot  winds  and  whirled  across  the  fields,  leaping 
madly  over  stones  and  inequalities  in  the  surface, 
and  sonietinies  taking  long  llights  in  the  air,  then 
pausing  a  moment,  only  to  bound  oil'  again,  until 
they  are  caught  in  some  thorn  bush,  or  lost  to  view 
beyond  the  distant  horizon.  G.  E.  POST. 

STUFF  (Lat.  stupa,  stnppa,  the  coarse  gart  of 
flax,  tow,  Old  Fr.  estoffe)  is  used  in  AV  in  the 
sense  of  goods,  esp.  household  furniture.  The 
Heb.  is  '^j  /cili,  except  in  Ex  .3i;'(-ipN^c,  lit.  *  work,' 
of  the  furniture  of  the  tabernacle).  The  Gr.  is  t4 
OKexiaaiiaTa.,  Jth  15"  ;  or  rd  <iK€vri,  jth  16",  Lk  17". 
Cf.  Udall,  Jira.fmus'  Par.  i.  7,  '  AH  that  ever  they 
had  about  them  of  stuti'e  or  furniture,  shewed 
and  testifyed  povertie  and  siniplicitie ' ;  North, 
Plutarch,  871,  'This  man  after  he  had  spent  the 
most  ]iartof  his  father's  f;oods,  was  so  sore  in  debt, 
that  he  was  driven  to  sell  his  household  stutle,  by 
billes  set  up  on  every  post.' 

In  2  Ch  2 '""'""«  'stull'  means  'materials'  for 
building.  Cf.  Erasmu-s,  Credc,  39,  '  Certayne  men 
.  .  .  have  taught  that  he  dotli  create  wliicth  doth 
brynge  fortlie  and  make  somewhat  of  nothyiige, 
which  belongeth  onely  to  God,  and  that  he  doth 
make  which  liameth  or  sliapeth  ony  thing  of  some 
niatere  or  stulle';  Ex  39°  Tind.  'And  tlie  brod- 
rynge  of  the  girdel  that  was  upon  it  was  of  the 
same  stuti'e  and  after  the  same  worke  of  gold.' 

J.  Hastings. 

STUMBLING  BLOCK The  word   'block'  was 

formerly  used  of  a  lump  of  wood,  stone,  or  the 
like,  in  one's  way,  and  was  then  applied  fig.  to  any 
obstruction.  Thus  Payne,  Jioml  Exch.  38,  'At 
which  common  block  nian3'  weakelings  do  stumble.' 
The  expression  exists  now  only  in  the  compound 
'  stumbling-block,' and  only  the  compound  is  found 
in  AV. 

The  words  so  tr"  are  in  Heb.:  (1)  miksMl  (Lv  1914,  i,  67i«, 
Jer  6-1,  Ezk  320  71a  143.  4  •) ;  and  (2)  makshflah  (Zeph  IS).  The 
Gr.  wolds  are:  (1)  Tfcriuu./^  (Sir  3«'i',  Uo  14l»,  1  Co  8»);  (2) 
t[.A*»  n^oirxbfi.f^M.TK  (Sir  317)  ;  and  (3)  cxa.yloi.>ja^  (Wis  14",  Sir  78, 
Ro  11",  1  Co  la.  Rev  214).    See  Ofi-e.sce,  vol.  iii.  p.  68«». 

In  the  same  way  stumblingstone  is  used  in  Ro 
9^''  '^  {XWo'i  TrpoffKbiMfiaTOi),  for  which  RV  gives  '  stone 
of  stumbling,'  the  AV  expression  for  the  same  Gr. 
in  1  P  2".  '  Stone  of  stumbling '  occurs  also  in  Is 
8"  for  eben  ne</eph,  the  latter  word  meaning  lit. 
'plague,'  'stroke'  (see  Strike,  Stroke). 

J.  Hastings. 

SUA  (15  Zovi,  A  Zovai,  AV  Sud),  1  Es  5»=Siaha, 
Ezr  •-'«  ;  Sia,  Neh  7". 

SUAH  (o'o;  B  Xoux'i  A  and  Luc.  2oC«).— An 
Asherite,  1  Ch  1". 

SUBAI  (S.jSofO,  1  Es  6'°=Shamlai,  Ezr  2*«;  Sal 
mai,  Neh  7'". 

SUBAS  {Zovfiit,  AV  Suba),  1  Es  6»*.— His  sons 
were  among  the  sons  of  Solomon's  servants  who 
returned  with  Zerubbabel.  There  is  no  correspond- 
ing name  in  the  lists  of  Ezr  2,  Neh  7. 

SUCATHITE8  (tj-njib  ;  B  i:uxa*'«'/«.  A  IwKaeulii, 
Luc.  -ovxaOtipi). — A  family  of  scribes  that  dwelt 
at  Jabez,  1  Ch  2".  See  Shimeathites,  and  cf. 
Genealogy,  iv.  39,  and  Wellh.  de  Gentibus,  30  H'. 

SUCCEED,   SUCCESS.  — To  succeed  (Lat.   sue- 
cederc,  from  sub,  next,  and  ccdere,  to  go ;  Kr.  sue 
*  Oo  Ezekiel'B  '  block-gods '  see  Davidson's  note  to  6< 


626 


SUCCOTH 


SUCCOTII-BEXOTH 


cider)    is    simply   to    follow ;    and    success    (Lat. 
successus.  Old  Fr.  succes)   is  that  which   follows. 
Thus,  Shaks.  //  Henry  VI.  II.  iv.  2— 
*  Aft«r  summer  evermore  succeeds 
Barren  winter'; 

Tjinrae,  Calvin's  Genesis,  785,  'This  verily  was 
rare  honour,  to  be  tolde  of  the  event,  and  successe 
to  come  of  fourteene  yeares ' — in  reference  to  the 
interpretation  of  Pharaoh's  dreams.  In  modern 
Eng.  when  the  reference  is  to  the  result  of  an 
enterprise,  '  succeed '  and  '  success '  denote  pro- 
sperity, but  in  older  Eng.  the  nature  of  the  result 
was  not  contained  in  the  words  themselves,  but 
had  to  be  indicated  by  an  adv.  or  adjective. 

Succeed :  In  Sir  4$^  the  verb  occurs  in  it«  simple  sense,  and 
the  prep,  is  expressed,  '  Who  anointedst  kin^  to  take  revenge, 
and  prophet*  to  succeed  after  him' (3ja3e,:[:ouf  [mi-t  «(>«*).  We 
still  say  '  follow  after,' but  not 'succeed  after.'  The  nature  of 
the  result  is  expressed  by  an  adv.  in  To  46  *  I(  thou  deal  truly, 
thy  doin^^  shall  prosperously  succeed  to  thee '  {i\joltou  Itra^Tott 
iv  Vorf  i^foif  ffo'j).  Cf.  Shaks.  Lear,  i.  ii.  167,  'The  effects  he 
writes  of  succeed  unhappily.' 

Success:  It  was  possible  in  1611  to  use  *  success'  in  a  good 
sense  ;  •  it  occurs  so  once  in  AV,  2  Mac  1028  <  Por  a  pledge  of 
their  success  and  victory '  {iyytity  t'Jr.fupiet^  juci  rlzr,i).  So  Fuller, 
Uotu  State,  25S,  'God  causeth  sometimes  the  sunne  of  successe 
to  shine  as  weU  on  bad  as  good  projects.*  But  elsewhere  in  AV 
an  adj.  is  used,  either  '  good '  (Jos  !»,  1  S  isho'Jing,  To  712,  wis 
1319,  Sir  209  3S13,  1  Mac  4=5  8^3,  2  Mac  1023  13I6)  or  '  prosperous' 
(Sir  4326).  Cf.  Fuller,  flo(j/  State,  109,  '  God  mouldeth  some  for 
a  scholemaster's  life,  undertaking  it  with  desire  and  delight  and 
discharging  it  with  dexterity  and  iiappy  successe.'  On  the  other 
hand.  Hot}/  State,  79,  '  Sorrow-struck  with  some  sad  signe  of  ill- 
successe ' ;  and  Milton,  PR  iv.  1 — 

'  Perplexed  and  troubled  at  his  bad  success. 
The  tempter  stood.' 

J.  Hastings. 
SDCCOTH 1.  (niDD)  A  place  so  called  accord- 
ing to  Gn  33"  because  of  the  booths  (Heb.  sukk6th) 
which  Jacob  made  there  for  his  cattle.  In  the 
Heb.  text  of  this  verse  s\ikk6th  occurs  three  times 
and  is  rendered  '  Succoth  ' — '  booths ' — '  Succoth  ' 
in  AV  and  RV.  The  LXX  by  using  aK-qval  three 
times  makes  clear  the  identity  of  Succoth  with 
booths,  which  has  to  be  explained  in  the  margin  of 
AV  and  KV,  but  conveys  the  impression  that  the 
name  of  Succoth  was  then  '^KT)val.  Josephus  (Ant. 
I.  xxi.  1)  states  that  the  place  was  so  called  in  his 
time ;  but  this  name  would  not  have  been  given 
before  the  period  of  Greek  supremacy.  The  Targ. 
and  Syr.  preserve  the  proper  name  Succoth,  but  in 
place  of  the  second  sukhJth  (tr.  'bootlis'  in  EV) 
use  ]hno,  n^'?od,  words  which  in  a  moditied  form  are 
employed  as  equivalents  for  'tabernacles'  and 
'  bootlis '  in  Lv  23*'-  **  and  other  places  where 
reference  is  made  to  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles. 
The  Vulgate  explain.s  '  Socoth,  id  est  tabernacula,' 
though  '  tentoriis  '  corresponds  to  '  booths  '  in  the 
earlier  part  of  the  verse. 

The  passages  where  the  name  occurs  are:  Gn  331'  ^xyiteti ; 
Josl327B^«X'>'<'<i>A^>a>X^>  t.ui.'.  ira.*  ;  JgS5-'8  B  I««  jifl,  in  v.l« 
■rf,!  T(ii«,-,  A  lixxiS ;  1  K  7-'6  (v.ii  in  LXX)  i«X"i' ;  '-  Ch  4l' 
B  1ixx^9<!),  A  S««x«9;  Ps  608  B  ,;,  ,»„ir,,  Aq.  Tvn.»fi^,; 
Ps  10S8  N  T»>  r«ii>»/uT»>,  ART  mtSt. 

The  passages  in  Joshua,  Judges,  Kings,  and 
Chron.  refer  to  a  place  E.  of  Jordan.  Jos  13-'' 
mentions  Succoth  as  in  the  territory  of  Sihon, 
king  of  Heshbon.  In  Gideon's  pursuit  of  the 
Midianites  as  related  in  Jg  8,  he  comes  to  Succoth 
after  crossing  the  Jordan.  From  the  references 
in  Ps  60«  [""''; 8]  108'  ["""-S]  to  the  'valley  of 
Succoth  '  nothing  definite  as  to  geographical  posi- 
tion can  be  inferred,  but  a  locality  east  of  the 
Jordan  is  suitable  (note  that  the  LXX  in  these  two 

assages  does  not  treat  Succoth  as  a  proper  name). 

erome  on  Gn  33"  (Quast.  Heb.  in  lib.  (Pen.)  ob- 
serves with  reference  to  Succoth  :  '  Est  autem 
usque  hoilie  civitas  trans  Jordanem  hoc  vocabulo 

*  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  found  In  the  Rhemish  NT  in  a  Itad 
sense  :  'As  God  hath  shewed  by  the  successe  of  all  Heretical 
Colloquies,  Synodes,  and  Assemblies  in  Germanie,  Prance,  Poole, 
and  other  places  in  our  dales '  (note  on  Ac  1638), 


inter  partes  Scythopoleos.'  Jerome  testifies  to  the 
survival  of  the  Heb.  name,  while  Josephus  (as 
already  remarked)  testifies  to  the  existence  of  its 
Gr.  equivalent.  The  Talm.  Jerus.  (Sheliith,  ix.  2) 
gives  .iSviT  (in  some  edd.  ■i'7i'nn)  as  yet  another 
name  for  Succoth,  and  Merrill  (East  of  the  Jordan, 
p.  386),  followed  bv  Conder  (Heth  and  Moab,  p. 
183)  and  G.  A.  Smith  (HGHL,  585),  proposes  Tell 
Deir'Alla,  a  mound  about  1  mile  N.  of  the  Jalibok, 
as  the  site  of  the  ancient  Succoth,  and  the  present 
equivalent  of  n'jyin.  A  place  i'(l^•»^  about  10  miles 
south  of  Beisan,  on  the  west  of  the  Jordan,  has 
also  been  proposed  as  the  site ;  but,  though  this 
may  meet  the  requu-ements  of  the  narrative  in 
Gn  33,  a  place  E.  of  the  Jordan  seems  necessary 
for  some  of  the  other  places  where  the  name  is 
mentioned.  Tristram  {Bible  Places,  p.  345)  failed 
to  find  any  trace  of  the  name  Succoth  east  of 
Jordan. 

2.  (^o/cxiiff,  Ex  l^"  IS*  Nu  33«'  •)  The  first 
encampment  of  the  children  of  Israel  on  leaN-ing 
Eg3-pt.  The  word  is  a  pure  Heb.  one,  signifying 
'  booths '  or  '  tents  '  (see  above),  but  Egyptologists 
regard  it  as  the  equivalent  of  an  Egyptian  word 
Thuku  or  Thukct,  the  name  of  a  region  of  which 
the  capital  was  Pithom.  Brugsch  and  Naville  are 
agreed  on  this  point,  but  not  as  to  the  situation 
of  Pithom.  Ebers  proposes  a  difterent  Egyptian 
word  as  the  equivalent  of  Succoth,  but  agrees  with 
Naville  as  to  the  position  of  the  region  so  desig- 
nated. Referring  to  art.  Exodus,  vol.  i.  p.  802, 
it  will  be  seen  that  the  neighbourhood  of  the 
station  Ramses,  on  the  railway  from  Zagazig  to 
Ismailia,  corresponds  to  the  ancient  Succoth. 
The  children  of  Israel  must  have  remained  here 
a  short  time  to  arrange  themselves  in  order  for 
their  future  march  ;  and  whether  the  name  was 
used  bj'  them  in  imitation  of  a  similarly  sounding 
Egyptian  word,  or  because  they  then  began  to 
dwell  in  booths,  may  be  left  an  open  question. 

A.  T.  Chapman. 

SUCCOTH-BENOTH  (nijj-Msp ;  B'Poxx«*(3oivetSff, 
A  2ovxM*/ic>''^f' ;  Sochoth-benoth). — In  2  K  17'"  it  is 
said  that  the  colonists  from  Babylon  at  Samaria 
'made  Succoth-benoth,'  just  as  the  colonists  from 
Cuth  'made  Nergal.'  The  parallelism  between 
Xertjnl  and  Succoth-benoth  shows  that  the  latter 
must  be  the  name  of  a  deitj'.  As  Nergal  was  the 
patron-god  of  Cuth,  it  is  reasonable  to  infer  that 
in  Succoth-benoth  we  have  a  corrupted  form  either 
of  Bel-Merodach,  the  patron-god  of  Babj'lon,  or 
of  his  wife  Zarpanit.  There  is  consequently  a 
good  deal  of  probability  in  the  conjecture  of 
liawlinson  (Herodvtus^,  i.  p.  654)  that  we  have  in 
it  a  corruption  of  the  Babylonian  Zarpanit,  '  the 
silvery  one,'  which,  in  accordance  with  a  popular 
etjmiology,  is  generally  written  Zer-bnnit,  '  the 
seed-creatress,'  in  the  cuneiform  texts.  The  spell- 
ing of  the  name  in  the  LXX  lends  support  to  this 
view  ;  and  it  is  just  possible  that  Rawlinson  may 
be  right  in  suggesting  that  the  biblical  Succoth  is 
due  to  a  confusion  between  zerit,  which  seems  to 
he  a  derivative  form  from  zeru  (see  Haupt,  Simrod- 
Jijwx,  8,  35),  and  zardt,  'tents'  or  'booths.'  In 
Am  5-*'  the  name  of  the  Babylonian  god  Sakkut 
has  been  transformed  into  nop,  if  we  accept 
Schrader's  explanation  of  the  passage  (SK,  1874, 
pp.  324-332).  Perhaps  the  fact  that  the  images 
of  the  Babylonian  divinities  were  carried  in  pro- 
cession in  '  ships '  or  arks,  assisted  in  the  change 
of  the  name.  It  is  even  possible  that  by  Succoth 
the  Hebrew  WTiter  intended  to  denote  these  pro- 
cessional shrines,  henoth  (from  Benith)  being 
corrupted  from  Bclith  or  Belit,  the  classical  Beltis, 
a  common  title  and  synonym  of  Zer-banit. 

LrrsRATCBR.— Schrader,  COT  i.  274  f.  ;  Delitzsch,  Parodies 
216  ;  Jensen,  ZA  iv.  352 ;  and  the  Conuu.  ad  loc. 

A.  H.  Savcb. 


SUD 


SUN 


627 


SUD  C^ouS,  Sodi). — The  'river'  uf  Babylon,  on 
wlikli  ilwi-lt  'Jeclioiiiiis,  the  sou  of  Joakim,  kinj; 
of  .luUah,"  and  his  fellow-exiles  (Bar  l-").  The 
canal  on  which  Babylon  was  situated  before  its 
destructinn  by  Sennacherib  was  called  the  Arakhtu  ; 
but  the  whole  of  Babylonia  was  intersected  by 
small  canals,  each  of  which  had  a  name,  and  it  is 
therefore  quite  possible  that  in  the  time  of  Nebuch- 
adrezzar one  of  those  in  the  neighbourhood  of  the 
capital  bore  a  name  which  resembled  Sud.  As, 
however,  the  Greek  sibilant  can  represent  more 
than  one  Semitic  letter,  it  is  useless  to  speculate 
about  the  Babylonian  form  of  the  name  until  we 
know  liow  it  was  written  in  Hebrew  or  Aramaic. 

A.  H.  SAVCE. 

SUDDENLY. — The  adj.  'sudden'  and  the  adv. 
•  suddenly '  were  often  used  formerly  without  the 
element  of  surpri.se  which  belongs  to  their  root 
(Lat.  stibitaneiis,  from  siihire,  '  to  come  steathily  '), 
and  is  always  associated  with  their  use  in  mod. 
English.  Thus  Shaks.  u.ses  '  sudden  '  in  the  sense 
of  soon  (Meas.  for  Meas.  II.  ii.  83,  '  To-morrow  ! 

0,  that's  sudden')  ;  and  of  hasty  (As  You  Like  It, 
V.  ii.  8,  '  My  sudden  wooing,  nor  her  sudden  con- 
senting') and  of  impetuous  (Ilich.  II.  II.  i.  35, 
'  Small  showers  last  long,  but  sudden  storms  are 
short').  So  also  he  uses  'suddenly'  in  the  sense 
of  quirkly  (Tarn.  ,Shrew,  ii.  327,  'Was  ever  match 
clapped  up  so  suddenly  ?  ')  or  presently  {1  Henry  IV. 

1.  iii.  294,  '  When  time  is  ripe,  which  will  be 
suddenly').  In  AV  '.suddenly'  means  speedily  in 
I's  t!'"  '  Let  them  return  and  be  ashamed  suddenly  ' 
(>!";,  LXX  Oii  Tdx""')  ;  and  in  Jer  40"  ,50".  In 
1  Ti  5"  •  Lay  hands  suddenly  on  no  man,'  the 
meaning  is  hastily  (Gr.  raxiui).      3.  Hastings. 

SUDIAS  (BA  ZovUat.  Luc.'fiSouid).— ALevitical 
family  that  returned  with  Zerubbabel,  1  Es  5-"', 
called  in  Ezr  2-"  IIodaviaii  and  in  Neh  T-*'' 
HoUEVAll. 

SUICIDE.— See  CltlMES  and  PUNISHMENTS, 
vol.  i.  p.  022". 

SUKKIIM  (="'tD;  B  tpuyoSiiTon,  A  TpwyXoSiTai, 
Luc.  '^ovxidfi-)- — The  name  of  a  tribe  mentioned 
t<jgether  with  Libyans  and  Cushites  as  led  by 
Shishak  against  .ludiea  (2  Ch  12^).  The  passage 
is  not  founil  in  the  corresponding  text  of  Kings. 
The  LX.X  rendering  'Troglodytes'  was  probably 
suggested  by  the  fact  of  a  place  called  Suche  (I'liny, 
y/.V  vi.  172)  being  mentioned  among  Troglodyte 
possessions  ;  the  same  is  called  by  Sirabo  (iii.  8) 
•the  fortress  of  Suchus,'  and  Suchus,  he  tells  us, 
is  aname  forasacred  crocodile  (iT;.  xvii.  1).  Several 
geographers  identify  this  place  with  the  modern 
Suakin,  which,  however,  may  well  be  an  Arabic 
Word  {saxodkin).  The  identification  of  the  Sukkiim 
with  the  inhabitants  of  Suakin  (though  accepted 
by  Forbiger  and  Dillmann)  is  therefore  very  un- 
certain ;  nor  is  the  view  of  tie.senins,  that  the  word 
should  be  treated  as  a  Hebrew  adjective,  'dwellers 
in  tents,'  much  more  probable. 

U.  S.  MAEGOLIOUTII. 

SULPHUR.— See  Brimstone. 

*•  8UN.— 'I'he  usual  word  in  the  OT  for  the  first  of 
the  great  lights  of  heaven  is  ~"^,  I'h(en.  Tzv,  Aram. 
Krvf(i)ii  (;n)  and  shimsha,  Arab,  shamsun,  Assyr. 
Sam.^u  (sanisti  in  the  name  Samsu-iluna,  c.  2200  B.C., 
evidently  a  west  Semitic  form).  There  is  consider- 
able uncertainty  as  to  the  etymology  (for  conjec- 
tures .see  Levy,  \]T,rterli.  iilier  die  Turtji/.  ii.  578  f.). 
Other  words  for  .sini  are  ^;C,  lit.  'heat,'  or,  adj.  ['.'], 
'hot'(.Fob302",('a(!"',l824''»30»),andD-:r'(.Ig8>-M4'», 
Job  SI'),  of  doubtful  derivation.  Both  tlie.se  terms 
are  iLsed  poetieally,  and  the  latter  occurs  in  the 
place-name  Ir-hiv-ileres,  'city  of  the  sun'  (Ilelio- 


polls),  RV  'city  of  destruction '  (see  Ili-ilA-IIr.UEs). 
In  Job  yv-""  the  word  used  is  -\'.s,  marg.  'light.' 

The  earliest  mention  of  the  sun  in  the  Bible  is 
in  Gn  fn-i''  [B],  in  which,  however,  none  of  the 
above  words  are  used,  the  luminary  being  referred 
to  as  the  greater  of  the  two  'great  lights'  (mii^oroth), 
created  to  rule  the  day,  the  lesser  liglit  being  to 
rule  the  night,  and  to  divide  the  light  from  the 
darkness  (v.'*).  Both  of  them  were  placed  in  the 
firmament  for  signs  and  for  seasons,  and  for  days 
and  years  (v.").  As  the  lesser  light,  the  moon  was 
the  measurer  of  time,  by  her  constant  ami  clearly - 
marked  pha.scs;  the  sun  was,  by  the  constancy 
and  regularity  of  his  apparent  motion,  the  real 
indicator.  With  those  of  the  le.s.ser  light,  his 
eclipses  were  regarded  as  signs  foretelling  events. 
He  indicated  the  beginuing  and  the  end  of  each 
day ;  seasons,  both  religious  and  agricultural ; 
regulated  the  festivals ;  and  determined  the  com- 
mencement and  termination  of  every  year,  his 
movements  f(U-ming,  at  the  same  time,  the  basis 
of  all  chronological  data. 

Naturally,  the  ideas  of  the  ancient  Hebrews  con- 
cerning the  movements  of  the  sun,  when  tested  by 
modern  science,  were  erroneous.  As  we,  in  the 
language  of  everyday  life,  speak  of  the  sun  as 
'rising'  and  '.setting,'  so  they  spoke  of  him  as 
'going  forth'  (ydz(V,  Gn  19'''^  etc.  ;  zdrah,  Jg  '.)^, 
2  S  23''  etc.)  and  'entering'  (65',  Gn  15'-''  etc.). 
From  zdrah  and  bo'  came  the  expressions,  mi^rah 
(shemesh),  'the  rising  (of  the  sun),'  also  'east'; 
and  miiho'  (shemesh),  'the  setting  (of  the  sun),' 
also  'west.'  The  equivalent  Assyrian  expres- 
sions are  similar,  being  zU  (for  (Izlt,  from  azTt  = 
ydzd')  sam.si  and  erib  saniHi,  the  'coming  forth' 
and  the  'entering  of  the  sun'  (cf.  for  the  latter, 
the  Heb.  ^y,  'to  become  evening').  I'oetically, 
this  idea  of  going  forth  and  entering  was  extended, 
and  the  sun,  as  well  as  the  moon,  was  regarded  as 
possessing  a  habitation  (Hab  3")  and  a  tent  or  taber- 
nacle (I's  lO*''),  set  for  him  by  (iod,  from  which 
he  came  forth  as  a  bridegroom  from  his  chamber, 
rejoicing  as  a  strong  man  to  run  his  course.  Tliis 
idea  seems  to  be  illustrated  by  the  designs  on 
certain  of  the  cylinder-seals  of  Itabylonia,  on  wliich 
a  deity,  evidently  the  sun  -  god,  is  represented 
coming  forth  through  the  open  doors,  whicli  tlie 
attendants  hold  back  for  him,  at  the  same  time 
turning  their  faces  away,  in  order  not  to  he  blinded 
by  his  brightncs.s.  In  connexion  with  this,  it  is 
also  worthy  of  note  that  the  Babylonians  speak 
of  the  bolts  of  the  high  heavens  greeting  the  sun 
at  his  setting,  and  his  beloved  wife  going  to  meet 
him.  There  is  hardly  any  doubt  that  these 
poetical  similes  are  based  upon  the  nnfiiiling 
regularity  of  the  sun's  daily  cour.se,  which,  in 
more  southern  latitudes,  varies  less  than  with  us, 
marking  the  two  cardinal  points,  and  also  the  divi- 
sion of  day  and  night,  with  less  variation.  Such 
ex])ressions  a-s  'the  time  when  the  sun  is  hot'  (1  S 
1 1",  Neh  7')  were  therefore  more  precise  than  they 
would  be  in  our  latitudes.  Having  risen,  and  run 
his  fixed  path  in  his  might  (JgA^i)  until  the  time 
of  his  greatest  heat,  the  sun  went  down  at  the  hour 
which,  like  a  living  thing,  he  was  supposed  to 
know  (I's  104"'). 

Like  all  (joil's  creatures,  the  .sun  was  altogether 
dependent  on  His  will,  and  at  His  coinmand  woidd 
cea.se  to  shine  (Job  0")  ;  and,  this  being  the  ca.se, 
the  sun  could  also  undergo  a  change  of  his  cour.se. 
of  this  there  are  two  examples:  Jo.shua's  order 
to  the  sini  to  stand  still  (Jos.  W^'*,  Sir  4(i''),  and 
the  going  back  of  the  shadow  on  the  dial  of  Ahaz 
(2  K  20"  ",  Is  38').  The  former  has  given  rise  to 
a  considerable  amount  of  discussion,  the  impro- 
bability of  such  a  change  ius  the  stojipage  of  tlic 
(earth's  rotation  implied  thereby  being  generally 
recognized,    notwithstanding  that  God's  powt  r  to 

finrli'M  ."^  rifiinr't  ,S(«n.s 


do  so  without  harm  to  the  world  and  its  inhabit- 
ants cannot  admit  of  doubt.  'l'h(!  probability, 
liowevcr,  is  that  this  passaije,  being  a  poetical 
extract  from  another  work,  '  tlie  Hook  of  .lasliar,' 
is  not  to  be  understood  literally,  the  statement 
being  made  by  poetic  licwice  for  some  such  expres- 
sion as  •  the  sun  did  not  set  until  the  enemies  of 
]srael  were  completely  defeated,'  i.e.  the  opera- 
tii>ns  were  carried  out  so  rapidly,  that  as  much 
was  done  as  if  the  day  had  been  twice  as  long 
(ef.  v.'<).  On  the  other  hand,  the  explanation 
that  the  lengthening  of  the  day,  and  the  continued 
appearance  of  the  snn  above  the  horizon,  may  have 
been  due  to  a  considerable  increase  of  the  refrac- 
tive properties  of  the  atmosphere,  is  also  possible. 
The  return  of  the  shadow  on  the  dial  has  also  been 
referred  to  various  causes,  ami  may,  according  to 
some,  have  been  due  to  an  eclipse  (see  Uosauquet 
in  G.  Smith's  Assurbanipal,  p.  340,  and  TSBA  iii. 
SI  tf.,  V.  201).  In  2  K  20"*-"  it  is  the  shadow  only 
that  is  spoken  of ;  but  the  parallel  passage  in  Is 
3S"  mentions  also  the  sun,  and  on  account  of  this  it 
has  been  contended  that  the  movement  recorded 
must  liave  been  purely  optical.  The  phenomenon 
referred  to  in  Mk  l-5^3_  j^k  23'"-  *^.  where  it  is 
stated  that  the  sun  was  darkened,  cannot  refer  to 
an  eclipse,  as  it  was  the  time  oiE  the  full  moon. 
The  sun  is  in  these  passages,  to  all  appearance, 
repre.sented  as  hiding  liimself  in  order  to  cast  a 
veil  of  darkness  over  the  death  of  the  Son  of 
God.  Whatever  be  the  explanation  of  these  three 
apparent  departures  from  the  sun's  daily  routine, 
there  is  no  doubt  that  they  are  intended  to  em- 
pha.size  the  power  of  God,  and  His  active  interest 
in  the  affairs  of  man.  The  same  ideas  were,  to 
all  appearance,  generally  current  with  regard  to 
eclipses  in  general,  these  being  looked  upon  in  like 
manner  a-s  extraordinary  manifestations  of  the 
power  of  God  over  nature,  or  as  foreshadowing  the 
terrible  tokens  of  the  day  of  judgment  (Is  13".  .11 
2")  31==  Ac  2-',  Mt  24-^  Mk  l'32*,""Lk  212^,  Rev  6'2 
gri-)  *  'phe  setting  of  the  sun  at  bright  noonday  is 
figurative  of  loss  of  happiness,  prosperity,  or  success 
(is  OU*',  Jer  15'^  Am  8^  Mic  3'),  whilst  the  reverse 
of  this  is  indicated  by  the  rising  of  the  '  sun  of 
Kigliteousne.ss'  of  Mai  4-  Csee  also  vol.  i.  p.  193''). 

Like  the  moon,  the  sun  was  also  regarded  as  an 
emblem  of  con.stancy,  on  account  of  the  unerring 
daily  repetition  of  his  course  (Ps  72"- 1'  803«).  The 
man  who  loves  God  (Jg  5*')  and  the  just  ruler  ( 2  S23'') 
are  both  compared  with  him  as  the  thing  of  all  God's 
creation  shining  with  the  greatest  brilliance,  whilst, 
for  the  same  reason,  he  became  the  image  of  God 
Himself  (I's  84").  His  pure,  unfailing  light  became 
also  an  emblem  of  beauty  (Ca  O^'),  and  liis  force  iu- 
cre;using  daily,  or  at  certain  sea.sons.  typified  the 
progress  of  a  good  man  towards  perfection  (Pr  4'*). 
The  great  luminary  (Sir  1"^')  and  adornment  of 
the  heavens  (Sir  20'^),  his  light  shone  on  all  things  ; 
and  is  surpassed  in  brilliance  only  by  the  heavenly 
world  to  come,  of  which  God  Himself  is  to  be  the 
light  and  the  glory  (Is  On'o.  Ac  2<!"). 

It  is  to  the  penetrating  heat  of  the  .sun  that  the 
poetical  expression  ^J'^,  hamindh,  is  applied  (cf. 
Ps  111'')  ;  and  by  means  of  this,  as  well  as  by  his 
light,  he  exercises  his  beneficent  power,  bringing 
forth  the  fruits  of  the  earth  (Dt  33'*),  grass  with 
the  help  of  the  rain  (2  S  23*),  and  giving  man  the 
desire  of  life  (Ec  11').  But  the  .sun  has  al-so  the 
power  of  injuring,  smiting,  and  scorching  men  and 
the  fruits  of' the  earth  by  his  heat  (Ps  121'',  Is  49'", 
Jon  4»,  Kev  7"''  l(i»etc.). 

Observation  of  the  movements  of  the  sun,  and 
his  infiuence  upon  the  earth  and  upon  all  nature, 

«  Mntiler,  in  ./ff.l.'?,  1001.  p.  42.  explains  tho  plapnc  of  dark- 
ness ru'lerred  to  in  Kx  m21ff.  as  an  eclipse  of  the  sun.  wlilch  took 
place  in  B.C.  1385  {Sitttungsber.  der  k.  Akad.  der  Wiss.^  Vienna, 
1S85). 


caused  all  the  ancient  world,  with  but  few  excep. 
tions,  to  regard  him  as  a  living  thing ;  and  from 
this  view,  dwelling,  as  they  did,  in  the  midst  of 
heathendom,  the  ancient  Hebrews  were  not  wholly 
free,  especially  during  the  time  of  the  kings.  Ex- 
cept, however,  where  a  direct  reference  to  idolatry 
is  made,  the  sun  is  spoken  of  as  a  personal  living 
being  only  in  the  domain  of  poetry,  though,  as 
will  be  seen  further  on,  the  writers  of  the  Hebrew 
poetical  books  had  been  apparently  influenced  by 
the  heathen  teaching  concerning  the  luminary  of 
day.  He  ruled  over  the  day,  not  as  a  god  but  as 
the  source  of  light,  heat,  and  the  divisions  of  time, 
and  came  forth  from  his  chamber  to  run  his  fixed 
course  as  one  of  the  great  creations  of  God,  not  its 
being  himself  a  deity  whom  men  should  worship. 

Nevertheless,  the  Hebrews  were  attracted  by  the 
worship  of  the  sun,  under  the  influence  of  the 
heathen  nations  by  whom  they  were  surrounded. 
A  common  act  of  worship  is  that  mentioned  in 
Job  SI'-"*-',  in  which  the  hand  was  kissed,  and 
which  Ls  described  as  an  iniquity  to  be  punished 
by  the  judges.  The  law  against  idolatrous  wor- 
sliip  of  the  sun  and  heavenly  bodies  is  given  in 
Dt  4'",  and  from  17--^  we  learn  that  the  penalty 
was  death  by  stoning  at  the  gate  of  the  city.  'I'he 
open  idolati-y  which  took  place  in  the  time  of  the 
kings,  however,  .shows  clearly  that  the  laws  re- 
corded in  the  passages  quoted  were  not  generally 
ob.served. 

On  the  entrance  of  the  Israelites  into  the  Holy 
Land,  they  found  there  the  wor.ship  of  the  sun 
under  the  name  of  Baal-hainmon,  the  last  com- 
ponent part  of  this  appellation  being  the  singular 
of  the  word  linmmdnhn,  lueaning  'sun-images,"  and 
connected  with  the  word  hammdh.  'heat  or  hot,' 
one  of  the  words  used  in  the  OT  for  the  sun  (Job 
30-*  etc.).  As  pointed  out  in  the  article  Baal, 
however,  it  is  not  certain  that  Baal  was  regarded 
as  the  sun,  but  the  sun  was  a  baal,  or  'lord.'  just 
as  the  Babylonian  sun-god,  SamaS,  bore  the  title 
of  belu,  'lord,'  in  common  with  the  other  deities 
of  the  As.syro-Babylonian  pantheon.  In  all  proba- 
bility, therefore,  the  worship  of  the  sun,  properly 
so  called,  came  from  Babylonia,  in  which  country 
there  were  at  least  two  shrines  to  this  god — one  at 
Sippar  (Abu-liabbah),  and  the  other  at  Larsa,  which 
is  identified  with  the  Ellasar  of  Gn  14'.  He  was 
also  worshipped,  however,  at  many  other  places  in 
Babylonia  and  Assyria. 

Noteworthy  in  connexion  with  the  worship  of 
the  sun  by  the  Jews,  and  its  origin,  is  the  reference 
to  the  chariots  of  the  sun  in  2  K  23".  To  all 
appearance  the  chariot,  as  well  as  the  horses,  had 
been  dedicated  by  various  idolatrous  kings  of  Judah, 
•and  they  were  stationed  at  the  western  entrance 
to  the  temple.  '  by  the  chamber  of  Nathan-melech 
the  chamberlain,  which  was  in  the  precincts.'  At 
the  temple  of  the  sun  at  Sippar  in  Babylonia  there 
was  also  a  chariot,  and  jiresumably  horses,  dedi- 
cated to  that  deity  ;  and  it  is  worthy  of  note  that, 
as  one  of  the  sacred  objects  belonging  to  the 
temple  of  the  god,  it  was  the  custom  to  make 
.sacrifices  to  it.*  In  the  li'th  year  of  Nabopolassar 
this  was  transferred  from  the  keeping  of  the  men 
who  had  care  of  the  horses  (?  of  the  sun  at  Sippara) 
to  a  man  named  Bel-ahe-iddina,  and  a  list  of  the 
furniture  (ud?)  of  the  chariot  was  drawn  up, 
enumerating  about  140  objects  belonging  to  it, 
many  of  them  of  silver,  though  some  were  of  gold 
and  of  bronze.  It  is  doubtful  whether  the  Baby- 
lonians ever  thought  of  the  sun-god  coursing  through 
the  heavens  in  a  chariot  drawn  by  swift  steeds  of 
fiery  breed  typifying  his  brilli.ant  daily  journey 
through  the  heavens,  as  the  inscriptions,  as  far  as 

*  One  of  the  tablets  referring?  to  this  states  that  on  the  VMh 
of  lyyar,  in  the  I4th  year  of  Nabopolassar,  a  fUll-grown  white 
sheep  was  olfered  before  it. 


I 


they  are  known,  do  not  refer  to  this,  and  the 
representation  of  the  suu-god  on  the  stone  found 
by  Mr.  Uassam  at  Abu-habbah  shows  the  deity 
seated  in  his  shrine,  with  the  representation  of  his 
disc  before  him,  and  two  small  figures  coming  out 
of  the  top  of  the  shrine,  seemingly  guiding  the 
disc  by  means  of  the  cords  attached  to  it,  which 
they  hold  in  their  hands.  The  sacrilicial  instru- 
ments which  formed  part  of  the  furniture  of  the 
chariot  suggest  that  it  Wiis  used  in  connexion  with 
tlie  woi-sliip  of  the  sun  ;  and  a."!,  in  its  equipment, 
swords  or  daggers  of  gold  (3  in  number)  and  of 
some  other  material  (2  in  luimber)  are  referred  to, 
tlie  suggestion  that  it  may  have  accompanied  the 
army  on  certain  occasions  would  not  be  without 
prcibability.  The  ceremonies  in  connexion  with 
thr  chariot  of  the  sun  at  Sippar,  in  all  probability, 
had  their  reflexion  at  Jerusalem.  It  is  hardly 
likely,  however,  that  the  chariot  of  the  sun  at 
Jerusalem,  which  Josiah  burned  with  fire,  wa.s  so 
splendid  as  that  at  Sippar  in  Babylonia.* 

The  worship  of  tlie  sun  at  Jerusalem  is  described 
by  Kzekiel,  who  speaks  of  the  live  and  twenty 
men  (?  priests)  with  their  backs  towards  the  temple 
of  the  Lord,  and  their  faces  towards  the  ea.st,  wor- 
shipping the  sun  (Ezk  8'*).  During  this  ceremony 
it  is  said  (v.'')  that  -they  put  the  branch  to  their 
nose,'  a  doubtful  phrase  which  has  been  the  subject 
of  much  discussion.  The  general  opinion,  however, 
is,  that  this  is  a  reflexion  of  a  Persian  custom  in 
wliicli,  when  repeating  the  liturgj',  the  priests 
held  from  time  to  time  in  the  left  hand  a  bunch  of 
twigs  called  barepniin,  and  wore,  at  the  offering 
of  the  daily  sacriiice,  a  kind  of  veil.  It  may  be 
noted  in  connexion  w^ith  this,  that,  in  the  li.st  of 
tilings  belonging  to  the  chariot  of  the  sun  at 
.Sij>par,  2  nurmH  are  mentioned.  Xow  tlie  word 
n«r»iS,  as  is  suggested  by  Frd.  Delitzsch  {Asuyr. 
7/ ir/i),  possibly  means  'fig,'  'fig-tree,'  and  two 
models  of  a  tree  of  this  kind,  or  of  branches, 
probably  belonged  to  the  chariot  as  ornaments, 
and  may  have  been  carried  '  before  the  face  '  wlien 
worshipping  the  sun,  as  his  emblems.  Whether 
this  practice  originated,  in  Persia  or  in  Babylonia 
is  doubtful. 

These  idolatrous  Jews  of  old  are  represented  as 
worshipping  the  sun  towards  the  east,  i.e.  at  his 
ri.sing.  This  was  a  custom  with  the  Persians,  and 
also,  in  all  probability,  with  all  the  nations  which 
adored  that  luminary.  At.  the  temple  of  Borsippa, 
which  is  generally  regarded  as  the  Tower  of  Babel, 
the  worship  of  the  sun  was  possibly  an  institution 
of  long  standing,  and  at  the  beginning  of  a  new 
day,  that  is,  at  sunset,  the  following  hymn  was 
sung  :— 

'  Sun-eod  In  the  midst  of  hcaTen,  at  thy  setting, 
.May  the  bolt  of  hoaven  lofty  npfak  theo  peace — 
May  the  door  of  heaven  bless  thee. 
MIAflru,  the  ine.ssencer,  thv  beloved,  let  him  direct  theo. 
At  ft-baharra,  the  seat  of  thy  dominion,  thy  supremacy 

shines  forth. 
May  Aa,  thy  tielovcd  wife,  gla<lly  come  to  meet  theo  ; 
May  thy  heart  take  rest ; 

May  thy  divine  refreshment  be  prepared  for  theo. 
Warrior,  hero,  siin-pod,  may  they  jrlorlfy  thee. 
LonI  of  ft.babarra.  may  the  course  of  thy  road  prosper. 
8im-j;od,  direct  thy  path,  make  llrm  the" road,  go  to  thine 

abode. 
Snn-ffod,  thou  art  judpe  of  the  land,  (and)  director  of  Its 

decl.slons.' 

In  this  hymn  the  sun  is  not  only  represented  in 
a  manner  similar  to  that  of  the  p.salmist,  as  a 
bridegroom  coming  out  of  his  chamber  (I's  10''), 
but  his  bride  is  conceived  as  going  to  meet  him, 

*  .\monir  the  Rabylonlans,  the  Important  thine  In  connexion 
with  the  efrernonles  seems  to  have  been  the  chariot,  and  this 
was  probably  the  ease  at  .lerusalem.  With  the  Persians,  on  tlio 
other  han«l.  the  horses  seem  to  have  been  at  least  as  Itnnortant, 
and  sometimes  the  one,  snmetlmes  the  other,  folh»\vi-d  In  the 
professions.  The  cnlonr  of  these  saere<l  horses  wa-,  while,  and 
they  were  on  certain  occasions  sacrltlcod  to  tbo  sun  lUurod.  I. 
188,  Til.  40,  65 ;  Xon.  Cyr.  tUI.  8). 


and  he  takes  rest  and  refreshment  after  his  weary- 
ing course.  The  last  line  of  the  inscription  shows 
him  also  in  the  character  which  he  commonly  had 
with  the  Babylonians,  namely,  that  of  judge, 
which  he  apparently  possessed  as  witness  of  every- 
thing that  passes  on  the  earth  ('  under  the  sun,'  as 
so  often  occurs  in  Ecclesia-stes,  e.  g.  V-^  etc.).  The 
tablet  which  followed  the  above  was  a  hymn  to  the 
rising  sun,  beginning  (the  Akkadian  version  only 
is  preserved),  Utu  ann-azuffa-Ca  ea,  '  Sun-god  in  the 
glorious  heaven  rising,'  and  may  liave  resembled 
that  with  which  the  heathen  Jews  greeted  the 
luminary,  when  performing  the  ceremony  referred 
to  by  Kzekiel.* 

The  judgment  pronounced  against  the  sun  and 
moon  (Is  24-^),  in  which  the  former  was  to  be 
ashamed,  is  regarded  by  some  as  resting  upon  the 
fact  that  the  idolatrous  worship  which  was  paid 
to  it  was  accounted  as  a  sin,  the  consequences  of 
which  rested  upon  the  object  causing  it,  and  would 
be  visited  upon  it  by  God  at  the  last  day.  This  is 
probable ;  but  the  end  of  the  verse  ought  to  be 
taken  into  account,  for  when  the  Lord  reigns  in 
Zion  gloriously  the  sun  may  well  be  put  to  shame 
on  account  of  his  inferior  lustre. 

LiTEKATURE. — Kiehm,  //WB;  Sayce,  Ilibberi Lecfurea^lSST \ 
Pinches  In  TSBA,  1854,  pp.  164-1G9;  Tran$actiom  of  the 
Victoria  Institute,  1S94,  pp.  10, 16,  IT. 

T.  G.  Pinches. 
SUPERSCRIPTION  (^7ri7pa0^).— 1.  The   legend 
on  a  com  (.Mt  2l'*',  Mk  12ie,  Lk  20'.:*).    See  MONEY. 
2.  The  accusation  on  the  Cross  of  Jesus  (Mk  IS-", 
Lk  2338).    See  Title  on  the  Ceoss. 

SOPH. — One  of  the  expressions  used  in  Dt  1^ 
to  (IcfiiKf  the  locality  of  Moses'  address  to  Israel 
[?;  on  the  difficulty  of  this  interpretation  see  Driver] 
is  '  in  the  Arabah,  over  against  Suph  '  (iiiD  >":  [i.e. 
by  di.ssimil.,  for  Si';],  AV  'over  against  the  Red 
Sea').  If  the  MT  be  correct,  Suph  is  a  place- 
name,  possibly  identical  with  SfPIIAIl  of  Is'u  21'-', 
but,  upon  the  whole,  it  appears  more  probable  that 
e)iD^i-:  is  a  textual  error  for  I'D'e^c  (cf.  LXX  TrXriulov 
T^s  ipvdpas  [floXdtrcTTjs],  A^ulg.  contra  mare  rubrnm). 
Yam  ,sf(;)ft  t  means  probably  ',sea  of  reeds,'  and 
appears  to  have  been  originally  a  title  given  to 
the  upper  end  of  the  Gulf  of  Suez,  which  would  be 
shallow  and  marshy,  and  abounding  in  reeds  (W. 
M.  Miiller,  As.  u.  Kurop.  42  f.).  In  the  OT  this 
designation  is  usually  confined  to  the  W.  (Suez) 
arm  of  the  Ked  Sea:  Ex  in''^  (J)  13's  LV  2^  2331 
(all  four  E),  Nu  3:3'i'i'  (P),  l)t  IIS  .;os2i»  (J)  4-8 
(D),  Neh  99,  Ps  100"i>-22  13(i"i''.  It  stands,  how- 
ever, for  the  Gulf  of  'Akabah  not  only  in  Dt  1' 
(if  the  above  suggestion  is  correct),  but  in  Nu  21* 
(E)  and  I  K  9-«;  prob.  also  in  Nu  U^s  (E),  Dt  l'" 
2i;  and  perhaps  Jg  ll'",  Jer  4'J-'. 

J.  A.  SKLRIE. 

SUPHAH  (^?''0). — The  name  of  an  unknown 
locality  E.  of  .lordan,  found  only  in  an  dbscure 
fragment  of  ancient  poetry  preserved  in  Nu  21''' 
('  Vahel)  in  Suphah  ').  The  suggestion  of  Trislram 
{Land  of  Moah,  50  f.),  that  it  may  be  the  modern 
tSafieh.  'M  exposed  to  tlie  objection  of  which  he 
him.self  is  aware,  that  the  initial  D  of  the  Ileb. 
word  could  hardly  represent  an  Arabic  ^JO.  The 
same  difficulty  attaches  to  Knobel's  identification 
with  Kakb  es-Safa,  some  25  miles  W.S.W.  of  the 
Dead  Sea.     See,  further,  the  Comm.  ad  Inc. 

J.  A.  SEI.IilE. 

SUPPER.— See  FOOD,  vol.  ii.  p.  41i> ;  and  for  the 
'  Last  Supper'  see  LoitD'S  SfPPKU. 

SUR  (B  'Affffoip,  A  Soup). — One  of  the  towns  on 

•  For  other  fonns  of  the  sun.god  and  snn-worshlp  see  tha 
articles  Baal,  Ciirmosii   Moleoii,  and  Tam.muz. 
t  Sip/i.  Is  attributed  aiso  to  tho  NUo  In  Ex  23J  (cf.  Is  196). 


630        SUKE,  SURELY,  SURETY 


SUSANNA 


the  seacoast  of  Palestine  upon  whose  people  the 
fear  and  dread  of  Holofernes  fell  when  they  heard 
that  he  had  reached  Damascus  (Jth  2-»).  i  he 
to\vns  are  mentioned  in  order  from  nortli  to  south  ; 
and  Sur  comes  between  Tyre  and  Oeina-the  next 
place  to  the  south  being  Jemnaan  (Jamma).  ine 
site,  if  a  diUerent  place  from  Tyre  ("eb.  Jor, 
Arab.  Siir),  is  unknown.  C.  \V  .  W ILSON. 

SURE,  SURELY,  SURETY. -The  adjectives 
•secure,' 'sicker'  (or 'siker'),  and  '  sure '  all  come 
trom  the  Lat.  secunts ;  the  hrst  bemg  taken 
directly,  the  second  through  the  influence  of  the 
Teut.  siker,  sicker;  the  last  through  the  Old.  tr 
,ei<r  (mod.  sHr).  '  Secure '  retained  the  meaning  of 
the  Lat.  {se  '  without,'  cura  '  care  ;  see  SECURE) , 
between  'sicker'  and  'sure'  the  diflerence  was 
mainly  one  of  dialect,  tdl  'sicker'  dropped  out 
of  literary  English.  Thus  Chaucer  lale  of 
Melibeus,  ^G42,  'Whan  thow  trowest  to  te  niost 
seuT  or  siker  of  hir  [fortune's]  help,  she  wol  faille 
thee  and  decey>-e  thee.'  Both  had  a  wider  use 
than  '  sure '  has  now. 

•Sure-  was  otten  used  where  we  should  J"^  "=«. '.'^™"\' 
ThusUdall,  Erasmus'  Par.  i.  13, ' Solitannes  doeth  Qu-f  ™  ^°d 
make  lustve  the  mind  of  a  Christian  souldier^  and  !0™^  '™=^' 
is  more  sure  for  a  man  to  count  himself  to  th'J-'^  be^tes 
than  to  men.  Baptisme  taketh  away  al  Bumes  o«he  former 
me  but  for  al  that,  no  man  is  sure  from  the  assaultes  of  SaWn 
wfichUvelh  sluggishly.- .  So  Pr.  Bk.  ^-/;  (1«|' 7^e^|„°^™J 
was  any  thing  by  the  wit  of  man  so  ,'"f  Revised  or  so  sure 
esfahlished  which  (in  contmuance  of  time)  hatti  not  Deen 
co^upted  ■■  And  in  ^AV  1  S  23=  '  I  ^rtll  build  ^im  a  sure  house^^ : 
Is  "22J  '  I  will  fasten  him  as  a  nail  in  a  sure  place  ,  32">  ily 
people  shaU  dweU  ...  in  sure  dwellings.' 


this  thing  is  kno«-n';  1  S  15^^  '  surely  the  bi  ter- 
ness  of  death  is  past ' ;  Is  40'  '  surely  the  people  is 
<rrass'-  Jer4"'  'Ah,  Lord  God!  surely  thou  hast 
"reatly  deceived  this  people.'    The  same  word  18 
tr.   'verily'  in  Is  45'\  'truly 'in  JerS-^'"',  '  cer- 
tainlv '  in  Jer  S^.    (2)  'Im  (an  emphatic  negative)  as 
Nu  14^  '  surely  they  shall  not  see  the  land  which  1 
sware  unto  their  fathers'  ;  or  'im-Zo'  (an  emphatic 
affirmative),  as  Ezk  36'  'Surely  in  the  fire  of  my 
iealousy  have  I  spoken  against  the  residue  of  the 
heathen.'     (3)  'Omnam  (a  strong  asseverative  from 
'Oman,    'to  confirm'),   as  Job  34i^   'Yea,   sure  y 
God  will  not  do  wickedly'  (RV   'of  a  surety  ). 
(4)  '>S  1'^'  'The  man  that  hath  done  this  thing 
shall  surely  die'  (Heb.   'is  a  son  of  death';   cf. 
1SO031264     (5)dX„9i!,  as  Mt  26^  'surely  thou 
also  art  one  of  them?'  (RV  'of  a  truth  ) ;  Jn  1, 
'They  have  known  surely  that  I  came  out  from 
thee'  (RV  'of  a  truth')     (6)  '^•'^}'',;^^f,2^ 
wUl  surely  say  unto  me  this  proverb   (RV    doubt- 
less ye  will  say').     (7)  v  M  M<-.  He  6»  •  Surely 
blessing  I  will  bless  thee,  and  multiplying  I  will 
multiply  thee'  (5)  [edd.  ri]  ^y  '^^oy^'  '^"VS^Si 
Kal  TXTjevyu,"  ■,r\r,6v.C>  <re).     (8)  voX,  Rev  22-°    Surely 
I  come  quickly '  (RV  '  yea '). 

Fvamnles  of  'surelv'  are  Knox,  But.  S16,  'I  thinke  and  am 
sufelHSwSded^  Bhemfsh  NT,  Preface, '  Vulpilas  surely  ^ 
tte  Scr^pfures  to  the  Gothes  in  their  o^vn  tonge,  and  that  before 
he  was  an  Arrian.'    Gen«r!/dei(E.E.T.b.;,  IJii- 
'They  were  fully  accordid  all  in  one  _ 
That  Auferius  suerly  shuld  be  ther  kyng. 


Tnc  adverb  surely,  in  like  manner,  means  some- 
times securel,/ :  Pr  10»  '  He  that  walketh  uprightly 
walketli  surely.'      Cf.   Robinson,   More's  Utopia, 
141    '  Tliey  fence  and  fortitie  their  campe  sewerlye 
with  a  deape  and  a  brode  trenche.'    Jer  3o»  Gov 
'  The  wordes  which  lonadab  the  sonne  ofl  Rechab 
commaunded  his  sonnes,  that  they  shulde  drynke 
no  wyne,  are  fast  and  surely  kepte' ;  Eiyot,  froyer- 
nour,  ii.  237,  '  David  .  .  .  came  to  the  pavilion  of 
kin"  Saul,  where  he  found  hym  suerly  slepynge, 
havin-'e  by  him  his  speare  and  a  cuppe  with  water. 
But  it  IS  of  more  importance  to  observe  that 
in  its  ordinary  meaning  '  surely '  has  now  lost  so 
much  of  its  force  that  its  use  in  AV  sometimes 
suggests  to  the  reader  the  opposite  of  that  which 
is  intended.     Thus  in  On  2'^  the  first  instance  of 
its  use,  '  In  the  day  that  thou  eatest  thereof  thou 
Shalt  surely  die,'  the  assertion   is  the  strongest 
possible.      The  Hebrew  is  the  idiomatic  phrase, 
•  dvin.'  thou  Shalt  die.'     But  tlie  English  suggests 
a  slight  doubt.     So  in  Gn  3*  '  And  the  serpent  said 
unto  the  woman.  Ye  shall  not  surely  die,  ».«.  l^e 
shall  certainly  not  die. 

This   Heb.  idiom,  an   account  of  which  will  be  found  to 
Davidson's  Hebrnv  Svntax.  %  86    or   in    Gesenius  ■  hautach 
<  113   is  variously  rendered  in  AV.     Sometimes  the  idiom  is 
oreserved    as  On  22"  'in  blessing  I  wUl  bless  tliee,  and  in 
multiplying  I  will  multiply  thy  seed.'     More  frequently  an 
advert  or  adverbial  phrase  is  inserted,  Buch  as  'exceedn.s  y 
On  lfil»,  'cert."iinlv'  On  1810  437,  'doubtless    2  S  51«    'utteHy 
Dt  122.  Jg  12S  i.vi.  Zee  U»'  :  ' clean '  Zk!C  11" ;  'solemnly  On  4.  ■> . 
•airnestlv'  IS  2n«;   'altogether'  Nu  1613,  Jcr  30" ;    ' ncc.  s 
oTa^"  'indeed'  Gn  378  i^' ever'  Jg  11^5 ;  'plainly '  IS  2^  10  «; 
•at  air  2K183S,  Jer28i5;  'straitly'  On  4^,  IS  1428-  'freely 
On  216     But  bv  far  the  most  frequently  used  adverb  18  '  Burelv  , 
and  in  everv  instani:e  it  has  the  force  of  'assuredly    or    cer- 
tainly.'   Thus  Gn  2822  •  i  will  surely  give  the  tenth  unto  thee  . 
fs  13=2  '  We  shall  surely  die.  because  we  have  seen  God  ;  llab2^ 
'It  will  surely  come,  it  wiU  not  tarry.'    Cf.  Su-  48"    We  shaU 
surely  live '  (.1^  ZvofMiia). 

'  Surely '  is  also  the  translation  of  certain  Hebrew 
and  Greek  adverbs  and  other  expressions  some  of 
which  are  very  forcible.  Thus  (1)  dA»w,*Gn28i» 
'surely  the  Lord  is  in  this  place';  Ex '2'* ' surely 

•  A  rather  leas  emphatic  particle  is  'ot,  the  force  of  which  ta 
well  B«n  in  Pb  S9»-  S  ",  esTi"  KV.  In  Ps  62  this  word  _is  tr. 
five  times  '  only '  (both  A V  and  RV),  once  surely   ;  cf.  Pe  <  3». 


Surety  occurs  in  the  phrase  '  of  a  surety,'  Gn  IS" 
lois  06'  Ac  12"  (dXjjflus,  RV  'of  a  truth  ).  i.-t. 
IS  ^6'' Gov.  'David  .  .  .  sent  out  spyes,  and 
knewe  of  a  suertie,  that  he  was  come  in  deede. 
Elsewhere  the  word  means  '  security  in  the  legal 
sense  ;  cf.  Paraph,  in  Verse,  58^— 

•  He  who  for  men  their  surety  stood." 

Suretiship  occurs  only  in  Pr  IP' '  He  that  hateth 
suretiship  is  sure'  (Heb.  as  AVm  and  RVm  'those 
that  strike  hands';  see  Strike)  §««  CpT. 
Pledge.  '^-  Hastings. 

SURGERY.— See  Medicine,  vol.  iii.  p.  333. 


SUSA.— See  ShcshaN. 

SUSANNA  (2ouffo..4).-i.  Text  and  Versions. 
—The  history  of  Susanna  forms  a  part  ot  tne  UK. 
of  Daniel  in  the  Greek  Bible  and  in  those  versions 
which  are  taken  from  the  Greek      In  Gr.  MSS. 
and  also  in  the  Old  Latin  and  Arabic,  it  stands 
before  Dn  1  ;  but  in  the  Latin  Vulgate  it  stands 
as  Dn   13.     Swete   prints  it  as  a,  separate  worK 
^ter  Daniel.     The  tXX  is  the  oldest  extant  text 
but  there  may  have  been  a  Seraitic  origmaL     It 
so,  it  is  antecedently  probable  tliat  it  would  be  m 
Aramaic,  not  Hebrew.     Hebrew  was  the  language 
of  legal  discussions,  hymns,  an<l  prayers.    Ajamaio 
was  the  language  of  such  anecdotes  and  histones 
as  circulates  freely  among  the  l^ople.    The  LV\ 
of  the  History  of  Susanna,  as  indeed  of  the  «  hole 
of  the  Gr.  Daniel,  was  lost  for  niany  centunes, 
because  of  the  preference  of  the  Church    or  the 
textof  Theodoti'on.     The  LXX  of  Susanna  is,  even 
now    extant  only  in  Cod.   Chisianus,  otherwise 
known  as  87,  a  Cursive  ofthe  9th  cent.     Theod. 
for  the  most  part  transcribed  the  LXX  literally, 
but  in  several  instances  he  made  additions  and 
alterations  meant  to  relieve  improbabUities,  or  to 
supply  details  which  seemed  to  n.ake  the  n-IJ^rative 
mire  smooth  and  intelligible.     The  Latin  Vulg,  « 
r  accurate  rendering  of  Theodot.on      In  Syrmc 
Versions,  our '  History '  is  exceptionally  ncli.    ^v  a 
have  (1)  the    Syro  -  Hexaplar,   which    is  a  close 
translation  of  the  LXX ;  (2)  the  Peshitte,  which  u 


SUSANNA 


SUSANNA 


631 


(riven  in  Walton's  Polyglott.  Ceriums  Codex  Am- 
troskinus,  and  in  LajJiarde's  Lihri  VT  Apocr 
Syriare,  and  designated  \\ , ;  (3)  and  (4)  from  v." 
onwards  Lagarde  gives  two  other  Syriac  recensions 
both  dillering  in  many  respects  from  each  other  and 
from  W„  ami  known  as  L,  and  L, ;  (5)  tliero  is  a 
icrnarkable  V.S  L'iven  by  Walton,  tlie  so-called 
llarklt-nsian  VS,  known  as  W  j. 

ii.  The  Stoky.— We  intend   first  to  give  the 
story  in  those  features  which  are  common  to  all 
our  sources,   and   then   to  specify  the  important 
additions  or  alterations  made  in   each.      In   the 
early  days  of  the  captivity  in  Babylon,  there  was 
a  woman    named   Susanna,   very   beautiful,   very 
pious,   the  daughter  of  a  priest.      Her  husband 
Joakim   was  very  wealthy  and  honourable.     He 
had  a  park  adjoining  his  mansion,  and  his  fellow- 
e.xiles    were    always    welcome    to    both    (vv.     ). 
There  were  two  elders  in  Babylon,  who  were  also 
judges,  and  were  held  in  high  repute  ;  but  both  so 
far  for-ot  (iod   and  the  judgments   He  has  pro- 
nounced against  adultery  (v.")  as  to  foster  impure 
desires  towards  Susanna.     Neither  dared  divulge 
his  secret  to  the  other;  but  one  day  they  met  in 
the  park  unexpectedly  and  agreed  to  coerce  her ; 
but  she  strenuously   refused   to   listen   to   them, 
sayin"  that  she  would  rather  die  than  sin  against 
God  (vv. '"•■•").     Shortly  afterwards,  the  elders  sum- 
moned Susjinna  before  the  assembly  of  the  Jews, 
and  laid   against  her   the  false  charge  that  they 
both  saw  lier  lying  with  a  young  man  in  the  park, 
who,  however,  tied  when  they  came  near.    Susanna 
protested  her  innocence,  but  the  people  felt  obliged 
to  believe  two  such  honourable  w  itnesses,  and  con- 
demned her  to  death  (vv.-*  «).     As  they  were  leav- 
ing  the  judgment-hall,  Daniel,  tlien  a  very  young 
man,  met  thciu,  and  undertook  to  prove  Susanna  s 
innocence.     He   insisted  on  cross-questioning   the 
witnesses  apnit,  and   put  the   same  question   to 
each :     Under  what  kind  of  tree  did  the  adultery 
occur?     Eacli   gave  the  name   of  a  diflerent  tree 
(yy  45-W).     The  people  being  thus  convinced  of  the 
falsity    of    the    charge,    praised    God,   applauded 
Daniel,    and    put    to    death    the    false    accusers 

(y    KW.l 


This  is,  In  the  main,  the  story  as  it  appears  in  the  LX\. 
ThecKi.  aJdH  many  (lct.iil3.     It  is  prolial.le  lliat  vv.i-*  originaled 
in  Thewl  and  w.-rc  transferref)  ir'\m  hini  lu-rhnltm  to  our  solitary 
co<lcx  ot  the  LXX  ;  because  LXX  in  v.'  introduces  Susanna,  as 
thoUL'h  she  had  not  been  mentioned  before.    LXX  simply  states 
that  the  elders  saw  her  wallting  in  the  park  one  ev-ening,  ana 
they  t)oth  came  thither  early  next  morning  ;  but  Theod.  adds 
that  the  house  of  Joakim  was  used  everj-  morninB  as  a  court 
of  iustire,  and,  alter  the  people  had  been  dismissed,  Susanna 
walked  daily  in  the  park,  and  both  the  elders  became  enamoured 
ot  her      One  day  they  both  lingered  when  the  court  closed; 
and  after  they  had  separatoil.  saying  it  was  dinner  hour,  tlie.v 
both  came  back,  and  confessed  their  lust.    Theod.  and  the  VsS 
Ukcn  from  it  then  insert  a  j)art  altogether  lacking  m  L.VX,  how 
the  elders  wat.:lied  her  go  into  the  park  and  concealed  tbeui- 
selves  among  the  trees,  sunnising  that  she  \ya.s  going  to  hallic. 
When  Susanna  sent  her  maids  f<>r  oil  and  cosmetics  (W,    soap) 
the  eld.rs  rushed  on  her,  tempted  licr  to  adultery,and  threatened 
t-.  testily  that  she  had  sent  her  maids  away,  so  as  Ix)  have  inter- 
course »-ith  a  young  man.     When  the  maids  came  hack  and 
heard    this    ac'u^ution    from   the    elders,    they  were    "ttor  y 
a»hamed      Further,  while  LXX  slates  that  the  trial  was  held 
111  the  synagogue,  Theod.  says  it  was  held  in  the  house  and 
presence  of  Joakim.     lie  omits  from  LXX  that  GOO  of  Susanna  » 
relatives  and  friends  came  to  the  trial ;  and  he  puts  Siisannai 
iTntesUtions  tiefore  the  charge;  LXX  after.    Theod.  says  the 
young  man  escaped  because  he  was  stronger  than  the  elders. 
1.1   LXX  the  elders  did  not  recognize  him  because  he  vm 
masked.     LXX  introduces  an  angel  as  insiuring   Hanicl  with 
wisdom  at  the  moment  when  Susanna  was  being  lid  to  death. 
This  Theod.  omits ;  but  he  adds  to  the  LXX  that  Daniel  said 
aloud,  'Turn  back  to  the  tribunal' ;  and  that  Daniel  wnamyited 
to  an  elder's  chair.    Theod.  omit«  most  of  y."  "i  LXX  where 
l>anielsays,  'Do  not  suppose  ciders  cannot  he."     LXX  puts  (ico 
(luestions  to  the  w-icked  elders :  '  Under  what  tree?    and    In 
what  part  of  the  garden  f    The  punishment  in  LXX  is  :     they 
threw  them  down  the  precipice';  in  Theod.  '  they  slew  them. 
LXX  only  savs :  '  And  the  angel  of  the  Lord  ca-st  fire  through 
the  midst  of  them,'  and  it  alone  adds  a  eulogy  on  young  men 
meant  'o  secure  for  them  larger  influence  in  luiblic  aflairs. 

The  Vulgate  translates  Theod.  very  accurately  ;   the  chief 
aeviation  being  the  »ddition  ol  one  verse  »t  the  end ;     And 


kiiiir  Astea-es  was  gathered  to  his  fathers,  and  Cynis  the 
Pe^ian  took  the  kingdom.'  This  contradicts  Dn  I,  where 
Daniel  is  '»  young  man'  in  697,  whereas  Cyrus  began  to  reign 

'"•The'  Pcshitta  is  given,  as  we  have  said,  hy  Ceriani,  Lagarde, 
and  \V  Fesh.  agrees  in  the  main  with  Theodotion.  The 
c  ief  exceptions  are  that  in  v.22'-  Pesh.  lengthens  Susannas 
soliloquy  and  consec|uent  repudiation  ol  the.r  overtures ;  and 
betiveen  vv  ■•«  and  -''  Pesh.  inserts  a  verse  which  may  well  have 
droppe<I  out  from  Theod.,  giving  the  testimony  of  the  elders  to 
the  household  which  gathered  when  Susanna  cned  aloud.  It  l» 
aJui  St  m-(,««m  with  ar^n.  Alter  v.-',  W  presents  a  recension 
of  Pesh.,  different  from  L,.  L  inserts,  after  the  sen  ence  on 
Su.<au.ia  these  words:  'That  all  women  may  fear  anc  not  do 
a"^n  ac eonling  to  this  shame.'  This  VV  omits.  L,  adds  after 
v^3  •  concerning  this  which  1  have  not  done  I  am  willing  that 
they  should  ask  me  anything.'  L.  calls  the  first  tree 'a  pistio 
tree'-  W,  'a  terebinth.'  The  second  tree,  in  L„  Lj  is  a 
pomegranate';  in  W,  'a  chestnut.'  At  the  end  of  v.M  L„ 
L     and  \V..  give  a  eulogy  on  Daniel,  which  W  ,  omiU. 

iLagarde  gives,  as  we  have  said,  a  second  Syriac  recension, 
froni  v.->2  and  onwards  (L.),  which  has  several  interesting  read- 
ngs.  Two  are  unique.  After  v.-"  Susanna's  prayer  continues 
'..fppear  for  me  and  send  a  Redeemer  froin  before  thee  thaj 
thy  truth  may  be  believed  by  those  that  fear  thee.  In  v." 
l^aiiiel  says  to  the  first  elder:  'These  things  thou  hast  done 
and  tliou^saidst:  God  is  righteous,  and  th^'Sl^o™^  H^, »?'' 
not  destroy  ;  and  thou  hast  not  obeyed  what  thou  hast  taught 

'"Mucl^more  important  are  the  variations  i°  .Walton's  jcond 
Svriac  Version  (WJ.    It  almost  amounts  to  a  distinct  tradition. 
\V.  suites  that  Daniel  was  1'2  years  old  at  the  time  :  that  the 
Byn.agogue  was  held  in  the  house  of  Joakim  :  that  Susan  was  a 
widow,  having  lost  her  husband  after  a  married  life  ot  a  few 
days,  and  devoted  herself  to  the  Lord  :  that  the  names  of  the 
eldera  were   Amid   and  Abid,   and    they  were  chiefs  of    the 
syn^igngue  :  th.at  before  the  trial  Susan  was  in  chains  in  prison 
tiiree  .lavs  :  that  the  two  elders  were  not  witnesses,  but  judges 
of  Susan":  that  it  was  decided  that  at  the  9th  hour  Susan  should 
be  ca.st  down  a  precipice  :  that  a  throne  was  hrouglit  from  the 
treasury  tor  Darnel  to  sit  upon,  but  that  he  refused  to  sit  upon  it. 
iii.   Its  Origin.— There  are  several  indications 
that   the  story  before   us  cannot  be  regarded  as 
historical.      (1)  The  discrepancies  in   the  several 
accounts,  e.g.  those  just  given  froin  W,      (-)   Uie 
iiiivirobability  that  in  the  first  days  of  the  Captivity, 
when  Daniel  was  '  a  young  youth'  (v.-»),  any  Jew 
in  Babylon  could  be  so  alUuent  as  Joakim,  or  that 
so  soon   after   the  deportation  of  Jehoiachm  the 
,Iews  should,  in  e.vile,   possess  the  7«s  nccts.     (3) 
The  reasons  for  Susanna's  condemnation  are  very 
llimsv,  and  the  behaviour  of   the  very  youthful 
Daniel  is,  at  least,  arbitrary.    He  loudly  condemns 
both  culprits  before  he  adduces  any  proof  of  their 
"uilt 


Assuming  that  we  have  here  an  stlnoal  mythus, 
can  we  find  its  origin  and  motip.     Ball  {Speakers 
Apocr.  ii.  325  f.)  has  a  probable  tneory,  borrowed 
in  the  main  from  Kabbi  Briill  (Das  apokr.  Susanna- 
Built).     He  adduces  evidence  from  several  sources 
of  a  tradition  of  two  elders,  who,  in  the  Captivity, 
led  astray  silly  women,  by  the  persuasion,  that, 
through  them,  they  would  become  the  mother  of  a 
great  prophet,  or  of  the  Messiah.     These  stories 
are  an  amplification  or  embellishment  of  j'-r^f. '   . 
Avhere  we  rend  of  two  prophets,  Ahaband  /odekiah, 
whom  '  Nebuchadnezzar  roasted  in  the  fire  because 
they  committed  folly  in  Israel,  and  committed  adul- 
tery with   their  neighbours'  wives.      Ongen  and 
Jeiome  both  knew  of  the  elaborated  form  of  this 
incident,  and  it  occurs  with  sundry  variations  in 
iMiiliash  Tanhumaon  Leviticus;  Bab.  1  aim.  ,ban- 
licdnn  93 «;  Boraitha  of  K.  Eliezer,  c.  33,  and  in 
Fesikta  No.  2.5.     Here  we  have  materials  for  the 
former  half  of   the  story:   but  not  for  the  trial. 
The  reasons  for  the  rehabilitation  of  the  tradition, 
with  the  trial  attached,  are  ingeniously  supposed 
to  have  arisen  about  B.C.   100,  when  bimon  ben 
Shetach  was  president  of  the  Sanhedrin.     feiinon 
was  extremely  anxious  to  introduce  reforms  into 
criminal  procedure.     It  is  said  that  his  son  was 
falsely  accused  of  a  capital  oBence.     On  the  w-ay 
to  his  execution  the  false  witnesses  confessed  the 
crime,   but  the  son   said   t«  his   father.      If   the 
salvation  of  Israel  can  be  wrought  through  you, 
consider  me  the  threshold  over  which  you  may 
pass.'    Simon,   the  Juda-an   Brutus,   let  the  law 


632 


SUSANNA 


SWALLOW 


take  its  course,  that  by  tlie  death  of  one  he  miirht 
save  the  innocent  lives  of  many.  He  advocated  a 
more  careful  examination  of  tlie  witnesses— his 
favourite  dictum  beinj;  :  '  Examine  the  witnesses 
abundantly'  (Pirke  Ahoth  i.  9).  He  souylit  also 
to  suijpress  perjury  by  insisting  that  he  who  swore 
falsely  should,  if  detected,  be  [junished  with  the 
same  penalty  as  he  sought  to  inllict  on  another. 
(N.B.— The  elders  were  put  to  death  for  see/cini/ 
to  cause  Susanna's  death).  The  Sadducees,  against 
Simon,  interpreted  the  law,  '  an  ej'e  for  an  eye,' 
etc.,  to  mean  that  the  false  witness  should  be 
punished,  if  his  crime  were  detected  after  the 
penalty  had  been  inflicted  on  the  innocent  one. 
We  must  confess  that  the  a|)pearance  of  our 
'Histoiy'  at  such  a  juncture  would  be  most 
opportune  for  Simon.  There  is,  it  seems  to  us,  a 
further  coincidence.  The  moral  of  the  narrative 
is,  in  LXX,  sunmied  up  thus :  '  Because  of  this, 
young  men  are  beloved  in  Jacob,  by-virtue-of  {if) 
their  ingenuousness  (dTrXiTijn) :  and  as  for  us,  let 
us  take  heed  that  our  youths  be  powerful  ;  for 
young  men  ^WU  be  pious,  and  there  will  be  in 
them  a  spirit  of  knowledge  and  understanding 
for  ever  and  ever.'  Clearly,  this  is  a  eulogy  on 
youth ;  and  m;iy  well  have  been  meant  as  a  com- 
pliment to  Alexander  Janna-us,  whose  adviser 
Simon  was,  and  who  ascended  the  throne  at  the 
age  of  twenty-three. 

This  assumes  that  the  '  History  '  is  of  Palestinian 
origin :  and  there  is  nothing  against  this.  If  it 
cannot  be  proved  to  have  been  originally  written 
in  Aramaic,  it  cannot  be  proved  that  it  was 
not. 

An  argument,  as  old  as  the  time  ot  Origen,  which  has  been 
Adduced  in  favour  of  a  Greek  original,  seems  to  the  present 
writer  untenable.  In  vv.Mf.  and  ^^-  there  ocourtwo  paranomasise. 
Daniel  asks  the  first  elder:  'Under  what  tree  didst  thou  see 
them?'  and  the  reply  is:  'Under  a  mastic  tree'  (Or.  o-;tr.oO  ; 
and  Daniel  says:  'The  angel  of  God  shall  clrave  {<rx.<rit)  thy 
Boul  to-day.'  The  second  elder  replies :  '  Under  a  /io/m-tree ' 
(tp)»K)  ;  and  Daniel  says  :  '  The  angel  of  God  has  a  sword  to  cut 
thee  in  two'  (T/s.o-a.  <rO.  These  verbal  plays  are  so  ingenious 
that  they  have  been  held  by  m.any  to  prove,  beyond  all  con- 
troversy, a  Greek  origmal.  There  is  no  more  cogency  in  this, 
it  seetus  to  us,  than  if,  supposing  all  early  VSS  to  be  lost,  we 
should  read  in  English:  'Under  a  dovt  tree*  .  .  .  'the  Lord 
shall  cleave  thee,'  '  Under  a  i/eic  tree '  .  .  .  '  the  Lord  shall  Atn<; 
thee,'  and  should  therefrom  infer  Ku<jlish  authorship.  Origen 
says  that  he  asked  many  Jews  to  furnish  him  with  Heb.  words 
that  would  produce  a  similar  assonance :  but  always  io  vain 
(.\ligne,  xi.  ei-tio).  If  Ileb.  fails,  Aramaic  is  equal  to  the  de- 
mand. The  'mastick'  is  in  Syriac  VSS  Npn^D  (using  Heb. 
letters) ;  and  the  verb  '  to  cut  in  two '  is  poD  :  the  word  which 
occurs  in  Pal  Syr  of  Mk  016  'I  beheaded  John.'  In  the  second 
case  Lj  and  W„  have  N:on  'a  pomegranate' ;  opposite  which, 
we  surmise  that  there  originally  stood  the  words:  'The  angel 
of  God  shall  precipitate  thee'  (ND"1).  This  is  the  punishment 
stated  in  LXX  to  have  been  inflicted:  'They  muzzled  them 
and  threiv  them  down  into  the  ravine.'  The  verb  ND"l  is  used 
in  this  same  sense  in  the  Aram,  ot  Du  320  ()16,  and  in  the  Targ. 
ot  Jon  1"',  Ezk  16*. 

iv.  Canonicity. — The  History  of  Susanna  was 
incluilcd  in  the  Canon  by  the  (ireek,  Syrian,  and 
Latin  Chunlu--.  The  lirst  to  dispute  its  claim  was 
Julias  Africaiuis.  In  his  Letter  to  Origen  he 
powerfully  questions  its  historicity  (Bissell,  446), 
and  calls  it  a  aOyypafj^fia  vtwrepiKby  nal  TrfTrXaa- 
liJvoi'.  Origen  makes  a  rejoinder  to  each  of  his 
objections,  but  the  replies  are  far  from  satisfactory. 
Iren.-eus  cites  vv.^--  '^  and  "  as  '  voices  from  Daniel 
the  propliet'  {adv.  Jlrer.  iv.  26.  3),  and  TertuUian 
refers  to  our  history  {de  Corona,  iv.).  Hippolytus 
treats  it  exegetically  at  the  commencement  of  his 
Comni.  on  Daniel ;  and  fragments  are  extant  of  a 
Comni.  by  Origen  in  Book  x.  of  his  Stromata, 
from  which  Jerome  makes  extracts  in  his  Comm. 
on  Daniel,  c.  xiii.  Schiirer  {HJP  U.  iii.  186) 
collects  Origen's  citations  from  Susanna. 

Literature.— Ball  in  Speaker's  Apocr.  ii.  3'23  fl.  ;  Fritzschc, 
Uandhucli  zu  den  Apokr.  i.  116  f.,  U2t.;  Schiirer,  II J  I'  11.  iii. 
IS3  fl  ;   Zockler,  ApuL-r.  deti  AT  213  II.;    Bissell    in    Lange'a 


Apocr,  44.5  fl.;  TS\<i\\'aoTn,  Einleitunf]  in  die  Apokr.  Schriftcn. 
447  ff. ;  Uothstein  in  Kautzsch's  Apokr.  u.  Pseudepinr.  d.  AT 

i-  i78ff-  J.  T.  Marshall. 

SCSI  ('Qto ;  B  Souffci,  AF  SowO.— A  Manassite, 
Nu  13'=  <").  The  text,  however,  is  doubtful  (sea 
Nestle,  Eigennamcn,  209;  Gray,  HPN  92;  Dillm. 
Am.  ad  loc. ). 

SWADDLE,  SWADDLING-BANDS  (nVjiq  hdth- 
ullah  ;  '  to  swaddle '  [^nn]  hdthal,  airapyavbui).- — The 
wrapping  in  swaddling-clothes  is  at  the  present  day, 
as  it  was  in  ancient  times,  one  of  the  hrst  services 
rendered  to  the  newborn  infant  in  the  East.  The 
child  is  laid  across  the  diagonal  of  a  square  of 
cloth  of  which  the  corners  are  folded  over  the 
body  and  feet  and  under  tlie  head.  The  bandages, 
wliich  are  of  plain  cotton  among  the  poor  and  of 
silk  and  embroidered  work  in  the  case  of  the  rich, 
are  then  wrapped  round  the  cloth  which  encases 
the  child.     The  custom  seems  to  point  back  to  the 


rXtktn  IK  SWADDLINQ-CtOinKS. 


early  nomadic  life,  as  the  bandaging  not  only  aflbrda 
protection  against  cold  and  support  to  the  spine,  but 
also  bj'  the  confinement  of  tlie  limbs  enables  the 
mother  more  easily  to  carry  the  child  on  the  day's 
jimrney.  During  the  first  week  salt  water  (Ezk 
IG')  is  applied  daily  to  the  lips  and  flexures  of  the 
body  wherever  the  tender  skin  might  become 
iiiHamed.  This  hardening  process  as  a  protection 
against  chafing  is  further  assisted  by  dusting  the 
joints  with  a  powder  of  pounded  myrtle  leaves,  and 
any  tender  or  irritated  parts  of  the  skin  are  rubbed 
with  olive  oil.  The  absence  of  these  attentions  at 
the  birth  of  Israel  (Ezk  16')  indicated  the  outcast 
insignilicance  of  the  nation  at  the  beginning. 
Amid  tlie  privations  of  the  manger  at  Bethlehem 
this  maternal  duty  was  carefully  attended  to  (Lk 
2'-'-).  The  s\vaddlin"-bands  are  daily  unfastened 
in  attending  to  the  i-liild,  but  the  practice  is  kept 
up  for  about  a  year  until  the  child  is  strong  enough 
to  use  his  limbs.  The  Oriental  cradle  has  not  the 
high  sides  of  the  Western  cradle  or  infant's  crib, 
and  the  infant  is  firmly  tied  down  by  long  straps 
resembling  the  swaddling-bands  round  the  body. 
This  idea  of  restraint  appears  in  the  majestic 
figure  of  the  clouds  as  the  swaddling-bands  of  the 
sea  (Job  3S»).  In  La  1^'  the  AV  'swaddled'  ('prisa 
tippahti)  is  in  UV  tr.  'dandled.'  The  word  is  a 
denominative  from  nso  '  span '  or  '  palm  of  \die 
hand.' 

The  English  words  'swaddle 'and  'swathe 'are 
merely  diflerent  spellings  of  Anglo-Sax.  swethel  or 
swethd.  a  strip  of  cloth  for  wrapping  a  child,  or  for 
bandaging  in  any  way.  Cf.  Purchas,  Pilgrirrutge, 
446,  '  Their  feet  to  this  end  so  straitly  swadled  in 
their  infancie  that  they  grow  but  little.' 

G.  M.  Mackie. 

SWALLOW.— Two  words  are  tr''  'swallow'  in 
AV,  and  a  third  in  KV.  1.  iS-n  dir6r  (Ps  84« 
LXX  rpvyuv  ;  Pr  26*  LXX  (TTpovBbt  = '  sparrow  '  or 
other  small  bird).  The  allusion  to  the  nesting  of 
this  bird  in  the  sanctuary  and  its  swift  (unalighting) 


SWAN 


SWORD 


633 


flight  fit  the  swallow.  2.  ii:v  'a^ur  (Is  38"  LXX 
irfpiffTtpd  =' pigeon  ' ;  Jer  8'  LXX  (rTpou9/o>'  =  ' spar- 
row' or  other  small  bird).  'Agiir  (see  CRANE) 
seems  to  be  an  adjective,  and  )ierhaps  signilies 
'twitterer'  instead  of 'crane'  (UV),  and  is  ex- 
planatory of  ?!(.«  or  f!'^  ;  see,  further,  Dillm.-Kittel 
on  Is  3b".  3.  oo  fu^,  O'c  sis,  should  be  tr*  as  in 
KV  (Is  38'*,  Jer  8'),  'swallow'  insteud  of  'crane' 
(AV;  see  Ckane).  If  ^i!*  or  sU  be  the  swallow,  or 
better,  the  swift  or  martin,  the  twittering  could 
only  refer  to  its  note  in  its  nest.  The  allusion  to 
the  migratory  habits  of  the  bird  would  suit  the 
swallow.  The  following  swallows  and  swifts  or 
martins  are  common  in  the  Holy  Land  : — Hirundo 
Savygnii,  Steph.,  the  Oriental  swallow  ;  II.  rustica, 
L.,  tiie  common  swallow  (Arab.  siiniinU,  or  sUs  or 
fts);  H.  rufuhi,  Temm.,  the  red-rumpcd  swallow  ; 
Chelidon  urbica,  L.,  the  martin  ;  Cutyle  riparia, 
L.,  the  sand  martin;  C.  rupestris.  Scop.,  the  crag 
martin;  C.  obsoleta.  Cab.,  the  pale  crag  martin; 
Cypselus  apus,  L.,  the  black  martin  or  swift;  C. 
melba,  L.,  and  C.  Galileensis,  would  be  included 
under  the  popular  conception  of  the  swallow  or 
twift.  Any  or  all  of  them  would  sometimes  be 
calltd  fiJ.f  or  f?f.  G.  E.  Post. 

SWAN.— The  AV  tr°  (twice)  of  ncrjn  tinshemeth, 
a  word  which  occurs  thrice  in  the  list  of  unclean 
creatures,  once  at  the  end  of  a  list  of  lizards  (see 
Mole,  1  (6)),  and  twice  among  the  birds  (Lv  II" 
LXX  )rop0up(uii'=' water-hen,'  Vulg.  porphyria,  RV 
'  horned  owl,'  m.  '  swan ' ;  Dt  U"  LXX  r;3is,  Vulg. 
ibis,  RV  '  horned  owl ').  The  arguments  agaiii.st 
the  swan  are — (1)  There  is  no  reason  why  the 
swan  should  have  been  held  unclean.  (2)  The  swan 
is  very  rare  in  the  Holy  Land  and  Egypt,  and 
therefore  would  have  been  little  recognized.  (3) 
The  ancient  VSS  are  against  it.  The  gallinule  or 
water-hen  (Purpkyrio)  and  the  ibis  are,  however, 
birds  which  would  have  been  lield  unclean,  which 
are  quite  common,  and  each  of  which  has  the 
support  of  one  passage  in  the  VSS.  Porphyriu 
cttruleus,  Vandelli,  the  Purple  Gallinule,  and  Jbis 
rtligiosa,  L.,  or  /.  falcinelta,  L.,  the  (jlossy  Ibis, 
would  suit  the  requirements  of  the  passages. 

G.  E.  Post. 

SWEARING See  Oath. 

SWEAT,— See  Medicine,  vol.  iU.  p.  330*. 

SWEET  CANE.— See  REEm. 

SWINE  (Tiq  Mzir). — This  word  is  cognate  to  the 
Arab,  kidnzir.  '  The  LXX  tr.  hiizir  in  Ps  80"  a6% 
(AV  and  RV  'boar'),  Lv  II',  Dt  14»,  Pr  11»  Os 
(AV  and  RV  'swine')  There  is  no  question  as  to 
the  identity  of  the  animal  intended.  The  NT  word 
for  it  is  xoj/x"-  The  eating  of  swine's  liesh  is  for- 
bidden in  Israel  (Lv  11',  Dt  14*),  hence  the  in- 
fringement of  this  rule  was  one  of  the  practices 
to  which  the  Hellenizing  party  sought  to  compel 
the  faithful  (2  Mac  6'»).  The  flesh  (Is  65'  06")  and 
blood  (6(i')  of  swine  are  described  as  characteristi- 
cally heathen  and  repulsive  oll'erings  (cf.  1  Mac  !■"). 
A  jewel  of  gold  in  a  swine's  snout  is  used  as  a 
■imile  of  a  fair  woman  of  doubtful  character  (Pr 
11'").  A  wild  boar  appears  as  lig.  of  the  foes  of 
Israel  (Ps80'*).  The  ancient  Egyptians  and  Phoen- 
icians, as  well  as  the  Jews,  regarded  swine  as 
nnclean.  Mohammedans  are,  if  possible,  more 
intense  than  the  Jews  in  their  disgust  for  them. 
To  call  a  man  a  hog  is  worse  than  to  call  him  a 
dog.  This  feeling  is  shared  by  most  of  the  Chris- 
tians in  Palestine.  Rut  a  considerable  number  of 
them  breed  swine  and  eat  their  flesh.  .Swine's 
flesh  ii  sold  in  a  number  of  shops  in  Beirut.  The 
writer  has  seen  native  Christians  in  Amanus 
bunting  wild  swine,  which  are  very  abundant  in 


that  range,  as  also  in  the  Jordan  Valley,  and  in 
the  higher  regions  of  Lebanon  and  Anlilebanon. 
It  would  appear  that,  in  the  time  of  Christ,  Jews 
had  come  lo  raising  swine  in  large  herds  (Mt  8*" 
etc.,  Lk  15">).  G.  E.  Post. 

SWORD  in  OT  is  the  rendering  of  several 
Hebrew  words : — 1.  .^^;^  mekhirdh.  On  4;i'  RV 
'weapons  of  violence  are  their  swords'  (better 
RVni  'compacts').  The  word  is  of  very  doubtful 
meaning,  the  VSS  being  at  fault ;  cf.  Dillinann, 
Genesis,  ad  loc.  2.  n^y  shelah,  Jl  2'  AV  (bettei 
RV  'weapons').  3.  pT?  kidvn.  Sir  40=,  through 
the  l)Ofj.<pala  of  LXX  (better  '  spear'  as  Jos  8"-  ^  or 
'  javelin  ').  i.  3-in  herebh  (the  usual  word,  occurring 
with  great  frequency  in  OT),  which  can  nearly 
always  be  tr''  'sword  or  'dagger'  (Jg  3"),  but  once 
had  a  more  general  meaning ;  cf.  the  Arab,  /uirb 
'war.'  Thushereb/i  is  'tool'  Ex  20=»,  'axes'  Ezk26», 
and  'mattocks'  2  Ch  34"  AV  (RVm  'axes';  RV, 
following  a  difl'erent  reading,  '  in  their  ruins' ;  the 
text  is  quite  dubious),  and  in  Jos  5"  D-iis  nu-ir) 
harbhCth  ziuim  is  '  knives  of  flint.'  Probably 
therefore  herebh  denoted  originally  the  primitive 
flint  implement,  which,  according  to  its  varying 
shape  and  size,  might  serve  the  purpo.se  of  spear- 
head, arrow-head,  axe,  hammer,  or  knife,  buch 
implements  have  been  found  during  the  excava- 
tion of  Tell  el-llesy  (Lachish).  The  '  blade  '  of  a 
sword  and  the  '  head '  of  a  spear  are  alike  called 
3ii^  lahabh. 


8T0KE   KNITE  FROM  TELL  KL-ESST  (LACmSH). 

(By  kind  permission  of  the  PEF). 

In  size  the  herebh  was  probably  quite  short. 
Ehud's  'sword'  (Jg  3"  RV)  was  a  cubit  (about  17 
inches)  long,  and  Goliath's  (1  S  21")  was  a  possible 
weapon  for  David.  The  material  of  all  weajjons 
of  ortence  was  sometimes  iron  and  sometimes 
bronze  (cf.  Gn  4=^  Jos  8"',  1  S  17',  Jg  1'",  Is  10") ; 
at  the  excavations  at  Tell  el-Iiesy  (Lachish)  spear- 
heails  and  a  battle-axe  of  bronze  were  found  as 
well  as  arrow-heads  and  a  curved  dagger  (kluinjar) 
of  iron  (E.  J.  liliss,  PEFSt,  1892,  pp.  101-113,  with 
illustrations ;  for  mines  in  Palestine  cf.  Driver  on 
Dt  8").  Roughly  speaking,  the  diflerence  of  metal 
marks  a  dilterence  of  time,  bronze  weapons  being 
earlier  than  tho.se  of  iron  or  steel.  In  shape  the 
herebh  was  sometimes  curved  with  a  sharp  inner 
edge  like  the  Egyptian  sword,  sometimes  straight 
like  tlie  weapon  worn  by  the  Assyrians ;  for  illus- 
trations see  R.  E.  Burton,  Book  of  the  Sword, 
pp.  150,  205.  The  '  double-ed<red  '  herebh  (Jg  3'",  Pa 
149",  Pr  5*,  Sir  2P)  might  be  either  curved  or 
straight ;  cf.  Burton,  iis  above. 

The  use  of  the  sword  was  twofold  :  in  war  to 
despatch  the  flying  or  fallen  enemy  after  the  bow 
and  the  spear  hsA  done  their  work,  in  peace  to 
execute  malefactors ;  cf.  1  K  2"-  **.  The  sword 
was  carried  in  a  slieath  (^l'P  ta'ar,  Jer  47",  or  n* 
nadan,  1  Ch  21-'')  '  i^irobably  of  leather'  (Nowack, 
Heb,  Arc/idologie,  i.  303),  but  ancient  sheaths 
were  made  also  of  metal  (Burton,  p.  222,  with 
note  11),  of  wood  (Schliemann,  Myeenie,  p.  281  ; 
cf.  p.  303),  of  ivory  (Odyssey,  viii.  404),  and  perhaps 
even  of  linen  (Schliemann,  p.  283).  When  not 
worn  a  awoid  might  be  wrapped  in  a  cloth  (1  S  21'), 
just  as  blades  are  bandaged  with  greased  rags  by 
llie  natives  of  India  (Burton,  p.  232).  The  sheathed 
sword  was  worn  hanging  from  a  girdle  (iSjo  hdgOr, 
2S20";  cf.  I's4531«)). 

Among  the  many  interesting  sword-passages  oi 
1  the  OT  are : — Gn  8"  RV  (the  two  guardians  ar« 


634 


SWORD 


SYCAMORE,  SYCOMORE 


the  cherubim  and  the  darting  flame,  i.e.  prob- 
alily  the  lightning ;  cf.  Burton,  p.  183,  who  sug- 
gests the  disc-lilve  sword  of  Merodach)  ;  Gn  4-' 
(tlie  Song  of  the  Discoveiy  of  the  Sword,  according 
to  some) ;  i)t  33-"  (the  Lo'ltD  Israel's  Bword,  so  E  V 
rightly);  Jg  7t'*)- ^o  (tjjg  war-cry  'a  sword  for  tlie 
LoRU  and  for  Gideon');  Is  27'  (the  Lord's  sword 
of  chastisement) ;  Is  2*  =  Mic  4'  ( '  swords  into  plow- 
shares '  a  symbol  of  peace) ;  Jl  3"*  [4'"]  ('  plowshares 
into  swords'  a  symbol  of  war);  2  Mac  15"  (the 
prophet  Jeremiah  delivers  a  golden  sword  to  Judas 
Maccabopus  in  a  vision). 

In  LXX  and  NT  '  sword'  is  represented  by  three 
words : — 1.  (i(pos,  a  long  straight  sword,  only  in 
LXX.  2.  fidxaipa,  a  word  used  to  describe  a  mere 
knife  (Gn  22'",  Jg  lO'-"  LXX  (A)  for  n^:.«  ma'ukhc- 
leth ;  cf.  Lk  22=«  in  F.  Field,  Notes  on  the  Trans- 
lation of  NT,  pp.  76,  77),  as  well  as  the  legionary's 
sword  (Eph  6"),  and  the  executioner's  weapon  (Ac 
12'-).  Jldxaipa  is  used  in  Mt  26"'-,  a  verse  sometimes 
supposed  to  refer  to  war,  but  really  referring  to 
ordinary  violence  ;  in  Eph  G"  of  the  'sword  of  the 
Spirit,  the  word  of  God  (pw^  Seou) '  received  (not 
'  taken ')  by  the  Christian  warrior;  and  in  He  4'- 
of  the  two-edged  sword  with  which  '  the  word 
(6  Xi7os)  of  God'  is  compared.*  3.  po/i^oia,  a  word 
of  somewhat  doubtful  meaning,  but  used  in  several 
interesting  passages.  It  is  found  in  Latin  in  the 
forms  romfea  (Sir  46=)  and  rumpia  (Livy,  .xxxi.  3'.l). 
It  is  certain  that  it  was  a  Thracian  weapon  of 
large  size  (Livy,  loc.  cit.),  but  wliether  it  was  a 
sword  or  a  spear  is  not  quite  certain.  In  Plutarch 
(/Emil.  18)  the  Thracians  are  spoken  of  as  opBki 
^OfKpaias  ^apvffiO'^povi  dv6  tCjv  oe^Luiv  ui^ojv  tVtcreiofTes 
('having  straight  i-umpus  of  hea\y  iron  swaying 
from  their  right  shoulders').  Suidas  (ed.  Bern- 
hardy,  1853)  gives  t6  fj.aKpdv  dKut^Ttov  ^  /idxatpa,  and 
Hesychius  (Leyden,  1766)  /idx^'P",  Ji<^os,  i)  dKovTiov 
ixaKphv.  In  the  '  Vulgate '  Psalter  (taken  from  the 
LXX)  poiKpaiai  is  rendered /ramefc  (i.e.  large  spears 
such  as  were  used  by  the  Germans)  in  Ps  9', 
where  Jerome's  '  Hebrew '  Psalter  gives  solitudines 
( =nmn).  The  usual  Syr.  rendering  is  '  sword,'  but 
in  Lk  2"'  both  Pesh.  and  Syr"""  give  rumha  '  lance,' 
and  in  Rev  1'*  the  Philoxenian  (ed.  Gwynn,  1897) 
gives  ruha  (apparently  a  mistake  for  rumhn). 
General  Pitt-Rivers,  quoted  by  Burton  (p.  183), 
speaks  of  a  '  leaf  shaped  sword-blade  attached  to 
the  end  of  the  spear  like  the  Thracian  romphca,' 
but  Burton  himself  (p.  237)  says  that  in  modem 
Romaic  it  denotes  the  Jlaniberge,  the  wavy  blade 
carried  by  angels  in  art  (ib.  pp.  136,  138).  That 
popL(pala  may  possibly  mean  'spear'  is  disputed 
by  W.  Wayte  (Smith's  Diet.  Antiq.*  1890),  but 
acknowledged  by  Plunimer  on  Lk  2**. 

Instances  of  the  use  of  lioii.<t>a.la.  are — Gn  3"  (rriv 
(pXoyivTiv  p.,  see  above) ;  1  Ch  21"-"  (the  sword  of 
pestilence);  Sir  46-  (Heb.  ['n-j  klddn  'javelin'); 
2  Mac  15"  ('the  sword  seen  in  vision) ;  Lk  2"  (the 
sword  of  anguish).  Rev  l'«  19">  (the  sword  of  judg- 
ment proceeding  out  of  the  mouth  of  the  glorilicd 
Christ;  cf.  Is  11*  49-).  This  hist  image  is  not  so 
strange  as  appears  at  first  sight,  for  the  short 
Roman  sword  was  tongue  -  like  in  shape,  as  the 
annexed  illustration  (taken  from  Lindenschmit, 
Tracht  u.  BewnJ/'nung.  Tab,  xi.  lig.  11)  shows. 


BOIIAX  DAOOES. 

(By  kind  permission  of  Messrs.  VIeveg  u.  Sohn). 


•  Of.  Bab.  Taliu.  lii'rukhoth  ^a,  '  R.  Isaac  said.  Every  one 
who  recites  the  Sh^ma  (lit  o-")  upon  his  bed  (P»  1495)  ia  aa  if  he 
held  a  two-edged  sword  in  bis  hand.' 


LiTKRATrRB.— Sir  Richard  Burton's  Bookof  the  Stvord  (Lonion, 
1884)  is  a  work  of  j,'reat  but  unequal  merit,  with  many  helpful 
illustrations ;  pp.  183-lSti  are  on  The  Jewish  Sword.  Schlie* 
uiann's  MyceiuK  (London,  1S73)  contains  a  good  deal  of  in- 
formation about  ancient  Greek  swords.     For  other  works  sea 

ARMS.  -vv.  Emery  Baknes. 

SYCAMINE  (avKi^voi,  Lk  17').  — As  St.  Luke 
alludes  by  name  to  the  siji-omore  (avKoiiopia),  it  is 
l)rob.  [but  see  Plummer,  ad  loc.'\  that  he  discrimin- 
ates between  it  and  the  sycamine.  By  consent  of 
scholars,  ijvKaij.ivot  is  the  Black  Mulberry,  Moras 
nigra,  L.,  the  strict  signification  of  the  word.  Yet 
a-vudfiivos  undoubtedly  signifies  also  the  sycomore. 
In  all  the  passages  in  the  OT  where  cofv*  and 
nrp-,;'  occur  (1  K  lu-',  1  Ch  27-'*,  2  Ch  1"  9",  Ps  78-', 
Is  9'^  Am  7'''),  the  LXX  tr.  it  by  <rvKdpA.voi  (or  -av). 
As  it  is  undoubted  that  shikmim  and  shikniuth 
refer  to  the  sycomore,  we  conclude  that  the  LXX 
so  understood  avKdixiPos.  The  true  sycamine  is 
therefore  mentioned  but  once  in  the  canonical 
books  of  the  Bible  and  once  in  Apocr.  (1  Mac  6" 
iMopoi,  AV  and  RV  '  mulberry ').  It  is  a  fine  tree 
of  the  order  Urticacem,  with  a  hemispherical  comus, 
20-30  ft.  high.  Its  leaves  are  cordate  -  ovate, 
undivided  or  more  or  less  lobed  and  toothed. 
They  are  too  tough  to  be  suitable  food  for  the  silk- 
worm, like  those  of  the  White  Mulberry,  Moms 
alba,  L.  The  fruit  resembles  in  size  and  shape  the 
larger  varieties  of  blackberries.  It  really  consists 
of  an  aggregation  of  flowers,  in  an  oblong  spike, 
the  succulent  part  of  the  fruit  being  the  fleshy 
sepals.  It  has  a  pleasant  acid  taste,  and  is 
sold  in  all  Oriental  fruit  markets.  It  is  so 
abundant  in  Damascus  as  to  be  known  as  tiit- 
s/((J/nj  =  Damascus  Mulberry.  Neither  it  nor  the 
white  mulberry  is  to  be  confounded  with  the 
'mulberry  trees'  of  2  S  5'^-'",  1  Ch  14"- »;  see 
Mulberry.  G.  E.  Post. 

SYCAMORE,  SYCOMORE.— As  pointed  out  under 
Sycamine,  the  Heb.  c-jfr  and  mci;-.:'  refer  to  the 
sycomore,  which  must  not  be  confused  with  the 
tree  known  by  that  name  in  England  and  America 
— Acer  pseudo-platanus,  L.,  the  false  plane  tree. 
The  reference  is  to  a  tree  of  the  same  order, 
Urticacem,  as  the  sycamine.  It  is  of  the  same 
genus  as  the  fio;,  and  known  in  botany  as  Ficus 
Sycomoni^,\j.,Axa,\i.juinmeiz.  It  has  a  flattened 
spherical  comus,  from  15-50  ft.  high,  often  one- 
sided, as  in  the  illustration,  and  sometimes  shading 


8YC0M0RE  TKEE  u\  h     MVMnMJ    A    ROADWAT. 

(The  hedfce  Co  the  right  is  Indian  FigX 

an  area  60-80  ft.  in  diameter.  As  it  is  very  fre- 
quently planted  by  roadsides,  its  long,  nearly 
horizontal  branches  jjroject  over  the  road.  It  was 
therefore  eminently  a  suitable  tree  for  Zaccheua 
to  climb  (Lk  19^)  in  order  to  see  Jesus  pas.sing. 
Seated  on  its  lowest  branch,  he  would  be  within 
easy    speaking   distance   of    the    Savioiu.     The 


SYCHAR 


SYMiMACHUS 


635 


foliage  also  is  not  usually  dense,  esp.  in  the  old 
trees  by  waysides.  The  trunks  often  attain  a 
ver3'  lar''e  size,  sometimes  3ti— JO  ft.  in  circumfer- 
ence. The  leaves  are  ovatesubcordate.  The  fruit 
is  a  small,  not  very  jjalatable  lig,  about  1  in.  long, 
growing  thick  together  on  curious  little  leafless 
twigs  on  the  trunk  or  large  branches.  Whatever 
may  have  been  the  custom  in  ancient  times  in  re- 
gard to  puncturing  the  ligs  of  the  sycomore  to 
cause  them  to  ripen,  or  to  improve  their  flavour, 
this  is  no  longer  done  in  Palestine.  The  fruit  is 
either  shaken  down  or  plucked  as  it  ripens,  and 
eaten  without  any  preparation.  It  ripens  in  suc- 
cessive instalments  almost  throughout  the  year. 
The  wood  of  the  sycomore,  although  light  and 
porous,  is  durable.  It  was  used  in  Egypt  for 
mummy  cases.  It  is  not  now  so  common  in  the 
Holy  Land  as  to  furnish  much  available  timber, 
but  it  was  formerly  very  plentiful,  esp.  in  the  low- 
lands (1  K  10-'',  1  Ch  27-").  It  occurred,  however, 
in  the  hill-country  also.  Amos,  a  Jud;ean  shep- 
herd, collected  {?)*  its  fruit  (7").  The  destroying 
of  sycomore  trees  by  frost  (Ps78'")  was  phenomenal, 
as  frost  is  exceedingly  rare  in  Egypt.  At  the  same 
time  it  w  as  a  great  disaster,  as  the  sycomore  was 
much  cultivated  there  for  the  industrial  uses  of 
its  wood.  Sycaminopolis  (Haifa)  derived  its  name 
from  this  tree.  G.  E.  Post. 

SYCHAR  (ABk  Siocip;  Vulg.  S'^/wr).  —  Jesus 
passini;  through  Samaria,  on  His  way  from  Jud:ia 
to  Galilee,  came  '  to  a  city  of  Samaria  called 
Sychar,'  which  was  '  near  to  the  parcel  of  ground 
that  Jacob  gave  to  his  son  Joseph '  (Jn  4°)  ;  and 
Jacob's  well  was  there  (v.').  The  identihcation 
of  Sj'char  has  been  the  subject  of  much  discus- 
sion. All  commentators  now  agree  that  'Sychar' 
is  the  correct  reading,  and  not  a  copyist's  error 
for  '  Shechem '  as  Jerome  and  Epiphanius  held. 
But  the  question  remains  whether  Sychar  was 
Shechem  or  another  place  in  the  vicinity  of 
Shecliem. 

It  has  been  urged  that,  in  consequence  of  the 
hatred  which  existed  between  the  Jews  and  tlie 
Samaritans,  the  Jewish  common  people  ironically 
called  Shechem  SIdkkor,  '  drunken,  or  Shehcr, 
'falsehood.'  But  there  is  no  evidence  either  in 
Joscphus,  the  Targum,  or  the  Talmud  of  their 
ever  having  done  so  ;  and  the  only  support  of  the 
theory  seems  to  be  that  Isaiah  (28'-^),  referring, 
apparently,  to  the  city  of  Samaria,  denounces  the 
'drunkards'  (shihhurim)  ol  Ephraim  ;  and  that  the 
exjiression  in  Hab  2",  a  '  teacher  of  lies '  (laOrch 
shehcr),  which  refers  to  idolatry,  contains  an  allusion 
to  Moreh  and  Shechem.  These  interi)retations  are 
too  forced,  and  the  suggestion  of  Trench  (Studies 
in  tite  Gospels,  p.  86),  that  St.  John  '  was  himself 
the  autlior  of  the  nickname,'  is  too  far-fetched. 
Another  view  is  that  m  and  r  are  often  confounded 
in  pronunciation  (Olshausen  and  Liicke,  Com.  z. 
Ev.  Joh.  i.  512),  and  that  Sychar  comes  from 
Sychem  as  pronounced  bv  the  Greek  residents  (cf. 
Beliar  for  Bella/,  2  Co  6",  Eph  2-).  The  change 
from  e  to  a  is  not,  however,  explained.  Jerome 
{Ep.  Paul,  and  Quicst.  Gen.)  says  that  Sychar  and 
Sychera  are  the  same  pl.ace,  but  he  gives  no  evi- 
dence, and  attributes  the  altered  form  to  a  coiiyist's 
error.  This  view  has  been  adopted  by  Epiphanius 
and  the  pilgrims  Arculf  (A.U.  070),  Tlieoderich 
(A.u.  1172),  Maundeville  (A.D.  1312),  etc.  ;  and  in 
modem  times  by  Kobinson,  Stanley,  Gu6rin,  and 
Kiehin  (IIWB). 

It  is  more  logical  to  take  Sychar  to  be  another 

•  AV  tr.  b6U»  ifhikmKin,  'a  gatherer  of  sycomore  fruit,'  RV  *» 
dreaaer  of  sycomore  trees.'  It  Is  possilile  that  the  Ileb.  ex- 
pression (cf.  LXX  K»i?«#i.,  Vulp.  VflticanM)  ref*.T8  to  the  above- 
mentioned  method  ol  improving  the  fruiU  See,  further, 
Driver,  ad  loc 


pl.ace  in  the  vicinity  of  Shechem.  The  writer  of 
tlie  Fourth  Gospel  was  well  acquainted  with  the 
or,  which  sulhciently  indicates  the  position  of 
Sliechcm  ;  and  it  is  inconceivable  that  he  should 
have  ilcscribcd  a  well-known  town  with  such  a 
history  and  with  so  many  sacred  associations  as 
'  a  city  of  Samaria  near  the  parcel  of  ground  that 
Jacob  gave  to  his  son  Joseph.'  It  is  also  highly 
improbable  that  St.  John,  in  this  ))articular  narra- 
tive, would  have  referred  to  Shechem  by  a  nick- 
name. St.  Stephen  (Ac  7")  uses  the  LXX  form, 
Sychem  (-i/x^/i),  and  this  would  jnobably  have 
been  employed  by  the  evangelist  if  he  had  not 
intended  to  indicate  another  place.  Sychar  and 
Sychem  are,  in  fact,  distinguished  in  ancient  docu- 
ments. Eusebius  (Onom.)  says  that  Sychar  was 
'  before,'  that  is  '  east'  of  Neapolis  (Ndldus),  which 
he  distinguishes  from  Sychem  —  a  jilace  in  its 
suburbs,  near  Joseph's  tomb.  Jerome  (Onom.) 
translates  this  description  without  remark.  The 
Bordeaux  Pilgrim  (A.D.  333)  makes  a  distinction 
between  Neapolis,  Sichem,  and  Sichar,  and  places 
the  last  one  Koman  mile  from  Sichem.  Sychar  is 
also  mentioned  as  a  distinct  place  from  Neapolis 
and  Sliecliem  by  Abbot  D.iniel  (A.D.  1106),  Fetellus 
(A.D.  1130),  and  John  of  Wurzburg  (A.D.  1160). 
All  these  pilgrims  apparently  refer  to  el-Ashir, — 
a  village  on  the  lower  slopes  of  Mt.  Ebal,  which  has 
a  fine  spring, — 'Ain  el-'Askar,  and  gives  its  name, 
Snhel  'As/car,  to  the  northern  portion  of  the  plain 
of  el-Miihhna.  This  village  answers  much  better 
tlian  such  a  well-known  place  as  Shechem  to  the 
casual  notice  of  St.  John.  Kobinson  (Later  Re- 
searches, p.  133)  held  that  'the  fact  that  'Askar 
begins  with  the  letter  'Ain  excludes  all  idea  of 
afhnity  with  the  name  Sychar.'  But  there  are 
cases,  such  as  Ascalon  ('AskxdAn),  in  which  the 
Alepli  of  the  Hebrew  has  changed  to  an  'Ain.  In 
t!ie  Samaritan  Chronicle,  which  cannot  be  later 
than  the  14th  cent.  A.D. ,  mention  is  made  of  a 
town,  apparently  near  Shechem,  that  is  called 
Ischar, — merely  a  vulgar  pronunciation  of  Sychar, 
— and  the  Samaritans,  in  translating  their  Chron- 
icle into  Arabic,  call  this  place '^«A«r.  Thus  the 
transition  is  traceable  from  the  Hebrew  form, 
througli  the  Samaritan  Lschar,  to  the  Arabic  'Askar 
(Conder,  Tent- Work,  i.  75).  'The  Mishna  mentions 
a  place  called  '  the  plain  of  En-Sokher,'  which  is 
perhaps  Sj'char  (Neubauer,  G^of/.  da  Talmud, 
p.  169).  Schwarz  (IIL  p.  127)  correctly  identihes 
En-Sokher  with '.J /n  cl- Askar,  and  the  plain  with 
the  Sahcl  'Askar.  Tlicre  is  thus  a  strong  case  for 
the  identification  of  Sychar  with  el-'Askar.  This 
view  is  supported  by  Thomson  (L.  and  B.  ch.  31), 
Williams  (Smith's  D.  of  G.  ii.  4126),  Kaumer 
(Pal.  p.  163),  Ewald  (Gesch.  iv.  284,  v.  348,  3rd  ed.), 
Derenbourg  (Gtog.  du  Talmud,  p.  169),  Caspari, 
Neubauer,  Conder,  Smith  (UGIIL  p.  367 11'.— a 
good  summary  of  the  question),  Tristram,  and 
others.  C.  W.  Wilson. 

SYCHEM  (Sux^/x;  5icAc7»).— The  Greek  (LXX 
Gn  12"  etc.)  form  of  Shechem.  It  occurs  only  in 
the  speech  of  St.  Stephen  (Ac  7"),  according  to 
which  the  twelve  sons  of  Jacob  were  buried  in 
Sychem,  in  the  tomb  that  Abraham  bought  of 
Ilamor  (Emnior)  in  Sychem.     See  SllKCllKM. 

Although  in  the  auove-namcd  passage  in  Acts 
the  strictly  accurate  reproduction  of  the  original 
demands  Sydiem  (so  AV),  ItV,  consistently  with 
its  practice  of  following  the  Hebrew  in  the  case  of 
OT  names,  gives  Shcc!i*:m.  C.  W.  WiLSON. 

SYENE.— See  Seveneh. 

8YME0N See  Simeon. 

SYMMACHU3.— See  Versions  (GrkekV 


S36 


SYNAGOGUE 


SYNAGOGUE 


SYNAGOGUE.— 

L  Tlie  name, 
ii.  Oritj'iu  and  history. 

iii.  Situation  of  the  building,  style  of  architecture,  etc. 
iv.  SjTiagoj^e  worship,  officials,  eta 
V.  Tlie  synagog^ie  as  an  elementary  schooL 
vL  Other  uses  of  the  synagogue, 
vii  Latest  history  of  the  synagogue. 
Literature. 

i.  The  Name. — Synagogue  is  the  name  applied 
to  the  place  of  asseiiiuly  used  by  .Jewish  com- 
munities primarily  for  the  purpose  of  public 
worship.  Tlie  Or.  awwyuiyij  stands  for  the 
assembly  itself,  and  represents  in  the  LXX  in 
most  instances  the  Hel;.  nii;.  So  also  in  the  Heb. 
Sirach  {e.g.  4'  41^')  .17^  answers  to  the  avva.-fi;i>yfi  of 
the  Gr.  text.  The  Aramaic  versions  of  the  Bible 
reproduce  nij  by  kb^'J?  (Syr.  Nn!7i:D).  The  verb 
b-:d,  from  which  this  Aram,  substantive  is  derived, 
has  its  representative  in  Hebrew  in  the  rare  verb 
C3D,  which  is  used  in  Est  4'*  of  the  assembling  of 
the  Jews  of  Susa  for  a  religious  fast.  The  common 
Heb.  verb  idk  is  translated  in  Aramaic  by  c:;,  in 
Greek  by  amiyu  (cf.  e.g.  Jl  2").  From  DJ3  (of  which 
the  verbal  noun  is  .in-jj  in  the  special  sense  of  assem- 
bling for  worship,  Megilla,  i.  1,  Gen.  rah.  eh.  49, 
on  Gn  IS")  was  formed,  as  the  equivalent  of  the 
Aram.  Nn::"j3,  the  subst.  n;:?,  which  may  indeed 
stand  for  any  gathering,  but  which  appears  at  a 
very  early  date  to  have  acquired  the  special  sense 
of  an  assemblage  for  worship.  It  was  perhaps 
originally  this  special  sense  that  was  attached  to 
the  word  when  the  gathering  of  which  we  read  in 
Neh  Q'-IO**  was  called  nSnjn  nD33  '  the  great 
assembly'  [iEr.x3  of  Neh  9'  is  translated  in  Pesh. 
by  iK'iDnK,  in  LXX  by  avvi]x9i\aa.v\ ;  for  this  epoch- 
making  assembly  had  the  marks  of  a  worshipping 
body  (fasting,  reading  of  the  Torah,  confession  of 
sin,  prayer).  See  art.  SYNAGOGUE  (The  Great). 
The  house,  in  which  the  meeting  for  worship  was 
held,  was  called  nDjsn  n'a  (Aram,  .sjjy'j?  '2),  but  the 
■words  nj33  and  Kny":?  standing  alone  may  also  be 
used  for  the  place  of  meeting.  It  is  noteworthy 
that  in  the  Pal.  Talmud  the  use  of  KnB":D  predomi- 
nates, in  the  Bab.  Talmud  NnB"j3  '3.  The  plural 
of  njj;!  is  nvcjj  (from  a  supposed  *n"C]| ;  cf.  nrjcD, 
plur.  of  nwD),  hence  nVcja  '135  = 'synagogues.'  To 
this  plural  goes  back  the  sing,  form  n;P33,  of  which 
there  is  only  an  isolated  occurrence  (Aboth,  iv.  11 ; 
the  reading  n?j?,  cited  by  Taylor,  is  not  suffi- 
ciently authenticated),  which  is  not  the  equiva- 
lent in  meaning  of  nnj?,  but  stands  for  an  associa- 
tion or  society  in  general.  In  this  more  general 
sense  of  .i;;3?  we  should  also  understand  the  plural 
found  mAbotli,  iii.  10,  anAEcha  rabbathi,  Prooem., 
No.  10. — The  shorter  expression  nojj  or  ni??'}?  (with- 
out n'3  or  '5)  finds  its  representative  in  the  Gr. 
amayuiyf),  which  in  the  NT  and  Josephus  stands 
for  the  place  of  worship,  the  synagogue.  Cf. 
Philo,  Quod  omnis  probiis  liber,  §  12  (of  the 
Essenes) :  els  lepodt  i(piKvo6iieiioi  r/rrovs  ot  KoKovvrai 
ffwayuryaL 

Another  Gr.  name  for  the  synajrogue  is  irpoor- 
'^X'Hi  which  occurs  especially  in  Philo  (in 
Flaccum,  §  6,  7,  14,  Leg.  ad  Gaium,  §  20,  23,  43, 
46),  but  is  found  also  elsewhere  (3  Mac  7",  Ac 
16" ;  Jos.  Vita,  54 ;  inscriptions  ap.  Schiirer, 
GJV*  ii.  443).  It  appears  m  Latin  (proseucha) 
in  Juv.  Sat.  iii.  296.  As  auKaYuTi)  is  shortened 
from  oTko!  avyayuiyijs,  so  is  rpoaevx'/l  from  o^^•os 
irpoaevxvs.  The  corresponding  Heb.  expression  is 
found  in  Deutero-Isaiaii,  not  only  in  56'  ('nVrn  n-a, 
.I'^Bn  n'3),  but  also  in  60',  where  'mnEn  n-a  is  ren- 
dered in  the  LXX  by  A  oUos  r^s  irpoatux^s  tiov,  so 
that  the  original  reading  must  have  been  •r\hsn  '1. 
The  Jewish  tradition-literature  offers  only  once, 
in  an  anecdote  of  the  Bab.  Talmud  {Gi(tin,  394), 
the  half-Aramaic  half-Heb.  nSsn  '2.  Once  (Midrash 
Tehillim  on  Ps  4)  the  synagogue  is  called  Qipo 


in'rsn,  '  his  (God's)  place  of  prayer.'  Philo  has  also 
TrpouevKT-qpiov,  '  place  of  prayer '  {Vita  Mosis,  iii.  27). 
In  an  edict  of  the  emperor  Augustus  the  syna- 
gog\ie  is  called  aa^^areiov,  '  bouse  of  Sabbath- 
keeping'  (Jos.  Ant.  XVI.  vi.  2),  to  which  corre- 
sponds in  later  times  the  Syr.  "iin-i  Nnzs'  n>3,  plur. 
•zv  n'3  (see  Paj-ne-Smith,  col.  497). 

One  other  term  may  be  mentioned,  htif^;  nnjj 
used  by  the  Agada  as  a  personification  of  the 
whole  body  of  Israel,  the  Jewish  people.  In  the 
Tannaite  literature  the  expression  is  still  rare 
(see  Bacher,  Die  dlteste  Terminologie  der  jitdischen 
Schriftauslcgung,  p.  85),  but  it  is  very  frequent  Lq 
the  post-Tannaite  Agada  (from  the  3rd  cent,  on- 
wards ;  see  the  passages  cited  under  '  Gemeinde 
Israels '  in  the  Index  to  Bacher's  Agada  der  pal. 
Ajnorder,  vols.  L  ii.  iii.).  It  is  the  same  kind  of 
personification  as  took  place  when  the  analogous 
terra  iKKXtjiria  was  adopted  as  a  designation  for  the 
whole  body  of  adherents  of  the  Christian  faith. 
For  the  use  of  the  term  by  the  Church  Fathers 
see  Schiirer',  ii.  432. 

ii.  Origin  and  History  of  the  Synagoooi;. 
— 1.  The  first  beginnings  of  the  synagogue  as  an 
institution  of  Judaism  are  involved  in  complete 
obscurity.  The  later  Tradition  represents  it,  like 
otlier  more  recent  institutions,  as  in  existence 
from  the  earliest  times.  According  to  the  Pal. 
Targ.  on  Ex  18-°,  this  verse  already  contains  an 
allusion  to  the  prayers  to  be  repeated  in  the 
synagogues  ;  the  Targ.  on  1  Ch  16^'  states  that  the 
great  place  of  ofi'ering  at  Gibeon  was  a  synagogue. 
An  anonymous  jNIidrash  {Pesikta,  ed.  Buber,  1296) 
makes  three  contemporary  prophets  proclaim  the 
word  of  God  in  three  dili'erent  places  :  Jeremiah  in 
the  public  squares,  Zeplianiah  in  the  synagogues, 
Huldah  among  the  women.  The  '  house  of  the 
peojile '  ( Jer  39')  w-as,  according  to  a  Midrash  cited 
by  D.  Kimchi,  the  synagogue  (see  also  Bashi's 
Com.  ad  loc.  ;  L.  Low,  Ocsnm.  Schri/ten,  iv.  8, 
wrongly  cites  here  the  Targum).  Although  a 
tradition  of  the  2nd  cent,  tells  us  that  uneducated 
people  were  accustomed  to  call  the  synagogue  n'3 
K?y  (Simon  b.  Eleazar,  Shxibbath,  32a),  this  ex- 
planation of  the  expression  oyn  n'3  in  Jeremiah 
cannot  be  taken  seriously.  Philo  and  Josephus 
(see  Schiirer',  ii.  429)  both  believed  that  the  institu- 
tion of  the  synagogue  goes  back  to  Moses,  and  the 
same  notion  jierhaps  finds  expressiou  in  the  words 
of  the  Apostle  James  in  Ac  15*'  '  For  Jloses  from 
generations  of  old  {4k  yeyeuiv  dpxa/wv)  hath  in  every 
city  them  that  preach  him,  being  read  in  the  sjma- 
goijues  every  Sabbath.' 

In  all  probability,  the  germs  of  the  future  in- 
stitution of  the  synagogue  should  be  sought  during 
the  Babylonian  exile.  Thus  the  historical  reality 
is  not  so  very  far  removed  from  the  view  which  the 
Targ.  on  Ezk  11"  attaches  to  the  words  o.iS  'nNj 
BVD  C''jp5^,  namely,  that  when  Israel  was  scattered 
among  the  nations  God  gave  them  the  synagogue 
as  a  compensation  for  the  loss  of  the  sanctuary. 
Amongst  the  exiles  torn  from  their  homes,  but 
brought  nearer  to  God  and  His  teaching,  the 
need  must  have  ma<le  itself  felt  of  a  medium 
for  cultivating,  in  common,  religious  emotions  and 
for  receiving  religious  instruction.  The  absence 
of  the  sacrificial  cultus  during  the  Exile,  the 
higher  significance  to  which  Sabbath  observ- 
ance attained,  the  regular  fast-days  (cf.  Zee  7', 
Is  58)  augmented  this  sense  of  need,  which  would 
find  satisfaction  in  gatherings  at  fixed  places  and 
times.  All  these  considerations,  which  were  at 
work  in  Babylon,  made  their  influence  felt  also 
in  Palestine,  when  Israel  after  the  Ketum  struck 
new  roots  in  the  old  home,  and  the  religious  life, 
in  spite  of  the  fact  that  the  newlj'-built  temple  at 
Jerusalem  was  its  central  point,  gained  a  basil 
independent  of  the  sacrificial  cultus.    In  particular, 


SYNAGOGUE 


SYA'AGOGUE 


C37 


the  activity  of  Ezra  and  his  successors  the  scribes 
cuiilcd  the  development  of  the  religious  life  in  a 
direction  which  was  bound  to  lead  to  the  rise  of 
synagogues  all  over  the  country.  Hence  we  may 
coiiliuenlly  place  the  origin  of  the  synagogue  in 
Palestine  at  t!ie  period  of  the  Persian  domination. 
There  is  indeecf  no  express  and  iinmistakable 
mention  of  the  synagogue  either  in  the  Persian  or 
in  the  hrst  two  centuries  of  the  Greek  era.  Even 
the  narratives  about  the  religious  persecutions 
under  Antiochus  Epinhanes  are  silent  as  to  syna- 
gogues. At  most,  tlie  74th  Psalm,  if  it  really 
belongs  to  the  Maccabaean  age,  may  be  cited  as 
the  earliest  source  where  the  synagogue  is  named  ; 
for  '?«  "\;'V2  (v.")  may  very  well  "be  interpreted,  with 
Aquila  and  the  Midrash  on  Psalms,  as  a  name  for 
the  jilaces  of  assembly  throughout  the  land  con- 
secrated to  God,  lyc  being  thus  a  poetical  equiva- 
lent of  rD:3.T  n'3  (Low  cit«s,  in  illustration  of  the 
expression,  iro  n-;  of  Job  3(P ;  cf.,  also,  lyi  n'3, 
Abuth,  i.  4). — E.xpress  notices  of  the  sj'nagogue,  so 
far  as  these  are  found  in  the  literature,  belong  for 
the  most  part  to  the  last  century  of  the  Second 
Temple.  LJut  in  all  cases  where  it  is  mentioned 
the  synagoffue  appears  as  an  institution  that  has 
Ion"  existed,  and  as  the  central  point  of  the  organ- 
ized social  life  of  the  Jews. 

2.  In  .Jenisalem  itself,  immediately  before  the 
destruction  of  the  city  by  Titus,  there  were  394 
(Hab.  Kcthub.  lOofi),  or,  according  to  another 
version  (Jcrus.  Mcgilla,  13d  and  oft.),  480  syna- 
gogues. Even  if  these  figures  are  exaggerated, 
the  number  of  synagogues  in  Jerusalem  must  be 
thoughc  of  as  veiy  large.  Apart  from  the  syna- 
gogues belonging  to  the  inhabitants  proper  of  the 
capital,  there  were  others  for  the  various  com- 
munities of  foreign  Jews  settled  in  Jerusalem. 
A  Tannaite  tradition  mentions  the  synagogue  of 
the  Alexandrians  at  Jerusalem  (Tos.  Me(jilla,  ii. 
22428,  Jerus..l/f.7i7/a,  73(/«;  otherwise  Bab.  jl/e^iV/a, 
2(k().  Tlie  Acts  of  the  Apostles  (C)  also  names  the 
synagogue  of  the  Alexandrians,  along  with  the 
synagogues  of  the  Cyrenian.s,  Cilicians,  and  Asians ; 
the  Hellenistic  members  of  these  synagogues  dis- 
pute with  Stei)hen  (ib.  cf.  O'"').  In  the  temple 
itself  there  was  a  synagogue,  which  Joshua  b. 
C'hananja  mentions  from  recollections  of  his  own 
(Tos.  Sukhx,  iv.  198'"),  and  of  whose  function- 
aries we  hear  also  from  other  quarters  (Yovia, 
vii.  1  ;  Sotn,  vii.  7,  8).  On  the  synagogues  of 
Jerusalem  cf.  also  Jerus.  Snkka,  54a". 

Of  the  synagogues  of  Palestine  the  Gospels  name 
Nazareth  (.Mt  13*',  Mk  G'-',  Lk  4")  and  Capernaum 
(Mk  1-',  l.k  7',  Jn  &■")  as  those  in  which  Jesus 
taught.  The  sj'nagogue  of  Dora  was  built  by 
Agrippa  I.  (Jos.  Ant.  XIX.  vi.  3) ;  the  synagogue  of 
Ciesarea  bucamea  moving  cause  of  the  rising  against 
Konie  {liJ  II.  xiv.  4-5),  and  in  memory  of  this  con- 
tinned  to  be  called  in  the  4th  cent.  '  the  revolution 
synagogue '  (KriTOi  Kn!7':D,  Jerus.  Bihkurim,  G.'x/" 
et  nl.  ;  see  Graetz,  Gc.irh.  d.  Jndcn',  iv.  313). 
The  great  synagogue  of  Tiberias  is  mentioned  by 
Josephus  {Vila,  54).  During  the  three  centuries 
that  followed  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  the 
Talmudical  literature  names  various  Pal.  syna- 
gogues :  for  instance,  those  that  were  the  centres 
of  scribal  activity:  Sepplioris  (the  'great  syna- 
gogue,' Pisi/Uri,  I3Gi ;  the  'synagogue  of  the 
Jiahylonians,' Jerus.  Bcrulchoth,  9a"-,  Shulib.  8a  "; 
the  'synagogue  of  the  vine'  [kjdui  '3],  Jerus. 
Jin-rik/ioth,  6a,  et  al.) ;  I'iberias  (Eruhin,  x.  10; 
'  the  13  synagogues  of  Tiberias,'  Bernkhoth,  8a, 
3ui  ;  the  '  synagogue  of  the  senate-house  '  ffloi/X?), 
'Sm  '3],  Jerus.  'latin.  64a'",  see  hU  Agada  der 
jiril.  Anior.  iii.  100);  Cajsarea  (see  above);  Lydda 
(Jerus.  Shekalim,  v.,  end).  There  is  mention, 
further,  of  the  synagogues  of  Beth-shean  (Scytho- 
poUs]  (Jerus.   Meg.   74a'");     Kiphra  or    Kiiphra 


(Jems.  Taan.  6S6",  3feg.  70a  *»;  in  Pesikta  rahb., 
ed.  Friedmann,  p.  190"  k"i30  Vr  ibd  'village  of 
Tiberias');  Maon  (Shabb.  lZ9a,  Zcbach.  1186); 
Sichnin  (Jerus.  Meg.  756*');  Tibein  (Tos.  Meg. 
223'»). 

In  Babylonia  the  oldest  synagogues  were  counted 
to  be  that  of  Shaph-Jethib  at  Nahardca  (Mcgilla, 
296,  Rosh  ha>:h.  246,  Ahoda  zara,  436,  Nidda,  13a), 
and  that  of  Hu?al  (Mcgilla,  296).  The  founding  of 
the  former  was  ascribed  to  kin"  Jehoiachin.  From 
the  3rd  cent,  there  is  witness  for  a  '  synagogue  of 
Daniel '  (Erubin,  2\a).  In  Machuza  there  was  in 
the  4th  cent,  a  'synagogue  of  the  Romans'  ('a 
•Nom,  J\Ieg.  265). 

In  Syria  specially  famous  was  the  great  syna- 
gogue of  Antioch,  to  which  the  successors  of 
Antiochus  Epiiihanes  presented  the  brazen  vessels 
which  had  been  earned  olf  from  the  temple  at 
Jerusalem  (Jos.  BJ  VII.  iii.  3).  On  this  syna- 
gogue, on  whose  site  arose  in  the  4th  cent,  the 
Christian  basilica  dedicated  to  the  Maccabu'an 
martyrs,  see  Cardinal  RampoUa  in  Remie  de  VArt 
ChrHien,  1899,  p.  39U.— The  Apostle  Paul  preached 
in  various  sjnagogues  at  Damascus  (Ac  9-",  cf.  v.*). 
The  narrative  of  the  journeys  of  the  same  apostle 
makes  mention  of  synagogues  in  Asia  Minor, 
Macedonia,  Greece  :  for  instance,  those  of  Pisidian 
Antioch  (Ac  13'*),  Iconiura  (14'),  Epliesus  (18'"), 
Philippi  (16"),  Thessalonica  (17'),  Beroea  (\V), 
Athens  (17"),  Corinth  (IS-"').  There  were  several 
syn.agogues  at  Salamis  in  Cyprus  (13'). 

The  numerous  Jewish  population  of  Alexandria 
had,  according  to  the  testimony  of  Philo  (Leg.  ad 
Gaiiim,  §  20),  many  sj-nagogues  in  the  ditt'erent 
quarters  of  the  city.  The  largest  of  these  was  the 
famous  basilica,  of  which  the  Tannaite  tradition 
of  the  2nd  cent,  gives  a  hyperbolical  but  yet  very 
graphic  description  (Tos.  Sukka,  iv.  I'JS-" ;  Jerus. 
Hiikkri,  55a,  bottom;  Bab.  ISukka,  51a).  The 
founding  of  the  synagogue  of  Ptolemais  is  related 
in  3  JNIac  7"». 

We  learn  from  Philo  {Leg.  ad  Gaium,  §  23)  that 
as  early  as  tlie  time  of  Augustus  there  were  a 
number  of  synagogues  in  Kume.  The  names  of 
se\ural  of  these  have  been  preserved  in  the  in- 
scriptions (see  Schiirer',  iii.  44(1'.).  An  ancient 
literary  tradition  names  the  'synagogue  of  Severus' 
at  Rome  (see  Epstein  in  Monatsschrift  fiir  Gesch.  u. 
]Vi-s:s:  des  Judenthums,  1885,  p.  338). 

The  memory  of  many  synagogues  of  the  Diaspora 
is  preserved  in  early  Greek  inscriptions.  Specially 
noteworthy  are  the  ruins  of  ancient  synagogues  at 
several  sjjots  in  northern  Galilee,  'of  wliich  the 
oldest  date  from  the  second  or  even  the  lirst  cent. 
A.D.'(SchUrer2,  ii.  445). 

3.  At  the  time  of  the  rise  of  Christianity  every 
Jewish  community,  whether  in  Palestine  or  in  the 
Diaspora,  certainly  had  its  synagogue.  The  words 
of  St.  James  quoted  above  are  in  harmony  with 
the  testimony  of  Philo,  who  sjieaks  of  the  places  of 
prayer  that  existed  in  every  city  as  so  many  places 
of  instruction  in  virtue  and  piety  ( Vita  Mo.i.  iii.  27 : 
ri  xard  v6\(ls  TrpoaevKHjpia  ri  '4Ttpiiv  iffriv  ij  SidaaKaXeui 
K.T.\.).  Hence  there  is  a  reflexion  of  the  real  con- 
dition of  things  when  in  a  Tannaite  saying  of  the 
1st  or  2nd  cent.  (R.  'Akiba  already  glosses  it)  the 
synagogue  is  named  as  one  of  the  qualilii-atioiis  of 
acity  in  which  a  scribe  m.ay  settle  down  {.Smt/icdrin, 
176,  bottom).  When  in  the  Tannaite  liftliicha  the 
synagogue  is  looked  upon  as  the  property  of  the 
city  {Aedarim,  v.  5),  the  i)lace8  in  view  are  such  aa 
are  inhabited  wholly  or  for  the  most  part  by  Jews, 
for  in  tlie.se  the  political  and  the  religious  body  are 
one  and  tlie  same.  Where  there  is  no  synagogue, 
the  citizens  (tjj.i  -jd  'sons  of  the  city')  have  the 
right  to  demand  that  one  be  built  and  '  to  compel 
one  another  to  do  this'  (Tos.  Baba  mczin,  xi. 
396-*).     The  same  rule  ap|ilios  to  the  procuring  of 


638 


SYNAGOGUE 


SYNAGOGUE 


the  necessary  copy  of  the  Pentateuch  and  the 
Prophets  for  the  synagogue  (ib.). — Tlie  members 
of  the  community  belonging  to  tlie  same  synagogue 
are  called  noi^n  -a  ('sons  of  the  synagogue'),  a 
designation  which  has  a  special  signiticance  when 
there  are  a  number  of  synagogues  in  the  same  place. 
See  the  use  of  the  expression  in  Tos.  Mcqilla,  ii. 
223™ ;  Bar.  Moed  katun,  22b,  bottom  ;  lickhoroth, 
V.  5 ;  Zabim,  iii.  2.  In  Tos.  McgilJa,  iii.  ad  init. 
(224'°)  the  members  of  the  synagogal  community 
are  opposed  to  the  rulers  of  the  city  (I'l'n  'cjis). — 
AVith  reference  to  tJie  right  to  alienate  a  synagogue 
to  another  use,  the  casuistrj'  of  the  Pal.  Anioras 
draws  a  distinction  between  private  synagogues 
(Tn>  ^!'  nDJDn  n'3)  and  public  synagogues  (^a  'n  'i 
a'2-\);  see  Jerus.  Megilta,  7.3(/^  and  74a".  The 
corresponding  passage  of  the  Bab.  Talmud  (Meg. 
2Qa)  distinguislies  village  from  city  synagogues 
(D':i3,  c"j:3  Sk'  'n  '2). — The  possibility  of  a  private 
liouse  being  converted  into  a  synagogue  is  con- 
sidered in  the  Tannaite  halacha  (Nedarim,  ix.  2, 
cf.  Jerus.  Meg.  73rf''').  As  a  rule,  the  synagogues 
were  buildings  specially  erected  for  the  purpose. 
In  spite  of  the  public  character  of  the  synagogal 
buildings  they  were  subjected  to  certain  ceremonial 
regulations  applicable  to  dwelling-houses  (Tos. 
Negaiin,  vi.  625"',  Bar.  Yomn,  116).  A  varying 
tradition  (Yoma,  ib.)  distinguishes  between  syna- 
gogues wliich  contain  a  dwelling  for  the  synagogue 
attend.ant  (nDJ3.n  [inS  .-n-i)  and  those  that  do  not. — 
The  Tannaite  hfllacha  deals  with  the  contingency 
of  a  non-Jew  supplying  the  building  material  for  a 
synagogue  (Tos.  Meg.  iii.  224-°).  This  recalls  the 
case  of  the  Koman  centurion  at  Capernaum,  w  ho 
h.ad  built  a  synagogue  for  the  Jews  (Lk  7°). — The 
consecration  attaching  to  the  synagogal  building 
in  virtue  of  its  sacred  destination  does  not  cease 
entirely  even  when  the  building  is  no  longer  used 
for  its  original  purpose.  A  synagogue  may  he 
sold  only  on  condition  that  it  is  not  used  for 
dishonourable  purposes  (Meg.  ii.  2).  It  is  even 
considered  a  profanation  of  its  sacred  character  to 
enter  a  synagogue  for  shelter  from  the  burning 
sun  or  from  frost  or  rain  (Tos.  ^Icg.  iii.  224^  ;  Bab. 
Meg.  2Sft  b).  Citing  tlie  circumstance  tliat  even 
the  ruined  holy  places  are  called  sanctuaries 
(Lv  2G'M,  Jehuda  b.  Ilai  (2nd  cent.)  teaches  that 
even  the  ruins  of  synagogues  are  not  to  be  used 
for  profane  purposes  [Meg.  iii.  3).  The  Bab.  Aniora 
Chisda  (3rd  cent.)  prohibits  the  pulling  down  of  a 
synagogue  until  another  has  been  built  UVeg.  26b, 
Baba  bathra,  36). — In  Babylonia  there  appear  to 
have  been  two  kinds  of  synagogue — winter  and 
summer  synagogues  (Baba  bathra,  36 ;  see  L6w, 
Gesam.  Schriften,  iv.  97). 

iii.  Situation  of  the  Building,  Style  op 
Apx'HITECTURE,  etc.  —  1.  A  Tannaite  tradition, 
appealing  to  Pr  1-',  lays  down  the  rule  that  the 
synagogue  should  be  built  'on  the  height  of  the 
city,'  i.e.  upon  a  commanding  point  (Tos.  Meg.  iii. 
227'°).  With  reference  to  this,  a  later  Midrash 
(Tanchuma,  'nipn3  4,  ed.  Buber,  iii.  10)  declares: 
'  In  early  times  the  synagogue  was  built  on  the 
height  of  the  city.'  So  also  Rab  in  Babylon  (3rd 
cent. )  taught :  '  A  city  whose  roofs  overtop  the 
synagogue  is  given  over  to  destruction '  (Shabb. 
11a).  Of  co\irse  these  words  can  apply  only  to 
synagogues  built  within  the  city,  and  there  can  be 
no  doubt  that  this  was  the  case  with  the  syna- 
gogues in  Palestine.  On  the  other  hand,  there  is 
evidence  that  in  Babylonia  the  synagogues  were 
frequently  outside  the  city.  The  Bab.  Talmud 
speaks  of  sj'nagogues  which  are  '  in  the  neighbour- 
hood of  the  city,'  and  presupposes  others  which 
are  at  a  greater  distance  from  it  (Kiddicsh.  "JSh,  cf. 
Shabb.  246,  and  also  the  Coram,  of  Rashi,  s.  n]3D). 

Allusion  is  made  to  Buch  extra-mum)  Bynogoguea  in  a  Midraah 
OD  £c  12^,  where  the  old  mao,  to  whom  the  walk  to  the  tiyaa- 


go^ie  is  a  hard  task,  la  addressed  In  the  words  n*D  Vk  Kyjl  ina 
n03D."l  ('  come  let  ua  go  to  the  synago^e,*  Tarujhuma,  ed. 
Euber,  mff  »*n,  7).  On  the  other  hand,  we  are  not  to  follow 
L.  Low  (Gesam.  Scliriften,  iv.  15)  in  seeing  in  the  interpretation 
of  the  '  well  in  the  field  *  (Gn  29'-)  as  an  allegory  of  the  synagogue 
(OVii.  rabba.  ch.  70)  an  oJlusion  to  the  situation  of  8\iiagojrue« 
outside  the  city  ;  for  the  ex^iression  *  in  the  field '  is  as  indifferent 
for  the  purjJose  of  the  allegory  as  it  is  in  the  immediately  pre- 
ceding mterpretation  of  the  well  as  an  allegory  of  the  Sanhedrin, 
Nor  does  the  passage  Petfikta,  15Sa  (ed.  Buher),  refer  to  syna- 
grogues  in  the  country  (Low,  t6.  note  2),  but  the  contrast  there 
is  between  prayer  in  the  open  countrj'  and  prayer  in  the  syna- 
gogue inside  the  city  (cf.  Midrash  Tehillim  on  Ps  3,  ed.  Buber, 
p.  40). 

The  fact  that  the  synagogues  in  Babjionia 
were  —  partly  at  least  —  outside  the  cities  was 
perhaps  connected  with  the  circumstance  that  at 
the  beginning  of  the  Sassanide  rule  the  synagogues 
were  destroyed  by  the  Persians  ( Yoina,  10a),  and 
the  rebuilding  of  them  within  the  cities  was  not 
allowed. 

To  another  category  belong  the  statements  from 
which  it  has  been  inferred  that  it  was  customary 
to  build  the  synagogues  by  a  running  stream  or 
by  the  sea.  None  of  these  statements,  moreover, 
refer  to  either  Palestine  or  Babylonia.  During 
St.  Paul's  stay  at  Philippi  it  is  said  (Ac  16") :  '  And 
on  the  sabbath  day  we  went  forth  without  tlie  gate, 
by  a  river  side,  where  we  supposed  there  was  a 
place  of  prayer.'  The  synagogue  of  Philippi  was 
thus  situated  by  a  river  outside  the  city.  The 
assumption  that  it  would  be  found  there  shows 
that  this  must  have  been  the  case  elsewhere  also. 
The  municipality  of  Halicamassus  expressly 
granted  permission  to  the  Jews  to  perform  their 
devotions,  according  to  their  ancestral  habit,  by 
the  seashore  (Jos.  Ant.  xiv.  x.  23).  But  here 
there  is  no  mention  of  a  synagogue,  but  siiuply  of 
prayer  in  the  open  air.  We  may  recall  in  this 
connexion  the  religious  fasts  that  were  held  in 
Palestine  in  the  open  market-place  of  the  town 
(Taanilh,  ii.  1).  It  is  the  same  allusion  to  the 
fasts  of  the  Jews  that  underlies  the  similar  state- 
ments of  Tertullian  (de  Jejunio,  16  ;  ad  Nationes, 
i.  13;  see  Schiirer',  ii.  447).  In  like  manner  the 
Jews  of  Alexandria  betook  themselves,  in  their 
time  of  straits,  to  the  seashore,  to  praj'  there  '  in 
the  purest  place '  (^i*  KaSapuiTdru ;  Pliilo,  in  Flaecum, 
§  14).  This  remark  of  Philo  throws  light  upou 
the  custom  of  the  Jews  living  among  the  heatlien 
of  praying  by  the  seashore,  and  perhaps  also  upon 
the  building  of  the  .synagogue  by  a  river,  which  is 
witnessed  for  Philippi.  The  motive  would  be  to 
avoid  the  interior  of  the  city  polluted  by  idolatry, 
and  to  seek  the  '  purest '  places  for  prayer,  namely, 
the  banks  of  rivers  and  the  seashore.  The  same 
notion  linds  expression  also  in  the  ancient  Midra.sh 
on  Ex  12'  (Mcchilta,  ad  init.)  -.  Moses  prays  out- 
side the  city  (Ex  9^),  because  it  was  full  of  abomi- 
nations and  idolatry  (see  Kohler,  Monntsschrift, 
xxxvii.  442  ;  Blau,  Magyar-Zsido  Szemlc,  x.  494). 
Once  more,  it  may  be  noted  that  at  Corinth  the 
synagogue  was  inside  the  city ;  for  the  house  of 
Titius  Justus,  where  St.  Paul  lived,  'joined  hard 
to  the  synagogue'  (Ac  18'). 

2.  The  style  of  building  adopted  in  the  ancient 
synagogues  of  Palestine  is  illustrated  by  the  above- 
mentioned  ruins  in  N.  Galilee.  'Almost  all  these 
sjTiagogues  lie  north  and  south,  so  that  the  entrance 
is  at  the  south.  As  a  rule  they  appear  to  have 
had  three  doors  in  front — one  principal  entrance 
and  two  smaller  side  doors.  In  some  instances  it 
can  still  be  seen  that  the  building  was  divided  by 
two  rows  of  pillars  into  three  aisles.  Some  had  a 
portico  in  front.  In  general  the  style  was  influ- 
enced by  the  Gra!co-Ronian,  although  it  shows 
very  characteristic  differences  from  it.  In  par- 
ticular it  was  markeil  by  a  wealth  of  overladen 
ornamentation '  (Schiirer*,  ii.  446).  This  orienta- 
tion of  the  synagogue  from  north  to  south  contra- 


SYNAGOGUE 


SYXAGOGUE 


633 


diets  a  prescription  of  the  Tannaite  hftlacha  (Tos. 
Miijilla,  iv.  227"),  accordinjr  to  wiruli  tlie  sj'na- 
pojiiie  entrance,  like  that  of  the  sanctuary  {Nu  3**), 
IS  to  be  at  the  east.  One  is  tempted  to  assume 
that  this  rule,  found  only  in  the  Tosuplita,  has  in 
view  Babylonia  and  other  lands  to  the  east  of 
Palestine  ;  for  in  these  the  orientation  from  east 
to  west  corresponds  with  the  direction  prescribed 
to  the  congregation  at  prayer  in  the  synagogue. 
In  the  Tosephta  there  are  other  traces  of  Baby- 
loninn  redaction.  As  far  as  the  synagogues  of 
Galilee  aie  concerned,  their  orientation,  as  the 
ruins  show,  was  the  opposite  of  the  direction 
prescribed  for  prayer.  In  an  early  halachic  tradi- 
tion (Siphrfi  on  Dent.  %  29,  7u6  ;  liab.  Berak/i.  3Un) 
it  is  said,  upon  the  ground  of  1  K  8**,  that  during 
prayer  the  worshipper  must  face  towards  Jerusalem 
and"  the  sanctuary  :  those  dwelling  in  the  north 
stand  with  their  face  to  the  south,  those  in  the 
south  face  the  north,  those  in  the  west  the  east, 
those  in  the  east  the  west.  From  this  it  follows 
that  the  worshippers  in  the  synagogues  of  N. 
Galilee  would  turn  in  prajer  towards  the  entrance. 
The  direction  towards  the  sanctuary,  i.e.  towards 
that  part  of  thesj'nagogue  whicli  is  turned  towards 
the  sanctuary,  is  dealt  with  in  the  following  rules, 
which  are  likewise  found  only  in  the  Tosephta 
(Megilla,  iv.  227")  :— 

•The  elders  (C';pt)  take  their  places  facing  the  people,  and 
with  their  bark  to  the  sanctuary  (Clip  's'73).  Tlie  book-press 
in  the  8>'nav,'o;;ue  is  so  placed  tliat  its  front  is  towards  the 
people,  its  buck  to  the  sanctuary.  When  the  priests  lift  up 
their  hands  to  bless,  they  stand  with  their  face  to  the  people, 
their  back  to  the  sanctuarj-.  The  synajjo^iie  attendant  inazzan) 
stands  with  his  face  turned  towards  the  sanctuary,  which  is 
•Iflo  the  direction  in  which  all  the  people  face.' 

In  the  above  quotation  piip  may  be  a  designation 
of  tlie  particular  side  of  the  synagogue  itself.  In 
any  case,  we  may  a.ssunie  that  this  jiurt  of  the 
building  was  not  ahvay.s  opposite  the  entrance. 

In  the  case  of  t«o  considerable  synagogues,  we 
know  that  they  had  the  form  of  a  basilica  with  a 
double  row  of  ])illars.  The  exinession  SnrXri  aroi. 
is  used  of  both  of  them.  One  is  the  famous  great 
synagogue  of  Alexandria  mentioned  above  ;  the 
other  is  that  of  Tiberias,  to  which  an  anllior  of 
the  4th  cent,  (.see  Agada  dcr  pal.  Amor.  iii.  672, 
from  Midr.  Tehillim  on  Ps  93,  end)  applies  that 
designation. 

According  to  Philo  (in  Flaccum,  §  7)  there  were 
exhibitcil  in  the  -npljioKoi.  of  the  synagogue  of 
Alexandria  dedicated  gifts  and  inscriptions  set 
up  in  honour  of  the  emperors  (Schiirer^  ii.  446, 
iii.  52). 

3.  Of  the  furnishings  oi  the  synagogue  the  most 
inijiortaiit  was  the  press  (nj'n)  in  wliich  the  sacred 
writings  were  kept.  The  complete  expression  is 
O'-iEO  •?!?  .i3'n  (Tos.  Yndayiin,  ii.  ()83") ;  rarely  do 
we  find  the  Aram,  term  niiik  (  =  Heb.  j^iij),  Jerus. 
RIcq.  73rf'"-'°.  The  same  2nd  cent,  tradition 
which  censures  the  use  of  kdv  n-D  by  uneducated 
persons  as  a  term  for  the  sj'nagogue  (see  p.  (J30''), 
condemns  in  the  same  way  the  emjdoying  of  the 
term  mnN  for  the  book-press  (Hhabbath,  32a).  It 
apiiears  lb;il  in  popular  speech  piK  or  (<:nK  meant 
either  a  collin  or  a  press  for  keeping  victuals  (see 
Kclim,  xii.  3),  and  hence  the  word  i3Ti  established 
itself  for  the  press  of  the  synagogue  which  served 
a  sacred  purpose.  It  ajipears  in  Aram,  as  Knn-n 
(Jerus.  Bcrakh.  gc"*"  ;  Jiab.  Meg.  2G6),  and  is  re- 
produced by  the  Or.  Ki^urrbt  (Chrya.  Oral.  adv. 
Jiiil.  vi.  4). 

Tlie  press  was  furnished  with  a  species  of  canopy 
callcii  nV;  (.lerus.  Mrg.  73(/'"  ;  see  Levy,  ii.  318//), 
whicli  was  spread  over  it  before  the  cominciicciiient 
of  the  Salibath(JeriiH.  Sluihb.  17c").  In  Babylonia 
its  name  was  kdtd  (Meg.  2(ih).  As  long  as  the 
congregation  remained  in  the  synagogue  the  press 


was  not  to  be  denuded  of  this  adornment  (Bab, 
Sutn,  39J,  .iD'n.i  D'ssnS). 

The  press  appears  to  have  been  placed  in  a  shut- 
oft'  part  of  the  synagogue,  with  a  curtain  in  front 
of  it  wliich,  like  the  curtain  in  the  sanctuary,  bore 
the  name  nrnE  (Aram.  xriDns).  Behind  this  curtain 
took  place  the  rolling  up  of  the  Torah  after  the 
reading  of  the  Scripture  lesson  (Jerus.  Sola,  22a "^ ; 
Jerus.  Meg.  756 "" ;  Soph.  xi.  3). 

The  cloths  in  which  the  copies  of  the  sacred 
writings  kept  in  tlie  press  were  wrapped  were 
called  n'lnjso,  or,  in  full,  i£n  "^c  'd  or  d'ied  W  'd,  also 
DnsD  D  (see  Kelim,  ix.  3,  xxiv.  14  ;  Kegaim,  xi.  6  ; 
Tos.  Kilayim,  v.  80'» ;  Tos.  Yadaijim,  ii.  683"). 
Such  cloths  were  used  elsewhere  also  to  wrap  up 
the  books  of  Scripture  :  thus  in  Sanhed.  100«  we 
read  of  the  cloths  in  which,  in  tlie  house  of  the 
Bab.  Amora  Jehuda  (3rd  cent.),  the  books  were 
wrapped  (mi.T  :t  -an  -iso  'D).  By  .i:'n  'd  (Tos. 
Kilayim,  v.  80'*)  appear  to  be  meant  the  cloths 
used  to  wrap  up  the  books  that  lay  in  the  synagogue 
press.  From  a  controversy  between  the  schools  of 
Hillel  and  Sliammai  {Kelim,  xxviii.  4)  we  learn 
that  these  cloths  used  to  be  adorned  with  em- 
broideries (niTisD).  Little  bells  were  also  attached 
to  them  (D'TSO  'd^  D'JI,  Tos.  Kclim,  i.  1,  579'-' ;  Bab. 
Hhabb.  586). 

In  the  graduated  scale  of  consecration  attaching 
to  the  synagogue  and  its  furnishings,  the  press  is 
holier  than  the  building,  the  cloths  for  the  Scrip- 
tures are  holier  than  the  press  (Meg.  iii.  1).  In 
the  hftlacha  in  question  there  is  no  mention  of  the 
chest  (ffriKTi) ;  hence  it  is  probable  that  the  ibdh  p'n 
of  Sluibb.  xvi.  I  and  the  Dnion  p-n  of  Tos.  Yndayim, 
ii.  683*,  do  not  refer  to  the  chest  in  which  the 
synagogue  Scriptures  were  kept. 

Amongst  the  iittings  of  the  synagogue  was  the 
tribune  ("D'3,  i.e.  (iiifxa).  There  was  a  tribune  of 
wood  (i'y  ^a  no'D,  if.  yv  hiia  of  Neh  8^;  see  art. 
PUH'IT)  also  in  the  temple  at  Jerusalem,  upon 
which  king  Agrippa  I.  stood — instead  of  sitting — 
and  read  the  Torah  at  the  Feast  of  Booths  [Sola, 
vii.  7  ;  Tos.  Sotn,  vii.  307-").  There  was  a  similar 
structure  in  the  centre  of  the  great  synagogue  of 
Alexandria,  from  which  the  signal  to  utter  the 
Amen  was  given  to  the  congregation  (Tos.  Hukka, 
iv.  198^).  In  small  synagogues  the  tribune  appears 
to  have  been  in  close  proximity  to  the  press ; 
hence  the  pronouncement  of  the  Bab.  Amora 
Samuel  (3rd  cent.),  preserved  in  the  Pal.  Talmud 
(Meg.  73rf''^),  that  the  tribune  and  the  tablets 
(I'nii^i  nD'3)  possess  the  degree  of  sacrcdncss  of  the 
building  but  not  of  the  press.  The  Bali.  Talmud 
(Meg.  32a)  speaks  in  like  manner  of  the  tablets 
and  the  tribunes  (nic'3m  mnOn).  In  the  Midrash 
(PesilUa,  ed.  Buber,  84a)  there  is  a  story  of  how 
some  one  had  ]''?:soi  nmo'3  nix'^za  ni.ide  of  a  cedar 
tree  (where  nmS^a  is  the  same  as  mmS).  But  there 
is  nowhere  sutlicient  evidence  what  is  to  be  under- 
stood by  these  'tablets'  wliich  belonged  to  the 
furnishings  of  a  synagogue.  Tlicy  mav  have  been 
tablets  inscribed  with  Bible  texts  (cf.  Is  30"),  such 
as  were  used  in  connexion  with  elementary  Scrip- 
ture lessons  (see  Jelamdenu,  cited  in  Frieumann  s 
introduction  to  his  edition  of  the  Meehilta,  p. 
xxxiv). 

The  above-mentioned  \'haso  (i.e.  siibscllia), 
seats  for  the  congregation,  are  named  in  Jerus. 
Meg.  73(/'"  as  among  the  furnishings  of  a  S3'na- 
gogue  ;  they  have  the  same  degree  of  sacrednesa 
as  the  building.  Along  with  the  seats  are  named 
also  .iTD'jp  ;  but  this  word  should  be  emended  to 
.nrtjp,  which  stands  for  the  usual  KTi'np  (or  n-n-np), 
i.e.  cat/iedra  (cf.  Jerus.  ^'/l«66.  Ija'  KiTrpni  SoDOn). 
Chairs  were,  no  doubt,  jiroviilcd  for  the  elders  and 
scribes,  who  sat  in  a  prominent  place  (see  above, 
ii.  S  5,  and  cf.  the  wpuiTOKaOtdpia  of  Alt  '23°,  Mk  V^, 
Lk  11*").     So  also  in  the  great  synagogue  of  AIax- 


640 


SYiVAGOGUE 


SYNAGOGUE 


andria  there  were  71  chairs  of  gold  (nnm  D'Jjii? 
3rii  /C  niNinnp)  for  the  members  of  the  f^eat  council 
there  (Tos.  SuklcfiJ.c).  Un  the  'chair  of  Moses,' 
which  the  Chinese  Jews  had  in  tlieir  synago;;ue 
instead  of  the  bimd  (Alniemor),  see  REJ  xxxv.  110, 
and  on  the  Mujtreajs  KaO^dpa  spoken  of  by  Jesus  in 
Mt  23-  see  ib.  xxxiv.  300. 

At  the  reading  of  the  Scriptures  a  reading  desk 
(lED  "?»  J'jS^s-,  or,  shortly,  yi^ix  [arnXoyeiou])  was 
used  (lielim,  xvi.  17),  which,  as  a  piece  of  the 
synagogue  furniture,  had  the  same  degree  of 
sacredness  as  the  building  itself  (Jerus.  Meg. 
Tid'^). 

We  hear  also  of  cnnddabra  and  lamps  ("i:,  mi:D) 
being  provided  for  the  synagogue  (Tos.  Uleq.  iii. 
2-2ti5).  The  Pal.  Talmud  tells  of  a  candelabrum 
which  Antonine,  to  the  great  joy  of  the  patriarch 
Jehuda,  presented  to  a  synagogue  (Meg.  74a  *') ; 
the  Bab.  Talmud  (Arakhm,  16i)  relates  how  an 
Arab,  named  p^l>•,  presented  a  lamp  to  the  syna- 

fogue  of  Jehuda,  the  head  of  the  school  of  Pum- 
editha  (3rd  cent.).  The  Mi-shna  {Terumuth, 
xi.  10)  speaks  of  the  oil  which  was  burned  in  the 
synagogue,  and  also  of  the  custom  of  keeping 
lamps  burning  in  the  synagogues  on  the  Day  of 
Atonement  (Fesachiin,  iv.  4). 

iv.  .Synagogue  Worship,  Officials,  etc. — 
For  the  holding  of  public  worship  in  the  synagogue 
the  presence  of  at  least  ten  adult  male  persons 
is  required.  These  constitute  the  minimum  of  a 
congregation  (rTiy  =  n5J5).  (See  San/ied.  ii.  3,  Meg. 
iv.  3).  It  once  happened  that  Eliezer  b.  Hyrcanus 
(1st  cent.),  accompanied  by  his  slave,  came  into 
the  synagogue,  and,  finding  that  the  requisite  ten 
were  not  present,  he  gave  the  slave  his  freeilom  in 
order  to  make  up  the  proper  n\in\\>eT  (Pesnrh.  476  ; 
Glltin,  3S6).  With  this  story  maj-  be  compared 
the  testimony  of  tlie  insciiption  of  Pantikajwum, 
accordinij  to  which  a  manumitted  slave  was  bound 
to  attend  the  synagogue  regularly  (Schiirer',  iii. 
53).  That  was  considered  a  great  city  in  which 
there  were  at  least  ten  synagogue  niemliers  un- 
encumbered by  business  (□•j'723),  and  who  thus 
made  it  possible  to  hold  a  daily  service  (Meg.  i.  3  ; 
Baba  kamnia,  82a;  Sanhed.  176;  Jerus.  Meg. 
lOb"^),  whereas  the  great  mass  of  the  conoregation 
could  attend  only  on  the  Salibath  and  on  tlie 
festival  days.  At  a  later  period  the  'ten  men  of 
leisure '  became  a  kind  of  institution  in  the  con- 
gregation. 

Women  were  not  counted  as  members  of  the 
synagogue  congregation.  Yet  even  a  woman 
could  take  part  in  the  reading  of  the  Sabbath 
lesson  as  one  of  tlie  seven  persons  required  on  such 
an  occasion  ;  but  it  was  considered  objectionable, 
on  grounds  of  decency  (iirs.n  ii:3  'isn),  for  a  woman 
to  read  in  public  from  the  Torah  (Tos.  Meg.  iv. 
'220' ;  Bab.  Meg.  23a).  Women  were  zealous 
attenders  of  the  synagogue.  A  Tannaite  lullficha 
(Abmla  zara,  3Sab)  names  as  tlie  two  places  for 
which  a  woman  is  wont  to  leave  her  house,  the 
baths  and  the  synagogue  (cf.  also  Voma,  15b). 

Characteristic  is  the  anecdote  of  the  woman  who  had  become 
very  old  and  longed  to  leave  this  worid-  Wlien  she  went  to 
Joae  b.  ChalaphtA(2nd  cent.)  witli  her  complaint,  he  asked  her  : 
*What  luty  art  thou  accustomed  daily  to  perform?*  She 
replied:  *It  is  my  custom  to  neglect  even  what  is  dearest  to 
me,  in  order  that  I  may  visit  the  8yna<;o;»ue  daily.'  Then  he 
advit>ed  her  to  leave  ofT  for  three  succesj,ive  days  attending;  the 
syna^u^ie.  She  followed  his  counsel  and  died  on  the  tbiru  day 
{Jalkut  Shimeoni,  i.  871,  from  Jelamdenu). 

In  the  Diaspora,  women  played  an  important  r61e 
in  synagogue  life.  St.  Paul  found  in  the  syna- 
gogue of  Philippi  (see  above)  a  gathering  of  w  omen 
(Ac  16'").  On  the  inscriptions  of  S.  Italy  mater 
tynagogce  appears  side  bj'  side  with  paler  sijna- 
gogcE  as  a  title  of  honour  (Schurer',  iii.  50).  I'rom 
Babylonia  we  have  the  information  {Kidduahin, 
81a I  that  two  school  heads  of  the  4th  cent.,  Abaj^ 


and  Raba,  arranged  that  men  and  women  should 
sit  apart  from  eacli  otiier  in  the  synagogue.  The 
members  of  the  synagogue  congregation  were 
called  nD:jn  "J3  (see  above) ;  at  their  head  was  the 
'jn  tKT  ('head  of  the  synagogue,'  Gr.  dpxio-uva- 
ywyos  or  [Lk  8"" J  apx(*>v  ttj?  o-uva-ywYiis).  The 
synagogue  of  the  Jerus.  temple  liad  in  like  mannei 
its  head.  The  'ruler  of  the  synagogue '  had  the 
responsibility  of  maintaining  order  in  the  syna- 
gogue (see  Lk  13'^) ;  it  was  his  part  to  decide  who 
was  to  conduct  the  public  worship  (Ac  13").  If  he 
himself  wished  to  take  part  in  the  reading  of  the 
Scriptures,  he  had  to  be  invited  by  others  to  do  so, 
because  he  could  not  of  himself  assume  an  honour- 
able function  (Tos.  Meg.  iv.  227"').  The  'ruler' 
was  not  a  scribe,  but  he  stood  in  rank  immediately 
after  the  scribes  (Pesachim,  496,  top;  Gittin,  &)a, 
top).  At  mourning  feasts  it  was  customary,  follow- 
ing a  rule  dating  from  the  2nd  cent.  (Jerus.  Deralck. 
6a  ^  ;  Scmachuth,  ch.  14,  end),  to  drink  a  cup,  with 
a  blessing,  to  the  health  of  the  ruler  of  the  syna- 
gogue. A  more  extended  sense  was  assumed  by 
the  title  'ruler  of  the  synagogue'  in  the  l)ia,spora, 
as  is  evident  from  the  Gr.  and  Lat.  inscriptions,  in 
which  it  frequently  implies  no  function,  but  is 
simply  an  honorary  title,  tiestowed  even  upon  women 
and  children  (Schiirer^  ii.  438  f.,  iii.  49  f.). 

The  service  of  attendant  in  the  synagogue  as  well 
as  charge  of  the  building  and  its  furiiisliings  was 
assigned  to  the  synagogue  olhcial  called  naj^n  [trj 
(shortly  ijn). 

The  word  |10  was  derived  not  only  by  Nathan  b,  Yechiel 
(Arufli,  s.v.)  but,  before  him,  by  DQnash  b.  LabrAt  (10th  cent.) 
from  the  verb  nin  {Kritik  ijcjen  Saadja,  ed.  Schroter,  No.  170X 
IJvit  this  derivation  is  unsatisfactory'  from  the  point  of  view  both 
of  grammar  and  sense.  It  is  better  to  assume  that  the  root  ftn 
has  the  same  meaning  as  the  identically  sounding  Arab,  root 

.,li.   (see  Perles,  Mona'sschri/t,  1870,  p.  521)i    This  root  if 

indeed  unexampled  elsewhere  in  Hebrew,  but  it  is  readily 
conceivable  that  alongside  of  Jon  there  existed  also  a  root  pn  with 
the  same  meaning  (cf.  l*?i;  side  by  side  by  cSy).  From  the  verb 
]in  =  *  keep  charge'  was  formed  the  subst.  {Tn  which  was  used  to 
designate  the  man  who  had  charge  of  the  synagogue  and  iU 
furnishings,  and  who  had  also  to  give  attendance  at  the  con- 
ducting of  pubUc  worsllip. 

Even  the  synagogue  of  the  temple  at  Jerusalem 
had  its  luizzdn  (see  Yoma,  vii.  1  ;  Sola,  vii.  7,  8). 
The  temple,  however,  had  other  attendants  also 
called  hazzanlm  ;  see  Suhkn,  iv.  4,  where  the  sub- 
ject is  the  keeping  of  the  palm  branches  at  the  Feast 
of  Booths,  and  Tamid,  v.  3,  wliere  the  keeping  of 
the  [iriests'  garments  is  spoken  of.  The  synagogue 
attendant  is  called  in  Greek  inr-qpiryi^  (Lk  4^); 
Epiphanius  (c.  Hier.  xxx.  11)  knows  also  a  Grae- 
cisiiig  of  the  Heb.  word  :  'AfowTuK  TCiwap  airroXi  dia- 
Kovijjv  ipiiTivivop-ivuv  ^  i/Tnjperujv.  —  From  the  period 
while  the  temple  at  Jerusalem  yet  stood  it  is  re- 
lated that,  along  with  the  pilgrims  who  brought 
the  firstlings  to  the  sanctuary,  the  synagogue 
attendants  {noijn  n>3  "ji-,  var.  Ice.  '21  n'a  iDi  pjin) 
also  went  up  (Tos.  Bikkurim,  ii.  lOV^).  —  The 
advent  of  the  Sabbath  and  of  festival  days  was 
announced  by  the  hazzdn  from  the  roof  of  the 
synagogue,  with  a  thrice-repeated  trumpet  blast 
which  was  the  signal  for  the  suspension  of  work 
(Tos.  Sukka,  iv.  199* ;  cf.  Chullin,  i.  7 ;  Jerus. 
SJiabb.  16a »;  Bab.  Shabb.  35).  In  the  legend  of 
the  schoolmaster  Nakkai  (a  contemporary  of  the 
Hadrianic  persecutions)  the  latter  is  called  both 
KB-Di?  (attendant)  and  xtso.  Every  Friday  he 
arranges  the  lamps  of  the  synagogue  at  Mi^dal- 
Zablia'jiya  (Jerus.  Maaser  sheni,  56a  ",  £c/ta 
rabbathi  on  Ec  3'). 

During  public  worship  it  is  the  hazzdn  that  calls 
to  the  performance  of  any  function  (Jerus.  Berakh, 
9c").  He  hands  the  copy  of  the  Scriptures  to  the 
reader,  and  receives  it  back  from  the  hands  of  th« 


SYNAGOGUE 


SYNAGOGUE 


641 


man  who  lias  read  the  final  lesson  {Soph.  xiv.  3). 
Cf.  Lk  4-'°,  where  Jesus,  havin"  read  the  passage 
from  the  Prophets,  returns  the  l)ook  to  the  attend- 
ant. The  hazzdn  rolls  up  the  Torah  roll  after  the 
reading  (Jerus.  Merj.  756"),  and,  after  holding  it 
up  to  view  (Jerus.  Sola,  2ld,  top),  depo.sits  it  in 
the  press.  He  calls  upon  the  prie.st.s  at  the  proper 
moment  to  pronoiince  the  benediction  (Sipfird  on 
Nu  &^,  §  34,  end  ;  cf.  Jerus.  Gillin,  476  ",  Bab.  :Sota, 
38«).  On  the  occasion  of  religious  fasts  he  indicates 
when  the  priests  have  to  blow  the  trumpets  (Bab. 
Tannith,  IGA).  In  the  great  synagogue  of  Ale.x- 
andria  he  waved  a  handkereliief  as  a  signal  to  the 
congregation  for  the  Amen  (Tos.  Sukkn,  iv.  198'-^). 
When  the  /ui::dn  himself  read  the  Scripture  lesson, 
another  had  to  wait  upon  him  (i^  [i-o  nnxi  [this 
denom.  verb  does  not  o<!cur  elsewhere],  Tos.  3Ieg. 
iv.  2'27"').  The  hazzdn  belonged  to  the  scribal  body, 
of  which  he  constituted,  as  it  were,  the  lowest 
grade.  In  an  Aram,  saying  of  Eliezer  b.  Hyrcanus 
(1st  cent.)  the  scale  is  stated  thus  :  K-D'an  (scribes), 
K-£o  (schoolmasters),  n.'jin.  At  mourning  feasts  a 
cup  was  drunk  in  his  honour  (Jerus.  Berakh.  6a  "), 
as  in  the  case  of  the  ruler  of  the  synagogue  (see 
above).  Even  in  early  times  it  must  have  been 
customary,  especially  in  smaller  congregations,  for 
theA«;;u»  toread  I  he  Scripture  lesson.  An  instance 
of  this  from  the  beginning  of  the  2nd  cent,  occurs 
in  Bab.  Meij.  25b.  He  acted  also  as  leader  in  praj'er. 
For  an  example  from  3rd  cent,  see  Jerus.  Berakh. 
lid*". — The  patriarch  Jeluida  I.  was  requested  by 
the  inhabitants  of  an  inconsiderable  place  to  recom- 
mend to  them  one  of  his  ])upils  to  discharge  the 
dutiesof  preacher,  judge,  ^tzzdn,  and  schoolmaster. 
His  recommendation  fell  upon  the  afterwards  so 
well-known  Levi  b.  Sisi  (Jerus.  Ye.bam.  13a";  Gen. 
rabba,  ch.  81,  ad  itiit.).  In  the  3rd  cent,  the 
Jewish  inhabitants  of  Bostra  (xisi^)  beg  of  Simeon 
b.  Lakish  to  recommend  to  them  some  one  capable 
of  exercising  all  the  functions  necessary,  as  preaclier, 
judge,  schoolmaster,  and  hazzdn  (.Jerus.  Shebiith, 
serf").  In  the  Midrash  Kohelcth  rabba  (on  Ec  7' 
and  9")  the  hazzdn  already  appears  as  leader  of  the 

firayer,  in  virtue  of  his  office  ;  i.e.  the  word  hazzdn 
las  the  character  whicli  it  gained  in  the  period  of 
the  Gaons,  and  which  it  has  retained  down  to  the 
present  day  (see  also  Soph.  x.  end,  xi.  ad  init.  ; 
Firke  R.  Eliezer,  xiii.  end). 

Seeing  that,  as  a  rule,  the  instruction  of  children 
was  also  carried  on  in  the  synagogue,  the  hazzdn 
acted,  furlher,  as  assistant  to  the  schoolmaster,  or 
was  himself  schoolmaster,  in  addition  to  his  other 
duties  {Shabb.  i.  3  :  c'Kiip  n^pu'nn  [3'.T  .inn  pn.i).  He 
discharged  the  functions  al.so  of  an  officer  of  the 
law  court,  carrying  out,  for  instance,  a  sentence  of 
scourging  (see  Mukkoth,  iii.  12  ;  Tos.  Makkotk,  v. 
444a).  SI.  cf  ^1,0  xos.  Sanhed.  ix.  428-»  [  =  Jerus. 
Snnhed.  23'(^:  ni'o;r  '3in]i.  li  appears,  however, 
that  officers  of  the  law  court  bore  tlie  title  hazzdn, 
even  when  they  were  not  at  the  same  time  syna- 
gogue attendants  (see  Jerus.  Kiddtixhin,  6or  '*, 
Sanhed.  19(-«  and  23d";  Bab.  Shabb.  56a,  139a, 
Makkoth,  23rt).— It  is  only  in  the  Bab.  Talmud 
(Kethuboth,  86)  that  we  meet  with  the  title  'Jin 
'.yi  [the  parallel  passage  of  the  Jerus.  Talmud 
(Prsach.  Ca)  has  nojDi  ]in],  Aram.  Kno  "Jin  {liaba 
mezin,  fj3b).     Cf.  Arakhin,  66  :  Knn^ciBi  'jin. 

The  leader  in  prayer  who  as  the  representative 
of  the  congregation  recited  aloud  the  prayers  in 
the  synagogue,  was  called  iirv  Ci-^;^,  '  delegate  of  the 
whole '  (iizy  is  the  name  of  the  collective  body 
as.seMil)led  in  the  synagogue,  in  opposition  to  the 
individual,  Tn;).  'I'his  leading  in  prayer  wns  a 
voluntary  function  discharged  by  members  of  the 
congregation  who  were  qualified  for  it  and  invited 
to  undertake  it.  According  to  a  Tannaite  tradi- 
tion, the  formula  addressed  to  the  person  .selected 
WBs  not  '  Come  and  pray,'  but  'Come  and  oiler '  (ku 
VOL.  IV.— 41 


2-\pi,  Jerus.  Berakh.  86  "*).  The  uttering  of  prayer 
was  considered  the  equivalent  of  the  olienng  of 
sacrifice ;  hence  the  leader  was  called  Kjnj  (see 
Jerus.  Berakh.  Sr,  bottom  ;  Leviticus  rabb",  ehs. 
19.  20). — The  leader  in  prayer  stepped  in  front  of 
tlie  synagogue  press ;  Lence  the  function  was 
known  also  as  nz'nn  ':sb  •\2i:  (see  Berakh.  v.  3,  4 ; 
Meg.  iv.  3),  Aram,  unu'n  -cip  i2y  (Jerus.  Berakh. 
9c  **).  The  prayer  is  preceded  by  the  reciting  of 
the  Shema  and  the  Blessings  connected  with  it ; 
this  function  was  called  I'ou'  'jy  die  [ons  means  pro- 
jieriy  to  break  ofi'  a  piece  of  bread  and  ask  a  bless- 
ing over  it ;  in  the  expression  before  us  it  is  used 
in  the  sense  of  to  pronounce  the  Blessings  attached 
to  the  Shema']. 

A  principal  [)art  of  the  jiublic  worship  of  the 
synagogue  is  tlie  reading  from  the  Pentateuch  and 
the  Prophets.  This  office  is  discharged  by  mcmbera 
of  the  congregation,  among  a  fixed  number  of  whom 
the  particular  passageof  the  Pentateuch  is  portioned 
out.  On  the  Sabbath  the  number  of  readers  is 
seven,  on  festival  days  five,  on  the  Day  of  Atone- 
ment six,  at  the  New  Moon  and  on  the  half-festival 
days  of  Passover  and  Feast  of  Booths  four,  on  week 
days  and  on  the  afternoon  of  the  Sabbath  three 
(J/c7.  iv.  1,  2).  After  the  reading  of  the  Penta- 
teuch lesson,  a  passage  is  read  from  the  Prophets 
by  one  who  may  at  the  same  time  act  as  leader  in 
prayer  {ib.  5).  When  there  is  only  one  of  the 
members  of  the  synagogue  who  can  read  from  the 
Scriptures,  he  reads  the  whole  section  (Tos.  Mer/. 
iv.  226»). 

The  reading  of  the  Scriptures  was  coupled  with 
the  translating  of  the  Heb.  text  (in  Palestine  and 
Babj'lonia  into  Aramaic).  The  man  who  publicly 
gave  the  translation  (Targum)  in  tlie  synagogue 
was  called  ]'p,^,  also  i?;')'!'  or  i'^^ninp  (see,  on  the 
correct  pronunciation,  IJacher,  Die  dltcste  Tennin- 
olo(fie  der  jiid.  Schriftauslegung,  p.  206).  The 
larger  .synagogues  would  have  a  Targumist  or 
Mrthorgcmdn  of  their  own.  There  was  one  of  this 
class  at  Janinia  in  the  time  of  Gamaliel  t.  (1st 
cent.),  namely  Rabbi  Cliu?pith,  who  was  surnamed 
icjiin.i  {Berakh.  276).  In  the  3i-d  cent,  there  was  a 
Rabbi  Hoshaya  in  Palestine  with  the  (Aram.)  sur- 
name N;?j"lin  {Gen.  rabba,  ch.  51,  ad  Jin.).  But  as  a 
rule  it  was  the  schoolmasters,  those  who  from  their 
calling  were  familiar  with  the  Bible  and  had  a  tra- 
ditional acquaintance  with  the  Targum,  that  gave 
the  translation.  From  the  beginningof  the  4th  cent, 
comes  a  story  of  how  .Samuel  b.  Jizhal>  once  came 
into  a  synagogue  and  saw  that  the  schoolmaster 
read  the  translation  from  a  written  Targum  (Jerus. 
Mi.g.  74(/"  ij  [0  KDunn  bcid  tsd  ^^  non  Nnco^  Swy 
KHD-D).  But  any  one  who  was  cajiable,  even  a 
minor,  was  entitled  to  give  the  Targum  in  the 
synagogue  {Meg.  iv.  6  ;  Tos.  Meg.  iv.  227-'). 

The  reading  of  the  Scriptures  was  followed,  when 
a  competent  person  was  present,  by  an  exposition 
of  the  lesson,  or,  in  otlicr  words,  by  a  sermon.  It 
was  customary  to  invite  any  stranger  scribe  who 
happened  to  be  there,  to  deliver  this  address. 

It  is  told  of  a  Pak-^Unian  Amora  of  the  4th  cent,  how  he  once 
came  to  a  Htraiit;e  place  and  followed  up  the  lesson  by  a  sennon 
(Lev.  rahha,  8).  Nuhiini  b.  Siniui,  a  Pal.  teacher  of  the  3rd  ceiiu 
prcorhed  in  Tarsus  {Pettiktaraf>lial/ii,  ch.  15,  78ft).  In  Midrash 
Tanchnma  (Tfrtitna,  1,  ed.  Ruber,  ii.  p.  811)  anane<Mlote  is  told  of  a 
scribe  who,  travelliii^r  by  sea  in  company  with  some  merchants, 
was  derided  by  thcin  when  he  boasted  of  the  wares  which  he  hod 
by  him,  and  which  they  soujjht  in  vain.  When  they  landed,  the 
men-hants  hafl  their  poo<is  taken  from  them  by  the  custom-house 
olllcials. while  the  si^nbe  went  into  the  synajrotfue,  preached  there, 
and  was  loa^lcd  W'ith  honours  and  ^ifts.  In  like  manner  Jesua 
travelled  about  in  Galilee,  teachinir  in  »iie  pvna^'opucs  (^, ?«#•«*» 
i.  r«'.<  ».<i}>o-«^0 ;  see  Mt  4^,  Lk  4i> ;  and  cf.  Mk  l'^>  (fl,  Lk  e» 
13i»,  JnuailS'*). 

The  synagogue,  as  has  been  already:  said,  wa« 
called  also  aaff^areTov,  because  its  principal  purpose 
was  to  serve  as  the  meeting-place  of  the  congrega- 
tion for  public  worship  ou  Sabbaths  (and  festival 


642 


SYNAGOGUE 


S YXAGOGU  E 


days).  From  the  period  when  the  temple  and  its 
sacrificial  ciiltus  still  existed  at  Jerusalem,  the 
tradition  is  preserved  that  the  body  of  men  (nsi'o) 
belonging  to  the  division  of  priests  in  charge  of 
the  temple  service  for  the  week,  assembled  daily  in 
tlie  synagogue  of  their  dwelling-place  and  read  tlie 
Creation  story  of  Gn  1  ( Tdnnith,  iv.  2 ;  Tos.  Taanitk, 
iv.  219'8 ;  Bab.  Taanitk,  276).  The  second  and  fifth 
days  of  the  week  also  saw  from  early  times  the 
congregation  assembled  in  the  synagogue,  because 
on  these  daj'S  there  was  reading  fiom  the  Torali 
(Tos.  Taanitk,  ii.  217").  But  tlie  practice  of  daily 
service  could  prevail  onlj'  in  larger  towns  where 
there  were  at  least  ten  members  unencumbered  by 
business  and  thus  able  to  give  daily  attendance  at 
the  synagogue  (see  p.  640").  Nevertheless,  it  was 
enjoined  by  the  scribes  tliat  every  one  should,  as 
far  as  was  in  his  power,  discharge  his  duty  of 
prayer  by  taking  part  in  the  common  prayer  of  the 
synagogue. 

An  early  Tannaite,  Eliezer  b.  Jakob  (1st  cent.),  introduces  bis 
pronouucement  on  prayer  with  the  exhortatiuri  to  pray  in  the 
eynagopriie  (Pesikta,  ecL  Buber,  15Sa).  A  Tannaite  of  unknown 
date,  Abba  Benjamin,  derives  from  1  K  8'^  the  thesis  that  it  is 
only  prayer  offered  in  the  synagogue  that  is  heard  (BerakhMh, 
bb).  Joshua  b.  Levi  (3rd  cenU)  gives  this  instruction  to  liis 
eons  :  *  (loinj;  into  the  syna^'ogTie  morning  and  evening  prolongs 
life'  {Berakh'tth,  8aX  Jizhak,  a  great  Agadist  of  the  3rd  cent., 
says  in  a  paraphrase  to  Is  5ui"-  n  :  *  If  there  is  a  man  who  is  wont 
to  go  into  the  s\Tiagogue  and  on  some  particular  day  comes  not, 
God  inquires  after  him,  saying,  Where  is  the  (Jod-fearing  one 
who  is  wont  to  be  among  you?  lie  ought  to  have  tnisted  in  the 
name  of  the  Eternal  and  left  himself  in  the  hands  of  his  God, 
and  not  have  absented  himself  from  the  house  of  God  for  the 
eake  of  gain  or  any  worhiiy  end '  {lieraklt.  {;'>).  Another  great 
Agadist  of  the  3rd  cent.,  Levi,  applying  Jerlli^-*,  says  :  'The  man 
in  whose  place  of  abode  there  is  a  synagogue  and  who  does  not 
frequent  it  is  called  an  "evil  neighbour"  of  God*  {B>'rakh.  Sa). 
Another  Pal  teacher  of  the  3rd  cent,  adopting  an  artificial  ex- 
planation of  Job  365,  says:  'God  does  not  leave  unheard  the 
prayer  that  is  offered  in  company  with  the  assembled  congrega- 
tion'  (BcrntA.  8a).  A  Pal.  Agadist  of  the  4th  cent.,  Jehuda  b. 
Simon,  makes  Israel  sing  (Midrash,  TekiUim  on  Ps  6) ;  '  Behold, 
O  God,  to  how  much  persecution  and  oppression  I  am  subjected 
b.v  Edom  (t.e.  Rome),  to  keep  me  from  owning  thee  as  my  God 
and  king.  But  we  go  daily  into  our  synagogues  and  own  thee 
in  our  confession  of  faith  (the  Shema*)as  God  and  king.'  The 
same  Agadist  applies  to  Pr  8^^  the  oft-recurring  idea  that  God's 
glory  is  ]iresent  with  the  congregation  assembled  in  the  syna- 
gogue :  '  Who  ever  came  into  the  synagogue  without  finding  my 
glory  there'  {Deut,  rabba,  7)? 

The  above  and  similar  sayings  (cf.  e.g.  also 
Dererk  Ercz  zi'ita,  9,  ad  init.)  show  not  only  the 
importance  attached  to  the  prayer  of  the  congre- 
gation in  the  synagogue,  but  also  the  constant 
need  there  was  of  warning  the  members  against 
negligence  in  their  attendance.  In  the  3rd  cent. 
it  was  told  in  Palestine  to  the  credit  of  the  Baby- 
lonian Jews  that  they  visited  the  synagogue  every 
morning  and  evening  (Berakh.  8a). 

V.  The  Synagogue  as  an  Elementary 
School. — The  synagogue  was  not  only  the  place 
of  pulilic  worship ;  it  embraced  also  the  school  in 
which  the  first  instruction  in  the  Holy  Scriptures 
as  the  principal  or  the  sole  subject  of  education 
was  given.  As  the  betk  hammidrash  served  for 
the  studies  of  more  advanced  youths  and  adults, 
the  synagogue  was  tln'  place  in  which — perhaps  in 
a  special  room— the  children  were  taught. 

In  a  homiletieal  exposition  of  La  19  Abba  b.  Kahana  (SM 
cent.)  adds  to  the  words  of  Jer  9-1  [Ileb.-O]  'to  cut  off  the 
children  from  the  street,  the  youths  from  the  squares'  the 
gloss  'but  not  from  the  synagogues  and  the  schools'  {Ecba 
Tabbattii,  ad  locX  Joshua  b.  Levi  himself  conducted  his 
grandson  to  the  synagogue,  i.6.  to  school  (Kutdu^tu  30a). 
Chija  b.  Abba  (3rd  cent),  aa  he  passed  a  synago^e  of  Sep- 
phoris,  heard  children  being  taught  to  repeat  Gn  201,  and  maae 
this  the  subject  of  a  remark  (Gfii.  raftba,  62),  In  an  anecdote 
of  the  4th  cent  we  are  told  how  a  teacher  in  the  synagogue 
punished  a  child  excessively  and  was  cursed  for  this  by  a 
woman  who  happened  to  be  passing  by  (Jems.  Moed  katon. 
Hid**).  Rab,  the  Hab.  Amora,  said  that  women  gain  special 
merit  by  conducting  their  children  to  the  synagogue,  ue.  to 
school  (Berakh.  17a).  See  also  the  sa^'ing  of  the  Pal.  Amora 
Simon  (end  of  the  4th  cent.)  reported  in  Jems.  Chalta,  57/yis. 
That  in  Babylonia  the  synagogue  was  the  place  of  elementar>' 
education  is  evident  from  .Wcj?.  28* ;  YehanwOt,  216,  top  ;  liaba 
})athra,    21a. — According  to  the    above-mentioned   tradition 


(ii.  §  2,  ad  mif.)  regarding  the  synagogues  of  Jerusalem,  each 
of  these  was  provided  with  a  sciiool  for  children  and  one  for 
more  advanced  students.  In  a  hyperbolical  statement  about 
Bethar,  the  capital  of  JudaBa  in  the  time  of  Bar  Cochba,  it  is  sa'd 
{GH.tin,  58a) :  'There  were  400  synagogues  in  Bethar,  and  in  each 
of  these  there  were  400  teachers  (n'plj'n  *nD'7D),  each  with  400 
children  under  his  instruction.' 

vi.  Other  Uses  of  the  Synagogue. — The 
synagogue  was  also  the  scene  of  legal  decisions. 
()f  Abahu,  the  head  of  the  school  of  Ciesarea 
(beginning  of  4th  cent.),  it  is  expressly  recorded 
that  he  lectured  (Jerus.  Berakk.  da,  bottom)  in  the 
ancient  synagogue  there  (see  above,  ii.  §  2),  and 
also  decided  questions  of  law  in  it  (Jerus.  Sanked. 
18a,  bottom).  In  the  same  synagogue  Jochanan 
the  famous  teacher  of  Abahu,  also  acted  at  one 
time  as  judge  (Bab.  Ycbamoth,  65a).  From  the 
NT  we  learn  that  the  punishment  of  scourging 
was  inflicted  in  the  synagogues  (Mt  10"  23**,  Mk 
13^  Ac  26";  cf.  Lk  12'>  21'^  Ac  22i9,  2  Co  11"). 
It  has  already  been  mentioned  (above,  §  iv.)  thac 
the  hazzdn  carried  out  this  sentence  and  acted  in 
other  ways  as  an  officer  of  the  law  court.  There 
is  mention  in  Lev.  rabba,  6,  ad  init.,  of  an  oath  in 
a  civil  process  being  taken  in  the  synagogue. 

The  mourning  for  a  man  who  was  lamented  by 
the  whole  community  was  held  in  the  synagogue 
(Tos.  Meg.  iii.  225- ;  l>ab.  Meg.  286  ;  cf.  tlie  story 
of  the  funeral  of  Jehuda  I.  in  Kuh.  rabba  on  Ec 
9'").  A  Bab.  Amora  of  the  5th  cent,  held  the 
mourning  for  his  daughter-in-law  in  the  syna- 
gogue [Meg.  286). 

At  the  time  of  the  war  against  Rome,  gatherings 
of  a  political  character  were  lield  in  the  great 
synagogue  of  Tiberias  on  the  Sabbatli  and  the  fol- 
lowing day  (Jos.  Vita,  54).  R.  Jochanan  (3rd 
cent. )  gave  express  permission  to  deliherate  about 
public  affairs  in  the  synagogues  and  schools  on 
the  Sabbath  (Ketkuboth,  5a).  After  the  destruc- 
tion of  Jerusalem  it  was  customary — so  a  Tannaite 
tradition  tells  us — to  give  out  in  the  synagogues 
and  schools  a  list  of  articles  lost  (Baba  mezia, 
286).  Thefts  were  also  intimated  in  the  syna- 
gogue with  a  view  to  the  detection  of  the  per- 
petrator [Lev.  rabba,  6,  ad  init.).  For  other 
announcements  made  in  the  synagogue,  see  Yeba- 
mot.h,  636.  An  Agadist  of  the  4th  cent,  once  fol- 
lowed up  an  address  in  the  synagogue  by  calling 
upon  the  congregation  to  contribute  alms  for  a 
stranger  [Lev.  rab.  32,  ad  Jin.). 

In  a  Tannaite  rule,  amongst  the  prescriptions 
concerning  what  is  due  to  the  dignity  of  the 
synagogue,  tliere  is  one  forbiddinj;  eating  and 
drinking  in  it  {31cg.  28a,  bottom).  Nevertheless, 
common  meals  were  held  even  in  the  s>Tiagogue 
(see  on  this  point  K.  Kohler,  3IonatssckriJt,  xxxvii. 
p.  494,  who  suggests  a  connexion  between  this 
custom  and  the  meals  of  the  Essenes).  An 
anecdote  from  the  3rd  cent,  mentions  a  meal  as 
held  on  the  Sabbath  evening  in  the  synago^e  of 
the  Pal.  Kephiir-Chittaja  {Gen.  rab.  65)  ;  while  a 
testimony  from  the  4th  cent,  refers  to  a  great 
meal  in  the  school  (Jerus.  Berakk.  lie,  bottom). — 
Joshua  b.  Levi  (3rd  cent. )  laid  down  tlie  principle 
that  the  synagogues  and  schools  belong  to  the 
scribes  and  their  pupils  (Jerus.  Meg.  74a*',  cf. 
Bab.  Meg.  286).  His  younger  contemporary, 
Ammi,  ordained  that  the  schoolmasters  (who  at 
the  same  time  filled  the  post  of  synagogue  keeper) 
sliould  provide  quarters  in  the  synagogue  building 
for  travellers  who  had  the  slightest  acquaintance 
with  the  Torah  (Jerus.  Meg.  lia^).  Chija  and 
Assi,  the  colleagues  of  Ammi,  used  to  insist  op 
quartering  themselves  in  the  synagogue  {ib.). 
Measha  and  Samuel  b.  Ji?hak,  Pal.  Amoras  of 
the  beginning  of  the  4th  cent.,  speak  of  eating  in 
the  synagogue  (Jerus.  Berakk.  ch.  ii.  end  [5a"], 
Shabbotk,  Za  ").  In  Babylonia  also  travellers  were 
accommodated  in   the  synagogue  and  there  took 


SYNAGOGUE 


SY^JAGOGUE,  THE  GEEAT       C43 


their  Sabliatli  meal  ;  upon  which  is  founded  the 
rule  that  the  blessing  over  the  wine,  which  else- 
where is  the  introduction  to  the  meal,  is  to  be 
spoken  also  in  the  synagogue  {Pesachim,  lOlo). 

In  a  great  many  passages  of  the  Jewish  tradition- 
literature  (Talmud  and  Midrasli)  the  sjTiagogues 
are  named  along  with  the  schools.  They  aj)- 
pear  as  the  two  institutions  which  are  specially 
characteristic  of  Israel,  and  whoso  extreme  im- 
portance for  Judaism  finds  expression  in  mani- 
fold ways.  In  order  to  see  what  the  synagogue 
was  in  the  life  and  thought  of  Israel  during  the 
first  centuries  of  the  Christian  era,  one  must 
make  acquaintance  also  with  those  sayings  of  the 
Tannaites  and  Amoras,  in  which  synagogue  and 
school  are  glorified  as  inseparable  institutions.  In 
these  it  must  be  observed  that  the  sj-nagogxie 
means  not  only  the  place  of  ])ublic  worship,  but 
that  of  instruction  for  the  young.  As  a  rule,  in 
these  sayings  the  synagogue  precedes  the  school 
(nipnD  'nzt  nrci3  t:),  a  circumstance  which  indi- 
cates the  higher  repute  in  which  the  sj-nagogue 
stood.  But  the  opposite  view  had  also  its  repre- 
sentatives :  from  the  3rd  cent,  there  has  come 
down  the  saying  of  a  Pal.  scribe  (Me(f.  i'a),  and 
from  the  4th  cent,  that  of  a  15ab.  scribe  {ib.  266), 
according  to  which  the  school  has  a  higlier  rank 
than  the  synagogue.  The  following  are  some  of 
these  sayings  about  synagogue  and  school  : — 

Ao  Agadist  of  the  4th  cenu  attributes  to  the  philosopher 
CEnomaus  of  Gatiara,  known  throuph  his  intercourse  with  the 
famous  R.  Meir,  the  sanni?  that,  so  long  as  the  *  voice  of  Jacob' 
(Gn  27'^')  sounds  in  synagoj,^e  and  sciiool,  the  '  hands  of  Esau' 
(Le.  Rome)  are  powerless  a^'ainst  Israel  (Gen.  rob,  65  ;  Pejiikta, 
l21aX— Al>ahu  said  ;  *  Seek  the  Eternal  where  he  is  to  be  found 
(Is  55*).  Where  is  he  to  be  found  ?  In  the  synagogTje  and  the 
achoot'  (Jerus.  Berakh,  8d,  bottoraX — Levi  said:  'While  the 
descendants  of  Abraham  sit  in  the  syna^o^^c  and  the  school, 
God's  glory  stands  over  them'  [in  allusion  to  Ps  82']  {Gen.  raJb. 
48;  P^fikl'a,  4S^). — By  'your  sanctuaries'  (Lv  2G3')  are  to  be 
understood  rmat^ogue  and  school  {Siphrdt  ad  loc  112a). — 
Jiftiak  declared  that  by  'our  dwelliri'.;^'  (Jer  9iB)are  meant 
qriiag'oguc  and  school  (Echa  rabba,  Proojra.,  No.  8). — Samuel 
k  Ji?t>ak  interpreted  the  '  sanctuary  Bi'3 '  (Ezk  11")  of  the 
srnagogues  and  schools  of  Babylonia  {Meg.  29a)L — The  '  holy 
j^ace '  (Ec  8*'')  means  synagogue  and  school  {KoK  rab.  ad  loc ; 
Tanchuma,  ed.  fiuber,  Jithro,  ad  init.). — '  My"  heart  is  awake' 
(Ca  62)  in  the  synagogue  and  the  school  {Shir  rab.  ad  ioc),~ln 
the  allegorical  interjiretation  of  the  Song  of  Sonijs  many  other 
passages  are  alyo  ap])li6d  to  the  synagogue  and  the  school 
{Shir  rab.  i>a>ix<)ii  ;  Bab  Erub.  21&  ;  Pesach,  87a). — Jose  b. 
Chonina  (ord  ct-ut.)  discovers  In  the  'gardens'  of  Ca  &  the 
sjTiagogue  and  the  school  {Shir  rab.  ad  Toe). — Attending  syna- 
gogue and  school  is  contnisted  with  attending  theatre  and 
cin;u8  (Jeriis.  Berakh.  Id^  (prayer  of  Nechunja  U  Uakkana 
in  Ist  cent) ;  Gen,  rab.  67  [Levi] ;"  Kolt,  rab.  on  Ee  l?).— When 
David  prays  fPs  01^),  '  May  I  dwell  for  ever  in  thy  tent,'  be 
means,  *  May  it  be  vouchsafed  to  me  that  my  words  may  l>e  re- 
peated under  my  name  in  the  school  and  the  synagogue '  (Jerus. 
Berakh.  ib\ — IThe  'refuge  from  generation  to  generation'  of 
Ps  90^  is  interpreted  by  ICaba  (4th  cent.)  of  synagogues  and 
■cbools.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  even  in  lat^r  centuries,  the^e 
were  the  refuge  of  Israel  scattered  through  all  land& 

vii.  LATE.ST  Hl.STORY  OF  THE  Synaooque. — In 
the  present  article  regard  has  been  had  only  to 
the  synagogue  of  antifiuity,  i.e.  of  the  last  years 
of  the  Second  Temple  and  the  first  five  centuries 
of  the  Christian  era.  But  the  synagogue  survived 
also  in  the  following  periods,  through  the  Middle 
Ages  down  to  the  present  day,  as  the  most  notable 
institution  of  Judaism,  the  focus  of  the  religious 
life  of  the  Jewish  community.  A  history  of  the 
synagogue  in  the  Middle  Ages  and  in  modern 
tunes  would  be  an  integral  part  of  the  history  of 
Judaism,  from  the  point  of  view  alike  of  its  out- 
ward fortunes  and  its  inner  development.  The 
manifold  character  which  Jewish  history  displays 
in  virtue  of  its  having  the  whole  of  the  inhabited 
plobe  for  ita  stage  of  action  and  in  virtue  of  the 
irillucnces  exercised  upon  it  by  diflcrcnt  forms  of 
civilization,  is  exhibited  also  in  the  character  of 
this  Jewish  institution,  which  is  ancient  indeed, 
bnt  is  ever  renewing  its  youth.  It  may  suffice  to 
point  out  that  in  the  most  recent  times,  during 
something  like  the  last  80  years,  the  synagogue 


was  the  central  point  and  also  the  principal  object 
of  Jewish  attempts  at  reform,  and  that  the  im- 
portance of  the  institution  has  been  marked  evep 
externally  by  the  synagogue  buildings  which  have 
been  everywhere  reared,  on  both  sides  of  the 
Atlantic — a  testimony  to  the  spontaneous  effort 
of  the  builders  and  sometimes  their  almost  exces 
sive  love  of  splendour. 

LiTERATURR. — As  far  as  concerns  articles  on  the  Synagogae  in 
the  various  Eucyclopaxlias,  or  the  treatment  of  the  subject  in 
the  works  on  the  History  of  the  Jews,  on  Biblical  Archjeology, 
and  the  Histon.'  of  NT  "Times,  a  general  reference  may  suffice, 
Schilrer  devotes  a  long  section  (GJ  V^  it  127^64)  to  the  Syna- 
gogue. Of  the  literature  cited  by  him  the  following  deser\e 
special  notice  ;  Vitringa,  De  si/na^/otja  vctere,  libri  tres  (lOOt'O ; 
Leopold  Low,  •  Der  synagogale  Ritus'  {Monatsschrijt,  \>r^i, 
Ge^atn.  Schri/ten,  iv.  1-7L  In  the  5th  vol  of  the  G^^am. 
Schhjten,  pp.  21-33,  are  •  Plan  und  CoUectaneen '  to  a  detailed 
account  of  *  synagogalen  Alterthiimer,'  supplemented  by  the 
editor,  Immanuel  Low).  We  may  mention  also :  K.  Kohler, 
'  l-^)cr  die  Urspriinge  und  Grundfonnen  der  svnagogalen 
Liturgie '  {llonatsechrift,  xx-xvii.  [1893]  441-J51,  489-497)  ;  S.  H. 
Goldfalin,  'Die  Synaj^ogen  der  Talmudze^t'  {JOd.  Litteratur. 
blatt  ron  liahmer,  xiii);  J.  Reifmann,  '  IJber  Synagogen  und 
Lehrhiiufjcr  zur  talmudischer  Zeit'  (in  N.  Keller's  lleb.  peri- 
odic.ll  Bikkurinit  II.  Theil,  1S60).— On  the  place  of  the  synagogue 
in  the  Middle  Ages,  see  L  Abrahams,  Jewish  Life-  in  the 
Middle  Ayei.  1896,  pp.  1-S4.  W.    BaCHER. 

SYNAGOGUE,  THE  GREAT.  — An  alleged  col- 
lege or  senate,  whose  founder  and  first  president  is 
said  to  have  been  Ezra,  and  which,  according  to 
tradition,  exercised  control  over  the  Jewish  com- 
munity, especially  in  religious  matters,  from  about 
450-200  B.C.  Its  membership  is  generally  given  as 
120  {e.g.  Jerus.  Berakhuih  ii.  4),  but  sometimes  as 
85  [e.g.  Jerus.  Meg.  i.  7).  The  important  part 
attributed  by  some  to  this  institution  in  connexion 
with  the  forming  of  the  Canon  OF  THE  OT  (see 
below)  demands  that  we  should  examine,  as  briefly 
as  possible,  the  evidence  for  its  existence  and 
activity. 

There  is  no  mention  of  the  Great  Syn.  in  Philo, 
Josephus,  or  the  Ajiocrypha,  not  to  speak  of  the 
OT  itself.  Nothing  can  be  built  on  1  Mac  14-', 
where  ixeyiXr]  avfayayii  is  not  a  technical  term, 
but  means  simply  '  a  great  gathering.'  Only  once 
in  the  Mishna  (Pirlfe  Aboth,  i.  1)  are  the  Men  of 
the  Great  Sj-nago^ue  (i^";!7  ncp  •c'jn)  mentioned  : 
•  Moses  delivered  the  Torali  to  Joshua,  Jo.sliua  to 
the  Elders,  the  Elders  to  the  Prophets,  and  the 
Prophets  to  the  Men  of  the  Great  S.ynagogue. 
These  spake  three  words  :  Be  cautious  in  pro- 
nouncing judgment.  Make  many  disciples.  Build 
up  a  hedge  around  the  Torah.'  Simon  the  Just  is 
said  (ib.  2)  to  have  been  'of  the  remnants  of  the 
Great  Synagogue  (':.i  'd  'Trc).'  This  last  statement 
does  not  imply  that  the  Great  Syn.  had  existed 
for  centuries,  for,  although  the  Simon  who  was 
surnanu^i  '  tlie  Just '  was  probably  high  priest 
c.  200  B.C.,  the  author  of  the  above  notice  is  more 
likely  to  have  identified  him  with  Simon  I.  (c.  300). 
Now  we  know  that  the  utmost  confusion  prevailed 
amongst  the  Jews  as  to  the  chronology  of  the 
period  between  the  Ucturn  from  Exile  and  the 
conquestsof  Alexander  the  Great.  Hence  it  would 
be  nothing  extraordinary  to  find  Simon,  a  con- 
temporary of  Alexander,  represented  as  a  member 
of  the  same  body  as  Ezra ;  and,  in  the  other 
direction,  to  find  Joshua,  Zerubbabel,  Hnggai, 
Zechariah,  Malachi,  and  even  Daniel,  introduced 
as  members.  As  far,  then,  as  the  testimony  of 
Pir/cc  Aboth  goes,  it  wouhl  seem  to  favour  the 
conclusion  that  the  Great  Syn.,  whatever  it  was, 
continued  only  for  a  single  generation,  instead  of 
having  a  succession  for  centuries.  It  is  noteworthy 
that  the  Talm.  treati.se  Peak  (ii.  6)  omits  the  Great 
Syn.  as  a  ccmnecting  link,  and  the  succes-sion 
passes  direct  from  the  Prophets  to  the  ZugOth  or 
'  Pairs.' 

In  Baba  bathra  (14i)  we  read  that  the  Men  of 
the  Great  Syn.  wrote  Ezekiel,  the  Minor  Prophets. 


644       SYNAGOGUE,  THE  GREAT 


SYRACUSE 


Daniel,   and    Esther;    and    in    the   Aboth   of  B. 
Nathan  (a  post-Talra.  treatise)  they  are  said   to 
have  secured  the  acceptance  of  Proverbs,  Canticles, 
and    Ecclesiastes,  winch   had    been  formerly   dis- 
puted.     In  Pesachim  (50b)  it  is  said   that   they 
fostered    the  work    of    copying    the    Torali    and 
tephillim  and  vu'zuzuth  (see  Dt  6»'-).     In  an  im- 
portant passage  of  Midrash  TanchuTna  (26c()  certain 
corrections  in  the  text  of  the  OT,  introduced  in 
order  to  prevent  misunderstanding,  are  also  traced 
to  the  Men  of  the  Great  Syn.,  who  are  reported 
elsewhere  (Jerus.  Berakh.  ii.  4)  to  have  drawn  up 
certain  prayers,  in  particular  the  Shcmoneh  Lsreh, 
or  18  Blessings  {blrakfuith).     To  them  are  attri- 
buted also  the  directions  for  the  reading  ot   the 
Book  of  Esther,  and  the  keeping  of  Purim  not  on 
the  14th  and  loth,  but  on  the  11th,  12lh,  and  13th 
of  the  month  Adar  (Makkoth  23;  Jerus.  Mec,.  i.). 
It  is  not,   however,  till   the  16th  cent,  that  we 
meet  with  the  notion  that  the  Men  of  the  Great 
Svna-'ojrue  collected  the  sacred  books,  and  hxed 
the  daSon   of   the   OT.     This  notion  makes  its 
first  appearance  in   the   pages  of   the  Massorcth 
Hammassoreth  (1538)  of   Elias  Levita,   a  Jewish 
contemporary  of  Luther. 

The  whole  question  of  the  Great  Syn.  was 
thorou'^hly  investigated  by  Kuenen  (see  Literature 
at  end),  whose  conclusions  are  accepted  by  the 
oreat  majority  of  modern  scliolars.  The  institu- 
tion, as  it  appears  especially  in  media;val  Judaism, 
is  held  by  Kuenen  to  be  simply  a  characteristic 
transformation  of  the  great  assembly  described  in 
Neh  8-10.  Just  as  the  Talmud  represents  the 
Sanhedrin  as  an  assembly  of  scribes,  because  such 
were  the  schools  at  Jamnia  and  Tiberias,  so  the 
Great  Synagogue,  instead  of  being  a  popular 
assembly  once  called  together  for  a  defanite  pur- 
pose, is  converted  into  a  permanent  institution 
discharging  functions  similar  to  tliose  of  the  scribes 
at  a  later  period. 

That  a  dim  reminiscence  of  the  original  identity  of  the  Great 
Svn  and  the  convocation  of  Neh  S^IU  still  lingered  on  even  m 
Rabbinical  circles,  may  be  gathered  fro™  some  of  the  references 
For  inswnce,  in  Midraah  Ruth  we  read,  \V  hat  did  the  Mi-"  «' 
the  Great  Syn.  do?  They  wrote  a  book  and  spread  it  out  in  the 
court  of  the  temjjle.  And  at  dawn  of  d?)' 'Jey  '•ose  and  found 
it  sealed.  This  «  iMaf  >«  irrittm  tn  AeA  938.'  A^in.  there 
occurs  in  Dt  lOi' this  collocation,  'God  the  great,  the  strong, 
the  terrible  (((-lijni  ni33,T  Siijn  Sxn).'  It  U  repeatedly  stated 
in  the  Talmud  (e.g'.  Jerus.  Berakh.  ii.  4)  that  this  formula,  which 
hail  fallen  into  disuse,  was  again  brought  mto  currency  by  tne 
Men  of  the  Great  Synanogue.  It  seems  impossible  to  doubt  that 
Kuenen  is  right  in  finding  an  allusion  here  to  Neh  9>-,  where  all 
these  epithets  are  found:  Similar  Talin.  stat-ments  api.ear  to 
allude  la  Neh  95- «■ '■ '8.  Once  more,  the  variety  of  sUlement 
as  to  the  number  of  members  that  constituted  the  Great  bj-n. 
(sometimes  120,  sometimes  85)  may  be  explained  from  Neh  8-10. 
There  were  84  that  sealed  the  covenant,  according  to  Neh  lOi-a, 
and  the  number  ii  may  be  obtained  either  by  adding  the  name 
of  Ezra  (who  is  not  mentioned),  or  by  supposing  that  a  name 
has  dropped  out  ot  the  list  (either  in  v  1«  or  in  v.*.  where  the 
Pesh  actuallv  supplies  an  extra  name,  Shephatiah).  If,  on  the 
other  hand,  we  wish  to  obtain  th«  number  120,  this  may  be  done, 
■        ely,  by  combining  the  above  list  with  the  lists 

,„  1,,:..  o-  •  .. ',  or  in  Ezr  2  and  8  (for  other  argumenU  of  a 

similar  kind,  see  Kucnen's  Essay), 


came  afterwards  to  be  spoken  of  as  the  Great 
Syna"0','ue  was  originally  a  meeting,  and  lot  « 
permanent  institution.  '  It  met  once  for  al.,  and 
everything  tliat  is  told  about  it,  except  wliat  we 
read  in  Nehemiah,  is  jiure  fable  of  the  later  Jews 
(OTJC  169).  Historical  criticism  tlius  leaves  no 
place  for  the  Great  Synagogue  of  tradition. 


LiTKRATillI!.— Buxtorfs  Tiheruif  me  Comm.  Slafsor.  (1620) 
strenuously  upholds  the  traditional  view,  and  is  still  of  value 
for  its  copious  citation  of  testimony,  which,  however,  >s  u'*^," .',° 
a  very  uncritical  fashion.    On  the  other  side  is  Ran  s  Diatribe 
de  S:/n  manna  (ITie),  which,  although  marked  by  an  excess  of 
anti-Jewish  prejudice,  shows  true  critical  instinct,  and  antici- 
pates   some  of  the  weightiest  of   Kuenen's  argumenu.     T  e 
question  may  be  considered  to  have  been  finally  settled,  in  the 
sense  advocited  above,  by  Kuenen  in  his  famous  '"™08"ph. 
Over  (If  mannen  der  groate  synagoge,  Amsterdam,  IS.O  Itr.  by 
Budde  mGemm.  Abhaiuilunjen,  pp.  125-ltiOl,  whose  conclusion, 
are  .accepted  by  Ryle,  Canon  o/  OT,  IMS.  (valuable  as  con- 
taining the  Jewish  testimonies  reUed  on  hv  Buxtorf  1 :  «  '  d^-''°". 
Enlsteh.  den  AT  A'anoiw,  120  5. ;  Buhl,  Canon  and  Text  ofUl, 
33ff.;    W.   B.   Smith,    0WC2  169f, :    and   many  others.     Cf. 
further,  Hartmann,  DU  enge  rerbuidu.md.  ^T  rnU  (LJXl, 
120-ir.6;  Taylor,  Sayinys  o/ the  Jewish  ^  «'*,?;« -Nl^a^^Tost" 
LOT"  Introd.  viit. ;  Furst,  hanan  d.  4/"  (1868),  12-3- .J°?J; 
Gesch.  d.  Jud.  u.  sein.  Sect.  i.  41-43,  91  95 f.;  Geiger,  Drsc/i-yt 
u    UeberseU.   d.   Bibel,   124 1. ;    Wellh.    Phar.  u.  Sad.   Ul., 
Dere.Cu%    Emi  sar  fhistoire  de  la  Palestine,  29-40  (tradi- 
tionalist) ;Tiontet,  £»»ai  «r««  ori-j.-^^rff*  P.  Y^«««/";'7''f 
pharu-ien  (18S3),  91-97 ;   Schurer,  WV  j^.iu  3o4f.  IBJP"'- 
354  f.l;  Heidenheim,  •  Untersuch.  uber  die  Syn.,  magna    (SK, 
1853    pp  93-100);  Herzfeld,  Gesch.;d.  Judenth.  a.  22^24  380 ff., 
iii    -^44 1 ,  270 f. ;  Graetz,  'Die  Grosse  Versammlung    Olonatf 
"chrift.    1857,  pp.  31-37,   61-70);    Bloch,   Studim  Z.Geschd. 
SaSi.  d.  dnZ,.  i^«;,.(1876)100-132;  Hamburger,  ^ii.       8- 


at  least  aiiproximately,  by  combinhig  the  above  list  with  the  lists 
in  Neh  s-1' and  95  ■        '    -     "      -"• "       *  ...",«"■-< 

,milar  kind,  see  1 

The  very  name  'Synagogue'  seems  inexplicable 
except  upon  Kuenen's  view.  It  calls  up  neither  a 
college  of  scribes  nor  a  legislative  body,  but  an 
assembly  for  religious  service.  The  word  nrj?  (see 
Synagogue)  denoted  eitlier  a  congregation  met 
for  worsliip  on  the  Sabbatli  day,  or,  by  metonymy, 
the  building  wliere  it  met.  The  name  niif;ht  be 
fittin'dy  enough  applied  to  the  convocation  of 
Nehemiah,  which,  as  Kuenen  rem.arks,  w.-is  not  a 
law  ■impoaing,  but  alaw-rceeti'tn?  assembly;  fjntl  m 
the  account  of  whose  proceedings  we  hnd  all  the 
exercises  characteristic  of  Synagogue  worship, 
such  as  prayer,  the  reading  of  the  Law,  etc.  1  o 
this  memorable  convocation  the  epithet  Great 
would,   for   a  variety  of    reasons,   be    eminently 

W.  R.  Smith  agrees  with  Kuenen  that  what 


tr^D    Hoffmann,  •DiHi^i.nTrderg^^^^ 

f  Va'.;azin  /  H-toemo;<.  to  J,ulenth.  x.  (1883)43-63 ;  S.  Krauss. 

•The  Great  Synod'  (Jl^fi  x.  (1893)  347-377). 

J.  A.  Selbie. 
SYNTYCHE  (^wn'-x'?).— A  member  of  thePhilip- 
pian  Church  whom  St.  Paul  exliorts  to  become 
reconciled  to  EuoDIA,  another  member  of  the 
same  Cliurch.  They  appear  to  have  held  a  position 
of  importance  in  the  Church  as  ladies  of  some 
wealth  and  position,  or  possibly  as  deaconesses, 
like  Phoebe  in  the  Roman  Churcli  (Ro  la^).  Their 
disagreement  was  therefore  not  only  unseemly  it 
was  a  calamity  for  the  entire  Church.  Both  tlie 
names,  Euodia  and  Syntyche,  occur  in  the  inscrip- 
tions (Lightfoot,  Ep.  to  tite  Philippi'ins*,  p.  lo8). 
There  is  no  need,  tlierefore,  to  introduce  the  far- 
fetched interpretation  of  the  Tubingen  school,  that 
thev  are  allegorical  personages  rejiresenting  the 
Jew-ish  and  Gentile  sections  of  the  Church. 

J .  CtIBB. 

SYNZYGUS  (TR  SifiT"'.  tut  modem  edd.  ^u'- 
f„.yos)  —If  Simz'/fj'is  is  a  proper  name,  he  was  a 
person  to  whom  St.  Paul  addressed  an  entreaty  to 
brin"  about  a  reconciliation  between  Euodia  and 
Svnrvche,  two  members  of  the  Phihppian  Cliurch 
who  were  at  variance  (Ph  4^).  He  was  at  the 
time  in  Philippi,  and  may  have  been  the  chief 
presbyter  or  bisliop  of  the  Churcli.  The  sole 
objection  to  tliis  interpretation-the  only  natural 
one-is  that  Synzygm  is  nowhere  used  in  Greek 
literature  as  a  proper  name,  nor  is  it  found  in  the 
inscriptions  (but  see  Vincent,  arf  loc).  It  was 
sut'-'ested  by  Weizsitcker  that  it  may  have  been 
adopted  by  the  bearer  after  his  conversion  to 
Christianity.  The  other  interpretation  w  that 
aiVftryos  here,  as  in  classical  Greek,  signifies  '  yoke- 
fellow,' and  that  the  exhortation  was  addressed 
to  a  companion  of  the  apostle  who  was  with  hira 
when  he  wrote,  who  was  possibly  his  amanuensis 
(see  vol.  iii.  p.  841").  Barnab.as,  Silas,  Epaphro- 
ditus,  and  Timotliy  have  been  suggested.  Lamsay 
(St  Paul  the  Trav.  3.58)  thinks  that  Luke  was 
either  'the  true  yoke-fellow'  or  the  actual  bearer 
of  the  Epistle  to  Philippi.  The  suggestion  of 
Renan  (Saint  Paul,  p.  148)  that  the  'true  yoke- 
fellow'  is  Lydia,  who  had  become  the  wife  of  the 
apostle,  is  hardly  to  be  Uken  seriously.  ^   ^^^^ 

SYRACUSE    CZvpiKOvaaL,     but    Vulg.     wrongly 


SYRACUSE 


SYKIAC  VERSIONS 


613 


Binj:.  iHi/nauin),  situated  on  the  west  coast  of 
Sicily,  was  the  principal  city  of  the  island,  and 
under  the  Komans  was  the  capital  of  the  eastern 
half.  After  the  western  half  of  Sicily  was  taken 
from  Carthage  hy  the  liunians  (B.C.  241)  at  the 
close  of  the  lirst  I'unic  War,  the  eastern  lialf  con- 
tinued to  belong  to  the  kingdom  of  Syracuse  in 
alliance  witli  Home.  In  tlie  second  Punic  War, 
Syracuse  took  the  side  of  the  Carthaginians,  b\it 
was  captured  by  Marcellus  in  212,  and  the  whole 
island  thenceforward  continued  to  be  a  Roman 
Province,  though  in  two  distinct  divisions,  in  eaih 
of  which  a  qua'stor  was  stationed,  under  the 
authority  of  the  single  governing  pra;tor,  who 
presided  over  the  whole  island. 

Synicuse  was  one  of  the  most  famous  and  magnificent 
colonic-a  of  Greece.  It«  defeat  of  the  j^reat  Athenian  expedi- 
tion in  B.C.  415  waa  one  of  the  most  critical  events  in  Greek 
history  ;  and  it«  kings  were  among  the  leading  powers  in  tlie 
Greek  world.  Whether  it  preserved  it«  old  prosperit.v  in  the 
first  centiiPr-  after  Christ  is  uncertain,  as  Sicily  suffered  severely 
in  the  Civil  Ware,  especially  from  the  exactions  of  Sexlus 
Pompey  and  in  the  contest  between  him  and  Augustus. 
Strabo,'  272  f.,  describes  the  whole  island  as  in  a  Btat«  of 
decay  in  his  time,  some  of  the  cities  having  disappeared,  while 
others  were  declining  :  the  interior  was  to  a  large  extent  given 
op  to  grazing  and  horse-breeding,  peopled  by  nerdsmen,  and 
devoid  of  educative  influences.  Its  ancierit  importance  as  an 
arable  and  corn-growing  countrj*  had  disappeared ;  and  the 
reason  for  this  lay  p»rtly  in  the  economic  conditions  of  the 
empire,  and  parttv  in  the  dreadful  circumstances  of  the  Senile 
Wars,  B.C.  136-132  and  10:)-1()U.  The  land  belonged  for  tlie 
most  part  to  atisentee  landlords. 

Syracuse  was  one  of  the  26  censori(e  eivUates  of  Sicily, 
which  hiMl  been  conquered  in  war,  and  whose  territory  had 
been  appropriated  by  the  Roman  State  as  afjer  ^liiUciui. 
Julius  Cajsar,  as  was  natural  to  his  statesmanlike  mind,  had 
been  revolting  schemes  for  the  restoration  of  prosperity  to 
Sicily,  but  his  plans  were  interrupted  by  his  ass-assination. 
Antony  pro<lucea  a  plan  which  he  declared  to  have  been  found 
among  Caisar's  papers,  and  proiioscd  a  law  to  extend  the 
Roman  fruricliisu  to  Sicily.  This  was  not  carried  out  com- 
pletely ;  and  Augustus  was  content  with  a  much  more  gradual 
process  of  elevating  Sicily  to  the  full  Roman  rights.  He 
rounded  seven  Roman  colonies  of  militar>-  origin,  one  of  which 
was  Syracuse."  Pliny  mentions  also  that  there  were  in  Sicily 
two  Roman  towns  {oppida  civiujn  Jioinanorum)  and  three 
cities  with  Latin  rights  ;  but  his  enumeration  is  verj-  imperfect, 
imd  It  is  certain  that  Roman  and  Latin  rights  were  much  more 
widelyspread  in  Sicily  before  the  middle  of  the  first  century  after 
Christ  than  ho  allows.  It  was  during  this  process  of  transition 
from  the  fiosition  of  a  conquered  province  to  that  of  a  con- 
stituent part  of  the  Roman  State  that  St.  Paul  approached 
the  Sicilian  coast. 

Syracuse  is  mentioned  in  the  NT  only  as  having 
been  a  harbour  where  St.  Paul  lav  at  anchor  for 
three  days  on  his  voyage  from  ^lalta  to  Rome. 
The  shipwrecked  crew  and  passengers,  after  spend- 
ing three  months  in  Malta,  set  .sail  on  the  Dio- 
scuri, evidently  one  of  the  Alexandrian  fleet  of 
imperial  transports  carrying  grain  from  Egypt  to 
maintain  the  food  siipplj'  in  Koine.t  They  started, 
evidently,  very  early  in  the  year,  probably  in 
February,  before  the  settled  weather  and  the 
customary  season  for  navigation  (vi'ire  clnnsum 
11  Nov.  to  5  March)  had  begun.  That  implies 
that  a  .luitable  and  seemingly  steady  wind  was 
blowing,  which  tempted  them  to  embark,  and 
carried  them  straight  to  Syracuse,  a  distance  of 
about  100  miles.  On  the  voyage  from  Malta  to 
Rome  OS  a  whole,  see  RllKOiu.M. 

Nothing  is  said  with  regard  to  any  preaching  by 
St.  Paul  in  Syracuse,  nor  could  any  be  cvpccted  to 
occur.  The  shi])  was  certainly  waiting  for  a  suit- 
able wind  to  carry  it  north  to  the  straits  of 
Messina ;  and  under  such  circumstances  no  prisoner 
was  likely  to  bo  allowed  leave  of  absence,  as  the 
ship  must  be  ready  to  take  instant  advantage  of 

•  Pliny  (iVof.  Uitt.  111.  8»-90)  wrongly  mentions  only  five  (one 
being  Syracuse). 

t  By  a  strange  mistake,  In  contradiction  of  Ac  2811,  the 
Diufcuri  Is  described  in  Smith's  Dli  iii.  Uia  as  a  ship  in  Iho 
African  oom  trade,  which  had  salle<l  from  the  province  Afrii-a 
Inteniling  to  round  I'achynum  to  Syracuse,  and  was  carried 
out  of  iia  course  to  Malta.    On  the  iianie  of  the  ship,  and  the 

CmmaUcol   constnictlon    ol    the   clause   describing   It,  sm 
KOIOM. 


the  wind.  A  survey  of  the  progress  of  early 
Christianity  would  show  that  it  rarely  spread 
through  the  activity  of  coasting  travellers,  even 
on  shores  where  their  voyages  were  verj-  tedious 
and  subject  to  frequent  and  long  interruptions  (as, 
for  example,  the  coasts  of  LvciAanil  I'AMl'IIVLIA). 
It  is  mure  probable  that  the  new  religion  spread 
from  Italy  to  Sicily  in  the  course  of  direct  com- 
munication between  the  two  countries.  Many 
Christian  memorials  of  a  fairly  but  not  very  early 
date  have  b 'en  found  at  S3'racuse :  see  the  papers 
by  Orsi  in  Notizie  degli  Scavi,  1893  and  1894,  and 
esp.  in  liomische  Quartalschrift  f.  christl.  Alt. 
1896,  pp.  1-59.  W.  M.  Kamsay. 

SYRIA,  SYRIANS.— See  Aram,  ARASLffiiANS. 

SYRIAC  LANGUAGE.— See  Lakguaqk  OF  OT, 

vol.  iii.  p.  25*. 

SYRIAC  VERSIONS.- No  branch  of  the  Early 
Church  has  done  more  for  the  translation  of  the 
Bible  into  their  vernacular  than  the  Syriac-speak- 
iiig.  In  our  European  libraries  we  have  Syriac 
Bible  MSS  from  the  Lebanon,  Egypt,  Sinai,  Meso 

Sotnmia,  Armenia,  India  (Malabar),  even  from 
hina.  And  many  of  the  Bible  versions  in  other 
Oriental  languages  are  dependent  on,  or  at  least 
inthienced  by,  the  Syriac,  as  the  Armenian, 
Arabic,  Ethiopic.  Some  of  the  Syriac  MSS  ap- 
pear to  be  the  oldest  Bible  MSS,  in  any  language, 
which  have  an  e.\act  date :  a  Syriac  Pentateuch 
in  the  British  Museum  (Add.  1442.'))  is  dated  from 
the  year  464,  written  by  a  deacon  .John  at  Amid.* 
A  Syriac  •  Chinese  stone  inscription,  erected  at 
Singan-fu  in  the  year  781,  discovered  hy  .Jesuit 
missionaries  in  1625,  speaks  of  the  27  books 
of  the  NT.  It  would  be  a  pleasant  task  to 
follow  up  the  history  of  the  Syri.ac  Bible  ver-sions 
through  all  times,  regions,  and  departments  of 
culture  :  want  of  space,  however,  obliges  us  to 
confine  ourselves  to  the  importance  of  tlie  Syr. 
V.S.S  for  the  modem  student  of  the  Bible.  We 
be-jin  with  the  NT. 

I.  New  Testament. — Older  scholars  spoke  of 
that  Sj'r.  VS  of  the  NT  wliic  h  alone  was  known 
to  them  as  '  the  Queen '  of  all  Bible  version.s.  But 
now  we  have  more  than  one,  at  least  for  the 
Gospels. 

1.  Tradition.  —  When,  in  the  16th  cent.,  the 
Syr.  VS  of  the  NT  became  known  in  Europe,  the 
belief  prevailed  that  it  was  due  to  the  evangelist 
Mark,  who  was  said  to  have  ■.vritten  his  (lospel 
first  in  Latin  and  then  to  have  translated  it,  with 
the  other  books  of  the  NT,  into  Syria(\t  .larob  of 
Kde.ssa  (t  701)  and  others  wtre  of  the  opinion  that 
Aildai  the  apostle  (TllADD^EUS)  and  king  Al>';.ar 
sent  interpreters  to  Palestine  (see  Moses  bar 
Cepha  [t  913]  and  Barhebraius,  Schulia  in  J's  10). 
Wliat  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia  says  of  the  Syr. 
transl.ation  of  the  OT  holds  equallj'  good  of  the 
NT  ;  ijpjxrjutvTat  di  ravra  eU  fiiv  ttJc  twj'  ^vpuv  nap' 
iJTov  b-i)  ttotC  oC'di  •vAp  i'/vwarai  M^Xi**  ^V^  Tt)pi(pov  fitrrti 
jroT*  out6s  iartv  (Comm.  in  Hoph.  [1,  6]  ;  Mai,  Nova 
Patr.  Jiibl.  vli.  18.54). 

2.  Place. — We  do  not  know  whore  the  trans- 
lation was  made.     On   the  ground   of  some  lin- 

•  W.  Wright,  A  Short  Ilistory  of  Syriac  Literature  (London, 

1894,  p.  i^lJtlc.  nrit.H  xxii.  824). 

t  '  Syri  constanter  asserunt  S.  Marcura  .  .  .  latine  nrimura 
scripsiisse  Evangclium  suiiin.  Deindo  eundem  ipsum  Mnrcinii 
lingua  patria,  hoc  est,  Galiliua  Syra,  non  modo  Evangetiuin 
siiiim  transtulisso.  Bed  etiaiii  cjeteros  omnes  NT  lihros.  Id  mihi 
litteris  signiflcavit  Guilieliiuis  Postellus  atllrmavitquo  Be  lla  a 
Syria  ipsis  acccpisse '  (Hrxleriantis  [Uuido  Kevre  de  la  Boderiu] 
In  the  I'refacc  of  the  Syr.  NT  1571).  Widmunstailt,  the  llrst 
editor  of  the  NT  in  Svriac  (Ifir-.'V),  agrees  that  Mark  wrote  In 
l.atin,  but  contents  hfmsclf  with  allinning  that  the  book^  ol 
the  NT  (except  Matthew  and  Hebrews)  were  translat4^  inla 
Syriac  *  sb  Initio  rerum  Christianorum.' 


646 


SYRIAC  VERSIONS 


SYELA.C  VERSIONS 


guistic  peculiarities,  Syrian  grammarians,  as  Elias 
I  and  Barhebrajus,  readied  the  same  conclusion  as 
Jacob  of  Edessa,  that  tlie  translation  originated 
in  PaUstine  ;  European  scholars  thought  hrst  ot 
■intioch,  because  the  translation  became  known  to 
them  through  the  Patriarch  of  Antioch  :  in  recent 
times  Edessa  has  found  most  favour  ;  but  nothing 
can  be  said  with  certainty.  . 

3.  HUtortj.—(a)  The  lirst  mention  of  a  Syriac 
NT  seems  to  be  the  statement  of  Eusebius  (y^ii 
iv  26)  on  Hegesippus  (about  160-180)  :  (k  re  tou 
^atf'E^paiovi  evaryMov  Koi  to5  IvpioKOu  Kai  iSiw$ 
iK  TTis  'EfSpoiSos  aioA^KTOu  Tii-a  TWT]nv,  ifiipalvuv  c„ 
■^^palw  iavrbv  TeTriffTeuK^^-ai  (Rulinus:  '  de  Evan- 
.^elio  secundum  Hebra;os  et  Syros  ;  oyr-  Vb  ot 
Eusebius  :  '  from  tlie  Gospels  of  the  Hebrews  and 
Syrians';  see  on  the  passage  Th.  /ahn,  ior- 
schungen,  vi.  246). 

(6)  About  the  same  time  or  a  little  earlier  we 
hear  that  Tatian,  who  was  born,  according  to  his 
o^^■n   statement,  iv  rg  tO>v  'kaavpluv  777,  and   had 
been  in  Rome  the  hearer  of  Justin  Martyr,  re- 
turned home— as  it  seems,  in  the  year  172— and 
composed  (probably  there ;   not  at  Rome,  about 
153-170  [so    Hamack  formerly,    TV  1.   2  3])   his 
famous  Diatessaron,  i.e.  a  harmony  of  the  four 
Gospels  (o-ui'd^eidi'  xii/a  Ka.1  awayunn"  o^'"  "'^    '"^'^5 
Til/  cuaYY^Mu"  awOiU  T»  oia.  rcoaapoiv  TovroTpoaoivo- 
ixaixef,  8  sai  irapd  natP  eiairi.  pOf  rf^perai,   Eus.  HH, 
iv    36  ;  in  the  Syr.  Eusebius  :   '  he  gatherecl  and 
mixed  and  composed  a  Gospel  and  called  it  piates- 
saron,  i.e.  of   the  Afixed  {x-^^ri^-i),  which   is   still 
with  manv').     It  appears  to  be  simply  to  a  mis- 
understanding that  we  owe  the  remark  of  Epi- 
phanius  {Ilcer.  46.  1,  ed.  Dindorf,  ii.  412)  :  X^T"""' 
di  t4  5io  TEffcrdpwv  €1)077^X101'  vir'  airrov  yeyevqaeai., 
Sirtp  Kara 'EPpaiotJS  Ttves  KaXoJ<ri.      Of  this  work 
TluHKluret  (till   457  bishop  of   Kyrrhos)  tells   us 
that  it  was  in  his  times  used  not  only  by  the  tol- 
lowers  of  Tatian,  but  also  in  orthodox  congre^ja- 
tions  •  that  he  himself  found  more  than  200  copies 
in  use  in  the  churches  of  his  diocese ;  that  he  col^ 
lected  and  removed  all  (-rctaa^  awayayi^v  aTteip-tiv),  ^ 
substituting  for  them  the  Gospels  of  the  Four  (ra 
T(i>'    Tcacapuiv  evayycXia-rQi'   afTeKrrryayoi'  eiuyyiMa). 
A  little  earlier,  bishop  Rabbula  of  Edessa  (412- 
435)  ordered   that  presbyters  and  deacons  sliould 
take  care  that  in  all  churches  the  'Gosjiels  ot 
the  Separate '  (NS'1?Dn  p-him ;  S.  Ephracmi  bi/n, 
Rahuliz  .    .    .  opera  sclccta,   ed.    Overbeck,   U.\f. 
1865    p.   220)   be   kept  and   read.     Of  the  same 
Rabbula  his  biographer  tells    that  he  occupied 
himself  with  '  tramlating  the  NT  out  of  the  Orcek 
into  Syriac,  because  of  its  variations,  exactly  as  %t 
was'  (ib.  172). 

This  Harmony  of  Tatian  was  apparently  in 
SvTiac,  not  in  Greek  [the  latter  is  (or  was)  the 
view  of  Hamack]. 

See  on  all  questions  connected  with  Tatian,  Arthur  HJelt, 
Dhalts^lris'^hchh'angelieniiimclzungimdTalmnsDmtessaron, 

heaondtrs  in  ihrcm  gegenseitinm  \  erhaltnu  untersucM,  l.ei})- 
zie  1901,  pp.  16-76  :  the  Literature  19  quoted  in  part  in  vol.  11. 
(W  f,  iii  536,538.  Add:  E.  Lippelt,  QxuB  fMennt  Jrwtui. 
MaHyria  i^.^.n^o'iiA"™  qwiqyf  mtMne  mm  forma  evaii- 
geliorum  syro-lalina  cohmmnt  (Diss.;,  1.,  Halle,  1901. 

The  great  question  is  now  whether  this  Diates- 
saron of  Tatian  was  the  first  form  in  which  the 
Gospel  came  to  the  Syrians,  or  whether  there  was 
already,  before  Tatian,  a  Syr.  VS  of  the  Gospels, 
which  he  may  h.ave  used.  The  question  is  ddli- 
cult  because  'Tatian's  work  has  not  survived  in  its 
original  form,  but  only  in  a  late  Arabic  recension, 
dul  to  Abulfaraj  Abdullah  ibn  at  Tajjib  (tl043)  ; 
further,  it  seems  to  have  been  the  basis  of  the 
Latin  Harmony  of  Victor  of  Capua  ;  it  was  com- 
mented on   by  Ephraem  Syrus ;    but  this  com- 

•  There  U  no  cround  for  the  statement  which  U  sonietimea 
made  (for  instance  by  Jiilicher,  EirUeitimg,  S  S,)  thai  he 
'burned'  the  copies. 


mentary  is  again  preserved  only  in  translation  (in 
Armenian)  ;  it  was  used  by  Aphraates,  and  few 
direct  quotations  have  been  preserved  by  Synao 
le\ico"-raphersand  commentators:  these  have  been 
collected  by  Hall,  Harris,  Goussen.  Some  help  to- 
wards answering  the  question  was  given  when,  in 
addition  to  the  Syriac  NT,  known  since  older  tinies, 
there  came  in  1858  the  version  of  the  Gospels  dia- 
covered  by  Cureton,  and  in  1892  that  found  on 
Mt.  Sinai  by  Mrs.  A.  S.  Lewis,  and  edited  in  1894 
by  Bensly,  liurkitt,  and  Harris.  But,  on  the  other 
hand,  the  question  became  the  more  complicated. 

(c)  The  history  of  these  discoveries  cannot  he 
told  here  ;  suffice  it  to  say,  that  of  the  fragments 
published  by  Cureton  (Remains  of  a  very  antient 
recension  of  the  Four  Gospels  in  Synac,  hitlierto 
■unknown  in  Europe,  London,  1858),*  the  Gospel 
of  Matthew  has  the  very  title  used  above  liy 
Itabliula,  'Gospel  of  the  Separate,  and  that  in 
the  Sinai  Gospels  the  same  expression  is  used  in 
the  subscription.  _  m  ■.-        v     n- 

[In  what  follows  we  designate  latian  by  tt., 
Cureton's  Gospels  by  5%  the  Sinai  Gospels  by 
«-•  the  common  Syr.  VS  called  Feshitta  (Kija-.??) 
by'Sf], 


(1)  KIJDTS,  to  Which  supply  K1?P33,  means  'the  eimple,'  i.t. 
the  simple  version.  It  is  first  used,  so  far  as  known  at  present, 
in  Ma™oretic  IISS  of  the  9th  and  10th  ';':"%"}^^"^,f'^: 
tinction  to  the  Uarolensis ;  and  in  Moses  bar  Cephas  (t913)  m 
op,«rion  t^  the  Syro-llexaplaris.  The  latter  ^'ys  i '  One  must 
know  that  there  are  in  Syriac  two  translations  of  the  OT  .  the 
one  this  N.-lD'fS  in  which  we  read,  was  made  from  Hebrew 
int<;  S^  riac  ;  the  other,  that  of  the  Seventy-two,  from  Greek  ■ 
(see  U'rl  p  229  f.).  On  the  pronunciation,  spelluig,  and  min- 
ing of  111^  name  (PAMUd,  simplified  to  Peskito),  see  the  Lit. 

''TaHts'ori^in'and  the  spread  ot  its  <«^ f %?™% °'«™"; 
Till  1S42  the  Peshito  was  the  only  known  older  feyr.  \  S  of  the 
Rihli  ■  it  iq  still  held  bv  O.  H.  Owilliam  to  be  the  oldest  (see 
I  'rfii  B^iS  i^  151 1  ['.A  Syriac  biblical  MS n,ui.  47  9 
[•The  materials  for  the  criticism  of  the  Pesluto  NT  1 .  ;f ^"J- 
Times  Jan.  1895,  157  tl.  C  The  new  Syriac  Gospels  )  ■  Cnt.  h-v 
ian  18%  14-22  ('Communication  on  the  Lewis  Palimpsest, 
the'Curetonian  Pragmients,  and  the  Peshitta');  Tht  O^ord 
M,a7eoTafte=a^cri,icis,n  0/  the  NT  held  atXew  Collet 
onilav  fi,  1SH7,  Lond.  1897).  His  view  is  shared  by  A.  Bonus, 
who  th  iiks  SP  'scarcely  later  than  the  latter  half  of  the  second 
century  •  With  this  contrast  the  statement  of  Burkitt  (JTh^t 
Tmy-l  confess  that  I  am  uncon%-inced  that  what  we  call 
the  NT  Peshitta  was  in  existence  in  S.  Ephraem  8  day,  and  I 
bdieve  that  we  owe  both  its  production  and  its  vi<=^."°"» 
reception  to  the  organizing  energy  of  the  great  Rabbula.  bishop 
of  Erlcssa  from  411-435  A.D.).'  t 

The  following  answers  to  the  above  question 
have  been  given : —  „      .  .  .         «  n ., 

(1)  Abb6  P.  Martin:  S"  'is  a  revision  of  the 
Peshito  made  with  the  help  of  a  MS  closely  re- 
sembling Codex  Bezir.  The  Curetonian  recension 
dates  from  the  end  of  the  7th  or  the  beginning  of 
the  8th  cent.,  probably  from  this  last  period.  It 
never  had  much  vogue.  Its  author  was  probably 
Jacob  of  Edessa  [t  703]'  {Introduction  a  la  cnti'iue 
textuelle  du  NT,  Paris,  1883).  The  latter  hypo- 
thesis may  be  dismissed  at  once. 

(2)  Gwilliam  (Bonus):  S°  and  S'  were  not  the 
ori"in  of  S" ;  5°  is  more  modern  than  S"  {trit. 
Eel  1S96,  p.  19);  Rabbula  intemled  that  copies 
of  ''I'  should  be  substituted  for  C  (p.  21);  but  it 
mi"ht  be,  probably  was,  difficult  to  procure  copies 
of  "the  Peshitta,  in  obedience  t^  Rabbula  s  order 
The  terra  Mephnrreshg  used  by  Rabbula  would 
easilv  become  a  title  for  copies  subsequently  made. 
'  Are  S"  and  5°  relics  of  copies  made  by  order  ot 

Rabbula?'  .  .  i,         „.. 

The  position  of  S"  is  of  great  importance,  because 

it  is,  as  Sanday  styled  it,  '  the  sheet-anchor    of  the 

•  The  edition  Is  out  of  print ;  a  new  edition  by  F.  O.  B"';'''"' 
•The  Curetonia?  Svriac  Gospels,  re-edited  together  with  th. 

readings  of  the  Siniitic  CodeJ,  S"'^  V'7"'t"r  Ken*?  IS''  894 
advertTsed  by  the  Camh.  Univ.  Press  (.lcar(.-»«!/  Sept.  29,  1894, 
D  233b  •  JT-ASt,  i.  569),  is  approaching  completion.  ,„„«, 

•^'t  Coi^ip  w-ith  thU  the  statement  of  the  present  wnter/P/JB' 
XV.  tlSws)  on  the  work  of  Rabbula  that  »e  might  b. 
Inclined  to  see  it8  result  in  S«  reep.  S  1  -  S^J- 


SYRIAC  VERSIO^'S 


SYRLVC  VERSIONS 


647 


theory  of  Burgon-Mi.ler  on  the  textual  criticism 
of  the  NT.     See,  further,  p.  740''. 

(3)  S' — S° — S'  are  three  recensions  of  one  and 
the  same  version,  and  this  is  their  liistorical  order 
(adopted  by  many,  for  instance  Allen  at  the  Oxford 
Debate).    S' — »' — S"  is  imimssible,  equally  impos- 

aible  is  the  genealogy  S'"'^ -,. 

(4)  S' — S° — C  Conyheare  :  '  I  believe  scholars 
are  bejrinning  to  reco^iize  that  Tatian  .  .  .  used 
tlie  Ciiretonian  version  of  tlie  Gospels,  whicli  in 
turn  rested  on  the  new  Syriac '  [Academy,  Jan. 
1-2,  1895].  S"  also  older  than  iC  (Burkitt,  Holzhey, 
Bewer). 

(5)  S»  older  than  S*  (Resch,  Duval ;  see  Hjelt, 
p.  95). 

(n)  C — Si°  (Baethgen,  Zahn),  before  the  discovery 
of  S'. 

(6)  C— S'— S'or 

(c)  ir<^!     Z  older  than  5'  (Zahn,  Nestle,  Hil- 

genfeld,  Bardenhewer,  Gwilliam,  Cundber''). 

(6)  *•— C— 5°— S".  So  in  tlie  main  Ujelt;  S' 
on  the  whole  a  faithful  witness  of  the  Old  Syr. 
VS  of  the  2nd  cent.,  5°  a  later  recension  of  it 
probably  from  thelirst  half  of  the  2nd  cent.,  formed 
under  the  iuHuence  of  C  ;  S''  a  revision  of  the  old 
version,  which  eliminated  the  influences  of  C  and 
liecaiiie  the  Vulgate ;  at  last  S""  in  its  turn  influ- 
enced (T,  which  remained  in  use  with  the  Nes- 
torians  longer  than  with  the  Jacobites. 

The  iiriority  of  5*  would  be  certain,  if  the  thesis 
of  Hjelt  were  proved  that  S'  is  not  a  unity,  but 
that  the  various  Gos]>els  were  due  to  diltcrt'iit 
hands  and  that  nevertheless  all  were  used  by  C 
The  firet  part  of  his  thesis  Hjelt  seems  to  have 
proved.  There  is  a  decided  diliirence  in  the 
vocabulary  of  Matthew,  Mark,  Luke,  and  Jolin 
(.see  ji.  9611'.);  he  may  be  even  ri^,'lit  in  his  sup- 
position, that  the  translation  of  Matthew  was  the 
oldest,  due  to  a  Jewish  Christian  (cf.  Mt  9'"  head 
<rf  tlie  synagogue,  23'  tephillin  and  purple  xn^jn).' 
But  the  second  part,  that  S'  was  used  by  C,  does 
not  seem  to  be  proved.  But  in  any  case  S*  and  C 
belong  to  the  most  important  witnesses  for  the  text 
of  the  Gosi)p1s. 

Arts  find  Epistles. — Amidst  the  absorbing  interest 
caused  by  the  discovery  of  S',  little  attention  has 
been  paid  of  late  to  the  rest  of  the  Syriac  NT, 
Acts  and  Epistles.  They  are  known  as  yet  only 
as  parts  of  S"",  but  there  are  indications  that  for 
the  Acts  and  the  Pauline  Epistles  also  an  older 
version  was  in  existence.  And  it  is  of  great 
interest  that  these  two  parts,  together  with  the 
(ioapels,  made  up  the  whole  of  the  NT  of  the 
Syriac  Church  ;  all  the  Catholic  Epistles,  and  not 
only  the  minor  ones,  being  unknown.  This  is 
proved  not  only  by  the  Doctrine  of  Addai  (ed. 
rhillips,  Lond.  1876,  p.  44),  where  Addai  orders: 
'  But  the  Law  and  the  Prophets,  which  you  read 
every  day  before  the  people,  and  the  Epistles  vf 
Paul,  which  Simon  Peter  sent  us  from  tlie  city  of 
Itonie,  and  the  Acts  of  the  Twelve  Apostles,  which 
John  the  son  of  Zebedee  sent  us  from  Ephesus ; 
these  books  read  ye  in  the  Churches  of  Christ,  and 
vnth  these  read  not  an;/  other,  as  there  is  not  any 
other,  in  which  the  truth  that  ye  hold  is  written, 
except  these  books  which  retain  vou  in  the  faith 
to  which  ye  have  been  called.'  'I'his  is  corrobor- 
ated by  the  quotations  of  Aphraates,  which  are 
restricted  to  Acts  and  Paul,  to  the  exclusion  of 
the  Catholic  Epistles. 

•  A  great  old  In  these  studiea  would  be  a  Concordance  to  the 
Byriac  Bible,  which  waa  deuired  by  I.ftfjarde  oa  early  oa  1S67. 
A  proffitectua  of  a  Concordance  of  the  Pewhitta  waa  sent  out  by 
BenJ.  Labareo  and  Wiil  A.  Shedd  from  tlrumia  in  Oct.  1807, 
Willi  aoiiie  'Specimen  pagea';  hut  the  arrangement  waa  not 
■uch  OS  to  aatiafy  the  wants  of  the  Htudent,  A  Syriac  Con- 
cordance in  the  manner  of  Hatch. Radpath  is  one  of  our  needa. 


The  poasa^res  cited  by  \Vri;.'ht  aa  references  to  1  P  4*9  and  1  Jn 
3'24  415  have  been  shown  by  Zahn  not  to  refer  to  these  passage! 
(but  the  former  to  Pr  ll^i ;  the  latter  to  the  Gospel  of  John> 

At  last  there  was  published  in  the  Studia 
Sinaitica,  No.  1  (p.  11  iV.)  from  extracts  made  by 
J.  R.  Harris  from  cod.  Syr.  R)  on  Mt.  Sinai,  a  list 
of  the  canonical  books  of  the  S3'riac  Bible,  giving 
for  each  book  and  group  of  books  the  number  of 
prifuLTa  (xtic/ii). '  After  the  four  Gospels  (Mat. 
2522,  Mark  1675,  Luke  30S,3,  John  1737  [write  1937], 
total  9218)  follows  Acts  (272U),  then  'Paul  tlie 
Apostle '  with  a  total  5076  for  '  the  apostle,' 
immediately  followed  by  the  total  for  'the  holy 
books,  which  the  holy  Church  receives.' 

There  are  some  errors  and  confusions  in  this  list ;  but  aa  to 
the  primary  importance  of  it  there  can  be  no  doubt. 

This  exclusion  of  all  the  Catholic  Epistles  from 
the  old  Sj-riac  Canon  is  further  in  full  agreement 
with  the  statement  of  Leontius  on  Theodore  of 
Mopsuestia  :  airrijv  re  ,  ,  .  tou  fieyoKov  'laKui^ov  rrjv 
^TricTToXT/i'  Kal  ray  e^iji  rdv  fiXXw*'  diroK'qpuTrcL  KaOo- 
Xi<.ds.  He  followed  in  this  the  older  tradition  of 
the  Syriac  Church.  Neither  do  the  Apostolic 
Constitutions  recognize  the  Catholic  Epistles. 

See  Th.  Zahn,  Das  NT  Theodora  von  Mnpgitestia  und  der 
jr.vm'cAf^  Kannn  ;  Grundrtjiit  der  Grachichte  des  iieutest.  Kanoni 
(Leipzig,  mill,  Sfi):  Jiilichcr,  Einleitunri  in  das  AT'-''  (Will, 
§  41)  :  J.  A.  liewer,  The  History  of  tfte  NT  Cation  in  the  Syrian 
Church  (Cliicaso,  1901)). 

About  the  middle  of  the  4th  cent.,  therefore, 
the  Church  of  Edessa  had  no  Catholic  Epistles  in 
its  Canon. 

But  it  was  not  only  the  contents  but  the  text 
of  its  Bible  that  dillered  at  that  time  from  &'. 

See  in  Bewer,  p.  51,  *  A  comparison  of  the  Acts  and  Epistles 
in  Aphraates  with  those  of  tlie  Pesiiitta.'  A  most  significant 
example  is  not  quoted  by  Hewer.  Matthias  in  Ac  l^a  28  ly  cjilled 
by  Apliraates  Tubriai ;  this  is  now  corroborated  by  the  Syriac 
version  of  the  Kcclfsi^isticat  History  of  Eiisebius  (see  Tt/  vii.  2, 
p.  V  ;  the  same  version  called  AgaMu  of  Ac  11  Addai).  In  1  Co 
1.5'1  Aphraates  teatities  for  the  reading  of  ti,  Bv  tor  that  of  B. 

The  quotations  from  Ephraem  have  been  investi- 
gated by  K.  11.  Woods  (Studin  Bihlira,  iii.  132  If.) : 
the  result  is  the  same;  the  inllucnce  of  another 
version  than  S"*  cniinot  be  denied  ;  but  that  in- 
fluence is  not  half  so  strong  as  in  Aphraates. 
But  the  HoMian  edition  of  Ejihracm's  work  is  ex- 
cessively uncritical,  and  we  can  '  never  trust  a 
biblical  quotation  where  it  agrees  with  the 
Peshitta'  (sue  Burkitt,  JThSt,  i.  570,  and  now 
'Texts  and  Studies,  vii.  2).  But  not  only  so,  we 
cannot  even  tru.st  the  references  to  5"  in  the 
critical  apparatus  of  TischendorFs  ed.  oct.  ;  they 
are  neither  complete  nor  correct ;  cf.  1  Co  15'', 
where  S""  adds  '  or  of  barley '  between  <rlToi'  and 
If  Tivot  rCiv  XoiirCiv  ;  on  2  Co  1"  see  Nestle,  Intro, 
diirtion,  309.  All  references  to  S''  in  Tischendorf's 
appar.atuH  ought  to  be  verilied  in  the  way  in  which 
Gwynn  did  this  work  for  the  four  minor  Cath.  Epji. 
{Ilcnnathena,  1890). 

But  not  only  in  details  of  text  did  the  older 
Syriac  NT  diller  from  S"  as  now  current ;  it 
dillered  also  as  to  the  arrangement.  In  the  list 
of  the  canonical  books  mentioned  above,  Gnlntinns 
stands  at  tlie  head  of  the  letters  of  Paul,  before 
Cor.  and  Bom.,  which  are  followed  by  Hebrews. 
The  same  order,  Gal.,  Cor.,  Bom.,  seems  to  have 
been  that  of  Eiiliraem  (see  J.  li.  Harris,  Four 
Lectures  on  the  Western  Text,  p.  21),  aiid  it  is 
expressly  testilied  to  in  Marcion.  From  this,  Zahn 
is  inclined  to  conclude  that  Tatian  mny  have 
brou'dit  with  him  to  the  East  at  the  same  lime 
tlie  Western  Text  of  the  Gosjicls  and  the  Mar- 
cionitic  order  of  the  letters  of  Paul  ;  the  more  so 
as  EusebiuB  says  of  Tatian  that  he  altered  the  text 

•  See  on  these  cruarx  the  tat«Bt  communication,  that  of  F  C 
Durkitt  WThSt,  li.  429-4;)2). 


C48 


SYRIAC  VERSIONS 


SYRIAC  VERSIONS 


of  tlie  Epistles  of  Paul  (see  Nestle,  Introduction, 
p.  iL-O). 

Further,  the  Church  of  Edessa  had  in  the  time 
of  Ephraein  in  its  Canon  tlie  Apocryphnl  Cnrres- 
jmnilence  of  St.  Paul  and  the  CurintliUins,  of 
which  we  now  know  for  certain  that  it  once  be- 
longed to  the  Acta  Pauli  (see  vol.  i.  p.  49S).  On 
the  other  hand,  tlie  short  letter  to  Philemon  seems 
to  have  been  wanting  in  the  Bible  of  Ephraem  (see 
Zahn,  Gesrh.  Knn.  ii.  664,  1003,  Grundriss,  p.  52; 
Julicher,  Einlcitung,  doubts  this). 

It  is  totally  unknown  when  the  three  greater 
Catholic  Epistles  were  received.  There  has  not 
been  as  yet  even  an  examination  of  the  question 
whether  the  translation  of  all  the  letters  of  Paul 
is  due  to  tlie  same  hand,  and  that  of  the  three 
Catholic  Epistles  to  another.  Wliat  i.s  certain  is 
that  the  four  A  ntilcgomena  of  the  Catholic  Epistles 
and  the  Bk.  of  Revelation  never  formed  part  of  S^, 
and  were  wanting  therefore  even  in  the  lirst  printed 
editions  of  the  Syriac  NT  till  1630.  It  is  the  more 
surprising  that  the  Nestorian  Stone-inscription  at 
Singan-fu  speaks  of  27  books  left  by  Clirist  to 
further  the  soul  in  what  is  good  (see  J.  E.  Heller, 
Das  Nestorianische  Denkmal  in  Singan-fu,  Buda- 
pest, 1897,  4to,  reprint  from  '  Wissenschaftliche 
Ergebnisse  der  Reise  des  Grafen  B.  Sz6chenyi  in 
Oatasien'  (1877-1880),  pp.  31,  40). 

LiTERATOBK.  — 1.  On  Tatian  :  0.  A.  Credner,  Beitrdge  mr 
Einleit.  in  die  bibl.  SchriJ'ten,  1S32,  437  ff.,  Geich.  des  ne^itenl. 
A'arams(heniuSf;ei,'ebenvonQ.Volkmar),lS6U,17fl.;  H.  A.  Daniel, 
Tatianm  der  Apohget,  l(s37  ;  0.  A.  Semisch,  Tatiani  Diates- 
saron,  1S56 ;  Th.  Zahn,  Fortchungen  zur  Gesch.  des  neutest. 
Kanons,  i.  18S1  (' Tatians  Diatessaron '),*  ii.  (lsj3)  2S6ff.,  iv. 
(1891,  *  Der  Text  des  von  A.  Ciasca  herausgegebenen  arabischen 
Diatessaron  von  Dr.  Ernst  Sellin '),  Gesch.  des  Kanons,  i.  387-414, 
ii.  53l>-536,  '  Zur  Geschichte  von  Tatiana  Diatessaron  im  Abend- 
land"  (iV««  Kirchliche  Zritgchrift,  1894,  pp.  86-120),  art. '  Evan- 
gelienharmonie '  in  PRE3  v.  (1898)  ti53fl.  ;  Westcott,  Canon, 
pt.  i.  ch.  iv.  §  10;  (the  works  of  Ephraem  .S.vrus  in  Armenian, 
Venice,  1836,  voL  ii.] ;  Ecangelii  Concorilaniis  Expositio  facta 
a  doctore  Sancto  Bphraemo  Syro  (in  Latinum  translata  a  J.  R 
Aucher,  ed.  G.  Moesinger],  Venice,  1878 1 ;  J.  P.  Martin,  Le  ^is 
ti<rira.pti¥  de  Tatian,  Extrait  de  la  Re\'ue  des  questions  histor- 
iques  (Avril  1883),  Paris,  1883 ;  8.  B.  Pitra,  Analecta  sacra 
spiciiegio  Solesmensi  parata,  torn,  iv..  Par.  1883,  p.  xxviii  ff., 
46.'v-487  (' Ciasca,  de  Tatiani  D.  arabica  versione ')  ;  Taliani  eian- 
gelioruin  hannoni<e  arabice :  nunc  primura  ex  duplici  codice 
edidit  translatione  latina  dona\'it  P.  Augustinus  Ciaaca,  Uom», 
18S8,  CT.  8vo ;  Hemphill,  The  Diatessaron  of  Tatian,  1888  (ct 
Church  Qua.rterly  Review,  1888,  p.  127);  W.  Elliot,  Tntian't 
Diatesa.  and  the  Modem  Critics,  Plvmouth  (ct.  Church  Quart. 
Rev.  1888,  p.  128);  J.  R.  Harris,  The  Diatessaron  of  Tatian,  a 
preliminary  study,  Cambridu'e,  1890  ;  Isaac  H.  Hall,  '  A  pair  ot 
citations  from  the  Diatessaron'  {JBL  x.  2  (1891),  1,53-155);  J. 
Hamlyn  Hill,  The  Earliest  Li/e  of  Christ  ever  compiled  from 
the  Four  Gospels :  being  the  Diatessaron  o/  Tatian  (circa  A.D. 
\im).  Literally  translated  from  the  Arabic  Version,  oiid  con- 
taining the  Four  Gospels  uovcn  into  one  story,  with  an  hintorieai 
and  critical  Introduction,  A'otes  and  Apprndiz,  Edinbur'h, 
Clark,  1893,  376;  Hope  W.  Hogg.  The  Dititess.  of  Tatian  in 
Ante-Nicene  Christian  Library,  Additional  \olume.  .  .  .  Eriited 
by  A.  Menzies,  Edin.,  1897,  3;s-13S  ;  W.  U.  Cassels,  •  The  Diatesg. 
of  T.at.'  (.Vineteeiilh  Century,  April  1895,  0()5-<i81,  worthless; 
see  J.  Rendcl  Harris,  'The  DiaU-as.,  a  reply'  (^Contemporary 
Reine.w,  August  ls;i.S,  271-278)>;  O.  Tavlor,  "'St,  Mark  in  the 
l)ia.tem.'  (Classical  JCeiiieu;  1894);  J,  A,  Robinson,  'Tatian's 
Diatess.  and  a  Dutch  Harmony'  (,The  Academi,,  1894,  24th 
March,  249i^2.'iO«) ;  J.  R.  Harris,  Fragments  of  the' Commmtary 
of  Ephrem  Synis  upon  the  Diatessaron,  London,  1895;  H. 
Oousseii,  Studia  Theologica,  Fasciculus  I. :  Apocalypsis  S. 
Johannis  Apostoli  versio  aahidica.  Accedunt  pauca  fragmentA 
gonuina  Diatessaroniana,  Lips.  1895  (pp.  01-07);  J.  Hamlyn 
Hill,  A  Dissertation  on  the  Gospel  Commentary  of  S.  Ephraem 
the  Syrian,  Edinburgh,  1896. 

2.  On  Cureton's  text  (title  above),  of.  Fragments  of  the  Cure- 
tonian  Gusjiels,  e<iited  by  W.  Wright  (London,  IS721,  4to,  only  100 
copies  printed  for  private  circulation,  first  published  bv  E.  Roe- 
diger  in  Monatsberiditt  der  Berliner  Akademie,  8.  Juli'is72,  pp. 

*  Cf.  the  Important  notice  of  P.  de  Lagarde,  ifittheilungen, 
I  111-120,  194-190;  further,  p.  SI,  ii.  30-38,  '  Die  arabische 
Ueben*elzung  des  UxyyiXtop  h,a  Tiffripw.' 

t  The  first  to  call  attention  lo  the  importance  of  this  Com- 
mentary of  Ephraem  was  not  Ezra  Abbott  (T"**  .du(A</rsAtp  of 
the  Fourth  Gospel,  Boston,  ISSn).  but  P.  de  Lagarde  in  his 
edition  of  the  Apostolic  Constitutions  (Pref.  p.  vii),  1802. 
Already  in  his  earlier  j)aper,  de  ^Vrjco  Testamento  ad  versionuni 
orientidium  Jidem  etiendo  (Berolini,  1857),  he  made  uae  of 
Ephriem'i  Armenian  Commentaries. 


657-559  and  6  pp.  Syr.  ;  J.  R.  Crowfoot,  Fragmenta  Erangelicn 
qriee  ex  anti'pta  recensione  versionis  Syriaeai  Xovi  Testamenti 
(Peshiio  dictiie)  a  Gul.  Curetono  imlgata  sunt,  Lond.,  Pari 
prima  1870,  Pars  altera  1871,  ObservatioJls  on  the  Collation  in 
Greek  of  Cureton's  Syriac  Fragments  of  the  Gospels,  1872  (lo  be 
used  with  caution) ;  Fr.  Baethgen,  Evan^elienfragmente :  der 
Griechische  Text  des  Cureton'schen  Syrers  wiederhergestellt, 
Leipzig,  1885;  H.  U.  Harman,  'Cureton  Fragments  of  Svriao 
tiospi-ls'  in  Journ.  of  the  Soc.  of  Bil/l.  Lit.  and  Exegesis,  j"un&- 
Dec.  1885,  pp.  28-48.  On  Bowes  and  Holzhey  see  immediately. 
Other  papers  of  Hermansen,  le  Hir,  Wiideboer ;  especially  on 
the  meaning  of  the  superscription  KCISDI  (by  Mai,  Qildemeister, 
Land,  TregeUes,  Wright,  Co»-per,  Ewald)  see  FRE^  iii.  172= 
i/rt.  112.  For  a  recent  discussion  on  it  see  Journ.  Amer, 
Orient.  Society,  xv\n.  (1897)  176-182  and  361 1.,  between  ChariesC. 
Torrey  and  R.  Gottheil.  That  it  forms  the  opposition  to  '  Gospel 
of  the  Mi.xed,'  i.e.  To,t'\an'8  Diatessaron,  and  means  'Qo8pel(s)of 
the  Separate,'  cannot  be  doubted  any  longer. 

3.  Literature  on  the  Sinai-Palimpsest :  (a)  On  the  discover^ 
and  the  copying  of  the  Sinai-Palimpsest,  see,  on  the  one  hand, 
M.  D.  Gibson,  How  the  Coitex  was  foniid :  a  Narrative  of  two 
visits  to  Sinai  from  Mrs.  Lewi^  Journals,  Wyf-9.?,  Cambridge, 
1893  ;  on  the  other,  Mrs.  Bensly,  Our  Journey  to  SiiMi :  a  vij>it 
to  the  Convent  of  St.  Catarina,  ttnth  a  chapter  on  the  Sinai  Pal- 
impsest, London,  1896.  Editio  princeps :  The  Four  Gospels  in 
Syriac,  transcribed  from  the  Sinaitic  palimpsest  try  the  late 
Robert  L.  Bensly,  M.A.'  .  .  .  a)ul  by  J,  Rendel  Harris,  M.A. 
.  .  .  and  by  F.  Crawford  Burkitt,  M.A.,  with  an  Introduction 
by  Agnes  Smith  Lewis,  edited  for  the  Syndics  of  the  University 
Press,  Cambridge,  1894.  t  This  has  to  be  supplemented  by 
A.  S.  Lewis,  Some  Pages  of  the  Four  Gospels,  retranscribed  froin 
the  Siiuiitic  palimpsest,  with  a  translation  of  the  whole  text, 
London,  1896.  An  earlier  translation  had  been  published  by 
Mrs.  Lewis,  London,  Macmillan,  1894  ;  a  German  one,  with  an 
Appendix,  is  due  to  Ad.  Merx,  Die  vier  Kanonischen  Evan- 
gelien  nach  ihrem  dltesten  bekannten  Texie :  tfebersetzung  der 
syrischen  im  Sinaikloster  gcfundenen  Palimpsesthandschrift, 
Berlin,  1897.  The  second  part  (Erlduierungen)  has  not  yet 
appeared.  Cf.,  finally,  'Last  Gleanings  from  the  Sinai  Palimp- 
setit'  (Expositor,  Aug.  1897,  pp.  111-119),  and  '  The  EarUer  Home 
of  the  Sinaitic  Palunpsest'  (Expositor,  June  1900,  96i),  and 
Studia  Sinaitica,  No.  ix.  (1900)  pp.  riiiff.,  xxiii  t.,  where  it 
is  shown  that  John  the  Stylite,  who  in  the  year  778  used  the 
Codex  as  Palimpsest,  was  a  monk  of  Mar  Conon,  a  cloister  of 
Ma'arrath  Mesren  in  the  district  of  Antioch  (a  small  town  about 
equidistant  from  Antioch  and  Aleppo).  The  Expos.  Tii>ies  (vols. 
xi.  xii.)  contains  a  series  of  papers  by  Mrs.  Lewis  entitled  '  What 
have  we  gained  in  the  Sinaitic  Palimpsest?' 

(b)  Convenient  collations  are :  A.  Bonus,  Collatio  Codicis 
Lewisiani  rescripti  Evangeliorum  sacrorum  Syriacorutn  cutn 
Codice  Curetoniano  (Mus'  Brit.  Add.  llt^l):  cm  a<ijectce  sunt 
Lediones  e  Peshitto  desumptce,  Oxonii,  1896,  4to ;  and  CarJ 
Hobdiey,  Der  neuentdeckte  Codex  Syrus  Siiuiiticus  untersueht : 
mil  eiiu-in  vollstajidigen  Verzeichnis  der  Varianten  des  Cod. 
Sinaiticus  urui  Cod.  Curetoniiinus,  Miinchen,  1896, 

4.  On  SPsee  the  Literature  quot«d  in  Nestle,  Jntrodxtction,  p. 
103 ;  UH.  p.  227  fl.  ;  Scri\  ener,  ii.  6-40,  with  the  help  of 
Gwilliam  and  Deane.  On  the  printed  editions.  Church  t^uart. 
Rev.  1888,  July,  257-297  ;  The  Syriac  New  Testament  trans- 
lated into  English  from  the  Peshitto  Versions,  by  James 
Murdock,  with  a  historical  introduction  by  Horace  L.  Hastings, 
and  a  bibliographical  appendix  bv  Isaac  H.  Hall,  6th  ed.,  Boston, 
1893.  The  first  edition  of  Widma'nstadt  (1655)  is  still  the  best,  or 
that  of  (Leusden  and]  Schaaf,  Lugd.  Bat.  1709,  4to,  together  with 
the  Lex.  Syr.  Concord,  of  C.  Schaaf  (ed.  sec.  1717);  then  the 
editions  of  the  American  Bible  Society  of  New  York  (with 
Nestorian  vocalization),  except  for  the  Gospels,  which  are  now 
at  hand  in  the  ed.  of  Pusey-liwilliam  (Oxf,  1901). 

Of  Dissertations  on  the  text  of  the  NT  besides  those  con- 
nected with  the  discovery  of  S*,  there  are  none  to  be  mentioned 
of  recent  times. 

The  Later  Versions  op  the  NT.—l.  The 
Philoxeniana. — Syriac  scholars  did  not  rest  satis- 
lied  with  the  Pesh.  NT.  In  the  year  508  AksCnnya 
or  Philoxenus,  bishop  of  Mabhogh  (485-519),  with 
the  help  of  liis  cliorepi.sco|ius,  Polycarp,  undertook 
a  literal  translation  of  the  whole  Bible.  Besides 
the  NT,  the  P-ialnui  in  this  version  are  mentioned 
by  Moses  of  Aggel  (between  550  and  570),  and 
portions  of  I.minh  survived  in  the  Add.  MSS  1710U 
of  the  British  Museum,  and  have  been  edited  by 

•  Benslv  died  ft  few  days  after  the  return  to  Cambridge,  23rd 
April  189.1. 

t  Reviews  and  papers  called  forth  by  the  p'^^'i^^tion  ar« 
mentioned,  Urt.  112  ff. ;  add  to  them  FaVrar  in  the  Expositor, 
Jan.  1895.  On  the  reading  Mt  11^  'Joseph,  to  whom  the  Virgin 
.Marv  was  betrothed,  begat  Jesus,' see  the  correspondence  in  tlis 
Academii,  1894,  Nov.  17,  24,  Dec.  1,  8,  16,  22,  '29;  1896,  Jan.  5, 
12,  April  IS,  May  18,  June  8,  29,  by  Allen,  Badham,  Charles, 
Conder,  Conybeare,  Farrar,  Lewis,  Nestle,  Rahlfs  (who  first 
pointed  out  that  it  was  also  found  in  Greek,  29th  DecX 
Sand.ay,  Simcox,  White;  further,  O.  H.  Skipwith,  'The  first 
chapter  of  St  Mattbt  w's  Gospel  in  the  light  of  recent  research 
(Nottingham  Tracts,  iii.,  London,  1895);  and  the  Additional 
Notes  in  the  second  vol.  of  Westcott-Hort's  Greek  Testament, 
(reprint  1896). 


SYRIAC  VERSIONS 


SYRIAC  VERSIONS 


649 


Ceriaiii  {Munumentn  sacra  et  profana,  V.  i.  1-40, 
ls>7:i|.  The  text  of  the  Gospels  exists,  according 
to  Uernstein  {Das  Eratr/elium  (Irs  Ju/imnfs,  1S5H, 
p|).  H,  •J'.i),  in  tlie  codex  A"2  of  the  Bibliotheca  An- 
j;elicii  at  Koine.  lu  1S>S4  Isaac  II.  Hall  puhlislied 
Hyriftc  Jlnniisvript  Gospels  of  a  pre- 1 1  arldensian 
version.  Acts  ami  Epistles  of  the  Peshito  version, 
written  (jirobably)  between  700  and  900  (I'bila- 
deliihia). 

'1  lie  minor  epistles  of  the  Philoxeniana  were 
first  puljlished  l)y  Ed.  Pococke  (Leiden,  lOIiO),  and 
Btill  earlier  iltil-)  at  Mayence  a  Latin  translation 
of  them  (by  Nieulaus  Servasius,  Comment,  in 
Epiit.  Canonicas)  from  a  MS  brought  to  Rome. 
Pococke's  text  was  taken  over  into  the  Peshito 
editions  of  the  NT  and  emended  by  Lee  (1823) ; 
still  more  in  the  New  York  impres.sion,  1888. 
Gwj-nn  collated  fifteen  MSS  and  gave  a  survey  of 
the  chief  points,  pending  the  publication  of  the 
emeiuled  text  with  a  complete  Apparatus  Criticus 
(Ifrrmrithena,  No.  16,  vol.  vii.  pp.  281-314 IT.  :  'The 
older  Sj-riac  Version  of  the  tour  Minor  Catholic 
K|iistles').  Cf.,  further.  Ad.  Merx,  'Die  in  der 
I'eschito  fehlenden  Briefe  des  Neuen  Testaments 
in  arabischer  der  Philoxeniana  entstanimender 
Uebersetzung.  Nach der  Abschrif t einesManu.se ripts 
des  Sinaiklosters  von  Frau  A.  Persis  Burkitt 
voroll'entlicht  und  niit  Anmerkungen  versehen ' 
(ZA  xii.  240-252,  348-381,  xiii.  1-28).  Merx  fre- 
cjuently  <lisagrees  with  Gwj'nn  as  to  the  value  of 
the  variunts. 

2.  The  Harklensis. — A  hundred  years  later  the 
work  of  retranslation  and  revision  was  taken  up 
at  Alexandria  for  the  OT  by  Paul  of  Telia  (see  p. 
445'),  for  the  NT  by  Thomas  of  ^arkel  (Heraklea 
in  Mcsoiiotamia).  This  version  comprises  (as 
printed  at  present),  like  the  Philoxeniana,  all  the 
books  of  the  NT  except  Revelation,  and  was  pub- 
lished under  the  (inappropriate)  title  of  Versio 
P/iiluxeniana  by  Jos.  White  at  Oxford,  between 
1778  and  18ii3.  A  lacuna  in  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews  (ir-''-13-^)  has  been  sujiplied  by  Bensly 
(CamV)ridge,  1889).  Its  importance  rests  on  the 
fact  that  one  of  the  (Jreek  MSS  of  Acts  used  by 
Thomas  bore  the  closest  relation  to  codex  I),  and 
that  for  the  Epistles  of  Paul  his  text  goes  back  to 
the  library  of  Pani[ihilus  (codex  H).  On  Acts  see 
Aug.  Pott,  Der  AbcmUaniliS''lie  Text  der  Apostel- 
gisckielUe  und  die  Wir-Qiicllc,  Leipzig,  I'JOO ;  U. 
Corssen,  '  Die  Recension  der  Philoxeniana  durch 
Thomas  von  Mabu^'  (ZNTW,  19U1,  1-12);*  A. 
Hilgenfeld,  '  Thomas  von  Ileraclea  und  die  Apostel- 
geschichte'  (ZWTIi,  43,  lOHO,  3).  W.  Dearie  had 
prepared  a  new  edition  ;  it  is  an  urgent  want  for 
the  textual  criticism,  especially  of  Acts. 

3.  Revelation. — A  Syriac  text  of  the  last  book 
of  the  NT  was  lirst  |)nblished  by  L.  de  Dieu 
(Leiden,  1627)  from  a  -MS  of  Scaliger,  now  at 
Leiden,  written  by  a  certain  Caspar  from  the  land 
of  the  Hindus  ('  Ilanravitarum,'  as  de  Dieu  read). 
The  text  of  the  Paris  (and  London)  Poljglot  seems 
to  be  taken  from  an  imlcpcndcnt  .M.S.  It  does  not 
belong  to  the  origiiuil  work  of  Polycarp,  but  to 
that  of  Thoma.s — a  fact  verified  at  last  by  the  docu- 
mentary evidence  of  the  Florence  M.S  rediscovered 
by  Gwyim  [lleriiuithena,  1808:  'On  the  recovery 
of  a  missing  Syriac  Manuscript  of  the  Apocaly|j»e,' 
PI).  227-245). 

The  same  scholar  discovered,  in  1S92,  in  a  codex 
belonging  to  Lord  Crawford,  another  and  older 
tr.ansliition  of  Revelation,  and  publishe<l  it  as  the 
lirst  Syriac  book  issued  from  the  Dublin  University 
Prew,  in  1897  {The  Apocalypse  of  St.  John  in  a 

•  To  be  used  with  caution.  The  intention  of  Thoma-i  wm 
certainly  not  '  to  restore  with  the  help  of  his  Greel<  .MSS  tlie 
original  text  of  I'hiloxetiiig,'  and  *  the  old  Syrian  '  nientionefl  l»y 
hiin  in  >lt  i?:"  'is^  Mli  8"  is  not  I'hiloxcn'uK,  but  tlie  I'esliilo. 
CI.  also  A.  lliliccnfeid,  7.\\Th,  44  (1901),  318-320. 


Syriac  Version  hitherto  nnknovn  ;  edited  .  ,  .  with 
Critical  Notes  on  the  Syriac  Text  and  an  annotated 
Reconstruction  of  the  underlying  Greek  Text.  To 
which  i.9  added  an  Introductory  Dissertation  on  tht 
Syriac  Versions  of  the  Apocalypse,  Dublin,  4to). 

4.  The  pericope  de  adultera  and  other  passages, 
(rt)  The  jiassage  .Jn  8-""  missing  in  the  common 
Syriac  Bible  became  known  to  the  learned  at  an 
early  date.  Mara,  bishop  of  Amid  (about  519), 
wr'-'e  a  Greek  prologue  to  a  copy  of  the  Tetra- 
evangelium,  in  Avhicli  this  pericope  had  a  place 
in  canon  89,  i.e.  at  Jn  S-"",  where  also  the  pseudo- 
Athanasian  Synopsis  mentions  it.  With  tlio  Pro- 
logue this  pericope  has  been  translated  into  Syriac 
in  the  so-called  Church  history  of  Zacharias  Rhetor 
(Land,  A  necdota  Syriaca,  iii.  252,  255). 

Prom  a  MS  of  Ussher(now  in  the  Trinity  Library 
of  Dublin)  the  .same  passage  had  been  printed  by 
de  Dieu,  1031  (Animadvcrsioncs  in  quattuur  Ecan- 
qelia).  A  third  translation  was  due  to  the  abbot 
Mar  Paul,  apparently  Paul  of  Telia;  a  fourth  has 
been  printed  by  J.  White  (ex  codice  Barscdibcei 
at  the  end  of  the  Go.spels  in  his  edition  of  the 
Philoxeniana,  i.  [1778]  p.  559).  See  on  these  and 
other  piiints  J.  0\\jnTi(rransactions,  Dublin,  1881). 

[b)  While  scarcely  one  Syriac  MS  is  known  in 
Europe  containing  all  27  books  of  the  lucsent 
NT  (see  on  this  Gwynn,  Transactions,  1880  and 
1893 ;  and  comjiare  what  Rahmani  states  about 
the  Mo.sul  TaviinTTii,  from  which  he  published 
the  Testa iiient um  Domini  noslri  Jcsu  Christi 
[Pra'fatio,  pp.  ix,  x]),  there  are  some  MSS  that 
contain  books  which  are  no  longer  included  in  the 
NT,  e.g.  cod.  1700  in  the  University  Library  at 
Cambridge,  from  which  Tlie  Epistles  of  St.  Clement 
to  the  Corinthians  in  Syriac  were  edited  by  the  late 
R.  L.  Bensly  (Cambridge,  1899).  In  the  MS  the 
Clementine  Epp.  stand  between  the  Catholic  and 
Pauline  Epistles,  and  are  divided  like  these  into 
lectures  for  Church  use.  There  are,  again,  the 
MSS  from  which  that  other  pair  of  letters  ascribed 
to  Clement,  de  Virginibus  or  de  Virgin itate,  were 
published  by  Wetstein  {NT  Gr.  t.  1.  1751,  Prol.  pp. 
1-20)  and  J.  Th.  Beeleu  (Lovanii,  1850 ;  see  on 
them  J.  P.  N.  Land,  'Syrische  Bijdragen  tot  de 
Patristik,'  in  Godi/eleerde  Bijdragen  van  1850-7). 

{c)  On  the  Clementine  Octateuch  added  as 
number  77-83  to  the  70  books  of  the  OT  and  NT  in 
the  Mosul  Pandektes  jast  mentioned,  see  Kahmani, 
I.e.  p.  X. 

These  and  other  instances  show  that  the  history 
of  the  NT  Canon  was  in  the  Syriac  Church  diHerenl, 
from  its  history  in  most  other  branches. 

5.  The  Palestinian  Syriac. — One  other  version 
remains  to  bo  noticed,  namely,  that  used  by  the 
Malkite  (Greek)  Church  in  Palestine  and  Egypt, 
written  in  a  dialect  more  akin  to  the  language  of 
the  .Jewish  Targunis  ;  long  known  exclusively  from 
a  lectionary  in  the  Vatican  Library,  called  the 
Ecangcliarium  Hicrosoh/mitanuin  ;  described  by 
A.ssemani  and  Adler  (1789);  pul)Iished  in  1801-01 
in  two  vols,  by  Count  l''r.  Miiiiscalchi  Krizzo,  ami 
again — as  his  last  ivork — liy  P.  de  Lagaide  in  his 
Bibliotheca  Syriaca  (Gbttiiigen,  1892);  republished 
by  Mrs.  Lewis  and  Mrs.  (iibson  on  the  strength  of 
two  other  MSS  found  on  Mt.  Sinai  ( T/ie  Palcstininn 
Syriac  Lectionary  of  the  Gospels,  London,  1899, 
4to).  Quite  rccentlj'  new  texts  h.ave  been  added 
from  Acts  and  the  E|iistles  of  Paul,  includinj; 
Hebrews  and  •]an\uii  (Sludia  Sinaitica,  No.  vi.),,Mncl 
the  date  and  birthplace  of  this  whole  branch  ul 
literature  have  been  elucidated  by  F.  C.  HuiKitt 
(J'l'hSt,  ii.  174-185).  In  spite  of  its  secondary 
character,  it  is  not  devoid  of  interest  for  textual 
criticism.  In  the  Apparatus  its  symbol  has  been 
hitherto  syr''  or  '"  or  "'"'." 

•  One  of  the  urgent  needs  of  textual  criticism  is  tlltitiii 
•j-T^bols  for  the  S>  riac  versioni  of  the  NT.    Tischendorf  used 


650 


SYRIAC  VEKSIONS 


SYRIAC  VERSIONS 


II.  Old  Testament.— 1.  Tradition.— The  Syri- 
ans themselves  believed  that  a  part  of  the  OT  was 
translated  already  in  the  time  of  Soliivum  at 
the  reiiuest  of  king  Iliraiu.  Jesudad,  bishop  of 
Hadeth,  c.  852  A.l).,  mentions  the  books  then  trans- 
lated. Another  tradition  is  that  the  version  was 
due  to  the  jjriest  sent  by  tlie  king  of  Assyria  to 
Samaria  ;  whose  name  is  variously  given  as  Asa, 
Asya,  Ezra,  Uria,  t(2N,  k'Dk  2  K  17-^  1  Ch  15'*,  ed. 
Lee  and  Ceriani ;  see  the  Literature  quoted  in 
Urt.  p.  231,  and  add  there  Schatzhtihle,  ed.  Bezold, 

192.  3  *iiK,  codd.  PL  .tiikd,  in  Arabic  ij  „b-     The 

rest  of  the  books  are  said  to  have  been  added  in 
the  days  of  Addai  and  Abgar  (see  p.  645»). 

2.  drii/ii). — Whether  part  of  the  version  is  of 
pre-Christian,  or  at  least  of  Jewish  origin  (thus 
Rich.  Simon,  Hug,  Geiger,  Perles,  Lagarde),  is  not 
certain,  but  it  is  po.s.sible.  *  There  were  many  Jews 
in  Mesopotamia,  especially  in  Edessa,  in  early 
times.  It  may  sutlice  to  recall  queen  Helena  and 
Izates,  and  the  Abgar  legend.  In  the  latter  a 
daily  reading  of  '  the  OT  and  NT '  (p.  34)  or  '  the 
Law  and  the  Prophets'  (p.  44)  is  jjresupposed 
besides  that  of  the  Gospel,  Acts,  and  Epistles  (see 
p.  647°). 

3.  Extent.— The  Syriac  OT  was,  on  the  whole, 
the  same  as  the  Ilebrew  Bible.  Jesudad,  for 
instance,  knows  that  it  counts  22  books ;  but 
at  a  very  early  date  the  influence  of  the  Greek 
Bible  is  felt.  There  are  some  notable  peculiarities. 
Chronicles  seems  to  have  been  wanting  in  the 
canon  of  the  Nestorians,  nor  is  it  represented  in 
the  Massoretic  labours  of  tlie  Jacobites ;  but  it  is 
found  already  in  MSS  of  the  6th  cent.  (cod.  Am- 
brosianus,  Brit.  Mus.,  Wright  25),  with  a  division 
at  2  Ch  6'  (in  most  MSS,  not  in  Ambros.  and 
Florent.).  Neither  is  Ezra-Nehemiah  found  in  the 
Massoretic  MSS,  nor  Esther  in  those  of  the  Nes- 
torians. In  the  Bibles  of  the  Jacobites  Esther 
forms,  together  with  Judith,  Ruth,  and  Susanna, 
the  '  book  of  the  women,'  with  4463  stichi. 

The  arrangement  of  the  books  varies  according 
to  the  MSS.  The  list  on  next  col.  gives  them  accord- 
ing to  the  order  in  the  canonical  list  mentioned 
above,  p.  647'' ;  the  figures  for  cols.  2-5  are  taken 
from  Abb6  Martin's  Introduction  a.  la  critique 
tcxtuellc  du  NT,  Partie  thi-orique,  Paris,  1SS3,  p. 
667;  cf.,  further,  Grcgory-Tischendorf,  3.  112,  1303; 
J.  R.  Harris,  On  the  Origin  of  the  Ferrar  Group, 
Loud.  1893,  10,  26. 

Sote.—The  Nomocanon  of  Barhebrxus,  ch.  7,  5  3  (p.  103,  ed. 
BedJHii)  oil  the  number  of  the  holy  books  and  those  besides(!t«), 
quotes  canon  81  of  the  Apostles,  that  all  clergy  and  laymen 
ought  to  have  the  Holy  Scriptures  of  the  OT,  i.e.  5  books  of 
Moses,  Josh.,  Judges,  Ruth,  Judith;  4  books  of  Kin^s ;  2  of 
Chron.  :  2  of  Ezra  ;  Esth.,  Job  ;  3  of  Mac.  ;  Job,  David  ;  6  of 
Solomon  ;  16  Prophets.  Of  '  books  without,'  there  is  to  be  Bar 
Asira  for  the  teachinu  of  the  young.  The  NT  is  to  include  4 
Oos^iels,  14  letters  of  Paul,  2  of  Peter,  3  of  John  ;  James,  Jude  ; 
2  of  Clement,  8  books  of  the  mysteries  of  the  same  Clement, 
and  the  Praxeis  of  the  Apostles. 

The  ehicidation  says  that  the  4  of  Kings  are  Samuel  and 
Kiugs,  and  of  Solomon  we  know  only  4  (Prov.,  Eccl.,  Cant., 
Wisd.);  and  it  is  possible  that  the  5th  is  that  which  is  in- 
scribed *  the  deep  Proverbs  of  Solomon ' ;  and  the  Book  of 
Susanna  is  reckoned  with  Daniel. 

Then  he  quotes  the  great  Athanasius  on  the  great  Wisdom, 
Bar  Asira,  Esther,  Judith,  Tobia,  what  is  called  Si«T«fi,.-  kirtr- 
Ti>ji,,  and  the  Shrpherd  ;  Dionysius  of  Alexandria  on  Revela- 
tion as  being  bv  Ctrinthus  or  another  John  ;  Oritren  on  He- 
brews. Apocalypsxs  tauli,  and  other  Revelations,  Tlie  Doctrine 
of  the  Apostles,  EpMU  o/  Barnabas,  Tobia,  the  Shepherd,  Bar 


Asira ;  the  Patriarch  Cyriacus  on  the  Book  of  Hierotheos  at 
being  not  by  him,  but  probably  by  the  heretic  Stephen  hu 
^udaile. 


syr^".  syrhr  or  i^'cf,  syr«l»  (  =  Schaaf-Peshito),  ByrP  (=posterior 
=  Philoxcniana),  syr-^i'  {  =  White  =  Heraclensis).  Westcott-Ilort 
used  syr»»  =  syr*","  and  now  syr  crt  and  syr  sin  (see  vol.  ii. 
1896,  notes,  p.  5),  svr  vg(  =  Peshito),  syr  hl(=  Harklean),  sjT  hr. 
Zuhn  proposed  Si=Peshito,  S'-=  Philoxcniana,  S3  =  Harklensi9  : 
for  the  Gospels  Sc,  Ss,  Sh.  To  avoid  figures,  the  Philoxcniana 
might  be  represented  by  Sf ,  the  versions  of  Thomas  by  SO. 

•  In  support  of  the  Jewish  origin  of  the  Syr.  version  of 
Chronicles,  Noldeke  (.((((Mt.  Lil.  p.  169)  quotes  the  translation 
of  1  Ch  62  '  from  Judah  will  go  out  (piEO  the  king  Messiah ' ;  the 
copyist  of  cod.  F  wrote  pSJ  ('  A«  »»"»  •»<  ">• 


1 

2 

3 

4 

1 
( 

Cod. 

Cod. 

Cod. 

Cod. 

Ed. 
Lee. 

Sin. 

Vat. 

Bart>. 

Paris 

10. 

159. 

vi.  62. 

W. 

Gen.      , 

4516 

4631 

=2 

4638 

4509 

Ex.   .     . 

3378 

3560 

=2 

3660 

3626 

Lev.       . 

2684 

2445 

=  2 

=2 

2454 

Num.     . 

3481 

3560 

=  2 

=2 

3521 

Deut.     . 

2982 

2979 

2783 

=  3 

2796 

Pent.*  . 

17041 

Josh.      , 

1953 

2167 

2150 

2160 

=2 

Judges  . 

2088 

2249 

=  2 

2089 

4033 

Sam. 

3436 

5230 

=  2 

=2 

=  1 

Kings    . 

6113 

5323 

=2 

=2 

>** 

Ruth     . 

246 

=  1 

=  1 

•  •>■ 

David    . 

4830 

=  1 

=  1 

=  1 

Chron.t 

3553 

5630 

Job  .     . 

1548 

2553 

=  3 

=  3 

Prov.t  . 

1762 

1866 

=  2 

— o 

1863 

[Cant.]  . 

296 

=  2 

290 

[Eccles.] 

616 

=2 

627 

•  •< 

Twelve  § 

3643 

3321 

=  3 

•  •• 

Is.aiah   . 

3656 

... 

4801 

=  3 

■  •• 

Jer.  .     . 

4252 

4824 

=  3 

.» 

Lam. 

433 

... 

... 

Dan.      . 

1.555 

2273 

=  3 

... 

Ezek.     . 

4376 

4154 

=  2 

=  2 

... 

Esth.     . 

650 

... 

... 

•  •■ 

Ezra      . 

2308 

... 

... 

2361 

1  Mac.  . 

2766 

... 

„. 

...    1 

2  Mac.  . 

5600 

... 

... 

...     1 

.Judith  . 

1268 

... 

=  1 

=  1 

Wisd.ll  . 

1550 

••• 

1236 

=  3 

Sir.H      . 

2550 

... 

2500 

=3 

... 

Total     . 

1 

71574 

A  singular  division  found  in  some  MSS  is  that 
the  Law  (xn'nix)  is  directly  followed  by  n'an  unna 
Kjnis  =  /i'>cr  sessiomim,  /9i/3Xos  Ka0ioij.6.Tbiv,  i.e.  Job, 
Josh.,  Judges,  Sam.,  ICings,  Prov.,  Sir.,  Eccl.,  Ruth, 
Canticles. 

The  Psalter  also  is  divided  into  KaBlaiuna,  (20). 
This  is  the  favourite  book  of  the  Syriac  Church, 
which  must  be  known  by  heart  if  one  wishes  to 
become  a  deacon,  and  was  recited  daily  by  certain 
monks.  In  accurate  MSS  there  are  ilassoretical 
notes  ;  cf.  the  edition  of  Bedjan  (Liber  Psalmorum. 
hornrum  diurnarum,  ordinis  officii  divini  et  homi 
lifirum  rogationum  ad  usum  scholarum,  Parisiia, 
1886,  p.  117). 

The  number  of  Psalms  b  150,  of  Hallelujahs  «),  Section! 
(urins)  29,  Embolisms  (K.^ip-i;)  67,  Stichi  (iCjnB)  4833,  and 
Books  5.  The  number  of  Words  is  19,934,  and  the  number  of 
Letters  90,862.  '  Lord '  occurs  732  times,  '  God '  400,  '  because ' 
(7^0)  285,  '  Moses '  6,  '  Aaron '  6,  '  Jacob '  24,  '  Saumel '  1, 
'Benjamin'  2,  'Israel'  44,  'namely'  iyi)b,  'but'  (t■^)  5.  And 
'know  that  there  is  not  found  in  David  the  form  n'nn  for  th« 
preposition  "  under,"  as  there  is  not  found  mrui  in  the  Apostle*, 
ninn  occurs  13  times  ;  and  '  from  now  and  to  eternity  '4  time& 

There  is  a  strange  statement  at  the  head  of  many 
Psalter  MSS  (already  in  the  cod.  Ambr.)  that 
the  Psalms  were  translated  from  the  Palestinian 
language  into  Hebrew,  from  Hebrew  into  Greek, 
from  Greek  into  Syriac.  In  the  cod.  Hunt  109 
(Oxford,  Bodleian)  this  statement  is  transferred 
to   the  whole  Syriac  OT,  and  in  cod.  Rich  7154 


.  KP'TIX. 

J  vrhbt  K,T03n  (read  K^nfrl)- 


t  D'D-naT  ISO. 
5  loi'-in. 
^  ktdh  -a. 


SYRIAC  VERSIONS 


SYRIAC  VERSIONS 


651 


(Erit.  Mils.)  it  is  stated  that  the  (S3-riac)  Psalter 
was  translated  from  the  Palestinian  into  Hebrew, 
according  to  the  translation  of  Symmachus  the 
Samaritan.  Otlier  Psalters  have  the  heading 
K?^rcn,  which  is  intelligible  of  the  Gospels  of  the 
Separate  (see  pp.  640,  648),  but  scarcely  of  the 
Psalms.  (Does  it  mean  a  Cliurch-Psalter,  detached 
from  the  ISible?*)  Manj-  liturgical  additions  are 
found  in  the  Church-Psalters  (see,  e.g.,  the  edition 
of  Bcdjan,  which  contains,  of  'Canticles'  at  the 
end  of  the  Psalter,  Ex  15,  Is  42,  Dt  32). 

Besides  the  books  of  the  Greek  and  Hebrew 
Bibles,  complete  MSS  called  KaBoXiKol  or  vav- 
iiKTr)t  (KopijB  IK  K'p'Mnxp),  like  the  cod.  Ambro- 
eianus,  have  preserved  tlie  Apocalypse  of  Baruch.t 
4  Ezra,  4  and  5  Maccabees,J  i.e.  the  history  of 
Samuna,  and  Josephus  BJ  v.  Apart  from  fiible 
MSS,  many  other  pieces  of  apocr\phal  and  pseud- 
epigraphical  literature  have  been  preserved  to  us  in 
Syriac.§  On  the  Svriac  text  of  Siiach  see  above, 
p.  546 ;  of  Tobit  only  the  version  of  Paul  of  Telia 
IS  presers'ed,  and  this  only  down  to  7"  ;  the  rest  is 
still  later.  Of  the  first  Book  of  Maccabees  the 
cod.  Ambrdsianus  preserved  a  second  recension. 

4.  C/iariirter  of  the  Version. — The  value  of  the 
Version  varies  greatly,  as  it  is  not  the  work  of  a 
single  hand.  The  Pentateuch  keeps  close  to  the 
Heb.  text  and  Jewish  exegesis,  but  lias  interesting 
details  ;  it  knows,  for  Instance,  or  thinks  it  knows, 
that  the  rare  word  ."nna  denotes  the  '  parasang.' 
Genesis,  Isaiah  (30^  46'-  •),  the  Twelve,  the  Psalter, 
show  marks  of  having  been  influenced  by  the 
Septuagint ;  II  Kuth  is  paraplirastic.  Job  literal. 
Chronicles  like  a  Targum  ;  tlie  version  of  Pro- 
verl)s  has  beon  used  by  the  Targumists.  Many 
of  the  books  of  the  OT  have  been  made  the  subject 
of  special  studies,  Avhose  results  we  now  possess, 
mostly  in  the  shape  of  Inaugural  Dissertations ; 
but  new  investigations  are  necessary. 

5.  Editions. — The  printed  text  of  the  Syriac  OT 
is  in  a  most  deiilorable  state,  all  editions  going 
back  to  the  Paris  Polyglot  of  Michel  le  Jay  (Paris, 
1645).  This  was  reproduced  without  any  note- 
worthy improvements  in  Walton's  London  Poly- 
plot  (1657);  Lee  reproduced  the  same  text  with  a 
tew  emendations  and  several  misprints  for  the 
British  Bible  Society  (1821).  The  Urmia  edition 
of  the  American  Missionaries  (1852)  is  a  reproduc- 
tion of  Lee  in  Nestorian  characters  with  Nestorian 
vowels  and  witli  improved  spellings.  At  last  the 
Dominicans  at  Mosul  published  an  edition  of  the 
Syriac  Bible  (3  vols.  I887-'.)2),  which  the  present 
writer  has  not  seen,  but  which,  he  is  afraid,  will 
not  satisfy  our  wants.  Ceriani's  photolithographic 
reproduction  of  the  cod.  Ambrosianus  (1870-81, 
Milano,  200  frs.)  is  not  within  the  reach  of  the 
general  student  j  and  as  the  editions  of  Urmia 
and  the  Bible  Society  are  scarce  or  out  of  print, 
there  is  a  crying  need  for  a  new  edition  of  one 
of  the  most  important  ver.sions  of  the  OT.  Only 
for  the  Libri  Apocri/j/hi  or  (as  he  wished  afterwards 

•  See  Wriiht'8  Catatngiu  of  Si/riac  3/.<f.9  in  the  Brit.  ilxa.  1. 
116  n.,  and  Church  (Juart.  lifv.,Avr.  ISitf).  p.  ISO. 

t  See  TAf  Apocalppse  of  liaruch  translated  /rmn  the  Syriac, 
chs.  L-lxxvii.  from  theCth  cent.  MS  in  the  Ambrosian  Library, 
arxl  cb«.  lx.\v'H.-lxxxvii. ;  Thf  Kjn'tttle  of  Haruch  from  a  neip 
an-l  critiriU  text  based  on  the  M.'^.^,  aiul  jnthlinhed  herewith. 
•<lited  with  Introduction,  Notea,  and  Indices  by  it.  IL  Charted, 
London,  1896. 

:  riie  Fourth  Book  of  Maeeaieeti  and  Kindred  DoaimenU  in 
.t'iriae :  edited  by  the  late  It.  L.  Bensly  ;  witli  Introduction  and 
Tmnslnlion  iiy  W.  E.  li.arnes,  Cambridge,  IWNi. 

«  '  The  Colloquy  ot  Mosea  on  Mount  Sinai,'  by  Isaoc  H.  Hall 
jText  and  TranBl'ation]  (Hrhraica,  vii.  8,  Apr.  ISOl,  101-177); 
K.  H.  Charles,  The  Hthiupia  Vertion  of  the  Hebrew  Book  of 
Jul/iteet,  Oxt  1895,  App.  ill. ;  'The  Apocalj'pse  of  Adam'  (ed. 
Kenan,  Joum.  A:  v.  2  (ISia),  427  It.);  James,  Apocrypha  Ante- 
dota. 

tl  W.  Emerv  Barnes,  'On  the  Influence  of  the  Septuatfint  on 
the  Pe»'iitU''(./r/i5t,  li.  186,  187);  J.  tted.  lienr.  The  Inflwnct 
tf  the  Smlvat/int  upon  tht  Pri\(til  Platter  (Diss.  Columbia 
Coll.),  New  York,  1896,  p.  v,  loa 


to  entitle  the  book)  Libri  Dcuterocanonici  we  liav» 
the  edition  of  P.  de  Lagarde  (Lips.  1801).  The 
country  of  Ussher,  who  intended  himself  to  bring 
out  such  an  edition,  the  cuiiiitry  of  Walton  and  ol 
Buchanan,  has  here  a  task  to  discharge  that  will 
amply  reward  itself.* 

LrrERATmB. — A.  Cerianl,  *Ie  edizionl  e  1  roanoscrittl  delle 

versione  Siriache  del  vecchio  testamento*  (ls(I9,  Atti  of  the 
L'jtnbardian  Institute);  Bernstein  ('.Syrische  Sludicn'  in  ZDMG 
iii.  3S7-396;  Emendations);  Alfr.  Ilahlfs,  'Beitrage  zur  Text- 
kritik  der  I'eschita  '  (^^7'ir,  18S9,  161-210);  R.  Gottheil,  'Zur 
Textkritik  der  Pe^i^tA'  {Mitteilungen  de9  akadnnischen  orien- 
talUichm  Vereiru  ju  Berlin,  No.  2,  1SS9,  21-28) ;  J.  Prager,  de 
Veterit  Teitainenti  vergione  S/piaca,  quam  Pescliittho  vacant, 
(TU/Bstioneg  criticCB,  pt.  L,  Gottingae,  1875;  J.  A.  Edgren,  'The 
Peshito'  (Hebrew  Student,  i.  i.  1882);  P.  J.  Gloag,  'The  early 
Syriac  Versions  '(The  Monthly  Interpreter,  April  l&8j,  p.  244 ff.) ; 
G.  Hoffmann,  Opuecula  SL'Moriana,  Kiel,  l&SO,  and  *mr  Ges^^b 
des  syr.  Bibeltextes'  (^jl  J'll',  1881,  p.  159  IT.). 

On  the  Pentateach:  L.  Hirzel,  de  Pentateuehi  versionin 
tyr.  (peschito)  indole  commentatic  critiea-exeaetica.  Lips.  1815  ; 
S.  D.  Luzzatto,  Philoxenug  8.  de  Onkeiosi  chald.  Pentateuchi 
versione.  Ace,  appendix  de  Syriavmis  in  chaldd.  paraphraeibus 
Veterit  Texlamenti,  Vindob.  1830 ;  J.  M.  ScliHnfflder,  Onkelna 
und  Peschitlho,  Miinchen,  1809  ;  Jos.  Perlcs,  .Meletemata  Pes- 
chitthoniana,  Vratisl.  ISCO;  K.  'Tuch,  de  Lipsiensi  cod.  Penta- 
teuchi gyr.  MS,  pt.  i.,  Lius.  1849,  4to.  A  reprint  of  the  Penta- 
teuch from  Walton's  Polyglot  was  intended  by  J.  D.  Ammon, 
1747  (see  Urt.  227),  and  executed  by  O.  Kirzsch  (Hofa  et  Lips. 
1787,  4to). — Samuel :  Emanuel  Schwartz,  t>i£  syrieche  Uebcrnet. 
znnfj  df*  ernten  Bodies  Sannulis  (luaug.  Diss.,  Giesscn),  Berlin 
1S97, 104  pp.— Kings:  J.  Berlinger,  Die  Pcschitta  zum  1  (til; 
Buch  der  KOnige,  Frankfurt,  1897,  60  pp.— Chronicles:  CI.  A. 
Keg.  Tottermann,  pD'in  ttn'Onp  Knu^D  cum  hebrceis  collata, 
Helsingforsiffl,  1870;  S.  Frankel,  'Die  s.\Tische  L'bersetzung  zu 
den  Biichern  der  Chronik' (Ztechr.  f.  prot.  Theol.  5  (lb79),  508- 
536,  7:^0-759;  W.  E.  Barnes,  An  apparatus  criticus  to  Chroniciea 
in  the  Peshitta  Version,  with  a  discussion  of  the  value  of  the 
Codex  Ambrosianits,  Cambridge,  1897 1;  see  also  A.  Kloster- 
mann  (art.  'Chronik'.in  Plt£3  iv.  85  ff.).— Esth'r:  Jul. 
Grunthal,  Die  syrisclie  Uberseizunfj  zum  Buche  Eslh,  r  (Diss.), 
Breslau,  1 900,  55  pp. — Job:  Edu.  Slenij,  De  si/riaca  libri  J  obi  in- 
tcrf/retatiane  mue  Peschlta  vacatur,  P;irs  prior,  Helsingforsiie, 
186"  ;  A.  Mantil,  Die  Peschiltha  :u  Hiob  (Diss.),  Leipz.  1S02,  35 
pp. ;  Eberh.  Bauuiann,  '  Die  Verwendbarkeit  der  Pesita  zum 
Buch  Ijob  fiir  die  Textkritik  '  (ZA  TW  xviii.  257-200,  xix.  15-95, 
XX.  177-201,  264-307).— Psalms:  Fr.  Dietrich,  Com7n<>?i(r!(io  de 
p^atterii  usu  publico  «■(  ditfisione  in  ecvlcsia  Syriaca,  Marburg, 
1862,  4to  (Indices  lectionum);  Andr.  Oliver,  A  Transtalion  oj 
tlie  Syriac  Peshito  Visrsion  of  the  Psatmg  of  Da  rid,  with  note's 
critical  and  explanatory,  Boston,  1801 ;  Prager,  see  above ; 
Berg,  see  preced.  col.  n.  i ;  Fr.  Baethgcn,  Untersuchuugrn  iiber 
die  Psalvwn  nach  der  Peschita,  i.,  Kiel,  1878,  4to,  sequel  in 
Ztsclir.f.  prot.  Theal.  viii.  405-469, 693-667 ;  Berth.  Oppenheimer, 
Dve  Syr,  (/ijersetzunfj  des fiinftcn  liuchvsdcr Psabncn,  Leipzig, 
1S91 ;  L.  Techen,  'Syrisch-HebriiischesGlossar  zu  den  Psalmon 
nach  der  Peschita'  (ZATW  xvii.  (1897)  129-171,  280-331)  Isimilar 
glossaries  for  other  books  would  be  useful  and  supply  a  Con- 
cordance] ;  O.  Diettrich,  '  Eino  iakobitische  Einleitung  in  den 
Psalter'  .  .  .  Giessen,  1901,  xlviL  167  (Beihefte  zu  ZATW  .5).— 
Proverbs:  J.  A.  Dathe,  De  rations  consentnts  vers.  Chaldaicce 
et  syriacCB  ProverbioniJn  Salomonis,  Lips.  1764  ;  8.  Majbaum, 
*  Uljrr  die  Sprache  des  Targum  zu  den  Spriichen  und  dessen 
Verhiiltniss  zum  Syrer'  in  ilerx,  Archiv,  ii.  1  (1871),  66-93; 
Th.  N.iliieke,  '  Das  'fargum  zu  den  Spriichen  von  der  Peschito 
abhangig  '  (ib,  U.  2  (1872),  246-249)  ;  Herm.  Pinkuss,  '  Die 
Syrische  Cbersetzung  der  Proverbien '  (ZA  TiV  xiv.  [1894]  1,  65- 
141,  101-222):  H.  P.  Chajes,  •  Etwas  iiber  die  Pesila  zu  den  Pro- 
verUen ' (yQ/f, Oct.  1900, 86-91).— Canticles:  S.  Euringer,  'Die 
Bedcutung  der  Peschitto  fiir  die  Textkritik  des  Hoheiilicdcs' 
(Biblitche  Sludicn,  vi.  115-128).— Eccleslastes:  Animadner- 
sione*  criticce  in  vcrsionem  syriacam  Pcschittboninnam  Libra- 
rum  Koheleth  et  iiuth,  Auctore  Georgius  (!J  Jaiiiclm,  Vratis- 
lavius.  1871  (Diss.),  Marb.  1809.  —  Prophets:  A.  Klostermann 
(I'liK^  viii.  767,  on  Isaiah);  Warzavoski,  Peshita  zu  Jes.  I-S9, 
Giessen,  1897 ;  Heinr.  Weiss,  Die  Peschitta  zu.  D<-Jiterajeeaja 
(Diss.),  Halle,  1893:  Armin  Abelesz,  Die  syrische  Ubersetzvnff 
der  Ktagelirder  (l)is.s.).  Giesscn,  1S90,  43  pp.  ;  II.  Cornill,  Das 
Buch  des  Pro]>helen  E:ixhiil,  1880,  pp.  137-1.'.6  (cf.  Rnlilfs  and 
Pinkuss);  C.  A.  Credner,  De  prophetarum  ininarum  iTrsinnf 
sirriaca  quam  Peshito  dicunt  indole,  Diss.  i.  [union  ],  Gi>tt. 
1827;  Mark  Sebok  (Sch'>nbi-rgcr),  Die  syrische  Uebcrsetzunij 
der  zwilf  kleinen  Propheten,  Breslau,  1887,  76  pp. ;  V  Ryssel, 


•Cf.  W.  E.  Barnes,  "The  printed  editions  of  the  Peshitta  of 
the  OT'  (Expos,  Times,  Sept.  1898,  660-562).  An  e<lition  ot  the 
Psalms  may  be  cx]>ected  from  this  scholar  In  1002.  An  ed.  of 
the  OT  is  advertised  from  Berlin  (Reuther  ii  Reichard)  as  in 
preparation  hv  Beer  and  Brookelmann. 

T  Shows  how  deplorable  the  text  of  our  printed  Bibles  Is, 
resting  as  it  does  on  the  authority  of  MS  syr.  6  at  Paris,  n 
wretched  copy  of  the  17th  cent,  and  its  corrections,  omit  ling 
several  clauses  and  a  passage  of  64  verses  (1  Ch  26'>-27*')! 
Cod.  Fadds  to  the  title  J'D'iDT  itD  the  note  that  It  is  written 
by  the  priest  Jim"  (see  Neh  12»),  and  Is  also  called  K3n3 
KnTOm  '  book  ot  the  missing  (things)'  (•■rdpaXuriiLui), 


652 


SYROPHCEXICIAN 


TAAXACH 


Untersrtchujifjen  uber  .  .  .  ilicha,  18S7 ;  Wahl,  '  Vergleichung 
der  syr.  kirchl.  Uebereetzung  des  I'ropheten  Amos,  narh  der 
Londoner  Auagabe,  mit  Ephraeni  des  Syrers  ayr.  Texte'  {Ma'ja- 
zln  f.  alU,  bes.  morgendl.  uiid  bibl.  Lit.,  zweite  Lieferung, 
Cassel,  1789,  p.  80ff.)— Apocrypha:  J.  J.  Kncucker,  Das  ISurh 
Baruch,  Leipzig,  ISUH,  pp.  190-198:  Th.  Nrildeke,  "Die  Texte 
des  Buches  Tobit'  (Monittgberichte  der  BerlUier  Akademie,  1897, 
46-<i9);  Trendelenburg,',  'Primi  libri  Maccab.  GrsBce  cum  versione 
syriaca  collatio '  (fic^crt.  fiir  bibl.  u.  morgenL  Lit.  xv.  58-153); 
G.  Schmidt,  '  Die  beiden  syrischen  Uebersetzinigen  des  ersten 
Makkabaerbuchs'  (Z-ITW  xvii.  (1897)  1-47);  FahrUa  Josephi  et 
AseJuthce  Apocntpha  e  tibro  syriaco  latiiu  versdt  Diss.  .  .  . 
Gust.  Oppeubeim,  BeroUui,  ISSS,  50  pp. 

On  the  other  translations  of  the  OT  into  Syriac 
we  must  be  very  brief. 

(1)  On  the  labours  of  Paul  of  Telia  on  the  Syriac 
Hexapla,  see  art.  Septuagint,  p.  446  f.,  and 
Urt.  p.  235  ;  and  add  to  the  Literature  :  G.  Kerber, 
'  Syrohexaplarische  Fragmente  zu  Leviticus  und 
Deuterononiium  aus  Bar  -  Hebrjeus  gesammelt ' 
(ZATW-avx.  (1896)249-264). 

(2)  On  the  re^a-sion  which  Jacob  of  Edessa  under- 
took in  the  years  704  and  705,  see  Urt.  236 ; 
Wright,  p.  17.  Michael  the  Great  (1167-1200)  tells 
of  him  that  he  became  a  Jew,  because  he  suspected 
that  the  Jews,  out  of  jealousy,  had  not  communi- 
cated to  the  Gentiles  all  tiieir  books  (see  Die 
Canones  Jacobs  von  Edessa  iibersetzt  .  ,  .  von  0. 
Kayser,  1881,  p.  52  f.). 

(3)  The  statement  that  Mar  Abba  (+552)  'trans- 
lated and  explained'  (pes  and  Djin)  the  UT  and  NT 
from  the  Greek  is  made  by  Barhebra^us,  Ebedjesu, 
and  seems  to  hint  at  more  tlian  a  commentary. 

(4)  On  tlie  version  of  the  Psalm.s  ascribed  to 
Polycarp  the  author  of  the  Philoxeniana,  see 
Ceriani,  le  edizioni,  p.  5,  and  Merx  (ZA  349). 

(5)  From  Greek  ecclesiastical  writers,  Fred.  Field 
(OrigenU  Hexapla  i. )  collected  more  than  90  quota- 
tions introduced  by  6  Si'/jos.  Most  of  them  seem 
to  refer  to  the  Peshito  ;  *  see  Swete,  Introd.  p.  56, 
and  Hamack,  TU  vi.  3,  31,  44  f. 

(6)  The  fragments  of  the  Malkite  Version  of  the 
OT  comprise  now  portionsof  Gen.,  Ex.,  Nu.,  Deut., 

•  One  of  the  tasks  to  be  discharged  by  future  workers  is  to 
collect  from  the  Greek  Fathers  all  references  to  the  Syriac 
Ian«;uage  and  literature. 


1  and  3  Kings,  Is.,  Joel,  Zech.,  Job,  Ps.,  Prov., 
Wisd.  ;  see  p.  447"  and  Urt.  p.  237. 

On  the  work  of  the  Massoretes  ^formerly  believed  to  be  itself 
a  version  called  versio  Karkaphensis  or  Montana)  see  the  Abb4 
Martin,  *  Histoire  de  la  ponctuation  ou  de  la  Massore  chez  les 
Syriens,'  in  Journal  Asiatiijue,  Mars-Avril,  1875). 

From  the  Syriac  MSS  lying  in  the  libraries  of 
Europe  the  history  of  the  tran.smission  of  the 
Bible  might  be  very  well  illustrated  ;  and  much 
useful  material  might  be  gathered  from  the  Com- 
mentaries of  the  Syrian  divines,  even  from  so  late 
a  scholar  as  Gregory  Harhebraeus  (see  J.  Goetts- 
berger, '  Barheliriius  und  seine  Scholien  zur  heiligen 
Schrift,'  in  Bibli-sche  Htudien,  v.  4,  5,  1900). 

Eb.  NI3STLE. 

SYROPHCENICIAN  {'Zypo<t>olvt.a<ra,  'ZvpoipoivlKiaaa 
WH,  Zipa  'i'oLvlKKTaa  WHmg)  occurs  only  in  Mk 
7^  as  the  national  name  of  a  woman  who  is  called 
in  Mt  15^  'a  Canaanitish  (Xai-ayaia)  woman,'  i.e. 
not  a  Jewess,  but  a  descendant  of  the  early  in- 
habitants of  the  Phcenician  coast  -  lands  (see 
Canaan).  On  ethnic  and  other  grounds  it  is 
unlikely  that  the  prefix  'Zvpo-  was  meant  to  dis- 
tinguish the  district  from  the  Carthaginian  sea- 
board, called  by  .Strabo  (xvii.  19)  J;  tQiv  A.i^v(pot.vlKij>i> 
yri,  the  latter  being  a  mongrel  race  (Livy,  xxi.  22), 
and  the  alleged  contrast  being  of  no  moment  in 
the  narrative.  The  term  probably  denotes  a  Syrian 
resident  in  Phcenicia  proper,  and  may  have  been 
in  current  use  before  Hadrian  adopted  it  as  the 
ottieial  title  of  one  of  tlie  three  provinces  into 
which  he  divided  Syria.  In  Ac  21*-'  the  two  parts 
of  the  term  are  already  used  interchangeably. 
Tradition  (Clementine  Homilies,  ii.  19,  iii.  73)  gives 
the  name  of  Justa  to  the  woman  concerned  in  the 
incident,  and  that  of  Bernice  to  her  daughter. 
Swete,  following  but  correcting  Euthymius  Ziga- 
benus,  argues  from  the  context,  with  some  force, 
that  the  woman,  though  of  Phoenician  extraction, 
was  Greek  in  speech  as  well  as  in  religion. 

R.  W.  Moss. 

SYRTIS See  QUICKSANDS. 

SYZYGUS.— See  Synzygus,  p.  644. 


T 


TAANACH  (^Jye;  once,  Jos  12^'  tijs^b;  twice, 
1  K  4'-,  1  Ch  7-"  ~:>ri,  which  is  tlie  form  adopted 
uniformly  by  Baer).^ — An  ancient  royal  city  of  the 
Canaanites,  whose  king  was  amongst  those  whom 
Joshua  smote  (Jos  12-').  It  lay  witliin  the  terri- 
tory allotted  to  Issachar,  but  belonged  to  Man- 
asseh,  and  was  given  to  the  Kohathite  Levites. 
The  Canaanites  were  not  driven  out,  but  they 
were  put  to  tribute,  or  obliged  to  do  personal 
service,  as  the  Israelites  increa.«ed  in  strength 
(Jos  17"  2V-^,  Jg  1",  1  Ch  7»).  Near  Taanach, 
perhaps  on  lands  belonging  to  the  city,  was  fought 
the  decisive  battle  between  Barak  and  the  kings 
of  Can.aan,  which  is  celebrated  in  the  triumphant 
song  of  Deborah  (.Jg  5'-').  The  city  was  in  the 
rich  district  from  which  Baana,  one  of  Solomon's 
twelve  commissariat  officers,  drew  supplies  for  the 
royal  household  ( 1  K  4'^) ;  and  is  mentioned  in 
close  connexion  with  Megiddo — 'Taanach  by  (or 
'  upon ')  the  waters  of  Megiddo '  ( Jg  5").  It  was 
apparently  one  of  the  line  of  fortresses  (Dor, 
Megiddo, T.i.ui.ach,  and  Bethshean)  whicli  stretched 
across  the  country  from  west  to  east,  and  guarded 
the  main  avenues  of  approach  to  the  great  plain 
of  Esdraelon  from  the  .south.  As  such  it  is  men- 
tioned with  Mefjiddo  in  the  list  of  Thothmes  III. 
at   Kamak,  and   again   in   the  list  of  Sheshonl^, 


(Shishak)  (Max  Miiller,  Asien  u.  Europ.  158,  170). 
Eu.sebius  and  Jerome  [Onom.  s.  Qaai'dx,  Sai-a/f, 
Tluntnark)  describe  it  as  'a  very  large  village,'  4 
or  3  Koman  miles  from  Legio,  and  it  is  now 
Ta'annuk,  about  4^  miles  from  Lejjun.  In  the  13th 
cent,  the  manor  of  Thanis  (Taanach)  is  noted  as 
forming  part  of  the  possessions  of  the  Abbey  of 
St.  Mar}'  in  the  valley  of  Jehoshaphat  at  Jerusalem. 
Ta'annuk  is  a  small  village  on  the  S. E.  slope  ol 
a  large  isolated  mound.  Tell  Ta'annuk  at  the  S. 
edge  of  the  pl.ain  of  Esdraelon.  The  mound  ia 
covered  with  fragments  of  pottery  and  shapeless 
ruins,  and  there  are  ancient  cisterns,  wells,  and 
rock-hewn  tombs.  Below  the  village  is  a  small 
mosque,  which  was  perhaps  a  church. 

The  I.XX  readinjfs  are  as  follows : — 

Jos  122'  B  om.,         A  e«>«j;,        Luo.  Biactrnx. 

„    1711  _,  do.,  „  T«.ix.  If  <lo. 

„    2125  „  T.>«x,     „  e««.ix,  M  do. 

Jg  I*'     „*«••«,    „ 'E«((«.««i,    „    •£«/)«.«•» (?■^:x=•nK 

(Kedpathl). 

„  6i«    „  e<.««x.  ..  0""x,       »    ei.xix- 

1  K  4"    „  om.,         „  e««.oj:,         „     A;e«^ 

1  Ch  729  „  e«A^«,   „  e««.«x- 

LrrKRATCBK.— Ou^rin,  Samarie,  11.  228 ;  PEF  ile-n.  11.  48, 
68;  O.  A.  Smith,  HGUL  38«,  389;  Baedckcr-Socin,  Pal.''  241 
Robinson.  SAP*  U.  816.  lU.  117.  C.  W.  \^  ILSON. 


TAAXATHSHILOH 


TABERNACLE 


653 


TAANATH-SHILOH  (.-f?  n;xn;  B  Gi^i-affa  ral 
TeWrjjd,  A  tr)i>a0jr]\^  ;  Luc.  ©ij^'affaffTjXii). — A  town 
on  the  N.E  boundan'  of  Ephraim,  mentioned 
between  Miclimethath  and  Janoah  (Jos  16"). 
Eusfbins  and  Jerome  (Onom.  g.  Or)fa.0)  state  that 
Taniiatli-sliiloh  was  10  lioman  miles  E.  of  Nea polls 
on  the  road  to  the  Jordan,  and  called  in  their  day 
Thena.  This  is  probably  the  Tliena  (0/>a)  men- 
tioned by  Ptolemy  (v.  xvi.  5)  as  one  of  the  towns 
of  Samaria.  It  was  identified  bj  Van  de  Vclde 
with  yVina  about  7  miles  from  .^riWiw  (Xeapolis), 
and  2  miles  N.  of  yVtnCni  (Janoah),  The  niins, 
foundations,  caves,  cisterns,  and  rock-hewn  tombs 
are  on  one  of  the  liimian  roads  leadin"  from 
Ncapolis  to  the  Jordan  Valley  {PEF  Mem.  ii. 
232.  24,)). 

The  Talmuds  explain  the  word  Taartath  by 
'threshold,'  and  hold  Taanath-shiloh  to  have  been 
a  long,  narrow  strip  of  land  belonging  to  Joseph 
which  ran  southwards  into  the  territory  of  Ben- 
jamin, and  included  the  site  of  Shiloh. 

C.  W.  WlI.SON. 

TABAOTH,  1  Es  5^^  i*"  (B  Ta,3aue,  A  Ta/3u>9),  and 
TABBAOTH  (n-y:::),  Ezr  ?•»  (B  Ta^wO,  A  TaplSaud, 
Luc.  To/iauS)  =  Xeh  '^  (B  Fo/SiiO,  A  and  Luc.  as 
before). — The  enonym  of  a  f.amily  of  Nethiniui 
who  are  said  to  uave  returned  with  Zerubbabel. 

TABBATH  (n;?;  B  Ta,9d9,  A  TaBie-,  Tebbath).— 
The  Midiuiiites,  after  (lideon's  night  attack,  tied 
to  Hethshittah,  towards  Zererali,  as  far  as  the 
iHjrder  of  Abel-meholah  by  Tabbath  (.Ig  7").  No 
trace  of  the  site  of  Tabbath  li.as  yet  been  found, 
but  it  must  have  been  in  the  .Jordan  Valley,  and 
probably  not  far  from  the  spot,  to  the  south  of 
liethshcan,  where  the  hills  of  Samaria  approach 
the  river.  C.  W.  Wilson. 

TABEEL  (S!<:p  '  Ood  is  good  '  or  [Winckl.]  '  God 
is  wise' ;  the  pointing  Sx;?  in  Is  7"  m.a}-  be  simply 
due  to  pause  [01s.,  Kiinig],  or,  more  prolialily,  may 
be  designed  to  suggest  the  .sense  '  good  for  nothing ' 
[>><  neg.  ;  go  Del.,  Dillm.,  Niild.,  Duhm,  Stade, 
.\Lirti,  and  Orf.  Hrb.  Lex.] ;  LXX  TotoiX).— 
1.  See  Kkzin,  p.  267*.  2.  A  Persian  otlicial  in 
Samaria  who  was  one  of  the  parties  to  the  letter 
to  Artaxerxes,  which  was  designed  to  hinder  the 
rebuilding  of  the  walls  of  Jerusalem,  Ezr  4'. 

J.  A.  SKi.mi;. 

TABELLIUS  (Ta^SAXios),  1  Es  2"  (LXX  '»)  = 
Tabecl,  Ezr  4'. 

TABER.— Only  in  Nah  2',  in  the  description  of 
the  destruction  of  Nineveh,  when  IIuzzAB  'is 
carried  away,  and  her  handmaids  mourn  as  with 
the  voice  of  doves,  tabering  (Amer.  KV  'beating') 
upon  their  breasts' [lit.  '  hearts ';  r-j^V-Vi'  niEcr.-:]. 
Heating  the  breast  was  a  f.ainiliar  Oriental  custom 
in  mourning  (see  the  illustrati(m  in  Ball's  Li^/it 
from  the  En.it,  n.  119,  and  cf.  Is  32'-  [RV,  but  the 
text  is  doubtful]).  The  word  liere  u.sed  means  lit. 
'drumming'  (cf.  Ps  68-",  its  only  other  occurrence, 
and  see  illustration  in  vol.  iii.  p.  462'').  The  L.\X 
^Ocfyi^tvat  implies  a  re.iding  n^rsr';.';,  which  is  used 
in  Is  29^  of  the  voice  of  a  wailing  woman.  Stade 
i»  inclined  to  prefer  this  to  the  MT. 

The  En^liuh  word  *  tabcr*  meant  a  amall  dmm,  usually 
accompanying  a  pipe,  both  instruments  bcinjf  nlayed  Ijy 
the  Banie  performer.  Other  fonna  are  '  tabor,'  '  taltour.'  and 
*  tambour  ;  and  dim.  forma  are  'tabret*  and  'tambourine.* 
The  words  are  oriffinally  Arabic,  and  entered  the  Knj^lish 
lant^iiage  through  old  i*rench,  a  step  between  French  mid 
Arabic  being  the  Spanish.  Tor  the  subst.  cf.  Shaks.  WinliT't 
TaU,  IV.  Iv.  183—'  It  yon  did  but  hear  the  pe<ilar  at  the  door, 
vou  would  never  dance  again  after  a  tabor  and  pipe.'  The  verb 
U  rarer,  d.  Chaucer,  iioad  Women,  ai4 — 

'In  your  eourt  is  many  a  losengeour, .  .  . 
That  tubouren  in  your  eres  many  a  souD, 
Hi^ht  after  hir  inia^inacioun.' 

J.  A.  Selbik. 


TABERAH  (-nj-iB  ;  LXX  'Ei-Tru/jio-MdO-— A  station 
in  Israel's  journeyings  in  the  wilderness  of  Paran 
(Nu  11',  I)t  Q-').  Its  name  TnVcrah  (  =  ' burning 
or  ])lace  of  burning  ')  is  said  to  have  been  given  to 
it  '  because  the  lire  of  the  Lord  l^urnt  among 
them  '  (Nu  11'  [prob.  E]).  The  place,  which  is  not 
named  in  the  itinerary  of  Nu  33,  luis  not  been 
identified. 

TABERNACLE.— 

L  The  Tabernacle  of  the  oldest  sources. 
U.  The  Tabernacle  of  the  priestly  writers.     The  literary 

sources. 
iii.  The  nomenclature  of  the  Tabernacle. 
iv    The  fundamental  conception  of  the  Sanctuary  in  P. 

Nature  and  gradation  of  the  materials  employed  in  its 

construction. 
▼.  General  arran'.;cment  and  symmetry  0(  the  Sanctuary. 

The  Court  of  the  Dwelling. 
Ti.  The  fvirniture  of  the  Court— (a)  the  Altar  of  Burnt- 
offering  ;  ib)  the  Littver. 
vii.  The  Tabernacle  proper — (a)  the  Curtains  and  Coverings ; 

(/>)  the  wooden  Framework ;  (c)  llic  anangcment  of 

the  Curtains,  the  divisions  of  tlie  Dwelling,  the  Veil 

and  the  Screen. 
Tiii.  The  furniture  of  the  Holy  Place— («)  the  Table  of  Shew- 

breod  or  Presence-Table  ;  (6)  the  golden  Lampstand  ; 

(c)  the  Altar  of  Incense. 
Ix.  The  furniture  of  the  Most  Holy  Place — the  Ark  and 

the  Propitiatory  or  Mercy-seat. 
X.  Erection  and  Consecration  of  the  Tabernacle. 
xl.  The  Tabernacle  on  the  march. 
xiL  The  Historicity  of  P's  Tabern.icle. 
xiii.  The  ruling  Ideas  and    religious   Si^ificance  of   the 

Tabernacle. 

Literature. 

The  term  tabemanil^im,  whence  'tabernacle 'of 
the  Eng.  VSS  since  Wyclif,  denoted  a  tent  with 
or  without  a  wooden  framework,  and,  like  the 
aKTiri)  of  the  Gr.  translators,  was  used  in  the  L.atin 
VSS  to  render  indiscriminately  the  hv^k  or  goats'- 
hair  'tent'  and  the  nrp  or  'booth'  (which  see) 
of  the  Hebrews.  Its  special  application  by  the 
Komans  to  the  tent  or  templum  nnnii.i  of  the  augurs 
made  it  also  a  not  altogether  inaiinropriate  ren- 
dering of  the  jjfo  or  'dwelling'  ot  the  priestly 
writers  (see  §  iii.),  by  which,  however,  tlie  etymo- 
logical signification  of  the  latter  was  disregarded, 
and  the  confusion  further  increased.  Tlie  same 
confusion  reigns  in  our  AV.  The  Kevisers,  as  they 
inform  us  in  their  preface,  have  aimed  at  greater 
uniformity  by  rendering  mislikdn  by  '  tabernacle ' 
and  'ohel  by  'tent'  (as  AV  had  already  done  in 
certain  cases,  see  §  iii.).  It  is  to  lie  regretted, 
however,  that  they  did  not  render  the  Ilcb.  sidckCth 
with  equal  uniformity  by  '  booth  '  (e.j.  in  Mt  H'' 
and  parallels),  and  particularly  in  the  case  of  the 
feast  of  Booths  (E\  Tahernacles), 

i.  The  Tk.vt  or  Tauernaclk  of  the  oldest 
Sources.— Within  the  limits  of  this  art.  it  is 
manifestly  impossible  to  enter  in  detail  into  the 
problems  of  history  and  religion  to  which  the 
^tudy  of  'the  tabernacle'  and  its  appointments,  as 
the.se  are  presented  bj'  the  priestly  autliors  of  our 
Pentateucdi,  introduces  the  student  of  the  OT. 
The  idea  of  the  tabernacle,  with  its  Aaronic 
priesthood  and  ministering  Levites,  lies  at  the 
very  foundation  of  the  religious  institutions  of 
Israel  as  these  are  conceived  and  formulated  in 
the  priestly  sources.  To  criticise  this  concei'tion 
here  -  a  conception  which  has  dominatcil  Jewish 
and  Christian  thought  from  the  <lays  of  Ezra  to 
our  own — would  lead  us  at  once  into  the  heart  of 
the  critical  controversy  which  has  rageil  for  two 
centuries  roun<l  the  literature  and  religion  of  the 
OT.  Such  a  task  is  as  impossilde  to  compass  hero 
as  it  is  unnecessary.  The  .ilinost  universal  accejit- 
nnce  by  OT  scholars  of  the  jiosl-exilic  date  of  the 
books  of  the  Pentateuch  in  their  present  form  is 
evident  on  every  i>age  of  this  Dictionary.  On  this 
foundation,  therefore,  we  are  free  to  build  in  this 
art  iciu  witliout  the  ncceiisity  of  »etting  forth  at 


654 


TABERNACLE 


TABERNACLE 


every  stage  the  processes  by  which  the  critical 
results  are  obtained. 

Now,  when  the  middle  hooks  of  the  Pentateuch 
are  examined  in  the  same  spirit  and  by  the  same 
methoils  as  prevail  in  the  critical  study  of  other 
ancient  literatures,  a  remarkable  diver^'ence  of 
testimony  emerges  with  regard  to  the  tent  which, 
from  the  earliest  times,  was  employed  to  shelter 
the  sacred  ark.  In  the  article  Ahk  (vol.  i.  p.  1-19'') 
attention  was  called  to  the  sudden  introduction  of 
the  '  tent '  in  the  present  text  of  Ex  33'  as  of  some- 
thing with  which  the  readers  of  this  document— 
the  Pentateuch  source  E,  according  to  the  una- 
nimous verdict  of  modem  scholars  —  are  already 
familiar.  This  source,  as  it  left  its  author's  pen, 
must  have  contained  some  account  of  the  con- 
struction of  the  ark,  probably  from  the  oti'erings 
of  the  people  (33°)  as  in  the  parallel  narrative  of 
P  ('2j-"'-),  and  of  the  tent  required  for  its  proper 
protection.  Regarding  this  tent  we  are  supplied 
with  some  interesting  information,  which  maj-  he 
thus  summarized  : — (a)  Its  name  was  in  Heb.  'ohcl 
inGcd  (33',  AV  'the  tabernacle  of  the  congrega- 
tion,' RV  'the  tent  of  meeting').  The  true  sig- 
nificance of  this  term  will  be  fully  discussed  in  a 
subsequent  section  (§  iii.)  (b)  Its  situation  was 
'without  the  camp,  afar  off  from  the  camp,'  recall- 
ing the  situation  of  the  local  sanctuaries  of  a  later 
period,  outside  the  villages  of  Canaan  (see  High 
Pl.\ce,  Sanctuary).  In  this  position  it  was 
pitched,  not  temporarily  or  on  special  occasions 
only,  but,  as  the  tenses  of  the  original  demand, 
throughout  the  whole  period  of  the  desert  wander- 
ings (cf.  RV  V.'  '  Moses  used  to  take  the  tent  and 
to  pitch  it,'  etc.,  with  AV).  Above  all,  (c)  lia  pur- 
pose is  clearly  stated.  It  was  the  spot  where  J", 
descending  in  the  pillar  of  cloud  which  stood  at 
the  door  of  the  tent  (v.'-"-,  cf.  Nu  12=,  Dt  31''), 
'  met  his  servant  Moses  and  spake  unto  him  face 
to  face  as  a  man  speaketh  unto  his  friend'  (v."). 
On  these  occasions  Moses  received  those  special 
revelations  of  the  Divine  will  which  were  after- 
wards communicated  to  the  people.  To  the  tent 
of  meeting,  also,  every  one  repaired  who  had  occa- 
sion to  seek  J"  (v.'),  either  for  an  oracle  or  for 
purjjoses  of  worship.  Finally,  (d)  its  (cdituus  was 
the  j'oung  Ephraimite  Joshua,  the  son  of  Nun, 
who  '  departed  not  out  of  the  tent '  (v.'',  cf.  Nu  H^), 
but  slept  there  as  the  guardian  of  the  ark,  as  the 
boy  Samuel  slept  in  the  sanctuary  at  Shiloh  (1  S 

The  same  representation  of  the  tent  as  pitched 
without  the  camp,  and  as  associated  with  Moses 
and  Joshua  in  particular,  reappears  in  the  narrative 
of  the  seventy  elders  (Nu  H'*'-^"'"),  and  in  the 
inci<lent  of  Miriam's  lepro.'<y  (12"'-,  note  esp.  v.*'-), 
both  derived  from  E  ;  also  in  the  reference,  based 
upon,  if  not  originally  part  of,  the  same  source,  in 
Dt  31'«-. 

The  interpretation  now  given  of  this  important  section  of  the 

Elohistic  ijuurce  is  that  of  almost  all  recent  gcholars,  including 
80  strenuous  an  opponent  of  the  Graf-Wellhausen  h.i.'pothesis  as 
August  Dillmann  (see  his  Com.  in  loc.).  Little,  therefore,  need 
be  said  by  way  of  refutation  of  the  views  of  those  who  have 
endeavoured  to  harmonize  this  earlier  representation  with  that 
which  dominates  the  Priestly  Code.  The  only  one  of  these 
views  that  can  be  said  to  deserve  serious  considenition  is  that 
which  sees  in  the  tent  of  Ex  337ff-  a  provisional  tent  of  meeting 
pending  the  construction  of  the  tabernacle  proper.  This  in- 
terpretation is  generally  combined  with  the  theory  that  the  tent 
in  question  was  originally  iloscs'  private  tent — an  opinion  which 
dates  from  the  time  of  the  Gr.  translators  {Xet^a/v  Ma>t>r»:(  rr? 
r»tj»t:»  flciTtfw,  »t;l,  so  also  Pesh.),  and  has  found  favour  with 
commentators,  from  Itashi  downwards,  including  most  English 
expositors.  Tliis  view  is  a  priori  plausible  enough,  but  it 
falls  to  pieces  before  the  fact  disclosed  above,  that  the  same 
representation  of  the  tent  of  meeting  situated  without  tlie 
camp,  with  Joshua  as  its  solitary  guardian,  is  found  in  the 
Pentateuch,  even  after  the  erectiun  of  the  more  splendid  taher- 
nacU  of  the  prirtitli/  xrriierg.  Moreover,  there  is  no  hint  in  the 
•^xt  of  Ex  :«'■"  of  the  tem]iorary  nature  of  the  tent ;  on  the 
contrary,  as  we  have  seen,  the  tenses  employed  are  intended 
to  describe  the  habitual  custom  of  the  Hebrews  and  their  leader 


during  the  whole  period  of  the  wanderings.  The  closing  vers< 
of  the  section,  finally,  proves  conclusively  that  Moses  had  hki 
abode  elsewhere,  and  only  visited  the  tent  when  he  wislied  to 
meet  with  J".  At  the  same  time,  the  presen-ation  of  thJa 
section  of  E  by  the  final  editor  of  the  Pentateuch,  when  ths 
preceding  account  of  the  construction  of  the  ark  (cf.  Dt  lO^-* 
with  r)ri\  er's  note)  was  excised,  can  hardly  l>e  explained  other- 
wise than  by  the  supposition  that  he  regarded  the  tent  of  meet, 
ing  here  described  as  having  some  such  provisional  charactef 
as  this  theory  presupposes. 

During  the  conquest  and  settlement,  the  tent  of 
meeting  presumably  continued  to  shelter  the  ark 
(which  see)  until  superseded  by  the  more  substan- 
tial '  temjile '  of  J"  at  SniLOH.  The  picture  of  this 
temple  (Vj-.i)  with  its  door  and  doorposts  (1  S  P  3") 
disposes  of  the  late  gloss  (2--''),  based  on  a  similar 
gloss.  Ex  38",  which  assumes  the  continued  exist- 
ence of  the  tent  of  meeting  (see  the  Comm.  in  loc). 
So,  too,  Ps  78*,  which  speaks  of  the  sanctuary  at 
Shiloh  as  a  tent  and  a  tabernacle  (mish/cdti),  is 
of  too  uncertain  a  date  to  be  jiluced  against  the 
testimony  of  the  earlier  historian.  In  the  narra- 
tive of  the  older  sources  of  the  Book  of  Samuel 
(1  S  4ff.)  there  is  no  mention  of  any  special  pro- 
tection for  the  ark  until  we  read  of  the  tent 
pitched  for  it  by  David  in  his  new  capital  on  Mt. 
Zion  (2  S  6",  cf.  1  Ch  16',  and  the  phrase  'within 
curtains,'  2  S  7^  1  Ch  17')-  The  later  author  of 
2  S  7*,  however,  evidently  thought  of  the  ark  as 
housed  continuously  from  the  beginning  in  a  tent. 
'  I  have  not  dwelt  in  an  house,'  J "  is  represented 
as  saying,  '  since  the  day  that  I  brought  up  the  chil- 
dren of  Israel  out  of  Egypt,  even  to  this  day,  but 
have  walked  in  a  tent  {'ohcl)  and  in  a  tabernacle 
{mishkan),'  or,  as  the  text  should  more  probably 
run,  '  from  tent  to  tent,  and  from  tabernacle  to 
tabernacle'  (so  Klost.,  Budde,  basing  on  1  Ch 
17=).  David's  tent  was  known  as  'the  tent  of  J"' 
(1  K  2^''').  Before  it  stood  the  essential  accom- 
paniment of  every  sanctuary,  an  altar,  to  which 
the  right  of  asylum  belonged  (ib.  P").  What  the 
tent  may  have  contained  in  addition  to  the  sacred 
ark  is  unknown,  with  the  exception,  incidentally 
mentioned,  of  '  the  horn  of  oil,'  with  the  contents 
of  which  Zadok  the  priest  anointed  the  youthful 
Solomon  (ib.  I**).  A  solitary  reference  to  '  the  tent 
of  meeting '  in  a  pre-exilic  document  yet  remains, 
viz.  the  late  gloss  1  K  S',  the  unhistorical  character 
of  which  is  now  admitted  (see  Kittel,  Benzinger, 
etc.,  in  loc,  and  cf.  Wellh.  Proleg.  [Eng.  tr.]  43 f.). 

To  sum  up  our  investigation,  it  maj-  be  affirmed 
that  the  autlior  of  2  S  7  not  only  accurately  repre- 
sents the  facts  of  history  when  he  describes  the 
ark  as  having  been  moved  '  from  tent  to  tent  and 
from  tabernacle  to  tabernacle,'  but  reflects  with 
equal  accuracy  the  opinion  of  early  times  that  a 
simple  tent  or  taliernacle  was  the  appropriate 
housing  for  the  ancient  palladium  of  the  Hebrew 
tribes.  This  is  confirmed  both  by  the  analogy  of 
the  practice  of  other  branches  of  the  Semitic  race, 
and  by  incidental  references  from  the  period  of 
religious  decadence  in  Israel,  which  imply  that 
tent-shrines  were  familiar  objects  in  connexion 
with  the  worship  at  the  high  places  (2  K  23''  RVm, 
Ezk  16'* ;  cf.  the  names  Oliolibah  and  Oholibamnh, 
and  art.  Ohoi.ah). 

ii.  TheTauernacleofthe Prie.stly Writers. 
— The  literary  sources. — These  are  almost  exclu- 
sively from  the  hand  of  the  authors  of  the  great 
priestly  document  of  the  Pentateuch.  This  docu- 
ment, as  has  long  been  recognized,  is  not  the 
product  of  a  single  pen,  or  even  of  a  single  period. 

The  results  which  recent  criticism  has  achieved  in  disen- 
tangling and  exhibiting  the  various  strata  of  the  composite 
literary-  work  denoted  by  the  convenient  s^Tuboi  P,  and  the 
grounds  on  which  these  results  are  based,  must  be  sought  else 
where,  as,  e.g., — to  name  only  a  few  accessible  in  English, — 
Kuenen,  Uexateueh,  72 ff..  Driver,  LOT'  4UfI.,the  moreelabor- 
ate  tables  of  the  Oxford  Uexateueh,  i.  255,  261,  ii.  13S,  and  th» 
art.  Exodus  in  vol.  i.  p.  808  fl.,  with  the  table,  p.  810i>.  Refer- 
ence may  also  l>e  made  here  to  the  present  writer's  forthcoming 
commentary  on  Kxodut  in  the  Intemat.  Critical  Series. 


TABERNACLE 


TABEKNACLE 


655 


The  sections  of  the  Pentateuch  dealing  with  the 
subject  of  this  art.  are  the  followiu<; : — 

(1)  Ex  25-29,  a  fairly  homogeneous  section  (but 
cf.  Oxf.  Bex.  ii.  120)  of  the  main  or  ground-stock 
of  P  (hence  the  symbol  P«),  containing  minute 
directions  for  the  construction  of  the  furniture  and 
fabric  of  the  sanctuary  (25-27),  followed  by  instruc- 
tions relative  to  the  priestly  garments  (2S)  and  the 
consecration  of  Aaron  and  liis  sons  (29). 

(2)  Ex  30.  31,  a  set  of  instructions  supplementary 
to  the  foregoinj'.  For  their  secondary  character 
(hence  the  s3'mbol  P*)  see  the  authorities  cited 
above  and  §  viii.  (c)  below. 

(3)  Ex  35-40,  also  a  fairly  homogeneous  block  of 
narrative,  rei)roduced  in  the  main  verbatim  from 
25-31  'w-ith  the  simple  substitution  of  past  tenses 
for  future,'  but  in  a  systematic  order  which  em- 
bodies the  contents  of  30.  31  in  their  proper  places 
in  the  older  narrative  25 11".  (.see  authorities  as 
above).  It  is  therefore  younger  than  either  of 
the.se  sections,  hence  also  r*.  The  critical  problem 
is  here  complicated  by  the  striking  divergence  of 
the  LXX  in  form  and  matter  from  the  MT,  to  some 
points  of  vhieli  attention  will  be  called  in  the  .sequel. 

(4)  Nu  S-''"-  4*"-  T'"'  contain  various  references  to 
the  tabernacle  and  its  furniture,  which  also  belong 
to  the  secondary  strata  of  1'  (see  NuMBEl'.s,  vol. 
lii.  p.  508).  To  these  sources  have  to  be  added  the 
description  of  the  temple  of  Solomon  in  1  K  611'. 
and  the  sketch  of  Ezekiel's  temple  (Ezk  40 ii'.), 
which  disclose  some  remarkable  analogies  to  the 
tabernacle.  The  references  to  the  latter  in  the 
Bk.s.  of  Chronicles  are  of  value,  as  showing  how 
completely  the  later  Heb.  literature  is  dominated 
by  the  conceptions  of  the  Priestly  Code.  Outside 
the  Canon  of  tlie  OT,  the  most  important  sources 
are  the  .sections  of  Jo.seplius'  Antiquities  which 
deal  with  the  tabernacle  (III.  vi.),  I'hilo's  Do  Vita 
Moysis  (ed.  Mangey,  vol.  ii.  p.  145  11'.,  Bohn's  tr.  iii. 
88  ir. ),  and  the  3rd  cent,  treatise,  containing  a 
systematic  presentation  of  the  views  of  the  Jewisii 
authorities,  ps'o.T  n;'?m  Nn"i3  (ed.  Flesch,  Die 
J'araijlhft  von  der  Uerstellunr]  dcr  StiftshUtte  ; 
ICng.  tr.  by  Barclay,  The  Talmud,  334 if.).  The 
Kpintle  to  the  Hebrews,  finally,  sui)plies  us  with 
the  lirst  Christian  interpretation  of  the  taber- 
nacle (§  xiii. ). 

iii.  The  Nomenclature  of  the  Tabernacle.* 
— (a)  In  our  oldest  sources  the  sacred  tent  receives, 
as  wo  have  seen,  the  special  designation  (1)  nyiD  V.hn 
■Ohel  mffcd(K\  .33',  Nu  11"'  12\  Dt  31",  all  most 
probably  from  E).  This  designation  is  also  found 
uliout  130  times  in  the  priestly  sections  of  the 
He.\ateuch. 

The  verb  ly  p'Jl)  from  which  nVD  l8  derived  sif^niilea  'to 
appoint  a  time  or  ))Iace  of  meeting,' in  the  Niphal  'to  meet  by 
appointment '  (of too  in  V\  Hence  nyiD  Shn — as  the  name  ia 
understood  by  P,  at  leotit — Hiurnifles  *  the  tent  of  meeting '  (bo 
R\')  or  'tent  of  trj-st'  {OTJC  24(i),  the  spot  which  J  '  ha« 
appointed  to  meet  or  hold  tryst  with  Moses  and  with  Israel. 
As  this  meeting  is  mainly  for  the  pur]>ose  of  speaking  with  them 
(Ex  2»<a  33",  Nu  78»  et<^),  of  declaring  His  will  to  them,  the 
expression  'tent  of  meeting'  is  practically  equivalent  to  'tent 
of  revelation'  (Driver,  Dcitt.  839,  following  Ewald's  'OfTen- 
barungszelt').  It  has  lately  been  suggested  that  behind  this 
liet  a  more  primitive  meaning.  From  the  fact  that  one  of 
ths  functions  of  the  Babylonian  priesthood  was  to  determine 
the  proper  time  {iid&nu,  from  the  same  root  as  m/i'id)  for  an 
undertaking,  Zimmem  ha«  suggested  that  the  exprcs.'iion  S.iK 
Ijno  may  originally  have  denot^'d  '  the  tent  where  the  proper 
flme  for  an  undertaking  was  determined,'  in  other  words,  •  tent 
of  the  oracle '  (OraApir^/().  See  Zinunern,  Ud'rinie  zur  Kenntnijt 
d.  tab.  lUliijian,  p.  bS  n.  2  (cf.  Haupt,  JUL,  llKXJ,  p.  i2).  Still 
another  view  of  F's  use  of  the  term  lyiD  Iios  recently  been 
suggested  (Jleinhold,  IHt  Lad*  Jahvet,  1000,  p.  St.).  P, 
according  to  Molnhold,  Intends  to  give  to  the  older  term  i7r,k 
tji\D)  of  E  the  aame  significance  as  his  own  nnyn  "j.nK  'tent  of 

•  Cf.  the  miggestlve  note  on  the  various  designations  of  the 
talwmacle  with  the  inferences  therefrom  In  0^.  Ufx.  11.  120 ; 
also  Klostemmnn  in  the  A'eiu  kircMicht  ZtiUch.  1UU7,  238  fl.  ; 
n  estcott,  Uebrtm,  234  tt. 


the  testimony '  (see  No.  10  below),  by  giving  to  the  Niphal  of  ly^ 
('make  known,' '  reveal  one's  self,'  as  above)  the  sense  of  niy  'to 
testify  of  one's  self.'  The  LXX,  therefore,  according  to  this 
scholar,  was  perfectly  jvistitied  in  rendering  both  the  above 
designations  by  riti'.vy.  tow  fjutptuftici'  (see  below)i  The  rendering 
of  AV  'tabernacle  of  the  congregation'  is  based  on  » 
mistaken  interpretation  of  the  word  uioM,  as  if  synonymous 
with  the  cognate  Txy;. 

(•2)  The  simple  expression  'the  tent'  (^ni<n)  is  found  In  P  19 
times  (Ex  261'  "  etc.)i  We  have  already  (§  i.)  met  with  the  title 
(3)  ■  the  tent  of  J" '  (1  K  2'JSifO.  To  these  may  bo  added  (4)  '  the 
house  of  the  tent'  (1  Ch  923).  and  (5)  '  the  house  of  J" '  (Ex  2319). 

ip)  In  otldition  to  the  older  'tent  of  meeting'  a  new  and 
characteristic  designation  is  used  extensively  in  P.  viz.  (C)  ]~'^'^ 
vii^hkiin  (about  100  times  in  the  Hex.),  '  the  place  where  J" 
dwells'  (I^y'),  'dwelling,'  'habitation'  (so  Tindale);  by  AV 
rendered  equally  with  *?"«  '  tabernacle '  (but  1  Oh  632  •  dwelling- 
place  'X  A  marked  ambiguity,  however,  attaches  to  P's  use  of 
this  term.  On  its  first  occurrence  (Ex  259)  jt,  manifestly  denotes 
the  whole  fabric  of  the  tabernacle,  and  so  frequently.  It  is 
thus  equivalent  to  the  fuller  (7)  '  dwelling  (EV  '  tabernacle  ')  of 
J'"  found  in  Lv  174(here  II  (1),  Nu  169  etc.,  1  Ch  1639  21->9),  and 
to  'the  dwelling  of  the  testimony'  (No.  11  below).  In  other 
passages  it  denotes  the  tapestry  curtains  with  their  supporting 
frames  which  constitute  'the  dwelling'  par  excellence  (2Gi-6i- 
etc.),  and  so  expressly  in  the  designation  (8)  'dwelling  (EV 
'  tabernacle ' )  of  the  tent  of  meeting '  (Ex  iVf-  40'  etc. ,  1  Ch  632), 
In  the  passages  just  cited  and  in  some  others  where  the  'ohel 
and  the  iniahkdn  are  clearly  distinguished  (e.tj.  Ex  36"  3940 
40'-7ff-,  Nu  3'3S  91^),  the  AV  has  rendered  the  fonuer  by  'tent' 
and  the  latter  by  'tabernacle,'  a  tlistinction  now  consistently 
carried  through  by  KW  In  1  Ch  64s  (SIT  331  we  have  (9)  'the 
dwelling  of  the  house  of  God.' 

(c)  Also  peculiar  to  P  and  the  later  writers  influenced  by  him 
is  the  designation  (10)  niiKn  S.ix  (Nu  9i5  etc.,  2  Ch  24i>,  EV 
throughout '  tent  of  the  testimony ' ;  so  AV  in  Nu  91^,  but  else- 
where '  the  tabernacle  of  witness ').  The  tabernacle  was  so 
called  as  containing  'the  ark  of  the  testimony'  (see  §  ix.). 
Hence  too  the  parallel  designation  (11)  nny.T  [jy'p  (Ex  3821,  Nu 
160  etc.,  EV  'tabernacle  of  [the]  testimony'). 

(d)  In  addition  to  these  we  find  the  more  general  term  (12) 
c'^^pp  '  holy  place  or  sanctuary,'  applied  to  the  tabernacle  (Ex 
258  and  often ;  in  the  Law  of  Holiness  (Lv  17  ff.)  almost  ex- 
clusively. 

Passing  to  the  versions  that  have  influenced  our  own,  we  And 
as  regards  the  LXX  a  uniformity  greater  even  than  in  our  AV. 
Owing  to  the  confusion  of  JJv'P  and  ^.iN  (both  =  »■*»)>*;)  on  tiie 
one  hand,  and  of  lyiD  and  my  on  the  other  (but  cf.  Meiidiold, 
op.  cit.  3f.),  we  have  the  all  but  universal  rendering  ri  r^tui  •^oZ 
fMtp-rup.ou,  '  the  tent  of  the  testimotiy,'  to  represent  (1),  (S),  (10), 
and  (11)  above.  This,  along  with  the  simple  rasrui,  is  the  NT 
designation  (Ac  7*4  AV  'tabernacle  of  witness,'  Rev  16*  AV 
'  tabernacle  of  the  testimony  ').  In  Wis  9^,  Sir  2419  we  have  a 
new  title  (13)  '  the  sacred  tent '  (^**i**j  ayV,  with  which  cf.  the 
Upk  ff-*»)»i;  of  the  Carthaginian  camp,  l)iod.  Sic.  xx.  65).  The  Old 
Lat.  and  Vulg.  follow  the  LX.X  with  the  rendering  tahemaculuin 
and  tab.  tenlimonii,  though  frequently  also  ('habitually  in 
Numbers,'  Westcott,  I'^p.  to  thJi  Uebrcwe,  234  f.)  tab.  fixderia, 
the  latter  based  on  the  designation  of  the  ark  as  the  'ark  of  the 
covenant'  (see  §  ix.).  As  to  the  older  Kng.  VSS,  finally,  those 
of  Hereford  and  Purvey  follow  the  Vulg.  closely  with"' tab.  of 
witness,  witneasyngo,  testimonye,'  and  tab.  of  tiie  boond  of 
pees  (t.  fofderiny  'I'indale  on  the  other  hand  follows  LXX  with 
the  rendering  'tab.  of  witnesse'  for  (1)  and  (10),  hut  then 
again  he  restores  the  distinction  between  'ijhcl  and  mishkdn 
by  rendering  the  latter  '  habitacion,'  except  in  the  case  of  (7), 
'  the  dwellinge-placc  of  the  Lorde.'  Coverdale  in  the  main 
follows  Tindale.  It  is  to  be  regretted  that  this  distinction  was 
obliterated  in  the  later  versions. 

iv.  The  underlyino  Conception  of  the 
Tabernacle -Sanctuary. — Nature  and  grada- 
tion (</  the  7nateriat.^ employed  in  it.^  construction. — 
In  Ezekiel's  great  picture  of  the  ideal  Israel  of  the 
Kestoration  (Ezk  4011'.)  'the  ruling  conception  is 
that  of  J"  dwelling  in  visible  glory  in  his  sanctuary 
in  the  midst  of  his  iieojile.'  The  prophet's  one  aim 
is  to  help  forward  the  realization  of  the  earlier 
promise  of  J":  'My  dwelling  (mi.shl:an)  shall  lie 
with  tliem,  and  I  will  lie  their  God,  and  they  shtili 
be  my  people'  (37-'').  The  same  grand  conce^>tioii, 
the  same  high  ideal,  took  possession  of  the  pnestly 
writers  on  whom  Ezekiel's  mantle  fell.  The 
foundation  on  wliich  rests  the  whole  theocratic 
structure  of  the  Priestly  Code  is  the  provision  of 

•  The  authors  of  the  Oxford  Uexaitxtch  call  attention  to  'the 
curious  fart  that  in  Ex  2.')-27'9  the  sanctuary  is  always  calletl 
the  "dwelling"  [uiuhkdn],  while  in  28.  29  this  name  is  repla<n'd 
by  the  older  term  "tent  of  meeting."  .  .  .  The  title  "dwelling" 
is,  of  course,  freely  used  in  the  great  repetition.  Ex  35-40,  hut 
the  main  portions  of  the  Priestly  Law  in  Leviticus  l)fnore  it 
(ii.  120,  where  see  for  suggested  oxphmatiou). 


656 


TABER^^ACLE 


TABERXACLE 


a  sanctuary,  wliith  in  its  fabric,  in  its  personnel, 
and  in  all  its  appointments,  shall  be  for  future 
ages  the  ideal  of  a  ht  dwelling  for  J",  the  holy 
covenant  God  of  the  community  of  Israel,  once 
again  restored  to  His  favour.  That  this  is  the 
point  of  view  from  which  to  approach  our  study 
of  the  tabernacle  of  the  priestly  writers  is  placed 
beyond  question,  not  only  by  the  characteristic 
designation  of  the  tabernacle  proper  as  the  miskhCtn 
or  dwelling  (see  above,  §  iii. ),  but  by  the  express 
statement  at  the  opening  of  the  legislative  section  : 
'  Let  them  make  me  a  sanctuary,  that  I  may  dwell 
among  them'  (Ex  2d',  cf.  29"). 

Such  a  dwelling  could  only  be  one  reared  in 
accordance  with  the  revealed  ywiW  of  J"  Himself. 
Moses,  accordingly — according  to  the  representa- 
tion of  P — is  summoned  to  meet  J"  in  the  cloud 
that  rested  on  the  top  of  Mt.  Sinai,  soon  after  tlie 
arrival  there  of  the  children  of  Israel  (Ex  24'^'''). 
The  command  is  given  to  summon  the  Israelites 
to  make  voluntary  oli'erings  of  the  materials  neces- 
sary for  the  construction  of  the  sanctuary.  A 
pattern  or  model  of  this  dwelling  and  of  all  its 
furniture  is  shown  to  Moses,  who  is  at  the  same 
time  instructed  in  every  detail  by  J"  Himself  (Ex 
251-9  [pg-i  _  354-29  |-p.^_   cf    38=1-31).      In   the  later 

strata  of  P  we  find  the  call  of  Bezalel  (so  RV), 
the  son  of  Uri,  and  his  endowment  by  J"  as  con- 
structor-in-chief, assisted  by  Oholiab  ( A  V  Aholiab), 
the  son  of  Ahisamach  (31'-"  =  35™-36i  38"'). 

A  list  of  the  materials  emplojed  is  succinctly 
given  at  the  head  of  each  section  (25'''- =  35^"^ ). 
Of  these  the  three  great  metals  of  antiquity, 
bronze  (see  Brass),  silver,  and  gold,  are  used  in 
a  significant  gradation  as  we  proceed  from  the 
outer  court  to  the  innermost  sanctuary.  Of  the 
last-named,  two  varieties  are  emploj'ed — the  ordi- 
nary gold  of  commerce,  and  a  superior  quality  in 
which  the  pure  metal  was  more  completely  sepa- 
rated from  its  native  alloys,  hence  known  as  re- 
fined or  '  pure '  gold  (mno  3171).  As  to  the  technical 
treatment  of  the  metals,  we  find  various  methods 
employed.  They  might  be  used  in  plain  blocks  or 
ilaba,  as  for  the  bases  of  pillars  and  for  the  mercy- 
seat  ;  or  they  might  be  beaten  into  plates  (Nu 
W  [Heb.  \&»])  and  sheets  (Ex  39')  for  the  sheath- 
ing of  large  surfaces,  like  the  great  altar,  the 
frames  (but  see  §  vii.  (6)),  and  most  of  the  furni- 
ture. The  most  artistic  work  is  the  hammered 
or  repoussi  work  in  gold,  of  which  the  cherubim 
and  the  candlestick  are  examples.* 

The  wood  used  throughout  was  that  of  the  tree 
named  nsv)  shiUah  ( AV  '  shittim  wood,'  RV  '  acacia 
wood '),  now  usually  identified  with  the  Acacia 
seyal  or  A.  nilutica  (see,  further,  Shittah).  Its 
wood  is  noted  for  its  durability  (cf.  LXX  render- 
ing iv\a  5.ar)iTTa).  We  eoiiie  next  to  a  graduated 
series  of  products  of  the  loom.  At  the  bottom  of 
the  scale  we  have  the  simple  shesh  (ea).  This 
material  has  been  variously  identified  with  linen, 
cotton,  and  a  mixture  of  both.  The  history  of 
the  textile  fabrics  of  antiquity  favours  linen  (see 
Linen,  and  Dillmann's  elaborate  note,  Exod,- 
Levit."  305  11'.).  A  superior  quality  of  it  was 
termed  '  fine  twined  linen  '  (iifC  t'v),  spun  from 
yam  of  which  each  thread  was  composed  of  many 
delicate  strands.  When  dyed  with  the  costly 
Phoenician  dyes,  both  yarn  and  cloth  received  the 
names  of  the  dyes,  '  blue,  purple,  and  scarlet ' 
(25''  etc.).    The  first  two  represent  different  shades 

*  No  account  is  taken  here  of  the  quantities  of  these  metals 
provided  for  the  tahemacle.  for  the  passntje  Ex  3S^-3i  was  lorijj 
affO  recognized  (Popper,  Der  bibl.  Bericht  iiber  die  Sriftshiitte^ 
1862)  aa  a.  late  insertion  in  a  late  context.  This  is  evident  from 
the  one  fact  alone  that  the  silver,  which  provided,  inter  alia,  for 
the  sockets  or  bases  at  a  talent  each,  is  thought  to  be  the  pro- 
duce of  the  poll-tax  of  half  a  shekel,  which  was  not  instituted 
till  some  time  after  the  tabernacle  had  beeu  aeC  up  (cl.  Nu  11 
ivith  Ex  lO'i 


of  purple  (see  Colours),  and  may  be  conveniently 
rendered  by  '  violet '  and  '  purple '  respectively. 
The  spinning  of  tlie  yarn  was  the  work  of  the 
women,  the  weaving  of  it  the  work  of  the  men 
(352a.  33^  cf  3gj)  Among  the  latter  a  clear  dis- 
tinction is  drawn  between  the  ordinary  weaver 
and  the  more  artistic  rOkem  and  hushcb,  who  re- 
present respectively  the  two  forms  of  textile 
artistry  practised  from  time  immemorial  in  the 
East — embroidery  and  tapestry.  The  rOkfm  or 
embroidei'er  (so  RV)  received  the  web,  complete  ia 
warp  and  weft,  from  the  loom,  and  worked  his 
figures  in  colours  upon  it  with  the  needle.  The 
hu>:hcb  (lit.  'inventor,'  '  artist,' as  31*;  EV 'cun- 
ning workman  '),  on  the  other  hand,  worked  at  the 
loom,  weaving  with  'violet,  purple,  and  scarlet' 
yarn  (cf.  LXX  28*  Ifryov  lufiai'Tdi/  roiKiXroO)  his 
figures  into  the  warp,  and  producing  the  tapestry 
for  which  the  East  has  always  been  famed.  A 
gradation  from  without  inwards,  similar  to  that 
in  the  application  of  the  metals,  will  meet  us  in 
the  employment  of  these  varied  products  of  the 
loom. 

V.  The  general  Arrangement  and  Sym- 
metry OF  THE  Sanctuary. —TAe  Covrt  of  the 
Dwelling  (Ex  27»-'Hl'^]  =  389-'»[P'];  cf.  Josephus, 
Ant.  III.  vi.  2). — Once  again  we  must  start  from 
Ezekiel.  For  the  realization  of  his  great  ideal, 
Ezekiel  places  his  new  temple  in  the  centre  of  a 
square  tract  of  country,  25,000  cubits  in  the 
side,  '  a  holy  portion  of  the  land '  (Ezk  45"'- 
48'*).  Within  this  area  is  a  still  more  saced 
precinct,  the  property  of  the  priests  alone,  who 
tints  surround  the  temple  on  every  side  to  guard 
it  from  i)0ssible  profanation.  The  same  idea  of 
the  unapproachable  sanctity  of  the  wilderness 
'  dwelling '  is  emphasized  by  P  through  his  well- 
known  symmetrical  arrangement  of  the  camp 
of  the  Israelites.  Around  four  sides  of  a  huge 
square  the  tents  are  pitched,  three  tribes  on 
each  .side  (Nu  2"^-  lO""'-).  Within  this  square 
is  another,  the  sides  of  which  are  occupied  by  the 
priests  and  the  three*  divisions  of  the  Levites, 
the  sons  of  Gershon,  Kohath,  and  Merari  (Nu 
3'^^-).  In  the  centre  of  this  second  square,  finally, 
we  find  the  sacred  enclosure  (riiuvo^)  which  con- 
stitutes the  wilderness  sanctuary.  This  enclosure 
is  the  'court  of  the  dwelling'  (l^yon  isq  27', 
ai'Xi)  TTis  o-Kij^^s,  atrium  tabcrnaculi),  a  rectangular 
space,  lying  east  and  west,  100  cubits  *  in  lengt?« 
by  50  in  breadth  (proportion  2  : 1) — in  other  woids, 
a  space  made  up  of  two  squares,  each  50  cubits  in 
the  side.  At  this  point  it  will  help  us  to  over- 
come subsequent  dilliculties  if  we  look  more 
closely  at  the  proportions  of  the  sanctuary  as  a 
whole,  as  revealed  by  the  accompanying  diagram. 
Beginning  with  the  eastern  square  we  note  as  it« 
most  prominent  feature  the  altar  of  bumt-offerSng, 
lying  'four  square  '  (5  cubits  by  5)  presumably  at 
the  intersection  of  the  diagonals.  In  the  we  item 
square  stands  '  the  dwelling,'  occupying  thi  je  of 
the  small  plotted  squares,  of  10  cubits  each  way, 
its  length  being  to  its  breadth  in  the  proportion  of 
3:  1.  Like  the  temples  of  Solomon  and  Eiekiel, 
it  consists  of  two  parts,  the  outer  and  inner 
sanctuary,  in  the  proportion  of  'i  :  1 .  Tho  latter 
is  the  true  sanctuary,  the  special  abode  of  J",  a 
])erfect  cube,  as  ve  shall  afterwards  see,  each 
dimen.sion  one  -  half  of  the  inner  shrine  of  the 
Solomonic  temple.  It  stands  exactly  in  the 
centre  of  its  square,  while  its  own  centre  in  tu;n 
is  occupied  by  the  most  sacred  of  all  the  objects 
in  the  sanctuary,  the  ark,  the  throne  of  J",  the 
dimensions  of  which,  we  shall  find,  are  5x3x3 
half-cubits.  These  data  are  meanwhile  sufficient 
to  prove   P's  love  for  '  order,  measure,  number 

*  The  length  of  Ps  cubit  is  uncertain.  For  convenience  of 
reckoning  it  may  be  taken  as  18  inches. 


TABERNACLE 


TABERNACLE 


657 


and  system,'  which  has  lonfc  been  recognized  as 
oue  of  his  most  prominent  characteristics.  From 
the  first  section  of  Genesis  (l'-2')  onwards,  with  its 
arrangement  by  10  and  7  and  3  (see  art.  NfMiiKi:, 
vol.  iii.  p.  56o'),  his  genealogies,  his  chronologj-, 
his  theory  of  the  religious  development  of  Israel, 


.0              20              30             40            TO 

c 

'•'"'T'l          T'O,  ~ 

1                                1               V 

1             I 

,        '1 

1  /      \ 

[=5_ 

*                       !<.' 

a 

O     D 

V,                      ^ 

h 

1         ^       1 

c 

CO    * 

o 

;  '\^ 

-o 

'^'■  —  ' 

t" I . 

O 

-  i    '    1    i    i    i    1    2   '.   ; 

o 


PLAN   OP  THK  COURT  OP  TUB  TAItKRNACLK. 

Scale  ^  inch=l  cubit. 

are  all  constructed  on  a  definite  system.*  Nowhere 
is  this  fondness  for  symmetry  and  proportion  .so 
evident  as  in  the  measurements  of  the  tabernacle. 
Thrte,  four,  scvoi,  ten,  their  parts  and  viultijiles, 
dominate  the  whole  (see  further,  §  xiii. ).  The  desire 
to  preserve  the  proportion  and  ratio  of  certain  parts 
and  measurements  has  led  to  awkwardness  and 
even  incon.sistency  in  otlier  parts — a  fact  which  lies 
lit  the  root  of  not  a  few  of  tlie  ditlii'ulties  that 
beset  the  path  of  those  that  attempt  to  construct 
the  tabernacle  from  the  data  of  the  priestly  writers. 

The  court  of  the  tabernacle  is  screened  off  from 
the  rest  of  the  encampment  by  five  wliite  curtains 
(D'y<P  AtV«'j"m)  of  '  fine  twined  linen  *  of  the  uniform 
height  of  5  cubits,  but  of  varying  length.  Those 
on  the  N.  and  S.  long  sides  measure  each  100  cubits, 
that  on  the  W.  50,  while  the  two  remaining  cur- 
tains of  15  cubits  eacli  screen  olF  the  E.  side,  one 
on  either  liand  of  the  entrance  to  the  court.  The 
latter  is  a  space  of  20  cubits,  which  is  closed  by  a 
lian''iiig  or  portiere  (^PT)  of  the  second  grade  of 
workmanshi])  explained  above,  i.e.  embroidered  in 
colours  on  a  white  ground.  All  six  hangings  are 
Rusjiended  from  pillars  of  the  same  height,  standing 
on  oases  (pN,  EV  '  sockets')  of  bronze.  The  shape 
and  size  of  these  bases  can  only  be  conjectured. 
Klsewhere  in  OT  (C.a  5",  Job  38",  and  corrected 
text  of  Kzk  41")  [ik  is  the  b.a.se  in  the  shape  of  a 
square  plinth  on  whiili  a  pillar  or  an  altar  stands. 
So  most  i>robably  in  the  case  before  us,  the  wooden 
pillar  being  .sunk  well  into  the  plinth  (so  the 
liariiitlui),  which  would  tliiis  be  reckoned  to  the 
height  of  the  pillar.  The  pillars  were  then  kept 
in   position   by  means  of   tlio  usual  '  cords  *  t  or 

•Cf.  DiUmann,  Sum.-Jutita,  (MOf.,  who  also  curiHtciiTij  P  to 
have  (listinKuishcd  four  pcrio<i8  of  the  world's  htstory  char- 
acterized by  the  decreasing  Icn^h  of  human  life  in  the  propor- 
tion S:4  :2:i. 

t  TIm  >e  are  flmt  mentioned  in  P*  (3&>*  '  the  pine  of  the  court* 
•nJ  thiir  cords,'  3(H0  etc.). 
VOL.  IV. — 43 


stays  (D"!ti'C)  fastened  to  jiegs  or  'pins'  (Min;)  of 
bronze  stuck  in  the  ground.  This  .seems  prefer- 
able to  the  view  first  suggested  by  Joscplius  that 
the  ba.ses  ended  in  spikes  {<Tavp(jrrjjp(s)  like  that  by 
which  the  butt-end  of  a  spear  was  stuck  in  the 
ground — a  method  scarcely  in  place  in  the  sand 
of  the  desert.  According  to  P*  (38"),  the  jiillars 
had  capitals  (EV  'chapiters')  overlaid  with  silver. 
Further,  '  the  hooks  or  pejjs  (D-ii)  of  the  pill.ars  and 
their  fillets  (n'p'sJq)  shall  be  of  silver'  (•27""-,  but 
38'°  makes  the  latter  only  overlaid  with  silver). 
The  word  rendered  'fillet'  probably  signifies  a 
band  or  necking  of  silver  (Ew.,  Dill,  et  id.)  at 
the  base  of  the  capital,  rather  tlian,  as  is  more 
generally  supposed,  silver  rods  connecting  the 
pillars.  AflU  this  for  three  reasons  :  (1)  only  on 
this  view  is  the  phrase  'filleted  with  silver'  (27") 
intelligiblB ;  (2)  no  mention  is  made  of  any  such 
connecting-rods  in  the  minute  directions  for  the 
transport  of  the  tabernacle  furniture  (Nu  4)  ;  and 
(3)  the  screen  and  veil  of  the  tabernacle  proper 
(§  vii.  (c))  were  evidently  attached  to  their  pillars 
by  hooks. 

At  this  point  we  encounter  our  first  difficulty. 
How  are  the  pillars  placed,  on  what  principle  are 
they  reckoned  (27""'-)  ?  Ezekiel  begins  the  de- 
scription of  his  outer  court  with  the  wall  '  round 
about'  (40').  P  does  likewise,  only  his  curtain- 
wall  is  like  a  mathematical  line,  uaving  length 
without  breadth.  It  is  as  though  the  writer  were 
working  from  a  ground -plan  like  our  diagram. 
The  periphery  of  the  court  measures  300  cubits. 
This  and  no  more  is  the  length  of  his  six  curtains. 
Not  even  in  the  case  of  the  entrance  portifere  is 
allowance  made  for  folds* — the  first  hint  that  we 
are  dealing  with  an  ideiil,  not  an  actual,  construc- 
tion. The  pillars  must  be  thought  of  as  standing 
inside  the  curtains,  otherwise  they  would  not 
belong  to  the  sanctuary  at  all.  The  principle 
on  which  they  are  reckoned  is  clear.  It  is  that 
one  /lillitr,  and  one  only,  is  a.ssiffned  to  every  Jive 
ruhits  of  curtain.  Now,  a  curtain  of  20  cubits' 
length, ^ike  the  entrance  screen,  requires  not  four, 
which  is  the  number  assigned  to  it,  but  five  pillars  ; 
and  on  the  same  principle  each  of  the  two  smaller 
curtains  on  either  side  of  it  requires  four  pillars, 
^ot  three,  and  so  with  the  rest.  Uut  to  have 
counted  twenty-one  pill.-irs  for  the  sides,  eleven 
for  the  end  curtain,  and  5  +  4-1-4  for  the  front, 
would  have  siioiled  the  symmetry,  and  so  the 
artificial  method  of  the  text  is  adopted.  Counting 
four  for  the  entrance,  as  on  the  diagram,  and  three 
for  the  curtain  to  the  left  (vv.'"-'^),  we  proceed 
round  the  court,  reckoning  always  from  the  first 
corner  pillar  met  with  and  counting  no  pillar 
twice.  It  is  thus  absurd  to  charge  1'  with  mis- 
calculation, as  his  latest  commentator  still  does 
(Uacntsch,  in  lar.).  I$ut  the  charge  is  the  price 
paid  for  the  determination  to  reckon  the  pillars  on 
the  E.  side  as  only  ten  in  all,  arranged  symmetri- 
cally as  3-1-4  +  3  (when  there  are  really  eleven),  and 
those  of  the  N.  and  S.  sides  as  multiples  of  ten. 

vi.  The  Fuuniturk  of  the  Couut.— (a)  The 
altar  of  burnt  -  offering.  Ex  27'-»  =  38''  [LXX 
38-"'-'']. — In  the  centre  of  the  court,  as  the  sym- 
metry reijuires,  stands  'the  altar'  (27'  KV  ;  for 
the  significance  of  the  article  see  §  viii.  (c))  of  the 
sanctuary,  also  termed  more  precisely  '  the  altar 
of  burntoH'ciing  '  (30'^  31'  and  oft.),  and,  from  it-s 
apjiearance,  '  the  altar  of  bronze,'  AV  '  brazen 
altar'  (SS-'"  3SP),  both  sets  of  pa^ssnges  probably 
belonging  to  P".  '  F<iursquare'  it  stands,  5  <ubits 
in  length  and  breadth,  and  3  cubits  in  height, 
a  hollow   chest  t   of    acacia  wood   sheathed  with 

•  JosephuB  is  quite  wrong,  therefore.  In  speaking  of  the  curtainl 
hanging  in  a  '  loose  and  flowing  manner'  {I.e.). 

t  Nothing  in  t)iu  text  suggests  a  mere  four-sided  frame  to  fas 
filled  with  earth,  as  is  usually  supposed. 


5^8 


TAEERXACLE 


TABERXACLE 


bronze.  From  tlie  four  corners  rise  the  indis- 
pensaljle  horns,  'of  one  piece  with  it'  (RV),  the 
term  and  signilicance  of  which  liave  been  much 
debated.  From  the  representations  of  similar 
'  horns '  on  Assyrian  altars  (see  Perrot  and 
Chipiez,  Hist,  of  Art  in  Chnldea  and  Assyria, 
i.  255  f . ),  they  would  appear  to  have  been  merely 
the  prolongation  upwards  of  the  si<les  of  the  altar 
to  a  point,  for  a  few  inclies  at  each  comer.  The 
horns  of  Ezekiel's  altar,  e.q.,  form  ■^.,t\\  of  the 
total  height  (see  43""  with  Toy's  diagram  in 
HBOT).  The  horns  play  an  imimrtant  part  in 
the  ritual  of  the  priests'  consecration  (E.\  29'-), 
the  sin-ollering  (Lv  4'"),  the  Day  of  Atonement 
(16'*),  and  elsewhere.*  According  to  a  later  tra- 
dition,   the    '  beaten    plates '   of    bronze   for  the 


ALUK  OP  BCRNT.0KFgBIN9. 

■  covering  of  the  altar '  were  made  from  the  bronze 
censers  of  the  rebellious  company  of  Korah  (Nu 
16"*'').  Round  the  altar,  half-way  between  top 
and  Vjottom,  ran  a  projecting  'ledge'  (so  RV  for 
the  obscure  3iD-i3,  only  27°  2&* ;  AV  '  the  compass,' 
etc.),  attached  to  which  and  reaching  to  the 
ground  was  a  grating  (RV  ;  AV  'grate,'  which 
see)  of  bronze.  The  purpose  of  these  two  append- 
ages can  only  be  conjectured  (see  the  Comm.  and 
works  cited  in  the  Literature  for  the  numerous 
conjectures  that  have  been  put  forward).  Con- 
sidering the  height  of  the  altar,  at  least  4J  feet, 
one  naturally  supposes  that  the  ledge  was  for  the 
priests  to  stand  upon  during  Iheir  ministrations 
at  the  altar,  and  in  Lv  9--  we  actually  read  of 
A  iron  '  stepping  do«Ti '  from  the  altar.  Together 
'/pith  the  grating,  it  may  also  have  been  a  device 
So  prevent  the  ashes,  etc.,  from  falling  upon  and 
defiling  the  sacrificial  blood,  J"'8  peculiar  portion', 
which  could  still  be  dashed  against  the  base  of  the 
iltar  through  the  wide  meshes  of  the  network. 
Four  bronze  rings  were  attached  to  the  corners  of 
the  grating,  presumably  where  it  met  the  ledge, 
to  receive  the  poles  for  carrj'ing  the  altar.  Tlie 
necessary  utensils  were  also  of  bronze  ;  they  com- 
prised sliovels  or  rakes  (D-y;)  for  collecting  the 
ashes,  pots  (AV  pans)  for  carrying  them  away, 
the  large  basins  for  catching  the  blood  of  the 
animals  sacrificed,  the  flesh  hooks  or  forks,  and  the 
firepans.  The  fire  is  to  '  be  kept  burning  upon 
the  altar  continually,  it  shall  not  go  out '  (Lv  G"), 
which  hardly  accords  with  the  prescriptions  of 
Lv  1'  and  Nil  4'3'-. 

The  idea  underlying  this  unique  structure  —  a 
hollow  wooden  chest  with  a  tliin  sheathing  of 
bronze,  little  adapted,  one  would  think,  for  the 
purpose  it  is  to  serve — is  now  generally  recognized 
as  ha.'ing  originated  in  the  desire  to  construct  a 
portable  nltar  on  the  lines  of  the  massive  brazen 
altai  of  Solomon,  which  was  itself  a  departure 
•  For  the  special  sanctity  attaching  to  the  horns  see  Altar 
(vol.  i.  p.  77).  It  is  open  to  gfrave  doubt  whether  tliia  wide- 
spread custom  of  providing  altars  with  these  projections  lias 
an>-thing  todo  with  the  ox  orcalf  s^'mbolism  (see  Calf  [(.ioLDE-vJ, 
vol.  i.  p.  342),  as  Stade  and  others  suppose.  '  Horn  '  is  rather  a 
popular  metaphor  for  the  more  correct  y'li'ij?  of  Ezekiel  (41'^; 
cf.  Josephus'  phrase  yoitteti  xtpanuitt:),  and  their  ultimate  rauon 
d'etre  is  probably  to  be  sought  in  the  same  primitive  circle  of 
thoueht  as  a8cnl>ed  a  special  sanctity  to  the  four  comers  of  a 
robe  (see  Frinobs,  vol.  ti.  p.  69*).  Another  view  is  suggested  by 
RS'  4Sa,  Baentscb  (Com.  tn  loe.). 


from  the  true  Heb.  tradition  (Ex  20--"').  The 
account  of  the  making  of  this  altar,  which  was 
one-fourth  larger  in  cubic  content  than  the  whole 
tabernacle  of  P  (2  Ch  4'),  has  now  disappeared 
from  the  MT  of  1  K  7,  but  was  still  read  there  bv 
the  Chronicler  {I.e.),  and  references  to  it  still 
survive  (1  K  8''=- «•  9'-",  2K  16'").  Its  disappear- 
ance  is  easily  accounted  for  by  the  fact  that  it« 
construction  appeared  to  a  later  age  as  quite  un- 
necessary, since  the  '  tent  of  meeting  '  and  all  ita 
vessels,  including  the  bronze  altar  of  this  section, 
were  considered  to  have  been  transferred  by 
Solomon,  along  with  the  ark,  to  his  new  temple 
(1  K  8-*;  see  Wellh.  Proleg.  [Eng.  tr.]  44  ;  Stade, 
ZATW  iu.  \S1  ^  Akad.  Beden,  164;  and  the 
Comm.). 

(6)  The  Laver  (Ex  30""=',  cf.  SS*  [LXX  38™]).— 
Between  the  altar  above  described  and  the  taber- 
nacle stood  the  laver  of  bronze  ("ivj,  Xoi/r^p),  to  the 
description  of  which  only  a  few  words  are  de- 
voted, and  these  few  are  found  not  in  the  main 
body  of  P,  but  in  a  section  (30.  31)  bearing 
internal  evidence  of  a  later  origin  (see  §  ii.,  and 
more  fully  §  viii.  (c)).  Bej-ond  the  fact  that  it  was 
a  large  basin  of  bronze,  and  stood  upon  a  base  of 
the  same  material,  we  know  nothing  of  its  work- 
manship or  ornamentation.  It  served  to  hold  the 
water  required  for  the  ablutions  of  the  priests 
in  the  course  of  their  ministrations,  and  is  fre- 
quently mentioned  in  the  secondary  strata  of  the 
priestly  legislation  (30™  31°  etc. ;  it  is  omitted,  how- 
ever, from  the  directions  for  the  march  in  Nu  4). 
A  curious  tradition  grew  up  at  some  still   later 

Eeriod,  to  the  effect  that  the  laver  was  made  of  the 
ronze  '  mirrors  of  the  serving-women  which  served 
at  the  door  of  the  tent  of  meeting '  (38*,  cf .  1  S  2"^). 
The  latter,  needless  to  say,  was  not  yet  in  exist- 
ence. The  temple  of  Solomon  had  ten  lavers  of 
elaborate  construction  (see  Laver),  the  second 
temjile  apparently  had  only  one  (Sir  50'). 

vii.  The  Tabernacle  PROPER— (a)  7/(e  Curtains 
of  the  Dwelling  and  the  Tent,  the  outer  coverings 
("Ex  26'-'^  =  36«-"  [LXX  37'];  Jos.  Ant.  III.  vi.  4 
[ed.  Niese,  §  130  ff.]). — Probably  no  section  of  the 
OT  of  equal  length  is  responsible  for  so  large  a 
number  of  divergent  interpretations  as  the  chapters 
now  before  us.  It  is  clearly  impossible  within  the 
limits  of  this  article  to  refer  to  more  than  a  very 
few  of  these  interpretations,  even  of  those  asso- 
ciated with  scholars  of  repute.  What  follows  is 
the  result  of  an  independent  study  of  the  original 
in  the  light  of  the  recognized  principles  under- 
lying the  scheme  of  the  wilderness  sanctuary  as 
conceived  by  the  priestly  writers  (see  §  r. ). 
Fuller  justification  of  the  writer's  position  with 
regard  to  the  many  matters  of  controversy  that 
emerge  Avill  be  found  in  his  commentary  on 
Exodus  (Internat.  Crit.  series). 

Now,  on  the  very  threshold  of  our  study  of 
Ex  26,  we  meet  with  a  clear  statement,  the  far- 
reaching  significance  of  which  has  been  overlooked 
by  most  of  those  who  have  written  on  this  sub- 
ject. It  is  contained  in  these  few  words:  'Thou 
shalt  make  the  dwelling  (iJf?,  EV  '  tabernacle ')  of 
ten  curtains'  (26').  To  this  fact  we  must  hold 
fast  through  all  our  discussion  as  to  the  measure- 
ments and  arrangements  of  the  tabernacle.  Jt  is 
the  curtains,  not  the  so-called  '  boards,'  that  con- 
stitute the  dwelling  of  J".  The  full  bearing  of 
this  fact  will  appear  as  we  proceed.  The  walls  of 
the  true  dwelling,  then,  are  to  consist,  on  three 
sides  at  least,  of  ten  curtains  of  beautiful  Oriental 
tapestry,  full  of  figures  of  the  mystic  chembira, 
woven  in  colours  of  the  richest  dyes,  violet,  purple, 
and  scarlet  (see  §  iv.).  The  curtains  form,  as  it 
were,  the  throne-room  of  J".  It  is  therefore  ap- 
propriate that  the  mysterious  beings  that  ministei 
around  His  heavenly  throne  should  be  represented 


TABERNACLE 


TAIU'.RXACLE 


659 


ifl  J^s  presence-chamber  upon  earth  (see,  further, 
§  ix.  for  clierubim  upon  the  mercj'-seat).  The 
curtains  measure  each  28x4  cubits  (7  :  1),  and  are 
sewed  together  in  two  sets  of  live.  Along  one 
long  side  of  either  set  are  sewed  lifty  loops  (nsSS) 
made  of  violet  thread.  Uv  means  of  an  equal 
number  of  gold  clasps  (D'f;ij,  llV  ;  AV  '  taches ')  the 
two  hangings  are  coupled  together  to  form  one 
large  covering,  40  (4  x  10)  cubits  in  length  by  28  c. 
in  breadth,  for  '  tlic  dwelling  shall  be  one  '  (26*). 

For  a  tent  ('?"'*)  over  the  dwelling  (v.'),  eleven 
curtains  are  to  be  woven  of  material  usually  em- 
ployed for  the  Eastern  tent  (.see  CURTAIN'S),  viz. 
goats'  hair,  and,  to  ensure  that  the  dwelling  shall 
be  completely  covered  by  them,  they  are  each  to 
be  30  cubits  in  lenrth  by  4  in  breadth.  These  are 
to  be  sewed  together  to  form  two  sets  of  five  and 
six  curtains  respectively,  coupled  together  as  before 
by  loops  and  clasps;  the  latter,  in  this  case,  of 
bronze,  and  forming  one  large  surface  (44  x  30 
cubits),  that  the  tent  also  'may  be  one'  (v."). 
Thus  far  there  is  no  dilliculty  such  as  emerges  in 
the  verses{v.'-'-)  thatfollow,  and  will  be  considered 
later  (§  vii.  (c)). 

As  the  dwelling  is  to  be  covered  by  the  tent,  so 
the  tent  in  its  turn  is  to  receive  two  protecting 
coverings,  the  dimensions  of  which  are  not  given. 
Immediate!}-  above  it  is  to  be  a  covering  of  '  rams' 
skins  dyed  red  '  (ca^ijp,  ripvOpoSavijitiiva).  The  dye 
employed  is  not  the  costly  Pha-nician  scarlet  or 
crimson  dje  previously  met  with  (obtained  from 
the  coccus  ilicis,  see  CoLOUli.s,  vol.  i.  p.  457  f.),  but, 
as  the  Gr.  rendering  suggests,  madder  UpvOpioavov, 
rubxa  tinctorm),  a  vegetable  dye.*  The  outermost 
covering  is  formed  of  the  slcina  of  an  obscure 
animal  (s^-ri,  A  V  '  badger,'  KV  '  seal,'  KVm  '  por- 

Soise '),  now  most  frequently  identified  with  tlie 
ugong,  a  seal-like  mammal  found  in  the  Red  Sea 
(see  note  with  illustration  in  Toy's  '  Ezekiel ' 
[SBOT],  p.  124). 

At  this  point  in  P's  statement,  one  naturally 
expects  him  to  proceed  to  give  directions  for  the 
pitching  of  this  fourfold  tent  and  for  the  prejiara- 
tion  of  the  necessary  poles,  ropes,  and  pegs. 
There  is  thus  every  a  pnori  probability  in  favour 
of  the  theory  of  the  tabernacle  associated  in  this 
country  with  the  name  of  Mr.  Fergusson,  that 
the  four  sets  of  coverings  now  described  were  in 
reality  intended  by  the  author  to  bo  suspended 
by  means  of  a  ridge  pole  or  otherwise  over  the 
wooden  framework  about  to  be  described.  But 
it  is  inconceivable  that  so  radical  a  part  of  thn 
construction  as  the  provision  of  a  ridge-pole  and 
its  accompaniments  should  have  been  passed  over 
in  silence  in  the  text  of  P.  (For  this  theory  see 
Fergusson's  art.  'Temjjle'  in  Smith's  DB  ;  the 
Speaker's  Coiiuiicntnrt/,  i.  374  fV.;  more  recently, 
and  in  greatest  detail,  by  .Schick,  Die  Stiflshutte, 
der  Tewpct,  etc.).  On  the  contrary,  P's  wilderness 
sanctuary  is  to  combine  with  certain  features  of 
a  nomad's  tent  others  suggestive  or  reminiscent 
of  the  temples  of  a  sessile  population.  In  short, 
as  Josejijius  puts  it,  the  finished  structure  is  to 
"difler  in  no  respect  from  a  movable  and  anibu- 
lattry  temple'  (Ant.  III.  vi.  1  [Niese,  §  103]). 

(i)  Tlie  woudcn  framework  of  the  Diixl/hir/  (F.x 
26"-«'  =  3G»-"  [LXX  38«'-2'];  Jos.  Avt.  I.e.  liefl'.). 
—The  right  understanding  of  this  important  part 
of  the  dwelling,  by  which  it  is  to  be  transformed 
into  a  portable  temple,  depends  on  our  interpreta- 
tion of  the  opening  verses  of  the  section  (vv."'"). 
Literally  rendered  they  run  thus  :  '  And  thou  shalt 
make   tlie  kcrashimf  for  the  dwelling  of  acacia 

•  The  Heb.  nnme  ot  this  dye  Is  HKIS,  frequent  in  the  Mishno. 
In  OT  it  occurs  onlv  na  a  i>roper  name,  e.g.  the  minor  Jud^e, 
Tolah  ben  I'uali  (S<:arlct,  the  son  of  Madder  1  Jic  10'). 
t  KV  'boards';  LXX  rrvXai,  Joa.  and  Pbifo  s;«r«,  bottaa 
plllan.' 


wood,  standing  up — 10  cubits  the  length  of  th« 
single*  keresh,  and  a  cubit  and  a  half  the  breadth 
of  the  sintjle  hcrc.sh  —  2  ijddOthf  for  the  single 
krresh,  m^wnUabOthX  to  each  other.'  Here  every- 
thing depends  on  the  three  more  or  less  obscure 
technical  terms  of  the  Heb.  arts  and  crafts  given 
in  transliteration.  The  true  exegetical  tradition, 
we  are  convinced,  had  been  lost,  as  was  the  case 
with  the  still  more  complicated  description  of 
Solomon's  brazen  lavers  (1  K  T^"-),  until  the  key 
was  discovered  by  Stade  and  published  in  his  clas- 
sical essay  (ZAriVVii.  (1883)  \'2.^ti:  =  Akn<l.  licden, 
145(1".,  corrected  in  details  ZAT]V  xxi.  (I'.lOl) 
14511.).  The  Jewish  tradition,  as  we  find  it  first 
in  Joseplius  (I.e.)  and  in  the  Baraithn,  has  held 
the  field  to  the  present  day.  According  to  these 
authorities  the  Kirdshim  were  great  columns  or 
beams  of  wood  15  ft.  high,  2  ft.  3  in.  wide,  and — by  a 
calculation  to  be  tested  in  due  time — 1  ft.  6  in. 
thick,  i.e.  10  X  1 J  X  I  cubits.  The  ydddth  were  pins 
or  tenons  (Jos.  <TTpi(piy-yes,  'pivots')  by  which  the 
beams  were  inserted  into  mortices  in  the  silver 
sockets  or  bases.  Forty-eight  of  these  beams  were 
placed  side  by  side  to  form  the  three  walls  (S.W. 
and  N.)  of  the  tabernacle,  the  eastern  end  or 
entrance  being  formed  by  a  screen  (for  details  and 
reir.  see  below).  This  interpretation,  with  numer- 
ous modiiications  in  detail,  particularly  as  regards 
the  thickness  of  the  so-called  '  boards,' §  has  been 
adopted  by  every  previous  writer  without  excep- 
tion. 

We  now  proceed  to  test  the  value  of  this  tradi- 
tion. The  avowed  intention  of  P,  it  is  admitted 
on  all  hands,  is  to  construct  '  a  movable  and  am- 
bulatory temple'  for  the  desert  marches.  Could 
anything  be  more  absurd  than  to  begin  by  con- 
structing enormous  logs  of  wood,  each  with  a 
cubic  content — on  the  most  usual  computation  ot  1 
cubit  of  thickness  —  of  about  50  cubic  feet,  each 
weighing,  according  to  a  recent  calculation  (Brown, 
The  TabcrnacW^,  1899,  275),  close  upon  1  lion,  ami 
out  of  all  proportion  to  the  weight  they  would 
have  to  bear?  And  this  quite  apart  from  the  open 
question  of  the  possibility  of  obtaining  beams  of 
such  dimensions  from  the  acacia  tree  of  Arabia.jj 
Further,  how  is  the  fact  that  the  tapestry  curtains 
with  their  cherubim  figures  are  always  called  '  the 
dwelling'  to  be  reconciled  with  the  t r.-ulitional 
theory  that  they  were  completely  hidden  from 
view,  except  on  the  roof,  by  the  intervention  of 
the  wooden  walls?  This  difliculty  has  been  felt 
by  several  writers,  who  have  sought  to  avoid  it  by 
hanging  these  curtains  i>t.<iide  the  boards  as  a  lining, 
thereby  doing  violence  to  the  clear  intention  of  the 
text  (see  below).  These  considerations  by  no  means 
exhaust  the  difficulties  presented  bj'  the  current 
conception  of  the  tabernacle,  as  may  be  seen  on 
any  liage  of  the  commentaries  and  special  moiio- 
grapiis  cited  in  the  Literature  at  the  end  of  this 
article. 

The  way  is  now  clear  for  a  fresh  examination  of 
the  technical  terms  of  vv.'"'".  The  first  of  the  three 
(iJlp)  is  practically  conlined  to  P's  account  of  the 
tabernacle,  for  its  only  other  occurrence  (Ezk  27') 
reiiuircs  light  from  our  pas.sages  rather  than  throws 
light  upon  them.  The  tjr.  translators  bad  no  clear 
idea  of  what  the  word  meant,  and  were  content  to 
render  throughout  by  ori/Xoi,  '  pillars,'  a  rendering 

•  So  LXX,  I'csh.  etc. 

t  E\'  'tenons' ;  L.\X  a>'M(*<V««t«B' Joints  or  armi,*  but  else 
where  ^fv,  '  sides.' 

:  KV  'Joined' ;  LX.X  i.»i»/»»«iT««  as  in  v.'  for  n'-'Sfp, 

§  The  familiar  renderin(f  *  boords,"  adojitcd  by  I'indiile,  goes 
back  to  Jerome,  who  thouj.'ht  of  the  luhula',  of  wiiich  tho 
Itonian  tal/ertiacrUa  were  frequently  constructed,  and  from 
whicii,  indeed,  the  name  is  derived. 

II  No  use  is  fiere  made  of  the  argument  from  Nn  78  compared 
with  3*1,  /ottr  wapKons,  eacli  drawn  by  a  ]>air  of  oxen,  for  tha 
transport  of  tbo  'Iraards,'  ti:uies,  pillars,  etc.,  as  these  poasagel 
are  probably  from  adilTerent  hand  from  Kx  26. 


660 


TABERNACLE 


TABERXACLE 


saggested  to  them  by  the  last  word  of  v.'',  wliich 
they  apparently  read  C'l^i',  the  ordinary  word  for 
'pillars  (cf.  Dillra.  in. /kc'.).  Passing,  therefore,  to 
the  second  technical  term  yudoth  (v."),  we  tind  the 
current  text  of  the  LXX  responsible  for  a  grave  mis- 
interpretation of  this  verse,       

by  prelixin};  'and  thou  shalt 
make'  to  tlie  original  text 
(but  AF  omit  (tai  iroiijireis). 
In  reality  we  have  here  the 
continuation  of  v.",  from 
which  it  is  separated  merely 
by  a  parenthesis,  as  trans- 
lated above.  The  yddMh 
are  thus  seen  not  to  be  some- 
thing additional  to  the 
keresh,  but  to  constitute  its 
•main  component  parts  (as 
indeed  may  underlie  the  Gr. 
rendering  lUpri  in  vv.'"-  -' 
and  elsewhere).  What  then 
is  the  signification  of  r  as 
a  technical  term  in  the  con- 
structive arts  ?  In  1  K  10" 
=  2  Ch  9'*  yaduth  denotes 
the  '  arms '  of  Solomon's 
throne,  of  which  iyKC^fe^  is 
the  technically  correct  equi- 
valent(2  Chron.  i.e., see  illus- 
tration of  chair  with  arras 
bent  at  right  angles  in  Rich, 
Diet,  of  Antiq.  s.  '  Ancon  '). 
In  1  K  7'--  =»— as  Stade  (ll.cc.) 
has  conclusively  proved  from 
extant  ancient  models — yd- 
doth  is  the  technical  name 
for  the  stays  or  supports  (EV 
'axletrees')  underneath  the 
bodj'  or  framework  of  the 
laver  (illustrs.  ZATiV,  1901, 
15-2,  167),  as  also  for  the 
similar  stays  projecting  fi-om 
the  top  of  the  frame  and 
supporting  the  stand  of  the 
basin  (cf.  Layer,  vol.  iii. 
p.  64»).  Technically,  there- 
fore, like  our  own  '  arm,' 
and  the  classical  ayKuiv  and 
ancon,  i;  may  denote  any 
arm-like  slractural  element, 
whether  straight  or  bent, 
especially  if  occurring  in 
pairs.  This  result  is  streng- 
thened by  the  plirase  that 
follows,  nnns-'jx  .is-x  ni^fo 
(v.",  cf.  30'-'^  and  the  various 
renderings  in  AV  and  RV). 
Here  again  the  description 
of  the  lavers  comes  to  our 
aid  (1  K  l^"-),  for  the 
cognate  term  there  em- 
ployed (c'j'jf,  with  which  cf. 
r?'^;',  i'a'jif',  the  rounds  or 
rungs  of  a  ladder  in  later 
Heh.)  is  now  universallj- understood  to  mean  the 
cross-rails  joining  the  uiirights  of  the  frame  of  the 
laver.  It  seems  evident,  therefore,  that  the  keresh 
of  P  must  bo  a  frame  of  wood,  such  as  builders  in 
all  countries  have  employed  in  the  construction  of 
light  walls  (.see  Bliimner,  Technologic,  etc.  iii.  151, 
for  the  paries  craticius  with  its  arrectarii  and 
tratisversarii ;  cf.  our  own  brick-no^ged  partitions 
with  their  timber  '  quarters ').  This  sense  suits 
Ezk  27"  admirably  :  '  thy  panels  are  of  ivory  inlaid 
in  boxwood  '  (see  illustr.  m  Toy,  SBOT  15U).  We 
may  now  tr.  v."*-  thus,  taking  the  parenthesis 
last :  '  And  thou  shalt  make  tne  frames  for  the 
dwelling  of  acacia  wood,  standing  up,  two  ujirights 


PRAMB  AND   ITS   UASES. 


for  eaeli  frame,  joined  to  each  other  by  cross-railt 
— 10  cubits  the  height  and  a  cubit  and  a  half  the 
breadth  of  the  single  frame.'  We  now  see  how  it 
is  that  a  writer  so  fond  of  measurements  as  P  haa 
omitted  to  give  the  third  dimension:  a  frame  baa, 
strictly  speaking,  no  thickness  !  * 

The  frames,  according  to  our  present  text,  are  t<» 
be  overlaid  with  gold  ;  but  the  position  of  this 
instruction  (v.^)  after  the  other  instructions  for  the 
frames  have  been  completed  (contrast  25"- "  30'), 
the   variant  tradition  of  the  Gr.  of  3S""'-  {-repirip- 

'  7i'pu(ref,  'overlaid  with  silver'),  the  late  origin  of 
the  kindred  sections  in  1  K  6  f.  (see  TE.MrLE),  and 
other  considerations,  all  make  it  very  probable  that 

I  we  have  here  an  addition  to  the  original  text,  both 

'  as  regards  the  frame  and  bars,  and  the  pillars. 
Like  the  pillars  of  the  court,  the  uprights  of  the 

I  framework  are  to  be  sunk  in  bases  of  solid  silver, — 
the  reason  for  two  bases  to  each  frame  being  now 
for  the  first  time  apparent, — regaiding  the  shape 
and  sizet  of  which  we  are  equally  dependent  on 
conjecture.  For  reasons  that  will  appear  in  the 
next  section,  we  may  think  of  them  as  square 
plinths,  J  cubit  in  the  side  and  a  cubit  in  height, 
forming  a  continuous  foundation  wall  round  the 
dwelling,  with  the  uprights  sunk  well  down  so 
that  the  height  of  the  framework  was  not  materi- 
ally added  to. 

To  provide  the  necessary  rigidity  for  the  frames 
the  simple  device  is  adopted  of  running  fivewoodcD 
bars  along  the  three  sides,  passing  through  ring? 
attached  to  the  woodwork  of  the  frames.  Much 
needless  discussion  has  been  raised  over  the  ex 
pression  'the  middle  bar  in  tlie  midst  of  the  boards 
(v.^),  which  has  been  taken  by  various  writers  tt 
mean  that  the  middle  bar  of  the  five  is  intended  to 
pass  from  end  to  end  through  a  hole  pierced  in  the 
heart  of  the  massive  '  boards '  of  the  traditional 
theory  (see  diagiams  of  Riggenbach,  Brown,  etc. ). 
But  tlie  phrase  is  merely  an  epithet,  after  P's  well- 
known  manner,  explanatory  of  the  bar  in  question, 
t  he  distinguishing  feature  of  which  is  that  it  runs 
along  the  whole  length  of  its  side,  north,  west, 
south,  as  the  case  may  be,  in  contradistinction  to 
tlie  remaining  four,  which  we  may  presume  run 
only  half-way  along — one  pair  at  the  top,  the  other 
jiair  at  the  "bottom  of  the  frames.  This  arrange- 
ment of  the  bars  suggests  that  the  frames  were 
provided  with  three  cross-rails— one  at  the  top, 
rounded  like  the  ends  of  the  uprights  to  avoid 
injury  to  the  curtains,  anotlier  in  the  middle,  and 
a  third  immediately  above  the  bases.  We  thus 
obtain  a  double  row  of  panels  right  round  the 
dwelling  (see  the  accompanying  illustration  with 
drawings  to  .scale  from  a  specially  prepared  model). 
The  difliculties  of  this  section,  however,  are  not 
yet  exhausted.  We  have  still  to  grapple  with  the 
jiroblem  of  the  arrangement  of  the  frames,  and  in 
jiarticular  with  the  much  debated  vv.^"-,  before  we 
r.an  proceed  to  discuss  the  manner  in  which  the 
curtains  were  utilized.  The  discussion  of  the 
I'l  inner  problem  may  best  start  from  the  data  of 
'2()",  from  which  we  le.arn  that  tlie  veil  dividing  the 
dwelling  into  two  parts  (see  next  section)  is  to  be 
hung  "20  cubits,  the  width  of  5  curtains,  ifrom  the 
front  of  the  dwelling.  Now,  the  admitted  symme- 
try of  the  whole  sanctuary  requires  us  to  infer  that 
the  area  of  the  outer  sanctuary  is  intended  to 
measure  20  x  10  cubits,  and  that  of  the  inner  sanc- 

•  We  may  thus  claim  to  have  solved  what  our  latest  coimneD- 
tator  has  termed  P's  'secret' with  regard  to  v.i7  (Baent«ch,  in 
toe.  ;  cf.  IIolzinRer,  who  pives  up  the  verse  iu  despairX  Riehm 
had  previously  tried  to  solve  the  problem  by  takiu;^  the  text  to 
mean  that  each  board  consisted  of  two  pieces  mortised  together 
by  means  of  the  padith  (i/H'B^,  art.  '  Stiftshutte,'  1579  f.X 
Jerome's  interpretation  is  evidently  borrowed  from  the  Rabbis, 
some  of  whom  thought  that  the  pddiith  joined  one  board  to 
another  (Flesch,  Baraijlha,  61 1.). 

t  The  oldest,  but  erroneous,  conjecture  on  this  point  (Ex  8SW| 
has  been  already  dealt  with  (}  iv.  footnote  pi  6.16). 


TABEKXACLE 


TAilEKXACLE 


661 


tiiary  10  x  10  cnbits,  the  measurements  in  both 
ca^es  being  exactly  half  those  ol  the  correspondinj; 
jiarts  of  the  temples  of  Solomon  and  Ezeliiel  (see 
Temple).  With  this  agrees  the  direction  of  the 
text,  that  twenty  frames,  each  IJ  cubits  wide,  are 
required  for  the  two  long  sides,  and  six  for  the 
shorter  west  side  (vv.'"- *•*').  Now,  an  easy  cal- 
culation shows  that  since  the  total  area  of  the 
dwelling  from  rnrtain  to  curtain  is  30  x  10  cubits, 
and  inside  width  of  the  short  side  is  only  9  cubits 
(H  X  6),  we  must  allow  half  a  cubit  (9  in.)  for  the 
thickness  of  the  woodwork  of  eitlier  of  the  long 
sides.  This  would  allow  6  in.  (two  handbreadths) 
for  the  thickness  of  the  uprights  of  the  framework 
and  3  in.  (one  bandbreadtn)  for  that  of  the  bars. 

The  assumption  of  the  majority  of  previous  writers,  from  the 
Saraitha  to  Baentsch,  that  Ihe  measurement,  SO  x  10  cubits, 
gives  the  clear  itiside  area  of  the  tabernacle  as  formed  by  the 
wooden  *  boards,'  implying'  on  the  cubic  of  thickness  theory  (see 
above)  an  outside  measurement  of  31  x  12  cubits,  falls  to  the 
ground  if  the  view  here  advocated  of  the  true  nature  of  the 
'  boards'  is  accepted.  But,  even  with  the  tr:itlitional  interjire- 
tation,  the  theory  of  inside  mea>;urenients  is  absolutely  inad. 
missibte.  (1)  The  true  walls  of  H's  dwelling  are,  as  w"e  have 
already  emphusized,  the  tapestry  curUtiii^,  precisely  as  the 
linen  hanging's  iirt-  the  walls  of  th»^  court  (}  v.).  The  trame* 
work  here  takes  the  place  of  the  pillani  round  the  court,  and, 


fore  one  of  the  projecting  bastions  (2  Ch  26",  Neh 
3-')  which  guarded  the  wall  at  important  changes 
in  its  course.  We  conclude  from  these  data  that  Iha 
word  in  the  pas.'sage  before  us  must  denote  some- 
thing of  the  natiue  of  a  projecting  buttre.s8  at  the 
two  western  comers  of  the  wooden  framework. 
V.**  has  been  the  despair  of  many  generations  of 
students,  and  is  almost  certainly  corrupt.  If  with 
most  modern  scholars  we  read  D'pri  (t« ms)  in  both 
clauses,  it  seems  to  imply  that  these  corner  frames 
shall  be  made  '  double,'  i.e.  consist  of  two  ordinary 
frames  braced  together  for  the  sake  of  strength  ; 
further,  that  each  is  intended  to  form  a  buttress 
sloping  upwards  and  terminating  short  of  the  top  of 
the  framework,  at  '  thelirst'  or  topmost  'ring'  (see 
RVm),  that  is,  underneath  the  top  bar  of  the  west 
side  (see  illustration).  In  any  case,  three  purposes 
are  apparently  served  by  these  corner  buttres>cs. 
They  supj)ly  additional  strength  at  the  two  weakest 
parts  of  the  framework — the  points  of  meeting  of 
the  two  long  \vall3  with  the  west  wall ;  they  take 
up  the  folds  of  the  curtains  at  these  two  comers, 
and — we  do  not  hesitate  to  add — they  raise  the 
number  of  the  frames  to  a  multiple  of  four  (48,  so 
many  were  the  pillars  in  Solomon's  temple  accord- 


llODBL  or  TUB  Tarernaclb  in  perspective  with  the  two  appennost  coverings  removed,  showing  the 
framework  covered  by  the  tapestry  curtains  aa  with  the  cherubim  fi;rurcs,  the  goats'  hair 
curtains  of  'the  tent '6  6,  one  of  the  comer  frames  c,  the  bars  ddd,  the  veil  e,  and  the  screen/. 


like  these,  mutit  be  treated  as  une  quantity  n^fjligenhle  where 
proportit>n.s  are  concerned.  (2)  All  P*8  other  mt-asurcmente 
are  (nUsuU  measurements,  as  in  the  altar  of  burnt-otfering,  the 
ark,  etc.  (3)  Only  on  the  supix'sition  that  the  entire  fabric  of 
the  tabernacle  covered  a  si^ace  30  x  10  cubits  is  the  true  propor- 
tion (3  : 1)  of  the  structure  and  the  complete  8,\Tnmetr>'  of  the 
western  square  maintained.  It  u  absolutely  necessary  from  P's 
standpoint  that  the  perfect  cube  of  the  Most  Holy  Place  shall  be 
entirely  contained  witliin  the  centre  8(|uare  of  its  own  court 
(see  diairam).  With  an  inside  an-a  cjf  30x10,  requiring  on 
the  traditional  hyitothesis  an  outside  mexsuremcnt  of  31x12, 
the  symmetry  of  the  whole  sanctuary  is  ruined. 

We  are  now  prepared  to  take  up  the  problem  of 
the  two  frames  described  with  tantalizing  ob- 
scurity in  the  difficult  verses  '^■'^■^.'  These  two 
frames  are  expressly  stated  to  be  '  for  the  nviirpt 
of  the  dwelling  in  the  hinder  part.'  What,  now, 
is  the  meaning  of  this  rare  word?  The  key,  we 
believe,  will  be  found  in  Ezckiel's  presumably 
technic.'il  use  of  it  to  denote  the  jirojecting  corners, 
popularly  known  as  '  horns,'  of  his  altar  of  shew- 
bread  (41'-"-,  see  for  these  §  vi.  above;  and  cf., 
besides  the  Assyrian  altars,  the  plan  of  a  PIkc- 
nician  sanctuary  in  Piet-schmann's  Geschirhte  dcr 
Phanizicr,  200  f.).  It  is  used  by  later  WTitcrs  to 
indicate  a  part  of  the  wall  of  Jerusalem  akin  to, 
yet  distinct  from,  .i)9  '  a  corner,'  apparently  there- 

•  For  the  extraordinary  number  of  guesses  that  have  been 
hazarded  as  to  the  meaning  of  these  verses,  see,  besides  tbe 
Comm.,  the  text  and  diognuus  of  Riggenbach,  Schick,  and 
Brown. 

t  To  be  pointed  so,  with  mo«t  modem*,  for  nyyj^  o(  MT. 


ing  to  the  Gr.  of  1  K  ?■"),  and  the  number  of  the 
ba.-.es  required  for  the  dwelling  to  a  multiple  of 
ten  (100,  see  next  section). 

(c)  I'he  arrangemetit  of  the  Cm-tains  of  the 
Dwelling  and  the  Tent.  The  dicisivns  of  the 
Dwelling.  The  Screen  and  the  Veil  (Ex  26»- '"• 
"■"•*"■  and  parallels).— In  the  secondary  stratum 
of  P  (40"")  we  read  how  'the  tabernacle  was 
reared  up '  by  Moses.  First  he  put  down  its  bases, 
then  he  placed  its  frames,  put  in  its  bars,  and 
'  reared  up  its  jjillars.'  Thereafter  '  he  spread  the 
tent  over  the  dwelling,  and  placed  the  covering 
of  the  tent  above  upon  it.'  Here  the  tapestry  and 
hair  curtains  are  strangely  enough  together  named 
'  the  tent,'  and  the  two  outer  coverin<;s  similarly 
taken  as  one.*  Now  it  is  worth  noting  (I)  that 
Moses  is  said  to  have  '  spread '  the  curtains  over 
the  dwellin(j,  the  same  word  (fc^p)  being  used  as  is 
employed  of  wrajipiiig  up  the  sacred  furniture  for 
transport  (Nu  4'"'-  §  xi.) ;  and  (2)  that  neither  here 
nor  elsewhere  is  the  ordinary  word  for  erecting 
or  ^litching  a  tent  (.i?;)  applied  to  the  tabernacle, 
as  it  is  to  the  old  '  tent  of  meeting '  (33')  and  to 
David's  tent  for  the  ark  (2  S  C",  see  §  i.).  This 
fact  of  itself  tells  against  the  view,  noted  above, 
that  the  curtains  were  stretched  tent-wise  above 
the  dwelling,  and  in  favour  of  the  usual  conceji- 

^  •  The  author  of  this  section  (PO.  however,  may  not  have  had 
Ex  25  f.  before  him  ill  quite  the  same  furui  as  wc  now  have  it 
(see  9  iii.  above). 


662 


TABERXACLE 


TABERXACLE 


tion,  that  they  were  spread  over  the  framework 
'  as  a  pall  is  tlirown  over  a  coliin.'  The  ta]iestry 
curtains  measuring  40  cubits  from  front  to  back 
and  "28  cubits  across  (§  vii.  (a))  thus  constitiite  the 
dwellinj;,  the  centre  portion  (30  x  10  cubits)  forming 
the  roof  and  the  remainder  the  three  sides.  On 
the  long  sides  it  hung  down  9  cubits  till  it  met,  as 
ve  may  conjecture,  tlie  silver  bases  of  the  frame- 
work, which  made  up  the  remaining  cubit  (so  tlie 
authorities  of  the  Boraitim  (Flesch,  50)  ;  cf.  Philo, 
op.  cit.  ii.  148,  who  no  doubt  gives  the  true  reason 
of  the  vacant  cubit,  '  that  the  curtain  might  not 
be  dragged,'  and  Jos.  Ant.  III.  vi.  4  [Niese, 
§  K!0]).  At  the  back,  however,  where  10  cubits 
(40-30)  were  left  over,  the  last  cubit  would  have 
to  be  folded  along  the  projecting  base,  one  of  the 
results  of  requiring  the  total  length  to  be  another 
multiple  of  ten  (40  cubits  instead  of  39).  A 
striking  confirmation  of  the  signification  here 
assigned  to  the  kerasliim  is  now  brought  to  light. 
Instead  of  nearly  tw  o-thirds  of  the  '  all-beautiful 
and  most  holy  curtain'  (Trar/KaXov  Kal  UpoirpcTis 
iiipaaiia.,  Philo,  I.e.)  being  hidden  from  view  by  the 
so-called  '  boards,'  the  whole  extent  of  the  curtain 
is  now  disclosed,  with,  we  may  fairly  conjecture, 
a  double  row  of  the  mystic  inwoven  cherubim 
filling  the  panels  of  the  framework,  just  as  they 
filled  the  wainscot  panels  with  which  the  temples 
of  Solomon  and  Ezekiel  were  lined  (1  K  6^*-,  Ezk 
41'**).*  The  view  of  Bahr,  Neumann,  KeU,  Hol- 
zinger,  and  others  (see  Literature),  that  these 
curtains  were  suspended,  by  some  method  un- 
known to  the  te.\t,  inside  the  framework, — in  their 
case  the  gold-sheathed  walls, — has  been  already 
disposed  of  (vii.  (h)]. 

Over  the  tapestry  curtain  was  spread  in  like 
manner  the  curtain  of  goats'  hair,  the  '  tent '  of 
P*.  Our  present  text  (vv.*-'-),  however,  presents 
an  insurmountable  difficulty  in  the  arrangement 
of  these  curtains.  To  cover  the  dwelling,  and  that 
completely,  they  required  to  be  only  40  x  30  cubits. 
But  even  when  the  sixth  curtain  of  the  one  set  is 
doubled,  as  required  by  v.',  a  total  length  of  42 
cubits  remains.  The  explanation  usually  given, 
which  indeed  is  required  by  v.'*,  is  that  '  the  half 
curtain  that  remaineth  '  must  have  been  stretched 
out  by  ropes  and  pegs  behind  the  dwelling  ;  an 
assumption  which  is  at  variance  with  the  arrange- 
ment at  the  other  sides,  and  which  leaves  the 
sacred  tapestry  curtain  exposed  to  view.  The 
only  remedy  is  to  regard  v.'-'-  as  a  gloss,  as  Hol- 
zinger  does  (Kitrzer  Hdrom.  in  loc),  from  the  pen 
of  a  reader  who  misunderstood  v."".  Taken  by 
itself,  this  half-verse  plainly  directs  that  the  sixth 
curtain  shall  be  doubled  '  in  the  forefront  of  the 
dwelling' ;  that  is,  not,  as  Dillm.  and  other  com- 
mentators maintain,  laid  double  across  the  easter- 
most  tapestry  half-curtain,  but — as  already  advo- 
cated in  the  Baraiiha,  p.  58 — hanging  doubled 
over  the  edije  'jf  the  latter,  covering  the  pillars  at 
the  door  ot  the  tabernacle  and  entirely  excluding 
the  light  of  dijuv.  This  secures  that  the  dwellinf' 
shall  be  in  perfect  darkness.  This  is  not  secured 
on  the  ordinary  supposition  that  the  edges  of  both 
curtains  were  flush  with  each  other,  for  the  screen 
could  not  possibly  be  so  adjusted  as  to  completely 
exclude  the  light.  The  objection,  of  which  so 
much  is  made  by  Kiggenbach,  etc.,  that  the 
joinings  of  the  two  sets  of  curtains  would  thus 
coinciile  and  moisture  be  admitted,  is  utterly 
invalid  when  we  recall  the  two  heavy  and  im- 
pervious coverings  that  overlay  the  two  inner 
sets  of  curtains.  In  this  way,  then,  we  find 
that  the  goats'  hair  curtains  exactly  fitted  the 
dwelling  on  all  three  sides,  covering  the  tapestry 
and  the  ba?es  as  well,  and,  in  Josephus'  words, 
'  extending  loosely  to  the  ground.'  They  were 
*  See  illustration. 


doubtless  fixed  thereto  by  means  of  the  bronze  pins 
of  the  dwelling  (27"  P*,  which  makes  no  mention 
of  cords),  precisely  as  the  Kisu-a  or  covering  of  tlie 
Kaaba  at  Mecca  is  secured  by  metal  rings  at  tlie 
base  of  the  latter  (Hughes,  Diet,  of  Islam,  s.v.).* 

Two  items  still  remain  to  complete  tlie  fabric  ol 
the  dwelling,  viz.  the  screen  and  the  veil.  The 
former  (^p^,  RV  'screen,'  AV  'hanging')  was  a 
portiere  of  the  same  material  as  the  portifcre  of  the 
court,  closing  the  dwelling  on  the  east  side.  It 
was  hung  by  means  of  gold  hooks  or  pegs  fiuin 
five  pillars  of  acacia  wood  standing  ou  bases  of 
bronze  (26»«'-  Se^"-  [LXX  37"-]),  a  detail  which 
marks  tliem  out  as  pertaining  to  the  court  leather 
than  to  the  dwelling,  the  bases  of  which  are  of 
silver.  Like  the  rest  of  the  woodwork,  they  were 
probably  left  unadorned  in  the  original  text,  for 
the  text  of  P'  (36**,  cf.  Gr.  of  26")  speaks  only  of 
the  capitals  being  overlaid  with  gold,  a  later  hand, 
as  in  1  K  6  f.,  heightening  the  magnificence  of  the 
tabernacle  by  sheathing  the  whole  pillars  (26^'). 

At  a  distance  of  20  cubits  t  from  the  entrance 
screen  was  hung  another  of  the  same  beautiful 
tapestry  as  the  curtains  (v."),  depending  from  four 
pillars  '  overlaid  with  gold,'  and  standing,  like  the 
framework,  on  bases  of  silver  (v.'-).  This  second 
screen  is  termed  the  paruketh  (nsns,!  AV  '  vail,' 
RV  '  veil  • ;  LXX  KOiTaviTa.aiM,  'cf .  He  9»  '  the 
second  veil '  as  distinguished  from  the  veil  or 
screen  just  mentioned).  By  means  of  'the  veil' 
the  dwelling  was  divided  into  two  parts,  the 
larger  twice  the  area  of  the  smaller  (2:1).  The 
former  is  termed  by  the  priestly  writers  '  the  holy 
place'  (vi-\?^  26^  and  oft.)  ;  the  latter  receives  the 
name  D-c'iij^n  ey,  best  rendered  idiomatically  'the 
most  holy  place,'  also  literally  '  the  holy  of 
holies, '§  in  LXX  rd  Hyiov  and  rb  dyiov  (or  ret  dyta) 
Tuiv  aylue.  These  names  first  came  into  use  11 
priestly  circles  in  the  Exile.  The  corresponding 
parts  of  Solomon's  temple  were  known  as  the 
hekcd  or  temple  proper  (1  K  6"  RVm),  and  the 
dchir  (EV  'oracle,  v."). II  The  former  is  retained 
by  Ezekiel,  while  the  latter  is  discarded  and  the 
'  most  holy  place  '  substituted  (41'',  but  also  '  holy 
place,'  v.^).  P  by  his  nomenclature  stamps  hu 
sanctuary  still  further  with  the  attribute  of  holi- 
ness in  an  ascending  scale  as  we  approach  the 
presence  of  J". 

viii.  Thk  Furniture  of  the  Holy  Place.— 
(a)  The  Table  of  Shewbread  (Ex  25=3-3o^37io-u 
[LXX  38'"'-] ;  .Tos.  Ant.  III.  vi.  6).— This  section  is 
intended  merely  to  supplement  the  art.  Shew- 
bread by  giving  the  barest  details  regarding  the 
'presence-table'  (D'jsji  [ij^if',  see  I.e.  §  i.)  of  the 
priestly  writers. 

Our  understanding  of  this  section  is  materially  assisted  by 
the  representation  of  the  table  of  Herod's  temple,  whirli  may 
still  be  seen  on  the  Arch  of  Titus  at  Rome.  Careful  nicjisure- 
ments  were  taken  and  drai\nnc9  ma<ie  both  of  the  table  and  of 
the  candlestick  (see  next  section)  by  frieniis  of  Adrian  Iteland  in 
1710-11,  at  a  time  when  the  sculptures  were  less  dilapidated 
than  at  present.  These  were  published  by  him  in  his  work, 
De  spoliis  Teinpli  Hieroaotymitani,  etc.,  1716. 

The  material  was  acacia  wood,  overlaid  like  the 
ark  with  pure  gold.     The  sheathing  of  these  two 

•  The  arrangement  of  the  Kunva,  indeed,  affords  •  striking 

analogy  to  that  of  the  curtains  of  the  tabernacle. 

^  Tills  follows  from  the  fact  that  the  veil  is  to  hang  directly 
under  the  gold  clasps  joinini.'  the  two  sets  of  tapestry  curtains, 
and  therefore  ^  times  4  cubits  (the  breadth  of  the  individual 
curtain)  from  the  front  of  the  dwelling  (v. •'3).  The  importance 
of  this  datum  for  the  dimensions  of  the  tabernacle  has  already 
been  pointed  out. 

t  This  word  has  an  interesting  affinity  with  the  Assyrian  word 
parakhu,  the  innermost  shrine  or  '  holy  of  holies*  of  the  Baby- 
lonian temples  in  which  stood  the  statue  of  the  patron  deity. 

5  The  usage  of  Lv  16  is  peculiar  to  itself.  The  '  holy  place  '  ol 
P  is  here  curiously  '  the  tent  of  meeting'  (v.l8  etc.)  ;  the  '  most 
holy  place'  is  named  simply  'the  holy  place*  (vv.S- 19  etc), 
shortened  from  *  the  holy  place  within  the  veil  *  (v.^ 

Ij  The  presence  of  the"  term  '  moat  holy  plnce '  in  1  K  61*  stc 
is  now  recognized  as  due  to  post-exilic  glossators. 


TABEKXACLE 


TABERNACLE 


663 


«acred  articles  of  the  cultus  and  of  the  later  altar 
of  incense  (§  viii.  ((■))  is  quite  in  place,  and  stands 
on  quite  a  ditlerent  footin"  from  the  sheathing  of 
such  secandary  parts  of  tlie  fabric  as  the  frame- 
work and  the  pillars  at  the  entrance,  the  originality 
of  which  we  saw  reason  to  Question.  The  height 
of  the  table  was  that  of  trie  ark,  Ik  cubits,  its 
length  and  breailth  2  cubits  and  1  cubit  respec- 
tively. The  massive  top^in  the  Roman  sculpture 
6  in.  tliick — was  decorated  with  a  ztr  (it,  AV  and 
RV  'crown,'  UVm  'rim  or  moulding')  of  gold. 
The  preci.se  nature  of  this  ornament,  which  is  also 
prescribed  for  the  ark  (v.")  and  the  altar  of  incense 
(SO*),  is  unknown.  That  it  was  some  species  of 
moulding  may  be  regarded  as  fairly  certain.  The 
Or.  translators  render  variously  by  arfipdvTi,  whence 
the  Vulg.  corotia  and  our  '  crown ' ;  by  Kv/iirta 
rrpimi ;  or  by  a  combination  of  both.  The 
authors  of  the  divergent  Gr.  text  of  35-40  omit  this 
ornament  altogether  (LXX  38'"-).  The  phrase 
KvfiaTia  ffTfKirra.  suggests  a  cable  moulding,  as  ex- 
plained by  pseudo-Aristeas  (Epist.  ad  I'liilocratcm, 
ed.  Wendland,  §  58,  '  worked  in  relief  in  the  form 
of  ropes'),  which  also  suits  Josephus'  description 
(r4  iSaipoi  IXiKos  [a  spiral],  I.e.  §  140).  On  the  other 
hand,  the  same  phrase  is  used  in  architecture  of 
an  ogee  moulding,  and  this  is  certainly  tlie  nature 
of  the  ornament  on  the  table  of  the  Arch  of  Titus 
(see  Reland,  op.  cit.  73  if.,  and  plate  of  mouldings 
opp.  p.  76).  In  any  case,  both  the  sides  and  ends 
or  the  massive  top  were  separately  decorated  bj- 
a  solid  gold  mouldmg,  which  gave  them  the  appear- 
ance of  four  i}anels  sunk  into  the  table  (Reland, 
vt  sup.,  and  cf.  Jos.  §  140,  KoCKalverai.  ok  kciO'  lKa<r- 
Toy  rXtupdv,  k.t.\.  ).  The  legs,  according  to  Joseiihus, 
were  square  in  the  upper  and  rounded  in  the  lower 
half,  termin.ating  in  claws,  a  statement  confirmed 
by  the  sculpture  and  by  the  analogy  of  the  domestic 
art  of  the  ancients.  They  were  connected  by  a 
binding  rail  (n-;;;?,  EV  'border')  'of  an  hand- 
brendth  round  about'  (v.*"),  also  ornamented  with 
a  cjible  or  an  ogee  moulding.  It  doubtless  marked 
the  transition  from  the  square  to  the  round  portions 
of  the  legs.  The  broken  ends  of  this  rail  are  still 
vi.sible  on  the  arch  with  a  pair  of  trumpets  leaning 
against  them  (illustr.  under  Music,  vol.  iii.  p.  462). 
At  its  four  comers  four  gold  rings  were  attached, 
through  which,  and  parallel  to  tlie  sides,  the  two 
poles  or  staves  were  passed  by  means  of  which  the 
table  was  moved  from  place  to  place. 

For  the  service  of  the  table  a  number  of  gold 
ves.sels  (cf.  Reland,  op.  cit.  99-122),  presumably  of 
hammered  or  repoiuisf,  work,  were  provided.  These 
comprised,  in  our  RV  rendering,  '  dishes,  spoons, 
fla;;oii8,  and  bowls  to  pour  out  withal'  (v.''",  cf. 
AV).  The  '  dislies '  were  the  flat  salvers  or  chargers 
on  which  the  loaves  of  the  presence-bread  were 
Conveyed  to,  or  in  which  they  were  placed  upon, 
the  table,  or  both  together.  The  'spoons'  were 
rather  the  cups  containing  the  frankincense  (LXX 
Tdt  SnliTitat)  which  entered  into  this  part  of  the 
ritual  (Lv24'),  two  of  which  were  still  visible  in 
Reland's  day.  The  '  flagons '  *  were  the  larger, 
the  '  liowls '  the  smaller  vessels  (airovicta,  <ca!  <ti5a9oi) 
for  the  wine,  wliicli  we  must  suppose  also  entered 
into  the  ritu.al  of  the  ahewbread.  The  silence  of 
the  OT  on  this  point  led  the  Jewish  doctors  to 
cive  novel  and  at)surd  explanations  of  the  vessels 
last  mentioned — such  as  hollow  pipes  between  the 
loaves,  or  parts  of  a  frame  on  which  they  lay. 
Similarly,  tlie.se  authorities  ditlcr  a-s  to  whether  the 
loaves  were  laid  in  two  piles  lengthwise  across  the 
width  of  thcUible — as  one  would  naturally  suppose 
— or  along  its  length.  A  favourite  tratlition  gives 
the  length  of  each  loaf  as  ten  handbreadths  (2i  ft.) 
and  the  breadth  as  Ave.     Since  the  width  of  the 

*  A  (UgOD  i«  %  (avouriM  type  od  Jewish  coina  (Mo.vkt,  toL  UL 
p.  Mf). 


table  was  only  1  cubit  or  six  handbreadths,  the 
loaves  were  baked  with  two  handbreadths  [their 
'horns']  turned  up  at  either  end,  thus  taking  the 
shape  of  a  huge  square  bracket!  (For  these  and 
similar  speculations,  as  curious  as  useless,  see 
Mcnnlwth  xi.  4  tl".  ;  the  Baraithn,  %  vii.,  with 
Flcschs  notes  and  diagrams ;  Edersheim,  The 
Temple,  154  If.  ;  and  Ugolinus'  treatise  in  his 
Tliesaurus,  vol.  x.).  The  position  of  the  table  was 
on  '  the  north  side'  of  the  lioly  place  (26"). 

(4)  The  golden  Lampstand  (Ex  25^'-*' =  37"" 
[Gr.  SS'"-'"]  :  cf.  Jos.  Ant.  III.  vi.  7,  BJ  VII.  v.  5). 
— Of  the  whole  furniture  of  the  tabernacle,  the 
article  to  which,  since  Wyclif's  time,  our  Eng. 
versions  have  given  the  misleading  designation 
'  the  candlestick,'  afforded  the  neatest  opportunity 
for  the  display  of  artistic  skill  It  was  in  reality 
a  lampstand  (n-iijo,  Xux*"'" — the  latter  in  Mt  5'" 
and  parallels,  where  RV  gives  '  [lanip]-8tand,' 
Vulg.  candelabrum)  of  pure  gold  (§  iii.),  hence 
also  termed  the  '  pure  lampstand'  (31*  39"  etc.  [cf. 
'the  pure  table,'  Lv  24''];  for  other  designations 
see  below).     See  also  Lamp. 

The  lampstand  on  the  Arch  of  Titus  differs  from  that  described 
tn  the  text  of  P  in  several  particulars,  notably  in  the  details  of 
the  ornamentation  (see  Reland'a  plate,  op.  cit.  6).  In  thia 
respect  il  ajfrees  better  with  the  description  of  Josephus,  who 
speaks  of  its  '  knops  and  lilies  with  pomegranates  and  bowls,' 
seventy  ornaments  in  all.  The  base,  further,  is  hexagonal  in 
form  and  ornamented  with  non-Jewish  fi(j:ure8,  while  Jewish 
tradition  speaks  of  the  lampstand  of  the  second  temple  as 
having  a  tn[K)d  base.  The  earliest  known  representation  of  the 
stand  is  found  on  certain  copper  coins  doubtfully  attributed  to 
Antigonus,  the  last  of  the  Ilajsmonieans  (Madden,  Coing  of  the 
Jeu'g,  102,  with  woodcut).  At  a  later  period  the  seven-branched 
•candlestick,'  more  or  less  conventionally  treated,  was  a  favour, 
ite  motif  with  Jewish  and  Christian  artists  on  lamps,*  gems, 
tombs,  etc 

Like  the  cherubim  above  the  propitiatory  (§  ix.), 
the  lampstand  was  of  '  beaten  (i.e.  rcpoussi)  work' 
(•T»pr).  A  talent  of  gold  was  employed  in  its  con- 
struction, the  general  idea  of  wliicIi  is  clear  (see 
illustration)  :  from  a  central  stem  three  opposite 


TUB  OOLDBN   LAUPSTAIiD. 

pairs  of  arms  branched  off  '  like  the  arrangement 
of  a  trident'  (Josephus),  curving  outwards  and 
upwards  till  their  extremities,  on  which  the  lamps 
were  placed,  were  on  a  level  with  the  top  of  the 
shaft.  The  upper  portion  of  this  central  stem, 
from  the  lowest  pair  of  arms  upwards,  is  termctl 
the  shaft  (.ijf;,  so  RV  ;  not  as  A  V  '  branch  '),  also  the 
lampstand  ;)«r  cxrdlcnre  (v.'");  the  lower  portion 
is  the  base  (so  rightly  KV  for  -nr.,  lit.  '  loins,  in  the 
Mishna  O'Oj  Kel.  xi."7).  The  latter,  we  have  seen, 
probably  ended  in  a  tripod  with  clawed  feet,  aa  in 
the  table  of  shewbread.  The  leading  motive  of 
the  ornamentation  on  stem  and  arms  is  derived 

•  For  one  of  the  best  of  these,  showing  Uie  bua  In  the  forn 
ot  a  tripod,  lee  PKt'St,  1880,  p.  8. 


664 


TABEENACLE 


TABER^^ACLE 


^fjm  the  flower  or  blossom  of  the  almond  tree. 
The  complete  ornament,  introduced  four  times  on 
tlie  stem  and  three  times  on  each  of  the  six 
branches,  is  termed  y-jj  (gcbla  ,  lit.  'cuj),'  so  RV; 
AV  '  bowl '),  and  consists  of  two  parts,*  correspond- 
ing to  the  cal3'x  and  corolla  of  the  almond  flower, 
the  kaphtCr  (EV  'knop')  and  the  pcrnh  (EV 
'flower')  of  the  text.  At  what  intervals' these 
'knops  and  flowers'  are  to  be  introduced  is  not 
stated  (for  the  speculations  of  the  Rabbis  see 
Flesch,  op.  cit.  with  dia<rrams),  nor  do  we  know 
how  the  four  sets  of  v."  are  to  be  distributed. 
It  is  usuallj'  assumed  that  these  include  the  three 
knops  which  in  v.^'  ornament  the  points  where  the 
branches  diverge  from  the  stem.  It  seems  to  us 
more  in  harmony  with  the  text  to  regard  the  three 
knops  in  question,  with  which  no  flowers  are 
associated,  as  suggested  rather  by  the  scales  of 
the  stem  of  a  tree,  from  whose  axils  spring  the 
buds  which  develop  into  branches.  We  accordingly 
prefer  to  find  seven  knops  on  the  central  stem,  viz. 
two  'knops  and  flowers'  to  ornament  the  base, 
three  '  knops'  alone,  forming  axils  for  the  branches, 
and  two  '  knops  and  flowers '  on  the  upper  part  of 
the  shaft.  Shaft  and  arms  alike  probably  termin- 
ated in  a  'cup'  with  its  knop  and  flower,  the  five 
outspread  petals  of  the  corolla  servin"  as  a  tray 
for  one  of  the  seven  lamps.t  The  latter  were 
doubtless  of  the  unvarj'ing  Eastern  pattern  (see 
Lamp).  The  nozzles  were  turned  towards  the 
north,  facing  the  table  of  shewbread,  the  lampstand 
having  its  place  on  the  south  side  of  the  Holy 
Place.  To  see  that  the  lamps  were  supplied  with 
the  finest  produce  of  the  olive  ('puie  olive  oil 
beaten,'  for  which  see  OiL,  vol.  iii.  p.  591*,  592»), 
trimmed  and  cleaned,  was  part  of  thedaily  duty  of 
the  priests.  The  necessary  apparatus,  the  snuffers 
and  snuff-dishes  (which  see)  with  the  'oil  vessels' 
(Nu  4'),  were  also  of  pure  gold. 

From  the  notices  in  the  different  strata  of  P 
(Ex  27»'-,  of.  30',  Lv  24"f-,  Nu  8"^-)  it  is  not  clear 
whether  the  lamps  were  to  be  kept  burning  day 
and  night  or  by  ni^ht  only.  The  latter  alterna- 
tive was  the  custom  in  the  sanctuary  of  Shiloli  (1  S 
3').  From  Lv  24'»-  (note  v.»)— of  which  Ex  27«"- 
is  perhaps  a  later  reproduction — it  would  appear 
that  the  lamps  burned  only  'from  evening  to 
morning.'  At  the  time  of  the  morning  sacrifice 
they  were  to  be  trimmed,  cleaned,  and  replaced 
(Ex  30',  cf.  Tumid  iii.  9,  vi.  1),  ready  to  be  relit 
in  the  evening  (30»,  2  Ch  13").  Against  this,  the 
prima  faeie  interpretation,  must  be  put  such  con- 
siderations as  these:  (1)  the  ancient  custom  of  the 
ever  burning  lamp  alluded  to  under  Candle  (vol. 
i.  p.  348'')  ;  (2)  the  expression  I'c^  -a,  a  'continual 
lamp  or  light'  (Lv  24==  Ex  27=») ;  and  (3)  since  the 
dwelling  was  absolutely  dark,  there  must,  one 
would  think,  have  been  some  provision  for  light- 
ing it  during  tlie  day.  The  practice  of  a  later 
period,  vouched  for  by  Josephus  (Ant.  III.  viii.  3 
[§  199],  with  which  cf.  his  quotation  from  pseudo- 
Hecat.Teus,  c.  Apion.  i.  22  [§  199]),  by  which  only 
three  of  the  lamps  burned  by  day  and  the  remain- 
ing four  were  lighted  at  sunset,  seems  to  be  a 
compromise  between  the  directions  of  the  text  and 
the  practical  necessities  of  the  case  (so  Riehm, 
HWB'',  art.  'Leuchter').  The  Rabbinical  notices 
are  still  later,  and  differ  from  both  the  data  of  P 
and  those  of  Josephus.     (On  the  wliole  question 

•  This  appears  from  2533,  where  the  cujis  are  defined  as  each 
consisting  of  'a  knop  and  a  flower';  hence  in  v. 31  "its  knops 
and  its  flowers'  are  to  be  taken  as  in  apposition  to  'its  cups' 
(see  Dillm.  in  loc.),  not,  as  alreaiiy  in  L.XX,  as  two  additional 
ornaments  («'  xpa.r^.ptt  k«;  m  c^xtptiryipu  mi  rit  xp<\x  ;  cf.  the 
similar  misinterpretation  retTirdinK  the  frames  of  the  dwelling 
on  the  part  of  the  L.X.X,  }  vii.  (6)  ahove). 

t  In  the  Mishna  f<era  J  (•  flower ')  has  on  this  account  become 
the  usual  term  for  the  plinth  or  tray  of  an  ordinary  lampstand 
(Ofaloth  xi.  8,  Kelim  xi.  7).  Cf.  the  i.emi.  of  the  divert-ent 
defcriition  In  the  Gr.  text  (STl'if ). 


see  Schurer,  HJP  II.  i.  281  f.  with  full  reff.,  and 

295  f.). 

The  fate  of  the  polden  lampstand  of  the  second  temple,  madt 
under  the  direction  of  Judos  Maccab»us  (1  Mac  4*9i')  to  replac* 
the  earlier  stand  (tt*  Ai/xv.kv  tow  t^ir^,  ib.  l-i,  Ben  Sira's  Kux*im 
ccyicc,  261^  carried  off  by  Antiochus  iv.,  has  been  narrated  under 
SuswBREAD  (§  iii-X  Onias  in  furnishing,'  his  temple  at  Leontopolis 
was  content  with  a  single  golden  lamp,  suspended  by  a  t^am  of 
gold  (Jos.  A/  vu.  X.  8). 

(c)  The  Altar  of  Incense  (Ex  30>-»=37»-"  [tha 
latter  absent  in  Gr.] ;  .Jos.  Ant.  III.  vi.  8  [§  147  tt'.]). 
— No  part  of  the  furniture  of  the  tabernacle  has 
been  the  subject  of  so  much  controversy  in  recent 
years  as  the  altar  of  incense,  which  in  our  present 
text  of  Exodus  occupies  the  place  of  honour  in 
front  of  the  veil.  The  attitude  of  modern  criticism 
to  Ex  30.  31  has  been  already  stated  (§  iii.),  and  it 
must  suffice  here  to  indicate  in  a  summary  way 
the  principal  grounds  on  which  recent  critics,  with 
one  voice,  have  pronounced  against  the  presence 
of  this  altar  in  the  tabernacle  as  sketched  by  the 
original  author  of  Ex  25-29  (cf.  Exodus,  vol.  i.  p. 
810^ ;  Incense,  vol.  ii.  p.  467  f. ;  Temple). 

(1)  The  tabernacle  and  its  furniture  have  been  described  in 

detail,  as  also  the  dress  and  consecration  of  its  ministrant 
priests,  and  the  whole  section  broujrht  to  a  solemn  close  with 
2iH5f-.  Advocates  of  the  traditional  view  must  therefore  ex- 
plain the  absence  from  its  proper  place  in  ch.  25  of  an  article 
ex  hypothec  so  essential  to  the  daily  ritual  (3n7f )  as  the  altar 
of  incense.  They  have  also  to  account  for  the  fact  that  the 
position  of  Ex  SO'  w  varies  in  the  MT,  the  Samaritan-Hebrew, 
and  Gr.  texts  (being  altogether  absent  from  the  latter  in  the 
recapitulation  in  ch.  37).  (2)  Pg  in  the  most  unmistakable 
manner  refers  to  the  altar  of  burnt-offering  as  '^/i**  altar' (so 
not  less  than  100  times,  according  to  the  Ox/.  Hex.  ii.  127), 
implying  that  he  knew  no  other.  Only  in  strata  that  bear 
other  marks  of  a  later  origin  does  it  receive  a  distinguishing 
epithet  (§  vi.  (a)).  (3)  The  reference  in  3010  jg  clearly  based  on, 
and  is  therefore  younger  than,  the  ritual  of  the  Day  of  -Atone- 
ment as  described  in  Lv  I612-14,  But  this  chapter  ignores  the 
altar  of  incense,  and,  in  harmony  with  Lv  10^  and  Nu  IC', 
requires  the  incense  to  be  offered  on  censers.  (4)  Careful  exa2\i- 
nation  of  the  MT  of  1  K  7  and  Ezk  41  (see  Seewbrsao,  Templb) 
has  disclosed  the  fact  that  an  incense  altar  found  a  place 
neither  in  the  real  temple  of  Solomon  nor  in  the  ideal  temple 
of  Ezekiel.  The  references  in  1  Ch  2S18,  2  Ch  4i9  etc.,  are  too 
late  in  dat«  to  enter  into  the  argument  as  to  the  contents  of 
P.  The  first  historical  reference  to  the  '  golden  altar '  is  found 
in  the  account  of  the  sack  of  the  temple  b3'  Antiochus  iv. 
(1  Mac  121X  On  the  other  hand,  the  extreme  scepticism  of 
Wellhausen  {Proleg.,  Eng.  tr.  67)  and  others  as  to  the  existence 
of  such  an  altar  even  in  the  second  temple  is  unwarranted  (see 
Delitzsch, '  Der  Riiucheraltar '  in  ZeUschr./.  kirchl.  Wissenacha/tf 
ISSO,  114-121) 

Assuming,  then,  that  we  have  to  do  with  a  later 
addition  {novella)  to  the  original  code,  we  note 
that  this  second  altar  is  named  n^Dp  ispp  ngjo  (30') 
or  simply  mfipn  "a  (30"  etc. ),  also  the  'golden  altar' 
(39^  etc.,  1  Alac  1-')  ;  in  the  LXX  ri  evataa-Hipiow 
ToG  Ovfiid/xaTOi,  in  Philo  and  Josephus  ri  dv^uarripiot 
— so  Symm.  and  Theod.  30' ;  for  He  9*  see  end  of 
section.  Like  the  larger  altar  it  is  'foursquare,' 
a  cubit  in  length  and  breadth,  and  2  cubits  in 
height,  and  furnished  with  horns  (for  these  sea 
§  vi.).  The  material  is  acacia  wood,  overlaid  with 
pure  gold,  the  ornamentation  a  moulding  of  solid 
gold  (T,  see  §  viii.  (a)),  with  the  usual  provision 
for  ringsand  staves  (v.'").*  Its  position  is  to  be  in 
the  Holy  Place,  in  front  of  '  the  veil  that  is  by 
the  ark  of  the  testimony'  (v.*).  Aaron  and  his 
sons  shall  offer  '  a  perpetual  incense '  upon  it 
ni"ht  and  morning,  when  they  enter  tc  dress  and 
liglit  the  lamps  of  the  golden  stand  (v.'"-).  Once 
a  year,  on  the  Day  of  Atonement,  its  horns  shall 
be  brought  into  contact  with  the  atoning  blood 
(v.'").  Owing  to  the  ambigtiity  in  the  directions  of 
v.«  (cf.  e""  with  6*  in  MT,  Sam.,  and  LXX;  also 
Holzinger,  in  loc.)  if  taken  by  themselves,  and  t/i 
the  influence  of  the  late  gloss  (1  K  6^''),  a  tradition 
grew  up,  which  finds  expression  in  the  famous 
pas.sage  He  9*,  that  the  incense  nltar  stood  in 
the  Most  Holy  Place,  'which  haf"  a  golden  altar 
*  Differently  expressed  from  Fx. 


TABERXACLE 


TABERNACLE 


66t 


of  incense*  and  the  ark  of  the  covenant.'  The 
same  verse  contains  a  similar  divergent  tradition 
rej^arding  tlie  contents  of  the  ark  (see  next  section). 

IX.  The  Fuu.viTunB  of  the  Most  Holy  Place. 
—The  Ark  and  the  Propitiatory  (Ex  25'°-"=37'-» 
[Gr.  38'"] ;  Jos.  Ant.  III.  vi.  5).— Within  the  Most 
Holy  Place  stood  in  solitary  majesty  the  sacred 
ark,  on  which  rested  the  iiroiiitiatory  or  niercy- 
Beat  with  its  overarching  ctieruliim.  The  histor}' 
of  the  ancient  palladium  of  the  Hebrew  tribes, 
'the  ark  of  J"  of  the  older  writers,  has  been 
given  under  Ark.  We  have  here  a  more  elabor- 
ate shrine,  to  which  P  gives  by  preference  the 
designation  'ark  of  the  testimony'  (nnyrr  [hx  au-"^ 
and  often,  ij  Ki/Swrdy  tov  fiaprvpiov),  a  phrase  parallel 
to  and  synonymous  with  that  favoured  by  Deut. 
and  the  "Ueuteronomistic  editors,  '  ark  of  the  cove- 
nant.' In  both  cases  the  ark  was  so  named  as 
containing  the  Decalogue  (nnin  '  the  testimony,' 
2510.  31)^  written  on  '  the  tables  of  testimony '  (31'»). 
The  ark  itself  sometimes  receives  the  simple  title 
'the  testimony'  (IG**  etc.) ;  and  the  tabernacle,  as 
we  have  seen  (§  iii.),  as  in  its  turn  containinj;  the 
ark,  is  named  'the  dwelling  of  the  testimony'  and 
'the  tent  of  the  testimony.' t    See  Testimony. 

The  ark  of  P  is  an  oblong  chest  of  acacia  wood 
overlaid  within  and  without  with  gold,  24  cubits 
in  length,  and  I J  in  breadth  and  height  (i.e.  5x3 
x3  half  -  cubits).  Each  of  its  sides  is  finished 
with  a  strip  of  cable  or  ogee  moulding  (n:,  EV 
'crown,'  see  §  viii.  (a))  of  solid  gold  in  the  same 
manner  as  the  top  of  the  table  of  shewbread ; 
with  this  ditlerence,  however,  that  in  the  former 
the  upper  line  of  moulding  must  have  projected 
teyond  the  plane  of  the  top  of  the  ark,  probably  to 
the  extent  of  the  thickness  of  the  propitiatory,  in 
Older  tliat  the  latter,  with  its  cherubim,  might 
remain  ir  jilace  during  the  march.  Witliin  the 
sacred  chest  was  to  be  de])Ositcd  'the  testimony' 
jv.'*)  or  Decalogue,  as  already  explained.  Before 
it — not  within  it,  as  a  later  tradition  suppo.sed 
(He  9') — were  afterwards  jilaced  a  |>ot  of  manna 
(Ex  10™'-)  and  Aaron's  rod  that  budcled  (Nu  IT'"). 

Distinct  from  but  resting  upon  the  ark,  and  of 
the  same  superficial  dimensions  (2^  x  IJ  cubits),  was 
a  slab  of  solid  gold,  to  which  the  name  knpjiorcth  is 
given  (only  in  P  and  1  Ch  28"  EV  '  mercy -seat'). 

The  familiar  rcnderintt  '  mercy-seat,'  first  uswl  by  Tindalo, 
(oltowintc  Luther's  ihiadfnxtuhl  (cf.  .Siikwbrkad,  g  i.)j  noee  hack 
to  that  of  the  oldest  \SS  {l..\.\  iKcLffTiptov,  VllI;,^  pn>ptliatorium) 
— and  IB  based  011  the  eecondary  and  teclitiicai  sense  of  the 
root-verb  hed,  viz.  '  to  make  propitiation  '  for  ein.  Hence  the 
Wyclif-llereford  reiiderin(f  'propitiatory,'  derived  from  Jerome, 
la  preferable  ^<^  Tindule's  'mercy -seat.'  In  our  opinion  the 
renderini;  •  propitiatory  '  must  be  maintained.  The  alternative 
'coverinit'  (KVm)  adopted  in  preference  by  so  many  modern, 

farticularly  Uerman,  scholars  (cf.  iT.(/iaa  in  Or.  of  Ex  21^"^,  and 
hilo.  np.  cit.  [ed.  Man^'ey,  ii.  160]  iT.«i^^«  irttwtl  wHum  [a  lid)), 
is  open  to  two  serious  objections.  On  the  one  hand  it  is  based 
on  the  still  unproved  uisumptton  that  the  primary  si^'nitication 
of  lED  w»s  '  to  cover,"  t  and  on  the  other  hand  the  kapporeth 
waji  in  no  sense  the  lid  or  cover  of  the  ark,  which  was  a  chest  or 
coffer  complete  in  itself.  Dillmann  and  others  have  unsuccess- 
fully attempted  a  ma  nuilia  by  taking  kai'imnUi  in  the  sense 
of  a  protective  coverinif  (Sc/iutztlach,  DeckpliiUe,  etc.^  See, 
further,  Deissmann,  Bible  Studies  [Eng.  tr.j,  p.  VliQ. 

Near  the  ends  of  the  propitiatory  stood,  facing 
each  other,  two  small  §  emblematic  figures,  the 
cherubim,  of  the  same  material  and  workmanship 

•  So  KVm  and  American  UV  in  text  for  xf^*^'  6v^i^r%f,tf 
with  most  recent  interpreters  ;  AV  and  UV  'a  i^olden  censer.' 

t  Id  the  art.  Ark  (8  1.)  attention  was  brielly  called  to  the 
three  sets  of  designations  of  the  ark  characteristic  of  the  early, 
the  Dcutcronomic,  and  the  priestly  writers  restjectivelv,  of 
which  all  the  other  OT  titles,  some  twenty  in  all,  arc  merely 
variations  and  expansions.  See  for  later  discus-sions  II.  P. 
Bmkh.Samuel.Si;  'Ark'  \a  JSnci^c.  Bil/t,I.S00t.;  Mcinhold,  Du; 
Ladf  JaJtret,  2  ft 

J  The  most  recent  research  seems  to  point  In  favour  of  the 
•Iteniatlvc  '  to  wipe  oil ' ;  sec  Zimmem,  Beilniqe  zxir  Kmntni*e 
a.  ba),yl.  Heligion,  92  ;  Ilaupt  In  JDL,  xLx.  (IBi'lo)  (il,  BO. 

i  It  must  D«  noted  that,  with  bodies  bent  and  wings  out- 
stretched, the  cherubim  were  accommodated  on  a  surface  less 
than  4  ft.  from  end  to  end. 


as  the  golden  lampstand,  viz.  'beaten'  or  ripoussi 
work  (irfp,  xpvaoTop(vTa)  of  pure  gold.  Being 
securely  soldered  to  the  propitiatory  they  ara 
reckoned  as  'of  one  piece'  with  it  (v.'»).  Each 
cherub  was  furni.<;hed,  like  the  larger  and  diflerently 
placed  cherul)im  of  Solomon's  temple  (I  K  e'^"-), 
with  a  pair  of  wings  whicli  met  overhead,  while 
their  faces  were  bent  downwards  towards  the 
propitiatory.  Whatever  may  have  been  their 
significance  in  primitive  Hebrew  mythology,  the 
cherubim  as  here  introduced,  like  the  kindred  sera- 
jiliim  in  Isaiah's  vision,  are  the  angelic  ministers 
of  J",  gu.iniiiig  in  the  attitude  of  adoration  the 
throne  of  His  earthly  glory  (cf.  liuok  of  Enoch,  ed. 
Charles,  71").  The  propitiatory,  with  the  over- 
arching cherubim,  wa.s,  in  truth,  the  innermost 
shrine  of  the  wilderness  sanctuary,  for  it  was  at 
once  J"'s  earthly  and  the  footstool  of  His  heavenly 
throne*  (cf.  1  L\\  2S'-').  Not  at  the  tent  door,  as 
in  the  earlier  representation  (Ex  33'"),  but  'from 
above  the  propitiatory,  from  between  the  cherubim  ' 
(25-"''),  will  J"  henceforth  commune  with  His  servant 
Mo.se3  (30').  'There,  in  the  darkness  and  the 
silence,  he  listened  to  the  Voice '  (Nu  7"). 

For  the  transport  of  the  sacred  chest,  its  pro- 
pitiatory and  chcrubini,  two  poles  of  acacia  wood 
overlaid  with  gold  are  provided.  These  are  to 
rest  permanently  ( Ex  '2.')",  otherwise  Nu  4",  where 
the  staves  are  inserted  wlien  the  march  begins)  in 
four  rings,  attached,  according  to  our  present  text, 
to  the  four  'feet'  (v^c:;^5  v.",  so  RV,  but  AV 
'  corners ')  of  the  ark. 

But  this  text  and  rendering  are  open  to  serious  question. 
For  (1)  of  the  shape,  lenytli,  and  construction  of  these  *feet' 
nothing  is  said ;  p)  whj' should  the  author  employ  the  Phoenician 
word  (Di'S)  for  '  foot '  here  in  place  of  the  usual  ^jn  (v.M)f  (8)  If 
the  rings  were  attached  so  far  down,  a  state  of  dangerously 
unstable  equiUbriura  would  result ;  (4)  all  the  oldest  versions 
apparently  read,  or  at  least,  as  our  own  AV,  rendered  as  in  v.2*J 
1V,\'»)  'its  four  corners.' f  We  must  suppose,  then,  that  the 
rings  were  attached,  perhaps  below  the  moulding,  at  the  corners 
of  the  gimrt  sides  of  the  ark  (so  the  Baraitha,  ^eumann,  Keil), 
along  which,  and  not  along  the  long  sides  (as  Riggenhach, 
I>illm.,  and  moat),  the  poles  rested.  The  object  of  this  arrange- 
ment is  to  secure  that  the  Uivine  throne  shall  always  face  in 
the  direction  of  the  march.  The  weight  of  the  whole  must 
have  been  considerable,  with  poles,  certainly  not  'staves,'  and 
bearers  to  correspond.  \ 

In  the  second  temple  there  was  no  ark,  and 
consequently  no  propitiatory,  notwithstanding  the 
statement  in  the  Apocalyose  of  liarucli  (0")  that  it 
was  hidden  by  an  angel  before  the  destruction  of 
the  temple,  a.d.  70.  According  to  P  the  sole 
contents  of  tlie  ark,  as  we  liave  seen,  were  the  two 
tables  of  testimony  on  which  the  Decalogue  was 
inscribed.  Once  a  year,  on  the  Day  of  Atone- 
ment, the  high  priest  alone  entered  the  Holy  of 
Holies  to  bring  the  blood  of  the  sin -offerings  mto 
contact  with  the  propitiatory  (Lv  16'^'-;  see  ATONE- 
MENT, Day  of,  vol.  i.  p.  I'J!)). 

x.  Erection  and  Consecration  of  the 
Tabernacle.  —  In  the  oldest  stratum  of  the 
Priests'  Code  the  directions  for  the  preparation  of 
the  sanctuary  and  its  furniture  (Ex  25-27),  which 
have  engaged  our  attention  up  to  tliis  point,  are 
followed  by  eiiually  minute  instructiniis  as  to  the 
priestly  garments  (2S),  and  by  the  solemn  consecra- 
tion ot  Aaron  and  his  sons  for  the  priestlj-  oflice 
(29).     The  altar  alone  of  the  appointments  of  tlie 

•  For  this  idea  and  its  possible  bearing  on  the  ultimate 
historical  origin  of  the  ark  as  the  empty  throne  of  an  imugeles^ 
deity,  see  Meinhold,  />(V  Lade  Jahretn^VMV^),  -14  and /7(i*'.f  1  »i ,  bjised 
on  the  researi'hes  of  Reichel  in  Ui'hiT  yor/irttmiuic/ie  iiOtt>'rcuilt 
(esp.  'lift.);  cf.  also  Budile  in  Expos.  Timeji,  June  lijUS,  p. 
allUIT.  (reprinted  (in  OermanJ  in  ZAl'W,  11101,  p.  104 If.). 

t  Cf.  1  K  7'",  where  ITDl'D  of  MT  (AV  here  also  'comers')  it 
similarly  regarded  by  recent  commentaton  u  k  corruption  01 
vnKD  or  vr;D. 

;  The  i)ropitiatory,  even  If  only  a  llngerbreadth  thick,  would 
alone  weigh  700  lb.  troi'.  The  weight  of  the  whole  nmst  bcr  pul 
at  about  0  cwt.  The  'Talmud  mentions  four  bearers  (Flesch,  »>/> 
eit.  00).     Two  iuinced  for  the  historical  ark  (Akk,  vol.  i.  p.  UiO*') 


666 


TABEE2.^ACLE 


TABERNACLE 


sanctuary  is  singled  out  for  consecration  (29'^' ). 
In  the  first  of  the  accretions  to  the  older  docuiuent 
(30.  31),  however,  we  tind  instructions  for  the 
anointing  of  'the  tent  of  meeting'  and  all  the 
furniture  of  the  sanctuary  with  the  'holy  anoint- 
ing oil'  (30'-'''''- ),  with  wliich  also  the  priests  are  to 
be  anointed.  When  we  pass  to  the  still  later 
stratum  (35-40;  see  above,  §  iii. ),  we  find  a  record 
of  the  carrying  out  of  the  preceding  instructions 
to  tlie  last  detail,  followed  by  the  erecting  of  '  the 
dwelling  of  the  tent  of  meeting'  (40'"'-)  on  the  first 
day  of  the  first  niontli  of  the  second  year,  that  is, 
a  year  less  fourteen  days  from  the  first  anniversary 
of  tlie  Exodus  (40'-",  cf.  12"*).  A  comparison 
with  19'  shows  that  according  to  P's  chronology  a 
period  of  at  least  nine  months  is  allowed  for  the 
construction  of  the  sanctuary  and  its  furniture. 
Some  of  the  questions  raised  by  40'"-  •'  as  to  the 
manner  in  which  the  curtains  '  were  spread  over 
the  dwelling '  have  been  discussed  by  anticipation  in 
§  vii.  (c)  ;  it  must  suffice  now  to  add  that  after  the 
court  and  the  tabernacle  proper  had  been  set  up, 
and  all  tlie  furniture  in  its  place,  the  whole,  we 
must  assume,  was  duly  anointed  by  Moses  him- 
self in  accordance  with  the  instructions  of  the 
preceding  verses  (40*'' )>  although  this  fact  is  not 
mentioned  until  we  reach  a  later  portion  of  the 
narrative  (Lv  8'*"',  Nu  7').  This  consecration  of  the 
sanctuary  naturally  implies  that  it  is  now  ready 
for  the  purpose  for  w-hich  it  was  erected.  Accord- 
ingly '  the  cloud  covered  the  tent  of  meeting,  and 
the  glory  of  J"  filled  the  dwelling'  (40*"-).  J"  had 
now  taken  possession  of  the  holy  abode  which  had 
been  prepared  for  Him.  With  the  new  year,  as 
was  most  fitting,  the  new  order  of  things  began. 

xi.  The  Tabernacle  on  the  March  (Nu  2" 
325-38  4ifr.  gtc).  —  The  cloud  which  rested  on  the 
dwelling  by  day  and  appeared  as  a  pillar  of  fire 
by  night  accompanied  the  Hebrews  '  throughout 
all  their  journeys '  in  the  wilderness.  When  '  the 
cloud  was  taken  up  from  over  the  dwelling'  (Ex 
40^',  Nu  9")  this  was  the  signal  for  the  tents  to  be 
struck  and  another  stage  of  the  march  begun  ; 
while,  'as  long  as  the  cloud  abode  upon  the  dwell- 
ing, whether  it  were  two  days  or  a  month  or  a 
year,'  the  children  of  Israel  remained  encamped 
and  journeyed  not  (Nu  9"°^-).  The  charge  of  the 
tabernacle  and  of  all  that  pertained  thereto  was 
committed  to  the  official  guardians,  the  priests 
and  Levites  (Nu  S"^-).  When  the  signal  for  the 
march  was  given  by  a  blast  from  the  silver  trumpets 
(10'^-),  the  priests  entered  the  dwelling,  and,  taking 
down  the  veil  at  the  entrance  to  the  Most  Holy 
Place,  wrapped  it  round  the  ark  (4°*).  This,  as 
the  most  sacred  of  all  the  contents  of  the  taber- 
nacle, received  three  coverings  in  all,  the  others 
but  two.  Full  and  precise  instructions  follow  for 
the  wrapping  up  of  the  rest  of  the  furniture  (4'""). 
This  accomplished,  the  priests  hand  over  their 
precious  burden  to  the  first  of  the  Levitical  guilds, 
the  sons  of  Kohath,  for  transport  by  means  of  the 
bearing-poles  with  which  each  article  is  provided 
(v.""-).  The  second  guild,  the  sons  of  Uershon, 
have  in  charge  the  tapestry  curtains  of  the  dwell- 
ing, the  hair  curtains  of  the  tent,  the  two  outer 
coverings,  the  veil,  and  the  screen  (3-"-  4^").  For 
the  conveyance  of  these,  two  covered  waggons  and 
four  oxen  are  provided  bj'  the  heads  of  the  tribes 
(7*  ').  The  remaining  division  of  the  Levites,  the 
sons  of  Merari,  receives  in  charge  the  frames  and 
bars  of  the  dwelling,  together  with  the  pillars  and 
bases  of  the  dwelling  and  of  the  court,  with  four 
waggons  and  eight  oxen  for  their  transport  (ib.).' 

•  The  (oudnese  of  the  priestly  writers  (or  proportion  (2  : 1) 
haa  oj'ain  led  to  strange  results,  for,  even  with  the  colossal 
'  boards '  of  previous  writers  reduced  to  frames  (see  §  vii.  (b)), 
the  louls  of  the  Merarites  were  out  of  all  proportion  to  those  of 
the  tJershonites.  Nu  7,  however,  is  now  recognized  as  one  of 
the  latest  sections  of  the  Hexateuch. 


Everything  being  now  in  readiness,  the  march 
began.  The  Levites,  according  to  Nu  2", — and  a» 
the  symmetry  of  the  camp  requires, — marched  in 
the  middle  of  the  line,  with  two  divisions  of  three 
tribes  each  before  them  and  two  behind.  This, 
however,  does  not  accord  with  Nu  10""-,  according 
to  which  the  sons  of  Gershon  and  Merari  marched 
after  the  first  division  of  three  tribes,  and  had  the 
tabernacle  set  up  before  the  arrival  of  the  Kohath- 
ites  w  ith  the  sacred  furniture  between  the  second 
and  third  divisions. 

xii.  The  Hlstoricity  of  P's  Tabernacle.— 
After  what  has  been  said  in  our  opening  section — 
with  which  the  art.  Ark  must  be  compared — as  to 
the  nature,  location,  and  ultimate  disappearance 
of  the  Mosaic  tent  of  meeting,  it  is  almost  super- 
fluous to  inquire  into  the  historical  reality  of  the 
costly  and  elaborate  sanctuary  which,  according 
to  P,  Moses  erected  in  the  wilderness  of  Sinai. 
The  attitude  of  modern  OT  scholarship  to  the 
jiriestly  legislation,  as  now  formulated  in  tlie 
Pentateuch  (see  §§  i.  and  iv.  above),  and  in  par- 
ticular to  those  sections  of  it  which  deal  with  the 
sanctuary  and  its  worship,  is  patent  on  every 
page  of  this  Dictionary,  and  is  opposed  to  the 
historicit}'  of  P's  tabernacle.  It  is  now  recognized 
that  the  highly  organized  community  of  the  priestly 
writers,  rich  not  only  in  the  precious  metals  and 
the  most  costly  Phoenician  dyes,  but  in  men  of 
rare  artistic  skill,  is  not  the  unorganized  body  of 
Hebrew  serfs  and  nomads  that  meets  us  in  the 
oldest  sources  of  the  Pentateuch.  Even  after 
centuries  spent  in  contact  with  the  civilization 
and  arts  of  Canaan,  when  skilled  artists  in  metal 
were  required,  they  had  to  be  hired  by  Solomon 
from  Phcenicia.  Again,  the  situation  of  P's  taber- 
nacle, its  highly  organized  ministr}-,  its  complex 
ritual,  are  utterly  at  variance  with  the  situation 
and  simple  appointments  of  the  Elohistic  tent  of 
meeting  (see  g  i.).  With  regard,  further,  to  the 
details  of  the  description,  as  studied  in  the  fore- 
going sections,  we  nave  repeatedly  had  to  call 
attention  to  the  obscurities,  omissions,  and  minor 
inconsistencies  of  the  text,  which  compel  the 
student  to  the  conviction  that  he  is  dealing  not 
with  the  description  of  an  actual  structure,  but 
with  an  architectural  programme,  dominated  by 
certain  leading  conceptions.  The  most  convinc- 
ing, however,  of  the  arguments  against  the  actual 
existence  of  P's  tabernacle,  is  the  silence  of  the  pre- 
exilic  historical  writers  regarding  it.  There  is 
absolutely  no  place  for  it  in  the  picture  which 
their  writings  disclose  of  the  early  religion  of  the 
Hebrews.  The  tabernacle  of  P  has  no  raison  d'etre 
apart  from  the  ark,  the  history  of  which  is  known 
vith  fair  completeness  from  the  conquest  to  its 
removal  to  the  temple  of  Solomon.  Bvit  in  no 
genuine  passage  of  the  liistory  of  that  long  period 
is  there  so  much  as  a  hint  of  the  tabernacle,  with 
its  array  of  ministering  priests  and  Levites.  Only 
the  Chronicler  (1  Ch  16™  21-'*  etc.),  psalm- writers, 
editors,  and  authors  of  marginal  glosses,  writing 
at  a  time  when  P's  conception  of  Israel's  past 
had  displaced  every  other,  find  the  tabernacle  of 
the  priestly  writers  in  the  older  sources,  or  supply 
it  wliere  tiiev  think  it  ought  to  have  been  (cf.  2  On 
1"-  with  1  k  3-'f-).  See,  further,  Wellh.  Proleg. 
(Eng.  tr.)  39 ff.,  and  recent  works  cited  in  the 
Literature  at  the  end  of  this  article. 

xiii.  The  ruling  Ideas  and  religious  Sio- 
NiFiCANCE  OF  THE  Tahernacle.  —  If,  then,  the 
tabernacle  of  the  foregoing  sections  had  no  historical 
existence,  is  its  study,  on  that  account,  a  waste  of 
time  and  labour?  By  no  means.  On  the  contrary, 
the  tabernacle  as  conceived  by  the  priestly  wTitera 
is  the  embodiment  of  a  sublime  idea  with  which 
are  associated  many  other  ideas  and  truths  of  the 
most  vital  moment  for  the  liistory  of  religion.     It 


TABERNACLE 


TABERXACLE 


661 


this  place  it  is  impossible  to  do  more  than  inilicate 
in  f-ummary  form  some  of  tliese  vital  relijlious 
truths  to  which  reference  has  been  made.  We  have 
already  (§  iv.)  expressed  the  conviction  that  the 
only  standpoint  from  which  to  approach  the  study 
of  the  true  signilicance  of  the  tabernacle,  as  de- 
signed by  the  author  of  Ex  25-29,  is  that  laid  down 
by  this  author  himself.  Following  the  lead  of 
Ezekiel,  his  chief  aim,  and  the  aim  of  the  priestly 
writers  who  expanded  the  original  sketch,  is  to 
thow  to  future  generations  the  necessary  conditions 
under  which  the  ideal  relation  between  J"  and 
Israel  may  be  restored  and  maintained.  This  ideal 
is  expressed  bj'  Ezekiel  and  by  P  as  a  dwelling  of 
J"in  the  midst  of  His  covenant  people  (reff.  in  §  iv.). 
The  methods,  however,  by  which  these  two  kindred 
spirits  sought  to  impress  this  ideal  upon  their  con- 
temporaries are  diametrically  opposed.  Ezekiel 
projects  his  ideal  forward  into  the  Me.ssianic  future  ; 
1'  throws  his  backwards  to  the  golden  age  of  Moses. 
Both  sketches  are  none  the  less  ideals,  whose 
realization  for  prophet  and  priest  alike  was  still 
in  the  womb  of  the  future.  Both  writers  follow 
closelj'  the  arrangements  of  the  pre-exilic  temple, 
1',  however,  striving  to  unite  these  with  existing 
traditions  of  the  Mosaic  tent  of  meeting.  It  is  the 
recognition  of  these  facts  that  makes  it  pos.sible  to 
say  that  '  a  Christian  apologist  can  allord  to  admit 
that  the  elal  orate  description  of  the  tabernacle  is 
to  be  regarded  as  a  product  of  religious  idealism, 
working  upon  a  historical  basis'  (Ottley,  Aspects 
of  the  01 J  Test.  226). 

The  problem  that  presented  itself  to  the  mind 
of  P  was  this  :  Under  what  conditions  may  the 
Divine  promise  of  Ezk  37*''  ('my  dwelling  shall  be 
with  them,  and  I  will  be  their  God,  and  they  shall 
be  my  people ')  be  realized  ?  This  we  t;ike  to  be 
the  supreme  idea  of  the  priestly  code,  the  realiza- 
tion of  the  presence  of  God  in  the  midst  of  His 
people  (Ex  25'  29**).  This  thought,  a.s  we  have 
seen,  is  expressed  in  the  characteristic  designation 
'  the  dwelling,'  given  by  P  to  the  most  essential 
part  of  the  sanctuarj'  which  is  to  be  the  concrete 
embodiment  of  the  thought. 

The  Divine  dwelling  must  be  in  accordance  with 
the  Divine  character.  Now,  in  the  period  from 
Deuteronomy  to  the  close  of  the  Exile,  the  two 
aspects  of  the  Divine  character  which  the  inspired 
teachers  of  the  time  place  in  the  forefront  of  their 
ti-ac-hing  un  the  unity  and  the  holiness  of  J". 
Each  of  these  attributes  has  its  necessary  cor- 
relate. The  unity  of  J"  requires  the  unity  or 
centralization  of  His  worship,  which  is  the  keynote 
of  Deuteronomy.  The  holiness  of  J"  demanus  the 
holiness  of  His  people,  which  is  the  recognized 
keynote  of  the  Law  of  Holiness  (Lv  19  li'.).  The 
crowning  result  of  the  discipline  of  the  Exile  ma}- 
be  summed  up  in  the  simple  formula  '  one  God,  one 
sanctuary,'  a  thought  which  dominates  the  priestlj' 
code  from  end  to  end.  That  there  should  be  but 
one  sanctuary  in  the  wilderness,  a  symbol  of  the 
unity  of  J",  is  therefore  for  P  a  thing  of  course, 
requiring  neither  justitication  nor  enforcement. 

With  regard  to  the  other  pair  of  correlates,  a 
holy  tJod  and  a  holy  people,  the  whole  ceremonial 
system  of  the  priestly  code  expends  itself  in  the 
effort  to  give  expression  to  this  twofold  thought. 
The  centre  of  this  system  is  the  tabernacle  and  its 
priesthood,  and  every  ellort  is  made  to  render  the 
former  a  visible  emljodiment  of  the  holiness  of  the 
God  who  is  to  be  worshipped  in  its  court.  We  have 
seen  (§  iv. )  the  precautions  taken  by  Ezekiel  to  guard 
his  nfw  sanctuary  from  profanation  ;  the  same 
thought  is  prominent  in  H  (Law  of  Holiness),  and 
is  impressively  exhibited  in  the  arrangement  of  the 
desert  camp  in  P.  Between  the  tents  of  the  twelve 
tribes  and  tha  throi"*  of  J"  there  intervene  the 
cordon  of  the  tents  of  the  tribe  of  Levi,  the  court. 


and  the  Holy  Place — into  which  priests  alone  may 
enter, — all  so  many  protecting  sheaths,  to  borrow 
a  ligure  from  plant-life,  of  the  Most  Holy  Place, 
w  here  J "  dwells  enthroned  in  ineffable  majesty  and 
almost  unapproachable  holiness.*  Once  a  year 
only  may  the  high  priest,  as  the  jieople's  repre- 
sentative, approai  h  within  its  precincts,  bearing 
the  blood  ot  atonement.  Not  only,  therefore,  is 
the  one  tabernacle  the  symbol  of  J'"s  unity,  it  is 
also  an  eloquent  witness  to  the  truth  :  '  Ye  shall 
be  holy,  for  I,  J",  your  God  am  holy '  (Lv  19-). 
Yet  these  precautions  are,  after  all,  intended  not 
to  exclude  out  to  safeguard  the  right  of  approach 
of  J'"s  people  to  His  presence.  The  tabernacle  was 
still  the  '  tent  of  meeting,'  the  place  at  which, 
with  due  precautions,  men  might  approach  J",  and 
in  which  J"  condescended  to  draw  near  to  men.  It 
is  thus  a  witness  to  the  further  truth  that  man  is 
called  to  enjoy  a  real,  albeit  still  restricted,  com- 
munion and  converse  with  God. 

One  other  attribute  of  the  Divine  nature  receives 
characteristic  expression  in  the  arrangements  of 
P's  sanctuary.  This  is  the  perfection  and  har- 
mony of  the  character  of  J".  Symmetry',  harmonj', 
and  proportion  are  the  three  essentials  of  the 
[esthetic  in  architecture  ;  an<l  in  so  far  as  the  aesthe- 
tic sense  in  man,  by  which  the  Creator  has  qualihed 
him  for  the  enjoj'uient  of  the  beauty  and  harmony 
of  the  universe,  is  a  part  of  the  Divine  image  (Gn 
1**'-)  in  each  of  us,  these  (jualities  are  reflexions  of 
the  harmony  and  perfection  of  the  Divine  nature. 
The  symmetry  of  the  desert  sanctuary  has  already 
been  abundantly  emphasized.  The  harmony  of  its 
design  is  shown  in  the  balance  of  all  its  parts,  and 
in  the  careful  gradation  of  the  materials  employed. 
The  three  varieties  of  curtains  (§  iv.)  and  the  three 
metals  correspond  to  the  three  ascending  degrees 
of  sanctity  which  mark  the  court,  the  Holy  Place, 
and  the  Most  Holy  respectively.  In  the  dwelling 
itself  we  advance  from  the  silver  of  the  bases 
through  the  furniture  of  wood,  thinly  sheathed  with 
gold,  to  the  only  mass  of  solid  gold,  the  propitia- 
tory, the  seat  of  the  deity.  As  regards  the  projior- 
tions,  Hnally,  which  are  so  characteristic  of  the 
tabernacle,  we  find  here  just  those  ratios  which  are 
stUl  considered  '  the  most  pleasing '  in  the  domain 
of  architectural  art,  viz.  those  '  of  an  exact  cube 
or  two  cubes  placed  side  by  side  .  .  .  and  the  ratio 
of  the  base,  perpendicular  and  hypotenuse  of  a 
right-angled  triangle,  e.ff.  3,  4,  5  and  their  multi- 
ples' (see  art.  'Architecture  '  in  Eiici/r.  Jirit.^).  The 
perfect  cube  of  the  Most  Holy  Place  is  universally 
regarded  as  the  deliberate  attempt  to  express  the 
perfection  of  J"'s  character  and  dwelling-place,  the 
harmony  and  equipoise  of  all  His  attributes.  The 
similar  thought,  the  perfection  of  the  New  Jeru- 
salem, '  in  which  no  truth  will  be  exaggerated  or 
distorted,'  is  expressed  by  the  fact  that  '  the  length 
and  breadth  and  height  of  it  are  ecjual '  (Rev  21"). 

The  '  symbolism  of  numbers '  in  the  measure- 
ments of  the  tabernacle,  of  which  so  much  has 
been  written,  is  too  firmly  established  to  admit  of 
question  (for  general  principles  .see  art.  NuMliER). 
"The  sacred  numbers  3,  4,  7,  10,  their  parts  (U,  2, 
2i,  5)  and  multiples  (6,  9,  12,  20,  2S,  30,  42,  48,  50, 
60,  100),  dominate  every  detail  of  the  fabric  and  its 
furniture.t  In  all  this  we  must  recognize  an  ear- 
nest striving  to  give  concrete  expression  —  in  a 
manner,  it  is  true,  which  our  Western  thought 
finds  it  ditlicult  to  appreciate — to  the  sacred  har- 
monies and  perfection  of  the  character  of  the 
Deity  for  wnose  'dwelling'  the  sanctuary  is 
destined. 

*  For  '  the  fundamental  sense  of  unapproachabUnfSM  which 
Is  never  atmcnt  from  the  notion  of  J"*s  hoHuesD,'  see  Holinrhs, 
TOl.  ii.  p.  31)7'. 

t  The  curious  student  will  easily  detect  these  measuremenU 
and  numbers  in  the  previous  sections. 


668 


TABERN^ACLE 


TABERNACLES,  FEAST  OF 


On  the  other  hand,  that  the  author  of  Ex  25-'29 
intended  to  give  expression  to  ideas  beyond  the 
spliere  of  J"s  relation  to  His  covenant  people,  or 
even  within  that  sphere  to  invest  every  detail  of 
material,  colour,  ornament,  etc.,  with  a  syniholical 
Bignificance,  we  do  not  believe.  Following  in  the 
wake  of  Plilo  (op.  cit.)  and  Josephus  [Ant.  III.  vii. 
7),  the  Fathers,  and  after  them  many  writers  down 
to  our  own  day,  among  whom  Bahr  stands  pre- 
eminent, have  sought  to  read  a  whole  philo.'iophy 
of  the  universe  into  the  tabernacle.  Now  it  is  de- 
si^'ned  to  unfold  the  relations  of  heaven  and  earth 
and  sea,  now  of  body,  soul,  and  spirit,  and  many 
wonderful  things  besides.  Happily,  the  taste  for 
these  fanciful  speculationa  has  died  out  and  is  not 
likely  to  revive. 

Quite  apart  from  the  authors  of  such  far-fetched 
Byuibolisms  stand  several  of  the  NT  writers,  who 
see  in  the  tabernacle  the  foreshadowing  of  spiritual 
realities.  Once  and  again  the  terminology  of  St. 
Paul  betrays  the  influence  of  the  tabernacle  {e.g. 
the  laver  of  regeneration.  Tit  3°  RVm).  For  the 
author  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  the  tabernacle  on 
which  rested  the  Divine  glory  in  the  cloud  pre- 
figured the  incarnate  Word  who  'tabernacled  (^irvi}- 
i/uaef)  among  us,  and  we  beheld  his  glory,  the  glory 
of  the  only  begotten  of  the  Father '  (Jn  1").  In 
the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  again,  the  tabernacle, 
its  furniture,  and  ministering  priesthood  supply 
the  unknown  author  with  an  essential  part  of  his 
argument.  With  'singular  pathos,'  to  borrow 
Bishop  Westcott's  apt  expression,  he  lingers  over 
his  description  of  the  sacred  tent  and  all  its 
arrangements.  Yet,  like  tlie  whole  Levitical  cere- 
monial, it  was  but  the  shadow  of  the  heavenly 
substance  (8^),  a  'parable  for  the  time  present'  of 
'  the  greater  and  more  perfect  tabernacle '  (9") 
which  is  heaven.  Into  this  tabernacle  Jesus  Christ 
has  entered,  our  great  High  Priest,  by  whom  the 
restricted  access  of  the  former  dispensation  is  done 
away,  and  through  whom  '  a  new  and  living  way  ' 
has  been  opened  of  free  access  into  the  '  true '  Holy 
of  Holies  (9'-'^),  even  the  immediate  pre.sence  of 
God.  Last  of  all,  in  the  Book  of  Revelation  we 
have  the  final  consummation  of  the  kingdom  of 
God  portrayed  under  the  figure  of  the  tabernacle : 
'  Behold,  the  tabernacle  of  God  is  with  men,  and 
he  shall  tabernacle  {trKtifiijei)  with  them,  and  they 
shall  be  his  people,  and  God  himself  shall  be  with 
them  '  (Rev  21' — for  v."  .see  above) — in  which  the 
final  word  of  revelation  takes  up  and  repeats  the 
sublime  ideal  of  Ezekiel  and  tlie  priestly  writers. 
'  In  this  representation  of  the  New  Jerusalem 
culminates  the  typology  of  the  OT  sanctuary' 
(Keil). 

LlTERATDRE. — Works  on  the  tabernacle  are  le^on,  but  there  is 
no  monograph  from  the  sUiniipoint  of  the  foregoing  article. 
The  student  nmsl  start  from  a  careful  study  of  the  text  of 
Exodus  and  of  the  more  recent  couimentaries,  such  as  DiUmann- 
Ryssel,  Straok,  Holzinger,  Baentsch.  The  commentary  in  the 
International  Oriticiil  Series  by  the  writer  of  this  article  is  in 
preparation.  The  critical  problems  are  treated  by  Popper,  Der 
bihl.  Bericht  Mber  die  Sti/lshiitte,  1SU2  ;  Graf,  Die  ijcKcliichtl. 
Biicher  d.  AT,  61ft.,  1806;  Kuenen,  Hczatertch  ;  Wellhausen, 
Prole'jomena ;  and  more  recent  writers  (see  §  ii.  above).  In 
addition  to  the  relevant  sections  in  the  Archceolojies  of  Ewald, 
lianeberg,  Keil,  Benzinger,  Nowack  (vol.  ii.),  the  articles  should 
be  cx>nsuUed  in  the  Bible  Dictionaries  of  Winer,  Riehm,  and 
PRE'i  (by  RijKenbach),  all  under  'Stiftahiitte" ;  artt.  'Taber- 
nacle'and 'Temple' (the  latter  especially)  in  Smith's  DB.  The 
more  important  monographs  are  by  Neumann,  Die  Stijtuhiitte, 
1861;  Riggenbach,  Die  llomisehe  Sli/lnliulte",  1867;  Schick, 
Stil'lsliiitle  und  Tcmpfl,  1898;  and  (in  Knglish)  Brown,  Tlie 
Tdheniacle',  1899.  The  most  exhaustive  treatment  of  the 
tabernacle,  its  arrangements  and  its  significanfe,  is  Biihr'e 
Sirml)Olik  d.  ilomiselien  Cidtus,  2  vols.  1S37-39  (Hd.  i.  2nd  ed. 
1874),  full  of  fanciful  ideas.  On  somewhat  different  lines  is 
Friederich,  Si/inioia- li.  Slog.  Sli/tehulle,  imi.  Sound  criticisms 
of  both,  and  an  ottenipt  to  reduce  the  symbolism  to  saner  limits, 
characterize  Keil's  full  treatment  in  vol.  i.  of  his  Arcliievlnjiy 
(Eng.  tr.ji  See  also  Westcott,  Epietle  to  the  Hebrews,  18.S9, 
Essay  on  '  The  general  significance  of  the  Tabernacle,'  p.  233  if. ; 
Ottley,  Aspects  o/  the  OT,  espt  p.  261  IT,  'The  sj-mbolical  sig- 
niflcancc,'  etc  A.  R.  S.  KENNEDY. 


TABERNACLES,  FEAST  OF.— The  names  ot 
this  feast  and  the  references  to  it  in  the  Bible  are 
given  in  the  art.  Feasts  and  Fasts. 

As  the  present  article  is  a  supplement  to  the  above-nanied 
general  one,  the  reader  is  recommended  to  refer  to  the  latter 
(vol.  i.),  especially  pp.  860,  861,  and  the  synopsis  on  p.  863.  (In 
the  reff.  to  Tabernacles  outside  the  Pentateuch  insert  '  Neh ' 
between  '  Ezr  3**'  and  '8l*-i7').  In  what  follows,  a  number  by 
itself  will  be  a  reference  to  a  page  in  that  article. 

Of  the  six  passages  containing  injunctions  con- 
cerning the  observance  of  this  feast,  two  are  from 
Ex.  and  two  from  Deut.  (863).  The  two  in  Ex. 
call  it  the  Feast  of  Ingathering,  refer  to  it  as  one 
of  the  three  Pilgrimage  I'"easts  (^60*  and  note), 
place  it  at  the  end  of  the  year,  and  enjoin  the 
attendance  of  all  males  at  the  sanctuary  with 
offerings. 

The  injunctions  in  Deut.  contain  noteworthy 
additions  to  those  in  Exodus.  The  Feast  of  In- 
gathering is  called  the  Feast  of  Booths  (s^ukkuth, 
without  explanation  as  if  the  term  were  familiar), 
its  duration  is  fixed  for  seven  days,  and  it  is  to  be 
kept  at  Jerusalem,  'the  place  which  the  Lord  thy 
God  shall  choose.'  Also  in  the  year  of  release  in 
the  Feast  of  Tabernacles  the  law  shall  be  read 
before  all  Israel  in  their  hearing  (Dt  31""-).  The 
name  of  the  festival  points  to  the  custom  of  erect- 
ing booths  in  the  vineyards  during  the  time  of  the 
vintage  (cf.  Is  I*  'a  booth  in  a  vineyard,'  RV),  a 
custom  which  is  continued  to  the  present  day  in 
parts  of  Palestine ;  it  served  also  (Lv  23"'^'  [U]) 
to  remind  the  Israelites  that  their  fathers  dwelt 
in  booths  or  tents  during  their  passage  from  the 
house  of  bondage  to  the  Promised  Land.  Of  the 
two  ceremonies  enjoined  in  Dt  26,  the  second 
(yy  12-15)  .^^.as  probably  performed  at  this  festival. 
Both  in  Ex.  and  Deut.  the  connexion  of  this  and 
all  three  Pilgrimage  Feasts  with  agriculture  is 
clearly  indicated  (cf.  860''). 

Before  considering  the  two  remaining  passages, 
let  us  trace  the  observance  of  the  feast  before  the 
ExUe.  It  appears  to  have  been  a  custom  of  the 
Canaanites  to  keep  a  vintage  festival,  for  accord- 
ing to  Jg  9^,  after  gathering  the  vineyards  and 
treading  the  grapes,  the  men  of  Shechera  held  a 
feast  in  the  house  of  their  god,  and  at  this  gather- 
ing dissatisfaction  with  Abimelech's  rule  was 
openly  expressed.  (For  a  discussion  of  this  in- 
cident see  art.  Abimelech,  and  cf.  Moore  on 
Jg  9"). 

In  Jg  21'°  mention  is  made  of  a  similar  festival 
observed  at  Sliiloh,  when  the  maidens  went  out  to 
dance  in  the  vineyards;  but  note  the  contrast 
between  the  Canaanites  i>i  tlie  house  of  their  qud 
and  the/cffcs<  of  the  LORD  held  by  the  Israelites. 
Althougli  this  festival  was  held  at  Shiloh,  where 
the  ark  was,  it  appears  to  have  been  an  observance 
by  a  tribe  or  part  of  Israel  only. 

The  yearly  sacrifice  which  Elkanah  ofTered  to 
the  Lord  of  Hosts  in  Shiloli  (ISP)  was  probably 
in  the  autumn.  The  dedication  of  Solomon's 
temple  took  place  'at  the  feast  in  the  month 
Ethanim,  which  is  the  seventh  month'  (1  K  8'),* 
i.e.  at  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles.  It  was  in  imita- 
tion of  this  feast  that  Jeroboam  instituted  a  feast 
at  Bethel  in  the  eighth  mouth  (1  K  \-2^-). 

From  these  references  to  the  feast  in  pre-exilic 
times  it  may  be  inferred  that,  (1)  at  least  in  the 
times  before  the  establishment  of  the  kingdom, 
the  pilgrimage  to  the  sanctuary  was  made  but 
once  a  year  (most  probably  in  the  autumn) ; 
(2)  festivals  at  other  times  of  the  year  were  also 
observed  [cf.  1  K  9=»,  2  Ch  8",  Is  9»  ('the  joy  in 
harvest' ;  the  same  word  as  in  Ex  23"  is  applied 
to  the  feast  elsewhere  called  the  Feast  of  Weeks) 

*  A  difficulty  arises  in  comparing  this  passage  with  1  K  6** 
where  it  is  stated  that  the  house  of  the  I.ORD  was  net  finished 
till '  the  month  Bui,  which  is  the  eighth  month.' 


TALKRNACLKS,  FEAST  OF 


TABLE 


663 


29'  ('  let  the  feasU  come  round,'  RV)  30=»,  Hos  2" 
Am  5»']. 

Let  us  now  consider  tlie  two  remaining  passiii,'es, 
which  cont.un  injunctions  concerninf;  this  least 
(Lv  23  and  N  u  2'J),  and  here  we  notice  that,  instead 
of  prescriptions  relating  to  the  tliree  Pilgrinia^'e 
Feasts  as  in  Ex.  and  Deut.,  we  have  a  sacred 
calendar  in  whicli  the  position  of  each  festival  is 
fixed  by  the  month  and  day.  A  special  name 
{a-.p  (Cijj?  'a  holy  convocation')  is  given  to  the 
festivals,  or  rather  to  certain  days  of  the  festal 
periods,  and  servile  work  is  prohibited  on  those 
days.  The  Feast  of  Tabernacles  lasts  for  seven 
days  as  in  Deut.,  but  an  eighth  day  is  observed  at 
its  close  as  an  n'jv;;  'a  solemn  assembly'  (see 
Driver's  note  on  Dt  16*). 

The  post-exilic  references  to  this  feast  are  con- 
tained in  Ezra  and  Xehemiah.  In  Ezr  3*  it  is 
stated  that  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles  was  observed 
by  the  returned  exiles  as  soon  as  the  altar  was  set 
up,  and  before  the  foundation  of  the  temple  of  the 
Lord  was  laid.  The  terms  used  in  vv.'"'  show 
acquaintance  with  the  prescriptions  of  P  with 
reference  to  burnt-ofl'erings.  * 

Very  dillerent  in  character  from  the  notice  in 
Ezr  3  18  the  account  found  in  Neh  8'''".  Here  the 
details  are  interesting  and  instructive.  The  refer- 
ence to  Lv  SS""'"  is  clear.  The  material  gathered 
by  the  people  is  that  prescribed  in  Lv  23"  (the 
wording  of  the  two  passages  is  in  some  respects 
ditleieiit ;  cf.  Ryle's  note  on  Neh  8").  With  it 
they  make  booths,  and  set  them  up  in  the  courts 
of  the  temple  and  in  the  open  spaces  of  the  city, 
and  dwell  in  them,  according  to  Lv  23*-.  Tlie 
feast  was  kept  seven  days,  and  the  'Clzereth  of  the 
eighth  day  was  duly  observed.t  The  writer  is 
aware  that  a  new  method  of  keeping  the  festival 
is  introduced,  one  unknown  to  the  people  during 
the  rale  of  judges  and  kings,  and  the  ceremonial 
throughout  is  that  enjoined  in  Leviticus.  Itisnot, 
hcjwever,  deUnitely  stated  whether  the  numerous 
.-acrilices  prescribed  for  this  festival  in  Nu  29  were 
oll'ered  on  this  occasion. 

The  OT  history  of  the  Feast  closes  here.  The 
eighth  day,  which  is  still  distinguished  from  the 
seven  d.ays  of  Deut.,  is  by  the  time  of  the  writer 
of  2  Mac  10°  reckoned  as  part  of  the  Feast, 
.loscphus  (Ant.  in.  x.  4)  speaks  of  keeping  a 
festival  of  eight  days,  and  also  mentions  the 
custom  of  bearing  the  lulnb,  consisting  of  a  mj'rtle, 
willow,  and  palm  branch  in  the  right  hand,  and 
the  ethrvg  or  citron  in  the  left.  For  this  and 
other  ceremonies  oliserved  at  the  feast  see  Jos. 
Ant.  XIII.  xiii.  5  ;  the  Talmudic  treatise,  Suk/cah ; 
Ederslieim,  Li/c  and  Times  of  Jeswi  the  Messiah, 
ii.  Hi),  1.57  ;  and  tlie  references  on  p.  861  of  art. 
Feasts;  and  the  NT  references  in  the  sj'iiopsis. 

On  one  point  is  stress  laid  in  all  the  accounts : 
that  the  ingathering  whicli  the  fea.st  commemorates 
is  general  ('when  thou  gatherest  in  thy  labours 
out  of  tlie  field,'  Ex  23";  '  the  fruits  of  the  land,' 
Lv  23";  'from  thy  threshing-fioor  and  from  thy 
winevat,'  Dt  16").  The  Feasts  of  Unleavened 
Bread  {ynnzzCth)  and  of  Weeks  or  Harvest  marked 
certain  stages  in  the  work  of  ingathering,  but  the 
autuiim  festival,  the  last  of  the  yearly  cycle,  was 
the  thanksgiving  for  the  combined  pnjduce  of  tlie 
whole  jear.     As  the  vintage  and  olive   harvests 

•  The  doubts  rained  oa  to  the  historical  charact«r  of  this 
•ectiou  do  not  matiirially  affect  the  stateiiienL  here  nirule. 

t  The  difference  l)ctwecn  keeping;  tlie  feNtival  witii  utid  with* 
out  the  additional  ci^hlh  day  i»  illustrated  by  coinpiirinif  the 
•ccounln  o(  the  dedication  of  Solomon's  temple  In  KinK8  and 
Chroniclca.  In  1  K  8'>1  it  says, '  on  the  eighth  day  he  stnt  them 
•way,'  i.f.  on  the  '.i'^nd  of  the  month  ;  but  kl  2  Ch  "f^io  it  says, 
Mn  the  eiirhth  day  they  maile  a  solemn  assembly  (d^erfth)  .  '.  . 
and  on  the  three  and  twentieth  day  of  the  seventh  month  he 
sent  the  people  away.  .  .  . '  The  Chronicler  describes  the  feast 
as  kept  aoconlini:  to  the  rule  of  Leviticus ;  the  writer  of  Kings 
assuLiies  that  the  rule  of  Ileut.  was  followed. 


had  just  been  gathered,  the  worshippers  might 
think  chiefly  of  these  rich  gifts,  yet  tlie  injunctions 
above  quoted  bade  them  take  a  wider  view,  and 
thank  God  for  all  His  good  gifts.  It  is  also  to  be 
noted  that  in  the  autumn  festival  no  special  olFer- 
ing  of  the  fruits  of  the  earth  is  enjoined  corre- 
sponding to  the  sheaf  of  the  wave-oliering  (Lv 
23'"''')  at  Passover,  and  the  two  wave-loaves  with 
sacrilice  at  Pentecost  (23"'-''").  Yet  in  otlier 
respects  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles  is  specially  dis- 
tinguished from  other  feasts.  In  Deut.  it  is  the 
only  one  of  the  three  at  which  the  Israelite  must 
dwell  at  Jerusalem  for  seven  days,  and  in  Numbers 
the  sacrifices  prescribed  for  this  festival  are  ia 
excess  of  those  for  any  other  (for  details  see  p. 
801'').  Its  pre-eminence  is  asserted  by  Josephus 
(Ant.  VIII.  iv.  1 — it  was  ^opr-i;  <T<t>65pa  irapb.  roh 
'E^paioii  ayiwTdTT]  koI  fieyl(rT7j).  In  the  OT  it  is 
sometimes  called  'the  Feast,'  xar'  iioxv"  '■  1  1*^  S--** 
(=2  Ch  5'  7"),  Ezk  45=»,  Neh  8";  cf.  Lv  23=»  (H), 
1  K  12^2  (Driver,  Deut.  197).  But  it  was  also  the 
festival  which  in  early  times  was  common  to 
Israel  and  to  the  heathen  round  about  them. 
May  it  be  that  the  wider  view  of  the  autumn 
festival  and  the  avoidance  of  any  special  oti'ering 
of  the  fruits  of  the  ground  at  this  season  were 
designed  in  order  to  make  a  distinction  between 
their  own  festival  and  that  of  their  neighbours, 
and  possibly  to  avoid  excesses  which  attended  the 
heathen  celebrations, — to  impress  upon  the  Israel- 
ite, when  he  appeared  before  the  Lord  his  God, 
that  he  was  present  at  a  harvest  thanksgiving 
rather  than  at  a  vintage  carnival? 

A.  T.  Chapman. 
TABITHA.— See  DcmcAS. 

TABLE.— A  word  used  in  several  senses,  either 
in  sing,  or  plural,  108  times  in  the  OT  and  20 
times  in  the  NT.  In  the  former  when  singular  it 
is  usually  (56  times)  the  tr.  of  ]n''z'  shulhAn  (LXX 
Tpaireia,  Vulg.  men^a).  '  Table '  is  used  with  the 
following  meanings.  1.  A  flat-topped  stand,  upon 
which  victuals  were  set  durui"  meals,  and  around 
which  people  squatted  or  reclined.  Such  stands 
were  usually  small  ;  in  ancient  Egypt  they  were 
rarely  more  than  a  foot  in  height.  Lepsius  repre- 
sents a  table  of  this  kind  heapeil  with  meat,  bread, 
and  fruit,  with  two  persons  sitting  by  it  (Denkm. 
ii.  52).  In  the  Middle  and  New  Empire  stands  are 
sometimes  represented  as  frameworks  of  laths 
bearing  jars  and  other  vessels  on  the  top,  and 
with  an  undershelf  for  the  solid  food.  Such  tallies 
are  named  vth  or  wtn  or  tbhu.  In  Assyrian  con- 
tracts, temple  tables  are  called  .ialhu.  'I'lie  tables 
used  by  the  fellahin  of  Palestine  are  mostly  roiiiul, 
and  rarely  more  than  12  inches  high.  Probably 
the  ancient  domestic  tables  were  also  round,  as 
Goodwin  and  Zornius  have  inferteil  from  such 
expressions  as  '  round  about  the  table.'  The  table 
in  the  propliet's  chamber  (2  K  4'°)  was  proba'Oy  a 
stand  of  this  kind.  It  is  possible  that  the  shulhttn 
may  have  been  originallv  a  mat  or  something 
spread  under  the  food  platter,  as  can  be  often 
seen  at  present  among  the  fell.iliin  ;  but  it  must 
sometimes  have  been  sufliciently  liigh  to  allow  of 
portions  of  food  liropping  from  it.  The  seventy 
kings  who  gleaned  their  meat  under  Adonibezek'a 
table  (Jg  1')  may  have  been  fed  from  the  leavings 
of  the  royal  meals  ;  but  the  boast  is  luobably  an 
Oriental  exaggeration,  and  the  number  a  copyist's 
mistake.  I'osidonius  tells  of  the  king  of  the 
I'arthians  throwing  food  to  persons  sitting  around 
him  (Athemrus,  iv.  38).  The  Greek  traprza  wag 
usually  four-footed,  hence  perh.  the  name  (Eustath. 
Comm.  adOdyss.  \.  Ill);  nevertheless  it  was  some- 
times called  trijwns  (Ath.  ii.  32),  a  usage  ridiculed 
by  Aristophanes  in  an  extant  fragment  of  Tel- 
messes.     Homer  represents  each  guest  as  ha  "ing  ■ 


070 


TABLE 


TABLE,  TABLET 


separate  table  (0<I.  xvii.  333).     These  were  some- 
times covere.1  with  a  cloth  (Crates,  Ihena,  in  Ath. 
vi    267).     The  table  was  removed  after  the  feast. 
The  larger  tables  of  a  guest-chamber  were  longer 
trapezai,  around  which  tlie  guests   rechned    and 
liclped  themselves  from  the  common  dishes  ;  hence 
the  expression  in  Lk  22='  '  the  hand  ...  is  with 
me  on   the   table."     The  food   was  usually   on  a 
platter,  but  sometimes  laid  on  the  table  \yithout 
any  dish  ;  hence  the  disgust  of  the  condition  de- 
scribed in  Is  2S*.  f     J  „, 
2.  To  nrcmre  a  trible  for  any  one  is  to  feed  or 
nourish  him,  as  in  Ps  23'.     Figuratively,  the  per- 
sonilied  Wisdom  is  said  to  furnish  a  table  for  man  s 
instruction   (Pr  9-).      Distributing   the   moans  of 
sustenance  to  those  of  the  early  Christians  who 
lacked,  was  called  by  the  apostles  'serving  tables 
(Ac  6-)      To  eat  at  one's  table  is  to  be  a  member  ol 
his  hou.sehold  or  an  honoured  guest.     David,  as 
one  of  Saul's  officers,  ate  at  the  kings  table  (lb 
20-'^)   and  Mephibosheth  as  a  guest  ate  at  Dav^da 
table  C  S  O'-'"-  "•  ",   1  K  2').     The  850  prophets 
who   are  said   to  have  eaten    at  Jezebel's   table 
(I  K  18'")  did  not  necessarily  sit  down  with  tueir 
roval  hosts,  nor  did  the  servants  of  Soloinon  who 
consumed  the  meat  of  his  table,  the  variety  and 
amount  of    which   amazed  the  queen    of    blieba 
(1  K  W)  •   the  expression  means  that  they  were 
fed  bv  the  royal  bounty  (see  Heraclides  in  -^then 
iv    26).     The  same  is  probably  true   of  the  150 
Jews  and  rulers  whom  Keheraiah  claims  to  have 
had  at  his  table  (Neh  5").     The  honour  of  sit  ing 
at  meat  with  the  kin^  was  a  special  favonr  (2  b 
19=«),   requiring  careful    behaviour  (1  r  23'),   ana 
sudden  leaving  of  the  table  was  a  mark  of  dis- 
pleasure (IS  20^^).      Those  round   the   table  are 
said  to  sit  at  table  (1  K  13»),  and  the  members  of 
the  family  circle  are  said  to  be  round  about  the 
table  (Ps  128^)  ;  squatting,  as  the  children  of  the 
fellahin  do  stUl.     '  The  table,'  in  the  sense  of  the 
indulqenre  in  dainties,  is  to  be  a  snare  for   the 
wicked  (Ps  69^,  Bo  11^).     God's  tab  e  to  which  the 
birds  of  prey  are  invited  is  provided  with  the  Hesh 
of  His  enemies  (Ezk  39-»),  a  figurative  description 
of  His  just  judgment  of  the  wicked.     1  he  table 
in  Ezk  23^'  is  prepared  for  purposes  of  the  toilet. 

In  the  NT  '  table '  is  used  in  the  sense  of  meal 
in  Lk  oT-'-*'  Jn  12=  (where  RV  substitutes  'sat 
at  meat"  for' the  AV  'sat  at  the  table').  In  Jn 
13=8  -no  man  at  table'  is  the  tr.  of  oi-Se.s  rai- 
d.a«</.^^c...  The  dogs  in  the  neighbouring  Gentile 
district  fed  under  the  table  (Mt  15^'- =«,  Mk  r^ 
Lk  16-').  Lazarus  the  beggar  desired  the  crunibs 
which  were  gathered  and  thrown  out  from  under 
the  rich  man's  table  (Lk  16"'), 

3.  For  the  table  of  shewbread  see  artt.  SHEW- 
BREAD,  and  Taiikrnaclk,  p.  662  f.  ,,,,,,„ 

i  The  'table  of  the  Lord'  stands  m  Mai  1'-'- 
(cf  Ezk  41="  44'«)  for  the  altar.  In  1  Co  10-',  where 
it  'is  contrasted  with  the  '  table  of  devils,'  it  is 
evidently  from  the  context  the  Lords  Supper  as 
compared  with  i.agan  idol-feasts,  the  expression 
being  probably  borrowed  from  our  Lords  words 
•  at  my  table '  in  Lk  22'".  ,  ,      ,     ► 

5  I'he  tables  of  the  money-changers  {al  Tpdn-ffoi 
tCv  Ko\\vai<TTCv)  were  the  small  square  trays  on 
stands  which  are  familiar  objects  at  the  gates  and 
bazaars  of  Eastern  tow  ns  on  which  coins  are  dis- 
played, and  beside  which  the  money-changers 
stand.  These  arc  not  infrequently  overturned  m 
the  numerous  disputes  about  the  value  of  ex- 
chan"es  These  money-changers  were  the  bankers 
of  prunitive  times  :  thus  in  the  Isaius  of  Dionysius 
of  Halicarnassus  the  expression  rpairi^y  Kara- 
gKcvd^tcBai  is  used  in  the  sense  of  setting  up  a 
bank  (Reiske,  vii.  309).  Our  Lord  overthrew 
those  set  up  in  the  courts  of  the  temple  (Mt  21". 
Mk  11".  Jn2'n. 


6.  Table  in  the  sense  of  a  flat  surface  upon 
which  writings  were  inscribed  is  expressed  by  th« 
word  niS.     See  following  article. 

7.  in  Ca  1'=  '  table '  is  the  tr.  of  aco,  rendered 
bv  LXX  ir  apanXlaei  ouroD  and  Vulg.  in  accubitu 
suo  ;  cf.  perh.  1  S  16",  and  in  late  Heb.  njp-:  (Levy, 
3.  163)  and  2!::^  [ib.  464 ;  Schechter,  Ben  Sira  56). 
It  probably  means,  from  the  context,  a  couch. 
See,  further,  the  Comm.  ad  loc. 

In  KV  '  table '  is  left  out  in  Mk  7*.  AV  here  tr. 
k\ivS>v,  'tables,'  but  puts  'beds'  in  margin,  ri.e 
words  Ko.i  K\LvCv  are  read  by  ADXrn24.  al  min  »- 
latt  s>-rr. '*"'' ''''  go  arm  Or;  omitted  by  nBI-^ 
min  p«'i"""^  syr''"  me. 

LiTEKATTOE. -Besides  the  authors  cited  in.  text  see  also 
Bahr  Si/mboUk  dex  Mosaischen  CuUm,  Heidelberg,  IWi, 
Schlichte'r,  De  incnsa  /aciemm  ;  and  Ugohm,  '  De  mensa  et 
panis  propositionis-  in  Tkes.  x.  995.        ^    ^ACALISTER. 

TABLE,  TABLET.  —  !,  nt^  (etym.  unknown). 
This  word,  which  may  be  used  of  wooden  boards  or 
planks  (Ex  27^  38'  in  the  altar  of  the  Tabernacle, 
Ezk  27"  in  the  ship  fig.  of  Tyre,  Ca  8"  in  a  door)  t 
or  of  metal  plates  (1  K  7*'  on  bases  of  lavers  in 
Solomon's  teniple)T,  is  far  more  frequently  used  of 
stone  tablets,  esp.  those  on  which  the  Ten  \V  ords 
are  said   to    have    been   written   (Ex   24'=  31'»»« 

11%  it   KM,.  19   341  Kr.  4  lU.  ■^.  29_    pt    4"  5"  l^nS-  =1  9»  "'• 

ioTn.15.17  lo'-"'"-"'*'-*-',  IK  8»,  2Ch  5'");  of  a 
tablet  for  writing^  a  prophecy  upon  (Is  30'  [in?^], 
Hab  2=)  •  fi'^.  in  Pr  3^  7*  (wise  counsels  are  to  be 
written  on  the  table  of  the  heart),  Jer  17'  (the  sin 
of  Judah  is  graven  [nynn]  upon  the  table  of  their 
heart).  In  all  these  passages  both  AV  and  ix\ 
tr  nV,  when  used  of  stone,  by  *  table(s),  except 
Is  308  where  RV  has  'tablet,'  a  rendering  which 
might  well  have  been  adopted  uniformly  1  he 
LXX  reproduces  by  TrXd?  (except  Ex  24l^  Is  30», 
Hab  2=  [all  tti Jio./],  Pr  3"  7''  [both  irXdros],  and  Jer 
17'  [wanting  in  LXX]),  and  this  is  also  the  NT 
term  (2  Co  3»,  He  9^).  The  'writing-table  (7r>m- 
KiSiov,  RV  'writing-tablet')  of  Lk  l"'  was  probably 
a  waxen  tablet.  For  a  descriiition  of  the  use  of 
both  stone  and  wax  for  writing  purposes  see  art. 

Writing.  ,     .  ,  r  *  r    n 

2.  tV-j  (the  tablet  inscnbed  with  a  o-n  [stijlus], 
•  to  Maher-shalal-hash-baz,'  Is  8'  AV  '  roll  ).  The 
essential  signilication  of  this  word  ai)pears  to  be 
something  with  a  smooth poli,«hedsmiace,  ^.vhethei 
of  wood,  stone,  or  metal.*     [For  Si-j  "?:  B  has  ri^ot 

MfTdXr,,  Symm.  redxos  ,  ho-l  The  only  other 
occurrence  of  the  Heb.  word  is  in  Is  3^,  where  [m 
plur.l  it  prob.  means  'tablets  of  polished  metal, 
'mirrors'  (so  Targ.,  Vulg.,  Ges.  Del.,  Cheyne 
Dillm.-Kittel,  but  see  Marti,  ad  Inc.,  and  cf.  the 
LXX  t4  5<a0a;.i7  Ao».w<ra).  3.  AV  '  taldcts  ('JO 
fetym.  unknown];  LXX  veptSd^iOv,  Trepio^Jio  ;  KV 
'armlets').  Ex  3S-'\  Nu  31»''.  Tho  Heb  word  prob. 
stands  for  some  neck  ornamentt  (RVm  necklaces  ; 
cf.  Dillm.-Rvssel  or  Baentsch,  Ejcodus  ad  loc.). 
4.  The  •  tablets '  (i.e.  lockets)  of  AV  in  Is  3* 
become  in  RV  '  perfume  boxes'  (so  Ges.  ;  cf.  Vulg. 
olfacturiola),  and  some  such  sense  [possibly  oint- 
nient  boxes';  so  P.  Hannt  (deriving  from  Assyr.^ 
,,„ii',Sn,  'to  anoint  oneself)  in  Cheyne  s' Isaiah, 
^IIOT  p  82]  is  required  bv  the  context  tor  the 
Heb  Bi'--n  'ri2,  although  it  may  be  doubted  whether 
o-y  ever  "in  the  OT  [Pr  27"  is  a  doubtful  pas.sage1 
actually  mean* 'odour.'  The  meaning  is  perh.  ol 
health,^  i.e.  serving  to  give  health  to  those  who 
smell  them  (  =  ' reviving,'  'refreshing  ;  ci-  the 
Niph.  of  the  root  ir::,  and  its  use  in  tthp.  in  ojr. 
•  In  the  Talmud  [V^;  stands  (or  the  empty  margin  of  a  pag« 

"t'This  is  no  doubt  the  meunincr  of  the  EnRlish  word  "sed  hj 
AV.  for  in  the  lantua^-e  of  the  day  <^°':1""";IJ^^"%^'^J,^^, 
the  neck  could  be  ,-alled  a  '  Wblet,'  <«  Gold"f  ■  'l''^' ^ci,^'° 
pearles  were  hanging  at  her  eares,  and  tableU  at  her  bresL 


lABOK 


TABOR,  MOU.NT 


e?! 


=  di'oi;i'xu).     See,  further,  art.  Perkume,  vol.  iii. 
p.  H~,'.  J.  A.  Selbie. 

TABOR  (I'm.?;  B  Gaxxfi.  A  and  Luc.  Oa^iip ; 
Vul;,'.  1  linbor). — A  city  in  Zebulun  given  to  tlie 
Merarite  Levites  (1  Ch  6").  Xo  name  having  any 
similarity  to  Tabor  occurs  in  the  earlier  list  of 
Levitical  cities  in  Zebulun  (Jos  21''-*>).  Various 
BUggestions,  none  of  them  quite  satisfactory,  have 
been  made  in  regard  to  this  place, — that  the  occur- 
rence of  the  name  in  1  Chron.  is  due  to  a  tran- 
scriber's error ;  that  it  is  an  abbreviation  of  Chisloth- 
tabor,  a  town  on  the  border  of  Zebulun  (Jos  19'^) ; 
that  it  is  the  Daberath  of  Jos  21^,  now  Dehiirieh ; 
and  that  either  a  town  on  Mount  Tabor  or  the 
mountain  itself  is  intended.  Some  authorities 
suppose  it  to  be  the  same  place  as  Tabor  on  the 
l)Oider  of  I-ssachar  (Jos  19-,  B  VaiBfiJip,  A  Qa(pui6, 
Luc.  0a/3wp),  and  tliat  at  which  the  brothers  of 
Gideon  were  slain  by  Zebah  and  Zalinunna  (Jg 
8'»).  C.  W.  Wilson. 

TABOR.  MOUNT  (n^nn  irr ;  LXX  «pos  Oa^iip,  t4 
'iTafii'pioi'  (in  Jer.  and  Hos. ) ;  Tlmbor). — One  of  the 
most  celebrated,  and,  at  the  same  time,  one  of  the 
most  striking,  mountains  in  Palestine.  At  the 
N.E.  extremity  of  the  rich  plain  of  Esdrnelon, 
and  only  about  5  miles  E.  of  Nazareth,  a  limestone 
hill  of  unique  outline  rises  to  a  height  of  1843  feet 
above  the  sea.  This  is  Mount  Tabor,  the  At- 
abijrium,  or  Itabyrimn  of  Greek  and  Roman  writers, 
now  called  Jcbel  et-'fur.  The  mount  overlooks  the 
adjacent  hills  of  Lower  GalUee,  and,  being  con- 
nected with  them  only  by  a  low  ridge,  is  practi- 
cally isolated.  Its  form  approaches  that  of  a 
truncated  cone  with  rounded  sides,  and  a  fairly 
level,  oval-shaped  summit.  When  viewed  from  a 
distance,  especially  from  the  S.W.,  it  has  the 
appearance  of  a  hemisphere,  and  is  remarkable 
for  its  symmetrical  form,  its  graceful  outline,  and 
its  wooded  slopes.  The  mount  is  often  capped 
with  mist,  and  even  in  the  dry  season  heavy  dews 
refresh  the  parched  soil,  and  give  new  life  to  the 
oaks,  pistachios,  and  other  trees  that  partially 
cover  its  slopes.  In  the.se  coverts,  durin"  tlie 
Middle  Ages,  wild  beasts  found  shelter;  and  wild 
boars,  birds,  and  small  game  still  make  them  their 
home.  The  slopes  are  steep  and  rocky,  but  the 
ascent  can  he  made  with  ease — nearly  everywiicre 
on  foot,  and  in  more  than  one  place  on  horseback. 
The  view  from  the  summit  is  di.sappointing,  in  so 
far  that  there  is  no  one  spot  from  wliich  a  complete 
panorama  can  be  obtained  ;  but  frotu  many  points 
places  of  the  greatest  sacred  and  historic  interest 
can  be  seen.  To  the  S.W.  and  W.,  stretched  out 
like  a  map,  the  great  |)lain  of  E.sdraeIon  extends 
b(  youi  Taanach  and  Megiddo  to  the  gorge  of  the 
Kishon  and  the  ridge  of  Carmel.  To  the  N.  are 
the  heights  «f  Liihirh  and  the  '  Horns  of  HattSn,' 
where  Guy  de  Lusignan  and  the  Tein])lars  made 
their  last  stand  before  surrendering  to  Sal.'ulin  ; 
and  beyond  them  lie  Sitfcd  and  the  hills  of  Upper 
Galilee,  with  snow-capped  Heriuon  and  the  peaks 
of  Lebanon  in  the  distance.  To  the  N.E.  and  E. 
Me  the  Sea  of  Galilee  and  the  rugged  IJaurdn, 
ihe  Jordan  Valley>  the  deep  gorge  of  the  Yarmuk, 
»nd  the  high  tableland  of  Bashan ;  and  to  the 
8  E.  the  mediaeval  fortress  of  Belvoir  {Kauknb  el- 
Ilawri),  the  Jordan  Valley  below  Bethshcan,  and 
the  mountains  of  Gilcad.  To  the  S.,  on  the  lower 
slopes  of  Jebd  iJnlnj  (Little  Hcriiion),  are  Nain 
and  Endor,  and  beyond  Jebd  Dulty  can  be  seen 
the  crest  of  Mt.  Gilboa. 

A  mountain  bo  situated,  and  bo  beautiful, 
necessarily  played  an  important  part  in  the  history 
of  Israel.  Its  isolation,  and  the  steepness  of  its 
slope.-i,  marked  it  out,  from  time  immemorial,  as  a 
fortress  or  rallying  point ;  and  ilinktriictive  beauty 


led  the  Rabbis  to  maintain  that  it  was  the  mountain 
on  which  the  temple  ought  of  right  to  have  been 
built  had  it  not  been  for  the  e.xpress  revelation 
which  ordered  the  sanctuary  to  be  built  on  Mount 
Moriah  (Schwarz,  p.  71).  Amongst  tlie  mountains 
of  his  native  land,  the  P.salmist  (Ps  89'-)  could 
have  selected  no  more  fitting  representatives  than 
Tabor  with  its  rounded  features  and  scattered 
glades,  and  Hemion  with  its  lofty  peak  and  pure 
canojiy  of  snow.  So,  too,  its  natural  strength  and 
conspicuous  po.sition  led  the  prophet  (Jer  ■46"')  to 
use  it  and  Carmel  as  an  image  either  of  the  power 
and  pre-eminence  of  the  king  of  Babylon,  or  of  the 
certainty  and  distinctness  of  God's  judgments. 
Some  commentators  suppose  Tabor  to  be  the 
mountain  alluded  to  in  Dt  83"''*  (see  discussion  in 
Driver,  ad  loc.) ;  and  hence  it  has  been  conjectured 
that  Tabor  was  an  early  sanctuary  of  the  northern 
tribes,  which  afterwards  became  the  scene  of 
idolatrous  rites  (Hos  5'). 

Mount  Tabor  is  mentioned  by  its  full  name  only 
in  Jg  46i*-i<,  where  it  is  stated  to  have  been  llie 
place  at  which  Deborah  and  Barak  assembled  the 
warriors  of  Lsrael  before  the  memorable  victory 
over  Sisera  (Jos.  Ant.  v.  v.  3). 

The  mount  is  probably  (but  see  Dillm.  ad  loc.) 
intended  in  Jos  19-",  where  the  boundary  of  Issachar 
is  said  to  have  reached  to  Tabor ;  and  this  view  was 
held  by  Josephus  {Ant.  v.  i.  22)  and  Eusebius 
{Onum.).  Whether  the  Tabor  at  which  the  brothers 
of  Gideon  were  slain  (Jg  8'")  was  the  mount,  is  more 
doubtful  (see  preceding  art.,  and  Moore,  fid  loc). 
According  to  Josephus  {Ant.  vill.  ii.  3),  Mt.  Tabor 
was  in  the  district  of  Shaphat  (Jehoshaphat  in  1  K 
4"),  one  of  Solomon's  comniis.sariat  otticers.  In  the 
3rd  cent.  B.C.  there  was  an  inhabited  city,  At- 
abi/rium,  on  Mt.  Tabor,  which  Antiochus  the  Great 
took  (D.C.  218)  by  stratagem  and  afterwards  forti- 
fied (Polyb.  V.  Ixx.  6).  In  the  time  of  Alexander 
Janna'us  (B.C.  1U5-7S)  Tabor  was  in  the  possession 
of  the  Jews  {Ant.  XIII.  xv.  4).  But  the  mount 
passed  to  the  Romans  when  Pomjiey  conquered 
Palestine,  and,  near  it,  Gabinius,  the  Roman  pro- 
consul of  Syria  (c.  B.C.  53),  defeated  Alexander, 
son  of  Aristobulus  II.,  who  had  risen  in  revolt 
{Ant.  XIV.  vi.  3  ;  />'./  I.  viii.  7).  At  the  commence- 
ment of  the  Jewish  war  Tabor  was  occupied  by 
the  Jews,  and  fortilied  by  Josephus,  who  surrounded 
the  summit  with  a  wall  ( Vit.  37  ;  BJ  II.  xx.  6,  IV. 
i.  8).  A  little  later,  after  Joseplms  had  been  taken 
prisoner  by  the  Romans  at  Jotajjata,  a  large  number 
of  Jews  took  refuge  in  the  fortress.  Placidus  was 
sent  again.st  them  witli  a  body  of  horse,  and,  having 
succeeded  by  a  feint  in  drawing  the  lighting  men 
into  the  plain,  defeated  tlieiii  and  cut  oU'  their 
retreat.  Upon  this,  the  inhabitants  of  the  place, 
whose  supply  of  water,  derived  from  the  rainfall, 
was  failing,  submitted  {liJ  iv.  i.  8). 

The  later  history  of  Tabor  is  connected  with  the 
belief  that  Christ  was  transfigured  on  the  mount, 
and  with  the  churches  and  momisLerics  erected 
upon  it  in  coiisequiMice  of  that  belief.  The  narra- 
tive (Mt  IC.  17,  Mk  8.  9)  seems  to  demand  a  site 
near  Ca'sarca  Philijipi ;  but,  apart  from  this,  the 
existence  of  a  forliliod  town  on  the  summit  of 
Tabor  before  and  after  Christ,  makes  the  selection 
of  that  mountiiin  imiinjbahle.  Eusebius,  who  states 
{Onimi.)  that  Tabor  was  situated  in  th(?  plain  of 
Galilee,  and  from  8  to  10  Koiiian  miles  E.  of 
Dioca'sarea  {Srfurieli),  makes  no  allusion  to  the 
tradition  ;  whilst  the  Bordeaux  Pilgrim  (A.D.  ^.V.V^) 
places  the  scene  of  the  Transliguration  on  the 
Mount  of  Olives.  The  first  notice  of  Tabor  as  the 
place  of  the  Transliguration  is  a  remark  bv  ( 'yri' 
of  Jerusalem,  c.  A.I).  300  {Cat.  xii.  16).  Jerome, 
A.D.  3Sti,  says  that  St.  Paula  'climbed  Mt.  Tabor 
on  which  tiio  Lord  was  transfigured'  {Ep.  J'aul. 
xvii.  ;  cf.  £p.  ad  Mar.  viii.),  but  does  not  mention 


672 


TABOR,  MOUNT 


TACHES 


a  church.  Antoninus  Martyr,  c.  A.D.  570,  saw 
(VI.)  three  churches  'at  tlie  place  where  St.  I'eter 
said  to  Jesus  :  "  Let  us  niaUc  here  three  tal)er- 
iiacles." '  Arculf,  c.  A.D.  670,  fount!  (ii.  25)  a  hirge 
monastery  with  many  cells,  and  three  churches, 
enclosed  by  a  stone  wall.  Willihald,  A.D.  754, 
mentions  (xiii.)  a  monastery  and  a  church,  'dedi- 
cated to  our  Lord,  and  to  Moses  and  Elias.' 
Sa-wulf,  A.D.  1102,  saw  three  monasteries,  and 
adds  that  the  one  dedicated  to  Elias  stood  a 
little  apart  from  the  others.  The  Russian  abbot, 
Daniel,  A.D.  1106-1107,  gives  a  full  description  of 
the  mount,  which  he  compares  to  a  haycock,  and 
of  its  holy  places  (Ixxx^n.-lxxxviii).  Its  slopes 
were  covered  with  olive,  iig,  and  carob  trees ;  and 
on  the  summit,  at  the  S.E.  end  of  the  platform,  a 
small  rocky  knoll  was  sho\vn  as  the  place  of  the 
Transfiguration.  Here  there  was  a  tine  church, 
probably  that  built  by  Tancred,  and  near  it,  on 
the  N.  side,  a  second  church  dedicated  to  Moses 
and  Elias.  The  churches  and  a  Latin  monastery 
were  enclosed  by  solid  stone  walls  with  iron  gates; 
and  outside  the  walls  were  fields,  vineyards,  and 
fruit  trees.  A  bowshot  W.  of  the  place  of  the 
Transfiguration  was  shown  a  rock-hewn  cave  in 
which  Melchizedek  was  said  to  have  dwelt  and  to 
have  received  Abraham  when  returning  from  the 
slaughter  of  Chedorlaomer  (cf.  Fetellus,  A.D.  1130). 
Amongst  the  churches  and  monasteries  noticed  by 
Soewulf  and  Daniel  must  have  been  the  church 
built  by  Tancred,  to  whom  Galilee  was  granted  as 
a  fief;  and  the  monastery  founded  by  the  Black 
Friars  of  the  reformed  order  of  Benedictines  of 
Oluny,  who  in  A.D.  1111  disputed  the  jurisdiction 
of  the  archbishop  of  Nazareth  (Albert  of  Aix,  vii. 
16;  W.  of  Tyre,  ix.  13;  de  Vitry).  In  1113  the 
monasteries  were  pillaged  by  Arabs  from  Damascus, 
and  the  monks  massacred  ;  but  they  were  soon  re- 
occupied.  Theoderich,  in  1172,  mentions  a  church 
and  monks  under  an  abbot  (xlvi.)  who,  according 
to  Ludolph  von  Suchem,  '  used  a  leaden  bulla,  like 
the  Pope ' ;  and  places  the  scene  of  the  meeting 
between  Melchizedek  and  Abraham  at  the  foot  of 
the  mount.  In  1183  the  monks  repulsed  an  attack 
by  the  troops  of  Saladin.  Two  years  later,  1185, 
Phocas,  a  Greek  monk,  found  a  Latin  monastery 
at  the  place  of  the  Transfiguration,  and  to  the 
north  of  it  a  Greek  monastery.  He  also  saw  the 
grotto  of  Melchizedek,  with  cliambers  above  and 
under  ground,  and  many  cells  for  anchorites  ;  and 
close  by,  a  church  on  the  spot  where  Melchizedek 
met  Abraham.  In  1187  tne  mountain  was  laid 
waste  by  Saladin;  but  in  1212  it  was  strongly 
fortified  by  his  brother  elMelek  el-'Adel.  The 
fortress  was  unsuccessfully  attacked  by  ^the 
Cnisaders  in  1217,  and  dismantled  by  el  -'Adel 
in  the  following  year.  The  monastery  and  church 
must  have  been  spared,  or  little  injured,  for 
Ydkat,  A.D.  1225,  mentions  it  (ii.  675;  cf.  Mar.  i. 
434)  as  standing  on  the  S.  side  of  the  mountain; 
and  adds  that  there  were  many  vineyards,  from 
which  the  monks  made  >vine.  This  is  confirmed 
i>y  the  tract  '  C'itez  de  Jherusalem,'  pt.  ii.,  which 
notices  '  a  church  of  black  Latin  monks '  on  Mt. 
Tabor.  In  1263  the  Church  of  the  Transfi^ration 
was  levelled  with  the  ground  by  order  of  Sultan 
Bibars ;  and  later  visitors  found  only  'hollow 
places  and  caves  beneath  the  ruins  of  splendid 
iMiildiiigs,  wherein  lurk  lions  and  other  beasts.' 
Amidst  these  ruins,  however,  the  Latin  and  Greek 
monks  from  Nazareth  continued  to  hold  an  annual 
service  in  memory  of  the  Transfiguration.  The 
ruins  on  the  summit  are  those  of  a  fortress  with 
square  flanking  towers,  and,  in  places,  a  rock-hewn 
ditch.  There  are  also  many  rock-hewn  cisterns 
and  a  pool,  and  the  remains  of  the  churches  and 
monasteries  noticed  above.  Tlie  ruins  are  Jewish, 
IJyzantine,    Crusadini;,    and    Arab ;    but,    without 


excavation,  it  is  difficult  to  make  any  clear  dis- 
tinction between  them.  The  Latins  and  Greeks 
have  in  recent  years  erected  churches  and  mon- 
asteries on  the  sites  of  the  earlier  buildings,  and 
the  Latins  have  recovered  the  place  of  the  Trans- 
figuration mentioned  by  abbot  Daniel. 

LlTlRATURl.— PJJF  3[em.  i.  367,  388-391 ;  de  Vogu*,  igliM 
de  T.  S.  363;  GuSrin,  Game,  i.  143-K13;  RoWnson,  BJiP^ 
iii.  SSlfl. ;  Burckhardt,  Travels  in  Si/ria,  1S22.  p.  332 ft.; 
O.  A.  Smith,  HGUL  384,  408,  417;  Buhl,  GAP  107 f.,  216 1.; 
Bamabii,  Le  Mont  Thalior.  Q,  W.  WiLSON. 

TABOR,  The  Oak  of  (AV  The  Plain  op 
Tabor  ;  lian  I'iSx  ;  -q  5/)Ds  Qa^iip  ;  qnerciis  Thabor), 
is  mentioned  (1  S  10')  between  Rachel's  sepulchre 
in  the  border  of  Benjamin  at  Zelzah  and  the  '  hill 
of  God,'  or  Gibeah,  as  one  of  the  points  passed  by 
Saul  on  his  homeward  journey  after  his  anointing 
by  Samuel.  The  site  is  unknown.  Thenius 
emends,  from  Gn  35*,  I'lai?  'k  to  rr\\y^  'k  '  Oak 
(terebinth)  of  Deborah'  (Rachel's  nurse).  Thia 
tree  is  called  in  the  Genesis  passage  AUon-bacuth, 
and  Ewald  and  others  identify  it  further  with  the 
palm  (ijn)  of  Deborah  mentioned  in  Jg  4".  (Cf. 
Moore  on  Jg  4"  ;  Dillm.  on  Gn  35' ;  Siegfried- 
Stade  and  Oxf.  Eeh.  Lex.  s.  |Wt<)- 

C.  W.  Wilson. 

TABRET  (see  art.  Tabee)  is  AV  tr.  of  <\n  in  Gn 
31",  1  S  10"  18«,  Is  5'=  248  3032^  Jer  31^  Ezk  28". 
The  same  Heh.  word  is  tr.  'timbrel'  in  Ex  15**, 
Jg  11*",  2  S  6^  1  Ch  138,  Job  21'-,  Pa  8P  149'  150*. 
The  RV,  strangely  enough,  follows  this  want  of 
uniformity  in  rendering,  except  in  1  S  10°  18', 
where  it  substitutes  '  timbrel  for  '  tabret.'  It 
might  have  been  well  to  drop  both  'timbrel'  and 
'  tabret,'  neither  of  which  conveys  any  clear  sense 
to  a  modern  ear,  and  adopt  some  such  rendering  as 
'tambourine'  or 'hand-drum.'  The  LXX  always 
tr.  in  by  Tii/ijrai'oi'  except  in  Job  21'-,  where  we 
have  \pa\Tripiov,  and  EzK  28",  where  a  different 
Heb.  text,  has  been  followed.  [This  last  ?H«y  have 
been  the  case  even  in  Job  21'-].  See,  for  a  descrip- 
tion of  the  in,  vol.  iii.  p.  462''. 

The  A V  rendering  of  Job  17'  '  aforetime  I  was 
it  a  tabret,'  has  arisen  from  a  confusion  of  njii 
'spitting'  [fin-.  Xe-/.]  with  "in  'tambourine.'  The 
words  n;rix  d'id^  nrn,  in  parallelism  with  the  preced- 
ing O'sy  9e'P^  'JJ'srr  ('  I  am  made  [lit.  '  one  hath 
made  me']  a  byword  of  the  peoples'),  mean  'I  am 
become  one  to  be  spit  on  in  tne  face '  (RV  '  an 
open  abhorring').  See  A.  B.  Davidson,  ad  loc, 
and  cf.  the  notes  of  Dillm.  and  Dulim.  The  LXX 
reproducea  njin  by  yiXois,  '  a  laughing-stock.' 

J.  A.  Selbie. 

TABRIMMON  (ltel?o,  'Rimmon  [linmman]  is 
good  or  is  wise '  [see  I'ABEEL]  ;  B  Ta^epifia,  A  Ta^ei-- 
pa7;^d,  Luc.  Ta/Sepe/tAidc). — The  father  of  Benhadad, 
1  K  15". 

TACHES.— An  old  word  of  French  origin  (cf. 
attacker)  used  by  AV  to  render  the  Heb.  o'CT? 
klrdstm,  which  occurs  only  in  P's  description  of 
the  tabernacle  (Ex  26«- "• ''  35"  etc.).  The  Gr. 
rendering  is  /cpixoi,  wliich  denotes  the  rings  set  in 
eyelets  at  the  edge  of  a  sail  for  the  ropes  to  pass 
through;  Vulg.  circuli,  RV  'clasps.'  The  Heb. 
w^ord  evidently  signifies  some  form  of  hook  or 
clasp  like  the  Roman  fibula  (see  Rich,  Diet,  o/ 
Bum.  and  Gr.  Anliq.  s.v.).  Fifty  'taches'  or 
clasps  of  gold,  attached  at  equal  distances  along 
the  edge  of  one  set  of  tapestry  curtains,  fitted  into 
the  same  number  of  loops  along  the  edge  of  the 
second  set,  and  '  coupled '  the  two  sets  together. 
A  similar  arrangement  of  bronze  clasps  joined 
the  two  sets  of  hair  curtains  which  formed  the 
'tent'  (see  Tabernacle,  §  vii.  (a)).  The  veil 
which  divided  the  tabernacle  or  '  dwelling '  into 
two  parts,  the  Holy  Place  and  the  Most  Holy,  was 
susuended   immediately   underneath  the    line    o' 


TACKLING 


TADMOR 


673 


clasps,  a  detail  of  considerable  significance  for  the 
dimensions  of  the  tabernacle  (see  §  vii.  (c)). 

A.  R.  S.  Kennedy. 
TACKLING.— In  Is  33=»  'Thy  tackUn},'8  (-:S?n) 
are  loosed,'  the  Heb.  word  plainly  means  a  ship's 
ropes.  And  that  was  the  ordinary  meaning  of 
the  Eng.  word  '  Sickling  '  about  1611,  as  in  Shaks. 
KicK.  III.  IV.  iv.  233— 

*  Like  a  poor  bark,  of  sails  and  tackling  reft.' 

But  the  Eng.  word  wiis  also  used  more  comprehen- 
sively of  the  whole  gearing,  as  in  Ascham's  Scholc- 
nuister,  65,  '  Great  shippes  require  costlie  tack- 
ling.' And  so  it  is  used  in  Ac  27'°  '  AVe  cast  out 
witli  our  own  hands  the  tackling  of  the  sliip  ' 
(RVm  '  furniture  ').  The  Greek  word  (ffxcin))  is  as 
vague,  says  Kendall,  as  the  English  '  furniture,' 
and  may  include  any  heavy  littings  that  could  be 
readily  detached,  or  spare  masts  and  spars.  See 
Ships  and  Boat.s. 

The  word  is  of  Scand.  origin  ;  the  U  in  '  tackle ' 
is  the  instrument,  so  that  the  tackle  is  that  which 
takes  hold  of  ;  the  ing  is  collective. 

J.  Hastings. 

TADMOR  (IK  9"  [.so  Kir?,  AV,  RVm  ;  Taraar 
in  Kcthibk  and  RV  ;  B  om.,  A  Qep/jAS,  Luc.  QoSfilip], 
2  Ch  8*  B^  OoeSofiSp,  A  OeStidp,  Luc.  eeS/idp).— 
The  Tamar  of  1  Kings  is  believed  by  the  present 
writer  to  be  the  same  place  as  the  '  Tadmor '  of 
2  Chrunicles  (see,  however,  art.  Tamar  ;  G.  A. 
Smith.  HGHL'  270,  n.- :  Kittel,  Kimifje,  adloc). 

Whatever  view  be  held  as  to  Tamar,  Tadmor 
is  undouliledly  the  Palmyra  of  history,  a  city 
whose  ruins  have  excited  the  admiration  of  all 
travellers,  and  whose  history  under  the  rule  of 
tidenatus  and  Zenobia  can  never  be  read  without 
feelings  of  high  interest.  The  city  rose  from  an 
oasis  in  the  Syrian  desert  due  to  springs  welling 
up  through  the  sands,  or  from  rivulets  descending 
from  the  neighbouring  hills,  giving  rise  to  vegeta- 
tion and  groves  of  palms.*  At  a  later  period  it 
was  supplied  with  water  by  means  of  an  atjueduct 
Ipuilt  by  Justinian.  The  position  of  the  city  is  about 
1.">U  miles  N.E.  of  Dania-scus,  half-way  between  the 
valleys  of  the  Orontes  and  the  Euphrates;  and  the 
caravan  routes  in  ancient  times  as  well  as  in  the 
beginning  of  our  era,  connecting  the  Persian  Gulf 
with  the  Mediterranean,  and  between  Northern 
Syria,  Petra,  and  Central  Arabia,  pa.ssed  through 
Palmyra.  Ouring  the  wars  between  Rome  and 
Parthia,  Palmyra  endeavoured  to  maintain  a 
position  of  neutrality  ;  and,  about  the  year  A.D. 
130,  Hiulrian  took  the  city  under  his  special  favour, 
givin"  it  the  name  of  Adri.anopolis.  At  a  later 
period  Palmyra  received  the  Ju.i  Itnlicum  and 
became  a  Roman  colony  ;  and  in  the  early  period  of 
the  Persian  wars  the  city  became  an  important 
military  post,  and  the  inhabitants  thus  gained  a 
knowledge  of  military  tactics  which  they  aftcr- 
wanls  turned  to  use  against  their  instructors. 

Odr.niitus  and  Zenobia. — Unto  this  time  Palmyra 
was  governed  by  a  senate ;  but  on  the  defeat  of 
the  Roman  army  under  Valerian  by  Sapor,  king 
of  Persia,  and  the  rejection  of  the  olVer  of  alliance 
made  by  Odenatus,  who  hiul  attained  the  jmsition 
of  king  or  i)rince  of  Palmyra,  the  Palmyrenc  army 
hovereil  round  tlie  Persian  host  as  it  was  retreating 
across  the  Euphrates  with  the  captive  Roman 
emiieror  and  enormous  booty,  and  inllictcd  such 
loss  on  the  Persians  that  they  were  glad  to  put  the 
river  between  them  and  their  mir.suers.t  By  this 
exploit  Odenatus  laid  the  foundation  of  his  future 
fame  and  fortunes.  With  tlie  consent  of  the 
emperor  Gallienus  the  Roman  senate  conferred  the 
title  of  Augti^tus  on   the   brave   Palmyrene,  and 

•  Oilibon,  Decline  and  Fall,  I.  896. 

(  Peter  Palricius,  p.  26,  quoted  by  Qlbbon,  Deciine  and  FmU 
tif  the  lloman  Empire,  i.  362. 
VOL.  IV.— 43 


seemed  to  entrust  to  him  the  government  of  the 
East,  which  he  in  ellect  already  possessed.* 

On  the  death  of  Odenatus,  by  assassination, 
Zenobia  his  widow,  who  had  shared  with  hini  the 
government  of  the  kingdom,  became  his  sole  suc- 
ces.sor,  with  the  title  of  '  Queen  of  Palmyra  and  the 
East.'  Of  this  remarkable  personage  Gibbon  says : 
'  Modern  Europe  has  produced  several  illustrious 
women  who  have  sustained  with  glory  the  weight 
of  empire ;  nor  is  our  own  age  destitute  of  such 
distinguished  characters.  But  if  we  except  the 
doulitiul  achievements  of  Semiramis,  Zenobia  ia 
perhaps  the  only  woman  whose  superior  genius 
broke  through  the  servile  indolence  imposed  on  her 
sex  by  the  climate  and  manners  of  Asia.  She 
claimed  her  descent  from  the  Macedonian  kings  of 
Egypt,  equalled  in  beauty  her  ancestor  Cleopatra, 
and  far  surp;issed  that  princess  in  chastity  and 
valour.' t  On  a-scending  the  throne  (A.D.  267) 
Zenobia  maintained  the  same  policy  of  hostility, 
both  to  Persia  and  Rome,  which  hail  been  adopted 
by  her  husband,  and  defeated  a  Roman  army  com- 
manded by  Heraclianus.  She  also  invited  the 
celebrated  Platonic  philosopher  Longinus  to  her 
capital  to  be  her  instructor  in  Greek  literature  and 
her  counsellor  in  allairs  of  state.  But  Aurelian, 
wlio  had  ascended  the  throne  of  the  Western 
empire,  had  resolved  to  endure  no  longer  the 
authority  of  a  rival  in  the  East;  and  in  A.D.  272 
he  inarclied  to  attack  Zenobia  with  all  the  forces 
of  the  empire.  Zenobia,  being  but  weakly  sup- 
ported in  the  unequal  contest  by  Varahr.an, 
successor  to  Sapor,  was  defeated  in  battle,  and 
attempted  to  escape  by  flight  towards  the  Eu- 
l)lirates,J  but  was  caiitured  on  the  banks  of  that 
river  and  brought  before  her  conqueror,  who 
carried  her  to  Rome  to  grace  his  triumph.  While 
crossing  the  straits  which  divide  Europe  from  Asia, 
Aurelian  received  intelligence  that  the  Palmyrenes 
had  risen  in  revolt  and  massacred  the  governor  and 
garrison  he  had  left  behind.  Enraged  at  this  con- 
duct he  at  once  retraced  his  steps,  and  the  helpless 
city  felt  the  full  weight  of  his  resentment.  A 
letter  of  Aurelian  himself  admits  that  old  men, 
women,  children,  and  peasants  were  involved  in 
indiscriminate  slaughter  ;  but,  taking  pity  on  the 
miserable  remnant  of  the  inhabitants,  he  granted 
them  permission  to  rebuild  and  inhabit  the  city. 
'  But  (as  Gibbon  observes)  it  is  easier  to  destroy 
than  to  restore.  The  seat  of  commerce,  of  arts, 
and  of  Zenobia  gradually  sank  into  an  oljscure 
town,  a  trifling  fortress,  and  at  lenf^th  a  miserable 
village.  The  present  citizens  of  Pidmyra,  consist- 
ing of  thirty  or  forty  families,  have  erected  their 
[mud]  cottages  within  the  spacious  court  of  a 
magnificent  temple.' § 

Jiuins. — The  ruins  of  Palmyra  attest  its  fonner 
magnilicence.  The  principal  tmilding  is  the  great 
Temple  of  the  Sun  (]5aal),  with  its  lofty  arch  and 
grand  rows  of  columns,  originally  about  390  in 
number;  but  besides  this  there  are  remains  of 
the  walls  of  Justinian  which  enclosed  the  city, 
and  outside  the  wall  towards  the  north  several 
ruined  sepulchral  towers,  together  with  the  remains 
of  the  aqueduct. II  For  an  account  of  the  Gr.  ami 
Aram,  inscriptions  see  de  Vogii6,  Si/>-ie  centrale, 
pp.  1-8.  Cf.  also  the  interesting  '  Zolltarif  (A.D. 
155)  published  by  Reckendorf  in  ZDMG  (1888), 
p.  37Utr.  (text  ana  com.) ;  text  in  Lidzbarski. 

E.  Hull. 

•  Biet,  Augiinl.  .Trri'p.  p.  180. 

t  Decline  anil  Fall,  i.  391.  |  lb.  i.  .SOS. 

(  Decline  and  Full,  i.  41)0 ;  tho  history-  of  Zenobia  and  Palm^-ra 
is  Uikeri  principally  from  the  writintoi  of  I'ollio ;  Vopnieus  in 
Hint.  Auijluit.  I. ;  a  ni04lcm  romance,  Zenobia,  or  the  Fall  ojl 
I'almyra,  bv  Rev.  W.  Ware  (11*^4).  will  reiwy  perusal.  See  also 
Wri(fht,  I'atmifra  and  Zenobia,  1895. 

II  An  exccltent  plan  of  Palmvra,  taken  from  K.  Wood's 
Iluinee  de  I'almyre,  will  t>e  found  tn  Baedeker's  Paleetine  and 
Si/ria ;  and  in  Murray's  Sifria  and  Palestine,  one  of  less  merit. 


674 


TAHAN 


TAKE 


TAHAN  (inc.). -The  eponymous  l>ead  of  an 
Ephraimite  clan,  Nu  26«<^>  (Td.ax),  1  Ch  .-^  15 A 
eL,  Luc.  eda.).  The  gentihc  na.>ie  Tahanites 
Cqjn,  A  Ta«ix(£)l)  occurs  in  Nu  2&^^^K 

TAHASH  (»nn,  T6xos).— A  son  of  Nahor  by  his 
concn.bine  Rlv.nVah,  tin  22-  [J].  T'.e  name  rn^xn^ 
'  porpoise,'  and  this  animal  was  prohal>ly  the  totem 
of  the  (unidentilied)  tribe  that  bore  it. 

TSH&TH  (nnnl  —1.  A  Kohathite  Levite,  1  Ch 
6J,H.".f)  (B  l."n  ■  A.'  sup  ras  eaaO)  -  -"e^- -)  (BA 
eiad).  2.  3.  The  eponym  of  two  (un  ess  the 
nami  has  been  accidentally  repeated)  bphra.m.te 
families,  1  Ch  7*  (A  [only  hrst  time]  eiad,  B  om. 
both  times). 

TAHATH  (nnn ;  BA  Luc.  KardaS,  F  KaTedaff).— 
One  of  the  twelve  stations  in  the  joumeyin^'s  of 
the  chUdren  of  Israel  which  are  "-«"t'oned  only  in 
Nu  33.  It  comes  between  Makhelotj.  and  Terab 
(v.»'-),  and,  like  them,  has  not  been  ideiitilied. 

TAHCHEMONITE,  AV  Tachmonlte.— See  h.\CH- 

MONI. 


TAHPANHES,  TEHAPHNEHES  (cnj^nij  Jer  43'«- 
441  46"  D-Jcnn  E/.k  30'«,  Disnn  [text,  error]  in  Kcthib/i 
of  Jer  2>«,"To0.ds,  Ta0.a().-A  city  on  the  E  frontier 
of  Lower  E<^YPt.    There  is  no  doubt  that  it  is  the 
same  place  t\iat  was  known  to  classical  ^vnters  as 
Daphna?.    The  etym.  of  the  name  is  unknown  and 
no  hieroRlyphic  equivalent  has  yet  been  found.     It 
seems  lively,  however,  that  this    ronticr  city  was 
named  '  thel)eg™ii>?  "^  ^he  .  .  .  (?)'  Ta-lud-p  .  .  .   ?). 
The  modem  name.  Tell  Defneh  (often  mis-spelled 
Defeneh  or  Dc/enneh  on  maps)  is  very  close  to  the 
Greek     The  site  is  now  a  desolate  mound  on  the 
edge  of  the  desert,  and  but  little  removcl  from  the 
brSckish  swamp  of  Lake  Menzaleh.    Pornierly  this 
district  was  to  a  great  extent  ciiltivated,  bemj, 
irrigated  and  drained  by   the    Pelusiac  branch  of 
the  Nile,  now  silted  up.     Pelusnim,  situate  at  the 
mouth  of  the  Nile  and  surrounded  by  swamps,  was 
nearly  20  miles  away,      riimlcrs  Petrie  excavated 
the  site  for  the  Egyp.  Expl.  Fund,  and  has  demon- 
strated  much  of  its  history.     One  mound  is  appar- 
ently  Ptolemaic  and  Roman,  showing  where  the 
Daphno  of  the  Rom.  itineraries  had  been.    Another 
mound,  still  apparently  bearing  a  name  connectmg 
it  with  the  Jews,  contained  remains  of  a  palace  or 
citadel  destroyed  by  tire,  which  stood  in  the  midst 
of  a  great  camp.     In  the  camp  and  fortress  were 
found  amongst  other  things  thousands  of  arrow- 
heads, of  small  weights,  and  many  fragments  of 
fine  Gr.  and  Egyp.  pottery ;  while  in  the  founda- 
tions of  the  central  building  were  plaques  inscribed 
with  the  name  of  the  builder,   Psammetichus  1. 
This  kinn',  the  founder  of  the  Saite  dynasty  (B.C. 
0R4)  is  recorded  by  Herodotus  (ii.  30)  to  have  estab- 
lished a  garrison  at  Daphne  as  one  of  three  chief 
frontier  posts,  and  the  Greek  objects  found  there 
show  that  Herodotus  was  referring  to  the  same 
place  when  he  mentions  (ii.  154)  that  Psammetichus 
established  a  camp  of  lonians  in  this  region      1  he 
number  and   variety  of   the  weights  allord  some 
indication   of   the   amount  of  trade   and  money- 
'      changing  that  must  have  gone  on  here.     It  is  very 
unfortunate   that  no  ihscriptions  of    importance 
could  be  found ;  a  great  tablet  of  bard  quartzite 
was  indeed  discovered,  but,  as  it  had  been  exposed 
for  centuries  to  mutilation,  few  signs  were  lett 
upon  it.     They  are  apparently  the  remains  of  a 
historical  inscription  of   Psammetichus  I.     There 
was  little  indication   of   Daphme   having   existed 
before  Psammetichus,  but  for  two  Mnturies  froin 
that  time  it  was  a  frontier   post  of   the    highest 
importance,  and  a  name  particularly  weU  known  to 


nations  li^-ing  on  the  E.  of  Egypt  A  colony  of 
fugitive  Jews  under  Johanan  estaWished  themselve. 
there  after  the  murder  of  Gedahah,  Jer  43'^-  44». 
The  fultilment  of  Jeremiah's  prophecy,  made  on 
this  spot,  that  Nebuch.  would  mvade  and  take 
E^^vnt  (438-"),  has  not  yet  been  ascertamed  trora 
the  monuments,  but  the  excavations  gave  evidence 
of  violent  destruction  and  conflagration.  Herodotus 
(u.  30)  says  that  in  his  time  the  Persians  kept 
up  the  ganison  there.     The  place  is  mentioned 

"^Hanes,  in  Is  30',  can  hardly  be  Daphnw,  for  th« 
latter  did  not  rise  to  importance  till  a  later  date. 

TAHPENES  (D-lEnn;  B  eeKenelpa,  A  eeseM'"",  J'.IC- 
eev6«dra).-Thenameofthequeenof'Phara(ihkins 

of  Egypt,'  who  gave  his  sister  in  maina-e  to  Hadad 
the  Edomite  before  the  death  of  David  (IK  1P»). 
Winckler  (AT  Untersuch.  1-6),  and  stil  more 
Che^fiEncvc.  Blbl.  s.v.  '  Hadad '),  consider  the 
past^e  L  full  of  corruptions,  the  chief  point  being 
that  Mizraim  (Egypt)  s^iould  be  corrected  back  to 
Musri  (in  North  Arabia).  If  we  accept  the  text  as 
it  stands,  Hadad's  marriage  was  not  so  grand  as  to 
be  improbable.  Bavid  was  contemporary  with  the 
weak  21st  dynasty,  which  appears  to  haje  'ad  no 
influence  abroad  ;  nor  is  it  prob.able  that  the  2lst 
dvnastv  kin<'S  reigning  at  Tanis  had  any  consider- 
atShor°ry  eveS  ovc?r  the  high  priests  at  Thebes. 
Tlie  name  'Tahpenes'  has  an  Egyptian  appearance, 
but  has  not  hitherto  been  found  o°  the  monu- 
ments. 1..LL.  GRUFITH. 


TAHREA  (!;inn).-A  grandson  of  MepMboshetb 
1  Ch  9"  IB  Gapdx,  A  eapd   Luc.  ^^P''")-      ^  «'   ".ime 
appears  (prob.  by  a  copyist's  ei-vor)  in  8»  as  Tarea 
(Jj4i3 ;  B  Qtpie,  A  eap^e,  LuC.  Gapaa). 

TAHTIM  HODSHI,  The  Land  of  (tiij  d'P'?,p  P?  ' 

•ASa^al;  terra  inferiora  Hodsi)-A  place  east  of 
Jordan  which  Joab  and  his  officers  visited  when 
maWng  the  census  for  David  (2  S  .24e).  It  is  nieu- 
tioned  between  Gilead  and  Dan-jaan.  The  Ml , 
however,  is  certainly  corrupt.  I"  all  probal  .1  ty 
we   should  read   nv-3   o'^-n    'to   the    land  o<^^ 

The  emendation  c-prn  is  due  to  Hitzig  (GVI  p.  -J), 
npn3  to  Thenius  (who  suggested  -v-p  or  n^np).  Loth 
emendations,  which  are  stnkmgly  confirined  by 
Luc  €ts  yv"  \(TTielix  KaSiJs,  are  accepted  by  WelUi., 
Driver,  Budde,  ct  al.  Another  emendation  of  'v■^n 
is  that  of  Ewald  (Hut  iii-  102),  who  ^^'O" ^  «f^ 
pnn  (Hermon).  This  is  supported  by  Buhl  (GAP 
60)  and  somewhat  favoured  by  Lohr  and  HP. 
Sn.'ith  (Sam.  ad  loc),  mainly  on  the  ground  that 
Ij:ade.h  on  the  Orontes  is  too  f^^y'^I^h  to  suit  the 
requirements  of  the  passage.        C.  %V .  W  ILSON. 

TAKE.-The  verb  'to  take'  is  one  of  a  short 
list  of  English  words  which  Earie  'can  offer  with 
„„st  cuntfdence  as  words  which  have  come  in 
through  Danish  agency '  (Philology,  %  59).  It  is 
at  an  V  rate  a  Scand.  word ;  and  f^o"J.  the  mean- 
in"  of  the  Gothic  Ukan  and  its  relation  to  Lat. 
tanqere  it  is  probable  that  its  earliest  ^^^"'"g 
is  to  '  touch  with  the  hand,'  as  in  ^I^T'^OW  ^"S'- 
ml  p.  31,  •  Uro  lord  .  .  .  spredde  his  hond,  and 
toklislepre;  .  .  .  and  al  so  rathe  he  was  i-wansd 
ofhis  mXd'i'e.'  From  this  would  easily  flow  •  lay 
hold  of,'  '  seize,'  '  receive,'  and  the  like  The  ex- 
amples   that   deserve   attention   in  AV   may    b« 

^'rfos:iIto:7:p7rson:  Sir23"  •TMsmanshaJl 
be  punished  in  the  streets  of  the  city,  and  where 
l,e  suspecteth  not  he  shall  be  taken  (t'"'*^'^";^  • 
Jn  7-  'Then  they  sought  to  take  him  ("d^i.),  but 
i  no  man  laid  hands  on  him.'     Of.  Mt  4"    Imrt. 


TAKE 


TALITHA  CUMI 


675 


•  Wlien  Jesufl  had  hearde  that  Jhon  was  taken,  he 
dcimrted  into  GalUe.' 

2.  To  come  upon  one  unexpectedly :  2  Mac  5^ 
'Taking  the  Jews  keeping  holiday,  he  commanded 
his  men  to  arm  themselves  ' ;  1  Co  3'"  '  He  taketh 
the  wise  in  their  own  craftiness.'  Cf.  Earle, 
Microcos.  'A  Constahle' — '  Hee  is  a  very  carefull 
man  in  his  Olliee,  hut  if  hee  stay  up  alter  Mid- 
night j'ou  shall  take  him  napjiing '  ;  bhaks.  As 
Yon  Like  It,  IV.  i.  175,  '  You  shall  never  take  her 
without  her  answer,  unless  you  take  her  without 
her  tongue.'  So  to  he  taken  (i.e.  'overtaken') 
with  niijht.  Sir  Se'-"  ;  with  evil,  Gn  19'^ ;  disease, 
2  Mac  9-',  Mt  4«  ;  fever,  Lk  4»«  ;  palsi/,  1  Mac  9"  ; 
pangs,  Mic  4';  one's  iniquities,  Pr  5-'^;  a  de- 
moniacal seizure,  Mk  9"  ;  fear,  Lk  8".  Cf.  Lk 
7"  Rhem.  '  And  feare  tooke  them  al,  and  they 
magnified  God';  Rutherford,  Letters,  61,  'Take 
you  no  fear.' 

3.  '  Take '  was  formerly  used  of  the  fascination 
of  some  good  or  had  inlluence,  which  was  often 
supposed  to  he  due  to  supernatural  powers.  Thus 
Palsgrave,  '  Taken,  as  chyldernes  lynimes  he  by 
the  layries,  faie '  ;  Cotgiave,  'fee,  taken,  be- 
witched ' ;  Markham,  Treatise  on  Morses,  '  A  horse 
that  is  bereft  of  his  feeling,  mooving,  or  styrring, 
is  said  to  be  taken  .  .  .  some  farriers  conster  the 
word  taken  to  be  striken  by  some  planet  or  evil 
spirit.'  So  Pr  6^  '  Lust  not  after  her  beauty  in 
thine  heart ;  neither  let  her  take  thee  with  her 
eyelids'  (^qjirVxi,  LXX  /i-qSi  dwapiraaB-gs)  ;  so  6"; 
Sir  9*  '  Use  not  much  the  company  of  a  woman 
that  is  a  singer,  lest  thou  be  taken  with  her 
attempts'  (^ijirore  aXfs ;  RV  'Lest  haply  thou  be 
caught'),  23'.  Cf.  Uunyan,  Holy  War,  17,  'They 
were  taken  with  the  forbidden  fruit';  Adams, 
//  Peter  46,  '  It  is  said  that  Judith's  pantofies 
ravished  Holofernes'  eyes  ;  her  sandals  took  him.' 

4.  The  following  phrases  demand  attention:  (1) 
Take  care,  in  tlie  sense  of  '  be  anxious '  (see  Care), 
To  S-*  '  Take  no  care,  my  sister,  he  shall  return  in 
safety '  (^li)  X/ryOf  tx() ;  1  Co  9»  '  Doth  God  take 
care  for  oxen  ?  '  {fir)  tuv  poCiv  /UXei  rf  Bnf  ;  RV  '  Is 
it  for  the  oxen  that  God  careth?'  Tind.  'Doth 
God  take  thought  for  oxen?'  —  See  Thought. 
(2)  Take  indignation,  Bel  ^  '  They  took  great 
indignation '  (rp^atiaKTTtt!o.v  XLav) ;  2  Mac  4"  (idelva- 
(of).  The  usual  plirase  is  '  to  have  indignation,' 
as  Mai  l\  Mt  26«.  (3)  Take  heart.  Bar  4*'  '  Take 
a  good  heart,  O  Jerusalem  '  (fldpuft).  (4)  Take  one's 
journey,  Dt  2*.  Cf.  Ex  40^  Tind.  '  When  tlie 
clowde  was  taken  up  from  of  the  habitacyon,  the 
children  of  Israel  toke  their  iomayes  as  oft  as 
they  iomayed.'  (5)  Take  order,  see  ORDER.  Cf. 
Ac  8'  Rheims,  '  Devout  men  tooke  order  for 
Stephens  funeral.'  (6)  Take  a  taste  of,  2  Mac  13" 
'  W  hen  the  king  had  taken  a  taste  of  the  man- 
liness of  the  Jews '  {el\i]<pus  yeviriy).  (7)  Take 
thought,  see  Thought.  (8)  Take  in  vain,  see 
Vain,  and  cf.  Erasmus,  Crede,  153,  '  This  thynge 
is  to  be  noted  and  marked  that  he  dyd  not  sayo, 
thou  shalte  not  name  god,  but  he  sayde,  thou  shalte 
not  take  the  name  of  god.  For  that  thynge  is 
taken  which  is  ajiiilyed  and  put  to  some  use,  and 
that  thynge  is  tulien  in  vayne  and  indiscreetly 
which  is  taken  to  a  prophane  and  a  vjle  use,  as 
when  a  man  swereth  by  god  in  a  matter  of  smal 
wayghte  or  valoure.' 

Notice,  linall}',  some  antiquated  uses  of  the 
phrase  to  take  up:  (1)  To  lift,  Is  40"  '  He  taketh 
up  the  isles  as  a  very  little  thing  ' ;  cf.  Ac  7"  '  Ye 
took  up  the  tabernacle  of  MolecTi'  (i.e.  to  carry  it 
about  with  you) ;  21"  '  We  took  up  our  carriages' 
(iiroaKevaadfi.ti'ot,  edd.  <iri<rit.,  KVm  '  made  ready'). 
(2)  To  translate  to  heaven,  2  K  2'  '  When  the  Lord 
Would  t;ike  up  Elijah  into  heaven  liy  a  whirl- 
wind,' 2'",  Ao  1'  '  Until  the  day  in  which  he  was 
Uken  up,'  !••  »• «".     (3)  To  utter,  nsed  of  a  par- 


able, as  Nu  23'  '  He  took  up  his  parable,  and 
said,'  so  24»-  '=■  ■-»•  -'■  ^,  Mic  *■,  Ilab  2« ;  also  of  a 
proverb.  Is  14* ;  a  word.  Am  5' ;  a  reproach,  Ps  15'  ; 
a  lainentation,  Jur  T'",  Ezk  19'  ;  a  weeping,  Jer  9'° ; 
and  a  wailing,  Jer  9".  Cf.  Ps  16*  '  Nor  take  up 
their  names  into  my  lips' ;  Ezk  36^  '  Ye  ai'e  taken 
up  in  the  lips  of  talkers.'  (4)  In  Neh  5*  the  mean- 
ing is  to  obtain  on  credit.  '  We  take  up  our  com 
for  tlieni,  that  we  may  eat  aud  live  '  (RV  '  let  us 
get  corn  '  ;  see  Ryle's  note).  Cf.  Jonson,  Every 
Man  out  of  hii  Humour,  i.  1,  •  I  will  take  up,  and 
bring  myself  in  credit,  sure.'  J.  Hastings. 

TALE. — The  Anglo-Sax.  talu  meant  a  '  number ' 
(cf.  Germ.  Zahl)  as  well  as  a  '  narrative,'  and  the 
\e:xhtellan  meant  to  '  count '  as  well  as  to  'narrate.' 
In  all  the  examples  but  one  of  '  tale '  in  AV  (apart 
from  the  Apocr.)  it  means  'number'  or  'sum.' 
Thus  Ex  5'  '  And  the  tule  of  the  bricks  which 
they  did  make  heretofore,  ye  shall  lay  upon 
them  ' ;  so  5\  1  S  18",  1  Ch  9^  In  Nu  l'«Tindale 
speaks  of  Benjamin  being  numbered  '  by  the  tale 
of  names,'  but  in  1*"  Zebulun  is  counted  '  after  the 
nurabre  of  names,'  aud  in  1**  Dan  is  numbered  '  in 
the  summe  of  names.' 

In  like  manner  '  tell '  occurs  frequently  in  the 
sense  of  '  count,'  as  Gn  15'  '  Tell  the  stars,  if  thou 
he  able  to  number  them  ' ;  2  Ch  2-  '  Solomon  told 
out  threescore  and  ten  thousand  men  to  bear 
burdens ' ;  Sir  18'  '  Who  shall  number  the  strength 
of  his  majesty,  and  who  shall  tell  out  all  liis 
mercies?'  Cf.  1  S  14"  Cov.  'Saul  sayde  unto  the 
people  that  was  with  him.  Tell  and  se  which  of  us 
is  gone  awaye.  And  whan  they  nombred,  be- 
holde,  Jonatlias  and  his  wapen  bearer  was  not 
there ' ;  Is  10'"  Cov.  '  The  trees  also  of  his  felde 
shalhe  of  soch  a  nombre,  that  a  childe  maye  tell 
them ' ;  Nu  1"  Cov.  '  All  that  were  able  to  warre, 
were  tolde  in  the  try  be  of  Juda' ;  cf.  also  Jer  33'^ 
1  K  8',  2  K  12'»,  Ps  22"  4S'=  56«  147*  (in  several  of 
which  'tell'  might  be  misunderstood  as  =' men- 
tion'), and  Milton,  L' Allegro,  67 — 

'  And  every  shepherd  tells  his  tale 
Under  the  hawthorn  in  the  dale.* 

In  1  S  27"  occurs  the  expression  '  tell  on,'  used, 
as  it  is  still  vulgarly,  in  the  sense  of  '  inform 
against.'  J.  HASTINGS. 

TALENT.— See  artt.  MONEY  and  Weights  and 
Measures. 

TALITHA  CUMI.— The  command  addressed  by 
our  Lord  to  the  daughter  of  Jairus  (ilk  5*'),  and 
interpreted  by  the  Evangelist,  '  Maiden,  I  say 
unto  thee,  arise.'  The  Aram,  words  Dip  kc'^?  (so 
Dalman,  Gram.  d.  Jiid.-Pal.  Aramdisch,  p.  118, 
II.  6  ;  p.  266,  n.  1)  have  been  variously  transliterated 
in  Greek  MSS  of  NT.  Tisch.,  with  NACLNII, 
reads  raXiSd  ;  WH,  with  B,  ToKeiBi.  (see  on  the 
siielling  We.stcott-Hort,  NT.  ii.  Append,  p.  155,  and 
WinerSclimiedel,  Gram.  pp.  43,  44).  D  lias  the 
extraordinary  variant  To/Sird  (found  in  dilierent 
forms  in  Old  Latin  texts,  e.g.  the  curious  reading 
of  e,  tabea  acultha  ;  cf.  Chase,  Syro-Latin  Text, 
p.  109ff. ).  Koufi  (rather  than  kovim)  has  the  best 
attestation.  This  is  borne  out  by  the  occurrence 
of  the  same  imperative  Dip  in  the  Talmud,  used 
in  Shabb.  IIOJ  'seven  times  in  one  page,'  where 
a  woman  is  addressed  (so  Edorsheim,  Life  and 
Times  of  Jesus,  i.  j).  631).  raXiOi  is  probably  the 
Aramaic  fern,  of  •'?¥,  found  in  Hebrew  only  in 
plur.  D'tt'}^.  The  relating  of  the  actual  (Aramaic) 
words  used  by  Jesus  is  characteristic  of  St.  Mark's 
Krai)hic  narrative;  cf.  7"- »*  14*"  15**.  It  is  need- 
less to  speak  of  'mysterious  Aramaic  words'  as 
Keim  does  (Jesus  of  Nazara,  iv.  n.  170)  on  the 
assumption  that  the  Gospels  clot  lie  our  Lord's 
words  of  command  given  in   miraculoas  healings 


676 


TALMAI 


TAMMUZ 


'  in  Aramaic  ...  as  if  they  were  marfcal  formulee  ' 
(iii.  p.  183).  The  Evangelist  simply  reports  the 
very  sounds  which  fell  from  Jesus'  lips  upon  the 
ears  of  the  chosen  disciples  on  a  specially  solemn 
and  memorable  occasion. 

H.  A.  A.  Kennedy. 

TALMAI  Vd)^). — 1.  A  clan,  possibly  of  Aramaic 
ori^jin,  resident  in  Hebron  at  the  time  of  the 
Hebrew  conquest  and  driven  thence  by  Caleb 
(Nu  IS--'  [BA  GeXaMei;-,  I.uc.  OaXa/ielyl  Jos  15'* 
[B  eoaX/ifi,  A  and  Luc.  OaX^oi],  Jg  1'"  [B  OoXiidv, 
A  Qaiiu,  Luc.  GoX/ifi]).  .See,  further,  art.  Ahiman, 
No.  1.  2.  Son  of  Ammiliur  (or  Ammihud),  king 
of  Geslmi,  and  a  contemporary  of  David  to  whom 
he  gave  his  daughter  Maacah  in  marriage.  He 
was  still  living  many  years  after  Maacah's  mar- 
riage, for  her  son  Absalom,  when  he  fled  from 
DaWd  after  the  death  of  Amnon,  found  refuge 
with  Talmai  at  Ge.shur  (2  S  3'  [B  Qoixi^d,  A  QoXiiel, 
Luc.  GoX/if]  13*'  [B  QoXixaiX-qix,  A  OoXo/xal,  Luc. 
eo\ixl\  1  Ch  3»  [B  Goo/iai,  A  eoX/Ml,  Luc.  GoXo^i]). 

G.  B.  Gray. 

TALMON  (p\o,  in  Neh  12»  ps^o).— The  name  of 
a  family  of  temple  gatekeepers,  1  Ch  9",  Ezr  ^, 
Neh  7"  11"  12^  (B  Ta^MiiM,  TeXMU",  TcXomu",  TeXa- 
tielv  ;  A  TfX/idi',  TeX^iiy,  ToX/iiiv ;  Luc.  'ZcKii.wv, 
except  in  1  Ch  9"  TeX^iii').    See,  also,  Telem. 

TAMAR  (ncB  '  palm-tree '). — 1.  (Qa^iip)  A  Canaan- 
ite  woman,  married  to  Er  and  then  to  his  brother 
Onan.  When  Judah,  deterred  by  the  death, 
successively,  of  two  sons,  hesitated  to  give  his  sur- 
viving son,  Shelah,  to  perform  the  duty  of  levir 
(see  Marriage,  vol.  iii.  p.  269"),  Tamar,  who  had 
assumed  the  disguise  of  a  kedeshah  in  order  to 
ettect  her  j)urpose,  became  by  her  father-in-law 
himself  the  mother  of  t^vin  sons,  Perez  and  Zerah 
(Gn  38  [J],  Ru  4"%  l  Ch  2<,  Mt  P).  2.  (Qvi^p, 
Qa/xdp)  The  beautiful  sister  of  Absalom,  who  was 
violated  and  brutally  insulted  by  her  half-brother, 
Amnon,  2S  13'.  This  conduct  led  to  the  murder 
of  the  latter  by  Absalom,  v.^*-  The  significance 
of  V."  ('speak  unto  the  king,  for  he  will  not  with- 
hold me  from  thee')  is  noticed  in  art.  Marriage, 
vol.  iii.  p.  267''.  3.  A  daughter  of  Absalom  (2  S 
14"  B  Omip,  A  Oapuip).  The  LXX  adds  that  she 
became  the  wife  of  Rehoboam.  She  would  thus 
be  identical  with  Maacah  of  1  K  15=,  2  Ch  11»»-. 
Indei  d  ]>ucian  reads  Maaxi  even  in  2.S  14-''.  This 
question,  however,  of  the  identity  of  Rehoboam's 
wife  is  involved  in  considerable  obscurity.  See 
the  Comm.  ad  loc.  J.  A.  Selbie. 

TAMAR  (1=1?  'palm-tree';  eoi/ioV  ;  Thamar).— 
1.  In  the  vi.sion  of  Ezekiel,  the  eastern  boundary 
of  the  land  which  the  twelve  tribes  were  to  inherit 
was  to  terminate  at  the  East,  or  Dead  Sea ;  and 
the  S.  boundary  was  to  be  '  from  Tamar  as  far  as 
the  waters  of  Meribothkadesh  to  the  wady  of 
Egj'pt '  (Ezk47'";  read  also  .t;".?  '  unto  Tamar,' for 
nro  '  ye  shall  measure  '  in  v.'*).  The  land  was  to 
be  divided  into  parallel  strips  extending  from  E. 
to  W.,  and  the  southern  strip  was  to  be  assigned 
to  Gad,  whose  S.  boundary  was  to  be  that  of  the 
twelve  tribes  (Ezk  48'-''').  A  com])arison  of  the 
boundaries  in  Ezk  47  with  those  given  in  Nu  34, 
shows  that  the  same  limits  are  intended,  and 
Tamar  must  therefore  be  looked  for  in  the  Wcinity 
of  the  ascent  of  Akrabbim  to  the  S.  of  the  Dead 
Sea  (cf.  the  boundary  of  Judah  in  Jos  15'"*). 
Tamar  cannot  be  '  Hazazon  -  tamar  which  is 
En"edi'  (2  Ch  20"),  for  this  place  is  near  the 
middle  of  the  W.  shore  of  the  Dead  Sea,  and 
is  mentioned  under  its  later  name  bj  Ezekiel 
(47'°).  It  may  possibly  be  the  As<isan  Thamar 
of  Eusebius  and  Jerome  (Onom.  S.'i.  3,  210.  86), 
which  they  identified  with  Thamara,  a  village 
with  a  fort  and  Roman  garrison,  which  was  a 


day's  journey  from  Hebron  on  the  road  to  Elath. 
This  place  appeare  as  Thamaro  in  the  Peutinger 
Tables,  on  the  road  from  Hebron  to  Petra  ;  and  as 
a  place  in  Judiea  in  Ptolemy  (V.  xvi.  8).  But  it 
has  not  yet  been  identified. 

2.  In  1  K  9'«  the  RV,  following  the  KUhlbh, 
reads  Tamar  (B  om.,  A  Gfp/xdff)  as  the  name  of  one 
of  the  places  which  Solomon  built,  whilst  AV, 
following  the  Jfiri,  reads  Tadmor  (cf.  2  Ch  8*). 
All  the  other  places  mentioned  in  tliis  passage, 
Gezer,  Beth-horon,  and  Baalath,  are  in  Southern 
Palestine,  and  the  expression  'Tamar  in  the 
wilderness,  in  the  land,'  seems  to  imply  that,  like 
Baalath,  it  was  either  in  the  Negeb,  or  in  the 
wilderness  of  Judah.  It  is  probably  the  same 
place  as  No.  1  above.  '  Tadmor '  of  the  KerS 
prob.  came  from  2  Ch  8'',  and  its  place  there  may 
have  been  due  to  a  characteristic  desire  on  the 
part  of  the  Chronicler  to  bring  Solomon  into  con- 
nexion with  the  historic  Palmyra  (see  Thenius  or 
Kittel,  ad  loc).  C.  W.  Wilson. 

TAMARISK  (Wn,  apoi-pa).— This  name  occurs  3 
times  in  OT  (RV  only  ;  see  Grove,  No.  2).  Abra- 
ham planted  a  tamarisk  tree  in  Beersheba,  Gn  21" 
(J) ;  Saul  sat  under  the  tamarisk  n?^?  1  S  22*  ;  Saul 
and  his  sons  were  buried  under  the  tamarisk  in 
Jabesh,  IS  31".  There  are  8  or  perhaps  9  species 
of  tamarisk  in  Palestine  and  Syria.  Of  these  the 
most  abundant  are  2'amarix  Syriaca,  Boiss.,  T. 
tetrandra.  Pall.,  T.  tctrarfijrui,  Ehr.,  and  T.  Pal- 
lasii,  Desv.,  all  of  which  are  found  along  the  coast. 
There  are  also  T.  Jordanis,  Boiss.,  T.  manni/era, 
Ehr.,  T.  articulata,  Vahl,  and  T.  macrocarpa, 
Bunge,  desert  species.  They  are  shrubs  or  small 
trees,  with  a  flattened  hemispherical  comus,  and 
brittle  branches  and  twigs,  with  minute  scale-like 
leaves,  white  or  pinkish,  perfect  or  dioecious  flowers, 
in  dense  spike-like  racemes.  Most  of  them  thrive, 
especially  in  sandy  soil,  or  exposures  where  they 
receive  the  sea  air  laden  ^rith  salt.  They  some- 
times attain  a  height  of  30  ft.,  and  would  easily, 
in  that  case,  serve  as  landmarks  (1  S  22*).  The 
tamarisk  in  Jabesh  may  have  marked  a  shrine. 

G.  E.  Post. 

TAMMUZ  (nsn,  ea/i/ioi5f,  Adonis).— In  the  6th 
year  of  Jehoiacliin's  captivity,  and  the  5th  day 
of  the  6th  month,  Ezekiel  saw  women  in  the  north 
gate  of  the  temple  'weeping  for  Tammuz'  (Ezk 
8'*).  Tammuz  was  a  Bab.  deity  wliose  worship 
had  been  imported  into  the  west  at  an  early  perioa. 
The  name  was  originally  the  Siunerian  Dumu-zi, 
'the  son  of  life,'  which  became  in  Semitic  Baby- 
lonian Duwu-zu  and  DHzu,  tliough  in  Babylonian 
con  tract- tablets  of  the  age  of  Abraham  we  al.so 
find  Tamuzu  (see  Bee.  de  trav.  rclat.  a,  la  phil.  et 
arch.  (gyp.  et  assyr.  t.  xvii.  p.  39  note).  The 
form  Ta'flz  given  by  en-Nedim,  an  Arab  writer  of 
the  10th  century,  contains  a  reminisAnce  of  the 
abbreviated  form,  like  the  Thoas  and  Theias  of 
Greek  mythology. 

Tammuz  was  originally  the  Sun-god,  the  son 
of  Ea  and  tlie  goddess  Sirdu,  and  the  bridegroom 
of  the  goddess  Istar.  He  seems  to  have  been 
primarily  a  god  of  Eridu,  the  culture-city  of  Baby- 
lonia on  the  Persian  Giilf.  His  home  was  under 
tlie  shade  of  the  tree  of  life  or  world-tree,  .vhicli 
grew  in  the  midst  of  the  garden  of  Eridu,  and  on 
either  side  of  which  flowed  the  rivers  Tigris  and 
Euphrates.  The  legendary  poems  of  Babylonia 
described  him  as  a  shepherd,  cut  off  in  the  beauty 
of  youth,  or  slain  by  the  boar's  tusk  of  winter 
(see  Maerob.  Saturn,  i.  21),  for  whom  the  goddess 
Istar  mourned  long  and  vainly.  She  even  de- 
scended into  Hades  (see  Babylonia,  vol.  i.  p.  221") 
in  the  ho]ie  of  restoring  him  to  life,  and  the  hjTnn 
which  described  her  descent  through  the  seven 
gates  of  the  infernal  world  was  recited  at  th« 


TAMiJrUZ 


TAPPUAH 


677 


annual  commemoration  of  tlie  (li.itli  of  the  god 
by  'the  walling'  men  and  wailiii;,'  wnmen.'  Tliis 
took  place  in  Babylonia  on  tliu  2iid  day  of  tlie 
4th  month,  wliicli  l)ore,  accordingly,  the  name  of 
Tammuz  (our  June),  the  day  being  called  a  day 
of  'weeping.'  Istar  was  believed  to  have  mourned 
her  lover  with  the  words,  '  O  my  brother,  the  only 
(son)  !'  and  to  these  the  mourners  furtlier  added, 
'  Ah  me,  ah  me  ! '  This  mourning  for  the  '  only 
son '  is  referred  to  in  Am  8'"  (cf.  Zee  12"),  and 
the  words  of  the  refrain  are  given  in  Jer  '22'". 
Under  the  form  of  arXii-ov  (ni-lcnil,  'woe  to  us') 
they  were  carried  from  Phoenicia  to  tireece,  and 
gave  rise  to  the  belief  in  the  mythical  Linos. 

In  Canaan  Tammuz  was  ad<lressed  as  Adonai, 
'my  lord,'  the  Greek  Adonis,  and  the  story  of 
Adonis  and  AphroditS,  the  Aslitoreth  or  Istiir  of 
the  Semites,  made  its  way  to  Cyprus,  ami  from 
thence  to  Greece.  But  Tammuz  liad  long  since 
changed  his  character.  He  had  ceased  to  be  the 
young  and  beautiful  Sun-god,  and  had  become  the 
representative  of  the  vegetation  of  spring,  growing 
by  the  side  of  the  canals  of  Babylonia,  but  parched 
and  destroyed  by  the  lierce  heats  of  the  summer. 
Hence  in  Babylonia  his  funeral  festival  came  to 
be  observed  in  the  month  of  June,  and  in  Palestine 
two  months  later. 

Gebal  was  the  chief  seat  of  the  Phoen.  observance 
of  the  festival.  In  the  red  marl  brouglit  down  in 
the  spring-time  by  the  river  Adonis  (now  Nn/ir 
Ihrahim),  the  women  of  Gebal  saw  the  blood  of 
the  slaughtered  god.  'Gardens  of  Adonis' were 
planted,  pots  tilled  with  earth  and  cut  herbs, 
which  soon  withered  away,  and  in  which  a  wooden 
figure  of  the  god  had  been  placed.  The  wailing 
women  tore  their  hair  and  lacerated  their  breasts 
during  the  seven  days  that  the  period  of  lamen- 
tation lasted.  In  the  time  of  the  2()th  Egyp. 
dynasty,  Adonis  of  (iebal  was  identilied  with 
C'liris,  and  the  festival  of  his  resurrection  was 
accordingly  commemorated  as  well  as  that  of  his 
death.  The  announcement  of  it  was  made  by  a 
head  of  papyrus  wliieli  came  over  the  waves  from 
Egj'pt,  while  the  Alu.xandrians  declared  that  it 
wa-s  at  Gebal  that  Isis  had  found  the  dismembered 
limbs  of  Osiris  (see  Lucian,  de  Dca  Si/r.  7).  How 
the  funeral  festival  was  celebrated  in  the  temple 
of  Aphroditfi  (Aslitoreth)  on  the  Lebanon  is  de- 
scribed by  Lucian  (de  Dca  Stir.  6).  In  an  ancient 
Bab.  hvmn  Tammuz  is  called  '  the  lord  of  Hades.' 

In  the  Nabativan  Anricultiire  of  Kutliflmt,  a 
Mendaite  writer  of  Chaldu'a  in  the  5tli  cent.  A.D., 
we  are  told  of  tlie  temjile  of  the  Sun  at  Babylon, 
in  which  the  images  of  the  gods  from  all  the 
countries  of  the  world  gathered  themselves 
together  to  weep  for  Tammuz,  and  Ibn  Wah- 
sliiyj'ali,  the  tnmsl.itor  of  the  work  into  Arabic, 
adds  that  he  had  'lit  upon  another  Nabatu'an 
book,  in  which  the  legend  of  Tammuz  was  nar- 
rated in  full  ;  liow  he  summoned  a  king  to  worship 
the  7  (|)lanets)  and  the  12  (signs  of  the  Zodiac), 
and  how  the  king  put  liim  to  de.itli,  and  how  he 
still  lived  after  being  killed,  so  that  he  had  to  put 
him  to  death  several  times  in  a  cruel  manner, 
Tammuz  coming  to  life  again  each  time,  until  at 
lost  he  died.'  Abfl  Sayyid  Wahb  ibn  Ibrahim 
(quoted  by  en-Nedim)  states  that  the  festival  of 
weeping  women  in  honour  of  '  Ta'uz '  was  on  the 
16th  of  Tammuz,  ami  that  Ta'uz  had  been  [lut  to 
death  by  having  his  bones  ground  in  a  mill.  The 
GriEco-Ph(jenician  version  of  the  legend  is  given 
by  Melito  in  his  Apology  (Cureton's  Spirileg. 
Sijririrum,  p.  25  of  Syr.  text):  'The  sons  of 
Pha-nicia  worsliipped  Balthi  (IJeltis),  the  queen 
of  Cyprus.  Kor  she  loved  Tamuzo,  the  son  of 
Kutliar,  the  king  of  the  Phoenicians,  and  she  for- 
sook her  kingdoTii  and  carao  to  dwell  in  Gebal,  a 
fortress  of  the  Phcenicians.    And  at  that  time  she 


made  all  the  villages  subject  to  Kuthar  the  king. 
For  before  Tamuzo  she  had  loved  Ares,  and  com- 
mitted adultery  with  him,  and  llephmstos  her 
husband  caught  her,  and  was  jealous  of  her.  And 
Ares  came  and  slew  Tamuzo  on  Lebanon  while  he 
was  hunting  the  wild  boars.  And  from  that  time 
Baltlii  remained  in  liebal,  and  died  in  the  city  of 
Aphaka  where  Tamuzo  was  buried.' 

Literature. — Sayce,  RH.  of  the  A  ncieiu  Babyloniang^  ch.  iv. ; 
Frazer,  Uolden  JJutujh,  i.  278  |2  u.  115ff.,  263 f.J ;  W.  K.  SmiUi, 
JVS  (Index  g.  'Adonis');  Jensen,  Eosmot.  der  Bab.,  passim; 
Movers,  PA#n.  i.  liH,  202(1.  ;  Jastrow,  AW.  of  Bab.  andAssur., 
IS'JS,  pp.  482,  564,  674,  etc. ;  Toy  in  PB,  '  Ezi^kiel,'  ad  loc. ;  and 
tJie  Comra.  on  EzeliUl,  esp.  those  of  A.  it.  D;iv  idson,  BerUloIet, 
and  Krattzsi^hniar ;  also  (Jheyne  on  Is  i/io  and  Driver  on  l)n 
11^*7  (where  Tammuz  is  very  prob.  alluded  to). 

A.  H.  Sayck. 
TANHUMETH(n;r;ri).— The  father  (?)  of  Seraiah, 
one  of  the  Heb.  captains  who  joined  Uedaliah  at 
Miz-pah.  He  is  called  in  2  K  2o-^the  Netophath- 
ITli,  but  in  Jer  40  [Gr.  47]"*  the  words  'and  the 
sons  of  Ephai'  come  between  'Tanhumeth'  and 
'the  Netopliathite'  both  in  MT  and  LXX.  The 
form  of  the  name  Tanhumeth  (LXX  in  2  K  25^ 
B  iiavifiaB,  A  Qavituii',  Luc.  Qapf^/iaB  ;  in  Jer  47' 
B  ticLf^naiS,  A  Qava^i^ed)  looks  like  a  feminine 
(cf.  Lagarde,  llild.  d.  Num.  126  f.). 

TANIS  (Tdws),  Jth  !'».— See  Zoan. 

TANNER  i^vpfftvs)  occurs  only  in  Ac  9"  10^ «"  of 
the  Simon  at  whose  house  St.  Peter  lodged  in 
Joppa ;  but  tanning  was  a  trade  that  the  Jews 
carried  on  in  OT  times  (Ex  25',  Lv  13*").  It  was, 
however,  regarded  with  aversion  (see  the  citations 
from  Talm.  in  I'arrar,  i>t.  Paid,  i.  264 n.),  as  it 
necessitated  more  or  less  of  ceremonial  unclean- 
ness,  esjiecially  if  the  skins  of  unclean  animals 
were  dealt  with.  The  fact  that  St.  Peter  did  not 
hesitate  to  lo<lge  in  the  hou.se  of  a  tanner  indicates 
that  he  had  already  become  .somewhat  liberal  in  his 
views  regarding  the  ceremonial  law.  Simon's  house 
was  by  the  seaside,  which  accords  with  the  custom 
to-day  in  towns  by  the  sea.  In  ancient  times 
tanneries  were  usually  without  the  walls  of  towns, 
beeau.se  of  the  unclean  character  of  the  trade,  and 
the  disagreeable  odours  caused  by  the  work. 

Tlie  process  of  preparing  skins  for  use  by  the 
Jews  may  be  inferred  from  what  is  kno^vn  of  it 
among  the  Egyptians  and  Arabs.  The  hair  of  the 
skins  was  removed  by  lime  or  the  acrid  juice  of  the 
Periploca  semmine,  a  desert  plant(\Vilkinson,^4jK;. 
E(ji/;i.  ii.  186,  ed.  1878) ;  the  skins  were  liist  treated 
with  Honr  and  salt  for  three  days,  and  cleansed 
from  fat  and  other  extraneous  matter.  The  stalks 
of  the  above  plant  were  pounded  and  jilaced  in 
water,  and  then  applied  to  the  inner  surface  of  the 
skin.  Tliis  caused  the  hair  to  loo.sen,  after  which 
the  skin  was  left  to  dry  for  two  or  three  days,  and 
then  subjected  to  the  further  processes  of  tanning. 
In  these  they  used  the  jiods  of  the  Sunt  or  Ar.iicia 
Nilotica,  which  is  common  in  the  desert,  or  the 
bark  or  leaves  of  certain  species  of  Sumac,  lihus 
Coriaria  or  Ii.  oxycanthoidcs,  the  former  of  which 
is  common  throughout  the  country  (see  Post's 
Flora  of  Syr.  and  I'al.). 

Though  the  trade  of  the  tanner  in  general  was 
disliked  by  the  Jews,  the  preparation  of  skins  for 
liarcliiuent  was  regarded  as  an  honourable  calling. 

H.  Porter. 

TAPHATH  (nsB;  B*  Tai3X,0«(,  A  Toward,  Luc. 
"Vafiaid). — Daughter  of  Solomon  and  wife  of  Bon- 
abinadab,  1  K  4". 

TAPPUAH  (rj?» ;  B  Gairoi'i,  A  Qattxpoi,  Luo.  ♦«#- 
poiJff).— A  '  son '  of  Hebron,  1  Ch  2". 

TAPPUAH  (O'se  'apple').— l.(BA  om.,  Luc.  Ba^- 
(fxiia)  A  town  in  the  Shephelah  mentioned  between 


678 


TAiULAH 


TARGUM 


En-gaunim  and  Enam,  and  in  the  same  group  with 
Zauoah,  Januuth,  Adullam,  and  Socoh  {Jos  ly). 
It  was  probably  to  the  N.  of  ^^^(ly  cs-Sunt,  but 
the  site  has  not  been  recovered.  Tristram  (Bible 
Places,  p.  48)  proposes  'Ariuf,  near  Zo'rali ;  G.  A. 
Smitli  (HGEL  202  n.)  places  it  in  Wady  el- 
'Afranj.  2.  (B  Ta^oi),  Qa(t>ie,  A  'E<t>(pou4,  Ga0/?iifl) 
A  town  on  the  border  of  Ephraim  (Jos  16'),  which 
lay  witliin  the  territoiy  of  Ephraim,  whilst  its 
lands  belonged  to  Manasscli  (Jos  17").  It  is  men- 
tioned in  connexion  with  the  brook  l>!anah  {Wddi/ 
I^dna),  and  is  probably  the  same  place  as  En- 
tappuah.  Tristram  (Bible  Places,  p.  195)  suggests 
'Ati'if,  on  the  N.  side  of  JViicli/  cl-Fei-rah.  See 
En-TAPPPAH.  3.  (U  'Aracpoirr,  A  eaip()>ov)  One  of 
the  towns  W.  of  Jordan  whose  kings  Joshua  smote 
(Jos  12").  It  is  mentioned  between  Bethel  and 
Hepher,  and  was  perhaps  the  same  place  as  No.  2 
above  ;  but  this  is  by  no  means  certain. 

C.  W.  WILSOK. 

TARALAH  (nf^K-je  ;  B  eapcijXd,  A  OapaXd  ;  Tha- 
rala). — A  town  of  Benjamin  mentioned  between 
Irpeel  and  Zelali  (Jos  18-'').  It  was  unknown  to 
Eusebius  and  Jerome  (Onom.  9cpa^d,  Tltxrama), 
and  its  site  has  not  yet  been  recovered. 

C.  W.  Wilson. 

TAREA.— See  Tahrea. 

TARES  (fifdna). — There  are  4  species  of  tares 
in  the  Holy  Land:  Lolium  pcrenne,  L.,  the  Ray 
Grass,  L.  multiflorum.  Gaud.,  L.  rigidum.  Gaud., 
and  L.  temulentum,  L.,  the  Bearded  Darnel.  The 
latter  is  the  most  common  in  the  grain  fields,  and, 
being  as  tall  as  the  wheat  and  barley,  is  doubtless 
the  plant  intended  in  the  parable  (Alt  13'^-^).  The 
other  species  are  lower,  and  have  more  slender 
spikes,  and  smaller  grains.  The  Gr.  and  Lat. 
ztzania  are  prob.  derived  from  the  Arab,  zii'dn  or 
zuwdn,  the  common  name  for  the  tare.  The  seeds 
are  poisonous  to  man  and  the  herbivorous  animals, 
producing  sleepiness,  vertigo,  nausea,  vomiting, 
diarrhoea,  and  convulsions,  and  sometimes  death. 
They  are,  however,  innocuous  to  poultry.  They 
are  sold  in  all  Oriental  grain  markets  as  food  for 
chickens.  It  is  customary  to  gatlier  out  of  the 
grain  fields,  not  only  tares,  but  all  the  taller  plants 
growing  among  the  grain,  which  can  be  easily 
pulled  up  without  causing  tlie  person  engaged  to 
bend  over  in  a  way  to  endanger  breaking  the  stalks 
of  grain.  This  not  only  cleans  the  fields  of  other 
plants,  but  furnishes  a  large  amount  of  forage  for 
cattle.  The  allusion  in  the  parable  is  in  substantial 
accord  with  modern  custom  in  the  East,  which  is 
to  leave  the  cleaning  of  the  fields  until  the  grain 
is  well  advanced  towards  the  harvest,  and  can  be 
readily  distinguished  from  all  other  plants.  Then 
the  women  and  children  go  into  tlie  fields  and  weed 
them  out,  so  that  an  Oriental  grain  farm  in  harvest- 
time  is  a  model  of  cleanness  and  beauty.  The  Tal- 
mud asserts  that  tares  are  degenerate  wheat ;  and 
Tristram  (with  Thomson  and  others)  says  that  the 
peasants  of  the  Holy  Land  believe  '  that  the  darnel 
and  the  wheat  spring  from  the  same  seed  .  .  .  and 
that  in  very  wet  seasons  the  wheat  itself  turns  to 
tares ;  the  fact  being  that,  in  such  seasons,  tlie 
wheat  perishes,  whUe  the  rain  is  favourable  to  the 
development  of  the  darnel '  (Nat.  Hixt.  487).  It  is 
clear,  however,  that  the  owner  of  the  field,  in  the 
parable,  had  no  such  idea,  as  he  attributes  the  re- 
sult to  the  sowing  of  the  seeds  of  tares  by  tlie  hand 
of  an  enemy.  The  bearing  of  this  parable  upon 
theories  of  tlie  Church  and  of  Church  government 
is  beyond  the  scope  of  the  present  article,  and  must 
be  studied  in  works  on  the  Parables. 

G.  E.  Post. 

TARGET.— l.=ft  mark  to  aim  at;  see  Mark 
(vol.  iii.  p.  244).  2.  =  a  shield;  see  BUCKLER  and 
Shield. 


TARGUM  (c'j-iB  *  'translation,'  'interpretation, 
cf.  cj-ir3  Ezr  4'j. — The  Targums  are  the  transla- 
tions or  paraphrases  of  the  OT  books  made  in  the 
Aram,  dialect,  wliich  superseded  Hebrew  as  a 
spoken  language  among  the  Jewish  population  of 
Palestine  and  Babylon.  The  language  of  the 
Targums  was  formerly  called  Chaldee,  but,  while 
the  incorrectness  of  this  is  universally  recognized, 
no  quite  satisfactory  designation  has  replaced  it. 
The  Targums  w  ere  composed  in  Palestine ;  their 
language  is  the  Aramaic  of  Juda-a,  a  later  repre- 
sentative of  the  Aramaic  already  found  in  Ezra 
and  Daniel,  t  In  the  features  that  chiefly  distin- 
guish Eastern  and  Western  Aramaic  it  agrees 
with  the  old  Pal.  forms  as  against  the  dialect  of 
the  Bab.  Talmud.  Those  Targums  that  were  offici- 
ally recognized  in  the  Bab.  schools  probably  owe 
something  to  the  infiuence  of  the  Aramaic  spoken 
by  those  who  edited  and  copied  them,  while  the 
influence  of  the  Hebrew  is  seen  in  those  transla- 
tions which  exhibit  least  tendency  to  free  com- 
position and  paraphrase.! 

Jewish  tradition  connects  the  origin  of  the 
Targums  with  the  need  for  an  intelligible  trans- 
lation felt  b\-  those  who  no  longer  spoke  or  easily 
understood  the  Heb.  language.  The  disuse  of  Ueb. 
as  the  vernacular  of  the  Jews,  before  the  en- 
croachments of  Aramaic  on  all  sides,  was  a  very 
gradual  process,  and  was  probably  not  general 
much  before  the  time  of  Christ.  Several  books 
or  parts  of  books  in  the  OT  canon  stand  as  proof 
that  Heb.  was  written  and  read  fully  three  cen- 
turies after  the  return  from  Babylon.  The  bilin- 
gual character  of  the  books  of  fezra  and  Daniel 
(liowever  it  is  to  be  explained)  presupposes  equal 
familiarity  with  both  languages.  Then  the  Semitic 
words  which  occur  in  the  NT  are,  with  few  excep- 
tions, Aramaic.  Probably  the  desire  to  pos-sesa 
explanations  of  the  Heb.  text  in  Aramaic  made 
itself  felt  in  some  places  earlier  than  in  others. 
The  first  translations  consisted  of  the  oral  explana- 
tions given  along  with  the  reailing  of  the  Sabbath 
lessons  in  the  sjTiagogue.  These  were  made  by 
a  class  or  guild  of  interpreters  called  mct/iorge- 
manim  (c':Dnirc),  appointed  for  the  i)urpose,  but 
in  no  sense  was  their  exposition  regarded  as 
official  or  'authorized.'  How  far  back  tlie  custom 
extended  we  cannot  be  certain.  The  Mishna 
(c.  200  A.D.)  contains  some  rules  made  to  regulate 
the  practice.§  Thus  the  reading  of  the  Law  was 
to  proceed  verse  by  verse,  first  in  Heb.  by  the 
reader,  and  then  its  Aram,  equivalent  by  the 
mcthorginidn.  In  the  reading  of  the  lesson  from 
the  Prophets  three  verses  at  a  time  might  be  read, 
to  be  followed  by  their  Aram,  rendering.  There 
is  no  mention  here  of  reading  out  of  written 
Targums,  and  elsewhere  ||  the  use  of  such  writ- 
ings was  forbidden,  at  least  for  the  Law,  in  the 
Sabbath  .service,  but  not  the  preparation  and  use 
of  them  by  individuals  for  private  studj'  or  .school 
instruction  (see,  further,  art.  Synagogue,  p.  641''). 
There  must  therefore  have  been  a  time  wlien  the 
caprice  of  the  mithorgiman  contributed  to  the  form 
of  the  translation,  and  in  fact  it  is  known  that 
certain  renderings  which  have  found  their  way 
into  the  Targums  were  not  approved. H  Nevertlie- 
less,  tlie  general  phraseology  of  the  oral  trans- 
lations would  tend  to  become  fixed  by  the  custom 
of  learning  them,  and  by  the  recurring  u.se  of 
them  in  public.  Thus  we  find  in  NT  times  trace3 
of  Aram,  renderings  of  Heb.  verses  in  books  like 

•  Etymology  unknown  ;  probably  non-Semitic, 
t  Noldeke,  00.il,  1872,  p.  8281. ;  Die  SemitUchen  Sprachtn 
1899,  p.  351. 

I  NoHeke,  LU.   Centralbl.   18T7,  p.   S04t.,  1884,  p.   1345  L 
Daltnan,  Grammatik,  p.  9,  ZMe  Wartt  Jau,  pp.  6«,  67. 

ft  Meg,  iv.  4. 

II  JeruB.  Mtg.  Iv.  1. 

S  See  passages  enumerated  in  Dalman,  QrvMnatdt,  p.  24. 


N 


TAKGUM 


TAKGUM 


679 


the  Psalms.*  The  agreement  of  these  vcith  read- 
ings still  found  in  Targunis,  which  we  know  were 
not  reduced  to  their  present  form  till  long  after, 
cannot  be  purely  accidental.  The  tradition  of 
the  conliscation  of  a  Targuni  on  Job  in  the  1st 
cent.  A.D.t  sliows  that  written  Targunis  existed 
then,  though  the  use  of  them  was  not  countenanced 
liy  the  authorities  and  guardians  of  the  sacred 
text.  Of  the  chanicter  of  these  earliest  attempts 
at  translating  the  lleb.  Scriptures  into  Aramaic 
we  know  notliing,  as  none  of  tiium  have  come  down 
to  us.  All  those  in  our  liands  are  the  products  of 
a  much  later  time,  none  perliaps  older  than  the 
4th  or  5th  cent.  A.D.  Like  much  else  in  Jewi-sb 
literature,  these  late  productions  were  based  upon 
older  exegetic  material,  the  origin  of  which  lies 
far  behind  our  lirst  means  of  access  to  it.  But  it 
is  no  longer  possible  for  us  to  separate  the  diti'erent 
strata  and  assign  them  to  dill'erent  ages  of  com- 
position. The  examinations  of  them  which  have 
betn  made  in  this  direction  do  not  yield  asuflicient 
number  of  cases  of  distinctly  older  contents  to 
enable  us  with  conlidence  to  assign  them  to  an 
early  date,  embedded  as  they  are  in  documents 
admittedly  late,  of  which  they  share  the  linguistic 
a.'xd  other  peculiarities. 

The  Targums  now  known  to  be  extant  are  as 
follows : — 

i.  For  the  Pent.,  three  Targums :  (1)  the  Targ.  of  Onlieloa, 
also  called  the  Bab.  Targ.  on  the  Pentateuch  ;  (2)  a  Tarj;.  ot 
certain  parts  of  the  Pent.,  called  the  Jems.  Tarp.  II.  or  the 
Fra^Tuentary  Targum  :  (3)  a  complete  Targ.  on  the  Pent,  akin 
to  No.  C^),  called  the  Targ.  of  Jonathan  [pseudo-Jonathan],  or 
Jerus.  Targ.  I, 

ii.  On  the  Prophets,  Earlier  and  Later  ;  the  Targ.  of  Jonathan 
bar  Uzziel,  also  called  the  Bab.  Targ.  on  the  Prophets. 

iii.  On  the  Hat^iographa  we  have  Targums  for  (1)  Psalms, 
Proverbs,  Job ;  (li)  the  Megilloth  (Cant.,  KuLh,  Lam.,  Ec-cles., 
Eat.) ;  (3)  Chronicles. 

No  Targums  have  been  found  for  Ezra,  Nebemiah,  Daniel. 

In  harmony  with  their  character  as  popular 
translations  of  religious  books,  intended  in  part  to 
meet  tlie  wants  of  the  religious  community,  tlie 
Targums  are  not  always  or  jjrimarily  literal  trans- 
lations. The  translations  are  often  mixed  up  with 
uuriuus  paraphrases  and  stories  such  as  we  meet 
Willi  in  the  other  Jewish  exegetical  or  homiletic 
works  (midrdshim).  They  contain,  besides,  expan- 
sions or  alterations  adapted  to  secure  that  the 
sense  of  Scripture  current  among  the  authorities 
should  lind  access  in  an  intelliijible  form  to  the 
niinils  of  the  people.  The  theology  of  the  early 
books  of  IsraePs  history  and  religion  took  no  pains 
to  obviate  the  appearance  of  a  very  distinct  an- 
thropomorphic character,  but  the  time  came  when 
the  main  feature  of  Jewish  criticism  and  exegesis 
was  the  anxiety  to  remove  or  soften  down  all 
references  to  God  that  could  thus  give  rise  to  mis- 
understanding in  the  popular  mind.  The  history 
of  the  lleb.  text  itself  bears  witness  to  this  scru- 
pulous feeling  for  the  Divine  majesty :  cf.  the 
tikkuni'  S(>phirim;  the  use  of  Ti3  =  jxj  or  '?Sp  when 
Used  directly  before  the  name  of  God  ;  punctuation 
like  niKiV  Is  1",  etc. ;  and  the  LXX  has  sometimes 
been  intluenced  by  the  same  solicitude  (cf.  Ex  24'"). 
Hut  the  clearest  expression  of  this  hernicneutic 
principle  is  to  be  found  in  the  Targums,  and  every 
wage  of  them  illustrates  the  practice.  In  fact  the 
oasis  for  antliropoinorphic  views  of  God  is  taken 
away  by  the  Jewish  notion  that  man  was  created, 
not  m  the  image  of  God  but  iu  the  image  of  tlie 
angels  (cf.  Gn  1*  Jerus.  Targ.).  It  will  be  sulh- 
cient  here  to  enumerate  the  more  usual  ways  by 
which  everything  wjus  avoided  that  could  lead  to 
erroneous  or  undi^-nilied  conceptions  of  God  in  His 
own  nature  or  in  llis  manner  of  revealing  Himself. 

When  Qod  is  spoken  of  ofl  coming  into  relation  with  man, 
walking,  speaking,  swearing,  repenting,  etc.,  some  periphrasis 

•  Mt  27«,  cf.  Ps  22a;  Eph  4",  cf.  P»  «»». 
t  Bab.  Shab.  116.  1. 


for  the  Divine  name  is  used,  by  which  literar)'  device  it  was  felt 
that  God  was  somewhat  removed  or  raised  above  the  plane  of 
human  alfairs,  and  that  His  action,  therefore,  was  less  direct 
and  more  fittingly  mediated.  There  is  some  evidence  that  Nim 
m.Ti,  'word  of  Jahweh,'  found  only  in  the  so-called  Jerus. 
Targg.  (cf.  Lv  11),  was  poetically  and  fantastically  personified, 
and  so  treated  as  a  mediating  factor  between  tiod  and  the  world.* 
In  much  the  same  way  the  "T  KTO'O,  as  God's  messenger  in 
nature  and  in  history,  unfailingly  operative  wherever  He  sends 
it,  is  the  most  usual  expres-sion  for  bridging  over  the  chasm 
between  God  and  man.  But  it  is  so  identified  with  Jehovah 
Himself  as  creator,  judge,  helper,  deliverer  of  His  jjeuple,  that, 
from  the  mediating  use  of  it,  it  has  become  but  another  name 
for  Him  {e.p.  Gn  181  36»,  Ex  312  68  j-jw.  Am  gs.  Is  42',  Ps  2-'  '2, 
Job  121).  How  completely  trO'O  has  lost  all  reference  to  ita 
own  meaning  \i  seen  esp.  from  such  a  phrase  as  ni.Ti  KiD'D  TD, 
Jos  2231.  t 

God  has  His  dwelling-place  in  the  central  division  of  the 
highest  heavens,  and  the  throne  of  His  glory  is  there.  This 
glory,  resting  upon  the  throne,  is  conceived  of  .as  ligiit,  and 
manifestations  of  God  become  manifestations  of  His  glory,  veiled 
doubtless  in  a  cloud  so  as  not  to  cause  blindness  (cf.  Gn  271 
Targ.  Jerus.).  This  '  glory  ot  God '  ("T  Kip-)  and  '  the  presence 
of  the  glory  of  God'  ("n  nip-  ny2-j)  are  further  expressions 
which  may  be  used  for  God  Himself  active  in  the  world :  Gn 
2»13,  Ex  »I  2020  344  (pseudo-Jon.),  1  K  221'J,  Is  Gl^,  Ps  912  17" ; 
similarly  -;sx  VI  Ps  132,  cf.  Ex  33"  (pseudo-Jon.)  ;  "n  Km'2a  VI 
Ps  423.  This  instance  is  indicative  of  the  tendency  in  later 
times  to  use  a  doul>le  expression  for  the  earlier  simple  one,  e.g. 
"1  N-lO'D  Dlty  Gn  Iflia  21J3  (Krag.),  "1  xnr^t?  ip-  Gn  221-'  4927 
(Frag.),  Job  14l8.t 

As  God  is  and  remains  infinitely  exalted  above  and  distant 
from  men.  His  actions  and  theirs  become,  equally,  events  that 
happen  in  His  presence  as  a  spectator.  Hence  the  preposition 
DTp  is  in  almost  exclusive  use  before  the  Divine  name  through- 
out the  Targums.  As  a  variant  for  it  we  sometimes  find  NCcS 
esp.  in  the  Jerus.  Targums  (cf.  Ex  22i»,  Lv  2312) ;  or  such  words 
as  NanSiD,  Nntrn  are  used  before  the  Divine  name  (Nu  14^*^, 
Dt  4'i).  Of  course,  unUke  KTD'D,  Kip",  NJ'JC,  these  cannot  be 
subjects  of  verbs. 

Another  way  of  removing  the  Divine  name  from  too  imme- 
diate a  relation  to  man  was  found  in  putting  a  verb  to  which  the 
name  was  subject  in  the  passive  voice  :  Gn  4416,  Ex  I'Jiy,  Nu  9**. 
In  this  way  yT,  .TNT  become  Dip  '>J  ;  l'DB'=Dip  VCl?  ;  IT, 
Nn,  T3y  =  'Sjni<. 

In  passages  where  eyes,  arms,  hands,  fingers,  face,  mouth, 
wings,  etc.,  are  attributed  to  God,  some  other  expression  (as 
'word,'  'might,'  'shekinah')  is  often  (not  always)  employed: 
Gn821,  Ex  7-1  »ii>  Ism,  Jos  42*  9",  Ps  3iii.  Expressions  in  the 
gen.  case  before  the  name  ot  God  are  paraphrased  :  Gn  2Sl'~  3113, 
Ex  420. 

The  sense  of  a  passage  is  even  altered  from  motives  of  rever- 
ence or  to  avoid  anthropomorphisms  :  tin  4i4  2013,  Ex  33^*,  Is  118 
Hi",  Ps  27.  Interrog.  sentences  are  rendered  by  the  words  that 
expressed  the  translator's  sense  of  what  the  answer  intended 
would  be  :  Gn  IS'-*,  Dt  3'". 

When  one  and  the  same  expression  has  for  object  both  God 
an<l  men,  the  difference  to  the  IraTishitor's  mind  is  obtained  by 
using  a  diiTerent  preposition  :  On  32'-^  60'20,  Ex  1431,  Nu2P.  The 
word  D'hVn,  when  used  of  heathen  deities,  is  usually  rendered 
Kiyo :  Jos  23''  lo,  Jg  21'2.  When  applied  to  men  it  is  rendered 
3T  (Ex  418  71),  K':-n  (Ex  210,  i„  Ps  821  \'i-1) ;  ct,  further.  On  3» 
I'DIDTS  =  D'.lVxD,  Ps  8"  N'SnScD  =  D'.TJNO. 

i.  TaHOUMS  on  THE  PENTATEUCH.— 1.  OnkcloS. 
— The  official  Targ.  on  the  Pent,  has  been  lianded 
down  under  the  name  of  the  Targ.  of  Onkolos. 
According  to  the  Bab.  Talmud,  Unkclos  wjis  a 
proselyte  who  lived  in  the  1st  cent,  a.d.,  but  only 
once  is  any  mention  made  of  him  as  the  \\Titer  of 
a  Tai'gum  ;§  and  here  the  corresponding  passage  in 
the  Jerus.  Talmud,||  which  makes  no  mention  of 
a  Targ.  of  Onkelos,  makes  it  clear  that  a  confusion 
with  the  Gr.  translator  Aquila  is  the  origin  of  the 
tradition  which  connects  Unl>eIos  with  the  Targ. 
called  by  his  name.  The  author  of  the  Targ. 
is  (|uile  unknown  ;  and  it  is  not  at  all  certain  that 
we  have  to  seek  for  it  a  sinj'le  author.  It  has 
certainly  a  uniformity  of  style  and  diction,  but 
this  may  equally  well  arise  Irora  official  revision. 
The  work,  or  parts  of  it,  may  have  been  first  com- 
piled during  the  2iid  or  3rd  cent.  A.D.  in  Judiea, 

•  Weber,  System  der  A  ltjt]/n(tgofjatiichen  Theotoffis,  p.  174  f. 
t  Notice  the  use  of  nO'D  Job  "8  19I8  (of  Job  himself). 
J  Cf.   GInsburgor,    /Ktf   AiithropoTnorphiiimen  in  tUn    Thar 
gumim,  p.  44. 
i  Bab.  Ueg.  iii.  1. 
I  Pal.  Jfiv.  L  Ml 


680 


TARGUM 


TARGUM 


but  it  never  seems  to  have  obtained  any  great 
iQirency  or  esteem  in  Palestine.  It  is  first  quoted 
by  the  name  of  Onl>elos  in  a  writing  of  Gaon  Sar 
Shalom  in  the  9th  cent.  A.D.*  In  the  Bab.  Talmud 
it  is  referred  to  as  'our  Targura'  (pn  Duin),  or  by 
the  formula  '  as  we  translate.'  t  The  name  '  Baby- 
lonian Targum '  does  not  therefore  refer  to  its  lin- 
guistic character,  as  was  formerly  supposed,  for 
its  language  is  the  Aramaic  of  Juda'a,  but  has 
been  given  to  it  because  in  the  4th  or  5th  cent., 
after  a  final  revision  in  Babylon,  the  centre  of 
literary  activity  among  the  Jews  at  that  time,  it 
was  sanctioned  or  recognized  as  an  'authorized' 
version.  It  came,  in  fact,  to  enjoy  the  reputation 
of  being  tlie  best  of  all  the  Targums,  and  a  special 
Massorah  was  prepared  for  it  as  for  the  original 
text  itself.  Even  after  the  original  purpose  of  the 
Targ.  had  been  left  behind,  when  Aramaic  had 
disappeared  before  the  rise  of  Islam  and  tlie  spread 
of  the  Arabic  language,  the  Targ.  of  Onkelos  con- 
tinued to  be  written,  and  printed,  as  an  accompani- 
ment of  the  Heb.  text,  verse  after  verse,  or  in 
parallel  columns.  The  custom  of  reading  it  in  the 
synagogue  has  gradually  died  out.  Yemen,  in 
South  Arabia,  is  now  the  only  exception  to  this. 

Speaking  generally,  the  translation  is  good,  and 
faithful  to  the  original.  The  text  from  which  it 
was  made  was  in  all  essentials  the  Massoretic  text, 
and  it  is  rendered  in  accordance  with  the  con- 
ceptions that  prevailed  in  the  Jewish  schools  of 
tlie  period.  Poetic  passages,  e.g.  Gn  49,  Dt  32. 
33,  are  not  rendered  so  accurately,  probably  on 
account  of  their  greater  ditticulty ;  paraphrase 
occasionally  takes  the  place  of  translation  ;  mid- 
rdshim,  both  halakhd  and  haggadd,  though  by 
no  means  in  the  same  degree  as  in  the  other 
Targg.  to  the  Pent.,  are  not  entirely  wanting. 
The  removal  of  anthropomorphic  or  anthropo- 
pathic  expressions  referring  to  God  is  efl'ected  by 
the  devices  mentioned  above  ;  but,  apart  from  this, 
the  characteristic  Jewish  theological  doctrines  find 
scarcely  any  illustration  in  this  Targum.  Figura- 
tive language,  as  a  rule,  is  not  translated  literally, 
but  is  explained:  e.g.  Gn  49-=,  Ex  15s- a- lo  29K 
For  an  instance  of  cabbalistic  interpretation  in 
Onkelos  cf.  Nu  12',  where  NnT£:[?  xnnx  is  the  Targ. 
for  n-i?2n  ncxn.  Gn  49'"  and  Nu  24"  are  '  Messiani- 
cally'  explained.  Geographical  names  are  some- 
times replaced  by  those  current  at  a  later  time ; 
cf.  Gn  1U'"37»,  L)t3". 

The  first  edition  of  this  Targum  was  published 
at  Bologna  in  148l'. 

2.  Fragmentary  Jerusalem  Targum. — This  Targ. 
contains  only  certain  parts  of  the  I'ent.,  estimated 
at  about  850  verses  in  all.  Three-fourths  of  it  are 
on  the  historical  sections  of  tlie  Pent.,  and  the 
remaining  fourtli  on  the  legislative  sections  in 
Exod.,  Lev.,  Numbers.  In  about  90  verses  the  trans- 
lation refers  only  to  some  single  word  of  the  text, 
and  in  about  14  chapters  there  is  no  translation  or 
annotation  at  all.  Where  longer  sections  of  it 
occur  it  is  often  extremely  paraplirastic,  the  text 
being  overlaid  with  midrashic  stories.  Its  lan- 
guage is  Palestinian  Aramaic,  but  of  a  degenerate 
type,  foreign  words  occurring  in  it  to  a  great 
extent.  It  has  afiinities  with  the  lanmiage  of 
Onlcelos,  the  Pal.  Talmud,  and  midr&shtm,  and 
also  with  the  vocabulary  of  the  Bab.  Talmud.t 

Its  fragmentary  condition  ha»  been  accounted  for  in  various 
ways.  (1)  Zunz  5  considered  it  a  collection  of  various  reading 
to  the  so-called  pseudo-Jonathan  Targum  on  the  Pentateuch. 
But  the  agreements  are  no  less  numerous  and  striking  than  the 
dilTerences,  and  cannot  be  reasonably  explained  by  the  assumed 

•  Dalman,  Graminatik,  p.  9. 

t  Kiddimkin.  49a ;  cf.  Zunz,  Oottt*dienatliche  Vortrage^,  p. 
69 ;  beutsoh,  Lit.  Remaint,  pp  S4S,  StjO ;  Friedmaim,  OnluUo4 
wid  A  kylas,  p.  6  n. 

t  Dalman.  Qmmmatik,  p.  24. 

}  I.e.  p.  74. 


ne^digence  of  the  compiler  of  the  variants.  (2)  It  has  been 
supposed*  to  be  a  collection  of  variants  and  corrections  to  th4 
Targ.  Onlj.,  more  suited  to  the  taste  of  the  compiler  and  his  a^« 
than  the  bald  and  literal  version  that  hud  gained  supremacy  m 
the  schools  of  Babylon.  (3)  Another  fomi  of  this  viewt  is  that 
the  Fragmentary  Targ.  contains  extracts  from  an  earlier  Jerus. 
Targ.  which  at  one  time  existed  complete. 

Its  present  form  is  not  due  to  chance  :  the  selec- 
tion of  passages  was  nia<le  to  be  interpolated  in 
the  Targ.  Onk.,  supplementing  or  correcting  it  at 
certain  points.  Such  an  interpolated  On^.,  with 
the  supplements  and  corrections  combined,  is  actu- 
ally found  for  the  Song  of  Moses  and  for  the 
Decalogue  in  old  Machzor  MSS,  and  has  been 
made  known  by  Hurwitz's  publication  of  the 
Machzor  Vitry.  J  That  tliere  was  an  earlier  com- 
plete Jerus.  Targ.  on  the  Pent,  has  been  inferred 
from  the  fact  that  in  various  Jewish  works  from 
the  11th  to  the  14th  cent,  there  have  been  counted 
over  300  quotations  from  a  Jerus.  Targ.  whicli 
are  not  to  be  found  in  the  Fragmentary  Targ.,  and 
nearly  300  which  do  not  occur  in  the  Targ.  of 
pseudo-Jonathan.  As  these  quotations  often  be- 
long to  several  verses  of  the  same  chapter,  and 
many  chapters  of  all  the  books  of  the  Pent,  are 
represented,  the  source  of  them  was  evidently  a 
continuous  and  complete  work.§  The  Fragment- 
ary Targ.  is  more  akin  to  this  source  than  the 
Targ.  of  pseudo-Jon.,  for,  in  passages  where  both 
the  Frag.  Targ.  and  pseudo-Jon.  exist,  over  100 
quotations  are  found  in  the  Frag.  Targ.,  while 
only  about  20  are  found  in  pseudo-Jon.  which  are 
wanting  in  the  Frag.  Targum.  ||  In  about  100 
passages  the  older  Jerus.  Targ.  shows  itself  de- 
pendent on  late  sources :  the  two  Talmuds,  Tan- 
chuma,  Rabba  Gen.,  and  Rabba  Leviticus.  It 
cannot  be  dated  earlier  than  the  second  half  of 
the  7th  cent.,  and  may  be  later.  The  Frag.  Targ. 
therefore  cannot  be  earlier  than  the  8tli  century  .IT 

First  edition  of  Frag.  Targ.,  Venice,  1517. 

3.  The  Jerusalem  Targ.  (so-called  pseudo-JonO' 
than).— The  complete  Palestinian  larg.  on  the 
Pent,  has,  since  the  14th.  cent.,  borne  the  name  of 
Jonathan  bar  Uzziel,  the  reputed  author  of  the 
Targ.  on  the  Prophets.  From  the  manifest  in- 
correctness of  this — ''  DiJin  intended  for  'dVit  DUin 
being  read  [niv  Dunn — the  name  pseudo-Jonathan 
has  gained  currency.  The  name  ^nib"  px  'n  is 
found  in  writers  of  the  11th  cent.,  and  'D^cn'  'n  ig 
only  tnother,  not  so  accurate,  variation  of  this. 
It  had  its  origin  in  Palestine,  and  its  language  is 
the  Pal.  dialect.  It  is  a  complete  Targ.  on  the 
Pent,  (onl}'  about  a  dozen  verses  are  wanting  **), 
of  the  same  general  character  as  the  Frag.  Targ., 
and  based  partly  upon  this  latter  (or  perhajis  upon 
its  source,  the  old  Jerus.  Targ.  mentioned  above) 
and  partly  upon  Onkelos.  Its  essential  cliaracter 
is  its  free  haggadistic  handling  of  tlie  text.  The 
Targumist's  purpose,  plainly,  was  to  make  the  trans- 
lation but  a  vehicle  tor  all  the  popular  stories  and 
comments  that  had  grown  up  around  the  Biblical 
characters  and  events.  Among  the  indications  of 
its  date  may  be  noted :  Ex  26*,  the  six  orders  of 
the  Mishna  are  referred  to ;  Gn  2P'  kp-.v  and 
ND'oi!,  a  wife  and  daughter  of  Mohammed,  are  men- 
tioned as  wives  of  Ishmael ;  Gn  49-'',  Dt  33;,  Edom 
and  Ishmael  are  spoken  of  as  world-powers  in  a  way 
possible  only  in  tlie  7  th  cent,  at  the  earliest.  Like 
the  other  Targums,  it  sets  aside  figurative  speech, 
and  eliminates  (though  not  with  the  same  re^'ularity 
as  Ontelos)  all  anthropomorphic  expressions  re- 

•  Seligsohn,  De  duatntt  Biemolymitanit  Pent.  Paraph.  1868. 

t  Bassfreund,  Das  Fraginfntentargum  twn  Pent.  1896,  p. 
16  f. 

t  Baasfreund,  I.e.  p.  86. 

i  See,  on  the  other  hand,  Dalman,  (trammaiik,  p.  26.  Ui 
does  not  find  any  proof  that  the  source  of  the  c  uotations  «  a»  • 
single  work  on  the  whole  Pentateuch. 

I  Bassfreund,  I.e.  p.  21.  H  Ibid.  p.  08. 

**  Dalman,  Aram.  DiaUktproben,f.  86. 


TARGUM 


TARGUM 


681 


ferrini,'  to  tlie  Deity.  The  lieroes  of  Israel  are 
idealized  and  their  faults  leniently  passed  by,  as 
in  the  Jewish  miUrashic  literature  in  general.  The 
angelology  and  demonology  of  the  earlier  period 
appear  in  a  much  more  developed  fomi  thp.n 
even  in  the  Frag.  Targ. ;  but  it  is  to  be  noted  that 
Bouie  of  the  relevant  [las-sages  do  not  occur  in  the 
latter,  which  ha-s  references  of  its  own  to  anfxels 
that  are  wanting  in  pseudo-Jonathan.  In  general, 
the  additions  of  the  Frag.  Targ.  are  found  in 
pseudo-Jon.  in  a  somewhat  more  condensed  forin,  all 
the  Scripture  quotations  being  regularly  omitted. 
Earlv  geograpliical  names  are  replaced  by  those 
current  in  a  later  age.  The  Targ.  is  a  mine  of 
information  on  most  of  the  religious  and  dogmatic 
concejitions  of  the  Judaism  of  the  Talmudic  age. 
Weber  (^c.)  gives  illustrations,  from  the  Tarjnims 
as  well  as  from  other  Midrashic  works,  of  the  later 
Jewish  doctrines  of  the  Being  of  God,  His  dwelling- 
place,  His  revelation  in  the  Torah,  Angels,  Creation, 
Sin,  Death,  the  Jlessianic  Kingdom,  the  resurrec- 
tion of  the  just  and  the  future  life,  Gehenna  and 
its  torments,  the  second  death  which  the  wicked 
die  in  the  world  to  come,  etc. 

First  edition  of  Jems.  Targ.,  Venice,  1591. 

Order  and  muttial  Relation  0/  the  Pent.    Tar'j urns.— The 
question  whether  the  I'>ag.  Targ.   was    not   a   collection    ot 
variants  and  parallels  to  peeudo-Jon.,  and  therefore  later,  has 
been   referred  to  above.      A  further  question  was  raised  by 
Gei^rer,'  when  he  clainied  to  prove  that  the  Jems.  Targj?.  are, 
in  respect  both  o(  a  ^Teat  part  of  their  contents  and  of  their 
general  manner  of  interpretation,  older  than  Onk.,  and  that 
Onk  wa«  manifestly  the  result  of  a  complete  revision  of  the 
Targ.  pseudo-Jon.  in  the  fourth  century.    Baohert  holds,  some- 
what similarly,  that  the  Targ.  Onlf.  is  an  abridged  and  revised 
ed.  of  a  Jerus.  Targ.  which  has  been  only  partially  preserved, 
viz.  in  the  Frag.  Targ.,  and   that    the  Targ.   pseudo-Jon.  is 
later  than  both  Onk.  and  the  Frag.  Targ.,  being  in  fact  a  com- 
bination of  them,  with  additional  midrdshim.  The  Targ.  pseudo- 
Jon,  would  thus  form  the  third  and  final  stage  in  the  develop- 
ment of  the  Pent.  Targums.     Both  the  Jerus.  Targunis  in  their 
present  shape  are  admittedly  much  later  than  the  Targ.  Onk., 
as  thev  contain  additions  made  to  them  through  successive 
generations  down  to  the  7th  or  8th  cent.    On  the  other  liaiid, 
all  the  Targg.  probably  contain  material  that  is  much  older 
than  the  date  of  their  final  compilation  and  redaction.     It  still 
remains  questionable  whether  actual  proof  has  been  furnished 
that  any  given  passage  is  really  ancient,  or  that  the  Targ.  Onk. 
has  been  made  up  from  an  older  Jerus.  Targ.  by  curtailment 
not  always  successfully  effected.    As  passages  for  which  a  verj- 
ancient  date  has  been  claimed  may  be  mentioned  :  On  151**,  Nu 
21^1,   the  rendering  ot  'yp  by  'KC^S,  the  contemporaries  and 
allies  of  the  Nabatieans  (cf.  in  Proph.  Targ.  Jg  I'l  4"  S");  Gn 
4:i-,  where  Kgyptian  animal-worslii}!  is  sjioken  of  as  though  it 
still   eiii8te<i;    Dt  33",  the  reference  in   which  to  Johannes 
II  vrcaims  could  (it  is  claimed)  come  onl^v  from  a  contemporary.  I 
Further,  the  absence  of  polemics  against  the  Christian  faith 
points  (it  is  thought)  to  an  early  pre-Christian  date  ;  but  unless 
we  are  prepared  to  show  that  all  the  Targg.  were  fixed  on._e  for 
all  at  the  earlv  date,  if  the  Jews  at  a  later  time  had  wished  to 
comliat  Christian  tenets,  the  opportunities  for  inserting  such 
were  not  wanting,  and  there  is  no  evidence  of  this.    As  regards 
the  alleged  dependence  of  Onkeloa  upon  an  earlier  version  of  the 
Jems.  Targums,  an  examination  of  the  (lassages  adtluced  by 
Geiger  and  Bacher  does  not  produce  the  conviction  that  the 
priority  is  on  the  side  of  the  Jerus.  Targums.    That  OnHelos 
received  some  revision  in  Palestine  or  Babylon  is  pr-bable  ;  but 
It  is  not  probable,  if  the  original  Jerus.  Targ.  were  to  any  great 
extent  similar  in  character  to  our  Frag.  Targ.,  that  a  translation 
like  Onl(.  could  be  reached  by  pruning  it  down.     The  resultant 
Targ.  Is  too  dissimilar  to  be  spoken  of  as  a  revision  of  such  a 
work.      Onifelos,    when   comi>ared  with  the  MT,   is  quite  as 
intelligible  as  any  literal  translation  ever  is ;  and  though  the 
flume  exegetic  traditions  or  princijiles,  drawn  from  the  general 
mental  atmusphere  in  which  the  comnilers  lived,  may  disclose 
tluMiiselves  here  or  there,  it  has  not  been  nia/Ie  out  that  the 
Targ.  unlj.  shows  on  the  face  of  it  any  phenomena  which  are 
only  reasonably  to  be  explained  by  the  use  of  the  Jerus.  Targuma. 
A  few  instances  may  lie  cited  where  the  reader  may  Judge 
whether  the  priority  is  necessarilv  on  the  side  of  the  Jerus, 
Targums  :  On  4"  4013  4922,  Ex  8'  124«-  *»  14l»  333- »,  Lv  26",  Nu 
12'^  244,  lit  32«  S4'.    The  decision  remains  with  an  examination 
of  such  passages,  rather  than  by  quoting  passages  on  the  other 
haiiil  which  presuppose  dependence  of  the  Jerus.  Targ  on  Onk., 
as  no  one  denies  that  the  Jerus.  Targg.  in  their  present  form  are 

later  than  On|(.  and  have  drawn  from  IL 


•  Urichn/t  u.  Uehertrlzunijen  der  BUiel,  p.  4f,5f.,  'Das  nach 
Onkelos  benannte  bah.  Thargum  '  in  his  ZticK.  1S71. 

\  y.DMll.  vol.  xxviii. 

t  Noldeke,  Die  alllest.  LUteralur,  pp.  2£e,  £69 ;  c(.  Dalman, 
Oram.  p.  23,  and  esp.  WorU  Jeeu,  p.  67. 


ii.  TARGUM  ON  THE  PUOPHETS. — The  official 
Targ.  on  the  Prophets  bears  the  name  of  Jona- 
than (bar  Uzziel),  a  disciple  of  Hillel  in  the  1st 
cent.  B.C.*  Elsewhere  in  the  Talmud,  passages 
are  quoted  from  it  under  the  name  of  K.  Joseph 
bar  Chija  (A.D.  270-333),  who  wa-s  president  of  tlia 
school  of  I'unibadita.  Its  origin  is  at  least  in 
part  to  be  sought  in  Palestine,  and  it  received  its 
linal  and  authoritative  form  in  Uabylon  in  the  5th 
cent.  A.D.  Its  language  largely  resembles  that  of 
Onkelos.  Whether  more  than  the  sections  which 
were  read  in  the  synagogue  services  were  included 
in  the  first  translation  of  the  Prophets  we  cannot 
say.  Alaking  allowance  for  the  dilierence  between 
the  historical  and  the  prophetic  books,  our  Targ. 
has  a  uniformity  of  style  and  character,  due  to  a 
careful  revision  which  aimed  at  producing  this. 
Gesenius  has  shown  that  iiarallel  passages  (2  K 
lSf.=Jer  36-39,  Is  2=-*=Mic  4'-3)  are  tr.  alike  in 
both  places  of  their  occurrence,  and  vary  only 
according  to  the  variation  of  the  originals,  and  that 
otlier  features  are  common  to  the  different  books 
(e.g.  p'nn  rendered  by  «□■  in  Jonah,  Jer.,  Ezekiel).t 
The  Targ.  on  the  Prophets  is  not  so  literal  as  the 
Targ.  of  Onk.,  yet  the  method  of  both  translations 
is  alike,  and  they  are  clearly  meant  to  be  com- 

{lanion  works.  From  certain  passages  which  both 
lave  verbally  in  common,  it  has  been  inferred, 
probably  correctly,  that  Jonathan  used  Onkelos : 
cf.  Jg  5»,  Dt  32",  1  S  12",  Nu  W\  2  K  14»,  Dt  ii-', 
Jer  4S"-"  Nu  21^'-.  J  The  Targ.  on  the  historical 
books  is  more  literal  than  that  on  the  Prophetce 
Posteriores,  but  poetical  or  dillieult  passages  are 
paraphrased  :  cf.  1  S  2'''",  which  is  exjilained  verse 
by  verse  with  references  to  Sennacherib,  Nebu- 
chadnezzar, the  Greeks,  Hasmonu'ans,  Mordecai, 
Esther,  etc.  ;  1  S  15'^  17',  2  S  14"  20'".  Of  the  pro- 
phetic books  we  have  generally  a  faithful  transla- 
tion, with  explanatory  additions.  F"or  examples  of 
paraphrase,  cf.  Is  28'"- '"  49'=  50" ;  for  instance?  of 
ImygOdd,  Is  12»  33-'-  G2'»,  Mic  6^  With  regard  to 
the  rendering  of  anthropomorphic  expressions, 
figurative  language,  and  the  like,  the  usual  rules 
of  Targumic  interpretation  are  observed:  e.g.  the 
whole  story  (Hos  1')  of  the  prophet  and  Gomer 
gives  place  to  a  series  of  denunciations  upon  the 
continued  sins  of  Israel,  with  promise  of  pardon 
on  repentance,  and  the  perplexing  features  of  the 
original  never  once  appear.  Geographical  names 
are  mostly  retained  as  in  the  Heb.,  but  are  some- 
times tr.  into  more  modern  forms:  ■\';yj/ =  h2Z ;  ]o:^  = 
[jnD  ;  k:d  pcN  [or,  more  proli.,  nj  alone]  =  n,-<m:DD'7K  ; 
Tp  =  'j'Tp;  nDnjin  =  K'DOiJ.  Tlie  inlluence  of  the  re- 
ligious or  dogmatic  ideas  of  the  author's  time  is 
more  noticeable  than  in  Onkelos.  Tlie  Targura 
in  this  respect  is  a  mean  between  Onk.  and  the 
Jerus.  Targum  on  the  Pentateuch. 

First  edition  of  this  Targum,  Leiria,  1494. 

Reference  has  been  made  already  to  the  quotations  which 
Jewish  writers  make  from  Jerus.  Targg.  on  the  Pent.,  and  which 
are  not  now  found  in  either  of  our  recensions  (the  Frag.  Targ. 
or  pseudo.Jon.)-  Similar  fragments  of  Targg.  on  the  Prophets 
have  been  printed  from  tile  Iteuchlin  Codex  in  Lagarrle's  ed.  of 
the  I*rvphet(v  Vhaldaice,  and  Bacher  hjuj  investigated  their 
character  in  ZDMO,  1874.  He  finds  that  the  variants  may  be 
divided  into  five  cliu^ses  which  come  from  as  many  sources,  and 
concludes  that  they  are  remains  of  Jerus.  Targg.  to  the  Pro- 
phets,  as  they  resemble  in  certain  features  of  language  and  style 
the  Jerus.  Targg.  to  the  Pentateuch.  Some  of  them  he  considers 
older  than  the  olllcial  Targ.  to  the  Prophets  (of.  his  view,  men. 
tioned  almvc,  of  the  relation  of  the  Frag.  Targ.  to  Onk.); 
others  he  considers  are  the  result  of  a  hagiiadiatic  enlargement 
of  earlier  texts  at  a  date  later  than  the  Bab.  Talmud  and  UiQ 
midrdshim  (cf.  his  view  of  the  Targ.  pseudo-Jon.  in  relation  to 
the  Fragmentary  Targ.  and  Onkelos). 

iii.  Targums  on  the  Haoiographa.— A  Targ. 
on  the  lik.  of  Job  is  mentioned  as  in  existence  in 
the  1st  cent.  A.D.,  but  it  is  certain  that  no  Taig  o) 

•  Ilab.  ileg.  8  a. 

f  ft.  Cnmm.  Mer  den  Jetaia,  I.  pp.  70, 71. 

I  Berliner,  Targ.  Onqelo;  p.  124. 


682 


TAKGUM 


TARGUM 


that  age  has  come  down  to  us.  None  of  the  Tar<;g. 
to  the  Hagioj,'.  which  we  possess  is  earlier  than  the 
close  of  the  Talniudic  period,  and  probably  all  of 
them  are  much  later.  The  tirst  mention  of  them 
is  in  the  11th  century.  Unlike  the  translations 
of  the  Law  and  the  Prophets,  the  Tar"g.  on  the 
Hajjiog.  are  entirely  the  work  of  indi\  iiTiial  trans- 
lators, modelled  upon  the  older  Targums.  They 
were  never  meant  for  public  use  in  synagogue  or 
school,  having,  in  fact,  been  composed  alter  the 
need  for  Aram,  translations  had  ceased.  They 
may  be  conveniently  divided :  1.  Psalms,  Job, 
(I'rov.).     2.  The  Megilloth.     3.  Chronicles. 

1.  It  is  possible  that  tlie  Targg.  on  the  Psalms 
and  Job  come  from  a  single  author  ;  at  anj'  rate 
they  exhibit  marks  of  similarity  in  their  general 
method  of  handling  the  Heb.  text,  and  they  have 
some  linguistic  and  other  features  in  common. 
Unlike  the  Jerus.  Targg.  on  the  Pent.,  they  aim 
at  givin"  a  jjretty  faithful  rendering  of  the  ori- 
ginal, llaggadk  additions  are  met  with  occasion- 
ally, but  they  are  concise,  and  can  easily  be 
separated  from  the  translation  proper,  ilar^jf 
verses  are  provide<l  with  double  translations,  the 
second  being  ascribed  to  a  different  Targ.  (N"n  = 
•\n»  Dijin).  In  such  cases  one  of  the  translations 
is  generally  haggadic,  while  the  other  is  more 
literal.  Between  forty  and  fifty  verses  in  Job 
have  such  alternative  translations,  but  there  are 
not  so  many  in  the  Psalms.  Half  a  dozen  verses 
in  Job  have  even  a  third  rendering.  The  age  of 
the  interpolator  has  been  given  as  the  8th  or  9th 
cent.,  but  tliere  is  really  no  reason  for  claiming  a 
higher  age  for  the  Targg.  themselves.  Their  lan- 
guage is  late  and  artificial ;  tliey  are  compositions 
in  what  is  no  longer  to  tlie  translators  a  living 
speech.  The  general  exegetic  devices  of  the  older 
Targg.  are  reproduced.  Anthropomorjjlusms  as  a 
rule,  and  all  figures  of  speech,  are  set  aside  ;  refer- 
ences to  the  history  of  Israel,  to  the  Law  and  its 
study,  are  frequently  introduced ;  passages  are 
applied  to  Edom,  Ishiiiael,  or  Gog ;  and  the  eschato- 
logical  ideas  of  the  synagogue  are  all  met  with. 
We  may  note  that  n^D  in  the  Psalms  is  rendered 
[•□-y'j  (cf.  Hab  S^-  »•  "). 

The  peculiar  dialect  in  which  the  Targ.  to  the 
Proverbs  appears  has  taken  up  so  many  features 
from  Syriac  that  it  can  only  be  regarded  as  an  in- 
congruous mixture  of  the  Aramaic  of  the  Targg. 
and  the  Syriac  of  the  Peshitta.  Linguistic  elements 
have  been  gathered  from  different  quarters  and 
placed  side  by  side,  without  any  regard  to  the 
unity  of  structure  which  must  exist  in  a  spoken 
or  written  language.*  Many  entire  verses,  esti- 
mated as  forming  a  third  of  the  whole  book,  are 
identical  with  the  Syriac  translation  ;  in  a  further 
large  number  tliere  are  close  resemblances  between 
the  two  versions,  all  the  more  striking  where  they 
agree  as  against  the  Heb.  ;  cf.  1'  4-"  5'  7'-"  '^  9" 
12'"  16*'  ^.  It  has  been  shown  t  that  the  peculiari- 
ties of  the  Targ.  are  due  to  the  use  of  the  Pesh. 
by  the  Targuniist.  The  view  that  the  Pesh.  has 
borrowed  from  the  Targ.  does  not  account  for  the 
Syriasms  which  the  latter  contains ;  the  analogy 
of  the  Jerus.  Talm.,  where  most  of  the  peculiari- 
ties of  the  Targ.  occur,  though  in  less  proportions, 
does  not  help  us  to  understand  why  just  in  such 
large  proportions  these  peculiarities  are  here  found 
together.  Apart  from  the  distinctly  Syriac  forms, 
the  language  and  style  of  the  Targ.  are  akin  to 
that  of  the  Targg.  on  the  Psalms  and  .lob,  and 
there  is  no  reason  for  assigning  it  an  earlier  date. 

*  Of.  the  preform.  Impf.  8  pen.  masc.  iniat  well  a<  in  * ;  emph. 
nati  cf  noun* 
etc. 


)rm.  Impl 
in  •.. ;  V 


(or  n*;  adverbs  in  n'K, ;  Vl  (=qi-!K), 

t  Dathe,  De  rati&ne  cniisensus  vfrsionis  chaldairce  et  gijriacfe 
i^rov.  Saloin.,  ed.  Rosenniuller,  1814;  cf.  Noldeke  in  Merx'B 
Archie,  1871,  p.  240;  MayUum,  ti.  p.  8& 


The  translation  is  literal,  and  additions  to  the  text 
are  extremely  rare.* 

2.  The  Targg.  on  the  Megilloth  are  distinguished 
among  the  Targg.  to  the  Uagiog.  by  their  extreme 
Ijaraplirastic  treatment  of  tlie  text.  In  parts  of 
them  we  can  still  liud  the  translation  embedded  in 
the  paraphrase,  but  in  other  parts  the  legendary 
and  hoimletic  sections  whicli  have  been  added  form 
the  main  feature  of  the  work.  These  are  made  up 
in  various  ways.  Historical  parallels  are  cited  for 
the  narratives  of  the  te.xt,  with  what  would  be 
anachronisms  if  the  Targ.  were  regarded  as  a  tr. 
of  an  ancient  writing ;  motives  and  reasons  are 
supplied  to  explain  the  occurrence  of  events  ;  proper 
names  are  etymologized  and  'explained';  wliilo 
hgurative  language  is  rendered  into  prose,  allegory 
takes  the  place  ol  narrative  ;  the  Sanliedrin  is  fre- 
quently mentioned,  and  the  study  of  tlje  Law  intro- 
duced on  every  possible  occasion ;  lengthy  gene- 
alogies are  appended  to  some  of  the  names  occurring 
in  the  text ;  general  statements  are  connected  witn 
the  names  of  particular  individuals,  esp.  the  patri- 
archs, Nimrod,  Pharaoh,  Nebuchadnezzar,  Titus 
and  Vespasian,  Alexander  (?  =  Antiochus),  Messiah 
the  king,  and  Elias  the  high  priest.  The  books  of 
Kuth  and  Lam.  are  less  paraphrastic  than  Eccles., 
Esth.,  or  Canticles.  One  text  of  the  Targ.  on 
Esther  (that  given  in  the  Antwerp  Polyglot)  Is, 
with  few  exceptions,  a  literal  translation.  Essenti- 
allj'  the  same  text,  with  many  haggadic  additions, 
is  printed  in  the  London  Polyglot,  and  this  forms 
the  usual  Targum  to  Esther.  The  so-called  second 
Targum  (Sheni)  is  much  more  voluminous  than  the 
last  named,  and  is  regarded  as  an  amalgam  from 
other  Targums  and  midrdxhim  which  from  time  to 
time  were  made  for  this  favourite  book.  It  is 
quoted  by  the  commentators  as  '  haggada '  and  as 
'  niidrash.'  More  than  half  the  work  has  nothing 
to  do  with  the  story  of  Esther,  but  contains  legends 
about  Solomon,  the  queen  of  Sheba,  etc.  The  Targ. 
on  Canticles  is  of  the  same  midrashic  class  :  on  the 
basis  of  certain  words  of  the  text  we  have  outlined 
for  us  the  varying  fortunes  of  the  Jewish  people 
from  the  days  of  Moses  down  to  the  Talmud.  We 
may  note  besides  in  this  Targ.  references  to  the 
two  Messiahs — Messiah  son  of  David,  and  Messiah 
son  of  Epliraiiu  (iv.  5,  vii.  3 ;  cf.  Jerus.  Targ.  on 
Ex  40"  ;  also  Jerus.  Targ.  on  Zee  12'"  in  Lagarde, 
p.  xlii). 

3.  No  Targ.  to  the  Books  of  Chronicles  was 
known  to  exist  until  after  the  great  Polyglot 
Bibles  had  been  published.  In  A)S0-83  a  some- 
what incomplete  Targ.  from  an  Erfurt  MS  was 
edited  with  tr.  and  notes  by  M.  F.  Beck ;  t  and 
in  1715  a  more  complete  form  of  the  text  from  a 
Cainb.  MS  was  edited  with  tr.  by  D.  Wilkins. 
There  are  numerous  variations  in  the  two  recen- 
sions. The  tr.  is  in  many  parts  fairly  literal,  but 
examples  of  mw/)«.v/uc  ainplilication  are  not  want- 
ing (cl.  ICh  l-'o- ■-!  4'»  7='  11"-^  12^-,  2Ch2«3'23"). 
The  author  made  use  of  the  Jerus.  Targg.  to  the 
Pent.  (cf.  Gn  lU-"  and  1  Ch  I'",  Gn  36^"  and  1  Ch 
I''*).  The  Targ.  on  the  Books  of  Samuel  and  ICings 
was  also  largely  used,  of  course  with  the  changes 
in  diction  and  orthography  which  characterize  the 
Jerus.  Targums.  1  Ch  IG  is  tr.  from  the  Heb.  text 
of  Chronicles,  and  the  variations  from  the  Targ. 
on  the  Psalms  are  quite  as  noticeable  as  the  agree- 
ments. Indications  of  the  age  of  tlie  Targ.  are  the 
translations  or  modern  forms  of  geographical  names. 
The  redaction  of  the  te.xt  represented  by  the  Erfurt 
MS  has  been  assigiieil  to  the  8th  cent.,  that  of  the 
Cainb.  text  to  the  Uth.J 

The  text  of  the  various  Targg.  has  been  banded 

•  Of.  PinltuBS  in  ZA  TW.  1894,  p.  109.     He  mention*  inlj  twc 

instances  ol  paraphrase,  24'-*  28'. 

t  Cf.  Lai^arde,  ila'iioijrapha  ChaUlaicr,  1873. 
i  Bobeuberg  und  Koliler  in  Geijfer's  ZUcJu  1870L 


TAEGUM 


TARSHISH 


G83 


down  and  edited  in  a  very  unsatisfactory  condition. 
Tlie  official  Targums  on  the  Pent,  and  Prophets  are 
relatively  the  best  preserved,  but  an  exandnation 
of  >ISS  and  the  printed  edd.  shows  that  a  critical 
ed.  was  never  attempted,  nor  were  the  materials 
for  it  forthcoming.  The  early  disuse  of  the  Targg. 
accounts  for  the  unskilful  and  arbitrary  treatment 
of  the  texts,  and  of  the  nou-olficial  Targg.  it  would 
be  correct  to  say  that  they  never  readied  a  fixed 
form  till  such  was  obtained  by  the  multiplication  of 
printed  copies.  The  voc;ilization  is  specially  faulty. 
The  South  Arabian  MSS,  with  the  simpler  supra- 
linear  system  of  vowel  points  first  brouglit  to 
Europe  in  1876,  provide  us  with  an  older  and  more 
trustworthy  recension  of  the  Targ.  on  the  Law  and 
Prophets  tlian  any  vet  in  our  hands.  MSS  on  the 
Pent.,  Prophets,  anil  Megillotli  are  now  to  be  found 
in  London,  St.  Petersburg,  and  Strassburg,  and 
selections  from  these  have  been  published.* 

Even  when  critically  edited,  the  Targums  are 
not  likely  to  be  of  much  use  for  the  criticism  of 
the  lleb.  text  of  the  OT.  That  text  was  fixed  as 
we  have  it  before  any  of  our  Targg.  were  com- 
piled, anil  it  is  but  seldom  that  they  throw  any 
reliable  light  where  it  is  needed.  For  a  reflexion 
of  the  spirit  of  Judaism,  on  the  other  hand,  as 
well  as  for  the  Jewish  interpretation  of  the  text  of 
their  sacied  books,  they  are  invaluable.  Not  that 
any  importance  would  now  be  attached  to  the  use 
formerly  made  of  them  by  Christian  controver- 
sialists. The  Jewish  Messianic  ideas  run  through- 
out all  their  Targg., t  but  it  is  now  clear  that  the 
correct  interpretation  of  particular  passages  was 
not  exclusively  to  be  found  either  on  the  Jewish 
or  on  the  Christian  aide  (cf.  Is  7'"-  52'»-^3"). 

LiTt:[iATURB. — Carpzov,  Critica  Sacra  Vet.  Test.,  Lips.  1748 ; 
Zuiiz,  Die  Gottesdiciistliclien  Vortrage  der  Juden,  Berl.  1832, 
2n(i  ed.  Frankfurt  a/ll.  1S92 ;  Geiger,  Crschrift  und  Ueber- 
§eUtingm  der  Bibcl,  Breelau,  1857 ;  Levy,  Chald.  WOrterb. 
uber  Jit  Targumim,  Leipzic,  1867-68;  Noldeke,  Die  alUest. 
Li'trratur,  1868,  Die  Hemilischen  Sprachen',  Ltipz.  1899, 
and  tev'iews  mentioned  below;  Maybaum,  Die  Anthropu- 
viorjthien  bei  Onqclos  und  den  spaUren  Targumitn^  1 870 ; 
Weber,  Syitem  der  attsun.  Pal.  Theot.  1880,  2nd  ed.  1897  ; 
Merx,  Bemerkunien  utter  die  Vocalisation  der  Targume^ 
Berlin,  1882,  CAre*(onut(Auirar3wmica,  Berl.  1SS8;  Oinsburger, 
Die  Anlhropomorphismen  in  aen  Thargumim,  Braunschweig, 
1891;  Buhl,  Kanon  und  Text  dcs  AT,  Leipz.  1891  [ISng.  tr.) ; 
bchwally,  Idiotit-'in  deg  ehrixtlu^h-palast.  Aramuisch^  Giessen, 
1893  ;  Dalmari,  'inun.  deijiid.-palast.  AramdiicU,  Leipz.  1894, 
Aram.  Dialekt^iroben,  Leipz.  1896,  Araviditch-Neuhebrdiicheg 
Wtirterbuch,  Frankfurt  a/.M.  1897-1901,  Die  Worte  Jeeu,  Leipz. 
1898 ;  The  Introductiont  to  the  OT,  by  Eichhom,  de  Wette, 
Kiehm,  Bleek-Wellhausen,  Konig,  Cornill,  Strack  ;  cf.  also 
Deutsch,  Literanj  iiemainn,  Lend.  1874=art.  'Targum'  in 
Smith's  DB;  Schiller-Szinessy,  art.  in  Eiicycl.  Brit.y ;  Volck, 
art.  in  Piili\  revised  by  Nestle  in  3rd  edition. 

On  the  Pent. Tar,;uniB:  Winery DeOnqelosoeiuequeParaphrasi 
Chald.,  Lips.  1S20;  Petennann,  De  duabue  Pent,  paraphrasi- 
bun  chaid.,  Berl.  1829 ;  Luzzatto,  Philoxenui,  sive  de  Onket. 
chald.  Pent,  vernifrne  Dinsertatio,  Vienna,  1830 ;  Frankel, 
'  Einiges  ru  den  Tarj^uniim'  in  Ztech.  /ur  die  Interejtjten  dee 
JutLnUwne,  1846,  Zii  dan  Targum  der  Propheten,  Breslau, 
1872 ;  Seligsohii  und  Traub,  *  Ueber  den  Geist  der  Ueberset- 
z-jng  des  Jonathan  zum  Pent.'  in  Frankel's  SIotiatHSchrift  G.  W. 
J.  18.^)7  ;  Seligsohn.  De  duabue  UieroKoL  Pent,  paraphrasibne, 
Bretijau,  186&  ;  Ktheridpe,  The  Targume  of  Onkeloa  and  Jon- 
athan ben  Uzzicl  on  the  Pent,  nith  the  Fraginentg  of  the 
Jerusalejn  Targum  :  from  the  Chaldee,  2  vols.  Lend.  1862-65  ; 
Geiger,  *  Das  nach  Onkelos  benannte  babylonische  Thargum 
zuni  Pent.'  in  his  JCdieche  Ztsch.  1871  ;  Bacher,  *  Ueber  daa 
gegenHeitigc  Verhaltnis  der  pent.  Thargumim  *  in  ZDilG,  1874  ; 
Berliner,  Die  MoMora  zum  Targum  Onkelos,  I>eipz.  1877  (cf. 
review  by  Noldeke,  Lit.  Centralbl.  1877),  Targum  Onkelos, 
Berl  1884  (cf.  review  by  Noldeke,  Lit.  Crntralhl.  1884,  by  de 
Logarde,  OGA,  1886);  Groneniann,  Die  Jonathnnjfche  Pent.. 
Uftiersetzung  in  ihrem  Verhultnitee  zur  lialacha,  Leipz. 
1870  ;  Singer,  Onkelot  und  dae  Verhaltnisi  teinen  Targumt  zur 
Ualacha,  Halle,  1881  ;  Kantzsch,  Miltheilnng  iiber  eine  alte 
Uandnctirijt  de*  Targum  Onkelos,  ilalle,  1893;  Bamstein,  The 
Targum  of  Onkelos  to  Genesis,  a  critical  enquiry  into  the  value 
of  the  text  ea/'ibiUd  by  Jemen  ilSS,  London,  1896;  Bass- 
freund.  Das  Froffmententargum  zum  Pent.,  Breslau,  1896; 
Friedmann,  Onkelos  und  Akylas,  Vienna,  1896;  Ijindauor,  Die 
Masorah  zum   Onkelos,  Amsterdam,  1890 ;    Ginsburgcr,  Das 

*  See  the  Literature,  mentioned  below,  under  the  oanies 
Uerx,  Kautcsch,  Pratorltls,  Dalman,  Barnsteln. 

f  Cf.  Huhn,  Die  MessianiscJien  Weissagungen  des  isretetitiseh- 
NducAm  Volkes,  1899,  p.  Ill  L 


Fragmentcntargum  (edited  from  5ISS),  Berl.  1899  ;  Diettrich, 
*  Beobachtun),'en  zu  drei  jemenitiscben  Uandschriften  des 
Onqelostargums *  in  ZATW,  1900. 

Targunu)  on  the  Propheu, :  Gesenius,  Coinmentar  iiber  den 
Jesaia,  Leipz.  1821,  Einl.  §  11;  Pauli,  The  Chaldee  Paraphrase 
on  the  Prophet  Isaiah,  Lond.  1871  ;  Frankel,  Zu  dem  Targum 
der  Prop/u-tm,  Bresl.  1872  (cf.  review  by  Nf.ldekc,  GGA,  1872) ; 
de  Lagarde,  Proplietae  Chaldaice,  Lips.  1872  (cf.  review  by 
Noldeke,  Lit.  Centralbl.  1S72) ;  Bacner,  '  Kritische  Unter- 
suchungen  zum  Propheten-Tliurgum'  in  ZDMG,  1874;  Pra* 
torius,  Daa  Targum  zu  Josua  in  jemeni^cher  Ueberlie/erung, 
Berl.  1899,  Das  Targum  zum  BuchederHichterinjmnen.  Ueberl. 
Berl.  1900. 

Targums  on  the  Hagiographa :  Ginsburg,  Translation  of 
Targum  on  Ecclesiostes  in  his  Coiiime7itary,  London,  1861; 
Rosenberg  und  Kohler,  '  Das  Targuui  zur  Chronik  '  m  Geiger'e 
Ztsch.  1870  ;  Maybaum,  '  Ueber  die  Sprache  des  Targum  zu  den 
Spriichen  und  dessen  Verhiiltniss  zum  Syrer"  iu  Mer.x,  Archiv, 
1871,  p.  66  f.  (cf.  Ndldeke'8  review,  p.  246  J.);  Bacher,  'Das 
Thargiim  zu  Hiob'  in  Monatxschrift  G.  ir,  J.  1871,  '  Das  Thar- 
gum zu  den  Psalmen,'  do.  1872  ;  de  La^rarde,  Ilagiugrajtha 
Chaldaice,  Lips.  1873 ;  Weiss,  De  Lihri  Jobi  Paraphrani  dial- 
daica,  Berl.  1873  ;  Reis,  '  Das  Thargum  Scheni  zu  dem  Buche 
Esther'  in  Munatsschrift  O.  W.  J.  1S76,  1881 ;  Munk,  Targum 
Scheni  zum  Buche  Etit/ier,  Berl.  1876;  Caasel,  Das  Bach  Esther, 
Berl.  1878  [gives  tr.  of  the  Targ.] ;  Baethgen,  '  Der  textkritische 
Wert  der  alten  Uebersetzungen  zu  den  Psalmen '  in  Jahrb.  Prot. 
Theot.  1882 ;  Gelbhaus,  Die  Targuinliteratur,  Ueft  1,  '  Das 
Targum  Sheni,'  Frankfurt  a/M.  1893 ;  Pinkuss,  '  Die  Syrische 
Uebersetzung  der  Proverbien'  in  ZA'l'W,  1894  ;  Levin,  'largum 
und  ilidrasfi  zum  Buche  Hiob,  Mainz,  1895  ;  David,  Das  Tar- 
gum Scheni,  Berlin,  1898.  T.  WALKER. 

TARPELITES  (k:^?^?,  plur.  emph.  ;  B  Topo^aX- 
Xafoi,  A  and  Luc.  TapipaMaiOi). — One  of  the  peoples 
settled  by  Assurbanipal  (?)  iu  the  cities  of  Samaria, 
Ezr  4'.  Their  identity  is  quite  uncertain.  Kawlin- 
son  suggested  the  Ttiplai  of  the  Inscriptions,  i.e. 
the  TifSapri^oi  on  the  coast  of  Poutus  ;  Hitzig  con- 
jectured Tripolis  in  N.  Phoenicia. 

TARSHISH  (c^TiB).  —  1.  See  following  article. 
2.  The  eponym  of  a  Benjamite  family,  1  Ch  7'" 
(B'l'a/icirffai,  A  and  Luc.  Ua/3<7e(i).  3.  One  of  the 
seven  jirinces  of  Persia  and  Media  who  'sat  first  in 
the  kingdom,'  and  had  the  right  of  access  to  the 
royal  presence,  Est  1"(LXX  om.).  See  Admatha. 
4.  The  name  of  a  precious  stone  (once  Ezk  10" 
B'-if^B  px,  elsewhere  simply  o'^'-ji?).  Ex  28''"'  39'*,  Ezk 
V  ICiiH's,  Ca  5'*,  Dn  1(J« ;  identified  by  AV  and 
IIV  witli  the  bori/l,  although  11  Vm  oilers  as  alter- 
native renderings  chcilcedony  or  topaz  or  .itone  uf 
Tarshish.  The  LXX  has  in  Exodus  and  Ezk  28'« 
(cf.  Jos.  Artt.  III.  vii.  5)  x/""''^'^'''"'.  in  ^'^  40' 
ivOpa^,  elsewhere  dapud%.  See,  further,  artt.  STONES 
(Precious),  p.  62u'',  and  Topaz,  p.  7'J7. 

J.  A.  Selbie. 

TARSHISH  (v-v-yn ;  LXX  eap<T(h  [on  other 
renderings  see  below]). — The  name  of  a  maritime 
country,  situated  far  to  the  W.  of  Palestine.  The 
biblical  passages  teach  us  the  following  facts  about 
this  much  discussed  name  : — 

In  Gn  10'=  1  Ch  1'  Tarshish  is  one  of  the  sons 
of  Javan,  under  wliich  latter  name  the  Orientals 
seem  to  have  comprised  almost  all  Western  mari- 
time nations.  In  Gn  10  we  find  the  order  :  Elishah 
(i.e.  Cyprus,  after  the  most  modiin  lesearches), 
Tarshish,  Kittim  (AV  Chittim,  which  was,  until 
recently,  usually  explained  as  the  Cyprians,  but 
they  belong,  with  all  probability,  to  nuicli  more 
westerly  tracts  of  the  Mediterranean ;  cf.  Winckler, 
Forscliungen,  ii.  442),  and  Uodaiiim  (or  Uodaiiim, 
a  very  obscure  name).  Tliis  arrangement  does  not 
allow  any  certain  conclusions. — In  Jon  P  the 
prophet  embarks  at  Jojipa  to  Ilee  to  Tarshisli 
(cf.  4^),  which  seems  to  represent  here  the  extreme 
ends  of  the  earth,  so  far  as  it  was  known  to  the 
Hebrews,  the  country  farthest  away  from  Jeho- 
vah's seat. — In  Is  60'"  it  represents,  togetlier  with 
Javan,  with  the  isles  afar  oil'  and  several  Asiatic 
(if  we  except  the  somewhat  doubtful  Pul  or  Put) 
countries,  the  most  remote  quarters  of  the  earth 
to  which  the  exiled  Jews  may  have  fled  ;  cf.  below 
on  60". — Somewhat  similnrly,  Ezk  38"  places  Sheba 
and  Dedan  and  the  merchants  of  Tarshish  parallel 


684 


TARSHISII 


TARSHISH 


with  (or,  better  probably,  in  contrast  to)  the 
mysterious  Gog  of  Magog.  It  is  impossible  to 
draw  any  inferences  about  the  situation  of 
Tarshish  from  this  parallelism  ;  certainly  vicinity 
to  the  Arabian  countries  Sheba  and  Dedan  is  not 
indicated  (cf.  Gn  10'). — Ps  72'°  quite  analogously 
places  the  kings  of  Tarsliish  and  of  the  isles  in 
contrast  to  the  kings  of  Slieba  and  Seba. — In  Is 23* 
the  prophet  sarcastically  advises  the  Tyrians  to 
flee  from  the  approaching  destruction  of  their 
city  to  Tarshish  and  tlie  isle  (read  evidently  the 
plural:  isles).  V.'"  works  this  out  more  fully: 
'  Overflow  (liVm)  thy  land  as  the  Nile,  O  daughter 
of  Tarshish  :  there  is  no  more  girdle  '  (AVm  ;  text 
'  strengtii '),  i.e.  that  country  will  be  overcrowded 
by  Phoenician  fugiti^es.  Evidently,  Tyrian  ships 
were  specially  familiar  with  the  journey  to 
Tarshish. 

The  remote  position  of  Tarshish  led  to  the  use 
of  the  expression  'Tarshish  ship'  for  a  certain 
class  of  specially  strong  and  large  ships,  destineil 
for  longer  voyages,  exactly  as  sailors  used  to  mean 
by  an  '  East  Indiaman  '  a  type  of  ship,  not  only  one 
sailing  to  or  from  India  (thus,  correctly,  alreadj' 
Gesenius,  Tliesaurus).  Ezk  27^°  (RV) '  the  ships  of 
Tarshish  were  thy  caravans  for  thy  merchandise,' 
need  not  necessarily  point  to  a  prevalence  of  naval 
trade  with  Tarshish.  Is  60'  '  the  isles  shall  wait 
for  me,  and  the  ships  of  Tarshish  first  to  bring  thy 
sons  from  far,'  might,  indeed,  also  be  understood 
literally  as  a  parallel  to  66".  The  curse  on  Tyre, 
however,  in  23',  beginning  '  Howl,  ye  ships  of 
Tarshish,'  means,  evidentlj-,  the  Tyrian  fleet,  or 
its  best  ships  ;  or,  at  any  rate,  not  ships  belonging 
to  the  inhabitants  of  Tarshish.  Ps  48'  '  with  the 
east  wind  thou  breakest  the  ships  of  Tarsliish,' 
intends  only  a  very  general  illustration  of  God's 
power  over  the  most  mighty  things.  Cf.,  analo- 
gously. Is  2"  '  (the  day  of  the  Lord  shall  be)  on  all 
ships  of  Tarshish.'  In  1  K  10^  '  the  king  (Solomon) 
had  at  sea  a  navy  (better :  a  ship)  of  Tarshish 
with  the  navy  of  rfiram,'  and  this  ship  was  sent  to 
bring  '  gold  and  silver,  ivory,  and  apes  and  pea- 
cocks';  evidently,  the  expeditions  to  Ophir  (v." 
and  O-"*)  are  meant.  Wherever  that  country  of 
Ophir  may  have  been,  it  is  clear  that  the  Tarshish 
ship  was  not  sailing  to  or  from  Tarshisli,  but  along 
the  E.  African  coast,  as  already  its  sailing  port 
Ezion-geber  shows.  The  Chronic  ler,  however,  no 
longer  understood  that  old  nautical  expression, 
and  interpreted  it,  literally,  of  an  expedition  sent 
to  Tarshish.  Thus  2  Ch  9*'  '  ships  that  went  to 
Tarshish  with  the  servants  of  Hurnm,'  etc.  (after 
1  K  lU"),  and  2u^*  '  Jehoshaphat  of  Judah  joined 
himself  with  Aliaziah,  king  of  Israel,  to  build 
ships  in  Ezion  -  geher  to  go  to  Tarshish.'  These 
sliijis  were  liroken  so  that  they  were  not  able  to  go 
to  '  Tarshish,'  while  the  original  text,  1  K  22''*, 
spoke  merely  of  '  ships  of  Tarshish  to  go  to  Ophir 
for  gold.'  These  [passages  might  be  understood 
(together  with  Ezk  38'^,  Ps  72'")  as  pointing  to  a 
region  of  Arabia,  Africa,  or  even  India,  assump- 
tions which  of  course  would  be  in  direct  conflict 
Willi  Gn  10,  etc.* 

The  products  of  Tarshish  are  mentioned  Ezk 
27'-';  Tarshish  traded  with  Tyre  with  a  '  multitude 
of  all  kinds  of  riches,  with  silver,  iron,  tin,  and 
lead.'  According  to  Jer  10'  '  silver  spread  (RV 
'beaten')  into  plates'  is  brought  from  Tarshish. 
Fin.ally,  the  precious  stone  called  tarshish  may 
be  noticed ;  but  this,  unfortunately,  cannot  be 
identilied.     See  preceding  article. 

The   tradition  of  the   ancii^nt  veraions  on   the 

•  To  avoid  this  confliet,  Bochart  assumed  two  Torehiah*— one 
in  the  W.  of  the  Mediterranean,  the  other  in  the  Indian  Ocean. 
This  desperate  effort  to  avoid  the  acknowledgment  of  a  small 
misunderstanding  by  the  Chronicler  is  now  universally  aban- 
doned. See,  further.  W.  B.  Smith,  OTJC^  140  ;  A.  R  Uavid- 
•oa,  Eiekiel,  p.  200  ;  Sayce,  UCil  130. 


situation  of  Tarshish  is  very  unsatisfactory.  First, 
the  passages  are  to  be  set  aside  where  it  was  felt, 
correctly,  that  Tarshish,  translated  literally  as  a 
geographical  name,  would  be  misunderstood,  i.e. 
the  passages  speaking  of  the  Tarshish  ships.  The 
Jewish  scliolars  translated,  or  rather  paraphrased 
there  freely,  but  not  inadequately,  '  sea  ships.' 
Thus  already  LXX  in  Is  2'"  (TrXofa  eaXdcrcrTjs).* 
The  Vulg.  extends  this  translation  to  less  suitahle 
passages ;  cf.  Is  23'-  •»  (Jilia  maris !)  60"  66" 
(gentes  in  mari),  Ezk  Ti''^,  1  K  10-^  (per  mare), 
2  K22^'^'>,  otherwhere,  mostly,  Tharsis.  Thus  also 
the  Targum  (nd"),  usually,  in  the  Prophets  (for 
exceptions  see  below).  This  was  followed  by 
Saadia  and  modem  versions  (e.g.  Luther).  Jerome 
(on  Is  2'")  was  told  by  his  Jewish  teachers  that 
I'/iarsis  was  the  proper  Hebrew  word  for  '  sea '  t  (in 
opposition  to  Aramaic  ?)  :  a  strange  artifice  ! 

Another  Jewish  tradition  appears  in  the  LXX  of 
Ezk  27'"  (also  Vulg.)  and  Is  23,  where  Tarshish  is 
rendered  '  Carthage '  or  '  Carthaginians ' ;  likewise 
Targ.  in  1  K  22™,  Jer  10'  '  Africa '  (i.e.  the  Roman 
province  of  Africa,  the  fonuer  territory  of  Carth- 
age). This  tradition  is  evidently  founded  on  the 
frequent  association  of  Tarshish  with  Tyre,  the 
apparent  mother-city  of  Carthage,  J  but  it  does 
not  suit  the  sense  of  the  other  passages. 

Josephus  (Ant.  I.  vi.  1)  read  the  name  ap- 
parently Tarshush,  and  explained  it  as  Tarsus  in 
Cilicia,  an  interpretation  which  formerly  seemed 
very  satisfactory.  Now,  however,  we  know  from 
coins  of  Tarsus  and  from  Assyrian  inscriptions 
(Delitzsch,  Paradies,  103,  etc.)  of  Shalmaneser 
that  the  old  Cilician  city  had  the  name  iin  'I'arzi, 
not  as  Josephus  presupposed. 

The  interpretation  most  widely  accepted  at 
present  was  proposed  by  Bochart,  Phaleg  (pre- 
ceded by  Eu.sebius  [Onom.  ed.  Lag.  166.  8,  cf.  183. 
17-18],  who  already  combined  Tarshish  and  the 
Iberes,  i.e.  Spaniards).  Bochart  found  the  Hebrew 
name  Tarshish  in  the  Greek  Tartessos,  explaining 
the  seeming  interchange  of  t  and  sh  by  the  analogy 
of  Aram,  th  for  Heb.  sh  (which  analogy,  unfor- 
tunately, does  not  apply  here,  where  no  Araniasans 
come  in  question).  The  remote  position  attributed 
both  to  'farshish  and  to  Spain,  the  W.  end  of  tiie 
world,  according  to  the  opinion  of  the  ancients, 
suits  well,  and  so  does  the  wealth  in  metals 
(especially  the  Spanish  silver  and  tin) ;  finally, 
some  connexion  of  the  Phoenicians  with  Spain 
seems  to  be  recognizable  before  the  Carthaginian 
conquest.  Tartessos  is  supposed  to  have  been  the 
name  of  a  city  (?),  extended  first  to  the  S.  of 
Spain,  then  to  the  whole  country.  The  name  of 
the  soutliern  coast,  Turdetania,  and  of  a  tribe, 
somewhat  farther  north,  the  Tiirdidi,  Turdali, 
seems  to  allow  a  comparison  (cf.  Straho,  below). 

A  very  vigorous  attack  upon  this  popular  theory 
has  been  made  by  P.  le  Page  Renouf  in  PSBA 
xvi.  (1894)  104.  He  urges  that  the  whole  theory 
rests  only  on  a  deceptive  similarity  of  sound,  that 
Bochart's  appeal  to  Aramaic  is  unsuitable  (see 
above),  that  we  have  no  proof  for  Phcenician 
settlements  in  Spain  (which  were  only  alleged  to 
have  existed  in  order  to  suit  Is  23*  etc.).  §  He 
even  claims  that  the  city  or  country  Tartessns 
seems  '  to  have  existed  only  in  the  realms  of 
imagination,  like  the  isle  of  Calypso  or  the  garden 
of  the  Hesperides.  Its  site  was  certainly  un- 
known at  the  time  of  Straho,  though  it  was  then 
identified    on    grounds    of    probability    with    the 

*  This  mipht,  however,  be  taken  from  a  Hexaplaric  80uro« 
(Symmachus  or  Theodotion  ?). 

t  '  llebnei  putant  lingua  propria  mare  Tarshish  appellarL 

i  More  correctly,  the  mother-city  was  Sidon. 

\  For  such  colonies,  indeed,  the  tradition  (Strabo,  p.  157, 
Arrian,  etc.)  is  very  recent.  It  Ifl  questionable  if  those  lat« 
writers  were  able  to  distia^isb  between  Oartha(;iuuia  and 
earlier  PbtiBoiciaD  coloDie& 


TARSUS 


TARSUS 


68& 


nei<;lil)oiirliood  of  the  B.^etis  or  Quadalquivir.* 
Late  writers,  like  Valerius  Maximus,  I'liny,  and 
Arriaii,  confounded  Tartessus  and  Cades.'  The 
metallic  treasures  of  Spain,  Kenouf  claims,  were 
developed  onlj'  by  Harailcar  Barcas  after  the  first 
I'nnic  war,  and  the  tin  in  the  bronze  of  earliest 
Greece  and  Babylonia  came  rather  from  Eastern 
mines  (?).t  Thus  the  necessity  for  going  to  Spain 
for  tin  is  removed.  Renouf's  {I.e.  p.  138)  idea  is 
that  Tarshish  has  a  Semitic  etymology,  'the 
broken '(??),  which  might  (!)  mean  'shore,  coast '(??), 
whence  the  translation  'sea'  in  the  versions (?).$ 
The  passages  connecting  it  with  Tyre  show  tlien, 
he  claims,  that  the  Phcenician  coast  itself  is 
meant.  This  theory  is  so  inconsistent  with  Ezk 
27,  etc.,  and  so  forced,  that  it  does  not  deserve  a 
detailed  refutation. 

W<inckler  (Forschuntjr.n,  i.  44.5)  modifies  the 
Tartessus  theory  of  Bochart,  by  referring  Tarshish 
to  Tap<n)io>',  a  place  mentioned  by  Polyb.  III.  xxiv.  1 
as  one  of  the  principal  cities  of  Carthaginian 
Spain. §  This  view,  however,  he  puts  forward 
with  great  reserve. 

Cheyne  (Or.  Lit.  ■  Zeitnng,  iii.  151;  cf.  the 
present  writer,  ib.  204)  expresses  the  opinion 
that  Tarshish  is  identical  with  Tiras  (lietter 
vocalized  probably  7'«r(i7).?)  of  Gn  10".  This  latter 
name  might  have  come  in  from  another  source 
or  as  a  gloss,  so  that  the  same  nation  would  Ije 
represented  in  two  dillercnt  forms.  Vocalizing 
Tursliu.ik  (cf.  Jo.seiihus),  we  should  obtain  the 
Tyrsenians,  Tyrrenians  or  Etruscans,  bold  sea- 
farers, and  well  known  as  pirates  already  to 
the  ancient  Egjptians  (c.  1200  B.C.),  by  whom 
they  were  called  Tursha.  Their  name  might 
stand  for  the  whole  of  Italy,  possibly  even  for  all 
European  coa-sts  west  of  Greece.  This  compariscm 
with  the  Tyrsenians  (jiroposed  already  by  Knobel) 
agrees  with  the  wealth  in  metals,  especially  with 
the  tin.  The  Etruscans  might  have  brought  this 
from  Spain,  although  a  more  probable  assumption 
would  be  that  they  obtained  it  eitlier  in  the  har- 
bours of  Southern  tiaul  (cf .  Diodonis,  v.  38,  on  the 
trading  of  English  tin  through  Gaul  to  Massilia) 
or  more  directly  in  Upper  Italy,  where  it  might 
have  been  brought  from  various  places  in  Central 
Europe. 

This  last  identification  seems  to  the  present 
writer  the  most  plausible.  Next  to  it,  the  identi- 
fication with  Spain  might  claim  most  relative 
probability.  Certainty  will  hanily  be  obtained 
with  our  present  means  of  knowledge. 

W.  Max  MiJLLER. 

TARSUS  (Top(r6s ;  on  coins  nn)  is  mentioned  in 
the  Bible  only  as  the  city  where  St.  Paul  was 
born,  of  which  he  was  a  citizen  (Ac  9"  2P'  22'), 
and  in  or  near  which  he  spent  a  number  of  years 
not  long  after  his  conversion  (Ac  O'""  ir-").  It  has 
been  nniversally  recognized  that  his  lurth  and 
his  early  education  in  this  city  were  important 
factors  in  preparing  the  Apostle  of  the  Gentiles  for 
his  career.     No  direct  evidence  is  accessible  as  to 

•  Cf.  Strabo  (148  ff.),  who,  indeed,  quotes  this  only  fta  a  hypo- 
Ihesix,  doea  not  know  with  certainty  what  the  ancit-nlH  nnvinl  by 
TarteHHus,  and  cannot  identify  an  alleged  city  Tarti-nsuB  (at  the 
nxjuth  of  the  Bajtis  or  at  Cartcia?).  The  old  name  Tarteyais  (I) 
of  Spain  seetnfl  to  him  to  survive  in  that  of  the  TouplaZku  (?)  and 
T«v?'rT«n«  (■;).  However,  Ic  Paj^c  Ilenouf  Keenis  to  overstate 
licre  tlie  shadowy  position  of  Tarshish.  Hcro<iotus  (e.g.  iv.  192) 
uses  it  clearly  for  Southern  Spain.  Eratosthenes  (in  Strabo, 
US)  taltes  it  more  narrowly  as  the  region  around  Calpe- 
Gibraltar. 

t  This  l)elief,  for  which  he  quotes  O.  Schrader,  Prfhigtorie 
Ant.  lit'i,  etc.  (where  the  Paropaniisiis  is  thought  of),  has  been 
refutes!  by  Winckler,  ForKchumjen,  i.  161  (cf.  the  present  writer 
in  Or.  Li't..Zeitunif,  ii.  29.'»,  on  the  Kgyptian  texts).  The  tin  of 
tho  ancient  East  come  from  the  West,  evidently  through  marl- 
lime  commerce. 

t  Sea  and  coatt  are,  however,  very  different  idea«. 

J  This  WW  mostly  confoimded  with  Tartessus,  whils.  In 
Polybius,  it  seems  to  have  been  another  name  of  Maatia.  The 
text  in  Polybius  is,  besides,  very  ol)scure. 


the  surroundings  of  St.  Paul's  early  years,  which 
makes  it  all  the  more  necessary  to  study  the 
general  character  of  the  city  and  the  society  in 
which  he  grew  up.  The  history  of  Tarsus  is  at 
the  same  time  the  history  of  Cilicia,  which  afibrds 
the  opportunity  of  somewhat  fuller  treatment  of 
that  subject  than  was  given  under  CILICIA. 

i.  Situation. — Tarsus,  the  chief  city  of  Cilicia 
in  ancient  times,  was  situated  in  a  rich  and  fertile 
plain,  only  slightly  elevated  above  sea-level,  less 
than  10  miles  from  the  seacoast  at  its  nearest 
point.  The  river  Cydnus  flowed  through  the 
middle  of  the  city,  and  entered  the  Rhegma,*  a 
sort  of  lake  t  some  distance  below  the  city  and 
close  to  the  sea.  This  lake  served  as  an  arsenal 
and  harbour  for  Tarsus ;  but  ancient  ships  could 
ascend  the  river  right  up  to  the  city  (as  Cleopatra 
did).  In  modem  times  the  lake  has  become  a 
large  marsh  X  on  the  west  side  of  the  river,  while 
the  bed  of  the  river  has  become  shallow  and  im- 
passable to  anything  larger  than  a  small  rowing- 
boat,  and  its  mouth  is  blocked  by  a  bar.  These 
changes  are  the  residt  of  the  ignorance,  careless- 
ness, and  incapacity  of  government  and  inhabit- 
ants, neglecting  the  engineering  operations  which 
must  have  been  ap]>lied  by  tlie  ancients  to  regu- 
late the  river-bed.  The  proximity  of  the  marshes 
has  made  Tarsus  more  unliealthy  than  it  was  in 
ancient  times,  though  from  its  low  situation  in  the 
plain  under  the  mountains  of  Taurus  it  can  never 
nave  had  an  invigorating  climate.  South-west 
of  Tarsus  towards  Soli  lay  the  strong  walled  city 
Anchialos,  which  must  have  been  between  Mersina 
and  the  Cydnus,  a  little  way  back  from  the  coast. § 
Mersina,  the  modern  port  of  Tarsus,  stands  on  or 
close  to  the  ancient  Ze)iliyiion,  a  small  town  near 
a  promontoi-y  of  the  same  name,  16  miles  W.S.W. 
from  the  great  city.  This  promontory  is  a  very 
little  way  west  of  Mersina.  Anchialos  is  described 
by  Ritter  as  the  [lort  of  Tarsus,  and  as  closely  con- 
nected with  it  (like  Piraeus  with  Athens),  so  that 
the  two  might  be  regarded  as  a  single  great  city, 
which  would  suggest  that  Anchialos  was  some- 
where near  the  west  side  of  the  lake.  But  Aulai  is 
said  to  have  been  the  name  of  the  port-town  on  the 
lake,  and  Ritter's  view  seems  a  misinterpretation 
of  Arrian,  Anab.  ii.  5.  II  The  statements  of  the 
ancients  as  to  the  mutual  relations  of  these  places 
are  confused. 

The  Cydnus  originally  flowed  through  the  heart 
of  Tarsus,  as  many  authorities  mention.  But, 
w  hen  a  flood  in  the  river  had  done  great  harm  in 
the  cily,  Justinian  (."i27-5()3)  cut  an  artificial 
channel  to  carry  part  of  the  water  round  the  east 
side  of  the  city.  It  would  ajipear  that  gradually 
the  branch  of  the  river  that  flowed  through  the 
citj'  grew  sm.aller  as  its  bed  became  choked,  and 
in  modern  limes  almost  the  whole  of  the  water 
passes  through  Justinian's  channel. II  In  1432  the 
i.Tuer  branch  is  described  as  a  tiny  stream  ;  and  in 
1473  the  eastern  branch  is  spoken  of  as  the  only 
one  (see  the  quotations  in  Ritter's  Klcinasicn,  ii. 
p.  184  f.).  The  falls  of  the  Cydnus  beside  the 
northern  entrance  to  the  city  are  still  very  pictur- 
esque, though  only  a  few  feet  high. 

Tarsus  possessed  almost  all  tho  qualifications 
required  for  a  great  commercial  city.  Not  merely 
dia  it  possess  a  safe  and  good  harbour  and  a  ridi 
territory,   it   was    also    placed    in    front   of    the 

•'Krfut,  Strabo,  p.  672. 

t  Xif*¥iiivit  Tc-ro;,  a]tpitretit1y  a  broadening  of  the  river  so  as  to 
look  like  a  lake,  Stralio,  p.  072. 

t  A  marsh  .SO  miles  id  circumtercnce  (Barker,  iMrtt  and 
Peniilet,  p.  137). 

5  .strabo,  p.  671. 

I  Hitter,  KleiiMKien,  ii.  202  ;  Steph.  Byi.  ».t>.  AiX«i. 

*|  Barker  says  that  a  canal  from  the  Cydnus  passes  through 
Tarsus,  and  formerly  flowed  into  the  marsh,  but  was  recently 
diverted  to  rejoin  the  river.    This  may  be  the  old  cVannel. 


t>86 


TARSUS 


TARSUS 


southern  end  of  the  great  trade  and  war  route 
across  Mount  Taurus,  Ihroujjh  the  Ciliciau  Gates, 
to  Cappadocia,  Lycaouia,  and  inner  Asia  Minor 
generally.  Such  a  situation  made  it  a  great  city 
from  time  immemorial. 

ii.  Tarsus  the  Oriental  City.— Its  foundation 
was  attributed  by  legend  to  Sardanapalus,  who 
was  said  to  have  built  Tarsus  and  Andiialos  in  one 
day,  and  whose  tomb  is  said  to  have  been  at  the 
latter  place.  A  more  Oriental  form  of  the  legend, 
as  reported  by  Eusebius  (Chron.  i.  p.  27*),  named 
Sennacherib,  king  of  Nineveh,  as  the  founder. 
When  Tarsus  became  a  Greek  city,  a  centre  of 
Greek  civilization  and  seat  of  a  university,  it 
could  not  be  satisfied  with  such  an  origin,  but 
invented  a  Greek  foundation.  Perseus  or  Herakles 
was  named  by  the  Tarsians  as  founder  of  the  city 
(see  Dion  Chrysostom's  Oratio  xxxiii.  ad  Tars.; 
Libanius,  Or.  xxviii.  620) ;  but  this  is  only  the 
Assyrian  legend  in  a  slightly  Grecized  form,  for 
Perseus  was  a  peculiarly  Oriental  and  Assyrian 
hero  (Herod,  vi.  54),  connected  with  the  mythology 
and  religion  of  many  places  in  the  eastern  parts  of 
Asia  Minor ;  and  Herakles  was  the  Tyrian  god, 
the  founder  of  colonies.  These  legends  contain  a 
memory  of  the  time  when  the  AssjTian  power 
extended  over  Syria  and  Cilieia,  and  Tarsus  was 
their  western  capital.  Tarsus  is  mentioned  on  the 
Black  Obelisk  of  Shalmaneser  among  the  towns 
which  he  captured  in  the  middle  of  the  9th  cent. 
B.C.  Athenodorus,  the  Tarsian,  said  that  the  city 
was  originally  called  Parthenia,  from  Parthenius, 
son  of  Cydnus,  and  grandson  of  Anchiale,  daughter 
of  Japetus :  here,  too,  fancy  is  giving  a  Greek  colour 
to  local  Asiatic  legend. 

Tarsus  continued  for  a  long  time  an  essentially 
Oriental  town.  Its  early  coinage  was  struck,  not 
by  a  municipal  government  like  that  of  a  Gretk 
city,  but  by  native  kings  or  Persian  satraps,  who 
used  Tarsus  as  their  capital.  It  is  true  that  at  an 
early  time  considerable  influence  was  exerted  on 
the  city  by  Greek  trade  and  civilization.  Thus 
Greek  letters  were  sometimes  engraved  on  the 
early  coins,  and  the  coinage  as  a  whole  was 
modelled  after  Greek  coins,  and  was  probably 
made  by  Greek  artisans  employed  by  the  rulers  of 
Tarsus.  Yet  even  in  the  Koman  period,  after 
Tarsus  had  for  centuries  been  transformed  (at 
least  externally)  into  a  Greek  city,  marked 
Oriental  characteristics  are  apparent.  A  deity 
standing  on  a  homed  lion,  thoroughly  non-Greek 
and  Asiatic  in  character,  probably  the  god  Sandon, 
often  appears  on  coins  under  the  empire ;  and  a 
monument  at  Anchialos,  inscribed  with  letters 
believed  to  be  Assyrian,  is  often  mentioned  t  by 
Greek  WTiters.  larsus  therefore  was  never  so 
thoroughly  Hellenized  as  to  lose  or  to  forget  its 
Asiatic  character  and  origin  ;  even  as  a  Greek 
city  it  was  far  from  being  wholly  Greek.  Its 
population,  doubtless,  was  very  mixed  (as  it  is  at 
the  present  day) ;  and  even  to  a  greater  degiee 
than  Syrian  Antioch  it  may  be  regarded  as  a 
meeting-place  of  Greeks  and  Orientals. 

In  the  Assyrian  and  afterwards  in  the  Persian  period  hardly 
anything  is  known  of  Tarsus.  When  the  central  government 
was  strong,  presumably  the  city  was  governed  by  Witraps. 
When  the  central  government  was  weak,  the  satraps  teinlfd  to 
become  more  and  more  independent,  and  even  a  dynasty  of 
native  kings  seems  to  have  held  Tarsus  during  part  of  the  5th 
and  4th  cents.  B.C. 

In  the  Anabasis  of  Xenophon,  Tarsus  is  described  about 
B.O.  400  as  a  great  and  wealttiy  city,  containing  the  palace  of 
Syennesis  the  Citician  king,  but  its  coinage  is  much  older. 
E^ectrum  coins  of  the  6th  cent,  have  been  assigned  to  it,  though 
not  with  great  probability.  The  kings  or  satraps  of  Cihcia 
struck  coins  at  Tarsus  throughout  the  &th  and  4th  cents.,  with 
legends  mostly  Aramaic,  but  partly  Greek,  frequently  with 

*  Ed.  Schoene  :  Eusebius  quotes  from  Alex.  Polyhistor. 

t  Athenaeus,  viii.  p.  335,  xii.  p.  629  f. ;  Strabo,  p.  072 ;  Cicero, 
Tusc.  v.  35 ;  Arrian,  Anab.  ii.  6 ;  Clearchus  Solenais  in  Fragm. 
Hist.  Grcec.  ii.  p.  305.  5. 


Baaltars,  the  Baal  or  2^us  of  Tarsus,  enthroned,  holding 
sceptre,  grapes,  and  corn.  Coins  of  Baaltars  were  struck 
during  the  last  efforts  ot  the  Persians  and  under  the  earlier 
Seleucid  kind's ;  but  they  appear  to  have  been  minted  al 
Babylon,  and  many  of  the  extant  specimens  have  come  from 
India. 

iii.  Tarsus  the  Greek  City.  —In  Seleucid  times 
autonomous  coins  were  first  struck  at  Tarsus, 
showing  its  transformation  from  an  Oriental  town 
into  a  Greek  polls,  a  highly  important  stage  in 
its  history.  This  municipal  and  strictlj'  Greek 
coinage  began  under  Antiochus  IV.  Epiphanea 
(B.C.  175-104),  when  the  city  was  styled  'Antioch 
beside  the  Cydnus,'  *  and  took  that  name  on  its 
coins.  The  growth  of  Tarsus  is  evidently  the 
result  of  a  change  in  the  Seleucid  rule  ;  it  is  con- 
nected with  their  frontier  policy,  and  shows  that 
increasing  attention  was  paid  to  Cilieia  by  that 
Syrian  king.  Before  190  Cilieia  had  been  a  district 
in  the  heart  of  the  Seleucid  empire ;  but,  at  the 
peace  of  189,  the  whole  of  Asia  Minor  up  to  the 
Taurus  mountains  was  taken  from  Antioclius  III., 
and  Cilieia  became  a  frontier  land.  It  was  neces- 
sary now  to  pay  more  attention  to  its  organization 
and  defences ;  and  the  refoundation  of  cities  like 
Tarsus- Antiocheia,  Epiphaneia,  Adana-Antioclieia, 
Magarsa-Antiocheia,  belongs  to  the  same  reign. t 
Mopsuestia,  guarding  the  important  crossing  of  the 
Pj-ramus,  was  refounded  as  Seleuceia  by  Seleucus 
III.  (187-175).  Almost  all  these  cities  (along  with 
Alexandria  ad  Jssum  and  Hieropolis-Castabala) 
began  to  coin  as  self-governing  municipalities  in 
the  reign  of  Antiochus  IV.J  It  is  therefore  highly 
probable  that  Cilieia  had  previously  been  treated 
more  like  a  subject  country  or  satrapy,§  and  that 
now  its  cities  began  to  be  allowed  greater  liberty 
and  to  be  more  thoroughly  Grecized  in  their  insti- 
tutions, when  it  was  important  to  make  them 
heartily  loyal.  The  incident  mentioned  in  2  Mao 
4*"  takes  us  into  the  midst  of  this  process,  and 
shows  that  about  171-169  is  the  probable  date  of 
this  important  transformation.  In  171  Antiochus 
gave  the  revenues  of  Tarsus  and  Mallus  to  his 
mistress  Antiochis.  This  provoked  riot  and  even 
insurrection ;  and  Antiochus  had  to  go  in  person 
to  quell  the  disturbances.  Apparently  he  suc- 
ceeded in  this  peaceably,  by  granting  freer  consti- 
tutions to  the  cities  and  reorganizing  the  country 
generally.  The  year  170  B.C.,  therefore,  marks 
an  epoch  in  the  history  of  Tarsus,  for  it  was  now 
refounded  as  a  Greek  polis,  and  called  by  a  new 
name,  '  Antiocheia  on  tne  Cydnus.' 

There  is  no  reason  to  think  II  that  the  change  of  name  was  a 
mere  act  of  adulation  to  the  reigning  king,  implying  no  real 
development  in  the  city  constitution.  It  is  true  that  the  name 
Antiocn  soon  fell  into  disuse,  and  the  name  Tarsus  revived ; 
but  this  was  due  partly  to  the  fact  that  the  town  was  not 
thoroughly  Grecized,  partly  to  the  fact  that  the  name  Antioch 
was  already  too  common,  and  the  three  new  Antiochs  would 
hardly  establish  a  right  to  exist  beside  the  many  older  Antiochs, 
Rather  we  must  look  on  the  refoundation  of  Tarsus  aa  a  critical 
epoch  in  its  history. 

The  refoundation  was  certainly  accompanied  by 
an  increase  of  population,  for  the  regular  Seleucid 
policy  in  such  cases  was  to  introduce  a  body  of 
settlers  whose  loyalty  might  be  reckoned  on,  and 
to  give  them  special  privileges  in  the  city.  The 
colonists  whom  the  Seleucid  kin^s  most  commonly 
planted  in  tlie  cities  of  Asia  Minor  were  Jews ;  * 
and  therefore  it  is  highly  probable  that  a  Jewish 
colony  was  established  at  Tarsus  about  B.C. 
170. 

•Steph.   Byi.  and  le  Bas-Waddington,  Irucr.  d'Atu  Min. 

No.  14b8. 

t  Compare  Magarsos  (see  Mallos). 

t  Hill,  Catalogue  (if  British  Museum  Coins,  Cilieia,  etc  pp. 
xcviii,  ci,  ex,  etc. 

}  The  name  sattapy  was  used  in  the  Seleucid  empire  •  w* 
Bauisay,  Cities  and  Bishoprics  oj  Phrygia,  L  p.  267. 

I  As  Waddington  (f.c.)  wrongly  thinks. 

\  See  PuETOiA,  vol  iii.  p.  86S. 


TAESUS 


TAK&US 


687 


iv.  Tarsus  the  Roman  Citv.— From  thedeeav- 
ing  Seleiioiil  empire  Tarsus  passed  into  the  liantls 
of  the  Romans.  From  R.C.  103  onwards  llie  name 
Cilicia  became  'the  Roman  term  for  a  great,  ill- 
delined,  half-subdued  agglomeration  of  lands,  cora- 

firisin"  parts  of  Cilicia,  Pampliylia,  and  other 
auJs  (Kanisay,  Histor.  Comm.  on  Galatinns,  p. 
103).  In  66  Cilicia  Campestris  was  decisively 
conquered  by  I'onipey,  after  having  been  under 
the  power  of  king  Tigranes  more  or  less  since  83  ; 
and  in  64  it  was  properly  organized  (see  Cilicia) 
as  a  province  with  Tarsus  for  its  capiUil,  tliough 
considerable  parts  of  the  country  were  left  for  a 
long  time  uniler  native  kin"s— Tarcoudimotos  I. 
and  11.  and  Antiochus  being  tlie  most  famous. 

Tarsus,  while  exposed  to  tlie  oppression  gener- 
ally exercised  on  subject  cities  by  the  Roman 
republican  officials,  was  favourably  treated  by 
Julius  Ca?sar,  Antonius,  and  Augustus.  Ca;sar 
pas-sed  tlirough  the  city  on  his  march  from  Egypt 
to  Pontus ;  and  the  strong  partisansliip  of  the 
Tarsiansfor  him  was  shown  by  the  name  Juliopolis 
which  was  granted  to,  or  assumed  by,  tliera  (Die 
C.  47.  26).  In  punishment  for  its  devotion  to 
Ca?sar,  Tarsus  was  harshly  treated  by  Cassius  in 
43.  But  Antonius  soon  after  granted  it  the 
privilege  of  enjoying  its  o\vn  laws  (aacivitns  libera) 
and  the  right  of  duty-free  export  and  import 
trade.*  He  also  made  it  his  residence  for  a  time  : 
and  received  liere  a  visit  from  Cleopatra,  v.ae 
sailed  up  to  Tarsus  in  B.C.  38  in  circumstances  of 
extraordinary  magnificence  and  luxury.  It  formed 
part  of  the  large  realm  which  he  bestowed  on  the 
Egyptian  queen  (see  vol.  ii.  p.  86).  When  Augustus 
triumphed  over  Antonius  he  recognized  that  the 
Tarsians  were  partisans,  not  of  Antonius  specially, 
but  of  the  Emjiire  as  contrasted  with  the  Re- 
public j  and  he  even  increased  their  privileges. 
Cilicia  was  now  united  in  one  large  province  with 
Syria. 

Thus  Tarsus,  when  St.  Panl  was  a  child,  stood 
before  the  world  at  the  entrance  to  the  greatest 
province  of  the  East  as  a  metropolis,  a  free  city 
witli  a  free  harbour,  mistress  of  a  large  and  fertile 
territory,  a  centre  of  Roman  imperial  partisanship. 
It  had  been  a  Greek  self-governing  city  since 
B.C.  170,  and  the  enthusiasm  with  which  it  had 
taken  up  Greek  education  and  civilization  had 
made  it  one  of  the  three  great  university  cities 
of  the  Mediterranean  world.  Strabo  (14,  5,  13, 
p.  673)  speaks  of  the  Tarsian  university  as  even 
suri>assin^  in  some  respects  those  of  Athens  and 
Alexandria  ;  and  he  observes  that  all  the  students 
were  natives.t  and  no  strangers  came  to  it ;  but, 
on  the  contrary,  many  natives  of  the  country  went 
abioad  to  study  and  reside,  few  returning  home 
again  :  Rome  was  full  of  Tarsian  and  Alexandrian 
scholars.  So  strong  was  the  Tarsian  love  for  letters 
and  education  !  They  filled  their  own  university 
and  foreign  cities  ana  Rome  itself.  Demetrius,  as 
Plutarch  tells  (de  Defect.  Orcic.,  ad  init.),  went  to 
Britain  and  Egypt,  the  Erythra-an  Sea  and  the 
land  of  the  Troglodj'tes,  to  satisfy  his  scientific 
curiosity.  Athenodorus  the  Stoic  was  the  com- 
panion of  Cato  the  younger,  and  died  in  his  house  ; 
another  Stoic,  Athenodorus  Kananites,  was  the 
teacher  of  Augustus ;  Nestor  taught  tlie  young 
Mareellus,  his  heir  (and  Til)eriuB  the  emperor, 
according  to  pseudo-Lucian,  Macr.  21);  Antipatcr 
the  Stoic  was  iiead  of  the  school  in  Atliens  and  the 
great  opponent  of  Carneades ;  and  other  pliil- 
•  Pspudo-Lucian  {\iacr.'^  and  Dion  Chrys,  {nd  Tar^.)  im.4i^'n 
thia  i^runt  to  AuguHtuB,  who  gave  it  again  wlicn  ho  mit;tit  have 
tftlien  it  away. 

t  Atiiontf  the  natives  {ivt-^ipttt)  Strabo  includes,  doubtless, 
persons  (rom  the  Deighl)ounn^  parts  of  Asia  Minor.  Atheiio- 
donia,  the  most  famous  of  Tarsian  philosophers,  was  called 
Eananitrt,  from  the  name  of  his  native  village.  The  village 
probably  was  Kanna  in  eastern  LycaoniA,  which  afterwards 
rose  to  be  a  city  coiiiinir  money. 


osophers    and    poets    of    Tarsus    are    named    by 
Strabo,  p.  674  f. 

Philosophers  governed  Tarsus  at  the  important 
crisis  when  it  was  adapting  itself  to  the  imperial 
system.  Athenodorus  retired  to  Tarsus  in  his  old 
age,  greatly  honoured  by  liis  pupil  Augustus,  and 
invested  by  him  with  extraordinary  authority  in 
the  city.  He  found  tliat  Tarsus  had  been  seriously 
misgoverned  and  plundered  by  a  certain  clique, 
favoured  by  Antonius,  but  now  greatly  weakened 
since  his  defeat.  After  vainlj'  attempting  to 
bring  them  back  by  reason  to  a  law-abiding  spirit, 
Athenodorus,  in  virtue  of  the  powers  conferred  by 
Augustus,  sent  them  into  exile,  and  reformed  the 
constitution  of  Tarsus.*  It  appears  from  Dion 
Clirysostom  {Orat.  xxxiii.  ad  Tar.i.  20)  tliat  the 
constitution  in  the  Roman  period  was  of  oligarchic 
or  rather  timocratic  type,  citizenship  requiring  a 
certain  fortune  ;t  and  there  can  be  no  doubt  that 
this  was  the  kind  of  reform  introduced  by  Atheno- 
dorus, for  it  was  in  harmony  with  the  whole 
tendency  of  the  Roman  imperial  policy.^  After 
the  dcatli  of  Athenodorus,  at  the  age  of  82,  anotlier 
Tarsian  philoso]ilier  named  Nestor,  who  also  had 
approved  himself  to  Augustus,  succeeded  to  his 
commanding  position  in  tlie  city,  and  enjoyed  the 
respect  of  a  series  of  pro  ineial  governors.  The 
rule  of  these  two  philosophers  probably  continued 
from  about  li.C.  2'J  to  some  time  after  Christ.§  It 
is  very  probable  that  St.  Paul  may  have  seen 
and  listened  to  Nestor,  who  lived  92  years.|| 
The  influence  of  Atlienodorus,  too,  lasted  long  in 
Tarsus,  where  he  was  worshipped  as  a  hero,  for 
Dion  Chry.sostom  about  A.D.  lUO  quotes  his  name 
(in  the  Oration  which  he  addressed  to  the  Tarsians) 
as  a  household  word  among  them.  His  doctrines 
may  be  taken  as  those  which  most  influenced 
Tarsus  in  tlie  time  of  St.  Paul,  and  wliicli  the 
latter  is  likely  to  have  been  taught  in  the  schools 
of  that  city.  Being  a  Stoic,  he  found  the  aim  and 
end  of  life  in  release  from  ])assions  ;  but,  if  we  may 
judge  from  the  scanty  quotations  from  or  allusions 
to  his  writings,  he  estimated  the  quality  of  human 
action  greatly  by  reference  to  its  relation  to  God. 
'  Know,' said  he,  'that  you  are  set  free  from  all 
passions,  when  you  have  reached  such  a  point  that 
you  ask  nouglit  of  God  that  you  cannot  ask 
openly';  and  iSeneca,  who  quotes  this,1I  goes  on  to 
state  as  the  rule  of  life,  in  his  spirit,  if  not  in  his 
words,  '  So  live  with  men  as  if  God  saw  ;  so  sjjcak 
with  God  as  if  men  were  listening.'  Tlie  spirit  in 
which  he  guided  the  politics  of  Tarsus  is  expressed 
in  a  longer  extract,**  the  gist  of  which  is ;  '  It 
would  be  best  to  strengthen  one's  mind  by  making 
oneself  useful  in  politics  to  fellow-citizens  and  the 
world  ;  but  in  tlie  degraded  and  envenomed  state 
of  iiolitics  one  must  be  content  with  the  ojjpor- 
tunity  for  free  expansion  of  the  mind  in  benefiting 
one  and  all  by  educating  them,  by  encouraging 
virtue,  by  teaching  them  to  comprehend  the  gods, 
and  to  have  a  good  conscience :  thus  even  in 
]>rivate  life  one  fulfils  a  public  duty.  The  student 
lives  well,  not  by  renouncing  hiinianity  and  society, 
l)ut  by  drawing  friends  round  himself.  He  who 
lives  and  studies  for  his  own  sole  benefit  will  from 

•  jutTi/b^i  TrF  KxOirT^ffxt  weXjrt'BLv  (Slrab.  p.  074). 

t  See  Kiilin,  Stadteverwaliun^  im  rOm.  Eaiserreiche,  pp.  25L 
470. 

t  See  Kithn,  I.e. 

§  The  exact  date  of  Athenodorus  is  uncertain.  He  Is  (^ova. 
monly  ccmjt-ctured  by  modern  writers  to  have  been  a  pupil  of 
PosirioniuB  (u.o.  140-(;o);  but  Kvisebius,  C'Aron.,  gives  the  date 
when  lie  was  flourishing  as  a.  D.  7.  Tliis  tends  to  show  that  the 
common  dating  of  his  career  is  too  early ;  perhaps  he  may  be 
placed  B.C.  72  to  A.I).  10 ;  or,  more  probably,  Kusebiua  maxle  a 
mistake,  taking  his  death  in  the  height  of  influence  for  the  date 
whin  he  flourished :  in  that  cose  76  B.o.  to  7  A.D.  wag  hii 
period. 

II  Pseudo-Lucian,  Macr.  21.  T  Kp.  M&r.  I.  x.  6. 

I      ••  Senecn,  dc  Tra  nq.An.HinSt.  Paul  Uit  Trav.  p.  894,  Cltm. 
I  ii  mentioned  wrongly  In  place  of  Trariq.). 


588 


TARSUS 


TARSUS 


lack  of  work  fall  into  mere  misuse  of  the  time 
which  nature  rec|uires  us  to  spend.  One  must  be 
able  to  give  an  account  of  one's  time  and  prove 
one's  old  age  by  the  amount  of  what  one  has  done 
for  the  good  oi  the  world,  and  not  simply  by  the 
length  of  time  one  has  lived.' 

Such  was  tlie  environment,  on  its  best  side, 
amidst  which  St.  Paul  spent  his  early  years.  To 
estimate  its  influence  on  him  would  be  out  of  place 
here  ;  but  we  remember  that,  when  he  was  rescued 
from  imminent  death,  bruised  doubtless  and  torn 
by  the  hands  of  the  mob  in  Jerusalem,  in  answer 
to  the  question  of  the  Roman  officer,  the  words 
that  rose  to  his  lips  as  he  recovered  breath  were  : 
'  I  am  a  Jew,  a  man  of  Tarsus  in  Cilicia,  a  citizen 
of  no  mean  city'  (Ac  21^').  In  such  circumstances 
a  man  does  not  waste  words,  or  speak  what  does 
not  lie  dee])  in  his  nature.  St.  Paul  had  to  show 
the  officer  that  he  was  not  an  Egyptian,  but  the 
tone  in  which  he  spoke  of  Tarsus  shows  a  warm 
feeling  about  it  as  a  city  and  for  its  own  sake.* 

The  timocratic  system  introduced  by  Atheno- 
dorus  into  Tarsus  has  an  important  bearing  on  St. 
Pauls  life.  In  a  city  where  the  mass  of  the  in- 
habitants could  be  said  to  be  '  outside  of  the 
citizenship,'  i.e.  not  possessing  the  full  rights  of  a 
citizen, t  he  claimed  to  be  a  citizen.  Citizenship 
in  Tarsus  was  the  certificate  of  respectability  and 
.standing  which  he  mentioned  to  Claudius  Lysias, 
when  it  was  necessary  at  once  to  explain  away 
appearances  which  were  certainly  much  against 
him  as  he  was  pulled  out  of  the  murderous  hands 
of  the  mob.  One  may  ask  why  he  did  not  mention 
his  Roman  citizenship  at  that  time,  for  Roman 
citizenship  was  a  liigher  honour  and  a  greater 
proof  of  respectability  ;  and  it  seems  hardiy  pos- 
sible to  make  any  other  ans^rsr  except  that,  in  the 
excitement  of  that  terrible  scene,  the  feeling  that 
lay  deepest  in  his  heart  alwut  worldly  position  rose 
to  his  lips.  When  he  was  a  child  he  felt  himself 
a  'Jew,  a  citizen  of  Tarsus,'  and  almost  uncon- 
sciously the  words  rose  to  his  lips.  But  the  Tarsian 
citizenship  had  this  value  in  the  eyes  of  those  who 
possessed  it,  because  it  was  confined  to  a  select 
small  body. 

The  history  of  Tarsus  under  the  empire  is  a 
large  subject.  The  following  points  may  be  noticed 
as  characteristic  of  the  Asiatic  Roman  cities  gener- 
ally, and  illustrative  of  their  relation  to  the  early 
Christians  and  to  the  Roman  State  : — 

The  loyalty  of  those  great  cities  to  the  emperors  was  very 
strong,  and  is  unusually  well  illustrated  in  the  case  of  Tarsus, 
which  a.ssunied  titles  from  the  name  of  ths  emperors  Hadrian, 
Commodus,  Severus,  Antoninus  (Caraoalla),  Maorinus,  and 
Alexander  Severus,J  dropping  some  when  the  empemr  died, 
and  Iteeping  others  for  long.  It  took  the  title  of  Temple- 
Warden  {nMxifiot,  iit  »MBe«/Mf),  indicating  that  one,  or  two, 
temples  of  the  imperial  worship  were  built  in  the  city.  It 
induced  governors  of  the  province  and  even  the  emperor  him- 
self, Alexander  Severus,  to  accept  office  (of  course  merely 
honorary)  in  the  city,  and  boasted  of  this  on  coins  and  in  in- 
scriptions. 

Titles  like  these,  however,  sprang  as  much  from  vanity  as 
from  loyalty.  The  great  cities  vied  with  one  another  in  invent- 
ing titles  and  appropriating  the  titles  of  rivals.  Tarsus  and 
Anazarlnis  ronipeleti  with  one  another  in  this  way.  Each 
claimed  such  titles  aa  .Metropolis,  First  and  Greatest  and  Fairest, 
Tcinple-Warden ;  but  Anazarbus  was  never  Twice  Temple- 
Warden,  nor  Metropolis  of  the  Three  Eparchiai  (Cilicia,  Lyca- 
onia,  Isauria),  but  only  Metropolis  of  the  Nation  (iHtevt,  i.e. 
Cilicia).  On  one  occasion,  about  a. D.  213,  Anazarbus  induced 
the  emperor  Elagabalus  to  accept  the  otlicc  of  llemiourgos}  in 
the  city,  and  struck  coins  to  commemorate  this  honour.  Tarsus 
doubtless  was  downcast  till  it  could  strike  similar  coins  boasting 
of  Alexander  Severus  as  Demiourgos.    Both  cities  boasted  that 

*  It  must  be  remembered  that  such  expressions  as  ovm  o-rrfMu 
wc>-ui;,  •v«  oXjyt*.  often  imjilv  a  strong  ajisortion  of  the  opposite. 

t  (m  TXrOat  ev«  iXiyov  -urrtfi  ij«(^i»  T^t  T«XjTi(flw  (Dion,  Chrys. 
ad  Tan.  p.  ill ;  see  p.  (3S7,  col.  2,  n.  I).  On  the  rights  and 
meaning  of  tsX,ti.'«  see  Szanto,  Da»  griech.  Burgerrecht. 

J  It  calls  itself  ' AKlia*lp>«vy,   ^IWipiatn  ' .\yrA/>t*ia¥ii  ' A^fiiec¥i;   in 

an  inscription,  and  coins  often  give  the  last  three  cumulated. 

{  Title  of  the  chief  magistrate  in  many  Cilician  cities  ;  the 
titJe  is  Doric,  and  points  to  the  old  Doric  relations  of  Cilicia. 


the  koinoboulion  (Council  of  the  Koinon  of  Cilicia)  met  wtthis 
its  walls ;  but  Tarsus  alone  could  beast  of  the  festival  and 
games  common  to  the  three  united  provinces.  And  so  on,  titta 
after  title  was  devised  to  imitate  or  outshine  a  rival. 

Tarsus  was  saved  by  the  barrier  of  Mount 
Taurus  from  many  of  tlie  invasions  which  swept 
over  Asia  Minor.  Only  an  enemy  who  took  the 
route  from  Syria  over  ^lt.  Amanus  through  Cilicia 
would  reach  Tarsus  ;  but  most  invasions  preferred 
the  route  through  Eastern  Cappadocia,  keeping 
north  of  Mt.  Taurus.  Thus,  in  the  long  peace  of 
the  empire  the  defences  and  the  defensive  powers 
of  the  people  in  Cilicia  must  have  grown  weak,  and 
when  at  last  an  enemy  entered  tne  country  they 
found  it  a  helpless  prey. 

In  the  Byzantine  ecclesiastical  and  political 
system  Tarsus  became  even  more  important  than  in 
the  older  empire,  owing  to  the  steady  growth  of  the 
Eastern  provinces  in  wealth,  education,  and  weight. 
Thus  BasU  of  Ca>sarea  (Ep.  34),  in  A.D.  373  (or  369), 
emphasizes  its  importance  as  '  a  city  so  placed  as 
to  be  united  with  (Jilicia,  Cappadocia,  and  Assyria ' 
(i.e.  Syria). 

Two  churches  are  mentioned  at  Tarsus.  In 
A.D.  485  Leontius  forced  Verina  to  proclaim  him 
emperor  at  Tarsus  in  the  Church  of  St.  Peter  out- 
side the  city.  Stich  an  important  ceremony  is 
likely  to  have  been  held  in  the  principal  church  of 
Tarsus,  and  we  may  identify  this  Church  of  St. 
Peter  as  the  great  church  of  Tarsus  destroyed  by 
the  Moslems  in  A.D.  885.*  If  so,  it  is  remarkable 
that  the  principal  church  was  not  dedicated  to  St. 
Paul ;  but  it  is  recorded  that  the  Church  of  St.  Paul 
in  Tarsus  was  buUt  by  the  emperor  JIaurice  (583- 
602),t  while  we  may  be  confident  that  the  great 
church  of  Tarsus  was  built  as  early  as  the  4th 
century. 

v.  Tarsuo  thb  AaAB  CrrY. — In  view  of  the  strongly  Syrian 
associations  of  Tarsus,  it  is  important  to  observe  the  way  in 
which  it  lost  its  Western  relations,  and  reverted  to  a  purely 
Oriental  type  during  the  long  wars  against  the  Mohammedans. 
The  Arabs  lirst  crossed  into  Cihcia  by  the  SjTian  Gates  from 
Antioch  in  lJ41.t  In  846  the  Arabs  found  all  the  fortresses 
between  .Antioch  and  Tarsus  deserted ;  presumably  the  terror 
of  these  raids  and  the  neglect  of  frontier  defence  by  the 
emperor  made  the  people  flee  to  the  mountains. 

In  6.o0  the  Arabs  invaded  Isauria  (so  Theophanes;  649  Ibn  Al 
Athir).  This  would  appear  to  imply  that  Tarsus,  with  Cilici* 
generally,  was  in  Arab  hands,  though  it  must  be  remembered 
that  the  Arab  invasions  were  often  only  passing  raids,  in  which 
the  forts  and  cities  were  left  unattacked,  or  watched  by  detach- 
ments of  the  invading  forces,  while  the  open  countrj'  was 
ravaged,  and  captives  swept  off  into  slavery.  Cilicia,  however, 
having  been  so  neglected  by  the  central  government,  was  exposed 
defenceless  to  the  Arabs.  Yet  the  military  strength  of  the 
empire  soon  revived,  while  the  Arab  raids  made  little  permanent 
impression.  Tarsus  was  quickly  reoccupied  by  the  Christians 
but  in  673  it  was  captured  (after  a  defence  presumably)  by  the 
Arabs.  In  the  following  years  the  Arab  attacks  were  made 
chiefly  by  the  north  road  nearer  the  Euphrates,  or  by  sea ; 
Capjiadocia  was  occupied,  and  Armenia  and  Pontus  att^icked, 
while  Cilicia  was  not  much  molested  by  formal  invasions,  but 
its  cities  seem  to  have  still  remained  unprotected,  and  exposed 
to  any  small  raids.  Thus  in  602  an  Arab  army  advanced  from 
the  Euphrates  nearly  to  Amorion,  and  returned  by  Cilicia. 

In  699-700  the  Christians  recovered  Cappadocia,  and  the 
Arabs  henceforth  made  regular  use  of  the  Cilician  route  in 
invading  the  Byzantine  empire.  Mopsuestia  at  the  impoilant 
crossing  of  the'Pyramus  was  fortifleJi  in  701,  and  Tarsus  was 
now  permanently  occupied  as  an  Arab  capital  on  tlieir  north- 
western frontier.  The  northern  part  of  Eastern  Cilicia,  with 
the  town  of  Sision  (now  called  Sis),  was  conquered  in  703 ;  in 
706  the  last  struggle  of  the  Romans  to  retain  this  country  is 
recorded  by  Al  Tabari.  The  wars  of  the  following  years  imply 
that  Cilicia  was  the  permanent  basis  for  the  Arab  operations! 
in  Lycaonia.  Pisidia,  Phrygia.  and  Bithynia.  At  the  same  time 
C-esarea,  with  Eastern  Cappadocia,  was  again  taken  by  the 
Arabs  in  726.  but  recovered  by  Constantino  in  746.  After  this 
the  Arab  frontier  cities  on  tlie  north  were  generally  Melitene 

•  Muralt,  Etsai  de  Chnmogr.  Bi/zant.  p.  740. 

♦  Sim.  viii.  13.  There  may  have  been  an  older  Church  of  St 
Paul,  of  coune,  in  Tarsus,  but  this  was  built,  not  rebuilt,  by 
Maurice. 

t  Dates  from  Arab  authorities  from  641-760  are  given  accord- 
ing to  Mr.  E.  Vf.  Brooks'  papers  in  Journal  o/  Hellenic  Stvdies, 
IsftS,  p.  182  f.,  1811!!,  p.  19f.  ;  dates  from  Byzantine  authorities 
according  to  Muralt,  E»mi  de  Clironogr.  Byzant. 

}  This  appears  in  incidental  expressions,  such  as  Xheopb 
p.  390,1.  Wf.(deBoor). 


TAKSUS 


TARTAN 


689 


and  Oermaniceia,  and  a  dehateable  land  lay  between  them  and 
Ceaareia.  tliou(,'h  the  Christians  attacked  or  even  destroyed  one 
or  otlier  of  the  two  Arab  fortresses  in  750-764  and  77i>,  while  the 
Arahb  frequently  advanced  north  and  north-west  into  Cuppa- 
doeia,  Pajihlaironia,  etc.  In  SOa  and  830  the  Arabs  carried  for- 
ward the  Cilician  frontier  to  Tvana,  buildine  a  mosque  and 
settling  colonists  there  ;  but  both  attempts  failed  inmH--diately, 
and  Tarsus  reuiained  the  capital  of  Orientalism  aj^ainst  the  U  est. 
In  (5^*7  the  einiK-ror  Xicejihorus  invaded  Cilicia,  and  deitaled 
the  Arabs  near  Tarsus  ;  but  the  Caliphs  Harun  and  nl-.Mainun 
tttrenirthened  the  Arab  jtower  on  this  frontier.  The  latter  die<l 
at  (or  near)  Tarsus  in  S;U.  About  the  middle  of  the  Uth  cent. 
ISvzantiiic  power  grew  stronj^er,  and  Cilicia  and  Tarsus  were 
tiie  ^cene  of  many  conflicts,  while  the  Caliphs'  vi;rour  waned. 
In  fcSii  Tarsus  is  mentioned  as  a' strong  fortress,  the  capital  of 
an  UKlependcnt  Mohammedan  State.  In  b:il  an  Arab  fleet  is 
said  to  have  sailed  from  Tarsus  towards  the  Byzantine  coasts; 
and  in  900  the  fleet  at  Tarsus  was  bunied  by  the  Caliph  on 
account  of  the  dislo.valty  of  the  city.  In  89S  the  Oreck  forces 
land.d  near  Tarsus  and  pained  a  victory  over  the  Arabs.  About 
this  lime  Tarsus  is  mentioned  frequently  as  the  centre  of 
Mohammedan  opposition  to  the  reviving  Cbriutiau  power.  In 
904  a  Tarsian  fleet  burned  Thessalonica.  At  length,  in  906, 
after  all  the  rest  of  Cilicia  had  been  recaptured  by  the  Chris- 
tians, Tarsus  surrendered  on  favourable  terms,  the  Mo.slem 
population  were  given  safe  retirement  to  Antio<:h,  and  only 
Christians  were  left  in  the  city.  Tlic  great  gates  of  Tarsus  were 
carried  in  triumph  to  Constantinople. 

vi.  .MoDB[t.*f  Tarsl'S. — The  new  Christian  city  of  Tarsus  had  a 
checkered  history.  Byzontine  Greeks,  Latins,  Annenians, 
Turcomans,  Turks,  Ejfj-ptians  strutrnled  for  it,  and  alternately 
held  it  and  lost  it.  For  a  century  Greek  rule  in  Cilicia  was 
practically  unchallenged  by  the  decaying  Saracen  empire ;  but 
even  dviri'ng  this  time  Tarsus  must  have  undoubtedly  retained 
many  traces  of  the  three  centuries  of  Arab  rule,  and  become 
far  n'lore  Oriental  than  it  h.ad  been  under  the  Roman  and  early 
Byzantine  rule.  About  1067  the  Seljuk  Turks  began  to  rava^'e 
Asia  Minor,  and  their  terrible  annies  were  seen  and  felt  m 
Cilicia  ;  and  in  1071  the  victory  of  Mauzikert  laid  the  country 
prostrate  and  helpless  at  their  feet.  Their  rule  over  Phrygia, 
Lycaonia,  Cappadocia,  Annenia,  Pontus,  was  recognized  by  the 
feeble  emperors;  but  Cilicia  still  remained,  on  the  whole,  in 
Christian  hands,  so  that  the  wall  of  Sit.  Taurus  once  more 
formed  a  line  of  demarcation  between  the  two  religions  (though 
now  Islam  was  on  the  north  and  Christianity  on  the  south).  A 
new  power  now  appearefl  in  Cilicia:  in  108()  Reuben,  the  first 
Armenian  prince  of  Cilicia  (called  often  during  the  next  three 
centuries  Lesser  Annenia),  seized  some  forts  in  the  eastern 
Taurus  mountains  on  the  north  frontier  of  Cilicia.  The  history 
of  Lesser  Armenia  was  stormy,  and  its  bounds  varied  from  year 
to  ye.ar.  sometimes  confined'  to  the  Taunis  forts,  sometimes 
including  Tarsus  and  Cilicia  as  a  whole.  In  1097  Baldwin  with 
his  Crusading  army  captured  Tarsus,  and  introduced  another 
factor  into  the  confiised  history  of  Cilicia, 

The  vicissitudes  of  Tarsian  history  in  this  period  are  so  rapid 
and  so  numerous  that  they  cannot  lie  traced  \n  detail.  Tarsus, 
the  capital,  passed  from  hand  to  hand.  The  Turks,  who  cap. 
tured  It  in  1078,  did  not  hold  it ;  the  Cnisaders  were  a  more 
permanent  power.  The  emperor  John  Conuienus  look  Tarsus 
in  ll:i7,  the  Armenian  Reuben  IL  in  1182.  The  Memluk  Sultans 
of  Kg\-pt  became  a  factor  in  Cilician  liistAjry  in  1200.  The 
terrible  Egyptian  invasion  of  1322  devastated  the  country. 
The  .-Vrmenians  sufTered  from  quarrels  in  the  governing  family, 
from  religious  feuds,  and  from  national  inability  to  unite  in  a 
vigorous  defensive  policy.  In  1375  the  Armenian  kingdom  of 
Cilicia  (Lesser  Armenia^  finally  ^ave  place  to  the  Egyptian 

f lower,  and  Tarsus  may  from  this  tune  be  said  to  have  relapsed 
nto  its  original  condition  of  a  purely  Oriental  city.  But  it  was 
still  not  subject  to  Turkey.  It  was  the  prey  sometimes  of 
Egypt,  sometimes  of  Turcoman  chiefs  called  Ramazarioglu, 
whose  tribes  seem  to  have  entered  the  Taurus  fastnesses  ab<nit 
1200,  and  to  have  gradually  established  their  hold  on  the  plain, 
and  to  have  brought  the  country  once  more  almost  into  nomadic 
barliarism.  In  1400  the  Osmanli  or  Ottoman  Turks  entered 
Cilicia,  when  the  army  of  .Mohammed  il.  captured  Tarsus  ;  but 
the  city  was  often  reraptured,  until. Selim  destroyed  the  Memluk 
power  in  1618.  Again  in  1832  the  Egyptian  forces  of  Mehemet 
Ali  entered  Cilicia.  and  held  Taraiu  till  1840,  when  once  more 
it  passed  under  Ottoman  power. 

Tarsus  remains  a  wretclied  town  of  the  Turki.sh 
style,  little  more  than  a  large  collection  of  hovels, 
with  a  trying  climate,  an  oi>i)rcssive  atino»i)liero, 
retaining  not  a  trace  of  its  former  splemjour,  and 
few  scraps  even  of  ancient  marbles.  There  are 
few  place.s  where  the  contrast  between  ancient  and 
iiodern  life  is  more  conspicuous.  The  unsightly 
and  Khapeless  nia-ss  of  concrete,  wrongly  called  the 
Tomb  of  Sardanapalu.s,  is  the  only  ancient  monu- 
ment that  is  displayed  to  the  tourist.  It  is  the 
substructure  of  the  platform  on  which  stood  a 
temple  of  the  Roman  period,  and  woa  originally 
hidden  under  the  marble  walls  and  floors  and 
steps,  afterwards  utilized  to  make  mediaeval  build- 
ings, which  in  their  turn  have  licen  utterly 
destroyed. 

VOL.  IV.— 44 


LiTERATiT.K. — Ritter,  K[einast>n.  ii.  (Erdkiinde  con  AtAtn,  voL 
xxi.)  ]ip.  lSI-23.'i:  Beaufort,  Karamania  ;  Leake,  Tour  and 
Ge'»jrai)hy  of  Asia  Minor,  p.  214  ;  Barker,  Lares  and  Penates; 
Hili,  Oitaloijxu  o/  Lritiith  Museum  Coins  cif  Iti/caonia,  Isauria, 
and  Cilicia,  pp.  IxxvifT.,  162 ff.;  Koldewey  in  Itobert,  Aut 
der  Anomia,  p.  178 f.;  Wernicke,  ib.  p.  77 f.;  Sir  C.  Wilson  io 
Hurrays  Handbook.  W.  M.  KamSAY. 

TARTAR  (prnn  :  Oa^fld/t ;  Thnrthac).— An  idol  of 
the  Avvites,  introduced  by  them  into  S.tmaria, 
whither  they  had  been  transported  by  the  Assyrian 
king  Sargon  (2  K  17^')-  Tartak  is  mentioned  with 
another  deity  called  Nibhaz,  and,  according  to  the 
Bab.  Talmud  {Hityihedrin,  636),  was  worshipped 
under  the  form  of  an  ass.*  Various  speculations 
have  been  made  as  to  the  identity  of  this  deity, 
the  religious  systems  of  the  Egyptians,  I'ersians, 
and  Carnianians  having  been  laid  under  contribu- 
tion to  supjily  points  of  comparison ;  but  the 
Typhon  of  the  hrst,  and  the  sacrihciug  of  an  ass 
by  the  last  to  their  god  (identified  with  Mars),  do 
not  seem  to  atlbrd  satisfactory  explanations.  In 
Assyro-liabylonian  mythology  no  god  in  the  form 
of  an  ass  is  at  present  provable,  and  the  comparison 
of  the  name  Tartal>  with  the  15abylonian  god  Ital^ 
(on  account  of  the  second  syllable)  can  no  longer 
be  made,  the  correct  reading  of  the  latter  being 
Isum.  In  all  probability  no  trustworthy  identi- 
fication of  the  deity,  nor  satisfactory  explanation 
of  his  name,  \vill  be  maile  until  the  position  of  the 
place  (AvvA  or  IvvAllt)  whence  his  worshippers 
came,  has  been  determined.  T.  G.  Pinches. 

TARTAN  (|™  ;  BA  Tavaeiv,  B''  ^aSdu,  N"-*-."-*-."- 
Q*  eapOdlf]  in  Is  20' ;  B  eoxedi',  A  eapSdv  in  2  K 
IS";  Tliarthan). — The  title  of  an  Assyrian  military 
(illiccr,  sent  by  Sargon  to  Ashdod  (Is  '2il'),  and  later 
(juobably  anotlier  person)  despatched  by  iSenna- 
cberib,  accompanied  by  Rab- SARIS  and  Kab- 
SIIAKEH,  'with  a  great  host,'  against  Jerusalem. 
Like  the  other  titles  in  the  latter  passage,  it  was 
long  thought  to  be  a  personal  name ;  and  it  is 
apparently  this  (notwithstanding  the  luesence  of 
the  article  in  the  Greek)  which  has  given  rise  to 
the  variant  Nathan  (an  abbreviation  of  Tanathan) 
in  B''.  In  the  Assyrian  inscriptions  and  lists  of 
otlicials,  however,  it  appears  as  the  title  of  the 
highest  othcer  of  State  next  to  the  king,  and 
probably  corresponds  to  the  modem  military  title 
'commander-in-chief.'  In  the  list  of  otlicials  given 
in  WAI  ii.  pi.  31,  11.  2(5,  27,  two  grades  appear, 
turtanu  tmni,  'the  turinn  of  the  right,' and  <ar- 
tanu  iumili,  '  the  tnrliin  of  the  left,'  the  former 
probably  corresponding  with  the  turtanu  rabit, 
'  great  Tartan,'  or  '  field-marshal '  of  Shalmaneser 
II. ,  and  the  latter  with  the  tiirfitnu  Sanii,  'second 
Tartan,'  mentioned  by  Johns.  Th.it  the  two  forms, 
turtnnu  and  tartrinii,  were  interchangeable,  is 
shown  by  the  contract-tablet  in  which  the  form 
turtanu  iiamli  occurs,  and  the  variant  spellings 
turtunnu  and  tartnnnu  in  the  inscri|itions  of  Sar- 
gon.J  As  one  entitled  to  hold  the  othce  of  Eponym, 
the  Tartan  came  next  in  order  to  the  king  (see  the 
titles  for  the  Eponyms  for  B.C.  809,  780,  770,  752, 
and  742).  Who  the  Tartans  were  who  are  referred 
to  in  Is  20'  and  2  K  18"  is  not  known.  In  B.C. 
720,  Asur-iska(?)-mlannin  was  Eponym,  and  jios- 
sibly  held  the  othce,  and  in  that  case  may  have 
been  the  one  sent  to  Ashdod.  For  the  reign  of 
Sennacherib  we  have  Abda'u,  who  held  the  olfice 
during  the  eponymy  of  Ilu-ittfta,  B.C.  6'J4  ;  and  B61- 

•  The  companion-deity,  Nibhaz  (changed  to  NIbhan  by  reading 
I  for  1).  Is  stated  to  have  been  in  the  form  of  a  dog— an  explana- 
tion which  is  flue  to  the  stipjioaition  that  the  word  was  con- 
nected with  nnf'dh,  •  to  bark.'  It  is  therefore  not  improbable 
that  the  statement  that  Tartak  was  a  deity  in  the  form  of  an  ass 
may  be  due  to  a  similar  (popular)  etjTnoligy. 

t  Sachau  {ZA  12,  48)  Idcntiflcs  it  with  the  modern  tmm,  be- 
tween Antloch  and  Aleppo. 

t  The  fonns  with  double  n  Imply  that  the  seoood  rimal  mi 
long  {iartanu),  as  in  Hebrew. 


590 


TATTENAI 


TEACHER,  TEACHING 


dmuranni,  who  was  Tartan  and  Eponyiu  for  B.C. 
686.  Either  of  these  may  have  been  the  one  sent 
against  Jerusalem. 

LirKRATiTiE. — Schrader  in  Riehm's  BWB^',  Fried.  Delitzsch, 
Astnfr.  i/U'jB;  Johns,  Assj/nan  Deeds,  voL  ii.  pp.  68,  69; 
Driver  in  Authoriti/  and  Archoeotogy  (ed.  Hofjarth),  140. 

T.  G.  Pinches. 
TATTENAI  (-jnci).— The  name  of  the  governor 
(peluih)  of  Ca;le-Syria  and  Phojnicia  under  Darius 
Hysta-spis,  Ezr  5'  (B  Qavavai,  A  BaBBavai,  Luc. 
everywhere  Tai-Sai-aios)  ^  (B  QavBava^,  A  QaBBavaU) 
«»  (LXX  om.)  "  (B  'Vo.vBaval,  A  QaBBaval).  He  is 
sailed  in  1  Es  6'- '■ "  i-"'  7'  SISINNES  {Ziaivvqi),  which 
IS  simply  a  reproduction  in  Greek  (cf.  'Ziclv-r]^  in 
Arr.  i.  25.  3,  vii.  6.  4)  of  a  Persian  name  Thi- 
thinaia  (orig.  Tlmthannia  ?),  with  aspirated  t.  See 
Ed.  Meyer,  Entstehung  dcs  Judenthums,  32. 

TAYERNS,  THE  THREE,  is  the  rendering  in 
Ac  28'°  of  Tpeis  Ta^ipvai,  the  Greek  form  which 
represents  the  Latin  Tres  Tabcrnce,  as  the  name 
of  one  of  the  two  stations  on  the  Appian  high- 
way whither  Christian  brethren  from  Rome,  who 
had  heard  of  St.  Paul's  arrival  at  Puteoli  on 
his  way  to  the  capital,  went  forth  to  meet  him. 
The  first  group  of  the  brethren  met  him  at  a  point 
earlier  on  his  journey — tlie  Market  of  Appius — (see 
Appius,  Market  of)  43  ( Roman)  miles  from  Rome ; 
the  second  awaited  liim  at  the  stage  called  Tres 
Tabernce,  wliich  was  10  miles  nearer  to  the  capital, 
being,  according  to  the  Itinerary  of  Antoninus,  33 
miles  distant  from  it.  The  Latin  taberna,  whicli 
is  by  no  means  to  be  identified  with  or  restricted 
to  our  modem  sense  of  tarcrn,  but  was  applied  to 
structures  of  boards,  booths,  huts,  and  sh(j|is  of 
various  kinds,  probably  denotes  liere  an  inn  for 
travellers.  Three  such  inns  might  fitly  give 
name  to  a  halting-place,  which  doubtless  was  the 
seat  of  local  traffic,  and  from  whicli  a  road  branched 
off'  to  Antium  on  the  seacoast.  Cicero  mentions  it 
in  writing  to  Atticus  {Ep.  ii.  10,  12,  13).  Its  precise 
site  has  hardly  been  identified,  but  is  generally 
referred  to  the  vicinity  of  the  modern  Cisterna. 
William  P.  Dickson. 

TAW  (n).— The  twenty-second  letter  of  the  Heb. 
alphabet,  and  as  such  emploj'ed  in  the  119th  Psalm 
to  designate  the  22nd  part,  each  verse  of  which 
begins  with  this  letter.  It  is  transliterated  in 
this  Dictionary  by  t  or  Ih. 

For  the  use  of  tnw  (li?)  in  Ezk  9'  and  Job  31"  see 
FoREHKAD,  and  Mark  No.  6  (vol.  iii.  p.  244"). 

TAXES,  TAXING.— See  Publican   and  Quir- 

INIU.S. 

TEACHER,  TEACHING.  — In  the  OT  various 
Heb.  w  ords  are  used  for  teachers  and  their  work 
(chiefly  verbal  forms,  \-2n,  mi.i,  nsS)  ;  and  several 
other  words  are  employed  more  indefinitely  for 
teaching  generally  (i^k,  T.it.n,  ynin,  no',  .tt,  S-Jci). 
This  is  one  indication  tliat  in  ear!}'  times  there  was 
no  recognized  office  of  teacher  with  a  technical  title. 
Nevertheless  the  duty  of  teaching,  especially  in 
the  education  of  the  young,  is  much  insisted  on. 
In  Deut.  this  is  repeatedly  urged  as  an  obligation 
resting  on  p.-irents  (e.g.  4'°  6'  ll'").  The  he.id  of 
the  family  is  to  be  diligent  in  teaching  his  children 
the  great  precepts  of  the  Law,  and  m  talking  of 
them  habitually  in  the  house  and  in  the  street. 
The  prophets  were  recognized  to  be  divinely- 
inspired  teachers,  commissioned  to  instruct  the 
people  in  the  knowledge  of  Jehovah  and  His  will. 
The  word  tOrah  (i-;iri),  which  was  applied  to  Deut. 
in  the  days  of  josiali  (e.g.  2  K  22'),  and  from  the 
time  of  Ezra  to  the  Pent.  {eg.  Neh  8'),  means 
'te.iching'  (lit.  'direction'),  and  was  used  in 
earlier  times  for  the  instruction  given  by  the 
prophets.     It  is  used  in  this  sense  by  Rosea  (4°  8' 


S'=),  by  Amos  (2'),  by  Micah  (4=),  by  Isaiah  (l^S* 
etc.),  by  Zephaniah  (3').  It  is  to  be  observed  that 
in  all  these  instances  of  the  occurrence  of  the  word 
in  the  prophets  we  never  read  of  '  the  tdrah  of 
Moses'  as  in  Ezra  and  later,  but  of  'Jehovah's 
t6rSh,' or  'the  turCth'  indefinitely.  The  clear  dis- 
tinction, now  resulting  from  OT  criticism  on  the 
date  of  the  Pent.,  accentuates  the  importance  of 
teaching  under  the  prophets  by  demonstrating 
that  what  formerly  appeared  to  be  a  reference  to 
the  Mosaic  law  is,  in  fact,  an  allusion  to  the  pro- 
phets' teaching.  In  early  times  the  priests  also 
undertook  the  religious  instruction  of  the  people. 
Thus  Micah,  rebuking  the  mercenary  leaders  in 
Jerusalem,  declares,  '  the  priests  thereof  teach  (ni*) 
for  hire'  (Mic  3")-  After  the  return  from  the 
Captivity  an  immense  impulse  was  given  to  reli- 
gious teaching.  Religion  had  now  passed  into  a 
literary  phase.  The  public  reading  of  the  Law  by 
Ezra  was  an  indication  that  the  new  Judaism  was 
to  restore  popular  knowledge  (Neh  8''*).  It  is  a 
significant  fact  that  the  high  priest  took  no  part 
in  this  efibrt  to  popularize  what  had  hitherto  been 
cherished  as  a  mystery  in  the  sacerdotal  clan.  The 
scribe  who  not  only  copies  the  Law,  but  teaches  it, 
now  becomes  the  leader  of  the  Jewish  religion 
among  the  people,  gradually  taking  the  place  of 
the  prophet,  but  with  an  inferior  rfile,  since  he 
cannot  pretend  to  come  ^-ith  an  original  message 
from  Jehovah,  and  must  content  himself  with 
interpreting,  commenting  on,  and  '  fencing '  a 
fixed  written  turah.  Thus  he  in  turn  comes  into 
ant.igonism  with  the  priest  who  performs  official 
functions,  administers  the  Law,  and  enjoys  an 
aristueratic  rank ;  because  the  scribe's  work  in 
popularizing  the  Law  lessens  the  power  of  the 
priesthood  hy  opening  the  eyes  of  tlie  people  and 
by  making  religion  more  an  affair  of  ideas  than  of 
ritual,  or  if  of  ritual  still  of  obser\'ances  within  the 
reach  of  the  laity.  Accordingly,  the  growth  of  the 
synagogue  goes  on  side  by  side  with  the  develop- 
ment of  teaching  by  the  scribes.     See  Rabbi. 

In  NT  times  teaching  was  most  hi^lily  valued 
among  the  Jews,  and  the  teacher  held  in  ^eat 
respect.*  Josephus,  writing  the  history  ot  his 
people  from  the  standpoint  of  his  own  daj',  relates 
how  Moses  commanded  that  '  boys  should  learn 
the  primary  laws  {irpunovs  tovs  vdfiovs)  as  the  best 
knowledge  and  the  cause  of  prosperity'  {Ant,  iv. 
viii.  12) ;  and  affirms  for  his  own  time,  'We  take 
most  pains  of  all  with  the  instruction  of  children  ' 
(c.  Apion.  i.  12).  Similarly  Philo  writes :  '  Since 
the  Jews  esteem  their  laws  as  divine  revelations, 
and  are  instructed  in  the  knowledge  of  them  from 
their  earliest  youth,  they  bear  the  image  of  the 
law  in  their  souls'  {Legat.  ad  Gai.  31);  and, 
'  They  are  taught,  so  to  speak,  from  their  swad- 
dling-clothes, by  their  parents,  teachers,  and  those 
who  bring  them  up,  even  before  instruction  in  the 
sacred  laws  and  unwritten  customs,  to  recognize  one 
God  as  the  Father  and  Creator  of  the  world  '  {ib.). 
The  Talmud  abounds  in  traditional  sayings  on  the 
importance  of  teaching.  This  is  much  insisted  on 
in  the  PirkS  Aboth,  where  we  read  how  Joshua 
ben  Perachia  said,  'Get  thyself  a  teacher'  (i.  6); 
Rabban  Gamaliel,  '  Appoint  for  thyself  a  teacher, 
so  wilt  thou  avoid  what  is  doubtful'  (i.  16)  ;  Hillel, 
'  An  ignorant  man  cannot  be  truly  pious '  (ii.  5). 
Certainly  elementary  schools  existed  in  the  time 
of  the  Mishna,  and  the  way  in  which  they  are 
referred  to  implies  that  they  were  then  established 
institutions.  It  is  most  probable  that  they  were 
in  existence  in  the  time  of  Christ.  The  name  of 
these  schools  w.as  beth,  -  sepher  (tech  n';)  —  '  the 
house  of  the  book' — i.e.  of  the  tdrdh.  Thus  we 
read  (Jems.  Mcgill.  iii.  1),  '  R.  Pinchas  said  in  the 

*  In  2  M&c  11°  we  read  ot  a  Jew  named  Aristobuloa  who  ha^ 
been  Ptolemy's  *  teacher '  (iihenrxtxx^). 


TEACHER,  TEACHING 


TEACHER,  TEACHING 


691 


name  of  R.  Hoshaiah  tliat  there  were  480  syna- 
gogues in  Jerusalem,  and  each  liad  a  bcth-sepher 
ana  a  beth  ■  Talmud,  the  former  for  the  mikra 
(text  of  Scripture),  the  latter  for  the  mishna  (oral 
tradition).'  A  frequently  (juoted  sentence  about 
the  order  of  a  child's  education — of  lute  date,  being 
found  in  an  appendbc  to  the  Abath  of  the  post- 
Talmudic  period  —  states  that  '  at  5  years  old 
(he  comes)  to  the  reading  of  Scripture,  at  10  to 
the  Mishna,  at  13  to  the  practice  of  the  com- 
mandments, at  15  to  the  Talmud,  at  18  to  mar- 
riage,' etc.  (Pirki  Aboth,  v.  21).  For  further 
particulars  on  this  point  see  Scliiirer  (IIJP  11.  ii. 
§27,  and  artt.  EDUCATION  and  SyXAGonrE). 

In  the  NT,  teaching  is  mentioned  chiefly  -with 
reference  to  the  exposition  of  specifically  Christian 
ideas.  Nicodemus  acknowledges  Jesus  to  be  'a 
teacher  (5i5d<rKaXos)  come  from  God,'  and  addresses 
Him  with  the  recognized  Jewish  name  of  a  teacher, 
'Kalibi'  (pa/i^fl,  Jn  3°).  In  all  four  Gospels  the 
usual  name  for  our  Lord  is  '  Tcadier '  (SiSiaKaXos, 
tr.  '  Master  '  in  A V  and  RV,  but  '  Teacher '  in 
RVni  and  in  Twentieth  Cent.  NT).  This  word  is 
not  only  used  by  the  disciples  ;  it  is  also  employed 
by  others  in  addressing  our  Lord,  e.g.  the  Pharisees 
and  Herodians  (Mk  12''').  No  doubt  it  is  the 
evangelist's  rendering  of  the  Aramaic  title,  'Rabbi,' 
which  occasionally  appears  in  its  original  form  in 
Jn  (1*-  ^  32-=<'6'^,  and  once  Rabboni,  fxn^jiovvel,  20"). 
It  is  important  to  observe  that  a  clear  distinction 
between  '  teachin"  '  (SiSiaKw)  and  '  preaching  ' 
(K>)pi;<r(rw)  is  maintained  throughout  the  NT.  This 
is  manifest  in  our  Lord's  public  ministry.  He 
commenced  with  preacliing,  as  John  had  done 
before  Him  (Mk  1*).  This  preachin>;  was  the  call 
to  repentance  in  connexion  with  uie  announce- 
ment that  the  kingdom  of  God  was  at  hand,  and 
was  called  '  preaching  the  gospel  of  God  '  (Mk  1"). 
Then,  having  gathered  some  disciples  about  Him, 
our  Lord  proceeded  to  instruct  them  in  the  mys- 
teries of  the  kingdom,  its  nature,  laws,  and  prin- 
ciples. This  instruction  is  called  '  teaching,'  and  it 
was  with  such  teaching  rather  than  with  preaching 
that  the  later  part  of  His  ministry  was  occupied. 

A  similar  distinction  was  observed  in  the  apos- 
tolic ministry  and  in  the  life  and  organization  of 
the  early  ('hnrches.  Among  the  various  functions 
in  the  ("'Inirch  mentioned  by  St.  Paul  in  Romans 
occurs  that  of  'teaching  '(Rol2').  It  there  takes  the 
third  place  in  a  series,  being  preceded  by  prophecy 
ami  inini«trj',  and  followed  by  exhorting,  giving, 
ruling,  and  showing  mercy.  The  last  of  these 
functions  being  of  a  general  character,  and  such  as 
any  one  might  be  called  on  to  exercise,  suggests 
that  the  list  as  a  whole  may  not  point  to  definite 
offices.  But,  in  a  nearly  contemporary  and  prob- 
ably earlier  epistle,  teaching  is  assigned  to  specific 
persons.  In  1  Co  12'^  this  also  comes  third  in  a 
list ;  but  the  list  as  a  whole  is  ditl'erent  from  that 
in  Romans,  containing  titles  of  persons,  not  merely 
functions  ;  so  that  we  have  '  teachers,'  not  merely 
•teaching.'  They  are  preceded  by  '  first  apostles, 
secondly  prophets';  then  we  come  to  'thirdly 
teachers.'  The  form  changes  after  this  to  gifts 
»nd  functions — '  miracles,'  '  gifts  of  healing,'  etc. 
That  the  teaching  is  ascribed  in  an  especial  way  to 
Rome  people,  to  the  exclusion  of  otliers,  is  shown 
by  St.  Paul's  questions,  'Are  all  apostles?  Are 
all  prophets?  Are  all  tearhers?'  (v.^).  Never- 
theless, the  following  questions,  '  Are  all  workers 
of  miracles?  have  all  gifts  of  healing?'  etc.,  show 
that  the  personal  dilleren<es  rest  on  dillcrcnces  of 
gift.  At  Corinth  they  who  have  gifts  of  teaching 
are  teachers,  as  they  who  have  gifts  of  healing  are 
healers.  Another  arrangement  appears  in  Ephe- 
sians:  'and  he  gave  some  to  be  apostles  ;  and  some, 
prophets  ;  and  some,  evangelists  ;  and  some,  pastors 
antl  teachers  '  (Eph  4").     Here  we  have  four  ollices. 


and  that  of  teacher  set  last,  an  oflice  not  men- 
tioned in  the  earlier  lists — the  evangelist's — coming 
between  it  and  the  offices  of  apostles  and  prophets. 
Further,  it  is  also  known  by  the  name  of  '  pastor ' ; 
for  the  arrangement  of  the  clauses  ('and  some' 
introducing  each  class)  shows  that  the  '  teachers ' 
and  the  '  pastors  '  are  the  same  persons.  The  dis- 
tinction of  the  teacher  from  the  evangelist  is  sig- 
nificant, suggesting  the  difierentiation  of  function 
in  which  the  evangelist  preaches,  declaring  the 
gospel,  and  the  teacher  instructs  the  converts. 
The  companion  title  '  pa.stor '  points  to  a  settled 
ministry  within  the  Church  as  distinct  from  the 
travelling  mi.ssionary  activity  of  apostles  and 
evangelists  ;  but  it  is  to  be  observed  that  the 
apostles  gathered  up  in  themselves  the  several 
functions  that  were  afterwards  distributed  among 
various  members  of  the  Churches.  Thus  St.  Paul 
describes  himself  as  appointed  '  a  preacher  and  an 
apostle  ...  a  teacher,'  etc.  (1  'Ti  2' — assuming 
these  to  be  St.  Paul's  words).  When  we  turn  to 
Acts  we  meet  with  yet  another  arrangement. 
Here  teachers  seem  to  oe  identified  with  prophets 
(Ac  13')  ;  but  St.  Luke  may  mean  that  the  pro- 
minent men  whose  names  he  gives  consisted  of 
prophets  and  teachers,  as  two  classes.  In  course 
of  time  the  teacher  melts  into  the  bishop,  his 
function  is  absorbed  in  the  episcopate  ;  as  a  sepa- 
rate officer  he  is  discredited  by  comparison  with  the 
higher  official,  and  ere  long  he  disappears  entirely. 
These  stages  may  be  noted  thus  :  (1)  At  the  first 
ai)pearance  of  the  teacher  there  is  no  reference  to 
the  V)ishop  :  thus  there  is  no  indication  of  bishops 
in  1  Cor.  or  Romans.  (2)  At  the  time  of  the  Ejip. 
of  the  Captivity  the  teachers  seem  to  have  practical 
oversight,  like  that  of  the  early  bishops,  even  if  the 
name  is  not  given  to  them,  since  they  are  called 
'])astc)rs'  (Eph  4").  It  seems  reasonable  to  sup- 
pose that  these  were  equivalent  to  the  '  bishops ' 
of  Pli  1',  especially  since  the  word  '  bishop '  in  the 
latter  case  may  be  functional  rather  than  official, 
as  Dr.  Hort  suggested.  (3)  In  the  Pastoral 
Epistles  teaching  is  joined  to  the  episcopal  office. 
The  bishop  must  be  '  apt  to  teach  '  (1  Ti  'A- ;  com- 
pare Tit  1").  Especial  lionour  is  to  be  given  to  the 
eUioi  s  who  '  labour  in  the  word  and  in  teaching ' 
(1  Ti  .5")  :  this  suggests  that  teaching  was  not 
carried  on  by  all  the  elders.  St.  Paul  will  not 
allow  women  to  teach  publicly  in  the  Church  (1  Ti 
2"),  and  yet  he  had  written  of  aged  women  being 
'  teachers  of  that  which  is  good  '  (Tit  2'),  when  he 
must  have  meant  home  teacning,  or  perhaps  teach- 
ing by  example,  unless  we  are  to  su])pose  that  he 
changed  his  views  on  the  subject  between  Titus  and 
2  Tim.,  which  is  improbable.  Already  the  teacher's 
ollice  is  falling  into  unworthy  hands  ;  and  the 
a])ostle  writes  of  the  time  when  i)eople  will  not 
endure  'healthful  teaching'  (RVm  ir/iaivovari^ 
SidaiTKaXlai,  not  'sound  doctrine'  AV  and  RV), 
but,  having  itching  ears,  will  heap  to  themselves 
teachers  after  their  own  lusts  (2  Ti  4^).  (4)  In  the 
sub-Apostolic  age  we  still  meet  with  the  teacher  as 
distinct  from  the  bishop,  though  teaching  now  is 
more  and  more  appropriated  by  the  latter  ofiicer, 
and  the  teacher  is  sinking  in  importance.  In  the 
Didarhi  there  are  '  teachers '  as  well  as  '  apostles ' 
and  '  prophets.'  All  three  of  these  functionaries 
ai)pear  as  itinerant  ministers  visiting  the  Churches. 
"The  tea(ther  is  to  be  tested  by  what  he  teaches, 
and  received  or  rejected  according  as  his  instruc- 
tion agrees  with  what  is  laid  down  in  this 
treatise  or  dill'ers  from  it  (see  Didnrhf  xi.).  These 
travelling  teachers  are  quite  distinct  from  the 
'  bishops  and  deacons '  whom  the  writer  bids  his 
readers  '  appoint  for  yourselves' (x v.).  Still  later 
we  meet  with  '  teachers '  in  the  Shepherd  of 
Hermas,  and  here  they  appear  among  the  otficera 
of  the  Church,  coming  between  tlic  bisliop  and  the 


692 


TEBAH 


TEKOA 


deacon.  The  stones  in  the  mystical  buililing  '  are 
the  apostles  and  bishops  and  teachers  and  deacons  ' 
( ]'is.  iii.  5).  Hennas  writes  disparagingly  of  'self- 
appointed  teachers,'  who  '  praise  themselves  as 
having  understanding,'  '  senseless  though  tliey  are' 
(Sim.  IX.  22).  We  have  no  definite  account  of  the 
manner  in  wliich  the  teachers  perfornjed  their 
work,  or  of  the  substance  of  their  instructions. 
We  are  tempted  to  think  of  the  catechetical 
teaching  of  later  times  ;  but  there  is  no  clear  indi- 
cation of  a  catechumenate  in  NT.  StUl  sometliing 
of  the  kind  must  have  arisen  early  from  the  neces- 
sity of  the  case.  The  Didachi  seems  to  have  been 
a  text-book  for  some  such  teaching.  It  has  been 
suggested  that  the  Logia  recently  discovered  in 
Egypt  might  be  a  list  of  sayings  of  Jesns  drawn 
up  for  use  in  teaching.  Possibly  St.  Matthew's 
Logia  was  compiled  with  that  end  in  view  ;  and 
the  same  may  be  suggested  of  the  canonical 
Gospels  (cf.  A.  Wright,  NT  Problems,  p.  91tf.). 
AVitli  reference  to  teachers  and  teaching  in  the 
NT  see  Allen,  Christian  Institutions,  pp.  28,  29, 
40,  42;  McGiffert,  Apostolic  Age,  52811.,  64011., 
654  ff.  ;  Weizsiicker,  Daa  Apostulische  Zeitnlter, 
pp.  621,  022.  W.  V.  Adeney. 

TEBAH  (nja  ;  A  TipcK,  Lnc.  T(£(3fx).— A  'son'  of 
Nahor  bj'  his  concubine  Reumah,  Gn  22"  [J].  The 
name  stands  for  an  Aramasan  town,  prob.  the 
same  as  is  named  in  2  S  8' [where  read,  after  LXX, 
Pesh.,  and  1  Ch  18',  nao  for  nai.      See  Tibhath]. 

TEBALIAH  (i.t^js' J"  hath  dipped,  i.e.  purified' ; 
B  lafiXa.l,  A  Ta;3£\(as,  Luc.  Ta/ie^^X).— A  Merarite 
gatekeeper,  1  Ch  26". 

TEBETH  (r?n,  T7,;3^9).— The  10th  (Bab.-)  Jewish 
mouth.     See  TIME. 

TEHAPHNEHES,  Ezk  30>'.— See  Tahpanhes. 

TEHINNAH  (njnn ;  B  QmijAv,  A  Qavi,  Lnc. 
e«^rd).— Tlie  '  father'  of  Ir-nahash,  1  Ch  4". 

TEIL  TREE.— A  mistranslation  (AV  Is  6»)  of 
n%  (RV  '  terebinth ').  For  the  various  tr"  of  'elah 
see  Oak  and  Terebinth. 

TEKEL.— See  Mene,  Mene,  Tekel,  Upharsin. 

TEKOA  (J'lpn  ;  LXX  Gcicue,  Gf/coCe,  BtKiifx,  Geniis). 
— A  town  in  the  tribe  of  Judah,  about  10  miles  S. 
of  Jerusalem  and  5  S.  of  Bethleliem,  situated  on 
a  detached  hill  about  2700  ft.  high  which  is  girt 
with  other  lower  hills.  From  the  summit  there  is 
a  broad  prospect.  In  the  W.  and  S.  tlie  view  is 
closed  by  hills,  cultivated  or  clothed  with  low 
vegetation.  On  the  N.  is  the  ravine  of  Urt.'is  and 
its  continuation  KhureitOn,  cutting  deeply  through 
the  hills  down  to  the  Dead  Sea.  Tlie  Frank  moun- 
tain and  Bethlehem  are  visible  :  Jerusalem  is 
hidden  behind  intervening  hills,  but  the  Mount  of 
Olives  can  be  seen  and,  still  farther  to  the  N., 
Nebi  SamAvil.  To  the  S.E.  is  another  deep  and 
wild  valley,  Wady  Jeliar,  running  towards  the 
Dead  Sea,  glim])ses  of  which  can  be  obtained 
through  the  distant  clifis.  Eastwards  the  hill 
slopes  down  to  the  Wilderness  of  Judah.  Canon 
Tristram  describes  the  approach  from  the  Wady 
liereikeh  :  '  In  front  of  us  is  a  long  hill,  with  a 
copious  spring  at  its  foot.  .  .  .  The  district  in  its 
natural  features  seems  to  have  been  always  w^hat 
it  is  now — bare,  treeless,  open  pasturage.  We 
here  lose  all  traces  of  the  ancient  terraces  which 
gird  the  undulations  of  every  hill  farther  west 
with  their  swathing  bands.  Here  and  there  are 
still  patches  of  cultivation  in  the  hollows  of  the 
valleys,  but  the  soil   is  dry  and  stony,  and   we 


begin  here  to  lose  the  rich  vegetable  mould  w  hich, 
however  scanty,  still  covers  more  or  less  the 
whole  of  the  central  hills,  and  have,  in  its  stead, 
only  a  thirsty,  chalky  marl.  That  vegetable  soil 
is  doubtless  due,  in  the  lirst  instance,  to  the  prim- 
aeval forest,  which  certainly  once  covered  the  whole 
of  the  Judoean,  as  of  the  Gilead,  range,  but  has 
left  no  trace  of  its  existence  on  the  Western  slopes 
towards  the  Dead  Sea.' 

The  town  is  not  mentioned  very  frequently  in 
Scripture.  The  Heb.  of  Jos  15''"  does  not  include  it 
in  the  list  of  places  Ijelonging  to  Judah  :  the  LXX 
gives  it  and  ten  other  towns,  one  of  them  being 
Bethlehem.  1  Ch  2-^  4'  ascrilie  to  Tekoa  an  anti- 
quity coeval  with  the  Conquest.  According  to 
tnese  passages,  Ashhur,  Caleb's  half-brother,  was 
the  father,  i.e.  the  founder,  of  Tekoa.  In  2  S  14 
the  wLse  woman  of  Tekoa  is  spoken  of  in  such  a 
manner  as  to  convey  the  impression  that  her 
shrewdness  had  brought  her  dwelling  -  place  into 
notoriety.  David  spent  much  time  in  this  part  of 
the  country  during  his  Wanderjahre  :  afterwards  it 
was  a  recruiting  ground  for  the  ranks  of  his  mighty 
men  (2  S  23-'»,  1  Ch  11=8).  prom  2  Ch  11«  we  learn 
that  it  was  one  of  the  towns  fortified  by  Reboboam. 
Its  commanding  position  and  its  situation  on  the 
utmost  frontier  of  the  cultivated  land  would  ensure 
its  being  made  a  military  post.  Jer  6'  shows  that 
its  defences  continued  to  be  kept  up.  The  p"ophet 
bids  the  children  of  Benjamin  raise  up  a  signal  on 
Beth-haccherem  (Jebel  Fureidis,  the  Frank  moun- 
tain), and  blow  tlie  trumpet  in  Tekoa.  This  is  not 
said  merely  for  the  sake  of  the  play  on  words, 
tik'u,  Tekoa  [note  also  tak^H  in  v.^],  but  also 
because  this  was  a  garrison  town.  The  Wilder- 
ness of  Tekoa  is  named  at  2  Ch  20^  as  the  battle- 
field where  Jehoshaphat  defeated  the  Ammonites 
and  their  allies.  In  the  Bk.  of  Nehemiah  (3°- ") 
the  public  -  spiritedness  of  the  commonalty  is 
sharply  contrasted  with  the  contemptuous  retusal 
of  their  chiefs  to  bend  the  neck  to  the  Tirshatha's 
yoke.  1  Mae  9^  relates  that  Simon  and  Jonathan 
ned  to  the  Wilderness  of  Tekoa  from  before  Bac- 
chides.  The  crowning  glory  of  Tekoa  was  its 
connexion  with  the  prophet  Amos  (Am  1'). 

Josephus,  who  mentions  Tekoa  as  one  of  the 
'strong  and  large  cities'  built  by  Rehoboam  (Ant. 
Vlll.  X.  1),  speaks  of  it  as  a  village  in  the  Macca- 
baean  period  (BJ  IV.  ix.  5)  and  in  his  own  day 
(Vita,  75).  Jerome  (Comm.  in  Jerem.  vL  1)  calls 
it  a  village,  12  (Roman)  miles  from  Jerusalem, 
visible  to  him  from  Bethlehem  every  day.  In  the 
Pref .  to  Amos  he  adds :  '  There  is  no  village  be- 
yond Tekoa,  not  even  [a  probable  conjectural 
emendation  is  'except']  rustic  huts,  of  the  appear- 
ance of  ovens,  which  the  Africans  call  mapalia : 
such  is  the  desolateness  of  the  desert  which  extends 
as  far  as  the  Red  Sea  and  the  boundaries  of  the 
Persians,  Ethiopians,  and  Jews.  And  because  no 
kind  of  crop  whatever  grows  on  the  dry  and  sandy 
soil,  the  whole  neighliourhood  is  occupied  by 
shepherds,  to  comjiensate  for  the  barrenness  of  the 
soil  by  the  multitude  of  sheep.'  The  same  Father 
asserts  that  the  tomb  of  Amos  was  shown  at  this 
place.  The  Talmud  speaks  of  the  oil  of  Tekoa  as 
the  best  in  the  country  ;  and  one  of  the  Arab  geo- 
graphers says  that  its  honey  was  so  excellent  as  to 
have  become  proverbial.  In  the  early  part  of  the 
6th  cent.  Saba  founded  a  new  monastery  here, 
which,  in  contradistinction  to  Laura  (Miir  SAha), 
was  called  Laura  Nova,  '  New  Monastery.'  Soon 
after  his  death  it  became  the  scene  of  tierce  con- 
llicts  between  the  Monophy sites  and  the  orthodox. 
In  Crusading  times  it  was  inhabited  by  a  lar^e 
population  of  Christians,  who  afforded  considerable 
help  to  the  Franks  during  the  first  siege  of  Jeru- 
salem. The  village  was  sacked  by  a  party  of 
Turks  from  beyrnd  the  Jordan  in  A.D.  1138,  bul 


TEKOA 


TELEM 


693 


the  majority  of  the  inliabitants  had  taken  refuge 
in  the  great  cave  of  KliurcitCln.  Tliere  is  a  eonie- 
vhat  puzzling  reference  in  Baliaoddinus,  Vita 
Salad.,    ed.    bchultens,    p.    237.     He    writes    of 

'the    river    of    Tekoa  (c  «aJ    .a)),   one  parasang 

[=about  3  Eng.  miles]  fruni  Jerusalem,  which  fur- 
nished a  suftiuient  supply  of  water  to  Uichard  of 
Kngland  and  his  army  '  of  Crusaders.  It  is  obvious 
that  the  distance  here  given  does  not  agree  with 
the  facts.  Thesug;^estion  has  been  made  that  the 
water  in  question  was  that  of  the  lake  mentioned 
1  Mac  9**  Td  OSuip  XiKKOv  'Aa(pdp  (X,  Ven.),  or  "Air^dX 
(A),  which  Josephus  {Ant.  XHI.  i.  2)  calls  tA 
CSujp  ri  KoXov/ievo;/  XcLkkov  'Aatpdp,  and  which  Miihlau 
identifies  with  ez-Z(i UrAne  S.  of  Tekoa,  Robinson 
(BliP'  ii.  202)  with  Bir  Selhub  S.W.  of  En-gedi. 

The  Palestine  pilgrims  of  the  Middle  Ages  do  not 
enlighten  us  greatly  as  to  the  condition  or  history 
of  Tekoa.  In  the  account  of  St.  Willibald's  pil- 
grimage (8th  cent.)  it  is  said  that  he  came  hither, 
and  '  tliere  is  now  a  church,  and  there  rests  one  of 
the  prophets.'  The  anonymous  itinerary  of  this 
journey  asserts  that  Nathanael  was  one  of  the 
infants  at  Bethlehem  wlien  Herod  slew  the  chil- 
dren, that  his  mother  hid  him  under  a  tig  tree 
(Jn  l"),  and  that  he  escaped  to  Tekoa.  In  the 
12th  cent.  John  of  WUrzburg  and  I'etellus  state 
that  the  tomb  of  Amos  was  shown  there,  the  latter 
adding,  '  From  its  confines  Habakkuk  was  borne  by 
the  angel  to  Babylon.  In  Thecua  many  of  the 
prophets  used  to  meet  together  to  discuss  divine 
things.'  Isaac  Chelo  (A.D.  1134)  speaks  of  the 
tomb  of  Amos  as  being  in  a  cave  at  this  place. 
From  William  of  Tyre  we  learn  that  in  A.D.  11-44 
queen  Melesinda  gave  the  spot  to  the  canons  of  the 
Iloly  Sepulchre  in  exchange  lor  property  at  Bethany. 

The  ancient  name  Tekiia  still  clings  to  the  site 
(Robinson,  Pal.  ii.  4U0!i'. ;  (iu6rin,  Judie,  iii. 
141  ff.).  In  the  neighbourliood  large  flocks  of  sheep 
and  goats,  together  with  a  few  oxen,  are  pastured 
by  Arabs,  genuine  representatives  of  the  nomads 
who  dwelt  there  in  ancient  days.  On  the  level 
ground  immediately  near  the  hill  corn  is  grown. 
The  shepherds  use  for  sheep-cotes  the  numerous 
caves  with  which  the  mountains  are  honeycombed. 
On  the  broad  summit  of  the  hill  of  Tekoa  tliere  are 
ruins  which  cover  a  space  of  four  or  Hve  acres. 
They  '  consist  chiefl}'  of  the  foundations  of  houses 
constructed  of  large  hewn  stones,  some  of  them 
bevelled.  At  the  K.E  are  the  remains  of  a  square 
tower,  occupying  a  very  commanding  position  ;  and 
near  the  middle  of  the  site  are  the  ruins  of  a 
Greek  church,  with  several  broken  columns  and 
an  octagonal  baptismal  font  of  rose-coloured  lime- 
stone, 5  ft.  diani.  on  the  outside,  4  on  the  inside, 
and  3  ft.  9  in.  deep.  There  are  also  many  cisterns 
excavated  in  the  rock.'  The  view  of  the  font  in 
Wilson's  Picturesque  Palestine,  iii.  184,  is  well 
worth  seeing. 

Cyril  of  Alexandria  asserts  that  the  Tekoa  of 
Amos  was  an  Ephraimite,  not  a  Juda;an  city.  The 
author  of  the  Lives  of  the  Pruphets  says  that  it 
was  in  the  tribe  of  Zebulun — probably  a  mi.stake 
for  Simeon,  since  Simeon  bordered  clo.sely  on 
Judah.  Abarbanel  and  Kiinchi  jilace  it  in  the 
tribe  of  Asher.  But  tliere  is  not  a  particle  of  real 
evidence  in  favour  of  a  second  Tekoa. 

Tekoite.  —  A  native  or  inhabitant  of  Tekoa. 
The  adjective  is  used  three  times  in  the  singular 
number  (2  S  23^,  1  Ch  112»27")  of  one  of  David's 
mighty  men,  Ira,  the  son  of  Ikkesh  the  Tekoite. 
In  2  S  14*-  •  the  Heb.  has  the  fem.  form,  but  our 
versions  render  the  expression,  'ishshAh  hat-tiko  tth, 
by  '  woman  of  Tekoa.  In  Neh  3'-  "  the  plural  is 
eni|)loyed  for  one  of  the  bands  of  volunteers  who 
rebuilt  the  wall  of  Jerusalem  under  Nehemiah. 
It  is  a  little  doubtful  whether  these  men  actually 


occupied  Tekoa  at  the  time.  Tekoa  does  not 
figure  in  the  list  of  repeopled  towns  given  in  Ezr  2 ; 
they  ma}'  have  been  simply  '  a  clan  of  fellow- 
townsmen  who  had  held  together  during  the  Exile, 
and  were  known  by  this  name  after  they  had 
settled  in  Jerus;ilem.'  In  any  case  their  public- 
spirited  zeal  (v.")  sheds  lustre  on  the  name. 

J.  Taylor. 
TEKOAH.— This  is  the  AV  form  in  2  S  H^-*" 
for  Tekoa,  and  is  retained  by  RV  in  1  Mac  9^  in 
the  expression  '  wilderness  of  Tekoah.' 

TEL-ABIB  (3'3i<  ^B,  perh.  'hill  of  com,'  but  see 
Del.  Heh.  Lang.  16  ;  p-erioipos ;  ad  acervum  no- 
varum J'rurjum). — A  place  on  the  Chebar  (Ezk  3">), 
— one  of  the  rivers  or  canals  in  Babylonia.  The 
site  is  unknown.  The  LXX  and  Vulgate  have 
translated  the  term  as  if  it  were  not  a  proper  name. 

C.  W.  Wilson. 

TELAH  (n^u ;  B  GdAfes,  A  OdXe,  Luc.  edXa).— 
An  Ephraimite,  I  Ch  T'-''. 

TELAIM  (O'N^pn  '  the  lambs' ;  ^i'raX7iiXoi5  ;  quasi 
agnos). — The  place  at  which  S.aul  concentrated  liis 
forces,  and  numbered  his  fighting  men  before  his 
camiiaign  against  the  Amalekites  (1  S  15*).  The 
LXX  reads  Gilgal  for  Telaim,  and  Josephus 
(Ant.  VI.  vii.  2)  also  makes  GUgal  the  place  of 
assembly.  Gilgal,  however,  though  so  frequently 
mentioned  in  connexion  with  the  history  of  Saul, 
would  be  an  inconvenient  mustering-place  for  a 
force  about  to  oiperate  against  the  Amalekites 
in  the  desert  S.  of  Palestine.  Still  it  is  possible 
that  Saul  may  have  started  from  the  sanctuary  to 
which  he  returned  with  his  prisoner  and  booty. 
A  more  suitable  locality  for  the  place  of  assembly 
would,  however,  be  in  the  Negeb,  or  Soutli ;  and 
here  lay  Telem  (Jos  IS-'),  with  which  Telaim  is 
prob.ably  identical.  So  Wellhausen,  Driver,  and 
liudde,  who  prefer  to  point  o.-tj'o.  Wellhausen 
reads  o^o  also  in  1  S  15'  for  ■ij'"!!!.  The  same  read- 
in"  should  also  probably  be  found  in  1  S  27*  (see 
Wellh.  and  Driver,  ad  lo'c. ,  and  Hommel,  A HT 243). 

C.  W.  Wilson. 

TELASSAR  (hsn'?!?  2  K  19",  -iz^i}  Is  37"  '  hill  of 
Asshur ' ;  B  Qa^aBiv,  A  tiaXturcrip ;  Thelassar,  Tha- 
lassar). — A  town,  inhabited  by  'the  children  of 
Eden '  (see  Eden),  which  had  been  conquered  by 
Sennacherib's  forefathers,  and  was  in  the  possession 
of  the  Assyrians  during  that  monarch's  reign  (2  K 
lO",  Is  37'-).  It  is  iniiMlioned  with  Gozan,  Haran, 
and  Rezeph — places  in  Western  Mesopotamia.  In 
this  direction  lay  Beth-Eden,  or  Bit-'Adini  (see 
art.  Edkn,  vol.  i.  p.  642''),  a  district  between  the 
Euphrates  and  the  Belik.  It  probably  stretched 
along  both  banks  of  the  I'^uphrates,  between  Balis 
and  Birejik.  In  the  inscrii)ti()ns,  Gozan,  Haran, 
Kezeph,  and  BSt-'Adini  are  stated  to  have  been  de- 
stroyed by  Sennacherib's  forefathers — a  fact  which 
harmonizes  well  with  what  is  said  in  2  Kings  and 
Isaiah  (Schrader,  KAT^  327).  A  olace  of  this 
name  (Til-ASiuri)  is  mentioned  by  1  iglath-pileser 
III.  (Ann.  176,  ed.  Rost,  of.  Nimr.  ii.  a  23) ;  but  this 
.seems  to  have  wen  in  Babylonia.  The  name  is, 
however,  as  Schrader  remarks,  one  that  might 
have  been  given  to  any  place  at  which  a  temple 
had  been  built  to  Asshur ;  and  the  Til-ASiuri. 
which  Esarhaddon  speaks  of  having  conquered 
(KIB  ii.  219),  near  tlie  land  of  the  Mitanni,  as  Del. 
(Parad.  304)  remarks,  suits  better. 

C.  W.  Wilson. 

TELEM  (Di>9  ;  B  T^Xw,  AN  WXXij/i).— A  gate- 
keeper who  had  married  a  foreign  wife,  Ezr  10" ; 
called  in  1  Es  9"  TolbanoB ;  perhaps  the  same  aa 
Talmon  of  Neh  12»». 

TELEM  (o)n  'oppression';  B  Maird^,  A  TA»m  ; 
Tclem). — One  of  the  uttermost  cities  of    Judah 


694 


TEL-HARSHA 


TEMPERANCE 


towards  the  border  of  Edom  in  t^^f^f ''' ""^f  f^^ 
M,w  15=-'l  It  is  mentioned  between  Ziph  ana 
^'etloih,  'and  may  be  the  same  ,;l^e  as  Telaim 
(1  s  15^1  In  the  LXX  reading  of  2  b  3  ,  Abner  is 
laid  to  have  sent  messengers  to  Thelam  (ea^W  , 
'vhere  David  was;  and,  if  this  reading  ^e  correct 
Telem   or  Telaim   was  probably   intended.     The 

liisisiiP 

N  of  Mofadah  the  whole  district  is  called  Touiam. 

TFL-HARSHA  (K^n  iB  'hUl  of  the  wood';  B 

^TBabyfonian  tot^f  of'  unknowij  site  from 
;;hth  some  of  the  Jews  who  'could  not  show 
Xpir  fathers'  houses,  and  their  seed,  whether  Uiey 
their  'f'^^",';"" turned  to  Judsa  after  the  Cap- 
were  of  Ibrael,  returnea  -^  g  53a  the  name  is 
tmty  (Ezr -2",  iNeh  <  ).  in  i  r-s^o 
•wTitten  Thelersas.  ^• 

TELL.— See  Talk. 


TELMELAH  (n^?  ''5  'hiU  of  salt' ;  B  e^Aee^ 

Babylonian  town?  of  unkno^vn  site,  -hich  is  men 
tioned  Nvith  Tel  -  harsha  and  Cherub  (t-^r  ^  • 
Keh  7").     In  1  Es  5^  it  is  written  T^hermeleth^ 

TEMA  (N=-i3   'on  the  right,'   'south';    ea.M", 
e,^t ;  Themal-X  tribe  o?Ishmael.te  Arabs  and 
a   place  or  district  in  Arabia,  which  took  their 
name  from  Tema,  one  of  the  twelve  sons  of  Ish- 
S  (GnV  1  Ch  1-,  Is  21").     The  people  were 
leaders  of  caravans,  or  camel-men,  and  their  en 
clmpments  were  apparently  on  a  caravan^route 
which  would  be  followed  by  fugitives  from  Dedan 
( Tnh  fii»    Is  2V^-  ").     According  to  some  authori- 
ties the'passage  in  Job  refers  to  '  caravans  crossing 
the  desertin  the  dr>  season ;  pressmgforward  to  look 
for  water  S  the  winter  torrents,  and  fanding  none. 
TheTr  disappointment  is  a  lively  image  of  the  ex- 
ierience  of  Job  when  he   looked  for  sympathy 
From  hi^  brethren'  (Smith,  ^5-.  A™«'- f^-.  J<>te  to 
Tema)       In  Jer  25^    Tema    is  mentioned   with 
Dedan  and   Buz,   and  it  may  be  inferred     rom 
1/01T3.14  that  it  was  E.   of    the  former    place. 
Ptolemy    (v.    six.    6)    mentions    a    to\vn    called 
XS     e^MA"!)    in    the  Arabian  desert;,  and, 
ac^Sc,  to  Schrader  (KAT-  149),  Tema  is  the 
Si  of-Tiglath-pileser  H-.  mentioned  in  conjunc- 
tion with  the  Mas'at  (the  Massa  of  Gn  2o   ). 

Tema  is  now  Teimd,  a  well-known  place  in  ^. 
Arabia!  about  40  miles    S.   of  Du^ructd-JenM 
(Dumah),  and  on  an  old  route  from  the  Gulf  of 
•Sail  to  the  Persian  Gulf.    The  ancient  city 
was  enclosed  by  a  stone  waU  about  3_mUes  in  circuit, 
rndt°iere  are  still  remains  of  this    and  of  some 
great  mde  stone  buildings.  Teimd  is  described  as  'a 
taKnd  of  palms  enclosed  by    ong  clay  orchard 
walls  fortified  with  high  towers.'     The  houses  are 
l*w  build  ngs  of  mud  or  clay  (Doughty,  Travds  ^ 
^5)      The  Aramaic  inscriptions   discovered    by 
Eutin-  at  Teima  prove  it  toTiave  been  the  seat  of 
an  un?ient  civilization  (see  Sitzungsber.  dcr  Bcrl 
Ahld    der    Wissensch.,    1884,   P-  .813ff.  :   and  cf 
Studki  BM.  i.).     The  LXX  re.admg,  followed  by 
EuseSufand  Jerome  (0»om.),  apparently  connects 
Tema  with  Teman. 
LiTi!aiT™ii.-DUlmann   co   »e   paasagM   above   cited   In 


TEMAH  (n-r :  AV  Tamah  is  due  to  the  occur- 
rence of  the  word  in  pausal  form  ""~,1-  —  i''« 
eponym  of  a  family  of  Nethinira  Ezr  2"  BA  Qe^, 
Luc.  eeMad)  =  Iseh  7"  (B  'HMa9,  A  Qy,fio.,  Luc. 
ee/iad). 

TEMAN  (i=-B   'on  the  right,'  'south';  Qm^'X 
Theman).-A  district,  and  perhaps  also  a  town, 
which  received  its  name  from,  or  gave  it  to,  a 
grandson  of  Esau,  who  was  one   of  the     dukes 
^f  Edom  (Gn  36"•"•^^  1  Ch  1^;  =»)-      Teman  was 
one    of    the  most  important  districts  in    Edom. 
From  it  ('the  land  of  the  Temanites,'  Gn  3b-;^-») 
came  one  of  the  early  kings  of  Edom  ;   and  it  is 
sometimes  used  poetically  for  Edom.     The  name  is 
apparently  used  in   its  wider  sense  for   Edom   in 
Am   1"  (cf    Am  2*-»,  where  the  country  and  its 
chief  to^vn  are  connected) ;  in  Ob»(cf.  '.the  mighty 
men  of  Edom'  in  Jer  49--) ;  in  the  poetical  parallel 
( Ter  49=")     where  the  inhabitants  of  Teman  are 
those  of  Edom  ;  in  Hab  3',  ^yhere  Teman  stands  for 
Edom,  as  Seir  does  in  Dt  33^ ;  and  m  Bar  3-  ^.     In 
its  narrower  sense  the  name  occurs  in  Un  rfb  •    , 
Job  ""  4'  15'  22'  42»,  Ezk  25l^  and  perhaps  also  in 
Jer  49'       The  Temanites  were  pre-eminent   for 
their  wisdom  (Jer.,  Ob.,  Bar.,  as  quoted  above) ; 
and  it  was  fitting  that  Eliphaz   one  of  the  wise 
men  of  Teman,  should  be  the  chief  of  the  three 
friends  of  Job.  ,  , 

The  name  of  Teman  has  not  been  recovered, 
and  its  position  is  uncertain.  A  distoct  m  the 
N.  of  Edom  seems  to  be  implied  in  Ezk  25''  from 
Teman  even  unto  Dedan,'  and  in  Am  l"  it  is 
mentioned  with  Bozrah  {el-Buseireh) ;  but  on  the 
Sher  hand,  it  is  connected  mth  the  Red  Sea  i.n 
T„r  4920.21  Eusebius  states  (Onom.)  that,  m  ins 
day,  Teman  was  a  town  15  (Jerome  5)  Roman  miles 
from  Petra,  and  a  Roman  post;  but  he  does  not 
give  the  direction.  No  trace  of  this  place  has 
been  found,  but  it  was  probably  on  the  road  from 
Elath  to  Bozrah. 

LiTERATORK.-Dillmann  on  Gn  36"  and  Job  2"  ;...Dnver  on 
ii  Iia-  Wetotein,  ZUdir.f.  aUgem.  Erdkwide,  xviu.  52  f. 

•  c.  W.  Wilson. 

TEMENI  ('lo-B,  Baer  "ja-p  [cf.  Kittel,  SBOT. 
'Chronicles,'  p.' 52] ;  BA  Ga.Mci"',  Luc.  eoLi^a^ei).- 
The  '  son '  of  Ashhur,  1  Ch  4«. 


TEMPERANCE.— The  Eng.  word  'temperance* 
ocJ^s  L  Sci^ture  only  in  Ihe  NT  ;  but  the  idea 
of  temperance,  i.e.  self-control,  pervades  the  Ui 
asweU  as  the  Scriptures  of  the  Christian  period, 
and  the  duty  of  realizing  it  is  strongly  if'^ted 
on  throughout  the  Bible.      The  legal  regulations 
about    clean     and    unclean    foods    required    sell- 
restraint  'n   the  matter  of   diet.      The  Wisdom 
literature  dealing  especially  with  practica  conduct 
is  explicit  and  urgent  on  the  duty  of  self-coatrol. 
This  is  prominent  in  the  Bk.  of  Proverbs,  as  in  the 
sayings  concerning  ea<in^-' W  hen  thou  sittest  to 
eat  with  a  ruler,  consider  diligently  w-hat  or  w^ho) 
is  bJfore  thee  ;  and  put  a  knife  to  thy  throat,  if 
thou  be  a  man 'given  to  appetite'  (Pr  23'-  ») ;  vruve- 
drinking-'  Look  not  upon  the  wine  when  it  is 
red  '  etc     (v  ") ;   licentiousness— the  laws  against 
adultery,  the  frequent  warnings  in  Prov.  against 
■  the  strange  woman  ' ;  anger-'  He  that  is  slow  to 
anger  is  better  than  the  mighty;    and  he  t^^^at 
ruleth  his  spirit  than  he  that  taketh  a  city    (1(?  )  j 
,-ei,<;«7e-'llejoice  not  when  thme  enem.v  fal leth 
,p    0417).   and  elsewhere  greed  0/ wealth—   1  liou 
Shalt  not  covet-  (Ex  20")  ;  '  Woe  unto  them  that 
join  house  to  house,'  etc.  (Is  5').     A  spc"hc  seli- 
restraintwaa  put  upon  the  Nazintes  (see  NAzra- 
ITE)   and  a  similar  self -restramt  was  practised  by 
the   Rechabites  (see    Rechabites);    and   certain 
forms  of  abstinence  were  required  by  the  Law  in 
all  tlie  Jews,  as  at  fasts  (see  Fasting),  and  pre 


TK.MPLE 


TEMPLE 


695 


vious  to  solemn  religious  services  (Ex  19").  The 
relijjious  life  of  the  OT  saint  was  not  ascetic,  but 
it  was  simple  and  free  from  the  excesses  of  jiagan- 
ism.  Wliile  the  lBri\elite  was  encouraged  to 
leceive  the  gifts  of  tiod  with  thankfulness,  and 
to  use  them  without  fear  of  any  Nemesis  on  his 
prosperity,  he  was  not  to  plunjje  into  reckless  self- 
indulgence.  Solomon's  lu.xunous  living  is  not 
Israelite,  but  a  result  of  the  importation  of  foreign 
manners.  Eaal- worship  was  denounced  for  its 
licentiousness  as  well  iis  for  its  idolatry,  and  tlie 
unfaitlilulness  to  Jehovah  it  involved  on  the  part 
of  the  Israelites.  The  prophets  repeatedly  de- 
nounce the  luxurious  living  of  the  wealthy,  and 
the  growth  of  self-indulgence  generally,  as  foreign 
to  the  rigour  of  righteousness,  and  certain  to 
bring  ruin  on  a  nation  (e.g.  Am  4'  d'"*,  Is  S"""* 
5"-  '■'). 

^Vlien  we  come  to  the  NT  treatment  of  this 
subject,  we  have  the  description  of  John  the  Baptist 
in  his  rough  dress  and  simple  fare,  feeding  on  the 
native  products  of  the  wilderness  (Mk  1'^),  whom 
our  Lord  contrasts  with  those  who  '  wear  soft 
raiment,'  and  '  are  in  kings'  houses '  (Mt  1 1').  But 
the  .supreme  example  of  temperance  is  atibrded  by 
the  lile  of  Jesus  Clirist.  That  was  not  ascetic  ; 
the  charge  of  gluttony  and  wine  -  bibbing  was 
brought  again.st  our  Lord  by  malignant  slanderers 
because  He  did  not  practise  asceticism.  And  yet 
the  extreme  simplicity  of  His  living,  the  many 
hardships  He  voluntarily  endured,  and  His  com- 
plete unconcern  with  regard  to  His  own  comforts, 
as  well  as  His  perfect  freedom  from  all  forms  of 
sin  and  sellishness,  show  Him  to  us  as  one  who 
lived  the  ideal  life  of  temperance,  avoiding  excess 
and  extravagance  in  all  directions.  This  was  the 
method  of  life  He  inculcated  on  His  disciples. 
There  is  no  passage  in  His  teaching  runuiring 
asceticism,  and  no  direct  commendation  of  fasting 
(the  word  'fasting'  is  omitted  in  KV  of  Mk  ",)-" 
and  the  parallel  ^It  17^  in  accord.ance  with  best 
MSS) ;  but  there  is  much  urgent  dissuasion  from 
the  life  of  ease  and  self-indulgence.  The  di.scii)le 
of  Christ  is  required  to  hold  his  thoughts  as  well 
as  his  words  and  actions  under  control  (e.g.  Mt 
.")-'•  ^--  "■  **).  In  the  par.able  of  the  Rich  Man  and 
Lazarus  tlie  self-indulgence  of  the  former,  while  he 
ignores  the  sullcrer  at  his  gate,  aggravates  his 
guilt.  The  Or.  word  for  'temperance,'  iyKpireia, 
.ind  its  verbal  form,  (yKpa-Tevbiiai,  are  found  in  tlie 
NT  only  in  Acts  (there  ascribeil  to  St.  Paul),  St. 
Paul's  Epistles,  and  2  Peter.  Derived  from  Kpiro^, 
'  strong,'  they  indicate  the  strength  a  man  uses 
towards  himself  in  self-control.  St.  Paul  makes 
temperance  one  of  the  subjects  of  his  very  per- 
sonal address  to  Felix  (Ac  24^')  ;  and  elsewhere 
brings  it  forward  as  one  of  the  fruits  of  the  spirit 
(Gal  5!^).  Using  the  verbal  form  of  the  same  word, 
he  appeals  to  the  analogy  of  the  athlete  whose 
training  involves  univer.sal  self-restrnint  (1  Co  !)•'•). 
The  virtue  is  one  of  the  requisites  for  a  bishop 
(Tit  1").  In  2  P  1'  it  appears  in  an  a.sccniling 
series  of  commended  attainments,  following  know- 
ledge  and  preceding  godliness. 

See  also  art.  SoiiER.  W.  F.  Adeney. 

TEMPLE  (A.S.  tempel,  from  Lat.  templum,  a 
space  marked  out ;  a  s.anetiiary  :  cf.  riixtyo^  [from 
Tifivu,  '  to  cut '],  a  piece  of  land  cut  otl'  from  the  rest 
and  dedicated  to  a  god). — In  the  EV  'temple' 
renders  the  Hebrew  words:  —  Sj'n  (hi'knl,  in  a 
narrower  sense  the  Holy  Place)  and  n"3  ('  house,' 
including  lUkdl  and  dihir  tj";,  or  Most  Holy 
Place).  Three  Gr.  words  are  tr.  'temple'  in  the 
NT:  lepbv  (more  correctly  the  whole  of  the  sacred 
enclosure),  vabt  (strictly  the  sanctuary  or  sacred 
ediHce  alone,  embracing  hfhal  an<l  di'hir),  olitot. 

i.  SOLOUotrs  Buildings.— TUe  pile  or  series  of 


edifices  of  which  the  Temple  formed  one  part.o 
emiiraced  in  addition  the  king's  house,j3  the  porch 
of  pillars,7  the  throne  porch, a  the  house  for 
Pharaoh's  daughter  now  married  to  Solomon, e  the 
king's  dwelling,  and  the  Itaram.     The  following  is 


d 

D 


-Q    Q 


FIO.  1. — fLAN  OP  BOTAX,  BDILDWOS. 

1.  The  preat  court.  2.  The  'other' ormiddle  court  8.  The 
inner  (or  temple)  court.  4.  House  of  Lebanon.  6.  Porch  of 
pillars.  6.  Throne  porch.  7.  Royal  palace.  8.  Qaram.  9. 
Temple.    10.  Altar. 

Stade'sf  plan  of  the  royal  buildings  as  slightly 
simplified  by  Benzinger  in  his  Heb.  Arch,  i;  and  in 
his  Com.  on  Kings. 8 

The  above  plan  takes  for  granted  that  the  pile 
of  buildings  formed  a  complete  whole.  There  was 
one  'great  court'  (1)  which  surrounded  the  whole. 
The  '  other  court '  (2)  encompassed  the  king's 
palace  i  and  hirnm  ;  k  in  2  K  20''  it  is  called  the 
'  middle  court,'  because  it  lay  between  the  inner  or 
temple  court  and  the  southernmost  buildings 
(Lebanon  house,  etc.).  The  'inner  court'  X  (3)  was 
that  which  contained  the  temple  and  its  belong- 
ings:  'inner'  not  in  contrast  with  an  outer  court 
of  the  temple  (of  such  a  court  Solomon's  temple 
knows  notliing),  but  as  distinguished  from  the 
'greater  court,'  which  contained  within  it  all  the 
royal  buildings.  Apart  from  the  description  in 
1  K  .5-7,  Kzk  43* /i  makes  it  exceedingly  likely 
that  the  whole  of  these  buildings  were  together, 
making  one  whole. 

On  the  other  hand,  TheniuB,*  Furrer.f  and  others  place  the 
temple  on  the  eoat  hill,  but  the  other  royal  buikiinj,'«  on  the 
inodt-rn  Mount  Zion  and  the  haram  hill,  between  which  two 


«  But  to  the  author,  or  at  all  events  the  editor,  of  even  Kings 
the  temple  was  the  principal  building  of  the  ((roup,  if  not  the 
llnal  cause  of  the  whole. 

0  1  K  72  '  House  of  the  forest  of  Lebanon,' so  called  on  account 
of  the  cedar  wood  used  in  its  construction  and  the  piles 
upon  which  it  rested.  J.  D.  Michaelis,  Dathe,  Iken  {Dissert. 
I'hiiolog.  i.  diss.),  and  Hamelsfeld  {Bihl.  Geofj.  i.  p.  3:18)  hold 
that  the  house  in  Question  was  a  summer  residence  for  kintf 
Solomon  built  on  Lebanon  or  at  the  foot  of  it.  Dathe  refers  for 
support  to  1  K  91",  2  Ch  8».  But  the  fact  that  Solomon  deposited 
the  golden  shields  in  the  house  (see  91")  shows  that  the  house  was 
close  to  Jerusalem.  Besides,  we  never  read  of  Solomon's  having 
more  than  one  palace. 

V  1  K  70.  »  1  K  T».  1 1  K  7». 

C  Oach.  I.  316.  fl  p.  '.'.3B.  «  p.  20. 

,  1  K  71"  '»■  »  1  K  -8.  *  1  K  030. 

/M  'They  (the  children  of  Israel)  shall  no  more  defile  my  nome 
.  .  .  In  their  setting  of  their  thresholds  by  my  thresholds, 
and  their  poste  by  my  posts,  and  the  walls  between  me  and 
them.' 

t  On  A'tn^f  ;  see  his  plan,  Tafol  L 

E  Schcnkel,  ill  f.  222  0. 


e96 


TEMPLE 


TEJIPLE 


hills  the  TyropcBon  valley  is  situated.  But  the  references  we 
have  are  wholly  opposed  to  this,  as  is  also  the  probabilitj'  that 
the  kin^  woulii  liiive  his  palace  erected  in  closer  proximity  to 
the  royal  sanctuary. 

In  1  K  6'^*-  we  read  of  the  biiildint;  of  the  temple. 
V.^"  tells  us  of  an  inner  court,  meaning  clearly  the 
court  which  enclosed  the  temple  area  and  was 
itself  included  in  the  great  court, a  which  had  in  it 
the  whole  complex  of  royal  huihlings,  sacred  and 
secular.  The  i>:issage  in  Ezekiel/3  already  noted 
makes  this  arran!_'ement  still  more  likely. 

The  eastern  hill  on  which  the  royal  buildings 
were  erected  is  that  which  is  known  in  the  O  T  as 
ZiON  and  also  as  MoriaH.  Tlie  modern  fiction, 
which  h.xes  Zion  on  the  hill  west  of  the  Cheese- 
mongers' (  =  Tyropa;on)  valley,  has  nothing  to 
support  it  except  tradition.  It  has  against  it 
topographical  and  historical  considerations  which 
are  overwhelming.7  Had  the  buildings  been  ex- 
tended to  a  west  hill,  substructions  of  a  deeper 
and  more  expensive  character  would  have  been 
necessary. 

Retatii'!  positions  of  th»  Royal  Buildingt  at  Jerusalem.— 
Assuiuini;  that  the  roval  buildings  were  all  of  thcni  on  the 
eastern  hill,  how  were' they  relatively  situated?  Tlie  temple 
must  have  been  either  nortii  or  south  of  the  other  buildinjjs,  as 
the  distance  between  the  Tyropceon  and  the  eastern  dechvities 
was  too  small  to  allow  of  its  being  on  the  east  or  west.  It  is 
exceedingly  Ukely  that  it  was  on  the  north,  and  therefore  on 
higher  groiind.  "From  2  K  1119,  Jer  221  it  follows  that  the  way 
from  the  temple  to  the  p.alace  was  a  descent.  On  the  other 
hand,  in  1  K  8'  9^,  Jer  26")  it  is  equally  implied  that  it  was 
an  ascent  from  the  palace  to  the  temple.  In  these  passages 
it  is  taken  for  granted  that  the  temple  waa  in  proximity  to 
the  other  roval  buildings.  When  Jeremiah  was  arrested  for 
foretelling  the  destruction  of  the  temple,  the  princes  were  at 
once  upon  the  scene  and  constituted  themselves  into  a  body  of 
magistrates  to  deal  with  the  matter  5— an  incident  illustrating 
the  closeness  of  their  residences  to  the  sanctuary.  Probably 
the  southern  wall  of  the  temple  w.as  also  the  northern  \vall  of 
the  '  other '  or  '  middle '  court,  a  gate  leading  from  one  into  the 
other.  1  ,  „    . 

It  we  can  fix  the  position  of  the  altar  of  burntoffenng,  we 
can  locate  at  once  the  main  parts  of  the  temple  and  also  the 
other  roval  huildincs.  There  is  good  reason  for  believing  that 
the  sak'hra  or  rock  under  the  dome  of  the  mosque  of  Omar 
is  the  spot  where  the  altar  in  question  stood.  A  very  old  tradi- 
tion connects  with  this  spot  the  incident  in  which  Abraham 
prepared  to  offer  Isaac,  as  also  the  threshing-floor  of  Araunah 
the  Jebusite.  It  was  on  this  threshing-tloor  that  the  destroying 
angel  stood  when  Jehovah  stopped  him  in  his  work  of  destroying 
the  people.?  Even  if  these  associations  with  the  place  are 
imaginary,  yet  thev  show  that  it  was  a  sacred  spot  from  very 
primitive  tiines,  and  in  the  consen-ative  East  there  i«  but  little 
change  in  roads  or  towns  or  sanctuaries.  Solomon  would  be 
very  likely  to  erect  his  chapel  close  to  some  spot  where  a  Divine 
martifestation  had  been  made  or  some  altar  had  been  raised. 

The  form  of  the  stone  gives  good  reason  for  concluding  that 
it  was  that  on  which  the  sacrifices  were  offered  It  is  a  huge 
limestone  rock,  measuring  some  6U  by  50  ft.,  standing  above  the 
marble  pavement  about  5  ft.  On  its  top  there  is  an  opening, 
through  which  the  blood  of  the  victims  sacrificed  could  pass. 
Lower  down  there  is  an  open  cave  in  the  same  rock,  at  the 
bottom  of  which  the  stones  make  a  hollow  sound  when  struck. 
This,  with  other  indications,  makes  it  very  probable  that  there 
was  an  opening  at  the  bottom  through  which  the  blood  passed, 
this  opening  leading  into  a  subterranean  passage  which  con- 
tinued its  way  to  the  Kidron  Valley.  This  agrees  with  what  the 
Mishna  Bays,r  that  under  the  alUr  of  burnt-oflering  there  was 
a  conduit  by  means  of  which  the  blood  of  the  victmi  flowed 
into  the  valley  of  the  Kidron. 

Close  to  the  mkhra  or  rock  there  were  formerly  two  fountains, 
one  of  them  still  sending  up  fresh  and  beautiful  water.  The 
natives  say  the  water  of  this  hist  is  ver>-  putrid,  but  Pierotti 
tasted  it  and  found  they  were  wrong.  He  was  of  opinion  that 
the  water  had  the  name  of  being  filthy  on  account  of  its  long- 
time association  with  theeacrificial  blood  which  mingled  with  its 
Nowacki  thinks  that,  proliably,  the  sacriflcial  blood  after 
passing  into  the  aperture  at  the  bottom  of  the  cave  joined  the 
waters  of  that  'fountain  which  flowed  fast  by  the  oracle  ot 
God,' «  and  fell  with  them  into  the  eastern  valley.  Joining  ulti- 
mately the  Kidron. i 

The  altar  was  rough  and  In  Its  natural  stone,  which  meets  the 
requirement  ot  Ex  W^'-.u.  that  the  altar  should  be  either  of 
earth  or  ot  unhewn  stone.  Moreover,  there  were  to  be  no  steps 
going  up  to  the  altar,»— a  condition  also  eatisDed  by  this  rock. 


« 1  K  710. 12.  S  438  „.      ,        . 

y  See  art.  Zios,  Miihlau  in  Kichm',  «.  'Zion,'  and  especially 
Outhe  in  .?;/>/'Kv.  27111. 
>  Jer  26H'f-  ■  Cf.  Ezk  43". 

{23  24i»ir.,  1  Ch  21ioff.  (Oman).  •:  Yoma  iii.  1. 

B  Jerusalem  Sxptored,  London.  1864,  vol.  L  88ff. 
■  Heb.  Arch.  ii.  41.  «  Is  8«.  *  Ct.  Kzk  47»»- 

fi  Belonging  to  the  Book  of  the  OovenanU  >  Ex  20«. 


supposing  it  to  be  the  altar  of  Solomon's  temple.  This  last  U 
however,  but  twice  named  in  Kings  a  and  only  once  in  Chron 
icle8;/5  in  all  these  three  instances  the  altar  is  described  af 
brazen  ;  besides  the  size  which  the  Chronicler  gives,}-  that  is  all 
we  are  told  of  the  altar  of  burnt-ofiering  of  Solomon's  temple. 
Nowack,  indeed,  completes  the  picture  from  the  fuller  descrip. 
tion  of  Ezekiel's  temple. 5  but  with  questionable  Justification. 
It  is  likely  enough  that  the  adjective  '  brazen '  is  a  later  addition, 
and  lliat  the  altar  of  the  first  temple  was  one  of  unhewn  stone.  If 
this  stone  liad  not  all  along  occupied  a  very  important  place  in 
popular  esteem,  it  could  not  have  been  tolerated,  but  it  would 
many  centuries  before  have  been  levelled  to  the  ground. 

Since  the  temple  and  its  courts  were  arranged  in  terraces,  th« 
house  itself,  together  with  the  altar,  must  have  stood  on  the 
highest  platform  :  this  is  true  of  the  ground  on  which  the  rock 
rests. 

Among  leading  authorities  who  have  held  that  the  altar 
was  at  the  present  sakhra,  the  following  may  be  named  :— 
Williams,!  Tobler,  Furrcr,  Pierotti,?  Stade,r  Benzinger,li  and 
Nowack.i  Sir  Charles  Warren  puts  the  altar  just  a  little  to  the 
south  of  the  rock,  but  quite  close  to  it.»  If  the  saJchra  marks 
the  site  of  the  altar,x  the  house  must  have  been  to  the  we8t,M 
the  inner  or  temple  court*  east,  west,  south,  and  north,  wliile 
the  remaining  structures  built  on  the  hill  would  lie  toward* 
the  south. 

In  order  to  make  the  ^ock-cro^vned  Moriah  fit 
for  building  upon,  the  rocky  surface  would  have 
to  be  levelled— the  sakhra  being  left  as  it  was — 
and  the  parts  lower  down  raised  to  be  as  high  as 
the  rest.  Subterranean  passages  and  rooms  were 
erected,  'hewn  stones,'  'costly  stones,'  'great 
stones'  being  used,  large  quantities  of  earth  being 
thrown  in  to  iill  up  the  intervening  spaces.?  There 
are  to  be  seen  at  the  present  time  remains  of  these 
underground  buildings.  0 

All  agree  that  somewhere  on  the  modem  ^aram  eth-Sher^ 
the  temple  was  built ;  but  this  area  is  a  quadrangle  ot  unequal 
Bides-  Its  west  side  measures  1590  ft.,  its  east  1525  ft.  The 
north  and  south  sides  are  1036  and  921  ft.  respectively.  It  il 
impossible  that  the  temple  enclosure  included  the  whole  of  thu 
space,  though  de  VoguA,  de  Saulcy,  Sir  Henry  James,  and 
Sepp  maintain  that  Herod's  temple,  «ith  its  courts  and  en- 
closures, did  cover  the  Haram  surface.  German  and  French 
writers  almost  to  a  man,  and  the  miijority  of  English  and 
American  authorities,  unite  in  holding  that  the  temple  building 
proper  stood  west  of  the  rock  as  advocated  above,  and  that  with 
Its  adjuncts  it  covered  about  600  ft.  east  to  west  and  400  ft. 
north  to  south.  .,       ^  „ 

A  number  of  English  writers  have  followed  Fergussonr  m 
maintaining  that  the  temple  occupied  a  square  of  some  600  ft. 
at  the  S.W.  angle  of  the  Haram  (so  Thrupp,  Lewin,;  and  W.  B. 
Smiths).  Fergusson  was  led  to  this  view  by  architectural  con- 
siderations, and  especi.allv  by  his  acceptance  ot  the  Mosque  of 
Omar  site  for  the  Church  of  the  Holy  Sepulchre.  W.  R.  Smith 
states  succinctly  what  is  to  be  said  for  this  opinion,  but  there 
does  not  seem  much  inclination  on  the  part  of  students  ot  the 
subject  to  accept  it.  Indeed,  but  for  the  necessity  to  support 
a  foregone  conclusion,  Fergusson  would  hardly  have  hit  upon 
this  site  for  the  temple  at  all. 

Sources.— Oui  original  sources  for  the  history 
and  description  of  Solomon's  temple  are  threefold. 

(1)  We  have  what  is  said  in  1  K  6.  7,  which  leaves 
out  much  that  is  absolutely  necessary  to  make  a 
complete  picture.  Many  teclinical  terms  are  used, 
the  meaning  of  which  it  is  beyond  our  power  to 
elucidate  with  any  feeling  of  confidence.  More- 
over, the  text  is  exceedingly  corrupt  and  defective, 
so  that  conjectural  emendation  and  addition  have 
to  be  constantly  employed.  Bottcher  in  hinAe/iren- 
Icse,  Thenius  in  his  Commentary,  and  especially 
Stade  in  his  ZATlViii.,  have  made  praiseworthy 
attempts  to  supply  the  student  with  a  correct  text. 

(2)  We  have,  further,  the  parallel  history  in  2  Ch 
2'-5' ;  but  that  the  history  in  this  book,  however 
sincere  and  pious,  is  constructed  from  the  point  of 

•  Viz.  1  K  S*!  (in  a  narrative  ot  the  dedication  ot  the  temple) 
and  2  K  IS""'  (A  has  supplemented  it  by  an  altar  Irom 
Damascus). 

3  •*  Ch  41 

V  20  cubits  long  by  20  cubits  broad  by  10  cubits  high. 

rEzk43is.i7.  ,  TAf  Hofy  City  ^,  p.  296  fl. 

{  Op  cit.  1  GMch.  i.  314  a.  «  KSnige,  p.  2«  I 

lUek  Arch.  IL  27 f. 

x  Underqround  Jemmlem,  p.  60. 

AFig.  l.'lO.  ^  Fig.  1,9.  't^g-l.S. 

{IK  79  '* ;  Jos.  Ant.  viii.  iv.  8'2,  etc. 

•  See  Warren's  Umifrqround  JeniMlem,  p.  61  ff.      _ 
»  Essay  on  the  '  Ancient  Topography  ol  Jerusalem,  18*7. 
P  Sketch  ofJenisaUnn,  220 tf. 
(  Encyc.  Brit.'  «.  ■  Temple.' 


TEMPLE 


TEMPLE 


697 


view  of  a  Jerusalem  Levite  of  the  time  after  the 
Exile,  and  represents  events  as  tliey  were  regarded 
and  not  as  they  were,  anj'  one  who  compares 
Kings  and  Chronicles,  and  considers  the  history 
of  religious  thought  and  institutions  among 
the  Israelites,  may  see.  Chronicles  aims  at  glori- 
fj-ing  David  as  the  founder  of  the  kingdom  and 
of  tlie  religious  society,  especially  of  the  priest- 
hood and  the  psalmody.  According  to  ihe 
Chronicler,  David  received  from  God  a  detailed 
plan  of  the  temple, o  and  gathered  together  ma- 
terials, es])ecially  gold,  silver,  copper,  and  iron.jS 
for  the  building.  Kings  gives  a  fuller  account, 
but  leaves  out  this  and  similar  things.  (3)  The 
temple  of  Ezekiel's  vision  7  must  have  been  more 
or  less  suggested  by  tlie  temple  which  he  actually 
saw  ;  and  from  its  elaborate  description  one  may, 
to  a  certain  extent,  fill  in  the  omissions  in  the 
shorter  description  of  Solomon's  temple ;  only,  it 
is  to  be  considered  that  the  tem])le  which  the 
prophet  saw  on  the  banks  of  the  Chebar  is  as  sym- 
metrical as  imagination  unhampered  by  fact  could 
make  it.  The  te.xt  of  Ezekiel  is  also  corrupt ;  but 
ISottcher  la  his  Piobcn  Alttcst.  Schrifterklarung, 


the  altar,  the  chambers,  etc.  This  supposed  con- 
nexion has  led  to  many  «Tong  results  as  to  the 
dimensions  of  the  first  temple ;  as  in  the  height 
of  the  building,  which,  because  stated  to  be  30 
cubits,  i.e.  thrice,  not  twice,  that  of  the  tabernacle, 
is  made  to  refer  to  the  exterior,  not  to  the  interior, 
though  the  otlier  measurements  are  admitted  to  be 
internal.  l>iit  the  assumption  of  I'ergusson,  based 
on  the  oldest  authorities,  falls  to  the  ground  when 
it  is  remembered  that  tlie  tabernacle  in  question 
had  no  actual  existence  at  any  time,  and  no  exist- 
ence in  thought  until  about  the  time  of  the  Exile. 
It  would  be  far  nearer  the  truth  to  say  that  the 
tabernacle  is  itself  modelled  upon  the  second 
temple,  than  to  say  that  the  lirst  temple  waa 
modelled  on  the  tabernacle.     See  T.aeeknacle. 

Tlie  temple  of  Solomon  included  the  house  and 
the  court  which  surrounded  and  enclosed  house, 
altar,  and  other  belongings. 

The  '  house '  was  a  rectangular  building  60  cubits 
long  (east  to  west),  20  cubits  broad,  and  30  cubits 
high. a  These  are  inside  measurements,  as  the 
account  of  the  dcbir,  or  Holy  of  Holies,  in  1  K  G'"* 
(cf.  vj")  shows,  and  as  the   temple    of   Ezekiel 


I,  14  If  la  ao 


I     I    '     I 


_1_ 


_1_ 


_1_ 


_L, 


_U 


_i- 


-J  CubiW 


pro.  2. — OROUND  PLAN  OP  B01.0M0S'B  TEMPLII. 

BkndJ-BoazandJachin— theplllura.     P  =  the  porch.     H  =  the  MiiiJ  or  Holy  Place.     D  =  the  Altr  or  Moat  Holy  Place, 
table  of  flhewhread.     8  =  the  stairway  to  the  upper  chambers.     ~ 
Ezukiel's  temple. 


E=entraDCe  to  the  chambers.     1,  2,  etc. 


T=the 

the  chambera  after 


Smend,  Bertholet,  and  especially  Cornill,  in  their 
Commentaries,  have  done  much  to  obviate  this  dif- 
ficulty.— We  have  secondary  sources  in  Jo.sephusS 
and  tlieMishnic  tract  Middoth,  but  these  are  valu- 
able chiefly  for  Herod's  temple ;  for,  even  when 
describing  the  temples  of  Solomon,  Ezekiel,  and 
Zeruhbabel,  it  is  Herod's  which  they  have  in  mind. 
Josephus  has  also  a  strong  passion  for  exaggera- 
tion, especially  when  the  glory  of  the  temple 
is  concerned.  In  matters  of  size  and  measure- 
ment his  imagination  seems  almost  as  free  as  was 
Ezekiel's. « 

1.  Plan  and  Dimensions  of  Solomon's 
Temple. — Fergus-son  f  says  that  the  temple  of  Solo- 
mon was  a  copy  of  the  tabernacle,  the  dimensions 
of  the  latter  being  doubled,  and  such  other  chanires 
made  as  were  necessary  in  a  fixed  as  compared  with 
a  portable  structure.  But  the  resemblances  so  often, 
especially  in  former  times,  pointed  out,  are  accom- 
p.inied  by  dilferences  of  an  important  character — 
as  in  the  porch,  the  two  pillars  Boaz  .tnd  Jachin, 

•  lCh28"l».  /3  1Ch221^ 

rEzk  4U-«2  and  In  part  43  and  4fl. 
Ant.  vill.  HI.,  XV.  xl.  3(1.  ;  BJ  v.  v.  1-8. 
I  See  Robinaon's  BRPt  i.  277  f. 
(  Early  Templet  oj  the  Jem,  p.  26  S. 


suggests.  But  no  allowance  is  made  for  the  wall 
separating  the  hekal,  or  Holy  Place,  from  the 
diblr,  which  in  Ezekiel's  temple  was  6  cubita 
thick./3  The  building  looked  towards  the  east. 
It  is  of  course  quite  po.ssible  that  this  arrangement 
may  have  been  due  to  the  form  of  the  hill,  which 
made  it  much  more  suitable  to  build  west  to  east 
than  north  to  south. 

The  .lanrtuary  structure. — The  temple  building 
had  three  jiarts,  or  rather  two  and  a  iiorch  which 
is  not  reckoned  as  a  portion  of  the  house.  The 
arrangeiiient  and  number  of  the  chambers  is  con- 
jectural, being  based  on  what  we  know  of  Ezekiel'* 
temple. 

The  larger  of  the  two  parts  of  the  house  is  the 
MkaZ,y  the  diblr  S  being  the  smaller.     The  hfhU 

•  1  K  R3 1  2  Oh  SS.   The  latter  puaage  doca  not  give  the  height. 

fi  Ezk  416. 

y  IlHul  (Sj'.i)  is  probably  the  eame  b«  the  Accadlan  ei;al, 
'  threat  lioiiae,'  as  Scbrrwler,  Haupt,  and  most  Assyrinlopiste  hold. 
Il  niav  mean  properly  a  hall  (AJSL,  July  IDDl,  p.  244  (T.).  See 
the  Ojcf.  Ilrb.  Lrx.  on  the  word.  Though  used  in  other  eensee, 
ite  cotniiioneat  mcnninff  Is  that  of  the  Iloly  Place  (E'li:),  which 
is  the  later  term.  In  this  article  h^kal  has  alwav's  tliia  mean- 
ing. 

d  Di^W  {yyi)  la  the  term  employed  in  Kings  (or  what  In  the 
paunllcl  part*  of  Ohron.  la  often  called  'Holy  of  Holies'  (^'jf 


698 


Tl.MPLE 


TEMPLE 


was  an  oblong  rectangle  40  cubits  from  west  to 
east,  and  20  cubits  from  north  to  south.  The  deblr 
was  a  cube  measuring  20  cubits  in  all  three  direc- 
tions. Since  the  whole  house  was  30  cubits  high — 
the  house  (n'jri)  including  /u!mI  and  dcbir — there 
must  have  been  10  cubits  of  siiace-room  on  the  top 
of  the  dcOir,  this  being  used  probably  for  storing 
purposes,  though  Ewald  says  it  was  inaccessible 
and  empty. 

Stieglitz  and  Griineisen  view  the  d^ir  as  externally  lower 
than  the  Mkdl  by  10  cubits,  but  1  K  C-  says  the  whole  house 
had  a  height  oJ  SO  cubit*.  Kurtz  and  Merx  held  that  the 
hikdl  had  an  inside  height  of  20  cubits  only,  and  that  on  the 
top  of  the  whole  house  there  was  an  upper  room,  60  cubits 
in  length,  for  keeping  the  relics  of  the  tabernacle.*  They  say 
further  that  the  Chronicler  means  this  upper  space  by  his 
ri'^lin  (LXX  to  iTi/!i«»).  But  bow  could  such  an  upper  chamber 
be  reached,  and  why  do  we  never  read  about  it  or  about  the 
means  of  getting  at  it?  The  chambers  about  the  house/S 
reached,  taking  the  three  storeys  together,  to  16  cubits.  Above 
these  were  the  windows  ;  >  but  there  would  be  scant  room  for 
the  windows  between  the  roofs  of  the  chambers  and  the  ceiling 


word  is  said  in  Kings  about  the  height  of  the 
porch,  but  in  2  Ch  3*  it  is  said  to  be  120  cubits. 
But  such  a  structure  would  have  been  called  a 
S'jjp  (tower)  and  not  a  ch^x  (porch).  The  propor- 
tions, 20,  10,  120,  are  impossible  on  both  aesthetic 
and  statical  grounds.  There  is  certainly  a  corrup- 
tion of  the  text,  or  we  have  another  example — a 
gross  one  here — of  the  love  of  exaggeration  to  which 
the  Chronicler  is  prone  when  describing  the  sanctu- 
ary and  its  worship.  It  is  most  natural  to  think 
of  the  porch  as  having  tlie  same  height  as  the 
house  ;  and  it  is  not  stated  in  1  K  6,  because  that 
would  be  inferred  by  the  reader. 

Walls. — There  is  no  information  given  as  to  the 
thickness  of  the  walls,  but  it  must  have  been  sub- 
stantial, because  they  had  rebatements  of  a  cubit, 
or  at  least  of  half  a  cubit,  at  each  successive  storey 
of  chambers.o  It  could  be  diminished  therefore 
by  2  cubits,  or  at  least  by  one,  without  any 
material  change  in  the  appearance.     Ezekiel  gives 


Cubits 


FIO.   3. — SECTION  OF  THB  TEMPLE,  NOETH  TO  SOUTH. 


Of  the  house  if  the  latter  were  but  20  cubits  above  the  floor. 
The  Chronicler  does  not  say  where  his  n'vS;'  were  placed,  and  it 
is  most  probable  that  by  them  we  are  to  understand  the  cy^s, 
or  the  chambers  ranged  along  the  three  sides  of  the  house. 

The.  parrh. — In  front  of  the  house  and  continuous 
with  it^ — the  two,  indeed,  forming  one  building — 
"as  the  porch, S  which  was  not  considered  a  part  of 
the  house.  Its  length,€  east  to  west,  was  10  cubits  ; 
its  breadth,  north  to  south,  being  the  same  as  the 
breadth  f  of    the    house,   viz.  20  cubits.      Not  a 

fi'S'"?!'")-  Jerome  connected  the  word  with  the  Hebrew  "12'! 
{diiher)  'to  speak,'  and  followed  the  LXX  j;iir,u«riirrr/>i»>  in 
rendering  it  oracttlum  {oraeuti  sedei),     it  is  really  derived  from 

the  root  I'm  used  in  Arab.,  j  J  (V)  'to  be  behind."  So  d^r 
l.jTi  =  what  is  behind ;  that  is,  what  lies  to  the  west,  the  east 
being  called  CliJ,  or  what  lies  to  the  front.  Just  as  the  south  is 
the  right-hand  side  CyO')  and  the  north  the  left-handed  (SrfC^). 
DMr  is  the  older  term,  and  in  the  LXX  of  1  Kings  and  in 
2  Ch  S"  420  68-  8  it  is  8imj)ly  transliterated  3«^i,>  and  J«(3v>. 
DtSbir  occurs  also  in  Ps  2S-,  prob.  also  2  K  102*  (for  Ty). 

«  2  Ch  8».  fi  See  below. 

y  1  K  6«.  )  dSk  CtUam). 

I  In  the  or,  length  and  breadth,  when  used  of  a  sorfoce  of 


the   thickness  of   the  walls  of   his    temple  as  0 
cubits. /3 

In  1  K  618  the  cedar-covered  walls  are  said  to  have  figures 
carved  on  them  of  knops  and  open  flowers  ;  but  this  verse  isnot 
in  the  LXX,  and  it  breaks  in  upon  the  account  of  the  h^kdl  in 
v.n  and  of  the  d^Mr  in  v.l9,  besides  repeating  what  has  been 
said  in  v.ls.  Probably  this  carving  was  the  work  of  a  later  kin^, 
a  later  editor,  by  mistake,  ascribing  it  to  Solomon.  Tet  in 
v.3fi  the  doors  of  both  hPkdt  and  d^r  are  said  to  have  been 
adorned  with  figures  of  cherubim,  palm  trees,  and  open  flowers ; 
and  the  verse  is  above  suspicion. 

Hoofing. — Very  little  is  told  us  concerning  the 
roof  of  the  house.  1  K  6'''7  is  made  by  Uuhr,  Keil, 
Thenius,  in  their  Comm.  and  Treatises,  as  also  by 
the  Targ.,  Pesh.,  Vulg.,  and  Arabic  versions,  to 
refer  to  the  covering  of  the  roof.  But  Benzingei 
and  the  LXX  take  it  to  mean  the  covering  or 
wainscotting  of  the  walls  ;  and  I  KV  S  shows  that 
the  same  verb  certainly  can  be  used  of  the  walls, 

two  dimensions,  mean  the  greater  and  smaller  measurement 
respectively. 
.  1  K  6«.  ^  Ezk  41». 

r'  He  covered  the  house  with  beams  and  planks  of  cedar.* 
'  And  it  (the  throne  porch)  was  covered  with  oedor  (roa 
floor  to  floor.' 


TEMPLE 


TEMPLE 


690 


—which  Thenius  is  inclined  to  deny, — and  that  it 
probably  is  so  used  in  this  passage.  Vet,  as 
Thenius  objects,  the  Avainscotting  of  the  walls  is 
described  iu  6".  V."  is  otherwise  awkward  iu  its 
present  position  ;  and  it  Ls  hard  to  make  out  the 
exact  meaning  of  the  technical  terms  translated 
'beams  and  planks.'o  Probably  the  verse  is  an 
interpolation. 

1  K  G"^  in  the  EV  has  the  word  'ceiling'  in  it. 
Instead  of  '  walls '  wo  must  read  '  beams ' :  7  '  from 
the  floor  of  the  house  unto  the  beams  of  the  ceil- 
ing.' We  thus  karn  tliat  the  ceiling  had  cedar 
beams,  but  that  is  all  we  learn  about  it. 

But  these  beams  must  have  been  covered  with 
stone,  probably  the  hard  limestone  of  which  the 
walls  were  built,  to  protect  the  house  from  the 
rain.  In  the  three  most  rainy  months  there 
descends  as  much  rain  in  Jerusalem  and  its  neigh- 
bourhood as  the  average  rainfall  upon  any  similar 
area  in  Great  Britain  throughout  the  year. 

Was  the  Tooi  Jlat  or  yaiUformed''.  Most  cer- 
tainly it  was  tlat,  as  all  ancient  temples  and  houses 
were,  and  as,  with  hardly  an  exception.  Eastern 
houses  continue  to  be  up  to  the  present  time.  The 
custom  witli  regard  to  private  houses  is  to  have  a 
parapet  all  around  the  roof  to  prevent  persons  who 
are  on  the  umcli-frequented  roofs  from  falling.5 
Certainly  no  other  kind  of  roof  than  the  flat  one  is 
hinted  at  anywhere  in  the  Bible,  nor  is  any  other 
known  in  tlie  primitive  East.  It  is  remarkable  to 
find  leading  Rabbinical  writers,  followed  by  Lun(i,f 
Hirt,  Schniiase.  Winer,  and  Thenius,  plead  that 
the  roof  was  gabled.  Hirt  argues  tliat  there  were 
spikes  on  the  roof  to  keep  otl'the  birds,  and  that 
the  roof  was  overlaid  with  gold.  But  he  gets 
these,  as  perhaps  also  his  gable  roof,  from  the 
tem]ile  of  Herod. f 

Inner  supports  or  r^t  f — It  is  uncertain  whether 
inside  the  house  theiV;  were  pillars  to  bear  up  the 
roof.  In  the  hckal,  at  all  events,  it  is  very  likely 
there  were  such  supports,  as  the  walls  were  30 
cubits  high,  and  a  roof  of  wood  and  of  stone  would 
be  in  great  danger  of  tumbiin"  unless  there  were 
something  besides  the  walls  to  keep  it  up. 

Fergu8son»j  ar^es  for  euch  pillars,  and  he  thinks  there 
would  be  eight  in  all,  four  on  each  side  of  the  house,  one  be- 
tween  each  couple  of  tables  and  latnpstands.ff  Surli  an  ar- 
rangement would,  he  thinks,  promote  at  once  arcliitectural 
effect  and  the  stability  of  the  structure.  He  refers  to  1  K  iili-,i 
but  the  word  rendered  pillars  x  means  'support,*  and  the 
parallel  word  in  Chron.X  means  '  hii,'hways,'  though  it  is 
rendere<!  in  EV  '  terraces.'  There  is  so  nmch  doubt  as  to  what 
is  meant  that  the  passage  cannot  be  mode  to  carry  what  is  put 
upon  it. 

The  material  of  which  the  house  and  its  ap- 
pendages were  built  was  the  white  hard  limestone 
which  abounds  in  the  country,  and  which  can  be 
polished  like  marble  ;  indeed  it  is  a  kind  of  marble. 
The  slabs  used  were  pre|)ared  at  the  quarry 
before  they  were  brought  to  the  temple,  so  that 
there  was  neither  hammer  nor  axe  nor  any  tool 
of  iron  heard  in  the  bouse  while  it  was  in  build- 
ing.^ 

The  inside  walla  of  the  house  were,  as  seen 
before,  overlaid  with  cedar  planks,!/  on  which  were 

•  O'?:,  nii-j'. 

^  *  And  he  built  the  walls  of  the  house  within  with  boards  of 
cedar,  from  the  door  of  the  bouse  unto  the  walls  of  the  ceiliny.' 

y  nn-p  for  nn"p  with  LXX,  Then.,  Keil,  Bahr,  Stade,  Bern., 
and  II  2  Uh  3'. 

i  Dt  ■Ji:\  J),'  lOfJ.  1  2SI  (or  324).        {  See  art.  Pinnacle. 

»i  TfiiiiiUg  uf  the  Jewg,  p.  '.y  f. 

C  On  the  tables  and  lamjistands  of  the  hikal  see  below 
under  'Contents  of  hl'kdt.' 

t '  And  the  king  made  of  the  almug  trees  jn7/ar«  for  the  house 
of  Jehovah,  and  tor  the  king's  house.' 

» 1VP?.  A  2  Ch  9"  n'lVpp. 

M  1  K  0'.  Ewald  (Gesch.  lii.  324,  n.  2),  Sta<le  (ZATW  111.  13fi), 
and  Benzinpcr  (Coin,  in  ioc.)  doubt  the  genuineness  of  this 
verse.  It  comes  into  the  middi*  o^  the  account  of  the  side 
ohomhera  (see  art.  QuiKBY), 

I  1  K  61l>. 


carved  'knops'  and  'open  flo\vers.'  As  to  the 
gold  said  to  cover  the  inside  of  the  house,a  see 
below  under  '  The  gold  covering  of  Solomon's 
temple' (p.  700''). 

The  floor  of  the  house  was  probably  made  of 
hewn  stone  of  the  same  material  as  that  of  the 
walls.  But  this  stone  floor  was  covered  with 
cypress /3  wood,  as  the  walls  were  with  cedar;  so 
tliat  nowhere  inside  could  the  stone  be  seen. 

Chambers  surrounding  the,  Iiouse.y  —  In  every 
side  of  the  house  excejjt  the  east  there  were 
chambers  5  arranged  in  three  storeys.  They  did 
not  go  around  the  porch,  as  Griineisen  said,  for 
the  house  only  is  mentioned  ;  nor  were  there  any 
on  the  east.  We  are  not  told  how  thick  the  walls 
of  these  chambers  were,  how  many  in  number  the 
chambers  were,  nor  is  anything  said  of  their 
arrangement.  For  such  details  and  others  see 
EZEKIEL'S  Temple,  below.  Similar  side  rooms 
have  been  discovered  at  Birs  Nimroud.e  The  beams 
on  which  the  upper  storeys  were  constructed — made, 
no  doubt,  of  cedar  wood — rested  upon  rebatements 
in  the  temple  wall,  so  as  to  prevent  the  wall  from 
being  built  into — the  house  being  too  sacred  for 
that.f  The  temple  wall  so  built  would  therefore, 
at  the  roof  of  the  first  chambers,  according  to  most 
writers,  receile  half  a  cubit,  and  at  the  roof  of  the 
next  row  of  chambers  it  would  recede  another  half 
cubit.  The  opposite  wall — that  built  specially  for 
the  chambers — had  a  corresponding  rebatement. 
So  Keil,  Stade,  Now.,  Benz.,  and  most;  and  at 
least  symmetry  is  secured  by  this  arrangement. 
Theniusi)  and  others  think  tiie  whole  rebatement 
of  one  cubit  at  each  storey  took  place  in  tlie  house 
wall,  and  it  seems  to  the  present  writer  that  this 
is  likeliest,  as  not  a  word  is  written  about  rebate- 
ments in  the  chamber  wall. 

The  chambers  on  the  ground  were  5  cubits 
broad,  those  on  the  middle  storey  being  6,  while 
tliose  on  the  top  storey  were  7  cubits  broad.  The 
chambers  were  entered  from  the  court  on  the  south 
side  through  a  doorfi  (Fig.  2,  E).  In  Ezekiel's 
temple  there  were  entrances  on  the  north  as  well 
as  on  the  south.  From  the  lowest  storey  one 
ascended  to  the  others  by  means  of  a  ladder  and 
trap -door,  and  not,  as  used  to  be  thought,  by 
means  of  a  winding  stair  :  of  such  winding  stairs 
the  ancient  East  was  quite  ignorant.t  The  history 
is  silent  as  to  whether  or  not  there  were  windows 
in  these  chambers.  I'robably,  however,  there 
were,  and  thej'  would  be  of  the  same  kind  as 
those  of  the  house.  See  below  concerning  these. 
The  chambers  seem  to  have  been  used  for  the 
storing  of  the  furniture,  vessels,  and  other  things 
belonging  to  the  temple.*  In  them,  too,  were 
placed  some  relics  of  the  wilderness  worsliii).\ 
1  K  S*,  however,  has  many  signs  of  having  been 
tampered  with.  Of  '  Levites '  as  distinct  from 
'  priests,'  Kings  knows  nothing.  Nor  does  Kings 
show  acquaintance  with  any  tent  besides  that 
built  by  David  for  the  ark.,u  'Tent  of  meeting,' v 
if  genuine,  must  have  the  sense  it  bears  in  JE  (E.'i 
33',  Nu  ll'»  l^")  and  not  in  P. 

Windows. — There    were    no    windows    in    the 

•  1  K  621. 

3c»i-9  1  K  8'»;  not'flr,'a8  EV.  >.  1  K  6»*. 

'  i'ls;  (p«V,'  i-y;)  should  be  read  with  LXX,  Bdtt.,  Now  , 
Benz.,  etc.,  J'^i'.  The  word  occurs  in  no  other  place.  If  re- 
tained it  COD  but  mean  'storey,'  lit.  what  is  spread  out(y:i'- 


I  Fergusflon,  Ilittvry  of  Architecture.  C 1  K  6*. 

B  .See  his  diaurnm.  Tafel  ii.  figs.  2  and  6  (at  the  end  of  Oom.X 
e  1  K  i;'  oorreeting  '  middle  —llrst  occurrence  —  to  'lowest, 
with  LXX,  Targ.,  and  nearly  all  writers. 
.  See  Stade,  /.ATW  UL  13611.  •IK  7"  Ij  ■>  Ch  5'. 

X  I  K  8<,  2  Ch  &i>.  M  1  K  liX*  22S-30,  of.  i  8  tV. 


700 


TEMPLE 


TEMPLE 


teiaple  as  the  term  'windows*  is  now  umk-i  stood. 
In  Bible  times  glass  was  not  used  for  what  are 
called  windows ;  nor  is  it  so  used  at  the  jiresont 
time  in  Eastern  countries.  Indeed  the  main  pur- 
pose of  the  apertures  translated  '  windows  is  to  let 
impure  air  out  and  pure  in,  rather  than  to  give 
li.'ht  to  the  house.a  Considering  the  thickness 
ot^  the  walls— 6  cubits,  or  say  9  ft.,  m  Lzekie  s 
temiile— it  would  have  been  difficult  for  the  light 
to  enter.  In  most  Eastern  houses  tlie  lamps  are 
kept  burning  night  and  day  ;  it  is  by  tlieni  that 
tlie  house  is  ligliled.  This  was  true  probably  of 
the  temple  as  well. 

In  1  K  0»  the  windows  are  described  as  '''['^f^/-!""'^ 
Eastern  »-indow6  are  -and  OtamfU  :  y  i.e.,  bes.duh  the  lattu-ea 
covering,  there  were  beams  used  to  protect  the  opening  and  to 
?on^  the'framework  of  the  window.  Vanous  "'^er  reconstruc- 
tions of  the  windows  have  been  suggested.  The  Targ.,  t-ebh 
"everal  Rabbinical  writers.  Luther,  "nd  othere  have  renderi-d 
•  windows  broad  within  S  and  narrow  .  without.'  Keil  explains 
.T^"  indowswith  closed  beams';  '•«•  «-h°»';  1''"'<^",'=»'X' ^J 
^ned  or  closed  at  pleasure,  as  the  •""'«%  "'""^^^Xr 
Windows  could.;  For  a  statement  and  examination  of  other 
"ews  see  the  Comm.  of  Thenius  and  Keil,  and  especiaUy 
Keil's  valuable  treatise  on  Solomon's  temple. 

We  know  nothing  about  the  size  of  the  windows, 
nor  is  it  stated  in  what  part  of  the  walls  they 
were  made.  The  chambers  surrounding  tlie  house 
reached  a  height  of  15  cubits— 5  cubits  being  the 
height  of  each,  if  we  are  to  infer  from  Ezekiel  s 
temple.  If,  therefore,  the  windows  of  the  house 
looked  directly  to  the  outside,  they  must  have 
been  some  20  cubits  from  the  ground.  It  is  prob- 
able that  the  chambers  had  windows  as  well ;  and 
in  that  case  the  house  windows  might  have  looked 
immediately  opposite  to  those  of  the  chambers,  and 
have  been  put  in  three  parallel  rows.  This  is 
quite  possible,  as  we  are  not  told  the  number  or 
the  position  of  the  windows.  There  was  perhaps 
a  row  of  windows  above  the  chambers  as  weU. 

It  is  generally  thought  that  there  were  no 
^N-indows  in  the  dchir,  and  1  K  8",,  has  been 
advanced  to  prove  this.  The  difficulty  of  having 
windows  between  the  uppermost  roof  of  the  cham- 
bers and  the  ceiling  of  the  deblr  is  pointed  out. 
But  this  difficulty  is  not  insuperable,  for,  assuming 
the  chambers,  between  them,  to  reach  a  height  of 
15  cubits,  there  would  still  be  a  space  above  of 
several  cubits  for  the  windows.  If,  however,  the 
windows  of  the  house  looked  immediately  ujion 
those  of  the  chambers,  the  difficulty  in  question 
disappears.  .     ,    ,  „    i,- 

Doors.— Both.  Mkdl  and  diUr  had  doors.*  We 
are  not  told  what  size  they  were,  but  in  Ezekiel  s 
temple  they  were  10  and  6  cubits  broad  respoc- 
tively.i  How  high  they  were  is  not  said.  1  he 
hekal  door  was  square./c  while  that  of  the  dcijir 
•was  pentagonal.  X     The    door  of   the  hekal   was 

.|^^l^,  lit.  'a  perforated  Bpace,"  '»  bole,'  from  S^IJ-'to 
pierce  or  perforate.'  . 

,3  D'SES,  lit  'shut.'  The  Arabic  word  for  such  window*  U 
thtiiibdk. 

y  D'cpv'— prob.  pass.  ptcp.  of  denom.  verb.  There  i»  no  need 
to  alter' the  vowels  as  Benzingcr  does,  reading  D'?iJ^  'beams.' 

»  D'cr^— fluch  as  could  be  seen  through  ;  of.  I'P^f'n  'to  look 
at  from  an  eminence.' 

,0-l?eN,Ut.'shut.'  C2KlS",Dn6». 

.  ■  Jetovah  has  said  that  he  would  dwell  in  the  thick  dark- 
ness '  Cf  Ps  18"  '  He  made  darkness  his  hiding-place,  his 
pavilion  round  about  him ;  darkness  of  waters,  thick  clouds  of 
the  skies.' 

81K631M.  <Ezk41«-. 

«1  K  «33,  reading,  as  LXX,  Vulg.,  Then.,  and  Ben*.,  nijlf 
niyzi  '  beams  made  into  a  square.' 

A  It  is  better  so  to  understand  n'O'cq  In  1  K  6»l.  Oes.  (Tha. 
1  42 fl),  Keil,  Bahr,  Then.,  and  liott.  take  the  numerals  in 
1  K  6»i-  S3  to  denote  some  fraction  of  either  the  width  of  the 
wall— Oes  Keil,  and  B.ihr— or  of  the  entrance  wall  (J.imbs, 
posts),  as  Then,  and  Bottchcr.  But  no  writer  would  choose 
this  way  of  expressing  this  idea.  It  ta  far  better,  with  the 
Rabbis,  Stade  (ZATWm.  p.  148),  and  Benzinger,  to  understand 
the  words  as  above. 


made  of  cypress  wood,  its  posts  being  of  olive 
wood.  The  door  of  the  d'Mr  was  of  olive  w-ood. 
Both  doors  were  divided  into  two  liorizontal  halves  j 
but  the  two  leaves  thus  formed  were  in  the  case 
of  the  hekal  door  further  divided  vertically,  eacli 
into  two  folds,  which  were  joined  by  hinges.  It 
was  not  therefore  needful  to  open  the  whole  leal 
in  order  to  enter  the  hekal. 

Tlie  dihir  door  bad  two  leaves  only  without  the 
subdivisions,  because  it  was  not  opened  and  shut 
as  was  the  outer  door,  but  was  always  kept  open 
according  to  Keil,a  though  lie  says  the  veil  kept 
the  interior  hidden.  See,  however,  below,  ami 
also  Veil.  , 

Ezekiel's  temple  had  the  same  construction  for 
the  Mkcd  and  dilnr  doors,  viz.  that  which  seems 
to  have  obtained  for  the  htkcd  door  alone  in 
Solomon's  temple. /3     This  is  the  more  atrikmg. 


F18.  4.— AK  KOVPTIAN  TOLDlNa  DOOE,  SHOWISO  VERTIOAI.  DrTI8I0».» 

as  the  idea  of  sanctity  is  more  .^trktly  recognized 
in  Ezekiels  temple.  Not  at  all  improbably  the 
inner  door  of  Solomon's  temple  was  constructed 
exactly  like  the  other,  though  this  is  not  stated 
owing  to  an  oversight  of  the  writer.  Upon  both 
doors  were  carved  cherubim,  palm  trees  and  open 
flowers ;«  but  there  is  no  reliable  evidence  that 
the  walls  had  such  figures  on  them  (see    W  alls  ). 

In  2  Ch  S"  it  is  said  there  was  a  veil  before  the  door  of  the 

d»ir.S>rresponding  to  that  of  the  tobernacle..  In  Zendv 
babeis  temple  there  was  such  a  veil,;  and  "' "" 'Di'^^.h  ,B 
L-ave  rise  to  the  veil  of  the  Ubemaole.and  caused  the  ChroniLlL-r 
to  transfer  it  to  the  first  temple  ;  but  Kings  says  nothing  about 
I  though  Thenius.  approvef  by  Riehn,.,  b^f^ '"e  word  .n.« 
1  K  621  by  arbitrarily  altenng  a  verj-  dirt.cult  text ,  the  tej?  '»• 
however,  probably  an  interpolation,  as  Stade,«  -Now.,,  and  othera 
ho^d!  •The  veil  ias  an  invention  of  the  time  when  the  sacred 
hwl  to  be  more  rigidly  separated  from  the  pro  ane.  It  waj 
qSle%i1b"°ntroduci  into  the  pre-exilic  temp  e  afur  Solo, 
mons  time,  Uiough  of  that  we  know  nothing  defimtely.. 

The.  qold  covering  of  Solomon's  temple. —The 
following  parts  of  the  temple  are  said  to  have  been 
overlaid  with  gold:  (1)  the  walls  of  the  dehr;\ 
(2)  the  walls  of  the  hekal ;  /i  (3)  the  floor  of  the 
whole  house  ;►  (4)  the  altar  before  ^^e  deblr 
[but  the  support  for  this-1  K  G-'^O-is  not  to  be 
found  in  the  XX.X,  and  it  shows  otherwise  strong 
marks  of  being  an  interpolation,  lar  better  wii 
Stade «  and  Benzinger  omit  the  clause.  With 
it  goes  the  puzzle  of  knowing  what  is  meant  by  the 
'  altar  belonging  to  the  diOir.'    Ue  9*  speaks  of  an 

;  Se'r  JTd^w'aM  have  held  that  the  two  leaves  of  the  WW 
door  were  diWded  horiwntally  only.  But  the  epithet  D' ,  ,  ;-- 
•going  around  each  other '-supports  the  first  view ;  which  H 
that  .Tetended  by  Thenius,  KeU  Komm.),  and  B™?"?^^^ 

J  1  K  t-Ti  S5  I  Ex  2831lr-.  {  see  vwfc 

,7/irB21627«.  eZATWillp.U^. 

Je"  ^rcA.  IL  81.         .  See  Veil,  and  <•(  jABUUiaou 

i  1  K  bS)  ^  1  K  C2if-  II  2  Ch  8«- 

,1K630;  '|Z.12'H'iiJ.146 


TEMPLE 


TEMPLE 


701 


altar  a  belonging  to  the  d'jbir^  but  this  error  arises 
from  the  above  interpolated  clause  rightly  rejected 
by  Stade  and  Benzinger] ;  (5)  the  chenibim ;  ^  (6)  the 
leaves  of  the  door.  7 

It  is  probable  that  the  statement  about  Riding  is  a  late 
adcUtioD  in  all  the  above  instances,  and  that,  in  Solomon's 
temple,  it  had  no  place.  It  is  sig-niflcant  that  in  every  one  o( 
the  passages  in  question  there  are  other  indications  wiiich 
awoken  suspicion  (for  details  consult  Stade,  ZATM'  iii. 
UOfF.X  When  Shishak,  klnc  of  Efjx'pt,  attacked  and  conquered 
Jerusalem,  he  took  away  ihe  treasures  of  both  temple  and 
palace :  tlie  (golden  shields  are  distinctly  named,  but  not  a  word 
occurs  about  the  gold  of  the  walls,  etc.2  Jehoash,  king  of  Israel, 
overcame  the  king  of  Judah,  and  took  from  Jerusalem  the 
t'old  and  silver  and  the  temple  vessels,  but  nothing  is  said 
about  his  strippinL.'  walls,  etc.,  of  the  gold  that  covered  them.i 
Similarly,  Ahaz  in  his  extremity  took  the  oxen  on  which  the 
brazen  sea  rested,  and  also  other  tUing8(2  K  lb*  I'O.  One  would 
expect  to  read  of  his  purloining  the  gold  that  was  so  conspicuous 
it  it  covered  walls,  doors,  inner  altar,  cherubim,  and  even  floors. 
^\Tien  Hezekiah  stripped  the  doors  and  pillars  of  the  temple,  in 
order  to  make  a  present  to  the  kingof  Assyria  (2  K  ISi^r.),  nothing 
is  written  about  there  bcin;^'  anv  gold  given,  though  of  course 
this  is  not  denied  either.  'Gold*  in  the  EV,  as  the  italics 
indicate,  is  not  in  the  Hebrew.— Ezekiel's  temple  does  not 
appear  to  have  had  any  of  this  gold-overlaying.  In  short,  apart 
from  the  suspicious  reference  named,  we  have  no  allusion  in 
the  subsequent  history  to  this  gold  covering.  In  post-exilic 
times  the  wealth  of  Solomon  was  greatly  exaggerated.  Just  oa 
his  wisdom  and  power  were,  among  Arabs  as  well  as  Hebrews,  in 
yet  later  days.  It  was  felt  by  those  who  made  the  additions  re 
gold  that  Solomon's  exalted  character  demanded  them.  Besides, 
the  P  tabernacle  was  pictured  as  plentifully  supplied  with  gold  : 
this  would  atTor^l  a  strong  motive  for  making  gold  more  con- 
spicuous in  Solomon's  temple. 

2.  The  Pattern  or  Style  of  Architecture 

IN  WHICH  THE  TEMPLE  OF  SOLOMON  WAS  BUILT.— 

Those  who  claim  to  speak  with  authority  on  this 
point  have  held  opinions  widely  apart,  showing 
liiat  the  data  are  inadequate  for  a  clear  and  reli- 
able decision. 

Some  (e.g.  Williams,  etc.)  have  found  the  model  of  Solomon's 
temple  among  the  (ireeks.  Thrupp,^  de  Vogii^,*) -Thenius.fl 
and  Benzingert  pronounce  the  architecture  of  the  temple  to  be 
Egyptian.  Benzmger  gives  a  detailed  account  of  the  temple  of 
Amoii  Ua  at  Karnak,  t<>gether  with  a  plan,  in  order  to  show  how 
much  Solomon's  temple  resembled  this.  He  calls  special  atten- 
tion to  the  threefold  division  of  porch,  ht^kdi,  and  d^Xr  which 
obtained  in  both  temples.  Nowack,  on  the  other  hand,  points 
out  that  this  same  feature  characterizes  the  ancient  t«mples  of 
Sicily.*  Thenius'  diagrams  at  the  end  of  his  valuable  Coin- 
mentarj*  on  Kings  are  all  based  on  Egj-ptian  originals,  and  he 
is  controlled  throughout  his  Commentary  and  treatise  by  the 
idea  that  the  first  Jerusalem  temple  was  a  copy  of  the  Egyjitian 
t«mples.  Fuchstein  X  and  Nowack^  argue  for  a  Syrian  origin. 
W.  B.  Cobb»  makes  the  Syrian  factor  the  principal  one,  as 
indeed  Puchstein  does,  only  the  latter  contends  that  Asayrian 
art  was  originally  Syrian. 

Fergusson  ;  pronounces  the  problem  insoluble,  only  that  he 
says  Egypt  is  out  of  the  question.  He  thinks  that  either  the 
valley  of  the  Euphrates  or  I'luijiiicia  was  the  most  likely  home 
of  the  temple  architecture.  But  he  does  not  give  any  arguments 
of  weight  to  support  his  opinion. 

Friedrich.o  Perrot  and  C'hipiez,*  and  W.  R.  Smithy  trace  the 
Biyle  to  Phfcnicia.  The  fact  that  Hiram,  the  artificer  (1  K  T'^f-, 
2  Ch  2'3'"),  was  a  Pha'nician,  thou^'h  connected  with  Israel, 
lends  strong  support  to  Uie  last  view,  and  Fergiisson  is  not 
against  iL 

The  natural  conclusion  to  come  to  is  that  either 
riiuL-nician  or  Syrian  art — it  is  hardly  possible  to 
distinguish  these  two — was  that  followed  in  the 
construction  of  Solomon's  temple ;  but  the  arji^ti- 
ments  and  illustrations  adduced  by  Benzin»;er, 
Cobb,  and  others  go  to  prove  that  there  was  a 
close  resemblance  between  the  sacred  architecture 
of  the  Semitic  world  and  of  Egypt. 

Contents  of  tlte  liekdl.  —  In  iront  of  the  d^ir 
was  an   altar-ahaped   table  on  which  the  Shew- 

%  ^ufjueLriiMt  Is  certainly  'altar*  not  'censer.'  So  Blcek, 
I^iinemann,  Kurtz,  Weetcott,  Delitzsch.  Per  cnntra^  cf.  Biesen* 
tlial  and  EV. 

<3  1  K  0-».  V  1  K  fl»«-  M.  >  1  K  liW. 

1 2  K  UK  \  Ancient  Jerrixalem. 

n  Le  Tnnpel  de  Jirutalrm.  6  Com.  and  Appendix. 

»  //'•^.  Arch.  385.  x  lieb.  Arch.  il.  p   »4,  D.  8. 

kJahrb.  (Ut  Kaiserlichen  deuUehen  archaoi.  iTittitxUs,  voL 
tU.  pt.  1. 

fj.  Ueb.  Arch.  II.  34.  f  Origimg  Judatcce,  242. 

i  TrmpU*  of  ihe  Jev$,  p.  83. 

•  Temftel  u.  J'aicut  Salomo't,  DenJcm^iUr  PhOnikiecher  Kun»U 

w  IliMtorj/qf  Art  in  Sardinia,  Sj/rvit  and  Ana  J/tnor,  p.  141  f. 

/  Eneyc.  BrU  »,  art.  'Templet' 


BREAD  was  set  a.s  an  oHerin^  to  God. a  This  is 
not  the  altar  of  incense,  as  KeU,^  B:ilir,7  and  most 
of  the  older  authorities  contend,  for  we  do  not  find 
such  an  altar  named  or  implied  in  any  pre-exilic 
document.  5  There  was  no  such  altar  in  Ezekiel's 
temple,  nor  for  a  long  time  afterwards.  See  Ben- 
zinger,  Hcb.  Arch.  p.  401  n.  On  the  other  hand, 
there  was  in  the  latter  temple  a  table-like  altar  of 
shewbread,€  which  is  more  fully  described  than 
that  of  the  hrst  temple.  See  art.  Incense,  vol.  ii. 
p.  467^ 

According  to  1  K  74^60  the  following  were  also  mode  and  set 
In  the  hf'kdl:  (1)  a  golden  altar,  the  altar  of  incense;  (2)  a 
table  for  the  shewbread :  (3)  ten  golden  lampstaiids,^  five  on 
the  right  side  and  five  on  the  left ;  (4)  lamps  for  these ;  (5)  many 
other  smaller  things. 

But  these  verses  have  all  the  appearance  of  being  by  a  later 
hand,  for  the  purpose  of  heightening  the  impression.  In  1  K 
6'^  tiie  htkdl  is  s;iid  to  cont^iin  the  altar-like  Uible,  but  there  is 
no  hint  of  anything  besides  being  in  this  part  of  the  house. 
Chronicles »)  has,  however,  a  parallel  account  to  1  K  7-**^.  Jer 
62'9  refers  to  '  lampstands '  d  as  taken  by  the  Chaldaians,  but  in 
the  parallel  account  of  2  K  25  nothing  is  said  of  lampstands. 
If,  however,  the  writers  of  Jer  6-.;i9,  1  K  7-*B-fiO,  and  2  Ch  4>y-"-a 
were  under  the  influence  of  P,  they  would  have  spoken  of  one 
lampstand,  such  as  obtains  in  P's  tabernacle,  and  not  of  ten. 
There  must  have  been  some  ground  for  the  tradition  of  the  ten 
lampstands.  Probably  these  did  exist — but  brazen,  not  golden 
ones— in  Solomon's  temple,  or  they  were  added  soon  after,  for 
there  must  have  been  some  way  of  lighting  the  interior  of  the 
house.  They  would  be  kept  burning  day  and  night,  as  house 
lamps  in  the  East  are  at  the  present  day.j  They  might  have 
been  fixed  upon  pedestals, — the  Eastern  fashion,— but  most 
likely  they  were  set  on  the  ten  tables  about  which  we  read  in 
2  Ch  4**.x  Keil,  however,  maintains  that  tliese  tables  were  for 
the  shewbread  ;  but  2  Ch  13^'  29^^!  seem  to  show  that  there  was 
but  one  such  table. 

Contents  of  the  dShtr. — After  the  building  of  the 
temple  was  completed,  the  arkX  was  brought  from 
the  city  of  David  at  the  south-east  of  the  temple 
hill,  and  placed  in  the  dibir,  which,  using  the  later 
name,  is  explained  as  the  Holy  of  Holies./i  It 
was  carried  by  the  priests,  though,  according  to 
the  older  history  of  2  S  6^^  priests  were  not  con- 
sidered the  only  proper  bearers  of  the  ark. 

The  ark  is  said  to  have  contained  nothing  except  the  two 
tables  of  the  Law.»  In  David's  time  and  Solomon's  the  ark 
seems  to  have  been  looked  upon  as  involving  in  some  way  the 
I>i\ine  presence. — as  a  kind  of  nrim4yii  prtvsfns.  Stade,  lienz., 
Nowack,  and  many  others  think  tliat  the  ark  held  originally  a 
stoue  which  was  considered  to  represent  Jehovah,  and  that  it 
was  at  a  time  later  than  Solomon's  that  it  contained  or  was 
believed  to  contain  the  two  tables  of  stone. 

In  He  iH  the  pot  of  manna  and  Aaron's  rod  are  said  to  have 
been  in  the  ark.^  Nowhere  else  in  the  Bible  is  this  said,  though 
these  articles  are  spoken  of«  as  being  laid  up  before  the  ark 
of  the  tabernacle.  The  writer  of  Hebrews  haa  on  bis  side  the 
common  belief  of  the  later  Kabbis.*' 

Oversliadowing  the  ark  were  two  huge  cheru- 
bim,p  each  being  10  cubits  high,  i.e.  exactly  half 
as  high  as  the  ceiling  of  the  debir.  These  had  two 
wings  apiece,  eacii  being  5  cubits  broad.  These 
wings  were  outstretched,  the  outer  ones  touching 
the  walls,  the  inner  ones  reaching  to  each  other. 
The  four  wings  of  6  cubits  eacli  were  stretched 
from  wall  to  wall,  extending  along  the  whole 
width  of  20  (=4x6)  cubits.  The  ark  had  its  place 
under  the  two  inner  wings.  On  the  form  and 
signilicance  of  these  cherubim  see  Chkkubim. 

«  1  K  6*ii»  renders  the  lost  part  of  this  verse,  'And  he  fnat^ 
(not  overlaid)  an  altar  of  cedar' :  so  LXX,  Then.,  Benz.  etc 

^  iJer  Teinp.  Salom.  I78f.  y  Der  Temp.  Salom.  KW. 

itUxis  Ewald  (GMcft.  iii.  232).  Thenius,  Stade  (ZATW  Ui. 
p.  IGSfT.),  Nowack,  Benzinger. 

I  Ezk  41-^A 

C  Not  'candlesticks.'  The  Bible  knows  nothing  of  *candle«' 
or  of  'camllcstlcks.'  Render  lo  all  cases,  in  OT  and  In  NT, 
'lamps'  and  'lampstands.* 

n  2  Ch  411*^23.  $  niiap. 

<  The  light  in  the  temple  of  Shlloh  was  kept  burning  during 
the  night  only  (1  8  33). 

m  'He  made  also  ten  tables,  and  placed  them  In  the  htkdl, 
five  on  the  right  side  and  five  on  the  left  ' 

X  pit<  'chest';  n^n  (an  Kg\-i>tian  woM),  meaalng  *a  boUow 
▼easel,'  is  the  wonl  for  Noali's  ark. 

A*  1  K  8<1.  >  1  K  8».  { Mt$mTk, 

•  Ex  lOSi-a*  2619,  Nu  17">,  Dt  10». 

w  Bm  Aau.  ^  1  K  6»->B. 


702 


TEMPLE 


TEMPLE 


In  2  K  18*  it  is  recorded  that  Hezekioh  '  removed  the  hijh 

E laces,  and  brake  the  pillars,  and  cut  don-n  the  Asherah  ;  and 
e  brake  in  pieces  the  brazen  serpent  that  Moses  had  made  ;  for 
unto  those  oays  the  children  of  Israel  did  burn  incense  to  it.' 
Where  in  the  temple — if  in  it  at  all — this  symbol  of  deity  wris 
kept  we  have  no  mtimation.  The  brief  notice  is  intereslinjr, 
however,  as  showing  to  how  late  a  time  the  Israelites  wor- 
shipped Jehovah  in  ^e  form  of  some  material  object.    See  art. 

NEHUsaiAS. 

The  rnvrt.a  —  Keil  and  the  older  authorities 
generally  hold  that  there  was  an  outer  temple 
court  j3  as  well  as  an  inner  one.7  Wliat  can  be 
said  for  this  view  is  well  said  by  Keil  in  Der 
Tempel  Salomos,  p.  114  ff.  So  far,  however,  as  the 
history  and  description  of  Solomon's  temple  are 
concerned,  we  know  of  but  one  temple  court,  the 
other  courts  mentioned  not  being  temple  courts 
at  all.  The  epithet  '  inner,'  when  employed  to 
designate  the  temple  court,  gets  its  meaning  from 
the  fact  that  it  was  surrounded  by  the  greater 
court,  and  formed,  indeed,  a  part  of  the  latter.5 
This  one  court  is  called  by  the  Chronicler  the 
'  court  of  the  priests,' e  but  under  the  influence  of 
later  ideas  and  usages  Ezekiel  was  the  first  to 
think  of  reserving  a  court  for  the  priests,  and  in 
the  later  temples  his  conception  was  carried  out. 
It  was  owing  to  stricter  notions  of  holiness,  and 
the  belief  in  a  more  urgent  need  for  Jehovah  to  be 
approached  through  His  appointed  ministers,  that 
God's  house — the  place  where  He  dwelt — came  to 
be  safeguarded  by  a  walled  space  into  which  priests 
alone  could  enter.  But  in  Solomon's  day  and  for 
a  long  time  afterward  such  conceptions  were  un- 
known. No  need  was  therefore  thought  to  exist 
for  more  than  one  temple  court. 

The  greater  court — of  which  the  temple  court 
formed  a  part — was  surrounded  by  a  wall  made  of 
three  laj-ers  of  hewn  stone,  and  on  the  top  of  them 
a  layer  of  cedar  planks,  the  latter  probably  gable- 
shaped,  so  that  the  water  might  fall  to  the 
ground. f  Keil  -q  and  others  think  the  cedar  planks 
stood  upright,  making  a  kind  of  railing.  There 
was  the  same  sort  of  wall  around  the  temple  court, 
.IS  well  as  around  the  court  l)elow,  in  which  the 
royal  palace  stood. 

No  information  is  supplied  about  the  extent  of  the  court. 
Ezekiel's  inner  court  was  100  cubits  square ;  tf  and  Keil  thinks 
the  court  in  question  had  the  same  size.  But  it  must  be 
remembered  that  the  court  about  which  Keil  is  thinking  was, 
like  Ezekiel's,  for  the  priests  atone ;  the  one  and  only  court  of 
Solomon's  temple  was  for  the  people  as  well  as  for  the  priests,  t 
The  Rabbis  say  that  the  temple  court  was  187  cubits  from  east 
to  west,  and  135  cubits  from  north  to  south.  They  get  these 
Bgures,  however,  from  the  second  temple,  and  moreover  they, 
too.  believed  that  the  first  temple,  like  the  others,  had  an  outer 
court. 

We  are  left  equally  in  the  dark  as  to  the  form  of  the  court. 
Judfiing,  however,  from  other  temples,  we  should  expect  it 
to  be  rectangular,  if  not  a  square.  Hirt  and  Griineisen  say  the 
front  or  east  side  of  it  formed  a  semicircle  ;  but  this  is  simply  a 
guess.  The  fact  that  so  little  is  said  concerning  the  court  shows 
how  small  was  the  importance  attached  to  it  at  this  early  time. 

Gates  of  the  court. — No  court  gates  are  named 
in  the  historj'  of  the  building  of  the  temple.  It  is 
natural  to  think  that  there  was  a  gate  on  the  south 
side,  for  it  was  on  that  side  that  the  royal  palace 
lay.K  and  the  king  would  enter  by  that  gate.  It 
is  possible  that  the  people  also  had  to  enter  the 
sacred  enclosure  through  this  southern  gate.  But 
it  is  probable  that  there  were  gates  on  the  north 
and  ea>t  also,  as  there  were  in  Ezekiel's  temple.  \ 
We  have  evidence  that  for  some  time  before  the 
Exile  there  were  gates.  In  Jer  SS"  we  read  of  a 
'  third  entry  into  the  house  of  Jehovah,'  and  three 
keepers  of  the  threshold  are  referred  to  in  Jer  52-', 

a  "isri.    The  later  term  is  nirj-  ?  "ii'D?  ISIJC  Ezk  lO*. 

>.n'2'j;n  ixn  1  K  63«  7";  ibut  cf.  ZATW  iii.  p.  162t,  and 
Benzinger's  Commentary. 

JiSee  above,  p.  69b\  ■  8  Ch  4»  D'J^Sri  njq. 

C  1  K  7'2.  r  Der  Trmp.  Sal.  116.  6  Ezk  iv. 

I  2  K  12'=.  Jer  SSiff-  se'o  show  that  laymen  were  allowed  to 
enter  the  court  of  the  pre-exilic  temple; 

«  See  p.  696''.  A  Ezk  40»8f.. 


2  K  25".  But  these  references  are  not  conclusive 
as  to  the  court  of  Solomon's  temple.  Moreover, 
we  read  of  a  northern  gate,a  which  is  probably 
identical  with  the  '  upper  gate  of  the  uouse  of 
Jehovah,' /3  the  'upper  gate  of  Benjamin,' 7  and 
'  the  altar  gate,'  5 — so  called  because  to  this  the 
people  brought  their  oft'erint;s.  Assuming  that  the 
same  gate  is  meant  in  all  these  ])assages,  we 
gather  from  2  K  15^  that  it  was  built  by  Jotham 
(B.C.  740-736) ;  moreover,  it  is  called  a  '  new  gate.'e 
It  could  not  therefore  have  been  made  in  Solomon's 
time,  though  it  mi^ht  have  taken  the  place  of  a 
much  older  gate.  In  1  Ch  9'*  an  eastern  gate  is 
named,  and  it  is  called  '  the  king's  gate,'  probably 
because  the  king  used  it  either  principally  or  ex- 
clusively, f  We  have  supposed  that  Solomon  wotild 
be  more  likely  to  enter  tlirough  a  south  gate,  about 
which,  however,  we  know  nothing  certain. 

The_/?oor  of  the  court  was  paved  ;  at  least  it  was 
so  in  Ahaz'  day  (B.C.  736-728),  for  it  was  upon  the 
pavement  that  he  set  the  brazen  sea  after  he  had 
taken  away  its  proper  support.?;  The  Chronicler  9 
says  it  was  paved  from  the  very  first.  Ezekiel's 
outer  court  was  paved  for  50  cubits  all  round  the 
outer  wall,  except  on  the  west ;  i  and  it  is  likely 
that  his  inner  court  was  paved,  for  the  other  is 
called  the  lower  pavement,  implying  the  existence 
of  a  higher.  According  to  Smend,it  the  whole  of 
Ezekiel's  inner  court  was  paved. 

Contents  of  the  court. — The  Altar  of  Burnt- 
oifering. — We  have  in  Kings  no  account  of  the 
making  of  this  altar,  though  its  existence  is  implied 
in  1  K  8",  where  it  is  called  a  '  brazen  altar,  and 
in  2  K  l^""-,  where  we  read  that  king  Ahaz 
ordered  Urijah  the  priest  to  set  aside  the  brazen 
altar  that  was  in  the  'forefront  of  the  house 'X 
in  favour  of  a  new  altar,  built  according  to  an 
Assyrian  model  which  the  king  saw  at  Damascus. 
In  2  Ch  4'  it  is  said  that  Huram  Abi,  the  temple 
artist,  made  an  altar  of  brass,  20  cubits  in  both 
length  and  width,  and  10  cubits  high.  Bej-ond 
the  instructions  thus  given  we  know  nothing 
authentic  of  this  altar.  Its  being  made  of  brass 
was  contrai-y  to  the  directions  laid  down  in  the 
Book  of  the  Covenant,/j  and  is  probably  due  to 
contact  with  surrounding  peoples.  Keil  v  tries  to 
save  the  character  of  Solomon  by  maintaining  that 
the  inside  of  the  altar  was  made  up  of  earth  and 
unhewn  stone,  and  that  its  outside  was  alone  of 
brass, — brass  plates,  he  says.  But  such  an  altar 
could  hardly  be  called  one  of  brass. 

Keil  I  reconstructs  the  altar  according  to  what  we  know  of 
the  altar  of  the  tabernacle.  Most  modern  authorities  recon- 
struct it  in  accordance  with  what  we  know  of  Ezekiel's  altar.f 
But  neither  procedure  is  a  safe  one  ;  certainly  not  the  former, 
since  the  whole  account  of  the  tabernacle  is  conceived  under 
the  influence  of  late  ideas  and  practices.  Nor  is  it  safe  to 
argue  from  Ezekiel's  to  Solomon's  altar  of  burnt-offering  ;  for, 
assuming  that  the  prophet's  conception  was  governed  by  what 
he  had  seen  of  the  pre-exilic  temple  at  Jerusalem,  yet  many 
changes  are  likely  to  have  been  made  between  Solomon's  time 
and  that  of  the  prophet.  Some  of  these  are  known  to  us,  and 
have  already  come  under  our  notice.* 

The  altar  of  the  first  temple  stood  probably  at 
the  spot  where  David  erected  an  altar  after  the 
plague  was  stayed. p  Indeed  this  altar  might  have 
been  the  very  one  that  David  raised,  though 
2  Ch  4'  is  against  this  supposition,  as  is  also  the 
fact  that  the  rest  of  the  temple  was  new. 

The  Brazen  Sea.  s — Between  the  house  and  the 
altar,  but  towards  the  south,  was  the  Brazen  Sea 
(called  al.'^o  'the  Jlolten  Sea'  and  simply  'the 
Sea').     See  Sea  (liKAZEN). 

The   Lavers.T — On  each   side   of   the  altar,   at 

.  Ezk  SS  »».  /S  2  K  15SS.  V  Jer  20^. 

»Ezk8».  1  Jer  2010  S6i».  ?Cf.  Ezk  4«J«.. 

,2K161'.  «2Ch73.  1  Ezk  401  s. 

«  On  Ezk  401».  X  n:;n  'J?.  ^  Ei  20Mt. 

.  Der  Temp.  Sal.  p.  117  (.  {  I.e. 

•  Ezk  4313-1''.  »  Cf.  1  K  16»>,  2  K  W. 

,  2  S  24l5ff .  (IK  7»2«  I  2  Oh  4".  t  1  K  7n-»». 


TEMPLE 


TK.AIPLE 


703 


the  right  and  left  wings  of  the  temple,  tliere  were 
ten  brazen  stands  on  wheels,  with  brjiss  basins 
set  upon  them  (see  tlie  ^ery  el.iborjite  article, 
with  illustrations,  entitled  '  Die  Kesselwagen  des 
salum.  Teuipel,'  by  Stade,  in  ZATIV,  1901,  p. 
14511'.).  They  were  lilled  with  water,  which  was 
used  for  the  purpose  of  washing  the  IIlsIi  that  was 
to  be  ofTered  in  sacrilice.  Perhaps  the  water  in 
them  was  obtained  from  the  brazen  sea.  Or  it 
may  be  that  both  the  brazen  sea  and  also  the 
lavers  were  supplied  diiect  from  the  stream  men- 
tioned in  Ezk  47'. 

In  1  K  "«  (II  2  Ch  4")  we  are  told  tliat  Huram  made  also 
pots.c  shovels,^  and  basins,>-  but  it  is  not  stated  where  these 
were  kept. 

Of  any  additional  chambers  in  the  court  besides  those  around 
the  liouse  the  biblical  accounts  say  nothing;.  There  is  no 
mention,  for  example,  of  chambers  for  sacritlcing,  for  washing 
the  sacrincial  flesh,  for  storing  the  instruments  used  in  sacri- 
ficing, etc 

l^bbinical  writers  say  there  were  eight  stone  tables  on  the 
north  of  the  altar  of  burnt-offering,  fastened  to  the  pavement  by 
twenty-four  iron  rings.  Lund,%  who  follows  Jewish  authori- 
ties far  too  slavishly,  gives  details  of  these  tables,  deiieiidiiig 
upon  his  Jewish  guides.  If,  however,  these  tables  obUiiiied  at 
all,  it  was  in  the  temple  of  Herod  alone,  with  which  Jewish 
writers  were  familiar,  and  from  which  far  too  freely  and  un- 
critiially  they  drew  conclusions  concerning  the  temple  of 
Solomon. 

Subsequent  hv^toTy  of  Solomon's  temple. — Solomon 
did  not  intend  the  temple  he  built  to  be  a  rival  to 
the  already  existing  high  places  of  the  land,  much 
less  did  he  intend  by  his  sanctuary  to  supplant  the 
many  others.  For  long  after  his  time,  as  the  genu- 
ine Hooks  of  Kings  show,  the  hann'ith  or  high  places 
had  the  stamp  of  approval  as  much  as  the  Jeru- 
salem sanctuary.  'IhewTitings  of  the  early  pro- 
phets make  this  very  clear.  From  Amos  and 
Hosea  we  see  that  the  people  of  the  Northern 
kingdom  made  pilgrimages  to  Beersheba  in  the 
south  (.■\m  5°,  cf.  S",  Hos  4'"  (text  as  amended  bj- 
Wellh.,  Now.,  etc.)),  and  that  they  worshii)ped  there 
and  at  Dan,  Bethel,  and  other  places  (Am  4*  5°  8'^ 
Hos  10")  without  incurring  blame,  so  far  as  con- 
cerned the  locality  of  the  sanctuaries.  On  the 
other  hand,  the  inhabitants  of  Judah  sacrificed  at 
Gil"al  as  well  as  Jerus.alem  (Hos4"  ;  buttextdub., 
see  Wellh.  ad  loc).  The  opposition  to  the  bdmMh 
arose  from  the  superstition  anil  immorality  asso- 
ciated with  them,  and  the  danger  of  worshipping 
the  Canaanite  deities  to  which  they  were  origin- 
ally consecrated.*  It  should  be  noted  that  the 
temple-worship  of  Jerusalem  is  as  stronglj'  repro- 
bated hy  Isaiah  as  worsliiji  at  the  bdmOth  is  by  Amos 
and  Hosea,  and  for  a  similar  reason  ;  see  Is  1,  etc. 
F.lijali  was  one  of  the  lirst  to  set  his  face  against 
these  local  cults ;  but  the  first  to  make  anj'  attempt 
to  suppress  them  was  Hezekiah  (B.C.  7'2'J-U'20).f 
But  tlie  high  places  continued  to  be  recognized 
until  about  n.C.  G2I,  when  Josiah  (li.c.  64O-C09) 
employed  vigorous  measures,  and  for  the  most  part 
succeeiled  in  stamping  them  out.i;  More  and  more 
the  temple  became  the  centre  of  the  nation's  life, 
religious  and  [lolilical,  especially  after  the  return 
from  exile  (see  Smend,  Alt  test.  lieHrjionsgcsrh. 
216  f. ,  230  f.,  3ir>  f.,  438 11'.,  and  especially  his  article 
\nSK,  1884,  p.  689  f.). 

In  2  Ch  20°  mention  is  made  of  a  '  new  court ' 
belonging  to  the  house  of  Jehovah  before  which 
Jehoshaphat  stood;  an  outer  court  could  hardly 
have  existed  at  this  time  ;  probably  the  I'hronicler 
is  influenced  by  the  temple  of  his  own  day. 

We  have  already  spoken  of  the  following  inci- 
dents connected  with  the  temple:  (1)  the  new 
cate  made  by  Jotham  ;  0  (2)  the  sujiplanting  by 
king  Aliaz  of  the  altar  of  burnt-olI'eiing,i  and  the 
removal  by  him  of  the  brazen  oxen  on  which  the 

«  Reading  n'll'p  for  the  obviously  inaccurate  ni">'5. 
f  D-y;.  y  nip-lI:^,  i  Book  iv.  ch.  17. 

1  Dt  121 80,  Nu  83K,  Kx  aii'Jf-.  C  2  K  18<-  «>. 

.  2  K  23iff  0  i  K  i:.M  :  2  Ch  e7».  1  2  K  ICi". 


brazen  sea  rested  ;a  (3)  the  taking  away  by  Heze- 
kiah of  the  gold,  etc.,  of  the  house./3  But  worso 
than  that  of  Ahaz  or  Hezekiah  was  the  conduct  of 
Manasseh,  for  he  caused  altars  to  be  raised  in  the 
court  to  all  the  host  of  heaven,  and  an  image  to  be 
put  in  the  house  of  Jehovah. 7  Moreover,  he 
erected  abodes  for  hierodules,  in  which  women 
wove  tents  for  the  Aslierah,  these  tents  to  be  put  up 
in  the  sanctuarj'.S  He  had  also  horses,  consecrated 
to  the  sun,  kept  in  a  part  of  the  inner  conrt.e 
Josiah  purged  the  temple  of  these  abominaliuns,f 
but  unfortunately  his  lile  was  cut  short  at  Mf^iddo 
in  the  war  with  Egypt,  about  li.C.  009.);  Twelve 
years  later  Jeru.s;ilem  was  attacked  bj'  the  Chal- 
da-ans  under  their  king,  Nebuchadrezzar. 0  In  B.C. 
586  Jerusalem  and  its  temple  were  burned  to  the 
ground,  and  whatever  of  value  remained  in  the 
temple  was  carried  to  Babylon. i  Thus  ended 
the  lirst  temple  after  an  existence  of  over  four 
centuries. 

ii.  EZEKIEL'S  Temple.— lS.7.fik\(iVa  programme 
for  the  new  State  and  temple  was  suggested  to 
him  by  the  sights  he  had  seen  in  the  Holy  City, 
and  the  events  amidst  which  he  moved.  Hence 
the  picture  he  drew  of  the  temple  that  was  to  be 
is  helpful  in  understanding  what  the  temple  was 
immeiliately  before  its  destruction.  In  a  less  de- 
gree, less  than  is  generally  supposed,  it  is  an  aid, 
too,  in  reconstruetin"  the  temple  of  Solomon. 

But  Ezekiel'stemine  obtains  its  chief  siguilicance 
from  its  relation  to  the  future.  The  legislation  set 
forth  in  tlie  last  9  chapters  of  Ezekiel  represents 
an  intervening  stage  in  ritual  and  theological  con- 
ceptions between  the  Deuteronomic  legislation  and 
tlie  I'rieslly.  In  Ezekiel's  ideal  picture  the  temple 
and  its  priesthood  stand  in  the  very  foregiound. 
Some  items  in  his  programme  could  nut  be  realized. 
For  instance,  the  territory  in  which  each  of  the  12 
tribes  was  to  dwell  is  marked  out,  but  the  12 
tribes  did  not  return.  Again,  the  temple  buildings 
did  not,  and  could  not,  occupy  exactly  a  square  of 
,"iijO  cubits  each  way. 

The  description  of  Ezekiel's  temple  is  to  be  found 
in  40'-43-''  and  parts  of  the  following  chapters. 

The  text  is  often  very  corrupt,  and  has  to  be  oonjecturally 
emended.  Buttclier's  Proben  altUat.  iichrifterhlaniiuj  (iswa) 
and  Thenius'  Com.  on  Kiwjs  are  very  serviceable  in  reconstnict- 
ing  the  text.  The  CominL-ntaries  of  Smend  and  of  Cornill  are 
of  the  utmost  value  in  the  same  direction  :  especially  ComiU's 
monumental  work,  which  deals  mainly  with  the  text.  One 
cannot  but  wish,  however,  that  Cornill  were  less  wedded  to 
the  text  implied  in  the  LXX.  We  ought  not  to  omit  noticing 
the  Commentaries  of  Keil,  Bertholet,  and  Kraetzschniar,  all  of 
which  the  present  writer  h&a  found  helpful,  more  particularly 
that  of  Bertholet. 

Hiivernick  in  his  Commentary  on  Ezekiel  has 
called  attention  to  the  fact  that  in  the  account  of 
Solomon's  temple  it  is  the  house — including  hiked 
SiwA  dibir — which  receives  most  attention  ;  but  in 
the  description  of  Ezekiel's  temple  it  is  the  external 
circumstances  that  stand  out  most  prominently, 
such  as  the  courts  with  cells  and  doors,  the  guard- 
rooms, chambers,  ornaments,  dres.ses,  and  the  like. 
The  house  is  but  slightly  touched  upon.  This  may 
be  owiii"  to  the  fact  that  in  both  temples  the  house 
was  in  all  essentials  identical  :  the  dillerences  and 
addiiions  were  in  the  external  parts. 

1.  General  Arhangement.— Solomon's  temple 
was  but  one  part  of  the  comjilex  of  royal  buildings 
on  the  eastern  hill.  It  was  enclosed  in  the  great 
court,  as  were  the  royal  palace,  the  house  inhabited 
by  his  Egyptian  wife,  and  other  erections.  In  this 
temple  co\irt  the  people  were  in  the  habit  of  gather 
ing  to  oiler  sacrilices.  Priests  and  people  mingled 
around  the  altar  and  in  the  immediate  precincts  of 
the  house.    lu  Ezekiel's  time  no  palace  and  no  Stat« 


.  2  K  16". 

,S  2  K  181»t. 

y2K21«.».7. 

i  2  K  2;i'. 

•  2  K2311. 

{  2  K  23. 

^  2  K  TS^. 

«  2  K  24»"'-. 

.  i  K  U.-.  t  Jer  68 

704 


TEMPLE 


TEMPLE 


buildings  were  needed.     The  space  on  which  these 
had  liueu  built  was  now  devoted,  accordingly,  to  | 
that  DUter  court  which  is  the  grand  feature  of  this 
nev  lemple.    Israel  had  suH'ered  for  want  of  proper 
reverence.      God  had  not  been  worshipped  with  i 
becoming  respect.    His  house  had  been  desecrated, 
the  sacritices  profaned.     Now  the  house  was  to  be  ! 
shut  oflfrom  secular  buildings.    In  close  proximity  i 
to  it  tlie  priests  alone  were  to  be  allowed  ;  it  was  I 
only  in  the  large  outer  court,  which  stood  where  pre- 
viously the  royal  buildings  were,  that  the  common 
people  could  gather.     There  was  to  be  a  new  land 
separated  to  Jehovah,  and  cut  otf  on  the  west  by  the 
sea,  and  on  the  east  by  the  rapid  Jordan  and  its  I 


consequent  freedom  from  practical  restraints.  The 
area  it  covered  was  a  square  500  cubits  a  on  each 
side.  The  proportion  2  :  1  obtains  largely.  The 
gateways  are  50  cubits  long  and  25  broad.  The 
house  with  walls  and  chambers  had  a  length  of 
100  cubits  and  a  breadth  of  50.  Between  the  house 
and  the  3  inner  gates  was  a  square  of  100  cubits 
each  side.  A  glance  at  the  plan  below  will  show 
the  thoroughly  symmetrical  character  of  the  whole. 
From  sijuare  to  square  is  50  cubits. 

The  temple  area  was  encompassed  by  a  wall  (gh  i  j) 
6  cubits  high  and  of  the  same  thickness.^  In  the 
centre  of  the  N.,  E.  and  S.  walls  there  were  gate- 
ways 7  (G  G  G).    Just  opposite  to  them,  towards 


200  2^0  300  360 

no.   &. — GROUND   PLAK  OP  BZB&IEL'S  TRMrLB.3 


600  CubiU. 


J  n  1  Je=the  encompassiniJ  walls.    O  O  G  =  the  3  outer  pates.    Qi  O*  O^^the  3  inner  ^aten.    PP'=prie8ta' cells.    H^thehotue 
(lu^kdl  and  3<'6ir).     A  =altar  of  burnt-offerings.    The  numbera  around  the  outer  walls  mark  the  cells. 


seas,  or  rather  lakes.  But  of  that  all-holy  land  the 
temple  hill  was  to  be  first  secured  as  a  kind  of 
tlrumdha  or  first-fruits.  An  enclosed  land  was  to 
have  its  sanctuary  enclosed— nay,  doubly  enclosed, 
the  inner  enclosure  for  the  priests  alone.  It  is  no 
doubt  this  idea  of  the  holiness  of  Jehovah  and  His 
house  that  prompted  the  prophet,  in  the  spirit  of 
his  time  and  people,  to  appropriate  the  whole  of  the 
upper  hill  for  uis  temple,  and  to  substitute  the  outer 
court  for  Solomon's  all-encompassing  great  court. 

A   leading  feature    in    Ezekiel's  temple   is  its 
symmetry  :  this  is  due  to  its  ideal  character,  and  its 

a  njl-m,  ct.  Nu  ISlOf-  1811"'-  3l«. 


the  inside  and  exactly  100  cubits  distant,  there 
were  three  gates  of  the  same  construction  leading 
into  the  inner  court  7  (G'  G'  G').  Within  the  pre- 
cincts of  the  inner  court  was  the  house,  embracing 
botli  hfkdl  or  Holy  Place  and  dibtr  or  Most  Holy 
Place  (H).  In  our  more  detailed  description  we 
shall  follow  the  order  in  which  the  angel  showed 
the  temple  to  the  prophet  in   the  vision.     We 

a  Ezk  42i«  not '  reeds '  as  MT.  The  LXX  has  simply  600,  bu« 
In  v.n  it  has  *  cubits.'  which  should  be  understood  in  v.w.  »8  the 
general  measurements  and  other  passa^ee  show. 

0  Kzk  4<)*.  y  See  below  for  full  description. 

J  The  plan  is  adapted  from  Benzin^jer's  Beb.  Arch.  394.  Ben- 
clnger  takes  bis  from  Stade,  Getch,  h.  61.  The  squares  are  doe 
to  Benzinfirer. 


TEMPLE 


TEMPLE 


7C5 


begin,  therefore,  at  the  eastern  gate  of  the  outer 
court. 

Tlie  first  thing  we  encounter  as  we  approach  the 
eastern  gateway  is  the  ascent  by  7  steps  a  to  the 
level  of  the  outer  court,  which  was  liigher  than 
the  ground  outside.  At  the  inner  gate  there  was 
a  corresponding  flight  of  steps  which  conducted  to 
the  inner  court,  but  here  there  were  8  steps^  not  7. 
In  a  similar  way  an  ascent  of  10  steps  had  to  be 
made  before  the  house  could  be  entered. 7  Tlie 
whole  constituted  thus  three  terraces,  all  which 
would  j'ield  a  coninianding  view  from  the  moun- 
tains and  high  ground  around,  and  from  the  lowest 
court. 

Ueinht  of  gf^pt. — Ao«>rdlnBr  to  Ezk  41**  the  10  Bt«p8  leading 
ininieiliateiy  to  Ibe  house  were  equal  to  an  elevation  of  fl  cutiita, 
i.e.  each  step  wofi  j  of  a  cubit  bigb.  The  other  Bt«pB  were 
probably  ol  toe  same  height. 


FIO.  e.— IK  Oirmt  BATS. 


Having  reached  the  topmost  of  the  steps  in  front 
of  the  outer  gateway,  we  enter  the  gateway  itself, 
*hich,  as  is  common  in  the  East,  has  rooms  on 
both  sides, {  though  it  has  none  above,  such  as 
are  often  found  in  Eastern  countries,  and,  indeed, 
not  seldom  in  Europe.  First  of  all  we  enter  the 
threshold*  (7),  an  open  sjiace  with  a  length f  (E. 
to  \y.)  of  6  cubits  I)  and  a  breadth  f  of  10  cubits.* 

Pa.Hsing  beyond  the  threshold,  we  lind  right  and 
left  of  us  ^juard-roomsi  in  which  the  temple  olhcers 
were  stationed  to  keej)  order  and  to  watcli  tlie 
house. /(  These  were  four-s(|uare,  the  side  being  6 
cubits.  ]''ive  cubits  farther  on  there  were  two 
identical  guard-rooms,  and  the  same  distance  yet 
farther  to  the  west  there  were  two  more.  There 
were  thus  six  guard-rooms  in  ail  ( Fig.  6,GGGGG0). 

No  Uoors  are  mentioned  as  belonging  to  the  guard- 
rooms, but  it  is  probable  that  on  the  sides  towards 
the  outer  court  there  were  doors.  On  the  inner 
side  of  each  guardroom  there  wasa  'border'  (KV) 
or  '  barrier '\  (Comill,  Bertholet,  A.  B.  Davidson) 
(see  Fig.  (i,mn),  of  one  cubit  thickness.  The  purpose 
of  this  barrier  was  to  enable  the  sentry  to  see  along 
the  whole  length  of  the  gateway  without  being 
jostled  by  the  crowd  that  passed  in  and  out.  Of 
its  form  we  are  told  nothing,  but  it  was  probably 
simply  a  straight  stone  wall,  a  cubit  in  thickness 
and  6  cubits  across.      Between   the  guard-rooms 

«  F.7M  406,  cf.  40M  «.  0  40'1.  y  4(H»  41". 

»  2  S  isw ;  cf.  Layapd,  Nin.  and  Bab.  67,  and  note. 

I  IB  40«. 

C  Len^h  in  Ezekiel  is  (greater  diniciiaion,  breadth  the  smaller 
dlmeriHion. 

n  i.r.  the  breadth  of  the  outer  wall,  with  which  It  ran 
parallel. 

li  Hertholet(Hee  on  4011- 13)  ifivert  no  (rood  reason  for  niakinir 
the  breadth  (lO/.ekiel'M  len^'lh)  other  than  10cubit«.  \\\»  iniu- 
applied  in^enuit^s  ariflen  from  his  aoocptanca  of  40"'*  which 
Smend  ftndfCornlll  rightly  reject. 

I  nn  40',  AV  '  little  cha-nbor" ;  BV  'lodge,'  'guard  chamber.' 
«  1  K  1438,  o(.  2  K  11«.  ),  Si3|  Elk  40". 

VOU  IV. — 4« 


there  were  'posts'  (EV)  or  'wall  fronts 'o  (A.  B. 
Davidson)  (Fig.  6,  J  J  J  J),  which  from  guard-room 
to  guardroom  were  5  cubits.  There  were  four  in 
all — two  on  each  side.  Their  use  was  purely  archi- 
tectural. At  the  west  end  of  the  guard-rooms 
there  was  a  second  threshold /3  (7'),  the  same  in 
all  respects  a-s  the  other,  but  acting  as  threshold 
to  one  entering  from  the  outer  court,  as  the  other 
did  to  one  entering  from  the  outside. 

We  now  enter  the  porch  {P),  an  empty  space  8 
cubits  long  (E.  to  W.),  c  rf,  and  20  broad  (N.  to  S.),7 
ki.  The  breadth  of  the  gateway  all  along  ibs 
length  was  10  cubits,5  e.\cept  where  the  l>arriers 
occur :  these  occupying  a  cubit  each  side  wotild 
reduce  the  distance  between  the  guard-rooms 
from  barrier  to  barrier  (m  m  n  n)  to  8  cubits. 
The  length  of  the  gateway,  leaving  out  the  steps, 
which  are  not  counted,  was  50  cubit8,e  and  it  was 
wholly  roofed,  as  may  be  gathered  from  the  fact 
that  guard-rooms  and  intervening  '  posts'  required 
windows.  The  length  of  the  gateway  is  thus 
maxie  up — 


Outer  threshold  (T)ab  .  .  . 
3  guard-rooms  (fr  G  G)  .  .  • 
2 'posta*  or  '  wall  fronts' (J*0  • 
Inner  threshold  (2")  n  c 

Porch  (P)cd 

'Posts'  or  'wall  fronts'  (J'J')dt 

Total 


.  6  cubit*. 

.  18     .. 

.  10     „ 

-  6     „ 

•  8      „ 

.  S     .. 

.  CO  cubits. 


Windows. — According  to  Ezk  40"  there  were 
windows  in  the  guard-rooms,  in  the  'posts'  be- 
tween them,  and  in  the  porch.  Those  of  the  guard- 
rooms looked  out  into  the  court,  and  lighted  at 
once  the  rooms  themselves  and  also  the  adjoining 
gateway.^  The  windows  in  the  '  posts  '  extended 
all  through  their  thickness  of  6  cubits.  If  these 
posts  were  solid  walls,  it  must  have  been  so,  and 
not,  as  Davidson's  diagram  j;  represents,  a  mere 
oiieiiirig  on  the  outside  wall.  On  the  nature  and 
function  of  the  windows  see  above.  There  must 
liave  been  windows  on  the  north  and  south  of  the 
porch,  and  probably  the  '  post '  walls  had  them 
too.  See  Fig.  6.  '1  he  end  '  posts '  (d  e)  had  palm 
trees  engraved  on  them.  9 

The  north  and  south  gates  are  said  to  have  been 
exactly  like  the  eastern  gate,  and  so  did  not  need 
separate  descriptiim. 

Uutcr  i-Murt. — For  remarks  on  the  function  and 
sigiiiticance  of  the  outer  court  see  above.      And 

•  4010  a-y^f ;  L.X.X  «.>i/«,  $  VP. 

r  The  widti)  of  the  porch  (N.  to  S.)  is  not  given  In  the  MT.  In 
Ezk  -IMi-t,  however,  we  read,  '  He  made  also  posts  of  *10  cubit*.' 
Kliefoth,  followed  by  lienor.,  Keil,  Schroder  (Lan^c).  Perrot  and 
Chipiez — [see  their  restorations] — and  others  defend  the  text  as 
it  stands.  The  two  *  posts  '  at  the  end  of  the  porch  were  like 
churcli  steeples — so  says  Kliefotli ;  and  it  was  such  gate  pillars 
that  HUK'Kest^'d  our  i^luirch  steeples.  Hut  the 'posts'  in  question 
formed  no  part  of  the  sanctuary,  as  chun^h  steeples  usually  do: 
unless,  indeed,  Kl.  was  thinkinfj  of  the  campamU  or  bell-tower 
churches,  such  as  is  to  be  seen  at  Chichester,  etc  It  is  fur  more 
sensible  to  emend  the  text  with  the  aid  of  the  LXX,  and  to 

read,  'And  he  measured  the  porch  (changing  0'7'y  'Him  to 

crx  'fMm)20oublt»';  i.e.  In  breadth— the  other  measurements 
have  been  piven  :  thus  Smend,  Comill,  Davidson,  and  llertholet. 
This  woulilleave  6  cubits  for  the  two  side  walls,  {.(!.  2A  cubits 
apiece.  The  '  Jaml»s '  or  posts  towards  the  outside  (d  «)  are  said 
to  have  had  a  thickness  of  t  cubits. 
I  4Ull». 

•  Kzk  4015.  The  statement  in  v."  that  the  gateway  was  26 
cubits,  thoupfh  supported  by  the  Versions,  is  in  direct  collision 
with  v. 16,  and  must,  vs'ith  Smend  and  Comill,  bo  rejected  as  an 
inti'rpolation.  Butt.,  llitz.,  lluv.,  and  Keil  retain,  however, 
and  explain  thus :  the  whole  gateway  (lyv*)  consisted  of  a 
covered  portion  at  each  end,  with  an  unroofe<i  space  in  the 
middle.  It  Is,  they  bold,  the  covered  part  that  is  meant  in 
v.  13.  Hut  if  so,  why  is  this  not  stated?  Bortholet's  defence 
of  the  words  requires  a  noii-nalural  interpretation  of  the 
verse. 

{  The  '  barrier '  was  probabl;v  a  wall  sulflclently  low  tor  the 
Utrht  to  pass  over  it.  There  Is  nothing  in  the  text  opposed  to 
this.  There  mi(;ht  have  been  windows  in  the  barrier  lt«eil ;  Uils 
is  likely  If  the  barrier  walls  were  high. 

•  C<mt.p.£M.  «E£k40U.".n. 


706 


TEMPLE 


TEMPLE 


for  considerations  showing  that  the  first  temple 
had  but  one  court,  see  '  Court '  under  SOLOMoys 
'TliilFLE.  The  outer  court  was  comparatively  free 
from  buildings.  Besides  the  iiortli,  east,  and 
south  gates,  it  had  30  cells  a  ranged  along  its  outer 
walls. 

The  30  cells  (Fig.  5,  1.  2.  3,  etc.)  which  went  around  the 
court  were  used  for  keeping  utensils  and  provisions,  and  served 
also  as  residences  for  the  pricsts.^S  They  were  also  used  for 
sacrificial  feasts.  The  ancient  high  places  had  connected  with 
them  a  festive  chamber,  where  sacrificial  meals  were  partaken 

We  are  not  told  the  size  of  these  cells,  nor  how  they  were 
distributed.  A  stone  pavement  extended  from  the  outer  wall 
to  a  distance  corresponding  to  the  guLeways,  i.e.  44  cubits, 
which  with  the  width  of  the  wall  (0  cubits)  made  60  cubits. 
The  cells  are  said  to  have  been  *  upon  the  pavement,*  which 
seems  to  mean  that  they  had  the  pavement  for  floor.  But  the 
preposition  rendered  '  upon  '  means  prevailingly  '  to,'  S  and  the 
Hebrew  permits  the  translation  :  '  the  cells  were  attached  to 
the  pavement,'  i.e.  they  were  placed  at  the  termination  of  the 
pavement  without  being  on  it.  But  the  analogy  of  other  cells 
makes  it  practically  certain  that  these  were  attAched  to  the 
boundary  wall.  Taking  this  for  granted,  the  prophet  is  quite 
silent  as  to  how  they  were  arranged. 

Most  authorities— Stade, I  Benzinger,C  Nowacktj  (both  the 
latter  follow  Stade  closely),  Davidson,  Perrot  and  Chipiez,  Keil. 
etc. — place  10  cells  on  the_  north,  east,  and  south  sides,  leaving 
the  west  side  for  the  binyan  i  (Fig.  6,  B).  Five  are  supposed  to 
be  on  each  side  of  the  respective  outer  gates.  This  answers  well 
to  the  symmetry  so  characteristic  of  Kzekiel's  temple.  Orelli 
and  Bertholet — the  latter  treads  closely  in  the  footsteps  of  his 
Basel  colleague — allocate  six  of  these  ceils  to  the  west  side,  3  on 
each  side  of  the  binyan  (B).  There  are  then  8  on  each  of  the 
remaining  3  sides,  4  on  one  side  of  each  gate  and  4  on  the 
other.  The  binyan  occupying  but  a  small  part  of  the  western 
wall,  leaves  room  enough  for  3  cells  on  each  side  of  it.  The 
words  'chambers  and  a  pavement'  made  for  the  court  row nrf 
abmU,i  support  the  plan  of  putting  cells  on  each  of  the  4 
Bides,  unless,  indeed,  with  Kliefoth  and  Cornill,  we  limit  the 
words  '  round  about '  to  the  pavement. 

Opinions  are  divided  also  as  to  the  way  in  which  the  cells 
stood  in  relation  to  one  another.  Keil>^  maintains  that  the 
cells  on  each  side  of  the  north,  east,  and  south  gates  were  but 
rooms  in  one  building,  like  the  rooms  of  a  house.  He  has  there- 
fore on  his  plan  but  6  buildings  for  the  30  cells,  6  cells  in  each. 
But  in  that  case  we  should  have  expected  to  read  of  ti  build- 
ings, and  not  merely  of  30  cells.  Davidson  separates  the  cells 
by  an  intervening  space.x  Stade,  Benz.,  Now.,  Orelli,  Berth., 
and  Perrot  and  Chipiez  join  the  cells,  putting  a  mere  wall 
between  them  ;  and  this  is  the  likeliest  view,  for  on  Davidson's 
conception  there  would  be  a  considerable  wast«  of  labour  and 
materials  in  the  extra  walls  required. 

Pavement. — The  pavement  already  spoken  of  is 
called  the '  lower  pavement,V  from  which  one  would 
infer  that  the  inner  and  upper  courts  was  also 
paved.  Smend  concludes  from  2  Ch  V  and  Aris- 
teas'  letter  that  the  whole  of  the  inner  court  was 
paved.  Cornill  rejects  the  words  as  an  interpola- 
tion, though  on  purely  subjective  grounds. 

Kitchen.^. — In  each  of  the  four  corners  of  the 
outer  court  there  was  a  kitchen  in  which  the  sacri- 
ficial meals  were  got  ready,^  the  size  of  each  being 
40  cubits  long  by  30  broad.  The  '  ministers  of  tlie 
house '  0  boiled  in  them  what  the  people  brought 
to  be  sacrificed. 

The  Inner  Court.— The  inner  court  was  for  the 
priests  alone  ;  and  its  being  thus  exclusively  used, 
and  there  being  more  than  one  court  at  all,  marks 
a  new  step  in  the  religion  of  Israel.  As  compared 
with  the  outer  and  larger  court,  the  inner  was 
crowded  with  buildings  having  to  do  with  the 
temple  service,  particulars  of  whicli  will  be  found 
below.  From  the  external  margin  of  the  outer 
walls  to  the  walls  of  the  inner  court  there  was  a 
distance  of  150  cubits.     The  entrance  to  the  inner 

«  For  the  sake  of  distinctness  we  use  '  cell  *  for  nj-.f'^,  *  piard- 
room'  (or  Nn,  and  'chamber'  for  JJ^'J.  Indian,  Egj-ptian,  etc., 
^mples,  as  is  well  known,  contained  also,  within  their  courts 
dwelhngs  for  priests,  besides  kitchens,  refectories,  etc.  See 
Bealc's  Oi/Wf  to  Architecture,  p.  34. 

0  Ezk  4017^0  42ifr. ;  cf.  1  Ch  O^,  Ezr  10«,  Neh  IS"-. 

)- 1  S  922 ;  cf.  je,  3J4  sgio.  ,1,^ 

>  OmcA.  ii.  61.  {  lleb.  Arch.  ,  jja,.  Arch 

e  Ezk  41".  ,  Ezk  40"  3'59  3-39. 

M  Com.  p.  8S3,  pi.  1.        A  Com.  p.  299  u.  tOi». 

»  4021.  {  4621 'il. 

•  i-t.  the  aubordiDBte  officials ;  cf.  Ezk  44>0'i<. 


court  was  by  means  of  3  gates  opposite  to  the  3 
outer  gates  and  of  the  same  construction,  only 
tliat  the  parts — threshold  to  porch — occurred  in 
reverse  order  ;  the  porcli  of  the  inner  gate  being 
next  the  steps,  and  not  farthest  away,  as  in  the 
outer  gate,  etc.  There  were  8,  not  7  steps  between 
the  two  courts — a  sign  perhaps  of  the  increased 
progress  in  holiness  as  compared  with  the  passage 
from  the  outside  to  the  first  court. 

Sacrificial  cell  and  tables  about  the  porch  of  the 
inner  Nortliem  {or  Eastern?)  Gate. — On  one  side 
of  the  inner  northern  gateway,  joining  tlie  porch, 
and  with  a  passage  into  the  porch,  there  was  a 
cell,  not  further  described  as  to  structure,  size,  or 
position.  Smend  a  represents  it  as  on  the  south 
side  of  the  porch,  having  the  same  length  and  a 
third  of  its  breadth.  This  cell  was  used  for  washing 
the  burnt-otlerings./3 

Kliefoth,  Keil,  and  Schroder  (Lange)  maintain  that  the  sacri- 
fices were  washed — the  last  process  they  were  put  through 
before  they  were  laid  upon  the  altar — at  each  of  the  3  itmer 
gates.  Indeed  Kliefoth  goes  so  far  as  to  say  that  there  were 
two  washing  cells  attached  to  each  porch  of  the  inner  gates, 
one  on  each  side.  But  the  slaughtering  took  place  at  one  gate 
only.y  and  it  is  practically  certain  that  the  washing  did  too. 
'  Gates '  in  v.K*  should  be  read  '  gate '  with  the  LXX  and  most 
authorities. 

Another  debated  and  debateable  question  is — Which  gate  U 
meant  at  which  this  washing  cell  was  situated?  Ew.,  Hitz., 
Smend,  Corn.,  and  Berth,  hold  that  it  is  the  eastern,  their 
principal  grounds  being,  that  (1)  the  eastern  gate  was  the  most 
sacred,  that  (2)  the  stream  that  supplied  water  for  washing  the 
sacrifices  passed  by  the  east  end  of  the  temple, 5  and  that  (3)  at 
the  N.  and  S.  gates  there  were  other  buildings  t  (Fig.  5,  P  P').  On 
the  other  hand,  Bottcher,^  Havernick,  and  Davidson  hold  that 
the  northern  gate  is  meant,*?  and  for  reasons  which,  to  the 
present  writer,  appear  conclusive.  Here  are  some  of  them  : — 
(1)  The  prophet  is  already  at  the  N.  gate.  Cornill  gets  rid  of 
this  difficulty  by  his  usual  and  often  successful  way  of  emend- 
ing the  text.  In  the  beginning  of  v.ss  he  introduces  a  clause 
answering  to  the  beginning  of  v.35  '  And  he  brought  me  to  the 
door  of  the  porch  of  the  eastern  gate.'  But  he  has  absolutely 
no  external  support  for  the  change  thus  made.  (2)  According 
to  the  rf'gulations  in  Leviticus,^  the  slaughtering  of  animals 
for  sacrifice  was  to  take  place  at  the  N.  side  of  the  altar  in 
the  case  of  burnt-,  sin-,  and  trespass-offerings.  No  directions 
are  given  as  to  peace -offerings.!  It  is  to  be  expected  be- 
forehand that  Ezekiel's  legislation  and  that  of  the  Priestly 
Code  would  tally.  (3)  The  N.  gate  is  called  in  8^  the  'gate  of 
the  altar.'  Since  it  was  to  this  gate  that  the  people  brought 
their  offerings,  it  was  the  most  frequented-  The  two  E.  gates 
were  kept  shut  except  on  Sabbaths  and  new  moons,x  or  on 
other  special  occasions  when  the  prince  desired  to  present 
freewill-offerings.x  The  western  gate  was  closed  by  buildings 
connected  with  the  temple.  In  the  pre-exilic  temple  the  S. 
gate  was  joined  to  the  palace  court,  which  is  partly  true  of  the 
eastern  gate  as  well. 

Passing  into  the  inner  N.  gate,  on  both  sides  of 
the  porch — which  is  first  reached — we  see  4  tables, 
2  on  each  side  (T'),  on  which  the  burnt-,  sin-,  and 
trespass-offerings  were  slain  ;  ix  or  at  least  they 
were  used  in  connexion  iirith  the  slaying  of  these 
sacrifices,  as  Keil  and  Davidson  understand  the 
words.  The  actual  slaughtering  took  place  prob- 
ably on  4  tables  outside,  the  4  inside  tables  being 
used  in  that  case  for  preparing  the  sacrifices  for 
the  altar.  According  to  Lv  I^  6-^  7"  the  above- 
named  sacrifices  had  to  be  killed  on  the  N.  side  of 
the  altar.)/  If  these  tables  were  placed  near  the 
N.  gate,  this  requirement  of  P  would  be  met. 

Tliere  were  without  the  porch  two  tables  on  each 
side — 4  in  all  (T) ;  on  these,  as  stated  above,  the 
actual  slaughtering  took  place.f  In  addition  to 
the  8  tables  noticed  above  there  were  4  of  hewn 
stone,  each  with  a  length  and  breadth  of  one  cubit 
and  a  half,  having  a  height  of  one  cubit.  They 
had  ledges  running  round  the  4  top  edges  a  hand- 

<t  Com.  p.  330.  fi  Ezk  4038.  y  toaa, 

i  Ezk  47" .  1 41H4.  C  Probm. 

,41135-37.  (Ill  4M.  S9.  IS6M7S14U. 

,  3i  8.  IS.  ,  461ir..  X  ««U. 

^  4039.  »  See  above. 

i  4i|M.  Bdttcher  contends  that  these  tables  stood  In  the 
outer  court,  two  at  each  of  the  angles  formed  by  the  steps  and 
the  gate  front.  His  reasoning  turns  chiefly  00  the  meaning  of 
inr,  rendered  'side.'  See  Proben,  etc  p.  830 f.  But  we  haT« 
certainly  to  seek  some  spot  in  the  InDer  court  in  which  tba 
angel  and  prophet  now  are. 


TOIPLK 


TEMPLE 


707 


breadth  in  ^ridth :  those  turned  inwards.  The 
instruments  made  use  of  in  the  burnt-offerings 
were  kept  on  these  stone  tables. a 

Priests'  cells ^  (P  P').— Close  to  the  N.  and  S. 
innei   gates  there  were  2  cells  for  the  otticiating 


inner  gates  there  was  a  square,  having  100  cubits 
to  the  side  (a  b  c  d).  The  altar  (A)  was  probably 
in  the  centre,  and  therefore  equally  visible  from  all 
the  inner  gates,  a  Tlie  space  between  the  altu 
and  the  house  was  deemed  specially  sacred.^ 


u 


no.  7. 
5r=ltep«  before  the  porch.       /"sporrh.       U  =  htkaL       D  =  dmr.     BB'  =  H   and   S.    cntmncM  to 

chnmliera.      .S' .S=hi.-iirs   com linit  the   Blorejs.     B^iloat     ^  =  Jachin.     J/  =  the   munndh. 

T=lhe  altar-Bhaped  table  uf  shewbrcad. 

priests.  The  N.  cell  (P)  was  for  the  priests  who  |  2.  TllE  HOUSE  AND  ITS  MEASUHEMENTS.-y— The 
>aw  to  the  liouse.y  its  pates,  saeriliees,  etc.  The  house  and  its  appurtenances  formed  a  squaro  of 
other  (P')  was  for  the  Zadokite  priests  who  had     100  cubits  oaili  way.     The  manner  in  which  this  [» 

made   up  will    be  shown   in   summary   after   tha 
several  uetuils  have  been  considered. 


charge  of  the  altar, 
Between  the  bouse  and  the  inner  ends  of  the 

y  In  iii"!  the  Leritea  m  uid  to  have  charse  of  the  bouM. 


•  Cf.  43i:iir-. 
V  Ezk  40«Mlf 


^  Ezk  81*,  Jl  S>7,  Mt  !3». 


708 


TEMPLE 


TEMPLE 


The  porch  a  (P). — The  porch  (Fig.  7)  was  20  cubits 
from  N.  to  S.  {d  c),  and  11  cubits,  or  rather  12,/3 
from  E.  to  W.  {d  f).  The  platform  of  the  house 
■was  6  cubits  higher  than  the  ordinary  level  of  tlie 
inner  court :  this  was  reached  by  10  steps.7  Close 
to  tlie  'posts' or  'wall  fronts'  of  the  ^lorch  were 
two  pillars,5  the  Boaz  and  Jachin  of  1  K  7-'  (J5  J). 

The  hekal  or  Holy  Place  e  (H).—1\\e  hrkal  was 
40  cubits  long  (E.  to  W.)  and  20  broad  (N.  to  S.)— 
inside  measurements.  Tlie  posts  of  tlie  entrance 
wall  (i  A)  were  6  cubits  thick.  The  door  or  entrance 
way  into  the  h^kal  was  10  cubits  (A  h,  i  »). 

the  dihir  or  Most  Holy  Place  f  {D,  Fig.  7).— 
The  dcblr  was  a  cube  of  20  cubits  each  way.  Its 
posts  (0  p)  were  2  cubits  in  thickness,  this  bein" 
the  thickness  of  the  wall  (n  0)  which  extended 
from  the  N.  and  S.  walls  of  the  house  to  the  door. 
This  wall  7;  (ra  0)  was  7  cubits  wide,  leaving  6  cubits 
for  the  door.  9 

Doors  of  h^kSl  and  dl^lr.i  —  Both  Mkal  and 
dfhtr  had  folding  doors  of  the  kind  already  de- 
scribed, it  It  is  not  said  that  the  cUbtr  of  Solomon's 
temple  had  such  doors.  The  doors  of  the  hikcll 
were  carved  with  cherubim  and  palm  trees,X  as 
the  Mkal  walls  were./i  The  porch  entrance  (a-a  : 
b-b) — we  read  of  no  door — was  14  cubits  wide.M 
The  door  or  entrance  to  the  Mkal  was  10  cubits 
wide.i'  that  of  the  diUr  being  6.{  The  entrances 
were  therefore  in  the  proportion  7:5:3  (14  :  10  :  6). 
It  is  singular,  though  probably  only  a  coincidence, 
that  the  wall  projections  ( =  '  sidepieces ')  0  had 
exactly  opposite  ratios,  viz.  Z(za) :  5  (fh) :  7  (n  0). 

The  side  chambcrs.ir — On  every  side  of  the  house 
except  the  east,  Ezekiel's  temple,  like  Solomon's, 
had  side  chambers.  The  MT  ^ves  the  number 
of  them  as  3.3,  and  Sraend  displays  mucli  in- 
genuity in  justifying  the  text,  which  in  this  con- 
nexion is  by  universal  confession  very  corrupt.  In 
fa. our  of  there  being  30  are  the  LXX,  Josephus.p 
Bottcher,  Cornill,  and  most  recent  authorities,  as 
also  is  the  fact  that  there  were  30  cells  along 
the  outer  wall,  not  to  add  the  greater  .symmetry 
of  the  round  number.  In  Kings  the  number  is 
not  given.  The  chambers,  arranged  as  in  Solo- 
mon's temple  in  3  storeys,  were  on  the  1st,  2nd,  and 
3rd  storeys  respectively,  4,  5,  and  6  cubits  broad : 
in  the  first  temple  the  figures  were  5,  6,  and  7. 
The  2nd  and  3rd  storeys  rested  upon  rebatements, 
on  which  see  p.  699''.  Concerning  the  rebates  in 
the  temple  wall,  the  ladders  by  which  the  upper 
storeys  were  reached,  and  the  uses  of  the  chambers, 
see  above,  p.  699''. 

Ezekiel's  temple  had  doors  [E  E'),  one  N.,  one  S., 
by  which  admission  to  tlie  chambers  could  be  ob- 
tained. There  was  but  one  for  the  first  temple, 
and  it  was  situated  at  the  south  t  (see  Fig.  2,  E). 
There  was  probably  a  ladder  at  each  entrance : 
Ezekiel's  temple  would  thus  have  two  ladders 
(SS'),  Solomon's  temple  one  (Fig.  2,  S). 

The  inunnnh,T  or  '  what  was  left '  (EV). — On 
the  outside  of  the  chambers  N.  and  S.  there  was 
an  empty  margin  of  5  cubits  (M).  It  was  out 
of  this  munndh  that  entrance  was  had  to  the 
chambers  through  the  two  doors  {E  E'j. 

S  T)ius  the  LXX ;  and  the  other  measurement*  require  1& 
See  Summary  at  p.  708i>. 
■y  E;:k  41t>.  i  iV.    See  Boai. 

I  411f-.  ?  413f-. 

II  413.  LXX  correctly  nkr  iiraiutlmt  nv  Su^fdmntt  reading 
ninn^i  Instead  of  31311  ('  and  the  width '), 

«'4l3.  '  1 41»». 

»  Above,  p.  7001>,  Fig.  4.         X  41»  4117«.. 

ft  Tboueh  the  Hebrew  does  not  ^ve  the  width,  It  Is  supplied 
by  the  liXX  of  41^8.  Adding  to  this  14  cubits  the  two  project- 
ing walls  (d  6,  6  0)  we  get  6  (=  2  x  3)  -H4  =  20,  the  width  ot  the 
porch  (N.  to  6.),  which  is  a  confirmation  of  the  LXX 

>  41>.  { 413.  ,  «i«. 

t41»-ii.  f  Ant.  \m.  \\l  t. 

( 1  K  «».  I  nj::  Ezk  41«- ". 


The  gizrah,a  or  '  separate  place '  (EV).  —On  e\  ery 
side  except  the  E.  there  was  a  space  of  20  cubits, 
called  the  gizrah  (Fig.  5,  beef).  This  court  ran 
round  the  whole  bouse  buildings,  including  the 
munndh,  on  N.  and  S.  ;  or  it  went  round  the  raised 
platform  on  which  these  stood.  Reckoning  to- 
gether gizrah,  munnah,  chambers,  and  house,  there 
was  a  breadth  (N.  to  S. )  of  100  cubits,  which  makes 
it  highly  probable  that  the  gizrah  formed /)ar<  of 
the  upper  platform,  instead  of  merely  enclosing 
it.  The  text;3  is  silent  as  to  any  use  to  whicli 
the  gizrah  was  put.  Perliaps,  like  our  cloisters, 
it  was  for  the  priests  to  exercise  themselves  in, 
and  take  fresh  air  when  unable  to  get  farther 
afield. 

The  binyanyor  '  building'  (EV). — On  the  W.  side 
of  the  house  and  adjoining  the  gizrah  there  was  a 
rectan^lar  structure  called,  apparently,  techni- 
cally binyCin  (Fig.  5,  B),  the  inside  measurements  of 
which  were  70  cubits  from  E.  to  W.  and  90  from 
N.  to  S.  Its  encompassing  wall  was  5  cubit.s  in 
thickness.  Its  W.  limit  reached  to  the  western 
wall  and  joined  it,  as  may  be  seen  from  the  dimen- 
sions below : — 

I/ength  ot  binyan  (E.  to  W.)  ....    70  cubits. 
2wallsof  do.  (E.  and  W.)2x6       .       .       .    10     „ 
Oizrah 20     „ 

Total       .       .       .  100  cubits. 
We  know  that  the  western  side  of  the  house  waa 
100  cubits  from  the  outer  wall,  so  that  there  could 
be  no  space  between  the  latter  and  the  binyan. 

TheniusS  contends  strongly  that  there  was  such  an  inter- 
vening space,  and  that  behind  the  binyan  there  were  gates 
throu^'h  which  wood  and  animals  to  be  sacrificed  were  brought 
into  the  temple  area,  and  through  which  refuse  of  every  kind 
was  carried  away,  lilief.  and  Keil  hold  that  the  binyan  was 
made  for  the  purpose  of  receiving  the  offal  of  the  sacrifices  and 
the  sweepings  of  the  gates.  Curry  1  says  the  carcase  of  the 
sin-offering  was  burnt  at  this  building.^ 

It  is  veiy  probable  that  by  the  binyan  we  are  to  understand 
the  same  as  the  D*ii"!grr,(  of  2  K  23U  (places  in  which  horses 
and  chariots  were  kept)  and  the  l^ng  of  1  Cb  2619  (a  part  of  the 
temple  west  of  the  house,  of  wliicli  the  priests  had  charge). 

In  Ezk  4115*  we  read  of  the  binyan  and  its  'galleries ' :  for  the 
last  word  we  should  certainly  read,  with  Com.  and  others, 
'walls.' 5  This  is  confirmed  by  calculation.  Adding  90  cubits, 
the  N.  to  S.  dimension,  to  the  "widths  of  the  two  enclosing  walls 
(5-1-5  =  10),  we  get  100  cubits.  Besides,  in  no  other  place  do  we 
read  of  there  being  galleries  in  the  binyan. 

General  measurements  of  the  house. — The  house 
and  its  belongings  formed  a  square  of  100  cubil.-<  a 
side,4  as  shown  below — 

From  E.  to  W.  m  have  these  details  (see  Fig.  7)— 

ab  Porch  wall,  Ezk  40*8 6  cubit*. 

(V  Porch,  40*9 12  „ 

/k  Wall  of  hfkal.  411 6  „ 

fcn  Length  of  hfkdl,  41« 40  „ 

nr  Wall  of  dMr,  41» 2  „ 

r»  Lenirth  of  dibir,  41* 20  „ 

Walla  ot  house  (W.),  41»     .        .        .        .  6  „ 

1,  2,  eto.,  Side  chambers,  415  ,        ,        .        ,  4  „ 

Wall  of  side  chambers,  419         ,        .        .  6  ,, 


Total 


.  100  cubits. 


This  calculation  proves  that  the  munndh  (JO  did  not  extend  to 

the  W.  side. 
Theee  are  ths  dime ntiont  from  N.toS.— 

Breadth  of  house,  Eek  41>      .       .       .  .20  cubita. 

Side  walls,  41°,  6-1-6        ...  .    12     » 

Sidechambers,  414, 4-1-4  .        .        .  .      g     „ 

Walls  of  side  chambers,  41»,  6+6   .       .  .    10     „ 

Jfunmii,  E.  and  W.,  41",  6-f6        .       .  .    10     „ 
Gitrah,  E.  and  W.,  411°,  20-t-20      .       .  40     „ 


Total 


.  100  cubit* 


•  ,T)I1,  from  11}  Elk  411*"  421-  !»•  ". 
/9  Ezk  41".  y  i;)5,  lit  '  building,'  from  .1J5  '  to  build.' 

)  See  Da*  vorex.  Jems,  vnd  detsen  Tempel,  Taf.  iii.  fig.  & 
1  Speaker »  Comm.  i  Ezk  43^1. 

•1  AV  'suburbs,'  BV  'precincts.'  Both  inj  and  IjiJ  an 
derived  by  Oesen.  (Thet.)  from  Pere.  farwar,  a  summer-house, 
open  on  all  sides  to  admit  air.  He  considers  the  '  parbar '  of 
1  Ch  26"*  to  have  been  an  open  porch  atljoining  the  temple. 
In  Rabbinical  Hebrew  (Mishna,  etc)  parbar  means  temple 
court,  and  also  suburbs  of  a  city.  See,  further,  art.  PaRBia. 
e  niTp  for  D'P'BK.  «  41i»^». 


TEMPLE 


TEMPLE 


7Ui, 


Decoration  of  the  inside  of  the  house. — Tlio  walls  a 
of  hfkfil,  dlbir,  and  porch  were  wainscotted,  as 
were  also  the  closed  windows.(3  The  wall  decora- 
tion was  arranged  in  compartments  or  liekls,7  in 
each  of  which  a  clicrub  and  palm  tree  were  en- 
graved, the  cherub  havinj;  faces  of  man  and  lion, 
one  face  looking  upon  the  other.S  On  the  side  walls 
of  the  porch,  palra  trees  alone  were  carved. 

Wiudmna. — Little  is  said  about  the  windows  of 
Ezekiel's  temple.  Those  of  the  gateway,^  the 
porch.f  and  the  house  i;  are  characterized  as 
'closed,' 9  i.e.  'latticed.'  In  1  K  6^  the  windows 
of  Solomon's  temple  are  further  characterized  as 
'beamed.'  This  second  feature  is  probably  under- 
stood of  Ezekiel's  temple  too.  See  more  fully  above 
(p.  700*)  on  windows  of  Solomon's  temple. 

Priests'  cells  in  the  Inner  Court. i — N.  and  S.  of 
thegizrdh  there  were  4  rows  of  cells  in  which  the 
priests  ate  the  holj'  food  and  deposited  their 
garments,  two  rows  being  on  the  N.  and  two 
on  the  S.  First  there  was  one  abutting  upon  the 
gizrah  and  lying  along  its  whole  length  of  100 
cubits.  Then  came  a  parade  or  walk  10  cubits 
broad  of  the  same  length.  Next  to  this,  parallel 
to  the  gizrah  and  the  first  row  of  cells,  was  a  half 
row,  starting  at  the  west,  the  remaining  space 


Contents  of  the  house — In  the  hSkill  of  Ezekiel's 
temple  there  was  nothing  except  the  cedar  wood 
altar,o  which  was  2  cuhits  in  both  length  and 
breadth  (3  and  3  culiits  high.  It  had  raised 
comers,7  wrongly  called  horns  S  by  the  LXX,  and 
is  described  as  a  'table  (set)  before  Jehovah.' t 
The  altar  of  bumt-ofl'ering  is  also  called  the  table 
of  Jehovah. f  It  cannot  be  the  altar  of  incen.se 
that  is  meant,  for  we  find  no  such  table  mentioned 
earlier  than  P.  No  doubt  we  are  to  understand 
the  altar-shaped  table  of  shewbread  (Fig.  7,  T),  as  in 
Solomon's  temple,  this  table  occupying  the  same 

fiosition  in  both  temples.  Of  other  tables  or  of 
ampstands  not  a  word  is  written.  Nor  is  anything 
said  about  what  the  dSblr  contained.  This  may, 
of  course,  be  due  to  the  brevity  with  which  the 
house  is  treated  ;  but  as  a  matter  of  fact  we  do  not 
read  of  the  ark  after  the  destruction  of  Solomon's 
temple. i; 

Ezekiel's  altar  is  much  more  elaborate  than  that 
of  Solomon's  temple,  and  owing  to  the  large  num- 
ber of  technical  terms  0  and  other  difficulties  it  is 
harder  to  reconstruct. 

The  altar  was  in  form  as  if  made  up  of  four 
square  blocks  of  stone,  the  lowest  being  the  largest, 
the  next  being  smaller  to  the  extent  of  one  cubit 


~io  Cubits 


0123436-38 

no.   8. — AI.TAR  or  BUBNTK)FPERINO  15  KZKRIEL'B  TRMrLB.1 


being  taken  np  by  a  wall.  The  chambers  had 
3  storeys,  but  no  pillars  supporting  them,  as  the 
30  cells  of  the  outer  court  had.  'flie  cells  on  the 
upper  storey  were  narrower  than  the  two  below, 
so  that  in  the  direction  of  the  house  there  was  a 
balcony,  or  rather  corridor.  The  entrance  to  the 
cells  was  at  tlie  E.  end,  and  was  apparently  on 
lower  ground  than  that  on  which  the  cells  were.it 
Bertholet  concludes  from  this  that  the  entrance 
was  thus  on  the  outer  court  level. 

The  MT  doea  not  say  anything  as  to  the  number  of  cells  there 
were,  but  the  LXX  (fives  the  number  as  30  in  its  host  copies 
(A,  etc.) :  i.e.  Ifi  N.  and  tlie  wime  nunil)er  S.,  10  in  each  full  row 
and  &  In  each  half  row.  The  total  would,  according  to  this,  be 
Identical  with  the  cells  along  the  outer  walL 

•  I.e.  the  walls  enclosing  the  openings  rendered  'openingi.* 
These  walls  were   themselves  covered  with   beams;  cf.   D'C~;f' 

I  K  tv» :  it  was  on  these  beams  that  the  wood-car\'ing  was  done. 
Berth.,  on  account  of  the  difficulty  of  uiiiierstanding  how 
windows  could  be  covered  with  wood,  rejects  this  clause ;  yet 

II  is  found  in  all  the  .M8S  and  versions. 

3  ■  naileries' of  MT  must  go  — so  LXX,  Comlll,  Davldwn. 
Other  changes  are  necessary  in  4118. 

»•  n^i? ;  of.  Neh  3'1-  •»■  i.    The  LXX  omit*  the  word. 

i  Not  four  faces,  like  the  chenibitn  of  ch.  1.  More  tbao  two 
bees  could  I  )t  be  represented  on  a  Hat  surface. 

1  tik  4U'«.  ;  41M.  ,  41". 

«  OlItJH.  /  41">  t2>'I'.  >  F.lk  t». 


each  side,  the  third  and  fourth  having  a  superficial 
area  less  than  the  block  below  also  of  one  cubit 
each  side.  There  was  thus  a  ledge  or  margin  k  of 
one  cubit  in  width  at  the  basis  of  the  three  upper 
blocks  (Fig.  8  dd',  ee',  g g').  On  the  outer  hall  of 
the  lowest  margin  there  was  an  upright  parapet  X 
(g  h,  g'  h'),  forming  a  kind  of  channel  into  which, 
according  to  tradition,  the  sacrificial  blood  fiowed, 
whence  it  was  conducted  by  a  subterranean  passage 
to  the  Wady  Kidron./x  The  altar  was  not  made  of 
solid  stone ;  its  interior  was  of  earth, f  but  this 
was  covered  with  stones,  just  as  the  altar  of 
Solomon's  temple  had  a  covering  of  bra.ss.     The 

•  41>>. 

^  The  breadth  1*  Dot  glveii  In  MT,  but  It  Is  supplied  by  the 
LXX. 

y  nH'ipO.  I  mifarm.  i  4ia. 

C  Ezk  41W.  ,  See  Abi.  »  aj,  ^133,  p'n,  mj!'. 

.  Ezk  43is«r.. 

m  p'n.  The  majority  of  commentator*  follow  the  Targum, 
and  make  this  word  stand  for  'basement,'  33  being  really  the 
word  used  for  this.  Thus  Oeson.  (.The*.).  Iliiv.,  Kell,  Corn., 
Orelli,  Bertholet.  and  Kraetzschmar.  The  view  fovo\ired  in  the 
text  al>ove  is  defended  by  Villalpando  (HOOS)  and  other  oldel 
commentators,  and  by  Smond  (see  his  Ezechitl,  where  the  argu 
menta  are  ylvenX 

*■  '?<3;.  u  Voma  ill.  1.  i  K^  SC" 


710 


TEMPLE 


TEMPLE 


altar  had,  however,  the  appearance  of  three  blocks 
of  solid  stone,  with  three  successive  terraces,  the 
lowest  of  tlieni  being  bound  by  a  para|)et  half  a 
cubit  wide.  The  uppermost  surface  was  a  square 
of  1-2  cubits  each  way  ;  and  as  on  this  the  sacnhces 
were  offered,  it  is  called,  by  way  of  pre-eminence, 
the  altar.a 

Kcil  and  ComiU  maintain  tliat  the  altar  proper  ™s  ac"^, 
of  12  cubits  a  side,  tlie  rest  of  the  structure  (all  except  i/^t^) 
beinl'  a  Ided  tor  use  or  o.nament,  but  formn.g  no  part  o    t  e 
altar;  but  in  the  text  the  ^voni  'altar'  .s  used  of  the  en^n. 
structure ;  (3  and  this  larger  sense  is  defended  by  hJietotb,  Ewaia, 
Emend,  A.  B.  Davidson,  and  Bertholet. 
The  'arVely  or  altarhearth  had  four  horns  [ba, 
b'a'),   each   a  cubit   high,   rising  out  of  its  four 
corners.  S    The  uppermost  surface  was    as  stated 
a  square  of  12  cubits  on  each  side.     The  higliest 
block  (A)  had  a  thickness  of  4  cubits.     The  area 
of  the  next  block  (B)  was  a  square  of  2  cubits 
wore  on  each  side  ;  that  is,  it  was  14  cu^  s  a  side 
and  it  had  a  thickness  of  4  cubits      The  thud 
block  from  the  top  (C)  had  for  its  surface  a  square 
of  16  cubits  on  each  side,  and  a  thickness  of   Z 
cubits.     The  lowest  block,  tlie  back  or  base,e  had 
for  its  upper  surface  a  square  of  18  cubits  a  side, 
and  a  thickness  of  one  cubit.     The  hci;.ht  of  the 
upper  surface  of  the  whole  was  12  cubits,  as  is 
seen  from  the  following  details  :— 

Basement  (33) 1  <=">'''• 

Lower  block  (n-|;jD? 2  cubits. 

Higher  block  (rnivj? *     " 

Block  of  altar  hearth  p.xnx)  .       ...  4     .. 

HomB l"'""- 


Total 


12  cubits. 


the  temple  had  been  destroyed,  Sheshbazzara  WR« 
sent  by  Cyrus,  king  of  Persia,  to  be  governflr  of 
Judiea.     He  received  permission  to  take  with  huii 
his  leading  fellow-countrymen  from  Babylon,  to 
restore    their    Jewish    religion    and    rebuOd    tb9 
teraple.jS      Sheshbazzar  was  accompanied  by   his 
nephew  Zerubbabel  and  Joshua  the  high  priest, 
representing  respectively  the  royal  and  priestly 
lines     Cyrus  not  only  gave  orders  that  the  temple 
should  be  re-erected,  but  he  gave  Sheshbazzar  power 
to  carry  with   him  the  sacred  vessels  taken   by 
Nebucliadnezzar  from  the  temple,  and  imposed  a 
tax  upon  tlie  provinces  west  of  the  Euphrates  to 
meet  the  expenses  of  the  return  of  the  Jews  to 
their  own  country.7    Phoenicia  and  Tyre  were  to 
supdIv  the  wood  from  Lebanon,  and  to  send  it  on 
rafts  to  Joppa.«      Whether  all   the   instructions 
given  by  tlie   Persian   king  were  carried  out  we 
have  no  means  of  knowing. 

Seven  months  after  the  Ketum,  the  altar  of  burnt- 
oflerin"  was  erected,e  probably  upon  the  same  site 
as  the  old  one.  The  building  of  the  house  was 
slower  work,  but  a  collection  was  made  to  meet 
the  needful  outlay.f  In  the  2nd  month  of  the 
"nd  year  after  the  Return,  the  foundation-stone 
was  laid.  7,  Then  there  was  a  pause  m  the  work 
owin"  to  the  opposition  of  the  mixed  population  ot 
Samaria.e  who,  as  not  being  pure  Israelites,  were 
not  allowed  to  share  in  the  rebuilding  of  the 
temple.  I 

There  is  no  conBrmation  ot  the  statement*  that  the  people 
of  &."  aria  intrigued  with  the  Persian  king  to  authonUtively 
s  o^tTe  work.  According  to  Hagga,  -f  Z«>-"J^'^*^,ii''; 
indffcrence  of  the  people  that  was  at  '''\':^"°J  °i. '^*^ft*^ 
See  especially  Zee  1-8,  where  the  various  dilBcultie»  are  met  m 
the  successive  visions. 


The  proportion  of  height  and  (assumed)  basemen.s  s  (  =  {e).^ 
a  favourite  ratio  with  Ezekiel.  Note  further  that  the  he  Sjht  ,s 
identical  with  the  altar  surface  :  thus  we  get  a  cube  (a  *.  a  A). 
In  the  calculation  of  height  the  horns  are  mcluded.  In  act 
the  horns  seem  to  have  been  an  essential  part,  nay  the  r^iost 
sacred  part,  ot  the  altar.9  On  them  the  blo«l  was  sprinkled 
and  to  them  fugitives  came,  feehng  safe  if  they  had  hold  of 
them  In  early  times  the  altar  possessed  no  horns.,  btade  » 
NowMk  X  and  others  regard  the  horns  as  a  sur>ival  of  the  bull 
fm«"of  Jehovah  worshipped  in  the  N.  kingdom,  which  w,^ 
klso  a  representation  of  deities  woijhipped  by  the  Egj-ptians 
Canaanites,  and  Phmnicians.  The  ho^v  stone  or  altar  .t  has 
been  said,  was  in  early  times  covered  by  the  skm  of  the  amma 
K^rificed  the  skin  of  the  bull  having  the  horns  attached  But 
whv,ur  that  case,  was  not  the  altar  constructed  with  «>™honis, 
The  number  on  oAe  skin,  instead  of  dmM,-  that  ,.«m6er?  Villal- 
pandox  thought  the  horns  trophies  of  the  anunals  sacnBoed  to 
£Sd  Spencer «.  inclines  to  the  opinion  that  the  horns  were 
expressive  of  (Ugnity,  the  horn  being  a  decoration  worn  by 
distinguished  persons. 

iii  ZERUBBABEVS  r£jl/PZ,E. -The  temple  erected 
by  tiie  Jews  who  returned  from  exile  IS  called  Zerub- 
babel's  because  he  was  the  leader  m  promoting  its 
erection,  supporting  Haggai  and  Zechariah  in  their 
endeavours  to  urge  the  people  to  build  when  the 
latter  were  inclined  to  relax.  He  was  grandson  of 
Jehoiachin  and  probably  nephew  of  Sheshbazzar. i- 
In  the  spring  of  B.C.  537,  forty -nine  years  after 

«  "jN-inri :  Sx-isn :  tor  the  proper  writing  ot  the  word  see 
SROr  liotes  on  Is'aiah  291  (Cheyne),  a.id  on  Ezckicl  4315  (ToyX 
It  is  probable  that  the  word  is  not  compound,  the  endmg  being 
a  mere  noun  suffix  as  in  Sn?,  S-n;,  and  ^V-  ^  So  Chej^e  and 
Kraetzschmar,  following  Ewald  (see  Coinm.  and  Gram,  i  1CJ<;). 
The  word  simply  means  in  that  case  'burning  place,  from  m.^ 

%  Sec"Ezk  4S1»«.  *  So  Cheyne  would  read  it. 

J  V.15.  '  3|. 

tEV  '  settle  ••  the  Heb.  wonl  means  elsewhere  court  or 
eiiclo^ure  from  a  Semitic  root  meaning  to  press  in,  to  en- 
dose  Perhaps  the  word  stands  in  Ezk  4314  strictly  for  the 
surroumling  ledge  ot  one  cubit  width ;  then  for  the  square 
block  above  it.  „^,    .      „ij 

.  Ezk  4tH2  4lM.  *  Ct.  Am  314.  . 

"  Ex  20^  (Book  ot  Cov.) ;  ct.  Stade.  Guch.  L  466 ;  Now.  fl<*. 

^"''lmM  X  On  Erdtwi,  ii.  S9S. 

u.  De  Leiiibui,  U.  677  (ed.  Tub.  17S2). 
.  Called  Sanabassar  by  the  beet  Greek  authontie* 


Nothing  further  was  done  until  B.C.  520,  the 
"nd  year  of  the  reign  of  Darius  Hystaspis.  Shesh- 
bazz'ar  was  probably  dead  now,  and  the  lead  was 
taken  up  by  his  nephew  and  successor  Zerubbabel, 
aided  by  the  high  priest  Joshua.  Much  of  the 
new  zeal  was  owing  to  the  earnest  pleadings  of  the 
new  prophets  named.  Recommenced  in  B.C.  5iU,  ^ 
the  temple  was  completed  in  B.C.  516.M 

Sources  of  information  as  to  Zerubbabel  s  Temple. 
—These  are  very  meagre :  indeed  we  have  hardly 
anything  which  for  certain  applies  to  the  temple 
as  it  was  at  or  soon  after  the  txile.  Ihere  are 
scattered  notices  in  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  Heca- 
tffius  of  Abdera,  contemporary  and  friend  of 
Alexander  the  Great,  is  said  by  JosephuSF  to 
have  written  a  book  concerning  the  Jews  and  he 
quotes  parts  of  it  referring  to  the  temple.  It  is 
bv  no  means  certain  that  Hecatfeus  wrote  the 
book  in  question;  nevertheless,  the  quotations 
made  by  Josephus  are  interesting  and  of  value. 
The  OT  Aiiocrvpha  also  has  important  allusions  ; 
e'^pecially  is  this  true  of  the  Books  of  Maccabees. 
But  it  is  hard  to  say  how  far  the  statements  are 
true  of  the  temple  completed  in  B.C.  516.  Josephus 
is  too  much  controlled  by  the  temple  as  he  saw 
it,  to  be  a  reliable  guide  concerning  the  earlier 

^It^ir'probable  that  the  temple  building  occnpied 
the  same  site  as  the  earlier  temple.  Hecatieua 
says  it  was  a  'great  house.'  Cyrus  gave  instruc- 
tions that  it  was  to  be  60  cubits  liigh  and  60  cubita 
broad. i  Probably  this  means  that  they  \yere  to 
build  it  as  large  as  they  liked— as  large,  if  they 

.  Not  the  same  as  Zcnibbabel,  as  U  often  held:  pf  ComUl^ 
Uistory  of  People  of  iKiacl.  Chicago,  lb98,  p.  lol  t.  ,  Cheyne 
JUL  p.  0  ;  and  cf.  Shesiihazzar  and  Zbkubbabki. 
^  2  Ch  3623,  Ezr  l»ff-  61'  6if-.  r  ^'^  1'^  6i4f-  ». 

i  Ezr  3'  '    " 

C  Ezr  2iiS«-.,  Neh  VOU-,  d.  Ezr  1«.  «  Ezr  se^ 

eSeeSAMARiTiXS.  ^'    ■    %L-  Mua  una 

.  Ezr  48-3.    '^ee  Sohrader  on  this  section  in  i  A ,  1867,  867 II 

xEzrSiff.  tE"^- 


TEMPLE 


TEMPLE 


711 


would,  OS,  siiy,  some  well-known  temple  in  Babylon. 
We  aie  not  told  that  it  was  actually  built  of  these 
dimensions,  nor  is  it  likely  that  Solomon's,  which 
was  CO  cubits  long,  20  broad,  and  30  high,  should 
be  80  far  exceeded  by  Zerubbabel's.  It  is  not 
needful  to  consider  the  60  cubits'  length  as  meaning 
height  of  porch, a  and  the  breadth  as  applying  to 
the  chambers  as  well. 

It  is  inferred  from  Ezr  3i2  and  Hag  23  that  the  second  temple 
was  greatly  inferior  to  the  first.  But  when  these  words  were 
uttered,  tlie  temple  was  not  finitilied;  and  the  inferiority  may 
refer  to  the  absence  of  the  arl<  arnl  other  sacred  \'cssels  wliicli 
were  for  ever  lost  after  the  destruction  of  the  first  temple. 
According  to  Bab.  T;ilmud  (Yoma  22f/),  the  second  temple 
wanted  five  things  which  were  in  that  of  Solomon  :  (I)  the  ark, 
(2)  the  sacred  fire,  (3)  the  shekinab,  (4)  the  Uoly  Spirit,  (6)  the 
Urim  and  Thummim. 

Hrkrd  or  Holy  Place. — The  Mkal  liad  within  it 
one  holy  lampstand,  one  table  of  shewbread,  one 
golden  altar  of  incense,  together  with  pouring 
vessels  and  spices.j3  There  would  seem  to  h.ave 
been  the  two  veils  of  which  we  read  as  being 
before  the  lUkdl  (masCikh)  and  d£bir  (pa,r6keth) 
doors  of  the  tabernacle.7  The  fact  that  Anti- 
oclius  Kpiphanes  is  repre.sented  as  plundering  the 
gold,  silver,  etc.,  of  the  temiile,5  is  no  proof  that 
the  walls,  doors,  etc.,  were  covered  with  gold,  as 
the  MT  declares  to  have  been  the  case  with 
Solomon's  temple  (see  above,  p.  700  f.),  though 
Schiller  seems  to  think  it  is.e 

JUiJbir  or  Most  Holy  Place. — The  dibSr  had  a  veil 
in  front  of  it,  as  the  hckiil  also  had.  There  was 
nothing  in  the  dcbir  according  to  Jos.  (/}./  v.  v.  5), 
excipt  that  according  to  the  jMishnas"  the  stone  of 
foundation  t;  stood  where  the  ark  used  to  be.  Upon 
the  Day  of  Atonement  the  priests  used  to  put  their 
censers  on  this  stone.d  Prideau.\,  without  a  tittle 
ol  evidence,  held  that  the  ark  was  in  the  second 
temple.  Tacitus  applies  the  words  '  inania  arcana ' 
to  the  'tdytuni  or  dibir  of  the  temple. i 

t'ijiirta. — This  temple  had  two  courts.K  but  the 
separation  between  them  was  not  perhaps  rigidly 
enforced,  for  when  Alexander  Janiianis  was  sacri- 
licing  on  the  altar  during  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles 
the  people  pelted  him  with  citrons,  etc.  To  stop 
such   conduct,  he  ran  a  wooden  wall  around  the 

{)riests'  court.  According  to  Ezr  6',  three  rows  of 
lewn  stone  and  a  top  row  of  new  wood  were  to  go 
about  the  temple,  viz.  the  inner  court.X 

The  inner  court  had  in  it  an  altar  of  bumt- 
olfering  made  of  unhewn  stone /x — .so  conforming  to 
the  ancient  law  of  Ex  20^,  which  Solomon's  did 
not. 

According  to  Hecatfflus^  it  had  the  same  dimensions  as  the 
first  temple,  viz.  20  cubits  long  by  20  cubits  broad  by  10  cubits 
high.  The  Mishnaf  speaks  of  a  1''?  or  laver  as  being  in  this 
court ;  and  Sir  603  si)eaks  of  a  '  cistern  '  as  having  been  made  by 
Simon  the  high  priest.  The  Syriac  leaves  out  'cistern'  alto- 
gether, and  renders  '  he  dtig  a  well.'  The  allusions  are  far  too 
uncertain  to  infer  from  them  that  there  was  a  molten  sea  in 
the  inner  court  of  the  second  temple.* 

There  were  cells  in  the  outer  court  for  storing 
furniture  and  for  other  purposes.  In  1  Mac  4'''- " 
jiriests'  cells  are  named. jr  Josephus  makes  mention 
of  corridors  with  pillars.p  The  '  Mi|ilikad  gate'  of 
Neh  3"  was  probably  one  leading  into  the  outer 

«  As  Herod  the  Great;  see  Jo*.  xL;  Winer,  ItWIi^^t.  'Temper; 
Keil,  HiM.  Arch.  i.  lK4n. 

&  1  .Maj-  r^  i-taa. ;  Jos.  Ant.  nv.  Iv.  4 ;  of.  Hecatajus  as  quoted 
ap.  Jos.  c.  Ai/ion.  i.  22. 

y  1  Mac  *'-'  ;  see  Vkm..  >  1  Moc  123. 

1  Uiihin,  WlKija  lUU2a.  ?  Yoma  v.  2. 

fi  n;.-;' J5N.  «lHacl»4U.        i  Ann.  til  9. 

m  IMac  4  «■  M ;  cf.  Jos.  Ant.  xrv.  xvi.  2. 

»  Of.  1  K  (i-'Xl  7i>.  fi  1  M.ic  4«. 

t  In  Jos.  IIJ  V.  T.  6.  {  Afiilil.  iii.  0. 

t  Ezr  631  lOO,  Neh  S*"  103'»- 12"  ll-'"-  .irf  ^  In  every  cose  but 

Neh  830,  where  we  find  its  equivalent  .t^v'J  C'?anl  3  intcrchang- 

ng.  Ct  T.  W.  Duvics,  Ma'jic,  Divination,  and  Deinonoloijii,  \\.  b\). 

w  w^r^t^tfum  LXX  (or  n;;ji^.  f  Ant  xi.  iv.  7,  xiv.  vi.  i. 


court  on  the  western  side  (see  Jerusalem,  vol.  ii. 

fi.  5'J3').  The  '  pri-son  gate'  of  Neh  1'2^*  was  nmst 
ikely  on  the  north  side  (ib.).  In  later  times  there 
was  a  bridge  crossing  the  Tyropoeon  or  Cheese- 
motigers'  Valley  from  the  modern  Mount  Zion  to 
the  temi)le  hill.  When  Pompey  besieged  Jeru- 
salem, many  Jews  took  refuge  on  the  temple  area 
and  broke  this  bridge,  that  the  Koman  soldiers 
might  be  hindered  from  coining  to  them.  This 
w.as  probably  where  the  remains  of  Wilson's  arch 
are  now  seen,  though  Kosen.a  thinks  the  bridge 
was  of  Herod's  making. 

Later  history  of  this  temple. — Simon  the  high 
priest,  son  of  Onias,  repaired  and  fortilied  the 
temjile ;  but  the  passage  in  which  we  have  the 
information^  is  very  obscure. 

In  B.C.  168  Antiochus  Epiphanes  plundered,  laid 
waste,  and  desecrated  the  temple,  y  He  placed  an 
altar  to  Jupiter  Olj'inpius  on  the  altar  of  burnt- 
oU'ering.  Tne  brazen  vessels  taken  away  by  him 
were  given  by  him  to  sympathizing  Jews  at  Antioch, 
and  they  were  transferred  to  the  local  synagogue.5 
Three  years e  later  Judas  Maccab.ijus  recovered 
Jerusalem,  cleansed  and  repaired  the  house,  made 
a  new  altar,  and  also  fresh  vessels.^  The  Feast  of 
Dedication,  still  observed  among  Jews,  commemor- 
ates the  opening  ceremony  of  the  restored  and 
cleansed  temple.  At  this  time  Judas  also  adorned 
the  front  of  the  temple  by  hanging  u]);;  gilded 
crowns  and  shields,  8  and  he  also  fortilied  the 
enclosure  by  putting  high  walls  around  it.i  These 
were  razed  to  the  ground  by  Antiochus  Eupator,K 
but  restored  by  Jonathan  Maccakeus ;  \  they  were 
strengthened  by  Simon  his  brother.^i  Reference 
has  already  been  made  to  the  wall  put  around  the 
inner  court  by  Alexander  Jannteus.  In  B.C.  63 
Pompey  conquered  Jerusalem,  and  after  a  long 
siege  took  the  well  -  fortified  temple  hill.  He 
entered  the  house,  and  even,  in  the  face  of  loud 
protests,  the  dibir  itself  ;  but  he  did  not  touch  the 
sacred  vessels.^  Nine  years  later  (n.c.  54)  Crassus 
plundered  the  temple  of  its  valuable  things  most 
mercilessly,  taking  away  what  «as  worth  two 
millions  of  pounds  in  English  money. f  Herod, 
afterwards  called  the  Great,  a  descendant  of  the 
Maccabees,  was  made  king  of  the  Jews  by  ilecree 
of  the  Koman  Senate.  In  B.C.  37  he  stormed  Jeru- 
salem,o  and  burned  some  of  the  temple  walls, 
causing  a  goodly  amount  of  blood  to  be  shed. 
l'"rom  other  injury,  however,  he  protected  the 
temple. 

iv.  HEROD'S  Temple.— The  sources.— l^\\a  prin- 
ci])al  .sources  of  information  in  regard  to  Herod's 
temple  are  :  (1)  Josephus,  who  in  Ant.  XV.  xi.  gives 
a  full  account  of  the  outer  court  with  its  gates 
and  rooms,  and  in  BJ  V.  v.  describes  the  inner 
court  and  also  the  liou.se.  Josephus  was  a  jiriest, 
and  was  therefore  familiar  with  the  temple  and 
its  services  from  personal  experience.  He  writes 
his  history,  however,  from  memory,  and  he  is  so 
full  of  admiration  for  the  sacred  enclosure  that 
he  falls  into  obvious  exaggeration  when  giving 
measurements.  (2)  The  Mishnie  tract  Middoth 
preserves  valuable  Jewish  traditions  (see  Eng.  tr. 
in  Barclay's  Talmud,  reproduced  in  F'ergusson's 
Temples  of  tlie  Jews,  Appendix  i.  In  Surenhusius' 
Mislina  [vol.  vi.]  there  is  a  Lat.  tr.  of  the  text,  as 
also  the  text  and  translation  of  Bartinora's  Com- 

•  iToramTfT.,  c(.  p.  04.  ^SlrSOif- 

J.  1  Mac  12"-  "f-  "  43S,  2  Mao  O^-.  >  Joa  BJ  vil.  ill.  8. 

1 1  .Mac  4-*"i*',  2  Mac  103  (two  years,  according  to  last  passagoX 
{  .njijq  ;  cf.  Jn  loaa.    See  1  Mao  i^^  "  1"  ("» ;  Jos.  AiU.  Ju 
vll.  7. 
<j  Inside  the  porch.  0 1  Mac  4*7. 

1 1  .Mac  4«  07.  «  1  Mac  GM. 

X  1  Mac  003  of.  with  6',  2  Mao  123« ;  Jos.  Ant.  xin.  v.  IL 
/i  1  Mac  13°3.  >  Jos.  ..int.  XIT.  tv.  L 

{  Jos.  A  nt.  XIV.  vil.  1  ;  fly  L  vUL  8. 

•  Jos.  Ant.  XIV.  xvL  ti. 


712 


TEJIPLE 


TE]\rPLE 


mentary).  The  Middoth  is  more  modest  in  its 
dimensions  than  Joseplius,  and  nearer  ilie  truth  ; 
hut  it  is  also  often  inaccurate.  Kabhi  Hilders- 
heim's  Die  Bcsvhreibung  des  Herod.  Tempel  im 
Tractate  Middut  und  bei  Fl.  Joseph,  status  and 
examines  the  divergences  between  these  authorities. 

(3)  Maimonides  in  np;n  t  (part  vi.)  collects  many 
passages  about  tlie  temple  wliich  are  scattered 
tlirough  the  Talmud.  These  relate  especially  to 
the  priests,  temple  furniture,  etc.,  and  have  Deen 
put  into  Latin  by  Ludwig  Compibgne.  This  tr.  is 
to  be  met  with  in  Ugolinus'  Thesaurus,  vol.  viii. 

(4)  Dr.  Jolin  Lightfoot's  work  on  The  Temple, 
etc.  (London,  1823),  rests  mainly  upon  Rabbinical 
sources,  and  is  for  that  reason  valuable. 

Was  Uerod's  temple  the  gecorui  or  the  third  f — It  is  usual  to 
speak  of  Herod's  temple  as  the  third  Jenisalem  temple.  Modern 
Jews,  however,  followed  by  m.iny  Christian  writers,  re<,'ard  it 
Bs  simply  the  second  temple  rebuilt  and  improved,  and  ko  call 
it  the  secoDd  temple.    Christians  are  led  to  this  coDclusion,  or 


I   Antonia  I 

□         □ 


got  together  all  the  material  before  the  work  ot 
rebuilding  was  begun,  and  tlien  pulled  down  and 
put  tip  as  gradually  as  could  be  (lone.     Since  only 

Eriests  could  enter  the  house  and  the  inner  court, 
e  engaged  a  thousand  of  them  to  act  as  masons 
and  carpenters  in  these  parts.  The  building  of 
the  house  was  hastened  on  with  great  vigour,  and 
was  finished  in  a  year  and  a  half.  Surrounding 
buildings  took  eight  years,  but  the  work  went  on, 
and  was  not  ended  until  the  time  of  the  procurator 
Albinus  (A.D.  62-64).  The  Jews  (see  Jn  2-°)  said  the 
temple  had  been  forty-six  years  in  buildiitg,  and 
in  fact  it  was  still  in  building  then,  and  was  to  be 
for  over  thirty  years  more  (but  see  E.  A.  Abbott 
in  Class.  Rec.  1894,  p.  8911'.).  The  building  ia 
spoken  of  as  exceedingly  impressive  in  its  grandeur. 
Its  eastern  front  was  covered  with  plates  of  gold, 
which  threw  back  the  rays  of  the  rising  sun,  and 
formed  an  object  of  rare  beauty  for  miles  around. 
The  stone  of  which  it  was  built  was  white  marble. 

North 


I 


Bridge  '  \ 


Outer  Court. 


M 


no.  9. — BBROD'8  TBMPLB  :  OEKKRAL  VIEW. 


stleast  oonflrmed  In  It,  by  a  consideration  of  H.^1J  2«-9.  Messiani- 
cally  inter]ireted,  the  temple  erected  by  Zorubbabel  was,  they 
say,  to  see  the  Messiah.  But  the  passaf^e  is  not  Messianic,  and, 
if  it  were,  the  prediction  contained  in  it  is  made  from  the 
writer's  point  of  view. 

It  was  in  the  18th  a  year  of  his  reign  (B.C.  20-19) 
that  Herod  the  Great  set  about  the  rebuilding 
of  the  temple.  In  his  day  there  was  among  the 
Romans  a  great  rage  for  restoring  Greek  cities 
and  their  temples,  and  Herod  probably  caught 
the  prevailing  .spirit.  Josephus  reports  (Ant.  XV. 
xi.)  the  speech  in  which  Herod  announces  his 
intention,  and  gives  as  his  reason  a  desire  to 
promote  the  religious  welfare  of  the  nation  ;  but 
the  historian  says  the  king's  real  purpose  was  to 
raise  for  himself  an  everlasting  memorial.  The 
Jews  were  at  first  afraid  that,  if  the  king  pulled 
down  their  temple,  no  other  might  be  for  a  long 
time  put  up  in  its  place.  To  allay  this  fear,  Herod 
«  According  to  Jos.  BJ  i.  xxl.  1,  the  15tb. 


and  a  large  part  of  the  side  walls  was  covered  with 

gold. 

The  area  of  Herod's  temple  is  essentially  that  of 
the  modem  IJaram  esh-Sherif,  with  the  exception 
of  the  north  end,  at  which,  in  Herod's  day,  the 
fortress  Antonia  was  situated,  the  temple  court 
being  to  the  south  of  it.  The  excavations  made 
beneath  the  Haram  and  its  surrounding  walla 
show  that  the  lie  of  the  ancient  walls  on  the  west, 
south,  and  east  agrees  with  those  of  the  walls  to  be 
seen  to-day  (see  \iosen.  Das  Haram,  iS.;  Kobinson'i 
BRP  iii.  2-22 If.).  The  house  itself  would  be  sure 
to  be  erected  on  the  site  of  the  one  preceding  it. 

For  his  temple  Herod  used  double  the  space  that 
was  covered  by  Zerubbabel's  temple.a  and  in  order 
to  obtain  it  he  erected  subterranean  vaults  in  the 
south  of  the  temple  hill,  and  filled  intervening 
spaces  with  stones  and  earth.  The  bounding  line 
was  raised  from  4  stadia /3  to  6,  the  breadth  remain- 
«  Jos.  BJ  :.  xxl.  1.  /S  Jos.  Ant.  xv.  xi.  8. 


TEMPLE 


TEMPLE 


713 


inf,'  1  stadium,  the  length  ( N.  to  S. )  being  doubled.a 
Tlic  wliole  «  as  surrounded  by  a  liigh  wall,  covered 
with  spikes,(3  the  better  to  protect  the  place. 
The  temple,  including  its  courts,  occupied  an  area 
of  1  stadium  according  to  Josephus,  or  500  cubits 
according  to  the  Talmud.  Assuming  the  stadium 
to  bo  about  600  English  feet,  and  the  cubit  to  be 
about  18 inches,  thereisadillerenceof  over  100  feet; 
but  the  numbers  are  round  in  each  case,  and  the 
truth  lies  probably  between  them.  Perhaps,  as 
Fergusson  sujjgests,  the  Talmud  copies  the  dimen- 
sions of  Ezekiel's  temple  :  Fergusson's  own  dimen- 
sions, got  by  careful  calculations,  a^ree  well  with 
what  Josephus  says,  viz.  585  ft.  h.  to  \V.,  and 
610  ft.  N.  to  S.  ;  see  Temples  of  the  Jews,  p.  77  tt'. 

Oate-1. — The  principal  entrance  to  the  enclosure 
was  on  the  western  side.  Midduth  y  names  one 
only  on  that  side  called  '  Kiponos,'  but  Josephus 
haa  four.5  Probably  that  named  in  Midd.  is  the 
principal  one,  as  it  led  to  the  king's  palace  and  to 
the  city.  Two  more  to  the  south  led  to  suburbs  of 
the  city,  one  coinciding  probably  with  '  Barclay's' 
gate,  the  other  with  '  Warren's.'  Remains  of  the 
fourth  are  to  be  seen  perhaps  to  the  south  of 
'  Wilson's  arch.'  Josephus  e  speaks  of  gates  on  the 
south,  but  he  does  not  say  how  many  there  were. 
Midd.  mentions  the  two  Iluldah  gates,  which  are 
to  be  ideu  tilled  with  the  two  gates  buried  iii  the 


middle  of  the  three  aisles  was  45  ft.  wide,  the  two 
side  ones  having  a  width  of  30  ft.  The  inner 
portico  was  cm  higher  ground  than  the  two  nearer 
the  wall.  'I  lie  columns  were  so  thick  that  three 
men  with  tlieir  hands  stretched  out  could  hardlj' 
clasij  around  one.  On  the  east  was  what  is  called 
Solomon's  Porch  in  the  NT,a  and  is  said  by 
Josejilius  to  have  survived  from  the  time  of 
Solomon. (3  The  east  porticoes  were,  however,  the 
work  of  Herod,  according  to  the  best  judges;  but 
it  is  singular  that  Josephus  should  have  believed 
any  part  of  these  porticoes  to  have  been  the  work 
of  Solomon,  unless  it  was  much  older  than  Herod'e 
time.  During  the  feasts  the  Konian  .soldiers  usci 
to  walk  on  the  roof  of  the  porticoes  in  order  to  see 
that  order  was  kept.  The  whole  of  the  outer 
court  was  paved  with  stones.  There  were  for  the 
lower  oliicials  pastopkoriay  or  chambers  ranged 
along  the  outer  walls,  probably  between  the  walls 
and  the  porticoes,  unless,  indeed,  they  were  be- 
tween the  double  porticoes  themselves.  In  close 
pro.\imity  to  the  west  gate  and  the  chambers  was 
the  Beth  Din,S  where  the  Sanhedrin  met. 

In  the  older  sources  (Josephus  and  Midduth) 
the  Holy  Place  is  not  the  hekdl,  as  in  tlie  case 
of  the  previous  Jerusalem  temples,  but  the  whole 
of  the  mner  court,  including  the  women's  court, 
as  contrasted  with  the  outer  court,  which   was 


L  Chambera.     8.  Oate-rooras  (Exedrce),    S.  Porticoes.    4 

7.  Altar  of  burut-ofFerin^.    8.  Place  for  killing,  etc.,  animula. 


no.   10.— THE  INNER  COtTRT. 

S.  Porticoes.     4.  Women's  court 


B.  Court  of  Israelites. 
9.  Temple  porch.     10.  Uikdl. 


6.  Priesta'  court. 
11.  DMt. 


existing  south  wall  of  the  I^arara — one  west  of  the 
double  gate,  the  other  east  of  the  treble  gate. 
Both  these  show  Herodian  workmanship.  Throu>;h 
both  tliese  gates  it  was  possible  to  ascend  from  the 
vaults  below  to  the  temple  area.  On  the  east, 
Middoth  refers  to  one  gate  on  which  the  palace 
of  Shushan  was  carved.  It  has  been  commonly 
thought  to  have  been  the  same  as  the  modern 
Golden  Gate,  but  the  latter  is  undoubtedly  a 
Byzantine  structure.  Josephus  does  not  say  any- 
thing of  any  east  gate.  He  speaks  quite  incident- 
ally of  one  gate  on  the  north  ;f  Midd.r)  calls  it 
Tadie(or  Tari  ?). 

The  Outer  Court. — This  is  commonly  called  the 
Court  of  the  Gentiles,  because  Gentiles  were  allowed 
to  enter  it ;  but  in  neither  Josephus  nor  in  Midd. 
does  it  get  that  name. 

The  walls  of  this  court  were  surrounded  on  the 
inside  by  porticoes  or  cloisters.  The  north,  west, 
and  east  sides  had  double  porticoes,  with  two  rows 
of  white  marble  monolithic  colunms.  The  roofs 
were  of  carved  cedar.  On  the  south  were  the 
roval  porticoes,  the  arod  ^acriXuTJ,  which  had  162 
columns,  with  Corinthian  capitals.  Tliese  columns 
formed  three  aisles.  The  outermost  row  of  columns 
Were  fastened  into  the  wall  of  the  enclosure.     The 


•  DJ  V.  V.  «. 
/i.  a. 

I  I.OC.  cit.  &, 
n  Loo.  cit. 


$  B.I  IV.  ix.  12  ;  aee  Pinnacul 
i  AnI.  XV.  xi.  6. 
?  V.'  II.  xix.  5,  n  Iv.  L 
6  no  (or  •no  ?). 


Open  to  heathen,  and  could  be  used  for  bujring, 
selling,  etc.  e  The  inner  court  was  a  rectangle, 
whicli  included  in  it  the  women's  court  (4),  the 
men's  court  or  court  of  the  Israelites  (5),^  the 
priests'  court  (6),  and  the  house  which  stood  in 
the  last  (10,  11).  The  inner  court  was  on  hij^her 
ground  than  the  outer,  there  being  five  steps  from 
the  one  to  the  other.  Between  the  wall  of  the 
inner  court  and  the  porticoes  of  the  outer  court 
there  was  a  free  space  of  10  cubits,  higher  than 
tlie  rest  of  the  outer  court,  and  reailied  by  a 
lliglit  of  fourteen  steps.  This  formeil  a  terrace 
all  round  the  inner  court  except  the  east,  and  was 
called  the  /u:l  (S'n).  At  the  inner  edge  of  this  Ac/ 
there  was  a  stone  parapet  called  fSretj  (J-iSo).))  On 
this  tablets  were  put  with  inscriptions  warning 
non-Jews  against  passing  beyond  this  boundary. 
One  such  was  found  in  recent  years  by  the  French 
consul,  ClermonlGanneau,  on  which,  in  Greek,  the 
following  words  occur  :  iiriOina.  iWorfevi)  dairopcviadai 
ivTb'i  Tou  TTfpl  t6  lepdv  TpvcpdKTOu  Kal  nepifitiXov.  Hi  5"  B.v 
X^lfpOii  {airrf  atrios  tarai  5ii  t6  iianoXovBeXy  Odvarof, 
i.e.  '  jVo  stranger  is  to  enter  within  the  balustrade 


»  Ant.  XX.  li.  7;  &/V.  ».  1. 
» I'T  n-3. 


«  Jn  10-»,  Ac  8"  W«. 

y  DJ  IV.  ix.  2. 

1  Jn  2»iif- 

C  Kvil  (Bib.  Arch.  L  p.  100)  excludes  the  women's  court  from 
the  inner  court.  Now.  (il.  p.  78)  includes  it,  and  rii.'htl.v,  becaune 
It  stood  on  the  hi&;her  platfonn  of  tbo  courts  of  Isruelites  and 
pnests  and  of  the  house. 

«  Jos.  £y  T.  r.  X ;  if  idd.  U.  S. 


714 


TEMPLE 


TEMPLE 


and  emhrtnkment  round  the  snored  place.  Whnfvcr 
is  caught  will  be  answerable  fur  Ids  death,  which 
will  ensue.'  This  illustrates  Ac  21™"-,  wlien  St. 
Paul  almost  lost  his  li/e.  The  inn«r  court  \v:ia 
surroximled  by  a  wall  40  cubits  bi^'h  on  the  out- 
side, anil  on  the  inside  but  25,  owinj;  to  the  raised 
ground  inside.  From  the  lower  ground  to  the 
liigher  there  were  five  stops. 

Gates. — This  wall  had  nine  gates — four  on  the 
north,  four  on  the  south,  and  one  on  the  east. 
The  west  had  no  gate  at  all.  They  had  all  of 
theni  folding  doors,  covered  with  gold  and  silver. o 
Of  the  four  on  the  north  side  three  were  in  the 
men's  court  (5),  and  one  in  the  women's  (4).  Three 
of  the  north  gates  were  called  Nitzius,  the  Gate  of 
Ollering,  and  the  Makad.  On  tlie  south  we  read 
of  the  I'laniing  Gate,  the  Gate  of  Oli'ering,  and  the 
Water  Gate.  The  last  opened  upon  the  altar,  and 
appears  to  have  been  a  continuation  of  the  Huldah 
Gate.  The  gate  on  the  east  was  much  more  costly 
than  the  rest,  and  it  is  probably  the  '  Gate  Beauti- 
ful '  of  Ac  'i-,  and  'Nicanor's  gate '  of  the  Mishna./3 
It  \\as  made  of  Corinthian  brass.  Between  the 
women's  court  and  the  men's  there  was  a  gate 
larger  than  t!ie  others,  led  to  by  fifteen  steps,  at 
the  top  of  which  was  the  level  of  the  men's 
court.  It  was  thickly  overlaid  with  silver  and 
gold. 

Buchler>'  art^ues  ably  that  this  is  the  Nicanor  gate  of  the 
Mislina.  SIklil.  i.  4,  as  all  a<imit,  states  that ;  but  it  is  argued 
by  Sschiirer.fl  Oratz.i  Spiess,^  Nowack.tj  and  most,  that  it  is  the 
gate  on  the  east  of  tiie  women's  court  that  is  meant  by  the 
above  name.  Biichler  admits  that  Josephus  is  against  him  ; 
but  he  charges  the  Jewish  historian  with  inaccuracy,  and  calls 
the  Talmud  to  his  aid  in  proving  this.  Biichler's  view  is 
bound  up  with  another  position,  which  he  also  defends  with 
ability, 6  viz.,  that  the  wall  of  the  inner  court  shut  out  the 
women's  court  altogether,  as  being  part  of  the  court  of  the 
Gentiles  ;  the  Nicanor  gate  being,  then,  that  one  at  the  east  of 
the  men's  court  through  which  one  passed  into  the  inner 
gate.  Keil  also  speaks  of  the  inner  court  as  being  reached  by  a 
gate  at  the  western  end  of  the  women's  court.*  But  this  is,  as 
Biichler  admits,  against  the  common  view,  which  is  supported 
by  Schurcr,.^  and  Nowack,A  and  the  received  text  of  Josephus. 

Nicanor's  gate — assuming  the  usual  view — was 
56  cubits  high  and  40  broad,  the  others  that  led 
out  of  the  lower  court  being  30  high  and  40  broad. 
Round  the  walls  of  the  court  there  ran  porticoes 
with  a  single  piazza,  the  roof  of  which  rested  on 
lofty  anil  highly-linished  pillars.  These  porticoes 
were  less  indeed,  but  not  less  beautiful,  than  the 
porticoes  of  the  outer  court.  Between  the  gates 
there  were  cells  for  storing  the  various  properties 
belonging  to  the  temple :  these  are  called  by 
Josephus /i  7afo0i/XdKia.i'  Concerning  the  special 
purposes  of  these  rooms  see  Now.  op.  cit.  ii.  79  n.  2. 
There  were  upper  rooms  over  tlie  gateways,  hence 
justifying  Joseplius'  description  of  them  as  tower- 
shaped.  The  cells  between  the  gates  had  also 
upjier  rooms  ;  hence  we  read  of  the  upper  room 
of  Bet-Abtinas.l  Somewhere  within  the  women's 
court  would  be  placed  the  thirteen  boxes  for  re- 
ceiving contributions  to  the  temple.  At  least  one 
must  have  been  in  the  women's  court,  else  the 
widow  (Lk  21"-)  could  not  have  put  in  her  mite. 
See  Trkasury.  According  to  Midd.  ii.  5,  there 
were  four  cells  in  the  women's  court,  but  both 
Schiirer  and  Now.  think  this  unlikely. 

The  inner  court  was  divided  into  an  eastern 
part,  into  which  women  were  admitted  as  well  as 

«  Thev  were  the  gift  of  a  Jew  from  Alexandria. 

0  Midd.  i.  S.  r  JQR.  Oct.  1898. 

i  Uichm'8  tlWB'  1606'>.  i  Monatssch.  1S78,  434. 

C  Da9  Jerusalem  de4  Joseptius,  p.  70. 

<i  Op.  oil.  ii.  p.  78.  0  JQR,  July  1898. 

(  Op.  cit.  i.  p.  190.  But  he  is  inconsistent,  for  in  the  previous 
page  (Eng.  ed.)  he  B.ay8  the  inner  c.rdrt  went  around  the 
women's  court,  and  he  takes  the  view  that  Nicanor's  gate  was 
on  the  east  of  the  woireii's  court. 

«  Riehn\,  U  tVB-  KlUlib.  x  Op.  cU.  ii.  78. 

lA,  BJ  v.  V.  2,  VI.  V.  2.  >  See  Tkeasurt. 

{  Yuma  L  6 ;  Tarn.  L  \. 


men,  and  a  larger  western  portion,  which  included 
the  men's  court  and  tlie  priests'  court.  The  house 
and  the  altar  were  in  the  latter,  and  were  sur- 
roiinded  by  its  rampart.  Just  .'is  the  whole 
inner  court  was  separated  from  the  outer,  and 
within  the  inner  the  men's  was  shut  oH'  from  the 
women's,  so  the  remainder  was  subdivided  into  a 
larger  part  for  priests  only.  The  men's  court  was 
11  cubits  wide,  and  surrounded  the  priests'  court 
on  all  four  sides.a  The  Mishna,  however,  appears 
to  reduce  the  space  for  men  to  11  cubits  on  the 
east  alone.  Tlie  altar  and  all  the  arrangements 
for  sacrificing,  as  well,  of  course,  as  the  house 
itself,  were  in  the  priests'  court. 

The  house. — The  higher  ground  of  the  house 
was  attained  by  means  of  twelve  steps.  The 
inside  area  was  60  cubits  high  and  the  same  in 
length,  by  20  cubits  in  breadth.  There  were,  as 
in  the  other  temples,  two  divisions — the  lickal  or 
Holy  Place, (3  which  was  40  cubits  long,  and  the 
debir  or  Most  Holy  Place,  which  was  20  cubits 
long.  This  last  was  empty,  and  w;is  entered  by 
the  high  priest  once  a  year,  viz.  on  the  Day  of 
Atonement.  The  hi'kcd  or  larger  room  had  in  it 
the  following  : — Table  of  shewbread,^  altar  of 
incense,  the  seven-armed  lampstand.5  The  altar 
stood  in  the  middle,  between  the  temple  walls  :  to 
its  north  was  the  table,  and  the  lampstand  was  on 
its  south.e  Only  the  othciating  priests  were  per- 
mitted to  enter  the  hekcd,  to  bring  in  the  incense 
morning  and  evening,  to  trim  the  lamp,  which  was 
done  once  a  day,  and  to  supply  the  table  with 
fresh  shewbread,  which  was  done  every  Sabbath. 

The  porch  was  100  cubits  in  both  height  and 
breadth,  and  11  cubits  deep.  It  stood,  therefore, 
like  a  high  wall  in  front  of  the  house.  The 
breadth  of  the  house,  including  its  surrounding 
chambers,  being  70  cubits,f  the  porch  projected  15 
culiits  on  each  side.))  There  was  an  entrance  to 
the  porch  40  cubits  high  and  20  broad.  There  was, 
however,  no  door.  Above  the  entrance  Herod 
placed  a  golden  eagle,  which  as  a  Roman  emblem 
was  very  distasteful  to  the  Jews  ;  and  during  a 
turmoil,  some  time  before  the  king's  death,  it  was 
destroyed.  From  the  entrance  of  the  porch  the 
hckal  door,  gilded  like  the  court  gates,  could 
be  easily  seen.  It  was  adorned  with  carvings  of 
golden  vines,  with  grapes,  according  to  Joseplius, 
as  large  as  a  mau.9  Tacitus  also  speaks  of  this 
vine.  I 

Veil. — In  front  of  the  hckal  door  there  hung  a 
beautifully  coloured  Babylonian  veil.  The  lickcd 
was  shut  oft'  by  a  veil  or  veils,  but  there  was  no 
wall,  nor  therefore  any  door,  leading  into  the  dehir. 
According  to  the  Mishna,  k  there  were  two  veils 
between  the  hckcd  and  the  dibir,  with  a  cubit's 
free  space  between  them.  The  outer  was  loose  on 
the  south  side,  the  inner  being  loose  on  the  north. 
On  the  Day  of  Atonement  the  hijrh  priest  entered 
the  dcMr  with  his  censer  by  passing  to  the  south 
side  and  getting  behind  the  outer  veil,  until  he 
reached  the  north  of  tlie  inner  veil,  where  he  was 
able  to  enter  the  dcbir.  In  the  NT  this  veil  is 
spoken  of  in  the  singular,  the  two  perhaps  being 
looked  upon  as  one.X  The  veil  outside  the  door 
of  the  hiked  is  never  referred  to  in  the  NT.  See 
Veil. 

Light. — No  natural  light  came  into  the  house 
from  roof  or  side  wall  :  it  depended,  for  what  light 
it  had,  upon  the  lampstand. 

Chambers. — On  all  sides  except  the  east,  where 

«  Jos.  BJ  v.  V.  6;  cf.  Ant.  vni.  Hi.  9,  xm.  lill.  e> 

(3  Not  called  '  the  Holy  I'lace '  in  the  sources. 

J-  See  SnEWBRKAD,  Tablb  of.  5  See  LAUrSTiVIX 

i  Ct.  Ex  2635  40-.::  26.  ;  See  below. 

f)  Twenty,  according  to  Josephua 

ff  Josephus  says  70  cubits  high  by  26  broad. 

I  Ann.  V.  5.  »  Yama,  v.  1. 

X  See  Ml  2751  n  Mk  VJ^  ||  Lk  23«. 


TEJIPLE 


TEMPLE 


■15 


the  porch  was,  tliere  were  small  chambers  in 
which  temple  utensils  were  kept  and  priests  re- 
eiUcd.  They  were  thirty  -  eight  in  number,  and 
arranged  in  three  storeys,  in  such  a  way  that 
on  the  north  there  were  five  on  each  storey, 
makin"  lifteen  on  that  side  :  on  the  south  there 
were  also  live  on  each  storey.  On  the  west  there 
were  three  on  the  lowest  and  three  on  the 
nii<idle  storey,  two  being  on  the  top.  The  three 
storeys  reached,  together,  the  same  height  as  the 
house.  The  main  entrance  was  on  the  N.E.  of 
the  house,  where  a  small  door  communicated 
directly  from  the  porch  with  the  nearest  chamber. 
From  this  chamber  there  was  a  stairway  leading 
to  the  upper  and  middle  storeys.  This  stairway 
was  erected  at  the  N.E.  corner  ;  just  opposite,  on 
the  S.E.  corner,  there  was  an  arrangement  for 
carrying  otl'  the  water.  Above  the  house  proper 
there  was  an  upi)er  room  40  cubits  high,  and  of 
the  same  ground  area  as  the  house  itself.  The 
entire  building,  including  the  intervening  wall 
and  the  ceiling,  attained  a  height  of  100  cubits, 
i.e.  exactly  that  of  the  porch.  The  upper  room 
h.ad  on  the  south  a  door  leadin"  upon  the  roof  of 
the  upper  chambers  on  tliat  side.  By  means  of 
the  stairs  on  the  N.E.  the  top  chambers  could  be 
reached.  I'assing  round  from  N.W.  to  S.  one  came 
to  the  door  leading  into  the  top  room  of  the  house. 
In  the  lloor  of  this  upper  room  tliere  were  trap- 
doors, through  which  workmen  were  let  down  in 
boxes,  that  liiey  might  not  be  able  to  see  any  part 
of  the  house  excei)t  where  they  were  repairing. 

Including  the  side  chambers,  the  house  had  a 
width  of  70  cubits,  which  is  thus  made  up — 

1.  Wall  of  stairway 5  cubits. 

2.  Stainvay 3      „ 

3.  Wall  of  cliamber ^      it 

4.  Chamber  itself '5      ,, 

B.  Wall  of  Imuse «      ., 

6.  S^tace  within  the  house  .        .        ,        .  20  „ 

7.  U  all  of  house t'  „ 

8.  Chamber <1  .. 

9.  Its  wall !>  ,. 

lU  Uoom  for  letting  off  water      .        .        ,  S  „ 

11.  WoU  behind 5  „ 

Total       .        .         .TO  cubits. 

Altar  of  burnt  ■  offerin/f. — In  the  east  of  tlie 
priests"  court,  iiiiincdiately  in  front  of  the  porch, 
was  the  altur  of  buriil-oU'ering  made  of  unliewn 
stone.  It  was  larger  than  Solomon's  altar,  it 
being,  according  to  the  Rabbis,  32  cubits  in  length 
and  breadth,  and  10  cubits  high.  Joseplms,  how- 
ever, gives  15  cubits  as  length  and  as  breadth. 
The  length  and  breadth  given  above  are  for  the 
base,  for  it  rose  in  three  sections,  so  that  at  the 
top  it  formed  a  square  of  24  cubits.  According  to 
Lv  6",  fire  was  to  be  always  burning  on  the  altar. 
On  the  ea-st  of  the  altar  there  was  a  stairway  of 
unhewn  stone  leading  up  to  the  altar  :  it  was  32 
cubits  long  and  16  broad.  Altar  and  steps  were 
whitewa-shed  twice  in  the  year,  viz.  at  Hassover 
and  Tabernacles.a  In  the  S.W.  corner  of  the  altar 
there  were  two  holes  for  receiving  the  sacrificial 
blood,  which  passed  thence  to  a  i);issage  in  the 
ground,  by  which  it  was  conveyed  to  the  Kidron. 
Close  by  there  was  a  marbled  opening,  down  which 
men  went  to  cleanse  the  channel  along  which  the 
blood  ran  to  the  Kidron. 

IJetween  the  altar  and  the  house  there  was  a 
space  of  22  cubits,  taken  up  largely  by  the  twelve 
steps  which  led  up  to  the  porch.  South  of  these 
steps  there  was  a  laver  or  wash-basin,  in  which 
priests  wa-shed  their  hands  and  feet.  It  was  sup- 
plied through  two  pipes  from  the  tem]>lo  spring  : 
these  two  pipes  were  increased  to  twelve  at  a  later 
time  by  a  certain  Ik'U  Katin,  who  also  made 
a^Tungcinonts  by  which  the  water  could  be  regu- 
larly rcnewed.;3 

■  ilidd  liL  l-«.  0  i'oma  UL  10. 


North  (S)  of  the  altar  the  sacrificial  animals  were 
slain,  and  to  aid  in  this  there  were  six  rows  of 
rings,  four  in  each  row,  all  fixed  in  the  ground. 
The  animals  that  had  to  be  killed  were  attached 
first  of  all  to  these  rings,  and  then  despatched. 
Still  farther  north  there  were  eight  low  pillars 
with  boards  on  them,  each  board  having  three 
rows  apiece  of  iron  hooks  from  whic'h  the  animals 
after  death  were  suspended.  The  spot  would  look 
much  like  a  butcher  s  shop,  lij'  the  side  of  these 
pillars  there  were  eight  marble  tables  on  which 
the  slain  animals  were  flayed,  washed,  etc.,  ready 
for  the  altar,  o 

Priests'  Court. — No  one  except  a  priest  was 
usually  permitted  to  enter  the  priests'  court, 
which  was  regarded  as  more  sacred  than  the 
men's  court.  Vet  lay  Israelites  were  allowed 
admission  when  they  had  sacrifices  to  oll'er,  that 
they  might,  according  to  the  ritual,  lay  their  liands 
on  the  victim./3  As  before  stated,  this  court  was 
bounded  all  round,  and  not  merely  on  the  east  by 
the  men's  court,  which  was  11  cubits  broad. 

The  temple  police.  —  The  charge  of  the  sacred 
enclosure  was  in  the  hands  of  the  priests  and 
Levites.  The  head  of  police — the  captain  of  the 
temple  7 — held  so  digniUed  a  position  that  he  was 
ranked  with  the  chief  priests.  The  entire  external 
arrangements  of  the  temple  were  under  his  autho- 
rity. We  read  in  Marko  and  Luket  of  'rulers  of 
the  temple,'  who  were  subordinates  of  'the  captain.' 
The  guardianship  of  the  temple  was  entrusted 
mainly  to  Levites,  but  partly  also  to  priests.  By 
day  they  were  to  see  that  no  one  overstepped  the 
bound.ary  beyond  which  he  had  no  right  to  go, 
e.g.  Gentiles  had  to  be  kept  out  of  the  inner  court, 
women  out  of  the  men's,  laymen  out  of  the  priests', 
and  non-olliciating  priests  out  of  the  house  ;  the 
debir  to  be  entered  but  once  a  year,  and  even  then 
by  the  high  priest  only.  By  night  the  gates  were 
all  shut,  and  none  were  allowed  within  except 
priests  and  Levites,  who  were  stationed  at  diller- 
ent  points.  Three  places  of  the  inner  court  were 
guarded  by  priests ;  at  twenty-one  positions  Levites 
kept  watch,  especially  at  the  various  gates.  Dur- 
ing the  whole  night  the  captain  walked  around  to 
see  that  each  was  at  his  jjost.  If  the  guard  did 
not  imniediatelj'  arise  on  the  captain's  approach, 
the  captain  exclaimed,  '  Peace  to  you.'  If  the 
guard  were  asleep  the  captain  would  strike  him 
with  a  stick,  and  he  had  the  right  even  to  set  fire  to 
his  clothes.  Each  day  the  guards  were  chan|zed, 
those  who  followed  receiving  the  keys  from  their 
predecessors  at  niid-day.f  The  senior  of  the  men 
in  charge  kept  the  key  of  the  court,  in  which  the 
men  were  sentry,  in  a  hole  covered  by  a  marble 
slab,  to  the  under  side  of  which  was  fastened  a 
chain  :  the  key  was  attached  to  this  chain. 

When  the  time  came  to  close  the  gates,  the 
marble  slab  was  lifted  and  the  key  taken  :  the 
priests  locked  the  inner  court,  replacing  the  key 
in  the  usual  place.  On  the  slab  under  which  the 
key  was,  the  guard  in  charge  laid  his  clothes,  and 
on  them  Lay  down  to  slucp.ij  How  many  were  at 
one  time  in  charge  of  the  enclosure  we  do  not 
know,  but  according  to  Josephus  200  men  were 
ai)pointed  for  the  gates  alone. 

For  the  fate  which  befell  the  temple  in  the  last 
years  of  its  existence,  reference  must  be  made  to 
the  histories  of  Josephus,  Griitz,  and  others.  See, 
especially,  short  but  striking  accounts  in  Cornill, 
History  of  the  People  of  Israel, d  and  Cheyne, 
JRL.i  Already,  in  the  days  of  Archelaus,  the 
courts  of  the  temple  became  the  scene  of  revolt  and 

«  Nidd.  111.  S,  T.  S  ;  Tarn.  UL  6  ;  S>\rk.  vi.  4. 
fi  Krlim  i.  a  >•  Ac  «'  62**. 

)  623.  <  %*». 

C  Jo9.  e.  Apion.  IL  8.  «  iluld.  I.  8. 

(  Chia^o,  189S.  i  Now  York  and  LondoD,  ISM 


ri6 


TEJIPT,  TEAIPTATION 


TENDER 


bloody  massacres.a  During  the  last  Jewish  revolt 
tlie  most  horrid  scenes  were  witnessed.  In  A.D.  70 
Roman  soldiers  were  in  possession  of  the  fortress 
of  Antonia,  close  to  the  enclosure  One  of  them, 
though  contrary  to  the  wish  of  Titus  the  emperor, 
tlirew  a  firebrand  into  the  liouse  itself,  wliich  took 
fire  and  burned  to  the  ground.  Tlius  perished  the 
last  of  the  Jerusalem  temples.  All  or  them  were 
built  by  a  people  feeble  politically,  in  art  and  in 
literature  (e.xcept  religious)  despised  ;  yet  these 
temples  are  better  known,  and  their  records 
more  fully  preserved,  th.in  is  the  case  with  any 
other  ancient  temple,  Egyptian,  Assyrian,  or 
Indian. 

LiTERATFRE.— (A)  JEWISH  ITfl/T'/ArrpS.— Josephus,  Ant.  XV. 
xi.,  BJ  V,  V.  ;  cf.  Spiess,  JJer  Tempel  zu  Jerusalem  nacii  Joite- 
phu3,  ISiiO  ;  the  Mislinic  tract.  Stiddotk  ;  cf.  Rabbi  iJildersheim, 
Dig  Ueschreibutuf  des  Herod's  Tempcl  im  Tractat  Middot  mid 
bei  Flaviits  Josi'pfnus  ('  Jahreshenchi  des  Rabbiner-Seminara  fiir 
das  Ortbodox  Judenthum,'  Berlin,  1876-77).  There  is  a  good 
edition  of  Middoth  (no  Gemara  has  been  handed  down)  with 
Latin  tr.  and  Com.  by  L'Empereur  (Lugd.  IJat.  .  .  .  1630,  small 
4to).  See  also  Sureuhusius'  ilishjia.  Mainionides,  in  part  vi. 
of  his  npTn  T,  gives  the  Rabbiuical  traditions  regarding  the 
temple,  its  furniture,  priests,  etc.  This  was  put  into  Latin  by 
Ludwig  Conipiegne,  and  is  found  in  vol.  viii.  of  Ugolinus' 
AiUiquitates  HeWaicai.  Monographs  on  the  temple  have  been 
written  in  Hebrew  by  O.  Altschul  (Amst.  1724)  and  others,  but 
none  of  them  are  of  much  importance. 

(B)  ClIBlSTlAX  iV  RITI.VGS.—Of  the  Older  treatises  by  Christian 
writers  the  following  are  noteworthy  : — Villalpando  and  Prado, 
Jn  Ezech.  3  vols.  1605  ;  Capellus,  Tf^eiytov  .^'tte  Tnptex  2'empli 
DeliiuUio  (Amst.  1643 ;  also  included  in  the  Introd.  to  the 
London  Polyglot) ;  Lamy,  de  Tabeniacido  Foederis,  de  Sancta 
Oioitate  Jeriufalem  et  de  Templo  ejus  (Paris,  172U);  Lightfoot 
(Dr.  John),  Deacr.  TempU  Hieros.  (Eng.  in  vol.  ix.  of  Pitman's 
edition  of  his  works  in  English ;  also  published  separately, 
Lond.  1825), — Lightfoot  uses  the  Rabbinical  material,  but  deals 
mainly  with  the  temple  of  Herod;  Lund,  Die  aiteii  Jud. 
HeiiUjtkiitner,  Hamb.  1695,  bk.  ii.  (several  other  editions). 
For  a  detailed  recital  of  the  older  literature  see  Winer,  RWB'^, 
8.  '  Tempel,'  and  Bahr,  Der  Tempel  Saiomo's.  The  following  are 
the  most  important  modern  treatises: — Hirt,  Der  Tempel 
Salonio'St  Berlin,  1809  (strong  on  the  architectural  side,  but 
deficient  in  Biblical  scholai*6hip) ;  J.  Fr.  von  Meyer,  Der 
Temp.  Salom.t  Berlin,  1830;  Stieglitz,  Gesch.  der  Baukunst, 
Niirn.  1827,  p.  127  ff.,  Beitnuje  zur  Ausbildumj  der  Baiikmist, 
Leipz.  1834  ;  Biihr,  Der  Temp.  Sal.  1848  ;  Keil,  Der  Temp.  Sal., 
Dorpat,  1839  (critical  and  constructive,  valuable),  Biblica.1 
Archaeology,  T.  and  T.  Clark,  i.  10211.  ;  Robinson,  BR}'  (1841) 
i.  415ff.  ;  O.  Williams,  The  Holy  City  (1849),  ii.  296ff.  ;  Fergus- 
son,  Essay  on  the  Ancient  Topography  of  Jenisalem,  1847,  The 
Holy  Sepulchre  and  the  Tomb,  181)5,  The  Temples  of  the  Jews, 
1875,  art.  'Temple'  in  Smith's  /)/?  (Fergusson's  fanciful  views 
as  to  the  site  of  the  temple,  etc.,  have  failed  to  win  con- 
viction except  to  a  ven'  limited  extent) ;  Warren,  The  TempU 
and  the  Tomli,  ISSO,  fSlSA  vii.  S09flf.  (in  both  he  answ»rs 
the  arguments  of  Fergusson);  T.  H.  Lewis,  2'he  Holy  f laces 
0/  Jerusalem,  1880;  Th.  Fricdrich,  Tempel  u.  I'alast  Saturn. 
etc.,  Innsb.  1887;  O.  Wolff,  Der  Tempel  otm  Jerusalem  urul 
seine  Maase,  1SS7;  Stade,  Gesch.  i.  311  tl.  (the  author,  an 
acknowledged  Biblical  scholar,  was  aided  by  his  colleague  von 
Kilgen,  professor  of  architecture) ;  Perrot  et  Chipiez,  Le  Temple 
de  Sol.,  Paris,  1889,  large  folio,  with  tine  diagrams;  History  of 
Art  in  Sardinia,  Judaea,  etc.,  London,  1890,  i.  142ff. ;  Conrad 
Schick,  Die  Sti/lshutte  der  Tempel  in  Jerus.  wnd  der  Tempel- 
filatz  der  jetz.  Zeit,  Ber.  1896  (by  an  architect;  the  scholarship 
js  weak,  and  proof  references  almost  wholly  wanting,  though 
the  constructions  and  plans  are  good).  In  addition  to  the  older 
treatises  on  Bibtie.al  Arch^voloi/y  by  Jahn  (in  English  also),  de 
Wette(4th  and  last  edition  ininroved  by  Riibiger,  1864),  Allioli, 
and  Keil  (cf.  also  Spencer,  de  LeiiiOus,  Disscrtatio  Sf^ta),  note 
particularly  the  works  by  Benzinger  and  Nowack,  both  issued 
in  1894,  and  based  on  the  latest  results.  Nowack'a  work  is  the 
fuller,  but  Beiizinger's  the  more  compact  and  interesting.  See 
also  the  Commentaries  and  other  works  referred  to  in  the  course 
of  this  article.  T.  W.  DaVIES. 

TEMPT,    TEMPTATION.— The    Heb.    and    Gr. 

words  which  are  translated  '  tempt '  and  '  tempta- 
tion '  in  EV  have  a  range  of  meaning  which  covers 
every  form  of  testing  or  puttiu''  to  the  proof, 
'whether  of  man  by  God  or  of  God  by  man. 

The  Heb.  words  rendered  *  tempt'  in  AV  are — 
1.  yijfifah,  which  signifies  (1)  to  attempt  to  do  a  thing,  as  Dl 
4**  (EV  '  assay  ') ;  (2)  to  test  or  prove  a  thing,  such  as  a  weajion 


Dt 


,...,-     ----.----  „. iVeajion 

1  8  17^  (EV  '  prove  ') ;  but  chiefly  (3)  to  test  a  person  ;  in  AV 
translated  't<'niiit'  of  God's  testing  Abraham,  Gn  22';  else- 
where of  men  faithlessly  and  provoliiiigly  putting  tiod  to  the 
proof,  Ex  172-  7,  Nu  14'^'-,  Dl  618,  Vs  76i«  ■"•  i»  96»  lOO'*,  Is  7". 

•  Jos.  Ant.  rvii.  Iz.  8,  X.  1 


2.  Bahan,  synonymous  in  meaning  with  ni-^sah,  but  trans, 
lated  '  tempt 'in  AV  only  Mai  3">,  of  tempting  God.  In  Wal  S'« 
and  a  few  other  places  it  is  translated  *  prove '  in  AV  and  RV  ; 
but  most  frequently  the  Eng.  rendering  is  '  try.' 

The  only  Heb.  word  translated  '  temptation '  is  ma.^^aA 
(formed  from  Jii.^sah  above),  used  of  the  testing  by  Jehovah, 
through  signs  and  wonders,  of  the  heart  of  Pharaoh  and  the 
Egyptians,  Dt  4^^  7'^  29^  ;  and  of  the  trial  or  testing  of  an 
innocent  jierson,  Job  9"^  (EV  'trial') — unless  the  word  here 
comes  from  ma.m.^  and  means  despair,  RVni  'calamity.'  The 
word  is  translated  'temptation'  also  in  Ps  958,  but  there  the 
place  Massah  (so  RV)  seems  to  be  intended,  as  in  Ex  177,  Dt 
61"  922  338.    See  art.  Massah. 

The  Greek  words  translated  '  tempt'  are — 

1.  TupaTiu,  which  means  (1)  to  attempt  something,  as  Ac 
ff^  16"  (EV  'assay');  (2)  to  test  a  person,  without  evil  intent, 
as  Jn  Bi>,  Rev  2'^;  (3)  to  tempt  to  evil,  as  Mt  4',  1  Co  lo",  J« 
lis.  14.  On  this  verb  see  Cremer,  s.v. ;  Hatch,  Essays  in 
Diblical  Greek,  71  f.  ;  Kcnnetly,  Sources  of  NT  Greek,  106  f. 
For  the  distinction  between  «■.  and  inxi/jLtx^tt  see  Trench,  JV3 
Syn.  267  G.;  also  Cremer,  s.  rupcil^ai,  and  Berrv,  &  loxiua!^»i. 

The  devil  is  called  '  the  tempter '  (i  Tii^aJ*.)  in  Mt  4S,  1  Th  3'. 

2.  ixiTijpei^M,  to  put  to  the  proof,  or  test,  (a)  God,  Mt  47, 
Lk  *12  ;  (b)  Christ,  Lk  1026,  1  Co  10»— all  translated  '  tempt'  in 
EV,  Amer.  RV  always  '  try.' 

3.  In  Ja  113  u^t.ponrro{  (only  occurrence)  is  translated  by  the 
verb  '  tempt'—'  God  cannot  be  tempted  (literally,  *  is  untempt- 
able')  with  evil,'  RVm  'is  untried  in  evil.' 

The  only  Greek  word  translated  '  temptation '  is  wupctcfAef, 
which  is  the  translation  in  the  LXX  of  masijdh  everywhere 
except  Dt  33s  (llsi^a)  and  Job  923  (where  a  different  reading  is 
followed).  This  word  is  used  in  NT  for  (1)  a  testing  or  proving, 
as  1  P  412  (EV  '  trial '),  He  38,  or  that  which  tests  or  provesa 
person,  as  Gal  414 ;  (9)  enticement  to  sin,  as  Mt  613,  Lk  4i3  813, 
Ja  112,  1  Co  1013  ;  and  (3)  of  atUiction  or  calamity,  due  to  perse- 
cution or  other  trial  from  without,  as  Lk  2228,  Ac  201^,  Ja  1', 
1  P  16.  On  this  word  see  Hatch,  Essai/s,  7l(.;  Mayor  on  Ja  1^, 
and  hii  Com.  183  B.;  Hort  00  1  P  1»  ;  Swete  on  Mk  M38. 

About  1611  the  Eng.  words  '  tempt '  and  '  tempta- 
tion '  were  used  almost  as  widely  as  those  Heb. 
and  Gr.  words,  the  only  difference  being  that  the 
verb  had  ceased  to  mean  '  to  attempt.'  E.\amples 
(outside  AV)  of  'tempt'  in  the  sense  of  'test,' 
'put  to  the  proof,'  without  evil  intent,  are  Jn  6', 
Wye.  '  But  he  said  this  thing,  temptynge  hym  ; 
for  he  wiste  what  he  was  to  do '  ;  Dt  13'  Tind. 
'  For  the  Lorde  thy  God  tempteth  you,  to  wete 
whether  ye  love  the  Lord  youre  God  with  all  youie 
hertes  and  with  al  youie  soules ' ;  Dt  8^,  in  Wilson's 
Christian  Dictionary  (1611),  'tempting  thee  that 
hee  might  know  what  is  in  thy  heart.'  In  the 
same  sense  is  '  temptation  '  used  in  1  P  4"  Rheni. 
'  My  deerest,  tliinke  it  not  strange  in  the  fervour 
wliicli  is  to  you  for  a  tentation,  as  though  some 
new  thing  happened  to  you.'  And  in  the  allied 
sense  of  trial,  atiliction,  we  lind  '  temptation  '  em- 
ployed by  Tjmme  in  Calvin's  Genesis,  p.  717, 
'  But  this  also  was  a  moste  greevous  temptation, 
to  be  banished  from  the  promised  lande,  even  unto 
death  '  ;  and  p.  815,  '  This  was  a  verie  sore  tempta- 
tion, that  holie  Jacob,  of  whome  the  Lorde  iiad 
taken  care,  shoulde  almoste  he  and  his  perish  with 
hunger.'  See  also  Driver  on  Dt  6'*  and  in  Par. 
fsaXt.,  Gloss,  i.  under  '  Prove.'        J.  HASTINGS. 

TEN  COMMANDMENTS.— See  Decalogue. 

TENDER. — The  adj.  '  tender  '  is  somewhat  more 
restricted  in  use  now  than  formerly.  Probably 
under  the  iulluence  of  the  Biblical  '  tender  mercies,' 
it  has  become  mostly  figurative,  and  is  chiefly 
used  in  a  good  sense.  We  might  still  speak  of 
diamonds  as  'tender'  with  Maundeville  (Iravels, 
106,  '  Other  diamonds  men  find  in  Arabia  that  be 
not  so  good,  and  they  be  more  brown  and  more 
tender)  ;  but  we  should  not  speak  of  wax  so,  as 
Wyclif  does  {Select  Works,  iii.  103,  '  The  tendre 
we.x  maketh  no  preynte  in  the  seel,  bot  the  seel 
maketh  a  prevnt  in  tenderc  wex  ').  The  meaning 
in  AV  is  usually  '  soft,'  '  delicate,'  used  of  children 
(Gn  33'3)  ;  gently  nurtured  youths  (1  Cli  '22'  29', 
I'r  4'),  men  (Dt  28",  Is  47'),  and  women  (Dt  28") ; 
also  of  herbs  (Dt  32-,  Job  38»),  plants  (Is  53'), 
grass  (2  S  23^  Pr  2.7^,  Dn  4'»-  »),  grapes  (Ca  2"^  " 
7'^),  branches  (Mt  24*',  Mk  IS-^)  in  spring.  In 
8  Ch   13'  Keboboam  is  called    '  tender  hearted ' 


(=; 


LXX  Set\i!  rj  Kapdig.,  Vlllg.  corde  pavi(lo), 


a  phrase  which  has  now  quite  a  (iillerent  meaning. 
The  modern  meaning  is  found  in  Eph  4*^  ((Cair\ayx- 
to%).  In  Gn  29"  we  read  tliat  '  Leah  was  tender 
eyed '  (WZI  nx^  'i"jy  ;  LXX  ol  Si  dipeaX/iol  Atias 
aaSfveU,  Vulg.  scd  Lia  lljipis  erat  orculis),  wliere 
the  Heb.  as  well  as  the  Eng.  probably  means  that 
Leah's  eyes  were  weak  (not  'bleared'  as  Vulg.), 
and  80,  as  Dillmann  and  others  suggest,  'without 
brightness  or  brillinnry  of  lustre.'  See  Leah. 
The  Heb.  word  D";-";  raUftmhn  (in  this  sense  alwaj^a 
plu.)  is  translated  occasionally  in  AV  'tender 
mercies'  (Ts  ^o"  40"  51'  69"  77*  79»  103'  119"-  '" 
145',  Pr  12"').  The  sing,  'tender  mercy'  occurs 
in  NT,  Lk  1™  (airXinca),  Ja  5"  'The  Lord  is 
very  pitiful,  and  of  tender  mercy'  {olxTtp/iuv,  RV 
'  merciful '). 

The  verb  'to  tender'  in  the  sense  of  'care  for' 
occurs  in  2  Mac  4-  '  Thus  was  he  bold  to  call 
him  a  traitor,  that  had  deserved  well  of  the  city, 
and  tendered  his  own  nation '  {rin  K-qSeiibva  tCiv 
inoeBowi').  Cf.  Cr.anmer,  Works,  i.  130,  '  But  to 
be  plain  what  I  think  of  the  Bishop  of  Winchester, 
I  cannot  persuade  with  my  self  tliat  he  so  much 
tendereth  the  king's  cause  as  he  doth  his  own '  ; 
Latimer,  Sermnns,  96,  '  How  God  tendreth  and 
rcgardes  the  cause  of  the  widdow  and  the  poore.' 
The  verb  in  this  sense  is  a  direct  derivative  from 
the  adj.  (which  is  from  Lat.  tener,  through  Fr. 
tendre),  not  the  s.ame  as  the  verb  to  tender  (fr. 
Lat.  tcndcre,  through  Fr.  tendre),  meaning  to 
protfer,  show.  J.  HASTINGS. 

TENT. — S.-K  (oTitoj,  (j-Kiji'i))  is  tlie  word  commonly 
used  for  'tent' ;  AV  often  '  tabernacle,'  but  RV  con- 
sistently '  tent.'  [JvP  (<^'"!''^)  '  habitation,'  is  usu- 
ally rendered  'tabernacle,'  only  once  (Ca  1*)  'tent.' 
For  distinction  between  Sr'K  and  [ryo  see  art. 
Tabernacle,  .ip  =  ' booth '  made  by  interweaving 
leaves  and  brandies;  once  (2  S  11")  AV  'tent' 
(RV  'booth,'  LXX  oKyi,)  and  AVm  (1  K  20'-- '« 
RVm  '  hut ').  Accordin"  to  the  Rabbis,  a  booth 
becomes  a  tent  if  a  bit  of  cloth  is  spread  over  it  to 
protect  it  from  the  sun,  or  stretched  under  the  roof 
to  prevent  leaves  and  twigs  from  falling  on  the 
fable  (Succah  i.  3).  n;;;  (Ka/uvoi)  from  [djb]  '  to 
hollow  out,'  is  once  in  AV  tr.  '  tent '  (Nu  25'  RV 
'pavilion,'  marg.  'alcove';  cf.  Arab.  Icubbah  'a 
h'.rge  vaulted  tent,'  also  'dome,'  'vault,'  whence, 
with  the  art.,  throu''h  the  Spanish,  ' alcove,' orig. 
a  vaulted  recess).  1  rom  i;n  (jrapt/ijSdXXu)  '  to  en- 
camp,' AV  '  to  abide  in  teiits  '  (Nu  9»"-  *',  Ezr  8"), 
comes  ri^u^  '  camp '  (LXX  drelx'i"'05)>  tr.  by  AV 
'tents'  in  Nu  13"  etc.;  in  each  case  RV  cor- 
rects. 

We  may  safely  take  the  modem  tent  as  closely 
resembling  that  of  ancient  times.  No  simpler 
dwelling  can  well  be  iiiuigined.  The  tent-cover 
is  rough,  strong  cloth  of  dark  goats'  hair.  It 
is  commonly  supported  by  nine  poles  arranged 
in  rows  of  three  ;  the  middle  row  lengthwise,  is 
somewhat  higher,  measuring  from  6  to  7  ft. : 
the  roof  therefore  slopes  to  front  and  back.  The 
cover  is  stretched,  and  the  tent  held  in  position  by 
means  of  long  cords  fastened  to  the  cloth,  and 
attached  to  pms  firmly  driven  into  the  ground. 
\  curtain  of  the  same  m.aterial,  but  rather  lighter, 
is  hung  round  the  more  exposed  side  of  the  tent, 
to  shelter  from  sun  and  wind.  A  similar  curtain, 
drawn  across  the  middle,  fixed  on  the  tent-poles, 
divides  the  tciit,  the  one  end  forming  the  men's 
ap.irtinent,  the  other  that  of  the  women  (Tin,  cf. 
Arab,  khit/r).  Very  seldom,  and  that  only  in  cases 
of  considerable  wealth,  the  women  have  a  tent  to 
themselves. 

The  making,  pitching,  striking,  packing,  and 
unpacking  of  the  t«nt8  is  all  women's  work.  They 
■pin  tho  hair  yam,  twist  the  cords,  and  weave  the 


cloth  in  long  narrow  strips,  with  very  primitive 
appliances.  To  form  roof  or  curtain,  these  strips 
are  sewn  together  to  the  required  breadth.  The 
greatest  care  is  taken  with  the  roof.  When  it  has 
been  used  for  a  little,  and  is  somewhat  shrunken, 
it  becomes  quite  water])rouf,  and  will  turn  the 
heaviest  rain.  Sometimes  cloth  for  the  roof  is 
bought  by  way  of  barter,  from  such  villages  as 
Khabab,  in  el-Lejd,  or  Judeideh,  overlooking  Merj 
A'yiln,  which  are  famous  for  their  hair  manufac- 
tures. To  excel  in  skilful  driving  home  of  the 
tent-pegs  is  an  immemorial  ambition  among  Arab 
women. 

The  furniture  of  this  '  house  '  or  '  house  of  hair  ' 
{bait,  bait  sha'r,  or,  less  frequently,  bait  tunhar)  is 
extremely  simple.  In  a  few  tents  of  the  rich  may 
be  fount!  cushions  and  mattresses  covered  with 
coloured  silk  ;  but  for  the  most  part  a  couple  of 
coarse  straw  mats  serve  the  purposes  of  chairs  and 
table  by  day,  and  bed  by  ni^ht.  A  circle  of  thin 
leather,  about  2  ft.  in  diuiiictur,  drawn  into  a  sort 
of  bag  by  means  of  a  thong  passed  tlirough  holes 
round  the  edge,  contains  the  thin  loaves  baked  in 
the  desert,  and  is  spread  flat  on  the  ground  at  meal- 
time. The  lamp  (anciently  of  clay)  or  lantern  is 
now  generally  of  tin,  made  by  Jewish  travelling 
tinkers,  from  empty  petroleum  cans.  Clay  ware  is 
too  brittle  to  be  of  much  use.  Usually  each  tent 
has  a  metal  plate,  flat  or  convex,  for  baking ; 
a  few  pots  or  pans  for  cooking,  tlie  food  being 
eaten  from  the  dish  in  which  it  is  cooked  ;  perhaps 
a  hand-mill ;  and  if  the  owner  make  any  pretensions 
to  dignity,  mortar  and  pestle ;  and  the  necessary 
utensils  tor  roasting  the  beans  and  making  coll'ee. 
The  fireplace  may  lie  a  few  stones  set  loosely  to- 
gether, or  a  hole  in  the  ground  just  at  the  edge  of 
the  tent.  Goat-skins,  half  tanned,  with  the  liaii 
outward,  are  made  into  bags,  which  hold  grain, 
water,  butter-milk,  and  other  liquids;  and  when 
swung  on  a  tripod  serve  to  churn  butter.  The 
butter  is  always  melted  at  once,  and  is  carried 
about  in  these  skins.  The  saddles  of  horse  and 
camel,  with  corresponding  saddle-bags  of  rough 
hair  cloth,  complete  the  tent  furniture.  Most 
things  are  crowded  together  in  the  women's  apart- 
ment ;  that  of  the  men  is  always  free  for  the  re- 
ception and  entertainment  of  guests. 

When  the  tents  are  few  in  number,  belonging  to 
some  small  family  or  division,  they  are  set  in  a 
circle  ;  the  sheikh's  tent  is  that  to  the  right  of  the 
entrance.  In  larger  camps  the  order  varies.  One 
visited  by  the  jjresent  writer  contained  upwards  of 
150  tents,  and  from  a  distance  resembled  a  town  of 
black-roofed  houses,  arranged  in  irregular  streets. 
The  sheikh's  tent  is  distinguished  from  the  others 
only  by  its  greater  size.  It  always  faces  the 
direction  from  which  strangers  are  most  likely  to 
arrive. 

The  black  tents  of  the  nomads  have  flitted 
shadow-like  over  Syrian  field  and  Arabian  steppe 
from  the  dawn  of  human  history.  The  ancient 
fathers  of  the  Hebrew  race  dwell  in  tents  (He  11" 
etc.).  Their  wealth  consisted  mainly  in  cattle. 
Tho  tent,  so  easily  portable,  is  by  far  the  most 
convenient  'house'  for  the  flock-master,  who  is 
ever  on  the  move  in  search  of  fresh  pasture. 
After  the  settlement  in  Palestine,  those  portions 
of  the  people  who  followed  the  herdsman's  life 
continued  to  dwell  in  tents,  e.g.  those  east  of  the 
Jordan  who  held  the  grazing  lands  towards  the 
desert.  This  old  form  of  life  left  its  impress  in 
the  language  of  later  times,  e.g.  I'D),  where  the 
root-idea  is  the  pulling  out  of  the  tent-pegs.  When 
the  tent -life  was  long  past,  men  still  spoke  of 
going  home  as  going  'to  their  tents' (Jos  22'',  2  S 
20',  1  K  12").  The  tent  and  its  appurtenances  play 
a  considerable  part  in  sacred  imagery.  Fleeting 
life  u  like  the  shepherd's  tent,  here  to-day,  gone 


718 


TEPHON 


TEREBINTH 


to-morrow  (Is  38'-).  Wlien  the  cord  gives  way  the 
tent  collapses ;  hence  tlie  tent-cord  as  a  lij^'ure  of 
the  thread  of  life  (Job  4-').  The  secure  city  is  a 
tent  whose  pegs  cannot  be  plucked  up,  nor  its  cords 
broken  (Is  33-").  Prosperous  growth  is  jiicturtil  as 
a  lengthening  of  the  cords  and  a  strengtliening  of 
the  stakes  (Is  54=).  See  also  in  NT  2  Co  5'-  *,  2  P 
!'»■ ",  Lk  1U». 

On  tent-making  see,  further,  art.  HAIR,  vol.  ii. 
p.  285",  and  I'AUL,  vol.  iii.  p.  699'. 

W.  EwiNG. 

TEPHON  (r;  Te^ti./ ;  Thnpo  ;  Syr.  Tephtis).— One 
of  the  towns  in  Jud^a  f ortilied  by  Bacchides  ( 1  Mac 
9°").  Josephus  gives  the  name  as  Tochoa  (Toxod, 
Ant.  XIII.  1.  3),  which  is  suggestive  of  Tekoa ;  but 
he  always  writes  this  place  QcKuia,  or  Q^kuL 
Tephon  was  probably  an  old  Tappuah ;  but  whether 
it  was  Tappuah  1  or  2,  or  Beth-tappuah,  is  uncertain. 
The  occurrence  of  the  name  with  Timnath  and 
Pharathon  suggests  Tappuah  2.    See  Timnath. 

C.  W.  Wilson. 

TERAH  (mn,  Qippa  and  Gdpa).— The  father  of 
Abraham,  Nahor,  and  Haran,  Gn  ll"-*^,  1  Ch  P«, 
Lk  3".  Along  with  his  three  sons  he  is  said  to 
have  migrated  from  Ur  of  the  Chaldees  to  ^arran, 
where  he  died.  In  Jos  24^  it  is  said  that  he  '  served 
(nay)  other  gods,'  a  statement  which  gave  rise  to 
some  fanciful  Jewish  hagqaduth  about  Terah  as  a 
maker  of  idols  (see,  e.g.,  Bereshith  rabba,  §  17,  and 
cf.  Bk.  of  Jubilees,  chs.  11.  12).  The  question 
whether  Terah  is  to  be  taken  as  a  personal  name 
is  involved  in  the  same  uncertainty  as  arises  in  con- 
nexion with  the  names  of  all  the  patriarchs  (see  art. 
Abraham,  and  esp.  art.  Jacob,  vol.  ii.  p.  533(1'.). 
Knobel  compares  the  name  with  Tharrana,  south 
of  Edessa.      W.  R.  Smith  makes  Terak  =  '  wild 

goat '  as  totem,  comparing  Syriac  ].k>)Z,  to  which 
Frd.  Delitzsch  (Prolcqom.  80)  adds  Assvr.  turdhu 
with  same  meaning  [liut  see  ZDMG  xl.  [1886]  167  f. 
(where  Nold.  points  out  not  only  that  pj5Z  in  the 
passage  quoted  is  an  error  for  the  correct  (jjOjZ, 
but  also  that  the  root  is  n-iK,  of  which  in  Heb.  the 
K  would  not  be  readily  elided) ;  cf.  Gray,  HPN 
110].  Jensen  {ZA  vi.  70,  cf.  Hittiter,  150  fl.)  thinks 
it  may  be  the  name  of  a  god,  comparing  the  first 
syllable  of  N.  Syrian  or  Hittite  personal  names, 
such  as  Tarhular,  Tarhumazi,  etc.  (cf.  Mez,  Gesch. 
d.  Stadt  Hnrran,  23).  '  Any  of  these  explanations 
appears  preferable  to  that  suggested  in  Riehm, 
H\VB'  1478'',  that  the  name  is  to  be  accounted  for 
because  Terah  remained  behind  (late  Heb.  tarah, 
Aram,  terah)  in  ^arran,  while  Abraham  journeyed 
farther.  J.  A.  Selbib. 

TERAH  (rrjn ;  B  TipaS,  A  QipaB).— One  of  the 
stations  of  the  Israelites  in  the  desert  (Nu  SS"-*). 
It  comes  between  Tahath  and  Mithkah,  and  has 
not  yet  been  identified. 

TERAPHIM  (o'?-;?).— The  word  is  plural  accord- 
ing to  its  form.  But  its  derivation,  the  purpose 
of  that  which  it  denoted,  and  the  method  of  its 
use,  still  present  many  obscurities.  Several  of  the 
older  Jewish  commentators  derive  the  word  from 
l^iB  toreph,  which  means  '  foulness,'  and  especially 
pudendum ;  but,  if  this  is  correct,  it  is  plausible  to 
suppose  that  this  word,  expressive  of  contempt,  was 
substituted  for  and  finally  supplanted  the  original 
name,  in  which  case  that  name  is  entirely  lost  (cf.  n;-3 
for  Sy3).  Among  the  numerous  later  derivations 
the  one  which  most  deserves  consideration  is  that 
suggested  by  Schwally  (Leben  nach  dem  Tode,  p. 
36  n.),  who  connects  the  word  with  nn  rdphah,  a 
derivation  which  would  bring  it  into  contact  with 
the  riphd'im  or  '  shades  '  of  Is  14. 

Teraphim  are  generally  supposed  to  have  been 


household  deities  (cf.  Gn  31'»,  1  S  W-  ",  but  see 
Ezk  21-').  Hence  it  has  for  long  been  the  habit 
to  compare  the  reverence  paid  to  them  with  that 
which  was  otlered  to  the  Lares  and  Penates  in 
Roman  times.  Further,  almost  every  passage  in 
which  the  word  occurs  in  OT  shows  that  their  use 
was  bound  up  with  the  practices  of  magic  and 
soothsaying  (cf.  especially  Ezk  2P').  The  above 
passage  in  Samuel  makes  it  also  certain  that  the 
figures  sometimes  represented  the  human  form. 
It  is  unknown  whether  these  were  always  full  life- 
size.  Tims,  on  the  one  hand,  the  fact  that  Michal 
could  deceive  the  messengers  from  her  father  by 
leading  them  to  believe  that  the  muffled  teraphim 
which  she  bad  laid  on  the  bed  was  the  figure  of 
her  husband,  makes  it  probable  that  some  were 
so.  And,  on  the  other  hand,  the  fact  that  Rachel 
(Gn  31**)  could  hide  those  which  she  had  stolen 
from  Laban  beneath  her  in  the  camel-litter,  while 
her  father  searched  the  baggage  for  his  lost  pro- 
perty, is  sufficient  to  prove  that  others  were  con- 
siderably smaller.  Again,  there  is  nothing  in  the 
incident  with  Michal  to  show  conclusively  whether 
such  a  figure  represented  the  entire  human  form, 
or  whether  it  was  simply  a  head  or  at  most  a  bust. 
Thus  the  suggestion  of  some  among  the  Jewish 
commentators  (see  Moore,  Comm.  on  Judges,  p.  382) 
is  not  devoid  of  probability,  viz.  that  the  teraphim, 
at  least  in  the  early  period,  were  mummied  human 
heads,  for  which  the  refinement  of  later  centuries 
substituted  more  or  less  rude  representations  in 
wood  or  in  the  precious  metals.  One  might  then 
bring  their  use  (of  which  among  the  Hebrews  we 
hear  very  little)  into  comparison  with  the  customs 
of  divination  by  means  of  such  heads  among  the 
Hauranians  (cf.  Chwolsohn,  Die  Ssabier  u.  der 
Ssabismus,  ii.  pp.  19  ft'.,  150  ft".).  With  great  likeli- 
hood then  do  Stade  {GVI  i.  p.  467)  and  Nowack 
(Heb.  Archdol.  ii.  23)  consider  that  the  teraphim 
came  to  represent  the  figures  of  ancestors,  and  make 
the  consulting  of  them  a  kind  of  Manes  oracle. 
This  would  further  make  it  easy  to  understand 
how  their  use  was  common  to  the  Israelites  and 
the  Aramaeans  (cf.  Gn  35^-  *),  and  how  Nebuchad- 
nezzar is  represented  as  resorting  to  this  method 
of  divination  (Ezk  21*').  And  it  would  ser\'e  to 
explain,  since  they  were  used  for  oracular  pur- 
poses, why  in  2  K  23"  they  are  set  alongside  '  those 
who  consult  familiar  spirits 'and  'wizards.'  The 
reverence  paid  them  as  household  deities,  and  the 
fact  that  their  use  was  common  to  all  the  nations 
of  the  region,  make  it  more  natural  that,  though 
the  teraphim  were  abolished  by  Josiah,  they  re- 
appear during  the  years  of  the  Exile  (Zee  10^). 
And  if  we  recognize  that  they  were  used  for  such 
oracular  purposes,  and  were  not  honoured  with 
supreme  worship,  we  can  find  it  easier  to  under- 
stand how  men  who  sincerely  worshipped  3" 
might  not  note  the  inconsistency  of  their  pres- 
ence in  their  homes.  See,  further,  art.  Sooth- 
saying. 

It  may  be  added  that  in  Hos  3*  and  Jg  17* 
teraphim  are  mentioned  along  with  the  ephod, 
as  though  they  were  in  some  way  connected  with 
that.  It  was  an  old  suggestion  by  Spencer  (De 
legibus  Hebr.  ritualibus,  1.  lii.  diss.  7,  sec.  2),  that 
the  Urini  were  of  the  same  nature  as,  and  even- 
tually took  the  place  of,  the  teraphim.  The  LXX 
at  tlos  3*  reads  5^Xo  for  o-j-in,  and  this  may 
imply  that  the  translator  found  in  the  Heb.  text 
c-nK.  A.  C.  Welch. 

TEREBINTH  does  not  occnr  at  all  in  AV,  and 
only  thrice  in  RV,  being  substituted  in  Is  6'*  for 
'  teil  tree,'  in  Hos  4'*  for  '  elm,'  and  in  Sir  24" 
for  '  turpentine  tree.'  Strong  reasons,  however, 
can  be  urged  (see  the  very  full  discussion  in  Ges. 
Thes.    s.v.)   for   rendering  by   'terebinth'   when 


TERLBINTH 


TERTULLUS 


719 


ever  the  Heb.  is  '>')<  [only  in  constr.  Vn  and  plur. 
C'^'k]  or  i^N  or  pSx,  and  for  reserving  the  tr.  '  oak  ' 
(by  whicli  these  words  are  commonly  rendered  in 
AV  and  liV)*  for  j'lVx  [in  Jos  24-"  .!;•»,  unless,  as  is 
probable,  we  should  read  here  .i^n].  See  esp.  Del. 
and  Dillm.  on  Gn  12",  cf.  Oxf.  Heb.  Lex.  s.vv.,  and 
note  that  in  IIos  4"  and  Is  6"  a^K  and  p^N  are 
clearly  distinct.  The  references  to  the  terebinth 
in  Scripture  would  thus  be  the  following  :  t — 

(1)  ''•N:  Is  I^  'They  shall  be  ashamed  of  the 
terebinths  which  ye  have  desired,'  57°  '  ye  that 
inflame  yourselves  anion"  the  terebinths,'  61' 
'  that  they  might  be  called  terebinths  J  [prob.  the 
figure  is  derived  from  the  strength  and  durability 
of  this  tree]  of  righteousness,'  Ezk  31'*  '  nor  lluit 
their  terebinths  §  [perh.  fig.  of  pride]  stand  up  in 
their  might.'  Elim,  the  second  station  of  Israel 
after  pa.ssing  the  lied  Sea  (£.1  15"  16',  Nu  SS'-'- '"), 
may  have  derived  its  name  originally  from  the 
presence  of  terebinths,  although  latterly  associ- 
ated more  with  palms. 

(2)  .i^N  :  Gn  35''  '  the  terebinth  which  was  by 
Shechem,'  Jos  24-"  [reading  n^x  for  n^N]  '  the  tere- 
binth that  was  in  the  sanctuary  of  the  LORD,'  Jg 
6"-'»  'the  terebinth  which  was  in  Ophrah,'  2S 
18'-  '"•  '*  tlie  terebinth  in  which  Absalom  was  en- 
tangled, 1  K  13'*  the  terebinth  under  which  the 
'  man  of  God '  sat,  1  Ch  10"  the  terebinth  in 
Jabesh  under  which  the  ashes  of  Saul  and  his  sons 
were  buried  [this  tree  is  called  in  1  S  31"  a  tama- 
risk ||],  IIos  4"  (]||'i<'Nand  njn^)  'they  bum  incense 
.  .  .  under  oaks  and  poplars  and  terebinths,'  Kzk 
6"  '  their  idols  .  .  .  under  every  thick  terebinth,' 
Is  l*"  Judah  is  to  be  'as  a  terebinth  tliatwithereth,' 
6"  (II  pVx)  '  as  a  terebinth  and  as  an  oak  whose  stock 
remaineth  when  they  are  felled.'  This  tree  gives 
its  name  to  the  Vale  of  Klah  (rhnn  p-y)  1  S  17'''-  " 
21»('»i,  and  to  Elah  Gn  36"  (  =  El-paran  Gn  14", 
Elath  Dt  2»,  2  K  W^  1G»,  and  Eloth  1  K  9=", 
2  K  16"). 

In  On  49^  we  should  probably  tr.  '  Naphtall  U  a  slender 
terebinth  (reading  nSx  for  np^'K],  the  one  who  sends  out 
jeautifu!  tops'  [referring  to  the  heroes  and  national  leaders 
sjininK  from  this  tribe];  so  Dillni.  and  man^'  modern  com- 
nientatorSL  For  otiier  supgested  renderings,  with  their  Justifi- 
cation and  the  riero^sary  textual  emendations,  see  Gunkel 
(*  NaphtAli  is  a  nimble  hind,  which  drops  fine  Iambs,'  as  an 
alternative  to  Dillm. 's  rendering),  Hall  ('  Naphtali  is  a  branch- 
ing vine  that  yietdcth  comely  fruit'),  Ifomtnel  ('  Naphtali  is  a 
hind  let  loose,  which  drops  he-goat  Iambs,'  i.e.  which  has  a 
numerous  male  progeny  [Expos.  Timejf,  Oct  1900,  p.  46^]), 

(3)  I'l'^Ni:  Gn  12"  (so  Dt  11")  'the  terebinth  of 
MOREH' ('director's  terebinth'),  13"  14"  18'  'the 
terebinths  of  Mamre,'  Jg  4"  '  the  terebinth  in 
Zaanannim  '  (cf.  Jos  19^  [reading  pSx  not  pW] 
'the  terebinth  of  ISezaanannim '),  9'  'the  tere- 
binth of  the  i)illar  that  was  in  Shechem '  (see  art. 
I'ri.LAR  [Plain  of  the]),  9"  'the  terebinth  of 
Meonenim'  ('soothsayers'  terebinth'),  1  S  IC  '  the 
terebinth  of  Tabor '  [where  it  is  possible  that  we 
should  read  ^"f^-i  '  of  Deborah  ']. 

The  terebinth  is  repeatedly  (see,  amongst  above 
pa,s.saTOs,  esp.  Gn  12»  35*,  Jos  24'-»',  Jg  6"- '»,  Is  1» 
57°,  Hos  4",  Ezk  6")  mentioned  in  connexion  with 
Canaanitish  or  Israelitish  religious  rites  (see  art. 
Sanctuary,   p.   Sgs"").     The  tr.    'terebinth'  we 

•  The  distinction  between  the  Heb.  terms  is  no  more  main- 
tained in  the  1„XX  than  In  the  EV.  Cf.  the  conspectus  of 
renderings  in  art-  Oak. 

t  In  many  of  tliese  passages  RVm  ^ves  'terebinth.' 

t  AV  and  RV  poorly  '  trees  of  righteousness,'  LXX  yiwmi 
iiMAtififr.t,  Vulg.  (taking  from  a  different  ^'H]/ortstjuBtitia. 

I  AV  '  trees,"  RV  [taking  from  a  dlderent  h'H] '  mighty  ones.' 
The  text  Is  very  doubtful ;  Cornill  strikes  out  Dn-Sn  ;  for  con- 
jectural emendations  sec  Bertholet  and  Kraetzschmar,  ad  Ice. 

I  It  la  possible  that  the  Chronicler  may  have  substituted  .17^ 
for  ^^^'K  aa  being  a  leas  distinctively  sacred  tree  marking  a 
•hrlne. 


have  contended  for  is  supported  by  the  circum- 
stance that  this  tree  was  less  common  in  Palestine 
than  the  oak  and  would  thus  be  better  suited  to 
mark  a  locality,  while  the  higher  age  it  attains 
would  cause  it  to  be  esteemed  as  more  sacred. 

The  terebinth  (Pistachia  terebinthits,  L. )  grown 
in  Palestine  to  the  height  of  15-17,  rarely  20,  feet 
It  has  a  thick  gnarled  trunk,  numerous  long 
branches  with  slender  twigs,  feathery  leaves  with 
7  oval  lanceolate  leaflets,  which  are  at  fir.st  of  a 
reddish,  but  afterwards  of  a  glossy  dark-green 
colour.  In  Palestine  the  tree  is  deciduous,  being 
an  evergreen  only  in  more  southein  l.ititudes. 
The  male  and  female  flowers  grow  u]  0.1  different 
trees,  the  fruit  consists  of  small  oval  berries  which 
are  produced  in  grape-like  clusters.  Turpentine 
of  a  very  pure  quality  may  be  obtained  by  making 
incisions  in  the  stem  and  branches,  and  collecting 
the  resin  which  exudes.  In  modern  Palestine  this 
practice  appears  to  be  u.iknown  (Rob.  BRP^  ii. 
222  f.).  J.  A.  Selbie. 

TERESH  (c'ln). — A  chamberlain  of  Ahasuems, 
who  along  with  BiGTHAN  formed  a  plot  against 
the  king,  which  was  foiled  by  Mordecai,  Est  2*' 
(BAx  om.,  N'*-  '^""'' Qipa.^)  6'''  (BAs  om.,  N"'*-  '"* 
edppaj).  It  is  possible  that  the  name  should  be 
read  v>n,  i.e.  Theudas  (see  Willrich,  Judaica, 
p.  19).     He  is  called  in  Ad.  Est  12'  Tharra. 

TERTIUS  (W/>Ttos).  —  The  amanuensis  through 
whose  agency  St.  Paul  wrote  the  Epistle  to  the 
Romans.  In  Ro  16--  he  joins  personally  in  sending 
his  greetings.  St.  Paul  seems  to  have  generally 
WTitten  by  means  of  an  amanuensis,  adding  just  a 
few  words  at  the  end  (1  Co  16'-',  Col  4'8,  2Th  3") 
in  his  own  hand,  by  way  of  authentication,  per- 
haps written  in  lart'e  and  bold  characters  (Gal  6"). 
In  the  ease  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  he  prob- 
ably added  the  concluding  doxology  (16^"").  It  is 
an  interesting  subject  of  speculation  how  far  the 
employment  of  different  amanuenses  who  wrote 
out  their  shorthand  notes  may  have  influenced  the 
style  of  different  epistles  or  groups  of  epistles 
(see  Sanday  •  Headfam,  Jionmns,  Introduction, 
p.  Ix).  A.  C.  Headlam. 

TERTULLUS.— The  name  is  a  diminutive  from 
Tertius,  as  Luculliis  from  Lucius,  etc.  It  is 
thoroughly  Latin,  and  occurs  in  the  2nd  cent,  as 
agnovien  of  Pliny's  colleague  Cornutus,  and  as 
a  cognomen  borne  by  Elavil  and  by  Sulpitii.  In 
Ac  24  Ananias  arrives  at  Cicsarea  to  accuse  Paul 
before  Eclix,  accompanied  by  certain  elders,  '  and, 
as  pleader  (/j^oip),  one  Tertullus.'  TertuUus  was 
doubtless  one  of  the  Italian  causidici  who  abounded 
in  the  provinces.  The  proceedings,  even  in  the 
inferior  court  of  a  mere  procurator  like  Eelix, 
would  probably  be  in  Latin  (Smith's  Diet.  Gr.  and 
Rom.  Anliq.,  s.  'Conventus':  yet  see  Schiirer, 
HJP  n.  i.  50;  Lewin,  ii.  684)  and  conducted  under 
Roman  forms,  requiring  the  services  of  a  pro- 
fessional advocate.  Tertullus  was  not  a  Jew,  as 
Blasa  needlessly  infers  from   his  use  of   the  first 

fierson  plural.  The  advocate  naturally  identifies 
limself  with  his  clients.  Tertullus'  speech  begins 
with  a  characteristic  captatio  benevolentias.  He 
gives  to  Felix  the  coveted  praise  of  Pacator  pro- 
vincia:  (v.^),  and  welcomes  the  reforming  hand  of 
the  governor,  present  at  every  place  ami  in  every 
matter  (v.^) ;  whereas  Tacitus  remarks  of  Felix 
{Ann.  xii.  54),  '  intempestiuis  reinediis  delicta 
accendcbat '  (cf.  Ilist.  v.  9).  These  singularly  gross 
compliments,  evidently  condensed  by  Luke,  cul- 
minate in  a  subtler  turn  :  Tertullus  hints  (v.*)  that 
they  must  be  distasteful  to  so  modest  a  man.  The 
boily  of  tlie  spccili  is  i'vi<lcn(ly,  in  its  uninter- 
polated  funu,  a  iiicie  jotting  by  Luke,  who  may 


720 


TESTAMENT 


TESTAMENT 


have  been  present  (20"  27')>  of  the  heads  of  the 
accusation.  IJiit  tliese  are  carefully  jireservcd  : 
I'anl  is  (1)  a  stirrer  up  of  ffrdo-fis,  (2)  the  rinj;- 
Icader  of  a  sect,  and  (3)  guilty  of  an  attempt 
to  profane  the  temple.  The  ch.-irges  are  most 
skilfully  chosen.  Felix,  with  his  experience  (v.'") 
of  Jewish  all'airs,  would  realize  how  dangerous 
such  a  prisoner  was  to  the  peace  of  his  province. 
TertuJlus  is  a  competent  counsel,  and  knows  his 
man. 

The  grammar  of  the  speech  is  dislocated,  the  participle  of 

V.  16  haa  uo  projier  principal  verb  ;  tlie  interpolated  passage  only 
partially  supplies  this  defect.  Cases  of  broken  construction 
are  somewhat  frequent  in  the  speeches  of  the  latter  part  of 
Acts:  see  21i8f-  262- 18  23.  (an  obvious  condensation) 28.  The 
author  had  not  woriced  up  his  drafts  into  tiieir  final  form,  or  at 
any  rate  the  finislniit^  touches  were  not  given.  A  more  remark- 
able example  of  this  may  be  found  in  the  eighth  booli  of 
Thucydides,  where  all  the  speeches  are  left  in  the  form  of  rough 
abstracts. 

On  fanciful  etymologies  suggested  for  the  name 
(Tfparo\(57ot,  Ter-Tullius)  see  Basil  Jones  in  Smith's 
DB,  s.v.  A.  Robertson. 

TESTAMENT.— This  word  does  not  occur  in  the 
EV  of  the  OT  ;  and,  whereas  in  the  AV  of  the  NT 
it  occurs  13  times,  this  number  is  reduced  to  2  in 
the  RV  by  the  substitution  of  'coYenant'  in  11 
places.  In  the  NT  the  Gr.  equivalent  both  of 
'testament'  and  of  'covenant' is  invariably  Jio- 
BriKTj.  In  tlie  LXX  the  same  Gr.  word  is  the 
equivalent  of  bcrith  ('covenant')  except  in  two 
passages,  Dt  9"  (iiai>Tiipi.ov ,  pi.)  and  3  (1)  K  11" 
(eVroX^,  pi.),  while  it  represents  no  other  Heb.  word, 
according  to  the  best  authorities,  except  about  8 
times  :  Ex  27-'  31'  32"^  {'edilt/i,  'testimony  '),  Dt  9' 
{dabar, 'yvord  '),  2  Ch  25''  (kafMb,  'what  is  written  '), 
Jer  41  (34)  '*  {dibrS  habberith,  '  words  of  the  cove- 
n.ant '),  Dn  9"  (turah,  '  law '),  and  Zee  H"  {'alidvdh, 
'brotherhood').  This  double  exclusiveness  is  a 
peculiarity  of  the  LXX  version,  for  berith  is  often 
represented  in  the  later  versions  of  Aquila,  Sym- 
inachus,  and  Theodotion  by  <rvi>6^Kri,  the  common 
Gr.  word  for  '  covenant '  in  its  more  exact  sense  of 
compact  between  parties.  Apparently,  then,  the 
choice  of  SmOiiK-q  was  deliberate,  and  has  severely 
ruled  out  awB-fiKr),  even  where  the  latter  would 
have  been  more  strictly  correct,  as  Ps  82  (83)°  the 
compact  made  with  one  another  by  Edora,  Moab, 
etc.  ;  1  K  (S)  23'*  the  covenant  between  David 
and  Jonathan.  Why  this  deliberate  determina- 
tion, extending  even  to  solecism  ?  The  idea  mainly 
associated  witli  bf.rUh  was  religious,  that  of  an 
independent,  voluntary  engagement  or  settlement 
on  the  part  of  God,  and  the  'least  unsuitable' 
Gr.  equivalent  for  this  was  SiaS^xj;,  an  arrange- 
ment by  one,  not  awOifKri,  an  agreement  between 
two  ;  for  though  JmS/jvi;  meant,  in  ordinary  Greek, 
a  disposition  by  will,  the  verb  hiaHBtaSm  covered 
authoritative  arrangements  generally.  This  '  one- 
sided' sense  of  SiaS^Ki)  (the  acceptance  of  which  is 
in  harmony  with  Dr.  Davidson's  interpretation  of 
hh-ith  in  art.  Covenant)  comes  out  very  clearly 
in  such  uses  of  it  as  in  Sir  14"-  "  '  the  coven.'int  of 
the  grave'  (the  imposition  of  death),  'the  covenant 
.  .  .  "Thou  sh.ilt  die  the  death."'  In  Sir  •242» 
oiaBiiKyi  is  made  equivalent  to  the  Law,  and  in 
3(1)  K  11"  birith  is  ivroXai  (commandments),  which 
Solomon  had  not  kept.  But  the  Divine  '  arrange- 
ment '  was  a  gr.acious  one  :  '  the  Divine  SmS-^Ki]  is  a 
promise'  (Vaughan  on  Ko  O*,  cf.  Epli  2'-);  hence 
St.  Paul,  wliilc  he  uses  SiaO-iiKri  only  9  times,  uses 
iirayyeXla  2o  times,  because  it  lays  stress  on  God's 
free  grace  ;  cf.  Gn  15'"  ('  the  Lord  made  a  covenant 
n-ith  Abraham  ...  I  will  give,'  etc.).  Ex  34"' ('I 
will  make  a  covenant  ...  I  will  do  mar\els'), 
Is  59"  ('This  is  my  covenant  .  .  .  my  spirit  shall 
not  depart').  It  is  true  that  there  are  conditions 
to  be  fulKUed  ;  but  the  idea  is  that  God  imposes 


these  as  part  of  His  beneficent  arrangement ;  jnrt 
as  a  will  imposes  conditions,  but  is  not  a  covenant 
in  the  strict  sense  of  the  term.  (Cremer  asserts 
that  Philo  u.ses  dLaOriK-q  in  no  other  sense  than  that 
of  'one-sided'  disposition). 

The  LXX  translators  made  their  choice  of  Jio- 
SiJki)  before  its  older  signification  was  seriously 
allected  by  the  extensive  spread  of  -will-making 
among  the  Greeks,  and  the  assimilation  by  thera 
of  'Roman  ideas  on  wills'  (Ramsay,  Galatians, 
p.  3G0).  Thus  they  had  still  at  their  disposal  in 
the  word  the  connotation  of  tlie  solemnity  and 
publicity  of  an  irrevocable  disposition  by  which, 
as  a  religious  act,  the  maker  of  the  disposition 
voluntarily,  and  by  his  own  authority,  bound  his 
heir  and,  concurrently,  himself  in  the  presence  of 
the  community  and  its  gods,  assigning  to  the  heir 
primarily  the  religious  duties  and  rights  of  the 
family,  and  imposing  arrangements  which  the  heir 
had  to  carry  out,  and  which  he  could  at  once 
undertake,  and  into  the  a^i  vantages  of  which  he 
could  at  once  enter,  wliile  he  who  made  the  dis- 
position was  still  living.  A  word  with  such  a 
connotation  suited  the  idea  of  an  irrevocable 
promise  made  by  God  to  His  chosen  people,  freely 
and  on  His  own  absolute  authority,  a  promise  of  a 
religious  inheritance  into  which  they  could  at  once 
enter  by  fulfilling  the  conditions  which  God,  on 
the  same  absolute  authority,  imposed  (Ramsay, 
Galatinns,  p.  3G1  ff.). 

AtadT]Kr)  is  of  course  often  'used  in  the  NT  in  the 
OT  sense,  Lk  1",  Ac  3=»,  Ro  9^  Eph  2"^.  In  some 
passages  engagement  and  testamentary  disposition 
seem  to  be  combined  (He  9",  1  Co  11"),  the  diaSriKTi 
being  a  testament  in  the  light  of  the  death,  an 
engagement  in  the  liglit  of  the  blood  shed  as  a 
pledge  (Evans).  The  sense  of  '  will,'  the  ordinary 
Gr.  sense,  is  an  exclusively  NT  usage ;  and  this 
usage  varies  in  its  aspect  according  to  the  con- 
ceptions of  the  readers  for  whom  the  Epistles  in 
which  it  occurs  were  designed.  Thus  the  Epistle 
to  the  Hebrews — even  if  it  was  intended  for  a 
Church  in  Jerusalem  and  not  in  Rome — was  written 
to  a  people  wlio  knew  only  the  Roman  will,  out  of 
which  the  rabbinical  will  in  Palestine  arose,  and 
on  which  it  was  modelled.  Hence  the  will  there 
spoken  of  is  regarded  as  in  force  only  after  the 
maker's  death  (9'°-"),  and  consequently  the  writer 
is  led  to  argue  that  a  death  is  connected  with 
every  Divine  SiaB-qKri,  specially  with  the  last  will, 
that  of  Christ ;  and  according  to  Roman  law  the 
last  will  was  alone  valid.  In  Gal  3",  on  the  other 
hand,  where  again  a  human  will,  a  will  dealing 
with  an  inheritance  (3'*),  furnishes  the  parallel, 
the  writer  conceives  of  a  will  known  to  his  readers 
as  irrevocable  and  unaUeralile,  even  by  the  maker, 
when  once  it  has  been  made  b}'  him  and  ratified 
by  public  authority,  and  argues  from  this  analog 
that  the  Law  could  not,  as  a  hostile  codicil, 
abrogate  the  Promise.  Further,  the  devolution 
under  this  will  was  a  devolution  of  religious 
responsibilities  and  rights,  and  those  who  inherited 
these  under  the  will  became  there  and  then  soni 
as  inheriting  and  continuing  the  faith  of  Abraham 
(3').  Such  a  will  was  not  Roman  but  Greek,  or 
rather  Graico-Syrian,  and  its  regulations  are  found 
in  the  Roman-Syrian  law-book,  which  recognized 
Grteco-Syrian  law  as  still  largely  in  force  in  the 
Eastern  provinces.  This  law  regarded  will-making 
as  per  se  son-making ;  and  where  sons  were  thus 
made  by  adoption  (tial  4"),  which  was  not  a  Jewish 
practice  of  any  importance,  they  could  not  he  put 
away ;  they  were  even  in  a  better  position  than 
sons  by  birth.  Thus  the  line  of  thought  is  that  the 
believing  Gentiles  inlieriting  and  continuing  the 
faith  of  Abraham  became  thereby  adopted  sons, 
with  a  title  more  secure  than  the  '  Jews  by  nature.' 
But  at  Ko  8",  '  If  sons,  then  heirs,'  the  idea  is 


TESTS.  OF  XU  PATRIAECUS 


TESTS.  OF  XII  rATRIAFX'HS       721 


reversed.  Here  we  are  in  the  atmospliere  of 
Itoinan  law  ;  and  the  idea  in  Roman  law  was  that 
children  must  inherit. 

It  is  noticeable  that  the  Latin  word  fccdus, 
signifying  a  covenant  between  parties,  is  also 
ai)iilied  to  an  indupendent,  'onesided'  disposition, 
arrangement,  ini|iosition.  When  Lucretius  (ii. 
2o4)  writes  ol  fwdcra  fati  he  means  nothing  else 
than  the  arrangements  imposed  by  fate ;  and 
Vergil  {Gcorg.  i.  60)  and  Ovid  (Met.  x.  353),  as 
well  as  Lucretius  (v.  9"24),  speak  of  the  fa-ilcra 
imposed  by  nature.  But  the  classical  u.sage  of 
iiaOriKri  as  'will,'  and  the  close  connexion  of  the 
word  in  tlie  OT  with  the  idea  of  nXJjpos  (inherit- 
ance), together  with  the  intensification  in  the  NT 
of  the  idea  of  sonship,  combined  to  bring  testa- 
meniiim  into  greater  favour  than  fceilus  as  the 
rendering  of  Siadr/Kr),  especially  as  /irdtis  suggested 
equality  and  testamentum  superiorit}-.  Unally, 
as  a  consequence,  testamentum  became  the  title 
of  the  documents  containing  the  attested  promises 
of  blessings  willed  by  God  and  bequeathed  to  us  in 
the  death  of  Christ. 

LiTERATrRB. — Ranisay,  Bigtorieal  Commentary  on  Galatiant ; 
Xliltcis,  lieichttrec/it  tmd  Volktrecht ;  Bruns  and  Saclmii,  Ein 
ifiiriitch-rdmufchei  lUc/'tshucft  aus  dem  /iinften  Jahrlivndert  \ 
Crenier.  Bibl.-Tfteol.  Wort^rbuch ;  the  publications  by  Orenfell 
and  Hunt  on  the  E^'^Titian  papyri ;  aod  the  various  Com* 
mentaries  and  Bible  Dictionaries.  J,  MaSSIE. 

TESTAMENTS  OF  THE   XII  PATRIARCHS.— 

i.  TiTLi:  AND  Contexts.  —  This  most  valuable 
pseudepigraph  has  never  received  the  attention  it 
deserves,  but  the  next  few  years  will  witness  a 
full  atonement  for  past  neglect.  This  writing 
consists,  £is  the  title  indicates,  of  the  dying  com- 
mands of  the  twelve  sons  of  Jacob  to  their 
children.  The  idea  is  in  part  derived  from  the 
Testament  of  Jacob  in  Gn  49.  Each  Testament 
treats  of  some  virtue  or  vice  which  finds  special 
illustration  in  the  life  of  this  or  that  patriarch. 
In  some  cases  the  virtue  or  vice  in  question  ap- 
pears in  the  title.  Tliis  holds  true  of  the  Greek 
MS  C  throughout.  But  in  this  rc-'pect  C  is  late  ; 
for  in  0  *  and  R  all  mention  of  the  virtues  and 
vices  is  omitted,  and  where  they  appear  in  P  (as 
they  do  in  a  few  cases)  they  differ  in  all  but  two 
iiist:inies  from  C.  In  the  Armenian  Version  tlie 
titles  of  Simeon,  Benjamin,  Issachar,  and  Zebulun 
contain  no  reference  to  ethical  characteristics,  and 
those  of  Le^^  and  Gad  differ  from  their  forms  in 
CP.  It  is  probable,  therefore,  that  tlie  name  of 
each  Testament  was  originally  merely  AiaO^mj  in 
the  Greek  Version,  followed  by  the  name  of  the 
particular  patriarch  to  wliom  it  was  ascribed,  and 
nKiis  in  the  original  with  a  similar  sequence. 
(Conijiare  the  Hebrew  title  of  the  Testament  of 
Naphtali  "SnDi  nKiis,  published  by  Gaster,  and  ob- 
i-erve  that  "ns  is  used  technically  of  a  man's  bust 
will  and  testament,  2  S  17^,  2  K  20',  Is  38'). 
According  to  K,  it  is  true  that  the  title  of  each 
Testament  is  merely  tlie  name  of  the  patriarch. 
The  title  of  the  entire  work  was  probalily  '  The 
Twelve  Patriarchs'  ;  for  it  is  mentioned  simply  as 
UnTpidpxai  in  the  Stichometry  of  Nicephorus,  the 
Synopsis  Athanasii,  and  other  lists. 

In  the  next  place  it  is  to  be  observed  that  in 
each  of  the  Testaments  three  elements  can  be  dis- 
tinguished. (1)  The  patriarch  gives  a  brief  history 
of  his  life,  in  whi<h  he  emphasizes  liis  imnicular 
virtue  or  vice.  This  history  is  generally  a  mid- 
rashic  expansion  of  certain  biblical  statements, 
but  in  some  ca-ses  it  contains  materials  that  are  in 
direct  conflict  with  them.  (2)  Tlie  patriarch  next 
proceeds  to  'improve'  on  the  incidents  just  set 
forth  in  his  own  career,  and  exhorts  his  children 
to  imitate  the  virtues  or  to  shun  the  vices  that 
were  conspicuous  in  it.  (3)  Finally,  tlie  patriarch 
•  COPK  denote  Greek  MSS.  See  below,  i  v.  (a). 
VOL.  IV.— 46 


deals  prophetically  with  the  destinies  of  his 
descendants,  emphasizes  the  premier  rank  and 
authority  of  Levi  and  Judah,  and  foretells  the 
evils  of  overthrow  and  captivity  that  they  will 
bring  upon  themselves  should  they  fall  into  sin  and 
disown  the  hegemony  of  Lcnt  and  Judah.  These 
predictions  are  for  the  most  part  of  purely  Jewish 
authorship,  but  not  a  fejv  are  distinctively  Chris- 
tian. 

ii.  Criticism. — To  account  for  the  conflicting 
Jewish  and  Christian  elements  which  appear  side  liy 
side  in  the  work,  Grabe  (Spicileg.  Patnim'-,  1714, 
i.  129-144,  335-374)  suggested  that  the  book  was 
written  by  a  Jew  and  subsequently  interpolated 
by  a  Christian.  This  hypothesis,  however,  failed 
till  recently  to  gain  the  suffrages  of  scholars, 
mainly  owing  to  the  opposition  of  Corrodi  (lirit. 
Gesch.  des  Vfiilutsmus,  ii.  101-110).  For  nearly 
two  centuries  after  Grabe  little  progress  was  made. 
Nitzsch  {de  Tent.  XII  Patriarch,  libra  VT  pseud., 
Wittenberg,  1810)  described  the  autlior  as  a  Jewish 
Christian  of  Alexandria,  who  had  imbibed  many 
Essene  doctrines  ;  whereas  Ritschl  (Entstchung  der 
altkathol.  Kirrhe\  32211.)  assigned  the  book  to  a 
Gentile  Christian,  mainly  on  the  ground  of  Benja- 
min 11,  a  chapter  which,  we  now  know,  is  a  Chris- 
tian interpol.ition  ;  but  in  the  second  edition  of  the 
work  abandoned  this  view  and  advocated  a  Naza- 
rene  authorship. 

It  is  needless  here  to  enter  on  a  discussion  of  the  views  of 
Kayser  (Die  Tfst.  der  Zwutf  Patr.,  in  Reuss  and  Cunitz's  Bei- 
traf/e  zii  dtrn  llit'nbuj.  iVUseiuicha^ften,  ISfil,  pp.  107-140),  who, 
Lulling  lja<-k  on  Urabe's  theory  of  interpolation,  traced  the  book 
to  Lbiotiitic  circles;  or  on  those  of  Vorstman  {Diaquiifitio  de 
Test.  Xll  FatriarcJtarum  orifjine  et  ^etio,  1S57),  who  sub- 
mitted Kayser's  theory  to  a  severe  criticism,  and  concluded  that 
the  Teatamenta  showed  no  trace  of  Ebionism,  but  were  the 
pru'iurt  of  Gentile  Christianity.  This  conclusic.i,  which  up- 
huMs  Uit^rhl's  first  view,  was  subsequently  upheld  bvHilgenfeld 
(XWT.  1S58,  pp.  39ifi.\  1871,  30211.),  while  the  view  rl  Nitzsch 
was  adopted  by  Langen  (Dot  Judenthum^  18C6,  pp.  140-167 
and  Sinker  (Teet.  Xll  Patr.  1869,  pp.  16-34  ;  Appendix  with 
collation  of  B  and  P,  1879  ;  art.  '  Test  XII  Patr.'  in  Smith's 
Dictionary  of  Christian  Biography,  iv.  866-S74X 

It  must  be  confessed  that,  so  far,  few  results  of 
permanent  value  were  arrived  at,  but  in  1884  a 
great  advance  was  made  throu'di  Schnapp  (Die 
Test,  der  XII  Patr.  untersucht,\ia.\\Q,  1884),  who 
revived  in  an  imjiroved  form  Grabe's  hj'pothesis 
of  Christian  interpolation  of  an  originally  Jewish 
work.  Sclin.-ipp's  theory  is  that  in  its  original 
form  the  book  consistecl  of  biographical  details 
respecting  each  of  the  patriarchs,  and  of  appro- 
priate exhortations  founded  on  these  details, 
flius  the  work  embraced  only  two  of  the  three 
elements  mentioned  above.  At  a  later  date  this 
book  was  worked  over  by  a  Jewish  writer,  who 
enriched  all  the  Testaments  with  sections  dealing 
with  the  coming  destiniesof  tlie  various  tribes  and 
with  other  details  of  an  apocalj'ptic  character. 
Finally,  the  book  was  re-edited  by  a  Christian,  who 
in  some  cases  made  large  additions,  and  in  others 
merely  modified  the  text  in  order  to  adapt  its 
predictions  to  Christianity. 

Subsequent  research  has  notably  confirmed  part 
of  the  above  theory.  Thus  Conybeare's  collation 
of  the  Armenian  Version  in  the  i/Cyj  [1893],  375- 
398 ;  [1890],  260-208,  471-485,  proved  that  very 
many  of  the  ]i.is,siiges  marked  by  Schnapp  as 
Christian  iiiteinolations  were  absent  from  that 
version. 

Since  Schnapp's  work  the  Testaments  have  been 
rehandled  from  various  sides,  by  Kohler  (JQR, 
1893,  pp.  400-406),  Gaster  (PSBA,  1893,  1894), 
Marshall  (PSBA,  1894),  Charles  (Enryclitpaidia 
Biblica,  1899,  i.  237-241),  and  Bousset  (ZNTW, 
1900,  142-175,  187-209).  Bousset's  articles  are  of 
great  value,  and  will  call  for  frequent  reference. 

Since  many  of  the  aljove  articles  were  published  before 
Kautzsch's  Avokryphen  und  Pseuilepitjrapiien  des  Atten  Te$ta- 
met^tt,  1900,  It  mu^t  be  oonfeaited  that  it  is  with  diifappoinCmeut 


722       TESTS.  OF  XII  PATRIARCHS 


TESTS.  OF  XII  PATRIARCHS 


that  scholars  have  turned  to  Schnapp's  introduction  to  and 
translation  ot  the  Testaments  in  that  volume.  Both  are  quite 
inadequate  from  the  standpoint  ol  our  present  knowledge. 

1.  Christian  Interpolations. — These  were,  as  we 
have  seen,  rejected  by  Schnapp  merely  on  internal 
grounds  in  18S4,  though  be  could  occasionally  have 
justified  his  conclusions  from  R.  But  even  in  his 
translation  *  of  1900  he  has  repeatedly  failed  to 
call  attention  to  the  fact  that  his  conjecture  is 
confirmed  by  MS  evidence,  and  in  many  passages 
he  has  attributed  too  much  to  the  interpolator, 
where  a  study  of  his  textual  authorities  would 
have  enabled  him  to  make  much  smaller  and 
neater  excisions.  But  not  only  can  the  student 
summon  rich  textual  materials  to  his  aid,  he  can 
also  in  not  a  few  cases  detect  the  interpolator's 
liand  in  certain  poetical  passages  where  the 
foreign  element  destroys  the  rhythm  and  paral- 
lelism. Thus  Levi  18,  Judah  25,  Simeon  6,  Dan  5 
are  either  wholly  or  in  part  Hebrew  poetry.  Only 
the  lirst  of  these  has  been  recognized  by  Schnapp 
as  being  such.  We  quote  a  few  lines  as  an  illus- 
tration— 

Kaj  tk;  XaiO!  eLfro>.n-zett. 

Tort  2^tt  (»2e5af  ('ntf'ITaj, 

'On     Kipt^     0     Sto;     uiycti     reu     *l^par,X,     ^attfCfUvtt     •«<      yrS 

iii  BLidporTot  xaci  ru^Aiv  i»  etirai  Tov  'Aoat*. 

TOTI  iollr,<FO\7JLI   T«»Tflt  756  TUV^AaTflt  TXi   VkK^V^i   l(V  Xa.-rObVOL'ntf^t 

It  will  be  seen  that  v.«  destroys  the  parallelism.  We  must 
reject  as  interpolations  u.iya.;  tov  'lirpec*.?.  and  irtu^iuv  it  kItu  to* 
'.Khuu  from  a  comparison  of  the  two  Amienian  recensions  (see 
Bousset,  ZSTW  [1900],  147).  The  it  i,OparTK  is  against  the 
parallelism.    The  verse  probably  read — 

"On  KCpioi  i  ©M«  fit»y,<rtTxt  iri  y^s. 

By  means  of  textual  authorities  the  Christian 
interpolations  can  be  removed  from  Reuben, 
Issachar,  Judah,  and  Zebulun.  Those  in  Simeon 
can  be  reduced  to  one  or  two  phrases  in  6.  7,  and 
likewise  those  in  chapter  8.  Dan  5.  6.  7  cannot  be 
wholly  purged  by  means  of  textual  authorities, 
nor  yet  Naplitali  4.  8.— In  Joseph  19  the  Greek  is 
defective  and  the  Armenian  corrupt ;  but  Schnapp 
is  wrong  in  branding  the  bulk  of  it  as  a  Christian 
interpolation,  it  is  probably  a  fragment  of  an  early 
Maccabsan  Apocalypse. — As  regards  Benjamin, 
though  the  distinctively  Christian  phrases  are 
omitted  by  the  Armenian  at  the  close  of  3,  yet  the 
promise  of  redemption  through  Josejih  is  sus- 
picious. Though  a^w/ios  virip  dviiJ.uv  TrapaSodriaerai 
could  be  said  of  him,  yet  the  next  phrase  drnfidp- 
TTjTos  inrip  a.ixt^Qi'  dTroflavctTai  cannot  be  justly  re- 
ferred to  him.  In  9  the  Christian  interpolations 
in  the  Gr.  are  wanting  in  the  Arm.,  save  tlie  words 
ir/JpiffS^fffToi  (cf.  Lk  IS^'-')  and  i^oveevad-fictrcu  (Lk 
23"),  which  appear  Christian.  In  Levi  2.  3  the 
text  of  COP  is  very  corrupt,  but  by  means  of 
recension  o  of  the  .\rmenian  and  U  it  is  possible 
to  recover  the  primitive  Jewish  text.  This  latter 
text  described  the  three  heavens,  but  this  account 
was  inten<led  by  the  interpolator  to  be  an  account 
of  the  seven  heavens.  To  this  question  we  shall 
return  presently.  In  Levi  4  and  10  and  in  14' t 
Christian  interpolations  are  present  alike  in  Gr. 
and  Arm.,  and  one  or  two  phrases  at  the  close 
of  16.  The  famous  passage  in  Levi  8,  which  claims 
for  the  descendant  of  Levi  the  triple  honours  of 
prophet,  priest,  and  king,  becomes  intelligible 
through  the  aid  of  R  and  the  Arm.,  and  is  of 
Jewish  origin.  It  refers  to  John  Hyrcauus.  To 
this  section  we  shall  return  later. 

The   Christian  interpolations,   therefore,  which 

•  Schnapp  has  printed  In  his  translation  all  the  pasaages  he 
considers  Christian  interpolations,  in  spaced  type.  This  is  a 
very  convenient  arrangement.  We  shall  touch  upon  most  of 
these  in  the  sequel.  ^     .... 

t  Where  a  form  such  u  14»  Is  used  In  referenc*  to  toe 
Testaments,  it  means  cb.  14,  line  6,  in  Sinker's  edition. 


cannot  be  eliminated  by  textual  authorities,  do 
not  extend  beyond  certain  phrases  or  sentences  in 
Sim.  6.  7,  Levi  4.  10.  14.  17,  Dan  5.  6.  7,  Napht. 
4.  8,  Asher  7,  Joseph  19,  Benj.  3  (?).  9.*  Thus  by 
means  of  recent  research  about  three-fourths  of 
the  Christian  interpolations  have  been  removed 
from  the  text. 

2.  The  Source  and  Character  of  the  ChrUtii:n 
Interpolal ions.— Schnapi^  was  of  opinion  that  all 
the  Christian  passages  were  inserted  in  the  text  by 
a  single  Christian  interpolator.  The  present  writer 
in  1899  (Encyc.  Biblica,  i.  239)  contended  that  the 
evidence  pointed  rather  to  a  succession  of  inter- 
polators. Bousset,  however  (ZNTW  [1900],  174), 
has  since  maintained  Schnapp's  view,  on  the  ground 
of  the  unusual  affinities  subsisting  between  the 
interpolated  passages.  Assuming,  then,  that  all 
the  interpolations  were  from  one  hand,  Bousset 
has  not  much  difficulty  in  determining  the  prob- 
able period  of  the  interpolator  to  be  between  A.D. 
150  and  200.  But  his  assumption  cannot  be  main- 
tained, as  we  hope  to  show  presently.  In  the 
meantime,  excluding  the  conflicting  statements, 
we  have  the  following  theological  doctrines  in  the 
Christian  additions : — 

Thus  'the  Lamb  of  God,"  Ben].  818,  'the  Only -begotten,' 
Benj.  93,  should  be  born  of  a  virgin  ot  Judah,  Jos.  19^',  a  man, 
indeed,  Napht  4n,  a  man  from  the  seed  ot  Judah,  Jud.  24^,  yet 
at  once  God  and  man,  Sim.  1*.  '  God  '  should  '  take  a  body,' 
Sim.  615,  and  appear  as  'God  in  the  flesh,'  Benj.  IQisr.,  and 
dwell  with  men  on  earth,  Napht  83ff-.  He  should  be  '  sinless,' 
Jud.  24->,  Benj.  S",  'the  Light  of  the  world,'  havmg  come 
'  to  lighten  every  man,'  Levi  149,  •  the  Branch  of  the  Most  High 
and  Fount  of  life  for  aU  flesh,'  Jud.  248.  He  should  be  a  High 
Priest,  Reub.  6iSf-,  and  'the  Saviour  of  Israel,'  Napht  &>,  'the 
Saviour  of  the  Gentiles,'  Dan  616,  the  Saviour  of  the  world, 
Levi  411  175,  Benj.  318,  »nd  '  save  Israel  and  all  the  Gentdes, 
Asher  78  (Benj.  3^0).  yea,  all  mankind,  Levi  219  (Sim.  e"'-  i^X 
On  earth  He  should  be  baptized,  Levi  IS",  and  acknowledged 
bv  the  voice  of  the  Father  from  heaven,  Levi  18>2,  should  after- 
w-ards  be  seized  bv  the  high  priests,  Levi  145-  6,  '  insulted,  set  at 
nought  and  lifted  up  on  a  tree,'  Benj.  »>'■,  crucified,  Levi  4" 
'  die  for  the  godless,'  Benj.  3>9.  The  veil  of  the  temple  should 
be  rent,  Benj.  910,  Hades  robbed  through  His  suffenngs,  Levi  4'  : 
He  should  redeem  His  sons  from  BeUar,  Zeb.  9i«n-,  Uke  the 
captives  from  Beliar,  even  the  souls  of  the  saints.  Dan  5»S 
ascend  from  Hades,  Benj.  Qilf-,  rise  from  the  dead,  Levi  16' 
175f.,  ascend  into  heaven,  Levi  186,  Benj.  9".  t 

The  above  is  a  fairly  full  Christology  to  be 
worked  into  a  Jewish  book.  We  have  now  to 
draw  attention  to  conflicting  statements  on  the 
doctrine  of  the  Incarnation. 

In  accordance  with  the  account  just  given,  it  Is  said  in  Benj. 
IQi-f-  that '  the  King  of  heaven  will  appear  on  earth  in  the  fonn 
of  a  man '  (i.  u^pff  ktHpi^ov).  On  the  other  hand,  the  doctrine 
is  probably  Docetic  in  Zeb.  919  'ye  will  see  God  in  the  fashion 
of  a  man'  (t»  rxr/wf,  aiilpi/^ey).  and  undoubtedly  so  in  Asher  1* 
'God  in  the  semblance  ot  man'  (fiii.-  ilt  i>V»  itoKp^tofwot). 
Again,  there  is  a  third  view  represented,  the  Patnpassian,  in 
Sim.  61I"-,  where  we  read  of  'the  Lord,  the  great  God  of  Israel, 
appearing  on  earth  as  man.  In  Asher  7W-  the  language  betrays 
the  same  standpoint:  'The  Highest  (i  't'^irros)  will  visit  the 
earth— as  man,  eating  and  drinking  with  men ' ;  and  m  Le>T  4» 
'the  sufferings  of  the  Hi''hest'  The  contrast  is  brought  into 
fuller  relief  by  such  a  declaration  as  that  in  Levi  4ii  Till  the 
Lord  visit  all  the  nations  through  the  mercy  of  his  Son.'  Again 
there  is  a  want  ot  uniformity  as  regards  the  descent  of  Christ 
Thus  He  is  said  to  be  from  Judah  only,  Napht  83,  from  Judah 
and  Levi,  Gad  81-3,  Dan  628,  (rom  Levi  and  Judah,  Sim.  7*,  Lev. 

218. 19. 

Together  with  the  above  phenomena,  we  should 
observe  that  the  Christian  additions  are  very 
dili'erently  attested  by  the  Gr.  MSS  CO  PR.  R 
has  the  fewest  of  these,  and  in  many  cases  attests 
single-handed  the  non-interpolated  text  against 
COi'  and  the  two  Arm.  recensions ;  OP  attest 
it  in  a  few  ca-ses,  and  C  in  at  least  one  (Levi  18"). 
Of  the  two  Annenian  recensions,  o  agrees  mosl 
with  R,  and  |3  with  COP.  Finally,  each  Gr.  MS 
has    Christian    additions  peculiar    to  itself,   and 

•  Bousset  (op.  rit  PL  173)  makes  the  list  slightly  shorter. 

t  In  oildition  to  the  above,  observe  the  important  passage 
(Benj  11)  regarding  St  Paul,  which  mentions  his  writings  and 
achievements ;  also  the  e.-cpansion  of  the  account  of  the  three 
heavens  into  one  of  the  seven  heavens  In  l«vi  L  t ;  but  this 
expansion  may  be  due  to  a  Jewish  hand. 


TESTS.  OF  Xn  PATRIARCHS 


TESTS.  OF  XII  PATRIARCHS      723 


gimilarly  tlie  Armenian  Version  (cf.  Sim.  ?"■)  and 
apparently  each  of  its  recensions. 

From  tlie  above  facts,  tlierefore,  we  conclude 
tliat  tlie  Christian  additions  are  due  to  several 
hands,  and  were  made  at  dill'erent  periods,  probablj' 
from  the  middle  of  the  2nd  cent,  onwards. 

3.  Integrity  of  original  Jewish  Testaments. — We 
have  seen  how  thoroughly  critical  research  has 
confirmed  Schnapp's  theory  tliat  the  Christian 
references  in  the  te.xt  are  tlie  result  of  interpola- 
tion. We  have  now  to  consider  his  second  hypo- 
thesis, that  the  apocalyptic  sections  do  not  belong 
to  the  original  work,  which  confined  itself  to  bio- 
graphical details  and  practical  exhortations  founded 
on  these.  Thus  two  dill'erent  sources  are  postulated. 
But  Schnapp  has  not  succeeded  in  establishing 
this  hypothesis  as  he  did  the  former.  He  has  tried 
to  show,  indeed,  that  in  the  Testament  of  Joseph 
we  have  two  partially  conflicting  accounts  of 
Joseph's  history,  derived  from  ditlerent  authors — 
i.e.  I-IO"  and  10''-18.  But,  even  if  we  agreed  with 
him  that  these  sections  sprang  from  two  distinct 
sources,  this  concession  would  not  support  his 
hypothe.sis.  On  the  other  hand,  his  analysis  of 
this  Testament  may  be  quite  wrong.  \\  e  may 
have  here  merely  a  transposition  of  the  text  such 
as  is  found  in  the  Ethiopic  Enoch,  chs.  91-94. 
Nearly  every  difficulty  disappears  if  we  read  it  in 
the  following  order— 1.  10-IC.  2-9.  17-20.  In  the 
Testament  of  Levi  the  section  ch.  2,  us  Si  iwoiiiaho- 
luv  .  .  .  6,  ^i"  Tj  Kap5i(f  IJ.OV,  certainly  conflicts  with 
its  present  context.  This  vision  does  not  refer  to 
the  events  before  and  after,  except  in  5°"*,  but  has 
a  general  fitness,  in  tliat  its  object  is  the  glorifica- 
tion of  Levi.  The  writer  of  the  Testament  may 
have  embodied  this  section  from  already  existing 
materials,  or  it  may  have  been  added  subsequently 
by  an  interpolator.  But,  neglecting  further  con- 
sideration or  Sclinapp's  hypothesis  of  two  Jewish 
sources,  we  may  observe  that  the  evidence  points 
rather  to  a  groundwork,  written,  as  we  sliall 
presently  see,  in  the  2nd  cent.  is.C,  in  praise  of  the 
earlier  Maccabteans,  and  enlarged  with  certain 
interpolations  of  a  conflicting  cliaracter  in  the 
Ist  cent.  B.C.  Tliese  interpolated  sections,  which 
constitute  an  attack  on  the  later  Maccaba>ans,  are 
Levi  10.  14-16,  Judali  21-2,3,  Dan  5  (certain  para- 
graphs), Zebulun  9,  Sim.  7''.*  With  these  sections 
we  shall  deal  presently  when  establishing  the  dates 
of  their  origin  and  that  of  the  groundwork. 

iii.  Date. — The  earliest  reference  to  our  book 
by  name  is  not  earlier  than  Origen  {Hum.  in 
Josunm,  I.'j'ted.  Lonimatzscli,  xi.  14:5]:  '  In  aliquo 

3uodam  libello  qui  appellatur  testamentum  duo- 
ecim  patriarcharum,  quanivis  non  habeatur  in 
canone,  talem  tamen  quendara  sensum  invenimus 
quod  per  singulos  peccantes  singuli  satante  in- 
telligi  debeant ').  An  earlier  reference  may  exist 
in  fragment  17,  Irenaius  (ed.  Stirren,  i.  836,  837). 
External  evidence,  therefore,  is  of  slight  service 
for  our  present  purjiose.  The  intemai  evidence, 
however,  is  happflj'  clear  and  decisive. 

The  (froundwork  of  the  Teetamenta  constituted  an  apology 
on  behalf  of  the  Moccabioan  high  priests.  Thus  in  Rcub.  O'"'** 
the  words  aTe(/a»i*Taj  it  wtXifjutt  iptcTv7t  xai  ett^xvatl  can  only  be 
Interpreted  of  a  hi(;h  priest  who  is  also  a  warrior,  t  Such  a 
description  would  suit  John  Uyrcaiius.  Earlier  in  the  same 
chapter  this  double  function  is  referred  to  more  dearly,  iiat. 

m>.u  Ct  mplrit  HoLt  tivrimt  ir'ip  T«rr*<  'Iffoeir.k.  And  a  few  lines 
later,  ivXpynrirxj  rir  'iffpxr,\  .  .  ,  in  I*  KuTv  f£iAif«r0  KCpiae 
fi^xriXUuf  wtLi,rn  rcZ  kaiu  (K).  But  the  reference  becomes  still 
clearer  in  Levi  g^^-^l  i  t/m'to;  iwiMX^r,firnt  mCru  ittUM.  ut'vor,  arj 

fi^rtXtui  ir  TM  (Arm.  Qr.  MSS  give  \m  T«i;  wrongly)  '\»C^*  mtxrr^- 

nrmif  mmi  wttfiru  Ufixrtiui  liar,  k«ts  rit  nm  rSt  ilfvwr,  lit  w»frm 

•So also  Bouaset  on  the  whole  (op.  ciL  189 (f.) In  lOOa  The 
present  writer  had  dmwn  attention  to  this  fact  In  his  Eichato- 
logy,  llehrrw,  Jrwith,  and  ChrUlian,  1S90,  and  to  the  early 
•lenienU  In  the  Testaments  in  Eikijc  DiUica,  L  237-241. 

t  Another  reference  to  the  warrior  priests  occurs  In  81m.  6>t 

■«'  i*  Anfi  ikiiKi,ffov*i$  j»  ^cfx^mi^  (tA>  *v  di/**>»Tau  v^M  All//,  trt 
W»i.ttI4f  Kv>>.M/  voAi^tirii. 


vk  Wtij.*  These  clauses  point  clearly  to  the  civil  and  priestly 
functions  of  the  Maccabees  subsequent  to  B.G  163,  and  a  few 
lines  further  on  the  attribution  of  prophetic  powers  to  this 
family  (n  3i  mpour.et  aii-Tou  etystirr^-rf,,  u;  Tpo^v,rr.t  u-^irrcu  (OJ) 
ctKibles  us  to  identify  the  verj-  member  of  this  dynasty  to  whom 
our  author  alludes.  This  was  John  Hyrcanus.t'who.  accoiding 
to  Josephus  (BJ  I,  iL  4  ;  Ajit.  xiiL  x.  7),  combined  in  his  own 
person  the  threefold  offices  of  prophet,  priest,  and  king  fv«« 
ytZi   T«  Kfix7irrtCt»T»  f^otot  Cx**  ^.>  ti   ipx^''  ^^'^  tH*6Lit  x^xi  rr* 

«^x"^*''rvwj»  ««»  T/>ecrT<v»»).  This  limits  the  date  of  the  work  to 
RC  l:J5-105.  To  the  above  period  belongs  the  eschatology  of 
the  Messianic  hymn  in  Dan  6'-^^-*,  according  to  the  best  textual 
authorities,  \vith  the  exception  of  such  an  expression  as  "ret; 
^iixxt  T«»  iy.v9  KctXi^.i  us  ixuTov  (so  Arm.)  in  Dan  &28,  and  of 
one  or  two  phrases.  I  Tlie  same  is  true  of  the  Messianic  hjTnn 
in  Jud-  24  and  the  account  of  the  resurrection  in  Ju<L  25. 

Unhappily,  the  second  Apocalypse  in  Jos.  19  is  too  hopelessly 
corrupt,  even  in  the  Annenian,}  to  arrive  at  any  definite  chrono- 
log>'.  Finally,  in  Napht  5^*-^^  the  successive  nations  are  men- 
tioned that  brought  Israel  into  bondage ;  the  last  of  these  is 
the  Sj^rians :  'Arrupi*i,  Mr.ioi,  Tl-prant  'EijfjLeutt.  riAa;^zr«f, 
XceAdalOi,  ^uppi,  Ky^poiifjLY.rourio  Iv  dei;)^/McAAir''a  Tot  iitaix»  rxiiir-rpu 

TflS '  Iftacrk.  Thus  the  passage  was  written  prior  to  the  domina- 
tion of  Rome,  Ce.  before  aa  63. 

Tlie  book,  therefore,  so  far  as  we  have  considered 
it,  was  written  between  B.C.  135  and  63.  Since, 
however,  no  reason  has  appeared  for  bringing  the 
terminus  ad  quern  later  than  B.C.  103,  the  work 
may  safely  be  assigned  to  the  years  B.C.  135-103.|| 
It  would  thus  form  a  sequel  to  Eth.  Enoch  83-flO, 
whieli  was  written  before  B.C.  161.  It  reproduces 
some  of  its  pliraseology  in  Jos.  19. 

But  certain  passages,  to  which  we  have  already  referred, 
belong,  like  Eth.  Enoch  91-104,  and  the  Psalms  of  Solomon,  to  a 
later  date.  In  these  the  filaccab.-e.in  king-priests  are  the  object 
of  the  fiercest  invective,  Tliese  attacks  are  made  in  Levi  lOi*- 1^, 
where,  as  in  Ps-Sol  2.  4.  8,  the  priests  are  charged  with  destroy, 
ing  the  Law  and  teaching  false  doctrine  (ct  Eth,  En.  942),  with 
seducing  Israel  (cf.  Eth.  En  945  10410),  with  profaning  the  temple, 
with  coniniitting  fornication,  and  marrjing  the  daughters  of 
the  Gentiles.  Again,  in  Jud.  23,  Judah  is  charged  with  every 
kind  of  abomination  and  idolatry  (cf.  Eth-  En  997-*'X  But  the 
notes  of  time  are  still  more  manifest  in  Jud.  221-*,  which  speaks 
of  internal  divisions  and  civil  wars  and  the  overthrow  of  the 
Maccabayin  dynasty  by  aliens  (itcc^u  ii  tK.Cvo7t  Ittctpirtit  x»r' 
iAAi^Aarv  xai  iriXifiM  fvnxt7e  la-etreti  if'lffpa.r,X,  fMi  i*  a.kXo^Ckete 
rv¥Tt>.iffQr.rt'riu  ^  fiecfftXtm  a:i>ra»f  (Arm,  Gr.  tMu\\  The  aliens 
may  be  taken  to  be  the  Romans  or  the  Herodian  dynasty  (which 
was  of  Idnmajan  origin)  In  Zeb.  94- 7f.  the  civil  strife  between 
Aristobulus  11.  and  Ilyrcanus  11.  is  clearly  depicte<I :  M^  rx'^i^'^'n 

tit  Ju#  mfaXaf  ...  'Ef  i^araif  nt^tpcttt .  .  .  iixtplOririfftlt  it  'Itr^atiA, 

««i  iito  iSowtXiti^it  i{xx«Ao(/0rriTL     Since  the  writer  in  the  last 

Eassage  says  that  this  civil  war  will  be  f»  iff^urxif  Ku.ipxt{  (cf. 
evi  10,  i-rJ  ffv»-iXii'»  rim  aiuyur ;  also  Levi  14),  It  follows  that  the 
composition  of  Levi  10.  14-16,  Jud.  22.  23,  Dan  515-23,  Zcb.  9, 
cannot  be  of  a  much  later  date,  and  may  be  reasonably  assigned 
to  the  years  B.G  60-40.  It  is  more  diillcult  to  detenuine  the 
date  of  Jud.  2L  This  chapter  stands  by  itself  in  atta(^king  the 
monarchy  and  in  upliolding  the  priesthood.  Bousset  (op.  eit. 
192)  assigns  it  to  the  time  of  ilyrcanus  IL 

iv.  Language.  —  The  time  of  composition  in 
itself  determines  this  question  in  the  main.  The 
various  writers  of  tlie  work  belonged  in  all  cases 
to  the  ranks  of  the  IIASID.EANS,  who  maintained 
tlie  doctrines  afterwards  upheld  by  the  I'harisocs. 
The  original,  we  therefore  presume,  was  written  in 
Semitic,  and,  in  all  probability,  in  Hebrew.  The 
present  writer  ha.s  elsewhere  pointed  out  {Enei/c. 
BiWira,  i.  2.39-241)  that  (1)  Hebrew  constructions 
and  expressions  are  frequent,  (2)  that  parono- 
masia which  are  lost  in  the  Greek  can  frequently 

*  This  kingly  high  priest  is  the  theme  also  ot  Levi  18^^ — 

T6TI  lylpti  Kb^itfC  iipim  xctd»Of, 
Q  »a*TW  tiXoyot  Kupiov  itiroxct>.vsOKtrt*rou. 
KatJ  <xuT«r  rtirrli  mpiffm  a.\Y,tiLeLt  tvi  vya  y^t  it  wXr.Bu  ii/MtSt, 
KotJ  afartkit  mrrpci  aiiraZ  it  tupayai  ait  /Sstf-iAlAif  (P  Ann. ), 

f  So  alread,v  Kohler,  JQM  v.  402  ;  and  subsequently  Bousset. 

{  The  Messianic  hope  here  appears  as  in  Eth.  En.  83-90.  The 
Messiah  is  said  to  proceed  from  'Judah  and  Levi."  This  is 
certainly  wrong  for  '  Judah '  or  '  Levi '  or  *  Levi  and  Ju<lah  * ;  cf. 
Dan  6«.  Reub.  6,  Sim.  6.  7,  Levi  2.  Isa.  6.  The  onler  '  Judah  and 
Levi '  is  found  in  Christian  interjiolations,  as  Housset  has  already 
recognized  ;  cf.  Gotl  8,  Jos.  19.  Acconiiiig  to  Jud.  24,  the  Messiah 
is  to  ho  descended  from  Judah.  This  no  doubt  is  what  is  meant 
In  Eth.  En.  9057-  ss ;  for  the  Messiah  is  there  distinguished  from 
Judos  Moccabious,  who  is  representeil  as  fighting  till  the  advent 
of  the  Messianic  kingilom.  Bousset  assigns  both  these  hymns 
to  the  latter  half  of  the  1st  cent.  b.a  ;  but  the  cliarmct«r  ot  the 
Mchatology  is  whollv  against  this  assumption. 

I  See  Preuschen's  translation  in  ZSTit'  11900),  ISa 

V  This  date  holds  good  of  the  narrative  portion*  also.  See 
Bousset,  op.  eit.  197-205. 


724       TESTS.  OF  XII  PATRIARCHS 


TESTS.  OF  XII  PATRIARCHS 


be  restored  by  retranslation  into  Hebrew,  and 
(3)  that  certain  passages  which  are  obscure  or 
unintelligible  in  the  Greek  become  clear  on  re- 
translation  into  Hebrew.  We  shall  content  our- 
selves with  one  or  two  examples  of  the  above 
statements. 

Thus  in  Reub.  S  ir  «Jt«  ijixtj««  =  13  "ins;  Levi  81'  iritXrSi- 

e*Txt  ctiry  ii»UM  tuctio»  =  Vin  CV  ^'7  Kip".  Napht.  l**i»  iratcupy^a 
iirt'ytrl'Petxx^  .  .  .  itcc  nurt  iMXxBr,^  SlfBet^t^Lc=  .   ,   .    7m  n^n33 

■'^n^j  'nunpj  pS.    Finally,  in  Napht.  &"■  :ith  rxcla  ipx"'  •  •  ■ 

fur^it  Tetpixv*t  is£T«  r«t/Tj»  awti  xu^tpvr.reu,  the  phrase  [Mrr'ew 
Txfiixi"t  which  =  nVp  k'?D,  has  arisen  from  a  corrupt  dittography 
of  n^p  kS3  =  ;*t«  tavrSf.  This  last  fact  was  pointed  out  by 
Gaster  (P^BA,  Dec.  1893,  Feb.  1894)  in  his  edition  of  the  Hebrew 
text  of  a  Testament  of  Xaphtali,  and  may  be  regarded  as  con- 
clusive ;  for  the  above  phrase  is  found  in  this  Hebrew  Testa, 
ment— nSo  n'^a  .  .  .  nD?in  .T'JK  nm. 

V.  Versions  (Greek,  Aramaic,  Syriac,  Armenian, 
Slavonic,  Latin). — The  earliest  versions  were  the 
Greek,  the  Armenian,  and  probably  the  Syriac. 
(a)  Of  the  Greek  Version  ■six  ^LSS  are  known.  Of 
these,  the  Cambridge  MS  (C)  of  the  10th  and  the 
Oxford  MS  (O)  of  the  14th  cent,  have  already  been 
made  known  through  Sinker's  edition  of  the  Greek 
text  {The  Testaments  of  the  Twelve  Patriarchs, 
186'J) ;  the  Vatican  MS  (R)  of  the  13th  and  the 
Patmos  MS  (P)  of  the  IGth  cent.,  through  the 
Appendix  he  published  in  1879.  The  two  remain- 
ing M.SS  are  still  unpublished,  but  are  being  used 
by  Sinker  in  forming  a  new  Greek  text.  It  is  to 
be  presumed  that  in  the  new  text  II  will  be  mainly 
followed  and  not  C  as  in  the  old  edition. 

(b)  The  Aramaic  Version. — This  version  was  not 
brought  to  light  till  quite  recently.  Only  one 
complete  leaf  and  a  half  of  tlie  entire  MS  have 
been  preserved.  The  MS  was  brought  by  Schechter 
from  the  Cairo  Genizah  in  1S96,  and  its  contents 
recognized  in  1900  by  H.  L.  Pass,  who,  togetlier 
with  J.  Arendzen,  publislied  the  text  in  the  JQR 
[1900],  651-661.  The  fragmentary  folio  contains  a 
passage  somewhat  similar  to  Jud.  5.  The  complete 
folio  has  portions  of  Levi  11-13.  Altliougn  at 
times  the  Greek  and  Aramaic  agree  word  for  word, 
they  more  often  diverge  both  as  to  contents  and  to 
order.  The  Aramaic  is  much  fuller.  It  is  note- 
worthj-  that  it  agrees  in  this  respect  with  the 
Syriac  fragment  against  the  Greek.  To  this  point 
we  shall  return  in  dealing  with  that  version. 

(c)  The  Syriac  Version. — Of  this  version  only  a 
fragment  remains,  preserved  in  a  Syr.  MS  [Brit. 
.Mus.,  ..Vdd.  17,193  — C'a<.  ii.  997],  dated  A.D.  874. 
This  MS  consists  of  a  series  of  125  extracts  from 
ditlerent  sources.  No.  80  of  which  is  derived  from 
Levi  12.  This  extract  contains  three  sentences 
which  are  unattested  by  the  Greek,  and  it  was 
probably  on  this  ground  that  Preuschen  (ZNTW 
[1900],  108)  declared  that  its  evidence  was  valueless 
as  regards  the  existence  of  a  Syriac  Version.  Now, 
it  is  worthy  of  remark  that  these  additional  three 
sentences  are  present  word  for  word  in  the  newly 
discovered  Aramaic ;  and  yet,  so  far  as  all  three 
versions  have  a  common  text,  the  Syriac  and  Greek 
agree  against  the  Aramaic.  Thus,  Gr.  and  Syr. 
give  iKTib  whore  Aram.  =  (Sk-ruKalSeKo,  and  where 
the  former  give  iin-uiKalieKa  the  latter  =  iwca- 
KaioeKa. 

{(l)  The  Armenian  Version. — It  is  to  F.  C. 
Conybeare  that  we  owe  our  first  knowledge  of  the 
value  of  the  Armenian  Version,  through  his 
collation  of  the  Armenian  with  Sinker's  Greek 
text  of  the  Testaments  of  Reulien,  Simeon, 
Judah,  Dan,  Joseph,  Benjamin  (JQR  [1895],  375- 
3ri8;  [1896],  260-268,  471-485).  In  1896  the  tirst 
Armenian  edition  of  the  text  was  published  bv 
tlie  Mechitarist  Fathers  at  Venice  in  a  small 
volume,  including  many  other  non-canonical  writ- 
tugs  of  the  OT.      This  edition  is  based  on  five 


MSS.*  Subsequently  Preuschen  wrote  a  learned 
article  (ZA'^'IF  [1900],  106-140),  in  which  he  shows, 
in  dependence  on  the  Venice  edition,  that  thera 
■were  two  recensions  of  the  Armenian  text  o  and  /3, 
of  which  the  former  is  much  the  briefer  and 
earlier,  and  contains  likewise  fewer  Christian 
interpolations.  In  this  article  he  ^pves  a  German 
translation  of  the  Testament  of  Levi.  F  jr  further 
details  see  op.  cit.  130-140. 

(c)  The  Slavonic  Version. — This  version  exists  in 
two  recensions,  which  are  published  by  Tichon- 
rawow  in  his  Monunvnts  of  Old  Russian  Apoc- 
rijphal  Literature  [1863],  i.  96-145  and  146-232. 
A\  itii  the  help  of  Bonwetsch,  Bousset  tested  this 
version  and  found  it  worthless  for  textual  purposes. 
It  is  most  nearly  related  to  the  Greek  text  of 
O  (P). 

(/)  No  earlier  Latin  Version  is  known  than  that 
of  Robert  Grosseteste.  This  was  made  from  C, 
and  is  valueless,  therefore,  from  a  critical  stand- 
point. 

vi.  Value  of  the  Testaments. — This  work 
has  been  simply  a  sealed  book  till  the  present, 
owing  to  the  difficulty  of  discriminating  the 
various  elements  in  the  text.  Now  that  we  have 
achieved  this  task  in  its  main  outlines,  we  discover 
that  we  have  in  the  groundwork  of  the  Testa- 
ments a  unique  work  of  the  2nd  cent.  B.C.  ;  for, 
with  the  excei'tion  of  Jubilees,  it  constitutes  the 
only  Apology  in  Jewish  literature  for  the  religious 
and  civil  hegemony  of  the  Maccabees  from  the 
Pharisaic  standpoint.  To  the  few  Jewish  inter- 
polations which  belong  to  the  ne.\t  cent.  *  large 
interest  attaches ;  for  these,  like  Eth.  Enoch  91- 
104  and  the  Psalms  of  Solomon,  constitute  an 
unmeasured  attack  on  every  office  —  prophetic, 
priestly,  or  kingly — administered  by  the  Alacca- 
bees.  But,  turning  aside  from  the  historical  to  the 
religious  bearings  of  the  book,  we  may  notice 
shortly  its  eschatologj',  its  teaching  on  the  various 
heavens,  and  its  peculiar  view  as  to  the  twelve 
tribes  of  Israel. 

(a)  The  Eschatology. — We  shall  confine  our  atten- 
tion to  three  Messianic  passages,  hevi  18,  Jud.  24. 25, 
and  Dan  5^*-.  Accordmg  to  Levi  18,  the  Messiah  is 
to  spring  from  Levi  and  be  the  eternal  High  Priest 
and  civil  ruler  of  the  nation,  Levi  18".  During  his 
rule  sin  should  gradually  cease,  Levi  18"  ;  Beliar  be 
bound,  Levi  18*'*  "  ;  the  gates  of  Paradise  be  opened 
and  the  saints  eat  of  the  tree  of  life,  Levi  18"'^.  We 
have  here  an  eternal  Messianic  kingdom  on  earth 
as  in  Eth.  Enoch  83-90.  In  Jud.  24.  25  and  Dan 
ga-ss  t^i,g  forecast  is  on  the  whole  the  same,  save 
that  the  Messiah  is  to  spring  not  from  Levi  but 
from  Judah  (Jud.  24",  Dan  o^t),  as  no  doubt  also 
in  Eth.  Enoch  90''-  **.  These  hymns  would  be 
earlier,  if  we  are  right,  than  that  in  Levi  18,  and 
would  thus  be  written  before  enthusiasm  for  John 
Hjrcanus  had  reached  its  height.  According  to 
these  hymns,  the  resurrection  (of  the  righteous?)  is 
to  take  place  during  the  Messiah's  reign  (Jud.  25), 
the  evil  spirits  are  to  be  cast  into  eternal  fire  (Jud. 
25">),  the  saints  to  live  in  Eden  (Dn  5^),  and  all  the 
nations  to  rejoice  (Jud.  25'"),  and  God  to  abide  with 
men  (Dan  5^').  Here  also  we  have  an  eternal 
Messianic  kingdom  on  earth,  in  which  the  Gentiles 
paiticipate. 

•  There  are  seven  other  MSS  known  to  ncholara  Two  of  these 
have  been  collated  by  Conybeare,  belonging  respectively  to  the 
London  Bible  Society  and  to  Lord  Zouche ;  see  ZXTn  [IIKIUJ, 
108-110. 

t  In  Dan  the  text  says  'Judah  and  Levi'  Since  this  is  the 
order  of  these  names  in  the  Christian  interpolations,  we  must 
emend  the  phrase  into  'Levi  and  Judah,*  or  simply  'Levi'  or 
'Judah.'  But,  since  the  Messiah  is  nowhere  else  in  the  Testa, 
ments  said  to  be  sprung  from  'Levi  and  Judah' (though  it  is 
declared  that  by  means  of  LeW  and  Judah  God  will  deliver 
Israel),  we  must'fall  back  simply  on  'Levi'  or  'Judah'  as  ths 
original  text.  We  take  it  that  'and  Levi'  is  an  intrusion  ber& 
See  p.  723>>  note  {. 


TESTIMONY 


TETKAECH 


725 


(4)  The  three  heavens  and  the  seven  heavens. — 
From  R  and  the  Armenian  Version  of  Levi  2.  3 
It  is  now  clear  that  these  chapters  contained  origin- 
ally a  description  of  only  three  heavens.  R*  alone 
preserves  the  true  text  here  ;  for  the  two  recensions 
of  the  Arm.  a  and  §  are  both  confused  and  corrupt, 
the  former  mentionini;  only  two  heavens,  and  tlie 
latter  four.  It  was  Lueken  (Michael  [1S9S],  92) 
who  first  recognizeJ  this  fact.  Its  furtlier  eluci- 
dation we  owe  to  Buusset  (ZNTW  159-163).  Thus 
it  appears  that  a  belief  in  the  three  heavens  pre- 
vailed early  in  the  'Jnd  cent.  B.C.  It  has  thus  an 
older  attestation  in  .J  udaism  tlian  that  of  the  seven 
heavens,  but  which  is  in  re.ality  the  earlier  we 
cannot  at  present  say. 

(c)  The  Twelve  Tribes. — The  Twelve  Tribes  are 
Bupi>osed  to  be  in  existence  at  the  date  of  the 
composition  of  this  work,  and  in  Palestine.  Thus 
in  iSapht.  5"  the  Syrians  are  said  to  hold  sway  over 
them.  In  Keub.  6'^  the  high  priestly  ruler  (i.e.  John 
Hyrcanus)  is  '  to  judge  and  oiler  sacritice  for  all 
Israel  till  the  consummation  of  the  times ' ;  and  '  to 
bless  Israel  and  Judah  '  (Reub.  6").  The  very  fact 
that  the  book  is  addressed  to  the  Twelve  Tribes, 
although  it  speaks  of  the  ultimate  dispersion  or 
destruction  of  Reuben  (6"),  Dan,  Gad,  and  Asher 
(Asher  7"),  points  in  the  same  direction.  Bousset 
calls  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  Letter  of  Aris- 
teas  states  that  Eleazar  the  high  priest  sent  six  men 
of  each  of  the  Twelve  Tribes  to  Ptolemy.  This 
naturally  presupposes  the  presence  of  the  Twelve 
in  Palestine  or  its  neighbourhood.  The  idea  that 
the  Jewish  kingdom  embraced  once  again  the  entire 
nation,  could  easily  arise  when  the  Maccabees  ex- 
tended their  sway  northwards  over  Samaria  and 
Galilee  and  eastwards  beyond  the  Jordan.  This 
displaced  the  older  belief  that  nine  tribes  were 
eiiil  in  captivity  (see  Eth.  Enoch  89'^,  written  20  to 
30  years  before  the  Testaments).  But  with  the 
growin"  degradation  of  the  later  Maccabees  the 
older  idea  revives.  According  to  the  Psalms  of 
Solomon  (17^- **■"),  the  dispersed  tribes  are  to  be 
brought  back.  This  thought  reappears  frequently 
in  the  1st  cent.  A.D.,  and  then  in  new  forms.  The 
nine  or  ten  tribes  were  in  the  far  East  enjoying 
great  prosperity  (Philo,  Leg.  nd  Gaium,  31  ;  Jos. 
Ant.  XI.  v.  2  ;  Sib.  Or.  ii.  170-173),  or,  according  to  a 
later  view,  they  were  lost,  and  their  place  of  abode 
was  unknown  to  men,  but  God  was  keeping  them 
safely  till  the  Messianic  times  (4  Ezr  13^"'").  This 
form  of  the  idea,  which  is  now  the  current  one,  is 
not  attested  till  after  the  fall  of  Jerusalem,  A.D.  70. 

LlTERATTRB. — The  principal  authorities  have  been  cited  In  the 
bo<iy  of  the  above  article.  See,  f»irther,  .Srliijrer,  QJl's  iii,  C(>'J 
IIJ./P  II.  iiL  124J.  Since  the  above  article  was  written,  an 
En^']i»h  translation  of  the  Armenian  Version  haa  been  publiblicd 
{Ctu-ananiciU  Writings  <>/  the  OT found  in  the  Armenian  M.^S 
of  .St.  tazarus,  Issaverdens,  Venice,  11M>1,  pp.  8S1-478).  Afl  the 
translator  has  made  no  attempt  to  distinpuisli  between  the  two 
recensions,  thia  translation  is  worthlciui  from  a  critical  stand- 
point. R.  U.  CUARLES. 

TESTIMONY.— In  the  OT  this  word  is  scarcely, 
if  at  all,  used  in  the  ordinary  sense  of  'witness' 
or  '  evidence,'  although  it  has  this  meaning  fre- 
quently in  the  NT.  We  will  reserve  the  treat- 
ment of  this  sense  of  the  term  and  partly  of  the 
OT  '  tectify '  for  art.  Witnk.ss,  and  devote  the 
present  art.  to  the  special  OT  usage. 

The  Heb.  terms  are  [nyj]  and  nny  or  niy.  The 
existence  of  the  first  of  these  has  been  postulated 
to  account  for  the  plur.  my,  which  is  found  (alone 
or  with  snttixes)  in  Dt  4*>  6"-»  Ps  25'"  78"  93°  99' 
1  iga.  a.  m.  46.  to.  79.  M.  ii».  12s.  is«.  im.  ua.  H7.  i«       Such  a 

bourse  appears,  however,  to  be  unnecessary,  for  in 
every  instance  my  might  be  vocalized  nny,  or  my 

•  OOP  igree  In  ^ving  the  comipt  t«xt  which  contains  an 
•ccojnt  of  the  Seven  heavens.  For  an  account  of  the  latter 
•e*  CbArlea,  .Boot  q/  tht  Stcrctt  0/  Enoch  (18B6). 


might  be  taken  as  a  contraction  of  ifn^  ('edwdth), 
the  plur.  of  nn;  (so  Stade,  §  3206  ;  Sieg'fried-S'<ide, 
Buhl).  The  form  nny  is  found  in  1  K  2»,  2  K  17" 
23^  Jer  44-=',  1  Ch  29'»,  2  Ch  34»>,  Neh  9»»,  Pa  119"- 
81.  M.  w.  111.  la.  i«.  157.  In  ijoth  tliese  sets  of  paawiges 
the  name  '  testimonies '  is  applied  to  God'i  law*  as 
being  a  solemn  declaration  ot  His  will  or  a  protest 
against  deviation  from  its  performance  (see  Driver, 
Dcut.  p.  81,  who  compares  ?  Tyn=  '  testify  or  pro- 
test aqaitut '  [not  'unto  J,  2  K  17",  Jer  U',  Ps  50' 
8l»,  Neh  9a1.a9.so).*  '-fhe  testimony'  (nnyn)  is  a 
technical  term,  esp.  in  P,  for  the  Decalogue  (LXX 
TO  /juipTvpia,  Ex  25  '•"  40-°)  as  being  par  excellence 
the  declaration  of  the  Divine  will.  Hence  the 
expressions  'tables  of  the  testimony'  (LXX  oi 
7r\d«s  roD  futprvpiov,  Ex  31"  32''^  34'.*);  'ark  of  the 
testimony,'  which  contained  these  tables  (LXX  ^ 
Ktpuris  ToS  fuipri'ptov.  Ex  25'"  20==.  "  308-  '•"  31'  39»» 
403.0.  ai_  Nu  46  769^  jog  416  [duj,,,.  .  \,at  Bennett, 
Steuemagel,  et  al.,  n-ijn  '  ark  of  the  covenant ']) ;  + 
'  tabernacle  of  the  testimony  or  witness  '  (LXX  t) 
ffA.-Tji'T)  ToD  imprvplov  [so  in  Ac  7'",  Rev  15°]),  Ex  38^', 
Nu  i».ii3  6i,  iQii  [j^]!  misk/can  luiabUh\  Nu  9«> 
17'- «  18»,  2  Ch  24"  [all  'ohd  ha-ediUh].  See  art. 
Tabernaclk,  p.  655.  'The  testimony'  is  an 
abbreviation  for  '  the  ark  of  the  testimony '  in  Ex 
16**  (LXX  ivavrlov  toO  Oeov)  27"'  (^tt!  tti^  diaSqKrit) 
30^.  {irl  7-^j  Ki^icTov  tQv  jiaprvpiuv)  ^  {air^favTi  tuip 
fuipTvptui'),  Lv  16"  (^Tri  Tiix  iiapTvpliiiv)  24^  ((v  Ty 
(TKijfj  ToD  fiapTvplov),  Nu  17"*"  {Kar^vavTi  toS  fwpTvplov) 
a*  {ifiliinov  Turn  iiapTvpiuiv).  A  later  usage  extended 
the  term  hd'ediUh  from  the  Decalogue  to  the  Law 
in  general :  Ps  19"  78"  (||  ^in)  81^  (||  pn  '  statute ') 
119*«  122*. 

For  nny.T  ('  the  testimony')  of  2  K  11"=2  Ch  23" 
we  should  prob.  read  nn^i-n  ('the  bracelets,'  see 
Wellh.-Bleek,  p.  258  n.),  although  LXX  has  ri  imp- 
ripiov  and  to.  ixapripia  in  the  respective  j)assages. 

In  Sir  45",  wliere  the  LXX  has  '  to  teach  Jacob 
the  testimonies'  (B  rd  /xaprvpia,  A  iiaprvplav),  the 
Heb.  text  has  'so  he  taught  his  people  statute' 
(pn).  J.  A.  Selbie. 

TETH  (D).— The  ninth  letter  of  the  Heb. 
alphabet,  and  as  such  employed  in  the  119th 
Psalm  to  designate  the  9th  part,  each  verse  of 
which  begins  with  this  letter.  It  is  transliterated 
in  this  Dictionary  by  t. 

TETRARCH  (Tirpipxr,':,  WH  TfTpad^xis)-— A  ruler 
of  a  fourth  ])art  of  a  country  or  province,  or  at 
Sparta  a  commander  of  four  conijianies  of  soldiers. 
The  compound  occurs  first  in  Eur.  Ale.  1154  in 
reference  to  Tlies.saly,  which  in  early  times  and 
again  in  the  constitution  given  by  Philip  of 
Alacedon  was  divided  for  civil  administration  into 
four  districts  (Demos.  P/u'ijp/).  iii.  26).  In  Galatia, 
too,  each  of  the  three  tribes  had  its  four  tetrarchs 
(Strabo,  566  f.),  until  Pompey  reduced  the  number 
(App.  Milhrid.  46,  Syr.  50 ;  Livy,  Ep.  94),  retain- 
ing the  name.  Thenceforward  little  attention  was 
paid  to  the  original  signification  of  the  title,  which 
was  freely  applied  to  dependent  princelings  inpos- 
session  of  some  of  the  rights  of  sovereignty.  Tliey 
were  of  subordinate  rank  to  kings  or  ethnarchs, 
and  were  especially  numerous  in  Syria  (Pliny,  Hist. 
Nat.  V.  74  et  al.  ;  Cicero,  Milu,  xxviii.  36  ct  al.  ; 
Horace,  Sat.  I.  iii.  12;  Tacitus,  Ann.  xv.  25; 
Ca'sar,  Bell.  Civ.  iii.  3;  I'lutarch,  Anton.  36;  Jos. 
Ant.  XVII.  X.  9 ;  e<  al.).  The  title  as  used  in  NT 
retains  in  part  its  etymological  meaning  in  two 
ca.ses.  For  both  Antipas  (Mt  14',  Lk  3'-"'  9', 
Ac  13')  and  Herod  Philip  (Lk  3')  inherited  each  a 
fourth  jiart  of  his  father's  dominions  (Jos.  Ant. 

'  Of.  iTTiyn,  used  ot  prophetical  testimony  or  injunction.  In  Is 
gi«.». 

t  BA  f  mStnii  rSt  iimOium  ;  om.  fit  )is$iiai|t,  F*  (babet  Fi  "^)  j 
/Mtprvpitu  In  m^  et  sup  ras  A^t. 


726  TEXT  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 


TEXT  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 


XVII.  xi.  4  ;  Wars,  II.  vi.  3).  At  the  same  time, 
since  their  father  had  himself  received  the  same 
title  without  geographical  significance  from  Antony 
(Jos.  Ant.  XIV.  xiii.  1  ;  iVars,  I.  xii.  5),  and  as 
Antipas  is  styled  king  (Mt  14',  Mk  6''"')  almost  as 
often  as  tetrarch,  it  is  not  unlikely  that  the  latter 
title  was  applied  to  him  without  any  designed 
allusion  to  its  strict  meaning.  In  a  similar  sense 
Lysanias  [which  see]  is  called  tetrarch  of  Abilene  in 
Lk  3',  the  district  of  Abila  in  the  Lebanon  having 
been  severed  from  the  Iturjean  kingdom  subse- 
quently to  the  death  of  Lysanias  I.  and  placed 
under  the  rule  of  a  younger  man  of  the  same  name. 
In  support  of  St.  Luke  s  accuracy  may  be  cited 
two  inscriptions  in  CIG,  Nos.  4521,  4.")23.  See,  for 
further  details  and  for  the  literature  of  the  sub- 
ject, Schiirer,  HJP  I.  IL  7  f.  R.  W.  Moss. 

TEXT  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT A  history 

of  the  text  of  the  OT,  in  the  proper  sense  of  the 
word  '  history,'  it  is  not  possible  to  write,  even  if 
one  were  content  to  start  from  the  period  in  which 
the  OT  was  closed.  For  in  the  first  place  we  do 
not  know  the  date  when,  or  the  way  in  which, 
this  closing  was  effected.  Further,  we  have  no 
MSS  of  the  Heb.  OT  from  the  first  eight  centuries 
of  the  Christian  era,  at  least  none  whose  date  is 
certain.  Unfortunately,  moreover,  we  are  as  yet 
without  critical  editions  either  of  the  most  im- 
portant early  Versions  (LXX,  Pesh.,  Targg.),  or 
of  the  ancient  Jewish  literary  works  (Talmuds, 
Midrashim)  in  which  a  great  number  of  Bible  pas- 
sages are  cited  and  explained.  And,  finally,  the 
history  of  the  text  is  much  older  than  the  close  of 
the  Canon.  Even  during  the  period  when  the 
writings  which  are  now  gathered  into  one  in  the 
OT  had  still  a  more  or  less  separate  circulation, 
the  text  underwent  a  variety  of  changes,  due 
partly  to  the  carelessness  of  copyists,  and  partly 
to  intention,  what  was  considered  objectionable 
being  dropped  out,  and  additions  being  made. 
The  proper  course  of  procedure,  then,  appears  to 
us  to  be  to  work  backwards  from  a  fixed  point, 
viz.  the  printed  text.     We  will  discuss — 

i.  The  printed  editions. 

ii.  The  manuscripta. 

iii.  The  work  of  the  Mas(s)orete8  (and  the  punctuation), 
iv.  Earlier  traces  of  the  Heb.  text  of  the  OT. 

V.  The  importance  of  the  ancient  Versions. 
vi.  Observations  on  the  history  of  the  growth  of  the  OT. 

i.  Printed  Editions  of  the  Heb.  OT.  — 
A.  FiFTEESTB  Century.— T\\s  first  portion  of 
the  Heb.  Bible  ever  printed  was  the  Psalter,  1477 
(small  folio,  prob.  Bologna),  ^vith  D.  Kimhi's 
commentary.  Only  the  first  psalms  have  the  vowel 
points,  in  a  very  rude  form  (Ginshurg,  Introd. 
780-794).  II  The  first  ed.  of  the  Pent,  appeared  in 
1482  (Bologna  folio,  pointed),  with  Targ.  Onk.  and 
Rashi.  II  Ed. princcjosof  the  Prophets,  14S5(Soncino, 
folio,  2  vols,  [the  2nd  has  no  date]),  with  D. 
^im^i's  com.,  neither  vowel  points  nor  accents.  || 
Ed.  princeps  of  the  Hagiographa,  1487,  86  (Naples, 
folio,  3  parts).  The  vowel  points  are  most  un- 
reliable, the  printers  having  done  their  work  very 
carelessly.  There  are  no  accents.  The  accom- 
panying comm.  are  ^^imhi  on  the  Psalter,  and 
Imuianuel  on  Proverbs.  ||  The  first  ed.  of  the  whole 
OT  appeared  at  Sonoino  in  1488,  folio ;  it  had 
vowel  points  and  accents,  like  almost  all  the 
following  editions;  ||  2nd  ed.,  Naples,  c.  1491-93 
[neither  date  nor  place  is  given] ;  ||  3rded.,  Brescia, 
1494.  Luther  used  this  ed.  in  translating  the  OT 
into  German ;  ||  I'esaro,  1494  (?,  see  Wolf,  Biblio- 
tlieca  Heb.  ii.  364,  iv.  109;  B.  Rig<'enbach,  Das 
Chronikondes  Konrad  Pellikan,  Basel,  1877,  p.  20). 

B.  Sl.XTEBSTU  CENTUnr.—lleh.  OT,  Pesaro, 
1511-1517,  folio,  2  vols.  ||  The  Complutensian  Poly- 
glot, Alcala,  1514-1517,   Vetus  testametUii  multi- 


plici  linqua  nfic  primo  impressum,  folio,  4  vols, 
(Heb.,  LXX,  Vulg.,  Targ.  Onk.).  No  accents; 
the  vowel  points  cannot  be  relied  ujion.  The 
editors  used,  for  tlie  compilation  of  their  Heb. 
text,  the  Lisbon  Pent.  (1491),  the  Naples  OT 
(1491-1493),  and  the  MS  of  the  OT  in  the  Madrid 
University  Library  No.  1.  The  consonantal  text  is, 
according  to  Ginshurg  (p.  917),  remarkably  accurate 
and  of  great  import.ance.  ||  First  Kabbinical  Bible, 
folio,  4  vols.,  Venice,  1516-1517.  The  editor,  Felix 
Pratensis,  was  the  first  to  indicate,  in  a  purely 
Hebrew  Bible,  the  Christian  chapters  *  on  the 
margin  of  the  Heb.  OT,  and  to  divide  Samuel, 
Kings,  Ezra,  and  Chronicles  each  into  two  books. 
He  was  likewise  the  first  to  give,  though  not  con- 
sistently, the  consonants  of  the  A'^rcin  the  margin. 
II  The  first  Venice  quarto  Bible  (1516-1517)  is  only 
a  re-issue  of  the  folio,  without  the  Targuras  and 
the  commentaries.  ||  The  second  Rabbinical  Bible, 
folio,  4  vols.,  Venice,  1524-1525,  with  the  Mas(s)ora 
collected  and  arranged  by  Jacob  ben  Chayim  ibn 
Adonijah.  '  No  textual  redactor,'  says  Ginshurg 
(p.  964), '  of  modem  days,  who  professes  to  edit  the 
Heb.  text  according  to  the  Mas(s)ora,  can  deviate 
from  it  without  giving  conclusive  justification  for 
so  doing.'  II  Third  Rabbinical  Bible,  1547-1548; 
fourth,  1568,  Venice,  folio,  4  vols.  ;  ||  Biblia  Sacra, 
Hehraice,  Greece  et  Latine,  Antwerp,  1569-1572, 
folio  [OT  vols,  i.-iv.] ;  printed  at  the  expense  of 
Philip  II.  (hence  sumamed  Biblia  Rcrjia),  ed.  Arias 
Montanus.  ||  Of  the  great  number  of  other  editions 
we  will  mention  here  but  two :  "  npo  Hebraica 
Biblia  Latina  planeque  nova  S.  Munsteri  tralatione 
.  .  .  adiectis  insuper  d  Rabinorum  comentarijs  an- 
notationibus,  Basel,  1534-1535,  folio,  2  vols.  [2nd 
ed.  1546] ;  and  vipn  yn  Biblia  Sacra  eleganti  et 
majuscula  characterum  forma,  gtM  .  .  .  literce 
radicalcs  [plents  et  niqrce]  <fc  serviles,  deficientes  ds 
quiescentss  tbc.  [vacuce]  situ  et  colore  discemuntur. 
Authore  Elia  Huttero,  Hamburg,  1587,  folio. 

C.  SEfrENTEEyTB  C£JVr(7ijr.— Fifth  Rabbinical 
Bible,  Venice,  1617-1619 ;  sixth,  Basel,  1618-1619, 
re\'ised  and  edited  by  J.  Buxtorf  the  elder ;  un- 
fortunately, he  altered  the  vowel  points  in  the 
Targums  according  to  the  Aram,  portions  of  Daniel 
and  Ezra.  II  The  Paris  Polyglot,  printed  at  the 
expense  of  the  Paris  barrister,  Guy  Michel  le  Jay, 
1629-1645,  folio  [OT  vols,  i.-iv.].  ||  Much  better,  and 
indeed  the  best  of  all  the  Polyglot  Bibles,  are  the 
Biblia  sacra  pohjglotta,  ed.  Brian  Walton,  London, 
1657,  folio  [OT  vols,  i.-iv.].  ||  The  basis  of  nearly 
all  the  newer  editions  are  the  Biblia  Hebraica 
.  .  .  lemnuitibus  Latinis  illustrata  k  J.  Leusden, 
Amsterdam,  1667,  publisher  Athias.  ||  Biblia  He- 
braica ...  ex  recensione  D.  E.  Jablonski,  Berlin, 
1699.  The  latter  follows  Leusden's  edition,  but 
has  collated  also  other  edd.  and  some  MSS.  In 
the  Preface  he  states  that  he  has  found  and  cor- 
rected more  than  2000  errata  in  the  Bible  of  1667. 

D.  ElGHTEENTU  CEXTURr.— Biblia  Hebraica 
.  .  .  recensita  .  .  .  ab  Everardo  van  der  Hooght, 
Arastel.Tdami  et  Ultrajecti,  1705.  This  OT  ia 
very  often  extolled  as  the  best  octavo  ed.  of  the 
Bible,  but  without  sufficient  reason.  The  ed.  of 
the  Biblia  Hebraica,  Amstelaedami,  1725,  pub.  by 
Salomo  ben  Joseph  Props,  is  far  superior.  ||  Scventli 
Rabbinical  Bible :  r:vD  niVnp  lEO,  ])ub.  by  Moses  of 
Frankfort,  Amsterdam,  1724-1727,  folio,  4  vols.  || 
J.  H.  Michaelis,  Biblia  Hebraica,  ex  alvjuot  manu- 
scriptis  et  compluribus  im^ressis  codicibus,  item 
vutsora . . .  diligenter  recensita.  Accedunt  loca  scrip- 
tvrm  parallela  .  .  .  brevesque  adnotationes,  Halle, 
1720.  This  is  the  first  printed  attempt  at  a  critical 
edition.  The  Erfurt  MSS  collated  by  Michaelis 
are  now  m  Berlin.  ||  The  Mantua  Bible,  1742-1744, 

*  The  division  of  the  books  of  the  Bible  into  chapters  was  tbs 
device  of  Stephen  Langton  of  Canterbury  (120S  A.D.),  who  intra 
duced  it  in  the  Vulgate. 


TEXT  OF  THE  OLD  TEST.UIEXT 


TEXT  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT    T27 


4°,  pub.  by  Raphael  Cliayim  Basila,  contains 
■jMiomo  Norzi's  nias(8)oreticaJ  commentary  on  tlie 
OT.  II  B.  Kennieott,  Vetus  Test.  Ilcb.  cum  vnrii'.- 
Uctionibiis,  Oxford,  1776,  1780,  folio,  2  vols.,  ^'ives 
the  text  of  van  der  liooght,  without  the  vowel 
points  and  accents.  Tlie  MSS  are  for  the  most 
part  verj'  perfunctorily  collated  (cf.  Bruns'  ed.  of 
the  Dis.iertatio  Generalis,  and  see  below,  ii.  J). 

E.  SlXi:TEEXru  CEXTaiiY.—Biblia  Flcbraica 
,  .  .  recensita  ab  E.  van  der  Hooght.  Editio  nova 
emendata  a  J.  D'AlIemand,  London,  1S22,  and 
often.  II  Bibl.  ffeb.  .  .  .  reeensuit  Aug.  Hahu, 
Leipzig,  1S31,  and  often.  II  Bibl.  Neb.  .  .  .  curavit 
C.  G.  a.  Tlieile,  Leipzig,  1849,  and  often.  ||  [Chris- 
tian] David  Ginsburg,  D'pi''°  sJip'T  "iso  nyDiKi  o"icy 
ni-ijni  D'£3i'?n  cy  .  .  .  3B'n,  London,  1894,  2  vols. 

V.  EDITIONS  WITHOUT  VOWKL  POIXTS  AXD 
ACCEXTS. — Bibl.  Ileb.  non punctata  .  . .  accuranti- 
bus  Joh.  Leusdeno  &  Joh.  Andr.  Eisenmengero, 
Francofurti,  1694,  16°°.  II  Bibl.  Heh.  sine  punctis, 
Amstela;darai  et  Ultrajecti,  1701,  16"°.  ||  nsinn  ]ipn 
iiiip.-n,  Pent.  ed.  S.  Haer,  Roedelheim,  1866,  and 
often.  II  Bibl.  Sac.  Heb.  :  Pent.,  Jos.,  Jud.,  Ham., 
Psalmi  .  .  .  stTic  punctis  ediderunt  R.  Sinker  et 
E.  T.  Leeke,  Cambridge,  1870.  ||  The  Psalm.i  in 
Heb.,  withuut  points,  Oxford  [Clarendon  Press]. 

G.  S.  BAKU'S  EDD.  OP  SEl'AHATE  BOOKS  (those 
issued  do%vn  to  1890  have  prefaces  by  F.  Delitzsch), 
Leipzig:  Genesis,  1869;  Jos.,  Jud.,  1891;  Sam., 
1892;  Kings,  1895;  Isaiah,  1872;  Jer.,  1890; 
Ezekiel,  1884;  Minor  Proph.,  1878;  Psalms,  1880; 
Prov.,  1880;  Job,  1875;  Megilloth,  1885;  Dan., 
Ezr.,  Neh.,  1882;  Chron.,  1888.  Cf.  H.  Strack  in 
Theol.  Litztg.  1379,  No.  8,  and  Ginsburg's  criticisms 
in  his  Introduction. 

H.  Critical  EDITIOXS.—The  Sacred  Books  of 
the  or :  a  critical  ed.  of  the  Heb.  text,  printed  in 
colours  .  .  .  under  the  editorial  direction  of  Paul 
Ilaupt :  Leipzig,  Baltimore,  and  London,  4°.  The 
following  have  aijpeared  at  the  date  of  this  article  : 
Genesis  by  C.  J.  Ball,  1896 ;  Leviticus  by  Driver 
and  White,  1894;  Numbers  by  J.  A.  Paterson, 
1900;  Joshua  by  W.  H.  Bennett,  1895;  Judges 
by  G.  F.  Moore,  1900;  Samuel  by  Budde,  1894; 
Isaiah  by  Clieyne,  1899;  Jeremiah  by  Cornill,  1895; 
Ezekiel  by  Toy,  1900 ;  Ps.-ilms  by  J.  Wellhausen, 
1895  ;  Proverbs  by  A.  Miiller  and  E.  Kautzsch, 
1901;  Job  by  C.  Siegfried,  1893;  Daniel  by  A. 
Kamphausen,  1896  ;  Ezra-Neheniiah  by  H.  Guthe 
and  L.  W.  Batten,  1901;  Chronicles  by  R.  Kittel,  1895. 

A  critical  edition  of  the  Aramaic  portions  of 
the  OT  is  given  by  the  present  writer  in  his 
Grammatik  des  Bibli-ich- Aramiiisrhen',  Leipzig, 
1901  (Dn  3u-»-»-M  i^'-T  also  with  supralinear 
punctuation). 

LiTiRATURi. — Joh.  Chr.  WoK,  Bibtwtheca  Bebrcea,  Hambuts, 
U.  (IVJl)  pp.  30-1-385  (on  whole  Uible),  386-413  (on  parts), 
Iv.  (17:i:i)  pp.  I(i*-123  (Bible),  123-164  (parts);  II  Jac.  le  iMag, 
Bildiollteca  tacra  .  .  .  continuata  ab  A.  O.  Masch,  Halle,  i. 
(1778)  pp.  1-180;  1  J.  B.  de  Rossi,  AniuiUe  iKbraa  ■  typo- 
graphici  sec.  AT.,  Panna,  1795,  Annates  hebrceo-lypfgr.  ab 
anno  MI)I  ad  MDXL  diOi-M,  Panna,  1790,  De  ignotvt  nonnullu 
antiquijm.mis  hebraici  UxttiK  fdilionibits  ac  crilieo  earutn  turn, 
Krlanircn,  1782 ;  B.  W.  I).  Schulzc,  VulUUindu/en  Kritik  iiber 
die  yi-wvhnlichen  Axugaben  der  heb.  Uibel,  tuhtt.  .  .  .  Xachricht 
Vim  der  Ueb.  liibel,  wrlche  der  gel.  D.  Luther  bey  seiner  i'ber- 
selzumj  qebrnueht,  Berlin,  1706;  I  M.  Sk-inschncider,  Cata- 
Iwftu  tibrt/rum  /lebraorum  in  bildiotheca  Hfidteiana,  Berlin, 
1862(1.,  cols.  1-164  ;  II  B.  Piclc,  '  History  ol  the  printed  editions 
o(  the  OT'  In  Uebraica,  \x.  (1892-1803),  pp.  47-110:  II  Ch.  D. 
GinsbiirK,  Introd.  to  the  masnoretico-critical  ed.  oj  the  Ilfb. 
Bilile,  London,  1897,  pp.  779-970  (describes  84  early  printed  edd. 
of  the  whole  OT  or  of  parts  of  it). 

On  the  Polyi,'lot  Bibles  :  Wolf,  ii.  832-304,  Iv.  OO-IOT ;  lo  I-ong- 
Moach,  1.  3:!l-408;  Kd.  Rcuss  in  PRE'*  xii.  96-103;  Frani 
Delitzsch,  Zur  Enlttehungsfjesch.  der  Pohifjlotteubihel  des  Kar. 
dinals  Ximmes,  Leipii|{.  1871,  1878,  1880  (44,  38,  and  60  pp.),  4*. 

ii.  The  Manuscript.s.— A.  Polls.— The  oldest 
form  of  book  is  the  roll  (n^jp,  volu7ncn).  Even 
at  the  present  day  the  books  which  are  read  aloud 
in  the  principal  |)art  of  the  synagogue  service  are 
written  in  the  roll  form :  namely,  the  Pentateuch 


(.Tj'iBn  hep),  from  which  a  pardxha  is  read  every 
Sabbath,  and  the  five  Megilloth  (nuinque  volumina), 
namely,  tlie  Song  of  Songs  {read  at  the  Passover), 
Ruth  (at  Feast  of  Weeks),  Lamentations  (on 
anniversary  of  Destruction  of  Jerusalem  by  the 
Chaldajans),  Ecclesiastes  (at  Feast  of  Tabernacles), 
Esther  (at  Feast  of  Purini). 

The  material  of  the  rolls  is  usually  parchment ; 
in  the  East,  leather  was  also  employed.  At  the 
beginning  and  the  end  there  is  a  wooden  roller 
(C'CO  CJ!  'the  tree  of  life'),  and  the  columns  that 
have  been  read  are  rolled  up  on  the  first  of  these. 
Neither  vowel  signs  nor  accents  are  present.  In 
seven  parchment  rolls  at  Tzufutkale  the  present 
writer  noticed  a  point  at  the  end  of  each  verse, 
in  two  of  them  two  points.  The  letters  [■  j  M  d  y  r 
have  generally  -small  ornamental  strokes  (I'Jn  coro- 
nuUe).  Between  each  book  of  the  Torah  four 
lines  are  left  blank.  The  whole  Pent,  is  divided 
into  669  sections  (pardshas  nvp-;-!),  which  are  called, 
according  to  the  character  of  the  spaces  which 
separate  them,  open  {apertas  nimn5,  marked  D)  or 
closed  (clauscB,  niDin9,  marked  D).  The  54  Sabbath 
pcricopes  are  marked  £33  and  DDD  respectively 
(with  the  exception  of  the  12th,  Gn  47^,  at  whose 
commencement  the  intervening  space  is  only  that 
of  one  letter).  Six  words,  whose  initial  letters 
are  inr  .t3  (Ps  G8'),  stand,  particularly  in  Spanish 
(Sephardic)  MSS,  at  the  beginning  of  a  column  : 
nTKia  Gn  1',  mi.-i'  Gn  49*,  D'Ksn  Ex  14»8,  -jC  Lv  \&, 
nD  Nu  24»,  and  m-yxl  Dt  31=» ;  in  others,  par- 
ticularly the  (Jerni.an  (Ashkcnazite)  MSS,  the  a  and 
D  are  represented  by  Dt  16'"  d-dbb"  (or  12-^  tdp)  and 
23^"  NsiD.  Instead  of  mi.T  some  MSS  have  tzve'  of 
Gn  49"  at  the  commencement  of  a  column.  Many 
copyists  begin  each  column  with  a  new  verse,  some 
begin  each  with  the  letter  wati),  D'"!i::j,'n  ii.  The 
poetical  passages  Ex  15  and  Dt  32  are  written  (and 
even  printed)  in  artistically  constructed  divisions. 
On  these  and  other  rules  to  be  observed  by  the 
writers  of  rolls,  see  the  Literature.  Epigraphs  are 
rare.  The  rules  that  have  to  be  observed  by  a 
modern  copyist  of  a  Torah  roll  may  be  learned 
very  conveniently  from  S.  Baer's  ed.  of  the  Penta- 
teuch, Nnip.Ti  TsiD.T  jipn,  Rccdelheim,  1866  and  often. 

B.  MSS  in  book  form.  These  may  contain  the 
whole  Bible,  or  one  or  two  of  its  four  principal 
parts  (Pent.,  PropheUe  priores.  Prophetic  pos- 
teriores,  Ilagiographa).  The  material  is  either 
parchment  or  paper  (on  the  employment  of  the 
latter  see  Steinscnneider,  Ilandschriftenkunde,  p. 
18  f.,  and  cf.  art.  WRITING).  The  size  is  very  fre- 
quently quarto  ;  in  ancient  times  folio  is  commoner 
tlian  octavo.  Almost  all  codices  have  vowels  and 
accents.  The  omi.ssion  of  the  double  point  soph 
pa^k  at  the  end  of  the  ver.se  is  rare  (four  codd.  at 
Tzufutkale,  and  cod.  Brit.  Mus.  Orient.  4445 ;  see 
Ginsburg,  Introd.  p.  473) ;  still  rarer  is  the  placing 
of  only  a  single  point  (cod.  Tzufut.  102). — Most 
MSS  contain  also  mas(s)oi-a,  i.e.  observations  on 
the  number  of  times  that  particular  words  and 
word-forms  occur  :  mas(s)ora  parva  (I^irS  and 
KUhibh ;  the  indication  of  the  number  of  occur- 
rences of  a  word  or  word-form,  e.g.  b  =  twice,  ^^^p  = 
134  times)  on  the  side  margins  ;  »H/j.s(.s)ora  mngrui 
(detailed  lists  with  citation  of  pa.s.sages)  on  the 
top  and  bottom  nuirgins  ;  mns(s)ora  finalis  ;  some 
MSS  have  Ma»(s)orclic  material  also  at  the  begin- 
ning. The  extent  of  these  observations  was  regu- 
lated by  the  s|)ace  avaihiMe,  the  inclination  of  the 
copyist,  and  the  remuneration  oll'ered  by  the  man 
who  ordered  the  cojiy.  Some  copyists  wrote  part 
of  the  7/i«.v(.v)oro  maqna  in  figures  (animaU,  leaves, 
etc.)  formed  by  elaborate  flourishes,  so  that  the 
reading  is  at  times  a  matter  of  no  little  dilliculty. 
Such  embellishments  have  also  proved  not  infre- 
quently detrimental  to  the  accuracy  of  the  copy- 


728     TEXT  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 


TEXT  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 


Highly  valuable,  but  unfortunately  found  only  in 
a  portion  of  the  MSS,  are  the  epigraplis,  especially 
wnen  these  give  the  date,  the  country,  and  the 
name  of  the  scribe. — The  punctuation  and  the 
mas(s)ora  are  frequently  not  from  tlie  liand  of  tlie 
writer  of  the  consonantal  text,  but  liave  been 
added  by  one  or  two  other  scribes.  The  punctuator 
is  called  |^pj. 

C.  A  scientific  examination  and  collating  of  all 
ancient  or  otherwise  important  MSS  of  the  OT  has 
not  as  yet  been  undertaken.  Collections  of  vari- 
ous readings  are  given  bj'  Sal.  Norzi,  J.  H. 
Michaelis,  and  B.  Kennicott  (see  above,  i.  D), 
J.  B.  de  Rossi  (below,  J),  S.  Baer  (i.  U),  and  Ch. 
T>.  Ginsburg  (i.  £).  Some  of  the  most  important 
MSS  are— 

(a)  Codex  of  the  Former  and  the  Latter  Pro- 
phets, written  by  Moses  ben  Aslier  8'J7  years  after 
the  destruction  of  the  temple,  i.e.  A.D.  895,  now  in 
the  Karaite  synagogue  at  Cairo.  See  M.  Weiss- 
mann  in  the  Heb.  weekly  Uamaij'jid  i.  (1857),  Nos. 
47,  48,  50,  ii.  16  ;  Jacob  Sappir,  t2D  pK,  Lyck, 
1866,  fol.  14 ;  on  the  other  side  Ad.  Neubauer  in 
Studia  Biblica,  iii.  (Oxford,  1891)  pp.  25-27.— 
(b)  Bible  written  by  Kyx'n  p  naHa ;  the  vowel 
points,  the  accents,  and  the  7nas(s)ora  are  added, 
according  to  an  epigraph,  by  Aaron  ben  Asher. 
It  is  now  in  the  possession  of  the  Jewish  com- 
munity at  Aleppo.  See  Sappir,  fol.  12,  13, 
17-20  ;  Strack,  Frolecjomena,  pp.  44-46,  and  in 
Baer-Strack,  Die  Dikduke  ha-t'nmim  des  Akron  ben 
Moscheh  ben  Asclier,  Leipzig,  1879,  pp.  ix-xiv.  W. 
Wickes  (Treatise  on  the  accentuation  of  ike  twenty- 
one  so-called  prose-boo/cs  of  the  OT,  Oxford,  1887, 
p.  Lx)  contends  that  this  epigraph  '  is  a  fabrica- 
tion, merely  introduced  to  enhance  the  value '  of 
the  codex.  The  present  writer  is  still  doubtful 
whether  Wickes  is  right.  Ginsburg  {Introd.  p. 
242)  does  not  call  in  question  the  credibility  of  the 
epigraph.  —  (c)  St.  I'etersburg  Bible  written  at 
Cairo  m  the  year  1009  by  Samuel  ben  Jacob,  who 
declares  that  he  copied  the  codex  of  Aaron  ben 
Asher.  See  Harkavj'-Strack,  Catalogue,  pp.  263- 
274.  Wickes  (I.e.)  says,  indeed,  that  the  codex 
'  is  much  younger,'  but  the  present  writer  feels 
certain  that  he  is  wrong.  Ginsburg,  too,  believes 
in  the  trustworthiness  of  the  epigraphs. — (d)  Pro- 
phetarum  pofiteriurum  codex  Babijlonic n.i  Petro- 
politanus  [B3],  edidit  H.  L.  Strack,  Leipzig,  1876 
(449  and  37  pp.),  fol.  max.,  written  A.D.  916.     Re- 

farding  the  readings  of    this  MS  see  Ginsburg, 
ntrod.  pp.  215-230,  439-441,  475  f. 

D.  The  arje  of  many  MSS  is  much  controverted. 
Cod.  Brit.  Mus.  Add.  4708  (Latter  Propliets)  was 
assigned  by  the  late  Dr.  >L  Margoliouth  to  the 
6th  cent. ;  Mor.  Heidenheim  judged  that  it  might 
have  been  written  between  the  6th  and  the  Stli 
cent.  ;  B.  Kennicott  (cod.  126)  ascribed  it  to  the 
beginning  of  the  15th  century.  Ginsburg  says: 
'  The  writing  is  such  as  we  meet  with  in  the 
Sephardic  codices  of  the  12th  and  13th  centuries,' 
and,  so  far  as  the  present  writer  can  judge  without 
having  examined  the  MS  for  himself,  Ciinsburg  is 
right.  II  Tlie  Bible  Cambridge  12  bears  the  date 
'  7  Adar,  616,'  i.e.  18th  Feb.  856  A.D.  We  wonder 
that  so  sagacious  and  learned  a  scholar  as  the  late 
S.  M.  Schiller-Szinessy  accepted  this  date  as  correct 
(see  his  Catnlor/ue,  p.  13).  Cf.  L.  Zunz,  Zur  Gesch. 
u.  Literalur,  Berlin,  1845,  p.  214  f.  ;  Ad.  Neubauer 
in  Studia  Biblica,  iii.  pp.  27-36. 

The  number  of  unquestionably  genuine  ancient 
epigraplis  in  Bible  MS  is  not  largo.  At  Tzufutkale 
the  present  writer  in  1874  noted  tlie  following, 
which  emanate  from  the  writers  of  the  MSS  them- 
selves :  922  A.D.  =  1234  Seleuc,  cod.  34,  Moses 
ben  Naphtali,  known  as  a  contemporary  of  Aaron 
ben  Asher;  930  A.D.  =  1241  Seleuc,  cod.  35/36, 
Balomo  ben  ki'k-id,  mas(s)ora  written  by  Ephraim 


ben  NVfCU  ;  943  A.D.  =  4703  of  the  Creation,  cod. 
39,  Lsaak  ben  Jochai ;  952  A.D.  =4712  of  tha 
Creation,  cod.  40,  Joseph  ben  Daniel  ;  961  A.D. 
=  4721  of  the  Creation,  cod.  4  ;  989  A.D.  =  1300 
Seleuc,  cod.  43,  Joseph  ben  Jacob;  994  A.D.  = 
4754  of  the  Creation,  cod.  44,  Moses  ben  Hillel  | 
1051  A.D.=4811of  the  Creation,  cod.  11,  Moses(?) 
ben  Anan. — Unfortunately,  the  Karaite  Abraham 
Firkowitsch  (both  in  hislirst  collections  and  in  tha 
latest  just  mentioned,  which  since  1875  has  like- 
wise been  in  St.  Petersburg)  either  himself  wrote 
entirely  a  great  many  epigraphs,  or  falsified  them 
by  altering  dates  and  names.  For  instance,  in 
cod.  Tzufut.  11  he  changed  4811  of  the  Creation 
into  4411  =  651  A.D.  ! 

Much  fresh  information  is  to  be  hoped  for  from 
the  treasures  of  the  Genizah  of  Old  Cairo  brought 
by  S.  Schechter  to  Cambridge  ;  see  the  description 
of  the  Genizah  by  E.  N.  Adler  in  the  JQR,  1897, 
p.  669  if. 

E.  Why  is  the  number  of  ancient  MSS  of  the 
Heb.  OT  so  small  ?  Why  have  we  no  MSS  as  old 
as  those  of  the  NT,  the  LXX,  and  the  Peshitta  T 
The  reasons  are :  (1)  Not  a  few  Bible  MSS,  espe- 
cially Pentateuch  rolls,  were  destroyed  by  fanatical 
Christians  during  the  persecutions  of  the  Jews 
in  the  Middle  Ages,  particularly  in  the  time  of 
the  Crusades.  (2)  A  much  larger  number,  how- 
ever, of  MSS  were  destroyed  by  the  Jews  them- 
selves by  means  of  the  genizah  (ni'ia).  Already 
the  Talmud  (Megilla,  26i)  tells  of  how  a  worm- 
eaten  Pentateuch  roll  is  buried  beside  the  corpse 
of  a  sage ;  cf .  Shulhan  'A  rukh,  Joreh  De'ah,  282, 
§  10.  This  custom  was  later  extended  to  all  Heb. 
MSS  of  Biblical  and  non-Biblical  texts,  frequently, 
indeed,  with  the  modification  that  a  room,  generally 
a  cellar,  in  the  synagogue  was  devoted  to  their 
concealment.  To  the  dryness  of  the  Egyptian 
climate  we  owe  the  abundance  of  the  material 
which,  as  was  mentioned  above,  has  been  found  in 
the  synagogue  of  Old  Cairo.  But  it  was  not  only 
such  MSS  as  had  been  damaged  by  the  tooth  of 
time,  by  fire,  by  water,  or  by  constant  use,  that 
were  deposited  in  the  genizah ;  further,  all  Torah 
rolls  that  contained  more  than  three  mistakes  in  a 
column  had  to  be  concealed  (see  Talm.  Menahoth, 
296;  Shulhan  ' Arukh,  Joreh  Deah,  279).  This 
rule  partly  explains  how  the  MSS  that  have  come 
down  to  us  represent  in  the  main  one  and  the 
same  text.  Codices  which  deviated  from  the  text 
of  the  recognized  nakddnlm  and  the  mas(s)oretio 
principles  were  considered  '  incorrect,'  and  were 
consigned  to  the  genizah.  A  very  notal)Ie  instance 
of  this  is  the  codex  of  916  A.D.  found  by  Abr. 
Firkowitsch  (cf.  A.  Firk.,  pnDi  'i^n,  Wilna,  1872, 
p.  12,  No.  29).  Hence  the  present  writer  is  unable 
to  adopt  the  view  of  J.  Olsliau.sen,  P.  de  Lagarde, 
and  most  moderns,  that  all  Heb.  JISS  go  back  to 
a  single  standard  copy  (cf.  also  his  discussion  in 
G.  A.  Kohut'a  Semitxc  Studies,  Berlin,  1897,  pp. 
56.3-571). 

F.  LiTERATOM.— In  preneml :  Wolf,  Bihlioth.  Heb.  U.  281-832, 
iv.  78-93 ;  II  O.  G.  T^xhsen,  Tentanun  de  variis  codicum  Heb. 
iteneribtts,  Rostock,  1772  ;  Befreyctes  Tentainen,  1774  ;  II  J.  O. 
Eiclihorn,  Einleit.  in  das  AT*,  ii.  468-684,  Oottingen,  1823 ;  I 
H.  L.  Strack,  Prole'jotnena  critica  in  VT  llcb.,  Leipzig,  1873, 
pp.  9-58  [this  book  iiaa  been  lontr  out  of  print ;  the  author  hopea 
to  write  a  new  work  on  the  sul)ject) ;  '  Die  bibliachen  und  die 
nias3oret.  Ilandschriften  zu  Tscliuf ut  -  Kale  in  der  Krim  '  in 
Xlachr.  f.  luther.  Theolonie,  187.5,  pp.  687-624  ;  ||  M.  Stein- 
schneider,  Vorlfsttn^en  iiber  die  Kunde  ftebraischer  Hand- 
schri/ten,  deren  Samtiiliingen  und  Verzcichnisae,  Leipzig,  1897 
(110  pp.);  I  Ad.  Netibauer,  'The  Introduction  of  the  square 
characters  in  liiblical  MSS,  and  an  account  of  the  earliesi 
llSSof  the  OT'  in  Sludia  Biblica  et  Kecies.  iii.  (Oxford,  1S91) 
pp.  1-36. 

G.  On  rules  for  the  writing  of  rolls  destined  for8.vnagogue  UMI 
Joel  Miiller,  Masechet  Sojerim  [cnnc  nr;:j],  Der  talmud. 
Traclal  der  Schreibcr,  eine  L'inteit.  in  das  Studium  der  altheb. 
GrapUih,  der  Masora  und  der  alt'iild.  Liturijie^  Leipzig,  1878  ;  f 
J.  G.  Chr.  Adler,  Judceorum  codicil  mcri  rits  scribendi  leges, 
Hamburg,  1779  (chs.    L  -  T.    o«  'lO  DO]  ;  I  Baph.  Kuchbeim, 


TEXT  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAilENT 


TEXT  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT     72S 


Septem  tibri  Tahnwlici  parfi  H Urosoti/mitani,  Frankfurt 
ft.  M.,  ISftl.  pp.  1-11  '.Sepher  torah ' ;  Moses  ^laiinonides.  Hit- 
khoth  UphiiUn  umezuzah  ux^yher  torah  (sep.inite  impre»sion  of 
ctis.  viL-x.  in  Jac  Uenr.  van  BashuyseD,  Obicrvattoiics  nacne, 
Frankfurt,  1708] ;  I  Leop.  Low,  Graphiache  licquisUen  nnd 
Erzeugni»$e  bei  den  Juden,  2  vols.,  Leipzig,  1870-71 ;  :,  Salomo 
Qanzfried,  DiiU  kethibath  ^epher  torah,  etc.,  Unjr^-ar,  1800  ;  ||  A. 
O.  Waehncr,  Antiquitates  Ebrieorumt  L,  UcittiugeD,  1743,  pp. 
187-2U8. 

II.  Catalogues  of  important  coUectioni  of  MSS. — Berlin  :  M. 
Steinschneider,  /)«*  I'erzfichnisi  der  heb.  Uand^chri/lrn,  1878 
(149  pp.)  and  1S'J7  (172  pp.),  4».  I  Cambridge:  S.  M.  Schiller- 
Szinefisy,  Catahxjue  o/  the  Iteb,  MSS  preserceU  in  the  Cnu-ertiUy 
Lilirarii,  i.  1S70  (248  pp.).  I  Florence :  A.  M.  BiBcioni,  Ilil,iio- 
thecre  Ebraicir  Gr>rcie  Ftarentina  .  .  .  Cataiogus,  1757.  I 
London,  British  .Museum  :  Oinsburg,  Introduction,  pp.  Hj&- 
726  (describes  49  M.SS  collated  for  bis  edition  of  the  OT]  ;  U. 
Uoerning.  Description  and  Collation  of  six  Karaite  iISS  of 
portions  of  the  Ileb.  liihle  in  Arabic  characters,  London,  1S89 
(68  pp.  and  42  facsimiles).  P  Oxford  :  Ad.  Neubauer,  Catalogue 
of  tlie  Ueb.  iISS  in  ttte  Bodleian  Library,  Oxford,  18SB  (11C8 
coU.  and  40  facsimiles).  An  Appendix  by  Ad.  Neubuuerand  \.  K. 
Cowley  is  in  the  press.  II  Paraia  :  J/55  codices  hebraici  biblioth, 
J.  B.  de  Rossi,  Parma,  1803,  3  vols.  I  St.  Petersburg:  A. 
Harkavy  und  H.  L.  Strack,  Catalog  der  heb.  Bibelhandsciiriften 
der  kaiserL  6ffenU.  Bibliotftek  zu  St,  Petersburg/,  Leipzig',  1876 
(296  pp.).  I  Itome  :  Bibliotheca  Apostoliciv  Vaticanm  codicum 
inanu  scriptorum  Catalogus  .  .  .  Steph.  Evod,  Assemanua  et 
Jos.  Sim.  Assemanus  .  .  .  receoBuerunt,  vol.  L,  Kom,  17.'i6,  foL 
(Ueb.  and  Sam.  MSS).  [|  Turin  :  B.  Peyron,  Codices  hebraici 
.  .  ,  in  Taurinensi  Ath''n(ro,  18S0.  I  Vienna:  A.  Krafft  und  S. 
Deutsch,  Die  handichri/U.  heb.  Werke  der  K.  E.  Uofbibliothek 
tu  Wien,  1847,  4». 

J.  On  the  MS^  collated  for  Kennicott'a  work  (above,  1.  D): 
Dissertatw  generaiis  in  VT  Heb.  .  .  .  auctore  B.  KcmiicotL 
Uecudi  curavit  et  notas  adiecit  P.  J.  Bruns,  Bnmswick,  1783 
(.'>9«  pp.).  I  J.  B.  de  Rossi,  Variir  lectiones  Vet.  Test.,  Parma, 
1784-88,  4",  and  Scholia  critica  in  VT  libros,  1798,  4»  (describes 
not  only  his  own  MSS,  but  all  the  codd.  used  by  or  for  Ken- 
uicott  which  he  ha^l  been  able  to  see  for  himself]. 

K.  Facsimiles  of  Bible  MSS  :  The  Palajojrraphical  Society's  Fac- 
timiles  of  ancient  Jf.S'5  (Orient,  series),  ed.  W.  Wright,  London, 

ft.  ill.  plate  40:  Brit.  Mus,  Harley  5720,  Fonner  and  Latter 
ropliets,  2  K  1922.35  ('seems  to  be  of  the  12tli  cent.*);  plate 
41 ;  Cambridge  Univ.  2.5,  Hagiographa  with  Targum,  Dn  l'-*, 
Jan.  1347  a.d.;  pt.  iv.  (1879)  plate  S4  :  Brit.  Mus.  Orient.  14«7, 
Pent,  and  Targ.  Onk.  with  the  supralinear  vowel  signs,  Nu  22*1- 
23'^  ('written  in  Babylonia  or  Persia,  about  the  12tli  cent.').  || 
Ad.  Neubauer,  Facsimiles  of  Heb.  MSS  in  the  Bodleian  Lib- 
rar'j,  Oxford,  1888,  plate  1,  cat.  64  :  Dt  95-7,  with  supralinear 
vowel  signs  and  accents ;  plate  8,  cat,  2322 :  Gn  li-**.  Span. 
•quare  character,  1476  i.u. ;  plate  14,  cat.  20:  Ex  182»-19'-», 
German,  1340  A.D.;  plate  21,  cat.  1144  :  beginning  of  the  book 
of  Jonah,  followed  by  a  Gr.  tr.,  before  1203  A.b.;  plate  31,  cat. 
2828:  2  S  22^",  Yemen,  15C1  a.d.;  plate  38,  cat.  2484  :  Pr  414-63, 
Yemen,  with  the  simpliHed  supralinear  punctuation  ;  plate  30  ; 
Mai  1^213,  unknown  characters,  from  a  MS  in  private  posses- 
lion  in  Kertsch  (oee  A.  Harkavy,  Netiaufgefuixdene  heb.  Bibel- 
handschriften,  St.  Petersb.  und  Leipzig,  1884  (48  pp.  and  6 
focsim.]).  u  Ch.  D.  Oinsburg,  .4  «<fm»o/lt/'t«n/ac«Tni7*«/rom 
MS  pages  of  the  Ueb.  Bible,  vnth  a  tetterpress  description, 
London,  1897,  fol.  max.  [13  of  these  MSS  are  in  the  Brit.  Mus., 
1  is  in  the  possession  of  the  Earl  of  Leicester,  1  Is  cod.  Petropol. 
Bltl  A.D.].  I  B.  Sla<le  (dVI)  gives  facsim.  of :  cod.  Petropol.  910 
A.D, ;  cod.  Karlsruhe  1  [Kennicott  164],  Former  and  Latter 
Prophets  with  Targum,  once  in  the  possession  of  Ucuchlin, 
1  S  :iirai-3I» ;  Erfurt  Bible,  now  Beriin  Orient,  fol.  1213,  Is  1'  2fl ; 
Hagiographa.  with  the  simplified  supralinear  punctuation, 
Yemen,  Berlin  Orient,  Quarto  680,  Pa  101*-10211.  II  W.  Wickes 
{Accentuation  of  the  Prose  books)  givea  as  frontispiece  a  photo- 
graph (reduced  scale)  of  a  page  of  the  Aleppo  codex,  (in  203^ 
2730.  I  Ad.  Neubauer  in  Stuaia  Biblica  et  tccles.  iii.  gives  fac- 
simile of  cod.  Cairo  a.d.  897  and  cod.  Cambridge  12  (see  above, 
D).  I  On  otber  facsimiles  (mostly  from  non-IJiblical  MSS) 
see  M.  Steinschneider,  '  Zur  Literatur  der  heb.  Palajographio  * 
in  Centralblatt  fiir  Bibliothekswesen,  1887,  pp.  166-105. 

L.  On  A.  Firkowit*t'h  :  II.  L.  Strack,  A.  Firk.  und  seine  Bnt- 
deckumen,  Leipzig,  1876  (44  pp.);  ZD.Md,  18S0,  pp.  103  1U8; 
Lit.  Centralbt.  1883,  No.  26,  cola.  878-8S0.  II  A.  llarkavv, 
Altjiid.  Dtnkindler  aus  dtr  Krim,  8t  PeU'rsburg,  1876  (288 
PP).  «•• 

iii.  The  Work  of  the  Ma{s)souetes.— Whence 
comes  the  text  of  our  extant  M.SS?  In  all  essen- 
tials, of  course,  from  older  MSS.  Hut  there  is  no 
doubt  that  all  copyists  meant  to  work  rnz~n  •p-'?!;, 
i.e.  according  to  the  traditions  which  had  been 
handed  down  to  them  as  to  the  writing  and  read- 
ing of  the  sacred  texts. 

A.  First  of  all,  as  to  the  word  moo.  It  is  the 
custom  now  in  many  quarters  to  write  n-pT  (cf. 
n-is;,  r-ii;),  and  to  derive  from  the  post-IJiblical  verb 
10D  'hand  down.'  The  older  form  of  writing  it, 
however,  is  n-iny.  This  word  is  taken  from  Ezk203' 
(where  it  siguiUes  '  binding  ',  from  the  root  ■ok),  but 
in  i>ost-BililicaI  usage  it  assumed  quite  a  diil'erent 
■euse  (as  nvnix  of  Is  41^45"  means  in  New  Heb. 


not  '  coming  things '  but  '  letters ').  mcD  in  New 
Heb.  means  idimarily  'tradition,'  e.g.  Mishna, 
iihi-hiliiit,  vi.  1  ;  heuce  the  derivation  from  i;? 
(Aliuth,  i.  1)  might  \>q  per  se  admis.sible,  and  even 
the  pronunciation  /!•;;.•;,  but  the  oldest  witnesses,  as 
has  been  said,  are  in  favour  of  n-;:^.  In  the  next 
place,  moo  stands  for  the  tradition  relating  to  tlie 
interpretation  of  .Scripture.  K.  'Al>iba  s<iys  {Abuth, 
iii.  13),  '  Masoreth  is  a  fence  to  'I'urah,'  i.e.  the 
prescriptions  of  tlie  oral  Law  make  transgression 
of  the  written  Law  ditlicult.  Further,  however, 
the  word  Masoreth  was  applied  to  the  tradition  re- 
lating to  the  Bible  text,  and  tho.se  who  busied 
themselves  with  this  tradition  were  called  '^1^3 
mm,  or  Mal,s)sorctes. 

B.  The  24  books  of  the  OT  were  considered,  at  all 
events  as  early  as  the  l.st  cent,  of  the  Christian  era, 
as  holy  (see  Jos.  c.  Apiun.  i.  8  [cf.  PRE^  vii.  427  f.  = 
'  ix.  7.51  f.]).  It  was  an  object  to  preserve  the  text  of 
these  books,  in  paiticular  and  above  all  that  of  the 
I'entateuch,  and  its  traditional  understiindin;;  for 
coming  generations.  This  was  accomplished  first 
Vy  attention  to  the  consonantal  text. 

(a)  Conscientious  care  on  the  part  of  the  copyists 
was  ensured  by  numerous  rules  about  the  writing 
out  of  Bible  codices,  especially  of  synagogue  rolls 
(cf.  above,  ii.  G). 

(6)  They  counted  the  verses  and  the  words  of 
each  of  the  24  books  and  of  many  sections  ;  they 
reckoned  which  was  the  middle  verse  and  the 
middle  word  of  each  book  ;  nay,  they  counted  the 
letters  both  of  particular  .sections  and  even  of 
whole  books.  The  Talmud,  Kiddushin,  30a,  says: 
'  The  ancients  were  called  Sopherim  because  they 
counted  [-co  '  to  count ']  all  the  letters  in  the  Torah. 
They  said  :  Waw  in  [inj  Lv  11''^  is  the  middle  letter 
in  the  Torah  ;  a-n  a-n  Lv  10"  is  the  middle  word  ; 
nVjn.Ti  Lv  13*"  is  the  middle  verse  ;  Ayin  in  lyo 
Ps  80"  is  the  middle  letter  in  the  Fsalms,  and  ni.h 
cim  Ps  78**  is  the  middle  verse.'  R.  Joseph  asked  : 
'To  which  side  does  waw  in  'gah6n  belong? 
Answer :  Let  us  bring  a  Torah,  and  I  will  count. 
Surely,  Rabba  bar  bar  I.Ianna  has  said  that  they 
did  not  go  away  until  they  liad  brought  a  Torah 
and  counted' (ci.  Morinus,  Excrcitationes  biblicce, 
Paris,  1669,  p.  442).  They  counted  also  the  fre- 
quency of  the  occurrence  of  words,  phra.se.s,  or 
forms,  both  in  the  whole  Bible  and  in  parts  of  it. 
Slutlibitth,  496  :  '  As  the  sages  sat  together,  the 
question  was  raised.  To  what  do  the  3'j  principal 
works  that  are  forbiihlen  on  the  Sabbath  day 
correspond  ?  I,Iaiiina  b.  I,Iama  said  :  To  the  [39] 
works  at  the  building  of  the  tabernacle  ;  Jonathan 
b.  Eleazar  said  in  name  of  Simeon  b.  Jose  :  They 
corres])ond  to  the  39  occurrences  of  the  word  .idnVo 
in  the  Torah.  Then  IJab  Jo.seph  asked,  Does  Gn 
39"  belong  to  the  number  or  not  ?  Abaji  replied, 
Let  him  brini:  a  Lawbook  and  count.' 

(f)  They  coUectcil  notabilia  into  groups,  and  thus 
not  only  helped  the  recollection  or  these,  but  also 
facilitated  the  control  of  the  MSS.  I'"or  instance, 
H  words  written  with  final  waw  are  read  with  he 
(cod.  916  A.D.,  Jer  2^);  14  words  written  with 
linal  Ae  are  read  with  waw  (cod.  916  A.D.,  Ezk 
37-").  There  is  a  great  fondness  for  anything 
alphabetical ;  e.g.  we  have  an  ali>hiilietical  list 
of  words  which  occur  only  twice  in  tlie  OT — once 
with  and  once  without  ivixv  at  the  beginning  : 
n^jK  1  S  1"  and  n)->}]  Gn  27'"  etc.  (cod.  916  A.I>., 
Jer  10'-'). 

((/)  The  scriptio  plena  and  ■<:cri/)lio  dcfcctiva  and 
other  peculiarities  of  the  trailitional  text  were  very 
often  noted  in  the  Haggada  (esp.  in  the  Midrashim), 
and  not  seldom  also  in  the  llahikht'i.  These  notes 
serve  on  the  one  hand  as  a  proof  that  the  form  of 
writing  remarked  on  was  actually  received  from 
tradition  ;  and  on  the  other  hanil  they  helped  to 
ensure  that  this  particular  form  was  retained  in 


730    TEXT  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAJSIENT 


TEXT  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 


the  Bible  codices.  For  instance,  in  Gn  23"  llie 
name  Ephron  is  written  the  first  time  jn:»  {plcnc) 
and  the  second  time  psy  (defective).  On  tins  the 
midrash  Gen.  rabha  58  remarks  :  '  Pr  2S--  "  He 
that  hath  an  evil  eye  hasteth  to  be  rich,  and  con- 
sidereth  not  that  poverty  shall  come  upon  him  "  ; 
that  i.s  Epliron  who  wished  to  get  possession  of 
the  riches  of  the  just  one,  but  afterwards  he  came 
into  poverty.'  In  Hag  1*  Kethibh  lias  nnrx,  IferS 
n-\2-3K.  Talmud,  Yoma,  216  asks :  '  Why  is  n  not 
written  ?  Answer  :  Because  five  [n  as  numerical 
sign  =  5]  things  which  were  present  in  the  first 
temple  were  wanting  in  the  second,  the  ark  of  the 
covenant  with  kappureth  and  cherubim,  the  holy 
fire,  the  Divine  gracious  presence  (Shekinah),  the 
Holy  Spirit,  and  the  Urim  and  Thummim.' 

C.  By  means  of  the  invention  of  punctuation 
(vowel  signs  and  accents)  between  the  6th  and  8th 
cent,  it  was  sought  to  ensure  the  preservation  of 
the  traditional  pronunciation  ;  perhaps  there  was 
also  the  intention  of  lightening  the  task  of  learners 
of  the  language.  Unfortunately,  we  are  without 
precise  details  as  to  the  history  of  this  invention  ; 
the  only  point  that  is  practically  certain  is  that 
Syriac  influence  must  be  assumed.  (In  Syr.  a  point 
above  the  letter  indicates  the  fuller,  stronger  pro- 
nunciation ;  a  point  under  it  the  finer,  weaker 
vocalization  or  even  the  absence  of  a  vowel). 
Attention  to  these  signs  involved  a  large  addition 
to  the  studies  of  the  later  Ma(s)soretes.  For 
instance,  18  words  beginning  with  lamed  occur 
twice — in  the  one  instance  with  shewa  (or  hirek  with 
follo>ving  shewa),  in  the  other  with  pathah  (cod. 
916  A.D.,  Is  8"') ;  alphabet  of  words  ending  in  1} 
which  occur  once  (cod.  916  A.D.,  Is  34'-). 

D.  Two  systems  of  punctuation  are  completely 
known  to  us  :  (a)  that  employed  in  most  MSS  and 
in  all  printed  editions,  the  so  -  called  Tiberian, 
named  from  the  city  of  Tiberias,  where  the  study 
of  the  Ma(s)sora  flourished  for  centuries.  This 
system  has  special  accents  for  the  three  books. 
Psalms,  Proverbs,  and  Job. —  (b)  the  supralinear 
punctuation,  so  named  because  all  the  vowel  signs 
are  placed  over  the  consonants ;  it  was  in  use, 
alongside  of  the  Tiberian  system,  among  a  portion 
of  the  Jews  of  Babylonia  (hence  its  usual  designa- 
tion, '  Babylonian  punctuation  ')  and  Yemen  (in 
Yemen  till  the  18th  cent.).  The  signs  for  the  prin- 
cipal vowels  a,  u,  i  are  formed  from  the  matres 
lectionis  k,  i,  •;  the  disjunctive  accents  have  mostly 
the  form  of  the  letter  with  which  their  name 
begins:  e.g.  »  =  ']pi  zakeph,  D  =  Nmo  tarha.  The 
accentual  system  is  certainly  dependent  upon  the 
Tiberian  ;  the  vowel  system,  too,  gives  the  impres- 
sion, at  least  to  the  present  writer,  of  less  origin- 
ality. The  most  important  MS  in  which  this 
system  is  employed  is  cod.  Proph.  post.  Bab.- 
Petropol.  916  A.D.  —  The  simple  supralinear 
punctuation  system  adopted  in  many  later  Yemen 
codices  is  derived  from  the  complicated  system  of 
cod.  Petropol.  916  A.D.  (G.  Margoliouth,  it  is  true, 
is  of  the  opposite  opinion). — (c)  M.  Friedlander 
describes  '  A  third  system  of  symbols  for  the  Heb. 
vowels  and  accents  in  JQR,  1895,  pp.  504-567. 
(In  two  fragments  of  Bible  text  foun<l  lately  in 
Egypt  and  acquired  by  the  Bodleian  Library  ;  see 
Neubauer's  Catalogue,  No.  2604,  xi.,  and  2608,  i.). 
Cf.  C.  Levias  in  AJSL  xv.  157-164,  and  P.  Kahle 
in  ZATIV  xxi.  (1901)  pp.  273-317. 

E.  As  the  very  name  indicates,  it  Avas  not  the 
aim  of  the  Ma(s)soretes  to  give  anything  new,  but 
to  preserve  for  future  generations  the  Bible  text 
exactly  as  it  had  come  down  to  them,  and  this  in 
regard  not  only  to  the  consonantal  text  but  also  to 
its  pronunciation.  '  Tendency '  of  any  kind  was 
foreign  to  them.  Instead  of  S^'.i  in  Is  14"  we 
should  cerfciinly  read  byn,  but  the  former  pro- 
nvinciation  is  proved  by  Aquila  and  the  Peshitta 


to  have  been  in  use  before  the  punctuation.     Thf 
name  of  the  well-known  Canaanite  god  can  hardly 
have  been  Molekk,  but  Melekh  ;  but  already  I.Xx 
Aq.,  Symm.,  Theod.  have  M6Xox  =  MT  iijib. 

F.  i'lie  distinction  between  Ma(s)soretes  and 
punctuators  is  no  absolute  one.  The  Ma(s)sora, 
as  is  shown  by  cod.  916  A.D.,  was  complete  before 
the  end  of  the  9th  century.  Aaron  b.  Moses  b 
Asher,  'the  great  teacher'  ("^njn  icSarr),  whos* 
activity  fell  within  the  first  third  of  the  lOtb 
cent.,  enjoj'ed  already  in  his  lifetime  a  great  repu- 
tation, and  as  early  as  the  year  989  the  Biblp 
codex  supplied  by  him  with  punctuation  and 
Ma(s)sora  was  regarded  as  the  model  codex  and 
as  authoritative.  This  is  the  judgment,  too,  of 
the  writer  of  the  St.  Petersburg  Bible  MS  B19of 
(1009  A.D.),  Moses  Maimonides,  of  David  l;Cinihi 
and  of  the  later  Jews.  Aaron  ben  Asher  himself 
had  a  rival  in  Moses  b.  David  b.  Naphtali,  whose 
views  were  dillerent  not  only  regarding  many 
minutue  of  punctuation  [daghesh,  mctheg,  accents), 
but  even,  at  least  in  some  passages,  regarding  the 
consonantal  text  (see  Ginsburg,  Introd.  pp.  241- 
286).  In  like  manner  there  were  not  a  few  diH'er- 
ences  amongst  the  older  Ma(s)soretes.  The  tradition 
about  the  text  was  not  a  uniform  one,  and  it  must 
be  acknowledged  that  there  were  ditierent  schools 
of  Ma(s)sorete3.  According  to  the  readings  of  the 
codices  employed  as  standards  must  have  been  the 
ditierent  indications  in  the  Mas(s)oretic  rubrics; 
and  S.  Baer  is  not  justified  when,  in  the  case  of 
two  statements  that  ditt'er,  he  simply  as  a  rule 
pronounces  one  to  be  wrong  and  corrects  it  from 
the  other. 

G.  The  content  of  the  Mas(s)ora  was  collected 
into  special  books  or  reproduced  in  Bible  MSS.  Of 
those  collections  the  best  known  is  the  book  which 
is  named  from  its  opening  words  •■iS;i<i  nj;x  (ed. 
Frensdorff,  Hanover,  1864)  ;  cf.  Ginsburg,  Introd. 
p.  464.  In  the  MSS  the  detailed  statements  of 
the  Mas(s)ora  magna,  varying  indeed  greatly  in 
extent,  according  to  the  inclination  or  the  ability 
of  the  scribe,  are  found  on  the  top  and  bottom 
margins,  some  at  the  end  of  a  codex  or  a  book, 
only  a  few  at  the  beginning.  For  the  fullest 
collection  of  such  material  we  are  indebted  to  Ch. 
D.  Ginsburg. 

H.  LiTBRATORB. — H.  L.  Sttack,  art.  'Massom'in  PRE^ix.  pp. 
388-394;  II  W.  Bacher,  'A  contribution  to  the  history  of  the 
t«rm  Massomh'  in  JQR,  1891,  pp.  785-790;  'Die  Massora'  in 
Winter  und  Wiinsche,  Die  jiid.  Litteratur  sett  AbschliLSS  de* 
Kanans,  it  (Trier,  1894)  pp.  121-132  ;  I  Is.  Harris,  'The  rise  and 
development  of  the  Massora'  in  JQR,  1889,  pp.  128-142,  223- 
257;  I  Ginsburg,  Introd..  (above,  L  J)  passim,  esp.  p.  421  ff.; 
I  EliM  Levita,  miDD.T  miDD  1S3,  Venite,  1638,  4<> ;  Ch.  D. 
Ginsburg,  The  Sfassoreth  ha-inassnrtth  of  E.  L.,  viih  an  Eng. 
tr.  aiid  .  .  .  notes,  London,  1807  ;  J.  Buxtorf,  Tiberias  sive  com- 
mentarius  inasorethicus  triplex,  Basel,  1605(l8ted.  1G20);  (1  S. 
l-Veusdorff,  Stassoretisches  H  orterbuch,  Hannover,  1876  (20  and 
387  pp.),  4«;  II  Ch.  D.  Ginsburg,  T/ie  Massorah  compiled  from 
3ISS,  alphabetically  and  texically  arraivied,  London,  1880-85, 
8  vols.  fol.  (758,  838,  and  SS3  pp.) ;  II  S.  Daor  und  II.  L  Strack, 
Die  Dikdttke  ha-tfamim  des  Ahron  ben  Moscheh  ben  Ascfter,  mtui 
andere  alte  qramnuUisch.  inassorethischs  Lehrstiicke,  l^ipzig, 
1879  (42  and  95  pp.). 

iv.  Eaulier  Traces  of  the  Heb.  Text  of  tub 
OT. — The  work  of  the  Ma(s)soretes  was  ended 
(see  above,  iii.  F)  at  the  latest  in  the  9th  cent., 
and  lies  before  us  in  this  form  in  the  St.  Peters- 
burg codex  of  the  Latter  Prophets,  916  A.D.,  and 
in  other  MSS.  What  other  means  have  we  now 
of  ascertaining  what  was  the  form  of  text  in 
earlier  times  ? 

A.  On  the  margins  of  many  codices,  sometimes 
also  at  the  end,  there  are  notices  of  difi'erences 
between  various  authorities,  and  of  readings  found 
in  MSS  that  are  now  lost.  From  these  notices  we 
gather,  for  instance,  that  the  Jews  of  the  West 
(3t;:9),  i.e.  Palestine,  diflered  from  those  of  the 
East  (mm,  nrp),  i.e.  Babylonia,  even  in  regard  to 
their  Bible  text.     This  difference,  moreover,  con- 


T1':XT  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 


TEXT  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT     731 


cerneil  not  only  the  Prophets  and  the  Hagiographa, 
but  also  the  I'eiituteuch,  not  only  the  tonsonanta, 
but  also  the  punctuation  ;  cf.  Giusburg,  Intrud. 
pp.  197-240.  The  Eastern  Madn'lia'i  were  not 
always  at  one  among  themselves  ;  the  views  of  the 
BtUolars  of  Sura  dillered  on  not  a  few  questions 
from  those  of  the  scholars  of  Neharde'a.  Cf. 
Strack,  '  Ueber  verloren  gegangene  Handschriften 
des  AT '  in  Geo.  Al.  Kohut,  Semitic  Studies, 
Berlin,  1897,  pp.  500-572. 

IJ.  The  quotations  in  the  Talmuds  and  the 
oldest  Midrashim.  The  present  writer  has  called 
attention  to  the  importance  of  these  quotations  in 
hxs  Prulcrjomcna  cntica  in  VT  Heb.,  Leipzig,  187.3, 
pp.  o'J-lll,  esp.  p.  91  ff.  A  prerequisite,  which 
has  not  yet  been  supplied,  for  such  investigations 
is  critical  editions  of  the  Jewish  literature  just 
named. 

C.  As  to  the  activity  of  the  ^opherim  [ypa/i- 
luLT€h),  i.e.  those  students  of  the  Law  who  jire- 
ceded  the  Ma(8)sorete8,  and  laboured  during  the 
last  centuries  B.C.  and  at  the  beginning  of  the 
Christian  era,  we  have,  unfortunately,  only  very 
scanty  information.  The  princiiial  passage  is 
Talmud,  ^'cdariin,  376,  38a :  '  A  law  given  to 
Moses  on  Sinai  (i.e.  a  very  ancient  tradition)  is 
the  following :  D'lSio  Kipa,  the  pronunciation  iixed 
by  the  Sopherim,  e.g.  O'C'f  shnmdyim,  accented  on 
the  penult ;  'o  -BEy,  the  cancelling  [of  waw]  by  the 
^op/ierim  before  inx  Gn  18»  24",  Nu  3P,  Ps  68=«, 
and  before  tosst:  Ps  36' ;  p'rij  Kb]  [np,  words  read 
which  are  not  written  in  the  text,  e.g.  n-js  2  S  8', 
t'x  after  bxf  2  S  10^,  c-.s^  Jer  3P»,  a>  after  -.T  Jer 
50^,  n!<  before  -^;  Itu  2",  '-^x  Ru  S"- "  ;  j.-jB  «';)  i?'"?, 
words  written  but  cancelled  in  reading,  e.g.  k; 
after  the  second  n'j;:  2  K  5",  nxi  before  .nison  Jer 
32",  the  second  "PT  Jer  51',  the  second  roq  Ezk 
48'*,  CN  Uu  3'^.'  *  This  record  does  not  give  all  the 
instances  :  there  were  many  differences  as  to  the 
ipre^nce  or  the  absence  of  the  waw  conjunctive. 
There  were  more  words  read  but  not  written, 
and  written  but  not  read  ;  see  Frensdorlf,  Okhltih 
we'olc/dah,  Nos.  97,  98  ;  and  Ginsburg,  Massor.  ii. 
p.  54  f.  We  learn  from  the  above  extract  that  the 
Snpherim  were  not  simply  copyists  but  revisers  of 
the  text. — A  large  part  of  their  work  consisted  in 
removing  everything  which  could  give  offence  in 
any  waj'  to  pious  souls  when  the  sacred  texts  were 
used  in  the  course  of  jjublic  worship.  Further, 
the  Divine  names,  especially  the  Tetragrammaton, 
had  to  be  protected  against  irreverent,  and  above 
all  against  frequent,  utterance  (see  §§  v.,  vi,  and 
Ginsburg,  Introd.  pp.  345-404). 

It  may  be  assumed  as  certain  that  the  results 
of  the  common  labours  of  the  Sopherim  in  Jeru- 
salem were  utilized  in  the  Bible  codices  that  were 
prepared  under  their  superintendence.  These 
codices  would  then  serve  as  the  basis  of  future 
copies.  When  differences  were  remarked  between 
M.SS,  especially  those  kept  in  the  sanctuary,  it 
was  the  custom  to  follow  the  majority ;  cf.  Pal. 
Taliu.  Ta'anilh,  iv.  fol.  6Sa[accordiu<j  to  Sopherim, 
vi.  4,  Kesh  Lalfish  is  the  author  of  the  record] : 
'Three  codices  of  the  Pent,  were  in  the  court  of 
the  temple.  In  Dt  33'-''  one  read  pyn,  two  njiyn ; 
they  accepted  the  text  of  the  two,  and  rejected 
that  of  the  one.  In  Ex  24'  one  read  •cit:;i,  two 
nv3 ;  they  accepted  the  text  of  the  two,  and  re- 
jected that  of  the  one.  In  one  codex  k'.t  was 
written  nine  times,  in  two  eleven  times  ;  they 
accepted  the  text  of  the  two,  and  rejected  that  of 
the  one.'  ('oio;')  was,  according  to  Talm.  Mcij. 
9a,  one  of  the  alterations  made  by  the  seventy- 

*  It  U  worth  while  to  remark  that  at  least  two  of  these  ex- 
amples give  the  Eastern  readings,  namely,  Ru  £i>  nK  before 

S:  reiul  but  not  written,  and  Jer  S2'i  OKI  before  niicn  written 
but  not  read. 


two  elders  in  translating  the  Pentateuch  into 
Greek.  Kin,  as  is  well  known,  is  written  in  the 
Pentateuch  for  both  masculine  and  feminine 
gender  ;  km  occurs  in  MT  of  the  Pentateuch  only 
eleven  times). 

V.  The  Importance  of  the  Ot^d  Versions.— 
As  really  old  MSS  of  the  Ileb.  OT  are  not  avail- 
able (ii.  C-E),  the  ancient  Versions  have  been  ex- 
amined in  order  to  discover  the  character  of  the 
text  at  a  period  earlier  than  that  for  which  the 
M.SS  and  the  Mas(s)ora  give  their  evidence.  On 
these  Versions  see  the  separate  articles  in  the 
present  work.  Here  it  may  be  generally  re- 
marked that  an  exhaustive  use  of  these  aids  is 
impossible  so  long  as  we  are  without  critical 
editions.  Such  editions  we  do  not  as  yet  possess, 
whether  of  the  LXX,  the  Taigums,  the  Peshitta, 
or  the  work  of  Jerome. 

Of  all  the  Versions  the  most  important  for  our 
purpose  is  the  Alexandrian,  i.e.  the  LXX  (see  the 
Literature  in  Strack's  Eiidcit.  in  das  A  T,  S  87,  and 
art.  Septuagint  above).  Although,  as  has  been 
just  remarked,  a  critical  edition  is  not  yet  in 
existence  (for  Dr.  Swete  gives  only  the  text  of 
cod.  B  with  the  variants  of  the  oldest  uncials), 
this  much  can  be  affirmed  with  certainty  that  the 
Heb.  text  which  was  the  basis  of  the  Alex,  trans- 
lation frequently  dillered  from  the  MT.  But  from 
the  circumstance  of  this  difference  it  by  no  means 
follows  that  the  Heb.  text  used  for  the  LXX  was 
a  better  one  than  the  MT.  (This  assumption  is  a 
capital  error  in  the  painstaking  work  of  A.  W. 
Streane  on  Jeremiah).  Owing  to  the  variety  of 
translators,  a  s|)ecial  examination  is  required  for 
every  part  of  the  OT.  The  LXX  is  of  most  use 
for  the  recovery  of  the  Heb.  text  in  the  books 
of  Samuel,  Ezckiel,  and  partially  Kings.  For 
instance,  in  1  S  8'",  where  MT  has  Danin^,  LXX 
has  rightly  rd  jdovKdXia  ufj.u>v,  i.e.  DD'"p3.  But  in 
many  passa<;es  the  text  was  corrupt  even  prior 
to  the  LXX :  for  example,  1  S  6'»  '  50070 '  and 
2S  15'  '40.' 

The  Hebrew  exemplars  from  which  the  Alex- 
andrian translators  worked  had,  at  least  in  most 
of  the  books,  the  scriptiu  continua,  that  is,  there 
was  no  separation  of  the  words :  for  example, 
1  Ch  17'°  ■?  iJNi  appears  in  LXX  as  xal  aiir)au  <re 
=  nh^Sil:  Pr  2'  on  •3'7n,  LXX  tV  TTopilav  aOrCir  ; 
18'  nj  KJ,  LXX  ili^dSos  avTui'  (cf.  Driver,  Aute.s  on 
Heb.  text  of  Sam.  p.  xxx  f.  ;  Ginsburg,  Introd. 
158-162). — The  viatres  lectionis  were  less  Irequently 
employed  than  is  now  the  case  in  the  MT  (cf. 
Driver,  I.e.  pp.  xxxii-xxxiv;  Ginsburg,  I.e.  pp. 
137-167. — It  is  uncertain  whether  any,  or  how 
many,  MSS  with  the  old  Heb.  (Canaanite)  script 
were  used  h^  the  Alex,  translators,  and  hence 
whether  deviations  from  the  present  MT  may  be 
explained  by  interchange  of  letters  which  resemble 
each  other  in  the  old  form  of  writing  (cf.  Ginsburg, 
Introd.  pj).  291-296  ;  A.  J.  Bauingartner,  L'Hat 
du  texte  du  livre  des  Proverbes,  Leipzig,  1890,  pp. 
272-282). 

Of  the  revising  activity  of  the  ^opherim  many 
traces  are  to  be  discovered  from  the  LXX,  a 
circumstance  which  shows  that  this  activity  had 
commenced  long  before.  Ish-baal  the  son  ot  Saul 
is  called  in  the  LXX  '\(jj3i<T0f,  as  in  MT  nfac-K 
(see  vol.  ii.  501  f.).  The  most  of  the  emendations 
of  the  Sopherim  (d"idi3  [ipn)  are  found  also  in  the 
LXX,  e.g.  Jer  2"  nnD  rV  oo^ar  airroD  for  nns  ;  but 
in  two  passages  at  leiust  the  ancient  text  is  pre- 
served :  1  S  3"  on'?  D'VVp:,  LXX  KaKoXoyoOfTes 
Oebv,  i.e.  D-nSK  'a,  and  Job  7"  'hv,  LXX  ivl  <rol,  i.e. 

vi.    OUSERVATIONS    ON     THE     HlSTOItY     OF    TUB 

Text    of   the   OT.  —  What   means   have   we  ol 
getting  back  to  still  earlier  times? 

A.  Comparison  of  parallel  passages.   Historical 


r32     TEXT  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 


TEXT  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAJtfENT 


Gn  5,  etc.  and  1  Ch  1  ;  2  S  23»f-  and  1  Ch  11  ; 
Sam.,  Kings  passim,  and  Chron.  ;  2  K  18"-20'» 
and  Is  36-39 ;  2  K  24"'-25*'  and  Jer  52.  Lci/is- 
lative:  Ex  20  and  Dt  5  (the  Decalogue)  ;  Lv  U-*- 
=  Dt  14«-.  Poetical:  2S  22  =  Ps  IS;  Ps  105.  96. 
106  and  1  Ch  IG"'-  ;  Ps  14  and  53  ;  Ps  40"*-  and 
W-i  Ps  57'"  and  lOS'"-;  Ps  60="-  and  108™-.  Pro- 
phetical :  Is  2--'  and  Mic  4''  ;  Ob  '•«  and  Jer  49"'-. 
Some  of  the  dilVerences  which  show  themselves 
between  parallel  passages  may  be  explained  by 
the  assumption  that  they  are  due  to  an  intention 
on  the  part  of  a  later  author  or  redactor  (even  if 
this  intention  was  based  on  nothing  more  than 
the  principle  of  variatio  delectat).  To  intention, 
for  instance,  must  be  ascribed  the  deviations  of 
the  Deuteronomic  Decalogue  from  Ex  20.  In- 
tention, too,  explains  the  diversity  of  construction 
of  the  word  o'n%  '  God,'  which  is  ))lur.  in  Ex  32*-  ' 
(iD^.i)  but  sing,  in  Neh  9'*  (ll*).';!),  and  so  2  S  7^  o^.i, 
but  1  Ch  17-'  ^Vn.  It  is  very  remarkable  that  the 
revising  activity  of  the  Sopherim  is  less  manifest 
in  Chronicles  than  in  the  books  that  were  earlier 
accepted  as  canonical.  One  of  David's  sons  is 
called  in  2  S  5'"  yi;^N,  LXX  'E\ta5^,  but  in  1  Ch  14' 
jn;^;;3  the  original  form  of  the  name  has  been  pre- 
sen'ed  (cf.  n=3-»'x  of  2  S  2*  al.  with  'jy??'?  of  1  Ch 
S'^  aZ.).— In  many  instances,  however,  we  must 
assume  an  error  in  the  tradition:  Gn  10*-  *iJiphath 
and  Z>odanim,  1  Ch  1  /)iphath  and  iJodanim ;  1  K 
5«  [Eng.  42«]  '  40,000,'  but  2  Ch  9"  '  4000'  ;  1  K  7* 
'2000,'  but  2  Ch  4»  '3000';  1  K  7"  'knops' 
(pekaim),  but  2  Ch  4'  '  oxen  '  {be/cSrim).  Both 
texts  cannot  be  correct ;  the  one  or  the  other  rests 
upon  a  mistake.  Possible  sources  of  error  are : 
freaks  of  the  eye  or  (in  cases  of  dictation)  the  ear, 
■wandering  of  the  memory  {e.g.  the  putting  down 
of  a  synonymous  word,  cf.  2  S  22'  xipx  and  Ps  18 
S1BK),  false  interpretation  of  abbreviations,  or, 
conversely,  failure  to  recognize  the  abbreviated 
form  of  words.  All  these  sources  of  change  and 
of  error  were  of  course  at  work  also  in  those 
passages  where,  on  account  of  the  non-existence  of 
a  parallel  passage,  we  cannot  so  readily  recognize 
them. 

B.  Carrying  the  Heb.  text,  as  it  presently  exists 
in  the  so-called  square  script,  back  to  the  ancient 
Heb.  form  of  writing.  It  is  natural  to  assume 
that,  in  connexion  with  the  change  of  ^vritten 
characters,  errors  must  have  slipped  in,  whose  dis- 
covery may  be  facilitated  by  restoring  the  old 
script.  The  art.  Alphabet  (vol.  i.  p.  7011.)  can 
now  be  supplemented  and  improved  with  the  help 
of  the  admirable  work  of  M.  Lidzbarski,  Hand- 
buck  des  nordsemitischen  Epigraphik,  Weimar, 
1898  (pp.  173-203,  'Die  Schrift  der  nordsem. 
Inschrif  ten '). 

C.  We  have  seen  that  the  text  of  the  OT  books 
has  undergone  not  a  few  changes  since  their  com- 
position. We  must  be  careful,  however,  not  to 
exaggerate  the  importance  of  these  changes.  The 
circumstance  that  we  are  still  in  a  position  to 
analyze,  in  the  main  with  perfect  confidence,  most 
sections  of  the  Pentateuch,  i.e.  to  separate  from 
one  another  the  sources  from  which  these  sections 
have  been  composed,  is  a  convincing  proof  that 
even  the  sum  of  all  the  changes  in  question  has 
been  far  smaller  than  one  might  be  disposed  to 
think,  and  far  smaller  than  critics  like  Aug. 
Klostermann  have  held  it  to  be. 

vil,  LiTERATURB.— F.  Buhl,  Eannn  und  Text  dea  AT,  Leipzig, 


'he  Heb.  Uxt  of  the  OT,  London,  1899  (both  the  last  two  works 
fcre  of  a  popular  character] ;  A.  Loisy,  Hist,  critique  du  texts  et 
des  versioiut  de  la  liibU,  2  vols.,  Paris.  1892.  95  ;  A.  Dillmann 
and  F.  Buhl,  •  Bibeltext  des  AT'  in  PRESu.  713-728;  the  OT 
Introductions  of  Eicbbom,  Ed.  Konig,  H.  I^  Straclc. 

Hermann  L.  Strack. 


TEXT  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.- 

L  Introduction :   Uncertainty  about  the  Text  of  the  Greek 

Testament. 
iL  Materials  for  restoration  of  the  te.\t. 

1.  Manuscripts. 

2.  Versions. 

8.  Quotations. 

4.  Number  of  Variations  increased  by  the  new  materials 

6.  Rules  of  Textual  Criticism. 

Literature  and  Addenda. 
[In  this  article  '  Introd.'  or  *  Introduction'  stands  for  Nestle's 
Introd.  to  the  (jr.  NT.,  1901). 

i.  Introduction  :  Uncertainty  about  thb 
Text  of  the  Greek  Testament.— For  the  general 
reader,  as  a  rule,  no  question  exists  about  the  text 
of  the  book  which  he  is  reading.  The  copy  in  his 
hand  is  for  him  the  work  of  the  author.  It  is  only 
under  special  circumstances  that  the  question  arises 
how  far  we  may  rely  upon  the  text  in  our  hands. 
Especially  since  the  invention  of  the  printing-press 
such  circumstances  have  become  much  more  rare, 
but  they  are  far  from  having  disappeared  altogether. 
It  may  suffice  to  recall  the  obseuritv  in  which  the 
works  of  Shakespeare  and  the  ear^y  editions  of 
them  are  enveloped,  or  questions  like  that  as  to 
the  origin  of  some  Rubrics  in  the  Prayer- Book." 
But  in  the  case  of  works  composed  at  a  time 
when  their  multiplication  was  possible  only  by 
means  of  copying,  it  requires  little  thought  and 
experience  to  bring  home  this  point  with  full 
force.  It  presses  upon  the  mind  with  increased 
weight  in  the  case  of  the  NT,  which  was  or  is  no 
'  book '  at  all,  properly  speaking,  but  a  collection 
of  writings,  a  great  many  of  which  were  at  the 
outset  not  destined  for  publication  and  multiiilica- 
tion.  When  St.  Paul  wrote  his  first  letter  to  the 
Thessalonians  he  did  not  write  it  with  the  inten- 
tion that  it  should  or  raiglit  be  published  after- 
wards, and  consequently  did  not  give  it  the  form 
appropriate  to  such  an  object.  Neither  had  he — 
or  slie,  perhaps  a  poor  slave  or  an  old  woman — 
who  first  copied  it  the  intention  of  copyin<^  it  for 
publication.  Hence  parts  may  have  already  been 
omitted  which  did  not  appear  of  importance,  e.g. 
the  address,  or  the  date  and  subscription  ;  sen- 
tences may  have  been  abbreviated  or  expressions 
changed.  It  is  similar  with  the  Grospels.  When 
the  first  collection  of  sayings  of  Jesus  or  the  first 
narrative  of  His  deeds  was  set  down  in  ^^Titing, 
the  next  who  copied  it  might  feel  inclined  to 
enlarge  it  or  to  change  any  detail  according  to 
the  form  in  which  he  had  heard  it,  without  any 
bad  intention. 

In  spite  of  this  situation  of  things,  not  only 
readers  but  even  editors  of  the  Greek  Testament 
rested  for  a  long  time  satisfied  in  the  naive  belief 
that  the  next  best,  i.e.  worst,  text  in  their  hands 
was  the  text  of  the  NT.  When  Erasmus  finished, 
on  the  1st  March  1516,  the  first  edition  of  the 
Greek  Testament  sold  in  print,  he  put  at  the 
end  :  Finis  Testnmenti  totius  ad  GR.ECAM  VERI- 
TATEM  vetustissimorumriue  Codicum  Latinorum 
fidem  ad  prohatissimorum  authorum  citationem  et 

*  A  most  significant  example  in  German  literature  has  been  in- 
vestigated lately  by  Prof.  Tschackert  of  Gdttinj;en.  What  is  the 
original  text  of  tlie  Con/esifio  Au^ustanat  It  was  handed  to 
the  emperor  Ch.irles  v.  on  the  afternoon  of  the  25th  June  1530, 
in  two  copies,  German  and  l.atin.  Both  copies  have  disappeared. 
The  Confession  appeared  in  print  as  early  as  Sept.  1530,  and  two 
months  later  there  was  a  semi-official  publication  of  it  by  its 
author,  Melanchthon ;  but  neither  of  these  gave  the  originaL 
Therefore  Prof.  Tschackert  examined  35  manuscript  copies,  all 
dating  from  the  year  1.S3U,  and  nine  of  which  once  belonged  to 
men  who  had  subscribed  the  Confesjiion.  In  an  official  docu- 
ment like  this  we  expect  now  that  all  duplicates  shall  agree  to 
the  very  letter.  Yet,  besides  orthographical  differences,  Prof. 
Tsch.ackert  had  to  collect  hundreds  of  variants,  and  the  writer 
of  the  present  article  is  convinced  that  the  true  text  has  not 
been  restored  by  him  in  every  case.  In  one  case  it  concerns  • 
quotation  from  the  NT  (Gal  18),  where  Prof.  Tschackert,  follow- 
ing his  MS  N,  prints  *der  sei  verflucht,'  'let  Aim  be  accursed,' 
while  the  present  writer  believes  that  the  other  USS  AKZ  givs 
the  true  reading,  *  das  eei  verflucht,'  Cs. '  let  it  be  cursed.' 


TEXT  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAilENT 


TEXT  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT    733 


interjiretationem  ACCURATE  recogniti,  opera  studi- 
eque  D.  Eraxmi  Jioterodami.  This  ad  Grmcam 
veritatem  does  not  mean  oiilj'  '  tlie  Greek  Originiil' 
or  '  the  ori^nnal  Greek  '  in  contradistinction  to  tlie 
Latin  translation,  but  was  meant  to  include  the 
idea  of  orijjinal  correctness  and  integrity.  Erasmus 
was  convinced  tliat  ho  liad  (on  the  whole)  edited 
the  original  Greek  Testament.  In  like  manner,  it 
was  no  empty  boast,  but  an  expression  of  their 
full  persuasion,  when  the  Elzevir  printers  put  in 
the  preface  of  their  edition  of  1633  the  words : 
textum  ergo  hnbcs  nunc  ab  omnibus  receptum  IN 

QUO  NIHIL  IMMUTATUM  AUT  COKKUPTUM    I)AMUS. 

I'or  the  following  comparison  with  the  faithful 
representation  of  ancient  monuments  and  inscrip- 
tions shows  that  they  were  really  persuaded  that 
they  had  given  t/ie  original  text  to  their  readers 
{qut,cu>n  lapidesacmonumentaantiquorumquidam 
venerentxr  ac  religiose  reprcesentent,  inulto  magis 
clutrtas  has  ab  origine  Scoirvivarovi  vindicandas 
a  mut'itione  ac  cvrrtiptcla  iiidicamus).  And  yet 
the  ditVurence  is  clear.  In  the  case  of  an  ancient 
monument  and  inscription,  the  original  is  before 
our  eyes,  in  our  hands ;  in  the  case  of  literary 
works,  we  are  removed  from  the  original  by 
thou.sands  of  years,  and  are  brought  into  con- 
nexion with  it  only  through  a  series  of  repeated 
copyings  ;  and  every  fresh  copy — perhaps  even  the 
lirst — was  a  source  of  errors,  even  when  the  copyists 
took  all  possible  pains  to  be  correct.  We  have 
alreadj'  pointed  out  and  accounted  for  the  fact 
that  in  the  case  of  the  NT  there  was  at  first  a 
period  of  textual  laxity  (cf.  Westcott-IIort,  §§  6-14, 
'  Transmission  by  writing,'  where  it  is  shown  how, 
even  when  the  copyist  has  the  intention  of  tran- 
scribing language  (not  sense),  he,  by  mental  action, 
passing  from  unconscious  to  conscious,  may  come 
to  introduce  free  modification  of  language  and  even 
rearrangement  of  materials).  A  few  examples  may 
show  to  what  diU'erences  copying  gave  rise — 

What  is  the  name  of  the  tenth  apoatle  in  Mt  103? 

(a)  One  set  of  our  witnets^^es  give*         iietiioitM, 

(b)  Another,  Ai>ipaitff. 

(e)  A  third,  combioiog  (a+iX  9tMxiK  i  trixXyiSiU  Ai|3- 

(d)  A  fourth  {b+aX  Ai/spaiof  i  i.  Btciiaioe. 

ie)  A  IHth,  Judas  Zelolet. 

(/)Asixth,  Judan  the  son  0/ James. 

(x;)  A  lieveutb  (^e+b+aX  'Uihat  i  3w\oCu.lvoi  Af,3- 

(A)  An  eighth,  Thalhmt  Zelotit.' 

Or,  wli;it  was  the  clothing  of  John  the  BaptiHt  ?  According  to 
Ml{  1*>  'Ciitncl'8  hair  uiid  a  Icatliern  girdle  altout  his  loins'?  or 
only  'the  skin  of  a  cuniel '  without  a  girdle  (iippi*  xa/x^A4u)? 
The  latter  is  the  rca^iini;  of  D,  while  the  girtllc  is  missing  also 
in  several  Old  Latin  .MS6. 

How  does  the  Apoijalypse  and  the  NT  conclude?  We  have — 
leaving'  out  such  minor  variations  as  the  addition  of  *  .\nien '  or 
'  Amen,  Amen,'  or  the  irrace  'of  the  Lord  Jesus,'  or  *our  Lord 
Jesus,'  or  '  tlie  Lord  Jesus  Christ,'  or  *  Christ '  &loae — the  vario- 
tiouj — 

(1)  'With  the  saints '(BV^ 

(2)  '  With  all '  (KVm). 

(3)  '  With  j/ou  all' (AV). 

(4)  '  Witli  \u  all.' 

(5)  '  With  all  the  sainta.' 
(8)  '  With  all  men.'  t 


*  WII  ado)ited  (a)  on  the  authority  of  KB  17,  124  e  carb 
vg  me  the  Uier.  toe.  (apparently),  and  adduced  g  S04  among  the 
examples  of  important  ur  interesting  rea<lings,  attested  by  KB, 
hut  lost  from  the  rest  of  all  extant  uncials ;  'I'ischcndorf,  on  the 
contrary,  preferred  {b)  on  the  strength  of  1)  \tt  k  Orig.  Aug. — 
and  so  does  Blase  now — a  reading  which  is  by  WH  here  and 
in  Mk  Ifis  declared  'a  Western  corruption,'  these  being  tlie 
only  two  plai-es  where  either  name  occurs,  ie)  Is  a  well- 
8iipi>orted  'Old  l.atiri'  reading  (a,  b,  h,  found  also  in  tlie  Roman 
Chronugraphy  of  ti64,  see  art.  'rilAt)n^cs) ;  (.'/)  is  found  in  243 
and  the  Apvstotic  Conslitutitms  ;  (/i)  in  the  iCushworth  Uospels, 
on  which  see  JThSl,  lii.  p.  00. 

t  The  third  reatling,  '  with  wot*  all,'  has  no  Or.  M.S  authoritv 
at  all,  but  was  retranslated  by  Erasmus  from  the  Ijitin  \"ul- 

Sate  because  the  only  Or.  MS  of  Uevolation  which  was  at  his 
is[K)8al  woe  defective  at  the  and ;  it  has  been  retained  in  the 
Lutberan  Vetvion  even  ,Vter  it«  revision,  while  the  UV  replaced 


On  internal  grounds  it  would  be  quite  imi>os.sible  to  decids 
which  is  the  true  reading;  how  ditlicult  a  decision  is  on  the 
basis  of  alt  arguments  (witnesses  and  internal  grounds)  is  shown 
by  tlie  dilTerence  between  the  latest  editors. 

For  more  exumples  it  is  sullicieiit  to  refer  to  the  margins  of 
the  AV  (Mt  in  'Some  read' ;  2t)2«  'M.iny  Greek  cojiies  have" ; 
Lk  10'.^  'ilany  ancient  copies  add  these  words';  17^  'This 
3(jth  verse  is  wanting  in  most  of  ttie  tireek  copies' ;  Jn  181^, 
Ac  268  'as  some  copies  read' ;  1  Co  loai,  Eph  612,  Ja  218, 2  P  2».  ", 
2  Jn8);  but  especially  to  those  of  the  UV  which  are  crowded 
with  such  remarks  as  '  Some  (many)  ancient  authorities  read 
(insert,  omit,  etc.)'  from  Mt  1^**  down  to  Kev  2:^'''^  Cases  like 
the  Doxulogy  of  the  Lord  s  Prayer,  tlie  close  of  the  Second 
Gospel,  the  comma  Johanneum,  (1  Jo  67),  will  readily  occur  to 
the  mind  of  the  reader. 

It  is  not  po.ssible  here  to  count  np  all  the  ways 
in  which  errors  may  originate ;  every  one  who 
has  to  do  with  copjin";  and  printing  has  some 
testimony  to  bear  regarding  it.  One  of  the  com- 
monest is,  for  instance,  the  so-called  homoioteleutun, 
by  which  arise  what  our  printers  call  '  match'  or 
'  funeral,'  whereby  a  passage  is  either  written  twice 
or  tot.'illy  omitted  ;  the  latter  being,  of  course,  the 
more  dangerous  case.  By  such  an  omission  in  the 
editions  of  Erasmus  the  words  x"-!"-" ' — xop'" "  (J"'  4') 
were  wanting  in  the  Bibles  of  Luther  tUl  1568  or 
even  longer.  Another  equally  frequent  source  of 
error  is  the  transposition  of  letters  (especially 
where  liquid(B  are  concerned)  or  of  words.  In  Jn 
8''  six  possibilities  are  represented  in  the  position 
of  the  words  :  '  Jesus  spake  unto  them ' — 

(1)  ainois  iXdXrjffev  b'\y}(jovs,  XB, 

(2)  at>T0($  6  'It/ctoOs  l\a\y](jeVy  EK, 

(3)  i\a.\7}(rev  avroli  b'l'qffovs,  U  1,  33, 

(4)  i\6.\riatv  b  'Iriaous  airroh,  Cyril,  iv.  484, 

(5)  6  'ItjcoDs  ainots  iXdXrjaev,  TK, 

(6)  b  'lT}aous  ^\ii\7](T€v  airrots,  N^  ; 

and  a  seventh,  the  combination  of  (1)  and  (4),  is 
given  by  N*  airroU  ^XdXijtrei'  6  'lijcout  avroU. 

A  third  source  is  the  addition  of  words  which  the 
copyist  found  missing  ;  the  subject,  for  instance,  as 
'  God,' '  the  Lord,'  '  Jesus.'  By  such  a  (wrong)  sup- 
position, e.g.,  the  text  is  e.xplained  which  ascribes 
the  Magnijicat,  Lk  1,  to  Mary  instead  of  Elisabeth 
(see  Introd.  ad  loc). 

In  view  of  all  the  perils  to  which  literary  works 
like  the  NT  have  been  exposed,  it  is  really  astonish- 
ing to  find  how  much  luis  been  preserved,  and,  on 
the  whole,  how  faithfully.  And  we  willingly 
subscribe  to  the  words  ot  Bengel,  placed  at  the 
end  of  tlie  editio  minor  of  the  '  NT  in  the  original 
Greek,'  which  is  at  present  the  nearest  approach 
to  the  goal,  that  of  >VH:  Ipsa  summa  i«  libris 
omnibus  salva  e.-it,  ex  Dei  procidentia:  sed  tamen 
illam  ipsam  providcntiam  non  dehcmus  eo  allegarc, 
ut  a  liina  quam  accuratissima  dctcrreamur.  But 
also  the  sequel  will  still  hold  good :  Eorum,  qui 
prmressere,  neque  defectum  exagilabimus,  neque  ad 
eum  nos  adstringcmus :  eorum,  qui  sequent  ur,  pro- 
fectum  neque  post  ulabimus  in  prmsenli,  neque  pro:- 
cludem^is  mposterum:  quiclibet  ii:(as  pro  sua  fuul- 
tate  veritatem  investigare et amphuti,  Jidclitatcmque 
in  minimis  et  maximispraf,t<irc  debet. 

ii.  Materials  for  Restoration  of  the  Text. 
— The  means  of  arriving  at  the  original  text,  and 
the  rules  for  the  application  of  these  means,  are 
of  course  the  same  for  the  NT  as  for  other 
literary  works  of  antitiuity  ;  only  that  for  the 
NT  wo  are  in  a  much  better  situation  than  for 
mo.st  other  works,  as,  for  instance,  the  Greek  and 
Latin  classics,  or  the  OT,  owing  to  the  abundance, 
variety,  and  comparative  excellence  of  the  docu- 
ments at  our  disposal.  These  documents  are : 
Manuscripts,  Version.-.,  Quotations.     The  colophon 

it  by  the  tirst  (and  second).  Also  the  fourth  does  not  seem  to 
have  any  MS  authority,  but  to  be,  us  1x1.  Reiiss  styled  it,  pium 
MrrecturiJt  ant  li/pothi'lu'  sjt.^tnrium  in  ii  Basle  t-dltion  of  1646, 
from  which  it  juis-sud  over  into  the  edition  published  in  the 
same  vcar  and  place  by  Melaiiclithon,  who  meiitioiis,  however, 
iuMf  in  his  Appendix  (introd.  p.  169  is  to  be  supplemented) 
With  (6)  compare  the  reading  ol  O*  (for  8)  io  He  U^. 


734    TEXT  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 


TEXT  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAJIENT 


of  the   fiist  edition   of    Erasmus,   quoted  above, 
mentions  these  three  classes  of  documents. 

1.  Manuscripts  (cf.  WH,  §§  98-106).— The  first 
place  in  the  class  of  MSS  would  be  held  by  those  of 
the  authors  tlieiuselves  if  they  were  e.xtant — the 
autographs.  The  possibility  of  their  existence 
cannot  oe  denied,  seeing  that  we  have  documents 
■written  on  papyrus,  i.e.  on  the  same  writing 
material  which  was  used  in  NT  times,  and  from 
refrions  not  far  removed  from  the  birthplace  of  the 
NT,  of  twice,  almost  three  times  the  age  which 
the  autographs  of  the  NT  would  have  today  (see 
art.  'Writing,  p.  950'').  But,  as  a  matter  of  fact, 
the  NT  autographs  have  been  lost.  Already 
Irenteus  appeals  only  to  careful  and  old  copies  {^v 
irSffi  Toi!  (Tirovdaloi^  Kal  dpx'^o"  ii/riypatfioii),  and  the 
testimony  of  those  who  have  themselves  seen  the 
author  (fcai  napTvpovvrujv  ainC>v  iKelvwv  tuiv  kot'  lipiv 
rbv  'Iwaviiriv  iupaKirruv),  and  to  internal  evidence  (koJ 
rov  \irfov  didd<rKOfTos  ^/xas). 

On  the  style  in  which  the  autoiirraphs  of  the  NT  may  have 
been  written,  and  the  whole  question  how  we  have  to  conceive 
of  them,  see  Introd.  p.  29  ff.,  and  art.  Wkiti.no,  p.  951.  Of 
expressions  referring  to  books  and  writing  we  have  in  the  NT  : 
$iS>M,  0i0x:»r,  ffiSxccp,iicv  (only  in  NT  tRev.],  with  the  variant 

The  hope  which  Bengel  expressed  with  reference 
to  the  much  disputed  passage  1  Jn  5'  etiam  atque 
etiam  sperare  licet,  si  non  autographum  Johanncum 
at  alios  vetustissimos  grwcos  .  .  .  iji  oecultis  divinm 
providentim  fnrulis  Intentes  suo  tempore  product um 
iri,  has  been  fulfilled  lately  in  a  way  that  could 
not  have  been  expected  at  his  time. 

Erasmus  (1^1^)  ^^  &t  ^is  disposal  for  his  first  edition  only 
one  or  two  MSS,  the  oldest  being  of  the  10th  cent.  :  Stephen 
used  for  his  Reijia  (1650),  besides  the  printed  edition  of  Ximenes, 
two  uncials  (DL)  and  13  cursives.  The  London  Polyglot  (1657) 
was  for  the  first  time  able  to  make  use  of  the  Codex  Alexan- 
drinus.  More  additions  to  the  stocic  of  witnesses  were  made  by 
Mill  (1707).  Bengel  (1734),  especially  Wetstein  (1751) ;  but  of  the 
two  MSS  which  are  now  reckoned  best,  the  Vaticanus  was  not 
yet  accessible  in  a  trustworthy  form,  and  the  Sinaiticus  waa 
not  yet  discovered. 

Tischendorf  knew  in  his  7th  edition  (the  last 
which  he  fully  completed)  for  the  Gospel  52  uncial 
MSS  or  fragments  of  such,  at  the  head  of  them  the 
codex  Sinaiticus,  ascribed  by  him  to  the  middle  of 
the  4th  cent.*  When  Gregory  completed  the  Pro- 
legomena to  Tischendorf's  editio  octava,  lie  counted 
for  the  Gospels  alone  about  25  uncials  more ;  and 
in  the  most  recent  work  on  the  subject,  Gregory's 
German  revision  of  the  said  Prolegomena  {Text- 
kritik  des  Neuen  Testamentes :  Erster  Band,  1900), 
he  describes  97,  promising  the  description  of  4 
more  for  the  appendix.  It  is  similar  with  the 
other  parts  of  the  NT.  And  while  hitherto  very 
few  MSS  had  been  known  oa  papyrus  (the  writing 
material  of  Apostolic  times),  and  none  earlier  than 
the  age  of  Constantine,  now  several  fragments  on 
papyrus  have  been  found  recently,  and  two  at  least 
are  assigned  to  the  3rd  cent,  (see  Writing,  p.  952"). 

Of  cursive  or  niinuscle  MSS  (see  on  them  art. 
Writing,  p.  954')  about  3000  are  now  known,  if  we 
include  the  Lectionaries  ;  and  2000,  go  it  is  esti- 
mated by  Gregory,  wait  for  description  and  classi- 
fication. As  a  whole  the  cursive  MSS  are  less 
valuable  than  the  uncials,  but  several  of  them  are 
very  important,  even  more  than  uncials,  because 
the  text  of  a  cursive  MS,  in  spite  of  t)ie  recent 
date  of  the  MS,  may  be  much  older  than  that  of 
an  uncial.  It  is  impossible  to  give  here  a  list  either 
of  the  uncials  or,  still  less,  of  the  cursives  ;  some 
of  the  former  have  been  treated  in  separate 
articles,  see  A,  Aleph,  B,  C,  D,  L  ;  we  must  refer 
to  Tregelles'  revision  of  Home's  Introduction 
(vol.  i.  1856),  Tischendorf  -  Gregory,  Scrivener- 
MiUer*,  Gregory,  i.  (see  Literature). 

'  Compare  also  the  table  in  WH,  }  19,  showing  the  lat«  d*,t» 
at  which  primary  MSS  have  become  available. 


Special  attention  b  due,  though  they  have  not 
received  it  hitherto,  to  tlie  Lectionanes,  i.e.  the 
manuscripts  of  ecclesiastical  lessons  taken  from 
the  NT  (WH,  §§  103,  104  ;  S.rivener,  i.  74  «".,  .327  If.  ; 
Gregory,  Tcxtkritik,  i.  32711'.).  'Comparatively 
few  of  them  have  as  yet  been  collateil.  Some  of 
these  have  been  found  to  contain  it-.-idings  of 
sufiicient  value  and  interest  to  encourage  further 
inquiry  in  what  is  as  yet  an  almost  unexplored 
region  of  textual  hi.-ilory ,  but  not  to  promise  con- 
siderable assistance  in  the  recovery  of  tlie  apostolic 
text'  (WH,  ^.c).  Liturgical  books  are  always  con- 
servative, are  official  books,  and  can  be  localized 
with  much  more  certainty  than  other  MSS  of  the 
NT.  Gregory  is  inclined  to  believe  that  the  order 
of  lessons  read  on  Sundays  originated  perhaps 
as  early  as  the  first  half  of  the  2nd  cent.,  that  for 
the  Saturdaj-s  towards  the  end  of  the  tliird  quarter 
of  this  century,  and  that  for  the  week  -  days 
towards  the  end  of  the  same  century  (p.  337).  In 
the  Apostolic  Constitutions,  ii.  57,  it  is  prescribed 
that,  after  the  Lessons  from  the  OT,  are  to  be 
read  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  and  the  Epistles  of 
Paul,  and  after  this,  by  the  deacon  or  presbyter, 
the  Gospels  of  Matthew  and  John,  Luke  and 
Mark.  No  mention  is  here  made  at  all  of  the 
Catholic  Epistles  and  the  Apocalypse.  Tliis  is 
exactly  the  old  Canon  of  the  Syriac  Church  (see 
Syriac  Versions,  p.  647).  The  redactor  of  the 
Constittitions  knows,  apparently,  the  First  and 
Second  Epistle  of  Peter,  but  he  does  not  make  use 
of  James,  1-3  John,  Jude,  and  Rev.  ;  for  the  refer- 
ences to  Ja  1«- '  and  Rev  22>8- '»  (ed.  Lag.  p.  203,  10. 
204,  9)  must  be  changed  into  Diclache,  ch.  4,  Dt 
4*  (see  Zahn,  Geschichte  des  Kanons,  ii.  182  f.). 
Up  to  the  present  day  no  lessons  from  Kev.  are 
found  in  the  system  of  the  Greek  Church ;  and 
there  seem  to  be  preserved  Lectionaries  which  even 
do  not  contain  lessons  from  the  Catliolic  Epistles 
either;  see  Apost.  65  (Scriv.  =  68  Greg.),  a  MS  in 
the  possession  of  the  Baroness  Burdett  -  Coutts, 
iii.  25,  though  it  may  be  only  of  the  14th  cent, 
(according  to  Gregory  ;  12-13th  ace.  to  Scrivener). 
A  MS  like  this,  which  has  preseri-ed  such  an  old 
system  of  lessons,  is  likely  to  contain  also  a  text 
of  ancient  character.  Up  to  the  present,  liowever, 
these  MSS  have  not  been  examined  on  this  point. 

2.  Similarly  the  second  class  of  our  documents 
has  been  enriched,  namely,  the  ancient  Versions. 

See  WH,  {}  107-122 ;  art.  Vbrsioss,  and  the  separate  artt. 
Arabic,  vol.  i.  p.  136;  Arme.via.n,  ib.  153;  Eqtptia.v,  ib.  668; 
Exniopic,  ib.  741 ;  Latu,',  vol  ilL  p.  47 ;  Steiac,  p.  645 ;  Vuloatb, 
p.  873. 

The  very  first  edition  of  the  Gr.  Test.,  the  Com- 
plutensian  Polyglot  of  Cardinal  Ximenes  (1514-17), 
placed  side  by  side  with  the  Greek  Text  the  Latin 
Vulgate,*  and  even  remodelled  the  former  after 
the  latter  in  various  places  (especially  1  Jn  5'  ;  see 
art.  Septuagint,  p.  440*).  On  Erasmus  see  above 
(p.  732»).  Beza  (1519-1605)  made  a  modest  begin- 
ning \vith  the  use  of  Oriental  Versions,  publishing 
a  triglot  edition  of  the  NT,  1569  fol.,  Greek, 
Latin,  and  Sj-riac,  the  latter  edited  by  Immanuel 
Tremellius,  and  using  for  Acts  and  1  and  2  Cor.  an 
Arabic  Version,  put  at  his  disposal  by  Franciscus 
Junius.  These  versions  were  presented  in  a  con- 
venient combination  by  the  'Polyglots',  especially 
that  of  Walton,  1657  (Syriac,  Ethiopic,  Arabic, 
and,  for  the  Gospels  only,  Persian).  J.  Fell  (1675) 
took  care  to  insert  in  his  apparatus  the  Gothic  and 
the  Coptic,  as  versiones  antiquissimas  et  a  regioni- 
bus  qua  patet  orbis  maxime  distantibus  orientes. 
But  the  older  of  the  Egyptian  Versions,  the  Sahidic, 
was  first  mentioned  m  1778,  and  edited  in  1799 ; 

•  On  the  Gr.  MSS  used  by  St.  Jerome,  see,  besides  the  Bp^ 
logua  of  Wordsworth-White  (pp.  663-871) ;  E.  Mangenol,  Jieo, 
d«s  Sciences  EccUsiastimus  (Jan.  1900) ;  J.  H.  Bernard,  Hermm- 
thena  (xL  No.  xxrii.  1901,  836-342). 


TEXT  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAilENT  TEXT  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT    736 


and  of  an  oMer  Syriac  Version,  only  one,  and  this 
a  niiuilated  MS,  had  been  made  known  by  Curetou 
as  late  as  1858,  till  the  Syriac-Sinai  p:iliin|raest 
WAS  discovered  by  Mrs.  Lewis  and  Mrs.  Gibson  in 
lS"j-2.  !•'.  C.  Burkitt  is  inclined  to  ascribe  the 
latter  MS  to  the  end  of  the  4th  cent.;  and  there  is 
no  doubt  that  the  version  contained  in  it  is  in 
some  way  or  other  connected  witli  the  Diatessaron 
of  Tatiaii,  the  pupil  of  Justin  Martj'r,  i.e.  a  work 
of  the  third  quarter  of  the  2nd  centurj'. 

3.  The  mention  of  Justin  may  lead  to  our  third 
class  of  documents,  the  Quotations  (of.  WH,  §§  liiS- 
120,  'Fathers').  The  finds  of  the  last  century 
have  greatly  enriched  this  source  (cf.  Clem,  ad 
CurinthiuK,  barnabas,  Hermas,  Aristides,  Didavhe, 
etc.);  and  for  tho.se  Fathers  whose  works  had 
been  previously  known,  but  only  in  inadequate 
editions,  trustworthy  editions  are  now  everywhere 
in  the  course  of  preparation  or  publication  ;  cf.  the 
Corpus  Scriptorum  Ecclesmsticorum  Latinormn, 
edited  by  the  Academy  of  Vienna  (now  more  than 
40  vols.),  and  Die  Griechischen  Christlichen  Schrift- 
steller  der  ersten  drei  Jahrhundcrte,  to  be  published 
bj'  the  Academy  of  Berlin  (up  till  now  7  volumes, 
including  3  of  Origen). 

For  illustrations  of  liow  untrustworthy  the  printed  editions 
have  hitherto  been,  partly  owing  to  the  fault  of  the  editors,  see 
Jntrod.  p.  14.51?.,  from  Origen,  Cyril,  Cyprian;  on  Kpbr&em 
Syrus  see  F.  0.  Burkitt  in  Texts  and  Studies,  vii.  2. 

And  yet  the  importance  of  the  quotations  is  very 
great.  Some  of  the  Christian  writings  belong  to 
the  Ist  cent.,*  of  most  of  which  the  date  and  birth- 
place are  exactly  known :  thus  they  help  us  as 
landmarks  for  the  li.\ing  of  texts  handed  down 
in  M.SS  of  unknown  origin.  Especially  valuable 
are  tliose  pa-ssages  in  wliich  the  F'athers  refer  to 
the  manuscripts  in  their  hands  (ivTlypa.(pa,  exem- 
plariu,  libri)  and  their  variants,  from  Iren^us 
downwards  (see  above,  p.  734"),  and  it  is  strange 
that  these  passages  are  not  yet  collected  and 
■it  ted. 

Most  welcome  will  be  Sancti  Ireruxi  Novum  Testarrnntuvij 
edited  by  W.  Sanday,  advertised  as  in  preparation  by  the  Oxford 
University  Press :  on  Clement  of  Alexandria  see  P.  il.  Iiar[iard 
(7.  and  St,  v.  5,  but  only  for  Gospels  and  Acts);  on  Tertullian, 
Konsch,  Das  Neue  Textarnent  Tertutiians  ;  see  also  Introd.  p. 
144  IT.  From  Augustine  alone  P.  de  Lagarde  collected  29,640 
quotations  from  the  NT,  together  with  13,270  from  the  OT  (now 
in  the  Library  of  Gottingen  (>IS  Lagarde,  34]);  Dean  liurgon, 
with  the  help  of  several  latlics,  filled  16  thick  volumes  of 
quotations,  which  were  acquire<l  after  his  death  by  the  Trustees 
of  the  liritish  ^luscum.  See  Ed.  stiller,  Textiuu  Commentary 
upon  the  Holy  Gottpeln.  i.  L  pp.  xiif.,  xxflf. 

On  the  other  h.and,  it  is  clear  that  all  depends  on 
the  exactness  with  which  the  author  has  quoted 
his  text.  Amongst  the  earliest  quotations  we  may 
reckon  the  use  made  in  the  NT  itself  by  one 
writer  of  an  earlier  writing,  for  instance  by  Luke 
and  Matthew  of  Mark,  by  Jude  of  2  Peter,  or  vice 
versa. 

4.  Number  of  Variations  increased  by  new 
materials.  —  Bewildering  as  this  cloud  oif  wit- 
nesses is,  still  more  bewildering  is  the  mass  of 
vari.ints  presented  by  them.  Already  in  the  time 
of  Mill  tile  number  of  variations  in  the  NT  Wiis 
e-stinialed  as  .30,000.  Scrivener  reckoned  in  1874  at 
le.ost  four  times  that  quantity,  Schair(CVH)/)«)u'o», 
1892)  ststod  that  now  it  cannot  fall  much  short  of 
150,000,  i.e.  more  variants  than  words,  or,  as  the 
NT  consists  of  7959  verses,  about  2(1  variants  for 
every  single  ver.so.  And  yet  every  new  document 
that  comes  to  light  increases  them.  Take  so  short 
a  letter  as  that  of  Jude.  The  discovery  of  the 
co<lex  SinaiticiiH  alone  brought  to  light  9  readings 
not  recorded  before  in  Tischendorf's  7th  ed.,  among 

•'There  are  perhaps  as  many  as  a  hundred  ecclesiastical 
writers  older  than  the  oldest  extant  codex  of  the  NT ;  while 
between  a.d.  fiOrtand  A.n.  600(witliln  which  limits  our  five  oldest 
MSS  n.ay  be  considere<I  certainly  to  fall)  there  exist  attout  two 
hiw.dred  Fathers  mote'  {Uv&a  Burgon,  Last  TiceLve  Verses  of 
Hark,  p.  21X 


them  the  addition  of  /i-ai  fw^j  after  aurriplat  in  T.', 
and  the  substitution  of  ^dira;'  '('oxrif  for  Tdn-at  toi)» 
dffe/Seis  in  v.". 

The  first  part  of  the  Amherst  Papi/ri,  published  bv  Grenfell 
and  Hunt,  1900,  supplied  the  single  verse  He  1'  written  (along 
with  Gn  11)  in  a  small  uncial  hand  of  the  late  3rd,  or  more  prob- 
ably early  4th  cent.,  at  the  toji  of  a  papyrus  leaf  contaming 
a  letter  from  Rome.  It  furnishes  the  reading  Tt7i  TetTpHtnt 
r./jtMt  not  recorded  before.  In  the  same  volume  was  published 
a  single  vellum  leaf,  dating  apparently  from  about  the  5th  or 
6th  cent.,  containing  Ac  21i-'-«  uith  locunffi ;  it  furnished  as 
singular  readings  v. '2  t/jo.-  tok  i >>>.<>» ;  v.i3  ix^ti/Bt^of  yiyattic, 
the  latter  reading  being  practically  that  of  D  (?<ixXiuaCa» 
AiyflpTif),  with  which  D  had  stood  hitherto  alone,  instead  of 
xAifaC«>rir  (or  i(axAiwe^o»Tif)  'OAyo*.*  Kven  in  the  case  of  docu- 
ments known  from  early  times  a  fresh  revision  will  enrich  (or 
correct)  the  critical  apparatus  of  our  present  editions.  Cf.,  for 
instance,  the  notes  of  the  present  writer  on  cod.  D  in  ZWTti 
181)5,  167  fT.,  and  the  collation  of  this  codex  in  NT  (Jr.  Suppl 
p.  66.    The  readijig  *«^a»MeA*i:/*i»  (pra;s.  hist.)  in  Ac  2112,  not 

mentioned  by  Blass  in  1805  (Oott.),  has  been  received  by  him  into 
his  text  in  lbd6(Lip&).  On  certain  readings  of  B  see  Introd,. 
p.  2S9.  On  1  P  1'9  Tiscbendorf  states  tlmt  KO  have  in  yiyfuT- 
reti,  in  reality  they  have  i'i  yiy/>.  et«.  F.  C.  Burkitt  was  the 
first  to  make  out,  in  1899  (JThSt.  i.  278),  that  the  Old  Latin  .MS 
k  read  in  Mk  15W  by  its  first  hand  rnaledixiati,  corroborating 
thus  itiiiiraeot  D.  In  regard  to  the  Gothic  translation  of  UllUas, 
Tiscbendorf  does  not  mention  the  very  curious  reading  viana- 
gaini,  Jn  7^^  =  turbce,  for  'Utiiaioi  (see  cod./),  and  the  fact  that 
there  are  various  readings  on  the  margins,  as  j€ituxx<rti;Mu  1  Co 
13;',  i.«}.;.i«-«4Ti  Oal  42',  ;,ni(  Eph  l'». 

The  same  holds  good  of  the  1  ersions  and  of  the  Fathers,  that 
a  new  revision  will  greatly  enlarge  or  rectify  the  critical  appa- 
ratus of  our  present  editions.  Cf.  .Mk  V Ti/.ut:  aya-ra  I)  a  be;  yet 
cf.  Clem,  of  Alexandria,  who  is  older  than  any  of  our  il.SS;  0  ^i» 

ycLp    Ttlt    x**^*'"   ecyxToit  Xao<  (583)  ;  iirrj    yafi   Mcti    i   >Mf   i  xtit 

xu>.trtf  iymr^f  (C14).  The  use  Of  iyarif  is  of  course  a  re- 
miniscence of  Ps  "836 ;  Bee  Clem.  Strom,  iv.  32  (Dind.  ii.  334, 
1.  2,  compared  with  333,  1.  27,  where  Ps  581*  is  a  misprint  for 
'78')  is-ixii :  mrbrriif  L  2P«  Clem.  Rom.  ;  but  in  Clem.  Oil  Cor. 
1.  16  only;  cod.  A  has  ec^Tta-nr,  cod.  II  uTixn-  The  reading 
;«««»  or  pecxjMf  (cod.  O)  Mt  522,  in  the  Apostolic  Coiuitilututns, 
ii.  22  ;  kfxmi"  for  trpim<  in  Lk  1522,  ib.  iL  41  (c(.  Kfi'mp  in  the 
Syriac  translation  of  1  Clem,  ad  Cor.  47  for  ifixx'xt). 

We  leave  out — for  want  of  space — all  variations 
concerned  \vith  the  later  additions  to  the  text,  as 
headings,  summaries,  numbering  of  sections,  sticki. 
Quotations,  miracles,  Eusebian  sections,  notes  on 
the  voyages  of  I'aul,  noting  of  church  lessons,  etc. ; 
though  some  of  these  particulars  are  of  great  im- 
portance for  the  history  of  the  text,  especially  for 
the  classilication  of  MSS.  Only  by  way  of  ex- 
ample we  may  mention  that  Tiscliendorf  gives,  for 
the  inscription  of  the  Eiustle  of  Juile,  eleven,  and 
for  its  subscription  twelve  dillcrent  forms  ;  for  the 
heading  of  the  Apocalypse  their  number  actucdly 
riics  to  eighteen.  We  confine  ourselves  strictly  to 
the  text. 

If  any  of  our  readers  is  startled  by  this  mass  of 
variations,  though  it  will  no  longer  cause  him 
dogmatical  anxieties  and  heart-burnings  as  it  did 
to  J.  A.  Bengel  in  former  times,  he  may  console 
himself,  in  the  first  place,  by  observing  that  the 
variety  is  not  nearly  so  great  as  it  might  have  been, 
and  ixa  it  actually  is  in  a  closely  allied  deji.artment, 
— that  of  the  Apocryphal  literature  (Gospels,  Acta, 
etc.). 

Let  us  compare  the  statement  of  A.  C.  Headlara, 
on  the  Clementine  literature  {JThSt,  iii.  48),  and 
sinijdy  cast  a  glance  at  the  very  hrst  item  in 
Tischendorf's  2nd  ed.  of  the  Evangclia  Apocrypha, 
the  so-called  '  Protevangelium  Jacobi.'  'lake  as  an 
example  Tisch.  24,  where  the  original  text  said 
that  '  the  chapiters  of  the  temple  wailed  and  were 
rent  from,  the  tap  to  the  bottom'  at  the  murder  of 
the  lather  of  John  the  liapti.st  by  Herod.  One 
manuscript  writes  that  the  priests  rent  rd  i/tana 
a  iJrui',  another  changes  this  into  /tai  ^ffpiinjaoK  Sprjiiov 
Hiyav. 

We  have  nothing  like  this  in  the  cnncinical 
NT.      Even   the  greatest  variations  oU'ercd   liy  U 

•  How  common  such  variations  are  may  be  seen  from  W  is  liw, 
where  the  very  same  example  occurs  :  •>■!>»  x>m'\""'  kAR. 

MTIlTCPTIf  I^Xll,a*0,  C. 


736    TKXT  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 


TEXT  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAilE^  T 


(in  Luke  and  Acts,  which  have  been  called  '  mnn^tra 
jiDtius  (juam  variae  leotiones')  are  tame  coMipaied 
« itii  these.  Nevertlieless,  we  should  be  only  too 
};lad  to  have  a  thread  of  Ariadne  to  guide  us 
through  the  labjTinth  of  NT  criticism. 

5.  Jiules  of  Textual  Criticixm.  —  To  meet  this 
want,  the  rules  dra^vIl  up  for  literary  criticism  iu 
general  have  been  ai)pliea  to  the  NT  in  particular. 
We  can  only  touch  on  some  of  them.  First  of  all, 
tliat  of  Bengel :  proclivi  scriptioni  prmatnt  ardua, 
which  is  commonly  quoted  in  the  sliorter  but  less 
balanced  form  :  difficilior  lectio  placet  or  r/il/icilior 
lectio  primipatum  tenet.  Under  this  rule  falls  that  of 
Griesliach  :  Brevior  lectio  prmfercnda  est  verbosiori ; 
also  that  which  Wordsworth-White  formulated  (in 
the  Oxford  Latin  NT) :  Vera  lectio  ad  finem  vie- 
toriam  rcportat  [i.e.  where  a  phrase  occurs  several 
times  with  variations,  that  reading  is  the  true  one 
which  is  attested  at  the  later  places  :  '  s* pe  enim 
scribPE  quod  primo  loco  pro  mendo  habent,  secundo 
pro  vero  agnoscunt'].*  But  it  is  clear  that  these 
rules  have  a  very  limited  application.  Internal 
judgment  is  liable  to  much  error,  even  if  the  textual 
Clitic  has  a  special  gift — and  has  developed  it  by 

firactice — of  divining  what  the  author  is  likely  to 
lave  written  {intrinsic  probability),  and  what  a 
copyist  is  likely  to  have  made  him  seem  to  have 
written  {transcriptional  probability). 

Of  greater  importance  is  the  external  evidence, 
the  MSS,  Versions,  Quotations.  But  here  again 
some  warnings  are  necessary.  For  instance,  the 
rule  of  Sauppe  :  '  Do  not  overrate  your  Codex' 
that  which  you  may  have  discovered  (as  Tischen- 
dorf  did  with  N),  or  in  which  you  are  for  some 
reason  or  other  specially  interested.  Or  the  rule 
from  the  Ten  Commandmetitsfor  a  p/iilolvgist—vie 
think  they  are  by  the  late  Professor  A.  Lehrs  of 
Kiinigsherg — '  Thou  shalt  worship  no  Codices.'  Or 
the  saying  :  '  Common  sense  is  older  than  any 
Code.v '  ;  or  in  Latin  :  '  Ratio  et  iudicium  centum 
codicibus  potior.a.' 

How  are  we  to  sift  and  judge  the  evidence? 
That  it  is  not  allowable  to  count  the  witnesses  is 
now  generally  acknowledged  ;  in  theory,  too,  it  is 
acknowledged  th.at  we  have  to  distinguish  between 
the  age  of  the  MS  and  that  of  its  text ;  but  in 
practice  too  great  weight  is  still  allowed  to  the 
oldest  of  our  MSS.  Neither  is  it  sufficient  to 
follow  an  eclectic  course,i  to  decide  each  case  by 
itself,  to  stop  at  the  comparison  of  single  readings. 
This  is  only  the  first  step  ;  and  for  this  it  is  suffi- 
cient to  take  the  most  significant  variations,  i.e. 
(a)  such  as  otter  a  considerable  divergence  of 
meaning  with  a  small  variation  of  form,  whether 
it  be  brought  about  (a)  accidentally  or  (/3)  by  pur- 
pose; or  {h)  such  as  otier  identity  of  meaning  with 
great  variation  of  form  ;  or,  finally  (c),  additions, 
omissions,  and  transjjositions. 

Such  passages  are,  for  instance,  for  (a)  from 
Revelation  J — 

1»    Xiaavri,  NAC  .   .  . 

XovaavTi^  QP  ,  ,  , 
8"  dfToC,  XAQ  .  .  . 

dyyAof,  P  ,  ,  • 

13"  '  666,'  almost  all. 

'616,'  C  11  (MSS  qnoted  by  Irensens). 

•  Cf.  further : '  id  verixis,  fjuod  prius,'  called  by  Dean  Burgon  an 
axiom  wliic-h  holds  every  bit  as  true  in  Textual  Criticism  aa  in 
DoK'iiiatic  Truth  {Last  Verseg,  70). 

t  How  dan^'eroMs  an  eclectic  course  is  maybe  seen  from  the 
latest  recension  of  the  NT,  that  of  B.  Weiss,  who  reads  in  Lk  52 
wKoiKfiiei  2^  (diminutive,  and  iv4  as  Becond  wordX  ft  reading 
which  none  of  our  witnesses  o£fen — 

KD  .  .  .  iut  rA<7a. 

B  .  .  .  wKt7m  iU. 

AC*  .   .   .  ii*  s-A^fdc^fa, 

t  In  the  first  line  is  put  the  reading  adopted  In  the  text  by 
WH.  Only  a  selection  of  the  witnesses  is  given,  chiefly  uncial 
MSS. 


22'"*  TrXOyoi^res  tAs  trroXas  at-ru;*',  XA  .   .  , 

TTOLOUVT^i  Tas  ivToXas  avToC-,  Q  .   .   , 
But  as  in  Rev.  the  documents  are  rare,  it  is  oi 
greater  importance  to  quote  from  other  books — 

Mk     6^  w6p€i,  NBL. 

^TTo/ei,  almost  alL 
Lk      3^  'lu/S^X,  {<*BD*(w(3i;\). 

'Iw;3i)5,  the  rest. 
1  Co  13'    Kavxhauiiioj.,  NAB  17.* 

Kav6r]<jo^ai  (-W-),  the  rest. 
He      2*   xi^/jiTi,  almost  all. 

xupis,  M  67'',  mentioned  by  Origea 

1  Ti     4>»  6.yuvi^ap.eea,  N*AC. 

6vu5iil>y.eBa.,  N'DL. 
IP      V  (TTopas,  BKL. 

{pBopas,  HAG, 

2  P      2.^  ddiKoi/ifvoi,  N*BP. 

KOfuovfieyoij  X^AC  •  •  • 
„         d;rdTats,  NA*C. 

dyaTcu^,  A'B. 
Jude      "  iyoLTrais,  NBKL. 
dirdrac^  ACt 
„     ^-  -^  oOs  iiiv  iXedre  .  .  .  oBs  Si  Aeare,  NB  (will 
minor  variations), 
oils  Si  iXiyxere  .  .  .  oBs  Si  iXeari,  A.J 

(h)  Of  the  second  class  compare — 

Mk   3*    TTwpwffeif  almost  all. 

venpuau,  D,  old  lat.  syi**". 

•  WH  adduce  for  this  reading  also  Clement  of  Alexandria 
614  :  w-Tj  ykp  KtLi  0  >.ttii  o  Tot;  ;)^f.Ai0-ii'  ityavMy  (see  above,  p.  735), 

itf*Ti  zsi  StXXot  ^tcpacitiei^  ri  ffMLUt,    I'tat   xttuXKrr.Toti  ^   *  for   80  the 

parallelism  to  rtjijcuxtciii  makes  it  necessary  to  read ;  the  only 

extant  MS  has  xxudKrtTeti.'  As  the  passage  ia  of  primary  import. 

ance,  the  present  writer  consulted  the  future  editor  of  the 
works  of  Clement  (for  the  Berlin  edition),  Dr.  Stahlin,  who  does 
not  think  this  chauf^e  justified,  pointing  to  the  preceding  ^e$* 

31,  which  refers  to  a  violent  martyrdom.     We  may  refer  further 

to  Clement,  588 Cf.,  where  Clement,  after  several  references  to 
1  Co  13,  mentions  examples  of  heathen  who  endured  the  fire 
(Postumus,  Anaxarches),  and  goes  on  to  say :  fju>u  ii  i>>.iuBipm 
xHv    .  .   ,    iu  wy^ay^  uvovirri  at/pi    .  .  .    tclU  Ot.ms  KV^prmf/unwi 

ixis-liai  hu>xu,iinni.  Here  there  seems  to  be  a  reference  to  1  Co 
133  as  well  as  to  Mt  10-a. 

t  Here,  as  in  Lk  3-^,  1  Co  133,  the  decision  of  WH  seems 
influenced  by  their  predilection  for  nB.  To  what  is  remarked 
(Introd.  p.  324  ff.)  on  these  two  passages  add  the  following: 
Svhatever  \-iew  may  be  taken  of  the  relation  of  2  Peter  to  Jude, 
it  seems  clear  (1)  that  tlie  reading  must  be  the  same  in  both 
Epistles,  either  airaTawf  or  a-yatireu! ;  the  one  Epistle  quoting  from 
the  other — Peter  from  Jude,  or  Jude  from  Peter.  (2)  To  the 
present  writer,  at  least,  it  is  clear  that  xTaisut  ia  the  true 
reading.  The  apparatus  of  Tischendorf  is  very  misleading,  as 
the  translation  of  Jerome  (cunvivia  in  Peter,  epxUtjB  in  Jude) 
testifies  in  both  cases  for  aT«T<rj  =  diversions,  pastimes.  Cf. 
in  rlude  the  reading  iv4»x-«'  in  cod.  G&^;  Protev.  Jacobi,  6.  I: 
inirXatvv*  xuTr,v ;  7.  2  (cod.  L)  :  faV  rX<c*t:i>«t^r>i;  =  pseudo-Matthias 
8.  4  o^  solatium  ;  Sir  141*  iraLrr,nr  T^»  ^fxn»  fou  =  *  let  thy  soul 
fare  delicately '  (Taylor,  Heb.  pJS)  ;  Syriac  'j"i3  Git.  =  ripwut)  for 
lj«!rXaev«»  iu  the  I'rotevangelium.  Bigg  (Commentarp^  1901, 
pp.  212,  2S2,  833)  declares  iyawmt  In  both  places  to  be  the  right 
reading. 

J  Here  WH  remark  ;  *  The  smooth  reading  of  A,  etc,  has  every 
appearance  of  being  a  correction  of  the  ditlicult  double  ixiin  ol 
K  and  B.  .  .  .  Some  primitive  error  evidently  affecta  the  pas- 
sage. Perhaps  the  first  ixiin  ...  is  intnisive.'  Cf.,  on  this 
verse,  the  elaborate  paper  by  U.  A.  Falconer  in  the  Exf-ositor, 
Sept.  1901 ;  hut  note  that  the  Didnche.  or,  rather,  the  still  older 
writing  which  forms  the  basis  of  the  first  part  of  the  Didactic, 
clearly  testifies  for  'iKiyxf^^  In  the  only  extant  MS  of  tlie 
Diilachf,  it  is  true,  «U  f^t  ixnetit  has  fallen  out,  in  its  Latin 
text  also  ccXXtt  tZe  ui*  ixtylur  before  it  and  rtpi  oi  Zr  Twrc/fr 
after  it :  but  after  the  Apostolic  Canons  (Greek  and  Syriac)  w-e 
must  read  in  the  Uidache  cu  fAter^ffut  Tat-ret  itdp^rrtt,  «AAa  tli 

fUt  fA<>^„f  '^iZl  ii  iXirtriif^,  vipt  2i  it   tT,M^b/{)i,  »u<   ii  itytLWr.irUi 

:e  seems  one  of  the  best  examples 


iirip  T-^v  •^t/x'i''  foti.     The  pa! —    -----  —      -    -  -  - 

of  the  vaiue  of  quotations,  and  yet  the  latest  commentator  does 
not  even  quote  it  (Bigg),  and  Falconer  declared  that  nothing 
can  be  made  of  the  supposed  reference  in  the  Didache  on 
the  question  whether  there  are  three  or  two  clauses  in  the 


TEXT  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 


TEXT  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT    737 


Mt  17*°  <!\i7o:ri(rTiai',  NB  CUV3.  syr'"  .   .   . 

diTiffriai',  CDEl'"  .  .  .  it  vg  .  .  . 

((•)  Of  tlie  third  for  additions,  omissions,  and 
transpositions — 

Mt    5^  4  dpyiiifievot  rf  a5e\4"i  ai>7-oD,  KB. 
+  elK~j,  most.* 
25'    ToO  yv/i<t>lov,  NBC  .  .  . 

+  Kai  T-q!  vvn<j>Tis,  DX*2  .  .  .  latt 
Byi*'"  vg  hi,  with  tlie  remark  of  Thomas  that  '  tlie 
bride '  is  not  found  in  all  copies,  especially  not  in 
the  'Alexandrian ' ;  see  on  the  importance  of  this 
dillerunce  for  the  explanation  of^  the  parable  a 
paper  of  A.  Hilgenfeld  in  ZWTIi,  xliv.  (1901) 
pp    545-553. 

It  is  sufficient  to  recall  the  doxology  in  the 
Lord's  Prayer,  the  end  of  Marli,  1  Jn  5'. 

Transpo.-.ition3 — 

Jn  7"-S"  stands  after  Lk  21»»  in  the  closely- 
related  M.SS  13-69-124-3-16,  the  principal  members 
of  the  so-called  Ferrar  group. 

In  Romans  'the  great  doxology'  (16^'")  is 
found  also  after  14-'  in  AP  5,  17,  here  alone  in  the 
'SjTian'  text  (Greek,  Gothic,  and  Syriac).  On 
the  inferences  which  may  be  drawn  from  this 
fact,  see  WH,  Appendix,  Liglitfoot,  Bihl.  Ess. 
28711'.,  and  Zahn,  Einleituxg,  on  Uie  one  hand,  and 
on  the  otlier  l"'r.  Sjiitta,  Unte.rsiirh.  iiber  den  Brief 
des  Paulus  an  die  Jiumer  (Zur  Gcsch.  und  Lift,  des 
Urch>i--tentums,  iii.  1,  1901).  Textual  criticism 
here  passes  over  into  higlier  criticism.  Cf.,  further, 
B.  W.  Bacon,  "Tlie  Hoxology  at  the  end  of 
Romans'  {JIU.  xviii.  167-176).t 

Tliese  examples  sliow  that,  according  to  WH 
at  least,  N  and  B,  and  especially  the  combination 
NB,  have  preserved  in  most  cases  the  true  reading. 
Hut  WH  came  to  this  decision  not  on  the  basis  of 
the  intrinsic  merits  of  the.se  readings,  but  led  by 
their  important  principle  :  Knmvledije  uf  documents 
.•y/iuuld  precede  Jtnal  judgment  of  readings  (§  38) ; 
and  :  All  trustworthy  restoration  of  corruiited  texts 
is  founded  on  t/ie  studij  of  their  history,  that  is, 
of  the  relations  of  descent  or  allinity  which  con- 
nect the  several  documents  (§  49).  This  is  un- 
doubtedly the  true  principle,  and  may  be  c.-illed 
the  historical  or  geneaIo;.'ii-al  nietliod  of  textual 
criticism.  It  consists  in  tlie  attempt  to  retrate  tlie 
history  of  the  text  in  the  opposite  direction  from 
that  which  it  has  taken,  i.e.  from  recent  times 
ba(tkwards,  step  by  step,  if  possible  to  the  very 
original.     In   many  cases  (compare  the  Heb.  O'l" 

•  To  the  w-itncHSeB  for  the  omiBsion  of  ilxn  is  to  be  orlded  the 
Didnjtcalia  aa  cdiled  hy  ljkgart\c  (p.  .S-'i"-^)';  the  Conntftvtiini.i, 
11.  fi;j  (p.  711-',  ed.  L.a|^arde,  not  mentioiicd  in  his  Index),  und  the 
MS  oi  ttiL.  Didancalia  published  by  Mrs.  Gibson  in  the  &tudia 
Sinaitica,  odd  uxn,  *p'K. 

t  In  a  note  at  least  we  mny  touch  on  the  question  of  Con- 
jectural  Ktiifiulation,  There  iiaa  been  so  much  iniause  of  this 
art,  that  of  late  It  bos  fallen  somewhat  into  contempt ;  and,  on 
the  other  hand,  there  are  so  many  good  documents  lor  the  NT 
at  our  disposal,  that  its  place  is  very  Inconsiderable  (WH, 
J}  93-05) ;  but  to  say  that  Conjectural  Emendation  must  Ti^i-^r 
t»e  resorted  to,  even  in  passages  of  acknowledged  difficulty 
(Scrivener*,  ii.  244),  or  to  say  that  it  la  not  allowed  '  prOter  de 
I'esprit  ik  ri-^prit  saint'  (Lagrange,  Revue  Biblimte.  ItHM).  20(1),  is 
to  go  too  far.  The  reading  f  feniri  of  the  TR  in  Ja  4^  seems  to  be 
a  conjecture  of  P'rasmus  put  forward  in  his  second  edition; 
itKt-^fjxfrt^,  mcntinne<l  by  WH  among  the  suspected  renrlings,  is 
a  conJo<^ture  of  Nosselt,'  approved  by  J.  C.  \ollgratT  {lU  Irihus 
liicit  iiUerpolalin  in  Kvaiujdio  aci-mulmn  Marcum,  Mnemosyne, 
11)01,  143-161).  When  the  presetit  writer  hit  uuon  the  reailing 
l-ri  T«»To»  instead  of  i*i  toi«»  or  itj  TAo<ft.»(Kev  ls'7),  re<!eived  into 
the  text  by  Baljon,  it  was  by  mere  conjecture,  though  it  was  con- 
firmed afterwards  by  the  reading  sitjjer  mart  of  I'rlmasius  (the 
confusion  of  Torrovond  roirti  is  very  common,  see  Ens.  llE'w.  15, 
V.  15,  2;l).  Baljon's  edition  gives  a  convenient  collection  of  the 
conjectnrea  of  nls  countrymen.  Fr.  Hlass  receive<l  Into  the  text 
of  his  F.fanfjeiium  teeundmn  MaUhanua  cum  varice  Uctionig 
delectu  (LipsiiB,  1901)  7  conjectural  emendations,  marking  them 
with  a  slur  (•)  :  7*  «^<riT»i»«.,  ItfO  Uiri  riu,  17"  ivwii.  22-'> 
\^.;   (for    afa.rTarwt),    261    i>.gc^,  ....  i^iXfll7>,    211^    ahl    for 

traipi,  27**  ei\<K^6att,     Of  remarkable  rcoxlings  of  this  eilili^a 
note  n»«/>,«,  for  lf^/«*  4^  (a  comptet«  ooUutioo  of  It  at  the 
end  of  the  3rd  ed.  of  Nestle'i  Gr.  Ttut.). 
VOL.  IV.— 47 


and  the  Greek  and  Latin  Classics)  the  scantiness 
of  our  materials  does  not  allow  of  such  a  method  ; 
in  the  case  of  the  NT  it  is,  on  the  contrary, 
made  dillicult  by  the  wealth  of  materials  and 
the  complicated  character  which  this  history 
must  have  had.  And  the  great  question  of 
the  textual  criticism  of  the  NT  at  present  is, 
whether  the  study  of  its  history  led  W  H  to  cor- 
rect conclusions.  Only  the  principal  results  can 
be  mentioned  here :  for  all  particulars  see  vol.  ii. 
of  their  great  edition,  or  the  Appendix  of  their 
manual  edition. 

This  study  led  them  to  recognize  (1)  that  the 
text  of  Chrysostom  and  other  Syrian  Fathers  of 
the  4th  cent,  is  substantially  icientical  with  the 
common  lat<j  text  (§  130).  This  text  must  be  due 
to  a  '  recension^  in  the  strict  sen.se,  with  an  elabor- 
ateness which  implies  deliberate  criticism  (§  185). 
This  part  of  their  theory  is  very  generally  accepted, 
except  by  the  defenders  of  the  traditional  text, 
like  Burgon  and  Ed.  Miller.  But,  further,  WH 
believed  theuLselves  able  to  distinguish  (2)  an 
Alexandrian  text,  the  chief  characteristics  of 
w  hich  are  said  to  be  temperate  forms  of  incipient 
paraphrase  and  of  skilful  assimilation,  with  careful 
attention  to  language,  and  without  bold  para- 
phrase or  interpolation  from  extraneous  sources 
(SS  181-184) ;  (3)  a  Western  text,  not  limited  to  the 
AVest,  but  widely  used  ;  not  single  and  created  at 
once,  but  various  and  progressive,  with  its  two 
chief  characteristics,  boldness  of  paraphrase  and 
readiness  to  adopt  extraneous  matter  ;  represented, 
e.specially  by  codex  D,  Old  Latin  AISS,  but  also 
the  Old  Synac  (§§  170-176)  ;  finally  (4)  the  neutral 
and  comparatively  pure  text,  to  be  discovered, 
especially  by  comparison  of  N  and  B,  the  ancestries 
of  which  \\  H  believe  to  have  been  separate  from  a 
remote  antiquity,  so  that  an  exceptional  purity  ol 
text  would  be  found  in  readings  common  to  NB.* 

5  297 :  one  of  three  alternatives  must  be  true ;  either  the 
respective  ancestries  of  K  and  B  must  have  diverged  from  a 
common  parent  extremely  near  the  apostolic  autographs ; 

Or,  if  tneir  concordant  readings  were  really  derived  from  a 
sin;:le  not  remote  MS,  that  MS  must  itself  iiave  been  of  the 
very  highest  antiquity  ; 

or,  la.stly,  such  single  not  remote  MS  must  have  inherited  its 
te\I  from  an  ancestry  which,  at  each  of  its  stages,  tlad  enjoyed 
a  singular  imnumity  from  cormptiou. 

This  is  the  most  elaborate  theory  about  the  text 
of  the  NT  put  forward  in  the  19th  cent,  as  the 

*  As  examples  of  important  or  interesting  readings  attested 
hy  nB,  but  lost  from  the  texts  of  alt  other  extant  uncials,  Wil 
quote  (5  304),  (.a.,  Mt  5'^  omission  of  Cx^,  IIP  Betolctioi  (see  art. 
TllAliDJjus),  ll'»  i^*v  tor  Ti«n,>,  Mk  92»  omission  of  ««;'  mm,a, 
l(i»-20  omission,  Kph  1'  omission  of  iv  'Ejiff-w. 

WH  do  not,  of  course,  deny  the  presence  of  wrong  readings 
In  KB  (see  %  303),  still  less  in  N  or  B,  but  they  are  slow  to  acknow- 
ledge them.  Cf.  their  note  on  Mt  27-*o,  which  is,  to  all  appeJir. 
ance,  an  intrusion  from  tlie  Cospel  of  John.  'Two  supiwsi- 
tions  alone  are  compatible  with  the  whole  evi<lence.  First,  the 
words  may  belong  to  the  genuine  text  of  the  extjuit  form  of 
MU  .  .  .  Or,  secondly,  they  may  be  a  very  early  interpolation.* 
They  are  extant  in  kUCL,  etc.  WH  Included  them  within 
double  brackets,  but  did  not  feel  justified  in  removing  them 
from  the  text  altogether,  and  were  not  prepared  to  reject 
altogether  the  alternative  supposition.  Dean  Burgon,  on  the 
other  hand.  Last  VeTsen,  p.  so:  'There  does  not  exist  In  the 
whole  compass  of  the  NT  a  more  monstrous  instance  of  inter- 
I'tilation  .  .  .  in  deflanee  of  reason  as  well  as  of  authority,*  cf.  pp. 
313-318.  Though  the  verse  is  not  attested  by  Kphraein's  Com- 
mentary on  the  Diatessaron  or  the  Aralilc  revision  of  it,  we  see 
no  rea.son  why  we  should  doubt  the  statement  of  the  scholion 
that  the  sentence  was  present  lit  «  ttaO'  Irroput*  ivtiyyiytov 
j^itiia/fiov,  xeti  TxTtectou  Ka)  aXAAf*  iia^e/Mtt  ityitit  vari'^r  (cod. 
72,  where  ^laHpeu  may  have  arisen  from  iiit  h\  i.e.  ii^rw 
ffxfmi).  Comp.,  further,  Mk  4''"  Ciri  rr*  ^t>x*t*;  attested  by 
KB*  13-69-340  33  :  'the  concurrence  of  four  such  documentary 
authorities,  all  Independent,  implies  the  highest  antiquity,  the 
number  rendering  accidental  eoinddence  very  unlikely.*  "To 
the  four  authorities  quoted  by  W'H  is  to  be  added  a  fifth,"  2,  and 
just  on  that  account  it  becomes  more  likely  that  the  coincidence 
is  aocldentiil:  comp.  He  7'  •«,  rejected  In  spite  of  NAIiC^n  ; 
93  the  [ulditiOD  of  ««J  ri  x/v#«vi»  SvfMmr^^t  io  B  and  its 
omission  in  v.-*. 


738    TEXT  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 


TEXT  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 


result  of  its  study  during  tliirty  years.  Fifteen 
years  after  its  first  publication  the  then  surviv- 
ing editor  brought  out  a  new  edition  with  some 
Supiilementary  Notes,  required  by  the  discovery  of 
fresh  documents,  espuoiafly  the  Syriac  paliiiijisest 
from  Sinai ;  at  the  same  time  declaring  that  no 
arguments  had  been  advanced  against  their  general 
principles  which  were  not  fully  considered  by 
themselves  in  the  long  course  of  tlieir  work,  and, 
in  their  judgment,  dealt  with  accurately.  And  in 
their  Introduction  itself  it  is  declared  (§  105) : 
'  Nothing  can  well  be  less  probable  than  the  dis- 
covery of  cursive  evidence  suUieiently  important 
to  ati'ect  present  conclusions  in  more  than  a  handful 
of  passages,  much  less  to  alter  present  interpreta- 
tions of  relations  between  the  existing  documents.' 
Again,  in  the  concluding  paragraphs  on  the  '  Con- 
ditions of  further  improvement  of  the  text' (371- 
374)  they  wTote  :  '  It  would  be  an  illusion  to  anti- 
cipate important  changes  of  te.\t  from  any  acquisi- 
tion of  new  documents,'  and  did  not  hesitate  to 
express  the  conviction  that  no  trustworthy  improve- 
ment can  be  effected  except  in  accordance  with 
the  leading  principles  of  their  method  ;  further, 
'  that  the  general  course  of  future  criticism  nuist 
be  shaped  by  the  happy  circumstance  tliat  the 
fourth  century  has  bequeathed  to  us  two  MSS,  of 
which  even  the  less  incorrupt  must  have  been  of 
exceptional  purity  among  its  own  contemporaries, 
and  which  rise  into  greater  prominence  of  char- 
acter the  better  the  early  history  of  that  text  be- 
comes known.' 

The  present  writer  is  not  prepared  to  contradict 
these  statements.  Yet,  on  the  other  hand,  it  can- 
not be  denied  that  there  is  a  growing  doubt  whetlier 
the  importance  of  the  so-called  Westei-n  variations 
has  not  been  underrated  and  the  purity  of  the  text 
of  KB  overrated.*  See,  besides  the  contributions 
of  Fr.  Blass  of  Halle,  the  latest  statement  by 
C.  H.  Turner  in  JThSt,  iu.  3,  p.  lllf.  :  'If  the 
authority  for  the  words  of  the  Evangelists  is  to 
be  sought  primarily  or  even  partially  from  the 
"  Western  'text,  it  must  be  admitted  that  a  pro- 
blem lies  before  us  which,  if  it  may  well  call  forth 
all  the  energies  of  Christian  scholars,  will  make 
heavy  calls  alike  on  their  patience,  their  caution, 
and  their  courage.' + 

The  other  question  is  whether  WH  estimated 
the  testimony  of  NB  correctly.  What  if  NB  or 
their  ancestors  were  not  separated  from  a  remote 
antiquity,  but  one  codex  was  influenced  by  the 
other  ?  WH  were  inclined  to  believe  that  B  was 
written  at  Rome,  and  that  all  its  ancestors  may 
have  been  there,  while  to  N  they  ascribed  an 
Egyptian  origin.  Tischendorf,  on  the  other  hand, 
believed  he  could  demonstrate  that  one  and  the 
same  copyist  worked  at  both  MSS.  Quit«  recently 
the  suggestion  has  been  thrown  out  that  B  originated 
under  the  influence  of  Athanasius  (Kahlfs,  Nestle, 
Zahn),  and  is  perhaps  the  very  copy  which  was 
procured  by  Athanasius  for  Constans.  If  .so,  it  is  a 
question  how  an  exceptional  purity  can  have  been 
handed  do«Ti  till  that  time.  On  "the  other  hand, 
this  fact  would  exjilain  how  E  seems  to  have  left 
no  children  ;  the  private  copy  of  an  emperor  would 
not  be  given  out  that  other  MSS  might  be  copied 
from  it ;  certainly  not  at  first.     It  is  at  all  events 

•  Even  Burpon  speaks  favourably  of  D,  despite  of  its  many 
'monatra  potius  quaiu  varie  lectiones' (Aa^e  Twelve  I'ergeg  of 
Hark,  p.  211). 

I  There  has  Just  appeared  the  Prospectus  of  the  great  under- 
taking of  Prof.  H.  von  Soden  of  Berlin  :  Di«  Sc/tri/fen  rfcjj 
Neuen  Testanwntrs  in  ihrer  alteiten  erreichfjaren  'fezt<testnlt 
hergf^UUt  au/Gtttnd  ihrer  Textgeschichte;  Berlin,  A.  Dnncker, 
2  vols. —2323  Codices  have  been  examined,  454  more  tlian  are 
mentioned  by  Greirory,  with  the  result  that  the  text  of  KB  is 
held  to  be  decidedly  that  of  a  recension,  not  the  neutral  or 
oriKinal.  as  WH  believed.  This  forthcoming  edition  will  beDC«- 
forward  forma  new  starting-point  [24th  March  1902]. 


strange  that  no  MS  seems  to  have  been  found  aa 
yet  w-liich  might  be  [ironouneed  with  certainty  to 
have  been  copied  from  B.  *  In  some  books  of  the 
or  X  and  B  have  an  almost  identical  text ;  in 
others  they  present  us  with  quite  different  recen- 
sions ;  in  the  Book  of  Judges  B  contains  a  version 
not  quoted  by  the  Alexandrian  P'athers  from  the 
•2nd  to  the  4t^i  cent.  (Clement,  Origen,  Didymus), 
but  for  the  first  time  by  Cyril,  which  therefore 
some  scholars  have  been  inclined  to  ascribe  to 
Hesychius.  In  the  NT  it  is  easier,  as  Burgon 
stated,  'to  find  two  consecutive  verses  in  which 
the  two  MSS  difier  the  one  from  the  other,  than 
two  consecutive  verses  in  which  they  entirely 
agree.'  But  this,  instead  of  sensibly  detracting 
from  our  opinion  of  the  value  of  their  evidence,  as 
Burgon  believed,  on  the  contrary  enhances  it 
where  they  agree.  It  is  intelligible  that,  as  long 
as  cod.  B  stood  alone  among  extant  MSS  in  the 
omission  of  Mk  16^"*",  scholars  were  slow  to  follow 
it ;  even  after  X  had  come  to  its  support,  Burgon 
was  not  justified,  but  might  be  excused  for  coming, 
after  an  investigation  of  more  than  250  pages,  to 
the  conclusion  '  that  cod.  B  and  cod.  N  must  be 
henceforth  allowed  to  be  in  one  more  serious  par- 
ticular untrustworthy  and  erring  witnesses.  They 
have  been  convicted,  in  fact,  of  bearing  false 
witness  in  respect  of  St.  Mark  16"'^,  where  their 
evidence  had  been  hitherto  reckoned  upon  with 
the  most  undoubting  confidence.'  t  But  now,  since 
F.  C.  Conybeare  found  in  1893  the  Armenian 
manuscript  which  between  v.*  and  v.*  has  the  words 
'  Ariston  eritzou,'  i.e.  of  the  '  Presbyter  Arist[i]on' 
(see  the  facsimile  in  Swete's  Commentary  and  in 
Introd.  pi.  ix),  and  has  preserved  even  the  name  of 
the  man  to  whom  (directly  or  indirectly)  we  owe  the 
longer  conclusion  of  the  Second  Gospel,  no  reason- 
able doubt  is  any  longer  possible.  Therefore  iu 
this  important  case  NB  turn  out  to  be  our  best 
witnesses  among  extant  MSS.  This  awakens,  of 
course,  a  strong  prejudice  in  their  favour.  But 
what,  on  the  other  hand,  about  the  '  Western  non- 
interpolations  '  ?  and  the  other  places  where  D 
alone  seems  to  have  preser\'ed  the  original  read- 
ing ?  See  WH,  S§  i;-40-242,  283.  Certain  apparently 
Western  '  omissions '  are  shown  by  their  internal 
character  to  be  original,  i.e.  non-interpolations; 
that  is  to  say,  only  those  Western  documents  re- 
mained free  from  interpolations  which  found  their 
way  into  aU  other  documents.     Their  presence  in 

•  The  reading  favip^^  (He  13  for  ^e/wv),  which  is  attested  b.v 
Tischendorf  only  from  B", — a  second  hand  changed  it  into  i-f^*. 
a  third  restored  it,  and  wrote  on  the  margin  a,ua.Sia~t<tTi  lutt 
xdtx;,  a;(>  T«  TeLyeuct,  fi.r,  fj.irttTo.ii. — has  now  been  found  in  aa 
Eg^ptian  treatise  (see  J.  A.  Robinson,  TexU  and  Studies,  T.  6, 
p.  i). 

It  is  a  great  drawback  that  our  critical  editions  do  not  permit 
of  an  e.asy  glance  over  the  differences  of  these  principal  MSS ; 
there  isHanseir8edition(.V7*<7/-iece  ;  Antifpttssimorum  codicum 
Uxtus  in  nrdinein  parallelmn  di.'-'pog. ;  notas  crit.  et  coUationem 
CmI.  Sinaidei  adjecit  Ed.  If.  Uanselt,  Oxonii,  3  vols.,  1864,  fi2J 
sh.),  and  now  that  of  Schjott  (NT  grtsct  ad  fidem  Ustium 
vettt£tii<simoruni  recognovit  nfcnon  variantes  tectum*^  ex 
edilionibus  Kluviriana  et  Tixchendorjiana  subjunxitt  HauDlae, 
1897). 

t  This  con\-iction  as  regards  B  arose  from  the  fact,  first 
pointed  out  in  its  importance  by  Burgon,  that  the  scribe  of  B, 
after  ending  the  Gospel  wiUi  v. 8  in  the  second  column  of  a  page, 
has,  contrary  to  his  custom,  left  the  third  or  remaining  column 
blank,  evidently  because  one  or  other  of  the  two  stibsequent 
endings,  and  apparently  the  longer  of  the  Textus  lieceptus,  waa 
known  to  him  personally,  while  he  did  not  find  it  in  th« 
exemplar  which  he  was  copying.  That  the  same  scribe,  by 
retaining  on  the  margin  the  sectional  fi.Lrures  in  the  Epistles  of 
Paul,  has  pre8er\'ed  for  us  the  knowledge  that  the  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews  had  formerly  a  different  position  from  what  it  has 
now  in  B,  may  t)e  mentioned  here  with  due  thanks  to  him,  and 
as  proof  how  the  smallest  particulars  may  be  of  imp<)rtajice  in 
textual  criticism.    That  in  the  OT  part  one  of  the  scribes  was  io 

the  habit  of  using  for  the  name  \rp«tfiX  the  abbreviation  I»jA, 

the  other  TrX,  enabled  E.  Abbott  to  recognize  their  different 
hands  without  even  seeing  the  codex,  while  the  Roman  editor! 
were  not  able  to  discern  it  from  the  handwriting  wliich  \tj 
before  them. 


TEXT  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 


TEXT  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT    739 


even  *he  best  of  these  documents  appeared  to  WH 

snch  an  extraordinary  phenomenon  tnat  they  were 

led   to  the   thought — worked   out  later  by  Blass 

— that  '  the  Western  and  the  non- Western  texts 

started  respectively  from  ajirst  anda  second  edition 

of  the  Gospels,  both  conceivably  apostolic.'     WH 

decided  tinally  to  Il'uvb  them  in  the  text,  but  to 

mark  them  by  double  brackets  Z  1-     Apart  from 

the  singular  addition  to  Mt  27^  (see   above,    p. 

737''  n. ),  these  Western  non-interpolations  are  all 

found   in   the  last  three  chapters  of  Lnke  (22'"' 
24».  0-  1-.  36. 41).  fti.  n\ 

Of  other  places  where  D  alone  (or  nearly  alone) 
seems  to  have  preserved  the  original  reading,  H. 
Weiss  mentions  (Die  vier  Evnngelien,  pp.  4S,  180) 
Mk  13*^  tlie  omission  of  \f/ev56xpi-<rTot  nai,  and  the 
reading  voi-fiaovffiv  for  Silxrovaiv ;  Lk  12'"  irus  oSrt 
vi]8et  o<St(  iiipaU'ei,  Mk  3"  etc. 

In  his  Phih-logica  sacra  (1896)  the  present  writer 
pointed  out  other  i>ass:iges  of  this  kind,  e.y.  Mt 
6^  Trplv  vfjLas  dvoi|aL  to  (rrdfia  instead  of  alrjjjat 
oi>t4v  ;  26"  6/iomfei  for  SrjXdv  ae  woiel ;  Lk  18'"*  l-irTa- 
irXturlova,  etc.  Bhiss  has  received  a  great  deal  into 
his  edition  of  St.  Matthew  (1901).  And  the  great 
question  of  the  day  is  the  weiglit  to  be  allowed 
to  D.  But  it  seems  that  new  niatijrials  must 
come  to  light  before  a  decision  can  bf.  reached.  In 
the  meantime  the  ta.sk  will  be  (1)  to  collate  as 
many  MSS,  Versions,  and  Fathers  as  possible; 
(2)  to  collect  all  statements  of  the  Fathers  about 
what  may  be  called  editions  or  recensions  of  the 
NT ;  (3)  to  comjiare  these  statements  with  the 
results  of  our  collations. 

That  Marcion  edited  a  NT  (Gospel  of  Luke 
and  Epistles  of  Paul)  is  well  known.  Are  traces 
of  his  work  to  be  found  in  any  existing  MS  or  MSS  ? 
and,  if  so,  in  which  ?  Of  Tatian  we  know  nut  only 
that  he  composed  his  Dintes.saron,  Imt  also  that  he 
tampered  with  tlie  text  of  Paul :  toO  H  'AirouToXov, 
tpcurlf  ToXfiTJaal  Ttvat  avrdv  ^CTa4>pao'ai  ^{i)va9  ws  ciri- 
Siop8ovp.evov  airrCjv  ry)v  rijs  (ppdaaos  ffvvTa^tv  (Ens. 
HE  iv.  29).  Has  the  Diatessaron  left  its  traces  in 
D  or  anywlure  else!  and  what  is  the  relation  of 
the  so-called  Western  text  of  the  P;iuline  Ejpistles 
to  Tatian  ?  When  the  Epistle  to  the  Philipiiiaiis 
begins  in  D^  etc. ;  'E^u  |iev  fi^xaptorw  ry  Kvpiu)  tj^jluv 
(v.')  instead  of  Evxapiari^  rf  Be(2  fiou  ;  when  l''t;  will 
not  allow  a  TropBeTv  but  only  a  iroXe/ieii'  of  the 
Church  through  Saul  (Gal  1'^-^),  not  a  fiMow  but 
a  ioKouv  as  the  result  of  the  leaven  (1  Co  5",  Gal 
5°),  on  which  side  is  the  '  metaphrasis,' and  from 
whom  did  it  [iroceed  ?  Who  were  the  dpOooo^ot  who 
took  away  (d^elXovro)  a  jj.'issage  from  tlie  Gospel 
of  Luke,  so  tliat  it  is  found  only  iv  tois  iSiopOiirots 
dvTtypditioi!,  in  the  'uncensured  co])ies'  according 
to  Epiphanius  {Ancor.  31)?    See  on  Lk  19'". 

Wliat  about  the  '  Codices  quos  a  Luciano  et 
Ifesi/chio  nuncupatos  pauconiiii  honiinum  adserit 
pervers,a  sententia,  quibus  utique  nee  in  veteri 
te.stamento  .  .  .  nee  in  novo  profuit  eniendasse, 
cum  niultarum  gentium  Unguis  scriptura  ante  trans- 
lata  doceat  falsa  esse  quje  addita  (cod.  E  edita) 
sunt,'  according  to  Jerome's  preface  to  his  Latin 
Gospels;  What  about  the  'Evangolia  qute  fal- 
Bavit  Hesyehius  apocrypha '  in  the  so-called  Deere- 
turn  Gclasii '!  to  which  some  MSS  add  a  similar 
statement  about  l.uciun. 

What  about  the  50  copies  of  the  Bible  which 
Eu.sebius  procured  by  order  of  Constantino  for  the 
Churches  (not  of  his  '  empire,'  correct  Introd.  p.  54, 
but)  of  his  cajiital,  which  Eusebius  sent  otlVi'  ttoXu- 
TfXois  ijfTK'qfj.^i'oLi  T(irx«^t  rptaaa  Kal  Terpacxad  ?  Docs 
this  mean  that  they  were  written  in  three  or  four 
Cdluiiins  or  bound  in  three  or  four  volumes?  and 
Klill  more,  did  they  leave  no  traces  at  all  ?  or  is  tlie 
Sinaiticus  really  one  of  them?  What  about  the 
recension  of  the  Pauline  Epistles  which  was  under- 
taken according  to  the  subscription  in  cod.  H, — 


its  fragments  are  now  dispersed  in  Athos,  Kiew, 
Moscow  (at  two  places),  St.  Petersburg,*  Paris, 
and  Turin, —  and  other  testimonies  by  a  certain 
Euthalius  (or  Euagrius)  of  Sulke  ?  Basil  the  Great 
(t  379)  corrected  a  copy  with  his  own  liand :  may 
it  not  be  traced  ?  His  younger  brother,  Gregory  of 
Nys.sa,  is  the  sole  a.utliurily  besides  Marcion  for 
that  peculiar  form  of  the  second  petition  in  the 
Lord's  Prayer  :  i\6iTio  rti  B.yi.ov  wi'evp.d.  aov  i(p'  i^ptds 
Koi  KaffapiaaTu  ^/las.  Ihiw  did  this  creep  into 
the  codex  604  (of  the  li'th  cent.,  in  the  British 
Museum),  which  exhibits  2724  variations  from  the 
Textus  Receptus  and  270  readings  peculiar  to 
itself?  Has  the  last  word  been  spoken  about  the 
origin  of  the  Fcrrar  grouji?  Where  are  the  accur- 
ate copies  (iairoyiSaaixiva)  or  the  ancient  in  Jerusalem 
to  be  sought  for,  dejiosited  on  the  Holy  Mount  ((k 
Tuiv  iv  'IfpotroXi'/iots  TraXaiuJc  dpTiypd(f)uii'  tQiv  iv  t^ 
ayltp  6p(i  dxoKdnivav),  with  which,  according  to 
their  subscription,  cod.  A  and  some  cursives  nave 
been  collated  ? 

We  might  go  on  asking  such  questions, — and 
that  these  questions  do  not  belong  to  those  which 
a  fool  asks,  and  which  no  wise  man  answers,  may  be 
exempliiied  by  the  reading  of  the  Ferrar  group  in 
Mt  1'"  which  WH,  in  their  (lirst)  edition  did  not 
tind  worth  mentioning ;  and  now  there  appears 
suddenly  an  old  Syriac  fragment  from  the  far 
East,  containing  that  reading,  which  was  hitherto 
known  only  in  .some  Latin  witnesses  from  the  far 
West,  and  in  those  four  solitaiy  Greek  MSS 
written  probably  in  Cala  ria  towards  the  end  of 
the  Middle  Ages, — a  reading  whicli  seems  to  have 
some  connexion  with  the  very  composition  of  the 
First  Gospel. 

'  Criticism,'  said  Ph.  Schaff,  in  his  excellent 
Companion  to  the  Greek  Testament  and  the  English 
Version  (at  the  opening  of  the  fifth  chapter,  which 
treats  of  the  Nature  and  Object  of  Textual  Criti" 
cism), — 'Criticism  is  a  dry  study.'  Dry?  Surely 
we  do  not  know  a  study  of  more  interest.  It 
requires,  it  is  true,  as  the  same  writer  said,  'an 
unusual  amount  of  patience  and  attention  to  the 
minutest  details.'  Yes,  but  then  it  will  be  re- 
warded. 'The  smallest  particle  of  gold,'  said 
Bengel,  in  the  connexion  from  which  Westcott- 
Hort  took  the  word  with  which  they  closed  their 
task,  '  is  gold,  but  we  must  not  allow  that  to  pass 
as  gold  which  has  not  been  proved.' 

'  Codicibus  emendiiiidis  primitus  debet  invigilare 
sollertia  eorum  qui  scripturas  nosse  desiderant,  ut 
emendatis  non  emcndati  cedant,'  said  Augustine 
(de  Doctrina  Christiana,  ii.  14,  21).  It  is  a  satis- 
fa('tion  that  in  the  same  country  in  which  and  from 
wliich  the  British  and  Foreign  Bible  Society  cir- 
culated, for  almost  a  century,  more  than  a  hundred 
thousand  copies  of  the  Textus  Keceptus  of  Elzevir- 
Stephen- Erasmus,  the  most  decided  attempt  has 
been  made  to  fulfil  the  task  inqiosed  by  these  words 
of  Augustine,  to  fulfil  tlio  cuiiimaiid  of  one  greater 
than  Augu.stiiie, — the  word  of  St.  Paul,  ndvra  Soki- 
ixdj^ere,  ri  Ka\iv  Karix^Te  (1  Th  5'-'),  or  of  the  Master 
Himself,  though  it  is  not  recorded  within  the  com- 
pass of  our  present  New  Testament :  ylyeaSe  Wki/hoi 
TpaTTfjTTai. 

LtTKRATURK  AND  APDKNDA. — (1)  On  the  history  of  the  Printed 
Text,  which  seemed  unnecessary  hero,  see  WH.'J§  15-18,  'J44-265 
(Mill,  Bentley,  BenjjL-I,  Seniler,  Oriesboch.  lUi^,  Loctinianii, 
Tisohendorf,  TiCKcllos)  ;  Scrivener-Miller^,  ii.  177-24.S;  r. 
.SchalT,  Companion  to  the  tJreek  Tentammt  and  the  KntjUth 
Version*,  1SU2;  8.  P.  Treffcllofl,  Acc.uunt  of  the  I'rinted  Text  o/ 
the  Hrrek  NT.  ISM  ;  Nestle,  Introdxiction,  I.  iiji.  1-27;  E.  Reuss, 
liihiifithi'cii  S'ovi  Testavifnti  tiro'd,  citiits  eai lionet  omne«  .  .  . 
fjool'iiiot  Tcperiri  potuerunl  coiiei/it  ditjcsteit  tittutravit,  Bruns- 
vitfio,  ls72.t 

*  One  leaf  at  St  Petersburg  is  no  longer  extant,  but  Its  oob- 
tonts  may  bo  read  by  the  mirror  on  the  opposite  page,  on  which 
it  is  iiiipresse<1. 

t  Justice  must  be  done  At  least  in  a  footnote  to  the  edition 
(not   mentioned   by  Sorlvener   or   Nestle)   of   Ed.  Harwood 


740    1£XT  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  TEXT  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 


(2)  On  the  MSS  see  the  Literature  quoted  in  Introd.  pp.  30,  32, 
t.g.  Oh.  F.  yitterley,  Praxis  in  Manusaiptt  of  the  Greek  Testa- 
mtnt.  The  mechanical  a}ul  literary  processes  involved  in  their 
toritiiuj  and  preservation.  With  table  of  MSS  and  thirteen 
facsimile  plates,  New  York  11898).— On  the  Autographs  add  the 
statement  that  according  to  the  Ada  Joannis  (ed.  Zahn)  the 
Apostle  dictated  hia  Gospel  to  Prochorus  in  two  days  and  six 
hours,  to  be  written  on  parchment.— K.  Lake,  Text  o/  the  New 
Testament  (Oxford  Church  Text-Books),  1900;  II.  Lundberg, 
Kya  Testaiiientets  text,  Lund,  1SS9.  —  Facsimiles  of  Biblical 
Manuscripts  in  the  British  Mttiram,  edited  by  F.  G.  Kenyon, 
London,  luOl,  fol.,  cf.  the  same  author's  Handbook  to  the  Textual 
Crit  icism  of  tlie  HT,  London,  1901 ;  John  W.  Burgon,  The  Last 
Twelve  Verses  o/  the  Gospel  according  to  St.  .Mark,  vimlicated 
against  recent  critical  objectors  and  established.  With  tac- 
eimiles  of  codex  K  and  codex  L,  0x1.  and  Lond.  1871. 

On  cod.  D.  See  on  the  Italian  origin  of  codex  Bezat,  K. 
Lake  and  F.  E.  Brightman  (JThSt,  i.  441, 446, 464) ;  J.  R.  Harris, 
The  Annotators  oj  the  Codex  Beza,  London,  1901.  The  reasons 
which  make  ajjainst  the  theory  of  Blass,  that  D  presened  for 
Acts  a  first  recension,  are  said  (Expos.  Times,  xiii.  96)  to  be  besv 
Bummed  up  in  an  appendix  to  the  new  edition  (19Q0)of  Jlr.  Page's 
Acts  (Mocmillan). 

On  the  new  Purple  MS  from  Sinope  see  H.  Omont, '  Notice 
BUT  un  trfee  ancien  manuscrit  trrec  de  I'Evangile  de  saint  Matthieu 
en  onciales  d'or  sur  parchemin  pouri>ru  et  om6  de  miniatures' 
.  .  .  Paris,  1900(Ao(icc«e(£itrai(«,xxxvi.;and,/2'ASf,ii.61)llff.). 
On  the  leaf  found  in  Russia  see  Acad,  des  Inscr.,  8  f6v.  and  *29 
mars  19ul. — Conti-Rossini,  *L'evangilo  doro  di  Dabra  LibanoB * 
\ltendiconti  dei  Lined,  vol.  x.  6,  6,  pp.  177-219  (not  seen]).  A 
fragment  of  Jn  7''-"'  91'-23  has  been  published  by  F.  C.  Burkitt 
and  Mrs.  Gibson  in  Studia  Sinaitica,  ix.  p.  45  f. 

Cursives:  J.  R.  Harris,  Further  Researches  into  the  History 
oJ  the  Ferrar  Group,  London,  1900.  On  ev.  47  and  67  "K,  606, 
see  F.  C.  Burkitt  in  JThSt,  i.  626  f. 

As  to  the  age  of  Church  Lessotis,  Job  was  read  in  the  '  Great 
Week  '  as  early  as  the  time  of  Origen. 

Versions :  On  the  use  of  two  languages  in  the  Senice  see  the 
Itinerary  of  Sylvia  Aquitana  (in  Jerusalem) ;  the  Sacramentary 
of  Serapion  of  Thmuis  (JThUt,  i.  254).— Lndn:  F.  C.  Burkitt, 
on  the  age  of  code,>c  Bobbiensis  k  (.Cambridge  Univ.  Jteporter, 
6th  March  1901 ;  rather  of  the  4th  than  6th  or  6th  cent.) ;  the  same 
author  doubts  more  and  more  whether  there  was  a  Latin  Version 
in  the  time  before  Cj-prian  (.fThSt,  i.  627),  and  finds  an  early 
Latin  text  of  the  Diatessaron  as  one  of  the  constituent 
elements  of  the  mixed  and  curious  text  of  g  (TSt,  vii.  i,  p.  46). 
On  the  influence  of  the  Gothic  Version  on  /  (brixiensis)  see  F.  C. 
Burkitt  (JThSt,  I.  120 £f.)  and  Fr.  Kauffmann  (Zeitschrift  .fiir 
deutsche  Philologie,  vol.  xxxiv.) ;  see  also  J.  Heidenreich,  Der 
neuiestanientlicke  Text  bei  Cyprian  verglichen  mil  dein  I'u/- 
gatatext,  Bamberg,  1900.  Egyptian:  H.  Hyvernat,  *  Un  frag- 
ment inMit  de  la  version  sabidique  du  NT'  (Eph  l«-28b)  m 
RB,  April  1900,  248-263.  On  middle-Egyptian  see  W.  E  Orum 
in  JThSt,  i.  416fl.,  and  Egyp.  Exploration  l'\md  Report  for 
1899-1900,  1900-1901. 

Quotations :  On  the  liberties  taken  by  copjists  and  editors. 
In  a  quotation  from  Mt  2121  Hippolytus  (ed.  Lagarde  =  Nice- 
phorus),  138,  16,  has  xp^rK  ;  ed-  Achelis,  1,  2,  pp.  68,  4,  iirx*TK, 
In  the  Chronicon  of  Georgios  Hamartolos  a  report  of  Papias  on 
the  end  of  John  the  Evangelist  is  preserved  ;  *  26  MSS  write  f> 
liprv*}  ot\t.-rtx.'JtrctTO,  One  u.^fiTuptov  jwtTrl'ft'Ton.* 

'The  dirtum  agiaphum  of  Ac  20^&  reads  in  the  Apostolic 
Constitutions,  in  one  class  of  witnesses  :  ivii  luti  i  Kupio<  fjta- 
tut.pio¥  u-Tiv  uvat  rot  hihotrei  f^Vip  (cod.  O  urip)  riv  ^f^ttvotTcc. 
xan  ykp  {tpr.-zau  TaAjv  iirr'  ttiiTou-  O'^cti  Tcii  i;)^owri*  ;  in  the  Other  I 
fMoc^pii*  icrri  itiovott /juikiMii  liTii  ^  \eLfj^cLifUt.  luti  raXjf  ot\X»ji^»v 
I'ipviTcci-  ciicti,  etc 

On  the  falsification  of  MSS  by  heretics  see,  besides  the  notices 
In  Introd.  p.  197  ff.,  Bartholoiiimus  Germon,  Jesuita  non  indoctus 
in  Opiisculo  de  veteribus  htpretids  Kccb'aiasticonun  Codiaun 
corntptoribtts,  part  2,  cc.  8  and  9,  *  ubi  de  codicibua  M.SS  Ool- 
bertiiio,  Carnutensi,  et  Vaticano  disserit'  (known  to  the  present 
writer  only  from  Cas.  Oudin,  Trias  dissertatianiim  criticarwn  : 
Prima  de  codice  MS  Alexandrine,  Lugd,  Bat.  1717,  ch.  6). 

On  Justin  :  E.  Lippelt,  Quoe/uerint  Justini  Martyris  uirapLnr 
fjAvtiifjucTcc  quaque  ratione  cum/orma  Evangetiorum  syro-latina 
cohtEserint,  i.,  Halle,  1901. 

(3)  Theory  of  Textual  Criticism :  Ed.  Miller,  The  Present 
State  0/  the  Textual  Controversy  respeetino  the  Holy  Gospels, 
[1899] ;  The  Textual  Controversy  ami  the  Twentieth  Centurii, 
1901 ;  The  Oxford  Debate  on  the  Textual  Criticism  of  the  XT, 
held  at  yew  College  on  Slay  0,  1S97,  with  a  Preface  explana- 
tory of  the  Rival  Systems,  London,  1897;  F.  0.  Burkitt.  Two 
Lectures  on  the  Gospels,  Macmillan,  1901 ;  Fr.  Blass,  Philology 
of  the  Gosj)els,  Macmillnn,  1898;  G.  Salmon.  Some  Thoughts  on 
the  Textual  Criticism  of  the  XT,  London,  Murray,  1897  ■  Nicol, 
'The  Lower  Criticism  of  the  NT'  (Lmid.  Quart.  Rev.  April 
1901) ;  Fr.  Blass,  Notwendigkeit  una  Wert  der  Textkritik  des 
Neuen  Testaments,  Vortrag,  Barmen,  1901  (popular) ;  G.  L. 
Gary,  The  Syrwptic  Gospels,  unth  a  chapter  on  the  text,  criticism 


London,  1776(Reuss,  pp.  1S5-190).  It  is  the  first  edition  which 
omitted  n'xp  Mt  5--,  the  first  which  made  a  more  di-cided  use 
of  the  codex  Bezai  Cantabrigiensis  and  Claromontanus. 

Of  modem  editions  a  convenient  survey  is  given  by  the  Re- 
sultant Greek  Testament,  ed.  by  R.  Fr.  Weymouth,  London, 
Stock  (1886)  (with  new  title  "cheaji  edition,' 1802,  again  1S96); 
anfl,  on  a  smaller  scale,  by  the  XT  cum  apj/aratu  critico  ex 
editionibus  et  liliris  manu  scriptis  coUecto,  prepared  by  the 
present  writer  tor  tha  Witrtteuiberg  Bible  Society  (3rd  ed.  1901)^ 


of  the  XT,  New  York,  1000;  Marvin  Vincent,  History  oj 
Textual  Criticism  of  the  XT,  Maraiillan,  1900.  According  tc 
Studia  biblica,  iii.  236,  Prof.  Sanday  has  had  an  Introduction 
to  the  Textual  Criticism  of  the  XT  for  some  time  in  prepara- 
tion. Its  publication  will  be  welcomed  by  all  students  of  the 
NT.  C.  Tischendorf,  llaben  wir  den  dchten  Schrijttext  der 
Evangelisten  und  Apostell  Leipzig,  1873  (popular).  Island  2nd 
ed.,  tr.  by  H.  W.  A.  Smith  in  Presbyterian  Quarterly  and 
Princeton  Review,  Oct.  1874 ;  A.  N.  Jannaris,  '  Misreadinga 
and  Misrenderings  in  the  'HT  (Expositor,  Dec.  1898,  April  and 
Aug.  1899) ;  Aug.  Pott,  Der  abendtarulische  Text  der  Apostet- 
geschichte  und  die  If t'r-(,JiKtte,  Leipzig,  1900;  F.  Blass,  'Text- 
kritist-he  Bemerkungen  zu  Matthaus,'  Giitersloh,  1900  (in 
Schlatter  -  Cremer,  Reitruge  zur  Fcirderung  christlicher  Theo 
lo'iie,  iv.  4)  ;  G.  Delors,  Essai  de  critique  du  texts  Jean  ISiS-  ss, 
Th*:se,  Cahors,  1900.  A  work  is  announced  by  C.  F.  Gregory 
on  Canon  and  Text  of  the  Xew  Testament,  in  the  'InWr- 
national  Theological  Library  series,'  published  by  T.  &  T.  Clark, 
Edinburgh. 

Postscript. —The  article  Syriac  VERSIONS  waa 
already  in  tj'pe  when  two  publications  came  to 
liand,  which  are  of  primary  importance  not  only 
for  the  Syriac  Versions,  but  also  for  the  Text  of 
the  Greek  Testament ;  therefore  this  is  the  fit 
place  to  add  a  word  on  them.  The  one  is  a  sliort 
study,  the  other  a  bulky  edition.  They  are 
S.  Ephraim's  Quotations  from  the  Go-ipd,  col- 
lected and  arranged  by  F.  Crawford  Burkitt  (Cam- 
bridge, 1901,  2'exts  and  Studies,  vii.  2) ;  and  Tetra- 
euantjelium  sanctum  juxta  Simplicem  Syronun 
Versionem  ad  (idem  Codicum,  Massor®,  Editionum 
denuo  recognitum.  Lectionum  supellectilem  quam 
conquisiverat  Pliilippus  Edwardus  Pusey,  A.M., 
olim  ex  a;de  Christi,  auxit,  di^essit,  edidit  Georgiua 
Henricus Gwlliam,  S.T.B.,  Collegii  Hertfordiensis 
socius.  Accedunt  Capitulorum  Notatio,  Concordi- 
arum  Tabuloe,  Translatio  Latina,  Annotationes 
(Oxonii,  1901,  xvi.  608  pp.  4°). 

By  a  minute  examination  of  St.  Ephraera's  quota- 
tions from  the  Gospel— note  the  s(«j/»/«r— Burkitt 
not  only  proves  his  statement  quoted  above  (p.  647), 
that  we  can  never  trust  a  biblical  quotation  (in 
the  Roman  edition  of  Ephraera's  works)  wliere  it 
agrees  with  the  Peshitta,  but  shows  positively  that 
his  quotations  from  the  Gospel  '  afford  no  proof  oj 
the  use,  of  tlie  Peshitta,  the  Syriac  Vulgate.'  On 
the  other  hand,  there  are  marked  ditl'erences  be- 
tween Ills  quotations  and  the  text  contained  in 
the  Curetonian  MS  and  Sinaitic  palimpsest :  '  these 
dilt'erences  suggest  that  it  was  not  the  Old  Syriac 
Version  of  the  Four  Gospels,  the  Evangelion  da- 
Mcplmrrlshe,  that  St.  Ephraem  was  using,  but 
the  Diatcssaron.'  This  suggestion  the  present 
writer  also  is  inclined  to  accept,  and  there  is  no 
longer  any  hindrance  to  our  accepting  the  third 
suggestion,  that  the  great  event,  the  production 
and  introduction  of  the  Peshitta,  '  took  place  soon 
after  411  A.D.  under  the  auspices  of  Rabbula,  who 
liad  been  in  that  year  appointed  bishop  of  Edessa,' 
and  that  the  words  of  his  biographer  quoted  above 
(p.  646)  contain  '  a  description  of  the  making  and 
production  of  the  Syriac  Vulgate.' 

It  is  clear  that  in  this  case  the  Peshitta  ceases  to 
be  the  queen  of  the  NT  versions,  and  loses  especi- 
ally the  importance  which  it  had  for  the  upholders 
of  the  Textus  Rcceptus,  whose  'sheet-anchor'  it  was 
(see  above,  p.  646").  One  of  their  fundamental  argu- 
ments used  to  be:  the  theory  of  WH  cannot  be 
right ;  for  what  WH  declare  to  be  a  late  Syrian 
recension  is  attested  already  by  the  Peshito ; 
and  the  Peshito  was  in  use  already  by  Ephraem, 
nay,  is  a  work  of  the  2nd  cent.  Nevertheless, 
all  biblical  scholars,  and  not  the  Syriacists  only, 
will  be  thankful  to  have  at  last,  through  the 
labours  of  the  late  Ph.  E.  Pusey  and  his  suc- 
cessor in  the  work,  for  the  Gospels  at  least,  in  the 
edition  mentioned  above,  the  most  solid  ground 
they  can  wish  for.  Fortij  MSS  of  the  highest  age, 
mostly  from  the  5th  or  6tli  cent.,  have  been  collated 
—MS  4  was  written  between  530  and  540,  No.  40 
is  dated  from  548,  No.  26  from  586,  No.  32  from  61.'>, 
No.  39  from  634  ;  neither  for  the  Greek  nor  for  the 


THADD^US 


THADD^.US 


741 


Latin  M.SS  have  we  a  similar  exactness  in  date. 
Tlie  result  is,  on  the  wliole,  a  verj'  thorough  cor- 
roboration of  the  printed  text ;  but  this  does  not 
diminish  our  tliaukfulness  for  the  new  edition. 
For  wliile  hitlierto  we  were  not  sure  about  the 
ba-sis  of  the  texts  in  our  liands,  we  have  now  the 
firmest  foundation.  And  there  are  not  wanting 
passages  where  the  printed  text  finds  no  witness 
in  any  of  the  MSS  collated  by  Pusey-tjwilliani. 
They  do  not  afl'ect,  so  far  as  the  [iresent  writer  is 
yet  aware,  the  Greek  text,  but  only  tlie  Sy  riac  word- 
ing ;  cf.  Mt  5"  e"  7".  But  we  must  first  be  sure 
of  tlie  Syriac  text  before  we  can  proceed,  and  this 
end  is  reached  by  the  edition  of  rusey-Gwilliam, 
which,  it  is  to  be  hoped,  will  give  a  new  stimu- 
lus to  studies  concerning  the  text  of  the  four 
Gospels. 

If  one  word  may  be  added  about  the  best  method 
to  be  pursued  in  tliese  studies,  it  would  seem  best 
first  to  single  out  those  sections  which  were  con- 
tained in  Tatian's  Diatessaron,  and  to  study  their 
language,  in  all  extant  Syriac  texts  ;  then  to  com- 
pare their  language  with  that  of  the  rest  of  the 
Gospels.  In  this  way  it  ought  to  be  possible  to 
get  an  answer  to  the  fundamental  question, 
whetlier  Tatian  made  use  of  a  pre-existing  Syriac 
Version  of  the  Gospels,  or  whether  our  Syriac 
Gospels  are  based  on  Tatian.  To  quote  one  ex- 
ample :  all  our  Syriac  texts  (sin,  cur,  pesh,  to- 
gether with  the  Ethiopic  Version  and  the  Arabic 
Tatian)  arrange  the  gifts  of  the  Magi  (Mt  2")  in 
the  order  'gold  and  lujrrh  and  frankincense';  so 
also  the  Sj'riac  translation  of  the  Protevangclium 
Jacob*  ('21').  Epiplianius  (p.  1085  D,  where  he 
reads  ^I'oiftu'  tm  inipas  airrOii/,  adding  the  strange 
Btatement  ^  tovs  fiTicravpov's,  ws  ^x^'  ^*'*'^  '^^^  i-vri- 
yf>d<f>uv),  has  the  order  '  mj'rrh  and  fr.ankincense 
and  gold.'  Is  the  agreement  in  the  Syriac  (Arabic, 
Ethiopic)  texts  accidental,  or  does  it  go  back 
ultimately  to  Tatian  ?  Eb.  Nkstle. 

THADDJEUS.— The  name  in  Mt  10'(AV'Leb- 
baeus,  whose  surname  wjis  Tliaddunis';  KV  only 
'  Thaddieus ')  and  Mk  3"  of  the  apostle  who  is 
called  by  Luke  (6'°,  Ac  1")  'Judas  of  James.'  In 
Matt,  most  critics  now  read  only  QaSSaios  (Lach- 
mann,  Tregelles,  WH  [who  quote  this  reading, 
§  3U4,  as  proof  for  the  unique  exi  ellence  of  Nli], 
Kevisers,  Weiss,  with  XB  sah  vg  ;  Evang.  Ebionit.), 
others  only  Ae^^aiot  (Alford,  Tischendorf,  Blass, 
with  U  12-2  k  Origen  ;  '  Western  '  reading) ;  the 
TR  (AV)  combined  both  readings,  Ae/S/Saiot  4  in- 
xXriOels  OaSSaTos  (cf.  e.g.  Constit.  Apost.  vi.  14, 
viii.  '25,  where  in  a  marginal  note  the  names  are 
reversed  :  eaooaios  A  xal  At/S^oios  i  iTriKaXov/ufO! 
'lovSas  ZTjXumjr)  ;  some  Old  Latin  MSS,  finally, 
have  Jvc/a.i  Zehdes,  a  reading  w  hich  found  its  way 
into  the  Chrunicon  of  the  year  354  and  the  Roman 
Canon  of  382  ('Judce  ^lotis  apostoli  epistula 
nnu'). 

Se«  on  the  Iatt«r  reading  Zahn,  Orundrigs  der  Geschichte  dtt 
ntuUxULmrnUichen  Kawjns,  Itw:)!,  p.  60 ;  Sau  Kircldiche  Zeit' 
tctiri/t,  xii.  (1901)  p.  743;  li.  A.  LipsiuH,  Die  apokr]fphen 
AponUigejichicfiten,  Er^'iiiizungBheft  (1890),  p.  209 ;  and  tlie 
paasaife  of  the  Aposvdic  CongtitiUions  quoted  above  (ed. 
Lagarde,  p.  282 ;  ed.  Pitra,  p.  6li,  note). 

In  Mark  all  editors  agree  in  reading  QaSSatot, 
Af^S^aios  being  again  the  'Western'  rea<ling;  in 
Luke  one  of  the  MSS  collated  by  Wordsworth- 
White  adds  to  Juf/iun  Jiifuhi  on  the  margin  '  i.e. 
Tadcus,'  just  as  Luther  added  in  Matt,  to  the 
Received  Text  the  marginal  note  '  ist  der  fronime 
Judas.'  This  identitication  (Thadda>u8  =  Lelibieu3 
=  Judas  of  ,ames*)  is  indeed  the  most  natural 
result  of  a  com|iarison  of  the  Gospels  ;  cf.  vol.  ii.  p. 
199,  artt.  Juijas,  and  Judk  (THE  Lord's  Brother), 

*  The  some  Judoa  is  apparently  meant  Id  Jn  14^,  though  the 
Syrians  ldeoUI>  UiU  Juous  with  Tbomoa. 


and  vol.  iii.  p.  92,  art.  Lebb^us.  But  whence  thLs 
twofold  or  tlireefold  name  ?  ' 

The  solution  has  betn  sought  in  the  linguistic 
identity  of  the  name  Lebliwii.i,  from  Heb.  2S 
'heart,' with  Thaddceits,  from  Aram.  13  =  Heb.  i? 
'female  breast'  ;  so  still,  e.g.,  Siettert  (P^i'-  vii. 
277) ;  Resell,  Paralleltexte,  iii.  827.  But  this  is 
more  than  doubtful.  Tliere  is  more  probability  in 
the  view  adopted  by  WH,  that  Ae/S^Soios  or  Ae^aios 
is  some  form  for  Levi.t  caused  by  Mk  2"  '  Levi 
the  son  of  Alphreus.'  This  is  denied  by  Bengel 
('  AefJ^aiot  non  est  idem,  quod  Aew '),  but  accepted 
by  Nilles,  Calendarium  ecdesim  utriii.ique',  i.  184 
(on  I9th  June)  :  'Ioi'>5a  aToaToKov.  '  S.  Judas,  qui  et 
Thaddieus  et  Levi  et  Zelotes,'  etc.  A  similar  view 
had  been  proposed  already  by  Grotius  on  the 
ground  of  Origen,  contra  Cclsum,  i.  02  (ed.  Koct- 
scliau,  L  113).t  Grotius  quoted  further  from 
Thcodoret  (Quwstiones  ad  Nu  16)  :  QaSSaXoi  0  ml 
Ae,3i.  Dalnian  (Grammatik,  p.  142)  denies  that 
Ac/S/Soios  has  anything  to  tlo  with  Levi,  and  is 
more  inclined  to  see  in  it  an  abbreviation  from  ^^n 
or  i3'?n,  or  to  combine  it  (Wvrte  Jesu,  p.  40)  with  a 
Nabatasan  name  "niS.  The  other  name  "in  ("Nin, 
Erubin,  23c)  he  connects  with  the  Gr.  Qcv5as  as 
an  abbreviation  from  Theodotos,  Theodosios,  or 
Theodoros.§  The  etymology  of  both  names,  Leb- 
brnxis  and  ThaddcEus,  is  at  present  quite  doubt- 
ful. The  Jacobite  Syrians  vocalized  Lahb'i  and 
Thaddi,  the  Nestorians  Lablxij  and  Tliaddaj, 
Pusey-GwUliam  spell  Labbi  and  Taddai. 

Matters  became  even  more  ioni|)licated  in  the 
post-canonical  literature.  Eusebius  (HE  i.  12) 
states  that  Oo55oros  was  one  of  the  Seventy,  and 
then  tells  the  story  of  his  mission  to  Abgar  of 
Edessa.  But  already  Jerome  (on  Mt  10*,  ed.  Val- 
larsi,  1769,  vii.  57  =  Migne,  xxvi.  61)  understands 
this  of  the  Apostle,  writing :  '  Tluiddtenm  apos- 
tolum  ecclesiastica  tradit  historia  missiim  Edessam 
ad  Abgarum  regem,  qui  ab  Evangelista  Liica 
Judas  Jacobi  dicitur  et  alibi  ajipellatur  Lebreus- 
quod  interpretatur  corculum,\\  credendumque  est 
eum  fuisse  trinomium.'  How  <^reat  the  confusion 
became  may  be  shown  by  tlie  Acta  Th'iddai 
(first  published  by  Tischendorf,  Acta  Apostotorum 
apurri/pha,  1851,  p.  '26111'.).  This  piece  begins: 
Ae^fiatos  0  Kai  9a5oatos  9iv  fi^v  dird  'Kd^affijs  ttjs  riXewy 
.  .  .  ^\6iV  els  'lepovaaX-qfj.  iv  rah  i]/j^pais  'ludyvov  tou 
^aTTTtaTou  ,  ,  .  ifiairrlaOfi  koX  ^neKX-qOtj  rb  tvofia  airrov 
^daooaloi  .  .  ,  Kal  ^^e\(^aTO  ai>r6»'  ['I^jffoCs]  eU  Toi)s 
SuiScKa,  ArarA  fih  MarOaiov  Kal  yidpKov  S^/caror 
diriffroXos.  Nevertheless,  the  piece  is  headed  in 
one  of  the  MSS  used  by  Tiscncndorf :  Tpd^ii  Kal 
Koipt.7}aLs  ToO  ,  .  .  dTTOoriXoi/  BaSdaiov  iyds  rdv  epBo- 
(iilKovTo,  in  the  other  as  ti-As  tCiv  ijS'.  Zahn 
(I'urschxmgcn,  i.  366,  382)  believes  that  the  whole 
confusion   is  due  to   Eusebius,  who   substituted 

•  In  the  '  Preaching  of  Simon  eon  of  Cleopbas  *  (Studia  Sin- 
aiiica,  v.  62,  tJ5,  ed.  Gibson)  we  even  read  :  *  Simon  son  of 
Cleophas,  who  woa  calit'd  Jude,  whicli  is,  bein^  interpreted, 
^atftaiiafl,  who  was  callt-d  the  Zealnl,  and  waa  bishop  in  Jeru- 
Balcni  after  Jamea  the  brother  of  the  L.ord ' ;  tee  Zahn,  For- 
gchunijfn,  vi.  '.iOIi. 

t  CI.  Jastrow,  Dictionary  0/  the  Targumim,  p.  689,  where 
k;^7  Laliya  la  quoted  as  the  varioue  reading  for  Levi. 

X  irT«  hi  kl}  i  \ivr^ — this  is  the  true  reading',  not  A^nf — 
TiAwtrc  ctiuXeutii,ffatt  T«  '\r,raZ'  «XA'  »uri  yt  Teu  a/itO/juS  rit  ar»r- 
Tek^y  ocbTev  *)»,  I'  tJ-yi   x«T(k  Tjrdt   TMi  »tTiyfiaC*'*   ^^f  KATot   M«^K4V 

iia>->iA.«w.  tVom  the  same  conitiinalion  lielween  Mtc  21*  and  3"* 
WH  explain  the  'Western'  reading  'I«**3«»  lor  Ait.i«'»  in  2K. 
Iiit4-retiting,  in  this  connexion,  is  the  article  of  He8.\chiu8  (rec 
M.  .Scliiiiiilt.  ii.  S38) :  laxA'jder  *AAfa<«i/,  •  xai  t)tiiiix,t<  auci  AibJ 
rxpk   TV    Ma^JI^,  nttp'cK.   2i    tw    MdExfaiw    Al,;iti«<,    wspat    h't    A«(^iT« 

'Ui^icu  'Xxitu^v.    Schmidt  wishes  to  read  *limit0*i  'AA(«'»v  s«i 

9ethiettt<  i  lutj,  etc 

}  Instead  of  vtp  Est  2»l  6»  Bu/iiu  (nn)  out;  perhaps  be 
read  ;  see  Willrich,  Judaica,  p.  19. 

I  The  same  interpretation  (surname  of  Scipio  Nnsioa)  is  found 
In  Jerome's  Litter  tnlerpretaticmis  (Lagarde,  Oiwtna*1ica  gacra, 
p.  02),  where  the  name  Tliaddteus  is  entirely  omitted.  It  is 
curious  that  also  in  the  list  of  the  names  of  the  a{>o8tlcs  (I.e.  p. 
174)  Tbaddieus,  Lebbieus,  and  Judas  are  missing. 


T42 


THANK-OFFERING 


THEOPHILUS 


for  the  name  Addai  ni«  of  the  Syiiac  lejreiuls  the 
Gr.  name  Th'idihrus.  It  is  very  .stian;;e  that  tlie 
Syriac  tran^hition  of  Eusebius'  HE,  in  one  of  its 
MSS  (A),  substitutes  in  10  cases  out  of  15  tlie 
spellijig  nn  (with  n,  not  k),  wliich  has  not  been 
founo  liitherto  anywhere  else,  for  'in  for  the  name 
eaSSaioj ;  see  the  edition  of  AVright- McLean,  p. 
49 ij  53,1,  64,4  55 4.  (The  same  version  gives 
everywhere  K^(^  for  Agabus).  When  in  the  Bvuk 
of  the  Bee  (ed.  Budge,  p.  124)  A^'gai  ('in),  the  dis- 
ciple of  the  Syriac  Adtlai,  is  followed  by  Thnddai 
('  his  father'  as  is  added  in  the  recension  published 
by  I.  H.  Hall  in  the  Journal  of  the  Amer.  Or. 
Hoc.  Proc,  Oct.  1888,  pp.  l.xxv,  Ixxxi),  giving  the 
series  Addai — Aggai — I'haddai,  the  question  arises 
whether  this  is  the  result  of  contamination  of 
Greek  and  Syriac  legends.  The  names  themselves 
recall  'Ao[5]a?  dLdd<rKa\os  Kal  *A77afos  AeutTTis  iu  the 
Acta  Pilnti,  ch.  14,  etc. 

According  to  some  statements,  Thadda'us  was 
from  Jerusalem  and  of  the  tribe  of  Judah  (Bool:  of 
the  Bee,  Barhebraius),  and  preached  the  gospel  in  the 
African  language  {Gospels  of  the  XII  Apostles,  ed. 
J.  R.  Harris,  pp.  26,  29) ;  while  the  Syriac  Addai  is 
said  to  have  been  from  Paneas.  Bar  Bahlul  (p. 
939)  refers  Labhi  to  the  tribe  of  Simeon. 

The  apocryphal  '  Gospel  of  Thaddoeus '  (Evan- 
gelium  Thaddcei),  mentioned  in  some  MSS  and 
editions  of  the  Decretum  Gelasii,  seems  to  be  due 
to  a  clerical  error  {PliE'  i.  663). 

For  the  extra-canonical  statements  on  Thaddsus  see  Lipsius, 
Die  apohryphen  Apostelgeschu-kten,  ii.  142-200,  and  his  art. 
'Tha^idaius'  in  Smith  and  Wace's  Dictiojiari/  of  Christian 
Bioijraphy,  iv.  875-881.  As  a  Christian  name  Thaddieus  never 
seems  to  have  been  very  frequent.*  Eb.  NeSTLE. 

THANK-OFFERING. —See    Sacrifice,   under 

'  Peace-otl'eriug.' 

THARRA  (BA  Qappi,  Lao.  etSeiVTjj).— Ad.  Est 
12'  =  TKl;ESHof  Est2-'6-. 

THASSI  (A  Goo-o-fs,  NV  ea(r(r(«)0.— The  surname 
of  Simon  the  Maccabee,  1  Mac  2^.  The  meaning 
of  the  word  is  quite  uncertain.  As  likely  an 
interpretation  as  any  is  '  the  zealous,'  obtained  by 
connecting  with  Aram,  and  New  Heb.  con  '  to 
bubble  up  or  ferment '  (used  of  new  wine).  For 
the  history  of  Simon  see  art.  MacCABEES,  vol. 
iii.  p.  185. 

THEATRE  (Biarpov).  —  At  the  disturbance  re- 
corded in  .\c  19-"'-  we  are  told  that  the  crowd 
rushed  to  the  theatre,  and  that  it  was  there  tliat 
the  somewhat  tumultuous  meeting,  afterwards  de- 
scribed, took  place.  We  also  learn  from  .loscphus 
(Ant.  XIX.  viii.  2)  that  it  was  in  the  theatre  at 
Civsarea  that  the  events  described  in  Ac  12*'''' 
took  place. 

For  general  descriptions  of  the  Greek  and  Roman 
theatre,  reference  must  be  made  to  the  ordinary 
Dictionaries  of  Antiquities.  The  theatre  at  Ephesus 
was  on  the  slope  of  Mt.  Coressus,  and  was  famous 
as  being  one  of  the  largest,  if  not  the  largest,  in  the 
ancient  world.  A  description  of  the  remains  with 
a  plan  may  be  found  in  Woods,  Discoveries  at 
Ephesus,  ch.  iv.  p.  68.  A  large  number  of  inscrip- 
tions also  were  found  on  the  site,  which  have  been 
published  in  full  in  Hicks'  Greek  Inscriptions  in  the 
British  Museum.  These  are  specially  important  as 
illustrating  the  very  varied  part  the  Greek  theatre 
played  in  public  life,   as  the   place  not  only   of 

•  The  Church  daj-s  for  Thaddtcus  (Judoa  of  James)  are  in  the 
Greek  Church  19  June  and  21  Aug.,  in  the  Latin  28  Oct. 
(together  with  Simon) ;  on  the  Armenian  see  Nilles^,  ii.  .'isa, 
627  ;  on  the  Coptic  702,  721  f.  (2  and  28  Epip  =  Julv);  on  the 
Syriac,  i.  480  (20  Aug.),  48.'i  (IS  Oct.)  489.  The  Calendar  in 
McLean's  Ea^t  ^t/rian  Daittj  Ojlices  mentionB  Mar  Adai  for  the 
Sixth  Sunday  of  the  Resurrection. 


amusement,  but  of  every  form  of  large  assembly 
The  results  are  well  summed  up  by  Lightfoot, 
Essays  on  Supernatural  Religion,  p.  299 — 

'The  theatre  appears  as  the  reco^Tlized  place  of  public 
assembly.  Here  edicts  are  proclaimed,  and  decrees  recorde<l, 
and  benefactors  crowned.  When  the  mob,  under  the  leadership 
of  Demetrius,  gathered  here  for  their  demonstration  against  St. 
Paul  and  his  companions,  they  would  find  themselves  surrounded 
by  memorials  which  might  stinmlate  their  zeal  for  the  goddess 
If  the  "town  clerk  "had  desired  to  make  good  his  a.^sertion, 
"AVhat  man  is  there  that  knoweth  not  that  the  city  of  the 
Ephesians  is  sacristan  of  the  great  goddess  Artemis?"  he  had 
only  to  point  to  the  inscriptions  which  lined  the  walls  for  con* 
firmation.  The  very  stones  would  have  cried  out  from  the  walla 
in  response  to  his  appeal. ' 

The  same  Greek  word  is  also  used  in  1  Co  4'  '  for 
we  are  made  a  spectacle  unto  the  world,  and  to 
angels,  and  to  men,'  where  the  meaning  is  the 
scene  or  spectacle  in  the  theatre. 

A.  C.  Headlam. 

THEBAIC  VERSION.  — Now  generally  called 
the  Sahidic  Version.  See  Egyptian  Versions, 
vol.  i.  p.  669". 

THEBES.— See  No-Amon,  vol.  iii.  p.  555. 

THEBEZ  (l-SB  'brightness'  (?) ;  B  Gij/S^s,  ea/mffl, 
A  Qailiais,  Qafuurei ;  Thebes). — The  place  at  which 
Abimelech  was  killed  by  a  millstone  which  a 
woman  threw  dovni  upon  him  from  a  tower  that 
was  holding  out  after  the  city  had  been  taken  (J" 
9™,  2S  11^';  Jos.  Ant.  v.  vii.  5).  Eusebius  and 
Jerome  (Ononi.)  say  that  in  their  day  there  was  a 
village  called  Thebes,  about  13  Rom.  miles  from 
Neapolis,  on  the  road  to  Scythopolis.  The  Roman 
road  from  N.  to  S.  can  still  be  traced,  and  on  it, 
about  10  miles  from  Adblus,  is  'I'libiis,  which 
Robinson  was  the  first  to  identify  with  Thebez 
(BliP-  ii.  317,  iii.  305).  Tiibds  is  a  large  village, 
surrounded  bj'  olive  groves  and  comlields,  on  tlie 
western  slope  of  a  broad  fertile  valley.  Its  oil 
and  corn  are  held  in  high  estimation  ;  and  the 
villagers,  wlio  are  divided  into  three  factions, 
own  large  flocks  of  sheep  and  goats.  There  are 
numerous  rock-hewn  cisterns,  on  which  the  people 
depend  for  their  water-supply;  and  rock-hewB 
dwelling-places,  of  which  many  are  still  occupied. 
There  is  a  tomb  of  Xebi/  Toba  in  the  village, 
which  the  Samaritans  believe  to  be  that  of  Asher, 
son  of  Jacob.  The  village  .sutl'ered  greatly  from 
the  earthquake  of  1837  (PEF  Mem.  ii.  247  ; 
Gucrin,  Samarie,  i.  357  ;  Baedeker-Socin,  Pal.* 
224).  C.  W.  Wilson. 

THEFT.— See  artt.  Crimes  and  Punish.mknts 
in  vol.  i.  p.  522'',  and  Man-STEALING  in  vol.  iii. 
p.  239. 

THELERSAS  (B  eeXfpcrds,  A  Qe\<rii),  1  Es  &*= 
Tel-harsha,  Ezr  2»',  a  Bab.  town. 

THEODOTION.— See  Septuagint,  p.  453',  and 
VER.SIONS  (Greek  other  than  LXX),  p.  866'. 

THEODOTUS  (eeiSoTot).— 1.  One  of  the  mes- 
sengers said  to  have  been  sent  by  Nicanor  to 
Judas  Maccabieus,  2  .Mae  14".  2.  The  author  of  a 
plot  to  assassinate  king  Ptolemy  Philupator,  which 
was  frustrated  by  Dositheus,  a  renegade  Jew, 
3  Mac  P. 

THEOPHILUS  (ee6(^iXos).— The  name  of  the  per- 
son to  whom  the  Third  Gospel  and  tlie  Acts  of  the 
Apostles  were  addressed  (Lk  P,  Ac  1').  It  has 
been  supjiosed  by  some  (and  the  supiiosition  is  an 
early  one*)  that  the  name  is,  after  all,  only  a 
general  name  applicable  to  any  Christian,  as 
meaning  '  beloved  by  God '  or  '  the  friend  of  God.' 
Others  (e.g.  Ramsay,  St.  Paul  the  Traveller  aiui 
•  It  is  certainly  as  old  as  Epiphanius  {Uoer.  51,  p.  429). 


THERAS 


I.  THESSALOXIANS 


743 


the  Roman  Citizen,  p.  3SS)  hold  that  the  use  of 
tliis  name  puts  forward  the  Acts,  as  a  complete 
work  at  least  to  the  time  of  Domitian,  and  sup- 
ports the  idea  that  the  book  is  a  composite  one, 
consisting  of  the  original  notes  of  St.  Luke 
('called  tlie  '  Travel  -  Document '),  added  to  and 
increased  by  a  later  editor.  The  name  is  certainly 
that  of  an  individual ;  and  this  statement  is  con- 
firmed by  the  title  KpartaTos  prefixed  to  the  name  in 
Lk  l^  as  it  is  preli,\ed  to  the  names  Felix  and  Festus 
in  the  Acts  (iS-*  24»  2G^).  The  title  implies  that  the 
person  to  whom  it  was  ascribed  belonged  to  the 
equestrian  order — he  must  certainly  have  been  a 
Gentile.  Attempts  have  been  made  to  fi.x  the 
place  of  his  residence  at  Autioch,  Alexandria,  in 
Achaia,  or  at  lioniu,  but  there  are  not  .sullicient 
data  to  go  upon  to  establish  any  of  these  theories. 
Other  theorists  have  gone  so  far  as  to  deny  th.at 
he  was  a  Christian,  or  to  say  that,  at  any  rate,  he 
knew  very  little  about  Cliristianity.*  A  step  still 
further  has  been  taken  in  an  attempt  to  identify 
him  with  a  higli  priest  of  his  name  (Joseph.  Ant. 
XVIII.  iv.  3)  who  held  office  for  about  live  j'ears, 
and  was  perhaps  the  high  priest  to  whom  Saul, 
afterwards  Paul,  went  to  ask  for  '  letters  to 
Damascus  unto  the  sj-nagogues,'  that  he  might 
take  any  Christians  who  were  there  prisoners  to 
Jeru.salem.  Whether  Theophilus  was  a  learned 
and  cultivated  man  or  not  we  do  not  know,  but 
the  dedication  to  him  of  the  Third  Gospel  is  in 
-style  the  most  elegant  piece  of  writing  in  the  NT. 
Tradition  has  not  been  busy  with  him  as  it  has 
with  most  of  the  early  Christians. 

H.  A.  Rkdpath. 
THERAS,  1  Es  8«  (A  e^pa,  15  om.)  *  (BA  Btpd).— 
The  name  of  the  place  and  river  where  Ezra's 
caravan  halted,  called  Ahava  in  Ezr  8-'-  ",  and 
now  usually  identified  with  the  modem  Hit  on  the 
Euphrates.  The  oriijin  of  the  form  of  the  name  in 
I  Es.  is  uncertain.  Jos.  {Ant.  XI.  v.  2,  tis  rd  ripay 
Tou  Kv<t>pdTov)  possibly  read  iripav  for  Q4pav. 

THERMELETH  {Qcpp.ae0),  1  Eso*".— The  equiva- 
lent of  Telmelah,  a  Bab.  town  in  Ezr  2™,  where 
Cod.  B  gives  the  same  Gr.  form  of  the  name. 

THESSALONIANS,  FIRST  EPISTLE  TO  THE.— 

i.  Date. 

ii.  CinMimstances. 
iii.  Analysis. 
iv.  Value. 

V.  Authenticity, 
vL  Inte;^rity. 

Literature. 

i.  Date. — The  date  of  this  Epistle  in  relation  to 
St.  Paul's  life  is  fixed  within  the  limits  of  a  few 
months.  It  was  written  during  the  eighteen 
montlis  which  be  spent  at  Corinth  at  the  end  of 
his  .Second  Missionary  Journey  (Ac  18").  For  it 
was  written  after  he  h,ad  left  Thessalonica,  and 
while  the  memories  of  his  first  visit  there  were 
still  fresh  (clis.  1.  2  pa.i<ii>n,  esp.  2'  yiyoixi') ; 
after  he  had  gone  on  to  Athens  and  had  left  it 
(3')  ;  after  he  had  been  rejoined  by  Silvanus 
and  Timothy  (1',  Ac  18")  ;  while  .Silvanus  and 
Timothy,  of  whom  Silvanus  is  not  mentioned 
in  any  subsequent  journey,  are  still  bis  com- 
panions (1');  and,  l.i.stlv,  while  he  is  in  some 
centr.al  place  wliere  he  hears  news  readily  from 
Macedonia  and  Acliai.-i,  and  even  from  wider 
sources  (1"  iv  ravrl  Tlnrip,  i.e.  perhaps  the  Asiatic 
and  Syrian  Churches  [so  Zahn,  Einleitiinci,  p.  147] ; 
but  may  it  be  that  Aquila  and  Pri-scilla  had  told 
him  that  they  had  heard  even  at  Rome  of  the 
conversion  of  the  Thessalonians  ?  and  might  Jason 

•  This  theory  ia  based  mainly  on  the  ground  that  Theophilus 
from  his  title  'most  excellent'  was  an  otticial,  and  that  it  is 
not  hkely  that  any  of  the  early  Christians  would  hold  high 
office  under  the  HoniaD  authorities. 


have  been  the  channel  of  communication?  Ac  17' 
18-,  Uo  IG-').  It  was,  then,  at  Corinth — but  not 
very  early  or  very  late  in  that  stay  ;  not  verj 
early,  as  time  must  be  allowed  for  the  mission 
and  return  of  Timothy  (3"),  for  the  occurrence  of 
some  deaths  at  Thessalonica  (4"),  for  the  active 
brotlierliness  of  the  Thessalonians  to  manifest 
itself  to  other  Christians  in  Macedonia  (4'"*),  and 
the  news  of  their  faith  to  have  sjiread  widely  even 
beyond  Macedonia  and  Achaia  (I"-*).  Nor  again 
very  late,  if  2  Tliess.  is  genuine,  for  room  must  be 
left  for  the  circumstances  which  led  to  the  writing 
of  that  Epistle.  The  exact  date  will  depend  on 
the  system  of  chronology  adopted.  It  must  lie 
between  49  and  53  (see  Chronology  of  NT). 

ii.  Circumstances. — St.   Paul  and   his   com- 
panion.s,  full  of   hope  owing  to  the   Divine  call 
which   had  led  them  to   preach   in   Europe,   and 
encouraged  by  the  spiritual  success  which,  in  spite 
of  the  insults  to  their  Roman  citizenship  (2-),  tiiey 
had   gained    at    Philippi,   reached    Thessalonica. 
This  was  a  larger  and  more  important  centre  than 
Philippi.     It  was  the  capital  of  one  of  the  four 
divisions  of  Macedonia  ;  it  was  a  great  commercial 
centre  {?  cf.  4'"  iv  rif  irpdy^ian,  im  Handel  [Luther], 
in   Gcsrhaftcn   [Weizsiicker]),  holding  easy  com- 
munication with  East  and  West  both  by  sea  and 
by  land  (cf .  1*  4'") ;  it  was  a  free  town  with  its  public 
assembly  and  its  local  magistrates  (Ac  17°  eh  Tim 
Srj/ioi' ;   v.'  ^ni  Toils  iroXiTapxas,  cf.    CJO   1907),  and 
a    mixed    population   of    native   Greeks,    Roman 
colonists,   and   Orientals,   the  Jewish   settlement 
being  large  enough  to  have  a  synagogue.      St. 
Paul  began  as  usual  with  the  synagogue,  preach- 
ing there  for  three  weeks,  appealing  to  the  Jewish 
Scriptures,  proving  that  Jesus  was  the  Messiah, 
and  that  His  sud'erings  and  Resurrection  were  in 
accord  with  the  Scriptures.     The  result  was  that 
some  Jews  threw  in  their  lot  with  Paul  and  Silas, 
and  so  did  a  larger  number  of  Greek   proselytes 
and  of  leading  ladies.     The  Acts  thus  bears  wit- 
ness to  the  fact  that  a  majority  of  the  Church 
were  of  Gentile  origin,  but  speaks  only  of  Gentile 
proselytes,  whereas  the  Epistle   imjilies  converts 
from  heathenism  ( r-*  2").     The  Epistle,  though  it 
implies  that  St.  Paul's  stay  was  prematurely  cut 
short,  vet  seems  to  require  more  than  tliree  weeks, 
and  I'll  4"  shows  that   St.   Paul   twice   received 
supplies    from    Philipjii    during    the    time,   even 
though   he  wa-s  supporting  himself  by   his  own 
work  (2").     It  is  therefore  probable  that  the  three 
weeks  of  Ac  17''  were  confined  to  exclusive  work 
in  the  synagogue  ;  that  after  that  St.  Paul,  as  at 
Corinth  and  Eijhesus,  made  some  new  place,  per- 
haps the  house  of  Jason  (Ac  17'),  his  abode  and 
place  of  teaching  for  Gentiles;  and  the  chrono- 
logical data  would  admit  of  a  stay  of  six  months 
(Ramsay,  iit.  Paul  the  Traveller,  p.  228).     It  was  a 
time  of  hard  work  :  St.  I'aul  and  his  companions 
rose  early,   working   before  daylight   to  support 
themselves  ('2",  U  3") ;  they  preaelied  with  ell'ective- 
ness  and  conviction  (1°)  ;    they  laid  stress  on  the 
worthle.ssness  of  idols,  on  the  reality  of  the  living 
God  (1") ;  they  told  of  the  wrath  that  was  coming 
on  the  world,  when  God  would  punish  the  heallien 
world  for  its  inipuritj- (1'"  4")  and  the  Jews  who 
refused  to  accept  the   gospel    (2'",  II   I«)  ;   of   the 
death  of  .Jesus,  of  His  Resurrection,  of  His  power 
to  deliver  from    this  wrath    (!'"   4'''  S"- '").     They 
added  tliat  God  had  now  established  His  kingdom 
and  called  heathen  into  it  (2'^) ;  that  such  a  call 
required  a  holy  life,  a  separation  from  impurity 
(4-),    an    active    life   of   work   (4",    II    3'°)  ;    that 
Christianity  would  lay  them  open  to  persecution 
(3*)  ;   but   that  after  certain   signs   had  appeared 
(II   2')    Jesus    would    return    sudilenly,    like     a 
thief  in  the  night  {o'),   and  they   would  be  with 
Uim  for  ever.     Their  preaching  met  with  greul 


7U 


L  THESSALONIANS 


L  THESSALONIANS 


Buccess  (P  2'')  in  spite  of  much  conflict  (2-); 
the  gifts  of  the  Spirit,  especially  that  of  pro- 
phecy, were  manifested  (5"-  -")  ;  the  Divine  word 
made  tlie  converts  strong  to  bear  persecution 
(213-15)  There  is  no  indication  of  the  size  of 
the  Church  ;  but  some  of  the  chief  men,  perhaps 
Jason  (Ac  17°),  Aristarchus,  and  Secundus  (Ac 
20'),  took  the  lead  in  active  work  and  preaching 
(S'^""),  and  probably  St.  Paul,  as  elsewhere, 
officially  appointed  them  to  this  position  ;  ap- 
parently, also,  some  form  of  almsgiving  was 
organized  (II  3"). 

These  results  roused  the  jealousy  of  the  Jews. 
They  misrepresented  the  teaching  of  Christ's  king- 
dom as  treason  to  the  emperor :  working  on  the 
heathen  populace,  they  attempted  to  bring  St. 
Paul  before  a  hastily  called  meeting  of  the  assembly; 
but,  failing  to  find  him,  they  took  Jason,  his  host, 
and  other  Christians  before  the  native  magistrates 
(of.  viri)  tQv  ISiav  avtJi(pv\eTui',  2'*).  These  were  bound 
over  to  keep  the  peace,  i.e.  probably  to  send  Paul 
and  SUas  away  ;  and  the  same  night  they  withdrew 
to  Bercea.  Probably,  even  while  there,  they  planned 
a  return  to  Thessalonica,  but  were  unable  to  carry 
it  out  (2"  ajraf  :  there  would  scarcely  be  time  for 
two  such  proposals  at  Athens).  From  Bercea  St. 
Paul  passed  on  to  Athens,  leaving  SUas  and 
Timothy  there,  but  sending  back  word  that  they 
should  join  hinj  as  quickly  as  possible  (Ac  17'''). 
The  writer  of  the  Acts  gives  the  impression  that 
they  did  not  do  so  untU  after  he  had  reached  Corinth 
(18') ;  but  this  impression  must  be  supplemented 
from  this  Epistle.  They  came  at  once  to  him  while 
at  Athens,  perhaps  bringing  news  of  some  fresh 
persecutions  at  Thessalonica  (3'  ravrais  and  *). 
Paul,  Silas,  and  Timothy  were  anxious  to  return ; 
the  tie  between  them  and  their  converts  had  been 
very  close  ;  their  stay  had  been  interrupted  before 
their  work  was  done  ;  they  had  only  meant  to  be 
absent  a  short  time ;  their  converts  were  young, 
and  might  be  tempted  by  persecution  or  cajolery 
(3-)  to  renounce  their  faith  (2"  3°) ;  their  opponents, 
whether  Jews  or,  more  probably,  heathen,  knew 
well  how  to  misrepresent  their  motives;  their  very 
taunts  (TrXoKj),  aica.6ap<xla,  56\os,  icoXo/ceio,  TrXfOvctia, 
fTTToCi'Tfs  Si^cLv,  perhaps  ^x  ^dpei  tfrct)  are  echoed  in 
this  letter  (2'-»).  But  there  were  obstacles ;  perhaps 
the  guarantee  which  Jason  had  given  to  the  magis- 
trates was  still  enforced  (Ramsay,  I.e.).  So  Paul 
and  SUas  (iiriij.\paiiev,  3^)  decided  to  send  Timothy  to 
Thessalonica,  and  SUas  probably  returned  to  visit 
some  other  Church  in  Slacedonia.  Possibly  St. 
Paul  in  his  growing  an.\iety  sent  yet  another 
messenger  (/cd7u  .  .  .  (we,a};,a,  3^).'  While  they 
were  absent,  St.  Paul  moved  on  to  Corinth,  and 
Silas  and  Timothy  both  rejoined  him  there. 

The  news  that  Timothy  brought  was  in  the  main 
good:  the  faith  of  the  Thessalonians  had  stood  the 
test  of  persecution  (1*  3'^)  ;  their  love  showed  itself 
in  hospitality  and  charity,  even  to  other  Mace- 
donian Christians  ( 1'  3"  4"-  ") ;  they  strove  to  edify 
each  other  (5") ;  they  tried  to  walk  obedient  to 
Christ's  commands  (4');  they  were  loyal  to  their 
teachers,  and  wished  to  see  them  once  more  (3^  '). 
At  the  same  time  the  calumnies  against  the  new 
Christian  teachers  were  stUl  prevalent,  and  the  con- 
verts were  stUl  persecuted  ;  they  were  also  exposed 
to  the  ordinary  perils  of  a  new  Church  in  a  heathen 
town  ;  they  were  tempted  to  fall  back  into  im- 
purity (4'-*) ;  some  of  the  poorer  members,  perhaps 
abusing  the  charity  of  the  richer,  were  living  a  life 
of  idleness  and  dependence  (4'-'^),  others  were  care- 
less and  forgetful  of  the  coming  of  Christ  (o'")- 
There  was  a  tendency,  perhaps  due  to  '  the  old 

•  It  U  possible  that  St  Paul  sent  a  short  letter  with  Timothy, 
and  that  the  Tliesijiloniana  also  replied  bv  a  written  answer 
(ct  Ezpotitor,  Sept.  1S93,  pp.  167-17,,  where  J.  Rendel  Harris 
Ingeniously  reconstructs  the  Tbessaloniaa  letter). 


Macedonian  spirit  of  independence'  (Lightfoot, 
Bibl.  Ess.  p.  248),  to  disorder  and  contempt  of 
those  in  autlioritj'  (5'--  "  ;  4Ta/cT05,  dTdfcrws,  drax- 
Tcip  only  in  these  two  Epp.  ;  arripl^av  4  times,  2 
elsewhere).  There  was  a  danger  of  a  misuse  of 
spiritual  gifts  at  the  meetings  of  the  Church  (5""^) ; 
while  some  had  lost  friends  by  death  and  were 
afraid  that  these  would  not  share  in  the  blessings 
of  Christ's  Advent  (4'^"").  On  receipt  of  this  news 
St.  Paul  writes  this  Epistle  ;  he  writes  in  the  name 
of  Silas  and  Timothy  as  well  as  himself,  eo  that, 
with  a  few  exceptions  (2'*  Z''  5"),  he  uses  the  plural 
number  and  speaks  for  them  all ;  probably  he  dic- 
tated it  to  Timothy  and  added  the  conclusion 
(5^'^)  in  his  own  handwriting  (cf.  II  3").  Their 
hope  is  stUl  to  return  to  Thessalonica,  but  mean- 
while they  write  to  express  their  delight  at  the 
good  news,  to  defend  their  own  conduct  as  teachers, 
and  to  complete  what  was  left  wanting  in  the  faith 
and  life  of  their  converts.  The  words  of  4'  laffiit 
Kal  TepivareiTe,  IVu  ]repi<rfffi)i7re  form  the  connecting 
link  between  the  two  parts.  He  aims  at  '  binding 
closer  the  link  between  the  community  and  himself, 
and  at  more  etiectually  severing  the  link  between 
it  and  heathenism'  (Jlilicher).  [For  the  circum- 
stances cf.  Lightfoot,  Biblical  Essays,  vi.,  viL  ; 
Ramsay,  St.  Paul  the  Traveller,  ix-xi ;  Spitta,  Zur 
Gesch.  undLitt.  des  Urchristcnthums,  L  pp.  111-154 ; 
Zahn,  Einleitung,  pp.  145-160.] 

iii.  Analysis. — After  a  salutation,  entirely  free 
from  aU  official  titles  or  allusions  to  controversy, 
written  as  from  friends  to  friends,  as  by  men  who 
are  still  anxious  not  iv  ^dpei  eluai  ws  Xpi<rroO  inroa- 
ToXoi  (cf.  2''),  the  writers  give  thanks  for  the  spiritual 
state  of  the  Thessalonians,  reviewing  their  personal 
relations  with  them  in  the  past,  both  at  Thessa- 
lonica (l-'-2'"')  and  at  Athens  (2"-3'),  their  feelings 
in  the  present  on  the  receipt  of  the  news  from 
Timothy  (3°""),  and   their  hopes  for  the    future 

(310-13)_ 

The  didactic  part  deals  with  questions  of  per- 
sonal morality  (4'''-),  with  teaching  about  the  dead 
(vv.'^-'*),  and  the  need  of  watchfulness  (5''")  ; 
ending  with  regulations  for  the  community -life 
(w."^--). 

A.  Personal  (12-3'S). 

Gratitude  for  their  spiritual  \irtue8  is  based  upon  the  convic- 
tion which  the  writers  felt  (s-'Sore.-)  of  the  election  of  their  con- 
verts by  God  (1^  *) :  and  this  is  proved  (i.)  by  the  effectiveness 
and  assurance  of  their  fiiBt  preachinfr,  and  by  the  resxUts  in  the 
lives  of  the  Thessalonians  (vv.5-^ ;  (ii^  by  the  reports  of  others, 
who  bear  witness  both  to  the  success  of  their  preaching  (a-i^Jnu^f) 
and  the  reality  of  the  conversion  of  the  Thessalonians  (vv.o-iC'): 
(iii)  by  the  knowledge  of  the  Thessalonians  themselves  (et-lrti 
yatp  o'ixrt),  who  Can  bear  witness  to  the  boldness  of  their 
preaching,  to  the  purity  of  their  motives,  to  their  tenderness, 
and  the  absence  of  all  self-assertion,  to  the  example  of  self- 
sacrifice,  to  their  fatherly  entreaties  (21-12).  This  preaching 
produced  the  true  results  in  the  lives  of  the  converts ;  they 
bad  been  bold  to  endure  persecution — es  the  Churches  in  Judsea 
had  from  the  Jews,  the  determined  opponents  of  the  gospel 
(w.l3-lf.).  Consequently,  when  obliged  to  leave  Thessalonica, 
they  had  longed  to  return  ;  Paul  himself  had  twice  planned  a 
visit,  but  had  been  prevented  ;  and  so  at  last  Paul  and  Silas  had 
sent  Timothy.  Paul  himself  had  sent  yet  a  second  messenger 
to  comfort  and  strengthen  them  and  to  reassure  himself  (31-5), 
The  news  that  Timothy  has  brought  is  like  a  new  gospel,  a  new 
life  to  them,  making  them  thank  God  and  desire  to  revisit  and 
to  complete  such  faith  (vv.<)-W).  So  they  pray  that  God  will 
make  a  visit  possible,  and  meanwhile  increase  the  love  of  the 
Thessalonians  (vv.  11-13). 

B.  Ethical.    Guidance  for  the  future  (41-522). 

They  must  press  forward  in  the  spiritual  life;  they  must  b« 
specially  on  their  guard  against  all  forms  of  impurity,  for  God 
specially  punishes  that  sin,  and  it  is  inconsistent  with  the  Chris- 
tian calling  and  the  gift  of  the  Spirit  (4i^).  They  must  increase 
their  brotherly  love,  active  as  it  already  is  (w.9- 10) ;  they  must 
live  an  orderly,  industrious  life,  that  they  may  gain  the  respect 
of  the  heathen  and  be  independent  (w.n.  12).  They  need  not  be 
anxious  about  their  dead  friends  :  the  union  of  Christians  with 
the  Risen  Christ  ensures  their  resurrection  (w.  i*- 14),  and  a 
special  word  of  the  Lord  has  revealed  that  the  dead  will  meet 
the  Lord,  even  before  the  hving  (vv.l*-lS).  But  they  must  not 
relax  their  vigilance,  (or  the  Lortl  comes  as  a  thief  in  the  night, 
and  thev  must  watch  and  be  sober,  ready  to  gain  the  sah  atioo 
which  He  will  bring  (5i-ii). 

Finally,  the  commnnity.life  is  regulated ;  the  members  ot  tlM 


I.  THESSALOXIANS 


I.  THESSALONIAXS 


Ch  irch  (ifuit,  T.'2)  are  to  pay  due  honour  to  those  in  authority, 
gnd  thi'y  (Cuitt  vM)  are  to  keep  discipline  and  be  lonp-suffering. 
Joy,  pra,ver9, and  thanksgiving  are  to  be  constant;  and  spiritual 
uLteraiicea  are  not  to  be  discouraged  but  tested  (vv.l'-J-— ). 

The  Epistie  ends  with  a  prayer  to  the  God  of  peace  for  their 
complete  preservation  ;  witn  a  request  for  their  prayers ;  a  com- 
mand to  greet  one  another  with  the  holy  kiss  ;  a  solemn  charge 
by  I'aul  himbelf  that  the  i:pistle  be  read  to  all  the  members  of 
the  Church,  and  a  simple  benediction  (vv.'-s>-28^ 

iv.  Value. — The  value  of  the  Epistle  is  two- 
fold :  it  represents  most  closely  St.  Paul's  preach- 
ing to  the  heathen  world,  and  therefore  is  to  be 
compared  with  the  speeches  at  Lystra  and  at 
Athens  (cf.  Sabatier,  L'Apitre  Paul'',  pp.  8G-101); 
St.  Paul's  antagonists  were  Jews  defending  na- 
tional prejudices  ;  Judaizing  Chri.sti.-ms  are  perhaps 
alluded  to  in  'J",  but  quite  incidentally  :  and  also 
it  is  not  only  the  earliest  of  St.  Paul's  Epistles, 
but  possibly  the  earliest  extant  specimen  of  Chris- 
tian literature. 

It  shows  us  St.  Paul  as  the  missionary,  in  the 
absence  of  any  special  controversy  ;  as  the  consoler 
and  the  pro/j/ict.  We  see  his  self-denial  for  the 
sake  of  others  (i"'* ;  cf.  1  Co  9-11);  his  intense 
Rvmpathy  with  his  converts  and  dependence  on 
tlieir  sympathy  (^"-i'-"  S'-'") ;  his  power  of  self- 
adaptation  (2'  i-^irtoi  iy(£vfi8ri)j.ev  ;  cf.  1  Co  O**)  ;  his 
sensitiveness  to  the  opinions  of  others  ;  his  asser- 
tion of  the  purity  of  his  own  motives  (2'"°)  ;  his 
appeal  to  his  own  conduct  as  an  example  (1°) ;  his 
insistence  on  sjiiritual  progress,  based  upon  a  hearty 
recognition  of  the  good  already  achieved  ( I-  4'- '"  .'>"); 
his  indignation  with  those  who  thwart  God's  work 
(216  46J  .  1,13  sense  of  union  with  Christ  (4')  ;  his 
prayerfulness  (1'  3"""  5^) ;  his  gratefulness  (1"  3'). 
This  is  exactly  the  character  which  reappears,  in- 
tensified by  controversy,  in  2  Corinthians. 

The  witness  to  the  organization  and  faith  of  the 
Church  is  equally  interesting.  The  local  Church 
forms  one  congregation  (!').  The  only  otlicial  title 
that  occurs  is  airbaToKok,  which  is  apparently  used 
to  include  Silvanus  and  Timothy  as  well  as  St. 
Paul ;  these  apostles  hold  a  position  of  superiority  (iv 
/3dpei(?)  2"),  including  the  right  to  be  maintained 
there  as  in  other  Churches  (2")  ;  they  speak  gener- 
ally in  a  tone  of  entreaty  (4'"  o'--''') ;  once  St.  Paul, 
separating  himself  from  the  others,  uses  the  lan- 
guage of  solemn  autliority  (5").  Put,  under  tlie 
apostles,  there  are  already  ollicers  who  preside — 
probably  both  for  discipline  and  for  worship  (5'-"'"). 
There  are  meetings  with  the  holy  kiss,  the  symbol 
of  brotherhood  (o^),  and  with  prophetic  utterances 
(5"-  ") ;  probably  at  such  a  meeting  the  letter  would 
be  read  (5-'').  There  is  a  link  of  sympatliy  and 
charity  between  them  and  otlier  Churches  (1'  2" 
4'"). 

'i'he  faith  of  the  Church  is  directed  to  God  (I'), 
a  God  of  life  and  truth  (1")  and  judgment ;  a  Pather, 
who  has  called  them  and  marked  them  out  for  sal- 
vation (4'  5").  Christ  is  thought  of  mainly  in  His 
future  capacity  as  Judge.  Christian  life  is  a  wait- 
ing for  Him  (l'°).  Christians  have  to  be  always 
watchful  (.")'■'-)  i  He  may  come  at  any  moment, 
and  will  come  to  inllict  punishment  on  sin,  as  well 
as  to  give  joy  to  His  followers  (4°  2"  ;  r;  irapovala  of 
Christ  8  coming,  four  times  in  1  Thess.,  twice  in 
2  Thess.,  once  only  elsewhere  in  St.  Paul).  Put 
Clirist  is  more  than  this  :  His  death  was  the  means 
of  salvation  in  the  past  (5")  ;  He  is  now  6  xi/piot,  i 
H1//J10S  inJ-Civ,  tlie  UT  language  about  .lehovah  being 
applied  to  Him  (5-)  ;  He  is  God's  Son  (l'°)  ;  He  is 
united  with  the  Father  as  the  mystic  source  of  life 
both  for  the  living  and  the  dead  (1'  2"  4").  He 
is  the  object  of  prayer,  working  with  the  Father 
in  bestowing  eartlily  as  well  as  spiritual  blessings 
(3"  /(arei/flwoi,  "  S'"-**).  Tlie  Holy  Siurit  is  given 
to  all  Christians  to  enable  them  to  conquer  evil 
(4") ;  it  gives  them  joy  under  persecution  ( l'-  •),  and 
inspires  the  utterances  of  the  prophets  (5'").     This 


Epistle  gives  us  the  fullest  division  of  human 
nature  into  spirit,  soul,  and  body  (5^).  The  pic- 
ture of  the  Christian  life  has  all  th )  freshness 
and  glow  of  early  days.  It  is  true  thftt  it  needs 
steadying  and  disciplining,  but  it  is  strong  and 
radiant.  The  converts  welcome  the  good  news  ; 
they  put  it  to  active  proof  ;  the  message  is  handed 
on,  as  by  a  trumpet  note,  to  others  ;  they  imitate 
their  teachers  and  become  objects  of  imitation  to 
others ;  they  are  taught  of  God  ;  there  is  mutual 
ali'ection  and  confidence  between  teachers  and 
taught  ;  there  is  an  atmosphere  of  love,  of  joj-, 
of  life ;  they  live  '  en  plein  jour.'  [For  the 
theology  cf.  Weiss,  Biblical  Iheology,  pt.  iii. 
§  1,  cap.  i.  ;  Lechler,  Apostolic  and  Post-Apostolic 
Times,  pt.  ii.  §  2,  cap.  i.  ;  The  Speaker^s  Commen- 
tarij,  iii.  pp.  691-701]. 

BEI.ATIOlf  TO  THE  OT  AXD  TO  CHRISTIAN  LITERATVRS.— 
The  OT  is  never  appealed  to  as  authority  or  directly  quoted ; 
but  its  history  is  referred  to  (21^)  and  its  language  perhaps 
consciously  adapted  ('21R  45- 6.  8. 9  58.  22(t)).  There  is  a  certJiin 
similarity  of  language  between  415-17  and  2  Es  5>-,  but  the 
thought  there  is  different,  the  writer  considering  the  juslice  of 
God's  dealing  with  difterent  generations  of  men,  and  the 
language  is  not  sufficiently  similar  to  suggest  literary  depend- 
ence on  either  side ;  if  there  is  any,  probably  2  Esdras  is  the 
later  work. 

There  is  no  reference  to  Christian  literature,  but  it  is  possible 
that  !&■  10  point  to  the  germ  of  some  proff^ssion  of  faith  in  the 
Father  and  the  Son  made  at  llaptism  (a>.»:(i.vof  here  only  in 
St.  Paul);  it  is  possible  again  that  4*-^  (irxpctyytXteti  5ii  rou  K. 
'Irircu)  refers  to  the  definite  enactments  of  Ac  15'^,  and  that  41"*  is 
a  semi-quutation  from  a  creed.  There  seems  a  reminiscence 
of  St.  Stephen's  speech  (Ac  7^1)  in  21''^ ;  and  of  our  Lord's  eschato- 
logical  discourse  in  2i»  (Mt  2332-36)  4l»-J'  (Mt  L>4-iS'-33)  52.  » 
(Mt  24«)  63  (Lk  21*',  Mt  248) ;  but  the  majority  of  these  are  too 
much  the  common  language  of  all  Apocalypses  to  allow  us  to 
build  on  them  with  certainty. 

A  comparison  of  S**  with  Ac  1422  2  Ti  312  suggests  a  semi- 
quotation  of  our  Lord's  words,  e.g.  Mt  24!^,  Jn  ItP^,  but  a  sugges- 
tion that  there  is  a  reminiscence  of  our  Lord's  sayings  recoMed 
in  Jn  e'--*  in  P  and  of  Jn  17^  in  1^  (P.  Ewald,  Das  UauptprvUem 
der  Evatuitlifn-Frafjc,  pp.  85,  93)  is  more  doubtful. 

In  415  iv  }.iiyt>t  KuQiCu  18  a  possible  quotation  of  some  saying 
unrecorded  in  the  Gospel  (cf.  Zahn,  p.  Loy);  and  5'^,  which  is 
often  found  combined  with  the  a'jrapluni  yivirHi  hoxtfjM  Tpu.- 
viX'TKt,  is  perhaps  another  (cf.  Uescli,  A<irapha,  p.  lHi).  All 
these  cases  point  rather  to  an  oral  tradition  than  to  written 
documents. 

v.  AUTIIKNTICITY.  —  The  authenticity  is  now 
generally  admitted,  though  there  are  still  oppon- 
ents (cf.  Holtzmann,  Kiiil.'^  p.  2.37).  The  external 
evidence  outside  the  MT  is  less  strong  than  for 
some  Epistles,  as  this  Ejiistle  did  not  lend  itself 
readily  to  quotation  ;  but  it  was  included  in  Mar- 
cion's  canon  [circ.  140),  and  that  implied  some 
previous  Catholic  collection.  The  language  of 
2'"''  {((pOaat  .  .  .  WXos)  is  found  in  exactly  the 
!*aiiie  form  ill  the  Test.  XI J  Patr.  (Levi,  ch.  6  ;  but 
see  below).  There  are  possible  reminiscences  of 
4111-17  JQ  Didachi  xvi.  6  ;  and  of  1°  and  4-  in  Clem. 
Uom.  ch.  42  (but  not  of  5**  in  Clem.  38,  where  the 
thought  is  dill'erent).  Put  the  strongest  support 
is  given  by  2  Thess.,  which,  whatever  its  date, 
im])lies  the  existence  and  the  recognition  of  the 
I'auline  authorship  of  our  Epistle.  No  doubt  of 
its  authenticity  was  raised  before  the  19th  century. 

The  internal  evidence  equally  supports  the  genu- 
ineness, in  spite  of  a  few  dillicultie.s.  The  objec- 
tion that  the  Epistle  implies  a  longer  lapse  of 
time  than  a  few  weeks  is  met  by  the  consideration 
that  the  Acts  will  permit  of  an  interval  of  nearly 
a  j'ear  between  the  foundation  of  the  Cliurch  and 
the  writing  of  the  letter.  The  dilliculties  of  recoii- 
cili.ation  with  the  Acts  about  the  movements  of 
Silas  and  Timothy  and  the  persecution  by  heatlun 
have  been  discussed  above.  As  far  as  they  are 
dilliculties,  they  allect  the  historical  character  of 
the  Acts  rather  than  of  1  Thessalonians. 

A  few  other  objections  deserve  notice.  It  is  urged  that  St. 
Paul's  eager  defence  of  his  motives  (21-6),  and  incidentally  of 
his  apostolic  rights  (26),  implies  a  lat«r  stage  in  his  life,  when 
Jewish  ChristiunM  hail  attacked  his  apostleship.  But  such 
depreciation  of  his  motives  would  be  natural  to  Jews  longing 
to  thwart  hiui  (cf.  2i6),  or  to  heathen,  indignant  at  the  oon. 


746 


I.  THESSALOXIANS 


II.  THESSALONIANS 


version  of  their  friends.  The  incidenU  of  Ac  15,  Mid  probaWy 
of  G  ™2"  lay  behind  him,  and  would  account  for  the  n.c.dental 
aUusion  ii¥ ;  while,  even  apart  from  any  attack  of  opponent^, 
he  mi-ht  think  it  well  to  contrast  his  motives  with  thote  ol 
othe  to"  hers  with  whom  he  might  heconfu.ed-sucli  a.  Jewish 
impostors  Uke  Elvmas  (Ac  IS'O  tXk/w  ■"^'■'«  «•>■•?)..  heatheM 
rtatoSns  or  sophists,  taking  pay  for  their  <^''^h'"K  (''.^'•'; 
'=,.)  :  or.  at-a.n,  he  may  have  desired  to  du^soc.ate  h"""'"  fro" 
Ihe  impure  teaching  («  i»»D-,.»...-)  of  the  priests  of  the  Cabein 
(Liclitloot,  BiWfca'i'"*''!'*,  P-'2=0.  .      ,  •„„  ,t,.  „.„.^„us 

v-ain  216>>  has  boon  nterpreted  as  implying  the  pre%nous 
deslSion  of  Jerusalem.  If  this  were  so,  it  would  te  more 
StS  to  strike  out  Ihela-st  sentence  a|  the  ..iterpolat  on  of 

"si?rbe  pointing  out  the  fulrtlment  of  St-  P''"^^  r/'^^.'.^ee  hal 
words  dS  not  necessarily  mean  more  than  'hat  sentence  has 
oeen  pronounced  upon  them ;  the  wrath  of  Ood  13  gone  tortn  , 
thrk?ngdom  of  God  passed  from  them  when  they  rejected  the 
Messiah-,  they  are  paraUel  to  the  thought  of  ICo  2»ii,  llo 
n^s  S  akd  Ac  13«  1S« ;  and  the  use  of  the  phrase  m  the  Test. 
V//  PaXr  perhaps  shows  that  it  was  a  halt-stereotyped  Rah- 
binfcal  Torm'l.la  for  declaring  God's  i'-dsn^ent  Moremer  the 
„r..sent  participles  i«i«-:2c.T».,  »vXo..ri..,  and  the  phrase  i  ;  " 
r.Tx"'/".  are^nconsistent  with  the  destruction  o..erusalem. 
Oiice'more,  4."  often,  an  apl»rent  .nconsjstcnc    w  ith  2  Co  5  _ 


bmrclZ^.^e;;;;;;tat;on';;n-suS;-afoint  would  not  be  un- 
natural,  and  a  careful  comparison  of  6i>'  witn  .  1 


■I  Co  510  will  show 

*Eii5^:i^— d  of  6-  may  have  been  due  tothe 
prSce  of  disorderiiness  and  dissension  (5»^>5),  and  would  be 
natural,  even  without  such  a  supposition  (cf.  Col  4'"). 


The  objections,  then,  can  be  fairly  met,  w'^l^ 
on  the  ntlier  hand  the  style,  tlie  character  of  the 
writer,  the  many  points  of  contact  with  2  Cor.,  the 
simplicity  and  directness  of  the  thought,  the  primi- 
tive sta<'e  of  Church  organization,  the  state  of  the 
spiritual  gifts,  the  question  about  the  dead  which 
must  have  arisen  very  early  in  any  Cluirch,  the 
absence  of  any  motive  for  forgery,  the  apparent 
discrepancies  with  the  Acts,  the  improbaVulity  that 
a  later  forger  would  put  language  in  St.  Pauls 
mouth  which  at  least  seems  to  imply  that  he  ex- 
pected the  Parousia  in  his  lifetime,  —  all  these 
carry  conviction  of  its  genuineness.  Tlie  argu- 
ments on  both  sides  are  well  stated  in  Holtz- 
mann  {I.e.],  and  the  genuineness  well  defended  by 
Jowett,  Weizsiioker  {Das  Apostol.  Zeitalter,  p. 
250)  Jiilicher  (Einl.^  pp.  41^5),  and  most  fully 
by  von  Soden  {SK,  1S85),  and  Bornemann,  §5. 

vi.  Integrity. —The  integrity  of   the  Epistle 
has   been  questioned  both   on  a   large  and  on   a 

small  scale.  .....      .       .      , 

(1)  Pierson  and  'S.ahsr  (Veri.nmiha,  Amsterdam, 
1S8G)  treat  it  as  a  composition  of   two  authors. 
The  hrst  was  a  pre-Christian'  Jewish  writer,  writ- 
in"  a  hortatory  address  to  Gentiles  before  the  hrst 
coming  of  the  Messiah  to  foretell  His  advent,  and 
to  exhort  them  to  live  a  life  of  Jewish  morality. 
The  second  was  a  Christian  bishop,  whose   date 
is  not  given,  named  Paul,  who  inserted  into  the 
.lewish   treatise   a   few   Christian   phrases  and  a 
justiHcation  of   his  own   motives  and   preaching. 
This  analysis  is  based  upon  the  variety  of  tone- 
now  that  of  an  authoritative  proiihet,  now  that 
of  a  humble  pastor— the  want  of  close  senuence  of 
thought  between  the  paragraphs,  and  the  diUerence 
in  the  usage  of  particular  words  {Vj/i^pa,  ypi)yopeiv), 
and  the  scantiness  of  specially  Christian  teaching. 
But  the  criticism  is  pedantic,  and  often  inconsist- 
ent with  itself  in  details:  it  requires  from  a  letter 
tlie  exact   structure  of  a   scientific  treatise,  and 
allows  no  play  to  varieties  of  mood  and  thought 
within  one  writer's  mind.  . 

(2)  A  list  of  suggestions  of  interpolations  on  a 
smaller  scale  will  be  found  in  Clemen,  Die  Em- 
'heitliehkcit  der  Paul.  Briffe  (Gottingen,  1894).  'I'he 
most  imporUnt  attect  2»-  "  and  5-''.  The  objection 
to  2"- "  a-s  a  whole  is  groundless,  the  attack  on 
the'jews  being  as  natural  to  St.  Paul  as  it  had 
been  to  St.  Peter  or  St.  Stephen  (Ac  2^  3"  T-;) : 
but  v.'*=  l!pOa.ae  .  .  .  WXos  might  be  an  editorial 
comment  added  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem, 
to  point  out  the  fullilment  of  St.  Paul's  words  {ds 
t4  avciTr\ripw<rai) ;  yet,  as  we  have  seen,  they  are 
quite  natural  in  St.  Paul's  own  mouth  at  the  time. 


5"  mi.'ht  also  be  a  later  addition,  emphasizing 
the  imliortance  of  the  Epistle ;  but  there,  too  a 
natural  reason  for  the  words  is  to  be  foiiiid  in  the 
circumstances  of  the  moment  (cf.  Schmiedel 
Hdrom.  ad  loe.  ;  Mottatt,  Histor.  A  1 ,  p.  .02.j). 

The  chief  questions  of  textual  criticism  attect 
the  reading  in  2'  (see  Westcott-Hort,  M,n.  App 
p.  128)  »•  "  33  4>- «  52-  {ib.  p.  144)  ♦. 

LlTERATOIil!.-Of  ancient  commentators,  Chrysostom,  though 
discu^iv^^s  excellent  in  entering  into  'he  w-nters  point  ol 
v^ew:  and  the  moral  homilies-e.!?.  those  on  fnen.l,lip(lTh.^ 
Tn  the  tear  of  hell  (1  Th  4I8,  2  Th  18),  on  intercession  (2  Th  i-)- 
^e  very  sprrituai  and  pointed.  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia  («rc. 
«6  Id  )C  more  of  the  modern  exeget.cal  instwict,  and  ex. 
Plains  the  exact  meaning  and  the  historical  ""dpracfcal  refer- 
ences well  but  at  tiniel  forces  the  langua-e  to  suit  his  own 
v"ews  TheXet,  whUe  dependent  on  these  tw-o,  shows  inde. 
Dcidence  of  iudginent.  His  notes  are  de..r  and  sensible,  and 
Te  is  especially  Sreful  to  draw  out  the  dogmatic  mlerences  of 

'"of'^niodera  writers,  Jowett,  A.  J.  Mason  (Ellicott's  Comm.  /^ 
En,UshRm<iers).  Bishop  Alexander  (Spmktrt  Comm.),  and 
J   Dennev  (£x-pwi(or'»  iJiWO  are  most  interesting  on  Introduc- 

h^  he  i/dwmTiVr,  and,  most  completely  of  all,  in  Borneniann- 

vf;./on  Tra^  oT7r  (O.V^)^  and  on  2.«  by  K.  Zimmer  in 
tThfol^^srh^^tudien  d:  B  Weiss  dargebrachf  (Gottingen. 
1S97) ;  Lkwith,  Introd.  to  Thest.  Epp.  (1902).    ^^^    ^^^^ 

THESSALONI&NS,     SECOND     EPISTLE     TO 
THE.— 


i.  Date  and  Circumstances. 

ii.  Analvsis. 

iii.  Literarj-  Dependence, 
iv.  Authorship. 

V.  Integrity. 
vi.  Value. 

Literature. 

i.  Date  and  Circumstances.  -The  genuine- 
ness of  this  Epistle  is  more  contested  than  that  of 
any  other  attributed  to  St.  Paul,  except  the  Pas- 
torals. If  it  is  not  genuine,  the  exact  date  and 
circumstances  are  merely  a  hterarj'  setting,  of 
little  historical  value.  Yet,  even  so,  a  dehnite 
situation  was   in   the  ^vriter's  mmd  and  must  be 

examined.  ,         .^      ..  a„«o» 

The  following  points  fix  that  situation.     Appar- 
ently the  temple  is  still  standing  {i^i.e.  the  date 
is  before  A.D^O.     Further,   P^"!;, ^''^^i^""^.',  "^"j 
Timothy,   after  having    founded   the  Church    at 
Thessalonica  (2^  3'-")  and  written  a  letter  probably 
IT^ss^to  it  (2»  and  nerh.  2»  3-),  are  stUl  working 
to-ethe;  (1')  in  some  place  where  they  are  thwarted 
b/perve.se  and  malicious  men  (3'^),  and  where  the..e 
a?e  other  churches  in  the  neighbourhood  (    )     1  h  3 
will  suit  exactly  the  time  ot  Ac  IS'"  '  (cf.  2  Co  1 
w  th  1^) :  late  in  the  stay  at  Coiinth,  but  probabl.v 
before  the  appeal  to  Gallio  had  stopped    he  Jewis^i 
persecution.     At  this  time  news  about  the  T  •essa- 
onian  Church  reached  them  at  Corinth  (3»  caoi.- 
ou.e.) ;  perhaps  brought  by  the  messenger  implied 
in  I  Th  3^  perhaps  by  the  bearer  of  1   pess.  on 
his  return,  perhaps  by  some  chance  pa-^^f  "^y  •  J'}?^ 
were  stUl  exposed  to  persecution,  and  were  std^ 
bravely  enduring  it;  but  there  w^re  tendencies    o 
disorder  and  insubordination  ,  idlers  ^vere  presu  .^ 
in-' on  the  charity  of  their  neighbours;  and  there 
was  a  tendency  to  excitement  catiscd  by  an  expc.> 
tation  of  the  sneedy  setting-in  of  '  the  'laj  °/  the 
Lord';  spiritual  utterances,  not  duly  tested  (1  Hi 
S^-s")   increased  the  expectation  ;  sayings  of  1  aul, 
Silvanus,  and  Timothy  were  exaggerated  to  coun- 
tenance it ;  possibly  a  for-ed  letter  m  their  name 
wasdrcilated,  or  Iniore  likely)  the  language  of 
1  Th  4  5  was  distorted  in  the  same  interest  (-  ). 
The  three  teachers  feel  that  their  converts  must  be 
praised  and  comforted,  yet  stimulated  and  stead led 
'riiey  write  a  common  letter-always  '"  the  p  mal, 
except  that  once  one  of  them,  probably  Paul   in- 
tervenes with  a  spe.!ial  appeal  to  hU  own  teaching 


n.  TUESSALOXIANS 


n.  THESSALONIAJSrS 


747 


(2°),  and  Paul  confirms  the  whole  with  his  auto- 
graph at  tlie  end  (3"). 
ii.  Analysis. — 

11- S  Greeting. 
▲.  Gratitude  jot  their  gpiritual  state,  especially  lor  their 
loyal  endurance  under  persecution  (3-  *). 
8trenj,'theninj;  of  them  bv  the  thought  of 

(1)  the  justice  of  Go<i  {&)  ; 

(2)  theepecial  manifestation  of  that  justice,  which 

will  accompany  the  Appearance  of  the  Lord 
Jesus  (H-10). 

Prayer  to  God  to  complete  their  Christian  life,  that 
Ciirisl  may  be  gloriUed  in  them  on  *  that  day '  (ii- 1^). 
B.  F\UUr  tt-acliiiuj  about  that  day. 

Warning  au'ainst  beint;  milled  into  thinking  it  immcdi. 
ately  at  band  (21-  -),  and  a  reminder  of  Paul's  past 
teaching  (*),  which  implied  (a)  a  mystery  of  lawk-ss- 
ness  and  of  error  already  at  work  ;  {b)  a,  restraining 
power  or  person  ;  (c)  a  removal  of  that  restraint  at 
some  future  date ;  (d)  a  great  apostafjy  ;  {>•)  the 
appearance  of  the  man  of  sin  ;  {/)  the  appearance  of 
the  Lord  destroying  the  man  of  sin  and  all  who  have 
been  deceived  by  him  (3-  *■  **-l2). 

Thanksgiving  to  God  that  He  saved  them  from  this 
doom  ('3.  li). 

E.xhortution  to  abide  lovally  by  their  past  teaching 

Prayer  to  God  to  comfort  and  to  steady  them  (I6- 17). 
0.  liequent  for  their  intercession  (31-  2).      .A.ssurance  of 
God's  faithfulness  (^),  and  of  their  teacher's  faith  in 
them  (■"). 

Prayer  to  God  to  pive  them  love  and  patience  (5). 
IX  lt'''jutation  o/ their  covninvnft!i-l\fe. 

They  are  to  shun  all  disorderly  brethren  (^)  ;  for  such 
disorder  is  contrary  to  tlie  example  which  tlieir 
teachers  had  set  (7-^),  and  tlieir  repeated  command 
O**).  Such  brethren  must  earn  Ineir  own  bread 
(11. 12).  The  rest  must  be  forbearing,  but  yet  break  off 
mtercourse  with  any  one  who  persists  in  disobeying 
this  written  command  t'^1^). 

Praver  to  the  Cod  of  peace  to  give  peace  to  them  all 

('■«). 
Autograph  salutation  in  Paul'i  own  handwriting  (17). 
Benediction  ("*). 

iii.  Literary  Dependence. —  (1)  The  Epistle 
presupposes  the  existence  of  1  Thessalonians.  For 
II  2"  explains  itself  readily  by  reference  to  I  4'"' 
5'-'";  II  :)»  to  I  4"  ;  11  3",  perhaps,  liut  less  prob- 
ably, to  I  4"'"''- ;  and  II  2-  may  imply  a  misunder- 
standing of  I  4"  5"^  Further,  there  is  a  remark- 
able similarity  of  structure,  e.g.,  in  the  form  of 
tTeeting  (I  1',  II  !••=),  of  thank.s<,'ivinK  (I  l\  II  P), 
of  [irayers  (I  3'i  5==,  II  2'«  3i'),  of  transition  (I  4', 
II  3').  And  this  extends  to  many  verbal  points, 
as  will  be  seen  by  a  comparison  of  the  following 
places : — 


1 1^  with  II  IS. 
I  IJ  irilb  II  2". 
I  1'!  wilb  II  H. 
I  ISOwith  II  1*. 
I  2*11  with  II  39. 


I  -i'^  with  II  1». 
I  v;^  with  II  2>7. 
HI  10  ,',11  with  tit*. 
I  .19  witli  II  •»*. 
I  6H  li  with  H  313. 


The  writer  of  2  Thess.  must  have  latel.v  written 
1  Thess.,  or  have  known  it  as  a  piece  of  literature. 

(2)  Prcvions  apocalyptic  teaching  is  also  pre- 
supposed. No  one  pas.sage  of  the  OT  is  appealed 
to,  but  the  ajiocalyjitic  descriptions  I""'"  2^"'-  weave 
together  phrases  from  Is  2i''''"-''  11*  [found  in  a 
similar  context  in  Ps-SoI  17"-  "]  49"  GG"-  '*,  Jer  10=*, 
F,zk  28'-,  and  Dn  ll"*.  There  are  also  striking  re- 
somljlaiices  between  the  language  here  and  that 
of  our  Lord's  escliatological  discourse  ;  cf.  1"  with 
Mt  25»'-'"i ;  2'  with  iMt  24»'  {fmavi'diouati') ;  2^  with 
Mt  24«  (BpouaOai,  here  and  Mk  13'  only  in  NT) ; 
2-'  with  Mt  24"  ;  2*  witli  Mt  24"  (^»  t6wv  iylv), 
Mk  13i<  {4(TTriK6Ta  Srou  oi  Su)  ;  2'  with  Mt  24'" 
(di-o^ifo)  ;  2"  with  Mt  24".  Such  similarities  may 
be  due  to  the  fact  that  each  draws  independently 
from  the  common  stock  of  ajiocalyptic  imagery, 
and  they  do  not  prove  a  literary  dependence  on 
anj'  written  (Gospel,  but  they  make  probable  a 
knowledge  of  some  oral  tradition  of  that  dis- 
course. 

(3)  A  knowledge  of  other  Gospel  sayings  may 
lie  behind  l»=Mt  5'»,  3»  =  Mt  G".  Tlie  command 
in  31"  is  a  quotation  of  a  Rabbinical  saying,  but 
possibly  it  had  been  already  used  by  our  Lord 


Himself,  and  may  have  been  taken  by  St.  Paul 
from  Him  (ef.  Kcsch,  Agraplia,  pp.  128  and  240). 

iv.  AuTlIoiisHlP. — Church  tradition  universally 
ascribed  the  Epistle  to  St.  Paul.  It  is  directly 
attributed  to  him  by  Polycarp  (c.  xi.),  who  quotes 
1*,  though  by  mistake  he  quotes  it  as  addressed  to 
the  Phillppians.  Keminiscences  of  the  apocalyptic 
language  may  underlie  Justin  Martyr,  Dial,  xxxii. 
ex. ;  Didache,  c.  IG ;  and  more  prob.  E/>.  Vicnne  and 
Lyons,  ap.  Eiis.  v.  I  (iv{(!Kr}\j/ev  6  avTiKet)ievo;,  irpoot- 
fita^b^ivo^  ij^Tj  TT)v  fi^Wovaav  ^treadat  irapovo-iav  ai>roO 
.  .  .  XpKTrbi  .  .  .  KarapYwv  rby  avriK^iaevov  .  .  .  oi 
v\o\  Tt)?  airuXcias),  but  in  no  case  can  the  reference 
be  called  undoubted.  Marcion  included  the  Epistle 
in  his  Canon  as  Pauline,  and  so  did  the  Latin  and 
Sj'riac  translators. 

The  internal  evidence  on  the  whole  supports  this 
view.  The  general  structure  of  the  Epistle,  the 
style  and  pliraseology,  the  afi'ectionate  tone,  the 
frequent  intercession  tor  the  readers,  the  request  for 
their  prayers,  the  appeal  to  his  own  teaching  and 
examjile,  the  sharp  insistence  on  his  own  authority 
in  a  matter  of  discipline,  are  all  characteristic  of 
St.  Paul.     Cut  two  main  objections  are  raised. 

(a)  The  relation  of  the  style  to  that  of  1  Thessa- 
lonians. In  spite  of  the  pointsof  likeness  (see  above), 
there  is  a  dillerence  ;  the  tone  is  more  orticial  {eux- 
6(pti\ofiev),  the  feeling  less  vivid,  the  sentences  more 
involved,  the  .same  things  are  being  said,  but  said 
with  less  point  and  directness  ;  they  suggest  a 
second  person  adapting  Pauline  thought  (Spitta, 
pp.  116-119).  But  the  variety  seems  equally  ex- 
plicable as  that  of  one  writer  writing  after  a  short 
lapse  of  time,  and  in  a  dillerent  mood.  A  compari- 
son of  the  style  of  2  Timothy  with  I  Timothy,  of 
Colossians  with  Ephesians,  of  2  Co  11  with  1  Co  9, 
will  show  very  similar  variety. 

(b)  The  escliatology  is  said  to  be  un-Pauline. 
It  is  true  tliat  no  such  detailed  anticip.-itions  are 
to  be  found  elsewhere  in  St.  Paul  (but  2  Co  0"  rh 
ffv^tpujvTjffts  XptaTou  irpot  lieXiap  may  refer  to  the  Anti- 
christ tradition),  liut  .such  teacliing  was  naturally 
esoteric ;  and,  even  here,  the  writer  .seems  inten- 
tionally to  avoid  being  explicit,  through  fear, 
jierhaps,  of  giving  the  Roman  authorities  a  handle 
against  himself  or  his  converts  (cf.  the  reticence 
of  Jos.  Ant.  X.  X.  4,  about  the  interpretation  of 
Daniel's  prophecies).  Further,  some  such  teacliin^j 
was  common  among  the  Jews,  so  that  St.  Paul 
wouhl  have  inherited  it ;  and,  lastly,  it  is  almost 
universal  in  Christian  writers  (Synoptists,  John 
[5'''],  James,  I.  2  John,  Apoc. ),  so  that  the  proba- 
bility is  in  favour  of  St.  Paul  having  shared  the 
expectation  in  some  form. 

But  is  the  form  iniidicd  here  Pauline?  This  again 
is  dillicult  to  answer,  because  of  the  diliiculty  of 
deciding  what  the  writer  was  pointing  to.  There 
lay  behind  him  in  the  history  of  the  doctrine  the 
following  stages.  (1)  A  common  Oriental  mytli  of 
a  struggle  between  the  ])ower  of  evil,  represented 
by  a  dragon  (I'.ab.  Tiaiii.it)  and  the  Creator  of  the 
world  (Marduk),  in  which  the  dragon  had  been 
bound,  but  would  revive  for  another  conllict  with 
God  before  the  end  of  the  world  (see  articles 
Rahaii,  Sea  Monstkr,  and  Rkvki.ai'ion).  The 
connexion  of  this  with  the  following  is  only  a 
conjecture,  but  a  very  possible  conjecture.  (2)  A 
Jewish  expectation,  springing  up  during  the  Exile, 
of  an  attack  upon  Israel  by  foes  led  by  some  liuiiian 
leader  or  (later)  by  Satan  or  Heliar,  which  would  bo 
frustrated  either  by  J"  or  the  Messiah.  Such  a 
victory  is  described  in  Ezk  38.  Something  similar 
recurs  in  the  prophecies  of  Daniel  (7.  8  and  1 1 )  about 
the  conllict  with  Antioclius  Epiplianes.  The  ex- 
pectation did  not  ccasewitli  the  deathof  Antioclius; 
it  was  applie<l  to  the  thouglit  of  deliverance  from 
the  Roman  empire  in  2  Es  5',  Ps-Sol  17,  Urac.  Sib. 
iii.  60,  Apoc.  ISaruch,  c.  40,  Ase.  Is.  c.  4  (cf.  Man 


T48 


II.  THESSALOXIANS 


IL  THESSALOXIA^v^S 


OF  Six).  (3)  This  anticipation  had  become  Chris- 
tian. Our  Lord  had  contemplated  a  leader  '  coming 
in  his  own  name '  (Jn  5'^)  and  demanding  allegiance ; 
some  person,  '  the  abomination  of  desolation,  stand- 
ing in  the  holy  place  (itrTriKdra) ' ;  many  false  pro- 
5 bets,  a  growth  of  lawlessness,  a  destruction  of 
erusalem,  and  a  coming  of  the  Son  of  Man  (Mt 
24,  Mk  13,  Lk  21).  Similar  teaching  bad  been  given 
at  Thessaionica  by  the  writer  frequently  {IXcyof,  2'), 
but  it  was  shared  by  his  fellow-teacbers  {{puruiixcv 
...  lis  iC  Tit>-C»',  2'-  -),  and  the  phrases  t)  iiroaraaia,  6 
&v$piairo$,  6  dvTtKeifiivoSf  6  Karix^*'  s-re  quoted  without 
explanation  as  from  a  well-known  body  of  teaching. 
(4)  A  new  point  had  probably  been  given  to  the 
expectation  among  the  Jews  in  A.D.  39  or  40,  by 
the  attempt  of  Caligula,  frustrated  only  by  his 
death,  to  erect  his  own  statue  in  the  temple  of 
Jerusalem  (Jos.  Ant.  XVIII.  viii.  ;  Tac.  Hist.  v.  9). 
This  would  help  to  explain  the  language  of  2*,  and 
Spitta  suggests  that  St.  Paul  and  his  colleagues 
had  adapted  a  Jewisli  form  of  the  apocalyptic 
teacliing  written  in  view  of  Caligula's  attempt ;  but 
there  is  no  necessity  for  such  a  suggestion,  interest- 
ing and  possible  as  it  is. 

This  history  of  the  doctrine  helps  us  to  define 
the  probable  application  which  is  implied  in  this 
teaching.  It  is  not  indeed  necessary  to  suppose 
in  St.  Paul's  mind  any  clear  identification  with  a 
definite  person  or  a  definite  time ;  yet  the  language 
is  more  natural  on  such  a  supposition,  and  the  in- 
terpretation will  come  in  one  of  two  directions. 

(a)  Probably  the  opposition  comes  from  Jewish 
soil,  t6  ^vaTijptov  TTjs  di'Ofj.ias  is  the  opposition  of 
the  Jews  to  the  spread  of  Cliristianity  (cf.  3'-^, 
1  Th  2",  Ac  18*  and  passim) ;  the  ipepyca  ir\dfn! 
is  the  blinding  of  the  eyes  of  the  Jews  to  the 
gosjiel  (Ac  13"-'^  1  Co  2«,  2  Co  3»,  Ro  U^^) ;  t6 
Karexof  is  the  Roman  empire  controlling  the  Jews 
'  assidue  tumultuantes '  (cf.  Ac  18-)  and  preventing 
their  illegal  attacks  on  the  Christians ;  6  Karixuv, 
the  Roman  emperor,  or  perhaps  on  the  analogy  of 
Dn  lu'^-  -"  some  archangel  who  presides  over  the 
order  of  the  empire  (so  Goebel,  ad  loc);  ^  diro- 
uraaia  is  the  final  rejection  by  the  Jews  of  their 
Messiah,  or  possibly  some  Christian  apo>tasy  such 
as  is  contemplated  in  He  10^*- ;  6  di'dpuiiros  rijt 
dpuipTlas  is  some  false  Messiah,  expected  to  lead 
the  Jews  in  a  final  rising  against  tlie  Roman 
emj>ire  ;  and  his  destruction  lies  in  the  overthrow 
of  the  Jewish  polity  and  the  salvation  and  estab- 
lishment of  the  Christian  Church.  This  interpreta- 
tion is  most  in  accord  with  the  Synoptists  and  with 
the  subsequent  Church  tradition,  as  well  as  with 
St.  Paul's  own  circumstances  at  the  moment. 

(i3)  The  opposite  view  has  been  frequently  main- 
tained of  late,  which  sees  the  explanation  in  heathen 
oiiposition  and  especially  in  the  worsliip  of  tlie 
Cfajsars.  The  lawlessness  and  deceit  will  then  be 
that  of  heathen  wickedness  and  error ;  the  restrain- 
injj  power,  tlie  antagonism  of  the  Jewish  State 
(Warfield),  or  the  imperial  authority  (Jljlicher) ; 
the  man  of  sin,  the  emperor  or  some  heathen  per- 
sonification of  evil  proclaiming  himself  as  God  ;  the 
apostasy,  that  of  the  Jews,  or,  as  on  the  former 
theory,  of  some  Christians  ;  and  the  coming  of  the 
Son  of  Man  will  be  tlie  ultimate  annihilation  of 
C^sarism  and  the  est.iblishment  of  Christianity 
as  the  religion  of  the  world.  This  view  would  be 
more  in  accordance  with  the  past  history  of  the  appli- 
cation to  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  with  the  attempt 
of  Caligula,  and  with  the  reference  to  Nero  in  the 
Apocalypse;  but  it  seems  less  in  accord  with  St. 
Paul's  own  circumstances  at  the  time. 

Either  of  these  views  gives  a  setting  possibly 
Pauline  ;  the  language,  no  doubt,  is  indefinite ;  it 
is  capable  of  being  applied  to  the  theory  of  a  Nero 
reclivivu,i  (c.  69  A.D. ),  or  to  some  Gnostic  oppo-sition 
to  Christianity  in  the  2nd  cent. ;  but  none  of  the 


lan^age  rcfjuires  such  an  interpretation.  Noi 
again,  is  this  view  fatally  inconsistent  with  St. 
Paul's  expectation  elsewhere.  1  Th  5'"'  certainly 
foretells  a  sudden  surprising  appearance  of  the 
day  of  the  Lord ;  but  that  is  consistent  with  a 
previous  preparation  of  events,  the  length  of  which 
13  left,  as  here,  wholly  indefinite.  Ro  U^  also 
implies  a  hope  that  '  all  Israel  will  be  saved,' 
which  seems  scarcely  consistent  with  a  great 
Jewish  antagonism ;  out  the  language  cannot  be 
rigidly  pressed ;  the  failure  of  a  Jewish  false 
Messiah  might  be  a  stage  in  the  conversion  of 
the  Jewish  nation  ;  and  it  is  possible  that  St. 
Paul's  expectation  on  this  point  may  have  changed. 
Again,  1  Ti  4',  2  Ti  3'  point  to  an  expectation  of  an 
apostasy  within  the  Christian  Church ;  but  that 
would  not  be  inconsistent  with  the  view  main- 
tained here. 

Recent  investigations  have  emphasized  the 
strength  of  the  tradition  both  Jewish  and  Chris- 
tian ;  but  they  have  also  shown  the  versatility 
of  its  application  ;  it  is  applied  to  the  danger 
which  threatens  the  truth  at  any  moment.  Baniel 
gives  it  a  heathen  application  to  Antiochus  Epi- 
phanes ;  the  writer  of  the  Psalms  of  Solomon  to 
Pompey ;  St.  Paul,  thwarted  by  Jews,  applies  it 
to  them ;  St.  John  sees  many  Antichrists  in 
teachers  untrue  to  Christianity  ;  the  writer  of 
the  Apocalj'pse,  when  the  Roman  empire  had 
become  a  persecuting  power,  applies  it  to  the 
Roman  emperor ;  the  writers  of  the  Ep.  of  the 
Churches  of  Vienne  and  Lyons  see  in  the  persecu- 
tion there  an  anticipation  of  the  final  conflict :  '  he 
that  opposeth  '  swoops  down  upon  the  Christians  ; 
Christ  m  the  martyrs  '  brings  to  naught '  him  who 
opposeth  ;  the  apostate  Christians  are  '  the  sons  of 
perdition.'  This  application  is  all  the  more  inter- 
esting that  it  is  mcidental,  and  the  passage  is 
not  quoted.  Consequently  there  may  be  many 
applications  and  many  fulfilments  yet  in  the 
future,  as  long  as  the  cleavage  between  faith  and 
unfaith,  error  and  truth,  remain.  [Cf.  Man  OF  SiN, 
vol.  iii.  p.  226  ;  PAUL,  vol.  iii.  p.  709  ;  Bousset,  Der 
Antichrist  (Gottingen,  1895,  Eng.  tr.  1896)  ;  in 
Encyc.  Bill.  s.v.  ;  Thackeray,  The  Relation  of  St. 
Paul  to  Contemporary  Jeu-ish  Thought,  pp.  136- 
141  ;  Stanton,  Jeu-ish  and  Christian  Messiah,  iii. 
e.  2  ;  R.  H.  Charles,  Eschatvlogy,  p.  380 tt'.,  and  art. 
'Apocalyptic  Literature'  in  Encyc.  Bibl. ;  Schurer, 
EJPu.'n.  154  f. ;  B.  B.  Warfield  in  Expositor,  1886, 
ii.  pp.  30-44 ;  G.  G.  Findlay,  ti.  1900,  ii  pp.  251- 
261]. 

There  is,  then,  no  reason  for  denying  the  author- 
ship to  St.  Pall.  Spitta  in  a  valuable  examination 
of  the  Ep.  {Zur  Gesch.  und  Litt.  dcs  Urchristentunis, 
i.  pp.  111-154)  suggests  Timothy  as  the  real  author, 
supposing  that  St.  Paul,  instead  of  dictating  as 
usual,  left  Timothy  to  compose  it,  and  that 
Timothy  is  referring  in  2*  to  his  own  separate 
teaching  at  his  last  visit  to  them  ;  St.  Paul  then 
adds  a  general  authentication  in  3".  In  this  way 
he  attempts  to  explain  the  ditlerence  of  style  be- 
tween 1  Thess.  and  this  Ep.,  and  the  difference  of 
the  eschatological  view.  But  these  differences  are 
not  so  great  as  to  call  for  such  an  explanation ; 
further,  St.  Paul  would  not  authenticate  a  letter 
which  contained  any  substantial  ditference  from 
his  own  teaching  ;  the  Thessalonians  would  natur- 
ally refer  fKeyov  of  2°  to  the  leading  apostle  whose 
name  stands  first  (!')  and  who  is  named  in  3",  the 
only  other  use  of  the  singular;  and  2'-'  imply  that 
the  teaching  of  the  one  teacher  (2°)  was  shared  by 
all.  If  anotlier  author  were  needed,  Silvanus  seems 
a  more  natural  suggestion,  for  he,  as  a  prophet, 
miglit  be  the  source  of  the  projihetic  passage  ;  but 
the  theory  creates  more  difficulties  than  it  solves. 

■Those  who  reject  the  Pauline  authorship  alto 
gether  suppose  tnat  at  some  later  date  an  expects. 


n.  THESSALONIAXS 


THliSSALONICA 


749 


tion  of  the  immediate  coming  of  Christ  arose  and 
produced  excitement  and  neglect  of  daily  duties ; 
that  some  one  in  authority  tried  to  meet  the  peril 
implied  in  the  excitement  uy  writing  a  letter  which 
described  the  stages  that  would  precede  that  com- 
ing, and  in  order  to  gain  w  eight  for  it  com|)osed 
it  in  the  name  of  Paul,  deliberately  modelling  it 
upon  1  Thess.,  the  Pauline  Epistle  which  was 
most  cognate  in  subject.  Of  the  many  suggested 
situations,  that  of  Schmiedel  seems  the  best,  who 
would  connect  it  with  the  expectation  of  a  return 
01  Xero,  and  so  place  it  after  Nero's  death  (June 
OS),  and  before  the  destruction  of  the  teiiijile 
(August  70).  It  would  then  deal  with  the  s:une 
circumstances  a-s  the  Apocalypse  (ch.  13).  But 
there  is  no  detail  here,  wliich  connects  'him  that 
opposeth  '  clearly  with  Nero  redioieus,  and  the 
verj'  elaborateness  of  the  theory  is  against  its 
truth. 

V.  IXTEGRITY.— The  difficulties  of  2'-'=  have  natur- 
allj'  led  to  suggestions  of  interpolation.  Pierson  and 
Nalieri  r(;n'.ri»ii7K«,  pp.  21-25) treat  l'''"2'"'- 3 (except 
7-13.  16-18)  .^g  parts  of  a  pre-Christian  Jewish  apo- 
calviise,  worked  up  into  a  Christian  form  by  .some 
unknown  bishop  of  the  name  of  Paul  (cf.  preceding 
art.).  Schmidt,  S.  Davidson,  and  others  treat  the 
main  body  as  Pauline,  with  2'''-  as  a  late  insertion 
of  about  6'J ;  Hausrath  treats  2'"'-  as  the  only 
Pauline  fragment  worked  up  into  an  Epistle  at  a 
later  date.  But  there  is  no  MS  support  for  any 
of  these  theories,  and  2'"'^  cannot  be  separated 
from  1'"'°,  which  latter  section  shows  striking 
similarities  with  the  Jewish  expectations  ;  cf.  esp. 
1*  and  2"  with  Sib.  Orac.  iii.  67  i.  of  the  coming  of 
Beliar — 

(cf.  Clemen,  Die  EinhcitUchkcit  der  Paul.  Bric/e, 
pp.  17,  18  ;  Moflatt,  Historical  NT,  p.  626). 

vi.  Value.  — Short  as  the  Epistle  is,  it  b  of 
great  value,  both  doctrinal  and  historical.  It 
marks  the  high  position  attributed  from  the  first 
tu  Christ,  the  language  of  the  OT  about  Jehovah 
li'-iiig  applied  to  llim  (1'),  and  He  being  ranked 
"ilh  tlie  Father  as  the  one  source  of  comfort  and 
strength  (2"  TrapokoX^crai  .  .  .  oTupiJai,  each  in 
the  singular).  It  shows  us  the  strength  of  the 
expectation  of  the  Second  Advent  in  the  Early 
Chuich  ;  the  deep  sense  of  the  struggle  between 
good  and  evil,  between  truth  and  falsehood,  its 
consummation  in  delinite  persons,  and  the  final 
triumph  of  the  good  and  true;  the  faith  in  the 
ultimate  justice  of  God  to  right  the  injustice  of  this 
world.  It  shows  the  method  in  which  the  apostle 
met  the  feverish  impatience  that  would  antedate 
the  end  :  (a)  laying  stress  on  those  elements  in  the 
traditional  expectation  which  innilied  lapse  of  time 
and  an  overruling  Providence  wlucli  fixed  the  right 
moment  for  the  coming  ((u  T(f  aiiroO  xaipv,  cf.  I's- 
Sol  n-"  its  tJk  Kaipof  in  oUat  au,  6  Otit)  ;  (6)  insist- 
ing on  the  duty  of  each  man  earnin"  his  own 
livelihood  an<l  discouraging  all  cringing  dependence 
on  Church  charity  ;  (i:)  strengthening  the  bonds  of 
discipline,  iire.s.sing  the  authority  of  hia  own  com- 
mands, and  calling  upon  the  Church  to  rise  to  the 
iluty  of  keei>iiig  its  ranks  free  of  unworthy  mem- 
bers ;  3"  marks  the  commencement  of  Church 
discipline.  It  .sanctions  the  tendency  to  read  the 
^-igns  of  the  times  an<l  to  see  the  great  struggle 
between  good  and  evil  working  itself  out  in  con- 
temporary events  ;  and  even  if  we  cannot  for  certain 
identify  St.  I'aul's  application,  or  even  if  it  was 
not  fullilled  exactly  as  he  expected,  yet  as  the 
great  expectation  had  grown  with  centuries  and 
was  rooted  in  principles,  so  it  remains  still,  claim- 
ing a  more  adequate  fulfilment.     For  applications 


made  in  subsequent  Christian  times  see   Smith's 
DB,  s.v.  'Anti-Christ.' 

Historically,  the  section  2'""  was  of  great  im- 
portance ;  for  the  identification  of  the  Roman 
empire  with  6  (car^x""  led  to  its  being  treated  as 
the  great  protecting  power,  and  so  gave  special 
point  to  the  prayers  tor  it  and  for  the  emperor 
(cf.  Tertullian,  A/wl.  32:  '  est  et  alia  major  ueces- 
sitas  nobis  orandi  pro  imperatorilms,  eliam  pro 
omni  statu  imperii  rebusque  Itoniani.s,  qui  vim 
ma.vimam  nniverso  orbi  imminentem  ipsanique 
clausulam  sa'culi  accrbitates  borrendas  commin- 
antem  Romani  imperii  coniiiicatu  scimus  retar- 
dari ').  The  language  of  3"  is  also  valuable,  as 
indicating  that  St.  Paul  had  a  larger  correspond 
ence  than  we  now  possess,  and  probably  hints  at  a 
danger  of  forged  letters  even  at  this  early  date. 

LiTKttATiniE.  —  See  at  end  of  preceding  article,  and  add 
Goebel,  IHe  Thessalonuchen  Brif/e,  a  crisp,  terse,  sensible  com- 
mentary. The  authurship  is  best  discussed,  as  against  St.  Paul, 
bv  Spitta  (see  above),  Schmiedel,  lldcom.  pp.  7-11 :  as  fur  St. 
Paul,  by  Julicher,  Kinl*  pp.  45-.''il ;  Zahn,  pp.  160-182  ;  Sloffatt, 
tiistorical  ST,  pp.  142-14S  ;  Hornemann  in  Meyer's  Comnunfar 
ziiin  ST.  Interesting  suggesti»»ns  for  the  emendation  ul  the 
text  (in  l^'^  irirratlh;,  2-  mi  Ok  roa/^)  will  be  found  in  Westcott- 
Hort,  it  App.  p.  128 ;  Field,  NoUt  <m  Tram.  V  ST.  p.  2n2. 

W.  Lock. 
THESSALONICA  [QeaaaKovlK-ri),  a  city  of  Mace- 
donia, still  known  by  that  name  under  the  but 
slightly  altered  form  of  i>alo>ii/ci,  b.-is  lun''  held  a 
prominent  place  in  history,  and  still  ranks,  after 
Constantinople,  as  the  most  imiiortant  town  in 
European  Turkey.  It  is  situated  on  the  inner- 
most bay,  or  north-eastern  recess,  of  the  larger 
gulf,  which  now  takes  its  name  from  the  modern 
town,  but  was  known  to  the  ancients  as  the 
Thcrmaic  Gulf,  after  an  earlier  town  on  the  .same 
site,  called  Thcrme.  It  is  built  in  the  form  of  an 
amphitheatre  on  the  slopes  at  the  head  of  the 
bay  ;  and  it  is  seen  from  .a  great  distance,  crowned 
by  its  citadel  above,  and  conspicuous  by  white- 
washed walls  several  miles  in  circuit.  '  The  situa- 
tion,' says  Tozer,  '  recalls  the  appearance  of  Genoa 
from  the  way  in  which  the  hou.-ics  rise  from  the 
water  edge,  and  gradually  a.sccnd  the  hillsides  to- 
wards the  north.  It  is  admirably  plac-ed  for  pur- 
poses of  communication  and  trade,  as  it  lies  in  the 
innermost  bay  of  the  winding  gulf,  and  forms  the 
natural  point  of  transit  for  exports  and  imports; 
besides  which  it  commands  the  resources  of  the 
immense  plain,  wliich  reaches  in  a  vast  arc  as  far 
as  the  foot  of  Olympus,  and  receives  the  waters  of 
three  important  rivers,  the  Axins,  the  Lydias,  and 
the  Haliacraon  '  (G'eoj'.  o/"  Greece,  1873,  p.  2U4).  It  is 
said  to  have  borne  earlier  the  names  of  Emathia 
and  Ilalia:  certainly  it  bore  that  of  Tlierme,  by 
wliich  it  is  known  to  Herod,  (as  a  halting-place  of 
Xerxes  on  bis  way  to  Greece,  vii.  121,  123,  124,  127, 
128,  183)  and  Thucyd.  (i.  61,  ii.  20),  and  which  it 
probably  owed  to  hot  mineral  springs  (thenna;), 
still  existing  in  its  vicinity.  The  name  Thessa- 
lonica  (as  to  the  origin  of  which  various  conjectures 
are  brought  together  by  Tzetzes,  Chil.  xiii.  30511'.), 
which  is  first  einploj'ed  by  Polybius  (xxiii.  4,  4  ; 
11,  2;  xxix.  3,  7),  would  appear  to  commemorate 
a  victory  over  the  Thessafiaiis,  of  wliich  nothing 
di  Unite  is  known  as  to  time,  place,  or  victor 
(Philip?).  It  was  most  probalily  given  to  the  city 
by  Ca.ssander  (who  rebuilt  it  about  B.C.  315,  ancl 
transferred  to  it  the  inhabitants  of  several  small 
townships  in  the  vicinity;  Strabo,  vii.  fr.  21)  in 
honour  of  his  wife  of  that  name,  who  was  daughter 
of  Philip,  and  step-sister  of  Alexander.  The  place 
soon  gained  imjiortance,  becoming,  on  tbecomiuest 
of  Macedonia  by  the  Romans,  tiie  cajiital  of  the 
second  of  its  four  divisions  (Liv.  xlv.  2!)),  and,  on 
the  conversion  of  the  country  a  few  years  lafer 
into  a  province,  jiractically  the  capital  of  the 
whole,  and  residence  of  the  Roman  governor  •  called 


750 


THEUDAS 


THIGH 


'the  mother  of  all  Macedonia'  {Anthol.  Gr.  ed. 
Jacobs,  ii.  p.  98,   Epig.   14),  although   the   name 
'  metropolis,'  occurring  on  coins  of  the  city,  is  ot 
later  date.    The  Romans  had  docks  (navalui)  tliere 
(Liv.  xliv.  10) ;  the  great  Egnatian  higlnvay  tra- 
versed tlie  city  from  west  to  east,  the  remains  of 
arches  at  either  end  of  a  Ion"  street  still  markin'' 
the  site  of  its  gates  ;  Cicero  during  Ins  exile  found 
friendly    shelter    there    for    seven    montlis    with 
Plancius  the  qu.Testor  (Oral,  pro  Plane.  41  ;  Ep.  ad 
AH.  iii.  8tl'.).     In  the  first  Civil  war  it  supplied  a 
basis  of  operations  for  Pompeius  and  the  Senate 
(Die  Cass.  xli.  20) ;  in  the  second  it  espoused  the 
cause  of  Antonins  and  Octavianus  (Pint.  Brut.  4G  ; 
Appian,  Bell.  Civ.  iv.   118),  which  brouglit  to  it 
apparently  tlie  privilege  of  becoming  a  free  city 
aUera!  conditionls,  Pliny,  EN  iv.  36),  for  there  are 
several   coins  inscribed   with   the  words  eE— A- 
AONIKEfiN  •  EAEXeEPIAS,  probably  to  be  associ- 
ated with  the  victory  at  Philippi,  from  the  reverse 
bearing  the  joint  names  of  Antonius  and  Augustus. 
This  privilege  implied  autonomy  (hence  the  men- 
tion of  Tiv  dijfiov  in  Ac  17=),  and  the  appointment  of 
their  own  magistrates,  who  were  m  this  instance 
desi'Tiated  7ro\iT(£px<".  as  is  apparent  from  Ac  \i  ■  , 
where  the  term  is  rendered  RULERS  OF  THE  CiTY 
(whicli  see).   Tafel,  in  his  comprehensive  monograph 
IDe  Tliessal.  ein^que  agro  dissartatio  gcugraphica, 
Berol   1839),  follows  out  the  fortunes  of  the  city  as 
under  the  later  Empire  a  main  bulwark  against  the 
Gothic  and  Slavonic  invasions  (of  which  lie  enumer- 
ates six);  and,   during  the   Middle  Ages,  thrice 
captured,— by  the  Saracens  in  904,  by  the  Normans 
under  Tancred  in  1185,  and  by  the  Turks  m  1430 
It  has  still  a  population  of  about  70,000,  whereof 
20,000  are  Jews.  ..,,,„■ 

When  St.  Paul,  along  with  Silas,  visited  Thessa- 

lonica  on  his  mission   to  Macedonia  and  Greece, 

the  Jews  there,  who  were  numerous  and  influential 

enough   to  have  founded   a  synagogue,  were  his 

most  active  opponents.    The  discussions  w^th  them 

on  three  Sabbaths  persuaded  few  Jewsh  hearers, 

but  a  much  larger  number  ('a  great  multitude  ) 

of  'the  devout  Greeks'— i.e.  proselytes— 'and  of 

the  chief  women  not  a  few'  (Ac  17*).     But  the 

Jews,  who  were  not  won  over,  called  to  their  aid 

some  worthless  idlers  of  the  market-place  (d7oparoi), 

excited  a  tumult,  beset  the  house  of  Jason,  and, 

not  finding  there  those  whom  they  sought,  dragged 

Ja.son  and  others  before  the  politarchs,  accusing 

tliera  of  having  received  disturbers  of  the  world  s 

peace,  and  of  contravening  the  imperial  decrees  by 

owning  another  king  in  Jesus.     Upon  this  alarm, 

the  politarchs  took  securities  from   the  accused 

and  dismissed  them;    but  tlie  brethren  at  once 

sent  away  Paul  and  SUas  by  night  toBercea.     The  i 

subsequent  fortunes  of  the  Church  which  their  brief 

ministry  had  formed  called  forth  from  the  apostle 

(courteously  associating  with  himself  Timothy  as 

well  as  Silvanus=  Silas)  the  two  Epistles  to  the 

Thessalonians.     See  preceding  two  articles. 

William  P.  Dickson. 
THEUDAS  (eei'Sas ;  the  name  is  supposed  to  be 
a  contraction  of  ee65upos).— In  the  speech  of  Gam- 
aliel contained  in  Ac  5^»-  the  speaker  is  represented 
as  referring  to  the  rebellion  of  a  cerUin  1  heudas, 
who  professed  to  be  some  one  great:  400  men 
followed  him  ;  but  he  was  killed,  and  his  following 
came  to  nothing.  At  a  later  date,  Gamaliel  goes 
on  to  say,  Judas  of  Galilee  arose  at  the  time  of  the 
taxin"  and  his  following  too  were  scattered.  In 
Josephus  {Ant.  XX.  v.  1)  we  have  an  account  of 
one  Theudas.  While  Fadus  was  procurator,  he  tells 
us  a  certain  magician  whose  name  was  rheudus 
persuaded  a  great  part  of  the  people  to  take  their 
effects  and  follow  him  across  the  Jordan.  He  pre- 
tended he  could  divide  the  river  by  his  power  as  a 
prophet.    Fadus  attacked  him  Buddenly,  cut  oH  his 


head,  and  dispersed  his  followers.  It  is  perfectlj 
clear  that  if  this  Theudas  be  the  same  person  as  la 
mentioned  in  the  Acts,  the  author  of  that  book  has 
been  "uilty  of  an  anachronism.  For  he  puts  into 
the  mouth  of  Gamaliel,  who  must  have  spoken 
before  A.D.  37,  a  reference  to  a  revolt  winch 
occurred  about  A.D.  45  or  46.  This  discrepancy 
is  one  of  the  chief  dithculties  in  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles,  and  various  suggestions  have  been  made 
to  account  for  it.  ,    .     ^i 

1.  Reference  has  already  been  made  to  tlie  sug- 
gestion that  the  mistake  arose  through  the  blunder- 
mg  use  of  Josephus  (vol.  i.  p.  30).  It  is  not  necessary 
to  add  anything  to  what  is  said  tliere,  except  tliat 
a  careful  reperusal  of  the  passages  does  not  tend  to 
make  the  hypothesis  more  credible.      _  . 

2  Bishop  Lightfoot  (Smith's  />£'  i.  40)  points 
out  that  Theudas  (  =  Thcodorus,  Theodotus,  or 
Theodorius)  would  be  quite  natural  among  the 
Jews  as  the  Gr.  equivalent  to  several  Heb.  names; 
and  that  Josephus  {Ant.  XVII.  x.  8  ;  BJ  II.  iv.  1) 
tells  us  of  many  disturbances  which  took  place  at 
this  time  without  giving  names.  He  also  quotes 
an  opinion  of  Wieseler's  that  Theudas  may  be  the 
Gr.  form  of  the  name  of  Matthias,  son  of  Marga- 
lothus,  mentioned  by  Josephus  (Ant.  XVU.  vi.  2). 
But  the  identification  is  hardly  probable. 

3  Blass  {ad  loc.)  seems  to  suggest  that  the  name 
Theudas  has  been  interpolated  in  the  passage  of 
Josephus  from  the  Acts,  because  the  Christiana 
thought  that  the  two  passages  illustrated  one 
another.  We  have  some  reason  for  thinking  that 
Josephus  was  interpolated  by  the  Christians  ;  but 
in  this  instance  it  is  hardly  probable  that  anythmg 
of  the  sort  was  done.  . 

We  do  not  know  enough  to  explain  the  dithculty. 
It  is  perfectly  possible  that  the  explanation  of 
Li'ditfoot  may  be  correct ;  it  is  quite  possible  that 
the  mistake  of  St.  Luke  may  only  be  one  of  name, 
and  it  is  very  bad  criticism  to  condemn  an  author 
for  an  apparent  discrepancy  when  our  knowledge 
of  the  circumstances  is  so  limited.  But,  assuming 
that  the  Acts  are  incorrect,  we  may  ask  what  tins 
iniidies  It  implies  that,  to  a  certam  extent  at  any 
rate,  the  speech  of  Gamaliel  was  the  author  s  com- 
position. This  may  mean  only  that  he  supplied 
one  of  the  incidents  which  Gamaliel  referred  to, 
having  from  some  source  a  general  knowledge  of 
the  attitude  of  the  speaker  ;  or  it  may  mean  that 
he  took  this  manner  of  putting  before  his  readers 
what  he  had  reason  to  believe  was  a  tendency  ot  a 
section  of  the  Jews.  A.  C.  HKADLAM. 


11 


THICKET.— See  Fokest. 

THIGH  (to:,  Mpisl-Tbe  girding  of  the  sword 
vpon  the  thiqh  is  referred  to  in  Ex  32-''  Jg  i 
(Ehud  girded  his  swuid  upon  \ns  right  thigh, 
whence,  being  left-handed,  he  could  most  con- 
veniently draw  it,  v.'^').  Ps  45»,  Ca  3«.  Jacobs 
thigh  was  dislocated  by  his  opponent  in  wrest  ing, 
so  that  next  day  he  limped  upon  it,  Gn  32-»i-»'  [J]. 
In  an  editorial  note  this  circumstance  is  assigned 
as  the  basis  of  the  Jewish  custom  of  dechnmg  to 
eat  of  'the  sinew  that  shrank,'  v.'=<=»'.  See  art. 
Food,  vol.  ii.  p.  39«.  In  the  jealousy  ordeal  one 
of  the  effects  looked  for  in  the  event  ot  a  wife  a 
guilt  was  the  falling  away  (Vrj)  of  her  thigh,  Nu 
51:1.  la.  27  rp].  see  Dilliii.  ad  loc.  In  the  ivitsf  in 
praise  of  theShulammite  it  is  said,  ;  the  roundmgs 
of  thy  thighs  (T?r  'R'^n)  are  like  .Jewels,  Ca/. 
Smiting  upon  the  tliigh  appears  in  Jer  31"  and 
Ezk  21"  as  a  token  ot  '-""'^'eiTiation.  tor  the 
phrase  '  wnite  them  hip  upon  thigh  (p^i*  do^k  nsn 
ij-i-'?!;),  see  art.  Hip.  .     . 

"Special  attention  is  due  to  a  set  of  passages  in 
which  the  thigh  appears  fs  the  seat  of  P™=reative 
power.     In  Gn  46-^  Ex  1»  [both  P],  Jg  S**  a  man  t 


THINK 


THISTLES,  THORNS 


751 


descendants  are  spoken  of  as  proceedinf;  from  liis 
tliii,'h  {'ix  •><■*■)■  Cf.  W.  R.  Smith,  Kins/,i/,,  34, 
Ji^-  380.  This  throws  lij;ht  upon  the  phuing  of 
the  hand  under  the  thigh  [  =  the  genital  organ]  in 
taking  an  oatli,  Gn  2-1--  "  47-'*  [all  J].  The  sacred- 
ness  attributed  to  tliis  organ  in  primitive  times 
(see  Holzinger  or  Gunkel  on  Gn  24-)  would  give 
special  solemnity  to  an  oath  of  this  kind.  More- 
over, seeing  tliat  '  it  is  from  the  thigh  that  one's 
descendants  come,  to  take  an  oath  w-ith  one's  hand 
upon  the  thigh  could  be  etjuivalent  to  calling 
upon  the.«e  descendants  to  mamtain  an  oath  wliioh 
has  been  taken,  and  to  revenge  one  which  has  been 
broken '  (Dillmann). 

It  is  not  clear  how  we  should  understand  Rev 
19"  '  He  hath  on  his  mantle  and  on  his  thigh  [ivl 
rb  IfxdTLov  Ka.1  itrl  ritv  ^-qpbv  airroo)  a  name  written, 
King  of  kings  and  Lord  of  lords.'  The  Ka.1  may  be 
epexegetical,  when  the  meaning  would  be  that  the 
name  is  written  on  His  mantle  where  this  falls 
U]ion  His  thigh  (so  DUsterdieck,  B.  Weiss,  Holtz- 
mann).  Spitta  suggests  that  iinpt>^  [this  is  its  only 
occurrence  in  NT]  may  be  the  name  of  an  article 
of  uniform,  perhaps  the  sword-belt. 

J.  A.  SELIilE. 

THINK. — This  verb  is  frequently  used  in  .W  in 
the  sense  of  'devise,'  'intend,'  as  Gn  oO*'  '  But  as 
for  you,  ye  thought  evU  against  me'  (nv)  db^F", 
LXX  ^/SouXewrcwfle  «is  Trovr]pi,\i\  'ye  meant  evil'); 
Ex  32"  '  And  the  Lord  repented  of  the  evil  which 
he  thought  to  do  unto  his  people'  (ni»;'^  i:i  -a's, 
RV  'which  he  said  he  would  do');  jlu  24"  '\ 
thought  to  promote  thee  unto  great  honour'  C'TJsx, 
LXX  (lira.  n/i-^iTu  ere) ;  Neh  6"  '  It  is  reported  .  .  . 
that  thou  and  the  Jews  think  to  rebel '  (in?'?  n'5;f'n, 
LXX  \ayi^(a0e  aTroaraTiiiTai).  So  Jn  11*^  Wye. 
'  Fro  that  day  thei  thoughten  [1688  soughten]  for 
to  sle  him ' ;  MandevUle,  Travels,  87,  '  This  Tartary 
is  holden  of  the  great  Caan  of  Cathay,  of  whom  I 
think  to  speak  afterward.' 

To  think  on  or  upon  is  to  remember,  as  Gn  40" 
'  But  think  on  me  when  it  shall  be  well  with  thee' 
{?;]i»<  'jn'^^rDN  '?,  LXX  dXXa  fjLvrjadijTl  fxov  5id  atavrov, 
RV  'But  have  me  in  thy  remembrance');  Nch 
5"  'Think  u[)on  me,  my  God,  for  good,  according 
to  all  that  I  have  done '  (' ■'•n-jri,  RV  '  Remember 
unto  me,  O  my  God,  for  gooil,  all  that  I  have 
done');  G"  '  Aly  God,  think  tliou  upon  "Tobiah 
and  Sanballat  aicbnling  to  these  their  works '  (mri, 
LXX  iii'wOvTi,  RV  '  Remember ') ;  Jon  1»,  Sir  18=» 
51*.  So  He  10"  Wye.  '  I  schal  no  more  thenke  on 
the  synncs  and  wickedncssis  of  hem '  (ov  /ii)  fwija- 
0ri<roixiu,  Vulg.  nun  rccurdiibur). 

In  Anplo-Saxon  there  were  two  distinct  verba,  thencan  to 
think,  and  tln/ncan  to  seem,  the  latter  used  impersonally. 
These  verba  be^an  to  be  confused  verj"  early,  and  in  course  of 
time  were  always  spelt  alike.  In  poetry  we  still  use  '  nietliinks,' 
where  the  pron.  is  in  the  dative,  and  the  word  means  *  it  i*eeni3 
to  me."  In  Rich.  111.  in.  i.  6.1,  the  Quartos  have  '  Where 
it  thinks  best  unto  your  royal  self,'  out  the  Folio  reads 
'Where  it  think'st  best,' probably  from  confusion  between  *it 
thinks' (=it  seems)  and  'thinkst  thou.'  Knox  in  his //lV^>^/, 
p.  315,  Bays, '  But  to  tills  houre  I  have  thought,  and  yet  thinks 
my  selfe  alone  more  able  to  sut^taine  the  tbinps  athrmed  in  that 
my  Work,  than  any  ten  in  Kurope  shall  be  able  to  refute  it,' 
where  the  iin^Tuinniatical  *1  thinks'  may  be  due  to  familiarity 
with  the  form  '  niethinks.' 

In  AV  we  find  the  verb  '  think '  =  Jfcffm  In  'me  thlnketh,' 
2  S  18'-''  '  Me  thinkcth  the  running  of  the  foremost  is  like  the 
runninc  of  Ahiinaaz.'  Cf.  On  413  Tind.  'And  him  thought 
that  vii  other  kyiie  came  up  after  them  out  of  the  ryver' ;  Lv 
14^  '  .Me  thinke  that  there  is  as  it  were  a  Icprooy  in  the  house  * ; 
Mandeville,  TravcU,  117,  'And  them  thiiiketh  that  the  more 
pain,  and  the  more  tribulation  that  they  suffer  (or  love  of  their 
god,  the  more  Joy  they  sliall  have  in  another  world."  This  is 
the  ^'erb  that  is  used'  in  the  phrase  'think  good,'  Dn  4^  *  I 
thought  it  good  to  shew  the  signs'  fRV  'It  hath  seemed  good 
unto  me  ') ;  Zee  1113  •  if  yo  think  gooa,  give  me  my  price' ;  1  Th 
8^  '  We  thought  It  good  to  be  left  at  Athens  atone  '  {ii.ltKr,ffatfjut), 

J.  Hastings. 
'THISBE  (BS  Qla^T),  A  e(/37,).— The   place   from 
which    Tobit    was    carried    away    captive    by    the 
Assyrians  (To  P).     Its  position  is   described   as 


being  on  the  right  hand  (south)  of  Kedesh-naph- 
tali  in  Galilee  above  Ashcr.  Ko  trace  of  the  name 
has  j'ct  been  found.  Some  commentators  maintain 
tliat  Thisbe  was  the  home  of  Elijah  the  Tislibite, 
but  this  is  very  doubtful.  The  LXX  reading  of 
1  lv  17',  which  makes  the  jirophet  come  from  '  "Tish- 
beh  (or  perh.  Thisbon)  of  Gilead,'  seems  more  likely 
to  be  correct.     See  ELIJAH  in  vol.  i.  p.  687*. 

C.  W.  Wilson. 

THISTLES,  THORNS.  — There  is  probably  no 
country  on  earth  of  the  .same  extent  which  has 
so  many  plants  with  prickles  and  thorns  as  the 
Holy  Land.  One  would  be  tempted  to  believe 
that  this  is  a  providential  provision  to  protect 
them  from  the  ravages  of  goats,  asses,  and  camels, 
were  it  not  that  the  mouths  of  these  creatures  are 
provided  with  a  mucous  membrane  so  tough  that 
it  seems  impervious  to  thorns.  One  of  the  spec- 
tacles most  striking  to  a  stranger  in  this  land  of 
surprises  is  that  of  a  flock  of  goats,  browsing  in  a 
patch  of  Eryngiums,  or  Cirsium.i,  or  prickly  Cen- 
taureas,  and  crunching  down  the  heads,  a  couple 
of  inches  in  diameter,  composed  of  stiti'  thorns,  and 
then  masticating  them  with  evident  relish.  The 
camel  deals  even  with  the  noli-me-tangcre  spheres 
of  the  Echinops,  the  huge  heads  of  the  Onopurdon, 
Carlina,  and  Ci/nara,  and  the  thornj'  plates  of  the 
Indian  tig.  Zilla  mtjagroides,  Forsk.,  a  most  im- 
practicable crucifer,  with  a  juice  as  pungent  as  its 
long  stiir  thorns,  is  the  favourite  desert  food  of  the 
camel.  He  tears  oil'  and  devours  the  twigs  of  the 
thorny  Astragali.  Only  a  few  thorny  plants,  with 
little  succulence  to  tenjpt,  and  with  extraordinary 
defensive  armour,  such  as  the  acacia  trees,  the 
buckthorn,  and  some  of  the  more  erinaceous  Astra- 
gali of  the  alpine  regions,  and  Calycotome  villosa, 
escape  the  devourers.  Notwithstanding  this,  the 
thorns  flourish  and  multiply,  and,  in  many  places, 
take  possession  of  the  land.  Thistles  grow  to  a 
height  of  10-15  ft.  Thorny  Astragali  cover  acres 
of  ground  on  the  high  mountains.  Poteriuin 
s/nnusum,  Bhamnus  punctata,  and  Calycotome 
villosa  are  everyNvhere.  So  abundant  is  the  first 
of  these,  the  thorny  burnet,  in  one  region  of  Her- 
nion,  as  to  give  its  name  to  the  district,  which  is 
c.-iUed  MuMta'at  el-BillAn,  i.e.  District  of  the 
Thorny  Burnet.  A  large  part  of  the  lime  pro- 
duced in  the  country  is  burned  with  this  shrub, 
which  is  'cut  up'  (Is  33'-)  With  pruniiig-hooks. 
It  is  then  bound  in  huge  bundles,  and  transported 
on  the  backs  of  men  or  animals  to  the  kilns.  Often 
an  acre  or  more  around  a  limekiln  is  seen  covered 
with  these  large  heaps  of  most  combustible  fuel. 
It  produces  a  high  heat,  .and  makes  excellent  lime. 
The.se  and  other  thorns  iire  also  used  in  ovens,  and 
for  culinary  purposes  (Ee  7").  Owners  of  asses 
thresh  out  various  species  of  thistles  and  thorns,  and 
use  tliem  for  feeding  their  beasts.  It  is  probably  in 
allusion  to  this  custom  that  Gideon  is  said  to  have 
'  taught  [tUre.^hcd]  the  men  of  Succoth  (along)  with 
thorns  of  the  wilderness  and  briers '(Jg  8"').*  It 
is  not  strange  that,  with  such  a  number  of  ])rickly 
plants  as  exist  in  Palestine,  there  should  have  been 
many  names  in  Hub.  to  express  them.  Few  or 
none  of  these  denote  species,  and  the  VS.S  have 
not  attempted  to  tr.  tiiem  with  any  uniformity. 
We  subjoin  an  analy.sis  of  these  terms. 

1.  1V!N  'titOd,  id/ivo!,  rhaiiniits,  occurs  twice  as  the 
name  of  a  plant  (Jg  •J''*' "  AV  'bramble,'  m. 
'  thistle,'  RV  '  bramble,'  m.  '  thorn,'  Ps  58"  ,VV 
and  RV  'thorns').  It  occurs  once  as  a  proper 
name  in  the  expression  '  the  threshing-floor  of 
Atad'  (Gn  SO'"-").  _  The  Arab.  \l(ad  is  defined  as 
the  branches  of  the  'au.mj.  The  'atisaf  is  '  a  species 
of  thorn,  having  a  round  red  fruit,  like  the  car- 
nelian  bead,  which  is  sweet,  and  is  eaten,'  or  'a 

•  On  the  text  of  this  verse  and  on  its  interpretation  and  Itii 
relation  to  v.T,  see,  above  all,  Moore's  note,  aU  toe. 


752 


THISTLES,  THORNS 


THISTLES.  THORNS 


Bpeciea  of  thorn  trees,  having  a  bitter  red  fruit, 
in  which  is  acidity  .  .  .  when  it  grows  large  it  is 
called  gharkad  .  ,  .  some  regard  it  as  tlie  'ulleik.' 
It  is  clear  that  the  term  'ausaj,  and  therefore  'dtdd, 
must  have  been  applied  to  a  number  of  plants. 
'Ulleik  most  commonly  signifies  the  bramble  or 
blackberry,  but  also  the  smilax,  and  other  prickly 
climbers.  The  gharkad  is  Nitraria  tridentata, 
Desf.,  a  plant  confined  to  salt  marshes,  of  which 
the  fruit  is  called  in  Arab,  'enab-edh-dhtb,  i.e. 
'wolf's  grapes.'  Dioscorides  {Ainrenna,  ii.  232) 
seems  to  include  a  number  of  plants  in  his  vagxie 
description  of  'ausaj.  The  other  descriptions  would 
apply  to  the  boxthom,  of  which  there  are  3  species 
in  the  Holy  Land,  Lycium  EuropcBum,  L.,  L. 
Arabicum,  Schw.,  and  X.  Barbarum,  L.,  all  of 
which  have  tliorns  and  red  berries.  Or  they  would, 
in  part  at  least,  apply  to  the  jujube,  of  which  there 
are  also  several  species,  Ziztjplius  vulgaris,  L.,  the 
'enndb,  Z.  Lotus,  L. ,  and  Z.  Spina  Christi,  L., 
the  ncbk  or  sidr.  All  of  these  would  have  been 
included  under  the  term  Rhamnus,  the  buckthorn, 
a  genus  from  which  Zizyphus  has  been  set  off  in 
modern  botany.  This  genus  contains  one  thorny 
species,  R.  punrtnta,  Boiss.,  with  its  variety  Pales- 
ttna,  which  is  found  everywhere  in  Palestine  and 
Syria.  This  species  would  admirably  suit  the 
needs  of  the  passages.  It  is  a  thorny  shrub,  2-6 
ft.  high,  with  obovate- oblong  to  elliptical  leaves 
less  than  an  in.  long  and  about  ^  in.  wide,  insig- 
nificant flowers,  and  small  fruits.  It  is  well  known 
under  the  Arab,  name 'a/ram,  is  used  for  light  fuel, 
and  suits  exactly  the  contrast  intended  in  Abinie- 
lech's  speech  between  the  'dtdd  and  the  lordly 
cedar.  To  speak  of  sitting  under  the  shadow  of 
this  contemptible  straggling  bush  is  the  acme  of 
irony.  Being  far  more  general  than  the  boxthorn, 
especially  in  the  hill  -  country  where  Abimelech 
spoke,  it  is  more  likely  to  have  been  in  his  mind. 
The  bo.xthorn  would  never  have  been  spoken  of 
by  the  Greeks  as  fid/xvos,  which  is  the  classical 
name  of  the  buckthorn.  "The  writer  has  never  met 
with  the  former  in  the  hill-country.  It  is  a  plant 
of  the  coast  and  Jordan  Valley  and  the  interior 
plateaus. 

2.  D'lij-ij  barkdnim  (Jg  8'- ").  According  to 
Moore  (judges,  ad  loc),  'in  the  Egyp.  dialect  of 
Arabic  bertjan  is  the  name  of  Phaceopappus  sco- 
pariiis,  Boi3s.  =  Ccmte urea  scop.,  Sieber,  a  compo- 
site plant,  with  thorny  heads. 

3.  I'")':  dardar  (Gn  3'*,  Hos  10*,  each  time  coupled 
with  rip).  The  Arab,  clarddr  signifies  the  elm  or 
the  ash,  hut  shau /cat  ed-darddr  is  generic  for  the 
thorny  Centaureas,  star  thistles  or  knapweeds, 
which  are  not  proper  thistles,  i.e.  of  the  "enus 
Cirsiinn.  In  both  the  passages  cited  the  LXX 
has  TplfioXos,  Vulg.  tribulus.  At  least  2,  perhaps 
3,  plants  were  known  to  the  Greeks  by  this  name  : 
Trapa  natans,  L.,  the  water  chestnut,  and  Tribulus 
terrcstris,  L.,  a  prostrate  herb  of  the  order  Zt/go- 
phyltacem,  with  pinnate  leaves,  resembling  those 
of  the  milk  vetch,  and  a  fruit  composed  of  bony 
cells,  with  a  prickly  back.  These  are  liable  to 
get  into  the  shoe  or  between  the  sandal  and  the 
foot,  and  ])roduce  a  veritable  tribulation.  The 
caltrop,  an  instrument  suggested  by  them,  was 
used  in  war  to  impede  the  charge  of  cavalry. 
Some  have  identified  the  tribulus  with  the  thorny 

4.  ;>^!\  heihk  (Pr  15",  LXX  iKavSa,  AV  and  RV 
'  thorii '  ;  Mic  1*  [LXX  text  dillers]  AV  and  RV 
'  brier ')  refers  to  some  unknown  kind  of  thorn, 
certainly  in  the  first  passage  one  of  those  used  for 
hedges.  The  most  common  of  these  in  Palestine 
and  Sj-ria  is  Eleagnus  hortensis,  M.B.,  the  silver 
berry  or  oleaster,  known  in  Arab,  as  zaizafun.  It 
has  still",  sharp  thorns,  and  grows  in  a  dense  fashion 
which  well  fits  it  for  this  purpose.     The  ordinary 


brambles,  species  of  Rubus,  are  also  much  used  for 
hedges,  especially  along  the  coast.  Also  Paliurut 
aculeatus,  Lam.,  one  of  the  so-called  Christ  thorns, 
a  plant  of  the  order  Rhamnacem,  growing  in  the 
interior  tablelands.  Also  Cactus  Ficus-InTlica,  L., 
the  prickly  pear,  Smilax  aspera,  L.,  the  green 
brier,  which  makes  a  most  elhcient  hedge,  and  the 
boxthorn,  which  is  common  in  hedges  about  Jatia, 
Lattakia,  and  elsewhere.  The  hawthorn,  Crat;egus, 
of  which  there  are  several  species,  is  not  used  in 
this  way. 

5.  oin  huak.  This  is  variously  tr.  (2  K  14«  'thistle,' 
RVm  '  thorn  ' ;  2  Ch  25i8  '  thistle,'  AVm  '  furze 
hnsh'  [Calycotome  villosa]  or 'thorn,'  RVm  'thorn'; 
Hos  9"  '  thorns '  ;  Is  34i3  AV  '  brambles,'  KV 
'thistles';  Job  31«  'thistles,'  RVm  'thorns';  Pr 
26"  '  thorn ' ;  Ca  2=  '  thorns '  ;  1  S  13»  D-niq 
'  thickets '  [better  t/torn  brakes,  unless  we  read 
with  Ew.,  Wellli.,  Driver,  et  al.  0'"!in  'holes']; 
Job  41-  AV  '  thorn,'  RV  '  hook,'  m.  •  spike ' ;  2  Ch 
33"  AV  'thorns,'  RV  'in  chains,' m.  'with  hooks'). 
From  the  above  inconsistencies,  which  are  quite 
parallel  to  those  of  the  LXX  and  Vuljj.,  it  is  clear 
that  no  specific  meaning  can  be  attacued  to  huah. 
It  would  seem,  however,  rather  to  designate  thorns 
and  thorny  shrubs  and  trees  than  prickles  and 
prickly  herbs  like  thistles. 

6.  np^D3  mcsiikdh  (Mic  7*)  is  a  'thorn  hedge.' 
Of  what  kind  we  have  no  means  of  determining 
(see  4). 

7.  x;-i';_}nndzuz.  The  Arab,  nw'c? corresponds  with 
this,  and  signifies  a  thorn  tree  growing  m  Arabia. 
It  may  be  one  of  the  thorny  acacias.  In  the  two 
passages  in  which  it  occurs  (Is  7'"  55")  it  is  tr. 
'  thorns.'  In  the  latter  (LXX  aroi'^-q)  it  is  said  that 
it  will  be  replaced  by  the  bcrosh.     See  FiR. 

8.  o'TP  sirim.  This  seems  to  refer  to  the  lighter 
tliorns,  like  the  thorny  burnet,  which  often  grows 
in  ruins  (Is  34'^),  and  many  of  the  star  thistles, 
etc.  The  burning  of  these  produces  a  crackling 
(Ec  7°  AVm  'sound,'  where  there  is  a  word-play 
between  Tp  'pot'  and  D'i"0  'thorns').  '  Folden 
together  as  thorns '  (AV  Nah  l'",  RV  '  like  tangleil 
thorns')  would  well  suit  such  as  the  burnet,  and 
many  others  in  Palestine.  As  huah  came  to  mean 
'  hook,'  from  the  resemblance  to  a  thorn,  so  siruth 
is  once  used  in  this  way  for  '  fish-hook '  (Am  4'). 

9.  ji^p  sillan,  AV  and  RV  'brier'  (Ezk  28"); 
D'jiVg  sallunim,  AV  and  RV  'thorns'  (Ezk  2",  but 
text  dub.),  are  stout  thorns,  such  as  are  found  on 
the  midrib  of  the  palm  leaf,  corresponding  exactly 
to  the  Arab.  suld. 

10.  D'5^P  sdrdbtm  is  from  an  obsolete  root  signi- 
fying perh.  to  be  refractory  or  rebellious.  In  the 
single  passage  where  it  is  used  (Ezk  2"),  the  con- 
text points  to  some  stitl',  refractory  thorn,  of 
which  sdrdbtm  was  prob.  the  ancient  name.  It 
is  associated  with  the  stout  thorn  of  the.  palm, 
silliin  (9)  ;  but  we  have  no  Arab,  clue,  as  in  the 
other  case,  to  help  us  to  a  knowledge  of  what  it 
was.  AVm  tr.  it  'rebels';  but  tliis  is  forced. 
Instead  of  '  briers  and  thorns  '  (D-i^Vp  c-;-;;),  Cornill, 
Bertholet,  ct  al.,  would  read  '  resisting  and  despis- 
ing '  (D'b:)  c'?-;;). 

11.  i5"ip  •  sirpad. — A  plant  of  neglected  and  desert 
places,  mentioned  with  i'vjj^j  (Is  55"),  to  be  replaced 
by  the  myrtle  as  na'dzitz  will  be  by  the  fir.  The 
LXX  has  ii6vvfa  =  Inula  riscosa,  L.,  the  elecam- 
pane, a  plant  which  grows  on  all  the  hillsides  of 
Palestine  and  Syria.  It  is  a  perennial  of  the 
order  Composita;,  growing  from  2-3  ft.  high,  with 
lanceolate  to  linear-lanceolate  leaves,  and  yellow 
heads,  about  J  in.  long.  It  is  very  glutinous,  and 
lias  a  strong,  disagreeable  smell.  It  is  a  plant 
worthless  eitlier  as  forage  or  fuel.  It  possesses 
only  two  merits.  The  first  is  that  brooms  made 
of  the  green  stems  with  their  leaves  on  are  used  to 

•  So  Baer ;  MT  ijnp  firpad. 


THISTLES,  TIIORXS 


THO:\rAS 


gwei'p  the  floors  of  the  native  houses,  and  help  to 
rid  ihem  of  the  fleas,  which  adliere  to  the  slime 
which  covers  the  plant.  The  other  is  that  it 
grows  on  dry,  rocky  hillsides,  and  mitigates  by  its 
greenness  the  otherwise  deserted  and  barren  aspect 
of  tlie  landscape.  Now  it  happens  that  the  myrtle 
grows  on  siniil.ir  hillsides,  olten  side  by  side  with 
the  elecanipiine.  The  contrast  between  this  worth- 
ies,* plant  and  the  myrtle,  with  its  delicious  fra- 
•riance,  its  beautiful  foliage,  exquisite  flowers,  and 
edible  fruit,  is  quite  sullicient  for  the  require- 
ments of  the  pa.'^sap.  'Brier'  of  AV  and  RV, 
and  urtkn  =  '  nettle'  of  Vul^'.,  besides  lacking  the 
RUtiioritv  of  the  LXX,  would  not  convey  a  mean- 
ing so  forcible  as  the  elecampane.  Ihe  Arab, 
name  for  the  plant  is'trA;  et-tnyiji'in. 

12.  c'3^  zinnim  is  used  twice :  .lob  5°  (LXX  KaKCiv), 
where  both  MT  and  meaning  are  doubtful  [Bevan, 
Joum.  of  Philol.  xxvi.  303  If.  reads  plausibly  D:i.yi 
"in-;^-  D-:^,  and  renders  'and  their  wealth  barbs  lay 
hold  of  it'] ;  and  Pr  22'  (LXX  rplfioXoi),  where  the 
froward  wander  into  desert  places,  where  they  are 
sure  to  meet  with  thorns.  Another  form  of  the 
same,  D-j'js  zenhiim  (Nu  33",  where  it  is  a.s80ciated 
with  c'3;-  [see  IS],  Jos  23'^),  simply  refers  to  thorns 
as  piercing  the  flesh,  not  to  any  particular  plant. 

13.  pp  ki'jz  is  a  generic  term  for  thorny  and 
prickly  plants,  tr.  indill'erently  'thorn'  (Ezk  2S-^ 
where  it  refers  to  an  individual  thorn,  Hos  10"),  or 
'thorns'  (Gn  3'»,  Is  32'^),  pi.  D-jrip  or  o'vp  kuzim 
(Jg  8',  .Jer4'etc.). 

14.  C'j"i^:p  kimmishdnim  is  once  (Pr  24")  tr. 
'  thorns,'  but  the  sing,  form  tsisp  (Is  34")  and 
cic-c  (Hos  9")  '  nettles.'    See  Nettles. 

13.  D-fs  sikkim,  the  ]>\.  of  -p'  =  Arab.  shauk, 
generic  for  thorns  (Nu  33"),  tr.  '  pricks.' 

16.  n-j'  sfuiyith  occurs  only  in  Isaiah,  and  always 
a-sociated  with  tcj-  shamir  (5«  7»^--*  'J'*  10''  27") ; 
always  tr.  '  thorns,'  as  shamlr  is  tr.  '  briers.' 

17.  I'cp  shdmir  means  both  '  thorn '  and  '  ada- 
iiiani  '  In  the  former  signification  it  occurs  only 
in  Isaiah,  and  each  time  but  one  (32",  where  it  is 
associated  with  kCz)  in  company  with  shmiith. 
It  is  uniformly  tr.  '  briers.'  Its  Arab,  equivalent, 
sdiniir,  is  the  desert  Acacia  Seyyal,  or  A.  tortilU. 

Most  of  the  above  names  were  probably  specific 
and  well  understood  in  the  days  when  they  were 
used  ;  but,  as  has  been  seen,  few,  if  any,  can  cer- 
tainly be  identified.  The  NT  words  for  'thorns 
an-1  thistles,'  d/ca^ffat  and  rpIjSoXoi  (Mt  7'",  Lk  (j"), 
and  '  thorns,'  iKuvdai.  (Mt  13'),  and  '  thorn '  (rather 
'  stake '),  jKliXo^p  (2  Co  12'),  are  indehnite.  There  are 
not  less  than  50  genera  and  200  species  of  plants  in 
Syia  and  Palestine  furnished  with  thorns  and 
prickles,  besides  a  multitude  clothed  with  scab- 
rous, strigose,  or  stinging  hairs,  and  another 
multitude  witli  prickly  fruits. 

Crown  of  Thorns. — It  is  impossible  to  tell  of 
what  species  our  Saviour's  crown  (ariipavoi  ii 
iKavOQiv,  aKdvOivoi  ariipavot)  was  composed.  It  is 
certain,  however,  that  it  must  have  been  made 
from  a  plant  growing  near  to  Jerusalem.  It  is 
often  idenlilied  with  Zizi/n/iux  Spina-Vliristi  (see 
Tristram,  Nat.  Ilixt.  of  liihle,  42!t).  It  might  well 
have  been  Calyrutumc  villosa,  Valil,  the  kinulnul 
ol  the  Arabs.  Crowns  of  this  are  plaited  and  sold 
in  Jerusalem,  as  representatives  of  our  .Saviour's 
crown.  'Phe  facility  with  which  the  branelies  of 
'hLs  shrub  are  wrought  into  the  required  shaiie,  and 
the  evident  adaptation  of  the  resulting  crown  to 
the  torture  intended,  make  it  highly  jirnbable  that 
this  was  the  material  used.  FotiHum  s/iirinsii/u, 
L.,  is  also  wrought  into  such  crowns,  but  makes  a 
niucli  softer  ami  less  eflicient  instrument  of  torture 
tb^n  the  la.st.  A  cruel  one  could  be  made  of 
RhMmiiu.i  piiiiitata,  I!()i>s.,  also  of  Ononis  anti- 
quorum,  L.,  the  shihruk  of  the  Arabs. 

G.  E.  Post. 

VOL.  IV.— 48 


THOCANUS  (B  GiKaros,  A  Giivavos,  AV  Theo- 
eanus),  1  Ks  9"  =  Tikvah,  Ezr  lu".  Probably  .xpn 
was  read  as  :\:pn. 

THOMAS  (001^105=  KCKn).— One  of  the  Twelve, 
always  i)laced  in  the  second  of  the  three  groups 
of  four  in  which  the  names  of  the  apostles  are 
arranged  in  the  NT  lists.  In  the  oliiest  extant 
list  (Mk  3""-)  the  names  are  not  distributed  in 
pairs,  and  he  is  No.  8,  as  also  in  Lk  O''"-  ;  but  in 
the  later  lists  he  is  coupled  with  Matthew  and 
assigned  the  seventh  place  (Mt  10-'),  or  given  tha 
sixth  place,  couideil  with  Philip  (Ac  I"'-).  No 
incident  is  reconled  of  him  by  the  Synoptists,  but 
from  John  we  learn  that  he  played  a  conspicuous 
part  in  the  anxieties  and  questionings  which  fol- 
lowed the  Resurrection,  which  perhaps  accounts 
for  the  higher  position  assigned  to  him  in  the  lists 
as  soon  as  the  names  began  to  be  arranged  or 
classilied  ;  cf.  Jn  21-,  where  he  is  placed  after 
Peter  anj  before  the  sons  of  Zebedee.  John  thrice 
describes  him  as  Gu/iSs  6  ^eydfj-efos  AiSv/ios  (11"  20^ 
2r'').  ciRB  is  a  '  twin'  [only  Gn  25;"  3S-'',  Ca  4»  7», 
always  in  plur.],  and  of  this  Qa/ias  is  a  translitera- 
tion, i  StSv/ios  being  the  Gr.  translation.  This  last 
would  be  the  form  of  the  title  most  natural  among 
the  Greek-speaking  Christians  of  Asia  Minor,  for 
whom  the  Fourth  Gospel  was  written.  His  per- 
sonal name  is  not  given  in  the  NT,  but  he  is  called 
'Judas  Thomas'  in  the  apocryphal  ^  eta  Thomm, 
in  the  Syr.  Doctrina  Apostolorum,  and  also  in  the 
Abgar  legend  (Ens.  HE  i.  13),  which  represents 
him  as  sending  ThaDD^us  to  Abgar  with  Christ's 
letter.  The  name  '  Judas '  was  a  common  one, 
and  it  may  well  have  been  his  ;  at  any  rate  tlie 
as(ii])tion  of  it  to  him  led  in  time  to  his  identi- 
tic.ition  with  Judas  'of  James,'  and  Judas  the 
'  brother  '  of  the  Lord  (Mk  6'),  and  so  to  the  wide- 
spread tradition  that  the  Apostle  Thomas  was  the 
twin  brother  of  Jesus  (Acta  Thoma:,  S  31).  The 
identilication  of  Thadda-us  (Mt  10*,  Mk  3"')  with 
Luke's  Judas  'of  James'  (Lk  6'",  Ac  1")  accounts 
for  a  later  Syrian  tradition  which  makes  Thomas 
and  Thaddoeus  the  same  person.  Another  story 
makes  one  Lysia  the  twin  sister  of  Thomas. 

The  three  notices  of  Thomas  in  John  reveal  a 
personalityof  singular  charm  and  interest.  When 
the  other  apostles  would  have  dissuaded  Jesus 
from  the  risk  of  going  to  Bethany  where  Lazarus 
lay  dead,  and  Jesus  had  said  that  lie  would  never- 
theless go,  Thomas  at  once  declared  his  intention 
of  sharing  the  danger  :  '  Let  us  also  go  that  we 
may  die  with  him'  (Jn  ll"").  His  eager  devotion 
could  not  endure  the  thouglit  of  separation,  and  so 
the  announcement  at  the  Last  Supper  that  the 
M.aster  was  about  to  depart  Idled  liim  with  per- 

1)lexity  :  '  We  know  not  whither  thou  goest  ;  how 
enow  we  the  way?'  (Jn  14°).  Like  the  other  dis- 
cijdes,  he  could  not  but  supjiose  that  the  Cruci- 
lixion  bad  put  an  end  to  his  hopes,  although  it 
does  not  appear  from  the  narratives  (as  has  some- 
times been  assumed)  that  Thomas  had  severed  his 
connexion  with  the  other  companions  of  Christ, 
for  'the  eleven'  are  mentioned  as  still  a  coherent 
body  (Lk  24»-»*  [Mk]  Iti'^),  and  Thomas  is  found  in 
their  company  on  '  the  first  day  of  the  week,'  pre- 
sumably t^or  worship  and  conference,  even  aft«r  ho 
had  expressed  his  doubts  as  to  the  Resurrection 
(Jn  20-").  When,  however,  the  Christ  appeared  to 
the  other  apostles  at  Jerusalem,  Thomas  was  not 
with  them,  although  the  reason  of  his  absence  is 
not  recorded  'Jn  20").  They  were  invited  to 
assure  themselves  by  the  test  of  touch  that  the 
vision  was  not  hat  of  a  phantom  but  of  the  Risen 
Jesus  (Lk  21'')  and  even  this  did  not  convince 
them  until  He  "did  eat  before  thein '  (Lk '24«- "). 
Thomas,  on  being  informed  of  the  vision  of  the 
Lord,  refused  to  believe  until  he  too  had  satisfied 


754 


THOMEI 


THREE  CHILDREN,  SOXG  OF 


himself  by  siglit  and  touch  that  there  was  no  mis- 
apprehension (Jn  20^)  ;  but  when  this  test  was 
ottered  to  (and  applied  by  ?)  him,  his  recognition  of 
his  Master  was  immediate  and  adoring  :  '  My  Lord 
and  my  God'  (Jn  '20^).  No  greater  confession  of 
faith  is  recorded  in  the  NT.  These  three  inci- 
dental notices  of  Thomas  depend  entirely,  as  has 
already  been  pointed  out,  on  the  authority  of  the 
Fourth  Gospel ;  but  there  is  nothing  in  any  of 
tliera  which  is  cither  incredible  in  itself,  or  incon- 
sistent with  the  Synoptic  accounts,  and  the  psycho- 
logical truth  and  naturalness  of  the  resulting 
picture  of  tlie  man  conhrm  belief  in  the  trust- 
worthiness of  the  Johannine  narratives. 

The  Acta  Thorme  or  HtpioUi  BaifAn*  is  a  Gnostic  work  prob- 
ably going  back  to  the  2nd  cent.,  and  written  by  one  Leuciug 
the  author  of  several  apocr>-phal  Acts.  It  begins  by  telling 
that,  at  the  division  of  the  field  of  the  world  among  the 
apostles,  India  was  allocated  to  Thom.is ;  that  he  was  at  first 
unwiUinff  to  go  there,  but  was  persuaded  by  a  vision  of  Christ, 
who  sola  him  as  a  slave  to  an  Indian  merchant.  After  some 
adventures  by  the  way  (which  display  the  Gnostic  tendencies  of 
the  writer ;  see  Salmon,  Introd.  to  XT^  p.  334  f.),  he  arri\ed  in 
India,  and  there  (being  a  carpenter)  was  entrusted  by  his 
master  with  the  building  of  a  palace,  but  expended  the  nioney 
on  the  relief  of  the  poor.  His  missionary  efforts  were  at  last 
crowned  with  success.  The  connexion  of  his  name  with  India, 
(or  which  these  Acta  are  the  earliest  authority,  was  widely 
accepted  after  the  4th  cent,  in  both  East  and  West.  The 
Malabar  'Christians  of  St.  Thomas  '  still  count  him  as  the  first 
martyr  and  evangelist  of  their  country.  It  is  probable,  how- 
ever, that  these  Christians  were  evangelized  from  Edessa,  and 
that  the  traditional  account  of  their  origin  is  due  to  a  confused 
memory  of  one  of  the  pioneer  missionaries  from  that  place,  who 
was  called  Thomas  after  its  patron  saint.  For  there  is  a  quite 
distinct(and  seemingly  earlier)  account  of  the  missionary  activity 
of  the  apostlewhich  makes  Partbia  the  scene  of  hislabours(Eu8. 
UEni.  1 ;  see  also  Clem.  Recogn,  is.  29,  and  Socrates,  HB  i.  19), 
and  Edessa  his  burial-place  (Rufinus,  £f£.'  ii.  5,  and  Socrates, 
HE  iv.  18).  According  to  the  Roman  Martyrolo^y  his  remains 
were  brought  from  India  to  Edessa,  and  thence,  it  was  said,  to 
Ortona  in  Italy  during  the  Crusades.  The  oldest  extant  tradi- 
tion as  to  the  manner  of  his  death  is  that  it  was  from  natural 
causes  (Clem.  Alex.  Strom,  iv.  9.  73). 

J.  H.  Bernard. 
THOMEI  (B  ebixBei.  A  e6M«,  AV  Thomoi),  1  Es 
5'-'  =  Temah,  Ezr  2^,  Neh  7". 

THORNS.— See  Thistles. 

THOUGHT.— In  1  S  9'  '  Come,  and  let  us  re- 
turn ;  lest  my  father  leave  caring  for  the  asses, 
and  take  thought  for  us,'  the  phrase  'take 
thought'  means  'be  anxious,'  'grieve.'  The 
same  verb  (jn-i)  is  translated  'sorrow'  in  10"  'Thy 
father  hath  left  the  care  of  the  asses,  and  sor- 
roweth  for  you.'     RV  lias  '  take  thought'  in  both 

Cassages,  but  Amer.  RV  gives  '  be  anxious '  in 
oth.  In  Ps  38'*  both  ver.sions  render  the  Hebrew 
word  '  I  will  be  sorry.'  '  Thought '  was  once  freely 
used  in  English  in  the  sense  of  '  anxiety '  or  '  grief. ' 
Thus  Cranmer,  Works,  i.  162,  '  Alas,  Master 
Secretary,  you  forget  Master  Smyth  of  the  Ex- 
chequer, who  is  near  consumed  with  thought  and 
penjiveness '  ;  Somers  Tracts,  'In  five  hundred 
years  only  two  queens  have  died  in  childbirth. 
Queen  Catherine  Parr  died  rather  of  thought ' ; 
Shaks.  Hamlet,  III.  L  85 — 

•  And  thus  the  native  hue  of  resolution 
Is  sicklied  o'er  with  the  pale  cast  of  thought* ; 

and  IV.  v.  177 — '  KnA  there  is  pansies,  that's  for 
thoughts.'  Cf.  Wyclif's  use  of^  the  verb,  Selert 
Works,  iii.  9,  '  As  a  bird  of  a  swalowe,  so  I  scbal 
crie,  I  schal  thinke  as  a  do\we.'  In  AV  '  thought' 
occurs  in  this  sense  only  in  the  phrase  'take 
thought.'  Besides  1  S  9'  (above)  the  examples  are 
Mt  e^'- »'•»•"•"'"'  1019,  Lk  i2ii.s2.a>.M  (aji  ^p^^_ 
via),  and  Mk  13"  '  take  no  thought  beforehand ' 

■  ♦  The  best  C'lition  of  the  Gr.  and  Lat.  texts  of  these  Acta  is 
that  of  Bonnet  (18S;l);  for  the  Syriac  Acts  see  Wright,  Apocry- 
phal Acts  0/  the  Apostles  (1871)  ;  and,  for  the  .fCthiopic  version 
of  the  stor}',  Malan,  Conjlicts  of  the  Holy  Apostles  (1871).  For 
all  legends  about  Thomas  the  best  and  fullest  account  will  be 
found  in  I.ipsius'  Dit  Apoleryphen  Apottelgeschiehttn (1888-1890), 
vol.  i.  pp  22S-S47. 


{pLTi  Tpofi.eptftfS.Ti);  KV  alw.ays  'be  anxious.'  Cf. 
Coverdale's  tr.  of  1  S  10^  (see  above),  '  Thy  father 
hath  put  the  asses  out  of  bis  mynde,  and  taketh 
thouglite  for  the,  and  sayeth  :  What  shall  I  do  for 
my  Sonne  ? '  and  Shaks.  Jul.  Ctesar,  II.  L  187 — 

'  If  he  love  C:esar,  all  that  he  can  do, 
Is  to  himself  take  thought  and  die  for  Caesar.' 

J.  Hastings 
THRACIA  ^QplfKr|)  was  the  country  lying  east  ol 
Macedonia,  bounded  on  the  north  by  the  Danube 
and  on  the  south  by  the  jEgean  Sea,  the  Darda- 
nelles, the  Sea  of  Marmora,  and  the  territory  of 
Byzantium  (a  '  free  city,'  connected  with  the 
Roman  province  of  Bithynia  from  B.C.  74).  Thrace 
is  never  mentioned  in  the  NT,  nor  did  any  action 
alluded  to  in  the  NT  take  place  in  that  country. 
Philippi  and  Neapolis,  indeed,  had  originally  been 
in  Thrace  ;  but  the  boundaries  of  Macedonia  were 
extended  far  towards  the  east  by  the  conquests  ol 
the  Macedonian  kings,  and  included  botn  citie.». 
Before  the  Roman  period  the  boundary  between 
Macedonia  and  Thrace  was  the  boundary  between 
civilization  and  barbarism,  and  this  varied  as 
civilization  enlarged  its  limits.  Originally  the 
name  Thracia  was  used  in  a  very  loose  and  vague 
fashion,  and  the  Macedonians  were  even  sometimes 
spoken  of  as  a  tribe  of  Thrace,  which  in  that  case 
practically  meant  the  land  north  and  north-east 
of  Greece.  The  Macedonians  were  akin  to  the 
Tliracians,  but  came  under  the  inttuence  of  Greek 
civilization  earlier.*  It  was  not  until  A.D.  46  that 
Thrace  was  incorporated  as  a  province  in  the 
Roman  empire. 

In  2  Mac  12^  a  Thracian  soldier  is  mentioned  as 
saving  the  life  of  Gorgias,  governor  of  Idumaea-f 
under  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  in  a  battle  against 
.Judas  Maceaba?us,  about  B.C.  103.  The  Thracian 
tribesnien,  barbarous,  hardy,  and  inured  to  war, 
were  much  used  as  mercenaries  by  the  Greek  kings 
of  Syria,  Pergamum,  Bithynia,  etc.  This  is  several 
times  mentioned  by  Polybius  (V.  Ixv.  10,  Ixxix. 
6) ;  and  inscriptions  along  with  other  evidence 
entirely  corroborate  him.  Thracian  mercenaries 
were  settled  as  colonists  in  many  of  the  garrison 
cities  founded  by  those  kings,  e.g.  in  Apollonia  of 
Pisidia  (where  they  are  often  mentioned  on  coins, 
etc.,  in  the  full  title  of  the  city)  and  in  other 
places  :  the  Thracian  mercenaries"  were  sometimes 
called  Traleis  or  '  warriors ' ;  see  Ramsay,  Histor. 
Geogr.  of  Asia  Minor,  p.  112,  Cities  and  Bish.  oj 
Phri/gia,i.  p.  34;  Friinkel,  Inschr.  Pergnm.  i..  No. 
13,  p.  16.  W.  M.  Ramsay. 

THRASiEUS  (A  Qpaoatos,  A^*""  Qapala^,  V' 
Qapaia^). — The  father  of  Apollonius,  2  Mac  S' ;  but 
see  Apollonius,  No.  1,  and  cf.  R\'m. 

THREE  CHILDREN,  SONG  OF  THE  (or,  more 
accurately,  as  in  Codex  B  :  '  The  Prayer  of  Azarias' 
and  '  the  'Hymn  of  the  Three '),  is  one  of  the  addi- 
tions to  the  book  of  Daniel,  extant  only  in  the 
Greek  Bible  and  in  versions  taken  from  the  Greek. 
It  contains  67  verses,  and  is  inserted  between  v.^ 
and  v.'-"  of  Dn  3  in  the  canonical  text.  In  Codex  A 
our  '  addition  '  forms  also  two  of  fourteen  canticles 
appended  to  the  Book  of  Psalms.  The  ninth  and 
tenth  of  these  canticles  are  called  respectively  irpo- 
aevxn  'A^aplov  (Prayer  of  Azarias)  and  Cfwos  Tii» 
TraTipwv  iifiuv  (Hymn  of  our  Fathers). 

i.  Contents. — The  apocryphon  contains  three 
sections:  (1)  the  Prayer  of  Azarias;  (2)  descrip- 
tive narrative  ;  (3)  thanksgiving  of  the  Three  foi 
their  deliverance  from  the  hery  furnace. 

•  It  is  maintained  by  some  scholars  that  Thrace,  in  that  early 
wide  extension,  is  alluded  to  in  Gn  102.  In  that  verse  the  sonb 
of  Japheth  are  said  to  be  Gomer,  Magog,  Madai,  Javan,  Tubal, 
Meshech,  and  Tiras  ;  but  see  Tikas. 

t  Tdumcea  is  suspicious  :  it  has  been  thought  to  be  an  erroi 
for  Jamnia. 


THREE  CHILDREN,  SONG  OF 


THREE  CHILDREN,  SONG  OF       755 


0)  The  Pmiirr  o/Azarias,  T\-.l-a  (Or.  «-»).— In  Dn  3=3  it  haa 
been  narrated*  that  the  three  men,  Shadrach,  Meshach,  and 
Abednego,  fell  down  bound  into  the  midst  o(  the  burning'  fiery 
furnace.  After  a^  Theodotion  (whose  text  is  followed  in  Vulj^. 
and  the  Enghsh  Apocr.)  proceeds  :  '  And  they  walked  [*  in  their 
rhains,*  Syr  \VJ  in  the  midst  of  the  fire,  praising  God.'  The 
connexion  ia,  in  LXX,  effected  thus:  'Thus  then  prayed 
Uananiofl  and  Azarias  and  Mishael  and  aaug  praises  to  tlie 
Lord,  when  the  king  commanded  them  to  be  cast  into  the 
furnace.*  Both  then  say  that  '  Azaria.s  stood  and  prayed  in  the 
sidst  of  the  fire';  LXX  adding 't^i^et  her  with  liis  companions,' 
which  "Theod.  omits,  as  he  does  also  the  statement  of  LXX  that 
•the  furnace  had  been  heated  exceedingly  by  the  Chaldaians.' 
The  Prayer  opens  with  praise  to  Go<l  for  His  righteous  nets  to 
the  nation,  acknowledging  His  justice  even  in  the  disasters 
which  He  iias  brought  upon  Jeru.'ialem.  National  ruin  was 
completely  justified,  because  of  national  sins.  He  complains, 
however,  tliat  the  nation  by  wliich  God  had  chastised  His 
people  was  a  very  lawless  one,  and  that  their  king  was  the 
most  wicked  king  on  earth,  treating  Israel  scornfully  and 
t.vrannically.  lie  then  pleads  the  covenants  with  the  fathers 
and  the  promises  of  the  vast  expansion  of  the  nation  as  the 
ground  of  God's  intervention  to  the  ver>'  small  remnant.  They 
had  been  brought  very  low :  the  State  was  dis-solved :  State 
functionaries  had  ceased  to  be  :  State  religion  was  no  longer 
possible  :  but  with  the  sacrilice  of  a  contrite  heart,  rather  tlian 
of  myriads  of  rams,  they  would  seek  the  LoRn  and  implore  Him 
to  remove  tiieir  stiame'and  transfer  it  to  their  foes;  that  all 
mav  know  that  J"  is  God  alone. 

(2)  In  %'v.2i-27  of  EV  (Or.  *i-5i)  we  have  a  continuation  of  the 
narrative  of  Dn  3^,  describing  how  the  king's  ser\'ant«  kept  on 
heating  the  furnace  with  n;ii)htha  and  pitch  till  it  was  seven 
times  as  hot  as  usual,  and  the  flame  reached  49  cubitJf  above  the 
furnace.  Then  an  angel  came  down,  called  in  Syr.  'the  angel 
of  dew,'  antl  by  means  of  a  dewy  whistling  wind  made  the 
centre  of  the  furnace  cool,  forming  an  inner  zone  which  the 
flames  could  not  touch.  After  this  'the  three'  unitedly  began 
to  praise  God. 

(3)  The  llniiino/Thanlcsgiring,  w.2S-63(Gr.  »"«>).  ThisHj-mn, 
like  Ps  VMJ,  contains,  as  the  second  line  of  each  verse,  a 
refrain.  As  the  Psalm  repeats  throughout  the  words,  'For 
his  n-rt'*-  ei:diireth  for  ever';  so  our  Hymn,  in  every  verse, 
ascribes  praise  to  God.  For  the  first  six  verses  the  a.scription 
is  verbally  varied,  though  Identical  in  meaning.  After  that, 
the  second  line  of  each  verse  is  Cun'trs  jmcj  Wtptj-ifovrt  teC-Tov  tU 
Tr.<  «iw»«f.  'Praise  and  6uj>erexalt  him  for  ever.'  In  the  first 
place  the  Psalmist  (for  such  he  really  is)  exults  in  the  face  that 
J  "  is  worthy  to  be  praised  in  the  heavenly  temple,  sitting  on  the 
throne  of  His  glor>' :  from  the  loftiest  lieights  looking  down  on 
tl;e  deepest  depths.  Then  he  apostrophizes  all  the  works  of 
Ood  ana  calls  on  them  to  praise  the  Lord  ;  angels,  the  heavens, 
the  celestial  waters,  sun,  moon,  and  stars.  From  things 
uelQl^iat  he  passes  to  what  u'e  call  meteorological  phenomena, 
but  which,  to  the  Jewish  mind,  were  changes  presided  over 
by  an  angel, — if  not  indeed  themselves  actual  entities, —  rain 
and  dew,  winds,  frost  and  snow,  light  and  darkness,  lightnings 
and  clouds.  Then  the  terrestrial  creation  is  addressed,  moun- 
tains, vegetation,  showers,  fountains,  monsters,  fowls,  and 
beasts.  After  that,  men  of  various  ranks  and  conditions  in 
life  ;  Israel,  priests,  slaves,  the  righteous,  the  humble,  and  lost 
of  all,  as  Ps  103  terminates  witli  the  words  '  Bless  the  1-oiiu,  O  mj/ 
tout,'  we  have  in  v.^  '  O  Haiianias,  Azarias,  and  Mishael,  bless 
ye  the  Lord.'  The  last  two  verses  are  from  Ps  13tJ,  antl  were 
probably  appended  by  some  later  hand. 

ii.  Literary  E.stimate.  —  The  judgment  of 
Eichliorn  {Eiiileitunr/,  419,  ed.  1795),  that  the 
Prayer  of  Azarias  is  unsuitable  to  the  circum- 
stances, and  that  it  betrays  a  lack  of  literary  art 
to  sujifiose  that  in  a  liory  furnace  any  man  couUl 
pray  as  lie  does,  is  endor.sed  by  most  later  scholars 
(I'Vitzsche,  11.5).  There  are  'no  groans, '  'no  per- 
sonal petitions,'  'no  cries  for  help.'  Tlie  author 
makes  Azarias  review  the  liistory  of  the  Jewish 
nation  as  calmly  as  an  aged  saint  miglit  do  under 
the  fig-tree  of  solitude  at  the  time  of  evening 
prayer.  On  one  supposition,  however,  the  Praj'er 
becomes  thoroughly  n  levant.  If  we  might  assume 
that  the  author  of  the  Prayer  regarded  the  narra- 
tive of  Dn  3  as  a  Haggada,  a  .symbolical,  hut  not 
historical,  account  of  the  Diibyloiiian  captivity:  as 
in  Zee  3'  the  angel  says  concerning  .loslnia  the 
high  priest,  '  Is  not  this  a  brand  plucked  out  of 
tlie  fire  ? '—  then  the  Prayer  would  bo  (iiiite  suitable. 
As  to  the  paetiral  charnctcr  of  the  Hymn,  critics 
differ.  Fritzsche  considered  the  accumulation  of 
doxologies  devoid  of  all  literary  skill,  and  the 
enumeration  of  the  powers  of  creation,  frigid. 
Ball,  however,  replies  {Sprnker's  Com.  307)  tliat 
the  very  monotony  is  cflective.  '  It  is  like  the 
monotony  of  the  winds  or  the  waves,  and  power- 
fully suggests  to  the  imagination  the  amplitude 
and  splendour  of  God's  world,  and  the  sublimity 


of  the  universal  chorus  of  praise.  The  instinct  of 
the  Church  which  early  adojitLd  the  Bencdiiite  for 
liturgical  use  was  right.'  Zockler  sympathizes  so 
strongly  with  IJall  against  Fritzsche  that  he  quotes 
the  above  in  English.  The  Hynm  is  modelled 
after  Ps  136,  and  lias  equal  claim  to  be  considered 
poetical. 

iii.  Authorship. — The  name  and  date  of  the 
compo.ser  of  the  Prayer  and  Hymn  are  quite 
unknown.  It  is  even  disputed  whether  thej'  come 
from  the  same  author.  The  cliief  argument  for 
duiilitv  is  that  v."  <**>  implies  the  cessation  of 
Temple  worship.  '  There  is  no  .  .  .  sacrilice  nor 
place  to  offer  sacrifice  before  thee ' :  whereas  in 
y  81  (M)  there  is  reference  to  a  Temple,  and  in 
y  62  (85)  tQ  priests.  The  argument  is  not  valid. 
The  Temple  in  v.^'  is  the  heavenly  Temple,  where 
the  Lord  is  enthroned  on  the  cherubim.  Further, 
the  priesthood  was  hereditary.  A  man  did  not 
cease  to  be  a  priest  when  the  Temple  was  de- 
stroyed ;  and  hence  we  note  that  v."  does  not  say, 
'  There  is  no  priest.' — It  is  even  more  eagerly  dis- 
puted whether  the  Gr.  text  is  the  original,  or  a 
translation  from  Heb.  or  Aramaic.  Eichhom  in 
his  first  edition  favoured  Gr.  authorship.  In  his 
second  edition  he  adduced  reasons  for  regarding  it 
as  a  translation,  but  held  the  evidence  to  be  in- 
decisive. This  uncertainty  still  remains.  Fritzsche, 
Keil,  Bissell,  and  Schiirer  are  against  a  Semitic 
authorship.  Ball  attaches  more  importance  than 
they  do  Co  Eichhorn's  indications  of  translation. 
The  difficulty  is  this  :  every  extant  version  is 
clearly  based  on  the  LXX.  Where  Theod.  differs 
from  LXX,  it  is  usually  in  very  small  matters  of 
addition  or  omission.  There  arc  no  synonymous, 
but  verbally  variant,  phrases,  indicating  that  both 
are  translated  from  the  same  original.  There  are 
no  marks  that  Theod.  or  any  version  used  a 
Semitic  copy  in  order  to  correct  LXX.  In  such 
cases  the  only  evidence  of  translation  work  is  to 
be  sought  in   the    awkward,    barely    intelligible 

{)hrases.  We  have  to  retranslate  these  into  the 
lypothetical  original,  and  see  if  by  some  slight 
modification  of  this  we  can  secure  a  better  render- 
ing. In  the  case  before  us  the  results  tire  disaji- 
pointing.  We  may  premise,  liowever,  that  if  there 
ever  was  a  Semitic  original,  it  would  be  Heb.  and 
not  Aramaic.  The  orthodox  Palestinian  Jew  con- 
sidered Heb.  the  language  of  heaven,  and  always 
used  it  in  prayer  and  jiraise. — The  evidence  in 
favour  of  Heb.  stands  thus:  (1)  The  style  is 
intensely  Hebraistic,  perhaps  more  so  than  an 
Alexandrian  Jew  would  use  in  original  composi- 
tion. ('2)  The  names  of  the  three  men  are  their 
original  Hebrew  names  (Dn  1'),  not  the  .Aramaic 
names  found  in  Dn  S'"-  '»•  ■•»•  »>  etc.  (3)  V."  l"'  is 
very  obscure.  In  LXX  it  reads  literally,  '  Let  our 
sacrilice  be  before  thee,  and  may  it  make  atone- 
ment behind  thee  '  (^JiXdtrai  6maOiv  aov).  Theod. 
reads  inrcXiaat  ttrtaSiv  cov,  '  Miij'  it  make  re- 
quital behind  thee.'  At  the  end  of  the  verse  in 
hXX  there  occurs  an  incorporated  marginal  gloss  : 
Tf.\eiw(rai  fiviirBh  aov,  '  let  it  be  perfect  behind  thee.' 
These  three  Gr.  verbs  seem  very  diverse,  but,  if 
we  might  assume  a  Heb.  original  from  which  they 
are  a  tr.,  the  matter  is  simplified.  These  Gr. 
verbs  may  represent  different  forms  of  the  Heb. 
root  oho.  The  Hiphil  C'\\f'n  'to  make  peace'  may 
account  for  iiiXdaai.  The  Piel  oVsj*  and  the  Gr. 
T(\(lu  both  nuNin  to  'pay,'  'requite'  ;  and  the  Qal 
oS\^  means  to  '  be  jicrfect.'  We  do  not  attempt  to 
ex|)lain  iviaOcv.  (4)  It  might  seem  that  the 
]ihrase  'to  scatter  a  covenant'  in  v.",  instead  of 
'  violate,'  was  a  confusion  of  is  and  t\b  :  but  the 
same  thing  occurs  in  LXX  of  Gn  17"  and  Lv 
SO''**  **.  So  also  tlie  use  of  d7r<i  with  xaTat<r;^i''i'«(r5ac, 
'  to  be  ashamed,'  might  arise  from  translating  th« 
Heb.  \r)  (Eichh.  428)  ;  but  both  ix  and  drd  are  used 


756 


THEESHING 


THRO^'E 


in  LXX  w-ith  verbs  of  '  shame,'  and  tlnis  this  also 
may  be  a  Hebraism,  and  due  to  familiarity  witli 
the  I,XX.  The  evidence  of  a  Heb.  original  is  not 
irresistible,  but  probable. 

iv.  Versions.— The  LXX  presents  the  earliest  extant  text. 
Theod.  edited  the  LXX  with  sundry  emendations  of  little 
Bi^ificance  ;  none  of  them  so  important  as  in  '  Bel  and  the 
Drairon  ■  (vol.  i.  207).  A  collation  of  the  two  versions  is  piven 
by  Eichhom  (422  fl.),  and  also  in  Field's  Uexapla  (ii.  9Utf.). 
The  Vul^.  is  in  the  main  an  accur.ite  tr.  of  Theodotion.  Tlie 
Syriac  as  given  by  Laixarde  is  the  same  text  as  Walton's,  the 
differences  being  merVlv  such  as  occur  in  transcription. 
Worthy  of  note  are  the"  readings :  15  iSSi,  '  a  place  where  we 
may  offer  spicks  and  a  sacrifice'  :  ^^  ^*^K  'let  not  thy  servant 
be  ashamed  '  for  ijiXoira.  oTirfs.  rtu  :  «  (72),  •  The  angel  of  dele 
went  down  into  the  furnace.'  The  Syro-Hexapiar  text  is  »  tr. 
of  the  LX.X. 

V.  Canonicity.  —  Ball  gives  several  citations 
from  Jewish  writings  of  the  incidents  narrated 
in  the  Biblical  portions  of  Dn  3  ;  but  it  is  ditticult 
to  finil  Rabbinic  quotations  of  our  apocryphon. 
Pe-sarliim  llSa  tells  how  R.  Hiskiah  ilesoribes 
the  three  martyrs  as  reciting  Ps  115,  clause  by 
clause,  in  rotation ;  and  how  R.  Samuel  the 
Sbilonite  used  to  say  that  Yorkemi,  the  prince 
of  hail,  begged  to  go  down  to  cool  the  furnace  ; 
but  Gabriel  ofi'ered  not  only  to  make  the  furnace 
cool  within  (as  the  hail  would  do),  but  also  to 
make  it  hot  without  (Speaker's  Aporr.  306  f.). 

In  the  Christian  Church,  Hippolytus  gives  a  few 
notes  explanatory  of  the  Song.  Julius  Africanus 
disputed  the  canonicity  of  the  additions  to  Daniel. 
Origen  wrote  in  reply  defending  their  genuine- 
nes.s,  and  on  sever.al  occasions  quotes  '  the  Prayer ' ; 
e.g.  in  Com.  on  Matt.  bk.  xiii.  2  he  quotes  v."<»*l 
'  as  it  stands  in  the  book  of  Daniel  according  to 
the  LXX'  as  representinjr  the  ditterence  between 
the  soul  and  the  body.  Cyprian,  de  Lajysis,  e.  31, 
quotes  v.^  '^i  as  '  scviptura  divina '  ;  and  he  ad- 
duces the  Prayer  of  the  '  tres  pueri  in  camino 
inclusi '  as  a  model  of  ptiblic  prayer  (de  Oral. 
Do7)iinica,  c.  8). 

LiTEKATURE.— Ball  in  Speaker's  Apocr.  ii.  3059. ;  Fritzschc, 
Bandbueh  zu  den  .ipokr.  i.  l'2.'i  ff.  ;  Schurer,  HJP  n.  iii. 
1S3  ff.  ;  Zockler,  Apnkr.  des  AT  230  ff.  ;  Bissell  in  Lanire's 
Apokl-.;  ]£,\chhom,  EiiUeilxini}  in  die  Apokr.  SchriJ'ten,  419  ff.; 
Uothsteia   in    Kautzsch'a   Apokr.    u.    Pseudcpi-ir.   d.   AT  i. 

172  fl.  J.  T.  Marshall. 

THRESHING.— See  Agriculturf,  vol.  i.  p.  50. 

THRESHOLD.— 1.  In  Neh  12=»  D"iv?ri  -spst  (AV 
'thresholds  of  the  gates')  undoubtedly  means 
•  storehouses  of  the  gates'  (so  RV  ;  cf.  RV  'store- 
house '  as  tr.  of  c'5j:>!^  n'3  [A V  '  house  of  Asuppira  '] 
in  1  Ch  26'°,  and  of  cspK  alone  [AV'  '  Asuppim  ']  in 
v.").  The  te.\t  of  the  LXX  is  in  this  verse 
defective,  but  the  words  ir  t<}  (rwayayeti'  /le 
Toi)j  iri/Xupoi'S  obviously  represent  oii't-'n  'scxs.  2. 
IP :  Jg  19"  the  Levite's  concubine  was  found 
in  the  niornin"  dead,  with  her  hands  upon  the 
threshold  ;  1  K  14"  Jeroboam's  wife  had  just 
reached  the  threshold  of  the  pal.ace  at  Tirzah  when 
her  .son  died  ;  Am  9'  '  Smite  the  chapiters  [of  the 
columns  supporting  the  temple  roof)  till  the 
thresholds  shake';  Is  6*  'the  foundations  of  the 
tliresholds  were  moved  at  the  voice  of  him  that 
cried  '  ;  Ezk  43',  referring  to  the  circumstance  that 
the  royal  palace  and  Solomon's  temple  were  within 
the  same  enclosure  and  formed  one  set  of  build- 
ings, God  makes  it  a  matter  of  reproach  that  they 
have  set  '  their  threshold  by  my  threshold,  and 
their  door  post  beside  my  door  post ' ;  Zeph  2''' 
'desolation  [n-jn ;  but  Wellh.,  Now  ,  et  al.,  after 
LXX  KipaKes,  resid  lii!  'raven(s)']  shall  be  on  the 
thresholds  (of  ruined  Nineveh).'  A  cla.ss  of  temple 
oliicials  were  '  keepers  of  the  threshold  '  (irn  -irr) : 
Jer  35*  [in  sing.],  2  K  12i°  22*  (=2  Ch  34")  •  23* 
25'8  [  =  Jer  52"]  ;  2  Ch  23*  [isn  nj;i?] ;  in  1  Ch  D'"-*" 

*  These  \eepers  of  the  door  are  in  2  K  12i<i  'priests' ;  to  2  Ch 
849  they  cbtractcristically  become  •  Levite».' 


[in  the  latter  verse  153  0'i;;lr]  similar  officials  ar« 
provided  for  the  tabernacle  ;  the  office  is  a  seculai 
one  in  Est  2-'  6'-,  answering  more  to  that  of  body- 

fuard  (cf.  the  LXX  a.px'<!'^l^<'.To4>v\aKes  in  2-').  Id 
s  84"  the  pilj^vim  declares  that  he  prefers  being  at 
the  threshold  (B  irapapnrTeiffSai)  in  the  house  of  God 
to  dwelling  in  the  tents  of  wickedness.  The  other 
occurrences  of  1P  are  :  Ezk  40«  ">• '  41'»  "*',  2  Ch  3'. 

The  principal  LXX  renderings  of  "JD  not  noticed  above  are: 

re  trpiUufc,  Jg  1927,  1  K  141',  Ezk  43s ;  to  i^ifUufst,  Is  K* ;  rk 
T/!iiTt-x«,  Am  91 ;  t!  ii/kitu,  Zeph  21-',  2  Ch  3' ;  (»  ji/ia^c-a..  or  «J 

ifi/XtiO-a-ovTl,-)  T,,t  ctiki.t,  Jer  35  (42)J,  or  ri.  <rTi=()fti»,  2  K  1210  (9|  224 
2.S18,  or  Ti.  riin.,  2  Ch  349,  or  tt,.  iSi,,  Jer  62^-i,  or  n,  i\(rcin,  1  Cl» 
918  ;  (liV  Tit  «-iX«j)  Tit  •;«■»»•..,  2  Ch  -234  ;  ivpilK,  Ezk  4116. 

3.  \-tv  :  1  S  5*' '  Dagon  was  found  prostrate 
before  the  ark,  with  his  head  and  hands  cut  oft' upon 
the  threshold ;  hence,  it  is  said,  the  worshippers 
of  Dagon  leap  over  the  threshold,  to  avoid  contact 
with  a  spot  rendered  sacred  by  having  been  the 
resting-place  of  these  members  of  the  god.  It  is 
impossible  to  decide  whether  it  is  this  (Philistine) 
custom  that  is  referred  to  in  Zeph  1^  '  every  one 
who  leaps  over  [or  '  upon,'  *?»]  the  threshold.'  See 
art.  Cherethites,  vol.  i.  p.  377*.  The  threshold 
of  the  temple  is  referred  to  in  Ezk  9'  10*-  "  46-  47' 
(in  the  last  named  passage  as  the  source  of  the 
stream  which  is  seen  in  vision  to  flow  forth  to 
fertilize  the " Arabah). 

The  usual  LXX  equivalent  for  J^fp  is  «.>■«. :  Ezk  93  10»- 18 
471 ;  in  402  and  1  S  6*  rpiSupn ;  in  1  S  S*  ^miiM ;  in  Zeph  1» 

9p&Tuy.m. 

For  Trumbull's  view  (Tlie  Threshold  Covenant, 
303  fr.)  of  the  Passover  as  a  threshold  cross-over 
sacrifice,  see  art.  Passoveu,  vol.  iii.  p.  689.  Cf. 
also  art.  FOUNDATION.  J.  A.  Selbie. 

THRONE  is  OT  rendering  of  the  Heb.  xd3  [in 
1  K  10'"  "'--,  Job  26»  n;5  ;  in  Dn  5*  7" '"  Aram,  ksi;], 
which  is  used  for  any  seat  of  honour  or  state,  e.g. 
of  the  high  priest,  1  S  1"  4'^- '" ;  of  an  honoured 
guest,  2  K  4'"  ;  of  the  pehah  beyond  the  River,  Neh 
3' ;  of  a  judge,  Ps  94-"  ;  of  a  military  officer,  Jer  1'^  ; 
but  far  more  usually  of  a  king,  Gn  41-"' [E],  Ex  11» 
li-'s  [both  J],  1  K  2'»,  Is  47',  Ezk  26'«,  Est  5'. 
Solomon's  throne  is  described  in  1  K  10'*"^  [  =  2  Ch 
9"'"].  It  was  overlaid  with  ivory  and  the  finest 
gold  (see  Kittel,  Konige,  ad  loc. ),  and  was  ascended 
by  six  steps,  with  twelve  lions  standing  upon 
them.  For  figures  of  Assyrian  and  Egj'ptian 
thrones  see  Rielim,  HWB- ii.  1106,  1684.  God  as 
the  heavenly  King  has  His  throne:  Is  6',  Ezk  l^" 
10',  1  K  22'"  [  =  2  Ch  18'8],  Job  26',  Ps  11*;  heaven 
is  called  His  throne  in  Is  66'  (cf.  Mt  5"),  Jerus.  in 
Jer  3",  the  sanctuary  in  17'-  and  Ezk  43'.  'Throne' 
is  frequently  used  as  =  royal  dignity,  authority, 
power,  e.g.  1  K  2**  ('the  throne  of  David  shall  be 
established,'  cf.  2  S  7"  [=  1  Ch  17'*]),  Is  16».  Pr  16'^ ; 
of  God,  La  5'»,  Ps  47"  89"  93-  97^  103'»,  Jer  14^'. 
For  the  cult  of  '  empty  thrones'  see  Reichel,  Ucbcr 
vorhellcnische  Gofterkulte  (Wien,  1897),  and  Budde's 
art.  'Imageless  Worship  in  Antiquity' in  Expos, 
Times,  ix.  (18',)8)  396  ft'. 

Similar  is  the  use  of  'throne'  (dpbvm;  once  Ac 
12-'  ^^/ta,  lit.  'judgment-seat,'  of  Herod)  in  NT; 
almost  always  [the  exceptions  are  Mt  19-'*  ||  Lk  •2'2*' 
'ye  shall  sit  upon  twelve  thrones,'  etc..  Col  1" 
'  thrones '  as  a  rank  of  angels  (? ;  see  art.  Dominion), 
Rev  20*  '  I  saw  thrones,  and  they  (the  assessors  of 
the  heavenly  Judge)  sat  upon  them ']  of  the  throne 
of  God  or  o"f  Christ :  Mt  5"  (li  Lk  23'^)  19^^  (;i  Lk 
22™),  Lk  1»2,  Ac  2*"  7*»,  He  1*  4"  8'  12^  Rev  1*  3'-' 
and  very  often. 

In  Pa  45'  the  Heb.  text  'n  D'H^JN  JINIJS  ('thy  throne,  O  God, 
is  for  ever  and  ever ' ;  LXX  <  «fnK  ct-j,  i  But,  followed  in  He  18) 
is  probably  corrupt.  In  addition  to  the  tr.  of  EV  the  following 
renderings  have  been  proposed  :  (1)  'Thy  throne  is  Ciod '(Doder- 
lein,  supported  most  recently  by  Wtstcott  (on  He  isj  and 
Hort) ;  (2) '  thy  throne  of  God '  ['  thy  God's  throne  '1  (Ges.  Jet.  i. 


THUilB 


THYATIEA 


757 


V-  S65);  (3)  'thythrone  is  (a  throne)of  Ood'(Ahon  Ezra,  Hitdg, 
Cwald,  Baeth^en).  To  all  these  renderinf^s  there  are  either 
gnimmatical  or  exe^jetical  objectionB.  Bickell  and  Cheyne 
would  insert  iD'pn  imiD'  n:iD:  'thy  throne  [its  foundation  Ib 
Qruily  fixed],  God  [Lutli  established  it].'  Perhaps  the  simplest 
solution  is  to  substitute  ^^^«  (or  Q''''^^*  ('thy  throne  shall  be 
lor  ever*).  This  orit^ual  nin-  might  easily  be  misread  mn* 
(JahwehX  which  in  turn  would  be  intentionally  changed  into 
O'.-Sff.  So  Giesebrecht,  ^\ellh.  ('Psalms'  in  SBOT,  following 
Bruston,  Vu  tcxte  primtti/  ilts  Psaiiines,  Paris,  1873),  Duhiu 
(in  Kurzrr  HiUom.)-  See,  further,  Driver,  Heb.  Tenses^  5  194, 
Obe. ;  Cheyne,  OP  182.  J.  A.  SELBIE. 

THUMB  (l^S  [in  ,!<;  l*-'  plur.  rtiha,  as  if  from 
sing,  pi::,  the  form  used  throughout  the  Sam. 
Pent.]  joined  with  i;  '  hand  '  means  '  thumb,'  while 
with  '7J";  '  foot '  it  means 'great  toe'). — In  all  the 
Scriptnre  passages  where  'thumb'  occurs,  it  is 
coupled  with  'great  toe.'  In  tlie  consecration  of 
Aaron  and  his  sons,  blood  was  sprinlcled  upon  the 
tip  of  the  riglit  ear,  upon  the  thumb  of  the  right 
hand,  and  upon  the  great  toe  of  the  right  foot 
(E.\  29*',  Lv  8-"-  ").  It  has  been  generally  held 
(Dillm.,  Bacntsch,  et  al.,  ad  Inc.,  Nowack,  Ueb. 
Arch.  ii.  1'23)  tliat  this  procedure  symbolized  the 
consecration  of  the  organs  of  hearing,  handling, 
and  walking,  tlie  priests  becoming  thus  litted  to 
hear  God's  voice,  to  liandle  holj'  things,  and  to 
tread  holy  ground.  This  explanation  fails,  how- 
ever, to  account  for  the  selection  of  these  three 
organs  alone,  and  it  does  not  harmonize  well  with 
the  circumstance  that  the  cleansed  leper  was 
similarly  sprinkled  (Lv  H"-  "•  ^-  ^).  There  is  more 
probability  in  the  view  of  Holzinger  (Exodus,  ad 
/oc.)  that,  like  the  horns  of  tlie  altar,  the  extremities 
of  the  human  body,  with  inclusive  sense,  are 
chosen  for  consecration. — The  cutting  off  of  Adoni- 
be^ek's  thumbs  and  great  toes  (Jg  1"),  a  mutilation 
which  he  declares  he  had  himself  practised  on 
seventy  kings  (v.'),  disabled  him  from  lighting, 
and  possibly  disqualified  him  from  reigning  (see 
Moore,  ad  loc,  where  parallels  from  classical 
writers  are  cited;  cf.  also  art,  Adonibezek). 

J.  A.  Sklbik. 

THUMMIM.— See  Urim  AND  Thummim. 

THUNDER  (nsn,  ^povr^)  is  the  loud  sound  which 
accompanies  the  discharge  through  llie  atmo.sjihere 
of  electricity  from  the  clouds.  It  seems  to  follow 
the  lightning  flash  after  an  interval  jiroportioned 
to  the  observer's  distance  from  the  place  of  dis- 
turbance. Thunderstorms  are  fre<|uent  in  Pales- 
tine during  the  winter  season,  but  very  rarely 
occur  at  any  other  time  of  the  year  (Schwarz, 
Palestine,  .327).  They  are  always  accompanied  by 
rain  or  hail.  In  the  OT  thunder  is  lioth  poetically 
describc'd  and  popularly  regarded  a.s  the  voice  of 
God.  It  is  .spoken  of  as  a  voice  in  Ps  77"  104',  Sir 
43"  (cf.  1  S  7'").  In  several  passages  (E.x  9'"<'-  19" 
20i»,  1  S  12"- '«,  Job  28-«'38--*)' thunder 'or 'thunder- 
ing'  is  simply  the  tr.  of  ni'^'ip  ('  voices'),  and  even 
where  Sip  is  rendered  'voice'  the  verb  oyj  ('  to 
thunder')  in  the  context  sometimes  shows  that 
thunder  is  meant  (2  S  •^2",  Job  37*- »  40",  Ps  18" 
29»;  cf.  the  use  of  ipuival  in  Rev  4»  8»  ll'»  IC"). 
Ps  29  is  tliroughout  a  sublime  poetic  descrip- 
tion of  a  thunderstorm  and  its  effects,  tliough  the 
noun  Ci'T  does  not  once  occur  in  it,  but  only  the 
often  repeated  [ihrase  .iLT-Sip.  Tlio  sequence  of 
thunder  after  lightning  is  referred  to  in  Job  37*, 
Sir  32'°,  and  the  general  connexion  of  the  two 
phenomena  in  Job  28-"  SS'".  In  Ps  104'  the  creative 
voice  of  (!od  which  bade  the  waters  go  to  their 
appointed  place  (Gn  !•)  is  identified  with  thunder. 
Thunder  accompanied  by  hail  is  enumerated  in 
Ex  9*"'  as  the  seventh  of  the  Plagujs  op  EgvpT 
(see  vol.  iii.  p.  891).  From  Ps  77'"  it  would  appear 
that  it  was  a  thundercloud  which  came  between 
the  Israelites  and  the  Egyptians  at  the  crossing  of 


the  Red  Sea,  and  this  is  probably  alluded  to  in 
Ps  81'.  Thunder  was  one  of  the  impressive  pheno- 
mena amidst  which  the  Law  was  ^iven  at  Sinai 
(Ex  19"  20").  A  thunderstorm  decided  the  issue 
of  a  battle  between  Israel  and  the  Philistines  (1  S 
7'°,  Sir  46"),  and  another  served  to  deepen  the  im- 
pression made  by  Samuel's  warning  to  Israel  when 
tliey  desired  a  king  (1  S  12"'"*).  'fhis  latter  e\cnb 
was  all  the  more  significant  becau.se  it  occurred  at 
a  most  unusual  season, — that  of  wheat  harvest. 

In  Job  39'-'  thunder  is  used  figuratively  for  the 
noise  of  battle ;  and  in  Job  26'^  the  difference 
between  a  whisper  and  thunder  is  used  to  illustrate 
the  contrast  between  wliat  man  sees  of  God's  waj's, 
and  the  reality  of  God's  power.  In  Sir  40"  tlio 
goods  of  tlie  unjust  are  said  to  go  off  in  a  noise 
like  thunder;  and  in  Mk  3"  'sons  of  thunder'  is 
the  interpretation  of  the  title  (ioavqprfis  given  by 
Jesus  to  the  sons  of  Zebedee  (see  BOANERGES).  In 
Is  29°  thunder  is  among  the  metaphors  describing 
the  disasters  impending  on  Ariel,  and  it  appears  in 
a  similar  connexion  in  Rev  8'  10".  Like  other 
convulsions  of  nature,  it  enters  largely  into  the 
imagery  of  the  Apocalypse  (4°  U").  Voices  like 
thuntler  are  mentioned  in  6'  14'  19°,  and  in  10^-  * 
actual  thunders  are  conceived  to  have  an  articulate 
meaning.  In  view  of  this  last  fact,  and  of  the 
close  OT  association  between  thunder  and  tlie 
voice  of  God,  it  seems  probable  th.at  the  '  voice  out 
of  heaven '  (Jn  12™' '")  was  a  thunder-peal,  as  indeed 
most  of  those  present  thought,  and  that  its  signi- 
ficance was  recognized  and  interpreted  by  Jesus 
alone.  A  similar  construction  may  be  put  on  the 
voices  in  the  narratives  of  the  Baptism  and  Trans- 
figuration of  Jesus,  and  the  whole  subject  is  illus- 
trated by  the  Jewish  doctrine  of  the  ^'P"nj,  which 
was  always  supposed  to  be  preceded  by  a  thunder- 
clap (Barclay,  Talmud,  p.  IC,  note). 

The  Greek  word  Kcpavfii,  like  Lat.  fulmen,  de- 
notes thunder  and  lightning  together.  It  is  used 
in  Wis  19'"  of  the  punislmient  of  the  Egyptians  at 
the  Exodus  (EV  '  thunders'),  and  in  2  RIac  10*"  of 
certain  human  missiles  of  destruction  (AV  '  light- 
nings,' KV  '  thunderbolts  ').  Kcpaivudis  is  the  LXX 
tr.  of  ['El  in  Is  30**,  where  all  the  phenomena  of  a 
thunderstorm  occur  in  the  context  as  metaphors 
for  the  disasters  awaiting  As.syria.  AV  renders 
F?}  'scattering,'  RV  'blast,'  RVm  'crash,'  De- 
lit /«ch  'cloud-burst.' 

ill  Ps  78**  'thunderbolt'  is  the  tr.  of  ^y-i  (mg. 
'hailstone').  For  the  meaning  of  this  word  see 
under  CoAL,  4.  vol.  i.  p.  4.-)!''.  In  Job  39'"  AV 
has  'thunder'  as  a  mislran.slation  of  .icp  (RV 
'  quivering  mane ').  J  AMES  PATRICK. 

THYATIRA  (Qu&Tetpa.)  was  an  important  and 
wealthy  city  in  the  northern  part  of  Lydia,  in  a 
district  which  was  in  early  times  sometimes 
a.ssigned  to  Mysia ;  and  it  was  sometimes  called 
'the  last  city  of  the  My.sians,"  owing  to  the  un- 
certainty about  national  boundaries  in  Asia  Minor. 
In  its  situation  in  the  open  fertile  valley  of  the 
Lycus,  a  stream  that  flows  .south-west  from  the 
RIysian  frontier  to  join  the  Ilcrmus,  it  must  have 
been  a  settlement  (doubtless  a  large  village  beside 
a  temple,  after  the  Anat<dian  fiishion)  from  the  ear- 
liest time  ;  and  according  to  I'linj'  and  Stephanus 
it  was  then  called  Pelopia  Euijipa  Semiramis  ;  but 
these  seem  to  be  mere  epithets,  and  the  name 
Thyateira  is  probably  an  old  Lydian  word,  mean- 
ing 'the  town  or  citadel  of  Thya':  Teira  occurs 
as  a  Lydian  city  name.  But  the  importance  of 
Thj'atira  bcg.m  when  it  was  refounded  with  a 
colony  of  Macedonians  bj-  Seloucus  Nikator  be- 
tween B.C.  301  and  281. t     Its  history  as  a  Greek 

•  Stcph.  Bvz.  a.v.    So  Iconlum  woa  '  the  last  city  of  Phryjpa.' 

t  So  Steph'anuB  ;  but  Schuchhardt  (AUim.  Mitth.  18SK,  p.  1  ff.) 

attributes  the  new  foundation  to  a  later  date  in  the  3rd  ccut. 


758 


THYATIRA 


THYATIRA 


city  dates  from  that  time ;  and  it  continued  to  be 
a  rich  and  busy  commertial  city  throughout  antient 
times.  The  peacefulness  and  prosperity  of  its  de- 
velopment aflord  little  for  the  historian  to  record. 
Antiochus  tlie  Great  lay  encamped  there  for  a  time 
in  B.C.  130,  until  he  was  forced  to  retire  on  Mag- 
nesia ;  and  the  decisive  battle  against  the  Romans 
under  Scipio  was  fought  between  the  two  cities. 
Thyatira  derived  its  importance  strictly  from  the 
valley  in  which  it  was  situated,  and  not  from  lying 
on  a  great  trade  route.  Hence  it  was  limited  in 
its  development  by  the  restriction  of  its  range,  and 
it  never  became  a  mL-tropolis  or  leading  city  of 
Asia,  nor  was  it  honoured  with  the  Neokorate  in 
the  State  cultus  of  tlie  emperors.  Ptolemy,  indeed, 
styles  it  metropolis  of  Lydia  (V.  ii.  16)  j  but  the 
title  never  occurs  in  inscriptions  or  on  coins,  and  is 
probably  erroneous! j'  given.  The  epithets  by  which 
Thyatira  sought  to  glorify  itselt  are  therefore 
rather  vague  in  character,  XafiirpoTdTr),  JiacrTjKordTi;, 
fuyldTi],  etc.  But  in  A.D.  215  Caracalla  passed 
through  the  city,  and  issued  an  edict  (which  came 
before,  and  was  probably  addressed  to  the  Koinon 
of  Asia,  and  was  of  course  carried  into  eflect  by 
I'ote  of  the  Koinon),  ordering  that  it  should  be  one 
of  the  seats  of  conventus  of  the  Province  (iSuipJiaaTO 
rjj  irarpidi  ijfiCip  rrfv  dyopdj'  tCiv  biKCiv), 

In  regard  to  religion,  Thyatira  also  rejoiced  in 
the  title  '  the  holy  city  of  the  irpo-rdTup  8t6;  "H\ios 
mSio^  Tvpi/Mfiuoi  'AiroXXuK '  (just  as  Ephesus  boasted 
itself  the  city  of  Artemis) ;  and  the  inscriptions 
often  mention  the  patron  god.  The  coins  often 
show  the  horseman-god  Tyrimnos,  with  double- 
axe  on  shoulder  (a  figure  common  under  various 
names  in  Lydian  and  Phrygian  cities),  and  a  god- 
dess of  the  Greek  Artemis  type,  called  Boreitene. 
But  Boreitene  is  simply  a  surname  of  the  god- 
dess who  was  worshipped  along  with  the  patron 
god,  probably  derived  from  some  locality  in  the 
territory  of  the  city  with  which  the  goddess 
was  specially  associated.  The  Boreitene  Artemis 
was,  undoubtedly,  closely  related  to  the  Ephesian 
Artemis  on  the  one  hand,  and  to  the  East 
Lydian  and  Pontic  Anaitis  (Persian  in  origin, 
called  Persike  on  the  coins  of  the  neighbouring 
Hierocipsareia)  on  the  other.  Apollo  Tyrimnaios 
is  known  only  from  the  inscriptions,  which  show 
that  there  was  a  sacred  temenos,  with  a  propylmum, 
containing  doubtless  a  temple :  games  called 
Tyrimnaia,  in  honour  of  the  god,  are  also  men- 
tioned. The  priest  of  Apollo  and  the  priestess  of 
Artemis  were  husband  and  wife  (Bull.  Corresp. 
HelUn.  xi.  p.  478,  No.  57),  showing  how  intimate 
was  the  relation  between  the  two  deities  in  the 
Thyatiran  cult.  This  deity  was  n^6iro\is  (with  his 
temple  in  front  of,  not  inside,  the  city)  and  IIpo- 
vdrup  (patron  of  the  city,  and  ancestor  of  some 
leading  family  or  families,  doubtless  priestly  fami- 
lies, in  it).  Tyrimnos  was  evidently  the  ancient 
Lydian  sun-goo,*  identiGed  with  the  Greek  Apollo 
Pythias.  Under  the  Roman  emiiire  the  worship 
of  Apollo  Tyrimnaios  was  unitea  with  the  cult  of 
the  emperors,  as  we  see  in  the  ceremony  of  the 
Sebasto  -  Tyrimniean  festival  (njs  Ze^currelov  xal 
tvpinv-qov  TravTiyOpeu!).  The  worship  of  Artemis 
and  Apollo  was  conjoined  with  mysteries,  which 
were  under  the  direction  of  the  priestess  {CIG 
3507). 

Further,  there  was  outside  of  the  city  (irpi  Tijs 
iriXeus)  a  shrine  of  the  Oriental  (Chalda'an,  or 
Persian,  or  Hebrew)  Sibyl  Sambcthe,  or  Sambathe, 
in  the  sacred   precinct  of  the  Chalda;an  {irptis  ry 

uid  regards  Thyatira  as  a  Seleucld  garrUon  founded  to  resist 
the  growing  Perjfanienian  power. 

*  We  cannot  adopt  the  view  of  Blakesley  In  Smith's  DB  and 
others,  that  Tyrininas  (as  they  wron(;ly  call  him)  was  a  Mace- 
donian deity  brought  by  the  colonist.'^  from  their  own  country. 
They  ma^  have  brought  the  name  (Tyrinimas  was  a  mythical 
Uacedoiii&a  king),  but  not  the  religious  institution. 


^afi^aOclip  iv  ti}  XaXSalov  wepi^6\(p*  CIG  3509).  It 
may  be  taken  as  certain  that  this  shrine  was  a  seal 
of  soothsaying,  and  that  a  prophetess  was  the  re- 
cipient of  inspiration  and  uttered  the  oracles  at 
the  shrine.  It  is  also  highly  probable  that  this 
foundation  arose  from  an  eclectic  religious  system, 
combininrr  some  Hebrew  conceptions  with  pagan 
forms  and  customs.  So  much  may  be  taken  as 
generally  admitted  ;  but  to  this  Sehurer  (Die  Pro- 
jjhetiti  ladbcl  in  Thyativa  t)  has  added  the,  at  first 
sight,  attractive  theory  that  the  woman  Jezebel 
of  Rev  2-"  was  the  prophetess  at  the  shrine,  who 
perhaps  played  the  part  of  the  Sibyl  herself,  and 
whose  character  was  perhaps  not  purely  heathen 
but  contained  a  mixture  of  Jew  ish  elements.  We 
cannot,  however,  consider  this  probable.  While  we 
must  agree  with  Schiirer  and  many  older  scholars 
that  'Jezebel'  here  denotes  a  dehnite  woman,  the 
context  seems  to  require  a  woman  of  great  influ- 
ence within  the  Thyatiran  Church  (like  Jezebel 
within  the  kingdom  of  Israel),  in  all  probability 
an  otKcial,  active,  prominent  in  religious  observ- 
ances, claiming  to  be  and  accepted  in  the  Church 
(d^eis)  as  one  of  those  prophetesses  who  were  so  im- 
portant in  the  early  Church,  using  her  position  to 
disseminate  her  own  views,  maintaining  and  teach- 
ing the  doctrine  (against  which  the  letter  inveighs 
so  bitterly)  that  it  was  possible  to  be  a  Christian 
and  yet  remain  a  member  of  ordinary  pagan  society 
and  belong  to  the  social  clubs,  which  were  so  char- 
acteristic of  pagan  life,  and  fulfilled  many  useful 
purposes  of  a  charitable  or  beneficial  kind,  but  were 
(according  to  St.  John  and  St.  Paul  alike)  inextric- 
ably implicated  in  idolatrous  observances,  and  con- 
ducive to  luxury  and  sensual  enjoyment.J:  The 
person  who  was  condemned  so  strenuously  by  the 
author  was  not  a  pagan  prophetess,  but  a  danger 
w  itliin  the  Church,  and  tlie  Church  itself  is  cen- 
sured for  treating  her  with  allowance  and  respect 
instead  of  casting  her  out  with  abhorrence.  \  et  a 
time  for  repentance  is  granted  even  to  her,  before 
her  punishment  shall  come  upon  her. 

The  passage  of  Rev.  places  us  amid  the  difficulties 
besettin"  the  Thyatiran  Christians  in  the  early 
period  of  the  Church.  The  population  of  the  city 
was  divided  into  trade-gmlds,  many  of  Avhich  are 
mentioned  in  inscriptions.  To  belong  to  the  guild 
was  a  most  important  matter  for  every  trades- 
man or  artisan  ;  it  aided  his  business,  and  brought 
him  many  advantages  socially.  Each  guild  was 
a  corporate  body,  possessing  considerable  powers, 
directed  by  elected  officers,  passing  decrees  in 
honour  of  Roman  officials  or  other  persons  who 
had  aided  it,  possessing  property  or  revenues 
under  its  own  direction,  constructing  works  for 
the  public ;  many  of  them,  if  not  all,  were  benefit 
societies  for  mutual  aid,  and  showed  vigorous  life, 
and  were  on  the  whole  healthy  and  praiseworthy 
associations. 

The  objection  to  the  guilds  from  the  Christian 
point  of  view  was  twofold.  In  the  first  place,  the 
bond  which  held  a  guild  together  lay  always  in  the 
common  religion  in  which  all  united,  and  iu  the 
common  sacrificial  meal  of  which  all  partook  ;  the 
members  ate  and  drank  fellowship  and  brother- 
hood in  virtue  of  the  pagan  deity  whom  they 
served.  In  the  existing  state  of  society  it  was 
impossible  to  dissociate  membership  of  a  guild 
from  idolatry,  and  the  idolatry  was  of  a  kind 
that  by  its   symbolism  and   its  efficacy  exerteil 

•  From  ft  single  reference  it  is  impossible  to  determine 
whether  a  ChaMiean  deity,  or  a  Chalda^an  who  instituted  and 
regulated  the  cultus,  is  meant.  M.  Clero  (d*-  Hebiu  TUijotir. 
pp.  23,  79)  puts  the  shrine  of  the  Sibyl  near  the  Chaldwan't 
precinct;  but  the  inscription  defines  the  position  of  the  grave 
as  bv  the  Sibyl's  shrine  in  the  Chaldsean's  precinct. 

t  in  Thtotai.  Abhandt.  Weizmcker  geieidifiei,  1S92,  p.  39  S. 

t  On  this  see  Expotitor,  Dec.  lOOO,  p.  42«  a. ;  Feb.  I9t<l,  p 
93  0. 


THYATIliA 


TLBERIAS 


great  influence  on  its  adherents,  makin"  them 
inenihers  of  a  unity  wliicU  w:is  ej^sintially  non- 
Christian  and  anti-Chri.sti;in.  In  the  second  idaue, 
the  common  banquets  were  celebrated  amid  cir- 
cumstances of  revelry  and  enjoyment  that  were 
far  from  conducive  to  strict  morality,  as  is  evident 
from  representations  of  the  feasts  in  such  clubs  ; 
see  linlktin  de  Curresp.  UelUn.  1900,  p.  592  S.,  and 
authorities  there  quoted. 

But,  considering  the  many  good  characteristics 
in  these  guilds,  it  wa-s  a  serious  question  whether 
the  Cliristian  converts  were  bound  to  cut  them- 
selves oli'  absolutely  from  them.  In  Rev  ^""^  we 
see  that  the  question  had  not  j'et  been  decisively 
answered  in  the  Thyatiran  Church,  but  was  still 
under  discussion  :  one  iiilluential  female  member, 
who  was  generally  believed  to  be  inspired,  taught 
that  Christians  might  continue  in  their  guilds  and 
share  in  the  duties  and  privileges  thereof.  On  the 
other  hand  there  was  a  section  of  that  Church  (Rev 
2")  which  ojipo.sed  the  teaching  of  the  prophetess 
in  this  res|»ect  ;  we  should  probably  gather  from 
the  whole  passage  that  this  section  was  the  minor- 
ity in  the  Church.  This  minority  shares  in  the 
general  condemnation  of  2*  for  sull'ering  the  woman 
Jezebel :  they  had  not  condemned  her  absolutely, 
but  treated  her  teaching  as  mistaken  in  this  one 
point,  while  otherwise  regarding  her  as  worthy  of 
respect.  The  minority,  however,  is  not  threatened 
with  any  further  penalty,  provided  they  continue 
to  reject  the  teachmg  of  the  prophetess.  Thus  the 
letter  to  Thyatira  reveals  to  us  a  very  early  stage 
in  Christian  history.  The  very  lirst  problems, 
which  must  have  faced  the  (christians  in  the 
^gean  cities,  connected  with  their  relation  to 
the  pagan  society  and  institutions,  are  still  un- 
settled. Xo  final  decision  had  j-et  been  come  to 
in  Thyatira  on  the  subject ;  and  contrary  opinions 
were  maintained  by  members  of  the  same  com- 
munity. The  decision  bad  indeed  been  pronounced 
by  St.  Paul  as  regards  Corinth,*  but  in  somewhat 
veiled  and  general  terms,  and  had  not  as  yet 
become  the  current  and  definite  principle  of  all 
the  Churches.  As  regards  date,  it  might  appear 
that  this  points  to  an  earlier  period  than  the  reign 
of  Domitian,  and  favours  the  earlier  date  for  Rev. 
which  manj'  scholars  have  advocated  ;  but  a  single 
detail  is  not  conclusive,  and  exceptional  circum- 
stances must  be  admitted  as  possible  in  outlying 
communities  like  Thyatira  and  Pergamuni  (Rev 
2").  In  Ephesus,  the  jidministrative  centre  of  the 
Asian  Churches,  the  decision  of  the  Church  was 
already  li.\ed  (Ilev  2').  Here  it  is  implied  that  the 
error  of  the  prophetess  had  already  been  denounced, 
'  and  I  gave  her  time  that  she  should  repent '  (2"). 
It  is  only  after  that  previous  formal  warning  that 
her  punishment  is  now  denounced  as  immediate : 
her  followers  have  still  an  opportunity  of  escaping 
the  punishment,  if  they  repent,  but  otherwise  it 
will  aile<tt  them  and  her  together. 

The  punishment  denounced  is  illustrated  by  the 
nature  of  such  guild-fea.sts,  as  shown  in  ancient 
reliefs.  The  members  and  worshippers  reclined  on 
couches  at  the  banquet  ;  and  it  is  probable  that  the 
K\ivT)  of  Rev  2-*  should  be  understood,  not  as  a  bed 
( A  V  and  RV),  but  as  a  couch  :  '  I  set  her  on  a  couch, 
and  her  associates  alongside  of  her  (no  longer  for 
the  revelry  of  their  idolatrous  celebrations,  but) 
for  tribulation'  (see  Expositor,  l"eb.  I'JUl,  u.  9911.). 

Apart  from  this  serious  fault,  the  Church  of 
Thyatira  is  praised  highly  for  its  energetic  and 
truly  Christian  conduct,  and  for  its  steady  progress : 
'  thjy  last  works  are  more  than  the  first. 

1  he  guild  of  coppersmiths  (xaX«<s)  seems  to  have 

been   inlluential   in   Thyatira  (see   inscription    in 

Bull.  Corr.  Hell.  x.  p.  -JUT,  belonging  to  the  early 

imperial  times).     The   typo  on  coins,  Hephaistos 

•IColo'*-". 


forging  a  helmet,  probably  refers  to  the  bronze 
trade;  and  perhaps  the  enigmatic  allusion  *o  the 
unknown  x<i'^'>"'^'r'<"''»  would  be  umlers'.ojd,  if 
more  could  be  learned  about  the  Thyatiran  bronze 
or  copper  work.  Mr.  Blakesley  has  suggested  that 
the  description  of  the  Son  of  God,  whose  feet  were 
like  chnlcolibrinos  (Rev  2'*),  may  have  been  sug- 
gested by  the  way  in  which  the  tutelary  deity  of 
the  city  was  reiiresented  in  Thyatira. 

The  guild  of  dyers  is  mentioned  in  several  in- 
scriptions. M.  Clerc's  view,  that  the  dyeing  in 
Thyatira  was  performed  in  ancient  times  with 
madder-root,  rxbia  (as  in  the  medi;uval  and  modem 
trade),  not  with  the  jtiice  of  the  -shell-tish  (as  in 
TjTe  and  Laconia),  nor  with  the  worm  Coccus  ilicis 
((t6«Kos),  may  be  regarded  as  practically  certain ; 
and  in  that  case  the  purple  stutJ's  which  the 
Thyatiran  Lydia  sold  in  Pliilippi  (Ac  16")  were 
dyed  with  what  is,  in  modem  times,  called  '  Turkey 
red '  (as  the  purple  proper,  the  scarlet  of  the 
coccus,  and  the  red  of  rubia  seem  to  have  been  all 
included  under  the  generic  title  purple). 

Thyatira  lay  close  to  the  road  connecting  Per- 
gamuni with  Sardis,  and  hence  is  placed  between 
the  two  in  the  list  of  the  Seven  Churches  of  Asia 
(Rev  1").  No  evidence  remains  as  to  how  and 
when  Christianity  reached  the  city,  except  that,  if 
we  press  the  words  of  Ac  19'°,  the  new  religion 
was  preached  there  by  some  of  St.  Paul's  coadjutors 
and  helpers  during  his  first  residence  in  Ephesus. 

The  modem  town  of  Ak-His.sar  occupies  the  site, 
approximately,  of  the  ancient  Thyatira.  It  is  a 
busy  commercial  town,  possessing  a  railway  station 
and  a  considerable  industry  in  carpet-making,  etc. 
The  population  is  about  20,000,  of  whom  7000  are 
Christians. 

LiTEKATURE.— Clerc,  de  rebus  Thyatirmarum,  Paris,  1893; 
Stoseh,  Antitjuitatum  Thyatireiiarum  Libri  duo,  ZwoIIeb,  17C3 ; 
Zaka,  ^ipi  TM*  Trfi  ToAiatf  ^uoLTufivt,  Athens,  1900  (tr.  from  Cierc, 
with  some  additions  and  corpus  of  Thyatiran  inscriptions); 
Imliooi-Btumer  in  Hevuc  iiuisae  Numism.  Vii. 

W.  AI.  Ramsay. 
THYINE  WOOD  (ii\o»  eavov,  lignum  thyinum). 
— The  product  of  Thuja  articulata,  Desf.,  a  tree 
of  the  order  Coniferce,  gro\ving  in  the  Atlas.  It 
is  of  the  same  genus  as  the  lignum  vitm,  and  was 
specially  valued  by  the  Greeks  anil  Romans  for 
tables.  It  formed  part  of  the  precious  merchandise 
of  Babylon  [Rome]  (Rev  18'"  AVm  '  sweet  wood  '). 
It  is  dark  brown,  very  hard  and  durable,  and 
withal  fragrant.  G.  E.  Post. 

TIBERIAS  (TijSfpids)  Is  unlike  most  cities  in 
Palestine  in  that  we  have  a  delinite  account  of  its 
origin,  and  can  fix  pretty  accurately  the  date  when 
it  was  built.  Herod  Antipas,  the  ruler  of  Galilee, 
was  its  founder,  and  it  was  named  in  honour  of 
the  emperor  Tiberius.  In  the  very  beginning  of 
his  reign  Antipas  had  already  honoured  Julia  the 
mother  of  Tiberius,  by  rebulMing  Betharamatha 
or  Betharamptha  (tlie  Betli-harani  of  Jos  13-''),  and 
calling  it  Julias  or  Livias.  Tliis  was  on  the  Shittim 
Plain  east  of  Jericho.  At  a  later  period,  some 
time  between  A.D.  20  and  A.D.  30,  Tiberias  was 
built  on  the  west  shore  of  the  Sea  of  Galilee.  We 
are  able  to  lix  its  site,  because  Josephus  (A  nt.  xviu. 
ii.  3)  says  that  there  were  warm  baths  at  no  great 
distance  from  it  in  a  place  called  Emmaus  (the 
Hamniath  of  Jos  1U*>). 

To  secure  sufficient  room  for  the  new  city,  an  old 
cemetery  had  to  be  removed  ;  and  this  fact,  on 
account  of  the  law  of  delilement  by  dead  bodies, 
created  a  prejudice  against  it  in  the  minds  of  the 
stricter  Jews,  w  liich  took  a  long  time  to  overcome. 
Hammath  was  an  ancient  fortified  town,  and,  as 
was  customary,  the  dead  were  buried  witliout  the 
walls.  These  graves  may  have  been  a  part  of  the 
cemetery  of  that  old  city,  since  the  site  of  Antipas' 
new  city  was  nearly  a  mile  to  the  north  of  it.     It 


760 


TIBERIAS 


TIBNI 


is  a  curious  historical  fact  that,  while  at  the 
beginning  the  Jews  thought  Tiberias  unclean,  so 
that  they  could  hardly  be  forced  to  settle  there,  at 
last  in  the  course  of  time  tliey  chose  it  as  one  of 
their  sacred  cities  (see  below). 

People  from  various  quarters  helped  to  make  up 
the  first  inhabitants  of  Tiberias.  Some  foreigners 
came,  some  poor  people  were  compelled  to  make  it 
their  residence,  and  many  persons  who  were  '  not 
quite  freemen'  were  brought  thither  and  given 
certain  priWleges  in  the  way  of  houses  and  lands. 
Some  of  tliose  who  settled  there,  however,  are 
described  as  persons  of  wealth  and  position.  The 
place  gi'ew  rapidly,  gates,  colonnades,  and  marble 
statues  made  the  streets  attractive.  Soon  Tiberias 
could  boast  of  '  the  finest  synagogue  in  (Jalilee,'  a 
device  of  Herod  to  conciliate  the  Jews.  From  all 
accounts  at  our  command,  the  city,  toucliing  the 
water  of  the  lake,  must  have  been  beautiful,  and 
its  social  and  political  importance  were  assured 
when  Antipas  removed  thither  from  Sepphoris,  till 
then  the  capital  of  Galilee,  the  seat  of  his  govern- 
ment. His  palace  was  a  building  of  elegance,  with 
costly  furnishings,  and  in  it  was  a  large  amount  of 
the  ro3al  treasure  (Jos.  Life,  xii.  13). 

The  Gr.  character  of  the  town  may  be  the  reason 
■why,  although  Christ  was  so  tlioroughly  identi- 
fied for  long  with  the  Sea  of  Galilee,  there  is  no 
evidence  that  He  ever  visited  Tiberias,  the  new 
capital  of  tlie  ci\il  ruler  to  whom  He  was  subject. 
The  NT  has  little  to  say  about  this  city  ;  once  the 
fact  is  mentioned  that  '  boats  came  from  Tiberias' 
neai  to  the  spot  where  the  Feeding  of  the  Five 
Thousand  took  place  (Jn  6^) ;  further  than  this 
the  Compels  are  silent. 

At  the  time  of  the  war  with  Rome,  A.D.  66-70, 
Tiberias  was  one  of  the  chief  cities  of  Galilee.  It 
had  a  council  of  600  members.  Its  citizens  were 
loyal  to  the  national  cause.  When  Gaius  wanted  to 
Bet  up  his  statue  in  the  temple  at  Jerusalem  these 
people  made  such  a  desperate  resistance,  showing 
that  they  were  ready  to  die  rather  than  have  their 
laws  transgressed  {Ant.  XVIII.  viii.  3),  that  the  fool- 
ish project  was  at  last  abandoned.  The  streng:th 
of  the  place  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  Vespasian  led 
against  it  tliree  legions  before  its  inhabitants  would 
open  their  gates  to  him.  Another  change  awaited 
Tiberias,  this  time  one  of  humiliation,  wlien  Herod 
Agrippa  II.  degraded  it  from  being  the  chief  city, 
and  restored  that  honour  to  Sepphoris,  where  he 
kept  the  public  archives  and  had  stored  a  magazine 
of  arms. 

If  in  this  way  Tiberias  lost  political  prestige,  it 
gained  in  another  direction,  for  after  the  destruction 
of  Jerusalem  it  became  the  chief  centre  of  Jewish 
schools  and  learning,  so  that  it  has  a  large  place 
in  the  history  of  Palestine,  and  indeed  of  the 
world,  while  its  rivaJ  Sepphoris  is  ])ractically  for- 
gotten. At  one  time  during  this  flourishing  period 
its  synagogues  numbered  no  fewer  tli.m  thirteen. 
Here  the  Mishna  and  the  Palestinian  Talmud  were 
compiled  and  published,  c.  A.D.  2JU  and  A.D.  4i20 
respectively.  The  beautiful  situation  of  the  city, 
gome  of  tlie  noted  scholars  who  either  lived  or  were 
buried  there,  the  hot  springs  whiih  helped  to  make 
the  place  famous,  and  the  earthquakes  from  which 
it  has  occasionally  suti'ered,  have  been  mentioned 
under  Galii.ke,  and  Galilke  (Ska  of). 

The  founder  of  this  city  is  remembered  as  the 
murderer  of  John  the  Bai>tist,  and  as  being  present 
in  Jerusalem  at  the  pa.ssover  when  .Jesus  was 
arrested  and  put  to  death  (Lk  23').  What  was 
once  attractive  is  now  a  place  of  tilth  and  misery. 
On  the  shore  S.  of  the  town  are  some  interesting 
ruins,  which,  could  they  be  properly  excavated, 
might  reveal  remains  and  possibly  treasures  of  this 
royal  city  of  Herod  Antipas.  J'abarii/eh  (the 
modern   name  of  the  town)  has  a  population  of 


5000  or  6U00  souls,  made  up  of  a  few  ChristianSi 
some  Mohammedans,  and  a  large  number  of  Jews. 
It  has  a  Protestant  mission  with  a  school  and  a 
resident  phj'sician. 

LiTERATURB. — Schtirer,  BJP  n.  1.  143  ff.;  O.  A.  Smith 
HGUL  44711.  ;  Neubauer,  Giog.  du  Tabn.  203 ff.  ;  Graetz,  GfAiA 
d.  Jvden,  iv.  473 ;  UeLiiid,  Pal.  ii.  1040 ;  Robinson,  BRF  ill 
342 ff.;  Ritter,  Erdkuiule,  xv.  315  5.;  Baedeker-Socin,  Pai 
382ff.  ;  Gu^rin,  Galilie,  i.  250 ff.  ;  Merrill,  Eaxl  o/  Jordan 
125  f.  ;  de  Saulcy,  Jountej/  in  Bible  Laiuls,  ii.  394  f. ;  SUinley 
Siliai  and  Pal.  3G8ff.  SELAH  MERRILL. 

TIBERIAS,  SEA  OF  (Jn  21i).  — See  Galilei 

(Sea  of). 

TIBERIUS  (Ti;3^pios).— The  second  Roman  em 
peror,  A.u.  14-37.  The  former  is  the  date  ol 
Tiberius'  accession  on  the  death  of  Augustus. 
But  there  is  good  reason  to  suppose  that  St.  Luke 
(3')  in  his  reference  to  the  15th  year  of  the  reign 
of  Tiberius  Ccesar,  as  the  beginning  of  John  the 
Baptist's  ministry,  is  reckoning  from  the  date  of 
Tiberius'  association  with  Augustus  in  the  empire 
some  two  years  before  the  death  of  the  latter. 
For  the  argument  see  art.  Chronologv  of  NT 
in  vol.  i.  p.  405  f.  The  exact  year  of  Tiberius' 
adoption  by  his  stepfather  in  the  government 
is  not  known.  Mommsen  puts  it  A.D.  11,  other 
authorities  A.D.  13.  Perhaps  the  use  of  the  word 
rjyefjios'ta  ( A  V  and  KV  '  reign  ')  iniidies  that  Tiberius 
was  only  acting  as  regent  before  the  death  of 
Augustus.  From  the  evidence  of  coins  struck  at 
this  date  it  is  shown  that  it  was  customary  to 
regard  Tiberius'  reign  as  beginning  A.D.  12  or 
A.u.C.  7(3.5.  This  reign  spread  over  the  most 
momentous  period  in  Christian  chronology.  In  it 
occurred  our  Lord's  ministry  and  death  (A.D.  29)  ; 
the  Resurrection  ;  the  pouring  out  of  the  Holy 
Ghost;  the  martj-rdoni  of  St.  Stephen,  and  tlie 
general  persecution  that  immediately  followed. 
All  allusions  to  Casar  during  our  Lord's  life,  e.g. 
in  the  case  of  the  tribute  money  and  the  taunt 
levelled  against  Pilate,  '  Thou  art  not  Caesar's 
friend,'  refer  to  Tiberius.  The  last  years  of  his 
reign  witnessed  the  conversion  of  St.  Paul  and  the 
beginning  of  his  preaching. 

Tiberius  at  his  accession  retained  Valerius  Gratus 
as  procurator  of  Judica,  in  order  to  lessen  the  fre- 
quent changes,  and  thus  diminish  the  extortion  in 
tne  provinces.  Each  new  governor,  expecting  only 
a  short  lease  of  power,  exacted  as  much  as  possible 
in  the  shortest  time.  Gratus  deposed  Annas  and 
made  his  son  Eleazar,  and  afterwards  Caiaphas,  hia 
son-in-law,  high  priest.  Pontius  Pilate,  the  suc- 
cessor of  Gratus,  was  also  appointed  by  Tiberius, 
and  was  the  nominee  of  Sejanus,  the  emperor's  un- 
principled favourite. 

The  name  Tiberias,  given  to  the  city  and  lake, 
was  intended  by  Herod  Antipas  as  a  compliment 
to  the  reigning  emperor.     See  art.  TlBElti.\s. 

C.  H.  PUICHARD. 

TIBHATH  (n-2a  'extensive,'  'level';  B  iMero- 
/S^xas,  A  Mare^ie  ;  Thebath). — A  city  of  Hadarezer, 
king  of  Zobah,  from  which  David  took  much 
brass  (1  Ch  IS").  In  2  S  8'  the  name  of  the  tonn  is 
Betah,but  the  original  reading  was  j)robablyTebah, 
as  intheSyriac  version,  and  as  a  tribal  name  in  Gu 
22-^  The  site  of  Tibhath  is  unknown,  but  it  was 
ijossibly  on  the  eastern  slopes  of  Anti-Lebanon, 
between  which  range  and  tne  Euphrates  Aram- 
zobah  is  supposed  to  have  been  situated. 

C.  W.  Wilson. 

TIBNI  ('J3B  :  B  Qaii.vel,  A  Qaitvl,  Luc.  Qa^ivfil).— 
After  the  seven  days'  reign  of  ZiMRI  had  ended  in 
his  death  in  the  flames  of  his  palace,  Tibni  disputed 
the  throne  for  four  years  (comjiare  1  K  Iti'*  with 
v.^)  with  (JMltl,  whose  sway  was  acknowledged 
only  after  the  death  of  Tibni  and  his  brother 
Joram.     Our  knowledge  of  Joram  we  owe  to  the 


TIDAL 


TlGlilS 


761 


I.XX,  whose  addition  (in  1  K  16~)  xal  'Iupa.fi  i 
d5c\<piit  oirrou  ^y  n}  Kaipi}  iKtiKfi  no  doubt  preserves 
an  orifjinal  n'.ii  nvD  itk  cnvi  wliitli  lias  dropped  out 
of  the  Ueb.  text. 

TIDAL  (Sj-iB ;  A  OaXyi,  ea\yd\,  Luc.  OapyiK ; 
Tluidal). — Kin^  of  GollM,  who,  alon^'  with  Ariocli 
of  EUasar  and  Amrajihel  of  Shiuur,  followed  his 
suzerain,  Chudorlaonier  of  Elaui,  in  his  campaigns 
in  Palestine  (tin  H'-").  His  name  has  recently 
been  found  *  by  Mr.  Pinches  in  a  cuneiform  tablet 
{Up.  iii.  2.  13)  under  the  form  of  T\id^'hula  in  con- 
nexion with  Eri-Aku  of  Larsa,  Kli:uiiniu[rabi]  of 
Babylon,  and  Kudur-Lajjhghamar  of  Klani.  Tud- 
ghula  is  here  called  the  son  of  Cjazzu[ni].  In 
another  tablet  relating  to  the  same  hi-storical 
events  we  read  :  '  Who  is  Kudur  -  Lagh^hamar, 
the  worker  of  evil  ?  He  has  assembled  the  Umman 
Manda,  he  has  laid  waste  the  people  of  Bel  {i.e. 
the  Babylonians),  and  [has  marched]  at  their  side.' 
Tlie  Umman  Manda,  or  'Barbarian  Hordes,'  were 
the  mountaineers  who  lived  to  the  north  of  Elam, 
and  the  name  given  to  them  is  the  Bab.  equivalent 
of  the  lleb.  Goiim.  It  seems  probable,  therefore, 
that  Tudghula  or  Tid'al  came  trom  the  mountains 
J«.E.  of  Babylonia.  A.  H.  Sayce. 

TIGLATH  -  PILESER  (ijN^rn^jn ;  B  'A\yae<pe\- 
Xd<rap,,  QaXyaOtpeWdffapf  QaXya\(p€Wd(7aPf  A  'A.y\ad- 
(paWdaap,  L\ic.  k)(y\a<pa\d(rap  ;  Assyr.  Tuknlti-1'al- 
Esarra,  '  (my)  trust  is  (Ninip)  the  son  of  E-Sarra,' 
E-Sarra  .signifying  'the  Hou.se  of  Hosts.'  The 
Heb.  spelling  of  the  hrst  part  of  the  name  is 
neculiar,  but  precisely  the  same  spelling  is  found 
in  the  Aram,  inscriptions  of  Zinjerii,  which  are 
contemporaneous  with  the  reign  of  Tiglath-pUeser. 
In  1  C'li  5"-  •"  and  '2  Ch  '28-^  we  lind  the  corrupt 
form  Tilgath-pilneser  [ir;^5'nj(i?  ;  B  BaXya^aydcrap, 
hayyatpdpAaapt  Ba\y<i<p€\\doap  ;  A  Ba.y\ad(poXvd(ja.p  ; 
Luc.  B(y\aOif>a.\daap]). 

The  Tiglalh-pileser  of  OT  is  Tiglath-pileser  III. 
of  the  native  monuments,  whose  original  name 
was  Pulu  (tlie  Pul  of  2  K  15'").  He  usurjied  the 
Assyr.  crown,  the  13th  day  of  lyyar,  B.C.  745,  after 
the  fall  of  the  older  Assyr.  dyna.sty,  and  assumed 
the  name  of  Tighith-pileser  from  that  of  a  famous 
Assyr.  king  and  conqueror  who  had  reigned  four 
centuries  previously.  In  Babylonia,  however,  he 
continued  to  be  known  by  his  original  name  Pulu. 

Tiglath-pileser  III.,  the  founder  of  the  second 
Assyr.  emjiirc,  was  a  man  of  great  ability,  both 
military  and  atlmiiiistiative.  He  introduced  a 
new  system  of  polity,  the  object  of  which  was  to 
weld  the  whole  of  W.  Asia  into  a  single  empire, 
bound  together  by  a  bureaucratic  oigaiiizalion. 
It  was  the  hrst  experiment  in  political  centraliza- 
tion. He  also  est.iblished  a  .standing  army,  w  hich 
he  made,  by  careful  training  and  equi|jment,  an 
irresistible  enuine  of  war.  And  it  was  he  who 
lirst  devi.sed  the  system  of  satrapies  and  hnance 
which  prevailed  in  the  Persian  empire  of  later  daj-s. 

Immediately  after  his  accession  he  marched  into 
Babylonia,  where  he  subdued  the  Aramu'an  tribes 
and  united  the  northern  portion  of  the  country  to 
As.syria.  In  li.C.  744  he  chastised  the  wild  tribes 
on  the  eastern  frontiers  of  his  kingdom,  penetrating 
into  the  remotest  parts  of  Media.  Next  he  had  to 
defend  him.self  against  Sarduris  II.  of  Ararat  and 
his  allies  from  Asia  Minor.  These  he  defeated  in 
a  pitched  battle,  capturing  no  fewer  than  72,950 
soldiers  of  the  enemy  as  well  as  the  city  of  Arpad 
in  N.  Syria.  Here  he  received  tribute  from 
various  princes,  including  Kezin  of  Dama.scus 
and  Hiram  of  Tyre.  Arpad,  however,  revolted 
immediately  afterwards.     In  U.C.  742,  accordingly, 

•  King,  LHIert  o/  UammuralH,  L  (1S98)  p.  lill,  anrl  Itall, 
Light  /rom  the  Emt^  p.  70,  however,  quuatioo  these  Ideotitlco- 
tiooB. 


he  began  the  siege  of  it ;  but  it  did  not  fall  till 
B.C.  740.  In  B.C.  739  the  Assjrians  came  into 
conflict  with  Azariah  of  Judah  (not  Yadi  in  N. 
Syria,  as  has  recently  been  suggested  ;  but  see  art. 
lTzziah,  ajid  A.SSVKIA,  vol.  i.  p.  185"),  whose  allies 
from  HaiRath  were  overthrown,  and  the  19  dis- 
tricts of  Haiuath  placed  under  Assyr.  governors. 
Meanwhile  the  Assyr.  generals  had  suppressed  a 
revolt  among  the  Araiiucan  tribes  in  Babylonia. 
Transportations  of  tlie  conquered  populations  now 
took  place  on  a  large  .scale.  This  was  the  be- 
ginning of  a  policy  which  was  afterwards  more 
tuUy  developed  by  the  Assyr.  and  Bab.  kinj's. 
Tribute  was  ajiain  brought  to  Tiglath-jiileser  by 
the  kings  of  Asia  Elinor,  Syria,  and  Palestine, 
among  them  being  Menahem  of  Samaria  (2  K  15'-'). 

In  B.C.  737  there  was  another  campaign  in  the 
east,  the  Medes  and  other  neighbouring  tribes 
being  overrun,  and  in  736  war  again  broke  out 
with  Ararat.  In  B.C.  735  Ararat  itself  was  in- 
vaded, and,  though  the  capital  Dhuspas  (now  Van) 
resisted  capture,  the  country  round  it  was  ravaged 
to  the  extent  of  450  miles.  Next  year  (B.C.  734) 
Tiglath-pileser  was  summoned  to  the  help  of  Aliaz 
of  Judah,  called  Jchoahaz  in  the  cuneiform  texts, 
who  had  been  attacked  by  Pekah  of  Israel  and 
Kuzin  of  Damascus.  Kezin  was  defeated  in  a 
decisive  battle,  and  fled  to  his  capital,  which  was 
thereupon  closely  invested  by  the  Assyrians. 
With  another  portion  of  his  army  T.  now  ravaged 
16  districts  of  Syria,  captured  Sumahla  (the 
modern  Zinjerii),  and  descended  on  tlie  kingdom 
of  Samaria.  Gilcad  and  Abel-[Betli-Maacah]  were 
annexeil  to  Assjria  (2  K  15^) ;  tribute  was  received 
from  Amnion  and  Moab ;  the  Philistine  cities, 
Ekron,  Ashdod,  and  Ashkelon,  were  conquered,  and 
Gaza  was  plundered.  Edom  was  also  compelled  to 
submit  as  well  as  Samsi,  queen  of  the  Arabs  of 
Saba  or  Sheba.  Various  cities  of  N.  Arabia,  in- 
cluding Tenia  (now  Teiina),  were  taken  at  the  same 
time.  In  B.C.  732  Damascus  fell  at  last,  Kezin 
was  put  to  death,  and  an  Assyr.  -satrap  .appointed 
in  his  place.  After  the  capture  of  Damascus,  T. 
held  a  court  there,  which  was  attended  by  the 
subject  princes,  Kusta.spi  of  Comagenfi,  Urikki 
of  i;^u6,  Sibittib.ojil  of  Gebal,  Eiiiel  of  Hamath, 
I'anammft  of  Samahla,  Tarkhu-lara  of  Gurgum, 
Suluval  of  Milid  (Malutiijch),  Uas-survi  of  Tubal, 
Uskhitti  of  Tuna,  Urpalla  of  Tukhana,  Tu- 
khamiiiu  of  Istunda,  Matan-bjuil  of  Arvad,  Sanibu 
of  Amnion,  Solomon  (Salamanu)of  Moab,  Metintiof 
Ashkelon,  Jehoahaz  (Yalui-khazi)  of  Judah,  ^Caus- 
inalaka  of  Edom,  and  Klianun  (Hanno)  of  Gaza. 
It  was  while  he  was  at  Damascus  that  Ahaz  saw 
the  altar  of  which  he  sent  the  jiattem  to  Jerusalem 
(2  K  16'"").  Soon  afterwards  Uas-survi  of  Tubal 
revolted  :  for  this  the  people  were  lined,  and  a  new 
king  established  over  them.  Metennaof  Tyre  was 
also  forceil  to  become  tributary  to  Assyria,  and  to 
pay  150  talents  of  gold  to  the  Assyrian  exclic(|uer. 

About  B.C.  730  (or  perhaps  733)  Pekah  of 
Samaria  was  murdered  bj'  Hoshea,  whom  T. 
claims  to  have  appointed  to  the  throne.  In  B.C. 
731  the  Assyr.  king  marched  into  Babylonia,  and 
received  an  embassy  from  Meiodach-baladan,  the 
Kald.l  prince  who  ruled  in  the  marshes  at  the 
mouths  of  the  Tigris  and  Eujihiatcs.  Bnt  it  was 
not  until  U.C.  728  that  he  succeeded  in  occupying 
Babylon  and  receiving  the  crown  from  the  hands 
of  Bel,  thereby  making  his  title  to  the  throne 
legitimate,  and  becoming  king  of  Western  Asia 
de  jure.  In  the  following  year,  B.C.  727,  in  the 
e.arly  part  of  the  month  Tebct,  ho  dicil.  He  had 
built  two  palaces — one  at  Nineveh,  the  other  at 
Calah  (now  ^imrud).  A.  H.  Sayck. 

TIGRIS.  — See  Hiddkkel.  The  Tigris  riset 
s  little   south   of   Lake  Uiiljik,  and  flows  south 


762 


TIKVAH 


TIME 


ward  to  Diarbekr.  After  passing  Diarbekr,  it 
receives  the  eastern  Tigris  (which  rises  in  the 
Niphates  mountains)  at  Osraan  Kieui.  Then  it 
flows  througli  narrow  gorges  into  the  plateau  of 
Mesopotamia,  wliore  it  receives  from  the  east  the 
Greater  and  Lesser  Zab,  the  Adhcm  or  Kadanu, 
and  the  Diyaleh  or  Tornadotus.  On  the  E.  bank, 
opposite  Mosul,  were  Nineveh  and  Calali,  a  little 
N.  of  the  juncticm  of  the  Ti'Tis  and  Greater  Zab; 
and  on  the  W.  bank,  N.  of  the  Lesser  Zab,  was 
Assur  (now  Kalah  Sherghat),  the  primitive  capital 
of  Assyria.  The  Tigris  is  about  1150  miles  in 
length,  and  rises  rapidlj'  in  March  and  April  owing 
to  the  melting  of  the  snows,  falling  again  after  the 
middle  of  May.  A.  H.  Sayce. 

TIKVAH  (niija).— 1.  The  father-in-law  of  HuLDAH 
the  prophetess,  2  K  22"  (B  OeKKouai),  A  OcKKoui, 
Luc.  SeKovi),  called  in  2  Ch  34-  Tokhath  (Kere 
nnpij,  Kcth.  nnpin  ;  B  Ka9ovd\,  A  ©a/coi;d9,  Luc.  QeKui). 
2.  The  father  of  Jaiizeiah,  a  eontemporarv  of 
Ezra,  Ezr  10'=  (B  'EUeii,  A  eeKov4),  called  in  1  Es  9" 
Thocanus. 

TILE,  TILING  (133^,  k^/wmos)-— In  Ezk  4'  'tile' 
is  tlie  rendering  of  nj3,,  which  is  elsewhere  tr. 
'  brick '  (LXX  ttXMos).    See  Brick. 

In  Lk  5",  in  the  account  of  the  healing  of  the  para- 
lytic at  Capernaum,  the  sufferer  is  said  to  have  been 
let  down  Sia  rCiv  Kepafiuv  (AV  '  through  the  tiling,' 
RV  'through  the  tiles').  The  parallel  passage  (Mk 
2')  is  more  detailed  in  its  expressions  (6.Tre(rTiya(rai' 
TT^v  ar4yriv  .  .  .  Kal  i^opv^avres),  and  a  dithculty  has 
been  felt  in  reconciling  these  with  Luke's  phrase. 
The  roofs  of  Oriental  houses  are  usually  forme<l  by 
laying  tree  trunks  with  the  branches  and  twigs  from 
wall  to  wall.  Above  these  is  a  layer  of  earth  about 
a  foot  thick,  and  over  this  is  spread  a  paste  of  clay 
and  straw,  which  hardens  in  the  sun  and  renders 
the  roof  impervious  to  rain.  This  upper  layer 
needs  to  be  renewed  at  the  beginning  of  the  winter 
season  (Nowack,  Heb.  Arch.  i.  140  ;  Benzinger,  Hcb. 
Arch.  116).  Mark's  account  seems  to  suggest  the 
breaking-up  of  such  a  roof  as  this,  while  Luke's 
expression  does  not,  and  various  explanations  of 
the  latter  have  been  attempted.  The  idea  of  a 
door  or  trap  in  the  roof  does  not  fit  either  nan-a- 
tive.  It  has  been  suggested  that  SA  rCiv  Kepdiiuv 
is  to  be  understood  in  the  general  sense  of  'through 
the  roof,'  though,  if  taken  literally,  the  words  wovSd 
be  more  applicable  to  Greek  and  Roman  houses 
than  to  those  of  Palestine.  Another  explanation 
is  that  the  court  of  the  house  was  partly  roofed 
over  but  had  an  opening  above  the  centre,  which 
was  covered  in  wet  weather  by  tUes,  which  could 
be  easily  removed  (so  Godet,  following  Delitzsch, 
Ein  Tag  in  Cnpernaum,  44-46).  The  best  view, 
however,  is  that  of  Tristram  (Eastern  Customs  in 
Bible  Lands,  34,  35),  who  states  that  ordinary 
Galitean  houses  of  tlie  present  day  have  a  court 
separated  from  the  street  by  a  wall  on  one  side, 
while  on  the  other  three  sides  it  is  surrounded  by 
apartments  opening  into  it.  The  roofs  of  these 
apartments  are  always  of  earth  and  lime,  firmly 
pressed  down  and  whitewashed.  'J'hc  roof  may  be 
supported  by  pillars  on  the  side  next  the  court, 
from  which  the  rooms  may  be  sei)arated  only  by 
movable  curtains.  From  the  roof  proper,  how  ever, 
eaves  stretch  over  the  court  for  six  feet  or  more. 
These  are  supported  on  light  rafters,  and  are  covered 
with  matting  or  with  shingles  (wooden  tiles)  lightly 
tacked  to^etlier.  The  principal  apartment  is  on 
the  side  of  the  court  away  from  the  street.  In  the 
case  before  us  both  this  and  the  court  itself  would 
be  full  of  people,  and  Jesus,  in  order  to  be  heard  l)y 
all,  would  be  standin"  at  the  outer  margin  of  the 
room.  Access  could  De  gained  to  the  roof  hy  an 
outside  stairway,  and  if  the  covering  of  the  eaves 


were  removed,  as  it  could  easily  be,  the  paralytic 
could  be  let  down  from  the  edge  of  the  roof  proper 
to  the  very  spot  where  Jesus  was.  The  expressions 
in  Mark,  though  applicable  to  the  breaking  through 
of  an  earthen  roof,  describe  this  proceeding  equally 
well.  James  Patrick. 

TILGATH-PILNESER.— SeeTlGLATH-PlLESER. 

TILON  (^ere  jiS-B,  Keth.  pVm  ;  B  'Ivijjp,  A  QCKiir, 
Luc.  0uAei/i). — A  son  of  Shimon,  1  Ch  4-". 

TIMiEUS,  only  Mk  10«.— Father  of  the  blind 
beggar  Bartim^us  (vol.  i.  p.  248).  If  the  name  be 
Greek,  it  must  be  written  Ti/xaios,  and  thus  WH 
write  even  the  second  name  Ba/jri^iaios  ;  if  it  be 
Semitic,  like  most  names  in  -aios  in  the  NT,  it 
must  be  Ti/iatos,  like  Za^'xcttos,  Ba/j^oXo/iatos,  etc. 
Both  suppositions  have  their  difficulties.  Again, 
'  the  son  of  Timseus '  (ulis  Ti^aiou)  seems  a  mere 
translation  of  BapTi/taios.  Ecclesiastical  tradition 
gives  to  the  name  the  meaning  '  blind '  (see 
Unomastica  sacra,  ed.  Lagarde,  176,  35,  Bapniioios 
vl&s  Tvip\6s ;  66,  10  (Jerome)  :  Barsemia  filiua 
ciecus,  quod  et  ipsum  quidam  corrupte  Barti- 
maium  legunt).*  Ng?,  k;-d  means  '  blind  '  ;  but  how 
are  we  to  get  from  seme  to  timait  Jastrow  (Dic- 
tionary, p.  532 ;  simUarly,  Krauss,  Lehmoorter) 
mentions  from  l;foh.  rabba  to  Ec  9'  'i-i  r^•^2  i'lit'in-  'i 
•D-a,  but  Yalk.  Koh.  979  has  only  ■n'jcc  i,  and  with 
Dalman,  Aramaisch  ■  neuhcbrdisches  Worterbiwh, 
p.  162,  we  must  perhaps  read  'DV  =  Simeon.  The 
Thesaurus  Syriacus  (4S6,  1462)  mentions  a  place 
'D'p  r'3.  The  Syriac  'V^ersions,  including  the  Arabic 
■Patian,  Syrus  Sinaiticus,  and  the  Palestinian  Syriao 
(Land,  Anecdota  Syriaca,  iv.  141),  read  Tirnai  bar 
Timai,  the  Egyptian  CatencB  as  published  by 
Lagarde  (1886,  p.  101),  BAPTIMEXUC  IIcoHPI 
^■TIMENOC.  Origen  connected  the  name  with 
tj/itJ  (6  TTji  Tt/i^s  itrwvvp^o^) ;  Strauss  thought  of 
iveTlp.(i)v  in  v.''*  ;  others  of  y^KOa  '  unclean  '  ;  Neu- 
bauer  (Studia  Biblica,  i.  57)  would  spell  it  »i?'0, 
against  the  general  rule  that  t  =  b.  The  ety- 
mology is  still  obscure,  and  so  is  the  relation  of 
the  account  of  Mark  to  that  of  Luke  and  Matthew. 
See  Schmiedel,  Em:.  Bibl.  i.  489-491  ;  Nestle,  Mar- 
ainalien,  1893,  pp.  83-92  ;  art.  Bartim.«US  in  voL 
I.  p.  248.  Eb.  Nestle. 

TIMBREL.— See  Tabret. 

TIME.— i.  Eras.— The  Bible  offers  insufficient 
data  for  confident  generalizations  regarding  the 
methods  employed  at  various  periods  for  measur- 
ing and  indicating  the  passage  of  time.  We 
should  naturally  expect  considerable  changes  in 
these  methods  as  tlie  Israelites  passed  through 
various  phases  of  civilization  and  modes  of  living. 
The  literary  records,  however,  do  not  completely 
reflect  all  these  modified  conditions,  and  just  as 
Josephus  translates  the  current  Jewish  dates  of 
his  age  into  their  Macedonian  equivalents,  so 
earlier  writers  would  probably  date  past  events  in 
accordance  with  their  own  rather  than  with  the 
ancient  systems  of  the  calendar.  Until  the  2nd 
cent.  B.C.  we  know  of  no  fixed  era  from  which 
events  were  dated  by  the  Israelites.  The  books  of 
the  M.accabees  show  us  the  Seleucidean  era  (be- 
ginning B.C.  312)  in  full  force.  This  era  (minyan 
Yevanim  '  numbering  of  the  Greeks,'  or  minyan 
shetaroth  '  numbering  of  documents')  was  the  first 
to  be  adopted  and  the  last  to  be  rejected  by  the 
Jews  ;  it  survived  among  the  Egyptian  Jews  till 
the  IGLli  cent.  A.D.  The  ordinary  Seleucid  era 
began  with  the  autumn  of  the  year  B.C.  312;  but 
Schiirer  (IIJP  I.   i.    p.   37)   maintains    that    the 

*  Od  the  Syriac  lexicograpbera  (Bar  All,  Bar  Balilul)  get 
Nestle,  MaTginaXieii,  p.  b7. 


authors  of  the  books  of  the  ^laccabees  reckon  the 
ytiir  from  the  spring   season,  though   later  Jews 
counted  from  the  autumn  (Tishri).     AVellhausen 
rejucts  Schiirer's  theory  {IJG*  25$).      Several  of 
the  Hellenistic  cities  founded  along  the  seacoast 
of  Juda»a  and  in  the  north  had  eras  of  their  own 
in  the  Greek  period  (after  Alexander  the  Great), 
but  the  onlj-  exact  Jewish  parallel  is  found  in  the 
time  of  Simon   the  Maccabee  (143-'2  B.C.).      '  In 
the  hundred  and  seventieth  j-ear  (of  the  Seleuci- 
dean  era)  was  the  yoke  of  the  heatlien  taken  away  | 
from  Israel.     And  the  people   be^'an   to  write  in 
their  instruments  and  contracts,  "  In  the  first  year 
of  Simon  the  great  high  priest  and  captain  and 
leader  of  the  Jews"  '  (I  Mac  Hi'").     No  documents 
so  dated  are  extant,  but  it  has  been  doubtfully 
conjectured   [but  see   art.   Money  in  vol.  iii.   p.  ] 
42411'.]  that  some  silver  coins  bearing  the   vear  j 
numbers  1,  2,  3,  4,  and  5,  and  the  inscription  c-Vm-  j 
np^F,  etc.,  refer  to  this  era.    That  the  era  of  Simon 
■wa.s  of  short  duration  is  certain  ;  even  in  1  Mac. 
(14^)  it  is  only  employed  side  by  side  with  the  ! 
more  permanently  used  Selucidean  epoch. 

The  prevalent  method  of  dating  events  both  in 
OT  and  NT  is  by  regnal  years  of  monarchs,  or  by 
synchronism  with  other  events  [see  CmiOXOLOGY]. 
1  he  Kxodus  from  Eg\  pt  was  sometimes  taken  as 
an  era(l  K  6>,  cf.  Ex  19',  Nu  33^^);  and  Ezekiel 
(1')  perhaps  turns  the  refonnation  of  Josiah  (B.C. 
Ui^-l)  to  this  purpose.  It  is  unlikely  that  the 
'thirtieth  year'  refers  to  Ezekiel's  own  age  [but 
see  Uudde  in  Expos.  Times,  Oct.  I'JOO,  p.  3911'.,  and 
Aug.  I'JOl,  p.  52of.],  though  the  patriarchal  dates 
are  often  collated  with  the  ages  of  various  char- 
acters. At  the  beginning  of  the  Christian  era, 
the  Jews  were  compelled  to  adopt  the  j-ear  of  the 
Homan  emperors  as  their  norm  ((!raetz.  History 
of  the  Jew,  Eng.  tr.  ii.  1.S4).  The  erection  of 
Solomon's  temple  (1  K  9'"),  the  commencement  of 
the  Egjptian  entanglement  (Gn  15'^),  the  Baby- 
lonian Exile  (Ezk  33-'  40'),  and  such  natural 
phenomena  as  a  remarkable  earthquake  ('  two 
years  before  the  ea,rtli<iuake,'  Am  1'),  were  also  in 
a  minor  degree  used  as  eras.  Soon  after  the  time 
t<  Christ,  the  Jews  must  have  devised  a  method  of 
counting  by  anno  mundi,  for  the  Talmud  assumes 
that  something  like  4u00  years  separated  the 
destruction  of  the  temple  from  the  Creation.  The 
dating  by  A.M.  first  occurs  in  the  Seder  Ilndoroth, 
a  work  attributed  to  Jose  ben  Chalafta.  The 
Jewish  system  ditt'ers  from  the  Dionj'sian  era  (6th 
cent.  A.D. ),  and,  while  Ussher  dates  tlie  Christian 
era  as  4UU4  a.m.,  the  current  Jewish  numbering 
assigns  the  year  3760  A.M.  to  the  beginning  of  that 
era.  Thus  the  Jewish  year  beginning  September 
1901  is  .^UU'2  A.M.  Jews  in  later  times  occasionally 
used  the  Mohammedan  era,  and  dated  from  the 
Hegira.  There  is  no  indication  whatever  that  the 
Jews  ever  turned  the  jubilee  period  to  calendar  use 
in  the  .same  manner  in  which  the  Olympiads  were 
employed.  They  nmy,  however,  have  niiide  use  of 
the  idea  of  the  dor  or  'generation.' 

ii.  The  Year. — In  tlie  main,  the  Jewish  year 
was  lunar,  with  corrections  designed  to  bring 
about  a  more  or  less  exact  correspondence  with 
the  solar  .seasons.  It  seems  to  have  been  the  view 
of  the  writer  of  the  first  report  of  the  Flood  (P) 
that  the  oldest  Hebrew  year  was  a  pnre  lunar 
year,  containing  12  lunar  months  and  354  days. 
In  Gn  7"  (cf.  8'^)  the  Flood  is  said  to  have  lasted 
from  the  17th  of  the  2iid  month  in  one  year  to  the 
27tli  of  the  2nd  month  in  the  next  year,  or  I  year 
and  II  days.  This  reckoning,  as  Benzinger  sug- 
gests (Ucb.  Arch.  p.  198),  arose  through  the  trans- 
laliim  of  a  solar  year  into  its  lunar  equivalent. 
The  actual  duration  of  the  Flood  was  in  the 
general  Semitic  tradition  a  year,  meaning  a  solar 
year  of  365  days.     '  In  the  presupposition  that  the 


oldest  ages  had  a  pure  moon  year,  P,  when  dating 
the  Flood,  uses  such  a  year  as  the  basis,  and  shows 
his  archa'ological  knowledge  and  his  pretended 
historical  exactitude  by  not  giving  the  round 
figure  a  year,  but  he  gives  the  right  total  in  au 
inferential  manner.'  It  may,  however,  well  ba 
that  we  have  here  a  genume  tradition  of  an 
ancient  pure  lunar  year ;  moreover,  even  when 
solar  corrections  were  made,  some  Jewish  years 
were  more  or  less  purely  lunar.  From  another 
factor  in  the  Flood  narrative,  the  150  days,  which 
amounted  to  5  months,  a  year  of  12  x  30  =  300  days 
has  been  inferred  (Schwarz,  Dcr  Judisclie  KnUnder, 
p.  7).  So  much  is  certain,  that  in  the  historical 
time  the  Hebrew  year  was  solar,  though  the 
months  were  lunar.  The  Calendar  must  have 
been  roughly  congruous  with  the  cycle  of  natural 
life.  The  old  Arabs  had  a  sun-year  of  365  days 
before  Mohammed  converted  it  into  the  pure  lunar 
year  of  354  days,  which  still  prevails. 

The  fact  that  solar  considerations  must  early 
have  afl'ected  the  Hebrew  Calendar  is  obvious  from 
the  cycle  of  feasts  which  on  the  one  hand  fell  in 
definitely  fixed  lunar  months,  and  on  the  other 
hand  coincided  with  equally  definite  seasons  of  the 
solar  year.  In  the  pure  lunar  3'ear,  Passover  would, 
in  a  period  of  about  34  years,  make  the  round  of 
all  the  four  seasons  (Schwarz,  p.  9).  This  was 
an  impossibility  in  the  Jewish  Calendar.  How 
the  correction  was  eftected  we  have  no  means  of 
discovering.  The  lunar  character  of  the  Calendar 
must  have  prevented  tlie  intercalation  of  an  odd 
10  or  11  ilaj's  annually  (as  Lewisolm  suggests, 
Gcsr-h.  und  Syst.  d,  K.  p.  6),  yet  we  are  nowhere 
told  of  an  intercalary  month,  unless  the' law  as  to 
the  deferred  Passover  (Nu  9'°)  be  held  to  be  some 
indication  of  it.  The  Talmud  (Snnhcd.  \2n) 
proves  the  biblical  knowledge  of  the  intercalary 
month  from  1  K  4',  but  the  argument  is  ineliective. 
On  the  other  hand,  1  Cli  27,  where  arrangements 
for  the  succession  of  roj-al  officers  are  only  made  for 
12  months,  cannot  bo  held  to  jjrove  the  total 
ignorance  of  intercalation  of  a  thirteenth  month. 
The  knowledge  of  this  method  was  very  ancient  in 
Babj-lon,  an  intercalated  Elul  being  older  than 
the  intercalated  Adar.  The  latter,  being  sacred 
to  Ashur,  must  have  been  the  work  of  astronomers 
standing  under  Assyrian  authority  (Jastrow,  Rel. 
of  Babylonia  and  Assyria,  p.  463). 

The  Babylonian  jear  seems  to  have  consisted 
of  12  lunar  months  of  30  days  each,  intercalary 
months  being  added  by  the  priests  when  neces.sary 
(\V.  Muss-Arnolt,  'The  Names  of  the  Assyro- 
Babylonian  Months  and  their  Regents,'  in  JBL 
vol.  xi.  p.  72  f.).  In  later  times,  according  to 
Strassmaier  and  Epping  {Astronomisches  aiit 
Babylon),  months  of  30  days  alternated  with 
months  of  29  days  (Nisan,  Tammuz,  Elul,  Tishri, 
Kislev,  Shebat,  and  Adar  had  30  days,  while  the 
ethers  had  only  29).  Muss-Arnolt  expresses  him- 
self as  uncertain  whether  the  intercalary  months 
were  fixed,  or  were  added  whenever  the  priestly 
directors  of  the  Calendar  discovered  that  the  dis- 
agreement between  it  and  the  true  year  had 
become  serious.  We  may  fairly  assume  that  the 
latter  wa.s  the  method  in  am  lent  Israel,  at  all 
events  till  well  into  the  jiost-exilic  period.  With- 
out any  definite  rules  a  month  was  probably 
intercalated  on  occasion,  when  the  discrepancy 
was  sulficiently  marked  (Schwarz,  p.  14)  to  render 
correction  imperative.  Some  have  sought  to  fin<l 
the  key  to  the  ancient  intercalations  in  the  jubilee 
perio<i8  (Zuckermann,  Ucher  Subbatjuhrryldus  und 
Jobcl/ieriodc  ;  Schwarz,  pp.  10-12),  with  18  or  19 
intercalary  months  inserted  in  every  49  or  50  years. 
All  such  exact  calculations,  including  tho.so  ba:ied 
on  eras  of  8  or  84  years,  and  more  particularly  on 
the  Metonic  cycle  of  19  years,  certainly  belong  tc 


the  post  -  Christian  period.  Jewish  tradition  is 
very  consistent  in  its  evidence  that  the  old  method 
of  empiric  intercalation  both  of  a  monthly  daj-  and 
a  yearly  month  prevailed  fur  many  centuries  after 
Christ  (see  New  Moon).  Schiirer  (Appendix  iii.  to 
Division  i.  vol.  ii. )  expounds  tlie  generally  accepted 
view  of  Jewish  scholars  as  against  Wieseler  (see, 
however,  Chronology).  Throughout  the  Middle 
Ages  the  empiric  method  partially  held  its  ground. 
Nevertheless,  calculation  (of  which  we  have  early 
indications  in  Enoch  72  ff.)  must  have  much  aided 
observation,  and  we  read  of  family  traditions 
in  the  case  of  Gamaliel  {liosh  Ha-shana  '25a),  and 
the  mean  duration  of  the  lunar  month  (about  21).^ 
days)  must  have  been  known  long  before  the 
destruction  of  the  temple  (see  the  evidence  for  this 
in  Schwarz,  p.  19).  IJy  the  middle  of  the  2nd 
cent.  A.D.  the  calculated  calendar  was  on  the  way 
to  acceptance  (Smihed.  12a),  but  it  was  not  fully 
adopted  till  the  4th  cent,  under  Hillel  II.  In  the 
inter\ening  period  the  proclamation  of  New  Moon 
and  of  the  intercalary  months  was  still  dependent 
on  the  evidence  of  eye-witnesses  as  to  the  re- 
appearance of  the  moon  on  the  one  hand,  and 
the  relation  of  the  lunar  months  to  the  solar 
seasons  on  the  other.  But  astronomical  calcula- 
tion was  certainly  utilized  as  well,  and,  by  ob- 
serving 2  days'  new  moon  in  places  distant  from 
the  Patriarchate,  some  of  the  difficulties  of  the 
Diaspora  were  removed.  (See  on  this  and  on  other 
points  of  the  Rabbinic  calendar,  Zuckermann, 
Material,  zur  Ent.  dir  altjiid.  Zeitrechnung). 
The  fixing  of  the  Day  of  Atonement  was,  how- 
ever, a  perennial  difficulty  until  a  calculated 
calendar  %\=as  finally  adopted,  based  on  the  Aletonic 
cycle  with  variations  which  do  not  belong  to  the 
Bcope  of  the  present  article. 

Beginning  of  the  Year. — 'The  Hebrew  year  had 
begun  in  the  autumn  with  the  month  of  Sep- 
tember ;  but  side  by  side  with  this  West-Semitic 
calendar  there  had  also  been  in  use  in  Palestine 
another  calendar,  that  of  Babylonia,  according  to 
\\hich  the  year  began  with  Nisan  or  March.  It 
was  Mie  Babylonian  Calendar  which  was  now 
introduced  for  ritual  purposes.  While  the  civil 
year  still  began  in  the  autumn,  it  was  ordained 
that  the  sacred  year  should  begin  in  the  spring. 
The  sacred  year  was  detennined  by  the  annual 
festivals,  and  the  first  of  these  festivals  was  hence- 
forth to  be  the  Passover.  The  beginning  of  the 
new  year  was  henceforth  fixed  by  the  Passover 
moon '  (Sayce,  EHH  p.  178).  According  to  Dill- 
mann  {Monatsbericlite,  Societas  Regia Seientiarum, 
Berlin,  ISSl)  both  the  autumn  and  the  spring  new 
years  are  pre-exilic.  The  autumn  era  was,  he  holds, 
an  economic  rather  than  a  calendar  year  ;  but,  as 
Nowack  well  remarks,  to  an  agricultural  people 
the  economic  year  must  have  coincided  with  the 
calendar  year.  That  at  all  events  an  economic 
year  began  in  the  autumn  is  clear  from  such 
phrases  as  n;;n  nx>7,  niijri  n;!pn  ('  the  end  of  the 
year,'  Ex  23"  34--,  cf.  I  S  20)  used  in  describing 
the  autumn  harvest  festival.  The  narrative  of  the 
Flood  places  the  commencement  on  the  17th  of  the 
2nd  month,  which  on  an  autumn  reckoning  would 
correspond  with  the  rainy  season.  The  sabbatical 
year  began  in  autumn  (Lv  25°),  though  it  was  not 
at  the  beginning  of  a  calendar  year  (being  on  the 
10th  of  the  month).  The  royal  years  also  at  one 
time  began  in  the  autumn,  and  the  synchronism 
of  the  Jewish  events  with  the  regnal  year  of 
Nebuchadnezzar  in  Jeremiah  (46^)  seems  to  sup- 
port the  same  conclusion.  Dillmann  at  all  events 
mfers  that  the  second  half  of  the  Jewish  roval 
year  correspondeil  with  the  first  half  of  the  Baby- 
lonian royal  year  (the  fourth  year  of  Jehoiakim 
corresponds  both  to  the  first  year  of  Nebuchad- 
nezzar, Jer  25',  and  to  the  twenty-first  of  his  pre- 


decessor Nabopolasar,  in  which  the  battle  ol 
Carchemish  was  fought). 

But  besides  the  autumn  year  a  spring  era  seems 
abo  to  have  been  pre-exUic.  The  use  of  the  term 
.i:;n  njsc'n  for  the  resumption  of  royal  campaigns 
(2  S  111,  j  K  2(F-^-  =«,  2  Ch  SG'")  points  to  a  spring 
era.  So  also  does  the  order  of  the  feasts.  In  the 
oldest  form  (Ex  23'-'"'),  as  well  as  in  J  (Ex  34'«-2-), 
and  Dent.  (16'"),  the  cycle  begins  with  Passover 
and  ends  with  Tabernacles.  A  Babylonian  in- 
Huence,  to  which  was,  however,  due  the  intro- 
duction of  the  new  names  for  the  months,  need 
not  therefore  be  sought  for  this  fixing  of  the  be- 
ginning of  the  year  in  the  spring  (Ex  12-,  and  in 
Priestly  Code  throughout),  but  the  period  of  the 
Exile  no  doubt  did  mark  the  completion  of  the 
change  from  the  autumnal  to  the  vernal  equinox. 
By  this  arrangement  the  order  of  the  months 
began  in  Nisan,  but  the  succession  of  years  began 
in  Tishri.  Josephus  is  clearly  accurate  when  he 
says  (Ant.  I.  iii.  3)  :  '  Moses  appointed  that  Nisan, 
which  is  the  same  with  Xanthicus,  should  be  the 
first  month  for  their  festivals,  because  he  brought 
them  out  of  Egypt  in  that  month  :  so  that  this 
month  began  the  year,  as  to  all  the  solemnities 
they  observed  to  the  honour  of  God — although  he 
preserved  the  original  order  of  the  months  as  to 
selling  and  buying  and  other  ordinaiy  afiairs.' 
The  Mishna  {Bosh  Hasliana  i.  1)  enumerates 
four  new  years — Nisan  (for  kings  and  the  cycle  of 
feasts),  Eiul  (for  the  tithes  of  cattle),  Tishri  (for 
years,  as  at  present  in  the  Jewish  Calendar,  sab- 
batical years  and  juhUees,  and  other  agricultural 
purpo.ses),  Shebat  (for  trees).  '  During  the  Exile,' 
says  Benzinger,  '  the  new  year  seems  to  have  bepn 
calculated  not  on  the  first  but  on  the  10th  of  tht 
7th  month  (Lv  25',  Ezk  40),  only  later  was  the 
great  Atonement  festival  fixed  on  this  day.'  But 
it  may  be  doubted  whether  the  10th  of  the  7th 
month  was  ever  the  beginning  of  a  calendar  year. 
But  the  Ist  of  Tishri  with  its  rite  of  blowing  the 
s/iiphdr  (see  Trumpet),  and  its  later  spiritual 
associations  as  a  day  of  penitence,  acquired  great 
importance  in  the  Jewish  Calendar.  (On  the 
history  of  the  New  Year  Liturgy  see  Friedmann 
iaJQIi,  vol.  i.  p.  62  f.). 

DivisioTis  of  the  Year.  —  The  regular  Hebrew 
word  for  'year'  is  nj;-  (Assyr.  sanu  'to  change,' 
whence  sattu  'year').  In  Daniel  I~*  means  both 
an  indefinite  period  of  time  (like  the  Heb.  m;),  and 
more  definitely  a  year  (Dn  4  and  7^).  Buhl  com- 
pares a  simUar  definition  of  meaning  in  the  case  of 
the  word  XP'^""'.  w'hich  in  new  Greek  signifies 
'year.'  In  Daniel,  again  (12'),  we  meet  with  a  use 
ot  nyto  for  '  year,'  though  elsewhere  the  word  more 
generally  denotes  an  appointed  or  recurrent  period 
such  as  the  feast  (exclusive  of  the  Salibath  and 
New  Moon).  Another  word  ]=i,  which  occurs  only 
in  late  Hebrew  (Ec  3',  Neh  2")  as  a  generic  term 
for  'time,'  had  already  acquired  in  canonical 
Hebrew  (Est  9-''-")  the  sense  of  season  or  festival, 
which  it  conveyed  in  Rabbinic  Hebrew.*  The 
ordinary  seasons  of  the  year  were  also  distin- 
guished in  Hebrew  as  f  :p  '  summer '  and  I'll 
'autumn  and  winter.'  August  is  usually  the 
warmest  month,  Eehruary  the  coldest  in  Juda?a. 
The  l"in  was  further  divided  into  two  parts  (Dt 
11'*)  by  the  .tjv  'earlier  rain'  (October)  and  snp)r) 
'  the  later  rain  '  (spring  equinox).  Generic  tenns 
for  the  dillerences  of  temperature  were  i?  'cold' 
(Gn  8^)  and  on  'heat'  {ib.).  The  sowing  period 
was  known  as  jn;  (ib.),  the  harvest-time  as  Tyjj 
(mid-April  till  mid-June,  the  barley  and  wheat- 
harvest  being  meant). 

•The  Babylonian  year  was  divided  into  ret  mtti  'begin- 
ning ot  the  year,'  mitU  satli  '  the  middle  ol  the  year,'  ana 
kit  salti  'end  ol  the  year.'  Two  of  the  terms  are  paralleled 
in  Hebrew 


iii.  Months. — The  Hebrew  months  have  always 
been  lunar,  and  extended  from  one  now  moon  to 
anollier.  The  oldest  Semitic  word  for  month  was 
arc/iu  (nn;),  which  properly  signilies  the  '  beginning; 
of  the  month'  (Muss-Arnolt,  p.  73.  Much  of  the 
foUowinfc  information  is  derived  from  this  excel- 
lent antlioritv).  The  same  word  appears  in  Ara- 
ma-an  (Kzr  6",  Dn  4*),  Phoenician,  and  Ethiopic. 
In  Hebrew  the  word  is  common  in  the  pre-exUic 
passages,  but  it  became  entirely  superseded  by  aih. 
This  last  word,  properly  '  new-moon '  (which  see), 
is  employed  (like  the  Assyrian  uldixu)  only  for  the 
beginninj;  of  the  month,  uj'  other  Semitic  peoples  ; 
its  u.se  for  '  month '  was  an  innovation  of  the 
Israelites. 

There  are  three  sets  of  terms  to  distinguish 
the  biblical  months — («)  old  (Canaanite)  names,  (6) 
numbers,  and  (c)  the  Babylonian  names. 

(a)  Of  the  first  class  only  four  have  survived : 
these  names  are  all  derived  from  climatic  and 
economic  conditions.  Similarly,  the  earliest 
epithets  of  the  months  among  the  IJabj'Ionians 
are  connected  with  agriculture  and  the  pastoral 
life. 

Abib  (3';!<  month  of  the  ripening  ears,  Ex  IS* 
etc.),  subsequently  the  1st  month. 

Ziv  (II  month  of  flowers,  1  K  6'),  subsequently 
t)ie  '2nd  month. 

Ethanim    (C-J.-N    month    of    perennial    streams, 
1  K  8-),  sub.sequeatly  the  7th  month. 

Bui  ('?i:  rain  month,  1  K  6^),  subsequently  the 
8th  month. 
The  last  two  names  also  occur  in  Phoenician  in- 
scriptions ;  Etlmnim  having  been  found  in  Cyprus 
(niiildle  of  4tli  cent.  B.C.)  and  lUd  in  Sidon  (4tli 
cent.  B.C.  ;  see  Driver  in  HoLjarth's  Authority  and 
Ari/ifBoliif/i/,  pp.  137,  13S,  and  Buhl-Ge.senius,  s.v.). 

(6)  In  ihu  time  of  the  Exile  these  old  Canaanite 
names  were  dropped,  and  the  months  were  dis- 
tinguislied  by  numerals,  as  in  parts  of  Jeremiah, 
Ezekiel,  and  Kings  (in  the  latter  the  old  names 
are  explained  by  numbers,  IK  6'-^  8-'),  lastlj'  in 
Ha"gai  (1'  2')  and  Zecliariah  (1'  7').  See  Nowack, 
JleB.  Arc/iaologie,  i.  p.  2i7. 

((■)  Prom  the  ExUe  the  new  I5al)ylonian  names 
begin  to  lind  a  delinite  place  in  tlie  Hebrew 
Calendar.  The  proofs  for  tlie  Babylonian  origin 
of  these  names  may  be  found  in  Muss-Arnolt,  in 
Schrader,  COT  {n.  69).  Cf.  Schiirer,  Appendix  iii. 
Ol  the  twelve  names  only  seven  occur  in  Scripture, 
but  the  whole  twelve  ap[)ear  in  the  Meriillnlh 
Tnanith,  which  in  its  original  form  dates  before 
the  Christian  era. 

(1)  Nisan  ]<}•},  HovSiitis,  Xanthicus,  March-April. 

The  En^'Ush  equivalents  are  inexact :  Nisan  mostly  corre- 
fpond."*  to  part  of  March  and  part  of  April.  Nisan  occurs  in 
Nth  ii,  Eat  S'.  The  Or.  form  N/ri.  (Ni/«-«l.])  occurs  in  1  Et  0«, 
Ad.  r.8t  l*.  and  often  in  Joi^phus.  The  .Macedonian  .\an- 
Ihu-iu  ia  found  in  2  .Mac  113US3.  aa.  The  first  month  in  the 
BalA'lonian  ^ear  is  Ni-ita.a(7i)-nu,  from  n««u  (Ueb.  VS3)  to 
*  move,'  or  'start.'  It  is  the  openin;^  month  of  the  ccclusi- 
ai«lical  vear.  Thut  tlie  vernal  equinox  occurred  in  Nisan  is 
•Itcsted  by  Josephus  (Ant.  I.  x.  5)  and  also  in  cuneiform 
lit<.'r.ilure  (Muss-Arnolt,  p.  77).  Nisan  corresponded  to  the  llrst 
£odi;i'-al  8ii,'n  (Aries)  in  which  the  vernal  e<iuinox  fell.  That 
Jo8' phus  frequently  uses  the  .Macedonian  names  as  eciuivalent 
lo  the  Heh..llal».  does  not  imply  that  he  thought  that  the  two 
•eries  ot  months  began  on  idenlical  days.* 

('2)  lyyar  tx,  'kpreinlaios,  April-May. 

Not  named  in  Scripture,  but  found  in  Mlshns,  Rogh 
HiiKlaina  i.  3;  Jos.  Ant.  vni.  iii.  1  ("la/*),  11  i/pinnnrst .  tl 
(H.a^);  Bab.  o-a-ru.  Derivation  uncertam  ;  perhaps  connected 
witli  liK  •  to  t)e  bright '  (so  iJelitzsch),  or  TK  '  to  send  forth, 
open,  germinate,' whence  arc  '  flower  '  (ho  M\nw-AriMilt).  This 
would  make  the  meaning  eoiiivaleiit  to  Zia  and  April  {ajterirf). 
The  Megillath  Ta'anilli  idtntilles  lyyar  with  the  'ind  monlb 
mentioned  in  1  Moo  1S°1. 

•The  DIoscorlnthlusot  2  Msc  II"  is  quit*  obscure  (cf.  note 
In  ItVm).  It  is  hareiv  probable  that  the  author  wrote  Dion- 
eunuitha  reading  of  U.L.),  the  name  of  the  third  Cretan  montli 
(see  Kuiphausen  s  note  Id  KauUsch's  Apokr.  ad  loc.). 


TIME 
(3)  Sivan  i^p,  Aalo-toy,  May-June. 


i'Gc 


Est  89  ;  Mishna,  Shekalim  iii.  1,  etc.  Gr.  "Steuit  (Bar  1»).  also 
2(jij:-aE>.  ;  Bab.  gi'ma(n)-nu,  pronounced  later  ti-vanu.  Uciilz^b 
{Uet/rtw  and  Assj/rian,  p.  16)  derives  from  tamu  *  to  appoint' 
(D*C),  Ilaupt  from  asamu  *  to  mark.' 

(4)  Tammoz  nee,  UdyefioSf  June-July. 

The  word  but  not  the  month  mentioned  in  Bible  (Kzk  8**)k 
Mishna,  Tdanith  iv.  6  ;  Bub.  dxt-uzu.     LXX  bad  Uxu^i^. 

(5)  Ab  3K,  Ayos,  July-Au<^8t. 

Not  mentioned  in  Bible.  Mishna,  Pcsachim  iv.  6,  etc. ;  Bab. 
a-hu',  Jo8.  Ant.  iv.  iv.  7,  'A;3a  [Niese  reads  2a,5a].  Delitzsch 
derives  (rom  Assyr.  abxt  'hostile'  (from  excessive  heat  of 
month),  Uaupt  from  ctbe  *  bulrushes*  (cf.  Job  9'»  n:K),  the 
season  in  which  bulrushes  were  cut  for  building  purposes. 
This,  with  two  other  months,  was  consecrated  by  the  Baby- 
lonians to  building. 

(6)  Elul  h\h^,  Tofyiriatosy  August-September. 
Nehftl'*;  Mishna,  AVjfjrn^tm iii.  l.etc.;  'E>K!t;x,  1  Mac  1427;  Bab. 

lUuIu.  Perhaps  from  '?'>'  (alaiu)  *  to  shout  for  joy,*  inasmuch 
as  the  month  represented  the  resurrection  of  Tammuz-Adonia 
(Muss-Arnolt). 

(7)  Tishri  n^jiSB/TTep^fpeTalos,  September-October. 

Not  named  in  Scripture.  Mi.shna,  She^aliin  iii.  1,  etc.;  Gr. 
Onrpi ;  Jo9.  Ant.  viii.  iv.  1  [as  amended  by  Hudson  ;  Niese  reads 
'AQCfiu);  Rib.  tish-ri-tum.  From  surru  'begin,*  'dedicate.' 
Tlie  AssjTians,  like  the  Jews,  had  two  new  year  days— Nisan 
for  the  sacred  year,  Tishri  for  the  civil.  The  Seleucidean  year 
began  in  Nisan,  the  Arsacidan  with  Tishri  (Epping  and  Strass- 
maier,  Astrononmchen  aus  Babi/lon,  p.  177).  The  month  was 
dedicated  to  the  sun-god,  and  Halevy  (M^laJufes  de  critiq^ie  et 
d'hifttoire,  p.  178)  conjectures  that  this  originated  the  later 
Jewish  association  of  Tishri  with  the  Creation  and  the  Day  of 
Judgment. 

(8)  Marcheshvan  P.y'CI'?.  ^«>Ii  October-November. 
Not  named  in  Scripture.      Mishna,  Ta'anith  i.  3,  etc.;  Jos. 

Ma/>«w«»t:« ;  Bab.  arachsamna  ('eighth  month ')='rPif'  HI*. 
Original  fonn  probably  icpmi,  whence  pcnio  {^  and  D  being 
often  interchanged  in  later  Babylonian).  Modem  Hebrew  re- 
garded Heshvan  as  the  name  of  "the  month  {mar  being  taken  to 
mean  'drop,'  'rainy  season')-  Dillmann  and  Staile  see  in  the 
Bab.  name  of  this  month  a  relic  of  the  oldest  method  of  count- 
ing the  months  by  numbers  and  not  by  names.  See  Siegfried- 
Stade,  Diet.  g.v.  RT. 

(9)  Kislev  i!:??,  'AireXXatos,  November-December. 

Zee  71,  Neh  1* ;  Mishna,  Rosh  Hashana  i.  S,  etc.;  Gr.  XawiAiw 
(1  ilac  P*  etc  ;  Jos.  Aiit.  xii.  v.  4,  -/.tte-Xtu) \  in  Palmyrene  In- 
scriptions ^iSd3  ;  Bab.  ktsUmu.    Derivation  uncertain. 

(10)  Tebeth  n^n,  Av5waios,  December-January. 
Est  218;  Mishna,  Ta'anith  iv.  5,  etc.;  Jos.  T:2tSo(  {Aiit.  xi. 

V.  4,  but  see  Niese);  Bab.  (ebetum.  Tebu  (Heb.  V3t3)=*to 
sink,'  'dtp.'    The  rainy  season  begins  in  10th  month. 

{11}  Shebat  05y*»  Hep^Tios,  January-February. 

Zee  17 ;  Mishna,  liosh  Ua»haiui  i.  1 ;  Or.  ^^«t  (1  Mac  10^) ; 
Bab.  slia-la-tu, 

(12)  Adar  iitt,  AiWpoy,  February- March. 

Kreq.  in  Esth.,  Ezr (ii^*;  Mishna,  5/i^i:fi/''m  i.I,  etc.;*A3«^,  1  Mao 
7*';  Jos.  Ant.  iv.  viii.  40,  etc.;  Hah.  addaru.  Delitzsch  derives 
from  a  root  'to  be  dark'  in  contrast  to  am.  It  was,  says 
Muss-Arnolt,  the  name  of  this  month  that  induce<l  loriner 
jiVfstigators  to  derive  the  Heb.  names  from  Persian,  for  Adar 
is  also  a  Persian  month  name.  (See  Benfey,  Monatitnavxen 
einiiirr  alter  Vulker).  Tli?  intercalated  month  was  a  second 
Adar  (Heb.  •Jg'  i^t*,  SlegUla  i,  4,  or  i^t*!). 

iv.  Weeks  and  Days.— The  week  of  seven  davs 
(yiD^)  is  an  obvious  derivative  of  the  lunar  inontli, 
for  the  week  torresponds  rouglily  to  the  i)hase8  of 
the  moon.  The  discrejwincy  wouhl  not  aliect  the 
Hebrew  week,  for  there  is  no  indication  that  tlio 
new  moon  in  historical  times  coincided  with  the 
bejonnin^  of  the  week.  The  Assyrians  and  Ilaby- 
lonians  knew  the  seven-day  weiK,  and  tlie  week 
began  with  tlie  moon,  whereas  the  Hebrew  week 
ran  regularly  through  the  wlu)Ie  year,  especially 
when  tiio  weekly  Sabbath  replace*!  the  new  moou 
in  importance  as  a  sacred  day.  Nowack  (ii.  215) 
unnecessarily  assumes  that  tlie  Israelites  probably 
Iwrrowed  the  week  from  the  liabylonians.  He, 
with   others  (see   Holzinger  on    K\    12^),   detects 


766 


TIME 


TIMNAH 


traces  of  an  older  Hebrew  week  of  ten  days  (Gn 
24",  Ex  VI->),  but  this  is  very  doubtful.  It  would 
perhaps  fit  iu  with  the  idea  of  a  year  of  3G0  days 
(traces  of  a  thirty-day  month  being  detected  by 
Nowack  in  Nu  20=»,  Dt  34",  ef.  21",  as  well  as  in 
the  Flood  narrative).  Driver  holds  that  '  it  is  ditli- 
cult  not  to  agree  with  Schrader,  Sayce,  and  other 
Assyi  iologists  in  regarding  the  week  of  seven  days, 
ended  by  a  Sabbatn,  as  an  institution  of  Baby- 
lonian origin '  {op.  cit.  p.  18).  The  week  thus  is 
presupposed  by  the  Creation  narrative,  and  is  not 
derived  from  it.  '  In  other  words,  the  week  de- 
termined the  "days"  of  Creation,  not  the  daj's  of 
Creation  the  week'  (ib.).  This  may  well  be,  and 
yet  the  Hebrew  week  not  necessarily  a  derivative 
rrora  Baiiyion.  (Jastrow  iias  shown  that  the 
Hebrew  Creation  narrative  is  more  independent 
of  Babylonian  parallels  than  has  usually  been  sup- 
posed. JQR  xiii.  p.  620  ir.).  See,  further,  on 
this  subject,  Jensen  in  Ztschr.  f.  deutsche  Wort- 
forschung,  Sept.  1900,  p.  153  tt'. ;  and  art.  Sabbath 
above,  p.  319. 

In  the  NT  (as  in  neo-Hebrew)  the  week  is  termed 
vdjifSaTon,  and  the  days  of  the  week  were  numbered, 
not  named.  The  eve  of  the  Sabbath  (Friday)  was 
called  TTopaff/cew)  (Mt  2V-,  Lk  23",  Jn  ItH"-";  wpd- 
aa^^aTov  Alk  15",  Jtli  8').  Mondays  and  Thursdays 
acquired  special  importance  in  the  later  Jewish  life, 
for  the  public  reading  of  the  Law  and  the  holding  of 
law-courts  occurred  on  those  days  (see  Schiirer,  ii. 
1-83,  190).  Schwarz  (Judischc  Kalender,  p.  7)  sug- 
gests that  the  num  ering  of  the  Christian  Ferice 
was  derived  from  the  Heb.  usage  njB'3  'V'^-f'.  'JS'  \\atc). 
See,  however,  fdeler,  Handbuch,  ii.  180. 

The  Babylonians  divided  the  day  (o'l')  into  equal 
parts  by  sun-watches,  and  were  also  acquainted 
with  the  60  system  (minutes  and  seconds).  The 
Syrian  peoples  may  have  acquired  similar  know- 
ledge from  the  Babylonians,  but  there  is  no  trace 
of  this  among  the  Israelites  in  the  pre-exilic 
period.  There  was  an  important  difference  be- 
tween the  Israelites  and  Babylonians,  for,  while 
the  former  began  the  day  at  sunset,  the  latter 
began  the  day  with  the  morning.  There  are, 
according  to  most  modern  commentators,  indi- 
cations of  the  Babylonian  reckoning  in  the  lirst 
chapter  of  Genesis  and,  according  to  Dillmann,  in 
Ex  12«-  '8,  Lv  23^-.  The  chaotic  darkness  (Gn  1") 
lies  behind  tlie  reckoning  ;  with  the  creation  of 
light  began  the  first  morning,  and  the  tirst  day 
extended  till  the  next  morning  (so  Dillmann). 
The  reckoning  from  evening  to  evening  became 
the  exclusive  Jewish  method  '  with  the  triumph  of 
the  Law.'  The  system  is  also  met  with  among  the 
Arabs,  Athenians,  and  (jauls  (cf.  Pliny,  HiV  ii. 
79).  The  evening-morning  day  was  the  ipi  a^;;  of 
Dn  8"  (though  Driver  and  others  explain  the 
phrase  in  Daniel  to  moan  half-daj-s).  Cf.  the 
v\rx$iiiiepov  of  2  Co  11^.  There  was  no  e.\act  division 
of  the  day  into  parts  before  the  Exile,  the  natural 
order  being  followed  :  a-ij;  '  evening,'  i,?!:  '  morn- 
ing,' and  cnn^f  'mid-day.'  The  day  declined  (Jg 
19*),  perhaps  with  reference  to  shadows  on  a  sun- 
dial (so  Aloore,  but  cf.  Jer  6'' ;  see  Dial),  the 
evening  turned  in  2t;;  n^:?  (Gn  24'^) ;  there  were 
also  terms  for  the  evenin"  twilight  when  the 
cool  sea-breeze  blew  ("j^f'j  Job  24",  cf.  Dvn  rn^  Gn 
3*);  the  dawn  ascended  (ins-ii  n^'V  Gn  19">  32=^); 
compare  such  expressions  as  'when  the  day  was 
hot'(cv,T  en  Gn  IS',  cf.  1  S  11").  In  neo-Hebrew 
there  were  other  phrases  of  a  similar  nature 
(Mislina,  Berakhuth  i.).  We  meet  in  the  Bible 
with  parts  of  the  day  described  as  the  time  when 
certain  occupations  were  usual ;  as  the  time 
when  girls  were  accustomed  to  fetch  the  water  re- 
quired for  domestic  use  (Gn  24") ;  'while  the  day 
was  still  gieat'  (Gn  29')  is  another  similar  phrase, 
I      bat  it  indicates  an  earlier  point  in  the  afternoon  ; 


the  time  of  bringing  the  meal-offering  (1  K  IS** 
and  of  the  evening  sacrifice  (Ezr  y*,  Dn  9''). 
These  last  two  refer  to  the  same  point  of  time. 
D'l'  sometimes  means  '  day '  in  contradistinction  tc 
'night'  (nS;S)  Gn  29',  sometimes  it  represents  the 
civU  day  of  24  hours,  including  night  (Gn  P  etc.) 
The  phrase  D:;^i'.7  j'5  '  between  the  two  evenings 
(Ex  16'-  etc.),  the  time  at  which  the  paschal  lamb 
and  (Ex  29'°etc. )  the  daily  evening  offering  were 
brought,  represents  some  period  in  the  late  after- 
noon. 

The  Hebrews  also  had  terms  for  the  days  in 
relation  to  one  another — c»r¥  '  the  previous  even- 
ing,' '^iD?  or  ^cnx  'yesterday,'  ^^o  '  to-morrow,'  ti\s\^ 
'  the  day  before  yesterday.'  But  they  did  not 
divide  the  days  into  hours  until  late  ;  in  fact,  tLo 
custom  lonw  persisted  of  counting  by  portions  of 
the  day.  The  term  yj-i  (in  derivation  =  ' moment,' 
movimentum)  meant  an  'instant,'  or  a  longer,  but 
still  very  brief,  interval  of  time,  the  chief  idea 
being  suddenness  or  rapid  passage.  -;'y'  '  hour '  is 
Aramaic  (Dn  3*),  and  is  common  in  Syr.  and  in 
later  Hebrew.  '  Originally  it  denoted  anjf  small 
interval  of  time,  and  was  only  gradually  hxed  to 
what  we  call  an  "  hour  " '  ( Driver).  The  hours 
of  the  Mishna  differed  in  duration,  as  they  were 
reckoned  as  j^th  of  the  actual  day.  Earlier  than 
the  division  of  the  day  into  hours  was  the  division 
of  the  ni;,'ht  into  three  watches  (.Tjiajx,  n-ib;-N),  La 
2'9,  Jg  7'",  Ex  14=-«,  1  S  11".  The  threefold  division 
continued  into  post-Roman  times,  1st  cent.  [Bera- 
kkoth  36) ;  but  the  Roman  di\asion  into  four  watches 
was  also  known  (ib.-  cf.  Mk  13**,  where  all  four 
watches  are  referred  to:  'in  the  evening' d^^,  'at 
midnight '  fieaoyvKTiOv,  '  at  cock-crowing '  dXficTpo- 
(puviai,  or  '  in  the  morning '  vpwt),  and  these  ex- 
tended from  six  to  six  o'clock.  Cock-crow  is  an 
interesting  note  of  time  (Lk  22*°),  to  which  con- 
siderable importance  was  attached  by  Rabbinical 
Jews.  There  is  still  a  morning  benediction  in  the 
Jewish  liturgy  to  be  recited  at  cock-crow. 

I.  Abrahams. 

TIMNA  (wtfB,  Qafiva).  —  Concubine  of  Elipliaz, 
Esau's  son,  and  mother  of  Amalek,  Gn  36'-.  The 
branch  of  the  Amalekites  in  question  was  closely 
associated  with  the  Horites,  Gn  SG-"- ",  1  Ch  V"- ". 
In  all  these  passages  the  spelling  should  be  Timna, 
the  Heb.  being  everywhere  J';"b.  RV  has  in- 
advertently followed  AV  spelling  Timnah  in  Gn 
36".     See  Timnah,  No.  3. 

TIMNAH  (njiri  'lot,'  'portion').— 1.  A  place  on 
the  N.  boundary  of  Judah,  situated  between  Beth- 
shemesh  and  '  the  side  of  Ekron  '  (Jos  15'°  B  X(3a,  A 
vtn-ov,  Thamna).  It  was  a  Phili.stine  town  (Jg  14' 
Qa)iva6a,  Thrimnatha),  within  the  territory  of  Dan 
(Jos  19" B  QaiivaBi,  A  Qap-vd,  Themnatha),  to  which 
S.'unson  went  down  from  Zorah  to  take  his  wife 
(Jg  14'---° ;  Jos.  Ant.  V.  viii.  5,  6),  whose  father  is 
called  the  Timnite  in  Jg  15'.  There  Samson  slew 
the  young  lion,  and  propounded  his  well-known 
riddle  at  the  marriage-feast.  Timnah  was  taken 
by  the  Philistines  during  the  reign  of  Ahaz,  not 
long  after  they  had  been  completely  subdued  by 
Uzziah(2Ch28'*6ci,KKi,  Thmnna) ;  and  later  it  was 
occupied  by  Sennacherib  after  he  had  defeated 
the  Egyptians  at  Elteke  {Altaku).  It  is  called  in 
the  inscriptions  Tamnd,  and  is  mentioned  as  lying 
between  Elteke  and  Ekron  (Schrader,  KAT^  170). 

Timnah  retains  its  old  name  almost  unchanged, 
and  is  now  Tibneh,  on  the  S.  side  of  the  valley  of 
Sorek  {Wddi/  es-Surar)  and  to  the  W.  of  Beth- 
shemesh  ('Ain  Sliems).  The  site  is  deserted,  but 
is  marked  by  ruined  walls  and  rock-hewn  caves, 
cisterns,  and  wine-presses.  On  the  N.  side  of  the 
ruins  is  a  spring.  Vineyards  and  olive  grove»  still 
cover  the  nill-slopes  between  Tibneh  and  iVddy 
es-Surar  (PEF  Mem.  ii.  417,  441). 


TIMXATH 


TIMOTHY 


rc: 


2.  (B  OafivaSi,  A  Qaiwd  ;  Thnmna)  A  toNSTi  in 
the  liill-couiitry  of  Judali,  mentioned  witli  Cain 
nnil  Gibeah  (Jos  13").  It  is  now  Tibnn  near  Jeb'a 
(Gibeah),  ami  about  8  miles  west  of  Bethlehem. 
The  site  is  mai  keil  by  a  few  foundations  onlj-,  and 
is  reached  by  a  path  from  Bcil  Neltif,  about  'I^ 
miles  to  tlie  west  (P£F  Mem.  iii.  53).  This  is 
probably  tlie  Timnali  (Gn  38'-- "• '■',  Go^o-A,  Tkam- 
natlut),  to  which  Judali  'went  up'  to  visit  his 
sheep-shearers.  The  narrative  gives  no  other  in- 
dication of  position. 

3.  (I'jcn ;  Qaixvi  ;  T/iamna)  The  name  of  one  of 
the  'dukes'  of  Edora,  and  probably  also  of  a  town 
or  district  (Gn  36",  1  Ch  1" :  cf.  Gn  3(5'--  ^,  1  Ch 
1^).  See  also  art.  TimN'a.  Eusebius  and  Jerome 
lOnoyn.)  identify  it  with  Thamna,  a  town  of  Edom 
in  their  day.  C.  W.  WlLSON. 

TIMNATH  (AV  Thamnatha ;  Oaiifdea;  Tham- 
naln).  —  t»ne  of  the  strong  cities  in  Jud.nea  built  by 
Baccliides(l  Mac  !P).  The  name  occurs  between 
Bethel  and  Pliaralhon.  Pharathon  may  perhaps 
be  a  corruption  of  Ephraim  (,et-TaiyiOen),  and  in 
this  case  Timnath  would  be  Thamna,  now  'I'ibnch, 
on  the  Roman  road  from  Antipatris  to  Jeru.salem, 
which  Jo.seplius  says  was  the  chief  town  of  a 
toparchy  (ii./  III.  iii.  5).  G.  A.  Smith  (IIGUL 
3.'i.")n.)  con.-siders  that  the  two  names  Timnath  and 
Pharathon  should  not  be  separated,  and  that  the}- 
represent  one  place,  —  Pharathon  being  Wddy 
Far'ah,  and  Timnath  being  reco''nized  in  the  name 
Tammiin,  so  common  now  at  the  head  of  WciUy 
Far'ah.  But  this  position  is  too  far  N.  to  have 
been  in  Juda'a.  C.  W.  Wll.soN. 

TIMNATH-HERES  {c-in  njcn  '  portion  of  the  sun ' ; 
B  Qa/xi'a.Sdpei,  A  Oaiivaddp'  (as ;  ThaniHiitli  Srire). — 
The  name  ot  Joshua's  inheritance  and  burial-place 
(Jf  2'-'),  which  is  called  Timnath-serah  in  Jos  19" 
and  24*".  Jlires  is  su|)i)Osed  by  some  commentators 
[Ewald,  Bertheau,  Miihiau,  etc.)  to  be  a  very  early 
JOpyist's  error  for  Scrah.  On  the  other  hand,  it 
18  neld  to  be  the  correct  form  of  the  name  by  the 
Jews  and  Samaritans,  who  identify  the  place  with 
Kefr  Ifdris."     But  see  Tl.MNATH-SEHAH. 

C.  W.  Wilson. 

TIMNATH-SERAH  (m.p  njcn ;  B  Qaiiapxip-ns, 
dafifaOaaaxapd,  A  Ha/xfaOaapd,  Qa/ivaaaxdp ;  Tham- 
nath  Hcraa,  Thamnath  Sare). — The  place  given  by 
the  children  of  Israel  to  Joshua  as  an  inheritance, 
ind  in  the  border  of  whicli  he  was  buried.  It  was 
in  the  hill-countiy  of  Ephraim,  and  on  the  north  side 
af  the  mountain  of  Gaash  (Jos  19°"  24^").  In  Jg  2" 
the  name  is  written  Timnath-Heres  (see  preceding 
irt. ).  According  to  Josephus,  Joshua  was  buried 
it  Thamna  (ea^j-d),  a  city  of  Ephraim  (Ant.  V.  i. 
29).  This  is  apjiarontly  identical  with  Thamna, 
the  chief  town  of  a  toparchy  [ISJ  III.  iii.  5),  which 
idioined  the  to]iarchy  of  Lydda  (Wnom. ),  and  was 
reduced  to  subjection  by  Vespasian  before  he 
marched  on  Lyd<la  and  Jamiiia  (BJ  IV.  viii.  1). 
Thamna,  now  'Jihiirh,  occuj)ied  an  important 
position  on  the  road  from  Jems,  to  Antipatris 
and  C;esarea.  It  was  taken  by  Ua.ssius  {Ant.  xiv. 
xi.  2),  and  was  occupied  by  .^ohn  the  Essene,  at 
the  commencement  ot  the  .lewish  war  {b,f  II.  xx. 
i).  Eusebius  and  Jerome  (Onom.  s.  QafuvaOnapd) 
say  that  Timnath-^erah,  the  town  of  .Joshua,  where 
his  tomb  was  shown,  was  in  the  hill-country,  ami 
that  it  was  in  the  territory  of  1  )an.  They  identilied 
it  with  the  Thamna  to  which  .ludali  went  up  to 
visit  his  sheep-shearers  (Gn  38'-),  and  placed  it  in 
Dan,  or  Judah,  on  the  border  of  Ljdda,  and  on  the 
road   fioin   that  place   to  Jerus.   (Onom.   Qaprnd). 

*  It  is  not  Improbable  that  by  an  intentional  tnolathesis,  to 
»voidanytiiin(j  thatKavoure<l  ot  i<ioI:itry,Tiiniuitli-^crr.'', '  portion 
oj  thr  sun,'  was  ciiangf-d  into  Tinnialh-^eruA.  See  IlHRW,  ad 
An.  ;  and  cf.  Moore  on  Je  2*. 


Elsewhere  (s.  Tads)  they  state  that  Joshn.-i's  torn)', 
was  shown  ne.ar  Thnmna,  on  the  N.  side  of  Gaas. 
a  mountain  of  Ephraim.  Jerome  takes  St.  Paula 
to  Timnath-serah  after  leaving  Bethel,  and  before 
reaching  Shi loh  (Kp.  Paul.  xv.).  The  place  referred 
to  by  Eusebius  and  Jerome  is  Tihnch. 

Two  sites  have  been  proposetl  for  Timnath-^erah, 
and  their  cl.iims  mav  be  thus  stated — 

(1)  Tifmeh  is  an  old  Tibnath,  and  the  position, 
yarding  an  approach  to  the  interior  of  the  country, 
IS  a  suitable  one  for  the  homo  of  the  great  Jewish 
warrior.  Josephus  probably,  and  early  Christian 
trailition  certainly,  identihes  it  with  the  city  of 
.Joshua.  In  the  north  face  of  a  hill  to  the  S.  of 
the  ruins  there  is  a  rem.irkable  groiip  of  rock-hewn 
tombs ;  a  great  oak  tree  near  the  tomb  is  called 
Sheikh  et-Teim,  'the  chief  servant  of  God';  and 
about  3  miles  to  the  E.  is  Kefr  Ishu'a,  or  Joshua's 
village  (/'A'i'^  Mem.  ii.  374-378;  Guerin,  Samarie, 
ii.  89,  etc.).  The  identilication  with  Tibnch  is  ac- 
cepted by  most  modems,  e.g.  Dillm.  (on  Jos  19"), 
Moore,  Miihiau  (in  Riehra's'i/nTi),  Buhl  (17u). 

(2)  Kefr  IJCiris,  about  9  mUes  south  of  Ndb/us, 
is,  according  to  existing  Samaritan  tradition,  the 
burial-place  of  Joshua  and  Caleb.  It  is  ahso  the 
Kefr  Cheres  of  the  Jewish  pilgrims,  Kalibi  Jacob 
(A.D.  1258),  hap-Parehi,  etc.,  wliich  Sehwarz  (151) 
places  S.  of  A/lbius.  To  the  E.  of  the  vill.age  there 
are  two  sacred  places  (miiMms) — one  named  Neby 
Kill,  the  '  Prophet  of  the  Division  by  Lot,'  the 
other  Neby  Kulda,  or  Ktinda.  Conder  identifies 
the  first  with  Joshua,  the  second  he  takes  to  he  a 
corruption  of  Caleb  (PEF  Mem.  ii.  378).  If  the 
identification  with  Kefr  IJdris  bo  acce|)ted,  it  must 
be  8up]iosed  that  the  name  of  the  place,  Timnath, 
has  disappeared  whilst  its  distinctive  title,  IJeref 
or  Scrah,  litis  survived.  C.  W.  WiLSON. 

TIMON  (Tl/ioiv).— One  of  the  seven  elected  (Ac 
6°)  to  a.ssist  the  .-vpostles  by  'serving  tables.'  Later 
legends  about  him  will  be  found  in  the  Acta  Sanc- 
torum under  April  19,  when  he  was  commemorated. 

TIMOTHEUS  (TipLbBeos).  —  1.  A  leader  of  the 
Ammonites  w  ho  was  defeated  in  many  battles  by 
Judas  Maccaljieus  ( 1  Mac 5'"'-  »"f , 2  Mac  S**  9=  lO-*"'"). 
According  to  2  Mac  10"  he  was  .slain  at  the  capture 
of  Gazara  by  the  forces  of  Jud.as.  For  the  un- 
chronolo^ical  setting  of  the  narrative  in  2  Mac. 
see  vol.  iii.  [).  191''.  2.  The  AV  form  of  the  name 
Timothy  everywhere  in  NT  except  2  Co  1',  1  Ti  V', 
2  Ti  1-',  Phileni  1,  He  13^. 

TIMOTHY  (Ti/i(59<os),  St.  Paul's  young  and  trusted 
companion,  was  a  native  of  Lystr.a,  or  possibly  of 
Derbe  (Ac  IG'  20'',  where  see  Blass)  ;  the  son  of  a 
Greek  father  and  of  a  mother  who  was  a  Jewess  at 
least  by  religion  (2  Ti  1')  and  ])rolial)ly  also  by 
birth.  The  son  of  a  mixed  marriage,  he  rccoivea 
a  name  which  was  fairly  commim  in  Greek  (1  Mao 
S""',  2  Mac  8""),  but  which  by  its  significance  would 
be  acceptable  to  a  religious  .Jewess  ;  he  was  trained 
b}'  his  mother  in  the  OT  Scriptures  (2  Ti  3'°),  but 
was  not  circumcised.  When  St.  I'aul  reached 
Lystra  on  his  Eirst  Missionary  .Journey,  the  young 
Timothy  accepted  Christ i.iiiity,  being  converted  by 
St.  Paul  (1  Co  4'''-"),  and  piuliably  was  a  witness 
of  his  suflerings  at  this  time  (2  Ti  S'"-  ",  cf.  Ac  14--). 
By  the  time  of  the  Second  Missionary  Journey  he 
was  a  disciple  well  known  to  the  Christians  both 
in  Lystra  and  in  Iconium :  the  mention  of  his 
mother  first,  the  descrii>tion  of  her  in  some  MSS 
of  the  Western  text  as  '  a  widow,'  and  perhaps  the 
use  of  vwfipxei  (Ac  16^),  make  it  probable  that  his 
fatlier  was  already  dead. 

St.  Paul  was  attracted  l)y  Timothy,  and  wislied 
to  have  him  as  a  travel -com  pun  ion  to  take  the 
place  of  John   Mark,  if  not  of  Barnabas.     If  we 


768 


TIMOTHY 


TIMOTHY,  FIRST  EPISTLE  TO 


may  refer  to  this  occasion  the  lang^iage  of  1  Ti  1" 
4'*,  2  Ti  1°,  St.  Paul  was  not  left  unaided  in  this 
decision.  Prophetic  utterances,  perhaps  those  of 
Silas,  who  was  himself  a  prophet  (Ac  15''^),  led  Paul 
♦o  him  :  the  local  presbyters  laid  their  hands  upon 
him  (cf.  Ac  13')  ;  Paul  joined  in  the  formal  setting 
ajiart  of  '  his  son '  for  the  task  ;  he  himself  wit- 
nessed a  noble  confession  in  their  presence  (1  Ti 
6'")  ;  and  thus  received  a  formal  ministry  (2  Ti  4', 
Ac  19--),  perhaps  with  the  title  of  'evangelist' 
(2  Ti  4'),  but  in  1  Th  2»  he  is  loosely  classed  with 
Paul  and  Silas  as  an  'apostle.'  In  one  respect 
Timothy  was  not  fitted  for  the  task  :  St.  Paul's 
jilan  was  to  preach  hrst  to  the  Jews,  and  they 
Mould  be  otl'endcd  by  the  presence  of  one  who  was 
half-Jew  by  birth  and  yet  never  circumcised,  so 
St.  Paul  took  him  and  perhaps  with  his  own  hand 
circumcised  him  (cf.  Hort,  Judaistic  Christianity, 
]ip.  84-87  ;  The  Christian  Ea-lesia,  pp.  178-188  ; 
and,  as  against  the  historical  character  of  this 
incident,  Holtzmann,  Die  Pastoral-Bricfe,  pp.  67- 
78).  Timothy  now  became  a  loyal  companion, 
slaving  for  St.  Paul  as  a  son  for  a  father  (Ph  2-'^)  ; 
he  took  an  active  part  in  preaching  at  Thes- 
salonica  (1  Th  1.  2  passim) ;  accompanied  Paul  to 
Eeroea,  and  stayed  there  when  St.  Paul  was  obliged 
to  withdraw  to  Athens,  but  at  the  apostle's  request 
followed  him  speedily  thither.  Thence  he  was 
despatched  at  once  on  an  important  mission  to 
strengthen  the  Tliessalonians  who  were  suft'ering 
under  persecution,  and  on  returning  with  his 
report  found  St.  Paul  already  removed  to  Corinth. 
His  presence  and  the  news  he  brought  gave  St. 
Paul  new  life,  for  Timothy  joined  him  in  preaching 
Jesus  Christ  the  Son  of  Ood  (2  Co  1") :  he  was 
associated  with  Paul  and  Silvanus  in  both  letters 
to  the  Thessalonians,  and  was  perhaps  the  scribe 
in  each  case,  though  there  is  not  sutiicient  ground 
for  accepting  Spitta's  theory  [zur  Gesch.  des  Vr- 
christenthums,  i.  p.  110)  that  2  Thess.  was  his 
composition.  After  this  time  he  is  not  men- 
tioned again  until  we  find  him  with  Paul  at 
Ephesus  on  the  Third  Missionary  Journey  (Ac 
ly--)  ;  he  may  have  been  with  him  all  the  time, 
or  may  have  stayed  at  Ephesus,  a  stay  which 
would  have  rjualified  him  for  liis  later  work 
there.  On  this  occasion  he  was  sent  again  on  a 
mission — this  time  with  Erastus  and  apparently 
other  brethren  (1  Co  16")  to  Macedonia  and  thence 
to  Corinth  (1  Co  4").  The  mission  took  place 
shortly  before  the  writ  ing  of  1  Cor.  (4") ;  its  purpose 
was  to  remind  the  Corinthians  of  St.  Paul's  '  ways 
in  Christ ' ;  St.  Paul  was  anxious  about  the  result ; 
he  was  afraid  that  Timothy  would  be  timid,  and  that 
others  might  set  him  at  nought,  and  he  bespoke  a 
kindly  reception  for  him  (1  Co  IG'"-  ").  The  ettect 
of  his  mission  was  not  successful  ;  he  brought  back 
news  which  caused  Paul  great  anxiety  and  neces- 
sitated a  mission  of  Titus  ;  it  is  ])ossihle  that  a 
personal  attack  was  made  on  Timothy,  and  that  he 
is  6  dSiK-qdelt  of  2  Co  7"*  in  whose  interests  Paul  had 
demanded  sharp  punishment  on  the  offender  (see 
Paul,  vol.  iii.  p.  711'').  However  this  may  be,  he 
followed  Paul  to  Macedonia,  wis  associated  with 
him  there  in  the  writing  of  2  Cor.,  and  was  with 
him  in  Corinth  as  an  active  worker  (6  avfepyi^  fiov) 
who  sends  greeting  to  the  Christians  at  Home  (Ko 
16^',  if  this  chapter  belongs  to  this  date).  When 
Paul  started  on  his  last  journey  to  Jerusalem, 
Timothy  was  one  of  his  party,  and  «as  with  him 
at  Troas  (Ac  20''-  ') ;  but  he  is  not  mentioned  again 
in  the  Acts,  though  he  probably  completed  the 
journey  to  Jerusalem.  He  must  also  have  joined 
Paul  in  his  imprisonment  at  Rome,  as  he  is  associ- 
ated with  him  in  writing  Col.  (1'),  Philemon  (v.'), 
and  Philippians  (1');  and  St.  Paul  contemplates 
sending  him  on  a  mission  to  the  Philippian  Church 
(01S--J4)      Of  t^ijjg  no  more  is  heard  ;  but  on  the  sup- 


position of  the  genuineness  of  the  Pastoral  Epistles, 
Paul  when  released  joined  Timothy  in  the  East, 
and  while  on  a  journey  to  Macedonia  left  him  in 
charge  of  the  Church  of  Ephesus  (1  Ti  1').  His 
task  was  to  be  the  representative  of  the  absent 
apostle,  who  was  hoping  to  return  shortly  ;  he  was 
to  check  false  teaching,  to  order  public  worship, 
to  regulate  the  requisite  qualifications  for  the 
ministry,  and  to  exercise  discipline  over  all  orders 
in  the  Church.  It  may  be  that  for  this  task  he 
was  formally  set  apart  by  laying  on  of  hands  both 
of  the  apostle  and  of  the  presbyters  (1  Ti  P' 4", 
2  Ti  1*,  but  see  above).  As  the  apostle  might  be 
delaj'ed  from  returning,  he  wrote  1  Timotliy  to 
lay  stress  on  the  points  of  primary  importance 
and  to  strengthen  and  embolden  Timothy.  Not 
long  thereafter  Paul  was  arrested  a  second  time 
and  carried  to  Rome  ;  thence  he  wrote  2  Timothy, 
begging  Timothy  not  to  be  ashamed  of  the  gospel, 
but  to  come  with  Mark  to  help  him  in  his  im- 
prisonment, and,  before  he  leaves,  to  secure  the 
transmission  of  true  teaching  by  ordaining  trust- 
worthy ministers.  It  may  liave  been  on  this  visit 
to  Rome  that  Timothy  was  himself  arrested  on  the 
occasion  on  which  the  writer  of  the  Ep.  to  the 
Hebrews  mentions  his  release  (He  IS'-"). 

Of  Tiinoth>'*8  subsequent  history  little  can  be  said  with  cer- 
tainty. He  ma?/ be  [but  this  is  very  unlikely]  the  'angel'  of 
the  Church  of  Ephesus  addressed  in  Rev  2i-7  ;  he  may  be  one  of 
the  sources  from  which  St.  Luke  gained  information  for  the 
composition  of  the  Acta,  though  there  is  no  ground  for  regard- 
ing him  as  the  author  of  the  book  or  of  the  '  We '  sections  (see 
Zahn,  Einleituiig,  ii.  p.  424).  Church  tradition  regarded  him 
as  having  continued  bishop  of  Ephesus  until  his  death  (Contt. 
Apostol.  vii.  40 ;  Euseb.  iii.  46),  as  having  been  martyred  in  a 
popular  tumult  when  he  tried  to  dissuade  the  people  from 
taking  part  in  the  violent  and  coarse  orgies  of  the  jucrayiiyiet 
(a  festival  of  which  there  is  no  mention  elsewhere),  and  his  bones 
are  said  to  have  been  transferred  to  Constantinople  by  Con- 
st.antiu9  (Polycrates  and  .Simeon  Metaphrastes  quoted  in  the 
.4  rta  Sanctorum,  iii.  pp.  176-183,  Meiueon,  ad  Jan.  22  ;  Lipsiiis, 
Die  Apocrt/pken  Aposteigeich,  ii.  2,  372-400). 

Though  Titus  is  a  stronger  man  and  more  able 
to  deal  with  crises,  yet  Paul's  love  and  alt'ection 
goes  out  more  lavishly  to  the  younger  Timothy, 
niiose  character  is  clearly  marked.  He  is  ati'ec- 
tionate  to  tears  (2  Ti  1^),  delicate  and  often  ill 
(1  Ti  5^),  timid  (1  Co  16'"),  shrinking  from  a  proper 
assertion  of  his  own  authority  (1  Ti  4'''),  needing 
to  be  warned  against  youthful  lusts  (2  Ti  2--),  to 
be  encouraged  to  face  shame  for  Christ's  sake 
(2  Ti  1*).  Vet  he  has  been  Paul's  loyal  follower 
and  imitator  from  the  first  (2  Ti  3'")  ;  he  is  his 
'  genuine'  son  (1  Ti  1-),  his  loved  son  (2  Ti  P),  his 
son  loved  and  faithful  in  the  Lord  (1  Co  4") ;  of  one 
mind  with  himself  (Ph  2*),  '  working  the  Lord's 
work  as  I  do'  (1  Co  16"");  'my  fellow-worker' 
(Ro  16=')  ;  'our  brother  and  God's  minister'  (1  Th 
3-)  ;  '  the  slave  of  Jesus  Christ'  (Ph  1'),  who  '  seeks 
the  things  of  Jesus  Christ '  {ib.  2»). 

Timothv's  death  is  commemorated  in  theOreek  and  Armenian 
Churches  on  Jan.  22,  in  the  Coptic  Church  on  Jan.  23,  in  the 
Latin  and  Maronite  Churches  on  Jan.  24,  though  the  earlier 
Latin  calendars  place  it  on  Sept.  27,  perhaps  as  following  the 
day  of  the  conmiemoration  of  St.  John,  who  w-is  thought  of  a« 
his  predecessor  in  the  see  of  Ephesus  (Lipsius,  I.e.  p.  392  ; 
Nilles,  KcUendarium  Manuale  utriuxque  EccUsi(B,  Innsbruck 

i89t ).  W.  Lock. 

TIMOTHY,  FIRST  EPISTLE  TO.— 

i.  Historical  Situation. 
U.  Analysis. 

tii.  Literary  Dependence. 
iv.  Situation  implied  at  Ephesus:  (a)  FalM 

teaching  ;  ib)  Church  organization, 
T.  Authorslxip. 
vi.  Integrity. 
tU.  Value. 

LiteraturCb 

i.  Historical  Situation.  —  St.  Paul  had  re- 
cently been  with  Timothy  :  either  they  had  been 
together  in  Ephesus,  or  Timothy  had  come  from 


TIMOTHY,  FIRST  EPISTLE  TO 


TIMOTHY,  FIRST  EPISTLE  TO      769 


Ephesus  to  meet  Paul  at  some  point  on  his  journey 
to  Macedonia  {cf.  the  situation  of  Ac  20"  "with  1^). 
St.  Paul  was  bound  to  go  forward,  but  hoped  to  re- 
turn shortly :  yet  he  was  so  much  impressed  with 
the  dant^erous  tendencies  of  some  false  teachers  at 
Ephesus.  who  were  tempting  the  brethren  there 
from  walking  in  'sober  gospel  ways,'  that  he 
j»ressed  Timothy  to  stay  on  in  order  to  counteract 
them. 

Some  time  elapsed,  Paul  may  have  heard  that 
all  was  not  prospering  at  Ephesus,  possibly  through 
a  letter  from  Timothy  himself,  or  his  natural 
anxiety  (cf.  1  Thess.)  may  have  prompted  him  to 
MTite.  Timothy  was,  indeed,  a  '  genuine  son  '  ;  he 
had  witnessed  a  good  confession  in  the  past,  pro- 
phecies had  pointed  him  out  for  the  Uisk,  he  had 
received  a  special  gift  for  his  ministry  by  the  laying 
on  of  hands  (P*^**  4'*  6'");  yet  he  was  naturally 
timid,  he  was  young  (4^-),  he  had  fiequent  attacks 
of  illness  [o^),  he  might  be  misled  (5'  6")  ;  St. 
Paul's  own  return  might  be  delayed  (3'*) :  so  he 
writes  this  letter  to  press  his  original  charge  more 
solemnly  on  Timothy,  to  encourage  him  in  his 
work,  to  guide  him  in  his  teaching  and  dealing 
with  various  classes  in  the  Church,  and  to  regu- 
late certain  points  of  Church  order,  which  needed 
or<ranization  witliout  delay. 

The  central  purpose  is  summed  up  in  3*'  Ua  eldys 
rws  Set  iv  olk<^  OeoO  dvaarp^tpiaOai. 

The  subjects  are  miscellaneous,  and  no  very  exact 
analysis  can  be  expected  ;  but  three  points  stand 
out  clearly  in  the  structure.  (1)  Tliere  is  a  rough 
correspondence  between  the  introductory  and  the 
concluding  sections  ;  cf.  P'*^  with  G^'^**,  l^**-2o  ^vith 
(jn-is.  20. 21^    These  form  a  framework  for  the  central 

f)art.  (2)  The  central  part  falls  into  clearly-marked 
lalves,  and  the  kernel  of  the  whole  Epistle,  which 
divides  thi^se  halves,  is  3'^.  The  m3'stery  of  the 
Incarnate,  Risen,  and  Ascended  Lord  is  the  fact  on 
which  Christian  life  and  teachin*;  is  to  be  based, 
b\'  which  the  Christian  minister  is  to  be  inspired. 
(3)  6'^'^^  is  a  postscript,  which  would  more  naturally 
have  been  placed  before  or  after  6^*  ^,  but  which  was 
added  as  an  after-thought,  perhaps  drst  suggested 
as  needing  treatment  by  6^***. 
ii.  Analysis.— 

11  a.  Greeting. 
IntTOdwtory,  iSao. 

(a)  Kcminder  of  the  purpose  for  which  llniotby  was  left  at 
Kphcsus  0-),  descripiion  of  the  false  teaching  as  specu- 
lative rather  than  mlniBtering  to  the  spiritual  life(-i-i'), 
u  ignorantly  taught  by  teachers  who  lay  stress  on  law 
(••7)  without  knowing  the  true  purpose  of  Law  and  its 
relation  to  the  gospel  (**•**). 

(6)  Personal  expression  of  Paxil's  own  gratitude  to  Christ 
Jesua,  who  had  entrusted  him  with  the  ministry  in 
spite  of  his  post  sin,  as  a  proof  of  God's  long-suflering 
and  as  an  encouragement  to  others,  for  the  gospel  is 
summed  up  in  the/ai7A/ui  sai/iTio,  Xfurrit  'In^oZi  v-Ci* 

iiV  TO*  tuffLUt  etfxaeriXei't  irwrxi  (^*-l^. 

(This  section  is  not  only  a  personal  digression  called  out  by 
the  thought  of  God's  mercy  to  himself,  but  is  intended  to  point 
Timothy  to  the  same  source  of  strength  for  his  task  (itivafjM' 
rcriri.  cf.  II  21).  an<l  to  fix  his  mind  on  the  central  message  of 
the  g>'>:^el  as  a  gospel  of  salvation  from  sin  (cf.  ^  and  l^)). 

(c)  Reiteration  of  the  charge  to  Timothy,  and  enforcement 

of  it  by  (1)  a  reminder  of  the  paat  prophecies  about 

him  (ih);  (2)  a  warning  drawD  from  the  fate  of  two 

falflcteacheniOS  30). 

Formal  ad*<c£,  2i-(fl.     A.  iJeneral,  2i-4*.     B.  Personal,  4tt-6>. 

4-  Gerurai  regulatuma  of  Church  L>/e. 

1   The  proper  scope  of  Public  Prayer. — This  is  to  in- 
clude ail  mankind,  and  specially  rulers,  that  Chris- 
tians may  live  a  quiet  life  (2'- '-').    This  is  baaed  on 
God's  desire  to  save  all  men  (••  ■*),  which  itself  rests 
on  (1)  the  unity  of  God  i^);  (2)  the  nature  of  Christ 
•"•presenting  both  fJod  and  man  (ib.);  (3)  the  con- 
scious pur]>09e  of  Christ's  death,  who  died  for  all, 
an'l  commiRbioned  Paul  to  teach  this  truth  (*•'')■ 
II.  The  jhisUion  o/  men  and  xroinen  at  Public  Prayer. — 
Men  are  to  lead  the  jirayers  (") ; 
Wnm<n  to  dress  modestly  and  avoid  ostentation 
(^"'),  to  listen   in  silence  and  subjection  0*-'^. 
This  is  based  on  the  order  of  creation  (i^\  and 
woman's  action  at  the  Fall  ('*).     Yet  woman  *^o 
will  share  the  ChristiaD  salvation,  if  she  abide  ui 
▼OL.  l"  —49 


a  Christian  life,  for  t\ie  faithful  aaying  declares 

rtt8r,Cl7Ct.t  Zlix.  Tr.f   TlX*»y9tieC{  (^^). 

UL  Rules  for  the  choice  of  ministerg. 

(1)  For  the  irio-xarot.  His  position  is  one  of  honour 
and  of  work  (3^),  hence  he  must  be  tested  as  to  hia 
private  character  (2- 3);  as  to  his  power  of  ruling 
his  own  family  well  (*■  fi) ;  he  must  not  be  a  new 
convert  (*»>,  he  must  have  won  the  respect  of  the 
heathen  world  (?). 

(2)  For  h«K6toi :  their  private  character  miist  be 
tested  C*-***),  and  their  relation  to  their  own  family 
(''-).  For  their  otlice,  too,  may  be  one  of  honour, 
and  will  raise  their  status  in  Christ's  sight  ('*). 

(8)  For  yv*cc7x(i.     They  too,  if  in  any  official  position, 

must  have  a  high  character  (l^). 

The  pnrpoee  of  all  these  regulations  is  to  secure  a  right  moral 

Hfe  and  intercourse  in  Gods  family,  because  it  is  His  Church, 

and  the  upholder  of  the  Truth.    This  truth  is  summed  up  In  Uie 

well-known  hymn  about  Christ — 

Warning.— Yet  there  are  symptoms  of  false  teaching,  that  will 
contradict  this  great  tnith,  depreciating  marriage  and  food, 
though  they  are  God's  creatures,  Gods  gifts,  capable  of  sancti- 
fication,  ii  received  with  prayer  and  thanksgiving  (41-^)^ 

[This  section  forms  the  transition  from  A  to  B.    It  stands  in 
contrast  to  S'^J  (4^  hi),  but  leads  on  to  4^  (T«i/T«)]. 
B.  Personal  axivice  to  Timothy. 

(a)  With  regard  to  his  own  teaching  and  eofufti^.— He 
is  to  be  loyal  to  these  truths  CJ),  to  avoid  foolish 
fables  Q),  to  exenMse  a  true  asceticism,  such  as 
will  produce  true  holiness — for  holiness,  according 
to  the  faithful  saying,  iwecyyiXia*  iri*  Z^it  ryji  *u» 
xai  T^f  ^./^>»:(, — and  any  effort  is  worth  while, 
for  our  hope  rests  on  a  God  of  life,  a  Saviour  of  all 
mankind  (.*>■")■  He  is  to  assert  himself,  in  spite  of 
his  youth;  to  be  a  model  of  Christian  character ; 
to  attend  to  public  reading,  exhortation,  teaching: 
to  remember  the  gift  given  him  for  his  task,  and 
to  throw  his  whole  heart  into  his  work  (^2-18). 
(6)  For  his  dialings  with  various  classes  of  people. 
1.  Men,  old  and  young  (5i)-  —2.  Women,  old  and 
young  {■-). — 3.  Widows,  who  are  to  be  supported 
by  the  Church,  only  if  their  own  families  cannot 
do  80  (^  and  *),  who  are  to  lead  a  religious  life  of 
prayer  (*-  6).  There  is  to  be  kept  a  list  of  widows 
above  tkj  years  of  age,  of  good  character;  but 
younger  widows  are  not  to  be  enrolled  upon  it,  but 
are  to  be  encouraged  to  marry  O'O). — i.  Presbt/ters: 
the  hard-working  are  to  he  rewarded  (}^•  i") :  the 
sinful  to  be  formally  tried  and  punished  impar- 
tially (1&-21) ;  he  must  not  ordain  ('?  remit  penalties) 
h;isiily,  lest  he  should  be  entangled  in  the  sins  of 
others  (22) ;  but  he  must  keep  himself  j>ure,  though 
this  need  not  imply  total  abstinence  i'^'),  and  he 
will  need  caution  in  judgment,  whether  for  praise 
or  blame  ('^-  '^). — 5.  Sla  cfn,  whether  under  heathen 
or  Christian  masters  (6i-  2). 
Conclution. 

(o)  Further  denunciation  of  the  false  teachers,  as  con- 
ceited, ignorant,  excited  about  questions  which 
only  produce  envy  and  strife,  striving  to  make 
money,  knowing  nothing  of  true  Christian  con- 
tent, but  ruining  themselves  through  the  desire 
of  gain  (3-^0  =  13-10). 

(6)  Solemn  appeal  to  Timothy  to  avoid  such  teaching : 
to  aim  at  spiritual  qualities,  to  lay  hold  of  eternal 
life,  remembering  his  past  confession  ;  and  to  hold 
fast  Paul's  commauduient  with  the  thought  ol  the 
future  appearance  of  the  Lord  (11-14=  ll»--*0), 

Doxolo^y  (iO- 16). 

Postscript.— I*\irther advice  as  to  the  t«&ching  which 
Timothy  is  to  give  to  the  rich  O"^-^^). 

Knal  ai'pcal  to  Timothy  to  guard  the  deposit  and  to 
avoid  false  claims  to  knowledge  (30-  21), 

Salutation, 

This  analysis  will  have  shown  that  the  primary 
interest  is  ethical  and  spiritual.  Moralitj*,  Salva- 
tion, Truth  are  the  keynotes  ;  the  Church  worsliip 
and  Church  ministries  are  to  minister  ro  them, 
Tlie  kernel  is  the  great  h^ran  of  3"*,  but  each 
section  has  some  great  doctrinal  statement  or  some 
faithful  saying  einhedded  in  it,  which  loads  up  to 
or  away  from  that  climax  (liai>*-«2iM*-8-"6«).  The 
Knistle  is  full  of  the  thought  of  the  Salvation  of 
all  mankind,  tlie  consecration  of  all  Creation. 

At  the  same  time  it  is  personal  throughout ;  and 
it  is  hard  to  hulieve  that  it  was  intended  to  be  read 
out  as  it  stands,  in  public  ;  though  a  greeting  to  the 
whole  Church  is  added  (0'-'),  and  though  the  sub- 
stance  of  the  teaching  was  meant  to  be  conveyed 


770      XmOTHT,  FIRST  EPISTLE  TO 


TBIOTHY,  FIRST  EPISTLE  TO 


to  the  Church  (4"  5'  6°-  "),  and  though  certain 
sections  (2'""  3'""  5'"'")  are  necessarily  of  a  general 
kind.  In  these  it  is  hard  to  feel  sure  whether  the 
writer  has  only  the  local  needs  of  Ephesus  in  his 
mind,  or  whether  he  was  consciously  framing 
roles  whicli  would  he  of  universal  application 
and  obligation  (cf.  1  Co  7").  The  phrase  iv  iravrl 
rbirif  (2')  favours  the  latter  view ;  so  perhaps  does 
the  use  of  iKKXriala  in  3"  ;  and  some  of  tne  rules  deal 
with  such  essential  doctrines  or  points  of  morality 
that  the  WTiter  may  have  regarded  them  as  ijiso facto 
binding  on  every  one :  hut  his  primary  thought  was 
probably  only  for  the  church  or  churches  of  which 
Timothy  was  in  charge. 

iii.  Literary  Dependence. — The  OT  is  quoted 
as  authoritative  only  once,  5''=Dt  25*  (cf.  1  Co 
9*) ;  but  its  language  is  consciously  adapted  or  its 
history  appealed  to  in — 

2"'  =  Gn2»(cf.  1  Coll»). 

2"=Gn3»(cf.  2Coll>). 

4<  =Gn  1". 

5»  =Ps4«(?){cf.  1  P3»). 

5"=Dt  19"  (cf.  2  Co  13'). 

&  =Is52»(cf.  Ro2"). 
It  will  be  noticed  that  nearly  every  passage  had 
been  used  in  earlier  Pauline  Epistles. 

In  2"-  "  we  liave  perhaps  a  later  Jewish  adapta- 
tion of  the  OT  history.  A  Christian  rhythmical 
hymn  is  quoted  in  3'* ;  Christian  sayings  in  1'° 
glij;)  4»(;)  (Tioris  o  \1i70t) ;  Christian  prophecy  in 
4'  (cf.  1"  4") ;  liturgicai  doxologies  are  used, 
which  had  probably  passed  from  Jewish  into 
Christian  worship,  in  1"  6"- " ;  traces  of  a  creed 
seem  to  underlie  6'*;  and  Greek  proverbial  say- 
ings, 1»  (?)  4*  6'. 

With  regard  to  writings  of  the  NT,  there  are 
interesting  parallels  with  the  Gospels,  especially 
with  St.  Luke,  which  in  5'*  may  possibly  be  treated 
as  '  Scripture  '  on  a  level  with  the  Ol"  ;  but  none 
of  the  other  parallels  give  the  impression  of  literary 
quotation,  so  that  it  is  probably  not  so  here. 
Cf.  2«  Avith  Mk  10«. 
48       „     Lk  18». 

o  ,,  ,,       z    . 

C  »  >•  10'  (where  Luke  agrees  verbally 
with  1  Tim.,  but  Matt, 
ditters). 

5"      „       „     S''. 

gi7-»  2220-  a. 

There  are  striking  points  of  contact  with  1  Peter  ; 
cf.  2»-"  with  2  P  3'-»,  3"  with  1  P  3'«-*',  5"  with 
1  P  3" ;  but  it  is  not  clear  whether  they  do  (so 
von  Soden)  or  do  not  (so  JUlicher)  imply  literary 
acquaintance  :  if  they  do,  the  priority  seems  to 
be  clearly  on  the  side  of  1  Timothy. 

On  the  other  hand,  '  an  intimate  acquaintance 
with  the  Pauline  letters  must  be  assumed  on  the 
part  of  the  writer  '  (Jiilicher).  There  are  certainly 
conscious  parallels  with  Romans  and  1  and  2 
Corinthians. 
Cf.  1'  with  Ro  16=«.  1"  with  1  Co  1'^  15". 
1»       „      „    13».  2""     „      „     ni=>14". 

1"       „      „     7'«.         4«  „      „     10». 

1»      „      „    13>«.        4»  „      „       9^(?). 

1"  „  „  16M.  5>»  „  „  9». 
2»  „  „  3«.  5"  „  „  9". 
2'       „      „     9>.  1"         „    2  Co    4«. 

The  likeness  culminates  in  the  relation  to  Titus 
and  2  Tiniotl-,y. 
Cf.  1'  "'• »  with  Tit  1».  1"  with  2  Ti  1». 

at  014  07  111 

*>  »i       »»    ^   •  *>        »»        II     ^    • 

93-4  18-8  VI  OM 

O  11         ,,     1       .  o  „  ,,       -    . 

^U  fllB  ^1  01 

t  ,,  ,,  M         .  »  II  II  *'     • 

Aa  OTudU  A\*  16 

*  II         If     ^  •  *  II  II       '  • 

kU  111  r,ll  t? 

U  fl  ,,      1     .  O  11  II       *J  • 

6»  „      „  2».  5"     „       „    4'. 

6'  „      „   2».  6"      „       „     2-=. 

6"  ,1       ..   2".  6"     ..       „     4'. 


The  parallels  with  Romans  and  1  and  2  Cor.  ars 
explicable  eitlier  as  deliberate  adaptations  by  some 
later  writer  or  as  the  reiterations  of  the  same 
thought  by  Paul  himself.  Those  with  2  Tim.  and 
Titus  are  stronger,  and  either  point  to  nearly  con- 
temporary composition  by  one  writer  or  to  a 
deliberate  adaptation.  It  lias  been  held  by  von 
Soden  (Hdcom.  p.  154),  Motlatt  (Historical  NT,  p. 
560),  McGitlert  (Apost.  Age,  p.  413),  that  1  Tim.  u 
the  latest  of  the  three,  and  based  on  2  Tim.  and 
Titus ;  but  a  mere  comparison  of  style  does  not 
indicate  any  priority  as  between  1  Tim.  and  Titus, 
and  favours  the  priority  of  1  Tim.  to  2  Timothy. 
The  other  points  of  difference — fuller  organization 
in  1  Tim.,  fuller  description  of  the  false  teachers, 
etc. — are  as  explicable  by  the  difference  of  circum- 
stances in  each  place  as  by  a  diH'erence  of  date. 

iv.  Situation  implied  at  Ephesus.— (a)  Tht 
False  Teachers. — The  primary  purpose  of  the  letter 
is  to  remind  Timothy  of  the  charge  given  to  him 
to  check  certain  false  teachers ;  but,  as  he  is 
assumed  to  know  them,  they  are  described  in  such 
general  terms  that  it  is  dithcult  for  us  to  identify 
them.  It  is  not,  indeed,  necessary  to  assume  that 
all  the  descriptions  apply  to  one  set ;  Ephesus 
supplied  a  great  variety  of  forms  of  religion, 
heathen,  Jewish,  and  Christian  (Ac  19)  :  and  4''' 
(cf.  Tit  1",  2  Ti  3')  perhaps  implies  a  separate 
development  in  the  future  ;  yet  the  probability  is 
in  favour  of  one  main  tendency.  The  teachers 
were  prominent  in  the  Church  (1")  :  they  may 
have  held  olHce  [cf.  the  stress  on  the  discipline 
over  presbyters  (5**"^),  and  the  need  of  more  care- 
ful choice  of  ministers  (3'"")] :  two  of  them  had 
already  been  'handed  over  to  Satan'  (l'") :  and 
they  may  have  attempted  to  attack  St.  Paul's  own 
apostleship  (I'  2'  1*  ^7)  ^Xao-^ij^"")-  They  are 
untrue  to  the  central  Christian  temper  (1"),  they 
do  not  listen  to  the  dictates  of  their  own  con- 
science (1'*  4'),  are  ignorant  (1'),  influenced  by  the 
desire  of  making  gain  out  of  their  religion  (6*""), 
living  in  a  state  of  feverish  excitement  (6^  vosuv), 
suggesting  curious  disputations  and  investigations 
which  are  'other'  than  the  deposit  (P  6*'),  and 
producing  an  atmosphere  of  strife,  jealousy,  and 
suspicion  (6*).  In  the  substance  of  their  teaching 
a  few  details  emerge. 

(1)  They  claimed  to  be  'teachers  of  law'  (!') : 
misinterpreting  the  OT  in  some  way  for  purposes 
other  than  those  for  which  it  was  intended  (cf.  2  Ti 
316. 17) .  possibly  depreciating  law  in  an  antinomian 
spirit,  so  that  the  writer  has  to  insist  on  its  real 
value  (l**'") :  or,  more  probably,  exaggerating  its 
value,  so  that  he  has  to  point  out  its  limitations, 
as  intended  only  for  diiicoi  (ib.). 

(2)  They  laid  stress  on  ^Ctfoi  koI  7e>'eaXo7lcu 
(1*  4').  The  reference  of  this  is  also  ambiguous. 
The  words  would  be  applicable  to  the  speculative 
theories  of  Gnosticism,  with  its  legends  about  the 
creation  of  the  world  and  the  relationships  of  the 
various  a;ons  which  separated  God  from  matter ; 
and  the  Christian  ^Titers  of  the  2nd  cent,  con- 
stantly made  this  application  (Irena?us,  adv.  Hcer. 
Pricf. ;  Tertullian,  e.  Valent.  3,  de  Anima,  18,  de 
Praiscriptione,  33,  adv.  Marcionem,  i.  9 ;  JEpi- 
phanius,  Hwr.  33.  8). 

Rut  the  context  connects  them  •n-ith  teaching 
about  the  Law  (1') :  Titus  speaks  of  'lovSaixoi  iiv9oi 
{V*),  and  connects  7c>'eaXo7iai  with  /idxa<  fOfUKOi 
(3') ;  and  Ignatius  (arf  Magn.  8)  uses  exactly  similar 
language  of  the  Judaizers  of  his  day.  Thejir  are 
therefore  Jewish  in  origin,  and  were  probably 
speculations  based  upon  the  legendarj'  history  of 
tlie  patriarchs  and  their  descendants,  akin  to  the 
Jewish  Haggadoth,  and  illustrated  by  the  Book 
of  Enoch,  the  Book  of  Jubilees,  and  the  treatise 
on  Biblical  Antiquities  attributed  to  Pliilo  [cf. 
Hort,  Judaistic   Christianity,   pp.  130-146].     The 


TIMOTHY,  FIEST  EPISTLE  TO 


TBIOTIIY,  FIKST  EPISTLE  TO      771 


referenc*  to  Jannes  and  Jambres  (2  Ti  3'-*)  -n-ill 
thou  be  a  balf-ironical  ad  hominem  illustration 
from  one  of  tlieir  own  favourite  myths. 

(3)  They  laid  a  special  claim  to  knowledge  {&"). 
This  ajraiu  would  have  a  iicculiar  applicability  to 
any  form  of  Gnosticism,  and  it  is  so  applied  by 
Heuesippus  ap.  Euseb.  iii.  32  ;  but  it  is  equally 
applicable  to  the  Kabbinic  claim  to  special  know- 
letlge  (Lk  11",  Jn  7*",  Ko  2=»).  The  word  d^-ritft^is 
in  6*  offers  an  easy  sui,';,'estion  to  tlie  ivTiBiadt, 
'Contradictions  between  OT  and  NT,'  of  Marcion  ; 
but  such  an  allusion  is  inconsistent  with  the  stress 
on  .(ewisli  law  (of.  2),  and  imijossible  in  date, 
unless  the  verse  be  a  subsequent  interpolation. 
It  may  either  refer  to  '  Kival  theses,'  i.e.  con- 
flicting deci^ion3  of  the  Jewish  Kabbis  on  the 
application  of  the  Law,  the  Jewish  Halakha,  the 
*  tradition  of  the  elders'  (so  Hort,  I.e.) ;  or  it  may 
be  translated  'oppositions'  (cf.  2  Ti  2^),  and  if  so, 
gives  no  clue  to  the  nature  of  the  opposition. 

(4)  They  taught  a  false  ascctkism,  prohibiting 
marriage,  requiring  abstinence  from  certain  foods 
(4'"*),  and  perhaps  from  wine  (5^),  and  that  on  the 
ground  that  matter  was  evil  (4'-  »,  cf.  4'-  *  6").  This 
particular  teaching  is  ascribed  to  Soi/ii"",  and  so 
probably  came  from  a  heathen  source ;  and  it  is 
quoted  as  a  prophecy  of  the  future,  and  so  is  per- 
haps separable  from  the  rest.  IJut  the  writer  is 
probably  quoting  a,  past  prophecy  as  being  fullilled 
in  the  present,  and  it  is  placed  in  close  connexion 
with  the  'myths'  (4').  This  teaching,  again,  is 
exactly  parallel  to  the  teaching  of  later  Gnostics 
(of.  Clem.  Alex. Strom,  iii.  3  ;  Tert.  adv.  Mareionem, 
I.  14  ;  Irenajus,  Hcer.  i.  2«)  ;  but  it  may  equally 
have  ari.sen  from  an  exa;;geration  of  the  Jewish 
law,  with  a  mixture  of  Oriental  speculation, 
coming  perliaps  through  Essenism  (cf.  1  Co  7  and 
8,  Ro  14,  Col  '2,  He  13). 

It  is  perhaps  legitimate  to  read  allusions  to  the 
false  teachers  in  the  regulations  of  clis.  2.  3,  which 
follow  so  directly  upon  the  w  aming  against  llieni. 
If  80,  their  teaching  was  characterized  by  an  ex- 
clusiveness,  limiting  God's  universal  salvation, 
whether  from  a  Gnostic  or  a  Jewish  standpoint, 
and  perhaps  denying  the  salvation  of  women ; 
perhaps  also  by  a  low  standard  of  morals. 

The  main  tendency,  then,  is  that  of  a  Rabbinic 
speculative  Judaism,  playing  with  historical 
legends  and  casuistry,  and  coloured  by  an  asceti- 
cism borrowed  from  some  heathen  source,  perhaps 
through  Essenism  (cf.  Lightfoot,  Col.  '  On  the 
Colossian  Heresy,'  liiblical  Essays,  xL,  Ignatius, 
I  pp.  359-374). 

(6)  Organization  of  the  Church.  —  The  Church 
forms  one  organized  community,  described  as 
God's  family  (3"-  "),  an  'ecclesia'  of  a  God  of  life 
(t6.):  its  members  are  ol  dScXtpol  {4"),  ol  narol  (4'- 
6"  6-),  47101  (5'").  They  meet  fur  common  worship, 
and  apjiarcntly  up  to  the  time  of  tliis  letter  men 
and  women  alike  had  been  wont  to  teach  and  to 
lead  the  prayers,  but  the  writer  limits  this  right  to 
the  men  (2"'^).  At  the  worship  there  are  reading, 
exhortation,  and  teaching  (4"),  prayers,  interces- 
sions, thanksgivings  (2'  5°).  Over  this  body  the 
apostle  is  supreme :  he  hands  over  offenders  to 
Satan  {rap^SuKa,  1"  ;  but  this  would  not  necessarily 
exclude  the  co-operation  of  the  Church,  as  in  1  Co 
5*) ;  his  exhortations  (2')  and  wishes  (2")  are  authori- 
tative ;  the  true  teaching  is  the  gospel,  which  has 
been  entrusted  to  him  (1"  2').  Tunothv  is  his 
delegate,  '  the  instrument  of  an  absent  rattier  than 
a  wiuldcr  of  inherent  authority'  (Moberly),  com- 
missioned to  ordain  ministers  (though  the  whole 
community  would  have  a  voice  in  the  choice  of 
them,  cf.  3-'°'""),  to  exercise  discipline  over  them, 
to  regulate  worship,  to  control  teaching,  and  hand 
on  the  traditions  of  the  apostle.  His  exact  status 
U  not  clear  :  he  may  have  been  a  temporary  dele- 


gate for  a  special  work,  as  he  had  been  before  to 
Corinth  (1  Co  4'^"")  and  Philippi  (I'h  2'"),  and  as 
Titus  had  been  twice  or  thrice  to  Corinth  (2  Co  7 
and  8) ;  or  he  niay  have  been  permanently  set 
aiiart  as  St.  Paul's  delegate  for  the  liigher  func- 
tions of  ministerial  work,  unlimited  by  any  local 
sphere,  but  sent  from  time  to  time  to  various 
places ;  or,  a<,'ain,  he  may  have  received  a  per- 
manent commission  to  represent  the  apostle  and  a 
permanent  localization  at  Ephesus,  or  possibly 
throughout  Asia  Minor.  Either  view  is  tenable, 
but  the  lirst  springs  most  naturally  out  of  the 
language  of  1'  4'*. 

It  is  aJ.so  uncertain  whether  he  had  received 
special  ordination  for  this  task.  He  had  received 
a  special  gift,  given  bj'  laying  on  of  the  hands  of 
the  presbyters,  and  prophecies  had  led  Paul  to 
choose  him  (1'*  4");  but  the  reference  may  be 
either  to  consecration  for  this  ^iece  of  work,  or  to 
foniial  ordination  when  he  hrst  became  Paul's 
helper  (Ac  IG'"*).  His  position  seems  to  be  that  of 
a  vicar  apostolic  rather  than  of  a  localized  bishop, 
though  it  is  the  germ  out  of  which  the  later  local- 
ized and  monarchical  episcopate  developed. 

The  more  permanent  ministry  under  Timothy  is 
assumed  to  be  already  in  existence.  There  are  no 
directions  to  establish  any  new  oliice,  unless  it  be 
that  of  the  church-widows,  but  only  to  regulate 
and  spiritualize  those  that  exist.     These  are — 

(1)  The  iirldKoiroi.  He  occupies  a  prominent 
position  in  the  ej'es  of  the  Churen  and  the  heathen 
world ;  he  must  have  high  moral  qualihcations : 
from  these  it  may  be  inferred  that  his  duties  wUl 
be  to  entertain  travelling  brethren  (^iX6Jei'os),  to 
teach  (SiSaxTiKit),  perhaps  to  control  the  finances 
(itpiXaptyvpoi),  to  preside  and  care  for  the  Church 
{irpoaTTjvai.,  iirificXiuTdai}. 

(2)  Trpe<r/3i>Te/3oi,  who  are  formally  ordained  (?)  for 
the  position  (5--),  who  also  preside  [irpoeaTun-fs), 
who  also  preach  and  teach  {iv  X(57<fi  xal  iiSaaKaXlg.), 
who  receive  maintenance  in  retvim  for  their  work, 
and  who  are  under  Timothy's  disciijline.  (There  is 
not,  as  often  assumed,  a  contrast  in  5"  between 
teaching  and  non-teaching  presbyters,  but  only 
between  those  who  take  pains  witn  their  teaching 
and  those  who  do  not). 

Are  these  two  different  orders  of  ministers,  or  only  two  names 
for  one  order  ?  This  question,  too,  cannot  be  positively  answered. 
Tlic  fact  that  rpur^uTtfioi  are  not  mentioru-d  in  ch.  3;  that  the 
irrtffwfn:  is  not  mentioned  in  ch.  6  ;  that  tlie  same  functions  of 
presidin^r  and  teaching  are  attributed  to  both  ;  the  vrima  Jade 
meaTiinj;  of  Tit  1",  of.  Ac  20i'''-»,— tljese  favour  the  Identiflcation 
of  tlie  two.  On  tile  other  liand,  the  constant  use  of  the  ein^lar 
iwirH4frof  and  of  tlie  plural  w^nriiiTtfoit  and  the  usa^e  of  the  2nd 
cent,  favour  the  separation,  and  It^ave  it  a  teiiaUe  view  that 
out  of  the  many  presbyters  one  i)iKliop  was  already  chosen  at 
Ephesus  in  order  to  preside  over  the  whole  and  to  represent 
them  to  the  outer  world. 

(3)  SidKoyM.  Subordinate  officers,  whose  char- 
acter has  to  be  tested  before  the  wliole  com- 
munity before  they  enter  on  oHice.  Their  duties 
are  not  defined ;  out  they  perhaps  liave  to  ad- 
minister the  finances  under  the  iTltKoirot  {p.^ 
oi^x/'OKepStit),  and  to  teach,  as  a  successful  dia- 
conate  gives  them  boldness  of  speech.  After 
their  diaconate  they  may  perhaps  hope  to  rise 
to  a  higher  position  {(iaeiiis)  in  the  Church 
(3a-io.  u.  131 

(4)  yvfa^Ket  are  also  mentioned  in  the  official 
ministry,  between  two  sections  dealing  with 
dcixofoi  :  i.e.  probably  '  women  wlio  are  deacons,' 
deaconesses  ;  Init  jiossibly  only  '  wives  of  deacons.' 
A  high  character  is  required  of  them,  but  their 
duties  are  not  defined. 

(5)  xw<"-  The  regulations  for  widows  are  de- 
scribed at  fuller  length,  and  give  the  impression 
that  the  writer  is  introducing  a  fresh  organization 
in  this  case.  There  is  probably  a  distinction  ta 
be  drawn   between    lonely   widows  who  are  the 


772      TIMOTHY,  FIKST  EPISTLE  TO 


TIMOTHY,  FIRST  EPISTLE  TO 


objects  of  charity,  and  who  devote  their  time  to 
prayei  (5*''),  and  active  widows  who  are  church 
workers,  whose  names  are  entered  on  a  cliurcli 
list,  after  careful  examination  of  their  antecedents 
(59.  loj  'I'lm  distinction  is  not,  however,  clearly 
marked.     See  also  art.  Widow. 

[Cf.  Gore,  The  Church  and  tlie  Ministry,  ch.  v.; 
Moberly,  Ministerial  Priesthuocl,  ch.  v.  ;  Hort, 
Christian  Ecdcsia,  chs.  xi.  xii.;  J.  H.  Bernard 
in  Camh.  Gr.  Test.  pp.  Ivi-lxxiv ;  Weiss,  §  4 ; 
Zahn,  Einl.  i.  459-466]. 

V.  Authorship.— Tlie  Epistle  claims  to  be  by 
St.  Paul,  and  is  directly  attributed  to  liim  by 
Irena-us  (Pra^f.  II.  .\iv.  7,  IV.  xvi.  3),  Tertulli.m 
(rfe  Prcesnr.  c.  25),  Clement  Alex.  {Strom,  ii.  p.  457, 
iii.  p.  534),  and  the  Muratorian  Canon ;  it  was 
included  in  tlie  Latin  and  Syriac  versions,  and 
this  implies  an  acceptance  of  its  Pauline  claim. 
It  was  known  to  Marcion  (c.  140) ;  there  are 
many  parallels  to  its  regulations  in  the  earliest 
documents  that  underlie  the  Apostolic  Constitu- 
tions (cf.  Harnack,  TU  II.  v.  pp.  50-52,  or  Chron. 
i.  p.  483) :  these  may  be  due  to  independent  treat- 
ment of  some  earlier  list  of  regulations,  but  the 
more  prob.  view  is  that  the  Apost.  Const,  give  a 
later  and  fuller  adaptation  of  1  Timothy ;  and 
there  are  parallelisms  to  its  language  in  the 
Epistle  of  Vienne  and  Lyons  (Eus.  v.  1),  Hege- 
sippus  (Eus.  iii.  22),  Justin  Martyr  {Dial.  vii.  1", 
XXXV.  3  {?)),  and  above  all  in  Polycarp  (cc.  4.  5.  8. 
9.  12),  Ignatius  {ad  Trail.,  Inscr.  ad  Magji.  8, 
adPnlijc.  3),  and  Clement  of  Rome  (7.  21.  54.  61), 
which  make  it  probable  that  it  was  known  to  all 
these  writers,  and  well  known  in  Asia  Minor  before 
A.D.  115,  and  perhaps  at  Rome  before  A.D.  95. 
For  an  instructive  comparison  of  the  Pastoral 
Epistles  with  Ignatius,  cf.  von  der  Goltz  in  TU 
iLlI.  iii.  pp.  107-118,  186-194. 

On  the  other  hand,  it  was  rejected  with  2  Tim. 
by  Tatian  (Jerome,  Prol.  ad  Titum),  by  '  certain 
heretics'  (Clem.  Alex.  Strom,  ii.  11),  and  with 
both  2  Tim.  and  Titus  by  Marcion  (Tertull.  adv. 
Marcionem,  v.  21)  and  Basilides  (Jerome,  I.e.). 
TertuUian  implies  that  the  reason  of  the  rejection 
was  that  they  were  private  letters ;  but  it  may 
have  been  due  to  a  dislike  of  their  teaching,  or, 
if  thej'  were  not  Pauline,  to  a  real  knowledge  of 
their  origin.  Tlie  external  evidence  is  as  strong 
in  church  writers  as  for  any  Epistle  ;  but  it  is  met 
by  a  persistent  rejection  ou  the  part  of  some 
heretics. 

The  internal  evidence  permits  two  alternatives. 
Either  the  author  is  Paul,  or  he  is  some  later 
writer  anxious  to  support  Christian  morality  and 
orthodox  teaching  against  glowing  heretical  ten- 
dencies, and  for  tliis  purpose  composing  the  letter, 
possibly  with  the  help  of  some  genuine  Pauline 
fragments,  and  certainly  with  a  deliberate  use  of 
the  Pauline  letters.  In  deciding  between  these 
two  alternatives  it  ia  not  pos.sible  to  appeal  to 
points  of  similarity  with  Pauline  language  or 
with  St.  Paul's  character,  as  they  are  assumed 
on  both  sides ;  on  the  other  hand,  dill'erences 
from  the  known  facts  of  St.  Paul's  life  are  as 
much  an  argument  against  the  second  alternative 
as  against  the  tirst. 

(1)  The  historical  situation  cannot  be  fitted  into 
the  account  of  St.  Paul's  life  in  the  Acts.  This  is 
true  in  spite  of  recent  attempts  to  place  it  at  the 
time  of  Ac  20^  (Bartlct,  Apostolic  Age,  pp.  17'J- 
182,  511-515;  Bowen,  The  Dates  of  the  I'listural 
Epistles,  London,  1900) ;  yet  the  Acts  is  incomplete 
even  over  the  ground  which  it  traverses,  e.g.  it 
makes  no  mention  of  the  intricate  circumstances 
coimected  with  the  mission  of  Titus  to  Corinth, 
i.e.  it  helps  us  to  understand  2  Cor.  as  little  as 
this  Epistle.  Further,  it  confessedly  ends  before 
the  death  of  St.  Paul.     There  are  other  grounds 


for  believing  in  a  release  of  St.  Paul  after  Ac  28 
(cf.  art.  Paul),  and  the  situation  implied  here 
may  easily  fall  in  the  interval  between  that  re- 
lease and  his  deatli,  about  the  same  time  as  Titus 
but  before  2  Tim.,  as  this  Epistle  gives  no  trace 
of  the  danger  of  persecution. 

(2)  The  style  is  unlike  St.  Paul's  more  argu- 
mentative passages,  but  it  resembles  that  of  the 
more  practical  sections  of  the  earlier  Epistles,  e.g. 
1  Th  5,  Ro  12-16,  1  Co  16,  2  Co  8.  9.  The  general 
structure,  the  quick  passage  from  practice  to 
doctrinal  basis,  the  personal  interludes  (1'*  2'), 
the  frequent  repetition  of  a  word  and  its  cognate 
forms  {irhns,  V^'" ;  ttos,  2'-';  ttXoStos,  6"- '«),  the 
fondness  for  sharp  antithesis  (5'  5"  6'  6"),  the  use 
of  the  language  of  the  OT  and  of  Greek  proverbs, 
are  subtle  points  that  miglit  escajie  an  imitator. 
But  two  points  of  difficulty  remain.  (a)  The 
vocabulary  is  largely  dillerent.  The  averajre  of 
a;rat  Xiybfud/a  is  one  for  every  verse  and  a  lialf : 
a  large  group  of  words  (34  in  the  three  Pastoral 
Letters)  is  not  found  elsewliere  in  St.  Paul,  but 
is  found  in  St.  Luke's  writings ;  and  many  cliar- 
acteristically  Pauline  words  are  absent  (cf.  Holtz- 
mann,  Einl.  pp.  318,  319,  Past.  Brief e,  p.  100; 
W.  H.  Simcox  in  Expositor,  1888,  p.  180). 

But  the  argument  from  the  mere  use  of  words  la 
always  precarious  (cf.  an  illustration  from  Shakes- 
peare in  the  Expos.  Times,  June  1896,  p.  418,  and 
from  Dante  in  Butler's  '  Paradise,'  p.  xi)  ;  St. 
Paul's  language  elsewhere  shows  great  variation, 
even  within  the  compass  of  one  letter  (cf.  2  Co  8.  9 
with  10-13)  ;  the  proportion  of  fin-a^  Xcydfieva  is — 

1  for  1  '55  verses  in  the  Past.  Epp. ; 

1   „   3-66      „       „  2  Cor.  ; 

1  „  5-53  „  „  1  Cor.  ; 
hence  the  dift'erence  between  2  Cor.  and  1  Cor.  is 
as  great  as  that  between  the  Past.  Epp.  and  2  Cor. 
(Kblling  ap.  Weiss,  p.  51).  Within  the  Pastorals 
72  words  are  found  in  1  Tim.  only,  44  in  2  Tim. 
only,  26  in  Titus  ;  10  are  peculiar  to  1  Tim.  and 
Titus  ;  8  to  1  and  2  Tim.  ;  3  to  2  'Tim.  and  Titus. 
(j0A(/ios,  (vai^ua,  Sii^oKoi  as  adjective,  are  common 
to  the  tliree,  and  they  all  have  some  word  cognate 
to  (TuKppuiv,  and  the  phrases  Tnariis  6  X670S,  iiriyvuns 
d\7}$€ias,  Tj  iryiaivovaa  SiSatr^aXia,  6  vvv  alun'.  There 
is  no  word  which  is  of  clearly  later  date  :  many  of 
the  dillerences  arise  from  ditl'erence  of  subject, 
esp.  in  2'"'  5'"'^  where  they  are  most  frequent ; 
some  occur  in  phrases  which  seem  to  be  quotations 
(see  above).  Many  are  words  common  in  the  Greek 
of  the  Apocrj'pha  (cf.  the  instances  from  2  Mac. 
in  Camb.  Gr.  'Test.  p.  xxxix).  Some  few  are 
Latinisms  (x"/'"'  ^X""  ^'rpi>cpi^la),  due  perhaps  to 
residence  in  Rome ;  others  are  medical  metaphors 
(iTiaixeii-,  foddf),  due  perli.aps  to  intimacy  with 
St.  Luke;  while  it  is  difficult  to  estimate  how 
far  the  mere  wording  of  a  letter  was  due  to 
the  amanuensis  employed.  [Tlie  question  of 
the  vocabulary  is  carefully  treated  in  Findlay's 
Appendix  to  Sabatier,  The  Apostle  Paul]. 

(0)  But  many  of  the  phrases  seem  technical  and 
stereotyped:  'IrjaoiJs  7)  Airls  ijiJ.u>i'  (1';  notice  the 
advance  on  Col  1-'),  i)  vapayyeMa  (1'),  ^  iiyiaivovaa 
SiOaaKoKla  {V),  Truxrds  i  \6yos  {V  etc.),  ttjv  KoXi;» 
aTpaTilav,  tt)i>  Trlariv  (1"),  A  auiTrip  7)p.wv  Seis  (2'), 
t6  impTvpiov  KatpoU  ISlois  (2"),  i]  TfKvofovia  (?)  (2'°),  to 
li.iaTT)pLOi>  T^s  iriffTeois  (3"),  t6  rrit  euffe/Sflas  fnVTi'jpioii 
(3"^),  71  KaXT)  aiSoff/caXio  (4'*),  i]  SidaanaMa  (6'),  ij 
(iitpyeala  (?)  (6"),  i)  ivroXij  {&*),  i)  vapaBiiKri  (6'-") ;  there 
is  an  articiilated  fixity  about  them  which  seems 
to  mark  a  late  date,  and  to  be  unlike  the  freshness 
of  the  earlier  style.  This,  again,  Ls  true  ;  but  the 
date  on  any  hypothesis  is  later,  the  diction  is  that 
of  '  the  old  man  '  less  '  eloquent,'  and  he  is  writing 
to  an  intimate  companion,  so  tliat  his  language 
may  naturallj  have  somewhat  of  an  esoteric 
stamp. 


TIMOTHY,  FIEST  EPISTLE  TO 


TIMOTHY,  FIRST  EPISTLE  TO      773 


(3)  The  tone  of  the  religious  life  implied  shows 
a  similar  development.  It  is  in  all  essentials 
Pauline  ;  for  it  consists  of  life  eternal,  won  bv 
Christ's  death,  which  has  brought  salvation  to  all 
mankind  ;  and  this  life  must  show  itself  by  a  high 
Christian  morality,  and  be  ready  to  lace  the 
appearance  of  Jesus  Christ.  But  there  is  more 
stress  on  the  value  of  law ;  on  the  need  of  good 
works,  or  attractive  works,  icaXi  f/j-yo  (4  times 
in  1  Tim.,  Sin  Tit.,  elsewhere  not  in  St.  Paul); 
religion  is  described  as  el/ti^cta  (8  times  in  1  Tim., 
once  in  2  Tim.  and  Tit.,  not  elsewhere)  or  dcoai^na. 
(1  Ti  2'°  onlj')  ;  the  favourite  qualities  are  those 
of  a  sober,  orderly  loyalty.  Yet  each  point 
could  be  illustrated  from  St.  Paul  (1  Co  6-,  Ro 
3»'  V-,  Gal  1»  5"-  -•  =»,  Eph  2'»),  and  there  is  a 
nnifurm  tendency  in  the  earlier  Epistles  to  pass 
onward  from  the  strain  of  the  first  conversion  to 
the  quiet  ordered  after-life,  and  to  bring  every 
sphere  of  human  relationship  under  the  control  of 
Cliri  tian  discipline  (cf.  \V.  Lock,  St.  Paul,  the 
Master  Builder,  ch.  4). 

(4)  So,  too,  with  regard  to  Church  organization. 
There  are  more  details  of  it,  and  more  stress  upon 
it ;  yet  the  details  can  be  paralleled  elsewhere : 
cf.  Ac  I4-'  21",  Ja  S"  (irpecr^iVepo.),  Ac  20-«,  Ph  1' 
{iTrtffKoiroi),  Ph  1'  (Jid/covoi),  Ro  16'  (deaconess), 
Ac  6'  9",  1  Co  7  (x'opol')-  St.  Paul  organized  some 
ministry  from  the  first  (1  Th  S"*,  1  Co  12=8)  .  jjig 
influence  from  the  first  had  been  used  to  check  the 
irregular  utterances  of  the  spirit  and  to  lay  greater 
stress  on  the  ordered  ministry  (1  Co  12-14)  ;  and 
the  further  stress  upon  it  is  natural  with  the  lapse 
of  time  bringing  new  developments  of  false  teach- 
ing and  the  prospect  of  his  own  death. 

The  prominence  of  prophecy,  the  uncertainty 
about  the  exact  status  of  Timothy,  about  tlie 
presence  of  a  monarchical  episcopate,  about  the 
aistinction  between  ^rriir/toTros  and  Trpax^irepo^,  tlie 
need  3f  regulation  of  public  speaking  by  women, 
all  favour  a  date  considerably  earlier  than  the 
Ignatian  letters. 

Certainly  the  letter  gives  the  impression  of  a 
Church  well  established ;  the  functions  of  the 
various  ministers  are  implied  as  already  fixed,  the 
iTTiuKOTri)  is  an  object  of  desire  (3'),  Timothy  can 
choose  between  novices  and  older  members  of  the 
Church  (3"),  the  Church  widow  must  be  of  60  years 
of  age  (5"),  there  has  been  sad  experience  of  the 
falling  away  of  Christian  widows  (5'^  "') ;  but  none 
of  these  points  carry  us  beyond  the  possible  con- 
ditions of  a  flourishing  community  in  a  large  city 
which  may  have  been  established  at  least  ten 
years,  at  a  time  of  quick  develoiiment  such  as  is 
stamped  on  every  page  of  the  NT. 

The  advice  of  5"  is  inconsistent  with  that  of 
1  Co  7",  but  there  the  advice  is  confessedly  a 
counsel  of  perfection  (cf.  v.*"),  and  given  in  face  of 
a  special  necessity. 

A  comparison  with  other  documents  connected 
with  Ejiliesus,  e.g.  Ac  20"''',  esp.  *',  the  Prologue 
of  St.  John  (with  the  stress  on  God's  creation  of  all 
things  (cf.  4-'),  of  the  manifestation  of  Christ  in  flesh 
(cf.  3"),  of  the  contrast  between  the  Law  and  grace 
and  truth  and  glory  (cf.  l*"")),  and  with  the  Lp.  to 
Eph.  (with  its  stress  on  the  Ascended  Lord  as  the 
source  of  spiritual  strength,  on  the  importance  of 
the  ministry,  of  the  Ch\irch,  of  familj'  life,  its  wit- 
ness to  the  growth  of  Christian  p.salms  and  hymns), 
shows  that  the  writer  knows  the  conditions  of 
Ejihesns  in  the  Ist  century. 

(5)  The  teaching  of  the  false  teachers  has  been 
shown  to  be  compatible  with  the  Pauline  author- 
ship, and  it  may  ue  added  that  the  very  vagueness 
of  it  suits  an  earlier  rather  than  a  later  date,  while 
the  absence  of  any  certain  or  probable  allusion  to 
Docetism,  which  was  the  prevalent  dan^'er  in 
Ephesus  and   ita  neighbourhood  at  the  tune  of 


1  John  and  of  the  Ignatian  letters,  is  in  favour  of 
placing  this  Epistle  hefore  those. 

(U)  Some  critics  feel  an  artificiality  in  the  situa- 
tion implied.  Paul  is  about  to  return  shortly,  yet 
troubles  to  write  on  points  like  those  of  2'-3", 
which  could  afl'ord  to  wait ;  yet  the  circumstances 
of  the  writing  of  1  Cor.  and  1  Thcss.  (1  Co  4'», 
1  Th  3")  are  exactly  analogous.  Again,  Timothy 
is  placed  in  a  position  of  very  great  importance, 
yet  is  distrusted  as  young,  liable  to  be  weak,  and 
to  be  misled  ;  but  thi^  corresponds  to  the  little  we 
know  of  Timothy's  character  elsewhere,  and  it  is 
probable  that  he  had  failed  to  deal  with  a  crisis  at 
Corinth  (cf.  Timothy)  :  and  both  these  are  objec- 
tions to  any  unity  of  authorship ;  indeed,  if  any- 
thing, it  is  more  probable  that  St.  Paul  should 
have  spoken  thus  in  a  private  letter  to  Timothy, 
than  tliat  a  later  writer,  who  was  ex  hypothesi 
using  Timothy  as  a  type  of  an  important  official, 
treated  as  being  the  recipient  of  important  instruc- 
tions, sliould  have  thus  weakened  his  character. 

The  conclusion  is  diftieult.  The  Epistle  marks 
at  all  points  an  advance  on  the  earlier  Epp.  of  St. 
Paul.  In  style,  in  organization,  in  stereotyped 
fixity  of  teaching,  in  the  character  of  the  teachers 
opposed,  there  are  marked  dill'erences.  On  the 
other  liand,  in  all  these  points  it  also  otters  marked 
differences  from  any  writings  of  the  2nd  cent.  It 
falls  within  a  period  in  which  we  have  little  to 
guide  us.  '  The  secularization  of  Christianity  is  in 
full  swing'  (Jiilicher),  but  there  were  the  begin- 
nings of  this  in  I  Cor.  and  Ephesians,  'I'he 
writer  is  a  type  of  a  time  when  the  ethical  voice 
of  a  noble  Hellenism  and  the  Roman  instinct  for 
organization  are  uniting  themselves  with  the  Chris- 
tianity which  had  sprung  as  religion  out  of  Judaism, 
in  order  to  build  up  the  old-catholic  Church '  (von 
Soden);  but  such  incorporation  of  Greek  and 
Ruiiian  thought  had  taken  place  in  Pauls  time, 
and  was  mainly  due  to  his  genius.  It  is  Pauline 
in  claim  ;  admittedly  Pauline  in  central  doctrine  ; 
'  their  author  was  an  adherent  of  the  apostle's 
who  reproduced  his  master's  ideas'  (Moll'att,  I.e. 
p.  561).  Ue  has  an  intimate  acquaintance  with  the 
Pauline  letters:  the  letter  was  accepted  as  Pauline 
by  those  who  most  represented  Paul's  teaching. 
Whether  we  can  take  the  further  step  and  assert 
that  it  is  Paul's  own  work,  depends  upon  the 
question  whether  the  stress  on  organization, 
authority,  teaching,  loyalty,  can  fall  within  his 
lifetime ;  and  whether  he  was  one  who  could 
forget  the  controversies  of  the  past  and  devote 
himself  in  the  face  of  a  new  danger  to  lay  stress 
on  the  foundation  already  laid,  and  to  try  to 
secure  a  high  moral  and  spiritual  tone  within  the 
Churches  under  his  control  by  enforcing  more 
strictness  in  worship  and  in  the  qualifications  for 
the  ministry.  The  points  of  comi)arison  with  the 
earlier  Epistles  can  scarcely  be  urged  in  favour  of 
the  authorship  ;  indeed  in  one  or  two  places,  1"  2^ 
(esp.  the  parenthesis,  i\i)l3tia.v  \iyw,  oi)  ^eiiJo^i), 
the  language  seems  scarcely  explained  by  the  cir- 
cumstances of  the  time,  but  to  be  due  to  a  mere 
extract  from  earlier  letters,  and  if  so,  would  be  an 
argument  aqairutt  genuineness ;  but  these  phnvses 
may  be  reminiscences  in  St.  Paul's  own  mind  of  a 
past  controversy  (cf.  Ejih  2°)  rather  than  extracts 
from  his  letters ;  while  the  dillerenccs,  e.g.  in  the 
salutation  (1'),  in  the  deeper  description  of  his  own 
sinfulness  (I"""),  side  by  side  with  the  stronger 
assurance  of  the  truth  of  his  message,  the  bold- 
ness of  the  criticism  on  Timothy,  the  persona] 
reference  to  his  illnesses  and  his  water-drinking, 
the  allcctionateness  of  the  last  ai>peal  (6-"), — elU 
these  are  subtle  points,  which  are  more  natural 
at  first  than  at  second  hand,  and  which  seem  tu 
bring  us  face  to  face  witli  Paul  hiinsili. 

vi.  INTEOKITY.  —  There  is  no  MS  ground   foi 


„4     xmOTHY,  Fl"i;^^^i^^;i;^r2j™0X^^ 


doubtin"  the  integrity  of  the  Epistle  ;  nor  is  there 

lnyiUr^sLinconsistW°^l^'=''°^7^^^^^^^^ 
given  the  ordinary  discursiveness  of  a  etter-->vh.ch 

would  su-^est  interpolation,      tor  the  a^^l^"'^;^ 

^nacolut"  on  I',  cf.  Eph  3' ;  3"  comes  m  awk-ard^y 

between  '»  and  >;,  and  "«?  "f^d  transpo.  t  on   but 

312  may  be  an  after-thought  (cf .  1  Co  1   )  ,  tor  o 

''^But  the  doubt  has  arisen  in  connexion  ^vith  the 
authorship.     On  the  theory  of  the  Fauline  authpr- 
Xd  it  has  been  suggested  that  the  sections  which 
iZv  a  Tate  date  may  be  later  additions  to  a 
ge^le  lett'er      Thus  ^3--  is  of  a  cjuite  genera^ 
Character  •  it  has  no  personal  expression  :  it  could 
be  dropped  without  destroying  the  sequence  of 
fLS     "■-'»-'»  o^-'"-"-^  are  almost  as  general  ; 
anTt%ersonal  expressions  ^-^^^l^^:, 
"58  5"   iirlrpivoi  2}";  SiaiJiaprvpoixai  5'\  miglit  be  tUo»e 
Sf  Timothy  himself  or  of   some  later  authority 
?ayinrdo/Ti  detailed  instructions  m  accordance 
with  the  ceueral  principles  enunciated  by  bt.  l-aui. 
TM    vouKeet'the  d&culty  of  the  large  number 
of  non-Pauline  words  in  these  sections ;  but  that 
mav  be  met  by  the  fact  that  Paul  is  treating  of 
ne^^  subjects,  a'nd  is  perhaps  borro.ving  from  half- 
stereotvped  lists  of  virtues  required  of  candidates 
fM  S  perhaps  based  on  Jemsh  reqmrements, 
nerhaps  onGent&eanalogies  (forthe  correspondence 
TeS  the  requirements  of  3-  and  the  character- 
Lstics  of  the  Stoic  wise  man,  cf.  Ca"  *•  Gr.  V  e^«.  P- 
571  •  besides,  it  makes  it  necessary  to  treat  2  as  a 
deibeT;tTiAsertion.with  a  view  to  claun  Pauime 
authov,aip   for  the  section    cf.  Harnack  [Chrori. 
pp    4S2^S4),  who  treats  3>-"  5i'-/»  as  fragnients 
?iter  thin  138  A.D.].     Again,  on  the  theory  of  the 
non-Pa^ne  authorihip.1t  is  -cessa^  to  ex,.lain 
the  personal  al  usions.     home  of  these  (1         .  -  ) 
may  be  borrowed  from  or  based  upon  previous 
I^t^rs  hut  5"-^  cannot  be  ;  it  cannot  tave  been  in- 
vp^ld  bv  a  forger;  it  must  be  genuine,  and  the 
ve™kwardnessof  its  insertion  at  this  point  is 
r.Snt;  the  theory  of  a  second-hand  compiler,  .vlio 
mi"ht  more  naturally  liave  inserted  it  ^  *     • 
The  command  and  the  insertion  of  the  command 
here   dTp^nd  upon   some   intimate    acnuaintance 
bl  ween^the  waiter  and  Timothy,  and  intimate 
knowledge  of  the  conditions  at  Epliesus. 

-r  e  mSst  elaborate  attempt  to  resolve  the  etter 
into  fts  constituent  factors  is  that  of  Knoke  {Com- 
Ln/ar  1«  den  Pastoralbrkfe,  1889),  who  assumes 
"combination  of  three  letters-two  of  them  from 
PaiTtX)  Timothy,  the  third  the  final  redaction  in 
The  2nd  ceT,  in  the  interests  of  Church  organiza- 
tlon  An  attempt  to  read  these  letters  consecu- 
tiveiy  as  arranged  by  him. 

,„v  IS.  4.  ia_oi«  y*-4"  5>-«-  »•  ••  "■"•  "*■". 
th\   1"-"  3»-4"-  "■'»  S'-"-"  5'-»  6"-"', 
i°j  3i.».  11. 10. 13  ou  59. 10.  n.  ••■  "  6'- ', 

will  show  the  arbitrariness  of  the  division,  and 

Ue  possibility  on  such  a  test  of  subdividing    he 

iiree  still  further.     For  exact  details  "  ^"SSe^ted 

theories    cf.  Mollatt.   U     p.    -02 ;    Clemen,   me 

McGillert.  pp.  405-412;  Harnack,  Chron.  i.  pp. 

*^'^^VALUE.-The  intrinsic  v^ue  is  partly  in- 
dependent of  its  authorship,  for  the  Pastora 
Fhu'tlcs,  even  if  not  written  as  proofs  of.  love  and 
aH^ction  by  Paul  to  Timothy  anc!  T.tus.  'in  honore 
?f,uonecclesia.cathoUcieinordinationeeccles.astrc^ 
discipline  sanctifaat»  sunt'  (Murator.  Canon). 
But  Us  witness  is  not  so  much  to  details  of  eccle- 
siastical  order   (for  these  are  ambiguous),  as  to 

^1"f  \'['witnesses,  more  fully  than  even  Titus  and 
>Tim.,  to  the  principleof  the  delegation  of  apostolic 
luthority.   The  liighest  duty  of  ordaining,  and  exer- 


St  Pa^  acts  as  St.  John  acted  in  the  presence  of 
Ui-e  growing  needs  of  the  Church  (Clem.  Alex.  ««« 

^t^it 'itiesses  that  ahighly  ethical  and  spinUa^ 

=^dt/cS«.=-^^--^| 
ritual  and  or^Lized  minist.y.  There  is  "O  opposi- 
tion bctwe^nlhe  outward  and  the  inward,  between 
the  spirit  and  the  organized  body.  .  ■       „  „* 

(c)  It  breathes  a  healthy  manly,  impatience  of 
in  e  lectual  qnibbles  and  sophistries  ^vlj'ch  are 
di vorc"dfrom\  moral  life.  _It  - -^in  to  St  Paul  s 
protest  against  <ro<pla  and  yv^<T.^_  in  1  Co  1  and  /.  Dut 
U  parries  it  into  a  ditterent  region. 

(TindetSlsithas  had  a  direct  influence  upon 

contributi^"  to  a  missionary  feelmg.  and  to  a  con- 

justice  and   I^^P^^i^ity  m  dealin     wu   ^^  ^^^^ 
^u^^ir^nsVthrmSlsterial  office  s^^^^^^^^^ 

Cura, 


LiTERATUB^-A  very,  "^."^Xld?!  SA  it^l!^ 
be  found  in  Holtzmann's  or  m  Mangold  sj.n^^."-^^^^^  ^,  ,^, 
sufficient  here  to  mention^  the  best  mooera^^^  ^^^  p^^^,.^, 
problen.s  connectedwith  the  bpstie    MJ^^^  ^^,^0 

lS97);Moffatt,H..(on«iAAPP.^5^^  - 


_jd  Uort- 8  JudaiMf  £,'"^"«;"Ji'oi°°elt  a  «ith  Steles  „ote. 

St.  Chr5-808tom'8  honnUes  a^e  ^1  ummat.n^^^ 
modem  commentators  %  on  hoaenorKe  ,  pre-eminent,  and 
Riggenbach  'o^««"-b^'^°'=!^J"  ifi'nd  PatrStic  illustrations 
H.  P.  Lidrton  '°^«'::^'"'''"^''  the  S»c^«-'S  Com  .««.(.>  rj/) 
(1897).  Ellicott  AU°"^^?^J"^'"e'r  in  the  Expositor'.  BM, 
kre  carefu.  and  le^'-^^.'f  =  r^^"  Ber„°  A  in  Camb.  Gr.  Test. 
interesting  and  J"-B«st'«  •  J-  H-^^^^'J'^y^r  Schooh  (1897)  are 

andHeld'8  0ttumJ»rorn«>w«,ui.»pp.20i-n.    ^   ^^^ 

TIMOTHY,  SECOND  EPISTLE  TO.- 

1.  Historical  Sit-ilion  ot  the  writer, 
li!  Analysis. 

Ui.  Literary  Dependence. 
It.  Situation  at  Ephcsus. 

la)  False  Teachmf.    . 
(i,)  Church  Organization. 
T.  Authorship. 
Ti.  Integrity. 
tU.  Value, 
i   Wt«;torical  SITUATION.-St.  Paul  is  in  prison 
at'•R"oS^Sd^vith  a  chain    andjiad^^^^^ 
nrisoner  for  some  length  of  time  (i  -  '•      . 

fiadTncurred  imprisonment  in  the  cause  oChns^ 
n»i  fto  an  apostle  and  teacher  of  tue   ^o>pei  \l 
2.»i :  perhaps  some  deUnite  charge  of  misdemean. 


TIMOTHY,  SECOND  EPISTLE  TO 


TIMOTHY,  SECOND  EPISTLE  TO    775 


onr  had  been  matle  against  him  (ws  KaKovpyoSt  2®; 
cf.  KaKOTTotuSy  1  P  2'-  4'\  but  this  may  be  no  more 
than  a  simile).  But  the  place  and  circumstances 
of  his  arrest  are  not  clear.  He  had  been  tra- 
velling through  Asia  Minor  and  Greece  AWth  a 
band  of  fellow-travellers  (cf.  Tit  3^*  ol  ^er'  ^nou 
TdKTcj),  including  Ueraas.Crescens, Titus,  Tj'chicus, 
Erastus,  and  Tropliimus  ;  apparently  he  had  been 
opposed  at  Troas  by  Alexander,  and  obliged  to 
leave  hastily  {4'*- ") :  in  Asia  he  was  deserted  by 
those  to  whom  he  looked  for  support  (I*'*)  :  at 
Miletus  lie  left  Trophimus  ill  :  at  Corinth  Erastus 
stayed  beliind  :  the  rest  probably  moved  forward 
to  Nicopoila  (Tit  3'-)  :  and  there,  or  perliaps  at 
Rome  itself,  he  may  have  been  arrested  :  Demaa 
de.-*erted  him  :  Crescens  was  despatclied  to  Galatia 
(?Gaul):  Titus  to  Dalmatia:  Tychicus  to  Enhesus: 
and  when  he  writes  Luke  is  with  him  single-handed. 
An  Asiatic  Cliristian,  Onesiphorus,  had  foimd  liim 
out,  thoMgli  with  dilliculty,  had  cheered  his  loneli- 
ness, and  perhaps  was  enabled  to  better  his  condi- 
tion (I^"*) ;  the  Koman  Christians  are  in  touch  with 
him,  and  he  is  alile  to  send  a  word  of  greeting  from 
all  oi  tliem(4^').  Perhaps  liis  trial  had  already  begun 
and  been  adjourned  (4'*'* ",  but  cf.  Zalm,  £inl.  i.  ]>. 
402,  and  S|)itta,  Zur  Gesch.  des  UrchriMentums,  i. 
pp.  35-50,  who  make  out  a  good  case  for  referring 
this  to  his  trial  in  the  previous  imprisonment) ;  at 
any  rate  he  regards  his  death  as  certain  and  as  not 
far  oir  {4^- ^).  So  in  his  loneliness  he  wants  help, 
and  liis  mind  turns  to  his  '  beloved  son'  Timothy, 
and  to  Mark,  to  whom  he  had  been  reconciled. 
Timothy  was  at  the  time  somewhere  in  Asia  Minor, 
— probably  at  Enhesus,  as  he  is  in  a  position  of 
authority,  where  lie  has  to  teach  and  hand  on  liis 
teaching,  cf.  l'^  2'''' "  3^  42- i»,_and  Paul  writes  to 
beg  iiim  to  come,  and  to  come  quickly  before  the 
winter,  to  pick  up  Mark  by  the  way,  and  to  stop 
at  Troas  for  the  cloak  and  books  and  parchments 
left  there.  But  Timothy  was  of  a  timid  nature, 
and  the  journey  was  one  which  would  imply  peril, 
and  possibly  he  may  arrive  too  late  to  see  St.  Paul, 
or  may  liave  to  face  death  himself  ;  so  he  exhorts 
him  to  have  courage  and  to  provide  others  who  will 
be  able  to  teach  the  trutli,  and  warns  him  against 
the  special  dangers  which  are  likely  to  beset  his 
teaching.  The  interest  of  the  Epistle  oscillates 
between  St.  Paul's  desire  for  sympathy  and  his 
wish  to  strengthen  Timothy's  handi  and  to  guard 
the  deposit  of  the  truth. 
IL  Analysis. 

11-2    Greeting. 
3-8.  Thaiik>i,'tvine  for  Timothy's  past  affection  and 
fail)),  and  ueHire  to  see  him  again. 

A.  18-213.  Exhort-ationa  based  mainly  on  St.  Paul's  position. 

B.  ^*~i^.  Exhortations  based  mainly  on  the    position  of 

Timothy. 
A.  Exhortation  (1)  to  stir  up  his  ministerial  gift  (^ : 
reiuunibering  the  nature  of  the  Spirit  given  by 
the  laying  on  of  the  apostle's  hands  ("O- 

(2)  to  be  bold  to  face  suffering  (»)  : 

remembering  (a)  the  power  and  grace  of  God, 
which  bos  conquered  death  and  brought  Ufe 
And  immortality  to  light  ("■  '<*). 

if))  the  example  of  I'aul  himself,  who  haa 
faced  suffering  with  perfect  trust  Id 
God  (II- 12). 

(3)  to  hold  fast  the  truth  entnisted  to  him  0^ 

in  the  Btrength  of  the  indwelling  Spirit  (•*). 
Ttiese  exbortatiouH  are  enforced  by  on  ap)>cal  to 
the  example  of  others : 

(a)  as  a  warning— the  disloyalty  of  the 

Asiatic  ChriHtianH  0^). 
(6)03  an  encounigcment  —  the  boldness 
and    affection    and    kindly    help  of 
OnesipboruB  (l**-l^). 
f4)  to  be  strong  in  the  power  of  grace  (2')- 
(6)  to  commit  the  true  teaching  to  others  »nd 

secure  its  tradition  (2*^). 
(C)  to  be  ready  to  face  suffering, — like  a  noble 
soldier  (3).  which  implies  whole-hearted  ser- 
vice (■•) ;  like  an  othlete,  who  must  keeii  the 
niles  of  the  game  (*) ;  like  &  buHbandtnan, 
who  is  only  rewarded  If  he  toil  well  («  "') : 
remembering   (a)   the   govpel   of   the    KiscD 


Christ,  which  has  enabled  Paul  himself  t4 
lace  suffering  for  the  elect's  sake  (^-i"). 

(6)  tbe  faithful  saying— with  its  encour» 

ageraent  to  all  who  suffer  with  Christi 

and   \ls  warning    to   all   who   denj 

Him(iii3). 

B.  Exhortations,  mainly  dealing  with  the  nature  ol 

the  teaching  to  be  given  by  Timothy — 

(1)  to  urge  Chribiians  to  avoid  idle  and  useleea 

discussions  ('■*). 

(2)  to  be  liimself  a  true  worker,  rightly  teaching  the 

truth  and  avoiding  profane  babblings (!*■  18): 
remembering  that  (a)  such  discussiuns  lead  to 
impiety  and  spread  quickly  to  tbe  ruin  of 
laith  (^7-  >a). 

(6>  whereas  God's  foundation  rests  upon 
His  knowledge  of  His  own,  and  their 
abstention  from  iniquity  (''•'). 
(c)  In  every  house  there  are  good  and  bad 
vessels,  and  a  man  must  cleanse  him- 
self from  evil  to  be  a  good  vessel  (20-  21). 
(8)  to  avoid  youthful  passions,  and  to  aim  at  the 

true  spiritual  qualities  ("). 
(4)  to  avoid  toolish  investigations  (23)  : 

for  they  cause  strife,  and  hinder  the  true  char- 
acter  and    patient   hopeful    work    of    the 
servant  of  the  Lord  (S^-'-W), 
(6)  to  avoid  false  teachers :  for, 

(a)  there  lies  in  the  future  a  great  growth 
of  empty  profession  of  Christianity 
combined  with  sellishness  and  a  low 
stamiard  of  morality  (3i  i*). 
(ft)  thi3  will  be  ministered  to  by  false  and 
vuin  teachers,  deluding  their  votaries 
and  opposing  the  truth,  like  Jannea 
and  Jatnbres,  who  will,  however,  be 
soon  exposed  ('i-y). 
(6)  to  abide  loyally  by  his  past  teaching : 

remembering  (a)  their  past  common  experience 
of  suffering,  and  of  God's  protection  from  it 
(10.  in 

(6)  that  suffering  is  a  universal  law  for 

Christians  (i-). 
(c)  that  deceivers  will  grow  worse  0^)- 
ifl)  the  teachers  from  whom  he  has  learnt 
even  from  childhood  the  real  spiritual 
value  and  purpose  of  all  Scripture 

(14.17). 

to  fulfil  his  whole  duty,  as  an  evangelist,  with 
jiatience,  sobriety,  and  courage  (41.'') : 
remembering  (a)  that  people  will  grow  im- 
patient of  sound  teachitiff  (^-  *). 

(6)  that  Paul  himself  is  passing  :  his  work 

is  done :  he  can  only  look  forward  to 

the  crown  of  righteousness  (0-  7). 

(c)  that  that  crown  will  be  given  to  all 

who  love  the  Lord's  appearing  ("). 

4*31,  Personal  messages. 

Appeal  to  Timothy  to  come  quickly,  because  of 
Taul's  lonehnesa  (9- lO) :  to  bring  Mark  alsofii), 
and  to  stop  at^roas  for  his  cloak  and  books  (1-): 
to  avoid  Alexander  (^*- 16). 
Reminder  of  the  way  in  which  the  Lord  had  pro- 
tected him  in  the  past  in  spite  of  men's  desertion, 
and  trust  in  Ilim  for  the  future  (l"-'*^). 
Biiecial  greetings  to  and  from  individuals  (}^^\ 
with  further  account  of  his  fellow-travellers  (^), 
and  a  renewed  appeal  to  conic  soon. 
^.  Final  Salutation  to  Timothy  and  to  those  with  him. 

With  tlie  exception  of  tlie  last  word  the  Epistle 
is  a  personal  letter  tlirouj;hoiit,  ami  was  probably 
never  intended  to  be  read  aloiul  to  the  Church 
under  Timothy's  care.  The  note  in  2'  emphasizes 
this  esoteric  character. 

iii.  Literary  Dkpendenck.— The  Epistle  is  so 

fiersonal  and  so  little  argumentative  that  there  is 
ittle  direct  quotation  in  it,  even  from  the  OT,  the 
imiiortance  of  which  is  so  strongly  insisted  upon 
(3'*'").  The  allusions  to  it  are  subconscious  and 
secondary.  Tliis  may  be  partly  accounted  for  by 
the  fact  that  the  writer  wiis  without  his  books 
and  parchments  (4") ;  yet  his  mind  is  thoroughly 
Btee{ied  in  it.  Nu  IG'',  Is  2«i»  lie  behind  2'»,  but 
mediated  through  Christ's  saying  in  Mt  7^' ",  Lk 
13S5-a7 .  Wig  jg7  lies  behind  2*",  perhaps  mediated 
through  Ro  9^'  :  Ps  C-2'"  is  adapted  in  4^*  :  Ps  22-'^-» 
colours  the  whole  language  and  thouj-ht  of  4"-  " ; 
and  perhaps  Is  42'"'  atl'ectH  the  description  of  the 
servant  of  the  Lord  in  2"*'. 

Jewish  tradition — whether  written  or  unwritten 
is  uncertain  (cf.  Thackeray,  Relation  of  St.  Patd 
to  Contemporary  Jewish  'Ihmig/tt,  pp.  216-222) — i» 
quoted  in  3''*. 


776     TIMOTHY,  SECOI\D  EPISTLE  TO 


TBIOTHY,  SECOKD  EPISTLE  TO 


One  'faitliful  saying'  is  quoted  in  2"'",  possiblj 
B.  fragment  of  a  Cliristian  hymn  based  on  lio6'  8'', 
Mt  W-",  Lk  12»  (cf.  CGT,  ad  luc. ) :  the  '  seals '  in  2", 
wliile  based  on  the  OT,  were  probably  already  stereo- 
typed as  Christian  watchwords :  2"  reads  like  a 
reminiscence  of  some  early  form  of  creed  (cf. 
Burn,  Introduction  to  the  Creeds,  pp.  27-30)  :  4''' 
is  perhaps  a  quotation  from  some  Christian  pro- 
phet (cf.  Jude  ")  :  4"  from  some  iyp!i<poy  of  the 
Lord  (cf.  Resch,  Agrapha,  p.  253)  :  4'*  recalls  the 
end  of  the  Lord's  Prayer. 

Tliere  are  many  parallelisms  with  the  earlier 
Pauline  Epistles. 


isf-  cf 

Ro  18«r.. 

1'    ,. 

Ro  81». 

1"   „ 

Ro  l",  Eph  41. 

1"   ., 

Ro  1625,  Eph  14 

1"  ., 

1  Ti  2'. 

1'*  .. 

RoS". 

s-"-' .. 

1  Co  9'»- 

211-13 

C.t 

Ro  68  ei. 

216 

Tit3«. 

j»g 

1  Ti  611. 

35 

Tit  116. 

»' 

Tit  116  31. 

46 

Ph  121  2" 

Of  all  these  passages  Ph  l^"  2",  1  Ti  2'  6"  alone 
suggest  a  conscious  literary  imitation  ;  and  they  are 
equally  consistent,  if  not  more  consistent,  with  the 
hypothesis  tliat  thej-  are  the  entirely  independent 
utterances  of  the  same  writer.  The  correspond- 
ences w  ith  the  Acts  are  mainly  with  the  speeches 
of  St.  Paul  there  (P,  cf.  Ac  23'  24"  ;  4',  cf.  Ac  20-^), 
but  they  are  not  close  enougli  to  be  extracts ;  and  if 
they  need  any  explanation,  it  is  very  possible  that 
St.  Luke  was  preparing  the  Acts  at  this  time. 

iv.  Situation  implied  at  Ephesus(?). — (a) 
False  Teachers. — The  warning  against  false  teachers 
is  less  prominent  than  in  1  Tim.  or  Titus :  they 
are  in  tlie  background,  and  their  features  are  seen 
with  less  distinctness ;  yet,  so  far  as  they  can  be 
descried,  they  may  be  identified  as  the  same  as 
there.  Their  chief  characteristic  is  to  '  strive 
about  words'  (2"),  to  indulge  in  'profane  bab- 
blings' (2'*),  in  '  foolish  and  ignorant  questionings' 
(2^),  in  '  fables '  (4*)  :  they  are  '  corrupted  in  mind ' 
(3'),  unspiritual  (2""),  tending  to  a  low  standard  of 
morality  (2'") :  attracting  sSly  women  by  profes- 
sions of  knowledge,  yet  unable  to  satisfy  their 
desire  for  it  (3'- ').  These  tendencies  will  increase 
hereafter  (3'  iv  iaxiToj.'s  r)ijUpai^,  perhaps  an  applica- 
tion of  some  previous  prophecy ;  perhaps  little 
more  than  '  hereafter,'  cf.  Pr  SI'"),  but  within 
Timothy's  own  lifetime  (3"  AiroTpiTrov,  4^'').  In  all 
these  points  they  resemble  the  teachers  of  1  Tim.  and 
Titus.  There  are,  however,  two  distinctive  traits. 
(1)  They  are  ybrjTn  (3'*),  i.e.  either,  loosely,  'se- 
ducers' (AV),  'impostors'  (RV) :  or,  more  exactly, 
'  magicians,'  '  jugglers,'  carrying  on,  even  in  their 
professed  Christianity,  the  old  Jewish  sorcery  or 
the  magical  formulae  of  the  '  Ephesian  letters,' 
akin  to  Simon  Ma^s,  Elymas,  the  sons  of  Sceva, 
or  those  who  practised  '  curious  arts '  at  Ephesus. 
The  analogy  of  Jannes  and  Jainbres  (3*)  makes  it 
probable  that  the  more  exact  sense  is  riglit. 

(2)  Two  of  them,  Hymena?us  and  Philetus, 
taught  definitely  that  '  the  resurrection  is  already 
past.'  Such  an  assertion  must  have  sprung  from 
a  low  view  of  matter,  shrinking  from  belief  in  a 
literal  resurrection  of  the  body,  and  either  (a) 
as.serting  that  the  only  resurrection  is  the  resurrec- 
tion of  the  spirit  to  newness  of  life  in  baptism — a 
view  which  springs  from  the  same  source  as  the 
difficulties  about  the  resurrection  in  1  Co  15,  and 
may  have  been  based  on  a  misrepresentation  of 
St.  Paul's  own  teaching  (Ro  6'),  and  which  was  a 
common  tenet  in  Gnostic  teaching  (cf.  Iren.  i.  23, 
ii.  31  ;  Tert.  de  Resurr.  19,  de  Priescript.  3;  Justin, 
Dial.  80  ;  Polyc.  c.  7  ;  2  Clem.  Rom.  9),  but  would 
also  find  sympathy  in  Jewish  thought ;  or  (h) 
asserting  that  a  man  only  rose  and  lived  again  in 
his  posterity,  an  explanation  which  is  found  in 
Acta  Theclce  14,  i^/iwit  at  SiSd^o^uy  ^v  X/7<i  offros 
di'di'"aaiif  yiyvfffOcu   in  IjS^  yiyovtp,    4^   oXi   txofiev 


T^Kvois — a  view  which  would  be  akin  to  earlieJ 
Jewish  thought,  but  is  a  less  nat\iial  perversion  oi 
any  Christian  theory  (see  Zahn,  Einl.  i.  p.  486). 

There  is,  then,  nothing  to  dissociate  the  teachers 
of  this  Epistle  from  tho.se  of  1  Tim.  and  Tit.;  and 
the  importance  laid  on  the  true  spiritual  purposes 
of  the  OT,  as  well  as  the  ad  hominei/i  appeal  tc 
the  Jewish  Haggada  (3*- "),  make  it  probable  that 
they  were  perverting  the  spiritual  value  of  the 
OT  by  the  introduction  of  worthless  Kabbinia 
legends  and  speculations. 

(b)  Church  Organization. — On  this  there  is  little 
stress  and  few  details  of  it.  Timothy  represents 
St.  Paul  ;  he  is  to  uphold  the  deposit,  the  teaching 
received  from  Paul,  Paul's  gospel  (1'--  "  2'-  *  S'"-  ") ; 
he  is  to  guide  the  teaching  of  others  (2'"'-),  to 
exercise  discipline  (4').  He  has  received  a  spiritual 
qualification  for  his  task  conferred  by  the  imposi- 
tion of  St.  Paul's  hands  (1»,  but  see  1  Timothy)  : 
his  task  is  described  as  a  SiaKovia,  he  himself  as  an 
eiayyeXta-TTis  :  he  is  being  summoned  away  for  a 
special  visit  to  St.  Paul,  but  it  seems  to  be  assumed 
that  he  will  return  (3'"^  4'"').  Meanwhile  he  is  to 
secure  a  sure  succession  for  St.  Paul's  teaching  by 
entrusting  it  to  others,  who  will  be  able  to  hand 
it  on  in  tlieir  turn  to  others  (2-).  The  suggestion 
of  this  Epistle,  in  contrast  to  that  of  1  Tim.,  is 
distinctly  against  the  idea  that  Timothy  was  a 
temporary  delegate,  and  favours  the  theory  that 
he  held  a  permanent  office  and  a  permanent 
localisation  of  the  office. 

V.  Authorship. — The  external  evidence  for  the 
Pauline  authorship  is  much  the  same  as  that  for 
1  Timothy,  save  that  the  allusions  to  its  language 
in  writers  of  the  first  quarter  of  the  2nd  cent,  are 
less  unequivocal.  It  was  possibly  known  by 
Ignatius,  more  probably  by  Polycarp  (c.  5  =  2'-, 
c.  9  =  4'"),  but  the  conscious  borrowing  from  the 
Epistle  is  not  certain  in  either  writer.  This  ditl'er- 
ence  may  be  due  to  the  fact  that  it  is  a  more 
private  letter  than  1  Timothy. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  intrinsic  evidence  ol 
genuineness  is  much  stronger  than  in  1  Tim.  or  in 
"Titus.  Positively,  there  are  personal  touches 
throughout ;  negatively,  there  is  less  to  be  urged 
against  the  genuineness.  The  picture  of  Timothy 
as  young,  timid,  att'ectionate,  is  of  a  piece  with  what 
is  known  of  him  elsewhere  :  the  allusions  in  1"*""*  2" 
410-iii.  iD-ji  bear  the  stamp  of  truth,  giving  a  picture 
of  desertion  and  cowardice  in  some  Christians 
which  could  scarcely  have  been  invented,  and  they 
are  independent  of  the  Acts  and  of  all  other  known 
sources.  So  with  regard  to  the  writer ;  in  cliar- 
actcr — the  affection  for  his  fellow-workers,  the 
gratitude  for  kindness,  the  sensitiveness  to  deser- 
tion (cf.  2  Cor.),  the  prayer  for  those  who  have 
deserted  him,  the  sense  of  the  importance  of  his 
own  mission,  the  appeal  to  his  own  teaching  and 
his  own  suB'erings,  the  self-sacrifice  for  the  elect's 
sake,  the  a-ssurance  of  the  Lord's  protection  and  of 
the  reward  which  he  shall  receive  at  the  last  day ; 
in  method  of  teaching — the  loyalty  to  Judaism 
(13=Ph  3*),  the  value  attached  to  the  OT  (S'"- ", 
cf.  Ro  15''),  the  use  of  Jewish  traditions  (4*),  the 
masculine  contempt  for  trivialities  of  argument 
(2")  ;  in  the  substance  of  the  doctrines  taught — the 
stress  on  God's  purpose  and  grace,  on  the  conquest 
of  death,  on  the  risen  Christ  as  the  inspirer  of 
confidence,  on  the  need  of  suft'ering  and  of  courage, 
on  the  moral  tests  of  faith, — all  these  point  clearly 
to  St.  Paul.  There  is  no  objection,  on  the  side  of 
Church  organization  or  of  the  doctrines  assailed, 
to  be  raised  against  his  authorship.  The  slight 
distrust  of  Timothy's  courage  and  conduct  (1''2-''') 
may  surprise  us,  but  they  would  be  more  surpris- 
ing in  a  forger  :  the  repetition  to  him  of  the  namei 
of  his  mother  and  grandmother  (1')  are  indeed  un- 
necessary, but  very  natural  in  an  old  man  recalling 


TIMOTHY,  SECOND  EPISTLE  TO 


TIMOTHY,  SECOA'D  EPISTLE  TO     777 


his  old  converts ;  the  assertion  of  his  aiiostleship 
(1")  is  natural  to  one  who  is  enforcing  the  iluty  of 
loyal  adherence  to  hia  teaching  :  the  vague  gener- 
alities about  the  false  teaching  and  the  absence  of 
controver.'ial  argument  in  refutation  of  them  are 
natural  in  writing  to  one  who  knew  all  the  circum- 
stances. The  reference  to  the  persecutions  in 
Antioch,  I.ionium,  and  Lystra  unlii  (3"),  is  expli- 
cable, as  tney  were  the  tirst  whicli  Timothy  had 
witnessed,  and  is  very  like  tliat  in  2  Co  ll^-'-si. 
The  only  ground  of  suspicion  lies  in  the  style — 
partly  in  tl  e  large  number  of  4iraf  "Kcyliiuva.  (44 
in  this  Epistle  alone  :  6.0\eiv,  aKaipus,  dtrpaTTJi, 
ava^iirtrvfxiv,  drdXi'trtf,  dyavrjipdVj  dva^i'Xft^',  dfs^t- 
hdKOSf  dvfiraL'X^'vTos,  dvfi^Lfpo^,  dvTibiaTWiaBai^  diraf- 
5evro5,  diroT/  lirtadax^  dprioSt  dtpi\dya6oSf  ^4\tiov, 
ydyypaiva,  76^»s,  yuvaLKdpioiff  6etXia,  ^kotjXo^,  ^\eyfj.6Sf 
iv5uv(iv,  iiravipOu)ai^^  iTTtaufxvftv^  Oedtn/evaros,  Kara- 
^$cipeiy,  KinjOiH',  Xoyo^axciv,  ixdfiji-q,  fUfx^pava^  vfuj- 
TepiK6Sf  dpOoToixAf,  tnCTOvadaif  Trpay/xarla,  ffT/saroXoyet*', 
ffvvKaKoiraOftyf  Jw(ppovtiTfi6iy  tp£\6vr]St  ^tXauros,  0t\^- 
Sofos,  <pi\60(ot,  xo'^''f''5i  JOTi^'Mo'i  "o  o'lfi  of  which, 
however,  suggests  a  later  date),  and  more  de- 
finitely, in  tlie  many  words  or  phrases  —  either 
Latiuisms  ix'^p'"  fX"'  ^''  ^''  "''■'a")  or  half-sterco- 
tj'ped  formulae  {KaOapd  (TwelSTjats,  Ka&apd  Kapoia, 
iTriyvttxns  dXi^^f/ay,  TrapatfiJ^'i;,  vyiaivovres  \6yoif  ij 
iryiaivovca  SiOajKaXla^  ncrrAs  6  X670S,  ^f^7)Xoi  Kevo- 
ipivylai,  ri  tov  Sia^6\ou  Trayts,  6  tov  6tov  dydpunros, 
i  yty  aliiv) — which  siiggest  a  different  writer  at  a 
rather  later  stage  of  Christianity.  With  regard  to 
these  the  suggestions  urged  on  1  Tim.  will  hold 
good,  and  it  will  perhaps  be  felt  that.  If  they 
stood  alone,  they  would  not  be  so  striking  as  when 
placed  side  by  side  with  1  Tim.  and  Titus.  They 
would  be  scarcely  a  serious  objection  to  this 
Epistle,  on  the  hypothesis  that  those  were  later 
imitations  of  this. 

The  ditficulty  of  inserting  the  historical  situation 
ia  the  time  covered  by  the  Acts,  or  of  placing 
tie  date  of  the  Epistle  in  the  first  Roman  im- 
prisonment, seems  insuperable,  and,  if  it  is  genuine, 
it  presupposes  alateriniprisonnieiiKcf.  ITlMOTllv). 

vi.  iNTKCr.lTY.  —  The  MSS  sui)ply  no  hint  of 
interpolation  or  of  '  contamination'  in  the  Epistle, 
neither  does  any  internal  neces.sity  require  such  an 
hypothesis.  But  there  are  certain  facts  which 
have  not  unnaturally  raised  doubts  about  the 
integrity.  Thus  (1)  the  E])istle  varies  between 
two  main  purposes,  and  there  is  a  possibility  of 
Contradiction  between  them.  The  greater  part  is 
an  instruction  to  Timothy  about  his  teaching  at 
Ephesus,  and  it  seems  to  he  assumed  that  he  will 
remain  there  ;  the  latter  part  summons  him  to 
leave  and  join  the  writer.  These  two  jmrposes  are 
obviously  capable  of  being  combined,  and  the 
a|ipeals  in  chs.  1  and  2  may  naturally  be  inter- 
preted '  show  courage  by  coming  to  join  me  in  my 
pri.-^on,'  '  entrust  your  teaching  to  others  in  your 
own  al>sence  or  in  the  prospect  of  your  own  death ' ; 
but  this  is  not  said,  as  might  have  been  expected 
in  the  face  of  4". 

(2)  Again,  sections  of  the  Epistle  are  personal 
and  distinctly  Paulino  throughout;  while  others 
{'2"-'i")  consist  of  va^e  generalities,  consistent 
with  I'auline  authorship,  but  not  demanding  it. 

(3)  There  are  some  amiarent  contradictions,  e.g. 
3'  a-s  contrasted  w  ith  2"  (but  they  are  not  neces- 
Eanly  spoken  of  the  same  persons,  and,  while  3° 
lefers  to  external  success,  2"  refers  mainly  to 
internal  degeneracy)  :  again,  4"  as  contrasted  with 
4-'  (but  Luke  may  have  been  St.  Paul's  only 
attendant  in  prison,  Eubulus  and  the  others  Human 
Christians  who  had  access  to  him  from  outside). 

(4)  The  construction  of  the  opening  sentence  is 
dilhcult,  and  has  suggested  that  it  has  been  care- 
lessly reconstructed  from  some  earlier  form  ;  but 
its  difficulty  does   not  go  beyond  that  of  many 


Pauline  jiaragiaphs.  Again,  l'»-'8  ig  easily  separ- 
able from  the  surrounding  context,  and  its  con- 
nexion with  it  is  not  at  linst  sight  obvious:  yet 
there  is  a  real  connexion  (see  the  analysis),  and 
the  dilliculty  of  its  position  wUl  remain  on  any 
theory  of  construction. 

These  facts  have  given  rise  to  attempts  of  two 
kinds  to  resolve  the  Epistle  into  separate  parts. 

(1)  It  consists  of  two,  or  possibly  more,  letters 
by  St.  Paul  himself,  which  have  been  accidentally 
combined.  In  this  case  l'-4'  with,  perhaps,  4'"'-' 
and  — ''  might  form  one  letter,  wrilicn  from  the 
Konian  imprisonment,  and  4"""'  with  4-^  wUl  be  a 
second  letter,  perhaps  written  earlier,  at  the  time 
of  the  imprisonment  in  Ca'sarea  (Clemen),  or  even 
later  in  the  Roman  imprisonment.  This  theory 
meets  many  ditllcuUies,  would  imply  very  little 
dislocation  of  MSS,  anl  very  possibly  has  an 
analogy  in  the  end  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans. 

(2)  It  consists  of  genuine  fragments  of  Pauline 
letters,  worked  up  into  one  whole  by  some  later 
writer,  say  of  the  time  of  Uomitian  (Clemen),  with 
the  object  of  strengthening  Christians  in  the  face 
of  persecution,  and  securing  the  tradition  of  apos- 
tolic doctrine  against  inuuvatiiig  tendencies.  We 
might  then  have  (a)  4""-  '"■-'■  -^  a  short  letter, 
calling  Timothy  to  rejoin  him,  written  at  some 
time  in  the  third  niissionaiy  journey  (McGifl'ert, 
Rartlet)  ;  (b)  I'-S'^  3"'-4»  and  4"^-^»  a  letter  of 
encijuragement  to  Timothy,  written  at  the  end  of 
the  Roman  imprisonment ;  (c)  S^-S'  the  addition 
of  the  ultimate  redactor.  Further  and  more  de- 
tailed suggestions  of  the  jjossibility  of  reconstruc- 
tion will  be  found  in  Clemen  {Die  Eivheitlkhkeit 
dcr  Paul.  Brief c,  pp.  142-156);  McGittert  (The 
Ajw.stolic  Age,  yp.  404-414);  Moflatt  {The  His- 
turical  New  Testament,  pj).  700-704).  But  there  is 
no  suflicicut  reason  for  treating  any  part  of  the 
Eiiistleas  un-Pauliiie  :  the  theories  of  interweaving 
of^ document  with  document  are  too  intricate  to  be 
probable,  and  no  one  theory  has  commanded  any- 
thing like  a  common  assent.  iuWuhar  (Einleitung^, 
pp.  10.5,  1.56)  entirely  rejects  the  theory,  because  of 
the  unity  of  each  of  the  Pastoral  Epistles,  and 
regards  them  throughout  as  purely  inventions 
attributed  to  the  apostle. 

vii.  Value. — The  importance  of  the  Epistle  is 
not  great  on  doctrinal  or  ecclesiastical  grounds  : 
doctrinally,  indeed,  it  adds  the  fullest  statement 
of  the  inspiration  of  the  OT  and  of  its  primary 
value  to  a  Christian  teacher  that  is  to  be  found  in 
the  NT  :  it  probably  bears  witness  to  the  practice 
of  prayer  to  God  for  mercy  to  the  dead  (!'"),  and  it 
shows  the  power  of  the  Christian  doctrine  of  a 
Ri.scn  Christ  to  support  a  Christian  in  the  face  of 
death  :  ecclesiastically,  it  shows  the  value  attached 
to  the  imiiosition  of  the  apostle's  hands,  and  to  a 
succession  of  ministers  as  a  means  of  securing  the 
tradition  of  sound  teachini' ;  but  none  of  these 
points  are  peculiar  to  this  Epistle.  Its  real  value 
IS  historical  and  personal.  Assuming  the  Pauline 
authorship,  it  is  the  chief  source  of  evidence  for 
Paul's  life  after  the  clo.se  of  the  Acts,  supporting  the 
theory  of  a  second  imprisonment,  giving  details  of 
the  last  trial,  implying  further  missionary  work  to 
the  east,  and  possibly  to  the  west  (4'")  of  Rome, 
testifying  to  his  reconciliation  with  John  Mark, 
and  giving  glimpses  of  some  of  his  friends,  who 
are  not  known  to  us  from  other  sources.  On  the 
non-Pauline  authorship,  its  witness  to  these  his- 
toric facts  may  be  trusted,  ond  it  would  also  be 
a  witness  to  the  tone  of  ecclesiastical  thought 
in  Pauline  Churches  at  the  end  of  the  1st  or 
beginning  of  the  2nd  cent.  But  its  main  interest 
is  one  of  character,  and  two  portraits  emerge 
from  it.  (1)  The  portrait  of  the  ideal  Christian 
minister.  He  is,  like  Christ  Himself,  to  re- 
produce the  features  of  Isaiah's  ideal    of    '  The 


Servant  of  the  Lord,'  patient,  gentle,  hopeful, 
interceding  (2")  :  he  is  to  be  God's  man,  His  loyal 
liegeman  (3") ;  like  a  soldier,  unentangled  with 
civil  duties  (2'*) ;  like  an  athlete,  obej'ing  loyally 
the  rules  of  the  contest  (2'') :  like  a  husbandman, 
toiling  hard,  and,  if  so,  earning  his  reward  (2'*); 
like  a  tradesman,  honestly  cutting  out  his  goods 
(2"  ?) ;  like  a  fisherman,  trying  to  catcli  back  those 
who  have  been  caught  by  the  devil  (2-*  ?) :  he  needs 
courage,  gentleness  in  face  of  opposition,  willing- 
ness to  face  sullering,  hopefulness  for  those  who 
have  gone  wrong  :  he  is  to  be  serviceable  (euxpiffTos, 
4"),  tnoroughly  equipped  for  every  good  work  (3"), 
to  keep  himself  free  from  moral  evil  (2--),  to  re- 
kindle the  grace  given  by  ordination,  remembering 
that  it  was  the  gift  of  a  s]jirit  of  love  and  power 
and  discipline  (1').  In  teaching,  he  is  to  avoid  idle 
speculations  and  restless  innovations,  to  be  loyal 
to  the  truth,  to  be  long-sufi'ering  and  yet  bold  in 
rebuke ;  the  remembrance  of  the  Risen  Christ  is 
to  be  ever  before  him  ;  and  he  is  to  take  for  his 
standard  of  life  and  teaching  («)  the  facts  of  the 
apostle's  life  (3'"),  (6)  the  outline  of  the  apostle's 
teaching,  (c)  the  OT  Scriptures,  which  are  not 
only  able  to  make  him  ■wise  unto  salvation,  but 
also  to  guide  hiin  in  his  discipline  of  others. 

(2)  The  portrait  of  the  Christian  minister,  with 
his  work  done,  facing  death  (cf.  1  John  and 
2  Peter).  He  acquiesces  gladly  in  the  present, 
but  his  eyes  are  turned  mainly  to  the  past  or  to 
the  future.  He  recalls  the  way  in  whicli  he  from 
his  youth,  and  his  ancestors  before  him,  have 
worshipped  God  (1') :  he  dwells  on  God's  power 
(!'•  '• '-  2'  4")  as  having  protected  him  in  all  past 
dangers  (3"),  as  communicated  to  himself  (4"),  and 
yet  independent  of  liimself — God  may  imprison  His 
preachers,  but  His  word  is  never  fettered  (2'') :  he 
reviews  his  whole  course,  he  lias  no  doubt  of  his 
reward  ;  and  so  he  looks  into  the  future,  he  antici- 
pates the  false  teaching  that  will  arise  (3'),  he 
warns  against  it,  he  provides  for  a  succession  of 
teachers  to  whom  the  truth  can  be  entrusted  (2-) : 
he  strenrthens  his  favourite  son  for  his  task :  he 
is  sure  tliat  God  will  protect  him  from  every  evil 
work  that  may  meet  him  in  this  life,  and  he  looks 
beyond  the  grave  :  he  sees  God's  sure  foundation 
firmly  standing  (2'") :  he  sees  God  protecting  the 
teaching  which  he  has  handed  back  to  His  care 
(!'■-)  :  he  sees  God  rewarding  evil-doers  according 
to  their  work  (4")  :  he  sees  the  heavenly  kingdom, 
eternal  glory,  life  and  immortality  ;  he  sees  the 
( oming  in  brightness  {iiritpayeia)  of  the  Righteous 
Judge,  and  the  crown  of  righteousness  given  to 
him  and  to  all  who  have  loved  that  coming  (4"). 

The  Epistle  is  the  letter  of  a  good  shepherd  who 
is  laying  do^vn  his  life  for  his  slieep  to  one  whom 
he  is  training  to  be  also  a  good  sheplierd  and  to 
lay  down  his  life  for  his  sheep,  and  is  inspired  by 
the  remembrance  of  '  the  Good  Shepherd  '  who  had 
laid  down  His  life  and  risen  from  the  grave. 

LiTSEATDiiB. — For  the  literature  c*.  1  Timothy  and  Titus. 

W.  Lock. 
TIN  (S"!3  MdhU)  was  known  as  an  alloy  with 
copper  at  least  as  early  as  1600  B.C.  in  Kgypt,  and 
prol)ably  before  2000  B.C.  in  Europe.  It  was  also 
prepared  pure  in  Egypt  at  least  by  1400  B.C. 
The  source  of  it  is  muc'li  deliated.  Banca,  Spain, 
and  Britain  have  all  been  proposed.  That  it 
appears  as  an  alloy  earlier  in  Europe  than  in 
Egypt  shows  that  it  was  European  ;  and  the 
nearest  source  of  it  to  the  early  bronze  lands  of 
Europe  is  in  the  tin  mines  of  Bohemia  and  Saxony. 
Tin  (Gr.  Koaalrtpo^)  in  the  literal  sense  is  mentioned 
in  Nu  3F-  (P)  along  with  brass,  iron,  and  lead,  and 
along  with  the  same  metals  is  used  fi".  of  Israel  in 
Ezk  22"*  (cf.  v.")  ;  and  it  appears  in  E/.k  27'^  along 
with  silver,  iron,  and  lead,  as  an  article  of  com- 
merce brought  to  Tyre  from  Tarshisli.     In  Is  1^ 


'  alloy '  would  be  a  better  rendering  than  *  ti  n.'  In 
Zee  4'"  '7n;ri  \2Kn  =  plummet.  See  further  under 
Mines,  Mining.         W.  M.  Flinders  Pbtrib. 

TIPHSAH  (npDR  =  '  the  ford ').— The  name  of  tvn» 
places. 

1.  (Qa^d ;  Thaphsa)  The  northern  limit  of  Solo- 
mon's dominions  west  of  the  Euphrates  —  the 
southern  limit  being  Gaza  (1  K  4-^).  It  is  identi- 
fied by  nearly  all  commentators  with  Thap.sacus, 
on  the  right  bank  of  the  Euphrates,  above 
the  confluence  of  the  Belik.  Tiphsali  was  the 
lowest  ford  across  the  Euphrates,  and  the  point 
at  which  Cyrus  the  younger  forded  tlie  river,  tlie 
water  being  lirea.st-high  (Xen.  Anab.  I.  iv.  11). 
At  the  same  place  Darius  crossed  before  and  after 
Issus,  and  Ale.xander  crossed  in  pursuit,  on  two 
bridges  (Arrian,  iii.  7).  Tiphsah  was  the  most 
important  crossing-place  in  tlie  middle  course  of 
the  Euphrates,  and  on  one  of  the  great  commercial 
routes  between  the  East  and  the  West.  In  the 
time  of  Xenophon  it  was  great  and  prosperous, 
and  it  is  mentioned  later  as  the  point  at  which 
river-borne  goods  from  the  lower  Euphrates  were 
landed  and  shipped.  Under  the  Seleucids  it  waa 
called  Amphipotis.  The  to%vn  was  at  or  near 
Kaldt  Diose,  about  eight  miles  below  Meskine 
(Peters,  Nippur). 

2.  (B  Qepaa,  A  Qaipi  [i.e.  nyin  Tirzah] ;  Thapsa) 
A  town,  apparently  near  Tirzah,  which  was  taken 
by  Menahem  after  he  had  dispossessed  Shallura 
and  seized  the  tlirone  (2  K  15"^).  Josephus  (.fini. 
IX.  xi.  1)  writes  the  name  Oaf 6.  as  if  it  were 
Thapsacus.  Thenius  suggests  that  the  name  was 
originallj-  written  Tappuah  (cf.  Luc.  Ta0u^).  The 
site  is  unknown.  C.  W.  Wilson. 

TIRAS  (DTP ;  Geipds,  Luc.  Qipi^).  —  A  son  of 
Japheth,  Gn  10=  [P],  1  Ch  1'.  Ethnologically,  the 
name  should  probably  be  identified  with  the 
Turusha,  a  seafaring  people  mentioned  in  the  Egyp- 
tian inscriptions  of  the  13tli  cent.,  the  Tvpa-qvol  of 
the  Greelcs  (so  Ed.  Meyer  [Gcsch.  d.  Alterthtims, 
i.  200],  followed  by  Dillm.,  Holzinger,  Gunkel, 
et  al.).  Jensen  {'fheol.  Ltztg.  1899,  3,  col.  70) 
makes  it  =  Tarsus  ;  W.  Max  Miiller  (On'en/.  Ltztg. 
Aug.  1900,  col.  290)  takes  it  as  a  doublet  of  Tarshish 
of  v.*,  which  he  identifies  with  Turs,  i.e.  the  land 
of  the  Tyrrhenians  or  Italy.  There  are  the  strongest 
objections  to  the  view  ot  Josephus  (Ant.  I.  vi.  1), 
Jerome  (on  Gn  10-),  and  the  Targg.,  that  Tiros  = 
the  Thracians.  J.  A.  Selbie. 

TIRATHITES(D'nviB ;  BA'ApyaOtel/x,  Luc.  eapa$el). 
— A  family  of  scribes  that  dwelt  at  Jabez,  1  Ch 
2".  The  passage  is  very  obscure.  See  Shimeath- 
ITES,  and  cf.  GENEALOGY,  vol.  ii.  p.  12S",  and 
Wellh.  de  Gentibus,  30  tf. 

TIRE. — The  Eng.  word  '  tire,'  which  occurs  as  a 
subst.  =  headdress  in  Is  3i9,  Ezk  24"-  ^,  Jth  10'  16", 
is  simply  an  aphetic  form  of  '  attire '  ;  it  has 
nothing  to  do  with  'tier'  or  'tiara,'  though  its 
special  application  to  the  dress  for  the  head  is  per- 
haps due  to  such  a  fanciful  connexion.  Cf.  Adams, 
II  Peter,  70,  '  They  metamorphose  their  heads,  as  ii 
tliey  were  ashamed  of  the  liead  of  God's  making, 

f)roud  of  the  tire-woman's.  Sometimes  one  tire  18 
lalf  the  husband's  rent-day ' ;  also  Spenser,  FQ II. 
ix.  19— 

'  Her  yellow  golden  heare 
Wae  trimly  woven,  and  in  tresses  wrought. 
No  other  tire  she  on  her  head  did  weare, 
But  crowned  with  a  garland  of  sweete  rosiere.* 

The  verb  '  to  tire'  is  used  more  generally  =  dress, 
adorn,  as  I  P  3'  Tind.,  '  For  after  tiiis  maner  in  the 
olde  tynie  dyd  the  holy  wemen  which  trusted  in 
God,  tyer  them  selves,  and  were  obedient  to  theii 


TIRHAKAH 


TIRZAH 


779 


husbandes';  though  its  only  occurrence  in  AV 
has  the  sense  of  attiriiiy  the  head,  2  K9-'' '  And  she 
painted  her  face,  and  tired  her  head,  and  looked 
out  at  a  window.'  The  Heb.  verb  in  this  last  pas- 
8a''e  is  3'!;'n,  lit.  to  make  a  thing  good,  right,  beautiful 
(LXX  6.ya.e0v(ii>) ;  cf.  its  use  in  K.\  30'  (of  trimming 
a  lamp)  and  Hos  10'  (of  erecting  goodly  muzzebahi). 
The  nouns  rendered  'tire'  are — I.  ins  Ezk  24"- '■^. 
This  word  prob.  denotes  a  tiara  or  turban  of  an 
ornate  character.  Its  other  occurrences  are  E.\  39'^, 
Ezk  44'»  (both  of  the  headdress  of  the  priests).  Is  S"' 
(worn  by  fashionable  ladies)  61'- '"  (in  the  last  the 
bridegroom  'makes  his  headdress  priestly,'  in  allu- 
sion to  the  splendour  of,  or  the  special  way  of 
folding,  the  priestly  turban  [unless,  with  Marti,  et 
al.,  we  read  ]•;;  for  p;:])-  2.  D-inqy  Is  3".  See 
Crescents.    3.  iilrpa,  Jth  10^  10^ 

J.  Hastings. 

TIRHAKAH  (nprnp),  king  of  Cush  (Oapd  [so  15  in 
2  Kings ;  A  Oapaxd,  which  is  read  also  by  B  in 
Isaiah  ;  Luc.  QapSdK]  /SaffiXeui  AiOiiiruiv),  marched 
out  from  Kgypt  against  Sennacherib  during  the 
e.Npedition  of  the  latter  against  .Jud.va,  in  the  reign 
of  Hezekiah  (2  K  19^,  Is  37"),  immediately  before 
the  destruction  of  Sennacherib's  army  in  the  night 
by  the  angel  of  the  Lord  at  Libiiah.  Herodotus 
(ii.  141)  relates  that  Sethos  or  Sethon,  king  of 
Egypt  and  priest  of  Hephsstus,  obtained  the  de- 
struction of  the  army  of  Sennacherib  from  his  god, 
who  at  night-time  sent  a  host  of  held  mice  into  the 
invaders'  camp  at  Pelusium.  The  mice  devoured 
the  bow-strings  and  harness,  and  left  the  foe  help- 
less. '  Sethon '  seems  to  be  simply  the  title  of  the 
priest  of  '  Heph.-Bstus,'  i.e.  Ptali  of  Memphis  (see 
Grithth,  Stories  of  the  High  Priests  of  Memphis,  p. 
8),  and  this  title  is  hardly  conijiatible  with  that  of 
king.  If  Sennacherib's  expedition  be  that  of  B.C. 
701, — the  only  e.xjiedition  to  these  parts  recorded  in 
his  annals  (see  art.  Sknnacherir), — it  must  have 
taken  place  before  the  reign  of  Tirhakah,  which 
began  m  691.  This  evidence  combined  points  to  the 
following  hypothetical  reconstruction  of  the  episode: 
Tirhakah,  before  his  elevation  to  the  Ethiopian- 
Egyptian  throne,  was  governor  of  Lower  Eg3pt ; 
and  at  its  capital,  Memphis,  he  was  high  priest 
of  Ptah  when  Sennaiherib  threatened  invasion 
((Iriflith,  I.e.  p.  10).  After  some  signal  and  unex- 
pected disaster  on  the  frontier  of  Palestine  or  Egypt, 
Sennacherib  was  compelled  to  retreat  hastily. 

To  return  to  facts :  Sennacherib  died  in  B.C.  682. 
Tirhakah  (Egyp.  THRQ),  who  was  the  last  king  but 
one  of  the  25th  (Ethiopian)  Dynasty, — founded  by 
Shabaka, — began  to  reign  in  (J91.  His  monvinients 
are  found  at  Gebel  Uarkal  in  Nubia,  as  well  as 
throughout  Egypt.  In  Egj'ptian  documents  Tir- 
hakah is  entitled  'Pharaoh' ;  but,  though  probably 
long  resident  in  Egypt  before  ascending  the  throne 
(Schaefer,  Aegyp.  Ztschr.  1900,  51),  he  was  essenti- 
ally an  Ethiopian,  and  was  for  some  time  excluded 
from  Egj-jit  oy  the  .'\>syrian3.  Outside  Egypt, 
doubtless,  he  was  known  as  '  king  of  Cush.'  After 
sustaining  several  attacks,  Tahanja  (Assyr.  Tarku) 
was  driven  out  of  Egypt  in  070  by  Esarhaddon,  who 
plundered  Memphi.s  and  Thebes,  and  divided  the 
government  among  20  rulers  —  chielly  native  — 
tributary  to  Assyria.  This  arrangement  was  of 
short  duration,  ^firhakali  seems  to  have  returned 
to  Egypt  after  Esarhaddon  had  withdrawn,  and 
Esarhiuldon  was  on  his  way  to  punish  the  Egyp- 
tian revolt  when  he  died  in  Nov.  009  (.Johns  in  Kiie. 
Jiibl.  s.v.  '  Esarhaddon  ').  The  hrst  cxi)cdition  of 
his  successor,  Assurbanipal,  was  against  Egj-pt.  It 
W!is  on  a  great  scale,  ami  overwhelmed  both  Lower 
and  Upper  EjQfpt.  "I'irhakah  tied  from  Memphis  to 
Thebes,  and  from  Thebes  to  Ethiopia,  whence  ho  at 
once  commenced  intriguing  Avith  the  princes  of  the 
1  )clta.  The  plot  was  frustrated,  and  soon  afterwards 
I'irhal^ah  di«d.    He  was  succeeded  by  Tanut-Anion 


(Assyr.  Tandamane),  who  recovered  Egypt,  but 
was  driven  out  by  Assurbanijial  in  the  last  Assyrian 
expedition  ever  made  against  that  country. 

F.  Ll.  Griffith. 
TIRHANAH   (njinB ;  B  Oapd/i,   A   Oapxi'd,    Luo. 
Oapaavd).  —  A    son    of    Caleb  by  his  concubine, 
Maacab,  1  Ch  2«. 

XIRIA  (N,-i'R,  but  Baer  n.-jb  ;  B  ora.,  A  Qiipid,  Luc. 
'Eeptd).—A  son  of  Jehallelei,  1  Ch  4'". 

TIRSHATHA  (Nny-iBn).— The  word  occurs  in  five 
places ;  the  LXX  omits  it  altogether  in  Neh  8"  10' ; 
reads  on  the  doubtful  authority  of  a  late  corrector 
'AeapaaSd  in  Neh  7";  and  in  Ezr  2<^,  Neh  1" 
fluctuates  between  A  'ABep(ja.dA,  B  'Adepaad,  and 
'kaepaaOd.  The  term  occurs  also  under  the  dis- 
guised form  of  Attharias  in  1  Es  S*"  and  of  Atthar- 
ates  in  1  Es  9"*  (cf.  vol.  i.  p.  203).  That  the  word 
is  the  name  of  an  oifice,  is  indicated  by  the  constant 
presence  of  the  article  ;  but  Ewald's  (UI,  Eng.  tr. 
V.  87)  conjecture  of  the  high-shrievalty  is  not  happy. 
The  word  is  genuine  Persian,  a  modified  form  of  a 
hj'pothetical  Old  Pers.  tarsata  (cf.  J.  Scheftelowitz, 
Ariseh^  imAT,  p.  93), of  which  '  his  reverence '  in  its 
literal  sense  and  not  in  its  ecclesiastical  usage  may 
be  taken  as  a  close  modern  erjuivalent.  In  Neh  12^ 
and  elsewhere,  for  the  Persian  term  is  substituted 
the  Semitic  nnrrt  (see  GovEliNoi;),  which  is  the  title  of 
the  prefect  or  viceroy,  with  both  civil  and  military 
functions,  of  a  province  or  smaller  district  under 
either  Assyrian  or  Persian  rule.  The  ap])ointment 
was  made  directly  by  the  king  ;  and  when  for  any 
reason  such  an  ollicial  was  sent  on  special  service, 
his  relation  to  the  chief  of  the  province  was  not 
always  clearly  dolined,  and  friction  and  jealousy 
followed  (Ezr  5^  to  O''').  The  title  is  derived  from 
the  Assyrian  pahii,  through  the  Babylonian  pahat 
(see  Delitzsch,  llcb.  Lang,  in  Light  of  Assgr. 
liesearch,  pp.  12,  13 ;  Schrader,  COT  i.  175,  176), 
and  is  neither  post-exilic  nor  Persian  in  its  origin. 
Its  use  dates  from  the  time  of  Jeremiah,  and  con- 
tinued into  the  'r.ilniudic  period,  when  the  term 
was  used  as  e(iui\alent  to  dpxtepe'is  (Bikkurim, 
iii.  3).  On  the  whole  the  Tirsliatha  appears  to 
have  been  a  royal  commissioner  or  plenipotentiary, 
invested  with  the  full  powers  of  a  satrap  or  viceroy, 
and  em])loyed  on  a  special  mission  with  the  accom- 
plishment of  which  his  appointment  ceased. 

R.  W.  Moss. 

TIRZAH  (nyiB,  Qepffd).—!.  Mentioned  Jos  12=^  as 
one  of  the  31  places  whose  kings  Joshua  smote. 
Tirzah  afterwards  became  tlie  capital  of  Jerolioam 
I.,  presumably  of  his  son  Nadab,  and  certainly  of 
the  three  adventurers,  Baasha,  Elah,  and  Zimri 
(1  K  14"  15-'-  ss  1G«-  »•  »• ").  In  1  K  14"  the  reading 
of  the  LXX  (A)  is  Sapipd,  i.e.  Zercda,  Jeroboam's 
birthplace.  Baasha  was  buried  at  Tirzah  ( 1  K  10''), 
probably  Elah  also,  as  it  was  there  he  was  slain 
wliile  drinking  in  the  house  of  one  of  his  oflioers 
(v."'-).  The  Omrides  transferred  the  seat  of  govern- 
ment to  Samaria  (vv.-»-  -"),  but  Tirzah  retained  its 
importance  probably  as  a  fortress,  as  it  was  there 
[if  MT  be  correct,  but  cf.  LXX  and  Buhl,  p.  247] 
that  Menahem  gathered  a  force  to  attack  Shallura 
(2  K  15''').     After  this  Tirzah  drops  out  of  history. 

In  Ca  6*  the  Sliulammite  is  declared  to  be 
beautiful  as  Tirzah,  comely  as  Jerusalem.  The 
Heb.  custom  of  per.sonifying  cities  as  women  robs 
this  comparison  of  the  strangeness  it  would  else 
have  for  us.  It  may  be  the  fjlory  and  prestige  of 
the  capital  that  leu  to  the  simile,  quite  as  much 
as  the  circumstance  that  Tirzah  had  a  reputation 
for  beauty,  or  that  it  occupied  a  site  renowned  for 
its  loveliness.* 

•  Neither  LXX  nor  Vulgato  take  Tirzah  hero  on  a  proper 
name.  A  derivation  from  .njq,  to  delight,  Ig  implied  in  tlieil 
renderings  {tUtuin,  ttiavi*). 


780 


TISHBITE 


TITHE 


The  site  of  Tirz.ah  has  not  yet  been  recovered 
beyond  doulit.  Triasir,  a  fortress  on  the  high  road 
from  Shechuin  to  Bethshan  at  its  junction  with  the 
Abel-inehohih  road  (see  G.  A.  Smith,  HGUL  355), 
seems  too  far  north  to  suit  2  K  15",  and  generally 
farther  north  tlian  Jeroboam  would  be  likely  to 
fix  his  home.  Robinson  {BliP'  iii.  302  f.)  suggests 
tlie  identilitation  of  Tirzah  witli  Tulluzah,  a  town 
on  a  liill  not  far  north  of  Mt.  Ebal,  which  agrees 
witli  the  position  assigned  to  Thersa  by  Brocardus 
(Descriptio,  v\i.),  3  leases  east  of  Samaria.  A. 
Socin  in  Baedeker's  Pal.  and  Syr.  accepts  this 
identilication ;  but  Buhl  (GAP  203)  is  inclined 
to  identify  Tirzali  with  the  modem  et-Tire,  the 
Tirathana  of  Jos.  {.Int.  xviu.  iv.  1)  in  tlie  neigh- 
bourhood of  Gerizim. 

2.  One  of  tlie  five  daugliters  of  Zelophebad  who.se 
case  decided  woman's  rights  in  property  among 
the  Jews.  The  order  of  their  names  (Nu26**27' 
36",  Jos  17',  all  1')  differs  in  36"  from  tliat  of  the 
other  lists,  and  Heb.  and  LXX  do  not  agiee. 

A.  S.  Aglen. 

TISHBITE.— See  Elijah,  vol.  i.  p.  687  ;  and  cf. 
Ed.  Konig  in  Expos.  Times,  xii.  (1901)  3S3. 

TISHRI  (Month).— See  TotK. 

TITANS.— A  Greek  word  {T{e)iTaves),  mythological 
in  its  history  and  meaning,  used  in  the  LXX  in 
translating  the  term  '  valley  of  Kephaim '  in  2  S 
5"  "-.  It  is  also  used  in  Judith  (16'),  in  the  en- 
comium npon  the  heroine — 

'  For  their  mighty  one  fell  not  by  young  men. 
Neither  did  sons  of  Titans  smite  him, 
Nor  tall  giant.s  set  upon  him  ; 
But  Judith,"  etc. 

These  passages  are  principally  interesting  as 
showing  how  the  Hellenistic  Jews  w ho  translated 
the  OT,  and  who  wrote  Juditli,  connected  in  thought 
the  riphatm  of  their  scriptures  with  the  dim  and 
mighty  figures  of  the  Greek  mythological  legends. 
See  Rephaim,  Giant.  W.  J.  Beecher. 

TITHE  (-iff^c,  SeicdTT!).  —  The  payment  of  tithe 
is  a  practice  both  ancient  and  Avidespread,  being 
found  among  many  peoples,  Semitic  and  non- 
Semitic.  The  choice  of  a  tenth  as  the  portion  due 
to  God  was  dictated  by  obvious  considerations. 
Tlie  history  of  the  tithe  in  Israel  is  in  many  resnects 
obscure.  In  the  strange,  and  probably  late,  docu- 
ment, Gn  14,  we  read  tliat  Abraham  paid  tithes 
of  the  spoil  to  Mekhizedctc ;  and  Jacob  at  Bethel 
makes  a  conditional  vow  to  nav  God  a  tenth  of  all 
that  He  gives  to  him  (Gn  28-  E).  But  these  narra- 
tives cannot  be  taken  as  evidence  for  jiatriarchal 
times.  Tlie  latter  is  one  of  several  which  carry 
back  the  practice  of  the  narrator's  own  time  to  an 
origin  in  the  patriarchal  age,  and  is  ilhistrated  by 
Am  4',  which  shows  that  tithes  were  paid  at  some 
of  the  N.  Isr.  sanctuaries  in  the  reign  of  Jeroboam 
11.  (see  Driver,  adluc).  It  is  accordingly  remark- 
able that  no  reference  is  make  to  titlies  in  the 
Bk  of  the  Covenant.  This  is  usually  explained  on 
the  theory  that  the  titlies  were  criginallj-  identical 
with  the  lirst-fruits,  and  that  the  need  of  more 
strictly  defining  the  amount  that  should  be  paid, 
led,  in  the  later  legislation,  to  the  use  of  the  term 
which  had  already  been  employed  in  the  N.  Isr. 
sanctuaries.  W.  R.  Smith,  on  the  contrary,  thinks 
that  the  tithe  was  a  fixed  tribute,  comparatively 
modem  in  its  origin.  At  an  earlier  period  the 
tribute  took  the  form  of  first-fruits,  which  were  a 
private  otlcring.  When  this  was  no  longer  adequate 
to  meet  the  expenses  of  a  more  elaborate  ctiltus, 
the  tithe  was  charged  as  a  fixed  burden  on  land. 
We  know  from  1  S  8"  that  a  tithe  was  paid  to  the 
king,  and,  if  he  devoted  this  to  the  support  of  the 
royal  sanctuaries,  the  transition  to  a  tithe  paid  by 


the  farmers  directly  to  the  sanctuaries  is  readily 
accounted  for.  Unlike  the  first-fruits,  the  tilhu 
was  used  to  pro\ide  the  public  banquets  at  sacrei 
festivals  (see  W.  R.  Smith,  RS'^  245-254).  The 
later  legislation  and  practice  were  as  follows  : — 

(a)  In  Deuteronomy. — In  14--''"it  is  enacted  that 
each  year  the  produce  of  the  soil  should  be  tithed, 
and  the  tithe  taken  to  the  central  sancttiary  and 
there  eaten  ;  or,  if  this  be  inconvenient  by  reason  of 
distance,  it  may  be  turned  into  money,  which  must 
be  spent  on  a  sacrificial  banquet  at  the  central 
sanctuary.  To  this  the  Levite,  since  he  has  no 
portion,  is  to  be  invited.  It  must  be  noticed  that 
the  tithe  is  not  used  for  public  feasting,  but  is  to 
be  consumed  by  the  farmer  and  his  household. 
This  regulation  may  be  a  reform  due  to  the  fact 
that  in  earlier  times  the  ruling  classes,  while  not 
furnishing  the  provisions  for  the  feast,  secured  the 
best  for  themselves.  Further,  the  tithe  is  not  used 
for  the  support  of  the  priesthood  or  the  temple 
ser\'ices.  The  Levite  has  a  moral  claim  to  a  share 
in  the  banquet,  but  it  rests  with  the  farmer  him- 
self whether  this  is  recognized.  In  the  following 
verses  (14-*-  ^)  and  in  26'-'^^  it  is  enacted  that  every 
third  year,  called  the  year  of  tithing,  all  the  tithe 
shall  be  laid  up  in  the  towns  and  distributed  to  the 
Levite,  the  stranger,  the  fatherless,  and  the  widow. 
It  is  generally  agreed  that  Deuteronomy  does  not 
contemplate  two  tithes, — one  to  be  consumed  each 
year,  including  the  third,  at  the  central  sanctuary, 
and  the  other  to  be  levied  for  charity  every  third 
year, — but  rather  a  different  destination  for  the 
same  tithe,  so  that  in  the  third  year  it  shall  be  kept 
at  home  and  devoted  exclusively  to  charity.  The 
origin  of  this  regulation  is  perhaps  to  be  found  in 
the  abolition  of  the  old  public  banquets,  and  con- 
sequent necessity  that  some  other  provision  shoidd 
be  made  for  the  poor.  Since  there  would  be  no 
tithe  in  the  Sabbatical  year,  when  the  land  lay 
fallow,  the  year  of  tithing  would  probably  coincide 
w  ith  the  tlurd  and  sixth  years  in  each  cycle  of  seven 
years.  The  question  remains  whether  the  tithe  in 
Deuteronomy  is  to  be  identified  with  the  first-fruits. 
In  favour  of  this  view  it  may  be  urged  that  it 
is  not  probable  that  a  double  tribute  should  be 
exacted  from  the  crops,  and  that  the  close  con- 
nexion of  the  law  of  first-fruits  with  that  of  tithes 
in  Dt  26'"^'  shows  that  the  two  are  really  identical. 
The  basket  of  first-fruits  presented  to  the  priest 
must  be  assumed  in  that  case  to  be  a  portion  of  the 
first-fruits  taken  from  the  tithe.  'The  command 
to  '  rejoice  in  all  the  good  which  J"  thy  God  hatli 
given  unto  thee,'  implies  that  a  feast  followed  the 
presentation  of  the  basket  of  first-fruits,  and  this 
would  correspond  to  the  banquet  on  the  tithe 
enjoined  14--"".  The  introduction  of  the  term 
'  tithe '  will  then  have  been  due  to  the  necessity  of 
fixing  with  precision  the  amount  of  the  first-fruits. 
On  the  other  hand,  IS*  ordains  that  the  first-fruita 
sliall  be  given  to  the  priest,  but  this  was  certainly 
not  the  case  with  the  tithe.  And  the  feast  referred 
to  in  26"  may  not  have  been  a  feast  on  the  lirst- 
fruits.  It  is  difficult  to  decide  between  the  two 
views,  but  it  seems  safer  on  account  of  18*  (which 
would  otherwise  have  to  be  regarded  as  proV)ably 
later)  to  distinguish  between  the  tithe  and  the 
first-fruits.  Tlie  objection  based  on  the  improba- 
bility that  a  double  tribute  would  be  exacted,  falls 
to  the  ground  if  the  first-fruits  consisted  merely  of 
the  basket  of  fruit,  etc.,  presented  at  the  central 
sanctuary. 

(b)  In  the  Priestly  Code  (P). — In  the  legislation 
of  Ezekiel,  which  forms  the  transition  to  P,  thera 
is  no  law  as  to  tithes.  P  exhibits  a  great  advance 
on  the  earlier  regulations.  According  to  Nu  18" 
'all  the  tithe  in  Israel'  is  given  to  the  tribe  of 
Levi  '  for  an  inheritance.'  The  Levites  are  in  their 
turn  to  give  a  tenth  of  this  ('  a  tithe  of  tlie  Mthe ') 


TITLE  ON  CROSS 


TITTLE 


781 


to  the  priests  ('a  heave-oU'ering  to  Aaron  the 
priest,'  >iu  IS*"**).  The  origin  of  this  is  prohalily 
lo  be  souglit  in  an  extension  of  the  chanty  titlie 
enjoined  in  Deuteronomy,  which  is  now  devoted  to 
the  Levites  exchisively,  and  used  for  this  purjiose, 
not  once  in  three  years,  but  every  year.  Lv  27*'-  ^' 
ordains  tliat,  if  the  titho  is  redeemed,  oneliftli  of 
the  value  sliall  be  added.  It  is  generally  agreed 
that  a  titlie  of  cattle  is  not  conteniplateil,  but  only 
of  a'Ticultural  produce.  It  is  true  that  in  Lv  27^-'' " 
cattle  are  included,  and  rules  are  given  as  to  the 
selection,  and  to  prevent  any  exchange.  But  this 
law  stands  by  itself,  it  is  not  referred  to  in  Neh 
liyn.is  io«  135.13^  a,ui  ig  lirst  mentioned  2  Ch  31»-». 
It  is  probably  a  later  addition  inserted  between 
the  time  of  Neheniiah  and  that  of  the  Chronicler. 
Attempts  have  been  made  to  reconcile  the  regula- 
tions of  the  Priestly  Code  with  those  of  Deuter- 
onomy. It  has  been  supposed  that  Deuteronomy 
refers  to  a  second  tithe  distinct  from  that  in  P  and 
to  be  levied  on  the  nine-tenths  remaining  after  the 
tithe  to  the  Levites  had  been  deducted.  Against 
this  the  following  considerations  are  decisive.  No 
hint  is  given  in  Deuteronomy  that  such  a  second 
tithe  is  spoken  of,  nor  can  such  an  interpretation 
be  fairly  put  on  the  passage,  for  a  reference  to  the 
assumed  lirst  titlie  would  ha\e  been  neces-sary. 
Nor  is  it  probable  that  a  tax  of  nearlj'  one-lifth 
of  the  whole  produce  should  be  iinpos^ed  on  the 
fanners.  Nor  is  it  credible  that  the  Levites  should 
participate  in  the  secoml  tithe  because,  like  the 
poor  and  defenceless,  they  were  dependent  on 
charity,  if  they  were  in  possession  of  a  tithe  already 
made  over  to  them.  And,  lastly,  the  language  of 
Nu  IS-'  '  unto  the  children  of  Levi,  behold,  I  have 
given  all  the  tithe  in  Israel  for  an  inheritance,' 
utterly  excludes  any  tithe  which  was  devoted,  as 
the  Dcuteronomic  tithe,  to  otlur  purposes.  Here, 
a£  elsewhere,  the  explanation  is  that  the  regulations 
belong  to  ditlerent  stages  of  legislation. 

(c)  In  later  Judaism. — Two  tithes  were  levied 
— one  for  the  Levites  in  accordance  w  ilh  the  law 
of  P,  the  other  to  be  consumed  by  the  oH'ercr  in 
accordance  with  that  of  D.  The  tithe  was  the 
most  valuable  part  of  the  income  of  the  Levites. 
The  .Mislina  laid  down  this  rule:  '  Everythin'' 
which  may  be  used  as  food,  and  is  cultivated  and 
grows  out  of  the  earth,  is  liable  to  tithe '  {Mafiseroth 
I.  1).  The  Pharisees  evinced  their  scrupulous 
adherence  to  the  Law  by  oliering  tithes  of  '  mint, 
anise,  and  cummin '  (Mt  23-^).  The  second  tithe 
was  of  course  consumed  by  the  ofl'erer,  and  with 
it  the  tithe  of  cattle  was  usually  reckoned,  though 
Philo  apparently  includes  it  in  the  peniuisites  of 
the  priests.  If  the  second  tithe  was  converted 
into  money,  one-fifth  of  the  value  had  to  be  added  ; 
and  the  money  could  be  spent  only  on  food,  drink, 
and  ointment  necessary  for  the  sacrificial  feast. 
The  charity  tithe  (  or  '  third  tithe ')  was  levied  for 
the  poor  every  third  year. 

LiTKRATORB.— Nowack,  Ueb.  Arehdol.  11.  267-259  ;  Wellhauscn, 
Pruhyoin.  _pp.  15(i-l.'>8 ;  Driver,  DetU.  pp.  lUO-173 ;  W.  tt. 
Smith,  VtSS^pp.  245-253  ;  Schiirer,  UJP  11.  i.  231. 

A.  S.  Peakk. 
TITLE  ON  CROSS.— It  was  customary  in  the 
Reman  empire,  when  a  criminal  was  going  to 
execution,  for  a  board  (ciilled  ffoWs),  on  which  the 
ground  of  condemnation  (airla,  causa)  was  written, 
to  be  carried  before  him  or  hung  round  his  neck — 
the  inscription  being  known  as  titutus  (Gr,  tItXos). 
Instances  of  this  custom  will  be  found  in  Suet. 
Caluj.  32  —  ' pncrcdcnCe  litulo  qui  causam  picnm 
indiiaret,'  Domit.  10;  Eusebius,  HE  v.  1  (see 
Swete,  St.  Mark,  p.  359).  All  four  evangelists 
mention  that  the  custom  was  observed  at  the  cruci- 
fixion of  Jesus  Christ,  though  they  describe  the 
title  as  attixed  to  the  cross,  without  referring  to  its 
being  carried  on  the  way  to  Golgotha.     They  have 


various  styles  of  indicating  it.  As  usual,  St 
Mark's  description  is  the  fullest.  He  calls  it 
'  the  superscription  of  his  accusation '  (^  {itiypaif>^ 
TTit  airias  airov,  Mk  15-'') ;  in  the  First  Gospel  it  i.i 
'  his  accusation '  (aiViai'  avroO,  Mt  27")  ;  and  in 
the  Third  it  is  simi)ly  '  a  superscription  '  {i-nypa'p^, 
Lk  23^).  The  Fourth  Gospel  calls  it  by  the 
technical  name  (titXos),  and  states  that  it  was 
wTitten  in  three  languages — Hebrew  {i.e.  Aramaic, 
the  lanOTiage  of  the  Jews  of  Palestine),  Latin  (the 
official  language),  and  Greek  (the  language  cur- 
rent throughout  the  East),  Jn  19'»-  ^o.  The  four 
Gospels  also  vary  in  their  statements  of  the  words 
of  the  title,  viz.:  — 
Mk  =  'Tlie   king  of  the  Jews'  (4  /Soo-iXfis  ruy 

'lovSaiiov). 
Mt='  This  is  Jesus  the  king  of  the  Jews'  (oDt6s 

i(7Tiv  'lijaoi'S  6  ^affi\eus  rCitf  *lov5a.iii3v). 
Lk='Thi8  is  the  king  of  the  Jews'  (6  j3airiXei)s 

TU3V  'loi'Saiwi'  otn-os). 
Jn=' Jesus  of  Nazareth  the  king  of  the  Jews' 

'YovSaifjjv). 
It  is  not  ea.sy  to  determine  which  of  these  was  the 
original  form  of  word.s.  The  instance  from  the 
Letter  of  the  Churclies  of  Vienne  and  Lyons,  where 
the  martyr's  name  is  given  (out6s  ^a-Tii'  "AttoXos 
6  XpiffTioi'is,  Tusebius,  HE  v.  1),  would  suggest  (1) 
that  Mt  and  Lk  are  right  in  giving  the  word  '  this' 
(oCros),  and  (2)  that  Mt  aad  Jn  are  right  in  giviu" 
the  name — 'Jesus.'  Since  Mt  is  the  only  Gospel 
that  has  both  the  forms  found  In  the  passage  cited 
from  Eusebius,  ths  preference  seems  to  lie  with  the 
I)hrase  as  given  in  that  Gospel.  But  then  we 
cannot  be  sure  that  the  same  form  of  words  was 
used  in  all  cases,  or  that  the  Letter  of  the  Churches 
of  Vienne  and  Lyons  gives  it  with  verbal  accuracy. 
Moreover,  it  may  have  been  variously  phrased  in 
the  three  languages.  The  following  arrangement 
has  been  suggested  : — 


OYTOC  ecTiN  iHroyc  o  BACiAeyc  toin  loyia^iWN. 
KEX  JUDAEORUM. 


(See  Geikie,  Life  and   Words  of  Christ,  ch.  Ixiii. 
note  e). 

The  variations  are  quite  immaterial.  In  all 
four  accounts  the  essential  words  are  the  same. 
The  title  describes  Jesus  as  '  King  of  the  Jews.' 
It  makes  no  mention  of  sedition  or  usurpation  ; 
the  phrase  is  absolute.  Phiinly,  it  was  a  sarcastic 
expression  ;  but  it  was  perceived  at  once  that  the 
point  of  the  sarcasm  was  against  the  Jews  rather 
than  against  their  Victim.  This  is  shown  by  St. 
.John,  who  njirrates  how  the  chief  jiriests  requested 
Pilate  to  ch:inge  the  title  to  '  He  said,  I  am  king 
of  the  Jews,'  and  how  Pilate  h:uiglitily  refused  to 
alter  what  he  had  written  (Jn  ISI-'-  -). 

W.  F.  Adkn'kv. 

TITTLE.— The  Eng.  word  'tittle'  is  simply  a 
various  spelling  of  'title.'  One  of  the  u.ses  of 
'title'  (after  Lat.  titulus  in  late  use,  and  Fr.  title) 
was  to  denote  the  stroke  above  an  abridged  word. 
It  was  thence  u.sed  for  any  trilling  stroke  or  niiirk 
which  distinguished  one  letter  from  another,  and 
was  chosen  by  Wyclif  and  Tindale  to  translate 
the  Gr.  xtpata.  {\\'\l  Ktpia.,  seo  vol.  ii.  App.  p.  151) 
in  its  only  occurrences  Alt  5",  Lk  10'.  All  tho 
Eng.  VSS  up  to  and  including  AV  (1611),  except 
the  Rhemisn,  spell  the  word  with  one  t.  So 
Tindale  in  his  address  to  the  Reader,  Pentateuch 
(Mombert's  Reprint,  p.  3),  '  For  Wxcy  which  in 
tymes  paste  were  wont  to  loke  on  no  more  scrip- 


782 


TITUS 


TITUS 


ture  then  they  founde  in  their  duns  or  Boch  like 
develysh  doctryne,  liave  yet  now  so  narowlye  loked 
on  my  translation,  that  there  is  not  so  moch  as 
one  I  therin  if  it  lacke  a  tj'lle  over  his  lied,  but 
they  have  noted  it,  and  nomhre  it  unto  the 
ignorant  people  for  an  heresye.'  But,  in  quoting 
Mt  o"  three  pages  later,  he  spells  the  word  '  tittle. 
The  Gr.  icep^a  (lit.  '  little  horn ')  was  used  by 
grammarians  to  denote  the  Gr.  accents  and  any 
small  stroke  distinguishing  one  Heb.  letter  from 
another,  as  2  from  3.  On  tlie  importance  attached 
to  these  marks  by  the  Rabbins  see  Lightfoot  on 
Mt  5'«  (vol.  xi.  p.  "99 ff.).  J.  Hastings. 

TITUS  (TItos).— A  companion  of  St.  Paul,  who 
is  always  mentioned  by  him  with  great  affection 
and  confidence,  yet  whose  name  appears  but  on 
rare  occasions  in  the  Epistles  and  never  in  the 
Acts.  On  account  of  tfiis  silence  of  the  Acts  it 
has  been  conjectured  that  Titus  is  the  second  name 
of  some  one  of  St.  Paul's  companions  who  are 
mentioned  there,  and  attempts  huve  been  made  to 
identify  him  with  Timothy,  with  Silas,  and  with 
Titus  (or  Titius)  Justus  (Ac  18') ;  but  none  of  these 
conjectures  has  met  with  acceptance  (cf.  Zahn,  Ein- 
leitung,  i.  pp.  149,  190;  KoltzmSiUB,  Pasioralbricfe, 
p.  81).  The  name  is  Latin,  but,  as  ■with  Paul,  this 
proves  little :  his  birthplace  is  unknown  ;  later 
legends  place  it  in  Crete;  St.  Chrysostom  in  Corinth; 
and  the  Acts  of  Thecla  (c.  2)  speak  of  him  as  living 
with  Onesiphorus  at  leonium  at  the  time  of  St. 
Paul's  first  visit  there.  All  that  can  be  said  for 
certain  is  that  he  was  a  Gentile  (Gal  2'),  probably 
converted  by  St.  Paul  himself  (yvqalui  TiKvi^i,  Tit  I''), 
and  living  at  Antioch  fourteen  years  after  St. 
Paul's  conversion,  when  the  dispute  arose  about 
the  circumcision  of  the  Gentiles.  At  this  time 
Paul  took  him  with  him  to  Jerusalem  :  there  an 
attempt  was  made  to  compel  him  to  be  circum- 
cised ;  St.  Paul  resisted  the  compulsion,  and  prob- 
ably Titus  was  never  circumcised,  though  the 
ambiguity  of  St.  Pauls  words  leaves  it  just 
possible  that  he  was  circumcised  as  a  voluntary 
concession  on  St.  Paul's  part  (cf.  Lightfoot  on 
Gal  2'"*  ;  Hort,  Judaislic  Christianity,  pp.  76-83). 

Titus  remained  St.  Paul's  companion,  being  per- 
haps with  him  when  he  wrote  Galatians  [may  6  aim 
iliol  (2^)  mean  '  who  is  with  me  still '  ?  cf.  oi  cruv  ifwt 
of  1*],  but  not  mentioned  again  until  the  time  of 
the  incidents  which  caused  the  writing  of  1  and  2 
Corinthians.  At  this  time  he  paid  two,  if  not 
three,  visits  to  Corinth. — (a)  In  the  year  before 
the  writing  of  2  Cor.  (oxA  iripvin,  8'")  he  went  at 
Paul's  request  (2  Co  12")  with  one  other  brother 
to  Corinth,  perliaps  carrying  1  Cor.  with  him, 
perhaps  also  authorized  to  explain  the  method  of 
the  collection  for  the  saints  alluded  to  in  1  Co 
16'- ' :  at  any  rate  he  did  organize  it,  and  that 
on  a  religious  basis  (jrpoenjpJaTo,  2  Co  8"),  and 
returned  to  St.  Paul  with  news  of  the  zeal  sliown 
in  the  matter  at  Corinth. — (6)  Probably  after  he 
had  left  Corinth  there  arose  some  serious  opposi- 
tion to  St.  Paul  there ;  perliaps  Timothy  was  in- 
sulted and  set  at  nought  [cf.  2  Corinthians  and 
Paul],  and  Titus,  who  was  already  known  there, 
was  despatched  from  Ei)hesus  to  deal  with  the 
crisis,  carrying  the  letter  referred  to  in  2  Co 
2  and  7.  St.  Paul  had  often  boasted  to  Titus  of 
the  loyalty  of  his  Corinthian  converts  (2  Co  7") ; 
but  he  was  afraid  now  lest  his  boast  would  be 
proved  empty  :  he  waited,  restless  and  anxious  for 
tlie  return  of  Titus;  he  expected  to  meet  him  at 
Troas,  but  Titus  did  not  ai)pear  ;  apparently,  the 
crisis  renuired  a  longer  time  than  Paul  had  ex- 
pected :  he  moved  on  to  Macedonia ;  and  there 
Titus  arrived,  and  with  good  news.  The  majority 
of  the  Corinthian  Church  had  formally  punished 
the  otl'ender  :   they  had   received  Titua  with  fear 


and  trembling :  they  had  shown  regret  ifiX  theii 
previous  conduct,  indignation  against  the  otfender, 
enthusiasm  for  St.  Paul :  Paul's  boast  had  been 
justified  :  Titus  had  been  overjoyed :  St.  I'aul  was 
comforted  (2"  7""'').— (c)  On  the  receipt  of  this 
news  Paul  wrote  2  Cor.  and  requested  'Titus,  who 
gladly  accepted  the  request,  to  go,  accompanied  by 
two  other  brethren,  on  a  fresh  visit  to  Corinth 
and  to  complete  the  collection  for  the  saints. 
Titus  was  to  represent  the  apostle ;  the  two 
brethren  represented  Churches,  probably  those  of 
Macedonia  (S'-'^). 

The  next  reference  to  Titus  is  in  the  letter  to 
him.  Tliis  implies  that  St.  Paul,  after  the  release 
from  his  first  Koman  imprisonment,  had  travelled 
with  Titus  in  the  East,  that  they  had  landed  at 
Crete  and  had  evangelized  several  to\ms  (kot4 
TriSXiK,  1°),  hut  that  St.  Paul  had  been  unable  to 
remain  longer,  and  had  therefore  left  Titus  behind 
to  appoint  presbyters  and  to  complete  the  organiza- 
tion of  the  Church.  Titus  found  consiilerable 
ojiposition,  especially  from  the  Jews  (1'"),  and  much 
tendency  to  insubordination,  and  possibly  had 
written  to  St.  Paul  to  report  this  and  to  ask  for 
his advice(so  Zahn,  Einleitunt/,  i  p.  430).  Whether 
this  were  so  or  not,  St.  Paul  wrote  a  short  letter 
pressing  him  to  complete  the  organization,  to 
ordain  presbyters,  to  teach  sound  doctrine  and 
avoid  empty  disputations,  and  to  exercise  his 
authority  firmly.  The  letter  was  probably  sent 
by  Zenas  and  Apollos  (3"),  and  'Titus  was  re- 
quested to  be  ready  to  leave  Crete  and  join  St. 
Paul  at  Nicopolis  as  soon  as  he  should  receive  a 
further  message  through  Artemas  or  Tychicua 
(3'-).  Probably  it  was  thence  that  St.  Paul  de- 
spatched him  on  a  mission  to  Dalmatia  (2  Ti  4'°). 

A  comparison  of  1  Ti  3'-  with  Tit  2'°  perhaps 
suggests  that  Titus  was  older  than  Timothy,  and 
the  relations  of  the  two  with  the  difficulties  at 
Corinth  imply  that  he  was  the  stronger  man  (cf. 
1  Co  16'"*  with  2  Co  7'°).  He  volunteers  readily 
for  a  delicate  task  (2  Co  8"),  is  full  of  atl'ection 
and  enthusiasm  for  the  Corinthians  {ib.  7'°)  ;  he 
is  ellective,  free  from  all  sordid  motives,  sharing 
St.  Paul's  spirit,  walking  in  his  steps  (12'*),  his 
genuine  son  (Tit  1^),  his  brother  (2  Co  2"),  hii 
partner  and  fellow-helper  (8^). 

The  omission  of  his  name  in  the  Acts  is  scarcely 
remarkable  wlien  the  references  in  the  Epistles  are 
considered  :  if  the  incident  of  Gal  2  is  to  be  identi- 
fied with  that  of  Ac  15,  he  is  alluded  to,  without 
name,  in  ni/as  iWovs  ^S  ayrux  (v.-) :  the  incidents  of 
1  and  2  Cor.  are  wholly  omitted  in  the  Acts  :  and 
those  of  the  Epistle  to  Titus  and  of  2  Tim.  fall 
without  its  scope. 

It  is  interesting  to  note  that  Titus,  the  Gentile, 
is  chiefly  employed  in  missions  to  the  mainly 
Gentile  Church  of  Corinth  :  that  his  principal  work 
there  was  organizing  the  collection  lor  the  saints, 
carrying  out  the  injunction  to  'remember  the 
poor,'  laid  upon  St.  Paul  in  his  presence  at  Jeru- 
salem (Gal  2'") ;  and  that  at  Crete  he  finds  his 
chief  opponents  among  those  of  the  circumcision, 
(Tit  1'"). 

Subsequent  Church  historians  treated  Titus  as 
bishop  of  Crete  and  living  a  celibate  life  to  an  old 
age  in  the  island  (Eusebius,  HE  lll.  iv.  6;  Cun.st. 
Apost.  vii.  46  ;  pseudo-Ign.  ad  Philnd.  c.  3 ;  and 
for  fuller  details,  Lipsius,  Die  Apokri/ph.  Apostel- 
gesckichte,  ii.  2,  pj).  401-406).  An  interesting 
panegyric  on  him  is  found  in  the  works  of  Andrew 
of  Crete  (Migne,  Patr.  Gr.  vol.  97).  His  name  is 
given  still  to  churches  in  Crete  :  it  was  appealed 
to  as  a  battle-cry  in  the  struggles  of  the  Cretans 
with  the  Venetians  ;  his  body  was  said  to  have 
been  retained  at  Gortyna  for  many  centuries  ;  the 
head  was  carried  away  by  the  Venetians,  and  is 
still  preserved  at  St.  Mark's.     His  death  is  com- 


TITUS,  EPISTLE  TO 


TITUS,  EPISTLE  TO 


782 


memorated  on  Jan.  4  in  the  Latin  Church,  on  Aug. 
25  in  the  Greek,  Syriac,  and  Maronite  Churches 
{Acta  Sancturum,  i.  pp.  163,  164;  Isilles,  A'a/«n- 
darium  Manuale).  W.  LOCK. 

TITOS,  EPISTLE  TO.— 

i.  Historical  Situation  of  the  Letter. 

ii.  Analysis. 

UL  Literary  Dependence. 

It.  Situation  at  Crete :  (a)  faUe  teaching ;  (6)  organUation. 

T.  Authorship, 
vi.  Iiiteirrity. 
vii.  Value. 

Literature. 

i.  Historical  Situation.— Paul  and  Titus  had 
been  tOKetlier  in  Crete.  It  is  probable  that  they 
found  tlie  island  already  evangelized  before  their 
arrival  (cf.  Ac  2");  for  by  the  time  this  letter  is 
written  whole  families  (!'• "),  and  people  of  all 
cla&ses  and  ages  (2'"'°),  consisting  botli  of  Jews  and 
Gentiles  (1'"),  belong  to  the  Church.  But  the 
communities  were  unorganized,  and  there  were 
false  teachers.  St.  Paul  himself  began  to  com- 
plete the  organization ;  probably  meeting  with 
opposition  from  thefal.se  teachers  (3'°-  ")>  and  calling 
out  hearty  affection  from  others  (o'*- '°).  But  for 
some  reason  he  could  not  stay  to  finish  his  work, 
and  left  Titus  with  definite  instructions  to  com- 
plete it  (1").  Time  elap.sed  after  he  left,  but  ap- 
parently only  a  short  time,  before  this  letter  was 
written.  St.  Paul  was  moving  about  with  some 
of  his  disciples  (3'°), — perhaps  in  Macedonia  (if  we 
may  argue  from  the  likeness  to  1  Tim.), — intend- 
ing to  winter  at  Nicopolis.  Possibly  he  received 
some  communication  from  Titus,  reporting  progress 
at  Crete  (so  Zahn,  Einl.  i.  p.  430  ;  but  uncon- 
vincingly).  More  likely,  he  took  the  opportunity 
of  the  fact  that  Zenas  and  AnoUos  were  starting 
on  a  journey  which  would  take  them  past  Crete 
to  send  a  letter  to  Titus  in  order  to  prepare  him 
to  join  him  in  Nicopolia,  and  to  strengthen  him  to 
enforce  a  high  moral  standard  in  Crete,  in  spite  of 
the  dangerous  tendencies  of  the  false  teachers. 

The  dates  both  of  the  visit  to  Crete  and  of  the 
composition  of  the  letter  are  uncertain.  The 
organization  of  the  Church  is  so  little  advanced 
that  it  might  easily  fall  within  the  period  covered 
by  the  Acts ;  and  it  is  possible  that  the  visit  may 
be  that  of  Ac  27'  (l/cavoO  xp^"""),  and  that  this 
letter  was  written  early  in  the  Roman  imprison- 
ment (so  Bartlet,  Apostolic  Age,  p.  182) :  but  Titus 
is  not  mentioned  as  being  present  at  the  time  of 
Ac  27,  and  the  surest  indication  for  the  date  of  the 
letter  is  its  likeness  to  1  Tim.  ;  so  that  probably 
both  the  visit  and  the  letter  fall  after  the  release 
from  the  Roman  imprisonment  [see  1  TiM.]. 

ii.  Analysis.— 

I'A  Salutation  (with  special  emphasis  on  the  writer's  own 

apostleship  and  on  the  conmion  faith). 
l»-3".  Advice  to  Titus. 
A.  1^16.  Seed  o/  appitijiting  proper  ministerg. 

Reminder  of  Paul's  past  instructions  to  appoint  presby. 

tera  (»). 
Importance  of  high  moral  character  in  an  overseer  (*^. 
that  he  may  (a)  strengthen  the  sound  teaching,  (o) 
refute  the  oiiponents  of  it  (9). 
I>e8cription  of  these  opponents,  as  inHui)ordinate,  quib- 
bling, money-making,  caring  for  fahk-H  and  comniand- 
mente  of  men,  forgetting  the  ^reat  (."Iiristian  truth — 
*  AU  things  pure  to  the  pure,' — mconsistent  and  worth- 
less fioio). 
B.SI-S".  Sketch  of  iht  true  fealunt  i^f  the  Chrittian  character 
ichicft  Titxit  it  to  eiyfoTM. 
(a)  For  ChrUtiaru  among  Oievuelvcg  (2*-'^) ;  for  the  elder 
men  and  women,  for  the  younger  women  and  men, 
for  Titus  himself,  and  for  s'lavcs,— all  are  to  live  a  life 
true   to  the  sound    teaching :  (1)  in  order   to  avoid 
giving  offence  to  the  iieathcn  world  around  (0-«.  10); 
(2)  because  the  saving  grace  of  God  and  Christ's  atone* 
ment    have  trained  us  to  rise  above  sin,  and  live  an 
attractive  lite  (>>■'*). 
'*)  For  Christians  in  rflation  tc  tht    otiter  vorld  (3*-8) : 
(«)  subordination  to  authority  (i) ;  (fi)  gentleoeas  to  all 
men  (*). 


Reason — God's  loving-kindness  to  us  has  raised  nfl  from 
the  old  heathen  lite  of  hatred  to  a  new  life  of  right- 
eousness ;  so  that  believers  in  God  are  bound  to  set  an 
example  of  noble  and  useful  lives  (3-8). 

(c)  For  Titus  himself.— He  is  to  avoid  foolish  questionings 
(»),  and  to  reject  from  the  Church  a  'heretic'  who 
refuses  to  listen  to  his  admonition  (10-  ^1). 

Personal  message  about  his  own  movements  (*2.  IS), 

Final  word  of  advice  to  those  who  obey  him  at  Crete  0*X 

Salutation  (I'X 

Like  1  Tim.,  it  is  essentially  a  private  letter  of 
instructions,  probably  never  intended  to  be  read 
aloud  in  the  churches  at  Crete,  though  a  word  of 
"reeting  to  the  whole  Church  (or  pos.sibly  only  to 
Titus  and  his  helpers)  is  added  (3").  The  main 
stress  is  throughout  on  character,  on  a  useful 
fruitful  life,  as  the  outcome  of  a  wliulosome  teach- 
ing; and  (as  in  1  Tim.)  each  section  ciilmin.atcs  in 
an  important  doctrinal  statement — 1"  2"""  3^"',  the 
last  saying  being  called  '  faithful'  [vurbs  6  X67os). 

iii.  Literary  Dependence.  —  One  Christian 
saj'ing  is  quoted  (ttio-tAs  o  XAvos,  3'),  and  one  line  of 
Kpimenides  (1").  The  OT  is  never  appealed  to  in 
direct  quotation,  but  its  language  is  consciously 
used  in  l"=Is  29"  (cf.  Mt  15»,  Mk  V,  Col  2--),  2« 
=  Is  52»  (cf.  Ro  2-",  1  Ti  6'),  2"=Ps  130*,  Dt  14^  cf. 
Ezk  37^  (cf.  1  P  2\  .■?«  =  Jl  31  (cf.  Ac  2"-  ^) ;  all  of 
them  passages  which  belong  to  the  common  stock 
of  early  Christian  writers,  and  half  of  which  are 
used  in  the  Pauline  Epistles. 

Reminiscences  of  our  Lord's  teaching  may  be 
foundinl">(  =  Mk7",  Lkll"),3»(=Jn35),  3"'{  =  Mt 
18'°'"),  but  are  not  such  as  to  iniply  literary  de- 
pendence on  the  written  Gospels.  The  same  is  true 
of  points  of  similarity  with  1  Peter,  which  are  very 
slight :  P-"  =  1  P  5'-"S  3'  =  1  P  2",  S''"'  =  1  P  P-». 
(But  see  Bigg,  International  Critical  Commentary 
on  1  and  S  Peter,  p.  21,  who  would  regard  1  Peter 
as  older  than  and  as  having  influenced  this  Epistle). 
There  are  more  verbal  points  of  contact  with  the 
earlier  Pauline  Epistles  ;  cf. 

l'-<  with  Ro    1'  16=«-". 

P»      „       „    14»>. 

2'«      „     Gal  P(?). 

3»       „     Ro  13'. 

3»      „     Eph  2^  1  Co  6»-". 

3'       „         „    2«5^. 
But  they  all  suggest  the  same  mind  dealing  with 
the  same  subject  at  a  different  time,  rather  than  a 
different  writer  borrowing  from  literature. 

The  relation  to  1  Tim.  and,  in  a  less  degree, 
to  2  Tim.  is  more  complex.  As  compared  with 
1  Tim.  the  purpose  is  the  same,  and  the  structure  is 
the  same  ;  the  warning  against  false  teachers  form- 
ing a  framework  in  which  the  rules  about  organi- 
zation and  character  are  inserted ;  in  the  same 
way  each  section  culminates  in  a  doctrinal  climax. 
There  is  also  verbal  similarity  of  a  marked  type. 
Cf.  Tit  I'-'withlTil''. 
]»-»  ^1-7 

II    *         II       II    "^    . 

Ill  '10   o  Ti  3« 

II    *  t*        ti    ••»  —  -*  I  •»  • 


01-9 

07 

II    4". 

2'J.  10 

1.    6'. 

gu 

1.    20. 

QIS 

„    4'»5«>6'. 

3' 

2  Ti  2-'  3". 

3» 

„    1". 

3" 

1  Ti  4'  6",  2  Ti  2'«- 

In  nearly  every  case  there  is  a  freshness  of  treat- 
ment whicli  is  against  the  theory  of  deliberate 
borrowing ;  even  in  1''",  the  most  continuous 
instance  of  similarity,  there  are  changes  (e.q.  the 
omission  of  ^i;  vtOipi'roii,  1  Ti  3°)  which  are  suitable 
to  the  circumstances  of  a  comimratively  new 
Church,  and  this  list  of  req^uiremcnts  may  easily 
have  been  drawn  up  in  a  written  form  by  St.  Paul 
for  frequent  use,  and  be  jiartly  indebted  to  Jewish 
or  Gentile  lists  of  ollicial  ret|nirements  (cf.  1  TiM.). 
The  more  complex  organization  and  the  fullei 


1      784  TITUS,  EPISTLE  TO 


TITUS,  EPISTLE  TO 


detaUs  aliout  worship  in  1  Tim.  apparently  favour 
the  priovHv  of  Titus;  but  all  the  d.lferences  .nay 
be  d'rto  -the  dilleront  circumstances  othe^t^ 
delegates  and  the  two  Churches.    Tl  e.e  js  notlnn 

in  the   letters  to   make  it  ""P-^o^^i-'ti,  L  the 
were  written  on  the  same  day   and  sent  by  the 

"The™Sor;-of   the  relation  ot  Ephesians   to 

teachers    are   partly   J'^"'«^  P^^'yTV.  "  are 'influ 
Jews  hein-the  more  prominent.     They  a«  mnu 
=nt;^l     iinsettin"    whole    tamihes    (1'),   opposing 
«mVnd'tc     hin"  (1''),  tendiuK  to  reject  the  authority 
orTitus(1^2':i3'»^^^ 

«PPkin"  (  '»-i^l  inconsistent  in  their  lives  with  the  r 
profe".ed  knowledge  of  God  (l-  but  these  words 
proie.seu  R.  c  j^     teachers).      Ihe 

iihsUnce  of  the^^SciLg  consists  of  foolish  and 
-!:E  investigation^,  .enea lo^ie^.  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
rnrctira';  S^  m^n   t;,    'apparenUy  fayin. 

i^r  °i°  tntir™^t .  ]^tf^ 

Fnstle  no  trace  of  anything  akin  to  2nd  cent 

L  not  confined  to  one   place,   but  extends  over 
IS  not   connneu    w  r     extends   to   ordaining 

Llarnt^r' temporary  is  not  clear -the  nio^^^^^^^ 

?^^s^i!:^:^rf^:r^™p^S^^"|>t 

NoUiing  is  said  about    any  ordination    for    the 
'' Fo;  permanent  organization,   he  «  to  appoint 

f^nJoxl'VVXi?m*orll?^alI°lti^fo^^^^^^^^ 

tntpd-   and    t  may  be  inferred   that   their 

Sutiettere'  to  teach  (A  perhaps  to  contro^  the 

V^vrti:ft^u:t'r^^^^^^;=^cKd 

w,  ■d>':";:-  St    ti:  ie^l'  famll'y  of  ijod-o^M^xepo. 
n»        There  is  no  reference  to  common  wor.sh.,. 

^mnrrsaivaUr<3',r;ediapsi;»(o^^^ 

^ti^°.Snr^Tr=ari:id^^ 

V.  AuTllORfelllP.     1    »  evidence  of  its  rejec- 

m.  3.  4)   Uem.  A  ex  V  r    ^^^  Mmatonan 

^Z:::'U  wkrf:cei'tedby  Tatlan  in  spit,  of  his  re- 


and 
waa 


iectinn  of  1  and  2  Tim.,  but  rejected  by  Marcion 
H'l'.ilides  (Tert.   adv.  Mairwnem,    v.   21).     it   ..-.- 
i^^odted  in  the  Syriac  and  Old  La U°  VX^- 

Auulvc    ii  p.   126,  where  the  command  of  3    is 

kaqnes.  e.  8  =  3^  and  Clem.  Kom(i.  2-3  ). 

Tt  claims  to  be  by  St.    Paul  in   1     ;    ana   im- 

r    ni  ;n\i=  »    nassages  which  are  indeed  separ- 

SlTe'  ?om  the  ^es't!    But  in  the  body  of  the  letter 

th  re  is  nothing  in  tone,  teaching  or  --umsUnce 

^^^t^tnS^iT  trriaSe  ^'oft^ 
elsewhereTc"  T^ITUS) :  the  character  of  the  writer 
hi,  his^stence  on  his  own  teaching  and  wishes  (cf. 
1  Con  the  sharpness  of  tone  against  fa  se  teachers 
(Pf  Gal  "  Cor  ),  the  quick  passage  from  luoral 
nference  to  doctrinal  premiss,  the  quotation  from 
Greek  poetry,  the  adaptation  of  of  language    the 

than  '  heretical' ;  and  it  is  f^ft/ofphase  which 

'"  Jts  K^e^lcTs"  /  "7'-"^^^^^^^         "^'i"-  ^- 
suggests  lateness,  «••<'"'.  ™.  )„    but  Kaipif 

l:rrln'^2C';nlytoChSt;.T:^. 

fl  Thn.'only),  ^  5.5...aX(a  i,  p'-^o..ail  and  2  Tn   . ) 

'Sve'are^'the  presence  of  a  large  vocabulatT 
freS  Sxed,  and  shared  to  a  ^-t  j;=^te"t  ^^''^f 
writer  of  1  and  2  Tmiothj  ll>e  aUe  ^_^^^^^^^ 
authorship  a.re  either  that  't  >«  >  y^  intimate 
writing  late  -^Uhr^  can  Ve  little  doubt  that  if 
?r'ErUelt^d*Se."this  would  be  the  natural 
exphmation;   or  by  ^r"^"^'" :'':'^^^^ 

i^:-^srM35^||=k"i'^ 

1  Tim.  would  «<=eny^l"<ost  certain   as  the 
rt^rf%''T!mtr  in^xlrnCand  intendei  as  a 

^^vi^'f^TEGRT'^ -The  MSS  suggest  no  insert  ion 
or  disloSn  i^ihe  text ;  nor  does  the  sequ  euc  o. 


TITUS  JUSTUS 


TOBIT,  BOOK  OF 


785 


thought  require  such  a  theory.  !'■•  is  indeed  easilj- 
Ei'parable  from  the  rest,  but  no  conclusive  reason 
requires  its  separation  ;  and  3"  comes  in  awkwardly 
after  3",  but  there  is  a  possible  connexion  of 
thought  between  them,  and  such  postseripta  are 
found  elsewhere,  Ro  16"-*,  1  Ti  i5"-">. 

The  question  of  the  integrity  has  arisen  only  on 
the  theory  of  a  non-Pauline  authorship  :  for  critics 
are  aljuust  entirely  agreed  in  regarding  3'--  "  or 
3ia-i»  JJ3  Pauline,  and  tlie  question  arises  whether 
there  are  other  Pauline  fragments,  and  whether 
they  are  separable. 

The  chief  attempts  to  distinguish  are  these— 

11-6.  Pauline  (-McGiffert,  Harnack,  Clemen) ;  but  expanded 

from  some  simpler  form  by  a  late  hand  (von  Soden). 
17  ».  Non-Pauline  (i6.),  added  to  strengthen  the  episcopate 
in  the  2nd  cent.  (Hamack)  ;  but  the  distinction  between 
tlie  ir.rju^tt  and  rrpiff^iiriui  would  have  been  clearer. 
17-11.  Non-Pauline  (Hesse,  Clemen). 

lia.13. 16.  Pauline.     114-15  non-Pauline  (t6.)(as  not  suiting 
the  other  descriptions  of  the  false  teachers ;  but  there  is 
no  real  inconsistency). 
2,  Non-P.iuline  (IleK.-ie). 

81-7.  Pauline  (McGiffert).    Non-Pauline  (Clemen):  partly  be- 
cause S*-"  is  a  repetition  of  2n  H,  but  there  is  a  difference 
in  the  motive  appealed  to,  which  suits  the  exhortation  of 
$1.2. 
(•-11.  Non-Pauline.     S'^1*  Pauline  (Hamack,    McOiffert, 
Clemen). 
Hie  Pauline  fragment  so  obtained  is  supposed  to  be  a  letter 
from  Paul  written  to  Titus  at  Corinth  after  2  Cor. ;  this  was  de- 
veloped into  a  letter  to  Crete  at  tlie  end  of  the  1st  cent,  because 
of  the  outbreak  of  Judaism  there  (Clemen).    There  is,  however, 
no  substantial  ground  for  distin'.ruishing  between  Paulino  and 
non-Pauline,  except  in  li-*  and  3l'i  1^  :  the  grounds  for  separa- 
tion elsewliere  arc  hj-percritic.tl  and  the  divisions  arbitrary. 

For  fuller  details  cf.  McGiffert,  Apostolic  Afje,  p.  400;  Har- 
nack, Chronolofti^,  i.  p-  4S0 ;  Clemen,  Die  EinhfitUchkeit  der 
Paul.  Britfe,  p*p.  157-163  ;  Moffatt,  Ilutorical  ST  p.  70a 

vii.  Value. — As  with  1  Tim.  (wliich  see),  the 
value  is  a  good  deal  independent  of  its  authorship, 
and  due  to  the  fact  of  its  canoniz.it  ion.  On  the 
point  of  the  organization  of  the  Church  it  adds 
notliing  to  that  in  detail  or  principle;  but  it  has 
a  historical  value  as  showing  the  method  of  organ- 
izing coinmnnities  in  a  very  early  stage  of  develop- 
ment, as  showing  the  persistence  of  Judaism  as 
a  danger  to  the  early  Church  ;  and  the  atmosphere 
of  a  suspicious  and  critical  heathenism  in  which  it 
lived.  In  such  an  atmosphere,  and  dealing  with 
communities  of  rough  islanders  on  a  low  social 
level  and  disposed  to  anarchy,  the  WTiter,  while 
laying  stress  on  faith  and  the  salvation  wrought 
by  the  appearance  of  Christ,  organizes  a  ministry, 
insists  on  moral  qualilications  for  it,  and  tries  to 
develop  an  orderlj',  disciplined,  useful,  fruitful  life 
in  all  ages  and  classes,  and  inspires  even  slaves  witli 
the  hope  that  they  maj'  adorn  the  true  teaching  : 
it  is  an  attempt  to  convert  heatlienisin  by  the 
attractive  beauty  of  an  ordered  family  life  and  a 
loyal  citizenship.  Doctrinally,  the  hpistle  oilers 
no  new  point  of  interest  unless  it  be  the  identifica- 
tion of  Christ  with  '  the  Great  God,'  2"  (but  see 
Ezr.a  Abbot,  Critical  Essays,  xviii.),  or  the  refer- 
ence to  baptism  as  Xovrpiv  iraXii^eMfflas,  3*. 

LiTKKATCRB.  —  The  same  introductions  and  commentaries 
as  are  referred  to  under  1  Timotiiv  are  useful  for  this  Epistle, 
with  the  exception  of  H.  P.  Lid'lon ;  to  the  Patristic  com- 
mentaries should  be  added  a  short  coiiinientary  by  Jerome, 
and  a  long  extract  on  3"^-  n  from  Origen's  lost  coinmentiiry  pre- 
served in  a  Latin  translation  by  Pamphilus.         W.  LoCK. 

TITUS  JUSTUS.— See  Justus,  No.  2.  TITUS 
MANIUS.— See  Manius. 

TIZITEi'V'p.n;  Bi'Uaffcl,  AiQoxrael,  huc-'ABual). 
— A  designation,  whose  origin  is  unknown,  applied 
to  JoilA,  one  of  David's  heroes,  1  Cli  11". 

TOAH.— See  Nahath. 

TOB,  The  Land  of  (a'rn  py  'land  of  good';  y^ 
Tili,i  ;   terra   Toh). — The   place  to  which   .Jeplithah 
fled  for  refuge  from  his  brethren,  and  in  which  be 
VOL.  IV. — no 


was  living  when  the  elders  of  Oilcad  went  to  fetch 
him  on  the  occa.sion  of  the  Ammonite  invasion  of 
Gilead  (.!•'  IP-  'i.  At  a  later  date,  12,OUO  '  men  of 
Tob'  (.\\  Ish-tob)  formed  part  of  the  force  raised 
by  the  Ammonites  in  their  war  with  David  (2  S 
l(j«.  9  3  EiffTu^).  They  are  here  associated  with 
the  Sj'rians  of  Beth  -  rehob  and  Zobah,  and  the 
king  of  Maacali — all  small  Aianiican  states.  The 
'land  of  Tubias'(AV 'places of  Tobie'),  in  which  all 
the  Jews  were  put  to  death  by  the  Gentiles  (1  Mac 
o''),  was  apparently  the  same  place.  In  2  Mac  12" 
Charax,  a  place  TiiO  stadia  from  the  strong  town 
of  Gephyrum,  or  Caspin,  is  .siiid  to  have  been 
occupied  by  Jews  called  Tubieni,  i.e.  '  men  of  Tob.' 
Po.ssibly  9aC/3o,  which,  acconling  to  Ptolemy 
(v.  19),  was  S.W.  of  Zobah,  is  identical  with  Tob. 
The  Jerusalem  Talmud  explains  '  land  of  Tob '  by 
Siisitha — the  'province  of  Hijipene'  (Neubauer, 
Gfog.  du  Talm.  239).  In  this  case  Tob  would  be 
Hippos,  or  Susitha,  now  Susiyeh,  on  the  E.  side 
of  tlie  Sea  of  Galilee,  and  not  far  from  Gaiiiala, 
Kal'at  el-Hiisn.  Conder  (Hbk.  to  Bible,  295)  and 
G.  A.  Smith  (HGHL  587)  identify  Tob  with  et- 
Taiyibch,  about  10  miles  south  of  Gadara  (Umm 
Keis).  De  Saulcy  identities  it  with  Thnbitn,  about 
9  miles  east  of  the  bridge  over  the  Jordan  called 
Jisr  Ben&t  YakHb.  C.  W.  Wilson. 

TOB-ADONUAH  (.tiiik  aits  'good  is  the  Lord 
Jah '  [Gray,  UPN  140,  n.  3] ;  B  Tw^a5a;;3etd,  A  and 
Luc.  Tw^aoojud). — One  of  the  Levites  sent  by  king 
Jehoshapliat  to  teach  in  the  cities  of  Judah,  2  Ch  17". 

TOBIAH  (.i.-jin  and  m.-jin  'Jah  is  [my?]  good').— 
1.  'I'lie  eponym  of  a  family  which  returned  from 
exile,  but  could  not  trace  their  genealogy,  Ezr  2** 
(B  Tw/Sfid,  A  Tw/Jias,  Luc.  Tot;j3ias)  =  Neh  7"^  (BA 
Tu^id,  Luc.  Toi'/iias).  2.  The  Ammonite  who,  in 
conjunction  with  Sanballat  and  others,  per- 
sistentlj-  opposed  the  work  of  Nehemiah,  Neh  2^"-  " 
4^-''  6"  13^- »  (Tai/3id,  Tu/SIas).  Eor  details  see  art. 
Nehemiah. 

TOBIAS  (Tu)3(e)toj,  TwjSefs).- 1.  The  son  of  Tobit, 
To  1"  and  often  ;  see  art.  Tobit  (Book  of).  2.  The 
father  of  HvitCANUS,  2  Mac  3". 

TOBIEL  (TujSiTJX,  i.e.  Sn-jid  '  El  is  [my?]  good  ' ; 
cf.  the  name  Tabeel). — The  father  of  Tobit,  To  1'. 

TOBIJAH  (.Tjio).— 1.  One  of  the  Levites  sent  by 
Jeho.shaphat  to  teach  in  the  cities  of  Judah,  2  Ch 
17'  (LXX  oni. ).  2.  One  of  a  deputation  that  came 
from  Babylon  to  Jei-usalem  with  contributions  of 
gold  and  silver,  from  which  a  crown  wa.s  ordered 
to  be  made  either  for  Zerubb.abel  and  Joshua  (Ew. 
llitz. )  or  for  Zerub.  and  not  Josliua  (Wcllh.  Now., 
cf.  G.  A.  Smith,  ii.  3uSf. ),  and  laid  uj)  in  the  temple 
as  a  memorial  of  the  donors.  Zee  G'"-  '■*  (LXX  in 
both  passages  tr.  .t^id  by  xp'J<'''M<".  i.e.  C'?'°). 

TOBIT,  BOOK  OF  (A  /3/(3Xos  \bywv  TuifUr,  B  Tu^SeiT, 
N  lu^ilO  ;  Lat.  liber  Tobiw,  liber  Tubit  et  Tubia, 
liber  utriusque  'I'obice  ;  =  llah.  .i.^to  = '  J eliovah  is 
my  good,'  and  ■j'lo,  dropping  the  theophoric  affix 
n;). — One  of  the  deutero-canonical  books  of  the  OT, 
containing,  according  to  Jewish  conception.s,  an 
idyllic  picture  of  pious  home  life  in  the  Captivity. 

"i.  Texts  and  Veksions. — Tlie  popularity  of  the 
story  of  Tobit  is  attested  by  the  number  of  varia- 
tions in  wliii:h  it  exists  in  several  languages.  We 
shall,  in  the  course  of  this  article,  endeavour  to 
prove  that  the  book  was  originally  composed  in 
Aramaic;  though  all  trace  of  the  orij^inal  is  lost, 
and  the  Aramaic  MS,  now  extant,  is  somewhat 
late,  and  was  not  taken  directly  from  it. 

(1)  Greek  Version. — Of  this  we  have  three  texts  : 
(a)  that  of  AB.    The  diil'ercncca  between  these  two 


786 


TOBIT,  BOOK  OF 


TOBIT,  BOOK  OF 


MSS  are  few  iind  unimportant,  (i)  That  of  K,  which 
while  giving  little  additional  matter,  adopts  a  more 
verbose  style  than  AB.  Whether  AB  or  jc  nresents 
the  earlier  text  is  much  disputed.  Fritzsche, 
Noldeke,  Grimm  support  AB ;  Ewald,  Keusch, 
Scluirer,  Nestle,  Harris,  N.  (c)  A  recension  of  6»- 
IS'',  found  only  in  three  cursives:  the  Zittau  Cod.  44 
and  tlie  Ferrara  Codd.  106,  107,  and  given  at  length 
by  Fritzsche  (Handhuch  z.  d.  Apokr. ).  These  ]>re- 
sent  a  composite  Greek  text.  From  6"  to  7"  it 
presents  many  features  of  originality,  but  contains 
many  of  s's  additions  to  tlie  text  of  B,  e.g.  6'^'- 
■jii-13  ifxom  8'  to  12«  it  agrees  closely  with  the 
Syriac,  which,  as  we  shall  see,  during  this  section 
transfers  its  allegiance  from  B  to  K.  From  12'  to 
13"  it  presents  some  readings  of  B,  as  12'*  13'-^,  but 
agrees  in  the  main  with  Syr.,  even  when  Syr.  differs 
from  both  B  and  S,  as  in  12'=-'».  Before  6»  and  after 
13*  our  cursives  present  the  text  of  B. 

(2)  Latin  Versions. — (a)  Vetus  Itala  or  Old  Latin, 
which  Ilgen,  in  1800,  coiTectly  surmised  was  based 
on  a  then  unknown  Gr.  text,  which  has  proved  to  be 
that  of  K.  Tliougli  all  codices  of  this  Version  agree 
substantially  with  N,  there  are  clearly  three  recen- 
sions, (a)  It.  I.,  the  text  edited  by  Sabatier  (Bihli- 
orum  sacrorum  Latinw  versioties  antiqiKr,  Paris, 
1751)  and  by  Neubauer  (in  his  excellent  little  work, 
The  Book  of  Tobit ).  It  is  based  on  a  Parisian  Codex, 
Regius  3654,  and  on  Cod.  4  in  the  library  of  S. 
Germain.  (^)  It.  II.,  a  text  found  in  Cod.  Vat.  7 
which  contains  only  1-6'-,  and  once  belonged  to 
queen  Christina  of  Sweden.  It  was  collated  by 
Sabatier  in  the  above  work,  and  was  edited  by 
Bianchini,  Rome.  1740.  (7)  Fragments  of  a  third 
recension  (It.  III.)  are  given  in  the  Spccuhcm  of 
Augustine,  edited  by  Mai  {Spicilegium,  ix.).— (6) 
The  Vulgate.  Jerome  afbrms  that  lie  translated 
Tobit  in  one  day  from  the  Syro-Chaldee.  As  he 
was  not  familiar  mth  this  language,  a  Jew,  who 
knew  both  languages,  translated  it  for  him  into 
Hebrew,  from  wliich  he  made  his  Latin  transla- 
tion. There  are  many  readings  in  Vulg.  that  were 
not  found  in  any  otlier  text,  until  Gaster,  18<J6, 
discovered  a  Heb.  MS,  which  in  tlie  narrative,  as 
distinct  from  tlie  exhortations  and  prayers,  agrees 
in  the  main  with  Vulg.  (see  below,  HL). 

(3)  Hi/riac  Version. — This  has  been  edited  by 
Walton  in  his  Polyglot ;  and  by  Lagarde  in  Libri 
apokr.  Syriace.  As  far  as  7"  it  is  a  close  transla- 
tion of  B.  After  that,  it  agrees  with  K  or  the  Gr. 
cursives.     It  lacks  13""'^ 

(4)  Chaldee  or  Aramnic  Ver.tion  (Aram.). — This 
was  first  edited  by  Neubauer  from  a  collection  of 
Midrashim,  copied  in  the  15th  cent,  in  Greek- 
rabbinical  characters.  The  Book  of  Tobit  is  an 
extract  from  the  Midrash  rabbah-de-rabbnh  on 
Genesis,  and  forms  a  liaggada  on  Jacob's  promise 
to  give  a  tenth  of  his  proceeds  to  God  (Gn  ii-'). 
Neubauer  tliinks  that  the  Chaldee  text  of  Jerome 
was  Aram,  in  a  fuller  form  ;  but  in  the  view  of  the 
present  writer  there  are  facts  which  seem  to  imply 
that  the  Aram,  is  a  translation  from  the  Greek.  The 
facts  that  the  dat.  'Pd7ois  (4'  5°)  is  found  in  Aram, 
as  [?•:■!,  and  'EK/Jardvois  (3' 6')  as  D':n3;i<,  and  the  ace. 
liypi.t'  (6')  as  I'li'B  ;  and  that  the  Gr.  words  6.piaTov 
(2')  and  a-q^Luov  (5-)  are  transliterated  in  Aram., 
atl'ord  strong  proof  that  Aram,  is  based  on  a  Greek 
text :  not  on  X  (as  Schiirer),  for  Aram,  agrees  more 
often  with  B  than  with  N ;  but  on  a  briefer  text 
tlian  either,  and  more  free  from  Christian  influences. 

(5)  Hebrew  Versions. — (a)  Heb.  Munsteri  (HM), 
BO  called  because  it  was  published,  with  a  Lat.  tr., 
by  Seb.  MUnster,  at  Basle,  in  1542.  The  first 
edition,  however,  was  printed  at  Constantinople  in 
1516.  It  is  included  in  Walton's  Polyglot,  and  also 
in  Neubauer's  Tobit.  Neubauer  gives,  in  the  foot- 
notes, various  readings  from  No.  1251  of  the  Heb. 


MSS  in  the  National  Library  at  Paris:  from  a 
Persian  tr.  from  the  Heb.  which  is  No.  130  in  the 
same  Library  ;  and  No.  104  of  de  Rossi's  catalogue, 
at  Parma.  It  is  noteworthy  that  HM  usually 
agrees  with  Aram,  when  tlie  latter  dissents  from 
the  Greek.  In  chs.  12.  13,  where  Aram,  is  lacking, 
HM  presents  an  eclectic  text,  agreeing  in  the  main 
with  SjT.,  but  for  13^-'»  it  has  an  original  and  very 
brief  doxology,  and  omits  ch.  14  altogether.  Gins- 
burg  assigns  it  to  the  5th  century.— (6)  Heb.  Fagii 
(HF).  This  is  a  free,  independent  translation, 
made  perhaps  in  the  12th  century.  The  translator 
was  a  learned  Jewish  scholar,  fond  of  precise, 
technical  terms ;  very  familiar  with  the  Heb. 
Bible,  and  fond  of  introducing  suitable  Bible  texts, 
and  of   reducing   the   text  of   Tobit  to    biblical 


phraseology.     Tiiis  is  also  given  in  Walton's  Poly- 
glot.—(c)  Heb.  Londinii  (HL)  is  a  text  found  by 
Gaster  in  the  British  Museum,  Add.   11,639.     A 
description    and    translation  of    the    MS,   which 
lielon"S  to  the  13th  cent.,   is  given  by  Gaster  in 
PSBA,  vol.  xviii.  208  ff.,  259  ff.,  and  vol.  xx.  27  ff. 
So  far  as  the  exhortations,  prayers,  and  doxologies 
are    concerned,   they    are   certainly  late.      They 
develop,  in  a  remarkable    decree,    the   tendency 
observable  in  HF  to  reduce  the  text  to   biblical 
phraseology.     In  the  exhortations,  etc.,  HL  gives 
us  a  cento  of  Scripture  texts,  skilfully  selected  as 
being  most  cognate  to  the  Gr.  text.     As  to  the 
narrative,  it  is  intensely  interesting  to  note  how 
closely  HL  agrees  with  Vulg.,  and  Gaster  claims 
for  the  MS  as  a  whole  a  close  relationship  to  the 
'  Syro-Chaldee '  used  by  Jerome.     As  to  the  narra- 
tive portions,  tlie  author  of  HL  certainly  nuit/  have 
used  an  Aramaic  or  Heb.  text  closely  related  to 
Jerome's  'Syro-Chaldee,'  though,  if  the  doxologies, 
etc.,  are  of  late  composition,  one  cannot  escape  the 
unpleasant  surmise  that  HL  may  be  drawn  from 
the  Vulg.  itself.— (rf)  Heb.  Gasteri  (HG).    Thiswas 
copied  some  years  ago  by  Gaster  from  a  Midrash 
on  the  Pentateuch,  which  he  fears  has  now  perislied. 
It  is  a  condensation  in  Heb.  of  the  narrative  por- 
tions of  Aram.,  witli  the  exhortations,  prayers,  and 
doxologies  rigorously  excluded,  ;ind  all  approach 
to  verbosity  in  tlie  narrative  sternly  checked.    It  is 
possible  that  tlie  author  of  HL  may  have  possessed 
a  similar  History,  exhibiting  those  peculiarities  of 
the  Vulg.  which,  until  tlie  publication  by  Gaster 
of  the  translation  of  HL,  were  considered  unique 
in  tlie  Vulgate.     The  tr.  of  HG  is  given  in  PSBA 
vol.  xix.  33  f.     Its  agreements  with  Aram,  are  very 
siguiticant. 

ii.  TuK  Nakeative.— Tobit,  a  pious  Jew  of  the 
tribe  of  Naphtali,  very  scrupulous  as  to  feasts  and 
tithes,  was,  with  his  wife  Anna  and  his  son  Tobias, 
taken  into  captivity  by  Enemessar  (Shalmaneser) 
to  Nineveh.  Even  there  he  remained  loyal  to 
Mosaism,  abstaining  from  eating  the  food  of  tlie 
Gentiles  ;  and  yet  became  in  time  the  kings  pur- 
veyor. Once  when  travelling  in  Media,  he  de- 
posited 10  talents  of  silver  with  a  brother  Jew 
named  Gabael,  at  Rhagaj  (Racks).  When  Sen- 
nacherib (who  is  called  in  1"  Enemessar  s  son) 
returned  from  Judah,  Tobit  fell  into  disfavour, 
chiefly  from  his  habit  of  buryin<;  Jews  who  were 
assassinated  in  the  king's  fury.  Tobit  fled,  but,  on 
the  entreaty  of  his  nephew  Achiacharus  (Ahiliar), 
was  reinstated  by  king  Sarchedonus  (Esarliaddon) 
(ch.  1).  At  a  feast  of  Pentecost  he  sent  out  his 
son  to  bring  in  some  poor  Jew  to  dine  with  him. 
Tobias  returned,  saying  there  was  a  Jew  lying  in 
tlie  street  strangled.  Tobit  rose  at  once,  hid  hini, 
and  at  night  buried  him.  Bein<r  thus  rendered 
unclean,  he  slept  in  tlie  courtyard  ;  and  sparrows 
'  muted  warm  dung  into  his  eyes '  and  blinded 
him  (2'-"').  Reduced  to  poverty  again,  Anna  wove 
and  spun  for  hire,  and  one  day,  under  provoca- 
tion, she  reproached  her  husband  for  his  blind- 


TOBIT,  BOOK  OF 


TOBIT,  BOOK  OF 


78*. 


ness;  whereupon  he  prayed  to  die(3*"').  The  same 
day,  in  Ecbatana  ot  >Iedia,  Sarah,  the  daughter 
of  llagiiel  and  Edna,  who  had  been  married  seven 
times,  but  whose  husbands  liad  all  died  on  the 
bridal  night,  was  reproached  by  a  maid  for  having 
ebiin  them  ;  whereas  it  was  Asinoda'us,  the  arcli- 
demon,  who  slew  them.  She  also  prayed  to  die 
{3"'**).  The  prayers  of  lK)th  were  hearil,  and  Raphael 
was  sent  to  deliver  both  of  them.  Tobit,  in  view 
of  his  death,  wished  to  send  Tobias  to  llhagie,  to 
fetch  the  silver,  and  gave  him  a  lon^  exhortation 
(ch.  4).  When  Tobias  sou-^bt  a  guide,  Raphael 
ortered  bis  services,  pretending  to  be  Azarias,  a 
kinsman.  The  guides  wages  beii.g  iixed,  the  two 
Bet  out  with  a  favourite  dog  for  Media  (ch.  5).  On 
the  way,  wiiile  Tobias  was  bathing  in  the  Tigris,  a 
great  lish  tlireatened  him,  but  lie  caught  it ;  and  on 
liaphaers  advice  cut  out  its  heart,  liver,  and  gall 
for  medicinal  use  later  on  (ch.  6).  Passing  through 
Ecbatana,  they  stayed  with  Rac:uel ;  and  Tobias 
asked  for  Sarah  in  marriage,  lie  had  been  pre- 
viously instructed  by  Raphael  how  to  exorcise  the 
demon  from  Sarah,  and  uefore  night  the  marriage 
•was  celebrated  (cli.  7).  Raguel  naturally  is  appre- 
hensive, and  digs  a  grave  at  midnight ;  but  the 
odour  of  the  heart  and  liver  of  the  Hsh,  when  burnt 
on  ashes,  caused  Asmodaius  to  tlee  to  Egypt,  whither 
Rapliael  follows  him  and  binds  him ;  and  Tobias 
and  Sarah,  after  unitinj;  in  prayer,  pass  the  night  in 
peace  (S^'***).  Edna  satisfies  herself  on  this  during 
the  niglit,  and  Raguel,  after  previously  thanking 
God,  Ulls  in  the  grave  and  prepares  the  nuptial 
festivities,  which  lie  swears  must  last  14  days(8'^"-'). 
Raphael  goes  forward  to  Rhagie,  secures  the  silver, 
still  sealed  in  bags,  from  Gabael,  and  brink's  him 
back  to  the  wedding,  where  he  pours  his  blessings  on 
the  bridal  pair  (ch.  9).  The  festivities  over,  Raguel 
Bends  forth  Tobias  and  bis  wife  in  peace  to  Nineveh, 
and  gives  them  half  his  wealth  (10^"^-).  Anna 
has  for  days  been  very  miserable,  and  has  stood  all 
day  on  tlie  highway  watching,  at  intervals  re- 
proaching poor  bliml  Tobit  for  allowing  their  son 
to  go  (10'"*).  When  at  length  she  sees  Tobias  and 
Azarias  who  had  come  on  in  front,  she  runs  to  tell 
Tobit.  Tobias  skilfully  applies  the  gall  of  the 
mysterious  lish  to  his  father  s  eyes  ;  a  white  film 
peels  ofl'and  his  sight  is  restored.  Then  Tobit  and 
Annawelcome  Sarah  with  pious  wishes  (ch.  11).  All 
that  remains  is  to  reward  the  faithful  Azarias. 
Father  and  son  agree  to  give  him  half  of  all  they 
have.  Whereupon  he  discloses  bis  identity  and  re- 
turns to  heaven  (ch.  12).  In  ch.  13  we  have  a  Song 
of  Thanksgiving  from  Tobit ;  and  in  ch.  14  Tobit, 
being  now  very  old,  gives  to  his  son  and  grandsons 
his  dying  valedictions,  and  urges  them  to  leave 
Nineveh  for  Media.  After  his  death  they  go  to 
Media,  and  arrive  in  time  to  witness  the  death  of 
Ra-uel  and  Edna.  Tobias  lives  to  a  ripe  old  age, 
and  is  allowed  to  hear  the  glad  news  of  tlie  destruc- 
tion of  Nineveh. 

VaRIATIOSSOFTUE  N ARRATiVB  tS  THR several  VEIISIOSS. 
— 1(  we  compare  the  Jcwiah  VSS  with  the  (Jr.  and  LaU  we  flud 
three  intureaLiiig  variati<jris :  (a)  Ararn.  arni  Heh.  VSa  all  omit 
reference  to  the  dog,  which  tl»o  other  VSS  mention,  (b)  In  8^ 
the  Jewish  VSS  (oa  also  9yr.^  narrate  that  after  TohlaM' prayer 
in  the  bridal  chamber,  *  Sarah  Bald  Amcii  * ;  the  rest,  that  *  they 
both  tOKether  said  Amen.'  (c)  In  68  oa  Aram.,  IIM,  HK  eay  that 
Oabacl  gave  Tobit  his  ban  *«  *  token,  not  his  bumL 

Aram.,  HL,  HO,  and  Vul^,'.  differ  from  the  real  in  that  through- 
out they  speak  o(  Tobit  In  the  third  person,  whereas  all  other 
t«xt0  make  Tobit  speak  in  the  Qret  person  aft  (ar  aa  Si^  The 
third  is  used  afterwarda 

[.V.B.— Except  when  quoting  from  the  Volg.,  the  verses  ue 
tboM  of  the  RV]. 

PeexUxarH\e$  (if  Uxt.—{m)  B  stands  alone  (except  HO)  In 
omitting  the  bleiwing  of  Oabael,  9«  ;  ami  in  its  romlensation  of 
Edna's  prayer,  lO'^;  though  IIL  and  Viilg.  omit  this  entirulv. 
Unique  readings  are  :  glory  of  the  great  Itapho*:!,  31^ ;  Jonah^ 
148;  Naibas.  IIW;  Aman,  UlO ;  168  years  old.  14U.— </3)  k. 
There  are  scores  of  frix»t  odded  by  M  to  the  text  of  B.  A  few 
01Q7  be  noted  :  1^  Thisbe  is  'west  of  Thogor '  ;  P  iHracl  Ba<Ti- 
ficxd  CO  the  calves  *  ou  all  the  Mta.  of  Galilee ' ;  K"  *  on  the  7tb 


of  the  month  Dysirua  *e  cut  the  web ' ;  53  Raguel  and  Tobit 
divided  the  oond  into  two,  and  each  took  half ;  S"  the  men- 
dacious angel  says,  '  I  have  come  here  to  work ' ;  08  '  blow  on 
the  films' ;  cL  also  lOio  Vl^  13i6.  K  omits  47io  (owing  probably 
to  a  leaf  being  lost)  and  IS^b-io  In  1318  jt  gives  the  correct 
spelling 'Axn«a/f,  and  gives  a  fuller  account  of  him  than  B. — 
(■y)  Greek  cursin.^.  A  remarkable  Gnostic  reading  occurs  in 
b'^  'Let  all  the  ^Eons  praise  thee,  and  let  thy  angels  bless 
thee.*  This  is  the  only  Or.  text  which  says  *  the  dog  ran  bc/vre 
them'  (ll^X — (8)  i>i/riac,  which  is  really  two  recensions  con- 
nected at  711,  shows  the  (act  in  change  of  spelling  :  Achior,  210  ; 
Ahikar,  1410;  lUga,  4i-  "•»;  'Ara^',  »=* ;  *Edna,  72;  'K.hia,  714. 
Alterations  :— 102  years,  14'- ;  1U7  \  ears,  141* ;  10  days,  b-^.  Addi- 
tions : — Edna  dressed  Sarah,  71*^ ;  Anna  put  on  a  veil  before 
going  to  meet  her  son,  11".  Omissions : — ISO-lt*,  where  Tobit 
exults  in  the  glories  of  the  future  Jerusalem  ;  14^  *  Jonah  '  and 
also  *  Nahum ' ;  14^  the  woi-ds,  '  but  not  like  to  the  former 
house ' ;  14*^^  that  all  nations  shall  forsake  idolatry ;  71^  the 
marriage  contract. — (*)  Aramaic  is  embedded  in  a  Midrash, 
and  is  inserted  there  to  show  the  merit  of  giving  tithes.  The 
moral  at  the  end  also  is :  *  Ht-hold  we  learn  how  great  is  the 
power  of  alms  and  tithes,'  and  On  14^0  gQi3  28-^  are  cited  in 
continuation.  Its  chief  peculiarity  is  that  the  SIS  virtually 
closes  with  ch.  11.  A  few  lines,  in  place  of  Oreek  ch.  12,  state 
that  U.'iphael  did  not  go  into  the  house,  but  went  his  way  ;  and 
when  Tobias  went  out  to  seek  him  he  could  not  find  him,  nor 
had  any  one  seen  him  ;  and  thus  Tobit  knew  he  was  an  angeL 
In  place  of  ch.  14,  Aram,  states  that,  when  Tobit  fell  sick,  he 
called  for  his  son  and  impressed  on  him  the  importance  of 
almsgiving  from  the  example  of  the  three  patriarcha  Aram, 
omitcj  Tobit's  genealogy,  1*;  Alpiljar's  offices,  1^  \  Elymais, 
210;  and  the  dog,  6"  e^N  11^  On  the  other  hand,  it  txpanda 
Sennacherib's  return,  1*8  ;  Anna's  welcome  to  Sarah,  U^  ;  and 
Tobit's  thanksgiving.  Ill*,  in  10"^  Aram,  and  HM  say,  'Anna 
ate  nothing  but  tears.'  Aram,  abridges  the  destination  of  the 
three  tithes,  l^-s  ;  calls  Asmodseus  '  kijig  of  Shedim,'  i^- 1"+  ;  and 
renders  6"*  'without  money,  God  has  fed  us.'  It  contains  47-i» 
lacking  in  K ;  and  agrees  with  B  against  K  about  as  often  as 
with  K  against  B. — (0  ileb.  Munsteri  is  remarkable  for  its 
omissions  from  the  Or.,  sometimes  pruning  its  redundancies  as 
in  4«.  Ilia  611- 1-*+.  With  Aram,  it  omits  I-i ;  Klymais,  2lo.  It 
omits  Sarah's  intention  to  hang  herself,  310;  and  her  going  to 
meet  Tobias,  71.  It  omits  '  Noah '  from  4l3 ;  the  citation  of 
On  21**  in  a^ ;  Tobit's  conversation  with  Anna,  10'-*-* ;  and 
Ahiljar's  visit.  111**.  It  abridges  Tobit's  prayer  for  death,  3^ ; 
and  the  prayers  In  8^  8i-'f-  12^^.  But  HM  hua  also  several 
original  enlargements  :  notably  after  120,  where  we  have  ft 
Midrosh  on  the  mischief  caused  by  Sennacherib.  After  'i*  it 
cites  Is  P,  and  Ps  17^^  after  410.  It  abridges  and  modiiies  the 
Song  in  ch.  13  (omittin-^  ch.  14),  and  its  last  words  are,  '  O  Lord 
of  the  world  1  show  us  m  our  days  salvation  and  rwlemption  by 
the  coming  of  our  Redeemer  and  the  bnikiing  of  Ariel' ;  then 
citing  Jer  23**,  Ps  147-.  Theological  features  are  the  thrice 
repeated  prayer  for  '  children  devoted  to  the  Law,'  8^  96  iqU  ; 
tlie  designation  of  Raphael  as  'prince,' 3i7  1215;  Jerusalem  as 
'  Ariel,'  131"  ;  and  Jehovah  as  '  the  Holy  One,  blessed  be  he,'  41" 
121'-+.  A  play  on  words  occurs  in  3'  '  It  is  not  meet  to  call 
thee  Sarali,  out  ^farah  (distress).'  Instances  in  which  IIJI  agrees 
witli  Aram,  against  the  Or.  are  :  lio  (dwell),,  li^  (until  his 
death),  2io  (every  morning),  53  9- ^  (bag),  3»o  1211  (throne), 
017  (under  her  clothes),  61°  (' foreseen '  for  •foreordained'),  10' 
(nothing  but  tears).— (»;)  Heb.  Fa'jii  dilTers  from  B  very  con- 
siderablv.  It  is  fond  of  inserting  OT  texts  :  S^  Ps  401^*,  30  I's  033, 
413  i»r  lO'S,  4i«  Pr  3^,  13^  Ps  80^5  gon  7210,  JerSli?.  It  aims  at 
precision:  in  speaking  of  *  peace-offerings,'  l*;*a  beka"  for 
^a  drachma,'  ^4;  'the  right  of  redemption,*  3"  710 ;  Hhe 
eternal  home,'  3"* ;  *  the  Torah  and  the  Hulakhah,'  71^  ;  the  seven 
blessings,  71^ ;  the  cemetery,  S^ ;  and  ospeci.illy  in  l*',  where  It 
assigns  the  thinl  tithe  Mor  the  repair  of  the  breaches  of  the 
house,'  ct  2K  22*.  Interesting  theological  allusions  occur: 
Sifl  prayer  was  heard  before  our  Father  in  heaven,  4il  the 
iudgment  of  Oehinnom,  86  the  first  Adam,  Ci"  llic  union  of 
Tobias  and  Sarah  was  foreseen  from  the  Uth  day  of  creation, 
81*  the  vEons  of  the  Gr.  cursives  are  describi'd  as  '  those  who 
are  exalted  above  all  blessing  and  praise,' 141^ 'the  house  shall 
stand  until  the  completion  of  one  mon.'  But  the  learned  lUbbl 
was  no  geographer.  He  gives  AlemaniaaOennany  for  Elvninis 
in  210;  Midian  for  Media,  l";  and  Laodicea  (V),  0^.  The  latter 
part  of  ch.  14  is  meagre.  Ahikar  is  omitted  lli»  14io._^(j)  ijeb. 
Lond,  is,  as  wo  have  said,  "remarkable  for  presenting  many 
readings  heretofore  found  only  in  Vuiu'ate.  Such,  e.g.,  arc  l'* 
'  power  to  go  where  he  wished '+,  1^  Tobit  fled  naked  with  wife 
and  son,  2l'^'f  the  parallel  between  Tobit  and  Job,  Sio  Sarah 
spent  3  days  in  prayer,  Ci«o^-  Raphael  wlviscs  3  nights  of  con- 
tinence. HL  also  agrees  with  Vulg.  in  omitting  Abitr&r  Lu 
B  210  and  the  doctors  in  N  2io,  as  well  as  in  many  other  omis- 
sions ;  but  HL  gives  the  absurd  amount  of  lO(K)  talents  In  1'* ; 
It  narrates  Sarali's  intended  suicifle,  which  Vulg.  omits,  3'8  ;  it 
states  that  Anna  went  to  the  outakirtJiof  the  town,  6II ;  and  that 
a  large  i>arty  went  with  the  bridal  ]mT  a  day's  Journey  home 
wards ;  and  every  one  gave  a  ring  uf  gold  and  a  kMtah  and  k 

Eie<'e  of  silver.  111 ;  it  cuso  introduces  two  long  original  prayers, 
V  Tobias  and  Sarah,  in  the  bridal  chamber,  ch.  8.  \'ulg-  <*nly 
gives  Sjirah's  praver  thus  :  '  Be  merciful  to  us,  O  Lord,  be  merci- 
ful, and  let  us  both  grow  old  healthily  together,'  H'O.— ^,)  HQ 
has  a  few  unique  readings:  f,g.  'dust'for  *dun';.'2l0;  *ring' 
for  'hond.'tr*;  and  that  Tobias  put  the  heart  of  the  Ush  on  a 
ci-jvter  and  burnt  it  under  Sarah's  clothes.  It  is  verv  brief,  but 
agrees  closely  with  Aram.:  e^g.  HO  uid  Arauu  oni^'  say  that 


788 


TOBIT,  BOOK  OF 


TOBIT,  BOOK  OF 


the  fish  'sought  to  eat  the  bread  of  the  youth,' 62. — (x)  Ilala  is  a 
close  translation  of  K.  We  have  collated  only  the  text  given  by 
Neubauer.  Its  chief  eccentricity  is  the  spelling  of  proper 
names.  Bihelfor  Thisbe,  1^ ;  Kaphain  for  Phogor,  12;  Bathania 
for  Eobatana,  ffi\  Anna  (so  Vulg.)  for  Edna,  wife  of  RagueL  It 
states  that  Raphael  read  the  prayers  before  God,  rji-  ;  and  gives 
'didrachma'  for  'drachma,'  61'-*. — (x)  \'ul;jate,  Jerome  omits 
(with  HL)all  mention  of  Ahi^ar,  except  in  11-0,  which  is  probably 
an  interpolatiuiL  He  also  omits  the  patriarchs  in  4'- ;  thefateof 
Nadab,  14io  ;  and  the  fate  of  Nineveh,  14i5,  But  he  has  several 
additiona  Some  we  have  mentioried  under  HL.  Others  are 
Sarah's  prayer,  313  j  and  her  self-vindication,  3'^^-.  These  are 
found  in  HL,  but  in  more  biblical  language ;  but  Vulg.  alone 
states  that  Tobias,  father  and  son,  remained  three  hours  on 
th^'ir  faces  before  Raphael,  12— ;  that  the  dog  wagged  its  tail, 
119;  that  the  coating  of  an  egg  peeled  off  Tobit's  eyes,  1114;  that 
Tobias  held  his  father  half  an  hour,  1114  ;  and  closed  the  eyes  of 
Raguel  in  death,  1415.  Scholars  have  often  pointed  out  the 
indications  in  Vulg.  of  the  fact  that  Jerome  was  a  Christian 
and  an  ascetia  Even  if  pro^^sionall.v  we  concede  that  he  had 
an  Aram.  MS  before  him,  which  in  the  narrative  resembled  HL, 
Jerome's  personal  influence  can  still  be  traced.  The  three 
nights'  continence  we  should  have  to  surrender  (tJlSfT-)^  as  this 
is  in  HL :  but  HL  does  not  contain  '2i^,  where  in  Vulg.  Tobit 
savs,  '  We  are  sons  of  God,  and  wait  for  tliat  iife  which  God  is 
about  to  give ' ;  80  129  1213  911. 

iii.  Original  Language. — We  wish  now  to 
adduce  evidence,  which  we  trust  will  be  regarded 
as  conclusive,  that  the  original  language  was  Ara- 
maic. (1)  The  Aram,  form  -nnN  (Heb.  -nsx)  is  found 
in  X  14"  'ABovpeia.,  and  14*  '-Affrip.  (2)  If  we  accept 
alphabet  69  in  Euting's  Tabula  Script urce  Ara- 
nuiicce  as  an  approximation  to  the  Aram,  alphabet 
used  {ex  hypotliesi)  in  the  original  copy  of  Tobit, 
we  find  that  it  explains  tlie  diverse  form  of  many 
proper  names,  as  in  each  case  the  letters  con- 
founded are  very  similar :  e.g.  n'hd  in  K  5'^  for 
n-ycc*  in  B  ;  nDD:y  for  icio'^c' ;  mnjD  in  K  1"  +  for 
DnnjD ;  'js'ay  HF  9'  for  Vnd:  ;  lis  in  N  1'  for  lya ; 
'^.tin  for  Vnivi  ;  'icp  in  X  10"  for  "03  in  Syr.  (3) 
The  variants  in  the  VSS  are  often  po-sisible  render- 
ings of  the  same  .'Vramaic  word.  '  The  mountain 
of  Ararat,'  1"  (Bx,  Syr.,  It.),  and  'the  land  of 
Ararat '  (Aram.  HM,  HF),  are  possible  renderings 
of  "Be  (Sclnvallj',  hliolicon,  37).  '  Thou  judgestyor 
ever,'  3-,  [Bx,  It.]  'Thou  judgest  the  world,'  [Aram., 
HM],  give  D'?yS  ;  5'  'Wait  young  man'  [X  Sjt.], 
'  Wait  a  little '  [Aram.  HM],  give  Tyt ;  2*  '  I  left 
the  meal'  [x  Vulg.],  'I  left  the  table'  [Aram. 
HM,  It.],  give  unns^.  In  Pal.  Syr.  at  Ac  16"  this 
word  is  used  for  rpivtiav.  In  4"  Jerome  has 
constitue  for  iKx^or,  thus  giving  to  iip,  imperative  of 
Aram.  -01  '  to  pour  out,'  the  meaning  of  Heb.  in 
or  130.  (4)  In  other  instances  the  variants  yield 
similar  Aramaic  words — 


1<   K,  Eebi,  ItoU 

Syriac 
lis  nb 

IIM,  HF 
1>S  .s-B,  Aramaic 

Ilala 
la  KB 

ItaU 
2«  B 

N 

Itala 
2i»  KB 

HK,  It.  a 

4a    K 

HF 
81'  K,  HF 

Itala 
S>   K 

Itala 
ion  B 

M 

11"  B 

H 


was  btiilt  In  It 

'J3nN 

was  prophuvd  In  It 

•3jnN 

Ood  gave  roe  ^t^p^w 

icniDT 

God  gave  me  favour 

uninm 

I  gtoU  the  bodies 

naiJ 

I  wrapped  . .  . 

nDJV 

all  the./fna7iti4^  of  the  kin^om    K:3rn 

all  the  care  .  .  . 

Krcn 

your  pleamtres 

pa-ma? 

your  icaya 

fa''}'i!s 

your  songi 

pa'nac' 

Achiacharus  nourished  me 

oj-15 

Ach.  persuaded  me 

O-.j 

bury  me  honourably 

im.ia 

bury  me  immtdiuUiy 

inina 

Take  her 

n^Kb 

Agk  tor  her 

nS  W 

bound  him  forthwith 

•an 

returned  forthwith 

iin 

Honour  thy  father 

Tin 

Beium  to  thy  father 

rq 

daubed  It  on  hU  eye* 

nz 

blew  into  bis  eyei 

n'£x 

121s  KB  thou  didst  cover  tlie  dead  rivpi? 

Syriao  thou  didst  carry  aiiay,  etc.  nipc 

1214  KB  sent  me  to  heal  thee  KD'D 

Itala                         „    „    to  test  thee  K"SO 

144  N  our  brethren  shall  be  eouTtted  pi'isn' 
B  „           ,       shall  be  scattered  pcnEn- 

145  M  the  time  of  the  seaaont  K'Ziy 
HF  „  „  one  aon  '»  oVy 
Itala                      „       „       eurgingt  l«'337V 

iv.  Historical  Character.— This  was  ne«ei 
called  in  question  until  Luther  did  so.  The 
minuteness  of  its  details  has  often  been  adduced 
as  evidence  of  its  historicity,  and  it  must  be  ad- 
mitted that  there  is  nothing  in  it  so  marvellous 
and  superstitious  as  to  be  incredible  to  educated 
men  of  antiiiuity.  The  angelophany  is  only  a 
sliglit  amplification  of  Gn  18  ;  possession  by  un- 
clean spirits  was  a  recognized  belief,  and  exorcism 
by  fumigation  was  recognized  in  medical  science. 
W.  R.  Smith  quotes  from  I;Caswini,  i.  132,  that  '  the 
smell  of  the  smoke  of  crocodiles'  liver  cures  epi- 
lepsy, audits  dung  and  gall  cure  Leucoma '  (£nt,-.yc. 
Brit.'  art.  '  Tobit ').  Without  calling  in  question 
that  the  book  probably  rests  on  a  real  history,  the 
following  considerations  forbid  our  regarding  it  as 
being  what  it  claims  to  be,  viz.  a  narrative  wTitten 
in  the  7th  cent.  B.C.  :— (1)  It  contains  historical 
errors,  (o)  It  was  Tiglath-pileser  who  took  Naph- 
tali  and  Zebulun  into  captivity  (B.C.  734),  not 
Shalmaneser,  2  K  15-^.  (j3)  Sennacherib  was  not 
Shalmaneser's  son  (1"),  but  the  son  of  Sargon  a 
usurper.  (7)  It  is  implied  in  l*  that  Tobit  was  a 
boy  at  the  time  of  Jeroboam's  revolt  from  the 
house  of  David.  (5)  The  occurrence  of  Ahasuerua 
(14")  and  Aman  (A  W>)  ought  not  to  be  pushed. 
'Affiripos  in  B  is  a  scribe's  blunder  for  'Adovplas  in 
X,  and  'Audi'  in  A  is  due  to  the  same  cause,  taking 
'Axiixapos  for  Mordecai. — (2)  It  is  a  geographical 
error  to  put  the  Tigris  between  Nineveh  and 
Ecbatana  ;  and  also  to  state  (so  X  Aram.  HM,  It.) 
that  llhagae  is  two  days  from  Ecbatana.  B  omits 
the  '  two  days ' ;  but  in  6'  says  that  Ecbatana  was 
'  nigh  unto  Rhagie.'  It  took  the  army  of  Alexander 
10  days  to  march  from  one  to  the  other  (Arrian, 
iii.  20).— (3)  The  spirit  and  theological  tone  belong 
to  a  later  date. 

V.  Date  of  Composition. — Most  Roman  Catho- 
lic authorities,  relying  on  12™  13',  ascribe  the  book 
to  the  7th  cent.  B.C.  Ilgen  maintains  that  1-3' 
13'"'  was  written  by  Tobit  in  B.C.  6S9,  and  the 
rest  in  Palestine  about  B.C.  280.  Ewald  fixes  it 
B.C.  350.  Graetz  assigns  it  to  the  time  of  Hadrian 
(A.D.  130),  and  Kohut  to  A.D.  2'26.  'The  chief 
reason  alleged  for  the  last  two  dates  is  that  it 
is  considered  that  the  one  principal  object  of 
the  book  is  to  insist  on  the  duty  of  burying 
the  dead.  Twice  in  Jewish  history  was  this 
prohibited :  after  the  fall  of  Bether,  so  valiantly 
defended  by  Bar  Cochha,  and  in  Persia  under 
Ardeshir  I.  Both  these  dates  are  probably  non- 
suited by  the  fact  that  Tobit  is  cited  by  Polycarp 
(t  155).  The  following  considerations  suggest  the 
2nd  cent.  B.C.  as  the  probable  date  :— (1)  Unless  it 
could  be  shown  that  14'  is  prophetic,  it  implies 
that  the  writer  was  living  at  the  time  of  a  temple 
which  was  inferior  in  grandeur  to  Solomon's,  ».«. 
before  the  time  of  Herod.  (2)  The  law  of  marriage 
with  relatives,  so  strongly  insisted  on  also  in  the 
Book  of  Jubilees,  fell  into  desuetude  before  the  2nd 
cent.  A.D.  (Rosenmann,  Studien  z.  B.  Tobit).  (3) 
The  prominence  given  to  the  duty  of  interring  the 
dead  may  well  have  been  caused  by  the  action  of 
Antiochus  Epiphanes,  who,  we  are  told  (2  Mac  6'"), 
'  cast  out  a  multitude  unburied.'  (4)  Marriages 
with  Gentiles  still  needed  discouragement,  4"  6". 
(5)  It  contains    no    bright    eschatology,  and    no 


TOEIT,  BOOK  OF 


TOGAR.MAH 


789 


Messianic  hope,  from  wliich  it  seems  to  have  been 
written  beforu  the  persecution  of  Antiochus.  (0) 
Its  soteriolugital  and  ethical  tone  closely  resembles 
that  of  otlier  works  known  to  have  been  written 
ttbout  a  century  B.C.  This  we  will  now  try  to 
prove. 

vL  TOBIT  AND  CONTIiMPORARV  JEWISH  LlTERA- 
TOUE. — 1.  Sirach.  There  is,  as  Fuller  has  shown 
[Speaker's  Apucr.  i.  lUO),  a  great  resemblance 
between  the  thought  of  Tobit  and  Sirach. 

(1)  Aa  to  the  saving  value  of  good  works.  Both  emphasize 
the  value  of  almsgiving  :  it  is  a  good  gift  in  God's  sight,  To  4ii, 
fills  the  doer  with  life,  cleanses  away  all  sin  and  delivers  from 
death,  12^ ;  of.  Sir  320  2912  ^0'^,  Sinners  are  enemies  of  their 
own  life,  12"> ;  cf.  Sir  IS"  ;is'».  (2)  The  eschatology  of  Sir.  and  of 
Tobit  are  on  the  same  plane.  Both  regard  Sheol  as  the  abode  of 
joyless  shades  :  it  is  a  tt^(i,>iet  ToTet,  3*^,  where  even  the  righteous 
fo,  310  132 ;  cf.  Sir  4«'»  14i«  1728.  (3)  Both  insist  on  reverent 
interment  of  the  dead.  Very  pathetically  does  Tobit  ask  to  be 
buried,  43,  and  for  Sarah  to  be  buried  beside  him,  44  ;  he  risks 
his  life  to  inler  his  brethren,  117  2^-  7,  and  urges  bis  son  to  place 
cakes  (and  wine,  Aram.,  ilF,  It,  Vulg.)  on  the  graves  of  the 
righteous  (of.  Tyler's  Primitive  Culture,  i.  4S.'>ff.,  iL  30fT.];  ct 
Sir  7'.»  30'"  3810.    (4)  Both  set  value  on  the  same  ethical  duties  : 

Suritv  of  marriage,  4i2f-  ijO.  Sir  72G  3ti24  ;  honesty  to  sen.'ants,  414, 
ir  7^-;  the  true  e.stinmte  of  wealth,  51^^,  Sir  51  ;  benevolence, 
47. 14. 17,  Sir  4lJ>  W  3.-.i".  (5)  Both  base  all  virtue  on  the  fear  of 
God,  46  8- 19,  Sir  637  3310  :j;i5. 

2.  The  Story  of  Ahilcar. — In  this  work,  recently 
published  by  Cainb.  Univ.  Press,  Ahiltar  is  a  pious 
vizier  of  Sennaclierib,  who,  bein;,'  childless,  adopted 
a  boy,  Nadan,and  took  much  pains  with  his  instruc- 
tion ;  but  when  Nadan  grew  up  he  incriminated 
his  adoptive  father  bj'  false  letters,  and  caused  him 
to  be  sentenced  to  deatli.  The  e.xecutioner  sp.nred 
his  life,  and  imprisoned  liira  in  a  cellar  under  his 
(Ahilfar's)  house.  At  length  lie  was  released,  and 
vengeance  was  executed  on  Nadan.  This  is  the 
story  which  ia  alluded  to  in  141",  i],ore  fully  in  N 
than  B. 

A^ikar,  in  *  the  Story,'  bemoans  himself  thus :  *  I  have  no  son 
to  mtrym^,  nor  a  daughter,  and  ray  possessions  no  one  inherits.' 
Bead  with  this  To  I's  '27  3i»  43.  'There  are  many  features  of 
resemblance  between  Ahikar's  moral  teaching  to  Nadan,  and 
Tobit's  to  Tobias.  In  the  Syriac  Version  of  Ahijjar  [op,  ciL  61) 
we  read :  *  My  son,  eat  thy  portion,  and  despise  not  the 
righteous '  (cf.  To  4isi ;  '  Do  not  eat  bread  with  a  shameless  man  * 
(cf.  To  417  Vulg.):  'Associate  with  a  wise  man  and  thou  wilt 
become  like  him'(ct  To  411);  'My  benevolence  has  saved  me* 
(cL  To  41O)  ;  •  My  son,  flee  from  whoredom  "  ipp.  cit.  5)  ;  cL  412 ; 
and  notably,  '  Pour  out  thy  wine  on  the  graves  of  the  righteous. 
rather  than  drink  it  with  evil  men' ;  cf.  4i7  •  Pour .  .  .  give  (it) 
not  to  sinners.'  Harris  discusses  the  two  texts  of  M  and  B  In 
the  Story  of  Ahikar^  oh.  v.,  and  also  iu  the  Amer,  Joum,  q/ 
Theology,  iiL  54  L 

3.  The  Book  of  Juhiler-i  contains  passages  prob- 
ably known  to  the  author  of  Tobit. 

To  412  states  that  Noah  took  a  wife  from  his  relatives.  Of 
course  there  is  no  Scripture  warrant  for  this ;  but  Jubilees 
(ch.  4)  furnishes  us  with  the  names  of  the  wives  of  all  the 
patriarchs  from  Adam  to  Nuuh,  and  each  one  married  a  very 
near  relative.  Again,  when  Jacob  left  home  for  Haran,  Isaac 
(Jub  271")  uses  words  to  Uebekah  which  resemble  To  b'i>'-  10» 
My  sister,  weep  not ;  he  has  gone  in  peace,  and  in  peace  will  he 
return  (so  K  62l)^  The  Most  High  will  preserve  him  from  all 
evil  For  I  know  his  way  will  be  prospered  .  .  .  and  he  will 
return  in  peace  to  us  (To  6-<i),  for  he  \s  on  the  straight  path  (419^ 
He  is  faithful  (K  10'-),  and  will  not  perisli.'  In  Jub  2:^11  we  read, 
'  Separate  thyself  from  the  nations,  and  eat  not  with  them,  and 
beconie  not  their  associate  (To  1 1"> :  they  offer  their  sacrifices  to 
the  dead,  and  eat  over  their  graves '  (To  417). 

4.  The  Testament  of  Job  has  the  foil,  parallels  : — 

Job's  wife  begged  bread  for  him  (ch.  22) :  Job  sang  a  hymn 
(ch.  33) ;  in  ch.  45  Job,  when  dying,  says,  '  Behold,  1  die  ;  only 
forget  not  the  Lord  (To  4^)  ;  do  good  to  the  poor  (410)  ;  dest>iNe 
not  the  helpless  (41'') ;  take  not  to  yourselves  wives  from 
strangers  (4i2),  and,  lo,  I  distribute  to  you  all  08  much  «i 
belongs  to  me'  (410). 

8.  Judith  (8')  attaches  importance  to  the  fact 
that  she  and  her  husband  were  '  of  the  same  tribe 
and  family.' 

vii.  ToiiiT  IN  THE  Church.— The  Didacki  (1») 
gives  this  advice,  'Whatever  thou  wishest  not  to 
happen  to  thee,  do  not  thou  to  anutlier';  To  1" 
gives  this  form,  '  What  thou  hatest,  do  not  to 
another '  {ar>  also  Iliilel  [Taylor,  Pirke  Aboth,  37]). 


Did  4'"'  is  also  an  adaptation  of  To  4^"^.  Polycarj 
[ad  Phil.  ch.  10)  says,  '  When  ye  can  do  good, 
defer  it  not,  for  almsgiving  delivers  from  death  '  ; 
cf.  To  12^  Pseudo-Clem,  (ad  Cor.  16)  seems  to 
quote  12'  thus  :  '  Almsgiving  is  as  good  as  repent- 
ance for  sin  ;  fasting  is  better  than  prayer,  but 
almsgiving  (is  better)  than  both.  Love  covereth  a 
multitude  of  sins.  Prayer  from  a  good  conscience 
siiveth  from  death.'  Harris  (Amer.  Joum.  T/ieul. 
iii.  546  ff. )  suggests  to  read  'prayer'  for  the  first 
'almsgiving';  and  thinks  we  have  tlie  original 
reading  of  To  12*  in  the  Gr.  cursivei  '  Good  is 
prayer  with  fasting,  and  almsgiving  with  right- 
eousness better  than  both.'  Clem.  Alex,  quotes 
4'"  as  i]  ypaip-i)  (Strom,  ii.  23,  §  139).  Origen  (£/>.  ad 
Afric.  xiii.)  and  Atlianasius  (Apol.  c.  Arian.  xL) 
use  Tobit  as  canonical,  though  theoretically  they 
did  not  include  it  in  the  Canon,  because  it  was  not 
in  the  Heb.  Bible.  Cyprian  treats  it  as  authorita- 
tive in  his  work  on  the  Lord's  Pr.ayer  (c.  32). 
HUary  cites  it  to  prove  the  intercession  of  angels 
(in  Ps.  129').  Ambrose  (de  Tabid,  1.  1)  treated 
the  book  as  prophetic,  and  Augustine  included  it 
among  the  Apocr.  of  the  LXX  wliich  '  the  Christian 
Churc-li  received '  (de  Doctr.  Christ,  ii.  8).  Jerome 
(Prof,  ad  libh.  Salomonis)  allowed  its  perusal,  but 
forbade  its  canonicity  ;  whereas  the  Council  of 
Carthage  (A.D.  397)  and  the  Councils  of  Florence 
(143'J)  and  of  Trent  (154(j)  declared  it  canonical. 
Luther  (cf.  Fritzscbe,  p.  19)  deemed  it  '  a  truly 
beautiful,  wholesome,  and  profitable  tictiou.'  The 
Homilies  of  the  Church  of  England  u.se  4'"  12'  as  '  a 
les.son  which  the  Holy  Ghost  doth  teach  in  sundry 
places  of  the  Scripture'  (Second  Book,  On  Alms- 
deeds,  part  1).  Ine  Oll'ertory  contains  sentences 
drawn  from  To  4''",  and  the  jireface  to  the  Marriage 
Service,  that  marriage  '  ought  not  to  be  taken  in 
hand  lij;litly  or  wantonly  to  satisfy  carnal  lusts,' 
is  clearly  an  adaptation  of  Vulg.  6"  ;  in  fact,  the 
first  Prayer  Book  of  Kdu.ard  VI.  contained  these 
words  :  '  As  Thou  didst  send  the  angel  Raphael  to 
Thobie  ami  Sara,  the  daughter  of  Raguel,  to  their 
great  comfort,  so  vouchsafe  to  send  Thy  blessing 
upon  these  Thy  servants.'  The  names  of  Abraham 
and  Sarah  are  now  substituted. 

LrrKRATURK — COMMENTAiiiiiS:  Ilgen,  Dis  Gesehichte  TobC$, 
Twich  drt'i/  rerscfiii'denen  Orijiiialen,  Jena,  18U0 ;  Reusch,  Das 
liucli  Tu'bias,  Freiburg,  1857  ;  Fritzsche,  Ej-eg.  Uaiulbk.  1858 ; 
Fullrr,  .Spt'aki'r'g  Apocr.,  vol  i.,  London,  18SS ;  Sengelmann, 
Hd.s  iiticti  Tobit,  Hamburg,  1857;  Outberlet,  Das  Ihich  Tobias, 
Minister,  1877;  Bissell  in  Lange's  Apocr.,  Edinburgh,  1880; 
Schuiz,  Comvu  z.  B.  7'ohias,  Wurzburg,  1889  ;  Zockler,  Apokr.  det 
AT,  Munchen,  1891 ;  Lolir  in  Kautzsch's  Apohr.  u.  Pscudepiqr. 
des  AT,  Tubingen,  WOO.— Tk.xts :  Swete,  OT  in  Greek,  vol.  li., 
gives  the  text  of  B  and  K  in  full,  with  readings  from  A  as  foot- 
notes ;  Fritzsche  gives  the  text  of  the  Cursives  44.  106  in  hia 
Covu  pp.  89-104;  Neubauer  on  Tot/it  gives  Anim.,  IIM,  It.  L  ; 
the  Synac  is  found  conveniently  in  Lagarde's  L(7/ri  VT  Apocr. 
Si/riace.,  London,  1861 ;  for  HF  we  have  only  W'alton's  Polt/glot', 
the  most  accurate  edition  of  Vulg.  is  that  of  Vercellono,  Uomee, 
lml.—/IKLPS  TO  STUor :  Schurer,  JIJP  IL  iii.  37-44;  Tht 
.Story  of  Ahikar,  from  the  Syr.,  Arab.,  Arm.,  Eth.,  Gr.,  and 
Slav.  Versions,  by  Conybeare,  Harris,  and  Mra  Lewis,  Camh. 
Univ.  Press,  1898;  'Testament  of  Job'(7'.S  v.  1  ;  also  in  .Sffm, 
Stud,  in  Memory  of  A.  Kohut,  Berlin,  1897,  pp.  2l!4-:i3S) ;  Book 
of  Jubilees,  tr.  by  Conybeare  in  J^ii  vL  vii. ;  Nestle,  ,S'('/>(i«l- 
nintastudien,  iiL  1809,  p.  22 IT.;  W.  R.  Smith's  art  'Tobit' 
in  Kixojcl.  lirit.  8 ;  Nolcieke,  Monatsher.  dcr  kt'nl.  Akad.  der 
M'iisentich.  ru  Berlin,  1879,  p.  V.^iX.  [orig.  lang.  Greek);  Qriitz, 
;1foim(»»cAr.  1879,  pp.  145  0.,  384 II.,  4:)3IT^  509  IT.  [orig.  lang. 
New  Ueb.J.  J.  T.  MARSHALL. 

TOCHEN  (i:h  •ta.sk,'  'measure';  B  BiitKo,  A 
QixX"-"  ;  Thorhcn). — A  town  of  Simeon  mentioned 
with  Ain,  Himmon,  and  Ashan  (1  Ch  4''-),  and 
conseouently  in  the  Negeb.  There  is  no  name 
like  Tochen  in  the  corresjionding  list  of  Jos  19', 
where,  however,  the  LX\  G4/(ko  shows  that  the 
name  has  fallen  out.     The  site  is  unknown. 

C.  W.  WII.SON. 

TOGARMAH  (i--ijh,  Qopryapii,  Thogomia).— Son 
of  Goiiier  and  brother  of  Ashkenaz  and  liiphath 
(Gn  lO*).     If  Ashkenaz  is  the  Asguza  of  the  Aasyr. 


790 


TOHU 


TONGUES,  COXFUSIOX  OF 


inscriptions  which  is  associated  with  the  Minni  by 
Esarhaddon,  we  shall  have  to  look  for  Togarmah 
to  the  east  of  Assyria.  In  1881  Fr.  Delitzsch 
suggested  that  it  might  be  Til-garimmu,  a  fortress 
of  Kummukh  or  Comaggn6  ;  but  it  iiuist  have 
been  a  country,  since  horses  and  raulos  wore  ex- 
ported from  it  (Ezk  27"),  and  not  a  mere  fortress. 
Most  modem  authorities  decide  for  Western 
Armenia.  A.  H.  Sayce. 

TOHU.— See  Nahath. 

TOI.— See  Tou. 

TOKHATH.— See  TlKVAH. 

TOLA (I'S'iB  'crimson worm,'  •cochineal';  Qa\d,  Jg 
lO'-'). — A  minor  judge,  following  Abimelech.  His 
name  is  that  of  one  of  the  chief  clans  of  Issacliar ; 
see  Gn  46■^  Nu  26="  ('y^inn,  6  TwXoel),  1  Ch  7"-,  and 
art.  PUAH.  His  home  and  burial-place  were  at 
Shamir,  the  seat  of  the  clan,  probably  in  the  N.  of 
the  higlilands  of  Ephraim  :  the  site  is  unknown. 

G.  A.  Cooke. 

TOLAD  (iViB  'birth,'  'generation';  B  eou\ai/i, 
Aeai\d5;  Tholnd). — A  town  of  Simeon  mentioned 
xnih  Ezem,  Bethuel,  Homiali,  and  Zikla"(l  Ch  4-^). 
It  is  the  same  place  as  El-tolad  in  the  Negeb  (Jos 
IS*"  19*).     The  site  has  not  been  recovered. 

C.  W.  Wilson. 

TOLBANES  (To\3i.-,s),  I  Es9=»=Telem,  Ezr  10« 
— One  of  the  porters  in  the  time  of  Ezra. 

TOLL,  PLACE  OF  (reXcino^  Mt  9»,  Mk  2",  Lk 

'r",  in  AV  '  receipt  of  custom '). — The  place  where 
the  tax  collector  sat  to  receive  Iiis  dues.  In 
Wyclifs  translation  it  is  rendered  tolbothe.  In 
the  case  of  Matthew  or  Levi,  the  toll  collected  was 
the  custom  exacted  by  and  paid  into  the  treasury 
of  Herod  Antipas,  the  Idumasan  prince  who  then 
ruled  over  Galilee.  The  t(\wihov  at  Capernaum 
was  of  importance,  as  a  large  traffic  passed  on  the 
highway  between  Damascus  and  Ptoleniais.  See 
Publican.  J.  Macphekson. 

TOMB.— See  BtmiAL  and  Sepulchre. 

TONGUES,  CONFUSION  OF.— The  narrative  of 
Gn  11'"*  is  too  familiarly  known  to  need  detailed  re- 
petition here ;  and  it  will  be  sufficient  to  recall 
briefly  its  leading  features.  Mankind,  at  the  time 
to  which  it  refers,  all  had  one  speech,  and  lived 
together.  They  journeyed,  it  seems  to  be  implied, 
nomadically  from  spot  to  spot ;  and  on  one  of 
their  journeys  they  found  a  plain  in  the  land  of 
Shin'ar  (Babylonia),  where  they  settled,  and  where 
also  they  determined  to  build  a  city,  and  a  lofty 
tower,  which  should  both  gain  them  lasting  re- 
nown, and  also  serve  as  a  centre,  or  rallj'ing-point, 
to  prevent  their  being  dispersed  over  tlie  surface  of 
the  earth.  J",  however,  '  came  down  '  to  view  the 
building,  and  [supplj'ing  here,  with  Stade,  ZA  W, 
1895,  p.  158,  and  others,  words  which  v.'  seems  to 
show  have  been  omitted]  having  returned  to  His 
lofty  abode,  signified  to  His  heavenly  counsellors 
or  associates  there  (cf.  3^-)  His  disapproval  of 
it :  if  this.  He  said,  is  the  beginning  of  their 
ambition,  what  will  be  the  end  of  it  ?  nothing 
will  soon  be  too  hard  for  them.  So  He  '  came 
down'  a  second  time,  and  'confounded'  (Ilcb. 
bdlal)  their  language ;  and  from  this  occurrence 
the  narrator  (J)  explains  the  diversity  of  exist- 
ing languages,  the  dispersion  of  mankind,  and 
the  name  of  the  city  of  Babylon  (in  Heb. 
Babel). 

1.  From  a  critical  point  of  view,  the  narrative 
presents  considerable  difficulties  ;  for,  though  it 
belongs  to  J,  it  is  difficult  to  harmonize  with 


otlier  representations  of  tlie  same  source.  Tlia 
distribution  of  mankind  into  dillcrent  nations  haa 
been  already  described  by  J  in  (parts  of)  ch.  10, 
and  represented  there,  not  as  a  pvinishment  for 
misdirected  ambition,  but  as  the  result  of  natural 
processes  and  movements  ;  and  Babylon,  the  build- 
ing of  which  is  here  interrupted,  is  in  10'°  repre- 
sented as  already  built.  The  narrative  connects 
also  very  imperfectly  with  the  close  of  J's  narrative 
of  the  Flood  ;  for,  though  the  incident  which  it 
describes  is  placed  shortly  after  the  Flood,  the 
terms  of  v.'  ('the  whole  earth'),  and  the  general 
tenor  of  the  following  account,  imply  a  consider- 
ably larger  population  than  the  'eight  souls'  of 
Noah's  famijy.  In  all  probability  (Dillm.)  the 
story  originally  grew  up  without  reference  to  the 
Flood,  or  the  usual  derivation  of  mankind  from 
the  three  sons  of  Noah,  and  it  has  been  imperfectly 
accommodated  to  the  narratives  in  clis.  9  and  10  , 
perhaps,  indeed,  Wellh.  and  others  (cf.  the  Oxf. 
Hex.  ad  loc.)  are  right  in  conjecturing  that  origin- 
ally it  belonged  to  the  same  cycle  of  tradition  of 
which  fragments  are  preserved  in  4""",  and  formed 
part  of  the  sequel  to  4-". 

It  is  ditBcuIt  to  avoid  the  conclusion  nVellh.,  Dillm.,  and 
others ;  ct.  the  Oxf.  Uex.  ii.  6  f.)  that  i"-^*  (describing  the 
beginnings  of  existing  civilization)  belongs  to  a  cycle  of  tradi- 
tion, in  which  the  continuity  of  buuian  history  was  not  inter- 
rupted by  a  Flood ;  and  if  the  conjecture,  just  mentioned, 
respecting  ll'-^  be  correct,  the  same  assumption  must  of 
course  be  made  with  regard  to  that. 

2.  That  the  narrative  can  contain  no  scientific  or 
historically  true  account  of  the  origin  of  language, 
is  evident  from  many  indications.  In  the  first 
place,  if  it  is  in  its  right  place,  it  can  be  demon- 
strated to  rest  upon  unhistorical  assumptions  :  for 
the  biblical  date  of  the  Flood  (Usslier's  artificial 
treatment  of  Gn  11"  and  Ex  l'^""  being  disregarded) 
is  B.C.  2501  (or,  ace.  to  the  LXX  of  Gen.  and  Ex., 
3066) ;  and,  so  far  from  the  whole  earth  being  at 
either  B.C.  2501  or  B.C.  3066  '  of  one  language  and 
one  speech,'  we  possess  inscriptions  dating  from 
periods  much  earlier  than  either  of  these  dates 
\vritten  in  three  distinct  languages  —  Sumerian, 
Babylonian,  and  Egyptian.  But,  even  if  Wellh.'s 
supposition,  that  the  narrative  belongs  really  to  an 
earlier  stage  in  the  history  of  mankind,  be  accepted, 
it  wotild  still  be  impossible  to  regard  it  as  historical. 
For  (1)  it  could  not,  even  then,  be  placed  in  a  dif- 
ferent category  from  the  other  narratives  in  Gn 
1-11,  which  (lor  reasons  which  cannot  be  stated 
fully  here  ;  cf.  FALL,  Flood,  etc.)  must  relate  to 
the  prehistoric  period.  And  (2)  the  narrative, 
while  explaining  ostensibly  the  diversity  of  lan- 
guages, offers  no  explanation  of  the  diversity  of 
races.  And  yet  diversity  of  language — meaning 
here  by  the  expression  not  the  relatively  subordi- 
nate differences  whicli  are  always  characteristic 
of  languages  developed  from  a  common  pareni- 
tongue,  but  those  more  radical  difl'erences  relating 
alike  to  structure,  grammar,  and  roots,  which  show 
that  the  languages  exhibiting  them  cannot  be  re- 
ferred to  a  common  origin  —  is  dependent  upon 
diversity  of  race.  Of  course,  cases  occur  in  which 
a  people  li\'ing  near  a  people  of  another  race,  or 
sub-race,  have  adopted  tlieir  language  [a.s,e.g.,  the 
Celts  in  Cornwall  have  adopted  English)  ;  but, 
sj)eaking  generally,  radically  different  languages 
are  characteristic  of  difierent  races,  or  (if  the  word 
be  used  in  its  widest  sense)  of  subdivisions  ol 
races,  or  sub-races,  which,  in  virtue  of  thefacxilty 
of  creating  language  distinctive  of  man,  have 
created  them  for  purposes  of  intercommunication 
and  to  satisfy  their  social  instincts.  Difl'erences 
of  race,  in  other  words,  are  more  primary  in  man 
than  differences  of  language  *  and  have  first  to  be 
accounted  for.     It  is,  now,  a  disputed  ethnological 

•Ct.  Sayce,  Races  of  the  OT,  p.  STL,  'Diversity  ol  race  U 
older  than  diversity  of  language.* 


TONGUES,  CONFUSION  OF 


TONGUES,  CONFUSION  OF      791 


problem   whether  man  appeared  originally  upon 
the  globe  at  one  centre  or  at  many  centres. 

The  fonner  of  these  altemativea  is  preferred  by  mwlem 
flcientiOc  authorities.  Mr.  Darwin  in  his  Ijti^cj-nt  of  Man, 
vol.  i.  ch.  7,  after  reviewing  the  ar^'uinents  on  both  sides,  sums 
up  (]>)>.  231-2;i:>,  ed.  lS71)in  its  favour  (upon  the  ground,  stated 
brielly,  tliat  the  resemblances,  physical  and  mental,  between 
dilTert-nt  rai;c3  are  such  that  it  is  extremely  improbable  that 
they  should  have  been  acquired  independently  by  aboriginally 
distinct  species  or  races);  see  also  to  the  same  effect  Lvell, 
yrinciphs  0/ Geology  "(ISlb),  li.  ch.  43  ;  Huxley,  Crilir/net'arul 
Athlnsges  (1883),  p.  163  fl.  (,=  CollfCled  Essays,  vii.  p.  240  lI.)  ;  and 
Dr.  Tylor,  art.  'Anthropology'  in  the  Encijcl.  lirdfiimi  in  his 
volume  Anthropology  (18S1),  p.  0.  But  of  course  these  authori- 
ties ]K>stulate  for  man  a  far  higher  antiquity  than  is  ttUowed  by 
the  biblical  narrative  (so  also  Sayce,  Itaat  of  Ihe  OT  iS,  37). 

But,  whichever  of  these  alternatives  be  adopted, 
it  is  easy  to  see  that  diti'erences  of  raco  are  not 
accounted  for  in  the  biblical  narratives:  (lie  case 
of  primitive  man  appearing  independently  at  dif- 
ferent centres  (with,  it  may  be  sui)posed,  racial 
distinctions,  at  least  to  some  degree,  already  im- 
planted in  him  at  these  centres)  is  not  contem- 
plated in  them  at  all  ;  if,  on  the  other  hand, 
racial  ditlerences  were  gradually  developed  by  the 
plaj-  of  natural  selection  upon  the  descendants  of 
a  single  pair,  migrating  into  new  climatic  and 
other  physical  conditions,  then  the  growth  of 
these  ditlerences  is  neither  explained  by  the  bib- 
lical narratives,  nor,  in  fact,  reconcilable  with 
them.  For,  taking  account  only  of  the  simplest 
and  most  obvious  division  of  mankind  into  the 
white,  black,  and  jellow races,*  even  Gn  10  (Sayce, 
ECM  120)  notices  only  (except  Cush?)  tribes 
and  nations  belonging  to  the  uwte  race  ;  while, 
from  the  known  lixity  of  racial  types,  in  cases 
where  we  are  able  to  observe  them,  it  is  certain 
that,  if  the  wliite,  black,  and  yellow  races,  with 
the  many  sub-races  included  in  each,  have  been 
developed  from  a  single  original  pair,  the  process 
must  have  occupied  a  vastly  longer  period  of  time 
than  is  allowed  by  the  biblical  narrative  (which 
places  the  creation  of  m.an  at  B.C.  4157,  or  [LXX] 
B.C.  5328),  however  early  after  Adam  the  dis- 
persion of  Gn  11'  may  be  supposed  to  have  actually 
occurred. 

:{.  It  does  not  fall  within  the  province  of  a 
Diction.ary  of  the  Bible  to  give  an  account  of  the 
languages  of  the  world  ;  but  a  few  particulars  may 
be  stated  here  for  the  purpose  of  indicating  tlie 
general  conclusions  to  which  the  study  of  the 
subject  has  led  modem  philologists.  Prof.  Sayce 
writes  (Introd.  to  the  Science  0/  Language,  18S0, 
ii.  31f. ):  'The  genealogical  classilication  of  lan- 
guages, that  which  divides  them  into  families  and 
subfamilies,  each  mounting  up,  as  it  were,  to  a 
single  parent-speech,  is  based  on  the  evidence  of 
granmiar  and  roots.  Unless  the  grammar  agrees, 
no  amount  of  similarity  between  the  roots  of  two 
languages  could  warrant  us  in  comparing  them 
together,  and  referring  them  to  the  same  stock. 
.  .  .  The  test  of  linguistic  kinship  is  agreement 
in  structure  [i.e.  the  formation  of  sentences], 
craiiimar,  and  roots.  Judged  by  this  test,  tlie 
languages  at  present  spoken  in  the  world  probably 
fall,  £is  Prof.  Friednch  Miiller  observes,  into 
"about  100  difl'erent  families,"  between  which 
science  can  discover  no  connexion  or  relationship. 
Wlicn  we  consider  how  many  languages  have' 
probably  '  perished  since  man  lirst  appeared  upon 
the  globe,  we  may  gain  some  idea  of  the  number- 
less essays  and  types  of  speech  which  have  gone 
to  form  the  language-world  of  the  present  elay.' 
Basque  is  an  example  of  an  isolated  survival  of  an 
otherwise  extinct  family  of  speech  ;  and  in  Tasmania 
four  dialects  spoken  when  our  colonists  lirst  landed 
on  the  island  nave  recently  disappeared.  On  pp. 
33-04  of  the  same  volume  Prof.  Sajce  gives  a  list 

*  See,  further,  on  the  classiflcation  of  the  races  of  mankind, 
Dr  Tylor'a  article  and  work  (ch.  8)  referred  to  above. 


of  75  families  of  languages,  all  unrelated  to  each 
other,  and  each  comprising  mostly  a  variety  of 
individual  languages  or  groups  of  languages. 

Of  these  families  the  two  best  known  are  the  Semitic  and 
the  Aryan  (or  Indo-Kuropean).  The  princip.al  luiguages  in- 
cluded in  the  Semitic  family  are  Assyro-lJabyloni*!,  liebrew, 
Ph(Enician  and  Ptinic,  the  different  Aramaic  dialects,  Arabic, 
the  S.  Arabian  dialects  (Himyaritic  or  Sabajan,  and  Minajan), 
Kthiopic  and  allied  tliatects :  "all  these,  though  in  subordinate 
details  they  often  differ  widely,  ^-et  display  such  obvious  resem- 
blances in  '  structure,  grammatical  form,  and  roots,'  that  they 
are  manifestly  merely  varieties  of  a  common  parent-tongue. 
The  principal  groups  included  in  the  Anjan  family  are  the 
Indian  group  (Sanskrit,  with  allied  languai,'es  and  many  modern 
verniuruiars),  the  Iranian  group  (Zend,  Persian,  etc.),  the  Celtic 
group  (Welsh,  Cornish,  Irish,  etc.),  the  Italian  group  (Unibrian, 
Oscaii,  I..atin,  with  the  dependent  Romance  languages),  the 
Thrako-Illyrian  group,  the  Hellenic  group,  the  Letto-Slavonic 
^'roup  (Slavonic,  Russian,  Polish,  Lithuanian,  etc.),  and  the 
Teutonic  group  (Gothic,  Low  German,  Anglo-Saxon,  Englisli, 
Dutch.  Ili^'h  German, Old  Norse,  Icelandic,  Swedish,  Danish, Nor- 
wegian) :  all  these  languages,  though  in  details  they  differ  even 
more  widely  than  the  Semitic  languages,  nevertheless  exhibit 
so  many  common  features  as  to  make  it  evident  that  they  are 
but  varieties,  which  have  arisen  by  gradual  differentiation, 
under  the  inrtuence  of  separation  and  different  local  conditions, 
out  of  a  single  original  parent-tongue. 

Languages,  however,  differ  not  only  in  grammar 
and  roots,  but  also  in  a  manner  which  it  is  more 
diHicult  for  those,  like  ourselves,  familiar  with  only 
one  type  of  language,  to  realize,  viz.  '  morpho- 
logically,' or  in  the  manner  in  which  ideas  are 
built  up  into  a  sentence.  Different  races  do  not 
think  in  the  same  way ;  and  consequently  the 
forms  taken  by  the  sentence  in  different  languages 
are  not  the  same.  The  only  type  of  language 
with  which  we  are  practically  acquainted  is  the 
'  inllectional '  type,  which  prevails  in  Western 
Asia  and  Europe,  and  to  which  both  tlie  Semitic 
and  Aryan  families  belong  ;  but  there  are  besides 
the  'agglutinative'  type  (of  which  Turkish  is  an 
example),  spoken  chielly  in  Central  Asia,  the 
Islands  of  the  Pacific,  and  many  parts  of  Africa, 
the  'incorporating,'  of  which  Basque  (in  S.VV. 
France)  is  the  cliief  representative,  the  'poly- 
sj-nthetic,'  which  prevails  throughout  America,* 
and  the  'isolating'  (of  which  Cliinese  is  the  best- 
known  example),  characteristic  of  Eastern  Asia 
(Tiliet,  Burmah,  etc.) :  all  these  types  of  language 
dillbring  in  the  manner  in  which  ideas  are  grouped 
by  tlie  mind,  and  combined  into  sentences  (for 
further  particulars  reference  must  be  made  to 
Sayce,  op.  cit.  i.  118-132,  374ff.,ii.  18811'.;  Jiaces 
of  tlie  OT,  35  f.  ;  or  Whitney's  art.  'Pliilology'  in 
the  Encycl.  Britannica,  ed.  9).  It  is  remarkable, 
as  even  this  cursory  description  will  have  indi- 
cated, that  the  morphological  character  of  a  lan- 
guage is  correlateii,  in  some  hidden  way,  with  the 
geographical  and  climatic  conditions  of  the  country 
in  which  it  originated  :  thus  the  different  families 
of  languages  spoken  in  America,  though  utterly 
unrelated  to  each  other,  are  nevertheless  all  'poly- 
synthetic' 

It  is  an  obvious  corollary  from  the  radical  differ- 
ences which  the  various  families  of  language 
dis])lay,  as  compared  with  one  another,  that, 
whatever  may  have  been  the  case  with  the  races  of 
mankind,  the  families  of  language  spoken  by  man- 
kind must  have  arisen  independently  at  different 
centres  of  human  life.  'The  languages  of  the 
present  world  arc  hut  the  selected  residuum  of  the 
inlinito  variety  of  tongues  that  have  grown  up  and 
decayed  among  the  races  of  mankind.  .  .  .  The 
idioms  of  manKind  have  had  many  independent 
starting-points,  and,  like  the  Golden  Ago,  which 
science  has  shifted  from  the  past  to  the  future, 
the  dream  of  a  universal  language  must  be  realized, 
if  at  all,  not  in  the  Paradise  of  Genesis,  but  in 
the  unifying  tendencies  of  civilization  and  trade ' 
(Sayce,  Science  of  Lang.  ii.  3'22,  323). 

*  In  polysynthetio  languages  the  sentence  is  the  unit  of 
thought ;  and  in  Diony  of  them  separate  words  hardly  exist. 


792      TONGUES,  COXFUSION  OF 


TONGUES,  CONFUSION  OF 


As  need  hardly  be  remarked,  what  the  iirimitive  lanijuage  of 
mankind  waa.  is  unknown.  Formerly,  indeed,  it  was  the  ^reneral 
belief  that  it  was  Hebrew,  and  all  other  languages  were  sup- 
posed to  be  deri\ed  from  this  (I);  see  Max  Muller,  Lectures  on 
the  Se.  of  Lang.  1st  series,  ed.  1SG4,  p.  13iff.  Leibnitz  appears 
to  have  been  the  first  to  point  out  the  absunlitv  of  this 
view,  remarkuig  justly  (i*.  p.  135 f.)  that  'to  call  Hebrew  the 
primitive  language  was  like  calling  branches  of  a  tree  primitive 
branches ' ;  and  the  science  of  comparative  philology,  which  has 
arisen  since  Leibnitz's  day,  has  but  confinned  the  sountiness  of 
his  judgment.  Even  among  the  Semitic  languages,  Anahic,  in 
many  respects,  e.xiiibits  older  and  more  original  features  than 
Hebrew  ;  besiiies,  unless  all  analogy  is  deceptive,  the  language 
of  primitive  man  must  have  been  of  a  far  more  simple,  un- 
developed type  than  any  of  the  existing  Semitic  languages. 

4.  Differences  of  language  and  ditt'erences  of  race 
thus  point  independently  to  the  great  antiquity  of 
man  upon  the  earth.  And  their  evidence  is  more 
than  confirmed  by  testimony  from  other  quarters. 
Even  during  the  last  ten  years  the  discoveries  of 
Petrie  and  de  Morgan  in  figypt,  and  of  Hilpreeht 
and  others  in  Babjlonia,  have  shown  that  civiliza- 
tion existed  in  tiiese  two  countries  at  a  period 
considerably  earlier  than  had  previously  been  sup- 
posed ;  while  the  existence  of  inscriptions,  sculp- 
tures, paintings,  and  various  objects  of  art,  belong- 
ing certainly  to  a  date  not  later  than  B.C.  4000, 
makes  it  evident  that  the  beginnings  of  civiliza- 
tion and  art  in  both  these  countries  must  have 
preceded  tli.it  date  by  many  centuries,  not  to  say 
by  millennia.  And  the  numerous  relics  of  human 
workmanship,  especially  stone  implements  of 
different  kinds,  and  bone  or  other  material, 
engraven  with  figures,  which  have  been  found 
during  recent  years  in  different  parts  of  Europe 
and  America,  bear  testimony,  in  the  opinion  of 
geologists,  to  a  greater  antiquity  still,  and  show 
that  man,  in  a  rude  and  primitive  stage  of  develop- 
ment, ranged  through  the  forests  and  river-valleys 
of  these  continents,  in  company  with  mammals  now 
extinct,  during  periods  of  the  so-called  'glacial 
age,'  when  the  glaciers  (which  then  extended  over 
large  parts  both  of  the  British  Isles  and  of  the 
Continent  of  Europe)  retreated  sufBciently  to  enable 
him  to  do  80  (Dawkins,  Early  Man,  112-122,  137, 
152ff.,  161-164,  169,  etc.).  The  date  at  which 
these  relics  of  human  workmanship  were  embedded 
in  the  deposits  in  which  they  are  now  found,  can- 
not be  estimated,  precisely,  in  years  B.C.  ;  but  the 
late  Prof.  Prestwich,  a  geologist  not  addicted  to 
extravagant  opinions,  assigned  to  pala-olithic  man, 
as  'a  rough  approximate  limit,  on  data  very  in- 
sufficient and  subject  to  correction,'  a  period  of 
from  20,000  to  30,000  years  from  the  present  time. 

See  Prestwich's  Geotoqy  (1888),  U.  534 ;  In  his  ContTinerted 
Qiustimu  of  lieolngy  (1895),  p.  46,  he  gives  similar  but  some- 
what higher  figures.  It  was  in  1869  that  '  the  barriers  which 
restricted  the  age  of  man  to  a  limited  traditional  chronologj* 
were  overthromi  by  the  discoveries  in  the  Galley  of  the  Somme 
and  Brixham  Cave'  (*.  p.  19).  '  Palasolithic '  implements  are 
those  found  in  association  with  extinct  mammalia  ;  '  neolithic' 
Implements,  whicli  show  a  higher  type  of  workmanship,  are 
those  found  with  existing  species.  In  the  pakpulilhic  period, 
the  •  river-drift  man '  hunted  the  elephant  and  the  lion,  the 
hippopotamus  and  the  rhinoceros,  in  the  valley  of  the  Lower 
Thames. — See  further  on  this  subject  Evans,  The  Ancient  Stone 
Implements,  It'capon*,  and  Ornaments  of  Great  Britain^,  1S97 
<on  their  antiquity,  pp.  70:i-9) ;  Boyd  Dawkins,  Earhi  Man  in 
Britain,  If-SO  (where,  at  the  end  of  the  several  chapters,  the 
characteristics  of  the  civilization  of  the  Bucce.'^sive  ages— the 
river-drift  hunter,  the  cave  man,  the  neolithic  farmer  and 
herdsman  [contemporar>'  with  the  beginnings  of  organized 
empires  in  the  East),  the  bronze  age,  and  the  iron  a^e— are 
well  indicated) ;  Lyell,  A  ntirndty  of  Man  *.  1S73  ;  Lord  Avebury 
(Sir  J.  Lubbock),  Prehistoric  Tim'rsO  (1900),  esp.  ch.  11 ;  G.  K. 
Wright,  Man  arid  the  Glacial  Age  (in  the  Intern.  Scifnt.  Series), 
1892,  p.  242ff. ;  Morris,  Man  and  hisAncestor(a  small  popularly 
written  work),  19O0,  p.  219.;  Tylor,  Anthropolo'jij,  p.  2SfT. 
That  man  was  coeval  in  Western  Europe  with  the  glacial  period 
is  accepted  by  Sayce,  Races  o/  tite  OT,  p.  2;j. 

The  general  conclusion,  resulting  from  all  that 
has  been  said,  may  be  summed  up  in  Dr.  Tylor's 
words  :  '  Man's  first  appearance  on  earth  goes'back 
to  an  age  compared  with  which  the  ancients,  as 
we  call  I  hem,  are  but  moderns.    The  four  thousand 


years  of  recorded  history  only  take  us  back  to  ■ 
prehistoric  period  of  untold  length,  during  which 
took  place  the  primary  distribution  of  mankind 
over  the  earth  and  the  development  of  the  great 
races,  the  formation  of  speech  and  the  settlement 
of  the  great  families  of  language,  and  the  giowth 
of  culture  up  to  the  levels  of  the  old-world  nations 
of  the  East,  the  forerunners  and  founders  of 
modem  civilized  life'  (Anthropology,  p.  24). 

5.  It  is  thus  ajiparent  that  there  are  two  great 
facts,  the  antiquity  of  man,  and  the  ivide  distril/u- 
tion  of  mnn  over  the  surface  of  the  earth,  of  which 
the  biblical  narrative,  whether  in  11'"'  or  else- 
where, takes  no  account.  It  is  true,  of  course, 
that  11*-'  accounts  ostensibly  for  the  distribution 
of  man  '  over  the  face  of  the  whole  earth ' ;  but  it 
has  been  sliown  above  why  it  does  not  do  so  really  : 
the  dispersion  is  placed  too  late  to  account  for  the 
known  facts  respecting  both  the  distribution  of 
man  and  the  diversity  of  races  :  how,  for  example, 
can  the  '  river-drift  man '  of  the  glacial,  or  even 
of  the  post-glacial,  period  he  brought  within  the 
scope  of  the  biblical  narrative  ?  To  say  that  the 
biblical  writers  spoke  only  of  the  nations  of  whom 
they  knew  is  perfectly  true  ;  but  the  admission 
deprives  their  statements  of  all  historical  or  scien- 
tific value:  ' pala?olithic '  and  'neolithic'  man, 
and  the  black  and  j'ellow  historic  races,  all  existed ; 
and  any  explanation,  purporting  to  account  for  the 
populations  of  the  earth,  and  the  diversity  of 
Iangua;_'es  spoken  by  them,  must  take  cognizance 
of  them :  an  explanation  which  does  not  take 
cognizance  of  them  can  be  no  historically  true 
account  either  of  the  diffusion  of  mankind,  or  of 
the  diversity  of  speech.  The  first  11  chapters 
of  Genesis,  it  may  be  safely  assumed,  report 
faithfully  what  was  currently  believed  among  the 
Hebrews  respecting  the  early  history  of  mankind  : 
they  contain  no  account  of  the  real  beginnings 
of  man,  or  of  human  civilization,  upon  the 
earth. 

6.  The  true  explanation  of  the  story  in  Gn  IP'*, 
it  cannot  be  doubted,  is  that  which  is  given  by 
Prof,  (now  Bishop)  Eyle  in  his  Early  Narratives 
of  Genc-i-is,  p.  127  ft'.  As  in  2"'-4  the  origin  of 
various  existing  customs  and  institutions  is  ex- 
plained in  accordance  with  the  beliefs  of  Hebrew 
antiquity,  so  in  11'"*  the  explanation  is  given  of  the 
diversity  of  languages  spoken  by  different  peoples 
inhabiting  difl'erent  parts  of  the  earth.  As  soon  as 
men  began  to  reflect,  they  must  have  wondered  wliat 
was  the  cause  of  differences  of  language,  which  not 
only  impressed  the  Hebrews  (Is  o3''',  Dt  2S*',  Jer 
5'^,  Ps  114'),  but  also  were  an  impediment  to  free 
intercourse,  and  accentuated  national  interests 
and  antagonisms.  '  The  story  of  tlie  Tower  of 
Babel  supplied  to  such  primitive  questionings  an 
answer  suited  to  the  comprehension  of  a  primitive 
time.  Just  as  Greek  fable  told  of  the  giants  who 
strove  to  scale  Olympus,  so  Semitic  legend  told  of 
the  impious  act  by  which  the  sons  of  men  sought 
to  raise  themselves  to  the  dwelling-place  of  God, 
and  erect  an  enduring  symbol  of  human  unity  to 
be  seen  from  every  side';  and  how  Jehovah  inter- 
posed to  frustrate  their  purposes,  and  brought  upon 
them  the  very  dispersal  wliicli  they  had  sought 
to  avoid.  The  narrative  thus  contains  sim])ly  the 
answer  which  Hebrew  folk-lore  gave  to  the 
question  which  dilierences  of  language  and  nation- 
ality directly  suggested.  At  the  same  time,  it  is 
so  worded  as  to  convey  (like  the  other  early  narra- 
tives of  Genesis)  spiritual  lessons.  Though  the 
conception  of  Deity  is  naive,  and  even,  it  may  be 
(v.'),  imperfectly  disengaged  from  polytheism,  the 
narrative  nevertheless  emphasizes  Jehovah's  supre- 
macy over  the  world  ;  it  teaches  how  the  self 
exaltation  of  man  is  checked  by  God  ;  and  it 
shows    how    the    distribution    of    mankijid    into 


TOXGUES,  CONFUSION  OF 


TONGUES,  GIFT  OF 


793 


n 


nations,  and  diversity  of  language,  is  an  element 
in  His  providential  plan  for  the  development  and 
progress  of  humanity'. 

7.  No  Bab.  parallel  to  Gn  II'"'  has  as  yet  been 
discovered. 

The  reference  in  the  fruenientary  Brit.  Mua.  Inscription  (K. 
8«5(),  tr.  by  O.  Smith,  Chald.-Gt-n.  160,  and  mentioned  in  UC.M 
153.  is  very  uncertain  ;  for  though  the  inscr.  does  seem  to  speak 
of  the  erection  of  some  building  in  Babylon  by  the  order  of  the 
king,  which  offended  the  gods,  so  that  they  'made  an  end  by 
night'  of  the  work  done  by  day,  the  crucial  words,  rendered 
'strong  place'  and  'sjteech,*  are  (as  is  admitted  for  the  latter 
[tullu]  by  Smith  himself,  p.  163)  both  extremely  doubtful :  see 
Delitzsch's  note  in  the  Germ.  tr.  of  Smith's  book,  p.  310 ;  and 
for  tdzimtu,  'strong  place,'  Del.  UWB  37,  where  it  is  tr.  H'r/i- 
kiage  :  Cf.  the  transcr.  and  tr.  by  Boscawen  in  TSBA  v.  (1877) 
p.  303 ft.  (where,  however,  p.  303,  '  speech '  for  irulik,  'counsel' 
{llWli  413),  is  (juite  gratuitous). 

In  the  Jewish  Ilagj^ada  of  a  later  age,  the  tower  was  said  to 
have  been  destroye<l  by  mighty  winds :  see  the  Orac.  SihiiU.  iii. 
97  ff.  (whence  Jos.  Ant.  l.  iv.  3  [the  quotation j  =  Alex.  Poh  histor 
ap.  Svricell.  Chrun.,  ed.  Dindorf,  L  81  C),  and  Juhilees'  10'9-M 
(tr.  Cliarles,  JQKvi.  208 f.):  cf.  (from  Abydenus)  Kus.  Prap. 
£v.  ix.  14  =  Eus.  CAron.,  Schoene,  i.  33  =  SynceU.  I.  81  D,  and 
(from  Eupolenius  ap.  Alex.  Polyhistor)  ix.  17.  1.  From  the 
(act  that  m  Jos.  and  Abyd.  (toI<  uti/Mvt  Stein  fieiSutrae  a^arfii- 
•i'eu  ri  ^,j^a,»;,u«)  the  pluml  '  pods '  is  used,  Stade  (I.e.  p.  161  f.) 
conjectured  that  these  authorities  have  presen-ed  reminiscences 
of  an  older  polytheistic  version  of  the  tradition. 

In  fact,  though  the  narrative  plainly  presupposes 
a  knowledge  of  Babylonia,  it  does  not  seem  itself 
to  be  of  Babj-lonian  origin  :  if  any  Bab.  legend  lies 
at  the  basis  of  it,  it  must  have  been  strongly  Heb- 
raized. As  Gunkel  has  remarked,  the  narrator 
speaks  as  a  foreigner  rather  than  as  a  native  :  the 
unfavourable  light  in  wliich  the  foundation  of 
Babylon  is  represented  ;  the  idea  that  the  erection 
of  wliat  (ca;  Ay/).)can  hardly  have  been  anything  but 
a  Bab.  zikkurat  (or  pyramidal  temple-tower*)  was 
interrupt eil  by  (ea;  Ay;(.)  a  Bab.  deity ;  the  mention, 
as  of  sometliing  unusual,  of  brick  and  bitumen,  as 
building  materials,  and  the  false  etymology  of  tlie 
name  '  Babel,'  are  all  features  not  likely  to  h,ave 
originated  in  Babj'lonia.  It  does,  however,  seem  a 
probable  conjecture  (Ewald,  Jahrh.  ix.  [1858]  l'2f., 
Schrader,  Dillm.)  that  some  gigantic  tower-like 
building  in  Babylon,  which  had  either  been  left 
nnlinished  or  fallen  into  disrepair,  gave  rise  to 
the  legend.  The  tower  in  question  has  often  Ijeen 
supposed  to  be  luriminanki,  the  zikkurat  of  E-zida, 
the  great  temple  of  Nebo,  in  IJorsippa  (a  city 
almost  contiguous  to  Babylon  on  the  S.W.),  the 
ruined  remains  of  whicli  form  the  huge  pyramidal 
mound  now  called  liirs  Nimroud.  "YXub  zikkurat, 
remarkably  enough,  Nebuchadnezzar  states  had 
been  built  partially  by  a  former  king,  but  not 
comideted  :  its  'head,'  or  top,  had  not  been  set 
np ;  it  liad  also  fallen  into  disrepair ;  and  Neb. 
restored  it.t  Others  regard  it  as  an  objection  to 
this  identification  that  E-zida  was  not  actually  in 
Babylon;  and  prefer  to  think  of  Itiminanki,  the 
zikkurat  of  E-sagil,  the  famous  and  ancient  leiiipio 
of  Marduk  in  Babj'lon  itself,  the  site  of  whieli  is 
generally  J  considered  to  be  hidden  under  the  m.as- 
Bive  oblong  mound  called  Babil,  about  20  miles 
N.  of  Birs  Nimroud. §  Schrader  does  not  decide 
between  E-zida  and  li-sagil :  Dillm.  thinks  E-s.-igil 
the  more  likely,  but  leaves  it  open  whether,  after 
all,  the  Heb.  legend  may  not  have  referred  to  some 
halt-niined  ancient  building  in  Baliylon,  not  other- 
wise known  to  us.  The  high  antiqiiity  of  Babylon, 
and  the  fact  that  it  was  the  chief  centre  of  a 
region  in  wliidi  tlie  Hebrews  placed  the  cradle  of 
the  human  race,  would  lit  it  to  be  regarded  as  the 

•  Jastrow,  IteL  of  Bah.  and  An.  p.  81.'.  fT. 

t  The  inscr.  is  tr.  In  KAT'  124  f.,  KIB  iii.  !,  pp.  B3,  55. 

1  Sec,  however,  llommol  In  voL  L  p.  'ilS* ;  and  Babvlox,  {  8, 
In  the  kncyd.  Blbl. 

i  Sec  the  plan  of  Babylon  and  It*  environs  In  Smith's  DB, 
9.V.  ;  or  in  the  Enctjcl.  Bibl.  ».p.  Views  of  the  two  mounds 
referred  to  may  be  seen  in  Smith,  ji.v.  •  Baliel,'  and  'Babel 
(Tower  of)' ;  Kiehm,  11  WB,  l.v.  ;  or  Ball's  Liyht  froln  the  Haat, 
pp.  2211,  221. 


point  from   which    mankind   dispersed    over    the 
earth. 

See,  further  (besides  the  Conim.).  Cheyne,  art.  *  Babel  (Tower 
of)'  in  the  Encycl.  BtU.  ;  and  Vr.  Wuiccster  in  Oenesut  in  th« 
Lujht  of  Modern  Knowledge  (New  York,  lUOl),  491  ff. 

S.  R.  DllIVKR. 

TONGUES,  GIFT  OF.— i.  The  Bihlical  Evi- 
dence.— [a)  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  On  the  lirst 
day  of  Pentecost  alter  tlie  liesurrection  and 
Ascension  (Ac  2'^-),  the  disciples,  about  120  in 
number  (1"),  were  assembled  together.  'Suddenly 
there  came  from  heaven  a  sovmd  as  of  the  rushing 
of  a  mighty  wind,  and  it  lilled  all  the  house  where 
they  were  sitting.  And  there  appeared  unto  them 
tongues  parting  asunder,  like  as  of  lire  ;  and  it  [sc. 
7Xu.'crcra]  sat  upon  each  one  of  them.  And  they  were 
all  lilled  with  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  began  to  speak 
with  other  tongues  as  tlie  Spirit  gave  them  utter- 
ance.' Two  wonders  are  here  described — the  vision 
of  the  fiery  tongues,  aiiparent  to  all  in  the  house, 
but,  as  it  seems,  to  them  only  ;  and  the  speaking 
'  with  other  tongues,'  which  was,  as  the  sequel 
shows,  apparent  to  others  also.  The  latter  (v.") 
consisted  in  'speaking  the  mighty  works  of  God.' 
It  was  not,  at  lirst  at  any  rate,  addressed  to  those 
outside.  But  '  when  tliis  sound  was  heard,  the 
multitude  came  together,'  and  Jews,  then  present 
at  Jerusalem  from  every  nation  under  heaven, 
beard  to  their  astonishment  the  brethren  speaking 
in  their  own  respective  languages  (vv. "■''-).  Some, 
however,  '  mocking,  said.  They  are  tilled  with  new 
wine.'  In  reply  to  these  latter,  St.  I'eter  inter- 
prets the  phenomenon  by  recalling  the  prophecy  of 
Joel,  which  speaks  of  an  outpouring  of  the  Spirit 
in  the  latter  days,  which  shall  cause  the  servants 
and  lianduiaidens  of  the  Lord  to  see  visions  and  to 
projjhesy(vv. '■'■"'),  and  deduces  it  from  the  Messianic 
olhee  of  Jesus,  in  whose  exaltation  this  promise  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  is  fuUilleil  (v.**).  The  phenomenon 
of  the  liery  tongues  reappears  no  more  in  the  s.acred 
narrative ;  but  that  ot  speaking  with  tongues  is 
repeated  (Ac  10"- '"')  upon  the  conversion  of  the 
Gentile  household  of  Cornelius,  who  with  a  sudden 
inspiration  of  the  Holy  Spirit  'speak  with  tongues 
and  glorify  God.'  This  is  clearly  the  same  pheno- 
menon as  is  described  in  Ac  2",  and  the  iilentity  is 
expressly  asserted  by  St.  Peter  (11'°)  Cia-wtp  lai  iip' 
j;/xds  tv  dpxi-  The  '  speaking  with  other  tongues ' 
is  therefore  a  recurrent  phenomenon  in  the  Apos- 
tolic Church ;  and  a<;cordinglv  w'e  read  of  the 
twelve  disciples  at  Ephesus  (11)''),  that  '  when  Paul 
had  laid  his  hands  upon  them,  the  Holy  Ghost 
came  on  them  ;  and  they  spake  with  tongues  and 
lirophesied.'  In  this  pa.ssage  tlie  phenomenon  is  for 
the  first  time  expressly  associated  with  the  exercise 
of  the  prophetic  gift.  (On  Spitta's  analysis  of  the 
sources  of  Ac  2^"-  see  Knowling,  p.  luo). 

(6)  G(jspel  of  St.  Mark. — In  the  doubtful  appen- 
dix to  this  Gospel  (IG"),  among  the  wonders  wliich 
are  to  follow  tliose  who  believe,  it  is  said  '  they 
shall  speak  with  [new]  tongues.'  The  word  'new' 
is  of  verj'  questionable  genuineness ;  if  it  be  rejected, 
the  passage  is  a  bare  reference  to  '  speaking  with 
tongues,'  and  throws  little  light  upon  the  nature  of 
the  utterances. 

(c)  First  Epuitle  to  the  Corinthians.  —  In  clis. 
12-14,  especially  the  last-named  chapter,  we  have 
the  most  circumstantial  reference  to  the  iihenom- 
enon.  In  1'2''"  St.  Paul  eiiuiiierates  iliUcri'iit 
gifts,  which  in  their  diversity  proceed  from  the 
self-same  Spirit.  I'irst  come  gifts  of  ordin.iry 
tea<:hing  (Xcryos  (ro^t'as,  X.  yvihonidi),  then  faith, 
healings,  and  other  miracles,  then  at  the  end 
|iroiiliecy  and  the  discerning  of  spirits,  followed, 
in  the  last  place  of  all,  by  'kinds  of  tongues' 
(yif-n),  a  new  (lualilication,  and  'interpretation  of 
tongues,'  whicli  al.so  ajipears  in  these  chapters 
alone.     The  enumeration  of  oiSces  and  gifts  in 


794 


TONGUES,  GIFT  OF 


TONGUES,  GIFT  OF 


w.'*"*'  corresponds  to  that  of  gifts  in  vv.''"".  The 
teaching  otlices  come  lirst  (apostles,  prophets, 
teachers),  tlicn  miracles  and  healings,  then  'helps' 
and  'guidances,'  then,  again  last  of  all,  '  kinds  of 
tongues.'  Prophecy  and  '  discernings  of  spirits' 
are  evidently  omitted  here  because  of  the  insertion 
of  'prophets'  after  'apostles.'  Then,  in  the  in- 
terrogative clauses  that  follow,  the  'tongues,' 
this  time  with  the  added  mention  of  '  interpreta- 
tion,' but  without  the  mention  of  yivri,  again  bring 
up  the  rear :  '  Do  all  speak  with  tongues  ?  do  all 
interpret?'  In  ch.  13  the  tongues,  which  St. 
Paul  has  put  last  in  the  order  of  jjrecedence,  come 
first  in  the  order  of  depreciation.  '  Tongues  of 
men  and  of  angels'  may  be  taken  as  a  climax,  for 
this  purpose,  upon  the  less  rhetorical  yivr]  ■y\wiT- 
aCiv  (see  below,  §  iii.  (6)).  Apart  from  charity,  not 
only  tongues  (however  wonderful),  but  even  pro- 
phecy, even  works  of  charity,  are  worthless.  Com- 
paretl  with  it,  prophecy,  tongues,  knowledge  itself, 
all  belong  to  our  childhood,  to  our  ignorance,  to 
the  sphere  of  things  temporal.  Then  in  ch.  14, 
after  a  closing  reminder  of  the  subordinate  place 
which  Tvev/j-aTiKo.  are  to  occupy  in  our  desires  as 
compared  with  charity,  the  apostle  enters  in  detail 
upon  a  comparison  between  the  two  most  con- 
spicuous irveviJ.aTi.Ka.,  viz.  prophecy  and  tongues. 
Prophecy  is  the  more  desirable  of  the  two,  because 
it  is  addressed  to  men,  and  benefits  them,  whereas 
'  tonnes '  are  addressed  to  God,  and  beneft  the 
speaker  only  (vv.'"'').  The  only  exception  to  this  is 
when  the  speaker  (or  some  other  person,  v.""-)  can 
interpret  his  utterances.  This  would  enable  the 
rest  of  those  present  to  join  in  with  their  '  Amen ' 
(v.'*),  and  so  derive  some  benefit  from  the  prayer. 
Without  going  into  details  of  exegesis,  which  in 
this  chapter  are  full  of  difficulty,  it  is  sufficient  to 
emphasize  certain  points  upon  which  the  apostle 
speaks  without  anj'  obscurity.  Firstly,  as  already 
remarked,  the  speaker  with  tongues  speaks  to  God 
only  ;  his  utterance  is  not  a  sermon  but  a  prayer 
or  2)srdm  (w."- '^^  "•  "),  or  a  thanksgiving  (v.'°). 
Secondly,  the  utterance  is  unintelligible  to  the 
hearers,  and  even  to  the  speaker.  The  spirit  is  in 
prayer,  but  the  mind  takes  no  part,  it  is  unfruitful 
(vv."-") ;  the  speaker  'edifies  himself  apparently 
by  his  attitude  of  ecstatic  devotion,  not  by  con- 
scious expression  or  reception  of  ideas.  Thirdly, 
while  '  interpretation '  is  thought  of  as  possible, 
its  absence  seems  to  have  been  the  rule,  its 
presence  the  exception  (w.°-  '').  Accordingly 
(fourthly),  the  impression  which  '  tongues '  pro- 
duce upon  a  visitor,  especially  on  a  non-believer 
(v.''^),  is  that  of  an  assembly  of  madmen  (cf.  Ac 
2") ;  whereas,  in  the  case  of  prophecy,  the  non- 
believer,  or  at  any  rate  the  visitor,  will  be  pro- 
foundly stirred,  probably  to  conversion  (vv.**-  ^). 

The  closing  section  of  the  chapter  (v.*"')  shows 
the  iKaraaraala,  which  had  resulted  at  Corinth 
from  the  childish  (r2'»-=»  13"  14'-'--"»)  desire  of  too 
many  of  the  members  of  the  Church  to  excel  in 
the  exercise  of  abnormal  gifts,  and  from  their 
dangerous  tendency  to  value  spiritual  gifts  in  pro- 
[lortion  to  their  abnormal  features.  The  apostle 
exactly  inverts  this  principle. 

ii.  Classification-  of  the  Data.— There  is  no 
possible  doubt  that  the  phenomena  of  the  Church 
of  Corinth  are  homogeneous  with  those  which 
meet  us  at  Ca-sarea  (Ac  10")  and  at  Ephesus  (Ac 
19").  These  two  passages  are  linked  together  by 
the  reference  to  baptism,  and  the  close  relation 
of  the  tongues  to  projihecy  connects  the  latter  pas- 
sage with  the  phenomena  of  Corinth.  We  may 
therefore  conclude  that  one  feature  of  the  life  of 
the  Apostolic  Churches  was  the  correlation  be- 
tween the  perceptible  presence  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
which  bei'an  at  baptism,  but  was  continued  in 
the  assem'ilies  and  corporate  acts  of  the  Churches 


(see  vol.  ii.  pp.  407'',  409'),  and  certain  ntterancei 
on  the  part  of  members  of  the  Churches,  some- 
times intelligible  and  less  ecstatic  (prophecy),  some- 
times more  ecstatic  and  not  intelligible  (tongues). 
On  the  border-line  between  the  two  classes  of  utter- 
ance would  come  the  interpretation  of  tongues,  a 
gift  apparently  known  to  St.  Paul,  but  assumed  by 
him  to  be  exceptional,  and  passed  over  in  the  more 
occasional  notices  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles. 
With  these  data  we  can  without  difficulty  class 
the  reference  in  St.  Mark  16  (above,  i.  (6)).  It  has 
been  not  infrequently  laid  down,  that  whUe  these 
passages  refer  to  one  homogeneous  group  of  phenom- 
ena, tliat  group  is  separated  from  the  phenomena 
of  Ac  2  by  a  dili'erence  in  kind.  This  assumption, 
however,  is  in  too  direct  conflict  with  the  words 
of  St.  Peter  (Ac  11")  to  be  admitted.  The  homo- 
geneity of  the  later  phenomenon  with  that  of 
Pentecost,  here  asserted,  can  be  denied  only  by 
undermining  the  credit  of  the  Acts  as  a  source. 
But,  while  we  are  thus  obliged  to  class  the  phenom- 
ena of  Ac  2  with  those  of  the  other  passages  of 
the  NT,  it  must  be  recognized  that  with  the 
features  common  to  all  passages  certain  peculiari- 
ties are  combined  in  the  narrative  of  Pentecost. 
First,  there  is  the  sound  of  the  rushing  wind ; 
second,  the  vision  of  the  fiery  tongues ;  thirilly, 
the  intelligibility  of  the  utterances  without  t/ie 
'interpretation,'  which  to  St.  Paul  \a  necessary  if 
the  '  tongues '  are  to  be  understood.  But  in  Ac 
2,  as  in  1  Co  14,  the  'tongues'  are  utterances  of 
worship,  not  of  a  didactic  character,  not  addressed 
to  the  Jews  (whose  attention  is  attracted  by  the 
utterances  only  after  they  have  begun)  ;  the 
association  with  prophecy,  implied  in  the  quota- 
tion from  Joel,  is,  to  St.  Peter  apparently,  as  to 
St.  Paul,  due  simply  to  identity  of  origin  ;  and 
in  both  passages  (Ac  2'^  1  Co  U'^)  the  impres- 
sion produced  upon  less  sympathetic  hearers  is 
similar.  In  the  attempt,  therefore,  to  interpret 
correctly  the  data  of  the  NT  relating  to  the 
subject  of  'tongues,'  the  only  sound  method  to 
adopt  will  be  to  begin  from  the  most  circumstan- 
tial account  we  have,— that  of  St.  Paul, — but,  in 
applying  the  results  to  other  passages,  to  bear  in 
mind  any  peculiar  features  which  distinguish  their 
account  of  what  is  certainly  in  substance  the  same 
phenomenon. 

iii.  Interpretation  of  the  Evidence.  —  (o) 
St.  Paul,  in  common  with  all  to  whom  the  Chris- 
tian religion  is  a  revelation  from  God,  assumes 
that  the  gift  of  tongues  is  an  energy  of  the  Holy 
Spirit.  No  doubt  he  places  it  lower  in  value  than 
any  other  spiritual  gilt  enumerated  by  him.  No 
doubt,  also,  like  other  gifts  of  the  Spirit,  it  was 
capable  of  being  simulated  by  phenomena  not  due 
to  genuine  inspiration.  There  was  room  here  for 
Sid^piffis  (1  Co  12'").  But  the  main  criterion  to  be 
applied  by  the  discerner  of  spirits  was  the  sub- 
stance of  what  was  said  (1  Co  2*,  cf.  1  Jn  4',  the 
apostle  luis  no  sympathy  with  the  heathenish 
idea  that  an  utterance,  apart  from  its  intrinsic 
value,  could  be  accredited  by  its  abnormal  circum- 
stances). Now,  in  the  case  of  an  unintelligible 
utterance,  like  that  of  ^x  yXwiraji,  no  such  criterion 
was  ajiplicable.  The  apostle  therefore  assumes, 
in  the  case  of  tongues,  tliat  he  has  to  do  in  each 
instance  with  the  spiritual  reality,  not  with  a 
merely  natural  phenomenon  (14*- '").  We  must  be 
content  with  the  same  assumption,  however  mind- 
ful that  where  there  is  the  need  of  self-control 
(14-*)  there  is  the  possibility  of  self-will.  The 
Spirit  is  doubtless  really  at  work,  even  upon  a 
psychical  background  of  obscure,  easily  perversible, 
mental  exaltation. 

(6)  If  the  phenomena  of  the  NT  are  essentially 
homogeneous,  we  may  safely  reject  some  explana- 
tions which  are  applicable  at  most  to  a  limited 


TONGUES,  GIFT  OF 


TONGUES,  GIFT  OF 


79j 


number  of  the  passages  under  review.  First 
among  those  may  be  set  aside  that  based  upon 
the  strictly  literal  and  phj'sical  sense  of  vXiiaira, 
understooJ  of  '  the  tongue '  or  organ  of  speech 
(Eichhorn,  Meyer,  etc.).  This  mi"ht  at  first  sight 
be  thought  applicable  to  Ac  2.  The  di.sciples,  as 
the  liery  tongues  appear  to  settle  upon  each  of 
them,  begin  to  speak  iripait  y\uaaait  (compare  the 
prolmbly  spurious  Koivais  of  Mk  16"),  i.e.  with 
(literal)  tongues  other  than  tlieir  own,  identilied 
with,  or  symbolized  by,  tlie  tongues  of  llanie. 
But  it  cannot  be  seriously  argued  that  the 
'tongues'  of  this  passage  are  diflerent  from  the 
'dialects'  of  vv.*- " ;  this  identification  is  quite 
clear  in  v."  rah  rineTcpais  y\wcr<Tais.  And  this 
carries  with  it  (by  Ac  II")  the  interpretation  of 
Ac  lo"  19",  where  XaXeiv  yXJijaaa  is  equivalent  to 
X.  Mpait  y.  in  Ac  2.  The  literal  sense  claimed  for 
y\.  in  these  latter  passages  has  no  support  in  I's 
38*  LXX  iXiXticra  ii>  yXuxrffjj  fiov,  where  the  use  of 
the  posses.sive  indicates  the  literal  sense.  Hut  it 
is  argued  that  the  literal  sense  is  applicable  in 
1  Co  12.  14  (but  13"),  where  (14'^')  7rpo«i'Xfo9<u 
yXuxxffrj  is  contrasted  with  irp.  ti?  vot,  the  tongue  (so 
it  is  urjjed)  being  conceived  as  the  passive  instru- 
ment ot  the  Vffvua,  and  the  plural  yXQaaai  (surely 
a  rcductio  ad  absurdum)  referring  '  to  tlie  various 
motions  of  the  tongue '  (so  Thayer-Grimra,  s.v. ; 
see  also  Meyer-Heinrici  on  12'").  rXiia-o-a  must 
mean  an  utterance,  not  merely  the  moving  tongue  ; 
this  latter  sense  breaks  down  in  the  pi.  yXHaaaa, 
and  still  more  conspicuously  in  the  phrivse  yifri 
yXuiaaCif,  which  clearly  (loints  to  various  kinds  of 
utterance,  whether  foreign  languages  or  not. 

(c)  Another  sense  of  yXCiaaa  which  fails  of 
general  ai)plicability  is  that  (exemplified  in  Aris- 
totle, Puct.  il  f.)  of  '  unusual  word,'  e.g.  expressions 
borrowed  from  the  Aramaic,  like  '  Amen,  '  Maran 
Atlia,' or  'Abba'  (Ernesti,  Uleek,  etc.).  The  use 
of  such  expressions  would  not  be  improbable  in  a 
state  of  high  spiritual  tension,  and  in  fact  the  last- 
named  word  was  regarded  by  St.  Paul  as  si)ecially 
characteristic  of  the  Spirit  (Ro  8",  Gal  4'') ;  but 
there  is  nothing  in  his  language  to  connect  it 
specifically  with  '  tongues,'  which  possibly  may  be 
referred  to,  though  even  this  is  uncertain,  in  the 
vTtvayiJLoi  dXdXijToi  of  Ro  8"°.  Moreover,  this  sense 
of  yXCxraa  fits  ill  with  the  data  of  Ac  2,  and  still 
worse  with  those  of  1  Co  14  ;  for  these  occasional 
borrowed  words  had  a  well-recognized  meaning, 
and  in  their  use  the  vots  was  not  dKapwos. 

{d)  The  same  principle,  to  .say  nothing  of  other 
considerations,  absolutely  excludes  the  idea,  which 
has  some  traditional  support  in  Christian  oiiinion 
from  Origen  {in  Mom.  1")  downwards,  that  the 
apostles,  at  any  rate,  if  not  all  those  present, 
received  at  Pentecost  the  more  or  less  permanent 
power  of  preaching  in  foreign  languages.  To 
Begin  \vith  (above,  §  ii.),  the  speaking  with  tongues 
is  an  utterance  of  worship,  not  of  instruction.  It 
has  been  argued  that  we  never  read  of  the  apostles 
needing  the  services  of  an  interpreter.  But  neither 
do  we  read  of  their  'speaking  with  tongues'  on 
any  cy:casion  subsequent  to  Pentecost.  St.  Paul, 
it  IS  true,  claims  to  possess  the  gift,  but  in  a  con- 
text (I  Co  14")  which  excludes  any  reference  to 
preaching.  With  one  exception,  incleed,  wo  do  not 
read  of  any  apostolic  preaching  in  lands  whore 
Greek  or  Aramaic  would  not  be  a  sullicient 
medium.  The  partial  exception  is  in  the  bilingual 
district  of  Lystia  (Ac  M),  and  here  the  apostles 
clearly  do  not  follow  what  is  said  Ai/<cooj'i<rT/, 
Ocular  evidence  at  last  enables  them  to  realize 
that  they  are  regarded  as  gods.  But  though  the 
sacred  text  says  nothing  oi preaching,  permanently 
or  even  temporarily,  in  foreign  tongues,  it  cer- 
tainly suggests  at  lirst  sight  that  a  great  number 
of  foreign  languages  were  superuaturally  spoken. 


if  onlj-  in  adoration,  on  the  occasion  of  the  first 
Pentecost. 

(<•)  This  interpretation  is  not  so  wholly  excluded 
as  might  appear  at  first  sight  bj'  the  language  of 
1  Co  14.  tor  although  the  yXQaaai  are,  without 
one  to  interpret  tlieni,  unintelligible  even  to  the 
speaker,  the  possibility  of  interpretation,  clearly 
contemplated  by  St.  Paul,  suggests  that  he  re- 
garded tlie  utterances  as  having  a  meaning,  though 
as  a  rule  not  ascertainable  (riji'  5vt>aij.iv  t^s  ^ui-iit, 
v.").  If  so,  the  only  dillerence  in  Ac  2  would 
be  that  the  interpreter  was  on  that  occasion  un- 
necessary. 

What,  then,  is  really  described  in  Ac  2?  The 
view  has  been  held  bj-  both  ancient  (Greg.  Naz. 
Or.  41.  XV,  Bode,  etc.)  and  modern  writers,  that 
while  the  disciples  spoke  in  some  one  language,  , 
each  group  of  hearers  understood  the  words  as 
spoken  in  his  o\vn  ;  just  as  St.  Vincent  Ferrer, 
preaching  in  Spanish,  was  said  to  have  been 
understood  by  English,  Flemish,  French,  and 
Italian  hearers,  etc.  But  this  is  not  what  the 
narrative  describes  :  we  have  a  miracle  of  speech, 
not  of  hearing  only,  they  began  (before  the  hearers 
had  come)  to  speak  iripaa  y\u(r<rat^.  But  the 
more  difficult  question  is  in  wliat  precisely  does 
the  miracle  described  consist?  The  hearers  are 
not  Gentiles,  but  Jews  (2').  Proselytes  are  in- 
cluded among  the  Roman  visitors  (-J'",  it  is  con- 
ceivable that  "louS.  Tc  K.  irpoiT.  applies  to  all  the 
countries  enumerated,  but  the  mention  of  'lovSalmi 
(v.*)  is  rather  adver.se  to  this)  ;  but  clearly  we 
have  to  do  with  the  assembly  of  Jewish  pilgrims, 
including  perhaps  some  more  permanent  visitors 
(KoroiKoCires,  V.'),  whom  a  great  festival  would  (ind 
gathered  in  the  Holy  City.  Now  the  list  (w.""^') 
is  one  of  countries,  not  of  languages.  Of  the 
fifteen  nationalities  or  regions  enumerated,  Juda'a 
(even  if  here  used  by  Luke  as  in  Lk  i**  for  Pales- 
tine generally)  and  probably  Arabia  (see  Aretas) 
belong  to  the  domain  of  Palestinian  Judaism 
whose  language  was  West  Aramaic.  The  Jews 
of  the  Eujihrates  region,  Parthians,  Medes,  Elam- 
ites  (i.e.  of  Persia,  Elam  had  ceased  to  exist  as  a 
kingdom  since  the  days  of  Assurbanipal),  and 
Mes(jpotamians  represent  the  Babylonian  group  of 
Jews,  who  used  an  East-Aramaic  dialect. 

This  leaves  us  with  nine  countries,  of  which  five 
fall  within  Asia  Minor,  where  the  Jews,  as  their 
inscrijjtions  show,  spoke  Greek  (Schurer,  IIJP 
§§  2,  31  ;  this  was  the  case  as  far  north  as  the 
Crimea).  Of  the  remaining  four,  Egypt  is  the 
mother  of  Hellenistic  Judaism,  Cyrene  was  Greek, 
Greek  was  the  language  of  the  Jews  in  Crete,  and, 
as  their  inscriptions  show,  of  the  Jews  of  Rome. 
Accordingly,  the  narrative  does  not  appear  to  carry 
us  beyond  the  area  of  Greek  and  Aramaic-speaking 
Judaism.  That  the  Jews  of  the  diflerent  countries 
enumerated  spoke  these  langiiages  with  dialectical 
differences,  is  of  course  more  than  probable.  It 
might  therefore  sujjgest  itself  that  the  oljstacle 
overcome  by  the  inspiration  of  Pentecijst  was 
diversity  not  of  language  but  of  dialect  only. 
But  we  cannot  appeal,  for  confirmation  of  this, 
to  the  use  of  the  word  5(dXfA.T0!  (in  vv.'"*),  for 
the  word  means  lanquage  {e.g.  Aramaic  as  con- 
trasted with  Greok,"Ac  1'"  2i'"' 20").  A  stronger 
point  is  that  the  surprise  of  the  hearers  turned  on 
the  fact  that  the  speakers  were  Galila'aiis  (Ac  2', 
cf.  Mt  20"'),  i.e.  not  merely  men  of  Palestinian 
language  {'Kjipatot),  hut  men  of  a  marked  pro- 
vincial  dialect.  But,  quite  apart  from  the  result 
of  the  above  analysis  of  the  list,  there  is  no 
evidence  that  Jews  outside  Palestine  used  any 
language  but  Greek  or  Aramaic.  The  conclu.sion, 
then,  as  to  the  exact  implications  of  the  narrative 
is  very  obscure.  We  must  jirobably  be  content 
with  a  timi  liijuet  ;   possibly  the  language  of  St. 


796 


TOXGUES,  GIFT  OF 


TOOLS 


Peter  (2"-  "■  33^  note  iKxeu,  ^f^x"")  maj'  permit  the 
conjecture  that  the  narrative  eonihines  the  two 
elements,  afterwards  treated  as  distinct,  of  tongues 
and  prophecy.  Common  to  all  the  NT  descriptions 
of  the  tongues  is  the  feature  of  utterances  not  in 
the  common  language  of  the  sjjfakers ;  but  whereas 
in  1  Cor.  the  hearers  are,  as  a  rule  {i.e.  without  an 
interpreter),  in  the  dark  as  to  the  meaninjj,  in 
Ac  2  the  meaning  is  clear  to  both  Greek-speaking 
and  Aramaic-speaking  Jews  \\ithout  any  such  aid  : 
they  hear  the  praises  of  God  each  in  the  tongue 
vherein  lie  was  born. 

(/)  It  has  been  necessary,  in  order  to  test  the 
possibility  of  a  definite  interpretation  of  the  data, 
to  reduce  the  narrative  of  the  first  Christian  Pente- 
cost to  its  framework  of  definite  prose  statement, 
so  far  as  the  nature  of  the  yXwaaat,  our  special 
subject  of  inquiry,  is  concerned.  If  our  conclusion 
on  this  point  is  necessarily  indefinite,  we  must  re- 
mind ourselves  that  the  yXuiacat  are  but  one  element 
in  an  event  of  momentous  significance,  the  baptism 
(Ac  1°)  of  the  Christian  Society  for  its  mission  to 
mankind.  The  baptism  of  Pentecost  takes  its 
place,  in  intimate  context  with  the  Resurrection 
and  Exaltation  of  Christ,  as  the  experience  which 
lies  behind,  and  is  needed  to  render  conceivable, 
the  abrupt  psychological  transition  which  trans- 
formed the  cowed,  perplexed,  scattered  disciples  of 
a  few  weeks  before  into  the  band  that  in  the  suc- 
ceeding narrative  sets  out  upon  its  march  with 
joyous  swing,  conquering  and  to  conquer.  That 
the  Spirit  was  then  really  given  is  impossible  for 
believers  in  the  Kesurrection  of  Christ  to  doubt. 
That  His  coming  was  overwhelming  in  its  sudden- 
ness and  intensity,  and  was  attended  by  phj'sical 
signs  not  repeated  in  their  fulness  on  any  later 
occasion,  is  not  less  credible  than  the  reality  of  the 
'  promise  of  the  Father '  and  of  its  fulfilment. 
That  these  signs  should  be  not  only  unaccount- 
able by  ordinary  causes,  but  in  some  details  in- 
capable of  precise  definition,  is  a  small  thing,  and 
antecedently  probable.  Beyond  this  it  is  hardly 
possible  to  go. 

iv.  Later  History. — There  is  no  clear  eridence 
of  tongues  as  a  religious  phenomenon  anterior  to 
1S"T  times,  nor  of  their  survival  in  the  early  Church 
after  the  apostolic  age.  Ecstatic  utterances  appear 
to  liave  occurred  in  some  forms  of  OT  prophecy 
(2  S  19-°  etc.),  but  no  mention  is  made  of  '  tongues ' 
as  a  feature  of  them.  Even  in  heathen  religions, 
as  St.  Paul  hints  (1  Co  12"^),  there  were  analogous 
phenomena  which  it  was  necessary  to  remember  in 
the  attempt  to  '  discern  '  the  true  work  of  the  Holy 
Spirit.  This  suggests  that  profound  religious  ex- 
citement, to  whatever  cause  it  may  be  due,  tends 
to  find  expression  in  abnormal  utterance.  In  the 
XT  this  tendency  gradually  gives  way  to  more 
normal  forms  ;  in  Eph  S"*-  "  we  catch,  as  it  were, 
the  last  echoes  of  glossolalic  speech ;  in  the  later 
Epistles  we  hear  no  more  of  it.  Irenteus  (Hmr. 
V.  vi.)  can  still  tell  us,  speaking  apparently  from 
hearsay,  of  brethren  who  prophesied,  and  spoke 
through  the  Spirit  in  all  Kinds  {iravToSairah)  of 
tongues ;  but  Chrysostom  (on  1  Co  14)  frankly  de- 
clares that  the  gifts  described  by  St.  Paul  were 
unknown  in  the  Church  of  his  day.  That  the  gift 
of  tongues  really  survived  even  down  to  the  time 
of  Iremuus  is,  in  the  absence  of  corroborating 
evidence,  difficult  to  believe.  His  rather  vague 
statement  may  rest  on  some  report  as  to  the  Mon- 
tanists  of  Asia  Minor,  but  in  their  case  again  the 
definite  evidence  we  possess  points  to  '  prophecy ' 
rather  than  '  tongues  as  the  distinctive  form  of 
their  ecstatic  speech. 

Of  more  modem  examples  of  such  utterances 
among  the  Franciscans  of  the  13th  cent.,  the  earlj' 
Quakers,  Jansenists,  Methodists,  the  French  Pro- 
phets of  the  Cevennes,  and  particularly  the  Irving- 


ites  whose  'tongues'  (1S32-3)  have  been  described 
by  several  competent  observers,  we  will  only 
observe  that  it  would  be  harsh  and  unjust  to 
ascribe  all  such  phenomena  to  the  studied  attempt 
to  reproduce  those  of  the  apostolic  Church.  In 
whatever  way  we  may  explain  these  utterances, 
and  however  good  reason  there  may  be  to  suspect 
occasional  simulation,  the  spontaneity  of  the 
phenomena  in  general  must  be  freely  admitted. 
But,  for  reasons  suggested  above,  great  caution 
is  necessary  in  appljing  them  to  the  interpretation 
of  the  NT  data. 

Literature. — On  the  last-named  class  of  phenomena, 
Plumptre's  excellent  article  in  Smith's  DB  ^'ives  useful  refer- 
ences ;  see  also  stiller,  Irvingism.  On  the  N'T  data  the  litera- 
ture is  considerable.  The  Commentaries,  crj.  those  of  Meyer- 
Wendt  and  Knowling  on  Ac  2,  of  Meyer-Heinrici,  Godet,  Edwarxls 
on  1  Co  12.  14,  sum  up  and  discuss  the  various  explanations. 
Among  many  separate  essa\'s  we  may  mention  those  of  Schneck- 
enburper  (Britr.  1S32) ;  \\ieseler  (in  SK,  1838);  Hilgenteld, 
Glossolalic^  Leipzipf,  1850;  Zeller,  Acts  of  the  Ap.,  Eng.  tr.  vol. 
i.  p.  171  (the  ablest  anti-miraculous  discussion ;  denies  any 
historical  foundation  for  Ac  2) ;  Rossteuscher,  Gabe  d. 
Sprachen  im  Apost.  Ztltr.  (Marb.  1855,  Irvingite);  P.  Schaff, 
Church  Bistont,  vol.  i.  §  24 ;  Weizsiicker,  Apost.  Ztltr.  p. 
689  a  ;  A.  Wright,  Some  HT  Problems,  277  S.  In  these  works 
references  will  be  found  to  many  other  discussions,  an  enumera- 
tion of  which  is  beyond  the  limits  of  this  article. 

A.  liOBERTSON. 

TOOLS. —  In  Syria,  since  its  conquest  bj'  the 
Arabs  in  tlie  7th  cent.,  little  or  no  progress  has 
been  made  in  the  mechanical  arts :  workmen  still 
use  much  the  same  kinds  of  tools  and  methods  of 
working  as  their  ancestors  did  ten  centuries  ago. 
It  is  only  within  the  last  40  or  50  j'ears  that 
European  implements  have  come  into  use.  It  would 
occupy  too  much  space  to  give  an  account  of  the 
tools  used  in  the  difierent  handicrafts  of  Syria;  it 
may  be  sutticient  to  mention  a  few  employed  in 
masonry,  carpentry,  and  smith  work. 

Masonry.  —  In  Syria,  in  very  early  times,  stones 
were  hewn  from  the  rock  by  a  pointed  hammer 
called  the  bik  (see  Hammer),  and  the  larger  the 
stone  the  less,  of  course,  was  the  labour  of  cutting. 
This  seems  to  have  been  the  reason  for  the  great 
size  of  the  stones  in  the  oldest  part  of  the  temple 
of  Baalbek.  When  the  wedge  came  into  use  for 
splitting  rocks,  smaller  stones  were  quarried,  and 
consequently  buildings  were  more  quickly  con- 
structed. The  masons  of  Lebanon,  who  are  still 
acknowledged  to  be  the  most  skilful  builders  in 
Syria,  use  no  means,  such  as  cranes,  for  lifting  a 
stone  to  its  position  on  the  wall  they  are  building. 
If  a  stone  is  too  large  to  be  carried,  an  inclined 
plane  is  made  of  trunks  of  trees,  or  of  stones  and 
earth,  and  the  stone  is  rolled  to  its  place.  Chisels 
are  used  only  for  giving  a  fine  edge  to  a  stone,  or 
for  carving.     For  otiier  tools  see  HAMMER. 

Carpentry. — The  tools  of  the  Lebanon  carpenters 
are  the  very  same  as  those  used  by  the  ancient 
Egyptian  workmen  ;  only,  instead  of  being  of  flint 
or  bronze,  they  are  of  steel.  Of  all  his  tools,  the 
kadiim  or  adze  is  the  most  useful  to  the  Syrian 
carpenter  ;  it  is  hammer,  chisel,  and  plane  in  one. 
In  the  early  part  of  this  century  planes  were  not 
used  by  tlie  carpenters  in  the  higher  villages  of 
Lebanon ;  planks  of  wood  were  smoothed  by  the 
adze.  The  ancient  Egyptian  adze  appears  to  have 
been,  at  first,  a  sharp  llint  fastened  by  thongs  to  a 
handle,  and  replaced  by  a  blade  of  bronze  when 
metals  came  into  use.  The  axe  jiassed  through 
similar  changes.  The  liow  and  drill  are  still  in 
use  for  boring  lioles  in  wood ;  the  awl  is  a  shoe- 
maker's tool.  These  tools  with  tlie  saw  are  tlie 
ordinary  implements  of  a  Syrian  carpenter,  and 
are  carried  about  by  }iim  when  seeking  work. 
European  tools  are,  however,  becoming  common. 

Smith. — The  hammers  and  tongs  are  very  much 
the  same  in  form  as  those  used  in  Europe,  but 
very  roughly  made.  Anvils  are  simply  cubical 
masses  of  iron  having  the  upper  surface  faced  with 


ToPARCnY 


TOPHET,  TOPIIETH 


797 


steel.  The  original  bellows  was  a  tube  through 
wliich  the  workman  blew  into  the  fire  ;  then  goat- 
skin bags  were  employed  ;  and  the  form  of  beflows 
used  bj-  the  coppersmiths  of  Syria  at  the  present 
time  is  almost  the  same  as  that  depicted  on  the 
tombs  of  ancient  Egypt.  Tlie  modern  worker  in 
iron  reijuires  a  more  powerful  instrument,  and  two 
large  circular  bellows  are  placed  so  that  lie  may 
take  advantage  of  the  weiglit  of  his  body  in  work- 
ing them.  See,  further,  the  separate  articles  on 
various  tools.  W.  Carslaw. 

TOPARCHY  (roxopx'a).— A  word  used  only  in 
1  Mac  11-',  and  there  to  denote  three  'provinces' 
(RV  ;  AV  '  governments ')  to  which  the  name  i-o/iis, 
or  'noine'  (AV  and  RV  'governments'),  is  given 
in  1  iMac  lO*'*'  11«.  The  three  toparchies  — 
Apha-rema,  that  is,  Ephraim-Ophrah,  Lydda,  and 
Ramathaim  —  were  detached  from  Samaria  and 
added  to  Judipa  some  time  before  the  war  between 
Alexander  IJalas  and  Demetrius  Soter,  and  their 
possession  was  conlirmed  to  Jonathan  Maccab;eus 
by  Demetrius  II.  Nikator. 

The  toi)archy  was  a  small  administrative  division, 
corresponding  to  the  Turlcish  Nnldeh,  which  was 
administered  by  a  toparch  as  the  Nahieh  is  by  a 
mudir.  According  to  Pliny  (v.  14),  Jud;ea  was 
divided  into  ten,  or,  according  to  Joseplius  (BJ 
III.  iii.  5),  into  eleven  toparchies.  See  Schiirer, 
HJP  u.  L  151  ff.  C.  W.  Wilson. 

TOPAZ.— In  four  passages  of  the  OT  (Ex  28" 
39'»,  K/.k  28",  Job  28'")  the  Heb.  word  n-<-zs  [t  ra- 
phutuiii]  is  rendered  '  topaz '  by  AV  and  RV,  in 
accordance  with  LXX  To-n-a^iov  and  Vulg.  topazius. 
The  other  ancient  VSS  varj-  their  rendering,  Pesh. 

using  l-ii'l,  Pr^^,  and  |Zi  i  1  iir^.  whilst  Targ. 

has  lin:  and  kji:  x'^pp.  The  LXX  and  Vulg.  also 
employ  roTrdftov,  topazion,  as  representing  tp  at  Ps 
1 1'.i'-''  ;  but  the  Pesh.  there  contents  itself  with  the 
vague  term  '  precious  stones,'  and  the  Targ.,  still 
more  correctly,  (<ii3iK(Gr.  «/3pufov).  In  the  NT  the 
tojiaz  is  mentioned  but  once  (Rev  21^),  as  the 
ninth  of  the  foundation  stones  of  the  New  Jeru- 
salem. The  two  passages  in  Ex.  name  it  as  the 
second  stone  in  the  lirst.  row  on  the  high  priest's 
breastplate,  and  it  is  usually  believed  to  have 
borne  the  name  of  Simeon.  The  comparison  used 
in  Job  implies  its  costliness,  and  indicates  the 
([uarter  from  which  it  was  chiefly  derived  :  '  The 
topaz  of  Ethiopia  shall  not  equal  it  [wisdom].'  In 
Ezek.  the  wearing  of  it  is  a  mark  of  regal  siihiidour : 
'  Every  precious  stone  was  thy  [the  kinf,'sj  cover- 
ing, the  sardiuM,  topaz,'  etc.  There  is  a  fair 
amountof  probability  in  the  derivation  of  the  Hel). 
name  .tis?  from  the  Sansk.  pUa,  '  yellow,'  and  in 
the  suggestion  that  the  Gr.  form  and  those  derived 
from  it  are  merely  a  transposition  of  the  Heb.,  i  p  d 
ioT  p  (  d.  Codex  Amiatiuus  in  Rev  21'*'  spells  the 
word  with  a  d,  topadius. 

The  question  whetlier  the  topaz  of  the  Bible  is 
identical  with  our  gem  of  tliat  name  has  Ijcen 
rendered  somewhat  ditKcuIt  by  the  well-known 
descriptien  of  the  stone  in  Pliny,  Hist.  Nat. 
xxxvii.  8 — 

*  Et;ro^na  etiam  nunc  sua  topazio  iflorU  est,  •  Ttrenti  ^cnere, 
•t  cum  prirnum  reperta  est,  pnolata)  omnibus.  Accidit  in 
Arabia)  inBula,  quuj  Cytia  vocabatur,  in  quam  duvenerant 
Tro^lodytao  pruidonea  fame  et  tcmpcstato  (e8.>^i,  ut,  cum  herbofl 
radi('cg(|ue  lodcrent,  erucrunt  topazinn.  ll*c  Arc/ietai  scn- 
lontia  est.  Julia  Topazum  insulam  in  Uubro  man  a  continenti 
BtudiiH  ccc  abussc  dicit ;  tiebuIo«am  et  ideo  quauiitAm  H^epiiia 
navi^'untibus  nomen  ex  ca  rausa  accepissc,  topazim  enim  TroKlo- 
dytarim  lin^^xia  Bigniflcationem  baoere  quiurendL  . . .  Eauem 
■Ola  nobiiium  liniam  ecntit.* 

We  need  not  discuss  the  etymology  :  the  two 
important  points  are  the  greenness  of  the  gem  and 
its  softness.     The   first  of   these  is  not   fatal  to 


the  identification,  seeing  that  we  know  of  green 
topazes  ;  the  second  is.  Pliny  may  have  included 
the  chrysolite  and  the  peridot  under  this  name. 
Yet  it  does  not  follow  tliat  all  the  ancient  miner- 
alogists agreed  with  him.  It  would  not  be  easy  to 
lind  a  more  apt  description  of  our  topaz  than  in 
the  lirst  few  words  of  Strabo's  interesting  account, 
reur/pa^iKd,  xvi. — 

A/fI«f  a  Im  iiK^tttfie,  x^vccuiU  ItwcXoifjuean  ^iyycft  eccr  fjnB' 
r,tAi^r  IMt  »u  fiito*  liitr  irrt.  triBtac^/yUTtci  yafi^  vCxrmfi  i'  i^Sffn  ei 
fv}j.iy«iirtt'  wlfii)uc6x.i'X»TU  it  »yyiiO>  rKtct-cv  X'^fi"  A**^  %/J.ipAv 
ettcfipW^oun.  tuti  ^r  riffrrfAtt  ittdpurain  ctxohloiiyu.:tinf  ut  Tr,t  ^i/\etKr,t 
r^i  }j6iet(   numt<t   ''*'  *^   rv*aLy^ryv,r.    ffiTupx^i/a.itati  iiwi   rcii   riit 

The  statements  which  have  appeared  as  to  the 
chemical  composition  of  the  topaz  dill'er  strangely. 
Streeter  (Preciuiis  Stones,  p.  221),  referring  to  the 
distinction  between  Oriental  and  Occidental  topazes, 
says  that  the  former  consist  of  pure  alumina, 
the  latter  being  more  than  half  alumina  and  for 
the  rest  composed  of  silica  and  fluorine.  On  the 
other  hand,  it  has  been  spoken  of  as  a  silicate 
of  aluminium  associated  with  tlie  fluorides  of 
aluminium  and  silicon.  In  shape  it  is  an  ortho- 
rhombic  prism  with  a  cleavage  transverse  to  the 
long  axis.  It  has  the  power  of  double  refraction, 
and  becomes  electric  when  heated  or  rubbed.  It 
is  almost  as  hard  as  the  diamond,  but  there  are  a 
few  engraved  specimens — an  aiitic|ue  one,  for  in- 
stance, at  St.  Petersburg,  with  the  constellation 
Sirius.  Australia  produces  green  and  yellow  stones. 
Exquisite  transparent  ones,  clear  and  bright  aa 
the  most  sparklin"  water,  come  from  Tasmania — 
gouttes  d'cau,  the  French  call  them.  In  Saxony 
pale  viobt  are  found  ;  in  Uohemia  sea-green ;  in 
Brazil  red,  from  pale  to  deep  carmine. 

Pliny's  influence  is  very  apparent  in  The  Lapi- 
darium  of  Marbodus — 

•  From  scaa  remote  the  yellow  Topaz  came. 
Found  in  the  island  of  the  self-same  name ; 
Great  is  the  value,  for  full  rare  the  stone, 
And  but  two  kinds  to  cocer  merchants  known. 
One  vies  with  purest  jfold,  of  oran^'e  bri^'ht ; 
The  other  glimmers  with  a  faintt-r  liylit ; 
Its  yielding  nature  to  the  file  gi\  es  way, 
Yet  bids  the  bubbling'  caldron  cease  to  play. 
The  laud  of  ftems,  culled  from  its  copious  store, 
Arabia  sends  this  to  the  Latian  shore  : 
One  only  virtue  Nature  prants  the  stone. 
Those  to  relieve  who  under  hemorrhoids  j^oan.' 

Ruskin,  in  his  lecture  on  the  symbolic  tise  of 
precious  stones  in  heraldry,  states  tliat  the  topaz 
IS  'symbolic  of  the  Sun,  like  a  strong  man  runniii}; 
his  race  rejoicing,  standing  between  light  ana 
darkness,  and  representing  all  good  work.'  It  is 
curious  to  comjiare  this  with  Marbodus,  in  his 
Prose  on  the  1  welve  Foundation  Stones  :  '  Con- 
templativte  soliduni  vitte  prjestat  otlicium.' 

J.  Tavlok. 

TOPHEL  (Sjh,  Ti^oX).— A  place  named  in  de- 
fining the  situation  of  Dt  1'.  It  h.os  been  fre- 
quently identified  (since  Robinson,  BliF'  ii.  167, 
187,  following  a  suggestion  of  Hengsteiibirg)  with 
et-'J'nfile  in  Gebal,  about  lo  miles  S.S.  E.  of  the 
Detid  Sea,  but  phonetic,  apart  from  other,  reasons 
make  this  identification  very  uncertain  (see  Driver 
or  Dillm.  ad  loc). 

TOPHET,  TOPHETH.  —  A  word  of  doubtful 
orit.'in,  dis])uted  etymology,  rare  occurrence,  and 
somewhat  uncertain  meaning.  Milton  refers  to  it, 
and  gives  his  idea  of  it  in  the  lines — 

•The  pleasant  valley  of  Hinnom,  Tophet  thenoe 
And  black  Gehenna  call'd,  the  type  of  hell.' 

PL  I.  404,  406. 

It  appears  only  in  the  OT,  and  is  never  reproduced 
in  tne  NT.  It  is  not  found  in  the  apocryphal 
books,  and  its  earliest  occurrences  in  Christian 
literature  seem   to   be   in    Euscbius  (Onum.)  and 


798 


TOPHET,  TOPHETH 


TOPHET,  TOPHETH 


Jerome  (on  Jer  7'')-  Even  in  the  OT  its  range  is 
very  limited.  It  is  peculiarly  a  term  of  Jeremiah's. 
It  is  found  once  in  tlie  historical  books  (2  K  •23'"), 
once  in  the  poetical  books  {.lob  17*),  once  in  Isaiah 
in  a  modilied  form  (Is  3I.F),  and  elsewhere  only 
in  Jeremiah  (7"'  '■'■  19^'  '^'  "■ ''').  Ewald  is  of  opinion 
that  the  use  of  the  term  Topheth  in  the  special 
sense  wliich  it  luis  in  2  Kings  was  not  customary 
so  early  as  Isaialrs  time  {Hist,  of  Israel,  iv.  209, 
Longmans'  tr.).  The  Hebrew  form  in  all  the 
occurrences  but  one  is  nrn.  In  the  Isaianic  pas- 
sage, however,  it  is  nrirjj.  This  latter  form  is  prob- 
ably constructed  by  extension  from  rjn,  as  we 
have  n^'x  from  vx,  nn;;';  from  n?'?  (so  Dillm.  Jes.  ad 
loc.)  ;  although  some  (e.g.  Stade,  Gesch.  i.  610)  have 
had  recourse,  in  endeavouring  to  explain  it,  to  such 
expedients  as  changing  the  vocalization  so  as  to 
get  HBEij  (  =  '  his  Topheth  '),  or  detaching  the  final  n 
and  connecting  it  (as  the  interrogation  q)  with  the 
word  that  follows  (see  the  Dictionaries,  and  Klost., 
Bredenk.,  Cheyne  {SBOT\,  Marti,  et  al.).  The  pro- 
nunciation of  the  word  is  uncertain.  In  the  Mas- 
soretic  text  the  vocalization  of  bosheth,  '  shame,' 
has  probably  been  given  it  as  a  thing  of  evil  name, 
and  the  LXX  makes  it  Tapheth.  In  the  ancient 
Versions,  indeed,  it  takes  different  forms,  e.g. 
Tkophclk  (Vulg.),  Td0c9  (LXX,  Aq.,  Synim.),  Qa(piB 
(LXX  in  some  copies,  Aq.,  Theod.),  ©609  (Aq.). 
In  Is  3U^  the  rendering  of  the  LXX  is  6.ira.i.Tri8i)aTi 
or  diraTTjOric-Q ;  in  Jer  19'  Sidirruiris ;  in  Jer  19'^ 
6  diaTitrTwv  (in  some  copies) ;  and  in  Jer  19"  again 
SiaTTTiicrcu!  (in  some  copies).  The  AV  makes  it 
Tophet  in  all  cases  except  2  K  23'°,  where  it  is 
Topheth.     RV  has  Topheth  throughout. 

The  passage  in  Job  may  be  at  once  discounted. 
There  the  word  is  an  ordinary  descriptive  noun, 
formed  probably  from  a  root  meaning  to  '  spit,' 
and  so  expressing  something  abhorred  or  abomin- 
ated. Job  describes  himself  as  become  'an  open 
abhorring '  (RV  text),  '  one  in  whose  face  they  spit ' 
(RV  margin) ;  wrongly  rendered  by  the  AV  '  I  was 
as  a  tabrct,'  on  the  supposition  that  n;n  '  spitting' 
is  akin  to  '•p  'timbrel.'  In  the  other  pa.ssages  the 
word  is  a  local  name,  and  means  properly  '  the 
Topheth,'  the  article  being  attached  to  it  except 
where  it  has  the  prepositions  5,  ?  connected  with 
it.  Tlie  extended  form  nn^ij,  however,  is  anarth- 
rous, and  is  probably  to  be  rendered  '  a  Topheth  is 
prepared  of  old,'  as  in  RV. 

In  its  various  occurrences  the  terra  is  associated, 
directly  or  indirectly,  with  the  valley  of  shameful 
name,  known  in  the  OT  variously  as  '  the  valley 
of  Hinnom'  (only  in  Jos  lu*"  18"'^  Neh  ll*"),  'the 
valh'y  of  the  son  of  Hirinom '  (e.g.  Jos  IS*  18'**, 
2  Ch  28^  33»,  Jer  7"^  ig-"),  'the  valley  of  the 
cliildren  of  Hinnom  '  (2  K  23">  Kithlbh),  or  simply 
'the  valley'  (Jer  2=»  31-'<'),  in  wliich  the  idola- 
trous Jews,  especially  in  the  times  of  Ahab  and 
JIanasseh  (of.  2  Ch  28''  SS'^),  practised  the  cruel 
rites  of  the  worship  of  Molech,  and  offered  human 
sacrifices.  It  is  with  reference  to  the  reforms  of 
Josiah  and  the  steps  which  he  took  to  defile  the 
impious  and  horrid  place,  and  prevent  any  man 
thereafter  from  making  '  his  son  or  his  daughter  to 
pa.ss  through  the  fire  to  Molech,'  that  mention  is 
made  of  Toiihctli  in  the  narrative  of  the  OT.  The 
passage  in  2  Kings  is  the  passage  of  primary 
interest  in  the  study  of  tlie  term.  But  the  pas- 
sages in  the  Prophets  have  also  their  contribution 
to  make. 

In  the  paragraph  in  Isaiah  which  gives  the 
oracle  concerning  the  destruction  of  Assyria, 
Jehovah  is  represented  as  Himself  coming  from 
afar  to  execute  vengeance  on  the  oppressors  of 
Israel.  His  people  look  on  and  sing  their  song  of 
gladness,  while  judgment  is  done  upon  their 
enemies  certainly  and  comidetely.  The  declaration 
of  the  certainty  and  completeness  of  the  over- 


throw of  the  Assyrian  takes  the  form  of  an 
announcement  that  for  the  king,  or  for  his  god, 
'a  Toplicth,'  a  place  of  burning  and  abhorrence 
like  that  in  the  unclean  valley  of  Hinnom,  '  ia 
prepared  of  old '  and  '  made  ready,'  a  place  of  fir« 
which  Jehovah  Himself  hath  made  'deep  and 
large,'  the  pile  whereof  is  '  lire  and  much  wood '  j 
'  the  breath  of  the  Lord,  like  a  stream  of  brimstone, 
doth  kindle  it'  (RV).  It  is  a  destruction  utter 
and  abhorrent,  prepared  and  ordained  in  the 
Divine  counsels.  In  .leremiah  the  associations 
and  applications  of  the  word  are  different.  It  is 
used  in  connexion  with  Judah's  sin  and  the  doom 
of  Jerusalem.  There  is  Ji  retributive  Judgment  of 
God,  the  prophet  declares,  that  is  to  overtake  the 
stubborn,  idolatrous,  impenitent  people,  against 
which  the  sanctity  of  ShUoh  and  Jerusalem  and 
the  Temple  wiU  be  no  protection.  The  place 
which  witnessed  their  wickedness  shall  witness 
their  punishment.  Topheth  and  the  valley  of  Hin- 
nom shall  no  more  be  known  as  such,  but  shall  be 
called  '  the  valley  of  slaughter.'  Where  the  Jews 
had  built  their  high  places  and  had  made  their 
children  pass  through  the  fire  to  Molech,  there 
they  shall  see  the  awful  defilement  and  over- 
whelming destruction  of  war  (ch.  7'''''*').  This  ia 
repeated  in  ch.  19''"  in  connexion  with  the  figure 
of  the  broken  vessel.  The  city  is  to  be  polluted 
by  appalling  carnage ;  the  hardened  people  are  to  be 
punished  with  a  destruction  so  terrible  that  Topheth 
shall  be  filled  with  their  dead  bodies  '  till  there  be 
no  place.'  The  new  announcement,  too,  of  retribu- 
tion that  is  made  by  Jeremiah  in  response  to 
Pashhur's  vengeance  is  introduced  by  the  state- 
ment (ch.  19")  that  he  'came  from  Topheth  whither 
the  Lord  sent  him  to  propliesy.' 

These  being  the  occurrences  of  the  word,  what 
can  be  gathered  with  respect  to  the  position  and 
the  exact  sense  of  Tophethi  Some  have  taken 
Topheth  to  be  simply  a  synonym  for  Gehinnom. 
But  it  is  clear  that  the  two  terms  do  not  designate 
precisely  one  and  the  same  thing.  Several  of  the 
passages  in  view  speak  of  Topheth  as  in  the  valley 
of  Hinnom — a  locality,  or,  it  might  be,  an  object 
in  it.  This  does  not  settle,  however,  the  question 
of  the  situation  of  Topheth.  It  is  still  uncertain 
where  the  Hinnom  Valley  lay,  and  with  what  it  is 
to  be  identified  in  the  topography  of  the  Holy 
City.  Authorities  are  still  divided  on  the  ques- 
tion whether  it  is  the  valley  to  the  east  of  Jeru- 
salem, the  Kidron  Valley  (Sir  C.  'Warren) ;  the 
central  valley,  the  Tyropoeon  (Savce,  Robertson 
Smith,  Schwarz,  etc.) ;  or  the  Wailij  er-Rabiibi  or 
Rubdhch,  the  deep  ravine  to  the  west  and  south, 
between  the  slopes  of  the  '  Ilill  of  Evil  Counsel' 
and  the  steep  sides  of  Zion  (see  article  HiNNOM, 
Valley  of).  This  leaves  the  precise  position  of 
Topheth  in  suspense.  It  is  true  that  in  the  narra- 
tive of  Josiah's  reforms  in  2  K  23  much  is  said  of 
Kidron,  but  it  does  not  follow  that  Topheth  waa 
on  the  east  of  Jerusalem.  Far  less  \.aa  that 
position  be  argued  out  from  the  statement  in  Jer 
19^  that  the  valley  of  Hinnom  is  'by  the  entry  of 
the  east  gate,'  as  it  is  erroneously  rendered  by  the 
AV.  For  the  gate  Harsith  or  Harsuth  mentioned 
there  is  not  the  'Sun-gate'  or  the  'east  gate,'  but 
probably  the  '  Sherd-gate,'  '  the  gate  of  potsherds ' 
(RV),  so  called  perhaps  from  the  fragments  of 
potter's  work  scattered  about  there.  Neither  does 
the  allusion  to  '  the  graves  of  the  children  of  the 
people  '  (2  K  23")  carry  us  far,  although  Sir  Charles 
Warren  thinks  we  may  infer  from  it  that  Topheth 
was  near  the  common  burial-place.  Nor,  again,  ia 
much  to  be  made  of  tradition.  Jerome  describes 
the  place  as  a  green  and  fertile  spot  in  the  Huinom 
Valley  'watered  by  the  springs  of  Siloam' — Ilium 
locum  significat,  qui  Silom  fontibus  irrigatur  el  est 
ainoenus  atque  neinorosus  hodieque  hortorum prcebet 


TOPHET,  TOPHETH 


TOU 


799 


delirias  (on  Jer  7").  This  mifrlit  point  to  its  being 
at  the  mouth  of  tlie  Tyroptuon  or  on  the  south  of 
the  Kidron.  Tradition,  ajjiiin,  places  the  site  of 
Aceldama  amonj;  the  rock-hewn  tombs  of  the  '  Hill 
of  Evil  Counsel,'  and  Eusebius  speaks  of  '  the  place 
tailed  Thnphcth '  as  if  it  had  been  rejjarded  on  to 
his  own  day  as  situate  '  in  the  suburbs  of  /Elia,' 
near  '  the  Fuller's  Pool  and  the  Potter's  Fielil  or 
the  place  Aceldama'  (Onom.  sub  voc.  Qiiped),  But 
there  must  have  been  some  inconstancy  in  the 
traditional  account,  or  either  Jerome  or  Eusebius 
must  have  made  a  mistake.  For  Jerome  speaks  of 
Aceldama  as  on  the  south  {ad  aiestralcm  plagam 
montis  Sion),  while  Eusebius  says  it  was  ii/  fiopeiott. 
If,  however,  the  '  Potter's  Field '  is  '  the  Field  of 
Blood,'  and  the  gate  Hnrsitk  (Jer  1'-)  is  the  '  Sherd- 
gate,'  Topheth  might  be  located  somewhere  on  the 
south  and  west  oT  Jerusalem  and  on  the  eastern 
side  of  the  Hinnom  Valley.  Sir  Charles  Warren 
(cf.  Smith's  DB,  sub  voc.  'Hinnom')  points  out 
that  where  the  Wady  er-Rubdbch  joins  tlie  Kidron 
there  is  '  an  open  plot  of  ground  '  wliich  might  be 
ihe  spot  that  Jarome  identified  with  Toplieth. 
These  references,  however,  are  meagre,  and  leave 
as  uncertain  as  to  the  strength  or  the  antiquity 
of  the  tradition  behind  them. 

On  the  origin  and  etymology  of  the  word  much 
has  l)een  written  that  is  doubtful,  not  to  say  purely 
fanciful.  Some  have  attempted  to  connect  it  with 
the  Greek  OdirTciv  in  the  phrase  irupi  diirTav  (Ges. ), 
or  with  the  Greek  riJ^eiK  and  the  Hebrew  .n?i<  = 
cook,  D'yiPi  =  cooked  pieces  for  oll'erings  (cf.  Lv  6"). 
Jerome,  deriving  it  probably  from  nn^,  interpreted 
it  As  =  laiituclo.  Some  of  the  great  Rabbis  {e.g. 
Rashi  and  D.  Kiraclii)  understood  it  to  come  from 
''iS^  =  stri/ce,  beat,  with  reference  to  the  supposed 
beating  of  dnims  and  other  instruments  to  drown 
the  cries  of  the  sacrilicial  victims  in  the  cruel  rites 
of  the  Molecli  worship  —  a  practice  the  alleged 
existence  of  which  is  not  borne  out  by  any 
sullicient  evidence  in  ancient  writers.  Others 
nave  had  recourse  to  peculiar  foreign  forms,  to 
Assyro-l'ersian  roots,  to  the  Egyptian  Quvd  or 
6u$,  etc.  (Andr.  Miillcr).  Some,  again,  have  taken 
the  original  idea  to  have  been  that  of  beauty,  with 
reference  to  Jerome's  description  of  the  place. 
With  this  in  view,  Rosenmiiller,  e.g.,  was  bold 
enough  to  connect  it  with  n:-=to  be  fair,  as  if  the 
primitive  form  had  been  ncia  With  a  somewhat 
similar  idea,  others,  pointin"  to  the  mention  in 
succession  of  tabrcts  (o-yp)  and  Tophctli  in  Is  30^*  ^, 
look  again  to  the  verb  '\ZF.=strike  (a  timbrel  or  the 
like),  and  attach  to  tlie  word  Topheth  the  sense  of 
'  Music-grove,'  as  if  it  had  been  originally  part  of 
the  royaJ  garden,  deliled  at  a  later  period  by  idol- 
worship  and  abominable,  idolatrous  sacrifice  (II. 
Bonar  in  Smith's  DJS). 

iJismissing  these  fanciful  conjectures,  we  have  to 
choose  between  two  explanations  which  alone  have 
much  reason   in  them.      One  of  these  seeks  the 

origin  of  the  term  in  a  root  lin,  Arabic  i»_£ij  = 
to  .ij>it  out,  and  so  to  regard  with  contempt  or 
loathing.  In  this  case  the  idea  will  be  that  of 
'place  of  abliorrence,'  '  place  of  abomination  ' 
(liottcher,  Riehm,  Pressel,  etc.).  This  is  favoured 
ty  the  fact  that  there  does  exist  a  descriptive  noun 
njii,  which  appears  to  have  this  meaning,  in  Job 
17'.  The  other  explanation  looks  to  a  root  ex- 
pressing the  notion  of  burning,  which  is  sujinoscd 
Ly  some  to  show  itself  in  a  I'ersian  toften  (Ges.), 
in  the  Greek  riippa,  the  Latin  tepidus  (Streanc). 
In  this  case  the  idea  would  be  that  of  '  place  of 
burning.'  This,  again,  is  understood  by  some  to 
refer  to  the  disposal  of  the  dead,  by  others  to  the 
ollcring  of  sacrilices,  in  particular  to  the  burning 
of  human  sacrilices,  as  in  the  worship  of  Molech. 
The   dilliculty    in    the   way  of   the  hrst   of    tlie.se 


suppositions  is  that,  except  in  special  cases  (e.g. 
tliat  of  Saul,  1  S  31'- ;  that  of  the  victims  of 
plague.  Am  G'°  etc.),  the  Hebrew  dead  were  not 
burned,  but  buried.  With  regard  to  the  seconii 
supposition,  the  question  is  whether,  as  it  is  ordin- 
arily put,  it  will  suit  the  various  passages.  In 
the  case  of  Is  3U^,  e.g.,  Dillmann  is  of  opinion 
that  it  is  a  vast  human  holocaust  that  is  in  view  ; 
while  Robertson  Smith  thinks  that  the  imagery 
of  the  passage  would  be  rendered  discordant  if  the 
notion  of  the  s,acrilice3  in  the  valley  of  Hinnom 
were  introduced.  The  latter  scholar,  therefore, 
gives  the  question  another  ajiplicatiou.  lie  seeks 
an  Aramaic  origin  for  the  word,  and  he  connects 
its  use  witii  such  sacrilices  as  the  llarranian.  He 
points  to  the  fact  that  at  the  time  when  the  term 
'  first  appears  in  Hebrew,  the  chief  foreign  in- 
fluence in  J  udaran  rehjjion  was  that  of  Daiiia.scus' 
(2  K  16).  This,  he  tiiinks,  makes  the  theory  of 
an  Aramaic  origin  not  improbable.  He  notices, 
further,  that  me  Arabic  word  othfiyd  and  the 
Syriac  tj'uyd  are  names  for  '  the  stones  on  which 
a  pot  is  set,  and  then  for  any  stanil  or  tripod  set 
upon  a  tire.'  He  supposes  that  a  variant  form 
tjath  might  have  existed  which  would  be  quite 
according  to  analogy,  and  takes  nsn  to  be  an 
Aramaic  term  for  '  a  lireplace,  or  for  the  framework 
set  on  the  tire  to  support  the  victim.'  He  points 
out  further,  that  among  the  Semites  human  sacri- 
fices were  disposed  of  ordinarily  by  burning,  and 
that  the  victims  generally  were  not  burned  on  the 
altar  or  within  the  sanctuary,  but  outside  the  city. 
His  view,  therefore,  is  that  the  passage  in  Isaiah 
refers  to  'a  rite,  well  known  to  Semitic  religion, 
which  was  practised  at  Tarsus  down  to  the  time  of 
Dio  Chrysostom,  and  the  memory  of  wliich  survives 
in  the  (Jreek  legend  of  Heracles-Melkarth,  in  the 
.story  of  Sardanai)alus,  and  in  the  myth  of  queen 
Dido  ' — the  annual  rite  commemorating  the  death 
of  the  local  god  in  lire.  Thus  '  the  Topheth '  is  taken 
to  be  the  '  lireplace,'  or  pyre,  the  deep  pit  dug  in 
the  valley  of  Hinnom  for  the  purpose  of  the  most 
di>tinctive  act  in  the  performance  of  these  horrid 
rites  —  the  burning  of  the  victims.  It  may  be 
added  that  Ewald,  who  places  the  deep  valley  of 
Ben-llinnom  on  the  south  of  the  '  long,  broad 
ridge  '  to  which  '  the  ancient  name  of  Zion  origin- 
ally belonged,'  takes  Topheth  to  be  a  "lowing 
furnace  in  the  valley,  and  regards  cverytliing  as 
pointing  to  the  conclusion  that  it  was  Manasseh 
who  first  built  it. 

LiTRRATrRB. — Commentaries  on  the  OT  passaijes  (Dillmann- 
Kittfl,  Marti,  and  Skinnur  on  Isaiah,  Dutini  on  Jerfntiali),  the 
Lexicons,  the  Bilile  dictionaries  (Herzoj,''6  PRE,  Kiehni's  U  Wli, 
Sniitli's  DB,  sub  voc.  '  Uiiniom,'  'Gelnnnoin,'  '  CJehcnna') ;  tlie 
books  on  the  geography  of  the  Holy  Land  (Rohinson,  etc.); 
Ewakl's  Ilixt.  0/  Iter.  iii.  pp.  123,  12-1,  iv.  ji.  -JOS,  etc.,  Longmans' 
tr.  ;  Bottclur's  De  Il\fenl,  p.  86 ;  W.  It.  Siuitli's  Jiel.  uj  thf 
6«ft.a  pp.  372-378.  S.  D.  F.  SaLMOND. 

TORAH.— See  Law. 

TORCH.— See  Lamp  and  Lantern. 

TORMAH  (n=-|ri  'fraud,  deceit';  B  ir  Kpv<t>y,  A 
fiera  ouipui'). — In  the  margin  of  Jg  9"  'in  Tormali' 
is  given  as  an  alternative  rendering  of  the  Hebrew 
word  translated  'craftily'  (AV  'privily').  Some 
commentators  have  suggested  that  Torniah  is  a 
corruption  of  Arumah  (v.")  ;  but  there  is  no 
evidence  one  way  or  the  other.  The  text  certainly 
appears  to  be  corrupt.     See  Moore,  ad  loc. 

C.  W.  Wilson. 

TORTOISE.— The  AV  tr.  of  3»  zab  (Lv  U=»); 
RV  has  '  great  lizard  ' ;  prob.  the  land  monitor  is 
meant.    See  Chameleon,  Li/.AitD. 

TOU  ('Vh).— King  of  Hamath   on   the  Oroutes. 

who  sent  an  embassy  to  congratulate  Uaviu   on 


800 


TOWER 


TOWN  CLERK 


his  defeat  of  Hadadezer,  with  whom  Tou  him- 
self had  waged  frequent  wars,  1  Ch  IS"'-  In  the 
[jarallel  passage,  2  S  8"'-,  the  name  apijcars  as  Toi, 
whieli,  however,  is  less  prohable  pliilulogically  isee 
Driver,  Text  of  Sam.  217).  In  2  Sam.  the  LXX 
has,  B  GoKoi),  A  and  Luc.  Soti ;  in  1  Chron.,  B  6u;a, 
A  Gooii,  Luc.  GoXd.  J.  A.  Selbie. 

TOWER,  -t A)  In  OT  for  1.  Wr?  miijddl.  The 
mir/dal  served  sometimes  to  defend  a  city  wall, 
and  in  particular  an  angle  in  the  wall  or  a  gate 
(2  Ch  14' I"!  20").  Engines  for  casting  arrows  and 
stones  were  sometimes  placed  in  the  towers  (20"). 
A  single  tower  sometimes  served  as  a  citadel 
(tin  IV,  Jg  9'')-  In  the  country,  towers  were 
erected  for  the  protection  of  the  Hocks  and  herds, 
and  to  safeguard  the  roads  (2  K  17^  2  Ch  26'"  27"). 
The  pilgrim  route  from  Damascus  to  Mecca  is 
dotted  with  towers  which  protect  the  wayside 
wells  (Doughty,  Arabia  Dcserta,  i.  9,  13).  A  vine- 
yard was  sometimes  watched  from  a  miijdcU  (Is  5-, 
cf.  Mt  21^^),  sometimes  from  a  mere  'booth'  (nro 
suJdcah).  The  towers  of  Jerusalem  are  mentioned 
generally  in  Ps  48'-,  Is  33" ;  see  also  Neh  3'  (towers 
of  Hamjieah  and  of  Hananel  ;  cf.  also  Ryle's 
note  in  loco) ;  v."  (tower  of  the  furnaces ;  cf. 
Kyle,  and  see  Jerusalem,  vol.  ii.  jp.  593,  for  this 
tower  and  the  next  mentioned) ;  vv.^"'"  (the  [great] 
tower  that  lieth  out) ;  Ca  4*  (tower  of  David)  ; 
7''<^i  (the  tower  of  Lebanon  which  looketh  toward 
Damascus).  'The  tOtter  of  Babel'  (it  should  be 
noted  here)  is  not  a  biblical  phrase  ;  the  presump- 
tion of  men  was  shown  not  in  the  height  of  the 
tower,  which  is  hyperbolically  expressed,  but  in  the 
whole  scheme  embodied  in  the  building  of  '  the  city 
and  the  tower.'  That  '  the  name  of  the  Lord  is  a 
strong  tower'  (Pr  18'")  may  mean  either  of  two 
things:  (1)  that  God  Himself  is  a  protection,  or 
(2)  that  the  mention  of  His  name  in  an  adjuration 
often  stops  an  intended  act  of  violence.  The 
second  sense  may  be  illustrated  from  the  tradition 
that  the  prophet  Mohammed  once  spared  a  female 
captive  who  exclaimed,  '  I  take  refuge  in  God 
[luhlhu  billdld)  from  thee.'  Mic  4*,  in  which 
Zion  is  addressed,  '  O  tower  of  the  flock,'  is  taken 
by  Nowack  (j»  /oco) and  others  as  a  later  addition. 
Jerusalem  is  here  represented,  it  is  said,  as  already 
desolate,  as  a  lonely  tower  from  which  grazing 
flocks  are  watched.  A  mora  natural  interpretation 
of  the  phrase  is  suggested  by  Is  14^-.  Zion  is  the 
tower  in  which  the  flock  of  God  takes  refuge  from 
the  enemy. 

2.  '  Tower '  stands  also  for  migdol  (Ezk  29«>  30«) 
in  EV,  where  RVm  more  correctly  gives  a  proper 
name  '  from  Migdol '  (LXX  airb  JIa75u>\ou).  3.  |rj3 
bahan,  I'm?  bahon  (pi.  o'jinj  bakuiilm),  a  tower 
used  by  besiegers  for  observing  and  (sometimes) 
for  attacking  a  city ;  Is  23'^.  The  prophet  Jere- 
miah is  compared  ( Jer  6'-'')  with  one  of  these  towers, 
because  he  was  the  herald  and  (in  a  sense)  the 
instrument  of  God's  judgments  on  Jerusalem  ;  cf. 
Ezk  4',  where  the  prophet  is  directed  to  besiege 
the  city  in  dumb  show.  The  rendering  of  Jer 
6-'  in  IlVm  '  trier '  is  supported  by  LXX  and 
Pesh.  (Lee),  and  yields  a  play  on  the  following 
verb  '  try,'  but  the  AV  is  probably  right.  4.  '  Iligli 
tower '  is  the  rendering  of  3:;;'D  misgah,  in  Ps  18^  ('• 
EV,and59''l'"l-"l'«lRV.  God  is  called  the  Psalmist's 
misfldb.  S.  Vsv  'ophel  (2  K  5"  AV).  RV  gives 
'liiir  (correctly).  6.  iii=  mdzor  (Hab  2'),  a  word 
meaning  'entrenchment,'  'rampart.'  7.  n;$ jnnnah 
(Zeph3''),  'towers'  AV,  'battlements'  RV,  'corner 
towers'  RVm  (rightly,  towers  bein^  often  set  at  an 
angle  of  a  city  wall).  8.  The  word  nns  zirinh  (Jg 
9""  hold'  AV,  1  S  13»  'high  places'  AV)  has  been 
taken  by  Jewish  expositors  to  mean  a  '  tower,' 
but  Driver  (on  1  S  13')  shows  good  reason  for 
".endering  '  vault '  or  '  underground  chamber ' ;  the 


Lyons  Heptateuch  (ed.  U.  Robert)  has  promimtu- 
ariuiu (ioi promptuarium),  'store-room,  magazine, 
in  Jg  y-"*. 

(B)  In  the  Apocrypha  '  the  tower'  is  the  regular 
rendering  in  AV  in  1  and  2  Maccabees  of  17  dapa, 
'the  citadel'  (RV),  i.e.  the  fortress  commanding 
the  temple  (see  Jeriisalk^i,  vol.  ii.  p.  5;!4),  which 
is  also  called  ii  dcpiiroXis,  '  the  tower '  (2  I\Iac  4'^), 
'the  castle'  (v.="i^'),  so  AV ;  'the  citadel'  (RV). 
'  Tower '  is  also  the  translation  of  Trupyot,  a  wooden 
building  carried  by  an  elephant,  and  holding  thirty- 
two  men  (1  Mac  U^'),  also  a  place  of  execution  m 
which  criminals  were  smothered  in  ashes  (2  Mao 
13').  In  Sir  37'^ i"*'  o-kott^  is  'high  tower'  AV, 
'watch-tower'  RV,  but  the  Hebrew  varies  between 
\a  skrn,  '  a  steep  rock '  (cf .  1  S  14'),  and  ns^sp  mizpeh, 
'  watch-tower '  with  yi  'ez,  '  tree,'  in  margin.  Sir 
26--  ('a  married  [woman]  is  a  tower  against  death 
to  [her]  husband,'  AV)  occurs  in  a  passage  of 
nine  verses  which  is  omitted  from  RV  as  an  inter- 
polation. It  is  absent  from  the  uncials  (^AB), 
but  it  is  found  in  Clem.  Alex,  p-  -'^,  in  cursive 
248  (HP),  and  in  the  Syriac  and  Araliic,  and  so 
most  proliably  existed  at  an  early  date  in  Hebrew. 
The  correct  translation  of  v.''^^''  is  '  A  married 
woman  is  a  tower  of  death  to  those  who  have 
company  (tois  xP'^i^^"'"^)  with  her.'  The  '  tower 
of  death'  is,  no  doubt,  the  tower  of  punishment 
described  in  2  Mac  13'  (see  above). 

(C)  In  NT  '  tower '  represents  irupyos  in  Mt  21" 
(  =  Mk  12',  see  Swete's  note)  a  tower  in  a  vine- 
yard ;  Lk  13*  the  tower  in  Siloam  ;  cf.  14'^. 
Silwan,  the  modern  Siloam,  is  built  on  a  steep 
escarpment  of  rock,  on  which  a  building  with 
good  foundations  would  stand  for  ever ;  ill-laid 
foundations  would  drop  their  superstructure  to  the 
very  bottom  of  the  valley. 

W.  Emery  Barnes. 

TOWN  CLERK  (ypaniua-tv's). — An  ofticial  whose 
powers  and  functions  varied  at  difl'erent  periods 
and  in  dillerent  countries  of  the  Greek  world. 
Here  we  speak  only  of  the  gramnuiteus  in  the 
Grajco- Asiatic  cities  under  the  early  Roman  em- 
pire. The  titles  '  clerk  of  the  city '  (yp.  Trjs  T^Xtus), 
'  clerk  of  the  senate '  (7/).  t^s  /iouX^s),  '  clerk  of 
the  people '  {yp.  toC  ornxov),  '  clerk  of  senate  and 
people,  or  of  senate  and  ekklesia '  [yp.  /SouX^s  koI 
<K/cX7)o-ias),  and  even  'clerk  of  senate  and  people 
and  gerousia,'  are  all  found  in  inscriptions  of  those 
cities.  Sometimes  there  seems  to  be  a  difl'erence 
between  some  of  these  titles  ;  but  in  other  cases 
it  seems  probable  or  certain  that  the  '  clerk  of  the 
city,'  the  'clerk  of  the  senate  and  the  people,'  and 
the  '  clerk  of  the  people,'  were  various  designations 
of  one  very  important  official. 

The  gramiTiateus  was  responsible  for  the  form  of 
the  decrees,  which  were  submitted  to  the  popular 
assembly,  i.e.  the  Demos  assembled  in  ekhhsin. 
These  decrees  under  the  empire  were  first  ai>proved 
by  the  senate,  and  afterwards  sent  to  be  approved 
by  tlie  people  in  the  ekklesia.  The  powers  of  the 
people  were  limited  to  accepting  or  rejecting  the 
decrees  sent  down  from  the  senate.  They  could 
not  amend,  and  gradually  their  approval  became  a 
mere  form,  which  followed  as  a  matter  of  course, 
inasmuch  as  the  Roman  imperial  system  dis- 
couraged and  limited  the  powers  of  the  popular 
assembly.  After  the  decrees  were  passed,  the  gram- 
mateus  sealed  them  with  the  public  seal  (o-qiiixila 
acppayU)  in  the  presence  of  witnesses  (oorYiiaTo- 
yp6.(poi).  In  many  places  he  even  proposed  the 
decrees  in  the  popular  assembly,  and  acted  as 
chairman. 

In  Ephesus  (Ac  19"),  at  an  excited  and  uproarioua 
gathering  of  the  people  in  the  theatre  (a  common 
place  for  regularly  summoned  meetings  of  the 
popular  assembly),  the  clerk  speaks  as  one  both 
possessing  authority  and  under  personal  responai- 


TKACHONITIS 


TRACHOXITIS 


SOI 


bility  for  the  popular  action.  Tlie  Roman  ailinin- 
istration  regarded  irre^ilar  and  unruly  pi)i)ular 
assemblies  as  a  serious  and  even  capital  otlence, 
because  they  tended  to  slrenjjthen  among  the 
people  the  consciousness  of  their  power  and  the 
desire  to  exercise  it;  and  the  clerk  was  e\'i<lently 
afraid  lest  he  should  be  personally  held  to  account 
for  the  irregular  meeting. 

This  picture,  as  indicated  in  Acta,  is  entirely  in  keeping  with 
the  position  of  the  (jruittntateun  as  indicated  in  the  inscriptions. 
In  Lphcsus  that  otlicial  is  occasionally  styled 'jTramHirtNnw  of 
Che  Epliesions' ;  and  often  an  event  is  dated  by  the  clerk  of  the 
fear.  .Money  bequeathed  to  the  people  was  under  his  charj;e. 
He  often  was  responsible  for  the  execution  of  works  oniered  by 
the  people.  The  inscriptions  of  neighbouring  cities  whose 
constitution  is  most  likely  to  have  closely  resembled  the 
Ephesian,  enable  us  to  odd  many  other  details.  The  position 
of  clerk  is  spoken  of  as  the  clima.x  of  a  career  of  public  8er\  ice 

to  the  State  of  TralleS  (uJtx  T6?J.itf  apx^  »'  Kwrw/pyiat  ypvu^ 

/dxtriCratrti  Trf  *e>j«K  i»(^a**f,  CIO  2931).  He  olong  with  the 
ttratftjoi  (to  whom  the  real  conduct  of  business  came  to  be 
trusted  more  and  more  in  the  Greek  cities  of  Asia)  drafted  the 
decrees  ;  and  this  implies  that  he  had  a  seat  as  assessor  on  the 
board  of  slrate^oi,  and  perhaps  even  presided  there  iyiii^ 

rTfi^nrjrit  «A<  nu  yp.  T#w  iifuu). 

The  clerk  contrasts  the  confused  assembly  in  the 
theatre  with  the  (fn/ios  iKuXtiala,  i.e.  the  people 
legally  and  properly  .-u-i-sembled  in  the  exercise  of 
its  powers.  Sutrli  meetings  were  either  ordinary 
on  hxcd  days  (ci/u^oi  in  an  Ephesian  inscription), 
or  extr.iorJinary,  specially  summoned  at  an  un- 
usual time  (tailed  aOyKX-qroi  at  Athens) ;  but  the 
latter  class  of  meetings  required  special  authoriza- 
tion from  the  Koiiian  governor  of  the  province,  and 
certainly  were  rarely  permitted  by  the  jealousy  of 
Roman  policy.  The  term  fwo/ios  iKK\rj(ria  has  not 
hitherto  been  found  at  Ephesus,  but  occurs  at  Ter- 
messos  (see  Lanckoronski,  Stddte  Pamphyl.  ii.  p.  33). 

Literature. — Hicks,  Greek  Inacr.  of  the  Brit.  Mugeitm,  iii.  p. 
82;  Liebcnam,  Stddfetjertcaltuwj  imrom.  Kaiserreiche,  p.'J&sl.; 
L<ivy  in  lievue  dcjj  Etudes  Grecuwev,  ISO.'),  p.  216ff. ;  Ramsay  in 
Expotitor,  Feb.  1896,  p.  13711.,  and  in  Cities  and  llish.  oj 
Phnjgia,  i.  66  ;  Svoboda,  Griech.  Volksbrschliitise,  p.  206  f. 

\V.  M.  RAM.SAY. 

TRACHONITIS — In  the  Bible  only  in  Lk  3', 
in  defining  Philip's  tetrarcliy :  t^s  Irovpalai  aal 
TpaxiortriSof  x^P"'-  Traelionitis  was  pro])crly  the 
country  of,  or  round,  the  Trachon  or  Traclions  (6 
Tpdxuii',  ol  Tpdxwvfs),  the  name  given  by  the  (jreeks 
(7-pdxw<'  =  ' rough,  rocky  ground')  to  tho.se  areas 
of  split  and  shattered  deposits  of  lava  which 
form  80  characteristic  a  feature  of  the  volcanic 
country  S.E.  of  Damascus,  and  are  known  to  the 
Arabs  of  to-day  by  the  name  of  wa'ar  ( = '  stony 
waste ').  IVn'ar  is  the  equivalent  of  the  Hebrew 
IV'.  The  latter  is  wrongly  rendered  '  forest '  in 
AV  and  RV ;  at  the  most  it  can  mean  only 
'wood,'  and  generally  seems  to  be  no  more  than 
'  junj;le.'  Wetz-stein  (Relicbencht  iihr.r  I/iiurati  u, 
die  Tr'irhonrn,  15,  n.  3)  gives  good  grounds  for 
the  opinion  that  iy"  originally  meant  the  same  as 
the  Arab,  wa'ar  (cf.  especially  Is  21 '■'"•),  and  that 
ita  association  with  wood,  for  which  he  supplies 
a  modern  Arabic  analogy,  is  only  secondary. 
Strabo  (xvi.  2.  20)  speaks  of  '  the  two  so-called 
Trachones  behind  Dama.scus.'  These  are,  without 
doubt,  the  two  largest  lava  areas  in  the  region,  the 
Safii  and  the  Lcja.  Their  edges  are  well  delined, 
and  visible  from  far  on  the  bUiToundin;j  plain — 
split  banks  of  bl.ick  rock  with  a  sheen  on  it :  about 
30  ft.  high.  W  ithin  such  borders  the  surfaces  are 
amongst  the  most  waste  and  broken  upon  earth. 
The  lava  in  cooling  has  assumed  the  wildest 
shapes.  Its  surface  has  bren  likened  to  '  a  petri- 
fied ocean'  (cf.  Merrill,  E.  uf  Jordan,  p.  U)  and 
to  an  '  ebony  glacier  with  irregular  crevasses ' 
(IKUIL*  616).  Wetzstein  gives  a  vivid  descrip- 
tion (with  sketches)  of  the  tossed  and  br<d<en 
formation,  with  the  volcanic  vents  from  which  it 
burst.  '  The  Safft  is  still,  as  on  the  day  of  its 
origin,  a  gush  of  lava,  black  and  of  a  dull  sheen, 
VOL.  IV. — i;i 


full  of  countless  streams,  bridged  over  by  thin 
vaults,  of  iietrilied  black,  often  also  bright  red, 
waves,  winch  roll  ciown  the  slopes  from  the  craters 
over  the  high  plateau'  (op.  cit.  p.  7).  The  Safa, 
'  the  empty  or  naked,'  has  no  water  or  vegetation  : 
'no  human  being  can  exist  upon  it':  it  lies,  too, 
far  east  in  the  desert.  The  Leja,  '  the  refuge,'  on 
the  other  hand,  lies  on  the  fertile  plain  of  IJauran, 
and  appears  alwaj's  to  have  been  inhabited.  It 
is  370  square  miles  in  extent,  almost  bridging  the 
plain  between  Jebel  Druz  (from  now  extinct  vol- 
canoes at  the  N.  end  of  wliich,  the  Ghaiarat  el- 
l^ibliyeh  and  Tell  Sliihan,  it  issued)  and  the  ranges 
to  the  E.  of  Hermon  and  S.  of  Damascus.  It 
contains  few  springs,  but  with  winter  rains  these 
form  occasional  small  lakes.  Soil  has  gathered 
in  many  of  the  hollows,  and  there  are  cultivated 
lields.  Flocks  can  be  pastured :  there  are  en- 
closures of  dry  stone  walls,  which  jirove  the  ancient 
herding  of  cattle  ;  and  remains  of  vineyards,  and 
cisterns.  The  ruins  of  Ullages,  and  well-preserved 
ancient  towns, — Musmieh,  Nejrftn,  Dania,  Kubab, 
Juren,  and  others, — the  remains  of  defences  against 
the  easier  entrances,  and  numerous  traces  of  cut- 
tings for  roads,  point  to  a  considerable  population 
in  ancient  times.  The  region  is  still  partly  in- 
habited and  cultivated.  While,  therefore,  Strabo, 
as  a  geographer,  sjioke  of  two  Traclions,  the  Safa 
and  the  Leja,  the  former,  uninhabited  and  lying 
far  from  the  ways  of  men,  was  ignored  by  history, 
and  the  latter  was  to  history  the  Trachon  (car' 
i^oxriv.  So  an  inscription  in  Musmieh  (le  Bas- 
Waddington,  No.  2.')24),  and  another  in  Bereke 
(id.  2390),  and  so  Josephus  (Ant.  XV.  x.  1). 

How  far  back  the  human  history  of  the  Leja 
extends  is  quite  unknown  to  us.  On  the  one 
hand,  it  is  hard  to  think  that  so  safe  and  habitable 
a  'refuge,'  whether  from  Arab  raids  or  the  armies 
of  the  ancient  powers,  was  unused  by  man,  so 
long  as  the  surrounding  country  was  inhabited ; 
and  equ.ally  hard  to  suppose  tliat  a  phenomenon 
of  nature,  so  singular  and  conspicuous,  was  not 
frequently  upon  the  lips  of  the  surrounding 
peoples.  On  the  other  hand,  in  the  OT  there 
IS  no  certain  reference  to  the  Leja.  Arhob  in 
Bashan  was  identiliod  with  it  by  the  Targums, 
and  the  identification  has  been  repeated  in  our 
days  (by  Porter,  Hender.son,  and  the  maps  of  the 
Pal.  Expl.  Kund),  on  the  grounds  that  the  Leja  can 
hardly  have  been  omitted  from  the  15iblical  Geo- 
graphy, and  that  the  phrase  by  which  Ar^ob  is 
descrilied,  aS-jx  V;n,  literally  the  '  rope  '  or  '  limit ' 
of  Argob,  exactly  suits  the  well-delined  edge  of 
the  Leja,  called  by  the  Arabs  of  to-day  the  Lohf. 
But  'jjT  as  a  geographical  term  is  properly  'dis- 
trict,' and  applicable  to  any  well-delined  region ; 
and  the  only  natural  derivation  of  3:nx  is  from 
3jn,  'a  clod  of  earth,' which  no  one  could  take  as 
characteristic  of  the  Leja  ;  while,  also,  Isiael's 
conquests  very  probably  did  not  extend  so  far  to 
the  N.E.  Argob  is  now  generally  idcntiliid  with 
the  district  of  Suwet,  E.  of  tJilcad  and  W.  of  the 
Zumle  range  :  to  the  S.  of  Ba.slian,  but  geologically 
connected  with  the  latter.  Again,  in  the  Dmn  of 
Jer  17",  '  waste  tracts,'  it  is  possible  to  see  a  refer- 
ence to  the  two  Traclions,  but  more  probably  the 
word  has  the  much  wider  reference  to  all  those 
stony  areas  of  the  Arabian  desert  to  which  its 
Arabic  equivalent  harra  applies  (Doughty,  Arnhin 
Ijisnrta,  jinjisim  and  Intlcx).  Porter  [Giant  Cities 
(if  Bashan,  1S82,  p.  1211'.,  etc.)  and  others  have 
taken  the  ancient  buildings  in  the  towns  of  the 
Leja  and  other  parts  of  IJauran  and  Bashan 
to  be  the  actual  remains  of  the  giant  races  who, 
according  to  the  OT,  preceded  the  Amorites  in  (he 
occupation  of  these  lands,  and  of  the  Amorites 
themselves,  i.e.  the  cities  of  Og  king  of  Bashan. 
For  the  reasons  stated  above,  we  may  well  bcliev« 


802 


TKACHOXITIS 


TRADE  AND  COMMERCE 


that  the  sites  of  these  cities  were  occupied  at  a 
very  early  historical  period  ;  and  the  visitor  to 
those  in  Bashan  itself  (as  the  present  wrilu* 
recently  verified)  may  still  note  rude  fortiiicatious 
(uniier  or  near  the  obviously  later  city  walls) 
which  resemble  the  Amorite  remains  recognized 
in  other  parts  of  Palestine.  But,  on  the  other 
hand,  the  peculiar  architecture  in  the  Leja  and 
surrounding  countrj'  (whether  above  or  under 
ground),  in  which  I'orter  claimed  to  have  dis- 
covered the  '  Giant  Cities  of  Bashan,'  bears  no 
proofs  of  an  origin  earlier  than  the  eve  of  the  Chris- 
tian era  ;  that  is,  after  the  Greeks  settled  east  of 
tlie  Jordan. 

Practically,  therefore,  the  history  of  the  Leja 
opens  with  the  apjiearance  of  its  Greek  name, 
Trachon.  The  Greeks,  who  began  to  settle  on  the 
E.  of  Jordan  soon  after  Alexander  the  Great's 
Syrian  campaign,  seem  to  have  made  no  impres- 
sion on  the  Leja,  which  was  occupied  by  Nabattean 
Arabs  down  to  the  arrival  of  Pompey's  legions  at 
Damascus,  in  B.C.  65  and  64.  The  Itomans,  coming 
to  the  aid  of  the  Greek  cities,  crushed  all  the 
Semitic  powers  in  Qauran,  whether  Jewish  or 
Arab,  but  do  not  appear  to  have  occupied  ^auran 
itself.  In  B.C.  25  one  Zenodorus  is  said  to  have 
ruled  over  part  of  the  Ituriean  territory  on  the 
slopes  of  Hermon,  Auranitis  (  =  l^auran,  Jos.  A  tit. 
XV.  X.  2),  and  Traehonitis,  i.e.  the  Trachon  along 
with  some  territory  round  it  (Jos.  Ant.  XV.  x.  1 
1pax'-iy  II  BJ  XVll.  11.  1,  etc.  T/jaxwrnj).  Joaephus 
and  Ptolemy  enal^ile  us  to  define  aiiproximately  the 
then  limits  of  this  territory.  Aeeordin"  to  Ant. 
XV.  X.  3  it  touched  in  the  N.W.  tlie  districts  of 
Ulatha  and  Paneas,  about  the  sources  of  Jordan 
at  the  S.  foot  of  Hermon  ;  according  to  Ant.  xvn. 
ii.  1,  2  it  aiarched  with  Batana?a ;  and  accord- 
ing to  Ptolemy,  v  15.  4,  it  extended  towards  Mons 
Alsadt-n-j,  ,,ue  present  Jebel  Druz.  Ptolemy 
speaks  of  the  Tpoxwiroi  'Apa/3es  '  under '  that 
mountain.  About  B.C.  25  these  Arabs  raided  tlie 
Greeks  of  5auran,  and  the  Greeks  complained  to 
Varro,  governor  of  Syria.  Varro  appears  to  have 
himself  inflicted  some  chastisement  upon  them 
(Jos.  BJ  1.  XX.  4).  But  subsequently  orders  came 
from  Au^stus  that  Varro  should  replace  Zeno- 
dorus by  Herod,  who  had  already  (from  his  towns 
Gadara  and  Hippos  eastward :  Ant.  XV.  vii.  3 ; 
BJ  I.  XX.  3)  some  experience  of  fighting  with  the 
Trachonite  Arabs  {Ant.  XV.  v.  1  ;  BJ  I.  xix.  2). 
Herod  subdued  them  for  a  time  {Ant,  XV.  x.  1  ; 
BJ  I.  XX.  4) ;  but  they,  apparently  unable  to  live 
upon  the  meagre  crops  of  the  Leja  itself,  again, 
during  Herod's  absence  in  Rome,  raided  the  fertile 
lands  to  the  W.  of  them  {Ant.  xvi.  ix.  1).  Herod's 
soldiers  defeated  them  and  drove  them  into 
Nabatiiea  (to  the  S.  of  Hauran),  with  the  exception 
of  a  few,  who  remained  in  the  Leja,  and  the  most 
of  whom  Herod  himself,  when  he  returned,  slew. 
The  remainder,  in  alliance  with  the  Nabatieans, 
kept  up  a  series  of  attacks  on  Herod's  borders. 
He  put  a  force  of  3000  Iduiiueans  into  Traehonitis, 
and  placed  the  command  in  the  hands  of  Zamaris, 
a  Jew  from  Babylonia,  for  whom  he  built  forts 
in  Batansea  and  at  Bathyra,  perhaps  the  present 
Busr  (el-Hariri),  on  the  S.  border  of  the  Leja  {Ant. 
xvn.  ii.  1-3).  Zamaris — it  is  not  mentioned  that 
he  conquered  the  Leja  itself — quieted  the  sur- 
rounding country,  and  Herod  built  a  temple  near 
Kanatha,  in  the  ruins  of  which  an  inscription 
still  records  the  erection  of  a  statue  to  him  (le 
Bas-Waddington,  2364).  By  Herod's  testament, 
his  son  Philip  in  B.C.  4  received  '  Traehonitis,' 
along  with  the  rest  of  the  country  between  the 
Yarniuk  and  Hermon,  as  his  tetrarcliy  {Ant, 
XVII.  viii.  1,  xi.  4,  xvill.  iv.  6;  BJ  n.  vi.  3). 
Strabo  (xvi.  2.  20)  describes,  about  A.u.  2.j,  the 
general    security  of    the   country  under    Philip. 


PhUo  {Legal,  ad  Gaium,  41)  gives  the  name 
Traehonitis  to  the  whole  of  Philip's  tetrarcliy. 
When  the  latter  died,  in  34,  Traehonitis  and  the 
rest  of  his  tetrarcliy  was  comprised  in  the  province 
of  Syria  until  37,  when  Caligula  gave  it  to 
Agrippa,  wlio  held  the  country  as  far  as  the 
eastern  slopes  of  the  Jebel  Druz  (cf.  his  inscrip- 
tion, still  extant  at  el-Mushennef  [Wadd.  2211]). 
It  was  from  Agrippa's  reign  onward  that  the 
architecture  of  the  district  increased,  according 
to  the  numerous  inscriptions  ;  though  the  Roman 
road  through  the  Leja  itself  may  be  as  early  aa 
the  time  of  Varro  (see  above).  From  A.D.  44, 
when  Agrippa  died,  the  whole  of  Palestine  was 
directly  governed  by  Roman  officials  tUl  50,  when 
Chalcis,  and  53,  when  the  tetrarchies  of  Philip  and 
Lysanias,  were  given  to  Agrippa  XL,  whose  in- 
scriptions are  numerous  throughout  Traehonitis. 
In  A.D.  100,  on  Agrippa's  death,  the  direct  Roman 
administration  seems  to  have  been  resumed ;  and 
in  106,  by  the  creation  of  the  further  province  of 
Arabia,  Traehonitis  became  part  of  the  inner 
province  of  Syria.  The  bulk  of  the  remains  of  its 
ancient  civUizatiou  date  from  the  subsequent 
period.  The  road  just  mentioned  and  others 
through  the  province  may  be  wholly  or  mainly  the 
work  of  the  Antonines.  In  295  'Traehonitis  was 
joined  to  the  province  of  Arabia. 

The  question,  whether  in  the  time  at  which 
Lk  3'  was  wTitten  the  Ituraean  district  and 
Traehonitis  were  two  distinct  portions  of  Philip's 
tetrarchy,  or  two  equivalent  or  overlapping  names 
for  it,  has  already  been  fully  discussed  under 
ITUILEA. 

LiTERATi'RB. — Besides  Wetzstein's  Reiseberieht  quoted  above, 
see  Ritter.  Erdkuiuie,  xv.  ;  Porter,  Five  JVar«  in  bamascu^,  ii., 
and  The  iiiant  Citiesof  Bashan  ;  Selah  Merrill,  Eoit  of  Jordan  ; 
Schiirer,  HJf  I.  ii.  App.  1,  etc.;  de  Voi,'Ue,  Syrie  Cent  rale : 
Architecture  Cirite  et  Retigieu^e;  Gutlie,  Fischer,  and  Stubel, 
in  the  ZDPV,  1890,  225 ff.;  the  present  WTiter's  HGUL,  543, 
015  ff.;  Major-General  Heber- Percy,  A  ViMt  to  Bashan  and 
Argob,  1S95,  with  good  photographs;  Rindlleisch  in  ZDPV, 
1898,  p.  Iff.;  V,  Oppenheim,  \  oiii  Mitteimeer  zum  Pers.  Got/, 
i.  cha.  iii.  and  vi.  (w-ith  photo^'raphs  of  e^-^a),  1899 ;  Bncye. 
Bibl.  artt.  '  Argob,'  *  Bashan,'  and  '  Bosor.' 

G.  A.  Smith. 

TRADE  and  COMMERCE.— i  Terms.— 'Trade' 
in  AV  of  Gn  46''-- **  means  'occupation,'  and  has 
no  equivalent  in  the  Hebrew.  In  Ezk  27'^""  it 
represents  the  Heb.  \m  '  gave ' ;  in  Gn  Si'"-  "^  it  is 
the  rendering  of  nno  shr.  The  participle  of  this 
last  verb  is  used  for  '  merchant ' ;  and  cognate 
nouns,  inp,  "inc,  '"H"?,  ni;?,  for  '  place  of  traffic,' 
'  merchandise,'  'profit,'  traffic,'  and,  by  the  use  of 
abstract  for  concrete,  '  traffickers '  (Gr.  iinropevet- 
9ai,  Ifiiropos,  i/jLiropla ;  Lat.  negoti/iri,  negotiator, 
institur,  negotititio,  mercatiis).  The  root  shr= 
'  travel,'  and  describes  the  merchant  as  a  travelling 
trader.  Similarly  from  S^t  rkl,  originally  '  to 
travel,'  connected  with  regel,  '  foot,"  we  have  rckhel, 
'merchant'  {IpLvropos,  institor,  negotiator,  venditor, 
etc.),  ri^2-i  '  traffic '  {iinropla.,  negotiatio),  n73-)a  '  place 
of  traffic'  {IIV  'merchandise,'  iiitropia,  negotiatio). 
The  Heb.  words  of  this  group  cliielly  occur  in  Neh 
3.  13,  Ezk  26-28. 

Similarly  in  1  K  10",  2  Ch  9"  MT  couples 
'anshe  hat-tdrim  (EV  'chapmen')  with  sohirim, 
'  merchants '  ;  and  tarim,  which  should  mean 
'  spies,'  is  explained  as  '  those  who  go  to  and  fro,' 
'  trallickers' ;  but  the  text  is  corrupt.  Kittel 
(' Clironicles '  in  SBOT)  proposes  to  read  'Osher 
me'drim,  '  that  which  came  from  the  cities.' 

The  proper  names  Kena'an  (Is  23'),  Kina'dni 
(Pr  31-^  etc.),  are  also  used  to  mean  'merchant.' 
In  Neh  10^'  n^n"?,  from  np'?  '  to  take,'  is  used  in 
the  sense  of  '  goods  for  sale '  (EV  '  ware  ') ;  and  in 
Ezk  27  XP^yj  IS  used  for  '  thy  wares,'  so  KV  (not, 
as  AV,  '  thy  fairs'). 

The  roots  of  the  following  seem  to  ha^e  had 
originally   the  meaning  '  exchange "  or   '  barter ' : 


TEADE  AND  COMMERCE 


TRADE  AND  C0:MMERCE 


803 


aip  '  traffic,' and  its  derivative  3-y^5  'merchandise' 
or  'traffic,'  onlj'  in  Ezk  27,  cf.  DiouT,  Pledge; 
with  the  allied  group  td  '  to  exchange  or  barter,' 
and  n-ii:a  'exchange,'  'barter,'  'price';  tc' price 
paid  for  a  wife,'  and  its  denom.  i^o '  to  buy  a  wife ' ; 
•130  '  to  sell,'  and  ^:■J  '  wares  or  price ' ;  Tnp  '  price.' 
The  common  word  for  'buy,'  n;p,  is  a  general 
term  meaning  'possess'  and  'acquire';  so  n:;:^, 
njpp,  '  possession,  sonietinies  mean  'purchase'  or 
'  price.  Another  term  for  '  buy '  is  mD  ;  and  np'? 
Make'  is  sometimes  tr.  'buy.'    12V  usually  means 

*  to  buy  com.' 

Other  words  for  'price'  are  ij;,  lit.  'value,'  and 
TrT;''an  equiviilent."  l''or  'caravan 'we  have  nni.x 
«Gn  37",  Is  21",  Job  G'"' '»),  nj-^n  (so  only  Job  6'» 
poet.),  and  .n;p?  (1  K  IU-«=2  Ch  l'«),  and  7i-<v  (Ezk 
27"),  lit.  'company'  or  'band.'  A  special  class 
of  merchant  ships  were  styled  'ships  of  Tarshish.' 
See  Tarshish.  The  tr.  'make  merchandise'  in 
Dt  21"  24'  is  a  mistake.  The  meaning  of  the 
word  ("cynn,  only  in  these  two  passages)  is  prob- 
ably '  play  the  master '  (LXX  in  Zv  KoxoSwaa-- 
TtCira^) ;  see  Driver's  note. 

In  the  NT  we  have  for  '  merchandise,'  iiiropia ; 

*  to  trade,'  dpydj^ofiaif  i/nropeCo/jiai ;  '  to  buy,'  dyop6.^Wj 
Uf^ofiai ;  '  to  sell,'  dTodiSujfu,  viirpiaKcv^  jrwX^w ; 
'  nierch.ant,'/M'''o/'05;  'banker'  or  '  money-changer,' 
Tpairfi^iTTjs ;  *  seller  of  purple,' Tropf/ii'pJTTwXts ;  'bank* 
or  '  counter,' TpdTrefa  (lit.  'table  'i  ;  '  inart,'^M'''o/)io>' ; 
'price,'  ti^it)  ;  'valuable,'  'expensive,'  •■oXi/reXijt, 
»oXi>Ti^os ;  '  lading  of  a  sliip,'  yufios. 

ii.  Data. — 1.  General. — The  natural  features  of 
a  country  indicate  the  character  and  extent  of  its 
commerce.  Given  harbours  or  practicable  land 
routes,  etc.,  it  will  export  what  it  produces  easily, 
and  import  what  it  pro<luces  with  difficulty  or 
cannot  produce  at  all.  See  articles  on  the  various 
countries  of  the  Bible.  Again,  references  to  the 
possession  of  articles  of  foreign  production  imply 
commerce  with  the  place  of  production.  See 
articles  on  Goi.D,  Silver,  Dress,  etc. 

2.  Trade  in  OT. — There  are  numerous  scattered 
references,  but  the  leading  cases  are  the  accounts 
of  Solomon's  commerce  (1  K  5.  g^"-"*  10"-2»),  and  of 
the  unsuccessful  attempt  of  Jehoshapliat  to  imitate 
him  (1  K  22*-'');  and  of  the  Sabbath  trading  at 
Jeru.siilem  (Neh  13""^).  The  commerce  of  Tyre  is 
described  in  Is  23,  Ezk  26.  27.  A  caravan  trade  in 
spices,  etc.,  with  K^ypt  is  mentioned  in  Gn  37^(J), 
and  implied  in  43"  (J). 

3.  Trade  in  tite  Apocrypha,  NT,  Josephus, 
Talmud,  etc. — In  1  Mac  14°  .Simon  makes  Joppa  a 
port,  and  in  To  4'  !)"  we  read  of  a  deposit  of  money 
repaid  on  the  production  of  a  receipt.  In  the  Nl' 
commerce  furnishes  our  Lord  with  many  illustra- 
tions ;  St.  Paul  sails  in  tniding  vessels,  and  meets 
with  Lydia,  'the  dealer  in  purple'  (Ac  l(i"),  and 
the  manufacturers  of  silver  shrines  for  Diana  (Ac 
19").  The  commerce  of  Home,  under  the  name  of 
Babylon,  is  described  in  a  passage.  Rev  18,  atlapted 
from  Ezk  27.  There  are  scattered  references  in 
Josephus.  The  Talmud  often  refers  to  the  articles 
and  conditions  of  commerce  in  its  discussions  on 
tithes,  and  on  the  ritual  questions,  uncleanness, 
etc.,  arising  out  of  relations  between  Jews  and 
Gentiles.  These  notices  can  be  applied  only  with 
caution  to  periods  earlier  than  the  compilation  of 
the  Ta;:^u<ls  (a.d.  400-GOO). 

4.  Other  Authorities. — The  immense  collection 
of  F'gyplian,  Assj-rian,  and  Itabylonian  documents 
and  inscriptions  atl'ord  much  information  as  to 
commerce  m  general,  and  some,  direct  and  in- 
direct, as  to  that  of  Palestine.  The  classical 
authorities,  especially  Strabo  and  Plin^,  furniHli 
OS  with  information  as  to  commerce  in  general 
In  the  GriH'k  and  Roman  periods. 

iii.  Commerce  ok  tiik  Ancient  East.— The 
Tel  el-Amarna  tablets  show  that  in  B.C.  14i,)0  there 


was  an  extensive  commerce  between  Babylonia  and 
other  States  of  the  farther  East,  and  Syria  and 
Egj'pt.  The  letters  passing  between  the  Eastern 
kinjrs  and  the  kings  of  E^ypt  are  full  of  references 
to  the  journeys,  to  and  fro,  of  caravans,  and  to 
the  interchange  of  numerous  commodities.  Three 
lists  of  articles  sent  by  a  king  of  Egypt  to  the 
king  of  Babylon,  and  of  the  wedding  presents  or 
dowry  of  an  Eastern  princess  who  married  a  kin^ 
of  Egypt,  occupy  14  l;ii;;u  octavo  pages  in  small 
tj'pe  (vVinckler,  p.  3<J91l. ).  Evidence  is  furnished 
by  inscriptions,  etc.,  of  such  commerce  from  an 
even  earlier  period,  onwaids  throughout  the  Bible 
history.  The  series  of  commercial  documents, 
contract  tablets,  etc.,  in  Babjlonia  from  about  B.C. 
2400,  and  in  Ass3ria  from  about  B.C.  900,  bear 
direct  evidence  to  the  existence  of  considerable 
internal  trade,  and  imply  foreign  commerce.  At 
a  later  time  such  documents  enaV)le  us  to  trace 
the  history  of  the  great  Babylonian  banking  firm 
of  Egibi  from  the  reign  of  Nebuehadnezzar  to  that 
of  Darius.     In  the  Times  of  10th  Oct.  1899  Conder 

? noted  a  letter,  which  he  dated  about  B.C.  2000, 
rora  an  Assjrian  merchant  to  a  corresi)ondent  in 
Uai)padocia,  asking,  '  Can  I  settle  and  trade  in 
Cappadocia  on  payment  of  a  tax,  and  by  living  as 
a  son  of  the  land  ? '  As.syria  and  Babylonia 
received  merchandiio  from  the  farther  East,  and 
transmitted  it  westward.  The  Phoenicians  from 
Tyre  and  Sidon  and  other  cities  were  the  inter- 
mediaries of  a  great  sea  traffic  between  Western 
Asia  and  the  shores  of  the  Mediterranean  and  the 
Eastern  Atlantic,  and  also,  for  the  most  part,  of 
the  sea  traliio  between  Egypt,  Syria,  and  other 
Mediterranean  countries  ( lirman,  Life  in  Ancient 
Egypt,  l'"ng.  tr.  15).  Later  on,  this  traffic  was 
more  and  more  shared  by  the  Greeks.  Egj'pt 
received  the  produce — ivory,  ebony,  skins,  slaves, 
etc. — of  Nubia  and  other  countries  to  the  south, 
andoccasionally  sent  trading  vessels  to  the  '  incense 
countries,'  Punt,  etc.,  i.e.  Southern  Arabia, 
Somaliland,  and  perhaps  farther  east.  The  cele- 
brated queen  Hatsh(j]isut  (c.  B.C.  1.5H0)  sent  such 
an  expedition  (Petrie,  IlLit.  of  Egypt,  ii.  79). 
There  was  also  trade  by  land  between  Arabia  and 
Syria,  and,  by  way  of  the  Isthmus  of  Suez,  with 
Egypt. 

In  later  times  four  main  causes  tended  to 
promote  and  systematize  the  comnierce  of  Western 
Asi.i,  and  its  trade  relations  with  Egypt  ami  the 
other  Mediterranean  countries;  (1)  tlie  establish- 
ment of  the  Persian  dominion  over  Western  Asia 
and  Egypt,  including  the  Greek  cities  of  Asia 
Minor  and  many  of  the  Greek  islands ;  (2)  the 
conquests  of  Alexander,  the  establishment  of  Greek 
States  with  political  relations  with  Macedonia 
and  Greece,  ami  the  founding  of  numerous  Greek 
colonies  throughout  Syria ;  (3)  the  dispersion  of 
the  Jews;  (4)  the  establishment  of  the  authority 
of  Rome  over  the  Mediterranean  countries  and 
Western  Asia. 

iv.  Extent  and  Development  of  Israelite 
Commerce. — We  know  hardly  anything  of  Israelite 
trade  during  the  nomad  period.  Proliably  the 
clans  sometimes  carried  merchiindise  between 
Syria  and  Egypt  (Gn  37'-^  43"),  or  e.sco'-ted  trading 
caravans  ;  and  at  other  times  levied  tolls  or  black- 
nmil  upon  caravans  passing  through  districts 
which  they  occupied.  With  the  sclflement  in 
Can'ian,  the  Israelites  would  grndually  become 
involved  in  the  system  of  internal  trade,  and  of 
trade  with  Arabia,  Egypt,  Pluenicia,  and  the  East 
which  had  been  established  for  centuries.  I'or  .some 
time  this  trade  would  remain  in  the  hands  of  the 
original  inhabitants,  from  whom  the  Israelites 
would  obtain  foreign  commodities,  partly  by  luir- 
chnse,  [)artlv  by  plunder,  e.g.  Achans  Babylonish 
mantle  (Jos' 7^')- 


804 


TRADE  AND  COiOIERCE 


TRADE  AND  COISIMERCE 


In  timp  the  extension  of  the  Israelite  territory, 

tncrease  of  wealth,   and   '"volyed    the  ^J^^«'^  «^ 
more  largely  in  the  commerce  of  Syna.     1  he  iiniu 

The  towns  must  have  supplied   tlieir  ;^n«  '™^ 
the  country,  and  in  turn  furnished   tl.e  ^urae^s 
^ith  some  n.an«faeturea   articles.  J^t   hrst,.^no 

<^°V^*>,t?f    but  Jhe  %ZthVf  Szi^tion  would 

subjects  t«>e  r^iit  j  j^nce,  obtains  from  Ben- 
r«:d°a^Xri:^htto'la;e'stLtsMn^^ 
•  ,  »n  Ur^e  ite  trading  quarter  or  bazaar  IK 
2;^1  ipowerfu  king°obtained  large  quantities 
orfore^n^commoditief  as  presents  or  tnVte,  e.g. 
?he  ^fts  of  the  queen  of  Sheba  and  other  princes, 
the  giiis  oi  uic  4  ioi»»l      The  kuig  made 

etc.,  to  SoU.mon  (1  K  4  lu  h^  Moreover,  a 
similar  presents  in  return  (1  ^V^  K  J'^^rtkles  of 
^vealthv  sovereign  would  need  f°^eign  art  Ues  ol 
luxury  for  his  court,  raatenals  for  1»3  buildings 

StlTkS  n'-s^aid  for  his  tim^  in  A^ 
anroil    5"-).  and  there  were  tbe  'presents    to 
friendly  princes.     David's  conquest  of  bdom  (-  » 
^')hai^pven  Israel  a  nort,  EziON-GEBER   on  t^ie 
Red  Sea,  from  which  Solomon  sent  ?■  trading  lieet 
partly  manned  with  Phcenician   sailors,  to  0  L  r 
Fsee  Dphiu)  for  gold,   precious  stones,   etc.   (1  Iv 
*^^r  In  10^  this  traffic  with  Ophir  is  said  to 
Lvebeen  conducted  by  Solomon  and  Hiram  con- 
•   ■„^^„    h.T,  mpnns  of  a  navy  which   sailed   e\ery 
{ree'yea7s,"nTbrought  'g|d   silver,  ivory  apes, 
fl.nd  neacocks.'  *     Further,  Solomon  not  only  im- 
nortercrses  and  chariots  from  Egypt,,  but  also 
sold  then,  to  the  Hittite  and  Syrian  kings  (1  K 
^^!^.»)      The  wide  extent  of  Solomons  dominions 
save  him  an  opportunity,  of  wh.cli   he  doubtless 
^:iued™.imse/f,'  to  provide  for  the    safety   and 
comfort  of  the  caravans  from  tie  East  to  1  ales 
IZi    Naturally  the  -nimercebvas  no    entirely 
in  Solomon's  hands,  and   1  K    10     reters  to 

*^tron';  othe1""ef:rence  to  the  trade  ^om 
F7ion.  sober  to  Opbir  U  the  statement  that 
fZsha^lhat  made  an  unsuccessful  attenint  to 
jenosnapii^i.  Probably  in  the  troubles  at 

SeTlo^  of  Soloinon's  r:Sn,'judah  lost  its  free 
^e^  to  the  Red  Sea,  and  the  trailic  ce.-ised  once 
f^iQ  Otherwi.se  what  we  read  of  the  commeice 
oTi^lomon's  reign  will  hold  good,  ^n  -ry.ng^ le^ 
PTees  for  the  period  of  the  monarchy.  Ihe 
Sfwences  of  the  prophets  of  the  eighth  century 
to  the  prosi^rity  and  luxury  of  the  two  kingdoms 
.  ,  K  a»-M  and  loaa  clearly  rcler  to  the  same  traffic.     The 

kinu  had  sh.ps  that  f'"' *? 'J"?;,  7  k  22«  •  Jehoshaphat  made 
tion  of  the  sf .tt-fli  f^  0?hir'  (Herzfeld,  Ilawlrll,csch.  der 
diips  ot  Tarshish  to. go  to  Ol'"^  .^."(^^^o  „„  .,  ch  0-n. 

,ih"ir[Sft^l^loSoi^L2£edHa-^^ 

Vn^,  o^„f  Chron.'i'th'^TeS^nce  to  Tadmor  In  the  latter  ■.  due 
to  a  migunderetttudii  g  ot  the  tormer. 


under  Uzziah,  Joth:im,  and  Ahaz  of  Judah,  and 
unaer  ^"';"  •  ,  .  ■  ,  demand  for  foreign 
Jeroboam  II.  oi  i»raei,  umnj'  a.  "v-  o6. 7.  n 

ously  affected  its  commerce.  fradina 

It  is  doubtful  whether  the  Israelites  had  trading 
vessels  on  the  Mediterranean  before    the   bxile. 
H«z  eld  a  c    p.  17)  contends  for  a  considerable 
Sari[C^fe^traffi'c  mainly  in  the  hands  of  Zebulun. 
In  the  Song  of  Deborah  we  read  in  RV  of  J  g  & 
•  Aiid  Dan,  wh.v  did  he  remain  in  shM'S? 
Asher  sat  still  at  the  haven  (m.  shore)  ot  the  sea. 
And  abode  by  his  creeks.' 

This  nassa-^e  seems  to  imply  seafaring  habits  on 
ulTpaTof-the  tribes  on  the  Med^^eiranea^coa. 

}'    h    ''°r;nv;«'shy"oPr  to  re*^d/r^e  first 
'meadows    for  mix    snips   .  ui   t  .up  shins'' 

line   '  Why  does  he  live  nei-hbour  to  the  smps^ 
Moore),  or 'Why  does  he  fear  the  ships  ^£^». 
too  must  be  the  northern  Dan.-In  the  Blessing 
of  Ja"ob  (n.c.  1000-850)  RV  ^«"^''^'\^°  f,'"" 
.  Zebulun  shall  dwell  at  the  haven  ("Vfjf,'^^)  o  the  Be^ 
And  he  shall  he  for  an  haven  (m  beach)  01  snips  , 
And  his  Ijorder  shall  be  upon  Zidon. 

RV  translates  Dt  33'»-  '»- 


•  Eejoice,  Zebulun,  in  thy  going  oat ; 
^^;S'c='Jiirhe''/eo';euntothemount^^^^ 
There  *all  thev  offer  sacnfices  of  r-ghteobsnesa. 
For  the"  shall  suck  the  abu.idance  of  the  seag. 
And  th4  hidden  treasures  of  the  sand. 

Puie 'i^mdes '  werellied  '  to  the  mountain  '  to  a 
is  never  mentioned  by  pre-ex  lie  ^"'X^Ttraelites. 

I  ^^btfiii  if  ^:^^^,::''^^jt^^ 

^^"Ta'Vnte  est  on  tie  commerce  of  Solomon 
"""'h  Trdv  have  mentioned  Mediterranean 
would     surelv     nave    mc  who  e,  there- 

trallic   if  it  liad   existed      On  the  w uo 
fore    the  extant  evidence  f ai  s  to  pro\e  ^      ,. 
Is  aelites  had    trading  vessels    on     h«/IulUer_ 

*''*■  *■  .  gi8.»  is  perhape  an  interpolation. 


TRADE  AND  COMMERCE 


TRADE  A:\D  COiMMERCE        805 


Another  question  is  as  to  liow  far,  in  the  time 
of  tlie  monarchy,  tlie  comiiierce  of  Israel  was  in 
Israelite  hands.  The  fact  that  in  Job  41'  and 
Pr  31"  '  Canaanite,'  and  in  Hos  12'  '  Canaan,'  is 
used  to  mean  'merchant';  and  apparently  in  Is 
23",  Zeph  1"  'Canaan'  is  used  for  '  the  merchant 
people,'  suggests  that  in  early  times  the  trade  of 
Israel  was  largely  carried  on  by  the  Phcenicians. 
Tlie  various  codes  and  the  prophets  make  scant 
reference  to  trade.  In  view  of  the  keen  interest 
in  the  comnierce  of  Tyre  shown  by  Is  23,  Ezk  2G. 
27,  we  should  have  expected  more  detailed  notice 
of  Israelite  trade  if  it  had  been  largely  in  native 
hands.  Hos  12',  indeed,  '  He  [Epliraim]  is  a 
trafficker  [lit.  '  Canaan  '],'  *  implies  the  develop- 
ment of  native  commercial  activity  in  the  Northern 
Kingdom  in  the  last  period  of  its  independence. 
But  this  seems  to  have  been  a  new  development, 
speedily  cut  short  by  the  fall  of  Samaria.  Again, 
Lzk  '2l)^  represents  'lyre  as  exulting  over  the  fall 
of  Jerusalem,  '  the  gate  of  the  peoples,'  and  ex- 
pecting to  prolit — perhaps  commercially — by  her 
ruin  :  '  I  shitll  be  replenished,  now  that  she  is  laid 
waste.'  No  doubt,  Jerusalem  was  to  some  extent 
a  commercial  city.  On  tlie  other  liand,  it  is  to  a 
Canaanite  merchant  that  the  Israelite  housewife 
sells  her  cloth  (Pr  31**) ;  the  merchant  is  not  men- 
tioned amongst  the  notables  in  such  lists  as  Is 
3- ' ;  and,  except  Solomon  and  his  agents,  no 
Israelite  merchants  are  mentioned  before  the 
Exile.  Probably  much  of  the  internal  traffic,  and 
most  of  the  import  and  export  trade,  were  in  the 
hands  of  Phoenicians  and  other  foreigners. 

The  restored  Jewish  community  in  Palestine 
during  the  Persian  period  was  small  and  poor 
(Hag  1'-"  2"'-  ",  Zee  7'  8^-  «■ '",  Mai  3•^  Neh  P  '2" 
i''  5),  and  its  commerce  must  have  been  very 
limited.  Still  the  Jewish  settlement  was  a  city, 
— Jerusalem  and  its  territory, — and  a  city  implies 
local  and  other  trade  (so  Neh  3^'-  '^  13"*'^,  where 
we  find  the  trade  partly  in  the  hands  of  the  '  men 
of  Tyre').  There  is  evidence  that  during  this 
period  Dor,  Jo|)pa,  and  Ashkelon  were  held  by  the 
Phoenicians  ((i.  A.  Smith,  IIGIIL  12'J).  Prob- 
ably must  of  the  external  and  some  of  the  internal 
trade  of  the  Jewish  community  in  Palestine  was 
in  the  hands  of  the  Phoenicians.  When  Jonah  set 
sail  from  Joppa  for  Tarshish,  it  was  in  a  Gentile 
ship  (Jon  P). 

By  the  time  the  Greek  period  was  reached,  the 
restoration  of  the  temple,  tlie  reforms  of  Neliemiah, 
and  the  natural  growth  of  the  community  must 
have  led  to  some  development  of  trade,  which 
would  be  further  stimulated  by  the  Greek  coloniza- 
tion of  Western  Asia.  Some  token  of  a  growing 
interest  in  commerce  may  be  seen  in  the  Bk.  of 
Sirach,  which  refers  to  the  subject  more  frequently 
and  precisely  than  does  Proverbs.  Many  of  the 
references,  indeed,  are  quite  general,  to  the  dangers 
of  suretiship  (Sir  8"  29"-*',  as  in  Pr  ll"  17'"  20'") ; 
or  to  the  obligation  to  deal  fairly  (Sir  5"  2'J*-'  41'", 
as  in  Pr  IG"  20"'- *") ;  or  to  other  general  topics 
(Sir  37",  as  in  Pr  11=").  But  Sir  42'-»  implies  a 
more  intimate  acquaintance  with  commerce,  e.g. 
▼.' — 

'  Whatsoever  thou  bandejit  over,  let  it  t>e  by  number  and 

w^•i^;ht ; 
And  in  giving  and  receiving  let  all  be  in  writing.* 

In  Other  [lassages  we  discern  the  protest  of  tradi- 
tional sentiment  against  a  growing  predilection  fur 
business  life.     Thus — 

'  Hate  not  laltorioua  work  ; 
Neither  huabandr}',  which  the  Mort  High  hath  ordained' 

(Sir  7"). 
*A  merchant  shall  hardly  keep  himaeU  from  wrong-doing' 
(8ir26»). 

•  RVm  rendeni,  •  As  for  Cnnaan  .  .  .'  ;  but  even  so  the  foUow- 
tng  verse  implies  thai  Kphraiui  had  imitated  Canaan. 


On  the  ol  her  hand,  the  silence  of  Ecclesiastes  as  to 
trade  still  illustrates  the  comparative  indillerence 
of  the  Palestinian  Jew  to  commerce.  Ec  3  does 
not  state  that  'there  is  a  time  to  buy  and  a  time 
to  sell.'  This  silence  is  the  more  signilicant  in  a 
book  written  in  the  name  of  Solomon,  the  merchant- 
king. 

The  restoration  of  Jewish  autonomy,  ind  the 
extension  of  their  territory  by  the  Maccabees,  must 
have  further  promoted  trade,  more  especially  the 
acquisition  of  Jojjpa  by  Simon  as  a  Jewish  port 
(1  Mac  14').  Thioughout  the  Persian  and  Greek 
periods  the  growing  commerce  of  the  Jewish  Dis- 
^lersion  (see  below)  must  have  done  something  to 
loster  trade  in  Palestine  ;  which  would  be  further 
encouraged  by  the  frequent  resort  of  the  Jews 
of  the  IJispersion  to  Jerusalem,  especially  for  the 
Passover. 

During  the  Roman  or  Hcrodian  period  tlie  same 
causes  were  at  work,  aide<i  by  tlie  security  and 
facility  of  communication  due  to  the  imperial 
government.  Uerzleld  (pp.  06-130)  shows  that  the 
Mishna  and  Jerusalem  Talmud  make  frequent 
references  to  the  trade  of  Palestine,  and  enumer- 
ates, mainly  from  these  souices,  135  foreign 
articles  imported  into  Palestine.  On  the  other 
hand,  Josephus  (c.  Apion.  i.  12)  denies  that  the 
Jews  occupied  any  territory  on  the  coast,  or 
cared  to  engage  in  commerce  :  'H/ifis  toiVi/k  oCre 
Xihpav  oUoO^ev  irapdXiov,  out'  ifnropiais  x^^P'^f^^''*  '^^^^ 
Tats  Tpbs  dWovs  oia  tovtuv  iinp-i^lais.  He  makes 
this  statement  to  explain  why  the  ancient  Greeks 
never  heard  of  the  Jews,  and  doubtless  handles 
his  facts  with  the  rhetorical  licence  of  an  advocate, 
more  suo.  Yet  his  words  probably  represent  the 
attitude  of  old-fashioned  Palestinian  Jews. 

The  Dispersion  of  the  Jews  which  began  with 
the  fall  of  Samaria  had,  before  the  beginning  of 
the  Christian  era,  scattered  Jewish  communities 
over  all  the  Mediterranean  lands,  together  with 
Arabia  and  the  ancient  Assyria  and  Babylonia. 
These  communities  are  found  in  all  the  great 
commercial  cities — Rome,  Ant  loch,  Thessalonica, 
Corinth,  Alexandria,  etc.  Their  circumstances 
militated  against  their  holding  land,  even  when 
it  was  nut  legally  forbidden  to  tliem ;  on  the 
other  hand,  their  relations  with  felluw-countrj'meu 
all  over  the  known  world  gave  them  then,  as  now, 
exceptional  facilities  for  commerce  ;  so  that  we 
may  conclude  that  the  Jews  of  the  Dispersion 
were  largely  occupied  with  commerce.  This  con- 
clusion i.s  supported  by  references  to  Jewish  mer- 
chants and  trade  in  various  countries.  ios.(A)it. 
XX.  ii.  3,  4)  mentions  a  Jewish  merchant  at  the 
court  of  Adiabene  ;  Philo  (in  Flaccum,  8)  mentions 
Jewish  shipmasters  and  merchants  at  Alexandria  ; 
and  Herzfeld  (p.  219)  quotes  Talmudic  references 
to  Jewish  traders  in  Mesopotamia. 

V.  TuAUE  Routes,  Maj;kets,  Harbours,  etc. 
— 1.  Transport  uf  Commuditics.  In  times  of  peace, 
in  the  more  settled  countries,  merchants  (cf.  above, 
'Terms'),  travelling  singly  or  in  small  companies, 
carried  their  wares  to  their  customers,  or  to  mar- 
kets (Neh  13""),  and  visited  the  scattered  farm- 
steads to  purchase  farm  proiluce,  or  clothing  made 
by  the  housewife  or  her  maids  (Pr  31-'^).  The  more 
iiiijiortant  international  traffic  was  carried  on  by 
caravans  of  camels  (Gn  37-°),  asses  ((in  42'-''  43'" 
4.5-=',  Ezr  '2'"),  mules  (2  K  5",  1  Ch  12'"'),  oxen 
(1  Ch  12''"),  and  slaves  (2  K  b'").  Horses  were  not 
used  OS  bea-sts  of  burden  or  for  draught,  only  for 
riding  and  chariots.  In  Gn  45"' -'■'■"  40'  waggons 
{'dgCduth)  are  sent  to  fetch  the  a<'ed  Jacoli  and 
the  women  and  children  (cf.  the  Egyp.  'acjvU,  a 
liaggago-waggon  drawn  by  oxen,  Erman,  Egypt, 
Eng.  tr.  p.  491).  In  Nu  7',  1  SO'  waggons  drawn 
by  oxen  are  used  to  carry  the  tabernacle  furni- 
ture and  the  ark.     In  the  pictures  of  convoys  of 


806    TRADE  AND  COMMERCE 


TRADE  AND  COMMERCE 


prisoners  taken   by   tl.e   Assyrians,   the   baf^sase 
and  the  sick  are   sometimes  carried  in  waggons 
(MisDcro     Anc.    Egypt    and    As.iyna,    i-ng.    tr. 
S      But  thereTno  mention  of .  waggons  in 
tlie  description  of  the  great  canuan  m  t-zr  .        , 
and   they  cannot  have  been  largely  used.      Ihe 
caravans\vere  usually  accompanied  by  an  arnied 
escort  (Ezr  8-^^).-2.  Trade  Eoutes.    Caravan  routes 
?ed   from  S  W.  Arabia  along  the  Red   Sea  from 
Elat    •    and  also  from    the    Persian  Gulf  across 
AK.bii  to  Petra.     From  Petra  there  7>:e/2}'te^ 
to  E"VPt,  to  Gaza,  and  along  the  east  of  the  Dead 
Sea  an^d  the  Jordan  to  Damascus.    The  gjeat  rou  e 
from  the  East  le.l  from  Babylon,  across  the  Euph- 
n.tes  and  the  desert,  by  the  oasis  of   1  almyra, 
o  the  Plain  of  Jezr'ee/and   the  Med  terranean. 
Another  route,  partly  coinciding  ^nth  this,  started 
from   Gilead,   passe/  over  the   P  «;'"  "4 f^'^'^^''^' 
and  went  on  by  Gaza  to  Egypt  (Gn  3,-=).      An- 
other route  went  from  Damascus  by  Scytliopo lis 
and  the  Plain  of  Jezreel  to  Accho.    I'roni  bcjtho- 
polls  routes  led  to  Samaria,  Shechem,  and  Jeru- 
salem     Also  from  Jerusalem  a  route  by  Jericho 
(Lk  10»»)  crossed  the  Jordan,  and  joined  the  route 
last  of  the  river;  other  routes  led  to  Joppa  (Ezr 
3'),  and,  in  NT  times  at  any  rate,  to  Gaza  Ac  8   ) 
and,  by  Antipatris,  to  Cssarea  (Ac  ^f  "■'-)■     l.'f 
combination  of  these  routes  connected  Baby  on  a, 
etc.,    Damascus,    Samana,    Phcenicia,    Pbilistia, 
Gilead,    Jerusalem,    Arabia,    and    Egypt-       ^"^ 
Roman  roads  in  Palestine  are  mostly  later  than 
the   Bible  period.     There  ^'^^-e  """^e^'^^"'""/ 
routes  (Herzfeld,  pp.  22,  46    141  ;G    A-   Smith 
/TGi/X  149-154,  388  ff.,  423-430,  59/ tt.,  626).     An 
important  Egyptian  caravan  route  led  fron,  Coptos 
on  the  Nile  to  Sauu  ( U'ddy  Gasus)  on  the  Red  Sea 
(Erman,  p.  505).     In  NT  times  a  great  system  ot 
Roman  roads  connected  the  East  with  Rome  ;  the 
most  important  route  was   Rome  to  Brun.lusium 
(Via  Appia),  and  from  Dyrrachium by  Thessalomca 
to  UyzsLntinm  (Via  Egnatia).  -,1,  fi.a 

Bv  sea  there  was  traffic  from  Babylonia  with  the 
East  by  the  Persian  Gulf  ;  from  Edom  and  Egypt 
with  the  East  from  ports  on  the  Red  Sea  ;  from  the 
Phoenician  cities  with  all  the  Mediterranean  lands 
and  the  farther  West.  A  similartrade  existed, 
chiefly  in  the  hands  of  the  Plia;nician3  and  the 
Greeks,  from  the  coast  of  the  Delta.  T  "s  de- 
veloped  immensely  after  the  foundation  of  Alex- 
andria. The  rivers  Euphrates,  Tigris,  and  the  NUe 
were  great  trade  routes.  ,  „       „ 

The  chief  seaports  of  Syria  are  Tyre  and  ZlDON, 
and  the  other   Phoenician  cities,  and  JOPPA  (ct. 

.above).  ,  _     ,    ,,, 

As  to  markets,  the  Maktf.sh  of  Zeph  1"  seems 
to  have  been  a  trading  quarter  of  the  Phcenicians 
in  Jerusalem  ;  and  Dt  33i«- '»  has  been  supposed  to 
refer  to  a  fair  connected  with  a  religious  festival 
held  on  the  borders  of  Zebulun  and  Phojnicia. 
Markets  must  have  existed  in  the  cities,  and  e  se- 
whcre,  probably  especially  in  the  neighbourhood  of 
'lii<'h  places,'  but  ancient  Israel  had  no  'commercial 
cities  ^  In  the  NT  the  market-place  (aaora)  is  often 
referred  to  (Mt  ll'Setc.) ;  and  we  read  of  a  market 
held  in  the  temple . precincts  (Mk  11",  Jn  2' )• 
Herzfeld  (pp.  130,  324)  gives  Talmudical  references 
to  shops  and  markets,  especially  some  that  seem  to 
imply  weekly  markets  on  Monday  and  1  hursday. 

In  some  cases  Israel  enjoyed  the  privilege  of  a 
tradin"  quarter,  'streets'  or  bazaars,  in  foreign 
cities  ;°and  granted  similar  privUeges  to  foreigners 

(1  K  20»^,  Zeph  1").  ^L      u-  t  f 

vi.  Articles  of  Commebck.— The  chief  exports 
from  Palestine  were  com,  oil,  wine,  balsam,  smces, 
cattle,  wool,  fish,  and  slaves.  Honey,  balsam, 
wheat,  and  oil  were  exi.orted  to  Pliuinicia  (IK  5  , 
Ezr  3',  Ezk  27",  Ac  12-"),  also  oaks  from  Bashan 
(Ezk  27«).     To  Egypt  were  exported  spices,  balm. 


myrrh,  honey,  pistachio  nuts,  almonds,  oil  (G"  37" 
4^1'   Hos  12').     For  the  slave-trade  see  Serv.\NT. 


Other  exports  may  be  interred  f™'"  t'^e  ^.^''^t^"^* 
of  fertile  vineyards  and  pasture  lands,  and  of  the 
fisheries  on  the  Sea  of  Galilee.  Every  article  grown 
or  manufactured  in  Palestine  would  be  exported  at 
some  time  or  another ;  at  any  rate,  in  small  quan- 
thies.  Conversely,  most  of  the  products  of  countriea 
with  which  the  Jews  had  commercial  relations 
would  be  imported  at  some  tune  or  another  ct 
above  §iii.).  But  the  chief  imports  were  timber 
:„d  artisani  from  Phcenicia  (1  K  5"  Ezr  3  ) ;  corn 
horses,  and  chariots  from  Egypt  (Gn  41  ,  1  K 
10^  29  Dt  17'«) ;  gold  and  silver,  spices,  timber, 
precious  stones,  ivory,  apes  and  Peacocks  gold  and 
silver  plate  and  ornaments,  armour,  and  nmles  f^rom 
Arabia,  Ophir,  and  other  countries  IK  10  ), 
wool  and  sheep  from  Moab  (2  K  3*,  Is  16'). 

The  special  products  of  each  district  would  be 
articles  of  internal  commerce  with  other  districts  ; 
farm  produce  was  sold  in  the  cities  ;  the  produc  s 
of  the  industry  of  the  cities  were  bought  for  the 
country;  and  foreign  imports  ^vere  distributed  fi^om 
the  cities  through  the  country  Salt  (see  SALT)  ^as 
supplied  from  the  districts  by  the  Dead  Sea  ;  cattle, 
wool,  etc.,  from  the  pastures  to  the  east  and  south 
corn,  etc.,  from  the  fertile  arable  land  in  Esdraelon 

'"'ifong  lisrof  the  articles  of  Tyrian  commerce  is 

^'vii"  The^  Government  and  Commerce.— Both 
in  Israel  and  elsewhere,  commerce  was  often  earned 
on  bv  the  kings  themselves,  e.g.  Solomon  Uiram 
a  K  10=^)!  andljehoshaphat  (1  K  22«).  The  pres- 
ents  interchanged  between  fnen'lly^P,"'"'^ J^^^^ 
really  barter  on  a  large  scale  ;  in  the  Tel  el- Amama 
tablets  the  kings  of°  Eg>pt  haggle  ON-er  the  exact 
value  of  the  'presents'  they  give  and  receive  in 
true  Oriental  fashion  (Winckler,  p.  61  f.).  llie 
tribute  from  dependent  States,  the  'presents  or 
prices  paid  for  princesses  given  in  mf"''?,!''^' ^\"! 
a  one-sided  commerce  carried  on  for  the  benefit  of 

*^Thrfoveniments  of  ancient  States  intervened, 
as  we  have  seen,  to  obtain  special  trading  piivi; 
le"es  for  their  subjects  in  foreign  countries  (1  K 
ou") ;  also  to  secure  for  them  protection  and  re- 
dress   for  injuries  (Winckler,    Amama    Tablets, 

^'Irom  the  analo-y  of  other  States  we  should 
suppose  that  the  f/raelite  kings  levied  taxes  on 
mports  and  exports,  and  tolls  on  merchandise 
passing  through  the  country.  In  one  of  the 
Cam°a  tablet's  (Winckler  p.  93)  a  fo-^e-gn  k'"!, 
stipulates  that  his  property  « >''^1' J?°  ,^^^«„^tms 
with  by  the  customs  of  Egypt.  In  >T  the  customs 
officers  of  the  Herods  anitfie  Romans  are  referred 
to  (Mk  2"  etc.)  ;  see  Publican. 

viii.  commerce  of  the  Roman  Empire.  -  In 
NT  times  the  empire  possessed  a  highly  developed 
and  elaborate  commercial  system,  largely  adnnin*- 
tered  by  great  trading  corporations,  and  involving 
credit  and  other  features  of  modem  banking.  The 
most  important  branch  of  Roman  commerce  >vas 
the  corn  trade  between  Egypt  and  Rome  (Ac  27 

^^ix'  ETHICS  OF  Commerce.  -  The  Bible  deals 
directly  with  only  two  or  three  elementary  points, 
such  as  the  duty  of  fair  dealing,  and  the  danger  of 
greed  of  gain  (see  Servant).  MnvFV 

On  the  general  subject  cf.  the  articles  MONEY, 
Solomon,  WEALTH;  also  the  articles  on  countries, 
dress,  ornaments,  etc. 

I  iTPRATLUE  -Nowttck,  Lfhrb.  itr  Ueh.  Arch.  \.  pp.  247-251; 

\LmT^^!^DuV:^al^n  VerLuniM.  der  I^aditen,  pp.  76 


;  8charer,'H^P(' Trade,'  In  Index). 


.  Bennett. 


TKADES 


TRANSFIGUKATIO^■,  THE       SO? 


TRADES. — It  was  an  ancient  custom  and  law 
among  tlie  Jews  tliat  every  l>oy  must  learn  a 
trade,  not  necessarily  as  a  means  of  livelihood, 
but  as  a  precautionary  measure  against  destitu- 
tion, if  fortune  failed,  and  the  temjitations  of  an 
idle  life.  One  of  the  Kubbinic  sayings  is,  '  He 
that  teaches  not  his  son  a  trade,  is  as  it  he  taught 
him  to  be  a  thief  ;  and  another,  '  He  that  hath 
a  trade  in  his  hands  is  as  a  vine3-ard  that  is 
fenced,'  i.e.  he  will  be  secure  from  the  dangers 
of  temptation  and  want.  Many  of  their  great 
Kahbis  are  known  by  tlieir  surname  of  trade,  e.ij. 
'  Rabbi  Johanan  the  shoemaker,  Rabbi  Isaac  the 
blacksmith,'  etc.  The  two  illustrious  doctors  who 
founded  tlie  schools  known  by  their  names — Ilillel 
and  .Shammai — not  long  before  the  Christian  era, 
had  been  taught  trades ;  and  the  latter,  who  was 
a  mason,  continued  to  take  a  i)ractical  interest 
in  his  handicraft,  even  wlien  he  was  vice-president 
of  the  Sanhedrin  and  had  a  large  following  of 
students.  So  also  St.  I'aul,  who  was  destined  for 
the  Rabbinic  oliice,  was  taught  tent-making,  prob- 
ably before  he  left  Tarsus,  his  native  city,  to  sit 
at  the  feet  of  Gamaliel  in  Jerus.  and  learn  from 
him  the  intricacies  of  Jewish  law.  This  was  of 
great  use  to  him  after  his  conversion,  when  he 
was  often  compelled  to  maintain  himself  by  his 
labour  (Ac  18^) ;  so  that  he  was  able  to  say, 
'  Neither  did  we  eat  bread  for  naught  at  any 
man's  hand,  but  in  labour  and  travail,  working 
niglit  and  day,  that  wo  might  not  burden  any  of 
you'(2Th  3"). — In  many  handicrafts  tlie  ancients 
attained  a  very  high  degree  of  excellence,  and 
the  Hebrews  must  have  learned  much  from  the 
Egyptians  and  Phccnicians.  Tiie  pyramids,  tem- 
ples, and  tombs  of  Kgj^pt,  the  temples  of  Greece 
and  Jerus.  and  Baalbek,  and  the  images  of  gods 
and  men,  show  a  knowledge  of  masonry  and  sculp- 
ture which  modern  skill  can  hardly  equal,  wliile 
in  the  work  of  the  goldsmith  and  jeweller  the 
ornaments  belonging  to  a  queen  of  the  11th 
dyn.asty  (about  B.C.  2000),  which  were  lately  found 
in  Dahshur,  are  said  by  good  judges  to  be  unsur- 
passed for  beauty  and  finish  in  the  present-day 
markets  of  Paris  or  London.  The  Tyrian  purjile 
dj'es,  the  rich  colouring  on  Egvp.  tombs,  the  ele- 
gant vases  of  potterj'  and  goUf,  the  linen  fabrics 
of  the  loom,  and  other  products  of  manual  work 
so  copiously  depicted  on  Egyp.  walls,  all  tell  the 
same  story  of  the  high  civilization  in  art  of  those 
times.  —  'I'he  principal  trades  mentioned  in  the 
Bible  are  those  of  smiths  and  armourers  (I  S  1."?'"), 
coppersmiths  (2  Ti  4'''),  goldsmiths  (Is  40"),  jewellers 
(Hos  2"),  masons  (2  K  12'-),  carpenters  (Mt  13"), 
tentniakers  (Ac  18'),  potters  (La  4'''),  tanners  (Ac 
9"),  Ushers  (Is  19»),  bakers  (Jer  37^').  barbers  (Ezk 
5').  Spinning,  weaving,  and  sewing  were  chiefly 
the  work  of  women  (1  S  2'°,  Pr  31'*).  .See  separate 
articles  on  the  above  subjects.        J.  WoRTAUET. 

TRANCE  (^kcTTOffis).  —  While  in  class.  Greek 
iKaraaii  has  the  meaning  of  frenzj',  in  Bib.  Greek 
it  is  not  found  in  this  strong  sense,  but  means 
either  distraction  of  mind  due  to  fear  or  astonish- 
ment (Ps  16"  LXX,  Ac  3'"),  or  religious  rapture 
(Ac  10'"  11°).  In  the  strict  sense,  religious  ecstasy 
denotes  a  state  in  which  the  mind  is  so  dominate<l 
by  emotional  excitement  that  sensibility  to  external 
impressions,  the  free  activity  of  the  intellect,  and 
the  initiative  and  control  of  the  will,  are  for  the 
moment  in  abeyance.  Its  signilicaiico  as  a  medium 
of  revelations  was  found  precisely  in  this  suppres- 
sion of  the  ordinary  mental  functions,  the  mind 
being  regarded  as  under  the  control  of  the  Deity, 
and  therefore  as  His  instrument.  Ecstasy  has 
been,  and  is,  a  more  or  less  familiar  phenomcinm 
in  almost  all  religions,  more  especially  in  times  of 
religious  excitement.     While  occurring  spontane- 


ously, recourse  has  often  been  had  to  arfilici.al 
means,  such  as  the  concentration  of  the  iiiitul  on 
an  abstract  idea  or  significant  word,  fasting,  lixing 
of  the  look,  seclusion,  whirling  and  bodily  contor- 
tion— above  all,  music  and  dancing.  In  the  early 
davs  of  Heb.  prophecy  such  stimulants  were  not 
unknown  (1  S  10',  2  Iv  3").  When,  however,  we 
come  to  the  canonical  prophets,  there  can  no 
longer  be  any  question  of  ecstasy  in  the  sense  of  a 
morbid  state.  What  is  indicated  by  such  expres- 
sions as  '  the  hand  of  the  Loni>  was  upon  me '  is 
rather  a  religious  exaltation  of  spirit,  in  which  the 
free  activity  of  the  mind  is  not  suppressed  but 
heightened.  Such  a  state  lies  behind  vision  as  its 
psychological  condition.  See  V'isioM.  The  prophets 
never  appeal  to  the  abnormal  character  of  their 
experience  as  authenticating  their  message.  In 
the  Apostolic  Church  we  find  a  revival  of  ecstasy 
in  the  stricter  sense,  as  an  accompaniment  of  the 
fresh  and  often  violent  religious  awakening  (1  Co 
\i-"-,  Ac  2'^).  It  found  expression  in  rapt  utter- 
ances. While  yielding  a  certain  recognition  to 
this  gift  of  tongues  St.  Paul  indicates  that  it  was 
apt  to  breed  confusion  (1  Co  14^-^),  and  he  places 
it  under  strict  rule.  He  himself  had  also  the 
gift  of  tongues,  but  he  does  not  set  great  store 
I'y  it  (1  Co  W]  •  and  while  he  relates  a  marvel- 
lous ecstatic  experience  of  his  own  (2  Co  12-"'-),  he 
nowhere  traces  his  doctrines  to  such  a  source.  His 
allusion  to  this  experience  is  too  vague  to  admit 
of  its  character  being  precisely  defined.  See, 
further,  the  articles  on  PROPHET. 

W.  Morgan. 

TRANSFIGURATION,  THE The  word  comes 

from  tnnix/ii/iinitii.i  e.<it,  the  Vulg.  tr.  oi inrcfioptpiiBri 
in  the  narratives  of  Matt,  and  Mark.  Elsewhere 
this  verb  is  rendered  either  reforinari  (Ro  I2-)  or 
transformari  (2  Co  3'*).  The  event  which  it  desig- 
nates is  recorded  thrice  (Mt  17'"*,  Mk  9-"",  Lk9^*') 
and  alluded  to  once  (2  P  l'«-i»)  in  NT.  The  narra- 
tives of  Matt,  and  M.ark  agree  closely  in  wording. 
But  Matt,  alone  records  that  when  the  disciples 
heard  the  voice  they  fell  on  their  faces ;  and  that 
Jesus  came  and  touched  them  and  said, '  Arise,  and 
be  not  afraid.'  Mark  alone  has  the  words,  '  so  as  no 
fuller  on  earth  can  whiten  them.'  Luke  is  more 
independent.  Excepting  as  regards  Peter's  ex- 
clamation and  the  voice  from  heaven,  his  wording 
is  mainly  his  own  ;  and  even  in  Peter's  words  he 
renders  'liabbi'  by  his  favourite  'ETnarara,  where 
Matt,  has  Ki'/pie.  Luke  alone  tells  us  that  Jesus 
went  up  the  mount  to  pra;/,  and  that  He  was  pray- 
ing when  He  was  transfigured.  In  exjiressing  the 
Transfiguration  he  avoids  iierefiopipwOii  (which  might 
have  suggested  to  Gentile  readers  the  meta- 
morphoses of  heathen  deities),  and  substitutes  the 
chaiacteristio  iytviTo  Irepov.  And  he  alone  tells 
us  that  Moses  and  Elijah  were  talking  of  Christ's 
lioSoi  at  Jerusalem,  and  that  the  disciples  were 
heavy  with  sleep. 

The  main  questions  respecting  this  unique  inci- 
dent in  the  life  of  Christ  are  those  as  to  the  place, 
the  nature,  and  the  signilicance  of  it. 

(1)  As  to  the  'high  mountain'  (Matt.,  Mark), 
which  when  2  Pet.  was  written  had  become  '  the 
holy  mountain,'  there  are  two  traditions,  which  cjin 
be  traced  to  the  4th  century,  (a)  That  it  was  the 
Mt.  of  Olircs.  This  is  incredible.  Both  before  and 
after  the  Transliguration  Christ  is  in  Galilee.  And 
the  Mt.  of  Olives  would  not  have  been  called  liiptjXdv. 
(;3)  That  it  was  .Mt.  Julmr.  This  is  near  enough 
to  Ca^sarea  Philippi  to  be  possible  ;  an<l,  although 
it  is  only  about  1700  ft.  above  the  sea,  it  appears 
to  be  III  lull  higher,  and  commamis  a  very  extensiva 
view.  But  it  is  not  probable.  Just  a  week  (' six 
days,'  Matt.,  Mark;  'about  eight  days,'  Luke) 
belore  this  event  Christ  was  at  Ciesarea  Philippi. 
After  it  He  went  through  Galilee  toCapemaum(Mk 


808 


TRAVAIL 


TREASURE,  TREASURER,  TREASURY 


9»-  ^,  Mt  17"-  ^)  on  His  way  to  Jenisalem.  Would 
He  have  gone  from  Coesarea  Pliilippi  past  Cajier- 
naura  to  Tabor,  and  then  back  to  Capernaum  ?  A 
much  more  serious  objection  is  that  at  this  time  there 
■was  a  vilhige  or  town  on  Tabor,  wluch  Josephus 
fortilied  against  Vespasian  (BJvf.  i.  8,  II.  xx.  G  ;  of. 
Ant.  XIV.  vi.  3) ;  so  that  the  necessary  solitude  (/tar' 
ISlav,  Matt.,  Mark)  could  hardly  be  found  there. 
Yet  Cyril  of  Jerusalem  (Catcch.  xii.  16)  regards  it 
as  certain ;  and  through  the  great  influence  of 
Jerome  this  tradition  became  widely  accepted.  In 
the  Greek  Church  the  Feast  of  the  Transhguration 
(Aug.  6)  is  called  t6  Qafiuptov.  l!ut  (7)  the  best 
modern  \\Titers  prefer  Jft.  Ucrmon  (Keim,  Lichten- 
stein.  Porter,  Schatf,  Stanley,  Kitter,  Robinson, 
Trench,  Tristram).  It  is  over  9000  ft.  high,  and 
could  easily  be  reached  ia  much  less  than  a  week 
from  C:esarea  Philippi. 

(2)  Christ  calls  the  event  a  'vision,'  <pa/ia  (Mt 
17"),  which  does  not  mean  that  it  was  unreal.  It 
was  not  one  person's  optical  delusion,  but  a  vision 
granted  to  three  persons  at  once.  It  was  a  Divine 
revelation,  the  manner  of  which  is  unknown  to  us. 
We  can  neither  athrm  nor  deny  that  Moses  and 
Elijah,  who  had  both  been  taken  from  the  earth  in 
a  s\ipernatural  way,  were  there  in  the  body,  or  only 
in  the  spirit,  or  not  at  all,  except  by  representation. 
That  the  event  is  historical  is  shown  by  the  three 
harmonious  accounts,  by  tiie  intelligible  connexion 
with  what  precedes  and  follows,  and  by  the  im- 
probability that  an  inventor  would  have  invented 
the  prohibition  to  speak  of  it.  Matt,  gives  Christ's 
prohibition  j  Luke  states  that  the  disciples  kept 
silence ;  Mark  records  both  the  prohibition  and  their 
obedience.  There  is  no  suspicious  similarity  be- 
tween  this  event  and  the  Transliguration  of  Moses, 

!  although  Strauss  and  Keira  maintain  that  there  is. 
And  the  silence  of  John  is  no  ditliculty,  for  he  would 
readily  omit  what  liad  been  so  often  told  before. 
The  allusion  in  2  Pet.  is  evidence  of  what  was  com- 
monly believed  when  that  letter  was  written.  That 
a  fact  corresponding  to  all  this  e\-idence  took  place 
is  the  most  reasonable  explanation  of  the  evidence. 

(3)  The  meaning  of  the  event  is  more  within  our 
comprehension  than  the  manner  of  it.  Whether  it 
is  correct  to  call  it  '  the  culminating  point  in 
Christ's  public  ministry '  or  '  the  great  dividing 
line  in  the  life '  is  not  certain.  That  in  consequence 
of  it  a  '  sense  of  urgency  and  of  the  immediateness 
of  a  great  crisis  weighs  upon  the  Lord '  is  more 
than  we  know.  It  was  a  foretaste  of  Christ's  glory 
both  in  earth  and  in  heaven.  As  such  it  served  to 
strengthen  the  disciples,  who  had  been  greatly 
disturbed  by  the  prediction  of  Christ's  suilbrings 
and  death ;  and  to  this  end  they  were  allowed  to 
listen  to  Moses  and  Elijah  talking  with  Him  about 
His  death,  and  to  hear  the  heavenly  voice,  which 
had  proclaimed  His  Divine  Sonship  previous  to 
His  ministry,  proclaim  the  same  previous  to  His 
Passion.  It  snowed  them  the  supernatural  char- 
acter of  His  kingdom.  It  helped  them  to  see  that 
the  OT  being  fulfilled  by  Christ  is  done  away  Ln 
Christ.  Mosesand  Elijah  vanish,  and  '  Jesusalone' 
(Matt.,  Mark,  Luke)  remains.  To  Christ  Himself 
it  may  have  had  signilicance  also.  Whether  or  not 
it  conveyed  to  Him  any  larger  knowledge  of  His 
Father's  will,  this  foretaste  of  His  glory  may  have 
helped  Him  to  bear  the  prospect  of  His  approaching 
suHerings.  He  accepted  the  strengthening  of  an 
angel  in  Gethsemane,  and  may  have  accepted 
some  analogous  strengthening  on  the  mount. 

LiTRRATURB. — See  Comm.  and  Lives  of  Christ ;  also  the  Diet, 
and  Kiicyc.  articlee  on  'Transtlgunition  '  and  *  Verlilarung.'  See 
also  'The  Sl^'nificance  o(  the  Transfiguration,'  by  W.  J.  Moulton, 
la  Bihl.  and  Sem.  Studiet  (Yale  Univ.),  1901,  pp.  157-210. 

A.  Plummer. 
TRAVAIL. — In  modem  editions  of  AV  a  distinc- 
tion  has   gradually  arisen  between  '  travail '  and 


'  travel,'  the  former  being  used  when  the  meaning 
is  to  labour  (or  as  subst.  for  'labour,'  'trouble'), 
especially  in  childbirth,  the  latter  wlien  it  is 
simply  to  journey.  But  in  the  editions  of  1611 
tliore  was  no  such  distinction.  Thus  in  1611  Mt 
25"  reads,  '  For  the  kingdome  of  heaven  is  as  a 
man  travaUing  into  a  fane  countrey ' ;  but  Is  21" 
'  In  the  forest  in  Arabia  shall  yee  lodge,  O  yee 
travelling  companies  of  Dedanim.'  So  in  Ec  4*  we 
lind  '  .4gaine  I  considered  all  travaile ' ;  but  in  4* 
'  Better  is  an  handfuU  with  quietnesse,  then  both 
the  hands  full  with  travell  and  vexation  of  spirit.' 
Nor  have  the  editors  or  printers  carried  out  their 
distinction  completely.  In  La  3^  '  He  hath  .  .  . 
compassed  me  with  gall  and  travel,'  the  spelling  of 
AV  is  retained  in  mod.  editions  (Cov.  '  travayle,' 
RV  '  travail ').  In  Nu  20'*  tlie  sense  has  evidently 
been  missed,  the  wider  meaning  of  toil  and  trouble 
in  the  wilderness  being  taken  as  if  it  were  merely 
the  marching  through  it :  AV  1611, '  Thou  knowest 
all  the  travaile  that  hath  befallen  us'  (mod.  edd. 
'  travel,'  RV  '  travaU '). 

Tlie  Eng.  word  i8  simply  the  Fr.  travail,  toil,  trouble,  the 
origin  of  which  is  unknown.  In  Cotgrave's  French  Dictionary 
travttii  is  described  as  '  travell,  toyle,  teene,  labour,  business, 
paines-tattin-,',  trouble,  molestation,  care.'  Travelling,  which  is 
now  undertaiien  for  pleasure,  was  so  conspicuous  a  form  of  toil 
and  trouble  that  it  appropriated  the  name.  The  change  of 
spelling  was  assisted  by  the  fact  that  'traveil'  was  another 
variety  of  spelling  in  early  use.  Thus  in  Ec  2'^  AV  1611,  '  For 
all  his  dayes  are  sorrowes,  and  his  traveile,  griefe.'  The  mean- 
ing  was  sometimes  '  be  weary,'  as  Is  4{pi  Wya  *  Who  foraothe 
hopen  in  the  Lord,  shul  chaunge  strengthe,  take  to  federes  as 
of  an  egle  ;  rennen,  and  not  travailen  ;  gon,  and  not  faylen.' 
For  the  spelling  *  travel '  for  labour  cf.  Gosson,  Schoote  of  Abuse, 
41,  '  I  burnt  one  candle  to  seek  another,  and  lost  both  my  time 
and  my  Lravell  when  I  had  doone' ;  and  in  the  sense  of  labour 
in  childbirth,  U.all,  Works,  ii.  11,  '  If  the  house  of  David  had 
not  lost  all  mercy  and  good  nature,  a  Daughter  and  [of]  David 
could  not  so  neere  the  time  of  her  travell  have  bin  destitute  of 
lodging  in  the  city  of  David.'  J.  HASTINGS. 

TREASON.— This  word   occurs  in   EV   only  in 

1  K  16^  (of  Zimri)  and  2  K  ll»  =  2Ch  23'^  (the 
exclamation  of  Athaliah).  In  these  instances  it 
had  better  have  been  rendered  '  conspiracy,'  the 
tr.  of  the  same  Heb.  term  (i^'p)  in  RV  of  Is  8'^ 
(AV  '  confederacy  '  ;  for  justification  of  the  read- 
ing ■'5'S  against  Seeker,  Lowth,  Lagarde,  Stade, 
ct  al.,  who  emend  ay,  see  Cheyne,  Introd.  to  Is. 
40  ;  LXX  has  aK\Tjpi>i>  =  n^'s),  and  in  AV  and  RV  of 

2  S  15'2,  2  K  17S  Jer  IP,  Ezk  2'22».  Cf.  the  use  of 
the  verb  irp  in  1  S  22a-  is_  2  S  15^',  1  K  15^  16''«, 
2K  9'*  10»  12-'"  (  =  2Ch  2425'-)  14'"  (  =  2Ch  25^) 
1510. 16. 25.  30  2i2i.  24  ( ^ 2  ch  33-"-  =»),  2  Ch  24^',  Neh  i^. 
Am  7'°,  in  all  of  which  both  AV  and  RV  render  by 
'conspire,'  'make  conspiracj','  or  'be  a  conspirator.' 

J.  A.  Selbie. 

TREASURE,  TREASURER,  TREASURY.— The 
word  '  treasure '  is  used  in  EV  in  two  distinct 
senses,  which  are  approximately  represented  in 
English  by  '  store'  and  '  storehouse'  respectively. 
The  same  amliiguity  of  meaning  (which  might  be 
avoided  in  English  by  uniformly  employing  '  trea- 
sure' for  the  one  sense  and  '  treasury  for  the  other, 
or  by  abolishing  the  latter  term  altogether  and  re- 
placing it  by  '  storehouse '  or  the  like)  attaches  to 
some  of  the  words  wliich  in  the  original  of  the  OT 
are  the  source  of  these  renderings. 

(1)  'Treasure'  in  the  sense  of  store  u-sually 
stands  for  Heb.  iv'in  (generally  plur.  n'njix)  :  of 
gold,  silver,  costly  utensils,  etc.,  Jos  6'"-  •*  (the 
vessels  found  in  Jericho  [AV  and  RV  have  here 
'  treasury,'  which  is  not  so  suitable  a  tr.  as  '  trea- 
sure '  or  '  store  ']),  Is  '2'  30'  45'  ('  treasures  of  dark- 
ness,' i.e.  concealed,  hoarded  treasures),  Hos  13", 
Jer  15'»  IV  20»  48'  49*  b\^,  1  K  H^'",  2  K  24'^"", 
perhaps  also  Is  3'J^-  *,  although  this  should  pcihaps 
come  under  (2)  ;  wealth  in  general,  Pr  lo'^  21«'  * 
1  Ch  29"  (the  contributions  for  the  building  of  tha 
t«mple  [here  both  AV  and  RV  have  rightly  '  trea- 
sure,' but,  strangely  enough,  RV  gives  'treasury 


TREASUEE,  TREASUEER,  TREASURY 


TREE 


808 


Id  tlie  similar  passage,  Ezr  2"  =  ><eli  7"'],  called  in 
1  Ch  29'*  pc.i,  lit.  '  crond,'  '  abundance,'  AV  and 
RV  '  store,'  cf.  2  Ch  SI'")  ;  of  stores  of  food,  drink, 
etc.,1  Cli  27-'- ^^lAV  and  KV 'increase'),  2  Ch  11" 
(AV  and  KV  'store');  lij:;.  '  treasures  of  wicked- 
ness' (Mic  6'°,  I'r  10=),  '  the  fear  of  the  LOKD  is  his 
treasure '  (Is  33"). 

"TreMure"  standi  in  OT  also  tori.  Jjh,  lit  '  rtrenifth ' :  Pr  15«, 
Elk  22»  (AV  and  UV  In  iKjth  •  treasure').  The  Heb.  tenn 
Ov.vun»  &l80  in  la  S3^  (AV  *Blreiij;th,'  KV  'abundance'),  Jer  2\fi 
(AV  ' utrenglh ',  RV  'riches'),  Pr  2"3«  (AV  and  KV  •  riches 'j. 

2.  pDr5  *hidiUn  (treasureX'  V  |DD  'conceal':  On  4^23  (of 
money  hid  in  the  sacks  of  Joseph's  brothers),  Is  459  (treasures 
at  present  hidden  are  to  become  the  spoil  of  C.vrus),  Jer  4is 
(AV  '  treasures,'  RV  'stores,'  of  wheat,  barley,  oil,  and  honey 
hidden  in  a  field).  Job  3-i  (^uuie  lon(j  for  death  as  for  hid 
treasures),  Pr  t*  (wisdom  is  to  be  sought  for  like  hid  treasures). 

3.  The  aarae  is  the  meaning  of  D'j?^7  in  Dn  1148,  where, 
indeed,  it  is  possible  that  we  ought  to  read  D'JC*.:p.  4.  niil^"?, 
from  /  po  'to  be  of  use,'  'to  benefit'  (see  below  for  the 
examples  of  lui  use).  S.  Tir;;  (Kgrt)  or  Tn^  (Ketli.),  in  plur. 
D^'nTri;^,  Is  10'3,  lit.  '  the  things  prepared  or  provided  for 
them,'  AV  and  RV  '  their  treasures.'  6.  The  combination  '^^ 
Sin  'jior  (RV  '  the  hidden  treasures  of  the  sand'),  Dt  331^,  may 
allude  to  the  wealth  derived  from  the  manufacture  of  glass  (see 
Driver,  ad  loc.).  1.  -1S3,  prop.  •  precious  ore,'  Job  ^i*"-  ^  (AV  in 
first  'gold,'  in  second  'defence,'  RV  in  both  'treasure,'  m. 
'ore").  8.  For  Mai  3i7  ('a  peculiar  treasure')  see  art.  Jewel. 
e.  C'j2i5,  Ob  » (AV  '  hidden  things,'  RV  '  hidden  treasures  ). 

'Treasure'  in  NT  is  always  B-qaavpbt  except  in 
Ac  8",  where  the  word  ydia.  from  the  Persian  is 
used  of  the  tix'.isure  of  queen  Candace.  97j<raupis 
occurs  in  Mt  2"  (of  the  treasures  carried  by  the 
nia-i),  6"' ••"•»!  ||  Lk  12^-^  (of  the  treasures  of 
earth  contrasted  with  those  of  heaven  ;  cf.  the 
treasure  in  heaven  spoken  of  in  Mt  19-'  ||  Mk  10'-' 
and  Lk  18~),  Mt  13"  (the  kingdom  of  heaven  is 
like  treasure  hid  in  a  field  ;  cf.  the  above  OT 
j/a-ssages  Jer  41",  Job  3",  Pr  Q*),  He  U-"'  ('  the  trea- 
sures of  Egypt');  fig.  in  2  Co  4'  ('we  have  this 
treasure  in  earthen  vessels ' ;  see  art.  POTTER,  p. 
iSf"),  Col  2'  ('in  Christ  are  all  the  treasures  of 
wisdom  hid '). 

(2)  '  Treasure  or  '  treasury '  in  the  sense  of 
storehouse  is  almost  alwajs  the  tr.  in  OT  of  n'3 
irn  :  Neh  ICP  (cf.  12"  and  Dn  1-),  Mai  3'°  (AV 
and  RV  'storehouse') ;  or,  more  frequentlv,  witli- 
out  then'i:  1  K  7"  IS'""',  2  K  12"*  14"  Hii*  1S'», 
Jer  38"  50^  (lig.  of  Jahweh's  armourv)  v."(?),  Dt 
32"  (the  guilt  of  the  heathen  is  sealetl  up  in  God's 
treasury  till  the  day  of  retribution  come ;  see 
Driver,  ad  loc. ),  1  Ch  9=«  26"  "-'  »^-  «• »  28'"",  2  Ch 
5'  IGM?)  3-S-^  (cf.  Ezk  28*),  Jl  1"  (AV  and  RV 
'garners'),  Pr  8-',  Neh  13'2- '».  Cf.  the  use  of 
nijjf ?  in  2  Ch  3'2®.  ijin  is  used  fig.  of  God's  store- 
houses for  rain,  snow,  hail,  wind,  sea,  in  Dt  28'-, 
Job  38"'"',  Jer  10"  51",  Ps  33'  135'  ;  cf.  the  use  of 
O'jiEf  in  Job  20=*. 

In  the  king's  '  treasure  house '  of  Ezr  5"  (r;ij?  n'3, 
cf.  6'  and  7-")  the  archives  of  the  kingdom  were 
kept.  In  Est  3"  4'  the  treasury  of  the  Persian 
king  appears  under  the  name  il^sn  "i}}  ;  cf.  the 
likewise  Persian  name  m;;  in  1  Ch  '28". 

We  read  of  'treasure  (RV  'store')  cities'  ('-'ji; 
rSi7f!;)  in  Ex  1"  [J],  1  K  9'"  (  =  2Ch  8»),  2  Ch  8* 
17".  For  the  custom  of  storing  up  provisions  in 
particular  cities  cf.  Gn  41**-  ",  and  see  an  account 
of  the  granaries  and  'store  houses'  of  ancient 
Egypt  in  Maspuro,  Dawn  of  Civilization,  284. 

ror  the  chanibeis  (n^Dp^)  or  cells  used  for  storage 
puri)08e»  in  the  temple  see  next  article. 

In  the  NT  '  treasure '  =  ' treasury  '  is  (a)  flTjffoupAj : 
Mt  12"  II  Lk  6"  (the  (jood  or  evil  treasury  of  the 
heart)  13"  ('  which  bnngeth  out  of  his  treasury 
things  new  and  old ') ;  (5)  once,  Mt  27',  it  is 
Kopffai'os  (from  Heb.  (TliJ ;  see  CoKIiAN),  'place  of 
(wicred]  gifts'  ;  (c)  ya{o<pv\iKioy  ;  see  next  article  ; 
((/)  in  Lk  I'i"  ('  wiiich  have  neither  storehouse  tmr 
barn ')  the  word  for  'ttorehouso'  is  rosier  [in  Dt 


28'  and  Pr  3'"  for  the  Heb.  O'eCN ;  AV  in  former 
'storehouses,'  RV  'barns,'  which  is  atlopted  by 
both  versions  in  the  latter]. 

Treasurer  occurs  as  follows.  1.  Neh  12"  '  I 
made  treasurers  (Hiph.  of  -isn)  over  the  store- 
houses' (ni-i)(inn-S;',  AV  and  RV  'treasuries'). 
2.  Ezr  1'  'MiTHKEDATH  the  treasurer';  7"  'I, 
Artaxerxes,  make  a  decree  to  all  the  treasurers.' 
The  terra  (found  also  in  Aram.,  New  Heb.,  and 
Syr.)  here  used  is  i;i3,  plur.  k;1|!?,  a  loan-word 
from  the  Persian  ganjvar,  Pehlevi  ganzavar.  3. 
Dn  3'''  Aram.  k.'I^'jj  (plur.  einphat.).  This  may 
be  a  by-form  of  the  aljove  «;"!;::  (so  Prince),  or  a 
textual  error  for  K.'-i?-n  ( AV  and  RV  '  counsellers ') 
found  in  vv.**- "  4"*  G'  (so  Graetz,  Bevan,  et  ril.). 
Rut  it  seems  more  likely  that  it  is  a  dittography 
from  the  following  k;-!;-i.  This  conclusion  (which 
is  that  of  Lagarde,  NiUdeke,  et  al. ;  Driver  and 
Marti  leave  the  question  open)  is  supported  by  the 
circumstance  that  the  LXX  and  Theod.  Iiave  only 
seven  ollicials  in  place  of  the  eiglit  of  MT.  4.  Is 
'22",  of  Shebna.  'The  Heb.  term  pr  (fully  discussed 
under  art.  Shebna)  would  be  better  rendered 
'servitor'  or  'steward.'  5.  Ro  16^,  where  RV 
substitutes  'treasurer'  for  AV  'chamberlain'  as 
tr.  of  o/Koi-AMot  (see  Steward).        J.  A.  Selbie. 

TREASURY  (OF  TEMPLE).— The  word  yofo^u- 
\iiaov,  tr.  '  treasury '  in  the  NT,  is  used  in  the  LXX 
for  the  Heb.  woids*  meaning  cells  or  apartments 
of  the  tenijde  court,  in  whicii  sacred  ollcrings  and 
utensils  were  kept,  and  in  which  also  the  jn  icsts 
dwelt.t  The  word  is  used  in  the  Hooks  of  jSIac- 
cabees  of  the  sacred  treasury  in  whicli  not  only 
public  treasures  were  stored,  but  also  public 
records,*  as  well  as  property  belonging  to  widows 
and  orphans.§  In  the  inner  court  of  Herod's 
temple  there  were  rooms  which  JosephusH  repre- 
sents by  7aj'o0i;XdKia,  showing  that  llie  term  had  a 
wider  sense  than  'treasury'  would  suggest.  In 
the  NT  the  word  is  used  in  three  places,  viz.  Mk 
12^'""||Lk21',  Jn8-'». 

Josephus  has  it  in  the  singular.ll  apparently  for 
the  special  room  in  tlie  women's  court  in  which 
golil  and  silver  bullion  were  preserved.  In  Jn  8™ 
this  sense  would  stand,  but  not  so  in  the  parallel 
passages  of  Mark  and  Luke,  where  the  word  is  a|i- 
parently  the  equivalent  of  the  Ralibinical  m-i;ic, 
'  trumpets,' so  called  because  they  had  the  shape 
of  the  rain's-horn  trumpet.  There  were  thirteen 
such  boxes,  and  they  may  be  assumed  to  have  been 
in  the  women's  court,  or  the  widow  could  not  have 
got  at  them  with  her  mite.  Six  out  of  the  thirteen 
were  to  receive  free  gifts,  the  remaining  seven  being 
for  distinct  purposes,  figured  probably  on  the  boxes. 
They  were  most  likely  placed  on  each  side  of  the 
large  gate  which  led  trom  the  women's  to  the 
men's  court.  See  Te.MI'LK  (Herod's),  and  cf.  al.so 
art.  Treasure.  T.  W.  Davies. 

TREE  (]"i  'I'z,  Sivipov,  fiiXoi/).— The  Holy  Land  is 
not  now  a  land  of  trees.  Even  the  mountain  to|)s 
are  for  the  most  part  bare,  and  none  of  the 
primeval  forests  have  been  preserved.  This  very 
fact  emphasizes  the  importance  and  value  of  trees, 
wherever  they  are  planted  or  grow  spontaneously. 
A  large  part  of  the  trees  that  exist  are  cultivated 
for  their  fruits,  as  the  palm,  fig,  apple,  pear, 
ajiricot,  peach,  plum,  banana,  oranj;e,  lemon, 
citron,  walnut,  pistachio;  or  their  leaves,  as  the 
mulberry  ;  or  their  wood,  as  the  pine.  Solitary 
trees  or  small  groves  are  planted  by  tombs  (1  S  31''') 
or  on  high  places.     From  ancient  limes  men  loved 

"  n;;^  and  (Neh  3'»  1244  is7f )  n;;;'^.  ♦  Neh  137  lone. 

1  1  Mac  144»  ;  cf.  Grimm,  ad  luc. 

I  2  Mac  3"> ;  cf.  Grimm,  ad  (oo. ;  1  Mac  144a,  2  Mac  S«<  ■mvi  \>t 
BIS. 
I  /W  v.  V.  2,  Ti.  T.  2.  U  AnI.  XIX.  vi.  1 


flO 


teespass-offeki:ng 


TRIBE 


to  rest  under  such  trees  (Gn  IS*-  »,  1  S  22").  When 
the  hail  broke  '  every  tree '  in  E^'ypt  (Ex  9^),  it  was 
a  national  disaster.  A  fruit  tree  near  a  besiej,'ed 
city  was  not  to  be  cut  down  (Dt  20'^),  but  to  be 
kept  for  the  use  of  the  besieged.  Otlier  trees  might 
be  cut  (v.-").  'A  tree  planted  by  watercourses' 
(Ps  1')  was  an  emblem  of  vigour  (cf.  the  vision  in 
Dn  4).  The  expression  '  tree  of  life  '  (Gn  3--  ^) 
was  afterwards  applied  figuratively  (Pr  3'*  11^° 
13'-  15^).  A  tree  is  known  by  its  truit  (Mt  12^). 
Allusion  is  made  to  the  great  variety  of  trees  which 
nourish  in  Palestine  (Lv  19-^,  Ec  2^).  Under  '  the 
tree  of  the  knowledge  of  good  and  evil '  (Gn  2"  3") 
our  first  parents  fell.  Under  the  trees  of  Getli- 
scmane  our  Saviour  accepted  His  Fatlier's  will  (Mt 
o|;;iG-i6)  T[,g  <  jree  of  life '  in  heaven  has  food  and 
healing  for  the  nations  (Rev  22-'-  '■'). 

The  trees  of  Palestine  and  Syria  are  tamnrisk, 
orange,  lemon,  citron,  zakkflm,  Pride  of  India, 
jujube,  maple,  pistachio,  terebinth,  sumach,  mo- 
ringa,  mastich,  carob,  redbud,  acacia,  almond, 
cherry,  plum,  apple,  pear,  service  tree,  medlar, 
liawthorn,  olive,  axh,  cordia,  castor-oil,  elm,  hack- 
berry,  mulberry.  Jig,  syr.omore,  plane,  walnut, 
alder,  hornbeam,  ironwood,  hazel,  oak,  beech, 
willow,  poplar,  cypress,  juniper,  yew,  pine,  cedar, 
spruce,  palm.  Those  which  are  in  italics  are 
mentioned  in  EV  sometimes  wrongly  (see  artt. 
on  individual  trees).  Tlie  chestnut  (AV ;  RV 
plane  tree)  is  not  found  in  Palestine. 

G.  E.  Post. 

TRESPASS-OFFERING.— See  Sacrifice. 

TRIAL.— See  Judge  and  Sanhedrin. 
TRIBE.— 

i.  Teriiis.—la  EV  'tribe'  is  tr.  in  OT  of  Heb.  npD  matteh 
(^vXti,  tribus),  B^C*  ahibhet, or  c^::'  shebhe\  {fvXr.,  tribiis),  Aram. 
cspl  shibhai  (ifiKii,  tribus) ;  in  NT  of  Gr.  <pi/>.r,.  Ai»iixxCt/Kov  is 
used  Ac  20'  for  '  the  set  of  twelve  tribes.'  In  Is  l'Ji>'  sliftibet  is 
used  of  the  'tribes' (Chej-ne  'castes,'  I)uhm  '  Homes')  of  t^j^n'pt, 
nnd  in  Mt  24^0  ^t^^ii  of  'tribes'  generally;  othenvise  all  tiiese 
words  are  used  exclusively  of  the  tribes  of  Israel,  except  that 
tt/iehhet  is  occasionally  used  of  the  subdivisions  of  these  tribes, 
.li,'  2012,  IS  921,  according'  to  MT  'tribes  of  Benjamin';  but 
probably  the  sin;,',  should  be  read,  'tribe  of  B."  (Moore,  H.  P. 
Sinithl ;  and  Nu  4i»  MT,  'cut  not  ofl  the  tribe  of  the  famines,' 
where,  however,  we  should  perhaps  read  'cut  not  off  from  the 
tribe,"  etc.  [the  text  is  doubtful,  see  L.XX,  Vulg.).  The  use  of 
7natt<:h  And  shebhe^  for  'tribe'  is  fijjurative,  the  words  meaning 
orife-inally  'rod,'  '  stafi,'  'sceptre,'  'branch,'  etc.,  in  which 
senses  they  are  used  in  OT.  Ox/.  Ueb.  Lex.  explains  under 
.-i:iD  :  *  tribe,  orig.  company  led  by  chief  with  staff.' 

Matfeh  as  '  tribe'  is  found  in  P  in  the  Hexateuch,  in  Chron. ; 
and  in  1  K  71-*  8i,  where  Benzinger  regards  the  clauses  in  which 
malteh  stands  as  late  additions,  in  &  the  7»fl^ft'/i-c]ause  is  absent 
from  LXXB.  Shebtie(  is  common  in  D,  is  found  in  JE,  and  very 
occasionally  in  P  (possibly  only  in  redactioiial  passages),  and 
occurs  throughout  the  OT  from  JE  to  Chronicles.  Giesebrecht 
(/.ATW,  l&Sl,  p.  '242)  maintained  that  the  name  and  thing 
expressed  by  shebhet  died  out  before  the  Exile,  and  matfeh  was 
used  for  it  after  the  E.xile.  This  position  is  controverted  bv 
Driver,  yo«m.  Philol.  xi.  1882,  p.  213  f.  The  decision  depends 
partly  on  the  %iew  taken  as  to  the  text,  etc.,  of  individual 
passages ;  current  views  on  these  points  seem  to  admit  the 
opinion  that(l)  shebhet  accnn  in  post-exilic  literature  onlv  in 
passages  borrowed  from  pre-exilic  works,  or  as  a  literary 
archaism,  its  use  having  been  revived  through  a  study  of  the 
earlier  literature ;  and  that  (2)  there  is  no  certain  instance  of 
the  use  of  matteh  for  '  tribe '  before  the  Exile.— The  use  of  Aram, 
words  corres]>onding  to  shibliet  in  the  sense  of  '  tribe'  may  be 
dvic  to  the  influence  of  the  OT.— On  the  tenns  for  the  sub- 
divisions of  the  tribe,  viz.  mishpdhd  and  beth  'dbh,  see  Familt 
and  below. 

ii.  Origin,  Nature,  and  Historij  of  the  Tribe  as  a 
Social  Onjanizntion. —The  articles  on  individtial 
tribes  show  that  there  are  two  chief  theories  of 
their  origin.  First,  tlie  biblical  statements  as  to 
the  patriarchs  are  understood  as  persotuil  liistory, 
and  the  tribe  is  regarded  as  having  arisen  chiefly 
by  the  natural  increa.se  of  the  descendants  of  a 
son  or  grandson  of  Jacob.  The  descendants  of  each 
son  kept  together  as  a  social  group,  in  which, 
however,  foreign  slaves,  wives,  etc.,  were  some- 
times included.      The  second   theory,   now  more 


generally  held,  regards  much  that  is  said  of  the 
patriarchs  and  their  children  as  tribal  history  j)ld 
in  a  personal  form  ;  cf.  liENJAMIN,  i.  27'2'' ;  JuDAll, 
ii.  792''.  According  to  this  view  tlie  tribes  did  not 
all  arise  aa  subdivisions  of  Israel,  but  Israel  was 
formed,  in  a  measure,  by  the  aggregation  of  some 
of  the  earlier  tribes.  The  process  by  which  the 
complete  set  of  tribes  was  formed  began  before  the 
Conquest,  and  was  continued  afterwards.  Israel 
as  it  invaded  Palestine  was  a  loose  confederation 
of  kindred  tribes.  These  tribes  liad  themselves 
been  formed  by  the  aggregation  of  smaller  bodies 
or  niishpdltas,  which  were  groups  of  families.  We 
have  few  data  as  to  the  tribal  system  in  the 
nomadic  period  ;  but  it  would  be  similar  to  that  of 
the  nomadic  Ai'abs.  The  unifying  forces  in  the 
tribe,  clan,  etc.,  were  the  blood-bond,  and  the  tribal 
or  family  cult.  The  blood-bond  was  jjartly  real, 
partly  theoretical ;  it  could  be  established  by 
mutual  agreement  and  religious  ceremonies.  The 
cliief  duties  of  members  of  a  tribe  were  to  act 
together  in  war,  and  to  protect  one  another  by 
blood-revenge.  The  tribes  and  their  subdivisions 
were  fluid  organizations  liable  to  combination,  sub- 
division, loss  by  secessions,  and  gain  by  accessions. 
Cf.  W.  R.  Smith,  Kinship,  etc.  1-5S,  171  ;  iJ6'3Stf. 

In  the  Conquest,  Israel  fought  by  tribes  and 
subdivisions  of  tribes ;  sometimes  the  tribes  com- 
bined (Jg  P  4.  5),  sometimes  they  acted  separately 
(Jg  l--"-).  In  the  settlement  the  natural  tendency 
would  be  for  each  family,  clan,  and  tribe  to  settle 
together  in  the  same  district  (Jos  14'-  '■'  18'°). 

It  is,  however,  quite  uncertain  how  far  the 
tribes  which  we  find  in  Canaan  under  the  monarchy 
correspond  to  tribes  which  existed  before  the 
Conquest.  Even  where  there  was  a  real  connexion, 
the  name  may  have  been  changed.  Thus,  as  tlie 
sons  of  concubines.  Gad  and  Asher  (ZUpah),  Dan 
and  Naphtali  (Billiah),  are  regarded  as  additions 
to  Israel  after  the  Conquest.  Tlie  stories  of  the 
late  birth  of  Benjamin  and  of  the  recognition  of 
Epliraim  and  Manasseh  (Gn  48^"--  J  E)  have  been 
understood  to  mean  that  these  three  tribes  were 
formed  by  the  subdivision  of  Joseph  after  the 
Conquest.  These  views  are  partly  confirmed  by 
the  fact  that  some  of  these  tribjil  names  are 
apparently  names  of  places  in  Palestine :  Asher 
(Aseru)  appears  as  the  name  of  a  district  or  people 
in  Galilee  in  inscriptions  of  Seti  I.  and  Ramses  II. ; 
Benjamin  is  '  son  of  the  right  hand  '  or  '  south,'  i.e. 
the  southern  district  of  Joseph ;  and  Ephraini, 
from  its  form  (cf.  Mizraini,  etc.),  should  be  a  place- 
name  meaning  'a  fruitful  land.'  The  discovery 
of  Joseph-cl  (':)  and  Jacob-el  (see  JACOB,  ii.  p.  526') 
in  a  list  of  i)laces  in  Palestine  conquered  by 
Thothmes  III.,  B.C.  1481-1449,  has  led  to  the  sug 
gestion  that  the  tribe  of  Joseph  assumed  tha. 
name  after  its  settlement  in  Canaan.  On  the 
other  hand,  the  comparative  lack  of  territory,  and 
the  insignificance  of  Reuben,  Simeon,  and  Levi  in 
historic  times,  point  to  the  antiquity  of  these  tribal 
names  (but  cf.  Levi). 

Possibly  in  early  times  the  tribes  of  Israel  were 
known  as  Rachel  and  Leah,  and  at  some  time, 
before  or  after  the  Conquest,  these  broke  up  into 
divisions,  which  eventually  became  the  twelve 
tribes. 

After  the  Conquest  the  tribes  became  essentially 
territorial,  though  no  doubt  the  theory  of  the 
blood-bond  survived.  Similarly  the  mishpdifil  came 
to  mean  the  town,  or  quarter  of  a  town,  or  village, 
or  district.  Hence  the  tribal  name  denoted  a 
district,  and  the  trilie  included  not  onlj'  the 
Israelite  invaders,  but  also  in  time  the  natives 
whom  they  absorbed,  or  by  whom  they  were 
absorbed.  These  tribal  districts  had  no  fi.xed  or 
couliniuius  political  organization,  and  they  varied 
in   number  or   extent.     The  real    political   units 


TRIBE 


811 


00 

M 

a 

5 


o 


1  - 

M       «0       •« 

OCDt^OOOaOp^M 

3    3 

1 

>^ 

§■ 

^    ^    f 

«    o    •? 

1    3     2     "     S     §'    1    1 

i 

1 
5 

S 

si 

1 

_     § 

><    &     S 

a    i-:     ■< 

o-      .     J     1.    si     ^     :?     >■ 

1 

^ 

1 

■-9 

III 

1^ 

t 

d 

<-3 

1    1    1 

^  £  -•  §  i  ^  §  ■« 

e  c  n  OB  a 

3    -  e-3 

^ 

§ 

1     Bi 

3   i   g 

OQ       -4       •-> 

rf     g     B     §     d    J-    "S    -g 

oS 

Ill    III    II 

s 

«> 

1 

g 

§    ^ 
S    :? 

III          1    III 

i 

J-    = 

•Sc  s 
3  d  a 

a   o   s!  '• 

i 

•-> 

to 

•2    =^     =• 
c    «•    ^ 

.^  ^-  §  -  5  g  -i  i 

s 

5 

3 

D 
H 

1    1    1 

g    g    -  "S    §  1  -g 

^    N    2    o    «    fe;    •< 

1 

a 

& 

Ui 

§    1    1    ^    -g    g    1    1 

H 

n 

3 

g           5 

^                  00 

S    g   ^    S    =    »   -s   1 

^ 

1 

;■   1    g 

CO     O     ^ 

.     „•     ^     a-     «     B    J    '^ 

1 

3     . 

5'* 

D 
H 

a; 

Q 

1  1  ^ 

^   §■    £   §    i  ■=  1  -i 

1 

1  1  1 

s  ^  1  5  1  1  1  I 

1 
i 

s 

=■  "S   g 

m     O     -1 

-i   ^   S'  ^   §   1  -^  1 

■^ 

3 

w" 

13 

III 

g    g    1    §     5    -g    ^    1 

■i 
S 

Q 
O 

K 

u 

.J 

D 

-'     E     g- 
m     J     "> 

.    J    >;     e     a.   _    J 

a      2      Co      e      a      3     "S 
3     N     25     O     i^      O     -3 

1 

^ 

5    1     g 

00      fJ      ■-« 

1     1     II     1     1    ll 

I 

o 

OS 

3    1    g 

CO     1-3     <-3 

1     1     1     II     1     1     1 

1 

1 

D 

M 

1   3   1 

ll'Sa^gg^ 

- 

«<Dr-3DaoMM 

m      ■* 

c 
.2 
J 

1 

i 

812 


TEIBE 


TRIBE 


were  the  smaller  communities,  towns,  and  districts 
■whose  inhabitants  were  bound  togetlier  by  neigh- 
bourhood and  common  interests.  War  would  unite 
a  whole  tribe  or  a  number  of  tribes,  and  induce 
them  to  recognize  a  single  leader,  like  (lideon  or 
Jephthah,  and  to  accord  him  a  certain  authority 
after  he  had  brought  the  war  to  a  successful  close. 
The  term  shophit  used  for  such  leaders  in  Juilges 
suggests  that  their  authority  was  utilized  to  decide 
disputes  too  serious  to  be  settled  by  local  chiefs. 
The  Song  of  Deborah  implies  that,  apart  from 
such  'judges,'  a  tribe  had  no  single  head  ;  at  any 
rate  it  does  not  mention  any  one  in  that  position, 
except  Deborah  and  Barak,  but  speaks  of  the 
'  governors '  (mcho/:c/:im)  of  Machir,  '  they  that 
handle  the  marshal's  stall''  (moshckhim  besliibhet 
sophe.r)  of  Zebulun,  and  the  'princes'  (sarim)  of 
Issachar.  Similarly  in  the  times  of  the  Judges 
and  the  Monarchy  we  read  of  '  elders '  of  Gilead, 
Jg  11";  of  Israel,  1  S  4^  etc.  ;  of  Jabesh,  1  S  IP; 
of  Judah,  2S  19";  of  the  'princes'  (sdrim)  of 
Gilead,  Jg  10'".  Normally,  the  highest  authorities 
in  the  tribe  were  those  'elders,'  probably  the  heads 
of  the  mishpahiis  (B.  Luther).  1  Ch  27'""**,  which 
assigns  a  'ruler'  (ndghidh)  or  'captain'  (sar)  to 
each  tribe,  is  probably  from  a  late  post -exilic 
source  (Gray,  UPN  pp.  185-188).  Abimelech's 
kingship  (Jg  9)  was  quite  exceptional,  and  was 
not  tribal ;  he  is  spoken  of  as  king  of  Shechem  only. 

It  is  possible  that  the  tribes  brought  with  them 
into  Palestine  a  tribal  cult,  and  established  tribal 
sanctuaries  which  would  serve  as  rallying  points. 
The  sanctuary  of  Dan,  at  the  Northern  Dan  (Jg 
17.  18),  however,  is  hardly  an  example  ;  the  priest, 
etc.,  were  acquired  in  Palestine,  and  Dan  itself 
may  not  have  been  one  of  the  original  tribes  ;  still, 
in  forming  a  tribal  sanctuary,  it  may  have  been 
imitating  them.  Dt  33'*- '"  seem  to  refer  to  a 
sanctuary  of  Zebulun  and  Issachar.  Even  if  a 
tribe  had  no  official  sanctuary,  the  various  high 
places  promoted  union  and  intercourse  in  a  district. 

After  the  establishment  of  the  Monarchy,  as  the 
power  of  the  kings  inci'eased,  the  tribal  names 
gradually  became  mere  geographical  expressions, 
and  the  districts  they  denoted  ceased  to  be  political 
divisions.  Solomon  (1  K  4'"'")  divided  the  land  of 
Israel,  with  the  exception  of  part  of  Judah,  into 
twehe  districts,  whicli  do  not  coincide  with  the 
tribal  districts.  In  a  measure,  however,  the  tribal 
system  prevailed  :  by  the  division  into  two  king- 
doms and  the  disappearance  or  absorption  of  the 
weaker  tribes,  Judah  became  the  Southern  king- 
dom, Ephraim  the  Northern  kingdom,  and  Gail 
stood  for  S.E.  and  Eastern  Manasseh  for  N.E. 
Israel ;  although  the  political  existence  of  the 
other  divisions  of  the  Northern  kingdom  is  some- 
times recognized  (Is  9'-').  The  oracles  on  the 
tribes,  the  Blessing  of  Jacob  (Gn  49),  and  the 
Blessing  of  Moses  (Dt  33),  come  to  us  in  their 
present  form  from  the  period  of  the  Monarchy ; 
but  they  are  constructed  on  the  model  of  more 
ancient  oracles,  so  that  the  fact  that  they  contain 
sayings  on  nearly  all  the  tribes  (cf.  below)  does 
not  show  that  the  tribe  continued  a  iiolitical  unit 
througliout  the  Monarchy  ;  on  the  other  hand,  the 
space  devoted  to  Judah  and  Joseph  in  Gn  49,  and 
to  Joseph  and  (Jad  in  Ot  33,  supports  the  view- 
taken  above.  The  section  on  Levi  (Ut  SS""")  may 
have  received  its  present  form  from  one  of  the 
Deuteronomic  writers.  The  disappearance  of  the 
tribe  as  a  political  unit  is  further  indicated  by  the 
silence  of  2  K,  etc.,  and  especially  by  the  fact  that, 
with  two  exceptions,  none  of  the  numerous  lists  of 
Jewish  families  in  Ezra  and  Neh.  refer  them  to 
their  tribes.  The  exceptions  are  Neh  IP""  H^o-s* 
(in  their  present  form  very  late,  Guthe,  SBOT, 
etc.),  where,  too,  'Benjamin'  and  'Judah'  may 
be  mere  names  of  districts. 


On  the  other  hand,  the  Blessings  of  Jacob  and  o/ 
Moses,  with  Ezk  48  and  such  references  as  Ps  68^  I 
80-,  show  that  a  strong  archaic  religious  interest 
was  taken  in  the  ancient  tribes.  One  result  of  this 
interest  was  the  set  of  tribal  genealogies,  Gn  40"""  = 
Nu  20'-"  (late  strata  of  P),  1  Ch  2-9,  which  partly 
expressed  the  recollections  of  ancient  politics  and 
geography,  and  partly  served  to  connect  existing 
families  with  the  primitive  tribes.  Meyer  (Ent.iteh- 
ung,  160)  deduces  from  the  statement  in  Ezr  2°""*' 
that  certain  families  could  not  prove  Israelite 
descent,  the  conclusion  that  the  rest  traced  their 
descent  from  Judah  or  Benjamin.  The  silence  as  to 
tribal  descent,  mentioned  above,  seems  to  show  that 
this  is  an  erroneous  theory ;  and  the  habit  of  tracing 
descent  to  the  ancient  tribes  and  their  primitive 
clans  became  general  only  long  after  the  Exile  ; 
families  which  derived  their  ancestry  from  distin- 
guished men,  David,  Saul,  etc.,  could  of  course 
name  their  tribe.  In  other  cases,  a  family  would 
determine  its  tribe  from  its  home  before  or  even 
after  the  Exile,  and  from  similar  circumstances. 
Hence  the  description  of  various  persons  in  the 
Apocrypha  and  NT  as  belonging  to  certain  tribes 
(To  1',  Jth  8',  2  Mac  3*,  Lk  2^«,  Ko  11')  can  be 
accepted  only  in  this  limited  sense. 

iii.  Ord&r  and  Grouping. — The  accompanying 
Table  will  show  that  the  tribes  are  arranged  in 
twenty  diUerent  orders,  only  one  of  which,  that  of 
Nu  2.  7.  and  10,  recurs.  The  principles  of  arrange- 
ment are^ 

(1)  Tlie  relationship  to  Jacob,  and  his  wives  and 
concubines.     Thus  :  Sons  of — 

Leah  :  Reu. ,  Sim.,  Levi,  Jud.,  Iss.,  Zebulun. 

Zilpah :  Gad,  Asher. 

Rachel :  Joseph,  Benjamin. 

Bilhah :  Dan,  Naphtali. 
This  principle,  niudilied  in  some  cases  by  others, 
determines  the  order  in  Gn  29-3o,  in  the  Blessing 
of  Jacob  (Gn  49),  and  in  the  lists  based  on  the 
Blessinsr  (Gn  46,  Ex  1,  Nu  1  (two).  2.  7.  10.  13.  26, 
1  Ch  2'^  27). 

As  the  grouping  according  to  wives  and  concu- 
bines does  not  correspond  to  any  known  historical 
situation  after  the  Conquest,  it  must  be  based  on 
a  tradition  of  the  circumstances  of  Israel  before, 
or  shortly  after,  that  event. 

(2)  Geographical  position.  This  position  influ- 
ences most  of  the  lists  mentioned  above,  and 
governs  in  large  measure  those  in  Nu  34,  Dt  33, 
Jos  13  tt".,  Jg  5,  1  Ch  2»-8  (partly),  12 ;  Rev  7 
(partly). 

(3)  In  Dt  27  tradition  and  geography  have  some 
influence, — witness  the  position  of  Simeon  and 
Issachar  ;  but  the  chief  principle  seems  to  be  that 
the  tribes  regarded  for  various  reasons  as  more 
important  are  chosen  to  bless,  and  the  less  im- 
portant to  curse.  The  cursing  tribes  belong  to  the 
E.  and  N.  districts,  which  were  carried  away  cap- 
tive tir^t. 

(4)  The  list  in  Ezk  48  is  baaed  on  the  geography 
of  the  monarcliy  modified  by  the  transference  of 
the  Eastern  tribes  to  the  West  of  Jordan,  and  by 
the  ideal  necessity  for  placing  the  temple  about 
the  middle  of  the  country. 

In  the  Table  on  the  preceding  pa^e  the  sons  of 
the  various  wives,  etc.,  are  printed  tlius  ; — 

Sons  of  Leah,  small  caps.,  e.g.  IvEO.  ;  of  Zilpah, 
ordinary  type,  e.g.  Gad  ;  of  llachel,  small  caps, 
italic,  e.g.  Jus.  ;  Bilhah,  italic,  e.g.  Dan. 

iv.  Subdivisions  of  the  Tribe.  —  The  tribe  was 
a  confederation  of  mi.'ihpdhn.t  (cf.  above),  UV 
'  families '  ;  and  the  mislipnlid  was  a  group  of 
households,  bnijith  or  bi-th  'ahh  {'  father's  house').* 
A  common  worship  of  the  mishpdha  is  implied  in 
1  S  20".      Tlie  names  of  some  of   the  mishpdha* 

•  Also  used  o(  a  tribe  (Nu  17"),  or  chieJ  division  ot  »  trib« 

(Nua-'oco). 


TRIBUTE 


TEOAS 


813 


(Hfbronites,  Nu  3=^  ;  Hezrunitts.  Nu  SO"  ;  Sheilie- 
mites,  Nu  ■2iy")  show  that  in  many  cases  the  mis/i- 
pahd  came  to  mean  the  inhabitants  of  a  town  or 
district.  Jg  9',  however,  iuiiilies  that  in  the  time 
of  Abiraelech  ben  Gideon  tliere  were  more  than 
one  mi-s/ipdhd  in  Sliechem.  According  to  tlie 
oldest  form  of  tlie  Gideon  narrative  (J,  Jg  6"  S*, 
see  analjsis  in  PB),  Gideon's  force  consisted  of 
the  liylitin^'  men  of  the  niis/i/Hl/id  Abiezer,  wlio 
amounted  in  number  to  three  hundred.  In  E.v 
\-2'-  *  the  hayith  or  beth  'abh  is  spoken  of  as  normally 
capable  of  consuming  a  paschal  lamb  at  one  meal. 
Cf.  Family,  Goverxment,  Israel,  Jacob,  and 
articles  on  the  separate  tribes,  etc. 

LmRATCTiB.— See  on  Family  ;  also  B.  Luther,  '  Pie  Israel- 
itiKhen  Stamnic,'  ZATW,  1901,  Heft  1,  pp.  1-7B ;  Coniill,  Hint, 
of  the  People  of  Israel,  pp.  36-«'2 ;  Steueniagel,  Die  Kin- 
wiiuUrung  der  wr.  Stuitune  in  Kanaan,  1001;  Ed.  Konij;, 
Snuste  Pritizipien  der  altUut.  Kritik  geprii^ft,  1902,  p.  3.')  ff. 

W.  H.  Bennett. 
TRIBUTE  (IN  OT).  —  1.  &?.  The  rendering 
'tribute'  for  this  word  is  very  misleading.  Its 
meaning  is  collective  =yorref/  labourers,  labour- 
gang.  One  of  the  most  notable  of  such  companii's 
was  the  body  of  task -workers  for  the  public 
service,  consisting  of  30,000  men,  which  Solomon 
(see  above,  p.  565°)  raised  by  levy  upon  the  people 
(1  K  5"'"'  9'»-=";  contra-st  the  statement, in  2  Ch 
8"',  according  to  which  this  levy  was  imposed  onlj' 
upon  the  remnant  of  the  aboriginal  inhabitants  of 
Canaan).  Something  of  the  same  kind  ap[iears  to 
have  been  introduced  already  by  David  (2  S  20* 
'  Adoram  was  over  the  labour-gang,'  cf.  1  Iv  4'  5" 
12'"=2  Ch  10").  Another  familiar  instance  is  the 
slave-gangs  of  Israelites  in  Egj-pt,  with  their  over- 
seers (c""i7  Ex  1").  Conquered  populations  w'ere 
frequently  subjected  to  forced  labour  :  Dt  20", 
Jos  16'«  17",  Jg  l«-3"»».  Is  31',  La  1'.  '  Issachar 
became  a  slaving  labour-band '  (iji'-i^S  Gn  49" 
[J]).  In  Pr  12^  it  is  said  that  '  slothfulness  [a 
.slothful  man]  shall  be  put  under  taskwork.'  In 
late  Hebrew  the  word  D?  (by  use  of  the  concrete 
for  the  abstract)  came  to  mean  forced  service,  serf- 
dom. In  Est  10'  it  possibly  means  tribute  in  sense 
of  forced  payment . 

2.  In  Dt  16'"  EV  '  with  a  tribute  of  a  freewill 
oll'oring '  would  be  clearer  if  liV'm  were  adopted  : 
'after  the  measure  of  the,'  etc.  The  Heb.  [here 
onl}-]  is  n;7,  common  in  Aram.  =  'suliiciency,' and 
as  adv.  ace.  =pro  ratione.  The  meaning  is  that  the 
otl'erer  is  to  give  according  to  the  full  measure  in 
which  Jahweli  has  blessed  him  in  the  year's  harvest 
(see  Driver,  nd  loc,  and  Oxf.  Heb.  Lex.  s.v.). 

3.  rrj7  (loan-word  from  Assyr.  mandnttu,  '  tri- 
bute')', Ezr  4",  Neh  5*.  i.  'i'??  (prob.  the  Assyr. 
bUtu,  'impost';  see  Schrader,  CUT  ii.  65 f.).  S. 
Djt,  prop,  'computation,'  used  only  of  the  duty 
for  Jahweh  levied  on  the  spoil,  Nu  3"l'^-  <"■  's-  ^■■"-  " 
[all  P].  6.  k;9,  lit.  'burden,'  2  Ch  17"  (cf.  2  Ch 
24",  Hos  S'O).  7.  Sii-  '  fine,'  '  indemnity,'  2  K  23^ 
(of  tlie  sura  exacted  by  Pharaoh-necho  after  he  had 
dejiDscd  Jeboahaz),  cf.  Pr  19"  (AV  'punisbmint,' 
RV 'penalty ').  J.  A.  Seluik. 

TRIBUTE  (IN  NT).— Kfifffoj,  Lat.ce?wi«(Mt22", 
Mk  12"),  0opos  (Lk  20"  23»,  Ro  13«'),  in  Mt  17"' 
tAi7  7)  KJifcotC  toll  or  tribute  '),  an  annual  tax  levied 
on  persons,  houses,  or  lands.  In  all  the  passages 
quoted  the  reference  is  to  the  imperial  taxes,  to 
tjixe.s  paid  to  a  prince  or  civil  governor  on  behalf 
of  the  Roman  treiusury.  Bolli  h^ktos  and  <p6pot 
are,  properly,  direct  taxes.  The  tpipoi,  strictly 
bpeaking,  were  taxes  iiaid  bv  agriculturists,  the 
payment  being  generally  maile  in  kind,  and  were 
contrasted  with  the  tAt;  or  customs  collected  by 
the  publicans.  The  word  Kr/fffot,  again,  waw  origin- 
ally used  of  the  property  register  upon  which 
taxation  was  calculated,  and  thence  came  to  mean 


the  capitation  or  poll  tax  (cf.  D  in  Mk  12"  c'ttiw- 
(tidXaiov).  In  Mt  IT-*  the  word  tr.  'tribute'  in  .W 
and  '  half-shekel '  in  KV  is  the  didrachmon.  This 
sum  every  adult  male  Israelite  had  to  pay  to  cover 
the  cost  of  the  public  sacrilices  at  the  temple. 
The  '  stater '  of  v."  was  a  tetradrachmon,  equal 
to  a  whole  shekel,  and  therefore  payment  for  two. 
After  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  Vespasian 
caused  the  Jews  to  pay  this  didrachmon  tax  for 
the  support  of  the  temple  of  Jupiter  Capitolinus 
in  Rome.  Nerva,  though  not  abolishing  the  tax, 
made  it  less  oflensive  to  the  Jews  by  dissociating 
it  from  this  heathenish  use.     See  JIONEY. 

LlTKRATiRE.-Schurer,  UJ  P  (1S90),  l.  il.  110,  2,S4  ;  M.arquart, 
limnijtc/ieStaatsverrcaltunff,  ii.  185 ff.  Also,  generally,  R.  Cagnat, 
£tMde  Hisloritfue  eur  Us  Imp6ts  Indirect^,  i'aris,  1SS2 ;  and 
Otto  HirschfeW,  UnUreudiungen  avj  dtin  {iebi*'le  der  Rom, 
VerwaltuiigsgescliichU,  L  (down  to  Diocletian),  Berlin,  1S77. 

J.  Macpherson. 

TRIBUTE  MONEY,  t4  yifuty/ia  ToD  KT/fo-ou  (Mt 
22'"),  the  coin  used  in  payment  of  the  imperial 
taxes.  The  phrase  literally  means  '  the  lawful 
money  of  the  tax.'  The  tribute  had  to  be  paid  in 
the  current  coin  of  the  realm.     See  Money. 

TRIPOLIS  (i  TplTToXts).— A  city  of  Syria,  at  which 
Demetrius  Soier  landed  with  an  army  when  he 
wrested  the  kingdom  from  his  cousin  Antiochus  v. 
(2  Mac  14' ;  Ant.  XII.  x.  1).  It  was  to  Tripolis  that 
Antiuclius  Cyzicenus  retired  after  being  defeated 
by  Ilyrcanus  {.Int.  xill.  x.  2). 

Tripolis  was  a  maritime  town  of  Plucnicia,  and 
a  member  of  the  Phccnician  league.  Its  I'hceni- 
ciau  name,  and  the  date  of  its  foundation,  are 
unknown ;  but  it  must  have  been  founded  some 
time  after  Aradus.  Each  of  the  principal  Phoeni- 
cian cities.  Tyre,  Zidon,  and  Aradus,  had  its 
separate  quarter  at  Tripolis,  and  hence  the  name— 
'  tlie  three  cities.'  Little  is  known  of  its  early 
history,  but,  from  its  position  near  the  western  end 
of  the  '  entrance  of  Hamath,'  it  must  have  been  a 
place  of  commercial  importance.  It  was  adorned 
with  stately  buildings  Ijy  the  Seleucids  and  the 
Romans,  and  a  gjinnasium  was  built  there  by 
Herod  the  Groat  (Jos.  BJ  I.  xxi.  11).  When 
Tripolis  was  besieged  by  the  Arabs,  most  of  the 
inhabitants  escaped  by  sea,  and  after  its  capture 
it  was  colonized  with  Persians  and  Jews.  E\en  in 
A.D.  1047,  Nftsir-i-Khu-srau  writes  that  all  the 
Moslems  belonged  to  the  Shi'ah  sect.  Tripolis 
was  taken  by  tlie  Crusaders  (A.D.  1109),  when  a 
valuable  library  was  burned.  Under  the  Franks 
there  was  a  large  silk  industry,  which  was  destroyed 
when  the  place  was  captured  by  the  Egyptians 
(A.D.  1289).  At  this  time  Tripolis  occupied  its 
original  position  on  the  seashore;  but  the  constant 
attacks  of  tlie  Franks  created  such  a  feeling  of 
insecurity  that  in  1306  a  new  town,  the  present 
Tardbulus,  was  founded  about  2  miles  inland,  on 
higlier  ground  on  the  banks  of  the  Nalir  Kadi'iha. 
The  old  town  had  the  sea  on  three  sides,  and 
on  the  fourth  it  was  protected  by  a  wide,  deep 
ditch.  Hardly  a  trace  of  its  great  buildings 
remains;  war  and  a  succession  oi  severe  earth- 
quakes have  destroyed  everything.  The  site  is 
now  occupied  by  el-Minn,  the  seaport  of  Tnrdbuh'is, 
whicli  has  a  large  and  increasing  trade.  The  idain 
between  old  and  new  Tripolis  is  still  remarkable 
for  the  exuberant  fertility  which  attracted  the 
attention  of  all  media;val  pilgrims  and  travellers. 

C.  W.  Wilson. 
TROAS  {Tptfidt,  or  more  correctly  ' AXe^ifSptia  ^) 
Tpvds)  was  a  city  on  the  /Egean  coa.st  of  Asia 
Minor,  opposite  the  small  island  of  Tenedos.  The 
district  in  which  it  was  situated  was  sometimes 
called  as  a  whole  Troas,  and  is  in  modern  times 
generally  called  the  Troad  ;  it  was  the  north- 
western part  of  the  land  of  Mysia.     A  city  was 


814 


TROAS 


TROPHIMUS 


founded  on  the  site  by  Antigonus,  and  called 
Antigoiiia  Troas :  the  people  oi  Skepsis,  Cebren, 
Hamaxilus,  and  other  towns  were  settled  there. 
In  300  Lysimathus  refounded  and  renamed  the  city 
Alexandria  Troas.  It  was  for  a  time  under  the 
dominion  of  the  Seleucid  kings  of  Syria;  and  there 
are  coins  of  Antiochus  II.  Tlieos  (B.C.  201-246) 
struck  at  Troas.  As  Seleucid  power  waned,  it 
gained  its  freedom  and  began  to  strike  its  own 
coinage.  Many  tetradrachms  .VAErAXAPEflX  with 
the  head  and  name  of  Apollo  Smintheus  were 
coined  there  from  about  B.C.  164  to  65;  they  are 
all  dated  from  an  era  whose  first  j-ear  was  probably 
about  B.C.  300,  when  Alexandria  was  founded.* 
The  Pergamenian  rule,  under  which  it  must  have 
passed,  was  not,  like  the  Seleucid,  destructive  to 
freedom  ;  and  the  same  was  true  of  the  Roman 
dominion,  under  which  the  city  passed  in  B.C.  133. 

The  Romans  cherished  a  peculiarly  warm  feeling  towards 
Troas,  on  account  of  their  Trojan  origin,  a  legend  in  wiiich 
they  had  come  to  believe  tlioroughly  ;  tiieir  favour  for  Ilium  on 
the  same  {ground  is  well  iinown.  Alexandria  was  made  a  Roman 
Colonia  by  Au>,'ustu8,  under  the  name  Colonia  Augusta  Alex- 
andria Troas  (to  wliich  under  Caracalla  the  titles  Aurelia  Anto- 
niniana  were  added).  It  possessed  the  jus  Italicum,  i.e.  the 
Italian  privileges  in  the  tenure  and  ownership  of  land,  along 
with  immunity  from  poll-tax  and  land-tax  (immunitas),  and 
freedom  from  the  command  of  the  governor  of  the  province 
(libertax).  It  had  the  ordinary  colonial  constitution,  chief 
magistrates  called  duoviri,  and  a  senate  of  cUcurioncs  ;  and  it 
was  divided  into  10  vici.  Its  citizens  belonged  to  the  Roman 
tribe  Aniensi8(not  Sergia,  as  commonly  stated),  see  Kubitschek, 
l7np.  Rom.  trilmt.  lU'seript.  p.  247.  It  became  one  of  the 
greatest  and  largest  cities  of  the  north-west  of  Asia.  In  the 
coasting  voyage  system  of  ancient  navigation,  it  waa  the  har- 
bour to  and  from"  which  the  communication  between  Asia  and 
Macedonia  was  directed  (cf.  Ac  168  20S,  2  Co  212).  Owing  to  the 
greatness  of  Troas  and  its  legendary  connexion  with  the 
foundation  of  Rome,  the  idea  was  actually  entertained  by  Julius 
Caisar  of  transferring  thither  the  centre  of  government  from 
Rome  (Suet.  Jul.  79) ;  and  some  similar  scheme  was  still  not 
whoUv  forgotten  when  Horace  protested  against  it  in  Od.  iii.  3. 
Hadrian  prcjbably  visited  Troas,}  and  it  was  perliaps  his  intertst 
in  it  that  led  the  wealthy  and  politic  Herodes  .\tticus  J  to  build 
there  an  aqueduct  (the  ruins  of  which  were  imposing  in  very 
recent  times)  and  baths. 

Finally,  that  dream  of  the  early  empire  may  have  had  some 
influence  on  Constantine,  who  (as  Gibbon  says),  '  before  he  gave 
a  just  preference  to  the  situation  of  Byzantium,  had  conceived 
the  design  of  erecting  the  seat  of  empire  on  this  celebrated 
spot,  from  which  the  Romans  derived  tlieir  fabulous  oripin.'  In 
view  of  these  fanciful  but  really  cherished  schemes,  it  is  in- 
teresting to  obser\e  that  the  modem  name  is  Eski-Stamboul, 
'Old  Stambul,'  while  Constantinople  is  Staniboul  simply. 

The  great  sanctuary  of  the  Alexandrian  State  was  the  temple 
of  Apollo  Smintheus^  near  the  coast,  about  twelve  miles  south 
of  the  city  :  it  was  originally  in  the  territor>'  of  Hamaxitus,  and 
AJexandna  inherited  the  temple  along  with  the  people  of  that 
town.  The  symbol  of  this  god  was  the  mouse  (or  rat),  which 
often  appears  on  the  coins  of  Troas. 

The  route  followed  by  St.  Paul,  with  Silas  and 
Timothy,  from  the  Bithynian  frontier  near  Dory- 
laion  or  Kotiaion,  brought  the  party  to  the  coast 
at  Troas  (Ac  16"-').  There  can  be  little  doubt  that 
this  road  led  down  the  Khyndacus  valley  past  the 
hot  springs  Artemaia,  sacred  to  Artemis,  on  the 
river  Aisepos.§  In  the  Acta  Philclnri  [Acta  Sanc- 
torum, 19  May,  p.  312  fl'.)  the  tratiition  (which  is 
clearly  older  than  the  Acta)  is  recorded  that  the 
church  at  a  village  I'oketos,  between  the  Khyn- 
dacus and  Cyzicus,  was  dedicated  by  Paul  and  Silas 
when  they  visited  Troas.  This  tradition  probably 
relates  to  this  journey  (though  it  might  seem  not 
impossible  that  it  relates  to  the  visit  of  Paul  [Silas 

•  Another  Buggcstion  is  that  the  Seleucid  State  era,  beginning 
B.C.  312,  was  used  at  Troas  ;  but  all  the  dated  coins  were  struck 
after  Troas  bad  been  iniludtdin  the  I'crgamenian  realm,  and  the 
use  of  the  Seleucid  era  then,  thou^Oi  possible, seems  improbable. 

t  The  inscription,  CIL  iii.  460,  qvioted  in  proof  by  Dorr 
(fl«««n  d«  A.  Hadrian»,  p.  65),  affords  no  evidence.  But 
Hadrian  certainly  visited  Ilium  and  probably  Lesbos  (per 
Asiam  et  iimUM,  Spart.) ;  and  Troas  lay  between  them. 

{  Probably  a.d.  132-13fi,  when  he  was  trijatua  to  improve  the 
condition  of  the  free  cities  of  Asia  (Philostr.  VU.  Soph.  i.  xxv. 
13). 

{  Ramsay,  St.  Paul  the  Trav.  p.  197.  A  different  theory  of 
route  was  stated  by  Mr.  Munro  in  the  Otographical  Jmtnml, 
Feb  1897,  p.  169 f.,  but  afterwards  abandoned  by  him  (Jounuu 
e/  HM.  Studia,  1901,  p.  235). 


is  not  mentioned]  to  Troas  in  2  Co  2"),  and  em- 
bodies a  belief  that  Paul  preached  in  Mysia  on  this 
journey,  conformably  to  which  belief  the  Western 
reading  in  Ac  16"  has  5tt\d6yTes  ttji'  Mt/iriav,  where 
NAB,  etc.,  have  irapeXflii'Tes,  'neglecting,'  i.e.  pass- 
ing through  without  preaching  in  Mysia  (on  account 
of  the  prohibition  to  evangelize  the  province  Asia, 
of  which  Mysia  was  part,  Ac  16^).  Here  the 
Western  reading  and  the  local  tradition  seem  to 
form  a  later  and  secondary  interpretation,  which 
tended  to  obscure  and  expel  the  true  Lukan  read- 
ing.  The  '  open  door  '  at  Troas  (2  Co  2'-)  implies 
either  that  great  facility  for  mission  work  was 
found  in  the  city,  or  that  the  city  was.  the  entrance 
of  a  good  avenue  to  reach  the  country  around  and 
behind  (compare  the  similar  door  at  Philadel- 
phia). 

LiTERATCRE.— On  Troas  see  the  travels  of  Chandler,  Fellows, 
etc  also  an  article  in  MUlheilunjen  d.  d.  Jmtitutt  zu  Athen, 
ix.  SO ;  Choiseul  Gouffier,  Voj/ivje  Pittorestpie,  ii.  434  ;  Ic  Bas- 
Waddington,  iii.  1035-1037,  1730-1740;  Wroth  in  Calalorjut 
British  Museum.,  Coint  o/  Troad,  Aeolit,  etc  ;  CIG  3677-3594 ; 
CIL  iii.  384-392.  W.  M.  RAMSAY. 

TROGYLLIUM  (Tporyu'XXio;').— According  to  the 
AV  of  Ac  20'^  which  follows  cod.  D,  the  ship  in 
which  St.  Paul  sailed,  when  on  his  way  to  Cajsarea 
and  Jerusalem  at  the  close  of  his  third  missionary 
journey,  '  tarried  at  Trogyllium  '  after  touching  at 
Samos,  and  before  sailing  on  the  following  day  to 
Miletus.  The  principal  MSS  (N,  A,  B,  C)  omit 
the  words  'tamed  at  Trog^yllium.'  The  addition 
in  D  was  possibly  founded  on  a  tradition  tha,t 
survived  in  the  churches  of  Asia,  and  gives  a  detail 
which  in  itself  is  highly  probable  (cf.  Ramsay,  St. 
Paul  the  Trav.  p.  294). 

The  promontory  of  Trogyllium  projects  from  the 
mainland  of  Asia  Minor,  and  overlaps  the  eastern 
extremity  of  Samos  so  as  to  form  a  strait  less 
than  a  mile  wide  between  the  two  promontories. 
Through  this  strait  St.  Paul  sailed,  and  it  is 
natural  to  suppose  that  the  ship  may  have  anchored 
for  the  night  under  the  lee  ot  Trogvllium,  either 
because  the  wind  had  dropped,  or  because  there 
was  no  moon.  A  little  to  the  E.  of  the  end  of 
the  promontory,  not  more  than  a  mile  from  Samos, 
there  is  an  anchorage  still  called  '  St.  Paul's  Port' 
(Conybeare  and  Howson,  Life  and  Epp.  of  St.  Paul, 
XX.  n.).  Ramsay  has  pointed  out  (Ch.  in  Rom. 
Empire,  155  n.)  that  the  voyage  of  St.  Willibald 
is  an  apt  illustration  of  that  of  St.  Paul,  and  that 
his  '  Strobolis  on  a  high  mountain  '  is  Trogyllium. 

C.  W.  Wilson. 
TROPHIMUS  (Tp40i/ios).— One  of  St.  Paul's  com- 
panions (Ac  20^),  called  with  Tychicus  'k<navol. 
These  two  disciples,  with  others,  travelled  with 
the  apostle  from  Macedonia  to  Asia,  and  preceded 
St.  Paul  to  Troas  in  his  third  missionary  journey. 
From  thence  Trophimus  must  have  accompanied 
St.  Paul  to  Jerusalem.  He  was  an  Epliesian 
(Ac  21^),  and  the  riot  raised  against  St.  Paul  in 
Jerusalem  was  made  chiefly  on  tlie  ground  that  he 
had  introduced  Trophimus,  a  Gentile,  into  the 
temple.  The  only  other  pa.ssaM  in  the  NT  where 
his  name  occurs  is  2  Ti  4»',  w-liere  St.  Paul  says, 
'  Trophimus  I  left  at  Miletus  sick.'  It  is  to  be 
notetl  that  St.  Paul  had  also  sent  Tychicus  to 
Ephesus  (2  Ti  4'-').  This  mvist  have  happened  after 
St.  Paul's  first  imprisonment.  Trophimus  has  been 
identified  with  one  of  the  companions  of  Titus  who 
with  Titus  carried  the  2nd  Eiiistle  to  the  Corin 
thians  from  Ephesus  to  Corinth  (2  Co  S"-*").  The 
Greek  Menoloqy  celebrates  Trophimus  on  April  14 
with  Aristarclms  and  Pudens,  and  asserts  that 
they  were  of  the  Seventy,  and  suflered  martyrdom 
at  Ilome  under  Nero. 

(Kor  the  identification  of  Trophimus  with  th« 
dbciple  in  2  Co  8'*  see  Stanley  on  S  Cor.  2nd  ed, 
p  4y.))  H.  A.  Redpath. 


TROW 


TKUMPET 


815 


TROW. — The  En^.  verb  to  '  trow '  is  the  same  in 
origin  as  'true'  and  'trust.'  Its  earliest  meaning 
is  to  believe  or  trust,  as  Archbp.  Hamilton's  Cate- 
chism, XXV,  '  He  that  trowis  and  fermtly  beleillis 
in  the  sone  of  God,  liais  evirlastand  lyfe,  in  tliis 
warld  in  hoip,  and  in  the  warld  to  cum  in  deid ' ; 
eUso  p.  XXX,  '  Thai  suld  trow  the  artikillis  of  thair 
Crede ' ;  and  Mandeville,  Travels,  13, '  Jcsit  Christiis 
nascetur  de  Virr/ine  Mnna,  et  ego  credo  in  eum, 
that  is  to  say,  Jesu  Christ  shall  be  born  of  the 
Virgin  Mary,  and  I  trow  in  him.'  But  through 
degeneration  the  word  came  to  signify  no  more 
than  t/dnk  or  suppose,  as  Lk  8"  Kliem.  'Who  is 
this  (trow  ye)  that  he  commaundeth  both  the 
windes  and  the  sea,  and  they  obey  hini  ? '  ;  Ac  8^ 
Rhem.  '  Trowest  thou  that  thou  understandest  the 
things  which  thou  readest?'  This  is  the  meaning 
in  Lk  17',  the  only  occurrence  of  the  word  in  AV, 
'  Doth  he  thank  that  servant  because  he  did  the 
things  that  were  commanded  him?  I  trow  not' 
(ou  SoKu ;  edd.  and  RV  omit).  J.  HASTINGS. 

TRUMPET  (including  Feast  of  Trumpets  and 
New  Year). — Among  the  wind  instruments  of  the 
Hebrews  (see  Music,  §  2,  e  and  /)  were  two,  sho- 
p/idr  and  lidzozerak,  which  are  variously  rendered 
in  A  V  by  '  trumpet,'  'trump,'  and  'cornet.'  The 
more  ancient  of  these,  especially  used  for  secular 
purposes,  except  in  P,  was  the  horn  or  shophdr 
(L\X  Kiparivi}  or  irdXiriyi).  The  latter  word  is  used 
by  Philo,  who  describes  the  feast  of  the  1st  of 
'Tishri  as  the  feast  of  the  erdXiri-n-ct  (Wendland, 
Neuenideckte  Fraginente  Philo's,  p.  11  ;  Schiirer, 
GJV^  ii.  p.  4.50). 

The  Heb.  name  i£w  is  probably  derived  from  a 
root  meaning  to  be  bright,  in  reference  to  the  clear, 
sharp,  piercing  tone  of  the  instrument.  That  it 
was  matle  of  horn  is  attested  not  only  by  the  tradi- 
tion of  the  synagogue,  but  also  by  the  interchange 
between  ijic  and  yrp,  ('horn');  see  Jos  6''-'.  As, 
moreover,  the  word  SnV  ('ram,'  whence  'Jubilee,' 
see  Sabbatical  Year)  is  often  associated  with 
shophdr,  the  original  instrument  was  probably 
made  of  a  ram's  liorn  (cf.  Nowack,  Heb.  Arch.  i. 
277).  Some  authorities  suggest  that  possibly  in 
later  times  an  instrument  of  similar  shape  was 
made  of  metal  (Benzinger,  Heb.  Arch.  277  ;  Kirk- 
palrick  on  Ps  98^  etc.).  The  modem  synagogue, 
which  still  uses  the  shophdr  in  the  months  of  Elul 
and  Ti.shri,  preferentiallv  employs  the  ram's  horn, 
but  the  Mislina  (Itoxh  Hasluina  iii.  2)  permits  the 
use  of  the  horn  of  any  (clean)  animal  •  xcept  the 
cow.  Driver  {Joel  and  Amos,  p.  144)  delines  the 
biblical  shophdr,  however,  as  '  the  curved  horn  of 
a  cow  or  ram.'  'The  Mishna  {ib.  §  3)  specially  men- 
tions the  straight  horn  of  the  ibex  as  used  in  the 
temple.  The  common  crook  form  is  pictured  in 
vol.  ii.  p.  462,  but  Asiatic  Jews  prefer  spiral  forms 
similar  to  the  trumpets  of  the  Hindu  priests. 
Among  the  exhibits  at  the  Anglo-Jewish  Exhibi- 
tion (1887,  Catalogue,  p.  97,  beautifully  illustrated 
by  Frank  Haes,  Edition  de  Luxe)  was  one  from 
Aden,  made  from  the  splendid  horn  of  the  koodoo 
(cf.  F.  L.  Cohen,  Jewish  Chronicle,  Sept.  1,  18'J!I, 
p.  25).  Thus  the  shophdr,  though  preferentially 
made  in  Western  lands  of  the  ram's  iiorn,  may  be 
constructed  of  the  horn  of  any  sheep,  goat,  or  ante- 
lope, growing  separately  from  its  core,  and  it 
'varies  in  shape  from  absolute  straightncss  through 
a  gradual  curve  to  the  sjiiral.'  The  cronk  is  pre- 
ferred, not,  as  modern  Jewish  homilists  liolil,  for 
symbolical  reasons,  but  '  because  of  the  same 
acoustic  eflects  consequent  on  such  a  curve,  as 
decided  the  form  of  tiie  ancient  Roman  cavalry 
trumpet,  or  the  modern  saxophone.  The  trumpet 
of  the  Roman  cavalry  was,  indeed,  only  a  large 
thophdr,  elegant! V  fashioned  in  bronze  (Cohen, 
xb.). 


The  ancient  preferential  use  of  the  rani's  horn  was  stren^ 
thened  by  the  association  of  the  E>ay  of  the  Tnnnpet  (Ist  o! 
Tishri)  m  later  Jeu-ish  ritual  with  the  narrative  of  the  offerin(- 
of  Isaac  ((in  22i^.  The  whole  chapter  is  read  in  the  synuiro^iea 
on  the  2nd  of  Tifihri.  and  references  to  the  incident  abound  In 
the  ritual  of  the  festival).  The  horns  now  use<l  are  sometiniea 
can'ed,  and  adorned  with  golrlen  crowns  and  Hebrew  inscrip- 
tions, but  no  metallic  attachment  is  permitted  at  the  mouth- 
piece {Shxtlchan  ArxLch,  Orach  Chayim,  §  6iji  ff .  For  an  ex- 
cellent account  of  the  construction  of  the  shophdr,  with 
illustrations,  see  O.  Adler,  Proeeedinga  of  the  U.S.  J/tM«um, 
xvi.  287-301 ;  Reports,  1892,  437^50  ;  1899,  p.  648). 

As  in  the  modem  eynafjo^ie,  so  in  the  Bible,  the 
shdp/ulr  is  associated  "(to«:etlier  w  ilh  certain  special 
otlV;rin«;s,  Nu  •29-''*)  with  tlie  feast  held  on  the  new 
moon  (see  New  MooN)  of  the  sevtiiitli  month. 
This  feast  is  an  addition  to  tl»e  Calendar  of  the 
Feasts  in  P  (Lv  23^"^,  Nu  2d^-%  *  In  the  seventh 
month,  on  the  hrst  day  of  the  month,  shall  be  a 
solemn  rest  unto  you  [nur^  P"'?!).  a  memorial  of 
blowing:;  of  trumpets'  (Lv  23-*).  *  It  is  -vni"?  Dv,  a 
day  of  blowing  of  trumpets  unto  you.'  Thus  the 
precise  instrument  is  not  named  in  the  Hebrew 
(LXX  has  ffaXiriyytav  in  Lev.,  whence  tlie  plural 
'  trumpets'  in  AV.  The  synaj^'ogue  uses  only  one 
instrument.  In  Num.  the  LXX  has  sijiiply  ijfjJpa 
cTTjfiaffias — *a  day  of  signalling'),  but  the  shophdr 
is  obWously  intended,  lor  tiie  term  tcruahy  though 
also  used  of  the  hctzozerak  (Nu  10^)  and  the  cymbal 
(Ps  150*),  is  connected  with  the  sJtdphdr  in  several 
passages  (see  esp.  Lv  25^,  a  passage  on  which  the 
Slishna  rightly  relies).  The  exact  musical  notes 
intended  are  unknown  ;  indeed  the  rude  horn  has 
no  precise  note,  and  various  examples  not  only 
differ  in  this  respect  from  one  another,  but  from 
one  and  the  same  shophdr  very  different  effects  are 
produceable.  Greater  attention  was  probably  paid 
to  rhythm  and  length  tlian  to  the  actual  musical 
sounds,  and  this  is  still  the  case,  '  Any  sound  is 
satisfactory,'  runs  the  Rabbinical  prescript,  but 
tradition  confesses  itself  unable  to  be  more  pre- 
cise. In  tlie  lUble  various  terms  are  used  :  V\<^ 
(whence  the  term  yipj?  Ezk  7"  for  '  trumpet,'  and 
tiie  New  Heb.  Ukiah  for  a  note  on  the  same  instru- 
ment) to  sm-itCt  hence  to  produce  a  sharps  clear 
note  ;  ^5*0  to  drmo  out  or  prolong  (whence  perhaps 
the  tfkiah  gcdolah,  or  great  tckiah  of  the  modem 
synagogue;  cf.,  however,  Is 27^^);  and  y'"!T  (whence 
tne  biblical  teruah)  to  produce  a  trembling^  vibra- 
tory note,  or  a  series  of  quick  blasts. 

The  Rabbinical  ritual,  unable  to  identify  the  biblical  notes. 

Erescribed  three  sounds :  the  simple  tt'kuih,  the t^ritah  produced 
y  vibrating  the  lips  and  not  the  /thfiphiir,  and  the  sh^hdrim  or 
three  short  broken  notes.  The  baal  tu/y^ah,  who  blows  the 
«AouA(ir,  utters  the  benediction,  '  Blessed  art  thou  O  Lord  our 
Gtwi,  li'uig  of  the  Universe,  who  host  sanctified  us  by  thy  com- 
mandments and  commanded  us  to  hear  the  sound  of  the 
ahojjftdr.'  The  number  of  distinct  notes  varies  in  dilTerent 
rites  (from  30  to  100).  A  whole  section  of  the  mu,saph  or 
additional  service  of  the  Day  of  tlie  Trumpet  is  known  &» 
the  ghuphfirMh  ^.Mishna,  Ro»h  Ua»h>tna,  iv.  6);  it  consists  of  a 
collection  of  scriptural  passa^^es  in  which  the  shophdr  is  men- 
tioned (see  Singer,  Authoriztd  Daily  J'rayer-Book,  p.  252  ;  and 
on  the  New  Year  Lituryy,  Friedmann  in  JQIi  i.  e2).  These 
passages  refer  chiefly  to  the  giving  of  the  Law  at  Sinai  and  to 
the  future  redemption,  and  the  ossot-intion  of  the  shophdr  with 
the  latter  event  often  occurs  in  the  NT  ('Last trump,'  1  Co  16^2; 
cf.  ITh  4i«,  Mt  24a',  2Ks  (?2i,  and  Is  2713,  Zee  9»^).  Thus  the 
shophdr  plays  itM  part  not  only  in  the  biblical  feast,  but  also  in 
the  general  scheme  of  the  later  New  Year  celebrations. 

The  festival  haw,  from  early  Itahhinical  times,  been  known  as 
njy-n  &*NT  (New  Year;  see  TiiiB),  fn;jri  dH'C  Day  of  Memorial'; 
cf.  Lv  23^),  and  ]^-^_ri  qV  ('  Day  of  Judgment*).  The  festival  has 
been  spiritualized  into  a  solemn  day  of  self-introspection,  and 
the  shofihdr  is  regarded  as  a  signal,  culling  to  inner  and  outward 
repcnliinee. 

In  anticipation  of  the  feast  itself,  the  $hophdT  is  with  this 
object  sounded  in  many  synagogues  throii;,'hout  the  previous 
month  Klul,  morning  and  evening,  with  tlie  exception  of  the 
Sahbaths.  (If  the  Ist  of  Tishri  happen  to  fall  on  a  Saturday, 
the  shuphdr  Is  not  sounrled,  excci)t  in  certain  Kcformcd  Jewish 
congregations.  In  the  temple  the  shophdt  was  of  course 
soundwl  on  the  Sabbath)-  So,  t-oo.  after  the  festival,  the 
shojihnr  Is  (lounded  (among  the  Senhardic  Jews)  on  the  7th 
day  of  Tabernacles  iUttfha'ana  liah'ni)  during  the  seven  circuila 
of  the  imlinH.  This  last  act  completes  the  penitentiary  cycle, 
which  includes  the  Day  of  Atooement.     The  whole  period  is 


816 


TRU]\rPET 


TRUTH 


the  most  eolemn  in  the  modern  Jewish  Calendar,  and  it  is 
noteworthy  that  Rabhinical  Judaism  has  in  tliis  case,  oa  in 
eeyeral  others,  developed  the  biblical  prescriptions  in  a  purely 
spiritual  direction.  One  of  the  finest  sections  in  Maimonides' 
Code  (Mislnuh  Torah)  is  the  section  on  Penitence  (r\yvR 
*  return '),  in  which  the  ideas  of  a  sense  of  sin,  regret,  and 
practical  nniendnient  are,  on  the  basis  of  Rabhinical  concep- 
tions, combined  into  a  remarkable  and  beautiful  whole.  It 
should  he  added  that  the  ^~i^p'J  or  binding  of  Isaac  on  the 
altar  plays  in  the  liturgy  of  the  6ynaj,'Ogue  for  the  New  Year 
a  r61e  in  some,  though  not  in  tlie  most  characteristic,  aspects 
not  unlike  that  of  the  Crucifixion  in  the  theology  and  liturgj' 
of  the  Christian  Church. 

The  otlier  uses  of  the  shophdr  are  not  easily  dis- 
criminated from  those  of  the  hazozcrah,  and  tlie 
two  instruments  must  be  considered  in  conjunc- 
tion. The  hdzOzernh  dilfored  from  tlie  shophdr 
in  sha])e  (see  vol.  iii.  p.  462  f.),  beinjr  nearly  a 
yard  long,  a  straight  slender  tube  with  a  slight 
expansion  at  the  mouth  and  a  bell-shaped  end 
(Jos.  Ant.  III.  xii.  6  ;  so  Arch  of  Titus  and  Coins). 
It  also  differed  in  material,  as  it  w^as  made  of 
metal  ('beaten  silver,'  Nu  10^).  The  hAzozSrah 
was  the  sacred  clarion,  and  was  closely  connected 
(mostly  in  P  and  Chron.)  with  the  later  temple 
service  as  described  in  Chronicles.  It  was  a  more 
musical  instrument  than  the  shophdr,  and  was  used 
almost  e.xclusively  by  the  priests.  As  a  secular 
instrument,  the  hcizozerah  is  mentioned  in  Hos  5', 
together  with  tlie  shophar,  as  used  to  signal  the 
approach  of  an  invading  army.  '  Previously  to 
the  Exile,'  says  Cheyne  (ad  loc),  'the  cornet 
[shophdr]  and  the  trumpet  (hdzozSrah)  were  prob- 
ably different  names  for  the  same  instrument,  as 
the  Law  (Nu  10'"""  31')  prescribes  the  use  of  the 
silver  trumpet  in  cases  when,  according  to  the 
prophetic  and  historical  books,  the  cornet  or 
shophar  was  used.  In  writings  of  post-captivity 
origin  (Pa  98=,  1  Oh  15^8,  2  Ch  15")  they  appear  to 
re]iresent  different  instruments,  or  rather  slightly 
different  varieties  of  the  same  instrument.'  Per- 
haps in  2  K  11"  the  hazozcrah  is  a  secular  instru- 
ment (so  Oxford  Hehre,w  Lex.  p.  348).  Mostly  it 
was  the  shophdr  that  was  used  in  war  as  a  signal 
either  for  assembly  (Jg  3",  2  S  20'),  attack,  or 
retreat  (2  S  2^).  We  cannot  tell  whether  it  was 
the  shophdr  or  httzozcrah  that  is  referred  to  often 
in  the  Books  of  the  Maccabees  (e.g.  1  Mac  3'^ 
aoK-n-Ly^,  4*"  '  trumpeted  with  trumpets  of  signals,' 
5^'  etc.).  The  watchman  blew  tlie  shophdr  to 
raise  an  alarm  or  to  indicate  impending  danger 
(Am  3«,  Jer  6',  Ezk  33"),  and  Moore  (on  .Ig  6*") 
renders  shophdr  by  'war-horn.'  In  tlie  narrative 
of  Gideon  (Jg  7  ")  there  seems  a  large  supply  of  horns 
in  the  camp,  but  in  v.^it  is  expressly  said  that  the 
troops  that  were  sent  home  left  their  horns  with 
Gideon,  thus  enabling  him  to  furnish  each  of  his 
300  men  with  a  shophdr  (see  Moore,  Judrjcs,  p. 
203  ff.).  In  the  Jubilee  year  the  shophdr  was 
sounded  on  tlie  10th  of  Tishri  as  a  signal  (Lv  25' 
P),  and  this  may  be  the  origin  of  the  synagogue 
usage  to  sound  the  shophdr  on  the  conclusion  of 
the  Day  of  Atonement.  Possibly,  however,  this 
Is  connected  with  the  custom  of  sounding  a 
trumpet  (hdzozcrah)  in  the  temple  at  the  begin- 
ning and  end  of  the  Sabbath  (T.  Jerus.  Shabbath 
xvii.  16rt ;  B.ab.  Shabbath  356;  Jos.  Ant.  IV. 
ix.  12  :  '  tlie  top  of  the  Pastophoria,  where  one  of 
the  priests  usually  stood  and  gave  a  signal  before- 
hand in  the  evening  wiili  a  trumjiet  at  tlie  begin- 
ning of  every  seventh  day  [Friday  evening],  as 
also  in  the  evening  wlien  the  sabbath  da}'  was 
finished,  giving  notice  to  the  people  when  they 
were  to  leave  off  work,  and  when  they  were  to  go 
to  work  again '). 

Reverting  to  Bible  times,  a  blast  of  trumpets 
announced  an  important  event  such  as  a  ro3-al 
accession  (1  K  l*"-*"  the  shophar  is  named,  but  the 
ffdzozn-ah  in  2  K  11"),  and  the  popular  joy  was 
aided  in  the  same  manner  on  other  occasions  (2  S 


6",  cf.  Ps  47').  Liturgically,  the  h&zozirdh  was 
the  priestly  instrument  par  excellence  (the  Levites 
had  several  other  instruments).  The  silver  trumpets 
were  blown  at  the  beginning  of  each  month  (Nu 
10'"),  but  the  shophdr  on  the  New  Moon  of  Tisliri 
(see  Kirkpatrick's  notes  on  Ps  81). 

The  Talmud  (Mishna,  loc.  cH.\  Talm.  Bab.  Rosh  na.sliana 
26ft)  explains  tliat  the  silver  trumpets  were  not  omitted  on  the 
1st  of  Tishri,  but  that  besides  these  a  shophdr  (of  straight  ibex 
horn  with  a  golden  mouthpiece — an  addition  unlawful  except  in 
the  temple)  was  sounded,  its  notes  being  made  to  predominate 
ON  er  the  trumpets. 

The  silver  trumpets  were  sounded  at  the  daily 
burnt-offering  (2  Ch  29-''-''«,  Nu  10'- =•  •<>),  and  at  the 
three  pauses  in  the  singing  of  the  dailj'  psalms 
(a  later  introduction)  three  blasts  (nine  in  all)  were 
sounded  from  the  silver  trumpets,  and  the  people 
fell  down  and  worshipped  (2  Ch  29^  etc.).  Tliere 
seem  to  have  been  7  trumpets  in  the  Levitical 
orchestra  (so  Biichler,  ZATW,  1899,  p.  329,  on 
basis  of  1  Ch  15-'',  Neh  12^').  On  the  prostration 
as  signalled  by  the  trumpets  see  also  Sir  50"- " ; 
Mishna,  Tamid  vii.  3.  Trumpets  were  also  used 
on  semi-religious  occasions  of  joy,  and  particularly 
at  the  Ceremony  of  the  Water-Drawing  at  the 
Feast  of  Tabernacles  (Mishna,  Succah  v.  4),  a 
ceremony  which  ia  very  ancient,  and  may  even 
underlie  Is  12\  I.  ABRAHAMS. 

TRUST.— See  Faith. 

TRUTH. — The  usage  of  Holy  Scripture  in  respect 
to  words  expressive  of  the  idea  of  '  truth,'  in  its 
broadest  signilication,  is  a  point  of  considerable 
interest  and  importance.  The  study  of  it  illustrates 
the  influence  of  Hebrew  training  upon  the  writers 
of  NT,  and  brings  into  relief  characteristics  of  the 
ethical  and  religious  thought  both  of  OT  and  NT 
which  are  full  of  profound  instruction. 

i.  The  Old  Testament.— The  verb  px — from 
which  njx  and  nyi:is,  the  words  with  which  we  are 
principally  concerned,  are  derived  —  signilies  to 
support,  sustain. 

In  the  Qal  it  is  used  of  a  nurse  carrying  a  child  (Nu  llW, 
2  S  4'*,  Ru  4i<J),  and  more  generally  of  those  who  have  the 
charge  of  rearing  children  (2  K  10i"6,  Is  49'^,  Est  27);  in  the 
Niphal,  of  those  who  are  carried  (Is  gM).  Again  of  that  which 
is  firmly  founded,  as  '  a  »ure  house  '  (1  S  23^  25"^,  1  K  1138,  and 
cf.  2  S  716),  of  a  firmly  fixed  nail  (Is  22.s.2i>),  of  national  stability 
and  prosperity  (2  Ch  20-0,  is  79)  ;  of  that  which  continues  long 
(Dt  28W) ;  of  waters  that  are  unfailing  (Is  3318,  jer  16i») ;  ol 
Samuel  established  as  a  prophet  (1  S  3-'i) ;  of  words  being  estab- 
lished— i.e.  verified — ,  God's  words  through  His  prophets  (1  Ch 
1723.24,  2  Ch  19  61',  Hos  59),  and  of  the  word  of  men  (Gn  42'.M), 
and,  in  a  remarkable  passage,  of  those  who  have  a  character  tor 
uttering  sentiments  that  are  true,  showing  knowledge  of  human 
life  and  its  laws,  et«.  {Job  12-9) ;  lastly,  in  a  distinctly  etiiical 
sense,  of  one  trustworth.v  in  onijnary  human  relations  (Pr  111* 
2513  27'*,  Neh  1313,  Is  8'2),  or  unswerving  in  his  loyalty  to  Jehovah 
(Ps  788- 37),  faithful  in  the  fulfilment  of  a  trust  divinely  com- 
mitted (Nu  127,  1  S  2*>  2214) ;  also  of  God's  faithfulness  (Is  49» 
553,  Jer  425,  Dt  79,  Ps  197  892s  935  lUT). 

The  llipliil  has  the  sense  to  put  confidence  tn,  to  believe,  either 
specific  declarations  of  God  or  of  man  (Gn  168  4526,  is  631,  Jon  3' 
etc.),  or  persons,  again  either  God(Dt  1*'2,  2  Ch  2020  etc.)  or  man 
(Jg  11-9,  2Ch  32l»  etc.).  Comp.  also  Job  3912  of  putting  ceo- 
fidence  in  the  wild  ox,  and  Job  41"  1516  of  God,  'He  putteth  no 
trust  in  his  holy  ones,'  and  Job  1631  to  trust  in  vanity.'  It  is 
also  used  ahsol.  Is  7^  2818  etc.  There  are  more  special  applica- 
tions at  Dt  2888,  Job  2422  39-«. 

The  noun  n:?i<  a  pillar  (2  K  1818)  illustrates  clearly  the 
signification  of  the  root.  For  the  ethical  idea  connected  with  it 
we  have  analogies  in  ^-i2unade firm,  fixed,  hence  morally  rfjrccted 
ariijht,  stetl/ast ;  and  n'y;  (Aram.)  stable,  true  ;  cf.  a»;  (Aram.) 
to  make  firm,  and  Heb.  ^y.rin  to  stati4m  oneself. 

The  senses  in  which  ny.os  is  used  correspond  on 
the  whole  very  closely  with  those  of  the  verb,  and 
BO,  to  a  considerable  extent,  do  those  of  ncx.  The 
former  word,  however,  sometimes  has  a  purely 
physical  meaning  :  this  the  latter  never  has,  while 
(unlike  the  former)  it  is  also  used  to  describe  a 
quality  of  speech  or  thought  in  a  manner  not 
distinguishable  from  that  in  which  the  term  '  truth ' 


TRUTH 


TRUTH 


817 


commonly  is  among  ourselves.  In  the  following 
analysis  the  two  words  will  be  taken  together ; 
this  is  most  convenient,  because  their  meanings 
overlap.  But  references  to  the  former  are  printed 
in  thick  type. 

1.  Steadinest,  Ex  IT^Con  the  construction  eee  Ges.-K.  i  HI''). 
'i.  A  set^  or  JiXfd,  ojhcf,  or  perhaps  a  tru$t  (as  KViu  iu  some 
places),  1  Ch  6--  -Mai,  2  Ch  Sl'^  '». 

3.  Loi/alty  to  ohliffatioiti  and  engagemcntg,  ttprujhtnesg, 
honnst  dealing,  u  between  man  and  man,  Jg  Q'*-  ^^ '",  Ps  37=*, 
Jer  S'-  8  ;  perhaps  also  Gn  4210.  n^K  In  this  sense  is  frequently 
joined  with  irn,  kindness  or  mercy— so  in  Gn  24*9  47a,  jos 
gli.  14,  Pr  3a  100  (cf.  also  Pr  20i>,  included  under  headings  5  and 
9,  for  their  conjunction  as  Divine  attributes.  For  the  general 
purport  of  the  cuuibination  see  the  latter  place). 

4.  UonfMu  and  j'ulflUy  in  respect  to  a  cliarge  committed  to 
one,  2  K  12''  22",  2  Ch  31'2  3412,  Neh  72. 

6.  Jwitice  in  a  specific  sense,  that  which  is  in  accordance  with 
lights,  llos  41,  l)n  8'a.  So  also  Pr  12"  ('  he  that  uttercth  truth 
=  declareth  what  is  Just").  Similarly  Jer  1^,  Is  59*.  As  a 
quality  of  Judjies  and  kings,  2  Ch  19!',  Ex  IS'^i,  Ezk  188,  Pr 
SO'-*  21114.  This  characteristic  is  emphatically  applied  to  the 
government  of  the  Messianic  king.  Is  IP,  l*s  4*54,  js  i^s  403, 

6.  Vff  a  state  of  true  national  well-being,  which  would  be 
specially  realized  in  the  promised  times,  frequently  coupled 
with  'peace.'  As  tlie  IJeb.  for  'peace'  implies  /tealt/i,  aoiuul' 
nM*,  so  that  for  '  truth '  implies  stability.  But  the  word  *  truth ' 
may  also,  from  its  uisociationi,  suggest  a  condition  in  which 
justice  prevails  in  all  social  relations  (Is  Z'S^,  Ps  8510-  u,  Jer  33''), 
also  'peace  of  truth,' i.e.  * asifurcd  peace,' Jer  1413,  and  more 
generally  2  K  2Ui»,  Is  39s,  Est  'ja".  Zee  m  is. 

7.  J-'alt/i^fuliiesn  to  God,  as  shown  by  zeal  for  Ilia  worship,  the 
avoidance  of  the  warship  of  false  gods,  and  diligence  in  keeping 
all  His  commantLncnts.  Justice  between  man  and  man  is 
included,  because  He  ordains  it.  Sometimes  it  is  dilticult  to  say 
whether  most  stress  is  laid  on  one  or  another  part  of  this 
complex  idea.  Tlie  reference,  however,  seems,  considering  all 
the  associationsof  the  word,  to  be  most  often  to  the  faithfulness 
shown  in  outward  conduct,  even  m  the  phrase  '  in  truth  ' ;  other 
expressions  in  the  same  contexts  refer  to  inward  sinceritv,  Jos 
2414,  Jer  221  (cf. '  children  that  will  not  deal  falseh  ,'  Is  uii")  4^, 
Ps  119M  (cf.  v.S»),  2  Ch  3120  321, 1  s  1221, 1  K  2*  3'*,  2  K  2(V',  Is  llpl. 
Yet  at  Ps  I45IU,  Is  481  <  in  truth  •=«nf/'r.'fi/,  in  contrast  with 
hypocrisy.  Cf.  also  Ps  SI".  The  expression  *  I  have  walked ' 
or  '  I  will  walk  in  thy  truth '  (Ps  2iP  B6II)  may  on  the  wiiole 
most  probably  belong  to  tiiis  heading;  that  is  to  say,  'Thy 
truth' may  mean  the  faithfulness  (towards  Thee)  which  Thou 
bast  appointed.  Hut  'walking  in  God's  truth'  might  also 
possibly  mean  'walking  in  reliance  on  God's  faithfulness.' 

8.  Confidence,  fri«.7,  Hab  2*  ;  probably,  however,  the  meaning 
here  also  is  'faithfulness'  (R\'m),  in  which  cose  this  passage 
should  be  placed  under  3. 

9.  As  a  l>tvine  attribute  ;  (a)  God's  con-Rtafurj/  to  His  people, 
ihe/aith/ulnexs  with  which  He  had  fuIlUled  or  would  fulfil  His 
covenant  with  Abraham  and  his  descendants  or  with   David 

(On  242;,   HOS  21" '2'),   MiC    720,    p,  891- 2-l>-"- 15.24.33.4!)    982    1005 

1161  1172  Ul»42- 121- 130) ;  also  In  regard  to  all  who  serve  Him 
(On  3210,  p,  2410  308  4010. 11  64»  673- 10  7122  b(ll6  8811  922  igs4  KWi 
1431-  2,  Pr  1423.  Is  3818.  111).  It  is  also  recognized  that  alike  in  the 
case  of  the  nation  (La  32*-  23,  Xeh  932),  and  of  the  individual  t  Pa 
119"5).CA]aniitics  do  not  prove  thatGod  has  failed  in  faithfulness. 
We  meet,  also,  with  the  prayer  or  wish  that  God  may  show  His 
truth  (2  S  '21 1520,  Pfl  617).  In  the  great  majority  of  the  passages, 
80  far  given  under  this  head,  iQ0  'mercy'  is  coupled  with 'truth.' 
These  two  words  are  doubtless  to  a  certain  extent  comple- 
mentary, the  one  as  expressive  of  a  free  compassion  and  favour 
which  is  ever  fresh,  the  other  of  a  (Idclity  to  promises.  But 
there  is  a  danger  of  pressing  this  contrast  too  far,  as  Wendt 
Kerns  to  do,  ^'A,  1883,  p.  62U.  When  society  was  less  organized 
and  rights  could  be  less  easily  enforced  and  were  even  less 
deteniiinate,  the  sjiirit  of  mercy  was  often  required  to  dictate 
the  doing  of  truth  (or  justice).  Moreover,  love  is  at  all  times 
the  true  motive  for  the  doing  of  Justice,  and  no  other  is 
likely  to  sultiw  if  it  be  a  question  of  justice  In  those  many 
relations  of  life  with  which  law  cannot  interfere ;  while  at  the 
same  time  the  a<-tion  of  true  love  must  ever  be  controlled  by 
the  law  of  justice.  This  applies  wiiere  the  two  wor<is  are 
conjomed  In  sneaking  of  human  action  (see  above.  No.  3). 
But  so,  also,  tlie  thought  that  God's  truth  proceeded  from 
His  mere  goorlness  is  frequently  suggested  in  OT,  and,  on 
tne  other  hand,  that  His  mercy  is  an  exhibition  of  His  truth. 
Cod's  own  love  is  closely  associated  with  His  righteousness 
(camp,  the  usage  of  the  word  pij  in  OT ;  see  also  Ps  0212). 
Some  other  combinations  should  be  compared,  esp.  '  the  light 
of  God's  countenance,'  i.e.  His  favour  and  'his  truth'  (I's 
»5»  43i).  "his  righteousness'  and  'his  truth'  (Ps  401",  Zee  b» ; 
cf.  also  Dt  324). 

it)  Truth  seems  also  to  be  contemplated  more  generally  as 
one  of  the  great  elements  in  Gwl's  character,  Ex  34"1,  Pa  36* 
11950.  He  ig  the  true  Owl,  as  contrasted  with  the  false  gods 
who  are  but  lying  vanities  (PsSl'O,  2  Ch  153,  and  Jcr  Ul'O,  where 
*  the  living  God  is  a  parallel  expression),  llence  His  works  are 
wrought  in  faithfulness,  Ps  334  »  up  ifls  01)13,  |s  2S1.  His 
couuuandments  also  arc  tnio  In  that  they  are  firmly  established, 
that  they  are  not  subject  to  change,  that  those'who  observe 
them  w  ill  certAinly  be  rewanled,  and  those  wio  transgress  theiu 
punished,  Ps  119«,  II9142. 16I.  IM,  jjch  OH,  Pr  111",  i,  ui». 
VOU  IV. — W 


in.  Of  the  utterances  of  prophets  (1  K  1724  2210,  2  Ch  181», 
Is  439,  Jer  '201'  'ib")  ;  of  a  vision  that  does  not  mislead,  Dn  820  jQl. 
'  The  writing  of  truth  '  is  the  book  of  destiny,  Dn  1U21  ;  cf.  112. 

11.  Truth,  in  the  sense  in  wiiioh  we  commonly  employ  the 
term,  for  the  agreement  between  language  and  facts  whatever 
these  may  be  ;  1  K  IQii,  2  Ch  9*,  Dt  l:il4  174  2220,  Jer  9^,  Ps  162 
('  in  his  heart'  here  should  be  'with  his  heart,'  i.e.  cordially, 
gladly),  Pr  12i»  1425  -22:21, 

12.  l>ivine  revelation  (Mai  20,  Dn  913) ;  orthat  true  philosoph.v, 
that  knowiedge  of  the  order  of  the  world  and  of  lite,  to  wnieh 
the  wise  have  in  fuller  or  less  measure  attained  (Pr  87  '2323, 
Ec  121")  ;  with  this  last  sense  cf.  the  use  of  the  verb  at  Job  1220. 

[The  noun  [OK  occurs  in  sing,  at  Dt  3220,  and  in  pi.  at  Pr  1317 
145  20«,  Is  202  in  sense  '  faithfulness,'  to  which  Ps  121  31'23  should 
perhaps  be  added  (so  RVm) ;  but  in  these  two  jt.assages  it  may 
be  p.ass,  partic.  of  Qal,  and  mean  •  the  faithful  *  (so  RV),  JCN 
in  Is  251  is  taken  in  same  sense,  but  the  phrase  of  wiiich  it  forms 
part  is  thus  rendered  difficult,  and  the  pointing  may  be  wrong. 
On  jDK  see  AUESJ. 

In  the  case  ot  both  words  it  is  easy  in  the  vast 
majority  of  instances  to  trace  the  connexion  with 
the  signilication  of  the  root,  which,  ethically  re- 
garded, conveys  the  notion  of  constancj',  stead- 
fastnes.i,  faithfulness.  But  there  are  secondary 
meanings,  and  the  precise  train  of  ideas  by  which 
these  were  readied  cannot  be  considered  certain. 
Thus  truth  in  the  sense  of  civil  justice — to  which, 
in  some  pas.sages  at  least,  it  appi-oxiniates — may 
be  derived  from  the  general  notion  of  faithfulness, 
and  with  this — when  it  is  a  question  of  a  social 
state  in  which  justice  prevails  —  the  notion  of 
stability,  which  brings  us  still  nearer  to  the  original 
meaning  of  the  root,  may  be  united.  Since  not 
merely  n^x  but  n;i::x  is  used  in  this  way,  some  such 
explanation  seems  on  the  whole  the  most  likely. 
Yet  it  m,ay  also  be  supposed  that  justice  in  giving 
or  procuring  judgment  is  called  truth,  simply  as 
being  in  agreement  with  the  facts.  The  same 
view  of  truth  may  also,  with  even  more  jiroha- 
bility,  be  suggested,  when  it  is  predicated  of 
s]iccch  or  of  thought.  Nevertheless,  the  origin 
even  of  this  application  may  have  lain  in  the 
circumstance  that  truth-speaking  is  part  of  the 
character  of  a  faithful  man  ;  or  again,  the  inten- 
tion may  have  been  to  describe  words  that  are 
well  founded,  based  upon  facts,  and  therefore  lirm. 
This  idea  of  an  underlying  reality  may  probably 
be  traced  in  the  use  of  the  term  to  describe  God's 
revealed  will,  or  the  knowledge  of  the  wi.se.  It 
may  not  be  unnecessary  to  add  a  caution  that  we 
must  not  so  insist  on  giving  etlect  to  the  force  of 
the  root  as  to  exclude  other  ideas  which  may  have 
entered  in  the  course  of  the  history  of  the  word, 
and  thus  to  limit  the  range  of  its  meaning. 

Moreover,  the  various  senses  of  a  word,  even 
after  they  have  once  been  dillerentiatcd  by  custom, 
may  act  and  react  upon  one  .another  in  their  further 
use.  And  tlius  there  can  be  little  doubt  that  the 
conception  formed  of  religious  and  intellectual 
truth  must  have  been  more  or  less  afl'ectcil  by 
the  various  a.ssociation9  of  the  term  wliicli  had 
come  to  be  employed  to  designate  it.  In  particular, 
the  contemplation  of  truth  as  an  attribute  of  the 
Divine  nature  and  operations  must  in  devout  and 
reflective  minds  have  jiromotcd  a  comprulicnsive 
and  ])rofound  view  01  the  quality.  It  will  be 
important  to  bear  this  in  mind  when  we  pass  on 
to  consider  the  meaning  of  '  truth '  in  the  NT. 
First,  however,  we  must  briefly  notice  the  usage 
of  the  LXX,  whereby  the  Greek  lan^;uage  itself, 
which  the  NT  writers  were  to  use,  was  m  a  measiua 
roniinted. 

The  verb  pij — to  pass  over  the  ptcp.  of  Qal, 
meaning  *a  nurse,' or  liaving  kindred  signiiicationa 
to  this — is  represented  by  VKTrovn  (Niph.),  TruTiiJur 
(Niph.  and  liiph.),  irlany  txc  (Nipli.),  Triarit  thai, 
or  ptcp.  iriffT-is  (Nil)h.).  njiCK  20  times  by  iricrTii 
and  once  adjectivally  by  maTit,  '22  times  by 
i\-/l$tta  (20  of  these  being  in  the  I'salniH,  8  in  P« 
88  (89)  alone:  the  other  two  are  2  Ch  U)".  Is  IP), 
twice  by  dX-qeiris  (Is  25'  2ti*).    n;t<  in  nearly  four 


818 


TRUTH 


TRUTH 


filths  of  the  passages  in  whicli  it  occurs  is  rendered 
by  dX^tftta,  12  times  by  d\T]div6s,  a  few  times  by 
j\7)9^!  and  d\j;9it,  12  times  by  SLKaioaiifri  or  okacos, 
and  once  by  iXi-qixoawti. 

The  dill'erence  in  the  treatment  of  n:DN  and  nyx 
shows  a  sense,  which  is  up  to  a  certain  point 
correct,  of  the  dill'erence  between  tliem  in  mean- 
ing. One  of  the  most  instructive  points,  however, 
in  connexion  with  our  present  subject  is  the  prac- 
tice of  the  LXX  in  regard  to  the  rendering  of  the 
former  word.  Broadly  speaking,  ttIo-tis  or  Triartii 
is  used  where  it  is  a  question  of  human  character 
or  conduct,  dXvjfffia  and  its  derivatives  with  refer- 
ence to  Divine. 

ILVtk  is.  however,  attributed  to  God  once,  aoc.  to  Q™g,  at  La 
323 ;  the  adverbial  phrase  iv  ir'nrtu  is  also  used  a  few  times  of 
God,  Ps  3-2  (33)-',  Ho8  22>,  Jer  34  (28)9  S9(32)J1,  and  the  epithet 
a-ffl-Toc  is  applied  to  God,  Dt  7^  32-*,  and  to  the  Divine  testimony, 
covenant,  etc.,  Ps  18  (19)' 88  (89)2»n0  (m)'.  Is  653.  „  iArtt/. 
is  used  in  a  charge  to  judges,  2  Ch  19y,  d^rHii  of  human  char- 
acter, Neh  72 ;  a  few  other  similar  instances  might  be  given  ; 
aA)if(i«  is  used  for  njiox  at  Is  11*  to  describe  an  attribute  of  the 
Messianic  king.  It  may  be  further  noted  here  that  wtrrn  is 
only  once  used  to  render  n"N  ^vith  reference  to  God,  and  there 
only  in  the  phrase  iv  a-itf-rK  (JerSl  (32)'").  iriVn?  at  Pr  1422 refers, 
according  to  LXX,  to  men. 

The  idea  of  '  faithfulness '  is,  as  a  matter  of  fact, 
very  prominent  in  OT  in  connexion  with  the 
Divine  character,  and  is  undoubtedly  conveyed  by 
the  word  n;?Ds,  used  of  God,  and  from  this  point  of 
view  would  have  been  best  represented  by  irfo-Tis  or 
■marSt.  But  the  LXX  translators  seem  to  have  felt 
that  the  ordinary  associations  with  these  words 
were  too  purely  human.  aX-qBeia  was  a  word  of 
liirger  meaning,  and,  though  the  same  ideas  were 
not  connected  with  it  by  reason  of  its  derivation 
and  history,  it  conveyed,  even  according  to  classical 
usage, — though  especially,  of  course,  that  of  the 
pliilosophical  writers, — the  notion,  not  simply  of 
agreement  between  speech  and  fact,  but  of  reality. 
This  helped  to  make  the  word  serviceable  as  a  ren- 
dering alike  of  niJO.;^  and  of  nj.x.  At  the  same  time, 
the  new  contexts  into  which  it  was  brought  could 
not  fail  to  have  an  effect  upon  its  signification. 
Its  former  use  could  scarcely  make  intelligible  such 
expressions,  for  instance,  as  ^{airocrT-AXfiv  dXijffeiav 
(Ps  42  (43)»  55  (57)*),  or  Troier.-  dX^feav  (said  of  God 
Gn  47™  etc.,  and  of  men  Jos  2"  etc.).  It  is  not, 
however,  to  be  supposed  that  the  translators  either 
intended,  or  would  have  been  able,  to  transfer  to 
dX^Sfio  all  the  associations  of  the  original  words. 
But  it  acquired  a  connotation  which  was  partly 
the  result  of  its  classical  u.sage — for  on  this  side, 
also,  the  biblical  use  received  enrichment — partly 
of  the  Hebrew  words  for  which  it  now  stood. 
Lastly,  the  occurrence  of  ^  dXiJ^eia  repeatedly  in 
books  of  the  Apocrypha,  in  remarkable  sayings,  in 
the  sense  in  which  we  have  met  with  ns.x  two  or 
three  times  in  the  Sapiential  books  of  the  Canon, 
for  the  sum  of  true  knowledge,  or  Divine  revela- 
tion, deserves  to  be  noticed.  E.g.  see  1  Es  3"  4'°-  *', 
Sir  42»-  ^. 

The  use  of  a\-n9-^s  and  d\7)9£s  in  LXX  need  not 
detain  us  ;  there  is  nothing  in  the  case  of  either  that 
<;alls  for  special  remark,  with  the  exception  that 
once  the  former  is  applied  as  an  epithet  of  a  man. 
But  the  use  of  dXTj^ii-it  must  be  examined.  The 
eflect  of  the  termination  -ivos  is  to  draw  attention, 
as  it  were,  to  the  presence  of  the  quality  denoted 
by  the  root,  in  that  to  which  the  epithet  is  applied. 
Sometimes  d\Tiffiv6s  does  not  practically  im]>ly  more 
than  dXTjSTJs  with  a  certain  amount  of  emphasis  on 
it,  e.q.  3  (1)  K  10'.  But  in  other  places  dXi/fficis 
signifies  in  a  more  specific  manner  that  the  thing 
is  what  it  professes  to  be,  or  that  it  really  corre- 
sponds to  the  idea  of  the  name  given  to  it.  This 
seems  to  be  the  force  of  the  word  at  2  Ch  15' — '  for 
a  long  while  there  was  in  Israel  no  God  who  was 
truly  such.'     But  this  sense  is  not  common  in 


LXX.  Again,  it  expresses  the  notion  of  tru-st- 
worthiness  as  an  attribute  of  persons,  or  of  their 
habitual  words  and  deeds.  Evidently,  this  imports 
something  deeper  than  simply  the  truth  of  a 
particular  saying  or  report  can.  This  appears  to 
be  the  commonest  meaning  in  the  LXX,  and  we  can 
trace  in  this  the  influence  of  the  Hebrew  (e.gr.  Psl8 
(19) »  85  (86) '»,  Is  59S  Jer  2-').  In  Zee  S^—K\-ne-^<T€T>u 
Tj '  lepouaa\T]fi  vdXi^  i)  d\ri$tvf) — there  is  not  specially 
the  idea  of  trustworthiness,  but  it  is  asserted  that 
the  character  of  Jerusalem  should  be  that  of  a  city 
full  of  truth. 

ii.  The  New  Testament.— In  NT  the  concep- 
tion  of '  truth,'  while  it  retains  traces  of  its  previous 
biblical  history,  is  greatly  enlarged  and  deepened, 
especially  in  the  writings  of  St.  Paul  and  St.  John. 
It  will  be  most  convenient  and  instructive  to 
examine  the  idea  separately,  in  the  first  instance, 
in  different  wTiters  or  groups  of  writings.  The 
Synoptics  and  Acts  will  form  one  such  croup, 
which  will  not  detain  us  long.  Next,  we  wiR  take 
the  Epp.  of  St.  Paul.  Epistles  other  than  those  of 
St.  Paul  and  St.  John  may  most  suitably  be  con- 
sidered immediately  after  those  of  St.  Paul,  as 
their  usage  resembles  his,  on  the  whole,  most 
nearly.  Lastly,  we  will  take  the  Johannine  writ- 
ings ;  the  idea  of  truth  in  these,  or,  to  speak  more 
accurately,  in  the  Gospel  and  the  Epp.,  has  im- 
portant elements  in  common  with  that  in  St.  Paul, 
but  there  are  also  significant  traits  characteristic 
of  each  writer. 

1.  Synoptics  and  Acts. — The  few  instances  of  the  occurrence 
of  uXtiheicc  and  its  congeners  have  little  that  is  distinctive  about 
them.  It  will  suffice  to  notice  (a)  the  use  of  ikr,dri  to  describe 
character,  not  simply  speech  or  doctrine,  Mt  2218  =  Mk  12**; 
(6)  eT"  i\y,eiM  and  ikvOUc  in  the  mouth  of  Christ  (Lk  425  927 
12-U),  where  it  may  be  compared  with  His  use  of  'Attr,,  and  is 
probably  a  Greek  equivalent  for  that  word,  -ind  doubtless  is 
intended  to  convey'  the  same  earnestness  of  asseveration  ;  (c)  ri 
a-XxSi^oi,  of  the  true  riches  (Lk  le"),  where  we  cannot  but  be 
reminded  of  the  use  of  aX,j(J<n)f  in  regard  to  the  true  bread,  light, 
etc.,  in  the  Fourth  Gospel,  which  must  be  considered  presently. 

We  do  not  find  in  this  group  of  writings  any  examples  of  »,(r-r«« 
used  of  God  or  Christ,  or  of  vims  as  a  Divine  attribute. 

2.  Epp.  of  St.  Pmd.—i.  There  are  two  passages  (Ro  37  168)  Jq 
which  clXySuo.  signifies  the  Divine  characteristic  of  Jidelity.  just 
as  n^.S  and  n^;DN'  so  frequently  do  in  OT.  In  the  context  of  the 
former  place,  vv.S-Tj  irnntt  as  an  attribute  of  God,  and  the 
conlraat  between  it  and  human  k^nrria.  should  be  observed, 
also  that  between  a-Xtitfr,!  and  ^iwrri^f,  i^tiilita  and  •^lugf^x,  and 
that  which  is  implied  between  etkrfiua  and  (i3j«-«.  .\t  the 
same  time  there  is  ground  for  Cremer's  remark,  that  the  sub- 
stitution of  aAr,fl(,a  for  wim;  OB  the  argument  proceeds,  showi 
that  «*.»)/?.  is  the  word  of  larger  meaning. 

xitrrot  is  strikingly  used  by  St.  Paul  as  an  epithet  of  God  in 
connexion  with  the  thought  of  the  new  pledges  which  God  has 
given  in  Christ  and  through  the  mouth  of  His  servants  and  the 
work  of  the  Spirit.  .See  esp.  1  Co  V>,  1  Th  521,  also  (where  the 
reference  may  be  more  general).  1  Co  lO's.  2Th  33,  2  Ti  213.  The 
same  quality  of  fidelity  and  trustworthiness  is  attributed,  it 
would  seem,  to  Christ'at  2  Co  ll^o,  where  the  a]iostle  claims 
that  this  aAti^.  XptffToC  is  reflected  in  himself,  Chnst's  servant. 
Cf.  also  Ro  91,  and  consider  as  illustrating  the  thought  2  Co 
118  20.  At  Eph  421  Kt^eiic  iirrn  iXiSua  ■>  T«  'hrcu  has  a  some- 
what different  force  (see  below). 

ii.  But  far  more  conmionly  i\y,flij<t,  generally  with  the  def.  art, 
prefixed,  denotes  not  a  qnalit.v  of  a  person,  Di\ine  or  human, 
but  a  body  of  doctrine,  though  it  is  always  the  a.si'ertained 
\v\\\  of  God  which  is  so  designated.  In  Ro  lis. 25  •^>i.'20  it  refers 
to  Divine  truth,  irajmrted  to  man  through  reason  and  conscrience 
and  the  lawsof  nature,  as  well  nain  a  more  specific  maimer  to  the 
Jews.  But  far  more  often  St.  Paul  describes  thereby  the  Divine 
revelation  in  Christ,  the  substance  of  the  apostolic  message,  the 
gospel.  See  esp.  Eph  1^3,  where  'the  word  of  the  truth'  is 
placed  in  apposition  with  '  the  gospd  of  your  salvation.'  Ses 
also  1  Ti  3"  6=,  2  Ti  2>6  >»  38  4'',  Tit  l'-*,  in  all  which  places  ■  th« 
truth '  is  plainly  contemplated  as  in  some  sense  fonnulated.  It 
is  to  be  believe'd  (2  Th  2'^  13),  known  (1  Ti  2-' 43,  2  Ti  22S,  Tit  V), 
loved  (2  Th  2io).  On  comparing  these  pa.ssage8  it  must  be  evi- 
dent that  i  iXr,e.  r.  liityy.  (Gal  2I>-  n.  Col  15)  likewise  means  not 
the  truthfulness  of  the  gospel,  but '  that  truth  which  is  set  forth 
in  the  gospel.'  At  2  Co  4*  13*  also  •  the  truth '  seems  to  have 
the  same  meaning. 

In  several  passages  where  the  def.  art.  is  omitted,  this  samv 
object  appears  to  be  intended,  and  the  purpose  of  the  omission 
is  only  to  lay  special  stress  upon  its  character  as  truth  (2  Co  6", 
Gal  6',  2  Th"218,  1  Ti  2<,  2  Ti  225  37).  At  1  Ti  2'  also— a.>«<r«a« 
itif^»  it  ir.trru  xKi  iA,i(/i;«— the  riff-Tit  and  the  i-XyMua.  seem  each 
to  be  the  subject-matter  of  St.  Paul's  teaching  presented  under 
two  different  aspects.  So,  again,  at  Eph  4*.^  there  is  plainly  a 
reference  to  knowledge  tliat  bu  been  imparted  in  the  words 


TRUTH 


TRUTH 


Sly 


'  Ye  did  not  so  learn  Christ  if  so  be  that  ye  heard  him,  and 
were  taught  in  him,  even  as  tnith  is  in  Jesus.'  But  the  moral 
characteristics  and  contents  and  eiTertsof  the  doctrine  appear 
clearly  from  the  context.  6t.  I'aul  declares  that  the  true 
reception  of  it  must  render  it  iuip<»tJiible  for  them  to  practise 
Bins  that  were  common  among-  the  (lentiles.  And  lie  poea  on  to 
sjicak  of  tlie  old  man  aSy  on  the  other  hand,  'waxing  comipt 
alitor  the  lusts  of  deceit,'  while  truth  is  one  of  the  determining 
principles  of  the  whole  nature  of  the  new  man  :  '  After  God  '  he 
'  hath  been  created  in  rijfhteousness  and  holiness  of  truth.' 

The  ethical  qualities  of  *the  truth'  maybe  not  less  forcibly 
illustrated  from  some  of  the  passages  enumerated  above  in 
which  the  di-f.  art.  is  used.  *Tne  truth'  commends  itself  not 
merely  to  the  intellect  hut  to  the  conscience  of  man,  by  what  it 
is  (2  Co  42).  The  jirinciple  that  is  most  directly  adverse  to  it 
is  i3/*.«  (Ro  *>»,  2  Th  2i<»- 12),  the  very  same  that  is  contrasted 
with  lixtimfi.**.  as  an  attribute  of  God  (Ro  3*).  The  strenjirlh  of 
the  aiwstle  and  his  fellow-workers  lies  solely  in  the  power  which 
Is  inherent  in  that  which  they  teach  by  virtue  of  its  nature 
(2  Co  13^,  and  the  sense  of  tliis  lays  them  under  the  obliyation 
to  practise  the  utmost  sincerity  in  word  and  deed  (2  Co  43 
d''  138). 

iiL  As  might  be  expected  from  what  we  have  already  seen, 
St.  Paul  shows  a  high  sense  of  the  value  of  truth  as  an  ordinary 
human  virtue  (I  Co  5S,  2  Co  7>*  12«.  Eph  425  59  6>*,  1  Ti  27). 

iv.  iXijflirof  occurs  but  once  in  the  Epp.  of  St.  Paul,  at  iTh  1*, 
M  &D  epithet  of  God.  It  marks  out  the  Cod  who  is  reallv  God 
in  contrast  with  false  gods.    (Cf.  in  LXX  2  Ch  16S  and  Is  G5"6). 

S.  Epistles  other  than  those  "/  St.  Paul  and  St.  John.— 
'AX^.Butt  occurs  7  times  in  this  group  (He  Mpi,  Ja  Us  314  519,  1  p 
1*8,  2  P 11*  22),  and  appears  in  every  instance  to  mean,  as  in  2  ii. 
above,  the  doctrine  delivtrcd  by  the  apostles  of  Christ.  Several 
of  the  same  characttrislics  of  this  '  truth '  might  be  illustrated 
from  them.  The  Divine  attribute  of  *  faithfulness '  is  asserted  in 
1  P  419,  not  only,  as  in  OT  or  as  by  St.  Paul,  in  regard  to  those 
who  have  been  brought  into  a  new  relation  to  Qod  *  in  Christ,' 
but  still  more  largely  in  the  unique  and  remarkable  plirase 
wtrrif  ttrirrrx. 

Before  we  pass  on  we  must  note  the  use  in  Ep.  to  Heb.  of 
JtXrtfnct  in  regard  to  the  heavenly  archetypes  of  the  tabernacle 
and  sanctuary  of  the  old  covenant  (8-  0-'*).  At  10--i,  where  it  is 
applied  to  tutphtt,  its  force  may  be  expressed  by  'thoroughlj- 
true  ■  (cf.  Is  383,  and  see  below  4  iii.). 

4.  The  Johannine  writings. — i.  'AXi^flnot  is  used  a  few  times 
for  a  simple  quality  inherent  in  a  person  (Jn  423.  a*  g44 ;  there 
does  not  seem  to  he  any  other  clear  instance). 

ii.  Slost  commonly  that  is  signified  by  it,  the  knowledge  of 
which  is  of  all  knowledge  the  most  necessary  for  man,  and  which 
was  made  known  in  and  through  Christ  in  a  way  that  it  never 
had  been  before.  The  connexion  between  'the  word*  that  is 
taught  and 'the  truth 'appearsS-*l-3-aiidl7i7,  and  the  evangelist 
declares  that  '  the  truth  came  through  Jesus  Christ'  (V^). 

A  portion  of  it  only  could  be  communicated  by  Christ  to  His 
disciples  during  His  time  on  earth,  becavise  they  were  un- 
prepared to  receive  it.  And  it  can  never  be  fully  comprised  in 
any  formulas.  Nothing  <^-ould  show  this  more  clearly  than  its 
Id'-ntiflcation  with  a  person— with  Christ  Himself  (.In  14'^). 
Moreover,  it  evidently  has  intimate  relations  with  the  ideas  of 
'the  light '  and  '  the  life'  by  which  He  is  also  described.  The 
manifestation  of  the  truth  gives  light;  the  inward  appropria- 
tion of  it  brings  life.  After  the  withdrawal  of  the  visible 
presence  of  Christ  it  was  to  be  the  ollice  of  the  other  Paraclete, 
who  was  proniispd,  Ut  teach  the  truth  (Jn  W^).  He  is  called 
'the  Spirit  of  the  Truth'  (Jn  14»7  1526  1613,  1  Jn  4't),  chiefly, 
perhaps,  because  of  this  function  which  He  is  to  dis<:harge,  but 
partly  also,  it  niav  be,  on  account  of  its  ver>'  nature;  for  the 
spiritual  is  pre-eminently  the  true,  the  real  (cf.  Jn  4^  24).  it  ia 
even  said  of  the  Spirit,  as  well  a.s  of  the  Christ,  that  He  is  '  the 
Truth  •  (1  Jn  5«)-  Vet  His  relation  to  the  Truth  as  revealed  iu 
Christ  is  rnrefutly  defined  (Jn  1613  16). 

The  truth  ha.s  been  and  is  commended  through  testimonv. — 
thai  of  the  Iluptibt  (Jn  fr'^O.  that  of  Christ  Himself  (t>«  18^; 
a?id  the  testimony  is  believed  by  those  in  whom  there  is  a  right 
m'.ral  disimsition  (ib.  cf.  also  3-').  The  function  of  the  Spirit, 
tfK>,  is  dfscritied  as  'bearing  witness'  (1  Jn  5T).  His  witness 
muBt  be  primarily  inward,  to  the  human  Hpirit;  yet  it  is  to  be 
rcmembtred  that  He  acts  upon  each  individual  not  only  directly, 
but  through  others,  and  through  the  whole  Bo<ly  of  Christ. 

If  a  certain  moral  ajititude  ia  a  conriition  for  recfiving  the 
truth,  BO  also,  when  received,  it  has  profoimd  moral  efl^ecU.  It 
makes  fret-  (Jn  &^«).  The  recognition  of  the  tnith  and  c<)nformity 
to  It  brings  man's  being  into  the  state  meant  for  it ;  the  discords 
and  contrwJictions  involved  in  a  state  of  sin  are  removed.  This 
freedom  is  described  from  another  point  of  view  as  holiness 

In  1  John  the  tnith  In  action  and  thought  and  character  la 
contrasted  with  viciousness  in  conduct  and  hollow  self-com- 
placency (1  Jn  10  8  24  3i»).  But  even  in  such  pa-^sages  the  truth 
is  not  to  be  thought  of  merely  as  a  quality,  the  prc8<nre  or 
absence  of  which  in  human  characters  may  be  noted.  Rather  It 
is  the  same  trulli  wliieh  is  elsewhere  reganled  as  an  object  of 
knowledge,  considt-red  here  in  its  practical  consetniences.  The 
unity  of  thought,  the  prevalence  of  the  same  dominant  Ideas, 
thrtiughout  the  Johannine  GoHi)eI  and  Epp.,  are  decisive  for 
this  view.  And  indeinJ  we  cun  sometimes  mark  the  more 
absolute  and  the  more  concrete  meanings  of  truth  iMusing,  as  It 
wore,  the  one  Into  the  other,  ns  in  1  Jn  2*.  where  it  Is  implied 
that  the  commandments  of  Christ  funjish  the  norm  for  truth  of 
life.  Again,  where  we  ol)8cr\*e  similarity  with  OT  lang-uage, — 
as  in  Jn  l'*  i7  (cf.  npy  Joined  with  nyt;  ud  n;v2^  Pi  40"  SSio 


etc.,  in  LXX  lAiot  ««j  aXv.6.),  and  *«ji'/»  ty,*  i^.r.Out*,  1  Jn  I8(cf. 
Neh  933  etc.),— though  the  fonn  of  expression  has  doubtless 
been  derived  thence,  other  considerations  must  also  be  lM)me  in 
mind  in  determining  the  meaning.  Indeed  in  the  former  of 
these  examples  the  substitution  of  x^f'f  '•J'"  '^"f  employed  by 
LXX  shoula  worn  us  to  do  this,  as  Cremcr  points  out. 

iii.  'AXr.dttif,  whicli  occurs  but  ft  times  in  the  rcmainderof  NT, 
ia  common  in  the  Johannine  writings,  and  adds  materially  to 
the  prominence  of  the  idea  of  truth  in  them.  It  is  unquestion- 
ably used  sometimes  in  the  Gosj>el  and  First  Ep.  to  signify  that 
a  thing  trulv  corresponds  to  the  idea  of  the  name  given  to  it 
(Jn  ly  423  tjiit  151.  1  Jn  2»),  Some  writers  try  to  bring  all  the 
applications  of  it  under  this  head.  Thus  Jn  T^ — Irri*  a.x.r.Oi*<i: 
i  T(^«c  fu — is  explained  by  Bp.  We^tcott  aa  meaning  'one 
who  completely  satisfies  the  conception  of  a  sender  .  .  .  God  is 
described  as  true,  not  merely  in  so  far  as  He  gave  a  true  message, 
but  as  one  who  really  sent  a  messenger;  a  real  Father,  as  it 
were,  sending  a  real  Son.'  [He  lu—  etXzi/tif.i  jMt>:2.'af— he  renders 
*  a  heart  which  fulfils  the  ideal  ollice  of  the  heart'}.  But  such  a 
thought  seems  in  many  cases  too  far-fetched.  In  particular, 
when  applied  to  persons,  it  is  more  natural  to  take  aXtiOt»c(  to 
mean  Mull  of  the  quality  of  ac.\y.Ouai,'  Where  it  is  an  epithet  of 
x^i.ffif  (Jn  8i6)  or  of  fjMprufl.et  (l^^),  it  is  a  little  more  diUlcult  to 
decide  between  the  two  views  of  its  force,  chiefly  because  they  so 
nearly  apjiroximate.  Judgment  or  testimony,  which  fulfils  the 
idea  expressed  by  the  term,  must  be  judgment  or  testimony 
wliich  has  the  qualit.v  of,  and  corresponds  with,  truth.  Yet  the 
latter  explanation  is  to  be  preferred  as  the  simpler.  This  seems 
to  be  the  force  of  the  word  in  all  the  10  places  in  wliich  it  occurs 
in  the  Apocalypse  f37- 14  610  16^  1(1'""  il»2.  w.  u  215  2i:«),  in  whichitis 
generally  combined  with  other  adjectives— «>-<«;,  h.xxiot,  wto^is 
—and  used  to  describe  God  or  Christ,  or  the  Divine  ways, 
words,  judgments.  '  AXr.Ottit  in  this  use  of  the  word  differs  from 
ir(irr«  only  in  having  a  somewhat  larger  meaning.  On  the 
other  hand,  at  1  Jn  5-",  in  the  concluding  words  of  the  verse, 
eZr^t  irrt*  o  ctXr.dttis  H»ef,  'the  true  God,'  has  the  same  meaning 
aa  at  1  Th  1^  (see  above,  2  iv.),  viz.  as  distinguished  from  false 
gods  ;  and  this  may  therefore  be  the  meaning  of  u.ky,bt*t>t  in  the 
two  preceding  cases  in  the  same  verse,  though  the  other  shade 
of  meaning  would  seem  natural,  especially  In  the  second  of 
them. 

Whereas,  then,  in  OT  *  truth'  is  mainly  thought 
of  as  a  quality  inherent  in  God  or  iu  men,  especi- 
ally the  (luality  of  Btojulfastness  or  fitlclity,  it  ia 
used  commonly  in  NT  in  a  more  detached  and 
larger  sense  for  the  real,  that  which  indeed  is,  and 
whicli  it  is  the  prosier  function  of  the  mind  of  man 
to  occupy  itseli  with  and  to  apprehend.  At  the 
same  time,  this  'tnith'  does  not  ai>pcal  solely  to 
the  intellect.  That  it  may  be  received,  the  moral 
dispositions  of  men  must  correspond  with  it ;  and 
its  reception  will  further  take  ellect  upon  char- 
acter. In  conforming  himself  to  it  in  his  life  lies 
man's  only  secvirity  for  well-being.  The  associa- 
tions which  the  word  had  acquired  through  OT 
usage  hcljied  to  secure  for  the  conception  those 
elements  to  which  this  deep  moral  and  religious 
significance  is  due. 

It  appears,  further,  that  the  knowledge  of  the 
truth  iu  its  fulness  has  been  rendered  possible  only 
tiirough  Divine  revelation.  The  idea  of  revelation 
was  no  new  one  ;  but  it  is  a  point  of  great  imiiort- 
ance,  not  onl}'  that  the  contents  of  revelation 
should  have  been  greatly'  extended,  but  that  what 
before  was  known  simply  as  the  Will  of  Uod,  01 
as  Toraii  (Instruction),  should  now  be  called  bj 
the  name  which  denoted  agreement  between  state- 
ment and  fact  in  common  matters,  or  between  a 
mental  image  and  an  external  object,  the  opposite 
of  illusion,  fancy,  or  mere  ojiiniun.  We  have  seen 
the  beginnings  of  such  a  use  of  llie  term  in  a  few 
instances  in  the  later  books  of  OT  and  in  the 
Apocrypha,  and  Greek  modes  of  thought  may  in 
a  measure  have  facilitated  it.  The  .signilitjince  of 
the  uKage  in  NT  lies  in  tlie  actual  application  of  it 
to  tlie  Christian  revelation  »nd  in  its  freipieney. 
rinally,  after  the  idea  has  been  abstnuted  and 
nnide  comprehensive,  it  is  once  again  connected 
with  persons.  The  source  of  it,  in  this  fuller 
meaning  of  the  term,  ia  found  in  the  Divine 
nature,  in  the  Father,  in  Christ,  in  the  Holy 
Spirit. 

Unless  we  impugn  the  historical  trustworthi- 
ness of  the  Fourth  Gospel,  that  presentation  of 
the  idea  of  truth  which  is  characteristic  of  NT 
begins  with  the  teaching  of  ChriHt  Himself.  St. 
Paul,  however,  would  seem  to  have  acquired  his 


820 


TRYPH/ENA 


TUBAL-CAIN 


view  of  it  rather  from  the  effect  on  his  mmd  of 
f^ith   in  Christ  than  directly   from   any   of   His 
sayin-      And  in  the  case  of  St.  John   too  it  was 
doul  tle'.s  the  impression   left  upon  him  hy  t  e 
Ppr'on  of  the  LorA  which  led  him  to  perceive  tlie 
^:Z^^  power  of  t.>e  wor<U  on  this  su h^ 
which  he  has  rei  oided.     iiie>    ana   I'V,' .  .     „„,i 
Vlievers  felt  that  in  the  doctrine  of  ^^J^ 
;«  tliP  character  and  counsel  of  Uod,  maniiesLcu 
n  the  Person   and  the  life,  death,  and  resurrec- 
tion of  Christ,  they  had  been  perm  tted  t«  grasp 

"''Xhe'term  'the  truth,'  as  applied  to  Divine 
reve  ation,  has  in  later  generations  been  someUni  s 
vulgarized,  and  often  employed  v  itb  too  little 
RPuSe  of  its  ethical  associations.  On  the  otuer 
S    the  study  of    Nature    and    the    study   of 

embrace  facts  of  every  order,  alike  those  ■wnicn 
we  known  throufih  sensible  experience  and  that 
deeper  reality  in  which  even  these  must  have  their 

^'"^riannot  but  be  interesting  to  those  whose 

terms  which  we  haveleen  <=°",««^f."f « -hl^  ^^^^^^ 
in  Herman  die  Treue  has  been  kept  to  the  mean 
•  „f  r.nnstancv  and  die  Wahrhcit  denotes  agree- 
ment bet"tnsttement,  or  thought,  and  fact,  and 
r,  the  Romance  languages  the  distinction  between 
M-i  andTX  is  maintained  in  the  words  derived 

from  Iheni.  _„  ,     j.      ,  ,cni .  it  h 

•     HO  TToflemftnn.  Bibelntudttn,  1.1861,  «•  n- 

Literature -H.  O.Hoeiemami,  ii,e„« 

fwendt  appear,  ^  ^'>'\Vr^'''"i'^^"XlsO^^V<>^''"^  "«" 

»^t, 'm  Way.  the  Truth,  and  the  W«^    ^    STANTON. 

TRYPHffiNA  (Tpi5*a.ra).  — In  ho  16'-  St.  Paul 
,.hi^Js  twf women,Yrypha>na  and  Trj-phosa,  'who 
£; inThe  Lord.'  T 1  e  -mes  oc.ir  in^nscr.p- 
tions   of   the  HousehoUl,    C^YVl-nNA  •'  ET   I   M 

^uVhe  Acts  of  Paul  and  Thecla  a  consi.lerable  part  at 
this  Jer^n'there  is  ^iLtorical  authority.    A  com  of 


Pontus  is  kno^^'n  having  on  the  oWe«e  BA^I  AEnS 

i\^x^^^'"^i:i^'CwnTXd!il:.a^^^^^^^^ 

Se'^eVW     We\now^^^^^^^^^^ 

S^;rm\y  ?:;: tloUed  to^Lt  class^of  d^^^^^^^^ 
and  honourable  women  '"^"t.oned  m  Ac  13  (see 
also  Hogarth,  Autliority  and  Archmolony,  p.  dJi)- 


CA„rcAandtAeiioman£«.p.re.p.382.^    ^    HEADLAM. 
TRYPHON  ,V,.0^-An  omcer  of^^^^^^^ 

put  fo-vard  Antiochus    the  son   of    Bal-^^;,  ^j^ 
claimant  to  *»>«  throne  (1  Mac  ^  ^^^ 

appeal  to  Demetrius  (13f^).    ^l>e    alter  tn as     „ 
iiing  an  expedition  against  Try phonv  hen  he 
Inurself  made  P"'^" J/^  ^hf^  brother*  of  Demetrius. 

n^-ii^ii^rXphon^^^^as^-^^^^  ",P    «> 

?^?tiie'r"arfMAC^AB;ES;  and  ^f^Sch^Orer.  HJP  .. 
i.  176,  246  ff. 

TRYPHOSA.— See  Tryph^NA. 

?^f ''Tr^  ^rM¥l     Ps    120»)    named    along    with 

^:';^;  r^i^riir^^V^^e^elt^a^t  of  the 
Themiodon  in  the  mountainous  d.stnct  to^  tie 
S.E.  of  the  Black  Sea  I'd.Uer  A'e'/in^c^r.  ... 
Assyr.   inscript.ons_  (cf.   Sclnad^r    A        .   ^^  ^ 

Ge.oAiVW^/o«'^'^-  l^^tf-W^^^'*,-^^-^..  Ed.  Meyer. 
Del.  Parad^^s,  2o0f.  ^6^7,  IJ^  .^^  is  a  sou  of 
i.  245).     In  On  10     I  ] -- 1  "j^  '   ,     ,,  ^^^  jubal  are 

•^"^''•'^ek  wi  h  ?rvK  di'^^^^^^^  peoples;  in  Ezk 
associated  \Mtn  •'a^auj»  r  guHered 

32-  they  appear  as^J^^oiles  « ho  )i^^^^,^  Tyre 
severe  rever.ses  ;  in  i.ziv  -•"■  .  ^-P  gga.  391  as 
in  slaves  and  vessels  of  copper  ,  •"  ^^^^  ^^  ,.  ^Voe 
among  the  chief  '^"''^%«   V.^^j.ech  [LXX  oU  «-' 

adloc).  ,n„io  J    A.  SELBIE. 

See,  further,  next  articla  o.  .ft.  ':' 


TUBIAS,  TUBIENI 


TYRAKXUS 


821 


mean  'the  forger  of  every  cutting  instrument  of 
copper  and  iron.'  It  is  likely,  however,  that  c^^ 
was  origiiKiUy  a  marginal  gloss  to  ath  (Olshausen, 
Ball)  or  to  I'S  (Holzinger,  Gunkcl),  and  tliat  the 
words  "N  .T.T  H!n  (cf.  vv.*'-^')  have  dropped  out 
before  "S;.  The  rendering  would  then  be  '  he  was 
tlie  father  of  all  such  as  forge  copper  and  iron.' 
The  LXX  {Q6,8e\'  xai  ijy  a(j>vj>OKliwo%,  xoXsfi'J  X"-^""" 
<tai  aiSiipov)  sujjports  the  view  of  Wellh.  {Comp." 
305),  which  lias  found  general  acceptance,  that  the 
name  S;;b  alone  stood  in  the  original  text,  tliis 
Tubal  being  the  Aeruv  cpotiymus  of  the  Tibareniau 
metal-workers  (cf.  Ezk  iSS'^  and  the  preceding 
art.),  and  that  i:p,  the  generic  name  for  'smith, 
was  afterwards  added.  The  double  name  Tubal- 
cain  would  thus  have  its  analogues  in  such  com- 
binations as  Jahweh  -  Elohim.  Against  Budde's 
reconstruction  {Urgcsr/iir/,tc,  137f. )of  the  text, 
which  makes  Lamech  instead  of  Tubal -cain  the 
subject  of  Ji  Pin,  see  Dillm.  and  Holzinger,  ad 
loc.  Cheyne  (Encyclopedia  Biblica,  i.  col.  626  f . ) 
suggests  that  Tubal  is  '  a  pale  form  of  the  god 
of  tiie  solar  fire,  Gibil  or  Nusku,'  and  that  in 
the  earliest  form  of  the  Heb.  legend  he  was  the 
instructor  of  men  in  the  art  of  getting  fire. 

J.  A-  Selbie. 
TUBIAS,  TUBIENI.— See  ToB. 

TURPENTINE  TREE.— Only  Sir   24"  AV  (B 

repifuyOo!,  nA  T(p{^i.f0o%)  '  As  the  turpentine  tree 
[RV  '  terebinth  ']  I  [sc.  \Visdom]  stretched  out  my 
branches.'  The  Syr.  has  msmn  rhododaphne,  i.e. 
the  oleander,  wliich  appears  to  be  an  unfortunate 
guess  of  the  translator,  wlio  did  not  under.stand 
the  Heb.  .iSn  (?)  ;  so  Kyssel  in  Kautzsch's  Apokr. 
ad  loc.    See,  further,  art.  Terebinth. 

TURTLE,  TURTLE  DOVE  (I'm  tdr,  rpvy^y, 
turtur). — The  Latin  m.uhu  of  this  bird  is  a  re- 
duplication of  the  Hub.,  and  both  refer  to  its  well- 
known  note.  There  are  three  species  in  Palestine 
and  Sj-ria,  Turtur  auritus,  L.,  the  true  turtle  dove, 
T.  risoriu3,  L.,  tlie  collared  turtle  dove,  and  T. 
Senegalensis,  L.,  the  Egyptian  turtle  dove.  The 
collared  species  is  the  largest,  reaching  13  in.  in 
length,  and  is  found  principally  about  the  Dead  Sea 
and  in  the  Jordan  Valley.  It  is  an  Indian  species. 
It  derives  its  name  from  a  narrow  black  collar 
at  the  bark  of  the  neck.  The  palm  or  Egyptian 
turtle  dove  is  smaller,  being  about  10  in.  long.  It 
is  more  widely  distributed  than  tlie  last  species, 
but  not  as  much  so  as  the  following.  It  al.so  has  a 
black  collar.  It  nests  by  preference  in  palm  trees, 
whence  one  of  its  names.  The  common  turtle 
dove  is  not  only  general  in  distribution,  but  very 
abundant.  It  is  about  12  in.  long,  and  has  3 
oblifpie  coloured  bands  at  the  side  of  the  neck. 
The  Scripture  references  in  the  older  books  are  to 
the  bird  as  a  substitute  for  the  pigeon  in  sacrifice 
((in    15»,   Lv  5'  etc.,   Nu   6'»  ;  <  f .  Lk  2-«).      The 

Slaintive  note  and  unresisting  habits  of  the  turtle 
ove  are  probably  the  characteri.stics  alluded  to 
by  a  psalmist,  when  he  pleads  that  the  gentle 
turtle  dove  shall  not  be  delivered  to  the  cruelties 
of  the  wicked  (I's  74").  Its  voice  is  the  harhin''er 
of  spring  (Ca  2'^).  Its  migrations  are  also  alluded 
to  (Jer  8').  The  above  references  would  ap|)ly 
equally  to  any  or  all  of  the  species.  The  palm 
turtle  could  have  been  used  for  sacrifice  in  the 
wilderness  ;  tlio  collared  turtle  would  have  served 
in  the  plains  of  Moab ;  whUe  the  common  turtle 
would  be  found  in  all  parts  of  the  land.  The 
common  Arab,  name  for  the  turtle  dove  is  terghull. 
It  is  also  called  .yuL^ul,  dulisl,  and  fdkhit.  There 
is  the  usual  uncertainty  as  to  the  specific  value  of 
these  names.  G.  E.  Post. 

TUTOR.— Gal  4'  only,  'The  heir  ...  is  under 


tutors  and  guardians,'  i.e.  as  RV, '  under  guardians 
and  stewards,'  Gr.  inrd  ivLTpimovs  icai  oUovS^vi  (cf. 
Lightfoot,  ad  loc).  In  its  oldest  use  '  tutor '  (Old 
Fr.  tutcur;  Lat.  tutor  a  protector,  from  tueor 
to  protect)  means  protector  or  guardian.  Thus 
Fletcher,  Double  Marriage,  v.  1 — 
'  I'll  have  mine  own  power  here, 
Mine  own  autbority  ;  1  need  no  tutor.' 

The  word  still  has  this  sense  in  Scots  law :  Free- 
man, Norman  Conquest,  v.  252,  '  The  guardian — 
the  tutor  in  Scottish  phrase — of  the  orphans  and 
their  land.'  Cf.  Knox,  Hist.  423,  'Now  when  we 
are  at  our  full  luaturitie,  shall  we  be  brought  back 
to  the  state  of  Pupils,  and  bee  put  under  Tutory?' 

J.  IIastinqs. 
TWELVE.— See  Number,  vol.  iu.  p.  563'. 

TWIN  BROTHERS.— See  DIOSCUEL 

TYCHICUS  (TixiKis),  classed  with  Tronhimus  as 
'katavol,  i.e.  natives  of  Asia  (Ac  20*).  Tliey  were, 
with  other  disciples,  St.  Paul's  companions  in 
travel  from  Macedonia  as  far  as  to  Asia,  and 
preceded  him  to  Troas.  Tychicus  is  mentioned 
four  times  in  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul.  In  Eph 
6-'  '-'^  St.  Paul  savs,  '  That  ye  also  may  know  ni}- 
affairs  and  how  I  ^o,  Tychicus,  the  beloved  brother 
and  faitliful  minister  in  the  Lord,  shall  make 
known  to  you  all  things  :  whom  I  have  sent  unto 
you  for  this  very  purpose,  that  ye  maj'  know  our 
state,  and  that  he  may  comfort  your  hearts.'  He 
was  therefore  the  bearer  of  the  letter  to  its  destina- 
tion, whatever  that  may  have  been.  Tychicus 
had  the  same  charge  entrusted  to  him  by  St.  Paul, 
a  prisoner  at  Rome,  in  carrying  the  Epistle  to  the 
Colossians  (4"-  *),  where  he  is  called,  in  addition  to 
the  titles  given  above,  St.  Paul's  '  fellow-servant  in 
the  Lord.'  F'rom  2  "Ti  4"  it  appears  that  Tychicus 
was  sent  on  a  second  occasion  to  Ephesus,  most  prob- 
ably after  St.  Paul's  first  imprisonment  at  Rome. 
At  this  time  his  old  companion  Trophimus  was 
close  by  '  at  Miletus  sick  '  (2  Ti  4'-'").  St.  Paul  also 
speaks  of  sending  Tychicus  or  Artemas  to  Titus 
('Tit  3")  to  Crete,  and  says  that  when  he  does, 
Titus  is  to  '  give  diligence  to  come  unto  him  to 
Nicopolis."  lie  may  have  been  the  other  disciple 
(2  Co  8-'-)  with  Tro|'ihimu3  (see  Trophlmus)  w'ho 
carried  the  2nd  Epi-tle  to  the  Corinthians  from 
Ejilicsus  to  Corinth.  One  tradition  makes  Tychicus 
bi^hop  of  Chalcedon  in  Bithynia.  In  the  Greek 
M'-n(iti>gi/  (Dec.  9)  he  is  said  to  have  been  bishop 
of  Coloplioii  after  Sosthenes,  and  to  have  sufl'erea 
martyraom  for  the  Christian  faith. 

II.  A.  Redpath. 

TYRANNUS  C^vpawot)  is  mentioned  only  in  Ac 
19".  When  St.  Paul,  after  spending  three  months 
in  addressing  himself  to  the  Jews  of  Ephesus, 
using  the  synagogue  for  his  place  of  preaching, 
found  them  determinedly  hostile,  he  witlidrew  his 
adherents  from  the  synagogue  and  began  '  reason- 
ing daily  iu  the  school  of  Tyrannus  (KaB'  r)iUpa,v 
Sia\€y6tM€vot  iv  T-p  oxo^i  l^vpdvvov).  The  passage  is 
enigmatical  in  its  extreme  brevity  ;  but  it  may 
have  been  addressed  to  readers  who  were  more 
familiar  with  the  situation  than  we  are. 

The  word  crx"^').  rendered  '  school '  in  AV  and 
RV,  means  leisure,  and  is  frequently  aiiplied  to 
the  learned  leisure  of  the  conteiiiphitive  or  philo- 
BOjihic  life  as  contrasted  with  the  life  of  politics  or 
business ;  bonce  it  is  frequently  used  to  denote 
the  written  treatises  produced  iii  the  philosopher's 
cultured  leisure,  or  the  lessons  or  lectures  which  he 
gives  to  pupils  ;  and,  finally,  it  is  often  applied,  as 
here,  to  the  place  or  building  or  room  in  which 
such  lessons  were  given.  Some  such  locality, 
already  used  for  lecturing  or  teaching,  was  pro- 

'  Thin  wu  previous  to  th«  writing  of  the  ioi  Epistle  to 

Timuthy. 


622 


TYKANNUS 


TYRANNUS 


cured  for  the  use  of  St.  PaiU  when  the  synagogue 
ceased  to  be  suitable.  When  we  attempt  to  go 
beyond  this,  we  find  that  the  difficulties  are  many. 
The  very  reading  is  uncertain  ;  and  tlie  dill'erence 
is  of  the  utmost  importance  for  the  sense. 

( 1 )  The  reading  which  we  have  quoted  follows  the 
te.'kt  of  the  great  MSS  NAB  (supported  by  many 
secondary  authorities).  It  might  be  possible  that 
the  writer  should  designate  in  this  bare  way  a 
school  which  belonged  to  a  private  individual, 
Tyrannus,  otherwise  unmeutioned  in  the  work,  and 
necessarily  obscure  to  all  except  his  own  contem- 
poraries in  Ephesus.  A  case  which  presents  a 
remarkable  analogy  occurs  in  Juvenal,  vU.  40, 
where  a  rich  patron  puts  at  the  disposal  of  his 
humble  poet-friend  '  the  house  of  Maculo '  (J/ftt  «- 
lonis  cBiIes),'  a  disused  house  iu  a  remote  part  of 
Kome,  which  for  some  reason  was  faiiiUiar  to  tlie 
Koman  public  whom  Juvenal  addressed.  But  the 
illustration  proves  that  this  meaning  cannot  be 
accepted  in  Ac  19'.  There  is  not  the  remotest 
probability  that  the  writer  of  Acts  was  addressing 
an  Ephesian  audience,  to  whom  '  the  school  of 
Tyrannus,'  an  obscure  place  belonging  to  a  private 
person,  was  familiar.  The  only  other  possible 
interpretation  of  this  text  is  that  '  the  school  of 
Tyrannus  '  was  a  public  building  in  Ephesus,  wliieh 
could  thus  be  described  by  its  stereotyped  name.t 
It  would  then  be  necessary  to  understand  that  St. 
Paul,  as  a  teacher  of  a  new  philosophy,  lectured 
publicly  in  this  building.  It  is  well  known  that 
philosophical  teachers  commonly  gave  lectures  or 
held  discussions  in  this  public  fashion  in  buildings 
or  localities  freely  open  to  the  whole  population, 
as  Socrates  and  St.  Paul  held  disputations  in  the 
Athenian  agora,  as  tlie  Stoics  lectured  in  the  Stoa 
Poekile  and  the  Academics  in  the  Academy.  The 
custom  is  in  keeping  with  the  extreme  openness 
and  publicity  of  life  in  Greece  or  Italy,  which  was 
iucli  that  a  schoolmaster  is  represented  in  a 
Pompeian  wall-painting  as  holding  classes  in  the 
open  forum.  Habitual  use  of  a  public  building 
could  hardly  be  made  except  with  permission 
granted  by  the  city  or  the  magistrate  charged 
with  surveillance  of  the  building  (probably  the 
aqoranomos,  corresponding  to  the  Latin  OBcHlis). 
rJow,  although  St.  Paul  was  evidently  regarded 
not  unkindly  by  mao:istrates  and  leading  men  in 
Ephesus  (cf.  Ac  19^'-^'),  yet  it  would  be  surprising 
that  he  should  be  accorded  such  formal  public 
recognition  ;  and  it  seems  quite  out  of  harmony 
with  the  general  character  of  Pauline  teaching 
that  he  should  have  accepted  such  a  position,  for 
recognition  by  a  public  otlicial  or  body  implies 
some  submission  to  conditions  and  sacrifice  of 
freedom.  St.  Paul's  address  to  the  Ephesian 
elders  is  far  from  suggesting  any  such  legalized 
method  of  addre-ss  during  the  period  of  his  Ephe- 
sian ministry  (Ac  20'*"''').  Hence  the  almost  unani- 
mous opinion  of  scholars  has  rightly  rejected  the 
view  that  Tyrannus'  school  was  a  public  building. 
Yet  it  seems  necessary  in  that  case  also  to  reject 
the  reading  of  NAB,  etc.  (adopted  in  UV),  and 
return  to  the  text  of  'Western'  type  which  ap- 
pears in  AV. 

(2)  This  text  in  its  various  forms  differs  only 
by  adding  a  word  or  words  after  the  reading  of 
XAB,  etc.J    The  common  reading  adds  T<j/is  after 

*  This  is  the  MSS  reading.  Many  editors  follow  the  scholiast, 
who  evidently  had  maculo^as. 

t  The  orij^in  of  the  name  would  of  course  be  obscure  to  us, 
on  this  view :  it  would  be  in  keeping  with  Greek  city  life  if 
Tyrannus  was  the  donor,  who  built  the  schota  and  presented  it 
to  the  city. 

J  Glass  in  his  edition  of  the  Western  (Roman)  Te.vt,  Leipzig 
1896,  prefers  the  reading  to  jutt/  r,fjt.ipeti,  following  D :  liis 
reason  is  perhaps  that  this  is  characteristically  Attic.  He  also 
strangely  denies  that  the  Western  reading"  contained  rivo; 
(though  he  accepted  this  in  his  earlier  editionX  in  spite  of  the 
•trong  amtemut  o(  Western  authorities  for  it. 


'Vvpivvov:  an  exclusively  and  characteristically 
Western  reading  adds  also  awb  iipas  winvTris  las 
Ofi;dri)s.  '  The  school  of  a  certain  'ryianinis'  must 
be  a  private,  not  a  public,  building  or  place ; 
Tyrannus  was  either  a  teacher  who  ordinarily 
used  it,  or  the  private  owner  who  granted  the 
use  of  it  whether  for  hire  or  free.  In  the  latter 
case  the  situation  would  be  similar  to  that  iu  the 
passage  just  quoted  from  Juvenal,  according  to 
the  reading  of  the  scholiast  and  many  editors: 
the  patron  grants  to  his  literary  friend  the  use  of 
a  poor  old  house  belonging  to  himself.  A  certain 
individual  named  Tyrannus  raiglit  on  this  inter- 
pretation have  permitted  St.  Paul  to  use  or  to  hire 
a  sckola  which  belonged  to  liiin  :  ni-is  explains  and 
apologizes  for  the  mention  of  an  unknown  person. 
There  can  be  no  doubt  that  goodwill  to  St.  Paul 
must  have  been  entertained  by  the  person  who 
allowed  him  the  use  of  this  school.  Even  if  he 
hired  it,  we  may  be  sure  tliat  no  actively  hostile 
owner  would  have  let  it  to  him. 

But  the  Bezan  addition  '  from  the  fifth  to  the 
tenth  hour'  strongly  favours  the  interpretation 
that  Tyrannus  was  a  teacher  or  philosopher,  who 
also  used  the  schola.  It  was  then  obviously  neces- 
sary to  make  some  arrangement  as  to  hours : 
Tyrannus  continued  to  use  the  schola  during  the 
early  hours  of  the  day,  while  St.  Paul  used  it  from 
one  hour  before  noon  till  two  hours  before  sunset. 
This  partition  of  the  day  is  an  interesting  point, 
and  true  to  ancient  life.  The  customary  time  for 
teaching  in  Graeco-Roman  life  began  very  early, 
probably  soon  after  sunrise.  Juvenal  in  his  usual 
exaggerating  way  describes  the  teacher  as  already 
in  school  at  work  before  sunrise  by  artificial  light 
(vii.  222) ;  *  and  it  is  estalilished  Vjy  many  passages 
that  the  fifth  hour  was  the  usual  time  for  stopping 
all  work  and  business  (Martial,  iv.  8.  3,  prandium 
being  eaten  between  the  fifth  hour  and  noon). 
Thus  the  school  would  be  vacated  by  Tyrannus  at 
the  fifth  hour,  and  was  then  at  the  disposal  of  St. 
Paul  till  the  tenth. 

The  full  Western  text  establishes  the  meaning 
of  an  otherwise  very  obscure  passage,  and  gives  a 
natural  and  satisfactory  sense.  The  shortest  text 
implies  a  sense  that  is  either  un  -  Lukan  or  im- 
proliable.  There  seems  no  reason  why  the  Western 
addition  should  be  made,  whUe  there  was  con- 
siderable temptation  to  allow  the  words  of  the 
Western  text  to  drop  out,  as  they  seemed  quite 
unimportant  to  3rd  cent,  students.  These  con- 
siderations make  it  probable  that  the  full  Western 
reading  is  the  true  Lukan  text,  and  that  part  of 
the  true  text  was  lost  from  many  authorities.  We 
cannot  think  that  both  the  long  and  the  short  read- 
ings are  original  Lukan  (as  Blass  and  others  hold). 

The  possibility  that  Tyrannus  may  have  been  a  Jew  has  been 
favourably  regarded  by  some  scholars.  But  tins  seeuis  dis- 
tinctly improljable.  If  Tyrainius  was  an  unconverted  Jew,  he 
would  have  almost  certainly  been  unfavourable,  if  not  actively' 
hostile,  to  Paul ;  and  he  would  have  been  most  unlikely  to 
facilitate  the  apostle's  work,  especially  as  by  doing  so  he  would 
have  incurred  the  strong  dislike  of  his  own  people.  The 
sequence  of  thought  in  tiie  verse,  '  he  separated  the  disciplea 
{i.e.  from  the  Jews),  speaking  daily  in  the  school  of  Tyrannus,* 
seems  hardly  reconcilable  with  the  view  that  Tyrannus  was  a 
.lew.  Moreover,  the  way  in  which  'a  certain  Tyrannus'  ifl 
mentioned  would  hardly  suggest  that  ho  was  a  convert.  But  it 
is  an  error  on  the  part  of  sonje  writers  to  urge  the  Greek  name 
as  any  argument  against  the  theory  that  Tyrannus  was  a  Jew. 
The  Jews  of  the  great  cities  of  Asia  Minor  had  become  *ery 
strongly  Grecized,  and  Greek  names  were  in  ordinary  -ise 
among  them. 

Further,  Knowling  points  out  that  the  daily  meetings  in  the 
schola  imply  that  St.  Paul  made  his  adherents  sepanite  even 
from  the  synagogue  services  of  the  Sabbath.  It  seems  im- 
possible that  a  Jew  could  have  aided  in  such  a  purpose. 

The  name  is  given  in  D  as  Tvpawlou  Tivds :  this  is 
certainly  a  mere  corruption.     The  name  Tyrannus 
is  common  in  inscriptions,  and  several  per  ons  of 
*  So  also  Martial,  ix.  03. 


the  name  are  mtntioneJ  in  literary  anthorities ; 
but  Tyrannius  is  unknown.  The  form  T^vpivvioi'  is 
a  woman's  name  (neuter  diminutive),  like  Ivpawlt 
(falsely  acoented,  CIG  3730).       W.  M.  Ramsav. 

TYRE  (^i  [11  times  nW]  ZOr,  i.e.  'rock'  ;  Ivpoi; 
Tel  el-Aniarna  tablets  Zuru,  Zurri ;  referred  to  by 
Jerome  as  ~Jip,  il^rpa,  17  Tvpiuy  iriXis ;  Arab.  Si'ir). 
— i.  Situation. — The  modem  small  town  of  Tyre, 
built  on  the  ruins  of  the  once  celebrated  city,  lies 
on  a  narrow  strip  of  the  Phcenician  plain,  about 
ciiuiilistant  from  Zidon  and  Acre.  On  the  north 
the  sandy  coast-line  rvins  up  to  the  headland  of 
Sarafend  (Sarepta),  and  on  the  south  tlie  view  is 
blocked  by  the  hiyh  three-headed  promontory,  of 
■which  the  middle  point  is  the  precipitous  Ladder 
of  TjTe  {Hcala  Ti/riorum).  The  ancient  island, 
with  its  half  mile  of  channel  between  it  and  the 
coast,  is  now  a  blunt  headland,  and  there  is 
nothing  to  remind  the  present  inhabitants  of  the 
existence  of  the  famous  mole,  and  of  the  dilh- 
culties  encountered  in  its  construction.  The  path- 
way of  60  yards  in  width,  along  which  the  soldiers 
of  Alexander  ruslied  to  the  attack,  is  now  half  a 
mile  broad,  owing  to  the  drifting  up  of  the  sea 
sand  on  the  S.W.  side. 

It  was  from  the  island  that  the  town  received 
its  name.  The  Hock,  lying  oil',  about  a  mile  in 
length  and  three-quarters  ol  a  mile  in  widtli,  was 
the  special  feature  that  caught  the  e3'e,  both  on 
land  and  at  sea.  And  it  was  owinf'  to  the  accom- 
modation which  the  island  provided  for  shipping, 
and  the  protection  thus  allbided  to  its  inhabitants, 
that  Tyre  became  the  most  celebrated  maritime 
city  of  the  ancient  world.  At  these  entrances  of 
the  sea  Tyre  sat  like  a  pedlar  spreading  out  his 
wares  at  a  city  gate,  and  became  '  the  merchant 
of  the  peoples  unto  many  isles'  (Ezk  27^).  The 
island  had  two  harbours,  one  on  the  north  side 
and  the  other  on  the  south,  formed  by  the  indenta- 
tion of  the  outline,  and  extended  by  breakwaters. 
These  harbours  were  called  the  Zidonian  and  Egyp- 
tian, much  in  the  same  way  as  the  west  gate  of 
Jeru.salem  is  called  the  Jail'a  gate,  and  its  northern 
the  Damascus  gate.  The  part  of  the  town  that 
was  buUt  on  the  mainland  was  strongly  fortified, 
and  in  times  of  peace  the  inhabitants  cultivated 
the  neighbouring  gardens,  and  received  their  supply 
of  water  by  atpictluct  from  the  great  fountain  now- 
called  lia.s-cl-'ain,  b'ing  several  miles  to  the  south. 
As  the  wealth  of  Tyre  increased,  and  the  danger 
of  military  invasion  became  chronic,  its  inhabitants 
would  come  to  regard  the  island  as  being  not 
merely  the  storehouse  of  their  merchandise,  and  a 
place  of  retreat  in  time  of  invasion,  but  as  the 
actual  city  of  Tyre.  Thus  the  city  on  the  shore, 
with  its  often-battered  walls  and  scattering  of 
pe.i-sant  houses  among  the  gardens  by  the  aque- 
duct, was  called  ^  rdXat  'ivpos,  iiaKa.iTvpot,  Palie- 
tyrus,  vetus  Tynu. 

According  to  a  letter,  quoted  by  Jos^phus  {Ant,  vni.  it.  7) 

u  havin;;  been  written  by  kiiitf  Hiram  to  8oIoiuon,  the  request 
for  payment  in  ^rain  is  liascd  on  ttie  fact  tliat  Hiram's  people 
inhabited  an  island.  Tlte  Ave  years' 8iet;e  by  Slialmaiieser  iv., 
and  that  of  thirteen  jears  by  Nebuchadnezzar,  also  seem  to 
Indicate  that  Tyre  could  not  be  attacked  in  the  ordinary  way. 

Nothing  now  remains  of  the  strength  and  splen- 
dour of  the  island  fortress,  except  that  on  a  calm 
day  one  may  look   from  a   boat,  and  see   in  the 


:e  great 
iiiblcd  p: 


illars  of  rose- 


waler  along  the  rocky  shore  jjreat  blocks  of  the 
ancient   breakwi 
coloui'ed  granite. 

ii.  Antiquity. — In  the  time  of  .Jo.shua,  Tyro  is 
niintioned  as  being  a  fortified  city,  and  its  char- 
acter as  a  stronghold  is  also  noted  in  2  S  24',  Is 
23'*,  Zee  9^.  It  is  included  in  the  list  of  I'ha'nician 
towns  visited  by  the  Egyptian  mohar  in  the  time 
of   Ramses  II.     Herodotus  (ii.  44)  states,  on  the 


authority  of  the  TjT-ian  priests  of  Mel^arth,  that 
the  town  was  built  almut  B.C.  2750.  Josephus,  on 
the  other  hand,  informs  us  (Ant.  VIII.  iii.  1)  that 
Tyre  was  founded  240  years  before  the  building  of 
the  temple,  i.e.  about  B.C.  1217.  Isaiah  seems  to 
be  referring  to  a  well-known  claim  when  he  speaks 
of  the  city  'whose  antiquity  is  of  ancient  days' 
(23').  Strabo  (XVI.  ii.  22j  calls  it  dpxtuordTi)  xiXit 
TiJ/Jos. 

iii.  Relationship  op  Tyre  and  Zidon.— Isaiah 
speaks  of  Tyre  as  the  '  daughter  of  Zidon '  (23"). 
With  this  agree  the  references  in  Greek  and  Latin 
poetry,  where  Zidon  represents  in  a  general  way 
everything  Phoenician.  Zidon  seems  to  have  been 
the  first  to  pass  from  bein^  a  fishing  village,  as  its 
name  im2)Iies,  to  the  undertaking  of  commercial 
transactions  on  the  coast  of  Syria.  From  this 
small  beginning,  her  ships  began  to  traffic  with 
Cyprus  and  northwards  among  the  Greek  islands. 
The  transference  of  maritime  power  from  Zidon  to 
Tyre  was  owing,  according  to  one  account  (Justin, 
IS.  3),  to  an  attack  by  the  Philistines  of  Ascalon 
upon  Zidon  by  way  of  punishing  that  city  for 
having  seized  Dor.  Possibly,  a  number  of  the 
Zidonian  merchants  transferred  their  connexion  to 
I'yre  as  being  more  convenient  for  the  trade  with 
the  south-east  of  the  Mediterranean.  Isaiah  refers 
to  Tyre  as  having  been  replenished  by  the  mer- 
chants of  Zidon  (23-).  While  Zidon  had  made  its 
name  familiar  over  the  eastern  half  of  the  Medi- 
terranean, TjTe  put  a  bolder  spirit  into  its  mercan- 
tile enterprises,  and  steadily  advanced  in  wealth 
and  power  until  it  became  'the  mart  of  nations' 
(Is  23^).     See,  further,  under  Zidon. 

iv.  Extent  and  Influence  of  Tvrian  Trade. 
—  While  Tvre  produced  certain  manufactured 
articles,  such  as  glass  work  and  the  crimson  and 
bluish-purple  dj-es  obtained  from  the  shell-fish  *  of 
the  coast,  the  chief  cau.se  of  its  wealth  and  fame 
was  its  trade-carrying  pre-eminence.  Tyre  was 
the  great  sea-pedlar  of  the  ancient  world.  By 
their  charts  of  the  ocean  and  study  of  the 
stars,  alon<'  with  carefully  guarded  records  as  to 
depths  and  distances,  winds  and  currents,  the 
Tyrian  sailors  were  able  to  outstrip  all  competitors 
by  sailing  during  the  niglit,  and  keei)ing  their 
course  when  out  of  sight  of  land.  Also  by  land 
they  had  their  trading  stations  along  the  eastern 
caravan  routes  that  passed  to  the  N.E.  by  Aleppo 
and  Palmyra,  and  to  the  S.E.  into  Arabia.  Krom 
Armenia  to  the  Persian  Gulf  all  the  paths  of 
merchandise  converged  towards  Tyre.  Their  ships, 
for  a  time  in  partnership  witli  those  of  Solomon, 
traded  in  the  Red  Sea.  A  recent  conjecture  is  that 
Sofala  (with  the  prefix  *  dropped  and  the  I  restored 
to  r)  was  the  celebrated  Ui'ilin,  with  its  traces 
of  Semitic  workmanship  in  the  neighbouring  gold 
mines.  The  Tyrians  rounded  the  continent  of 
Africa  in  their  vessels,  not  larger  than  a  modern 
herring-boat.  They  traded  on  the  Nile,  selling 
their  wares  and  laying  in  wheat  and  linen  at  their 
station  at  Memphis.  They  had  their  ports  along 
the  north  coast  of  Africa,  notably  at  Utica  and 
Carthage,  the  latter  of  which  was  said  to  have 
been  founded  by  the  Dido  of  romance.  In  the 
great  Roman  ejiie  Virgil  must  give  his  hero  a 
Tyrian  steersman,  Palinurus  (possibly  Biialo- 
niikro,  'IJaal  is  light').  All  the  islands  of  the  Medi- 
terranean were  familiar  with  their  richly  freighted 

•In  'the  book  of  the  Uolls,'  pp.  47,  48  {Sttutia  Sinaitica, 
No.  viii.),  there  is  an  account,  whicti  the  writer  of  llie  book  dia- 
miascs  with  contempt,  of  ttie  way  in  which  the  purple  dye  of  the 
Tyrian  murex  was  discovered.  It  was  a  Jewish  tradition  to 
the  elTect  that  a  she)iheni  la4l  one  day  noticed  his  do|^  eating 
bouiethin^  on  the  shore  near  Tyre,  and  observed  that  the  dog'a 
nioutti  waji  stained  with  bri^'ht  crimson  thud.  Wltti  the  Oriental 
instinct  for  decoration  he  dipped  some  wool  in  the  bright  dye, 
and  put  it  on  his  head  iis  a  crown.  The  incident  havin>(  been 
reported  to  Hiram,  kin^-  ot  Tyre,  tbe  dye  inataiitly  became  an 
important  article  ol  commerce. 


vessels.  Beyond  the  Straits  of  Gibraltar  they 
established  (jrades  and  other  stations  on  tlie  west 
coast  of  Spain.  They  crossed  also  to  Cornwall, 
and  passed  down  the  west  coast  of  Africa  as  far 
as  Cape  Nun  and  the  Canary  Islands.  Traces  of 
their  presence  survive,  especially  in  the  islands  of 
Cyprus,  Sicily,  and  Sardinia,  in  the  names  of  har- 
bours, in  e.\cavated  relics,  and  in  graves  with 
Phoenician  inscriptions,  telling  where  some  Tyrian 
sailor  had  rested  from  his  wanderings. 

Ezekiel  (cli.  27),  in  describing  the  height  of  glory 
from  which  Tyre  was  cast  down  because  of  the  un- 
righteousness of  her  traffic,  gives  a  glowing  account 
of  the  various  lands  that  gave  her  of  their  best, 
ministerin';  to  her  vast  mercliandise,  and  so  to  her 
wealth  and  power  and  pride  and  destruction.  In 
Ezk  27^'  *■  there  is  a  picture  of  the  ships  of  Tar- 
shish,  homeward  bound  and  heavily  laden,  being 
bulieted  by  the  common  Levanter  or  east  wind 
of  the  Mediterranean. 

Tyre  was  a  great  civilizer,  bringing  East  and 
West  together,  and  teaching  the  world  the  peace- 
ful lesson  of  mutual  dependence.  From  the  12th 
cent.  B.C.  it  strove  with  wonderful  talent  and  per- 
sistency to  carry  out  its  great  aim,  wliich  was  to 
gain  from  the  whole  world  rather  than  to  gain  the 
world  itself.  Its  world  was  gain.  Its  destiny, 
unlike  that  of  Rome,  was  not  to  beat  down  the 
proud  and  mighty,  but  to  supply  the  wants  of  the 
rich  and  great,  bringing  idols  for  tlieir  shrines, 
beautiful  vases  for  their  palaces,  shields  and  swords 
of  cunning  i\ork  for  warriors,  cloth  of  gold,  em- 
broidery, and  royal  purple  for  kings,  and  silk  work 
in  stripes  and  tartan  for  princesses.  By  exporting 
various  products  to  lands  where  they  were  un- 
known or  of  inferior  quality,  productive  activity 
was  stimulated  on  all  sides,  and  the  standard  of 
industrial  art  was  raised.  Like  a  goodly  merchant- 
man. Tyre  was  willing  to  pay  for  her  treasures. 
Thus  tribute  was  willingly  given  to  kings  in  return 
for  freedom  of  trade ;  and  with  regard  to  unseen 
dangers  and  difficulties,  of  whicli  they  were  deeply 
conscious,  their  commercial  prudence  was  ready 
with  costly  gifts  or  cruel  saerilices  in  order  to 
touch  the  vanity  or  avert  the  wrath  of  the  gods. 
It  was  an  expenditttre  in  order  to  secure  a  larger 
gain. 

V.  Tyre  and  Assyria.— Under  Assur-nazir-pal, 
Shalmaneser  II.,  and  Tiglath  -  pdeser,  Assyria 
gradually  established  its  authority  over  Phienicia, 
until  Shalmaneser  IV.  in  726  overran  the  country. 
Tyre  refused  to  surrender,  and  Shalmaneser  suc- 
ceeded in  detaching  her  jealous  rival  Zidon,  so  that 
he  was  able  to  attack  Tyre  by  sea  witli  an  armada 
of  60  ships.  TheTyrians  moved  out  to  meet  them, 
and  with  12  war-vessels  defeated  their  enemy, 
taking  5U0  prisoners.  The  siege  was  maintained 
on  land  for  five  years,  until  it  was  raised  on  account 
of  the  death  of  the  AssjTian  king  (Ant.  IX. 
xiv.  2).  Later  on,  Tyre  was  attacked  with  uncertain 
success  by  Sennacherib  with  a  vast  army.  In  673 
Esar-haddon  found  his  vassal  Tyre  in  league  witli 
Egj'pt,  and  in  664  Assur-banipal  took  it  by  storm. 

vi.  TvuK  AND  Israel. — In  the  partition  of  the 
kingdom  of  Israel  under  Joshua,  the  stronghold  of 
Tyre  is  mentioned  in  connexion  with  the  portion 
of  Asher  (Jos  19'-").  The  most  intimate  connexion 
between  Ty''''  '^"'^  Israel  was  in  the  time  of  Hiram 
and  Solomon,  wlicn  a  covenant  of  friendship  was 
entered  into  in  connexion  with  the  building  of  the 
temple  (2  S  5",  1  K  5'  7"-  "  9"-  ",  1  Ch  14'  22', 
2  Ch  2^-  "•  "•  ").  Amos  (!»•  '»)  complains  that  this 
covenant  *  was  shamefully  violated  by  the  Tyrians 
when  they  sold  Israelite  captives  as  common  slaves. 
In  the  prophecies  of  Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  and  Ezekiel, 
the  pride,  luxury,  and  greed  of  Tyre  are  denounced 

*  For  &  different  interpretation  of  the  *  covenant  of  brothers ' 
gee  Driver,  Joel  and  Amm,  p.  137. 


(Is  23'-",  Jer  25"  27^  47*,  Ezk  26.  27.  28.  29).  In 
the  Psalms,  the  daugliter  of  Tyre  with  her  costly 
gift  stands  in  the  retinue  around  the  throne  (45'-), 
its  inhabitants  are  mentioned  among  the  sworn 
enemies  of  Israel  (83'),  and  again  Tyre  is  num- 
bered among  those  who  are  brought  to  know  the 
Lord  (87'').  The  beautiful  scenery  of  Ephraim  ia 
likened  to  that  of  Tyie  (Hos  9'^;,  .-ind  in  Zee  9^  the 
astuteness  of  the  Tyrians  is  alluded  to. 

In  the  NT  its  people  are  among  those  who  flock 
to  Galilee  to  see  and  hear  Christ  (Mk  3',  Lk  6"). 
Christ  visited  its  coasts  (Mt  15-',  Mk  7"  [where 
see  Swete's  note]),  and  declared  that  its  people,  if 
favoured  like  the  cities  of  Galilee,  woidd  have 
been  moved  to  repentance  (Mt  11'-'-'-,  Lk  10'^-"). 
The  incident  of  reconciliation  with  Herod,  recorded 
in  Ac  12-°,  reveals  in  its  motive  and  management 
tlie  artfulness  of  the  Phoenician  trader.  Finally, 
in  Ac  2P- '  the  ship  in  which  St.  Paul  sailed  to 
Syria  comes  to  Tyre  to  discharge  its  cargo. 

vii.  Tyre  and  Babylon. — In  the  early  years  of 
the  Bab.  empire,  Tyre  was  left  at  peace,  and  its 
connexion  with  Egypt  was  more  closely  estab- 
lished. When  it  became  evident  that  Babylon 
was  to  tread  in  the  path  of  Assyria,  the  Phoenician 
cities  Gebal,  Zidon,  and  others  with  them,  laid 
aside  their  locaf  jealousies  and  sought  to  strengthen 
Tyre  to  defy  the  invader  (Ezk  27*).  After  the 
famous  battle  of  Carchemish,  in  which  Nebuchad- 
nezzar defeated  Pharaoh-neco  in  605,  Tyre  was  be- 
sieged for  13  years  (cf.  Jos.  Ant.  x.  xi.  1).  The 
issue  of  this  siege  is  somewhat  unceitain  (see 
Expos.  Times,  x.  378,  430,  475,  520).  The  prophet 
Ezekiel  seems  to  imply  at  least  that  the  island  was 
not  given  up  to  plunder,  but  the  Divine  purpose 
was  fuUilled  in  punishing  the  unrighteous  princes 
and  the  proud  kin^  of  Tyre  (Ezk  28'^  29"--»).  A 
time  of  anarchy  and  unrest  followed,  in  which  the 
city  discarded  for  a  time  its  monarchical  form  of 
government.  Gradually  order  was  restored,  pro- 
sperity returned,  and  the  allegiance  to  Babylon  re- 
mained unbroken  to  the  end  or  that  dynasty  in  538. 
viii.  Tyre  and  Persia. — The  cond'ition  of  Tyre 
under  the  Persians  was  better  than  it  had  been 
under  the  Assyrians  and  Babylonians.  Persia 
required  the  help  of  the  Phoenician  fleet  in  attack- 
ing Egypt  and  repressing  the  rising  Macedonian 
empire.  When  after  B.C.  400  the  power  of  Persia 
showed  signs  of  decay,  the  Phoenician  cities  re- 
belled ;  but  when  Zidon  was  reduced  to  ashes  by 
Ochus  in  351,  Tyre  surrendered  without  a  siege. 
During  the  Persian  dynasty  it  is  related,  to  the 
credit  of  Tyre,  that  its  fleet  refused  to  convey  the 
array  of  Cambyses  against  Carthage  on  account  of 
blood-kinship,  and  thus  an  expedition  was  averted 
that  might  have  influenced  the  destinies  of  Rome, 
ix.  Tyre  and  the  Macedonians. — The  greatest 
event  in  the  history  of  Tyre  was  its  capture  by 
Alexaniler  in  B.C.  332  after  a  siege  of  seven  months. 
Much  ingenuity  and  courage  were  displayed  on 
both  sides.  Help  was  expected  from  Carthage, 
Persia,  Cyprus,  Zidon,  but  in  vain.  It  was  Tyre's 
darkest  day  when  Alexander  was  seen  bearing 
down  from  the  north  with  a  large  fleet  chiefly  col- 
lected from  Phoenician  ports  and  old  rivals.  It 
was  the  hre  from  the  midst  of  her  that  had  come 
to  devour  a  city  that  claimed  admiration  and 
obedience,  but  did  not  ask  to  be  loved.  The  mole 
^\■as  completed  with  ease,  when  the  harbour  was 
thus  blockaded  ;  and  in  the  taking  of  the  city  6000 
are  said  to  have  perished  by  the  sword,  2000  were 
crucified,  and  30,000  women,  children,  and  slaves 
were  sold.  Yet  within  the  brief  space  of  18  years 
Tyre  was  repeopled  and  refortilied,  and  was  able 
to  oiler  a  strong  but  inetlectual  resistance  to 
Antigonus.  About  287  it  again  became  an  Egyp- 
tian possession,  till  in  198  it  fell  to  the  Seleucidie, 
and,  with  the  exception  of  a  brief  interval  (83-69) 


TZADE 


UNCLEAN,  UNCLEANNESS      825 


of  Armenian  rule,  it  remained  under  its  Syrian 
governors  till  in  65  it  passed  quietly  into  the 
Koman  empire,  receiving  the  status  of  a  free  city. 
In  the  4th  cent.  A.D.  Jerome  refers  to  Tyre  as  a 
beautiful  city  and  '  an  emporium  for  the  commerce 
of  the  whole  world.'  It  was  made  the  seat  of  a 
bislioprie,  and  had  two  such  talented  but  widely- 
diHerent  citizens  as  Origen  and  Porphyry.  Later 
on,  it  was  taken  bj'  the  Saracens  in  tlie  7th  cent., 
recovered  by  the  Crusaders  in  1124,  to  fall  ayain 
into  the  hands  of  the  Saracens  in  1291.  After 
relapsing  for  a  time  into  the  possession  of  Egypt, 
with  minor  intervals  of  Dnize  and  Venetian  con- 
trol, it  ceased  to  exist  as  maritime  Tyre  and  be- 
came an  Arab  village. 

Few  sites  in  the  historical  East  present  such 
an  all'ecting  and  instructive  record  of  persistent 
struggle,  splendid  achievement,  and  irretrievable 
doom.  By  her  ilestined  pathway  of  commerce  Tyre 
exerted  upon  the  world  an  intluence  that  ranks 


with  that  of  Jerusalem  in  religion,  Athens  in  philo- 
sophy, and  Rome  in  government.  But  to-day  the 
steamers  on  tlie  Syrian  coast  that  call  at  tlie  Bay 
of  Acre  and  Zidon  consider  Tyre  too  insignificant 
to  deserve  a  visit.  After  having  been  the  niothet 
of  colonies  and  mistress  of  the  seas,  bearing  her 
mercliandise  into  otherwise  unvisiled  lands  and 
adjusting  the  supply  and  demand  of  the  world. 
Tyre  is  now  content  at  the  close  of  her  career  to 
be  a  stagnant  village  in  stagnant  Turkey. 

LiTERATtTRB. — Thomson,  Land  and  the  Book;  Robinson,  HRP 
(Index) ;  Rawlinson,  liigt,  of  Fhcenicia,  and  Phoenicia  in  '  Stor>* 
of  the  Nations';  Kenrick,  Phuniciai  Movers,  Vie  Phonizier  \ 
art.  PudNiciA  in  present  worlc  (i.  M.  MaCKIE. 

.  TZADE  (V).— The  eighteenth  letter  of  the  Heb. 
alphabet,  and  as  such  employed  in  tlie  119th  Psalm 
to  designate  the  18th  part,  each  verse  of  which 
begins  with  tliis  letter.  It  is  transliterated  in  this 
Dictionary  by  f. 


u 


UCAL  (S:x).— Mentioned  only  in  Pr  SO".  In 
AV  and  RV  the  word  is  treated  as  a  proper  name. 
It  is,  however,  of  an  unusual  form,  and  there  are 
other  objections  to  the  rendering.  A  slightly 
diti'erent  reading  (see  RVm)  would  give  the  mean- 
ing, 'I  have  wearied  myself  and  am  consumed' 
(LXX  Kdl  vauoiuu).    See  Ithiel,  and  cf.  Lag.  adloc. 

UEL  (SwN ;  BA  OMiK,  Luc.  'lu^X).— One  of  the 
sons  of  Bani  who  had  married  a  foreign  wife, 
Ezr  1(P' ;  called  in  1  Es  9"  JUEL. 

UKNAZ.  —  For  nji?<  in  1  Ch  4"  AVm  gives 
'Uknaz'  instead  of  'even  Kenaz'  (AV)  or  'and 
Kenaz'  (RV).  In  all  probability  something  haa 
dropped  out  of  tlie  text,  which  had  read  originally 
'  tlie  sons  of  Elah :  .  .  .  and  Kenaz.'  This  is 
favoured  by  the  plural  sons.  An  alternative  is 
to  drop  the  i,  with  LXX  (nal  i/!oi  'A6d-  Kev^f)  and 
Vulg.  (Filii  quoque  Ela:  Cenez),  and  read  simply 
Kenaz  (ijj). 

ULAI  CW,  Theod.  Oi'/SdX,  LXX  Oi-Xol).— The 
classical  Eulajus,  now  the  Knrun.  It  flowed  past 
Susa  or  Sliuslian,  and  Assurbanipal  states  that  in 
the  battle  fought  outside  that  city  between  the 
Assyrians  and  the  Elamites,  the  Ula  (or  Ulai)  was 
clioked  with  the  bodies  of  the  slain.  In  Dn  8'^ " 
it  is  similarly  described  as  flowing  past  Shushan. 
The  Eula;us  is  also  called  Pasitifjris  by  the  classical 
geographers,  and  Pliny  (II N  vi.  27)  says  that  it 
surrounded  the  citadel  of  Su.sa.  But  the  rivers  of 
Susiana  have  so  changed  their  cliannels  since  the 
cla.ssical  epoch  as  to  make  their  identification 
with  the  present  rivers  of  the  country  somewliat 
difficult.  It  would  seem,  however,  that  what  are 
now  the  Upper  Kcrkhah  and  the  Lower  KarOn 
were  formerly  a  single  stream  (see  SllU.snAN). 
A  cuneiform  tablet  ((('.4/11.  51.  .■!2)  describes  the 
Ulft  as  '  the  water  wliich  carries  its  treasures  into 
tlie  <leep'  (but  see  Driver  on  Dn  8",  and  Dieulafoi, 
as  cited  p.  128  n.).  A.  H.  Savce. 

ULAH  (niiiK).— 1,  The  eponym  of  a  Manassite 
family,  1  Ch  7"-  "  (BA  Oi/XdM  [B  om.  in  v."],  Lue. 
HXd^).  2.  A  Benjamite  family,  specially  noted 
as  archers,  1  Ch  8*"  (B  Ai\dM,  klXiln  ;  A  both 
times  OiXiit).  Benjamite  archers  appear  also  in 
2  Ch  14'  W. 


DLFILAS'  VERSION.-  See  VERSIONS  (Gothic). 

DLLA  (Nyy,;  BA  'n\d,  Luc.  om.). — The  eponym  of 
an  Asherite  "family,  1  Ch  7™. 

UMMAH An  Asherite  city,  Jos  lO"".     There 

can  be  little  doubt,  however,  that  the  MT  nsi;  here 
is  a  slip  for  isi'  Acco  (cf.  Jg  1") ;  so,  following 
certain  MSS  of  the  LXX  ('Akkw, 'Akku^),  Dillmann, 
Bennett,  Kautzsch,  Oxf.  Ueb.  Lex.  etc. 

UNCLEAN,  UNCLEANNESS.*— 

L  Orig^in  of  tlie  ditjtinction  between  Clean  and  Unclean. 
iL  Four  main  tyjiea  o(  Uncleaiiness ;  connected  with  (a)  the 
functions  of  reproduction ;  (&)  food ;  (c)  leprosy ;  (.d) 
death. 
UL  Uncleannees  and  RituaL 
iv.  Uncleanness  in  NT. 

Literature, 

i.  Origin  of  the  Distinction  between  Clean 
AND  Unclean. —The  distinction  between  clean 
and  nncleun  is  to  be  found  as  far  back  as  we  are 
able  to  trace  the  history  of  the  reli;;ion  of  Israel, 
The  validity  of  Rachel's  excuse  to  her  father  when 
seeking  the  teraphini  (Gn  31"  E)  rested  on  the  un- 
cleanness of  luT  condition  ;  and  8aul,  in  spite  of  hia 
insane  suspicion  of  David,  yet  reco^^nizes  that  he 
may  be  detained  from  the  feast  of  the  new  moon 
by  ceremonial  delilcment  (1  S  12U-^).  The  division 
01  Israelites  into  '  those  shut  up  and  left  at  large,' 
indicates  how  frequent   uncleanness  was  if  those  - 

•  This  article  doals  only  with  the  ceremonial  Idea  of  unclean- 
ness,  not  with  the  ethical  or  relig^ious.  The  Ueb.  verb  K^p, 
with  the  noun  nxpo  or  ni<::p  and  adj.  NfTp,  is  commonly  used 
to  express  this  idea.  The  notion  of  profanation  or  pollution  is 
conveyed  by  the  verb  "j^ri,  which  also  means '  to  make  common  ' ; 
the  corresponding  noun  is  Sa  The  late  verb  7\<y  is  rare  in  this 
sense.  Cleanness  1b  expressed  by  the  verb  inp,  its  noun  n"jnp, 
and  odj.  ninip.  These  words  may  further  express  the  idea  of 
purification,  for  which  the  Fiel  and  Hithpael  of  K^n  are  also 
used.  The  Greek  word  (or  uncleannews,  anutOetpffigt,  is  used  In 
tlie  NT,  except  in  Mt  23^,  in  an  ethical  sense  only,  and  the  adj. 
«iiuttiKfiTt(  is  used  in  the  Gospels  exclusively  of  unclean  spirits, 
and  In  the  Epp.  in  an  cthicAl  sense.  It  is  used  of  ceremonially 
unclean  birds  in  Rev  182,  and,  coupled  with  jui*if,  'common,'  \a 
used  of  ceremonially  unclean  food  in  Ac  10'*- 28  us.  Cere- 
monial delilement  Is  expressed  by  the  verb  wj»««,  *to  make 
common,'  and  it«  adj.  ««<*«c  (Mt  16,  Mk  7,  Ac  10.  11.  21"^, 
Ko  14",  Rev  '^I'/T),  and  once  (Jn  18*0  I'y  f^^ci^m.  For  Che 
idea  of  purill'-iition  the  verb  MmBxptlt^,  wilh  the  noun  Jtm¥afiirfi^ 
and  a4lj.  jutV^/tcf,  and  the  verb  a>*iC«i  with  its  noun  kyytrpUct 
are  used. 


826      UNCLEAN,  UNCLEANXESS 


UNCLEAN,  UNCLEANNESS 


shut  up  are  those  ritually  unclean.  Several  allu- 
sions to  uncleiinness  are  found  in  the  Prophets  (Am 
7",  Hos  &>,  Ezk  4",  Hag  2'*,  Is  52'-  "  35»),  while  in 
Deuteronomy,  antl  much  more  elaborately  in  the 
Priestly  Code,  it  is  made  the  subject  of  detailed 
legislation.  The  laws  of  defilement  and  purilioa- 
tion  were  developed  by  the  misdirected  ingenuity 
of  the  scribes  into  a  system  of  casuistry,  even  more 
than  ordinarily  finespun  and  minute,  which  con- 
stituted, in  fact,  the  most  important  part  of  the 
regulations  by  which  the  pious  Jew  had  to  order 
his  life.  But  the  laws  of  uncleanness  are  far  older 
than  the  Hebrew  people.  It  is  only  necessary  to 
read  them,  to  be  convinced  that  they  are  not  the 
creation  of  the  higher  religion  of  Israel.  Anthro- 
pology, however,  has  proved,  what  might  naturally 
have  been  suspected,  that  they  belong  essentially 
to  the  prehistoric  past.  Their  congenial  atmosphere 
is  not  that  which  breathes  in  the  Hebrew  prophets, 
but  that  which  animates  the  crudest  forms  of 
savage  religion. 

Some  of  the  laws  might,  indeed,  be  explained  on  rational 
grounds,  &3  due  to  sanitary  precaution,  to  love  of  cleanliness, 
to  natural  aversion  from  disjrusting  objects.  But  it  is  certain 
that  these  do  not  explain  many  of  the  prohibitions,  and  cannot 
account  for  the  precise  selection  oromission  which  characterizes 
the  list  of  things  unclean.  We  may  grant  that  these  considera- 
tions may  have  played  some  part  in  late  development,  but  this 
should  probably  be  reduced  to  a  minimum.  It  is  more  likely, 
in  fact,  that  the  laws  of  uncleanness  created  sanitary  laws  and 
aversion  for  certain  things  than  that  they  were  created  by  them. 
Where  a  tribe  happened  to  regard  thin-'S  as  unclean  which  also 
are  insanitary,  it  would,  so  far  as  it  did  so,  increase  its  chances 
in  the  struggle  for  existence,  while  natural  selection  would  tend 
to  eliminate  tribes  whose  ritual  in  no  way  coincided  with  sani- 
tary requirements.  Thus  with  the  sunival  of  the  former  set  of 
tribes  sanitary  regulations  mi":ht  come  by  degrees  to  be  estab- 
lished, with  no  intention  of  doing  more  than  securing  ritual 
cleanness.  A^ain,  what  we  call  natural  aversion  is  probably 
natural  only  m  the  sense  that  habit  is  second  nature.  The 
natural  disgust  which  we  feel  at  certain  kinds  of  food  is  due 
altogether  to  custom,  and  sentiment  formed  by  custom.  The 
dog  or  horse  is  naturally  no  more  repulsive  than  the  ox,  yet 
many  have  an  invincible  repugnance  to  dog-flesh  or  horse-llesh. 
A  Jew's  instinctive  loathing  for  the  swine,  which  is  eaten  freely 
by  Uentiles,  often  survives  the  surrender  of  all  religious  scruples. 
And  it  is  decisive  that  these  laws  originated  at  a  time  when  the 
rudiments  of  sanitation  were  still  undreamed  of,  and  are  found 
among  peoples  who  own  no  restraint  of  cleanliness  or  natural 
disgust.  It  is  also  well  known  that  even  in  higher  religions 
ritual  cleanness  may  be  obtained  by  bathing  in  verj-  dirtj'  water. 
Still  less  happy  are  the  attempts  to  find  a  rational  basis  for  these 
laws  in  the  spiritual  principles  of  the  higher  religion  of  Israel. 
For  not  only  does  it  need  strained  arguments  to  remove  their 
essentially  irrational  character  and  make  them  at  home  in  a 
spiritual  religion,  but  the  numerous  parallels  in  much  lower  re- 
ligions are  so  close  that  it  is  unreasonable  to  shut  the  eyes  to 
their  essential  atBnity.  It  is  futile  to  fumble  at  the  lock  with 
stich  rusty  keys,  when  anthropology  has  given  lu  one  which  tits 
every  ward. 

The  ideas  and  usages  among  other  peoples,  which 
are  similar  to  the  Hebrew  laws  of  uncleanness,  are 
conveniently  classed  under  that  widespread  system 
known  as  'taboo.'  The  general  notion  of  taboo  is 
that  certain  things  are  regarded  as  uns.afe  for  con- 
tact or  use  in  common  life,  by  reason  of  the  super- 
natur;U  penalties  which  would  thereby  be  incurred. 
A  common  thing  may  become  taboo  through  the 
action  of  a  god,  chief,  or  priest,  and  the  sanction 
for  the  restriction  he  imposes  is  his  own  power  of 
avenging  its  violation.  But  some  things  or  con- 
ditions are  intrinsically  taboo,  and  infringement 
ol  their  character  brings  its  own  penalty  by  a 
mechanical  necessity  without  external  aid.  There 
is  an  inherent  energy  in  them,  which  is  discharged 
on  all  who  rashly  break  the  taboo.  One  of  the 
most  striking  features  of  taboo  is  its  infectious 
character.  It  is  transmitted  by  contact,  and  the 
person  or  thing  tlius  tabooed  may  become  a  new- 
source  of  infection,  though  the  supernatural  virus 
loses  intensity  at  each  new  stage  of  trausmis.sion. 
The  infection  might  in  some  cases  be  removed  by 
ritual  means,  chief  among  which  must  be  placed 
washing.  In  other  cases  it  was  too  deeply  engrained 
to  be  removed.  From  this  single  root  of  taboo 
sprang  not  uncleanness  only,  but  holiness.     Origin- 


ally, par.idoxical  as  it  may  seem,  there  was  little 
dillerenie  between  them.  Both  holiness  and  un- 
cleanness are  infectious,  and  require  identical  or 
similar  ritual  purification  (see  Holiness).  It  is 
especially  instructive  to  compare  the  law  of  the 
sin-ottering  (Lv  6-'^"*')  with  such  passages  as  Lv 
1 124-88.  ai-M   151-12.  su-M.  26. 27.      ^   ^g    {.q    beobserved 

that  both  are  treated  as  of  purely  materialistic 
quality,  so  much  so,  in  fact,  that  holiness  or  un- 
cleanness may  be  scoured  oil'  a  vessel,  unless  it  is 
of  unglazed  earthenware  and  the  holiness  or  un- 
cleanness has  soaked  into  it,  in  which  case  it  must 
be  broken.  It  is  further  confirmation  of  tlie 
original  identity  of  the  two,  that  while  a  holy 
thing  is  usually  said  to  communicate  holiness  and 
an  unclean  thing  uncleanness,  in  one  case  a  holy 
thing  produces  uncleanness.  The  canonicity  of  a 
book  was  expressed  in  the  phrase,  it  '  defiles  the 
hands.'  If  it  was  a  common,  tnat  is,  a  non-canonical 
book,  it  was  not  holy;  if  canonical,  it  was  holy,  and 
produced  ceremonial  defilement.  The  practical 
consequence  of  both  holiness  and  uncleanness  was 
to  withdraw  the  object  they  infected  from  partici- 
pation in  common  life.  The  holy  thing  wjis  dedi- 
cated to  God,  and  to  treat  it  as  common  was  to 
violate  its  sanctity  and  incur  His  anger.  Hence 
the  avoidance  of  holiness  as  a  plague,  and  the  pre- 
cautions taken  to  avoid  catching  it.  Moses  must 
keep  his  distance  and  remove  his  shoes  from  his 
feet  on  ground  made  holy  by  God's  presence  in  the 
bush  (Ex  3^)  ;  bounds  (corresponding  to  a  taboo 
line)  must  be  set  about  the  mountain  at  Sinai,  lest 
the  people  draw  too  near  and  J"  break  forth  upon 
them.  Whatever  touched  the  mountain  bectz:2  3o 
sacred  that  it  was  too  dangerous  to  be  touched,  the 
death  penalty  must  be  executed  on  it  from  a  safe 
distance  (Ex  lO'^'"-'').  The  men  of  Eeth-shemesh, 
and  Uzzah,  were  smitten  for  contact  with  the  ark 
( I  S  0»-',  2  S  6').  The  priests  are  bidden  put  oiT  the 
garments  wherein  they  minister,  when  they  go  out 
to  the  people,  lest  they  sanctify  the  people  with 
their  garments  (Ezk  44''') ;  and  those  who  take  part 
in  the  heathen  mysteries  described  in  Is  eo*"'  warn 
the  bystanders  not  to  come  near  lest  they  catch 
the  contagion  of  their  holiness  (Is  65°  reading, 
with  a  change  in  the  pointing,  '  lest  I  make  thee 
holy '). 

The  process  by  which  the  notions  of  holiness  and 
uncleanness,  which  were  undifl'erentiated  in  taboo, 
came  to  be  distinguished  was  probably  something 
of  this  kind.  It  has  already  been  pointed  out  that 
two  classes  of  taboo  may  be  distinguished.  A 
common  thing  may  become  taboo  if  a  god  or  sacred 
person  lays  a  taboo  upon  it.  Or  a  thing  or  state 
may  be  intrinsically  taboo.  Roughly  speaking,  this 
corresponds  to  the  distinction  between  holy  and 
unclean.  The  holy  is  that  which  is  naturally 
common,  but  has  become  holy  through  contact 
with  the  DiWne.  But  there  is  an  uncleanness  of 
a  primary  order,  of  an  intrinsic  and  not  accidental 
kind,  uncommunicated  as  no  earthly  holiness  can 
be  said  to  be.  It  is  true  that  there  is  a  communi- 
cated uncleanness,  but  uncommunicated  unclean- 
ness has  no  uncommunicated  holiness  to  match  it 
in  the  human  realm.  All  holiness  is  derivative 
save  the  holiness  of  God.  It  is  bv  this  principle 
that  the  unclean  thing  may  be  ta\)00  in  its  own 
right,  while  the  holv  thing  cannot  be,  that  we  must 
explain  the  priestly  torah  given  in  Hag  2"- ". 
Holy  ilesh  infects  with  holiness  a  garment  in  which 
it  is  carried,  but  this  garment  does  not  transmit 
the  holiness  to  what  it  touches.  A  man  who  is 
unclean  by  contact  with  a  dead  body  infects  with 

*  '  Id  general,  we  may  say  that  the  prohibition  to  use  the 
vessels,  garments,  and  so  on,  of  certain  persons,  and  the  eHectJ 
supposed  to  follow  an  infraction  of  the  rule,  are  exactly  the 
same  whether  the  persons  to  whom  tne  things  belong  are 
s:icred  or  what  we  might  call  unclean  and  polluted'  (Fraier, 
Tlu  Golden  Bouqh'',  L  ;)26 :  cf.  also  ii.  S04-3(HI). 


UNCLEAlf,  UJsCLEANXESS 


UNCLEAN,  UNCLEANNESS      827 


nnclcanness  what  he  touches.  In  other  words,  a 
dead  body  is  endowed  with  higher  virulence  of  con- 
tagion than  holy  llesh.  And  the  reason  is  that  a 
corpse  is  a  fountainhead  of  uuckanness,  while  holy 
flesh  is  holy,  not  intrinsically,  but  only  because  it 
has  been  devoted  to  God,  the  sole  fountainhead  of 
holiness.  Probablj',  then,  the  distinction  between 
holiness  and  unclcanness  was  simply  the  explicit 
allinnation  of  a  distinction  alreadj'  implicit  in  the 
idea  of  taboo.  And  it  was  a  great  stop  in  advance 
when  the  essential  dillerence  of  things  indiscrimin- 
ately classed  together  as  taboo  emerged  into  clear 
consciousness.  A  large  irrational  element,  it  is 
true,  survived  in  the  idea  of  holiness  as  well  as  in 
that  of  uncleanness.  But  by  linking  the  idea  of 
holiness  with  that  of  God,  Uie  foriner  was  started 
on  a  career  of  intellectual,  moral,  and  spiritual 
development,  which  made  it  at  last  the  fit  expres- 
sion ot  the  highest  religious  ideal.  On  the  other 
hand,  uncleanness  remained  to  the  last  a  virtually 
savage  idea,  one  of  the  heathen  survivals  in 
Judaism  which  Christianity  had  simidy  to  elimi- 
nate. And  where  life  is  lived  under  the  shadow 
of  innumerable  taboos,  these  form  an  insuperable 
barrier  to  progress,  for  man  is  tied  to  the  fixed 
routine,  not  venturing  on  unknown  paths  for  terror 
of  the  perils  that  lurk  everywhere  in  his  way.  But 
when  taboos  are  recognized  as  expressing  the  will 
of  the  gods,  instead  of  the  paralyzing  dread  of 
unknown  and  incalculable  forces,  we  have  the  re- 
straint imposed  by  a  kind  and  trusted  deity,  Avhich 
leaves  room  for  progress,  because  it  introduces  a 
rational  element,  and  claims  for  religion  what  had 
been  iuextricably  bound  up  with  superstition.* 

The  opposite  of  '  holy '  is  '  common,'  the  opposite 
of  'unclean'  is  'clean.'  While  'holy'  and  'unclean' 
are  strong  positive  terras,  '  common  '  and  '  clean ' 
are  siiuply  their  pale  negatives.  Clean  is  not  the 
same  as  holy;  it  implies  no  dedication  to  the  Divine 
aervice,  and  has  no  infectious  quality.  The  clean 
person  is  one  who  may  freely  approach  his  God  in 
worship.  I'or  this  he  need  not  be  holy,  though 
there  are  certain  cases  where  cleanness,  i.e.  the 
mere  absence  of  uncleanness,  is  insutlicient.  At 
Sinai  the  Hebrews  had  to  sanctify  themselves  by 
washing  and  abstinence  from  women  (Ex  I'J).  But 
so  exceptional  an  occasion  cannot  be  taken  as 
typical.  Nor  are  the  common  and  the  unclean 
identical  ;  the  common  is  rather,  ordinarily  at  any 
rate,  also  the  clean.  Yet,  just  as  the  clean  and  the 
holy  tended  to  be  identified,  since  whatever  is  holy 
must  also  be  clean,  so  their  opposites,  the  unclean 
and  the  common.  But,  in  spite  of  such  obliteration 
of  distinctions,  it  only  creates  confusion  if  thej'  are 
not  empliasized. 

It  should  further  be  noticed  that  the  laws  of  un- 
cleanness, while  largely  a  survival  from  prehistoric 
savagerj',  or  the  semi -civilization  of  primitive 
Semites,  partly  originated  in  a  protest  of  the  higher 
religion  of  Israel  against  heathenism.  Certain 
things  w  liicli  were  connected  with  heathen  cults, 
and  constituted  a  danger  to  spiritual  religion,  were 
placed  under  taboo.  Whether  by  survival  or  pro- 
test a  thing  was  regarded  as  uncl(Min,  it  was  alike 
an  abomiuation  to  J ",  cuttin"  oil'  the  oU'eiider  from 
intercourse  with  Him  and  fellowship  with  the  com- 
munity. It  is  probable  that  the  extent  to  which 
the  laws  are  duo  to  protest  against  heathenism  has 
been  overrated  in  recent  discussions.  Similarly,  in 
the  face  of  savage  parallels,  it  is  probable  that  some 
laws  in  the  Priestly  Code,  which  are  often  regarded 
as  very  late  developments  and  impracticable  refine- 
ments, are  in  substance  of  the  highest  antiquity. 
That,  as  at  present  codified,  they  are  late  is  clear, 
and  such  a  passage  as  Lv  ll-<-3»  [a  not  unfairly  re- 
garded as  exhibiting  the  rudiments  of  the  casuistry 
of  the  scribes.  But  the  central  prohibition  of  the 
•  Sco  W.  It.  Smltli.  ;tS»  pp.  162-165. 


passage  is  probably  quite  early.  It  is  remarkable 
that  some  taboos  which  survived  into  the  Levitieal 
legislation,  disappeared  among  the  more  conserva- 
tive Arabs. 

ii.  Four  main  types  of  Uncleanness  may  be 
distinguished  :  unclcanness  connected  with  (a)  the 
functions  of  reproduction,  (A)  food,  (c)  leprosy, 
(d)  death.  These  must  now  be  considered  in 
detail. 

(a)  Uncleannas  connected  with  the  funetion.i  oj 
reproduction. — These  functions  early  excited  the 
suijerstitious  awe  of  mankind,  which  invested  the 
organs  and  their  activities  with  mysterious  powers. 
Sexual  intercourse  was  widely  regarded  as  proiluc- 
ing  uncleanness,  which  might  be  removed  by  bath- 
ing, but  in  some  cases  fumigation  was  also  required. 
Among  the  Arabs  it  was  specially  necessarj-  to 
take  precautions  against  the  demons  on  the  con- 
summation of  marriage  (Wellh.  Rcste  Arab.  Hcid.^ 
155).  The  Book  of  Tobit  yields  an  interesting 
parallel  to  this.  Before  Tobias  married  Sarah  she 
had  been  given  to  seven  husbands,  who  had  been 
slain  on  the  bridal  night  by  Asmodieus  her  demon 
lover  (To  3'""  G'^- "  7").  Tobias  drove  away  the 
demon  by  fumigation,  burning  on  the  ashes  of 
incense  some  of  the  heart  and  liver  of  a  fish  (S''''). 
It  is  probable  that  among  the  Hebrews  intercomse 
was  always  considered  to  produce  defilement.  This 
is  expressly  laid  down  in  P  (Lv  15'").  Naturally 
the  defilement  was  slight,  involving  bathing  and 
uncleanness  till  the  evening.  Certain  conditions 
of  holiness,  however,  required  complete  abstinence. 
This  was  so  when  J"  was  to  ajjpear  on  Sinai  (Ex 
I9'°).  So  David's  men  may  eat  holy  bread  only  on 
conilition  that  they  '  have  kept  themselves  from 
women'  (1  S  21'').  David's  reply  is  obscure  (see 
Driver  and  II.  P.  Smith  on  the  passage,  also  W. 
R.  Smith,  I.e.  pp.  455,  456).  But  it  seems  clear 
that  on  a  warlike  expedition  David  asserts  that 
women  were  taboo.  The  prohibition  of  women  to 
those  engaged  in  war  is  widespread.  War  was 
regarded  as  sacred ;  the  warriors  were  holy  as  long 
as  the  campaign  lasted.  Among  many  savage 
peoples  continence  must  be  observed  not  only  by 
the  warriors,  but,  on  grounds  of  sympathetic 
magic,  by  those  left  at  home,  and  after  their 
return  this  taboo  with  many  others  is  enforced 
with  even  greater  strictness  (Frazer,  I.e.  i.  3'28  ; 
W.  R.  Smith,  I.e.  455).  No  such  strictness  ob- 
tained among  the  Hebrews  in  historical  times, 
but  Uriah's  refusal  to  visit  his  wife  while  the 
caniiiaign  was  in  progress  was  probablj'  due  to  a 
religious  scruple  of  this  kind  (2  S  11""").  Perhaps 
it  is  on  this  ground  that  we  may  explain  why  a 
man  is  excused  from  military  service  during  the 
first  year  after  marriage,  Dt  '2  J°. 

Puberty  is  regarded  by  nuuiy  people  as  a  period 
when  evil  can  be  averted  only  by  the  observance 
of  very  rigorous  taboos.  The  l)oys  then  pass 
through  elaborate  ceremonies  of  initiation,  cir- 
cumcision often  playing  an  important  part.  So 
far  as  boys  are  concerned,  the  original  meaning 
of  circumcision  was  lost  among  the  Hebrews  by 
the  custom  of  performing  it  on  the  eighth  day. 
But  uncircumeision  came  to  be  regarded  as  un- 
cleanness, depriving  the  ollender  of  approach  to 
God  or  membership  in  the  community.  In  the 
case  of  girls  an  analogous  rite  was  often  per- 
formed, uiough  not,  so  far  as  we  know,  by  the 
Hebrews. 

But  the  greatest  terror  was  aroused  by  men- 
struation. At  its  first  appearance  the  girl  was 
often  strictly  isolated,  ancl  in  some  cases  this  was 
continued  for  years.  All  through  life,  precaution.s, 
tlioui^h  not  so  stringent,  had  to  be  taken.  The 
blood  was  regarded  aa  highly  dangerous  for  men 
to  touch  or  even  see  (Frazer,  I.e.  i.  325,  320,  iii. 
204-233 ;  W.  R.  Smith,  I.e.  447,  448 ;  Spencer  and 


828      UNCLEAN,  UNCLEANNESS 


UNCLEAN,  UNCLEANNESS 


Gillen,  The  Natlcc  Tribes  of  Central  Australia,  pp. 
460    461  ;    Kalisch   aud   Uilliuaiin-Ryssel   on    Lv 
1519-24)  .     Anion"  the  Arabs  '  meusliuous  women 
raiKht  not  take  part  in  feasts  and  sacrilices  only 
for  them  are  the  old  expressions  for  clean  and  un- 
clean customary  in  pre  -  Islamic  Arabic     OVelUi. 
I  c   170)      This  was  true  also  in  Israel.     As  in  so 
many  other  cases,  the  strictness  of  the  taboos  on 
this  state  is  much  moditied.     But  it  naturally  fell 
anion"  the  graver  types  of  uncleanness.      i'or  it 
tvas  a^conditfon  doubly  unclean  combminK  die  un- 
cleanness  of  the  reproductive  ^""'^tw"^  ^"^'\  "^'^^ 
of  blood.     It  was  regarded  as  unclean  in  old  Israe 
(Gn  31»  2  S  11*).     In  the  Priestly  Code  (Lv  lo'»  -*) 
the  period  of  '  separation  '  is  deaned  as  seven  days 
The  uncleanness  was  communicated  to  the  bed  or 
seat ;  contact  with  either  of  these  produced  ^f'-^^' 
ness  till  evening,  and  required  "'^  ^^^.^l"°S.f^''°f /, 
and  clothes.     So  infectious  was  the  impurity  that 
any  one  touching  an  article  on  the  bed  or  seat  in- 
curred the  milder  penalty  of  uncleanness  till  the 
evening.     This  is  the  penalty  prescribed  according 
to  tlie  present  text  of  Lv  lo^^  for  contact  with  the 
patient  herself .  But  it  is  incredible  that  a  secondary 
^tage  of  uncleanness  should  require  a  more  com- 
plete  purihcation  than  the  primary.     Probably  the 
words^' shall  wash  his  clothes,  and  bathe  himself 
in  water,  and'  have  fallen  out.     The  meaning  of 
the  injunction  in  Lv  15"-*  is  uncertain.     Probab  y 
it  doei  not  refer  to  conjugal  relations  which  m 
these  conditions  were  not  only  said  m  Lv  20     (H) 
to  incur  the  punishment  of  death,  but  were  viewed 
with  utter  repugnance  in  antiquity      It  is  poss^^le 
that  the  reference  may  be,  as  some  t^ink,  t^o  dehle 
ment  caused  by  the  commencement  of  the  discharge 
durin"  intercourse.  ,         , 

Clolely  connected  with  this  form  of  uncleanness 
was  that  caused  by  abnormal  issues  JD  both  sexes 
The   pathological   conditions  indicated  need  not 
be  discussed  fn  detail  (see  the  commentaries).     An 
'issue  of  blood'  (Lv  15'^-»,  Mt  9=»  and  paralls. ) made 
a  woman  unclean  as  in  the  normal  discharge.    1  he 
impurity  lasted  seven  days  after  the  discharge  had 
Sped       Then  she  oflered  two  turtle  doves  or 
yoZlpigeons-one  for  a  sin-  and  the  other  for  a 
Wt  ottering.     It  is  curious  that  neither  in  tlie 
case  of  the  normal  nor  abnormal  issue  is  any  re- 
fSence  made  to  washing  of  body  or  clothes  m  the 
case  of  the  woman,  though  both  are  required  for 
thP  man  (Lv  IS"'").     Jewish  custom  at  a  later 
p  riodcer  ailily  insiited  on  a  bath  of  purification 
K  the  normal  dischar-e.     1°  .the  c^/«  "^  ">«>- 
seminal  emission  involved  washmg  of  the   body 
and  uncleanness  till  the  evenin",  while  every  gar- 
mc^it  or  skin  on  which  there  hadlieen  any  discharge 
must  be  washed    and    be    unclean    till  evening 
According  to  Dt  23'»-  ",  a  noi^turnal  accident  wh  le 
onamKexpeditionexcludedaman  from  the 
cainp  for  the  next  day.     As  evenmg  came  on  he 
had  to  bathe,  and  he  returned  to  camp  when  the 
sun  was  down.     Correspondin|  to  the  abnormal 
dUchar.'e  of  women  is  that  ol  men  described  in 
r^  ulr    The  various  forms  of  uncleanness  pro- 
duced by  it  are  elaborately  referred  to  (w.-'-). 

•'The  oWect  of   secluding  women   at  menstruation  ta  to 
„eutSf.e°^Ld.„,cro™.nm.encesw.,* 

frre'^peTa\l\    gJea't  at*heT>"l  nTenstruat.on  'appears  from 

-S?^T^^nsn^^-riM^^^^^ 

bothtothe^rlherseu  ac^     as  it  U  called  ot  girls  at  puberty 

i'.;;  »»n  titv  of  holy  men  do  not,  to  the  pnmitive  mind, 
and  the  8anait\  of  noij   m  ,  ^j^        ^  manifestations 

^eflcent  accordiVto  its  "PPl'^t)?- '  ^^^^l  e  i48      Thi 
Stos'^-p'uSlir  £Ts  T^J^^^^f^^^^^ 
PrimUivt  Culture^,  u.  4S2). 


The  rites  of   purification  are  the  same  as  for  a 
woman's  abnormal  issue.  .         •        i_ 

That  childbirth  made  the  luotlier  unclean  is  only 
what  was  to  be  expected.     It  is  surprising  that 
Nowack  should  regard  this  as  obviously  a  develop- 
ment in  later  time  of  the  old  view  that  pollution 
was  incurred  by  intercourse  as  by  menstruation 
iHeb.  Archdol.  ii.  284).     The  uncleanness  of  child- 
birth is  an  almost  universal  belief  among  primitive 
peoples  *     It  was  also  an  Arab  custom  in  certain 
places  to  build  a  hut  outside  the  camp,  where  the 
woman  had  to  stay  for  a  time  (WeUh.  ^c.  p.  UO). 
The  fact  clearly  is,  that,  so  far  from  being  a  late 
development  among  the  Israelites,  it  was  a  survival 
from  prehistoric  times.     And  a  modified  survival, 
for  it  IS  striking  that  whereas  the  newborn  infant 
is  almost  universally  regarded  as  in  a  high  degree 
taboo,  this  has  not  survived  among  the  Hebrews 
(though  Ezk  16*  may  allude  to  it)  t   Jhe  rule  in  Lv 
!>>  (p1  enjoins  that  after  the  birth  of  a  boy  the 
mother  shall  be  unclean,  as  in  menstruation    for 
a  week,  and  shaU  continue  'in  the  blood  oi  her 
purifying'  thirty-three  days.      During    the   first 
week  her  uncleanness  would  of  course   be  infec- 
tious, but  possibly  this  was  not  so  during  the  rest 
of  her  forty  days.    All  that  is  required  is  that   she 
shall  touch  no  hallowed  thing,  nor  come  into  the 
sanctuary.'   When  a  girl  was  born,  the  two  periods 
were  doubled.     It  was  commonly  l^eUeved  that  the 
symptoms  persisted  much  longer  after  the  birth 
7i  aVrl  than  after  that  of  a  bov.     The  numbers 
thirty-three  and  sixty-six  are  cliosen  to  make  up 
with  seven  and  fourteen  the  favourite  number  of 
forty  and  its  multiple  eighty.     When  tlie  requ^ite 
period  was  over,  she  ottered  a  lamb  of  the  first  year 
or  a  burnt-ottering,  and  a  young  P'gf  on  or  a  turt  ? 
dove  for  a  sin-ottering.     If  too  poor  to  offer  a  lamb 
(as  was  the   mother  of  Jesus,   Lk  2-*),  a  seconu 
young   pigeon  or  a  second  turtle  dove  might  be 
'"xhi^VroA^ft^erf  rffj,r.«'  belong  to  the  same  order 
of  ideas:   on  this  subject  the  article  MaKRIAOE 
may  be  consulted.    On  forbidden  degrees  in  Arabia 
seeV.  E.  Smith,  Kinship,  ch.  vi. ;  and  on  the  whole 
subiect.  especiaUy  Westermarck,  The  History  of 
Hul^nMlriactA  chs.  xiv  xv    and  the  summary 
m,  544-546.S   the  '  bastard.'  who  is  exc  uded  from 
the  attmblY  of  J",  is  probably  the  offspring  of  such 
tueassemoiyoi^  ,     t^       p^^bably   ftloabites  and 

Im'monufs  i?e%fcl'u  ed  on  the^  ground  of^^the 
incestuous  origin  of  the  two  peoples  (Gn  19  ). 
The  exclusion"  of  eunuchs  (Dt  23')  is  apparent  y 
meant  to  refer,  in  the  first  place  at  any  rate,  to 
tSVho  had  mutilated  themselves  for  religious 
reasons  This  is  an  example  of  a  Uboo  originatmg 
in  a  nrotest  against  heathenism.  ,  .,  .^.         t 

"'some  see  alialogous  ideas,  in  the  proha,ition  of 
'unlawful  mi.Ktures.'  Sowing  a  field  with  two 
kinds  of  seed  made  the  whole  crop  holy,  that  is 
taboo  Linen  and  wool  might  not  be  used  in  the 
same  garment;  the  clothing  proper  to  one  sex 
mi"ht  not  be  worn  by  the  other; II  an  ox  and  an 
ass  mi-ht  not  be  yoked  together  to  the  plough; 
ass  mi^iii.  ,Luler  with  a  diverse   kind    Dt 

l^.,Tt;i^ll   h'^arallels  cannot  here  be  quoted 


Jevons,  InUod.  to  the  IhM.o/Rel   '«.  '»• 
t  See  Jevons,  I.e.  75.  TO ;  Tvlor  U  il  431 

866). 


11 


UNCLEAIf,  UNCLEANNESS 


UNCLEAN,  UNCLEANNESS      829 


■o  eiisily.  The  Kamschatkans  at  the  beginning  of 
the  IStli  cent,  had  a  taboo  on  cooking  lish  and 
flesh  in  the  same  pot.*  Frazer  gives  several  e.\- 
amples  of  taboo  on  mixing  dilFerent  kinds  of  food 
in  the  stomach  (I.e.  ii.  336,  337).  Baentscli  sa3's 
that  mingling  of  stufl's  from  the  animal  and 
vegetable  kingdoms  played  a  rfile  in  magic. 

Possibly  we  should  regard  aa  an  extension  of  the 
law  of  issues,  the  uncleanness  of  the  human  excreta. 
Ezekiel  protests  against  using  human  e.\cremcnt 
for  fuel  with  which  to  bake  bread,  on  the  ground 
of  the  uncleanness  that  would  then  be  communi- 
cated to  the  food,  and  is  permitted  to  substitute 
animal  excrement,  which  apparently  was  not  deQl- 
ing,  or  dehling  in  a  much  slighter  degree,  and  is 
often  used  now  in  Syria  for  fuel  ( Ezk  4'''-  ").  The 
law  in  Dt  23'-'",  directed  to  secure  cleanness  in  the 
camp,  is  regarded  by  some  as  a  mere  impracticable 
relinement  of  a  theorist.  But  numerous  savage 
parallels  may  be  quoted  for  this  as  for  all  tlie 
Hebrew  war  taboos.  Frazer  says  that  the  rules  of 
ceremonial  purity  prescribed  for  Hebrew  warriors 
are  '  identical  with  rules  observed  by  Maoris  and 
Australian  black-fellows   on   the  warpath.'     The 

firecise  rule  in  question  is  found  amoii"  .Austra- 
ians,  Melanesiang,  South  Africans,  and  Fijians. 
Frazer  suggests  that  the  original  motive  in  the 
case  of  the  Hebrews  was  identical  with  the  a\  owed 
motive  of  savages,  '  a  fear  lest  the  enemy  should 
obtain  the  refuse  of  their  persons,  and  thus  be 
enabled  to  work  their  destruction  by  magic'  [I.e.  L 
3'28).t  It  is  not  necessary  to  appeal  to  savages; 
the  same  custom  is  found  among  the  Arabs  (Wellh. 
I.e.  p.  173).  We  should  perhaps  bring  under  the 
same  law  the  prohibition  of  woollen  garments  to 
the  priests,  because  tliey  caused  sweat  (Ezk  44"-  "). 
The  clause  '  they  shall  not  gird  themselves  with 
anythim^  thrit  cnu^eth  sweat '  is  regarded  by  Cornill 
and  Toy  as  a  gloss,  and  the  translation  is  a  little 
uncertain  ;  but  it  correctly  represents  what  must 
have  been  the  object  of  the  prohibition,  as  is  shown 
by  the  Syrian  and  Egyptian  parallels.  A  law  of 
decency  underlies  the  requirement  in  Ezekiel  and 
P  that  the  priests  should  wear  linen  drawers.  This 
was  a  survival  of  the  feeling  that  the  deity  dwelt 
in  the  altar,  and  that  the  person  must  not  be  ex- 
posed to  it  (Ezk  44",  Ex  28«-  *",  Lv  6'"  IC).  In  the 
Book  of  the  Covenant  the  same  result  was  secured 
by  the  prohibition  of  steps  u])  to  the  altar  (Ex  20^, 
see  W.  R.  Smith,  OTJC  p.  3.38). 

(ft)  Uncleannci'i  connerterl  with  food.  —  The 
article  Food  deals  very  fully  with  much  of  this 
suhjcct,  and  it  is  unnecessary  to  repeat  in  detail 
what  is  said  there.  Naturally,  however,  questions 
ari.se  in  this  article  that  do  not  arise  in  an  article 
on  Food.  The  taboos  on  food  among  savage 
peoples  are  very  numerous.  These  cannot  he 
exjilained  as  due  to  sanitary  considerations  or  as 
the  expression  of  natural  disgust.  The  reason  is 
religious.  It  is  very  probable  that  many  cases 
are  to  be  explained  as  originating  in  totemism.J 
But  it  is  not  only  among  sav.ages  that  such  restric- 
tions on  food  are  found.  They  survive  among 
many  civilized  peoples  of  antiquity  —  Indians, 
Egj'ptians.  Syrians,  Greeks,  and  others.  Accord- 
ing to  Wellhausen,  the  distinction  between  clean 
and  unclean  food  was  not  known  to  the  ancient 
Arabs ;  they  recognized  only  usual  and  unusual 
{I.e.  108,  IGli).  At  the  same  time,  taboos  in  some 
sense  seem  from  Wellhauscn's  own  statements  to 

•  Brinton,  Rrtlgion$  of  Primitive  PeapUt,  p.  109. 

t  Hair  and  nail  parincB  are  often  l)urie<I  witn  ifreat  preo4»iit1on, 
for  a  simitar  rciison.  The  *  hill  of  forenkins'  (/oh  ."P),  according 
to  one  interpretation  of  lt«  meftnioKi  would  be  a  Hebrew  parallel 
(of.  2430  L.\,X). 

t  See  W.  R,  Smith,  Kiruthip,  ch.  Tilt  and  pp.  304-Sll,  OTJC^ 
8e«,  3«T.  /(S2  jxunim ;  Spencer  and  Oillen,  SattM  Triba  of 
Central  Axulratia,  167-lOB,  20^-211,  <67,  463;  Jevona,  Intnd. 
to  the  Uiitory  of  Jtei.  102,  110-127. 


have  been  recognized.  Still  in  this,  as  in  some 
other  res[>ccts,  the  Hebrews  preserve  the  mora 
primitive  type.*  In  the  Flood  story  (J^)  the  dis- 
tinction between  clean  animals  and  animals  not 
clean  is  presupposed  as  known,  though  the  tech- 
nical word  for  unclean  (K;p)  is  not  used  (Gn  7-  S*'). 
P,  on  the  contrary,  represents  man  as  hitherto 
vegetarian ;  and  when  animal  food  is  first  permitted, 
no  restriction  is  made,  except  that  the  blood  should 
not  be  eaten,  since  it  was  the  vehicle  of  the  life 
(l^n  1-*  £)"•'').  We  have  lists  of  clean  and  unclean 
aninnils  in  Dt  14*"^  and  Lv  U.+ 

The  criterion  for  clean  beasts,  that  they  must 
part  the  hoof  and  chew  the  cud,  should  probably 
be  regarded  as  a  late  attempt  to  define  a  class  by 
a  single  formtila,  the  members  of  which  had  already 
been  selected  on  other  grounds.  The  camel,  hare, 
and  coney  [Ili/rax  Syriaeu.t)  are  pronounced  un- 
clean, because  while  they  chew  the  cud  they  do 
not  part  the  hoof,  and  the  swine  for  the  opposite 
reason.  The  camel  was  eaten  by  the  Arabs  and 
used  in  sacrifices:  it  may  conceivably  have  been 
excluded  on  this  latter  account.  There  are  traces 
of  a  belief  in  Arabia  '  that  camels,  or,  at  all  events, 
certain  breeds  of  camels,  were  of  demoniac  origin ' 
(W.  R.  Smith,  KS-  2S3,  n.  2).*  The  /wre  was  prob- 
ably a  sacred  animal,  for  '  hares'  heads  were  worn 
as  amulets  by  Arab  women  '  (W.  R.  Smith,  I.e. 
3S2),  and  the  foot  was  used  as  a  charm  against 
demons  (Kinship,  211).  WhUe  the  Arabs  eat  it, 
the  other  inhabitjints  of  Syria,  the  Turks  and  the 
Armenians,  abstain  from  it,  and  the  Parsees  regard 
it  as  the  uncleanest  of  animals  ;  the  ancient  Britons 
regarded  it  as  taboo,  '  gtistare  fas  non  puUmt '  (Cies. 
de  B.  G.  V.  12.  See  Dillm.  and  Kalisch,  Lei-iticus, 
ii.  55).§  It  was  supposed  to  menstruate,  and  was 
thus  assimilated  to  mankind.  It  was  regarded  as 
very  lascivious  (cf.  Barn.  10).  The  eo7irj/  (llijrax 
Syriacus)  is  still  avoided  for  food  by  Christians 
and  Mohainmed.-ins  in  Abyssinia.  In  the  Sinai 
peninsula  it,  with  the  panther,  is  believed  to  have 
been  originally  human,  and  he  who  eats  its  llesh, 
it  is  said,  will  never  see  his  parents  again  (W.  R. 
Smith,  RS^  88,  444).  There  is  much  evidence  to 
show  that  the  stoine  was  a  holy  animal.  While 
forbidden  food  to  the  Semites,  the  taboo  was 
variously  explained  as  due  to  its  holiness  or  un- 
cleanness. It  was  eaten  only  in  such  mystic  sacri- 
fices as  are  described  in  Is  (io^-"  66'-  ".  The  Egyp- 
tians regarded  it  as  highly  taboo,  not  only  as  food, 

•  In  spite  of  this,  there  is  one  important  respect  In  which  the 
primitive  type  seems  not  to  be  preserved.  Krei]uently  certain 
foo<l3  are  taboo  to  people  in  various  stajrca  of  life  or  certain 
physical  conditions,  or  attain  to  particular  orders  of  people. 
ElalKirate  rules  may  be  found  in  Snencer  and  Cillen,  I.e.  2.'i8, 
467-473  :  Frazer,  I.e.  \.  391.  Only  sliKnt  survivals  are  to  be  found 
amonp  the  Hebrews,  e.q.  taboo  on  wine  and  whatever  conies 
from  the  i,'ratie,  imposcff on  the  Nazirite,  and  hia  mother  before 
his  birth,  and  the  prohibition  of  wine  to  the  i>riests  before  ofTer- 
inj;.  With  such  sliirht  exceptions,  the  food  taboos  are  binding  on 
all  Israelites.  In  this  connexion  Saul's  taboo  on  eating  foo<l  till 
evening,  unwittingly  violated  by  Jonathan  (1  S  14343r)_  niay  be 
referred  to.  We  naturally  sympathize  with  Jonathan's  ronunon- 
sense  criticism;  hut  this  was  somewlmt  rationalistic  for  that  age, 
and  the  writer  repre.sents  J"  as  too  much  offended  by  its  trans- 
gression to  answer  when  consulted.  Saul  wished  bv  this  strong 
taboo  to  assure  supernatural  ai<l,  such  as  would  be  cheaply 
purchased  bv  the  impaired  etliciency  of  his  men. 

t  The  relation  between  these  laws  Is  disputed.  Some  regard 
the  law  in  Deut.  as  a  secondary  aildition.  It  seems  at  least 
probable  that  the  two  secliotm  are  nuitually  independent  ;  and 
It  is  not  unlikely  that  they  draw  on  oral  or  written  torah  of  the 
priests.  Driver  and  White  ai»ign  I,v  iis-23. 4147  to  II.  nat-ntsch 
(*  Hanflkom.'  Ez.-Lev.)  objects  that  the  passages  exhibit  too 
little  of  H's  phraseology.  Kor  a  very  elaborate  analysis  see 
O^.  Ilex,  ad  loc.^  and  art.  Lrviticds. 

t  '  I  take  it,  however,  that  the  eating  of  camel's  flesh  continued 
to  be  regarded  by  the  Arabs  as  in  some  sense  a  religious  act, 
even  when  it  was  no  longer  associated  with  a  fonnal  act  of 
sacrillce  :  for  abstinence  from  the  tiesb  of  camels  and  wild  oasei 
was  jire-scribed  by  S>iueon  Stvlilcs  to  his  Saracen  converts  ;  and 
traces  of  an  idolatrous  significance  in  feasts  of  camel's  flesh 
appear  in  .Mohanmiedan  trmlition  '  (W,  R.  Smith,  I.e.  ias). 

i  On  the  Vorksbire  superstition  of  the  close  GODncxionbetweei 
hares  and  witches  see  Frazer,  i.e.  Hi.  406. 


830       UNCLEAN,  UNCLEANNESS 


UNCLEAN,  UNCLEANNESS 


but  to  touch  ;  yet  once  a  year  sacrificed  it  to  the 
moon  and  Osiris,  and  ate  the  llesh.  Its  identifica- 
tion witli  the  demon  Set  or  Typhon,  the  enemy  of 
Osiris,  is  probably  a  degradation  from  its  original 
identification  with  Osiris  himself.  Among  the 
Syrians  it  seems  to  have  been  regarded  as  an  in- 
carnation of  Tammuz.  Its  Hesh  was  also  taboo  to 
worshippers  of  Attis.  It  was  further  supposed  to 
possess  magical  powers.* 

The  criterion  tliat  clean  animals  must  be  rumi- 
nants with  cloven  hoof  excluded  the  ass,  horse, 
and  dog,  and  all  beasts  of  prey.  The  ass  seems 
from  Jg  6^  to  have  been  commonly  used  for  food  : 
the  Midianites  'left  no  sustenance  in  Israel,  neither 
sheep,  nor  ox,  nor  ass'  (of.  2  K  &"').  The  Arabs 
seem  to  have  regarded  it  as  a  sacred  animal,  and 
it  was  forbidden  to  his  converts  by  SymeonStylites, 
just  as  our  abstinence  from  horse-flesh  is  due  to  the 
prohibition  to  Christian  converts  from  the  worsliip 
of  Odin,  to  whom  it  was  sacrificed.  The  story  tliat 
the  Jews  worshipped  the  ass  may  point  to  tlie 
worship  of  it  in  Syria.  The  flesh  and  hoofs  were 
used  for  magical  purposes  by  the  Arabs  (see  W.  R. 
Smith,  Kinship,  308  ;  BS'^  468).t  The  horse  was 
little  used  by  the  Hebrews,  even  in  war  ;  probably 
the  uncleanness  of  the  ass  would  be  felt  to  extend 
to  it.  Josiah  '  took  away  the  horses  that  the 
kings  of  Judah  had  given  to  the  sun'  (2  K  23") ; 
this  connexion  with  idolatry  may  account  for  its 
uncleanness.  Four  horses  were  cast  into  th^'  sea 
at  Rhodes  at  the  annual  feast  of  the  sun  (W.  R. 
Smith,  RS-  293).  The  dog  seems  to  be  sacred  from 
the  reference  to  its  use  in  the  mysteries  (Is  66^). 
Among  the  Harranians  dogs  were  said  in  the 
mysteries  to  be  the  brothers  of  men.  They  seem 
also  to  have  been  sacred  among  the  Carthaginians 
and  Phoenicians.  '  In  Moslem  countries  dogs  are 
still  regarded  with  a  curious  mixture  of  respect 
and  contempt'  (W.  R.  Smith,  I.e.  291,  292). J 
Beasts  of  prey  were  naturallj'  regarded  as  unclean, 
because  they  fed  on  the  blood  as  well  as  the  flesh 
of  their  victims.  Most  of  the  unclean  birds  were 
birds  of  prey  or  fed  on  carrion.  Others  lived  in 
ruins,  and  were  regarded  as  companions  of  the 
demons  who  haunted  them.  (P"or  the  ostrich  as 
a  demon  cf.  W.  R.  Smith,  I.e.  129,  n.  2).  It  is 
curious  to  observe  how  unclean  birds  mentioned 
in  these  lists  are  catalogued  witli  the  uncanny 
monsters  whicli  are  to  dwell  in  the  ruins  of 
liabylon  (Is  13-''--,  Jer  50"")  or  Edom  (Is  34"""'). 
No  list  of  clean  birds  is  given.  See  article  P'OOD 
for  those  that  were  eaten.  It  need  only  be  men- 
tioned that  the  dove  was  permitted,  though  to  the 
Syrians  taboo  in  a  high  degree.§ 

fish  also  were  taboo  to  the  Syrians,  who  regarded 
ulcers  as  the  penalty  for  eating  them  (W.  R.  Smith, 
I.e.  292,  449).  The  Hebrews  did  not  sacrifice,  but 
were  permitted  to  eat  tliem.  The  only  restriction 
was  that  lish  without  fins  and  scales  might  not  be 
eaten.  The  reason  was,  no  doubt,  their  snake-like 
api)earance,  the  serpent  being  unclean  (see  Food). 

Further,  in  the  Law  of  Holiness  (H)  'swarming 
things '  (see  art.  CREEPING  TttiNOS,  where  the  two 

•  See  Movers,  Die  PhSnlzier,  i.  218-220  (where  several  further 
exx.  are  collected);  W.  K.  Smith,  I.e.  163,  218,  290,  291,  411, 
475 ;  Frazer,  I.e.  ii.  29»-311 ;  Jevons,  I.e.  118,  n.  3 ;  the  very 
elaborate  discussion  in  Kalisch,  Leeilicus,  pt.  ii.  79-93  ;  also  art. 
Food. 

t  According  to  Ex  3420  (JE)  the  firstling  of  an  ais  had  to  be 
redeemed  with  a  lamb,  but  if  not  redeemed  its  neck  must  be 
broken.  The  lat«r  law  (Lv  27^  prescribed  that  an  unclean 
firstling  should  be  redeemed  at  the  priest's  valuation,  plus  one- 
flfth,  but  if  not  redeemed  it  must  be  sold. 

t  Frazer  mentions  that  the  dog  is  regarded  by  the  Ojibways 
*  as  unclean,  and  yet  in  some  respects  as  holy '  (Bnc.  Brit.^  art. 
'  Taboo '). 

§  W.  U.  .Smith,  Kinship,  IOC  ;  RS^  219.  The  author  points  out 
that  though  a  '  clean  '  bird  in  legal  times,  we  never  read  of  it  in 
OT  as  an  article  of  diet.  It  was  not  used  for  sacrifices  accom- 
panied by  a  meal,  but  in  burnt-ofTerings  and  sin-offerings,  which 
nad  a  connexion  with  mystical  sacrifices  (p.  294). 


terms  so  translated  are  distinguished)  are  forbidden 
(Lv  U'"-").  What  was  included  under  this  term 
may  be  seen  in  the  article  mentioned  (vol.  i.  518"). 
The  prohibition  of  reptiles  is  explained  by  the 
superstitions  universally  attached  to  serpents.  The 
Arabs  frequently  regarded  them  as  demoniacal, 
and  identified  them  with  the  jinn  (W.  R.  Smith, 
I.e.  120,  121,  129,  130,  442,  Kinship,  197  ;  and  especi- 
ally Wellh.  I.e.  152-155).*  The  serpent  of  Gn  3 
illustrates  the  demoniacal  nature  of  these  reptiles. 
It  is  curious  that  the  list  in  Deuteronomy  speaks 
only  of  '  winged  swarming  things,'  by  whicli  appar- 
ently winged  insects  are  meant.  These  are  re- 
garded as  unclean  also  in  P(Lv  11*',  unless  this 
belongs  to  H),  for  the  phrase  'winged  swarming 
creatures  tliat  "o  on  all  fours'  seems  to  mean  the 
same  as  '  winged  swarming  creatures.'  Four  kinds 
of  locusts  are  permitted  for  food  (see  Food, 
Locust).  Whether  this  is  a  variation  from  Dt  14 
is  uncertain.  On  the  one  hand,  the  rule  in  the 
latter  passage  seems  to  admit  of  no  exception.  On 
the  other,  the  term  translated  '  fowls '  in  Dt  14^ 
may  be  used  in  this  restricted  sense  of  '  winged 
swarming  things,'  in  which  case  the  meaning  will 
be  that  certain  winged  insects  are  clean  and  lawful 
food.  Inserted  in  Lv  11  we  have  a  list  of  things 
the  carcases  of  which  produce  uncleanness  through 
contact  (vv.*^"^).  This  list  includes  the  unclean 
quadrupeds,  and  of  swarming  things — the  weasel, 
the  mouse,  certain  lizards,  and  the  chameleon. 

It  is  curious  that  the  list  is  not  more  extensive,  especially  OM 
the  author  enters  on  a  casuistical  discussion  of  details.  The 
swarming  things  mentioned  were  regarded  as  demoniacal,  the 
mouse  is  coupled  with  the  swine  in  Is  6617  as  eaten  in  the 
mysteries  there  denounced  (see  W.  R.  Smith,  Kinship,  302, 
303,  A'S2  293 ;  A.  Lang,  Custom  and  Mj/th  (1893),  103-120). 
This  section  is  probably  a  later  addition,  not  at  all  on  the 
ground  that  pollution  by  contact  is  a  late  refinement  of  pollu- 
tion by  eating,  for  taboo  on  cont.act  is  very  ancient,  but  because 
of  its  casuistry  and  its  interruption  of  the  context.  Toucllin^; 
involves  uncleanness  till  the  evening,  bearing  the  carcass  of  the 
quadrupeds  induces  uncleanness  in  a  deeper  degree ;  for  not 
only  is  the  person  unclean  till  the  evening,  but  he  must  wash 
his  clothes.  The  carcases  of  swarming  things  infect  with  un- 
cleanness all  clothing  or  vessels,  and  the  food  in  them.  The 
vessels  are  unclean  till  the  evening,  and  must  be  steeped  in 
water.  If  made  of  earthenware  they  must  be  broken,  as  the 
uncleanness  would  sink  into  the  pores.  A  fountain  or  cistern, 
however,  remained  clean,  though  whatever  touched  the  unclean 
thing  {i.e.  to  remove  it)  became  unclean.  Seed  was  not  polluted 
by  contact,  unless  water,  by  which  it  would  soak  in,  bad  been 
put  upon  it. 

Contact  with  a  clean  beast  that  died  a  natural 
death  produced  uncleanness  till  the  evening.  Eat- 
ing of  it  or  carrying  it  involved  the  washing  of 
clothes  in  addition.  In  Lv  17"  bathing  of  the 
body  is  also  required. 

This  law  is  made  to  apply  to  the  stranger  as 
well  as  the  home-born.  In  Ut  14^'  the  prohibition 
is  made  absolute  for  the  Hebrews,  and  based  on 
their  holiness  to  J".  But  the  flesh  of  such  animals 
may  be  given  to  the  stranger  who  is  sojourning 
in  Israel,  or  sold  to  the  foreigner.t  It  must 
be  remembered  that  the  law  is  not  sanitary, 
but  ritual ;  there  was  therefore  no  reason  why  a 
taboo,  bindin";  on  the  holy  people,  should  be 
imposed  on  those  who  are  not  members  of  it. 
For  the  priestly  legislators  the  land  is  holy,  be- 
cause J"  dwells  in  it,  and  therefore  those  who  are 
in  it,  Israelites  or  not,  must  observe  precautions 
against  uncleanness.  The  priests  are  forbidden  to 
eat  such  food  absolutely  (Lv  22').  The  reason  was 
that  the  flesh  had  still  the  blood  within  it.  Blood 
was  always  prohibited  (1  S  14^,  Dt  12'^--»,  Gn  9', 
Lv  IT'"-'*  3"  etc.),  but  the  prohibition  seems  not 
always  to  have  been  observed  (1  S  H*-"",  Ezk  33*). 
It,  with  the  fat,  was  regarded  by  primitive  peoples 
as  in  a  special  sense  the  seat  of  life,  and  in  ordi- 

•  For  India  see  Frazer,  The  Golden  Boioh'',  i.  466,  457. 
t  In  Ex  2231  (JE)  •  Besh  that  is  torn  of  teasU  in  the  field'  li 
not  to  be  eaten,  because  the  Hebrews  are  holy  to  J"  ;  it  must  b« 

cast  to  the  dogs. 


UNCLEAN,  UNCLEANNESS 


UNCLEAN,  UNCLEANNESS      831 


nary  sacrifice  was  made  over  to  the  deity.  It  is 
probable,  however,  that  in  the  earliest  type  of 
sairiiice  it  was  devoured  by  the  worshippers,  and 
in  the  mystic  sacrilices  that  are  referreu  to  in  Is 
65.  GO  this  feature  reappeared.  The  breaking  of 
the  dof^'s  neck  was  a  killiuf;  of  it  without  shedding 
the  blood  (see,  further,  under  Food,  S.\Ci;ifice).* 

The  'sinew  of  the  thi;;h'  is  said  in  Gu  32^-  not 
to  be  eaten  by  the  Israelites,  thouf^h  no  reference 
is  made  to  this  in  the  Law.  It  became  taboo 
through  the  touch  of  Jacob's  Divine  antagonist. 
Probably,  as  W.  K.  Smith  suggests,  '  the  thigh  is 
a  seat  of  life  and  procreative  power  '  {RS'  380).t 

The  thrice  repeated  (Ex  231"  34™,  Dt  14-')  taboo 
on  scethinq  a  kid  in  its  mother's  rnilk  is  discussed 
in  the  articles  l'"00D,  Goat.  Here  it  is  necessary 
to  add  only  what  is  required  by  the  nature  of  this 
article. 

We  may  safely  set  aside  the  view  that  the  rule  rests  on 
sentitnental  conBiderations.  It  is  directed  apainst  some  re- 
lij^ious  or  magical  practice  in  connexion  with  the  dish.  The 
common  explanation  that  gout's  milk  was  used  to  produce 
fruitful  crops,  while  true  in  itself,  does  not  account  for  this 
8])ecial  prohibition.  W.  R.  Smith  suggests  that  milk  was  a 
substitute  for  blood,  so  that  this  dish  would  violate  the  tal)00 
on  blood  {I.e.  221).  But  neither  does  this  e-xplain  why  it  is  o 
kid  so  prepared  that  is  forbidden.  If  goat's  milk  possessed 
magical  qualities,  these  might  be  supposed  to  be  present  also 
in  a  sucking  kid.  The  combination  of  the  two  doubles  the 
magical  intensity,  and  we  may  suppose  that  the  rite  condemned 
was  originally  pastoral  rather  than  agricultural.  The  subsequent 
use  of  goat's  milk  in  agriculture  is  a  natural  appliailion  of 
a  pastoral  charm  for  fruitfulness.  The  question  may  further 
be  raised  whether  it  has  not  been  too  hastily  assuined  that 
•mother's  milk'  means  simply  goat's  milk,  i.e. "the  milk  of  any 
goat.  The  physical  blood  relation  between  the  kid  and  its 
dam  would  make  the  magic  more  efficacious,  doubling  it  in 
upoQ  itself. 

As  examples  of  the  care  ■\vith  which  the  Jews 
practised  these  laws,  Dn  1",  To  l'" '-,  Jth  12'% 
Ad.  Est  14",  1  Mac  l'"®",  2  Mac  6'*  7'  may  be 
quoted. 

The  viltimate  origin  of  the  uncleanness  of  certain 
animals  probably  lies  in  the  fact  that  they  were 
totems  of  primitive  Semites.  It  is  true  that  some 
of  the  greatest  Semitic  scholars  doubt  if  the 
Semites  passed  through  the  totem  stage.  Egyp- 
tologists also  seem  to  be  unanimous  in  denying 
that  totemisui  ever  prevailed  in  Egypt.  But  it  is 
a  question  on  which  the  anthronolugist  also,  with 
the  comparative  method,  must  be  consulted  ;  and 
Robertson  Smith,  the  chief  defender  of  the  theory 
in  question,  spoke  with  the  authority  not  only  of 
a  most  eminent  Seniitist,  but  that  of  an  expert 
anthropologist.  The  theory  gains  much  of  its 
plausibility  from  the  light  and  order  it  brings  to 
a  number  of  otherwise  obscure  and  incoherent 
facts.  That  the  unclean  foods  are  so  numerous 
is  perhaps  due  to  the  very  heterogeneous  origin  of 
the  Hebrew  people,  the  totems  of  many  stocks 
being  regarded  as  forbidden  food  by  the  united 
nation.  At  the  same  time  it  must  be  remembered 
that  among  savage  races  totem  stocks  exist  side 
by  side  in  the  same  community,  without  necessarily 
tabooing  each  other's  totems,  though  they  may 
avoid  the  ostentation  with  which  tliey  feast  on 
the  totem  of  an  enemy.  Eurther,  even  in  totem 
clans  there  are  taboos  on  food  at  certain  stages 
of  life  or  in  certain  conditions,  which  are  otherwise 
lawful  food.  We  need  not,  of  course,  look  for 
actual  totemisra  in  the  historical  i)eriod  of  the 
Hebrew  people.  But  if  the  Semites  passed  through 
totcmism,  numerous  survivals  must  be  expected, 
and  jiart  at  least  of  the  prohibitions  probably  are 
to  be  accounted  for  in  this  way.  Two  principles, 
however,   even   in   this  case,    may   have   been  at 

•  See  W.  It.  Smith,  Kinship,  808,  310,  KS^  n\,  «86,  S3»-S62; 
Fra,.or.  I.e.  i.  353-302 ;  Jevons,  I.e.  "3,  H. 

t  Tor  the  same  taboo  among  the  N.  American  Indians, 
•ccounled  for  by  a  mythical  stor)',  see  Krazer,  I.e.  IL  i\9-*il. 
Kalllr  men  also  will  not  eat  it,  it  is  'sent  to  the  principal  boy  at 
the  kraal,  who  with  his  companions  oonsfder  it  as  their  right.* 


work.  The  lists  in  Deuteronomy  and  Leviticus 
may  include  food  traditionally  taboo.  In  this 
case  the  Law  simj)ly  endorses,  as  in  so  many 
instances,  ancient  practices.  But  they  may  also 
forbid  food,  not  on  the  ground  of  immemorial 
custom,  but  because  its  use  in  heathen  rites  con- 
stituted a  religious  danger  to  Israel.  It  ought  to 
be  added  tliiil  the  proof  of  the  demoniacal  or 
magical  qualities  attaching  to  certain  unlawful 
foods  in  no  way  conflicts  with  their  totem  char- 
acter. On  the  contrary,  as  is  well  illustrated  by 
the  connexion  between  tlie _;'*»»!  and  the  wild  beasts 
among  the  Arabs,  these  qualities  are  probably 
attributed  to  them  in  virtue  of  their  original 
totem  significance. 

(c)  Uncleannass  connected  with  leprosy.  —  This 
disea.se  and  tlie  purifications  after  cure  are  so 
thoroughly  dealt  with  in  the  article  Lkpiio.si' 
that  it  is  unnecessary  to  add  more  here  than  a 
few  supplementary  remarks.  For  the  view  there 
mentioned,  th.at  the  leper  was  regarded  as  the 
victim,  in  a  peculiar  degree,  of  a  stroke  of  God, 
like  the  man  hanged  on  a  tree,  'accur.scd  of  God,' 
we  may  compare  the  euphemistic  name  for  it 
among  the  Arabs,  '  the  blessed  disease,'  mulAraka 
(Wellh.  I.e.  I'J9).  The  man  'smitten  by  God' 
neces.sarily  becomes  unclean.  We  find  examples 
of  a  belief  among  savages  that  leprosy  may  be 
caused  by  eating  the  totem  animal,  though  it  must 
be  added  that  other  diseases  might  be  so  incurred, 
skin  dise.'ises,  however,  predominating.  With 
this  we  should  compare  the  fact  tliat  the  Egyp- 
tians, to  whom  the  swine  was  taboo  in  a  liigh 
degree,  thought  that  drinking  pig's  milk  caused 
leprosy  (Frazer,  I.e.  ii.  306,  307).  The  rules  laid 
down  for  lepers  corresponded  to  those  prescribed 
for  mourners  ;  perhaps  the  feeling  entered  in  that 
leprosy  was  a  living  death.  The  ritual  of  releasing 
the  live  bird  into  the  open  field,  rests  on  a  similar 
idea  to  that  expressed  in  the  'goat  for  Azazel.'  A 
similar  custom  was  practised  by  widows  in  Arabia 
on  release  from  the  uncleanness  of  widowhood,  at 
the  end  of  a  year.*  The  liird  is  said  to  have  died. 
An  As.syrian  parallel  is,  'May  the  bird  to  heaven 
cause  it  (my  gioaning)  to  a.-^cend  '  {UP  ix.  51).  It 
seems  strange  that  a  guilt -offering  should  be 
required.  Nowack  {Ileb.  Arch.  ii.  2s;))  thinks  the 
author  regarded  a  sin-otl'ering  as  inadmissible  in 
this  very  peculiar  rite,  and  further  took  the  rite 
over  from  an  earlier  time,  and  did  not  freely 
create  it  (see,  further,  Lei'Hosv). 

(d)  Uncleanness  connected  with  denth. — This  also 
is  familiar  among  primitive  peoples.  That  the 
numerous  rites  which  have  grown  up  around  the 
dead  express  partly  a  h(jrror  of  the  spirit  and 
dread  of  its  return,  is  true.f  But  there  are  many 
examples  of  rites  designed  to  continue  with  the 
dead  the  communion  held  with  them  while  living.  J 
Frequently  the  taboos  on  the  dead  are  attributed 
to  ancestor-worship;  but  this  view  seems  improb- 
able, for  we  find  the  taboo  more  widely  prevalent 
than  it  is  likely  ancestor-worship  ever  was, — and 
the  proofs  for  this  among  the  llebiews  are  certainly 
not  stringent.  The  taboos  rest  on  the  belief  that 
the  soul  survives  the   body,  and  lingers   near  its 

•  Wellh.  I.e.  171  ;  W.  R.  Smith,  I.e.  422.  The  reference  vo 
Frazer,  ^c,  in  the  article  LBi'Kosr,  corresponds  to  iii.  16  in  the 
second  edition. 

t  I'razer,  I.e.  I.  825,  etc. ;  Tylor,  {.<.  IL  26-27  ;  W.  R.  Smith 
I.e.  XM,  n.  2,  309,  370. 

:  \V.  It.  Smith,  I.e.  322,  823,  870.  '  Wh.lo  the  rudest  nations 
seek  to  keep  up  their  comiection  with  the  beloved  deiid.  they 
also  believe  that  vcrj*  dangerous  inlhiences  hover  round  death- 
be<ls,  cori'ses,  and  graves,  and  many  funeral  ceremonies  are  ob- 
served as  safeguards  against  these*  (330,  n.  2).  'There  is  a 
tendency  at  present,  in  one  school  of  anthropologists,  to  explain 
all  death  cust^jms  as  due  to  fear  of  gljostjj.  Ilut  among  the 
Semites,  at  any  rate,  almost  all  death  customs,  from  the  kissing 
of  the  corjjse  (On  60l)  onwards,  are  dictate<l  by  an  affection  (hat 
endures  beyond  the  grave'  (S'i)).  See,  also,  Tvlor,  Lc.  32-S4 
(Mpeclally  tlie  pathetic  dirge  there  quoted)  ;  Jevons,  I.e.  44-68. 


?32       U-tfCLEAX,  UXCLEANNESS 


UNCLEAN,  UNCLEANNESS 


earthly  house  or  its  grave.  How  serious  tlie 
danger  was  taken  to  be,  is  clear  from  tlie  highly  in- 
fectious character  attributed  to  it.*  This  prevails, 
probably,  among  all  savage  peoples.  The  Ilebrews 
are  in  this  respect  more  primitive  than  the  Arabs. 
Among  the  latter,  mourning  does  not  usually  make 
unclean ;  and  in  Islam  contact  with  the  corpse 
does  not  delile,  though  it  is  doubtful  if  this  rule 
prevailed  among  the  ancient  Arabs  (Wellli.  I.e. 
171,  17'2).  Such  cases,  among  the  Hebrews,  as 
those  of  contact  with  the  carcases  of  animals  have 
already  been  dealt  with.  The  human  corpse  was 
regarded  by  them  as  most  deUling.  Although  we 
have  no  very  early  evidence,  it  is  unquestionable, 
in  vnew  of  the  savage  parallels,  that  they  always 
had  this  belief,  and,  in  more  primitive  times, 
probably  in  a  much  intenser  form.  The  late 
codihcation  of  the  laws  in  no  way  disproves,  in 
itself,  the  antiquity  of  the  observances. 

The  fullest  legislation  on  the  subject  is  to  be 
found  iu  Nu  19  (P).  It  is  there  enjoined  that  every 
one  who  touches  '  the  dead  body  of  a  man  shall  be 
unclean  seven  days.'  If  a  man  die  in  his  tent, 
every  one  who  is  in  the  tent,  or  who  enters  it,  is 
unclean  for  seven  days  ;  and  any  vessel  standing 
open  in  the  tent  is  unclean.  In  the  open  tield 
actual  contact  is  necessary  to  produce  delilement. 
But  such  contact  was  not  merely  with  a  body  de.ad 
by  the  sword  or  natural  death,  but  even  with  a 
bone  or  the  grave.  Hence  it  became  customaiy 
to  whiten  graves,  that  they  might  be  readily 
avoided  and  involuntary  uncleanness  not  be  con- 
tracted (Mt23-",  Lk  ll").  The-striking  illustration 
of  the  infectious  uncleanness  of  the  corpse  given 
in  Hag  2"""  has  been  already  referred  to.  The 
law  iu  Nu  19^  is  that  whatever  tlie  person  thus 
unclean  touches  shall  be  unclean,  and  the  person 
who  touches  this  object  shall  be  unclean  till  even. 
In  Nu  5-  those  unclean  by  the  touch  of  a  corpse 
are  put  out  of  the  camp  alon"  with  lepers  and 
those  who  have  issues.  Josiah  defiled  the  altars  at 
the  high  places  with  dead  men's  bones  (2  K  23"'-"''). 
Similarlj',  the  dead  bodies  of  Gog's  host  defiled 
the  land,  which  was  cleansed  only  by  tlieir  burial 
(Ezk  39'-''*).  In  old  Israel  the  kings  were  buried 
close  to  the  temple,  a  practice  warmly  denounced 
by  Ezekiel  as  deliling  it  (43'"').  Bloodshed  defiles 
the  land,  and  the  uncleanness  can  be  removed  only 
by  the  blood  of  him  that  shed  it  (Nu  35*').t  Hence 
warriors,  while  holy  persons,  as  already  shown, 
were  rendered  unclean  by  the  slaughter  of  men  in 
war.  Thus,  after  the  slaughter  of  the  Midianites, 
those  who  had  killed  any  one  or  touched  the  slain 
had  to  remain  outside  the  camp  seven  days,  puri- 
fying themselves  on  the  third  and  seventh  day. 
Kvery  thin"  that  could  endure  fire  was  passed 
through  it,  out  was  also  purified  with  the  water  of 
separation.  All  that  could  not  endure  the  fire  was 
passed  through  water.  Clothes  had  to  be  washed 
on  the  seventh  day  (Nu  SI'""").  Some  of  the 
taboos  on  warriors  have  been  already  discussed. 
The  present  rule  is  relegated  by  some  to  the  class 
>f  legal  refinements  which  had  never  any  existence 
•o  the  national  life.  Here,  again,  the  comparative 
method  warns  us  against  too  hasty  a  conclusion. 
Even     more    stringent    rules    are    found    among 

• '  Araonp  the  Maoris  any  one  who  had  handled  a  corpse,  helped 
to  convey  it  to  the  grave,  or  touched  a  dead  man's  bones,  was 
cut  off  from  all  inlercouree,  and  almost  all  communication,  with 
mankind.  He  could  not  enter  any  house,  or  come  into  contact 
with  any  person  or  thing,  without  utterly  bedevilling  them.  .  .  . 
And  when,  the  dismal  term  of  his  seclusion  being  over,  the 
mourner  was  about  to  mix  with  his  fellows  once  more,  all  the 
dishes  he  had  used  in  his  seclusion  were  diligently  smashed,  and 
all  the  gannents  he  had  worn  were  carefully  thrown  away,  lest 
they  should  spread  the  conta^'ion  of  his  defilement  among 
others'  (Krazer,  I.e.  i.  323,  324  ;  Jevons,  I.e.  67,  68,  76-78). 

t  When  the  offender  was  unknovvn,  guilt  was  purged  from  the 
land  by  the  ritual  of  the  heifer,  whose  neck  was  broken  in  an 
uncultivated  valley  with  running  water  (Dt  211-*)l  See  IIkifer  ; 
Driver,  ad  loc;  and  W.  &.  Smith,  i.e.  370,  871. 


savages.*  Their  origin  seetns  to  be  due  to  dread 
of  vengeance  from  the  ghosts  of  the  slain.  Among 
the  taboos  to  wliich  the  Nazirite  was  siibject  was 
that  on  contact  with  the  dead.  This  and  the  puri- 
fication prescribed  for  its  violation  are  fully  dis- 
cus.sed  in  the  art.  Naziiute. 

The  priest,  according  to  Ezekiel,  must  come  at 
no  dead  person  to  delile  him.self,  except  parent, 
child,  brother,  or  unmarried  sister.t  In  the  case 
of  the  death  of  such  a  relative,  even  after  he  is 
cleansed  he  must  wait  seven  days,  and  then,  on 
entering  the  sanctuary,  he  must  oiler  a  sin-ollering 
(Ezk  44^"-'').  A  curious  relaxation  of  the  law  of 
uncleanness  is  that  those  who  are  unclean  by  con- 
tact with  a  tlead  body  may  yet  eat  the  passover 
(Nu  9""'-).  Certain  mourning  cu.stoms  also  pro- 
duced uncleanness.  Hence  the  Israelite,  wlien 
ottering  his  charity  tithe,  was  required  to  affirm 
that  he  had  not  eaten  of  it  while  mourning,  nor 
removed  it  from  his  house  while  unclean,  nor  gi^•en 
of  it  for  the  dead  (Ut  26'^).  If  he  had  eaten  of  it 
in  his  mourning,  it  would  have  contracted  his 
uncleanness.^  The  reference  to  giving  it  for  the 
dead  is  of  uncertain  meaning.  The  sense  may  be 
that  he  has  not  sent  it  to  the  friends  of  the  de- 
ceased for  a  fimeral  feast  (which  would  make  the 
whole  tithe  unclean),  or  that  he  has  not  (in  ac- 
cordance with  a  very  widespread  custom)  placed 
some  of  it  in  the  tomb  to  serve  the  spirit  for  food 
on  its  road  to  Sh661,  or  that  he  has  not  used  it  in 
sacrifices  to  the  dead  (cf.  Jer  16',  itself  an  obscure 
passage).  The  bread  of  mourners  is  referred  to  in 
Hos  9^  as  causing  uncleanness.  Other  mourning 
customs,  such  as  cuttings  in  the  flesh,  or  making 
baldness  between  the  eyes  for  the  dead,  are  for- 
bidden in  Dt  14',  Lv  ig-",  as  incompatible  with  the 
holiness  of  the  people  of  J".  Both  are  well-known 
savage  customs,§  and  were  regarded  as  legitimate 
signs  of  mourning  (Jer  16",  Ezk  7'*,  Is  22'-)  appar- 
ently down  to  the  time  of  Ezekiel  (see  CUTTIN'GS 
IN  THE  Flesh,  Mourning).  The  mourning  cus- 
tom for  the  captive  whom  the  Israelite  (Dt  21"'-") 
takes  to  wife  is  interesting.  The  shaving  of  head 
and  paring  of  nails  remove  the  uncleanness  of 
mourning  (cf.  the  shaving  of  hair  in  the  clcansin" 
of  the  leper,  Lv  14').  A  similar  rite  was  perfonned 
by  widows  in  Arabia  after  the  twelve  months  they 
spent  in  a  hut  outside  the  camp,  neither  dressing 
the  hair  nor  cutting  the  nails.  || 

Purification  from  the  uncleanness  caused  by  a 
dead  body  was  eflected  by  the  'water  of  separa- 
tion,' made  by  pouring  water  on  the  ashes  of  a  red 
heifer  (Nu  19).  The  heifer  was  completely  burnt, 
along  with  cedar  wood,  hyssop,  and  scarlet.  The 
burning  of  the  blood  in  this  rite  is  unique ;  it 
was  clearly  intended  to  comiimnicate  an  intenser 
sanctity  to  the  ashes.  The  ashes  were  kept  in  a 
clean  place  outside  the  camp,  and  'living  water' 
was   poured  on    them.      Then    the    unclean   was 

*  Frazer,  I.e.  331-339.  The  account  of  the  Pima  Indians  il 
especially  noteworthy  as  showing  that  taboos  far  more  '  im- 
practicable' than  those  enjoined  in  Nu  31  are  actually  observed. 
The  uncleanness  and  purification  prescribed  in  this  uassage  for 
warriors  after  the  return  from  battle  are  similar  to  those  recog- 
nized over  a  very  wide  area. 

t  Unmarried  sister,  because  marriage  was  regarded  as  trans- 
ferring her  to  the  husband's  family.  The  same  feeling  underlies 
the  law  that  the  priest's  daughter  on  marriage  to  a  stranger 
loses  the  right  to  eat  of  the  heave-ollerings  of  the  holy  things 
(Lv  2ii'J).  V\'omen  could  not  eat  of  the  sinoflering  (Lv  6'-'), 
guiltoftering  {'•'),  or  meal.oHering(6i8),  on  account  of  their  high 
sanctity. 

!  For  taboos  on  mourners  and  monming  customs  see  FraMr, 
I.e.  i.  3SS,  380;  W.  R.  Smith,  I.e.  322-3'>8,  338;  Wellh.  Le.  170, 
171, 177  ff.  ;  Spencer  and  Gillen,  I.e.  499,  600-507,  609. 

§  See,  for  example,  Spencer  and  Gillen,  I.e.  609,  610. 

II  W.  R.  Smith,  I.e.  4'.'S,  447  ;  Wellh.  I.e.  171.  The  meaning  o« 
the  custom  is  clearly  brought  out  by  Fraier,  Lc  L  3S8,  389.  Ho 
quotes  parallels  from  mourning  customs  in  ancient  India, 
Borneo,  and  the  West  Coast  of  Africa.  It  is  very  instructive,  •» 
throwing  light  on  the  underlying  idea,  that  moral  uncleanness 
is  ]>ur>;ed  away  in  some  coses  by  the  sliaving  oflf  of  all  the  hair 
and  bathing  in  the  sacred  stream. 


UNCLEAN,  UNC LEANNESS 


UNCLEAJN^  UNCLEANNESS      833 


sprinkled  by  a  clean  person  on  the  third  and  the 
seventh  daj's,  and  on  the  latter  he  washed  his 
clothes  and  bathed  his  body,  and  was  clean  at  even. 
The  priest  who  superintended  the  slaughter  and 
burning  of  the  heifer,  and  the  man  who  burned 
her,  had  to  wash  their  clothes,  bathe,  and  be 
unclean  till  even.  He  who  gathered  the  ashes  had 
to  wash  his  clothes,  and  be  unclean  till  even ;  he 
who  sprinkled  the  water  had  to  wash  his  clothes, 
and  he  who  touched  it  was  nnclean  till  even  (see, 
further,  art.  I'KD  Hkificr).  The  purifications  i>re- 
Bcribed  after  the  slaughter  of  the  Midianites  (Nu 
31'"-^).  including  tire  for  metal,  have  been  already 
referred  to. 

iii.  Unci.e.\nnks.s  AND  Ritual. —Throughout 
the  history  of  Israel  uncleanness  disqualilied  a 
man  for  the  worship  of  God.  David  s  absence 
from  the  sacred  festival  was  fully  accounted  for 
by  the  sup[iosition  of  his  uncleanness  (1  S  20^) ; 
Jeremiah  was  'restrained,'  probably  by  unclean- 
ness, and  could  not  go  into  the  temple  (.Jer  36'). 
The  idea  has  undergone  an  ethical  transformation 
when  the  song  of  the  seraphim  and  the  smoke  of 
the  Divine  resentment  (?)  make  tlie  heart  of  Isaiah 
quail  at  the  consciousness  that  in  his  moral  im- 
purity he  has  dared  to  cross  the  temple  tliresliold 
(Is  C"').  In  spite  of  Ezekiel's  complaints  that 
the  priests  had  not  caused  the  people  to  discern 
between  the  clean  and  the  unclean  (22-*),  it  is  clear 
that  some  rules  were  all  along  observed.  Yet 
these  permitted  i)ractices  which,  from  the  stand- 
point of  Judaism,  were  highly  irregular.  Uncireum- 
cised  foreigners  were  allowed  to  enter  tlie  sanctuary 
(Ezk  44').  Ezekiel  insists  that  this  shall  be 
absolutely  forbidden  in  the  future  (44").  Uncir- 
cumcision  in  the  male  worshipjier  was  regarded 
as  uncleanness,  as  a  state  which  precluded  him 
from  communion  with  God.  So  we  read  that  into 
the  restored  Jerusalem,  the  holy  city,  there  shall 
come  no  more  the  uncircumcised  and  the  unclean 
'Is  .52').  The  rule  is  strongly  enforced  in  the  Law. 
Similarly,  the  unclean  may  not  pass  along  the  holy 
way  by  which  pilgrims  come  up  to  the  temple 
(Is  3.5''i.  The  sacred  feasts  may  he  observed  by  any 
clc.in  Israelite.  The  meat  of  the  peaceollerings 
may  be  eaten  by  any  clean  person,  but  any  one 
eating  with  his  uncleanness  upon  him  will  be  cut 
oil'  by  the  stroke  of  Divine  judgment  (Lv  7"'").* 
On  the  other  hand,  both  clean  and  unclean  were 
permitted  to  eat  the  flesh  of  sacrificial  animals  if 
they  were  not  brought  in  sacrifice  (Dt  12"  IS-'), 
but  the  blood  had  to  be  poured  out  on  the  earth 
as  water.     Naturally,  uncleanness  disqualified  the 

Friests  for  eating  holy  things  (Lv  22^'',  cf.  Is  52"). 
f,   further,    the   sacred    food    touclied   anything 
unclean,  it  might  not  be  eaten  (Lv  7"). 

A  very  interesting  law  is  that  forbidding  an  iron 
tool  to  lie  used  on  the  stones  of  which  the  altar  is 
constructed  (Ex  20",  Dt  27''-»,  Jos  8").  Exodus,  it 
is  tnie,  does  not  mention  iron  ;  it  simply  forbids 
the  altar  to  be  polluted  by  the  use  of  a  tool  to  hew 
the  stones.  But  the  point  of  the  prohibition  lies 
in  the  reference  to  iron.  It  can  scarcely  be  that 
the  requirement  that  the  stones  shall  be  unhewn 
is  n  protest  against  the  intrusion  of  culture  into 
religion.  Nor  can  there  be  any  question  of  otfend- 
ing  the  deity  that  dwelt  in  the  stone,  for  it  is  not 
a  monolith,  but  a  structure  built  out  of  several 
stones,  that  the  author  has  in  view.  Nor  is  the 
use  of  iron  in  war  and  its  consequent  connexion 
with  death  re^'arded  as  unfitting  it  for  the  service 
of  God  (in  tins  case  1  Cli  22'  might  be  compared). 
The  taboo  on  iron  in  ritual  is  very  widely  observed. 
It  is  wholly  due  to  '  the  conservatism  of  the  re- 

•  The  apparent  exception  to  thin  principle  already  mentioned, 
that  the  unclean  by  touch  of  a  cleu4  lto<ly  niij^ht  eiit  the  pnMi- 
ever,  itt  part  i:illy  accounted  for  by  the  fact  that  in  I'  the  poMover 
«  not  cunuidered  a  sacriUce  (cf.  2  Ch  30"  *>,  Ezr  Q^). 

voi_  IV. — 53 


ligious  instinct.'  Long  after  iron  came  into 
common  use  in  daily  life,  the  dread  of  Innovation 
in  religion  forbade  it  to  be  emploj'ed  in  ritual. 
Hence  bronze  knives  continued  to  be  used  in 
religious  ceremonies  after  iron  knives  were  in 
common  use.  But  it  is  even  more  striking  that 
survivals  from  the  Stone  Age  should  persist  into 
the  Iron  Age  than  that  we  should  have  survivals 
from  the  Bronze  Age.  Yet  of  this  there  are  several 
exani]iles.  The  true  parallel  to  the  prohibition  of 
the  iron  tool  on  the  altar  is  Zipporah's  circum- 
cision of  her  son  with  a  flint  (E.k  4^),  and  Joshua'i 
circumcision  of  the  Israelites  with  flint  knives 
(Jos5=-»).* 

Lastly,  the  references  to  foreign  lands  as  nnclean 
have  a  ritual  significance.  Palestine  was  the  only 
land  in  which  J  "  could  be  worshipped  with  sacrifice 
and  oll'ering,  unless  soil  were  actually  taken  from 
the  clean  into  the  unclean  land,  as  was  done  by 
Naaman  (2  K  5"),  whose  point  of  view,  we  need 
not  doubt,  was  shared  by  ordinary  Israelites. 
Exile  was  therefore  regarded  with  dread,  for  it 
severed  the  connexion  of  the  worshipper  with  his 
God.  And  since  neither  tithe  nor  first-fruit  could 
be  offered,  the  crops  remained  unclean,  and  those 
in  an  unclean  land  were  compelled  to  eat  nnclean 
food(Hos9«-''). 

iv.  Uncleanness  in  NT. — Since  nothing  in  the 
Law  touched  the  daily  life  of  the  Jew  at  so  many 
points  as  the  laws  of  uncleanness  and  purification, 
and  that  not  only  in  the  Dispersion  (where  the 
sacrificial  sj'stem  could  not  legally  be  practised) 
but  in  Palestine  itself,  it  was  natural  that  the 
scribes  should  develop  the  rules  concerning  it  with 
the  most  painful  minuteness.  Casuistry,  in  fact, 
ran  riot  in  this  inviting  field.  The  NT  has  many 
references  to  the  laws  of  purification,  and  the 
largest  of  the  six  books  of  the  Mishna  (nnno  tid)  is 
devoted  to  this  subject.  Thirty  chapters  in  it  are 
devoted  to  the  single  subject  or  vessels.  The  rules 
went  far  beyond  anything  laid  down  in  even  the 
most  casuistical  Pentateuch  laws.  This  is  shown 
most  of  all  in  the  regulations  about  the  Washing 
of  Hands.  It  was  granted  that  these  were  not 
found  in  the  Law,  but  were  only  traditions  of  the 
elders  ;  yet  they  were  very  strictly  enforced.  The 
chief  point  to  observe  is  that  the  hands  were 
wiished  before  food  although  they  might  he  cere- 
monially clean.  At  first  adopted  liy  the  Pharisees, 
it  became  a  practice  almost  universal  among  Jews. 
Probably  its  origin  was  to  prevent  any  contact 
with  food  when  the  person  might  have  tincon- 
sciously  contracted  defilement.  If  the  hands  were 
known  to  be  unclean,  two  washings  before  food 
were  required.  It  also  became  customary  to  wash 
the  hands  after  food ;  and  some  Pharisees,  in- 
genious in  discovering  new  ways  of  self-righteous- 
ness, washed  between  the  courses.  The  washing 
of  the  hands  was  performed  by  pouring,  the  han<l3 
being  held  with  the  fingers  u)),  so  that  the  unclean- 
ness might  be  washed  down  away  from  the  fingers. 
The  water  had  to  run  down  to  the  wrist,  else  the 
ceremony  was  inefl'ectual  (Edersheim  thinks  that 
in  Mk  7"  we  should  translate  irvyii^,  '  to  the  wrist' ; 
but  see  .Swete's  note).  We  have  a  further  reference 
to  the  Jewish  custom  in  the  story  of  the  marriage 
at  Cana,  where  there  were  six  stone  waterpots  for 
the  water  of  purification  (Jn  2" ;  cf.  also  the  dis- 
cussion between  .lohn  the  Baptist's  disciples  and 
a  Jew  about  purification,  Jn  3",  and  the  Jews 
purifying  themselves  or  avoiding  defilement  before 
the  passover,  ll"*  18*). 

•  8ce  Fruzer,  Ic.  I.  iU-iiS.  Anions  the  natives  of  Central 
Australia  circumcision  and  sublnclHlon  arc  still  perfonned  with 
stone  knives,  though  Iron  knives  arc  known.  Hut,  accordinir  to 
tradition,  circumcisiOD  was  originally  pf^rformed  with  the  flre- 
Htii^k,  and  the  stone  knives  wore  uloptcd  because  so  man^  died 
i]i  consequence  of  th«oiMntloii(SpeQoeraDdOUleD,  <.«.  2iiS,  224, 
SM-«U2). 


834 


UNDERGIRD 


UNICORN 


More  importance   attaches   to   the  attitude  of 
Jesus   and  the  apostles    to   these   customs.      He 
excitev.1  tlie  surprise  of  a  Pharisee  because  He  did 
not  wash  His  hands  before  breakfast  (Lk  Hf") : 
and  His  disciples,   by  the  same  neglect,  led  tlie 
Bcribes  and  Pharisees  to  cliallenge  Jesus  to  account 
for  their  behaviour  (Mk  V-\  Mt  15'-  =).     Tl'i«  gave 
Him  occasion  to  denounce  tlie  making  void  ot  the 
word  of  God  through  tradition,  and  to  enunciate 
the  "reat  liberating  principle  that  not  that  which 
goeth   into  a   man    defiles  him,  but   that  whicli 
cometh  out  of  him,  from  the  heart.     At  one  stroke 
He  repealed  all  the  Levitical  rules  as  to  unclean 
meats  (Mk  7»-^,  Mt  15^=").     There  can  be  no  such 
thinn-  as  ceremonial,  there  is  only  moral   delile- 
ment.     It  was  long,  however,  before  this  decisive 
pronouncement  was  really  appreciated  by  the  dis- 
ciples.    Just  before  he  was  sent  to  Cornelius,  bt. 
Peter  could  sav  that  he  had  never  eaten  anything 
common  or  unclean  (Ac  10").     The  principle  was 
adopted,    with   concessions   to  Je^^^sh    prejudices 
against  meats  ottered  to  idols,  things  Strang  ed, 
aSd  blood,  in  the  letter  of  the  Church  of  Jerusalem 
(Ac  15^).     St.  Paul  expressed  the  principle  in  the 
clearest  form— that  all  things  are  clean,  and  nothing 
of  itself  is  unclean  (Ro  H"-^^  cf.  Tit  I")-     'All 
things  are  lawful ;  meats  for  the  belly,  and  the 
belly  for  meats  :  but  God  wiU  destroy  both  it  and 
them'  (1  Co  6").     Nay,  food  perishes  in  the  very 
act  of  use.      What  we  can  destroy  must  not   be 
suflered  to  rule  us  (Col  2™"").     So  Christians  must 
not  permit    themselves  to  be  judged  in  ineat  or 
drink  (Col  2'«).    But,  in  actual  practice,  both  Jesus 
and  St   Paul  made  gracious  concessions  to  Jewish 
feeling.    Jesus  bade  the  leper  otter  for  his  cleansing 
the  things  which  Moses  commanded  (Mk  1").    And 
St.   Paul   himself,  becoming'  a  Jew  to  the  Jews, 
submitted  to  a  rite  of  purihcation  (Ac  21=  ).     This 
apostle  laid  down  the  great  principle  that  Chris- 
tians must  be  governed  by  the  law  of  love  ;  and, 
while  we  cannot  make  the  conscience  of  another 
the  measure  of  our  own,  we  must  exhibit  always 
the   tenderest   consideration    for  the  scruples  of 
others,  lest  we  jilace  a  stumbling-block  in  their 
way  ;  and,  further,  tliat  where  these  scniples  exist, 
he  who  entertains  them  must  not  defile  his  con- 
science by  violating  them.     But  it  is  clear  that  in 
the  Christian  atmosphere  the  essentially  heathen 
idea  of  ceremonial  uncleanness  could  not  survive. 

Literature.— The  most  important  has  been  freely  quoted  In 
the  article.  Jlost  is  to  be  learned  from  W.  R.  Smith  and  Frazer 
(cf.  also  his  art.  'Taboo'  in  the  Em.  Bril.^).  For  Arab  usage 
Wellhausen's  Jiesle  Arab.  Heid.^  is  valuable.  For  non-Semitic 
parallels  Jcvons'  Intrud.  to  the  Hist,  of  AW.,  and  Spencer  and 
billens  very  important  work,  The  Native  Tnhes  of  Central 
Amlralia,  are  most  useful.  The  Hebrew  customs  are  treated 
by  Bcnzin.'er,  and  much  more  fully  by  Nowack,  in  their  works 
on  Hebrew  Archaeology.  Their  conclusions  on  several  points 
miL'ht  have  been  modified  by  a  more  thorough  study  of  sayaLie 
parallels,  through  which  alone  we  can  hope  to  understand  the 
fsraelitish  ideas  and  usages.  Thediseussion  in  the  0/  Ihenl,,ues 
of  Schiiltz,  Dillmann,  Siuend,  and  Marti  may  also  he  consulted, 
together  with  Stade's  in  his  GVI^  i.  481-4S7.  The  coinm.n- 
tatorson  Leoitinit  deal  with  the  subject;  the  soundest  treat- 
ment is  prohahlv  that  of  Baentsch  in  Nowack's  Uandkommentar. 
Bertholcfs  commentary  in  Marti's  Kurzer  Hand-Cominentar 
appeared  too  late  to  be  used  in  this  article.  An  article  by  J .  U. 
Slatthes,  '  De  begrippen  rein  en  onrein  in  bet  OT,  in  the  i/ii 
ix.iiii.  (1899)  293 fr.,  has  not  been  read  by  the  present  writer. 

A.  S.  1  E.\KE. 

UNDERGIRD.  — See  art.    Ships   and   Boats, 

p.  5Uli". 

UNDERLING.— Sir  4"  'Make  not  thyself  an 
underling  to  a  foolish  man '  (m^?  vroaTpuia-o^  ataurbv 
ivdoibrv  liupi,  RV  '  Lay  not  thyself  down  for  a 
fool  to  tread  upon ' :  for  inrouTpCivvviu  used  literally 
see  Lk  19^  '  they  spread  their  clothes  in  the  way  '). 
Underling  is  found  in  the  Bisliops'  Bible  La  5» 
'Wee  are  underlings  without  fathers';  and  in 
Bunyan,  Holy  War,  p.  15,  '  Can  you  lie  kept  by 
any  Prince  in  more  slavery  and  in  greater  bondage 


than  you  are  under  this  day?    You  are  mada 
underlings,  and  are  wrapt  up  in  inconveniences. 
°  J.  Hastings. 

UNDERSETTER  (in?  'shoulder,'  esp.  as  sup- 
port for  burdens).— The  Heb.  word  (in  the  plu.l 
IS  translated  '  undersetters '  only  in  1  K  ,*"*■•'*''". 
and  the  meaning  there  is  pedestals  for  the  bases  ot 
the  lavcrs  in  the  temple.  The  Eng.  word  means 
props  or  supports,  but  that  it  is  not  altogether 
an  inaiipropriate  translation  the  foil,  quotation 
shows  :  On  49"'  Wyclif  (1388),  '  Isachar  .  .  undir- 
settide  his  schuldre  to  bere.'  Elyot  (Govcrnour, 
i  28)  says  that  '  a  wyse  and  counnynge  gardener, 
purposynge  to  have  in  his  gardeine  a  fine  and 
precious  hcrbe,'  will,  '  as  it  spryngeth  in  stalke, 
under  sette  it  with  some  thyng  that  it  breake  nat, 
and  alway  kepe  it  cleane  from  weedes.  linda  e 
uses  the  v-erb  metaph.,  Expos,  p.  208,  '  If  our  souls 
be  truly  underset  \\  ith  sure  hope  and  trust. 
Wvelif  (1388)  has  the  form  '  undersettings  in  Ezlc 
41=6  (same  Heb.),  the  13S2  ed.  having  'shoulders. 
*  J.  HASTINGS. 

UNDERTAKE.  — Is  38"  'O  Lord,  I  am  op- 
pressed; undertake  for  me'  (-31V.  RV  *  be  thou 
my  surety' :  in  Job  17^  the  very  same  form  of  the 
verb  is  rendered  in  AV  '  put  me  in  a  surety, 
RV  '  be  surety  for  me  ').  The  Eng.  word  has  the 
usual  sense  of  the  intrans.  verb,  '  to  assume  re- 
sponsibility for,'  'become  surety  for.  Cf.  I'uller, 
Holy  War,  p.  137,  '  The  barren  warres  in  Syna 
starved  the  undertakers.'  J.  HASTINGS. 


UNDERWRITE.— 2  Mac  9"  '  He  wrote  unto  the 

Jews  the  letter  underwritten '  (rijv  imayi^faiL^vrj, 
imaToX-h")-  The  word  is  used  literally,  as  RV 
'  the  letter  written  below,'  the  words  of  the  letter 
being  then  quoted.     Cf.  Shaks.  Macbeth,  V.  viu. 

26— 

'  We'll  have  thee,  as  our  rarer  monsters  are. 
Painted  upon  a  pole,  and  underwrit 
"  Here  may  you  see  the  tyrant." ' 

J.  HASTINGS. 
UNEASY  is  now  restless,  but  in  its  only  occu- 
rence in  AV  it  means  literally  '  not  easy,'  '  difli- 
cult'  :  2  Mac  12-'  '  The  town  was  hard  to  oesie^, 
and  uneasy  to  come  unto'  (SvairpbaiToi,  RV  'diffi- 
cult of  access ').     So  Shaks.  Tempest,  I.  u.  451— 
*  This  swift  business 
I  must  uneasy  make,  lest  too  light  winninj 
Make  the  prize  light.' 

The  modern  sense  is  quite  as  old,  thus  //  Henry 

IV.  III.  i.  10— 

•  Why  rather,  sleep,  llest  thou  in  smoky  cribs. 
Upon  uneasy  palleU  stretching  theeV ' 

J.  Hastings. 
UNGRACIOUS.— This  Eng.  word  occurs  in  2  Mao 
4"  'this  ungracious  Jason'  ('liff<-ii>  6  fuapbi,  RV 
'vile')  8"  'that  most  ungracious  Nicanor'  (o 
Toi<raXi^p.os  SiKavwp,  RV  '  thrice-accursed'),  l.i' 
'  the  most  ungracious  wretch '  (6  rpivaXiHipios,  liV 
'  the  thrice-accursed  wretch  '),  always  in  tlie  sense 
now  conveyed  by  graceless.  So  Mt  IS^^  in  Cran- 
mer's  Bible, '  O  thou  ungracious  servaunt  (Gr.  AouXe 
xoi-npO.  Cf.  Erasmus,  Crede  45,  '  Rejoysynge  in 
synne  and  ungratiousnes ' ;  Hos  7'  Cov.  '  \\  hen  1 
undertake  to  make  Israel  whole,  then  the  un- 
I'raciousnesse  of  Ephraim  and  the  wickednes  ol 
Samaria  commeth  to  light.'  J.  HASTINGS. 

UNICORN  (CN1  and  ciT!  rff^m,  on  rSm;  cf. 
Assyr.  rimu  [see  Schrader,  ^"-4  r»  456]).-The  vari- 
ous forms  of  the  Heb.  word  refer  to  an  anima  , 
characterized  by  its  great  strength  (Nu  23»^  24  ). 
untameableness  (Job  39«- '«),  fleetness  and  activity 
(I's  29"),  noted  for  its  horn  (Ps  92"),  of  which  it 
had  more  than  one  (Dt  33"  nx-i  -Jip  '  horns  ofa 
rt'VVn,'  not  pi.  as  in  AV  '  unicorns  ;  cf  Ps  2^ 
01J-1  'r\S  '  horns  of  rgms'),  associated  with  buUockJ 


UNKNOWN  GOD 


UE  OF  THE  CHALDEES 


835 


»nd  bulls  (Is  34').  All  of  these  references  soem  to 
jioint  to  a  well-known  animal,  probably  of  llie  ox 
tribe.  Certairilj-  they  do  not  refer  to  tlie  fabulous 
unicorn,  a  rendering  which  has  been  adopted 
from  the  LXX  iJ.ovoKipu>%,  which  is  the  word  in  all 
the  above  passages  except  the  last,  where  tlie 
rendering  is  dopoi  = '  strong  ones.'  The  Arab,  rtm 
is  undoubtedly  a  white  antelope,  probably  the 
Uucoryx.  Some  of  the  above  references  would 
Buit  this  animal.  liut  most  of  them  seem  to 
imply  a  creature  of  the  ox  sort,  and  one  of  the 
strongest  and  fiercest  of  its  group.  RV  tr.  it '  wild 
ox,'  m.  'ox-antelope.'  Two  specios  of  wild  oxen 
once  abounded  in  Palestine.  One,  Bo.iprimigeniiis, 
the  Auerocks-  of  the  Old  Germans,  is  now  quite 
extinct  everywhere.  The  other.  Bison  bonasits 
or  Bos  urns,  which  the  Germans  erroneously  call 
the  Auerocks,  still  exists  in  the  forests  of  Lithu- 
ania and  in  the  Caucasus.  The  latter  cannot  be 
the  rS(m,  on  account  of  the  shortness  of  its  horns. 
The  former  was  noted  for  its  size,  and  the  prodigious 
length  and  strength  of  its  horns.  It  existed  in  Ger- 
many down  to  tlie  time  of  Cajsar  (Bell.  Gall.  vi. 
28),  and  is  depicted  on  the  monuments  of  Assyria 
as  one  of  the  animals  bunted  by  the  kings  of 
that  country.  (See  art.  Assyria,  vol.  i.  p.  182''). 
Relics  of  it  are  found  in  the  bone  brecchia  oaves 
of  Lebanon,  and  in  the  lake-dwellings  of  Switzer- 
land. It  is  probable  that  it  was  not  extinct  until 
the  Middle  Ages.  It  is  every  way  likely  that  this 
is  the  animal  intended  by  the  ri'em.  Cf.  Tristram, 
It'at.  Hist,  of  Bible,  146  S.,  and  Driver,  Deut.  407. 

G.  E.  Post. 
UNKNOWN  GOD  liyvaffros  ffeis).— In  his  speech 
at  Athens,  St.  Paul  begins  by  referring  to  the  uni- 
versal interest  in  religious  matters  shown  by  the 
Athenians.  In  passing  through  the  city  he  had 
seen  an  altar  dedicated  TO  THE  UNKNOWN 
GOD  {iyfurrif  ffei?).  He  makes  this  the  text  of  his 
speech,  saying  that  that  Divine  power  which  they 
ignorantly  worshipi)ed  he  would  declare  to  them 
(Ac  17^).  An  exact  parallel  to  this  inscription  is 
not  known.  An  inscription  is  quoted  from  Eu- 
thalius(ed.  Zacagn.  p.  514)  :  Sfois  Airfas  xai  EvpuT-qs 
ital  Ai^Cnjt,  6eui  dyuuarifi  xal  iivtfi.  According  to 
Jerome  (on  Tit  1"),  the  Athenian  inscription  was 
Deis  ignotis  ct  pereqrinis.  Other  quotations  are 
Pans.  I.  i.  4  :  QiCiv  ayvwaruiv  koX  iipiiur  ;  Philaster, 
Vit.  Apoll.  vi.  3:  'A6t]vt](7iv,  ou  xal  CLyvuiaruv  Sax^dvwv 
Pu/iol  'iSpwTai.  None  of  these  give  the  parallel 
required,  but  all  suggest  that  such  an  inscription 
would  be  po.ssible.  Tlie  whole  point  of  the  inscrip- 
tion lay  in  its  being  in  the  singular;  and  it  is  quite 
uncalled  for  to  suggest,  as  Blass  does,  that  St.  Paul 
wrote  originally  in  the  plural  because  the  neuter 
{i  .  .  .  toDto)  in  the  next  verse  is  changed  by  later 
MSS  into  the  masculine  (see  Blass,  ad  loc). 

A.  C.  Hkadlam. 


UNLEAVENED    BREAD. 

Passovek. 


See   Leaven   and 


UNNI  ('!!'). — 1.  The  name  of  a  Levitioal  family 
of  musicians,  1  Cli  IS'"  (H  'EXtunjX,  K  'MX,  A  'Ayl, 
Luc.  "Ai-ai-faj)  *>  (BS  'fii-ei,  A  'Avayl,  Luc.  'Ayaylas). 
2.  See  Unno. 

UNNO  {Sis  KHhibh,  followed  by  RV;  but  ^frt 
'i;;  Unni  (so  AV,  cf.  1  Ch  IS"-*)).— The  name  of  a 
family  of  Levites  that  returned  with  Zerubbalicl, 
Neh  12'«  (U.\  om.,  {{"••"J  '\aui,  Luc.  'la^of). 
Guthe  would  read  D'jv',  which  he  finds  repre8ente<l 
by  the  aKKpovorro  of  Lucian,  taking  the  'lavai  of 
the  latter  to  be  a  doublet  of  this  word,  and 
dropping  Bakbukiau  as  an  explanatory  gloss 
derived  from  II". 

UNRIGHT WU  12"  'To  whom  thou  might««t 


shew  that  thy  judgment  is  not  unright'  (Sri  oi5« 
doUus  (Kpivas,  liV  '  that  thou  didst  not  judge  un- 
righteously').  We  find  'unright'  ioi  unrigfUeous 
also  in  Tindale,  as  Pent.  (Mombert's  ed.),  p. 
cxxviii,  '  A  m»is,  a  kynde  of  Giauntes,  and  the 
worde  signilieth  crooked,  unright,  or  weaked.' 
More  common,  however,  is  the  subst.  '  unright ' 
for  unrighteousness,  wrong;  thus  Tindale's  Peni. 
Gn  le''  (ed.  1530), '  Thou  dost  me  unrighte '  (changed 
in  1535  ed.  into,  'The  wrong  I  sull're  be  on  thy 
head');  Dt  25"*  'All  th.at  doo  unri<'ht  are  aboua- 
nacion  unto  the  Lord.'  J.  Hastings. 

UNTOWARD.— The  meaning  of  this  word  is 
seen  in  the  foil,  quotation  from  the  Judgement 
of  tlie  Synode  at  Dart,  p.  32,  '  All  men  therefore 
are  conceived  in  sin,  and  borne  the  children  of 
wrath,  untoward  to  all  good  tending  to  salvation, 
forward  to  evil.'  It  occurs  in  Ac  2*"  'Save  your- 
selves from  this  untoward  generation '  (diri  tti% 
yev€a.i  t^s  ffKoXtas  raim]^,  KV  '  from  this  crooked 
generation ' ).  The  subst.  '  untowardness  '  is  also 
found  in  AV  in  the  headings  to  Is  28,  Hos  6. 

J.  Hastings. 

UPHARSIN.— See  Mene,  Mene,  Tekel,  Uphar- 

SIN. 

UPHAZ  (TEAK ;  in  Jer  10»  Mw^df,  Q"*  Zoi«pflp, 
Vulg.  Oj>haz;  in  Dn  10»  Theod.  'fi^df;  Vulg. 
[aurum\  obrizum). — There  is  considerable  uncer- 
tainty as  to  this  word,  which  is  much  increased  by 
the  diverse  opinions  of  the  ancient  authorities. 
Thus  LXX  has  in  Dn  10°  koI  rijf  6ii<pvv  Trepitfaxr- 
IjAvoi  ^vafflvi^,  Kal  iK  fxiaov  airrov  0wy  instead  of 
Theodotion's  Kai  ij  daipiis  avrov  trfpiei^uatUi'Tj  iv  xpvffttp 
'n^df,  implying  considerable  divergence  as  to  the 
reading.  The  Vulg.  auriim  obrizum  is  evidently 
based  upon  a  comparison  of  the  Heb.  form  of 
Upliaz  with  19  pdz,  '  pure  gold,'  whilst  the  Gr. 
Mu(/>df  implies  some  such  variant  reading  as  i;i3 
miiphaz,  '  pure,' said  of  gold,  though  the  Gr.  trans- 
lator of  Jer  10  regarded  this,  like  its  variant 
Opliaz,  as  the  name  of  a  place.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  mention  of  gold  in  both  passages  where 
the  word  occurs,  naturally  caused  other  translators 
to  think  of  ipx  Opliir,  from  which  the  Ileh.  form 
of  Upliaz  (without  the  vowel-points)  dill'ers  only  in 
having  i  for  i.*  It  is  apparently  this  which  has 
given  rise  to  the  Gr.  var.  -ovtptip  (see  art.  Opiiir) 
in  t,>"'8  (so  also  the  Targ.  and  Pesh.).  Among  the 
conjectures  as  to  the  position  of  Uphaz  may  be 
mentioned  that  of  Ilitzig,  that  it  may  be  the 
Sanskr.  vip&^a  ('  the  free'),  designating  an  Indian 
colony  from  tho  neighbourhood  of  the  IIyplia.sis 
(  =  llyphas  =  Uphaz)  or  Indus  (Sanskr.  viptl<;a), 
which  had  settled  in  Yemen — an  ideutilication 
which  has  been  described  as  'more  acute  than 
probable.' 

LiTBitATCRB. — Calwer  Bibetlexikort,  and  Uiehm,  Bandirdrter- 
'««''.  •■"•  T.  G.  Pincues. 

UR  (-HM  'flame'). — Father  of  one  of  David's 
heroes,  1  Ch  II"  (B  :^eOp,  A  Qpd,  Luc.  OCp).  See 
AlIASIiAJ. 

UR  OF  THE  CHALDEES  (on^j  tik  ;  i)  xdpa.  [tw.-] 
XaXSalun  ;  Ur  Chaldmorum).  —  The  name  of  this 
city  or  district  occurs  four  times  in  the  OT,  namely, 
Gn  ll»-«'  15',  and  Neh  9' ;  and  as  there  is  no  indi- 
cation as  to  its  position,  except  that  it  was  '  of  the 
Chalda^ans,'  much  uncertainty  exists  a.s  to  it.-' 
identilication,  which  is  increased  by  the  fact  that 
the  LXX  do  not  transcribe  the  name  Ur,  but  sub- 
stitute for  it  X'^P"-'  '  country.'  Apparently  on 
account  of  its  comparative  nearness  to  Canaan, 
whither  Terah  and  his  family  were  bound  (Gn  II"), 

*  Tbg  rcKdlng  -i;^K  Instead  of  I5<N  In  adopted  liy  Ewold. 
KlcMtermaiin,  Prince,  Driver,  Uarti  1'  probtbly  '\,ttal. 


836  UR  OF  THE  CHALDEES 


UR  OF  THE  CHALDEES 


and  because  of  the  passage  in  Ac  V-  *,  where  the 
proto-martyr,  St.  Stephen,  places  it  m   Mesopo- 
tamia, many  have  8upi>osed  it  to  be  identical  with 
Urfa  or  Orfa,  which  the  Greeks  named  Odessa. 
The  origin  of  tliis  city  is  attributed  by   Isidore 
to  Nembroth  or  Nimrod,  which  opinion  is  confarnied 
by   Ephraem.   who  stales  that   Nimrod  ruled  at 
Arach  and   Edessa  (Comm.  in   Genesim).      I'rom 
Isidore's  reference  to  Moi-i-ou  'Oppa,  which  Vaux  ex- 
plains as  '  evidently  the  Orrlia  of   Mannus,  wlio 
was  one  of  the  kings  of  Edessa,'  the  ancient  name 
of  the  place  has  been  described  as  Orrha,  the  like- 
ness of  which  to  Ur  is  evident.     As  however,  this 
name  would  seem  not  to  be  provab  e  before  B.C. 
150    it  is  doubtful  whether  it  can  be  (juoted  m 
support  of  the  identification  of  Edessa  with  so  old 
a  site  as  Ur  of  the  Chaldees.     Indeed,  according 
to  Appian,   the    town    itself  was    comparatively 
modern,   having   been  buUt  by  Seleucus.      lesti- 
niony   to   the   firm   belief  of   the   Mohammedans 
that  Urfa  is  the   ancient  Ur  of   the  Chaldees  is 
to   be   found   in  the  fact  that   the   chief   mosque 
there  bears  the  name  of  the  'Mosque  of  Abraham, 
whilst  the  pond  in  which  the  sacred  hsh  are  kept 
is  called  '  the  lake  of  Abraham  the  Beloved. 

Another  tradition,  which  is  at  the  same  time  also 
the  received  opinion  of  scholars  at  the  present  time, 
is  that  Ur  of  the  Chaldees  is  the  modern  Mugheir, 
or,   more  correctly,   Mukayyar,  'the   pitchy,    so 
called  from  the  bitumen  used  in  the  construction 
of  the  principal  building  on  the  site     The  original 
name  of  this  place  was  Uru,  and  as  it  lies  in  b.  baby- 
lonia, anciently  called  (though  not  by  the  native 
inhabitants)  Clialda-a,  such  an  identihcation  would 
leave  but  little  to  be  desired.     It  is  contained  in  a 
tradition  quoted  by  Eusebius  from  Eupolemus,  who 
lived  about  B.C.  150,  to  the  eilect  that,  tenth  in 
generation  and  thirteenth  in  descent,  there  Uvea 
in  the  city  of  Babylonia  called  Camarine  (Ko/ioplvT,), 
which  is  called  by  some  the  city  Urie  (Oi'.p'l).  a  man 
named  Abraham,  of  noble  race,  and  .superior  to  aU 
others  in  wisdom.    As  Eupolemus  occupied  himself 
esi.ecially  with  Jewish  history,  there  is  hardly  any 
doubt  that  what  he  says  was  the  common  opinion 
of   the  Jews   at  the  time.      That  the   place  be 
refers  to  is  that  now  represented  by  Mugheir  is 
proved  by  the  fact  that  its  later  name,  Camanne 
(perhaps  Aramaic),  is  evidently  connected  with  the 
Arabic  name  for  the  moon,  kamar,  and  that  the 
city  anciently  occupying  the  site  is  now  known  to 
have  been  the  great  centre  of  Babylonian  moon- 
worship.     The  statement  that  it  was  in  his  time 
called  by  some  Urie  is  signilicant,  as  it  suggests 
that  the  ancient  name  was  going  out  of  use. 

The  position  of  this  city  is  close  to  the  point 
where  the  Shatt  al-Hai  enters  the  Euphrates,  about 
125  miles  N.W.  of  the  Persian  Gulf.     Babylonian 
lists  of  wooden  objects  refer  to  a  class  of  ship  called 
Urite,  suggesting  that  it  was  anciently  not  bo  far 
from  the  sea,  its  present  inland  position  being  to 
all  appearance  caused  by  the  alluvial  deposits  at 
the  head  of  the  Gulf.     The  ruins  cover  an  oval 
space,  1000  yards  long  by  800  wide,  and  consist  of 
a  number  of  low  mounds  within  an  enclosure,    i  lie 
principal  ruin  is  near  the  northern  end,  and  is 
evidently  the  remains  of  a  tower  in  stages,  such 
as  many  of  the  cities  of  Babylonia  and  Assyria 
anciently  possessed,  and  similar  to  the  Birs-Nimroud 
(.reneraliy  regarded  as  the  tower  of  Babel)  and  the 
temple  of  Befus  at  Babylon  (which  Nebuchadnezzar 
calls  '  the  tower  of  Babylon  ').     From  the  bricks  of 
this  building  we  obtain  indications  of  its  history, 
among  the  kings  who  restored  it  being  Ur-Engur, 
Dungi  his  son  (about  B.C.  2700),  Kudur-mabug  and 
his  son  Arad-Sin  (or  Eri-Aku  =  AllIOCH),  and  Nftr- 
Addi  ;  whilst  other  names  found  in  connexion  with 
tliis  or  other  ruins  on  the  site  are,  En-anna-duma, 
BOi-Sin,  Ism6-Dagau  and  his  son  Gungunu,  Kim- 


Sin  (probably  the  same  as  Arad-Sin  or  En-Aku), 
Sin-idiimam  of  Larsa,  and  Kuri-galzu  son  of  Bur- 
naburias.     The  principal  ruin,  which  was,  as  has 
been  already  said,  the  great  temple-tower  of  the 
place,  was  apparently  '  tlie  supreme  great  temple 
(«  qala  maha),  called,  to  all  appearance,  E-su-gana- 
dudu.     Natonidus,  in  the  inscription  on  the  four 
beautiful  cylinders  found  at  the  four  corners  of 
thisedihce,  tells  us  that  he  restored  it,  and  in  doing 
so  seemingly  came  across  the  records  of  Ur-Engur, 
and  Dungi  his  son,  whom  he  apparently  regards 
as  its  founders.     From  this  inscription  we  gather 
that  the  tower  bore  also  the  names  of  fi-lugal-gaga- 
sisa  and  fi-gis-sir-gala.    South  of  the  teinple-tow;er 
of  Nannara  was  Ihe^temple  of  the  goddess  Nm- 
gala,  and  south-east  E-gipara,  '  the  temple  of  the 
fadyof  the  gods.'     Like  other  renowned  cities  m 
Babylonia,  it  was  one  of  the  sacred  places  to  whicli 
the  dead  were  taken  for  burial,  and  is  comidetely 
surrounded  by  graves.     In  the  time  of  Ur-Engur 
and  his  successors,  it  was  the  capital  of  the  district, 
and  an  exceedingly  important  place,  many  of  the 
smaller  States  around  being  subject  to  it.     llie 
possession  of  important  shrines  naturally  added 
to  its  influence,  and   Peters  states  that  from  the 
amount  of  slag   found   there  it  must  have  been 
also  one  of  the   principal   manufacturing   centres 
of  the  district  in  which   it  lies.      Many  scholars 
are  of  opinion  that  proof  of  the  identity  of  Ur  of 
the  Chaldees  with  tliis  site  lies  in  the   fact  that 
Haran,   to  which  city  Terah  and   his  family  nu- 
CTated,  was  also  a  centre   of  moon-god  worship, 
whilst  the   sacred   mountain   of   the  Jews,  Sinai, 
being   so   named    after    Sin,  the   moon-god,   is  a 
further  conHrmation.      This,  however,  is  a  pomt 
which  may  well  be  left  undecided,  as  it  is  by  no 
means   certain   that  Terah   and    his  family  were 


means   ceiuuiu    "'t'^"  i^-"-.-   ; —    ---  ■„„  ti,„f 

worshippers  of  the  moon  ;  and,  even  supposmg  that 
such  was  the  case,  Haran  may  have  been  selected 
for  other  reasons  than  that  the  moon-god  was  wor- 
shipped there,  shrines  to  that  deity  being  not 
uncommon  in  the  ancient  East. 

Notwithstanding  the  inherent  probability  of  the 
identity  of  the  ancient  Babylonian  Urn  (Mugheir) 
with  the  biblical  Ur  of  the  Chaldees,  the  na.neu 
not  so  near  as  might  be  wished.     The  Heb  form 
has  a  long  vowel,  represented  by  ik,  at  the  begin- 
nin"  and  no  vowel  at  all  after  the  consonant  (i).    In 
the'Tiab.  Uru,  however,  though  there  is  no  indica- 
tion that  the  end. vowel  was  long,  there  is  but  lit  le 
doubt  that  it  was  originally  so,  as  the  non-Semitic 
(Akkadian)  form  Urbiui,  or,  better   Unu-a,  shows 
Frd.    Delitzscli   {Pamdies,   p.   226)   expresses  the 
opinion  that  the  old  form  of  the  name  m  Akkadian 
was  Urum  (Uruma) ;   but  that  tins  is  not  ouiM 
correct,    is    proved    by    the    4 -column   syllaWry 
82-8-16   !,•  where  the  non-Scmitic  pronunciation 
is  given  as  Uri,  the  terminal  -ma  or  -wa    found 
in  the  archaic  brick-inscriptions  from  the  site,  being 
as  is  usual  in  the  Assyr.-'Bab.  Byl  abaries)  omitted 
There  would,  then,  seem  to  be  but  little  doubt  tha 
these  last  two  syllables,  -ima  or  -iioa  are  in  p^t 
preserved  in  the  form  Urie  [Oipljl,  u«ed  by  E.  .o le- 
Lus  as  quoted  by  Kusebius      It  is  true  that  it  im- 
dies  that  the  i  of  iwa  only  was  heard,  but  the 
lleb    form,  which  is  undou-btedly  older,  does  not 

'°Tto  circumstance  leads  to  the  probability  that 
the  Ur-Kasdim  of  the  OT  may,  ™ /«^'ty •  .f  ["^ 
for  more  than  the  name  of  a  mere  city  -.and  if  tins 
he  the  case,  it  is  not  impossible  that  by  tlH^se««^^J 
the  whole  land  of  Akkad  was  intended-the  Uri  or 
Ura  of  the  non-Semitic  (Akkadian)  inscriptions 
The  patriarch  and  his  fami  y  in  ^^'^^.'^ '"'^f'^°rA 
haveLd  the  whole  extent  of  the  province  of  Akkad 

•  Published  by  T.  O.  Pinche.    n  S.  A.  Smith'.  HUcdlaneou, 
Attyrian  TexU,  1887  (pL  2aX 


[TR  OF  THE  CHALDEES 


URIAH 


837 


(northern  Babylonia)  in  which  to  roam  and  find 
pasturage  for  their  flocks  and  herds,  instead  of 
being  confined  to  the  neighbourhood  of  the  city  of 
Uru(.Mugheir).  Ur-Kasdim,  'Urof  theChalda'ans' 
(the  '  land  of  the  Chaldoeans'  of  the  LXX),  is  prob- 
ably so  called  in  order  to  distinguish  it  from  some 
other  Ur  where  the  Chaldseans  were  not ;  and,  in 
this  case,  either  the  province  of  Ura  (Akkad)  or  the 
city  of  Uriwa  would  suit  best,  to  the  exclusion  of 
UrVa  and  the  castle  of  Ur  between  Uatra  and 
Nisibis. 

From  exceedingly  early  times  the  kings  of  Baby- 
lonia called  themselves  kings  of  Kengi-Ura,  i.e. 
Sunier  and  Akkad,  and  from  this  equivalence  it  is 
clear  that  Uri  or  Ura  is  the  same  as  the  district 
(not  the  city)  called  Akkad,  and  so  named  appar- 
ently from  one  of  the  chief  cities,  known  as  Agad6, 
Semiticized  into  Akad  or  Akkad.  On  this  account 
the  Semitic  population  called  the  whole  tract 
Akkadu,  '  the  Akkadian  (land),'  to  the  exclusion 
of  Uru,  which  name  was  already  used,  to  all 
appearance,  as  the  Semitic  form  of  Uriwa.  That 
they  did  not  call  this  Akkadian  district  Uru  may 
be  regarded  as  an  argument  against  its  possible 
identilication  with  Ur  of  the  Chaldees,  though  it 
would  seem,  on  the  other  hand,  to  be  to  a  certain 
extent  justified  by  the  translation  of  the  LXX, 
whose  rendering,  '  country  of  the  Chaldaeans,'  not- 
withstanding that  it  does  not  seem  to  represent 
any  Semitic  or  non  -  Semitic  Babylonian  expres- 
sion,* may  nevertheless  be  due  to  some  tradition 
which  they  possessed.  In  connexion  with  this  it 
is  worthy  of  note  that  Ur,  In  the  Heb.  text,  is  not 
called  the  '  city,'  but  the  '  land  '  of  the  nativity  of 
IJaran,  who  died  there  '  in  the  presence  of  his  father 
Terah.' 

The  tradition  that  Urof  the  Chaldees  is  repre- 
sented by  the  ruins  known  as  Warka  mav  be  dis- 
mis.sed,  as  this  is  now  known  to  be  the  ferech  of 
Gn  10'",  called  by  the  Babylonians  Untk.i  Its 
identification  with  the  castle  of  Ur  (Ammianus 
Marcellinus,  XXV.  viii.  7)  in  the  Mesopotamian 
desert  between  Hatra  and  Nisibis,  is  also  worth- 
less, this  place  having  been  founded  by  the 
Persians. 

Concerning  the  name  itself,  it  is  needful  to  state 
that  Knldu  is  to  all  appearance  a  late  word,  not 
provable  in  the  cuneiform  inscriptions  before  the 
9th  cent.  B.C.,  when  Adad-nirari  III.  uses  it,  and 
seems  to  mean,  by  the  expression  mAt  Knldi,  the 
whole  of  Babylonia.  The  Heb.  Kasdim  preserves 
the  original  s',  changed,  in  the  native  form,  into  I 
before  the  dental.; 

LiTERATOM.— liOttua,  Trajxlt,  1857 ;  Dclitzsch,  Paradie;  p. 
22«;  Dillmann,  (irrutu,  109  ft.  ;  O.  Rawlinson,  Monarchies,  vol. 
I.  ;  Schnuler,  CUT  i.  p.  114  ef. ;  Petere,  A'ippur,  vol.  ii.  ;  Vaux 
In  Smith's  Diet,  of  Gr.  and  Ram,  Geofjrap/iif  ;  also  the  articles 
AcCAD,  Babki.,  Cualdju,  and  Sui.mar,  in  this  Dictionary. 

T.  G.  Pinches. 


•  Uru,  the  non-Semltlo  (dialectic)  word  tor  '  city,'  the  original 
form  ot  which  was  ffuru,  also  kur,  'country,*  and  fjur,  'moun- 
tain,' furnish  tnntenol  tor  comparison,  hut  the  combination  ot 
thcAe  with  KuMliin,  'Chalda-'OiiB,'  a  Semilio  word,  is  in  the 
hi;,'hest  dt'urt-e  imlilvcly. 

t  Sir  Ilcnry  KnwIinHon  {JRAS  xii.  141,  note)  refers  to  a  tradi- 
tion that  Aijraham  was  bom  not  at  l^r,  but  at  Ercch.  This 
would  \mnK  the  <liatrict  of  Ur  somewhat  far  south,  but  Erech 
may  have  been  included  within  its  boundaries.  The  statement 
prolKibly  has,  however,  little  or  no  \ulue. 

;  According  to  I'rot.  Sayce,  the  Kasdim  and  the  Chaldasi  each 
ha*l  a  different  oriLnn,  tite  former  being  those  West  Semitic 
trib4;s  who  invaded  Babylonia  towards  the  end  ot  the  Srd 
millennium  D.c,  and  esUiiilished  there  that  dynoaty  ot  kings  of 
wbii'h  llanunurubi  (Amraphel)  is  the  most  renowned.  It  was 
at  this  iime  that  Kn.sdiin  and  ilabylonian  became  synonymous, 
like  ChaldiDan  and  Babylonian  in  later  days.  Ur  (.Multayyar), 
being  situated  on  the  western  hank  of  the  Euphrates,  would 
naturally  Imj  in  the  district  which,  as  j)ointed  out  by  Uommel, 
was  outside  the  limits  ot  Babylonia  proper,  and  therefore  within 
the  d^'nain  of  those  early  conqueron.  (On  these  matters,  and 
the  question  of  An'haxad,  see  Sayce,  Expot.  7't>n<«,  Not.  1901, 
pp.  e4-e«,  and  Hommel,  ib.,  March  1902,  p.  S8S). 


URBANDS  {Ovp^avdi.  AV  Urbane).— The  name 
(nuisiuline)  of  a  Christian  greeted  by  St.  Paul  in 
Jlo  IG''',  described  as  '  our  helper  in  Christ.'  The 
name  is  common  among  slaves,  and  is  found  in 
inscriptions  of  the  Imperial  household  (CJL  vi. 
4i;37).  He  is  commemorated  Oct.  31  with  Stachys 
and  Araplias  (which  see).  For  later  legends  see 
Acta  Sanctorum,  Oct.,  vol.  xiii.  p.  G87. 

A.  C.  Headlam. 

URI  ("TN  'fiery';  or  perhaps  contracted  from 
.■i-i:.x).— 1.  The  fatlier  of  Bezalel,  Ex  31-  So"  38", 
I'Ch  2=»,  2  Ch  P  (B  Oipdas  in  all  except  1  Ch  2"-^ 
Ovpel;  A  Ovpt  in  all  except  2  Ch  1'  Oi>ios).  2. 
Father  of  one  of  Solomon's  commissariat  officers, 

1  K  4"    (BA  'A3ai,   Luc.  'ASSal).      3.    A  porter, 
Ezr  10"  (BX  'aSoOe,  A'n5ou(?,  Luc.  Ovplas). 

URIAH,  in  2  K  16'»-"  URIJAH  (.ttsn,  w'-isk  Jer 
26*'-  ='•  ^, '  flame  of  J"  '  or  '  my  light  is  J" ' ;  B  Ovpdas, 
A  Ovplas ;  Urias).  —  1.  One  of  David's  '  thirty ' 
mighty  men  (2  S  23'',  1  Ch  11").  Like  Ahimelech, 
another  of  David's  followers,  Uriah  belonged  by 
race  to  the  ancient  Hittite  population  ;  but,  as  his 
name  seems  to  indicate,  he  had  adopted  his  master's 
God  as  his  own.  The  few  personal  traits  of  Uriah's 
character,  which  are  incidentally  revealed  in  the 
narrative  of  2S  11,  not  only  illustrate  the  quiet 
heroism  so  often  existent  in  the  lives  of  common- 
place people,  but  also  enable  us  to  gauge  the  depths 
to  which  David  had  fallen. 

When  summoned  by  royal  command  from  the 
scene  of  wsu:,  Uriah's  behaviour  was  <iuided  by  a 
resolve  to  live  as  far  as  was  possible  under  the  same 
conditions  as  his  comrades  in  the  field  ;  accordingly 
after  his  interview  with  David,  instead  of  seeking 
repose  and  relaxation  in  his  own  house,  lie  immedi- 
ately went  on  duly  as  one  of  the  royal  bodyguard  ; 
and  this  chivalrous  determination  was  so  lirnily 
fixed  in  his  mind  that  he  retained  it  even  when  in- 
toxicated. Josephus  (Ant.  vil.  vii.  1)  in  his  usual 
way  embellishes  the  story  of  Uriah's  death.  In 
particular  he  states  that  David  wrote  to  Joab 
'  commanding  him  to  punish  Uriah,  and  signified 
that  he  had  offended,'  and  supplies  graphic  details 
of  the  engagement  in  which  Uriah  fell.     Besides 

2  S  11,  Uriah's  name  occurs  in  2S  12='-  ">•  ",  1  K  15', 
Mt  1«. 

2.  High  priest  in  the  reign  of  Ahaz.  The  two 
notices  of  him  that  are  found  in  the  Bible  leave  us 
in  some  doubt  as  to  his  real  character.  On  the  one 
hand,  he  is  selected  (Is  8')  as  one  of  two  '  faithful 
witnesses '  who  were  to  attest  the  utterance  of  the 
propheiy  concerning  Maher-slialal-hash-baz;  while, 
on  the  other  hand,  the  narrative  of  2  K  IG'"""  pre- 
sents us  with  the  picture  of  a  weak  compliant  man 
who  not  only  tolerated  but  even  actively  abetted 
the  religious  innovations  of  king  Ahaz.  It  is 
possible  that  this  unworthy  complaisance  is  the 
cause  of  the  oniissiun  of  his  name  in  what  seems 
intended  to  be  a  list  of  high  priests  in  1  Ch  G''". 
He  is,  however,  included  in  a  list  given  by  Josephus 
[Ant.  X.  viii.  6),  which  is  evidently  based  on  that  in 
Chronicles.  There  are  so  many  suspicious  features 
about  the  Chronicler's  list  that  one  is  tempted  to 
suppose  an  extensive  corruption  of  the  text.  It  is 
of  course  conceivable  that  Urijah  was  the  second 
priest,  whose  special  duty  it  was  to  regulate  the 
temple  services  (cf.  Jer  2!)'°). 

The  changes  Introduced  by  Ahaz  with  the  connivance  of 
Urijah  were  of  a  startling  charoi.-ter.  The  priest  ho/l  apj^ar- 
ently  so  placed  the  Assyrian  altar  that  the  ant^iviit  brazen 
altAr  stood  between  it  and  the  front  of  the  Holy  Place.  Ahaz, 
however,  was  determined  that  his  new  altar  should  be  the 
'great'  or  principal  one,  and  so  he  removed  the  ancient  oltAf 
to  the  north  side  ot  the  new  one.  The  new  altar  now  occupied 
the  correct  U•^,'al  position  before  the  Uoly  Place,  and  was  used 
for  all  ortlinnry  sacrificial  purposes.  The  old  altar  was  not. 
however,  entirely  iliscanltMi.  from  time  immemorial  kings  ana 
leaders  of  Israel  llad  iiuiuirod  of  J"  at  thi.t  Mime  brazen  altar.  A 
favourable  answer  might  not  so  easily  be  obtained  at  a  oe« 


838 


URIAS 


URIM  AND  THUMMIM 


one,  however  eleirant  and  modem.  The  old  altar  therefore 
was  retained  for  purposes  of  divination.  It  must,  however,  be 
noted  that  this  explanation  of  v,  15  is  not  free  from  doubt. 
Miuhaelis,  followed  by  Oesenius,  Kittel,  et  al.,  renders  njpi 
123?  T'i;'7'  ns'njn  :  '  as  for  the  brazen  altar  it  will  be  for 
nie  to  inquire,'  i.e.  'to  consider  what  I  shall  do  with  it*;  so 
Vultf.  erit  paraiuin  ad  voliuUutcm  imain^  The  LXX  tit  rt 
«■/^4"  1  =  1^3'?]  does  not  convey  a  meaning  consistent  with  the 
context.  It  seems  to  be  implied  in  the  subsequent  narrative 
that  Urijah  assented  to  the  other  structural  alterations  in  the 
temple  carried  out  by  Ahaz. 

3.  A  prophet,  son  of  Shemaiah  of  Kiriath-jearim, 
the  .story  01  whose  death  is  incidentally  narrated  in 
Jer  26-°"^.  From  this  we  learn  that  he  was  a  con- 
temporary and  perhaps  a  disciple  of  Jeremiah, 
whose  denunciations  against  Jerusalem  and  Judah 
he  is  stated  to  have  echoed.  Unlike  the  greater 
prophet,  however,  he  did  not  succeed  in  evading 
the  vengeance  of  Jehoiakim.  Uriah  having  taken 
refuge  in  Egypt,  the  king  demanded  his  extradi- 
tion through  Elnathan,  his  father-in-law  (2  K  2#), 
who  was  leader  of  an  emhassy,  the  real  object  of 
which  was,  in  all  probability,  to  solicit  the  aid  of 
Egypt  against  Nebuchadnezzar.  It  is  unlikely 
that  Jehoiakim  would  have  gone  to  the  trouble 
and  expense  of  sending  a  special  mission  merely 
to  capture  a  single  prophet.  Having  executed 
Uriah,  the  king  added  the  further  outrage  of 
casting  his  dead  body  into  the  common  graveyard. 
It  is  commonly  thought  that  this  story  is  intro- 
duced here  by  Jeremiah  in  order  to  prove  that  his 
own  personal  risk,  as  recorded  in  this  chapter,  was 
a  very  real  one.  On  the  other  hand,  Rashi  main- 
tains that  these  verses  constitute  the  rejoinder  of 
Jeremiah's  enemies  to  the  precedent  of  Hezekiah 
and  .Micah  alleged  by  his  friends.  4.  A  priest,  son 
or  representative  of  Hakkoz  (Neh  3*-  '^),  by  whom 
is  probably  meant  the  seventh  of  the  twenty-four 
courses  of  priests  (1  Ch  24'").  He  is  mentioned 
only  a-s  father  or  ancestorof  Meremoth  or  Meraiotli, 
an  eminent  priest  who  was  chief  of  the  four  officials 
to  whom  Ezra  entrusted  the  sacred  \essels  and 
treasure  brought  from  Babylon  (Ezr  S'*',  1  Es  S"^- 
[Urias]),  who  repaired  two  sections  of  the  wall  of 
Jerusalem  (Neh  3^- "),  and  whose  name  is  substi- 
tuted in  the  lists  of  priestly  families,  Neh  10"  12*-  ", 
for  that  of  Hakkoz.  5.  One  of  those  who  stood  on 
Ezra's  right  hand  when  he  publicly  read  the  Law 
(Neh  8*.  i  Es  9«  [Urias]).  He  was  jirobably  a 
priest.  N.  J.  D.  White. 

URIAS.— 1.  (B  Oipelas,  B*-  Oupios,  A  Oipl,  AV  Iri) 
1  Es  »•>-  (LXX  «').  In  Ezr  8=«  Uriah.  Perhaps 
identical  with— 2.  (B  Oipelas,  B"  A  Ouplas)  1  Es  9^. 
In  Neh  8'  Uriah. 

URIEL  (Sx"HN,  'flame  of  EI,'  or  'my  light  is 
El '  ;  cf.  Phoen.  -hoix,  Assyr.  Unimilki).  —  1.  A 
Kohathite  chief,  1  Ch  6»*W  (B  'OpijJX,  sup  ras  A*? 
and  Luc.  Ol>4\),  15»-"  (B  OipiifK,  'Api^X,  A  both 
times  OvpiiiX).  2.  The  maternal  grandfather  of 
.\bijah,  2  Ch  13=  (BA  Oi>7)X).  See  Maacah, 
No.  3,  and  cf.,  further,  Benzinger,  Chron.  ad  loc. 
3.     See  next  article. 

URIEL  (Ovpii)\). — One  of  the  four  chief  arch- 
angels. In  Enoch  20^  he  is  called  'the  angel  who  is 
over  the  world  (?  angel-host)  and  Tartarus.'  In 
keeping  with  this  title,  Uriel  is  the  one  who  accom- 
panies Enoch  in  his  visits  to  Tartarus,  and  who  ex- 
plains to  iiiin  the  tortures  of  the  lost  (19'  21»-'<'  27= 
33').  In  2  Ksilras,  Uriel  is  sent  to  ask  Esdras  if  he 
can  'weigh  the  flame  of  fire,  or  measure  the  wind, 
or  recall  the  past.'  If  not,  why  does  he  presume  to 
challenge  the  dealings  of  God  (4') !  Similar  errands 
are  narrated  in  2  Es  S™"-  lOn  In  the  Prayer  of 
Joseph,  Uriel  is  the  angel  with  whom  Jacob 
wrestles.  In  WTestling  with  him,  Jacob  claims  to 
be  '  the  firstborn  of  every  creature  animated  by 


God,'  and  affirms  that  Uriel  is  eighth  in  rank  aftei 
him  [see  Joseph,  Prayer  of,  vol.  ii.  p.  778''].  In 
the  Sibylline  Oracles,  ii.  228,  Uriel  is  named  as  the 
one  who  will  bring  the  sorrow-stricken  forms  of 
the  Titans  and  giants  to  judgment ;  and  in  the 
Life  of  Adam  and  Eve,  §  48,  Michael  and  Uriel  are 
commanded  to  bury  Adam  and  Abel  in  Paradise. 

J.  T.  Marshall. 

URIM  AND  THUMMIM.— From  an  interesting 
passage  of  an  early  historical  work  we  learn  that 
the  ancient  Hebrews  recognized  three  principal 
media  through  which  the  Divine  will  might  be 
revealed  to  men.  When  Saul  in  his  later  years 
'inquired'  of  J",  'J"  answered  him  n  t,  neither  by 
dreams,  nor  by  Urim — which  we  may  provisionally 
render,  by  the  sacred  lot — nor  by  prophets'  (1  S 
28").  The  same  three  channels  of  Divine  com- 
munication were  also  recognized  in  ancient  Greece, 
although  there  divination  by  lot  'was  entirely 
overshadowed  by  the  prophetic  frenzy  and  inspira- 
tion through  dreams '  (art.  '  Sortes '  in  Smith's  Diet, 
of  Aixtiq.^).  In  this  article  we  have  to  investigate 
the  mode  of  ascertaining  the  Divine  will  by  means 
of  the  sacred  lots,  known  as  '  the  Urim  and  the 
Thummini  [more  correctly  Tummini].' 

Considering  the  evident  importance  of  this, 
apparently  the  only  legitimate,  mode  of  divination 
in  early  times,  the  number  of  express  references 
to  the  Urim  and  Thummim  is  surprisingly  limited. 
In  Ex  28-»,  Lv  8'  (both  P)  we  have  D-iixn  (ha-''(lrim) 
and  D'Eijn  {hat-tummim) ;  in  Ezr  2^,  Neh  1^, 
without  the  article  (here  only  in  OT)  'tirim  and 
tummim.  Dt  33^  gives  them  in  the  reverse  order 
(see  below).  In  Nu  27'-',  1  S  28*  'lirim  stands  alone. 
1  S  H'"'-,  from  which,  in  our  ^NIT,  Urim  and 
Thummim  has  disappeared,  will  be  fully  discussed 
below,*  where  also  will  be  found  the  few  references 
in  the  apocryphal  writings. 

The  present  vocalization  leaves  no  doubt  as  to  the  etjtnology 
and  signification  of  C'l^N  and  D'pp  intended  by  the  Massoretio 
scholars.  The  former  is  evidently  connected  with  iHk  'light,' 
the  latter  is  the  plural  of  ori,  '  completeness,' in  a  moral  senss 
'perfection,'  'innocence*:  the  idea  being,  perhaps,  that  Urim 
was  the  lot  which  brought  to  light  t.'ic  •luUt  of  the  subject  of 
the  ordeal,  while  Thummim  establishetl  his  innoeejice.  "The 
words  are  to  be  understood  as  intensive  plurals,  and  rendered, 
on  this  hypothesis,  '  Light  and  Perfection  (or  Innocence),'  rather 
than  as  RVm  (Ex  28^'^), '  the  Lights  and  the  Perfections.'  It  will, 
however,  appear  in  the  sequel  that  the  sacred  lot  was  fre- 
quentl)  used  where  there  is  no  question  of  guilt  or  innocence, 
and  it  is  an  open  question  whether  the  Massoretic  pronuncia- 
tion reaches  back  to  the  time  when  the  lot  was  in  use.  Various 
alternative  et.vmologies  have  been  proposed  of  late.  Thus  Well- 
hausen  in  his  ProUijomena  (Eng.  ea.  p.  394)  proposed  to  connect 
Urim  with  the  verb  T]N,  'to  curse,'  and  expressed  approval  of 
Freytag's  connexion  of  Thummim  with  the  Arabic  tamXina,  a 
species  of  amulet  (S'-e  Krevtag,  Lex  A  rah. -Lot,  i.  IDyb ;  JBL 
xix.  (1900)  68);  cf.  Haupt-Schwally,  ZdTW  xi.  172,  who  sug^ 
pests  '  cursing  and  blessing' as  probable  renderings;  and  Ball, 
m  the  list  of  proper  names  at  end  of  his  Light  J'rom  the  East, 
'  biddings  and  forbiddings  (V)-*  In  his  later  works,  however, 
Wellh.  has  given  up  this  etymology.  In  view  of  the  ancient 
and  long -continued  influence  of  Babylonian  ideas  on  the 
religious  thought  of  the  West,  there  is  greater  probability  in 
the  etymology  recently  proposed  b.v  some  Assyriologists  of 
repute,  who  suggest  as  the  root  of  O'Tk  the  Piel  intiB.  form 
u'uru  (stem  "iNiX  or  TK),  'to  send  forth  (an  edict),*  wheno« 
vrtu  and  tertu,  the  technical  liabylonian  terms  for  an  oracle. 
(See  Zimmern,  Beitrdfje  zur  Kentni^  rf.  bah.  Reliijion,  S8f.  91, 
note  2;  Muss-Amolt.  AJSL  xvi.  (1900)  218).  One  is  further 
tempted  to  connect  Thunmiim  with  the  verb  tamU,  Piel  tummim, 
freipient  in  the  divination  vocabulary  of  the  Babylonians,  in  the 
sense  of  '  to  put  under  a  spell '  (see  Ziinmem'e  vocabulary,  op. 
eit.  78).  '  If  these  derivations  are  correct,  D'l'N  and  D'^n  would 
correspond  tothe  Babyl.  urtu  ("command,"  "decision,"  mostly 
of  the  gods),  and  taniUu.  a  synonym  of  pirwAfw  =  " oracle, 
"  oracular  decision  of  the  gods  " '  (Muss-Amolt,  op.  cit.  219). 

The  renderings  of  the  ancient  VSS  give  no  help 
either  towards  the  etymology  and  significance  of 
the  original  terms,  or  towards  the  real  nature  of 
the  objects  themselves. 

•  In  Ps  433  Lagarde  (Propheta  chald.  p.  ili-ii)  would  read 
'  send  forth  thy  Urim  and  thy  Thummim '  (d.  Dt  838).  See  alM 
Duhm  in  Kurztr  Bandam.  mioe. 


UEIM  AXD  THUMMIM 


UKISI  AND  THUMMIM 


839 


The  Tap(,'Tjni9  and  Syr.  VS3  merely  transliterate  ths  tiet-. 
temis.  The  Or.  VSS  vary  in  &  reniartiablc  way,  show-ing  that 
their  authors  had  no  tradition  to  guide  them.  Kor  c"i;K  we 
find  the  toltowinf;  renderings:  (u)  d^A^Mrir,  'manifestation' 
(pcrhajia  rather  '  direction,'  '  instruction,'  since  the  correspond- 
ing Zn>-t^  is  used  by  LXX  to  render  the  Uiphil  of  inn;  in  Dt  33^0 
«nd  other  synonymous  Ileb.  verbs).  Ex  2S»  (LXX  28),  Lv  88, 
1  Ks  S-w ;  (6)  lr>.ai  *  [sciV.  Xif«i],  '  clear,' '  transparent  *  [jewels,  see 
below],  Nu  272",  Dt  :«»,  1  S  U"  [not  in  MT|  -2^,  Sir  45",  also 
Stf"  |EV  333],  according  to  the  better  reading  of  KA ;  of.  AVm 
•as  the  asking  of  Urim';  (c)  the  verb  f*rt--C«,  'to  give  light,' 
Ezr  2*^,  Neh  7*^5 ;  (d)  the  later  translators  prefer  the  more  literal 
renderin;^  f^rrif/^,,  'lights,'  so  Aq.,  Symm.,  and  Theod.  Ex  2S3'>: 
but  in  L>t  33s  Symm.  has  (c)  3**»x'^>  t'^6  source  of  Jerome's 
doctritiat  unless  the  Latin  Father  so  understood  ir,>.anrn  as 
above  suggej>ted. 

For  D'pn  we  h&ve  (a)  iXy.Ouctt  'truth' — perhaps  suggested  by 
the  fact  that  the  presiding  judge  in  Eg^-pt  wore,  suspended  from 
his  neck,  an  image  of  Tme,  the  E'.;yptian  goddess  of  truth  (see 
end  of  this  article) — Ex.,  Lv.,  Dcut.,  1  Es.,  as  above,  Sir4'jiO; 
{If)  irivrt.t,  IS  14**, t  here  'innocence';  (r)  TiKuet,  'perfect 
things,' Ezr  26a  ;  (d)  in  the  later  trauslat-rs  (.Aq.  etc.)  also  liter- 
ally-rt'.ujTTjTif,  *  perfections.'  The  renderinj;s  of  the  Old  Latin 
anil  Jerome  hesitate  in  the  same  way  Ijetween  doctrina,  dcimtn- 
itratin,  ostensio,  also  docftu,  for  Urim,  and  Veritas^  perjectio, 
»anetU<u,  perfecius,  ervdUut,  tor  Thummim. 

In  proceeding  to  investi<;.ate  the  natnre  and  use 
of  the  Urim  and  Thummim,  it  .seems  advisable  to 
he;;in  with  the  data  of  the  youngest  products  of 
Hcb.  lilerature,  and  to  proceed  baclcwards  to  tliose 
of  the  earliest.  Setting  aside  for  the  present  the 
speculations  of  Philo  and  Josephus,  to  whom  we 
Bliall  return,  we  find  no  help  in  our  investigation 
from  the  references  in  the  (leutero-canonical  writ- 
ings recorded  above,  viz.  1  Ks  5**,  in  which  the 
high  priest  is  descril)cd  as  '  wearing  Urim  and 
Thummim '  (so  RV;  AV,  following  Vulg., '  clothed 
in  dmtiine  and  truth'),  Sir  36^  45'".  The  iirst 
item  of  interest  is  furnished  by  the  fact  recorded 
in  Kzr  2*"  =  Neh  7",  that  certain  families  were  ex- 
cluded from  the  enjoyment  of  priestly  rights 
until  the  purity  of  their  descent  should  be  estab- 
lished by  'a  priest  with  Urim  and  with  Thummun.' 
From  this  it  is  manifest  that  the  use  of  tliese 
mysterious  objects,  and  possibly  also  their  precise 
nature,  were  unknown  to  the  Jewish  authorities 
of  the  post-exilic  age. 

This  brings  us  to  the  Priests'  Code.  Without 
pausing  to  inquire,  at  this  stage,  into  the  full 
significance  attributed  by  the  compilers  of  this 
dociiiiierit  to  the  Urim  and  Thummim,  we  may 
kani  at  least  two  facts  which  will  dwir  the  way 
for  further  inve.stigatiim,  and  prove  tiie  impo.ssi- 
bility  of  a  widely  current  view  as  to  the  identity 
of  these  objects.  After  giving  minute  directions 
for  the  making  of  the  'breastplate  of  judgment' 
(for  which  see  vol.  i.  p.  319  f.),  attached  to  the  high 
priest's  epliod,  P  proceeds  thus  :  'And  thou  [Moses] 
shall  put  into  the  (breastplate  or)  pnmh  of  jui/r/- 
m-iil  tlie  Urim  and  the  Thummim'  (Kx  •28*').  l*Io 
explan.'ition  is  given  of  these,  nor  any  instructions 
for  making  them.  The  latter  omission  so  impressed 
the  Samaritans  that  the  requisite  order  is  supplied 
here,  and  executed  .3'J",  in  their  recension  of  the 
Pentateuch.  The  rendering  above  given  of  the 
ambiguous  phrase  of  the  original  t:p,  :;■:  lyrrSy  f.n;i 
is  that  imperatively  demanded  by  tlie  context  (see 
the  commentaries)  in  preference  to  the  possible 
allernative  adopted  by  the  LXX,  xoi  iwiOr/jut  irl 
Ti>  XU71OC  rJJs  Kpiffeios  riiv  di)\<iJ(TLv  Kal  tt]**  dX'^OeiaiVf 
'thou  shalt/)H<  uponX  the  oracle  of  judgment  the 
Urim  and  the  Thummim.'  This  mistaken  render- 
ing is  mainly  responsible  for  the  view  entertained 
by  many  writers,  from  Josephus  to  Kalisch  (Hist, 
and  Crit.  Comm.  in  loc),  tliat  the  Urim  and 
Thummim  are  to  be  identified  with  the  jewels  of 
the  breastplate,  enumerated  in  the  verses  preced- 
ing.    P's  contribution  to  the  dLscussion,  therefore, 

•  IIos  3*  LXX  tor  '  tcraphim.' 

t  The  .MT  has  here  the  corrupt  reading  O'Sp,  aee  below. 
1  The  SamaritAD-Uebrew  actually  read  Sy  nnnji  here  and 
liiLv89. 


consists  in  showing (1)  that  theUrira  and  Thummim 
were  understood  in  priestly  circles,  about  the  close 
of  the  Exile,  as  something  distinct  both  from  the 
ejihod  and  from  the  gems  with  which  the  pouch 
of  t!ie  ephod  was  ornamented  ;  and  (2)  that  they 
were  conceived  as  vuiterial  objects  of  comparatively 
small  dimensions,  capable  of  being  inserted  in  the 
pouch,  which  indeed  was  constructed  solely  with 
a  view  to  contain  them.  The  other  references  of 
the  Priestly  Code  (Lv  8',  Nu  27-')  give  no  further 
clue  to  the  nature  of  Urim  and  Tliumiiiim.  The 
second  passage,  however,  shows  the  iiiii)ortance 
attached  to  them  in  the  ideal  theocratic  com- 
munity of  P  as  the  authorized  mediiun  of  Divine 
revelation. 

When  we  pass  from  these  ideal  representations 
to  the  actual  history  of  the  pre-exilic  period,  while 
we  meet  with  au  ci]ual  readiness  to  presuppose 
familiarity  with  the  objects  under  discussion,  we 
are  able  for  the  Hrst  time  to  learn  something  as  to 
the  modus  operandi  in  the  use  of  the  sacred  lot. 
The  most  explicit  of  the  earlier  passages  in  which 
this  modus  operandi  is  exhibited  is  the  grajiliic 
narrative  in  1  S  14.  Uere  we  find  the  Hebrew 
host,  led  by  Saul  and  Jonathan,  proceeding  to 
ascertain  the  cause  of  the  Divine  displetusure  (v.") 
in  the  face  of  their  hereditary  enemies,  the  Philis- 
tines. Unfortunately,  the  Heb.  text  has  here 
suffered  serious  mutilation,  and,  as  even  the  mo.st 
conservative  scholars  admit,  must  be  restored  by 
the  help  of  the  Greek  version.  The  latter,  in 
Lucian's  recension  (Lagarde's  ed.),  runs  thus,  v.*"-  : 
'And  S.iul  said,  O  Lord,  the  God  of  Israel,  why 
hast  tliou  not  answered  thy  servant  this  day?  if 
the  iniquity  be  in  me  or  in  Jonathan  mj'  son,  give 
Urim  (06s  SijXoi/s  [see  above]);  and  if  thou  sayest 
thus  :  The  inii]uity  is  in  the  people,  give  Thunmiira 
(o4s  offiirijT-a ;  NlT  C'.pti  .njri,  which  cannot  possibly 
niean,  as  RV,  '.show  the  right').*  And  the  lot 
fell  ujiou  .Saul  and  Jonatlian,  and  the  people 
escaped.  Ami  Saul  said  :  Cast  the  lot  between 
me  and  Jonatlian  my  son,  and  on  wliom.soever  the 
Lord  shall  cause  the  lot  to  fall,  let  him  die.'  The 
true  text  was  apparently  still  accessible  to  .Jerome, 
who  renders:  '.si  in  me  aut  in  Jonatha  lilio  meo, 
est  iniquitas  liivc,  tla  ostensionem  [Urim];  aut  si 
h:cc  iniquitas  est  in  populo  meo  da  sanctitatem 
[Thiiiuiiiim].' 

From  the  text  of  this  important  passage  in  its 
original  form,  then,  we  learn  (I)  that  the  Urim 
and  Thummim  were  the  recognized  medium  for 
discovering  Ihe  gtiilt  or  innocence  of  suspected 
parties,  a  species  of  Divine  ordeal  ;  (2)  that  as  the 
lots  were  only  two  in  number,  only  one  question 
could  be  put  at  a  time,  and  that  in  a  way  admitting 
only  of  two  alternative  answers ;  (3)  that  where 
these  answers,  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  could 
not  be  given  by  a  mere  '  yes  '  or  '  no '  (see  below), 
it  was  necessarj'  to  agree  beforehaiul  on  the  way 
in  which  the  i.ssuing  lot  was  to  be  interpreted  ; 
(4)  a  fourth  inference,  that  the  manipul.ation  of 
the  lots  was  the  prerogative  of  the  priests,  may 
be  drawn  from  the  context  (see  below),  but  is  more 
explicitly  stated  in  the  onlj'  other  reference  to 
Urim  and  Thummim  in  pre-exilic  literature.  In 
the  so-called  '  Blessing  of  iMo.ses'  (Dt  33) — perhaps 
as  early  as  the  time  of  Jeroboam  I.  (so  Dillmann 
and  Driver),  certainly  not  later  than  Jeroboam  II. 
(so  most  critics) — the  benediction  of  Levi  opens 
thus :  '  Give  to  Levi  thy  Thummim,  and  thy  IJrim 
to  the  man  of  thy  favour'  (v.*,  following  LXX 
with  Ball,  rSBA,  18%,  11811".,  and  Bertholet, 
Kurzer  Handcom.  in  loc). 

Another  step  forward  is  suggested  by  the  com- 
parison   of    the    function    here  assigned    to    the 

•  See  Driver's  Sota  an  the  Heb.  Text  of  the  Booki  0/  Samuet 
for  the  restoration  of  the  original  Hct>rew  of  the  essentia 
portions  of  the  above. 


«40 


UEIM  AND  THUMMIM 


URIM  A^S^D  THUMMIM 


Levitical  priesthood  with  another  recital  of  the 
priestly  prerogatives,  where  the  tribe  of  Levi  alone 
IS  represented  as  chosen  by  J"  '  to  oft'er  upon  mine 
altar,  to  burn  incpiise,  and  to  hear*  (nxb'Sjan  ephod 
before  me'  (1  S  2-',  cf.  22"*  LXX).  For  although 
our  present  Hcb.  text  nowhere  expressly  associates 
the  L'rini  and  the  Thummiin  with  the  mysterious 
epiiod-iniage  of  tlie  early  writers  (see  Ephod,  No. 
2,  vol.  i.),  an  examination  of  the  wliole  narrative 
of  1  S  14  in  the  Greek  text,  and  of  other  passages 
in  tlie  Books  of  Samuel,  wliere  this  ephod  figures 
as  indispensable  to  the  manipulation  of  the  lot, 
leads  to  the  conclusion  that  the  ephod-image  and 
Urim  and  Thummim  had  some  intimate  but  as  yet 
undiscovered  connexion  the  one  with  the  other. 
Thus,  in  1  S  14,  the  priest  of  v.""  who  presides  over 
the  ordeal  of  Urim  and  Thummim  can  be  no  other 
than  Ahijah  the  descendant  of  Eli,  who  accom- 
panied Saul,  'bearing  an  ephod'  (iien  hVi  v.').  In 
V.'*,  according  to  the  true  text,  he  is  summoned  to 
'  bring  forward  the  ephod '  (Trpoiriyaye  t6  iipovS — not 
as  in  MX  '  the  ark ' ;  see  Ark,  vol.  i.  p.  15U",  note  §  ; 
Ephod,  vol.  i.  p.  776,  note  J),  evidently  for  the 
purpose  of  consulting  the  lot,  but  immediately 
ordered  to  '  withdraw '  his  hand  when  on  the  point 
of  proceeding  to  its  manipulation  (v.'*).  Again,  in 
the  story  of  David's  adventures  at  Keilah,  we  read 
of  his  being  joined  by  the  priest  Abiathar,  bring- 
ing 'an  ephod  in  his  hand'  {1  S  23°).  He  is 
requested  by  David,  in  terms  identical  with  those 
used  by  Saul,  to  '  bring  forward  the  ephod '  {v.") ; 
whereupon  the  former  proceeds  to  ask  a  series  of 
questions,  each  capable  of  being  answered  by  a 
simple  'yes'  or  'no'  (vv. '"-'-).  It  is  impossible  to 
escape  the  inference  that  these  two  narratives  of 
a  solemn  inquiring  of  J"  on  the  part  of  Saul  and 
David  offer  complete  parallels,  that  in  both  the 
answer  is  obtained  by  means  of  UrimandThummim, 
and  that  in  either  case  these  objects  are  carried  in 
and  cast  from,  or  in  some  otlier  wav  intimately 
connected  with,  the  ephod-image.  What  has  now- 
been  said  of  the  incidents  of  1  S  2.'i''*-  applies 
equally  to  the  similar  procedure  in  SO'*-,  where 
David  again  'inquired  of  J"'  by  means  of  the 
cjiliod. 

Indeed  most  scholars  would  go  further,  and 
miiintain  tliat  in  a  number  of  otlier  places,  where 
the  same  phrase  'to  inquire  of  J"  ("$  hK'i')'  is  em- 
ployed, and  where  tlie  use  of  the  sacred  lot  '  before 
J"'  is  stated,  recourse  to  Urim  and  Thummim  is 
implied  in  every  case.  Tlie  most  important  of 
siu'li  passages  are  Jos  7'''"'*  Aclian's  trespass,  Jg  I"- 
1'\f\  1  S  1U'»---  the  election  of  Saul,  2  S  2'  S'"-^. 

To  say  that  the  Urim  and  Tliummim  of  the 
earlier  historians  must  have  been  intimately  con- 
nected with  tlio  portable  images  to  w-hicli  they  gave 
tlie  name  of  epliod  in  the  casting  of  the  sacred  lot, 
does  not  help  us  to  discover  the  real  nature  of  the 
objects  in  question.  Tlie  etymology,  as  we  have 
seen,  is  equally  of  no  avail.  The  Greek  trans- 
lators in  rendering  Urim  by  STfKoi  [\l0oi.']  ap])arentl3' 
iilentitied  it  with  the  jewels  of  the  breastplate. 
We  are  therefore  left  to  conjeclure  that,  on  the 
analogy  of  the  sortcs  of  classical  antiquity,  they 
may  have  been  two  stones,  either  in  the  sh.apo  of 
dice  or  in  tablet  form,  perhaps  also  of  difVerent 
colours.  Some  support  is  given  to  this  view, 
which  is  that  of  most  modern  writers  {see  Litera- 
ture at  end  of  article),  by  the  fact  tliat  the  Heli. 
word  for  'lot,'  gordl,  as  is  inferred  from  its  Arabic 
congeners,  originally  signitied  a  stone  (cf.  Gr. 
\j'rjipos,  'a  pebble  used  in  voting,'  and  the  Bab. 
purtt,  'a  stone,'  whence,  according  to  Jensen,  quoted 
by  Wihleboer  in  Kiirzer  Hanihom.,  D'TS  Est  3', 
eynonymuus  with  ^"yn,  is  derived). 

With  the  growth  of  more  spiritual  conceptions 

*  Not  08  EV  *to  wear,'  a  8t-nse  which  K^j  nowben  haa  io 
Hebrew 


of  the  Divine  character  and  of  His  relation  to 
mundane  aft'airs,  recourse  to  the  lot  as  a  means  of 
ascertaining  the  mind  of  J"  gradually  fell  into 
abeyance.  It  cannot  be  a  mere  coincidence  that 
the  use  of  Urim  and  Thummim  is  never  mentioned 
in  the  historical  narratives  after  the  time  of  David. 
The  rise  of  the  prophetic  order  in  Israel  provided 
the  nation  with  a  worthier  channel  for  the  revela- 
tion of  tlie  Divine  wUl,  and  with  more  trustworthy 
counsellors  in  the  crises  of  the  individual  and 
national  life.  The  further  we  descend  the  .stream 
of  history  the  more  conspicuous  is  this  displace- 
ment of  the  priestly  lot  by  the  prophetic  voice 
(contrast  Ezr  2«3=Neh  7"  with  1  Mac  4-"'  14-"). 
That  the  Urim  and  Thummim  should  reappear  in 
the  scheme  of  the  Priestly  Code  is  not  surprising. 
It  is  part  of  its  ideal  reconstruction  of  the  theocracy 
that  the  high  priest  should  be  at  all  points  fully 
equipped  for  his  office  as  the  Divine  vicegerent  in 
the  tlieocracy.  For  this  end  he  is  provided  with 
the  already  mysterious  Urim  and  "Thummim,  the 
manipulation  of  which  was  one  of  the  most  prized 
of  the  ancient  prerogatives  of  the  priestly  caste. 
Their  early  association  with  the  now  long  tabooed 
ephod-image,  and  the  fact  that  the  bosom-folds  of 
the  upper  garment  was  a  common  receptacle  for 
the  '  lot '  as  used  in  everyday  aliairs  (see  Pr  IG*" '  the 
lot  is  shaken  in  the  bosom-fold,  but  the  whole  dis- 
posing thereof  is  of  J"  '),*  may  have  suggested  to  the 
authors  of  the  Priestly  Code  the  placing  of  the 
Urim  and  Thummim  in  the  jewelled  pouch  of  the 
high  priest's  ephod.  In  any  case  it  is  clear  from 
the  principal  passage.  Ex  2^^,  that  it  is  rather  a 
symbolical  than  a  practical  significance  that  is 
attached  to  the  mysterious  contents  of  the  '  pouch 
of  judgment  (or  decision).'  Israel,  in  the  person  of 
Aaron  its  representative,  is  here  presented  as  the 
continual  recipient  of  J"'s '  decisions '  and  guidance, 
and  the  position  of  the  symbols  'upon  his  heart' 
betokens  the  readiness  of  Israel  at  all  times  to 
j'ield  obedience  to  these  Divine  commands. 

After  the  exhaustive  presentation  of  the  earlier 
biblical  data  as  to  the  use  and  associations  of  the 
Urim  and  Thummim,  little  need  be  said  of  the 
views  of  older  scholars,  whose  method  of  research 
was  vitiated  by  their  taking  the  representations  of 
the  Priests'  Code  as  decisive  for  the  nature  and  use 
of  these  objects  in  the  historical  period.  Thus, 
probably,  few  will  be  found  to  maintain  the  once 
widely  accepted  theory  that  found  the  prototype 
of  the  Urim  and  Thummim  in  the  jewelled  image 
of  Tme,  the  goddess  of  truth  and  patron  of  justice, 
which  the  Chief  Justice  (6  d/jxiSixaaT-ijs,  .iFlian, 
Var.  Hist.  xiv.  34 ;  cf.  Diod.  Sic.  i.  48)  of  Egypt 
wore  on  his  breast ;  still  less  to  defend  an  Egyptian 
etymology  for  Urim  and  Thummim  (Wilkinson, 
Anc.  Egyptians  [1878],  voL  iii.  p.  183,  with  figure 
of  judge's  breastplate). t  The  same  comjiarative 
ignoring  of  the  evidence  of  our  oldest  sources  as 
to  the  nature  of  the  ancient  lot  is  fatal  to  the 
acceiitanee  of  the  thesis  recently  brouglit  for- 
ward by  an  American  scholar  (Muss-Arnolt,  see 
below),  that  the  Urim  and  Thummim  are  a  re- 
flexion of  the  '  Tablets  of  Destiny '  of  the  Baby- 
lonian mythology.^ 

Nor  need  we  dwell  on  the  many  absurd  specula- 
tions as  to  the  nature  of  Urim  and  Thummim,  and 
as  to  the  mode  in  which  their  guidance  was  su|>- 
plied,  which  are  to  be  found  in  the  works  of  Jewish 
and   Christian   writers  from   Pliilo  and  Josephus 

*  Of.  Book  of  Jiil)ilee8  8",  where  the  lota  for  the  appuitioiiing 
of  the  earth  among  the  sons  of  Nouh  are  drawu  from  the 
patriarch's  bosom. 

t  See,  however,  Hommel,  AIIT  282 f.,  who  finds  the  orifrinal 
of  the  Jewish  liiph  priest's  ephod  in  the  pectoral  of  the  lligh 
Priest  of  Memphis,  as  flared  bv  Emian,  hgijpt,  '2i)S. 

t  The  most  that  can  l>e  said  for  thia  view  is  that  the  pres«  oca 
of  these  tablets  on  the  breasts  of  Marduk  and  NelM)  was  linewn 
to  P,  and  may  possitily  have  influenced  bis  placlug  of  them  OD 
the  breast  of  the  high  priest  (but  see  al>ove). 


USURY 


UZ 


841 


dowiiwanis,  ami  for  which  the  curious  reader  is 
referred  to  the  bibliography  at  the  end  of  this 
article.*  Philo,  it  may  bo  said,  did  not,  as  is  often 
erroneously  stated,  regard  the  Urim  and  Thuraraira 
as  two  images  carried  in  the  breastplate  (see 
Mangey's  note,  0pp.  ii.  152),  but  as  symbols  of  'the 
t\\o  virtues.  Illumination  and  Truth  {Si]\iixtlv  re  xai 
i\fiO(Lav),'  Josephus  (Ant.  III.  viii.  9)  does  not  ex- 
pressly name  the  Urim  and  Thnmmim,  but  appears 
to  identify  them  with  the  jewels  of  the  breastplate 
and  on  the  shoulders  of  the  high  priest,  which,  by  a 
miraculous  ellulgence,  gave  supernatural  guidance, 
particularly  on  the  eve  of  battle.t 

A  favourite  explanation  of  Jewish  writers, 
reaching  back  to  the  Jerusalem  Targum  ^pseudo- 
Jonathan  on  Ex  28*^),  was  to  the  ellect  that  Urim 
and  Thuinmim  contained  the  sacred  tetragramma- 
ton  (ni.T),  which  spelled  out  answers  to  inquirers  by 
illuminating  the  letters  of  the  tribal  names  on  the 
transparent  gems !  Scarcely  less  curious  is  the 
view,  probably  still  widely  entertained,  that  the 
liigli  priest  threw  himself  into  a  hypnotic  trance 
bj'  ga/.ing  intently  on  the  dazzling  jewels, — again 
wrongly  identified  with  Urim  and  Thumniim, — and 
while  in  this  state  was  the  recipient  of  the  Divine 
message  (see  Kalisch,  Exodus,  pp.  540-545,  and  cf. 
Plumpire  in  art.  cited  above). 

LiTKRATURs. — For  the  views  of  older  scholara  nee  Buxtorf, 
*llit>loria  Urim  et  Thummini' in  Ugolini,  Tfui^aunis,  vol.  xii., 
And  Hiivnt^cr,  De  U^!J.  ILbritorum  ritualibus  i^lisui),  diijsert.  7. 
0(  nioiieni  works  and  articles  reference  may  be  made,  besides 
the  ordinary  commentaries,  to  the  artt.  in  Winer's  RWB  (with 
reff.  to  many  older  works);  Kiehm,  UWB,  art.  'Licht  und 
Kecht'  (Luther's  rendering  of  L'riiu  and  Xhummin);  Smiths 
Dli,  and  esp.  to  the  excellent  study  of  Kautzsch  in  J'JlI-y  vol. 
xvi.;  the  standard  treatises  on  Biblical  Archaeology;  Kaliscb's 
excursus  in  the  bo<iy  of  hiscomroentary  on  Exodim,  pp.  540-.'>45; 
Haupt,  'Babylonian  Klements  in  the  Levitical  Itituaf'  in  JUL 
xix.  (r.WO)  I>P-  5s  f.,  72  f.;  and  for  a  complete  conspectus  of  the 
views  of  nuidem  schoIaiN,  W.  iluss-Anmlt,  The  i'riin  and 
TIfummim,  a  Swjf}estion  as  to  thrir  orujinai  Sature  and  Signi- 
fieancf,  a  reprint  from  AJSL,  July  190U. 

A.  R.  S.  Kennedy. 

DSORY.— See  Debt,  vol.  i.  p.  579  f.  We  may  add 
here  liiat  the  Babylonian  contract  tablets  show 
that  the  p.ayment  of  interest  was  an  established 
custom  from  the  time  of  Khammurabi  (c.  2200  B.C.) 
onwards.  Doubtle.ss  it  had  already  existed  for 
centuries  in  the  time  of  that  king.  He  interferes 
to  enforce  the  paj-mcnt  of  a  loan  with  interest. 
The  usual  rate  of  interest  seems  to  have  been  20 
per  cent.,  though  the  payment  is  also  mentioned 
of  11a  and  13^.  In  another  case  a  loan  is  to  be 
repaid  within  two  montlis,  after  which  10  per  cent, 
interest  w  ill  be  charged.  In  addition  to  silver  or 
money  there  are  lent  corn,  dates,  sesame  seed,  and 
onions.  Some  of  the  loans  are  secured  on  houses, 
slaves,  etc. ;  and  in  one  case  the  services  of  the 
slave  specified  as  security  are  given  in  place  of 
interest.  These  contract  tablets,  etc.,  extend  from 
c.  '2'JO.l  B.C.  to  c.  100  B.C.  {Guide  to  Bab.  and  Assyr. 
Ant.,  Hrit.  Mus.,  1900,  pp.  1'22-191). 

At  Athens,  in  the  classical  period,  interest  varied 
from  12  to  20  per  cent.,  at  Kome  from  84  to  12  [ler 
cent. ;  but  towards  tlie  beginning  of  the  Christian 
era  the  rate  of  interest  at  Kome  was  lowered 
llirougli  the  accumulation  of  capital,  but  high 
rates  still  prevailed  in  the  provinces.  In  Greece 
and  Rome  money  was  often  lent  and  interest  ])aid 
by  the  month.  See  art.  'Interest'  in  Diet.  Claxa. 
Ant.,  O.  SeyUert,  etc.  W.  H.  BeNNETF. 

UTA  (Ovri.),  1  Es  5**. — His  sons  returned  among 
the  temple  servants  undiM-  Zcrubbabel.  There  is 
Do  corresponding  name  in  Ezra  and  Nehemiah. 

•  A  convenient  and  occeasibie  mimmary  of  the  more  important 
of  these  oilier  views  will  t>e  found  in  I'lumptre's  article  in 
BniiUis  nil. 

f  J"«rnhiis' statement,  'the  breastplate  and  snrdonvx  (prob. 
Intended  by  him  to  represent  Urim  and  Thuinniini)  left  off 
ihinint;  two  hundred  years'  before  bis  time,  is  too  absurd  to 
require  refutation. 


DTHAI  ("niy). — 1.  The  name  of  an  individual  or 
a  family  of  Judali,  .settled  at  .Jerusalem  alter  the 
Caiitivity,  1  Ch  9*  (H  VuBd,  A  VuBi,  Luc.  OiOi) ; 
called  in  Neh  11*  Athaiah.  2.  One  of  the  sons 
of  Bigvai  who  returned  with  Ezra,  Ezr  8"  (B  OiSl, 
A  Oieai,  Luc.  'ileal). 

DTHI  (B  OiVo.;,  A  OWl),  1  Es  8*=Uthai,  Ezr  8" 

DZ  (pp;  LXX  'Os  [Gn  22='  'Of,  La",  'fif ;  Job  l" 
322  42i'i>..  ^  yfi  [xwp"]  ^  Ai'<r(f)rT<$] ;  Vulg.  Hus  [Gn 
lO^*  Us,  Jer  25"  A-usitis]).—l.  The  eldest  son  of 
Aram,  and  grandson  of  Shem  (Gn  10'-^).  As  the 
name  of  Aram  is  omitted  in  the  parallel  passage  in 
1  Ch  I",  Shem  would  there  seem  to  have  been  his 
father.  This,  however,  must  be  due  to  some  over- 
sight, the  wanting  passa'^e  being  duly  inserted  in 
the  LXX. — 2.  A  sou  of  Nahor  by  .Mikah,  the 
eldest  brother  of  Buz  and  tCemucI  '  the  father  of 
Aram'  (Gn  22-').  In  the  AV  the  name  is  tran- 
scribed Huz  (Josephus  has  OCfos). — 3.  One  of  the 
two  sons  of  Dishau,  son  of  Seir  the  Horit*  (Gn  36*). 
— i.  The  name  of  the  native  place  of  Job.  Con- 
siderable dillerence  of  opinion  exists  as  to  how  far 
the  above  names  are  connected.  There  would 
seem  to  be  but  little  doubt  that  the  genealogical 
statements  in  Gn  10  are  ethnological  and  geo- 
graphical rather  than  personal,  and  all  that  can 
be  deduced  from  them  therefore  is,  that  the  people 
of  U?  were  Semites  of  the  Aram.-ran  stock.  That 
U?  the  son  of  Xabor  should  be  uncle  of  Aram  and 
Chesed,  is  probably  due  to  the  existence  of  two 
distinct  tr.aditions  («ncerning  these  Semitic  races, 
the  earlier  one  making  him  a  son  of  Aram,  and 
the  later  one  attributing  to  him  an  earlier  period 
than  that  of  Aram.  Nevertheless,  it  is  not  by  any 
means  iuipossible  that  a  recurrence  of  names  at 
a  later  date  may  have  taken  place,  such  a  thing 
being  by  no  means  unusual,  as  the  genealogical  lists 
show.*  Kautzsch,  on  the  other  hand,  goes  further, 
and  maintains  not  only  the  connexion  of  U?  the 
grandson  of  Shem  ■with  U?  the  son  of  Nahor,  but 
also  with  U?  the  son  of  Dishan  as  well.t  This  he 
regards  as  indicating  that  the  district  belonging 
to  the  tribe  rejiresented  by  Aram's  firstborn 
originally  included  a  considerable  part  of  that  of 
the  Aranux-an  tribes.  From  this  L?  in  the  wider 
sense  is  to  be  separated  U?  in  the  narrower  sense, 
which  originated  in  the  mingling  of  the  .Aramaean 
Unites  with  another  Semitic  race — the  '  Nahorites' 
of  Gn  22-^"'''.  U?  the  grandson  of  Seir  is  to  be 
explained  in  a  similar  manner  as  a  mingling  of 
(pre-Edomite)  Uorites  and  Arama'an  Unites  in  a 
part  of  Iduma;a.  The  'land  of  U?'  would  there- 
fore be  a  rather  extensive  geographical  idea.  All 
this  seems  to  be  couhrmed  by  other  coincidences  of 
names  accompanying  that  of  U?— the  name  of 
Aram,  already  referred  to ;  Maacah,  another  son 
of  Nahor  (Gn  2'2**,  which  forms  [lart  of  a  geo- 
graphical name  in  1  Ch  19") ;  Buz  (Gn  22-')  and 
Buzite  (Job  32=);  Chesed  (Gn  22--)  and  Kasdim 
(Job  1"  AV  and  RV  'Chaldeans');  Shuah,  a 
nephew  of  Naiior  (Gn  2j'),  and  Sliuliite  (.Job 
2");  also  IJcdcm,  the  country  whither  Abraham 
sent  Shuah,  together  with  his  other  ehihlien  by 
tkcturah  (Gn  2.')"),  and  the  race  to  which  Job 
belonged — the  'sons  of  the  East'  or  Bcnol;Lcdem 
(Job  V). 

The  question  of  the  position  of  the  land  of  Uf 
would  appear  to  be  determinable  within  very 
narrow  limits.     In  Job  !'»•"  it  would  seem  that 

•  The  Assyro- Babylonian  royal  lists  likewise  indicate  that  the 
repetition  of  renowned  or  venerated  names  woi*  far  from  being 
an  uncommon  thiiiK  amont;  the  Semites  ui  ancient  times. 

t  It  is  to  be  nute<l  that  Ird.  Delitzsch  re)rart)s  L'j,  the  Kmnd- 
Sfjii  of  Seir  (On  StT^*^},  as  another  person  of  the  same  nojue,  -  or  a 
cbance-likeneAS, — a  theory  supportcil  by  l.a  4^-,  where  Mom 
apiiean  Id  temporary  possession  of  Vi,  either  wholly  or  io 
port. 


Job's  estate  lay  open  to  the  depredations  of  the 
Sab.rans  and  tlie  Clialdioans,  and  was  tlierefore  on 
the  edge  of  the  great  desert,  agreeing  with  v.'*, 
where  the  destruction  wrought  by  the  wind  from 
that  direction  is  referred  to.  The  native  countries 
of  Job's  friends  likewise  favour  this  view — that  is, 
so  far  as  those  districts  can  be  identified.  Thus 
Eliphaz  came  from  Teman  (Job  2"),  which  was  to 
all  appearance  an  Edomite  locality,  Tenum  beini^ 
rufoned  to  in  Gn  36"  as  a  descendant  of  Esau  and 
son  of  Eliphaz,  which  last  was  evidently,  tlierefore, 
a  genuine  Edomite  name.  His  second  friend, 
Biidad  '  the  Shuliite,'  came  from  Shuab,  the  district 
and  name  of  one  of  the  sons  of  Abraham  and 
I>eturah.  The  name  of  Job's  third  friend,  Zophar 
the  Naaniathite,  does  not  help,  that  district  being 
unknown  (see  Naamah)  ;  but  Elihu  the  Buzite 
must  have  come  from  a  neighbouring  country,  as 
is  implied  by  Gn  22-'.  The  inscriptions  of  the 
kings  of  Assyria  also  throw  some  liglit  upon  the 
question.  Thus  Esarhaddon,  in  one  of  his  expedi- 
tions to  the  west,  passed  through  Bdzu,  reaching, 
at  a  distance  of  ISO  kas-gid,  the  country  of  Hazu, 
and  these  two  districts  are,  with  one  consent,  re- 
garded as  the  Buz  and  Hazo  of  Gn  22-'- ~.  Shuah 
is  in  like  manner  identified  with  the  Suhu  of 
Tiglatbpileser  I.,  according  to  whom  it  lay  one 
day's  journey  from  Carchemish  in  the  land  of 
Hatti.  In  the  same  neighbourhood  lay  the  land 
of  YasbiiMa  ('the  Vasbukians'),  identified  by 
Frd.  Delitzsch  with  the  Ishbak  of  Gn  25-.  This 
place,  which  is  referred  to  by  Shalmaneser  II.,  was 
in  the  neighbourhood  of  Shuah,  %\  ith  which  it  is 
mentioned  in  the  passage  of  Genesis  here  referred 
to.  Shalmaneser  received  tribute  from  the  land 
of  Sliuab  ;  liut  whether  it  was  at  this  time  (B.C. 
8.")9)  or  28  years  later,  when  lie  sent  an  army  to 
tlie  same  district,  is  not  certain.  On  the  second 
occasion  he  received  tribute  from  a  certain  Sftsi, 
mdr  nidt  Uzzd,  'a  son  of  the  land  of  Uzzi,'  wlio 
submitted  to  him,  and  whom  he  placed  on  the 
throne  of  Patinu.  It  may  even  be  that  the 
rulers  of  this  latter  place  were  counted  among 
'the  kings  of  the  land  of  U?.'  Uz?a  (or  C?S,  as 
analogy  teaulies  may  have  been  tlie  more  correct 
form)  certainly  lay,  according  to  Frd.  Delitzscli, 
W.  and  X.^\.  of  Aleppo,  at  no  great  distance 
from  I'atinu,  and  must  have  been  an  important 
place ;  hence  tlie  raisiug  of  its  king  to  the 
dominion  of  Patinu.* 

Though  the  Assyrian  inscriptions  do  not  indicate 
clearly  the  land  oi  U?,  and  its  identification  with 
the  land  of  U;fzfi  is  not  so  satisfactory  as  could  be 
wished, t  they  at  least  confirm  the  indications 
given  in  the  Book  of  Job.  Tr.idition  places  the 
home  of  the  patriarch  in  the  ^auran,  where  a 
monastery  bearing  his  name  exists  (it  is  situated 
in  the  WMy  el-Lebiveh).  He  is  said  to  have  been 
a  native  of  Juldn,  and  early  Arabian  authors  state 
that  he  was  born  in  the  neighbourhood  of  Nawd. 
Not  far  from  the  monastery  is  shown  the  Malcdm 
E'jyuh,  or  'Station  of  Job,'  his  well,  and  the 
trough  in  which  he  is  said  to  have  washed  after 
his  trials  were  over.  His  tomb  is  shared  by  a 
Moliaiiimedan  saint,  and  on  a  hill  close  hy  is  a 
stone  ujion  which  he  is  said  to  have  leaned  when 
first  afilicted.  The  currency  of  the  tradition  among 
both  Christians  and  Mohammedans  living  in  the 
district  implies  that  it  is  of  considerable  antiquity. 
In  view  of  the  testimony  of  tlie  Assyrian  inscrip- 
tions as  to  the  position  of  the  land  of  U?,  how- 

"  \Vhether  Patinu  be  connected  etyniolo^cally  with  Batanea 
or  not  is  uncertain,  but  is  worthy  of  consideration. 

t  There  ie  doubt  aa  to  the  sibilant,  whether  it  be  really  ?  (s)  or 
f  (1).  In  addition  to  this,  a  lonfe'  temiinal  vowel  would  not  be 
expected.  Delitzsch  evidently  regards  the  word  as  a  jfentijic 
adjective  ;  but  if  this  be  the  case,  ttiere  is  a  mistake  in  the  text, 
Ui-za-a  having  been  written  for  U^-za-a-a  (=  U^da). 


ever,  Frd.  Delitzsch  would  prefer  to  regard  it  ai 
being  situated  rather  in  the  neighbourhood  of 
Tadmor  (I'almyra).  According  to  Josephus  (v4nt. 
I.  vi.  4,  5)  it  embraced  Trachonitis  and  Damascus, 
and  the  LXX  represents  the  patriarch  as  having 
lived  in  Ausitis,  on  the  borders  of  Edom  ■^nd  Arabia 
(there  is  no  doubt  that  it  was  closelj  connected 
with  the  former  country),  so  that  the  neighbour- 
hood of  Palmyra  would  seem  to  lie  macli  too  fai 
N.E.  It  is  difficult,  however,  to  fix,  at  this  dis- 
tance of  time,  the  boundaries  of  a  district  which 
is  known  to  have  been  fairly  extensive,  and  which 
probably  varied  in  extent,  in  consequence  of 
political  changes,  from  time  to  time. 

LlTERATrRB. — Kautzsch  in  Riehm's  UandivOrterbtich,  %v.  ; 
Frd.  Delitzsch  mZKl'  ii.  87  S.  (cf.  his  Paradien,  239) ;  Ba^eker"* 
PcUeMiie  a7id  Hi/ria,  407.  T.  G.  PiNCUES. 

UZAI  ('"«).  —  Father  of  Palal  who  helped  to 
rebuild  the  wall,  Neh  3="  (B  EOel,  A  EuyiU,  Luc 
Oi'j-ai). 

UZAL  (SiiK,  Sam.  ^I'n). — Name  of  a  son  of  Joktan, 
Gn  lCr-'(A'Ati-)j\),  1  Ch  I-'  (A  Ai^ri",  B  om.,  Luc. 
Ois'dX),  but  figuring  .as  a  local  name  in  Ezk  27", 
according  to  one  interpretation  [reading  V;w?  ( '  from 
Uzal,'  so  RVm),  with  Hitzig,  Sniend.  Cornill,  et 
al.  ;  B  ^{  'Ka-qk,  A  ii  'A<ra^\].  With  this  wo«d 
Gesenius  compared  Euzclis  of  Hindu,  mentioaed 
as  a  market  town  in  a  passage  of  John  of  Epi.esua 
(6tli  cent.  A.D.)  preserved  by  Dionysias  of  Tell- 
Mahre  ('ip.  Assemani,  Bibl.  Or.  L  301),  who  sup- 
posed it  to  be  situated  in  the  interior  of  the  Indian 
(i.e.  Arab)  country,  beyond  the  territory  of  the 
Himyar.  This  may  well  be  identical  with  Uzal 
(AI-Bckri,  p.  206),  Izal  or  Azal  (Yakut  after  Ham- 
dani),  which  the  Arab  geographers  declare  was  the 
former  name  of  Sana,  now  capital  of  Yemen.  The 
name  was,  they  think,  changed  to  Sana  either  in 
honour  of  a  queen  of  that  name,  or  of  Sana  son  of 
Azal  ;  or  it  may  have  been  given  the  place  by  tlie 
Abyssinians,  in  whose  language  it  means  '  fortress?.' 
Tlie  name  San'au  is  found  in  an  inscription  which 
Glaser  (die  Abessinier,  etc.  p.  117)  assigns  to  the 
2nd  cent.  A.D.  An  earlier  name  (according  to 
him)  was  Tafidh  (Skizze,  ii.  427);  none  of  these 
names  appear  to  be  known  to  the  classical  geo- 
graphers of  Arabia  (Pliny,  Ptolemy,  etc.),  who  go 
rather  fully  into  the  names  of  places  and  tribes  in 
Arabia  Felix.  The  Arab  tradition,  however,  re- 
garded it  as  the  most  ancient  city  in  the  world, 
and  the  seat  of  the  '  kings  of  Yemen  ' ;  the  former 
theory  being  apparently  due  to  the  derivation  of 
the  name  Azal  from  the  Arabic  azal,  '  eternity,'  or 
to  the  alternate  form  Uwal  (Harris,  loc.  citand., 
p.  319),  which  might  be  rendered  'first.'  If,  how- 
ever, tliere  be  any  truth  in  its  great  antiquity,  and 
its  having  been  a  metropolis  in  ancient  times,  it 
must  be  identical  with  one  of  the  capitals  men- 
tioned by  Pliny  and  Ptolemy  ;  but  with  which 
cannot  at  present  be  decided.  The  name  of  tlie 
city  must  tnerefore  have  changed  repeatedly  ;  and 
in  the  use  of  the  name  Aziil  or  Izal  in  the  century 
before  Mohammed  we  are  justified  in  seeing  with 
Glaser  (S/cizze,  ii.  427)  the  influence  of  the  Jews. 
Their  influence  in  these  regions  appears  from  the 
statements  of  the  Syriac  chronicler  to  have  been 
considerable ;  and  early  Arabic  writers  occasion- 
ally preserve  traditions  dating  from  the  time  of 
their  ascendency.  A  place  was  shown  at  Sana 
where  sixteen  prophets  had  been  slaughtered  at 
once  (Ibn  Kustah)  j  and  Walib  Ibn  Munabbih 
(died  c.  735  A.D.)  professed  to  have  found  in  a 
sacred  book  the  text,  'Azal,  Azal,  though  all  b« 
against  thee,  yet  will  I  be  gracious  unto  thee,' 
which  seems  to  come  from  Is  2'J'"'  with  Azal  sub- 
stituted for  Ariel  (Tt)  al-'arus).  Whether,  then, 
the  place  was  called  Azal  by  conjectuial  identifica- 


UZZA 


UZZIAH  (AZAEIAH) 


843 


tion  of  it  witli  the  son  of  Jolftan,  or  Azal  was  an 
old  name  revived  by  tlie  Jews,  is  not  clear ;  the 
latter  supposition  is  rather  the  more  probable, 
because  an  Arabian  locality,  Azalla,  is  niontioned 
in  the  canipai^  of  Assurbanipal  (KIB  ii.  '2-21), 
and  Azal  rallier  than  Uzal  is  tlie  form  tliat  is  best 
attested.  The  objection  to  the  identitic;ilion  raised 
by  Ctlaser  (I.e.  430)  on  the  ground  that  of  the  ob- 
jects mentioned  by  Ezekiel  as  exported  from  Uzal 
only  iron  is  really  found  in  the  neighbourhood, 
whereas  spices  are  not  to  be  found  in  the  whole 
of  Yemen,  seems  wanting  in  weight,  since  Sana 
may  have  been  a  depot  for  them ;  rather  more 
force  attaches  to  his  objection  that  the  port  of 
Sana  would  probably  have  been  Aden  (mentioned 
by  Kzekiel  in  this  context)  rather  than  Waddan 
(VedaN)  and  Javan.  But,  indeed,  the  difficulties 
of  both  text  and  interjiretation  in  the  pa-ssage  of 
Ezekiel  are  so  great  as  to  render  it  unsuitable  for 
the  ileduction  of  inferences. 

Of  the  beauty  and  wealth  of  Sana  glowing  de- 
scrijitiona  are  given  by  Arabic  writers,  and  modem 
travellers  {e.g.  W.  B.  Harris,  A  Journey  through 
the  Yemen,  1893,  pp.  299-322)  confirm  them.  It  is 
at  an  elevation  of  7250  feet  above  the  sea-level, 
with  a  mountain  (Jebel  Nujum)  rising  abruptly  on 
the  east.  In  the  rainy  season  a  torrent  of  water 
runs  througli  the  river-bed,  which  occupies  the 
middle  of  the  town  ;  Ibn  Rustah  (Bibl.  Geogr. 
Aral),  vii.  110)  says  it  is  not  much  narrower  than 
the  Tigris,  and  was  in  his  time  used  for  irrigation. 
The  climate  varies  little  during  the  whole  year ; 
and  of  n\ost  produce  there  are  two  crops.  The 
fortress  and  temple  of  Ghumdan,  destroyed  by  the 
Cali|ih  Othman,  was  the  most  magnihcent  building 
in  Arabia.  In  the  7th  cent,  of  Islam  the  Zaidite 
Imams  made  it  their  capital.  Of  the  forms  of  the 
name,  Izal  appears  to  be  the  best  attested ;  the 
LXX  translators  clearly  connected  the  second 
syllable  with  II  (god),  and  the  tirst  perhaps  with 
the  god  At  (who  appears  in  some  Punic  proper 
names)  or  some  other  deity.  Other  etymologists 
seem  scarcely  more  successful. 

D.  S.  Margoliouth. 

DZZA  (my).  —  1.  The  eponym  of  a  Benjamite 
family,  1  Ch  S'  (B  Xoara,  A  'Afd,  Luc.  'Afdi/).  2.  Tlie 
head  of  a  family  of  Nethinim  that  returned,  Ezr  2'''' 
(B  06(Ti,  A  'Afd,  Luc.  oni.)=Neh  7"  (B  'Ofd,  A 
'Ofi,  Luc.  'Aj-d).  3.  The  driver  of  the  cart  on  which 
the  ark  was  removed  from  Kiriath-jearim,  2  S 
83.  «.  7.  8^  1  (j(i  137.  ».  10.  u  Uzza's  sudden  death  at 
a  place  called,  in  commemoration  of  this  untoward 
incident,  Perez-uzzah  ('  breach  of  Uzzah';  cf.  artt. 
Chidon  and  Nacon),  led  to  the  temporary  aban- 
donment of  David's  project  of  transporting  the  ark 
to  Jerusalem.  Uzza's  death  was  attributed  by  the 
popular  mind  to  an^er  on  the  part  of  Jahweh  at 
liis  having  j)re8umed  to  handle  the  sacred  emblem 
too  familiarly.  There  are,  however,  points  of 
obscurity  in  the  narrative,  and  the  text  is  in 
several  instances  quite  uncertain.  See  Driver, 
Wellh.,  Budde,  Lbhr,  U.  P.  Smith,  ad  loc. 

Tlie  name  appeara  lu  KJV,  Uzza,  In  2  S  (C,  1  Ch  l!t7-  »  10-  ",  u 
njV,  Uzzah,  in  2S  A*-'  '.  B  has  everywhere  '0J«,  which  is 
rt-ud  also  hy  A  in  the  Chroa.  pas.sa^e8 ;  A  has  \n  2  Sam.  '  A^^ic, 
once  lCi3]  'ACa. 

4.  Manasseh  and  his  son  Anion  were  buried  in  the 
'garden  of  Uzza'  (kji;-i:),  2  K  '2V'-^  (L.XX  Ki/Toj 
'Ofd),  whidi  was  attached  to  the  palacu  of  Man- 
asseh. The  conjecture  of  Stade  (G  VI  i.  501), 
ii.  (379),  that  nji;  hore=n;ti;  (Uzziah),  has  found  wide 
acceptance  (but  see  footnote  to  next  col.). 

J.  A.  Selbie. 
UZZAH  (nil').— 1.  The  name  of  aMerarite  family, 
1  Ch  e^i"!  (li  "Ofd,   A   'Afd,   Luc.    Ofid).      2.  See 
Uzza,  No.  3. 

UZZEN-SHEERAH.— See  Sheeraii. 


UZZI  (n ;  'Ojtc)().— 1.  A  descendant  of  Aaron, 
1  Ch  0'-  «•  "'[Hell.  5»'-  «•  6^],  Ezr  7*.  2.  The  eponym 
of  a  family  of  Issachar,  1  Ch  1'^*.  3.  The  name 
of  a  Benjamite  family,  1  Ch  V  9".  1.  A  Levite, 
son  of  Bani,  overseer  of  the  Levites  dwelling  in 
Jerusalem,  Nell  11*^.  5.  The  head  of  a  priestly 
family,  Neh  12"'-  *". 

UZZIA  («,!;;,  prob.  same  as  n;t^,  Uzziah  ;  B  'Of«d, 
A  'Ofid,  Luc.''Ofios).— One  of  David's  heroes,  1  Ch 
11«. 

UZZIAH  ()n;)s;  and  n;)!;  [on  the  name  see  next 
art.]). — 1.  A  king  of  Judah.  See  next  article. 
2.  A  Kohathite  Levite,  1  Ch  6-^  i"""- »'  (B  Ufeid, 
A*' sup  ras'Oj-i'a!).  3.  'The  father  of  an  ollicer  of 
David,  1  Ch  27=*  (B  'OfcioiJ,  A  'O^wO).  i.  A  priest 
who  had  married  a  foreign  wife,  Ezr  10^'  (B  'Ofcid, 
A  'Ofid,  Luc.  'Oj-Zos).  5.  Name  of  a  Judahite 
family  after  the  Exile,  Neh  II''  (B  'Af«,  N  'Afea^d, 
A  'Ofid,  Luc.  "Oi-ias).  The  LXX  reads  'O'M^a.  also 
in  Neh  11°  for  n;;n  Hazaiau  of  MT. 

UZZIAH  (AZARIAH).— The  Heb.  names  varj'  in 
form.  We  have  jnii'  (2  K  15=--^,  Is  1'  6'  7',  2  Ch 
26"'-  27^)  and  .T)i;  (2'K  1513-*',  Hos  1',  Am  1',  Zee 
14').  The  meaning  is  'J"  is  my  strength.'  We 
have  a  Hob.  parallel  in  SxM^and  in  tlie  Plieen.  Synty 
and  itety.  The  alternative  Heb.  name  i.tii;'  occurs 
in  2  K  15«-«,  while  n.-)]y  is  found  in  2  K  14-'  15'-' 
etc.,  and  also  1  Ch  3'-.  The  meaning  of  the  alterna- 
tive name  is  similar  to  that  of  'n;)t|,  viz.  'J"  hath 
helped  (me).' 

In  As.syr.  the  names  Aiur-nirdri  (*Ashur  is  my  help')  and 
Rainitnin-nirtiri  (*  Ramnuan  is  my  help ')  are  parallel  in  thought 
and  e.viiression  to  both  the  alternative  proper  names  of  the  lleb. 
monarch,  while  the  Phoon.  furnishes  a  close  analogy  to  the 
latter  in  '^yDliy  *  Baal  is  (my)  help,'  represented  in  Latin  by 
Uaadrubal ;  or,  with  the  elements  of  the  name  reversed,  in 
I'vhn  (cf.  also  ^lyamiy,  prob. '  my  help  is  liaal ' ;  and  see  Bloch, 
Pkirn.  (jlottsar.  p.  49).  The  Gr.  fonns  are  'O^iiatf  ('Ova.')  and 
'A^ocpiat.  In  a  miinber  of  instances,  as  in  'i  K  15'3.  32  (and  in 
V.34  in  A),  LXX  substitutes 'ACays.af  for  Uz/.iah,  whereas  in  2  K 
1530  'At«f  is  substituted  for  'ACa^-'av,  which  is  the  reacting  of  A. 
In  Is  0'  71  '0^'cti  is  the  form  preserved  in  Bl^AtJ.  It  is  quit^ 
possible  that  the  king  had  really  only  one  name,  nmy,  and 
that  the  name  n'ly  (Uzziah)  may  have  arisen  through  a  corrup- 
tion of  the  text,  the  early  form  of  *  {y'd),  viz.  ^ ,  being  con- 
founded with  an  imperfectly  written  T  (resh),  vix.  ^  .• 

Uzziah  was  tlie  son  of  Amaziah  king  of  Judah, 
and,  according  to  the  redactor  of  the  l!ooks  of 
Kings  (see  Kittel's  Cum,.),  ascended  the  throne  of 
Judah  at  the  age  of  sixteen,  and  in  the  27tli  year 
of  Jeroboam  king  of  Israel  (2  K  15").  It  is  well 
known,  however,  that  such  synchronisms  are  of  no 
chronological  value,  and  lead  to  emlless  confusion. 
We  can  only  a-ssert  that  both  these  kings  were 
contemporaries.  Whether  Uzziah's  reign  extended 
to  52  years  is  uncertain. 

The  record  of  his  reign  in  2  K  14  and  15  is 
singularly  brief.  Though  the  worship  of  the  high 
places — the  normal  cult  of  Israel  and  Judah — still 
continued,  the  verdict  of  the  Deuteronomie  redactor 
is  favourable  to  him,  as  it  wjis  to  the  memory  of 
his  father,  Amaziah;  he  'did  what  was  right  in 
the  eyes  of  the  Lord '  (2  K  15^). 

The  record  in  the  Book  of  Kings  gives  us  no 
information  respecting  the  events  of  this  long 
reign,  except  that  Uzziah  fell  a  victim  to  leprosy 
towards  its  close  (2  K  15').  But  in  14^-  we  prob- 
ably have  a  fragment  from  the  Annals  which  refers 
to  his  reign,  though  its  somewhat  strange  position 
after  the  section  by  the  redactor  (vv."-^')  renders 

•  This  secmfl  to  U8  more  probable  than  the  view  of  Stable  (tf  VI 
L  p.  609  footn.l)  that  the  name  'Azariah  was  abbreviated  to  Mjy 
(2  K  2118 'garden  of 'Uzza,' cf.  2  8  0>),  and  that  the  name' Utziali 
grew  out  of  th«  latter.  For  'llzz.t  is  not  iinprobabty  tlie  name 
of  a  deity,  u  2  K  21ii>  and  2  8  U»  seem  to  indicate.  On  the 
Arabian  AJ-'Uzza  see  Bai-lhgen,  Bntrnije  ziir  Sem.  Rfiigiatu- 
grtch.  p.  lU  ;  Konin,  6:1.  1:1 ;  Wellhauseli,  Jiitfe^,  p.  jl  ff. 


844 


UZZIAH  (AZARIAH) 


UZZIAH  (AZAEIAH) 


Hs  interpretation  uncertain.  Wo  there  read  that 
Elath,  llie  chief  port  of  Edora,  whicli  was  of  great 
commercial  vahie  to  Judah  as  an  outlet  as  well  as 
inlet  for  commerce,  was  again  recovered  to  Judah 
by  the  successful  military  enter])iise  of  Azariah 
after  his.  father's  disastrous  overthrow  by  Jehoash 
king  of  Israel  had  entailed  its  temporary  loss. 
Owing  to  the  leprosy  wliich  attacked  Uzziah 
towards  the  end  of  his  long  reign,  he  was  com- 
pelled to  go  into  retirement,*  while  his  son 
Jotham  discharged  the  roj'al  functions  (sssr)  in 
his  place. 

Such  is  all  that  can  be  learned  about  this 
monarch  in  2  Kings.  The  Book  of  Chronicles  (2  Ch 
20'"-")  adds  to  the  above  narrative  a  number  of 
details.  (1)  We  have  an  account  of  the  military 
preparations  and  exploits  of  tlie  king,  and  also  of 
his  agricultural  pursuits.  (2)  We  have  a  llaggadic 
narrative  attached  to  the  fact  of  the  king's  lepro.sy 
which  ascribes  the  latter  to  Divine  judgment  on 
him  for  attempting  to  fullil  tha  priestly  function 
of  ottering  incense  on  the  altar  of  incense.  Kittel 
in  liis  History  of  the  Hebrews  attempts  to  defend 
the  historicity  of  this  conflict  between  the  royal 
and  priestly  authority  ;  t  but  it  is  quite  clear  that 
t'le  form  of  the  narrative  is  based  on  the  tra- 
dition of  the  P  passages  in  Ex  30'- ^^  Nu  17°  18'. 
Furthermore,  the  name  of  the  chief  priest  Azariah 
probably  originated  from  the  older  alternative 
name  of  Uzziah  himself,  who,  like  Solomon  and 
all  royal  personages  (cf.  the  Assyr.  kings  who 
assumed  the  oHice  of  patcsi),  exercised  priestly 
functions. 

But  the  military  exploits  and  preparations  of 
Uzziah  recorded  in  2  Ch  26"'"  cannot  be  dismissed 
as  unhistorical,  since  they  serve  to  explain  facts 
in  subsequent  history  which  would  otherwise 
remain  obscure.  We  read  that  Uzziah  eiiuip[)ed 
an  armed  host  of  307,500  men,  and  fortihed  Jeru- 
salem, and  provided  it  with  engines  of  war.  He 
also  conducted  a  successful  campaign  against  the 
Piiilistines,  and  stormed  the  cities  of  Gaza,  Jabneh, 
and  Ashdod,  and  also  conquered  the  Arabians  and 
Ammonites.  Subsequently  recorded  events  render 
many  if  not  all  of  these  details  exceedingly  prob- 
able, though  here,  as  so  often  in  Chronicles,  the 
numerical  statements  are  exaggerated,  (a)  That 
Jerusalem  was  fortihed  and  provided  with  means 
of  defence  during  the  reign  of  Uzziah,  is  rendered 
exceedingly  probable  by  the  account  of  its  defence 
in  the  days  of  tlezekiafi,  which  has  come  to  us  not 
only  in  the  record  of  2  K  IS'^t-,  but  in  the  Taylor 
cylinder  of  Sennacherib  {col.ii.  69-col.  iii.  41),  which, 
in  describing  the  invasion  of  Palestine  by  Senna- 
clierib,  expressly  mentions  (1)  the  forty-six  fortihed 
towns  (col.  iii.  13)  captured  by  the  Assyrians ; 
(2)  that  the  Philistine  town  Ekron  [ir  Amkarntna) 
was  under  the  control  of  Pezel^iah,  and  that  the 
king  Padi,  a  puppet  of  Assyria,  was  delivered  up 
to  the  king  of  Judah  (col.  ii.  70(1'.).  Now,  it  is 
reasonable  to  conclude  that  the  control  of  Philistia 
by  yezclyiah  was  probably  due  to  the  strong 
military  policy  of  Uzziah  described  by  the  Chron- 
icler, who  must  have  derived  his  information  from 
annals  of  his  reign  from  which  the  redactor  of  the 
Books  of  Kings  did  not  draw.  Certainly,  the 
reign  of  Ahaz,  distracted  by  the  troubles  of 
the  Syro-Epliraimite  invasion  and  weakened  by 
subservience  to  Assyria,  was  not  the  time  when 
strong  defensive  measures  would  be  adopted.     In- 

•The  text  here  is  uncertain.  The  Heh.  text  has  n'iprnn  n'35, 
LXXi,«rxw  at:^e'jirtLO(ct.  2Ch  2621).  Jud^'ingfrora  the  well. known 
meaning  of  Vi:  n,  this  can  mean  only '  in  a  free  house,'  i,e.  free  from 
the  intrusion  of  others.  The  expression,  however,  is  very  strange, 
and  Kittel  is  warranted  in  accepting  the  ingenious  emendation 
of  Elostemiann,  n'O'ir;  .nn'3^  '  In  his  bouse  unmolested,'  n'^Sfl) 
being  an  adverb  with  the  ending  n*-i-,  A0  In  /l'3*]ht{  (Gn  933). 

t  Gacli.  tUr  Htb.  IL  p.  281. 


deed  we  know  that  Philistia  was  instit'ated  to 
revolt  by  the  confederacy  of  the  two  Northern 
kings,  (b)  The  mention  of  Arabians  (col.  iii.  31) 
among  the  troops  which  defended  Jerusalem  against 
Sennacherib  sustains  the  statement  of  the  Chron- 
icler that  Uzziah  subjugated  the  Arabs,  and  this 
is  probably  to  be  connected  with  the  recovery  of 
Edom  and  the  port  of  Elath  to  which  2  K  14^ 
refers,  (c)  Kittel  lays  stress  on  the  prosperity  of 
Judah  in  the  days  of  Ahaz,  of  which  Is  2  and  3 
furnish  abundant  evidence.  This  is  best  explained 
as  due  to  the  consolidation  of  the  resources  and 
power  of  the  Southern  Kingdom  during  the  long 
and  prosperous  reign  of  Uzziah  described  in  2  Ch  26. 
This  view  is  ably  sustained  by  McCurdy  in  the 
Expositor,  Nov.  1891,  p.  388  ff. 

It  was  formerly  held  by  Assyriologists,  includ- 
ing especially  Schrader,  that  the  records  of  Tiglath- 
pileser  prove  that  Uzziah  (Azariah)  was  the  head 
of  a  powerful  confederacy  of  Northern  Hamathite 
States  against  Assyria.  Unfortunately,  the  pas- 
sages in  which  reference  is  made  to  Azariah 
(Az(Iz)ri-ya-u),  whom  Schrader  identified  with 
Uzziah  (KGF  399-421),  are  much  mutilated.  The 
following  is  a  translation  of  the  passages  so  far  as 
they  can  be  deciphered  and  interpreted  on  the 
basis  of  Rost's  edition  of  Tiglath-pileser's  Annals, 
lines  101-111— 

101-2  .  .  .  my  otflcer  as  ruler  of  the  province  I  placed  over  them 
[gifts  and  tribute  like  the  Assyrian  imposed  on  them] 

103  in  the  further  course  of  my  campaign  the  tribute  of  th6 

ki[ng3 

104  I  received  Azar]iah  king  of  Ja-u-di  like  ,  ,  , 

105  .  .  .  zariah  of  Ja-u.di  .  .  . 

[106  and  107  seem  to  refer  to  the  towns  in  which  Azariah 
sought  reJugeJ 

108  by  the  attack  of  the  light-armed  (7)  of  the  bodyguard  .  .  . 

[of  the  approach  of 

109  the  Assyrian  troops]  the  numerous,  they  heard  [their 

heart)  feared 

110  [the  town)  1  destroyed,  laid  waste,  burnt  down 

111  .  .  .  placed  themselves  on  the  side  of  [Azarjiah  streng- 

thened (?)  him  .  .  . 
Lines  125-132  refer  to  the  19  districts  of  Hamath  which 
'placed  themselves  on  the  side  of  Azariah,'  the  series  bemg 
enumerated  from  South  to  North,  the  most  southerly  beuig 
Arkfi,  Zim.arra,  Usnu,  Sianna,  and  Simirra,  and  the  most 
northerly  Eilitarbi  and  Bumami. 

Now,  even  twenty  years  ago,  the  identification 
of  the  Azri-ia-u  of  Tiglath-pileser's  Annals  with 
Azariah  of  Judah  was  disputed,  for  example,  by 
Gutschmid  (Neite  Bcitragc  zur  Kunde  des  altcn 
Orients,  p.  55  tf.)  and  by  Wellhausen  (Jahrhiirher 
fiir  deutsclw  Theologie,  xx.  632).  But  at  that  time 
there  were  certainly  many  reasons  why  the  identi- 
fication made  by  Schrader  should  have  been  con- 
sidered sound.  No  other  land  Ja-u-di  was  then 
known  except  Judah.  Judah  was  called  by  that 
name  in  the  Nabt-Junus  inscription  preserved  in 
Constantinople,  in  which  Sennacherib  refers  to  his 
subjugation  of  tiezelfiah  (of  which  the  following 
is  a  transcription,  line  15  :  rap-iu  na-gu-u  (mdtu) 
Ja-u-di  Haza-ki-a-u  Sarri-iu  i-mid  ap-Sa-a-ni), 
while  the  references  to  the  same  king  in  connexion 
with  (»u7tu)  Ja-u-da-ai  in  the  Prism  inscription 
of  Sennacherib  (col.  ii.  72,  iii.  12,  13)  need  not  be 
cited  here.  Indeed  Tiglath-pileser  himself  (2  llawl. 
67,  line  61)  refers  to  Ja-u-lui-zi  (mAtu)  Ja-u-da-ai 
in  close  juxtaposition  to  the  rulers  of  Ashkelon 
and  Edom,  so  that  it  is  absolutely  certain  that 
Ja-u-lutzi  ( =  Joahaz)  is  the  Assyrian  name  of  king 
Ahaz.  Moreover,  the  fact  here  mentioned,  that 
Ahaz  paid  tribute  to  the  Assyrian  monarch,  is 
certified  by  2  K  16*.  Certainly,  the  evidence  for 
Schrader's  identification  seemed  cogent. 

Nevertheless,  there  are  serious  diliiculties  in  tha 
way  of  its  acceptance.  In  the  first  place,  the 
geographical  conditions  militate  strongly  against 
it.  The  nineteen  districts  of  Hamath  can  hardly 
have  depended  for  supjiort  on  the  ruler  of  so 
distant  a  realm  as  Jmiah.  Second///,  the  chioiio- 
logical  argument  tells  decisively  against  it.     For 


UZZIEL 


VALE,  VALLEY 


845 


if  Uzziali  was  the  mainstay  of  a  conspiracy  of 
nineteen  Uaiuatbit«  States  in  73S  B.C.,  winch  is  the 
year  wliich  Assyrian  data  would  lead  us  to  assign 
to  its  overthrow,  we  can  allow  only  three  years  lor 
the  leprosy  of  L'zziah,  the  interregnum  of  Jotham, 
Jotham's  sole  reign,  and  the  Syro-Ephraimite  war 
against  Judah.  Thirdly,  the  discovery  of  the 
Zinjerli  inscription  (on  the  stele  erected  by  3-i  i3 
the  son  of  raiuininiu,  king  of  Sam'al,  to  his  father) 
has  thrown  a  fresh  light  on  the  problem.  There 
we  lind  mention  of  a  land  nic  (and  also  on  the 
stele  of  Hadad,  erected  by  Panauimu  its  king). 
We  might  with  Winckler  regard  the  k  here  as 
hamza  and  pronounced  as  u,  and  thus  read  the 
word  (as  the  Assyrians  did)  Ja'uUi.  This  country 
lay  north  of  the  Orontes  and  bordered  on  the  land 
Unki,  and  it  is  possible  that  Sargon  refers  to  it  in 
his  Niuir.  insc.  line  8:  {nWUu)  Ja-u-du  Sa  aSciriu 
riiku,  'J.  whose  situation  is  remote.'  The  men- 
tion of  Uaniath  in  the  same  line  lends  colour  to 
this  view.  The  objection  tliat  the  name  Azi-ijuhu, 
with  its  Heb.  name  of  deity,  clearly  indicates 
a  Hebrew  personality,  loses  force  when  we  re- 
member that  llamath,  as  we  learn  from  the  same 
inscription  of  Sarijon,  liad  a  prince  called  Jauhi'di, 
elsewhere  called  Ilu-bi'di.  This  shows  that  a  deitj' 
Jafiu  was  also  worshipped  in  those  regions. 
Lastly,  the  close  similarity  which  subsisted  be- 
tween the  language  of  the  Zinjerli  inscr.  and 
Hebrew  renders  it  in  no  way  improbable  that  the 
land  Ja'di  should  have  a  ruler  named  Azariah. 
The  capital  of  the  land  was  KuUani,  the  Caluo 
of  Is  K/'. 


This  is  the  evidence  ba.sed  on  the  arguments  used 
by  Winckler  (Alttcst.  Forsch.  i.  (18'J3)  pp.  1-23  ; 
CI.  KAT'  i.  54 ff.,  202)  for  disconnecting  the  inscr. 
of  Tiglath-pileser  from  any  reference  to  Uzziali 
(Azariah)  of  Judah.*  McCurdy,  however,  upholds 
Schrader's  position  (IIPMi.  413ir.),  but  the  argu- 
ments of  Winckler  have  been  adopted  by  Hommel 
(art.  Assyria  in  this  Diet.  vol.  i.  p.  185,  footn.t), 
Guthe(CF/  p.  18S),  Maspero  (Pasdng,  etc.,  150). 
The  chronological  difficulties  which  beset  the  biblical 
student  of  the  latter  half  of  the  Sth  cent,  become 
in  this  way  somewhat  lessened.  The  death-j-ear  of 
Uzziah  may  be  placed,  as  Winckler  suggests,  in  739 
B.C.,  but  it  may  easily  be  earlier  (KAT'  i.  320) — in 
fact  as  early  as  750  (Winckler,  Ocsch.  Israel's, 
Theil  i.  p.  179).  Cf.  Cheyne,  Introduction  to 
Isaiah,  pp.  4,  16  IT.  OwEN  C.  WlllTEUOUSE. 

UZZIEL  (Sx'iy  '  my  strength  is  El,'  cf.  the  name 
.Tiy  Uzziah  ;  LX'X  '0^c)iri\).—i.  A  son  of  Kohath, 
Ex"  6'»*',  Lv  10^  Nu  a'"-*',  1  Ch  (i-  '»  lo'"  -'3'--  '^ 
24'-^ ;  with  gentilic  name  the  Uzzielites  (""rN'!;';"), 
Nu  3=',  1  Cli  --0^.  2.  A  Simeonite  ;  one  of  those 
who  took  part  in  the  expedition  to  Mt.  Seir, 
1  Ch  4^-.  3.  Eponym  of  a  Benjamite  familj', 
1  Ch  7'.  4.  A  musician,  of  the  sons  of  Human, 
1  Ch25Mcalled  in  v.'*  AZAREI.).  5.  A  Levite,  of 
the  sons  of  Jeduthun,  2  Ch  2'J'^.  6.  One  of  the 
guild  of  the  goldsmiths,  who  took  part  in  the 
repairing  of  the  wall,  Neh  3'.     7.  See  Jaaziel. 

*  It  the  view  a<lvocated  in  this  art.  be  correct,  the  statement 
in  art.  CuRU.NOLOur  op  01  (vol.  i.  p.  iOV  ad  An.)  will  have  to  be 
moditled  ftccordiogly. 


VAGABOND.— This  English  word  ia  nsed  in  AV 
in  the  sense  of  wanderer  (Lat.  rayabundus,  from 
vagari  to  wander).  It  is  applied  to  Cain,  Gn  4''' 
'  A  fugitive  and  a  vagabond  shalt  thou  be  in  the 
earth '  (n;;  yj,  LXX  rriyai'  xal  rp^fiuv,  Symra.  ivir- 
Taros  itai  d/cardtrTaTOS,  Vulg.  vagus  etprojuqus,  Tind. 
'  A  vagabunde  and  a  rennagate,'  liV  '  A  fugitive 
and  a  wanderer '),  4" ;  Ps  109'"  '  Let  his  children 
be  continually  vagabonds,  and  beg '  (vjj  lyii;  yi:] ; 
Cov.  '  Let  his  children  be  vagabundes  and  begg 
their  bred').  So  in  Jg  11'  Cov.  'There  resorted 
unto  him  [Jephthah]  vagabundes,  and  weiite  out 
with  him';  Fuller,  Huly  War,  206,  'Being  to 
shape  their  course  into  Palestine,  they  went  into 
Prance  ;  showing  the}-  hailavertigo  in  their  heads, 
mistaking  the  West  for  the  East  ;  or  else,  that 
like  vagabonds  they  were  never  out  of  their  way ' ; 
Uoldsmith,  Citizen,  vii.  '  He  who  goes  from  country 
to  country,  guided  by  the  blind  impulse  of  curiosity, 
is  onl}'  a  vagabond.' 

The  atij.  occurs  in  Ac  19"  'Certain  of  the 
vagabond  Jews,  exorcists'  {tCiv  TrtpKpxoiUrwi'  'Ion- 
iaiuM',  i:V  'strolling').  So  Melvill,  Diary,  361, 
'To  take  order  with  the  pure  r  =  poor]  that  there 
be  not  vagabund  beggirs' ;  Shaks.  Ant.  and  Clcop. 
1.  iv.  45 — 

'  Lilt)  to  k  rat^bond  flag  upon  the  stream.' 

J.  Hastings. 
VAHEB   (3CI1). — An   nnidentilicd   locality,   men- 
tioned only  in  the  obscure  quotation  from  the  book 
of  tiio  Wads  of  the  Lord  in  Nu  2"*  (BA  ZwijS, 
V  and  Luc.  Zoiji).    See  Supuau. 

VAIL.-See  Veil. 


YAIZATHA  (Kn;:!. ;  B  Zapov9uTo!,  A  Za/SoiryaSd,  K 
Za/3oi'5e(?di',  Luc.  'liov0dO). — One  of  the  ten  sons  of 
Hainan,  Est  9°.  The  name  may  be  =  I'ers.  Vuhyaz- 
dAta,  '  given  of  the  Best  one  (cf.  Benfey,  Pers. 
Keilin.ichr.  [1847]  18,  93;  V.  Spiegel,  Altpers. 
KeUinschr.  240). 

YALE,  VALLEY.— Fci/e  stands  in  AV  for  two 
Hebrew  words  p^y  and  nj'fy  ;  and  valley  for  live 
Hebrew  words,  n^,?;,  k-?,  Snj,  pcji,  n^cf,  and  one 
Greek  word,  tpipay^  (Lk  3°T)-  Of  these  words, 
the  meaning  and  use  of  ."Hij;,  a  broad  plain  be- 
tween hills,  nS;:^  lowland  (so  always  in  KV),  and 
Snj  wadt/,  have  been  dealt  with  uniler  Plain,  3. 
7,  and  River,  3,  respectively  ;  so  that  n;3,  pfv, 
and  <f>6.pa-fi  alone  remain  to  be  considered  here. 

1.  k;3  (<;a»'),  always  '  valley '  in  both  AV  and 
RV,  is  a  narrow  valley,  and  would  be  more  ex- 
actl3'  represented  by  glen  or  ravine.  The  gai't 
mentioned  in  the  Of  are— the  v.  of  Hinnom  (.los 
15'  and  frequently;  'the  valley,'  Jer  2''''),  which 
gave  its  name  to  the  'rrt//c'/-gate' of  Jems.  (2  Ch 
2G»,  Neh  2'»- '»  3'») ;  of  Iphtab'cl,  Jos  19"-  ",  on  the 
border  between  Zebuhin  and  Asher  ;  of  Zeboirn 
(the  hya-nas),  IS  13'»,  S.E.  of  Gibenh  ;  of  Salt, 
apiiarently  somewhere  near  Edom  (2  S  8"=1  Ch 
18'»,  cf.  Ps  eO""';  2K  14',  2  Ch  2.j") ;  the  v.  of 
craftsmen,  or  smiths  (IS  13'";  cf.  IIGIIL  160  f., 
211),  ICh  4"  (KV  here  Geharashim),  N.h  ll", 
near  Lod  (Lydda)  ;  and  of  Zcphathah,  2  Ch  14", 
neer  MarCsha  (though  prob.  '  in  the  v.  north  of 
M.'  should  be  read  with  LXX  ;  cf.  Buhl,  89),  no 
doubt  the  Wady  cl-Afranj,  HGHL  231,  233. 
Valleys  not  expressly  named  are — the  v.  in  front 
of  Beth-pe'or,  a  station  of  the  Isr.,  in  which  Moses 


846 


VALE,  VALLEY 


VANITY 


was  buried  (Nu  21=»,  Dt  3=9  4-"  34«)  ;  one  on  the  N. 
of  Al  {Jos  8")  ;  one  near  Gedor  (1  Cli  4^  ;  but  see 
Gedor,  2);  one  in  tlie  'vale'  of  Elah  (1  S  17"), 
perhaps  the  '  deep  trench  which  the  coniliiiied 
streams'  of  the  W.  es-Sur  and  the  W.  el-Jiiuly 
'  have  cut  through  the  level  land  '  below  the  point 
where  they  meet  (HGUL  2-28)  ;  the  '  valley  of 
vision,' in  or  close  to  Jerus.  (Is  22'-');  one  close 
under  Samaria  (Is  28'-  *,  Mic  1^) ;  one  mentioned 
as  the  ideal  burial-place  of  the  hosts  of  Go^'  (Ezk 
3,jii.  II.  16) .  and  the  ravine  which  Zech.  (H-"-'-') 
pictures  as  being  split  through  the  Mt.  of  Olives, 
when  J"  descends  upon  it  to  deliver  His  people. 

The  word  occurs  also,  without  reference  to 
speoitic  localities,  in  Ps  23*  ('a  ravine  of  deathly 
gloom,'  fig.  of  a  situation  of  loneliness  and  peril)  ; 
Is  40''  (LXX  <p6.pa.yi,  whence  Lk  3°) ;  and  in  the 
plur.  generally  (usu.  opp.  to  mountains),  2  K  2", 
Ezk  6'  7'«  3I'=  32=  35«  30*- «.  In  1  S  17"'^  (RV  'to 
Gai')  'to  Oath'  is  evidently  to  be  read  with  LXX 
and  most  moderns;  see  v.'^''.  In  the  Apocryplia 
'valley'  stands  for  <!>ipayi,  Jth  28  V  11"  12'  13'"; 
and  for  ai\6i>,  Jth  4-'  7"-  "  I0'»- ". 

2.  p':;^  'emek  (EV  mostly  valley ;  AV  vale  in 
Gn  143-  8- 10  3714^  to  ^vijich  RV  adds  Gn  14",  Jos 
8"  15«  18",  1  S  172- '9  21»).  'Emek  (lit.  depth, 
deepening)  is  '  a  highlander's  word  for  a  valley 
as  he  looks  dotvn  into  it,  and  is  applied  to  wide 
avenues  running  up  into  a  mountainous  country, 
like  the  Vale  of  Elah,  the  Vale  of  Hebron,  and 
the  Vale  of  Aijalon '  (HGHL  384).  It  thus  de- 
notes something  broader  than  a  gai',  but  less 
extensive  or  plain-like  than  a  bik'dh  (PLAIN,  3);* 
and  it  is  a  pity  tliat,  for  distinction,  especially 
from  gai'  ('valley'),  it  has  not  in  AV  been  uni- 
formly represented  by  '  vale.' 

The  importance  of  distinj^ishing:  specific  geo^.  terms  in  the 
OT  was  long  ago  pointed  out,  and  well  illustrated,  bv  Stanley, 
S.  and  P.,  Appendix,  pp.  475-634;  cf.  UGULlib'iS.  The  student 
will  find  it  a  good  plan,  in  the  case  both  of  these  and  of  other 
synonyms  (cf.  Creeping  Things  ;  Offer,  Offering)  which  are 
confused  in  EV,  to  mark  on  the  margin  of  his  RV  either  the 
Heb.  word  used  or  its  proper  English  equivalent. 

The  following  are  the  'emeks  mentioned  in  the 
OT  :— the  'vale'  of  Siddim,  Gn  14»-  »■ '»;  of  Shaveh, 
Gn  14",  said  there  to  be  the  same  as  the  '  King's 
Vale,'  which  is  mentioned  also  in  2  S  18'*  t  (accord- 
ing to  Jos.  Ant.  VII.  X.  3,  2  stadia  from  Jerus.) ;  of 
Hebron,  Gn  37"  ;  of  Achor,  Jos  1^-^^  15',  Hos  2'», 
Is  G5'°  ;  of  Aijalon,  Jos  10",  a  '  broad  fertile  plain 
gently  sloping  up '  between  the  hills  '  to  the  foot 
of  the  Central  Range'  (£rG.ffi  210) ;  of  Rephaim, 
S.W.  of  Jerus.,  on  the  border  between  Judah  and 
Benj.,  Jos  15*  18'«,  2S  S'*- »  23'"  (  =  lCh  14"-"' 
11"),  Is  17' ;t  of  Jezreel,  Jos  17",  Jg  6»»,  Hos  1», 
not  the  '  great  plain '  of  Esdraelon  (Jth  1*),  IV. 
of  Jezreel,  stretching  towards  Carmel,  but  '  the 
broad,  deep  vale  E.  of  Jezreel  which  descends  to 
the  Jordan  '  (HGHL  384  f.) ;  of  I^e?!?.  Jos  I8-1  (RV 
'Emekkeziz,'  as  the  name  occurs  in  an  enumeration 
of  ciliet),  somewhere  in  E.  Benjamin  ;  of  Elah,  I  S 
17"-"'2I»,  now  prob.  the  IV.  es-Sunt,  18  m.  W.S.W. 
of  Jerus.  (HGHL  226  f.);  of  Beracah  ('Ble.ssin" '), 
2  Ch  20='-  *",  in  or  near  the  wilderness  of  Tekoa 
(v.»);  of  Succoth,  Ps  60«=I0S'',  tlie  hroad  part  of 
the  Jordan  valley  about  Succoth,  near  the  ford 
Damiyeh,  S.  of  the  Jabbok  (cf.  Jos  13"  '  in  the 
vale,'  of  the  same  locality) ;  of  Baca  ('  weeping  '), 
Ps  84*  ;  of  Gibeon,  Is  28"  (prob.  some  part  of  one 
of  the  gorges  which  lead  down  from  Gibeon  to 
Aijalon,  Jos  10'"-"  ;  cf.  HGHL  210)  ;  of  Jehosha- 
phat,  Jl  3'- "  (perhaps  the  fairly  broad  and  open 

•  Only  once  or  twice  does  It  seem  to  be  used  of  what  is 
elsewhere  described  by  one  of  these  words  (Jer  21*3?  32**; 
Ig  6i»). 

t  AV  '  dale '  in  these  two  passages ;  RV  inconsistently  '  King's 
Vale  '  in  On  14",  '  king's  dale  '  in  2  S  18'8. 

X  RV,  again  inconsistently,  *  vale '  in  Joshua,  elsewhere 
'  valley.* 


part  of  the  nahal  of  the  Kidron,  between  Jerus. 
and  the  Mt.  of  Olives),  called  in  v.'*  by  the  emblem- 
atic name  '  vale  of  decision  '  (i.e.  of  judgment). 

'Vales'  without  specified  names  are  alluded  to  in 
Jos  8'^  ('  the  vale  '  near  Ai,  rightly  distinguished  in 
RV  from  ^tlie  •  valley  '  ((/af)  of  v.");  13*  (in  Reu- 
ben) ;  19''  (a  place  Beth-haemek,  in  Asher) ;  Jg  '1" 
(the  Plain  of  Esdraelon);  7'-8-'-  (apparently  the 
vale  of  Jezreel,  0''')  ;  18-"  ('  tlie  vale  tliat  belongeth 
to  Beth-Kehob  ')  ;  1  S  G"  (near  Beth-shemesh  ;  the 
broad  valley,  the  ujiper  part  of  the  Wddy  es-Surar 
(the  ancient  nahal  of  Sorek),  opening  out  westwards 
and  leading  down  in  the  direction  of  Ekron  ;  (cf. 
HGHL  218  f.) ;  IS  31'=1  Ch  10^  (prob.  the  vale  of 
Jezreel) ;  Jer  21'"  (very  uncertain  ;  the  Tyiopocon 
valley?  or  as  Jl  3-,  above?  or  not  of  Jerusalem  at 
all?);  32-"'(the(7«i'  of  Hinnom);  47Mof  the  Phil, 
plain,  though  hardly  suitable,  in  spite  of  HGHL 
655  ;  read  prob.  '  the  remnant  of  the  'Andkim'  [opj;^ 
for  D|-3Pj;  ;  see  Jos  11^],  with  LXX,  Ges.,  Hitz., 
Graf,  Giesebr.  etc.);  4'J''*  (in  Amnion).  The  word 
is  also  used  generally  of  '  vales '  in  different  parts 
of  the  country,  mentioned  often  either  with  refer- 
ence to  their  fertility  (cf.  1  S  6",  Is  17'),  or  as  suit- 
able for  war-chariots  to  deploy  in  ;  Nu  14^,  .l^os 
17",  Jg  l'"- «,  1  K  20-^,  1  Ch  12"  '27-'«,  Job  39'"-  "i  ( '  he 
paweth  in  the  valley,'  of  the  war-horse),  Ps  65", 
Ca  2'  ('the  lily  of  the  valleys').  Is  22'  (about 
Jerus.),  Jer  48*  (in  Moab),  Mic  1*. 

S.  R.  Driver, 

YANIAH  (n;n  [but  text  dub.] ;  B  Owex"<i.  A 
OiJoiii'id,  S  OiiiepfX'i,  Luc.  Ouand). — One  of  the  sons 
of  Bani,  who  had  married  a  foreign  wife,  Ezr  10^. 

VANITY 1.  ^lan  (1)  lit.  a  breath  of  air,  as  a 

gentle  breeze.  Is  57^' ;  a  breath  of  the  mouth.  Pa 
144* ;  hence  (2)  fig.  evanescence,  emptiness.  La  4", 
Job  9»;  (3)  idols  and  idolatry,  Dt  32"',  Jer  I0«, 
2K  I71',  Ps  318;  (4)  exhalation,  mist,  Ec  6*  U' 
(cf.  Abel  [wh.  see],  Gn  4^).  2.  ]yt}  (1)  labour, 
sorrow,  Hos  Q*,  Hab  3'  (cf.  Ben-oni  for  Benjamin,  Gn 
35") ;  (2)  nothingness.  Is  41® ;  worthlessness,  sin- 
fulness. Job  31^  Pr  17*;  (3)  idols  and  idolatry. 
Is  66^  1  S  152s  (cf.  Beth-aven  for  Beth-el,  Hos  4" 
[see  Cheyne,  p.  69] ;  Aven  for  On  in  Egypt,  Ezk 
30" ;  Aven  for  Heliopolis  in  Syria,  Am  1').  3. 
Kiv"  (1)  wickedness,  Job  11";  (2)  calamity.  Is  30^; 
(3)  falseliood,  Ps  12- ;  (4)  emptiness,  uselessness, 
Ps  60",  Mai  3",  Jer  2™,  Ps  127'.  4.  p-)  (1)  einpti- 
ness,  Jer  51**;  hence  (2)  fig.  a  useless,  worthless 
thing,  Ps  2'  42  73'^  Lv  26",  Is  49*,  Hab  2".  5.  mn 
(1)  waste,  Gn  P,  Dt32'»,  Is  24'"  ;  hence  (2)  fig.  empti- 
ness, uselessness.  Is  49''  41^  45".  Greek  /iaroiiri)?, 
what  is  devoid  of  truth  and  fitness,  2  P  2" ;  per- 
verseness,  Eph  4"  ;  frailty,  Ro  8-°  ;  also  liaTaioKoyla., 
empty  talk,  1  Ti  1° ;  ^ToioXcryos,  idle  talker,  Tit  1'° ; 
/idraios,  devoid  of  force,  truth,  success,  result,  Ja  1", 
1  Co  15"  S"",  Tit  39,  IP  1"  ;  tA  /tidraia,  idols  and 
idolatry,  Ac  14" ;  (uiTaibw,  to  become  profitless, 
emiity,  Ro  P'.  Also  Kcv6i,  literally  empty,  fig- 
void  of  truth,  Eph  5"  Col  2» ;  void  of  worth,  Ja  S** ; 
void  of  result,  1  Co  15'" ;  (ccvoSoffo,  groundless 
self-esteem,  empty  pride,  Ph  2' ;  Kevboo^os,  con- 
ceited. Gal  5-° ;  Kcvoipuivla,  empty  discussion, 
1  Ti  6=»,  2  Ti  2" ;  Kei>6a,  to  empty,  to  make  void, 
Ro  4'*,  2  Co  9*:  also  some  other  words  of  less 
importance. 

The  varied  senses,  literal  and  figurative,  of  the 
words  tr.  'vanity'  indicate  the  wide  range  of  ita 
use  in  the  Scriptures.  The  literal  tr.  '  breath ' 
would  probably  be  better  than  '  vanity '  in  several 
passages  (Ps  78^  94"  144*,  Is  57")  in  which  the 
word  IS  used  to  indicate  the  evanescence  of  man's 
life  (also  Ec  6*  11«,  cf.  Ro  8-'"),  which  itself  is  unsub- 
stantial and  unsatisfving  (Job  7'-",  Ps  S^-*-", 
Hab  2'^).  Man  himself  cannot  be  trusted  (P«  60" 
62'),  and  this  his  worthlessness  is  shown  alike  in 
falsehood  (Job  31»,  Ps  12»  418,  p,  308^  jg  gs*  69*) 


VASH2JI 


VEIL 


847 


and  in  wickedness  (Job  11"  31',  Ps  10',  Is  5",  Eph 
4'',  2  P  2'*),  of  which  the  dis<aster  and  disappoint- 
ment of  his  lot  are  but  the  punishment  (Job  15-"-  *', 
Is  30-'',  Pr  22'),  although  man  dares  to  question 
God's  meanin"  in  making  him  (Ps  Sg",  of.  Is  45"). 

As  there  is  out  one  Gud,  idols  are  unreal  (Is  60', 
Jer  10'*  51",  of.  1  Co  S*) ;  their  worship  is  unprofit- 
able (Dt  32=',  1  S  lo'^,  2  K  17",  Ps  4-  24*  31«,  Jer  2» 
103. 8  1^19  ig«  cf.  Ac  14"),  and  their  worshippers 
worthless  (1  S  la"-",  2  K  17",  Is  41-"'  449).  (jnjgr 
the  same  judgment  come  false  prophecy  (Jer  23", 
La  2",  Ezk  13'"-=',  Zee  10=),  reliance  on  any  other 
help  than  God's  (Is  30',  Jer  3^,  La  4"),  and  ritual 
without  righteousness  (Is  1",  of.  Ja  l-»  2=»).  WhUe 
to  doubt  or  unbelief,  God's  service  (Ps  73",  Mai  3"), 
Bis  dealing  (Jer  2™,  Is  49^),  and  even  His  law 
(Jer  8"),  may  seem  to  come  to  naught,  vet  He  does 
reward  those  who  do  His  will  (Dt  32",  Is  65'^), 
and  fulfils  His  promises  (la  45")  as  His  threats 
(Ezk  e").  AVitliout  His  blessing  (Ps  127''),  or  by 
His  curse  (Lv  20'°),  man's  labour  is  profitless  (cf. 
Pr  13"  21°),  for  man  before  God  is  notliing  (Is 
40"-  ^),  and  his  charms  worthless  (Pr  SI*'). 

Jesus  pronounced  worthless  alike  Gentile  ritual 
(Mt  C)  and   Pharisaic   piety  (.Mt  15«,  Mk  7',  cf. 

1  1"  1'*),  and  Paul  so  judged  pagan  philosophy  and 
the  speculative  theology  which,  under  its  inlluence, 
was  finding  entrance  into  the  Church  (Ko  1'-',  Eph 
5»,  1  Co  3-",  Col  28,  and  1  Ti  1'  6=",  2  Ti  2",  Tit  l'» 
3').  Christian  faith,  life,  and  service  have  worth 
ana  use  (1  Co  Id'"-"*,  1  Th  2'),  but  may  lose  these 
through  man's  failure  or  faithlessness  (1  Co  9'°, 

2  Co  &  9r>,  Ph  2'«,  1  Th  3").  Denial  of  the  resurrec- 
tion of  Christ  m.nkes  Christian  preaching  false 
(1  Co  15")  and  Christian  faith  profitless  (1  Co  15") ; 
and  even  belief  in  works  emi)tie3  faith  of  worth 
(Ro  4")  and  Christ's  death  of  meaning  (Gal  2-'). 

Thus,  in  tlie  Bible,  '  vanity '  is  used  in  the  ob- 
jective sense  of  emptiness,  wortlilessness,  unprofit- 
ableness, uselessness,  deceit,  and  illusion  ;  in  the 
subjective  sense  of  conceit  or  pride  it  is  not  used, 
but  the  idea  is  expressed  by  the  compound  words 
vainglory  (Ph  2")  and  vainglorious  (Gal  5=°).  The 
fullest  treatment  of  the  vanity  of  niiin's  life,  work, 
joy,  and  hope  is  found  in  the  Bk.  of  EcCLE.sia.stes 
(w"hich  see).  A.  E.  Garvie. 

YASHNI.  —  Samuel's  firstborn  son,  according 
to  MT  of  1  Ch  0"  (Eng.28)^  wliich  is  followed  by 
AV.  RV,  following  the  Syr.  (see  mg.),  and  on  the 
strength  of  v.  "*(*>)  and  the  ||  1  S  8=,  supplies  Joel  as 
the  name  of  Samuel's  oldest  son,  and  substitutes 
'  and  the  .second  Abiah  '  (nj^x  'jsni)  for  '  Vaahni  and 
Ahiah  '  (i;;xi  -jifi).  This  is  supported  also  by  Luc. 
[although  BA  have  i:op(e)i]  luJA  rai  i  SiOrfpos 
A/3id,  and  is  adopted  by  Driver,  Kittel,  Benzinger, 
tt  al. 

YASHTI  CPt'I,  peril.  =  Per8.  vahista,  'best'  [Jen- 
ten,  Zl-uhr.  /.  Kundc  d.  Morgenl.  1892,  jip.  63,  70, 
connects  the  name  with  that  of  the  Elamite  god- 
de.s8  Haiti  or  Waiti ;  see  also  Wildeboer,  Kurzer 
Udnim.  •  Esther,'  p.  173]  ;  BA  'Affrlf,  Luc.  OOikttIi'). 
—The  name  of  the  queen  of  Ahasuerus  (Xerxes), 
Est  1»-  "•  "■  "•  >••  "• '»  2'-  *■ ".  See  art.  Esther  in 
vol.  i.  p.  775. 

VAU  OR  WAW  (1) The  sixth  letter  of  the  He- 
brew alphabet,  and  as  such  emidoyed  in  the  119th 
Psalm  to  designate  the  6th  part,  each  verse  of 
which  begins  with  this  letter.  In  this  Dictionary 
it  is  transliterated,  when  consonantal,  by  v  or  w. 

VEDAN  (pi  [AV,  taking  )  as  conjunction,  tr. 
•Dan  also'],"Ezk  27'°).— >liime  of  a  city  (Rashi). 
It  is  identical  in  form  with  the  Arabic  Wadd.in, 
a  name  clearly  connected  with  the  god  NVadd,  w'lio 
was  worshipped  by  Kalb  and  other  tribes.     The 


geographers  mention  three  places  of  this  name,  of 
which  the  only  one  that  can  be  plausibly  identi- 
fied with  Vedan  is  midway  between  Mecca  and 
Medinah,  six  miles  from  Abwa  on  the  pilgrims' 
road  (Istakhri,  etc.).  It  was  celebrated  in  Islam 
as  the  scene  of  Mohammed's  first  campaign,  and 
al.so  as  the  home  of  the  poet  Nusaib.  .Modem 
travellers  in  this  perilous  region  do  not  appear  to 
mention  the  name.  P^zekiel  says  that  Vedan  ex- 
ported goods  from  Uzal  to  Tj-re,  impl3'ing  that  the 
first  was  a  port.  Waddan  may  at  one  time  have 
been  one,  and  have  ceased  to  be  so  owing  to  the 
recession  of  the  sea.  If  Uzal  is  Saii'a,  the  goods 
had  to  come  a  long  distance.  According  to  Burck- 
hardt  {Travels  in  Arabia,  French  ed.  ii.  216),  the 
pilgrims  take  forty-three  days  from  §ana  to 
Medinah.     See  Uzal. 

Brugsch  (lielifjion  dcr  alien  ^r/t/pter,  p.  152) 
suggests  that  Vedan  is  to  be  identified  with 
'  Uethen,  also  written  Ueten,  Ucden,  and  Uedenu, 
a  spice-bearing  country,  situated  to  the  east  of 
Egypt,  whose  inhabitants,  the  Uethentians,  were 
first  subdued  by  king  Thotmosis  III.'  According 
to  Mariette  (Karnak,  p.  47),  the  monument  to 
which  he  refers  is  a  work  of  imagination,  not  of 
history,  and  it  would  be  a  mistake  to  demand  of  it 
decisive  arguments  on  questions  of  geography. 
D.  S.  Marooliouth. 
VEIL  and  ( AV)  YAIL.— In  the  AV  •  vail '  and 
•  veil '  are  both  used,  and  that  alike  for  the  article 
of  dress  so  called,  and  for  a  part  of  the  tabernacle 
and  the  temple.  The  spelling  'veil 'in  AV  does 
not  occur  outside  the  NT,  except  in  Ca  5'.  On  the 
other  h.and,  '  vail '  is  not  used  in  the  NT,  except  in 
2  Co  S'"'-     In  RV  '  veil '  is  the  uniform  spelling. 

i.  The  Veil  of  the  Tabernacle  and  the  Ternple. — 
Two  Heb.  words  used  in  connexion  with  the  taber- 
nacle are  tr.  in  AV  'veU.'  1.  tido  {masa/ch),  RV 
'screen,'  stands  for  the  coloured  linen  covering 
which  hunjj  before  tlie  door  of  the  hi'kdl  or  Holy 
Place.*  It  IS  also  used  for  a  similar  covering  whicli 
hung  in  front  of  the  gate  entering  the  court. t  2. 
njij  (jmrCketh),  perh.  from  Assyr.  '  what  shuts  oil',' 
is'  the  technical  term  for  the  veil  of  the  same 
material  which  hung  between  the  Iiikal  and  diblr 
or  Most  Holy  Place;!  for  this  we  find  also  a 
combination  of  the  two  words,  thus  ^y^n  n^i?.  § 
All  the  above  occurrences  are  in  P,  and  they 
relate  to  the  tabcrnarle — a  significant  fact. 

We  read  of  no  veil  in  Solomon's  temple  nor  in 
Ezekiel's,  except  that  2  Ch  3''',  written  under  P's 
inlluence,  says  Solomon's  temple  had  a  pdrdketh 
or  inner  veil.  Besides  the  one  passage  adduced, 
there  is  no  Biblical  evidence  for  this  fact.  Thenius 
reconstructs  1  K  U-'  so  as  to  bring  the  word  par- 
Ckcth  into  the  text;  but  he  has  absolutely  no 
support  from  MSS,  versions,  or  ancient  citations. 
Lund  II  and  the  older  authorities  generally  take 
for  granted  that  the  outer  and  inner  veils  of  the 
tabernacle  were  found  also  in  Solomon's  temple. 
The  only  proof  Lund  gives  is  the  above  passage 
from  Chronicles. 

It  is  probable  that  Zerubbabel's  temple  had  veils 
corresponding  to  the  mdsakk  and  jmroketk  of  the 
tabern.acle,  but  there  is  no  certainty  of  this.  Since 
tlie  taliernacle  follows  the  second  temple  in  so 
many  matters  in  which  the  latter  dill'ers  from 
Soloinon's  temple  (outer  and  inner  courts,  etc.),  it  is 
a  priori  likely  that  they  coincided  in  having  an 
outer  veil  before  the  entrance  of  the  hi'kdl  and 
an  inner  one  before  the  entrance  of  the  rfCWr.H 

•  Ex  •iC.aOf.  3»38  400.  t  Ex  85"  3»«. 

I  Ex'.;(Vil-3J  l»-3.'>,  etc. 

{  Ex  3ri'2  3|)»«  4i)'il,  Nu  4».  In  Lv  24'  nil'.T  nihp  'Tell  ot  the 
testimony'  (becauBO  hiditig  the  ark),  4"  c'jpn  njTJ. 

n  Utitirilhiimer,  307''. 

^  r«  xxraTiTor^iA,  with  the  article,  ■tnndn  in  LXX  (Ex  26** 
etc.)  und  in  Philo  {Vit.  iloyt.  Ml.  Ul.  6)  lor  tbg  inner  veil,  tht 
veil  pre-eminently. 


848 


VEIL 


VERSIONS 


The  evidence  that  Herod's  temple  had  tlie  two 
veils  referred  to  above  is  stronger,  though  not  con- 
clusive. It  is  but  one  veil — the  inner — that  is 
spoken  of  in  the  NT,  and  that  only  in  two  con- 
nexions, viz.  the  account  of  the  Crucifixion  in  the 
Synoptics,*  ('the  veil  of  the  temple  was  rent  in 
twain ')  and  also  in  Hebrews.f  In  the  latter  it  is 
the  tabernacle,  not  the  temple,  that  is  meant ;  but 
as  this  Epistle  was  \vritten  almost  certainly  before 
the  destruction  of  the  temple  in  A.D.  71,  there 
would  have  been  some  hint  of  it  if  the  sanctuary 
known  to  the  writer  lacked  this  feature. 

Josephua  clearly  points  out  the  existence  of  the  two  veils  in 
the  temple  which  he  describes,  and  there  can  be  little  doubt 
that  his  account  is  based  on  what  he  saw.  Of  the  outer  one  he 
says,  '  it  was  a  Babylonian  curtain  of  fine  linen  interwoven  with 
blue  scarlet  and  purple,  and  of  a  contexture  that  roused  ad- 
miration.' I  The  inner  veil,  it  seems  implied,  was  of  the  same 
kind. 

Maimonides  says  there  were  thirteen  veils  about  the  temple, 
viz.  seven  for  the  seven  pates  of  the  court ;  one  at  the  gate  of 
the  porch,  one  at  the  gate  of  the  temple  ;  two  between  the 
h^kc'U  and  d/^tir,  and  two  in  the  space  above  the  house. 
Lightfoot  adopts  this  opinion.}  Another  Jewish  opinion  which 
Lightfoot.l!  Lund,^  and  others  approve  of  is,  that  in  the  post- 
e.^ilic  temples  the  cubit-thick  wall  separating  lUkal  and  d^bir 
of  Solomon's  and  Ezekiel's  temples  was  lacking.  Instead  of 
it  there  were  two  veils  one  cubit  apart,  occupying  therefore 
exactly  the  same  space  as  the  wall.  In  favour  "of  this.  Light- 
foot,  followed  by  Lund,  atlduces  Maimonides  **  and  the  Talmud, 
both  Mishna  tt  and  Geuiara.t  J  though  in  the  latter  Uabbi  Jose 
raises  a  discordant  voice,  which  is  silenced  by  the  harmonizing 
Rabbis. 

ii.  The  Veil  a»  an  article  of  dress.  —  Many  of 
the  words  rendered  '  veil '  in  EV  designate  articles 
which  would  not  be  so  called  in  modem  English 
books,  as  they  do  not  cover  the  face  alone,  nor  do 
they  in  all  cases  cover  the  face  at  all.  Indeed, 
even  the  face-veils  which  may  be  seen  in  Egypt 
and  Palestine  very  rarely  cover  more  than  the 
lower  half  of  the  face,  leaving  the  eyes  and  fore- 
head entirely  exposed.  The  white  muslin  veils 
which  cover  the  whole  face  are  used  in  the  harem, 
and  are  not  intended  to  cover,  but  to  decorate  the 
face.§§ 

The  veil  plays  a  much  more  important  part  in 
women's  life  in  the  East  than  in  the  West.  No 
respectable  woman  in  an  Eastern  village  or  city 
"oes  out  without  it,  and,  if  she  does,  she  is  in 
danger  of  being  misjudged  ;  indeed,  English  and 
American  missionaries  in  Egypt  told  the  present 
writer  that  their  own  \vives  and  daughters  when 
going  about  find  it  often  best  to  wear  the  veil. 

But  it  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  ancient 
Egyptians  were  as  much  strangers  to  the  face- 
veils  as  Europeans  are,  for  on  their  paintings  and 
scul  ptures  such  veil  s  never  appear.  ||  ||  Nor  were  such 
veils  worn  by  the  ancient  Ethiopians,!!!  Greeks,*** 
or  the  primitive  inhabitants  of  Asia  Minor. ttt 
They  are  not  worn  at  the  present  day  in  Egypt  or 
Syria  by  slaves,  by  the  very  poor,  by  the  Bedawin, 
nor  in  out-of-the-way  places  by  any,  as  a  rule. 
Tlie  present  writer  stayed  two  days  with  the  chief 
of  Tobas,  between  Niblus  and  the  Jordan  :  the 
wife,  daughters,  etc.,  wore  no  veils,  and  were  quite 
free.  The  people  who  have  been  most  influenced 
by  Islamic  culture  are  most  observant  of  the  veil, 
which  is  in  favour  of  the  belief  that  its  use  in  the 
modern  East,  and  also  the  institution  of  the  harem, 
are  due  to  Islam. 

In  early  times  the  Israelites  laid  but  little  stress 
on  the  use  of  the  veil  by  women.  Neither  Sarah 
nor  Rebekah  wore  it  on  the  occasions  mentioned 
in  Gn  12"  and  24"'-,  though  Rebekah  put  it  on 

*  Mt  27=1  II  Mk  133S  II  Lk  23«.  t  61»  93  1020. 

t  KeU  ilikdash,  cap.  7;  quoted  by  Lightfoot  (Worlu,  Pit- 
man's  ed.  ix.  '2S0>. 

§  Loc.  cit.        II  nor.  Utb.  Mt  27".       ^  UeUig.  .'iDS*. 

••  Beth  Uabbcchirah,  cap.  4.  ft  MUi<L  iv.  7. 

J  t  Same  passage.  §§  See  Drkss,  voL  L  628. 

Ill  Weiss,  Kostumkvnd*,  p.  13.  «It  fb-  p.  66- 

•••  /i>.  318 ;  cf.  Liibke,  Orutulritt  der  KvmttguehictiU  (1879), 
L  149  ft. 
ni  Weil*   |7St 


when  she  appeared  before  Isaac.  When  worn  at 
all  in  Biblical  times,  it  was  mostly  *  as  an  orna- 
ment, as  is  the  case  now  with  Moslem  women  io 
the  harem.  Jewish  women  in  Palestine — Jeru- 
salem, etc. — are  not  in  the  habit  of  wearing  veils. 

Gn  24^'-  and  29-^'-  show  tliat  it  was  customary 
among  the  early  Israelites  for  betrothed  maidena 
to  veil  themselves  before  their  future  husbands, 
and  especially  at  the  time  of  the  wedding.  Thij 
custom  obtains  in  Egypt  at  the  present  day.t  The 
use  of  the  veil  by  betrothed  maidens  and  brides 
may  betoken  subjection.  St.  Paul  in  1  Co  2'''-  so 
regards  it.t 

Kashi  says,  '  The  Israelitish  women  in  Arabia 
go  out  veiled  (MSiy^),  while  those  in  India  go  out 
with  a  cloak  fastened  about  the  mouth'  (nisn?). 
It  has  been  inferred  from  Gn  38"  that  immoral 
women  were  to  be  known  by  the  veU  they  wore  ;  § 
but  probably  Tamar  wore  the  usual  veil  on  the 
occasion  referred  to  in  order  to  escape  recognition 
by  her  father-in-law,  Judah.  Nor  does  Ex  34^-" 
show  that  men  as  well  as  women  wore  veils. 
Moses  when  he  descended  from  the  mountain  wore 
a  "li??,  i.e.  a  covering :  a  word  not  elsewhere  used, 
though  its  cognate  do  is  found,||  and  has  for 
parallel  tiz}^  'clothing,'  'garment.'  .iiDol  occurs 
m  Is  25'  "(AV  '  vair)  and  28-»,  and  by  RV  it  is 
rendered  rightly  '  covering.'  iip?,  nio,  and  n;;5  are 
general  terms,  and  should  never  be  tr.  'veil.'  nio^ 
D;j'y  in  Gn  20"  does  not  mean  a  veil,  but  a  covering 
or  blinding  of  the  eyes  by  a  gift ;  cf.  Dillm.  cul 
loc,  and  vol.  iii.  p.  129*. 

The  following  Heb.  words  appear  to  denote  veils  in  a  stricter 
sense  :— 

1.  rh)p_."  See  art.  MnTLERS.  2.  The  I'vy  is  what  Rebekah 
wore  before  Isaac,  tt  and  Tamar  before  her  father-in-law.  J  t  The 
word  means  what  is  '  doubled  '  over.§§  We  know  that  it  covered 
the  face.  11 II  3.  rn'i  is  tr.  by  AV  in  Is  472,  Ca  41- s  67  'locks' 
(of  hair),  but  there  can  be  little  doubt  that  the  word  means 
some  kind  of  veil.  That  like  »]'yy  it  covered  the  face,  is  sU  we 
know  about  it.  4.  T^"!  appears  to  have  been  a  light  gannent 
which  covered  the  whole  dress, ^^  as  Jerome  •••  and  Schroder 
beld.ttt  See  Del.  (on  Is  3-),  and  art.  Ua.ntls,  vol.  iii.  p.  240». 
B.  r^5  ^^^  ^  ^^^^  ^y  Dehtzsch  to  have  been  a  kind  of  veil  or 
lightsummer  outer  garment.  The  Arabic  word  {sidn,  sadcen)  is 
explained  by  Freytag  and  Lane  as  '  veil ' ;  but  a  veil  in  the 
English  sense  is  hardly  meant  by  the  Hebrew  or  the  Arabic 
word.  It  was  probably  a  summer  outer  dress  of  fine  mat«ri&l 
(cambric  or  muslin),  and  so,  according  to  Is  323,  capable  of  much 
adornment.    See  DeL  on  Pr  31'-". 

LiTERATUUE. — In  addition  to  the  works  cited  above,  cf.  Dozy, 
Dirtfcm.  ditailU  d.  noms  des  vHeinenta  chfz  U^  Arabes  ;  Weiss, 
Gfuch.  der  Tracht  u)id  des  Gerdths  der  Volker  df9  Alterihumt, 
Stvittg.  1S81 :  and  also  the  works  on  Biblical  Archeology, 
especially  that  by  Nowack.  T.  W.  DaVIES. 

VERMILION.— See  Colours,  vol.  L  p.  458". 
VERSIONS.— 

Introductory. 
L  General  History :  (a)  oripin  wid  early  history ;  (6)  i» 

visions  ;  (c)  printed  editions. 
IL  Method  of  use,  and  precautions  to  be  observed  :  (a)  those 
precautions  common  to  all  authorities ;  {h)  tliose 
pecuhar  to  the  Versions. 
lU.  Uses  of  the  Versions :  (a)  critical ;  (*)  exegetical ; 
(c)  general,  in  connexion  with  the  history  of  the  Bible, 
Canon,  etc, ;  (d)  literary  and  philological. 

Introductoni- — The  object  of  this  article  is  not 
to  treat  any  Version  in  detail,  but  to  draw  stten- 

•  Ca4lS8''. 

t  Lane,  Modern  Egi/ptiam,  L  (Gardner,  1896,  p.  182,  ch.  tL), 
I  Commentary  on  :ihabba(h  Coa ;  quoted  by  Delitzscb  on 
Is  323. 

5  Winer>  ('  Schlcier')  and  many  others. 

I  On  49". 

1  Same  root  u  •1??  '  booth,'  i.e.  covered  place. 

..  IgSl9.  ttOn24«i>.  n381-4-l». 

{}  Same  root  as  c_C».i^   n  e«  doubt* ;  Syr.  t*^  i  S  (  (for 
-CT  .  vv.  =  >]'i's)  doiMt.    See  Lag.  as  quoted  In  Oj^.  Ueb.  Lex, 
lllliocctf.  ^1ICa6^U82».  -^OnliS". 

^H  Vetttt.  iluiitrum.      jnUsa. 


VERSIONS 


VERSIONS 


849 


tion  to  some  jf  the  features  common  to  tliem 
all,  with  only  sullicient  illustrations  *  to  make  the 
general  statements  intelligible. 

It  will  be  well  to  stnt«  at  the  outset  the  main 
objects  which  the  student  of  tlie  Versions  may 
have  in  view.  The  must  ini|iortant  is  their  use  for 
critical  purposes  in  conjunction  with  MSS  of  the 
original  text  of  the  OT  or  NT,  and  with  Patristic 
Quotations.  The  second  is  their  use  for  exegetical 
puriioses.  Thirdly,  they  have  a  value  in  connexion 
with  the  history  of  the  Uible  and  the  light  they 
throw  on  a  number  of  questions,  such  as  the 
Canon,  the  order  of  books  inside  the  Canon,  etc. 
Lastly,  many  of  the  Versions  are  of  the  greatest 
interest  from  a  literary  and  philological  stand- 
point, because  they  are  often  the  earliest  monu- 
ments of  the  language  in  which  they  are  written. 

Their  exact  and  scientific  use,  however,  depends 
on  a  knowledge  of  their  liistorj',  and  on  a  con- 
sideration of  certain  i)recautions  and  limitations, 
■which  their  history  shows  to  be  necessary  if  sound 
conclusions  are  toue  reached.  It  will  be  desirable, 
therefore,  firstly  to  consider  some  general  points  in 
their  history,  secondly  to  notice  some  of  the  neces- 
sary cautions,  and  lastly  to  discuss  the  uses  just 
enumerated. 

i.  GKXiiRAL  History. — The  first  reference  to 
translations  of  the  liible  is  found  by  .some  in  the 
words  of  Neh  8'  'They  read  in  the  book  in  the 
law  of  God  distinctly  [KVm  'with  an  interpreta- 
tion '],  and  they  gave  the  sense  so  that  they  under- 
stood the  reading.'  The  Heb.  word  p-ibD  used  for 
•distinctly'  occurs  again  in  Ezr  4'",  where  KVm 
renders  '  translated.'  The  text  gives  more  correctly 
than  the  margin  the  meaning  of  the  Hebrew, 
which  does  not  imply  more  than  clearness  in  the 
reading.  Moreover,  the  supposed  need  of  a  trans- 
lation requires  us  to  believe  tliat  the  Juv.s  returned 
from  the  Exile  ignorant  of  the  Hebrew  in  which 
the  Law  was  written— a  view  hardly  tenable  in 
face  of  the  post-exilic  writings  contained  in  the 
Bible.  In  any  case  we  should  have  to  think  of  an 
explanation  rather  than  a  translation,  and  an  oral 
and  not  a  written  Version.  We  cannot  therefore 
fix  precisely  the  date  at  which  Versions  of  the 
Bible  began  to  be  made. 

There  is  little  doubt  that  the  earliest  Version 
committed  to  writing  was  the  Septuagint,  begun 
for  the  use  of  the  Alexandrian  Jews  under  Ptolemy 
n.  (B.C.  285-247),  and  •  it  is  probable  that  before  the 
Christian  era  Alexandria  possessed  the  whole  or 
nearly  the  whole  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  in  a 
Greek  translation'  (Swete,  Intruil.  to  OT  in  Greek, 

fi.  25).  The  only  other  Version  for  which  there  is 
Ikely  to  have  been  any  demand  in  [ire-Christian 
times  is  the  Syhiac.  There  are  various  traditions 
an  to  the  origin  of  this  Version,  e.g.  tho.se  recorded 
by  Gregory  Harliebra.'us,  which  refer  it  to  the  date 
of  Solomon  (who  is  said  to  have  had  it  made  for 
Hiram),  or  to  the  incidents  recorded  in  2  K  17", 
or  that  recorded  by  Jacob  of  Edessa,  which  a.Hsigns 
it  to  the  date  of  Abgar,  king  of  Ede-ssa.  Like  the 
Septuagint,  it  was  not  tlie  work  of  one  time  or 
one  hand  ;  for  '  from  the  difl'ercnces  of  style  and 
planner  in  its  several  parts  we  may  suppose  that 
it  was  made  by  many  hands,  and  covered  a  long 
period  of  time'  (\V.  Wright,  Enryc.  Brit.  'Syr. 
Lit.'  p.  824).  The  earliest  delinite  reference  to  the 
Version  is  in  a  commentary  of  Melito  of  Sardis, 
where  6  lupos  is  cited  at  Gn  22'^  To  this  date,  i.e. 
to  the  2nd  cent.  A.D.,  the  beginning  of  the  Version 
may  be  assigned.  To  the  same  century  the  begin- 
ning of  the  Latin  Version,  and  to  that  or  the 

•  .Many  of  these  ilUislrations  are  taken  from  those  collected 
by  the  writer  for  his  Kllerton  hU>ay.  printed  in  jiart  in  .^tudia 
Biblica,  ii.  lOf, ff.,  on  'Tlie  l-^videnue  of  the  Karly  Versions  and 
Patristic  Quotations  ou  tlie  Text  o!  tlie  Uoolu  of  the  New 
Testament.' 

VOL.  IV. — S4 


following  century  the  origin  of  the  Egyptian 
Versions,  is  generally  ascribed.  These  represent 
the  earliest  Versions  of  the  Bible,  and  they  are 
succeeded  by  numberless  others  up  to  the  present 
time. 

If  the  beginnings  of  the  history  of  the  Versions 
take  us  back  so  far,  ami  are  veiled  in  obscuritj-, 
the  la-st  chapter  cannot  yet  be  written,  for  each  year 
sees  some  Iresh  translation  made  for  puriioses  of 
missionary  work.*  The  chief  critical  interest  of 
the  latest  is  to  be  found  only  in  the  illustrations 
they  atiord  of  the  difficulties  which  beset  the  trans- 
lator of  every  age  in  his  attempt  to  transfer  the 
ideas  and  expressions  of  one  language  into  those 
of  another  without  suggesting  new  assoeiations  or 
dropping  old  ones. 

llie  study  of  this  long  history  is  a  fascinating 
subject.  It  presents  problems  of  all  kinds,  and  for 
their  solution  draws  on  the  stores  which  have  been 
accumulated  by  the  students  of  language  and 
literature,  of  art,  of  pahtography,  of  liturgical 
usage,  of  history.t  and  many  other  br.anches  of 
knowledge,  while  in  return  tlie  MSS  of  the  Versions 
contribute  to  all  these  studies  material  which  is 
often  of  the  greatest  value,  and  can  be  found 
nowhere  else.  Hence  the  student  of  the  Versions 
will  lind  materials  in  books  and  periodicals  dealing 
with  almost  every  subject,  ana  the  literature  is 
almost  boundless. 

1.  Origin  and  early  History. — The  first  point 
to  try  to  make  clear  is  at  what  date  and  place,  and 
in  what  circumstances,  the  Versions  in  each  lan- 
guage were  made.  We  find  general  and  somewhat 
rhetorical  statements,  like  that  of  Chrysostom,  in 
which  he  says,  in  his  lirst  Homily  on  St.  John, 
that  the  Syrians,  Indians,  Persians,  Ethiojiians, 
and  numberless  other  nations,  have  translations 
into  their  own  languages.  But  it  is  only  in  regard 
to  some  of  the  later  ones,  that  is,  those  made  in 
and  after  the  4tli  cent.,  that  we  have  delinite 
historical  statements  on  these  points :  as,  for  ex- 
ample, in  the  case  of  the  Gothic,  Armenian,  and 
Slavonic ;  and  even  these  apparently  delinite  state- 
ments will  not  always  stand  cross-examination, 
and  need  explanation  or  qualilication.  In  some 
cases  they  are  so  much  later  than  the  event  to 
which  they  refer  as  to  be  untrustworthy  in  detail, 
while  in  other  cases  they  lack  perspective,  and 
ascribe  to  one  person  or  date  work  which  probably 
pa.ssed  through  several  hands  and  extended  over 
a  long  period.  Besides  such  historical  statements, 
which  have  to  be  carefully  examined  before  we 
use  them,  we  have  arguments  of  an  inferential 
kind,  based  on  the  evidence  allorded  by  the  MSS  of 
the  Version  itself. 

The  lirst  question  which  we  naturally  ask  is 
whether  the  Versions  were  ant/mritative,  the  work 
of  translators  chosen  for  their  knowledge  of  the  two 
languages  involved,  and  from  MSS  carefully  .selected 
of  a  collection  of  books  regarded  as  canonical,  or 
whether  they  were  made  by  private  and  irresiion- 
sible  persons  independently,  in  dill'erent  districts, 
and  from  chance  M.SS  of  sep.arate  books  as  they 
became  known  or  were  required  for  use.  Obviously, 
the  answer  to  such  questions  is  of  great  imjiort- 
ance,  but  delinite   answers  can  rarely   be  given. 

•  For  a  list  of  these  see  (1 )  In  tmr  Toniiwti :  a  popular  hamlh'vtk 
to  the  translation  work  of  the  lirilisli  and  l''oreiK'n  Uible  Soeiuty, 
by  O.  A.  King ;  2nd  issue,  comprising  the  worlt  of  the  lost 
(juarter  of  ■  century,  lS'&-ltiU9 ;  also  (2)  Uible  Uotue  I'apert, 
i.-v. 

t  The  use  of  fam/imf/d  may  be  illustrated  from  the  discussion 
of  the  Afri(?an  oriifin  of  the  <lld  Latin  ;  of  arf,  from  the  uso 
nia^le  of  dilferent  kinds  of  decoration  found  in  .MSS,  such  as  the 
Celtic,  to  identify  the  place  of  origin  ;  of  paUvotjrajiliy,  (rom 
the  evidence  based  on  dilTeront  national  bands,  Irish,  Lum* 
banlic,  etc.  :  of  Uturificat  tuaije,  from  the  use  made  of  the 
notes  in  Codex  Beiaj  (JThSt,\.  4641,  or  in  connexion  with  the 
Linilisrarnc  Gospels  (Borger,  llutuire  de  la  V\UgaU,  p.  tl9);  of 
hislury.  from  tbe  article  on  Codex  Amialinut  io  Studia 
Biblica,  IL 


850 


VERSIONS 


VERSIONS 


There  can  be  little  doubt  that  the  earlier  the 
Version  the  more  likely  the  second  alternative  is 
to  be  true.  Thus  Kidley  says  :  ptures  a  plurihus 
interprctibus  in  viilgus  effiisiB  sunt  explicatius  quce 
trtndem  collecta;  et  nonnunquam  re/iclm  in  unum 
Cvdiccm  vel  editionem  relatoe  sunt ;  *  and  else- 
where,t  in  the  same  treatise,  that  the  Versions 
were  at  first  a  sort  of  Targiim,  derive<l  from  copies 
circumforancis  et  vulgatioribus,  from  which  the 
glosses  were  gradually  removed.  Similarly  Augus- 
tine, in  a  well-known  passage,!  writes  in  regard 
to  the  Latin  :  ut  cuique  priinis  fidci  temporibus  in 
manus  vcnit  Codex  Grwctis  et  aliquantuium facul- 
talis  sihi  utriusque  lingitie  hnbsre  videbatur,  ausus 
est  interpretari.  This  hj-pothesis,  while  it  does 
not  destroy  the  value  of  tiie  Versions  as  evidence 
often  older  than  our  MSS  of  the  Greek  text  of  the 
NT,  certainly  lessens  the  authority  we  should,  on 
the  first  hy])Othesis,  have  to  give  them  as  made 
from  the  best  MSS  of  the  time,  and  exhibiting 
non  unius  alteriusve  hominis  sed  totius  ecclesiiE 
inteipretationcm  et  judiciuin.% — In  regard  to  some 
of  the  later  Versions  we  are  told,  and  may  well 
believe,  that  they  were  made  by  carefully  chosen 
persons  from  specially  selected  MSS.  But  even 
then  the  area  of  selection  must  have  been  limited 
by  circumstances  of  place  and  time  and  oppor- 
tunity. So  that,  in  the  last  resort,  our  estimate 
of  the  critical  value  of  a  Version  and  its  text  must 
be  formed  entirely  from  that  text  as  contained  in 
the  MSS  of  the  Version,  or  rather  as  it  can  be 
restored  to  Ita  original  form  by  the  removal  of 
errors  which  have  come  in  during  the  centuries. 
For  it  has  to  be  remembered  that  in  some  cases  a 
considerable  intenal  has  elapsed  between  the  date 
at  which  the  Version  was  first  made  and  that  of 
the  earliest  MS  of  it.  It  is  true  that  in  no  case 
is  the  interval  as  great  as  the  thousand  years  or 
more  which  separate  the  last  Heb.  book  of  the  OT 
from  the  earliest  MS  in  which  it  is  preserved  to 
us.  Of  the  more  important  Versions  the  Bohairic 
may  be  taken  as  the  most  striking  instance  in 
which  the  MSS  of  the  Version,  with  very  few- 
exceptions,  belong  to  a  date  very  much  later 
than  that  of  the  Version  itself.  II  AVe  nearly 
always  have  to  measure  the  interval  by  centuries, 
and  in  that  time  much  often  happened  H  to  alter 
the  original  characteristics  of  the  Versions,  both  in 
regard  to  the  text  which  underlay  them  and  the 
language  in  which  that  text  was  expressed,  and  so 
to  obscure  or  distort  the  light  thrown  by  tlie  MSS 
of  a  Version  on  its  origin.  But,  even  when  we 
have  made  all  necessary  allowances,  much  evidence 
remains  which  may  be  used  to  date  and  localize 
the  origin  of  a  Version.  First  and  foremost  comes 
a  comparison  with  the  quotations  found  in  Patristic 
writers  using  the  same  language.  Thus  the  value 
of  the  writings  of  Tatian,  Ephraem,  and  Aphraates 
has  been  generally  recognized  in  regard  to  the 
Syriac  Versions  and  their  relation  to  each  other, 
though  there  is  divergence  of  opinion  as  to  tlie 
actual  conclusions  to  be  drawn.  Again,  a  com- 
parison of  the  Old  Latin  with  the  Latin  Fathers, 
especially  Cyprian  and  Tertullian,  gave  Wiseman 
the  first  clue,  which  has,  however,  to  be  used  with 
caution,**  to  the  grouping  of  tlie  MSS  of  that 
Version  into  families.  The  Patristic  quotations 
often  help  us  to  date,  as  well  as  to  localize,  the 
text  found  in  a  Version.  Thus  Robert  tt  dates  the 
Version  contained  in  the  Lyons  Heptateuch  by  its 

•  D«  rxTit.  Si/r.  indole  (ed.  Semler,  17«6),  p.  3S4. 

f  See  pp.  2S4,  291.  t  De  doctr.  ChriH.  11.  11. 

{  Walton's  Polyglot,  ProUg.  }  6.  3. 

II  Hyvernat,  f^tude  ntr  let  versions  Copies  de  la  Bible,  p.  10  fl., 
lives  a  list  of  MSS  here  referred  to,  with  dates. 

%  See  below  on  *  Revisions.' 

**  Scrivener,  Introd.  iL  44 ;  aod  ut.  Old  Latix  Vbrsiohb  In 
Tol.  iii. 

tt  Bept.  Partis  poster,  versio  e  eod.  Lugd.  p,  zxvil  S. 


aLjreement  with  the  Quotations  of  Lucifer  of 
C'agliari,  and  its  dillerences  from  those  of  Ambrose 
and  Augustine. — Another  argument  in  regard  to 
the  date  and  origin  of  Versions  is  furnished  by  the 
order  in  which  the  books  of  the  Bible  are  given,  or 
the  Canon  of  Scripture  which  is  implied.*  This 
arjrument  has  been  used  to  refer  the  Peshitta  to 
a  date  prior  to  that  at  which  all  the  Catholic 
Epistles  and  the  Apocalypse  were  included  in  the 
Canon. 

Other  arguments  in  regard  to  origin  are  derived 
from  linguistic  considerations,  and  from  notes  by 
scribes  and  others  in  the  margin  of  the  text  or  else- 
where in  the  MSS.  At  the  same  time,  in  regard  to 
all  these  it  has  to  be  remembered  that  data  which 
seem  at  first  sight  to  be  coeval  with  the  Version, 
and  to  throw  light  on  its  origin,  may  have  been 
either  carried  over  from  the  text  on  which  the 
Version  was  based,  or  introduced  later  by  some 
scribe,  t  Instances  of  these  possibilities  are  afforded 
by  liturgical  notes,  text  divisions,  dialectical  pecu- 
liarities of  spelling,  etc.  etc. 

2.  Revisions. — The  constant  use  of  the  Versions 
from  the  date  at  which  they  were  made  onwards 
required  the  multiplication  of  copies.  This  neces- 
sarily involved  the  introduction  of  numerous  un- 
intentional errors,  and  gave  occasion  for  linguistic 
or  grammatical  changes,  and  led  also  to  a  com- 
parison of  the  text  contained  in  the  Version  with 
that  of  other  authorities.  The  best-known  instances 
are  afforded  by  the  work  of  Origen  on  the  LXX, 
and  Jerome  on  the  Old  Latin.  As  to  such  re- 
visions we  have  the  evidence  of  direct  statements, 
and  that  of  the  MSS  themselves.  We  have  the 
well-known  passage  in  Jerome's  letter  to  Damasus, 
in  which  he  refers  to  errors  introduced  not  only  by 
vitiosi  interpreter,  but  also  by  prcesumtores  imperiti 
and  librani  dormitantes.  This  led  him  to  his 
work  of  revision,  of  which  the  Vulgate  was  the 
result.  Later  on  in  the  history  of  the  same 
Version,  the  recurrence  of  the  same  kind  of  cor- 
ruptions, and  growing  uncertainty  as  to  the  right 
text,  led  to  such  revisions  as  those  of  Alcuin  at 
the  end  of  the  8th  cent,  and  those  of  the  Biblia 
Correctoria  in  the  13th.  Such  formal  revisions  as 
those  mentioned  in  connexion  with  the  Latin 
Version  find  parallels  in  many  other  languages. 

They  involved  the  removal  of  copyists'  errors  of 
various  kinds,  and  also  changes  in  the  Version 
itself,  such  as  the  translation  of  words  which  had 
been  in  the  first  instance  merely  transliterated,  the 
substitution  of  current  and  approved  words  for 
those  which  were  obsolete  or  provincial,  a  greater 
consideration  for  grammar  and  usage,  which  had 
been  perhaps  sacrificed  to  secure  greater  f delity, 
as  it  was  thought,  to  the  words  and  sense  of  the 
original. J 

Again,  in  the  revisions,  reference  was  sometimes 
made  to  the  text  contained  in  MSS  on  the  autho- 
rity of  which  the  Version  was  based,  and  to  other 
Versions.  That  this  was  so  we  know  from  definite 
statements  such  as  that  made  by  Thomas  of 
Harkel,  who  tells  us  that  in  his  revision  of  the 
Pliiloxenian  Syriac,  in  A.D.  616,  he  used  '  two  or 
three  accurate  Greek  MSS  in  the  Enaton  of 
Alexandria,'  and  the  readings  derived  from  that 
source  make  the  marginal  readings  of  the  Version 
of  great  value.  Similar  statements  as  to  tlie  use 
of  (ireek  MSS  for  revision  are  made  in  regard  to 
several  other  Versions,  and  it  would  be  an  obvious 
thing  for  a  critical  reviser  to  do. 

But  the  influence  of  other  authorities  besides 
the  original  text  in  these  revisions  has  to  be 
remembered.     The  influence  of  the  Vulgate  will 

•  See  below,  p.  854  f. 
t  Berger,  Histoire  de  la  Vulgate,  p.  53. 

X  In  some  cases  the  later  Versions  were  more  literal  thao  th« 
earlier,  e.g.  that  of  Aquila  and  the  Philoxenian  Syriac 


VERSIONS 


VERSIONS 


K,l 


be  a  case  in  point.  And  in  dealing  with  pheiw- 
mena  which  suggest  such  influence  it  must  not  he 
forgotten,  as  is  sometimes  done,  that  the  true 
explanation  of  the  resemblances  of  two  Versions 
may  often  be,  not  tliat  they  are  derived  one  from 
the  other,  but  tliat  lioth  are  independently  trace- 
able to  MSS  of  the  Greek,  which  have  a  similar 
tyiie  of  text. 

Tliese  revisions  differed  greatly  both  in  extent 
and  in  character,  and  occasionally  it  is  matter  for 
argument  which  is  the  revised  and  which  the  un- 
revised  text.  Sometimes,  as  in  the  case  of  Origen's 
revision  of  the  LXX,  they  liave  created  a  chasm  in 
the  history  of  tlie  text  which  it  is  well-nigli  im- 
possible to  bridge  over.  Sometimes — and  in  con- 
sidering the  temper  in  which  these  revisions  would 
be  conducted  this  is  important — we  meet  witli  great 
reluctance  to  change  what  was  old  and  familiar 
even  though  it  was  wrong.*  The  old  was  therefore 
retained  in  part.  Thus,  in  the  case  of  the  Latin 
Version,  the  Old  Latin  renderings  sur^'iFed  side 
by  side  with  those  of  the  Vulgate  foi  souie  cen- 
turies. Bergert  notices  that  the  use  of  OL  sur- 
vived in  Bohemia  as  late  as  the  15th  cent.  Gregory 
the  Great  in  his  Preface  to  Job  says,  -;'  comproba- 
tionis  rau.ia  exir/it  nunc  novani  nunc  vetercm  per 
testimonia  nssumo.  Walafrid  Strabo  [Pre/,  ad  Gloss, 
Ord. )  speaks  of  it  as  something  recent,  that  the  Ver- 
sion of  Jerome  was  in  general  use  when  he  wrote 

in   the   9tli  cent Hieronymi  transUitione  nunc 

ubigiic  utitur  tota  Romann  ecclcsia  licet  non  in 
ovinibus  libris.  It  is  clear  from  what  has  been  said 
in  regard  to  revisions  which  may  have  been  made 
by  private  persons  without  any  liistorical  notice  of 
tne  fact,  that  they  constitute  the  main  ditticulty 
of  the  student  in  his  attempt  to  recover  the  text  of 
the  Version  in  its  original  form.  But  it  is  obvious 
that  the  amount  of  success  attained  in  surmount- 
ing this  ditliculty  will  be  the  measuie  of  the  cer- 
tainty with  which  arg\iments  may  be  built  on  the 
data  aftbrded  by  the  texts  contained  in  the  MSS 
of  Versions.  And  it  is  to  this  end  that  these  MSS 
have  to  be  grouped  as  far  as  possible  into  families, 
which  often  indicate  the  nature  and  extent  of  the 
revision,  and  show  that  some  MSS  contain  an  un- 
revised,  others  a  revised,  form  of  the  Version.  J 

3.  Printed  Editions. — It  is  necessary  to  warn  the 
student  against  the  indiscriminate  use  of  printed 
editions  as  evidence  of  the  true  text,  and  also 
au'ainst  statements  which  rest  only  on  such 
editions.  In  days  gone  by  it  was  often  accident 
rather  than  choice  which  determined  what  MS  or 
MSS  should  be  u.sed  ;  nor  had  the  editor  the  ideas 
which  prevail  at  present  either  as  to  the  minute 
accuracy  required  for  a  critical  edition,  or  as  to 
the  collection  of  material  necessary  for  it.  Thus 
Usran,  the  first  editor  of  the  Armenian  Version 
(166S),  admits  that  ho  introduced  several  passages 
from  the  Latin  without  any  MS  authority.  Again, 
in  the  Roman  edition  of  the  Ethiopic  of  1548,  the 
lacuna:  in  the  Kthiopic  MS  used  were  translated 
from  Greek  MSS  and  the  Vulgate.  Similar  un- 
favourable criticisms  must  be  made  of  most  of  the 
older  editions  of  the  Versions  as  deficient  in  regard 
to  the  MSS  used,  or  to  the  way  in  which  they  were 
used,  or  both.  This  makes  it  necessary  to  accept 
with  caution  the  evidence  of  the  Versions  even  as 
quoted  by  Tischendorf  in  the  apparatus  criticus  of 

•  Augustine  (Ep.  71,  ed.  Benedict,  vol.  II.  p.  161)  writes  to 
Jerome  u(  to  the  uproar  cnuacU  by  Jerome'B  Verwion  reiuling 
hedera  instead  of  tlie  familiar  cucurbita  in  Jon  4''.  Anottier 
c»8e  is  tliat  of  tbe  con^jregation  which  ptTeistcd  in  chanting 
florift  loT Jlorebit.  This  false  conservatism  in  ptTpetualirtj,'  mis- 
takes  is  not  o))6oIete,  as  may  be  seen  by  ttie  n-fimat  to  correct 
the  obvious  mistakes  (e.g.  Is  9^)  of  the  English  Bible  of  1011. 

t  llijftoire  de  la  VuUjate,  p.  74. 

!  This  division  of  the  M.S.S  of  a  Version  against  each  other 
may  he  seen  in  any  critical  e<iition  of  a  Version,  f.<i.  that  of  tbe 
Vulgate ;  and  in  rcgarrl  to  some  of  the  less  accessible,  tn  Dr. 
Sanday's  ApperidieeM  ad  Novum  Test  iii. 


his  KovumTcstamenttim,  for  he  relied  in  many  cums 
on  such  imperfect  editions.*  The  more  critical  use, 
and  the  danger  of  quoting  vajniely,  may  be  seen 
from  a  reference  to  the  second  and  tliird  appcn- 
dirc'^  to  Lloyd's  Greek  J'e.stament,  edited  by  Ur. 
Sunday,  and  referred  to  in  the  note  below.  Much 
has  been  done,  and  is  being  done,  in  preparing 
adequate  and  accurate  critical  editions  of  the  most 
important  Versions  such  as  the  LXX,  tlie  Latin, 
the  Syriac,  the  Egyptian,  and  others.  ^Yllen  tlicso 
are  complete,  the  student  will  bo  able  to  handle 
the  material  with  confidence.  The  editors  will 
probably  in  no  case  formulate  any  text  as  that  of 
the  original  Version,  but  will  print  the  text  of 
some  one  MS,  and  leave  the  student  to  draw  liLs 
own  conclusion  from  the  apparatus  criticus.  They 
will,  as  a  rule,  not  attempt  to  give  the  readings  of 
all  the  known  MSS,  as  Holmes  and  Parsons  did  in 
their  monumental  work  on  the  Septuagint,  but 
only  the  evidence  of  those  MSS  the  texts  of  which 
are  in  any  sense  im])ortant  for  the  reconstruction 
of  the  history  of  the  Version. 

ii.  Method  of  Use,  and  Precautions  to  be 
on.SERVED.^l"iom  what  has  been  said  as  to  the 
general  characteristics  of  the  history  of  Versions, 
and  the  state  in  which  their  evidence  is  available 
for  the  student,  it  is  clear  that  their  accurate  use 
depends  on  the  observance  of  certain  critical  rules, 
some  of  which  (1)  are  common  to  all  the  autlmri- 
ties  used  for  recovering  an  ancient  text,  while 
(2)  others  are  peculiar  to  the  use  of  Versions  as 
evidence. 

1.  (a)  Each  MS  of  the  Version  has  to  be  carefullv 
examined  with  reference  to  its  date,  the  care  with 
which  it  has  been  copied,  the  text  on  which  it 
seems  to  be  based,  and  its  relation  to  other  MSS 
of  the  Version.  Tertullian's  canon,  id  verius  quod 
prius,  may  be  accepted  as  a  starting-point.  But  it 
IS  often  difficult,  as  we  have  seen,  to  determine  the 
date  from  the  evidence  of  the  MS  itself,  which  is 
often  all  that  is  available.  Nor  is  age  an  invariaMo 
guide  as  to  the  value  of  the  text  contained  in  a  MS, 
for  some  late  MSS  may  be  copied  from  good  early 
ones.  Thus  each  MS  has  to  be  weighed  in  refer- 
ence to  the  degree  of  accuracy  with  which  it  seems 
to  present  the  text  as  it  left  the  hand  of  the  trans- 
lator, and  in  reference  to  other  MSS  containing 
texts  which  have  been  definitely  identified  with  par- 
ticular dates  or  localities,  (b)  It  has  further  to  be 
remembered  that  the  ditlerent  parts  of  the  Bible, 
and  in  many  cases  even  the  separate  books,  though 
they  have  come  to  be  united  in  one  MS,  may  have 
had  a  dill'erent  origin  and  textual  history  in  the  case 
of  the  Versions,  just  as  in  the  case  of  Greek  MSS 
of  the  NT.  The  earliest  Versions  were  made  when 
the  books  of  the  Bible  circulated  either  separately 
or  in  small  collections,  and  at  no  time  till  tbe  7lli 
or  8th  cent,  do  we  meet  with  a  complete  MS  of 
any  Version  of  the  whole  Bible,  and  the  text,  even 
of  such  complete  MSS,  we  should  expect  to  have 
been  derived  from  MSS  which  contained  only  parts 
of  the  Bible,  and  therefore  had  not  an  identical 
history.  It  is  possible,  to  take  one  instance,  that 
the  ditflculties  in  reducing  Tertullian's  quotations 
to  a  system  may  be  in  part  due  to  his  having  used 
separate  MSS,  say,  of  St.  Paul's  Epistles.  Again, 
within  a  group  of  books,  such  as  the  Pentateuch, 

•Thus  LIghtloot  (Colntsians,  p.  246  n.)  writes  aa  follows:— 
'The  readings  of  the  Memphitic  (or  Bohairic]  version  are  very 
incorrectly  given  even  by  the  principal  editors  such  as  Tregelles 
and  Ti8chcii(li)rf,  the  traiiblation  of  Wilkins  being  commonly 
adopted  though  full  of  errors,  and  no  attention  being  paid  to 
tbe  various  readings  of  Bocllicber's  text' ;  and  >^in  (li.  p.  247), 
'  the  true  readings  of  the  yyriac  version  are  Just  the  reverse 
of  those  assigned  to  them  even  by  the  chief  critical  editors, 
Trugelles  and  Tisclicndorf.'  In  JThSt,  I.  Oil,  it  is  noticed 
that  Tiscliendort  oft«n  omits  altogether  the  renderings  of 
Philoxenian  Syriac.  The  time  has  almcst  come  for  a  new 
edition  of  Tischendorf,  but  this  will  not  be  possible  till  ciitical 
editions  of  the  scparat«  Versions  and  Fathers  are  available. 


852 


VERSIONS 


VEESIONS 


where  we  might  have  expected  uniformity,  we  find 
that  the  Old  Latin  fragments  at  Ljoiis,  Wiirzburg, 
and  Municli  stand  in  quite  diliereiit  relations  to 
each  other  in  the  Books  of  Exodus,  Leviticus,  and 
Numbers — a  fact  which  shows  that  the  Old  Latin 
text  in  those  MSS  had  a  separate  history  in  these 
separate  books. 

2.  (a)  The  two  considerations  just  mentioned 
depend  on  the  fortunes  of  the  Version  after  it  left 
the  hand  of  the  translator,  and  are  not  especially 
characteristic  of  Versions ;  but  there  are  otliers 
which  are  peculiar  to  translations  as  such.  Thus 
we  have  to  ascertain  whether  a  Version  is  primary 
or  sucomltirtj,  i.e.  derived  directly  from  the  text 
which  it  is  to  be  used  to  restore,  or  indirectly 
through  the  medium  of  another  translation. 

Perhaps  the  best-knOAvn  illustration  will  be  afforded  by  the 
Latin  Psiilter.*  Of  this  book  we  have  (i.)  the  text  of  the  Old 
Latin  Psutter  as  contained,  for  instance,  in  MS  11947  o!  the 
Bihlioth^qite  National ;  (ii.)  the  lioman  Psalter,  the  first 
revision  of  Jerome  made  in  A.D.  383  with  the  help  of  the  luiyr. 
text  of  the  LXX  ;  (iii.)  the  Gattican  Psalter,  made  in  a,d.  385 
according  to  the  hexaplar  text  of  the  LXX,  the  present  Vulgate 
Psalter;  (iv.)  the  PnaUerium  Hebraicmn,  be^un  some  years 
later,  and  based  on  a  Heb.  text.  In  the  well-known  Codex 
Caraud8  of  the  Latin  Bible  we  have  the  third  and  fourth,  and 
on  the  margin  extracts  from  the  first.  We  also  find  quadruple 
Psalters. 

One  more  illustration  may  be  taken,  and  in  this  case  not  from 
a  MS,  but  from  an  edition!  of  a  Version,  viz.  Erpenius'  edition 
of  the  Arabic  of  a.d.  1016.  Here  the  Gospela  preserve  a  trans- 
lation from  the  Greek,  and  are  therefore  a  primary  Version ; 
the  Acts,  Pauline  Epistles,  and  three  Catholic  Epistles  pre- 
serve a  translation  from  the  Peshitta ;  the  other  Catholic 
Epistles  and  the  Apocalypse  a  Version  from  some  other  source. 
Sometimes  one  ian'.,'iiage  preserves  both  primary  and  secondary 
Versions,  aa,  for  instance,  the  Armenian  does.  Sometimes  it 
is  a  matter  of  ar^'ument  whether  a  Version  is  primary  or 
secondary. 

It  will  be  ob^^ous  that  the  chief  value  of 
secondary  Versions  is  in  regard  to  the  primary 
from  which  they  are  taken  ;  those  derived  from 
the  LXX,  for  instance,  are  useful  to  determine 
the  history  of  the  Septuagint  and  only  indirectly 
to  restore  a  right  Hebrew  text,  and  the  Armenian 
will  help  in  restoring  the  original  text  of  the  Old 
Syriac  from  which  it  was  in  part  translated. 

(6)  Another  point  which  is  of  the  first  import- 
ance in  drawing  conclusions  as  to  particular  read- 
ings implied  by  a  Version,  is  the  capacity  and 
intention  of  the  translators  in  regard  to  Uteral- 
ness,  accuracy  of  rendering,  and  doctrinal  or  other 
bias. 

The  Versions  vary  very  much  in  their  ettbrts  to 
preserve  the  letter  of  the  te.xt  they  are  trans- 
lating. 

As  extreme  instances  of  those  which  sacrifice  lanfjuatre,  and 
even  clearness,  to  literalness,  may  he  mentioned  Ai|uila's  ver- 
sion of  the  OT  and  the  Ilarklean  revision  of  the  Philoxenian. 
These  represent  one  extreme,  and  at  the  other  we  get  para- 
phrastic renderings  which  are  content  with  giving  the  general 
sense.  As  a  rule,  however,  the  mean  is  observed  between 
undue  literalness  and  undue  laxity. 

In  regard  to  accuracy  of  translation,  it  may  be 
said  generally  that  the  Versions  were  made  by 
persons  of  competent  knowledge  in  regard  to  both 
of  the  languages  >vith  which  they  were  dealing. 

Exception  must  be  made  in  some  parts  or  passages  of  a 
Version.  Thus  it  is  difflctilt  to  conceive  that  the  Greek  in  some 
|)arts  of  the  LXX  can  have  conveyed  any  meaning  to  the  trans- 
lator, and  the  Ethiopic  la  a  Version  the  value  of  which  must  be 
depreciated  by  such  confusions  as  ttiose  between  tucTyixo^f^^cc 
and  xaL-iuxofAtd*  (llo  l^y  or  ilnti-mirt  and  iiJiTaTriri  (Ro  "n).  \  It 
should  here  be  mentioned  that  accuracy  of  translation  does  not 
require  that  the  same  word  should  always  have  the  same 
equivalent  in  the  Version,  and  this  possibility  often  cjiuses 
uncertainty  in  the  conclusions  which  may  be  drawn  (see  below). 
And  it  may  be  remembered  that  even  mistaken  renderings  may 
be  helpful :  thus  the  rendering  n^rjUxit  of  e  of  the  Old  Latin  at 
Mk  5^,  though  wrong,  supports  watpecztinrcK  as  against  axiijrett, 
and  all  attempts  to  translate  &twipoT/n.,T^  at  Lk  (>i,  even  if  un- 
successt  jl,  witness  to  the  existence  of  soioe  epithet  attached  to 


'  Bee  Berger,  Bittoire  ds  la  Vulijate,  pp.  130, 181,  and  Index, 
S.r.  '  Psalter.* 

t  See  Tregelles  in  Smiths  DD  iii.  1614. 


Of  any  doctrinal  bias  the  early  Versions  show 
little  trace,  though  we  often  lind  in  the  Fathers 
complaints  of  falsification,  which  cannot,  however, 
be  maintained. 

As  possible  instances  of  intentional  alteration  may  b«  men- 
tioned the  Nestorian  substitution  of  leavened  for  iinUaoeiwd 
bread  at  1  Co  b^,  a  tendency  towards  Encratite  views  in  the 
Syri.ac  version  of  1  Co  72-8-7,  and  more  clearly  in  reference  to 
the  virginity  of  Mar>'.  Berger*  traces  the  adaptation  of  various 
Latin  MSS  at  2  Mac  12-*8  in  regard  to  a  passage  bearing  on 
prayers  for  the  dead.  EUicott  lands  '  a  slightly  Arian  tinge '  in 
the'Gothic  version  of  Ph  'i^.  But  these  are  isolated  instances, 
which  must  not,  however,  be  ignored. 

When  we  come  to  compare  Versions  made  by  Roman  Catholics 
with  other  Versions,  there  is  more  evidence  of  a  preference  for 
words  which  will  support  special  ecclesiastical  positions  or  views. 
Thus,  in  the  French  version  of  de  Sacy,  elders  become  pretrfS, 
in  Gn  315  it  is  la.fetnme  who  will  bruise  the  serpent's  head,  St. 
Paul  hopes  to  be"  delivered  by  U  nUrite  des  pniret ;  and  other 
instances  might  be  given.t 

(c)  Again,  it  must  be  remembered  that  the  power 
and  intention  of  the  best  translator  are  limited 
by  the  material  which  he  has  to  use,  and  that  in 
two  ways.  In  the  first  place,  one  language  may  be 
incapable  of  literally  reproducing  the  grammatical 
idioms  of  another.  Thus  there  are  no  distinctions 
of  gender  in  Armenian,  no  neuter  in  Arabic,  no 
passive  voice  in  Bohairic,  no  article  in  Latin,  and 
therefore  these  Versions  afford  no  help  where 
readings  involving  such  points  are  being  dis- 
cussed. Again,  words  have  to  be  supplied  in  a 
translation  which  were  not  required  in  the 
original,  t  Such  cases  may  be  indicated  in  later 
times  by  the  use  of  italics,  but  they  are  a  more  or 
less  modern  device  and  not  alwaj'S  accurately 
employed.  Somewhat  akin  to  the  point  now  being 
discussed  is  the  ambiguity,  which  arises  as  to 
their  evidence,  in  languages  like  the  Syriac  and 
Arabic,  owing  to  the  system  of  vowel  points. 
Secondly,  the  translator  was  hampered  not  only 
by  grammatical  but  also  by  lexical  difiiculties,  as 
is  the  case  with  the  missionary  of  to-day.  §  It  is 
true  that  words  could  be  coined,  such  as  semini- 
verbius,  to  represent  ffircpnoXiyo!  (Ac  17"),  camum 
miftes  to  translate  xriiiuo-ecs  (1  Co  9^),  or  in  more 
modern  times  (as  in  Sir  John  Cheke's  version) 
hundreder  for  centurion.  Transliteration  otiers 
another  device,  adopted  frequently  in  the  case 
of  the  oldest  Versions,  but  the  result  is  not  an 
effective  or  an  intelligible  translation.  Another 
and  more  important  consideration,  which  aflects, 
however,  the  exegetical  rather  than  the  critical 
use  of  Versions,  is  that  the  words  used  by  the 
translator  must  often  suggest  either  more  or  less 
than  the  expression  translated.  This  is  a  difficulty 
which  is  felt,  for  example,  in  rendering  the  NT 
into  Chinese.ll 

(d)  It  must  be  remembered  in  connexion  with 
the  literary  side  of  translations  that  a  translator 
will  not  alwaj's  use  one  word  or  expression,  and 
one  only,  to  render  any  particular  word  or  expres- 
sion of  the  original.  As  instances  where  the  Eng- 
lish Bible  shows  this  freedom  in  translation  we 
may  refer  to  the  equivalents  given  for  irapaxi'irTij 
in  Lk  24'',  Jn  '20'-  ",  or  the  various  renderings  of 
TTpaiTupi.oi'  :  similarly,  the  word  '  dvo/ios  is  trans- 
lated in  five  different  ways'  in  the  NT-U  Othet 
Versions  will  provide  a  number  of  instances  of  a 
like  kind.**    The  point  is  important  in  connexion 

•  nutoire  de  la  Vulgate,  p.  2a 

t  Revue  de  TMoloqie,  ii.  1,  311. 

j  See  below,  p.  SoS**. 

5  Cf.  Life  of  11.  Caltmcay,  bishop  of  Caffraria,  pp.  2-19-2S0, 
as  to  the  Kaffir  and  Zulu  languages  ;  and  for  difflculties  in  con- 
nexion with  Hindustani  see  Church  ilitnonari/  Gleaner,  Oct. 
1899.  „_„ 

II  See  correspondence  In  the  Guardian  for  1899  oo  ths 
Chinese  rendernig  for  '  priest.' 

U  Plummer's  St.  Luke.  p.  606. 

••  Thus  Westcott.  EpMles  of  St.  John,  p.  xxvii,  notices  thai 
Trpir»  in  three  successive  verses  of  the  Eptstle  is  translated  >J 
ob&ervare,  custodire,  neroarc 


VERSIONS 


VERSIONS 


853 


■with  the  use  of  Versions  for  critical  purposes, 
because  it  reminds  us  tliat  wo  cannot  argue  from 
a  variation  in  the  translation  to  a  similar  varia- 
tion in  the  ori^'iiial.  Versions,  therefore,  often 
fail  to  give  assistance  where  there  is  a  doubt 
between  two  words  of  almost  the  same  meaning, 
or  between  two  words  which  the  translators  may 
possibly  not  have  dill'erentiated.* 

(e)  It  is  jjcrhaps  hardly  necessary,  after  what 
has  been  said  as  to  necessary  precautions,  to  give 
a  reminder  that  the  evidence  of  Versions  can  be 
used  only  at  lirst  hand,  and  not  througli  the 
medium  of  a  translation.  Many  of  the  scholars 
who  first  used  the  Oriental  Veisicns  for  purposes 
of  textual  criticism  had  to  rely  on  Latin  trans- 
lations of  them,  and  many  misstatements  of  the 
evidence  have  resulted,  and  may  easily  be  perpetu- 
ated, even  from  the  apparatus  criticus  of  such  an 
authority  as  Tischendorfs  Sth  ed.  of  his  Novum 
Tcstamentum.i 

iii.  Uses  of  the  Versions. — (a)  It  is  only  if  we 
bear  all  these  points  in  mind,  as  of  possible  im- 
portance in  connexion  with  tlie  evidence  of  a 
Version  in  a  particular  passage,  that  we  are  in  a 
projier  position  to  consider  the  most  important 
of  the  uses  which  ma3'  be  made,  especially  of  the 
early  translations,  viz.  their  use  in  textual  cnticism. 
(1)  We  have  three  different  classes  of  authorities 
for  determining  the  text  of  the  Bible,  viz.  MSS 
of  the  original  Hebrew  or  Greek  text,  Versions, 
and  Patristic  Quotations.  The  importance  of  the 
last  two  is  that  they  enable  us  to  a  great  extent 
to  date  and  localize  particular  readings  found  in 
the  MSS,  and  thus  provide  us  with  the  means  by 
which  to  reconstruct  the  history  of  textual  changes 
in  a  way  which  would  be  quite  impossible  from  the 
MSS  alone.  An  obvious  instance  of  this  may  be 
found  in  the  way  in  which  Versions  and  Patristic 
Quotations  enable  us  to  trace  back  the  readings 
of  the  so-called  '  Western '  text  of  the  NT  to  the 
2nd  cent.,  a  date  nearly  200  years  before  that  to 
which  our  oldest  MSS  of  the  Greek  are  assigned. 
Without  their  help  we  might  well  have  said  that 
readings  of  this  kind  belonged  to  a  much  later 
date,  and  might  be  dismissed  as  unimportant. 
From  the  Versions  we  also  see  not  only  the  an- 
tiquity but  the  wide  prevalence  of  this  so-called 
'  Western '  text,  for  its  readings  are  found  not 
only  in  properly  called  Western  authorities,  such 
as  the  MSS  of  the  Old  Latin  Version,  but  also  in 
the  early  Syriac  Version.  We  see,  therefore,  how 
misleading  this  term  '  Western  '•  is.  On  the  other 
hand,  caution  has  to  be  observed  in  using  Versions 
to  localize  a  particular  text,  for  the  Sanidic  and 
Bohairic,  though  both  connected  with  Egypt, 
repre.sent  different  Greek  texts. 

(2)  In  estimating  the  value  of  the  evidence  of 
Versions  it  may  be  assumed  tliat  they  are  based 
directly  or  incfirectly  on  MS.S  of  the  original 
text,  and  therefore  allowance  has  not  to  be  made, 
as  in  the  case  of  Patristic  Quotations,  for  the 
possibility  of  quotations  from  memory.  I'urther,  if 
they  preserve  for  us  the  readings  of  MSS  of  the 
original  text,  then  those  MSS  in  the  case  of  the 
earliest  and  most  important  Versions  are  consider- 
ably older  than  any  which  have  come  down  to  us. 
Thus  the  MSS  of  the  Hebrew  on  which  the  LXX 
was  based  must  be  about  1000  years  older  than 
any  Hebrew  MS  which  survives  to  the  present 
day,  and  the  MSS  which  were  used  by  the  earliest 
translators  of  the  NT  into  Syriac,  Latin,  or 
Egyptian,  if   they  are  assigned  to  the  2nd  cent., 

•  See  Westcott  »nd  Hort.  .Vo(«  on  Select  Reading;  Ac  11». 
Aa  Ijctween  '  KA>*irau  uriil '  li^.k^^trrttt,  *  versions  ore  iuuliit{uou8  : 
they  express  only  "  Greeks."  but  would  naturolly  b«  at  ft  loss  to 
provide  a  distinctive  rendering  for  sn  rare  and  to  peculiar  a 
word  us  ■  Ei>.>i.i»T  .'I.'    Sec  also  Ac  61  B*. 

t  See  Greifory,  PnUaoiiuna,  p.  80.'. ;  Uludia  DMica,  II.  212  f.; 
and  what  has  beea  aaiu  above  on  *  Editious.' 


will  be  nearly  200  years  older  than  K  or  B.  The 
primary  Versions  may  therefore,  with  the  limita- 
tions already  noticed,  be  regarded  as  MSS  of  the 
original  text,  and  used  to  correct  the  readings  of 
those  MSS  of  the  original  text  which  have  come 
down  to  us. 

(3)  But,  from  what  has  been  already  said  above, 
great  caution  has  always  to  be  used  in  estimating 
the  value  of  their  evidence  and  drawing  conclu- 
sions, and  in  a  largo  number  of  cases  their  evi- 
dence, without  the  corroboration  of  other  autho- 
rities, has  to  be  ignored  or  discounted,  because 
the  introduction  of  the  readings  they  support  can 
be  sufficiently  explained.  Thus  we  may  lind  in 
them  additions  to  the  original  text,  but  these 
may  be  inserted  for  grammatical  reasons,*  or 
may  be  explanations  necessary  for  the  readers. 
On  the  other  hand,  we  may  lind  omissions ;  but 
these  maj'  be  due  to  a  desire  for  compression,  or 
may  have  been  left  out  because  of  their  dilliculty.t 
Again,  in  the  case  of  synonyms,  the  evidence  of 
Versions  must  be  regarded  and  treated  as  ambigu- 
ous, unless  an  inductive  examination  has  shown 
that  the  usage  allows  a  positive  conclusion.  J 

The  history  of  the  use  of  the  Versions  for  critical 
purposes  goes  back  to  the  first  great  textual  critic, 
Origen,  who  in  his  Hexapla  compared  the  Hcb. 
text  with  that  of  the  LXX  derived  from  it. 
Similarl}-,  Jerome  makes  many  references  to  the 
evidence  to  be  drawn  from  Versions.  One  in- 
stance may  suffice,  lie  refuses  to  use  a  certain 
recension  of  text,  cum  multarum  gentium  linguit 
Scriptura  ante  translata  duceat  falsa  esse  qu<B 
addita  sunt. 

After  the  invention  of  printing,  the  first  Version 
to  be  used  critically  was  the  Latin  Vulgate,  from 
wliicli  the  Complutensian  edition  derived  the  text 
1  Jn  5'-  ".  Erasmus  also  used  the  same  Version  to 
make  good  the  deficiencies  of  his  Greek  MS  of  the 
Apocalyp-se.  A  little  later  Beza  (1.519-1605)  for  his 
Geneva  edition  quoted  Tremellius'  edition  of  the 
Syriac  of  1509,  and  for  part  of  the  NT  (Acts, 
1  2  Cor.)  used  also  the  readings  of  an  Arabic  Ver- 
sion. In  the  Polyglots  of  Antwerp  (l.')69-72)  and 
Paris  (1030-33)  we  do  not  find  more  than  the 
Versions  already  mentioned,  tlie  Antwerp  edition 
having  only  the  Latin  and  Syriac.  ^\alton  in 
the  Lontlon  Polyglot  (1654-7)  printed  in  the  fifth 
volume,  which  contains  the  NT,  the  Ethiopic  as 
Well  as  the  Syriac,  Vulgate,  and  Arabic,  and,  for 
the  Gosjiels,  the  Persian  Version.  A  few  years 
later  Bishop  Fell,  in  his  edition  of  the  NT  of  1675, 
professes  to  give  variants  ex  plus  centum  MSS 
codicihus  et  anlir^uis  versionibus.  Among  the  latter 
he  quotes,  and  is  the  first  to  quote,  the  I'ohairio 
and  Gothic,  but  he  uses  them  only  here  and  there, 
and  not  systematically.  The  Versions  were  used 
more  fully  by  Mill  in  his  famous  edition  of  1707. 
He  lirst  'accorded  to  the  Vulgate  and  the  Old 
Latin  the  importance  they  deserve,' §  and  had  a 
slight  knowledge  of  Syriac,  but  for  the  other 
Versions  had  to  he  content  to  rely  on  Latin  trans- 
lations often  inexact,  and  so  his  use  of  the  Versions 
may  well  have  bein  'the  weakest  part'  in  his 
monumental  contribution  to  biblical  criticism. 
The  name  of  Bentley  (1662-1742)  is  imiiortant  foi 
our  present  purpose  because  of   the  attention  he 

•  Thus  Jerome,  ijuoted  by  Alford  at  Eph  &2a^  says,  hoc  ijuotl  in 
lat.  exemptia  addttxim  ftrC  sulKlitio  sint  in  gracig  editionibxu 
non  habetur  ted  hoe  vwgin  in  grteco  inteiiigilur  quam  in 
latino. 

t  So  Jerome  (quoted  by  lUirpon)  at  1  Co  7*^  says,  I7i  Latinit 
codicibuji  ob  dij/lcuitaUm  traiuttationij  hoc  penilxu  non  in. 
venitur. 

t  Of  this  the  Index  at  tlie  end  of  tlie  Hflh  /asciculujt  to  the 
Oxford  Vuliiate  would  K^ve  itluulrittions.  Thus  (rciin  two 
successive  words  we  Hud  tnat  iy*f*.ZifiUi  is  rendered  by  several 
Latin  words,  and,  OD  the  other  hand,  *aiiin  eemper  redditui 
tcpculu7n.' 

i  Scrivener,  ii.  201. 


S54 


VERSIONS 


VERSIONS 


fave  to  a  <:ritical  edition  of  the  Latin  Version.* 
he  next  critic  who  needs  to  be  noticed  in  con- 
nexion vith  the  use  of  the  Versions  is  Wetscein 
(1693-1754),  who  in  his  Prolegomena  (IV.'iO),  besides 
giving  us  the  ordinarily  used  notation  for  our  MSS, 
'  bestowed  great  pains  on  the  Versions.'  Alter,  in 
his  edition  of  the  Greek  Testament  of  1786-7,  be- 
sides some  readings  from  Wilkins'  edition  of  the 
Bohairic,  quotes  also  from  four  MSS  of  the  Slavonic 
Version  and  i  of  the  Old  Latin.  Before  we  leave 
the  IStli  cent.,  reference  must  be  made  to  the  labori- 
ous work  of  Holmes  and  Parsons  on  the  LXX,  for 
their  edition  of  which  they  quoted  the  Old  Latin, 
Syiiac,  Egyptian,  Arabic,  Georgian,  Armenian,  and 
Slavonic.  In  every  case  the  help  of  experts  in  tlie 
several  languages  was  procured,  out  the  permanent 
value  of  the  work  bears  no  relation  to  the  time  and 
labour  expended  on  it,  because  the  time  had  not 
yet  come  when  the  material  was  adequately  or 
scientifically  collected,  and  the  collators  were  not 
all  equally  trustworthy. 

Gnesbach,  at  the  beginning  of  the  19th  cent.,  is 
important  in  connexion  with  the  use  of  Versions, 
not  only  because  of  his  q^uotations  of  the  Gotliic, 
Armenian,  and  Philoxenian,  but  also,  and  more 
especially,  because  he  was  the  first  to  assign  them 
a  place  in  the  families  of  text  which  Bengel  had 
introduced.  Thus  to  the  Alexandrian  recension  he 
assigned  the  Egyptian  and  some  other  Versions,  to 
the  Western  the  Old  Latin  and  Vulgate,  and  to 
the  Byzantine  the  vast  majority  of  the  Versions. 
Lachmann  (1793-1851)  'restored  the  Latin  Versions 
to  their  proper  rank  in  the  criticism  of  the  NT,'  t 
but  did  not  use  the  Syrian  and  Egyptian  Versions. 
In  Westcott  and  Hort's  summary  of  the  history  of 
the  Greek  text  of  the  NT  the  Versions,  of  course, 
find  a  place.  Thus  the  Bohairic  and,  with  some 
exceptional  readings,  the  Sahidic  are  included 
among  authorities  for  the  neutral  text,  the  Old 
Latin  and  Old  Syriac  among  tliose  for  the  Western 
text  some  readings  of  the  Bohairic  and  Sahidic  are 
Alexandrian,  while  the  vast  majority  belong  to  the 
group  of  authorities  which  contain  a  '  Syrian '  or 
revised  text.  But  one  of  the  important  points 
which  recent  examination  of  the  Egyptian  Versions 
has  tended  to  establish,  is,  that  the  Bohairic  does 
not  represent  the  primitive  form  of  the  Egyptian 
Version  so  well  as  the  Sahidic.  This  would  involve 
a  weakening  of  their  theory  that  the  neutral  text 
is  invariably  right. 

At  the  present  time  it  would  be  agreed  by  textual 
critics  that  all  the  Versions,  just  as  even  the  latest 
cursive  MSS,  have  to  be  examined  at  any  rate  to 
see  whether  they  have  any  contribution  to  make  to 
textual  criticism  ;  but  the  main  energy  of  scholars 
is  being  devoted  to  the  collection,  and  proper 
arrangement,  of  the  materials  available  and 
necessary  for  a  proper  estimate  of  the  history  and 
text  of  eacli  Version.  When  this  has  been  satis- 
factorily done,  and  good  critical  editions  are 
available,  but  not  till  then,  it  will  be  possible  to 
give  each  Version  its  due  weight  in  the  scale  of 
evidence,  after  making  allowance  for  the  changes 
it  has  undergone  in  the  course  of  its  history, 
and  taking  account  of  the  disagreement  between 
dill'erent  MSS  of  the  same  Version. 

The  notation  adopted  for  Ike  Versions,  as  for  the 
other  autliorities  for  tlie  text  of  the  NT,  is  that 
used  by  Tischendorf  in  tlie  8th  ed.  of  his  Novum 
Testamentum,  and  described  fully  by  him,  and  by 
other  authorities  since.  Some  modifications  have 
been  made  owing  to  further  study,  as,  for  exanijile, 
in  regard  to  the  names  now  generally  given  to  the 
Egyptian  Versions,  and  some  additions  have  to  be 
made  for  reference  to  material  wliich  has  become 
available  since  the  publication  of  his  edition,  such 

•  See  Wordsworth  and  White's  Vulgate,  L  xvfl. 
t  Scrivener,  ii.  236. 


as  the  Sinaitic  MS  of  the  Syiiac.  But  the  general 
outlines  of  the  notation  will  probably  remain  tha 
same.  In  the  case  of  separate  M.SS  of  the  Versions, 
that  notation  used  by  the  editors  of  the  standard 
editions  which  have  already  appeared  or  are  in  pra 
paration — e.g.  Wordsworth  and  White's  Vulgate, 
Brooke  and  Maclean's  Septuagiiit,  Homer's  Bo- 
hairic, Gwilliam's  Peshitta,  etc. — will,  it  is  hoped, 
be  adopted  to  prevent  confusion  and  double  nomen- 
clature, such  as  is  necessary  in  the  cases  of  many 
cursive  MSS  of  the  Greek  Testament  owing  to  the 
diii'erent  notation  of  Scrivener  and  Gregory. 

(b)  The  most  striking  instance  of  the  exegetical 
value  of  a  Version  is  to  be  found  in  the  LXX,  and 
the  light  it  throws  on  the  NT.  Bishop  Pearson 
^vrote  as  follows  on  this  point : — 

LXX  viralis  versio  ad  Notnim  Testamentum  recti  intelHfjen- 

dum  et  accurate  expticandum  perquain  jiecessaria  cut.  This 
judfjTiient  is  quoted  by  Dr.  Swete*  as  '  juslilled'  by  the  facts.! 
In  rejjard  also  to  the  meaning  of  the  Hebrew,  *  it  is  never  safe  to 
neglect  their  interpretations  even  if  in  the  harder  contexts  it  ia 
seldom  to  be  trusted.  Indirectly,  at  least,  much  may  be  learned 
from  them,  and  their  wildest  exegesis  belongs  to  the  history  of 
henneneutics  and  has  influencea  thought  and  language  to  a 
remarkable  degree.'  On  the  other  hand,  'transliterations, 
doublets,  confused  and  scarcely  intelligible  renderings  reveal 
the  fact  that  in  difficult  passages  they  were  often  reduced  to 
mere  conjecture.' 

The  Latin  Version,  again,  has  a  very  important 
place  in  the  history  of  biblical  exegesis  in  the 
West.  The  opinion  of  Dr.  Kouth,  endorsed  by 
Dean  Burgon,J  that  tlie  Vulgate  oilers  the  best 
commentary  on  the  NT,  can  iiardly  be  justified. 
There  are,  indeed,  many  passages  where  the  Vul- 
gate has  erred,  and  has  influenced  the  English 
Bible  of  1611  through  the  medium  of  earlier 
renderings,  e.g.  Lk  21"',  Mt  16-"-^,  Ko  2'8  etc.  It 
is  not,  however,  possible  to  exaggerate  its  general 
influence  on  the  formation  of  theological  language, 
and  indirectly  on  the  exegesis  of  the  many  Versions 
which  were  made  from  it  during  the  Middle  Ages. 
These  two  Versions  stand,  however,  in  an  excep- 
tional position.  Of  most  of  the  others  the  exegetical 
value  IS  not  great.  §  In  the  OT  they  were,  for  the 
most  part,  secondary,  and  derived  from  the  LXX  ; 
while  for  the  NT  we  are  as  well  able  as  the  trans- 
lators to  ascertain  the  meaning  of  the  Greek. 
Nor  do  the  Versions  give  much  help  in  regard  to 
difficult  words  or  constructions,  such  as  iTrioiaioi, 
vdpdoi  rtffTiK-fi,  TTvyfiy,  ^-jrt^aXujv  ^/cXatc,  and  the  like ; 
indeed  they  sometimes  omit  the  difficulty  alto- 
gether. ||  I'hey  are,  however,  even  in  these  ca-ses 
interesting,  because  they  preserve  for  us  an  early 
traditional  rendering. 

(c)  The  use  which  may  be  made  of  the  Versions 
in  re-'ard  to  the  history  of  the  Bible,  the  Canon,  etc., 
may  be  illustrated  both  from  the  Old  and  the  New 
Testament.  The  importance  of  their  evidence, 
as  in  the  case  of  their  use  for  textual  criticism, 
consists  in  our  being  able  by  this  means  to  localize 
the  phenomena  with  which  we  meet. 

The  most  obvious  instance  is  the  evidence  which  Is  afforded 
by  the  Versions  in  regard  to  the  inclusion  or  exclusion  of  the 
Apocah-pse.  Both  the  Svriacand  the  Bohairic  Versions  indicate 
that  that  book  was  not  included  in  the  Canon  of  the  NT  when 
they  were  made.  Another  instance — and  this  affects  the  arrange- 
ment  of  the  books  of  the  Bible — may  be  found  in  the  so-called 
Western  order  of  the  Gospels  found  in  the  MSS  of  the  Latin 

•  Introd.  tothtOT  in  Greek  {p.  467).  Dr.  Swete  sums  up  the 
question  as  follows:  'On  the  one  hand,  the  inter^jreter  [i.e.  of 
the  NT]  ought  not  to  be  led  astray  by  visions  of  the  solidarity 
of  "Biblical  Greek."  ...  On  the  other  hand,  the  student  of 
the  NT  will  make  the  LXX  his  starting-point  in  examining  the 
sense  of  all  words  and  phrases  which  .  .  .  piuised  into  I'alea- 
tinian  use  through  the  Greek  OT,  and  in  their  passage  received 
the  impress  of  Semitic  thought  and  life.' 

t  Swete,  I.e.  p.  446. 

t  Liveg  o/Twetve  Good  Hen,  pp.  78,  77. 

5  Walton,  however,  in  his  Frolegomejui,  S  6.  ;J,  sa.vs,  gcnsum 
clariun  explicant  ita  ut  pro  pturibuB  commeiifariis  pernio  uniea 
iiuiercire  posgit. 

I  See  I'esh.  (Ao  IS"*)  »nd  Jerome's  words,  quoted  abova 
p.  S63I',  note  t. 


VERSIONS 


VERSIOXS,  ENGLISH 


855 


Version  and  elsewhere.*  Again,  the  var>nng  position  of  tho 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  whioli  is  found  in  the  Bohairic  between 
SXhess.  and  1  Tim.,  in  the.Sahiilicbi'twcen  2 Cor.  and  Gal,,  affords 
evidence  a»  to  early  uncertainty  about  the  Tauline  authorship. 
From  the  OT,  illustrations  may  be  found  in  the  %'ariations  be- 
tween the  Canon  of  the  Hebrew,  LXX,  and  Vult.'at€,  and  the 
liirht  thrown  on  the  history  of  the  OT  Canon. t  While  the  order 
of  books  in  '  the  Law '  was  fixed  at  the  time  the  LXX  translation 
was  made,  that  of  the  hooka  contained  in  the  groups  of  *  the 
Prophet*'  and  *  the  Writings'  was  not ;  and  evidence  of  this  is 
found  in  tiie  variations  in  ordar  b**tween  the  LXX  and  Hebrew. 
A^ain,  within  certain  hooks,  suc»  us  Exodus  and  Jeremiah,  we 
find  a  ditlerence  in  the  arrangement  of  material  between  the 
LX.\  and  ilebreWi  and  in  1  Sam.  a  soinewbaC  similar  phenoiue* 
non  meets  ua. 

Tliese  facts  take  us  back  behind  the  formation 
of  the  Canon,  on  whicli  the  facts  already  mentioned 
atibrd  evidence,  and  can  be  used  for  tlie  light  they 
throw  on  the  composition  of  the  separate  books. 
Of  course  it  is  only  in  the  very  earliest  Versions 
that  such  a  use  of  the  Versions  as  is  here  referred 
to  can  be  made.  And,  conversely,  these  jilieno- 
mena,  as  we  have  already  noticed,  are  ittfort^nt 
in  helping  us  to  date  those  Versions  in  which  they 
occur. 

{d)  It  would  be  out  of  place  in  a  Bible  dictionary 
to  go  at  any  length  into  the  lifr.rrny  and  philologi- 
cal interest  of  the  Versions,  but  this  part  of  the 
subject  cannot  be  wholly  omitted.  It  will  be 
obvious  how  great  this  interest  must  be  when  we 
call  to  mind  that  in  nearly  every  language  the 
earliest  raonunienta  preserved  to  us  consist  of 
translations  of  the  Bible.  In  many  cases  {e.g. 
Gothic,  Armenian,  Slavonic,  etc.)  we  are  told  that 
alphabets  were  deviseti  for  the  express  purpose  of 
these  translations.  Translations  of  the  Bible, 
then,  take  us  to  the  cradle  of  nearly  every  written 
modern  language,  and  they  not  only  give  us  our 
earliest  information  as  to  written  languages,  but 
they  have  exercised  an  important  influence  on 
their  subsequent  history  by  fixing  the  dialect 
which  was  to  prevail  as  the  literary  dialect.  As 
instances  of  this,  the  inlluence  of  the  translations  of 
Wydif  and  Luther  on  the  literary  development  of 
English  and  (IcruKin  may  be  mentioned ;  and  of  a 
somewhat  similar  kind  was  the  influence  of  Hus's 
Bible  in  fixing  the  orthography  of  Bohemian  or 
Chekh. 

Again,  when  we  pass  to  the  early  history  of 
printing  in  any  language,  the  importance  of  the 
V'ersioiis  as  evidence  is  clearly  seen  from  the  fact 
that  the  earliest  printed  books  were  often  transla- 
tions of  the  Bible.  Thus  the  earliest  Uussian 
printed  book  was  the  Psalter  of  1564,  and  the  first 

{jrinted  book  in  Hungarian  was  Komjathy's  trans- 
ation  of  St.  Paul's  Epistles  of  1533. 

In  eraphasizin"  the  philological  importance  of 
Versions  of  the  Isible,  we  may  point  to  tjothic  and 
Basque,  in  which  almost  the  only  monuments  of 
the  language  consist  of  translations  of  the  Bible. 
The  first  of  these,  scanty  as  its  fragments  are,  is 
by  some  centuries  the  oldest  monument  of  the 
Teutonic  family.  Again,  the  MSS  of  tlie  Latin 
Bible  illustrate  many  steps  in  the  process  by  which 
Latin  developed  into  the  later  Uomance  languages 
in  their  separate  forms. 

LiTERATDHi!.  — Besides  the  special  literature  mentioned  in 
connexion  with  the  separate  Versions  (which  see),  the  following 
books  dealing  (generally,  .with  the  subject  will  be  found  indis- 
pensable i—f/rffK  u?i<i  UhrrgeUungm  (Ur  i'i*c(  (Leipzig,  181(7), 
a  reprint  of  the  art  '  Bitieltext '  in  PRE*,  is  indispensable  both 
for  \\A  outline  of  the  whole  subject  and  its  references  to  litera- 
ture. For  eflitions  of  the  Bible  in  dilfercnt  translations  the 
parts  of  the  British  Museum  Catalot.'ue  on  Bibles  will  give  the 
titles  and  some  idea  of  the  size  of  the  subject. 

(1)  NT:  Scrivener's  Introduttion  (o  the  Criticvm  o/the  NT, 
Tol.  li.  (Ix)ndon,  189-1),  tives  the  fullest  account  in  En^'isb  of  the 
Versions  of  the  NT ;  0.  H.  Gregory's  ProUgamena,  part  ill.  to 


"  See  Sanday  in  Smith's  DBt,  p.  1240,  art.  'Gospels.' 
t  This  is  worked  out  fully  in  the  ciiapter  In  Swete's  Introdttc- 
Hon  totheOT  in  Grrrk  whlili  deals  with  this  part  of  the  subject, 
and  for  theVulifate  in  liirmr  a  UMtnre  df  taVulgalr.m.SUltl., 

sua. 


TIechendorf's  A'oy.  Test.  (Leipzig,  1894),  rives  the  fullest  list  of 
MSS  of  the  Versions  of  NT  ;  Eb.  Nestle,  binfuhrung  in  das  Gr. 
A2"-'(Gottingen,  1899,  Eug.  tr.  1901),  is  quite  the  best  recent 
bcok. 

(2)  OT :  The  general  subject  of  the  Versions  of  the  OT  haa 
not  been  so  fully  treated  in  English  as  that  of  the  NT.  Mention 
mav  be  made  of  Wcllhausen's  edition  of  Bleek's  Einleit.  in  das 
A't,  and  Uuhl,  Text  und  Kanon  di:s  atten  Testament  (Leiitzig, 
1891,  Eng.  tjr.  1801),  and  Driver,  Notes  on  the  Ueb.  Text  oj 
Sam.  ISM.  LL.  J.  M.  BKBB. 

VERSIONS,  ENGLISH.— i.  The  history  of  the 
Versions  of  the  English  Bible  may  be  said  to 
begin  with  John  Wyclif.  Previous  to  his  time 
there  had  been  various  attemjjts  to  render  parts 
of  the  Scri[)turcs  into  Anglo-Saxon  and  Anglo- 
Norman,  or  Middle-English.  But  these  had  not 
only  been  very  fragmentary,  but  were  for  the 
most  jiart  paraphrases  rather  than  literal  trans- 
lations. \\  ith  Wyclif,  however,  a  new  era  in 
Bible-translation  began,  and  nothing  that  concerns 
him  can  fail  to  be  of  interest.*  He  was  bom  about 
the  j"car  1320  in  the  vicinity  of  Richmond  in  York- 
shire, and  when  he  first  comes  publicly  forward  is 
found  filling  various  important  posts  in  the  Uni- 
versity of  Oxford.  The  bold  attitude  with  regard 
to  the  Papal  Tribute  which  he  took  up  in  a  Tract, 
led  to  his  being  selected  as  one  of  the  Koyal  Com- 
missioners sent  to  Bruges  in  1374  to  treat  with  the 
Papal  Nuncio  regarding  the  reservation  of  bene- 
fices, and  from  this  time  may  be  dated  his  appear- 
ance as  an  ardent  eccle.siastical  reformer — '  the 
Morning  Star  of  the  Keformation.'  For  this  end 
he  institute<l  an  order  of  '  poor  priests '  whose 
duty  it  was  '  faithfully  to  scatter  the  seed  of  God's 
word,'  and  it  was  to  aid  them  in  this  work  that  he 
set  about  providing  them  with  the  Bible  in  their 
native  tongue.  The  first  book  translated  was  the 
Apocalypse,  which  was  followed  by  a  translation 
of  the  Gospels  with  a  commentary,  and  soon  after 
by  versions  of  the  remaining  books  of  the  NT,  the 
whole  being  completed  by  1380.  To  this  was 
added  a  translation  of  the  OT  principally  by  one 
of  his  friends,  Nicolas  de  Hereford,  though  Wyclif 
himself  seems  to  have  suiijilied  the  last  books  and 
about  one-third  of  the  Apocrypha,  so  that  about 
the  middle  of  the  year  1382  the  whole  Bible 
was  in  the  hands  of  the  people  '  in  their  mother 
tongue.'  All  this  had  not  been  accomplished 
without  difficulty  and  even  danger.  Hereford 
had  to  flee  the  country,  and  Wj'clif's  own  teach- 
ing was  publicly  condemned  at  a  Synod  in  London 
in  1382.  The  hostility,  however,  would  seem  to 
have  been  confined  to  a  few  persons,  notably 
Archbishop  Arundel,  for  the  new  translation  was 
generally  tolerated,  and  the  reformer  himself,  con- 
trary to  his  own  expectations,  was  eventually 
allowed  to  retire  to  his  rectory  of  Lutterworth, 
where  he  passed  quietly  away  on  the  last  day  of 
the  year  1384. 

But  the  good  work  was  not  allowed  to  stop,  and 
in  1388  one  of  Wyclif's  pupils,  now  generally 
identified  with  John  Purvey,  is.sued  a  careful 
revision  of  his  translation,  introduced  by  a  most 
interesting  Prologue,  and  accompanied  by  a  num- 
ber of  short  cojnments  or  notes.  This  version 
quickly  took  the  place  of  the  older  one,  and  was 
largely  circulated  amongst  all  classes  of  the  people 
notwithstanding  its  great  cost.t  Both  versions 
were  indeed  admirably  adapted  for  pojuilar  use, 
being  characterized  by  great  homeliness  and  direct- 
ness of  diction.  And  though  many  of  the  words 
and  expressions  nsed  are  now  of  course  obsolete  or 

•  See  especially  Lechler's  John  Wyciife  and  his  Entjtish  Pre- 
atrii"rn,  translated  and  edited  by  Loriiner;  and  cf.  'The  Mirth 
and  I'arentAge  of  Wiclif '  by  L.  Sergeant  in  tlie  Adunurwn  for 
Maroli  l'.!th  and  2Hth,  1892.  ' 

t  Kornhall  and  Madden,  in  the  prcparat  ion  of  their  ^reat  work 
on  The  W'lidijjite  Verifiorut,  ISfiO,  were  able  to  examine  '  nearly 
160  MSS  containing  the  whole  or  part*  of  I'urvey's  Bible,  the 
majority  of  whi'-h  were  written  witliio  the  space  of  forty  years 
from  its  being  tluislied '  (Preface,  p.  xxxli  f.). 


856 


VERSIONS,  ENGLISH 


VKESIONS,  ENGLISH 


inappropriate,  it  is  wonderful,  when  the  spelling 
is  modernized,  how  little  they  difl'er  as  a  whole 
from  our  A  V.  One  great  blemish  they  of  necessity 
possess.  They  are  only  translations  of  a  trans- 
lation, being  made  from  the  Latin  Vul^'ate  ;  and 
it  was  left  to  another  with  improved  facilities  to 
carry  on  the  work  so  auspiciously  begun,  and 
more  than  'any  other  man  to  give  its  character- 
istic shape  to  our  English  Bible'  (Westcott, 
General  View  of  the  Eistury  of  the  English  Bible-, 
1872,  p.  24). 

ii.  That  other  was  William  Tindale,  and,  though 
there  is  still  consiileralile  uncertainty  regarding 
many  of  the  facts  of  his  life,  it  is  now  generally 
agreed  that  he  was  born  at  Slymbridge  in  Glou- 
cestershire about  the  j'ear  14S4,*  and  that  after 
studj'ing  at  O.\ford  he  proceeded  to  Cambridge  in 
1515,  where  the  fame  of  Erasmus'  lectures  stUl 
lingered.  In  1521  he  returned  to  his  native 
county  as  chaplain  and  tutor  in  the  family  of  Sir 
John  Walsh  of  Little  Sodbury,  and  while  there  is 
credited  with  the  resolution  to  which  Ids  whole 
after-life  w^as  devoted,  saying  in  controversy  with 
a  clerical  opponent,  '  If  God  spare  my  life,  ere 
many  years  I  will  cause  a  boy  that  driveth  the 
plough  shall  know  more  of  the  Scripture  than  thou 
doest.'  In  pursuance  of  this  purpose  he  went  up 
to  London  two  years  later,  in  the  hope  of  executing 
his  task  under  the  patronage  of  Bishop  Tunstall ; 
but  after  a  year  of  anxious  waiting  the  conviction 
forced  itself  upon  him,  'not  only  that  there  was 
no  room  in  my  lord  of  London's  palace  to  translate 
the  NT,  but  also  that  there  was  no  place  to  do  it 
in  all  England  '  (Pref.  to  Pentateuch). 

Voluntarily,  therefore,  in  May  1524,  Tindale 
exiled  himself,  and  after  a  short  stay  at  Hamburg 
seems  to  have  visited  Luther  at  Wittenberg.  In 
any  case,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  in  1525  he 
was  at  Cologne,  engaged  in  bringing  out  a  com- 
plete edition  of  the  NT.  His  plan  was,  however, 
discovered  by  a  certain  priest  John  Cochloeus,  and 
he  and  his  assistant  Roye  had  barely  time  to 
secure  the  precious  sheets  already  printed,  and 
carrj'  them  otl'  to  Worms,  where  either  in  the 
same  or  the  following  year  3000  copies  of  the  first 
printed  English  NT  were  issued  from  the  press  of 
P.  Schoetl'er  the  younger.  The  size  of  the  book 
had  been  altered  from  quarto  to  octavo,  probably 
to  escape  detection  ;  but  shortly  afterwards  the 
original  quarto  edition,  whose  printing  had  been 
interrupted  in  Cologne,  was  also  completed.  Copies 
of  both  editions  were  immediately  despatched  to 
England,  where  they  were  eagerly  welcomed.  But 
so  vigorous  were  the  steps  taken  against  them 
that  of  the  octavo  edition  only  one  complete  copy 
(with  the  exception  of  the  title-page)  remains  ;t 
while  the  aiiarto  is  known  to  exist  only  in  a  single 
fragment  [Ut  l'-22''^).:;: 

After  the  issue  of  his  Testaments,  Tindale 
quietly  continued  his  work  abroad,  publishing  a 
translation  of  The  Five  Books  of  Moses  at  Marburg 
in  1530,  and  The  Book  of  Jonah  with  an  interest- 
ing Prologue  in  1531. §  An  edition  of  the  Book  of 
Genesis  '  newly  corrected  and  amended  '  appeared 
in  1534,  and  in  the  same  year  there  was  published 
at  Antwerp,  '  The  Newe  Testament  dyl ygc'ntl3' 
corrected  and  compared  with  theGreek  by  Willyam 
Tindale,'  in  which  were  included  certain  'Epistles,' 
or  extracts,  out  of  the  OT,  a  Table  of  Epistles  and 

•  See  William  Tyndale,  a  Biography,  by  It  Demaus,  new 
ed.  bv  Lovett,  18S6,  p.  24. 

t  N'ow  in  the  Library  of  the  Baptist  College  at  Bristol,  and 
reproduced  in  facsimile  in  1S62  by  Mr.  F.  Fry.  It  was  pre- 
vioualy  reprinted  with  an  introduction  by  O.  Offor  in  ISIiC. 

I  Preserved  in  the  Grenville  Kooni  of  the  British  Museum, 
and  jjhoto-litho^raphed  and  published  with  a  valuable  intro- 
auction  by  E.  Arber  in  1S71. 

$  The  former  haa  been  reprinted  under  the  editorship  of  Dr. 
tlombert,  and  the  latter  in  facsimile  with  an  introduction  by 
Ur.  Fry. 


Gospels  for  Sundays,  and  '  some  things  added '  tt 
fill  up  the  blank  pages  at  the  end.  The  book  wa» 
thus  in  .some  respects  more  like  a  modern  Church 
Seri'ice  Book  than  an  ordinary  Testaiuent,  while 
the  improvements  introduced  into  the  text  fidly 
justltied  the  translator's  claim  that  he  had  '  weeded 
out  of  it  many  faults  which  lack  of  help  at  the 
beginning,  and  oversight,  did  sow  therein.'  Thia 
edition  has  well  been  described  as  Tindale'a 
'  noblest  monument ' ;  but  not  even  yet  was  hia 
work  of  revision  completed.  In  1535  there  ap- 
peared what  is  often  known  as  '  the  G.  H.  Testa- 
ment' from  the  initials  attached  to  the  second 
title-page,  and  which  were  first  interpreted  by  Mr. 
Bradshaw  (18S1)  as  denoting  G.  van  der  Haghen, 
the  Antwerp  publisher.  In  this  edition  the  1534 
text  was  '  yet  once  agayne  corrected  by  Willyam 
Tindale,'  the  corrections  (there  are  said  to  be 
about  four  hundred  of  them)  proving  by  their 
very  minuteness  the  translator's  fidelity  and  zeal. 
Another  NT  bearing  the  same  date  (1535)  is  re- 
markable for  its  peculiar  orthography,  sometimes 
thought  to  have  been  purposely  adapted  to  the 
pionunciation  of  the  peasantry  (e.i/.  'laether'  for 
'  father,'  '  hueme '  or  '  hoome  '  for  '  home  '),  but  in 
all  probability  caused  by  the  mistakes  of  some 
Flemish  printer  in  setting  up  a  foreign  language. 
As  further  showing  the  rapid  spread  of  Tindale'a 
translations,  it  may  be  mentioned  that  in  the  fol- 
lowing year  (1536)  seven,  if  not  eight,  editions  of 
his  NT  appeared,  one  of  which  (in  lolio)  is  believed 
to  have  been  the  first  portion  of  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures jorinicrf  in  England.* 

Tliere  was  to  be  no  return,  however,  for  Tindale 
himself  to  wliat  he  pathetically  calls  '  mine  natural 
country,'  for,  having  been  betrayed  into  the  hands 
of  his  enemies  and  imprisoned  for  about  a  year  at 
Vilvorde,  near  Brussels,  he  sufi'ered  martyrdom 
on  Friday,  6th  Oct.  1536.  With  his  last  words  he 
prayed,  '  Lord  !  open  the  king  of  England's  eyes.' 

It  is  impossible  here  to  examine  in  detail  Tin- 
dale's  service  to  the  cause  of  Bible  translation, 
but  one  or  two  points  may  be  indicated.  (1) 
Foremost  amongst  these  is  the  independence  of 
his  work.  Attempts  have  been  made  to  under- 
estimate this,  and  more  particularly  to  prove  him 
on  the  one  hand  '  merely  a  full-grown  Wyclitfe,' 
and  on  the  other  to  show  how  largely  he  borrowed 
from  the  German  Testament  of  Luther.  But 
while  Purveys  revision  undoubtedly  inliuenced 
him  indirectly  by  supplying  many  proverbial  ex- 
pressions and  technical  terms  which  through  it 
had  become  current,  and  Lulher'a  Testament, 
more  especially  in  its  Prefaces  and  marginal  Notes, 
was  freely  consulted  and  used,  Tindale  was  too 
good  a  scholar  to  be  slavishly  dependent  on  any 
one.t  and  can  justly  claim  the  honour  of  being 
the  first  in  England  at  any  rate  (with  the  possible 
exception  of  Bede)  to  go  straight  to  the  ilebrew 
and  Greek  originals.^  (2)  If,  however,  in  his  own 
work  he  was  largely  independent  of  others,  his 
influence  on  those  who  followed  him  was  direct 
and  unmistakable.  Thus  it  is  to  him  that  we  owe 
in  great  part  our  religious  vocabulary, §  and,  what 
is  even  more  important,  that  freedom  from  dog- 

•  These  and  many  other  Interestinff  details  will  be  found  in 
A  Bil/tiajraphicaJ  Dexriplion  o/lhe  Jiilitunu  of  the  AT,  Tynr 
dale's  Verifitm,  in  Enqtish,  by  Francis  Fry,  lb"8. 

t  According  to  an  eminent  German  scholar,  H.  Buschius,  who 
met  him  at  Worms  in  1526,  Tindale  was  "so  skilled  in  seven 
lanifuages,  Hebrew,  Greek,  Latin,  Italian,  Spanish,  English, 
French,  that  whichever  he  spoke  you  would  suppose  it  his 
native  tongue'  (Schelhorn,  AiitctnitatfS  Literarice,  iv.  p.  431). 

1  The  Greek  Testament  vihich  he  used  was  that  pubhshed  by 
Erasmus,  edd.  of  1619,  1522. 

§  It  has  been  calculated  that  in  the  whole  of  Tindale's  NT 
the  number  of  stranger  words,  or  words  that  do  not  occur  i» 
the  AV,  is  probablv  below  360,  many  of  which  are  used  once  or 
twice  only  (Moultbu,  The  Histonj  of  f  r  Eryjlinh  Bihh-.  pp. 
70,  71).  Of  his  work  as  a  whole,  our  Bibles  are  said  to  retaiu  at 
the  present  day  about  80  %  in  the  OT  and  90  %  in  the  NT. 


VEKSIOMS,  ENGLISH 


VERSIONS,  ENGLISH 


867 


matic  bias  and  scrupulous  fidelity  to  the  exact 
letter  of  Scripture  which  have  been  in  general  such 
littppy  features  of  our  English  Versions.*  (3)  It 
would  be  idle  indeed  to  pretend  that  Tindale  fell 
into  no  mistakes.  Many  of  his  renderings  are  in- 
correct, others  are  uncouth,  others  are  paraphra.ses 
rather  than  translations.  Serious  blemishes,  too, 
are  his  constant  disregard  of  connecting  particles, 
and  his  habit  of  translating  the  same  word  in 
ditierent  ways  even  in  the  same  sentence.  But, 
take  it  all  in  all,  his  translation  is  a  noble  one, 
and  its  very  faults,  as  Fuller  saj-s,  are  '  to  be 
scored  on  the  account  rather  of  that  age,  than  of 
'..he  author  himself.' 

iii.  Nor  had  Tindale  left  himself  without  worthy 
successors.  Amongst  those  wlio  are  stated  bj' 
Fo.xe  to  have  assisted  him  in  translating  the 
Pentateuch  was  one  Miles  Coverdale  (b.  1488, 
d.  1jG9),  who,  urged  on  by  Cromwell,  now  devoted 
himself  so  steadily  to  the  work  of  Bible-translation 
that  on  Oct.  4tli,  1535,  the  first  complete  printed 
English  Bible  was  is.sued,  the  sheets  of  which  are 
believed  to  have  been  printed  by  J.  van  Meteren 
of  Antwerp,  and  then  sold  to  Nicolson  the  South- 
wark  printer.  The  original  title  ran  as  follows  : — 
'Biblia,  The  Bible  :  that  is,  the  Holy  Scripture  of 
the  Olde  and  New  Testament,  faithfully  and  truly 
translated  out  of  Douche  and  Latyn  into  Englishe, 
MDXXXV.'  The  English  printer  in  substituting  a 
new  title-page  of  his  own  omitted  for  some  reason 
the  reference  to  '  Douche  [German]  and  Latyn,' 
and  added  several  preliminary  pages  containing  a 
Dedication  to  king  Henry  Vlll.  and  a  Prologue  to 
the  Christian  Reader,  both  signed  by  Coverdale. 
In  this  Dedication,  Coverdale  disclaims  the  position 
of  an  independent  translator,  and  speaks  of  having 
'with  a  clear  conscience  purely  and  faithfully 
translated  this  out  of  five  sundry  interpreters' 
(new  generally  identified  with  Luther,  the  Ziirich 
Bil  le,  the  Vulgate,  the  Latin  version  of  Pagninus, 
and  in  all  probability  Tindale),  and  to  the  same 
ellcct  in  the  Prologue  he  specially  acknowledges 
his  indebtedness  to  '  the  Dutch  interpreters,  whom 
(because  of  their  singular  gifts  and  special  diligence 
in  the  Bible)  I  have  been  the  more  glad  to  follow 
for  the  most  i)art,  according  as  I  was  required.' 

Notwithstanding  these  admissions,  it  would  be 
wrong,  however,  to  regard  Coverdale  as  a  mere 
'  proof  -  reader  or  corrector,'  for,  while  making 
diligent  and  discriminating  use  of  the  ditierent 
autliorities  within  his  reach,  he  supplied  many  of 
those  hajijjy  turns  of  e.xpression  which  len(f  so 
much  of  its  charm  to  our  ICnglish  Bible.  This  is 
perhaps  specially  noticeable  in  the  Psalter,  of 
which  Coverdale's  version  in  the  revised  form  in 
which  it  appeared  in  the  Great  Bible  still  retains 
its  place  in  the  English  Book  of  Common  Prayer. 
Two  new  editions  of  Coverdale's  Bible  were  is.sucd 
by  Nicolson  in  1537,  on  the  title-page  of  which 
there  now  appeared  for  the  first  time  the  significant 
words,  •  Set  lorth  with  the  Kynges  most  gracious 
licence.'  The  following  year  found  Coverdale 
engaged  in  biblical  work  in  Paris,  and  the  fruit 
was  seen  in  a  Latin- English  Testament,  of  which 
in  one  year  three  eilitious  were  called  for.  New 
editions  of  the  Bible  ajijicared  in  I5.ji)  and  1553.t 

iv.  Other  translations  now  followed  in  rapid 
enccession,  one  of  which  is  generally  known  as 
Matthew's  Bible.  Its  real  editor,  however,  was  a 
certain  John  liogers,  who  adopted  the  alias  of 
Thomas  Matthew — perhaps,  as  Vo.\e  suggests,  to 

•  '  1  call  Ood  to  record  ajjainBt  the  day  we  shall  appear  before 
cor  IfOrd  Jesua,  to  givo  a  reckoning  of  our  doiiiKH,  that  1  never 
altered  one  Bytlable  of  CJoiI'b  word  ai^iiiHt  my  coimcieiicu,  nor 
would  thit  day,  It  all  tliat  in  in  llie  eanh,  wlicthir  it  be 
plcaaure,  honour,  or  riches,  mlKht  l>o  jfiven  rae.'— Tindale  In 
Letter  In  Fryth,  1533  (Demaus'  Tiindalt,  p.  336). 

t  A  convenient  reprint  of  C'overd:ilo'»  Uible  of  1636  hu  within 
rereut  years  been  ij»ued  by  Uagater, 


hide  his  connexion  with  Tindale.  As  to  the  close- 
ness of  this  connexion  there  can  at  least  be  no 
doubt.  The  whole  of  the  NT  and  about  half  the 
or  in  the  new  edition  are  Tiudale's,  while  the 
remainder  is  Coverdale's.  Signs  are  not  wanting, 
however,  of  critical  editorship.  Thus  in  the  Psalter 
various  readings  are  introduced  in  the  margin,  and 
many  technical  terms  are  carefully  explained. 
Numerous  notes  have  also  been  added,  many  of 
which  breathe  a  spirit  of  ardent  Protestantism, 
and  there  is  a  large  amount  of  prefatory  matter 

£rincipally  from  Olivetan's  French  Bible  (1535). 
like  the  second  edition  of  Coverdale's  Bible,  the 
new  version  bears  to  be  'set  forth  with  the  kingcs 
most  gracyous  13'ceee,'  and  Cromwell,  instigated 
by  Cranmer,  further  obtained  Henry's  peruussiou 
that '  the  same  may  be  sold  and  read  of  every  person, 
without  danger  ot  any  act,  proclamation,  or  ordi- 
nance heretofore  granted  to  the  contrary.'  Hence 
it  came  about  that  '  by  Craniner's  petition,  by 
Crumwell's  influeuce,  and  by  Henry's  authority, 
without  any  formal  ecclesiastical  decision,  tlie 
book  was  given  to  the  English  people,  whicli  is 
the  foundation  of  the  text  of  our  present  Bible. 
I'rora  Matthew's  Bible— itself  a  combination  of 
the  labours  of  Tyiidale  and  Coverdale — all  later 
revisions  have  been  successively  formed'  (West- 
cott,  Uistory'',  p.  73).  Its  author  did  nut,  however, 
escape  in  the  troublous  times  that  followed  on 
Mary's  accession.  Through  the  agency  of  Bonner 
he  was  imprisoned  at  Newgate,  and  on  Feb.  4th, 
1555,  was  burned  at  the  stake,  setting  a  second 
seal  to  the  fourfold  seal  of  martyrdom  by  which 
the  history  of  our  English  Bible  has  been  hallowed. 

V.  Closely  allied  to  Matthew's  Bible  is  a  versiou 
bearing  tlie  name  of  Richard  Taverner,  which 
was  published  in  1539,  and  bore  to  be  '  newly 
recognized  with  great  diligence  after  most  faythful 
exemplars.'  But  the  changes  introduced  are  not 
as  a  rule  of  any  great  importance,  though  in  the 
NT  there  are  occasional  forcible  renderings.  In 
Mt  21.  '22,  for  example.  Dr.  Moulton  finds  in  all 
about  40  variations  from  Tindale,  of  which  one- 
third  are  retained  in  the  AV  (History,  p.  135). 
So  far  as  we  know,  Taverner's  Bible  was  only 
once  reprinted,  in  1549  (Cotton's  Editions  of  tlis 
liiUc-,  J).  21). 

VI.  \\  e  have  seen  already  what  a  steady  friend 
of  Bible-translation  Cromwell  had  proved  himself. 
He  was  to  render  it  yet  another  notable  service. 
Not  wliolly  satisfied  with  any  version  that  had 
appeared,  he  applied  to  Coverdale  early  in  1538  to 
undertake  a  wholly  new  revision,  using  Matthew's 
Bible  as  his  basis  ;  *  and  as  it  was  determined  that 
the  printing  should  be  done  in  Paris,  Coverdale, 
accompanied  by  one  Giaflon,  at  once  repaired 
thither.  Before,  however,  the  work  was  com- 
pleted, the  ln(|ui.sition  stepped  in,  and  it  was  with 
great  dilliculty  that  the  sheets  were  saved,  and 
the  presses  sent  over  to  England.  There  the  work 
was  soon  finished,  and  in  Ai)ril  153U  the  Great 
Bible,  as  being  the  Bible  '  in  the  largest  volume,' 
was  issued  from  the  press.  It  possessed  a  title- 
page  of  elaborate  design,  in  which  Henry  was 
represented  as  handing  'the  Word  of  God'  to 
Cranmer  and  other  clergy  on  his  right  hand,  and 
to  Cromwell  and  various  lay-peers  on  his  left ; 
while  the  contents  are  described  as  '  truly  trans- 
lated after  the  veryte  of  the  Hebruo  and  tireku 
textes,  by  ye  dylygent  studye  of  dyuerse  excellent 
learned  men  expert  in  the  forsayde  tonges.'  There 
can  be  no  doubt,  however,  that  the  work  was 
principally  Coverdale's,  and  that  in  his  revision 
of  Matthew's  text  he  made  large  use  of  .Miinsler'a 
Hebrew-Latin  version  in  the  OT,  and  of  the  \'\i\- 

*  *  I  am  always  willing  and  readv,'  Oovcrtlale  had  written  In 
the  Dedication  to  his  llible,  *(0  ao  my  best  as  well  in  on? 
translation  as  in  another.' 


S58 


VERSIONS,  ENGLISH 


VERSIONS,  ENGLISH 


gate  and  Erasmus  in  the  NT.  From  the  Vulgate 
more  e»i)ecially  he  introducetl  a  numher  of  various 
readings,  bit  'certain  godly  annotations'  which 
he  promised  in  the  Prologue  to  explain  '  the  dark 
places  of  the  text'  never  a|)peared.  In  I54U  a  new 
edition  was  calk'd  for,  containing  a  long  Preface 
by  Archbishop  Cranmer,  which  has  led  to  its  being 
known  as  Cranmer's  Bible.  Five  other  editions 
followed  rapidly  within  the  next  eighteen  months.* 
FVom  their  size  and  cost  these  were  principally 
used  as  Church  Bibles,  and  it  must  have  been  a 
pleasing  sight  to  see  in  Old  St.  Paul's  or  in  the 
aisle  of  some  country  cliurch  the  little  group 
round  the  Gre.at  Bible,  from  which  some  one  more 
educated  than  the  rest  read  aloud. 

vii.  The  people,  however,  were  soon  to  have  a 
Bible  of  their  own,  and  for  this  we  must  turn 
again  to  the  Continent.  The  accession  of  Mary 
had  given  a  new  turn  to  the  ever-varying  fortunes 
of  our  Bible's  history.  Cranmer  had  followed 
Rogers  to  the  stake,  and  the  public,  though  appar- 
ently not  the  private,  use  ot  the  Scriptures  was 
strictly  forbidden.  Foreseeing  what  was  coming,  a 
number  of  the  leading  Reformers  had  taken  refuge 
at  Geneva,  the  city  of  Calvin  and  Beza,  and  there, 
as  they  themselves  tell  us,  '  we  thought  we  could 
bestow  our  labours  and  study  in  nothing  which 
could  be  more  acceptable  to  God,  and  comfortable 
to  His  Cliurch,  than  in  the  translating  of  the 
Scriptures  into  our  native  tongue.'  The  immediate 
result  was  the  publication  in  1557  of  a  translation 
of  the  NT  alone  by  one  of  their  number,  William 
Whittingham,  who,  in  his  Address  to  the  Reader, 
describes  his  work  as  specially  intended  for  '  simple 
lambs.'  And  it  was  doubtless  the  thought  of  the 
same  class  of  readers  that  led  to  the  numerous 
'  annotations  of  all  hard  places,'  and  to  the  adop- 
tion for  the  first  time  in  an  English  translation  of 
the  convenient  but  often  misleading  division  into 
verses,  t 

This  Testament  was,  however,  soon  cast  into  the 
shade  by  the  publication  in  1560  of  a  translation 
of  the  whole  Bible,  due  in  the  main  to  the  com- 
bined labours  of  William  Whittingham,  Thomas 
Sampson,  and  Anthony  Gilby.  In  size  this  Gen- 
evan Bible  is  a  moderate  quarto,  and  it  is  often 
familiarly  known  as  the  Breeclies  Bible  from  its 
rendering  of  Gn  3'  ('They  sewed  fig-tree  leaves 
together,  and  made  themselves  breeches ').  The 
cost  of  its  production  was  met  by  '  such  as  were  of 
most  ability'  in  the  congregation  at  Geneva. 

Regarded  simjily  as  a  translation,  the  version 
deserves  high  praise,  being  based  on  a  careful 
revision  of  the  (jreat  Bible  in  the  OT,  and,  under 
the  intlaence  of  Beza's  Latin  translation  and  Com- 
mentary, of  Tindale's  latest  edition  in  the  NT. 
The  changes  thus  introduced  were  as  a  rule  marked 
improvements,  and  many  of  them  were  subse- 
quently adopted  in  the  AV.  The  new  version 
was  also  abundantly  supplied  with  maiginal  notes 
principally  of  an  explanatory  character,  and  these, 
combined  with  the  convenient  size  in  which  it 
appeared,  did  much  to  account  for  the  popxilarity 
which  for  long  it  enjoyed, $  passing  as  it  did  through 
IGO  editions,  60  of  them  during  the  reign  of  Eliza- 
betli  alone,§  and  continuing  to  be  printed  for  some 
time  even  after  the  publication  of  the  AV  in  1611.11 

•  From  the  fact  that  several  of  these  editions  were  printed 
by  Whitchurch,  the  Great  Bible  is  sometimes  known  as  VVhit- 
chnrch'a. 

t  The  scheme  which  Whittinjrham  adopted  was  that  prepared 
by  K.  Stephanus  for  the  4th  ed.  of  his  Greek  NT,  published  in 
1651.  In  the  OT  the  division  into  verses  was  already  in  exist- 
ence in  the  Hebrew  Bible. 

I  In  164ft  an  edition  of  the  AV  itself  was  actually  broupht  out 
with  the  Genevan  notes,  evidently  for  the  purpose  of  commend- 
ing It  to  public  favour. 

8  After  1587  a  revised  version  of  the  NT  made  by  Laurenoe 
T  omson  In  1576  pencrally  took  the  place  of  the  earlier  version. 

H  The  Genevan  was  the  first  Bible  printed  in  Scotland  in  an 
iiaae  gener&lly  known  as  the  Batsandyne  Bible,  from  the  print«r'8 


viii.  It  was  not  to  be  expected,  however,  that 
the  successors  of  Cromwell  and  Cranmer  could 
look  with  favour  on  a  translation  emanating  from 
the  scliool  of  Calvin,  and  containing  so  many 
'prejudicial  notes.'  Accordingly,  in  15G3-64  Arch- 
bishop Parker  set  on  foot  a  scheme  for  the  revision 
of  Coverdale's  version  by  a  number  of  learned  men 
working  separately ;  and  in  1568  the  Bishops' 
Bible,  so  called  from  the  number  of  bishops  en- 
gaged on  it,  was  completed,  and  a  copy  presented 
to  the  queen.  An  eUbrt  was  made  at  tlie  same 
time  to  secure  that  it  alone  should  be  licensed  '  to 
draw  to  one  uniformity.'  But,  from  whatever 
cause,  this  licence  was  never  granted,  and,  although 
the  version  gained  a  considerable  circulation,  tliis 
was  due  ratlier  to  the  support  accorded  to  it  by 
Convocation  than  to  its  own  merits.* 

The  truth  is  that  as  a  translation  it  was  marked 
by  the  inetiuality  inevitable  to  a  work  which  had 
been  sorted  out  into  '  parcels '  amongst  a  number 
of  independent  workers.  In  the  OT  the  historical 
books  as  a  rule  followed  the  Great  Bible  very 
closely ;  but  in  the  prophetical  books  greater 
variation  was  indulged  in,  many  of  the  changes 
being  distinctly  traceable  to  the  influence  of  the 
Genevan  Bible.  The  Psalter  was  practically  a 
new  translation  ;  and  on  this  account  failed  to 
maintain  its  ground  against  the  version  in  the 
Great  Bible,  already  endeared  by  constant  use. 
In  tlie  2nd  edition  of  1587  the  two  versions  were 
printed  side  by  side,  but  in  all  later  editions 
except  one  (1585)  the  old  Psalter  alone  appeared. 
In  tlie  NT,  on  the  other  hand,  more  particularly 
in  the  1572  edition,  the  bishops  introduced  many 
marked  improvements,  pointing  to  a  careful  study 
of  the  original  text,  though  their  renderings  were 
occasionally  marked  by  cumbrousness  and  a  love 
of  mouth-hlling  phrases.  On  the  whole,  however, 
the  influence  of  the  Bisliops'  Bible  on  succeeding 
versions  cannot  be  said  to  liave  been  very  great, 
and,  as  has  already  been  indicated,  it  failed  to 
oust  the  Genevan  Bible  from  its  place  as  the 
favourite  Bible  for  household  use.  The  authority 
of  the  latter  was  now,  however,  to  be  subjected  to 
a  fresh  challenge. 

ix.  This  came  from  the  Church  of  Rome,  and 
it  is  again  interesting  to  notice  that  the  new 
version,  like  the  Genevan  and  Tindale's,  was  pro- 
duced in  exile.  At  the  beginning  of  queen  Eliza- 
beth's reign  a  number  of  English  Romanists  had 
taken  refuge  on  the  Continent,  and  in  1582  there 
was  published  a  NT  '  translated  faithfvUy  into 
English  out  of  the  authentical  Latin,  according  to 
the  best  corrected  copies  of  the  same,  diligently 
conferred  with  the  Greeke  and  other  editions  in 
divers  languages,  ...  In  the  English  College  of 
Rhemes.'  The  translation  of  the  OT  had  been  pre- 
viously completed,  but  'for  lack  of  goodmeanes' 
its  publication  was  delayed  until  160U-10,  when  it 
came  out  at  Douai.  The  whole  Bible  thus  i.ssued 
is  generally  known  as  the  Rheims  and  Douai 
Bible,  and  to  three  men,  William  Allen,  Gregory 
Martin,  and  Richard  Bristow,  the  credit  of  its 
production  principally  belongs.  Prefixed  to  the 
Rheinish  NT  was  an  elaborate  Preface,  in  which 
the  translators  warned  readers  against  the  then 
existing  '  profane '  translations,  laid  the  odium  on 
Protestants  of  casting  '  the  holy  to  dogges  and 
jiearles  to  hogges,'  and  claimed  for  themselves  to 
liave  at  least  been  '  very  precise  and  religious '  in 
following  their  copy,  '  the  old  vulgar  approved 
Latin.'      The    new   version    was    thus,   like   the 

name  Thomas  Bassandvne  (see  Hittory  of  the  Bassandimf  Bible, 
by  W.  T.  Dobson,  1887) ;  and  so  firm  was  the  hold  it  obtained  in 
the  country,  that  so  recently  as  towards  the  close  of  the  Ibth 
cent,  a  Bible  of  the  Genevan  translation  was  still  in  use  in  the 
church  of  Crttil  in  Fifeshire. 

•  It  passed  through  nineteen  editions ;  the  last  bears  the  d»t« 
1606. 


VtKSIOXS,  ENGLISH 


VERSIONS,  ENGLISH 


859 


Wj'clifite  versions,  only  a  secondary  translation, 
and  it  was  not  to  be  wondered  at  that  the  extreme 
literalness  at  which  the  translators  aimed  '  word 
for  word  and  point  for  point '  led  often  to  stilled 
and  even  unintelliyiUe  renderinijs,  and  also  to  the 
introduction  of  many  Latinized  terms,  many  of 
which  were  afterwards  adopted  in  the  AV.  The 
charge  of  theological  bias  sometimes  brought 
against  the  translators  with  regard  to  some  of 
these  terms  is  probably  without  foundation  ;  but 
the  same  cannot  be  said  of  their  notes,  which  are 
unmistakably  and  avowedly  of  a  polemical  char- 
acter. It  need  only  be  further  noted  that  in  later 
editions  the  Douai  version  has  been  largely  altered 
to  bring  it  more  into  conformity  with — 

X.  The  Authorized  Version. — To  tlie  history  of 
this  version  we  have  now  come,  and,  when  we 
think  of  the  inlluence  it  exerted  and  is  still  exert- 
ing, it  is  the  more  remarkable  that  its  origin 
should  have  been  of  such  an  incidental,  almost 
accidental,  character.  One  of  the  first  acts  of  king 
James  on  ascending  the  throne  of  England  was  to 
convene  a  Conference  at  Hampton  Court  Palace  in 
January  1604,  to  hear  and  determine  'things  pre- 
tended to  be  amiss  in  the  Church,'  and  in  the 
course  of  the  second  day's  proceedings  Dr.  Rey- 
nolds, the  Puritan  leader,  threw  out  the  sugges- 
tion 'that  there  might  be  a  new  translation  of 
the  Bible,  because  those  which  were  allowed  in  the 
reign  of  king  Henry  vui.  and  Edward  VI.  were 
corrupt  and  not  answerable  to  tlie  truth  of  the 
original.'  The  suggestion  commended  itself  to 
the  king,  who  had  at  one  time  begun  a  transla- 
tion of  the  Psalms  himself,  and  he  at  once  pro- 
posed that  the  new  translation  should  be  under- 
taken by  '  the  best  learned  in  both  the  universities, 
after  them  to  be  reviewed  by  the  bishops  and  chief 
learned  of  the  Church  ;  from  them  to  be  presented 
to  the  Privy  Coum-il  ;  and  lastly  to  be  ratilied  by 
his  royal  authority ;  and  so  this  wliole  Church  to 
be  bound  unto  it  and  none  other.'  Ue  further 
ordered  '  that  no  marginal  notes  sliould  be  added,' 
some  of  those  in  the  Genevan  Bible  having  recently 
attracted  his  attention  as  '  very  partial,  untrue, 
seditious,  and  savouring  too  much  of  dangerous 
and  traitorous  conceits.' 

Notwithstaniling,  however,  the  royal  favour 
bestowed  upon  it,  the  actual  work  of  translation, 
or  rather  revision,  was  not  commenced  until  1G07, 
when  tlie  forty-seven  revisers  (it  had  been  origin- 
ally intended  that  there  should  be  lifty-four)  were 
divided  into  six  companies,  of  which  two  sat  at 
^Vesllninster,  two  at  Oxford,  and  two  at  Cam- 
bridge. Each  company  was  to  busy  itself  in  the 
first  instance  with  the  separate  portion  assigned 
to  it,  but  provision  was  also  made  for  the  revi.sion 
of  each  nortion  by  the  other  live  companies,  and 
the  whole  version  thus  amended  was  then  to  be 
submitted  to  a  select  committee  representative  of 
all  the  companies  for  the  harmonizing  of  details 
and  hnal  prejiaration  for  the  press.  How  far  these 
arrangements  were  rigidly  adhered  to  we  cannot 
now  determine,  for  'never,'  says  Dr.  Scrivener, 
who  is  our  principal  authority  on  all  that  concerns 
this  version,  '  was  a  great  enterprise  like  the  pro- 
duction of  our  Authorized  Version  carried  out 
with  less  knowledge  handed  down  to  posterity 
of  'he  labourers,  their  method  and  order  of  work- 
ing '  (TKe  Authorized  Edition  of  the  EiKjlish  BMe, 
p.  9).  We  know,  however,  that  in  two  years 
and  nine  months  tlie  whole  work  of  revision  was 
carried  throu'di,  and  in  1611  the  new  version  was 
|niblishe<l.  Its  full  title  ran  as  follows: — 'The 
Holy  Bible,  conteyning  the  Old  Testament  and 
the  >:W:  Newly  Translated  out  of  the  Originall 
tongues :  with  the  former  Transhitions  diligently 
compared  and  reuised  by  his  Maiestics  Spcciail 
Comanderaent.    Appointed  to  be  read  in  Churches. 


Imprinted  at  London  by  Robert  Barker,  Printei 
to  the  King's  Most  Excellent  Majestie.  Anno 
Dom.  1611."  After  the  title-page  came  the  ful- 
some Dedication  to  king  James,  and  a  most  in- 
teresting Preface,  generally  understood  to  be  the 
work  of  Dr.  Miles  Smith,  afterwards  Bishop  of 
Gloucester,  in  which  the  main  principles  that  had 
guided  the  translators  were  set  forth,  t 

We  cannot  now  attempt  to  detail  these,  or  to 
examine  the  leading  internal  characteristics  of  the 
new  version  ;  but  it  is  important  to  keep  in  mind 
that,  in  accordance  with  the  rules  that  had  bec^n 
laid  down  for  their  guidance,  what  the  translators 
aiiued  at  was  a  revision  rather  than  a  new  transla- 
tion. The  basis  of  their  work  was  the  Bishops' 
Bible ;  but  the  versions  of  Tindale,  Matthew, 
Coverdale,  Whitchurch  (that  is,  the  Great  IJiblu), 
and  Geneva  were  used  whenever  they  were  fouiui 
to  be  more  in  accordance  with  the  original,  so  as 
to  make,  in  the  translators'  own  words,  'out  of 
many  good  ones  one  principal  good  one,  not  justly 
to  be  excepted  against.'  No  marginal  notes  were 
permitted,  'but  only  for  the  explanation  of  the 
Hebrew  or  Greek  words  which  cannot,  without 
some  circumlocution,  so  briclly  and  litly  be  ex- 
pressed in  the  text,' — an  exception  which  was  some- 
what liberally  interpreted  ;J  and  'such  quotations 
of  places'  were  'set  down  as  shall  serve  for  the  lit 
reference  of  one  Scripture  to  another.'^  A  new  set 
of  headings  of  chapters  and  columns  was  also  sub- 
stituted for  tlio.se  that  had  existed  in  the  Genevan, 
and  in  the  Great  and  Bishops'  Bibles ;  Imt  the 
dates  (mostly  from  Usslier)  with  which  we  are 
familiar  in  most  modern  editions  were  first  inserted 
in  1701. 

The  immediate  reception  of  the  new  version  can 
hardly  be  said  to  have  been  altogether  encouraging 
to  its  jiiomoters,  for  though  there  was  little  active 
opposition  extended  to  it,  and  it  speedily  super- 
seded the  Bishops'  Bible  as  the  oHicial  version,  it 
was  not  until  the  middle  of  the  century  that  it 
ousted  the  Genevan  Bible  from  the  place  of  popu- 
lar favour,  y  That  it  deserved  the  place  which  it 
then  attained  does  not  admit  of  a  moment's  dis- 
pute ;  and  none  have  shown  themselves  more 
ready  to  admit  its  merits  than  those  wlio  in  1870 
were  appointed  to  revise  it.  '  We,'  so  they  tell  us, 
'  have  liad  to  study  this  great  Version  carefully 
and  minutely,  line  by  line ;  and  the  longer  w<! 
have  been  engaged  upon  it  the  more  wo  have 
learned  to  admire  its  simiilicity,  its  dignity,  its 
power,  its  happy  turns  of  expression,  its  general 
accuracj',  and,  we  must  not  fail  to  add,  the  music 
of  its  cadences,  and  the  felicities  of  its  rhythm ' 
(Prcf.  toIiV  of  NT,  1881). 

At  the  same  time,  great  as  the  excellences  of 
the  AV  undoubtedly  are,  it  would  be  absurd  to 
contend  that  it  is  not  capable  of  imiirovement,  or 
that  the  work  of  constant  revision  out  of  which  it 
has  been  evolved  cannot  be  applied  to  it  in  its 
turn.  And  indeed,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  what  we 
still  know  as  king  James's  version  has  been  sub- 
jected throughout  the  course  of  its  long  histoiT  to 
a  larger  amount  of   revision  than  many  of'^  its 

*  A  ti8cru1  reprint  of  this  original  edition  woa  iiiHucd  from  tlio 
Olford  l'ri;K8  in  1S33. 

t  It  liim  been  reprinted  in  Hepamte  form  by  the  S.I'.C.K. 

t  In  tlie  orit^inal  edition  of  tlio  A\',  e.\ctu(ling  ll)e  ApoL'r,\jiha, 
over  7000  brief  tnar^'inal  noles  were  inserted,  a  number  that  liaa 
sintre  been  largely  iiicreajied, 

ti  The  original  iiuuo  references  have,  in  some  modeni  editions, 
reached  the  cnonuous  total  of  00,000. 

I  Frora  the  words  'Appointed  to  be  read  in  Churclies'  on  the 
tilTe-poge,  it  hoa  sometimefl  been  thought  thai  the  use  of  the 
new  version  was  at  once  fonnally  enjoined  by  the  king,  and  thut 
from  this  it  derived  ita  name  of  Authorized,  But '  no  evidi-nco 
litts  ^'et  been  produced  to  show  that  the  version  was  ever 
publicly  sanctioned  liy  Convocation  or  by  Parliainetit,  or  by  the 
Privy  Council,  or  by  the  king'  (Westcott,  Uintory'^,  p.  12.S).  It 
became  the  'authorised'  version  simply  because  it  was  tits 
beet. 


860 


VERSIONS.  ENGLISH 


VERSIONS,  ENGLISH 


readers  are  aware  of.  For  not  merely  have  the 
typographical  and  other  imperfections  inevitable 
in  so  larf;e  an  undertaking  been  corrected,  but  a 
large  number  of  deliberate  changes  have  from 
time  to  time  been  made  in  the  text,  '  introduced 
silently  and  without  authority  by  men  whose  very 
name.s  are  often  unknown.'*  And,  in  addition  to 
this  unotticial  and  irresponsible  work  of  revision, 
wo  have  abundant  evidence  of  more  ambitious 
proposals  for  amending  the  new  version.  Thus, 
in  lt)45.  Dr.  John  Lightfoot,  preaching  before  the 
House  of  Commons,  urged  them  '  to  think  of  a 
'■eview  and  survey  of  the  translation  of  the  Bible,' 
and  pleaded  for  '  an  exact,  vigorous,  and  lively 
translation.'  And  a  few  years  later  (1653)  the 
Long  Parliament  actually  made  an  order  that  a 
Bill  should  be  brought  in  for  a  new  translation. 
Nothing,  however,  came  of  this  and  similar 
scliemes  which  were  proposed  from  time  to  time  :t 
and  it  was  left  to  the  Southern  Convocation  of 
the  Church  of  England  to  take  the  initial  steps 
for  providing  as  \vith  what  is  now  known  as 
par  excellence — 

xi.  The  Revised  Version. — The  fact  that  it  took 
its  rise  in  Convocation  marks  off  the  RV  from  all 
otiier  English  versions.  Tindale's  Testament  and 
Coverdale's  Bible  were  the  work  of  individuals ; 
the  Great  Bible  and  the  Bishops'  were  Episcopal 
in  their  origin  ;  the  Genevan  and  the  Rheims  and 
Douai  Bibles  were  due  to  two  bands  of  exiles, 
Protestant  and  Roman  Catholic  respectively  ;  but 
the  idea  of  the  RV  was  matured  by  representa- 
tives of  the  Church  of  England,  antl  carried 
through  with  the  assistance  of  members  of  other 
Churclies.J 

Over  the  steps  leading  up  to  the  final  decision 
we  cannot  linger.  Enough  that  in  May  1870  tlie 
report  of  a  committee  appointed  in  the  preceding 
February  was  adopted,  to  the  effect  '  that  Con- 
location  should  nominate  a  body  of  its  ovm  mem- 
bers to  undertake  the  work  of  revision,  who  shall 
be  at  liberty  to  invite  the  co-operation  of  any 
eminent  for  scholarship  to  whatever  nation  or 
religious  body  they  belong';  and  that  shortly 
afterwards,  in  terms  of  this  resolution,  two  Com- 
panies for  the  revision  of  the  Old  and  New  Testa- 
ments respectively  were  appointed.  Eight  rules 
were  laid  down  for  the  Revisers'  guidance,  the 
most  important  of  which  were  to  the  following 
effect: — the  alterations  to  be  as  few  as  possible 
consistently  with  faithfulness  to  the  original,  and 
to  be  made  in  the  language  of  the  Authorized  and 
earlier  English  versions ;  each  Company  to  go 
twice  over  the  portion  to  be  revised,  once  pro- 
visionally, the  second  time  finally;  the  lext 
adopted  to  be  that  for  whicli  the  evidence  is 
decidedly  preponderating ;  and  no  changes  in  the 
text  to  "be  retained  on  tlie  second  final  revision, 
unless  approved  by  twu-thircU  of  those  present. 

It  will  be  seen  that  every  precaution  was  thus 
taken  to  ensure  that  no  unneces.sary  changes 
should  be  introduced  into  a  version  already  hal- 
lowed by  so  many  and  so  varied  associations ; 
and  j)robably  the  charge  that  is  most  frequently 
brought  against  the  Revisers  is  that  they  were  too 
apt  to  lose  sight  of  this.  At  the  same  time,  it  is 
only  fair  to  them  to  keep  in  view  the  varied  causes 

•  Scrivener,  The  AuthurUi^d  Edition,  p.  3.  These  clianj;e8  may 
also  be  conveniently  studied  in  The  Cambridge  Paragraph  Bible, 
edited  by  Scrivener,  ISTa. 

t  See  i'lumptre,  art.  'Version  (Authorized)*  in  Smith's  DB 
lii.  1678ff. 

J  The  historj'  of  the  RV  still  remains  to  be  written,  but 
•mongrst  reCL-nt  works  which  helped  to  prepare  the  way  for  it 
mav  be  mentioned  Trench,  On  the  A  V  o/  the  NT  in  connexion 
viih  gome  recent  proi>oitaU  for  its  recision^,  1859;  EUicott, 
Coiisiiieratitms  on  the  liemsion  of  the  English  Version  of  Ihr 
S'T.  ISTu  ;  Lightfoot,  On  a  Fresh  Itnimm  of  the  English  NT  \ 
1891  ;  the  Revisions  of  the  Gospel  of  St.  John  and  of  several 
of  the  Pauline  Epistles  by  Five  Clergymen,  the  first  part  of 
which  appeared  in  1857  ;  and  Dean  Alford  s  lievised  ST,  1869. 


that  made  many  changes  inevitable.  Thus,  in 
the  matter  of  text  alone,  it  has  been  estimated 
th.at  the  text  underlying  the  revised  NT  of  1881 
differed  from  that  of  1611  in  no  less  than  5788 
readings  ;*  while  other  variations  were  necessitated 
by  obvious  misunderstandings  of  the  original,  by 
the  removal  of  archaisms,  and  by  previous  incon- 
sistencies in  the  rendering  of  the  same  words  and 
phrases.  Numerous,  however,  as  the  differences 
between  the  Revised  and  Authorized  versions  thus 
came  to  be,  it  is  reassuring  to  know  tliat  in  no 
particular  have  they  seriously  affected  any  of  the 
doctrines  of  our  faith,  though  in  not  a  few  in- 
stances these  doctrines  are  now  presented  in  a 
fuller  and  more  convincing  lightt 

Tlie  revision  of  the  NT  occupied  about  ten  years 
and  a  half,  and  the  result  was  published  on  May 
17th,  1881.  Four  years  later  the  Revised  OT  was 
ready,  and  thus  on  May  19th,  1885,  the  English 
reader  had  the  whole  Bible  in  his  hands,  '  being 
the  ver.-ion  set  forth  A.D.  1611  compared  with  the 
most  ancient  autliorities  and  revised.'  Each  Testa- 
ment was  furnislied  with  a  Preface  detailing  the 
principles  on  which  the  work  had  been  carried 
through,  and  with  an  Appendix  in  which  the 
American  Companies,  who  had  been  associated  in 
the  work,  placed  on  record  certain  points  of  trans- 
lation in  which  they  differed  from  the  English 
Companies.  A  revised  translation  of  the  Apoc- 
ryjjha  by  various  committees  of  the  Revisers  was 
published  in  18'J5.  And  in  1898  the  work  of  re- 
vision was  completed  by  the  issue  of  a  new  edition 
of  the  Revised  Bible  with  a  carefully  emended  set 
of  marginal  references. 

Literature. — The  principal  works  dealing  with  the  separate 
versions  have  already  been  referred  to  in  the  preceding  pages. 
For  the  versions  as  a  whole,  Eadie,  The  EwjUsh  Bible :  an 
External  and  Critical  History  oj  the  various  English  Transla- 
tions ^f  Scripture,  2  vols.  1876,  is  the  most  complete  account; 
but  much  that  is  very  valuable,  especially  with  relation  to  the 
internal  historj'  of  the  text,  will  be  found  in  the  well-known 
Histories  of  Westcott  and  Moulton.  Of  a  more  popular  char- 
acter are  Stouf;hton,  Our  English  Bible:  its  Translations  and 
Translators  (no  date);  Pattison,  7'Ae  History  of  the  English 
Bible,  1894 ;  and  The  English  Bible :  a  Sketch  of  its  History, 
1895,  by  the  present  writer,  from  which  the  foregoing  account 
with  various  corrections  and  additions  has  been  principally 
drawn.  In  Kenyon,  Our  Bible  and  the  Ancient  Manuscripts, 
1895,  the  history  of  the  text  underlying  our  various  versions  is 
clearly  set  forth  for  the  benefit  of  the  ordinary  readers  of  the 
Bible  in  English ;  and  in  7'he  Evolution  of  the  English  Bible, 
1901,  by  H.  W.  Hoare,  the  successive  versions  are  interestingly 
described  in  connexion  with  their  general  historical  setting. 

Other  works  connected  with  the  subject  which  may  be  con- 
sulted with  advantage  are,  Lewis,  History  of  the  English 
Translations  of  the  Bible,  1S18,  and  Anderson,  The  Annals  of 
the  English  Bible,  2  vols.  1845,  1  vol.  revised  ed.  18()2,  both  of 
which,  however,  require  to  be  carefuUv  verified  in  the  li^'ht  of 
later  knowledge ;  Dore,  Old  Bibles  2,  1888 ;  Edgar,  The  Bibles 
0/  England,  1889;  Mombert,  English  Versions  of  the  Bible  (no 
date);  and  the  historical  acooimt  prefixed  to  Bagster's  issue  of 
The  English  Uexapla  ^no  date). 

The  principal  authonty  for  the  AV,  as  has  been  noted  above. 
Is  Scnvener,  The  Authorized  Edition  of  Ute  English  Bible 
(1611),  1884 ;  while  to  the  books  already  mentioned  a:^  dealing 
with  the  RV  there  may  be  added  Newth,  Lectures  on  Bible 
Jtevision,  1881  (with  an  Aiipendix  containing  the  Prologues  and 
Prefaces  to  the  various  versions) ;  Kennetiy,  Ely  Lectures  otl 
the  HV  of  the  ST,  1882  ;  Iluniphry,  Commentary  a:  the  RV  of 
the  NT;  Westcott,  Some  lessons  if  the  RV  of  the  NT,  1897; 
and  Ellicott,  Addresses  on  tlie  RV,  1901,  Reference  may  also 
be  made  to  Biblical  Revision,  its  Necessity  and  Purpose,  1879, 
the  English  republication  of  a  series  of  Essays  by  menibcn 
of  the  American  Revision  Committee  ;  and  to  the  Doaimentary 
History  of  the  Atnerican  Committee  on  Revision,  1885,  pre- 
pared originally  by  order  of  that  couunittee  for  the  use  of  itd 
members.  For"  a  vigorous  but  sometimes  misleading  criticism 
of  the  RV  Bee  Burgon,  The  Remsion  Revised,  1883. 

G.  MiLLIOAN. 

*  See  Kenyon.  Our  Bible  and  the  Ancient  itantucripU, 
p.  239  ;  and  compare  Bishop  Westcott's  weighty  words,  '  What- 
ever may  be  the  merits  of  the  revised  version,  it  can  be  said 
confidently  that  in  no  parallel  f.-we  have  the  readings  of  the 
original  text  to  be  translated  been  discussed  and  determined 
witli  equal  care,  thoroughness  and  candour' (/iwIoryS,  p.  vill, 
note). 

t  See  'The  Doctrinal  Significance  of  the  RV,  three  articles  in 
The  Expository  Timet,  viL  877,  462,  vUL  171. 


VERSIONS,  GEORGIAN,  ETC. 


VERSIONS,  GEORGIAN,  ETC.    861 


VERSIONS  (Georgian,  Ootiiic,  Slavomc).- 
^    The    Georgian    Version.  -  This    versvon    is 
1     1  to  the  5Ui  or  6th  cent.,  and,  according  to 

"      in  the  mo.  vstery  on  Mount  Sinai.     The  next 

important    -^1^,    °*  r\,.„t   '  In   this  the   Minor 
a.'^signed   to  the   11th  cent  ^^^^ 

names  of   many  ot   the  tc"ue3  ^       i 

two  of  other  parts  of  the  IN  1.  , 

>  ersioii  js  uc".           i-r)      Til w  was  used  by  1  • '^• 
lished  at  Moscow  in  1.43.      Ihis  w.is  u.lu_  ^ _ 


particular  ,-oints.'     Both  in  the  OT  and  in  the  NT 
the  Version  was  made  from  tlie  Greek. 


lie    VelfelUU    ntM-a  i«— 

L-TBaATCB-.-Besides  the  bne.  notices  in  Ore^^^^^^^^^^ 


?:T^.?.^:^SBS'Si»;s^ 


i^nt  in  Scrivener's  Introduclum,  ii.  166. 


s^HaiSis^x^""^ 


ts  •  i.":XltTL» 'few'.''",  ti,. ..... 

complete   liil>le   in   oeuioiu.,    i-  mnvnnic   for 

according   to   hi^.  P"-r^',;'a."J' (e  a  Ca2'    vhere 
this  purpose.     AV  e  ^■-^'^^^f  ^««^,  ^aCa  mistaken 

^;:5S^^^"^;:;;:;|wtheedit.on.t^ 

Moscow  edition  ''"l'--"  f-^O'"  ^'ufootl.cr  Visions 
Song  of  Songs  In  >"«„«f  '^'j^",  °nd  additions, 
there  seem  to  have  heen  ^«^  *''<'"*/^,,„  ji„erent 
Thus  T^i^-^r^''  (';(;  ffJiW'.llt  the  various  read- 
translators,  and  a^"»  v  -  i  nT  we  ace  there  were 
ings  of  the  Georgian  N  1  ^"^0^^^;,:  .^n^'^li^^l'     Mr. 

was  made  of  their  .ver^'O";. ,  ,,^,\  ^^^^  ^"^hes  that 
Convbeare*  from  his  own  ^""'^tions  tesuii.  _ 

•  Scrivener'*  IiUroduclwii,  11.  p.  167. 


R  The  Gothic  Version. -L  Okioin  of  the 
V^;  J,v  -  The  beginnings  of  this  Version  are 
Za  wi  h  the  nam?  of  Ulfilas,  and  our 
kt^o°:t  4  ^hini  comes  mainly  from  Ph.lostor- 
^r  who  was  a  contemporary  and  a  "^t  Y^  °! 
ur'district  of  Cappiulocia,  from  which  Ull  las 
narentf  had   been   carried  away  near  t^e  end  o( 

StrpaS,  Jrobably'some  time  beU'een 
AD  VlO  and  A.D.  313;  thirty  years  later,  in  340 
or  34I  he  was  consecrated  bishop  «>tlier  at  Con- 
=t,ntino,ile  or  as  Kaullmann  a.sserts,  at  Antioth. 
itter  remain[A"^n  Dacia  as  bishop  for  some  seven 

fl^XTi  loViS;  »V~Si.s ..  J..M  « 

'^Tl;r.''S*«~  .1  -v.™!   V.™o«.  to.  wM.U   J» 

'It'  ,r.. "°.  ?'' Ti;  i-:;*;- Air  io'l 

?:IS'r.a"fim.n,.«,,id.  ...v.c„..»  do.,  t. 

tli<.  pxcention  of   the   lioous  01    im"o-  >  , 

omitied^becaiise   "-y/Jf /."thtc  TiXs  we? 
■""'1:;r,v^f^d'':f  wa'-  ^'ThisltatenVenrU  en- 
^iii:d   ti  f'iiis"  consideration  as  tl-t  of  a  cor. 
l::^iporary.^n^  we^mu^  in^^^^that  at^y 

i;^^^si^i^;:^f^?;:^Bii.i:.itoc^v.^ 

ltret\°er'rmr5S  > oL^'aa'^r  UUilas'  translation 
otl.m.  lot  .t  '•"S-!;,":'£|™.'  r.S°  K'  '"»» 


•  Thewcnl  'heathen.- «<ll^«ed»»  Murm.v;- K;;i'^«J^J^|- 
Armenian. 


862     YERSIONS,  GEORGIAN,  ETC. 


VERSIONS,  GEORGIAN,  ETC. 


who  says  that  '  certain  differences  in  language  and 
manner  of  translation  make  it  doubtful  even 
whether  the  fragments  of  tlie  OT  can  be  traced 
to  the  same  origin  as  those  of  the  New.'* 

ii.  The  Manuscripts. —The  history  of  the 
Version  breaks  off  abruptly,  for  we  know  nothing 
more  of  it  than  can  be  gathered  frnra  the  scanty 
remains  which  have  come  down  to  us  in  the  MSS 
— remains  which,  scanty  as  they  are,  are  of  the 
greatest  possible  interest  and  value  to  the  phUo- 
logist,  because  they  are  '  by  several  centuries  the 
oldest  specimen  of  Teutonic  speech.'  How  far  they 
underwent  any  changes  during  the  century  and  a 
half,  or  rather  more,  whicli  intervened  between 
the  date  of  Ullilas  and  that  to  which  tliey  are 
assigned,  we  cannot  say.  They  all  belong  to 
the  period  of  the  East  Gothic  kingdom  in  Italy 
which  began  with  Theodoric  (493-526),  and  are  all 
assigned  to  N.  Italy. 

The  following  t  is  a  list  of  the  MSS  of  the 
Bible  in  this  Version  : — 

1.  Codex  ArgevXeua, — Thi3  MS  is  the  most  important.    It  is 

assigned  to  the  6th  or  earlj'  6th  cent.,  and  is  now  at 
Upsala  in  Sweden.  It  is  written  in  uncial,  the  letters 
beinfj  of  gold  or  silver,  on  purple  vellum.  The  MS  now 
contains,  on  187  leaves,  large  fragments  of  Matthew,  John, 
Luke,  Mark  in  that  (the  Western)  order,  beginning  with 
Mt  615. 

2.  Codex  Carolinug. — This  and  the  following  fragments  are  all 

palimpsest.  It  is  bilingual  (Goth.  Lat.),  and  is  now  at 
Wolfenbiittel.  The  upper  writing  consists  of  works  of 
Isidore  of  Seville.  The  MS  is  that  usually  referred  to  as 
P.  Q.  of  the  Gospels,  and  gtu  of  the  Old  Latin  (Epistles), 
It  was  discovered  by  Knittel,  and  edited  by  him  m  1762. 
It  contains  on  four  leaves  about  42  verses  from  Ro  11-15. 
It  has  been  regarded  (so  Bernhardt)  as  corrected  from  the 
Latin  in  some  places,  e.g.  12-  3,  and  in  places  agrees  very 
closely  with  the  first  fragment  at  Milan,  even  in  ortho- 
graphical peculiarities. 
8.  Codices  Ambrosiani.— The  following  are  now  in  the  Am- 
brosian  Library  at  Milan.  These  fragments,  all  in  MSS 
which  came  from  Bobhio,  and  originally  belonged  to  two 
Gothic  MSS,  were  discovered  by  Mai  in  1817.  Other  frag- 
ments of  the  same  MSS  have  been  discovered  at  Turin 
and  in  the  Vatican.  Mai  ascribes  the  writing  in  part  to 
the  early  5th,  in  part  to  the  6th,  century  : — 

(1)  (S.  -36)  is  a  MS  containing  Gregory  the  Great's  Commen- 

tarj'  on  Ezekiel.  Of  this  102  leaves(l  of  which  is  illegible 
and  6  blank)  belong  to  a  Gothic  MS  (in  which  a  note 
at  2  Co  41'*  s.'iys,  liber  sancti  Cotumbani  de  bobio)  con- 
taining fragnionts  of  Rora.,  1  and  2  Cor.,  Eph.,  Gal.,  Phil., 
Col.,  1  and  2  Thess.,  1  and  2  Tim.,  Titus,  and  Philem.,  in 
that  order,  and  a  fragment  of  a  Gothic  calendar. 

(2)  (S.  45)  is  said  to  be  written  in  an  older  character  than 

(1),  and  cont-ains  on  78  leaves  2  Cor.,  and  fragments  of 
1  Cor.,  Gal.,  Eph.,  Phil.,  Col.,  1  and  2  Thess.,  2  Tim., 
and  Titus. 

(3)  (I.  61  sup.)  contains  t  on  2  leaves  Mt  2533-263,  and  26SS>- 

271. 

(4)  (G.  82)  contains  on    8  leaves  fragments  of  Ezra  and 

Nehomiah.§ 
(6)  (G.  14)  contains  on  5  leaves  fragroents  of  a  commentary 
on  St.  .lohn. 
4.  Codex  Vaticanus  (MS  5750)  contains  on  3  leaves  fragments 
of  the  same  Commentao'  on  St.  John  as  the  5th  Milan 
fragment. 
6.  Codex  Taurinensis  consists  of  4  leaves  belonging  to  the 
same  MS  as  the  first  Milan  fragment,  found  in  the  binding 
of  a  MS  at  Turin.  ||    These  leaves  contain  Gal  61*-18  Col 
2ia-20  413-18. 
6.  Codex  Viiulobonensis. — This  MS.  ascribed  to  the  9th  cent., 
came  from  Salzburg  (MS  140,  olim  71),  and  contains,  under 
runes,  fragments  of  On  6,  and,  on  the  margin,  two  half- 
verses  of  Ps  621 ». 

In  these  MSS  we  have  preserved  to  us  the  follow- 
ing passages  of  the  OT  :  —  Gn  5»-^-  =»"=«  '»•  '»,  Ps 
5'2--  »,1[  Neh  5'--'8  6"-7»-  '»"<"•,  and  fragments  more 

•See  also  Wright,  Primer,  etc  p.  144:  'The  fragments  of 
the  New  Testament  all  point  to  one  and  the  same  translator, 
but  the  two  small  fragments  of  the  Books  of  Ezra  and  Neheniiah 
differ  so  much  in  stjie  from  those  of  the  New  Testament  that 
Bcliolars  BOW  regard  them  as  being  the  work  of  a  later  trans- 
lator.' 

t  This  information  is  largely  taken  from  Stamm-Heyne's 
Utjilat  (ed.  9).  Paderborn,  1890.  The  figures  enclosed  in 
brackets  give  the  press-mark  of  the  MS  in  the  library  to  which 
It  belongs. 

X  See  Berger,  Uittoirt  de  la  Vulgate,  p.  68. 

5  Kauffmann  (Z.  /.  d.  PhUol.,  1896)  says  the  supposed  frag- 
ment of  Ezr  2is-"a  is  really  Neh  1X*«. 

I  See  Germania,  xiii.  271  fL 

II  See  note  5,  above. 


or  less  extensive  of  all  the  books  *  of  the  NT  ex- 
cept the  Acts,  Catholic  Epistles,  and  Apocalypse 
of  which  we  have  nothing  in  this  Version. 

iii.  Character  of  the  Text. — The  next  point 
to  determine  in  regard  to  the  Version  is  the  char- 
acter of  the  text  preserved  in  it. 

For  the  OT  the  amount  preserved  is  very  scanty 
indeed,  but  the  fragments  consist  largely  of  names 
(as  in  the  lists  from  Neliemiah),  or  numbers  (as  in 
the  Genesis  passages),  and  therefore  the  nature  of 
the  materials  is  some  slight  compensation  for  the 
deficiency  in  quantity. 

The  most  careful  examination  of  the  Version  in  its 
relation  to  the  text  from  which  it  was  translated  is 
in  an  article  by  Kauffmann, t  who  points  out  the  very 
close  agreement  with  Lucian's  recension  of  the  LXX 
te.\t.  Thus  in  Neh  V^'**  (to  take  two  instances 
only)  the  Gothic  Version  agrees  with  two  MSS 
(HP  93,  108)  of  this  recension  in  the  names 'Affo-o^i, 
"Hipaii,  and  this  form  is  found  in  no  other  MSS  of 
the  LXX.  The  same  close  relationship  of  the 
Gothic  and  Lucian  meets  us  in  the  Genesis  frag- 
ments, where  we  find  agreement  between  the 
numerals  of  the  Gothic  Version  and  those  found 
in  HP  44,  another  MS  of  the  Lucian  recension. 
But  there  are  differences  as  well  as  resemblances, 
and  Kauffmann  collects  instances  in  which  the 
Gothic  departs  from  Lucian  and  agrees  with  the 
B-text  of  the  LXX.  The  Gothic  does  not  preserve 
'  the  original  Lucianic  text,  but  one  derived  from 
it,'  or  perhaps  we  may  rather  say  it  preserves 
one  of  the  strains  incorporated  in  the  Luc.  text. 

In  regard  to  tlie  NT,  Kauffmann,  in  a  later  series 
of  articles  in  the  periodical  quoted  below,  entitled 
'  Beitrage  zur  Quellcnkritik  der  Gottischen  Bibel- 
Ubersetzung,'  examines  the  Version  in  regard  to  the 
sources  from  which  it  is  drawn.  He  comes  to  the 
conclusion  (ib.  xxxi.  180)  that  'the  Goth,  to  whom 
we  owe  Matthew,  used  the  Greek  text  current  in  the 
diocese  of  Constantinople,'  and  that  for  St.  John 
there  is  evidence  of 'no  other  recension  than  that 
demonstrated  for  St.  Matthew.'  Whether  the 
Version  was  made  from  MSS  obtained  in  Moesia,  or 
from  MSS  brought  by  Ullilas'  parents  from  Cappa- 
docia,  we  should  expect,  a  priori,  that  this  would 
be  the  type  of  text  used.  W  estcott  and  Hort  ( Vcmj 
Testament,  i.  p.  158)  thus  sum  up  the  position  :  '  The 
Gothic  has  very  much  the  same  combination  as 
the  Italian  revision  of  the  Old  Latin,  bein"  largely 
Syrian  and  largely  Western,  with  a  small  admix- 
ture of  non- Western  readings.'  A  few  instances 
of  the  readings  of  this  Version  in  noteworthy 
passages  from  the  first  ten  chapters  of  St.  Luke 
may  be  given: — Lk  1^  eiXoyqixivT]  ai>  iv  ynvai^ly  ; 
2'^  eiidoKlas  ;  4'^  Idtraadai  r.  a.  tt]v  Kapoiav  ;  4**  Ta\t- 
Xoias  ;  6'  oeiTepoTrpuTCjj  ;  6^  xeffcjUcXiorro,  k.t.X.  ;  8^ 
raSaprivdv  ;  9^  d7a7r7)T<is  ;  9**  lis  Kal  'HX/os  iiroiriat ; 
9"  Kal  etrey  oix  otSare,  k.t.X.  ;  10'  ipSo/i-QKoyra.  In 
all  these  passages  save  2"  and  4"  it  supports  a 
reading  rejected  by  Westcott  and  Hort.  On  tha 
other  hand,  in  Mk  P,  Mt  7"  ll-""  27''  it  has  read- 
ings accepted  by  the  same  editors. 

In  these  and  many  other  passages  the  Version 
will  be  seen  to  have  a  close  relation  to  the  Latin. 
Various  explanations  of  this  resemblance  are 
possible.  It  has  been  suggested  that  the  Gothic 
ha.s  been  influenced  by  the  Latin  between  the 
date  at  which  the  Version  was  made  and  the  date 
of  the  MSS  of  it  which  survive.  Besides  the  re- 
semblances of  text,  it  is  urged  that  the  Gospels 
in  the  Codex  A  rqenteits  occur  in  the  Western  order, 
and  that  most,  if  not  all,  of  the  MSS  are  connected 
with  N.  Italy,  and  date  from  the  time  of  the  Lorn- 

•  Nestle,  Ein/iihrung  m  d  Griedt.  NT,  p.  Ill  (see  also 
Gregory,  PToletjomena  to  Tischendorf's  NT,  p.  1111),  mentions 
quotations  of  the  Ep.  to  the  Hebrews  as  found  in  the  Commen- 
tary on  St.  John,  mentioned  above.  A  compl  jte  list  of  tragmeoU 
of  the  NT  is  given  by  G^egor^•. 

t  Z.  /.  deuUclie  Phiiologie,  1896. 


VLKSIOXS,  GEORGIAN,  ETC. 


VERSIONS,  GEORGIAN",  ETC.     863 


bardoGothic  kin^'dom  there ;  that  (as  has  been 
mentioned  above)  many  Latin  words  have  been 
incorporated  into  the  Version,  and  that  there  are 
traces  of  Latin  influence  in  the  spelling  of  proper 
names,  e.g.  Scariotits.  This  view  has  been  uiiht-ld 
by  Marold  in  articles  in  Germ/mia  for  1SS(^  ISSI, 
but  is  disputed  by  Kisch,*  Kaullinann.t  and  others. 

A  second  explanation  of  the  relationship  is  that 
some  of  the  Latin  MSS,  at  any  rate,  have  been 
revise<l  from  the  Gothic.  This  theory  is  stated 
by  Burkitt  {J'J'hUl,  i.  1)  in  regard  to  the  Latin  MS 
known  as  Codex  BTixinnxis  (f).  He  refers  to  the 
curious  preface  found  in  that  manuscript, — which 
liad  before  been  noticed,  in  this  regard,  by  Stamni 
— tV/co  ne  . . .  legenti  vUUatitr alitid  in  Grwtn  liiifjita, 
aliud  in  lalina  vel  gotica  de.iignata  esse  coiiscribta, 
etc.,  and  supposes  that  it  may  be  the  preface  of  a 
bilingual  Gotho-Lat.  MS,  of  the  Latin  of  which  / 
is  a  transcript.  Burkitt  then  collects  a  number  of 
peculiar  readings  of  /,  in  which  it  differs  from  the 
v'ulg.  and  Old  Latin,  and  agrees  with  the  Gothic, 
e.g.  Lk  14"  G'  etc.  In  a  note  he  makes  the  same 
assertion  of  Gothic  influence  in  the  OL  fragment 
of  the  Ep.  to  the  Komans  (guc),  mentioned  above. 
Kaull'raann  has  fully  e.\amined  the  relation  of  the 
Gothic  to  the  Latin,  in  the  light  of  Burkitt's 
suggestion,  in  the  last  of  the  series  of  articles  re- 
feritd  to,  and  the  conclusions  to  which  he  comes  J 
are  the  following:  —  (1)  About  the  j'ear  410  a 
'critical'  edition  of  Ulfilas'  Bible  was  prepared  by 
the  two  Gothic  clergy,  Sunnias  and  tretella;  (2) 
the  preface  to  this  edition  is  handed  down  to  us 
(not  quite  complete)  in  the  Codex  Brixiantis,  and 
formed  the  introduction  to  a  bilingual  (or  perhajis 
trilingual)  MS,  in  wliich  certain  variants  of  the 
translations  were  traced  to  their  origin  ;  (3)  a  frag- 
ment of  this  edition  probably  lies  before  us  in  tlie 
Codex  Carolinus;  (4)  from  this  bilingual  edition 
the  Codex  Brixianus  arose,  the  orijzinal  text  of 
which  is  demonstrably  that  of  a  Got  lio- Latin  MS, 
and  to  which  the  text  of  the  Gothic  Go.spels  of 
the  Codex  Argenteus  corresponds  fairly  exactly; 
(5)  the  Cod.  Arg.  and  the  Cod.  Brix.  sprang  from 
that  critical  edition  ;  even  their  calligrai)hical  pre- 
sentation shows  tlicy  are  related  ;  in  the  Gth  cent., 
aliout  the  same  time  and  in  the  same  part  of  Ujiper 
Italy,  the  Gothic  Gospels  on  the  one  hand  and  the 
Latm  Gospels  on  the  other  were  separately  derived 
from  that  archetj'pe  ;  (6)  on  the  basis  of  t^e  recen- 
sion of  .Jerome's  translation, which  had  then  attained 
supremacy  in  Upper  Italy, — and  this  may  have  been 
the  reason  for  the  whole  transaction, — a  redactor 
worked  afresh  over  the  Latin  Gospels. 

A  third  possibility  is  that  the  resemblance  is  due 
to  the  fact  of  both  the  Latin  and  the  Gothic  being 
ba-ed  on(Jreek  MSS  belonging  to  the  same  family, 
and  preserving  the  same  type  of  text.  Such  a 
hypothesis  will  leave  room  lor  the  dillerences  as 
well  as  tlie  resemblances  of  the  two  Versions. 

It  has  to  be  added  in  regard  to  the  general  char- 
acter of  the  translation  that  it  is  a  close  and 
accurate  rendering  of  the  Greek,  though  Ellicott 
notices  in  regard  to  its  rendering  of  I'h  2""'  a  trace 
of  those  Arian  views  which  iliarac.terized  the 
Goths,  especially  in  Spain.  The  '  Arianism  of 
llllilas'  has  been  discussed  by  Kaulfuiann  in  the 
uticles  already  mentioned. 

LiTiRATDRX.— On  Ulfllaa:  »rt.  In  AVijrmeine  deutiche  Bihlio- 
thvk:  DhU.  ChriHt.  liiot/r.  g.o.;  .MoiiuKraph  hy  O.  A.  .Scott 
(C'iiml)rid({e,  l&S.'i);  artt.  by  Eckstein  in  WeBt*Tiniwin'B  IlUutr. 
Monatshejtt  IS'.t'.!.  onri  Jost^s  In  Beitrar/^  zur  Gr^ch.  ilrr  d. 
Sprachf,  xxii.  On  the  Gothic  Version  :  Scrivencr'8  Intrntluc' 
twn.  ii.  146 ff.  ;  Gretjorv'B  Prtiterjomena  to  Tiscliendorfs  ST,  p. 
.;i»(T.  ;  NeaUc  Einfuhniivj  In  dal  (iriech.  ST,  p.  llllll. : 
Urtext  und  (fbfrtietzuiKjm,  i>.  119  fT.;  art.  in  7.  /.  itrntgche 
Philologitt  1806-1900,  and  In  (ifrrnania.    The  most  serviceable 


*  Monaltsch.  /.  Ortch.  u.  Wiitrmch.  dt*  Judtnlhvant,  1873. 

♦  Z.  f.  dtulsdie  I'hilol.  Jlxxl.  182. 
t  II.  lOUO,  xxxll.  p.  336. 


edition  '3  perhaps  that  of  Stamm,  the  latest  editions  of  which 
have  been  re^'ised  by  Ileyne,  9th  ed.,  Paderborn,  1896.  The 
edition  of  Bernhardt,  Vuljita  Oder  die  (iotUchf  liiUl,  Halle 
IS75,  is  very  full  in  rctjard  to  the  relation  of  the  Gothic  to  th« 
Greek  text.  There  are  also  sen'iceable  editions  of  separate 
books  by  Prof.  Skcat ;  and  &  useful  Prhnfr  o/  the  (Juthic 
Language,  Clar.  Press,  1899,  by  Prof.  Wright 

C.  The  Slavonic  Version.*  — i.  Origin. —  Our 
information  as  to  the  origin  of  the  Slavonic  Version 
is  fairly  definite,  and  generally  trustworthy,  at 
any  rate  in  its  main  points.  The  two  men  wlio.se 
names  are  connected  with  the  beginnings  of  a 
Slavonic  Version  are  Cyril  and  Methodius.  They 
were  sons  of  a  Greek  nobleman  of  Thessalonica, 
round  which  place  there  were  a  number  of  Slavonic 
settlers.  The  elder,  Methodius,  died  in  885 ;  the 
year  of  his  birth  is  unknown,  'fhe  younger,  Con- 
stantine,  was  bom  in  827,  took  the  name  of  Cyril 
when  he  became  a  monk,  and  died  at  Rome  in 
809.  It  is  probable  that  from  childhood  they  were 
acquainted  with  the  Slavonic  of  their  native 
district  of  Tlies.salonica,  and  tradition  ascribes  to 
Cyril  the  invention  of  the  characters  which  from 
him  are  called  Cyrillic,  assigninjr  as  the  date  of 
this  the  year  8.55.  The  object  of  Cyril  was  to  give 
the  Bulgarian  Slavs  such  parts  of  the  Bible  as 
were  used  in  Church  services  in  their  own  language. 
A  little  later  the  two  brothers  were  summoned  to 
Moravia,  and  to  the  period  following  on  this,  i.e. 
after  the  year  864,  the  beginnings  of  the  Version 
are  by  many  assigned.  But  Lcskien  and  Polevoi  t 
urge,  and  with  reason,  tli.it  the  work  probably 
began  earlier,  and  was  spread  over  a  longer  time. 

In  one  of  the  legendary  lives  of  Cyril  J  we  are 
told  that  he  began  hia  translation  with  St.  John's 
Gospel,  and  soon  completed  a  translation  of  the 
'  whole  ecclesiastical  cycle,'  i.e.  he  translated  first 
those  parts  of  the  Bible  which  were  used  for  the 
Church  services,  both  of  the  OT  and  NT.  It  is 
stated  also  in  the  life  of  Methodius  th.at  a  trans- 
l.ation  of  these  selected  parts  preceded  the  trans- 
lation of  the  whole  ;  and  John,  ex.irch  of  Buh.'aria, 
who  is  almost  a  contemporary,  makes  a  similar 
assertion  that  Cyril  first  translated  a  'selection,' 
and  that  Methodius  and  his  brother  translated 
'  the  whole  60  book.s.'  This  translation  may  well 
have  been  completed  before  the  death  of  Methodius, 
who  survived  liis  brother  some  time,  though  not, 
we  may  hope,  in  the  sliort  time  of  six  months,  as 
one  authority  states. 

A  much  disputed  question  connected  with  the 
ori^'in  of  the  Version  concerns  the  dialect  into 
which  the  translation  was  ni.-ide,  and  nanus 
eminent  in  Slavonic  studies  may  be  quoted  as  dis- 
agreeing. Thus  Schiifarik,  Leskien,  and  others 
say  that  the  original  Version  was  most  closely 
allied  to  Old  Bulgarian,  while  Kojiitar,  Miklosich, 
and  Jagic  connect  it  with  Old  Slovenish.  It  is 
possible  that  the  various  families  of  Slavonic  had 
not,  at  the  date  of  which  we  are  speaking,  begun 
to  show  the  marks  of  difl'erence  found  in  later 
documentary  evidence. 

Another  interesting  literary  discussion  gathers 
round  the  alphabets  which  are  met  with  in  the 
early  MSS.  These  are  of  two  kinds.  The  one  is 
known  as  the  Cyrillic,  and  consisted  of  38  letters, 
derived  mainly  from  Greek,  but  also,  in  part,  from 
Hebrew  and  other  languages,  and  in  part  invented 
to  express  the  peculiar  na.sal  sounds  found  in 
Slavonic.  The  other  alphabet  is  known  as  Glago- 
litic,  and  this  is  probably  the  older. 

*  For  ft  fuller  account  of  the  origin  and  later  history  of  the 
Slavonic  Version,  and  it«  relation  to  modem  Kus^ian,  the  writer 
must  refer  to  an  article  of  his  on  '  the  Kvit-Hian  Hiblo '  in  the 
Church  Quarteri;/  Jteview  for  Oct.  Ib9.'>.  Little  new  work  hos 
been  done  in  Russia  or  elsewhere  on  this  subject  since  that 
daU'. 

t  IlUtortf  of  Ruettian  Literature,  p.  7. 

i  .See  Oinr-el,  (ienclnclJe  dsr  Siaurtiapogtei,  Ct/nll  und 
ilethod.,  for  detail!  aa  to  the  dooumeuta  in  re(;ard  to'  Uyril  aad 
Halhodiua. 


864     VEESI0:NS,  GEORGIAN,  ETC. 


VERSIONS,  GREEK 


ii  The  MSS.— A  few  of  the  MSS  are  ascribed 
to  8is  early  a  date  as  the  10th  or  11th  cuit.  liy 
Jagic  and  other  scliolars,  but  these  contain  only 
the  Gospels,  either  as  complete  texts  or  as  lection- 
aries.  1  he  oldest  MS  of  the  complete  Bible  is  tiiat 
called  after  Gennadius,  archbishop  of  Novgorod, 
and  dated  1499.*  As  will  be  seen  later,  this  con- 
tains a  composite  text,  of  very  varying  value  and 
importance.  The  comparative  absence  of  e;uly 
MSS  is  explained  by  the  widespread  devastalion 
caused  by  the  Mongol  invasions  of  the  13th  and 
14tli  cents.  The  records  of  the  period  before  these 
invasions  tell  us  of  schools  in  which  the  Bible  was 
studied,  of  copies  of  MSS  of  the  Bible  made  by 
monks  and  professional  scribes,  of  catena;  on  the 
Psalms,  the  Prophets,  the  Gospels,  and  some  of 
the  Epistles.t  and  every  page  of  the  chronicles 
and  other  writings  shows  us  how  inwoven  the 
Bible  was  into  the  texture  of  the  language,  and 
what  a  part  it  played  in  Russia,  as  elsewhere,  in 
fixing  the  literary  style.  We  find  actual  quota- 
tions of  many  of  the  UT  books,  e.g.  of  the  Book  of 
Proverbs,  in  the  Chronicle  of  Nestor,  which  dates 
from  the  11th  cent. 

The  oldest  MSS  of  any  part  of  the  OT  are  those 
of  the  Psalter,  some  of  which  go  back  to  the  11th 
or  12th  cent.  Many  of  the  books  of  the  OT  have 
been  made  the  subject  of  monographs,  in  which 
details  are  given.  Besides  the  editions  of  the 
P.salter  by  Sreznefski  and  Amphilochius  may  be 
mentioned  studies  in  the  text  of  Joshua,  the  Books 
of  Kings,  several  of  the  Minor  Prophets,  and 
Isaiah. 

Passing  to  the  NT  we  find  the  Gospels  preserved 
to  us  in  a  large  number  of  MSS,  many  of  which 
are  lectionaries.  Among  them  may  be  mentioned 
the  Codex  Zographensis  .and  C'uclex  Marianus,  both 
written  in  Glagolitic  characters,  and  the  Osiromir 
Codex,  written  in  Cyrillic,  and  dated  1056-1057. 
A  critical  edition  of  St.  M.ark,  based  on  lOS  MS.S, 
has  been  published  by  Professor  Voskresenski. 
He  groups  the  authorities  for  the  text  in  four 
main  classes.  The  history  of  the  next  division  of 
the  NT,  t\\eApostol,  ha.s  been  also  caiefully  studied 
by  the  same  author.  M.SS  either  of  the  continuous 
text,  or  of  the  parts  used  in  services,  go  back  as 
far  as  the  12th  cent.,  and  on  these  he  published  ,an 
elaborate  monograph  in  1879,  and  in  1S92  produced 
a  critical  edition  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans 
based  on  51  manuscripts,  man\-  of  which  only  give 
the  Church  lections.  The  only  other  part  of  the 
NT  which  has  been  examined  is  the  Apocalypse. 
The  MSS  of  this  book  are  fewer  and  later,  but 
the  earliest  is  ascribed  by  Oblak  to  the  13th 
century. 

iii.  The  Text  of  the  Version  and  its  Value. 
— For  the  OT  the  MSS  do  not  show  any  great  or 
important  variations,  but  the  characteristics  of  the 
translation  they  contain  are  dillerent  in  diflerent 
parts.  'The  Pentateuch  shows  signs  of  very  great 
antiquity,  and  probably  embodies  fragments  of 
the  original  translation.  The  Books  of  Joshua, 
ludges,  and  Kuth  also  represent  an  old  transla- 
iion.  The  Books  of  Samuel  and  Kings  are  less  old 
and  less  exact.  The  Psalter  is  of  course  very 
old.  Ecclesiastes  and  Sirach  show  a  later  but 
accurate  translation.  The  Book  of  Job,  Song  of 
.'Songs,  and  the  Prophets  .  .  .  show  signs  of  glos.ses. 
While  all  the  above  were  translated  from  the 
Greek,  and  the  Book  of  Esther  from  the  Hebrew, 
the  Books  of  Chronicles,  Ezra,  Nehemiah,  and  the 
other  books  of  the  Latin  Bible  were  translated 
from  the  Vulgate  towards  the  end  of  the  15th 
cent.,  and  embodied  in  Gennadius'  MS  [i.e.  of  A.D. 

*  This  >IS  ia  now  in  the  Synodal  Library  at  Moscow,  and  is 
fully  de.-icribed  by  Gorski  and  Nevostruief  id  their  description 
of  tlie  M^S  in  that  library, 

t  For  details  of  these  writings  see  Philarefs  Heview  qf 
Spiritual  Literature  from  86t  to  17S0(,ia  Hussion). 


1499].  This  text  was  adopted  for  the  edition  ol 
the  Bible  published  at  Ostrog  in  1581.'* 

It  will  be  seen  from  the  lueceding  words  that  the 
value  and  interest  of  the  Version  varies  in  ditierent 
parts  of  the  OT.  The  only  part  which  is  of  real 
interest  is  that  based  on  the  Greek,  and,  in  regard 
to  this,  its  relation  to  Lucian's  recension  is  the  most 
important  point.  This  has  been  variously  described, 
Lagarde  asserting  that  Lucian  was  the  basis  of  the 
Slavonic  ;  Buhl,  that  the  Slavonic  resembles  the  Ij 
text.  The  writer  has  examined  this  point,  but 
only  over  a  limited  area,  in  reference  to  Lucian'a 
recension. t  The  results  seem  to  vary  in  difl'erent 
books.  The  Slavonic  text  of  the  OT,  in  the  books 
derived  from  the  Greek,  deserves  a  fuller  and  wider 
examination  than  it  has  yet  received. 

In  regard  to  the  NT  the  MSS  of  the  Version  are 
more  numerous,  and  contain  a  number  of  varia- 
tions. These  are,  for  the  most  part,  of  interest 
only  in  regard  to  the  history  of  the  Version  itself, 
and  consist  of  modiUcations  in  orthography,  the 
removal  of  archaisms,  and  the  translation  of  Greek 
words  which  in  the  earlier  recensions  had  been 
simply  transliterated.  To  the  student  of  Slavonic 
these  variants  present  innumerable  points  of  in- 
terest. They  also  point  to  dilierences  between  the 
underlying  Greek  text,  which  are  of  wider  interest, 
and  it  is  well  here  to  point  out  that  the  ordinary 
printed  text  of  the  Russian  or  of  the  Slavonic 
Bible  often  fails  to  indicate  the  important  readings 
found  in  the  older  MSS.  Among  the  passages 
where  the  oldest  MSS  ditl'er  as  to  the  Greek  on 
which  they  are  based,  the  following  may  be  noticed  : 
Lk  2^  6'  14-",  Jn  9»  PJ"  2VK 

It  cannot  be  said  that  the  Version  has  any  great 
value  for  textual  criticism,  nor  should  we  expect, 
remembering  its  close  connexion  with  south- 
eastern Europe,  to  find  it  preser\'ing  a  text  of  any 
uniform  or  great  im]jortance.  Its  chief  value  and 
interest  are  in  connexion  « ith  the  history  of  the 
development  of  the  Slavonic  language,  and  in  this 
department  it  is  not  easy  to  exaggerate  its  im- 
portance. 

LiTERATURB. — This  is  for  the  most  part  in  Russian.  See 
Scrivener's  Introdurtion,  ii.  157  ff.  ;  Church  (Quarterly  Hevieto, 
Oct.  IS'J.'J.  and  the  literature  there  referred  to.  Nestle,  Urtrxt, 
etc.,  p.  211  ff.,  should  also  be  consulted.  There  are  numeroui 
articles  dealing  with  details  of  this  subject  in  the  Archie fwt 
Slacische  Philologie.  LL.  J.  M.  BEBB. 

VERSIONS,  GREEK  (other  than  the  LX.X).— It 
Avould  seem  from  >\  hat  has  come  down  to  us  that 
many  persons  took  in  hand  to  make  translations, 
if  not  of  the  whole  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  yet 
certainly  of  some  books,  and,  as  was  natuial, 
particularly  of  the  Psalms.  But,  unfortunately, 
little  renuiins  except  detached  fragments.  The 
longest  passages  of  a  continuous  text  still  extant 
and  already  published  are  two  passages  from  1,2 
(3,  4)  Kings  (21  [23]'-"  23""")  and  one  from  1  (3) 
Kings  (14'-*'),  all  attributed  to  Aquila.  The  former 
have  been  edited  by  F.  C.  Burkitt,  the  latter  ia 
quoted  in  its  due  order  in  Field's  Hexnpla. 
Unfortunately,  very  few  fragments  of  Origen's 
Hexnpla  in  its  original  form  liave  been  found ;  a 
considerable  portion  of  the  i'salter  is,  however, 
shortly  to  be  edited  by  Dr.  Mercati  of  the  Vatican 
from  a  p.alimp.sest  in  the  Ambrosian  Library  at 
Milan.  It  is  nmeh  to  be  wished  that,  amongst 
the  treasures  still  perhai>s  remaining  to  be  un- 
earthed in  Egypt  and  elsewhere,  a  i»py  of  at  least 
some  portions  of  Origen's  work  migdit  be  dis- 
covered. For  the  present  we  are  indebted  for  the 
most  part  to  the  marginal  notes  of  SeptuagintaJ 
MSS  for  the  fragments  which  we  do  possess,  tlie 
chief  editors  of  which  have  been  Montfaucon  and 
Field.     Fresh  fragments  are,  however,  being  coi>- 

•  Church  Quarterly  Review,  l.c.  pp.  219,  22ft. 
i  li.cii.p.  3661. 


VERSIONS,  GREEK 


VERSIONS,  GREEK 


865 


stanlly  brought  to  liglit.  A  number  are  to  be 
found  in  tlie  third  volume  of  Pitra's  Analecta 
Sacra,  and  also  in  the  3rd  volume  of  Swete's  OT  in 
Greek.  The  last  fragments  which  have  been  pub- 
lished are  the  greater  part  of  two  verses  of  Gu  1, 
which  is  to  be  found  in  part  i.  of  Grenfell  and 
Hunt's  Amiierst  Greek  Paj)i/ri,  and  a  fragment  of 
Ps  21  (22)  in  Dr.  Taylor's  Cairo  Geniiah  Palimp- 
sests (Cambridge  Press). 

Considerable  diftlculties  beset  the  student  in  his  considera- 
tion of  lliose  fra^oiienUj  that  sliU  remain.  (1)  lu  variuiia  MSS 
the  same  wortls  are  ascribed  in  one  c:i£e  to  one  translator,  in 
another  to  another;  whilst  in  other  coses,  and  sometimes  very 
questionably,  the  same  translation  is  attributed  to  all  in 
common.  (2)  Owin^  to  Ori^'eu's  well-meant  but  unfortunate 
editing  of  the  text  of  the  LX.\,  ami  the  loss  of  or  confusion  in 
the  diacritical  marks  which  he  inserted  in  his  text ;  and  owinj 
also  tot  he  \*ariou80tiier  recensions  and  re-editiri[is  which  the  text 
of  the  Septuo^nt  has  sutfered  fnjni,  we  ore  quite  in  the  dark  as 
to  how  much  of  these  other  Greek  versions  may  be  embedded  in 
our  present  Greek  texts  of  the  L.KX.  To  take  an  inst.ince.  If 
with  our  present  limited  sources  of  information  we  examine  the 
two  chapters  of  the  Book  of  Ju<lKes  which  relate  the  history 
of  i>boruh,  and  compare  the  Vatican  text  of  the  Cambridge 
edition  with  the  fraguients  printed  by  Field,  we  shall  tlnd  at 
least  thirteen  expressions  (4"  [two] '■'- 21  .'il.  U  16.21.26  [three] 
23  [twoD  attributed  to  versions  other  than  the  Septuagrint.  This 
may  perhaps  be  an  extreme  cose,  taken  as  it  is  from  a  book  in 
which  the  forms  of  the  text  vary  so  much,  and  as  to  which  ques- 
tions may  be  raised  conceminR  the  date  of  the  sjiecial  text,  but 
it  will  at  any  rate  serve  as  an  ilh-.stralion  of  how  complicated 
the  phenomena  of  the  present  Urcek  texta  of  the  OT  are  In 
other  ca^es,  where  a  double  or  even  triple  rendering  ot  the 
Hebrew  occurs,  we  shall  probabl>  not  '^o  wTong  in  assipning, 
at  least  in  some  cases,  one  or  more  (^f  these  alternative  transla- 
tions to  other  versions  than  the  LX.\. 

Orih'en  8  great  work  itself  seems  to  have  taken  various  iorms 
besides  the  most  prevalent  Uexaplaric  one.  We  find  mention 
of  (a)  a  Trtrajtla,  containing  the  four  Greek  versions;  (6)  a 
P^ntapta  of  doubtful  content ;  (c,  d)  a  Ueptapla  and  an  Octapla, 
which  apparently  contained  the  fifth  and  sixth  anonymous 
Greek  versions.  Specimens  of  the  way  in  which  these  were 
respectively  arranged  are  to  be  found  in  F'ield's  Prolegomena 
1pp.  xiv,  xv) :  while  Mercati  fives  an  actual  extract  from  a 
Ifexapla  SIS  in  his  *  Vn  palimpsesto  Ambrosiano'  in  Atti  di  R. 
Aecaaetttia  di  Scienza  dt  Torino,  April  10.  Ib06(see  also T.iylor's 
frai^nient  of  I's  21  [22]  from  the  Cairo  Palimpsest,  printed  on  p. 
444  of  the  present  volume). 

AVe  piu>s  to  the  separate  translations  and  their 
authors. 

(1)  Aquila's  Verxion. — Tliere  seems  to  be  no 
good  reason  for  doubting  that  this  was  certainly 
the  oldest  of  these  Greek  versions.  It  most  prob- 
ably had  its  origin  in  a  desire  for  a  faithful  and 
literal  translation  of  the  OT  by  an  orthodo.\  person 
holding  the  Jewish  faitli.  The  name  Aquila  is  one 
familiar  to  us  in  the  pages  of  the  NT.  The  Acjuila 
of  our  present  notice,  like  his  Scripture  namesake, 
was  a  native  of  Pontus,  and  is  said  to  h.ave 
belonged  to  Sinope.  He  is  called  a  proselyte,  and 
the  story  goes  that  he  nitde  his  translation  in  the 
reign  of  Hadrian  (c.  I'M)  a.d.)  after  the  return  of 
the  Christians  from  Pella  to  that  city.  He  is  said 
to  have  been  a  rmpil  of  the  famous  Rabbi  Al^iba. 
Attempts  have  lieen  made  to  identify  him  with 
the  OnVelos  of  the  Targum  of  Onl^elos,  but  they 
have  not  at  present  met  with  general  acceptance. 

In  translating  the  OT,  Aquila  seems  to  have 
ajiproachcd  his  task  from  the  point  of  view  of  an 
orlliodo.v  Jew  holding  the  plenary  inspiration  of 
every  '  jot  and  tittle.'  Accordingly,  his  aim  was  so 
lo  translate  that  for  every  Hebrew  word  or  particle 
there  should  always  be  an  equivalent.  The  results 
of  his  method  sometimes  become  grotesque.  Thus 
having  translated  03  by  the  Greek  Koi-ye,  when  the 
conjunction  is  pretixed  to  CJ  and  the  word  becomes 
OJi,  Aquila  translates  xai  Ktdyt.  The  particle  hk 
being  identical  with  the  prejiosition  n«  is  also 
translated  avp,  so  that  we  have  such  an  extra- 
ordinary solecism  as  ai/v  followed  by  the  accusa- 
tive case. 

How  far  Aquila  is  controversial  against  the 
Christians  in  any  of  his  renderings  is  a  matter  of 
dispute.  Tregelles  considers  tiiis  to  be  proved 
against  him,  whilst  Field  absolves  him.  The  only 
passage  which  really  seems  to  support  Tregelles' 


view  is  Aquila's  translation  of  Is  7'*,  where  for  the 
■wapdivoi  of  the  LXX  he  substitutes  veans,  a  much 
less  dehnite  word  than  irapO^voi  —  a  translation 
which  would  have  the  support  of  many  modern 
Christian  critics. 

His  translation  shows  few  traces  of  any  reading's 
dill'ering  from  the  unpointed  Hebrew  te.xt  now  in 
existence.  In  a  few  cases  his  division  of  Hebrew 
words  is  not  the  same.  His  vocalization,  how- 
ever, dili'ers  in  a  considerable  number  of  instances 
from  the  Massorete.s.  As  between  J^irS  and 
Killiihh,  he  more  often  follows  I^cre.  It  is  to  bo 
noted  also  that  he,  together  with  Synimaehus, 
follows  the  euphemism  of  the  Hebrew  margin  in 
Is  36".  In  his  choice  of  words  to  represent  the 
Hebrew,  Aquila  goes  far  afield.  He  attempts  to 
indicate!  the  literal  meaning  of  words  bv  correspond- 
ing Greek  words,  e.g.  iTiaTrnjLovl^ety.  He  draws,  as 
other  Greek  writers  of  the  period  do,  a  certain 
portion  of  his  vocabulary  from  the  old  Greek  epic 
poetry.  He  also  uses  Greek  words  of  similar 
sound  to  the  Hebrew,  instead  of  actually  trans- 
literating. He  transliterates  the  totr.-igraminaton 
by  the  archaic  form  of  the  four  Hebrew  letters, 
a  form  which  ajipears  in  Hexaplaric  Greek  JISS 
as  Ilini  (PIPI). 

There  would  seem  to  have  been  two  editions 
of  Aquila's  translation.  In  a  few  cases  he  may 
have  altered  his  mind  about  the  true  reading  of 
the  Hebrew.  Thus  in  Ps  89'"  he  appears  to  have 
read  at  first  »'»,  afterwards  e'n. 

Specimens  of  passages  in  which  the  Latin  Bible 
has  been  influenced  by  Atjuila's  version  are  to  be 
found  in  Field's  Introduilwn  (p.  xxiv). 

For  the  longer  story  told  by  Epiphanius  concerning  Aquila, 
his  relationship  to  Hmlrian,  and  his  conversion  to  Christianity, 
which  he  afterwards  exchanged  for  Judaism,  Epiphanius  is  our 
authority  {de  Men*,  et  Pmid.  14),  but  it  seems  a  very  improb- 
able tale,  due  perhaps  in  part  to  the  view  taken  by  Epiphanius 
of  his  translation.  It  is  also  to  be  found  in  the  new  '  Dialogue 
between  Timothy  and  .\quila,*  edited  by  F.  0.  Conybeare  in 
Anecdota  Oxouie.n»ia  (Class,  ser.  pt.  viii.). 

(2)  Syinmachux'  Versinn. — The  tr.  of  Synimaehus 
occupied  in  the  Ilexnpln  the  next  column  to  that 
of  Aquila.  According  to  Epi]ihanius  {de  Mens,  ct 
Pond.  16),  he  was  a  Samaritan  wlio  turned  Jew  and 
,'  hen  translated  the  OT  Scriptures  into  Greek  as  a 
means  of  refuting  the  Samaritan  errors.  Accord- 
ii  g  to  Eusebius  (//£  vi.  17)  he  was  an  Ebionite, 
and  wrote  a  coiniiientary  on  St.  Matthew's  Gospel. 
It  is  worthy  of  note,  however,  that,  in  the  early 
chapters  of  Genesis,  Sj'mmachus  seems  to  have 
followed  the  Samaritan  chronology.  The  chief 
object  ot  hia  version  is  to  give  a  readable  tr.  of 
the  Hebrew  ToelVect  this  he  paraphrases  Hebrew 
with  Greek  idioms,  e.g.  he  replaces  the  AvSpa 
alfiiruv  of  the  LXX  by  ifopes  /xiaiipifoi  (Ps  25  [26J" 
54  [55]'-"  138  [139]'").  Ho  does  not  consider  it  neces- 
sary always  to  render  the  same  Hebrew  word  by 
the  same  Greek  word.  In  places  his  translation 
becomes  more  of  a  parajilirase.  He  constantly 
gives  transhitions  of  proper  names :  thus  Ararat 
becomes  Armenia.  Tlie  inlluence  of  Symmachus, 
as  of  Aquila,  is  to  be  found  in  the  Vulgate.  In  a 
few  places  mention  is  made  of  a  second  edition 
of  this  translation,  but  they  are  so  few  that  little 
certainty  exists  that  there  actually  was  one. 
Like  Aquila,  Symmachus  oscillates  between  Ki^ri 
ami  Kithil)h,  and  very  seldom  deviates  from  the 
consonantal  part  of  the  MT.  Like  the  LXX,  ho 
explains  away  the  bare  anthropomorphic  state- 
ment of  the  flebrew,  see,  e.g..  Ex  21'"  lieb.  'they 
saw  the  God  of  Israel'  (Aq.  tUon  rbv  Of6»'lapa-fiK), 
for  which  L.XX  substitutes  tX&oy  rbv  Tbirov  oJ 
«l<rri)«i  6  debi  tou  "L,  and  Symmachus  tlSor  Uinart 
tAv  eeif  '1.  There  is  no  reason  why  thi»  Sym- 
machus should  be  identified  with  the  one  men- 
tioned in  the  Talmad  (Bab.  Erubin,  134).  The 
date  of  the  translation  is  quite  uncertain,  but  it  is 


866 


VERSIONS 


VEX,  VEXATION' 


probably  to  be  assigned  to  the  latter  half  of  the 
2n(l  cent.  A.D.  It  shows  an  aci|uaintance  with 
Aquila,  but  is  thoroughly  independent  of  it. 

(3)  Theodotion's  Versiuii. — Theodotion  was  of 
Pontus,  according  to  Epiphanius(rfe  Mens,  et  Pond. 
17),  and  a  follower  ot  Mareion  of  Sinope,  and 
afterwards  became  a  Jewish  proselyte.  Irena'us 
also  calls  him  a  proselyte  (adv.  liter,  iii.  24),  but 
describes  him  as  an  Kphesian.  Jerome  says  that 
some  called  him  an  Ebionite,  others  a  Jew. 

His  version  has  more  of  the  character  of  a  revision 
of  the  LXX  than  of  an  independent  translation. 
So  valuable  was  it  held  that  in  some  cases,  notably 
in  the  Book  of  Daniel,  of  which  we  possess  the 
LXX  version  in  only  one  copy  (cod.  87),  Theo- 
dotion's version  supplanted  the  LXX.  He  in- 
cluded in  his  worlc  the  apocryphal  parts  of  Daniel, 
the  addition  at  the  end  of  Job,  the  Bk.  of  Baruch, 
and  the  sections  of  Jeremiah  which  the  LXX 
omits.  He  indulges  more  freely  in  the  translitera- 
tion of  Hebrew  words  than  the  other  translators, 
though  occasionally  he  finds  himself  able  to  give 
translations  where  the  others  fail. 

His  translation  was  probably  made  about  A.D. 
185.  Traces  of  a  Greek  version  of  Daniel  very 
like  that  of  Theodotion  go  back  as  far  as  the  NT.* 
This  would  lead  us  to  imagine  that  just  as  we  still 
have  traces  in  other  books  of  the  OT  of  two  Greek 
versions  existing  side  by  side,  e.g.  in  Judges  and 
still  more  in  the  Books  of  Esdras,  so  it  is  quite 
possible  that  tliere  may  have  been  two  versions  of 
Daniel  and  of  some  other  books — a  literal  trans- 
lation, and  one  which  had  more  of  the  nature  of 
a  paraphrastic  commentary. 

(4)  In  addition  to  these  translations  there 
were  at  least  three  anonymous  versions  of  at  any 
rate  parts  of  tlie  Scriptures,  known  respectively 
as  the  Fifth.  Sixth,  and  Seventh.  According  to 
Eusebius  (HE  vi.  16),  Origen  obtained  the  Fifth 
from  Kicopolis  near  Actium.  Epiphanius  (de  Mens. 
et  Pond.  18),  however,  saj's  tliat  it  was  found 
hidden  away  in  jars  at  Jericho,  and  assigns  the 
Sixth  version  to  Isicopolis.  If  we  can  depend  upon 
the  quotation  of  the  Sixth  version  of  Hab  3",  the 
tr.  must  have  been  parajihrastic  and  made  by  a 
Christian.  As  to  the  Seventh  translation,  and 
even  the  certainty  of  its  existence  at  all,  there  is 
much  doubt.  These  three  versions  are  most  fre- 
quently quoted  in  the  Psalms. 

(5)  l^he  Graseo-Venetan  tr.,  a  very  late  Jewish 
production,  of  which  only  one  MS  exists,  need 
only  just  be  mentioned.  It  does  not  include  the 
whole  of  the  OT.  The  best  edition  is  that  of 
Gebhardt  (Leipzig,  1875). 

For  further  information  concerning  the  Hexapla 
and  these  versions  see  art.  Septuagint. 

LrrERATURE.— Montfaucon,  Origcnie  Hexaplorrtm  qua  super- 
tunt  (1723) ;  Field,  Orifjenis  Uexaptontm  ijiue  i^uper.'ntTit  (IbTo) : 
Salmon,  Introil.  to  iVr  (last  edition);  Swcte,  Introd.  to  OT 
in  Greek  (1900).  For  Aquila  (fra^iiuents),  Ang:er,  de  Qnkdo 
Chatdaico;  liiiT\dtt,  Fraf/mentso/  Aquiia;  Taylor, '  Fragments' 
In  Saj/iufis  0/  the  Jetvieh  Fathers^ (1897),  and* Fragments  of  Pa. 
xxii.  (1900),  art.  'Hexapla'  in  Diet,  of  Christian  BiO'irnphy. 
For  Symtnachua  and  Theodotion  see  artt.  $.vo.  in  Vict,  oj 
Chruit.  Biog.  by  Dr.  Owynn.  U.  A.  ReDPATH. 

VERSIONS.— In  addition  to  the  Versions  treated 
in  the  preceding  three  articles,  the  following  are 
dealt  with  in  the  present  work  under  their  respec- 
tive titles:  Arabic  Versions,  Armknian  Ver- 
sion, Egyptian  Versions,  Ethiopic  Version, 
Latin  Versions  (The  Old),  Septuaglnt,  Syriac 
Versions,  Vulgate. 

VERY  is  still  used  as  an  adj.  freely  enough, 
but  either  intensively  or  to  mark  identity.  Tlie 
sense  of   '  true '  (Lat.    verax,    through    late   Lat. 

•  For  traces  ot  a  veniion  of  other  books  than  Daniel 
>lut  o(  Tbeodotion  see  Swete'a  Intnd.  p.  <8,  n.  S. 


verafus  and  Old  Fr.  verai),  or  '  real '  is  no  longel 
in  use.  We  find  this  sense  in  AV  Gn  27='- *•  'Art 
thou  my  very  son  Esau  ? ' ;  Ps  5'  '  Their  inward 
part  is  verj-  wickedness';  Pr  17°  'He  that  re- 
peateth  a  matter  separateth  very  (RV  'chief') 
friends';  Jn  7-° 'Do  the  rulers  know  indeed  that 
this  is  the  very  Christ  ? '  ;  Ac  9^  '  proving  that 
this  is  very  Christ'  (RV  'the  Christ').  This  use 
of  'very'  is  common  in  Wyclif,  as  Jn  (J^^-sa. m 
'  my  fleisch  is  verri  mete,  and  my  blood  is  verri 
drjnke '  ;  15'  '  I  am  a  veiri  vyne '  ;  17'  '  This  is 
everlastynge  liif,  that  tliei  knowe  thee  verri  God 
aloone '  ;  so  Tind.  '  iliat  they  myght  knowe  the 
that  only  very  God. '  So  Erasmus,  C'rede,  76, '  It  was 
no  very  deathe';  Elyot,  Ooveniour,  ii.  161,  'Seneca 
saieth  that  very  friendship  is  induced  neither  with 
hope  ne  with  rewarde.'  Sometimes  the  adj.  with 
this  sense  has  to  be  carefully  disting\iished  from 
the  adverb.  Thus  Udall's  Erasmus'  iVjf',  ii.  280, 
'  Jesus  Christ  ...  is  now  already  come,  having 
receyved  a  very  humayne  body '  ;  and  Tind  ale, 
Expos.  230,  'Where  faith  is,  there  must  the  very 
good  works  follow.'  Hall  (Works,  ii.  151)  uses 
the  compar.  in  the  same  sense,  '  Surely  they 
were  not  veryer  lepers  than  we  ? ' 

J.  Hastings. 
VEX,  VEXATION.— These  Eng.  words,  as  used 
in  AV,  express  much  more  than  petty  annoyance. 
The  following  quotations  will  illustrate  their 
force :  Vex  —  Lk  S'"  Tind.  '  Master,  the  people 
thrust  the  and  vexe  (dirodXl^ova,  Gen.  '  tread  on,' 
AV  'press')  the,  and  sayest  thou,  who  touched 
me  ? ' ;  1  S  28-'  Cov.  '  And  the  woman  went  in  to 
Saul,  and  sawe  that  he  was  sore  vexed '  (AV  '  sore 
troubled ') ;  Mt  9^  Rheni.  '  And  seing  the  multi- 
tudes, he  pitied  them  because  the}-  were  vexed' 
(fiaav  iK\e\v/i^i'oi,  AV  'fainted';  edd.  ijaav  ^ctkvX- 
IJLivoi.,  RV  'were  distressed');  Elyot,  Govemour, 
ii.  95,  'The  first  or  chiefe  porcion  of  justice  (as 
Tiilli  saietli)  is  to  indomage  no  man,  onelas  thou 
be  wronglully  vexed'  (Lat.  nisi  lacessitus  injuria) ; 
Sliaks.  Lear,  III.  iv.  62, '  Do  poor  Tom  some  charity, 
whom  the  foul  liend  vexes.'  Vexation — Shaks. 
Mids.  Night's  Dream,  IV.  i.  74 — 

'  Think  no  more  of  this  night's  accidenta 
But  as  the  fierce  vexation  of  a  dream ' ; 

Webster,  White  Devil,  v.  2 — 

'  There's  nothing  of  so  infinite  vexation 
As  man's  own  thoughts.' 

But  the  force  of  the  words  in  AV  can  be  best  seen  by  examin- 
ing the  original  words  so  translated.  In  OT  sixteen  verbs  (and 
onesubst.)  are  translated  'vex.'  These  are— 1.  [Ilahal]  (Ps  2* 
62,3. 10)^  which  in  Picl(l*s*2'')  is  usually  translated  in  AV  'trouble,' 
but  means  'ilismay'or  'terrify';  in  Niph.  (!*3  62.a.  iy)*be  dis- 
turbed,' 'dismayed.'  In  his  Par.  i'.sa/f.  Driver  has  uniformly 
•  dismay '  or '  be  dismayed '  2.  [Ddhak]  (Jg  2'^),  elsewhere  only  Jl 
2S  of  the  crowding,  thrusting  of  locusts,  but  common  in  .\ramaic. 
3.  Iliimam  (2  Ch  IS*'),  to  make  a  noise,  and  so  'discomfit,' 
'distress,'  as  in  Ex  14--*,  where  'the  Lord  troubled  (UV  'die- 
comliled')  the  host  of  the  Egyptians.'  4.  Zia'  (Hab  27),  t« 
tremble  (as  an  old  man  shakes,  Ec  12'*) :  here  it  is  Pilp.,  and 
Davidson  translates  '  shall  violently  shake  thee ' ;  it  is  used 
figuratively  of  the  foes  of  Babylon  as  the  instruments  of 
Jehovah's  judgments.  5.  [Vwjah]  {Job  19^)  in  Hipb.  means  to 
cause  grief,  I)avi<ison  'atiJict,*  who  adds,  'the  words  suggest  the 
cnishing  effect  which  the  friends'  insinuations  of  wickedness 
had  on  Job's  spirit.'  6.  I  Vunih]  (Ex  fZ"  UV  '  wrong ' ;  Lv  19M 
RV  'do  wrong' ;  Ezk  22?  RV  '  wrong  "■2*)= 'oppress,'  'maltreat,' 
esp.  the  stranger  [see  Ger]  or  the  poor  b\'  the  wealthy  and 
powerful.  7.  A  a' of  (Ezk  32^)  in  Hiph.  =  *  provoke,'  as  Peniunah 
provoked  Hannah  (1  S  1^,  but  esp.  used  of  provoking  Jehtvah 
to  anger.  8.  .Marar{  Job  272)  in  Qal  '  to  be  bitter,'  as  2  K  4" 
'  her  soul,  it  is  bitter  to  her ' :  here  lliph.  = '  embitter,' '  Shaddai 
who  hath  embittered  my  soul"  (Ox/.  Ueb.  Lex.).  Of.  Ru  1» 
'The  .Mmighty  hath  dealt  very  bitterly  with  me.'  9.tAz<i''h] 
(Is  63'"  KV  '  grieve ')  in  Piel  = '  cause  pain.'  10.  Zarar  (Lv  IS", 
Nu  2.i"- 18  33",  2  S  132.  I9  uls,  Neh  9").  This  verb  is  to  press 
(perhaps  lit.  in  Lv  1818  though  RV  '  to  be  a  rival '),  press 
together,  then  fig.  to  oppress,  persecute.  In  Neh  9^  (Hiph.)  to 
afHict  (RV  ' distress ') on  the  part  of  enemies.  11.  \K<t!\  (Is  7»)= 
fear,  herein  Hipb.  =  put  in  fear,  of  a  city  by  besieging  it.  Of.  1  Mac 
16H.  1'2.  [Kiizir](3g  le'").  lit.  '  be  short,' hereof  one's  spirit,  i.e. 
to  have  one's  patience  exhausted,  AV  and  RV  '  His  soul  was 
vexed  unto  death,'  Gen.  '  His  soul  was  peined  unto  the  death.' 
13.  yiifa  (Nu  2011S)  n  Hiph.  to  'do  evil,'  to  'evil  entreat'  (so  KV 


VILE 


VILLAGE 


867 


here,  »»  AV  In  Ex  6=2,  Dt  268,  Amcr.  EV  '  deal  ill  with ').  14. 
P^  r,\p'J  dtah  ra'  (2  S  12i»)='do  evil,"  AVm  'do  hurt,'  here  to 
oneself  by  grief.  15.  Rti'a:  (Jg  105) — '  Tliey  ve,\ed  and  oppressed 
the  children  of  Israel,'  Moore  'they  broke  and  crushed."  It  is 
the  same  verb  that  in  Jg  9W  is  translated  '  and  all  to  brake  his 
•kull.'  16.  Uiieha'  (I  S  14*'),  lit.  '  be  wicked ' ;  here  Iliph.  = '  de- 
clare wicked,'  '  condemn,*  *  punish,'  if  the  text  is  correct,  which  is 
doubtful,  see  Driver's  note.   Anier.  RV  '  put  them  to  the  worse.* 

The  subst.  in^hOmah^  *  vexation,'  is  translated  by  the  verb  in 
Ezk  22^  AV  'much  vexed,'  UV  'full  of  tumult.'  Besides 
mfhumah  (Dt  28'-i',  2  Ch  li'),  '  vexation '  is  the  tr.  of  (2)  zfwau/i 
(Is  2819) ;  (3)  shebtr  f Is  dS'*) ;  (4)  rrulh  (Ec  l"  2U.  17.  ai  44. 0  c9), 
and  (J)  ra'!/()n  (1^0  1"  22*  4i<').  KV  gives  tor  (1) 'discomfiture' 
in  Lft  26'^>,  retaining  '  vexation  '  in  2  Ch  15^  ;  for  (2) '  terror' ; 
for  (3)  it  retains  'vexation ' ;  for  (4)  and  (5)  gives  'striving.' 

In  Apocr.  and  NT  we  find  thirteen  different  Or.  words  ren- 
dered in  AV  by  the  verb  to  vex  ('vexation'  does  not  occur). 
1.  S«-«».C*  (2  P2'0,  which  is  tr.  'torment*  elsewhere  except  Mt 
14'«  ('tossed,*  KV  'distressed').  Mis  6**  ('toiling,'  ItV  'dis- 
tressed'), Rev  1*22  ('paine<l,'  RV  'in  pain').  The  verb  means 
originally  to  test  metals  by  the  touchstone  (Saravcf).  2. 
iatiMti^ou^u  1  Mt  15'—  n  ttt/yetrr,p  fiAu  xaxMf  3txjUtf,,^iTa/,  'my 
daughter  is  grievously  vexed  with  a  deviL'  The  verb  means 
to  be  possessed  by  a  demon.  3.  iXx-^>iu ;  Wis  171^  ripxciw 
iiAA</f**To  ^t-Ttur/jLuTatf,  '  were  vexed  with  monstrous  appari- 
tions,* UV  'haunted*:  in  I6I**  the  same  word  is  tr.  'persecuted,* 
BV  'chased.*    4.  &A.3*  ;  1  Mac  151*  'he  vexed  the  city  by  land 

and  by  sea.*  Cf.  .Mt  "l*  T»^r>j/x,iier»i  ^  Ho;  k  ktoLycv^a  Lt  Ti)» 
C«»,  lit.  'a  compressed  (hemmed  in,  straitened)  way  is  that 
which  leads  to  life.'  6.  jucxiw  :  2  Mac  5—,  Ac  12i  RV,  in  both 
■  alUict.'  The  word  means  to  do  harm  (jtaxa,)  to,  as  Ac  I810  '  No 
man  shall  set  on  thee  to  hurt  (RV  '  harm  *)  thee.'  6.  x«7ixt«v(w  ; 
2  P  27,  lit.  'to  exhaust  w-ith  labour*  (TcVcf).  Found  also  in 
Ac  ?■"  EV  '  oppress.'  7.  Xyria/ ;  Bar  218  '  the  soul  that  is  greatly 
vexed,*  KvxK^ui*yi,  lit.  *  grieved,'  '  made  sorrowful.*  8.  oj^Xi* : 
Lk  6i»,  Ac  618,  i,oth  '  vexed  with  evil  spirits.*  In  Luke  edd.  read 
ji«;i^X0juitoi,  RV  •  troubled.*  The  word  means  lit.  to  rouse  a 
mob  (ovX*f)  against  one.  *rhe  same  verb  is  used  in  To  0''  of '  a 
devil  or  evil  spirit*  troubling  one.  9.  frapopyisoi :  .Sir  43  yMp^:a.9 
wttpt^irfAiYnt,  'a  heart  that  is  vexed*  (RV  'provoked,'  as  X\'  in 
Eo  lO'S,  Eph  8<).  10.  ^icy.ii :  Mt  IT'S  xaxSs  srio-vii,  '  he  is  sore 
vexed';  RV  'sufTereth  grievously.'     11.  xipiirva.a> :  Sir  4J2 ''u 

0«ratri,  XdcA«*  0-01/  .   .    .    T^  Tf^jrTA'Ufiw  9rl^#  vayTArv,  '  tO  him  tll^lt  iS 

vexed  with  (RV  'distracted  about')  all  thincrs.'  In  NT  the  verb 
occurs  only  Lk  1040  'Martha  was  cumbered  (RVni  'distracted') 
about  much  serving.*  12.  rttptteiru;  1  Mac  35,  UV 'trouble,*  as 
the  word  is  often  tr.  in  AV  in  the  Gospels  and  1  P  31*.  In  the 
Identical  phrase  (ei  letpuirnvri;  to*  >jt6*)  m  1  .Mac  722  the  word  is 
tr.  *  troubled.*  13.  rf^x^uatt :  Wis  1111,  RV  distress* ;  elsewhere 
Id  Bibl.  Greek  only  Hi-*,  AV  'afflicted,*  UV  'worn.* 

J.  Hastings. 

VILE.— 'There  are  many  places  in  the  Bible  in 
which  vile  is  not  meant  to  convey  tlie  idea  wliiuli 
it  now  possesses  of  what  is  phy.sically  and  morally 
detestable,  but  has  simply  the  force  of  the  Latin 
t*i7i.5,  properly  cheap,  and  then  common,  litfhtly 
esteemed,  or  at  most  looked  dovtn  upon.  This,  no 
doubt,  is  the  sense  which  the  Translators  of  1611 
intended  to  express  in  Ph  3^' ;  for  the  Greek  is 
TaTclvwrii,  lowliness,  low  estate — as  it  is  rendered 
in  the  MagniJ!cat,  "the  lowliness,  or  low  estate,  of 
his  handmaiden  " ;  and  the  contrast  is  simply  be- 
tween the  lowly  earthly  body  which  we  at  i)resent 
bear,  and  the  future  jjlori lied  body  which  has  been 
made  like  unto  the  risen  body  of  Christ.' — Driver 
in  Expos.  Times,  Jan.  1"JU2,  xiiL  1G7. 

This  earlier  meaninf;  of  '  vile '  is  seen  in  Erasmus, 
Cnde,  106,  '  He  whome  thou  despysest  as  vyle 
borne,  is  thy  brother' ;  p.  1.'57,  'Thou  being  proude 
of  the  palace,  do.ste  mocke  and  skorne  the  vyle 
and  lioiiielye  cotat;e  of  the  pore  man';  Udall, 
Erasmus'  A'T,  ii.  2'J,  'The  heavenly  father  dooeth 
garnishe  and  clothe  so  freshely  tlie  vile  gra-sse, 
which  shortely  shall  perishe  ;  Ridley,  Bre/e 
Declaration,  122,  '  The  crafte  either  of  fyshyng, 
•whiclie  was  Peter's ;  or  of  makynge  of  teiites, 
which  was  Panics,  were  more  vile  then  the  science 
of  phisicke  [which  was  Luke's].'  But  the  word  liiul 
already  a  stronger  meaning  than  tliis.  Thus 
Pre/are  to  AV,  '  Ebionitcs,  that  is,  most  vile 
IiiTetikcs' ;  Uolding,  Calvin's  Job,  582,  'Thou  vile 
toade.' 

*rhe  examples  of '  vile '  In  AV  may  be  classified  thus — 

1.  Common,  jmltry.  of  gmaUtKXount,  Ps  I2*(r«^u/A)  ;  Jerl61fi, 
La  I"  ((z<ifof )).. Ier2«i'(»/i(7nr);  Wis  ll'»(iiTiA  lit,  RV  wretched'), 
1314  (,;riAr.(,  KV  '  paltry  *)  ;  I'll  321  (t.h,,«.-,()  ;  Ja  22  (fi*.«(). 

2.  Detpieahle,  eonUmptiblf  (with  moral  reprobation),  Dl  268 
{kiildh) ;  1  8  3>3, 2 8  622,  Job  4(l4  (RV  correctly '  of  small  account  *), 
Nab  114(all  Isatal):  I  8  16»((JvAmiteiA)  ni6;«/i);  l>n  1121  (t(«.iA). 

&  Sham^ul,  abominable  (with  religious  a«  well   aa  moral 


reprobation,  almost  equivalent  to  impious,  see  Fool),  2  8  1^ 
tor  a/);  Job  iss  (lumM);  Wis  418  ^iT,^M)■,  2  Mac  163- (/u.^)  * 

RO  1^  (xrifi^it). 

AV  mistranslates  Job  30^ :  render  as  RV  **rhey  are  Bconrged 
out  of  the  land"  (the  verb  is  [ndka'],  to  smite). 

J.  Hastings. 

VILLAGE.— The  earliest  Oriental  village  prob- 
ably arose  in  the  transition  from  nomadic  to 
settled  life.  Interests  centring  in  a  particular 
locality  called  for  more  constant  residence  ;  and  in 
course  of  time  the  tent,  best  suited  to  the  moving 
life,  would  give  place  to  the  hut  or  house,  the 
encampment  to  the  village.  The  name  nin  {iiraOXeis) 
in  tn;  nin  (JJavvoth-Jair,  Nu  32"  etc.),  apjiliod  to 
smaller  towns  or  villages,  agrees  \vith  this  idea. 
Abulw.  connects  it  with  Arab,  hayy,  '  tents  of  a 
clan  '  (cf.  Arab,  hiwa',  'group  of  tents').  The  term, 
which  formerly  denoted  the  temporary  dwellings, 
would  naturally  be  applied  to  the  more  permanent 
settlements  (iloore.  Judges,  p.  274  ;  \V.  R.  Smith, 
BS^  p.  281).  The  common  word  for  village,  isij 
(ftrai/Xtj),  primarily  '  an  enclosure,'  is  sometimes 
used  for  the  open  dwellings  of  the  nomads  (Gn  25", 
Is  42").  -IS?  (K<S>nr,,  Ca  7",  1  Ch  27=*,  t;?  Neh  6=, 
"i;3  1  S  6'*),  'a  hamlet'  or  'vUlage,'  appeared  in 
Palestine  with  the  advent  of  Aramaic,  and  still 
persists  in  such  place-names  as  Kefr  Kennah, 
Kefr  Sabt,  etc.  Uther  words  are  f;?  (iwiar-qi, 
Hab  3"RV  'warrior,'  RVm  'hordes'  or  'villages'); 
Jin.?  (SuraTis,  Jg  5'- "  RV  'ruler,'  KVm  'village'); 
nins  (Est  9"*  LXX  iv  Tiay  xwp?  rj  l^a,  EV  '  un- 
walled  towns';  Ezk  38"  ewl  77)1'  i.-ircppi.tifUvni',  EV 
'unwalled  towns,'  KVm  'an  open  country';  Zee 
2^'*'  KaraKipTTW,  AV  'as  villaf;es  without  walls,' 
RV  ' as  towns  Mithout  walls '),  which  seems  to 
denote  the  places  in  open,  level  country,  as  dis- 
tinguished Irom  fortilied  cities  (cf.  Arab,  fnrz, 
'plain') ;  cf.  'r:^=  peasantry,  1  S  6'^  Dt  3',  Est  9'". 

The  distinction  between  city  (Ty  or  poet.  n;-ip) 
and  village  is  carefully  observed  throughout  tlie 
OT.  The  city  was  an  inhabited,  walled  place ; 
the  village,  not  so  protected,  was  probably  always 
subordinate  to  the  city.  This  relation  of  de- 
pendence appears  to  be  indicated  by  the  term 
'  daughters,  e.g.  n'ni^i-ns)  njfnx  (Nu  32^^^  cf.  Jos  17" 
etc.),  by  the  phrase  'the  cities  and  their  villages,' 
[n'l.SD)  D'-!V7  (Jos  13"  etc.),  and  is  implied  in  the 
designation  'a  mother  in  Israel,'  applied  to  the 
chief  town  of  a  district  (2  S  20'").  This  subordina- 
tion was  maintained  in  later  times  ( 1  Mac  5"  ttji' 
If7)/3  <tai  rds  Oiryar^pas  avriji,  cf.  5°°).  While  the  city 
was  the  chief  seat  of  authority  in  a  district,  the 
smaller  towns  and  villages  seem  to  have  been  de- 
pendent on  the  larger.  On  the  E.  of  Jordan,  and 
especially  in  Trachonitis,  /n)TpoKufj.lai,  are  frequently 
met  with,  th.at  is,  villages  holding  a  position 
corresponding  to  that  of  a  capital  town.  Thus 
Pha'na,  the  modern  Musmiyeh,  is  called  fitirpoKu/xla 
ToC  Tpdxwi/os  {C'lG  4551).  In  NT  and  Joseplius  the 
ideas  of  TriXis  and  xJifiri  are  uniformly  distinguislied  ; 
but  in  the  Greek  period  the  point  of  di.stinetion 
came  to  be,  not  so  much  size  or  fortification  as 
constitution  and  law,  which  diU'ered  in  city  and 
village.  St.  JIark,  who  notes  the  numerous  towns 
and  villages  in  fertile  Galilee,  mentions  (1^)  ku/io- 
riXeis,  a  word  used  by  Strabo  and  Byzantine 
writers,  denoting  towns  which  for  size  might  be 
called  iriXeis,  but  in  constitution  ranked  only  as 
Kwiiai..  Jos.  (BJ  III.  iii.  2)  speaks  of  many  villages 
in  (jalilee,  the  .smallest  of  which  contained  15,000 
inhabitants.  If  we  are  to  credit  these  liguns, 
KwpLi)  must  be  taken  to  include  the  surrounding 
district  and  suburlis.  The  Misbna  distinguishes 
(1)  T,-!J  'a  large  city";  (2)  ry  'a  city';  and  (3)  n;j 
'a  village'  [Megilht  i.  1,  ii.  3;  Kethubuth  .\iii. 
10;  Kitldnshin  ii.  3;  liaba  mcpa  iv.  6,  viii.  6; 
Aravliin  vi.  5).  The  first  and  second  dill'ered  only 
in  size.  While  71-15  =  •  a  fortilied  city,' small  towns 
were  often  similarly  protected  (n;)\n   ry,  Arachin 


868 


VINE,  VINEYAED 


VINE,  VINEYARD 


ix.  3  ff. ;  Kelim  i.  7),  "i^s  being  the  open  village 
(SchuriT,  HJP  u.  i.  154  li'.). 

Villages  in  Palestine  to-day  are  related  in  the 
same  way  to  tlie  towns.  Tlius  el-Mejdel,  IlaUin, 
el-Luhiyeh,  etc.,  are  under  the  jurisdiction  of 
Tiberias.  All  actions,  civil  and  criminal,  and  all 
matters  affecting  taxation  and  military  service, 
come  before  the  authorities  in  that  town.  The 
sheikh,  or  chief  man,  exercises  considerable  in- 
tluence  among  the  inhabitants,  and  with  him,  in 
the  first  instance,  the  authorities  treat  in  all  that 
concerns  liis  community. 

The  villages  are  the  centres  of  agricultural 
industry.  The  surrounding  land  is  frequently 
common  projierty.  All  share  in  its  cultivation. 
When  deductions  have  been  made  for  taxes,  etc., 
the  i)roduce  is  divided  according  to  local  arrange- 
ment. In  otlier  cases  Iha  villagers  till  the  soil  for 
a  landlord  or  company,  and  then  a  certain  per- 
centage of  the  crops  is  allowed  them  in  payment. 

Nearly  all  the  villages  in  Palestine  are  of  ancient 
date.  They  often  stand  on  the  sites,  and  are  buUt 
from  the  ruins,  of  cities  not  seldom  CTeat  and 
splendid  in  the  past.  There  is  something  both 
grotesque  and  pathetic  in  the  appearance  of 
Corintldan  capital  and  sculptured  stone  in  the 
walls  of  mud-plastered  huts.  Positions  diilicult  of 
access  are  much  prized  for  defence  against  maraud- 
ing bantls.  There  are,  of  course,  no  scattered 
dwellings  or  solitary  farm-steadings,  which  would 
be  too  easy  a  prey  to  plunderers. 

The  village  life  is  mean  and  squalid.  The  houses 
as  a  rule  are  of  but  one  apartment,  in  which,  along 
with  the  family,  their  animals  find  nightly  shelter. 
Sanitation  is  unknown,  and  the  villages  are  hot- 
beds of  fever.  In  some  it  is  ascribed  to  an  iuter- 
▼ention  of  Allah  when  a  child  survives  infancy. 
Oppressed  by  rapacious  tax-gatherers  backed  by  a 
brutal  soldiery,  often  loaded  with  debt  they  can 
never  hope  to  pay, — interest  on  which  is  a  first 
charge  upon  their  j-early  pittance, — the  spirit  is 
crushed,  and  there  is  little  inducement  to  work 
for  improvements  the  fruits  of  which  would  in- 
fallibly be  seized  by  others.  They  put  little  into 
the  soil ;  their  houses  are  frail ;  tlieir  furniture 
scanty ;  they  live  practically  '  from  hand  to 
mouth,'  and  bear  themselves  like  men  who  may 
at  any  moment  receive  notice  to  quit. 

The  villagers  in  Palestine  mostly  rank  as 
Moslems,  orthodox  or  heretical  ;  but  there  is 
much  obscurity  as  to  their  real  religious  senti- 
ments and  practices.  Usually  a  makdm,  the  tomb 
or  sanctuary  of  some  saint  or  famous  sheikh, 
stands  near  by  or  on  a  neighbouring  hUl.  It 
serves  as  a  kind  of  village  strong-room.  Although 
it  is  quite  open,  no  one  dreams  of  removing  what 
has  been  placed  there  for  safety.  A  common 
responsibility  for  hospitality  is  also  recognized. 
In  every  village  there  is  the  menztl  or  mulAfy, 
'  village  guest  -  house,'  where  all  strangers  are 
welcome.  The  sheikh  acts  as  '  host,'  but  the 
villagers  contribute  each  bla  share  towards  the 
entertainment  of  the  guests.  W.  EwiNG. 

VINE,  VINEYARD.— Three  Heb.  words  are  tr. 
in  EV  'vine.'  1.  [E}  gcphen,  Arab.  jafn.  This 
always  refers  to  grape-bearing  vines,  except  2  K 
4*",  where  .tiS?  jys  the  '  vine  of  the  fields,'  AV  and 
RV  '  wild-vine,'  refers  to  a  wild  gourd-vine,  prob. 
colocynth,  and  perhaps  Dt  SS*",  wTiere  on?  [r;  '  the 
vine  of  Sodom '  may  denote  a  grape-vine,  or  some 
other  plant  (see  '  vine  of  Sodom,  below).  2.  pi-' 
surek  (Is  5'  'choicest  vine'),  plto  (Jer  2-'  'noble 
vine'),  nsnb  sdrekak  (Gn  49"  'choice  vine'),  used  of 
a  superior  kind,  producing  dark-coloured  grapes, 
with  soft  seeds  or  none.  It  is  called  in  Arab. 
t&rik.  3.  Tij  nazir  (Lv  25'-  "  AV  '  vine  undressed,' 
m.  '  separation,'  RV  '  undressed  vine  '),  fig.  for  un- 


pruned  vine,  named  ndzlr  from  its  resemblance  tc 
the  Nazirite,  whose  hair  was  uncut  and  unshaven. 

The  vine  is  one  of  the  most  important  plants 
mentioned  in  the  Bible  and  cultivated  in  the  East. 
Noah  planted  a  vineyard  (Gn  9-*).  The  chief  butler 
saw  a  vine  in  his  dream  (Gn  40").  Judah  is  repre- 
sented as  binding  his  ass  to  a  vine  (Gn  49"),  an 
allusion  to  the  luxury  in  which  he  would  live. 
Living  under  one's  own  vine  and  fig  tree  (1  K  4^, 
Mic  4'')  was  an  emblem  of  peace.  The  languishing 
of  the  vine  (Is  \&  etc.)  was  an  emblem  of  destruc- 
tion and  desolation.  Palestine  was  a  land  of  vines 
(Dt  8*).  They  were  planted  on  mountains  (Jer 
3P).  They  flourish  best  there  at  the  present  day. 
The  Nazikite,  as  being  under  a  religious  vow, 
was  to  '  eat  nothing  that  is  made  of  the  grape- 
vine, from  the  kernels  even  to  the  husk '  (Nu  0^). 
Manoah's  wife,  as  the  future  mother  of  a  Nazirite, 
was  also  forbidden  for  a  time  to  eat  or  drink  of 
the  fruit  of  the  vine  (Jg  13'*).  The  \nne  is  fre- 
quently associated  with  the  fig  (Ps  105**,  Jer  8", 
Hab  3",  Ja  3'-  etc.).  Christ  calls  Himself  the  true 
vine  (Jn  15'"').  There  are  several  other  figurative 
allusions  to  the  vine  and  vineyard.  Israel  wa-s  a 
vine  brought  out  of  Egypt  (Ps  SO*"",  Is  5'°).  The 
fruitful  wife  was  compared  to  the  vine  (Ps  128^). 
The  remnant  of  Israel  was  to  be  gleaned  as  a 
vine  (Jer  6").  Samaria  was  to  be  as  plantings  of 
a  vine  (Mic  1').  Beth-haccherem,  'the  house  of 
the  vine'  (Neh  3",  Jer  6'),  Abel-cheramim,  'the 
meadow  of  vineyards'  (Jg  11''),  were  named  from 
kerem='  y\ae.' 

The  vine  is  cultivated  in  a  variety  of  ways. 
Sometimes  it  is  trained  over  a  trellis,  or  made  to 
climb  a  tree  (Ezk  19").  In  this  way  a  man  sat 
under  his  vine  (1  K4'^etc.).  Sometimes  it  is  trained 
over  props  about  the  height  of  a  man,  or  a  little 
higher,  and  the  branches  spread  laterally,  often 
forming  festoons  from  stake  to  stake.  But  tlie 
more  usual  method  is  to  allow  the  stem  to  trail  on 
the  surface  of  the  soil,  and  simply  to  prop  up  the 
cluster-bearing  branches  by  foiled  sticks,  sulfici- 
entlj'  to  keep  them  ott'  the  ground.  The  vines  in 
both  the  latter  methods  of  cultivation  are  planted 
far  enough  apart  to  allow  the  plough  to  pass  be- 
tween them.  They  are  pruned  at  tlie  end  of  the 
fruiting  season  (Jn  15'),  so  that,  during  the  winter, 
the  Wne  is  reduced  to  a  trunk  and  a  few  principal 
branches.  The  shoots  of  the  next  spring  are  thus 
made  more  vigorous,  and  bear  better  fruit.  Those 
branches  which  bear  no  fruit  are  diligently  cut 
away  (vv.*-").  A  whitened  branch  is  a  sign  of 
withering  (JI  1').  The  trunks  of  old  vines  often 
attain  the  thickness  of  a  man's  body  or  more. 
Vines  aie  sometimes  planted  in  irrigated  ground 
(Ezk  19'"),  but  most  of  the  vineyards  are  on  dry 
liillsides,  where,  for  7  or  8  months  they  have  no 
water  except  such  as  they  can  extract  from  Hie 
apparently  arid  soil.  Notwithstanding  this,  they 
live  (Ezk  19").  In  such  situations  as  have  a  moist 
subsoil  of  clay  or  marl  they  flourish  without 
irrigation,  and  produce  large  vintages.  Whole 
mountain -sides  are  often  ^een  with  vineyards, 
where  one  may  search  in  vain  for  a  spring  or  well. 
They  are  often  not  fenced  ott',  so  one  can  come 
with  ease  into  a  'neighbour's  Wneyard'  (Dt  23^). 
To  protect  the  vines  from  foxes,  jackals  (Ca  2" 
etc.),  and  esp.  from  men,  watclimen  are  stationed 
in  commanding  positions.  In  Judu;a  and  some 
other  parts  of  the  country  round  towers  are  built 
for  the  watchmen  (Is  5^  Mt21»'etc.).  Generally 
a  shelter  of  boughs  and  leaves  (Is  1'  AV  'cottage,' 
RV  '  booth'),  similar  to  the  'lodge  in  a  garden  of 
cucumbers'  (.see  illustration  in  vol.  i.  532"),  is  con- 
structed in  a  prominent  place,  from  which  the 
watchman  can  overlook  the  vineyard.  To  frighten 
away  animals,  a  single  cylindrical  stone  is  set  up, 
or  several  stones  are  placed  one  above  anothei 


VDfE,  VINEYAED 


VINE,  VINEYARD 


869 


forming  a  pillar  3  to  4  ft.  higli.  The  top  of  this 
pillar  is  often  whitewashed,  so  that  it  is  conspicu- 
ous even  at  niglit.  The  large  numbers  of  tliese 
pillars  make  a  marked  feature  in  the  Oriental 
landscape.  Vineyards  are  let  out  (Ca  8",  Mt  21^), 
or  cultivated  on  the  nietairial  principle  on  shares. 
The  close  association  of  vine  and  lig  trees  in  the 
minds  of  the  people  of  Palestine  is  shown  bj-  the 
fact  tliat  both  a  lig  orchard  and  a  vineyard  are 
designated  in  Arab,  by  tlie  term  karm  (the  same 
as  the  Heb.  cif),  which  primarily  signifies  a  vine. 

Grapes. — A  great  variety  of  grapes  are  cultivated 
in  Palestine  and  Syria.  There  is  one  greenish- 
white,  from  i  to  3  in.  in  diameter,  with  sweet  juicy 
pulp  ;  another,  olive-shaped  and  white,  resembling 
Malaga  grapes ;  another,  dark  purple,  of  the  size  of 
a  small  prune  ;  others  similar  to  Black  Hamburgs  ; 
others  with  a  green  rind,  striped  with  red,  and  a  pulp 
almost  as  hrra  as  that  of  an  apple ;  others  nearly 
the  same  as  the  famous  Zante  curiints;  others 
closely  resembling  the  Isabella  grape  ;  and  many 
otliers  of  divers  shapes,  sizes,  and  flavours.  Several 
Heb.  words  are  used  to  designate  them.  1.  ViifN 
'eshkijl,  which  signities  a  cluster,  usually  of  grapes 
(Is  65',  Mic  7').  in  which  case  greater  precision  is 
sometimes  given  by  constructing  it  witli  cjji'  (Nu 
13^),  or  associating  it  with  the  same  (Gn  40"'),  or 
oonstmcting  it  with  gephen  (Ca  7^  [Heb.  'J).     It  is 


as  his  hand  can  move.  The  luscious  fruit  is  crushed 
by  the  tongue  and  teeth,  and  swallowed  with 
extraordinary  rapidity.  The  pea.sant8  declare  that, 
however  many  grapes  they  may  have  eaten  in  this 
way,  in  the  vmeyards,  their  appetite  for  their 
regular  meals  is  in  no  way  diminished.  The 
grapes  are  carried  home  to  serve  as  food,  or  spread 
out  on  mats  to  be  dried  into  raisins,  pi-^  ziinmuk 
(1  S  25"*  etc.),  niB'-pN  'ashishitk  (RV  Ca  2',  AV 
wrongly  'flagons'),  or  the  juice  expressed  to  be 
converted  into  wine  or  dibs.  The  latter  is  the 
juice  of  the  grape,  boiled  to  the  consistence  of 
thick  treacle,  and  set  aside  to  cool  into  a  mass 
resembling  in  appearance  candied  honey.  It  is 
not  true  that  this  substance  is  anywhere  used  or 
known  as  wine.  In  its  commercial  form  it  is  no 
i  more  a  beverage  than  crystallized  lionev,  and  no 
one  here  ever  saw  or  heard  of  any  one  diluting  it 
and  usin"  it  as  a  drink.  Much  less  is  any  such 
dilution  known  as  wine.  IJaskets  (Jer  6")  were, 
and  are  still,  used  to  gather  the  grapes  and  trans- 
port them  to  the  houses  or  presses.  The  juice  is 
trodden  out  (Is  16'"  63',  Jer  25*'  etc.).  The  presses 
were  often  dug  out  in  the  marly  soil  (Mt  21'^), 
or  excavated  in  the  solid  rock.  Such  rock  vats 
are  common  throu;;hout  Palestine.  The  boiling  of 
the  jnist&r  (fresh  grape  juice)  is  done  in  large 
caldrons.    Mit>(dr  is  sometimes  drunk.  The  name, 


UOUER.V  8VE1AK   WLNtritESS. 


sometimes  nsed  of  other  tilings,  as  gall  {mcrOrOth, 
Ut  32''-'),  and  henna  (Ca  l'«).  2.  ;:i:  'cntlb,  Arab. 
inab.  This  is  the  true  word  for  the  berry,  as 
distinguished  from  the  cluster  (Gn  iU'",  Nu  13^). 
Wine  is  3:;:'d-  =  blood  of  grapes.  3.  i:S  bOscr  = 
unripe  grape-s.  The  Arabs  of  Syria  use  the  term 
liu^um  for  green  grapes.  Baser  is  tr.  in  A V  '  sour 
grajjes'  (Is  18"  RV  'ripening  grapes'),  AV  and 
KV  'unripe  grapes'  (Job  15**),  AV  and  RV  'sour 
grapes'  (Jer  3r-»,  Kzk  18=).  The  seed,  'kernel,'  of 
the  grape  isnientioned,  and  itsskin, '  husk'  (Nu  G*). 
Vintage. — The  vintage  is  a  season  of  great  rejoic- 
ing in  the  East  (Is  lU'").  It  begins  in  low-lying 
<listricts  in  July.  The  people  eat  the  green  grapes 
(bO^er)  even  in  June.  They  also  express  the  acid 
juice  of  the  same,  and  sweeten  it,  and  add  water,  to 
make  a  cooling  drink.  The  nearly  riiie  but  still 
acid  j^apes  are  slightly  lax.ative,  and  the  grape 
cure  IS  as  well  recognized  here  as  a  course  of 
mineral  waters  in  Europe  or  America.  Hut  when 
the  grapes  are  quite  ripe,  in  August  or  September, 
the  rejoi'-ing  is  complete.  The  people  go  in  large 
numbers  t<  gather  the  grapes,  and  eat  tliem  in  the 
vineyards  ( Jg  [)'").  The  quantity  which  one  person 
consumes  is  enormous.  It  is  curious  to  see  a  man 
with  a  huge  bunch  of  grapes  in  his  hand,  held  a 
little  above  his  head,  with  his  neck  bent  backward, 
and  his  free  hand  plucking  the  grapes,  singly  or 
in  pairs,  and  tossing  them  into  his  mouth  as  fast 


as  applied  to  this  fresh  juice,  is,  however,  a 
popular  error,  as  that  word  signifies  a  true  fer- 
mented wine.  The  grape  juice  is  never  called  in 
Arab,  by  any  of  the  other  names  for  wine,  these 
names  being  applied  solely  to  tlie  fermented  juice 
of  the  grape,  date,  or  other  fruit. 

Vine  of  Sodom  (ci?"E3  gepkcn  ShUvi)  occurs  once 
(Dt  32^-),  '  their  vine  is  as  the  vine  of  Sodom,  and 
of  the  fields  of  Gomorrah  ;  their  grapes  are  grapes 
of  gall  (r6sh),  their  clusters  are  bitter'  (mfirOruth). 
If  real  plants  arc  intended  here,  these  must  have 
been  familiar  to  the  Hebrews,  and,  if  not  peculiar 
to  the  Dead  Sea  Valley,  at  least  so  abundant  there 
as  to  be  designated  by  the  names  of  the  accursed 
cities.  We  have,  as  a  philological  guide  to  the 
plant  intended,  the  term  gephen,  which  certainly 
refers  to  a  vine.  The  second  member  of  the  parallel- 
ism speaks  of  the  fruit  as  '  j,'rapes  of  gall '  (innebr- 
r6sh),  and  its  clusters  as  bitter  (lit.  bitternesses). 
We  are  therefore  to  look  for  a  vine  growing  so 
abundantly  in  the  Dead  Sea  basin  as  to  be  attri- 
buted to  Sodom  and  Gomorrah,  and  producing  a 
bitter  but  graiielike  fruit.  The  first  embarrass- 
ment in  the  aetermination  of  this  i)lant  is  the 
assumplion  that  it  is  the  same  as  the  fruit  of 
which  .loseiiluis  sjjcaks,  the  Mi-cilled  '  apples  of 
Sodom  '  (/>./  IV.  viii.  4),  '  the  ashes  growin"  in  their 
fruits,  which  fruits  have  a  colour  as  if  they  were 
fit  to  be  eaten,  but  if  you  pluck  them  with  your 


870 


VI^'ECIAR 


VIRGIN 


hands  they  dissolve  into  smoke  and  ashes.'    Tliis 
description  would  apply  either  to  the  fruit  of  the 
'ushr,  Calotropis proccra,  Willd.,  or  to  that  of  the 
colocyntli,   Arab,   hondol.      liotli   of    these    have 
fruits,  about  the  size  of  a  pippin,  wliich,  when 
ripe  and  dry,  contain  a  dust,  which  would  suggest 
the   'dust  and   ashes'   of  Josephus.      The  'ushr, 
however,  is  not  a  vine,  but  a  small  shrub  or  tree, 
and  its  fruit  lias  no   resemblance   to   the  grape. 
The  colocyntli  is  a  vine,  but  it  grows  over  a  wide 
range  in  "Palestine  besides  the  Dead  Sea  Valley, 
and  its  fruit  also  has  no  resemblance  to  a  grai)e. 
It  is  like  a  small  watermelon  when  green.     We 
therefore,  while  accejjting  one  or  both  these  plants 
as  producing  the  fruit  alluded  to  by  Josephus,  un- 
conditionally reject  them  both   as  candidates  for 
the  'vine  of  Sodom.'     Cuctunis  prophetarum,  L., 
a  tendril-bearing  vine,  growing  in  the  Dead  Sea 
Valley  and  southward  to  Sinai,  and  having  an  ovoid, 
bitter  fruit,  A  to  |  in.  long,  might  be  a  candidate, 
were  it  not  for  the  fact  that  its  fruits  do  not  grow 
in  clusters.     On  the  other  hand,  Solanum  nicfrum, 
L.,  and  S.  miniatum,  Berb.,  and  S.  villosum,  Lara., 
produce  clusters  of  berries  like  very  small  grapes. 
These  are  called   by  the  Arabs  'inab-edh-cihib  = 
wolf's  grapes.     But  they  are  none  of  them  vines, 
and  none  of  them  peculiar  to  the  Dead  Sea  Valley. 
S.  coagulans,  Forsk.,  although  peculiar  to  the  Dead 
Sea  and  Jordan  Valley,  is  not  a  vine,   and   has 
fruits  like  a  small  tomato,  not  like  a  grape.     Oak 
galls  cannot  be  intended.     They  are  not  produced 
ill  this  valley,  are  not  clustered,  and  bear  no  resem- 
blance to  a  grape.     We  must  conclude,  therefore, 
that  we  have  as  yet  no  evidence  on  which  to  found 
a  theory  as  to  the  plant  intended  by  the  vine  of 
Sodom.     We  (with  commentators  generally)  think 
that  the  allusion  is  ligurative,  and  that  the  quality 
of  bitterness  is  attributed  to  tlie  grape-vine  of  the 
enemies  of  Israel,  as  their  wine  is  said  in  the  follow- 
ing verse  to  be  '  the  poison  of  dragons,  and  the  cruel 
venom  of  asps.'    The  selection  of  the  vine  of  Sodom 
and  Gomorrah,  of  which  their  vine  is  said  to  be  a 
shoot,  was  due  to  the  proverbial  bitterness  of  the 
Dead  Sea,  a  quality  which  may  have  been  supposed 
to  be  communicated  to  what  grew  on  its  shores. 
We  have  a  similar  instance   (Ezk  17^''")   in  the 
rhapsodical  riddle  of  the  great  eagle,  which  plucked 
off  a  topmost  shoot  and   twigs  of  the  cedars  of 
Lebanon,  and  set  them  in  a  city  of  merchants, 
and  took  of  the  seed  of  tlie  land,  and  set  it  as  a 
willow-tree,  and   it  grew  and   became  a  vine  of 
low  stature,  and  shot  forth  branches  towards  the 
furrows,  that  it  might  bear  fruit.     And  the  roots 
were  pulled  up,  and  the  fruit  withered.     Here  we 
have  a  combination  far  more  intricate  and  unreal 
than  that  of  the  'vine  of  Sodom,'  to  which  the 
bitterness  of   the  Dead  Sea  water  is  attrihuted, 
and  the  wine  from  the  same,  which  is  said  to  be 
serpent's  venom.  G.  E.  Post. 

VINEGAR  ([Th  homez  ;  «|oj,  acctum).—K  sour 
liijuid,  mentioned  5  times  in  OT  and  5  times  in 
NT.  The  vinegar  of  Scripture  is  wine  which  has 
I'.ndergone  the  acetous  fermentation  caused  by  the 
presence  of  a  ferment  plant  (Myroderma  aceti), 
whereby  its  alcohol  is  converted  into  acetic  acid. 
Besides  this  '  vinegar  of  wine '  there  is  also 
mentioned  '  vinegar  of  strong  drink  '  {shc/:dr,  Nu 
6'),  wliich  is  produced  by  the  fermentation  of 
palm  juice  or  any  other  saccharine  fluid.  Both 
these  forms  of  drink  were  forbidden  to  the  Nazir- 
ite  (Nu  (>■>). 

This  fluid  was  used  as  a  relish,  'without  \yliich 
we  should  miss  many  of  the  comforts  of  civili/cd 
life'  (Pliny,  xiv.  25).  Into  it  food  was  dijiped 
before  eating  (Ru  2").  A  diluted  vinegar  or  sour 
wine  was  used  as  a  drink  by  the  poorer  classes 
(Aristoph.  AcharruB,   35),  and  especially   by   sol- 


diers. Pescennius  Niger  forbade  his  Ethiopian 
troops  to  drink  anything  else  (Spartianus  in  Hist. 
Aufj.  Script,  minores,  ii.  ISO).  The  vessel  of  vinegar 
which  the  Roman  soldiers  had  by  tliom  at  the 
Crucifixion  (Jn  19^)  was  probably  tilled  with  this 
drink,  which  was  called  posra.  It  was  not  re- 
garded as  intoxicating  (Plautus,  Miles  (jloriosus, 
lii.  836).  The  Greek  medical  writers,  Oribasius  and 
Aretaius,  call  it  d^vKpaTon.  Posca  and  oil  are  re- 
commended in  veterinary  medicine  for  wounds  by 
Vegetius,  iii.  48,  vinegar  being,  as  Plutarch  says, 
the  most  cooling  of  fluids  (QaaiH.  roivviv.  iii.  5). 
Cf.  the  use  of  wine  (oZ;'os)  and  oil  by  the  good 
Samaritan  (Lk  10**)  to  cleanse  the  wounds  of  the 
rolibers'  victim. 

In  the  accounts  of  the  Crucifixion  given  by  the 
four  Evangeli.sts  vinegar  is  mentioned,  but  in  each 
case  in  a  slightly  dilierent  connotation.  Accord- 
ing to  Mt  27*"  (AV),  the  soliiiers  ort'ered  our  Lord 
vinegar  mingled  with  gall  (RV  has  '  wine,'  follow- 
ing NBD).  This  was  a  diilerent  drink  from  the 
vinegar  subsequently  given  Him  on  a  sponge  (v.**), 
which  was  probably  yjosca.  Mark  mentions  both,  but 
describes  the  first  wine  as  mingled  with  myrrh  (15** 
ea/j.vpi'KrtJi^i'oi'  oivof);  Lk  23**  relates  that  the  soldiers 
after  He  was  crucified  ofiered  Him  vinegar  in 
mockery.  Jn  19^  only  mentions  the  vinegar  given 
in  response  to  His  exclamation,  '  I  thirst.'  The 
first  'wine'  of  Matt,  and  ^lark  was  probably  in- 
tended as  a  narcotic,  the  xo^V  being  the  equivalent 
of  the  Heb.  word  rosh,  also  tr^'  'gall,'  which  was 
opium  (see  vol.  ii.  p.  104).  This  was  given  to  those 
about  to  be  executed,  in  accordance  with  the 
Talmudic  interpretation  of  Pr  31",  on  which  see 
Sanhedrin,  43.  1 ;  Lightfoot,  Hurm  Hcbrair(e,  ii. 
3G ;  and  Buxtorf's  Lex  Talmudica,  2131.  Rosen- 
miiller  conjectures  tliat  it  may  have  been  given 
rather  as  a  stimulant  to  keep  Jesua  alive  during 
the  torture  {Bib.  Bot.  163). 

Vinegar  by  itself  was  too  pungent  to  drink, 
hence  to  give  vinegar  to  drink  was  part  of  the 
punisliment  of  a  victim,  as  in  Ps  69-' ;  cf.  the 
iTi  6'  ii  TO.!  iihas  ii^os  in  Aristoph.  Batrach.  619. 
Its  efl'ects  on  the  mouth  are  mentioned  in  Pr  lO'", 
reminding  of  the  description  of  vinegar  as  iroTiK 
aTv<t>bv  given  by  Nikander  (Alexi2jharm.  Zl!)),  or 
the  Acetum  acerbum  of  Plautus  (2>mc.  i.  2.  83). 
For  other  figurative  expressions  of  the  irritation 
and  acridity  of  vinegar  see  tlie  same  author  in 
Rudcns,  iv.  2.  32 ;  Pseu<lolus,  ii.  4.  49  ;  and  Bacchyl. 
iii.  3.  1 ;  cf.  the  mordax  acetum  of  Persius,  v.  86. 
In  the  pas.=age  in  Proverbs  the  LXX  renders  the 
word  by  6/j.<pa^,  unripe  grapes,  as  though  home? 
was  here  used  in  the  sense  of  the  Talmudic  y^'n. 

The  eU'ect  of  vinegar  on  nitre  (an:  =  natron  or 
crude  sodic  carbonate)  causing  efi'ervescence  is 
mentioned  in  Pr  25-"  (see  vol.  iii.  p.  555). 

A.  Macalister. 
VIOL.— Thus  the  Heb.  nebhel  or  ncbliel  is  ren- 
dered in  AV  and  RV  Is  14",  Am  5-»  6°,  and  in  AV 
Is  5'-  (RV  here  '  lute ').  See  Music,  vol.  iii.  p.  459^ 
and  Psaltery  (the  more  usual  tr.  of  the  Heb.), 
above,  p.  163''.  See  also  Driver,  Amos,  p.  234  tf., 
and  Wellhausen,  Psalms  {PB),  p.  222  tt'.  Tlie 
'viol'  (from  late  Lat.  vidula,  vifula,  through 
Fr.  viole,  viollc  ;  cf.  Anglo-Sax.  fithclc,  a  fi<lille)  is 
described  by  Chappell  as  a  six-stringed  musical 
instrument,  the  position  of  the  fing^crs  being  marked 
on  the  finger-board  by  frets,  as  in  guitars  of  the 
present  day.  But  it  was  phayed  with  a  bow,  not 
with  the  fingers  as  the  guitar.  Violin  is  a  dim.  of 
viol,  as  violoncello  is  of  violin.  The  violin  displaced 
the  viol  in  England  in  the  leign  of  Charles  u. 

J.  HASTINQS. 

VIPER.— See  Serpent. 

VIRGIN  (n^ins,  n;':v,  rapS^i-o!).- The  word  n>W3  il 
commonly  used  of  a  virgo  intacta,  as  in  Dt  22^, 


VIRTUE 


VOPHSI 


871 


2  S  13'.  It  is  frequently  applied  metapliorically, 
often  with  the  addition  of  nj  'a  daughter,'  to  a 
people,  especially  to  Israel,  originally,  it  would 
seem,  in  ttie  sense  of  not  yet  subdued  bj'  an  enemy, 
as  Is  37",  Jer  14",  La  1'';  but  sometimes  to  other 
nations,  as  to  Zidon  (Is  23'-),  Babylon  (47').  and 
sometimes  even  where  t  lie  original  intention  of  the 
metaphor  is  lost,  as  in  Jer  3^^  where  the  restora- 
tion of  captive  Israel  is  promised.  In  Is  62^  tliere 
is  a  curious  mixture  of  metaphor.  '  For  as  a  j'oung 
man  marrieth  a  virgin,  so  shall  thy  sons  marry 
thee.'  The  word  is,  however,  once  used  of  a  young 
married  woman  in  Jl  ,1'. 

The  meaning  of  .n^'Ti!  is  from  its  comparatively 
rare  use  less  easily  determined.  In  Gn  24'''  it  is 
used  with  reference  to  Kebekah,  apparently  in  the 
sense  of  a  virgo  intacta.  In  Ca  F  the  same  mean- 
ing is  perhaps  probable,  but  hanlly  necessary.  In 
Ca  6"  the  meaning  Is  quite  uncertain.  The  women 
in  the  harem  of  Solomon,  distinguished  as  they 
are  from  the  wives  and  concubines,  might  or  might 
not  be  virgins.  We  cannot,  therefore,  argue  from 
the  usage  of  the  word  the  meaning  intended  in 
Is  T" ;  but  the  whole  context  of  the  passage,  as 
well  as  the  analogy  of  S'"*,  suggests  that  the  sign  in- 
tended did  not  consist  in  anything  miraculous  in 
the  birth  itself,  but  in  the  speedy  coming  of  the 
event,  and  in  the  symbolical  name  to  be  given 
to  the  child.  The  LXX  probably  understood  by 
rapOdfos  a  virgin  in  its  strict  sense,  understanding, 
it  would  seem,  that  the  mother  of  Imnianuel  was 
at  the  time  a  virgin — a  possible  interpretation  of 
the  words,  though  RVm  is  probably  right  in 
rendering 'is  with  child  and  beareth.'  St.  Matthew, 
quoting  trom  LXX,  takes  the  passage  as  a  direct 
pr(j]ilieiy  of  the  birth  of  Christ  from  a  virgin  (see 
niMANUEL).  .Such  has  till  recent  times  been  the 
practically  universal  iuterpretiition  of  the  passage 
by  Christians.  It  has  been  very  naturally  disputed 
by  the  Jews  from  the  time  of  Justin  Martyr  down- 
wards, and  is  said  to  liave  been  one  of  the  chief 
reastms  for  tlie  first  Gr.  tr.  of  OT  by  Aquila 
[?  Onkelos],  (Lusebius,  HE  v.  8). 

There  is  nothing  remarkable  about  the  usage 
of  irapddios  in  NT,  except  in  Rev  \i*,  where  it  is 
used  of  men  who  have  kept  themselves  free  from 
imjmrity.  St.  Paul's  discussion  of  the  topic  of 
'virgins'  in  1  Co  T^'-  comae  under  Maukiage 
(see  vol.  iii.  p.  266''). 

For  the  c^na  of  Dt  22">- "  (EV  'tokens  of  vir- 
ginity'), and  the  Oriental  custom  referred  to  in 
that  jjassage,  see  art.  SoNO  OF  SoNGS,  pp.  595", 
Sfl'i'',  and  CI.  Driver,  Deut.  ad  loe. 

F.  H.  Woods. 

VIRTUE  aj  the  translation  of  5wa/»is  is  used  in 
AV  in  Mk  S*',  Lk  6'"  S-""  in  the  sense  of  power  (so 
KV)  or  influence.  In  earlier  Eng.  it  was  freely 
used  (.ifler  Lat.  virtus,  from  vir,  a  man,  therefore 
'what,  is   manly,'  'courageous')  in   the  sense   of 

•  strength  '  or  '  power.'  Thus  Chapman,  Odysseys, 
xvii.  300— 

'  HU  double  ^teo,  and  turrets,  built  too  strong 
For  force  or  virtue  ever  to  expugn.' 

It  is  Wyclif's  usual  word  for  5wa/»ii  after  the  Vulg. 
virtus,  as  Ac  I'J"  'And  God  dide  vcrtucs  not 
Bmale  hi  tlie  lioond  of  I'oul ' ;  He  1*  'And  berith 
alio  thingis  bi  word  of  his  vertu.'  The  same  in 
the  IJhem.  version,  as  Lk  9'  '  He  gave  them  vcrtue 
and  jiower  (Siivo/xii'  itol  i^oiKrlav,  Vulg.  virtutem  et 
potcslfitem)  over  al  devils.'  The  modern  meaning 
of  'virtue'  was  already  in  use  in  1611,  as  in  the 
preface  to  AV,  '  Solomon  was  greater  than  David, 
though  not  in  vertue,  yet  in  power '  ;  and  it  is 
probable  that  in  the  above  past-ages  tlie  word  was 
retained  from  the  earlier  versions  because  it 
conveyed  the  sense  of  injhtenre  (supernatural  in- 
fluence) to   the  translators'   minds.      Cf.    Adams, 

•  Peter,  17,  'It  was  the  brazen  serpent  tliat  healed, 


not  the  eye  that  looked  on  it ;  yet  without  a  look- 
ing eye,  there  was  no  help  to  the  wounded  party 
by  the  promised  virtue.'  Though  more  generally, 
'  inlluence '  is  also  the  nneaning  in  Melvill,  Diary, 
15,  '  He  was  a  man  of  rare  wesdonie,  judgment, 
and  discretion  ;  and,  tlierfor,  mikle  imployed  in  the 
trysts  and  etl'eares  of  the  noble  and  gentle  men  of 
the  countrc}-,  whilk  distracted  him  fra  his  calling, 
liinderit  his  vertew,  and  schortened  his  lytl'.'  Even 
Coverdale  has  the  word  in  the  sense  of  righteous- 
ness or  goodness,  Ezk  3**.  J.  Hastings. 

VISION  (usually  jMrr,  Spaiux).  In  early  Heb.  re- 
ligion the  vision  had  its  closest  allinity  with  the 
dream, — by  which  probably  the  conception  of  its 
character  was  determined, — and  the  two  are  usually 
coupled  as  the  ordinary  sources  of  prophetic  oracles 
(Nu  12""-,  Jer  23^').  Its  recognized  psycli  jlogical 
condition  was  an  emotional  excitement  in  which 
the  person  was  no  longer  master  of  his  own 
thoughts  or  will  (Nu  24'-f-,  1  S  ly-""-).  See  Trance. 
In  both  dream  and  vision  what  carried  religious 
significance  was  the  fact  that  the  presentation  did 
not  come  throtigh  the  ordinary  sense  channels,  or 
as  a  proiluct  of  the  mind's  conscious  activity.  On 
this  account  it  was  accepted  as  a  revelation  from 
God.  When  we  come  to  the  Prophets  the  concep- 
tion of  revelation  has  undergone  a  change  in  cor- 
respondence witli  religion  in  general.  The  dream 
disappears,  together  with  the  rapt  utterance  ;  and 
prophecy  becomes  an  ethical  intercourse  of  the 
mind  of  man  with  God  (Is  8'»,  Jer  23^).  But,  while 
there  is  no  trace  of  ecstasy  in  the  strict  sense  or 
its  accompaniments,  there  are  frequent  allusions 
to  times  of  extraordinary  elevation  of  thought  and 
feeling,  times  therefore  of  illumination.  At  such 
moments  an  issue  becomes  clear,  a  truth  breaks  on 
the  mind,  a  resolution  is  formed  (Is  6,  Jer  P).  The 
result  is  sometimes  presented  as  if  it  had  come 
to  the  prophet  in  a  manner  analogous  to  sense 
experience,  —  the  prophet  sees,  hears,  questions, 
replies, — but  the  broad  sense  in  which  vision  is 
used  makes  it  clear  that  the  pictorial  intake  was 
not  the  sotirce  of  his  knowledge  or  resolution, 
but  rather  that  the  truth,  having  taken  possession 
of  his  mind  and  heart,  created  the  vision  as  its 
imaginative  clothing.  Even  a  verbal  message, 
with  no  reference  to  a  voice  or  appearance,  is 
spoken  of  as  a  vision  (Is  1'  21^  22',  Mic  1',  Hab  2=). 
In  Amos'  vision  of  the  ba.sket  of  summer  fruits  the 
motive  for  using  the  visional  form  is  evidently  the 
plaj-  upon  the  word  j'p.  Again,  as  in  the  intricate 
description  of  Ezk  1,  the  vision  is  sometimes  of 
a  kind  that  could  hardlj'  be  pictorially  realized. 
Although,  in  fact,  the  primitive  jihraseology  is 
retained, — the  prophet  sees,  hears,  the  hand  of  the 
Lord  is  ujjon  him, — it  is  no  longer  used  in  the 
primitive  sense.  The  vision  has  become  a  literary 
and  poetical  form  consciously  employed  to  embody 
and  communicate  truths  that  have  become  clear  to 
the  inner  consciousness.  The  pre-exilic  prophets 
make  only  sparing  use  of  the  direct  visional  form. 
In  Ezekiel  it  is  more  common,  but  has  lost  its 
earlier  imaginative  8i)ontaneitv,  and  assumed  more 
the  ch.aracter  of  an  artilicial  construction  (Ezk 
l*"-).  It  is  not  found  in  Deuteio- Isaiah  or  in 
Ilaggai ;  but  it  reappears  in  Zechariah,  and  con- 
tinues, in  its  most  artificial  form,  to  he  employed 
by  apocalyptic  writers.  In  the  NT  it  linds  a  place 
only  [but  ef.  the  use  of  t4  Spa^a  in  Mt  K"]  in  the 
apocalyptic  book  of  Revelation,  and  in  those  nar- 
ratives in  Acts  and  the  earlier  part  of  Luke  that 
bear  the  character  of  popular  tradition.  (See 
PkopiieCV  and  the  Literature  there  cited). 

W.  Morgan. 

VOPHSI  (TC!  [I'Ut  text  dub.];  B_'Io/3d,  A  'la/JJ). 
—  The  lather  of  Nalibi,  the  Naphtalito  si  y, 
Nu  13'*. 


J 


872 


VOW 


VOW 


YOW  (inj,  iij,  fuxv)- — It  was  a  universal  custom 
in  ancient  religions,  too  natural  to  need  explana- 
tion, for  men  to  seek  the  help  of  tlie  deity  in  times 
of  peril  or  distress  (Ps  66''- "),  or  to  secure  the 
fulKlnient  of  some  much  cherislied  hope,  by  pro- 
mising him  some  special  gift  that  would  enlist  his 
own  interest  on  their  side.  Or  their  vow  might  be 
less  of  the  nature  of  a  bargain,  and  more  the  expres- 
sicm  of  unselhsh  zeal  and  pious  devotion.  It  might 
also  be  a  promise  to  abstain  from  some  comfort  or 
even  necessary  of  life.  Among  the  Hebrews  all  these 
types  of  vow  are  to  be  found  :  for  the  last  the  term 
ijN  'bond,'  which  occurs  only  in  Nu  30,  was  used. 

Although  we  have  no  legislation  on  the  subject 
in  JE,  the  practice  was  very  ancient.  Thus  Jacob 
TOWS  at  Betliel  that  if  Elohira  will  be  with  him 
and  give  him  bread  and  raiment,  so  that  he  comes 
to  his  father's  house  in  peace,  he  will  make  the 
pillar  a  sanctuary  of  God,  and  pay  tithe  of  all  that 
He  gives  liiiu  (Gn  28="-^  E).  In  the  period  of  the 
Judges  we  have  Jephthah's  vow,  that  if  J"  delivered 
the  Ammonites  into  his  hand,  he  would  offer  as  a 
burnt-offering  the  person  who  first  came  from  his 
house  to  meet  him  (Jg  11™-").  Though  it  was  his 
own  daughter,  the  inviolable  character  of  the  vow 
in  that  primitive  age,  which  had  learnt  none  of 
the  slippery  shifts  of  casuistry,  forced  him  to  sacri- 
fice her.  Hannah  vowed  that  if  J"  would  give  her 
a  son  she  would  dedicate  him  to  His  service  all  the 
days  of  his  life,  and  no  razor  should  come  upon  his 
head  (1  S  1")-  It  is  interesting  to  notice  that  after 
the  birth  of  Samuel,  when  Elkanah  went  for  the 
yearly  sacrifice  to  ShUoh,  the  writer  speaks  of  him 
as  going  to  offer  the  yearly  sacrifice  and  his  vow, 
as  If  the  vow  were  as  much  a  matter  of  course  as 
the  sacrifice  (v.-').     {It  seems  unnecessary  to  sup- 

Eose,  with  H.  P.  Smith,  adloc,  that  the  words  '  and 
is  vow '  were  added  by  a  scribe).  In  the  period 
of  the  early  monarchy,  Absalom  secured  permis- 
sion to  go  to  Hebron  on  pretext  of  a  vow  ne  had 
made,  while  in  exile  at  Geshur,  that  he  would 
worship  J"  if  He  restored  him  to  Jerusalem  (2  S 
15'-  *).  The  meaning  of  the  vow  is  that  he  would 
appear  before  J"  and,  since  none  could  appear 
before  Him  empty,  would  otfer  sacrifice  to  Him. 
Naturally,  this  would  be  ottered  not  at  Jerusalem, 
but  at  the  Jud;can  sanctuary  of  Hebron.  Each  of 
these  instances  is  a  case  of  a  vow  intended  to 
secure  a  favour,  and  in  its  essence  is  a  commercial 
transaction. — A  vow  of  unselfish  devotion,  which 
was  also  a  vow  of  abstinence,  is  exemplified  in  the 
Psalmist's  poetical  description  of  David's  vow  that 
he  would  not  enter  his  nouse,  lie  in  his  bed  or 
sull'er  himself  to  sleep,  till  he  had  found  a  place 
for  J"  to  dwell  in  (I's  1.32-''*).  Saul's  taboo  on 
eating  before  sundown  (1  S  14**)  was  a  vow  of 
abstinence,  imposed  on  others  as  well  as  himself, 
in  order  to  secure  victory  by  the  help  of  J".  An 
extreme  form  of  vow  is  exemplified  in  the  ban  or 
vow  of  extermination  on  Arad  (Hu  21'"^) :  '  Israel 
vowed  a  vow  unto  the  LORD,  and  said.  If  thou 
wilt  indeed  deliver  tliis  people  into  my  hand,  then 
1  will  devote  their  cities.'  Both  cities  and  people 
were  in  this  case  destroyed  (see  CuRSE). 

In  Deuteronomy  we  have  little  legislation  on 
vows.  It  is  insisted  that  what  has  been  thus 
dedicated  must  be  eaten  at  the  central  sanctuary 
( Dt  12«-  "■  "•  18-  26).  The  hire  of  sacred  prostitutes 
must  not  he  brought  into  the  sanctuary  for  any 
vow  (Dt  2.3").  There  may  have  been  a  relaxation 
of  sentiment  as  to  the  stringency  of  a  vow,  such  as 
may  be  observed  in  the  post-exilic  period  ;  for  the 
legislator,  while  insisting  that  there  is  no  religious 
obligation  to  make  a  vow,  enjoins  that,  once  made, 
the  pledge  must  be  honoured  under  pain  of  Divine 
displeasure. 

In  P  we  naturally  have  much  fuller  regulations. 
In  Nu  30,  which  in  its  present  form  belongs  to  a 


late  stratum,  both  vow  and  bond  are  declared  to 
be  binding  when  uttered  by  a  man.  But  a  woman 
who  lives  in  her  fatlier's  house  or  is  married  is  in 
a  diti'erent  position.  Her  father  or  husband  has  a 
right  of  veto,  provided  that  it  is  exercised  at  once. 
But  otherwise  silence  gives  consent,  and  the  vow 
must  be  regarded  as  irrevocable.  If  at  a  later 
period  her  husband  cancels  it,  he  does  so  on  peril 
of  Divine  punishment.  A  widow  or  a  woman 
divorced  from  her  husband,  since  she  is  not 
dependent  on  another,  is  bound  by  her  vow. 
Vows  and  free\vill  -  offerings  must  be  without 
blemish  (Lv  22'«- 1*  ?  H)  ;  but  wliile  a  freewill- 
ottering  may  be  made  from  that  which  has  some- 
thing lacking  or  superfluous,  this  is  forbidden  in 
the  case  of  a  vow  (v."').  In  this  connexion  it  is 
interesting  to  notice  that  Malachi  utters  a  curse 
on  the  deceiver  who  has  a  male  in  his  flock  and 
vows  it  and  substitutes  a  blemished  thing  (I") 
The  laws  as  to  the  discharge  of  vows  are  to  be 
found  in  Lv  27,  apparently  a  late  section  of  P. 
Persons  vowed  to  J"  could  not  be  sacrificed  as 
Jephthah's  daughter  had  been ;  they  must  be 
redeemed.  A  fixed  scale  is  laid  down.  Males 
between  the  ages  of  twentj'  and  sixty  were  re- 
deemed at  '  fifty  shekels  of  silver,  after  the  shekel 
of  the  sanctuary '  (see  Money,  vol.  iii.  p.  422), 
females  at  thirty  shekels.  From  five  to  twenty 
years,  males  were  redeemed  at  twenty  and  females 
at  ten  shekels ;  from  a  month  to  five  years,  males 
were  redeemed  at  five  and  females  at  three  shekels  ; 
while  from  sixty  upwards  the  tariff  was  fixed  at 
fifteen  and  ten  shekels  respectively.  If,  however, 
the  person  who  made  the  vow  was  too  poor  to  pay 
the  redemption  price,  it  was  to  be  fixed  according 
to  his  ability.  In  the  case  of  animals  no  change 
could  be  made — the  vow  must  stand  as  originally 
uttered.  Not  only  was  it  forbidden  to  substitute 
a  bad  for  a  good,  but  also  a  good  for  a  bad.  If 
such  change  was  made,  both  became  holy  to  J". 
If  the  animal  was  unclean,  and  therefore  incap- 
able of  being  used  in  sacrifice,  it  was  sold  at  the 
priest's  valuation,  and  the  money  given  to  the 
sanctuary.  If  the  owner  wished  to  redeem  it,  he 
might  do  so  on  payment  of  the  valuation  plus  one- 
fifth.  Firstlings,  however,  could  not  be  vowed  to 
J",  since,  as  such,  they  alreaily  belonged  to  Him. 
If  devoted  to  J"  by  the  ban,  they  were  too  holy  to 
be  redeemed  ;  and  it  is  startling  to  read  (Lv  27^) 
that  men  so  devoted  must  be  put  to  death.  The 
law  for  the  dedication  of  a  house  is  similar  to  that 
for  the  dedication  of  animals.  It  was  sold  at  the 
priest's  valuation,  or  redeemed  by  the  addition  of 
a  fifth  to  that  price.  The  law  as  to  fields  is  more 
complex  and  obscure.  If  a  man  vows  part  of  his 
hereditary  possession,  the  valuation  is  to  be  fixed 
according  to  the  quantity  of  seed  required  to  sow 
it,  at  the  rate  of  fifty  shekels  the  homer.  If  the 
field  is  consecrated  immediately  after  the  year  of 
jubilee,  this  estimate  is  to  stand  ;  but  if  some  time 
after,  then  a  reduction  in  price  must  be  made  pro- 
portionate to  the  time  that  has  elapsed.  Tlie 
owner  may  redeem  it  by  paying  tlie  priest's 
estimate  plus  one-fifth.  If  he  does  not  redeem 
it,  but  sells  it,  the  right  of  redemption  is  lost,  and 
the  field  instead  of  returning  to  him  at  the  jubilee 
becomes  the  property  of  the  sanctuary.  Tlie  law 
is  far  from  clear.  Apparently,  when  a  field  was 
dedicated,  the  owner  commuted  his  obligation  by 
a  money  payment  accordiug  to  a  fi.xed  scale  of 
valuation.  But  tliis  by  itself  does  not  constitute 
him  absolute  owner  agam :  this  he  can  become  only 
by  adding  one-fifth  to  the  valuation,  as  penalty 
for  the  privilege  of  redemption.  If  he  pays  the 
valuation  without  adding  the  fifth,  and  sells  the 
field,  he  loses  all  claim  on  it,  and  it  does  not  revert 
to  him  in  the  year  of  jubilee,  as  it  would  other- 
wise have  done,  but  falls  to   the  sanctuary.     If 


VULGATE 


VULGATE 


873 


tlie  field  dedieated  is  not  a  portion  of  the  owner's 
liereUitar^'  possessiona,  then  the  money  payment 
given  in  commutation  ia  fixed  by  the  time  tliat  has 
to  ehipae  before  tlie  J'ear  of  jubilee,  and  in  that 

fear  it  returns  naturally  to  the  hereditary  owner. 
n  tliis  case  the  redemption  penalty  of  an  addi- 
tional fifth  is  not  required  (aee,  further,  Sab- 
batical Ykar). 

According  to  Nu  lo"- '  (a  late  section  of  P),  when 
an  animal  sacrilioe  was  ollered  in  fulfilment  of  a 
vow,  a  mealotrering  had  to  be  presented  with  it. 
Another  late  law  (Lv  7"' ")  prescribed  that  a 
peace-ofl'ering  in  discharge  of  a  vow  nmst  be  eaten 
on  the  day  on  which  it  was  ollered,  and  what  was 
left  on  the  second  day.  If  any  portion  still  re- 
mained to  the  third  day,  it  had  to  be  burnt.  This 
law  probably  embodies  the  immemorial  practice : 
a  vow  would,  as  a  rule,  involve  a  sacrilicial  meal, 
and  the  regulation  that  the  flesh  must  not  be 
eaten  after  the  second  day  may  even  have  been 
a  relaxing  of  earlier  usage.  In  Pr  7'*  the  woman 
who  entices  the  simpleton  to  his  ruin,  has  that 
day  punctiliously  performed  her  religious  duties^ 
she  has  paid  her  vows  and  come  out  to  find  a  com- 
panion for  the  sacrificial  feast. 

The  warning  in  Dt  23-''"''^,  that,  while  there  is  no 
sin  in  not  vowing,  when  a  vow  has  once  been  made 
it  must  be  8cru|iulously  fullilled,  finds  an  echo  in 
the  \Vi.sdom  literature.  In  I'r  2U^  we  apparently 
have  a  protest  against  hasty  vows  followed  by 
repentance  and  attempts  at  evasion  (the  te.\t  and 
precise  sense  are  alike  uncertain  ;  see  Frankenberg 
and  Toy,  ad  loc).  So  also  I^olieleth  advLses  his 
readers  to  make  haste  with  the  payment  of  their 
vows,  and  not  trifle  with  God  by  delay,  for  He 
takes  no  pleasure  ii.  fools.  Far  better  is  it  to 
refrain  from  vows  than  to  make  and  fail  to  fulfil 
them.  They  must  not  bo  betrayed  into  a  vow, 
which  they  will  afterwards  <?.\plain  away  to  the 
priest's  messenger  as  a  misiake,  lest  God  be 
angered  « ith  them  and  destroy  ti:e  work  of  their 
hand  (Ec  5'-«,  cf.  Mai  1").  But  while  on  the  one 
side  the  ancient  sanctity  of  the  vow  was  relaxed,  the 
more  spiritual,  as  we  see  from  some  of  the  Psalms, 
came  to  throw  all  the  stress  on  the  element  of 
thanksgiving,  and  the  material  element  sank  into 
insignificance,  as  with  other  sacrifices  (Pa  22-^  50'^). 

Yet  vows  played  a  great  part  in  later  Judaism, 
and  Jesus  came  into  conflict  with  the  religionists  of 
His  time  on  this  question,  singling  out  the  law  of 
Corbrtn  especially  as  an  example  of  the  nullifying 
of  the  Law  by  tradition  (see  Cohba.n).  St.  Paul 
became  a  Jew  to  the  Jews  in  this  matter  (Ac  18'", 
if  this  refers  to  him  and  not  to  Aquila,  and  21'^"-"). 
On  these  cases,  and  also  on  the  whole  question  of 
the  Nazirite  vow,  nothing  need  he  added  to  what 
has  been  said  in  the  article  Nazihite. 

Ln-RRATT'RB.— Nowock,  lleb.  ArMiol.  ii.  168,  189,  268-206: 
W.  R  Smith, /tS2,  J31-48.5;  WellhauBen,  Iteite  Arab.  UeidA 
190,  195.  For  Rabbinical  dccisiont)  the  treatise  Nedarim,  and 
Eden^hcim,  Jau4  the  Meisiah.,  iL  17-21. 

A.  S.  Peake. 
VULGATE.— 
i.  Life  of  JuDinic.  and  the  circumstanc^a  under  which  his 

translation  was  made. 
Ii.  lliBtory  of  tlie  V'ul^'ale  after  Jerome's  death, 
lii.  Nature  and  mettiod  of  Jerome's  revision  ;  textual  criticism 

of  tlie  Validate. 
It.  History  of  the  name. 

T.  Main  difTerenc«-s  between  the  Latin  and  the  English  Bible. 
t1.  Manuscripts  of  the  Vulgate. 
LitetBtut*. 

i.  Life  of  Jkkomi:,  and  Circumstances  undi;r 
WHICH  Hi.s  Translation  wa.s  made.— Jerome,  or 
to  give  him  his  full  name,  Eusehius  Ilieronymus, 
was  horn  at  Stridon,  on  tlie  borders  of  Dalmatia 
and  Pannonia,  probably  about  A. I).  340-342.*  His 
parents  were   Christian,   and    sullieieiitly  wealthy 

*  See  the  discussion  on  the  question  lo  Zockler,  //itfronymtu, 
tin  Leben  u.  Wirkm,  p\>.  21-'24. 


to  give  him  a  good  education  and  to  send  him 
early  to  Uome,  to  study  under  the  celebrated 
grammarian  Donatus.  From  the  first,  Latin 
literature  attracted  him,  aiul  he  especially  studied 
Vergil,  Terence,  and  Cicero  ;  he  also  worked  at 
rhetoric  under  Caius  Marius  Victorinus,*  laid  the 
foundation  of  a  good  knowledge  of  Greek,  and 
collected  a  considerable  library.  Thence  he  moved 
to  Gaul,  where,  stayin"  at  Trier,  he  began  serious 
theological  study,  whic-li  he  prosecuted  further,  on 
settling  in  Acjuileia  in  370.  Four  years  later  he 
travelled  with  several  friends  in  the  East,  and  at 
Antioch  was  attacked  by  a  fever,  during  which  a 
dream  made  a  deep  impression  on  him,  and  re- 
sulted in  his  abandoning  all  secular  studies.  He 
dreamt  that  he  was  summoned  to  the  judgment- 
seat  of  Christ  ;  on  beiu"  asked  who  he  was  he 
replied  '  a  Christian,'  nut  received  the  stem 
answer,  '  Meiitiris,  Ciceronianus  es  non  Chris- 
tianus  ;  ubi  enim  thesaurus  tuus,  ibi  et  cor  tuum' 
(Ep.  xxii.  ad  Enstui-kium,  30).  Yet  this  classical 
training  and  fondness  for  the  best  Latin  literary 
models  proved  one  of  the  greatest  possible  advant- 
ages to  Jerome  for  the  work  of  his  life,  and  tlirough 
him  to  the  whole  Christian  Church  ;  he  had  been 
preparing  himself  unconsciously  for  making  that 
translation  of  the  Bible  which  was  to  be  the 
Editii)  Vulgata,  the  authorized  version  for  the 
whole  of  Western  Christendom  during  more  than 
a  thousand  years. 

In  search  of  a  life  of  solitude  and  asceticism  he 
moved  the  same  summer  (374)  to  the  desert  of 
ChalcLs,  east  of  Antioch,  where  he  passed  five 
years  in  strict  self-discipline  ami  diligent  study, 
a  Rahbi  who  had  been  converted  to  Christianity 
teaching  him  Hebrew.  But  this  period  also  saw 
the  beginning  of  the  correspondence  and  warm 
friendship  with  pope  Damasus,  which  afterwards 
led  to  the  request  that  Jerome  would  undertake  to 
put  forward  an  authoritative  Latin  version  of  the 
Scriptures.  The  correspondence  began  [Epp.  xv., 
xvi.,  written  about  376-378)  on  doctrinal,  but  was 
a  few  j'ears  after  renewed  on  biblical  questions 
(Epp.  xviii.,  xix.,  xx.,  xxi.,  .<cxxv.,  xxxvi.,  written 
during  the  years  381-384),  Jerome  giving  Dama-sus 
the  information  he  li.ad  desired  on  such  questions 
as  the  meaning  of  the  word  Hosnnna,  the  inter- 
pretation of  Gil  4'°,  the  reason  why  Abraham  re- 
ceived circumcision  as  a  sign  of  faith,  etc. 

In  379  Jerome  moved  to  Antioch,  where  he  was 
ordained  presbyter,  and  then  to  Constantinople, 
where  he  listened  to  the  expositions  of  Gregory 
Nazianzen  (Epp.  1.  1,  lii.  8),  and  probably  con- 
tinued the  systematic  study  of  Greek  ;  and  in  382 
he  returned  to  Rome.  Here  he  spent  nearly  three 
years  in  close  connexion  with  Damasus  (Ep. 
cxxvii.  7),  whose  confidence  and  allection  he 
thoroughly  enjoyed,  lie  refers  witli  naive  self- 
.satisfaclion  to  his  popularity  in  Koine  at  this 
time  :  '  Totius  in  me  urhis  studia  consonabant. 
Omnium  pa;ne  judicio  dignus  suiiimo  sacerdotio 
decernebar.  Beatte  memoria,'  Damasus  mens  sermo 
erat.  Dicehar  sanctus ;  dicebar  humilis  et  disertus ' 
(Eji.  xlv.  3,  written  on  leaWng  Home,  Aug.  385). 

The  inconveniences  from  which  the  Western 
Church  sufl'ered  owing  to  the  absence  of  one 
authorized  Latin  version  of  the  Bible,  had  long 
been  felt.  '  Tot  exemplaria  pajne  quot  codices  ' 
was  Jerome's  description  of  the  state  of  things  ; 
and  the  confusion  caused  by  a  number  of  inde- 
pendent and  auonynious  translations  of  the  NT 
was  worse  confoundol  by  the  carelessness  of  scribes 
and  copyists.t      Whether  in  private  study  or  in 

*  Victorinus  was  converted  to  Christianity  in  old  n^e,  and  \t 
known  amongst  Patristic  writers  as  Victorinus  Afer ;  Zockler 
(p.  :io)  doubts  whether  Jerome  studied  under  him. 

t  This  is  a  point  of  which  Jerome  constantly  conii>lains  ;  see 
Ep.  Ixxl.  6,  Comin.  in  Malt.  ii.  5,  iii.  3,  vi.  1(1.  etc.;  alw  iii  the 
books  ol  the  OT,  I'rt^.  in  litir.  Chrun.  iuzta  i.V.V. 


874 


VULGATE 


VULGATE 


public  preaching,  in  controversy  with  heretics  or 
in  litui'gical  use,  this  '  Latinorum  interpretuni 
inlinita  varietas'*  must  have  been  almost  in- 
tolerably confusing  to  the  more  cultivated  mem- 
bers of  the  Churcii,  though  the  common  folk  felt 
it  not,  and  were  angered  at  any  change.  Damasus 
therefore  initiated  a  valuable  and  much-needed 
reform  when  he  commissioned  Jerome  to  under- 
take the  preparation  of  a  revised  and  autlioritative 
Latin  version  of  the  NT.  He  could  not  have 
placed  the  work  in  better  hands.  Jerome's  quali- 
lications  were  unique  :  he  was  fully  sensible  of  the 
urgency  and  importance  of  such  a  revision  ;  lie 
was  a  good  Latin  scholar,  writing  a  style  that  Avas 
both  pure  and  vigorous  ;  he  had  been  studying 
Greek  carefully,  and  had  already  a  fair  knowledge 
of  Hebrew  ;  t  in  later  years,  when  he  was  trans- 
lating the  OT  from  the  original,  he  had  attained  a 
tliorough  knowledge  of  that  language,  wliile  long 
residence  and  travel  in  the  East  had  given  him 
that  first-hand  acquaintance  with  the  country  and 
its  customs  which  must  be  invaluable  to  any  one 
undertaking  a  task  of  this  nature.  His  abilities 
also  as  a  scholar  and  writer  were  well  known  ; 
and  Damasus  must  have  argued  that  a  version 
proceeding  from  an  authority  so  eminent,  and 
backed  by  the  influence  and  power  of  the  Roman 
see,  could  not  faU  to  obtain  a  wide  acceptance. 

Jerome  undertook  the  task  proposed  to  him  by 
Damasus,  we  may  well  believe  somewhat  gladly, 
though  in  the  letter  to  the  pope  which  forms  his 
preface  to  the  Gos]iels,  he  professed  reluctance  to 
face  so  great  a  task,  with  the  odium  and  the 
opposition  to  which  he  would  be  exposed  from 
those  who  were  used  to  the  older  translations. 
His  fears  were  well  grounded.  Even  his  very 
s]iaring  emendations  in  the  Gospels  were  attackecf, 
and  he  was  accused  of  tampering  with  our  Lord's 
own  words,  and  denying  the  inspiration  of  Scrip- 
ture (Ep.  xxvii.  1)  ;  though,  in  Africa,  Augustine 
welcomed  this  part  of  Jerome's  work.  J  It  was  his 
translation  of  the  OT,  however,  wliicli  brouglit  on 
him  the  fiercer  storm  of  indignation  and  opposition 
(see  below,  p.  876''). 

The  exact  date  of  the  pope's  commission  to 
Jerome  is  not  known  ;  but  the  first  instalment  of 
the  revised  text,  consisting  of  the  four  Gospels, 
appeared  in  383 ;  and  this  was  apparently  fol- 
lowed, either  the  same  year,  or  shortly  after,  by 
the  Acts  and  the  rest  of  the  NT.  It  has  indeed 
been  doubted  whether  Jerome  ever  did  revise  more 
than  the  Gospels;  the  Latin  of  the  other  books 
sliows  verj'  few  marks  of  having  been  emended  by 
liim,  and  there  is  a  rather  suspicious  absence  of 
tlic  prefaces  which  usually  accompany  his  emended 
translations  of  the  books  of  the  Bible  ;  §  while  the 
preface  he  affixed  to  the  Gospels  promises  '  quattuor 
taiitum  Evangelia,'  and  Augustine,  in  his  well- 
known  letter  written  in  403,  ||  speaks  with  favour 
of  Jerome's  translation  of  the  Gospel,  not  of  the 
New  Testament.  Against  this,  however,  we  must 
set  the  fact  that  Jerome  more  than  once  definitely 
asserts  that  he  revised  the  whole  New  Testament, IT 

•  Aug.  De  doctr.  clirist.  ii.  11.  The  Jews,  too,  laughed  at  the 
variations  in  the  Latin  versions  ;  see  Jerome's  Comm.  in  Ezech. 
c.  xxxvii.  (v.  432  in  Vallarsi's  edition,  Venice,  1706-71). 

t  Apol.  adv.  liu/.  iii.  ti  (\'all.  ii.  637),  '  Ego  philosophus, 
rhetor,  graminaticus.  dialecticus,  hebrseus,  grscus,  latinus, 
triiin^iis ' :  see  van  Ess,  pp.  101,  108. 

}  kp.  c\v.  6  {Au(]itRtini  ad  Uieron.). 

§  f.fj.  I'TCPf.  in  lilrr.  Job  ex  Graico,  *  Igitur  et  vos  et  unum- 

5nemque  lectorem  solita  pnefatione  comuioneo  ' ;  J'rcp/.  in  lihr. 
'satmorum  iwcta  LXX, '  unde  cousueta  praifatione  commoneo,' 
etc. 

II  Ep,  civ.  6  (Aug^tstini  ad  Uieron.),  'Proinde  non  parvas 
Deo  gratias  agimus  de  opere  tuo,  quo  Evangclium  ex  Gneco 
interpretatus  es.' 

•l  kp.  Ixxi.  6,  '  Novum  Testamentum  GrsecsQ  reddidi  auctori- 
tati."  cf.  De  ttir.  illustr.  cxxxv.;  Ep.  cxii.  20  (ad  Avguntimnn), 
*Et  si  me  ut  dicis,  in  Novi  Tcstamenti  emendatione  susripis,' 
etc..  which  looks  like  a  correction  of  Augustine's  '  Evangehum 
ex  GrsBco  interpretatus  es.' 


and  even  mentions  jiassages  in  the  Epistles  where 
his  own  version  differs  from  the  Old  Latin.*  If 
seems  liardly  possible  to  doubt,  therefore,  that 
he  did  revise  tne  whole  of  the  New  Testament, 
though  no  doubt  the  revision  was  much  more 
hurried  and  perfunctory  after  the  Gospels  were 
off  his  hands  ;  t  such  readings,  liowever,  in  the  Acts 
as  8^  curavcrunt  for  coniportavcrunt  of  the  OL,  11* 
urdinem  for  per  ordinem,  IG"  laudabant  dcum  for 
hi/mnum  dicebant  {canebani)  deo,  \G^  dimiltite  for 
diinitte,  are  obvious  instances  of  Ilieronymian  cor- 
rection, sometimes  against  all  known  Gr.  MSS  (see 
below,  p.  882). 

At  the  same  time,  apparently,  Jerome  made  his 
first  revision  of  the  Olil  Latin  I'salter ;  it  was 
simply  emended  from  the  Greek  of  the  LXX,  and 
the  translation  was  altered  only  where  the  sense 
absolutely  demanded  it.J  This  revision  was  caUcd 
the  lioman  Psalter,  in  opposition  to  the  Psnlterium 
Vetus,  and  was  in  use  in  the  Churches  in  Rome  and 
Italy  till  the  pontificate  of  Pius  v.  (1566-1.")72), 
who  introduced  the  Gallican  Psalter  (see  below) 
generally,  though  the  Roman  was  still  retained  in 
three  Churches  in  Italy.  §  Towards  the  end  of  384 
pope  Damasus  died  ;  and  in  the  August  of  the 
following  year  (385)  Jerome  left  Rome  for  Pales- 
tine. There  he  and  his  companions  studied  the 
topography,  scenery,  and  cities  of  the  Holy 
Land  ;  ||  and  after  a  journey  to  Egypt  returned 
thither  again  to  settle  at  Bethlehem,  wliere  (389) 
the  two  conventual  buildings  were  founded,  over 
one  of  which — that  for  monks — Jerome  was  for  so 
long  to  preside,  while  over  the  other — that  for 
nuns — Paula,  the  devout  widow  wiio  had  been  his 
companion  in  travel,  ruled  ;  and  was  succeeded, 
on  her  death,  in  404,  by  her  daughter  Eustochium. 

Meanwhile,  Jerome's  Biblical  studies  had  not 
slackened.  The  Roman  Psalter  had  been  so 
rapidly  multiplied  and  so  carelessly  copied,  that 
its  text  was  soon  in  as  bad  a  state  as  the  Old 
Latin  ;  IT  and  in  answer  to  the  requests  of  Paula 
and  Eustochium  he  undertook  a  second  revision, 
correcting  in  addition  the  Greek  text  from  the 
other  Greek  versions,  and  making  use  of  Origen's 
critical  signs :  a  passage  between  an  obelus  and 
two  points  was  to  be  understood  as  present  in  the 
LXX  but  absent  from  the  Hebrew  ;  that  between  an 
asterisk  and  two  points  was  lacking  in  the  LXX, 
and  had  been  supplied  not  directly  from  the  He- 
brew, but  from  the  Greek  version  of  Theodotion.** 
This  version  is  known  as  the  Gallican  Psalter,  as  it 
early  obtained  wide  popularitj'  in  Gaul,  probably 
through  the  influence  of  Gregory  of  Tours.tt  and 
ultimately  became  the  current  version  in  the  Latin 
Church  ;  the  exact  date  of  its  publication  is  not 
known^but  it  was  probably  about  A.D.  387. 

*  e.g.  Ep.  xxvii.,  where  he  quotes  from  Eo  12"  '3,  1  Tl 
l'»  6'». 

t  See  especially  on  this  point  Vallarsi's  preface  to  vol.  x.  of 
Jerome's  works,  pp.  xix-xxi  ;  and  also  Bp.  J.  Wordsworth  in 
Sludia  BiMica,  vol.  i.  p.  128. 

I  I^rcef.  in  libr.  Pnabnoniin  (Vq-W.  x.  106),  *  Psalterium 
Ronia3  dudum  positus  emendaram,  et  juxta  LXX  interpretes, 
licet  cursim,  magna  illud  ex  parte  correxeram.' 

§  Hody,  p.  3S3,  •  in  una  Uoma}  Vaticana  ccclesia,  et  extra 
urbem  in  Mediolanensi  et  in  ecc.  S.  Marci,  Venetiis ' ;  it  is  still 
used  in  S.  Peter's  at  Rome,  and  at  Milan  ;  and  also  iiarlly 
retained  in  the  Roman  Missal,  and  in  one  place  in  the  Brevii.ry 
in  the  Invitatory  psalm  90  (94)  ;  see  Kaulen,  p.  100. 

II  The  advantages  of  such  study  for  the  purposes  of  tran»> 
lation  he  insists  on  in  the  Pr<e/.  in  libr.  I'aralip.  iitxtn  LX.K. 

II  PrcE.f.  in  libr.  Psalm,  (x.  106),  'Quod  quia  rursuiu  v:*leci§ 
.  .  .  scriptorum  vitio  dcjiravatum,  plusque  antiouuxr  ^rrorem, 
quam  novum  emendationem  valerc' 

•*  Id., '  Uhicumque  viderit  virgulam  prscedentem  (-H),  ab  ea 
usque  ad  duo  puncta(:)  quaj  imprcssimus,  sciat  in  LXX  trana- 
latoribus  plus  haberi.  Ubi  autem  steihe  (•)  similitudinem  per- 
spexcrit,  ae  Ilebrxns  vohiminibus  additum  noverit,  a^que  us()U« 
ad  duo  puncta,  juxta  Theodotionis  dumtaxat  editioiicm,  qui 
simplicitate  semionis  a  LXX  interpretibus  non  discordat.'  The 
virijula  of  cour8e  =  the  obelus,  and  the  g(f^/o  =  the  aiti^risk. 

U  i.e.  at  the  end  of  the  8th  cent. ;  see  Walafrid  Strabus  in 
Hody,  p.  382. 


VULGATE 


YULGATE 


87: 


Jerome  was  also  perfecting  himself  in  the  know- 
ledge of  Hebrew,  and  was  studying  under  a  Jew, 
who,  in  fear  of  being  persecuted  by  his  country- 
men, used  to  visit  him  at  night,  like  a  second 
Nicodemus  (Ep.  l.\x.\iv.  4).  He  also  published  new 
translations  of  other  books  of  the  OT  from  the 
LXX,  but  as  to  both  the  extent  and  date  of  this 
revision  there  is  a  considerable  amount  of  un- 
certainty. Job  was  certainly  revised  soon  after 
the  Psalter,  and  in  the  same  way,  and  published 
with  a  jireface  to  Paula  and  Eustochium  ;  *  and 
these  two  books  alone  of  all  Jerome's  revisions 
ivxta  LXX  have  come  down  to  us.  We  also  know- 
that  he  similarly  revised  Proverbs,  Ecclesiastes, 
Song  of  Songs,  and  Clironicles,  for  the  prefaces  to 
these  books  remain  though  the  books  themselves 
are  lost.t  Elsewhere  be  speaks  generally  of  having 
revised  'the  Septuagint'  (i.e.  the  Latin  translation 
of  it),  and  '  the  Canonical  Books,'  which  certainly 
sug^'csts  that  all  the  OT  underwent  this  revision  (c. 
liuj.  ii.  24,  '  Egone  contra  LXX  interpretes  aliquid 
sum  locutus,  quos  ante  annos  plurimos  dUigen- 
tissime  emendatos  mea-  linguie  studiosis  dedi?';  cf. 
iii.  25;  Ep.  Ixxi.  5;  Ep.  cxii.  19,  'Quod  autem  in 
aliisqua;ris  epistolis,  cur  prior  raea  in  libris  Canonicis 
interpretatio  asteriscos  liabeat  et  virgulas  pncno- 
tatas').  Two  objections  have  been  felt  against 
this  supposition.  (1)  The  absence  of  prefaces  to 
the  other  books,  and  of  any  reference  to  a  previous 
translation  in  the  prefaces  which  he  affixed  to  those 
books  when  he  translated  them  from  the  Hebrew  ; 
whereas  rather  pointed  references  occur  in  the 
case  of  Chronicles,  Job,  etct  (2)  The  enormous 
amount  of  labour  that  such  a  work  must  have  in- 
volved, when  compressed  into  a  very  few  years 
(for  bj'  ."iOl  he  was  already  engaged  on  the  transla- 
tion from  the  Hebrew), — j'ears,  too,  that  were  deeply 
occupied  witli  other  business.  The  second  objection 
need  not  detain  us  long.  Jerome  was  an  extra- 
ordinarily rapid  worker :  Proverbs,  Ecclesiastes, 
and  Song  of  Songs  were  translated  from  the  He- 
brew in  three  days,  as  he  was  recovering  from  a 
severe  illness  {Prcef.  in  lihr.  Salomonvi) ;  Tobit  was 
translated  in  a  single  day  {Prrrf.  in  Tohiam) ;  one 
'lucubratiuneula'  sulliced  for  Judith  (Prrc/".  in  libr. 
Judith)  ;  when  writing  his  commentary  on  the 
Ei)hesians  he  would  sometimes  tinish  a  thousand 
lines  in  a  day.§  The  lirst  objection  is  similar  to 
that  felt  against  the  revision  of  the  later  books 
of  the  New  Testament  (see  above,  p.  874)  ;  and 
though  there  is  again  something  suspicious  in  the 
absence  of  his  wonted  jtrefaces,  we  can  hardly  press 
such  negative  arguments  against  positive  asser- 
tions, which,  if  they  mean  anything  at  all,  mean 
that  he  revised  the  whole  of  the  OT  From  the  LXX: 
thus  in  the  Prirf.  in  lihr.  Saloinonis  iiixta  LXX 
he  states  that  he  did  not  correct  the  books  of  Wis- 
dom and  Eeclesiasticus,  '  tantummodo  Canonicas 
scripturas  vobis  emendare  desiderans '  ;  which 
language  certainly  implies  that  he  did  correct  aU 
the  otiier  books.  Their  total  disappearance  is 
easily  accounted  for  if  the  postscript  to  his  Ep. 
cxxxiv.    to    Augustine  II    (written    A.D.    416)    be 

•  See  vol.  z.  49-100  (the  references  are  always  to  Vallarsi's 
•d.  of  Jerome's  works) ;  the  pa-ssages  wlded  either  from  the 
LXX  or  from  the  Hebrew  throuf^h  Thcodotion's  version  were 
marked  in  the  same  way  as  in  tlie  I'salms. 

t  Pr(r.f.  in  libr.  Solum,  iuxia  LXX  (x.  435  f.),  'Tres  libros 
SatomoniH,  id  eat,  Provcrbia,  Ecctcsiasten,  Canticum  Canticomm, 
veteri  L.\.\  interpretum  auctorilali  reddidi';  see  also  Prtvf.  in 
Wir.  I'aralip.  itixta  LXX  (p.  431);  the  passages  added  from 
LXX  or  lleb.  were  also  marked  us  in  the  Ptialms. 

t  Proi/.inlihr.  ParaH\\.  1408),  'Ceterum  memini  editionem 
LX.\  translatorum  olim  de  firaeco  emendatam  tribuisne  me 
noBtris ' ;  in  Job,  '  Utraquc  editio,  et  LX.\  apud  Gnecos,  et  niea 
JiixUi  IlebraiOB,  in  Latinum  nieo  laboro  translata  est '  i^x.  1101) ; 
in  tibrog  .Salomoni^,  '  Si  ciii  sane  LXX  interpretum  niagis  editio 
placet,  habet  earn  a  nobis  olim  emendatam  '  (ix.  1290). 

$  Prce/.  ad  libr.  II.  Comment,  in  Eph.  (vli.  680). 

II  'Orandem  Latini  serraonis  in  ista  provincia  notariorum 
patimur  pcnuriam  ;  et  idcirco  pneceptin  tuis  parere  non  possu- 


genuine  ;  for  there  he  complains  that  the  greater 
jmrt  of  this  work  had  been  stolen  from  him. 

While  engaged  on  this  work,  however,  the  bad 
state  of  the  LXX  text  became  more  and  more 
apparent  to  him,  and  he  was  convinced  that  for 
a  satisfactory  Latin  version  of  the  OT  recourse 
must  be  had  to  the  original  Hebrew  (Prcrf.  in  libr. 
Paralip.  ex  Uebr.  vol.  ix.  1405)  ;  the  need  of  such 
a  translation  became  additionally  urgent  in  contro- 
versy with  Jews,  who,  when  confronted  with  texts 
from  the  LXX,  would  naturally  refuse  to  acknow- 
ledge the  accuracy  of  the  quotation,  and  would  assert 
that  it  did  not  represent  the  sen.se  of  the  original,* 
while  many  of  his  friends,  who  felt  the  need  of 
a  new  translation  and  knew  that  Jerome  was  the 
man  best  fitted  for  the  task,  urged  him  repeatedly 
to  undertake  it.  It  was  indeed,  as  we  learn  from 
his  prefaces,  in  answer  to  their  requests,  that  he 
translated  this  or  that  book  and  sent  them  copies ; 
and  so  the  great  work  of  his  life  was  not  prose- 
cuted as  a  whole  and  according  to  a  fixed  plan,  but 
bit  by  bit,  and  for  the  satisfaction  of  single  and  in- 
dependent inquirers. 

About  15  years — from  390  to  405 1 — were  spent 
on  the  new  translation.  Jerome  began  his  work 
■(vith  the  books  of  Samuel  and  Kings,  which  he 
published  with  the  famous  Prologus  Galeatus  or 
'preface  with  the  helmet' — armed  against  opjio- 
nents  ;  this  preface,  however,  is  really  an  intro- 
duction to  the  whole  OT,  and  shows  that  even  thus 
early  he  must  have  conceived  some  idea  of  trans- 
lating all  the  books.  Next  came  P.salms,  the 
Prophets,  and  Job ;  and  in  394-3;)6  the  books  of 
Esdras  and  Chronicles;  then  his  work  was  inter- 
rupted by  a  long  illness.  In  398  he  resumed  hia 
labours,  and  translated  Proverbs,  Ecclesi.astes,  and 
Song  of  Songs  ;  and  the  Octateuch  (in  which  Esther 
was  included)  now  alone  remained  of  the  Canonical 
books.  First  the  Pentateuch  was  published,  though 
the  precise  date  is  uncertain  ;  then  soon  after  the 
death  of  Paula,  in  404,  Joshua,  Judges,  Kutli,  and 
Esther  ;  later,  the  apocryplial  parts  of  Daniel  and 
Esther,  and  the  books  of  Tobit  and  .ludith,  which 
were  translated  from  the  Chaldee :  and  so  at  length 
the  work  was  completed.  Wisdom,  Eeclesiasticus, 
and  probably  Maccabees  were  left  unrevised,  and 
Daruch  he  passed  over. 

Jerome's  translation  of  the  Psalms  from  the  Hebrew  never 
became  popular,  excellent  thouj;h  it  is ;  the  hold  on  the  publio 
mind  of  the  more  familiar  version  was  too  atrony  to  be  loosened, 
and  it  is  the  Galilean  l*8.alter  which  appears  in  an  ordinary 
Vulgate  Bible.  A  convenient  edition  of  the  version  from  the 
Hebrew  has  been  published  by  P.  de  Lajfarde,  Pvatteriuin  Jiixta 
Ilebroeog  ilieronrjmi,  Lipsia),  1S74. 

For  the  date  at  which  Job  and  the  Prophfts  were  completed, 
see  Ep.  xlix.  4  ad  Pammacluuin  ;  this  was  written  towards  the 
end  of  39;{ ;  he  writes,  'Libros  sedecim  Prophctarum,  i)U08  in 
Latinum  de  Hebra'O  sennone  verti,  si  le^reris  et  delectari  te  hoc 
opere  compercro,  jirovocabis  nos  ctiam  cu3tera  clausa  aruiario 
non  tenere.    Transtuli  nuper  Job  in  linguani  nostram.* 

The  ]ireface  to  the  books  of  Ettdran  was  probably  written 
about  304,  as  in  it  he  refers  to  the  discussion  of  several  iioints 
*quie  latiori  operi  reservamus'  ;  this  larger  work  which  ho  was 
about  to  publish  is  certainly  the  Kp.  Ivii.  ad  Pamntachium  (de 
Optimo  getiL-n-  interpretandi),  whicli  appeared  in  the  latter  part 
of  395.  The  third  and  fourth  hooks  of  t'sdras  he  refused  to 
edit:  *nec  queni<iuam  moveat  quod  unus  a  nobis  cditus  liber 


mus,  maxime  in  editione  LXX,  quae  astoriscis  verubusque  difl- 
tincta  est.  IMeraquo  enim  prioris  laboris  fraude  cujusdara 
amisimus';  but  this  postscript  is  omitted  by  one  AIS  and  by 
several  editors ;  see  Vail.  i.  1043  44. 

*  Pra:f.  in  Pealterium  ex  Uebr.  (Ix.  1155 f.),  'Quia  igitur 
nuper  cum  Hebriuo  disputans,  (lUsMlam  pro  l><>niino  Salva- 
tore  de  I'salmis  testimonia  protulisti  volensque  illc  te  iltudere, 
per  sernioncs  pcne  singuloa  asserebat,  non  ila  haberi  in 
ilebrajo';  see  also  /'rafjT.  in  libr.  Paralip.,  in  Iitaiam,  etc.; 
yet  when  in  Africa  they  were  ajipcaled  to  as  towhethcr  .Icrome'a 
hcdera  or  the  traditional  cucurhila  wos  the  right  transluUon  in 
Jon  41,  they  defended  the  translation  of  the  LXX  and  Old  Latin, 
SCO  Kp.  CIV.  6  {Awju^iini  ad  llicrvn.);  later,  the  Jews  bore 
witness  to  the  accuracy  of  Jerome's  work,  see  Aug.  Dt  Civ.  Dei, 
lib.  xviii.  c.  43  ;  van  Ess,  p.  117. 

t  See  Kuulen,  p.  108  f.  ;  Westcott,  art.  'Vulgate'  in  Sniitb't 
DB,  p.  1700  f.;  the  tatter's  dating  of  the  appearance  of  the 
■everal  lx)oks  seems  preferable  to  Kauleo's. 


876 


VULGATE 


VULGATE 


est ;  net*  apocryphonim  tertii  et  quarti  somniiB  delectetur ;  quia 
et  apud  riebraos  Ezrae  Neemia:que  sermonee  in  unum  volumen 
coarctantur ;  et  qua)  non  habtiilur  apud  illos  neo  de  vipinti 
quattuor  senibus  sunt,  procul  abjicienda' ;  the  4tli  book  is  found 
only  in  the  Latin  version.  In  tliia  same  preface  to  Esdras, 
Jerome  complains  of  his  opponents  for  attackinu  his  work  while 
they  secretly  make  use  of  his  translation,  and  he  begs  his  friends 
Uoiiinio  and  Rojjatianus  not  to  let  his  translation  be  publicly 
known  ;  they  are  to  read  it  privately,  or,  at  the  most,  only  let  a 
few  friends  see  it.     See  vol.  ix.  1624. 

Chronicles  was  probably  finished  in  396,  for  in  the  preface 
he  remarks,  '  Scripsi  nuper  librum  de  Optimo  genere  interpre- 
tondi.' 

The  I'rw/atio  in  Khroa  Salomonu  contains  a  reference  to  his 
illness :  '  longa  ajgrotatione  fractus,  ne  penitus  hoc  anno 
reticerem  et  apud  vos  mutus  essem,  tridui  opus  nomini  vestro 
coiisecravi."  Cf.  Epp.  Ixxi.  6,  Lvxiii.  10,  both  written  in  396,  in 
which  he  refers  to  the  same  illness  apparently,  and  in  almost 
the  same  terms— Mongo  tentus  incommode,'  'post  longam 
ffitrrotationem.' 

The  Oi-lateuch  must  have  been  in  hand  about  the  same  time, 
for  he  refers  to  it  in  Kp.  liod.  6,  'Canonem  Hebraic®  veritatis, 
exccpto  Octateucho  qucni  nunc  in  nianibus  habeo,  pueris  tuis 
et  noUiriis  dedi  describendum.'  Genesis  at  any  rate  was  pub- 
lisheti  before  402,  as  Jerome  quotes  the  preface  to  it  in  his 
apolo"v  against  Ruftinus  (ii.  25),  which  cannot  be  later  than  that 
dule.  ■  The  other  four  books  of  the  Pentateuch  probably 
app''.ired  later,  as  when  Jerome  wrote  his  preface  to  Genesis 
he  bad  not  finished  them  :  '  nunc  te  precor,  Desideri  carissime, 
ut  quia  tantum  opus  (i.e.  Pentateuchuni)  me  subire  fecisti,  et  a 
Genesi  exordium  capere,  orationibus  juves,  quo  possim  eodem 
epirilu  quo  script!  sunt  libri,  in  latinum  eos  transferre  ser- 
nioncm.' 

Joshua,  Judges,  and  Ruth  are  numbered  with  Esther  as  books 
he  was  just  publishing,  'post  fflmcta  Paulas  dormitionem '  in 
the  I'ra'/atio  in  Jobue. 

For  Tohit  and  Jttdith  see  the  prefaces  to  those  books  ;  Jerome 
was  not  himself  acquainted  with  Chaldee,  but  he  obtained  the 
help  of  a  scholar  who  translated  the  Chaldee  into  Hebrew, 
which  Jerome  in  turn  translated  into  Latin. 

For  his  refusal  to  translate  afresh  Wisdom  and  Ecclesiastims 
see  the  Pro/,  in  libr.  Sal.  iuxta  LXX  :  '  Porro  in  eo  libro  qui  a 
plerisque  Sapientia  Salomonis  inscribitur,  et  in  Eoclesiastico, 
quem  esse  Jesu  filii  Sirach  nullus  ignorat,  calamo  teniperavi, 
tantummodo  Canonicas  Scripturas  vobis  emendaredesiderans ' ; 
though  this  was  written  before  he  be^ian  the  translation  of  the 
OT  f"rom  the  Hebrew,  he  does  not  seem  to  have  changed  his 
mind  afterwards.  With  regard  to  the  Maccabees,  however,  the 
evidence  is  conflicting.  He  nowhere  mentions  translating  the 
books  himself,  and  his  languaM  quoted  above  certainly  suggests 
that  he  had  no  intention  of  doing  so  in  3S7 ;  in  the  Prologtis 
tialeatxts  (390-91)  he  passes  them  by  with  a  short  notice : 
■  MachabEorum  primuiu  librum  Hebraicum  reperi ;  secundus 
Grajcus  est  quod  ex  ipsa  quoque  phrasi  pr.ibari  potest.'  Yet, 
as  M,  Berger  pointed  out  to  the  present  writer,  there  are  fairly 
numerous  remains  of  an  Old  Latin  version  of  the  Mace,  other 
than  that  which  appears  in  the  Vulgate  Bible  ;  and  these  differ 
so  much  that  the  latter  must  be  regarded  as  a  new  recension  if 
not  an  independent  translation ;  see  the  parallel  versions  in 
Sabaticr(Ci(</.  Sacr.  Lat.  versiones,  vol.  ii.).  Sabatier  himself  (pp. 
1013,  1014)  allows  that  Jerome  may  have  corrected  the  older 
version,  though  he  hardly  thinks  he  actually  retranslated  it. 

Forhistreatmentof  CanicA  seethe  Pro;/',  in  Jerem..  :  'Librum 
Baruch  .  .  .  qui  apud  Hebrasos  nee  legitur  nee  habetur  prwter- 
misimus.'  ,      .      ,       ,    t-     r,-i.i     I 

It  may  be  worth  while  to  arrange  the  books  of  the  Bible  In 
the  chronological  order  of  their  revision  and  retraDslation,  as 
given  us  in  the  above  investigation. 

New  Testament. 
3S3*.D.       The  four  Gospels. 
334-385.       Rest  of  the  New  Testament. 

Firit  revision  o/  Psalter. 

S83-384.       Psaltcrium  Romanum. 

Revision  of  Old  Testament  from  the  Septuagint. 

3S7  (probably).  Psalterium  Gallicanum. 

887  or  somewhat  later.     Job,  followed  by  Proverbf,  Eocleel- 

astes,  Song  of  Songs,  Chronicles. 
388-.391.       Rest  of  the  Canonical  books  (probably). 

Retranslation  of  Old  Testament  /ram  the  Hebreu. 

390  or  391.  Books  of  Samuel  and  Kings. 

392  -393.       Psalms,  Prophets,  Job. 

394.  Esdras. 

399.  Chronicles. 

398.  Proverbs,  Ecclesiastes,  Song  of  Son^ 

401?  Genesis,  followed  by  Exodus,  Leviticus,  Numbers, 

Deuteronomy. 
405.  Joshua,  J  udges,  Ruth,  Esther. 

Tohit.  Judith,  and  apocryphal  parts  of  Daniel  and 

Esther. 

We  have  said  that  it  was  at  the  wish  of  friends 
that  most  of  the  translations  were  undertaken  ;  * 

•  e.(j.  the  Pentateuch  was  translated  at  the  wish  of  Desiderius  : 
Chronicles  for  Chromatins,  the  books  of  Esdras  for  Domnio  and 
itogatianus,  fcjither  for  I*aula  and  Eustochium. 


yet  Jerome's  friends,   who  could  realize   present 
needs  and  foresee  future  advantages,  were  a  small 
circle  ;  the  vast  bodj  of  clergy  and  laity  were  satis- 
fied with  the  existing  versions ;   and  the  mutter 
ings  of    suspicion   which    were    aroused    by    the 
emended  version  of  the  NT  were  as  nothing  com- 
pared with  the  storm  of  indignation  and  opposition 
which  the  translation  of  the  OT  from  the  Hebrew 
brought  on  Jerome's  head.*      No  doubt  several 
causes  had  to  do  with  tliis  result;  Jerome's  own 
hot  temper,  and  the  terribly  ready  and  powerful 
tongue  he  could  use  whenever  duty  seemed  to  urge 
him  to  speak,  had  gained  him  many  enemies  ;  the 
fame  of  his  learning  may  have  made  other  scholars 
jealous  and   critical ;    but  the  great    stumbling- 
block  was  that  he  should  have  gone  behind  the 
Septuagint  version,  and  made  a  translation  which 
took  no  account  of  it,  and  even  set  itself  up  as  an 
independent  rival.     The  popular  legends  as  to  the 
miraculous  agreement  of  the  seventy  translators 
had  no  doubt  surrounded  the  Greek  version  with  a 
halo  of  sanctity,  and  its  frequent  use  by  the  NT 
writers  in  quotation  would   help   to   place   it,  as 
regards  inspiration,  on  a  level  with  the  original 
Hebrew  ;  and  no  charge  seems  to  have  been  more 
constantly  hurled  at  Jerome  than  that  of  presump- 
tion, unlawful  innovation,  sacrilege,  in  daring  to 
put  aside  the  LXX  version.     Even  Augustine  held 
the  LXX  to  he  equally  inspired  with  the  original 
Hebrew, t  and    deprecated   any   new   translation, 
though  mainly  from  fear  of  the  ofl'ence  it  would 
cause  to  the  weaker  brethren,  t    A  i(tory  became 
current  that  a  certain  African  bishop  had  adopted 
the  new  version  for  public  use  in  his  Church ;  in 
the  book  of  Jonah,  Jerome  had  employed  tlie  word 
hedera  for   the  gourd  under  which  the   prophet 
rested,  instead  of  the  cucurbita  of  the  earlier  Latin 
versions  ;  the  introduction  of  this  new  translation 
in  a  familiar   passage  of  Scripture  caused    such 
e.xcitement  and   tumult  in  the  Church  that  the 
bishop  was  nearly   left   without  a  flock.  §     This 
incident,  whether  real   or  fictitious,  would   serve 
as  a  very  fair  specimen  of  the  hostility  which  a  new 
translation  of  Scripture  was  sure  to   encounter; 
and   it  would   take  several  generations   for  such 
opposition   to    die  out;   and    certainly  Jeromes 
method  of  meeting  it,  as  exemplified  in  his  letters 
to  Augustine,  was  the  reverse  of  conciliatory.     In 
the  prefaces  to  the  various  books  of  the  OT  Jerome 
defended   himself  with   great  warmth    from    the 
charges  brought  against  him.    Over  and  over  again 
he  nuiintained  that  he  did  not  intend  to  cast  a  slur 
upon  the  LXX  translation, II  and  that  he  was  only 
endeavouring  to  render  the  Hebrew  as  faithfully 
as  possible,  and  to  make  passages  clear  which  in 
the  LXX  and  the  Old  Latin  were  obscure.     The 
objection   that  the   LXX   must    be   inspired   and 
perfect  because  the  apostles  and  NT  writers  quoted 
the  OT  in  that  version,  he  met  by  bringing  forward 
five  quotations  (Mt  2">-^,  Jn  19",  1  Co  2»  Jn  7^, 
which  could  not  have  been  taken  from  the  LXX, 

•Jerome's  former  friend  Rufilnus  was  one  of   his  fiercest 

°T  Aug.  iJe  Civ.  Dei,  xviii.  43  :  '  Spiritus  enim  qui  in  prophetis 
crat,  quando  ilia  dixerunt.  idem  ipse  erat  in  L.X.K  vins,  quaiido 
ilia  inteniretati  sunt' ;  see  also  the  pass:iges  in  van  Ess,  p.  HI  1. 

1  Kit  hi.  (Aiigustini  ad  Uic-onifmum)  written  in  394  ;  this 
letter,  however,  never  reached  Jerome ;  Ep.  civ.  from  Augustine, 
written  403 ;  and  Ep.  cxvi.  35,  written  405 :  in  the  last  letter 
Auk  explains  that  he  had  refused  to  aUow  Jerome  s  version  to 
be  publicly  read  in  Church—'  ne  .  .  -  maguo  scandalo  per- 
turbemus  plebes  Christi.'  ..  „,,,,. 

6  See  Ep.  civ.  (Aiimuitini  ad  Hieron.)  and  c%iu  iHHieronifim 
ad  A  w,.) ;  Thierrv,  Saint  Jir(nne,  livre  xi.  (4th  ed.  PP-  447,  448) 
suggests  that  the  incident  never  really  occurred,  but  was 
nvented  probably  to  throw  ridicule  on  Jeromes  work;  yet 
inth  Jfroine  and  Augustine  speak  of  it  as  if  it  w.re  a  fact. 

obsecro  te  lector 


both  Jerome  and  Augustine  speak  < 

II  His  apology  in  the  J'roloijus  Galeat-us- 
ne  laliorem  meum  reprehensionem  existimes  antuiuorum  .  .  . 
Ouaniquam  mihi  omnino  conscius  non  sim  mutosse  me  quH  plain 
de  hebraica  veritate'— is  repeated  in  different  words  m  «lmo»t 
every  preface. 


VULGATE 


VULGATE 


877 


as  the  reading  varied  in  every  case  ;  they  must  then 
have  been  taken  direct  from  the  Hebrew,  and  he 
was  justified  in  giving  this  source  of  our  Lord's,  or 
the  apostle's,  words  to  the  Church  in  an  intelligible 
translation  (Pra'f.  in  I.  Paral.  ix.  140S).  Indued  he 
maintained  against  Rullinus  that  the  apostles  nsed 
the  LXX  in  quotation  only  where  it  agreed  with 
the  Hebrew,  and  that  where  the  two  varied  they 
quoted  from  the  original.*  But  in  spite  of  this  he 
always  professed  the  highest  respect  lor  the  Septua- 
gint  version. 

(jradually  the  conflict  calnie<l  down  ;  the  general 
acceptance  of  the  new  version  could  only  be  a 
matter  of  time ;  it  was  a  clear  case  of  the  littest 
surviving.  Augustine  was  ultimately  seen  to 
praise  it ;  in  the  Gospels  he  apparently  used  it;t 
the  Spanish  Church  adopted  it  for  public  use ; 
Sophronius,  the  friend  and  lellow-nionk  of  Jerome, 
retranslated  the  Psalms  and  Prophets  from  .Jerome's 
version  into  Greek  ;  and  when  Jerome  was  ending 
his  stormy  life  at  Bethlehem  in  420,  tlie  attacks  or 
criticisms  of  his  opjwnents  were  no  longer  heard, 
or,  if  heard,  no  longer  attended  to.; 

ii.  HisTouY  OF  THE  Translation  after 
Jei'.o.me  s  Death. — The  reception  of  the  new  trans- 
lation was,  however,  vineven  ;  someCliurclies  clung 
more  than  others  to  the  old  version,  and  sometimes 
Jerome's  version  would  be  adopted  in  one  part  of 
the  Bible,  while  the  Old  Latin  would  be  retained 
in  another.  Thus  the  proceedings  recorded  in  the 
Acta  contra  Feliccm  of  .Xiigustine  show  that  at 
Hippo  in  the  year  A.D.  404  tlie  Gospels  were  quoted 
in  Jerome's  version,  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  in 
the  Uld  Latin.g 

Africa  and  Britain,  both  separated  by  the  sea 
from  the  main  body  of  the  Western  Church,  clung 
more  steadfastly  to  the  older  version,  thougli  even 
here  the  adhesion  was  a  modilied  one,  and  the  later 
African  texts,  such  as  m,  and  h  of  the  Acts  and 
Epistles  (see  LATIN  Vek.sion.s),  show  the  influence 
or  the  Vulgate  upon  them.  In  Italy  and  in  other 
parts  of  the  Western  Church  generations  would 
soon  arise  to  whom  the  Old  Latin  could  not  be 
bound  by  especial  ties  of  use  or  allection,  while  by 
converts  the  best  translation  would  naturally  be 
that  which  was  most  welcomed  and  most  vised. 
The  clergy  and  educated  Christians  in  Rome  would 
be  likely  to  prefer  a  revision  which  was  begun  at 
'he  instigation  of  a  pope,  and  the  Latin  of  which 
would  be  more  congenial  than  the  ruder  dialect  of 
the  earlier  versions.  Augustine's  recommendation 
of  the  versio  Itala  (by  which,  Burkitt  niaintain.s, 
he  meant  Jerome's  revision  ;  see  The  Olil  Latin  and 
the  Itala,  pp.  .54,  60 f.,  and  art.  Latin  Vek.sions) 
— 'est  verborum  ten.acior  cum  perspicuitate  sen- 
tential'— was  quoted,  apparently  as  a  well-known 
formula,  of  the  Vulgate  ;  Isidore  of  Seville  ((ith 
cent.)  uses  almost  the  exact  words  ;  and  Walafrid 
Strabus  (let  half  of  9th)  follows  Isidore,  and  says, 
'  hac  translatione  nunc  ubique  utitur  tota  Konmna 
ecclesia,  licet  non  in  omnibus  libris,  et  ipsius 
translatio  nierito  ceterb  anteftrtur,  quia  e.st  ver- 
borum tenacior,  et  perspicuitate  sententiaj  clarior' 
(see  Body,  p.  413). 

In  the  5th  cent,  the  Vulgate  was  adopted  by  Vin- 
cent of  Lerins,  Faustusof  liiez.and  Prosper  of  Aqui- 
taine ;  Eucherius  of  Lyons  and  Avitus  of  Vienne 
nscd  it  largely  though  not  exclusively.il  In  the 
6th  cent,  its  use  seems  becoming  almost  universal 
amongst  scholars,  except  in  Africa,  where  Pacundus 
and  Junilius  still  preserve  many  Old  Latin  read- 

•  Contra  Rttf.  lib.  II.  (Vail.  11.  629) ;  cf.  Ep.  lirli.  11. 

t  «.!7.  in  the  D«  conaentu  Soangeiitt. ;  8«e  Burkitt,  The  Old 
Latin  and  the  itala,  p.  &7  f. 

:  Kaulcn,  p.  188. 

S  See  Burkitt,  Tht  Old  Latin  and  the  Itala,  p.  57  f. 

■  See  Westcott,  p.  1702;  Kaukii,  p.  197 f.;  Berucr,  pp.  2-4  ; 
In  the  6tti  cent,  in  Uaul  mcwt  of  the  boolu  of  the  OT  arc  quoted 
from  Jerome,  while  (or  the  NT  the  Old  Latin  holds  iu  own. 


ings;  and  towards  the  end  of  the  centurj-  pope 
Gregory  the  Great  (Prmf.  in  Job  ad  Lean(/rum  = 
Migne,  Pat.  Lat.  Ixxv.  \,.  516)  could  say,  '  Novam 
vero  translatiunem  dissero,  sed  cum  probationis 
causa  exigit  nunc  novam  nunc  veterem  per  te.sti- 
nuiniaa-ssumo  ;  utquiasedes  aposlolica,cui  auctore 
Ueo  j)ra;sideo,  utraque  utitur,  mei  quocjue  labor 
studii  ex  utraque  fulciatur' ;  compare  in  Job,  1.  xx. 
c.  32,  where  he  declares  his  personal  preference  for 
the  new  translation.  It  does  not,  however,  follnw 
from  this  that  this  version  now  became  the  official 
version  in  Home,  but  only  that,  in  the  judgment  of 
the  head  of  the  Roman  Church,  it  was  raised  to 
an  equal  rank  with  the  old  (see  van  Ess,  p.  137). 

Yet  we  should  be  mistaken  if  we  measured  the 
disappearance  of  the  older  versions  simply  by  the 
quotations  in  ecclesiastical  writers;  the  evidence 
of  M.SS  of  the  Sacred  Books,  of  Lectionaries,  quo- 
tations and  lessons  in  service  booka,  etc.,  must 
also  be  taken  into  account ;  and  these  show  us 
that  these  versions  died  very  hvrd ;  (jometimes  in 
entire  books  of  the  Bible,  sometimes  fn  marginal 
notes,  conllate  readings,  and  '  mixed '  tc^ts,  some- 
times in  short  lections,  in  antiphons  and  responses, 
they  lasted  far  on  into  the  Middle  Ages.  Thus 
the  St.  Germain  MS  (see  p.  888)  of  tlio  'Jtli  cent, 
has  an  Old  Latin  text  in  Tobit,  Judith,  and  St. 
Matthew  ;  in  the  other  books  of  tJie  Bible  which 
survive  it  is  Vulgate,  though  stronglj'  mixed  with 
Old  Latin  readings  ;  the  Codex  Colbertinus  (c)  of 
the  New  Testament  (I2th  or  13th  cent,  see  p.  888) 
has  the  Gospels  in  an  Old  Latin  text,  the  rest 
Vulgate;  the  interesting  Perpignan  MS  (I3th 
cent.,  see  p.  SS8)  has  Ac  I'-13'  and  2S"  adjin.  in  an 
Old  Latin  text,  the  rest  Vulgate  with  a  very  slight 
amount  of  mixture  from  the  Old  Latin  ;  the  North 
British  and  Irish  MSS  (such  as  those  described  p. 
887)  proserveagood  Vulgate  text  interspersed  with 
OKI  Latin  interpolations  and  conflations,  which 
with  a  little  jiractice  can  be  easily  eliminated  from 
the  main  body  of  the  text.  Tlie  NT  sull'ercd  from 
this  mixture  far  more  than  the  OT  ;  for,  being  a 
revision  instead  of  a  new  translation,  it  resembled 
the  earlier  versions  more  closely  ;  and  it  was 
more  familiar  to  the  members  of  the  Church. 
'  L'Ancieu  Testament  au  contraire,'  says  M. 
Berger  (p.  3),  '  n'a  rd-ellement  6t6  levt-l^  aux  peuples 
latins  que  par  Saint  Jerome':  yet  even  the  text 
of  the  OT  would  suHer  from  the  very  natural  con- 
fusion that  would  come  between  his  translation 
from  the  Hebrew  and  his  earlier  version  from  the 
LXX.  In  addition  to  this  conscious  preservation 
of  the  Old  Latin  in  many  Vulgate  MSS,  the  text 
of  Jerome's  translation  was  exposed  in  after-years 
to  the  same  dangers  as  existed  in  his  own  daj',  and 
which  are  inseparable  from  the  transmission  and 
multiplication  of  books  by  hand.  The  careless- 
ness of  copyists,  their  tendency  to  introduce 
matter  from  parallel  p,is.sage8,  unconscious  remin- 
iscence of  older  renderings,  occasional  alteration 
for  dojjmatic  purposes, — all  these  in  the  course  of 
centuries  ten<led  to  produce  a  style  of  text  very  far 
removed  from  the  original  purity  in  which  it  left 
its  editor's  hands. 

On  this  point  the  writer  ventures  to  quote  from  the  preface 
(p.  viii)  of  the  late  M.  Berber's  UiMoirg  de  la  Vut<intt,  etc.,  a 
book  to  which  he  cannot  HUtlicieiitly  cxpreHu  hid  otilii^uliuns — 
*  Lcs  (toclrines  lea  plus  chil-reu  aux  thL^oluL'iens  du  uio\eufi^e 
exercenl  toules  lour  intluence  sur  lo  text*  (Ic  la  Bible.  Id  c'est 
le  do((inc  de  la  Trinit^i,  que  Ton  veut  trouver  fonnulii  en  toutes 
leltrcs  dans  la  Bible,  et  que  Ton  alllrine  par  la  (ameuite  inter- 
polation du  pajiHu^'u  "  des  trois  ttinioins.  C'evt  la  foi  en  la 
divinite  de  Ji-aus-Christ  qui  s'exprinie  en  un  strand  nunibro  de 
(alHiflrations  de  detail,  toujoun*  au  dt^trinient  de  son  humanity. 
C'est,  dans  le  troisit-nie  chupitre  de  la  Uentse,  un  chan^a'Uient 
d'une  scule  lettre  qui  ntet  "la  Feuinie"  &  la  place  de  "la 
I*ost*ril6  de  la  femnie."  Dans  le  second  livre  des  Machabdes, 
une  s6rie  de  m(xIillcalionfl  successives  transforment  insensible- 
uietit  le  passage  classique  de  la  doctrine  de  la  pri6re  pour  lei 
nmrts  ;  lou^e  siniulcinent  dans  le  t«xte  original,  la  pnure  pour 
les  niorta  arrive,  dans  les  textes  de  basse  i^po<iue,  ft  6tre  prCchOe 


878 


VULGATE 


VULGATE 


en  temies  expr^s.  Dans  le  quatri^me  livre  d'Esdras,  un  passage 
qui  parait  contraire  i  la  pri^re  pour  les  tK'pass^s  est,  sans  plus, 
arraclii-  de  la  Bible  avec  la  page  qui  le  porte,  et  cet  exenipluire 
mutilu  est,  par  une  singuli6re  rencontre,  presque  le  seul  qui  ait 
Jamais  eti  copii5.'  Tor  the  jxissagc  in  tlie  Maccabees  see  the 
note  top.  23  of  M.  Bergcr's  book  ;  for  the  fourth  book  of  Ksdriis 
see  R.  L.  Bensly,  The  Mitsing  Fragiiwnt  of  the  Uh  Book  0/ 
Ezra^  Oamb.  1875,  or  Speaker's  Commentarv,  Apocrypha^  in 
loc. ;  or  M.  R.  James,  The  Uh  Book  qf  Ezra,  Ciimb.  1895. 

Cassiodorius,  indeed,  is  a  witness  that  even  by 
the  middle  of  tlie  Uth  cent,  tlie  text  of  Jerome's 
ver-sion  had  become  corrujjted,  and  tliat  he  did  his 
best  to  revise  it ;  but  as  to  the  extent  both  of  the 
corruption  and  of  the  revision  we  are  in  the  darli. 
He  speaks  at  some  lengtli  on  the  subject  in  the 
De  institutione  Dii-inaruin  litterarum  (Migne,  Pat. 
Lat.  Ixx.  p.  U05f.),  whicli  lie  composed  for  the 
instruction  of  bis  younger  brethren  in  the  mon- 
astery at  Vivarium,  apparently  about  the  year 
A.D.  544  ;  he  expresses  himself  anxious  that  they 
should  study  their  Bibles  in  codicibus  emendatis, 
tells  thera  that  liis  nine  codices,  containing  all  the 
books  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  were 
revised  by  him  '  sub  collatione  priscorum  codicum,' 
that  Jerome's  arrangement  of  the  Prophets  into 
cola  and  commata  had  been  adopted  by  him  for 
the  rest  of  the  Bible,  and  tliat  he  left  them  a 
Greek  pandect,  or  whole  Bible,  by  which,  accord- 
ing to  Jerome's  example,  they  might  correct  the 
errors  in  their  Latin  translation.  But  he  gives  us 
no  li.st  of  current  errors  or  of  Iiis  own  correc- 
tions ;  and  all  trace  of  his  carefully  corrected 
codices  has  disappeared.  AVith,  however,  perhaps 
one  exception:  the  magnificent  Codex  Amiatinus 
of  the  Bible,  though  it  is  of  the  8th  cent.,  resem- 
bles Cassiodoriu.s'  Bible  not  only  in  being  divided 
into  cola  and  commata  throughout,  but  also  in 
possessing  a  quaternion  of  introductory  matter 
{possibly  of  earlier  date  than  the  rest  of  the  MS) 
which  strongly  resembles  chs.  xii.-xiv.  of  tlie  De 
inMitutione  ;  three  lists  of  the  books  of  Holy  Scrip- 
ture occur  in  each,  and  the  resemblance  is  of  that 
puzzling  nature  which  stops  well  short  of  direct 
copying  and  yet  suggests  very  close  affinity ;  all 
the  closer  because  Cassiodorius  tells  us  that  his 
third  division  of  the  books  was  written  '  inter 
alias  (divisiones)  in  codice  grandiore.'  It  may  be, 
therefore,  that  in  the  first  eiglit  leaves  of  the 
Codex  Amiatinus  we  actually  possess  part  of  Cas- 
siodorius' codex  grandior  ;  though  it  is  more  likely 
that  we  possess  a  not  very  faithful  copy  of  it.* 

Large  numbers  of  Italian  texts  must  have  been 
brought  to  Britain  in  and  after  the  mission  of 
Augustine,  if  not  earlier  ;  and  in  the  late  7th  and 
8th  cents,  the  monasteries  of  Weaimouth  and 
Jarrow  were,  we  know,  enriched  with  copies  of  the 
Bible  (Pandectes  or  BibliotJmcB  as  they  were  called) 
and  other  MSS  obtained  from  Italy  by  the  exer- 
tions of  Benedict  Biscop  and  Ceolfrid  ;  from  them 
Buch  MSS  as  the  Codex  Amiatinus  and  the  Lindis- 
farne  Gospels  were  copied.  The  type  of  text  thus 
obtained  would  soon  penetrate  to  Ireland,  though 
as  it  was  perpetuated  in  the  local  scriptoria  it 
would  gradually  become  tinged  with  some  of  the 
peculiarities  of  the  traditional  Old  Latin  versions. 

But  the  Bible  the  Irish  thus  received  from  Rome 
their  missionaries  carried  back  in  the  following 
centuries  to  continental  Europe,  to  Gaul,  Switzer- 
land, and  Germany.  The  Codex  Amiatinus  was 
itself  sent  to  Rome  by  Ceolfrid  as  an  offering  to 
the  shrine  of  St.  Peter.  Irish  and  British  monks 
again  settled  in  foreiOTi  monasteries  and  copied  the 
Scriptures  there  (cf.  Bede,  Hist.  Eccl.  iii.  8)  ;  and 
thus  the  text  which  had  been  first  modified  by 
British  characteristics,  was  further  modified  by 

*  See  P.  Corssen,  '  Die  Bibeln  des  Oassiodorius  und  der  Codex 
Amiatinus,'  in  the  Jahrhiicher  /.  prot.  Theologie,  Leipz.  1883 ; 
and  H.  J.  White,  "The  Codex  Amiatinus  and  ita  Birthplace,"  in 
Studia  Biblica  et  Eccletiastica,  vol.  ii.  p.  287 1. 


the  texts  of  the  countries  into  which  it  was  now 
brought.  We  owe  to  this  cause  the  large  number 
of  MSS,  mainly  of  the  9th  cent.,  which  were 
copied  in  Gaul  and  Switzerland  by  Irisli  scribes, 
and  present  a  strange  mixture  of  Irish  and  Con- 
tinental types,  both  in  text  and  handwriting. 

Meanwhile  in  Spain  a  different  family  of  MSS 
wns  growing  up.  Separated  off  from  the  rest  of 
Europe,  Spain,  like  Ireland,  clung  to  old  traditions 
and  habits  ;  and  the  Old  Latin  text  preserved  in 
the  (juotations  in  Priscillian  *  lives  on  in  the 
Spanish  Vulgate  Bibles.  But  the  Spanish  scribes 
were  fonder  of  interpolations,  and  of  enriching 
their  MSS  with  marginal  notes,  and  even  legendary 
additions,  than  the  Irish  ;  with  the  consequence, 
that  while  the  Irish  scribes  preserved  on  the  whole 
a  pure  type  of  text — yet  mainly  in  the  Gospels, 
for  they  rarely  copied  whole  Bibles — the  Spanish 
perpetuated  one  which  was  corrupt,  and  of  slight 
critical  value.  And  as  from  the  north  and  west 
the  Irish  texts  moved  into  France  with  the  mis- 
sionaries, so  from  the  south  the  Spanisli  texts 
gradually  crept  in  over  the  Pyrenees,  and  thus 
France  became  the  meeting  ground  of  the  two 
opposed  types. 

The  close  of  the  8th  cent,  witnessed  two  recen- 
sions of  the  Vulgate,  which,  so  far  as  we  can  see, 
were  founded  on  these  British  and  Spanish  MSS 
respectively;  and.  as  may  be  expected,  France  was 
the  country  in  which  these  recensions  were  made. 

Charles  the  Great  took  a  keen  interest  in  the 
sacred  text  and  its  purity  ;  he  was  anxious  to 
obtain  a  uniform  standard  Bible  for  Church  use, 
in  simple  and  intelligible  Latin,  without  sole- 
cisms.t  He  accordinglj%  in  the  year  797,  commis- 
sioned our  own  countryman  Alcuin,  who  was  then 
abbot  of  St.  Martin  at  Tours,  to  prepare  an 
emended  edition  of  the  Scriptures.  Alcuin  was 
familiar  with  Northumbrian  >ISS  from  his  youth  ; 
he  himself  was  of  Northumbrian  parentage,  and 
had  been  educated  at  York,  and  it  was  to  that 
city  that  he  sent  for  MSS  to  help  him  in  tlie  per- 
formance of  his  task.J  As  this  task  was  simply 
to  correct  the  Biblical  text  by  the  aid  of  the  best 
Latin  MSS  available,  without  regard  to  the  Greek, 
we  may  regard  it  as  fortunate  indeed  that  Alcuin's 
birth  and  education  should  have  made  him  natur- 
ally consult  just  the  libraries  where  the  purest 
texts  were  preserved.  By  Christmas  A.D.  801  the 
task  was  completed,  and  Alcuin  was  enabled  to 
present  Charles  with  a  cojiy  of  the  emended  Bible. 
Of  existing  Vulgate  MSS,  the  famous  Codex 
Vallicellianus  is  supposed  to  most  nearly  repre- 
sent Alcuin's  text  (see  p.  SS9). 

Simultaneously  with  this,  Theodulf,  bishop  of 
Orleans  (787-821),  was  imdertaking  a  revision, 
though  on  difierent  lines.  Theodulf  was  a  Visi- 
goth, and  was  born  near  Narbonne,  and  the 
Sjianish  traditions  would  therefore  be  familiar  and 
dear  to  him  ;  yet  he  did  not  simply  collect  and 
register  Spanish  readings.  He  apparently  knew 
and  studied  the  MSS  current  in  Languedoc  and 
the  south  of  France  ;  §  and,  collecting  together  all 
the  texts  he  knew  of,  he  worked  with  a  consider- 
able amount  of  prudence,  marking  the  passages  he 
considered  suspicious,  and  honestly  endeavouring 
to  arrive  at  a  pure  text.  Yet  his  work  was  un- 
even ;  and  his  habit  of  inscribing  in  the  margin  of 
his  Bible  the  variant  readings  he  had  collected, 
had   the  unfortunate  result  of    introducing  into 

*  Ed.  Schepps,  Corput  Script,  ecel.  Lot.  xvlU.,  Vienna,  1889 ; 
Bee  also  Berger,  p.  8. 

t  See  the  Capitulariea  in  Pertz,  Hon.  Germ.,  torn.  iii.  Leget, 
torn  i.  pp.  44,  65. 

J  See  Kp.  Ixxviii.  in  Jaffd,  Bibliotheca  rer.  Germ.,  tom.  vi. 
(t.e.  ilonum.  AtctUniana)  p.  346 ;  also  Ep.  Ixxil.  p.  831  ;  cf. 
Scrivener-Miller,  Introduction  (4th  ed.),  ii.  p.  59. 

§  Berger,  pp.  xiv  and  145  f.,  to  whom  the  present  writel 
owes  the  greater  part  of  this  section. 


VULGATE- 


VULGATE 


879 


Frnnce  a  whole  congeries  of  corrupt  readings  from 
Spain.  The  best  specimen  of  his  revision  is  the 
exquisite  Bible  at  Paris  numbered  Lat.  93S0  in  the 
Bibliotliique  Nationale.  Theodulf's  worlv  had  a 
dillerent  late  from  Alcuin's ;  it  was  tlie  private 
enterprise  of  a  scholar,  not  a  public  work  under- 
taken for  public  utility  at  the  instance  of  a 
monarch  :  and  so  its  influence  on  the  history  of 
the  lext  was  (fortunately)  slight,  whereas  Alcuin's 
was  great. 

The  very  favour  and  reputation  which  the 
Alcuiniau  recension  enjoj-ed,  proved  indeed  the 
cause  of  its  speedy  degeneracy.  The  demand  for 
Bibles  containing  it  became  so  large  that  the 
resources  of  the  great  writing  school  at  Tours 
must  have  been  severely  strained  ;  and  the  rapidity 
with  which  the  MSS  were  copied  and  multiplied 
proved  fatal  to  purity  of  text.  They  were  trans- 
Bcribed  hastily  and  from  various  exemplars,  good 
and  bad  ;  and  the  large  imposing  volumes  of 
'Caroline'  Bibles,  specimens  of  which  are  to  be 
found  in  almost  all  our  principal  libraries,  vary 
indefinitely,  from  a  nearlj-  pure  Alcuinian  text  to 
one  almost  worthless. 

Verj'  soon  therefore  after  Alcuin's  time  com- 
plaints of  the  corruption  of  the  text  meet  us  again, 
the  old  cry  is  re-echoed,  '  tot  exeniplaria  pa-ne  quot 
codices.'  Yet  effort  after  eflort  was  made  to  arrest 
the  decay.  Lanfranc,  archbishop  of  Canterbury, 
1069-89,  ia  related  by  his  biographer*  to  have 
worked  at  correcting  all  the  books  of  the  OT  and 
NT,  and  also  the  writings  of  the  Fathers,  '  ad 
orthodoxam  lidem';  and  to  have  encouraged  this 
study  among  his  pupils :  none  of  his  corrected 
MSS,  however,  are  known  to  survive.  We  are 
more  fortunate  in  possessing  the  results  of  the 
labour  of  other  critics.  Stephen  Harding,  third 
abbot  of  Citeaux  (about  the  middle  of  the  12th 
cent.),  mtde  a  similar  revision;  and  his  correcteil 
Bible,  in  four  volumes,  is  still  preserved  in  the 
public  lilirarj-  at  Dijon  (MS  No.  Q"").  He  purged 
the  text  of  a  large  number  of  interjiolations,  partly 
by  collatin<j'  good  Latin  and  Greek  MSS,  l)artly 
with  the  aid  of  some  Jewish  scliolars,  whom  he 
consulted  as  to  the  suspected  passages  in  the  OT  ; 
it  was  in  the  books  of  Samuel  and  Kings  that  the 
'  major  pars  erroris  iuveniebatur.'  t  His  example 
was  very  soon  followed  hy  the  Cardinal  Nicolaus 
Maniacoria,  whose  criticisms  are  preserved  in  a 
MS  at  Venice,  t 

With  the  latter  part  of  the  12tli  and  the  13th 
cents.,  however,  we  are  introduced  to  a  new  and 
more  organized  system  of  correction.  The  number 
of  Bibles  belonging  to  these  centuries,  especially 
the  13th,  testifies  to  the  very  large  scale  on  which 
they  must  liave  been  copied.  § 

Almost  every  library  possesses  some  of  these 
small  manuscript  Bibles,  written  in  double  columns 
on  thin  vellum,  generally  with  wonderful  regiilarity 
and  beautj'.  raris,  according  to  Koger  Bacon 
(Hody,  p.  420  f.),  was  the  city  where  the  greatest 
business  in  the  copying  and  selling  of  these  Bibles 
was  carried  on,  the  theologians  and  booksellers  com- 
bining to  produce  a  regular  and  lixed  type  of  text, 
which  he  calls  the  Exemplar  Pariiiense  ;  the  de- 
mand was  large  in  consequence  of  the  fame  of  the 
Paris  University  in  the  13th  cent.,  and  the  numbers 
of  students  who  Hocked  to  it.  The  Exemplar 
Parisiense,  however,  being  hastily  and  unscien- 
tifically prepared,  furnished  a  degenerate  type  of 

*  Milo  Crib-pinut,  a  monlc  of  Bcc ;  see  Migne,  Pat,  Lat.  ol. 
pp.  bb  and  101 1 

t  See  tIo<l> ,  ^.  418 ;  van  Ess,  p.  162  f. ;  Kaulen,  p.  246 :  and,  for 
tbia  section,  a  valuable  article  by  Uenifle,  *  Die  lldsa.  d.  Bibel- 
correctoricn  des  18  Jahrh.,'  in  the  Ardiio/.  Literar.  u.  Kirchen- 
gucfi.  drs  M.A.  Iv.,  Freiburg,  1S«8. 

J  Marciana,  Lat.  class,  x.  cod.  \7ii,  fol.  141 ;  see  Denlfle,  p.  270. 

(  See  KenyoD,  The  Bible  and  theAneimt  JUSS,  London,  1896, 
p.  ISO. 


text,  and  Bacon  com|)lain3  bitterly  of  it.*  Etforts 
were  now  made  to  emend  it  by  societies  of  scholars, 
who  united  tlieir  labours  and  researches  in  the 
Currectoria  Bihlivrum,  as  they  were  called.  Here 
the  authority  of  Latin  and  Greek  JISS  was  regis- 
tered in  cases  of  doubtful  reading,  the  testimony 
of  Fatliers  was  quoted,  even  variants  of  punctuation 
were  taken  account  of,  and  short  critical  notes 
were  added  stating  which  reading  was  to  be  pre- 
ferred. 

The  principal  corrfctoria  are  (1)  The  Correctorittm  Parisiense, 
prepared  probably  about  a.d.  Vl.'.i>  by  the  Paris  Tiieolo^ians :  t 
lliis  was  in  the  course  of  the  next  twenty  years  adopted  and 
enlarged  by  the  Dominicans  residing  at  Sens,  and  jios-ibly 
authorized  by  the  bishop  of  that  diocese  ;  and  it  is  sonu-liniea 
culled  the  Correctoriiim  Senonense  in  consequence  (possibly  to  be 
found  in  the  Paris  .MS,  IJ.N.  17).  Rot,'er  Bacon  had  a  poor  opinion 
of  the  Paris  correrlors  and  their  work  ;  whether  Franciscans  or 
Dominicans,  he  spe.iks  of  them  with  contempt ;  the  carelessness 
of  the  scribes  at  Paris  was  bad  enough,  but  the  ignorant  ci  irrectora 
made  things  worse  ;  '  quilibet  lector  in  ordine  minorum  corrigit 
ut  vult,  et  similiter  apud  prajdicatorcs,  et  eodem  modo  scolares 
(or  seculares?),  et  quilibet  mutat  quod  non  intelligit." 

(2)  The  Correctoriuin  Sort/onicum,  so  called  because  it  is  pre- 
served in  a  Sorbonne  MS,  I  varies  little  from  the  text  of  the 
Snwnense,  and  is  a  sort  of  collection  of  more  important  readings 
from  the  earlier  correoforul. 

(3)  The  Correctorium  of  ths  Dominicans,  prepared  under  the 
auspices  of  Hugo  of  St.  Caro,  about  1240,  the  final  corrected 
form  of  which  is  now  preserved  in  the  Bibl.  Nat.  at  Puris  (Lat. 
19,719-16,722) :  this,  like  the  emendation  of  Stephen  Harding, 
was  an  endeavour  not  so  much  to  recover  Jerome's  actual  te\t, 
as  to  obtain  a  good  working  text  of  the  Bible,  by  the  use  of 
Greek  or  Hebrew  MSS. §  The  Dominicans  thought  as  little  of 
the  Correctorium  Parisiense  as  did  Poger  Bacon,  and  they  dis- 
couraged the  members  of  their  order  from  using  it.  D 

(4)  The  Correctoiium  Vaticanum,  a  good  MS  of  which  is 
preserved  in  the  Vatican  Librarj'  (Lat.  34(36)  :  this  correct&rium 
was  the  work  of  the  Franciscans,  and  its  author  has  been  very 
reasonably  identified  by  Vercellone  with  a  'Sapienlissiraua 
homo,'  praised  by  Bacon,  who  he  says  had  spent  nearly  forty 
years  in  the  correction  and  exposition  of  the  text ;  DeniHe  con- 
cludes that  he  was  Willermus  de  Mara.ll  This  is  the  best  of  the 
curri'ctoria,  and  has  been  cited  by  Bp.  J.  W'ordsworth  in  his 
edition  of  the  Vulgate  New  Testament  as  cor.  uat.  ;  the  author 
is  not  only  a  good  Greek  and  Hebrew  scholar,  but  has  seriously 
act  himself  to  restore  the  Uieronymian  text. 

These  remedies  were  all  that  could  be  applied  to 
the  Vulgate  text  before  the  invention  of  printing ; 
and,  by  an  unfortunate  chance,  it  was  the  worst  of 
these  corrertoria,  the  Parisiense,  that  was  made 
use  of  \>y  Kobertus  Stephanus. 

With  the  literary  revival  of  the  15th  cent.,  a 
natural  desire  was  felt  for  a  more  satisfactory  text 
of  the  Bible,  as  well  as  for  a  multiplication  of 
copies  of  the  sacred  book  ;  the  great  humanist 
pope,  Nicholas  v., gave  a  commission  to  the  scholar 
JIanetti,  to  translate  the  NT  into  Latin  ;  the  same 
pope  otlered  a  reward  of  5000  crowns  for  a  copy 
of  St.  Matthew's  Gosjiel  in  its  original  Hebrew." 
Naturally,  some  of  the  first  and  principal  pro- 
ductions of  the  ]irinting-i)ress  were  Latin  Bibles. 
But  the  Bibles  that  were  taken  into  the  printer's 
worksliops,  and  from  which  the  early  editions  were 
printed,  would  be  the  small  and  handy  medieval 
MSS  described  above,  like  the  MSS  from  which 
Henricus  Stephanus  printed  the  Greek  NT,  and 
which  are  still  preserved  in  the  librarj' at  Basel; 
tliere  would  be  a  larger  supply  of  such  texts,  they 
would  lie  easier  to  print  from,  and  if  they  were 
spoilt  the  loss  was  slight,  while  few  peojile  would 
have  cared  to  entrust  one  of  the  great  Alcuinian 
Bibles,  or  still  earlier  pandects  like  the  Codex 
Amialinus,   to  the  rough  usage  of  the  printing- 

•  See  Martin,  '  Ijt  Vulgate  Latino  au  13°"  Bl6cle,  d'apr6s  R. 
Bacon'  in  the  i!fi(jt^on  (Louvain),  vol.  vii.  p.  88f. 

t  See  Hody,  p.  418;  It.  Simon,  tiistoire  critique  dc^  rersiont 
du  A'Tj  ch.  "ix.;  S.  Berger,  Quam  mititiani  Ujujucb  Uetn-aica 
ha'jitennt  Christiani  inedix  cevi  temporihus  in  Gallia,  Paria, 
1S'.'3,  p.  26  f. 

!  Now  numbered  15,564  (fol.  147  fT.)  in  the  Bibl.  Nat.  at  ParU. 

\  See  Denille,  p.  205 ;  Martcne,  Thcsaurut  nov.  anecd.,  torn. 
Iv.  1076. 

n  Berifcr,  Quam  notitiam,  etc.  p.  27. 

^  Ilodv,  p.  42yf. ;  Berger,  (jvam  nolitiam,  etc.  pp.  32-86. 
■"  Paul  F»br«,  La  Biiliolhtgw  Valicane,  pp.  89,  41  (Parl^ 
1896). 


880 


VULGATE 


VULGATE 


office.  Thus  the  early  printed  editions  of  the 
Vulgate  did  little  more  than  per[ietuate  tliu 
current  and  corrupt  form  of  text;  though  the 
copies  printed  l)y  l''roben  at  Basel  seem  to  have 
been  made  witli  care,  and  to  have  enjoyed  a 
European  reputation  for  accuracy  ;  *  the  present 
writer  has  found  his  Bible  of  1502,  with  the 
glossa  orillnaria,  preserve  a  number  of  good  read- 
ings, against  almost  all  other  early  editions. 

Space  forbids  our  enumerating  the  early  editions  of  the 
Vul;;rate  or  examining  their  history  ;  the  student  who  wisiies  to 
do  this,  may  be  referred  to  the  sections  on  the  subject  in  van 
Ess,  Kaulen,  Westcott,  to  Mr.  Copinger*8  work,  to  E.  Nestle's 
'  Lateinische  Bibeliibersetzungen  '  in  PRE^,  to  Le  Long,  Bihlio- 
theca  Sacra  (ed.  Masch,  177S-90),  vol.  ii.,  to  Vercellone,  Var. 
Led.  i.  pp.  xcvi-civ,  ii.  pp.  xxi-xxvi ;  and,  last,  not  least,  to 
the  llritish  Museum  *  Catalogue  of  printed  books  ;  Bible,  part  i.' 

The  following  editions  at  any  rate  should  be  borne  in  mind  : — 

1.  The  *  Mazarin '  Bible,  so  called  because  the  copy  which 

first  attracted  the  notice  of  Bibliographers  was  found 
in  the  library  of  Cardinal  Mazarin  ;  otlierwise  known  as 
the  '  42  line '  Bible  ;  issued  at  Mentz  between  1402  and 
1456,  in  two  vols. ;  the  printing  is  ascribed  to  Guten- 
berg, or  to  Peter  Schoeffer,  or  to  Johann  Fust.  Its 
rarity  and  beauty  combine  to  make  it  one  of  the  most 
valuable  books  in  the  world. 

2.  The  first  Bible  published  at  Rome  is  dated  1471,  tnd  was 

printed  by  Sweynheym  and  Pannartz,  2  vols.  fol.  ; 
reproduced  b\  Andr.  Frisner  and  Sensenschmit  at 
Nuremberg,  1475, 

3.  The  important  Venice  edition  by  Fr.  de  Hailbrun  and 

Nic.de  Frankfordia,  1475,  fol.  ;  the  text  is  ba-sed  largely 
on  the  Mazarin  Bible,  while  in  turn  many  of  the  later 
editions  are  copied  from  this. 

4.  The  famous  Complutensian  Polyglot  in  six  vols,   fol., 

1514  and  following  years ;  undertaken  by  Cardinal 
Xjmenes,  and  printed  at  his  expense.!  A  definite 
revision  of  the  Vulgate  text  was  undertaken  in  this 
edition,  partly  with  the  aid  of  ancient  MSS,  still  more 
from  the  Greek ;  but  with  only  moderate  success. 

6.  The  Vulgate  Bible  of  Robertus'Stephanus,  Paris,  1528, 

the  first  genuine  attempt  at  a  critical  edition  :  three 
good  MSS  were  collated  for  it.  This  was  followed  by 
a  larger  edition  on  the  same  lines,  for  which  seventeen 
MSS  were  collated,  four  of  which  can  be  still  identified  ; 
printed  1538-40,  reprinted  1.546.  This  editimi  is  prac- 
tically  the  foUTldation  of  the  ojficial  Roman  Vu^ate; 
it  is  cited  as  5"  in  Wordsworth's  edition. 
•,  Parallel  attempts  at  producing  a  critical  text  by  the  aid 
of  MSS  and  earlier  printed  Bibles  were  being  made 
by  the  Cathohc  Theologians  at  Louvain ;  and  John 
Uenteuius  in  his  fine  folio  edition  (Louvain,  1547,  and 
often  reprinted)  used  about  thirty-one  MSS  and  two 
printed  copies  ;  it  is  impossible  to  identify  them  now. 
This  edition  is  cited  as  J^  by  Wordsworth. 

7.  The  small  and  rare  octavo  edition  of  Robertus  Stephanus, 

dated  1555,  should  be  noticed,  as  it  is  the  first  Latin 

Bible  with  the  modem  verse  divisions. 
The  Sixtine  and  Clementine  editions  are  noticed  below. 
The  output  of  printed  Bibles  was  very  large  ;  during  the  first 
half  century  of  printing  some  124  editions  were  published  ;  Ver- 
cellone enumerates  179  editions  again  between  the  years  1471 
and  1599;  and,  in  addition  to  these,  numerous  scholars,  both 
Rora.  Cath.  and  Protestant,  undertook  independent  translations 
of  the  Bible  into  Latin,  as  well  as  revisions  of  the  Vulgate  text. 
Remembering  this,  we  may  be  able  to  realize  what  a  bewildering 
amount  of  differing  versions  were  now  current,  all  or  any  of 
which  might  appear  to  the  ordinan.-  reader  as  the  Editio  Vulijata. 
Such  new  translations  were  made  on  the  Rom.  Cath.  side  by 
Erasmus,  Johannes  Rudelius,  .\u^.  Steuchus  of  Gubbio,  Isidore 
Clarins,  Sanctes  Pagninus,  Cardmal  Caietan,  and  Job.  Bene- 
dictus ;  on  the  Protestant  side  by  Andr.  Osiander,  Conr.  Pel- 
licanus,  Sebastian  Mtmster,  Leo  Judas  (the  Zurich  version),  and 
Seb.  Castellio.t 

All  these  editions,  however,  even  on  the  Catholic 
side,  were  the  undertakings  of  private  individuals  ; 
and  neither  Church  nor  pope  had  given  to  any  one 
the  full  sanction  of  their  authority.  Yet  the 
Council  of  Trent,  in  its  fourth  sitting  (8th  April 
1.546),  h>ad  already  taken  care  to  pronounce  on  the 
Canon  of  Scripture,  and  to  enumerate  a  list  of  the 
books  it  helii  as  canonical  (see  below,  p.  885). 
Then,  in  the  '  Decretum  de  editione  et  usu  sacronim 
librorura,'  pleading  the  advantage  that  would 
accrue  to  the  Church  if,  out  of  the  many  current 
Latin  editions,  one  should  be  held  as  'authcntlca,' 

*  See  \V.  A.  Copinger,  Incunabula  Biblica,  London,  1S92. 

t  See  Kaulen,  p.  314 ;  Scrivener-Miller,  Introduction,  ii.  pp. 
176-181. 

!  See  Kaulen,  pp.  31S-878  ;  the  Ziirich  version  of  the  Psalms 
w.a»  used  in  the  daily  College  Service  at  Christ  Oburch,  Oxford, 
*s  long  as  that  ser^'ice  was  said  in  Latin. 


it  proceeded  to  declare  and  resolve,  '  ut  h;ec  ipsa 
vetus  et  vulgata  editio  quoe  longo  tot  steculorum 
us>i  in  ipsa  ecclesia  probata  est,  in  publicis  lecti- 
onibus,  etc.,  pro  atithcntica  habeatur,  et  ut  nemo 
illam  rujicere  quovis  prtetextu  audeat  vel  praesumat.' 
It  also  ordered  that  '  hfec  ipsa  vetus  et  vulgata 
editio  quam  emendatisslme  imprimatur.'  Two 
questions  naturally  suggest  themselves  as  to  this 
decree  :  what  is  the  real  meaning  of  '  authentica '  ? 
and  what  was  the  exact  tjpe  of  text,  the  '  vetus 
et  vulgata  editio,'  which  was  thus  designated  ? 

The  word  'authentica'  seems  to  have  been  used 
and  understood  not  only  in  the  sense  of  ojficial,* 
but  also  in  the  sense  of  accitrate — at  any  rate  to 
the  extent  that  there  were  no  mistakes  in  it  which 
might  lead  to  false  doctrine  in  faith  or  morals ;  it 
was  in  this  sense  that  scholars  like  Andreas  Vega 
and  Bellarmine  understood  the  word.t  No  verbal 
inspiration  or  infallible  accuracy  was  cl.aimcd  for 
it.  Scholars  might  read  their  Bibles  in  the  original 
tongues  if  they  wished ;  but  for  ordinary  use  it 
was  advisable  to  have  one  standard  edition  ('  auth- 
eiilicam  hac  mente  ut  cujus  fas  sit  earn  legere  sine 
periculo  ')  instead  of  a  number  of  independent  and 
unauthorized  translations. 

In  regard  to  the  second  question,  it  ia  difficult  to 
believe  that  the  Fathers  of  the  Council  had  in 
their  minds  any  one  particular  printed  or  manu- 
script copy  as  the  edition  '  longo  tot  s;ECulorum 
usu  in  ecclesia  probata ' ;  J  probably  they  were 
speaking  quite  generally,  and  meant  by  this  ex- 
pression the  Hleronymian  text,  which  they  believed 
to  have  been  fairly  transmitted  through  the  Middle 
Ages,  and  to  have  been  recognized  by  the  Cliurch 
and  used  in  her  services^as  against  the  bewilder- 
ing amount  of  new  translations  and  arbitrarily 
corrected  texts. 

Though  the  Council  thus  ordered  the  preparation 
of  an  otHcial  Vulgate,  no  immediate  action  was 
taken  by  the  Church.  John  Hentenius,  however, 
a  professor  at  Louvain,  undertook  the  preparation 
of  an  edition :  this  is  the  edition  mentioned  above 
(preced.  col..  No.  6),  and  often  reprinted.  The 
various  Hentenian  editions  remained  for  some 
years  as  the  standard  text  of  the  Roman  Church, 
but  were  still  private  publications. 

Yet  the  task  of  preparing  an  official  text  occu- 
pied the  minds  of  several  popes,  and  under  Plus  IV. 
and  Pius  v.  etl'orts  were  made  at  Kome  to  collect 
some  of  the  oldest  and  most  valuable  MSS  ob- 
tainable, and  a  commission  was  appointed  to 
carry  on  the  work.  It  was  not,  however,  con- 
tinuou.sly  pursued  till  the  pontificate  of  Sixtus  v. 
(1585-1590),  who  pushed  forward  the  revision  of 
the  text  with  great  zeal.  He  summoned  afresh 
the  committee  of  cardinals  and  scholars  under  the 
presidency  of  Cardinal  Caraffa,  entrusted  them 
with  the  task,  but  worked  himself  with  unwearied 
diligence  at  examining  the  readings  and  correcting 
the  proofs.§  Old  MSS  and  printed  editions  were 
consulted,  and,  where  the  authorities  were  divided, 
those  readings  were  favoured  which  agreed  with 
the  original  Greek  or  Hebrew.  The  result  was  the 
handsome  Sixtine  Edition  of  the  Vulgate,  which 
appeared  in  1590,  printed  at  the  Vatican  press,  and 
bearing  the  following  title — on  the  first  page : 
Biblui  I  Sacra  |  Vulgatce  |  Editionis  |  tribiis  tomis  | 
distijtcta  \  Romce  \  ex  Typugraphia  Apostolica  Vati- 
cana,  \  M-D-XC  |  ;  on  the  second  page :  Biblia 
Sacra  ]  Vulgatw  editionis  \  ad  \  concihi  Tridentini  \ 

"  So  Paul  Fabre,  La  Bibl.  Vaticane,  p.  56 ;  see  also  Kaulen 
pp.  401,  402. 

t  See  the  art.  on  the  Vulgate  in  Wetzer  and  Welte  s  Kirchen- 
lexicun ;  van  Ess,  pp.  197 1.,  245  n.  1,  408, 421 ;  the  same  author's 
Pragmatica  doct.  Cath.  Trid.  circa  Vulg.  dtcreti  tcnsum,  Sull. 
bach,  1816,  pp.  7,  24  ;  Kaulen,  p.  405  f. 

J  See  van  Ess,  p.  254  f. 

§  His  assistant,  Angelo  Rocca.  was  so  overworked  thai  !♦ 
grew  ill  and  nearly  died  ;  see  E.  Nestle,  £m  JuiiUdum  d.  iattim, 
Bibel,  Tubingen,  1S92,  p.  U. 


VULGATE 


VULGATE 


8S1 


prfescriptnm  emendnta  |  e<  |  a  Sixto  •y-P-il-  \  re- 
cogiiita  et  approbata.' 

Tliis  edition,  though  nominally  tribus  tomis  dis- 
tinctn,  is  really  in  one  volume,  and  the  Jiaging  is 
continuous  throughout;  it  is  cited  by  Wordsworth 
as  ^.  In  text  it  resembles  the  Stei)hens  edition 
of  1540  more  than  the  Hentenian  liibles ;  but  a 
new  system  of  verse-enumeration  was  introduced. 
The  inconvenience,  however,  of  a  system  which 
dillercd  from  one  which  was  almost  universal  in 
current  Latin  Bibles  no  doubt  led  to  this  being 
droiiped  in  the  Clementine  edition. 

'i  he  .Sixtine  edition  waa  prefaced  by  the  famous 
Bull  bejitinning  with  the  words:  '  Aeternus  ille.' 
This  Bull  recounted  the  care  with  which  the  pope, 
and  the  scholars  and  divines  assisting  him,  had 
worked  at  the  preparation  of  the  book — 'ita  tamen 
ut  Veterera  multis  in  licclesia  al)hinc  seculis  re- 
ceptam  lectionem  omnino  retinuerimua ' ;  it  waa 
decreed,  therefore,  that  this  edition  was  to  be 
considered  as  the  actual  Vulgate,  prescribed  and 
pronounced  authentic  by  tlie  Council  of  Trent, 
and  was  to  be  used  in  all  the  Churches  of  the 
Christian  world,  '  pro  vera,  legitima,  authentica, 
et  indulntata,  in  omnibus  publicis  privatisque 
disputationihus,  lectionibus,  pnedicationibus,  et 
explanationibus'  (here  the  Bull  goes  beyond  the 
decree  of  Trent,  wliieli  only  asserted  that  the 
Vulgate  was  to  be  considered  authentic  '  in  jiublicia 
lectionibus,  disputationihus,  pnedicationibus  et 
expositionibus').  No  future  edition  was  to  be 
published  without  the  express  permission  of  the 
Apostolic  See  ;  nor  was  anj'  one  to  print  a  private 
or  independent  edition  himself;  nor  was  the  .Six- 
tine  edition,  for  the  next  ten  years,  to  be  reprinted 
in  any  other  place  than  the  Vatican  ;  after  that 
time  editions  might  be  printed  elsewhere,  but 
must  always  be  carefully  collated  wiih  the  Sixtine 
edition,  'ne  miuiiiia  i^uidem  particula  mulata, 
addita,  vel  detracta,'  and  must  be  accomiianied 
with  the  otlicial  attestation  of  the  inquisitor  of 
the  province,  or  bishop  of  the  diocese,  that  this 
was  the  case ;  no  variant  readings,  scholia,  or 
glosses  were  to  be  printed  in  the  njargin.  Persons 
di.si)beying  these  orders,  whether  editors,  printers, 
or  boolvsellers,  were,  besides  the  loss  of  all  the 
books  and  other  temporal  puni>hments,  to  suller 
the  pen.'ilty  of  the  'greater  excommunication,' 
from  which  they  could  not  be  relieved,  '  nisi  in 
artieulo  mortis,' save  by  the  iJojie  himself.f 

Tlie  Sixtine  edition,  however,  met  the  fate  of 
most  revised  versions, — unpopularity  amongst  the 
clergy  and  laity  who  were  used  to  unrevised  texts, 
— anil  an  order  in  the  Bull  that  the  missals, 
breviaries,  et<!.,  were  to  be  corrected  from  the 
Sixtine  text,  was  especially  dista.steful.  Sixtus, 
too,  had  ollended  tlie  Jesuits  by  placing  one 
of  Bellarmine's  booksj  on  the  Index  Liljroruin 
pruliUiUurum ;  and  Bellarmine,  in  a  letter  to 
Clement  Vlll.,  spoke  very  strongly  in  condemna- 
tion of  the  Sixtine  edition.§    The  brief  popularity, 

•  So  the  Rritiah  Museum  and  Bodleian  copies.  See  van  Eaa, 
pp.  a).'i.  ZOUn.,  also  Nestle,  p.  20  ;  but  the  Oottingen  cony  ot 
the  liiltle,  dccordintf  to  van  b^  (whose  statement  Prof.  Nestle 
oonllnns),  ha) :  tiUdia  •  Sai:ra  I  Vuitjalx  |  editionU  |  Tribxis 
jomitt  \  iiistin'ta]  J<om<e  ]  ICx  'J j/ptxjrajihia  Apustnlv-a  Vali- 
cana  |  miix^;  |  .  rn  the  seound  p.i^re:  while  the  rtrst  page  has: 
ItUtlia  I  ^Sacra  \  tnjUgut(K  edilionU  |  Sixti  t/uiiUi  |  J'wit.  Max.  \ 
JurmL  TCJ:<iiuta  ot<)i«  edila.  Tlicrc  may  then  have  been  more 
than  one  edition  ot  the  Sixtine  Bible  ;  it,  loolis,  however,  as  it 
the  tlmt  title  hail  been  lost,  and  then  nilcd  up  by  the  hinder 
from  the  Clementine  edition. 

A  ret''iced  facsimile  of  the  Sixtine  titlo-poge  is  given  by  P. 
Fabrc,  La  Bibt.  Valicaiw,  p.  69. 

♦  This  Bull  is  printed  at  length  in  Thos.  James,  Brtlum 
Papalr.  I.ondon.  lUlK),  and  in  van  Kss,  p.  2tm  f.  ;  the  most  Im- 
portant parts  of  it  are  given  in  Kaulen,  1^).  44ft -4r)7. 

i  Df  dominin  I'ajxe  tlirfrlo,  ii»  which  liL-!Iarinine  main- 
tained not  the  direct,  but  only  the  indirect,  dominion  of  ihe 
pope  over  the  whole  world  ;  sio  Thf  J'opt  and  the  t'ouncU,  nv 
'Junus,'1869,  p.  at. 

i  '  .Vovit  beatitudo  vestro,  cui  se  totamque  accleslftui  dis- 
VOL.  IV.— 56 


therefore,  that  attended  it  is  easily  intelligible. 
Sixtus  died  in  August  151)0.  A  number  of  short- 
lived popes  succeeded  him;  ami  in  January 
15U2  Clement  VIII.  ascended  the  throne.  In  the 
same  year  all  copies  of  the  .Sixtine  edition  were 
called  in,  and  another  ollicial  edition  of  the 
Vulgate  was  published  from  the  Vatican  press, 
which  has  ever  since  been  known  as  the  Clemen- 
tine edition  (Wordsworth's  C).  This  edition  was 
accompanied  by  a  preface,  written  by  liellarniine,* 
which  asserted  that  while  the  former  edition  was 
being  printed  Sixtus  V.  had  himself  noticed  many 
inaccuracies  in  the  printing,  and  had  consequently 
resolved  to  recall  it  and  bring  out  a  new  edition  : 
he  had  been  prevented  by  death,  but  his  design 
waa  now  at  length  carried  out  by  his  successor, 
Clement  VIII. 

Vet  this  attempt  to  shift  the  blame  from  the 
editors  to  the  printers  cannot  be  justihed.  The 
number  of  misprints  in  the  Sixtine  edition  is 
extraordinarily  small  for  a  book  of  such  size,  and 
many  of  them  were  conected,  either  with  the  i)en 
or  by  pasting  a  small  slip  of  paper  with  the  rij;ht 
reading  over  the  misprint,  before  the  book  was 
publislied.t  The  real  reasons  for  the  recall  of  the 
edition  must  have  been  partly  personal  hostility  to 
Sixtus,  and  partly  a  conviction  that  the  book  was 
not  quite  a  worthy  representative  of  the  V^ulgate 
text.  The  Clementine  text,  indeed,  dill'ers  from 
it  in  some  3000  places,  and  is  a  return  to  the  type 
of  text  found  in  the  Hentenian  Bibles.  In  the 
critical  notes  to  the  Oxford  Vulgate  the  reader  will 
constantly  see  S  ^  witnessing  for  one  reading, 
while  J5  C  witness  for  another  ;  and  on  the  whole 
we  willingly  admit  that  the  Clementine  text  is 
critically  an  improvement  upon  the  Sixtine. 

The  dilliculty  of  escaping  the  penalties,  so  freely 
denounced  by  Sixtus  on  any  wlio  should  change 
the  least  particle  in  his  text,  was  surmounted  by 
the  bold  device  of  printing  his  name  instead 
of  Clement's  on  the  title-page,  and  so  presenting 
the  edition  to  the  world  as  a  Sixtine  edition. $  The 
title  is— on  the  first  page  :  liiltlia  |  Harra  |  Viil- 
(jittiK  I  Editiunis  I  Romm  |  Ex  Tiipnrjrnphia  Apus- 
tolica  Vatirana  |  M.D.XCII  |  ;  on  the  second:  Bihlia 
Unera  |  VulgatcB  Editionii  \  Sixti  Qtiinti  |  Punt. 
Max.  \jusnu  I  recofjnitaatqueedita  |  ;  the  engraved 
border  in  the  second  page  is  the  same  as  in  the 
Sixtine  edit  ion. § 

A  Bull  attached  to  the  Clementine  edition  for- 
bade any  copy  of  the  Vulgati^  to  be  iirinted  in 
future  without  being  lirst  collated  with  the  Vatican 
copy,  'ciijus  exeinjilaris  forma,  ne  minima  quidem 
particula  de  textu  mutata,  addita,  vel  ah  eo  de- 
tr.icta,  nisi  aliquod  occurrat,  quod  TyiiographicjB 
incuria'  manifeste  adscribendum  sit,  inviolabiliter 
observetur';  nor  were  even  variant  readings  to  be 
printed  in  the  margin. 

A  longer  life  has  been  granted  to  the  Clementine 
Vulgate  than  was  the  fate  of  the  Sixtine,  and  to 

crimini  conuniserit  Sixtus  v.,  dum  Juxta  propric  doctrinra 
sensus,  sacrorum  bibiiorum  emendationem  aj,'b'ressus  est;  neo 
satis  srio,  an  gravius  un<iuam  periculum  occurrerit';  see  van 
Kss,  p.  2IIII. 

*  Reprinted  in  James,  Betlnm  Papate,  and  in  van  Vms,  p. 
356  f. 

t  The  number  of  words  thus  pasted  over  is  not  at)0ve  forty  in 
the  whole  llible;  see  James,  ticUum  J'ajiatf,  and  van  Kan,  pp. 
;^31-3aa.  The  present  writer  has  discovered  only  two  uncorrected 
misprints  in  the  l'"our  (Jospels ;  ami,  itideed,  tiie  Sixtine  edition 
was  much  more  carefully  printed  than  the  (^'lementine. 

I  The  regular  form  of  title  in  a  modern  Vulgate  Bible — '  Biblta 
Sacra  Vulgatjo  Edilionis  Sixti  v,  I'ont.  Max.  Jussu  recognita  et 
dementis  viM.  aucloritate  e<lita' — cainiot  be  traced  at  present 
earlier  than  1001 ;  up  to  tliat  time  Sixtus  seems  to  have  appeared 
alone  upon  the  titlo-page ;  later,  Clement  occasionally  figures  l>y 
himself. 

g  James  (lieltuin  PapaU)  not  unnaturally  makes  capital  out 
of  the  differences  between  the  t\vo  papal  'editions;  c(.  .sixtus 
.\mama,  Anti -  ttarhantfi  liiblicut,  lib.  i.  c.  Ixx.,  Auistelod., 
102s.  Lists  of  the  variations  can  be  found  in  Janie«,  Amuma. 
Bukentop,  Lux  ds  Lua^  p.  319  f.,  and  Vercoltons. 


— f 


882 


VULGATE 


VULGATE 


the  present  day  tlie  edition  of  1592  remains  the 
standard  edition  of  tlie  KonKui  Church.*  The  stern 
prohibitions  of  the  Pai>al  Bull  have  succeeded  in 
providing  members  of  the  Koman  Church  through- 
out the  whole  world  with  a  fixed  and  unalterable 
text  of  the  Sacred  Scriptures,  but  at  the  cost  of 
suppressing  any  attempts  at  a  systematic  revision 
in  the  light  of  fuller  critical  knowledge  ;  and  by  a 
strange  paradox  the  attempts  that  have  been  made 
in  later  years  to  emend  the  Vulgate  text  have  come 
mainly  from  students  outside  the  communion  of 
the  Koman  Church.  Vallarsi,  indeed,  in  1734, 
printed  an  emended  text  with  such  MS  help  as  he 
was  able  to  obtain,  not,  however,  as  the  Bible,  but 
as  the  Divina  Bibliotheca  in  his  edition  of  the  works 
of  St.  Jerome.  To  Bentley's  proposed  critical 
•dition  of  the  New  Testament  t  the  Latin  Vulgate 
was  to  be  a  most  important  help  ;  it  being  his  tirni 
conviction  that  the  earliest  MSS  of  the  Vulgate 
would  be  found  to  agree  so  closel.^j^ith  the  earliest 
Greek  MSS  that  it  would  be  poaoible  'to  give  an 
edition  of  the  Greek  Testament  exactly  as  it  was 
in  the  best  exemplars  at  the  time  of  the  Council  of 
Nice,  so  that  there  shall  not  be  twenty  words,  nor 
even  particles  diHerence.'  Bentley  himself  collated 
a  number  of  English  Vulgate  MSS  for  this  purpose  j 
his  friend  John  Walker  collated  still  more  at 
Paris  in  1719  and  the  following  years,  and  obtained 
collations  of  several  Oxford  MSS  from  David 
Casley.  The  projected  edition,  however,  came  to 
nought,  partly  perhaps  in  consequence  of  Bentley's 
advancing  years,  partly  because  a  more  extended 
and  thorough  collation  of  Vulgate  MSS  did  not 
show  that  exact  agreement  with  the  earliest  Greek 
which  he  had  expected.  Bentley  died  in  1742,  and 
John  Walker  in  November  1741  ;  their  collations, 
however,  were  preserved,  and  have  proved  of  con- 
siderable value  to  the  Bishop  of  Salisbury  (Dr.  J. 
Vv'ordsworth)  in  his  critical  edition.  The  German 
scholar,  Dr.  P.  Corssen,  of  Berlin,  has  been  for 
some  time  engaged  in  research  with  a  view  to  a 
critical  edition  of  the  Vulgate  NT,  though  hitherto 
only  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians  has  been  pub- 
lislied.J  The  Bishop  of  Salisbury  in  conjunction 
with  the  present  writer  is  also  engaged  on  the 
same  task,  and  has  published  the  four  Gospels 
with  prolegomena;  the  work  is  still  in  progress. 

iii.  The  Natui;e  and  Method  of  Jerome's 
Revision. — Tlie  work  before  Jerome  in  his  edition 
of  the  two  Testaments  varied  so  widely  that  we 
must  treat  them  apart ;  and,  as  the  NT  was  pub- 
lished first,  it  may  be  advisable  to  consider  it 
before  the  OT. 

In  his  letter  to  Daiiiasus,  Jerome  describes 
plainly  enough  the  nature  of  his  revision  of  the 
four  Gospels.  He  revised  the  existing  Latin  ver- 
sions by  the  aid  of  tlie  oldest  Greek  M3S  he  could 
have  access  to,  making  alterations  only  where  the 
sense  of  the  passage  required  it.§ 

Such  a  revision  was  no  new  thing  in  the  history 
of  the  Latin  versions.  We  may  put  aside  the  ques- 
tion whether  what  is  called  the  European  family 
of  the  Old  Latin  texts  be  an  independent  version 
from  the  African  family,  or  an  early  revision  of  it 

*  Naturally  enough,  the  various  modern  editions  do  not  all  re- 
present the  Clementine  text  with  absolute  or  unth  equal  accuracy; 
the  stiiilent  who  wishes  to  possess  an  accurate  text  is  advised  to 
obtnin  ll:e  very  careful  edition  published  by  Vercellone  at  Rome 
in  isol,  and  to  note  what  the  editor  says  in  bis  preface  as  to  the 
few  occa.sion8  on  which  he  haa  deviated  from  the  Clementine 
edition  of  1592  :  for  the  NT  the  edition  of  Hetzenauer  (Oenipont* 
1899)  is  convenient  and,  so  far  aa  we  have  tested  it.  accurate. 

t  His  letter  to  Abp.  Wake  is  dated  April  1710,  the  proposals 
for  printing  were  issued  in  1720 ;  see  A.  A.  Ellis,  Bentleii  critica 
lacra  (Cambr.  18<J2),  p.  xii  t. 

I  Corssen,  Bpistula  ad  GcUatag,  Berlin,  Weidmann,  1885. 

\  Ep.  ad  Damajtum,  *Hiec  pnesens  prsefatiuncula  pollicctur 
quattuor  tantura  Evangelia  .  .  .  codicum  Grsecorum  emendata 
conlatione,  Bed  veterum.  Qu»  ne  multum  a  lectionis  Latinte 
consuetudine  discreparent,  ita  calAmo  temperavimus,  ut  his 
tantum  qus  sensum  videbanAur  mutars  correctifl,  reliqua 
maDer«  pateremur  ut  fuerant.' 


[see  L.\TIN  Versions].  But  there  can  be  no  doubt 
that  the  Italian  family,  represented  in  the  Gospels 
by  the  Codices.  Brixianua  (/)  and  Monacensis  (j), 
though  principally  by  the  former,  is  a  revision  of 
the  Eurupean  family,  partly  in  accordance  with  a 
dirt'erent  and  somewhat  later  type  of  Greek  MSS, 
partly  in  order  to  give  the  Latiiuty  a  smoother  and 
more  even  appearance  (Westcott  and  Hort,  Intro- 
duction, p.  79).  There  can  be  equally  little  doubt 
that  Jerome  knew  of,  and  valued,  this  revision,  and 
made  it  the  ba.se  of  his  own  :  a  short  exaiuination 
of  a  few  pages  of  the  Vulgate  with  the  main  Old 
Latin  MSS  wOl  convince  any  reader  that  Jertune's 
text  is  in  Latinity  much  closer  to  the  Codex 
Brixianus  than  to  any  other  Old  Latin  MS ;  Mr. 
Burkitt,  indeed,  maintains  that  /  is  really  a 
Vulgate  MS  with  Old  Latin  elements  that  have 
come  in  through  the  Gothic  (see  JThSt,  i.  129  ;  and 
Kaufmann  in  Ztschr.  f.  dcutsche  Philologie,  xxxiL 
305-335). 

If,  however,  we  compare  the  Greek  text  under- 
lying the  Vulgate  with  that  represented  hy  f  q,  we 
shall  see  that  for  the  Gospels  at  any  rate  it  is  a 
return  to  the  older  type  of  MS,  especially  N  and  B  ; 
the  tables  of  readings  which,  as  the  present  writer 
believes,  demonstrate  this,  may  be  studied  in  the 
EpHugus  to  the  Oxford  edition  of  the  Vulgate  ;  * 
but  if  the  student  will  examine  the  apparatus 
criticus  of  Tischendorf  s  Greek  Testament  the  same 
fact  will  be  disclosed  to  him  ;  time  after  time  t  the 
Vulgate  follows  the  older  Latin  and  older  Greek 
MS.S,  while/ and  q  agree  with  the  later.  Jerome, 
indeed,  twice  in  his  commentaries  quotes  with  re- 
spect the  readings  of  the  Greek  MSS  belonging  to 
Origen  ;  t  but  the  readings  in  one  case  agree  w  ith 
and  in  the  other  case  ditl'er  from  NB,  so  that  we 
cannot  conclude  much  as  to  the  nature  of  their  . 
text.  Other  points  have  been  noticed  by  scholars, 
connecting  Jerome  with  the  Sinaitic  and  Vatican 
texts ;  in  the  OT,  Mr.  Burkitt  g  says  that  Jerome 
'  in  his  translations  from  the  LXX  in  the  prophets 
is  generally  very  faithful  to  the  Vatican  text ' ;  and 
in  the  Acts  the  Codex  Amiatinus  has  70  capitula 
with  corresponding  section-numerals  in  the  text,  an 
enumeration  which  is  marked  in  the  margins  of  both 
N  and  B,  but  is  otherwise,  according  to  Hort,  un- 
known in  Greek  MSS  and  literature ;  ||  so  that 
there  is  a  cumulative  argument  of  considerable 
weight  on  behalf  of  Jerome's  having  made  use  of 
manuscripts  of  this  type. 

At  the  same  time  it  is  clear  that  he  must  have 
consulted  MSS  of  a  type  different  from  anything 
we  now  possess.  There  are  instances  in  the  Gos- 
pels, few  but  clear,  where  he  has  apparently  cor- 
rected the  reading  against  all  known  Greek 
authorities,  as  well  as  against  the  Old  Latin  ;  1 
and  in  some  of  his  commentaries  he  expressly 
mentions  and  discusses  readings  which  are  other- 
wise unknown  to  us.  The  most  striking  instances 
of  these  latter  are,  (1)  the  clause  at  the  end  of  St. 
Mark's  Gospel  (16")  quoted  in  the  contra  Pelag.  it 

•  Novum  trslammtum  .  .  .  lecundum  editimiem  S.  Bieromjnn 
.  .  .  recensuit  J.  Vi'ordvicorth,  in  operis  gocktatem  adsutnto  ii, 
J.  White.  Oxonii,  1SS9,  p.  600  f. 

t  e.g.  in  one  chapter  of  St.  Matthew,  6>-  *■  «■  "■  ''■ ». 

j  In  Mt  243'  '  in  GriBcis  et  maxinie  Adamantii  et  PierU 
exemplaribus' ;  in  Gal  3'  'in  exemplaribus  Adamantii'  (=Ori- 
genis). 

5  Rules  o/  Ti/conitu,  Cambr.  1894,  p.  cviii. 

II  Westcott  and  Hort,  Introduction,  p.  206  ;  Robinson,  Eutha- 
liana,  p.  42  f.,  Cambr.  1895;  Berger,  i/w(.  de  la  Vulgate,  eK. 
p.  357. 

II  e.g.  Mt  '27"  omission  of  vid*nta  or  ofpu^entet^niifti"" 
lifSroj  SOU);  jr.  g,  I,  who  Join  in  the  omission,  are  mixed  text» 
with  a  larire  Vulgate  element  in  them  ;  cf.  Mk  C"  omission  of 
oAiCTW  («iriA8«.)  with  I ;  10«  om.  in  vobitwith  I ;  Lk  »"  m 
eordibua  vestrii  against  the  Gr.  lU  rk  Zrct  vf^Siv  and  the  Old  Lat. ; 
22S5  erat  petrus  against  the  Gr.  ixilhr*  i  x.  and  the  Old  LaU 
tcdebat :  Jn  72*  KC  hierosoUjmis  with  c  ff,  apaiiist  the  Gr.  •» 
ri.  iVwsXouiiTi.  and  the  Old  Lat.  ;  837  fail  against  the  Gr. 
rttflM  and  the  Old  Lat.  semen ;  2116  aminos  meoi  against  Oil 
Or.  Ti  »f<i^«ii  I.UU  and  the  Old.  Lat.  oves  meat. 


VULGATE 


VULGATE 


883 


15,  ns  occurring  '  in  quibusdam  cxemplaribus  et 
maxinie  in  gr;vcis  codicibus'  ;'  (2)  the  discussion 
on  Jn  10'"  in  the  Commentary  on  Ezk  46,  wliere 
Jerome  says,  '  ct  Jiet  unum  atrium  et  U7ijis  pastor: 
hoc  enim  graece  aiSij  signiticat,  quod  latina  sim- 
plicitas  in  ovile  transtulit ' ;  all  existing  Greek 
MSS  read  not  au\-n  but  irolfivr)  here,  and  the  Old 
Latin  have  un ua  (or  vna)  grcx.  The  careful  student 
will  detect  other  cases  ;  but  enough  has  been  given, 
we  believe,  to  make  it  clear  that  Jerome's  Greek 
MSS  were  partly  of  the  tj-pe  so  highly  esteemed 
by  Hort,  partly  of  a  type  which  has  since  dis- 
appeared. 

The  other  books  of  the  NT  may  be  more  sum- 
marily considered.  In  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles, 
the  oldest  MSS,  such  as  .Vniiatinus  and  (less  fre- 
quently) Fuldensis,  agree  in  text  with  NB  and  AC  ;t 
in  the  Epistles,  the  revision  was  much  more  hasty, 
and  very  possibly  was  made  with  but  sliglit,  though 
with  some,  regard  to  the  Greek  ;  X  such  is  also  the 
opinion  of  Dr.  C.  R.  Gregory, §  who  says  of  the 
work  outside  the  Gospels,  '  Ceteri  vero  Novi  Testa- 
menti  libri  annis  ut  videtur  proximis  vel  etiam 
proximo  anno  recensiti  non  tam  diligenter  emen- 
dati  sunt;  recensio  horura  textus  nova  vix  pr;eliet 
novas  lectiones  e  Graico  ductas  sed  solas  elocu- 
tiones  politiores  atque  cultiores  Latinas.' 

The  textual  criticism  of  the  Vulgate  NT  is  one 
of  the  most  complicated  problems  facing  modern 
schohvrs.  The  reader  will,  liowever,  have  gained 
from  the  section  above  on  the  history  of  Jeromes 
translation  after  his  own  death,  a  fair  amount  of 
information  as  to  the  relative  value  of  different 
groups  of  M.SS.  The  vast  majority  of  13th  and 
14th  cent.  MSS  may  be  put  aside  as  comparatively 
worthless,  and  it  would  be  easy  enough  for  any 
student  to  compile — say  from  the  Oxford  edition 
of  tlie  Gospels — a  list  of  readings  the  presence  of 
which  in  a  late  MS  would  bo  quite  sutticicnt 
evidence  that  it  was  only  reproducing  the  current 
and  valueless  mediajval  type  of  text.  He  will 
also  have  learnt  the  interest  of  the  MSS  con- 
taining the  Theodullian  recension,  the  very  varied 
types  of  text  presented  by  the  Alcuinian  Bibles, 
and  the  mixture  of  Frendi  and  Irish  elements  in 
the  8th  anil  9tli  cent.  MSS,  written  in  France  by 
Irish  or  Nortliumbrian  scribes.  It  is  not  very 
hard,  therefore,  to  arrange  our  MSS  in  groups,  as 
has  been  done  in  the  lists  at  the  end  or  this 
article ;  but  to  go  further  and  apply  to  them  a 
genealogical  as  well  as  a  geograpiiical  classifica- 
tion is  what  the  present  writer  at  any  rate  has 
not  yet  found  himself  able  to  do.  Tlie  grounds  on 
which  in  the  Gospels  the  early  Northumbrian 
MSS  sudi  as  AAS\,  the  (ith  cent.  Fuldensis  (F), 
and  Ambrosianus  (M),  ami  tlio  lirst  hand  of  the 
Hubertianus  (H*),  have  been  preferred  to  other 
MSS,  have  been  set  forth  at  some  length  in  tlie 
Epiliiifus  to  the  Oxford  edition  of  the  Gospels  (pp. 
7U8-T32).  F  and  M  are  two  of  the  earliest  exist- 
ing Vulgate  MSS ;  and  the  whole  group  seems  to 
oiler  strong  internal  evidence  of  jireserving  a  pure 
type  of  text.  The  'MSS  forming  it  show  less 
trace  than  others  of  mixture  from  Old  Latin 
sources ;  they  agree  more  closely  with  the  Greek 
text  of  KBL,  luid  we  have  seen  it  to  be  probable  that 

*  It  runs :  *  Postca  quuno  occubuisscnt  unrlccira  appnniit 
eifl  icBus  ct  cxjirobravit  incrudulitateni  et  duritiam  ciinlis 
eoruin  quia  his  qui  vidcrant  euni  rcsur^'cntcin  non  crt-di. 
derunt.  Kt  ilti  satisfociebant  dicentet)  8<ec)iluin  istud  iniquiutia 
et  incredulitatis  subatantia  {Cod.  Vat,  aub  satana)  eat  quuj  lion 
sinil  per  imraundoa  spiritus  veram  dei  apprehendi  virtutcin. 
Idcirco  Jam  nunc  revela  Justitiaiu  tuaro' ;  cf.  Itcscb,  Agrajtha, 
p.  <r>0  (fu  V.  4). 

\  See  especially  Blaga,  Acta  Ajiotlolamm,  Gottingen,  1895, 

p.  a. 

t  I'or  the  Romans  see  Sanday-Ueadlam  (Intemalional  Critical 
CommerUarri),  p.  Ixvl 

}  In  the  third  volume  (Prolegomena)  to  TiacheDdorr*  Somun 
Tut.  Gract,  ed.  8,  Leipz.  1804,  p.  u;i. 


.Jerome  partly  modelled  his  revision  on  MSS  of 
this  type  ;  tin  y  are  free  from  the  numerous  small 
additions,  amijlilications,  conllations,  etc.  which 
are  commonly  found  in  Later  MSS,  and  may  fairly 
be  regarded  as  the  marks  of  a  degenerate  text 
even  when  they  are  found  in  an  early  MS,  such 
as  the  Harley  Gospels  (Z).  Yet  all  the  MSS  of 
the  Vulgate  NT  are  so  spoiled  by  mixture,  that  it 
is  impos-sible  to  select  one  MS  or  group  and  follow 
its  readings  throughout.  Thoie  are  cases  both  in 
the  Gospels  and  in  the  Acts  where  one  group  must 
be  clearly  followed  in  one  verse  and  as  clearly 
rejected  in  the  next,  there  are  others  where  an 
obvious  clerical  error,  or  a  conflate  reading,  has 
been  perpetuated  in  every  known  Vulgate  MS  ;  no 
MS  or  group  seems  to  preserve  a  consistent  type 
of  text.  Still  there  is  here  an  excellent  oppor- 
tunity for  the  student ;  and  it  may  be  possible  in 
time  to  do  for  the  MSS  of  the  Vulg.ate  something 
analogous  to  what  Wcstcott  and  Hort  have  done 
for  the  MSS  of  the  Greek  text. 

Jerome's  work  on  the  OT  stands  on  different 
ground  from  his  work  on  the  NT  ;  here  it  was  not 
an  emended  translation  in  the  light  of  better  MS 
authority,  but  a  completely  new  version  made 
direct  from  the  Ilelnew,  where  the  text  was,  as 
he  thought,  in  a  fairly  even  and  satisfactory  con- 
dition, comjiaied  with  the  confusion  shown  by  the 
LXX.  Jerome  tloes  not  seem  to  have  imagined 
the  possibilit}'  of  variation  to  any  serious  extent 
in  the  Hebrew  MSS,  though  he  tried  to  procure  the 
best  that  were  attainable  (Ep.  xxxvi.  1,  ad  Dnma- 
sum ;  Fr(i:f.  in  Faralip.  iuxta  LXX).  He  talks 
in  general  terms  of  the  '  Hebrew,'  the  '  Hebraica 
Veritas,'  etc.  ;  nor  does  the  text  used  by  him  seem 
to  ditl'er  largely  from  the  Massoretic  text  which 
has  been  handed  down  to  the  present  day.*  Yet 
it  is  not  quite  identical ;  t  and  as  it  is  practically 
certain  that  the  copies  he  used  diii  not  possess  the 
vowel  points,  it  is  but  natural  that  his  interpreta- 
tion of  the  consonants  should  occasionally  diller 
from  that  adopted  by  the  Massoretes. 

Jerome's  version,  again,  was  not  the  first  that  had 
been  made  direct  from  the  Hebrew  ;  he  could  con- 
sult not  only  the  LXX,  but  also  the  indeiiendent 
translations  of  Acjuila,  Symnuuluis,  and  Theodo- 
tion  ;  and  indeed  in  the  Bk.  of  Daniel  the  version 
of  Theodotion  was  that  generally  used  in  the 
Church.  J 

His  method  of  translating  the  OT  he  describes 
to  us  in  the  preface  to  his  Comment,  in  Ecclcsi- 
nsten  :  though  he  is  only  referring  to  that  book  in 
his  preface,  there  is  no  doubt  that  he  is  describing 
his  general  practice.  He  worked  with  the  Hebrew 
text,  translating  it  directly,  according  to  the  best 
of  his  power  and  knowledge,  with  such  help  as  he 
could  obtain  from  the  Jewish  Kabbis  and  their 
traditional  methods  of  interpretation  ;  he  tried  to 
be  conservative,  .and  to  keep  to  the  lines  marked 
out  by  the  LXX  ('de  Hebr;eo  transferens  magis 

•  Kaulen,  p.  10(5 ;  Wcstcott,  p.  1714 ;  the  latter  saj-a  ot 
Jerome's  work  that  it  is  '  a  remarkable  monument  of  the  sub- 
stantial identity  of  the  Hebrew  text  of  the  4th  cent,  with  the 
present  Masoretic  text*;  and  with  rei^urd  to  the  Bks.  of 
bomucl,  Wellhausen  speaks  even  more  stronjj^ty  in  the  same 
direction,  Der  Text  d.  Bdctier  SamuelU,  Gottingen,  1872,  p.  3, 
Anm.  2. 

t  Nowack,  Die  Bcdeutung  dea  Uier.  fiir  die  alttest.  Kritik, 
Gottingen,  1875,  asserts  that  the  identity  is  nut  complete,  and 
that  in  many  aises  Jerome  follows  the  Greek  tranylators,  or 
Chaldee,  or  Syrinc,  whilst  in  some  variant  readings  he  stands 
quite  alone;  similarly  II.  P.  Smith.  'The  Value  of  the  Vulgate 
Old  Test,  for  Textual  Criticism,'  in  the  Preebi/tcrian  aiui  He- 
/ontu'd  Review,  April  1801,  notes  that  in  a  number  of  cases 
Jerome's  text  varies  from  that  of  the  Massoretes,  and  even 
where  it  simply  i*hoW8  agreement  with  the  Greek  it  is  not 
always  dependent  nj>on  It ;  again,  *  it  has  in  a  number  of  cases 
readings  agreeing  with  the  8yriac  where  the  derivation  of  one 
from  the  other  is  unlikely ;  it  shows  besides  a  number  of 
variants  in  whieh  it  stands  alone.' 

1  Prc^.  in  Dan.:  '  l>anielem  i>rophe(am  Juxta  LXX  inter 
prctes  Domini  Salvatoris  ecclesiai  nun  legunt,  utentes  Tbeodo- 
tionis  editione  ;  et  cur  hoc  acciderit  nescio.' 


884 


VULGATE 


VULGATE 


me  LXX  interpretum  consuetudini  coaptavi,  in 
his  dumtaxat  qii;e  non  niultum  ab  Hebraicis  dis- 
crepabant ') ;  he  did  not  disdain  to  incorporate  parts 
of  tlie  Old  Lat.  versions,*  and  he  also  made  use  of 
the  translations  of  Aquila,  Symmachus,  and  Tlieo- 
iotion,  so  as  to  observe  the  mean  between  excessive 
novelty  and  slavish  adherence  to  ancient  errors  ;t 
and  his  aim  in  translating  was  to  represent  the 
sense  of  the  original  rather  than  strain  after  literal 
exactness  (Ep.  Ivii.  ad  Pammaihium ;  cvi.  ad 
Suniam  et  ]<retelam).  Such,  at  least,  was  his 
general  practice:  'non  verbum  e  verbo,  sed  sensum 
exprimere  de  sensu.'  He  professes  to  be  more 
careful  in  the  Holy  Scriptures  '  ubi  et  verboriim 
ordo  mj'sterium  est,'  and  where  'in  verbis  sin^;ulis 
multiplices  latent  intelligentiae' {£■/>.  liii.  ad  Paul- 
inum) ;  yet  he  shows  with  such  obvious  satisfaction 
that  the  apostles  and  evangelists  in  their  inter- 
pretation of  the  OT  sought  after  'sensum  .  .  . 
non  verba,  nee  magnopere  de  ordine  sermonibusque 
curasse  diim  intellectui  res  pateret,'  that  we  may 
well  imagine  that  in  his  own  translation,  even  of 
the  Bible,  lie  would  be  much  less  literal  than  he 
thought  he  was.J  An  examination  of  his  transla- 
tion, such  as  has  been  made  by  Kaulen  (p.  169  f.) 
and  No«ack,  verifies  this  expectation.  It  is  the 
work  of  a  good,  though  by  no  means  immaculate 
or  scientific  Hebrew  scholar,  aiming  at  the  sense 
rather  than  at  the  words  of  the  original.  Occasion- 
ally in  translating  he  shows  traces  of  the  influence 
of  Kabbinical  tradition  ;§  occasionally,  on  the  other 
hand,  he  inserts  a  Messianic  meaning  in  the  trans- 
lation «  here  the  original  does  not  bear  it ;  l|  and  he 
is  fond  of  interpreting  Hebrew  proper  names,  there- 
by reversing  the  practice  of  the  LXX  translators, 
who  frequently  solve  the  difficulty  of  a  hard 
Hebrew  word  by  simply  transliterating  it  in  Greek 
characters ;  a  few  amplifications  are  found  where 
the  verse  seems  to  need  them  ;1I  in  other  cases  the 
pleonastic  Hebrew  is  compressed  in  the  Latin.** 

The  translation,  too,  varies  in  the  ditterent  books ; 
some  were  translated  with  the  utmost  care,  some 
were  finished  in  extraordinarily  short  tijue.  In 
the  Friiluqus  Galeatus  Jerome  speaks  of  the  dili- 
gence he  iiad  bestowed  on  the  Bks.  of  Samuel  and 
Kings,  It  and  Kaulen  ranks  his  translation  of  the 
historical  books  as  his  best  work,Jt  and  after  them 
Job  and  the  prophetic  books.  Proverbs,  Ecclesi- 
astes,  and  Song  of  Songs  are  carefully  rendered, 
notwithstanding  the  short  time  that  was  directly 
spent  on  them  ;  but  Judith  and  Tobit,  which  were 
translated  in  great  haste,  show  more  dependence 
on  the  Old  Latin  version.  In  spite  of  this  occasional 
uneveuncss,  then,  we  may  confidently  assert  that 
the  general  standard  of  the  translation  is  a  very 
high  one ;  and  we  may  gladly  echo  the  words  of 
the  'translators  to  the  reailer'  in  our  own  AV, 
that  Jerome  performed  his  task  '  with  that  evidence 
of  great  learning,  judgment,  industry,  and  faithful- 

•  G.  Hober^,  De  S.  Hiennymi  rations  interpretandi.  Bonn, 
18S8,  p.  MU. 

t  See  Nowack's  essav,  quoted  above,  and  Driver,  Notes  on 
the  Ileh.  T'-zt  0/  Ihe  Bks.  of  Sam.  (Oxford,  1890),  p.  liv  f.,  who 
notices  that  Jerome  was  especially  prone  to  be  guided  by 
byinmachus,  and  that,  where  the  Viiljfate  exhibits  a  rendering 
which  deviates  alilte  from  the  Hebrew  text  and  from  the  LXX, 
tlie  clue  to  its  origin  will  generally  be  found  in  one  or  other  of 
the  Greek  translations,  especially  in  that  of  Symmachus.  In 
the  I*refaoe  to  the  Comment,  in  Eccleviasten,  Jerome  frankly 
says,  'interdura  Aquilu)  quoque  et  S>-nimachi  et  Tbeodotionis 
recordatus  sum.' 

I  See  the  passages  collected  in  Hoberg,  p.  4. 

§  t.ij.  On  .iSS,  Jos  Hii,  Nell  9'  (Kaulen,  p.  173). 


li  e.q.  Is  lli»  101,  Uab  »i  (Kaulen,  p.  174). 

"  On  313i  «  4022,  Lv  163,  Jos  Si",  Jg  8"  (p.  177) ;  see  Hoberg, 


1 
p.  21 

"On  3513  39i»  400  4128,  Ex  40»-23 ;  aee  also  Nowack,  pp.  18-21 ; 
Hoberg,  p.  19. 

ft  'Lege  ergo  primum  Samuel  et  Malacbim  nieum ;  meuni, 
inquam,  meum.  Quidquid  enim  crebrius  vertendo  et  emen* 
dando  sollicitius  et  didi<:iir.u9  et  tenenius  nostrum  est.' 

t!  Kaulen,  p.  179;  Uagen  {Sprachliche  ErtrterungemurYulg. 
p.  8)  praisea  also  the  I'eutateucb  highly. 


ness,  that  he  hath  for  ever  bound  the  Church  nnt« 
him  in  a  debt  of  special  remembrance  and  thank 
fulness.' 

It  must  be  remembered  that  the  Latinity  of  tha 
Vulgate  is  thus  partly  that  of  the  Old  Latin  ;  and, 
even  where  Jerome  was  translating  anew,  he  prob- 
ably modelled  his  style,  perhaps  unconsciously,  on 
that  of  the  older  versions.  The  Latin  of  those 
versions  was  the  Latin  of  ordinary  popular  con- 
versation, the  old  'lingua  rustica'  with  all  ita 
archaic  characteristics,  spoken  not  simply  by  the 
lower  classes,  but  generally,  even  in  jftome  and 
amongst  the  higher  classes ;  difi'erent,  of  course, 
from  the  classical  Latin  of  literature,  but  at  the 
same  time  not  simply  confined  to  Africa  in  its 
popular  use,  as  some  writers  seem  to  imagine. 
Nor,  again,  do  we  get  this  Latin  in  its  natural 
form ;  anxiety  to  reproduce  the  original  as  accur- 
ately as  possible  has  led  to  the  introduction  and 
preservation  of  numerous  Graecisms  and  Hebraisms 
in  the  translation  ;  and  we  hardly  ought  to  deplore 
this  when  we  reflect  how  this  literalism  has  re- 
vealed to  the  Western  world  the  matchless  beauty 
and  power  of  Hebrew.  The  Latin  of  the  Vulgate 
is  therefore  at  once  artificial  and  archaic,  and  yet 
forcible,  clear,  and  majestic* 

The  textual  criticism  of  the  Vulgate  OT  is,  alas ! 
stUI  in  its  infancy.  Heyse  and  Tischendorf  pub- 
lislied  in  1873  a  collation  of  the  Codex  Amiatinus 
throuohout  the  OT  j  t  and  Vercellone  has  fur- 
nishedf  valuable  material  for  the  Pentateuch  and 
historical  books  in  the  mass  of  variant  readings 
collected  and  arranged  in  his  two  volumes  of 
'  Varia;  lectiones.'J  H.  P.  Smith  §  has  devoted 
some  attention  to  examining  and  classifying  the 
MSS  whose  readings  are  there  quoted,  with  the 
result  of  awarding  a  higher  place  to  the  Codex 
Amiatinus  in  the  OT  than  even  in  the  NT  :  he 
maintains  that  for  a  recovery  of  Jerome's  original 
it  is  of  the  first  importance,  and  that  any  critical 
edition  would  have  to  be  constructed  on  the  basis 
of  the  Amiatine  MS  and  other  MSS  belonging  to 
the  same  group;  P.  Thielmann  has  collected  a 
useful  amount  of  material  for  Wisdom,  Siiach, 
etc.  (see  Literature,  p.  890),  and  is  preparing  a 
critical  edition  of  those  liooks. 

iv.  History  of  the  Name.  II— For  us,  as  to  the 
Fathers  at  the  Council  of  Trent,  the  term  vulqnta 
— properly  mtlgata  bibliorum  editio,  vulgata  bibli- 
oritm  interpretatio,  biblia  vulgata — has  one  mean- 
ing, and  one  meaning  only  ;  it  means  the  common 
authorized  Latin  version  of  the  Holy  Scriptures, 
translated  or  edited  by  Jerome.  Yet  the  expres- 
sion is  older  than  Jerome's  time,  and  he  himself 
frequently  employs  it  of  an  edition  already  in  use. 
It  is  used  primarily  in  early  Latin  writers  not  of  a 
Latin  version  at  all,  but  of  the  Greek  version  of 
the  Septuagint,ir  and  so  is  equivalent  to  the  term 
(C01P7)  lKSo<rti,  by  which  th.it  translation  was  known  ;** 
as,  however,  the  LXX  was  already  familiar  to 
Western  Europe  in  the  various  Old  Latin  trans- 
lations which  had  been  made  from  it,  the  term 
editio  mtlgatawoald  naturally  be  applied  to  these; 
though,  as  Westcott  says,  there  does  not  seem  to 

•  See  Ilagen,  Spr.  Erorterunaen  zur  V\Ug.  p.  6 ;  Kaulen,  pp. 
137,  also  his  llaudbuch  zur  Vuuj.  p.  6. 

t  Biblia  Sacra  Latina  vet.  Tentam^nti  llieronymo  interprets 
.  .  .  ed.  Heyse  et  Tischendorf.  Lipsite,  1373. 

t  Varia  icctimies  vnlgatce  lat.  Bibl.  editUtnis^  torn.  Wk  Rom», 
1800-1S04.  5 

§  'The  Value  of  the  Vulg.  Old  Te.«t.  for  Textual  Critfcism,"  in 
Fret,  and  lief.  Hcc,  April  1S9I,  p.  m  t. 

II  All  that  can  be  said  on  this  question  seems  to  be  collected 
in  van  Ess,  p.  24  f.;  Kaulen,  p.  17  f.;  and  Westcott,  p.  1089. 

^  See  the  passages  in  \an  Ess,  Kaulen,  and  Westcott; 
especially  Jerome,  Vomm.  in  Isa.  Ixv.  20.  'Hoc  juxta  LXX 
inlerpretes  diximus,  quorum  editio  toto  orbe  vulgata  est ' ; 
and,  in  any  Vulgate  Bible,  the  notes  after  Est  103  ni  i25  ;4l9  ; 
also  Augustine,  De  Civ.  Dei,  1.  xvi.  c.  10,  *  Fiunt  anni  a  diluvio 
usque  ad  Abraham  mlxxii.  secundum  vulgatam  editionem  ho« 
est  interpretum  Septuaginta.* 

*'  See  the  quotations  from  Crigen  and  Basil  in  van  Ess,  p  26 


VULGATE 


VULGATE 


8S5 


be  any  instance  in  the  age  of  Jerome  of  the 
application  of  the  term  to  the  Latin  version 
without  regard  to  it8  derivation  from  tlie  Greek.* 

From  being  applied  to  the  current  version  of  the 
LXX,  vidgata  ediiio  would  be  opposed  to  tlie 
emended  text  of  Origin's  Hexapla,\  and  so  the 
term  acquires  the  meaning  of  a  corrupt  as  ojjposed 
to  an  emended  text ;  and  in  this  sense  Jerome 
uses  the  term  interchangeably  with  vcttts,  antiqua 
editio,X  the  very  term  with  which  it  is  now  so 
sharply  contrasted. 

\\'lien  Jerome  is  referring  to  Latin  versions  of 
the  Scriptures,  he  rather  uses  the  terms  in  latino, 
iatinus  interpres,  apud  latinos  ;  and,  when  speak- 
ing of  his  own,  nos,  nostra  interprctntio.  As  his 
translation  gradually  superseded  the  earlier  ver- 
sions made  from  the  LXX,  it  was  inevitable  that 
the  expression  which  had  been  applieil  to  them 
would  ultimately  pass  over  to  him ;  but  the  pro- 
cess was  a  slow  one.  The  instances  given  in  van 
Ess,  and  more  fully  in  Hody,§  show  that  even 
down  to  the  Middle  Ages  vulgata  editio  was  at  any 
rate  occasionally  used  to  designate  the  LXX ;  while 
the  usual  terms  by  which  Jerome's  translation  was 
known  were  translatio  emendatior  [rercn.t,  nova, 
posterior,  Hcbraica],  translatio  quam  tenet  {nuam 
recipit],  Itomana  Ecclesia,  etc.,  and  most  or  all, 
from  Bede's  time  onward,  editio  nostra,  codices 
nostri.  Roger  Bacon  ||  seems  to  he  the  first  scholar 
who  uses  the  term  Vulgata  in  its  modem  sense, 
though  he  also  applies  it  frequently  to  the 
Septuagint. 

V.  Main  Differences  between  the  Latin 
AND  the  Enollsh  Bible.— It  may  be  asked,  in 
what  way  does  the  Vulgate  Bible  differ  from  our 
own  Autliorized  Version  ?  Putting  aside  varia- 
tions of  rendering  and  reading,  the  diflerences  are 
in  the  number  of  books  or  portions  of  books 
received  into  the  Canon,  the  order  of  books,  and 
the  numbering  and  division  of  the  chapters. 
These  diti'erences  are  entirely  in  the  OT  ;  in  the 
NT  the  order  of  books  is  the  same  (though  the 
Council  of  Trent  ^  in  its  list  of  books  places  the 
Ep.  of  James  after  those  of  .John),  and  the  '  Ep.  to 
the  Laodiceans,'**  though  found  in  many  Vulgate 
MSS,  is  absent  from  the  best,  and  from  tlie  official 
printed  text.  Many  MSS  indeed  vary  in  the  order 
of  the  books,  and  the  Cath.  Epp.  often  immedi- 
ately succeed  the  Acts  ;  but  this  order  has  not 
been  adopted  in  the  Clementine  text. 

The  books  in  the  OT  are  :  Genesis,  Exodns, 
Leviticus,  Numeri,  Deuteronomium,  Josuae,  Judi- 
cum,  Ruth,Quatuor  Kegum.Duo  Paralipomenon !  i.  c. 

*  Jerome,  for  instance,  in  quoting  the  text  of  the  LX.X, 
ocCMionally  tranalatea  ita  reading  into  Latin  instead  of  wrilin;? 
It  down  in  the  Greel(,  and  here  too  speakB  of  it  a-s  editio  ru'- 

fata  ;  hut  it  is  the  Qreel£  reading,  not  the  Latin  translation  of 
I,  which  he  is  referring  to :  Bee  especially  Comm.  in  Matt. 
xiii.  S."),  '  I^gl  in  nonnullis  codicibus  .  .  .  m  eo  loco  ubi  nos 
posuimus  et  vulgata  habet  editio  ut  impleretur  miod  dictum  eit 
per  praphetam  dicentem,  ibi  scriptum,  per  Ittaiam  prophetnm 
dicentem ;  and  Comm.  in  Gal.  v.  24,  *  kt  hoc  ita  ^monitunl 
sit,  si  vulgatam  editioncm  st-quimur  legentes  :  Qui  autcm  trunt 
Chriiti  eamem  crucifixerttnt  cum  vitiiJi  et  concupiscent ii»,'  but 
■e«  the  whole  passage.  Van  Kss  (p.  41)  seems  to  be  quite  right 
in  maintaining  that  even  here  Jerome  means  the  Greek  by  the 
editio  vuigata. 
t  Jerome,  Ep.  crl  t. 

t  Comm.  in  Otee  ilil.  4,  'Qna  ...  In  antlqns  qaoqne 
editione  LXX  non  leguntur';  Ep.  xlix.  (ad  Pammaen.)  'Vet«rt'ra 
editionem  (libri  Job)  nostn»  translation!  comparu' ;  Comm.  in 
J$a.  prirj,  ad  cap.  Uv.;  pro/,  in  Jotue,  etc. 

I  P.  402  t. 

II  See  Uody,  pp.  420,  420,  *  Texto*  eat  pro  majorl  parte  cor- 
ruptus  horribihter  in  exemplari  vulgato,  hoc  est  Parititnn : 
by  thb  he  seems  to  mean  the  type  of  text  which  waa  produced 
and  sold  in  Paris ;  elsewhere  (p.  425)  he  uses  rulgata  of  the 
L.XX,  or  its  Latin  representative,  as  opposed  to  Jerome's  trans- 
lation, 'Quare  cum  translatio  leronyml  evacuavit  trauHla- 
tionem  vulgatam  LXX  et  similiter  Theodolionis,  ut  certuui  est 
omnibus,  oportct  quod  Uiblia  qua  utimur  sit  tianslatlo  ler- 
onj-mi,'  etc 

11  Sesa.  iv.  Vecretum  de  Canonicit  Scripturis. 
**  For  this  apocryphal  letter  sec  Lightfoot,  Colouiaiu,  pp. 
t74-  SOO ;  also  Westcott,  Canon  <(/  the  XT,  App.  E,  p.  WO. 


f, 


Chronicles),  Esdroe  primus  et  secundus,  qui  dicitni 
Neliemias,  Tobias,  Judith,  Esther,  Job,  Psalterium 
Davidicum  centum  quinquaginta  Psalmonun, 
Parabolae,  Ecclesiastes,  Canttcum  Canticorum, 
Sapientia,  Ecclesiasticiis,  Isaias,  Jeremias  cum 
B'track  (Lamentations  is  included  under  Jere- 
miah in  the  Tridentine  list,  though  printed  separ- 
ately as  '  Threni '  in  tlie  Bihle),  Ezechiel,  Daniel ; 
duodecim  Prophetae  minores,  vd  est :  Osea,  Joel, 
Amos,  Abdias  (i.e.  Obadiah),  Jonas,  Michaeas, 
Nahum,  Habacuc,  Sonhonias  (i.e.  Zephaniah), 
Aggiinis  (i.e.  Ilagg.ai),  Zacliarias,  Malachias  ;  Duo 
Mac/utbworum,  primus  et  secundus.  The  order  of 
books,  it  will  be  seen,  is  the  same  as  in  an  English 
Bible,  except  that  the  books  which  we  count 
apocryphal  (and  which  are  printed  in  the  above 
list  in  italics)  are  with  us  placed  at  the  end  ;  the 
sequence  of  books,  however,  is  the  same  in  our 
'  Apocrypha,'  save  that  we  insert  the  two  addi- 
tional books  of  Esdras  and  the  Praj'er  of  Manasses, 
which  are  not  mentioned  in  the  Trent  list,  but 
form  in  the  Clementine  Vulgate  an  appendix  to 
the  Bible,  lieaded  by  the  note  '  Oratio  Manassse, 
necnon  libri  duo,  qui  sub  libri  tertii  et  quarti 
Esdrae  nomine  circumfcruntur  hoc  in  loco,  extra 
scilicet  seriem  canonicorura  librorum,  quos  sancta 
Tridentina  synodus  suscepit,  et  pro  canonicis 
suscipiendos  decrevit,  sepositi  sunt,  ne  prorsus 
interirent,  <^uippe  gui  a  nonnullis  Sanctis  Patribus, 
et  in  aliquibus  Bibliis  latinis  tam  manuscriptis 
quam  impressis  reperiuntur.'  See  also  art.  APOC- 
EVPHA  in  vol.  i.  esp.  p.  115  f. 

With  regard  to  differences  of  amount  contained 
under  the  title  of  this  or  that  book,  or  the  arrange- 
ment  of  matter  in  it,  tlie  following  should  be 
noticed.  In  most  of  the  books  of  the  OT  the  only 
diH'erence  found  is  an  occasional  variation  in  the 
versing,  the  last  verse  in  a  chapter  being  split  up 
into  two,  and  so  on  ;  these  are  too  unimportant  to 
notice.  It  should  be  remembered  that  in  its 
numeration  of  the  Commandments  the  Vulgate 
Bible  includes  our  second  commandment  in  the  hrst, 
and  divides  up  the  tenth  into  two,  thereby  preserv- 
ing the  full  number  of  ten  ;  this  division  is  also 
emploj-ed  by  the  Lutherans:  see  DECALOGUE. 

'1  he  Bk.  of  Esther  in  the  Vulgate  contains  the 
additional  chapters,  which  with  us  are  printed 
separately  in  the  Apocrypha  after  Judith.  The 
later  chapters  of  Job  are  arranged  difi'erently  from 
the  Authorized  Version,  though  the  amount  con- 
tained is  the  same :  eh.  39  contains  35  verses 
against  30  of  AV,  and  consequently  finishes  at  40° 
of  AV,  and  40'  =  our  40'  ;  and  as  this  contains  28 
ver.ses  against  our  24,  the  chapter  finishes  at  41' of 
AV,  and41'  =  our  41"';  but  as  41  in  the  Vulgate 
has  only  25  verses  against  our  34,  the  dili'erence 
ends  there,  and  42  begins  in  the  Vulgate  in  the 
same  place  as  in  the  AV. 

The  variation  in  the  Psalms  is  perhaps  the  most 
puzzling.  The  Vulgate  follows  the  Hebrew  in 
counting  the  title,  where  there  is  one,  as  the  first 
verse  of  the  Psalms,  so  that  the  versing  is  in  these 
Psalms  one  verse  ahead  of  A  V.  Pss.  9  and  10  form 
one  Psalm  in  Vulgate,  so  that  AV  is  one  Psalm  in 
front  of  the  Vulgate  for  ne.arly  all  the  rest  of  the 
Psalter,  e.g.  11  AV  =  10  Vulg.  etc.;  Pss.  114  and 

115  forming  also  one  Psalm  in  Vulgate  (i.e.  113), 
the  AV  is  now  two  in  front  of  the  Vulgate ;  but  as 

116  AV  consists  of  two  Psalms  in  Vulgate,  114  and 
115  (which  begins  at  v."  '  I  believed,  therefore  have 
I  spoken  '),  it  does  not  keep  so  for  long  ;  finally,  147 
AV  also  consists  of  two  Vulgate  Psalms,  146  and 
147  (which  begins  at  v."  *  Praise  the  Lord,  O  Jeru- 
salem'), so  that  148,  149,  150  are  the  same  in  each. 

In  Lamentations  ch.  5  of  AV  appears  in  the 
Vulgate  as  a  separate  book,  under  the  title  of 
'  Oratio  Jeremiae  inonheta;.' 

In  Daniel  at  Z"  follow  the  additions  which  are 


886 


VULGATE 


VULGATE 


printed  in  our  Apocrypha  after  Baruch  as  '  the 
Song  of  the  three  Holy  Children  ' ;  the  versing  is 
ditlercnt,  being  ^-^  instead  of  '■'^,  so  that  3-*  AV 
=  3"  Vulgate,  which  numbers  in  all  100  verses  to 
the  chapter,  and  runs  into  4',  chapter  4'  Vulgate 
beginning  at  4*  AV  but  liiiishing  at  the  same  verse 
{**  Vulg.  ="  AV);  the  other  apocryphal  additions 
are  found  at  the  end  of  the  book,  the  story  of 
Susanna  forming  eh.  13,  and  Bel  and  the  Dragon 
ch.  14. 

vi.  Manuscripts  of  the  Vulgate. — Anything 
like  a  complete  enumeration  of  the  Vulgate  MISS 
in  Europe  would  be  out  of  the  question  ;  there  are 
tbon.sands,  not  only  in  the  public  libraries,  but  in 
private  libraries  and  collections.  Berger  has  e.\- 
auiined  more  than  800  in  the  libraries  of  Paris 
alone  ;  and  it  is  estimated  that  the  total  number 
cannot  be  less  than  8000.  Nor  would  a  complete 
enumeration,  even  if  possible,  be  of  much  use  to 
the  student ;  the  majority  are  late  13th  and  14th 
cent.  MSS,  of  very  slight  critical  value,  and  prob- 
ably all  presenting  the  corrupt  type  of  text  about 
which  Roger  Bacon  used  such  strong  language. 

The  lists  may  be  consulted  which  have  been 
drawn  up  by  Le  Long,  Bibliotheca  Sacra,  ed.  1723, 
vol.  i.  p.  '234  f.;  Vercellone,  VaricB  lectiones,  Romfe, 
1860,  vol.  i.  p.  Ixxxiii  f.,  ii.  p.  xvii  f.;  in  the 
fourth  edition  of  Scrivener's  Introduction,  vol.  ii. 
p.  67  f.,  the  present  writer  has  drawn  out  a 
selected  list  of  181  manuscripts,  mainly  of  the 
NT  ;  Berger  {ITistoire  de  la  Vulg.  etc.  pp.  374- 
422)  gives  a  good  list  of  253  MSS  ;  and  the  largest 
list  yet  published  is  that  of  Dr.  Gregory  in  the 
third  volume  of  Tischendorf 's  iVoyu?»  Testamentum 
Greece,  ed.  viii.  pp.  983-1108,  where  some  2270 
MSS  are  enumerated  ;  they  are  not,  however, 
described  with  the  detail  that  characterizes  M. 
Berger's  list.  We  have  endeavoured  here  to  draw 
up  a  list  of  the  more  important  Vulgate  MSS, 
arranged,  according  to  the  type  of  their  text,  as 
sketched  out  in  the  history  given  above.  The 
student  can  thus,  if  he  wishes,  test  our  theory  of 
the  transmission  and  niodilication  of  the  text  by 
his  o«-n  collations  ;  and  if  he  examines  other  MSS 
not  mentioned  in  the  list,  he  can  determine  more 
easily  in  which  class  to  place  them. 

Our  list  is  based  mainly  on  the  materials  sup- 
plied by  Berger.  The  reader  will  bear  in  mind 
that  the  classification  can  be  only  approximate, 
and  that  there  are  MSS  which  it  will  be  difficult 
to  assign  exclusively  to  this  or  that  group  ;  and 
indeed  the  earliest  MSS  on  the  list  are  among 
those  which  it  is  ditticult  to  class,  though  we  may 
venture  to  describe  them  as  earhj  Italian  texts ; 
.after  them  we  may  place  the  early  Spanish  texts, 
and  then  the  other  families  in  due  course.  The 
Roman  numerals  in  square  brackets  signify  the 
centuries  to  which  the  MSS  are  usually  assigned. 

I.  Earit  Italian  'izxn.— Codex  Fuldentit  of  the  NT,  at  the 
Abbey  of  Fulila  in  Prussia  [vi] ;  written  forBp.  Victor  of  Capua, 
and  corrected  by  him  A.D.  541-5-16.  The  Gospels  are  arranged  in 
one  narrative,  based  on  the  order  of  Tiitian's  Diatessaron,  but 
the  text  has  been  altered  to  the  Vulgate  throughout ;  in  the 
Epp.  Laodiceans  follon's  Colossians.  Published  by  E.  Kanke 
(Marburg,  186S).  Cited  by  Tischendorf  as  /utd,  by  Wordsworth 
as  F. 

The  Jlilan  Gotpelt;  Ambrosian  Library,  O.  89  Inf.  [vi) ; 
uncials ;  the  sections  and  canons  in  the  margin  are  written  in 
Greek  characters,  while  certain  peculiarities  of  spelling  and  of 
reading  also  suggest  that  the  scribe  had  a  Grasco-Latin  MS 
before  him.    Defective  in  parts.    Wordsworth's  .M  in  Gospels. 

Codex  Fonjuliengis,  at  Cividale,  Friuli :  Gospels  (vi  or  vii], 
Matt.,  Luke,  and  John  are  at  Cividale  in  Friuli ;  these  were 
published  bv  Biaiichini,  Evanqdiariwn  QMadruplex,eic.,  torn, 
li.  app.  p.  473  f.  (Koma),  1749).  The  latter  part  of  Mark  (1221-16ii') 
is  at  Prague,  and  was  edited  by  J.  Dobrowskv,  Fragmfntum 
Pragemt  (Praga,  1778) ;  the  earlier  part  is  at  Venice,  but  in  a 
wretched  conditioo,  and  illegible.  Tischendorf '8 /or  and  prog, 
Wordsworth's  J. 

Codix  Perusinug ;  part  of  Lk  (11-127,  much  mutilated),  in  a 
lurple  MS,  Chapter  Librarv,  Perugia  [vi  or  more  probably  \ii]. 
'ublished  by  Bianrhini,  ^iwin.  Quadr.  torn.  iL  ftpp.  p.  562 ; 
Tischendorf 's  pe,  Wordsworth's  P. 


l\ 


The  Harlty  Goxpels,  Brit.  Mua.  Harl.  1775  [vi  or  viij,  in  | 
small  but  beautiful  uncial  hand,  written  probably  in  Italy; 
the  first  hand  omita  the  text  Jn  5*.  Tischendorf's  harl  \^"ord§. 
worth's  and  Bentley's  Z. 

II.  Eahuv  Si-Axisn  Texts.— Leon,  Cathedral  Archives  15  [viij , 
a  palimpsest  MS,  containing  40  leaves  of  a  Dible  in  7th  cent, 
hand,  i.e..  portions  of  Ch,  Jer,  Ezk,  1  Mac,  Ac,  2  Co,  Col. 
1  Jn.  The  text  is  Vulgate  at  base,  esnecially  in  Jer,  Ac,  and 
Pauline  Epp. ;  in  other  portions  mingled  with  bid  I,at.  elcmenti 
and  characteristic  Spanish  inten>oIations ;  the  *  three  heavenly 
witnesses  '  occurs  1  Jn  67.    See  Berger,  pp.  8f.,  3S4. 

The  Ashbumiiam  Pentateuch,  or,  more  strictly  speaking,  tht 
Pentateuch  of  St.  Gatien  of  Tours:  now  at  Paris,  Bibl.  Nat., 
\ouv.  acq.  Lat.  2334.  A  splendid  ilS,  with  interesting  piutoriil 
illustrations  [vii  or  beginning  of  viiij ;  uncial  writing;  a  good 
Vulgate  text.  The  Palaeographical  Soc.  (i.  pi.  234)  ascribe  the 
MS  to  Nortli  Italy,  but  Berger  (pp.  11,  12,  410)  makes  out  a 
strong  case,  mainly  from  the  nature  of  the  illustrations,  for 
Spaiji. 

Codex  CaucTWw;  Bible  [ix  probably]  written  in  Spain,  prob- 
ably  in  Castile  or  Leon,  iji  small,  round,  and  beautiful  Viai- 
gothic  minuscules,  by  a  scribe  Danila  ;  now  in  the  Benedictine 
Abbey  of  Corpo  di  Cava,  near  Salerno  :  a  copy  of  it  was  made 
early  in  this  century  by  the  Abbate  de  Uoss'i,  and  is  in  the 
Vatican  (Lat.  S4S4X  The  text  is  Spanish,  and  in  the  Gospels 
shows  signs  of  being  a  revision  ;  occasionally  it  is  mingled  with 
Old  Latin  elements  ;  it  contains  1  Jn  5"  after  V^.  Before  the 
Pauline  Epp.  there  is  the  'Procemium  sancti  Pere;7rini (tpiacopi,' 
and  the  canons  of  Priscillian  ;  after  the  Apocal>'pije  tliere  is  an 
incomplete  Psalterium  ez  Hebneo ;  the  Psalter  in  the  body  of 
the  MS  is  Galilean,  but  with  numerous  Old  Latin  marginal 
variants ;  see  Berger,  pp.  14, 15, 379.  Tischendorf's  caVf  Words- 
worth's  C. 

Codex  Toletanus ;  Bible,  Visigothic  writing  [probably  viiiJ,  in 
the  Xat.  Libr.  at  Mi^drid.  Characteristic  Spanish  text,  with 
numerous  interpolations ;  has  the  text  1  Jn  o"*  in  same  place 
as  CavensU,  but  in  the  Gospels  does  not  present  such  a  good  text 
as  that  MS.  Collated  for  the  Sivtine  revision  by  Chr.  Palo- 
mares,  whose  work  is  preserved  in  the  Vatican  (Lat.  9r>08) ;  the 
collation,  however,  was  not  used  in  that  revision,  as  it  reached 
Card.  Caraffa  too  late.  It  has  been  published  by  Bianchini, 
Vindicix  Can.  Scr.  pp.  xlvii-ccxvi  (Romae,  1740),  and  reprinted 
by  Migne,  Pat.  Lat.  torn.  xxix.  p.  875  f.  Tischendorf's  (oi, 
Wordsworth's  T  ;  see  Berger,  p.  12. 

Madrid,  University  Library,  No.  32 ;  second  volume  of  a  mag- 
nificent Bible,  in  Visigothic  hand  [ix  or  x],  containing  Proverbs- 
Apocalj-pse.  The  ornamentation  occasionally  resembles  the 
Codex  Cavensis\  the  Pauline  Epp.  are  headed  by  the  Canons  of 
Priscillian  and  the  proitmium  Vereyrini ;  see  Berger,  p.  15. 

Codex  ^-Emilianeus,  at  Madrid,  Uoyal  Academy  of  Histor>',  F. 
1S6.  Bible  [x],  incomplete,  and  commencing  in  the  middle  of 
the  Psalter;  in  the  NT  Laod.  is  written  bv  the  second  hand,  id 
the  margin.  The  first  hand  resembles  Caien^Sy  though  it  is 
somewhat  larger ;  the  writer's  name  is  given  as  Quisius.  The 
MS  formerly  belonged  to  the  Abbey  of  St.  -tlmilianus  (St.  Millan 
de  laCogolla),  between  Burgos  and  Logroiio;  see  Berger,  p.  16. 

Leon,  Catliedral  Archives,  6;  second  volume  of  a  Bible  [x], 
beginning  at  Isaiah  ;  the  NT  has  the  Canons  of  Priscillian  and 
the  proa: mi um  Per^^/n'niafterthe  Acts, and  containsLaod.  The 
writing  resembles  Canensis,  but  is  somewhat  larger  ;  the  names 
of  two  scribes — Vimara,  a  presbyter,  and  John,  a  deacon — are 
given  ;  see  Berger,  p.  17. 

Codex  Gnthicus  Legxonensis,  presen-ed  in  the  Church  of  San 
Isidro  at  Leon;  Bible  (x],  folio,  date-l  a.d.  960,  and  written  by 
the  notarius  Sanctio.  The  MS  has  belonged  to  the  Church  of  San 
Isidro  since  the  12th  cent.,  and  wascoUalefl  for  Cardinal  Caraffa 
by  Fr.  Tmgillo,  bp.  of  Leon,  for  the  Sixtine  revision,  and  by 
him  called  the  Codex  Gothicus.  The  collation  is  preserved  in 
the  Vatican  (Lat.  4S59).  There  are  a  large  number  of  Old  Latin 
variants  in  the  margin,  especially  in  the  OT ;  and  Tobit  and 
Judith  are  in  the  Old  Latin  throughout ;  see  Berger,  p.  18 ;  he 
has  printed  the  Old  Latin  variants  in  the  Bk.  of  Job  in  Notice* 
et  ext raits  des  MS  de  la  B.  N.  etc.,  tome  xxxiv.  2«partie,  p.  20  f. 
(Paris.  1S93). 

Codex  Complutengis  (i.e.  belonging  to  Complutum  =  Alcal4), 
Madrid,  University  Library,  31.  Bible  [ix  or  x),  interesting 
text ;  Ruth  is  Old  Latin,  agreeing  closely  with  quotations  in 
Ambrose ;  the  4th  book  of  Esdras  is  also  preser\'ed  in  an  interest- 
ing text,  with  variant  readings  in  the  margin  ;  Esther,  Tobit, 
Judith,  1  and  2  Mac,  are  also  in  an  Old  Latin  version.  In  the 
NT  the  text  is  Vulg.ite,  but  with  Spanish  characteristics; 
Laodiceans  follows  llebreirs.  Ruth  and  parts  of  Maccabees 
have  been  published  by  Berger  in  the  Sotiees  et  extraiUt 
mentioned  above,  pp.  8-12,  33-33 ;  see  also  his  Ui^toire,  p.  22. 

Paris,  Bibl.  Nat.,  I^t.  6.  Bible  in  four  vols,  folio  [x.],  from  the 
Abbey  of  Rosas  in  Catalonia.  Tobit  and  Judith  are  preserved 
not  only  in  the  Vulgate,  but  also  in  the  Old  Latin  ;  and  there 
are  interesting  Old  Latin  and  other  variants  in  the  margins  of 
the  Acts,  while  Ac  11M2!^  is  entirely  Old  Latin;  see  Berger, 
p.  24.    Wordsworth's  R  in  Acts. 

III.  Italian  Texts  transcribed  w  Britapt. — (a)  Northum' 
brian  MSS. — Codex  Ainiatinus  of  the  whole  Bible,  in  the 
Laurentian  Library-  at  Florence  (beginning  of  viU].  One  of  tha 
three  Pandects  written,  either  at  VVearmouth  or  Jarrow,  by 
order  of  the  Abbot  Ceolfrid.  lie  took  it  as  a  present  to  the 
pope  on  his  last  Journey  to  Rome  in  a.d.  715,  but  died  before  he 
reached  the  Holy  City,  and  his  followers  carried  on  the  volume 
and  offered  it  to  the  chair  of  St.  Peter.  The  date  and  origin  of 
the  MS  have  been  thus  fixed  by  the  successful  deciphering  of 
an  erased  inscription  on  the  first  leaf;  see  the  PalaBographiiral 
Society's  Facsimiles,  \L  pis.  66,  66,  and  Studia  Biiflica,  it  p.  2^1 


VULGATE 


VULGATE 


887 


1 


(Oxford,  1S90).  Later,  the  MS  was  placed  In  the  Monastic 
Librar)'  at  Monte  Amiata,  whence  it  was  sent  to  Rome  for  use 
in  the  Sixtine  revision.  Finally,  it  was  placed  in  the  Jlediceo- 
laurentian  Library  at  Florence.  The  NT  wa«  published  in  full 
by  Tischcndorf  (Lcipzii;,  ISaO  ;  second  ed.  with  a  few  euu-nda- 
^ions.  I».^i4);  and  in  1S73  Heyse  and  Tischendort  edited  the 
BU/lia  Hacra  Lat.  Vctfrin  Text.  Uieronymo  interprele,  printing 
the  CUmentiiie  text  of  the  OT,  but  dividing  it  accordin;,'  to  the 
''X)la  and  comniftta'  of  am,  giving  a  collation  of  its  variant 
reading,  and  printing;  in  full  tne  capitula  to  the  various  books, 
which  are  found  in  Ainiatinus,  hut  not  in  the  Clementine  Vul- 
gTitc :  Laij'arde  has  published  Wisdom  and  Sirach,  see  vol.  iti. 

The  text  of  the  MS  in  the  NT,  and  especially  in  the  Go.spcls, 
ia  a  verv  pure  Vulijato  tvpe  on  the  whole,  though  with  the 
characte'ristic.s  of  British  >iSS  in  it;  see  the  Oxford  \'ii/:iate, 
i.  pp.  7il»,  71<y-~3i.  In  the  OT  it  is  also  good,  but  in  Ecclesi- 
astes  and  Ecclesiaaticus  Old  Latin  elements  have  crept  in  ;  see 
Berber,  p.  3j.    Tischendorf's  om,  Wordsworth's  A. 

Durham  Cathedral  Library,  A.  ii.  18 ;  Gospels  [vii  or  viii), 
said  to  have  been  written  by  Bcde,  and  may  very  possibly  have 
come  from  Jarrow.  The  text  is  very  close  to  thatof  AmKilitnis, 
but  where  it  varies  Aniiatinus  is  usually  the  better.  Bentlcy's 
K,  Wordsworth's  A  (in  St.  John  only ;  in  the  other  Gospels  it  is 
not  cited). 

Do.,  A.  ii.  17 ;  St.  John.  St.  Mark,  and  St.  Luke,  mcomplete 
[viii],  with  another  fragment  of  St.  Luke,  213S-23M;  large 
uncial  hand,  and  both  text  and  handwriting  closely  resemble 
Amiatinus,  though  the  orthography  is  occasionally  different ; 
see  Berger,  p.  3ii. 

S(onvA  urel  Ht.  John.  The  minute  but  exquisitely  written  MS 
of  St.  John,  now  in  the  possession  of  the  Jesuit  College  at 
Stonyhurst  [vii  or  viii) ;  originally,  according  to  a  legend  as 
old  as  the  13th  cent.,  the  property  of  St.  Cuthbert,  in  whose 
cotHn  it  was  found.  The  text  closely  resembles  Aniiatinus,  but 
is  on  the  whole  not  quite  so  goo<l.  Wordsworth's  S  in  St.  John. 
British  Museum,  Cotton  Nero  D.  iv.  The  superb  Lindu,farni! 
GogprU  |vii  or  viii],  written  by  Eadfrith,  bp.  of  Lindisfame, 
i.u.  U9S-721,  and  other  scribes.  The  Latin  is  accompanied  by 
an  interlinear  version  in  the  Northumbrian  dialect.  The  text 
verj'  closelv  resembles  that  of  Amiatinus,  agreeing  with  it 
sometimes  "even  in  errors ;  but,  as  with  the  MSS  mentioned 
inimcdiatelv  abo\e,  where  the  two  differ,  Amiatinus  usually 
has  tlie  better  text  The  MS  from  which  these  Gospels  were 
copied  must  have  come  from  Naples ;  Dom  O.  Morin  {Jteime 
Bi'nMkiiM,  1891,  t.  viii.  p.  481)  has  pointed  out  that  at  the 
beginning  of  the  Gospels  there  are  lists  of  festivals  and  saints' 
days,  among  which  appear  names  peculiar  to  Naples ;  and  the 
book  may  well  have  been  brought  to  Lindisfame  by  the  Adrian 
who  was  abbot  of  a  monaster)'  near  Naples,  and  who  accom- 
panied Abp.  Theodore  on  his  journey  to  Kngland  in  COS;  see 
Berger,  p.  39  f.     Bentley's  and  Wordsworth's  Y^ 

Fragments  of  Matthcw(ll-3*)and  John  (I '21)  bound  up  at  the 
end  ol  the  famous  ■  Utrecht  Psalter.'  The  handwriting  and  text 
both  strongly  resemble  the  Codex  Amiatinus,  and  are  about  the 
same  dates  (vii-viii).     Wordsworth's  U  in  Gospels. 

For  the  Psalter  itself  the  reader  should  consult  W.  de  Gray 
Birch,  The  llietory.  Art,  and  I'alaoffraphy  o/  the  iWS,  styled  the 
Ctrecht  Piaittr^  London,  1^7(i ;  and  the  later  treatise  by  Count 
P.  Durrieu,  L'trigine  du  MS  cdUhre  dit  ie  I'sautier  d'Utrcctd, 
Paris,  1895  (extrmlt  des  '  Melanges  Julien  llavet ') ;  Count 
Durrieu  supposes  it  to  h«ve  been  written  at  or  near  Kheims  in 
the  eariier  part  of  the  8th  cent,.  The  text  is  the  (itUlican 
Psalter. 

(b)  Canterbury  MSS  (traditionally  connected  with  Augustine 
and  with  Gregory  the  Great).— Oxford,  liodley  S-IT,  and  Auct. 
D.  2. 14  :  Gospels  fonncrly  belonging  to  St.  Augustine's  Library 
at  Canlerbury  and  generally  known  as  'St.  Augustine'sGosoels' 
(vii).  From  the  i>oint  of  view  of  aye,  the  MS  might  well  have 
been  brought  to  Canterbury  by  some  of  the  later  followers  of 
Augustine,  but  the  text  shows  it  to  be  of  native  origin  ;  it  is 
fairly  near  to  Amiatinus,  but  has  a  large  number  of  charac- 
teristics partly  Irish,  partly  early  Anglo-Saxon  ;  as  Berger  says 
(p.  86),  It  may  be  placed  at  the  base  of  the  Anglo-Saxon  tj'pe  of 
text,  and  must  owe  its  name  not  to  being  the  personal  property 
of  Augustine,  but  to  belonging  to  the  abbey  at  Canterburv, 
which  was  consecrated  to  his  memory-  Tischendorf's  boat, 
Wonlsworth'H  O  in  Gospels. 

Cambridge,  Corpus  Christi  OoU.  cclxxxvl.  Evan. ;  Gospels 
(vii),  fonneriy  belonging  to  St.  Augustine's  at  Canterbury,  an.l, 
according  to  tradition,  sent  by  Pope  Gregory  to  Augustine, 
hut  the  text  does  not  bear  out  this  supposition;  it  closely 
r-sembles  that  of  the  preceding  .MS,  and  is  really  Anglo-Saxon, 
though  it  has  been  corrected  throughout  in  accordance  with  a 
.M.'<  of  the  Aniiatinus  type.     IJenllcy^  B,  Wordsworth's  X. 

British  Museum,  Cotton  Vesp.  A.  1.  'Roman'  Psalter  (ix), 
known  as  the  '  I'aalter  of  St.  Augustine' :  Anglo-Saxon  type  of 

Brit.  Mus.,  Reg.  1.  E.  vt.  ;  Gospels,  Imperfect  (end  of  viii); 
written  in  England,  and  formerly  belonging  to  St.  Augustine's, 
Canterbury  ;  in  all  probability  the  second  volume  of  the  famous 
'Bililia  Oregoriana,'  mentioned  bv  Elniham  ('Hist.  .Monasleril 
S.  Aug.  Canluar.,'  ed.  O.  Hardwick,  Rolls  Series  8,  London,  1868). 
Text  somewhat  similar  to  those  obove ;  Vulgate,  mixed  with 
Irish  readings  ;  Bentley's  P. 

(c)  Irwh  and  Anglo-Saxon  MSS.— Book  tf  Armagh  ;  Library. 
Trinity  Coll.,  Dublin.  New  Testament  written  in  a  small  and 
beautiful  Irish  hand,  by  the  scribe  Ferdoinnach  |ii) ;  It  has  the 
nr,,lniiia  I'ilaiiii  in  otnnfn  irputolat,  Laod.  occurs  after  Col., and 
Ads  after  A|>oc  The  late  Dr.  Reeves,  bp.  of  Down,  intended  to 
e>lit  it.  and  his  vork  has  been  iliiiBhed  and  published  by  Drs. 


Gwynn  and  Bernard  of  Dublin.  The  text  of  the  MS  is  at  bottom 
good  and  closely  allied  to  Amiatinus  ;  it  displays  many  cf  the 
national  characteristics,  however,  small  interpolations,  expli 
cative  additions,  and  relics  of  Old  Latin  readings  (thus  its 
otnit:gif/n  of  Jn  5-*  is  all  the  more  remarkable),  etc.,  while  the 
present  writer  cannot  help  thinking  that  it  has  been  to  a 
certain  extent  corrected  from  the  Greek ;  see  the  Oxford 
Vul-iate,  pp.  714,  716  ;  Berger,  pp.  31-33.    Wordsworth's  D. 

The  Book  of  Kellt:  Trin.  Coll.,  Dublin,  A.  1.  U ;  Gospels 
(vii  or  viii),  given  to  Trinity  College  by  Abp.  Ussher ;  named 
from  Kells  or  Kenanna,  a  iuona.ster)'  in  County  Meath.  It  is 
famous  for  being  perhaps  the  most  perfect  e-xisting  specimen  of 
Irish  handwriting,  as  the  Lindifj'arnf  (Jnapcln  are  of  English  ; 
see  ThonqKson,  Greek  and  Lat.  i'alttojrapht/,  pp.  23!),  2i:>,  246. 
But  the  text  is  also  valuable,  much  re-senihling  the  Book  o/ 
Armagh,  with  the  usual  Irish  characteristics,  and  a  great 
fondness  for  conflate  readings.  A  collation  has  been  given  by 
Dr.  Abbott  in  his  edition  of  the  Codex  Usserianus  (Dublin, 
1884) ;  see  also  Berger,  p.  41.    Wordsworth's  Q. 

Book  0/  Durrotc :  Trin.  Coll.,  Dublin,  A.  4.  6.  Gospels  (vi- 
vii) ;  according  to  an  inscription  on  what  was  the  lost  page, 
the  lKX)k  was  written  by  St.  Columba  in  twelve  days,  but,  as 
with  the  Echteriiach  Gospels  (see  below  in  this  column),  this, 
witii  the  rest  of  the  book,  must  have  been  copied  from  an  earlier 
exemplar;  Durrow  or  Dearmag  was  a  monastery-  in  King's 
County,  founded  by  Columba.  Irish  text,  i.e.  good  Vulgate  at 
bottom,  but  with  some  of  the  characteristic  national  interiiola- 
tions  ;  collation  given  by  Dr.  Abbott  in  his  edition  of  the  Codex 
Usserianus  ;  see  also  Berger,  p.  41.    Wordsworth's  durmach. 

The  Book  0/ Moling  or  Mxdling  ;  Trin.  Coll.,  Dublin.  Gospels 
(viii  or  ix),  apparently  never  bound,  but  preserved  in  a  case. 
An  inscription  gives  the  name  of  the  scribe  as  Mulling,  i.e. 
probably  St.  Mulling,  bp.  of  Ferns,  at  the  end  of  the  7th  cent. ; 
but,  as  with  the  Book  of  Durrow,  the  inscription  must  have 
been  copied  from  an  earlier  MS.  Characteristic  Irish  text, 
sometimes  with  interesting  variant  readings  ;  see  Berger,  p.  33, 
and  H.  J.  Lawlor,  Chapti:rs  on  the  Book  of  Mulling,  Edinburgh, 
1897.    The  MS  is  disfigured  by  damp,  and  is  illegible  in  parts. 

Tlu  Stotce  St.  John  :  bound  up  with  the  famous  Stou}e  Missal, 
Royal  Irish  Academy,  Dublin.  Written  in  pointed  Irish  minus- 
cules [viii  or  ix) ;  portions  of  the  Gospel  only.  Good  Vulgate 
text  with  the  usual  traces  of  Old  Latin  mixture;  see  J.  U. 
Bernard  in  Transactions  o/  the  Huijal  Irish  Academy,  vol.  xxx. 
pt.  viii.  (Dublin,  1893),  who  gives  a  description  and  collation 
of  the  MS ;  also  Berger,  p.  42. 

Goxpels  of  Macduman :  Lambeth  Palace  Librarj*.  Written  by 
the  scribe  Maiielbrith  Mac-Durnain  [ix-x],  delicate  and  rather 
cramped  Irish  writing  ;  Irish  text. 

LichQeld,  Chapter  Library.  Gospels  (vii-viii],  traditionally 
ascribed  to  St.  Chad,  bp.  of  Lichfield.  The  MS  was  perhaps 
written  in  Wales,  but  is  in  an  Irish  hand ;  it  belonged  to  the 
Church  of  St.  Teliaii  at  IJaiidaff,  but  was  brought  to  Lichfield 
towards  the  end  of  the  loth  cent.  The  writing  and  ornamenta- 
tion are  very  beautiful,  and  resemble  the  Book  of  Kelts  ;  Irish 
text,  possibly  corrected  occasionally  from  the  Greek.  Contains 
Mt  li-Lk  39;  collation  of  the  MS,  with  introduction,  etc.,  by 
Scrivener,  Codex  S.  Veaddce  Latinus,  Cambridge,  18S7 ;  see  also 
Bradshaw,  Collected  Papers,  pp.  468-461  (Cambr.  1SS9).  Words- 
worth's L  in  Gospels. 

Cambridge,  University  Librarj-,  Kk  i.  24 ;  Luke  and  John, 
nearly  complete  (vii-viii),  half  uncial  Irish  hand,  somewhat 
resembling  the  Book  of  Kells  or  the  Gospels  of  St.  Chad  In  the 
first  s  chs.  of  St.  Luke  the  text  is  a  strange  medley  of  Vulgate 
and  Old  Latin  ;  for  the  rest,  the  text  is  Vulgate  with  occasional 
Old  Lat.  readings. 

.Scldcn  Acts:  Oxford,  Bodl.  3418  (Seld.  SO).  Saxon  MS  [viii], 
valuable  text.    Wordsworth's  O  in  Acts. 

Itushworth  Gospels  or  Gospels  of  MacRegol :  Oxford,  Bodl. 
Auct.  D.  2.  19  (ix),  written  by  an  Irish  scribe,  who  died  a.d. 
82U  ;  has  an  interlinear  Anglo-Saxon  version.  Irish  text,  with 
constant  inversions  of  order  in  words,  especially  in  St.  JIatthew  ; 
possibly,  too,  corrected  from  the  Greek.  Collation  given  by 
W.  W.  Skeat  in  The  Uoxjiel  of  St.  Matthew :  A .  .*'.  ond  Northum- 
brian versions,  Cambr.  1HS7.    Wordsworth's  U  in  Gospels. 

Brit.  JIus.,  Egerton  609.  Gospels  (ix),  formerly  belonging  to 
the  monastery  of  .Mannoutier  (Slajus  Monasterium),  near  Tours. 
It  is  an  interesting  siieciinen,  however,  of  a  MS,  written  abroad 
In  ordinary  Caroline  minuscule,  but  with  Jrish  ornamentation, 
and  with  a  regular  Irish  type  of  text ;  see  Berger,  p.  47.  It 
contains  a  number  of  variant  rewliiigs  which  seem  peculiar  to 
the  JIS.  Tischendorf's  mm  ;  Wordsworth's  E. 
This  MS  serves  as  an  introduction  to  our  next  class  of  MSS. 

IV.   CONTISE.NTAI-  MSS,    WRirfKN   BV   iRlSU   OH   SaXON  SCKIBIS, 

AND  Hiiowm.t  A  Mixture  ok  tub  two  Tvpks  ok  TKXJ.—Gospelt  of 
St.  Gatien,  Paris,  Bibl.  Nat.,  Souv.acq.  Lat.  1687  (viii),  Anglo- 
Saxon  band,  but  probably  written  on  the  Continent;  boloiged 
to  St.  Gatien'8  at  lours.  The  text  contains  a  number  of  Old 
Lat.  readings ;  in  other  respects  resembles  the  Egerton  MS. 
Usually  ciU'd  as  gat ;  Berger,  p.  46. 

The  Kchlemach  Gosjiels:  Paris,  Bibl.  Nat.  9389  (probobly 
viii),  vi-ritten  in  on  Irish  hand,  and  belonging  formerly  to  the 
Benedictine  Abbey  of  St.  Willibrord  at  Echternach ;  yet  an 
interesting  inscription,  obviously  taken  from  the  exemplar  from 
which  the  -MS  was  copied,  asserts  that  the  scribe  corrected  the 
text  from  a  MS,  "de  bibliothcca  EuL'ipi  pnespiteri  quern  ferunt 
fulsso  sancti  Ilieronimi.'  The  F^ugippius  here  referred  to  was 
almost  certainly  the  Abbot  of  Lucullanum,  near  Naples,  In  the 
early  part  of  the  6th  cent.  The  text,  however,  which  has  a 
series  of  variant  readings  noted  in  the  margin,  is  (tlsappointing; 
neither  the  first  hand  nor  the  corrector  seems  to  display  a  con. 
sistent  text ;  and  we  have  a  strange  mixture  of  good  Vulgate, 


88S 


VULGATE 


VULGATE 


Continental,  and  Irish  types  ;  see  Berber,  p.  62.    Wordsworth 
quotes  it  regularly. 

Codex  Bujotianus :  Paris,  Bibl.  Nat.,Lat.  281  and  293.  Gospels 
[viii],  formerly  a>  Ftl-camp,  just  above  Havre,  and  tbereiore 
directly  facinfj  the  Enjjlish  coast.  The  text  and  the  hand- 
writing are  what  mij^ht  be  expected  from  its  position  ;  it  is 
written  in  a  line  uncial  hand,  but  the  oruanientation  shows 
traces  of  Briii^h  iriHucnce  ;  and  tlie  text  is  a  good  example  of 
the  mixture  of  Continental  and  British  types  that  would  be 
produced  by  an  Irish  scribe  writing;  in  a  French  monastery  ; 
Bee  Berber,  p.  50.     Wordsworth's  B  in  Gospels. 

Brit.  Mus.,  Add.  Sitio.  Gospels  iroin  che  monastery  of  St. 
Peter  at  Beneventum  [viii  or  ix),  written  in  a  fine  reWved 
uncial  hand  ;  usually  supposed,  on  the  strcn^'th  of  an  inscrip- 
tion, to  have  been  written  for  Ato,  abbot  of  St.  Vincent  de 
Volterno.  near  Beneventum.  about  the  mifldle  of  the  Sth  cent. 
Berifer  would,  however,  place  it  in  the  9Lh  cent.  The  text  is  a 
combination  of  British  and  Continental  types  ;  see  Berger,  p.  92. 
SVordsworth  quotes  its  reading^s. 

An^'ers:  Public  Library  No.  20.  Gospels  [ix  or  x],  written  in 
a  French  hand,  but  with  traces  of  Irish  influence  in  the  orna- 
mentation ;  and  the  text  is  Irish  :  see  Berj^er,  p.  4S. 

Brit.  Mus.,  Rej;.  I.  A.  xviii.  Gospels  [ix  or  x],  known  as  the 
Gospels  of  iEthelstan,  and  accordiny  to  tradition  presented  by 
him  to  St.  Au^stine  s,  Canterbury.  Written  on  the  Continent, 
but  with  ft  good  many  Irish  characteristics  in  the  text ;  see 
Berger,  p.  49. 

Brit.  Mus.,  Harley  1772.  Epp.  and  Apoc.  (viii  or  ix),  in  a 
French  hand,  but  with  a  good  deal  of  Irish  work  in  the  initials 
and  ornamentation  ;  written,  therefore,  apparently  in  France, 
but  partly  by  an  Irish  scribe.  The  text  has  been  carefully 
corrected,  and  the  readings  of  the  first  hand  are  often  quite 
illegible ;  it  contains  a  good  many  Old  Latin  and  some  Spanish 
readings;  Col.  is  placed  a/ter  Thess.,  and  .lude  and  Laod.  are 
both  wanting  ;  see  Berger,  p.  50.   AVordsworth's  Z... 

Paris,  Bibl.  Nat..  Lat.  93S2 :  Prophets  (Jerem.-Oaniel),  Saxon 
handwriting  [ix],  and  a  good  text.  Berger  (p.  51)  remarks  that 
it  is  perhaps  the  onl3'  MS  of  the  Prophet*  we  possess  that  comes 
from  the  British  Isles. 

Do.,  Lat.  11,553.  The  second  half  of  a  Bible  [ixj,  apparently 
written  in  the  district  round  Lyons  :  the  S,  Germani  exein}''ar 
latumof  R.  Steph&nus(not  (Jermanum latum,  as  he  is  sometimes 
made  to  call  it);  it  was  a  St.  Germain  MS.  The  text  is  strangely 
mixed ;  in  the  OT,  Spanisli  elements  predominate,  but  the  text 
is  good,  especially  in  Pr,  Ec,  Song  of  Songs ;  in  the  NT,  Mt  is 
Old  Lat.,  and  cited  among  the  OL  MSS  as  f/i  (see  vol.  iii.  p.  51) ; 
in  the  other  Gospels  there  are  many  OL  readings,  but  the  text 
at  bottom  is  of  the  class  copied  in  France  by  Irisli  scribes  ;  Acts, 
good  text,  though  showing  Spanish  influence  ;  Cath.  Epp.,  poor 
Spanish  text;  Apoc.,  good;  Pauline  Epp.,  fairly  good,  but  with 
aome  OL  readings.  See  Berger,  pp.  65-72.  Wordsworth's  g, 
in  Mt,  G  in  rest  of  NT. 

Wiirzburg  University  Library,  Mp.  th.  f.  61.  St.  Matthew 
[viii],  written  in  an  Anglo-Saxon  hand,  with  interlinear  glosses  ; 
mixed  text. 

Do.,  Mp.  th.  f.  12.  Epp.  of  St.  Paul  [ix],  with  Irish  gl esses ; 
a  well-known  MS.  The  glosses  have  been  often  published,  see 
Zimraer,  (ilnnifce  llibern.,  Berlin,  ISSl ;  Wliitley  Stokes,  Old  Irish 
Glosses  of  Wiirzburg  and  Carlsrithe,  Austin,  Hertford,  1SS7 ; 
Olden,  liolj/  Scr.  in  Ireland  a  thousand  years  ago,  Dublin, 
1S6S. 

Do.,  Mp.  th.  f.  69.  Epp.  of  St.  Paul  [viii],  with  Irish  initials; 
Col.  after  Thess. 

Oxford,  Bod.  Laud.  Jja,t.  102.  Gospels,  Saxon  hand  fearly  x]; 
it  formerly  belonged  to  Wiirzburg,  and  is  among  the  MSS  which 
were  bought  there  at  the  instance  of  Abp.  Laud,  after  the  sack 
of  the  city  in  1031 ;  mixed  text. 

Other  Wiirzburg  MSS  worthy  of  notice,  though  not  possessing 
Irish  characteristics,  are: — Mp.  th.  q.  1  a.  Gospels  (vii],  fine 
uncial  hand  ;  belonged,  according  to  tradition,  to  St.  Kilian,  in 
whose  tomb  it  is  said  to  have  been  found.  Mp.  th.  q.  1.  Gosj>els 
[x] ;  q.  4  Gospels  [xi];  f.  65  Gospels  [viii  or  ix] ;  f,  66  Gos- 
pels (viii  or  ix];  f .  67  Gospels  [vii  or  viii);  eenii-uncial,  and 
with  a  good  many  Old  Lat.  readings  in  the  first  hand ;  f.  68 
Gospels  tvi  or  viij;  good  text  in  the  first  hand,  resembling 
Amiatinus.  And  lastly,  Mp.  th.  f.  max.  1  Bible  [xi];  the 
Pauline  Epp.»  Laod.,  and  the  book  of  Baruch  have  been  ah- 
Btracted. 

For  the  Wiirzburg  MSS  see  Schepjw,  Die  dlttsten  Evang. 
Handschriften  dtr  Univ.  bxbliothek,  Wiirzburg,  IsST.and  Kober- 
lin,  Eine  Wiirzb.  Evang.  Handschr.  (Program  d.  Studienanstalt 
bei  S.  Anna  in  Augsburg,  1891). 

V.  Typk  op  Text  cuRiiE.NT  is  LANOircnoc  (Berger,  pp.  7S-82). — 
Paris,  Bibl.  Nat.,  Lat.  4  and  42;  Codex  Aniciengist,  Bible  (ix  or 
x].  The  text  of  the  first  hand  somewhat  resembles  that  of  the 
Vallicellian  Bible  (see  below,  p.  889),  but  a  contemporary  hand 
has  added  a  number  of  corrections  (amongst  others  the  *  three 
heavenly  witnesses,'  1  Jn  5?),  and  these  often  show  traces  of 
Spanish  influence  in  the  Acts. 

Do.,  Lat.  7.  Bible  [xi],  with  fine  illuminations ;  text  coloured 
by  Spanish  influence,  and  in  the  Acts  resembling  the  corrector 
of  the  Cod.  Anicitngi€. 

Do.,  Lat.  254  ;  Codex  Colbertinus  of  the  New  Testament  [xii 
or  xiii],  written  in  S.  of  France.  The  text  is  Old  Latin  in  the 
Gospels,  and  is  cited  among  Old  Latin  MSS  as  c (see  vol.  iii.  p.  51); 
In  the  rest  of  the  NT  the  text  is  Vulgate,  and  in  a  later  hand, 
Viith  all  the  characteristics  of  the  S.  of  I->ance  about  it. 

Brit.  Mus.,  Harlev  4772.  4773  :  Bible  in  two  fine  volumes  [early 
xiii],  the  second  probably  of  later  date  than  the  first ;  written 
In  S.  of  France,  and  with  text  belonging  to  that  region. 
Paris,  Bibl.  Nat.,  Lat.  321:  New  Testament  [early  xiii],  be- 


longing to  Perpignan.  Ordinary  text  in  Gospels,  but  parts  of 
the  Acts  (li-i:i'  28'^  ad  jin.)  are  Old  Latin  and  allied  to  the 
text  of  the  Codex  Laudianus  (E  e)  and  the  Gigas  (.'",7) ;  Catholic 
Epp.  have  a  Spanish  text,  resembling  the  Codex  Toletanxit, 
The  Old  Latin  portions  of  the  Acts  have  been  published  by 
Berger,  Un  ancien  texte  Lat.  des  Actes  des  Ap6tre9  retrr^i^ 
dans  un  MS  provenant  de  Perpignan  ( S otices  et  extraitf  d*» 
MSS  de  la  liibl.  2iat.  et  autre^  Bibliothi'quei,  tome  xxxv.  1» 
partie),  Paris,  1895.   Wordsworth's  p  in  Acts. 

Cndex  Demidovianus.  Bible  (xiii],  but  copied  from  an 
earlier  exemplar;  it  belonged  in  the  last  century  to  a  Paul 
Deuiidov  Gregorovitch,  but  its  present  position  is  unknown. 
The  text  was  published  in  Acts,  Epp.,  and  Apoc.  by  Mattbaei  io 
his  New  Testament  (1782-b);  and  Tischendorf  has  quoted  it 
from  his  edition  (under  the  sign  demid).  Wordsworth's  dem.  io 
Acts. 

VI.  Other  French  Texts.— For  other  t.\-pes  of  French  texts 
anterior  to  the  Theodulfian  and  .\lcuinian  recensions  the  reader 
must  study  M.  Berger's  book,  p.  83  ff.  All  that  we  can  do  here 
is  to  enumerate  some  of  the  MSS  he  quotes,  and  the  centre* 
around  which  he  has  grouped  them  ;  e.g. — 

MSS  from  Limoges :  Paris,  Bibl.  Nat.  5  and  52  [ix] ;  8  and  8> 
[xi]  ;  315  [xii  or  xiii] ;  2328  [\-iii  or  ix] ;  315  (xii-xiiij. 
from  Tours:  Paris.  Bibl.  Nat.  112  [x],  113. 
from  Fleury :  Orleans,  PubUc  Library  16,  portions  of  6 

MSS  of  different  dates, 
from  Chartres  :  St.  John,  Paris,  Bibl.  Nat.  10,439  (viiij. 
Other  MSS  from  the  N.  of  France  :  Autun,  Grand  Seminairet 

[viii],  Paris.  Bibl.  Nat.  17,226  [vii] ;  256  [vii] ;  14,407  [ixJ. 
Bibles  from  St.  Riquier:  Paris,  Bibl.  Nat.  11,504-5  [ix],  the 
S.  Genim7ii  longum  exemplar  of  R.  Stephanus  ;  interesting 
text;    Bibl.  Nat.  45  and  93  [ix  or  x],   the  Codex  l^egius; 
mixed  text.     Allied  in  text  to  these  are  the  MSS  Bibl.  Nat 
309  [xi]  and  305  [xi],  both  New  Test,  without  Gospels. 
The  Melz  .MS  (Public  Library  7)  preserves  an  interesting 
spet^-inien  of  the  mixed  texts  current  at  the  time  [ix] ;  see 
p.  o40. 
MSS  from  Corbie  on  the  Somme,  near  Amiens  : — 
Amiens,  Public  Library  6,  7,  11,  12,  portions  of  a  Bible  in 
several  volumes  [viii  or  ix]. 

IS,  the  famous  Corbie  Psalter  [vuiAx]. 
10.  The  four  books  of  Esdras  [ix] :  one  of  the 
few  MSS  containing  the  whole  book ;  see  R.  L.  Bensly,  The 
Minting  Frwpnent  of  the  Uh  Book  of  Ezra,  Cambridge,  1875. 
Paris,  Bibl.  Nat.,  Lat.  13,174  ;  Acts,  Cath.  Epp.,  and  Apoc.  [ix]. 
Do.,  Lat.  11,532-3:  Bible  [ix];  contains  the  Psalteritun  ex 
BebrcBo ;    text    interesting    but    mixed ;   sUght    Spanish 
elements  in  it. 
Bible  from  the  Abbey  of  St.  Vedast  at  Arras :  Vienna,  Im- 
perial Libran- 1190  fix]. 
VII.  Swiss  MSS  (especially  St.  Gall).— Irish  monks  and  scribea 
penetrated  through  France,  and  right  down  into  Switzerland 
and  Italy  ;  it  is  thus  that  we  get  Vulgate  MSS  written  often  in 
Irish   hands,  and  containing  the  same  mixture  of  Irish  and 
Continental  tj-pes  of  text,  not  only  in  France,  but  in  such 
centres  of  monastic  Hfe  as  St.  Gall,  Reichenau,  Einsiedeln. 

Of  these  the  Codices  Saiujallenxis  and  Boemerianus  (^i  and 
Gg),  which  are  really  different  parts  of  the  same  interlinear 
Grseco-Latin  MS,  belong  rather  to  Old  Latin  than  to  Vulgate 
MSS,  and  are  described  above  (see  Latin  Versions);  though 
the  base  of  h  in  the  Gospels  is  perhaps  more  Vulgate  than  Old 
Latin  :  possibly  the  Grasco-Latin  Psalter  now  preser\'ed  in  the 
Basle  Librarv  (A.  vii.  3)  may  also  be  part  of  this  same  MS. 

The  s;ime  niav  be  said  of  the  Codex  Atujiensis,  now  at  Trin. 
Coll.,  Cambr.  (B.  17.  1.). 

Earlv  i>'pesof  such  mixed  Irish  and  Continental  texts  are  found 
in  the  St.  Gall  MSS  No.  10.  Job,  Prov.,  Eccl..  Cantic'.es,  Wisdom, 
Ecclesiasticus  [x],  Irish  hand  ;  No.  51,  Gospels  [viiiJ,  Irish  hand, 
mixed  text ;  No.  60,  St.  John  [viii  or  ix],  Irish  hand,  mixed  text. 
Grandducal  Library,  Karlsruhe  ;  the  Reichenau  Codex  Augiensit 
211  ;  Go.-^pels  [late  ix],  with  a  number  of  Irish  readings.  Berne, 
Universitv  Librarv  671 ;  Gospels  [ix  or  x],  fine  Irish  hand,  mixed 
text.  Milan,  Am'brosian  Library  I.  61  sup. ;  Gospels  [viii?],  in 
semi-uncial  Irish  hand  ;  formerly  at  Bobbio.  The  text  has  a  good 
many  Irish  readings  in  it,  and  the  readings  of  the  correrlor  or 
correctors  are  extremely  interesting  and  valuable  ;  see  Berger, 
pp.  55-59. 

We  are  able  to  fix  some  of  the  St.  Gal!  MSS  to  the  middle  of 
the  Sth  cent.,  and  to  one  scribe,  Winithar,  who  was  a  monk  in 
the  monastery- 
No.  2,  Pentateuch,  Acts,  and  Apoc. ;  mixed  text,  m  the  Acta 

close  to  Br.  Mus,  Add.  11.852  ;  Wordsworth's  S  in  Acts. 
No.  70,  Epp.  of  St.  Paul ;  Pastoral  Epp.  placed  after  Heb. ; 

the  text  18  very  corrupt. 
No.  907,  Catholic  Epp,  and  Apoa  with  interesting  pefatory 
matter;  the  text  is  very  corrupt,  resembling  the  Codex 
LeinorneeTurijt  (Paris,  Bibl.  Nat.  Lat.  232S,  noted  above). 
More  important,  perhaps,  than  the  work  of  Winithar  was  that 
of  a  Bligbtlv  later  scribe,  Hartmut,  who  was  abbot  of  St.  Gall, 
872-88:1 ;  the  following  MSS  were  written  either  by  him  or  under 
his  direction  :  Nos.  7,  Chron.  and  Sapiential  books  ;  81,  Sapien- 
tial books.  Job,  Tobit;  46.  Ezek..  Minor  Prophets,  and  Dan.;  45, 
the  same  ;  77,  78.  82,  79,  83,  portions  of  a  Bible  ;  75,  Bible.    To 
them  must  be  added— 
Brit.  Mus.,  Add.  11,852,  Pauline  Epp.  (including  Laod.),  Acts, 
Cath.  Epp.,  Apoc,  [ix],  interesting  text.     See  E.  Nestle, 
Bfjujel  aU  Gelehrter,  pp.  6S-60,  Tubingen.  1892;  Words- 
worth's  U  in  Acts ;  text  agrees  closely  with  the  St  Gall  MS  2. 
St.  Gall,  however,  was  connected  with  other  main  lines  of 
MS  transmission,  such  as  those  which  ran  through  Chur,  Milan, 
Bobbio,  and  VerceUi ;  and  these  in  turn  were  in  oommunicauo* 


VULGATE 


VULGATE 


88S 


through  the  S.  of  France  with  the  X.E.  frontier  of  Spain,  so  that 
we  tin  J  the  Southern  type  of  text  a'^'ain  creeping  up  ami  showing 
trac-eti  111  the  iswiija  and  N.  Italian  MSS.     Examples  of  this  are — 

'Xhe  Bobbio  MS  uuw  at  Milan  (Ambruisan  Libr.  E.  '^ti  inf.), 
containing  Chron.- Pauline  Epp.  [ix-x] ;  mixed  text,  with 
Spanish,  Old  Latin,  and  Iribh  elements  Id  it;  Berg:&r. 
p.  Via. 

Uonza.  Collegiate  Archives  1|:  fragments  of  Bible  [x],  text 
■oniewhat  siniilar  to  the  previous  MS ;  these  two  MSS  agree 
with  ihe  Codd.  Ii'"'rtiena7ui8  and  Auf^ierms  in  omitting  the 
Uet  3  verses  of  the  Kp.  to  the  Romans ;  Berger,  p.  139. 

VIll.  Alcuinian  RKCKNaioN. — Home,  VallicuUian  Library  B.  6. 
Bible  [ix],  consitlcrt'd  to  be  the  best  MS  of  the  Alcuinian 
Recension  ;  Wordsworth's  V  ;  see  Berger,  pp.  197-2i)3. 

The  Toure  Octateuch  ;  Tours,  Public  Library  10  (commence- 
neiit  of  ix],  text  related  to  the  ValUcellian  Bible,  though  not 
exactly  the  same. 

Bamberg,  Itoyal  Library  A.  I.  6.  Bible  (ixj.  a  handsome 
exami>le  of  this  recension  ;  written  atToura.  Wordsworth's  B 
tn  Acts.  etc.  ;  see  Berger,  p.  'iiMi,  and  Leitscbub,  Fufirer  durch 
d.  k'jt.  BibL  zu  Bamberg,  1889,  p.  8'.;. 

Zurich,  Cantonal  Librarj-  O.  1  ;  text  resembling  the  Bamberg 
MS  on  the  whole,  but  ditfering  in  Pauline  Epp.  ;  Bergt-r,  p.  Ii07. 

Brit.  Mus.,  Add.  10,546.  Bible  [ix]  known  as  tlie  Codex 
Carolinus,  or  the  Bible  of  Qrandval  (near  Basle).  Wordsworth's 
K  ;  see  Berger,  up.  209-212. 

Paris,  Bibl.  Nat.,  Lat.  250.  New  Testament  [ixj,  probably 
written  at  Tours ;  text  closely  resembling  the  last  MS ;  Berger, 

p.  24a. 

Cologne,  Chapter  Library  No.  1.  Bible  (ix]  written  at  Tours 
with  interesting  niar^'inal  corrections,  made  by  a  contemporary 
band  also  probably  at  Toura. 

Paris,  Bibl,  Nat.,  Lat.  1.  Bible  [ix],  a  splendid  MS,  presented 
to  Ciiarles  llie  Bald  by  Vivian,  abbot  of  St.  Martin  of  Tours. 

Do.,  Lat.  2.  Biljle  [ix]  known  as  the  Bible  of  St.  Ut-ni-s  or  of 
Charles  the  Bald  ;  in  the  NT  the  Apoa  is  wanting.  Used  by 
B.  Stephens  in  his  Bible  of  152S. 

Do.,  Lat.  3.  Bible  (ixJ,  belonging  originally  to  the  monastery 
of  Glanfeuil ;  parts  of  the  Apoc  supplied  by  a  later  hand  ;  see 
Berger,  p.  213. 

Monaa,  Collegiate  Archives,  O.  1.  Bible  [Ix],  written  at 
Tours  by  the  scribe  Amalrious,  who  was  afterwards  archbishoi) 
of  Tours :  valuable  text ;  Berger,  p.  221. 

Paris,  Bibl.  Nat.,  U'lt.  IT.iiii".  Gospels  written  by  Adalbaldus 
(early  ix]  at  Tours;  good  Alcuinian  text,  closely  reacmbliug 
the  Bamberg  and  Ziirich  Bibles ;  Berger,  pp.  243-247. 

Nancy,  Cathedral  Library.  Gospels  [early  ix],  written  at 
T3urs ;  a  splendid  copy.  Text  resembling  the  Mon^a  Bible 
and  the  Brit.  Mus.  Gospels  below  (Add.  Il,s-IS);  Berger,  p.  247. 

Brit.  Mus.,  Add.  11,84S.  Gospels  [ix],  probably  written  at 
Tburs. 

Paris,  Bibl.  Nat.,  iJkt,  266.  Gospels  [middle  of  ix],  written  at 
TTirs,  and  presented  by  the  emperor  Lothaire  to  the  Church 
of  St.  Martin. 

Rome,  Church  of  St.  Paul  without  the  walls.  Fine  Bible 
[ix],  belonged  to  Charles  the  Bald,  was  written  probably  in  the 
N.  of  France,  and  shows  Saxon  influence  in  its  ornauientation. 
Mixed  Alcuinian  text,  with  a  good  deal  of  resemblance  to  the 
CodfX  ValtiMlianun,  still  more  perhaps  to  the  first  Bible  of 
Charles  the  Bald  (Paris,  liibt.  Nat.,  Lat.  1);  Berger.  p.  292. 

iV.S'6  {of  Candine  school)  written  in  (/old  (see  Berger,  pp.  259- 
£77).  In  text  these  M.SS  belong  rather  to  the  type  of  the 
continental  Saxon  MSS  (above,  p.  887)  than  to  the  somewhat 
later  Tours  school. 

The  famous  liamilton  Gospel*  [viii-ix],  now  In  the  library  of 
Th.  Irwin,  Esq.,  of  Oswego,  New  York;  very  early  Caroline 
t«xt,  with  occasional  Spanish  and  Anglo  -  Saxon  elements ; 
Berger,  p.  259. 

The  t'odrx  Ada,  of  Trier  (Stadtbihliothek,  No.  xxii.),  a 
tplendid  MS.  Gospels  [end  of  viii],  written  by  two  hands, 
the  scribe  who  has  written  the  latter  part  of  the  ^IS  having 
also  added  a  large  number  of  mar^^inal  corrections  to  the 
former.  The  first  hand  shows  connexion  with  the  oldest  Tours 
MS.S,  and  especially  the  Codices  aurei ;  the  second  hand,  with  tlie 
more  ordinary  Toura  type;  Berger,  pn.  202-2tl7;  see  also  the 
monograph  hie  Triercr  Ada-iiandgchrift,  Leipzig,  1889;  the 
article  on  the  text  of  the  Alcuinian  Bibles  by  Dr.  P.  Corssen,  is 
most  valuable. 

Brit.  Mus.,  Harl.  2788.  Gospels  [viii-ix],  written  in  golden 
uncials;  an  extremely  fine  MS;  llluminatious  of  the  same 
•chool  as  those  of  the  Codex  Ada. 

Abbeville,  Public  Lib.  No.  1.  Gospels  [viii-lx]  written  in 
gold,  and  strongly  resembling  llorl.  2788 ;  Berger,  p.  267. 

Paris,  Bibl.  Nat.,  l>at.  8860.  The  GospeU  of  St.  Medard 
(eariy  ix] ;  a  fine  MS :  Berger,  p.  2G8. 

Do.,  Lat.  11.955.     Portions  of  Matt,  and  Mark  [viii?]. 

Do.,  Lat.  9383.    Gospels  [end  of  viii]. 

Tours,  Public  IJbrary  22;  fonnerly  at  St.  Martin's.  Gospels 
(viii-ix],  interesting  text,  on  tlie  whole  belonging  to  Alcuinian 
revision,  hut  with  Irish  and  Old  Ijitin  elemenla  in  it;  Berger, 
pp.  47,  202,  272,  and  the  Oxford  Vuigate,  Efriloijua,  p.  720, 
Ti.-^chcndorf's  mt ;  Wordsworth  quotes  its  readings. 

Vienna,  Schatzkammer.    The  famous  Ciosjtels  (end  of  viii?), 
■up])oscd  to  have  been  found  in  the  tomb  of  Charles  the  Great ; 
written  in  gold  on  pnri'le  vellum  ;  Berger,  p.  275. 
l>o.,  Imperial  I^tbrary,  652.     Psalter  (end  of  viii]. 

Munich,  Royal  Library,  Lat.  14,000  (  =  Cim.  55).  The  splendid 
Oowpels  of  St.  Emmeron  fix,  dated  870].  Mlxe<l  text,  with 
An^lo-Saxon  elements  In  it;  probably  written  In  the  N.  of 
France ;  lierger,  p.  295. 

UL  Tubodcltiah  Bbcbkbioh.  —  Paris,  Bibl.  Nat.,  LaU  9380. 


The  famous  Theodulflan  Bible  [ix],  written  in  beautiful  and 
minute  hand.  Wordsworth's  ** ;  see  Berger,  p.  149  f.,  and 
Dehsle,  Le«  liiblea  de  Tlu-udulj'e,  Paris,  1879  ;  sometimes  known 
OS  the  Codex  M'-muiiaiius. 

Puy,  Cathiciral  Library.  Bible  [ix],  written  under  the  direc- 
tion of  Thcodulf.  and  so  closely  resembling  the  Paris  Bible  that 
Delisle  asseru  that  many  pages  look  almost  like  proofs  struck 
from  the  same  type.  Tlie  text,  however,  is  not  so  good :  see 
Delisle,  as  above  :  also  Berger,  p.  171  ff. 

Brit.  Mus.,  Ada.  24,142.  Bible  [ix],  fonnerly  belonging  to  the 
monastery  of  St.  Hubert  in  the  Ardennes  ;  written  in  a  small 
minuscule  hand,  strongly  resembling  tiiat  of  tlie  Theodultian 
Bible.  Tlie  text  is  extremely  interesting,  the  lirat  hand  allied 
to  the  Northuml)rian  family,  while  the  marginal  corrections 
present  a  Theodultian  type.     Wordsworth's  H. 

Orleans,  Public  Libr.  14.  Book  of  the  Prophets  [ix],  from 
Fleury.  "Text  shows  traces  of  Theodulflan  inlluence,  tliough  tlie 
order  of  the  books  differs  from  that  of  Theodulf.  Berger, 
p.  177. 

Do.,  11  and  13.  Two  volumes  of  a  Bible  [x],  containing 
Kings,  Proverbs,  Song  of  Songs,  Job,  Mace.,  and  Tobit ;  from 
Fleury.  Theodullian  Text,  but  following  sometimes  the  first 
hand,  sometimes  the  margin.il  rea<iing8.     Berger,  p.  177. 

Paris,  Bibl.  Nat.,  Lat.  11,!);;7.  Bible  [ix-x],  the  St.  Germani 
ex-einplar  parmun  of  Koin-rtus  Stephanus,  for  the  MS  was  for- 
merly at  St.  Gertnain-dts-l'rea  ;  the  hand  resembles  that  of  the 
Tiieodullian  Bible,  and  the  text  also  ;  the  latter  follows  some- 
times the  first  hand,  sometimes  the  margin.     Berger,  p  178. 

Copenhagen,  Uoyal  Libr.,  nouv.  fonds  Royal  1.  Parts  of  a 
Bilde,  i.e.  Psalms-Daniel  [ix] ;  handwTiling  resembles  th.'it  of 
the  St.  Germain  MS  above,  and  the  text  is  Theodulflan. 
Delisle,  Bibl.  de  I'Ecole  de$  Vhartes,  xlvi.  p.  321  ;  Berger, 
p.  181. 

X.  MEDiiEVAL  Texts.— Out  of  the  thousands  of  such  MSS  we 
can  but  select  three,  which  for  various  reasons  are  interesting. 

Brit.  Mus.,  Reg.  I.  B.  xii.  Bible  [xiii],  written  in  1254  by 
William  of  Hales  for  Thomas  de  la  Wile,  '  Magister  Scolaruro 
Sarum ' ;  fair  specimen  of  ordinary  mediieval  text.  Words- 
worth's W. 

Dijon,  Publ.  Libr.  9  his.  Bible,  4  vols,  [xii],  containing  the 
corrections  of  Stephen  Harding,  abbot  of  Citeaux. 

Paris,  Bibl.  Nat.,  Lat.  10,719-16,722.  Bible,  4  vols,  [xiii], 
containing  the  corrections  of  the  Doniinicans,  under  the 
auspices  of  Hugo  de  S.  Caro. 

LiTBRATURB.— Full  Hsts  of  works  will  be  found  In  S.  Berger, 
Uiatoire  de  la  Vulg.  pendant  lee  premiers  si^cles  du  moyen  dge^ 
Paris,  18'J3,  pp.  xxU-xxiv  ;  and  in  E.  Nestle  (to  whom  the 
present  writer  owes  many  valuable  suggestions),  (frtext  u. 
trebersetzuwien  der  Bibel,  Leipzig.  1S97,  pp.  96,  102  (  =  PIiE^, 
Bd.  iii.  pp.  3(1,  42).  We  give  here  a  somewhat  compressed  list 
of  the  works  likely  to  be  useful  to  the  ordinary  student. 

A.  For  the  life  of  Jerome : — Tlie  I'ita  S.  Bieronymi  in  Vallarsi's 
edition  of  his  works,  torn.  xi.  pp.  1-280.  For  the  works 
of  Jerome  the  student  should  use  by  preference  the  edi- 
tions of  Vallarsi,  11  vols,  folio,  Verona,  1734-1742,  do. 
quarto,  Venice,  1766-1772 ;  tlie  quarto  edition  is  handier, 
and  has  been  reprinted  by  iligne  (but  with  different 
paging),  Pat.  Lat.  x.xii.-xxx.  ;  von  Ccilln,  *Hieronynius'  in 
Ersch  and  timber's  Encyclopiidie  (it.  Section,  8  Theil,  p. 
72  f.),  1831  ;  F.  X.  Collombct,  Uistoire  de  Saint  Jiir&me,  2 
vols.,  Paris,  1S44  ;  O.  Zockler,  JJicronj/mits ;  sein  Leben 
und  Wirfcen  aits  sntim  Schri/ten  danjcstellt,  Gotha,  1865  ; 
A.  Thierry,  Saint  J^rOme^  2  vols.,  Paris,  1807  ;  E.  L.  Cutts, 
*  Saint  Jerome '  in  the  Fathers  for  English  Headers 
(S.P.O.K.),  1877;  Zockler,  'llieronymns*  in  PliE^  (Bd. 
viii.  p.  42  f.),  1900  ;  Fremantle,  '  Hieronyiuus*  in  Smith  and 
Wace's  Diet,  of  Christian  IHo'jraphy,  vol.  iii.  p.  29  f.,  1882 ; 
the  same,  'Life  of  Jerome'  in  Wa*^e  and  SchafT's  Select 
Library  of  yicene  and  Fost-Xiceiw  Fathers,  vol.  vi.  pp. 
xvi-xxv,  1893;  G.  Grutzmacher,  Uieronymus  ;  et>w  (no- 
graphiHchc  Studie,  etc.,  J.  Leipz.  1901. 

B.  For  the  history  of  the  text,  both  manuscript  and  printed  : 
— R.  Simon,  Uit^ttnre  critique  des  yersions  du  A"/',  Rotter- 
dam. 1G90;  J.  Mill,  A'oDum  Testamentum  cum  lectionibm 
varinntibns,  etc.,  Prcemittitur  diancrtatio,  Oxonii,  1707  ; 
see  especially  p.  Ixxxi  f.;  H.  Hody,  De  Bibliorum  Trxtihus, 
etc.,  Oxon.,  170.'j,  pp.  342-569;  L.  van  Kss,  Pragmatica 
doctt.  Cath.  Trid.  circa  Vulg.  decreti  scn-smn,  Sulzbach, 
1816,  Pragmatisch-Kritisclie  Gesdi.  der  Vul</.,  Tiibingen, 
1824;  G.  RJegler,  Kritischc  Gesch,  der  Vuli.,  Sulzbach, 
1820;  Bp.  Westcott,  'Vulgate'  in  Smith's  />/>.  vol.  liL, 
1863;  O.  Vercellone,  Varue  lectiones  vulg.  LaHnce  Bibli- 
orum editionis,  2  torn.,  Romaj,  18(Jl-18t'4 ;  F.  Kaulen, 
Qenchichte  der  Vulfj.,  Mainz,  1868;  S.  Berger,  *  Des  Essais 

3ul  ont  ^tA  faits  &  Paris  au  xiii»  sitcle  pour  corriger  le  texle 
e  la  Vulg.'<y(cp.  de  Th^ologie  et  de  Philomphie,  t.  xvL), 
LausanTie,  1883,  De  VHiathire  de  la  Vulg.  en  France, 
Paris,  1887,  Quam  notitiam  lingua  hebraiea  habut-riut 
christiani  mfdii  (Kvi  temporibue  in  QalUa,  Paris,  1893. 
Uistoire  dela  Vulg.  pendant  leg  premiers  riicles  du  moi/en 
dgc.  Paris,  1893;  G.  B.  de  Rossi,  'La  Bibbia  offerta' da 
Ceolfrido'  (from  the  Ommagio  gixtbUare  delta  Bibl.  Vat. 
al  S.  P.  L'-one  xrii.).  Rome,  1888;  U.  Denifle,  •  Die  Hand- 
schriflen  der  Bihel -Correctorien  des  13  Jahrhun<lert.s 
{Arclviv  f.  Literatur-  «.  Kirchengeseh.  t.  Iv.  pp.  263,  471). 
1888 ;  P.  Martin,  *  Ia  Vulg.  latine  au  xiii*  st^cle  d'apr6a  R. 
Bacon'  (in  Le  Urufon  vli..  Louvain,  1888),  Ma  tcxtc 
Parisicn  de  la  Vulg.  Lat*  (/y^  Musr'un  viii.,  1889);  />»/ 
Trierer  Ada-Uandschrijt  .  .  .  von  K.  Mcnzel,  P.  Corssen, 
etc.,  Leipzig,  1889;  11.  J.  White,    'The  Codex  Amiatiuui 


890 


VULTUEE 


WALLS 


and  its  Birthplace,'  in  Sttidia  Biblica  et  Ecclesiastica,  vol. 
ii.,  Oxford,  IS'JO ;  W.  A.  Copinger,  Incunabida  liiUica,  or 
the  first  half-century  of  the  Latin  Bible,  London,  IMiii  ;  E. 
Nestle,  Ein  Julnluum  der  Lateinischen  Bibel,  Tuliingeu, 
1892;  H.  J.  AVhite,  'The  Latin  Versions,'  in  Ncrivener- 
Miller,  Introduction  to  the  Criticimn  of  the  NT*,  1S94,  vol. 
ii.  pp.  56  90  ;  E.  von  Dobschiitz,  Stttdieii  zur  TeztkritiJc  der 
Vvi-j.,  Leipzig,  1894;  C.  R.  Gregory:  Prolegomena  to 
Tisfiliendorf s  ^'oru7/i  Te slant entum  G rwce, etc., etl it iooctava 
eritica  maior,  vol.  iii..  Lips.  1894,  pp.  971-1108;  F.  G, 
Ken.von,  Handb.  to  Text.  Crit.  of  liT,  1901,  pp.  184- 
203 ;  E.  Nestle,  Lateininche  Bibeliibersetzuji'ten  (revision 
of  Fritzache)  in  PRE'^,  Bd.  iii.,  also  publislied  separ- 
ately in  Urtext  u.  Uebersetzungen  der  Bibel,  Leipzig,  1S97 ; 
P.  Con>.sen,  '  Bericht  tiber  die  Iat*;in.  liilieltibersetzungen ' 
(' Sonderabdnick,'  from  the  Jahreshericht  iiher  die.  Fort- 
schritte  der  classischen  AUertuuiswisacnschdft,  1899);  P. 
Tbielmann,  '  Bericht  d.  d.  gLsanimelte  bandst^hr.  Material 
zu  einer  kr.  Ausgabe,'  etc.  (from  the  Munich  SUzungs- 
berichten,  1899). 

C.  For  the  grammar,  Latinity,  etc.,  of  the  Vulgate  :^-J.  A. 
Hagen,  Sprachliche  Erurteniixjen  zur  Vulg.,  Freiburg  in 
Br.  1SC3;  F.  Kaulen,  Ilandbuch  zur  Vxilg.y  Mainz,  1^70; 
P.  Hake,  Sprachdche  Erhiuterangen  zu  dem  Igt.  Psabnen- 
texte,  Arnsberg,  ls72 ;  W.  Nowack,  Die  Be'deutung  dcs 
Hieron.  filr  die  aittest.  Kritik,  Gottingen,  1876 ;  H. 
Roensch,  Itala  u.  ViUg.,  Marburg,  1S76 ;  H.  Goelzer, 
Latinity  de  Saint  JirOme,  Paris,  1S84 ;  ii.  P.  Smith,  'The 
Value  of  the  Vulg.  OT  for  Textual  Criticism'  {Presbyterian 
and  Bcfomied  Mev.,  April  1891);  A.  Hartl,  Sprachliche 
Eiijenthiimliehkeiten  der  Vulg.,  Ried,  1894. 

D.  Critical  Editions:— C.  Vercellone,  Biblia  Sacra  ViUgatce 
Editumit  Sixti  Y,  et  Clemcntit  VIII,  Fontt.  Momc.  jusni 


recognita  atque  edita.  Roin^e,  Typis  S.  Congregationig  d4 
propaganda  fide,  1801.  This  is  the  best  reprint  of  th« 
Clementine  \ulgate  Bible,  and  Vercellone's  preface  should 
be  carefully  read;  C.  Tischendorf,  A'oy.  Test.  Latine ; 
textum  Ilieronymi  .  .  .  restituit  C.  T.,  Lipsi»,  1864 ;  P.  M. 
Ht'tzenauer,  iVoy.  Test,  Vulgatm  Editionis:  ex  Vaticani* 
editionibtis  eantmque  correctono  critiec  edidit  P.  M.  H.^ 
Oeniponte,  1899  ;  Corssen,  Epistula  ad  lialatag,  Berlin, 
iSbf* ;  Bp.  J.  Wordsworth,  ^orntm  Tegtamentum  .  .  .  Latine 
sec.  edit.  S.  Ilieronymi  .  .  .  receiuuit  J.  Wordsworth* 
S.T.P.,  in  operis  societatem  adsuinto  Ii.  J.  White^  Oxon  , 
1889-1898.  (The  four  Gospels  are  published  ;  the  rest  ol 
the  NT  is  in  preparation).  H.  J.  WHITE. 

YULTURE. — nx-n  ddWi  and  r\»^  dayyah  are  tr, 
AV  *  vulture '  (Lv  \V\  Dt  H^Ms  Sii^)',  KV  *kite'; 
n;N  'ayyah  is  tr.  AV  *  vulture'  {Job  2S^),  RV 
*  falcon.'  crfj  or  r<im  rdhCiia  or  rdhdmdh  is  tr. 
RV  ^vulture'  (Lv  ip«,  Dt  14"),  AV^ffier  eagle.* 
Of  these  four,  only  the  last  refers  to  the  vulture. 
It  is  doubtless  Neophron  percnojyteruSj  Sav., 
Pharaoh's  Hen,  which  is  still  called  rakham  in 
Arabic.  On  the  other  hand,  is*:  ncs]iert  which  ia 
always  rendered  '  eagle,'  undoubtedly  includes  a 
number  of  the  vultures,  esp.  the  lammerj2;eier  and 
the  grill'on.  For  the  habits  of  the  vulture  and 
for  Scripture  allusions  to  them,  see  Eagle,  GlEB 
Eagle,  Ospray,  and  Ossifrage.      G.  £.  Post. 


W 


WAFER — See  art.  BREAD,  vol.  L  p.  318. 

WAGES.— See  Servant. 
WAGGON.— See  Cart. 

WAIT  (from  the  same  root  as 'wake' and  'watch') 
is  used  in  AV  both  as  subst.  and  verb.  1.  As  subst. 
the  meaning  is  a  watch,  plot,  esp.  an  ambush. 
The  phrases  are  (a)  Lie  in  wait,  as  Dt  19"  '  But  if 
any  man  hate  his  neighbour,  and  lie  in  wait  for 
him,  and  rise  up  against  him  and  smite  him  mor- 
tally that  he  die ' ;  Jos  8^  '  Behold,  ye  shall  lie  in 
wait  against  the  city,  even  behind  the  city.'  So 
'  tiers  in  wait,'  as  Jg  9"  'And  the  men  of  Shechem 
set  liers  in  wait  for  him  in  the  top  of  the  moun- 
tains.' (b)  Lay  wait,  HS  Jg  16'-'  '  They  compassed 
him  in,  and  laid  wait  for  him  all  night  in  the  gate 
of  the  city ' ;  Jer  9*  '  One  speaketli  peaceably  to 
his  neighbour  witli  his  mouth,  but  in  heart  he 
layeth  jiis  wait '  (KV  as  AVm  '  layeth  wait  for 
him  ').  (c)  Laying  of  wait,  as  Nu  35'^  '  But  if  he 
thrust  him  of  hatred,  or  hurl  at  liim  by  laying  of 
wait.'  Udall  has  '  lay  a  wait'  {Erastmis'  Paraph. 
i.  87),  'And  in  the  meane  tyme  he  touched  secrete- 
lye  the  conscience  of  certayne  I'hariseis,  whiclie 
layed  deadly  a  wayte  for  Jesus.'  And  Fuller  lias 
'lay  at  wait'  {Hulij  State,  31G),  'An  adversary 
who  lay  at  wait  for  all  advantages.' 

2.  As  verb  we  find  'wait'  in  the  phrases  'wait  for' 
and  '  wait  on  '  or  '  upon.'  (1)  '  \\  ait  for  '  has  three 
meanings  :  {a)  Watch  for,  equivalent  to  '  lay  wait 
for,'  Job  IS^  '  He  is  waited  for  of  the  sword  '  (v^ji 
^ITv**  ***'"> ;  LXX  i2n-^Ta\Tai  [A  ^VT^raKTat]  yd.p  fi6-q 
th  xf'pat  ciSripov  ;  Vulg.  '  circumspectans  undinue 
gladium';  Cov.  'the  swearde  is  alnvaye  before  his 
eyes '  ;  Kautzsch,  '  fur  das  Schwert  ist  er  auser- 
sehen ') ;  Ps  56"  '  They  mark  my  steps,  when 
they  wait  for  my  soul'  (vcj  iip  ^}'S3) ;  cf.  Ps  "l" 
'  And  they  that  fay  wait  for  my  soiil '  (vrj  noe'i). 
(6)  Expect,  the  modern  use.  Lie  12*  '  Like  linto 
men  that  wait  for  their  lord,  when  he  will  re- 
turn   from    the  wedding  '  (?rpo(roexoM^''0'S  Tdv  Kvpiov 


iavrCv,  RV  'looking  for');  Ac  10"  'Cornelius 
waited  for  them  '  (?';;'  vpo<TOoKwv  aiVroi's,  RV  '  was 
waiting  for  them');  IT'" 'Now  while  Paul  waited 
for  them  at  Athens'  [iKdexop^^vov  avroui  toO  IlaiJ- 
\ov) ;  2  Th  3'  '  the  patient  waiting  for  Christ ' 
(uTTOyuoi'^,  RV  as  AVm  'patience'),  (c)  The  most 
important  use  of  this  phrase  is  when  it  refer.'s  to 
the  attitude  towards  God  of  the  patient  believer, 
who  is  confident  that  God  will  j'et  show  Himself 
to  be  the  enemy  of  evildoers  and  the  praise  of 
them  that  do  well ;  it  is  then  almost  equivalent  to 
beticpe  in  or  worship.  Thus  2  K  6**  '  Behold,  tliis 
evil  is  of  the  Lord  ;  what  (KV  'why')  should  I  wait 
for  the  Lord  any  longer?  '  (niy  nin:S  S-nW-no,  LXX  tI 
inroneLvoi  Ttf  Kvpitfi  (ti.  ;) ;  Ps  37'  '  Rest  in  the  Lord, 
and  wait  patiently  for  him ' ;  39'  '  And  now.  Lord, 
what  wait  I  for  ?  my  hope  is  in  thee '  ;  65'  '  Praise 
waiteth  for  thee,  O  God,  in  Sion.'  See  also  Driver, 
Par.  Psnl.  p.  465. 

(2)  '  Wait  on  '  or  '  upon '  means  :  'a)  attend  to,  as 
Nu  3'"  '  And  thou  shaft  appoint  Aaion  and  his  sons, 
and  they  shall  wait  on  their  priest's  office  '  ;  8"  ; 
1  Ch  23'-*  '  Their  office  was  to  wait  on  tho  sons  of 
Aaron  for  the  service  of  the  house  of  the  I<ord ' ; 
2Ch  13'" 'the  Levi  tea  wait  upon  their  business'; 
Mk  3'  '  He  spake  unto  his  disciples  that  a  small 
ship  should  wait  on  him '  {irpocrKaprep^  aiVcp) ;  Ro 
12'.  So  Adams,  2  Peter,  35,  '  Life  .  .  .  which  is 
obnoxious  to  sin,  and  waited  on  with  misery.'  In 
this  sense  '  wait  at '  is  used  in  1  Co  9"* '  TLey  which 
wait  at  the  altar'  (RV  'wait  upon').  (6)  The 
other  use  is  the  same  as  the  special  biblical  sense 
of  '  wait  for,'  viz.  look/or,  trust  to,  nearly  worship, 
as  Ps  '25'  '  Let  none  that  wait  on  thee  be  ashamed  ; 
255. 21  27"  104-''. 

The  simple  verb  is  used  twice  of  God's  long- 
sufl'ering  towards  men.  Is  30"  '  And  therefore  wul 
the  Lord  wait,  that  lie  may  be  gracious  unto  you ' ; 
1  P  3''"  '  the  long-suliering  of  God  waited  in  the 
days  of  Noah.'  J.  HASriN'QS. 

WALLS. — All  over  the  East,  where  wood  is  not 
plentiful,  walls  of  houses  and  even  palaces  havf 


WALLS 


WALLS 


891 


been  Imilt  from  the  earliest  times  of  crude  or  sun- 
burnt brick.  It  is  only  in  certain  localities,  where 
stone  was  plentiful,  and  in  later  ages,  that  stone 
has  been  used.  Strabo  (xvii.  2.  3)  tells  us  that 
the  houses  in  the  cities  of  Ethiopia  were  formed 
by  interweaving  split  pieces  of  palm  wood  or  of 
crude  bricks,  and  says  (xvi.  1.  5)  of  Seleucia 
(Assyria,  near  Babylon)  that  on  account  of  the 
scarcity  of  timber  the  beams  and  pillars  of  the 
houses  were  made  of  palm  wood :  they  wound 
ropes  of  twisted  reeds  round  the  pillars,  painted 
them  over  with  colour  and  drew  designs  on  them  ; 
thej'  covered  the  doors  with  asphalt.  All  the 
houses  were  vaulted  on  account  ot  the  scarcity  of 
timber.  The  earliest  edbrts  of  construction  in 
Egypt  were  made  in  wood,  probably  like  the 
dwellings  now  found  in  Nubia — palm  branches 
interlaced,  plastered  over  with  c^lay  and  straw, 
roofs  of  branches  or  planks,  or  faggots  of  wood. 
Bricks  were  an  advance  upon  this.  The  palaces 
of  Egypt  were  of  verj'  slifjht  construction,  stuccoed 
walls  and  planks  of  acacia.  In  As.syria  stone  was 
so  scarce  that  it  was  only  used  as  an  accessory ; 
the  bodies  of  the  structures  were  never  composed 
of  it :  it  was  mainly  coulined  to  plinths,  pave- 
ments, and  the  internal  linings  of  walls.  In 
ChaUhea  stone  wa.s  entirely  alwent.  The  moun- 
tains which  run  parallel  to  the  left  bank  of  the 
Tigris  were  bare  of  trees,  and  the  palm  and  poplar 
alone  yielded  wood  of  any  length :  the  one  soft 
and  librous,  the  other  brittle  and  light.  Nineveh, 
IJabylon,  Egypt,  and  Jerusalem  all  drew  their 
timber  from  the  forest  of  Lebanon.  The  em- 
ploj'ment,  however,  of  this  excellent  wood  must 
always  have  been  rare  and  exceptional  (Lenor- 
mant,  Histoire  Ancienne,  ii.  298;  Perrot  and 
Chipiez,  i.  124  ;  Layard,  Discoveries,  356). 

'  In  Chaldiva  the  architect  was  condemned  by 
tl\e  force  majeure  of  circumstances  to  eni]il<)y  little 
more  than  crude  or  burnt  brick  and  bad  tmiber  ; 
in  A.ssyria  he  voluntarily  condemned  himself  to 
the  limitations  they  imposed '  (Perrot  and  Chipiez, 
i.  125).  The  Chalda'ans  could  employ  neither  pier 
or  column,  nor  bearers  or  lintels  of  stone ;  tliey 
were  thus  debarred  from  constructing  spacious 
galleries  and  chambers,  and  '  consequently  their 
towns  were  artificial  mountains,  as  solid  and 
massive  from  base  to  summit  as  the  natural  hills' 
{ih.  133).  The  few  long  and  narrow  apartments 
contrived  within  them  could  be  compared  only  to 
caves  hollowed  out  in  the  face  of  a  clilt'.  \V  hen 
the  arch  was  discovered  it  was  made  frequent  use 
of.  A  bas-relief  recovered  by  Layard,  showing 
a  group  of  buildings  at  Kouyunjik  erected  by 
Sennacherib  in  his  palace  at  Nineveh,  depicts 
them  as  having  not  only  flat  roofs,  but  hemi- 
spherical cupolas,  and  tall  conical  domes :  the 
same  forms  are  still  in  use  all  over  that  country, 
the  flat  roofs  usually  for  dwelling-houses,  but  yet 
the  jjeasants'  houses  as  well  as  the  store-houses 
have  often  domed  roofs  of  brick. 

In  building  the  tower  of  Habel  we  are  told 
'  lliey  had  brick  for  stone,  and  bitumen  had  they 
for  mortar'  (Gn  11').  Herodotus  says  (i.  179),  in 
regard  to  the  walls  of  Babylon,  '  As  they  dug 
the  ditches  they  converted  the  excavated  earth 
into  bricks,  and  when  they  had  enough  they  burnt 
them  in  the  kilns.  Finally,  for  mortar  they  used 
hot  bitumen,  and  at  every  thirty  courses  of  bricks 
they  put  a  layer  of  reeils  interlaced.'  There  are 
many  bituminous  fountains  still  to  be  found  spring- 
ing through  the  soil  between  Mosul  and  Baghdad 
(Layard,  Nineveh,  ii.  40).  See  BITUMEN.  In  spite 
of  the  abundance  of  stone  In  Egypt,  crude  brick 
was  extensively  used,  and  the  captives  taken  in 
war  were  forced  to  undertake  the  erection  of  public 
granaries  and  other  buildings  in  that  material 
ior    the  Egyptian  monarch.      Wilkinson   (i.   60) 


refers  to  the  buildings  of  great  size  and  solidity, 
found  in  various  parts  of  the  country,  of  crude 
brick.  At  Thebes  these  buildings  consist  of  walls 
enclosing  sacred  monuments  and  tombs,  and  some 
are  made  with  and  others  without  straw. 

In  Palestine  all  the  earliest  remains  that  have 
been  recovered  are  of  crude  brick ;  and  even  in 
the  ruins  in  the  mountains,  where  stone  was 
Iilentiful,  there  are  no  stone  remains  attributed 
to  an  earlier  time  than  that  of  king  Solomon.  At 
Tell  el-IIesy  (Lachish)  at  least  eight  ruined  cities 
have  been  brought  to  light,  one  lying  over  the 
other,  the  earliest  being  attributed  to  1700  years 
li.C,  the  latest  to  500  years  B.C.  The  houses  are 
of  crude  brick,  similar  to  those  of  the  coimtry 
at  the  present  day.  No  indications  were  obtained 
whether  the  roots  were  vaulted  or  supported  by 
beams ;  probably  the  Latter,  judf'in"  by  the  thick- 
ness of  the  walls  (Bliss,  Mound  of  Man>i  Cities). 
At  Tell  es-SOfi  recent  excavations  of  FEF  have 
exposed  a  wall  of  defence  of  stone  earlier  than 
the  times  of  the  Crusades,  but  the  date  is  not 
yet  approximated  to.  The  stones  are  roughly 
squared  rubble,  laid  in  mud  and  straw,  and  the 
interstices  tilled  with  mud  and  small  stones  from 
the  lields :  height  of  courses  1'  5"  to  2'.  A  few 
drafted  stones  occur.  Part  of  the  wall  is  plastered 
with  dark  mud  and  straw,  over  which  is  a  layer 
of  white  mud  and  straws,  made  by  mixing  a  powder 
of  unburnt  limestone  with  water.  This  kind  of 
plaster  is  used  in  the  Lebanon  to-day  (PEFSt, 
1899,  195). 

Foundations  of  a  city  in  Egypt. — When  a  new 
district  was  to  be  added  to  a  city,  the  ground  was 
prepared  by  building  with  crude  brick  a  number 
of  long  and  thick  walls  parallel  to  one  another ; 
then  cross  walls  at  right  angles  with  the  first, 
che.ss-board  fasliion.  The  square  pits  tlius  con- 
structed were  tilled  with  eartli,  broken  stone,  or 
anything  else  witliin  reach.  The  foundations  of 
the  future  city  were  laid  upon  the  mass  thus 
obtained,  and  they  profited  by  the  operation  both 
in  health  and  amenity.  The  cities  of  Memphis 
and  Thebes  both  seem  to  have  been  built  in  this 
manner  (Edouard  Mariette,  p.  1.39).  Diodorus 
(i.  45.  4)  says  there  were  houses  of  four  and  live 
storeys  at  Thebes,  and  attributes  them  to  the  time 
of  the  fabulous  monarch  Busires.  As  a  rule  we 
find  a  ground  floor,  one  floor  above  that,  and  a 
covered  flat  roof  on  the  top. 

Egyptian  houses  were  built  of  crude  brick  made 
of  loam  mixed  with  chopijcd  straw.  These  bricks 
are  usually  a  foot  long  and  6  inches  wide.  The 
ceilings  of  the  larger  rooms  were  of  indigenous  or 
foreign  wood,  the  smaller  rooms  were  often  vaulted: 
the  walls  of  the  houses  were  coated  with  stucco,  and 
painted  with  religious  and  domestic  scenes.  The 
galleries  and  columns  of  the  porch  were  coloured  in 
imitation  of  stone,  or  painted.  The  ceilings  were 
covered  with  arabesques  and  interlacing  ornaments 
of  all  kinds,  wliUe  the  floors  were  strewn  >vith  net* 
woven  of  many  coloured  reeds  (M.  Gailhabaud's 
Monuments  ancicns  et  mudcrns). 

Wilkinson  (Anc.  Egyp.  iii.  316)  states  that  tho 
brick  arch  was  used  1540  years  B.C.,  and  the  sto.ne 
arch  GUO  B.C.  in  Egypt,  and  suggests  that  it  came 
into  use  owing  to  the  small  quantity  of  wood  in 
Egypt,  and  considers  that  the  invention  of  the  arch 
tliere  may  date  as  far  back  as  2020  years  B.C.*  Ho 
gives  instances  of  stone  monoliths  of  over  290  tons 
weight  being  dragged  by  manual  labour  over  500 
miles  from  the  quarries :  the  power  to  move  the 
mass  was  the  same,  whatever  might  bo  the  dis- 
tance.     They  simply  put  on  a  sulhcient   number 

*  In  all  probability  thin  dat«  should  be  carried  much  further 
tm'-k,  for  recent  excavations  at  Nippur  liovo  shown  that  in 
Babylonia  the  arch  of  burnt  brick  was  employed  prior  to  b.c 
4000.    See  Babylonia  in  vol.  L  p.  1W>. 


of  men  to  move  the  stone  by  hauling  it  along  on 
a  sledge.  One  case  he  mentions  of  a  sinj;le  block, 
587  tons  weight,  bein"  transported  138  laiies. 

The  walls  of  temples  and  the  fortihuations  of 
cities  required  to  be  of  a  verj'  soliil  descrii)tion,  on 
account  of  the  battering-ram  (which  see)  ;  and  as 
the  latter  became  more  scientilically  constructed, 
and  other  arts  of  war  came  into  existence,  the  walls 
had  to  be  made  more  and  more  solid,  and  the  foun- 
dations extended  deep  into  the  soil  or  to  the  solid 
rock  (Lk  6*). 

There  exist  a  number  of  instances  at  the  present 
day  of  the  magnificent  walls  of  cut  stone  built  in 
early  days  from  the  time  of  Solomon  to  Herod,  at 
Jerusalem,  Hebron,  Arak  el-Emir,  Baalbek,  Tyre 
and  Zidon,  and  Egypt. 

At  Jerusalem  some  of  the  stones  in  the  wall  of 
the  temple  enclosure,  still  existing,  are  over  30  feet 
long,  8  feet  vnde,  and  3i  feet  high,  weighing  over 
80  tons.  The  ancient  walls  are  in  places  still  over 
150  feet  in  height,  and  were  originally  at  the 
comers  at  least  230  feet  in  height.  The  stones 
are  of  hard  mountain  limestone,  approximating 
to  marble,  and  are  carefully  chiselled,  with  a 
sunken  draft  of  about  3  to  5  inches  width  all 
round.  The  stones  of  the  wall  surrounding  the 
cave  of  Machpelah  at  Hebron  are  very  little  in- 
ferior in  size  to  those  at  Jerusalem. 

At  Baalbek  the  stones  of  the  waU  of  the  temple 
are  not  quite  equal  in  size  to  those  of  Jerusalem, 
and  the  stone  is  much  softer  ;  but  this  wall  is  pro- 
tected by  another  one  in  front  built  of  exceedingly 
large  stones,  3  of  which  weigh  each  about  800  tons, 
and  are  over  60  feet  in  length,  17  feet  in  breadth, 
and  14  feet  in  height.  The  manner  in  which  these 
stones  were  cut  and  brought  down  from  the  quarry 
can  be  seen  in  the  quarry  itself.  When  a  large 
stone  was  ready  to  be  brovight  away,  it  could  be 
brought  doNvn  by  gravity  with  not  a  very  great 
expenditure  of  la\>our. 

Josephus  (Ant.  XX.  x.  7)  speaks  of  square  and 
very  wuite  stones  used  in  the  temple,  the  work  of 
king  Solomon,  20  cubits  long  and  6  cubits  high  ; 
he  also  speaks  {BJ  v.  v.  1)  of  stones  in  the  temple 
itself  40  cubits  in  length.  These  great  stone  walls 
are  taken  do\vn  to  the  rock  for  their  foundations, 
while  the  buildings  of  Babylon  had  their  founda- 
tions usually  on  the  sand  near  the  surface  (Perrot 
and  Chipiez,  L  157).  The  Pharaonic  temples  were 
also  rather  laid  on  the  surface  than  solidly  placed 
in  the  ground. 

The  gardens  in  Syria  formerly,  as  at  present,  had 
stone  walls  as  boundaries  (BJ  V.  iii.  2),  and  narrow 
paths  traversed  the  gardens  of  the  suburbs  (Nu 
22-''').  The  bare  hillsides  were  terraced  with  stone 
walls  and  soil  brought  up  from  the  bottom,  so 
that  the  bare  hills  became  fertile  fields,  as  is  the 
case  at  the  present  day  in  Spain,  Northern  India, 
Java,  Japan.  This  also  is  carried  out  at  the  present 
day  in  many  parts  of  Palestine  (BJiP  iL  493,  iii. 
14). 

For  other  points  connected  with  the  subject  of 
this  art.  see  BRICK,  GATE,  HOUSE,  MORTAR,  PAVE- 
MENT, Roof. 

Por  details  regarding  the  walls  of  Jerusalem, 
Babylon,  Nineveh,  etc.,  see  the  articles  under  these 
titles.  C.  Wareen. 

WAR.— 

L  The  Terrain  of  Palestta*. 

U.  The  Jkthod  of  War. 
UL  The  Conduct  of  War. 
iv.  Treaties. 

V.  Tile  Outiook  of  the  Prophet*  on  W»r. 
vi.  Allusious  to  War  in  the  NT. 

i.  The  Terrain  of  Palestine.— The  first  re- 
quisite for  understanding  the  wars  of  the  Bible  is 
a  knowledge  of  the  geography  of  Palestine.     We 


need  to  know  something  about  the  routes  wliich 
so  unwieldy  a  traveller  as  an  army  can  use,  the 
physical  and  artificial  obstacles  which  hinder  it  in 
its  march,  the  [)laces  which  allow  it  room  for  fight- 
ing or  for  encamping,  and  other  similar  geographical 
details.  (In  reading  this  article  the  reader  snould 
have  open  before  him  the  large  map  of  Palestine 
prefixed  to  vol.  i.  of  this  Dictionary). 

The  great  strategic  routes  are  three  in  number. 
There  is  the  important  road  which,  coming  from 
the  north  and  skirting  the  coast  of  the  Mediter- 
ranean, passes  Tpe,  Mount  Carmel,  and  Gaza,  and 
finally  reaches  the  border  of  Egypt.  Then  there  is 
the  scarcely  less  important  route,  now  followed  by 
the  railway  from  Damascus  to  Haifa,  which  takes 
a  S.W.  direction  to  the  Jordan,  and  then  crosses 
the  whole  length  of  the  fertile  plain  of  Esdraelon  in 
a  N.W.  direction  to  the  neighbourhood  of  Mount 
Carmel.  The  meeting  of  this  road  with  the  first- 
mentioned  in  the  plain  of  Esdraelon  confers  great 
strategic  importance  on  the  plain.  There  armies 
could  meet,  victual  themselves,  and  find  room  to 
manoeuvre  both  with  footmen  and  with  chariots. 
There,  too,  in  ancient  times  stood  four  of  the 
chief  fortresses  of  Palestine,  put  there  to  hinder 
the  free  use  of  the  great  plain  by  an  enemy 
(cf.  G.  A.  Smith,  HGHL^  ch.  xix.  pp.  387-390). 
The  third  great  strategic  route  lies  east  of  the 
Jordan  and  runs  from  Damascus  through  Sela 
(Petra)  to  the  port  of  Elath  at  the  head  of  the 
Gulf  of  Akabah. 

Besides  these  three  great  routes,  none  of  which 
touched  the  heart  of  the  land  of  Israel,  some  others 
must  be  mentioned  which  gave  access  to  the  central 
range.  Two  of  these  are  mentioned  below  as  giving 
strategic  importance  to  GUgal.  A  third,  starting 
from  the  modern  Jenin,  crosses  several  small  plains 
and  easy  passes  (cf.  HGHL^  ch.  xvi.  p.  327),  and 
gives  access  from  the  north  to  the  city  of  Samaria. 
It  is  a  route  which  must  often  have  been  followed 
by  Syrian  invaders.  On  the  west,  the  hUl-countrj' 
ot  Judoea  was  pierced  by  several  rugged  and  wind- 
ing passes,  the  best  knowTj  being  that  which  is 
marked  by  the  Upper  and  Lower  Beth-horon. 
These  passes  were  the  scene  of  much  of  the 
irregular  fighting  which  went  on  between  the 
Philistines  and  Israel. 

Before  leaving  this  subject  one  possible  strategic 
line,  lying  for  the  most  part  outside  Palestine,  must 
be  mentioned,  i.e.  the  sea  route  from  the  Egyptian 
Delta  to  the  coast  of  Palestine.  The  possession  of 
this  line  gave  the  king  of  Egypt  an  advantage  ovel 
the  rival  power  (Assyrian  or  Babylonian)  in  the 
Euphrates  Valley,  in  that  it  enabled  him  to  threaten 
his  enemy's  line  of  communications  by  landing 
troops  in  his  rear.  It  has  been  suggested  that 
Pharaoh-neco  reached  Megiddo  partly  by  the  ses 
route  in  the  reijjn  of  Josiah  (but  cf.  HGlIL'p.  405, 
note  2),  and  it  is  possible  that  there  is  an  allusion 
in  Dt  2S'**  to  the  possession  of  such  a  route  by 
Egypt  (but  cf.  Driver,  in  loco). 

Ol  localities  of  strategic  importance  the  plain  of 
Esdraelon  has  already  been  noticed.  A  second  spot 
of  similar  interest  is  the  plain  of  Gilgal,  the  S.W. 
part  of  the  Arabah  or  '  plains  of  Jericho.'  Here 
Israel  encamped  after  crossing  the  Jordan  (Jos  4" 
lu" ;  cf.  Jg  2'),  and  here  the  headquarters  remained, 
until  a  more  central  place,  either  Shiloh  (Jos  18' 
22"  24>  [LXX]),  or  Shechem  (Jos  24'  [MT]),  was 
secured  to  Israel.  From  Gil^al  a  pass  leads  west- 
wards over  the  great  central  ridge  by  Bethel  and 
the  two  Ueth-horons  down  to  the  maritime  plain. 
Some  distance  north  of  Gilgal  another  pass  leads 
uji  the  Wady  Farah  {FArCah),  sometimes  identified 
with  the  Brook  Clierith,  in  a  N.W.  direction  to 
Shechem.  The  first  of  these  routes  was  probably 
followed  by  Joshua  in  his  marches  on  Ai  (Jos  8*1 
and  on  Gibeon  (Jos  10»- ') ;  the  second  is  probablj 


WAR 


WAR 


893 


f; 


referred  to  in  Jg  1-'",  where  the  conquest  of  Bethel 
hy  the  house  of  Joseph  is  recorded. 

In  this   enumeration    of   routes   and    localities 
no  reference  has  been  made   to  Jerusalem.      In- 
deed   its    strategic    importance    was    not    great. 
Neither  Alexander  of   Macedon    {pace  Jos.  Ant. 
XI.  viii. ;   cf.  Piepenbring,  Histoire,  pp.  590-592), 
nor   Napoleon   Bonaparte  when  on  the  march   to 
Egypt,    deigned   to  turn  aside  to  Jerusalem.     To 
an  Assyrian  king  engaged  in  a  similar  expedition, 
Lachish  and  Libnah  (2  K  19*),  both  on  the  edge  of 
the  ShephC-lah  (see  Map),  were  each  of  more  im- 
portance than  the   comparatively  remote  Jewish 
capital.     It  wa.s  the  political  influence  of  IJezeViah 
over    the    Philistine    malcontents    which    caused 
Sennacherib  to  detach  a  strong   force   (2  K   18") 
against  Jerusalem.     Isaiah  was  right  in  holding 
that  it  was  possible  for  Judah  to  maintain  a  policy 
of  isolation  in  the  face  of  the  clash  of  the  great 
powers  of  western  Asia.      These   powers  seldom 
desired    to    encumber    themselves   with    such    '  a 
burdensome  stone'  (Zee  12  )  as  Jenisalem.      Shi- 
shak,  king  of  Egypt,  did  indeed  capture  the  city 
in    the    reign    of    Itehoboam,    but   only    because 
Solomon   had   made   it  a  city  worth    plundering 
(1  K  H-^-  =*).    Ilazael,  king  of  Syria,  '  set  liis  face  to 
'oupagain.st  Jerusalem,' but  commuted  his  hostility 
:or  a  payment  in  money  (2  K  12"- '").     Similarly 
was  Sennaclierib  bought  ofl'  once  at  least  (2  K 
IS"-'").     Pharaoh-neco,  kin"  of  Egyjit,  slew  Josiah 
at  Megiddo  and  deposed  Jehoahaz  at  Kiblah  '  in 
the  land  of  Haniath,'  but  does  not  seem  to  have 
turned  aside  to  Jerusalem  (2  K  23^'^).    Nebuchad- 
rezzar was  at  least  equally  contemptuous.     Jelioi- 
alfim  was  in  a  state  of  rebellion  against  Babylon 
for  eight  years,  but  the  great  king  contented  him- 
self with  sending   marauding   bands  against   his 
vassal.     Jerusalem  was  outside  the  sphere  within 
which  great  captains  contended  with  great  armies. 
Samaria,  on  t!ie  otiier  hand,  was  comparatively 
of   gieat  strategic   importance.      It  stands   on  a 
c<mi'manding  hill  (well  shown  in  Sir  R.  Temple's 
Palestine  JllitJitrated,  p.  180)  where  the  important 
road  from  Jenin  meets  at  right  angles  the  broad, 
'fat  valley'  (Is  28')  which  slopes  westward  towards 
the  plain  of  Sharon  and  tlie  .Mediterranean.    East- 
ward, passes  of  no  great  ditlienlty  lead  to  the  fords 
of  the  Jordan.      Tims  Samaria  was  strategically 
as  well  as  politically  '  the  head  of  Ephraim '  (Is  "'■'). 
We  have  now  liad  occasion  to  mention  represen- 
tatives of  three  classes  of  fortresses  in  Palestine. 
On  the  south-west,   Libnah,  Lacliish,  Gezer,  and 
Beth-lioron    guarded   Judah    against   Kgypt,    the 
Philistines,  and   tlie   inhabitants   of   the  Sinaitic 
Peninsula.    On  the  edge  of  tlie  jilain  of  Esdraelon 
stood  Megiddo,  Jezreel,  and  other  fortresses  closing 
the  dillerent  approaches.      On  tlie  central  ridge, 
Jerusalem   and   Samaria  were   strongly   fortitied. 
Two  classes  of  fortresses  remain  to  be  mentioned. 
On  the  border  between   the  northern  and  southern 
kingdom  (Jeba  and  Mizpah  and  other  cities  were 
built  to  stop  the  passage  of  possible  fugitives  and 
de.serlers  and   to  watch  the  frimtier  (1  K   15'°""'^). 
Lastly,   the  great  fortresses    ea.st  of   Jordan,   of 
whi(-h   perhaps   IJamoth-gilead  was  the  most  im- 
portant (1  K  22',  2  K  8="  9'),  must  be  mentioned  ; 
Dor  must    the  watch-towers,  built  to   protect  the 
uads  and  watch  over  tlie  pa-stures,   bo  forgotten 
(see  TovVKR). 

The  geographical  conditions  of  Palestine  were 
such  that  the  kind  of  warfare  best  known  to  the 
Hebii;ws  must  have  been  the  foray.  The  south  of 
Judah  lav  oi)en  to  the  Amalekites  and  other  pre- 
datory tribes  (1  S  30).  On  the  east  were  the 
Midi.inite  freebooters  (Jg  6'- ■•).  Against  these  the 
Jordan  was  an  aTiibiguous  defence,  for,  if  the  in- 
vaders could  seize  one  of  the  fords  by  surprise, 
they   could   held    it   with    a    rearguard    against 


pursuers  while  the  booty  was  being  safely  carried 
ott'  into  the  desert.  The  Philistines  (I  S  13"),  the 
Moabites  (2  K  13-"),  and  the  Hebrews  themselves 
(David,  1  S  27'*;  Joab,  2  S  3"-;  and  Gad,  Gn  49") 
were  much  given  to  making  raids  ('  roads,'  AV). 

ii.  The  Method  of  War. — (a)  The  Prelimxn- 
ari€s. — Wars  were  regularly  begun  in  the  spring, 
in  order  that  if  possible  operations  might  be  con- 
cluded before  the  beginning  of  winter  (cf.  2S  11'). 
Yet  winter  did  not  always  bring  relief  from  the 
pressure  of  war  (Jer  8™),  and  sieges  were  sometimes 
prolonged  over  twelve  months,  e.g.  that  of  Samaria 
(three  years,  2  K  17°)  and  Jerusalem  (eighteen 
months,  2  K  25>-»}. 

Something  approaching  to  a  declaration  of  tear 
was  sometimes  given,  e.g.  by  Amaziah  of  Judah  to 
Jehoash  of  Israel  (2  K  14"),  and  negotiation  was 
sometimes  tried,  e.g.  by  Jephtliah  with  the  king 
of  Amnion  (Jg  11'^),  in  order  to  avert  war;  but 
such  instances  are  not  common. 

Before  beginning  a  war,  eflbrts  were  generally 
made  to  gain  religious  sanction  for  the  step. 
Inquiry  of  God  was  made  before  the  ark  (Jg  20-''-  ^ 
[Heb.  and  LXX]  and  1  S  14'8  [Heb.  only]),  or 
before  a  priest  wearing  the  ephod  with  Urim  and 
Thummim  (1  S  14'8  [LXX  only],  1  S  2S»  [Heb.  and 
LXX],  and  1  S  30'  [Heb.  and  LX.X]),  or  through 
a  prophet  (Micaiah,  1  K  22"),  or  by  means  of 
dreams  (Gideon,  Jg  7"),  or  even  through  a  familiar 
spirit  (the  witch  of  Endor,  1  S  2S').  Hence  the 
phrase  '  to  consecrate '  a  war  or  warriors ;  Jl  S'-*, 
Mic  3\  Jer  B" ;  Is  13»,  Jer  22'  51'-*'--».  Moreover, 
the  ark  was  sometimes  carried  by  Israel  into  the 
field  (1  S  4"-",  2S  11"),  and,  on  the  other  hand, 
the  Philistines  took  'their  images'  with  them 
(2  S  5-').  When  there  was  no  ark  to  go  forth, 
individual  Israelites  were  fovind  who  carried  into 
battle  '  consecrated  tokens  of  the  idols  of  Jamnia' 
concealed  under  their  garments  (2  Mac  12'"). 

The  people  in  general  were  warned  of  the 
approach  of  an  enemy  or  summoned  to  war  (1) 
by  the  blowing  of  trumpets  (1  S  13»,  Ezk  33i-«, 
Am  S") ;  (2)  by  putting  up  ensigns  on  bare  heights 
to  mark  rallying  places  (Is  13-),  or  by  kindling 
fires  on  suitable  lull  summits  (Jer  6'  [AV]) ;  (3) 
by  sending  messengers  throughout  the  land  (Jg 
7-'',  1  S  11').  It  was  sometimes  necessary  to  rouse 
a  warlike  feeling  by  unwonteil  appeals  to  indigna- 
tion or  to  fear  ;  in  Jg  19-''  the  Levite  sends  the 
pieces  of  his  divided  concubine  into  every  part  of 
Israel,  and  in  1  S  1 1'  Saul  sends  the  hewn  pieces 
of  a  yoke  of  oxen  throughout  Israel  with  the  threat 
of  so  destroying  tlie  cattle  of  any  who  should  be 
slack  to  obey  his  call. 

In  advancing  to  attack,  a  leader  gave  his  troops 
a  watchword  ('for  Jehovah  and  for  Gideon,'  Jg 
7"  ;  cf.  2  Mac  8-'  Sous  avvdriixa  8(ou  fiorjOdas,  also 
13'°  BeoS  vkTjv)  ;  and  sometimes  a  '  pamn'  was  sung 
(2  Ch  20",  2  Mac  12"  Korapfo^eoos  T-iji'  /xcfl'  C^^uv 
Kpavyriv). 

(b)  Strategy  as  illustrated  by  campaigns  con- 
dtictid  in  Palestine. — Strategy  is  the  art  of  choos- 
ing the  right  route  by  which  to  attack  or  await 
the  enemy.  For  an  instance  of  consummate 
strategy  we  may  take  the  Philistines'  conduct  of 
the  campaign  of  Gilboa  (IS  28-31).  Instead  of 
attacking  Israel  by  the  direct  route  tlirough  the 
defensible  valleys  of  the  south-wost,  where  chariots 
could  hardly  ]iass,  much  less  mamcuvre,  the  army 
of  Achish,  with  its  chariots  and  horsemen,  struck 
northward,  aiming  at  the  fertile  plain  of  Esdraelon, 
and  drawing  Saul  away  from  his  Benjamite  strong- 
liolds.  The  Israelites  failed  to  close  the  pa.sses 
over  the  eastern  end  of  Mount  Cariiul,  and  the 
Philistines  poured  into  the  plain,  where  they  could 
victual  their  large  army  and  use  their  chariots 
with  effect.  Saul's  hillmen  could  not  nie<'t  the 
enemy  in  such  a  place  with  huk'Ii  hope  of  success. 


Their  king  was  oiitinaiclied  and  ontmanoeu\Ted. 
No  wonder  that  liis  stout  heart  trembled  when 
he  saw  the  Philistines  in  force  on  this  vantage- 
ground  (1  S  28*- ').  The  battle  of  Gilboa  was  from 
the  first  only  a  forlorn  hope  for  Israel.  On  the 
other  hand,  when  the  Philistines  '  came  up  to 
seek  David'  (2  S  5"'-'),  their  strategy  was  faulty. 
Despising  the  enemy,  tliey  twice  came  up  the 
Judu-an  (or  possibly  the  Benjamite)  valleys  into 
the  small  plain  of  Rephaim  (between  Jerusalem 
and  Bethlehem).  Twice  did  David  await  his  oppor- 
tunity in  the  hold  (v.")  hard  by,  and  twice  dui  he 
inflict  a  severe  defeat  upon  tlie  Philistines.  They 
failed  because  through  over-con  lidence  they  chose 
a  route  more  favourable  to  the  enemy  tlian  to 
themselves. 

(c)  I'aciics. — The  tactics  of  the  Israelites  in  the 
earliest  days  were  very  simple,  but  often  very 
effective.  First  a  surprise  gained  by  stratagem, 
and  then  a  sudden  rush  of  men  in  which  personal 
prowess  had  its  full  opportunity.  For  sucli  warfare 
the  strong  individuality  of  the  Hebrew  race  htted 
them  in  a  very  high  degree.  The  stratagems  de- 
scribed in  the  historical  books  belong  to  all  periods 
and  are  of  various  kinds. 

(1)  Nifjht  marches  and  night  attacks  were  fre- 
quent. Joshua  marched  all  night  to  the  relief  of 
Gibeon,  and,  it  seems,  surprised  the  Amorites  at 
dawn  (Jos  10").  Mesha  (Moabite  Stone,  line  15) 
captured  Nebo  from  Israel  by  similar  tactics. 
Gideon  assailed  the  Midianite  camp  '  at  the  begin- 
ning of  the  middle  watch '  (Jg  7'"),  i.e.  about  mid- 
night. Saul  attacked  the  Ammonites  in  the 
morning  watch,  i.e.  shortly  before  dawn  (1  S  11"). 
Joraiu,  king  of  Judah,  when  surrounded  by  the 
Edomites,  cut  his  way  through  them  vrith  his 
chariots  by  night — a  great  feat,  needing  a  clear 
night  and  able  leading  (2  K  8-').  (2)  An  ambush 
w;is  a  favourite  stratagem.  By  this  Ai  was  cap- 
tured (Jos  S'o-^*),  and  Gibeah  (Jg  20""-").  The 
Syrians  tried  it  against  Israel  without  success 
(2  K  6"- ").  With  the  ambush  a  pretended  (light 
of  the  main  body  was  often  combined.  (3)  Similar 
to  the  ambush  was  the  device  of  giving  a  deserted 
appearance  to  a  camp,  in  the  hope  of  taking  tlie 
enemy  at  a  disadvantage  when  he  came  to  spoil  it 
(2  K  3-',  cf.  7'-}.  (4)  A  well-organized  force  amid 
be  ilicided  just  before  an  engagement,  and  the 
enemy  put  at  a  disadvantage  by  attack  from  more 
than  one  dii'cction  (Gn  14",  2  S  18-,  cf.  v.*). 

The  usual  defensive  tactics  of  the  Hebrews  con- 
sisted of  standing  in  close  order,  shield  touching 
shield,  with  spears  carried  at  the  charge,  and  of 
awaiting  the  attack  of  the  enemj'on  higher  ground 
and  with  the  front  protected  by  a  wfuly  or  other 
obstacle.  Such  probably  was  tlie  array  ('^?^;^.? 
maarakhah)  with  which  they  fronted  the  Philis- 
tines in  the  valley  of  Elah  (1  S  17^')-  In  such  a 
position  they  were  unassailable,  and  things  might 
well  remain  at  a  standstill  for  forty  days  (v."  [not 
in  LXX  B]).  Unless  the  position  could  be  turned 
by  a  flank  movement,  the  only  resource  left  to  an 
assailant  was  to  seek  to  shake  the  steadiness  of  the 
array  by  enticing  the  prominent  warriors  to  leave 
their  posts  to  engage  in  single  combats.  This 
resource  the  Philistines  in  the  valley  of  Elah  tried 
in  vain.  '  The  men  of  Israel  [when  they  saw 
Goliath]  fled  from  him  [back  to  their  places  in 
the  array]'  (v.^-"). 

Israel  s  simple  tactics  were  really  adapted  only 
to  broken  country,  such  as  the  liill  -  country  of 
Judah,  with  its  caves  and  deep  rugged  wfidis. 
The  enemy  when  defeated  said,  not  without  truth 
(IK  20-^),  'Their  god  is  a  god  of  the  hills; 
therefore  they  were  stronger  than  we.'  For  more 
scientific  tactics  we  have  to  look  to  Israel's  foes. 
We  see  such  in  use  at  the  battle  of  Gilboa.  Saul, 
like  Harold  at  Hastings,   bad  formed  his  army 


probably  in  close  order  on  a  hillside  up  which  the 
enemy  must  advance  to  attack.  But  the  Philis- 
tines, like  the  Normans  towards  the  close  of  tha 
battle  of  Hastings,  prepared  the  way  for  the 
decisive  attack  by  flights  of  arrows.  Saul  fell 
like  H.arold,  pierced  through  by  the  archers  (1  S 
31").  Then,  and  not  till  then,  the  Philistines  could 
trust  their  chariots  and  horsemen  to  make  a 
successful  charge  up  the  slope  (2  S  1'),  and  a  de- 
cisive victory  was  won. 

Another  j_'ood  though  unsuccessful  piece  of 
tactical  skill  was  shown  by  the  Syrians  at  the 
battle  of  Ramoth-gilead.  The  Syrian  king  massed 
his  chariots  (1  K  22^'),  and  endeavoured  to  obtain 
a  decisive  effect  by  emploving  them  at  a  decisive 
point,  viz.  the  person  of  Aliab.  Ahab  escaped  this 
danger  through  his  disguise,  and  was  thus  able  to 
encourage  his  army  by  his  presence  '  until  the 
going  down  of  the  sun.'  Thus  Israel  was  repulsed 
but  not  routed  at  Ramoth-gilead. 

(d)  Fortresses  played  an  important  part  in  the 
wars  of  Palestine.  In  the  days  of  the  Judges 
Israel  had  no  fortresses,  but  had  to  take  refuge 
from  Midianite  (Jg  6-)  and  Philistine  oppression 
(1  S  IS"*)  in  cave  districts  and  among  the  mountains. 
But  the  land  is  studded  with  heights  suitable  for 
fortified  posts,  and  under  the  kings  these  were 
crowned  with  walled  cities. 

Fortresses  (cities  '  ha\'ing  gates  and  bars,'  1  S  23') 
were  surrounded  by  walls  of  stone  or  of  sun-dried 
bricks,  built  often  close  to  the  precipitous  sides  of 
a  hill  or  mound.*  If  there  were  no  precipice  near 
to  defend  the  wall,  then  a  trench  (Vri  hel)  was 
added.  Samaria  had  such  a  trench  (1  K  21^ 
['  wall '  AV,  '  rampart '  RV]) ;  and  Jerusalem, 
though  none  was  needed  on  the  E.,  where  ran 
the  deep  valley  of  Jehoshaphat,  probably  had  one 
elsewhere  (La  2^). 

The  walls  of  Jerusalem  were  strengthened  with 
towers  and  furnished  with  battlements  (Jer  5'° 
'thy  branches'  [RV,  prob.  a  poetical  term  for 
'battlements'  AV],  cf.  Zeph  1"  and  2  Ch  26'»). 
On  the  walls  were  placed  engines  for  throwing 
arrows  and  great  stones  (2  Ch  26'^). 

Of  the  attack  of  strong  places  by  the  Israelites 
we  have  many  notic^es.  Jericho  was  captured  by 
coup  de  main  with  an  ease  in  which  Israel  rightly 
saw  the  hand  of  God  ;  the  falling  of  the  walls 
seems  to  be  a  metaphor  describing  the  failing  of 
the  hearts  of  the  defenders  (Jos  6-°,  cf.  2"). 
Similarly,  Judas  Maccahajus  is  said  to  have  cap- 
tured a  strong  city  by  '  rushing  wildly  against  the 
wall'  (ifiaeiaav  flij/iiuSuJs  ry  relxd,  2  Mac  12"). 
Sometimes  fire  was  applied  to  burn  the  gates  or  to 
set  lire  to  a  wooden  defence  (Jg  y"-'>-)  ;  this  device 
is  also  pictured  on  the  As.syriaii  reliefs.  As  early 
as  the  time  of  Da\'id  the  '  mount'  or  '  bank'  (i^^d 
solcldh,  see  below)  was  employed  (2  S  20").  If  these 
means  of  attack  failed,  the  besiegers  were  obliged 
to  maintain  a  wearisome  blockade,  until  surrender 
was  brought  about  by  famine  or  treachery.  The 
fall  of  Ralibah  was  perhaps  hastened  by  threatened 
water-famine  (2  S  12-').  The  S\'rians  (Arama!ans) 
probably  used  engines  (1  K  20'-  [RVm]) ;  and  the 
Assyrians,  as  masters  of  the  art  of  war,  practised 
regular  siege  operations.  Great  shields  or  screens 
were  raised  against  the  wall  (Is  37**),  behind  which 
archers  were  set  to  keep  under  the  '  fire '  of  the 
defenders.  Under  cover  of  this  bombardment  a 
causeway  was  built  (perhaps  by  captives)  from  the 
Assyrian  camp  to  the  city  to  be  attacked.  Rising 
gradually  in  height,  it  waspushe<l  nearer  and  nearer 
the  city.  Such  a  mound,  when  it  touched  the  wall, 
might  oe  used  to  facilitate  an  escalade  or  to  bring 
the  battering-ram  on  a  level  with  the  upper  part 
of  the  wall.     Another  instrument  of  attack  used 

•  Compare  Flinders  I'ctrie  (.Tell  el-Ueey,  1891)  and  F.  J.  BUM 
{A  Mound  0/  many  Cituji,  1891). 


WAR 


WAR 


693 


bv  the  Assyrians  was  a  movable  tower  occupied  by 
archers  iF^Lese  archers  succeeded  in  c  eannj:  the 
TJ\  oi  its  defenders,  the  to'jver  could  then  be 
p\r.hed  up  to  the  wall  and  the  place  taken  by 
stor'..  (cf.  1  Mac  13«-«).     The  steps  in  a  siege  are 

'TrPaltenAf^f^or.  on  service  wa3  appar- 
ently  mXehieflv  in  the  form  of  booty  There  are, 
however  some  allusions  to  pay  of  an  ordinary  kind. 
A^^'i'ahTs  said  to  have  hired  If f^  --/7™ 

^"Tt^^i^^^K;:5^ro^is 

treasury  api  Kave  his  forces  pay  (.iV'W'o,  t'-  i^o 
P  T(l'  9^)  for  a  year  (1  Mae  3-).  Bu  booty 
meint  more  to  a  warrior  than  pay,  as  the  dis- 
appoint ent  of  the  Israelite  mercenaries  shows 
??'a  ".«'»■  i»,  cf.  Jg  5'»).  Booty  was  to  be  divided 
'nenu^l  shares  bftween  tho- -ho  went  inU^the 
battle  and  tliose  who  guarded  the  ^a  .  P  IJ-  -W  ^ 
A  chosen  part  was  sometimes  deiUcated  to  tne 
Lord  (sUve'r  and  gold,  2  S  S'- ;  sh.cp  and  oxen, 
1  S  15-M,  or  re  vrved  for  a  leader  (1  b  du   ). 

iii  THE  Conduct  of  W  ab. -The  treatment  o 
conquered  enemies  was  often  veiy  severe.  DaMd 
removed  the  Ammonites  from  Kabbali  and  t  e 
other  cities  of  Amnion  which  he  captured,  and  put 
them  to  the  hardest  task-work  '"  ^l-e  oim  of 
hewinc  stone  and  making  brick  (2  b  1-  ).  me 
auTedlrmies  of  Israel,  Judah,  and  Edom  deliber- 
fe  m™e  a  desert  of  Moab   lilline  the  good  U^d 

tLft  Vorid'-i^  l^L  (1  K  U'»).  Tlfe  still 
more  horrible  cruelty  of  massacring  women  with 
^.Ud  'rmore  often  ascribed  to  tl-  enemy  than  to 
Israel  itself  (tlie  Syrians  in  2  K  8'-,  Menabem  ol 
Israel  in  2  K  15'°,  Amnion  in  Am  l"). 
^Tore  reasonable  severity  was_  sl>o«^  by  ex 
oatriating  the  llower  of  an  enemy's  army  (the  hrst 

&tan  captivity.  2  K  ?-'".);i';r^-f.*l-^d°^") 
of  the  waU  of  an  enemy  s  city  (2  K  14    ana  M  ), 

'^"^^l::^^i:rlnil^.^*are  worthy  of  note. 

^!;^l;'t^JS^fi^^n^ui^k|,;^/ir^v 

on  Elfshas  advic'e,  fed  and  dismissed  in  safety  a 
detachment  of  Syrians  ^vl,oln  the  prophet  had 
taken  by  stratagem  (2  K  6  ) 


There  m  some  uncerUinty  aa  to  the  »'<'»•"''•"'»''■';'*  S^'TSTe 
,tr.?y  ..rael  at  the  con,u^t   „'„'„-»-;  ''i^'ar^rRaifai?  w^ 

nJ,  ni  D  no  IcM  than  U'  b  a  later  docuniont  than  Jt ,  (2)  it 's 
Bul(l)  u  no  '™  V'""  ^„,  f„  91110.14  conUins  the  earher  law 
Ur  from  improbable  that  Dt  20'  «>""'";,  j  n.^i  the 
(.pplicab>  even  to  war  w.th  the  Canaamtes).  ana  i 

by  inlenuarriage. 

iv  Trvativs. -Treaties  of  peace  were  granted 
to  a' beaten  foe,  the  most  common  condition  beini, 
Uie  ™vment  of  an  indemnity  (Sennacherib  to 
y ezel^iH\rrn  2  K  18').     A  modern-sounding  treaty 


is  that  made  by  Ahab  with  Bon-hadad  (IK  20«) : 
cities  ca^)ture<r  from  Israel  were  to  be  restored  and 
the  ri.'ht  to  trade  in  I )au.a.scus  was  to  be  conceded 
An  [nltance  of  a  barbarian's  treaty  is  tha  ollered 
by  Nahash  of  Amnion  to  Jabesh-gilead  (1  b  11  ) 
oi^he  condition  that  the  P^^^\  .^y^",^  ^^7^^^ 
defender  (?  or  of  every  inliabitant)  of  Jabe^i- 
Kilead  should  be  put  out.  Savage  as  the  oiler  is, 
it  was  probably  seriously  meant. 

v   ThV  UutIook  of  the  Pkophets  on  Wak.- 
The  earliest  prophets  show  no  horror  of  war  as 
i'ar  ^ut  leai  or  encourage  their  own  people  to 
rp^i^t  the  enemy.     Deborah  the  prophetess  rouses 
her  countrymen^ against  Sisera  (Jg  4-)  and  gives 
the  signal  for  the%attle  (^^»).     Samuel  is  at  the 
head  of  the  rising  against  the  Philistines  (1  S  t'    , 
perhaps  a  late  passage,  but  of  importance  in  this 
L'nSon).       In    unnamed    P-pJet    enco^.rages 
Ahab  against  Ben-hadad   (1  K  20'^-    ).     ^''='l»^ « 
prophetic    activity  is    the  turning  -  point    in   the 
Sai^^^  against^Ioab  (2  K  3"-^») ;  and  the  same 
pro;";:^?.    on    his    deathbed     !>eartens    Joash    o^ 
Israel  in  the  contest  with  SjTia  (2  K  13       ).     An 
inte?es  i^ng  touch  of  mercy  or  of  good  policy  appears 
n  EHs  la's  treatment  o/  the  Syrian  pr-soners  m 
|>"k  gi'-^.     In  the  writing  prophets,  however,  from 
Amos  onwards  we  have  a  wider  outlook  upon  war. 
War  is  no  longer  a  mere  event;  it  has  become  a 
X-nibol.     The'coming  Day  of  the  LORD  is  associ- 
ated   with  terrible   wars  (Am  o- /,   Is   13      ,   J» 
fuV-")       On  the  other  hand,  the  Latter  Days 
are   to   be   marked   by  universal  peace,   between 
nation  and  nation  ancdven  between  man  and  beast 
(Is  "'-•'  9--'  t'-^  11°''.  Mic  4'--' ;  cf.  Zee  14"  ■'         ). 
^^  vr.  ALLUS?0NS  TO  WAR  IN   THE   ^T  -In  the 
Gospels  three  references    to    war,   all    in    l>uke, 
can   for   notice.     In  3»  .rrpar.i-iAce.o.  (' soldiers  on 
se  vice  ■  RVm)  ask  for  and  receive  counse    from 
John    ihe    Baptist.     In    14^'    our    Lord    takes    a 
leson  from  the  action   of    a   king  in    calling    a 
council  of  ^var.andin  19-Heprophes^s  that  l^e 
enemy  will  cast  up  a  bank  (xapcKu)  against  Jeru 
saleni      On  these  passages  cf.  Plummer  s  ,!m!.  Uil.e. 
!n  the  Epltles,  St.  Paul  shows  in  a  dozen  refer^ 
ernes  to  a  soldier's  career   that  he  looked  at    t 
tvith  interest  and  even  with  sympathy.     He  caUs 
the   Christian  life  'the  good  warfare    (1  li  l    ). 
efers  to  the  soldier's  -S.-^^^-^d.Co  9  ),  ho  ds  up  tl  e 
soldier's  ideal  of  service  for  mutation    2  1 '  -      ■ 
praises  the  Colossiansas  an  inspecting  o  hcei  mig  it 
praise  a  legion  (Col  2=),  and  compans  tlie  recoveiy 
of  the  erring  for  Christ  to  the  takm-  of  captives 
a  ive  in  battle  (2  Ti  2=«).     The  apostTe,  moreover, 
Scsciibes  himself  in  words  of  Btarthng  sternness  n^j 


waghig  a  warfare  »  .ari  -^-^P- aS'"-!:.P"t  The 
disShedience  in  his  converts  2  Co  lO  ).  In  t  e 
Apocalypse  there  are  several  references  to  the 
teat  struggle  between  the  saints  and  he  powers 
S  evil,  fhevc  is  '  war  in  heaven,'  which  results  n 
?he  drac'on  and  his  angels  being  cast  down  to  ear  i 
( Rev  P'^-'^).  The  Beast  (ri  tf^io.)  makes  war  with 
the  saints  by  commission  from  the  Dra-'on  (1.J-, 
omitted  by  AC.  etc..  has  the  support  of  tTie  Syr.ac 
text-Philoxenan?-published  by  Gwynn,  IbDO- 
The  k  n  'S  of  the  while  world  (rr,5  oUov^i^r,,  S.yn^) 
arefeVither^d  together  to  liar-magedon  for  the 
war  of  the  great  day  of  God  the  Almighty  (16''  ). 
TheWord  (6A47oOof  God.  who  •  in  njiLteousness 
doth  judge  and  make  war.'  leads  the  arimes  which 
are    in    heaven    to   final   victory  over  the  Beast 

'^The'general  teaching  of  the  NT  on  war  can 
hardly  be  better  given  than  m  the  following 
words:  'We  have  seen  then  so  far  that  war  is 
sanctioned  by  the  law  of  nature-the  constitution 
o'  man  and  'the  constitution  of  .^o^J^'y  ;, '^".'' .V? 
the  teaching  and  practice  of  Christ  and 
immediate  disciples,     f^"'-"  bnuiutions 


f  Hi» 
Certain  limitations  are  un 


696 


WARD 


WASP 


posed,  on  the  ground  of  expediency,  by  society  ; 
And,  in  the  ideal  brotlierhood  of  men  to  which 
the  Christian  gospel  teaches  all  men  to  asjiire, 
war  would  be  impossible.  But,  with  a  view  to  the 
necessary  process  of  the  attainment  of  this  ideal, 
war  in  the  abstract  is  not  condemned.  Here  as 
always  the  Christianity  of  Christ  looks  to  the 
motive'  (liethune-Baker,  Influence  of  Christianity 
on  War,  18S8,  p.  18). 

LlTKRATURR. — Benzinper  (1894),  Heb.  Archdotorju,  p.  360ff.; 
Nowack  (1804),  Ueb.  ArchdoloQie,  i.  pp.  367-375  (very  full); 
G.  A.  .Siiiiih,  HGUL  ipastim),  See  also  -Armour,  Ca3ip,  E.noixe, 
Kencku  Cities.  W.  EmeRY  BaRNES. 

WARD. — The  Eng.  word  '  ward '  is  another  spell- 
ing of  'guard.'  'Ward'  is  tlie  older  Teut.  form 
(An^lo-Sax.  wcard),  '  guard  '  came  in  through  the 
Old  Fr.  garder:  cf.  wage-gauge,  warrant-guarantee. 
Both  forms  are  used  in  AV,  though,  with  one  ex- 
ception,* the  same  words  are  not  translated  by 
both.  The  form  '  guard '  had  not  then  been  very 
long  in  use,  but  was  already  freely  used  synonym- 
ously N\  ith  '  ward.'  The  Anglo-Sax.  weard  is  the 
same  in  the  masc.  = '  a  guard,'  '  defender,'  and  in 
the  fern.  = '  guarding,'  '  defence  ' ;  hence  '  ward  '  is 
used  in  both  these  senses,  as  well  as  for  a  body  of 
men  on  guard  and  the  place  in  which  one  is 
guarded,  a  prison.  Bunyan  makes  a  di.stinctiun 
between  'ward'  and  'guard':  Holy  War,  p.  "J4, 
'  He  sent  special  orders  to  Captain  Boanerges  .  .  . 
to  put  them  all  three  in  ward,  and  that  they 
should  set  a  strong  guard  upon  them.' 

'  Ward  ■  in  AV  means  ;  (1)  A  body  of  men  on  guard  ;  Jer  3713 
[pikitluth,  only  occurrence ;  lit.  *  oversigrht,'  OHL  tr.  E  ^V3 
'  sentinel ')  ;  Ac  12^0  {^y\tx.3tr.).  (2)  The  office  of  guarding,  the  de- 
fence :  I  Ch  1225*  (mishmerfth,  RV  'allegiance');  Neh  r245'>w 
(_mish7tu!reth),  (3)  The  position  of  the  guard,  post ;  1  Ch  25'*  &w 
'  ward  against  ward '  (RV  '  for  their  cliarges,"  Hel».  win/imeretk) ; 
26>",  Neh  12«  25  (.ill  mi»hmar);  Is  i\»  {mislunfivl/i);  Jth  S^ 
(SiaroiK,  RV  'station').  (4)  The  place  for  guanling.  prison, 
cell  :  Gn  40a-  *■ '  4110  421?,  Lv  2412,  Nu  16:"  (all  ,„ij,7im(ir| ;  2  S 
2u-i(mt.\/i//(ereiA),  Ezkl9y  («ij7ar,  only  occurrence  ;  RV  'cage'); 

1  Mac  14S  (fuktcxY.). 

The  adverbial  sufhx  '  ward,'  expressing  direction 
towards  a  jdace,  was  formerly  used  with  great 
freedom.     In  AV  we  (ind  '  to  Godward '  Ex  IS'", 

2  Co  3^  1  Th  18;  'to  theeward'  1  .S  19<;  'to  u.-^ward' 
Ps  40=,  Eph  1'9,  2  P  3» ;  'to  youward  '  2  Co  1"  13^ 
Eph  3- :  and  '  to  the  mercy-seatward  '  Ex  37',  be- 
sides the  ad  verbs  north  ward,  rereward,  thitherward, 
and  the  like.  Cf.  '  To  him  ward  '  Dt  32^  Tind. ;  '  to 
themward,'Berncrs,  Fnis.inrt,  16;  'to  Israel  warde' 
Nn  3"2'''  Tind. ;  '  to  the  city-ward,'  Berners,  Fruis- 
sart,  16  ;  '  whiche  waye  soo  ever  wanle,'  Erasniu.s, 
Crede,  46.  J.  Hastings. 

WARE  (Anglo-Sax.  warn;  Skeat  tliinks  the 
orig.  sense  was  'valuables')  is  used  in  AV  (in 
botli  sing,  and  pin.)  for  merchandise.  The  sin" 
occurs  Neh  10«  (mn^,?),  13"  (irr),  13™  (i3-:=)  ;  and 
the  plu.  in  Jer  10"  (lyj?),  Ez'k  27"  (-iTOO,  AV 
'the  wares  of  thy  making,'  RV  'thy  handi- 
works'), 27"  (I'niy),  Jon  P  (3''?3).  We  still  retain 
'  warehouse,'  which  Coverdale  gives  as  two  words, 
Jer  40'°  '  Therefore  gather  you  wyne,  come  and 
oyle,  and  kepe  them  in  youre  ware  houses.' — See 
FAiiis.  J.  Hastings. 

WARE.— 'Ware,'  'aware,'  and  'wary'  are  forms 
of  the  same  adj.,  the  a  in  '  aware  '  representing  the 
Anglo-Sax.  ge  (gewaer.  Middle  Kng.  imar,  ywar), 
and  the  ?/ in  'wary'  being  an  addition.  'Ware' 
occurs  in  Mt  24'"  (1611,  mod.  edd.  'a«are'),  Ac  14«, 
2Ti  4".  So  Lv  5'-'*  Tind.  (5>«  'And  the  preast 
shall  make  an  attonement  for  him  for  the  ignor- 

•  The  exception  is  mi*Am/ir,  which  is  usually  tr'*  '  ward,' 
but  in  Ezk  as'  Neh  4*^  «s  is  rendered  '  guard ' ;  RV  makes  no 
changes. 


aunce  whiche  he  dyd  and  was  not  ware ') ;  Lk 
n"Rhem.  'Woe  to  you,  because  j'ou  are  as  monu. 
ments  that  appeare  not,  and  men  walking  over, 
are  not  ware.'  Udall  (in  Erasmus'  Paraph,  ii.  278) 
uses  'ware'  for  modern  'wary';  so  Erasmus,  CreiU. 
127,  'ware  and  wvse  circumspection.'  'Wary 
oci  urs  in  AV  in  2  !Bs  7°*,  and  '  wariness '  in  Sir 
11'^  J.  Hasti.ngs. 

WARS  OF  THE  LORD,  BOOK  OF  THE  (rcn^p  155 

•il.T  ;  LXX  B  iv  ^i^Mv  [A  /3i/J\v]  IluXe/ios  rou  Kvplov). 
—  An  authority  quoted  in  Nu  21"  to  settle  a 
question  about  the  boundary  between  Moab  and 
the  Amorites.  In  all  probability,  the  other  two 
citations  in  the  above  chapter  are  from  the  same 
source.  The  last  of  these  is  indeed  referred  (v.*") 
to  a  poem  circulating  amongst  the  mosliilim  or 
reciters  of  sarcastic  verses,  but  this  does  not  prove 
that  it  was  not  incorporated  also  in  the  '  Wars  of 
J".'  The  book  in  question  is  mentioned  nowhere 
else  in  the  OT,  for  its  identity  with  the  '  Book  of 
J.isliar,'  although  contended  for  by  some,  cannot 
be  established.  From  the  title  »e  can  reailily 
infer  the  contents  of  the  book.  It  was  doubtless 
a  collection  of  songs  which  celebrated  the  victories 
gained  by  Israel  in  its  religious  wars  from  the 
Slosaic  age  downwards.  The  title  was  chosen  by 
men  who  delighted  to  think  of  J"  as  Israel's  com- 
mander-in-chief (niKjs  '111'  '>/"  of  the  hosts  [of 
Israel] ').  Cf.  the  words  in  the  Song  of  Moses  in 
Ex  15'  '  The  Lord  is  a  man  of  war.' 

The  meaning  of  all  the  three  citations  in  Nu  21 
is  more  or  less  obscure.  The  purity  of  the  text  is 
not  beyond  suspicion,  and  it  may  be  also,  as  several 
critics  hold,  that  some  of  the  extracts  refer  to 
events  which  happened  later  than  the  Mosaic  age, 
and  that  the  narrator  has  only  partially  succeeded 
in  accommodating  the  original  language  to  the  new 
context.  Stade,  for  instance,  believes  that  the 
third  quotation  has  in  view  incidents  that  occurred 
during  the  wars  between  Israel  and  Moab  under 
the  dynasty  of  Omri.  The  argument  of  Wellhausen, 
that  the  Well-song  (w."-  '*)  should  be  metaphori- 
cally interpreted  of  tlie  conquest  of  the  Moabite  city 
Beer  (well),  is  plausible  but  not  convincing.  If 
Cornill  is  right  in  assigning  the  whole  pa.ssage  in 
which  the  citations  occur  to  E,  llicre  is  probability 
also  in  his  conjecture  that '  tlie  book  of  the  Wars  of 
the  Lord  '  originated  in  the  N.  kingdom.  Its  com- 
position will  in  any  case  hardly  be  later  than  B.C.  750. 

It  is  only  fair  to  mention  that  some  deny  that 
Nu  21"  furnishes  anv  evidence  whatever  for  the 
existence  of  a  book  called  '  the  Wars  of  J".'  Sayce 
{Academy,  22nd  Oct.  1892)  would  render  the  pass;ige 
thus:  'Wherefore  it  is  said  in  a  (the)  book,  Tlie 
wars  of  J"  were  at  Zahab  in  Supli,'  etc.  It  may, 
however,  be  safely  predicted  that  few  will  agree 
to  follow  this  line  of  interpretation. 

LiTKRATCRB.-Ryle,  Canon  0/ OT,  19;  W.  R.  Smith,  OTJCt 
327;  Delitzsch,  Gemigig,  new  ed.  i.  7;  Reuss,  AT  iii.  4(53; 
Cornill,  EinleUung'^.<y3l.;  Wellhausen,  Comp.Mi;  Wildcboer, 
Lit.  d.  AT,  22 1.  ;  Kittel,  Hist,  of  Ueli.  i.  9u ;  Kautzsch,  lleU. 
Schr.  d.  AT,  Beilagen,  136;  Buddc,  'The  Well  song'  in  Ant 
llorW,  March  1S95 ;  Driver,  LOT^  121. 

J.  A.  Selbie. 
WASHINGS.— See  Unclean. 

WASHPOT  (m  Tp).— Only  fig.  :  '  Moab  is  my 
washpot,"  Ps  60«=  108»  (LXX  .Mud^  X^,J>)s  t^s  Av/ioi 
/lou,  Vulg.  Moab  olla  spei  me(e,  taking  |"m  iu  its 
Aram.  [cf.  Dn  3"*]  sense  of  '  trust ').  Like  the 
parallel  '  Upon  (or  unto)  Edom  will  I  cast  my 
shoe,'  the  expression  appears  to  combine  the 
ideius  of  ownership  and  of  contempt.  Cf.  art. 
Shoe. 

WASP  (<i<p-f,i.  Wis  12«  A V  and  RVm ;  RV  '  hornet,' 
see  HoRXET). — The  common  wasp,  Vespa  vulgaris, 
is  very  abundant  in  the  East.     Tlie  general  colour 


■WATCH 


WATER 


897 


of  its  body  is  yellow,  variegated  by  a  longi- 
tudinal black  line.  Its  nest  is  composed  of  a 
pape'y  "ubstance,  made  by  chewing  up  the  wood 
and  bark  of  trees,  and  is  formed  of  hexagonal 
cells,  like  those  of  the  bee.  Wasps  swarm  in  the 
neighbourhood  of  houses  in  the  summer,  and 
boldly  enter  them  to  feed  on  the  meats,  sweets, 
and  fiaita  on  the  table.  They  also  frequent  the 
vineyards,  esp.  where  grapes  are  spread  out  to  dry 
into  raisins.  They  invade  the  caldron  in  whicli 
grape  juice  is  boiled  down  to  dibs,  and  shops  where 
sweets  and  fruits  are  sold.  Other  Vcspida:  are  also 
included  under  the  general  title  wasp.  The  hornet 
belongs  to  the  same  tribe,  and  both  of  these  hymen- 
opterous  insects  are  closely  related  to  the  bee. 

G.  E.  Post. 
WATCH.— A  division  of  the  night.     See  Time, 
p.  766^ 

WATCHER  (Aram,  tp,  Theod.  rfp).— A  title  ap- 
plied to  angels  in  Dn  4"i-  "■  a  [lo.  u.»).  It  means 
'  wakeful  one  '  (Aq.  Symm.  iyfr/rtopos),  and  occurs 
with  great  frequency  in  the  (Ethiopic)  Book  of 
Enocli  (see  vol.  i.  p.  707),  as  well  as  in  Jubilees  (4" 
8'  10^)  and  the  .SjTiac  Fathers.  It  is  hardly  likely 
that  in  Daniel  it  has  already  acquired  the  restricted 
sense  of  iyprffopoi  in  these  later  writings  ;  more 
probably  it  is  a  designation  of  angels  in  general. 
See  the  Comm.,  esp.  Driver,  ad  loc. 

WATER  in  EV  is  usually  the  equivalent  of  o:c 
or  Cdojp. 

In  8  K  W,  Is  86H  RV  ■  water'  represent*  D"}'5'  and  KM  has 
D;^n  '5-  In  2 Co  1128 'waters' stands  (or  r«T«^i(RV" rivers'). 
'Watercouree'  is  the  tr.  o(  nh-^a  (Job  SSa  RV  'waurflood'), 
of  D:5  S3;  (Is  *i*),  and  of  d:5  Ufa  (2  Ch  323»  RV  ■  sprinR  of 
waters  ').  Tlie  last  phrase  is  also  rendered  '  watersprini;  ' 
(Ps  107^  >5),  and  '  spring  of  water '  (Is  41>8  68").  '  Waterspout ' 
is  the  tr.  of  ni3»  (Ps  42'  EVm  'cataract'),  and  'waterflood'  of 
0;?  nSsci  (Ps  69«>)i 

The  verb  'to  water'  representfl  various  Heb.  expressions.  It 
stands  In  Pr  112»  for  the  Hiph.  of  trr^  ("to  throw  [rainl') ;  in  Pa 
6»  for  the  Hiph.  of  .15?  ('  to  melt ') ;  in  Ps  659  for  the  Pilel  of 
pio  ("to  run  over');  in  Ps  SC9°>«  for  the  Qal,  in  Ps  66I0,  la  169 
for  the  Picl,  and  in  Pr  11»,  Is  6610  tor  the  Hiph.,  of  ."ti-i  (•  to  be 
saturated');  and  In  On  28^10  201 1 7ir.,  Ex  2'«ir,  Dt  lli», 
Ps  10413,  Ec  2«,  Is  27»,  Ezk  IV  S2«,  Jl  3I8  for  .15^1:1  ('to 
give  to  drink ').  ngy*?  is  tr.  '  well  watered '  in  On  IS",  and 
.1J-1  'watered'  In  Is  68",  Jer  31".  In  Ps  72«  'showers  that 
water'  standi  for  the  apposition  ^T\\  D'5';*i  (' showers^a 
down-pour').  •  Watering '  In  Job  87"  is  for  "KRV 'moisture'). 
•  Watering '  in  Lie  13'*  and  '  to  water '  in  1  Co  30"^-  represent 
v>T.{;u>.  'To  drink  WBt«r'  (1  Ti  6*^)  is  the  tr.  of  vifnm,<. 
'Wat«rpot'  (Jn  28  '  4*')  is  (or  iifiit,  and  'without  water' 
(2  P  2",  Jude  '2)  for  iyvipti.  '  To  have  (i.e.  to  be  8>iiii>licd 
with)  water'  (Jth  7")  is  for  iipiCtrOtu.  '«/>«>.•}.«  (Sir '2430)  is 
tr.  *  conduit.* 

q;0  la  once  rendered  by  '  washing '  (Neh  4^3  RV  '  water ').  In 
Jo*  11>  18>  tbe  word  la  retained  as  part  of  a  proper  name  (n^Er)^9 

Water  is  among  the  commonest  and  most  widely 
ditl'uaed  of  natural  substances,  and  the  Scrijituro 
allusions  to  it  are  consequently  both  numerou.s  and 
varied.  At  ordinary  temperatures  it  is  a  liquid, 
transparent,  yet  capable  of  reflecting  light  from 
•t«  surface  (Pr  27").  When  heated  to  the  boiling 
point  it  is  converted  into  invisible  vapour  (Is  01'-), 
and  the  same  process  of  evaporation  takes  place 
gradually  at  lower  temperatures  (Job  24'").  When 
cooled  below  the  freezing  point  it  solidifies  into 
hard,  transparent,  brittle  ice,  which  is  compared 
to  a  stone  (Job  38"),  and  to  a  breastplate  (Sir 
43*).  The  water  vapour  in  the  air  may  be  con- 
densed by  cooling  into  the  small  drops  of  cloud  or 
mist,  or  the  larger  drops  of  rain  (Job  36"),  or  it 
may  be  deposited  on  the  surface  of  objects  as  dew. 
If  the  cold  in  the  atmosphere  is  sufficiently  great, 
VOL.  IV. — 57 


the  moisture  may  fall  in  frozen  drops  as  hail,  or  ia 
feathery  ice-crystals  as  snow  (see  Cloud,  Dkw, 
Hail,  Rain,  Snow).  Among  the  most  charac- 
teristic physical  moperties  of  water  is  that  of 
quenching  fire.  The  antagonism  of  these  two 
'elements'  appears  in  1  K  IS"^"-,  Wis  19=". 

The  water  which  the  earth  receives  partly  flows 
along  the  surface  in  the  form  of  brooks,  streams, 
and  rivers,  or  gathers  in  ponds,  lakes,  and  seas ; 
and  partly  sinks  beneath  the  ground,  from  which 
it  may  flow  forth  again  in  springs  and  fountains 
((!n  IG',  Dt  8'  etc.),  or  be  recovered  by  sinking  pits 
and  wells  (see  Well). 

Water  plays  an  important  part  in  changing  the 
earth's  surface  (Job  14"),  but  the  process  is  so  slow 
that  the  streams,  etc.,  which  eflect  it  seem  to  be 
among  the  most  permanent  features  of  the  land- 
scape, and  acquire  a  geographical  significance. 
Thus  we  have  the  'water'  of  Nephtoah  (Jos  15' 
18'''),  of  Jericho  (Jos  Hi'),  of  'the  pool  Asphar' 
(1  Mac  9™),  of  Jordan  (1  Mac  9"),  and  of  Gennesar 
(1  Mac  II");  the  'waters'  of  Merora  (.los  11»-'), 
of  En-shemesli  (Jos  15'),  of  Megiddo  (Jg  5'-'),  of 
Nimrim  (Is  15"),  and  of  Dibon  (Is  15") ;  the  'great 
waters  that  are  in  Gibeon '  (Jer  41'=). 

A  situation  on  a  navigable  river  or  by  the  sea 
gave  a  city  great  commercial  and  other  advantages; 
e.f/.  Babylon  (Jer  51'^)  and  No  (Nah  3*,  here  esp.  as 
a  lie  fence,  cf.  Is  33'-'). 

The  waters,  like  the  earth  and  the  air,  have 
their  pojiulation  of  living  creatures  (Gn  r-n- ='•»), 
among  which  only  those  with  fins  and  scales  (i.e. 
fish)  were  recognized  as  clean  by  the  Mosaic  law 
(Lv  ll»-io.i2.«  Dt  14»-'»).  Images  of  fishes  (Dt 
4'*),  and  of  anything  living  in  the  water  (Ex  20*, 
Dt  5"),  were  forbidden.  The  'dragons  in  the 
waters'  (Ps  74'^)  appear  to  have  been  mythical 
sea-monsters  symb.  of  Egypt ;  see  Sea-MoNSTER. 

Water  is  indispensable  to  all  forms  of  life  on  the 
earth,  whether  animal  or  vegetable.  Vegetation 
is  refreshed  by  rain,  dew,  etc.,  and  is  specially 
lu.\uriant  where  there  are  streams  or  springs  to 
moisten  the  soil.  We  read  of  the  efTeot  which  the 
presence  of  water  has  on  trees  (Job  14"  29'",  Ps  I', 
Jer  17"),  cedars  (Nu  24",  Ezk  31*),  vines  (Ezk  17"), 
willows  (Is  44''),  flags  or  sedges  (Job  8",  Sir  40" 
RV),  and  lilies  (Sir  50*).  One  of  these  passages 
(Ezk  31*)  shows  how  irrigation  was  practised  in 
order  to  convey  water  from  a  river  to  all  the  parts 
of  the  ground  under  cultivation.  Seed  was  sown 
beside  the  waters  (Is  32'-"),  and  even  cast  into 
tlium,  as  in  Egypt  when  the  Nile  is  in  flood  (Ec 
11').  The  verdure  of  river-sides  made  them  a 
favourite  haunt  of  birds  (Ca  5'^}. 

Essential  to  vegetable  life,  water  is  equally 
essential  to  animals  and  man.  It  is  enumerated 
among  the  necessaries  of  life  in  Is  33",  Sir  29^'  39". 
Among  its  uses  may  be  noticed — 

(a)  Drinking.  Here  particular  references  are  un- 
necessary, except  to  the  water  which  flowed  from 
the  rock  in  Iloreb  (Ex  17°'*)  and  Kadesh  (Nu  20"). 
Next  to  the  absence  of  water,  the  greatest  of  evils 
was  water  which  for  any  reason  had  become  un- 
drinkable.  This  was  one  of  the  Plaouks  op 
Egypt  (vol.  iii.  p.  889),  and  similar  calamities 
appear  in  the  Apocalypse  (8"  11°).  Israel  had  an 
experience  of  bitter  water  at  Marah  (Ex  15'^). 

The  explanation  of  the  remedy  used  by  Moses  on  this  occasion 
is  uncertain.  Ttie  tree  may  have  had  tlio  natural  propertv  of 
purifying  the  water  (see  Sir  3a^).  Various  plants  are  used  in 
liifferent  parts  of  the  world  for  a  similar  puqiose.  Roscninuller 
{A.  u.  n.  Morgenl.  ii.  28  If.)  nu'iiUons  Nellnnaran  in  Coronianclel, 
Sassafras  in  Florida,  and  Yerva  Caniani  in  Peru.  It  seems  doubt- 
ful, however,  whether  any  plant  now  growing  in  the  Siimitic 
desert  has  such  an  effect,  though  Le88et>8  (L'uth)iv  de  i^xuz,  p. 
10)  says  he  \\Vk»  been  told  i)y  Arab  chiefs  that  a  certain  bitter 
thorn,  growing  In  the  desert,  Is  used  by  them  in  this  way. 
Hurckhardt  (TravfU  in  Stfria,  474)  suggests  that  the  berries 
of  the  plant  called  Oharkad  {Pegantim  rtttuutn)  might  have 
been  employed,  but  other   travellers  have  not  found  them 


898 


WATEE 


VVATEE 


eflectua!  (Robinson,  BRP  i.  98  f. ;  Ebere,  Durch  Gosen  rum 
Sinai,  116t.). 

The  waters  of  Jericho  were  bad  in  Elisha's  day  (2  K  219- 2-), 
but  no  explanation  save  a  miraculous  one  can  be  given  of  the 
remedy  used  in  this  case. 

Drinking  water  nii^lit  be  fouled  bj-  the  feet  of 
animals  (Ezk  32-- ^^  34").  Certain  bitter  potions 
receive  special  mention,  such  as  '  water  of  gall ' 
(Jer  8"  9"  23"),  and  the  water  mi.ved  with  the 
ashes  of  the  golden  calf  (Ex  32-°).  Water  mi.xed 
with  dust  from  the  floor  of  the  tabernacle  was 
used  in  the  ordeal  of  chastity  described  in  Nu  5. 

Water  was  not  only  dnink  alone,  but  also  mixed 
with  wine  (Ps  75«,  Pr  9-,  2  Mac  152").  The  incident 
of  the  making  of  water  into  wine  at  Cana  is  given 
as  the  earliest  of  the  miracles  of  Jesus  (Jn  2''"-  4''"'). 
Water  for  domestic  purposes  was  usually  drawn 
by  women  (Gn  24'^  Ex  2>«,  1  S  9",  Jn  4')  or  by 
servants  (Dt  29").  The  Gibeonites  were  reduced 
to  this  menial  ottice  (Jos  9-'*).  In  Mk  14"  ||  the 
unusual  circumstance  of  a  man  bearing  a  pitcher 
of  water  enables  the  two  disciples  to  recognize  their 
guide.  Supplies  of  drinking  water  were  carried  in 
skins,  larger  or  smaller  (see  Bottle),  and  we  hear 
also  of  vessels  of  earthenware  and  stone. 

(6)  Washing  of  clothes  (Jer  13'),  of  the  hands 
(Job  O-™,  Mt  27"),  the  feet  (Gn  24^2  43-^  Lk  7", 
Jn  13'),  and  the  whole  person  (Jtli  10'  12').  To 
'  pour  water  upon  the  hands '  is  synonymous  with 
being  a  servant  (2  K  3").  In  the  ceremonial 
system  of  the  OT,  washings  occupied  a  prominent 
place.  The  priests  were  washed  at  their  consecra- 
tion (Ex  29^),  and  the  Levites  were  sprinkled  when 
they  were  set  apart  to  their  special  duties  (Nu  8'). 
There  was  a  laver  before  the  tabernacle,  in  which 
the  priests  washed  their  hands  and  feet  before 
offering  sacrifices  (Ex  30"-='  40'-  ^>-^^).  Special  ablu- 
tions were  required  on  particular  occasions,  such 
as  the  Day  of  Atonement  (Lv  16^-  "•  ^).  The  sacri- 
•icial  flesh  was  washed  before  it  was  burnt  (Lv 
^9. 13  §21)  W'ashing  was  a  frequent  process  for 
removing  ceremonial  defilement  (Lv  IP-  15°*-  17", 
Dt  23").  A  specially  interesting  case  is  that  of 
recoveiy  from  leprosy  (Lv  14*-°).  In  connexion 
with  leprosy  and  certain  other  forms  of  unclean- 
ness  running  water  required  to  be  used  (Lv 
14B.6.iio.6j.  M  i5i3_  j,-^  1917)  The  'water  of  separa- 
tion' used  for  sprinkling  the  unclean  (Nu  19, 
He  9")  consisted  of  running  water  mixed  with 
the  ashes  of  a  heifer  that  had  been  burnt  along 
with  cedar  wood  and  hyssop. 

(c)  Cooking,  as  in  F.ik  24'. 

(d)  Medicinal  Bathing  (Jn  5'-  *). 

In  E:tstern  lands,  where  so  much  depends  on  the 
presence  of  water,  the  distress  caused  b3'  drought 
is  very  great,  and  is  often  vividlv  described  in 
Scripture  (Is  19',  Jer  14',  Jl  l'-»).  The  same  result 
follows  when  a  water-sujiply  is  cut  off,  which  was 
a  common  operation  of  warfare  and  siege.  Jehosh- 
aphat  and  his  allies  stopped  the  wells  of  Moab 
(2  K  3"-  =»).  Holofernes  did  the  same  for  Hethulia 
(Jth  V-  8«  11'-).  liezekiah,  when  besieged  by 
Sennacherib,  succeeded  in  reversing  this  proceed- 
ing, and  in  securing  water  for  the  besieged  while 
the  besiegers  were  deprived  of  it  (2  Cli  32'-'',  Sir 
48").  When  water  is  scarce  from  such  causes, 
it  has  to  be  doled  out  carefully  (La  5*,  Ezk  4"-  "). 
'  Water  of  affliction  '  seems  to  mean  a  supply  that 
is  limited  either  from  scarcity  (Is  30*')  or  as  a 
puMisliment  (1  K  22=',  2  Ch  18»). 

Water,  though  so  necessary,  is  also  a  source  of 
danger.  It  may  cause  death  by  suflbcation  (2  K 
8")  or  by  ordinary  drowning.  Of  the  latter  the 
Flood  and  the  overthrow  of  the  Egyptians  at  the 
Red  Sea  are  the  most  notable  Scripture  instances. 
In  the  miracle  of  Christ's  walking  on  the  water 
(Mt  H^W)  we  see  this  natural  property  for  once 
overcome.  Water  may  be  destnictive  from  its 
force  when  agitav^l   by  storms  (Ezk  27**-*',  Wis 


5-'^,  Lk  8^-"),  or  when  rushing  along  in  a  torrent 
(2  S  S-'",  Rev  12"),  or  from  its  simply  submerging 
the  works  of  man  (Ezk  2G'-- '"). 

'Water'  is  used  for  tears  (Ps  119'",  Jer  9''", 
La  1'*  3'*),  and  for  the  liquid  that  flowed  along 
with  the  blood  from  the  pierced  side  of  Christ 
(Jn  Iff").  The  nature  of  the  latter  has  been  much 
discussed,  and  all  attempts  at  ordinary  physio- 
logical explanation  seem  doubtful.  The  commen- 
taries must  be  consulted  for  the  various  views 
that  have  been  suggested.  See  also  Medicine 
(vol.  iii.  p.  32G").  The  substance  Nephthak  (which 
see)  is  called  '  thick  water '  (2  Mac  l^"-  ='•  ^'-  «»). 

In  the  biblical  cosmogony  water  held  an  im- 
portant place.  There  was  a  primitive  waste  of 
waters,  which  was  divided  into  two  portions  by 
the  firmament.  The  upper  portion  was  the  source 
of  rain.  The  dry  land  rose  out  of  the  lower 
portion  and  was  founded  upon  it.  The  Flood, 
in  which  both  the  waters  above  and  those  beneath 
were  let  loose  (Gn  7"),  was  a  catastrophe  provided 
for  by  the  very  structure  of  the  universe  (2  P  3°-'). 
These  and  similar  cosmological  ideas  appear  in 
Job  268-"',  Ps  33'  104'- «'•  148S  Pr  30^  Is  40'^,  Jth 
9'=  16".  While  the  heathen  deified  the  waters  as 
well  as  the  other  forces  of  nature  (Wis  13°),  the 
biblical  conception  consistently  subordinates  them 
to  God.  He  controls  the  waters  of  the  thunder- 
storm (2  S  22'2,  Ps  IS"  29'  77'«- ",  Jer  10"  51'«). 
The  division  of  the  Red  Sea  is  His  work  (Ps  78", 
Is  43'"  51'°).  It  is  in  obedience  to  Him  that  the 
water  flows  from  the  rock  (Ps  114'').  It  is  He 
who  moves  the  sea  (Am  5*  9").  The  voice  of  God 
is  comjiared  to  the  sound  of  many  waters  (Ps  93*, 
Ezk  iZ-.     Cf.  Rev  V"  14-  19'^). 

The  metaphorical  usages  of  water  are  numerous. 
The  want  of  it  is  an  emblem  of  spiritual  need 
(Ps  42'  63',  Am  8"),  and  its  presence  becomes,  in 
some  of  the  most  beautiful  poetry  of  Scripture,  a 
figure  for  spirifiiril  refreshment  and  blessing  (Ps 
23-,  Is  30=»  32-'  S.j"-  '4118  4320  443  4910  551  sgii^  j^r  3P, 
Ezk  47'-",  Jl  3'^  Zee  W,  3n~i^,  Rev  7"'  21"  22'-  "). 
It  rciiresents  a  blessing  which  may  be  neglected 
(Jer  2"  17"  18").  It  suggests  the  gratefulness  of 
good  news  (Pr  25^) ;  and  wisdom,  as  the  drink  of 
the  soul,  is  compared  to  it  (Sir  15').  Water  sym- 
bolizes the  means  of  morrd  cleansing  (Ezk  16*' ' 
36^,  Eph  5^,  He  10-),  with  which  we  may  connect 
the  whole  subject  of  Baptism,  and  also  the  con- 
ception of  Christians  as  'born  of  water'  (Jn  3', 
I  Jn  5°-*).  Bitter  drink  is  a  metaphor  for  trouble 
(Ps  73'"),  and  water  in  its  dangerous  aspect  is  still 
more  extensively  so  (Ps  18'"  32"  46'  66'"  69'-''-" 
88",  Is  432,  La  3",  Jon  '2').  Enemies  are  spoken  of 
under  a  similar  figure  (Ps  124*  144',  Is  8'  [Assyria] 
17'"  "  [the  nations]  28=-  ",  Jer  47''). 

Various  subordinate  metaphors  are  deserving  of 
notice.  Water  becomes  a  figure  for  instability  of 
character  (Gn  49*),  for  weakness  and  dissolution 
(Ps  22'*  58'  109",  Ezk  7"),  and  for  worthlessne-is 
(Wis  16^).  Pride  passes  like  a  ship  that  leaves  no 
track  on  the  waters  (Wis  5'°).  The  foam  of  water 
[or,  perhaps  better,  a  chip  on  a  stream,  cf.  RVmJ 
is  an  emblem  of  extreme  transiency  (Hos  10'). 
To  give  earth  and  water  is  a  token  of  submission 
(Jth  '2").  In  Sir  IS"-  "  the  choice  between  life  and 
death  is  compared  to  that  between  fire  and  water. 
The  wickedness  of  Jerusalem^  is  likened  to  the  water 
of  a  fountain  (Jer  6').  Stolen  water  is  an  emblem 
for  secret  sin  (Pr  9"),  and  the  drinking  of  water  is 
a  figure  for  unlawful  love  (Sir  26'").  To  drink  the 
waters  of  a  country  is  to  conquer  it  (2  K  19"*,  Is 
37-^),  or  to  seek  alliance  with  it  (Jer  2'").  The 
letting  out  of  water  has  as  its  counterparts  the 
beginning  of  strife  (Pr  17'*),  or  the  giving  of  liberty 
to  a  vncked  woman  (Sir  25"^).  Apostate  disciples 
are  compared  to  waterless  wells  (2  P  2"),  or  cloiids 
(Jude  '-).     T/ic  inconsistency  of  blessing  and  cursinf 


WATEKSPOUTS 


WAYilAKK 


899 


is  snggested  by  the  impossibility  of  fresh  and  salt 
water  coming  from  a  fountain  together  (Ja  3'°'''). 
The  salt  in  the  sea  corresponds  to  GocTs  wrath 
against  the  heathen  (Sir  39^).  The  smallness  of  a 
■waterdrop  compared  with  the  sea  is  an  image  of 
the  relation  of  time  to  eternity  (Sir  IS'").  Deep 
water  is  a  figure  for  tvise  counsel  (Pr  18*  20^). 
Judgment  and  righteousness  are  likened  to  the 
waters  of  a  mighty  stream  (Am  5").  The  extent 
of  tlie  sea  is  niude  to  suggest  the  universal  spread 
of  God's  glory  (Is  11",  Hab  2"). 

James  Patrick. 
WATERSPOUTS.  —  Only  Fa  42^  '  Deep  calleth 
nnto  deep  at  the  noL-^e  of  thy  waterspouts' (RVm 
'  cataracts');  Heb.  'ry-i  "^'y)  «TP  t^r.n-^K  cinn  ;  LXX 

aov.  The  only  other  occurrence  of  the  word  ii:!f 
is  in  tlie  very  obscure  pass-'ige  2  S  5*,  so  that  its 
meaning  is  somewhat  uncertain,  although  in  late 
Hebrew  it  means  a  spout  or  pipe  (cf.  Job  38^ 
'Who  liath  cleft  a  channel  for  the  watertlood?' 
n^ja  ijEB'^  J^?"?).  The  reference  in  Ps  42'  is  prob.  to 
the  numerous  noisy  waterfalls  in  a  stream  swollen 
by  the  melting  of  the  snow  (see  Duhm,  ad  loc). 

WAVE  -  BREAST,  WAYE  -  OFFERING.  —  See 
Sacrifice. 

WAW  (letter).— See  Vau. 

WAX.— See  Wkitino,  p.  945». 

WAX. — This  verb,  which  means  to  grow  (Middle 
Eng.  waxen,  AngloSa.x.  weaxan,  allied  to  ouidvciv), 
is  trcquently  used  in  AV,  and  gives  another  syn. 
for  '  grow,'  as  in  Lk  I*  '  And  the  cliild  grew,  and 
waxed  strong  (iKpaTaioDro)  in  spirit,'  13'" 'And  it 
grew,  and  waxed  a  great  tree'  (^^i-ero  ch  UfSpov 
liiya,  KV  '  became  a  tree,'  omitting  iiiya  with 
edd.).  Cf.  Maundevillc,  Travels,  105,  'In  Ethiopia, 
when  the  children  be  young  and  little,  they  be  all 
yellow;  and  when  that  they  wax  of  age,  that 
yellowness  tumeth  to  be  all  black.'  The  word  is 
sometimes  used  with  scarcely  more  meaning  than 
'  become,' as  Nu  11-^  '  Is  the  Lord's  liand  waxed 
short?"  So  Mt  26''  Tind.  'And  he  toke  with  him 
Peter  and  the  two  sonnes  of  Zebede,  and  began  to 
wexe  sorowfuU  and  to  be  in  an  agonye ' ;  Lk  11^ 
Tind.  '  The  Pharises  began  to  wexe  busye  aboute 
him.'  It  was,  however,  formerly  used  in  the  sense 
of  grow  or  increase,  without  an  adjective  (it  is  never 
so  used  in  AV),  as  Ac  G'  Wye.  '  The  word  of  the 
lord  wuxed ' ;  Gn  9'  Tind.  '  See  that  ye  encrease, 
and  waxe.'  J.  flASTINGS. 

WAY  (--n,  mx,  AJis),  meaning  literally  either 
road  *  or  journey,  is  used  by  a  natural  ligure  for 
course  or  manner  in  a  gieat  variety  of  applica- 
tions. It  is  used  for  God's  purpose  or  action 
(Ex  33",  Job  21"  36•^  Ps  67"  77^  Pr  8'«,  Is  20"  40^, 
Job  21"  34"),  described  by  varied  epithets  of 
excellence  (Ps  25",  2  S  22^',  Ps  IS*',  Dt  32^,  Kev  15^ 
Dn  4",  Hos  I4»,  Job  26",  Ro  ll*"),  defended  against 
doubt  (Ezk  18"-  ="),  and  contrasted  with  man's 
plans  and  doings  (Is  55'^) ;  also  of  His  command- 
ments (Gn  18'»,  Ex  18*  32»,  Dt  9"  ll-»  31^  Jg  2-=*, 
Job  23",  Ps  37**  119",  Jer  5<-»,  Mai  2»,  Mt  ii'", 
Mk  12",  Lk  20-»,  Dt  5™  8»  10'-  11^  19»  26"  '28»  30", 
Jos  '>2^  Ps  18='  25*  51"  SI"  95'«  103'  119^  12S'  138», 
2  S  22-',  1  K  2»  3'''  S**  ll"-",  Is  2»  42-^  58-  63"  64», 
Jer  7''''),  which  He  is  ready  to  teach  men  (Ps25'-  •■  " 
27"  32»  86"  lig^-aa-ssn  1392J  1438,  I3  30-'  35",  Jer 
32»»  42",  Mic  4^  Ps  16"  lltf"-  "»  23'),  and  in  obedi- 
ence to  which  there  is  reward  (Pr  8'=,  Zee  3',  Mai 
2").  Man's  conduct  generally  is  spoken  of  as  a 
'way'  (1  K  2<  8-*,  2  Ch  6'",  Ps  119'-»,  Ja  S"")  or 

*  For  an  account  of  Uie  muo  roodwayB  of  Palealine  8e«  articles 
Ieask  asd  Comuehcz,  p.  8a6>>,  and  Was,  p.  8920. 


'ways'  (1  S  18",  Job  4«  13"  22',  Ps  39>  119»- ", 
Ezk  16",  Ac  14",  1  Co  4",  Ja  P,  cf.  Pr  6"),  moraUy 
contrasted  as  good  ( 1  S  12-^,  1  K  S*',  2  Ch  6-'',  Job 
31',  Ps  1«  101-8,  Pr  2»  29-'',  Is  26',  Mt  21'»,  Ro  3", 
1  Co  12",  2  P  2"=')  and  bad  (Gn  6'^  Nu22*',  Jg2'», 

1  K  13*",  Job  S's  22'5,  Ps  l'-»  36*  49",  Pr  4"-'»  19^, 
Ezk  3'8,  Hos  10",  Ps  10»  125»,  Pr  !"•  2"-  ">  3"  10'  14^ 
.>_KS  2S«'S  Jer  15').  Altliou-li  man  is  free  to 
choose  his  own  'way'  (Ps  Wd^',  Pr  7^  21=»  23'"), 
hating  the  evil  '  way  '  (Ps  119""-  '^-  ^),  or  choosing 
it  (Is53«  57"  59s  65",  Jer  3  ',  Is  66'),  yet  training  is 
important  (Pr  22''),  and  example,  whether  for  good 
(Jg  2"  2  Ch  20^^  1  K  22'''),  as  David's  (2  K  22^ 

2  Cli  11"  17"),  or  for  evil  (1  K  lo-^  2  K  2P',  Pr  1" 
le'^'  28'",  Is  3'-,  Jer  2"  10-  W;  Ezk  23'-"),  as  of 
the  kings  of  Israel  (2  K  8'8  16',  2  Ch  21''-  "  2S=),  of 
the  house  of  Ahab  (2  K  S'^,  2  Ch  22'),  of  Jeroboam 
(1  K  15"  16--  '»■  •-«  22'-),  of  Balaam  (2  P  2"),  and  of 
Cain  (Jude  ") ;  but  example  is  not  always  followed 
(1  S  8'-°,  2  Ch  21'-).  As  a  man's  course  is  well 
known  to  (iod  (Job  24^  31''  34-',  Ps  119'**  1395,  Pr 
5-',  Jer  16"),  He  deals  with  him  according  to  his 
deserts  (1  K  &-,  2  Ch  6'^,  Ps  Uiy>,  Jer  4'",  Ezk  7-' 
11-'  16"  22"  36'»,  1  K  8*^,  2  Ch  6^  Job  34",  Pr  14'*, 
Jer  17"  32",  Ezk  7'  IS**  24"  33^,  Hos  i\  Zee  1«)  in 
spite  of  occasional  appearances  to  the  contrary 
(Ps  37').  But  God  desires  men  to  consider  their 
'ways'  (Ezk  20"  16«'  36"'- 3-,  Hag  P)  and  turn 
from  the  evil  (2  K  17",  2  Ch  7",  Pr  5",  Is  55', 
Jer  7'-=  IS"  25='  26'-"  35"  365-',  Ezk  18-^  338", 
Jon  38- '»,  Zee  P),  which  He  hates  (Pr  S"  I5»)  ; 
and  He  promises  to  guide  them  into  the  good 
(Pr  4"  S-"),  which  He  loves  (Pr  11™).  There  are 
two  'ways'  before  man  (Jer  21*,  Mt  7"''*,  cf. 
Lk  1.3^-  ^,  also  lJidach(,  i.  1,  and  Ep.  of  Barnabas, 
xviii. ),  one  of  which  leads  to  life,  pe.ace,  and 
happiness  (Pr  6=^  W-^  IP  12-»  13"  IS-*  16",  Ac  2=», 
Ro  3",  Pr  3"  16'  4'*),  and  the  other  to  death, 
trouble,  and  misery  (Pr  7-''  13'=  14'-  16==  21"  22' 
22-^,  Is  59'),  in  spite  of  man's  illusions  (Pr  12"-='' 
2P).  This  close  connexion  between  conduct  and 
condition  is  shown  in  tlie  use  of  'way'  or  'ways' 
for  man's  lot  as  well  as  his  deeds  (Gn  28-'",  Ex  23'=", 
Dt  r',  Jos  18,  Jg  IS"-*,  Dt  28=»;  the  liter.al  sense  is 
in  these  six  passages  passing  over  to  the  ligurative, 
whicli  appears  clearly  in  2  S  22^,  Ps  18-=,  Job  3=* 
19"  23'»  22=8  pg  356)_  x  man  may  think  of  ordering 
his  lot  after  his  o^^■n  wishes  (Pr  16",  Jer  10'="),  but  Gou 
disposes  it  according  to  His  own  will  (Ps  37=^  S5", 
Pr  2"- '»,  Ps  91",  Da  5==),  to  which  it  is  well  for 
man  to  commit  himself  (Ps  37',  Pr  3").  One  lot 
none  can  escape,  for  death  is  '  tlie  way  of  all  the 
earth'  (Jos  23",  1  K  2=,  cf.  Job  16=). 

The  purpose  of  God,  foretold  by  the  prophets 
(Is  40",  JIal  3')  and  fvdlilled  in  Christ,  is  described 
as  the  '  way  of  the  LoED '  (Mt  3',  Mk  1=- ',  Lk  3*  7", 
Jn  1==,  Ac  18=»'«',  cf.  Ac  13"'),  of  peace  (Lk  1"),  of 
truth  (2  P  2=),  and  of  salvation  (Ac  16").  Christ 
Himself  is  (Jn  14*-°''),  or  has  opened  up,  the  way 
for  man  to  God  (Heb  9"  10=") ;  and,  accordingly, 
the  Christian  religion  is  spoken  of  simply  as  '  the 
Way  '  (Ac  9=  ig"-  =^  22-'  24"-  ■=),  either  because  Christ 
claimed  to  be  the  Way  (Jn  14"),  or  because  He  had 
spoken  of  the  narrow  way  unto  life  (Mt  7'*) ;  or, 
lastly,  because  in  Him  was  fullillcd  the  prophetic 
saying  regarding  the  way  (Is  40',  Mai  3'). 

A.  E.  Garvie. 

WAYMARK.  —  In  Jer  31=' i="l  'the  virgin  of 
Israel '  is  called  on  to  set  up  waymarks  and  make 
guide-posts  to  mark  the  way  for  the  returning 
exiles.  The  Ileb.  word  tr''  'waymark'  is  p7, 
which  apparently  means  here  a  small  stone  pillar, 
similar  to  our  milestones,  with  an  indication  ol 
routes  and  distances.  The  only  other  occurrences 
of  the  Heb.  term  are  2  K  23"  (of  the  tombstone 
of  the  man  of  God  from  Judah ;  AV  wrongly 
'title,'  RV  'monument')  and  Ezk  39"  (of  the 
stone  to  be  set  up  to  guide  the   burying  party 


900 


WEALTH 


WEAVING 


to  a  corpse  ;  AV  and  RV  '  sign ').  In  Jer  31 
[Gr.  38]'-^  the  LXX,  confusing  witli  p'V  (Zion), 
reads  ffTijaou  atavrriv,  2(e)niv ;  in  2  K  23"  it  has 
dKbiriKov,  and  in  Ezk  30"  arj/ifiov, 

WEALTH i.  Terms.— In  OT  'wealth'  is  tr"  of 

pn  A(5n,  tXoOtos,  etc.,  clivitice ;  S^n  haijil,  ttXoDtos, 
divitice  [but  also,  as  its  proper  meaning  is  '  strength,' 
'resources,'  Swa^is,  etc.];  3io  tubh,  properly  'good,' 
'  prosperity,'  an  Elizabethan  sense  of  '  wealth ' ;  nib 
kOah,  properly  'strength';  d''}2}  n'kliasim ,  to  vTrap- 
Xoi'Ta,  xpij^oTo,  substantia  [onlj'  in  post-exilic  litera- 
ture ;  the  corresponding  Aram,  ['p;}  in  Ezra  is  tr'' 
'expenses,'  'goods'];  and  in  NT  of  tmopla,  acqui- 
sitio.  '  Wealthy 'tr.  in  AV  v^.^',  Jer  49"  ('quiet,' 
'ease'),  but  Rv  (from  AVm)  'that  is  at  ease'; 
'  wealthy  place '  stands  in  Ps  16'-  for  r\y]  ('satura- 
tion '),  prob.  eiTor  for  nrin  'a  spacious  place.'  The 
common  term  for  '  riches    is  icj;. 

u.  National  wealth  would  consist  in  the  fertility, 
etc.,  of  the  soil,  the  minerals,  streams,  pasturage, 
population,  cattle,  etc. ;  in  the  neighbourhood  of 
the  country  to  trade-routes,  and  in  natural  facili- 
ties of  intercourse  with  other  nations ;  cf.  Pales- 
tine, Trade.  Dt  8'-"  describes  the  land  as  well- 
watered,  rich  in  cereals,  grapes,  olives,  ligs,  iron, 
and  brass.  It  is  possible,  however,  that  these 
verses  come  from  an  exUic  editor,  and  that  the 
colouring  is  heightened  by  an  exile's  fond  recollec- 
tions of  the  ancient  home  of  his  people.  The  older 
description  'flowing  with  milk  and  honey,'  Nu  IS" 
(JE),  suggests  that  the  wealth  of  the  land  was 
chiefly  pastoral.  Naturally,  the  settled  govern- 
ment of  the  monarchy  fostered  trade,  and  pro- 
mated  a  certain  accumulation  of  wealth,  especially 
in  the  days  when  the  Israelite  States  were  inde- 
pendent and  powerful,  and  were  receiving,  and 
not  paying,  tribute,  e.g.  in  the  days  of  Solomon 
(1  K  10"-^)  and  in  the  early  days  of  Isaiah  (Is  2'). 
Dt  8'--  ^  looks  back  to  prosperous  periods  such  as 
these.  Nevertheless,  in  view  of  the  uncommercial 
character  of  the  people,  and  the  barrenness  of 
large  portions  of  the  country,  especially  in  Judaea, 
Israel  can  hardly  have  been  wealthy,  even  in  pro- 
portion to  its  population,  as  comjiared  with  great 
commercial  and  conquering  nations.  We  gather 
from  the  prophets  of  the  8th  cent,  that  in  Israel, 
as  el-sewhere,  the  material  well-being  of  the  peojile 
generally  was  greater  in  the  earlier  stages  of  the 
history,  before  the  development  of  civilization  led 
to  the  accumulation  of  land  in  lar^e  properties. 

The  Jewish  community  in  Palestine  after  the 
Exile  was  poor,  and  burdened  with  tribute  to 
Persia ;  and,  as  it  seems,  with  weaJtliy  nobles  who 
preyed  upon  the  necessities  of  their  brethren  (Neh 
1»  5,  Hag  1'-"  2i»- ",  Zee  8'»,  Mai  3").  Time,  no 
doubt,  brought  some  improvement ;  and  a  measure 
of  prosperity  resulted  from  the  work  of  Nehemiah  ; 
but  the  tone  of  the  Psalms  and  other  literature  of 
the  Persian  and  earlier  Greek  period  suggests  that 
the  people  generally,  at  any  rate,  were  poor.  There 
was,  however,  some  revival  of  national  wealth 
under  the  later  Maccaboean  kings,  and  still  more 
under  the  Herods :  witness  the  splendid  buildings 
of  Herod  the  Great.  In  addition  to  a  settled 
government,  two  other  causes  contributed  to  pro- 
duce this  result.  First,  Palestine  could  not  fail  to 
profit  in  some  measure  by  the  growing  prosperity 
of  the  Roman  empire.  Secondly,  the  Jews  of  the 
Dispersion  often  engaged  in  commerce  and  became 
wetuthy  ;  the  sanctity  of  the  temple  brought  vast 
crowds  of  pilgrims  to  Jerusalem  for  the  great  feasts, 
and  increased  the  trade  of  the  city  ;  also,  devout 
Jews  and  proselytes  sent  costly  ofl'erings  to  the 
temple.  In  the  thirty  or  forty  years,  however, 
before  the  fall  of  Jerusalem,  Palestine  sufieied 
»everely  from  misgovernment  and  disorder, 
iii.  Individual  wealth. — In  the  outlying  pastoral 


districts  we  meet  with  men  like  Nabal  in  southern 
Judah  (1  S  25)  and  Harzillai  in  Gilead  (2  S  17-''-'-"), 
rich  in  Hocks  and  herds  and  slaves ;  and  their 
circumstances  suggested  the  terms  in  which  the 
wealth  of  the  patriarchs  is  described,  e.g.  Gn  24". 
The  chief  use  which  such  men  had  for  their  pos- 
sessions was  to  maintain  a  great  retinue,  which 
gave  tliera  power  and  distinction.  Another  class 
of  rich  men  consisted  of  chiefs,  kings,  priests,  and 
other  great  othcials,  like  Gideon,  Abimelech,  Jeph- 
tliah,  Kli,  and  the  kings  of  Israel  and  Judah.  Their 
authority  brought  them  wealth  (1  S  8""").  We 
learn  from  the  prophets  of  the  Sth  cent.  (Is  S'"'" 
etc.),  that  towards  the  end  of  the  in,,uarchy  there 
grew  up  a  class  of  great  landowners ;  and  Neh  5 
illustrates  the  process.  In  bad  times  the  '  nobles 
and  rulers'  lent  money,  probably  at  exorbitant 
rates,  on  the  security  of  the  land,  which  became 
forfeit  to  them  when  the  borrowers  failed  to  fulhl 
their  obligations.  The  allusions  in  the  Prophets 
show  that  wealth  had  now  become  an  instrument 
of  luxury  and  display.  Apart  from  Solomon,  we 
have  no  instance  in  the  OT  of  the  successful 
Israelite  merchant,  of  wealth  gained  by  trade. 

In  the  NT  wealthy  men  like  Joseph  of  Arima- 
tha?a  and  the  young  ruler  appear  upon  the  scene  ; 
such,  too,  figure  in  parables  (e.g.  Lk  IG'"*-),  and  in 
the  teaching ;  but  none  of  them  play  any  im])ortant 
part  in  the  history  of  our  Lord  or  the  early  Church. 
Ijoth  in  the  Gospels  (Mk  10^"")  and  elsewhere  {e.g. 
Ja  5'"*)  wealth  is  represented  as  involving  spiritual 
disadvantages,  and  as  accompanied  by  highhanded 
injustice,  and  by  persecution  of  the  Church. 

W.  H.  Bennett. 

WEAN  (S;3). — For  the  Eastern  usages  connected 
with  weaning  see  art.  BiRTH,  vol.  i.  p.  301''.  The 
meaning  of  Ps  131-  ('Surely  I  have  stilled  and 
quieted  my  soul  ;  like  a  weaned  child  upon  his 
mother,  my  soul  is  upon  me  like  a  weaned  child  ') 
is  that  the  Psalmist  has  learned  to  renounce  lofty 
aspirations,  as  the  weaned  child  has  learned  t< 
dispense  with  its  mother's  breast. 

WEAPONS.— See  Armouk. 

WEASEL  (i^n  Aoierf).— The  authority  of  the 
LXX  yaXfi  and  Vulg.  mnstela  (Lv  11-'')  is  in  favour 
of  the  EV  'weasel,'  and  others  of  the  Mustelidm, 
as  the  marten  and  civet.  The  authority  of  tho 
Arab.  Ihuld,  the  cognate  of  holed,  wliich  signifiee 
the  spalax  or  mole-rat  of  the  East,  would  be 
against  the  rendering  'weasel,'  were  it  not  thav 
cognates  often  have  widely  ditl'erent  meanings. 
In  the  articles  Chameleon  and  Mole  we  have 
given  all  the  evidence  that  bears  on  the  question. 
It  is  perhaps  best  to  follow  the  LXX  and  Vulg., 
and  render  '  weasel,' which  must  be  held,  however, 
to  include  other  Mu.itelidce  in  Palestine,  as  the 
marten,  Miistcla  fuina,  L.  (Arab,  nims),  the  ich- 
neumon, Herjiestes  Ichneumon,  Fisch.  (Arab,  niiiu 
and  zcrdl),  and  the  genet,  Genctta  vulgaris,  C.  A. 
Gray  (Arab,  nisnds  and  sainmUr),  and  others. 

G.  E.  Post. 

WEAVING  (j-iK  'weave,'  J-iy  'web'  or  'shuttle.' 
Besides  AV  occurrences,  RV  gives  '  weave  in 
chequer  work  '  for  A V  '  embroider '  [ysv]  in  Ex  28", 
and  'weave  together'  for  AV  'wrap  up'  in  Mie  7', 
where  MT  nmss;;  is  prob.  corrupt).  —  Weaving  is 
closely  connected  with  spinning,  as  the  materiiila 
for  the  loom  were,  for  the  most  part,  products  of 
the  spindle.  Weaving,  like  spinning,  is  a  very 
ancient  art,  one  of  the  first  invented  hy  civilized 
man,  being  necessary  for  the  preparation  of  hia 
clothing,  and  we  find  abundant  eWdence  of  it  upon 
tlie  monuments.  The  early  proficiency  of  Egyptian 
weavers  is  established  by  the  remains  of  their 
textile  fabrics,  some  of  their  linen  iiro(iii<t«  Iminj; 
like  silk   to  the  touch,   and   equal   to  ma   hnosj 


WEAVING 


WEIGHTS  AND  MEASURES      901 


cambric  in  texture  (Wilkinson,  Anc.  Egyp.  ii.  161, 
eU.  ISTsj  ;  atid  vestures  of  line  linen  are  mentioned 
in  the  story  of  Joseph  (Gn  41^-).  The  ^'ooiUy 
Ldb.  garnii-nt  found  at  Jericho  indicates  the  skill 
of  the  Cli!iM;ian  weavers  ;  and  tlie  '  line  linen,'  the 
'  linely  wrouglit  garments '(Ex  31'"  KV),  and  other 
articles  of  similar  character  mentioned  in  Ex.  by  P, 
as  prepared  for  the  tabernacle,  and  tlie  garments 
of  the  priests,  make  it  evident  that  the  Hebrews 
had  attained  proliciency  in  the  art.  Weaving  was 
generally  carried  on  by  men  in  Egypt,  but  women 
eometimes  enga^'ed  in  it  (Herod,  ii.  35;  Wilkinson, 
i.  310,  317),  and  this  seems  to  have  been  true  of 
the  Hebrews  also  (2  K  23',  Pr  31=^).  The  loom  was 
of  various  kind.s,  upright  and  horizontal,  and  the 
woof  was  pu-hed  both  upwards  and  downwards 
(Wilkinson,  ii.  170,  171).  Tlie  Hebrews  after  arriv- 
ing  in  Palestine  would  have  a  similar  variety,  but 
in  the  desert  they  might  use  simpler  forms,  such  as 
are  still  found  there.  Burckhardt  (Bed.  and  ]\'nh. 
i.  67)  describes  a  loom  which  consists  of  two  short 
sticks  driven  into  the  ground  at  such  distance 
apart  as  tlie  widtli  of  the  piece  to  be  woven  re- 
q^uirea,  and  upon  these  a  cross-piece,  two  other 
sunilar  stakes  with  cross-piece  being  placed  at  a 
convenient  distance  from  the  first.  Upon  these 
cross-pieces  the  threads  of  the  warp  are  stretched, 
the  upper  and  under  threads  being  kept  apart  by  a 
flat  stick.  The  common  loom  of  tlie  country  to- 
day is  quite  simple,  and  has  no  doubt  been  used 
for  centuries  without  much  change.  Two  upright 
posts  are  fixed  in  the  ground,  which  hold  the  roller 
to  which  tlie  threads  of  the  warp  are  fastened,  and 
upon  which  the  clotli  is  wound  as  it  is  woven.  The 
threads  of  the  warp  are  carried  upward  towards  the 
ceiling  at  the  other  end  of  the  room,  and  pass  over 
rollers,  and  are  gathered  in  hanks  and  weighted  to 
keep  them  taut.  The  different  sets  are  kept  apart 
by  reeds.  The  weaver  sits  at  the  cloth-roller  and 
works  the  shuttle,  while  the  healds  are  worked  by 
treadles.  We  have  no  mention  of  the  loom  as  a 
whole  in  the  Bible,  but  from  the  incidental  notices 
of  various  parts  we  infer  that  it  did  not  dider 
greatly  from  tliat  now  in  use.  Thus  we  have  the 
beam,  witli  which  a  great  spear  or  its  staff  is  com- 
pared (1  S  17',  2S21'9,  I  Ch  11=3  20'),  from  which 
we  should  infer  that  the  cloth-roller  is  intended. 
In  Jg  16"  the  loom  itself  may  be  meant,  the  word 
in  lleb.  (J'lx)  being  derived  from  the  verb  tu  weave, 
while  the  word  in  the  other  passages  ("li:?)  is  from 
quite  a  different  root.  The  pin  (^fl;)  in  the  above 
passage  seems  to  be  that  which  holds  the  web,  i.e. 
the  cloth-roller,  for  Samson  carried  it  all  away 
ettaclied  to  his  hair.  The  shuttle  (iyi)  '8  the  emblem 
of  the  swift  pa.ssing  of  human  life  (Job  7°),  and 
the  thread  work  (I'-t)  or  thrum  (Is  38'-)  which 
fastens  tlie  web,  furnislies,  by  its  being  cut  off  at 
tlie  hands  of  the  weaver,  a  striking  simile  for 
sudden  death.  Tliese  and  other  notices  indicate 
that  weaving  was  a  household  word  with  the 
Hebrews,  and  it  is  quite  probable  that  many 
families  produced  their  own  wearing  app.arel,  as 
did  that  of  the  virtuous  woman  (Pr  31).  The  pro- 
ducts of  weavin"  were  various :  line  linen,  purple 
anl  scarlet,  woollen,  goats'-hair  cloth,  tent-cloth. 
Back-cloth,  etc.,  were  produced  in  abundance. 
Garments  of  flax  and  wool  together  were  forbidden 
(Lv  •!)•»,  Dt  22"),  but  stalls  ot  variegated  patterns 
worked  in  the  loom,  perhaps  by  gold  thread,  were 
produced  as  we  know  they  were  in  Egypt  (Wilkin- 
»on,  ii.  100).  This  work  may  be  that  of  the  '  cun- 
ning workman,'  and  of  those  who  'devise  cunning 
works '(Ex  35")  [see,  on  the.-'e  expressions,  EmhkoID- 
ERY  (3)],  and  certainly  it  is  the  clothing  '  inwrouglit 
with  gold'  (P8  45"'UV).  The  liigli  priest's  garments 
seem  to  have  been  of  this  character,  woven  in  one 
piece  (Jos.  Ant.  III.  vii.  4),  as  we  know  Christ's 
coat  (x'-Twv)  was  (Jn  19^).  H.  Pouter. 


WEDDING.— See  Marriage. 

WEEDS,  as  tr.  of  I'o  suph,  Jon  2"  W,  refers  to  sea 
weeds.  Tlie  Red  Sea  was  called  "i'D'c:,  because  of 
the  numbers  of  them  in  its  waters  (see  SUPH). 
Tlie  weeds  (xop'^oi)  of  .Sir  40"'  mean  the  same  as  our 
indefinite  English  term  weeds. 

WEEK.— See  Time. 

WEEKS  (FEAST  OF).— See  Pentecost. 

WEIGHTS  AND  MEASURES.— 

L  Introductory.    Tlie  Sources,  monumental  and  literary. 

Tub  Hebrew  Weioiit-System. 
ii.  ((7)  The  Babylonian  or  2.')2-f^rain  unit, 
lii.  {by  Tile  new  Syrian  or  3'20-;rrain  unit. 
iv.   (c)  Tlie  PhiBiiician  or  i;24-grain  unit. 
T.  (d)  The  syncretic  weiglit-system  of  tile  Mishna. 

Measures  op  Lenoth  and  Surface 
vi.  The  approximate  value  of  the  Hebrew  cubit, 
vii.  Ita  subttivisions  and  multiples, 
viii.  Surface  measure. 

Ukasckes  of  Capacity. 
ix.  Scale  of  wet  and  dry  measures.      The  value  of   the 

rphah-bath. 
X.  The  measures  of  Scripture. 
Literature. 

i.  Introdiiitorij.  The  Sources,  monumental  and 
literary. — The  system  of  weights  and  measures 
adopted  by  a  particular  nation  of  antiquity  is 
not  merely  a  subject  of  interest  to  the  nietro- 
logist,  but  is  of  importance  to  every  student 
of  the  history  and  development  of  the  human 
race.  In  its  metrology  we  have  a  clue,  frequently 
older  than  anything  to  be  found  in  its  literature, 
to  the  forces  at  work  in  shaping  the  social  and 
economic  development  of  this  particular  nation, 
and  to  the  inlhience,  it  may  be,  which  it  was 
able  to  exercise  in  its  turn.  The  early  economic 
history  of  a  nation  or  country,  in  particular,  is 
a  subject  of  wliicli  in  many  cases  the  student  of 
metrology  holds  the  key.  'Ihis  is  to  some  extent 
true  even  of  the  economic  historj'  of  the  Hebrews, 
notwithstanding  the  comparative  antiquity  of  their 
literature,  and  the  almost  entire  absence  of  monu- 
mental evidence  in  the  shape  of  actual  weights  and 
mea.sures. 

An  outline  of  our  still  imperfect  knowledge  of 
Hebrew  weights  and  measures  may  be  expected  to 
include  the  following  topics: — (1)  A  presentation 
of  thevarious.systems— weight,  measures  of  length, 
and  measures  of  capacity — and  of  the  mutual  rela- 
tion of  the  various  denominations  within  e.'ich  .sys- 
tem ;  (2)  an  attempt  to  determine  the  absolute 
value  or  values  of  each  individual  weight  and 
measure  in  terms  of  the  BritL-ih  imperial  system  ; 
and  (3)  the  relation  of  the  Hebrew  system  in  its 
various  divisions  to  the  older  metrolo^ical  systems 
of  anti(iuity.  Reference  will  be  made  only  inci- 
dentally to  the  question  of  the  origin  of  weights 
and  measures  in  general,  and  to  tlie  inter-relation 
of  the  various  sy.stenis,  — of  the  weight  stamUvrds 
to  those  of  length,  and  of  both  to  the  standards  of 
volume, — siibjectsof  equal  interesi  iiiul  complexity, 
which  belong  rather  to  a  scientilic  treati.se  on 
metrology.  It  must  sutlice  at  this  stage  to  record 
the  fact  that  mo.st  Continental  metrologists  are 
now  agreed  as  regards  the  most  elaborate  of  the 
ancient  systems,  and,  it  would  a|ipcar,  the  source 
of  all  or  almost  all  existing  systems,  namely  the 
Babylonian,  that  it  was  constructed  with  rigid 
scientilic  accuracy  upon  the  basis,  astronomical ly 
ascertained,  of  tlio  unit  of  length.  A  cubic  vessel, 
a  fract  ion  of  this  unit  in  the  side,  furnished  the  unit 
of  volume  ;  the  weight  of  water  contained  in  this 
unit  was  the  unit  of  weight  (."co  below,  ;;§  vi.  ix.). 

The  sources  from  which  are  derived  the  materials 


902       WEIGHTS  AND  MEASURES 


WEIGHTS  AND  MEASURES 


for  such  an  outline  as  has  just  been  sketched  are 
of  two   kinds  —  monumental  and   literary.      The 
former,  unfortunately  of  the  most  meagre  amount, 
consist  of  actual  measures  and  weights,  including 
coins,  that  have  come  down  to  us  from  the  various 
periods  of  the  national  life  of  the  Hebrews.     The 
literary  sources  are,  first  of  all,  the  books  of  the 
liible,  to   which  the   works  of  Josephus,  despite 
numerous  inaccuracies,  form  an  invaluable  addition, 
owing  to  the  frequent  valuation  of  Jewish  measures 
in  terms  of  the  contemporary  Grajco-Roman  system. 
The  treatises  of  the  Mishna  also  contain  valuable 
material  for  the  first  two  centuries  of  our  era. 
Finally,  we  have  the  late  Greek  writers  on  metro- 
logy, one  or  two  fragments,  in  particular,  showing 
accurate  knowledge  of  the  later  Jewish   system 
(see  Hultseh's  Mctrologicorum  Scriptorum  Rcliquia;, 
1864).    Under  both  heads,  monumental  and  literary, 
may  be  classed  the  metrological  data  furnished  by 
the  two  great  centres  of  early  civilization,  Baby- 
lonia and  Egypt,  on  the  one  hand,  and  on  the  otlier 
by  the  better-known  systems  of  Greece  and  Rome. 
At  every  period   of  tlieir  history  the  Hebrews 
were  alive  to  the  necessity  of  an  accurate  system 
of  weights  and  measures,  and  of  an  honest  handling 
of  the  same.     The  earliest  literary  prophets  are 
already  found  inveighing  against  the  too   pliant 
conscience  of  their  contemporaries  who  made  the 
ephah  smaU  and  the  shekel  great  (Am  8°) ;  in  other 
words,  gave  short  measure  in  selling  the  necessaries 
of  life,  while  weighing  the  price  to  be  paid  against 
a  weight  that  was  unduly  heavy.    Amos'  successors, 
Hosea  (12')  and  Micah  (6""-),  were  also  led  to  de- 
nounce the 'balance  of  deceit'  witli  its 'bag  of  deceit- 
ful weights,'  and  the  'scant  ephah  which  is  abomin- 
able.'    Centuries  later  there  is  a  sad  monotony  in 
the  complaints  of  the  religious  teachers  regarding 
the  prevalent  tampering  with  the  'just'  weights 
and  measures  (Pr  IP  16"  20'").    The  first  legislative 
action  in  the  interests  of  economic  righteousness 
in  our  extant  records  is  found  in  the  Deuteronomic 
legislation  (Dt  25''"").     Here  the  practice  of  em- 
ploying a  double  set  of  weights  and   measures- 
one  above  the  normal  for  buying  with,  and  an- 
other below  it  for  selling  with — is  condemned,  and 
'  whole  and  just,'  i.e.  accurately  adjusted,  weights 
and  measures  expressly  enforced  under  promise  of 
the  Divine  blessing.    A  similar  demand  for  'a  just 
balance,  just  weights,  a  just  ephah,   and   a  just 
bin,'  is  emphasized  in   the  Law    of   Holiness  (I,v 
19*"-)  and  in  an   important   passage  of   Ezekicl's 
ideal  constitution,  to  which  attention  will  after- 
wards be  called  (Ezk  45'-'2).     The  latest  legislation 
even  went  so  far  as  to  order  the  periodical  clean- 
ing of  the  weights,  scales,  and  measures,  lest  their 
true  value  and  capacity  should  be  impaired   by 
the  adiiesion  of  foreign  substances  (Baba  bathin, 
V.  10  f.). 

The  Hebrew  Weight  -  System. —ii.  (a)  The 
Babijloniitn  or  252-grain  unit. — Just  as  the  natural 
proportions  of  the  human  body  furnished  the 
earliest  measures  of  length  (see  "below,  §  vi.),  so 
man  in  all  probability  '  made  his  earliest  es.says 
in  weighing  by  means  of  the  seeds  of  plants, 
which  nature  had  placed  ready  to  his  hand  as 
counters  and  weights'  (Ridgeway,  Origin  of 
Metallic  Currency  and  Weight  Standards,  387). 
By  the  beginning  of  the  third  millennium  n.c, 
however,  both  the  Babylonians  and  the  Egyi>tians 
had  left  this  primitive  system  far  behind  them. 
The  former,  in  particular,  as  early  as  li.c.  3000, 
and  prolialily  long  before,  had  elaborated  a  metro- 
logical  system  which,  in  its  scientific  basis  and 
inter-relation  of  standards,  bears  a  striking  resem- 
blance to  the  metric  system  of  the  Continent  (see 
art.  Bauylonia,  vol.  i.  p.  218  f.).  The  importance 
of  the  Babylonian  system  for  our  present  study 
la  due  to  the   fact,  "first  clearly  revealed   in   the 


Tel  el  -Amarna  correspondence,  that  the  early 
civilization  of  Canaan  was,  in  all  essentials,  of 
Batiylonian  origin.  The  grounds  on  which  the 
older  metrologists,  such  as  Boeckh  and  Brandis, 
had  long  before  inferred  that  the  Babylonian 
weight-system  had  penetrated  to  Syria  and  Pales- 
tine, and  the  conclusive  proof  of  the  accuracy  of 
this  inference  attbrded  by  the  Amarna  tablets, 
have  been  given  in  the  opening  section  of  the 
article  MONEY  (vol.  iii.  p.  418),  and  need  not  be  re- 
peated here.  It  is  essential,  therefore,  to  under- 
stand the  principle  upon  which  this  system  waa 
constructed.  This  was  the  now  f.amiliar  sexa- 
gesimal principle,  characteristic  of  the  Babylonian 
scheme  of  numeration,  the  number  60  holding  in 
this  scheme  the  place  of  10  in  our  decimal  system. 
Thus  111  is  not,  as  with  us,  10- -t- 10-1- 1,  but  60- -f  60  H- 
1,  or  3661.  Our  division  of  the  hour  into  60  minutes, 
each  of  60  seconds,  it  need  hardly  be  said,  is  a  direct 
legacy  from  the  banks  of  the  Euphrates.  The  unit 
of  weight  in  the  developed  system  was  the  mina 
(\\Titten  ideograph ically  MA.NA,  and  therefore 
presumably  of  Sumerian  origin,  though  possibly 
Semitic),  the  Heb.  njp  maneh  (so  AV  Ezk  45'-, 
elsewhere  '  pound ')  and  the  Gr.  fivd.  The  next 
higher  denomination,  its  sixty-fold,  was  the  talent 
(Heb.  "1J3,  apparently  the  gaggaru  of  the  Amarna 
letters,  in  Greek  riXavrov),  whUe  below  the  mina 
was  its  s'jth,  the  shekel  (shiklu,  Heb.  h-p^,  from 
shakalu,  '  to  weigh,'  hence  rendered  in  Greek  by 
(TTarrip  from  tuTrifn  in  the  same  sense,  and  trans- 
literated by  (Tiy\oi).  The  scale  may  be  graphically 
represented  thus— 

1  talent =60  minas  =  3600  shekels. 
1  mina  =60  ,, 
In  the  early  temple-accounts,  dating  from  B.C. 
2000,  recently  recovered  from  Telloh  in  Southern 
Babylonia,  there  occurs  a  subdivision  of  the  shekel 
into  180  shi  or  grains  of  wheat,  which  was  after- 
wards discarded.  This  subdivision  into  60  x  3  parta 
is  of  course  an  adaptation  to  the  sexagesimal 
system  ;  but  it  is  worth  noting  that  the  prehistorical 
or  natural  Babylonian  shekel,  as  it  may  be  called, 
cannot  have  been  far  off  the  weight  of  180  wheat- 
grains.  If  the  weight  of  a  grain  of  wheat  be  taken 
at  the  usual  estimate  of  •70--72  of  a  grain  Troy 
(originally  a  grain  of  barley,  according  to  Ridge- 
way, op.  cit.  180  ff.),  ISO  such  giains  come  to  126- 
130  Troy  grains,  which  is  precisely  the  weight  of 
the  shekel  as  given  by  the  existing  stone  weights 
(see  below).  As  there  can  be  little  doubt  that  the 
use  of  the  balance  was  first  employed  for  the 
precious  metals,  the  shekel,  as  its  name  denotes, 
was  almost  certainly  the  earliest  unit  of  weight, 
as  it  continued  to  be,  to  the  exclusion  of  the  mina, 
in  the  earlier  Hebrew  literature  (cf.  MONEY,  vol. 
iii.  p.  420''  for  illustrations). 

\\  hen  we  pass  to  the  determination  of  the 
value  of  the  shekel  and  the  higher  denominations 
in  the  Babylonian  system,  we  find  that  this  branch 
of  metrology  has  been  almost  revolutionized  by 
the  discovery  in  recent  years  of  a  few  very  ancient 
inscribed  stone  weights  from  the  earliest  centres  of 
civilization  in  Southern  Babylonia.  The  evidence 
of  these  weights  may  best  be  represented  in  tabular 
form.  For  full  description  (with  illustrations)  refer- 
ence must  be  made  to  the  numerous  essays  of  the 
discoverer,  Dr.  C.  F.  Lehmann  (see  Literature  at  end 
of  article),  esp.  to  Das  altbahylonische  Mass-  und 
Geu-ic/Ussystcm,  etc.,  Leiden,  1893. 

Here  we  have  unexpected  evidence  that  the 
double  standard,  familiar  enough  in  the  weights  of 
the  Assyrian  period,  in  which  each  denomination 
(mina,  shekel,  etc.)  of  the  one  set  weighed  waa 
twice  the  weight  of  the  same  denomination  of  the 
other  set,  was  in  existence  at  a  very  early  period, 
for  the  weights  in  question  date  from  B.C.  3000- 
2500.     Weights  of  tlie  former  class  are  said  to  be 


WKlGliXS  ASD  MEASURES 


WEIGHTS  AND  MEASURES      903 


on  the  heairy  standard,  those  of  the  latter  on  the 
light  standard.     Weight  B,  it  will  be  found,  repre- 


DeacriptioD  of  Weight 

Actual 
weight  in 
grammes. 

Weight  of 

resultant 

mina  in 

grammes. 

A 
B 
0 

D 

Oval  Ptone,  about  4  tn.  long, 
with  inscription  in  Sum* 
erian, '  ^  mina,  true  weight,' 
etc 

Similar  to  A  in  form  and  ma- 
terial. Inscription  uncer- 
tain. Clearly  i  of  the  fore- 
goinp,  or  i^  niina  . 

Lon(;ish  barrel -shaped  stone 
of  same  hard  urteiistone  as 
A  and  B.  *\  mina,  true 
weipht;  palace  of  Nabusu- 
nit-sir,  pnest  of  Marduk  '     . 

Cone-shaped  stone,  with  long 

inscription    in    Babylonian. 

'1  mina,  true  weight. — copy 

of    weight  or    standard    of 

Dunt^'i  ...  by    Nebuchad- 

nezi-ir  .  .  ,  king  of  Babylon' 

[about  18  grains  lost  by 

fracture    of   the  stone, 

oriijinally  15,105   grains 

244-8 
81-87 

164-8 

0783 

489-6 
491-22 

492-9 
979-5 

Shekel 

Mina  =  60  shekels 


Talent=60  minas  = 


sents  the  average  mina  of  the  light  standard,  viz. 
49r2  grammes  =  7580  grains.  The  corresponding 
mina  of  the  heavy  standard  is  tlierefore  9S24 
grammes  =  15,160  grains.  Tlie  following  table 
gives  the  values  of  the  complete  scale  : — 

Values  of  the  e.\rliest  Babylonian  Weights. 

Heavt.  LlOIlT. 

2.523  grains  126J  grains* 

15,160        „  7580 

circa  2J  lb.  avoir.         dr.  l^'^  lb.  avoir. 
=  3600  shekels, 

circa  130  lb.  avoir.  ,,  65  ,,  „ 
These  new  values  are  considerably  less  in  the 
higlier  denominations  than  those  previously 
aiioi)ted  in  metrological  studies,  which  were  based 
oil  the  evidence  of  numerous  lion  and  duck  weiglits 
of  a  much  later  period  from  the  ruins  of  Babylon 
and  Nineveh,  yielding  minas  of  15,600  (heavy)  and 
78(10  grains  (light  standard),  and  shekels  of  26U  and 
l.SO  grains  respectively.  From  the  fact  that  several 
of  the  bronze  lion  weifjhts  bear  inscriptions  con- 
taining inter  alia,  the  plirase  '  1  mina,  |  mina,  etc., 
oftheldnq,'  it  has  become  customary  to  descrilie 
these  as  belonging  to  tlie  royal  standard,  to  dis- 
tingnisli  them  from  the  earlier  or  common  standard. 
In  addition  to  these  two  standards,  Dr.  Lelimann 
has  brought  forward  evidence,  to  which  we  pro- 
pose to  add  presently,  to  show  that  the  common 
standard  at  some  early  period  received  an  increase 
of  5  ]jer  cent.,  yielding  miiiiis  of  circa  16,000  and 
8000  grains  respectively.  Whether  or  not  tliis  in- 
crease was  intended  to  be  conlined  to  p.ij-ments 
made  to  the  royal  treasury  cannot  be  ascertained, 
but  there  is  monumental  evidence  that  Darius 
Hystaspis  added  just  this  percentage  to  the  weights 
of  his  time  (see  the  inscrioed  weiglit  published  by 
Budge,  PSBA  (1888),  pp.  464-466;  Lelimann,  Ver- 
handlungen  d.  berliner  Gesell.  /.  Anthropologic, 
etc.  188'J,  p.  273). 

Returning  now  to  the  original  mina  of  15,160 
(7580)  grains,  and  shekel  of  2,')2  (126)  grains,  we  lind 
from  a  comparative  study  of  the  weight-systems 
of  antiquity  that  the  advancing  tide  of  Babylonian 
civilization  carried  them  to  the  shores  of  the 
Mediterranean,  from  whence  they  passed,  in  a 
bewildering  variety  of  forms,  to  almost  every 
civilized  country.     Thus,  when  the  first  Ptolemy 

*  This  is  only  3  ^nlna  heavier  than  the  EnglUh  sovereign, 
123874  grains. 


reorganized  the  metric  system  of  his  new  kingdom, 
he  introduced  the  light  mina  of  7580  grains  as 
the  standard  trade  weight  of  Egypt.  This  mina, 
again,  is  exactly  IJ  times  the  Koman  pound,  01 
libra,  of  5053  grains,  which  is  one-third  of  the  cor- 
responding lieav3'  mina.  The  available  evidence, 
further,  goes  to  sliow  that  the  shekel  of  252  grains 
was  the  unit  for  t}>e  weighing  of  gold  adopted 
by  the  Hebrews,  as  it  was  the  gold  as  well  aa 
the  trade  unit  of  Babylonia — as  has  been  assumed 
in  the  article  Money  (see  table,  vol.  iii.  p.  419''), 
althimgh,  in  the  light  of  recent  discoveries,  to  be 
related  in  the  .sequel,  and  of  the  preference  of  the 
priestly  legislation  of  the  Fentateucli  for  tlie 
Phoenician  or  silver  standard  of  the  same  table, 
the  a.ssumption  of  that  article  requires  to  be  some- 
what qualilied.  Still,  when  we  compare  the  state- 
ment of  the  Hebrew  historian  as  to  the  amount 
of  9ezekiah's  indemnity  imposed  by  Sennacherib, 
so  far  as  the  amount  of  gold  is  concerned,  viz.  30 
talents  (2  K  IS'''),  with  the  latter's  official  account 
(see  Schrader,  KIB  ii.  p.  95),  where  precisely  the 
same  amount  is  recorded,  we  are  bound  to  infer 
the  identity  of  the  Hebrew  and  Babylonian  talent 
of  gold.  Then  there  is  the  statement  of  Josephus 
with  reference  to  the  weight  (300  minas)  of  the 
beam  of  solid  gold  taken  by  Crassus  from  the 
temple  treasury  ;  17  5^  iiva  Trap  i)fuv  (Vxi^ci  Xirpas 
Svo  ruiiuv  (Ant.  XIV.  vii.  1  [Niese,  §  106]).  This 
gives  a  weight  of  2i  Pionian  libras,  or  12,630  grains, 
for  the  mina  of  50  shekels,  and  252|  grains  for  the 
shekel,  or  alternatively  126J  grains  for  the  mina 
of  100  sliekels  (for  this  division  see  below).  In 
either  case,  the  result  is  the  familiar  shekel  of  the 
early  Babylonian  sj-stem.  This  yields  a  Hebrew 
gold  monetary  talent  of  60  minas  or  758,000  grains 
((,-.  108  lb.  avoir.).  But  another  statement  of 
Joseplius  shows  that  at  least  an  article  made  of 
gold  might  have  its  weight  stated  in  other  terms ; 
for  he  gives  the  weiglit  of  the  golden  candlestick, 
which  was  a  talent  according  to  Ex  25'',  as  100 
minas  {/ttxas  iKaT6v),  adding :  'E/Spaiot  fiiv  koKovhi. 
KLyx^P^^  [*.6.  ^7?Jt  ^^'5  5^  ri]!/  'EX\7;i'tK7;i'  /xerafiaWdfjievo^ 
yXuiTTav  arjualvit.  ra\avTov  [Ant.  III.  vi.  7  [§  144]). 
Tlie  mina  of  this  passage  is  clearly  distinct  from 
the  mina  of  the  passage  just  cited,  viz.  yJj  of 
7.38,000  grains,  or  7580,  which  is  the  light  Baby- 
lonian trade  mina  of  60  shekels  of  126J  grains,  as 
shown  in  the  table,  §  ii.  above.  This  exjilana- 
tion,  suggested  for  the  first  time,  has  the  merit  of 
preserving  the  consistency  of  Josephus  as  regards 
the  weiglit  of  the  Hebrew  gold  talent.  On  the 
other  hand,  inasmuch  as  the  weights  of  gold  and 
silver  in  the  Priests'  Code  are  e.xpressly  stated  to 
have  been  on  the  standard  of  the  so-called  '  shekel 
of  the  .sanctuary'  (see  next  §,  and  Money,  vol.  iii.  p. 
422),  or  Phoenician  shekel  of  224A  grains,  3000  of 
which  yield  a  talent  of  673,500  grains,  the  explana- 
tion of  the  passage  adopted  in  the  previous  article 
(I.e.),  that  tlie  luO  minas  are  Attic  minas  of  6735 
grains,  is  perhaps  to  be  preferred,  even  at  the 
expense  of  the  Jewish  historian's  consistency,  and 
despite  the  fact  that  the  Koman-Attic  mina  in  his 
day  weighed  considerably  less  (see  §  v.  below). 
These  considerations,  at  least,  show  the  difficulty 
of  arriving  at  definite  results  in  the  absence  of 
monumental  data. 

The  persistence,  side  by  side,  of  the  two  stand- 
ards, the  heavj^  and  the  light,  exidains  how  the 
heavj'  mina  might  by  one  writer  be  taken  as  con- 
taining 50  heavy  sliekels,  by  another  a»  containing 
loo  light  shekels.  Thus  it  is  that  the  weight  of 
Solomon's  smaller  shields  is  given  in  1  K  10"  aa 
three  (heavy)  nuna.s,*  but  in  the  parallel  passage 

•  The  mlno  (njp)  ig  here  flrat  nut  with  In  OT.  El8cwher» 
only  Ezr2^,  Neh  T^if-  (in  all  three  passa^'cB  rendered  'pound 
in   EV),  Ezk  t&i''  where  It  U  transliterated  'maneh,'  and  Da 


904      WEIGHTS  AND  MEASURES 


WEIGHTS  AND  .MEASURES 


(2  Cli  9")  as  300  (light)  shekels,  assuming,  that  is, 
that  the  text  of  both  passages  is  intact.  If  the  ex- 
planation given  elsewhere  (Money,  vol.  iii.  p.  421'') 
of  the  new  denomination,  darkemon,  found  only 
in  the  historiial  work,  Chronicles  -  Ezra  -  Nehe- 
raiah,  is  correct,  that  we  have  here  a  Hebraized 
form  of  the  Greek  5pax,"^,  we  have  further  con- 
tirniation  of  the  prevalence  in  the  Persian  and 
early  Greek  periods  of  the  light,  in  preference  to 
the  heavy,  shekel.  The  weight  of  1000  drachms 
(AV  'drams,'  RV  'darics,'  Ezr  8"),  for  example, 
is  undoubtedly  1000  of  the  light  Perso-Babyloniau 
shekel  on  the  royal  standard,  viz.  130  grains  (see 
above),  the  theoretical  value  of  the  Persian  daric. 

The  same  weight  is  most  probably  intended  by 
the  unique  expression  employed  to  indicate  the 
weight  of  Absalom's  hair,  viz.  '200  shekels  after 
the  king's  weight'  (:ij>sri  jax?*  2  S  \i'\     The  con- 
text of  this  verse  is  now  regarded  as  a  pcst-exilic 
addition  to  the  original  narrative  (Budde,  Thenius- 
Lbhr,  H.  P.  Smith) ;  and,  since  the  plirase  i.s  paral- 
lel to  the  legends  on  the  lion  weights  of  Nineveh, 
we  may  safely  understand  the  sliekel  in  question 
to  be  the  light  Persian  unit  of  130  grains,  giving  a 
total  weight  of  26,000  grains,  or  3f  lb.  avoirdupois. 
If   the    legend   of   Bel  and  the   Dragon,   as   is 
possible,  had  its  home  in  Egypt,  the  '  30  minas  of 
pitch'  in  this  curious  storj'   (v.^  LXX)  are   the 
Ptolemaic  trade  minas,  which  we  have  seen  to  be 
identical  with  the  light  mina  of  the  earliest  Baby- 
lonian weights ;  and  thus  we  return  at  the  close 
of  this  section  to  the  point  from  wliich  we  set  out. 
iii.  (6)  The  new  Syrian  or  320-grain  unit. — Refer- 
ence  has   already  been   made  to  the  interesting 
fact  that  the  tribute  of  the  vassal-states  of  Syria 
and  Palestine  in  the  reign  of  Thothmes  III.  (c.  I.")(i0 
B.C.)   when  expressed  in  terms  of  the  Egyptian 
weiglit-system,  based  on  the  ket  with  its  decimal 
multiple,   the   deben  or   uten,   runs    to  irregular 
numbers  and  even  fractions  of  the  ket,  whereas 
its  original  weight  must  have  been  hundreds  and 
thousands  of  shekels.    Various  attempts  have  been 
made  recently  (see  Brugsch,  Z.f.  Aegypt.  Sprache, 
1889,   22  a'.,  87  ti'.,    Z.f.  Etknologie,    1889,  36fl'.  ; 
Lehmann,  Verkandl.  d.  berl.  Gcs.f.  Anthropologic, 
1889,  272  f. ;  Hultsch,  Gewichte  d.  AUertums,  25  f., 
119  f.)  to  determine  the   value  of   the  shekel   or 
shekels  by  which  this  tribute  was  weighed.     These 
attempts,  however,  can  yield  but  doubtful  results, 
owing,  for  one  thing,  to  the  considerable  range  in 
the  value  of  the  ket,  as  sliown  by  actual  weights. 
Thus,  to  take  a  .'simple  illustration,  in  Thothmes' 
34th  year  '  the  tribute  of  the  provinces  of  the  land 
of  Retennu  [Syria] '  was  in  '  gold  55  dchcn  8  ket ' 
(Petrie,  Hi.'it.  of  Egypt,  ii.  118).     Now,  if  we  take 
the  ket  as  fixed  by  Lepsius,  Hultscli,  and  others  at 
140  grains,  it  will  be  found  that  558  ket  rejiresent 
620  shekels  of  126  grains,  or  600  shekels  of  1302 
grains,  on    the  '  royal '  or   later  daric  standard, 
without  a  remainder  in  either  case.    On  the  otlier 
hand,  we  have  only  to  take  14335  grains  as  a  mean 
value  of  actual  ket  weights  to  get  558  /;<;<  =  80,000 
grains,  or  10  light  minas  of  the  common  norm,  raised 
5  per  cent,  as  explained  above.     We  have  been  led 
to  this  result  by  fresh  evidence,  unknown  to  the 
writers  just  cited,  to  which  we  now  turn.     In  the 


on  either  side  of  which  were  engraved  a  number  ol 
early  Heb.  characters.  The  correct  decipherment 
and  interpretation  of  these  gave  rise  to  a  somewliat 
heated  controversy  in  various  periodicals,  in  which 
Professors  Robertson  Smith,  Sayce,  Driver,  and 
others  took  part  (see  PEFSt,  1890,  267  ;  1891,  69  i 
1893,  -22  ;  1894,  220,  284  ti'.  ;  1895,  187  ff.).  With  the 
help  of  other  inscribed  weights  still  more  recently 
discovered  by  Dr.  Bliss  in  Southern  Palestine,  one 


32> 


Jt^ 


7^1  I  A.1 

.  half-  ^  imlf?  jl 


WHIQHT  0,  WEIGHTS  D  AND  ■. 

A>'CIENT   HEBRBW  WKaHTB  FROM  801'TIIERN  PALESTINK. 

of  the  two  doubtful  words  on  the  Chaplin  weight 
is  now  made  out  with  tolerable  certainty  to 
be  ii},  a  Heb.  word  from  the  same  root  as  the 
Arabic  nusf,  meaning  'half,'  first  suggested  by 
Professor  Euting  in  1890  (in  Konig's  Einleit.  in 
d.  A '/',  425).  The  second  doubtful  word  (Sr),  on 
which  the  controversy  mainly  turned,  is  apparently 
an  ablireviation  of  the  familiar  Sb?"  (Conder,  PEFSt, 
1891,  69 ;  Clermont-Ganneau,  ib.  1899,  208,  and, 
more  decidedly,  Reeueil  d'archiol.  orientate,  iv. 
(1900)  24 ff.,  where  a  full  discussion  of  these  early 
weights  wUl  be  found),  the  limited  space  available 
perhaps  causing  the  omission  of  the  p.  The  evi- 
dence of  the  Chaplin  and  otlier  weights,  five  in  all, 
may  best  be  presented  in  tabular  form  thus — 

Early  inscribed  Hebrew  'Weights. 


UICI2ST  HEBREW   WEiaHT  (a)  EBOM  SAMAR11. 

spring  of  1890  Dr.  Chaplin  purchased  at  Nablus  a 
small  shuttle-.shaped  stone  weight,  here  reproduced, 

*  Literally,  'after  (the  standard  of)  the  kind's  stnnf-.'  That 
the  Hebrew,  like  the  early  Babylonian,  weights  were  of  stone,  is 
shown  by  the  fact  that  |5(<  is  elsewhere  frequently  used  in  OT 
in  the  sense  of '  a  weight ' ;  cf.  Lv  19»,  Dt  2S'»,  Pr  16"  etc. 


Weight  of 

Actual 

resultant 

Description  of  Weight. 

weight 

heavy 

in  grains. 

shekel 

in  grains. 

A 

Small  shuttle-shaped  weight 

89-2 

/  313-6 
■I  166-8 

of  hiematite  from  Samaria, 

with   inscriptions    ^'^i  j;3T 

'?[?]»     y3T    [J    nezfph~\ 

shekel).      lUustr.    PEFSt, 

1880,  267  ;  1894,  2S". 

B 

A  perforated   'bead'  of   red- 
dish-vellow  stone  from  Ana- 

168 

312 

thoth  inscribed 'ISJ.  Actual 

weight  134  grains :  before 

perforation    approximately 

15«   grains  (ib.    1893,   321., 

257 ;   illust.  Clermont-Gan- 

neau, op.  cit.  26). 

0 

Small  dome-shaped  weight  of 
reddish    stone    from    Tell 
Zakariya,     inscribed      1^: 
(Bliss,  PEFSt,  1899,  107 1.; 
illust.  ib.  plate  7). 

157-5 

316 

/^^^■o  similar  weight* ;  one  of 

' 

white  limestone,  the  other 

D 

E 

of    'light    reddish'    stone, 

146-T 

29S 

.     with  the  same  legend  as  Ii 

-    13» 

278 

and  0.     Same  provenance 

as  C  (Bliss,  ib.   183,   with 

I,  illust.). 

. 

The  last  two,  of  soft  limestone,  are  evidently 
much  worn,  and  may  be  neglected  in  favour  of  the 
better  preserved  sjiecimens  in  our  determination  ol 
the  unit  here  disclosed.  Starting  from  the  mora 
extended  inscription  of  the  Chaplin  weight,  the 
characters  of  which  point  to  an  8th  cent,  date,  i<t 


WEIGHTS  AND  MEASURES 


"WEIGHTS  AND  MEASURES       905 


note,  first  of  all,  the  inlluence  of  the  Babylonian 
double  standard.  This  alone  explains  how  tliis 
tiny  weifjht  tan  be  at  once  the  fourth  of  a  whole 
Bheki'l  and  the  same  fraction  of  a  half -shekel, 
assiiniinj;  tliat  this  is  the  true  sense  of  nezeph 
(see  Clermont  Ganneau,  op.  cil.  30  f.).  Furtlicr, 
altliuugh  of  liard  hu'niatite,  the  condition  of  the 
ins<ri|)tion  shows  that  it  has  lost  a  tritle  of  its 
original  value,  which  must  have  been  not  less  than 
40  grains.  As  it  represents  a  quarter  (cf.  the 
^R?  V3T  or  quarter-shekel  of  Saul's  servant,  1  S  9'), 
this  f;ives  IGO  j;rains  for  the  liyht  shekel,  the  half 
or  nezeph  of  tlie  corresponding  heavy  shekel  of 
320  grains— a  result  entirely  in  harmony  with  the 
original  values  of  weights  B  and  C.  The  great 
importance  of  these  new  discoveries  lies  in  the 
fact  tliat  we  have  here  a  shekel  liitherto  unknown 
in  Palestine.  Indeed  it  appears  to  have  been  un- 
known to  nietrologists  until  discovered  in  numer- 
ous examples  by  Flinders  Fetrie  in  Naukratis  and 
neiglibourhood  (Fetrie,  Naukratis,  pt.  L  78,  85 f.; 
Tanis,  pt.  ii.  84,  91  f. ;  cf.  his  art.  '  Weights  and 
Mea-sures'  in  Encyc.  Brit.*  xxiv.  487  f.).  The 
standard  of  these  weights  is  named  the  '  80-grain 
standard'  by  Fetrie,  who  regards  it  as  derived 
from  'the  Assyrian  5  or  10  shekel  weight,  binarily 
divided  and  used  as  an  independent  unit,'  since 
128  grains  x  lO-i-4  gives  320  grains.  While  differing 
witli  reluctance  from  so  distinguished  a  metrolo- 
gist,  the  writer  still  adheres  to  the  conclusion  he 
tad  come  to  before  having  an  opportunity  of  con- 
sulting the  Naukratis  and  Tanis  volumes,  viz.  that 
the  new  Palestinian  weights  are  derived  directly 
from  the  Babylonian  miua  of  16,000-8000  grains, 
tlie  origin  of  which  has  already  been  fully  ex- 
plained. Tlie  shekels  of  tliese  minas,  of  course, 
yield  266-133  grains,  on  the  sexagesimal  system  ; 
out  in  the  West  tliis  system  never  supjilanted 
what  must  be  regarded  as  the  earlier  decimal 
system.  Hitherto  it  has  been  usual,  it  is  true,  to 
a.s.sume  that  the  Helirews  in  early  times  adopted 
the  sexagesimal  .system  in  its  entirety — the  talent 
containing  60  minas  of  60  shekels  eat'D  (so  even  by 
our  most  recent  authority  on  Hebrew  archaeology, 
Nowack,  Hell.  Arch.  i.  208);  but  proof  of  this 
view  is  entirely  wanting.  For  the  attempt  to 
obtain  it  from  the  corrupt  MT  and  the  EV  render- 
ing of  E/.k  45''-'  '  twenty  shekels,  live  and  twenty 
shekels,  hfteen  shekels  [  =  60  shekels]  shall  be  your 
nianeh,'  is  grammatically  and  otherwise  inadmis- 
sible. The  only  possible  remedy  for  this  passage 
is,  with  all  recent  critics,  to  accept  the  reading 
of  the  codex  A  of  the  LXX,  ana  render :  *  five 
(sliekels)  shall  be  five,  and  ten  shekels  ten,  and 
fifty  shekels  shall  be  your  mina';  i.e.  the  weights 
in  everyday  use,  like  tlie  measures  referred  to  in 
the  verses  preceding  and  following,  shall  be  neither 
more  nor  less  than  the  standard  value. 

In  the  West,  then,  we  liohl  that  from  the  first 
a  comiiromise  was  efVected  between  the  decimal 
and  sexage.-iimal  systems,  and  that,  while  the  le.^^s 
frequently  used  talent  of  60  mina.s  was  retained, 
tl.c  '  raised  '  minas  of  16,000  and  8000  grains  were 
divided  by  50  to  yield  shekels  of  320  and  160grain.s. 
The  fact  to  which  Fetrie  calls  attention  (.iVa«- 
Icr'itii,  i.  85  f.),  that  the  Egyptian  weights  of  this 
itapdnrd  are  of  large  size,  averaging  2000  grains, 
"  Fet lie's  weights,  Nos.  483,  486,  1282,  1286, 
tne  largest  found,  are  all  c.  8000  grains, — seems  to 
tell  in  fp.k-our  of  the  derivation  here  proposed 
and  against  the  derivation  from  a  snniller  unit. 
I'ctrie,  however,  is  of  the  opinion,  to  which  we 
were  led  independently  after  repeated  attempts  to 
find  the  shekel  of  the  Syrian  tribute  lists,  that  the 
shekel  in  (|uestion  is  to  he  found  in  this  new  80- 
grain  unit,  which  he  therefore  jiroposes  'to  call  in 
future  the  llittite  standard'  (/Vijii'.v,  ii.  92).  On 
the  whole,  however,  a  safer  nomenclature  would  be 


the  Syrian  standard ;  and  certainly  the  unit  must  be 
raised,  in  deference  to  the  unequivocal  testimony 
of  the  Chaplin  weight,  to  160  or  320  grains.  The 
result,  then,  of  the  recent  discoveries  is  to  show 
that  from  the  16th  to  the  6th  cent.  li.C.  a  light 
shekel  was  in  use  in  .Syria  and  Egypt  of  the  value 
of  160  grains,  which  was  at  tlie  same  time  the  half 
of  a  corresponding  heavy  shekel  of  320  grains, 
each  being  5'^  of  min;is  of  8000  grains  (Ii  lb.  avoir.) 
and  16,000 grains  (2»  lb. )  respectively.  Further,  this 
mina  of  the  320-grain  or  Syrian  standard  continued 
in  use  in  Syria  down  to  the  Chri.stian  era:  witness 
the  inscribed  weights  from  Antioch  and  neigli- 
bourhood, described  by  Brandis  (iJas  Miinz-,  Miia.\- 
unci  Gewic/Ussi/stem  Vurdcrasiens,  156  ft'.),  one  of 
which  bears  tlie  interesting  legend  BAIilAEfiS 
AXTIOXOT  GEUT  EIIW'ANOT  iMNA,  and  weighs 
7'J60  grains.  The  sniallness  of  the  Palestine 
weights  points,  like  the  tribute  lists,  to  the  use 
of  this  unit  for  weighing  the  precious  metals  ; 
while  the  large  size  of  the  Naukratis  weights  shows 
that  in  Egyjit  it  was  rather  used  '  for  domestic  and 
common  purpo.ses'  (Fetrie).  So  far,  then,  as  our 
present  evidence  goes,  we  may  conclude  that  this 
ancient  unit  was  in  use  for  all  transactions  along- 
side of  the  Phuiiiician  unit,  next  to  be  discussed, 
until  displaced  by  the  latter  after  the  Exile, 
largely,  no  doubt,  owing  to  the  inlluence  of 
Ezekiel  and  the  Priests'  Code,  both  the>e  authori- 
ties contemplating  the  latter  as  the  <inly  olhcial 
unit.  It  is  worth  noting,  finally,  as  a  notable 
example  of  the  trustworthiness  of  tradition,  that 
Maimonides  in  his  a-hja  niD'j.i,  a  coninientary  on 
the  Mishiia  treatise  Slieknlim,  records  that  the 
early  Hcb.  shekel  weighed  320  grains  of  barley 
(i.e.  Troy  grains),  and  was  supplanted  in  the  time 
of  the  second  temple  by  the  §ela,'  (y'pc),  the  Heb. 
equivalent  of  the  tetradrachm  or  lieavj-  Plnen. 
shekel  (see  Surenhusius'  summary  in  his  preface  to 
the  treatise  in  question,  Miihna,  ii.  177). 

iv.  (c)  The  Plu£nii:ian  or  2J4-grain  unit. — Pre- 
vious to  the  discovery  of  the  weights  described  in 
the  foregoing  section,  the  only  lleb.  unit  monu- 
mentally attested  was  the  shekel  of  the  coins  of  the 
revolts,  generally  but  wrongly  known  as  the  Mac- 
caba'an  shekel.  The  usual  explanation  of  the 
origin  of  this  widely-spread  unit  (the  theoretical 
value  of  which  may  be  put  at  224i  grains,  with  i  fl'ec- 
tive  weight  averaging  218-220  grains)  as  a  silver 
unit  from  the  Babjloiiian  gold  shekel  of  252 grains, 
on  the  ratio  of  gold  to  silver  as  13.)|  :  1,  has  been 
given  under  Mo.NEY  (iii.  419").  Hultsch,  on  the 
other  hand  (Gewichte  d.  Alterttims,  7,  et  passim), 
linds  its  origin  in  Egyjit,  the  shekel  of  224  grains 
being  A  of  a  mina  of  60  shekels,  each  of  the  value 
i  ket  (140  grains  x  J  x  60^.")0  =  224).  It  is  possible, 
however,  that  the  Fhuuiician  224-grain  shekel  is 
to  be  derived  from  the  Syrian  100-giain  shekel 
described  in  the  previous  section.  We  have  only 
to  a.ssume  that  in  the  West  gold  stood  to  silver 
in  the  more  convenient  ratio  of  14  :  1  ;  the  gold 
shekel  of  160  grains  would  then  be  worth  ten 
silver  shekels  of  224  grains  each,  since  160  x  14 
=  224x10.  This  is  at  least  preferable  to  Kidge- 
way's  theory  based  on  an  assumed  ratio  between 
the  metals  of  17  : 1  {Origin  of  Currency,  287). 

In  any  case  we  liave  to  deal  with  an  exceed- 
ingly ancient  unit,  for  an  Egyptian  weight  in- 
scribed with  the  n.ame  of  Ampi,  a  priest  of  the 
10th  dynasty  (c.  2300  B.C.),  and  marked  lus  10 units, 
weighs  218H  grains  (tirillith,  FSHA  xiv.  445), 
yielding  a  unit  of  2188  grains,  which  can  scarcely 
be  other  than  the  Pha'n.  shekel  of  218-224  grains. 
Its  prevalence  in  Palestine  from  the  earliest  histori- 
cal period  need  not  be  doubted,  as  it  may  be  coii- 
lidently  assiiiiied  to  have  been  the  siher,  if  n<it, 
also,  ttie  trade  shekel  of  the  Fhicnician  tiadeif  in 
Canaan,  whose  name  Canaanite  CHi^)  came  latterly 


306      WEIGHTS  AND  MEASURES 


WEIGHTS  AND  MEASURES 


to  signify  '  merchant'  in  general  (Zee  11'-  "  [LXX], 
Pr  31-'' etc.).  It  must  therefore  have  existed  side 
by  side  with  the  320  (IGO)-grain  .shekel  al)uve  de- 
scribed. Like  the  otiier  units  of  Western  Asia,  the 
PhcBn.  unit  had  its  lieavy  and  light  shekels  of  2244 
and  112i  grains  respectively.  Fifty  of  the  former 
or  100  of  the  latter  went  to  the  heavy  mina  of 
11,225  grains (c.  1^  lb.  avoir.),  and  GO  niin.as,  as  else- 
where, to  the  talent  (see  table,  vol.  iii.  p.  419'').  It 
is  manifestly  the  shekel  intended  by  Ezekiel  (45''), 
who  hrst  mentions  the  subdivision  into  20  rjerahs 
— a  term  apparently  adopted  from  the  Babylonian, 
giru  being  the  name  of  a  small  silver  coin  (?)  of 
Nebuchadnezzar's  time,  and  identified  by  the 
Alexandrian  translators  with  the  tireek  (i/3oXo's 
(see,  further.  Money,  vol.  iii.  p.  422).  The  Priests' 
Code  likewise  seems  to  contemplate  its  adoption 
for  every  transaction  with  tlie  balance,  certainly 
for  silver  and  gold  (Ex  38=^"-),  spices  (30-"),  anil 
copper  (cf.  38^  with  Lv  27").  Ibis  is  conhrmed 
by  the  evidence  of  the  Misbna  to  the  weights  of 
the  first  two  centuries  of  our  era  (see  next  §). 
That  the  hea\'y  shekel  of  220-224  grains,  and  no 
other,  can  be  the  '  shekel  of  the  sanctuary,'  or 
'  sacred  shekel,'  we  have  endeavoured  to  prove  else- 
where (I.e. ).  The  '  20  shekels  of  bread  '  of  Ezk  4'» 
are  doubtless  of  this  standard,  probably  also  the 
talents  of  iron  of  1  Ch  29'  ;  while  for  the  brass  and 
iron  of  Goliath's  armour  (1  S  17°'')  we  have  the 
choice  of  the  Phoen.  and  of  the  new  Syrian  shekel. 
V.  (rf)  The  syncretic  weifj/U-stjstein  of  the  Mishna. 
— It  has  been  sufficiently  explained  elsewhere 
(Money,  iii.  426  ff.)  how,  after  the  Roman  con- 
quest of  the  East,  the  drachm  of  the  Greek 
monetary  sj'stem  became  interchangeable  with 
the  lioman  denarius,  reduced  in  weight,  first 
to  60,  and  then  by  Nero  to  52.J  grains,  when  it 
ditlered  but  little  from  the  quarter-.'-hekel  of  54J 
grains,  efl'ective  weight.  Xow,  since  the  denarius 
was  a  fixed  fractional  part  of  the  lioni.in  pound, 
being  ^  of  the  libra  and  therefore  J  of  the  uncia, 
the  denarius-drachm  was  found  to  be  not  only 
useful  as  money,  but  exceedingly  convenient  as  a 
weight.  Thus  it  came  to  form  the  unit  of  the 
latest  Jewish  weight-system  as  reflected  in  the 
Mishna.  Its  divisions  and  multiples  are  a  tribute 
to  the  adaptive  genius  of  the  Jewish  people,  com- 
bining, as  they  do,  elements  from  the  systems  of 
Phoenicia,  Greece,  and  Rome,  which  all  had  their 
meeting-ground  in  the  Palestine  of  the  first  century. 
The  denarius-drachm  itself  was  named  the  zuz 
(m),  and  retained  the  division  into  six  obols  (n;;=). 
Two  denarii  made  a  (light)  shekel,  four  a  tetra- 
drachm  (y'jc),  the  ancient  Ueb.  (heavy)  shekel,  of 
which  25,  or  100  ziiz,  went  to  the  mina.  For  the 
last  the  old  Heb.  term  njD  was  retained,  e.g.  a 
mina  of  flesh  (Sanhcd.  viii.  2),  of  figs  (Peah  viii.  5), 
of  wool  (Khullin  xi.  2).  In  the  two  passages  last 
cited,  and  elsewhere,  we  meet  with  the  jicrds  (o";5) 
or  halfniina.  This  term  most  scholars  now  agree 
in  finding — as  first  suggested  by  M.  Clermont- 
Ganneau — in  the  Perks  and  U-'Phar.sin  of  Dn 
5J8.  »^  jijg  mysterious  writing  on  the  wall  signify- 
ing, not  as  in  RVm  'numbered,  numbered,  weighed, 
and  divisions,'  but  'a  mina,  a  mina,  a  shekel,  and 
half-minas.'  The  system  above  sketched  may  be 
presented  thus,  omitting  thelowestdenomination — 

Thb  LiTKST  Jewjsu  Wkiout-Svsteu. 

m  Denarius-drachm        1  62)  gn. 

'>p^;y  Shekel*                       2        1  106  „ 

Slho  Tctradrachm               4*1  210  „ 

njc   Mina                            100        60       25      1  62501  „ 

nrj  Talent  6000    3000    1500    60    1     816,0002  „ 

Notes.— 1  i.e.  12  oz.  avoir.    2  i.e.  45  lb. 

•  The  old  term  '  shekel  *  was  henceforth  confined  to  the  true 
half-shekel,  formerly  112  grains ;  cf.  the  name  of  the  treatise 


The  importance  of  this  late  Jewish  system  foi 
our  previous  investigations  lies  in  the  fact  that  it 
supplies  the  evidence,  for  which  one  looks  in  vain 
in  the  older  Heb.  literature,  that  the  Phoen.  weight- 
system  has  the  best  claim  to  be  regarded  as  that 
on  which  Jewish  trade  was  conducted  not  only  in 
the  first  two  centuries  of  our  era,  but  for  several 
centuries  before.  It  was  natural  that  the  mina  c< 
this  system  should  be  identified  with  the  libra  0/ 
pound  of  the  Roman  weight-system.  The  hitter 
occurs  in  the  NT  only  in  Jn  12^  19™  (EV  '  pound, 
\irpa,  whence  the  x-i-rb  of  the  Mishna,  also  occasion- 
ally •p''?«s'i<  liP).  Tlie  talent  (Rev  16-',  cf.  Josephus, 
BJ  V.  vi.  3  [§  270]  TaXavTatoi  irfrpai)  of  315,000 
grains  when  doubled,  i.e.  when  taken  not  as  3000 
light  but  as  30U0  heavy  shekels  or  tetradraclims, 
was  tariti'ed  on  the  Roman  system  as  125  libras, 
as   is   testified   by   a  weight  with  the  inscription 

PONDOCXXVTALENTVM  SICLORVM  III  (3000  shekels, 

the  M  for  1000  being  omitted),  and  confirmed  by 
Epiphanius.  A  large  stone  weight  found  at  Jeru- 
salem in  1891  {PEFSt,  1892,  289 f.),  said  to  weigh 
41,9U0  grammes  (c.  646,000  grains),  is  evidently  a 
heavy  talent  on  this  system. 

To  sum  up  the  result  of  the  foregoing  sections, 
evidence  has  been  adduced  for  the  existence,  side 
by  side,  in  the  earlier  period  of  Heb.  history  of 
three  distinct  units  of  weight — the  Babylonian  252- 
grain  unit,  the  new  Syrian  320-grain  unit,  and, 
the  best  attested  of  all,  the  Phoenician  224-grain 
unit,  each  with  its  corresponding  light  unit  of 
126,  160,  and  112  grains  respectively.  The  second 
probably  did  not  survive  the  Exile ;  while  the  last, 
in  the  end,  gained  the  day  over  both  its  com- 
petitors. 

Hebrew  Measures  of  Length.— vi.  Approxi- 
mate value  of  the  Hebrew  cubit. — The  most  wide- 
spread of  all  metrical  denominations  are  those 
measures  of  length  which  have  been  derived  from 
certain  parts  of  the  human  body — the  Gngerbreadtli 
or  digit,  the  handbreadth  or  palm,  the  cubit 
(Ki'/SiTof,  cubitum,  the  elbow),  or  the  length  of  the 
forearm  from  the  elbow  to  the  tip  of  the  middle 
finger.  The  equally  convenient  '  foot,'  liowe\er, 
is  foretgn  to  the  Heb.  system.  By  the  Gr.  met- 
rologists  of  the  empire  the  digit  was  regarded  as 
the  unit  :  6  SaKruXos  Trpwris  4aTLV  (affirfp  Kal  ij  ^ovd.i 
(ir'i  Til/  apiB/j.Qv,  SO  writes  Julian  of  Ascalon  (np. 
Hultsch,  Metrol.  Script.  RcliquicB,  i.  200),  who 
proceeds  to  give  the  usual  denominations  of  the 
system  in  use  in  his  time  in  Palestine,  disclosing 
tlie  well-nigh  universal  division  of  the  cubit  into 
6  palms,  each  of  4  digits  (for  exceptions  to  this 
division  see  below).  The  comparative  frequency 
of  the  references  to  the  cubit  in  the  OT,  however, 
warrant  us  in  regarding  it  as  the  unit  of  the  Heb. 
system.  Before  proceeding  to  the  investigation  of 
the  length  of  the  cubit,  it  may  be  noted  at  this 
stage  that  the  Hebrews  in  their  measurements 
employed  botli  the  measuring-rod  (mnn  .ijij  Ezk  40" 
etc.,  LXX  and  NT  (cdXa^aos,  Rev  11'  21"")  and  the 
measuring-line  (.Tj?n  15  Jer  31^" ;  also  oin  1  K  7'°, 
Jer  52-'  [AV  wrongly  'fillet']).  The  latter  was 
I)robably  used  for  the  larger  measurements,  one 
such  being  mentioned  in  the  Mishna  as  of  50  cubits 
in  length  (Erubin  v.  4). 

The  evidence  of  the  OT  goes  to  show  that  the 
Hebrews,  before  and  after  the  Exile,  were  familiar 
with  two  cubits  of  ditlerent  lengths.  First  of  all, 
we  find  the  bed  or  sarcophagus  of  Og,  the  king  of 
Bashan,  measured  according  to  '  the  cubit  of  a 
man  '  {&k  nwi  Dt3",  cf.  Rev  21") ;  in  other  words, 
according  to  the  then  customary,  everyday  cubit 
(cf.  the  similar  expressions  in  the  original  of  2  S  7", 

Shel^aZim^  dealing  with  the  pavTnent  of  the  temple  tax  of  half  a 
shekel.  In  Galilee,  however,  the  term  ypD  was  applied  to  the 
latter,  hence  in  the  Mishna  the  Galilseau  fUd  is  always  said  tc 
be  equal  to  \  the  ^eld  of  Judsa. 


"WEIGHTS  AND  MEASUEES 


WEIGHTS  AND  MEASURES      907 


Is  8',  Rev  13"  etc ).  When  we  consider,  in  the  second 
place,  that  the  early  chapters  of  Deuteronomy  are 
almost  certainly  later  than  tlie  eigliteenth  year  of 
Josiab,  and  therefore  within  the  period  embraced 
by  the  lifetime  of  Ezekiel,  we  are  led  to  identify 
the  '  cubit  of  a  man  '  of  the  passage  cited  with  the 
cubit  in  everj'day  use  among  Ezekiel's  contem- 
poraries. This  prophet,  in  a  passage  of  the  lirst 
importance  for  our  investigation,  informs  us  that 
tlic  measurements  of  the  temple  of  his  vision  are 
not  on  the  st-andard  of  the  then  generally  used 
cubit,  but  after  a  cubit  longer  than  the  latter  by  a 
handbreadth  (Ezk  40",  cf.  43").*  Now,  since  tlie 
proportions  and  arrangements  of  Ezekiel's  temple 
are  in  all  essential  particulars  identical  with  those 
of  the  temple  of  Solomon,  the  prophet's  aim  in  the 
use  of  this  longer  cubit  can  hardly  be  other  than 
to  ensure  that  his  temple  shall  be  a  replica  of  the 
older  Solomonic  temple.  That  this,  rather  tlian 
the  possible  alternative  that  Ezekiel  is  here  intro- 
ducing a  new  cubit  on  the  Babylonian  standard 
(so  Haupt  in  SBOT,  'Ezekiel,'  179 f.),  is  the 
correct  inference  from  the  passage  before  us,  is 
confirmed  by  the  remark  of  the  Chronicler  that 
the  dimensions  of  Solomon's  temple  were  deter- 
mined by  cubits  '  after  the  former  measure'  (2  Ch 
3^).  Ezekiel  and  the  Chronicler,  then,  are  our 
authorities  for  the  conclusion  that  the  cubit  in 
ordinary  use,  both  before  and  after  the  Exile,  was 
sliorter  by  a  handbreadth  tlian  tlie  cubit  emplojcd, 
for  buildin"  purposes  at  least,  in  the  reign  of 
Solomon.  In  view,  further,  of  the  all  but  un- 
varying tradition,  confirmed  by  the  practice  else- 
where, as  shown  above,  that  the  ordinary  cubit 
contained  six  palms  or  handbreadths,  we  are  left 
to  infer  that  the  Solomonic  building  cubit  toas  a 
cubit  of  seven  handOreailt/is. 

When  we  look  for  further  light  on  this  point  to 
the  ancient  home  of  all  scientific  metrology,  the 
result  is  disappointing.  As  early  as  B.C.  3000,  the 
era  of  Gudca,  the  Babylonians  bad  discarded  the 
more  primitive  or  natural  system  of  lineal  measures 
for  a  rigidly  scientific  system,  constructed,  like  the 
rest  of  their  metrology,  on  a  sexagesimal  basis. 
On  this  system  fresh  light  has  recently  been 
thrown  by  the  recovery  of  two  early  scales  of 
linear  measurement,  engraved  upon  statues  of 
Gudea,  from  Telloh  in  Southern  B;iliyIonia  (see 
details  by  C  V.  Lehmann  in  Verkandl.  d.  bcrliner 
Gescll.f.  Anthroiioloqie,  1889,  288  fl'.  ;  1896,  453  tl.; 
Das  altbabyl.  Mnas-  und  Geunchtsstjstcm,  iy2li'. 
A  short  summary  with  illustration  is  given  by 
Haupt  in  Toy's  'Ezekiel'  [SBOT  179f.];  cf.  art. 
Babvlonia,  vol.  i.  p.  218'').  The  more  perfect  of 
the  two  scales  is  divided  by  transverse  lines  into  six- 
teen subdivisions,  each  a  trilie  over  g  in.  in  length, 
lifteen  of    whieli   are   considered   to   represent  a 

?uarter  of  the  double  cubit,  which,  as  we  know 
rom  the  tablet  of  Senkereh  ( IVAI  iv."  37),  con- 
stituted the  unit  of  the  linear  system.  This 
double  cubit,  then,  contained  GO  of  the  ubilnu  or 
fin^'erbreadtlis  of  Gudea's  scale,  or  about  39.^  in., 
whieli  gives  a  single  cubit  of  30  digits,  or  193  in. 
Five  digits  on  this  system  are  supposed  to  have 
gone  to  the  handbreadth,  of  which  6  formed  the 
cubit.  In  addition  to  this  cubit  there  appears  to 
have  been  a  so-called  royal  cubit  of  33  digits 
(Herod,  i.  178),  or  213  in.  In  all  periods  of 
Babylonian  history  the  size  of  the  square  bricks 
for  buildinij  purposes  remained  constant  at  13 
in.,  which  is  g  of  Gudea's  cubit  or  J  of  the  royal 
cubit,  and  is  termed  by  Continental  metrologists 
the   Babylonian   foot.t      The    primitive    Hebrew 

•  This  longer  ctibit,  however,  is  not,  as  our  EV  would  lead  one 
Co  suppose,  called  by  the  prophet  a  '(frt-at  cubit'  (see41sUVm), 
But  the  original  is  here  confcsscdiy  unintelligible. 

t  The  whole  aystem  of  Babylonian  weights  und  measures  is 
ba^HMi.  acconiing  to  Lehmann,  who  has  luo^ie  this  subject 
ipeci&ily  his  own,  on  the  double  cubit  (30^  in.)  of  Qudea's  scale. 


measures  aiipcar  to  have  remained  uninflueiced 
by  this  more  artificial  system. 

On  the  otlier  hand,  when  we  turn  to  the  other 
centre  of  early  civilization  in  the  East,  we  find  in 
Egypt  a  system  presenting  an  exact  correspond- 
ence with  what  we  have  so  far  learned  of  the 
chief  Hebrew  measure  of  length  (see  esp.  F.  L. 
Griffith,  '  Notes  on  Egyptian  Weights  and  Mea- 
sures'  in  PSBA  xiv.  [1892]  p.  403  tl'.).  Here  two 
cubits  were  in  use  from  the  earliest  times — the 
'  short '  cubit  of  6  and  the  '  royal '  cubit  of  7 
handbreadths.  Happily,  the  survival  of  actual 
cubit-rods  and  the  measurements  of  the  pyramids 
and  other  ancient  monuments  have  made  it  pos- 
sible to  determine  the  length  of  the  royal  cubit 
with  sufficient  accuracy  for  ordinary  purposes 
as  20-63  in.  (Petrie,  Enojc.  Brit.'  xxiv.  483';  cf. 
Watson,  PEFSt,  1897,  203;  Griffith,  I.e.).  The 
short  cubit,  as  f  of  the  other,  contained  17 '68 
in.,  6  palms  of  295  in.,  or  24  digits  or  finger- 
breadths  of  '74  in.  We  have  here,  then,  the 
same  ratio  between  the  cubits,  and  the  same 
subdivisions  as  we  found  in  the  case  of  the 
Hebrew  cubits — facts  which  render  it  impossible 
to  avoid  bringing  the  two  systems,  Egyptian  and 
Hebrew,  into  more  intimate  connexion.  It  would 
be  rash  at  this  stage,  however,  to  propose  their 
original  identity  until  we  have  bad  some  evidence 
as  to  the  probable  length  of  the  early  Hebrew 
cubit. 

Innumerable  attempts  have  been  made  in  the 
course  of  the  last  two  centuries,  to  determine  the 
absolute  length  or  lengths  of  the  OT  cubit.  One 
of  the  most  eminent  of  living  metrologists  is  re- 
duced to  finding  '  the  sole  reliable  determination 
of  the  Hebrew  measures  of  length '  in  a  metro- 
logical  table  which  in  its  present  form  is  scarcely 
older  than  the  14th  cent,  of  our  era !  From  this 
document,  with  doubtful  cogency,  he  argues  foi 
the  identity  of  the  ordinary  Heb.  cubit  with  the 
royal  Egyp.  cubit  (Ilultsih,  MetroL-  43711'.).  lu 
our  own  country  a  few  of  the  more  noteworthy 
values  proposed  in  recent  years  are  as  follows  : — 


16  inches. 


Conder  {Handbook  of  the  BibleA 

and  elsewhere)       .         .         .)' 

Beswick(P£i''6"i;,  1879,  182  ff.)  .  .  17-72  „ 

Watson  (       „         1897, '203  tr.)  .  .  17-70,, 

Warren  (      „         1899,  2-29  U.)  .  .  17-75  „ 

Petrie  (         „         189-2,31)         .  .  226    „ 

Petrie  {Encyc.  Brit."  xxiv.  484)  .  25-2    „ 

To  these  may  be  added  the  estimates  adopted 
in  Smitli'a  D}i,  from  Thenius,  of  19'5  in.  From 
these  widely-varying  results  it  will  be  clear  to 
every  reader  that  reliable  data  for  the  exact  evalua- 
tion if  the  Hebrew  cubit  do  not  exist.  The  following 
is  merely  a  fresh  attempt  to  reach  an  approximate 
value. 

(a)  The  evidence  of  the  Siloam  inscription. — In 
lines  4  and  5  of  this  famous  inscription  may  be 
read :  '  and  the  waters  flowed  from  the  outlet  [of 
the  spring]  to  the  Pool  [of  Siloam]  one  tliousand 
and  two  hundred  cubits.'  Now  the  total  distance 
from  the  spring  to  the  pool,  according  to  Conder's 
careful  measurements  {PEFSt,  1882,  122),  is  1758 
ft.,  which  yields  n  cul>it  of  17-58  in.  Unfor- 
tunately, the  number  1200,  like  the  other  speci- 
fication of  100  cubits  as  the  height  of  the  rock 
above  the  tunnel,  is  evidently  a  round  number,  so 
that  the  value  of   the  cubit  as  c.   17-6   in.   here 

which  he  holds  to  be  identical  with  the  length  of  the  socondj 
itendulum  in  the  latitude  of  the  astronomer  prients  of  Baby- 
Ionia  I  The  unit  of  volume  was  a  cubic  vessel,  tno  side  of  which 
was  a  handbreoiltb,  or  ^  of  the  double  cubit  (c.  a-fl  in.);  the 
weight  of  water  it  contained  constituted  the  unit  of  weight, 
\  iz.  the  heavy  niina  of  16.100  grains  (see  %  ii.  above).  For  a 
thoroughgoing  criticism  of  Lehmann's  views,  and  of  the  earlier 
researches  of  Oppert  in  tliis  field,  see  .lohns,  Asi'^irian  Dtidt 
and  DocumenU  (lUOl),  ch.  UL  'Metrology,'  pp.  184-273. 


908      WEIGHTS  AND  MEASUEES 


WEIGHTS  AND  MEASURES 


disclosed  is  only  approximate.  The  nieasuied 
length,  1758  ft.,  yields  1193  short  Egyp.  cubits  of 
17'68  in.  and  1206  of  the  Gr.  cubit  of  17J  in. 
Both  the  cubits  proposed  by  Flinders  Petrie  are 
evidently  out  of  the  question  (see,  further,  below). 

(i)  The  evidence  of  Josep/uis. — All  attempts  to 
solve  our  problem  from  a  comparison  of  the  measure- 
ments of  -.he  temple  area  as  i.'iven  by  Josephus 
and  in  the  Mishna  treatise  M'uhloth  ('measure- 
ments') with  those  of  the  IJaram  of  to-day,  are 
unsatisfactory,  for  the  double  reason  that  the  data 
of  tlie  two  authorities  named  are  frequently  in 
condict, — and,  at  the  best,  have  no  claim  to  be 
more  than  roughly  estimated,  and,  in  the  case  of 
the  Mishna,  traditional  llgures, —  and  that  the 
Jlaram  area  has  undergone  many  changes  since 
the  Ist  cent,  of  our  era.  But  there  is  an  argu- 
ment from  Josephus  which  has  not  hitherto  been 
pressed,  viz.  the  arqumcntum  e  sitentio.  It  is 
generally  admitted  (see  W.  K.  Smith,  Encyc.  Brit.^ 
xxiii.  166)  that  Josephus  makes  use  of  the  Roman- 
Attic  cubit  (vi)xv%)  throughout  his  historical  WTit- 
ings.  Thus  the  side  of  the  square,  within  which 
stood  the  temple  of  Heiod,  is  given  now  as  a 
stadium,  or  600  Gr.  ft.  {Ant.  XV.  xi.  3  [§  400,  cf. 
415]),  now  as  400  cubits  (ih.  XX.  ix.  7  [§  221]),  which 
assumes  the  ratio  (3  : 2)  between  the  cubit  and  the 
foot  adopted  by  the  nations  of  classical  antiquity. 
Now  Josephus,  as  we  shall  see  in  a  subsequent 
section,  frequently  gives  equations  of  the  Jewish 
measures  of  capacity  with  those  of  his  Gra;co- 
Roman  readers,  and  less  frequently  compares  the 
respective  weights  and  coins;  but  nowhere,  ap- 
parently, does  he  give  a  single  indication  of  the 
Heb.  cubit  differing  materially  from  the  Human- 
Attic  cubit  of  the  1st  cent.  Hence,  ifl  giving  the 
dimensions  of  objects  described  in  the  OT, — such 
as  Solomon's  temple,  the  tabernacle,  etc., — Josephus 
renders  the  numbers  of  the  Heb.  cubit  by  the 
same  numbers  of  the  Gr.  cubit.  In  one  case  at 
least  he  even  gives  the  dimensions  of  2.^  by  1 J  cubits 
of  the  original  (Ex  25'")  as  5  by  3  spans  (criri9aA"i), 
the  spithami  being  the  half  of  the  Gr.  cubit. 
•Vgain,  the  distance  of  the  Mount  of  Olives  from 
Jerusalem  is  given  by  the  author  of  the  Acts  (1'') 
as  '  a  Sabbath-day's  journey,'  which  was  a  very 
familiar  measure  of  2(i00  Heb.  cubits  (see  next  §). 
But  Josephus  gives  the  same  distance  as  five  stadia 
{Ant.  XX.  viii.  6  [16!l]),  wliich  are  3000  Gr.  feet  or 
2000  Gr.  cubits.  Tliese  data,  then,  all  go  to  show 
that,  in  Josephus'  day  at  least,  the  Jewish  and  Gr. 
cubits  were  for  practical  purposes  identical  in 
value.  Taking  the  Roman-Attic  foot,  as  linally 
determined  by  Dorpfeld  s  elaborate  researches, 
as  2!)6  millimetres  =  11-65  in.  (art.  'Mensura'in 
Siiiitli's  Did.  of  Antig,^;  Nissen,  Metrologic-),  we 
obtain  17-47,  say  17^  in.,  as  a  second  approxima- 
tion to  the  length  of  the  Jewish  cubit  m  the  1st 
cent,  of  our  era. 

(e)  The  evidence  of  the  3fiihna. — Nothing  is  to 
be  gained  from  the  oft-quoted  but  purely  academic 
discussion  regarding  the  two  cubit-rods,  said  to 
have  been  preserved  in  chambers  over  the  Shushan 
gate  of  the  temple  {Kilim  xvii.  9,  10),  beyond 
confirmation  of  the  uniform  tradition  that  the 
'cubit  of  Mose3,'  i.e.  of  the  Priests'  Code,  con- 
tained 6  palms  or  24  digits  {ib.  10).  The  true 
explanation  of  the  cubit-rods  of  24J  and  25  digits 
respectively  may  be  that  we  have  here  a  confused 
recollection  that  the  Heb.  cubit  was  originally 
longer  bv  a  fraction  of  an  inch  than  the  Roman- 
Attic  cubit.  Rabbi  Judah's  cubit  of  5  palms  '  for 
vessels'  (I.e.)  may  be  the  gomed  or  short  cubit  of 
Ehud's  dagger  (see  next  §).  A  more  definite  datiuu 
for  the  approximate  value  of  the  Mishna  cubit  is 
found  in  Baba  bathra,  vi.  8,  where  the  law  pre- 
scribes the  following  as  the  dimensions  of  the 
hukim  ic-;;.i)  or  locuh  in  the  case  of  a  Jew  taking 


a  contract  for  the  construction  of  a  rock-cut 
tomb,  viz.  height  7  palms,  width  6  palms,  length  4 
cubits.  The  last  of  these  dimensions  lecalls  the 
ipyvid  (from  ipiyw,  'to  stretch'),  or  the  4-cubit 
fatliom  of  the  Greeks,  it  having  been  early  ob- 
served that  the  'stretch'  of  a  well-proportioned 
man,  from  tip  to  tip  of  his  outstretched  arms,  was 
equal  to  his  height.  Since  the  Jews  were  buried 
without  coffins,  if  we  knew  their  average  height, 
we  should  have  a  fair  approach  to  the  leuLth  of 
their  cubit.  They  were  certainly  not  a  tall  people, 
and  in  modern  times,  in  the  most  favourable  cir- 
cumstances, are  said  to  average  5  ft.  6  in.  to  5  ft. 
8  in.  (Jacobs  quoted  by  Warren,  PEFSt,  1809, 
228  f.  )*  Allowing  a  margin  for  the  bier,  we  cannot 
be  far  wrong  in  taking  5  ft.  10  in.  as  the  jirobable 
length  of  the  loculi  contemplated  by  the  later 
Jewish  law,  which  yields  a  cubit  of  17J  in.  as 
our  third  approximation.  In  any  case,  this  pas- 
sage disposes  finally  of  Conder's  cubit  of  16  in., 
which  would  reduce  the  average  height  of  the 
Jews  to  less  than  5  ft.  4  in.  ! 

The  latest  valuation  of  the  cubit  by  the  distin- 
guished metrologist  Flinders  Petrie  (PEFSt,  1892, 
28  t}'.,  the  tomb-cutters'  cubit  at  Jerusalem)  cannot 
be  so  easily  dbj)0.<ed  of.  The  dimensions  contem- 
plated in  the  Mishna  are  evidently  the  use-and- 
wont  dimensions  that  would  satisfy  a  contract  in 
which  no  more  precise  specifications  were  entered, 
hence  they  do  not  preclude  the  possibility  of  larger 
dimensions  being  used  on  occasion.  Now  Petrie, 
on  the  strength  of  many  hundred  measurements  of 
the  dimensions  of  actual  tombs,  contends  that  the 
great  majority  disclose  a  cubit  of  22'6  in.,  which  he 
maintains  (loc.  cit.)  'should  be  taken  as  the  standard 
in  future.'  This  is  not  the  place  either  to  expound 
or  to  criticise  the  methods  employed  by  Petrie  here 
and  elsewhere  in  his  metrological  works,  beyond 
saying  that  a  considerable  element  of  uncertainty 
must  always  attach  to  them  where  the  results 
cannot  be  controlled  by  literary  evidence  (cf.  Ridge- 
way's  criticism  of  tliis  method  of  determining  the 
value  of  ancient  standards  of  length  by  measure 
ment  alone,  in  Smith,  Diet,  of  Antig.^  ii.  166),  a 
statement  of  which  an  illustration  may  now  be 
given.  In  the  case  of  the  tombs  in  question, 
Petrie  finds  recurring  lengths  of  about 

88-1,  113  U,  1320,  150-7,  171-9,  and  226  in., 
all   pretty   certainly   even   numbers   of   the  same 
cubit.     And  it  is  therefore  seen  that  the  multiples 

4,  5,  6,  7,  7i,  and  10  cubits 
are  the  numbers  in  question,  as  we  thus  reach 

22-0,  22-6,  220,  228,  22-9,  226  in. 
for  the  cubit,  yielding  an  average  of  22-61+  03  in. 
(loc.  cit.  29).     But  suppose,  taking  the  first  row  of 
figures,  w-e  were  to  say  tliat  the  nmltiples 

5,  6i,  7i,  9,  lu,  and  13  cubits 
are  the  numbers  in  question,  we  should  obtain 

17-6,  17-4,  17-6,  17-7,  172,  174  in. 
for  the  cubit  actually  a  smaller  range  of  variation 
than  is  sliown  by  Petrie's  own  results, — or  an  aver- 
age of  17.|  in.,  which  is  in  remarkable  agreement 
with  the  approximations  already  obtained.  There 
is  therefore  a  clear  alternative  before  us.  Either 
we  must  bring  down  the  Siloam  inscription  to  the 
Roman  age,  as  has  indeed  been  recently  projiosed, 
and  say  that  the  Jews  of  that  period  had  finally 
discarded  their  native  cubit,  of  which,  in  that  case, 
wc  remain  in  absolute  ignorance,  in  favour  of  the 
Gra;co-Roman  cubit,  or — which  is  the  preferable 
alternative — we  must  hold  to  the  Egyptian  origin 
of  both  the  historically  attested  cubits  of  7  and 
6  liandbreadths,  the  latter,  originally  17i  in.  in 
length,   having  been  gradually  reduced,  until  in 

•  Warren  here  (fives  some  interesting  statistics  as  to  tiie 
heipht  of  the  modem  Jew ;  and,  although  not  aware  of  the 
above  pojviage  of  the  Mishna,  conducts  the  same  ari^ment  and 
decides  for  a  cubit  of  17-75  in. 


WEIGHTS  AND  ilEASURES 


WEIGHTS  AND  MEASURES      909 


NT  timi's  it  was  etjuated  with  the  Greek  cubit  of 
I'ih  in.  This  Kj,'y|)tiiiii,  as  oiJposed  to  an  alternative 
Babylonian,  derivation  is  further  conlirmed  by  tlio 
following  considerations:  (1)  the  existence,  just 
referred  to,  at  one  period  among  the  Hebrews  of 
two  cubits  of  7  and  6  handbreadths  respectively  ; 
(2)  the  subdivisions  (see  table)  are  parallel  in  both 
systems,  and  bear  no  trace  of  sexagesimal  or  Baby- 
lonian influence ;  (3)  the  smallest  unit,  the  digit, 
bears  a  cognate  designation  in  both,  'ezba  in 
Hebrew,  t'ia  in  Egyptian,  while  the  corresponding 
Hebrew  unit  was  named  ubiinu  in  Babylonian, 
probably  the  Heb.  [nS  ;  (4)  the  Heb.  zereth  or  span 
linds  its  nearest  congener  in  the  Egyptian  drt 
(Ges.-Bulil,  Lex.  s.v.  ;  cf.  similar  affinities  below, 
under  measures  of  eajjacity).  The  following  table 
shows  the  values  of  the  Heb.  culiits  and  subdivisions 
on  the  basis  of  the  Siloani  cubit  of  17 "58  in.,  which 
proves  to  be  the  mean  between  the  original  Egyp. 
short  cubit  of  17 '68  and  the  Gr.  cubit  of  17 '47  in., 
and  is  probably  the  nearest  value  attainable  until 
further  monumental  evidence  is  forthcoming  : — 


Table 

OF  THE  Hebrew  Measures  op 

Length. 

Value  in 

Convenient 

Digit. 

Palm. 

Span. 

Cubit. 

approxi- 
mation. 

Mm. 

In. 

Digit    . 
Palm    . 

1 

18-8 

■73 

}la. 

4 

1 

... 

"4 

2-93 

3     .. 

Span    . 

12 

8 

i 

■Z23 

8-79 

9  .; 

Cubit  . 

24 

« 

2 

i 

441) 

17-68 

IJ  ft. 

Cubit  of 

28 

7 

... 

... 

621 

20-61 

l|  .. 

Ezeldel 

Reed    . 

144 

8A 

12 

e 

... 

105-48 

9     .. 

Reed  of 

188 

42 

.•> 

•  •• 

I2;i-«i 

10     „ 

Ezeldel 

No  reference  has  yet  been  made  to  the  determination  of  the 
value  of  the  cubit  from  the  statement  of  the  mediuuval  Rabbis 
tliat  the  smallest  unit,  the  flntrerltreadth,  waa  equal  to  (i 
mcdiuin-sized  grains  of  barley  laid  side  by  side,  partly  liecause 
the  tradition  is  of  late  ori{^in,  and  partly  on  account  of  the  widely 
diverifinfj  results  that  this  method  has  produced.*  Maimonides, 
writintj  in  Egyjit,  seems  %o  have  been  the  first  to  j^vc  curn-nt^y 
to  this  mode.  He  assij^ed  7  barleycorns  to  the  digit,  or  Kis  to 
the  cubit,  apparently  ldentifyin^J  it  with  the  royal  Eicyptian 
cubit  (see  Zuclteniiann,  1>.  jitd.  Maaxsystem,  '20;  Boeciih, 
Metrolmj.  Vntt^rinichutujen,  268  ff.,  which  see  also  for  further 
detaib  of  this  method).  It  is,  however,  a  striking  coincidence, 
to  say  tile  least,  that  the  latest  and  most  scit-ntilic  attempt 
to  determine  the  Jewish  cubit  on  the  basis  of  the  usual  liab- 
binic  valuation  of  144  barlevoorns  yields  a  cubit  of  17-7  in. 
(Col.  Watson,  PlJFSt,  18i)r,  "201  O.),  which  ig  practically  the 
short  cubit  of  Ei^ypu 

vii.  Subdivisions  and  multiples  of  the  cubit  in 
OT  and  NT. — It  now  remains  to  glance  briefly 
at  the  subdivisions  and  multiples  of  the  cubit  to 
be  found  in  the  canonical  literature.  At  the 
bottom  of  the  scale  stands  the  /loyds  or  iiirpov 
aiuKpltTaTov  of  the  Gr.  metrologists,  the  digit  or 
fingcrbreadth  (v;sn  only  Jei  52-';  cf.  Joseph.  Ant. 
VIII.  iii.  4,  od>,-Ti'/\os,  and  Mislina,  piis.im).  Four 
digits  naturally  went  to  the  palm  or  handbreadth 
(ns::  1  K  7-*  =  2  Cli  4=  ;  rz'j  in  Ezk  40'-  -^  43'^  and  V), 
the  iraXaiffTi)  of  the  LX.\  and  Gr.  writers  generully. 
The  cubit  and  the  palm  were  the  most  frequently 
used  denominations  in  later  times.  Bricks  for 
building  p\irposes,  for  example,  are  said  to  have 
been  '3  palms  square'  (c.  9  in.),  not  a  square  span 
(Eruhin  i.  3).t  The  span  (n-ii,  ffTiOa/x-n,  Ex  2^'  'W, 
1  S  17*  etc.)  was  always  half  the  cubit.  Thus  a 
compari.son  of  Ezk  43"  with  v."  shows  that  the 
span  mi"ht  be  taken  a.8  half  the  royal  cubit  of  3J 
palms.  Jo.sephus,  we  have  seen,  renders  the  dimen- 
sion of  the  ark  of  the  covenant,  in  the  original  2.J 
by  14  by  li  cubits  (Ex  2.")"'),  by  twice  the  number 
of  spans  {Ant.  ill.  vi.  5  [135]). 

•Thenius'  cubit  of  1906  In.,  adopted  In  Smith's  DB  (art 
'  WeightJ)  and  Meostlres '),  was  obtained  by  this  methtxl. 
t  The  Babylonians  regularly  built  with  a  brick  13  in.  square. 


In  Jg  3"  the  short  two-edged  sword  of  Ehud  is 
said  to  have  been  a  ijfimcd  in  length  (iti,  EV 
'cubit').  This  measure,  occurring  only  in  this 
passage,  is  explained  by  the  Jewish  commentators 
as  a  .short  cubit,  the  length  of  the  forearm  from  the 
elbow  to  the  knuckles  or  to  the  second  joint  of  the 
lingers  (see  Moore,  in  luc,  ami  more  fully  JBL  xii. 
104).  It  was  thus  the  equivalent  of  the  Gr.  jri'yJii' 
or  TTi'yiirj,  and  may  have  been  the  cubit  of  5  palms 
mentioned  in  the  Mishna  (see  above). 

The  cubit  itself  has  been  fully  discus.sed  in  the 
preceding  section,  where  its  apparent  Egyjitian 
origin  and  value  have  been  set  forth.  At  lirst, 
naturally,  of  the  s.ame  value  as  the  short  cubit  of 
Egypt,  17'68  in.,  it  appears  to  have  gradually 
shrunk,  until  in  the  1st  cent,  of  our  era  it  was 
practically  identical  with  the  Roman-Attic  cubit 
of  1747  in.  By  this  latter  mea.sure,  say  17A  in., 
we  may  safely  estimate  the  only  NT  references  to 
the  cubit  in  the  literal  sense  (Jn  21",  Rev  21").  In 
Mt  G",  Lk  12^  the  cubit  is  best  taken  metaiihori- 
cailv,  '  which  of  you  can  add  a  "  span  "  to  his  age?' 
(cf.  RVm). 

The  only  multiple  of  the  cubit  mentioned  in  the 
OT,  and  that  only  by  Ezekiel,  is  the  reed  (iii!, 
kaneh,  the  Bab.  /cami,  Ezk  40'"-  42''"'-  etc.)  of  6 
cubits, — in  this  case  the  '  royal'  cubit  of  7  palms. 
It  does  not  appeal  to  have  come  into  common 
use.  In  the  Gra'co-Rom.an  age  we  find  instead 
the  fathom  {dpyma,  Ac  27^)  of  4  cubits,  approxi- 
mately 6  ft.,  and  the  favourite  Gr.  measure  of 
dLstance  the  stadium  [aradioi;  2  JIac  12"^-,  Lk  24", 
Jn  6'«  etc.).  The  latter  contained  600  Gr.  ft.  or 
400  cubits,  about  1!)4  yds.  ;  it  ^^■as  thus  consider- 
ably less  than  the  furlong  ('2'JO  yds. ),  by  which  it 
is  rendered  in  our  versions.  The  mile  (uiXtoi',  Mt 
5"  ;  •?•?,  in  Hebrew,  Y6ma  vi.  4,  8),  as  its  name 
reveals,  was  a  Roman  measure,  containing  1000 
double  paces  (miUe  passus),  or  5000  Roman  ft., 
equal  to  1618  yds.  The  Romans  reckoned  their 
mile  as  roundly  etiuivalent  to  8  stadia.  The  Jews, 
on  the  other  }>and,  reckoned  only  74  stadia  or  ris 
to  the  mile  (Y6ma  vi.  4),  and  so  obtained  a  con- 
venient division  of  the  parasang  of  30  stadia — 
another  example  of  the  syncretism  that  pervades 
the  later  .lewish  metrology. 

The  largest  me.isure  of  distance  of  native  Jewish 
origin  was  the  Sabbath  day's  journey  (aajijia.Tov 
65J!,  Ac  1").  Its  origin  was  on  this  wise.  Com- 
bining the  injunction  of  Ex  16-^  with  the  fact 
recorded  in  Jos  3^  that  the  ark  preceded  the 
main  body;  of  the  host  by  2000  cubits  (c.  1000 
yds.),  the  inference  was  drawn  that  the  tents  of 
the  Israelites  in  the  wilderness  were  this  distance 
from  the  ark  ;  and,  further,  that  the  said  distance 
might  lawfully  be  traversed  on  the  Sabbath,  since 
the  injunction  of  Exodus  [I.e.)  could  not  have  been 
meant  to  exclude  the  privilege  of  worship  on  that 
day.  A  8(|uare  of  2000  cubits  in  the  side  was  also 
the  prescribed  'suburbs'  of  a  Levitical  city  (Nu 
35°).  The  Jews  of  later  times,  as  is  well  known, 
were  able  ingeniously  to  free  themselves  from  the 
restriction  of  a  single  2000-cubit  limit,  by  deposit- 
ing at  its  furthest  boundary,  before  the  entry  of 
the  Sabbath,  sufiicicnt  food  for  two  meals.  'I'liia 
spot,  by  a  legal  fiction,  was  considered  to  be  th€ 
traveller's  'place'  in  the  sen.se  of  Ex  le'-*"  ;  he  was 
then  able  to  proceed  with  immunity  for  aimther 
distance  of  20U0  cubits.  The  technical  name  for 
this  inocess  was  the  '  mixture  of  limits '  (niDinn  3nv), 
to  the  regulation  aiul  enforcement  of  which  the 
treatise  Erubin  (mixtures)  is  devoted.  In  certain 
cases  the  legal  distance  might  be  increased  to  2Siiii 
cubits,  which  was  the  estimated  diagonal  of  a 
square  2000  cubits  in  the  side.  A  number  of 
l)oundary-8tones,  two  of  which  bear  the  legend  cinn 
^u,  have  been  di.scovered  in  such  relative  posit  iona 
near  Gezer  (which   see)  as   to  suggest  that  ihev 


810      WEIGHTS  AJ^D  MEASURES 


WEIGHTS  AND  MEASURES 


probably  served  to  mark  the  Sabbath  'limit'  for 
that  city  (PEFSt,  1899,  118  tf.).  (For  details  as  to 
the  mathematical  precision  with  which  the  Sabbath 
day's  journey  was  calculated  for  each  town,  see 
Baneth's  edition  of  Erubin,  also  Surenhusius' 
edition  witli  plates.  An  English  translation  is 
given  in  Sola  and  Raphall's  selections). 

As  vaguer  measurements  of  length  and  distance, 
finally,  may  be  mentioned  the  pace  (2  S  6'")  and 
the  '  little  way '  (inx  rn:?  Gn  So^"  48',  2  K  5'"),  also 
a  day's  journey  (Nu'lP'',  1  K  19^  Jon  3^  Lk  2")  and 
three  days'  journey  (Gn  30^",  Nu  lu^^),  distances 
which  naturally  varied  according  to  circumstances 
(see  Day's  Journey,  vol.  L  p.  blZ^). 

viiL  Surface  measure.  —  In  OT  the  idea  of 
'  square '  is  generally  expressed  by  the  passive 
participle  yo-j  (a  dcnom.  verb  from  I'lnN  '  four '), 
rendered  'four  square'  (Ex  27'  28"  etc.),  the 
dimensions,  however,  being  given  as  x  cubits 
long  and  x  cubits  broad.  In  later  Hebrew  we  find 
the  more  compendious  expression  '  x  cubits  by 
(Si')  X,'  as  in  the  Mishna  passim.*  The  diagonal 
of  a  square  was  estimated  oy  the  Talmudic  autho- 
rities as  ^  of  its  side  (Baneth,  preface  to  Erubin, 
p.  52  ;  see  preceding  §).  The  ratio  of  the  circum- 
ference (TSn)  of  a  circle  to  its  diameter  (aoi)  was 
taken  as  3  to  1  (Erub.  i.  5). 

With  regard  to  the  measuring  of  land,  two 
methods  were  in  vogue  in  ancient  times  before  and 
after  the  application  of  more  scientilic  methods. 
The  one  attested  by  the  consensus  of  East  and 
West  consisted  in  taking  as  the  standard  of 
measurement  the  extent  of  ground  which  a  yoke 
of  oxen  could  plough  in  a  given  time.  In  Syria  at 
the  present  day  tiie  unit  of  land  measure  is  the 
fedddn,  the  ground  whicli  a  yoke  of  oxen  can 
plough  in  a  day  (Post,  PEFSt,  1891,  110),  which 
IS  variously  estimated  in  different  parts  of  tlie 
country  (see  Schumacher,  Across  the  Jordan,  22, 
and  more  fully  Bergheim,  '  Land  Tenure  in  Pales- 
tine,' PEFSt,  1894,  192  ff.).  The  corresponding 
Roman  measure  'jugerum  vocabatur  quod  uno 
jugo  boum  in  Uno  die  exarari  posset '  (Pliny, 
Hist.  Nat.  xviii.  9),  and  was  legally  fixed  at  cir. 
3016  sq.  yards.  The  second  metliod  was  by  esti- 
mating tlie  size  of  a  field  by  the  amount  of  seed 
required  to  sow  it.  Both  methods  were  known 
and  practised  by  the  Hebrews.  Passing  by  1  S 
14"  as  almost  certainly  corrupt,  we  find  a  reference 
in  Isaiah  to  '  10  acres  of  vineyard '  (5'°,  lit.  10  yoke 
[nsi],!  i.e.  of  oxen  ;  cf.  jugum  and  jugerum),  which 
at  once  suggests  the  modem  fedddn.  Since  the 
Egyp.  unit  of  surface  measure  was  a  square  100 
royal  cubits  in  the  side,  called  by  the  Greeks 
dpovpa  (Gritlith,  PSBA,  1892,  410  ff.),  we  shall  not 
be  far  wrong  if  we  estimate  the  Heb.  zemed  as  a 
square  of  100  ordinary  cubits  in  the  side,  and  thus 
the  equivalent  of  a  measure  of  surface  presently  to 
be  considered ;  in  other  words,  at  about  half  an 
acre.J 

On  the  other  hand,  the  priestly  legislation  intro- 
duces us  to  a  mode  of  computing  the  size  of  a 
field  'according  to  the  seed  thereof  (Lv  27"),  50 
shekels  being  fixed  as  commutation-money  for  a 
field  requiring  '  a  homer  of  barley  seed.'  But  there 
is  almost  certainly  an  earlier  reference  to  this 
method  of  mensuration  in  a  hitherto  misunder- 
stood passage  of  1  Kings.  The  trench  which 
Elijah  is  said  to  have  dug  round  about  his  altar 
on  Mt.  Carmel  is  described  as  )p.\  c:on;  n"3?,  lit. 
'like  a  house  of  two  scabs  of  seed'  (1  K  18'-). 

•The  MT  of  Ex  27'8'>  'fifty  by  fifty'  cannot  be  defended. 
The  LXX  goes  still  further  astray.  The  second  '  fifty '  is  cor- 
rupted from  HDKD,  which  the  Samaritan  still  has  (see  the 
writer's  forthcoming  commentary  on  Excdua,  in  loc). 

t  Winckler,  KAT^  (VMl)  J3D,  finds  in  Ifj  a  weight,  connect- 
ing it  with  the  Assyr.  ^aiiiddu,  to  weigh. 

!  Strictly  '2300  sq.  yaxds  with  the  cubit  of  17*0  In.;  an  acre  is 
iMO  sq.  yardii. 


W^hat  does  tliis  mean  ?  The  AV  and  RV  render- 
ing is  impossible,  while  RVm  suggests  that  the 
trench  had  the  breadth  and  depth  of  a  two-seah 
measure.  In  reality  tlie  writer  is  here  employing 
a  familiar  land  measure,  and  indicating  the  length 
— not  the  depth  and  breadth — of  the  trench  by  the 
amount  of  surface  which  it  enclosed.  It  is  true 
there  is  no  further  illustration  of  this  mode  of 
expression  in  our  older  extant  literature,  but  the 
evidence  of  the  Mishna,  considered  in  the  light  of 
the  immemorial  practice  in  Babylonia  and  Assyria, 
shows  that  its  absence  is  accidental  (see  the  Mishna, 
passim,  esp.  the  agricultural  treatises  and  tlio.se 
dealing  with  contracts).  Here  the  size  of  a  field 
is  uniformly  denoted  by  the  amount  of  seed  re- 
quired to  sow  it.  The  standard  of  measurement 
was  indeed  the  very  exjiression  under  considera- 
tion, '  the  house,'  i.e.  the  tield  '  of  two  seahs," 
which  was  fi.xed  as  equal  in  extent  to  the  court  of 
the  tabernacle,  viz.  100  cubits  by  50,  c.  1195  sq. 
yards  (under  j  acre).  The  half  of  this  surface, 
2500  sq.  cubits  (c.  J  acre),  was  the  beth-seah  (n'3 
nNp),  its  double  'a  four-seah  field  '  or  square  of  100 
cubits  in  the  side.  A  tield  of  this  size  is  in  one 
place  (Ohaloth  xvii.  1)  identitied  with  the  obscure 
nji'Q  *  of  1  S  W",  which  would  thus  be  a  later 
equivalent  of  the  zemed  considered  above. 

The  whole  series  of  dry  measures,  to  be  dis- 
cussed in  the  following  sections,  were  used  by  the 
Jews  of  NT  times  in  tliis  way,  from  the  frequently 
mentioned  hcth-ruba  or  J  kab  plot  (104  sq.  cubits, 
Pcah  i.  6,  Baba  bathra  ii.  5,  etc. )  up  to  the  beth- 
kCir  (B.  bathra,  vii.  1)  of  75,000  sq.  cubits,  and  its 
multiples.  The  dimension  last  given  is  that  of  the 
field  of  Lv  27'°,  mentioned  above  (for  tlie  identity 
of  the  kor  and  the  homer  see  next  §),  which  was 
therefore  about  3j  acres  in  extent.  This  system 
of  Held  measurement,  although  it  may  be  traced 
in  parts  of  the  Koman  empire,  as,  e.g.,  in  the 
a~irupi.fi.os  ^oStos,  whicli  was  a  tliird  of  the  jugerum 
(Hultsch,  MetroL'  616  f.),  had  its  liome  in  Baby- 
lonia, where  the  field  last  mentioned  would  have 
been  described  as  in  Hebrew  {bitu  1  imer  ekli,  a 
one-homer  field  ;  see  Johns,  Assyrian  Deeds,  219  If.) 
— a  fact  which  seems  conclusive  in  favour  of  the 
explanation  of  Elijah's  trench  given  above. 

Hebrew  Measures  of  Capacity. — ix.  Tht 
scales  of  wet  and  dry  measure.  The  value  of  the 
ephahbalh. — While  familiar  with  such  rougli-and- 
ready  measures  of  capacity  as  the  kOmez  or  hanilful 
(Lv  2-  5'-  6'*)  and  the  hophen  (dual,  '  two-h:uida 
full,'  Ex  9»,  Lv  16'-,  Ezk  10-),  the  Hebrews  from 
early  times  had  a  carefully  graduated  system  both 
for  wet  and  dry  measures,  the  names  and  values 
of  wliicli  have  too  frequently  been  obliterated  in 
our  Englisli  versions  by  an  indiscriminating  fond- 
ness for  tlie  rendering  '  measure.'  +  The  relation 
of  the  various  denominations  to  each  other  are 
happily  amply  attested,  and  may  be  represented 
in  tabular  form,  by  anticipation,  thus — 

Scale  of  Measures  of  Voldub. 


Homer-) 
Kor.    { 

Ephah-l 
Bath.  ; 

Seab. 

Eab. 

Hill. 

Lo({ 

10      = 

30 

"       00       = 

180       = 

=       720 

1 

3 

6 

18 

72 

1 

i 

6 

i 

24 
12 

4 

Of  these   the  homer,   ephah,   ^eah,   and    kab  are 
mentioned  in  OT  as  dry  measures,  the  first  named 

"  It  is  tempting  to  compare  this  expression  with  the  actiit, 
originally  the  headland  where  the  plough  was  turned  (Heb. 
njj;),  which  ultimately  became  the  Roman  unit  of  land  measun 
(120X 120  (t.,  c.  1600  sq.  yards). 

t  As  illustrations  of  confusion  thus  caused— a  baneful  legaCT 
from  the  LXX— Lk  13^1  compared  with  108. 7  may  be  consulted, 
where  three  denominations,  standing  to  each  other  in  tha 
ratios  1 : 8  ;  30,  are  rendered  indiscriminately  by  '  measure '  (se« 
next  §). 


WEIGHTS  AND  MEASUKES 


WEIGHTS  AND  MEASURES      911 


being  supplanted  in  later  times  by  tlie  kor ;  the 
hath,  hin,  and  log  onlj-  as  liquid  measures.  The 
proportions  in  the  table  show  the  inllueiice  of  the 
sexagesimal  system,  while  the  'omer  or  'iisnrun, 
iV  of  the  epnah,  represents  a  parallel  decimal 
subdivision  (see  below).  It  will  be  noted,  further, 
that  the  two  sets  are  essentially  identical.  In  the 
case  of  the  homer  and  the  kur,  also  of  the  ephnh 
and  the  hath,  this  identity  is  indeed  expressly 
attested  by  Ezekiel  in  an  imi)ortant  context, 
where  also  the  latter  pair  are  stated  to  be  a  tenth 
part  of  the  former  pair  (Ezk  45""). 

Of  the  absolute  values  of  the  various  denomina- 
tions in  terms  of  other  and  better-known  systems, 
we  have  no  reliable  evidence  older  than  the  1st 
cent,  of  our  era,  by  wliich  time,  as  the  latest 
Jewish  weight- system  so  strikingly  illustrated, 
Palestine  had  become  the  meeting-place  of  several 
sj'stems  of  metrology,  leading  to  an  unavoidable 
syncretism,  and  to  the  identitication  of  native 
■weights  and  measures  with  the  nearest  approxi- 
mations in  foreign  systems.  Bearing  this  in  mind, 
we  shall  now  adduce  a  few  of  the  more  useful 
equations  to  be  found  in  the  Anti</uities  of 
Josephus. 

(a)  VIII.  ii.  9  (Niese,   §  57),  the  hath  (ySdros)  is 

equivalent  to  72  sextarii  (^iarai). 

(b)  IX.  iv.  5  (§  85i,  the  seah  (<rdTov=i  ephah  or 

bath)  =  li  Koiiian  modii,  i.e.  24  sextarii. 

(c)  m.   viii.  3  (§   3U),   the  hin   {eXv  =  i   hath)  =  2 

Attic  choes,  i.e.  12  sextarii.     Cf.  III.  ix.  4 
(§  234). 
{d}  XV.  ix.  2  (§  314),  the  kor  (icipos  =  10  ep/uih- 
baths)  is  equivalent  to  10  Attic  nietretai, 
i.e.  720  sextarii  {fi.eSifii'ovs  [read  fierpr/Tas] 

Earlier  possibly  in  date  than  these  equations 
is  the  evidence  of  the  anonymous  fragment  wtpl 
M<rpwi'(Hultsch,  Metrol.  Script,  i.  258),  where  after 
the  definition  of  the  Phcen.  kor  as  containing  30 
seahs  it  is  added  :  '  the  seah  is  1^  modius,'  a  dehni- 
tion  identical  with  that  of  Jerome  commenting  on 
Mt  1.3^.  Now,  the  basis  of  all  these  equations  is 
the  identification,  as  a  glance  at  our  table  will 
show,  of  the  Hebrew  tor/  with  the  Grseco-Ilonian 
sextarius,  as  is  done  by  the  anonymous  translator 
of  Lv  14'°  cited  apud  Field,  Origenis  Ilexapla,  in 
lor.  (cf.  Antiq.  IX.  iv.  4  [§  62],  where  the  quarter 
kah  of  2  K  6^,  i.e.  the  log,  is  also  rendered  by 
ii<TTTi)s).  Evidence  to  the  same  ellect  might  be  pro- 
duced from  the  Mishna,  where  it  is  said  of  the 
ollerings  prescribed  in  the  Pentateuch  tliat  '  their 
measure  w  on  the  Roman  standard '  {Ki'lim  xvii. 
11).  The  determination  of  the  value  of  the 
scxtarius-xestes,  the  <:ommon  unit  of  the  Greek 
and  Roman  systems,  in  terms  of  our  imperial 
system  is  therefore  an  indisjiensable  preliminary 
to  further  progress.  Two  methods  are  open  to  us. 
We  may,  with  Hultsch,  start  from  the  ttieoretical 
and  legal  determination  of  the  Roman  quailnint.Tl 
as  80  Roman  jjounds  weight  of  wine,  and  the 
similar  determination  of  our  imperial  gallon  as  10 
lb.  of  water,  and  so  reach  a  value  for  the  sextarius 
of  'ye  imperial  pint,  the  value  adopted  in  the 
tables  in  Smith's  Diet,  of  Antiq.'  from  Hultsch, 
Metrol.'  (paxsim).  Or  we  may  prefer  the  deter- 
mination given  by  the  best  of  the  extant  Roman 
measures,  the  Famese  congius  in  Dresden,  which 
yields  a  sextarius  equal  to  99  of  a  pint.  This 
latter  method  has  the  advantage  of  allowing  the 
lextarivs-log  of  the  Jewish  system  to  be  taken,  for 
the  smaller  determinations,  as  the  equivalent  of 
our  pint,  and  will  be  followed  in  this  and  the 
subsequent  section.  This  gives  for  the  ephah-hat/i 
of  72  logs,  which  is  the  most  convenient  measure 
for  detailed  examination,  the  value  of  71-28  pints, 
•r  approximately  9  gallons  (see  table  below). 

\t  is  scarcely  to  be  expected,  however,  that  the 


measures  of  OT  times  can  have  been  so  precisely 
the  equivalent  of  the  Gr;eco-lli)inan  denominations 
as  this  identification  presupposes,  and  there  are 
not  wanting  indications  of  this  in  Josephus'  own 
writings  and  in  those  of  later  authors,  especially 
as  regards  the  larger  denominations.  Are  there, 
then,  sufficient  data  available  for  reaching  a 
closer  approximation  of  the  original  values  of  the 
Heb.  measures  ?  I'erhapsthe  most  unsatisfactory 
of  all  methods  of  solving  this  problem  is  that 
frequently  attempled,  down  even  to  our  own  day 
(see  Watson,  FhtSt,  1898),  on  the  basis  of  the 
dimensions  of  Solomon's  brazen  sea  and  the  lavers 
of  the  temple  (1  K7^''*'  with  paralls.  in  Chron., 
LXX,  and  Joseph.) — a  solution  wliich  the  conllict- 
ing  dimensions  m  the  literary  sources  named,  and 
our  ignorance  of  the  shape  of  the  vessels  in  ques- 
tion, render  only  less  futile  than  the  converse 
attempt  to  deduce  from  the  same  conflicting  and 
insufficient  data  the  length  of  the  Heb.  cubit ! 
But  little  more  satisfaction  is  obtained  by  starting 
from  the  Rabbinic  theor}',  that  the  log  was  equal 
in  cubic  content  to  six  medium-sized  eggs,  as  may 
be  seen  from  the  widely  divergent  results  in  the 
writings  of  previous  investigators.  The  Alex- 
andrian translators  (LXX),  finally,  to  whom  one 
naturally  turns  for  the  equivalents  of  the  Hebrew 
measures  in  the  Gijeco-Kgyp.  system,  are  dis- 
appointing in  the  extreme.  Here  transliterating, 
there  paraphrasing,  now  omitting  and  now  making 
a  random  guess,  these  translators  betray  a  re- 
markable ignorance  of  the  contemporary  Jewish 
measures  (see  next  g  for  ample  illustration). 

(«)  Two  features  of  the  system  under  investiga- 
tion seem  to  warrant  us  in  looking  once  more 
to  Babylonia  as  its  original  home,  namely  the 
number  of  logs  in  the  Aor  (720  =  .360  x  2),  as  if  the 
log  were  the  half  of  a  unit  that  has  now  dis- 
appeared, and  the  apparent  identity  of  the  kor 
with  the  Babylonian  ideogram  gur  (cf.  kikkar, 
talent,  with  Bab.  gaggaru).  Unfortunately,  it 
must  be  admitted  that,  notwithstanding  the  bril- 
liant researches  of  Oppert  and  his  fellow-workers, 
the  measures  of  volume  are  still  the  least  satis- 
factory dei)artment  of  Bab.  metrology  (see  esp. 
the  elaborate  exposition  and  criticism  in  Johns' 
Assyrian  Deeds,  etc.  [1901]).  Adopting,  however, 
with  due  reserve  the  view  of  Lehmann  and  others 
(cf.  above  §  vi.,  also  Hommel's  art.  Bahylonia, 
vol.  i.  [).  219)  that  tlie  unit  of  volume  was  the 
ka — which  Hommel  [I.e.)  would  identify  with  the 
Heb.  kah — equal  to  an  original  heavy  mina's 
weight  of  water  (15,1(50  grains,  see  §  ii.  above), 
we  get  1'73  imperial  pints  as  the  value  of  this 
unit,*  624  pints  for  a  gur  of  360  ka,  and  62'4  pints 
for  the  assumed  original  of  the  Heb.  ephah-bath. 
On  the  other  hand,  if  the  measures  of  volume 
increased  pari pas.tu-Kith  the  weights,  the  niina  of 
16,000  grains  which  has  been  ccjiielusively  proved 
to  have  been  adoi)ted  in  the  West  (§  ii.)  would 
yield  a  kor  of  658  pints  and  an  cp/iahbath  of  65'8 
pints. 

(6)  Again,  if  we  follow  the  clue  suggested  by 
the  Egyjitian  affinity  in  the  department  of  the 
linear  measures,  we  liiid  an  interesting  parallel  to 
the  treatment  of  the  Heb.  measures  in  the  Gneco- 
Roman  period.  A  working  equivalent  of  the 
epluik-balh,  we  have  seen,  was  obtained  by  identi- 
fying it  with  the  Attic  melretes  of  71  sextarii. 
Now,  precisely  this  same  equation  was  adopted  in 
Egypt  under  the  Ptolemies  for  a  measure  with  a 
long  jjcdigreo,  known  in  the  Ptolemaic  ages  as  the 
artabe  (dprd/Srjl.t     That  this  equation  of  the  artabe 

'  Tlic  Impcriiil  urallon  contains  10  lb.  (70,0U0  gniiiu)  of  distilled 
Wftlcr  at  a  tt-mperuturf  of  60'  Fahr. 

f  Wilckcn,  howovor,  haa  found  no  fewer  than  flvo  different 
artabff  in  use  in  E^'pt  in  the  Ptolemaic  period  (jOriteh. 
OMraka,  I.  740 11.). 


912      WEIGHTS  AND  MEASURES 


WEIGHTS  AND  MEASURES 


wit)i  the  mctrctes  was  a  working  and  not  a 
scientiliially  exact  equation,  is  evident  from  the 
fact  that  by  the  native  authorities  {Gritiith,  PSBA 
xiv.  435)  the  artabe  was  defined  as  containing  80 
Ejiyjitian  hin,  the  Iiin  being  a  volume  of  water  5 
ciehcn  in  weight  (7020-717U  grains,  according  to 
tlie  valuation  of  the  ket,  see  §  ii. ),  which  works 
out  at  a  little  less  or  more  than  65  pints  for  the 
artabe.  Now,  the  artabe  was  the  lineal  descendant 
of  an  ancient  measure  derived  from  a  fraction  of 
the  cubit  cubed  (Gritiith,  I.e.) ;  and  since  the  Egyp. 
cubits  passed  to  Palestine,  there  is  a  prima  facie 
case  for  suggesting,  as  an  alternative  to  the  Baby- 
lonian origin  of  the  ephah-bath,  its  derivation  from 
the  Eg^'ptian  sj'stem,  with  a  value  of  65  pints. 

(c)  But  there   is    more  reliable  evidence   than 
these   somewbat   hypothetical   deductions  as  to 


Epiphanius  in  his  work  on  weights  and  measure* 
(edited  by  Hultsch,  op.  cit.,  and  by  Lagarde  in  his 
Symmuta),  which  give  to  the  ephah  a  value  ranging 
from  64  to  66  sextai-ii.  For  other,  mainly  specula- 
tive, methods  of  calculation  see  Watson,  PEFSt, 
1898,  109  if.  (7-85  galls.),  and  Warren,  ib.  1899, 
252  tr.  (8-42  galls.). 

The  result  of  our  investigation,  then,  is  to  point 
to  an  approximate  value  for  the  ephah-bath  in  OT 
times  of  65  imperial  pints  (36  92  litres).  From  the 
necessity  of  establishing  a  more  convenient  work- 
ing equation  in  later  times,  it  was  regarded  in 
most  cases  as  the  equivalent  of  the  Attic  metretci 
of  72  Konian  sextarii,  or  9  galls,  nearly,  on  the 
basis  of  the  identification  of  the  log  witli  the  sex- 
tarius.  Both  these  values  are  given  in  the  following 
tables : — 


Table  of  Hebrew  Dry  Measures. 


Earlier  values 

Later  values 

Log. 

Kab. 

Omer. 

Seah. 

Ephah. 

in 

in 

Approximate 
values. 

Litres. 

Pints. 

Litres. 

Pints. 

Kai  :    :    : 

1 

•51 

•90 

•56 

■99 

1    pint 

4 

1 

>•* 

... 

... 

2  05 

3-6 

225 

3-96 

4    pints 

[Omer* 

'1} 

1* 

1 

... 

3-7 

6  5 

4-05 

7-13 

7i    ,,  ] 

Seah    . 

24 

6 

3* 

1 

12-3 

21-6 

13-5 

23-76 

li  pecks 
1    bushel 

Ephah 

Homer  or  Kor     . 

72 

18 

10 

3 

1 

36-92 

65 

40-5 

71-28 

720 

180 

100 

30 

10 

369-2 

650 

405 

712-8 

11    bushels 

the  actual  capacity  of  the  Heb.  measures,  the 
most  trustworthy  in  the  opinion  of  such  metro- 
logical  authorities  as  Hultsch  and  Petrie  being  a 
statement  in  an  unfortunately  corrupt  passage  of 
Josephus.  This  author,  writing  of  the  famine  in 
the  time  of  Claudius  (cf.  Ac  ll^"),  tells  of  IQkor  of 
wheat  being  brought  into  the  temple,  and  adds — 
adopting  Hultsch's  emendation,  Metro!.' 455— nodioi 
S^  ^LK€\ol  fiiv  elaiv  eh  Kdpos  TpidKOfTa,  ^AttlkoI  S^ 
TsauapaKovTu  eh  (Ant.  III.  xv.  3  [321]).  In  view 
of  the  connexion  of  Sicily  with  Phoenicia  through 
Carthage,  tlie  '30  Sicilian  modii'  are  most  prob- 
ably 30  Heb.  seahs, — this  rendering  of  the  seah  by 
modius  is  found  in  Epiphanius  and  other  writers  ; 
cf.  Mt  5"  /aiSios  for  the  seah-mea«ure, — while  the 
very  precise  statement  that  the  kor  contained  41 
Grjeco-Roman  modii  seems,  as  Hultsch  says,  to 
rest  upon  actual  measurement.  Now,  41  moiUi  or 
656  sextarii  yield  as  nearlj-  as  possible  650  pints  for 
the  kor,  or  65  for  the  ephah-bath. 

(d)  In  several  later  Gr.  writers  (see  Hultsch, 
Metrol.  Script.,  Index  under  (riroy)  the  .scixA  is 
given  as  I^  modii  instead  of,  as  by  Josephus 
and  Jerome,  H  modii,  that  is,  at  20  instead  of 
24  sextarii.  Now,  in  the  Mishna  there  are  fre- 
quent references  to  local  varieties  in  the  size  of 
the  !ieah,  kab,  etc.,  the  Jerus.  measures,  for  ex- 
ample, standing  to  those  of  Galilee  in  the  ratio 
of  5  :6,t  w^hich  is  precisely  the  proportion  disclosed 
by  the  variant  valuations  of  the  seah  just  cited. 
It  is  allowable,  in  the  Ii.i,'ht  cf  these  divergent 
equations,  to  hold  that  diljorent  authorities  made 
dill'erent  attemjjts  to  establish  a  convenient  equa- 
tion of  the  two  systems,  Jewish  and  Greek,  and 
that  the  true  value  of  the  ephah -bath  lay  between 
the  two  equations  of  (iO  and  72  sextarii  respectively, 
w  hich  is  quite  in  liarmony  with  the  more  positive 
results  already  obtained.  The  s.ame  conclusion  is 
established  by  a  study  cf  the  conllicting  data  of 

*  The  'ojnrr  is  here  inserted  for  comparison,  though  an  in- 
truder, as  the  fractional  proportions  show  ;  see  next  §. 

t  These  variations  in  quantity  may  also  have  been  due  to 
some  extent  to  the  difference  between  heaped  and  straked 
measure  ;  ct.  llaba  balhra  v.  11. 


Table  of  Hebrew  Liquid  Measures. 


Log 
Hin 
Bath 
Kor 


Log. 


Hin. 


Bath. 


I 

10 


Earliervalues :  Later  values 


Litres.  Pints.  Litres.  Pints. 


•61 

e^l2 

36-92 

369-2 


•90 
10^8 
66 
650 


■66  i       -99 

8-76  1  11-88 

40-5    i  71-28 

405        712-8 


Approxi' 
mate 
values. 


1  pint 
l^galls. 
9      ., 
90      „ 


X.  The  measures  of  Scripture. — It  only  remains 
to  make  a  short  reference  to  the  individual  measures 
in  the  canonical  and  deutero-canonical  writings. 
The  log,  the  lowest  denomination  in  both  the  wet 
and  dry  scales,  occurs  in  OT  only  in  the  rit^ual  for 
the  purification  of  the  leper  (Lv  H'"-^  LXX  kotuXij 
=  ^sextarius)  as  a  measvire  of  oil.  Originally  about 
-^  pint,  it  was  in  NT  times  identified  with  the  sex- 
tarius  (or  pint),  by  which  it  is  rendered  by  a  Gr. 
translator  cited  by  Origen  (Field,  Hexnpla,  m  loc.), 
and  was  then  used  as  a  dry  measure  as  well,  sub- 
divided binarily  down  to  j^  log,  the  J  log  being 
specially  frequent  in  the  Mishna.  The  irj  log  was 
also  1<nown  as  the  large  spoonful  (nnn  k*:?),  the  ^f 
as  the  small  spoonful  (Herzfeld,  Handelsgesch.  d. 
Juden,  184).  Four  logs  went  to  the  kab,  which  in 
OT  is  found  only  in  the  corrujit  passage  2  K  6^, 
which  speaks  of  '  the  fourth  part  of  a  kab '  (so  RV, 
A  V  '  cab  ').*  At  the  date  when  this  reading  arose 
the  log  was  probably  still  confined  to  liquids.  The 
LXX  render  by  Th-aprov  toO  /cd/Joir,  while  Josephus 
gives  the  equivalent  {^onjs  or  sextarius.  Peculiar 
to  the  Priests'  Code  is  the  next  highest  dry  measure, 
the  'issaron  (I^^7V  Ex  2Q^,  Lv  W>  etc. ),  the  tenth  deal 
of  our  AV,  i.e.  as  RV  '  the  tenth  part  of  an  ephah,' 
as  already  once  correctly  rendered  by  LXX  t4  5^«.o- 
TOK  ToO  ol<pl  (Nu  15*).  The  loaves  of  the  shewbread 
contained  each  two'issarons  (Lv  24»),  transliterated 
aaaapiif  by  Josephus,  who  wrongly  gives  its  value 

•  Cheyne,  however,  would  read  •  a  quarter  of  a  kor  of  carob- 
pods,'  eta.  (£zpoi.,  July  1899). 


"WEIGHTS  AND  MEASURES 


WELL 


913 


M  '  7  Attic  cotylK,'  or  onlj-  3J  sexlarii  (3J  instead 
of  6-7  pints).  A  special  name  for  this  measure  is 
found  in  the  ston"  of  the  manna  (Ex  If)'""),  viz. 
the  oraer  (■cy,  LXX  y6/iop),  defined  in  v.*  as  '  the 
tenth  part  of  the  eijhah,'  the  same  expression  as  is 
found  in  Lv  5"  6™  etc.  In  Ex  16  ='•  the  term  is 
used  of  the  'onwr-measure.  This  decimal  division 
of  the  ephah  is  another  indication  of  the  conflict 
between  the  decimal  and  duodecimal  or  sexagesimal 
systems,  which  met  us  in  connexion  with  the  Heb. 
weiitht-system.  It  was  probably  confined  to  priestly 
circles,  as  it  does  not  fit  into  the  rest  of  the  system 
below  the  ephah. 

The  sixth  part  of  the  ephnh-bath  for  liquids  was 
the  hin  (i-.i,  LXX  lv  or  etv  [B],  but  x°"^,  Lv  ig^"),  a 
term  apparently  of  Egyp.  origin,  the  henu  (Coptic 
eiiic)  of  Egjpt,  however,  being  a  much  smaller 
measure  (see  preceding  §).  With  the  exception  of 
Ezk  4"  (J  hin  of  water),  the  hin  occurs  exclusively 
in  the  Priests'  Code  in  connexion  with  the  ott'erings 
of  wine  and  oil  that  accompanied  the  mealotfering. 
Tlius  we  have  ^  hin,  J  hin,  i  hin,  all  in  Nu  28". 
The  value  of  the  hin  was  IJ-IJ  galls.  The  double 
of  the  hin,  the  seah  (ins,  airov),  was  used  exclu- 
sively as  a  dry  measure,  containing  6  kabs  (see 
Mishna,  Menahoth  vii.  1  ;  Para  i.  1,  and  oft,).  It 
was  the  third  of  the  ephnh,  and  is  therefore  to  be 
identified  with  the  shalish  (Is  40'-,  lit.  'third,' 
hence  AVm  '  tierce ').  The  ^cah  is  variously 
rendered  by  the  LXX ;  but  where  not  given  by 
the  general  term  luTpov,  whence  our  AV  'measure,' 
it  is  wrongly  identified  with  the  ephah  (1  S  2.')") 
or  with  the  metrctcs  (\  K  18^-).  The  correct  adrov 
is  found  in  the  later  translations  of  Aquila  and 
.Symmachus,  but  in  LXX  only  in  Hag  2'"i"i,  where 
no  measure  is  named  in  the  original.  In  the  NT 
also  it  appears  as  aaTov  (Mt  13^,  Lk  13-'  '  three 
measures  of  meal '),  where  it  is  equal  in  value  to 
\k  modii  (Jerome)  or  24  pints,  the  'three  measures' 
being,  of  course,  an  ephah  or  IJ  bushels  of  flour.* 
We  have  seen  in  a  former  section  that  a  seah  of 
seed  was  calculated  to  sow  a  surface  of  2500  sq. 
cubits,  which  thus  became  the  common  unit  of 
surface  measure. 

The  most  common  of  the  large  measures  was  the 
eph'th-bnth,  originally  in  all  probability  equal  to 
65-OG  pints,  but  in  NT  times  identiliccl  with  the 
metretes  of  nearly  72  pints.  The  ephah  was  used 
exclusively  for  measuring  grain  and  otln  r  dry  sub- 
htances,  the  bath  exclusi  velj'  for  liquids.  The  former 
term  ajipears  to  be  of  Egyp.  origin,  and  is  given  as 
ol<pi  by  the  LXX  (cf.  Coptic  oipi)  when  not  rendered 
by  nirpov  (botli  in  Ezk  45").  On  the  other  hand, 
they  render  the  ephah  of  Is  5'°  by  Tpla  fi&pa, 
evidently  3  yea/w,  and  so  expressly  in  the  Targuni 
of  this  passage  (cf.  Menahulti  vii.  1).  The  h  ephah 
of  Ezk  45"  46'*  is  accordingly  A  seah.  For  the 
bath  the  LXX  again  use  their  favourite  ^Urpov, 
or  the  absurd  x"'"'?  (only  2  pints  !  Ezk  45'"),  only 
once  the  correct  jSdroj  (Ezr  7-^).  The  'hundred 
niea.sures  of  oil'  (Lk  10")  in  the  unjust  steward's 
accounts  were  100  hathi,  or  close  on  900  gallons. 
The  highest  denomination  in  the  system  was  the 
homer  (X-')  or  kor  (i:,  EV  '  cor '  in  Ezk  45'*,  but 
generally  '  measure'),  both  used  with  considerable 
fre(iuency  in  OT  as  a  measure  of  barley  (Lv  27" 
etc.),  wheat  (Ezk  45"),  and  cereals  generally.  The 
identity  of  the  kor  and  the  homer,  as  each  contain- 
ing 10  cphah-baths,  with  the  information  that  the 
kor  was  also  used  for  liquids,  is  given  by  Ezekiel 
(45"''-).  The  latter  came  in  time  to  be  the  name  in 
ordinary  use  for  both  wet  ami  dry  measure,  and 
pas-scd  to  the  Greeks  aa  the  K6po%  (\  Es  8'*).  The 
'hundred  measures  of  wheat'  of  Lk  16'  are  100 
kor.i,  at  tliis  period  equal  to  more  than  1 1 10  bushels. 
Hosea  tells  us  that  |)art  of  the  |)rice  he  paid  for  the 

*  The  same  quantity  in  Sarah's  hands  (On  \&)  was  nearer  a 
mibel. 

vol-  IV.— 58 


recover}'  of  his  unfaithful  wife  was  a  homer  of 
barley  and  a.tethekh  (-''^),  which  our  EV,  following 
Jewish  (tadition,  render  as  'half  a  homer'  (Ilos  3-), 
a  value  which  it  certainly  has  in  the  Mishna. 

In  the  NT  we  find  the  names  of  Gra'co-Uoman 
measures,  although  in  some  cases  the  terms  are 
not  used  as  measures,  but  as  the  names  of  house- 
hold utensils.  Thus  the  xcxtcs  of  Mk  7*",  properly 
the  scxtariiis  or  pint  measure,  is  here  used  generally 
of  a  cup  or  other  small  domestic  vessel.  The  mudius 
(^«i5ios)of  Mt5"and  parallels,  however,  is  a  classical 
loan-word  for  the  housewife's «<;aA-ineasure  required 
for  the  daily  provision  of  the  household  bread.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  'firkins'  of  Jn  2"  are  the  Gr 
metretes  of  c.  72  pints,  which  we  have  seen  to  bo 
the  working  equivalent  of  the  bath.  Apart  from 
its  careless  use  by  the  LXX,  now  for  ^eah,  now 
for  bath,  it  is  found  1  Es  8'-"  (AV  '  pieces  of  wine,' 
KV  'firkins')  and  Bel  »  (AV  'vessels  of  oil,'  HV 
'  firkins ').  We  have  seen  above  that  the  metretes 
was  also  the  working  equivalent  in  Egypt  of  the 
artabc  (apri^ri,  liel'AV  and  KV  'great  measures'; 
also  Is  5'°  LXX,  anotlier  gross  miscalculation), 
which  was  originally  of  the  same  cubic  capacity 
as  the  epluih-h'dh,  i.e.  e.  65  pints.  The  author  of 
the  Fourth  Gospel  represents  Mary  of  Bethany  as 
taking  a  Xirpa  (EV  '  ]iound  ')  of  ointment  of  spike- 
nard to  anoint  our  Saviour's  feet  (Jn  12^).  This 
has  usually  been  understood  of  the  Koman  jiound, 
as  in  Jn  19'"  ;  and  probably  with  justice.  Ilultsch, 
however  (J/cir/.- 720  f.,  602),  understands  by  the 
former  litra  the  vessel  of  horn,  in  which  such  un- 
guents were  kept  by  the  Roman  physicians,  with 


medicine  glasses,  and  which  certainly  bore  this 
name.  Mention  is  made,  last  of  all,  in  Scripture 
of  the  small  Gr.  measure  the  chosnix  (xof<"s,  licv  6') 
of  two  sexlarii  or  pints  as  a  '  measure '  (AV)  of 
wheat.* 

LiTKRATURK. — A .  General  works  on  metrology :  A.  Boeckh, 
.Mftrotoijisc/ie  U nlersudiuiujen,  1638;  J.  Brundis,  iJiu  M  uiu; 
Maa.^;und  Getcichtitgi/ntem  in  V(yrderat;icu,  ISIJO;  F.  Ilultsch, 
(iriechische  u.  Riiinuche  Metrotnnie^,  18b2  (tiie  standard  work 
on  ancient  metroloj^y.  iiiit  already  oul>  of  date  in  many  parts); 
also,  Metrologiconun  Scriptorum  lieliquue,  2  vols.  1804  ;  W. 
M.  F.  Pctrie,  art.  '  Wei'.,'hts  and  Measures'  in  Kncyc.  Drxt.i 
18SS;  H.  Nissen,  'Griech.  li.  rdm.  MclroIot,'ie '  in  Iwan  .Miiller's 
JJawtb.  rf.  kta^s.  AtUrtujn^msgenscttaft,  1S92  (also  separately); 
W.  Itidffeway,  The  Origin  of  Metattie  Currenctf  and  M'c/i/Af 
Stamlards,  1892.  —  B.  Special  treatises  and  essays  :  Ihitlsch, 
Griri^ihte  det  Altertiimn,  1898;  U.  I.epsius,  LuiigfntiifiiDif  der 
Alien,  18.S4.  On  Babylonian  metroInj;y :  J.  Oppert,  L'Etaton 
det  me«ureg  Afgyvi&nnes,  IB76  (antiquated);  C.  I.  Lehmann, 
•  Daa  altbabylonisfhe  Mass  und  Gcwicht  und  deien  Wande- 
rung'  in  Verhandl.  der  Serliner  AnthropoL  (!rse[hr/tn/t,  IbiiQ; 
also  in  several  succcedinf,'  years  to  IbJKJ ;  the  same  author's  Dot 
allbabtil.  MaaS'  mu.1  (Jcwiehtsttystein  ata  ('ntndtage  der  antC. 
ken  GirmchUnygtenie,  etc.,  IbiW;  C.  H.  W.  Johns,  Aimjrian 
Deeds  and  Documents,  1901  (ch.  ill.  'Metrology,'  very  full 
collection  of  material).  For  E{,'vpt:  F.  LI.  GritRth,  'Notes  on 
E|;>iitian  Weights  and  Measures  '  in  P.'SBA,  1892  (pp.  40S-460): 
for  the  Ptolemaic  period,  U.  Wilcken.  Griechinc/ie  0»traka,  1899, 
i.  T;is-7hO.  For  late  Jewish  metrology:  B.  Zuckerniann,  Ueber 
talunuiische  Miinzen  und  G'eu-ichte,  1862,  Das  judische  J/ooj- 
systein,  etc.,  1867.  On  the  general  subject  of  the  above  article 
see  also  corresponding  article  in  Smith's  DB,  and  SchradeKs 
articles  'Gewicht'  and  'Masse'  in  Kichm's  //IK/?^;  also  the 
relevant  sections  in  Nowack,  llett.  Arch.  1894,  i.  103 IT.,  and 
Benzinger,  Ilcb.  Arch.  lS9t,  178  ft.,  and  the  recent  papers  on 
the  measures  of  length  and  capacity  hv  Col.  Watson  in  thr 
PEFSl,  1897,  1S98,  and  SirC.  Warren,  'The  Ancient  Standard* 
of  Measure  in  the  East,'  ib.  1899;  Schrader-Winckler,  Dis 
KeiUnncliri/tm  u.  d.  A7'\  190?.  S37-3-12 ;  W.  ShawCaldeootL, 
Biblt  Archteology,  1902,  part  1.  MctrologicaL 

A.  R.  S.  Ke.nnedv. 
WELL. — A  distinction  is  now  made  in  Eng.  he- 
tween  the  words  'fountain'  and  'well'  whirh  did 
not  exist  when  the  AV  was  made.  According  to 
its  etymology  (Anglo-Sax.  ivijlla  or  wella,  a  spring, 
from  weallan  to  surge,  boil,  and  akin  to  Sniisk.  val 

•  The  vague  '  measure,'  it  tuav  he  useful  to  state  here,  standi 
In  AV  for  ephah  Dt  2.'.'*',  I'r  -.'Oi",  Mic  Ol"  ;  *or  1  K  4'-f-M'  f."  >iU 
2Ch  210 W"  2711,  Ezr  7«;  teah  Gn  18«,  IS  2.1'»,  1  K  IH''^,  2K 
7IM».16(,(j..l8(.ij.  Is  27»|hut  see  RV  and  Comm.l;  »Ad/li/  Ps  80«, 
Is  to":  /9«T«<  (  =  balh)  Lk  10« ;  »^  (=l:or)  Lk  10'  »r» 
(=fftiA)  Mt,  13M-Lk  13»i ;  x«"'{  Key  ««. 


014 


WELL 


WHEAT 


to  move  to  and  fro),  '  well '  was  need  of  springing 
water,  and  not  confined  as  now  to  water  standing 
in  a  hole  or  stored  up  in  a  pit.  Thus  Chaucer, 
Death  of  Blatinche,  160 — 

*  Ther  were  a  fewe  welles 
Came  renning  (ro  the  cUffes  adoun*; 

Milton,  Lycidas,  15 — 

'  Begrin  then,  sisters  of  the  sacred  well 
That  from  beneath  the  seal  of  Jove  doth  spring.* 

In  AV  '  well '  is  therefore  an  accurate  rendering  of 
such  words  as  'ayin  and  vrrffi.  In  RV  the  attempt 
has  been  made  here  and  there,  but  not  consistently, 
to  bring  out  the  modern  distinction.  See  next 
article.  J.  Hastings. 

WELL  (nxi,  Til  [properly  '  cistern '],  pB,  is'P  [both 
=  ' fountain '],  Trrj-yij,  (ppiap). — The  art  of  sinking 
wells  for  supply  of  water  in  the  absence  of  springs 
or  brooks  comes  down  from  very  early  times. 
Tliree  wells  of  special  interest  are  noted  in  the 
Bible :  ( 1 )  Abraham's  well  at  Beersheba ;  (2) 
Jacob's  well  near  the  village  of  Sychar  {'As/car)  in 
Samaria  ;  and  (3)  the  well  at  the  gate  of  Beth- 
lehem. AH  these  are  in  existence  at  the  present 
day.  For  the  first  see  Beeesheba  and  Shibah. 
(2)  The  digging  of  Jacob's  well  is  not  recorded  in 
the  OT,  but  in  the  NT  we  have  the  interesting 
account  of  the  conversation  between  our  Lord  and 
the  woman  of  Samaria  (Jn  4°-  °)  which  took  place 
at  this  spot.  The  village  of  'Askar,  which,  accord- 
ing to  Conder,  is  the  modem  representative  of 
Sychar,  stands  on  the  slope  of  Mount  Ebal  within 
siglit  of  Jacob's  well.*  See  further  under  Jacob's 
Well.  (3)  The  well  of  Bethlehem,  for  whose 
water  David  thirsted  (1  Ch  11"),  is  shown  to 
travellers  by  the  roadside  on  approaching  Beth- 
lehem from  Jerusalem.  There  is  no  reason  to 
doubt  that  it  is  the  same  which  existed  in  the 
days  of  David. 

Wells  in  Eastern  countries  have  always  been  of 
the  highest  importance  as  objects  of  possession 
and  as  historical  landmarks.  It  was  one  of  the 
special  privileges  accorded  to  the  Israelites  that 
they  should  come  into  possession  of  wells  which 
they  themselves  had  not  digged  (Dt  6").t  and  they 
sometimes  became  objects  of  strife  (Gn  21^).  This 
is  not  to  be  wondered  at,  considering  the  difficulty 
of  sinking  wells  into  the  rock  in  tlnse  early  times, 
and  the  great  value  of  the  water  when  it  had  been 
reached.  E.  Hull. 

WENCH.— The  translators  of  AV  accepted  this 
word  from  the  Bishdps'  Bible  as  the  tr.  of  shiphhah 
in  2  S  17".  Wyclif  has  (1382)  '  bondwomman  '  and 
(1388)  'handmaide,' Cov.  'damsell,'  Geneva  Bible 
'  maid.'  The  oldest  form  of  the  word  is  weiuhel 
(from  Anglo-Sax.  wendo,  plu.  '  children '),  which 
signilied  a  child  of  either  sex,  as  Anrrcn  Eiwle, 
334,  '  Were  and  wif  and  wenchel.'  Afterwards  in 
the  contracted  form  '  wenche  '  it  was  restricted  to 
a  female  child,  a  girl,  or  young  woman.  Thus  Mt 
9S4  ■\Wc.  '  Go  ye  away,  for  the  wenche  is  not  dead, 
but  slepith  '  ;  Mk  S'"  Rhem.  '  And  holding  the 
wenches  hand,  he  saith  to  her,  Talitha  rumi,  which 
is  being  interpreted,  wenche  (I  say  to  thee)  arise '  ; 
Elyot,  O'dfcrnoKr,  ii.  324, 'Achilles  .  .  .  for  a  lytle 
wenche  contended  with  Agamemnon.'  By  1611  the 
most  frequent  use  of  the  word  was  to  denote  a 
servant  maid,  its  meaning  (as  above)  in  AV.  So 
Mt  26"  Tind.  '  When  he  was  goone  out  into  the 
poorche,  a  nother  wenche  saw  him' ;  Jn  18"  Rhem. 

•  Tent-Work,  40.  Conder  says:  'The  tradition  of  Jacob's 
well  is  one  in  which  the  Jews,  Sam&ritans,  Moslems,  and 
Christiana  alike  agree.'    lb.  33. 

t  KV  '  Cisterns  hewn  out  which  thou  bewedst  not,'  probably 
both  wells  and  cisterns  were  intended. 


'  The  wench  therfore  that  was  portresse  saith  to 
Peter.'  But  the  word  was  already  used  in  a  sense 
that  opened  the  way  to  its  present  deterioration, 
as  Bar  6"  Cov.  '  Like  as  a  wench  that  loveth  pera- 
mours  is  trymly  deckte.'  J.  HASTINGS. 

WHALE The  EV  tr"  of  two  words.     1.  in  tan, 

and  its  derivatives  (see  DRAGON  and  Sea-Monster). 
2.  Krrros  (Mt  12").  The  latter  is  the  LXX  and  NT 
rendering  of  Sh|  3^  ddgh  qddhdl,  '  a  great  fish ' 
(Jon  1").  There  is  no  doubt  of  the  existence  of 
whales  in  the  Mediterranean.  Large  parts  of  the 
skeletons  of  two  specimens  of  the  right  whale  are 
preserved  in  the  museum  of  the  Syrian  Protestant 
College  at  Beirflt.  One  of  these  animals  was 
cast  up  on  the  shore  near  Tyre,  not  far  from  the 
traditional  site  of  the  ejection  of  Jonah,  which  is 
at  Nebi-Yunfls,  near  Zidon.  The  other  was  drifted 
ashore  at  Beirflt  itself.  But  the  gullet  of  this 
species  would  not  admit  a  man.  The  sperm  whale 
has  a  gullet  quite  large  enouj^h  to  enable  him  to 
swallow  a  man.  It  is  probable  that  one  of  these 
monsters  occasionally  wanders  into  the  Levant. 
KijTos,  however,  includes  marine  monsters  other 
than  the  whale,  as  the  shark.  Sharks  exist  in  the 
Mediterranean  large  enough  to  swallow  a  man 
whole.  The  writer  has  seen  one  at  Beirflt  20  ft. 
long.  They  sometimes  attain  a  length  of  30  ft. 
There  are  abundant  testimonies  in  books  of  travel 
and  works  of  natural  history  to  the  fact  that 
sharks  have  swallowed  men,  and  even  horses  and 
other  large  animals,  whole  (see  Pusey).  The  pre- 
servation of  Jonah  alive  in  the  belly  of  the  fish 
seems  to  be  intended  by  the  writer  to  be  considered 
part  of  a  continued  miracle.  '  The  Lord  prepared 
a  great  lish  to  swallow  up  Jonah  '  (1").  The  Lord 
heard  Jonah's  prayer  (2'-).  '  The  Lord  spake  unto 
the  fish,  and  it  vomited  out  Jonah  upon  the  dry 
land'  (2"').     But  see  art.  Jonah. 

G.  E.  Post. 

WHEAT. — The  following  Heb.  words  are  used 
for  '  wheat.'  1.  1;  bar,  12  Mr  (Arab,  burr),  is  most 
frequently  tr.  'corn'  (Gn  41«-«  423- «,  Ps  6o»- >* 
7211.16,  Pr  U--*).  In  four  places  (Jer  23^,  Jl  2", 
Am  5"  8")  '  wheat '  is  the  more  correct  rendering. 
2.  [jn  daghan.  This  is  generic  for  cereals  (see 
Corn).  It  is,  however,  twice  tr.  in  AV  'wheat' 
(Nu  18>^  .ler  31'-;  RV  'corn').  'Corn'  (generic) 
is  undoubtedly  correct.  3.  ms"?  riphfAh.  Once 
(2  S  17'")  tr.  in  AV  '  ground  corn,'  RV  '  bruised 
com,'  and  once  (Pr  27")  AV  '  wheat,'  RV  '  bmised 
corn.'  The  Arabs  have  two  ways  of  preparing 
this  substance,  (a)  The  wheat  is  boiled,  dried  in 
the  sun,  and  then  cracked  under  a  wheel  or  in  a 
mortar.  So  prepared  it  is  called  hurghul.  The 
fragments  are  exceedingly  hard,  and  resist  the 
action  of  weevils  and  other  insects,  (b)  The  wlieat 
is  cracked  under  a  hand  millstone,  without  previous 
boiling.  This  preparation  is  called  jerish.  It  is 
quite  similar  iu  appearance  and  properties  to  our 
wheaten  grits.  'Though  thou  shouldest  bray  a 
fool  in  a  mortar  among  wheat  with  a  pestle'  (Pr 
27--),  may  refer  to  the  preparation  of  these  grits 
with  a  hand  mortar,  or  to  the  process  of  pounding 
giits  in  a  stone  mortar  with  a  wooden  pestle,  with 
meat,  onions,  and  spices,  in  making  klbbeh,  the 
favourite  national  dish  of  Bible  lands.  \.  ■■!?" 
Idttah  (.-Vrab.  hint/ih).  This  is  the  specific  word 
for  wheat,  as  distinguished  from  other  cereals. 

Grains  of  wheat  have  been  found  in  very  ancient 
tombs  in  Egypt,  and  in  the  ruins  at  Tell  el-Hesy  iu 
Palestine.  Wheat  is  first  mentioned  in  Gn  30", 
where  its  harvest  sea.son  is  designated  (cf.  Ex  34**, 
Jg  15',  Ru  2^,  1  S  6"),  as  also  the  barley  harvest 
(Ru  I^  2^).  The  wheat  harvest  commences  in  the 
lowlands  of  the  Jordan  Valley  in  April,  and  ends 
on  subalpine  Lebanon  in  August.  Wheat  was  an 
article  of  export  from  Judaia  (Ezk  27").    It  wa» 


WHEEL 


AVHIRLWIXD 


915 


offered  in  sacrifice  (Ex  34^),  as  were  all  cereals  (Nii 
18"  ddghan  =  '  com,'  as  in  KV,  not  '  wlio.it ,'  as  in 
AV).  It  was  of  different  oualities  (Ps  81'"  147"). 
Some  produced  10<i  grains  (Mt  13').  Tliis  is  not  an 
e.\aggeration  in  the  case  of  the  Egyptian  nlieat 
(Gn  4F-),  the  panicle  of  which  is  compound. 
'Kidneys  of  wheat'  (Dt  32")  doubtless  relers  to 
the  fat  grains  of  the  best  (jualities.  It  is  usual  at 
the  present  day  to  cut  off  bunches  of  the  fattest 
wlieat  ears  while  still  green,  and  toast  them  in  the 
lire.  Other  cereals  are  treated  in  the  same  way. 
Thus  cooked,  they  are  the  'green  ears  of  corn 
dried  by  tlie  fire,  even  com  bejiten  out  of  the  full 
ears '  ( A  V  Lv  2",  KV  '  corn  in  the  ear  parched  with 
lire,  bruised  com  of  the  fresh  ear '),  and  '  parclied 
corn,'  Heb.  'parched'  (1  S  17" 25",  2 S  17'^).  Tliey 
are  a  favourite  food  of  the  people  a  month  or  so 
before  the  harvest.  The  Arabs  call  them  fcrih. 
Nearly  ripe  ears  are  rubbed  out  in  the  hands,  and 
the  grains  eaten  raw  (Lk  6'  etc.).  An  car  of  corn 
was  called  shibholcth,  which  the  Ephraimites  pro- 
nounced sibhokth  (Jg  12").    See  Shiuholeth. 

The  wild  original  of  wheat  is  unknown.  Some 
have  suggested  that  it  is  derived  from  /Egilups 
ovata,  L.  Only  one  species  of  wild  wheat,  Triti- 
cum  monococcum,  L.,  is  found  in  Palestine,  and  that 
only  in  northernmost  Syria.  G.  E.  Po.sT. 

WHEEL. — Various  Heb.  words  are  so  translated. 
1.  □:;:(<  turnings,  wheels.  In  Jer  18'  this  word 
(used  elsewhere  only  Ex  1",  where  moh.=scUa 
parturienlis)  refers  to  the  potter's  wheel.  In  Syria 
this  is  commonly  two  horizontal  discs  of  wood 
joined  together  by  an  upright  pillar  or  axle. 
On  the  upper  disc  the  clay  is  put  which  is  to  be 
formed  into  a  vessel,  while  the  lower  one  is  t\irned 
by  the  feet  of  the  potter.  2.  [S'n  refers  to  cliariot 
wheels  in  Ex  14^,  Nah  3^  Ezk  I""-  ;  in  1  K  7*'"-'- 
to  the  wheels  of  the  bases  of  the  lavers  of  the 
temple ;  in  Pr  20-'«,  Is  28-'',  to  the  rollers  of  a 
threshing -waggon.  3.  Sj^a,  a  rolling  thinj;,  a 
wheel.  In  Ps  S3"  it  is  applied  to  the  dust  raised 
by  a  whirlwind,  '  whirling  dust.'  In  Ec  12"  it 
refers  to  the  wheel  of  a  cistern  or  well  ;  to  chariot 
wheels  in  Is  5^,  Jer  47',  Ezk  10'- "  li'*  26'"  ;  and  in 
Dn  7'  to  wheels  of  throne  of  burning  lire.  Another 
form  S;^3  is  found  in  Is  28-'*,  and  is  applied  to  the 
rollers  of  a  thresliing-waggon.  4.  c;j5  beat,  steji, 
in  Jg  5^  probably  refers  to  the  noise  made  by 
chariots,  or  to  the  step  of  the  horses  drawing  them. 
It  is  evident  from  Scripture  that  chariots  were 
frequently  used  in  Syria  and  Palestine,  and  the 
wheels  must  have  been  very  strongly  made  to  with- 
stand the  rocky  roads  over  which  tliey  were  driven. 
On  the  old  road  near  the  mouth  of  the  Nuhr  el- 
Kelb,  or  Dog  Kiver,  a  few  miles  north  of  I'eirrtt, 
along  which  both  Assyrian  and  Egyptian  armies 
passed,  the  marks  of  the  chariot  wheels  are  still  to 
be  seen,  deeply  engraved  in  the  rock.  After  the 
Mohammedan  invasion,  wheeled  carriages  ceased 
to  be  used,  and  it  was  only  about  the  middle  of 
this  century  that  they  were  reintroduced  by 
Europeans.  The  wheels  of  the  ancient  Egyptian 
chariots  had  six  spokes  (D'p^'n),  which  connected 
the  nave  (i:s'n)  with  the  felloes  or  rim  (33).  Slits 
were  made  in  the  tyre,  through  which  bands  were 
pa-ssed  and  fastened  round  the  rim.  The  axle-tree 
(T)  was  fixed  to  the  body  of  the  chariot,  and  its  ex- 
tremities were  rounded  where  they  passed  through 
the  wheels.  The  wheels  were  secured  by  pins. 
The  wheel  evidently  had  its  origin  in  the  roller, 
then  discs  of  wood  were  used,  and  in  India  wheels 
are  often  made  of  planks  of  wood  nailed  together 
and  then  cut  into  a  circular  shape. 

On  the  '  wheel  of  nature,'  Ja  3'  RV,  see  esp. 
Mayor,  in  loc.  W.  Cai^LAW. 

WHELP.-iJ,  lit.  ■  eon '  (Job  4"  28»),  -mi  (Jer  51" 


Ezk  19'»-»,  Nah  2"- '»),  (tki'./xxos  (1  Mac  3*  used  of 
the  young  of  the  lion  (see  Lion))  ;  in  2  S  17',  Pr  17", 
Ilos  13",  of  bears'  cubs  (see  IJKAU).  In  the  last  three 
passages  the  Heb.  is  simply  Sirp  '  bereaved,'  the 
words  '  of  her  whelps'  being  supplied  in  EV. 

WHIRLWIND  Cn'Ci  aa'ar,  m^:)  fg-drdh,  n^iD 
ft'fpkd/i). — The  terra  is  applied  generally  to  any 
violent  destructive  wind.  The  same  words  are 
often  translated  in  other  passages  by  '  storm '  or 
•tempest,'  e.g.  Ps  55"  S3'»  (both  ^a'ar);  Is  29" 
isCarah):  Am  1",  Jon  1*-"  (all  three  saar). 
The  'whirlwind'  of  AV  is  rendered  'tempest' 
by  RVin  Jer  23"  25^  30=^  (aU  se-ardh);  'stormy 
wind'  in  Ezk  1^  (ruah  fe'drah)  ;  'storm'  in  Job 
37"  and  Is  17"  (both  suphdk).  The  term  'whirl- 
wind '  is  used  botli  in  a  ph3'sical  and  a  symbedical 
sense.  In  the  former  we  may  take  the  passage 
descriptive  of  the  rapture  of  Elijah  in  2  K  2', 
as  also  that  in  Job  21 '»  37",  Is  17"  21',  Ezk  1<, 
Am  1",  Nah  P,  Ps  107-^  148';  but  in  the  remain- 
ing passages  the  terra  is  used  figuratively :  of 
chariots  (Is  5=*  66",  Jer  4",  Dn  ll-""),  the  passion- 
ate acts  of  man  (Ps  .15"),  the  ruin  brought  upou 
man  by  his  sin  (Hos  S'  ami  ol't. ),  or  the  anger  of 
God  against  the  wicked  (Pr  l^andoft. );  nor  can 
the  term  be  considered  inapt  from  what  we  know 
of  the  destructive  effect  of  rotatory  storms  in 
some  countries.  To  such  storms  the  references 
in  the  Bible  must  be  considered  to  refer ;  but, 
strictly  speaking,  whirlwinds  differ  essent  ially  from 
C3-clones,  which  arise  from  uneciual  distribution 
of  atniosjiheric  pressure  over  horizontal  areas ; 
whereas  whirlwinds,  tornadoes,  dust-storms,  and 
waterspouts  are  different  forms  of  atmospheric 
movement  conseqtient  on  a  vertical  disturbance  of 
the  equilibrium  of  tlie  air.  When  occurring  over 
the  sea  or  inland  lakes  the  rotatory  movement 
gives  rise  to  waterspouts ;  wlien  over  tlie  land, 
and  especially  over  a  sandy  desert,  a  dust-storm, 
a  cause  of  terror  to  caravans  and  wandering  Arabs, 
is  the  result.  As  this  is  the  form  which  is  most 
usual  in  liible  lands,  it  may  be  referred  to  in  a 
little  further  detail.  When  a  dust-storm  is  about 
to  commence,  the  air  is  unusually  stagnant  and 
sultry  ;  presently  a  tall  column  of  sand  approaches, 
moving  in  a  certain  direction,  and  drawing  into 
itself  as  it  moves  alon^  sand,  dust,  and  liglit 
bodies  whirling  around  the  centre  of  the  colunm. 
Sometimes  several  of  these  columns  move  over  the 
surface,  each  gyrating  independently  round  its 
own  axis.  Observations  made  on  such  phenomena 
appear  to  show  that  the  air  of  the  surface  is 
strongly  drawn  in  towards  tlie  base  of  each 
column,  and  that  it  ascends  along  the  central 
axis  of  the  whirlwind.  The  onlj'  course  of  safety 
for  the  traveller  over  the  desert,  on  the  approach 
of  a  dust-storm,  is  to  descend  from  his  camel, 
throw  himself  on  the  ground,  and  completelj'  cover 
his  head  with  his  mantle,  till  the  storm  passes 
away.  In  the  tales  of  the  Arabian  Nigliln,  and 
gener.ally  in  the  folk-lore  of  the  East,  ti.e  travel- 
ling dust-pillar  is  regarded  as  a  favourite  abode  of 
the  'afrit  or  gen  ius  luci. 

During  the  storms  that  precede  the  rain  at 
the  end  of  summer  (September  and  October),  the 
wind  hustles  along  in  front  of  it,  to  the  depth 
of  some  three  feet  above  the  ground,  a  vast  col- 
lection of  thistle-tops  and  various  seed-vessels. 
They  hasten  along  so  that  before  the  rain  comes 
they  may  find  each  in  its  little  hollow  or  crevice 
a  resting-place  in  which  to  die  and  become  fruit- 
ful. In  places  where  the  wild  artichoke  abounds, 
lis  in  the  great  open  plain  betweni  the  t\vo  Leba- 
iions,  the  rushing  wind  siia]is  off  the  dry,  gUilm- 
lur,  dahlia-like  tops,  and  urges  them  along,  like 
the  jumping  chariots  (Nah  3)  of  the  As.syriaii  king. 
They   move   with   military   precision,  now  charg- 


916 


WHITE 


WIDOW 


inc  at  the  double-quick,  and  then  wheeling  to  right 
or  left,  as  if  imitating  some  phantom  fugleman,  or 
obeying  some  ghostly  word  or  command.  Thomson 
is  of  opinion  that  this  must  be  the  '  wlieel '  of  I's  83'", 
rolling  thing  of  Is  17"  (''jW)  ;  in  both  instances 
RV  'whirling  dust'  (Land  and  Book,  S.  Pal.  212). 
The  driving  power  of  the  storm  is  exemplified  in 
Ex  10"-'»,  Nu  11",  1  K  19". 

Very  often  the  whirlwind  or  tempest  is  accom- 
panied by  rain  and  dark  clouds.  The  wind  whistles 
and  moans,  and  seems  to  come  from  all  directions 
at  once,  flinging  out  scuds  of  fine  spray  and  dis- 
charging torrents  of  rain.  The  cold  is  often  such 
as  to  cause  loss  of  life  to  men  and  animals.  Tents 
and  booths  are  wrecked,  and  the  '  overflowing 
shower'  (Ezk  38")  created  by  it  undermines  houses 
and  tears  down  vineyard  walls.  It  is  a  sort  of 
cloud-burst,  and  is  called  by  the  Arabs  a  seil,  that 
is,  B,flood.  Like  the  suddenness  of  its  onslaught 
(Pr  1")  is  the  rapidity  of  its  disappearance  (Pr  lO'-^, 
Is  52«).  It  is  referred  to  in  Ps  18''«,  Jer  23'",  and 
its  leading  featiires  are  given  in  the  parable  illus- 
tration with  which  Christ  closed  His  Sermon  on 
the  Mount  (Mt  T^''"). 

G.  M.  Mackie  and  E.  HULL. 

WHITE.— See  Colours,  vol.  i.  p.  458". 

WHITE  OP  AN  EGG  (nnS  in,  EV  Job  6«,  RVm 

'juice  of  purslain').  —  The  allusion  should  per- 
haps be  understood  to  be  to  the  juice  of  some  insipid 
plant,  probably  Por^»/(^ert  oleracca,  L.,  the  common 
purslane.  'White  of  an  egg'  (lit.,  on  tliis  view, 
'slime  of  the  yolk')  is  a  Itabbinic  interpret.ition, 
and  is  still  accepted  by  A.  B.  Davidson,  Duhm,  ct 
al.  The  comparison  in  the  other  member  of  the 
parallelism  is  with  '  unsavourj-,'  whicli  would  be 
better  rendered  'insipid.'  G.  E.  POST. 

WHOLE,  WHOLESOME.  — The  Anglo-Sax.  hdl 
became  in  Middle  Eng.  hole  ;  the  spelling  whole  is 
due  to  a  dialectic  pronun.  (as  in  whoop,  whore  *) 
and  obscures  the  connexion  of  the  word  with  hale, 
heal,  holy.  '  Hole '  as  well  as  '  whole  '  is  used  by 
Tindale,  as  Ex  5"  '  see  that  ye  del3fver  the  hole 
tale  of  brj'cke.' 

1.  The  earliest  meaning  is  healthy,  as  in  Mt  9'- 
'Tliey  that  be  whole  need  not  a  i)hysician,  but 
they  that  are  sick  '  (ol  luxvofre^).  So  Udall,  Ent>:- 
rnvs'  Paraph,  i.  28,  '  Yf  thine  iye  bee  clere  and 
wholle,  it  geveth  sight  to  all  the  membres ' ; 
Hall,  Worl:^,  iii.  461,  'We  are  not  the  same  men 
sick  and  whole';  Calderwood,  Histonj,  140,  'Mr. 
Patrick  Adamsone,  called  commonly  Bishop  of 
St.  Andrews,  had  keeped  his  Castle,  like  a  fox  in 
a  hole,  a  long  time,  diseased  of  a  great  seditie, 
as  he  himself  called  his  disease.  .  .  .  When  the 
King  Cometh  to  St.  Andrews,  he  becometh  a 
whole  man.' 

2.  Next,  made  healthy,  healed,  as  in  Mk  S^ 
'  Go  in  peace,  and  be  whole  of  thy  plague '  {(adi 
vyi-ns) ;  so  Tennyson,  Lancelot  and  Elaine — 

*  He  called  his  wound  a  little  hurt, 
Whereof  he  would  be  quickly  whole.' 

3.  Then,  unbroken,  entire,  as  in  Dt  27'  '  Thon 
shalt  build  the  altar  of  the  Lord  thy  God  of 
whole  stones'  (RV  'unhewn');  2  S  1"  'my  life 
is  yet  whole  in  me';  Pr  l"*  'Let  us  swallow  tin  ni 
up  alive  as  the  grave ;  and  whole,  as  those 
that  go  down  into  the  pit '  ;  Is  14™'- "  '  Rejoice 
not  thou,  whole  Palestina '  (RV  '  O  Philistia,  all 
of  thee').  Cf.  Erasmus,  Crede,  139,  'with  pure 
and  whole  faith.' 

Wholesome  occurs  in  AV  but  twice,  Pr  15*  'a 

wholesome  tongue'  (lV.?5>  »V^-i,  LXX  facris  yXwaa-q^, 

RVm  '  the  healing  of   the  tongue '),  and  1  Ti  6' 

'  and  consent  not  to  wholesome  words  '  (iryialvouat 

'  Hot  ia  spelt '  whol '  in  Dt  Oi"  AV  161L 


XA70IS,  RV  '  sound  words,'  RVm  '  healthful ').  Id 
both  places  the  word  means  health-giving,  healing. 
In  the  latter  place  there  is  at  least  a  hint  of  thai 
moral  meaning  which  '  wholesome '  had  in  older 
English  =  soul -healing,  saving  ('heUsam').  This 
meaning  is  found  in  the  Pr.  Bk.  Psalter,  Ps  20* 
28''.  See  Driver's  Par.  Psalt.  p.  48.5,  and  the  quo- 
tations there.     .See  also  art.  Healt  H. 

J.  Hastings. 
WHORE.— See  Harlot. 

WIDOW*  (nx"-*!  'almand;  x^p" !  vidua.  Thft 
absence  of  any  term  for  '  widower '  shows  t  hat  the 
wife  was  considered  of  less  importance  to  t'le  hus- 
band than  vice  versa). 

i.  OT  and  Apocrypha. — The  position  of  the 
widow  varied  according  to  her  family.  A  young, 
childless  widow  might  return  to  her  father's  house 
and  remarry  after  an  interval  (Tamar,  Gn  38" ; 
Knth  and  Orpah,  Ru  1*- ').  She  miglit  also  be 
claimed  in  marriage  by  her  late  husband's  brother 
(Gn  38',  Mk  12>»f-,  iRu  1'-')  or  nearest  kinsman 
(Dt  25",  Ru  3'--  '^).  In  many  instances  this 
arrangement  would  cause  serious  inconvenience, 
and  provision  is  made  bv  which  the  kinsman  might 
be  released  from  his  oblisation,  or  might  transfer 
it  to  some  one  else  (Dt  25'- '",  Ru  4*-'").  The  pas- 
sages cited  show  that  this  Levirate  marriage  was 
an  actual  custom,  which,  however,  was  often 
neglected.  A  widow  with  a  grown-up  son  would 
usually  live  with  him,  e.g.  Micah's  mother  (Jg 
n''"),  apparently  a  widow  in  possession  of  pro- 
perty of  her  own  (cf.  2  S  U"-,  1  K  7",  Jth 
8''*).  The  honourable  and  influential  position  of 
the  queen-mother,  e.g.  Bathsheba  (1  K  2",  cf. 
Queen),  illustrates  the  status  of  such  widows. 
But  there  was  evidently  a  large  class  of  widows 
who  were  in  very  poor  circumstances.  The  widow 
and  the  fatherless  (cf.  Orphan)  are  constantly 
spoken  of  as  suitable  objects  of  charity  and  special 
consideration  (Dt  14-»  16"-  "  26'='-,  Job  ?2»  24--"  29i» 
31'",  Ps  1463,  Pj.  i5»  Jer  49"),  or  as  liable  to  sutler 
injustice  (Ex  22=2,  pt  iqis  .2719,  Job  24',  Ps  68'  94«, 
Is  !"•  23  10-,  Jer  7«  22»,  Ezk  22',  Zee  7'",  Mai  3\  Sir 
410  35i4(.)_  Dent,  makes  special  provisions  in  favour 
of  widows:  their  clothing  was  not  to  be  taken  as 
a  pledge  (24'"),  and  the  forgotten  sheaf  of  the  har- 
vest, .and  the  gleanings  of  the  olive  trees  and  the 
vintage,  were  to  be  left  for  the  stranger,  the  father- 
less, and  the  widow  (24""'-). 

These  needy  widows  must  have  belonged  to  the 
poorer  classes,  and  have  had  families  of  young 
children  ;  but  even  the  widows  and  orphans  of 
well-to-do  men  might  be  robbed  of  their  pro- 
perty by  some  kinsman  or  powerful  neighbour, 
often  on  some  legal  pretext  (cf.  2  S  14').  The 
widow  r.anks  with  the  divorced  woman  as  being 
her  own  mistress,  and  therefore  capable  of  taking 
a  binding  vow  without  obtaining  the  consent 
of  father  or  husband  (Nu  3ft").  A  high  priest 
is  not  allowed  to  marry  a  widow  (Lv  21"),  nor 
is  any  ordinary  ])riest  (Ezk  44™-)  ;  the  latter 
passage,  however,  permits  a  priest  to  marry  the 
widow  of  a  priest.  In  2  Mac  S""  we  read  of 
deposits  for  widows  and  orphans  in  the  temple 
treasury. 

ii.  New  Te.stament. — Here,  too,  the  -widow  ii 
spoken  of  as  poor  and  an  object  for  charity  and 
special  consideration  (Mk  12'''-«  Lk  20"21"»,  Ja 
1-''  etc.  ;  cf.  Barn.  xx.  2 ;  Herm.  Sim.  i.  8,  etc. ; 
Ign.  ad  Smyrn.  6,  etc.  ;  .lust.  1  Apol.  67  ;  Polyc. 
iv.).  The  marriage  of  widows  generally  is  sanc- 
tioned (Ro  7',  1  Co  7'-  *■'),  and,  according  to  RV, 
the  marriage  of  younger  widows  is  enjoined  in  1  Ti 
5".  RVm,  however,  makes  the  injunction  refer  to 
younger  women. 

•  See  also  Family,  ii.  a,  vol.  i.  p.  847 ;  Marriage,  ii.  2,  voL  ill 
p.  209  ;  PovKETT,  p.  27  fl. ;  Womam  (Deaconess,  etc  ),  p  »36i>. 


TTIDOW 


WILDERNESS  OR  DESERT      917 


The  charge  against  the  Pharisees,  that  they  devoured  widows' 
hoii8(3  (Mk  12^"),  i8  sometimes  explained  of  s)x>liation  under 
]e<al  forms  (Gould),  but  more  commonly,  and  probably,  of 
sponging  on  the  generosity  of  foolish  women  through  an  o'sten* 
utious  display  of  unctuous  piety  fUoltzmann,  Swete,  etc.). 
Thus  Swete,  'Schottffen  on  Mt  231*  .  .  .  shows  that  such  a 
course  was  familiarly  known  as  |'EnT9  n30,  plaga  Pharixe- 
•rum,' 

The  care  of  widows  was  one  of  the  special  mini- 
stries of  the  earlj-  Church  (Ac  6'  9^').  Weizsiicker, 
however  (Apo.-.tolic  Age,  i.  56),  considers  that 
widows  cannot  have  formed  a  separate  class  so 
soon,  and  that  the  lanj;ua<;e  of  Acts  reflects  the 
conditions  of  a  later  time.  From  1  Ti  5'°  we 
gather  that  the  relations  of  widows  tried  to  shift 
their  responsibility  on  to  the  shoulders  of  the 
Church ;  and  any  woman  that  has  '  widows '  is 
told  that  she  must  bear  her  own  burden  in  this 
matter ;  farther,  the  duty  of  supporting  widows 
is  specially  urged  upon  children,  grandchildren 
(5^),  and  otlier  relatives  (5').  The  somewhat  lavish 
charity  of  the  Church  at  Jerusalem  in  the  days 
after  Pentecost  would  be  a  special  attraction  to  the 
needy,  and  may  aecuunt  for  the  apparently  larjxe 
proportion  of  widows.  In  considering  1  Ti  O""  we 
must  remember  the  large  households  of  the  East, 
comprising  relations  of  various  degrees  to  three  or 
four  generations.  The  '  woman's '  '  widows '  might 
be  daughters,  daughters-in-law,  etc.  We  further 
gather  from  1  Ti  5  that  the  Church  sought  to  limit 
Its  alms  to  widows  of  good  repute,  exemplary  |>iety 
and  beneUcence,  over  the  age  of  sLxty  ;  and,  from 
the  similarity  of  this  description  to  those  of  pres- 
bjters  and  deacons,  it  seems  tliat  tlie  Chureli 
required  service  from  these  widows  in  return  for 
maintenance,  and  that  they  constituted  an  order 
of  church  olficers ;  and,  according  to  some,  corre- 
•ponded  to  the  deaconesses,  of  whom  we  have  an 
e.\ample  in  Ilo  16'  (cf.  Woman  (Deaconess)),  and 
who  are  described  in  1  Ti  3".  It  should  be  noticed, 
however,  that  in  1  Ti  5  the  writer  is  chielly  occu- 
pied with  the  burden  which  the  relief  of  widows 
imposed  upon  the  Church,  and  anxious  to  reduce 
it  in  every  possible  way.  Hence  the  age  limit,  the 
exacting  conditions  as  to  character,  and  the  re- 
peated urgent  appeals  to  relatives  to  maintain 
widows.  The  character  qualification  sugijests 
Christian  service,  otherwise  this  function  of  the 
widows  is  not  referred  to.  In  Tit  2'  the  'aged 
women '  are  to  be  '  teachers  of  that  which  is  good,' 
and  to  train  the  younger  women  ;  but  the  terms 
'  aged  women,'  and,  in  the  previous  verse,  '  aged 
men,'  are  perfectly  general. 

1  Ti  6,  mainly  occupied  aa  it  is  with  the  subject  of  poor  relief, 
makes  us  wonder  what  was  to  become  of  destitute,  frieiullebs 
widows  who  were  under  sixty,  or  who  had  not  reached  the 
requisite  standard  of  piety  and  beneficence.  Did  the  Churrh 
leave  them  to  stan'e,  or  allow  them  to  be  dependent  on  casual 
alms>,nvin(f,  instead  of  making  regular  provision  for  themV  It 
is  soiiietiuies  8up{K>sed  that  the  roll  in  6i^,  on  which  only  those 
widows  were  to  be  entered  who  possessed  the  qualiflcati"n8 
specified  in  v.^-,  was  a  register  of  church  ofllcers ;  and  that 
these  'widows*  were  distinct  from  the  widows  generally  whose 
relief  is  discussed  in  the  rest  of  the  section.  Some  such  view  is 
supported  by  v.n,  which  objects  to  the  enrolment  of  young 
widows  because  it  is  likely  that  they  will  marrj'  again.  If  the 
enrolment  simply  entitled" to  relief,  this  would  Iw  no  objection  ; 
It  seems  to  imi>ly  that  a  woman  entering  the  order  of  widows 
pledged  herself  to  remain  unmarried  in  order  to  servo  the 
Churvb.  Cf.  Anna  (Lk  2^  •  widow  who  devoted  her  life  to 
religious  exercises. 

There  are  two  main  questions  as  to  the  '  widows ' 
of  the  NT.  (i.)  Whether  they  were  merely  a  class 
of  the  poor,  specially  cared  for  in  the  distribution 
of  alms,  or  whether  they  were  an  order  of  church 
officials.  Such  an  order  existed  in  later  times,  and 
continued  into  the  Middle  Ages.  Polyc.  iv.  3  is  as 
ambiguous  as  1  Timothy  ;  the  terms  used  of  widows, 
t.fi.  '  altar  of  God,'  seems  to  imply  an  ecclesiu-stical 
order  ;  and  yet  from  the  context  the  passage  seems 
to  refer  to  widows  generally  as  distinguished  from 
married  women.    But  from  the  close  of  the  2nd 


cent,  the  existence  of  the  order  is  vouched  for  by 
a  succession  of  references  in  Tertullian,  Origeu, 
Apostolical  Con.'ilitutions,  etc.  It  is  therefore 
natural  to  understand  1  Ti  5  of  such  an  order,  but 
not  necessarily  Ac  6'  9^*- ".  We  cannot  carry  back 
to  the  1st  cent,  the  exact  organization  and  regu- 
lation of  the  order  in  later  times,  but  no  doubt  its 
duties  consisted  in  devotional  exercises,  the  in- 
stiiiction  of  women,  nursing,  and  other  works  of 
charity. 

(ii.)  The  second  question  as  to  NT  widows  is — 
assuming  that  they  constituted  an  order,  what 
was  its  relation  to  that  of  deaconesses?  They 
have  sometimes  been  supposed  to  be  identical  ;  but 
if  1  Ti  3"  refers  to  dcaeouesses,  tliey  are  probably 
dill'erent  from  the  widows  of  1  Ti  5  ;  and  widows 
and  deaconesses  appear  as  distinct  orders  in  the 
early  Church,  although  they  seem  to  be  often  con- 
fused one  with  the  other.  The  most  probable  con- 
clusion is  that  of  .Sauday-Hcadlam  on  Uo  10'  :  '  Of 
the  exact  relation  of  tlie  "  deaconess "  to  the 
"widows"  (1  Ti  5^)  it  is  not  necessary  to  speak,  as 
we  have  no  sufficient  evidence  for  so  early  a  date  ; 
it  is  quite  clear  that  later  they  were  distinct  as 
bodies,  and  that  the  widows  were  considered  in- 
ferior to  the  deaconesses  (Apoxt.  Const,  iii.  7) ;  it 
is  probable,  however,  that  the  deaconesses  were  for 
the  most  part  chosen  from  the  widows.' 

For  an  account  of  widows  in  the  early  Church 
see  art.  'Widow'  in  Smith's  Diet,  of  Christ.  Anti- 
quities. W.  H.  Bennett. 

WIFE See  Family  and  Marriage. 

WILDERNESS  or  DESERT Both  these  terms, 

especially  the  latter  of  tlieni,  suggest  to  the  English 
ear  ideas  which  are  foreign  to  the  lleb.  words 
which  are  so  rendered  in  EV.  In  particular,  the 
jjoimlar  notion  of  a  sandy  waste  must  be  banished 
from  the  mind  if  one  is  to  understand  the  meaning 
of  'desert'  in  the  15ible. 

1.  i3ip  midbdr  (LXX  usually  Ipttnot)  occurs  about 
280  times  in  tlie  OT,  and  is  tr**  '  wilderness '  by  A  V 
except  in  12  passages  (Ex  3'  5'  la-*  23^',  Nu  20"  '27'* 
33",  Dt  32'»,  2  Ch  2U'»,  Job  24»,  Is  21i,  Jer  25^), 
where  the  tr.  is 'desert.'  KV  renders  by  'wilder- 
ness '  except  in  Dt  .32'"  and  Job '24',  where  it  retains 
AV  'desert,'  and  l'r21'",  where  it  substitutes  'a 
desert  land '  for  AV  '  the  w  ilderness '  aa  tr.  of 
ij-t-j-iN.  Midbdr  is  properly  a  tract  to  which 
herds  are  driven  (from  im  '  to  drive  [herds] ' ;  cf. 
the  Germ.  Tri/t  and  treiben),  an  uncultivated 
region,  but  one  where  pasturage,  however  scanty, 
may  be  found  (Fs  65'3ii=i,  Jl  2--^,  Jer  23'";  cf.  Jl 
1'''-  -■",  Jer  9'") ;  usually  without  a  settled  population 
(Nu  14^,  Dt  32'",  Job  38=",  I'r  21'9,  Jer  O-' ;  the  al.ode 
of  pelicans  I's  10"",  wild  a.sses  Job  24",  Jer  '2", 
jackals  Mai  1",  ostriches  La  4'),  although  in  certain 
districts  there  might  be  towns  and  cities  (Jos  IS"'*", 
Is  42")  occupied  by  nomads.  The  term  midbdr  is 
usually  applied  to  the  Wilderness  of  the  Wander- 
ings (Gn  14",  Nu  U'"--^-^  et  al.),  or  the  great 
Arabian  desert  (Jg  U*^  et  al.),  but  may  refer  also 
to  any  other  (Ca  3'=  8»).  In  the  Wilderness  of  the 
Wanderings  the  following  special  tracts  are  dis- 
tinguished :  theAVildernessof  Shur,  Ex  15^;  ?IN, 
Ex  16'  17',  Nu  33"-'»;  Sinai,  Ex  19'- »,  Lv  1'»,  Nu 
l'i»  3'-»  9'"  10"  26"' SS"-'";  Fahan,  Gn  21", 
Nu  10'-  12'»  13'- »",  1  S  25' ;  ZlN,  Nu  13-'  20'  27'''  33" 
34',  Dt  32",  .los  1.")';  I^ADESH,  Fs  29' ;  Etham, 
Nu  33".  In  W.  Palestine  there  are:  the  Wilder- 
ness of  JUUAII,  Jg  l'^  FseS"""  (cf.  Jos  I5<"):  Maon, 
1  S  23^-  ■■^  ;  Zll'll,  1  S  23'''- "  'JU'' ;  Beer-sueba,  Gn 
21'* ;  En-GEDI,  1  S  24'  I"' ;  TekoA,  2  Ch  20*^ ;  J  EKUEL, 
2Ch  20"';  GlliEON,  2S2«.  In  E.  Palestine :  the 
Wilderness  of  MOAU,  Dt  2" ;  ElX)M,  2  K  3"  ;  ^^EDK- 
MOTH,  Dt  2»». 

Midbdr  is  used  figuratively  in  Hob  2*  ('lest  I 


918       WILDERNESS  OK  DESEKT 


WILL,  WOULD 


make  her  [Israel]  as  a  wilderness'  ||  'a  dryland' 
n;!i  p,N),  and  Jer  2"  ('  Have  I  [Jahweli]  been  a 
wilderness  to  Israel  ? '). 

2.  njTi'  '0.rahdh  (prob.  from  a  root  meaning  to  he 
arid ;  L^X  often  Ipvi^oi,  but  also  such  renderings 
as  ayp6s,  l\o!,  -pj  Si^wffo)  stands  for  a  tract  of 
country  whose  soil  is  bare,  desolate,  unfertile.  Its 
nearest  equivalent  is  'steppe'  or  'desert-plain.' 
Apart  from  its  application  to  the  'Arabali,  the 
great  depression  which  includes  the  Jordan  Valley, 
and  extends  southwards  to  the  Gulf  of  'Akal)ali 
(see  art.  Arabah,  and  Plain  in  vol.  iii.  p.  893'), 
the  term  'ctnibah  is  applied  to  steppes  in  general. 
Its  renderings  in  E  v  are  as  follows :  Job  24° 
(II  iz-c)  39*  (II  nrh'^  '  salt  land '),  AV  and  RV  '  wilder- 
ness''; Is  339,  Jer  51"  (in  latter  ||  .tx  p.x)  AV 
'  wilderness,'  RV  '  desert ' ;  Am  6"  AV  '  wilder- 
ness,' RV  '  Arabah  ' ;  Is  35'  (II  i?-].?  and  n;s)  40^  411" 
(in  both  I1 12-)^)  5P  (II  M?-]n  and  i^p),  Jer  2«  (||  n^np 
and  .TV  n¥)  1"'^  (II  ">?■;?  and  nn^o  ]~\h)  50^  (||  ^;•!!?  and 
n;¥)  AV  and  RV  'desert.'  In  the  plur.  'arbOth  the 
word  is  used  of  the  '  plains '  (AV  and  RV;  better 
'steppes'  or  'desert-plains')  of  Moab  (Nu  22' 
263.^  3113  3318. 49.  M  351  36i3_  Dt  34')  and  of  Jericho 
(Jos  4'»  S'o,  2  K  25"  [Jer  39»  528]).  gee  art.  Plain, 
I.e. 

3.  njin  (in  plur.  nin-m),  from  a  root  meaning  to  he 
waste  or  desolate,  is  3  times  tr''  '  desert(s) '  in  AV: 
Ps  102''  (II  n3iD ;  LXX  olKiireSov  ;  RV  '  waste  places '), 
Is  4S-'  (so  also  RV;  LXX  ?pwos),  Ezk  13^  (RV 
'waste  places';  LXX  lpri/j.oi).  Elsewhere  EV 
oflers  such  renderings  as  '  waste(s),'  '  desolation(s),' 
'  waste  places,' '  desolate  places ' :  Lv  26^'-  ^,  Ezr  9', 
Is  5"  44'«  49"  5P  52^  5S'«  61^  64",  Jer  7"  22°  25^-  "■ '« 
27"  44--  «•  --  49'^  Ezk  5'«  25"  26="  29''-  ">  33^- "  35^ 
364. 10. 33  388_  Dn  gs^  m^I  i4,  p.,  96  log'",  Job  3'<.  The 
proper  application  of  this  Heb.  term  is  to  cities 
or  districts  vnce  inhabited,  but  now  lying  waste  (cf. 
th  ■  use  of  n-s*  'devastation'  and  its  cognates  in 
Is  1'  5"  6",  Jer  42"*,  Ezk  35'),  although  it  is  once 
(Is  48-')  used  of  the  Wilderness  of  the  Wanderings. 
Its  nearest  Eng.  equivalents  are  'waste(s)'  and 
'ruin(s).' 

4.  i^D'!?;. — See  Jeshimon.  5.  n;v  ziyijdh  is  twice 
tr''  '  wilderness'  in  AV:  Job  30^  (RV  '  drv  ground ' ; 
LXX  a^fSpos),  Ps  78"  (RV  'desert,'  R'^m  'a  dry 
land ' ;  LXX  ivvbpos ;  here  used  of  the  Wilderness 
of  the  Wanderings).  Its  proper  meaning  is  'dry 
giound '  (cf.  n'XXl^  of  Ps  63"  t",  |vj  of  Is  25»  32-, 
and  3-17  [AV  '  parched  ground,'  RV  '  glowin"  sand,' 
RVm  '  mirage  ']  of  Is  35').  In  Is  13='  34'*,  Jer  50^, 
Ps  74",  O':?  is  used  of  wild  beasts  of  the  desert ;  in 
Is  23'^  [unless  we  emend,  with  01s.,  to  d"v,  or  take 
the  word,  with  Marti,  to  mean  '  seamen ']  and  Ps  72* 
[but  prob.  read,  with  01s.,  Duhm,  et  al.,  mj(]  of 
human  inhabitants  of  these  arid  tracts. 

6.  tnn  tOhH  occurs  in  the  collocation  pD'ei;  V7\  5."ih| 
(LXX  ir  5i\fi€i  KavfiaTos,  i\>  75  kviopif),  lit.  'in  the 
waste  of  the  howling  of  a  desert '  =  ' in  the  howling 
(adj.)  waste  of  a  desert'  [on  the  construction  see 
Driver,  ad  loc.'\,  Dt  32'°,  where  it  refers  to  the 
Wilderness  of  the  Wanderings.  It  is  tr''  '  wilder- 
ness' by  AV  and  RV  in  Job  12=^  and  by  AV  (RV 
'waste'*)  in  Ps  107'"' (LXX  ^i-  a^i.Tif).  The  special 
sense  of  this  word  is  that  of  a  ^^'ild  desolate  e.xpanse 
(Job  6"  '  they  [the  caravans]  go  up  into  the  waste 
and  perish ').  It  is  the  term  applied  to  the  chaotic 
confusion  that  preceded  the  creation  (Gn  1- ;  cf. 
Jer  4^,  where  the  prophet  beholds  the  earth  re- 
turned to  the  primeval  lohili,  wCibohH  ;  and  contrast 
Is  45'*  '  He  created  it  not  a  waste '  [but  perhaps 
here  the  word  ='in  vain,'  RVm]). 

7.  The  NT  terms  are  iprnila  and  Iprtiw^  (the  latter 
used  either  as  adj.  with  rin-ot  or  the  like,  or  alone, 
in  the  fern.,  with  x'^P"  understood).  As  a  rule  AV 
tr.  the  sulistantives  by  '  wilderness'  and  the  adjec- 
tive by  'desert.'  Rv  changes  'desert'  of  AV  into 
'wilderness'  in  Mt  24-^  and  Jn  6"'  as  tr.  of  Iprjfioi. 


Conversely,  it  changes  'wilderness'  of  Lk  5"  8^ 
into  '  deserts'  as  tr.  of  al  Ipri/xoi,  and  into  '  a  desert 
place'  in  Mt  15^  and  Mk  8*  as  tr.  of  ^p^pda.  It 
also  reads  '  a  desert  place '  for  '  a  solitary  place '  in 
Mk  1'°  as  tr.  of  Iprjpios  tojtos. 

The  wilderness  of  JuDJEX  witnessed  the  com- 
mencement of  John  the  Baptist's  ministry  (Mt 
3'  11).  An  unnamed  wilderness,  probably  the  Quar- 
nntania  of  tradition,  was  the  scene  of  our  Lord's 
temptation  (Mt  4'  ||).  The  words  of  Ac  8'^  '  Arise 
and  go  toward  the  south  unto  the  way  that  goeth 
down  from  Jerusalem  unto  Gaza :  the  same  is 
desert'  (aCri;  iarli'  Ipyjtios),  have  occasioned  a  good 
deal  of  difficulty.  If  avTjj  could  lie  taken  as  re- 
ferring to  606s,  the  statement  might  be  justified, 
for  the  road  that  is  [jrobaldy  in  view  actually 
passes  through  the  desert  (so  Robinson,  BJiP-  ii. 
514).  But  it  is  more  natural  to  refer  aOrri  to 
Gaza,  and  this  city  was,  in  Philip's  time,  quite  a 
flourishing  one.  G.  A.  Smith  (HGHL  187)  seeks 
to  evade  this  difficulty  l>y  supposing  the  allusion 
to  be  to  Old  Gaza,  by  which  the  road  ran,  and 
to  which  the  title  fpTj^ot  may  have  clung,  even  if 
it  were  not  actually  deserted.  Upon  the  whole, 
however,  it  appears  preferable  to  regard  the  words 
'  the  same  is  desert '  as  a  late  marginal  gloss  which 
has  found  its  way  into  the  text. 

On  Oriental  superstitions  about  the  wilderness  as 
the  haunt  of  demons  see  art.  DEMON,  vol.  i.  p.  590. 

T    A   Ski  rip 

WILDERNESS  OF  JUD^IA.  —  See  JudJea 
(Wilderness  of). 

WILDERNESS  OF  THE  WANDERINGS.  — See 

Exodus  and  Journey  to  Canaan. 

WILL,  WOULD.— 1.  These  Eng.  words  are  often 
used  in  AV  with  a  significance  that  is  hidden 
from  the  reader  who  dues  not  consult  the  Heb. 
or  Greek.  RV^  has  done  much,  esp.  in  the  NT,  to 
show  their  force,  but  much  has  yet  to  be  done. 

Will  was  originally  an  independent  verb  (Anglo- 
Sax.  iMlan  or  tcyllan.  Middle  Eng.  willen),  and 
expressed,  either  transitively  or  intrans.,  a  wish  or 
resolve,  as  Bacon,  Essays,  p.  77,  '  It  is  common 
with  Princes  (saith  Tacitus)  to  will  contradictories' ; 
p.  40,  '  In  evill,  the  best  condition  is  not  to  will ; 
the  second,  not  to  can.'  As  an  indep.  verb  'will' 
was  often  followed  by  an  infin.,  with  or  without  a 
direct  object.  Thus  Bacon,  Essays,  p.  255,  'The 
French  king  willed  his  Ohauncellor  or  other  mini- 
ster to  repeate  and  say  over  Kraunce  as  many 
times  as  the  otlier  had  recited  the  severall  do- 
minions'; Knox,  HiM.  p.  317,  '  Thinke  not  (said 
lice),  Madame,  tliat  wrong  was  done  unto  you, 
when  you  are  willed  to  be  subject  unto  God.' 

But  as  the  Eng.  verb  lost  its  inflexions,  cer- 
tain verbs,  themselves  originally  independent,  were 
used  to  form  its  tenses,  etc.  One  of  these  was 
will,  though  in  this  case  it  was  rather  to  sujiply 
a  defect  than  to  replace  a  lost  infiexion,  there 
being  no  future  inflexion  in  the  Eng.  verb.*  'Will' 
did  not  cease  to  be  an  indep.  verb  when  it  became 
an  auxiliary  ;  it  was  used  sometimes  in  the  one 
way,  sometimes  in  the  other.  And  as  Elizabethan 
\vriters  felt  at  liberty  to  insert  or  omit  the  '  to ' 
before  an  infin.  as  they  pleased,!  it  has  now  become 

*  '  Shall '  was  used  as  the  auxiliarj'  ot  the  future  before  '  will," 
anil,  as  Earlc  says  (Philolo'iy,  5  304),  '  will  has  carved  all  the 
area  it  occupies  out  of  the  (ioniain  of  shall,'  In  the  Introd.  to 
The  Piallrr  of  1SS9  (Murray,  1894),  Earle  points  out  that  unit 
as  an  auxiliary  *  is  hardly  to  be  found  in  Saxon  times,  it  is  even 
strange  to  Wyclit  in  the  14th  cent,  it  is  not  tlniily  established 
in  the  Bible  of  1539.  It  is  encroaching  upon  ehall  and  dri>  iiig 
it  back,  but  its  limits  are  not  yet  determined.  And  thit 
aggressiveness  of  wilt,  which  has  long  ceased  in  the  central 
places  ot  the  language,  is  still  moving  at  the  extremities,  like 
the  flapping  of  the  waves  on  the  shore  after  the  subsiding  ot  a 
storm  at  sea.' 

t  Shakespeare  uses  great  freedom  with  this  '  to,"  frequeotl; 


WILL,  WOULD 


WILL 


919 


very  difficult  to  distinguish  'wUI'  as  an  auxiliary 
ex]ires-ing the  future  tense,  from  'will 'as an  indep. 
verb  followed  by  an  intin.  without  'to.'  Cf.  Mt 
10-*  'There  is  nothing  covered  that  shall  not  be 
revealed,'  with  11"  '  Neither  knoweth  any  man  the 
I'ather  save  the  Son,  and  he  to  whomsoever  tlie  Son 
will  reveal  him.'  The  former  is  a  simple  future 
(6  ovK  diroKa\v(p6rit7eTai,  Vulg.  quod  non  revclabUur)^ 
tile  other  is  the  verb  to  unVt  with  an  intin.  of  the 
following  verb,  the  '  to'  being  omitted  (i^  Hlv  /SoiiXijrai 
6  Mi  diro/caXi'^ai,  Vulg.  cui  voluerit  Jiliiis  revclare, 
Rhem.  'to  whom  it  shal  plea.se  the  Sonne  to  re- 
vcale,'  RV  'to  whomsoever  the  Son  willeth  to 
reveal  him '). 

The  attempt  has  sometimes  been  made  to 
distinguish  tlie  indep.  verb  '  to  will  '  from  tlie 
auxil.  verb  'will'  by  tlieir  inllexions,  'to  will' 
when  indep.  being  often  inflected  will,  wiliest, 
tcilhth  or  wills  ;  past  willed ;  and  the  aux.  will, 
wilt,  will,  past  would.  But  this  distinction  cannot 
be  maintained,  the  indep.  verb  being  often  inflected 
as  tlie  auxiliary.  Thus  Jg  1"  '  What  wilt  thou?' 
(:i*-.i;,  RV  'What  wouhlest  thou?');  Mt  13'«  'wilt 
thou  then  that  we  go  and  gather  them  up?'  ((?A(is 
oiv,  RV  as  AV)  ;  Jn  l"  'Jesus  would  go  forth  into 
Galilee'  {i)$i\rjjei>  i^e\$ety  ;  Vulg.  voluit  exire,  RV 
'  was  minded  to  go  forth  ')  ;  so  Article,  x.  (1553) 
•  Those  that  have  no  will  to  good  things.  He 
niaketh  them  to  will,  and  those  that  would  evil 
things,  He  maketh  them  not  to  will  the  same '  ; 
Piers  Plowman,  vi.  213 — 

'  And  now  wolde  1  witen  [  =  '  know,'  inf.)  of  the  what  were 
the  best.* 

The  earlier  versions  are  often  a  guide  to  the  use 
of  'will,'  'would,' in  AV.  But  it  is  often  necessary 
to  consult  the  licb.  or  Greek,  wlicn  it  may  be 
considered  probable  tliat  .at  least  when  represent- 
ing an  original  iiulcj).  verb  '  will '  and  '  would  '  are 
themselves indei>endent.  Theverbsiiiusl freijuenlly 
represented  are  in  OT  'dhnh,  an<l  in  NT  0i\ui  and 
/3oi'\o/uai,  *  all  meaning  to  will,  purpose,  desire. 
Clapperton  {Pitfalls  in  BiOle  Enrjlisk,  p.  90)  gi\es 
the  foil,  list  of  passages  which  demand  special 
attention  :  .Mt  11"  IS^J  lG-^  Mk  G'"- »»,  Lk  U",  Jn 
l".!'"?",  Col  I-'',  lTi5",  Tit3». 

2.  Occa.sionally  the  following  verb  is  omitted 
after  '  will '  and  '  would,'  as  Ps  81"  '  Israel  would 
none  of  me ' ;  I'r  1-'  '  Ve  .  .  .  would  none  of  my 
reproof;  l"  '  They  would  none  of  mv  counsel'; 
Sir  i;j'"»<"°«  'Like  will  to  like.'  So  Jn  lii'"=^-  Rhem. 
'  Professing  that  them.selves  will  no  king  but  Cicsar, 
he  veldeth  unto  them.'  Especially  is  this  so  with 
verbs  of  motion,  as  Tindale,  W'urlcJi,  i.  147,  'The 
wind  bloweth  where  it  listeth,  and  thou  hearesthia 
voice,  and  wottest  not  whence  he  cometh,  nor 
whither  he  will';  Tindale,  Exjios.  23,  'Whosoever 
will  to  heaven,  must  buy  it  of  them ' ;  Ezk  28^ 
Cov.  '  Bcholde  o  Sidon,  I  wil  upon  the,  and  get  me 
hononre  in  the.' 

3.  There  are  passages  in  AV  in  which  '  will ' 
Would  now  he  considered  redundant,  as  Gn  32"  'I 
fear  him,  lest  he  will  come,  and  smite  me '  (RV 
'  lest  he  come ') ;   Lv  2'  '  When  any  will  oUer  a 

oniillini;  where  we  should  now  insert,  and  sometimes  Insert- 
inir  where  we  should  omit.  Cf.  Othello,  ll.  Hi.  190,  '  You  were 
wont  be  civil,'  with  iv.  ii.  12,  •  1  duryt,  my  I^ord,  to  wa^er  she 
is  honest.'  The  omission  is  found  also  in  Milton,  Sonnet  to  ilr. 
Lawrence — 

*  A^liere  shall  we  sometimes  meet,  and  by  the  Are 
Help  wasto  a  sullen  day?' 

And  (fuost  quotes  two  consenulive  lines  from  the  Afirrvr  /or 
Magisfrattt,  one  of  which  omits,  the  other  inserts  this  •  to' — 

'  And  though  we  owe  I  =  oujrht]  the  fall  of  Troy  requite. 
Yet  let  revenge  thereof  from  goils  to  light.' 

*  For  the  distinction  between  "lA*  and  fiaCf^fim  consult 
EUicott  on  I  Tl  6'*,  Lightfoot  on  Philem  '»,  Moyor  on  Ja  3*, 
SandoV'Headlam  on  Ito  7'"*,  and  esp.  '  the  full  and  excellent 
oote'  [Sanday-Ueodlaml  in  Thayer,  X.T.  Ltx.  i.v.  SiiM. 


meat  oflTering  unto  the  Lord  '  (RV  '  when  anyone 
oll'ereth ')  ;  >It  '.f  '  Pray  ye  therefore  tlie  Lord  of 
the  harvest,  that  he  will  send  forth  labourers  into 
his  harvest'  (RV  'that  he  send');  Mk  3-''  'No 
man  can  enter  into  a  strong  man's  house,  and 
spoil  his  mods,  except  he  will  lirst  bind  the  strong 
man  '  (RV  '  except  he  first  bind  '). 

J.  Hastings. 

WILL. — In  this  art.  the  consideration  of  the 
teaching  of  the  Bible  regarding  both  the  Divine 
and  the  human  Will  is  to  be  included.  These 
may  seem  at  lirst  sight  to  be  subjects  of  very 
dill'erent  kinds  ;  nevertheless,  an  adequate  treat- 
ment of  either  niu.st  clearly  be  impossible  if  the 
other  is  not  taken  into  account.  The  light  of 
revelatiim  falls  upon  both  the  human  and  the 
Divine  will  in  the  sphere  of  their  relations  to  one 
another.  We  derive  our  idea  of  the  Divine  will  in 
Scripture  chiefly,  if  not  entirely,  from  what  we  are 
told  of  God's  mind  towards  find  purpose  for  man, 
which  have  led  and  lead  toactionou  His  part,  where- 
by the  action  of  the  human  wOl  must  necessarily 
be  conditioned.  .-Vnd,  further,  Scripture  is  no 
excepti(m  to  the  rule  that  the  ideas  which  men 
can  frame  or  receive  about  God  are  all'ected  by 
their  knowledge  of  themselves.  Tlie  conceptions 
commonly  formed  of  tlie  mind  and  soul  of  man 
have  ever  been  transferred  to  the  Divine  nature, 
with  more  or  with  less  oualilication  and  exten- 
sion ;  and  this  has  especially  been  the  case  in  the 
absence  of  philosophical  thought,  and  particularly 
so  in  iirimitive  times. 

1.  llUdical  terms  for  the  act  of  xoilling. — The 
psychological  and  nieta]jhysical,  and  to  some  ex- 
tent also  the  theological,  ideas  of  early  ages,  and 
of  the  majority  of  men  at  all  times,  are  to  be 
studied  in  language.  It  is,  then,  lirst  to  be  ob- 
served that  there  is  no  word  either  in  OT  or  NT 
for  the  will,  as  a  faculty  ;  and  even  the  act  of 
willing  is  not  contemplated  in  an  abstract  manner. 
As  a  point  of  some  psychological  interest  we  may 
also  note,  that  of  the  two  Ileb.  words  in  fre(|Uent 
use  which  seem  to  describe  an  act  of  the  will  most 
purely  as  such  ([lo  in  Pi.  and  ^jx),  one  has  a 
negative  signilication,  and  the  other  is  almost  in- 
variably joined  with  a  negative.  (The  exceptions 
are  Is  1'%  Job  3'.)").  It  is  in  the  absence  of  ap- 
])arent  reason,  and  in  the  resistance  oliered  to  a 
pressure  from  without,  that  the  power  of  will  is 
most  barely  presented,  and  therefore  most  readily 
aiipiehcnded.  We  may  coni|)are  our  term  '  wil- 
fulness.' The  latter  of  the  two  Heb.  words  just 
named  is  often  used  of  the  wrongful  assertion 
of  the  human  will  in  opposition  to  the  Divine 
will  (e.g.  Ps  81'=  i"',  Pr  !»").  See  also,  as  regards 
the  former  word.  Ex  7".  The  notion  of  an  exer- 
tion of  the  will,  not  for  resistance  hut  for  the 
achievement  of  something,  appears  to  be  most  dis- 
tinctly conveyed  by  hx',  in  Iliph.,  but  it  is  not  so 
commoii  as  either  of  the  words  above  mentioned. 
Lit.  it  means  to  set  oneself,  determine,  undertake, 
to  do  sometltiiifj  ;  a  sense  which  we  can  trace  in  the 
LXX  renderiii"  ipxarOai. 

Wo  need  also  to  consider  tlie  whole  group  of 
words  signifying  to  desire  (.tin,  in  Pi.  and  Hitlip., 
and  1^!}),  to  tn/ce  pleasure  in  (I'sin),  to  favour  ([j;j 
and  .i^cj),  to  loi^e  (ariK  and  pc'ri),  to  c/ioase  (v?). 
Where  tli'ie  has  as  yet  been  little  or  no  psycho- 
logical relle.\ion,  such  words  may,  and  commonly 
do,  involve  the  notion  of  willing.  The  mind  has 
not  become  accuslomed  to  distinguish  between 
the  motive — whether  this  consists  in  some  purpose 
whicli'commends  itself  to  the  reason,  or  a  |ihysical 
want,  or  external  attraction  acting  uiion  the  senses 
— and  its  adoption  by  the  will  ;  nor,  again,  be- 
tween the  act  of  the  will  and  the  feeling  which 
accompanies  its  exercise.  This  is  eminently  true 
of  the  language  of  OT.    In  the  case  of  men,  in-leed. 


there  ie  the  beginning  of  a  distinction  in  the 
prominence  given  to  tlie  phenomena  of  tempta- 
tion, l)ut  it  IS  not  followeii  out  pliilosophically ; 
while  in  regard  to  God,  wlio  can  ellect  what  He 
pleases,  the  distinction  naturally  does  not  suggest 
itself  in  the  same  way. 

Tlie  fact,  however,  which  is  perliaps  of  most 
significance  for  us  is  that  all  words  of  this 
class,  without  material  exception,  even  those 
which  have  the  most  decidedly  phj-sical  associa- 
tions, or  which  are  used  frequently  in  a  bad  sense, 
are  applied  to  God  no  less  than  to  men  in  the 
Hebrew  OT.  Thus  pan  to  cleave  in  love  to  (used 
of  sexual  passion,  Gn  34*),  tliough  also  more  gener- 
ally for  what  tlie  mind  desires  (1  K  !)"),  is  used 
of"(!od's  love  to  Israel  (Dt  7'  lO"),  and  also  of 
man's  love  to  God  (Ps  9V*) ;  while  icri  to  covet  (Ex 
20",  and  Mic  2'-)  describes  God's  feeling  for  Zion, 
Ps  68"  (").  It  is  used  also  of  a  spiritual  desire 
in  man,  Ps  ig'"!"].  Some  words,  such  as  pri  to 
favour,  and  its  subst.  [n  favour,  grace,  nj-i  and 
jiin,  with  much  the  same  meaning,  and  inp  to 
choose,  have,  esp.  through  their  Greek  repre- 
sentatives, come  to  be  more  particularly  con- 
nected in  our  minds  with  the  mysteries  of  saving 
grace ;  but  their  early  history  was  not  dissimilar 
to  the  rest,  i.e.  their  transference  to  God  was  at 
first  somewhat  crudely  anthropomorphic.  The 
instance  of  ihk  to  lore,  to  which  further  reference 
will  be  made,  should  especially  bring  this  home 
to  us. 

In  the  LXX  several  of  these  Heb.  words  are 
most  commonly  rendered  by  ,3oi'Xe<rSoi,  BiXau,  and 
eiSoKctv,  which  more  simply  express  the  act  of 
willing  : — all  three  are  used  for  nzij  and  ijn,  oii 
povXeailai  and  oO  S^Xetv  for  [xp,  BiXem  and  eu5oKe7t> 
for  n>"!  ;  for  n;N,  BeXeiv,  and  also  inBvfieh  ;  for  n;n, 
j3oi/Xfff^ai,  evSoKuv,  and  iTriBvfif'tv.  A  feeling  is, 
however,  manifested  in  the  LXX  that  some  dif- 
ference of  language  is  advisable  in  speaking  of 
God  ;  iTTiBv^ciu  is  avoided  in  connexion  with  Him. 
3ns  also,  in  the  case  both  of  God's  love  for  men 
and  men's  love  for  God,  is  translated  not  by  (piXeh 
but  by  d7a7r^>',  though  it  is  to  be  added  that  this 
is,  on  the  whole,  the  commoner  rendering  of  the 
word  in  all  contexts,  and  that  <pi\(Tp  is  used  for 
the  love  of  wisdom  (Pr  8"  29^  Wis  8°). 

The  non-classical  word  B^Xii/ia  is  many  times 
used  both  for  fsn  and  psi,  and  for  the  latter 
sometimes  also  eiSoicla.. 

Tlie  usage  of  NT  is  based  upon,  and  in  the  main 
conforms  to,  that  of  LXX.  In  regard  to  6^\riij.a,  in 
particular,  we  maj-  observe  that  alike  in  LXX  and 
NT  it  frequently  denotes  an  individual  wish  or 
desire,  and  hence  is  used  in  pi.  (Ps  102  (103)  '• ", 
Ac  13--,  Eph  2').  But  it  may  also  describe  such 
a  permanent  inclination  as  shows  the  bent  of  the 
character  (Sir  32",  cf.  SATjffit  in  2  Ch  15",  and 
/SouXtj/xo  in  1  P  4').  Other  noteworthy  uses  are  to 
be  found  in  Jn  T^,  2  P  1".  In  Rev  4"  the  ordated 
universe  is  said  to  proceed  from  an  act  of  the 
Divine  will,  for  in  accordance  with  biblical  usage 
we  must  understand  0{\ri/ia  to  denote  an  act  here 
rather  than  a  faculty. 

ii.  The  human  will. — In  considering  the  con- 
ception of  the  human  will  and  its  present  con- 
dition, as  well  as  of  the  Divine  will,  to  be  derived 
from  the  Bible,  grave  subjects  which  have  been 
treated  in  other  articles  (Fall,  Grace,  Pre- 
destination, and  Election)  come  before  us 
again ;  but  they  are  to  be  regarded  here,  as  it 
were,  on  their  psychological,  moral,  and  meta- 
phj^sical  side,  and  such  a  Wew  of  them  ma^  assist 
us  in  rightly  apprehending  them.  At  the  same 
time,  we  may  expect  that  some  light  will  be  thrown 
by  the  study  in  which  we  are  engaged  on  questions 
which  have  been  debated  in  the  philosophical 
schools.     It  is  true  that  little,  if  any,  trace  is  to 


be  found  in  any  part  of  the  Bible  of  direct  specu- 
lation on  the  nature  and  prerogatives  either  of  tha 
human  or  the  Divine  will.  Nevertheless,  through 
the  vivid  presentation  in  Scripture  of  moral  and 
spiritual  truth  in  its  practical  bearing  on  man, 
imjiortant  elements  in  the  problems  relating  both 
to  the  will  in  man  and  to  God's  will  are  brought 
into  relief,  and  this  may  contribute  to  the  right 
solution  of  those  ]iroblenis. 

1.  The  proposition  that  the  will  is  free  is  com- 
monly understood,  alike  by  those  who  asisert  and 
those  who  deny  it,  to  mean  that  man  has,  at  least 
within  certain  limits,  the  power  of  self-determina^ 
tion,  of  yielding  to  or  resisting  motives, — those 
which  arise  within  him  as  well  as  those  which 
plainly  have  their  origin  without  him, — and  of 
modifying  his  own  character  in  some  degree.  The 
notion  of  moral  freedom,  however,  which  meets  us 
in  Scripture  is  something  dilierent  from  this.  It 
appears  there  simjily  as  the  opposite  of  the  bondage 
of  sin.  From  this  point  of  view,  '  to  be  free '  is  to 
have  the  power  of  acting  according  to  one's  true 
nature  as  God  designed  it  ;  and  those  whom  we 
cannot  imagine  to  be  an}'  longer  capable  of  doing 
wrong,  like  the  perfected  saints,  because  no 
tendency  to  evil  remains  in  them  and  they  are 
thoroughly  established  in  holiness,  would  yet  in 
this  sense  be  free,  indeed  the  only  true  freemen 
(Jn  8f^-3«,  Ro  6"---  8'8--'  ;  cf.  also  Ja  1==  2'=).  There 
is  evidently  profound  truth  in  this  conception : 
such  must  be  the  freedom  of  God  Himself. 

2.  Nevertheless,  Christian  theologians  of  all 
schools  have  ever  deduced  from  Scripture  that 
man,  originally  at  least,  possessed  free  will  in 
the  common  sense  of  the  term,  whether  they 
admit  that  he  stUl  retains  it  to  any  extent  or 
not.  And,  indeed,  even  apart  from  what  is  im- 
plied in  the  narrative  of  the  Fall  and  all  subse- 
quent express  statements  (e.g.  Ec  7*",  Ro  1-'"^-), 
this  alone  is  compatible  with  the  Scripture  doctrine 
of  God  as  at  once  the  all-powerful  and  all-wise 
and  the  perfectly  good  Creator.  Man's  fallen  con- 
dition must  be  due  to  his  own  fault.  For  some 
good  reason  God  suffered  man  to  be  tempted,  but 
He  intended  th.at  the  temptation  should  be,  as  it 
might  have  been,  withstood.  Sufficient  light  had 
been  granted  to  man  to  enable  him  to  discern  the 
true  good,  and  power  to  choose  it ;  yet  he  chose 
evil. 

It  is  worthy  of  note  that  even  those  who  have 
been  most  ready  to  silence  criticism  of  the  morality 
of  the  action  which  is  attributed  to  God  in  theories 
of  the  method  and  scope  of  redemption,  by  alleging 
that  these  are  matter  of  Divine  revelation,  and  by 
declaring  that  God's  ways  are  not  to  be  submitted 
to  a  human  tribunal,  have  yet  themselves  asserted, 
and  sought  to  convince  men  of,  the  justice  of  man's 
punishment  on  the  ground  that  in  Adam  he  brought 
It  upon  himself. 

But  we  must  go  a  step  further.  The  attempt  to 
satisfy  the  sense  of  human  justice,  significant  as  it 
is  when  made  in  the  quarters  just  indicated,  must 
break  down  so  long  as  it  is  supi>oscd  that  men  lost 
their  moral  freedom  totally  by  the  first  fall,  and 
therewith  all  hope  of  salvation  except  in  so  far  as 
they  should  be  visited  by  irresistilde  grace,  which 
to  some,  and  even  the  majority  of  the  race,  woulii 
never  come  at  all.  The  Bible,  we  are  bold  to  atfirni, 
does  not  support  such  a  position.  It  is  true  that  it 
speaks  of  man  as  enslaved  by  sin,  as  unable  to 
accomplish  his  own  deliverance,  as  dependent  ujion 
God  at  every  step  for  salvation,  and  even  for  the 
first  motions  towards  good  (Eph  2'-°-*,  Ro  3'-'*,  Tit 
3*-«,  Jn  6"- ").  But  the  strongest  statements  to  this 
efl'ect,  even  if  they  stood  alone,  could  not  fairly  be 
made  to  mean  that  nothing  depends  on  the  con- 
sent, or  resistance,  of  man's  own  will  to  the  work 
of   God  in  and  upon  him.      And  by   the  sacred 


WILL 


WILL 


921 


writers  who  insist  most  emphatically  on  man's 
helplessness  by  himself,  as  well  as  in  other  parts 
of  Scripture,  it  is  plainly  declared,  or  assumed, 
that  he  is  responsible  for  being  compliant  (Jn  1"- 
5*  and  6",  Ph  2'-),  and  in  more  general  terms  for 
his  temper  of  mind  and  conduct,  and  that  he  will 
be  punished  or  rewarded  on  ordinary  principles  of 
justice  (Ro  2'-"  3"-=i,  .In  7");  in  short,  that  each 
man  bom  into  the  world  is  put  to  a  probation  si  ill, 
however  the  conditions  of  his  trial  may  be  aliected 
by  the  failures  and  successes  of  all  who  have  gone 
before.  So  that  the  tragic  interest  and  solemnity 
of  the  story  of  Adam's  fall  lies  not  only  in  the 
thought  of  what  was  lost  for  the  human  race  from 
the  beginning  of  its  history,  but  also  in  its  being 
the  type  of  a  conflict  between  good  and  evil 
which  IS  perpetually  renewed  in  the  soul  of  every 
man. 

It  is  less  than  the  truth  to  say,  as  many  do,  that 
the  recognition  accorded  in  Scrijiture  to  the  prin- 
ciple of  man's  moral  freedom  on  the  one  hand,  and 
its  doctrine  of  grace  on  the  other,  present  an  in- 
soluble antinoni}',  and  that  those  who  accept  the 
authority  of  the  Bible  nmst  accept  both,  though 
with  a  sense  that  they  cannot  be  reconciled.  This 
is  certainly  a  wiser  attitude  than  that  of  those  wlio 
virtually  deny  the  one  in  the  interests  of  the  other. 
It  must,  however,  be  admitted  on  reflexion  that 
the  sacred  writers  themselves  do  not  seem  to  be 
conscious  of  any  contradiction  ;  and  we  cannot  but 
infer  that  if  to  us  there  seems  to  be  one  it  is  largely 
of  our  own  maUiiig,  through  the  ellect  upon  our 
minds  of  later  controversies  and  the  tratlitions  they 
have  left.  The  real  difliculties  in  connexion  with 
the  conception  of  the  freedom  of  the  will  are  not, 
in  point  of  fact,  raised  through  the  endeavour  to 
combine  in  one  view  those  moral  and  .spiritual 
truths  regarding  Divine  grace  and  human  responsi- 
bility to  which  the  Bible  bears  testimony,  nor 
could  they  naturally  have  been  indicated  there. 
We  gather  from  its  teaching  that  the  Spirit  of 
God  IS  the  source  of  all  moral  and  spiritual  good, 
that  Divine  grace  must  be  present  with  and  must 
precede  all  rightful  action  of  the  human  wUl,  that 
this  grace  is  bestowed  in  some  measure  upon  all, 
and  always  with  the  design  of  leading  on  to  salva- 
tion ;  but  that  it  rests  with  man  to  respond  to  the 
Divine  love,  to  yield  to  the  Divine  promptings. 

Confusion  and  error  have  probably  bi-en  intro- 
duced into  the  subjects  disputed  by  Augustinians, 
Calvinists,  and  Pelagians,  more  through  the  too 
narrow  nutiim  of  Divine  grace  in  whicii  all  alike 
shared — as  though  it  were  to  lie  traced  only  in  de- 
finite Christian  faith  and  its  special  fruits,  and  in 
the  godly  of  Israel  under  the  Old  Dispensation — 
than  from  any  other  cause.  Hence  the  Calvinist 
ha.s  been  led  to  make  a  distinction  between  an 
'  eflcctual '  giace  granted  in  certain  cases,  and  an 
operation  of  God's  Spirit  in  other  cases  which  has 
no  saving  purpo.se,  and  to  regard  the  signs  of  moral 
and  spiritual  life  in  a  multitude  of  instances  as 
wholly  illusory.  Hence  also,  on  the  other  hand, 
the  Pelagian  lias  supposed  man  to  be  capable  of 
many  kinds  of  good  apart  from  God.  Nowhere 
does  the  mistake  to  which  reference  has  been  made 
ajiijcar  more  clearly  as  the  initial  source  of  error 
than  in  the  doctrine  of  certain  schoolmen  that 
grace  was  to  be  deserved  de  cont/ruo,  the  authors 
of  which  theory  evidently  aimed  at  |irescnting  tliat 
which  they  regarded  as  the  truth  lu  I'elagianism 
in  the  form  in  which  it  would  bo  least  open  to 
attack.  l''or  here  it  was  supposed  that  tliough 
man  could  not  be  finally  saved  without  grace,  yet 
by  a  character  and  a  course  of  conduct,  in  shapmg 
and  inspiring  which  grace  had  had  no  part,  he 
could  win  it.  Tlie  diflerent  opinions  here  referred 
to  are  unscriptural,  baseless,  and  profoundly  irre- 
ligious.    In  contrast  with  all  alike  we  would  place 


the  belief — justified,  as  we  contend,  by  particular 
declarations  of  Scripture,  and  still  more  l>y  a  com- 
]ireliensive  view  of  the  Divine  training  of  man, 
which  finds  its  clearest  interpretation  in  the  Bible 
— tliat  no  human  spirit  is  left  destitute  of  the  life- 
giving  visitations  of  the  Divine  Spirit,  and  that, 
rudimentary  as  that  moral  and  spiritual  life  may 
be  which  at  first  He  has  sought  or  seeks  to  create 
and  to  foster,  e.ff.  in  the  savage  or  in  many  e\en 
of  those  who  live  in  Christian  lands,  no  uou.hIs 
can  be  set  to  the  growth  which  may,  and  which  \la 
intends  should,  result  in  this  world  or  anothv', 
wherever  the  human  will  is  consentient.  This,  is 
consistent  with  our  ideas  of  justice,  while  at  Che 
same  time  it  reco"nizes  man's  absolute  dependence 
always  upon  God's  grace,  and  can  atroril  man  no 
ground  for  claiming  merit  in  the  sight  of  God  ; 
for  there  can  be  no  merit  in  his  allowing  himself 
to  be  saved,  though  he  maj'  justly  expose  himself 
to  blame  and  loss  if  he  frustrates  God's  merciful 
design.  Further,  it  does  not  lower  the  super- 
natural to  the  level  of  the  natural,  thovigh  it 
treats  that  which  is  often  called  mere  natural 
goodness  as  itself  the  outflow  of  a  supernatural 
life,  and  as  one  of  the  lower  stages,  it  may  be, 
in  an  ascent  to  the  highest  saintliness. 

3.  To  the  extent,  then,  at  least  of  giving  or 
withholding  that  resjionse  to  the  leading  of  the 
Divine  Spirit  of  which  we  have  spoken,  man  is, 
according  to  the  teaching  of  Scripture,  free.  It 
will,  however,  be  said  on  behalf  of  Necessitarian- 
ism by  adherents  of  the  so-called  Experience 
Philosophy,  or  Naturalism,  that  this  response 
itself,  and  with  it  every  feeling,  thought,  j)urpose, 
so  far  as  they  are  not  determined  by  causes  now 
external  to  the  individual,  are  the  result  of  char- 
acter, which  has  been  itself  completely  determined 
and  could  be  fully  accounted  for,  and  its  products 
also  predicted,  if  we  knew  fully  the  human  beings 
parentage  and  life-history,  as  well  as  his  present 
circumstances,  and  if  the  whole  combination  were 
not  too  complex  for  us  to  deal  with  by  the  aid  of 
any  science  which  we  possess  or  are  likely  to  pos- 
sess. The  force  of  this  reasoning — and  it  cannot 
be  denied  that  it  has  force — lies  in  the  fact  that  to 
a  very  large  extent  mental  phenomena  are,  or  may 
with  a  high  degree  of  probability  be  held  to  he, 
subject  to  Natural  Law,  and  that  the  ra|)id  and 
vast  extension  in  our  conception  of  its  domain 
which  has  in  recent  times  taken  place,  predis- 
poses us  to  believe  that  all  our  experience  may  in 
reality  come  under  it.  On  the  other  side,  however, 
it  may  be  urged  that  the  consciousness  in  man  of 
a  power  of  choice,  of  a  sense  of  responsibility  fur 
his  conduct,  his  conviction  often  that  he  might 
have  done  better  or  acted  in  some  way  otherwise 
than  he  has,  and  the  remorse  whicli  he  feels,  in  spite 
of  his  readiness  to  complain  of  the  action  of  an 
adverse  fate,  the  bl.ame  which  he  imimtes  to  him- 
self or  to  others  for  any  lack  of  loyalty  to  truth 
and  right,  of  firmness  and  of  courage,  are  facts 
which  cannot  be  satisfactorily  explained  on  the 
principles  of  Naturalism.  We  seem  here  to  be 
brought  f.ace  to  face  with  an  element  in  the  sources 
of  human  character  and  action  which,  whatever 
its  laws  may  be,  is  not  subject  merely  to  laws 
analogous  to  those  which  we  can  trace  in  the 
physical  order, — a  power  of  self-determination,  a 
force  which  within  a  limited — in  each  individual  a 
very  limited — range  is  truly  creative,  a  causation 
which  is  not  merely  phenomenal  but  real.  As 
believers  in  the  biblical  revelation,  we  can  suppose 
only  that  the  all-wi-se  and  loving  Creator,  without 
diminishing  aught  from  the  fiilness  of  His  own 
power,  has  yet,  in  making  man  a  spiritual  being, 
imparted  to  him  a  certain— by  comparison  infini- 
tesimal— amount  of  power  like  His  own,  and  lefl 
him   to  make  an   independent  use  of  it  with   a 


92:; 


WILL 


view  to  the  discipline  and  training  which  he  would 
thus  receive,  and  also  to  the  response  which  the 
creature  ini^^ht  then  render  to  the  Creator,  and 
which  would  be  otherwise  impossible  (of.  R. 
Browning,  Christirias  Eve  and  Easter  Day,  §  5). 
On  the  pliilosophical  side  we  derive  support  for 
this  view  from  many  of  the  ablest  thinkers  of  the 
past  150  years,  from  Kant  and  Hegel  onwards, 
tliough  it  is  necessary  that  we  should  emphasize 
the  separation  between  the  liunian  and  the  Divine 
will  more  decidedly  than  some  of  the  transcen- 
dental school  do,  in  order  to  guard  against  Pan- 
theism and  against  falling  again  virtually  into 
Necessitarianism,  though  one  of  a  ditl'erent  kind 
from  that  before  spoken  of. 

Before  passing  on,  it  may  be  well  to  point  out 
to  what  a  small  extent  there  can  be  any  alliance 
between  those  theologians  who  hold  that  man 
altogether  lost  freedom  of  the  will  by  the  Fall,  and 
philosophical  Necessitarians  of  any  school.  The 
tatter  build  upon  their  conception  of  what  has 
ever  been  the  constitution  of  num,  of  nature,  and 
of  the  universe  ;  whereas  the  theologians  to  whom 
we  have  referred  regard,  and  must  regard,  man 
as,  according  to  his  original  and  true  constitution, 
free.  It  is  only  in  attempts  to  prove  that  man's 
belief  in  his  own  freedom  is  wholly  illusory  that 
they  can  make  common  ground ;  but  this  is  the 
weakest  part  of  the  philosophers'  case. 

On  the  other  hand,  men  in  general,  and  that 
common-sense  philosophy  which  has  aimed  only 
at  formulating  common  opinion  and  at  making  it 
self-consistent,  show  far  too  little  sense  of  the 
mystery  attaching  to  the  freedom  of  the  will,  or 
of  the  binding  power  of  character,  which,  though 
not  so  fixed  as  to  be  beyond  all  possibilitj'  of  being 
modified  even  by  the  action  of  the  will  itself,  can, 
in  general,  only  be  altered  slowly.  But  Holy 
Scripture,  which  lays  so  much  stress  on  the  bond- 
age of  sin,  the  operation  of  Divine  grace,  and  the 
appointment  of  the  circumstances  of  human  lives 
by  Divine  Providence,  cannot  be  said  to  ignore  the 
limitations  to  human  freedom.  In  this  connexion 
it  is  important  to  observe  that  man's  responsibility 
for  the  use  of  any  freedom  that  he  possesses  is  not 
diminished  in  proportion  to  the  sniallness  of  its 
amount.  He  is  as  much  bound  to  turn  to  good 
account  what  he  has  if  it  be  but  a  very  little, 
as  if  its  stock  were  practically  unlimited.  So 
at  least  he  must  be  on  the  Scriptural  view  of 
his  hopes  and  opportunitins,  'The  etfort  to  strive 
against  strongly  riveted  habits  of  evil  might  not 
seem  worth  while  on  the  supposition  that  the 
time  for  seeking  to  undo  them  was  very  brief, 
and  that  he  was  left  solely  to  what  he  could 
accomplish  for  himself  and  to  human  assistance ; 
but  it  is  otherwise  if  the  inlliiences  of  the  Divine 
Spirit  are  at  his  disposal,  and  there  is  a  prospect 
oi  infinite  time  in  which  a  change  in  his  nature 
may  be  effected.  Thus  it  is  that  the  Bible  can 
give  such  prominence  to  the  necessities  affecting 
our  human  condition,  and  yet  inspire  and  stimulate 
human  endeavour  to  the  utmost. 

iii.  The  Divine  will.  —  The  created  universe  is 
said  to  proceed  from  an  act  of  God's  will  (Rev  4", 
and  of.  Sir  43" ;  this  is,  of  course,  also  implied  in  the 
Language  used  in  Gn  !'•  *  etc.,  Ps  33'  etc.  ;  as  regards 
the  creation  of  man  see  Ja  1").  His  will  furnishes 
the  true  end  and  rule  for  human  action.  Very 
broadly,  Jn  7",  Ro  12-,  Col  4",  and  in  the  Lonrs 
Prayer,  MtB'";  with  a  more  special  reference,  1  Th 
4'.  The  Law  of  the  Old  Dispensation  is  not  any- 
where directly  called  'the  will'  of  God,  but  that  it 
is  a  principal  expression  of  God's  will  is  plainly 
suggested  in  Ro  2""^.  With  this  passage  Jn  !!•'" 
may  be  compared,  both  being  put  into  the  mouth 
of  Jews.  '  The  will  of  God '  is  also  used  specifi- 
cally of  God's  purpose  of  redemption  through  Christ, 


WILL 

— ^ 

as  by  our  Lord  Himself  in  speaking  of  His  mission, 
Jn  4*'  etc.,  and  also  in  Ac  22",  Eph  1».  St.  Pau] 
ami  others  look  for  indications  of  God's  will  to 
direct  their  missionary  course  (BiX-qixa  without  art. 
in  1  Co  16'-  may  probably  mean  God's  will,  cf. 
KVm).  It  is  to  be  recognized  in  the  ordering  of 
events  and  the  variety  of  human  lots  (1  P  3"). 

This  last  point  brings  us  to  the  manifestation  of 
God's  will  in  the  choice  of  some  for  special  des- 
tinies or  for  temporal,  moral,  and  spiritual  ad- 
vantages— a  subject  which,  on  account  both  of 
its  peculiar  difficulty  and  its  connexion  with  that 
of  human  responsibility,  needs  particular  con- 
sideration. We  have  seen  that  words  used  in 
the  case  of  men  to  describe  preferences  of  a  kind 
for  which  we  do  not  ordinarily  seek  to  discover 
rational  motives,  and  which  we  are  content  to 
treat  as  matters  of  individual  idiosyncrasy,  are 
applied  to  God,  especially  in  OT.  Such  language 
may  serve  to  teach  in  a  simple  way  the  lesson  of 
the  absoluteness  of  the  Divine  will.  It  may  im- 
press upon  our  minds  the  practical  truth  that 
when  God  wills  this  or  that,  man's  duty  lies  in 
submission  and  obedience,  or  in  humble  thank- 
fulness for  His  unmerited  favour,  on  the  part 
of  tho.se  whom  He  exalts  and  blesses.  But  it 
must  not  be  assumed  that,  when  no  motive  ia 
assigned  for  God's  action,  therefore  it  has  not 
a  moral  and  rational  motive.  It  has  to  be 
remembered  that  if  words  descriptive  of  simple 
desire  and  attraction  and  the  mere  exercise  of 
will  are  applied  to  God,  so  also  are  those  which 
imply  planning  and  taking  counsel  with  oneself 
(Is  19",  Jer  51-«,  2  Ch  25'«,  Ps  33",  Job  12'^  etc.). 
There  are,  besides,  passages  in  which  we  are  ex- 
pressly told  what  the  Lord  delights  in  (1  S  15--,  Jer 
9",  Is  1"  6512  66^  Pr  ll-»  12-  15^  Ec  5^).  Indeed 
all  those  many  declarations  in  OT,  that  purity  and 
righteousness  of  heart  and  life  are  required  in 
those  who  would  please  God,  are  here  in  point ; 
and  it  is  to  the  principle  thus  laid  down  that  the 
elevating  effect  of  the  religion  of  Israel  was  largely 
due. 

The  chief  objects,  however,  of  God's  favour 
mentioned  in  OT  are  the  Israelite  nation  and 
Da\id  with  his  ro3'al  house.  And,  in  the  case  of 
the  former  at  least,  it  may  be  said,  the  freedom 
of  God's  election  is  insisted  on.  But  the  language 
used  can  scarcely  form  a  basis  for  a  formal  doctrine 
on  this  subject,  and  certainly  not  for  a  view  of  it 
which  convej's  the  notion  of  arbitrariness.     Later 

generations  of  Israelites  were  indeed  taught  that 
rod's  goodness  to  them  was  not  due  to  any  merit 
of  theirs.  But  other  reasons  for  it  are  given  :  it 
was  part  of  the  ptirpose  which  He  had  been  pursu- 
ing from  the  days  of  their  fathers,  men  of  vei7 
<lifferent  worth  from  themselves,  and  which  He, 
in  whom  constancy  is  so  notable  a  characteristic, 
could  not  abandon,  and  it  was  connected  also  with 
the  punishment  of  other  nations  for  their  excep- 
tional wickediiess  (Dt  9^-«  8"*). 

Special  acts  of  Divine  favour  are  seen  in  their 
true  place  in  the  light  of  the  revelation  of  God'i 
character  as  a  whole.  There  could  be  no  more  in- 
structive study  in  the  history  of  the  progress  of 
the  knowledge'  of  God  than  that  which  is  supplied 
by  following  out  the  conception  of  the  love  of  God 
in  the  Bible.  We  have  already  touched  upon  the 
gradual  refinement  of  the  idea  as  shown  in  the  use 
of  language.  But  we  have  to  observe  also  that  the 
love  of  God  spoken  of  in  OT  is  always  a  distin- 
guishing love  for  particular  individuals  and  a  par- 
ticular race.  The  earliest  lesson  to  be  learnt  by 
men,  and  all  that  they  were  capable  of  understand- 
ing, was  that  the  good  which  happened  to  them- 
selves was  the  result,  not  of  chance  or  fate  but  of 
God's  appointment,  and  the  proof  of  His  merciful 
regard.     As  we  pass  on  to  the  NT  the  image  is  pre- 


WILL 


WIXD 


923 


Dented  by  Clirist  Himself  of  tlio  Universal  Father 
wlio  loves  impartially  all  His  human  oliildren.  It 
is  evident  that  this  revelation  ought  to  control  all 
more  partial  views. 

Those  who  at  lirst  were  made  the  recipients  of 
special  privileges  could  not  fully  enter  into  the 
largeness  of  the  Divine  intention  m  their  bestowal. 
But  this  became  apparent  when  the  Church  of 
Christ  became  the  heir  of  the  truth  communicated 
to  Israel.  The  princi])le  of  .special  grace  and  voca- 
tion was  not  then  abandoned.  It  is  indeed  written 
large  in  human  experience,  and  in  the  days  of  the 
lirst  preaching  of  the  gospel  it  was  manifested  in 
a  new  and  deeper  manner  than  ever  before.  Its 
application  to  individuals  took  the  place  of  that  to 
a  nation,  while  spiritual  blessings  absorbed  the 
attention  which  had  been  largely  occui)ied  by  such 
as  were  material.  But  Gods  purpose  in  confer- 
ring such  favours,  viz.,  that  those  whom  He 
chooses  and  calls  to  receive  special  knowledge, 
or  upon  whom  any  gift  is  conferred,  should  be 
ministers  of  it  to  others,  is  plainly  set  forth  (Gal 
l'«,  llo  1',  1  P  4"'-  ",  Ro  11"-  ■"■'■'-). 

V.  H.  SlWNTON. 

WILL.— See  Testament. 

WILL-WORSHIP  is  the  tr.  in  AV  (1611  'will- 
worship,'  mod.  edil.  two  words  'will  worship,'  RV 
restores  '  will-worship ')  of  ideXoOpjiJuia  in  its  only 
occurrence,  Col  2-^.  Tlie  tr.  is  probably  suggested 
by  the  Gen.  NT  (l.'J.'iT)  'voluntarie  worshiiiping,' 
where  the  Geneva  translator  seems  to  use  the  adj. 
'voluntary'  in  the  unusual  sense  of  'arbitrary.' 
The  Gen.  Bible  (I56U)  has  'voluntarie  religion,' 
and  explains  in  the  marg.  '  Suche  as  men  have 
chosen  according  to  their  own  fantiisie.' 

Cran.  and  Rhem.  have  'superstition'  after Vulg. 
tvpirstilio.  Fuller  adopts  the  word  '  will- worship' 
in  Ilohf  State,  p.  70,  '  One  Ceremony  begat  another, 
there  being  no  bounds  in  will-wor»hi|),  wherewith 
one  may  sooner  be  wearied  than  satisfied.'  And 
Jer.  Taylor  uses  'will-worshipper,'  Jlitle  of  Con- 
science, II.  iii.  13,  '  He  that  .says,  God  is  rightly 
worshipped  by  an  act  or  ceremony  concerning 
which  himself  hath  no  way  expressed  his  pleasure, 
is  super.ilitious  or  a  will-worsliipper.'  These  quota- 
tions probably  explain  the  Gr.  word  aright. 

J.  Hastin'o.s. 

WILLOW  TREE  (nryirj  faphzaphah  ;  WILLOWS, 
D'Jin  'didbim  [only  in  pi.]). — Botu  these  Heb.  words 
appear  to  be  used  for  the  willow,  although  some 
consider  the  latter  to  be  the  poplar  (see  Oxf.  Heb. 
Lex.  and  authorities  cited  s.v.).  The  former  is  the 
cognate  of  the  Arab,  ^"fs&f,  which  is  generic  for 
willow.  The  latter  is  the  cognate  of  the  Arab. 
(jhnrab,  which  signilies  a  willow,  more  particularly 
the  weeping  willow,  SaVix  Babylonica,  L.  /fajjii- 
zOphfih  occurs  but  once  (Ezk  17'),  in  a  poetical 
rhapsodj'  concerning  the  transplanting  of  a  cedar 
top,  contrary  to  its  nature,  apparently  to  the 
waterside,  where  a  plant  from  the  seed  of  the 
land  is  set  out  aa  a  willow,  and  spreads  as  a  vine. 
Arubiiii  occurs  in  live  places.  In  all  of  them  the 
fact  that  willow  trees  grow  by  the  watercourses 
i.s  alluded  to.  'Willows  of  tlie  wftdy '  (Lv  23") 
were  taken  for  booths  during  the  Feast  of  Taber- 
nacles. The  lair  of  Behemoth  was  among  the 
'  willows  of  the  wady  '  (.lub  4(1-").  '  By  the  rivers 
of  Babylon  .  .  .  upon  the  willows  .  .  .  we  hanged 
our  harps'  (Pa  137-).  Moab  carried  'riches  .  .  . 
to  the  wudy  of  the  willows'  (Is  15'  AVm  'valleys 
of  the  Arabians ').  Israel  is  to  '  spring  up  among 
the  grass  as  willows  by  the  watercourses'  (Is  44'). 
Kiglit  species  of  willow  grow  in  the  Holy  Land  — 
Satix  bri/aaf,  Forsk.,  .S'.  /nirjilis,  L.,  the  brittle 
willow,  i'.  alba,  L.,  tlie  white  willow,  .V.  Baby- 
lunka,  L.,  the  weeping  willow,  S.  trinndra,  L., 
S.    Caprcea,  L.,  the  Caprcean  willow,   S.  pedicel- 


lata,  De.sf.,  the  stalked  willow,  and  S.  nigri 
rans,  Fres.,  the  blackish  willow  (Arab,  bdn) 
The  first  four  are  far  more  abundant  than  the 
latter.  One  of  the  peaks  of  Jebel  Mflsa,  in  Sinai, 
is  called  Rdi  es-Snffiifeh,  from  some  willow  trees 
at  its  base.  No  allusion  is  made  in  Scriiiture  u 
the  economic  uses  of  the  willow.  Its  branches 
are  much  used  at  the  present  day  for  ba-sket-work. 
Willows  are  planted  or  "row  spontaneously  by  all 
watercourses,  and  are  characteristic  trees  of  the 
landscape.  The  'wady  of  the  willows'  (Is  15'), 
LXX  cj>af>a.yya  'Apa^as,  Vulg.  torrcns  salioim,  is 
probably  a  wady  at  one  of  the  boundaries  of  Moab, 
with  willows  by  its  watercourses.  If  it  be  the 
southern  boundary,  it  may  be  the  same  as  Srj 
njTi'n  'the  wadj' of  the'Arabah  (or  of  the  Willow),' 
which  was  the  southern  border  in  the  days  oi 
Amos  (6"),  about  70  j-ears  earlier.  What  tliie 
was  is  uncertain.  Wady  Kerak,  a  part  of  this 
valley,  is  said  by  Irby  to  be  called  IVddi/  es- 
5(7/V4/"=  Valley  of  the  Willow.  G.  E.  Post.  ' 

WIMPLES  is  AV  tr.  in  Is  S^^  (only)  of  mn??p  (RV 
•shawls').  See  art.  DliESS,  vol.  i.  p.  627",  and 
Mantle,  vol.  iii.  p.  24U^  The  word  'winijile' 
means  a  covering  for  the  neck  (.-Vnglo  Sax.  «-(7i/;ii;/. 
Old  High  Ger.  wimpal).  Skeat  guesses  '  a  cover- 
ing from  the  wind,  taking  An^lo-Sax.  win-pel  as 
from  '  wind  '  and  pell  (Lat.  pallium)  a  covering. 

WIND  (nn  riiah ;  ivefi.oi).—ln  Palestine  the  life 
of  man  and  beast  durin"  the  rainless  summer 
dejiends  upon  the  sujiply  of  water  in  the  fountains 
for  drinking,  and  in  the  brooks  and  streams  for 
purposes  of  irrigation.  This  supply  is  in  propor- 
tion to  the  amount  of  rain  and  snow  deposited 
upon  the  mountains  during  the  previous  winter. 
As  the  rain  is  borne  inland  by  the  wind,  the  winds 
become  of  the  highest  importance,  and  are  char- 
acterized by  their  power  to  produce  or  prevent 
rain.  Hence  the  wonderlulness  of  water  supjdied 
indei)endently  of  both  wind  and  rain  (2  K  3"),  and 
the  unnaturalness  of  wind  and  clouds  tliat  do  not 
produce  rain  (Pr  25",  Jude '-). 

i.  The  Fouk  Winds.— Winds  claim  attiintion 
by  the  periodicity  that  rules  amid  continual 
change,  as  well  as  on  account  of  the  heat  and  cold, 
dryness  and  moisture,  connected  with  tlicni.  The 
Bible  frequently  refers  to  the  four  winds  (Ezk  37", 
Dn  8»,  Zee  2«,  Mt  24»>,  Rev  7'),  and  the  diversity  of 
specilic  influence  gives  individuality  to  each,  and 
prepares  the  way  for  the  figurative  use  of  their 
leading  characteristics. 

(1)  North  wind  (|i!:>""n  ruali  ziipMn). — This  is 
distinguished  by  its  coldness  and  its  power  of  dis- 
])ersing  rain.  'Fair  weather  (RV  'golden  splen- 
dour') Cometh  out  of  the  north'  (Job  37-'-).  In 
Job  37'  ('  cold  out  of  the  north  ')  the  literal  mean- 
ing, unless  a  special  constellation  be  referred  to,  is 
mit  of  the  scatlerinr;  winih  (RVni).  In  Pr25'-^'The 
north  wind  driveih  away  (S'?inn)  rain,'  RV  gives 
'  bringeth  forth  rain,'  the  testiinoiiy  of  the  climate, 
however,  being  with  the  former  [although  the  con- 
text demands  the  latter.  Perhaps  the  text  is 
corrupt;  cf.  Tarj;.  ad  luc.].  In  a  day  of  gloom 
and  persistent  ram,  if  one  cloud  can  be  seen  moving 
from  the  north  it  is  known  that  in  less  than  an 
hour  the  clouds  will  break  up  and  the  sunshine 
will  return. 

(2)  Houth  wind  (e'iiVt  ri'iuh  dOrOm). — This  wind, 
whether  tempestuous  (Is  21',  Zee  !l")  or  gentle 
(Ac  27"),  is  always  warm,  dry  if  inclined  to  S.E., 
and  moist  if  from  S.W.  Umicr  the  S.  wind  every- 
thing is  warm  to  the  touch,  and,  if  it  prevails  for  a 
day  or  two,  all  living  things  become  silent  under 
its  oppressive  heal  (.lob  37").  lu  Lk  12"  it  ia 
referred  to  as  ii  sure  sign  of  heat. 

(3)  East  wind  (o'-is   '">  rCah  Ifddim).  —This  la 


924 


WINDOW 


WISDOM 


sometimes  called  a  wind  from  the  vrildernf^s  (Job 
1",  Jer  4''  IS-*)  ;  it  is  described  as  strong  and  gusty 
(Ex  14-',  Job  27*'  SS*-",  Is  278,  Jer  IS"),  and  its 
destructive  power  was  felt  at  sea  (Ps  48',  Ezk  27-"). 
It  is  referred  to  in  Ja  1",  where  the  expression 
'  with  a  burning  heat '  (aiiv  ri}  (cai/trun)  is  correctly 
rendered  by  liV  'with  the  scorching  wind'  (see 
Driver  on  Am  4"  and  Hos  13'°,  with  references). 
During  summer  a  light  land-breeze  usually  prevails 
from  sunrise  to  9  A.M.,  and  rapidly  grows  hot  under 
the  increasing  power  of  the  sun. 

(4)  IVest  wind  (d;  'i  riiah  yam). — This  is  a  moist 
and  refreshingly  cool  breeze.  The  W.  and  S.W. 
winds  are  the  bringers  of  rain  ( 1  K  IS^-  ",  Lk  12=^). 
If  blowing  freshly  for  several  days  in  succession, 
they  will  cause  a  shower  to  fall  even  during  the 
dry  summer  months. 

In  NT  various  terms  are  used  to  describe  the 
violence  of  the  wind;  e.g.  'a  great  wind'  [ifcfios 
M^yas,  Jn  6") ;  '  a  storm  of  wind '  (XatXa^  di'ifi.ov, 
Lk  S'^)  ;  '  a  great  storm  of  wind '  (XaiXo^i'  a.Wij.ov 
fieydX-ri,  Mk  4''') ;  'a  great  tempest'  (<7eio-/uis  M^vas, 
Mt  8**).  '  Tempest  is  the  translation  also  of 
Xupuii'  (Ac  27*'),  eOeXka  (He  I2'«).  The  'tempes- 
tuous wind'  {dvcfw!  Tv<puvi.Kb%,  Ac  27'''),  called 
Euroclydon,  RV  '  Euraquilo,'  is  the  E.N.E.  gale 
now  called  levanter,\i\dc[\  prevails  over  the  eastern 
half  of  the  Mediterranean.  In  ancient  times  it 
troubled  the  ships  of  Tarshish  (Ps  48')  when  return- 
ing deeply  laden  to  Tyre.     See  EUKAQUILO. 

li.  Figurative  Suggestions. —Wind  is  the 
symbol  of  (1)  vacuity  and  nothingness :  Job  6-'  15-, 
Pr  11=*,  Is  41=3,  Jer  5'',  Hos  8'  12'. 

(2)  Brevity:  Job  7',  Ps  S^  103i«  104*. 

(3)  Freedom :  Pr  27'«  30^  Ec  1",  Eph  4". 

(4)  Puivcr:  Job  21'8  27=',  Ps  1*  35»  83",  Is 
41"'  57'"  64«,  Jer  i9^--^  51',  Ezk  IS"-'^;  Dn  2^, 
Ja  1»  31 

(5)  The  will  of  God  :  Ps  18'»-  "■  :  104'  148". 

G.  M.  Mackie. 
WINDOW.— See  art.  House,  vol.  ii.  p.  435'',  and 
Temple,  p.  700'. 

WINE See  art.  Food,  vol.  ii.  p.  33  f.,  and  Vine, 

p.  868. 

WINEBIBBER  (Pr  23=<'  in  pin.  y.r^p;  Mt  ll'», 
Lk  7^,  oivoirliTT)^). — The  Eug.  word  comes  from 
Coverdale  at  Pr  23='' ;  AV  is  the  first  to  use  it  in 
NT.  The  verb  '  to  bib'  (perhaps  from  Lat.  bibere, 
to  drink)  is  still  in  use,  signifying  to  keep  on 
drinking,  tipple.  Nortli  (Plutarch,  %i~)  speaks  of 
'  Orators  that  did  nothing  but  bib  all  the  day 
long ' ;  and  Drant,  Horace  Sat.  VII.  E  iv,  '  Thoii 
thinkes  by  sleupe  and  bibbinge  wyne,  to  banishe 
out  all  woes.'  The  Eng.  is  a  lit.  tr.  of  the  Heb.  and 
Greek. 

WINEFAT  (i.e.  Winevat).— See  Fat. 

WINE-PRESS.— See  Vine,  p.  868. 

WINK.— In  Ac  11^  the  verb  to  •  wink  at'  is  used 
fig;uratively  of  God's  longsuHering,  '  The  times  of 
this  ignorance  God  winked  at'  (uirep^Sui',  KV  'over- 
looked'). The  same  use  (also  of  God)  occurs  in 
Wis  1123  <Xhou  .  .  .  winkest  at  the  sins  of  men' 
(ffapopys,  RV  'overlookest')  ;  and  (of  parents)  in 
Sir  3U"  '  Wink  not  at  his  follies '  (mi;  vapiorj!). 
So  Golding,  Calvin's  Job,  559— 'Some  times  (iud 
spareth  the  wicked  and  wincketh  at  their  mis- 
dedes,  and  that  is  to  their  sorer  damnation ' ;  and 
Udall,  Era.'.mus'  Paraph,  ii.  284,  '  Suche  maner  of 
faultes  of  children,  those  that  be  gentil  parentes 
doe  for  the  most  part  winke  at,  which  would  not 
sufl're  greater  ofl'ences.'  J.  Hastings. 

WINNOW.— See  Agriculture,  Fan,  Shovel. 


WISDOM.— 1.  In  the  age  of  the  Prophets.— The 

Wisdom  (HT^n  hokhma)  of  the  Hebrews  developed 
itself  originally  as  an  independent  intellectual 
movement,  side  by  side  with  the  religious  one,  in 
the  form  of  a  half-poetical,  half-philosophical  *  ob- 
servation of  nature.  We  have  the  earliest  remini. 
scences  of  this  in  the  Fable  poetry  of  the  OT  (Jg 
9'"",  2  K  14"),  and  in  the  traditions  which  attach  to 
the  name  of  Solomon  (1  K  5'""'^  [Eng.  i^^*]).  The 
comparison  between  the  latter  and  the  allied  crea- 
tions of  Arabia  (v."  ("'I),  and  the  description  of  the 
material  of  Solomon's  sayings  (v.'" i**'),  show  that 
we  have  to  do  here  %vith  products  not  of  religious 
but  of  secular  poetry.  This  Wisdom  was  thought 
of  as  specially  naturalized  in  Edom  (Jer  49',  Ob"). 
—  The  great  prophets  are  upon  the  whole  not 
favourable  to  this  Wisdom,  Is  5='  29",  Jer  4==  S'- » 9=^ : 
they  reproach  '  the  Wise  '  with  conceit  and  immor- 
ality. In  the  technical  language  of  the  propliets, 
■TiiB,  i.e.  decision  by  oracle,  is  attributed  to  the 
priests  (Jer  18'^  Ezk  7=") ;  i?^,  '  the  word  of  Jah- 
weh '  (  =  '"•131  Jer.  I.e.),  to  the  prophets;  njt;,:,  the 
faculty  of  self-determination  or  devising  of  mea- 
sures, to  'the  Wise'  (Jer.  I.e.).  Even  before  the 
Exile  the  need  made  itself  felt  of  fixin"  the 
teaching  of  Jahwch  and  establishing  lirmYy  its 
contents.  It  was  this  that  led  to  the  composition 
of  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy.  The  fierce  conflicts 
with  false  prophets  which  had  to  be  waged  by 
Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel  (Jer  28.  ^Sfi^-,  Ezk  13) 
tended  further  in  the  direction  of  limiting  the  in- 
fluence of  prophecy  (Dt  18'*'=).  The  latter  decayed 
to  such  an  extent  that  in  the  post-exilic  period 
its  silence  was  painfully  felt  (Ps  74",  1  Mac 
9=').  Yet  it  proved  impossible  to  cause  this  dry 
branch  on  the  tree  of  Israel  to  put  forth  shoots 
afresh. 

2.  Post-exilic  development  of  the  Wisdom  teach- 
ing.— The  priests  and  '  the  Wise,'  unlike  the  pro- 
phets, found  a  new  sphere  for  their  activity  after 
the  Exile  ;  the  former  in  the  re-established  cultus 
of  the  temple,  the  latter  in  the  carrj'ing  forward 
of  the  legal  religious  system  which  Ezra  the  scribe 
took  in  hand  after  the  Return  (Ezr  7"- '").  Yet  it 
^\•as  a  considerable  time  before  the  effort  to  confine 
the  whole  intellectual  life  of  post-exUic  Judaism 
within  the  limits  of  rigid  law  succeeded.  The  wave 
which  stirred  the  nations  in  consequence  of  the 
establishment  of  the  world  -  empire  of  Alexander 
the  Great,  overflowed  the  Holy  Land  as  well,  and 
on  the  other  hand  carried  Judaism  far  beyond  the 
borders  of  that  land  to  the  interior  of  Asia  and  all 
the  coasts  of  the  Mediterranean.  Israel  came  thus 
evenfwhere  into  contact  with  Greek  civilization, 
for  the  Greeks  were  from  the  earliest  times  a  race 
of  colonists. 

3.  The  earliest  traces  of  Greek  influence.— The 
traces  of  the  influence  of  Greek  W'isdora  meet  us 
for  the  first  time  in  the  Book  of  Proverbs  (2nd 
cent.  B.C.),  which,  in  addition  to  the  practical 
wisdom  of  life  wliich  it  preaches  (hence  the  name 
.icrn  iDD  applied  to  it  m  Tos.  to  Baba  bathra, 
146),  is  ac(iuainted  also  with  a  special  artificial 
form  of  gnomic  wisdom.  On  V;;'?  '  likeness,' 
'parable,'  attached  at  first  to  an  object  borrowed 
from  the  world  of  nature,  or  ny'jij  (LXX  aKoreivbt 
Xiiyo's)  '  hidden  allusion '  (Pr  1'* ;  cf.  nyn,  ib.  and 
Ezk  17=),  cf.  Cheyne,  Job  and  Solomon,  London, 
1887,  p.  215. 

Wisdom  is  conceived  of  in  Pr  8*"-  as  a  separate 

•  Philosophy  proper  had  no  existence,  and  could  have  none, 
amont'  the  Ii"*jl>rewa.  A  proceae  of  thought  free  from  preMip- 
positions  was  unknown  to  them.  G<)d  and  Divine  revelatiun 
were  accepted  as  tlxed  points.  Accordingly,  all  that  waa  aimed 
at  was  merely  to  penetrate  deeper  into  the  contents  of  what 
was  ^;iven  and  to  define  it  more  precisely.  Nor  is  the  form  of 
the  Iliikhma  that  of  the  scliool  speech  ;  it  is  popular.  It* 
problems  are  not  theoretical,  but  concern  qiiestious  dealing 
with  the  practical  wiadom  of  life  or  with  godlinetia. 


WISDOM 


WISDOM 


9?5 


Existence  whom  Jahweh  formed  as  the  first  of  His 
works  prior  to  the  creation  of  eartlilv  tilings 
(vv.2^--«  cf.  v.-^  '::?;  see  also  Ps  13'j'=).  The 
^okhma  did  not  cooiierate  in  the  creating  of  the 
Leavens  and  the  earth,  for,  according;  to  vv.=*-*^, 
Jahweli  Himself  made  all  things.  Hence  [icij  of 
v.'"  cannot  be  rendered  'master  workman'  (RV), 
but,  upon  the  analogy  of  i?x.7  of  Nu  11'- ('guardian 
of  children  '),  ought  to  be  tr''  '  foster-child  '  (cf.  AV, 
Anuila  TiBjivoi'iJ.ii'T],  Gunkel  [Sr/iojifting,  1895,  p.  94] 
'  Hiitschelkind  ').  The  Ilo/chma  poet's  thought  is 
that  .lahweh,  after  the  toils  of  creation  (which, 
according  even  to  Gn  '2',  rendered  rest  necessary), 
found  a  diversion,  as  it  were,  in  this  His  tirstbom 
before  the  world,  as  the  child  jdayed  before  His 
eyes  (Pr  S*"*).  Wisdom  is  thus,  m  the  mind  of  our 
poet,  not  a  principle  at  work  in  the  forming  of  the 
world,  since  she  was  only  an  onlooker  at  this  and 
at  the  fashioning  of  individual  objects.  She  has, 
according  to  Pr  8'"",  to  do  with  men  alone.  In  these 
she  finds  her  delight,  to  them  alone  she  turns  with 
her  call  to  hear  instruction  (ic'o  Pr  8^).  It  is  thus 
purely  ethical  aims  to  which  she  seeks  to  lead  men, 
Dj'  whom,  of  course,  from  the  Judaistic  standpoint, 
are  meant  simply  Israelites. 

The  notion  of  the  Divine  ffokhma  as  a  separate 
E.xistence  outside  of  and  over  against  Jahweh,  is, 
how  ever,  as  un  -  Israelitish  as  possible  and  abso- 
lutely opposed  to  the  monotheism  of  the  inx  nirr 
(Dt  6^)  that  had  become  firmly  established  since  the 
time  of  Deuteronoiuy.  It  can  be  e.vplained  only 
as  due  to  the  influence  of  Greek  philosophy,  accord- 
ing to  which  the  archetypes  of  things  {apx^rviroi 
iS(ai,  Plato,  Timwtis,  p.  29)  or  the  powers  of  the  Divine 
es-sence  diH'used  throughout  the  world  (the  xoaal 
lyrotat  of  the  Stoics;  cf.  C.  Wachsmuth,  Die  An- 
sichten  dcr  StoUccr  iiber  Mantik,  etc.  p.  21)  are 
regarded  as  having  a  separate  existence  of  their 
own,  although  in  their  relation  to  the  world  they 
are  otherwise  conceived  of  than  in  the  Book  of 
Proverbs. 

4.  The  Jewish  doctrine  of  retribution  and  the 
itrufjglcs  of  faith  to  which  it  qnve  rise. — In  other 
parts  of  the  Book  of  Proverbs  the  questions  of 
wisdom  in  the  ordering  of  the  life  of  a  Jew  are 
discussed.  Pietj'  appears  here  as  the  successful 
and  most  advantageous  course  (2"- "'•  ^•~).  Virtue 
is  never  unrewarded  (S"-"-'"- '«  lO-'"'-  1G=").  Misfor- 
tune befalls  only  the  ungodly  (11"),  for  the  pious 
it  is  only  a  passing  chastisement  (3"'"). — The  actual 
experiences,  which  were  diametrically  opposed  to 
eucli  doctrines,  led  to  a  period  of  struggles  of 
faith  (Farrar  in  Speaker's  Apocr.  vol.  i.,  London, 
1877,  'The  era  of  dilTiculties,'  p.  416),  whose 
deposit  we  have  in  several  of  the  Psalms,  in  Job, 
and  in  Ecclesiastes. 

(a)  The  Psnlms. — Ps  37  proceeds  upon  the  idea 
that  the  good  fortune  of  the  wicked  has  no  con- 
tinuance (vv.*-"''  "•  2>). »'■  3").  In  brilliant  poetic  lan- 
guage the  sudden  end  of  their  prosperity  is  de- 
Bcribed,  and  this  has  the  counter -description 
opposeil  to  it  of  the  exaltation  and  happiness  of 
the  godly  which  always  comes  to  pass  after  a 
transient  period  of  woe  (vv."-  ""■'»•  "'•  »•  «"•).  Since, 
however,  this  was  contradicted  by  other  experiences 
which  told  of  wicked  men  who  were  prosperous 
down  to  the  end  of  their  life  (Job  21'-'»- '*'"■«•), 
the  dilliculty  was  not  solved.  The  expedient  of 
declaring  that  in  such  CB-ses  the  punishment  over- 
takes the  children  of  the  ungodly  (Job  21'")  was 
nothing  more  than  a  palliative,  for  this  punish- 
ment extended,  according  to  Ex  20^,  only  to  the 
tliirtl  or  fourth  generation  ;  and  it  gave  no  satis- 
faction at  all  to  the  later  prophets  (cf.  .ler  3r-'"'-, 
Ezk  18-'*'),  who  insisted  upon  the  personal  re- 
Bpunsibility  of  the  transgressor. — Ps  49  accordingly 
grappled  with  the  problem  afresh  and  otlered  the 
solution  that  death  at  all  events  brings  punishment 


to  the  wrong-doer  whom  continued  prosperitj'  has 
made  dclianl  (v.').  Then  can  none  deliver  him 
(vv."""),  he  must  leave  behind  him  his  ill-gotten 
wealth  (vv.'-'  "■™),  and  he  himself  becomes  a  prey 
to  corruption  (v.'*).  The  godly  man,  on  the  other 
hand,  has  the  sure  hope  that  God  will  deliver  him 
from  death  (v.",  cf.  Ps  16'"),  and  he  can  enjoy  his 
prosperity,  while  the  wicked  die  away  (v.''^).  But, 
seeing  that  the  stroke  of  death  falls  in  any  case  at 
last  upon  the  righteous  as  well,  neither  could  this 
solution  of  the  problem  be  regarded  as  satisfactory. 
— Ps  73,  in  which  we  can  still  detect  tlie  scars  of 
the  fierce  conflict  which  faith  had  to  sustain  with 
doubt  (vv. ''■"'),  followed  to  some  e.xtent  the  same 
path,  arguing  that  the  prosperity  of  the  ungodly  is 
but  fleeting,  whereas  tliat  of  the  godly  is  at  last 
permanent  (vv.""^--').  Along  with  this,  it  points 
to  a  solution  which,  from  the  Christian  standpoint, 
indeed,  would  be  perfectlv  satisfying,  namely,  that 
the  happiness  of  the  rigliteous  is  purely  inward, 
and  that  this,  or  in  other  words  the  blessedness 
produced  by  the  fellowship  of  the  heart  with  God, 
cannot  be  torn  from  them  by  any  suflcring  of  an 
earthly  kind  (v.'-^'-).  But  this  .solution  was  inade- 
quate from  the  standpoint  of  the  OT,  for  the  latter 
demanded  outward  prosperity  for  the  righteous  by 
way  of  reward,  and  outward  sutl'ering  for  the 
wicked  by  way  of  punishment.  Equally  unsatis- 
factory as  a  full  answer  was  the  declaration  that, 
in  the  case  of  the  righteous,  suffering  is  chastening, 
and,  as  such,  an  evidence  of  Divine  love  (Pr  3", 
He  12'"'),  intended  to  warn  tlu^m  against  going 
on  further  in  sin  (Job  33'°'-  "■■"'),  and,  on  the 
other  hand,  purifies  them  from  stains  and  in  this 
way  perfects  them  (Ho  12""-).  However  correct 
and  beautiful  all  this  is,  one  does  not  see  why  in 
that  case  the  ungodly,  who  surely  in  any  case  also 
deserve  punishment,  receive  none.  Again,  from 
the  OT  jioint  of  view,  the  use  of  such  a  purifying 
of  the  godly  could  not  be  apprehended ;  for  if,  as 
frequently  hajipencd,  the  suttering  continued  till 
the  death  of  the  sufferer,  the  whole  fruit  of  such 
purification  was  lost  in  Sheol,  where  godly  and  un- 
godly lead  the  same  dreamy  existence  (Ps  49"-  ", 
Job  3"-"'  7'-"'  U~,  Ezk  3'2'»-»-).  There  even  the 
righteous  have  no  more  hope  (Ps  6=  .W,  Is  38"'-  '*'•, 
Job  7'"-  H"'-'^ ;  cf.  esp.  W.  Schwally,  Lebcn  naih 
iIkiii  Tode  iinrh  den  Vorstelluvfjcn  e/cs  nlten  Israels, 
li  lessen,  18'J2,  pp.  59-74).  Nor  could  doubts  be 
solved  by  the  expedient  of  declaring  that  in  the 
last  resort  all  are  sinners,  that  none  is  good  but 
God  alone  (Job  4"-'«  H*  15'<-'»  2')-",  Mk  lO'"),  for 
this  supjilied  no  answer  to  the  question  why  it  is, 
under  these  circumstances,  that  the  nutoriously 
ungodly  so  often  remain  unpunished.  l!ut,  above 
all,  these  attempts  at  solving  the  problem  all  left 
the  main  question  untouched,  how  the  circumstance 
is  to  be  explained  that  God  does  not  fulfil  His 
solemn  promise  to  reward  the  righteous  and  to 
punish  the  wicked  (Dt  28),  but  almost  consistently 
docs  the  opposite.  With  loud  comjilaints  the  godly 
addressed  to  God  the  bitter  question  why  He  looks 
so  calmly  on  this  course  of  things  (Jer  12'- '')  ;  and 
a  kind  of  desMiair  took  po.ssession  of  them  (Jer  20'''""', 
Jobs'"'-).  It  appeared  as  if  God  were  asleep  (Ps 
44'-^).  The  pros|ierous  transgressor  asked  mock- 
ingly, 'Where  is  now  thy  God?'  (Ps  42'-'")  and 
triumphantly  denied  the  alleged  principle  of  a 
Divine  government  of  the  world  (Ps  10"  14'  73"). 

(4)  The  Booh  of  Job. — The  finest  exhibition  of 
the  problem  of  the  doctrine  of  retribution  on  all  its 
sides  and  in  all  its  depth  is  afl'orded  by  the  poem 
of  Job.  We  have  here  three  [or  four]  speakers, 
who  state  their  case  from  the  standpoint  of  the 
traditional  doctrine  ;  and  also  in  the  speeches  of 
their  opjionent.  Job,  a  large  space  is  devoted  to  a 
description  of  the  doctrine  he  combats.  The  fiimla- 
mental  dogma  of  the  old  doctrine  of  retribution 


926 


WISDOM 


WISDOM 


is  that  all  sufloring  is  punishment  inflicted  by  an 
angry  God.  God  turns  away  otl'ended  from  man 
(Job  IS^-"  19'  iS";  SO-"'-);  or  turns  the  glance  of 
His  anger  upon  him  (?"*  14**  16'),  meets  him  as  an 
enemy  (19"  13-^),  smites  him  with  the  stroke  of 
His  hand  (13-'  30-').  The  storms  of  trial  appear 
like  the  attack  of  an  adversary  (10"  16"'-  19'-)  or 
the  threatened  onslaught  of  wild  beasts  (10",  cf. 
Ps  22'3'-  ",  Is  3S'3).  Side  by  side  with  this  we  find 
the  figures  of  the  net  (Job  IG'^),  the  prison  (7'^  13-"), 
darkness  (IG*"),  the  closed-up  way  (3^  19*"  e<  al.). 
The  sutt'erings  are  described  at  one  time  as  out- 
ward (9^),  and  again  as  inward  (30"  pains  of  the 
entrails).  Finally,  they  carry  the  man  off  (9"'- 
2418-211)  This  hostile  attitude  on  the  part  of  God 
awakens  in  the  mind  of  the  sutterer  the  fear  of 
further  misfortunes  (Job  9^  10'^'-  30^'),  and  there- 
with a  feeling  of  desjiair  and  hopelessness  (3^'-  9"*- 
23'^* ),  so  that  he  prays  merely  for  a  brief  respite 
(719  10^0  i46,_  OT  even  for  death  (6"r-  7"). —The 
further  result  of  this  view  of  the  causes  of  Butter- 
ing is  that  the  sutterer  torments  himself  continu- 
ally with  the  question  why  he  has  incurred  this 
mysterious  and,  to  him,  inexplicable  anger  of  God 
(lO-*-  13-="-  23-'"'),  for  it  appears  to  him  as  if  he 
were  continually  watched  by  God,  who  seeks  for 
occasions  to  punish  him  for  possible  transgressions 
(7*"-  13-'''-). — To  the  sutterer  it  is  peculiarly  painful 
that  his  a.ssociates,  friend  and  foe  alike,  take  the 
same  view  of  the  cause  of  his  woes.  They  regard 
him  as  one  thus  marked  out  by  God.  His  enemies 
with  malicious  joy  seize  the  opportunity  to  inveigh 
against  him  (lO""'- 30"f-) ;  his  slaves  and  domestics 
refuse  him  obedience  (19"'-);  wife  and  children 
and  friends  shrink  from  him  (19'='»"-  12^);  all 
regard  him  as  a  reprobate  (17'').  Whoever  should 
doubt  this  would  call  the  Divine  justice  in 
question,  charge  God  with  unrighteousness  and 
untruth,  and  tiius  commit  the  most  heinous  blas- 
phemy (8'  34''''-),  and  he  would  load  himself  with 
new  and  heavier  guilt  (IP  15''  33'''-  345^-).  The 
whole  duty  of  the  sutterer  is,  accordingly,  by 
honest  self-examination  to  discover  his  oH'ence. 
Such  must  be  a  priori  assumed,  for  otherwise  there 
would  be  no  suttering,  i.e.  no  punishment,  to 
explain  (8") ;  and,  as  no  one  is  perfect  (4"'"'  15'^''* 
25^"-°),  some  kind  of  guilt  will  not  be  difticult  to 
discover.  [It  might  be  that  the  ott'ence  was 
trilling  :  in  that  case  it  was  God's  aim  to  deter  the 
man  liom  something  worse,  33-'''™].  Hence  the 
man  who  denies  his  guilt  reveals  a  hardened  dis- 
position, which  will  not  confess  what  is  certainly 
there  all  the  same,  and  which  justifies,  according 
to  the  notions  of  the  time,  the  heaping  of  all  con- 
ceivable evil  charges  upon  his  head  (ch.  22). — To 
this  doctrine  Job  objects  :  in  the  first  place,  that 
at  all  events  the  sutterer  has  a  right  to  complain  ; 
in  G^"'  that  it  is  harsh  when,  instead  of  ottering  to 
the  sutterer  comfort  in  his  attiiction,  people  up- 
braid him  with  the  sins  they  impose  upon  him 
(v.""),  repeat  with  all  kinds  of  variations  the 
familiar  theory  of  the  Divine  punitive  justice  and 
ap]>ly  this  to  the  unfortunate  being  before  them 
(12--'  13-  le-""-  19-').  Again,  it  is  an  easy  matter 
on  the  ground  of  pure  tlieory  to  heap  all  kinds  of 
charges  uiiou  a  sullerer's  head,  charges  to  which 
the  latter  can  oppose  the  partlj  notorious  facts  of 
his  blameless  life  (ch.  31).  No  doubt,  the  omni- 
potence of  God  makes  rebellion  on  man's  part 
against  the  strokes  of  His  hand  useless,  but  this 
does  not  prove  that  these  sutt'erings  are  just  (9^- ®''- 
Hjis-17  i.2i\a.  131H-J1  lyeff.).  Although  it  is  not  to  be 
denied  that  there  are  terrible  instances  of  Divine 
judgment  upon  WTong-doers  (19^  13"'- "),  on  the 
other  hand  experience  shows  that  good  and  bad 
alike  are  the  victims  of  God's  stroke  (9=^'-  \2'^<'-), 
and  that  it  goes  well  with  the  one  and  ill  with  the 
other,  without  any  merit  on  the  ji.irt  of  the  one 


or  blame  on  the  part  of  the  other  (21^- ").  It 
often  happens  even  that  wicked  men  enjoy  un- 
disturbed prosperitj'  down  to  their  death  (12'''2l'""- 
so-33  24"''). — On  the  other  hand,  no  power  in  tho 
world,  and  no  alleijed  doctrine  of  Divine  Pro- 
vidence, however  hallowed  by  time,  can  tear  from 
the  soul  of  an  innocent  sutterer  the  consciousness 
of  his  innocence,  and  compel  him,  in  opposition  to 
the  acquitting  voice  of  conscience,  to  confess  him- 
self guilty  (10'  13'"  16"  23'^'-  27"-  31).  Such  a  man 
is  entitled  to  appeal  to  the  better  judgment  of 
God  Himself,  which  does  not  agree  with  tlie  verdict 
which  men  tliink  to  discover  in  the  strokes  of  mis- 
fortune that  have  fallen  upon  the  sutterer  (10'  12* 
137-11.  aa.  mi3.2i  173  lu-Dif.).  The  very  assertion  that 
there  is  not  a  single  righteous  man  shows  how 
utterlj'  untenable  is  the  old  doctrine  of  retribu- 
tion, for  in  that  case  it  is  quite  incomprehensible 
whj-  it  often  happens  that  it  is  just  those  who  are 
relatively  least  stained  with  guilt  that  are  most 
severely  punished,  whereas  gross  offenders  go  tree 
(812.  201.  13^^.  144. 17)  xhe  negative  result  of  these 
observations  is  briefly  this  :  What  hitherto  it  has 
been  the  custom  to  call  the  exercise  of  Divine 
justice  in  the  fortunes  of  men  is  nothing  more 
than  the  exercise  of  Divine  omnipotence,  whose 
resolutions  are  without  any  moral  quality.  These 
take  their  place,  undistinguished,  amongst  natural 
occurrences,  be  these  beneficial  or  destructive,  and 
affect  all  men  alike.  In  like  manner,  individuals 
are  prosperous  or  the  reverse  in  the  att'aiis  of  their 
natural  life,  without  regard  to  whether  they  are 
good  or  bad.  The  gifts  of  prosperity  and  the 
blows  of  adversity,  in  so  far  as  by  these  are  under- 
stood material  well  -  being  or  suttering,  do  not 
depend  at  all  on  the  moral  character  of  the  man, 
and  have  no  relation  at  all  to  the  moral  nature 
(the  righteousness)  of  God.  Such  is  the  result  of 
an  unprejudiced  examination  of  things.  The  old 
doctrine  of  Divine  retribution  is  completely  shat- 
tered against  it.     Cf.  Goethe's  Faust,  i. — 

Flach  sei  der  Hoffnung  I  Finch  dem  Glaul)en  I 
TJnd  Fluch  vor  alien  der  Goduld  I 
Geister-Chor :  Weh  !  Weh  1 

Du  hast  sie  zerstort. 

Die  schone  Welt, 

Mit  miichtiger  Faust , 

Sie  stiirzt,  sie  zerfallt : 

£in  Halbgott  bat  sie  zerschla^n  J 

Wir  tragen 

Die  Trummern  ins  Nicbts  hinubflr, 

Pnd  klagen 

ijber  die  verlome  Schone. 

Machtitrer 

Der  Erdensohne, 

Pnichtiger 

Baue  sie  wieder. 

In  deinem  Busen  baue  sie  aut  1 

Over  against  this  the  following  positive  struc- 
ture is  reared  by  one  who  supplemented  tha 
poem  (cf.  C.  Siegfried,  'Job'  in  Haupt's  SBOT). 
He  insists  that,  while  Nature,  especially  in  her  ter- 
rible catastrophes,  exhibits  merely  the  working  of 
Almighty  power  whose  immensity  overwhelms  man 
(ch.  26),  yet  in  her  positive  operations,  in  the 
variety  of  her  creatures  and  their  mode  of  life, 
she  reveals  an  admirable  law  and  order ;  from 
which  it  follows  that  not  merely  brute  force  but 
also  hidden  wisdom  interpenetrates  and  controls 
the  life  of  nature  (chs.  38-41).  The  depths  of  this 
wisdom  are  indeed  beyond  man's  understanding 
(28'-"),  but  the  analogy  of  the  life  of  nature  leads 
us  to  postulate  a  similar  order  for  the  moral 
world,  although  it  is  not  in  man's  power  to  state 
its  laws.  Man  luis  left  to  him  the  essence  of  all 
wLsdom  in  the  practical  maxim  of  life — the  fear  of 
Jahweh  and  the  avoiding  of  evil  (26^).  The  theo- 
retical solutiou  of  the  problem  is  thus  given  up  in 
the  Book  of  Job.  Yet  the  standpoint  of  faith  and 
of  religion  is  maintained,  as  in  Ec  12'"-. — Another 
solution  is  proposed  in  the  Elihu  speeches,  but  it 


WISDOM 


WISDOM 


927 


is  opposfil  to  the  whole  tendency  of  tlie  poem. 
These  speeches  trace  tlie  sullerin^s  of  the  ri^'litcous 
to  an  aim  on  (Icxl'a  part  to  purify  them  morall}', 
and  to  keep  them  from  sin  (33'"- -''-*' 30).  The 
olijeet  of  buflering,  that  is  to  say,  is  here  a  pa;da- 
go^ic  one. 

(r)  Ecclesiastes. — A  complete  breach  with  the 
position  of  Jewisli  orthodoxy  was  reached  in  the 
'  Giundsclirift '  of  this  book  (Q' ;  cf.  C.  Siefifried 
in  Xowack's  Udlcum.  z.  AT,  '  I'rediger  and  Holies- 
lied,'  Uottinjien,  1898),  embracing  the  following 
f)a.s.sa"es  :  H-2'-'  "•>•"•  3'''"-  ''■  '"• '»"-'  4'-*-  '•''■  '^-"  S""- 
2-lli    (Jl-7     ■Jlb-4.  1».  26-28     ga(.  U.  Ml.     g2(.  »(.      JQS-?     (gf      /  j_ 

p.  6tr. ).  We  tind  here  a  pessimist  pliitosophy 
radically  divorced  from  Judaism  and  influenced 
mainly  by  Stoicism  (cf.  I.e.  pp.  6-10).  The  buok 
\va.s  glossed  by  an  Epicurean  Sadducee  (Q-),  to 
whom  belong  3^=  u""!"  yn- is  gio  9^- '■'"• '=  lO"  ll'"*"- 
a..  10  i.2ib-7.  (;  c.  p.  10  f.)  ;  further,  by  a  haUiilm  (Q'), 
who  defends  Wisdom  against  its  disparagement  by 
Q',  and  to  whom  are  attributed  2"-  '^  4'  6'- ""  7"'-  " 
8'  9"-"  lO'-*-'--"  {I.e.  p.  11);  and,  most  notably, 
by  a  Jewisli  liiisid  {Q* ;  I.e.  p.  11  f.),  who  corrected 
the  anti-Jewish  views  of  Q'.  To  his  hand  we  owe 
the   passages:    2--"'-'^  311. 13M7    417.51. 3-s.  61. 1.    (jio-21 

-13.  17.  iJ-a.  29    82-8.11-18    Ql     jp.  8b.  9b     JO'*- ">,        On     tile 

other  hand,  scattered  interpolations  (Q»  ;  I.e.  p.  12), 
in  the  spirit  of  the  old  gnomic  Wisdom,  contain 
exhortations  to   a   prudent   conduct   of   life:   4""'- 

52.lia.8.11     -la.  8.  6«.  7-10.  18.  2U-^     ()11      JQJ.  8-11,  10-18     Jll-4.8 

A  redactor  (R')  put  together  1--12',  and  supplied 
this  whole  with  the  closing  formula  12^  Then  came 
particular  additions  :  Urst  epilogue  12^'-,  which  in- 
forms the  reader  as  to  the  personality  of  Qoheleth 
anil  removes  the  mask  of  king  Solomon  ;  second 
epilogue  12'"-,  which  assumes  an  opposite  attitude, 
one  opposed  to  this  Wi-^dom  literature;  and  12"'-, 
the  work  of  a  linal  redactor  (R-),  who  from  tlie 
I'liari.saic  standpoint  alludes  to  a  llnal  future  judg- 
ment, a  doctrine  with  which  Q*  (3"  11"'')  is  not  yet 
acijuainted  {I.e.  p.  12). 

In  the  genuine  parts  of  the  poem  the  theme  'All 
is  vanity '  is  treated  by  tj'  in  a  series  of  parallel 
arguments.  In  the  first  of  these  it  is  establislied 
that  all  that  happens  on  earth  exhibits  an  iron  law 
of  cycle,  in  which  certain  jiassing  phenomena  re- 
gularly recur  (I''").  All  man's  ellorts  to  discover 
a  reasonable  ground  for  this  arrangement  come  to 
nought  (vv. '-■'").  Qoheleth  assures  us  that  he  has 
tried  all  kinds  of  expedients  to  banish  the  pessi- 
mistic disposition  produced  by  the  above  oh.serva- 
tion  ;  he  has  revelled  in  every  species  of  enjoyment; 
he  has  given  himself  to  the  most  laborious  inven- 
tions. IJut  all  in  vain  (2'"").  The  attempt  to  tind 
consolation  in  the  pursuit  of  Wisdom  ('in- "''■ '"•) 
has  likewise  been  a  complete  failure,  so  that  he  has 
ended  in  blank  d(!s])air  (vv. "•-").  —  The  second 
argument  on  the  theme  of  1'  shows  how  the  con- 
traries, which  characterize  all  that  liajipens  on 
earth,  prove  all  labour  on  man's  part  to  be  vain, 
liirth  is  followed  by  death,  planting  by  rooting  up, 
etc.  (3'").  This  law  of  nature,  which  alwajs  de- 
stroys again  what  it  has  made  (vv.'°- '-• '"),  shows 
that  there  is  no  moral  principle  in  the  ordering  of 
the  world.  Consequently  there  can  be  none  in  the 
ca.se  of  men  either,  for,  as  their  existence  is  not 
essentially  dillcrent  from  that  of  the  beast,  no 
more  can  their  fate  be  difleicnt  (3'°'  '""'■").  Special 
arrangements  for  the  good  of  man  are  im|>ossible 
in  the  plan  of  the  universe. — The  third  argument 
(chs.  4.  '))  isalreadj'  interrupted  by  a  number  of  in- 
terpolations. IJut  the  hand  of  Q'  may  still  be 
recognized  in  4i-<.6-8.  i3-i»  gut.  n-i«  ;„  ^1,^.  complaint 
about  human  auflering,  from  which  there  is  no 
escape,  and  which  is  yet  so  useless,  and  aliout  the 
restless  and  yet  fruitlc'ss  labours  of  men.  Isolated 
fragments  o^  the  following  chapters  (Siegfried,  I.e. 
p.  22)  contain  complaints  of  Bimilor  experiences. 


and  wage  a  special  conflict  with  the  Deuterononiic 
doctrine  of  retribution.  Laws  of  nature,  according 
to  li',  not  moral  laws,  rule  eveiything.  There  is 
no  Divine  government  of  the  world.  This  is  proved 
by  the  world's  course.  Man's  lot  is  a  continual 
vain  struggle.  Pleasures  cannot  compensate  him 
for  this,  for  they  rest  upon  an  illusion.  Nor  does 
AVisdom  bring  any  real  satisfaction,  for  the  pursuit 
of  her  is  fruitless. — Amongst  the  glo.ssators,  Q,^ 
occu]iies  a  purely  Epicurean  standpoint.  Eating 
and  drinking  and  other  sensual  indulgences  he 
considers  of  very  real  value,  and  counsels  jiartici- 
pating  in  tliese  before  the  coming  of  old  age  when 
the  capacity  for  enjoying  them  ceases,  l.abour, 
again,  is,  according  to  him,  not  without  result,  for 
by  it  man  gains  something  which  procures  enjoy- 
ment. Hence  man  is  to  note  the  good  days  and 
accommodate  himself  to  the  evil  ones. — The  gloss- 
ator, the  lidkhum  t^',  as  was  already  remarked, 
defends  Wis<lom  against  the  disparagement  of  its 
value  by  Q'.  —  The  I'hariseo  i^*  maintains  the 
positions  of  Judaism  against  Q',  namely  the  Divine 
causality  in  the  creation  and  governirient  of  the 
world  :  the  Divine  justice,  which  calls  even  the 
exalted  to  account  and  protects  the  law-abiding  ; 
the  view  of  premature  death,  which  overtakes  the 
wicked,  whereas  it  is  escaped  by  the  godly  (Sieg- 
fiied.  I.e.  p.  11  f.). 

5.  Tlie  Wisdom  teaching  in  the  Apocrypha.. — In 
the  apocryphal  literature  the  Wisdom  teaching 
received  abundant  attention.  (a)  Sirach.  —  The 
standpoint  of  the  sayings  of  Ben  Sira  has  points 
of  contact  with  that  of  Q^  just  described.  His 
'Wisdom'  is  out  and  out  Jewish-religious.  'All 
wisdom  is  from  the  Lord,  and  is  with  him  for  ever ' 
(1');  hence  it  is  unfathomable  in  its  nature,  for 
God  alone  comprehends  it  (v. 5).  God  created  it 
(v.*),  and  poured  it  out  on  all  His  works,  but  in 
a  special  manner  upon  the  godly  (v.'"),  who  re- 
cognize that  the  fear  of  the  Lord  is  the  beginning 
of  wisdom  (vv."'-").  From  this  source  flow  all 
ethical  rules,  which  are  specialized  in  rich  variety, 
a  course  which  gives  the  author  occasion  for  a 
number  of  separate  expositions  (P'-IO^).  Once 
more  he  turns  to  the  contemplation  of  the  nature 
of  wisdom  in  24'-30'-'',  a  section  which  ojiens  with 
a  call  to  Wisdom  to  raise  a  liyiiin  in  praise  of  her- 
self, to  which  she  responds  in  24'''-.  She  glorifies 
herself  as  having  proceeded  out  of  the  mouth  of 
the  Highest,  and  relates  how  at  the  Creation  she 
lay  upon  the  earth  like  a  mist  (cf.  Gn  1'  2").  Then 
she  took  her  seat  upon  a  pillar  of  cloud  (cf.  Ex  14'") 
and  spread  her  flight  through  the  heights  cf  heaven. 
Hut  she  likewise  walked  tlirough  the  ileptlis  of  the 
abyss.  Sea  and  dry  land  have  been  taken  possession 
of  by  her,  and  slie  has  souglit  a  dwelling-place 
among  all  nations.  But  '  the  Creator  of  all  things' 
commanded  her  :  '  In  Jacob  take  up  thy  dwelling.' 
Then  she  received  her  place  in  Zion,  and  flourished 
there  like  a  hne  tree.  And  so  she  call.-'  all  who 
long  for  Wisdom  to  come  and  enjoy  her  fruits. 
But  Wisdom  has  found  its  fullest  expression  in  the 
Book  of  the  Law  (24'-^"-'''),  whose  full  stream  is  com- 
pared with  that  of  the  four  rivers  of  Paradise. 
With  Sirach  thus  as  in  I'r  8  (see  above,  p.  'J25'') 
Wisdom  is  not  God's  inli  rmediary  in  the  creation 
of  the  world,  but  has  to  do  only  with  men.  Slio 
seeks  a  dwelling-]ilace  with  them  upon  the  alrcaily 
created  earth,  and  linds  it  in  Israel,  [lartlv  in  the 
Teiii|jle  worship  (24""-),  partly  in  the  Book  of  the 
Law  (24-"). 

(4)  Brirnch. — In  this  book  Wisdom  appears  simply 
as  attached  to  the  book  of  the  commands  of  (iod 
(ell.  4) :  Israel's  misfortunes,  which  came  uiion  her 
with  the  Exile,  arc  due  solely  to  her  having  for- 
saken these  commandments  ot  life  {3'"'- ;  cf.  Rys.sel 
in  Kautzsch's  Apokr.  «.  Pseudcpigr.  d.  AT,i.  230- 
475). 


)2S 


WISDOM,  BOOK  OF 


WISDOM,  BOOK  OF 


(c)  4  Maccabees. — Here  the  Jewish  philosopher  of 
religion  starts  with  the  principle  that  tlie  natural 
reason  (6  voOs)  of  man  is  intended  to  rule  the 
passions  (rd  TdSri).  This  is  auconiplishetl  v  lien  the 
yoOs  chooses  a  life  in  Wisdom  and  tlius  becomes 
\oyiiT/i.6s.  Only  thus  can  it  arrive  at  the  ao<pla,  w  hich 
consists  in  possession  of  a  knowledfje  of  things 
Divine  and  human  and  of  their  causes  (<ro0ia  5ii 
roivvi/  iuTiv  yvu3<xi^  d^ioiv  koX  avd p^irlvuv  irpay/xdruv 
/cai  Tu>i>  Toi'moy  oItIuv,  1'*).  But  the  Wisdom  that 
is  recognized  must  also  be  desired,  the  Xoyicjtij^ 
must  be  ev<re^ris  \oyi<x^i6s,  thought  determining 
itself  to  a  >'irtuous  life.  The  best  aid  to  the 
leading  of  such  a  life  is  the  ancestral  Law,  which 
teaches  us  Divine  and  human  things  in  the 
wortliiest  and  most  suitable  manner  (t;  toO  vi/iov 
vatdeia,  di'  7^j  Tct  deia  (Te/xf^s  t:al  Tct  dvdpu^TTLva  ffvfjLfpc- 
pl>vTw!  ixavdiiiofiev,  1").  By  the  help  of  the  prescrip. 
tions  of  the  Jewish  Law  a  man  will  be  best  able 
to  check  perturbations  of  spirit,  for  from  it  we 
derive  trust  in  God,  and  the  conviction  that  the 
enduring  of  any  suffering  for  virtue's  sake  brings 
blessedness.  True  philosophy  thus  coincides  with 
fiVe'ieia,  and  is  of  value  simply  as  laying  a  scientific 
foundation  for  Judaism  (cf.  J.  Freudenthal,  Die 
Flavins  Josephus  beigelegte  Schrift  itber  die  Herr- 
sckaft  dcr  Vemun/t,  Breslau,  1S69  ;  A.  Deissmann, 
'  Das  sogenannte  vierte  Buch  der  Maccabaer '  ia 
Kautzscli's  Apokr.  u.  Pseudcpigr.  d.  A  T,  ii.  177 ; 
and,  in  general,  Farrar  in  Speaker's  Apocrypha, 
415''-420=' ;  and  art.  MACCABEES  in  vol.  iii.  p.  "l94). 

In  this  intellectual  movement  wliich  defended 
the  Jewish  religion  with  the  weapons  of  Greek 
philosophy,  and  embellished  it  with  the  grace 
acquired  from  Greek  education,  the  Book  OF 
Wisdom  took  its  place  as  an  important  factor. 
See  the  following  article.  C.  Siegfried. 

WISDOM,  BOOK  OF.— i.  Title.— The  title  (roipia 
SaXwM'ij'os  rests  upon  the  circumstance  that  the 
book  in  several  pa.ssages,  particularly  chs.  7-9  (cf. 
esp.  y")  claims  to  be  the  words  of  king  .Solomon, 
who  passed  in  general  for  the  patron  of  didactic 
composition,  as  David  did  of  lyric.  In  like  m.anner 
tlie  canonical  Book  of  Proverbs  received  the  title 
'  Proverbs  of  Solomon '  (.t::'S.;'  '^^f-.:),  although  in  30, 
31'  other  composers  of  oracles  are  also  introduced 
as  authors.  Of  Solomon's  kingly  wisdom  we  hear 
in  1  K  3'-".  In  Sir  47'--'8(i-'-i»)  he  is  celebrated  as 
one  Avho  filled  the  earth  with  dark  sayings,  songs, 
parables,  and  apophtliegms,  as  well  as  with  inter- 
iiretations  which  evoked  the  admiration  of  all 
lands.  Also  in  Qoheleth  he  is  regarded  as  the  real 
founde/  of  the  schools  of  wisdom  (Ec  1'^),  and  even 
the  sayings  of  this  book  are  in  a  way  attributed  to 
him  as  their  legendary  author  (see  Siegfried,  Pre- 
differ,  p.  1  f.).  'The  author  of  the  Book  of  Wisdom 
appears  to  have  been  moved  by  a  definit*  polemical 
ami  in  opposition  to  the  Hook  of  Qoheleth,  when 
he  chose  Solomon  as  the  representative  of  his  views. 
In  I'O-o-"  he  assails  with  remarkable  vehemence 
the  opinions  of  unorthodo.x  Jews,  who  incline  partly 
to  Stoicism,  partly  to  Epicureanism.  These  opmions 
correspond  e.xactly  to  those  put  forward  in  the 
Book  of  Ecclesiastes.  He  reproaches  these  men 
with  their  pessimism,  in  which  they  in  a  manner 
'  called  death  unto  them  by  their  hands  and  their 
words' (Wis  1'"),  consumed  themselves Avith  longing 
after  this  friend,  and  made  a  covenant  with  iiiin 
iib.).  According  to  their  pen'erted  judgment,  life 
is  short  and  sorrowful  (2'' ;  cf.  Ec  6''' 2^-  S'M'"-). 
Man  has  no  remedy  against  death,  and  none  can 
release  from  Hades  (2"";  cf.  Kautzsch,  Apokr.  i. 
482).  The  breath  of  our  nostrils  (cf.  Gn  2')  is  but 
as  a  smoke  that  ascendeth  ;  thought  (6  \l>yoi)  is  a 
spark  kindled  by  the  beating  of  the  heart  [the 
ancients  liad  no  idea  of  the  functions  of  the  brain], 
and,  when  this  is  extinguished,  the  body  is  turned 


into  a.shes,  and  the  animating  breath  is  dissipated 
in  the  air.  Then  even  the  recollection  of  us  fades 
quickly  (2'-« ;  cf.  Ec  2'8  9^").  Our  life  is  like  the 
passing  of  a  shadow  (2' ;  cf.  Ec  6'^).  Hence  from 
ihese  circles  of  thought  c mies  the  Epicurean  call 
to  enjoy  the  good  things  of  this  life  as  long  as  they 
are  within  our  reacli. — Further,  there  are  expres- 
sions here  and  there  in  Wisdom  which  recall  the 
late  Hebraisms  peculiar  to  Ecclesiastes :  e.g.  picpls. 
Wis  •2'^  =  p'7-  of  Ec  2'"  3-'-  in  the  sense  of  '  fruit  of 
toil,'  'reward';  naTaoi'vaurTdeiy,  Wis  2'",  cf.  ?  f;'J 
Ec  4',  3  abt  8'  (cf.  Farrar,  Apocr.  i.  404").  To  this 
unbelieving  Solomon  our  author  opposes  a  genuinely 
Jewish,  pious,  orthodo.x  Solomon. — That  the  words 
of  the  book  are  those  of  the  historical  king  Solo- 
mon, our  author  does  not  mean  to  assert,  nor  could 
the  readers  of  his  time  have  supposed  this  to  be 
the  case.  The  Muratorian  canon  pronounces  the 
Book  of  Wisdom  to  be  '  a  work  composed  in  his 
honour  by  friends  of  Solomon'  (ab  amicis Salomoni-a 
in  honorcm  ipsius scripta)  ;  Clement  of  Alexandria, 
it  is  true,  cites  sayings  from  our  book  as  words  of 
Solomon,  but  also  as  those  of  ao(pla ;  Origen  and 
Cjprian  use  the  book  as  canonical,  but  Origen 
is  doubtful  of  its  authenticity  (^  iTnyeypaiiiiivri 
'ZoKop.wvToi  ffo(pla,  adv.  Cels.  v.  29).  Jerome  and 
Augustine  give  up  the  Solomonic  authorship  (see 
Schurer,  GJV^  iii.  381  f.). 

ii.  Language. — D.  S.  Margoliouth  attempted 
[JRAS,  Apr.  1890,  pp.  263-297)  to  prove  a  Heb. 
original  for  the  Book  of  Wisdom.*  But,  in  spit« 
of  certain  phenomena  wliich  at  first  sight  favour 
this  theory,  J.  Freudenthal  {JQE,  July  1891,  pp. 
722-753)  has  conclusively  shown  that  both  the 
speech  and  the  form  of  thought  in  our  book  plainly 
point  to  a  Greek  original.  Hebraizing  expressions 
are  employed  by  the  author  because  he  found 
these  in  the  LXX,  and  because  he  was  himself  a 
Jew  (cf.  Farrar,  404'',  405";  Grimm,  Apokr.  6" 
Lieferung,  pp.  5,  8)  ;  but  these  expressions  do  not 
justify  the  conclusion  that  the  worli  was  originally 
composed  in  Hebrew. — The  Greek  of  the  book  is 
indeed  not  always  correct.  Our  autlior  at  times 
gives  words  a  moaning  which  is  not  usual  in 
classical  literature  (cf.  Farrar,  405').  To  this 
category  belong  expressions  which  are  particularly 
characteristic  of  the  Platonic  or  the  Stoic  philo- 
sophy (Farrar,  407*;  Grimm,  19)  ;  compound  adjec- 
tives, which  appear  to  be  in  part  of  tlie  author's 
own  coining  (Farrar,  I.e. ;  for  similar  phenomena  in 
Philo  see  Siegfried,  Philo  von  Alcxandrin,  1874, 
pp.  46 f.,  135).  The  author  shows  himself  to  be 
also  well  read  in  Greek  poetry  (Farrar,  405'',  406*  ; 
Grimm,  7)  ;  he  imitates  Greek  figures  of  speech 
(according  to  Farrar,  405'',  406*,  and  Grimm,  I.e.), 
although  not  always  with  success  (Farrar,  406*). 
Regarding  the  influence  which  the  Greek  of  the 
Book  of  Wisdom  exercised  upon  the  NT,  cf.  Farrar, 
p.  408.  Our  author  reveals  also  an  acquaintance 
with  Greek  culture,  art,  and  science  ;  in  particular, 
he  displays  a  knowledge  of  astronomy  and  natural 
history  (cf.  7"''"),  makes  reflexions  on  the  origin 
of  idolatry  (13'-»  14'»'-  15'"-),  etc.  Towards  the  end 
of  his  book  his  creative  power  gets  exhausted,  and 
he  begins  to  repeat  himself  (II*^',  cf.  chs.  16-19). 
His  language,  too,  degenerates  into  rhetorical 
bombast. 

iii.  General  Character  of  the  Book.— In 
spite  of  our  author's  familiarity  with  Greek  culture, 
and  the  profundity  of  his  studies,  especially  in  the 
Platonic  and  the  Stoic  philosophy,  which  may  be 
detected  both  in  his  language  (Farrar,  407')  and 
his  world  of  ideas  (Grimm,  19  f.),  he  was  far  from 
feeling,  like  Josephus  and  Philo,  hampered  by  his 
Jewish  faith,  and  far  from  seeking,  like  the  former, 
to  embellish  it  with  Hellcnizing  graces,  or,  like 

♦  His  treatineuL  of  this  book  in  the  Expositor  (Feb.-Marck 
1900)  can  hardly  be  taken  seriouslv. 


■\NaSDOM,  BOOK  OF 


WISDOM,  BOOK  OF 


929 


the  latter,  to  make  it  more  acceptable  to  the 
educated  classes  by  allegorizing^  e.xplanations. 
Besides,  he  felt  himself,  aa  a  worshipper  of  the 
true  God,  too  far  raised  above  all  idolaters  (13'°- 
14")  for  this,  and  too  much  embittered  a;:ainst 
those  of  his  countrymen  who  had  allowed  them- 
selves to  be  turned  by  Greek  philosophy  away 
from  their  ancestral  rclij,'ion  to  free-thought  and 
immorality  (l'*-2^).  His  Jewish  temper  shows 
itself  even  in  the  ontwani  form  of  his  work,  to 
which  hestrove  with  all  diligence  to  give  a  genuine 
biblical  colouring.  We  have  seen  already  (p.  92S'') 
how  closely  he  attached  himself  to  the  LXX  and 
its  Hebraisms.  Although  ho  is  capable  of  imitat- 
ing the  artistic  periodic  structure  of  the  Greeks 
(cf.  12-''  IS'"-  "•'•),  he  prefers  as  a  rule  the  simple 
Hebrew  fashion  of  clauses  connected  without  par- 
ticles (cf.  Grimm,  p.  13).  He  seeks  also,  at  least 
in  the  greater  part  of  1  - 12'*,  by  imitating  the 
Heb.  parallelism,  to  make  his  book  approximate 
as  closely  as  possible  to  his  model,  the  Book  of 
Proverbs. 

iv.  The  Aim  of  the  Book.— The  author's  zeal 
for  the  Jewish  religion,  and  his  ortliodoxy,  are 
still  more  evident  in  the  aim  of  the  Book  of 
Wisdom.  The  Judaism  of  his  time  and  environ- 
ment found  itself  sorely  press(?d  both  from  with- 
out and  from  ■within,  and  tliis  in  proportion  to 
its  faithfulness  (2'"-  '■-■■-»).  It  was  weakened  {3">-'- 
^ub-LO)  i,y  internal  dissensions  and  by  apostasy, 
particularly,  it  would  appear,  on  the  part  of  the 
wealthy  and  inlluential  classes  (5").  In  addition, 
it  was  continually  threatened  by  the  spiritual  force 
of  Greek  culture  and  philosophy  (2'*-).  In  face  of 
these  dangers,  the  author  seeks  to  provide  a  sure 
hold  for  tlie  professors  of  the  Jewish  faith.  It  is 
quite  intelligible  tliat,  face  to  face  with  these 
Hellenized  Jews  who  'sought  alter  wisdom'  (1  Co 
1^),  he  felt  himself  moved  to'procl.aim  the  Jewish 
religion  as  the  true  Wisdom,  and  to  make  the 
notion  of  <ro(pla  the  centre  of  his  discourse.  The 
choice  of  this  notion  was  specially  happy,  because 
within  its  sweep  could  be  brought  all  that  the 
Greek  pliilosophy  contained  of  truth  and  all  that 
the  01  taught  about  Hokhma.  We  lind,  accord- 
ingly, that  the  author  drew  from  all  these  sources. 
Platonic  is  his  doctrine  of  amorphous  matter  (11"), 
of  the  central  ideas  (13'  6  Civ),  of  the  pre-existence 
of  the  soul  (8'*'),  of  the  body  as  hindering  eleva- 
tion to  the  divine  (9'° ;  in  the  expressions  /Sapwci, 
PplSft,  and  7fu)5fs  there  are  points  of  contact  with 
Plato's  Ph'Ech,  87'') ;  he  I'latonizes  also  in  his 
doctrine  of  the  four  cardinal  virtues  (8').  Stoic 
is  his  conception  of  Wisdom  as  the  all-pervading 
power  (T"'*").  On  the  other  hand,  his  doctrine  of 
Wisdom  as  an  attribute  of  God  is  based  wholly 
upon  Pr  8.  9.  He  thinks  of  Wi.sdom  as  immanent 
in  God,  as  something  belonging  to  the  Divine 
essence  (7-"),  but,  on  the  other  hand,  also  as  some- 
thing independent,  existing  side  by  side  with  God 
{''"  8^  9\  cf.  Pr  8**),  so  that  he  frequently  personifies 
Wisdom  (1'  8'  10'").  In  one  point,  however,  his 
concention  dillers  from  that  of  Proverbs.  While, 
according  to  Pr  8^''<*,  at  the  creating  of  the  things 
in  heaven  and  earth  God  alone  was  active,  and 
Wisdom  was  simply  an  onlooker  (v.*",  cf.  above, 
p.  925*),  in  tlie  Book  of  Wisdom  (8'"')  she  is  oiperr)! 
rCiv  IfTfav  ai-Toii  {sc.  toD  dcoO),  and  makes  a  selection 
among  God's  works,  i.e.  slie  determines  which  of 
the  works  whose  idea  God  has  formed  are  to  be 
actually  carried  out  (Grimm).  She  is  an  emana- 
tion from  God  (7^),  therefore  free  from  all  stains, 
and  she  pervades  all  things  (1'  7"),  without  being 
in  any  way  infected  with  tlio  imperfect  ions  inherent 
in  them  :  because  she  is  '  more  mobile  than  any 
motion,'  it  is  impossible  for  any  of  the  inijiurities 
which  belong  to  things  to  attacli  to  her. — On  the 
relation  of  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon  to  Philo  cf. 

VOL.  IV. — iJO 


Menzel,  De  Gr(Bcis  in  libris  n'jnp  et  (rorpla  vcstigiis, 
1858,  p.  66  ;  Ed.  Konig,  Einl.  in  d.  AT,  Bonn,  1893, 
p.  489  ;  Soulier,  La  doctrine  du  logos  chez  Philon, 
1876,  p.  162  f.— But,  as  in  Pr  8='  9'"-,  tlie  special 
object  of  interest  to  Wisdom  is  man  (Wis  723- »?<«'). 
Penetrating  into  the  human  understanding,  sh» 
gives  birth  to  all  varieties  of  theoretical  know 
ledge  (8"- "),  particularly  in  the  realm  of  theology, 
because  she  is  initiated  into  the  knowledge  of  God 
(8^).  She  communicates  the  inspiration  of  the 
prophets  (8*  9"),  but  also  the  knowledge  of  earthly 
things  in  the  sphere  of  history  (8*''),  astronomy, 
chronology,  natural  science  (7''"^"),  art  (7"''' ;  cf. 
Ezk  18^).  But  in  the  practical  sphere  as  well 
Wisdom  is  tlie  best  counsellor  of  man,  for  from 
her  comes  all  morality  and  virtue  (l"-7^8';  cf. 
Pr  8'2-  i8-*>->i-3«).     See,  further,  Karrar,  p.  420. 

V.  Contents  of  the  Book. —  (a)  The  first 
section  (chs.  1-5)  describes  the  contlict  which  the 
Divine  Wisdom  has  constantly  to  carry  on  with 
the  godless  wisdom  of  the  world,  and  tlie  victory 
to  wliich  she  leads  those  who  surrender  tlicmselves 
to  her.  In  the  first  place  (ch.  1)  the  author 
addresses  himself  apparently,  in  quite  a  general 
exhortation,  to  all  rulers  and  authorities  in  the 
world.  But  as  in  what  follows  he  deals  not  with 
public  conditions  or  the  duties  of  rulers,  but  with 
purely  inward  physico-ethical  developments,  it  is 
natural  to  suppose  that  he  has  in  view  not  heathen 
rulers,  liut  powerful  and  influential  personages  in 
his  Jewish  environment,  who,  as  is  evident  from 
ji«  2'"-,  liad  apostatized  from  their  religion  and 
attached  themselves  to  the  heathen  Government. 
How  high  in  those  days  suili  men  might  some- 
times rise  may  be  seen  from  the  case  of  the  Jewish 
noble  Tiberius  Alexander,  who  a  little  later  was 
nominated  Imperial  .administrator  (alabnrch)  of 
the  whole  of  the  so-called  Arabian  side  of  the  Nile 
(Schiirer,  GJK' iii.  490).  It  was  only  such  rulers, 
of  Jewish  descent,  that  our  author  could  hope  to 
reach  with  his  words ;  he  could  scarcely  expect  to 
be  read  by  heathen  ones.  The  description  con- 
tained in  lii'-2-°  suits,  moreover,  only  such  ai)ostate 
powerful  Jews.  Greek  philosophy,  particularly 
Epicureanism,  had  estranged  them  from  their 
religion  (2''°),  and  the  practical  consequences  of 
the  new  frivolous  view  of  life  had  speedily  shown 
themselves  in  abandonment  to  sensualism  and  im- 
morality (2'''").  To  these  men  their  fellow-country- 
men who  remained  true  to  their  religion  were  a 
genuine  stone  of  stumbling.  The  life  of  the  latter, 
with  its  piety  and  fidelity  to  the  Law,  caused 
tliem  secret  shame,  and  was  a  constant  prick  to 
their  conscience.  This  drove  them  to  hatred  and 
bitter  persecution  of  the 'righteous' (2"'"'''").  The 
author  now  faces  these  apostates  like  a  prophet  of 
rebuke,  and  exposes  the  vanity  of  their  whole 
conduct  in  the  passage  2-'-5-'*.  Wholly  ensnared 
by  earthly  things,  tliey  have  no  idea  that  man, 
formed  after  the  image  of  God,  has  an  eternal 
destiny  (2-'"^),  whose  form  is  only  decided  in  the 
world  beyond  (3'  iv  Katiti^  ^iriirkoTrijs  '  on  the  day  of 
visitation';  v.'""  ^tt'  icrxdruv,  iv  rjij^ipq.  diayvuaeat; 
v.'"'  'at  the  final  decision'  [the  statement  varies, 
it  is  true,  in  regard  to  some  points  :  in  4""''  it  is  a 
judgment  carried  out  in  the  next  world  after 
death,  in  5""^  it  is  one  that  takes  place  in  this 
world  in  eschatological  times]).  Then  shall  it  be 
manifested  whoso  life  was  the  truly  jirofitablo  one. 
The  ungodly,  i.e.  those  Jews  who  have  despised 
the  Law  (3'°  4*"  5'),  with  tlieir  wliolo  brooa,  are 
exposed  in  their  nothingness  (ijix-'a-io-io  4i>-6.  i»-»)_ 
They  themselves  shall  confess  their  mistake  with 
bitter  but  vain  repentance  (5^"").  Tlie  righteous, 
on  tlio  oilier  hand,  who  kept  by  the  Law,  shall 
reap  the  fruit  of  their  strivings  (3"""  4"-  5'-  '"'■), 
anci  BJiall  pronounce  judgment  on  the  ungodly  (4" 
5").     The  author  incidentally  controverts  the  old 


930 


WISDOM,  BOOK  OF 


WISDOM,  BOOK  OF 


Jewish  doctrine  that  premature  death  is  a  si^n  of 
impiety  (Ps  50"  102-'^),  holding  that  it  is  so  only  in 
the  case  of  tlie  wicked  (3'*'-),  hut  not  in  that  of  the 
righteous,  whose  sulferings  are  meant  simply  to 
try  them,  and  whose  death  is  a  rapture  to  perfect 
bliss  (:5'-»  4'-"  5>-  '"•). 

(6)  The  second  section  (cha.  6-9)  sets  forth  the 
great  advantages  of  Wisdom.  The  author  here 
attaches  his  words  in  the  first  instance  to  the 
exhortation  of  I'""  to  rulers,  on  whom  he  urges 
(a)  in  ti''"  that  they  in  particular  are  bound  in 
quite  a  special  way  to  seek  after  Wisdom,  and 
that  they  will  be  held  specially  responsible  if  they 
have  ruled  without  it.  Such  conduct  is  all  the 
more  culpable,  seeing  that  (/3)  Wisdom  is  so  easily 
accessible  and  so  ready  to  meet  those  that  seek 
her,  6'^-^.  This  is  followed  by  (7)  7'-8',  a  descrip- 
tion which  Solomon  from  his  own  experience  gives 
of  the  nature  of  Wisdom  ;  and  (5)  8-'-'  an  account 
by  the  same  king  of  how  he  came  to  attach  him- 
self to  Wisdom  as  a  life  companion  ;  and  tlie  whole 
closes  with  (e)  9'"'*  Solomon's  prayer  for  Wisdom. 

(c)  The  third  section  (lO'-iy-")  recounts,  tinally, 
the  wonders  wrought  by  Wisdom  in  the  history  of 
Israel :  (a)  in  the  period  from  Adam  to  Moses, 
specially  down  to  the  passage  of  the  Red  Sea,  10'- 
11' ;  (/3)  during  the  wilderness  wanderings,  IP- 
12-''.  This  is  followed  by  some  general  observa- 
tions (7)  on  the  folly  of  the  Wi.sdom  -  forsaken 
heathen,  who  have  given  themselves  over  to  the 
worship  of  natural  forces  and  images  of  gods,  as 
contrasted  with  the  Israelites  who  obey  Wisdom, 
ehs.  13-15  ;  and  (5)  on  the  remarkable  providences 
of  God,  whereby  the  animal-worshipping  Egyptians 
were  punished  by  means  of  the  very  same  animals 
which  brought  deliverance  to  the  Israelites ;  in 
which  connexion  other  instances  of  contrast  be- 
tween the  lot  of  the  Egyptians  and  the  Israelites 
are  also  insisted  upon. 

vi.  Progress  in  the  Development  op  re- 
ligious Doctrine  in  the  Book  of  Wisdom.— 
(a)  In  the  doctrine  of  God  the  central  point  in  the 
religious  system  of  this  book  is  the  tliought  that 
the  Divine  essence  is  love.  Whereas  the  canonical 
OT  regarded  Jahweh  by  preference  as  the  Lord  of 
His  creatures,  who,  according  to  His  pleasure, 
called  these  into  being  by  His  breath,  and  who  by 
withdrawing  that  breath  causes  them  to  perish 
(Ps  104-»-'"'),  in  the  Book  of  Wisdom  Jahweh  is  full 
of  love  to  all  His  creatures,  and  upholds  and  spares 
them  because  He  has  pleasure  in  all  that  lives. 
Even  the  wicked,  to  whom  He  gives  every  oppor- 
tunity to  repent  {rdiroy  /xerai/oiai,  12'",  cf.  He  12"), 
God  seeks  to  s])are  as  long  as  possible.  Alongside 
of  this  the  author's  inclination  towards  Jewish  par- 
ticularistic notions  shows  it.self.  God  is  Father 
only  in  relation  to  the  Jews,  to  the  heathen  He  is 
Ruler.  Sufferings  are  to  the  former  fatherly  chas- 
tisement and  have  an  educative  value  ;  in  the  case 
of  the  latter  they  are  an  expression  of  anger  and 
a  sign  of  judgment  (11'- '"). 

(6)  In  his  anthropoloqy  the  author  Insists  pre- 
eminently upon  individual  immortality.  Of  this 
the  canonical  01'  knew  nothing,  its  point  of 
interest  lying  merely  in  the   continuance  of  the 

Seople  of  Israel  and  the  consummating  of  the  king- 
om  of  (iod  amongst  them.  Hut  the  Book  of 
Wisdom  recognizes  that  man,  i.i:.  tlie  individual, 
was  created  for  incorruption  (2^  0"*  12') ;  in  par- 
ticular, the  righteous  live  for  ever  (u'**) ;  the  know- 
ledge of  the  power  of  God  is  the  root  of  im- 
mortality (15^).  It  is  true  that  the  conception  of 
immortality  vacillates  between  that  of  a  continued 
personal  existence  and  that  of  a  survival  in  the 
memory  of  posterity  (8'^),  or  even  between  the 
first  conception  and  that  of  the  ideal  coiiiimniity 
of  life  with  Wisdom  (8"),  which  the  righteous 
enjoy  even  here  during  their  earthly  existence. 


On  the  other  hand,  a  future  judgment  for  th« 
wicked  is  presupposed  in  4™,  following  up  the  OT 
conception  of  a  mockery  of  the  dead  in  Sheol  (4", 
cf.  Is  U'""-).     See,  further,  Farrar,  p.  409. 

(c)  In  the  soteriologu  of  the  book,  the  late  pro- 
phetic expectation  or  a  personal  Messiah,  the 
Servant  of  the  Lord,  recedes.  'I  he  author  knows 
Him  neither  as  vicarious  suHerer  nor  as  deliverer  of 
His  people.  The  Messianic  glory  consists  in  the 
establishment  of  a  kingdom  of  Jahweh  which  shall 
rule  over  the  heathen  (3")  ;  the  righteous  exercise 
personally  this  sway  upon  earth  (5''*'),  as  happened 
formerly  with  Solomon  by  God's  command  (8'*). 
On  the  attitude  of  the  rest  of  the  Apocryphal 
books  to  this  question  cf.  Farrar,  410*,  esp.  note  3. 
— Our  author  maintains  rigidly  the  Jewish  doc- 
trine of  retribution  (ot'  Civ  tij  a/iaprdvet  5id  tovtiiiv 
/toXaferai,  11'*).  But  his  method  of  expounding 
this  dogma  is  new.  He  seeks  to  show  that  even 
the  form  of  punishment  corresponds  exactly  to 
the  sin  committed.  The  Egyptians  worshipped 
animals,  therefore  they  were  also  punished  by 
means  of  animals,  nay  the  very  animals  which 
they  adored  (11"  15'^  16').  They  sinned  iu  con- 
nexion with  water  by  casting  the  newly -bom 
children  of  the  Hebrews  into  the  Nile  (11*),  there- 
fore they  were  also  punished  by  means  of  blood- 
red  water  (ib,). 

vii.  INTIOGRITY  OF  THE  BoOK.  —  The  work  i» 
evidently  the  well  -  arranged  product  of  a  single 
author.  On  now  defunct  hypotheses,  which  found 
in  it  the  work  of  a  number  of  different  hands, 
see  Grimm,  pp.  9-15,  aiul  Farrar,  p.  415'.  Its  in- 
tegrity, too,  may  in  general  be  admitted  (Grimm, 
15  f.).  Only  the  conclusion  (ig'*"^)  gives  the  im- 
pression of  aliruptness.  Although  in  general  the 
author's  intention  is  successfully  carried  out  in 
depicting  the  wonderful  guidance  of  Israel  by 
Wisdom  from  the  Exodus  onwards  (Grimm),  yet 
the  theme  started  in  v.'*  appears  to  require  some- 
what fuller  treatment  between  v.^'  and  v.^,  so 
that  the  traditional  text  is  here  defective. 

viii.  Authorship. — As  to  the  personality  of  the 
author  various  suggestions  have  IJeen  offered.  The 
book  has  been  attriliuted  to  Solomon  by  Clem. 
Alex.  [Slrom.  vi.  120  ff.),  Tertullian,  Hippolytus 
(ed.  Lagarde,  p.  66),  et  al.;  to  Philo  by  Jerome, 
Luther,  Joh.  Gerhard,  et  al.  For  these  and  other 
conjectures  see  (irimni,  pp.  16-26;  Farrar,  412-415'. 
In  view  of  their  untenable  character,  we  consider 
that  we  m.ay  dispense  with  a  closer  examination  of 
them.  The  probabilities  are  in  favour  of  an 
Egyptian  Jew  who  had  received  a  Greek  educa- 
tion but  had  remained  true  to  the  Law.  His 
description  of  Epicureanism,  to  which  many  Jews 
had  apostatizeil  (2'"-),  apjiears  to  have  been  derived 
partly  from  tjoheletli.  For  his  further  acquaint- 
ance with  the  works  of  Greek  philosophers  see 
above,  p.  92S''.  The  beauty  of  the  works  of  Greek 
plastic  art  found  him  as  unimpressionable  as  St. 
Paul  (Ac  17'*).  Sculptors  and  painters  are  to  him 
lovers  of  evil,  and  their  work  is  unprofitable 
(15'")  ;  works  of  sculpture  are  to  him  nothing 
but  idols  (14'").  He  has  Euhemeristic  notions  of 
the  motives  that  led  to  the  making  of  them  (14"*-)- 
That  he  was  not  a  Palestinian  but  an  Alexandrian 
Jew,  is  shown  by  his  allusions  to  the  Egyptian 
animal-worship  (15'"- "  16'").  Greek  images  of 
the  gods  (15-"')  might  then  be  seen  even  in 
Egyi)tian  cities.  In  favour  of  the  view  that  the 
author  lived  in  Alexandria,  is  the  circumstance 
that  both  a  Greek  and  a  Jewish  population  were 
settled  there,  and  that  his  culture  was  derived 
from  both  these  quarters. 

ix.  Date. — F'or  the  date  of  the  Book  of  Wisdom, 
the  terminus  a  quo  is  the  Greek  tran.slation  of  the 
Bible  (c.  250  B.C.),  the  terminus  ad  quern  the  un- 
questionable acquaintance  of  St.   Paul   with   the 


WISDOM,  BOOK  OP 


WIST,  WIT,  WOT,  WITTY       931 


book  (cf.  Grafe,  '  Das  Verhaltniss  der  paulin. 
Suhriften  zur  Sap.  Salom.'  in  Theol.  Abkandlungen 
C.  V.  }Vei:sdr/:er  zu  s.  70  Geburtstage  geu-idmet, 
Freiburg,  1892,  p.  251  if.,  where  in  particular  the 
autlior  establishes  St.  Paul's  dependence  upon  the 
book  in  regard  to  the  doctrine  of  predestination, 
the  condemnation  of  the  heathen,  and  the  con- 
ception of  the  relation  of  soul  and  body).  Keseni- 
blances  to  the  book  or  influences  from  the  same 
quarter  are  discoverable  also  in  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews  (cf.  He  P  « iUi  \Vis  7-«,  He  4"  with  Wis 
"i^"-  etc.).  The  most  recent  attempts  to  lix  the 
date  vary  up  and  down  between  150  u.C.  and 
40  A.D.  (cf.  Farrar,  420''-422*).  The  position  wiiich 
the  author  assumes  in  the  development  of  Alex- 
andrianism  prior  to  I'hilo  (cf.  Siegfried,  Philo  von 
Alex.  22-24)  is  in  favour  of  placing  him  between 
B.C.  100  and  50.  Kuenen  {Hist.-crit.  Onderzoek, 
§  105'°),  it  is  true,  will  have  it  that  the  book  was 
not  composed  till  the  time  of  Gains  Caligula, 

X.  Text. — The  Text  is  best  preserved  in  cod. 
Vaticanus  (B) ;  it  is  very  good  also  in  cod. 
Siuaiticus  (s  or  S),  as  well  as  in  the  fragments 
of  cod.  Ephra?mi  rescriptus  (C) ;  it  is  less  satis- 
factory in  cod.  Alexandrinus  (A)  and,  with  the 
exception  of  the  excellent  cod.  68,  in  10  cursives. 
Swete  (OT  in  Greek,  vol.  ii.,  C.imh.  1891,  2nd  ed. 
1897,  pp.  604-643)  uses  B  in  gener:il  as  tlie  basis  of 
his  text,  but  gives  in  footnotes  all  tlie  variants  of 
N  (S),  A,  and  C.  O.  F.  Fritzsche  in  his  Libri 
apocryphi  V.T.  grace,  Lipsife,  1871,  gives  not  only 
the  variants  of  the  above  MSS  but  also  those  of 
cod.  Venetus  (HP  23),  etc.,  as  well  as  tho.se  de- 
rived from  the  cursives  and  the  Versions.  W.  J. 
Deane  {The  Book  of  WMom,  Oxford,  1881)  agrees 
almost  entirely  with  Fritzsche.  Noteworthy 
emendations  are  to  be  found  in  Grimm  iij>. 
Fritzsche,  in  Grimm,  Knf.  exi'get.  Hdb.  zu  den 
Apokr.  6"  Lieforung  (Lpzg.  1860),  and  in  F.  W. 
Farrar  in  '  Speaker's  Com.'  Apocryn/ia,  i.  (London, 
1888)  403-534,  as  well  as  in  H.  Bois,  E.isai  sur 
lea  origines  de  la  philusophie  jud6o  -  alexandrine 
(Toulouse,  1890),  p.  378  f. 

xi.  Versions.  —  Of  the  Versions,  the  Vetus 
Latinus  of  Jerome  was  taken  over  unaltered  into 
the  Vulgate,  in  the  Books  of  Sirach  and  Wisdom. 
The  Latin  text  of  the  two  Wisdoms  from  the  cod. 
AmiatinuB  was  critically  edited  for  the  Wisdom 
of  Solomon  by  de  Lngarde  in  MittcUungcn,  Bd. 
i.  24.3-284.— Of  the  Syriac  Versions,  the  I'eshitta 
recension  was  publi.slied  in  de  Lagarde's  Lihri 
apoc.  V.T.  Syridce,  Lips.  1861  ;  another  recension 
in  Ceriani's  edition  of  the  cod.  Ambros.  .sajc.  vi. 
(Milan,  187611.)  ;  cf.  Nestle  in  Urtcxl  u.  Uhersetz- 
ungcn  der  Dibcl  (a  reprint  of  the  art.  in  PRE'), 
p.  230  ;  Kyssel  in  Kautzsch's  Apokr.  und  Pseud- 
epigr.  d.  AT,  i.  250-254. — On  the  Armenian  literal 
Version,  the  so-called  Meoliilar  Bible,  A'^enice, 
1805,  cf.  Nestle,  I.e.  pp.  155-157  ;  also  PRE'  iii. 
79  on  the  special  editions  of  the  Wisdom  of 
Solomon,  from  1824  to  1854. — For  recent  English 
translations  by  Deane  and  Farrar  see  above. — The 
most  recent  German  translation  is  that  of  C.  Sieg- 
fried in  Kautzsch's  Apokr.  und  Pseude/iigr.  d. 
AT,  i.  476-507,  with  Introduction  and  short 
exejjetical  notes.  J.  K.  Zenner  arranged  the  first 
section  of  the  book  (l'-6")  in  strophes  and  in 
verses  of  from  2  to  3  Btroi)hes,  and  published  this 
in  a  German  translation,  with  short  exjilanatory 
notes  in  the  /l-Khr.  fur  krilh.  Theol.  xxii.  [1898] 
pp.  417-429.  In  an  Appendix  he  adds  Egyptian 
parallels  to  bh.  2  from  Erman's  translation  (p. 
430  f.). 

LiTKRATCEE.— For  references  Bce  Grimm,  Bueh  der  Weuhrit 
(cf.  Kg/,  exfjet.  Bdb.  zu  dm  Apokr.  d.  AT),  pp.  46,  46,  and 
Farrar,  I.e.  pp.  422M23.  Sec  also  W.  J.  Deane,  The  Book  of 
Visilom,  Oxford,  1881,  pp.  42,  43  ;  Z"Ckler,  Apokryphm,  1891, 
pp.  300,  aai ;  Scbuier  la  PUB'  L  6S2,  and  QJV*  Ul.  883 tl.; 


Ph.  Thielmann,  Bmcht  iber  dot  mtammelu  handtchri/tlidit 
Material  zu  einer  krituchen  Aus</ahe  der  taUin.  t/bersetzungen 
biU.  Backer  d.  AT,  Munich,  1900,  pp.  207-214.  The  lut- 
naiued  author  ban  either  personally  or  through  others  collated 
30  MSS.  Of  these,  27  are  complete,  while  the  other  8  contain 
fr3),Tiient«  of  the  Book  of  Wisdom.  They  belong  to  the  8th-10th 
centuries,  and  include  Spanish,  Anglo-Saxon,  pre-Carlovingian 
Fretich,  South  German.  Swiss.  Italian  texts,  as  well  as  tho 
Uil»le9  of  Theodulf  and  Alcuin.  In  addition,  he  deals  with 
excerpts  from  33  MSS.  This  had  been  precede;!  by  Thielmann's 
studies,  •  uber  den  character  der  latein.  Ubersetzung  der 
Weisheit  Salomonie,' etc.,  in  Archiv  fiir  latein.  Lexicofiraphie 
und  Urammatik,  \iU.  (1893)  235  :;97.  601-661,  ll.  (1894)  247-244. 
According  to  Thielmann,  the  unily  of  the  Latin  text  of  Wisilom 
can    be   establiiihed ;  see,    further,  ScbUrer   in    ThLZ,   1900, 

No-  !*■  0.  Siegfried. 

WIST,  WIT,  WOT.  WITTY.— The  parts  of  the 
verb  'to  wit'  (Anglo- Sax.  tcitan,  Jliddle  Eng. 
witen,  '  to  know ')  were  :  Pres.  tense  '  I  wot,' 
'thou  wotest,'  'he  wot'  or  '  woteth  ' ;  plu.  'we 
witen';  past  tense  'wiste';  past  ptcp.  'wist'; 
inlin.  '  to  wit.' 

Examples:  /wof— Maiindeville,  TVap^fs,  72,  •  I  wot  never,  but 
God  knoweth*;  Knox,  UUt.  «7,  'I  wot,  and  know  surety  by 
the  Word  of  God ' ;  Jn  11^2  Tind.  *  I  wot  that  thou  hearest  me 
all  wayes '  (where  the  tense  should  be  past,  Hut,  Wye.  '  I  wiste,' 
Cran.  and  AV  '  I  knew,"  Rhem.  '  I  did  know ').  Thou  watett— 
Jn  137  Tind.  '  What  I  do,  thou  wotest  not  now,  but  thou  sbalt 
knowe  herafter.'  Ue  wot  or  u't)(('(A— Tiiidule,  }izpo8.  60,  *He 
that  hatcth  his  brother  is  in  darkness,  and  walketh  in  darkness, 
and  woteth  not  whither  he  goeth.'  We,  ye,  they  vriien  (and 
later,  as  in  AV,  wot)—Pxer$  Plowman,  li.  74 — 

■  Witen  all  and  witnessen  that  wonen  here  on  earth 
That  Meed  is  ymarried  more  for  her  richesse 
Than  for  holiness  or  hendcness,  or  for  high  kind : 
Falseness  is  fain  of  her,  for  he  wot  her  rich.' 

Wyclif  uses  '  they  wyteth,'  Works,  iil.  107, '  Fader,  forgeve  hem 
this  gjlt,  for  they  wj'teth  nought  what  they  dooth.'  Past 
tense,  ot!s(«— Jn  1328  Wye.  'Noon  of  hem  that  saten  at  the 
mete  wiste  wherto  he  saide  to  hym*;  Tindale  has  'wyst,*  Dt 
34*^  '  No  man  wyst  of  his  sepulchre  unto  this  daye.'  Past  ptcp. 
wist — Mt  127  Tind.  '  Wherfore  yf  ye  had  wist  what  this  sayinge 
meneth ' ;  Occleve  '\a  Skeat's  Specimens,  p.  22 — 

•  For,  yf  mj'n  bertes  wille  wist  were  and  preved 
How,  yow  to  love,  it  stercd  is  and  meved. 
Ye  shulde  knowe  I  your  honour  and  welthe 
Thurste  and  desire,  and  eke  your  soules  betthe.' 

Infln.  wit — Malory,  Boly  Grail  (in  Morley's  Eng.  Bel.  38),  '  And 
so  they  looked  upon  him,  and  felt  his  pulse,  to  wit  whether 
there  were  any  life  in  him  ;'  Kx  97  Tind.  'And  Pharas  sent  to 
wete.'  For  the  phrase  'do  to  wit '  (2  Co  8^)  see  art.  Do  in  vol.  1. 
p.  614i>,  and  observe  the  parallel  phrases  'give  to  wit,'  Rhem. 
NT,  note  to  Jn  154  'These  conditional  speaches,  1/ you  remaine 
in  the  vine.  If  you  keepe  my  commatiiideiiients,  and  such  like, 

five  us  to  wit  that  we  be  not  sure  to  persist  or  persevere,  nor  to 
e  saved,  but  under  conditions  to  be  fulfilled  oy  us ' ;  and  '  let 
to  wit,'  Cranmer,  Works,  i.  70,  '  We  let  you  to  wit,  that  foras- 
much as  it  belongetb  unto  us,'  eta 

In  AV  there  occur:  (1)  Present  tense,  'I  wot,' 
Gn  2r-»,  Nu  22«,  .Jos  2^  Ac  3",  Ph  \^;  ['he] 
wotteth,'  Gn  39*  '  My  master  wotteth  not  what  is 
with  me  in  the  house ' ;  '  we  wot,'  Ex  32'''',  Ac 
7";  'ye  wot,'  Gn  44",  Ro  11'^.  (2)  Past  tense, 
'I  wist,'  Jos  2*,  Ac  23":  'he  wist,'  Ex  34'*,  Lv 
C"'8,  Jos  8",  Jg  16™,  Mk  9",  Jn  5'^  Ac  12i';  'ye 
wist,'  Lk  2" ;  '  they  wist,'  Ex  16",  Mk  14«.  (3) 
Irlin.  '  to  wit,'  Gn  24'-',  Ex  2*.  2  Co  8'  ('  do  to 
wit'). 

The  Heb.  and  Gr.  are  the  ordinary  verbs  'to 
know,'  yiidd  and  ol5a,  except  in  the  last  case, 
where  'we  do  you  to  wit'  is  the  tr.  of  yvupl^ofifi' 
iiliiv,  KV  '  we  make  known  to  you.' 

The  infln.  '  to  wit '  is  also  used  as  a  connecting  phrase  in  Jos 
171,  1  K  2-0  7"  13'2l,  2  K  10-1,  1  C'h  T>  27',  2  Lh  4'a  •i57- 10  31», 
Est  2'2,  Jer  26i»  349,  i>.i(  isio,  Ro  823,  2  Co  .11».  The  fuller 
phrase  is  '  that  is  to  wit,'  which  shows  the  infln.  more  clearly, 
as  Mt  238  Tind.  '  For  one  is  youro  Master,  that  is  to  wyt  Chris't, 
and  all  ye  are  brethren ' ;  Tinrlale,  Works,  i.  87,  '  Wherefore 
they  which  are  of  faith  are  blessed,  that  Is  to  wit  mode 
righteous,  with  righteous  Abraham.'  Except  In  2  Oo  6'8  (*() 
there  is  no  equivalent  in  Ueb.  or  Greek. 

]\'it  a.<i  a  s11b.1t.  occurs  in  Ps  107"  'And  are  at 
tlieir  wit's  end '  (y^;nn  cci?;rrS;i,  lit.  as  AVm,  RVm 
'and  all  their  wisdom  is  swallowed  up,'  KV  'and 
are  at  their  wits'  [plu.]  end '  ;  the  AV  phrase 
comes  from  Gov.  ;  M  yc.  has  the  more  lit^  'and  al 


932 


WITCH,  WITCHCRAFT 


WITNESS 


the  wisdom  of  hem  was  devourid,'  after  Viil<^.  et 
omnvs  sapicntia  eorum  devorata  est)  ;  1  Es  4-* 
'  Many  tiiere  be  that  have  run  out  of  their  wits 
for  women '  (TroWot  aircvoTidiiaav  rats  /5(ats  Siafo/ais 
Sick  rdt  ymatKa^)  ;  2  Es  5^  '  Then  shall  wit  hide 
itself  (absrondctur  tunc  sensits)  ;  Sir  31^  'He 
riseth  early,  and  Iiis  wits  are  with  him '  {Marri 
rpwl,  Kal  i]  i'vx^  airroS  iut  avroO). 

The  subst.  *  wit '  was  very  common  in  the  cent,  preceding  the 
issue  of  AV.  It  was  losinj^  its  tone  by  1611,  and  not  only  occurs 
less  frequently  in  AV  than  in  previous  versions,  but  is  used 
more  readily  in  the  Prefacp,  with  its  familiar  style,  than  in  the 
tr.  of  any  of  the  books.  Thus,  'their  sharpnesse  of  wit'  ;  *to 
exercise  and  whet  our  wits*;  'opening  our  wits,  that  we  may 
understand  his  word' — all  occurring  in  the  Preface.  In  the 
earlier  versions  we  find,  e.g..  He  5J-*  \Vyc.  '  hem  that  for  custum 
han  wittis  exercisid,'  so  Tind.  '  which  thorow  custome  have  their 
wittes  exercised,'  and  all  the  VSS  till  Rhem.,  and  AV  ('  senses,' 
Or.  Tu.  a."<r(i»;T/,p,«);  Lk  1*^  Tind.  'And  all  that  hearde  him  mer- 
Telledat  his  wit  and  answers'  (so  Matt.,  Wye.  'prudens,'  Rhem. 
'wisedom,'  others  'understanding,'  Gr.  <ru*i<rif) ;  24-**  Tind. 
'  Then  openneti  he  their  wyttes  that  they  myght  understond  the 
scriptures'  (Rhem.  and  AV  '  understanding,' Gr.  to>  »«I.)  ;  .Mk 
5^5  Rhem.  'They  see  him  that  was  vexed  of  the  devil,  sitting, 
clothed,  and  wel  in  his  wittes.' 

The  word  has  some  range  of  meaning,  thus :  (1)  Sfii^e, 
meaning,  as  WycUf,  Works,  i.  98,  'Syththe  the  Pater  Noster 
is  the  beste  prayer  that  is,  for  in  it  mot  alle  other  prayers  be 
closed  yf  thay  sohulle  graciouslyche  be  hurde  of  God,  therfore 
scholde  men  kunne  this  prayour,  and  studie  the  wyt  thereof  ' ; 
Melvill,  Diary,  36,  *A  babli'ng  of  words  without  wit.  at  least 
wesdome.'  (2)  Cleverness,  as  Hall,  Works,  ii.  G9,  '  How  many 
shall  once  wish  they  had  been  bom  dullards,  yea  idiots,  when 
they  shall  find  their  uit  to  have  barred  them  out  of  heaven? 
Say  the  world  what  it  will,  a  dram  of  holinesse  is  worth  a  pound 
of  wit.'  (3)  Understanding,  ability  to  underttand,  »a  Pr.  Ck. 
1652  (Keeling,  p.  379)— 

*  O  Holy  Ghost,  into  oar  wits. 

Send  down  thine  heavenly  light' ; 

Elyot,  Govemour,  ii.  439,  '  A  man  of  greate  witte,  singuler 
lemynge,  and  excellent  wisedome.'  (4)  Wisdom,  as  Ro  1134 
W^c.  *  Who  knew  the  witte  of  the  lord,  or  who  was  his  coun- 
ceilour  ? ' :  Spenser,  Hymn  of  Heavenly  Beauty — 

'  O  thou  most  Almightie  Spright, 
From  whom  all  guifts  of  wit  and  knowledge  flow.' 

Wittingly  is  found  in  Gn  48" :  of.  Tind.  Expos. 
Ill,  '  When  they  espied  that  tlie  truth  could  not 
stand  with  the  lionours  which  they  sought  in  the 
world,  they  wittingly  and  willingly  persecuted  it.' 

Witty  occurs  in  Pr  8'-,  Jth  11^,  Wis  S".  Cf. 
Mt  11"  Cheke's  version,  '  Avhich  has  hidden  yees 
thinges  from  wijs  and  witti  men,  and  hath  dis- 
closed the  saam  to  baabs ' ;  Wyclif,  Works,  iii.  88, 
'  Who  wiser  than  David  !  or  hwo  moore  witti  than 
Salomon  his  sone?'  J.  HASTINGS. 

WITCH,  WITCHCRAFT.  — See  Magic,   vol.  iii. 

p.  20S  f. 

WITHS  is  the  tr.  in  Jg  16'-"'»  of  -in;  in  pin., 
which  means  'bowstring'  in  Job  30",  Ps  IP,  and 
is  so  tr''  here  by  Moore,  who  thinks  that  it  was 
with  cords  made  from  the  intestines  of  animals 
that  Samson  oliered  to  be  bound,  '  green '  meaning 
fresh,  not  dried,  when  they  would  tie  better  and 
be  less  liable  to  split.  But  RV  tr.  the  word  '  tent- 
cord  '  in  Job  4-',  and  probably  the  meaning  in  Jg  16 
is  simply  'green  ropes.'  The  Eng.  word  (usually 
spelt  'withe')  means  a  tough  flexible  twig  or 
willow  branch.  Wyclif  uses  it  in  Lv  23'"'  'withies 
of  the  rennyn^e  water,'  i.e.  willow  branches  ; 
also  in  Ps  137-,  Is  15'.  J.  HASTINGS. 

WITNESS.— For  'tabernacle  of  witness'  (nnyn 
Nu  17'- »  18-,  2  Ch  24«  ;  toO  luiprvplov  Ac  7"  [RV  in 
all  '  testimony '])  see  art.  Testimony.  '  Witness,' 
as  treated  in  tlie  present  article,  represents  the  fol- 
lowini;  verbs  and  nouns:  [•niv],  ■"'W  (lit.  'answer'); 
IS!  and  ni]/,  (the  latter  only  of  things) ;  LXX  and 
NT  fiaprvpiii),  iiritmprvpiw,  KaTafivpTvp^ia  ('witness 
against'),  <rvv/iaprrvpiu)  ('witness  along  with,'  'cor- 
roborate'), \l/tvSciii.apTvpiw  ('bear  false  witness'), 
(lapripoiuu,    SiaiiapTupofuu,    rpo/iaprupofiai    ( '  witness 


beforehand ') ;  /idprvs  (of  persons),   iMprvpla,   nap- 

TVpLOV. 

The  nouns  ly  and  n-iji  [whose  root  notion  is  proi). 
that  of  reiterating,  hence  empliatically  affirming^ 
are  used  in  two  leading  senses — 

1.  W it ness= testimony,  evidence  (of  things) :  Gn 
3J44.  48. 62  [jE]  ^he  heap  of  stones  that  was  to  wit- 
ness the  covenant  between  Jacob  and  Laban,  Ex 
22'- (IS)  [E]  the  carcass  that  was  to  be  brought  in 
evidence  that  the  animal  entrusted  to  the  keeping 
of  a  neighbour  had  been  torn,  Dt  31"-  "  [J]  the 
Song  of  Moses  is  to  be  a  witness  against  the 
cliiUlren  of  Israel  if  they  go  astray,  v.-'  (D^)  the 
book  of  the  Law  is  to  serve  the  same  purpose,  Jos 
2-r.i.  2s.  M  [p]  j],e  altar  erected  by  the  2i  tribes  (see 
art.  Ed),  Is  19-"  the  altar  and  the  mazzcbah  in  the 
land  of  Egypt,  Job  16*  Job's  miserable  condition 
is  a  witness  against  him,  Ps  89^  (^'  the  moon 
[possibly,  but  we  prefer  the  interpretation  below]. 
In  all  these  passages  ijr  is  used.  .Tiy  [only  E] 
occurs  in  Gn  21*"  of  the  seven  ewe  lambs  that  are 
to  witness  the  covenant  between  Abraham  and 
Abimelech,  31"  the  heap  of  stones  that  witnessed 
Laban's  covenant  with  Jacob,  Jos  24'-^  "^  the  great 
stone  set  up  by  Joshua  at  Shechem  to  witness 
Israel's  covenant  with  Jahweh. — Similarly  in  NT 
pLafrrOpiof  is  used :  Mt  8*  (||  Mk  1",  Lk  5")  of  the 
gift  to  be  ofiered  by  the  leper,  Mt  IQi*  (||  Mk  1.3', 
Lk  21'^)  the  persecutions  of  Christ's  followers,  Mk 
6"  (II  Lk  9°)  the  dust  to  be  shaken  oft'  the  apostle's 
feet  [on  all  these  passages  see  Swete's  note  on  Mk 
1"],  Ja  5'  the  dust  of  the  rich  men's  silver  and 
gold  to  be  a  witness  against  them. 

2.  Witness  (of  persons) :  (a)  of  God  :  Gn  S\^  [E] 
God  is  to  be  witness  between  Jacob  and  Laban, 
Job  16'"  'my  witness  is  in  heaven,'  1  S  12"'"  '  the 
Lord  is  witness  against  you  .  .  .  He  is  witness,' 
so  V.'  [reading  ■"■  n;:,  after  LXX  fidprvs  Ki'/jios],  20" 
'  the  Lord  be  witness '  [inserting  i^  before  ""■],  Jer 
29'-^  against  the  false  prophets  Ahab  and  Zedekiah, 
42'  invoked  as  a  witness  by  Johanan  and  his  com- 
panions (cf.  Jg  II'",  where  the  elders  of  Gilead  say 
to  Jei)hthah,  'The  Lord  shall  be  witness  [lit. 
'hearer,'  jjpi:']  between  us'),  Mic  P  against  the 
nations,  Mai  3'  against  evil-doers  in  Israel,  Pa 
ggs?  (38)  <  (;],g  witness  in  the  sky,  i.e.  God  [see  Driver, 
Par.  Psalt.],  is  faithful.' — Similarly,  in  NT  St. 
Paul  calls  God  as  witness  {fiiprvs)  to  the  truth  of 
his  words  and  the  purity  of  his  motives,  Ro  1", 
2  Co  l^*,  1  Th  2»  i»,  Ph  18. 

(6)  David  (or  perhaps  the  Davidic  dynasty  per- 
sonitied)  was  God's  witness  to  the  nations,  Is  55^. 

(c)  Of  witnesses  in  a  more  or  less  strictly 
forensic  sense  :  Jer  32'°-  "■  ^- "  of  transfer  of  pro- 
perty, Ru  49- "•  "  betrothal  (see  art.  Shoe)  ; 
usually  of  testimony  in  court  and  in  civil  and 
social  relations :  e.g.  Nu  5",  Dt  5*=  17«,  Job  10" 
(fig.).  Is  8^  Jer  32"'.  Note  the  phrases  'false 
witness'  tp;^  ly  (hence  Ex  20"  ?  if^v'  "'5!  ■"'^I'  'bear 
false  witness  [lit.  'answer  (in  court)  as  a  false 
witness']  against")  Ex  20",  Dt  19""",  Ps  21",  Py 
6'»  14"  ;  also  kv  ij;  Dt  S^",  Pr  25'8  ;  D-i,7;fi  ly  Pr  12" 
19»-»;  D'5!3  Tj,  Pr21=«;  Djn  i-^  24^^;  Vs!:S?  Hi  19*,  cf. 
ccij  1]!  '  witness  of  [i.e.  supporting]  violence,'  Ex 
23'  [E],  Dt  19",  Ps  35";  'faithful  witness'  is 
D'JiD.-)  IS  Pr  14',  or  nt^  ny  Jer  42',  Pr  14'^  ;  '  at  the 
mouth  of  witnesses'  is  D'-a  'p^  Nu  35^  [PI  or 
(o'jIH  'rVy  Dt  17«  "*  19" "". 

The  verb  [TV],  denom.  from  ly,  means  In  Hiphil  [the  only 
instance  of  Qal  is  in  KethUth  of  La  21^] — (1) '  testif\-  or  witness,' 
in  favour  of  (Job  29",  La  2is  [A'ct-C]),  or  against  (1  K  211"  '3) 
one,  or  between  two  parties  (Mal'yi'i) ;  (2) '  cause  to  testify,'  i.e. 
•take  as  witness'  (Is  82,  Jer  3'2'»-25. "),  with  ^  'against'  (Dt 
428  3018  3128)  ;  (3)  •  protest,'  '  affirm  solemnly,'  '  warn  '  (Jer  6H> 
Neh  IS"),  with  51  (Gn  44'»(<'  [JJ,  Ex  1921  [E]  2119  (Hoph.  '  if  • 
protest  have  been  entered  '),  1  S  89  Sis,  1  K  2",  2  Ch  24i»,  Neh 
92«  1321,  Jer  4219,  Am  31S)  ;  note  esp.  the  instances  where  God  ia 
the  subject :  Ex  1923  [j],  Dt  S"  32«,  2  K  IT'S.  1»,  Neh  9»  3»-  3«, 
Jer  H'ler,  Zeo  36,  Ps  60'  81';  whencs  the  use  explained  >»  tit 


WIZARD 


WOMAN 


933 


Tmtisiont  of  the  term  'testimonies'  for  God's  laws  as  solemn 
chaives  or  declarations  of  the  l>ivine  ftill. 

r^y  [lit.  'answer,'  'reapond']  has  the  specific  sense  of 
'respond  off  a  vitness,'  'testify':  with  3  'for'  Gn  3(M3 ;  but 
usually  against.  Ex  W  232,  Nu  3530  (pj,  ut  3"  1918- 18,  1  S  12^, 
8  S  li«,  Is  38  &9'2,  Mic  63,  Jer  14?,  Ru  1»»  (7),  Pr  Zo's  ;  with  I'jfJ 
H08  5»  7i»,  Job  168  ;  with  VJ5^  Dt  SI"  (+1^)  '  a»  witness  'X 

The  testimony  of  at  least  two  witnesses  was 
required  to  justify  a  capital  sentence,  Dt  17'  19", 
Nu  35**  [P].  Cf.  tlie  general  saying  'that  at  the 
mouth  of  two  witnesses  or  three  every  word  may 
be  established'  (Mt  \S",  similarly  2  Co  13',  He 
10=* ;  also  the  rule  laid  down  in  1  Ti  5'"  that  an 
accusation  is  not  to  be  received  against  an  elder 
except  on  the  information  of  two  or  three  wit- 
nesses) ;  and  note  the  two  witnesses  against 
Naboth  (1  K  21'"),  and  against  Jesus  (Mt  '2G*'). 
Although  perjury  was  punished  by  the  inlliction 
of  the  same  penalty  as  the  false  evidence,  if 
accepted,  would  have  involved  for  the  accused  (Dt 
19'"*^),  we  gather  from  the  last  two  instances  (cf. 
the  evidence  suborned  against  Stephen,  Ac  6")  as 
■well  as  from  the  terms  of  the  Ninth  Command- 
ment, that  amongst  the  Jews  false  witness  was  as 
common  and  as  easily  procurable  as  it  still  is  in 
many  Eastern  courts  of  justice.  The  witnesses, 
in  the  event  of  the  accused  being  condemned  to 
death,  had  to  take  the  leading  part  in  carrying  out 
the  sentence,  Dt  17',  cf.  13'"  i»i  and  Ac  7**. 

In  the  NT  the  apostles  are  repeatedly  presented 
in  the  character  of  witnesses  (iiipTvpe^)  regarding 
the  life  and  death  and,  above  all,  the  resurrection 
of  the  Lord  Jesus  (Lk  24«,  Ac  P-  -  2^-  3"  o»-  lO^"-  •" 
13"  22»  26",  1  P  5' ;  cf.  Mt  •24'^,  Ac  4'^).  Tlie 
name  fiAprvs  is  twice  (Kev  1»  3'*,  cf.  1  Ti  6")  ap- 
plied to  our  Lord  Himself  ;  it  is  u.sed  also  of  the  two 
witnesses  of  Kev  11'.  John  the  Baptist  came  els 
uapTiplay,  that  lie  might  bear  witness  concerning 
the  Light  (Jn  1').  The  heroes  of  faith  of  the  OT 
are  'the  cloud  of  witnes.ses'  {y^<pos  piapTipuv)  of 
He  12'.  A  V  tr.  niprvs  by  '  martyr '  in  Ac  'i-il",  Uev 
2"  17',  but  it  is  questiunalile  whether  the  word 
had  acquired  this  sense  in  NT  times  (see  Martyu). 
RV  has  'martyr'  onlj'  in  Kev  17',  elsewhere  'wit- 
ness.' For  the  '  witness  of  tlie  Spirit '  (Ko  8",  cf. 
1  Jn  5'")  see  art.  Holy  Si'Irit,  vol.  ii.  p.  409''. 

J.  A.  Shldie. 

WIZARD.— See  Sorcery,  p.  606'. 

WOLF.— In  all  the  passages  in  the  OT  where  AV 
and  RV  have  'wolf  the  Heb.  original  is  dk]  zCeb, 
LXX  and  NT  \vko%,  Vulg.  lupus,  Arab,  dki'b. 
The  wolf  is,  unfortunately,  quite  abundant  in  the 
Holy  Land,  and  very  de.structive  to  the  flocks  of 
sheep  and  goats,  which  constitute  so  large  a  part 
of  the  wealth  of  the  peojile.  It  is  not  surjirising, 
therefore,  that  the  allusions  to  it  and  its  habits 
should  be  frequent.  Its  insatiablencss  is  the  theme 
of  a  comparison  with  Kenjamin  (Gn  49").  One  of 
the  most  signal  miracles  of  the  triumph  of  God's 
kingdom  is  the  change  in  the  habits  and  instincts 
of  the  wolf  (Is  11«  65-»,  Sir  13").  The  princes  of 
apostate  Israel  ate  characterized  as  wolves  (Ezk 
22").  The  nocturnal  habits  of  the  wolf  are  noted 
(.ler  5'  nin-jy^  'evenings,'  m.  'deserts,'  Hab  1", 
Zcph  3').  The  enemies  of  the  truth  are  wolves 
(Mt  10",  Lk  ICH,  Jn  10'»).  Hypocrites  in  the 
Christian  Church  are  wolves  (Mt  7'*,  Ac  20=»).  The 
wolv(!»  of  the  Holy  Land  are  large,  tawny,  and 
usualry  solitary,  or  one  or  two  together.  Tliey 
prowl  around  the  flocks  and  herds,  and  sometimes 
get  into  the  folds.     They  seldom  attack  men. 

G.  E.  Post. 

WOMAN.— 

Heb.  .n^'K,  a  form  stmiUr  to  ir^'x  and  c^'^jK  '  man,'  but,  accord- 
ing to  Ojcf.  Ueb.  Lex.,  not  derived  from  the  some  root,  but 

perhaps  from  ViH,  -  '  -'',  with  the  senie  o(  ' tender," (rail.' 


On  2®  (where  Luther  has  Mannin,  Symm.  ithfit,  Vulg.  nVfl^oJ 
cannot  be  taken  as  an  authoritative  statement  of  etymoloj^'y ; 
but  it  illustrates  a  popular  conception  of  the  relation  of  the 
worda  based  on  the  Heb.  tradition  of  the  origin  of  woman.  In 
three  places  (Lv  1533,  Xu  ajls,  )„  81S2)  AV,  followed  by  KV,  hoc 
the  Eng.  word  'woman'  for  •"'^SJ,  which  is  literally  'female,'  is 
used  for  the  female  of  animals  {e.{j.  Gn  619,  Lv  3'- 6),  and  tr. 
'female'  when  applied  to  the  human  race  in  Gn  127  52. 

Gr.  yu>r„  which  also  stands  for  *  wife,'  as  does  the  Heb.  equi- 
valent. In  Ro  1-6-27  AY  is  followed  by  UV  in  using  the  Eng. 
word  'woman'  for  the  Gr.  Oy.ki,ai  ('female').  The  diminutive 
yvettxxpiet  occurs  in  the  plural  in  2  Ti  3<*,  and  ia  rendered  'silly 
women '  both  in  AV  and  in  KV. 

For  information  on  the  social  and  legal  status 
of  woman  in  Israel  see  Family  and  AIarriage. 
There  remain  to  be  considered  the  place  of  woman 
in  religion,  Jewish  and  Christian,  and  the  treat- 
ment of  questions  affecting  woman  religiously  and 
ethically  bj'  the  Scriiiture  writers. 

i.  In  the  Old  "Test,  and  Judaism. —While 
sharing  to  some  e.\tent  the  universal  Eastern  con- 
ception of  the  inferiority  of  woman  to  man,  the 
Jewish  religion  of  biblical  times  by  no  means 
sanctioned  the  total  subjection  of  woman  sub- 
sequently authorized  by  Mohammedanism  or  the 
low  view  of  woman's  place  in  religion  taken  by 
rabbinical  Judaism.  A\omen  seem  to  have  enjoyed 
considerable  rights  and  privileges  in  all  the  Semitic 
cults.  This  is  apparent  in  the  ancient  Arabic  cult, 
in  which  an  important  part  was  played  by  female 
divinities. 

Most  of  the  jin7i3  were  female.  According  to  Robertson 
Smith, '  in  old  Arabian  religion  gods  and  goddesses  often  occurred 
in  pairs,  the  goddess  being  the  greater'  {KuLship  and  ilarriage 
in  Early  Arabia,  u.  300).  The  Byzantine  writers  regarded  the 
worsiiip  of  AphrodiU  as  the  principal  cult  at  Mecca.  This  idea 
is  supported  by  recent  research,  the  white  stone  being  the 
original  Meccan  divinity,  and  the  black  stone  her  son,  the  very 
name  ka!ba  seeming  to  point  to  a  supreme  female  deity. 
Prostitution,  both  by  married  and  by  unmarried  women,  in  imita- 
tion of  the  conduct  of  the  goddess,  was  a  recognized  custom  in 
the  ancient  Arabian  cult.  In  the  various  functions  of  worship, 
bringing  otTerings,  stroking  the  sacred  stone,  etc.,  women  took 
part  as  well  as  men,  and  in  the  cult  of  the  dead  it  was  their 
part  to  chant  the  rhythmical  dirge.  Women  were  also  found 
m  the  official  position  of  the  kdtiin  (seer),  originally  the  chief 
otncer  of  the  Arabian  religion. 

Woman  also  has  a  prominent  place  in  the 
Babylonian,  Assyrian,  and  Phoenician  religions. 

This  is  seen  in  the  prominence  given  to  female  divinities. 
The  Habylonian  Ishtar  waa  the  mother  go<ldes8  aijd  head  of  all 
the  gods.  Among  the  Assyrians  Astarte  is  the  supreme  goddess. 
It  is  to  a  go<i<le8s,  apparently,  that  king  Mesha  devotes  the 
Israelite  captives  in  the  inscription  on  the  Moabite  Stone.  Then 
women  took  a  prominent  part  in  the  worship.  There  are  in- 
scriptions with  the  words  'handmaid  of  Melkart,'  'sister  of 
Melkart.'  Women,  too,  were  recognized  as  priestesses  and 
prophetesses.    Thus  there  were  priestesses  of  Ishtar  at  Uruk. 

The  OT  contains  evidence  of  the  lead  taken  by 
women  in  idolatrous  rites.  Maacah,  the  mother  of 
Asa,  introduced  tlie  worship  of  Astart6  (1  K  15"). 
Jezebel  in  the  Northern  kingdom  supported  the 
prophets  of  the  Phoenician  cults  and  persecuted 
the  followers  of  J"  (1  K  IS*-'");  and  her  daughter 
Athaliali  iippan'iitly  pl.ivfil  tljc  sami'  p:irt  in  the 
Si)iitbi_-rti  kiiiL-'loni  (cf.  '2  K  S'^  ami  'J  Cli  'il"  with 
2  Cli  22'  and  24').  Jeremiah  describes  the  devotion 
of  the  women  of  Jerusalem  to  the  rites  of  Ishtar, 
kneading  dough  and  making  cakes  which  would 
be  shaped  like  the  moon  (see  QuEEN  OF  Hkavkn), 
to  represent  the  goddess  (Jer  7").  If  we  do  not 
accept  Stade's  conjecture  that  2  K  23"'  is  a  gloss, 
po.s.silily  the  clause  may  refer  to  the  work  of  some 
of  the  women  in  providing  sacred  garments  for 
the  worship  of  Astarte  (i.e.  on  the  suggestion  oi 
Peritz  that  nuna  [xituv,  cf.  Lucian  <rro\ci?]  be  sub- 
stituted for  the  Alassorctic  D'hd).  Ezekiel  men- 
tions the  devotion  of  .Icrusalera  women  to  the 
worship  of  tlie  IJabylonian  Adonis,  saying,  'There 
sat  the  women  wecjiing  for  Tammuz'(Ezk  8"). 
Women  must  have  had  their  share  in  the  horrible 
rites  of  Molech,  which  took  place  in  the  Valley  of 
Hinnom,  as  the  '  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem    gener- 


934 


WOMAN 


WOMAN 


ally,  without  distinction  of  sex,  are  accused  of 
having  '  filled  this  place  with  the  blood  of  innocenta ' 
(Jer  ig'""). 

It  is  therefore  quite  in  accordance  with  con- 
temporary Semitic  custom  that  woman  should  take 
part  in  the  religion  of  Israel,  as  Peritz  has  demon- 
strated in  his  exhaustive  monograph  on  the  subject, 
a  work  to  which  this  article  is  largely  indebted. 

1.  The  Partiiipation  of  Woman  in  the  Privileges 
of  Religion.  —  (a)  Prni/er,  e.g.  the  instance  of 
Hannah'  at  Shiloh  (1  S  1"").— (6)  Feasts.  In  primi- 
tive times  women  attended  the  periodic  religious 
gatherings  of  Israel.  It  was  taken  for  granted 
that  the  daughters  of  Sliiloh  would  be  present  at 
the  annual  feast  (Jg  il"""'").  Later,  the  wives  and 
daughters  of  Elkanah  are  found  attending  the 
Shiloh  festival  ( 1  S  l'""  2'").  Women  were  present 
at  David's  feast  and  sacrifices  on  the  recover}'  of 
the  ark  (2  S  6'").  The  Deuteronomic  code  makes 
express  provision  for  the  presence  of  women  at  the 
temple  festivals.  The  Jews  are  exhorted  to  rejoice 
with  their  sons  and  their  daughters  (Dt  12'-). 
Among  those  who  are  to  eat  the  feast  we  have 
'  tliy  (laughter  '  and  '  thy  maidservant '(v.'*), '  thine 
household'  (I4=«  I5="),  cf.  W^- ".  —  {c)  Sarrijices. 
Women  also  took  part  in  the  ancient  sacrifices. 
When  Manoah  ottered  a  burnt-ottering  because  the 
angel  of  J"  had  visited  him,  his  wife  joined  him  in 
the  deed.  They  both  '  fell  on  their  faces  to  the 
ground'  (Jg  13^),  and  it  was  the  woman  who  said, 
'  If  the  Lord  were  pleased  to  kill  us,  he  would  not 
have  received  a  burnt-ottering  and  a  meal-ottering 
at  our  hand  '  (v.-").  The  Law  required  the  attend- 
ance only  of  men  at  the  yearly  feasts  iKx  23"  34'', 
Dt  If)");  but  it  did  not  forbid  women  to  come, 
and  it  is  evident  that  custom,  which  lay  behind 
the  Law,  allowed  the  attendance  of  women.  The 
lueaning  of  the  Law  was  to  make  this  obligatory 
on  men  while  it  was  left  optional  with  women,  in 
part,  no  doubt,  owing  to  the  fact  that  they  could 
not  always  take  the  necessary  journey.  The  women 
of  post -exilic  times  also  have  their  share  in 
religious  functions.  The  presence  of  women  is 
expressly  mentioned  in  the  account  of  Nehemiah's 
reading  of  the  Law  (Neh  8-^),  and  again  in  the 
description  of  the  sacrifices  and  rejoicings  associ- 
ated with  the  dedication  of  the  city  walls  (12"). 
Certain  sacrifices  women  were  forbidden  to  eat, 
viz.  the  flesh  of  the  sin-ottering,  which  was  allowed 
only  to  males  (Lv  6^).  This  plainly  implies  that 
they  were  allowed  to  eat  of  those  sacrifices  con- 
cerning which  no  such  prohibition  was  made  (see 
W.  R.  Smith,  liS  p.  379,  note  2).  The  priest's 
daughters  are  mentioned  with  his  sons  as  those 
who  are  to  share  with  him  in  eating  sacrificial 
meat  (Lv  10").  If  a  priest's  daughter  is  married 
to  an  alien  she  may  not  eat  of  the  sacrifice,  but 
the  privilege  will  be  restored  to  her  on  her  widow- 
hood or  divorce  if  she  has  no  children  (22'--  '*)  :  cf. 
Nu  18".  Women  were  required  to  bring  sacrifices 
for  purification  (Lv  12.  IS'""*").— (rf)  Vow.i.  They 
were  free  to  take  the  Nazirite  vow  (Nu  (i-). 
— (e)  Oracles.  Women  could  consult  oracles,  as  we 
read  in  the  case  of  Kehekah  (Gn  2.i"). — (/)  Theo- 
jihanies.  They  enjoyed  the  privilege  of  theo- 
plianies,  as  in  the  cases  of  Hagar  (Gn  16'*- 21'"'-), 
Sarah  (IS"-),  Mano.ah's  wfe  (Jg  n^"-). 

2.  Official  and  other  leading  Pusitiotis  in  Religion 
held  by  Women. — (a)  Witchcraft.  The  lowest  form 
of  female  influence  in  this  direction  is  seen  in  the 
idea  of  witclicraft,  according  to  which  certain 
occult  powers  in  dealing  with  the  unseen  world 
were  ascribed  to  women.  The  witch  of  Endor  was 
bupposed  to  be  holding  intercourse  with  '  a  familiar 
spirit,'  which  enabled  her  to  call  back  Samuel 
from  the  deail  against  the  will  of  the  great  seer 
;iS28"').  The  Law  attached  the  death  penalty 
to  the  crime  of  sorcery  on  the  part  of  a  woman,  in 


the  comnuand,  '  Thou  shalt  not  suffer  a  sorceress  to 
live'  (Ex  22'*).  For  the  purpose  of  divination 
women  attached  some  sort  of  amulets  to  the  arm 
(nin:3  Ezk  1.3'*,  which  the  Hexapla  reiulers  ^uXok. 
T^pia),  and  also  something  to  the  head,  both  used, 
according  to  W.  R.  Smith,  for  the  purpose  of  in- 
voking the  deity.  With  this  we  may  compare 
Rachel's  possession  of  the  teraphim.  She  would 
hope  to  perform  some  occult  rite  with  the  idol  and 
obtain  an  oracle  from  it  (Gn  31'"). — (b)  Mourning. 
While  the  funeral  rites  and  their  accompanying 
lamentations  were  used  for  women  as  well  as  for 
men  (Jer  IG',  Mk  5**),  women  took  a  prominent 
place  in  the  performance  of  them,  just  as  there 
were  '  mourning  women  '  in  Arabic  heathenism. — 
(c)  Tabernacle  and  temple  service.  There  were 
'  serving- women  which  served  at  the  door  of  the  tent 
of  meeting  '  (Ex  38' ;  the  mention  of  these  women  in 
1  S  2--''  is  generally  regarded  as  an  interpolation). 
No  account  of  the  service  of  these  women  is  given 
anywhere  in  the  OT.  The  LXX  has  in  Exodua 
Tu>v  VTjaTevacLU'uiv  at  dvijorevaav^  but  in  1  Sam.  rdf 
■yviiaiKai  Tas  irapeaTjiaai ;  Vulg.  JJ/CB  excubabant, 
and  Targ.  and  Syr.  have  '  who  prayed '  and  '  who 
came  to  pray,'  manifestly  no  more  than  a  loose 
paraphrase  of  the  original  Hebrew  nds,  a  word 
frequently  used  in  the  Priestly  Code  for  some  sort 
of  Levitical  service  in  the  tabernacle  (e.g.  Nu  4^). 
The  statement  that  the  laver  of  brass,  etc.,  were 
made  out  of  the  mirrore  of  '  the  serving-women 
which  served'  (we  might  read  'which  had  served,' 
readingiN3sas  a  pluperfect),  seems  to  imply  that  this 
service  was  no  longer  going  on.  Thus  the  sentence 
points  to  an  ancient  custom  which  had  been  aban- 
doned. Except  that  .some  ritual  service  associated 
with  the  priest's  sacrificial  work  is  implied,  it  is 
impossible  to  say  what  the  work  of  these  women 
had  been.  —  [d)  Music,  singing,  and  dancing. 
Women  appeared  in  choral  dances  on  occasions  of 
great  victories  and  other  sources  of  rejoicing  (e.g. 
Ex  IS*',  Jg  11",  1  S  18",  Ps68").  In  company  with 
singing  men,  women  were  also  engaged  in  the 
temple  choir  (Ezr  2").  The  register  of  returned 
exiles  contains  a  reference  to  '  two  hundred  forty 
and  five  singing  men  and  singing  women'  (Neh 
7"').  We  are  left  to  conjecture  what  their  special 
function  was,  but  the  fact  that  there  were  sub- 
sequently men  and  women  singers  in  the  temjile 
points  to  the  conclusion  that  a  guild  of  singers  in 
connexion  with  public  worship  had  been  formed  as 
early  as  the  Exile. — (e)  Prophecy.  Women  appear 
from  time  to  time  in  the  history  of  Israel  as  in- 
spired prophetesses.  Miriam  is  called  a  '  prophetess' 
(Ex  IS-'"),  and  is  associated  with  her  brother  Aaron 
in  exclaiming,  '  Hath  J"  indeed  spoken  only  by 
Moses?  hath  he  not  spoken  also  by  us?'  (Nu  12-). 
The  prominence  of  Miriam  appears  also  in  Mic  6* 
'  And  I  sent  before  thee  Moses,  Aaron,  and 
Miriam' (see  Miriam).  Deborah  appears  both  aa 
a  prophetess  and  as  a  judge  (.Ig4''-').  See  Dehor  ah. 
Huldah  a]ipears  as  a  prophetess  to  whom  the 
messengers  of  Josiah  applied  when  they  were 
directed  to  '  inquire  of  the  Lord  '  (2  K  22'^-^'').  See 
Huldah.  In  Neh  6"  'the  prophetess  Noadi.ih' 
[but  see  NOADIAH]  appears  among  '  the  rest  of  the 
prophets'  hired  by  Tobiah  and  Sanballat  to  himler 
the  restoration  of  Jerusalem,  who  must  therefore 
he  regarded  either  as  heathens  or  as  false  Jewish 
prophets.  It  is  manifest  that  the  appearance  of  a 
prophetess  in  Israel  was  quite  exceptional.  The 
prophetic  guilds  did  not  include  women  ;  they  con- 
sisted only  of  '  sons  of  the  prophets.'  A  prophetess 
was,  like  Amos  coming  from  his  farm  work,  not 
trained  for  ottice,  but  inspired  and  compelling  re- 
spect by  her  gifts  and  the  power  of  her  utterancea. 
No  law  forbade  her  to  speak  ;  no  custom  hindered 
her  from  rising  to  a  position  of  great  influence. 
ii.  In  the  New  Test,  and  Ciiristia.nitv.— 


WOM^N 


WOMAN 


935 


Tlie  freedom  and  prominence  of  woman  in  the 
e.irly  Church,  compared  with  the  restraint  and 
suppression  commonly  observed  in  Eastern  civiliza- 
tion, are  to  some  extent  developments  of  con- 
temporary Jewish  customs.  Women  moved  freely 
about  in  society,  and  were  present  at  the  table  of 
hospitality,  though  it  cannot  be  shown  that  in 
Palestine  they  partook  of  the  meals  in  common 
with  men.  They  went  up  to  the  temple  to  worship, 
but  were  there  limited  to  the  privilege  of  using 
the  '  court  of  the  women,'  and  could  not  advance 
80  near  the  altar  as  men  were  permitted  to  go. 
They  united  in  the  worship  at  the  synagogue, 
apparently  sitting  by  themselves  apart  from  the 
ni;ile  worshippers.  Now  that  Conybeare  has  gone 
some  way  towards  vindicating  the  De  Vita  Von- 
tcmp/ativa  as  a  genuine  work  of  I'liilo,  it  is  possible 
to  appeal  to  tliat  treatise  as  a  witness  to  customs 
current  in  the  time  of  Christ.  The  following 
extract  describes  the  aiTangements  of  public  wor- 
ship of  the  Therai]eut;e  or  Egyptian  Essenes : — 

'  And  this  common  holy  place  to  which  they  all  come  together 
on  the  seventh  day  is  a  twofold  circuit,  being  separated  partly 
into  the  apartment  of  the  men,  and  partly  into  a  chamber  for 
the  women ;  for  women  also,  in  accordance  with  the  usual 
fashion  there,  form  a  part  of  the  audience,  having  the  same 
feelings  of  admiration  as  the  men,  and  having  adopted  the  same 
sect  with  equal  deliberation  and  decision  ;  and  the  wall  which 
is  between  the  houses  rises  from  the  ground  three  or  four  cubits 
upwards,  like  a  battlement,  and  the  upper  portion  rises  upwards 
to  the  roof  without  any  opening,  on  two  accounts :  first  of  all, 
in  orxler  that  the  modesty  which  is  so  becoming  to  the  female 
sex  may  be  preserved;  and,  st-condly,  that  the  women  may  be 
easily  able  to  comprehend  what  is  said,  being  seated  within 
earshot,  since  there  is  then  nothing  which  can  possibly  intercept 
the  voice  of  him  who  is  spealcing'  {De  Vit,  Conteinp.  3). 

The  phrase  '  in  accordance  with  the  usual  custom 
tliere '  shows  that  this  participation  in  the  Sabbath 
worship  of  men  and  women,  but  with  some  degree  of 
ecparateness,  was  the  common  Jewish  form  of  pro- 
cedure. The  illustration  of  a  battlement,  the  ujiper 
portion  of  which  reached  the  coiling,  indicated  a 
wall  perforated  near  the  top  with  square  holes. 
We  cannot  infer  from  this  descrijition  that  the  sepa- 
ration was  by  the  same  means  and  to  the  same 
extent  in  the  synagogues  of  ordinary  Jews.  All 
that  is  implied  is  that  the  sexes  did  not  mingle  in 
public  worship,  though  tliey  joined  in  the  same 
acts  of  worship.  In  the  simple  room  known  as  a 
irpofffvxn  (Ac  IG'^)  there  could  have  been  no  elaborate 
barriers  of  separation.  Paul  and  Sil.as  seem  to 
have  entered  freely  into  the  society  of  Lydia  and 
the  other  devout  women  at  Philippi.  No  olBce  in 
the  synagogue  appears  to  have  been  open  to 
women.  The  limited  education  commonly  enjoyed 
by  all  women  but  those  of  the  weaUhy  and 
leisured  class  would  necessarily  deljar  them  from 
much  influence  in  intellectual  regions.  The  Jews 
paid  great  attention  to  the  education  of  children  ; 
but  whenever  we  meet  with  an  explicit  statement 
on  the  subject  we  read  only  of  boys.  Thus 
Josephus  says  that  Moses  '  commanded  to  instruct 
children  '  (c.  Apion.  ii.  25),  and  '  we  take  most  pains 
of  all  with  the  instruction  of  children '  {ib.  i.  12) ; 
but  when  he  is  more  explicrit  he  states  that  Moses 
prescribed  '  that  boys  should  learn  the  most  im- 
portant laws '  {Ant.  IV.  viii.  12).  Philo  and  the 
Talmud  follow  on  similar  lines  (see  Schiirer,  IIJP 
II.  ii.  27).  The  inference  is  that  all  young  children 
were  taught  the  elements  of  religion  by  their 
parents,  but  that  when  it  came  to  the  question  of 
more  exact  instruction  about  the  Law,  in  the 
sj-nagogue  schools,  this  was  conlined  to  boys. 

1.  The  Prominence  of  Women  in  the  NT. — 
Women  come  to  the  front  with  reference  to  the 
life  of  our  Lord.  This  is  esiiecially  the  case  in 
the  Third  Gospel,  St.  Luke  delightiii;^  in  gathering 
information  concerning  women  and  in  showing 
their  part  in  the  Gospel  story.  It  cannot  bo 
maintained  that  the  ^lagnificat,  though  ascribed 


to  the  Virgin  Mary,  was  actually  composed  by 
her.  It  is  more  consonant  with  ancient  literary 
custom  to  suppose  tliat  the  evangelist  sujiplies 
hymns  of  the  .lewish  or  Christian  Church  to  ex- 
press the  sentiments  of  the  persons  whom  he 
represents  as  uttering  tliem.  But,  while  we  may 
not  venture  to  designate  the  mother  of  Jesus  as 
a  poetess,  .\nna  is  distinctly  represented  as  a  pro- 
phetess who  spent  all  her  time  in  worsliip  in  the 
precincts  of  the  temple  (Lk  2*").  Our  Lord's 
teaching  and  healing  ministry  was  carried  on 
among  women  as  freely  as  among  men.  The 
means  for  the  support  of  Christ  ami  His  apostles 
appears  to  have  been  cliieHy  derived  from  the  jon- 
tiibutions  of  women  :  this  was  in  accordance  with 
custom,  women  sometimes  contributing  largely 
towards  the  support  of  Rabbis  (see  Plummer, 
Intern.  Com.  on  Lk  8''^).  Women  were  prepared 
to  perform  the  last  oflices  for  the  dead  on  the 
body  of  Jesus.  In  the  early  apostolic  age  it  was 
to  the  hotise  of  a  woman  that  St.  Peter  went,  after 
his  liberation  from  prison  during  the  persecution 
by  Herod,  to  meet  a  considerable  group  of  discijiles 
('where  manj/vrere  gathered  together,' etc.,. \c  12'-). 
We  cannot  infer  that  the  whole  Church  was  accus- 
tomed to  mL'i't  in  this  house,  as  lias  been  often 
.issumed,  for  the  majority  were  not  present  on  this 
occasion,  nor  was  St.  James,  since  St.  Peter  says, 
'Tell  these  things  unto  .James,  and  to  the  brethren ' 
(v.").  At  Jojipa,  Tabitlia  was  a  woman  disciple 
liighly  honoured  for  her  'good  works  and  alms 
deeds'  (Ac  9™).  St.  Paul's  lirst  convert  in  Europe 
was  a  woman,  and  he  and  his  companions  stayed 
at  her  house  (16"-'').  At  Philippi,  where  this 
occurred,  there  were  other  women  who  laboured 
with  the  apostle  (Pli  4^-').  Priscilla  is  mentioned 
before  her  husband  in  regard  to  their  teaching  of 
Apollos,  as  though  she  took  the  lead  (Ac  18™). 
Timothy's  faith  is  to  be  encouraged  with  memories 
of  his  mother's  and  gr.andmotlier's  earlier  faith 
(2  Ti  1»).  One  NT  Epi-stle  (viz.  2  John)  appears 
to  have  been  written  to  a  wom.an,  thoui;h  this  is 
doubtful  (see  JoHN,  EPISTLE.S  or).  Women  hgure 
largely  in  the  symbolism  of  the  .-Vpocalypse,  e.g. 
'the  woman  Jezebel,  which  calleth  herself  a  pro- 
phetess' (Kev  2-",  see  Jezebel,  n.),  the  'woman 
arrayed  with  the  sun  '  (12'"),  the  woman  represent- 
ing '  Babylon  the  Great '  (I7'"-). 

2.  2'he  Gifts  of  Wome7i  and  the  Exercise  of  them. — 
There  were  no  women  among  the  Twehe  Apostles, 
to  whom  special  gifts  of  healing  were  given  by  our 
Lord.  There  is  no  jnoof  that  women  disciples  were 
not  included  among  the  Seventy  ( Lk  lO'"**),  but  there 
is  no  evidence  that  there  were  any,  and  the  nature 
of  the  mission  renders  it  improli:ilile.  No  miracle 
is  ever  attributed  to  a  woman.  Still,  as  there  were 
women  in  the  churches  among  whom  gifts  of  heal- 
ing were  said  to  be  distributed,  and  no  exception 
in  their  case  is  named,  it  cannot  be  denied  that 
they  may  have  shared  in  these  as  in  other  gifts. 
No  book  of  tlie  NT  claims  to  be  written  by  a 
woman  ;  but  Harnack  assigns  the  authorship  of 
Hebrews  to  Priscilla.  Women  were  present  at 
the  day  of  Pentecost  when  the  gift  of  the  Spirit 
was  bestowed  (cf.  Ac  1"  and  2'"'),  and  must  have 
shared  in  it,  since  St.  Luke,  referring  to  the  w  hole 
company,  says  of  the  appearance  of  the  tongues, 
that  '  it  sat  upon  each  one  of  them  '  (2").  Its  result 
was  propliecj'  (v.'"),  ami  prophecy  is  the  specilic 
gift,  the  exercise  of  which  at  Corinth  by  women 
St.  Paul  refers  to  (1  Co  11°),  a  gift  which  he  prefers 
in  honour  to  all  others  (H'').  The  apostle  assumes 
that  women  proiihosy  and  pray  in  the  church,  only 
directing  that  they  do  so  veiled.  A  little  later  he 
orders  women  to  '  keep  silence  in  the  churclies ' 
(14").  This  seems  to  imply  that  on  further  re- 
flexion he  thought  it  not  suthcient  to  jMotecB 
their  modesty  that  women  should  wear  veils  whil* 


»36 


WOMAN 


WOMAN 


preaching  or  praying,  and  therefore  forbade  their 
exercise  of  the  gift  of  prophesying  in  public  at 
all.  But  observe,  (a)  this  was  at  Corintli,  a  most 
dissolute  city,  where  1000  women  were  devoted  to 
immorality  at  the  shrine  of  Aphroditi  on  the 
Acrocoriiithus,  and  therefore  where  it  was  most 
important  to  preserve  the  modesty  of  the  Chris- 
tian women  from  any  suspicion  or  temptation ; 
and  (6)  in  the  context  of  the  second  passage  St. 
Paul  does  not  again  mention  prophesj'ing  or  pray- 
ing, but  saj's,  '  It  is  not  permitted  unto  them  to 
speak'  (XaXcii/,  which  might  be  rendered  'talk'). 
1  his  looks  as  though  the  apostle  were  now  thinking 
of  mere  chattering,  or,  at  best,  questioning,  especi- 
ally as  he  adds,  'And  if  they  would  learn  anything, 
let  them  ask  their  own  husbands  at  home '  (v.^^). 
The  ground  of  the  prohibition  is  more  than  the 
requirements  of  modesty  ;  it  is  the  idea  of  the  sub- 
jection of  married  women  to  their  husbands  ('  but 
let  them  be  in  subjection,'  ib.).  Possibly  there  was 
a  temporary  and  local  reason  for  this  apostolic 
precept  in  the  condition  of  the  Corinthian  Church 
at  the  time.  The  apostle's  words  suggest  the  idea 
that  in  some  cases  the  new,  laro;e  family  brother- 
hood and  sisterhood  of  the  Churcli  was  threatening 
to  submerge  the  original  relationships  of  the  home. 
That  must  be  prevented.  But  that  the  apostle 
holds  to  a  certain  subjection  of  woman  in  general 
must  be  inferred  from  his  appeal  to  Genesis  (S""). 
This,  however,  is  to  be  considered  rather  as  a 
matter  of  order  than  a  question  afl'ecting  the 
spiritual  status  of  women.  When  referring  to 
the  latter,  St.  Paul  lays  down  the  principle  that  in 
Christ  '  there  can  be  no  male  or  female  '  (Gal  3^). 
It  has  been  said  that  the  apostle  was  inconsistent 
with  the  principle  here  enunciated  when  giving  his 
specific  directions  to  the  Corinthians  (McGitt'ert, 
Apost.  Age,  p.  305).  But  he  had  also  said  'there  can 
be  neither  bond  nor  free  '  (Gal  3-*),  and  yet  he  sent 
the  slave  Onesiraus  back  to  his  master  (Philem  "). 
In  both  cases  he  supported  established  customs 
for  the  time  being  while  enunciating  great 
principles  which  would  ultimately  abolish  them. 
Thus  the  NT  leads  to  the  emancipation  of  woman 
as  to  the  abolition  of  slavery,  not  by  sudden  re- 
volution from  without,  but  by  gradual  evolution 
from  within.  St.  Paul's  lofty  conception  of  mar- 
riage (Eph  5--'^),  while  including  the  subjection  of 
women,  involves  the  dignity  of  womanhood.  Even 
under  the  restrictions  required  at  the  time,  it  is 
manifest  that  women  enjoyed  more  liberty  and 
were  more  on  an  equality  with  men  in  the  church 
than  in  the  synagogue.  There  could  have  been  no 
such  separation  as  Pliilo(?)  describes.  1  Cor.  plainly 
indicates  that  women  took  part  with  men  at  the 
Aga2>i.  Tliey  must  have  been  in  view  if  it  was 
requisite  for  them  to  be  veiled.  Their  prophesy- 
ing before  the  Church  involves  their  being  in  the 
presence  of  tlie  whole  community.  Doubtless,  tlie 
sexes  were  so  far  divided  as  lliat  the  men  and 
women  sat  in  separate  groups,  since  this  was  the 
ciistom  in  the  churches  of  early  patristic  times. 
That  the  kiss  of  Christian  brotherhood  and  sister- 
hood was  not  restricted  between  the  sexes  is  plain 
from  the  fact  that  in  later  times  it  was  subject  to 
abuse,  which  led  to  the  restriction  being  imposed 
upon  it.  Athenagoras  (A.D.  177)  quotes  some 
apocryphal  writing  under  the  designation  of  '  the 
Logos '  in  rebuke  of  the  abuse,  which  says,  '  If 
any  one  kiss  a  second  time  because  it  gives  him 
pleasure,'  etc.,  and  again,  '  Therefore  the  kiss,  or 
rather  the  salutation,  should  be  given  with  the 
greatest  care,  since,  if  there  be  mixed  with  it  tlie 
least  delilement  of  thought,  it  excludes  us  from 
eternal  life  '  (Legal. pro  Christian.  32).  Clement  of 
Alex,  condemns  '  the  shameless  use  of  the  kiss,  which 
ought  to  be  mystic  '  (Pcedagog.  iii.  11).  Tertullian 
remarks  on  I  he  reasonable  complaint  of  a  pagan 


husband  that  his  wife  should  '  meet  any  one  of  th« 
brethren  to  exchange  a  kiss '  (ad  Uxor.  ii.  4). 
Accordingly  the  custom  was  altered,  the  earliest 
instance  oi  the  new  regulations  appearing  in  tha 
Apostolical  Constitutions  :  '  Let  the  clergy  salute 
the  bishop,  the  men  of  the  laity  salute  the  men, 
the  women  the  women'  (Const.  Apostol.  viii.  2. 
See  Diet,  of  Chr.  Ant.,  art.  '  Kiss '). 

3.  Offices  held  by  Women. — There  were  no  women 
apostles.  The  elders  were  all  men,  in  accordance 
with  the  invariable  custom  of  the  synagogue.  It 
is  given  as  a  sign  of  the  '  contempt '  into  wliich  re- 
ligion had  fallen  in  the  5th  cent.,  that  women  were 
found  to  be  acting  as  priests  at  the  altars,  a  com- 
I)laint  implying  that  this  was  an  innovation  pre- 
viously unheard  of  (see  Diet,  of  Chr.  Ant.,  art. 
'  Women  ').  Two  offices  are  said  to  have  been  held 
by  women  in  the  NT  Church — the  office  of  the 
Deaconess  and  that  of  the  Widow. — (a)  Deacon- 
esses. There  is  no  certain  description  of  the  office 
of  deaconess  in  the  NT.  We  meet  with  deacons 
in  Ph  1'  and  in  1  Ti  3""'^,  but  without  any  clear  re- 
ference to  deaconesses,  though  in  the  latter  passage 
deacons'  wives  are  referred  to ;  and  there  is  men- 
tion of  women  in  the  course  of  the  directions  about 
the  deacons  (v."),  and  before  the  mention  of  their 
wives,  which  seems  to  suggest  that  women  deacons 
are  meant.  Earlier  than  this,  Phoebe  of  Cenchrea  ia 
called  'a  servant  of  the  Church'  (Ko  16').  The  word 
is  oid/coi/os,  RVm  'deaconess.'  In  the  earlier  parts 
of  the  Apostolical  Constitutions  (ii.  20,  iii.  15),  ri 
oiaKovo^  is  the  title  of  the  deaconess ;  later  we  have 
Siaubviaaa  (viii.  19,  20,  28).  See  Sanday-Head- 
lara,  in  loc,  also  Lipsius,  who  considers  that 
Phoebe's  work  would  be  care  of  the  sick  and  of 
strangers.  The  fact  that  she  went  with  a  letter  of 
recommendation  suggests  that  she  was  travelling 
in  the  service  of  the  Church.  She  must  have  been 
a  woman  of  wealth  and  social  standing,  which  gave 
her  importance  apart  from  her  office,  as  she  is  called 
Tpoardri^,  i.e.  '  patroness.'  See  Phcebe.  The 
earliest  definite  reference  to  deaconesses  is  in  Pliny 
(Ep.  X.  96),  '  Quo  magis  necessariiim  credidi  ex 
duabus  ancillis,  quce  ministrm  dicebantur,  quid 
esset  veri  et  per  tormenta  qtia;rere.'  The  title 
'  ministrre,'  by  which  Pliny  says  these  '  hand- 
maidens' — surely  in  a  humbler  position  than  that 
of  Phoebe — were  known,  is  the  Latin  representative 
of  SidKovoi  and  dcaKovKraai  ;  the  former  of  which 
titles  would  probably  have  been  in  use  in  Bithynia. 
There  is  nothing  in  the  NT  to  identify  the 
deaconesses  with  the  '  widows '  of  the  Pastoral 
Epistles  ;  and  if  1  Ti  3"  refers  to  deaconesses,  they 
must  be  in  a  distinct  office,  as  they  are  mentioned 
apart  from  the  widows,  to  whom  reference  is 
made  later  (5'"'").  See  Lightfoot,  Com.  on  PA.,  Dis- 
sertation on  Chr.  Ministry,  p.  189.  We  have  no  de- 
scription of  the  work  of  deacons  and  deaconesses. 
But  the  significance  of  the  title,  pointing  to  service 
in  distinction  from  the  work  of  ruling  entrusted  to 
the  elders  or  bishops,  implies  that  they  would  have 
the  care  of  the  poor,  '  serving  tal)les '  like  '  the 
seven'  (Ac  G-'*).  The  division  of  labour  effected 
in  the  appointment  of  the-  seven  is  also  implied 
in  the  Pastoral  Epistles,  since,  while  the  bishop 
is  required  to  be  a  capable  teacher  (Tit  1'),  tliat 
is  not  said  of  the  deacon  ;  much  less,  then,  could 
it  have  been  required  of  the  deaconess.  Priscilla'a 
instruction  of  Apollos,  in  conjunction  \vith  her 
husband,  is  not  associated  with  any  office. —  (b) 
Widows,  see  Widow. 

Literature. — See  the  works  named  in  the  articles  on  Family 
and  Marriaok;  also  Peritz,  Woman  in  the  Ancient  llet/reit 
Cult;  W.  R.  Smith,  RS ;  Stade,  Oenchichte ;  Schwally,  /.4  7'IF 
xi.  p.  176 IT. ;  Schechter,  Studies  in  Judaism;  Wellliausen, 
Reste  arabischeji  Hindentwnjt;  Allen,  Christian  Institutions } 
Bartlet,  The  Apostolic  Age;  McGilTert,  Uist.  of  Christianity  in 
Vie  Apoat.  Age;  the  Interr^at.  Critical  Comin.  and  the  llandr 
Comrn«/Uaroa  passages  reft  rred  to.         W.  F.  ADliNKY. 


\rooD 


WORLD 


937 


WOOD.— See  Grove,  Forest,  Tree. 

WOOL  (17^  zemer ;  i|  gcz,  ni:  ffizzah,  ATB.h.  j'azzah, 
'a  fleece').  —  Wool  was  an  important  article  of 
commerce  (2  K  V  [part  of  the  tribute  of  king 
Mksha],  Ezk  27"),  and  woollen  fabrics  formed  a 
representative  element  in  Oriental  wealth  (Mt  6", 
Ja  5*).  It  was  also  an  indication  of  social  rank 
(Mt  11',  Lk  7'-=^).  The  soft  raiment  (ra  /^oXa/cd)  worn 
in  kings'  houses  was  not  the  rough  homespun  of  the 
shepherd's  cloiik,  but  prob.  like  the  close  smooth- 
faced broadcloth  still  woven  in  the  East,  with 
native  dyes  in  grey-blue,  moss-green,  and  various 
brown  and  purple  tones.  Until  recently  the  emirs 
of  the  Lebanon  proiiibited  the  pea-santry  from 
wcarin"  such  cloth.  A  many-folded  Oriental  suit 
of  woollen  cloth  must  have  always  been  costly,  and 
in  modern  use  it  is  kept  for  high  family  occasions 
and  religious  festivals.  Esau's  'goodly'  garment 
was  under  his  mother's  personal  charge  (arx  ■ex 
Gn  27"),  and  Tyrian  cloth  was  valuable  enough  to 
be  stored  up  as  an  ancestral  heirloom  (p'ni;  Is  2,3"). 

(;re!it  care  had  to  be  taken  to  protect  woollen 
cloth  from  the  ravages  of  moths  (Is  50",  Lk  12''). 
In  Is  51'  mention  is  made  both  of  the  moth  {dii'dsh, 
Arab,  'uththn/i)  and  the  worm  (or  si'is,  Arab,  fus, 
Gr.  0-1)5).  In  Arab,  the  former  is  tlie  small  silvery 
moth,  and  the  latter  word  indicates  the  destructive 
larvie. 

The  Israelites  were  forbidden  to  wear  clothing 
made  of  interwoven  wool  and  linen,  called  iipv* 
sha'atnez.  The  context,  Lv  19"  Dt  22",  seems  to 
indicate  that  the  objection  was  to  the  mixture 
as  such.  The  matter  is  the  subject  of  discussion 
in  the  Mislina  (Kilaim  i.\.  1),  and  Josephus  briefly 
states  that  the  reason  was  because  such  cloth  of 
wool  and  linen  was  the  special  dress  material  of 
the  j)riest-s  {Ant.  IV.  viii.  11).  It  is  one  of  the 
tit-bits  of  rabbinical  conscientiousness  to  discuss 
whether  a  man  wearing  a  woollen  coat,  of  which 
the  buttons  are  sewn  on  with  linen  thread,  is 
wearing  shdatniz,  and  so  breaking  the  Law. 

Woof  was  tiie  stamlard  of  lustrous  whiteness  (Ps 
147",  Is  1",  Dn  7',  Kev  l'«),  as  goats'-hair  or  sack- 
cloth was  of  intense  black  {Rev  G'-). 

G.  M.  Mackie. 

WORD  (X(5705,  ^;«a).— Commenting  on  Dt  8', 
Philo  says  [Leg.  Allcg.  iii.  01),  rh  iiii>  yi.p  irrdixa. 
ffirfx^oXov  rov  Xityov^  t6  5^  p^M^  fi^ptK  aCrroO.  The 
definition  of  priijui,  as  an  isolated  specitic  alKr- 
mation  in  contrast  with  X47os,  a  connected  whole, 
though  for  the  most  part  tenable,  cannot  be  uni- 
versally accepted.  In  LXX  both  words  are  used 
indilVeieiitly  as  tr.  of  i?^,  and  sometimes  X670!  is 
found,  where  on  the  ground  of  this  distinction  we 
might  have  expected  M/«i  (Is  50^).  In  the  familiar 
phrase,  'the  word  of  the  Lord  came,'  'word'  is 
rendered  in  the  historical  books,  now  by  X47os 
(2  .S  24",  1  K  6"  12^  16'  etc.),  now  by  prjfui  (1  S 
15'°,  2  S  "*,  1  K  17»  19»  etc.) ;  but  in  the  prophetical 
books  (with  the  pos-sible  exception  of  Jer  1',  where 
the  translation  is  inexact)  X(^ot  is  invariably  used 
to  denote  the  message  which  God  revealed  to  the 
prophet  that  he  migTit  declare  it  to  the  people  in 
11  is  name.  It  may  oe  noted  that,  in  referring  to 
the  call  of  the  Baptist — '  the  word  of  the  Lord  came 
nnto  John  '  (3'^) — St.  Luke  uses  pfifia.  The  choice  of 
^5/ia  may  be  accidental ;  or  ho  may  have  done  so 
designedly  to  mark  the  contrast  between  the  word 
that  came  to  the  Baptist  and  the  word  (X470f)  pro- 
claimed and  revealed  by  Christ. 

At  a  very  early  date,  if  not  at  the  very  begin- 
ning of  the  Church,  A  Xoyot  was  used  xar'  ^foxi)"  to 
desJOTate  the  special  revelation  of  grace  given  in 
and  by  Jesus  Christ  (Lk  1',  Ac  4*  etc.).  Our  Lord 
appears  to  have  so  described  His  inessagc  (Mt  13^, 
Mk4'*).  St.  Mark  thus  summarizes  llie  teaching  of 
Jesus  (2^).     At  the  institution  of  the  diacouate  the 


apostles  characterize  their  own  distinctive  duty 
as  a  steadfast  continuance  in  the  ministry  of  the 
word  (Ac  6*) ;  it  is  represented  as  the  exclusive 
subject  and  substance  of  the  i)roclaniation  of 
the  early  missionaries  of  the  cross  (Ac  8*  17'' 
etc.);  it  is  found  in  the  earliest  as  well  as  in 
the  latest  of  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul  ( 1  Th  1«, 
2  Ti  4-).  By  describing  the  gospel  in  this  way, 
the  speakers  or  writers  meant  to  imply  that  it 
was  tlie  perfect  and  authoritative  word  which  was 
to  supersede  all  other  words  that  God  h.ad  spoken 
to  men.  In  relation  to  its  origin  it  is  the  word  of 
God  (Lk  8",  Ac  4",  1  Co  14*  He  4'=,  1  P  !•«) ;  in 
respect  of  its  method  of  communication  it  is  the 
word  of  hearing  (1  Th  2",  He  4-) ;  as  to  its  nature 
it  is  the  word  of  the  kingdom  (Mt  13"),  of  truth 
(2  Ti  2"'),  of  life  (Ph  2'«) ;  it  is  pre-eminently  the 
word  of  salvation  (Ac  13**),  of  reconciliation 
(2  Co  5"*),  the  word  of  the  cross  (1  Co  l'*).  (See 
Cremer,  Bill.  Theol.  Lex.*  pp.  302,  393;  Trench, 
N.T.  Sijn.  289,  337).  For  Word  in  the  personal 
sense  see  Logos.  John  Patrick. 

WORLD.— 'The  world,' in  that  meaning  of  the 
terra  from  which  others  that  are  in  use  may  be 
most  clearly  derived,  denotes  a  system  known  to 
man  througli  his  senses,  to  which  he  himself  on  one 
side  of  his  nature  belongs,  but  from  which,  as  a 
personal  being,  he  can  and  usually  does  regard 
himself  as  distinct.  It  is  a  portion  of  the  material 
universe,  and  may  even  stand  for  the  whole  of  it 
where  man's  knowledge  of  nature  is  limited.  It 
will  be  our  chief  aim  in  this  article  to  examine  the 
view  taken  in  OT  and  NT  of  this  material  system, 
and  of  man's  actual  as  well  as  his  true  relation  to  it. 

i.  In  Old  Tkstament.— Sgn,  which  is  commonly 
rendered  'world'  both  by  AV  and  KV,  is  not  a  word 
of  larger  meaning  than  |";n  '  earth  ' ;  indeed,  so  far 
as  a  distinction  can  be  drawn  between  them,  it 
has  the  narrower  application.  [Cf.  art.  Earth, 
and  see  esp.  Pr  8"  ii-|N  '?3n  =  RV  'his  habitable 
earth,'  also  Job  37'-].  The  two  words  const.-intly 
occupy  the  corresponding  places  in  the  parallelisms 
of  Heb.  poetry  (Ps  19^  24'  etc.).  '^3"  occurs  only  in 
poetry,  and  the  word  '  world '  may  have  been 
thought  to  have  somewhat  more  jioetic  associa- 
tions, and  have  been  adopted  for  tliis  reason  to 
translate  it.  [Sjn  is  never  rendered  by  'earth' 
either  in  AV  or  IIV ;  pN  is  rendered  by  '  world ' 
only  at  Ps  22"",  Is  23"  62",  and  Jer  25-«  in  AV, 
and  only  at  Job  37'-,  Is  23",  and  Jer  25^  in  RV. 
In  these  last  two  places  '  earth '  was  reserved  to 
tr.  n?7tt]. 

There  is  no  single  word  in  OT  which  describes 
the  material  universe,  even  as  it  was  conceived  by 
the  Hebrews.  The  phrase  '  heaven  and  earth'  is 
used  to  convey  that  notion  (Gn  1',  Ps  89",  Jer  10" 
51"  etc.).  Both  ["IN  and  Vsg  are  also  distinguished 
from  the  seas  or  the  sea  (Gn  1",  Ps  98"). 

Heaven  and  earth  by  their  vastness  and  stability, 
and  by  the  rich  variety,  excellence,  and  beauty  of 
that  which  they  contain  (cf.  the  expression  '  the 
fulness  of  the  world'  and  'of  the  earth,'  Ps  50"* 
and  21'  etc.,  as  also  '  the  sea  and  its  fulness,'  Ps 
98')  ;  the  sea  kept  under  firm  restraint  for  all  its 
raging;  the  sun,  moon,  and  stars  observing  their 
regular  times  and  seasons,  were  felt  to  be  con- 
stant witnesses  to  the  power  and  wisdom  of  God,  of 
Jehovah  the  God  of  Israel,  who  is  the  Creator  and 
ruler  of  all  (Am  4"  5",  Is  48"  51",  Jer  5-"  10'=  51", 
Ps  19'-«  24'-''  8.  33«»  29.  89"  93.  95*- »  104).  To 
their  testimony  even  the  heathen  might  be  ex- 
pected to  pay  heed  (see  esp.  Ps  19'").  In  this 
8en.so  even  inanimate  things  praise  God  (Ps  96'"'" 
OS"' "  148).  Moreover,  His  care  for  His  creatures 
was  recognized,  as  shown  in  the  regular  provision 
which  lie  hn-smade  for  their  sustenance.  He  is  their 
guardian,  the  source  of  life  and  hapfiine-ss  to  all 


938 


WORLD 


WORLD 


l=ving  things  (Gn  8'^,  Ps  33'  36'»  65'-"  103»- »  104=''» 
147*-",  Job  10'2).  But  He  was  believed,  too,  to 
manifest  Himself  in  a  special  manner  in  the  more 
exceptional  and  terrible  aspects  of  Nature,  in  storm 
and  earthquake,  in  drought  and  pestilence.  Bj' 
means  of  these  He  had  fought  and  was  expected 
to  light  on  the  side  of  His  own  people  against  their 
enemies  (Ex  15,  Jg  S^"- -',  Am  9»- *,  Ps  18'-"  48«- ' 
68711  7g3-9  77n...o  7^  §3"-"  97'-»  105.  106'-'°  111.  114. 
144*-*),  or  punished  Judah  and  Israel  {Am  4"-")  or 
individuals  (Ps  107)  for  their  sins.  Those  proofs 
of  His  presence  and  operation  which  are  regular, 
and  those  more  unusual  ones  where  there  has 
evidently  been  some  particular  end  in  view,  are 
remarkably  brought  together  in  some  passages 
(Ps74"-ias9'«-"  136). 

With  the  rise  and  development  of  the  doctrine 
of  Wisdom,  interest  in  Nature  was  greatly  stinm- 
lated,  a  more  careful  observation  of  particular 
facts,  and  even  a  certain  kind  of  speculation  u]ion 
her  laws,  were  encouraged,  but  all  under  the  guid- 
ance of  a  strongly  religious  spirit  (Pr  8**-",  Job 
26'-'''  2S.  36---39.''40«-41.  Corap.  Wis  7"-=^,  Sir  43. 
A  similar  bent  may  be  noted  in  a  work  belonging 
to  another  class  of  literature,  En.  72-82  and  2-5). 

So  far  we  have  spoken  of  the  imjjression  made 
upon  the  minds  of  devout  and  inspired  Heb.  pro- 
phets, psalmists,  and  philosophers  by  the  contem- 
plation of  that  order  of  which  the  earth  forms  a 
part.  But  the  earth  itself  was  specially  thought 
of  by  them  as  the  spacious  dwelling-place  of  man- 
kind, divided  into  its  many  races,  tribes,  and  king- 
doms. [See  such  expressions  as  '  kingdoms,' 
'peoples,'  'inhabitants'  of  'the  earth,'  or  'the 
world,'  Gn  22'*,  Jos  4«,  2  K  10"- ",  Is  26»- "  37=" 
etc.].  Hence,  further,  both  Sjb  and  yiV  (■"')  are  used 
by  themselves  for  mankind,  which  is  capable  of 
doing  right  and  wrong  and  of  knowing  God,  and 
which  shall  be  judged  by  God  (Gn  6",  Ex  9"',  Nu 
14=',  Gn  18-»,  1  S  2'",  Ps  2*,  Is  38",  Ps  9«  10"  33* 
96'^ etc.).  But  when  we  speak  of  mankind  in  these 
relations  we  must  beware  of  thinking  primarily  of 
a  collection  of  responsible  individuals,  as  from  our 
modern  habits  of  thought  we  may  be  apt  to  do. 
In  accordance  with  the  point  of  view  of  the  OT, 
'  the  earth  '  in  this  use  of  the  term  must  be  imder- 
stood  to  mean  '  the  nations  of  the  earth ' ;  the 
judgment  of  nations  and  the  homage  that  sliould 
be  paid  by  the  nations  generally  to  the  God  of 
Israel  are  intended  in  the  passages  in  question. 
'  Earth  '  is  also  used  in  a  sense  akin  to  our  phrase 
'  human  society'  in  Ps  75'  ('the  foundations  of  the 
earth '=' the  principles  on  which  human  society 
rests';  cf.  Pr  30").  In  the  following  places,  how- 
ever, it  seems  to  describe  men  as  men — Jos  23'^, 
Is  24'*-=°  2(i'*,  Jer  50«  51=°. 

Tlie  last-mentioned  use  may  possibly  be  associ- 
ated with  the  idea  of  man's  origin  (Gn  2'  and  3", 
Ps  146^),  though  it  is  to  be  remembered  that  in 
these  places  the  words  used  are  nijis  and  irj;.  But 
at  Ps  10'*  the  expression  n^C'P  ^"•■*  'mortal  man 
from  the  earth '  may  most  naturally  be  explained 
thus.  The  little  value  of  man  and  his  transitori- 
ness  are  in  this  way  brought  home  to  the  mind. 
No  moral  signification  seems  to  attach  to  this 
'  earthiness  '  of  man.  It  does  not  implj-  earthliness 
of  aims  and  principles.  On  the  oilier  hand,  a 
notion  analogous  to  this  is  suggested  in  at  least 
one  passage  (Ps  17")  where  another  word  -hn,  some- 
times translated  'world,'  in  sense  of  tiyne  (Arab. 
khnlada  '  abide,'  '  endure ')  is  used.  [At  Ps  39'  89" 
and  Job  11"  it  is  rendered  'age,'  'time,'  'life'; 
but  at  Ps  17"  49'  and  Is  38"  (implying  here  i^n 
for  ^-in)  'world'  both  in  AV  and  KV.  In  the 
former  of  these  passages,  however,  '  mortals  of 
time '  would  give  a  good  sense].  An  excessive 
devotion  to  the  things  of  this  present  life,  which 
are  the  things  of  sense,  is  here  indicated  such  as  to  I 


constitute  a  type  of  character.  This  is  an  interest" 
ing  anticipation  of  NT  thought.  Another  point  of 
interest  is  the  analogy  between  the  use  of  i^n,  s 
word  denoting  tinie,  and  the  subsequent  use  of  ai'iii'. 
Another  word  oViy,  to  the  meaning  of  which  aiijn 
still  more  closely  approximates,  is  also  translated 
'  world  '  at  Ec  3'^  AV  and  RV  (not  RVm).  In  later 
Hebrew  it  did  bear  at  times  this  sense,  but  it  is 
more  than  doubtful  whether  it  has  it  here.  (.See 
esp.  the  CDmmentaries  of  Nowack  -  Hitzig  in  the 
Kiirzgef.  Com.,  and  E.  H.  Plumiitie,  in  loc). 

ii.  APOCRYrilA. — In  the  Books  of  Wisdom  and 
2  Maccabees  we  are  introduced  to  the  important 
word  k6(t/xos  in  the  sense  which  it  acquired  ainoni^ 
the  Greeks  through  philosophic  usage.  The  LXX 
of  OT  has  the  word,  but  only  in  its  earlier  meaning 
of  'adornment,'  or  as  a  rendering  of  n;:?  '  lio.st 
(Gn  4',  Dt  4"  etc.)  ;  while  ["ix  and  '73B  are  there 
translated  by  yr)  and  oUovixivT]  (f-ix  almost  always 
by  yfi,  and  '735  by  o'lKoviiivTf ;  there  are,  however,  a 
few  cases  in  which  these  renderings  are  inter- 
changed, all  in  Isai.ah).  But  in  the  Apocryjiha, 
i.e.  in  the  two  books  of  the  Apocrypha  above 
mentioned,  it  occurs  repeatedly  as  a  name  for 
the  material  universe,  which  is  its  most  common 
signitication  there.  The  Most  High  is  ag.ain  and 
ag.ain  described  by  such  phrases  as  '  the  Creator 
of  the  world,'  'the  Ruler  of  the  world.'  For  the 
word  in  this  sense  comp.  Plato,  Gorgias,  50S ; 
Aristotle,  de  Mund.  2.  The  thought  of  order, 
and  of  the  beauty  arising  therefrom,  which  the 
word  by  its  derivation  suggested,  is  naturally 
associated  with  this  application  of  it,  and  may  well 
have  been  present  to  the  mind  of  the  author  of 
the  Book  of  Wisdom  in  his  use  of  it  .at  11".  Other 
passages,  interesting  in  connexion  with  his  view  of 
the  Koa/ios,  are  1"  and  7"'-.  In  5'-"  and  16"  refer- 
ence is  made  to  the  co-operation  of  the  world,  i.e. 
the  forces  of  nature,  in  the  work  of  moral  retribu- 
tion and  the  defence  of  the  righteous,  in  full  agree- 
ment with  OT  thought,  though  the  language  is 
somewhat  ditferent.  Man's  birth  is  described  as 
an  entry  into  the  world,  7^  (some  MSS,  however, 
read  /Sioi-).  The  position  assigned  to  him  in  it  is, 
in  accordance  with  Gn  l^-^,  Ps  8"-,  that  he  should 
'rule  the  world — diiirri  t6v  Kbcfxov — in  holiness  and 
righteousness'  (9^).  For  this  reason,  too,  it  would 
seem,  Adam  is  soniewliat  strangely  called  '  the 
first-formed  father  of  the  world'  (iC).  But  the 
world  has,  through  human  perversity,  become  the 
scene  of  idolatry  and  moral  corruption,  and  there- 
with death  has  "been  admitted  into  it,  though  this 
is  attributed  to  the  envy  of  the  devil  (14'^-*'  2'-^, 
cf.  Ro  5'=). 

There  does  not  seem  to  be  a  passage  in  which 
K6<Tfio!,  either  in  this  book  or  in  2  Mac,  denotes 
mankind  exclusively,  for  at  Wis  6=*  where  the 
world  is  said  to  be  lienelited  by  the  large  number 
of  the  wise,  and  at  14"  where  the  ark  is  spoken  of 
as  '  the  hope  of  the  world,'  the  wliole  of  creation 
may  be  thought  of  as  associated  with  men. 

Before  passing  from  the  Apocryiilia  we  may 
observe  that  in  Wis  13'  there  is  a  use  of  ai'iui' 
which  may  help  to  show  how  it  came  to  have  at 
times  almost  the  sense  of  '  world.' 

iii.  New  Tf..stament. — We  have  noticed  one  or 
two  pljices  in  the  Book  of  Wisdom  in  whic^li  (toVyuoi 
appears  to  denote  simply  this  earth  and  its  inhabit- 
ants. Two  interesting  examples  are  referred  to 
by  Liddell  and  Scott  {sub  voce)  d  the  use  of  the 
word  in  much  the  same  way  in  public  inscriptions 
of  the  end  of  the  first  or  beginning  of  the  2nd  cent. 
A.D.  Nerva  is  called  auTrip  toO  irivTos  kIkt/j-ov,  and 
Trajan  corrrjp  tov  Koirfiov.  See  Boeck,  CIG  1306,  334. 
In  NT  many  more  instances  of  its  having  this 
meaning  will  come  before  us,  as  well  as  of  other 
meanings  which  arise  out  of  this  one.  It  it 
necessary  to  ask   at  once   whether  we  ought  to 


^ORLD 


WORLD 


939 


nttempt  to  carry  the  original  meaning  of  'order' 
tlirouLrh  all  these  applications  of  the  word  [West- 
cott,  Coram,  on  Gosjm  according  to  St.  John,  Addi- 
tional Note  at  end  of  ch.  1,  on  /citrMot,  tries  to  do 
this].  Its  sense  is  not  anywhere  restricted  to  denote 
the  earth  in  classical  literature.  It  is  there  used 
sometimes  of  tlie  heavens  alone  ;  and  indeed  there 
is  reason  to  think  that  the  Pythagoreans,  who  are 
credited  with  having  been  the  tirst  wlio  employed 
it  to  express  a  philosophical  concei>tion,  applied  it 
thus.  And  we  can  readilj-  understand  that  the 
heavenly  bodies  with  their  regular  motions  might 
impress  them  with  their  order  and  beauty.  The 
earth,  too,  might  well  come  to  be  included  under 
the  term  Kijuos,  as  forming  one  member  of  a  great 
systetn  in  which  there  was  true  relation  of  parts. 
But  it  is  not  so  easy  to  see  how  by  itself  it  could 
have  been  regarded  as  '  an  ordered  whole.'  It 
must  bo  remembered  that  the  ancient  mind  was 
not  penetrated  aa  the  modem  is  with  the  thouglit 
of  law  in  nature.  On  tlie  other  hand,  the  possi- 
bility that  the  'cosmopolitanism'  of  the  Cynics 
and  Stoics  influenced  common  speech  is  not  to  be 
overlooked.  Yet  it  should  be  observed  that  their 
phrase  kIujhov  iroXinjs  h.id  a  ditt'erent  force  from 
that  which  'citizen  of  the  world'  has  to  our  ears. 
In  the  mouth  of  the  .Stoic  it  expressed  the  convic- 
tion that  the  universal  system  and  law,  the  polity 
of  the  great  City  of  Zeus,  in  which  every  man  had 
his  own  place,  conditioned  his  life  and  determined 
his  obligations.  To  the  Cynic,  on  the  otlier  hand, 
— if  we  may  take  the  passage  in  Lucian,  Biwi"  irpaa-it 
§§  7-10,  as  a  correct  representation  of  the  teaching 
of  Diogenes  and  his  school, — it  meant,  indeed,  that 
he  was  unfettered  by  ties  of  country  and  could  make 
his  home  anywhere,  but  the  reason  for  this  was 
that  his  life  was  composed  of  the  sim|)lest,  most 
universal  elements.  The  saj-ing  attributed  to 
Socrates  by  Plutarch  (lltpi  'i-vyrii,  §  4,  GOO  f.)— that 
he  was  himself  not  Athenian  nor  Hellene,  but 
citizen  of  the  world  (/tiir/tios) — should  also  be  com- 
pared, where  in  the  context  Plutarch  quotes  tlie 
saying  of  Plato  that  man  is  oi'pd^'ios.  The  use  of 
Kua^ios  with  that  particular  liniitatiou  of  its  mean- 
ing which  we  are  considering  may  have  been 
facilitated  in  a  measure  by  this  language  of  the 
schools.  To  a  still  greater  degree,  probably,  it 
was  due  to  the  fact  that  the  earth  seemed,  espe- 
cially perhaps  to  the  Hebrew  mind,  to  be  incom- 
parably the  most  important  part  of  the  created 
universe,  to  which  the  heaven  with  its  lights,  pro- 
perly sjieaking,  belonged,  as  a  canopy  over  it.  But 
the  question  for  us  is,  not  so  much  what  the  history 
of  this  usage  was,  but  wliether  the  notion  of  order 
was  usually  present  to  the  mind  of  those  who 
employed  it  as  the  NT  writers  do.  We  can  con- 
ceive that  it  might  have  been  to  that  of  St.  Paul 
(cf.  Ac  17"),  but  it  does  not  seem  probable  in  the 
case  of  others,  and  indeed  the  idea  is  not  suggested 
in  connexion  with  the  term  icoV^os  by  any  context 
in  which  it  is  used,  even  in  St.  Paul's  E|)istlcs. 
And  when  our  world  was  viewed  in  its  ethical 
as[)ecta  it  seemed  to  Christian  apostles  to  be,  not 
a  realm  of  order  but  a  scene  of  disorder  ;  and  their 
teaching  substantially  is,  that  it  could  not  be  an 
order  while  God  was  left  out  of  account,  though 
there  is  no  evidence  that  they  formulated  their 
thought  to  themselves  exactly  in  this  way. 

We  have  seen  what  range  of  meaning  px  and 
Sja  have  in  OT,  and  have  observed  that  yjj  and 
oiKovniyr)  are  used  in  LXX  to  render  them.  In 
connexion  with  the  meanings  of  ic4<r^o5  it  is  not 
uniiniKirtant  to  notice  that  there  are  in  NT 
l)ariiliel  or  closely  flimihir  pa-ssages  in  one  of 
which  yij  or  oIkov/jJi'ti  is  found,  and  in  the  other 
itoffMOt.  Comp.  iMt  4«  with  Lk  4»,  Mt  24"  and 
20",  Mt5'  with  Uo  4",  Jn  :i"  and  8'='.  Yet,  even 
though  icdo'/u)!  at  times  seems  to  have  much  the 


same  meaning  as  -y^  or  oUovu^vrj  in  many  passages 
of  LXX,  it  was  felt  to  be  a  preferable  word  for 
many  purposes.  In  sjjite  of  the  usage  of  LXX 
there  was  danger  of  confusion  in  employing  oUou- 
IJiiv-n,  which  was  applied  by  Greeks  and  Romans 
specially  to  the  GriEco-Roman  world.  [This  word 
occurs  most  frequently  in  the  writings  of  St.  Luke, 
and  most  often  with  the  meaning  just  indicated], 
Klmiioi  may  also  more  readily  have  suggested  a 
comprehensive  idea,  so  as  to  include  more  at  least 
than  yri  did  ;  it  suggested  tlie  idea  of  a  whole,  if 
not  necessarily  of  an  ordered  whole.  The  philo- 
sophical associations  which  still  clung  to  the  woid 
also  made  it  more  suitable  when  the  intention  was 
to  signalize  certain  princiiiles  which  underlay  and 
governed  the  entity  in  question.  It  may  be  ob- 
served that  ol/cov/ji^yri  occurs  but  once  in  St.  Paul's 
writings  (Ro  10'*),  and  there  in  a  quotation  from 
LXX  ;  7-5  also  is  met  with  there  comparatively 
rarely. 

We  proceed  to  review  the  use  of  K6<r/ios  in  NT 
more  in  detail.  Our  object  in  doing  so  will  be  to 
mark  dill'erences  between  various  writers,  and  also 
to  some  extent  in  the  same  writers,  in  the  denota- 
tion of  the  term,  and  in  the  concejition  implied 
when  that  which  is  denoted  is  the  same.  It  will 
be  seen  that  there  are  instances  in  all  the  chief 
groups  of  writings  of  its  standing  for  (1)  the 
material  universe,  (2)  our  world  as  containing 
mankind,  but  without  tlio  connotation  that  the 
world  or  men  have  certain  ethical  characteristics. 
The  ethical  signilication  of  the  word  appears  to  be 
contined  to  the  Epp.  of  St.  Paul,  the  Gospel  and 
Epp.  of  St.  John,  tlie  Ep.  of  St.  James,  and  2  Peter  ; 
though  there  is  a  possible  exception  wlien  the  king- 
doms of  the  world  and  their  glory  are  ottered  as  a 
temptation  (Mt  4'),  and  the  possession  of  the  whole 
world  is  compared  with  the  true  interests  of  the 
soul  (Mk  S-'",  iMt  16-'»,  Lk  9-s>) ;  we  may  in  these 
places  be  intended  to  gather  that  worldlj-  dominion 
and  wealth  are  even  of  themselves  dangerous  to 
the  soul.  Further,  we  ought  to  be  better  able 
to  form  for  ourselves  a  char  and  complete  view 
of  the  conception  as  a  whole  presented  in  the 
teaching  of  NT  and  in  iiulividual  writers,  after 
marking  aspects  of  it  which  are  severally  pro- 
minent in  particular  passages.  The  idea  tlius 
obtained  we  must  take  with  us  in  order  that  we 
may  fully  feel  the  force  of  other  passages.  This 
is  specially  true  in  the  case  of  St.  John's  «Titings. 
Thus,  when  in  Jn  13'  it  is  said  that  the  hour  had 
come  that  Jesus  '  should  depart  out  of  this  world 
unto  the  Father,'  and  that  He  had  '  loved  his  own 
which  were  in  the  world,'  some  thought  of  what  the 
world  is  must  have  been  present  to  the  mind  of  the 
evangelist.  It  is,  moreover,  obvious  that  where 
St.  John  uses  the  word  in  successive,  or  nearly 
successive,  clauses  or  sentences — as  he  does  again 
and  again  in  clis.  14-17 — though  from  each  occur- 
rence the  same  notion  cannot  be  gathered  fully,  it 
would  be  a  mistake  to  regard  them  disconnectedly. 
The  word  has  one  meaning  in  the  thought  of  the 
writer,  though  he  may  not  be  equally  conscious  of 
all  its  elements  at  every  moment,  and  thougli  he 
is  still  less  able  to  convey  the  whole  of  it  at  once 
to  others,  but  lights  up  hr.st  this,  then  that  part  of 
it,  after  his  characteristic  manner. 

1.  The  material  universe,  the  heaven  and  earth  which  were 
created  at  the  bc;;innini;,  moaC  trequcntly  in  tlic  ])hrase  &«■* 
jwTapoXr;  xcrf^uv,  or  Others  similar  to  this,  ilt  21-1  '^:^^  Lk  ll^ 
Jn  170  ••",  Ro  1»,  Eph  1*.  1  P  1»,  Ho  *'  0'».  In  Jn  11»  we  read 
of  the  natunil  Iit;ht  of  this  world  ;  in  1  Co  8^  W^  i*  xcrfj^  seems 
to  be  equivalent  to  the  Latin  phrase  in  renim  nalura. 

1  Co  i'^'  hfloiijfs,  perhaps,  here.  An;,'el8  are  added  probably  aa 
distintfuiMhed  from  the  world ;  men,  on  the  other  hand,  aa  a 
particular  and  important  part  of  it. 

2.  The  earth,  but  rarely  without  reference  to  that  which  II 
contains,  and  espocially  to  its  hinnan  inhabitants. 

(a)  The  scone  ot  human  life,  the  aboiie  of  mankind,  Ho  619.  U 
1  Co  lia,  L'ph  «ia,  1  Ti  I"  «',  Ue  10»,  1  P  6».  Ja  1»  tJi^  liw,  1  Ja 


340 


WORLD 


"WORMWOOD 


41  9-17.  In  Jn  2125  little  more  eeeme  to  be  implied  than  the 
extent  of  space  included. 

(6)  The  earth,  together  with  all  the  treasures  it  contains,  and 
including,  no  doubt,  dominion  over  men,  Mt  4**,  Mt  l(pJ  =  iIk  8^** 
~L\i  9'^,  Uo  41a,  1  Co  322. 

(c)  The  scope  appointed  for  the  work  of  the  missionaries 
of  the  ffospcl ;  it  18  to  be  preached  throu<jhout  the  world  ;  Mt 
5H    1333,  Mt  26i3=.Mk  149,  Mk  W\  Uo  l*.  Col  16,  Ph  215. 

1  Ti  3i'"', 

3.  Idiomatic  and  peculiar  uses — 

(a)  A  rhettjriral  expression  for  the  great  majority  of  people  In 
a  particular  place,  as  in  French,  '  tout  le  inotide,'  Jn  12i9. 

{h)  Equivalent  almost  to  the  modern  phrase  'the  public' 
*  Show  thyself  to  the  world '  = 'court  publicity,"  Jn  7-*,  cf.  1820. 

(c)  Means  of  sustenance  for  the  body  is  called  ^'Of  t«u  Mir/Mv, 
lJn3i7. 

(rf)  *  The  tonciie  a  world  of  iniquity,'  Ja  36. 

(p)  The  world  before  the  Flood,  He  117.  2  P  2^  3".  The  popu- 
lation of  the  world,  then,  and  its  accumulations  of  wealth  and 
the  products  of  its  labour,  are  no  doubt  chiefly  in  view  ;  yet 
the  comparison  in  2  P  u**- 7  with  'the  heavens  and  the  earth 
that  now  are,'  suggests  a  sweeping  away  at  that  time  of  the  old 
order  of  nature. 

V  The  term  used  with  ethical  sitniificance. 

(a)  As  material  and  transitory-  the  world  presents  a  contract 
with  that  which  is  spiritual  and  eternal.  In  this  way  St.  Paul 
Been)S  to  regard  it  in  the  very  important  passages  Oal  43  e'-*, 
Col  2*  20.  So  we  gather  from  comparing  them  together  and 
from  their  contents  (see  Lightfoot,  in  loc).  The  instances  with 
which  the  apostle  is  dealing  illustrate  the  general  principle 
to  which  he  refers.  The  Law  and  its  ordinances  belong  to  an 
external  sphere.  Now  things  outward  (  =  ' the  things  that  are 
Been' of  2  Co  41^  have  for  St,  Paul  lost  all  their  value  through 
Christ's  death,  in  comparison  with  the  things  spiritual,  and 
this  ougnt  to  be  the  case  with  all  Christians.  He  is  not  think- 
ing of  ttie  world  as  evil.  Indeed  the  Law,  which  is  'of  the 
world '  in  the  sense  defined,  has  been  used  by  God  for  the  rudi- 
mentary instruction  and  discipline  of  the  Israelites,  and  so  may 
other  things  which  are  of  the  world  be  used.  Elsewhere,  also, 
he  allows  for  a  certain  use  of  them,  which  must,  however,  be 
sparing  and  kept  in  strict  subordination  to  higher  considera- 
tions, 1  Co  731-34  ;  cf.  Lk  1230,  This  view  of  the  world  is  hardly 
to  be  traced  in  St.  John's  writings  ;  a  darker  one  appears,  we 
shall  find,  there,  upon  which  St.  Paul  dwells  less. 

{h)  Devotion  to  the  things  of  the  world  produces  a  certain 
temper  of  mind,  which  under  the  sense  of  loss  is  manifested  in 
that  'sorrow  of  the  world'  which  is  not  'according  to  God,' 

2  Co  710.  There  is  a  scale  for  estimating  men  and  things, 
which  may  be  in  a  measure  true  relatively  to  the  things  of  this 
world,  but  which  is,  to  aav  the  least,  altogether  incomplete, 
1  Co  1^-  23  413,  Ja  25.  The* world  has  a  fancied  wisdom  which 
does  not  know  God,  1  Co  120.  ^i  319,  Jn  l^o ;  it  cannot  receive 
the  Spirit  of  Truth,  Jn  14^7.  There  is,  in  short,  a  spirit  of  this 
world,  1  Co  212.  Tho.se  in  whom  this  spirit  is  are  described  as 
being  '  of  the  worhl '  or  *  of  this  world '  (Jn  82^,  1  Jn  4-*-  6) ;  and. 
by  contrast.  Christ's  disciples  as  *  not  of  the  worid'  fJn  151* 
17'*  :  cf.  also  1  Co  .510  and  1  PS). 

The  state  of  the  world  arising  from  the  influence  of  this 
spirit  is  one  of  dire  moral  corruption,  Eph  22,  1  Jn  215-17^  Ja 
127  44^  2  P  1-*  220. 

(c)  The  world  denotes  the  mass  of  men  who  are  hostile  to  the 
truth  and  to  the  followers  of  Chriut,  or  at  least  indifferent  to  it 
and  them,  Jn  77  IG^o-  33.  1  jn  31- 1^  4-'-  5. 

(d)  The  world  is  dominated  by  the  Evil  One,  Jn  1231,  i  Jn 
4*  519. 

(e)  The  world  as  the  object  of  judgment  and  of  saving  mercv, 

Ro  36-  19  1112.  15,  1  Co  02.  2  Co  5I!'.  Jn  l'^>  3^5-19  442  033.  61   glZ.  2^ 

93  12^6.47.  Primarily,  of  course,  men  are  the  objects  of  judg- 
ment, and  that  individually.  But  this  is  not  all  that  is  meant. 
In  view  of  the  general  use  of  the  term  xotruui  and  of  OT 
language,  we  must  think,  also,  of  a  judgment  upon  mankind 
collectively,  and  on  the  manner  of  life  and  environment  which 
it  has  made  for  itself,  and  in  a  sense,  too,  on  the  whole  crea- 
tion with  which  it  is  so  intimately  connected ;  and  so  also  with 
regard  to  salvation  (cf.  RoS^y). 

(/)  The  Holy  Spirit  has  a  special  offlce  in  regard  to  the  world, 
distinct  fromthat  which  He  exercises  towards  believers  (Jn 
1(3^  >i). 

(j)  The  Christian  can  through  his  faith  overcome  the  world  ; 
i.e..  no  doubt,  alike  its  spirit  in  himself,  the  opposition  of 
worldly  men,  and  the  world's  ruler  (1  Jn  4-*  M"). 

5.  The  word  alatv — which  signifies  properly  a  period  of  time,  but 
a  much  Icnger  one  than  we  mean  by  an  age,  probably  indeed 
the  whole  period  during  which  the  present  order  of  nature  has 
continued  and  shall  continue— is  used  in  many  places  with  much 
the  same  connotation  as  '  world.'  It  is  often  rendered  by  this 
word  both  in  AV  and  RV,  though  by  'age'  in  RVm  and  at  He 6^ 
in  ItV.  A<w»  and  jw5-a«  are  brought  into  close  connexion  at  1  Co 
I'-iO  and  Eph  22-  3.  This  '  leon  '  is  contrasted  with  that  which  is  to 
come  (Mt  1232,  Mk  1030.  Lk  1830,  He  &•).  We  read  of  it«  cares  (Mt 
132-J  =  jik4"!');  its  sons  (LklCS  2034)  ;iu  rulers,  i.«.  the  kings  and 
jrreat  ones  of  the  earth  (1  Co  2H- ») ;  its  wisdom  (1  Co  120  2o  322) ; 
it3  fashion,  to  wliich  the  Christian  must  not  be  conformed 
(Ko  122).     It  ie  evil  (Gal  I-*),  and  under  the  dominion  of  the  Evil 


One  (2  Co  4"*).  This  use  of  «<dtfv  with  an  ethical  signification  is 
not  dithcult  to  understand,  easier  indeed  than  the  oorresix)nd- 
ing  and  commoner  one  of  Karfi^t.  It  is  otherwise  with  the 
expression  at  He  1^  itrA<*;«-i*  tm  ttiaivoit.  Here  «/ «/wyir  seems  to 
mean  '  the  sum  of  the  "  periods  of  time,"  including  all  that  is 
manifested  in  and  through  them '(see  Westcott,  m  loc).  But 
to  regard  creation  primturUy  with  reference  to  time,  aod  not 


merely  to  time  as  a  general  condition,  but  to  periods  of  time,  if 
not  natural  for  us  ;  it  would  seem  to  have  been  more  so  for  lh« 
Hebrew  mind  (cf.  the  Rabbinic  use  of  D7'iy).  It  may  be  worth 
while  to  note  that  the  original  sense  of  the  Eng,  word  'world* 
by  its  derivation  is 'age  of  man.'  In  the  Gospel  and  Epp.  ol 
St.  John  and  the  Apocalj^pse  ala,*  occurs  only  in  the  phraie 
tie  vit  »iij*»  and  similar  expressions. 

Tlie  conception  of  tlie  world  which  we  have  been 
considering  is  characteristic  of  Christianity.  There 
is  nothing  Uke  it  in  the  philosophy  or  religion  of 
Greece  and  Rome.  It  ditlers  widely  also  from  the 
belief  found  in  the  various  forms  of  Gnosticism, 
In  Manichaeism,  or  Neoplatonism,  and  in  Oriental 
systems  to  the  present  day,  that  matter  is  essen- 
tially evil,  or  necessarily  at  best  a  hindrance  and 
burcfen  to  the  spiritual  nature.  From  the  Christian 
point  of  view  things  material  constitute  indeed  a 
grave  danger  owing  to  the  misleading  fascination 
which  they  have  for  the  minds  of  men,  streng- 
thened, as  it  is,  through  the  subtle  influence  of 
habits  of  thought  and  opinions  which  have  gro\\Ti 
up  in  human  society,  and  which  are  based  upon  a 
false  estimate  of  the  value  of  the  wealth  and  honours 
of  this  world.  To  such  an  extent  are  men  governed 
by  wrong  motives  and  aims  in  this  respect,  that 
any  one  who,  with  singleness  of  purpose,  sets  him- 
self to  act  with  reference  to  Goa  and  His  glory  is 
likely  to  feel  himself  more  or  less  alienated  from 
and  placed  in  a  position  of  antagonism  to  his  kind. 
The  little  handful  of  Christians  in  the  first  age 
must  have  experienced  this  sense  of  estrangement 
with  peculiar  acuteness.  But  at  the  same  time 
they  had  been  taught,  and  they  believed,  that  the 
world  in  its  origin  came  from  God,  and  also  that, 
bad  as  its  present  condition  was,  it  was  salvable — 
that  alike  the  men  who  are  of  it  and  the  things 
that  belong  to  it  may  be  redeemed  from  sin  and 
sinful  uses  and  consecrated  to  the  glory  of  God. 

In  conclusion,  we  may  observe  that  the  order  of 
nature  is  appealed  to  in  NT  as  well  as  in  OT  in 
proof  of  the  existence,  the  power,  and  the  goodness 
of  God  (Ac  14",  Ko  1-'"^),  but  the  same  stress  is  not 
laid  upon  the  more  exceptional  phenomena  as  signs 
of  His  presence. 

Literature.— Art.  on  nivfMe  in  Cremer's  Bibl.-theol.  Lexicon; 
Westcott's  Commentary  on  St.  John^  Additional  Note  at  end  of 

ch.  L  V.  H.  Stanton. 

WORM.  —  The  following  Heb.  words  are  tr. 
*  worm  *  in  AV.  1.  cp  sCi-s^  o-?)?,  tinea  (Is  51®),  is 
undoubtedly  the  same  as  the  Arab.  siis.  It  is  the 
grub  of  the  moth,  dsh,  Arab.  'lUh^  mentioned  in 
the  same  passages.  See  MOTH.  2.  :vp.rimmdk==^ 
maggots,  bred  in  putrefying  vegetable  (Ex  16^)  and 
animal  (Job  7**  17"  21''^  24^0,  Is  14")  substances. 
Once  man  is  declared  to  be  such  a  maggot  (Job 
25^).  3.  n;'SiB  toleahy  yVw  tola,  nyVm  tUaathx 
(a)  a  maggot,  generated  in  putrefying  vegetable 
(Ex  16=°)  and  animal  (Is  14^*  66=-*)  substances; 
(6)  a  worm  which  gnaws  and  blights  plants  (Dt 
28^^,  Jon  4').  The  number  of  these  is  very  large 
in  the  Holy  Land  ;  (c)  liguratively  to  denote  the 
weakness  of  man  (Job  25^  Ps  22S  Is  41").  ySin 
and  nit'^iB  are  used  also  of  the  coccus  {see  Crim- 
son, Scarlet).  Earth  worms  do  not  seem  to 
be  included  in  the  meaning  of  any  of  tlie  above 
names.  The  term  *  worms*  (AVm  *  creeping 
tiling,'  KV  'crawling  things')  of  the  earth; 
n^  ^qi,  LXX  <r<}povrt%  yijv  (iMie  7"),  is  probably 
generic  for  all  reptiles  and  n\  urms  which  burrow 
in  the  ground.  It  certainly  does  not  refer  to 
any  genus  or  sjiecies.  The  worms  of  which  Herod 
died  {(tku}\t}^,  Ac  12^)  may  have  been  maggots 
bred  in  a  gangrenous  mass.  Josephus  says  that 
he  died  five  days  after  he  was  smitten.  ^kwXtj^ 
is  also  mentioned  in  Apocr.  (Sir  10"  19^,  I  Mac  2**). 

G.  E.  Post. 

WORMWOOD  (n:y3  lddnah).—A.  generic  word 
for  the  species  of  Artemisia,    It  is  always  spoken 


WORSHIP 


WORSHIP  IX  NT 


941 


of  as  a  bitter  and  deleterious  plant.  The  root, 
in  Arab,  and  peril,  in  Heb.,  signifies  '  to  curse.' 
Ldinnh  is  mentioned  with  "all  {i-iish,  Dt  29",  Jer 
9"  23",  La  3'»,  Am  6'=).  It  is  the  .summing  up 
of  the  career  of  a  strange  woman  (Pr  5^).  Figura- 
tively it  signifies  calamity  (La  3")  and  injustice 
(Am  5').  The  great  star  which  fell  from  heaven 
(Rev  8'M  is  called  'Wormwood'  ('A-^iveos).  In 
point  of  fact,  the  excessive  dread  which  tlie  Hebrews 
had  of  most  bitter  sub.stances  was  founded  not  on 
clinical  experience  but  on  prejudice.  Camels,  at 
least,  eat  more  or  less  of  the  sjiecies  of  Artemisia, 
of  which  tliere  are  live  in  Palestine  and  Syria,  all 
known  in  Arabic  by  the  name  bu'aitcrdn.  They 
a.re  A.monospcrina,  Del.  (Ara.\). 'adiik),  A.  Heron- 
Alba,  Asso.  (Arab,  shik),  A.  Judaica,  h.,A.  annmt, 
L.,  and  A.  arborcscens  (Arab,  dhokn-esh-sheikh). 
They  are  composite  plants,  mostly  of  the  interior 
tablelands,  esp.  of  the  deserts.  Their  growth  in 
desolate  places,  added  to  their  bitterness,  gave 
tliem  tlifir  bad  reputation.  G.  E.  PoST. 

WORSHIP,  both  as  subst.  and  verb,  was  formerly 
used  of  reverence  or  honour  done  to  men  as  well  as 
to  God,  and  so  occurs  in  Lk  14'°  '  then  shalt  thou 
have  worship  in  the  presence  of  them  that  sit  at 
meat  with  thee'  (o6Ja,  KV  'glory').  The  word 
is  a  contraction  of  worthship  (from  Anglo-Sax. 
weorth  '  worth,'  with  the  suffix  scipe,  Eng.  ship, 
Ger.  sr.haft,  akin  to  sliape).  It  is  used  of  men 
in  earlier  versions  frequently.  See  Driver,  Par. 
Psalt.  s.v.  for  the  Pr.  Bk.  Psalms.  Cf.  also  for 
the  subst.,  W3'tlif,  n'orks,  iii.  loG,  '  Men  abstenen 
in  werre,  with  myche  fastyng  and  peyne,  to  wynne 
worechip  of  the  worlde  and  to  anoye  hir  enmyes' ; 
Nu  24"  Tind.  '  I  thouglite  that  I  wolde  promote 
the  unto  honoure,  but  the  Lorde  hath  kepte  tlie 
backe  from  worshepe';  Job  14-'  Gov.  'Whether 
iiis  children  come  to  worshipe  or  no,  he  can  not 
tell.'  And  for  the  verb,  Jn  12*  Wj-c.  '  If  ony  man 
serue  me,  my  fadir  schal  worschip  hym';  Pr.  Bk. 
Marriage  Service,  'With  my  body  I  thee  worsliip.' 

J.  Hastings. 

WORSHIP  (IN  OT).— See  Praise  (in  OT)  and 
Temple. 

WORSHIP  (in  NT).  —  Christian  worship  grew 
out  of  the  .Jewisli  synagogue  worsliip,  to  which,  in 
its  early  forms,  it  bore  considerable  resemblance. 
Our  Lord  with  His  disciples  visited  the  synagogues 
at  Capernaum  (Mk  P'  3')  and  Nazareth  (Mk  6») ; 
and,  as  He  preached  in  the  synagogues  of  Galilee 
generally  (Mk  P",  Lk  6'),  He  must  have  taken 
part  in  the  public  worship.  Wlien  St.  Paul  was 
on  his  missionary  tours  he  invariably  sought  out 
the  synagogue,  or,  if  that  were  wanting,  the 
proseuclU  (Ac  16"),  no  doubt  joining  in  tlie  Jewish 
worship.  See  Synaoooue.  It  was  only  by  de- 
glees  that  Christian  worship  came  to  supersede 
synarjogue  worship  in  the  Church.  At  first  the 
meetings  of  the  Christian  brotherhood,  which  of 
course  were  held  in  private,  were  quite  distinct 
from  the  Sabbath  worship,  and  Jewish  Christians 
would  go  to  the  synagogue  on  the  Saturday  and 
to  their  o^vn  meeting  on  the  Sunday.  The  fipistle 
of  St.  James  seems  to  imply  that  the  community 
there  addressed  consisted  of  the  worshippers  in 
some  synagogue  who  had  accepted  Christianity  as 
a  body,  and  who  then  continued  to  meet  in  the 
building,  but  as  a  Christian  Church,  so  that  the 
writer,  referring  to  the  place  of  worship  where  the 
Church  assembled,  could  call  it  'your  synagogue' 
(Ja  2'  ;  but  von  Soden  understands  the  word  crwo- 
yuyri  here  to  mean  'as-sembly,'  see  Ildcom.  in  loc; 
Bennett  allows  that  it  may  mean  the  Jewish  place 
of  worship  '  if  the  Epistle  is  very  early,'  though 
preferring  'assembly'  as  KVm,  see  Century  liihle, 
»n  loc.).     The  separation  of  Christian  from  Jewish 


worship  was  brought  about  under  various  influ- 
ences, viz.  (I)  Jewish  antagonism,  leading  to  the 
expulsion  of  the  Christians  from  the  synagogue  ; 
(2)  Church  development,  giving  more  importance 
to  the  worship  carried  on  in  the  Christian  assembly 
and  stamping  it  with  an  individual  character,  thus 
rendering  attendance  at  the  Jewish  synagogue 
superfluous  and  incon<;ruous  ;  (3)  the  conversion 
of  the  heathen  on  the  lines  of  Pauline  liberalism, 
dispensing  with  circumcision,  so  that  the  Gentile 
Christians  could  not  be  regarded  as  prosel3'tes  to 
Judaism.  As  these  free  Hellenistic  (Christians  in- 
creased in  number,  and  before  long  became  the 
majority  of  the  Apostolic  Church,  the  necessity 
for  maintaining  Christian  worship  quite  apart 
from  the  synagogue  would  be  apparent  to  all  but 
the  narrow  Judaizers. 

L  Teaching  and  Practice  of  Jesus  Christ. — 
The  only  worship  that  our  Lord  expressly  required 
was  private  worship,  as  when  He  warned  His  dis- 
ciples against  the  Pharisaic  ostentation  of  piajing 
'in  the  synagogues  [private  prayers]  and  in  tlie 
corners  of  the  streets,'  and  bade  them  enter  their 
'inner  chamber' and  pray  to  their  'Father  which 
is  in  secret '  (Mt  6").  His  teaching  about  prayer 
deals  with  the  subject  of  personal  prayer,  encourag- 
ing individual  faith  with  regard  to  specific  petitions 
(e.(f.  Lk  11'"'^).  In  one  place  He  commends  the 
united  prayer  of  two  persons  for  a  common  end 
(Mt  18'");  but  this  refers  to  a  special  emergency, 
and  has  no  bearing  on  public  worship.  On  the 
other  hand.  He  assuraea  that  His  disciples  took 
part  in  public  worship ;  He  did  not  need  to  com- 
mand a  universal  practice  which  He  sanctioned  by 
Himself  following  it.  Whenever  our  Lord's  own 
praying  is  referred  to,  this  is  not  connected  with 
public  worship.  Most  frequently  it  is  associated 
with  mountain  solitude.  In  this  worship  He  was 
either  entirely  alone  or  praying  by  Himself  in  the 
presence  of  disciples  rather  than  praying  with 
them.  Still,  is  it  quite  accurate  to  say  that  He 
never  prayed  together  with  other  men  ?  Must  He 
not  have  done  this  in  the  synagogue?  The  inci- 
dent of  the  woman  of  Sam.aria  contains  His  most 
significant  utterance  on  the  subject  of  worship, 
in  which  He  denies  the  peculiar  eflicacy  of  sacred 
places  (Jerusalem  claimed  by  the  Jews,  Gerizim 
claimed  by  the  Samaritans),  and  affirms  that,  for 
the  future,  worship  must  be  '  in  spirit,'  i.e.  in- 
ternal, not  merely  in  external  functions,  and  '  in 
truth,'  i.e.  in  accordance  with  the  nature  of  God 
and  our  true  relations  with  Him  as  at  once 
'  Sjilrit '  and  '  Father '  (Jn  i'"-  -*).  That  this  teach- 
ing influenced  the  Church,  remleriiig  the  dedica- 
tion of  sacred  buildings  superfluous,  is  apparent 
from  Justin  Martyr's  answer  to  I{usticus(c.  le.^j  a.d.  ) 
who  had  inqiilred,  '  Where  do  you  assemble  ? ' 
Justin  said,  'Where  each  one  chooses  .  .  .  because 
the  God  of  the  Christians  is  not  circumscribed  by 
place  ;  but,  bein^j;  invisible,  fills  heaven  and  earth, 
and  everywhere  is  worshipped  and  glorified  by  the 
faithful '  [Martyrdom,  2). 

iL  Apostolic  Teaching  and  Custom.— As  the 
Church  giadually  emerged  from  the  synagogue 
specific  Christian  worship,  as  distinguished  from 
tlie  customary  Jewish  worship,  came  to  bo  shaped 
on  lines  indicated  by  the  principles  of  the  new 
faith. 

(a)  Times.  —  The  NT  contains  no  regulations 
concerning  stated  days  and  hours  for  worship. 
In  80  far  as  .Jewish  (Christians  still  followed  the 
law  and  customs  of  tlieir  people,  they  observed 
the  Sabbath  and  the  great  feasts.  St.  Paul  fre- 
quented the  synagogues  on  the  Sabbath  [e.g. 
Ac  13"' **  16'*  17-);  much  more  must  this  have 
been  the  ca.se  with  less  liberal  Jews  in  the  Church. 
St.  Paul  also  took  some  account  of  the  annual 
festivals,  e.g.  desiring  to  bo  at  Jerusalem  for  tha 


942 


WOKSHIP  IN  NT 


WORSHIP  IN  NT 


Peutecost  (Ac  20'«,  1  Co  16«).  But  he  held  himself 
to  be  free  from  any  obligation  in  regard  to  sacred 
seasons,  and  never  laid  any  such  obligation  on  his 
converts,  even  bidding  the  Colossians  let  no  man 
judge  them  '  in  respect  of  a  feast  day  or  a  new 
moon  or  a  Sabbath-day  '  (Col  2'").  The  Galatians 
are  rebuked  because  they  '  observe  days,  and 
months,  and  seasons,  and  years'  (Gal  4'").  But, 
while  no  especial  sanctity  of  seasons  was  recog- 
nized by  St.  Paul,  of  necessity  a  certain  periodicity 
was  requisite  for  public  worship  in  the  Greek  as 
well  as  in  the  Jewish  Church.  At  Jerusalem,  over 
and  above  the  temple  worship,  which  they  shared 
with  other  Jews,  the  disciples  had  their  own 
private  assembly.  As  no  mention  is  made  of  their 
attendance  at  the  synagogue,  though  the  temple  is 
named,  it  seems  probable  that  they  gave  up  this 
custom  in  Palestine — perliaps  from  the  time  when 
Jesus  was  e.\pelled  from  the  synagogue.  Thus  a 
necessity  would  arise  to  institute  some  worship  in 
its  place.  But  that  was  never  done  formally,  nor 
did  it  come  about  suddenly.  The  Christian  wor- 
sliip  arose  from  another  cause  ;  it  grew  out  of  the 
fellowship  of  Christian  brotherhood.  The  origin 
of  this  worship  is  indicated  in  the  statements  that 
the  new  converts — doubtless  associated  with  the 
older  Christians  —  '  continued  steadfastly  in  the 
apostles'  teaching  and  fellowship  ((coixwvla),  in  the 
breaking  of  bread  and  the  prayers  '  (Ac  2^) ;  that 
'  day  by  day,  continuing  steadfastly  with  one  accord 
in  the  temple,  and  breaking  bread  at  home,  they 
did  take  their  food  with  gladness  and  singleness  of 
heart,  praising  God,' etc.  (v.*^).  This  seems  to  imi)ly 
a  daily  meeting,  which  must  have  been  early  in 
the  morning  or  at  night,  so  as  not  to  interfere 
with  the  common  work  of  life.  Probably  the 
statement  a[)plies  onl3'  to  the  time  of  primitive  en- 
thusiasm. We  meet  with  nothing  of  the  kind  later. 
The  custom  of  the  Church,  both  Jewish  (cf.  Jn  20" 
and  V.28)  and  Greek  (Ac  20' ;  1  Co  16=),  was  to 
meet  on  the  first  day  of  the  week.  See  Lord's 
Day.  The  NT  contains  no  reference  to  any 
yearly  Christian  festivals.  The  Pasclial  contro- 
versy in  the  2nd  cent,  reveals  a  very  early  practice 
of  keeping  Easter,  and  Polycarji's  association  with 
St.  John  seems  to  connect  this  with  apostolic  times, 
especially  as  the  apostolic  precedent  is  cited. 
Irenajus  states  that  Polycarp,  visiting  Rome  in  the 
time  of  Anicetus  (c.  155  A.D.),  'had  always  ob- 
served it[  .e.  on  the  ]4th  Nisan,  the  date  in  dispute] 
with  John,  the  disciple  of  our  Lord,  and  the  other 
apostles  with  whom  he  had  associated'  (Euseb. 
HE  v.  24).  But  tlie  identification  of  the  date  with 
the  Passover  —  the  very  question  discussed  by 
Polycarp  —  points  rather  to  St.  John's  Jewish 
custom  of  keeping  the  Passover  than  to  the  in- 
stitution of  Easter  as  an  independent  Christian 
festival.  It  indicates  that,  in  late  apostolic  times, 
the  surviving  apostles,  being  Jews,  >\'hen  they  kept 
the  Passover,  associated  this  with  our  Lord  s  last 
Passover,  and  so  with  His  death  and  resurrection. 
Similarly,  the  Pentecost  continued  down  from 
Jewish  times  as  a  Jewish  festival  adopted  by  the 
Church  to  commemorate  the  gift  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  as  late  as  the  2nd  cent.  (TertuUian,  de  Idol. 
c.  12 ;  Con.it.  Apost.  v.  20).  Subsequently  it  was 
divided  into  the  feast  of  the  Ascension  and  Pente- 
cost proper  (Whitsunday),  and  lost  its  Jewish 
associations.  Epiphany  was  not  known  till  the 
end  of  the  2nd  cent.  (Clem.  Alex.  Strom,  i.  21), 
and  then  as  a  Gnostic  festival,  Christmas  appearing 
Btill  later. 

(b)  Places.  —  The  Jerusalem  Christians  wor- 
shipped '  in  the  temple '  (Ac  2*").  This  would  be 
in  common  with  other  Jews  and  according  to  Jewish 
custom.  The  prayer  would  be  private  and  per- 
sonal —  like  the  prayers  of  the  Pharisee  and  the 
publican  in  the  parable.     Similarly,  when  '  Peter 


and  John  were  going  up  into  the  temple  at  the 
hour  of  prayer,  being  the  ninth  hour '  (Ac  3'),  this 
must  have  been  for  private  prayer.  There  could 
have  been  no  public  Christian  worship  there.  If  the 
phrase  sar'  ol/cov  (2*^)  should  be  rendered  '  at  home,' 
as  in  RV,  this  would  not  point  to  Church  fellow- 
ship as  in  AV,  where  we  read  '  from  house  to 
house.'  But  when  the  Christians  met  at  Jeru- 
salem it  was  in  a  private  house,  using  an  '  upper 
room  '  {vTrep(}ov,  Ac  1"),  perhaps  the  same  room  as 
the  'guest  chamber'  (Ka-roKviia),  also  called  'a 
large  upper  room'  (Lk  22"- '-),  in  which  Jesus  took 
the  Last  Supper  with  His  disciples.  When  St. 
Peter  was  liberated  from  prison,  he  went  to  the 
house  of  Mary,  the  mother  of  Mark,  and  found 
many  gathered  together  there  praying  (Ac  12'^). 
The  word  '  many '  does  not  suggest  that  the  whole 
Church  was  there  assembled.  But  the  Church 
could  only  meet  in  such  a  place.  There  were  no 
buildings  for  Christian  worship  before  the  end  of 
the  2nd  cent,  (see  SchafF,  Ante-Nicene  Christianity, 
i.  p.  199).  St.  Paul  frequently  refers  to  the  Church 
in  a  house  (Ko  16^  1  Co  16''-',  Col  4").  Once  only, 
and  that  as  late  as  the  Pastoral  Epistles,  do  we 
meet  with  the  expression  '  the  house  of  God ' 
(1  Ti  3'°) ;  but  probably  the  word  'house'  here 
means  'family'  (cf.  2  Ti  1«,  Tit  1".  See  von 
Soden,  Hdcom.  in  loc). 

(c)  Persons.  —  The  apostles  naturally  took  the 
lead  in  conducting  public  worship  when  they  were 
present.  It  would  appear  that,  at  Troas,  St.  Paul 
conducted  the  Lord's  Supper,  himself  breaking  the 
bread  (Ac  20").  This  is  the  only  passage  in  the 
NT  in  which  the  distribution  of  the  elements 
by  any  person,  other  than  our  Lord  Himself,  is 
mentioned.  Elsewhere,  the  references  to  the  Lord's 
Supper,  in  apostolic  times,  simply  tell  us  of  the 
Christians  partaking  of  it  together.  The  NT 
references  to  the  functions  of  Church  officers  are 
confined  to  administration,  discipline,  and  teach- 
ing ;  they  are  silent  in  regard  to  worship.  From 
the  fact  that  the  bishops  took  the  lead  in  the 
worship  of  the  sub-apostolic  age,  we  may  conclude 
that  the  elders  in  the  Jewish  Churches,  and  the 
bishops  in  the  Greek  Churches  of  NT  times,  had 
some  pre-eminence  in  the  conduct  of  worship.  But 
from  the  example  of  Corinth — the  one  Church  con- 
cerning the  internal  life  of  which  we  have  any 
fulness  of  information — it  is  apjiarent  that  this 
was  not  always  the  case ;  for  1  Cor.  shows  that 
there  it  was  open  to  any  member  of  the  assembly 
to  ofl'er  prayer  or  give  utterance  to  a  hymn  of 
praise  or  a  message  of  exhortation,  even  women 
praying  and  prophesying.  If  there  were  any  who 
were  more  especially  looked  to  for  these  offices 
they  were  the  prophets  (1  Co  14-^),  not  the  bishops, 
ana  the  Didachi  makes  it  certain  that  these  were 
difl'erent  persons.  That,  too,  is  apparent  from 
Eph  4",  where  the  bishops  must  be  looked  for 
among  the  '  pastors '  rather  than  among  the 
'  prophets.' 

(d)  Method. — The  proceedings  of  the  best-known 
Church — that  at  Connth — suggest  that  there  was 
no  settled  order  for  the  coniluct  of  public  worship 
in  the  apostolic  Churches.  It  would  not  be  safe 
to  treat  this  one  Church  as  typical  of  all  other 
Churches,  especially  as  St.  Paiu  has  occasion  to 
rebuke  its  irregularities.  Still,  in  doing  so,  he 
lays  down  no  rides  beyond  that  of  mutual  defer- 
ence (1  Co  14**);  nor  is  anything  appro.aching  a 
rubric,  except  that  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  to  bo 
found  in  the  NT,  or  in  any  primitive  Church  writ- 
ing, earlier  than  the  Didnchi.  It  is  probable  that, 
throu;.;hout  the  apostolic  age,  the  worship  of  the 
Church  was  always  centred  in  the  I^ord's  Supper, 
combined  with  the  Agapd.  St.  Paul  gives  direc- 
tions for  the  conduct  of  the  Lord's  Supper  on  the 
authority  of  Christ,  from  whom  the  particulars 


WOKSILU'  I^'  XT 


WORSHIP  IN  N"r 


9  IS 


concerning  the  institution  of  the  ordinance  had 
come  down  to  hiiu  (1  Co  ll"-^*).     The  rest  of  the 
service  seems  to  have  been  left  to  the  impulses  of 
individual   members  as   they   felt   moved  by   the 
Spirit  (McGillert,   Apostolic  Age,   p.  520  ir.).     If, 
however,  the  Christians  met  twice  in  the  day,  it 
LB   probable   that  the   morning  assembly  was  for 
prayer  and  praise,  and  tlie  evening  meeting  for  the 
Agap^,  the  arrangement  we  lind  in    Hithynia  in 
the  reign  of  Trajan  (c.  112  A.U.).     Pliny  writes, 
'  It  was  their  habit  on   a  fixed   day   to  assemble 
before  dayliglit  and  sing  by  turns  a  hymn  to  Christ 
as  a  god.'     lie  adds  that  they  '  buund  themselves 
with  an  oath  .  .  .  not  to  commit  tlieft,'  etc.,  and 
says,  further,  '  After  this  was  done,  tlieir  custom 
was  to  depart,  and  meet  together  again  to  take 
food,'  etc.  (£/).   X.  96).     The  following  functions 
would  certainly  be  found  in  the  primitive  Cliri.stian 
worship  :  (1)  Prayer  (1  Co  14"-  ").    (2)  Praise,  either 
by  individual  utterance  (v.*'),  or  in  hymns  sung 
in  common.     The  example  of  their  Lord  would  en- 
courage the  early  Christians  to  employ  the  Jewish 
Psalter,  wliich  appears  to  have  been  always  used 
in   the  Church  (Mt  26*').      Then   we  have   fraj,'- 
ments  of  Christian  hymns  scattered  over  the  NT 
{e.g.  Ac  4'^-*',   perhaps  Eph   1'",   5",    1  Ti    3'"), 
especially  those  of  the  Apocalypse  (4'-"  5'-  '"•  '"•  " 
~u    1117    1210-12   i5».4   i9i.V7)_      xhe  Canticles    in 
St.  Luke — the  Magnificat   (l**-"),  the  Bcnedictiis 
(vv. •*■"),  the  Glurin  in  ExcelHs  (2'*),  and  the  Nunc 
Dimittis  {2'^'^')— though  possibly  of  pre-Christian 
origin,  were  probably  found  by  the  evangelist  in 
use  in  the  woiship  of  tlie  Churches,  together  with 
more  specially   Christian    hymns.      The    passajj;e 
from   Pliny's  letter,   cited   above,   .shows   tliat   in 
Bithynia,  early  in  the  2nd  cent.,  the  singing  was 
antiplional  (cannenque  .  .  .  diccre  sccum  viiissim). 
See  HvMN.     (3)  Lessons.    St.  Paul's  frecjuent  allu- 
sions to  the  OT,  even  in  letters  to  Greek  Churches, 
presuppose  a  knowledge  of  the  LXX  among  his 
readers.    This  would  be  read  in  Christian  worship 
after  the  analogy  of  the  synagogue,  tliough  per- 
haps the  Law  would   be  omitted   and   preference 
would  be  given  to  Messianic  prophecies.    Possibly, 
login  of  Jesus  were  also  read  and  facts  of  His  life 
recited.     St.  Paul  expected  his  Eiiistles  to  be  read 
in  the  meetings  of  the  Churches  (1  Th  o".  Col  4'"), 
but  only  the   OT  was  treated   as  Scrijiture.     (4) 
Prophecy.      The    insjiired    utterance,    so    named, 
came  from  any   member  of  the  Church  who  felt 
the  afflatus  of  the  Spirit  (1  Co  14'),  though  it  was 
especially  expected  from  those  who  were  recognized 
as  prophets  (v.-^).    The  Thessalonians  were  warned 
not  to  check  this  gift  or  despise  the  exercise  of  it 
(1  Th  5"").     IJut  tiiey  were  to  use  tlieir  own  intelli- 
gence, accepting  the  good  and  rejiicting  what  did 
not  approve  itself  to  their  judgment  (v.").      (."5) 
Other  gifts — tongues,  exorcism,  etc.    (6)  Contribu- 
tions.    The  Corinthians  were   to  put  by,  on  the 
Drst  daj-  of  each  week,  their  contribution  towards 
the   fund   for  the   poor  of  Jeru.salem   (1  Co   16'). 
St.  Paul's  language  implies,  not  that  they  were  to 
bring  it  to  the  a-ssembly  every  week,  but  that  they 
should  make  up  an  amount  at    home  by  weekly 
instalments.     The   gifts  for  the  Agape,    however, 
would  be  brought  every  week,  and  the  apostle  re 
quires  them   to   bo  divided   among   the  brethren. 
Out  of  this  subseiiuently  grew    the   communion 
collections,  which  were  sent  to  the  jioor,  the  sick, 
and  confessors  in  prison  (Justin  Martyr,  1  Apul. 
65-67). 

(c)  Ohject. — Christian  worship  in  NT  times  is 
usually  oH'cred  to  God  as  Father  through  Jesus 
Christ  as  His  Son  (see  Ko  1",  Eph  1>  3").  The 
Aramaic 'Ablia' appears  to  have  been  adopted  by 
Greek  -  speaking  Christians  as  the  peculiar  title 
for  God  in  the  Churches  (see  Ro  8'°).  Hut,  while 
this  was  the  normal  type,  worship  was  sometimes 


offered  to  Christ  and  prayer  addressed  to  Him. 
Some  indetiniteness  attaches  to  this  subject, 
partly  owing  to  the  two  senses  in  which  the  Gr. 
word  vpoaKweiv  is  used,  and  partly  owiug  to  the 
ambiguous  usage  of  the  title  Kupios.  Liddon  claimed 
many  instances  of  the  woi^hip  of  Jesus  during  His 
eartlily  life,  mostly  on  the  strength  of  the  use  of 
the  word  irpoaKvfeiv  in  the  Gospels,  viz.  Mt  2" 
8-  9's  14«  15^  17'^-"  20="  28''-  ",  Lk  ""■*'  H'"- '• 
24"-",  Jn  9'^-^  20"-^  (Bampton  Lectures,  1866, 
vii.  1).  But  it  cannot  be  proved  that  in  any  of 
these  cases  (except  the  last,  and  there  the  word 
'  worsliip'  is  not  used)  more  tliim  an  act  of  homage 
and  liuiuble  obeisance  is  inten<led.  Josephus  uses 
the  word  irpoo-Kui'oii/iei'Oi  of  tlie  high  priests  [BJ 
IV.  V.  2).  In  the  second  case  cited  (Mt  8-),  which 
occurred  quite  early  in  our  Lord's  public  ministry, 
it  cannot  be  supposed  thiit  the  leper  actually 
offered  Divine  honours  to  Christ.  The  physical 
act  of  prostration  in  profound  humility,  and  as 
rendering  great  honour,  is  all  that  can  be  meant. 
In  another  case  (Mt  17'^)  the  word  vpoaKwdv  is 
not  used,  but  we  have  yowTrtTCiv  (kneeling).  Still 
it  is  to  be  observed  that  this  homage  was  reserved 
for  Christ  alone,  being  repudiated  by  St.  Peter 
(Ac  10'^-  '■*)  and  by  the  angel  in  the  Apocalypse 
before  whom  St.  John  had  prostrated  himself 
(Uev  22'*-'-*).  The  homage  offered  to  Christ  would 
vary  in  its  signilicance  from  the  simple  prostra- 
tion of  the  lejier  before  tlie  Great  Healer  to  the 
adoration  of  Mary  Magdalene  and  Thomas  in 
lirescnce  of  the  risen  Ciirist,  its  signiHcmce  de- 
pending wholly  on  the  idea  of  His  nature  that  had 
been  attained,  and  therefore  not  to  be  determined 
by  the  mere  statements  of  the  outward  acts  which 
we  lind  in  the  Gospels.  It  is  inappropriate  to  intro- 
duce the  case  of  the  dying  iiialelactor  (Lk  23'-)  as 
an  instance  of  prayer  to  Christ  (Liddon).  This  was 
a  simple  request  without  the  element  of  worship. 

But  one  effect  of  the  resurrection  was  to  develoii 
so  exalted  a  conception  of  Christ  in  the  Church 
that  homage  which  cannot  be  distinmiished  from 
worsliip  came  to  be  addressed  to  Him.  Thus 
Ananias  of  Damascus,  when  addressing  Jesus  in  a 
vision  (since  it  was  in  a  vision,  we  cannot  cite  this 
as  an  act  of  prayer  to  Christ,  because,  in  this 
vision,  Jesus  appears  to  Ananias  and  a  conversa- 
tion takes  place),  describes  Christians  as  '  all  that 
call  upon  thy  name  '  (Ac  9'^ ;  cf.  v.'-'  '  them  which 
called  on  this  name ').  The  same  exjncssion  is 
used  by  St.  Paul  (1  Co  P).  The  form  of  words  is 
a  Hebraism,  used  in  the  OT   of   the   worship  of 


Jehovah— ni.T  D»'3  (in,B  (Gn  4'-«  12^  2  K  5" 


lid  St. 


Paul  cites  an  OT  passage  where  it  occurs  with 
reference  to  God  and  ajiplies  this  to  Christ  (Ko 
10'^).  St.  Stcjilien  commends  his  spirit  to  Jesus, 
and  prays  to  Jesus  as  Lord  for  the  pardon  of  his 
enemies,  in  language  closely  resembling  that 
wliiili  Jesus  addressed  to  God  (Ac  7™-*'^  cf.  Lk 
23"  ■"').  St.  Paul  refers  to  Jesus  Christ  in  associa- 
tion with  *  God  himself '  as  exercising  a  directing 
Providence  for  the  help  of  which  he  prays  (e.g. 
1  Th  3",  2  Th  2'«-  ",  I'll  2'").  Various  forms  of 
benediction  imply  a  reference  to  Christ  (e.g.  Ko 
16'-'",  1  Co  1').  St.  Paul  writes  of  praying  to  '  the 
Lord,'  evidently  meaning  Christ,  but  in  langua'-e 
which  suggests  an  allusiim  to  the  Jewish  thought 
of  Jehovah  (e.g.  2  Co  12''- «).  The  author  of  He- 
brews cliiims  for  Christ  OT  language  referring  to 
the  worship  of  God  (He  l"-  ">■'").  According  to  the 
Fourth  Gospel,  '  all  men  are  to  honour  (TiiiQini)  the 
Son,  even  as  they  honour  the  Father'  (Jn  5'^).  In 
the  Apocalypse,  direct  woiship  is  ollered  to  Christ 
as  'the  Lamb.'  The  prayers  of  the  saints  are 
presented  to  Him  (Kev  5"),  and  hymns  are  sung  in 
honour  of  Him  (vv."- "• '-).  In  the  sub-apostolic 
age  prayer  is  usually  ollered  to  God  througli 
Christ,   rather   than  directly   to    Christ    Himself 


944 


WOT 


WRITING 


{e.g.  1  Clem.  59-61  ;  Didnrh(,  9,  10)  ;  but  Ifrnatius 
(ad  Rom.  4)  and  Polycarp  (ad  Phil.  1,  12)  use 
the  language  of  prayer  concerning  Christ ;  and 
the  ancient  homily,  called  2  Clement,  begins, 
'  Brethren,  we  ouglit  so  to  think  of  Jesus  Christ  as 
of  God '  (see  Haniack,  llkt.  of  Doff.  I.  iii.  6). 

According  to  Pliny,  the  Christians  were  in  the 
habit  of  meeting  to  '  sing  a  hymn  to  Christ  as 
God'  (carmenquc  Christo  quasi  aeo  dicere, — Ep.  x. 
96).  There  is  no  indication  of  saint-worsliip  or  of 
the  adoration  of  the  Virgin  Mary  in  the  NT  ;  nor 
do  we  there  meet  ^vitli  the  distinction  between 
the  adoration  (Xarpeia)  due  to  God  alone,  and  the 
lower  form  of  prayer  to  saints  (oovXeia,  ijivocatio) 
observed  from  the  time  of  Augustine.  St.  Paul 
rebukes  the  worsliip  of  angels,  associated  with 
Jewish  Gnosticism  (Col  2"). 

Literature. — Schtift,  Apostolic  Christianity/;  McOiffert,  His- 
tory  of  Chrintianity  in  the  Apostolic  Aiie  ;  Bartlet,  The  Apostolic 
Aqe ;  Weizsacker,  Apnatolic  Age  (Eiiu'-  tr.),  vol.  ii.  ;  Harnack, 
liistory  of  Dofjma,  vol.  i. ;  Hort,  The  Christmn  Ecclesia ; 
Lechler,  Apostolic  and  post. Apostolic  Times ;  Beyschkog,  ■VT' 
Theolomi  (Kng.  tr.);  Pfleiderer,  rrchristcnthum  ;  Loening, 
Gemeiiiflecerfassitng  des  l/rohristcnthuins;  also  article  Cuurch, 
i.  The  Public  Worship,  and  books  there  named. 

W.  F.  ADENKY. 
WOT.— See  WiT. 

WRATH See  Angkb. 

WRESTLING  is  Uvice  referred  to  in  EV  of  OT 
and  once  in  NT.  The  Heb.  terms  are — 1.  p3x  (in 
Niph.),*  of  Jacob's  wrestling  at  Peniel,  Gn  32-^-^ 
(LXX  TraXalu).  On  the  word-play  between  ne'tbak 
and  Jabhok  see  vol.  ii.  p.  530°,  note  t.  2.  %p,  in 
Kaeliel's  saying  :  '  With  mighty  wrestlings  (naph- 
ti'dim)  have  1  -wrestled  (niphtalti)  with  my  sister 
and  have  prevailed,'  whence  she  is  said  to  have 
given  to  Bilhah's  son  tiie  name  Naphtali,  Gn  30*. 
The  word  means  '  twist  oneself  without  being  spe- 
cifically confined  to  wrestling. 

Wrestling,  which  was  a  familiar  spectacle  at  the 
games  in  any  Greek  city,  supplies  a  metaphor 
to  St.  Paul  in  Eph  6"  'For  our  wrestling  is  not 
against  flesh  and  blood,'  etc.  (Sn  ovk  Icmv  rnjiiv  [v.l. 
u/iii']  Ti  Td\r)  7rp6s  at/ua  xoi  aapxa,  k.t.\.).  For  a 
description  of  wrestling  contests  see  Smith's  Diet, 
of  Gr.  and  Bom.  Ant.,  s.v.  '  Lucta.' 

WRITING.— i.  The  Antiquity  of  Writing. 
— The  practice  of  writing  in  the  countries  of  the 
nearer  East  goes  back  to  a  remote  and  indefinite 
antiquity.  Looking  only  at  the  nations  connected 
in  some  measure  with  Palestine,  we  find  evidence 
of  tlie  use  of  \\Titten  characters  at  a  date  far 
earlier  than  the  beginnings  of  anything  tliat  can 
be  called  definite  Hebrew  history.  In  Egypt,  in- 
scriptions have  been  found  containing  the  name 
of  Menes,  the  first  king  in  tlie  first  dynasty  known 
to  subsequent  ECTptian  chroniclers,  whose  date 
cannot  be  much  later  (and  may  be  earlier)  th;in 
B.C.  5000,  while  other  inscriptions  are  believed  to 
belong  to  yet  earlier  rulers.  Tliese  are  inscribed 
upon  stone :  the  earliest  extant  e.\ample  of  writ- 
ing upon  papyrus  is  one  found  at  Sakkara  in  1893, 
containing  accounts  dated  in  the  reign  of  As.sa, 
the  last  king  of  theStli  dynasty  (c.  35SU-3530  B.C.). 
To  the  same  date  purports  to  belong  the  first 
recorded  literary  composition  in  Egypt,  the  Pro- 
verbs of  Ptah  -  hotep,  preserved  in  tlie  Papyrus 
Prisse,  though  the  papyrus  itself  is  of  a  much  later 
date  (c.  2500  B.C.).  In  Babylonia,  inscrijitions  are 
extant  of  Sargonl.,  who  flourished  about  B.C.  3750  ; 
while  the  thousands  of  tablets  found  at  Telloh 
prove  the  free  use  of  writing  among  the  Sumerian 

•  This  word  may  be  a  denom.  from  p^N  '  dust/  and  mean  '  get 
dusty '  (cf.  xiue,  Mvfttt),  or  may  be  ft  dialectical  variant  of  p;g 
clasp,'  *  embrace.* 


inhabitants  of  Babylonia  at  an  even  earlier  date, 
wliich  cannot  be  placed  lower  than  B.C.  4000.  From 
Palestine  itself  we  liave  no  remains  of  so  early  a 
period;  but  the  tablets  of  Tel  el-Amarna  (see 
I  iii.)  include  several  letters  written  by  the 
governors  of  cities  in  Palestine  to  their  masters  in 
Egypt  in  the  15th  cent.  B.C.  ;  and  recent  excava- 
tions at  Knossos  in  Crete  liave  brought  to  light  a 
large  quantity  of  inscribed  tablets,  partly  hiero- 
glyphic, but  mainly  linear  in  script,  in  characters 
as  yet  undociphered,  which  must  also  be  assigned 
to  about  the  middle  of  the  second  millennium 
B.C.  How  far  tliese  are  to  be  regarded  as  the 
ancestors  of  Greek  writing  is  a  point  stiU  undeter- 
mined ;  but  they  complete  the  proof  that  in  the 
countries  surrounding  Palestine,  and  probably  also 
in  Palestine  itself,  writing  was  an  art  well  known 
and  familiarly  practised  for  many  centuries  before 
the  earliest  examples  of  Hebrew  writing  at  present 
extant. 

1;ITKR.\TURE. — Arts.  Babvlonu,  Eotpt,  above;  Petrie.  Royai 
Toinbn  of  the  First  Dynasty  at  Abydos,  1900,  Hist,  of  Egypt,  L 
81 ;  L.  \'V.  King,  Enci/c.  Bibl.  i.  439-442 ;  A.  J.  Evans,  Annual 
of  the  British  iSchool  at  Athens,  1899-1000,  pp.  65-63. 

ii.  Materials. — Many  materials  were  used  in 
Palestine  and  the  adjoining  countries  for  the 
reception  of  writing  at  various  times,  (a)  Stone  is 
almost  everywliere  the  earliest  material  on  which 
writing  has  come  down  to  us.  The  earliest  inscrip- 
tions in  Egj'pt  and  Babylonia  are  on  stone.  Stone 
is  also  used  for  the  Hittite  inscriptions  in  northern 
Syria  and  Asia  Minor  ;  and  in  Palestine  itself  the 
earliest  considerable  examples  of  ^vriting  are  the 
Moabite  Stone  and  the  Siloam  inscription  (see 
§  iii.).  The  Hebrew  books,  moreover,  mention  the 
use  of  stone  in  the  earliest  periods  of  their  history. 
The  Law  given  to  Moses  on  Mt.  Sinai  is  said  to 
have  been  written  on  'tables  of  stone'  (Ex  31" 
3-l'-^).  Moses  commanded  the  people,  when  they 
passed  over  Jordan,  to  set  up  great  stones,  covered 
with  plaster,  and  to  WTite  the  Law  upon  them  (Dt 
27"  ^  cf.  Jos  8*"*^).  Job  desires  that  his  words 
might  be  graven  in  the  rock  for  ever  with  an  iron 
pen  and  lead  (Job  19-^).  In  Phoenicia  and  Greece, 
similarly,  the  earliest  extant  examples  of  writing 
are  inscriptions  upon  stone.  (6)  Clay  was  nsed 
predominantly  in  Assyria  and  Babylonia,  the 
records  and  literature  of  which  countries  have 
come  down  to  us  mainly  in  the  form  of  tablets  of 
clay,  on  which  characters  in  cuneiform  writing  have 
been  inscribed  while  it  was  soft  (see  Babylonia). 
The  discovery  at  Tel  el-Amama,  in  Upper  E"ypt, 
of  similar  tablets,  containing  the  correspondence 
of  the  governors  of  the  Syrian  provinces  and  others 
with  their  Egyptian  masters  (see  §  iii.),  shows  that 
this  kind  of  writing  was  the  normal  form  of  otiicial 
correspondence  between  Egypt  and  Syria,  at  any 
rate  in  the  time  of  the  18th  dynasty  (c.  1400  B.C.). 
Tlie  Knossian  tablets  also  are  of  sun-baked  clay. 
In  Ezk  4'  the  prophet,  in  captivity  in  Assyria,  is 
directed  to  draw  a  plan  of  Jerusalem  upon  a  tile 
(Heb.  Ubhendh,  LXX  Tr\li/Bo^).  (c)  Wood  was  largely 
used  in  many  countries,  in  the  form  of  tablets. 
In  Greece  it  appears  to  have  been  the  principal 
material  in  use  before  the  introduction  of  papyrus, 
and  to  have  continued  to  be  employed  for  special 
purposes  long  after  that  date.  The  earliest  men- 
tion of  writing  in  Greek  literature  (Homer,  II.  vL 
109)  describes  a  message  written  iv  irivaKi  irrvKrif. 
The  laws  of  Solon  were  ^vritten  upon  wooden 
tablets  (dtovcs  and  Kup^ea,  Arist.  Birds,  1354  ;  Plut. 
Sol.  25).  Tablets,  whitewashed  in  order  to  receive 
ink  better,  were  employed  for  official  notices  in 
Athens  in  the  4th  cent.  B.C.  (ypan/iareta  \(\evKu/Uya, 
TtfdKwy  XeXevKwiUnv,  Ar.  'A$.  IIoX.  47,  48) ;  a  set  of 
such  tablets,  used  for  private  purposes  at  Panopolia 
in  Upper  Egypt  about  the  7th  cent,  after  Christ, 
is  now  in  the  British  Museum  (Add,   MS  33300). 


WRITING 


WRITING 


945 


Wooden  boards,  inscribed  in  tlie  one  case  with 
lines  from  Homer,  in  another  witli  part  of  tlie 
Phtenissie  of  Euripides  and  the  IhrnU  of  Calli- 
iiiachus,  are  in  the  British  Museum  and  the  Rainer 
Collection  at  Vienna  resi)ectively,  both  having 
been  found  in  Egypt.  Many  wooden  tablets  witii 
Egyjitian  writing  are  also  in  existence,  and  Egyp- 
tian monuments  represent  scribes  in  the  act  of 
using  such  tablets.  In  Is  30'  and  Hab  2'  the 
'tablet'  or  'table'  [Heb.  li'm/i,  LXX  nviiof]  is  no 
aoubt  wooden.  The  '  tables  [same  Ileb.]  of  the 
heart,'  metaphorically  spoken  of  in  Pr  3',  may  be 
regarded  either  as  wood  or,  in  the  light  of  Jer  17', 
more  probably  as  stone.  It  is  not  always  possible 
to  tell  whether  the  writing  upon  tablets  mentioned 
by  ancient  authors  is  upon  the  wood  itself  or  upon 
wax  or  some  similar  material  with  which  the  wood 
was  covered.  Wax  was  certaiulv  used  sometimes, 
and  in  later  periodswax  tablets  were  the  commonest 
form  of  note-books  in  Greece  and  Italy.  Herodotus 
mentions  such  a  tablet  (vii.  23',)),  and  Cicero, 
Martial,  and  other  authors  refer  to  them  very 
freiiuently.  Many  examples  of  them  are  still 
extant,  notably  those  discovered  at  Pompeii.* 
(d)  Bark  is  sjiid  by  Pliny  {EN  xiii.  11)  to  have 
been  used  for  writing  before  pajiyrus  was  known, 
and  it  continued  to  be  used  in  the  AVest,  though 
rarely,  as  late  as  the  5th  cent,  after  Christ  (M.ar- 
tianus  Capella,  ii.  136  ;  though  it  is  not  quite  clear 
that  the  books  so  described  are  intended  to  be  con- 
temporary productions).  From  its  name,  liber, 
comes  the  Latin  word  for  'book.'  (c)  Linen  also 
was  used  in  Italy  in  amient  times  {libri  lintci, 
Livy,  iv.  7,  x.  38).  The  largest  extant  example  of 
Etruscan  writing  is  upon  linen  (in  the  museum  at 
Agram).  Linen  was  also  used  by  the  Egj-ptians 
for  this  purpose.  (/)  Lead  was  used  in  Greece 
and  Italy,  and  probably  elsewhere.  P.iusanias  (ix. 
31.  4)  mentions  a  leaden  plate  which  he  saw  at 
Helicon,  inscribed  with  the  Worlcs  and  Days  of 
Hesiod  ;  but  the  principal  use  to  which  le.ad  (and 
other  metals)  was  put  as  writing  material  seems 
to  have  been  to  receive  magical  incantations  and 
charms.  Such  tablets  have  l)een  found,  and  men- 
tion of  them  is  frequently  made  in  magical  pai)yri. 
((?)  Potsherds  (Jffrpaito)  were  used  at  Alliens  to 
receive  the  names  of  persons  on  whom  sentence  of 
banishment  {ostracism)  was  to  be  pronounced.  In 
Egypt  they  were  very  plentifully  u.sed  for  accounts, 
and  especially  for  tax  receipts ;  in  the  Coptic 
period  passages  of  Scripture  and  quasi  -  literary 
pieces  were  also  inscribed  upon  potsherds,  (/t) 
Leather  plays  a  far  more  important  jiart  in  the 
history  of  writing,  especially  of  the  Uible.  It  was 
used  in  Egypt ;  leather  rolls  are  extant  from  about 
B.C.  2000,  and  papyri  of  later  date  refer  to  docu- 
ments written  on  skins  as  far  back  as  the  4th 
dynasty.  On  the  Assyrian  monuments  scribes 
are  shown  holding  rolls  which  appear  to  be  of  this 
material.  The  I'ersians  used  leather  to  contain 
the  royal  records  (;3a<ri\iica!  ii(pOipai,  Ctesias,  ap. 
Uiod.  II.  xxxii.  4).  Similarly,  Herodotus  states 
that  the  lonians  of  Asia  Minor  formerly  used 
skins  of  sheep  and  goats,  and  that  many  barbarous 
peoples  continued  to  do  the  s.anie  in  his  own  time. 
In  the  OT,  leather  or  skins  are  not  expressly 
mentioned,  but  it  is  practically  certain  that  this 
material  was  largely  used,  and  was,  in  fact,  the 
principal  vehicle  of  Hebrew  literature  in  historical 
times.     The  use  of  books  in  roll  form  is  mentioned 

•  Sir  H.  M.  Stanle.v  (Camhill  Magazint,  Jan.  1901,  pp.  60,  01) 
recoffls  that  on  hit)  flrst  visit  to  I'^andu,  in  IbTfi,  portions  of  tlie 
NT,  trttnsl:ilc<l  or  iHtmphnmcd  bv  him  and  hia  companions, 
were  written  on  '  tliiii  and  polJHhcd  boards  of  wliito  wood,  aliout 
10  by  12  inches.  .  .  .  DurinR  the  three  months  I  remaine<l  with 
Mtes.*!,  the  translations  which  we  made  from  the  Gospuls  were 
very  ropious,  and  the  principal  events  from  the  Creation  to  llic 
Crucifixion  wore  also  fairly  written  out,  forming  quite  a  hullty 
library'  of  hoards.' 

VOL.  IV. — 6o 


in  I's  40',  Jer  36-  *  etc.,  Ezk  2»  ;  and  the  roll  form 
implies  the  use  of  either  leather  or  papyrus  (vellum 
not  having  been  yet  invented,  and  bark,  so  far  as 
is  known,  never  having  been  employed  in  Pales- 
tine). Papyrus  might,  no  doubt,  have  been  intro- 
duced into  Palestine  from  Egypt,  and  there  is  a 
recorded  case  of  its  being  sent  to  Phu;nicia  in  the 
\\i\\  cent.  {Zeitsch.  f.  dgiipt.  Uprac/ie,  1900,  p.  11); 
but  there  is  no  evidence  of  its  general  use  at  this  date. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  mention  of  the  'scribe's 
knife'  {ta'ar  hassuphcr,  LXX  tv  ivpi}  toO  -/pan- 
ixariu^)  in  Jer  36  (43)^  probably  indicates  that  the 
roll  destroyed  by  Jehoiakim  was  of  leather;  since  a 
knife  (for  the  purpose  of  erasures)  was  p.art  of  the 
equipment  of  a  scribe  writing  upon  leather  or 
vellum,  but  could  not  be  used  on  so  delicate  a 
material  as  papyrus.  In  Nu  S^  it  is  implied  that 
writing  could  be  washed  off  with  water  ;  but  this 
was  the  practice  in  the  case  of  papyrus  as  well  as 
leather,  so  that  the  p;is.sageis  imonclusive.  Clearer 
evidence  is  given  by  later  writers.  In  the  Letter 
of  Aristeas  the  copy  of  the  Law  sent  from  Jeru- 
salem to  Egj'pt  for  the  purpose  of  the  version  of 
the  LXX  is  expressly  said  to  have  been  written  on 
di(p0^pai.  Further,  tlie  Talmud  requires  all  copies 
of  tlie  Law  to  be  written  on  skins,  and  in  roll  form  ; 
and  this  regulation,  which  still  remains  in  force 
for  volumes  intended  for  use  in  the  synagogue,  no 
doubt  jioints  back  to  an  ancient  tradition.  All  the 
evidence,  in  fact,  seems  to  go  to  show  that  the 
OT  Scriptures  were  habitually  written  on  prepared 
skins,  for  which,  in  course  of  time,  vellum  was 
probably  substituted  in  the  case  of  ordinary  copies 
(as  distinct  from  synagogue  rolls).  It  is  not  im- 
Ijrobable  that  in  St.  Paul's  request  (2  Ti  4")  for  t4 
/3t/3Xta,  fidXicTTa  Tcts  fiffM^pdvas,  the  latter  word  refers 
to  copies  of  parts  of  the  OT.* 

(()  Papyrus.— If  skins  probably  played  the  most 
imjiortant  part  in  the  early  history  of  the  Hebrew 
Scriptures,  the  iiapyrus  plant  certainly  did  so  in 
the  case  of  the  Greek.  The  papyrus  plant  {ci/perus 
pap;/rus),  which  formerly  grew  in  great  profusion 
in  the  Nile  (though  now  confined  to  the  higher 
part  of  its  course),  was  used  from  a  very  early  date 
in  Egypt  as  a  material  for  writing.  The  earliest 
extant  jjapyrus  MS  dates  from  the  5th  dynasty 
(see  §  i.),and  from  about  the  12th  dynasty  onwards 
many  such  volumes  are  known,  with  writings  in 
all  tiie  varieties  of  Egyptian  script — hieroglyphic, 
hieratic,  and  demotic.  From  Egj'pt  the  use  of 
papyrus  spre.ad  into  the  neighbouring  countries,  and 
it  was  the  iiniver.sal  material  for  book-production 
in  Greece  and  Italy  during  the  most  ilourishing 
periods  of  their  literature.  The  LXX  veisicm  of 
the  or  was  produced  in  Egypt  under  the  Ptolemies, 
and  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  it  was  written  upon 
papyrus,  like  the  hundre<ls  of  Greek  documents  of 
that  period  which  recent  dis/;overies  in  that  country 
have  brought  to  light.  So,  too,  with  the  books  of 
the  NT.  These  were  written  in  Greek,  in  various 
parts  of  the  Greek-speaking  world — in  Asia  Minor, 
in  Greece,  in  Rome,  etc.  ;  and  there  is  no  reason  to 
doubt  that  they  were  written  on  papyrus  in  the 
ordinary  way.  The  only  books  wliicii  may  have 
been  originally  written  in  Palestine  are  St.  Matthew 
and  St.  James  ;  but  these,  it  must  be  remembered, 
would  not  at  first  bo  written  as  sacred  books,  «o 
that  the  rules  applying  to  the  OT  would  not  apply 
to  them.  They,  too,  must  almost  certainly  have 
been  written  on  ]ia]iyrus;  and  on  this  material 
the  Greek  OT  and  the  NT  must  have  circulated 
habitually,  if  not  exclusively,  until  the  4th  cent, 
of  our  era. — The  method  of  manufacture  of  papy- 
rus is  described  by  Pliny  [JJA  xiii.  11-13).     The 

•  The  sugpestions  that  the  fuf*3/iiit»i  were  blank  sheetA  of 
vclluni,  or  note-books  (which  were  sometimes  made  of  velluni 
at  that  date),  or  accuunt-1x>oks,  seem  inconsistent  with  the  im- 
ixirtance  evidently  attAuhed  to  them. 


946 


WRITING 


WRITIXG 


pith*  of  the  stem  of  tlie  plant  was  cut  into  thin 
striiis,  which  were  Uiid  siiie  by  side  to  form  a  sheet. 
Anotlier   hiyer   of   strips  was  then  luiil  upon  the 
first,  at  right  angles  to  it,  so  that  the  wliole  sheet 
was  composed  of  two  layers,  in  one  of  whicli  the 
fibres  ran  horizontally,  in  the  other  perpendicularly. 
The  two  layers  were  attached  to  one  another  by 
moisture  and  pressure,  with  or  without  the  addition 
of  glue.t    The  sheets  (KoWii/xaro,  schedce)  so  formed 
were  dried  and  polished,  and  were  tlien  ready  for 
use.     They  could   be  used  singly,  as  for  letters, 
accounts,  and  the  like  ;  or  a  numuer  of  them  could 
be  joined  together,  so  as  to  form  a  roll.    According 
to  rliny,  the  manufacturers  prepared  rolls  (scapi) 
consisting  of  not  more  than  20  sckedoe  ;  but  a  scnbe 
who  required   more  to  contain  the  work  lie  was 
copying  could  attach  a  second  roll  to  the  first,  and 
cut  ofl'  so  much  of  it  as  might  not  be  needed.     The 
length  of  papyrus  rolls,   as  actually  used,  varies 
greatly.      In   ancient    Egypt,   when    books  were 
largely  used  for  ceremonial  and   ritual  purposes, 
they  were  often  of  excessive   length ;  the  longest 
at  present  known  measures  144  ft.     IBut  for  prac- 
tical use  much  more  moderate  dimensions  were 
necessary,  and  no  Greek  literary  papyrus  is  known 
which  exceeds  30  ft.     The  height  varies  from  15J 
to  about  5  in.  ;   about  9  or  10  in.  is  a  common 
height  for  a  literary  papyrus.     The  writing  is  nor- 
mally on  that  side  of  the  papyrus  on  which  the 
fibres  lie  horizontally,  i.e.  parallel  to  the  lengtli  of 
the  roll  {recto)  ;  the  verso  is  only  used  either  when 
the  scribe's  matter  exceeds  the  papyrus  at  his  dis- 
posal, so  that  after  filling  the  recto  he  is  forced  to 
continue  on  the  verso,  or  (a  commoner  case)  when  the 
recto  has  already  been  used  to  receive  some  other 
writing.     A  roll  of  tlie  first  description  (whether 
its  material  be  leather  or  papyrus)  is  that  men- 
tioned in  Ezk  2'"  (cf.  Rev  5'),  which  was  '  written 
within  and  without ;  and  there  was  written  therein 
lamentations,  and  mourning,  and  woe.'    The  multi- 
tude of  calamities  is  indicated  by  the  writing  ex- 
tending over  both  sides  of  the  roll.     An  example 
of  a  roll  so  written  occurs  in  a  magical  papyrus  in 
the  British  Museum  (Pap.  cxxi.).      Opisthograph 
rolls  of    the  second  description   imply   that    the 
writer  employed  papyrus  alre.-idy  once  used,  either 
because  he  was  too  poor  to  get  any  other,  or  too 
remote  from  a  town  where  it  might  be  obtained,  or 
that  the  matter  he  wished  to  write  was  too  unim- 
portant to  justify  the  use  of  fresh  papyrus.     Thus 
rough  accounts  are  frequently  written  on  the  back 
of  used  papyrus ;  or  schoolboys'  copies,  as  in  the  case 
of  the  ])apyrus  which  bears  on  its  verso  the  Funeral 
Oration  of  ilyporides,  roughly  written  in  a  school- 
boy's hand  ;  or  we  may  have  a  literary  work,  WTitten 
for  the  private  use  of  an  individual,  not  for  sale  or 
for  a  public  library,  as  in  the  case  of  the  'ASr}i'aluiv 
IIoXiTfia  of  Aristotle,  which  is  written  on  the  back 
of  farm  accounts.     Such  literary  MSS  might,  no 
doubt,  occasionally  come  into  the  market  as  cheap 
copies,  but  they  would  form  no  part  of  the  regular 

•  Dziatzko  (Wntersuchungen,  pp.  31,  32)  sugfcsts  that  in 
ancient  Egj-pt  the  Bbres  of  the  bark  were  used  as  well  as  the 
pith,  the  exclusive  use  of  the  latter  being  introduced  after  the 
Greek  occupation ;  but  there  is  no  authority  tor  this  distinc- 
tion, and  an  examination  of  early  Ej^yptian  papjTi  does  not 
reven!  any  essential  difference  in  the  method  of  "their  manu- 
facture. Moreover,  since  Pliny  states  that  even  that  part  of 
the  pith  which  was  nearest  the  bark  made  material  too  coarse 
tor  writing'  purposes,  the  hark  itself  nuist  have  been  still  more 
unsuitable,  and  could  not  produce  such  excellent  material  as 
the  papyri  of  the  18th  and  even  earlier  dynasties. 

t  Pliny's  words,  'turbidus  liquor  vim  (jlutinis  pnebet,'  are 
variously  interpreted  to  mean  that  the  muddy  water  (of  the 
Nile)  'gives  strength  to  the  glue'  (fitulinu,  dat.  plur.)  or 
•answers  the  puri>ose  of  glue  '  {f^tutimg,  gen.  sing.).  Dziatzko 
(fip.  cit.  pp.  84,  85)  states  that  a  chemical  examination  of  some 
fragments  of  papyrus  disclosed  no  trace  of  glue  between  the 
layers,  but  showed  that  it  had  been  applied  to  the  surface, 
presunialjly  to  smooth  and  strengthen  it.  Certainly  it  is  not 
always  possible  to  discern  glue,  but  Bometimes  it  appears  to 
be  present. 


book  trade.  That  the  h.abitual  use  of  tbem  im- 
plied poverty,  appears  from  Lucian  (Vit.  Auct.  c 
9),  where  it  is  one  of  the  signs  of  the  poverty- 
stricken  disciple  of  Diogenes.  The  writing  on 
papyrus  was  disposed  in  columns  (ireMoes),  the 
width  of  which,  if  not  dictated  by  necessity,  aa  ip 
the  verses  of  a  poem,  is  generally  from  2  to  3i  in 
in  thecaseof  literary  MSS  of  good  quality.  In  copies 
written  without  regard  to  appearances  (like  the 
'A8.  lIoX.),  it  might  be  considerably  more.  The  title 
of  a  work  was  normally  written  at  the  end.  The 
inner  edge  of  the  roll,  or  both  edges,  might  be  pro- 
vided with  a  wooden  roller  {dfupaXds),  and  volumes 
which  claimed  elegance  of  appearance  were  prob- 
ably always  provided  with  them.  Commoner  copies 
were  not  so  provided,  but  the  edges  were  tlien 
generally  strengthened  by  an  extra  strip  of  papyrus, 
to  prevent  tearing.  A  <riX\iijSos,  or  thin  strip  of 
papyrus  or  vellum,  was  attached  to  the  outside 
of  the  roll,  bearing  the  title  of  the  work ;  such  a 
fflWv^os,  bearing  the  title  of  Sopliron's  Miines, 
has  been  discovered  at  Oxyrhynchus  (Ox.  Pap. 
301,  now  Brit.  Mus.  Pap.  801).  The  roll  might 
be  enclosed  in  a  cover  (^airiXT/s),  to  protect  it 
from  damage,  and  stored  in  a  wooden  ease  (capsa) 
with  several  others. — The  roll  form  of  book  con- 
tinued in  common,  if  not  universal,  use  until 
the  3rd  cent.  ;  but  from  that  date  onwards  (under 
the  influence,  no  doubt,  of  the  increasing  use  of 
vellum)  papyrus  books  in  codex  form  (like  modern 
books)  begin  to  be  found,  and  the  roll  form  gradu- 
ally drops  out  of  use.  The  earliest  fragments  of 
the  Greek  Bible  are  written  in  the  codex  form, 
which  seems  to  have  been  preferred  by  the  Chris- 
tian converts.  Vellum  superseded  panyrus  as  the 
material  for  the  best  books  in  the  4tli  cent.,  but 
papyrus  continued  to  be  employed  for  inferior 
copies  until  the  7th  cent.  In  640,  however,  the 
Arabs  conquered  Egypt,  and,  by  stopping  the  ex- 
port of  papyrus,  struclc  the  death-blow  to  its  use 
as  a  vehicle  of  Greek  and  Latin  literature.  It 
continued  to  be  used  in  Egypt  to  some  extent  for 
accounts  and  for  Coptic  documents ;  but  its  literary 
importance  was  at  an  end. 

(^•)  Parchment  or  vellum.— This  material  may  be 
regarded  as  a  special  development  from  the  use  of 
skins,  described  above  ;  but  it  occupies  a  far  more 
important  place  in  the  histoi-y  of  literature  than 
its  parent.  According  to  Varro  {ap.  Pliny,  Elf 
xiii.  11),  it  originated  at  Perganium  under  Eumenea 
II.  (B.C.  197-158),  when  tlie  kinfj  of  Egj'pt,  anxious 
to  cripple  his  rival's  growing  library,  forbade  the 
export  of  papyrus.  The  king  of  rergamum  accord- 
ingly reverted  to  the  use  of  skins,  which  had  for- 
merly been  general  in  .\»ia  .Minor  (st-e  above;  ;  but 
the  skins  were  made  more  suitable  for  literary  pur- 
poses by  a  special  preparation,  and  the  material 
thus  produced  received  from  its  place  of  origin  the 
name  of  Trepya/i-nv/j,  whence  our  parchment.  Parch- 
ment differs  from  leather  in  not  being  taniied  ;  the 
skins  are  merely  stretched  and  dried,  the  hairs  being 
removed  from  the  one  side  and  the  flesh  from  the 
other,  and  the  whole  being  smoothed  with  pumice. 
In  modem  usage  the  flesh  side  is  also  dressed  with 
chalk ;  the  special  methods,  if  any,  of  preparing 
ancient  parchment  are  unknown.  "The  skins  used 
are  principally  those  of  sheep,  lambs,  and  calves,  but 
those  of  goats,  asses,  and  swine  may  also  be  used ; 
and  specially  fine  vellum  is  provided  by  antelopes. 
Strictly  speaking,  vellum  denotes  the  material 
mamifactured  from  calves  (and  antelopes),  and 
parchment  that  provided  by  sheep,  etc. ;  but  prac- 
tically no  distinction  is  made  between  them,  and 
the  term  vellum  is  applied  to  all  kinds  of  dressed 
skins  used  for  the  purposes  of  writing.  Of  the 
character  of  the  vellum  SISS  of  Perganium  nothing 
is  known  ;  but  it  is  certain  that  the  material  did 
not  come  into  general  use  for  literary  purposes,  in 


WRITING 


AVRITIXG 


947 


other  countries,  until  a  much  later  period.  At 
Kome,  in  the  1st  cent.  B.C.  and  the  1st  and  2nd 
cents,  after  Christ,  there  is  evidence  of  the  use  of 
vellum,  but  only  for  note-books  and  for  rough 
drafts  or  inferior  copies  of  literary  works  (Cic.  ad 
Aft  .\iii.  2i  ;  Hor.  Sit.  ii.  3;  Martial,  .\iv.  7.  184, 
etc.  ;  Quintiiian,  x.  3.  31).  A  fragment  of  a  vellum 
MS,  which  may  belong  to  this  period,  ia  preserved 
in  Brit.  Mus.  Add.  MS  34473,  consisting  of  two 
leaves  of  Demosthenes,  de  Fals.  Leg.,  in  a  small 
hand,  which  appears  to  be  of  the  2nd  century. 
The  u.se  of  vellum  for  note-books,  which  would 
be  shaped  according  to  the  analogj'  of  wax  tablets, 
the  form  of  note-book  previously  existing,  natur- 
allj'  led  to  the  evolution  of  the  codex,  or  modern 
book  form  ;  and  the  rise  of  vellum  into  favour  for 
literary  purposes  is  also  the  rise  of  the  codex.  Tliis 
appears  to  have  taken  place  during  the  3rd  cent. ,  tlie 
final  victory  of  vellum  and  the  codex  form  being 
achieved  in  the  early  part  of  tlie  4th  century.  When 
Constantine  founded  his  new  capital,  he  instructed 
Eusebius  to  have  hfty  MSS  on  vellum  (<ru^Tia  iv 
Si<p6tp(ui)  prepared  by  skilled  calligraiphers  for  the 
churches  in  it  (Vit.  Const,  iv.  36,  A.u.  331);  and 
about  the  middle  of  the  century  the  library  of 
Pamphilus  at  Csesarea  (consisting  largely  of  the 
works  of  Origen),  which  had  fallen  into  decay, 
was  restored  by  Acacius  and  Euzoius,  who  had 
the  damaged  volumes  rejilaced  by  vellum  ('in 
niembranis  instaurare  conati  sunt,  Jerome,  Ep. 
cxli. ).  The  s^jread  of  Christianity  probably  had 
much  to  do  with  the  change,  by  creating  a  demand 
for  complete  copies  of  the  Scriptures.  No  papyrus 
roU  of  ordinary  dimensions  could  hold  more  than 
one  of  the  longer  books  of  the  NT,  and  a  set  of 
some  30  or  40  rolls  would  be  necessary  for  the 
entire  Ilible  ;  while  the  whole  could  be  gathered 
into  a  single  codex  of  not  immoderate  size.  Ex- 
amples of  such  codi('es  from  this  very  period  re- 
niam  in  the  celebrated  Codex  Vaticanus  and  Codex 
Sinaiticus,  and  probably  also  in  the  earliest  copies 
of  Virgil.  The  vellum  of  these  early  MSS  ranks 
with  the  verj'linest  in  quality.  For  special  magni- 
ficence, the  vellum  was  sometimes  dyed  purple, 
with  letters  of  silver  or  gold.  The  existence  of 
such  MSS  in  the  4th  cent,  is  proved  by  Jerome's 
denunciation  of  them  ('in  niembranis  purpureis 
auro  argentonue  descriptos,'  Pr(rf.  in  Job  ;  '  in- 
ficiuMtur  memuranie  colore  purpureo,  aurum  liqucs- 
cit  in  litteras,  gemmis  codices  vestiuntur,  ad 
Eustochium  de  custud,  virg.). 

To  this  period  may  perhaps  be  attributed  the  Codex  Vcronensis 
of  the  Old  Latin  (jospela  ;  but  oiost  of  the  purjtte  M^S  now 
extant  are  of  later  dat«.  Tliose  of  the  Creek  Gosjtcls  are  al] 
attnbittai)1e  to  theflth  cent,  (tlie  codirea  known  OA  Evann.  N,  N», 
2,  +,  and  one  recently  broupht  from  Sinope  to  Paris,  the  latter 
and  N»  being  written  in  gold  letters,  the  others  in  silver, 
with  gold  only  for  the  sacred  name*).  Other  pun>le  M.SS 
are  the  Coflices  Palatinus  and  Saretianus  (fith  cent.),  Vindo- 
bonensis  and  Hrixianus  (<;th  rent.)  of  the  Old  Latin  Gospels,  the 
Vienna  (ienesis  (oth  cent.),  which  also  has  painted  miniatures. 
the  Gothic  Gospels  at  Upsula  (0th  cent.),  the  .MeLz  Gosnels  and 
Psalter  of  St.  Gennanus  at  F'aris  (flth  cent.),  the  Ziirich  Greek 
Psalter  (7th  cent.),  the  Vulgate  Gospels  written  by  Godesciilc 
for  Charlemagne  (a.d.  781),  the  Hamilton  Gospels,  now  in 
America,  and  two  other  copies  of  the  Gospels  at  Paris  (3th 
cent.).  _  The  last  four,  all  written  in  the  time  of  Charletn.igne 
(to  which  more  of  the  same  ami  subsequent  periods  might  be 
added),  have  letters  of  gold  ;  the  earlitr  MSS  are  in  silver. 
Among  special  curiosities  of  ornamentation  may  be  mentioned 
two  leaves  gilded  all  over,  with  lettering  in  blue,  containitig 
the  tables  of  Eusebiat]  Canons,  from  a  copy  of  the  Greek  Gos- 
pels, of  the  6th  cent.,  in  the  British  Museuin,  and  two  books  of 
prayers  written  on  black  vellum  in  gold  and  silver  letters,  of  the 
16tb  to  loth  cent«.,  at  Vienna. 

The  sheet  of  vellum  having  been  pre[)ared  for 
use,  it  wa.s  folded  into  quires,  a  process  nliicli 
causes  hair-side  to  face  hair-side,  ami  flesh-side 
flesh-side  throughout  the  volume.  Quires  are  found 
of  various  sizes,  eight  le.avcs  being  the  commonest 
numher.  In  Greek  MSS  the  tlesli-side  normally 
begins  the  quire  in  Latin  MSS  the  hair-side.    Lines 


were  ruled  on  the  vellum  with  a  blunt-pointed 
instrument,  generally  on  the  hair-side,  making  a 
furrow  on  that  side  and  a  rid"e  on  the  flesh-side. 
After  the  use  of  vellum  had  liecome  well  estab- 
lished, the  writing  was  generally  arranged  in  two 
columns  to  tlie  page,  sometimes  less,  but  very  rarely 
more.  Tlie  earliest  MSS,  however,  show  a  larger 
number,  the  Cod.  Sinaiticus  having  four  columns  to 
the  page,  and  the  Codd.  Vaticanus  and  Patiriensia 
(5lh  cent.)  three.  It  is  probable  that  the  use  of 
narrowcolumns  which  this  involves  is  a  reminiscence 
of  the  narrow  columns  habitually  found  in  i)apyri, 
from  which  these  MSS  were  almost  certainly  cojued. 
A  revival  of  this  practice  is  occasionally  lound  in 
later  MSS,  as  in  Brit.  Mus.  Hoyal  MS  1  D  ii,  con- 
taining part  of  the  LXX,  of  which  four  quires  are 
written  with  three  columns  to  the  page  ;  or  the 
great  Bibles  containing  Theodulfs  recension  of  the 
Vulgate,  which  also  have  triple  columns. 

(/)  Paper,  the  ultimate  survivor  in  the  competi- 
tion between  the  various  vehicles  of  literature,  is 
of  much  less  importance  for  the  history  of  writing 
than  either  papyrtis  or  vellum,  on  account  of  the 
lateness  of  its  appearance  in  Europe  and  Western 
Asia.  The  date  of  its  invention  is  unknown,  but 
there  seems  to  be  no  doubt  that  it  was  first  manu- 
factured in  China.  About  the  middle  of  the  8th 
cent,  it  became  known  to  the  Arabs,  perhaps  as  a 
result  of  their  conquest  of  Sam.ircand,  in  704,  and 
factories  were  established  in  Baghdad  and  else- 
where. Specimens  of  their  workmanship  have 
been  found  in  Egypt,  dating  from  an  early  period 
in  the  Arab  occupation  of  that  country.  To  this 
paper  the  names  charta  (often  with  the  epithet 
Dinwisccna)  and  papyrus  were  applied,  since  it 
served  to  take  the  place  of  the  material  formerly 
known  by  those  names.  From  the  Arabs  the 
knowledge  of  paper  passed,  after  a  considerable 
lapse  of  time,  to  the  Spaniards  and  Italians.  The 
earliest  known  specimens  are  of  the  12th  cent., 
but  it  was  only  slowly  that  the  new  material  made 
headway  against  the  supremacy  of  vellum  for 
literary  purposes.  Towards  the  end  of  tlio  14tli 
cent,  it  began  to  be  used  with  some  freedom  in  the 
book  trade,  and  during  the  15th  cent,  it  was 
coming  to  supersede  vellum  for  ordinary  purposes, 
even  before  the  invention  of  printing  dealt  the 
fatal  blow  to  the  older  material.  It  was  formerly 
supposed  that  the  earliest  ptipcr,  introduced  into 
Europe  from  the  East,  was  made  from  cotton 
wool,  and  a  distinction  was  drawn  between  cotton 
paper  and  linen  ]japer.  Microscoiiic  examination, 
however,  shows  that  this  is  a  delusion,  and  that 
no  such  thing  as  paper  made  wholly  ol  cotton 
has  ever  existed.  The  name  bomhyrina,  which  is 
used  to  describe  the  Oriental  paper,  has  jirobably 
notliing  to  do  with  the  material  out  of  which  it 
was  made,  but  is  a  corruption  of  banihycinn,  from 
liamliyce,  in  Syria,  where  it  was  manufactured. 
The  materials  out  of  which  it  was  usually  manu- 
factured were  hemp  or  Hax,  for  which  woollen 
cloth  was  subsequently  substituted,  and  eventually 
(in  the  14tli  cent.)  linen  rtigs.  Water -marks, 
which  do  not  occur  in  Oriental  paper,  were  inlro- 
duced  by  Eiirojiean  manufacturers  in  the  13tli 
cent.  Tlie  earliest  known  siiucimen  is  on  paper 
used  in  the  district  of  Ancona  in  12'.I3. 

(m)  The  implements  of  wi-itinij  have  iiaturttlly 
dill'ered  according  to  tlie  various  materials  on 
wliich  they  had  to  be  employed.  A  sharp,  pointed 
metal  instrument,  known  to  the  Greeks  as  (ttCXos, 
Lat.  stilus,  was  u.sed  for  wriliiig  on  clay  or  wax 
tablets  (cf.  Job  \'.)'-*,  Jer  17')-  On  papyrus  the 
reed  (xiXa^s,  calamus)  wiis  used  (cf.  3  Jn  "  6i4 
/lAarat  Kal  KaXd/xoi'),  and  pos.sibIy  also  on  leathei 
(cf.  Ps  4,5',  whore  the  LXX  has  xdNa^os  ypaixnaTiut). 
MetJil  jiens  in  the  form  of  a  reed  or  iiuill  hitve  been 
found  in  the'so-callcd  Grave  of  Ari.-.lotle  at  Eretrio^ 


948 


WKITING 


WRITING 


and  (of  the  Roman  period)  in  Italy  and  Britain. 
The  quill  pen  is  tirst  mentioned  by  an  anonymous 
biocia])her  of  Theodoric  the  Goth  (c.  500)  and  by 
Isidore  of  Seville  (c.  600). — The  earliest  form  of  ink 
{ptiXav,  atramentum,  lyKavarov,  incaustum,  whence 
ink)  appears  to  have  been  either  the  juice  dis- 
charged by  the  cuttle-fish  (I'ersius,  iii.  13)  or  a 
mixture  of  soot  and  gum.  This  often  gives  excel- 
lent results,  the  ink  of  the  Greek  papyri,  even 
from  the  earliest  times  (3rd  and  2nd  cent.  B.C.), 
being  often  admirably  black.  This  kind  of  ink 
did  not  sink  deeply  into  the  material  on  which  it 
was  laid,  and  could  be  washed  off  without  much 
dilficulty ;  on  papjTus  this  was  the  ordinary 
method  of  deletion  on  a  large  scale.  Gall-apples 
are  not  mentioned  until  the  5th  cent.  (Martianus 
Capella,  iii.  2-25),  but  were  probably  used  con- 
siderably earlier.  Metallic  inks  were  not  used 
with  papyrus,  but  must  have  been  adopted  early 
in  the   history  of  writing  upon  vellum  ;   it  is  to 


the  Hebrews.  The  uncertaintj-  which  attends  ths 
dating  of  the  earlier  books  of  the  OT  and  of  the 
materials  upon  which  they  are  based,  makes  it 
dangerous  to  draw  any  conclusions  from  the 
references  in  them  to  the  practice  of  writing. 
The  discovery  (in  1887)  of  the  Tel  el-Amarna 
tablets  (Fig.  1),  near  the  site  of  the  capital  of 
Amenophis  IV.,  containing  correspondence,  in 
cuneiform  characters  and  in  Babylonian  dialect, 
between  the  Egj'ptian  governors  or  vassal  princes 
in  Palestine  and  Syria  and  the  king  and  his  minis- 
ters in  Egj-pt,  proves  that  writing  was  practised 
in  Palestine  at  a  date  either  a  century  before  the 
Exodvis  (if  that  event  be  assigned  to  the  reign  of 
Merenptah,  as  commonly  held),  or  contemporary 
with  tiie  Hebrew  entry  intj  tlie  Promised  Land, 
according  to  the  alternative  chronology.  There  is 
also  no  difficulty  in  believing  that  Moses,  having 
been  brought  up  in  the  Egyptian  court  (cf.  Ac  7-), 
was  acquainted  with  the  art  of  writing ;  tbough,  of 


<rf// 


r^ 


^ 


n«.  1.— cnsKiroRM  n 


(Brit.  Mu8.  BU.  88-10-13,  75.) 


this  element  that  the  erosion  seen  in  so  many 
early  vellum  MSS  {e.<j.  the  Codex  Vaticanus  and 
the  Coilex  Alexandrinus)  is  due.  In  the  Middle 
Ages  a  less  corrosive  ink  is  generally  used.  Some 
beautiful  specimens  remain  from  about  the  begin- 
ning of  the  8th  cent.,  e.g.  the  Codex  Amiatinus 
and  the  Lindisfarne  Gospels.  Many  recipes  for 
ink  are  recorded  in  mediaeval  MSS  ;  the  principal 
ingredients  are  gall-apples,  vitriol,  and  gum. 

LlTEliATiniB.— Birt,  Dasantikr  Bxichmsm,  1882 ;  Gardthttusen, 
GriechuKhe  Paltwijraphie,  1879;  Thoni)>son,  Uandbouk  it/dra-k 
and  Latin  Pa/ceajraphti,  cc.  ii-iv,  1803;  Dziatzko,  Untersrtch- 
ungen  uber  awiijcwuhlle  KapUel  dea  aniiken  BuchueKem, 
1900 ;  Piet«chmann,  Leder  uitd  Unlz  als  Schreibmatmai  hex 
den  Aeijupten  (SaTmnlinig  bibliothekTOissenscliaftlichcn  Ar- 
ntiU'n,  Hft.  8),  1S95  ;  Karabacek  and  Wiesner,  Vas  arabisclte 
Paiwr  (Mitth.  aiis  d.  Saminluni;  d.  I'apvrus  Erzherzog  Rainer, 
II.  87  9),  1887;  Buhl,  Caium  and  Text  o/  the  OT,  EnK.  tr. 
i  74,  1892;  Kenjon,  Palceoqraphy  of  Greek  Papiiri,  ch.  U. 
1899 ;  W'attenbach,  Dot  Schriftwetm  xm  MiUelaUer^,  189«. 

iii.  Hebrew  Writing.— It  is  impossible  to  fix 
with  any  precision  the  beginning  of  writing  among 


course,  this  fact  in  itself  proves  nothing  as  to  his 
actual  and  immediate  autliorship  of  the  books 
ascribed  to  him.  The  name  Kinath-sepher  (.Jos 
15'")  is  held  by  Sayce  and  some  others  (but  see 
Moore,  Judges,  26  f.)  to  mean  'city  of  books,' 
which  might  indicate  even  the  existence  of  a 
library  (perhaps  such  a  one  as  that  of  Ashur- 
bani-pal  at  Mneveh)  or  record -oflice ;  and  one 
interpretation  of  shfbet  sopher  in  Jg  5"  (LXX  B 
if  fiajibif  SnjYqffCiiis  ypafiuanu^,  AV  '  the  pen  of  the 
writer,'  RVm  '  the  stall'  of  the  scribe ' ;  but  IIV 
'  the  m.arshal's  statV)  finds  a  reference  to  writing 
in  what  is  universally  admitted  to  be  a  very 
ancient  document.  It  is  not  until  much  later, 
however,  that  indubitable  evidence  of  Hebrew 
writing  is  found.  The  earliest  extant  specimens 
are  on  the  bowU  of  Baal  Lebanon  (see  Alphabet, 
vol.  i.  p.  73),  the  earliest  of  which  may  date  from 
c.  1000  B.C.,  and  the  Moa/nte  Stone,  erected  by 
Me.siia,  king  of  Moab,  about  850  B.C.,  to  com 
niemorate  his  o^vn  revolt  against  Jehoram.     This 


WRITING 


WRITING 


9-19 


In  written  in  a  dialect  scarcely  diflfering  from 
Hebrew,  and  in  the  ancient  Hebrew  characters, 
which  were  a  development  from  the  original  I'hoe- 
nician  alphabet  (Alphabet  ;  for  facsimile  see 
MoAU).  It  is  followed  by  the  Silonm  inscription, 
attributed  to  the  reign  of  Hezekiah  (c.  700  B.C.) 
or  Manasseh  (c.  650  B.C.),  the  characters  of  which 
are  a  modification  of  those  on  the  Moabite  Stone. 
Somewhat  later  still,  probably,  are  the  inscriptions 
on  the  iar-handles  found  by  Dr.  Bliss  at  Tell  ej- 
Judeiden,  which  are  assigned  approximately  to 
650-500  B.C.  {PEFSt,  1900,  pp.  '2u7,  341). 

Of  actual  Hebrew  writing  in  the  old  characters 
we  have  no  remains,  since  our  earliest  extant  MSS 
belong  to  a  period  lung  after  the  adoption  of  the 
square  characters  ;  but  their  appearance  may  be 
learnt  from  the  MS.S  of  the  Samaritan  version  of 
the  Pentateuch,  the  Samaritans  having  retained 
the  ancient  alphabet  when  the  Jews  abandoned  it, 
after  the  Captivity,  in  favour  of  the  Aranuuan 
characters,  which  ^epre^ented  a  dirt'erent  line  of 
descent  from   the    original   Phoenician   alphabet. 


which  were  to  be  used  in  the  services  of  the  syna- 
gogue. These  must  always  be  leather  rolls,  not 
in  modern  book  form  ;  and  they  must  be  written 
with  the  most  scrupulous  care. 

'A  sj-napofue  roll  must  be  written  on  the  ekins  of  clean 
aninmlij,  prepared  for  the  particular  use  of  the  syno^o^e  by  a 
Jew.  These  must  be  fastened  to^'ether  with  Btrin^fstaken  from 
clean  animals.  Every  skin  must  contain  a  certain  number  of 
columns,  etjual  throughout  the  entire  codex.  The  length  of 
each  column  must  not  extend  over  less  than  48  or  more  than 
6u  lines  ;  and  the  breadth  must  consist  of  tliirty  letters.  The 
whole  copy  must  be  first  lined  ;  and  if  three  words  be  written 
in  it  without  a  line,  it  is  worthless.  The  ink  should  be  black, 
neither  red,  green,  nor  any  other  colour,  and  be  prepared 
according  to  a  definite  receipt.  An  authentic  copy  must  be 
the  exemplar,  from  which  the  transcriber  ought  not  in  the 
least  to  deviate.  No  word  or  letter,  not  even  a  ynd,  must  be 
written  from  memor}',  the  scribe  not  having  looked  at  the 
codex  before  him.  .  .  .  Between  every  consonant  the  space  of  a 
hair  or  thread  must  inten'ene  ;  between  every  word  the  breadth 
of  a  narrow  consonant ;  between  every  new  parriahdh,  or  section, 
the  breadth  of  nine  consonants  ;  lietween  every  book,  three 
lines.  The  fifth  book  of  .Moses  must  terminate  exactly  with  a 
line  ;  but  the  rest  need  not  do  so.  Besides  Uiis.  the  copyist 
must  sit  in  full  Jewish  dress,  wash  his  whole  body,  not  begin 
to  write  the  name  of  Qod  with  a  pen  newly  dipped  in  ink,  and 


X 


T" 


^«iS*|»fi 


i>  ^w-w  i»3T»T>  ^p  I 'mn  >»  irti -ftj.-.  vv«  lii  tiHi  WB 


-1} 

I? 


TiWt3TV7^t>3^Jn 


'P. 
fit 

K.   f 


fio.  2. — ntrriRKW  msTATKrcn  cooKx,  Oni  cent. 
(Brit.  Mus.  MS  Or.  M46,  reduced). 


The  old  characters  remained  In  use  on  coins  of  the 
Maccab.t"an  jieriod,  but  they  had  fallen  out  of  use 
for  literar>'  jmrposcs  long  before  the  time  of  our 
Lord,  and  there  can  be  no  doubt  th.at  the  book.s  read 
by  Him  (e.g.  Lk  4")  were  written  in  the  square 
alphabet,  in  which  the  smallness  of  the  letter  ytid 
justilied  the  metaphor  of  Mt  5".*  The  square 
characters  of  the  earliest  period  were  not  identical 
in  form  with  those  of  the  MSS  now  extant,  but 
they  were  their  direct  ancestors.  So  far  we  have 
very  little  light  a.s  to  the  appearance  of  the  MSS 
in  which  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  were  prestjrved  ; 
it  is  only  when  we  reach  the  period  of  the  Talmud 
(c.  300-.500)  that  we  find  those  principles  being  laid 
down  which,  stereotyped  by  the  Massoretes,  have 

fiven  us  the  MSS  now  extant  (l''ig.  2).     Minute 
irections  are  given  for  the  copying  of  the  Scrip- 
tures,  especially  of    those   volumes  of    the  Law 

•  An  Isolated  survival  of  the  old  alphal»et  occurs  In  the  case 
of  A(|iiila,  in  whose  Greek  OT  the  name  Jehovah  was  regularly 
written  in  these  characters.  Origen's  stateniont  to  this  effect 
has  been  conflrmed  by  the  fragments  of  Aouila  recently  dis- 
covered  at  Cairo,  and  nowat  Canibridge  (fturliitt.  /''ra^m*nfs  qf 
AqvUa,  18B7,  ct.  Taylor,  Omizah  FragmimU,  p.  20  f.). 


should  a  king  address  Mm  while  writing  that  name  he  most 
take  no  notice  of  him' (S.  Davidson.  Text  of  the  OT '',  p.  H»). 

Vowel-points  are  never  added  in  synagogue  rolls. 
Originally  absent  from  Hel)icw  writing  altogether, 
vowels  were  first  represented,  wlien  some  special 
need  required  their  indication,  by  the  semi-vowels 
1,  ',  n,  and  sometimes  n,  technically  known  as 
matrts  lectioni.i.  The  insertion  of  these  signs 
gives  what  is  known  as  the  scriptio  plena,  their 
omission  the  srriptio  drfrrtivn.  The  date  of  the 
introduction  of  tliis  device  is  uncertain,  but  it 
must  be  later  than  the  production  of  the  LXX. 
The  more  complete  and  satisfactory  .system  of 
vowel-points  was  introduced  about  the  7th  century. 
An  alternative  .system,  in  which  the  |M)iiits  are 
supraliniar  instead  of  infralinear,  is  found  in  the 
oldest  dated  MS  (the  St.  Petersburg  Codex  of  the 
Prophets,  A.D.  1)16),  and  in  some  others :  this  is  sup- 
posed to  have  been  practised  at  IJabylon  (but  not 
exclusively  even  there),  but  never  gained  general 
acceptance.  Vowel-points  are  habitually  inserted 
in  MSS  other  than  synagogue  rolls,  but  it  was  a 
rule  that  the  consonautal  text  should  be  written 


950 


WRITI^^G 


WRITING 


independently,  and  the  points  added  by  a  different 
scribe. — Acceiituation   was    probably    introduced 
into  Hebrew  writin"  at  about  the  same  date  as 
vowel-points  (5th-7th  cents.),  and  used  to  denote 
the  logical  interrelation  of  the  several  words  in  the 
sentence,  as  well  as  their  vocal  modulation  in  pub- 
lic reading. — Separation  of  words  is  effected  in  the 
Moabite  and  Siloam  inscriptions  by  the  insertion 
of  a  dot ;  but  the  frequent  mistakes  in  the  division 
of  words  in  the  LXX,  and  the  subsequent  intro- 
duction of  the  '  linal  letters,'  show  that  in  early 
MSS  Hebrew  writing,  like  Greek  and  Latin  to  a 
much  later   period,   was  undivided.     The  use  of 
the   five   '  final  letters,'  to  indicate  the  ends  of 
words,  belongs  to  a  date  intermediate  between  the 
version  of  the  LXX  and  the  Talmud,  a  period  in 
which  most  of  the  minuticB  in  the  practice  of  the 
scribes  probably  originated. — Divi.iions  of  the  text 
in  Hebrew  MSS  are  of  various  kinds.     The  larger 
divisions,  corresponding  roughly  to  our  chapters, 
are    the    '  open '    and    '  closed      sections.      Open 
sections  begin   a  new  line  in   the  MSS  ;  and  if 
the  previous  section  has  ended  at  the  end  of  a 
line,  a  whole  line  is  left  blank  before  the  new 
section   begins.     Closed  sections  follow  on  in  the 
same  line  as  the  end  of  the  previous  section,  a 
blank  space  only  being  left  between  ;  or,  if  the 
previous  section  ends  too  near  the  end  of  a  line  to 
admit  of  this,  the  next  line  is  indented.      Late 
MSS  sometimes  insert  the  letters  s  or  o  in  the  blank 
space,  to  indicate  an  open  or  a  closed  section  re- 
spectively.    In  the  Law  the  MSS  agree  generally 
in  their  distribution  of  open  and  closed  sections, 
but  in   the   Prophets  and   Hagiogiapha  there  is 
considerable  divergence,   indicating  difierence  of 
tradition   in  diflerent  Massoretic  schools.      This 
section-system  was  certainly  introduced  before  the 
time  of  Jerome,  and  probably  before  the  period  of 
the  Mishna. — Another  form  of  division  was   into 
sedarim,  or  lections  suited  to  a  three-years'  cycle 
of  the  reading  of  the  Law.     The  Pentateuch   is 
divided  into  167  sedarim,  while  of  the  other  books, 
which  were  similarly  divided,  the  Former  Projihets 
have  77,  the  Later  Prophets  107,  and  the  Hagio- 
grapha  81.     Side  by  side  with  this  was  a  one-year 
cycle  of  the  reading  of  the  Law,  which  was  in  use 
in  Habj'Ionia,  involving  a  di\-ision  of  the  Law  into 
5i  pCird.ihiij6th.     These  are  indicated  in  the  MSS, 
with   a   mnemonic  mark  to  show  the  number  of 
verses  in  each  parasha.     Verse-division  is  rarely 
found  in  synagogue  rolls ;  in  MSS  in  book  form 
having  accents  and  vowel-points  it   is  regularly 
practised.     The  earliest  method  of  indicating  the 
end  of  averse  is  by  placing  a  sUluk  (■')  beneath  the 
final  letter  ;  subsequently  the  double  point  or  colon 
(soph  paiiik)  was  introduced.     The   verses   were 
carefully  numbered  by  the  Massoretes,  as  a  pre- 
caution against  interpolation  ;  but  the  systems  of 
division  practised   by  the  Babylonian   and  Pales- 
tinian Jews  respectively  differed  considerably,  and 
the  one  now  in  use  differs   from   both   of  these, 
being  apparently  due  to  the  Massoretes. 

The  margins  of  Hebrew  MSS  play  an  important 
part  in  their  cliaracter,  since  they  generally  con- 
tain the  Massorah  and  certain  kinds  of  various 
readings.  The  Massorah,  or  body  of  traditional 
commentary  on  textual  matters,  is  of  two  kinds 
— the  Greater  and  the  Lesser  Massorah.  The 
Greater  Massorah  generally  occupies  the  upper 
and  lower  margin  of  the  page,  whde  the  Lesser  is 
placed  in  the  outer  side  margin.  Between  the 
columns  come  the  various  readings  known  as  the 
fCM  and  ^emrin  (see  Text  of  OT).  The  places  of 
the  Lesser  Massorah  and  the  various  readings  are, 
however,  sometimes  interchanged.  Often,  too, 
the  Hebrew  text  is  accompanied  by  an  Aramaic 
paraphrase,  either  in  parallel  columns  or  between 
the  unes. — On  the  paleography  of  Hebrew  MSS 


it  is  not  necessary  to  dwell.  Changes  in  tha 
manner  of  writing  between  the  9th  cent,  (the  date 
of  our  earliest  MS)  and  the  invention  of  printing 
were  slight,  and  the  best  authorities  differ  con- 
siderably in .  their  attribution  of  dates  on  tha 
handwriting  alone.  Moreover,  in  view  of  tha 
stereotyped  character  of  the  text  preserved  in  all 
extant  MSS,  not  so  much  depends  on  the  precise 
assignment  of  dates  as  in  the  case  of  Greek  MSS. 

LiTERATrRE. — Ginsburgr,  fntrod.  to  th*  Ma^scrreti^o-CriHeeX 
Etiitioii  of  the  Uebrew  Bible,  1S!)7  ;  S.  Davidson.  Text  o/  tha 
0T-,  lSa9;  Buhl,  Canon  and  Text  of  the  0T-,  Eng.  tr.  1892; 
Wickes,  Accentuatwn  of  the  so-called  Prone  Jlooka,  lth7;  Driver, 
Notes  on  the  Ueb.  Text  of  the  Books  of  Samuel,  ISilO,  pp.  ix- 
XXXV,  see  also  p.  957  ;  Weir,  Short  Hist,  of  the  Ueb.  Text,  1899. 

iv.  Greek  Writing  on  Papyrus. — We  are  far 
better  situated  with  regard  to  knowledge  of  the 
manner  in  which  the  Greek  Bible  was  written  than 
is  the  case  with  the  Hebrew  Bible ;  for,  whereas  the 
earliest  extant  Hebrew  MS  is  separated  by  more 
than  a  thousand  years  from  the  date  of  composition 
of  the  latest  Hebrew  book  of  the  OT,  we  have 
(thanks  to  the  discoveries  made  in  Egypt  within 
the  last  twelve  years)  Greek  MSS  as  early  as  the 
date  at  which  Greek  first  began  to  be  used  as  a 
vehicle  for  the  Scriptures.  From  the  first  half  of 
the  3rd  cent.  B.C.  onwards  we  have  a  continuous 
stream  of  Greek  MSS  (not  indeed  biblical,  liut 
showing  how  the  biblical  MSS  must  have  been 
written),  at  first  exclusively  on  papyrus,  but  from 
the  4th  cent,  after  Christ  also  on  vellum. 

Greek  writing  upon  papyrus  falls  into  two  cate- 
gories, literary  and  doeumentary,  the  former  being 
used  primarily  for  works  of  literature,  but  at  times 
also  for  documents  of  special  importance,  such  as 
petitions  to  the  great  magistrates ;  while  the  latter, 
primarily  used  for  all  sorts  of  non-literary  docu- 
ments (receipts,  contracts,  accounts,  letters,  etc.), 
was  also  occasionally  employed  for  private  copies 
of  literary  works.  Both  classes  have  therefore  to 
be  taken  into  consideration  with  regard  to  the 
transmission  of  the  sacred  text.  So  far  as  the 
LXX  is  concerned,  indeed,  the  non-literary  hand 
is  not  of  much  importance,  since  there  is  no  reason 
to  suppose  that  the  version  circulated  to  any  great 
extent  among  other  than  literary  classes.  Copies 
were,  no  doubt,  occasionally  made  in  the  common 
hand  for  poor  people  or  for  private  use ;  but  it  is 
not  likely  that  this  happened  to  such  an  extent  as 
materially  to  atlect  the  textual  tradition.  With 
regard  to  the  NT  the  case  is  different,  as  will  he 
shown  below. 

The  literary  hand  of  the  Srd  cent.  B.C.,  at  the  time  of  the  pro- 
duntion  of  the  LXX,  is  known  from  the  paji.vri  extracled  by 
Prof.  Petrie  from  the  cartonna^'e  of  some  mummy  cases  found 
by  him  at  Gurob  in  18S9,  of  which  the  best,  from  a  palsogrophio 
point  of  view,  are  the  fraffinenta  of  the  Phoedo  of  Plato  and  the 
Avtiope  of  Euripides.  These  are  written  in  a  very  small  uncial 
hand,  neat  and  firm,  in  columns  about  6  in.  high  and  2J  in,  wide. 
According  to  a  rough  calculation,  two  rolls  of  about  :i5  ft.  each 
would  be  required  to  contain  the  Book  of  Genesis  in  the  style  of 
writing  employed  in  the  Phoedo  SIS  ;  and,  even  with  a  taller 
column  and  greater  economy  of  space  between  the  lines,  it  !• 
certain  that  such  a  book  could  not  have  been  contained  in 
a  single  roll  of  normal  length.  The  uncial  hand  on  papynis 
admits  of  occasional  ligatures  between  the  letters,  so  that  the 
distinction  between  uncial  and  cursive  hands  is  less  sharply 
marked  on  papyrjis  than  on  vellum.  Besides  the  sii'all  literary 
hand  Just  mentioned,  the  early  Ptolemaic  pap^vri  show  a  largnl 
and  rougher  uncial  hand,  hkewise  used  tor  literary  purposiB, 
but  probably  for  cheaper  and  less  carefully  executed  copi-s. 
The  non-literary  hands  of  the  period  are  various,  but  for  the 
most  part  are  very  cursive,  with  broad  letters  freely  spaced  out 
and  large  ligatures. 

In  the  2nd  cent.  B.C.  two  forms  of  literary  hand  are  again 
found  in  existence  (and  it  must  be  remembered  that  the  extant 
evidence  is  still  scanty,  so  that  no  description  is  likely  to  be 
exhaustive)— one  (exemplified  by  the  papyrus  of  H.vperides  in 
Atherwijenem  at  the  Louvre)  being  a  square,  flmi  hand,  larger 
than  that  of  the  Petrie  Phcedo,  while  the  other  (conUined  in  « 
rhetorical  papyrus,  also  at  the  Louvre)  is  smaller,  weaker,  and 
more  sloping.  The  non-literary  hand  is  generally  less  straggling 
than  in  the  previous  century,  the  larger  fonns  of  it  being  often 
very  handsome,  and  the  smaller  neat  and  flowing.  The  1st  cent. 
B.C.  is  a  period  of  transition,  the  Roman  conquest  of  Ggjlit 


WIUTi:XG 


WRITING 


951 


leading  pnuiuolly  to  a  marked  change  of  hand.  Of  literary 
iMipyh,  few  can  be  quite  certainly  attributed  to  this  century, 
Iiut  there  are  strong  grounds  for  placing'  tite  llerculaiieuni  rofld 
here,  with  a  few  othera  from  Eg^•pt.  Tlie  lleruulaiieum  papyri 
ahow  a  number  of  rather  small,  business-like  hands,  without 
much  ornament,  written  iu  narrow  columns  on  papyrus  of 
moderate  hei;^ht,  and  from  these  a  good  idea  may  l)e  formed 
of  the  appearance  of  a  MS  of  the  LX\  lu  the  generation  preced- 
ing the  birth  of  our  Lord. 

For  the  1st  cent,  of  the  Christian  era,  and 
especially  for  the  second  half  of  it,  durinj;  wliidi 
the  books  of  the  NT  were  written,  we  have  f.airly 
good  evidence  a.s  to  the  current  literary  hand,  and 
ample  for  the  non  •  literary  hand.  The  literary 
hand  is  rather  larger  than  was  usual  in  the  I'tole- 
luaic  period,  with  well-rounded  curves  and  not 
infrequent  ligatures ;  a  graceful  style  of  writing, 
and,  at  its  best  (as  in  a  papyrus  of  the  0</i/sscy  in 
the  British  Museum),  very  handsome.  It  is  not 
likely,  however,  that  the  authors  and  early  copyists 
of  the  books  of  the  NT  often  had  writing  of  this 
excellence  at  their  disposal.  A  better  example  of 
the  style  in  which  the  autographs  of  the  NT  may 


forthcoming.  Under  these  circumstances,  the  NT 
Scriptures  must  have  circulated  much  in  privately 
written  copies.  A  good  example  of  such  a  copy 
of  a  literary  work  in  a  non  -  literary  hand  is 
provided  by  the  papyrus  of  Aristotle's  ' ABrjuaiwv 
lloXireia,  written  at  the  end  of  the  1st  cent,  on 
the  back  of  used  papyrus,  in  four  diflerent  hands, 
of  which  three  are  cursive  and  one  a  rou"h  uncial. 
The  cursive  hands  use  abbre\  iations  treely  for 
common  words  and  terminations  {e.g.  j  =  iart,  y' 
=  y<ip,  K'  =  KaL,  K'^Kard,  t  =Ti]v,  t'  =  7-^s,  t' =  tCiv), 
and  the  possibility  must  be  reckoned  with  that 
similarly  wTitten  JISS  enter,  to  some  extent,  into 
the  textual  history  of  the  NT.  The  common  hands 
of  the  Koman  period  are  small  and  very  cursive, 
and  errors  in  transcription  would  consecjuently  be 
easy  ;  to  say  nothing  of  the  probable  want  of  liabita 
of  literary  exactiiess  among  many  of  the  copyists. 
No  doubt,  many  well-written  copies  were  also  jjro- 
duccd,  especially  in  tlie  great  towns  where  Christian 
communities  were  strong  ;  ami  these  would  have  a 
good  chance  of  preserving  a  pure  tradition,  since 


:VTVtC2aTXKCTn  C 


r  ^  f  ON  rtZOYCl  N  >^'; 

r  I         1 i — »_- — -■     '    --  ••  ' 


FTO.   3.— ORERK   PAPTRrS  ROLL,    T.  A  '  r. 

(Brit.  Mufl.  Pap.  ILI,  Hyperides,  jrro  Euxenippo) 


have  been  written  is  provided  by  a  MS  of  Hyperides 
in  the  HritiMh  .Museum,  written  in  the  latter  part 
of  the  1st  cent,  in  a  hand  akin  to  the  best  con- 
tem|>orary  non-literary  MSS  (Fig.  3).  Even,  how- 
ever, when  the  author's  autograph  or  the  first 
transcripts  were  produced  by  competent  scribes, 
the  conditions  of  circulation  among  the  Christian 
community  make  it  practically  certain  that  the 
Scriptures  must  often  have  been  copied  by  private 
persons,  unHkillcd  in  the  art  of  writing,  and  think- 
ing, not  of  producing  a  volume  fit  for  the  book 
market,  but  of  reading  for  themselves,  or  trans- 
mitting to  their  friends,  the  all-important  narrative 
of  the  Ma^iter's  life.  Throughout  the  first  three 
centuries  of  the  Christian  era  the  books  of  the 
NT  must  have  circulateil  mainly  in  channels  out- 
side the  ordinary  book  trade.  Public  libraries  did 
Dot  require  them;  churches  must  often  have  lost 
their  copies  in  times  of  |)ersecution  ;  proffssional 
scribes,  unless  they  happened  to  bo  Christians, 
would  not  be  em])loyed  to  transcribe  them  ;  and  in 
nountry   places  skilled  calligraphy  would  not   be 


the  literary  hand  of  the  1st  and  2nd  cents,  is  clear 
and  good,  increasing  in  size,  and  perhaps  in  showi- 
ness,  as  time  goes  on.  The  most  calligrnphically 
elal)orate  l)ariyri  extant  (two  copies  of  the  Hind,  bk. 
ii.,  at  Oxford  and  in  the  British  Museum)  probably 
belong  to  the  2nd  centurj'. 

In  the  3rd  cent,  a  new  element  enters  into  con- 
sideration, namely  the  adopti<m  of  the  codex  form, 
the  roll  form  continuing  alongside  of  it  for  a  period 
which  cannot  be  exactly  defined.  At  first  the 
codex  form  was  inferior,  as  a  style  of  book  pro- 
duction, to  the  roll  form,  being  an  adaptation  to 
literary  purposes  of  a  form  which  had  hitherto 
been  adopted  mainly  for  memoranda  and  rough 
drafts.  There  are  signs,  however,  that  it  was 
early  taken  into  use  among  the  Christians  for  their 
private  copies  of  the  Scriptures.  The  evidence  at 
present  available  is  too  scanty  to  justify  dogmatism, 
but  it  certainly  is  the  case  tliat  several  of  the 
earliest  examples  of  the  codex  form  contain  Chris- 
tian writings,  and  that  the  majority  of  papyri  of 
the  3rd  cent,  containing  Christian  writings  axe  in 


952 


WEITING 


WRITING 


the  codex  form.  Of  the  NT,  two  fraj,'iiients  are 
extant  which  are  assigned  to  the  3rd  cent.,  and 
three  of  tlie  4th  ;  all  these  are  in  codex  form.  Of 
the  OT  there  are  three  fragments  of  the  3rd  cent., 
of  which  one  is  certainly  from  a  codex,  and  one  is 
uncertain.  In  addition,  the  Oxyrhynchus  frag^ment 
containing  alleged  sayings  of  our  Lord  is  a  leaf  from 
a  codex  of  the  3rd  century.  It  appears,  therefore, 
that  the  codex  form  was  generally  used  among 
Christians  at  an  earlier  date  than  among  people  in 
general;  for  of  21  non  -  Christian  papyri  assigned 
to  the  3rd  cent,  only  two  are  written  in  this  form. 
These  early  Christian  codices  are  not  showy 
specimens  of  the  calligrapher's  art;  on  the  con- 
trary, they  are  somewhat  roughly  written,  unoriia- 
mental  productions,  generally  of  small  size,  suitable, 
it  may  be  thought,  for  easy  conveyance  and  easy 
concealment.  This  fits  in  with  what  has  been  said 
above  as  to  the  character  of  the  MSS  in  which  the 
books  of  the  NT  circulated  before  the  recogni- 
tion of  Christianity  by  the  Stale.  I'rof.  Hort  has 
observed  (liitrud.   to  Ai',  §  352)  that  the  Codex 


middle  of  the  line,  that  of  a  comma  ;  and  at  the  foot  of  the  line, 
thai  of  a  semicolon.  In  a  few  extant  papyri  these  distinction! 
are  obser\'ed ;  but  oftener  they  are  Dej,'lected,  and  the  dot  ia 
placed  above  the  line  to  denote  all  values. — Accentxiation  ia  not 
unknown,  as  it  is  in  the  eiirliest  vellum  uncials,  but  is  rarely  and 
sporadically  applied-  No  papyrus  MS  has  accents  fully  and 
systematically  supplied,  biit  some  of  the  best-written  of  them 
(notably  the  Bacchylides  SIS)  have  them  fairly  plentifully.  Leae 
well-written  MSS  liave  fewer  of  them,  and  MSS  in  non-literary 
hands  practically  do  not  have  them  at  all. — Si'paratwn  of  word8 
is  not  found,  except  in  a  few  cases  where  ambiguity  might 
result :  here  a  single  point  is  sometimes  used  to  indicate  th« 
correct  division.  This  is  again  especially  the  case  in  carefully 
written  MSS,  which  are  always  more  fully  suppUed  with  aids  to 
comprehension  than  their  commoner  kindrecf.  It  is  not  at  tU 
likely  that  any  of  the  early  copies  of  the  books  of  the  NT  were 
supplied  with  accents  or  punctuation,  or  harl  an,v  indication  of 
the  division  of  words. — The  use  of  abhreviatutm  in  non-literary 
hands  has  been  mentioned  above.  In  addition  to  the  symbola 
there  described,  a  common  method  of  abbreviation  is  to  drop 
the  tei-uiination  of  a  word,  writing  the  last  letter  which  la 
retained  above  the  Une :  e.g.  etv"^  or  awT*  for  auric  or  auTAv, 
yoo."  for  yptifjtuec  or  ypxc^fxaTtui,  Toiitff^  for  ^onliriiatt  and  80  On. 
Abbreviation  by  the  omission  of  letters  from  the  middle  of  a 
word  is  not  practised,  except  in  the  common  theological  com> 

pendia  (%.',  (/;,  ;tf .  trfi^  X.T.X.),  which  are  found  from  the  3rd  cenL 
onwards. 


•^]•^•-KI  X>)'|C>*^'CC-Nil    KKK 

UJNl :  k;  xiC*)'Nif-r|*i--IKii 
■"  fXKi  xrrtn  n'cii"ii>i  loV 
"■  »  I  Ik:  U-  KH-lirt-  MircJUKJ 
tJt'KK'rXJXK  KCI  JKlC'I'fl 
TtOK-KI  IICCXJJlsl  I  IKK 
rXt^  Kr  KIIXKJ  Xtl  >M 
k'XIC- f   IHOI  IXIOCKXIII 
It-XI  INJI  KKH-  IXCt^M- 
CDfH  M->tKI  K  I OtJOt "l-^v 
t- Vt»|'t  )^HX^'"l'H>Kl>f  or 
*•  V  I  ■  I H  >j  •   I  C)  I  •  €  :  r  )•  X  M  M  1  • 
jj:    Kll>Mt:i|  JKIK  KIO^'TO',' 
•'?-  I"  ■^'«.)C  »*)'!•:  K'Xlf-CI'HO 
IIKIOfKVI   KM*    tt>M'l-T' 

1  IC)|'l"-^'l"    t  OlUX-^*  ■^^»-' 
I-  I  f'l  t-  Kt  Jl-|  IMC'I'XfM  I 
X  C':K'XH>'>)'K:f-rc  ■-  M<?  r  c  I 


«  I D'^'t-sc  ri  I  Kii?  XJ"^;^fK' 
KXI  l-v|>->'li>K!0  It-K*.'  I 
Xt-?  lt>')"ro  IK-  VlfvX'l  * 
K  r  >,'  K  I  i  t"X  M  I- 1  f  I  t  >  «."1  ••• 
XXIOM  ltlll«.M*.K'HXx 
K  XI  Kl  I  n  IIC-XI  I  ICI  >|  V 
XCMOMTi-Ct-YI-HNlrw 

0  1 1    B  X C  I  K  t- 1  (" U  < •  I-.'  I*  -I' ' 
iKl  t- Kl  t>  U- M   r  Cl  >  0 1  1  M  ' 
AXl  tl>   rtlJlNlMXKI  IX> 

K'  XI « ■  n  rt  h4 1  i"  K-  VK I  c  x.'  r« 

X  H  »<.)•<)'«."  *M  «.- 1 "  X  K  tl  ^t 

<•>  iK'ioMx  ro'^'ci  I J I 

XXU)*)'K'KIK-  VrXC'f!" 

r  X  r t- c -T  fx v  I ■<->^' '^ '^  xi - 
rt>-)'*j>")'xxft :c-3K3t'i  ix.> 

1  r  M  K-  K  i  C-  K-  X  r  X..V.S  4  8  .^ 

K-QKi  I  c'c-oam:oj'i  ti> 


FIB.  4. — GREEK   CTJCIAIj  COPET,   STH  CR.NT. 

(Codex  Sarravianus,  Leyden  University  Library,  reduced.) 


Ephraemi  in  the  Apocalypse  must  have  been  copied 
from  a  M.S  composed  of  small  leaves;  and  it  is 
possible  that  it  was  such  a  one  as  those  which  we 
have  been  describing, — a  private  copy,  without 
beauty  of  workmanship,  and  perhaps  witliout  much 
attention  to  precise  accuracy  of  transcription. 
From  this  predilection  for  the  codex  form  even  on 
papyrus,  the  Christian  Church  was  well  prepared 
to  make  use  of  it  when  vellum  began  to  come  to 
the  front  as  the  material  for  book  production. 

Before  considerinij,  however,  the  progress  of  paleography 
upon  vellum,  it  will  be  as  well  to  say  something  as  to  the 
minutiip  of  Greek  writing  upon  papyrus.  In  ordinary  literary 
papyri,  the  writing  is  arranged  in  narrow  columns,  often  leaning 
to  the  right,  in  \mcial  characters  of  medium  size  (smaller  than 
is  nmial  upon  vellum),  admitting  of  ligatures  between  them  to  a 
limited  extent.  Enlarged  initials  are  not  used.  Pauses  in  the 
sense  are  indicated  (if  at  all)  by  small  blank  spaces  in  the  text, 
often  accompanied  by  a  paragraphm^  or  short  horizontal  stroke 
below  the  first  letters  of  the  line  in  which  ft  sentence  ends. — 
Punctuation  in  the  ordinary-  sense  is  veri'  rarely  found  in  prose 
MSS,  but  it  occurs  sponviically  in  a  few  MSS.  In  one  or  two 
very  early  MSS  a  double  dot,  like  a  colon,  is  used  to  separate 
sentences;  but  usually  only  a  single  dot  is  employed.  According 
to  the  strict  system,  developed  by  the  Alexandrian  grammarians, 
a  dot  placed  above  the  line  has  the  value  of  a  full  stop  ;  in  the 


LiTERATFRE. — Thompson,  Kenyon,  Birt,  Qardthausen,  opp, 
eitt. ;  Ulass,  art.  *  Palaographie,'  in  Miiller's  Handbuch  d«r 
ktasMltchen  Alterthumswis&enschaft  (1S92) ;  Grenfell  and  Hunt, 
Oxyrhrjnchus  Papyri,  pts.  i.  ii.  (1899-1900). 

V.  Greek  Uncial  Writino  on  Vellum. — The 
.supersession  of  papyrus  by  vellum  has  been  de- 
scribed in  §  ii.  The  supersession,  however,  was 
not  immediate  and  absolute  ;  for  it  is  clear  that 
copies  of  the  Scriptures  continued  occa.sionally  to 
be  inscribed  on  papyrus  as  long  as  the  material 
itself  was  accessible.  Frajjments  of  such  MSS  are 
in  existence  (such  as  a  P.s.alter  in  the  British 
Museum,  and  the  Books  of  Zechariah  and  Malachi 
in  a  MS  at  Heidelberg)  which  are  attributable  to 
the  7tli  cent.  ;  and  much  later  than  this  no  Greek 
MS  on  papjTus  can  be,  on  account  of  the  Arab  con- 
quest, which  closed  Egypt  to  the  Christian  world. 
But  from  the  4th  cent,  onwards  papyrus  takes  a 
secondary  place.  From  that  century  we  have  the 
Vatican  and  Sinaitic  Codices,  and  we  know  by 
tradition  of  the  50  volumes  prepared  for  the 
churches  of  Constantinople  ;  and  it  is  not  likely 
that  any  papyrus  MS,  extant  or  hereafter  to  be 


WRITING 


WEITING 


953 


discovered,  can  be  put  into  successful  comparison 
with  these.  I'rom  this  time  forward,  iimreover, 
there  was  nothiuj;  to  prevent  the  free  multiplica- 
tion of  copies  of  the  Scriptures,  with  all  the 
resources  of  trained  penniansliip.  The  textual 
tradition  of  the  NT  henceforth  runs,  not  through 
private  copies,  but  through  the  great  churclies  and 
libraries  ;  and  if  Constantinople  and  Ciesarea  used 
vellum,  there  is  no  reason  to  doubt  that  their  ex- 
ample was  followed  in  Kome  and  Antioch  and  even 
Alexandria  ;  indeed  there  is  good  reason  for  believ- 
ing, on  palajographical  grounds,  that  the  Vatican 
and  Sinaitic  Codices,  and  still  more  the  Codex 
Alexandrinus,  were  produced  in  Egj-pt.  It  is 
therefore  to  vellum  MSS  that  we  nmst  look  for 
the  custodians  of  the  sacred  text  from  about  the 
date  of  the  Council  of  Nicaea. 

The  palsography  of  vellum  MSS  has  been  studied  much  longer 
than  that  of  papyri,  and  rests  on  a  far  wider  consensus  of  com- 
petent opinion.  It  may  therefore  be  treated  the  more  briefly  here. 
The  earliest  vellum  MSS  show  a  resemblance  to  the  papyri,  not 
only  in  the  use  of  narrow  columns  (see  §  ii.),  hut  in  the  liandwrit- 
in^  themselves.   It  appears  that,  when  vellum  was  taken  into  use 


begins  in  the  middle  of  a  line,  the  first  letter  of  the  first  com- 
plete line)  not  only  iirujicts  into  the  margin,  but  is  considerably 
enlarged.  In  later  .MSS  still  these  enlarged  initials  become  the 
subject  of  ornamentation,  until  we  reach  the  magniflcent  illu- 
minated initials  of  the  -Middle  .\yes.  In  the  Cth  cent,  the  style 
of  writing  grows  generally  heavier,  and  there  is  more  distinc- 
tion between  the  thick  and  thin  strokes  of  a  letter.  In  many 
MSS,  too,  the  characters  are  larger,  espcciallv  in  the  purple 
MSS,  which  ore  a  notable  feature  of  this  period.  In  Egyptian 
.MSS  of  this  period  (^,17.  the  Codex  Slarchalianus  of  the 
Prophets)  a  somewhat  stiff  and  angular  style  is  wiopted,  which 
is  akin  to  the  hand  found  in  Coptic  .MSS.  After  the  Cth  cent, 
the  best  age  of  uncial  writing  is  past.  In  the  "th  cent,  the 
writing  began  to  assume  a  sloping  form,  —  always  a  sign  of 
degeneracy,— and  to  compensate  for  its  loss  of  natural  strength 
and  tirinness  by  excrescences  in  the  shape  of  exaggerated  knobe 
and  bars  at  the  extremities  of  the  letters.  Added  to  this  a 
tendency  to  lateral  compression  is  found,  which  culminates  in 
the  soK^led  'Slavonic'  uncials  which  dominate  the  Sth  and  9th 
centuries.  In  these,  whether  upright  or  sloping,  the  letters  are 
heavy  and  angular,  and  tall  in  proportion  to  their  width.  A 
letter  like  O,  instead  of  being  a  circle,  is  compressed  into  an  oval, 
or  even  a  diamond  shape  ;  while  T,  K,  r,  and  other  letters  have 
large  bars  at  the  ends  of  their  projecting  limbs.  A  reaction 
occurs  in  the  10th  cent.,  when  a  return  to  the  S(|uare  and  well- 
rounded  characters  of  the  4th  to  6th  cents,  is  seen  ;  but  by  this 
time  the  da)'  for  uncial  writing  was  past,  and  ita  place  waa  to  be 
taken  by  a  smaller  and  less  cumbrous  style. 


KH 


=«nj 


e  n  E  ptij  T  H  c  ^-MT  cjl5  M._ 


—  *^. 


■iT' 


\piCMUJN-. 


O I  cl-^  oL^  (far  TD UTXi-nrou  GAu^u  o  <j .  oLi 

•-xxr<'&r^^~ti-f<  C(cr  oltlfv-uj  -rtnjj-rTT6-p  » yy^ 

fXU  mJ'Tra-yrajc-T-oLP--lin  lLj-oc&rcn-n\c' 
I  'C  cLi  -r  I  Tl_p  S-UjcLlo  ujj  OUJ-tTl  M .  \*  u  ou 
M-O  JJ  o  ^^  aj4a3  y-T-cU -TO  u  Lp  dUcctr&tlLo  o 
-xrou  I  H-«J-H o u cuj-To  V '  X^dUo'crot  !a 
"T  "^^-f^  °  <6xo -fy-M  crcL>-i  • 


6poax»^^i;XPMrprt.y.y.ou-i-cC'ctca-t 


KH 


no.  6.— ORKEK  MnroSCtTLE  COPRX,  lOm  < 
(Brit.  MuB.  Add.  MS  11300). 


for  the  best  copies  of  literary  works,  the  scribes, abandoned  the 
■lopiny  and  somewhat  ineleg-ant  writing  which  is  characteristic 
of  the  papyri  of  the  3r<i  cent.,  and  cast  back  to  the  better 
moflels  of  an  earlier  period.  The  uncial*  characters  of  the 
Vatican  and  Sinaitic  Cwlico«  appear  to  be  modelled  on  the  best 
papynis  MSS  of  the  Ist  and  2nd  cents.,  a  square,  upri^'ht  uncial 
of  medium  size,  written  with  m\]ch  simplicity  of  style.  Liga- 
tures betwet-n  letters  are  entirely  e8<:he\ved,  and  no  cun-ivo 
element  apjK-ars  in  the  writinp  at  all.  The  Cod.  Vatinanns  ha.s 
no  punctuation  or  accents  by  the  first  hand,  no  st-jtaration  of 
worris,  no  enlarged  initials,  no  projoftion  of  lett*;r3  into  the 
margin  to  denote  a  new  paragraph.  The  same  is  the  ca«e  with 
thr-  Cod.  Sarravinnus  (Fig.  4)  of  the  Pent.,  probably  of  the  early 
Sth  century.  The  Co<!.  Sinoiticus  differs  only  in  the  lost  detail, 
the  first  letter  of  a  new  paragmi>h  projecting  vcr>'  slightly  into 
the  margin,  hut  witliout  enlargement.  In  the  Cod.  Alexandrinus, 
aHsitjiietl  to  the  first  half  of  the  fith  cent.,  the  hand  is  larger  and 
henner,  the  number  of  columns  on  a  page  is  reduced  to  two, 
and  the  first  letter  of  a  new  paragraph  (or,  if  the  paragraph 

•  The  terra  la  derived  from  an  expression  of  Jerome's  (prtnf. 
ttd  Ji'b.\  'unciallbus  (*  inch -long"),  ut  vulgo  aiunt,  litleris,' 
and  is  applied  to  writing  in  capital  letters,  each  formed  fcpnr- 
atfly,  OS  distinct  from  the  smaller  minuscule  style,  introduced 
in  the  9th  cent.,  which  lent  itself  easily  to  cursive  writing.  In 
Tcllum  MSS  the  distinction  between  uncial  and  mituiscule  is 
clearly  marked ;  but  on  pap>TU»  It  Is  leas  evident,  and  uncial 
writinff  on  papyrus,  as  stated  abore,  admitted  not  infrequently 
a  cursive  elemeoL 


LrrKRATruK.  —  Thompson,  typ.   cit.  ;   Oardthausen,  op.   eCt. ; 

Pttlatoqraphiral  Society,  facsimiles  of  MSS;  Oniont,  Facgimil^s 
den  pbiJi  anciens  manuacriis  ;irri-ii  .  .  .  de  la  Bibl.  Nat.  1802; 
Kenyon,  FacsiviUes  of  liiblical  MSS  in  the  Brit.  Mus.  1900. 

vi.  Greek  Minuscule  Writing. — The  great 

defect  of  uncial  writing  n*^  a  vehicle  of  literature 
wan  its  cunihrousness.  Written  witliout  ligatures, 
in  large,  hcavily-fornicti  letters,  it  occupied  more 
time  and  more  space  than  its  predecessor  on 
papyrus,  and  could  not  be  adapted  to  the  produc- 
tion of  cheap  or  handy  volumes.  Up  to  the  7th 
cent,  tliis  need  was  su]iplied,  as  has  been  shown 
above,  by  co])ics  upon  pa])yrus:  and  the  failure  of 
the  snpjily  of  this  nuiterial  drove  iha  scribes  ulti- 
mately to  the  production  of  a  sulistitute.  Further, 
as  uncial  writmg  degenerated,  it  lost  its  sole  re- 
commendation^the  beauty  of  the  vohimes  written 
in  that  style  ;  and  the  way  was  open  to  a  successor. 
Both  these  wants  were  supplied  by  an  adaptation 
of  the  cursive  style  of  common  writing  to  the 
purposes  of  literature.  It  is  not  to  l)e  supposed 
that  uncials  were  ever  the  sole  manner  of  writing 
in  existence.     From  the  earliest   point  at  which 


954 


WRITING 


WRITING 


we  nave  extant  remains  of  Greek  writing  (3rd 
cent.  B.C.),  cursive  writing  is  found  in  existenoe 
side  by  side  with  uncial ;  and  coniuion-sense  tells 
us  that  this  tuust  always  have  been  the  case,  such 
writing  being  reqviired  for  ordinary  use,  quite  apart 
from  the  needs  of  book  production.  We  now  have 
plentiful  e.\aniples  of  Greek  cursive  writing  from 
the  3rd  cent.  B.C.  to  the  7th  cent,  after  Christ,  with 
a  few  specimens  from  the  8th  cent.  ;  and  it  is  only 
through  tlie  accident  of  the  Arab  conquest  of 
Egypt  that  we  are  unable  to  trace  its  develop- 
ment on  into  the  9th  cent.  Tlie  extant  evidence, 
however,  is  enough  to  show  that  the  minuscule 
hand  wliicli  was  taken  into  use  for  literary  pur- 
I)oses  in  the  9th  cent,  is  the  direct  descendant  of 
that  which  is  found  in  the  Byzantine  pap3'ri  of  the 
6th  and  7th  centuries.  The  forms  of  nearly  all 
the  letters  are  the  same  ;  only  the  exuberances  of 
the  Byzantine  style  are  repressed,  the  size  of  the 
characters  (which  is  often  considerable)  reduced, 
and  the  whole  made  far  more  calligi'aphic.  Tlie 
Greek  minuscule  MSS  of  the  9th  and  lOtli  cents, 
are,  in  fact,  as  beautiful  examples  of  wTiting  as 
exist  anywhere  ;  and  at  the  same  time  the  economy 
in  space  and  labour,  as  compared  with  the  coarse 
Slavonic  iincials  which  preceded  them,  is  very  con- 
sider.able(Fig.  5).  The  effectof  the  reformation  upon 
the  textiial  tradition  of  the  Greek  Bible  was  very 
great.  The  multiplication  of  copies  \\as  rendered 
infinitely  easier,  the  possession  of  them  was  platted 
within  the  reach  of  a  much  wider  circle,  and 
the  consultation  of  the  Scriptures  was  greatly 
facilitated.  The  extant  uncial  MSS  of  the  NT 
number  less  than  200,  the  extant  minuscules  are 
nearlj'  3000 ;  and  tliough  much  must  be  allowed 
for  tlie  greater  antiquity  of  the  former  style  (and 
consequently  greater  certainty  of  the  destniction 
of  MSS),  very  much  of  the  disparity  must  be  due 
to  tlie  increased  ease  with  which  the  minuscule  could 
be  produced. 

Into  the  details  of  Greek  minuscule  writing 
from  the  9th  cent,  to  the  15th  it  is  not  necessary 
to  enter  here.  When  all  are  so  far  removed  from 
the  original  autograjihs,  little  turns  on  the  precise 
date  of  a  minuscule  MS  of  the  Bible.  It  is  the 
character  of  the  text  contained  in  them,  and  the 
evidence  thence  derivable  as  to  the  archetypes 
from  which  they  are  descended,  that  make  them 
valuable  or  the  reverse.  Moreover,  it  is  not  possible 
to  describe  the  successive  styles  of  minuscule 
writing,  with  the  slight  variations  by  which  the 
typical  hand  of  one  century  can  (more  or  less  pre- 
cariously) be  distinguished  from  that  of  another, 
without  a  copious  use  of  facsimiles.  For  these  the 
reader  may  be  referred  to  the  publications  of  the 
Palajograjiliical  Society  or  the  series  of  facsimiles 
of  dated  IVISS  in  the  Bibliothfeque  Nationale  issued 
by  M.  Omont.  These  illustrate  at  once  the  pre- 
dominant h.'inds  of  the  successive  centuries,  and 
the  uncertainty  which  must  always  attend  the 
precise  fixing  of  undated  MSS,  owing  to  the 
sporadic  reajipcarances  of  the  various  liands  at 
considerable  intervals  of  time. 

The  earliest  extant  dated  minuscule  MS  is  dated  in  a.d,  835 
(the  Uspcnsky  Gospels) ;  and  in  the  course  of  this  century, 
ttiough  the  uncial  style  was  by  no  means  yet  extinct,  the 
miniiKciile  hand  wsis  perfected  into  a  style  of  great  beauty.  It 
is  a  firm,  uiiri(,'lit  hand,  rather  square  in  character,  ami  some- 
times leanintr  Hlii;htly  backward-^.  The  letters  are  fr'-'quently 
linked  totrether,  but  only  in  small  groups.  Tlie  breathings  are 
angular  (,-  h  t  j),  the  accents  small  and  inconspicuous.  The 
characters  are  pure  minuscule,  without  intermixture  of  uncial 
forms.  The  writing  stands  upon  the  lines  ruled  in  the  vellum. 
Towards  the  end  of  the  10th  cent,  a  change  is  nia^ie  in  this 
respect,  and  the  writing  frequently  depends  from  the  ruled 
lines.  Uncial  forms  of  certain  letters  (such  as  ,j,  *,  *)  creep  in 
again  among  the  minuscules.  A  looser  style  of  writing  is 
adopted,  the  letters  being  less  firm  and  square,  and  more  freely 
spaced  out.  This  is  especially  characteristic  of  a  number  of 
MSS  of  classical  authors  written  about  the  Uth  cent.,  and  the 
same  tt.i  lencies  continue  progressively  in  the  succeeding  cen- 
turies,   lu  the  11th  cent.,  too,  the  rounded  breathing  makes 


its  appearance,  and  in  the  12th  it  is  definitely  established  as  tlM 
usual  form.  In  the  12th  cent,  the  minuscule  hand  is  often  largt 
and  somewhat  handsome,  though  without  the  compactness  ol 
the  earlier  style ;  but  from  this  point  it  degenerates  more  de- 
cisively. The  foiTus  of  the  letters  become  more  irregular, 
accents  are  larger  and  more  conspicuous,  the  practice  of  con- 
traction is  introduced,  which  in  later  MSS  increases  to  such  on 
extent  as  to  render  them  unintelligible  except  after  a  special 
.study  of  the  various  marks  of  abbreviation.  Accents  also  are 
fretiuently  formed  in  one  stroke  with  the  letters,  and  in  every 
resi>ect  the  tendency  to  cursiveness  increases.  The  Uenaissance, 
with  its  revival  of  interest  in  Greek  in  the  West,  and  the  in- 
creased demand  for  handsome  specimens  of  Greek  writing  which 
it  produced,  led  to  some  improvement  in  calligraphy  ;  but  here 
the  invention  of  printing  stepped  in,  and  the  handiwork  of  the 
scribe  was  superseded  by  the  mechanical  precision  of  the  press. 

LrrERATURE.  —  The  authorities  cited  in  S  v.  :  Omont,  Foe- 
similes  des  ■nianuscrits  grecs  daUs  rff  la  Bibliothhque  NatioimU 
du  ixe  au  xive  si^xle,  IbOt),  and  FacsimiUs  rfej*  iiianwtcrity  grpct 
des  xve  et  xvU  siicles^  1887 ;  Wattenbach  and  von  Velsen, 
I'^xempla  Codicum  (jh^cecorum  littei'is  minwiculia  scriptorum^ 
1873. 

vii.  Latin  Writing. — It  does  not  come  within 
the  scope  of  this  article  to  consider  all  the  forms 
of  writing  in  which  the  Bible  has  circulated  ;  but 
the  Latin  version  holds  such  a  unique  position,  as 
the  Bible  of  the  West,  and  one  of  such  special 
interest  to  us,  that  a  short  description  of  Latin 
writing  may  be  useful.  Of  its  early  stages,  before 
the  general  adoption  of  vellum,  we  have  much 
less  knowledge  than  in  the  case  of  Greek  ;  for  the 
papyri  found  in  Egypt,  which  are  our  chief  source 
of  information  of  the  pre-vellum  period,  contain 
but  very  few  examples  of  Latin  writing.  Even 
the  papj-ri  of  Herculaneum  are  almost  wholly 
Greek  ;  and  though  we  know  that  papyrus  was 
the  main  material  of  book  production  throughout 
the  whole  of  the  most  productive  period  of  Roman 
literature,  and  continued  to  be  employed  for  liter- 
ary purposes  as  late  as  the  7th  cent.,  and  for 
certain  official  purposes  (notably  papal  rescripts) 
down  to  the  beginning  of  the  11th  cent.,  we  have 
no  literary  works  of  any  substantial  size  now  ex- 
tant on  this  material,  with  the  exception  of  a  few 
papyrus  codices  of  the  6th  and  7th  cents.,  long  alter 
the  victory  of  vellum  had  been  accomplished.  We 
have  nothing  to  show  us  what  the  lirst  editions 
of  Cicero  and  Cresar,  of  Virgil  and  Horace,  or  even 
of  Tacitus  and  Pliny,  were  like.  The  history  of 
the  Latin  literary  hand  begins,  where  the  history 
of  the  Greek  literary  hand  began  until  recently, 
with  the  rise  of  vellum.  Of  the  early  non-literary 
hand  we  have  rather  more  evidence,  in  the  shape 
of  a  few  papj'ri  and  a  considerable  number  of  wax 
tablets ;  and  this  may  have  been  u.sed,  like  the 
Greek  non-literarj-  hand,  for  the  dissemination  of 
the  Scriptures  in  very  early  times.  On  this  point, 
however,  there  is  at  present  no  evidence. 

On  vellum  the  history  of  Latin  writing  follows  substantially 
the  same  course  as  the  Greek.  It  begins  with  an  elaborately- 
written  majuscule  hand,  in  which  all  the  letters  are  separate ; 
and  this  is  ultimatelv  superseded  by  a  minuscule  band,  which 
from  the  9th  cent,  to  the  10th  is  the  universal  vehicle  of  litera- 
ture. In  the  majuscule  type  ol  hand,  however,  distinctions  are 
introduced  which  find  no  place  in  Greek.  The  earliest  phase  is 
that  of  writing  in  capitals,  in  which  rounded  forms  of  ktlersare 
rare,  the  general  character  being  the  s.ame  as  that  of  inscriptions 
upon  stone.  These,  again,  are  subdivided  into  sqitarf  capitals, 
in  which  the  letters  are  even  in  height  and  square  in  build,  and 
n(*-/ic,  in  which  the  horizontal  strokes  are  very  short  in  propor- 
tion to  the  perjiendicular.  Of  square  capitals  verj'  few  speci- 
mens now  remain  (notably  two  fragmentar>-  MSS  of  Virgil),  and 
it  seems  clear  that  they  were  used  only  fur  MUions  de  luxe,  and 
never  were  the  form  of  writing  exclusively  in  use.  Tlie  shapes 
of  the  letters  are  essentially  the  same  as  in  rustic  capitals,  only 
thev  arc  increased  in  breadth.  The  two  styles  ore  contempor- 
aneous, and  of  the  two  the  rustic  style  is  unquestionably  that 
which  was  in  common  use.  It  is  also  the  earlier  in  date,  going 
back  to  the  papyrus  period  (e.g.  a  Roman  military  roll  of  a.d.  156, 
Pal.  Soc.  ii.  Ifi.'i):  while  the  heavier  square  capitals  can  hardly 
have  been  written  except  on  vellum.  Rustic  capitals  are  found 
in  the  great  early  MSS  of  Virgil,  the  Romanus  and  Palatinus  of 
the  4th  cent.,  and  the  Mediceus  of  the  6th  ;  also  in  the  Btinbino 
Terence  (4th-5th  cent.),  the  Paris  Prudcntius  (0th  cent),  and 
even  as  late  as  the  Psalter  falsely  attributed  to  St.  Augustine, 
but  really  of  the  early  8th  cent.,  and  the  Utrecht  Psalter  of  the 
9tli  cent.  Commoner,  however,  than  the  rustic  hand, — at  any 
rate  from  the  4th  cent,  onwards, — ia  the  other  form  of  the 


•WRITI^'0 


WRITING 


955 


lrrd?are°r.?d^°'^o"f^e3a„ave^ 

aUv  carried  above  or  below  '"«  ''"L  ,,,  ,he  .Stin  Bible,  such 
JS>d^und  in  the  '""^f -"'^.'J^^^^'ronenris  and  I'ahltinus 
a,  the  Codd.  Y'^r^^  "!""■«  <?|^,!^t"hcentTana  other  fnHnneut^ 
{4th-6lh  eent.),.Bobb.en8iB(olh-othcen^^).  o.^varOs  it 

It  the  Old  Latm  yeremn,  and  fro.     the  oi         „„  tion  ot  a 


It  the  Old  Latin  ;.X("rirthe  fled,  ^vith  the  e:.ception  ot  a 
OU8W  the  capital  ">i'^''S,„  those  mentioned  above.  At  first 
,ew  isolated  exanyU.s™rt,^h°^^^  ^^^^  pretension  to 

rather  a  piall  """i  ■;'^^f;'",|"Vitv  firmness,  and  handsomeness 
beauty.  It  improves  >"/,'=,^'''JL"^J^„"  .  the  MSS  ot  that  period, 
up  to  the  beifiiminn  ot  the  bth  ^'''^-  ^'j.,^  Amialinns.  beinR 
silchaatheLindisfarne  Gospels  ajidte^K.  ^^  .^ 

probably  ">t,T„whr^^r"  was  a  uf.idency  to  interna  min- 
ex  sttnca.     Meanwhile  "  tre  w^  ^  .  [  character, 

ziv^^^^  =5  nS«  Sr^  '^^^ 

thus  comes  by  »"  ^-f '"  ""'\ '^.'^fi  th™  majuso.ile  style  had  been 
case  of  Greek.  On  the  one  ''»"', •Jy.'o,i^,,,iial  to  uncial,  from 
grailually  t<.ned  down  «>'<=';'-,»'^„f,-//X"Sve  hand  in  daily 
Sncial  to  halt-uncial;  on  the  other,  the  J^'™,  ^„„„3  .  „„ional ' 
use  lor  common  punioseswM  """^ '^J^„?°  ja,,,  which,  though 
han<ls,  Lombardic.  %  ■'''1?°'  f^  J^^hands  of  a  kind.  By  the  Sth 
inelegant  7™KVA';,l^'^Vad  been  broken  up,  and  their  place 
cent,  the  old^''terar>  hanOB  n«J  nee  ^^^^  ^.,^^^^  ,  ^a 

t.-.ken  by-  these  vanous  ^^u'cu^e  nor  the  ease  and  simplicity 
neither  the  Uaul>  »'  ^6  nm)u.cui  callisniphy  was 

ol  the  cursive,     trom  th'»  sWlf  "'  V ""  ^  under  the 

rescued  by  the  reforms  "f  «'""^.^'„,V^| /,", ,™,  a<-co.nplislied 

inspiration  ol  «<"'<''"^"f-T  J'!"  u^der  the  direction  ol  Alcuin 
principally  at  the  ^^hoof"!  Tours  under  the      ^^  ^^^^ 

of  York,  evolved  a  style  o'.  """9»  "  "'  "l  which  was  destined 
and  cleir,  easy  both  to  ''"'«.™'^  u'^Xthcrin  existence,  and 
to  supersede  the  various  n?,''°°f„^Jc^e  hand  which  was  the 
form  the  loundation  °  ,/he  m>n»^cule  »»";;„  ^o  the 
vehicle  of  M'-™"i^«"",'jV'^o'n'"tt7eBibl°B  containing  the  re- 
Caroline  minuscule  "'> '^^f '?"SX!in  him.sell  and  by  Theortulf 
censinnsol  the  \ukate  text       Alcim-n  ^^^^  contem- 

of  Orleans;  ,wl"e^  the  beautiful  uncia  so  ,„,,ehoo  i 


it  was  different.     Tl.e  tou^Uer  "J^'jt.^i'^l/^dj^lj^f, 
and  n.an^  instances  =;[«  l^^;^, °4 J^^f „  Vl'hed 


^usts  the  capital  ">l%Xsthose  mentioned  alove.    At  first     ^iu)  ;    and,  since    tl.e  .°"f     "'   "  ' ;^^^V°to  decipher 

°rUin^  is  Greek,  in  tbe  two  otliersSyn.     Other 

^rT%^i^  ^^:  V^  the  Gospels    M 
I  Cof  the  A'cts,\i  of  the  i;auhne  Lpis UeM  of  the 
Old  Latin  Gospels,  «  otl>eU^  Act     y,^ 

feaves  at  V'en'ia  of  the  OL  Km  s      ^^^.^^^  ^^^^ 

various  dates.  ^^^ 

Introd.  to  the  OT  in  Greek. 


Pow)  ^u=fed  primarily  to  ™ean  a    ine  o 
.Hence  it  comes  to  denote  a  length  ot 
,  tne  ueve ^...~  -..--:,.  I  VritinK  equal  to  an  average  line  of  P°«t;y' ^^^^^ 

,z::,^:;'i^^t^-i'^^^^:i^^r^'t  m.  s?n^  is  used  -_«, .-ilr-w'^r^^i^ 


bf  carried  on. 


^,.^.^.-....     -  ^7  deUU';  i^the  con  pressed  hand  ot  the 

Text  perhaps  the  most  ""^."^^'^B^'JiJf are  "till  exunt.    CominiC 

?S'l=S=^£St  J.e  .^nd  ^^^X 
very  thin  vellum  then  in  use  "lab  cs  mm  to  p  _^^  ^,^._^ 

a  comparatively  small  «"»P»S?-    '.'  '' "lUplviiiB  copies  ol  the 
activity  on  the  part  of  'he  scribes  mmuluplMnB^  ^^  ^^^^ 

Bible  with  the  activity  »' "^^;^™"'°i'„tercot^^.ing  its  text ;  the 
".  'h«  «r-.,P!.".°^  '°    "c  Z!d'?ntere"t  i'^the'reading  ot 


as  a  mill'  "*    "•" .....--  -- 

' --  iff,nU-s  are  described  as  possess- 

literary  purposes.     ^^^fl^^l^^J.^^,^  ,,aid  according 


"LlTKKATCB..^ompj«n,.^    dt^   i;5^«i^f-i,SS,!;; 
toc-imiles ;  Marini,  /     '<^^/'-^^v  «na^«^^^^^^     j.„^^, „    „„. 

and  Zangemeiswr,/  Jjmp'a  ''^''   ^  ^^  ^,^„,„    paUoararhujM. 

?^'?;  •Srn':"i-a^tii^"  0/  i^^^"-*  ^^^   *"   "^  *"'"* 
Jlweui/i,  1900. 

viii.  PALiMr.'!KSTS.-A  few  special  «»^i^f «  ™g 
n^r-to  be  noticed.     One  pej^u^arda^^of^^l^ 


..ripinal  xvnting  l.as  »««"/«;'="  ^yi^,        ,,,.^,,9 


evi.len.cs  of  its  use  are  less  ^^]l\^^^!^}'±,.„Z,M.,„nn. 


..riginal  writing  has  been  removed  m  order  th.^^    ^^^^^^^^  ^j  the  works     f  Cyi  mn    n  ,^,,  X  _^^__^,,^,^ 


contents  of  the  worKs  ...  v.,1..---^.-  ■■■  ;p,  -  „„,„i,er 
^l^S:iS::^^i;ust>!:s  of  tJ^  Bible  is  stated 


:  :^  i;r  U;;'^;st  Instknce  oonlin^d  t.,  one  1  ';^^^"^{i;Zo^^^<^'i^^  '-'■).  a  Ust  in  an  80. 
to  have  been  usual  or  possible  to  go.    w  an  vein. 


956 


WEITING 


WRITING 


Greek,  p.  346  ;  Scliolz,  Prolegomena  to  the  NT,  vol. 
i.  p.  xxviii  ;  Turner,  Journ.  Theol.  Stud.  ii.  230. 
Tlie  division  into  ittIxoi,  which  is  purely  mechanical, 
must  be  distinguished  from  the  division  of  texts 
into  (tiSXo  and  /tiju^noTa,  which  is  a  division  into 
clauses  according  to  tfcj  sense.  Some  MSS  are 
thus  written,  not  continuously,  hut  in  short  sense- 
lines  of  varying  length,  presumably  in  the  first 
instance  to  facilitate  reading  aloud.  Such  colo- 
metry  was  a  special  feature  of  the  edition  of  the 
Acts  and  Epistles  by  Euthalius,  and  appears  now 
in  the  chief  MS  of  that  edition,  H  of  the  Pauline 
Epistles.  It  is  also  nsed  in  the  bilingual  MSS, 
D  Dj  Ej,  in  order  to  keep  the  two  versions  more 
exactly  parallel  than  they  would  be  in  continuous 
script,  and  to  facilitate  comparison  between  them. 
Between  xiXo  and  KiiiiiaTo.  there  is  no  clear  dis- 
tinction, but  the  latter  denotes  somewhat  shorter 
clauses  than  the  former. 

LiTKttiTURS.— Graux,  Revue  de  Philologie,  1878,  p.  97  ;  Diels, 
BtriMt,  xvii,  1882;  J.  Eendel  Harris,  Stiehomelry,  1893; 
Thuiupeun,  op.  cit.  ch.  vL 

X.  Libraries. — In  conclusion,  it  may  be  useful 
to  give  some  account  of  the  manner  in  which  books 
were  preserved  in  ancient  and  medijeval  times. 
The  most  ancient  library  of  which  we  have  precise 
knowledge  is  that  of  Ashur-bani-pal,  king  of 
Assyria  (B.C.  668-626),  the  contents  of  which  have 
actually  come  down  en  masse  to  the  present  day. 
Il  was  not  founded  by  Ashur-bani-pal,  having 
existed  under  his  predecessors,  Sargon,  Senna- 
cherib, and  Esarhaddon ;  but  it  was  under  his 
patronage  that  it  assumed  its  great  proportion-s. 
He  set  himself  deliberately  to  collect  books,  send- 
ing scribes  to  make  copies  of  works  in  other 
libraries,  and  instructing  scholars  to  compile 
vocabularies  of  the  Sumerian  and  Assyrian  lan- 
guages. In  1850  this  library  was  disinterred  by 
Sir  H.  Layard  from  the  mounds  of  Kouyunjik, 
and  its  contents,  amounting  to  over  20,000  tablets, 
are  now  in  the  British  Museum.  The  tablets 
appear  to  have  been  laid  on  shelves,  grouped  in 
classes,  and  labelled.  They  included  historical, 
literary,  theological,  magical,  and  scientific  works, 
as  well  as  letters,  contracts,  and  other  business 
documents  ;  and  the  library  was  apparently  access- 
ible to  the  people  in  general.  —  In  Egypt  there 
must  have  been  depositories  of  the  papj'rus  rolls, 
■which  were  produced  in  large  numbers  from  very 
early  times  ;  probably,  the  literature  being  almost 
wholly  theological,  they  were  preserved  in  or 
about  the  teniples.  Diodoms  Siculus  (i.  58)  states 
that  O.symandyas,  who  has  been  identified  with 
Kamses  I.,  possessed  a  large  library ;  and  two 
officials  of  his  time  are  described  as  librarians. 
But  no  details  are  known  of  these  early  Egyptian 
libraries. — Nor  have  we  express  mention  of  libraries 
in  Palestine  in  pre-Christian  times,*  though  the 
references  in  the  Books  of  Samuel  and  Kings  to 
other  books  suggest  the  probability  of  the  exist- 
ence of  some  repository  where  these  works  might 
be  consulted  (2  S  l'»,  1  K  U"  14i»-'»  IS^  etc.). 
^In  the  early  history  of  Greece,  even  when  her 
literature  was  at  its  height,  libraries  (as  dis- 
tinct from  public  record  offices,  which  certainly 
existed  in  Athens  and  presumably  elsewhere)  play 
but  a  small  part.  Pisistratus  is  stated  to  have 
formed  a  library,  which  was  taken  to  Persia  by 
Xerxes,  and  restored  long  after  by  Seleucus  Nicator 
(Aid.  Gell.  vi.  17).  Athen.-Eus  (i.  4)  mentions 
libraries  belonging  to  Polycrates  of  Samos,  Nico- 
crates  of  Cyprus,  the  archon  Euclides,  the  poet 
Euripides,  and  Aristotle.  The  latter  is  said  by 
Strabo  to  Iiave  been  the  first  person  to  collect  books ; 
and  indeed  it  is  evident  that  his  works  could  not 

•  Little  importance  attaches  to  the  statement  In  2  Mac  2*3 
ftbout  Mebenuah  founding  a  library  (ju»rs,^«XA«^i«r  ^i^Xi«^»i]»). 


have  been  produced  without  a  library.  After  hia 
death  his  librarj-was  preserved  at  Scepsis;  and,  after 
having  been  sold  to  Apellicon  of  Teos  and  brought  to 
Athens,  it  was  ultimately  taken  by  Sulla  to  Rome. 
The  two  most  famous  libraries  of  the  Greek  world, 
however,  were  those  of  I'ergamum  and  Alexandria. 
The  former,  founded  by  Attains  I.  and  Eumenes  II. 
at  the  end  of  the  3rd  cent,  and  beginning  of  the 
2nd  cent.  B.C.,  flourished  greatly  for  a  century  and 
a  half,  but  ultimately  was  transported  by  Mark 
Antony  to  Alexandria  to  replace  that  which  had 
been  destroyed  by  fire  in  Cresar's  wars.  It  is  said 
to  have  consisted  of  200,000  rolls  at  that  time. 
The  library  of  Alexandria,  founded  perhaps  by 
Ptolemy  I. ,  was  especially  encouraged  by  Ptolemy  II. 
(Philadelpiius).  It  was  a  department  of  the  great 
Museum,  and  every  efl'ort  was  made  to  gather  into 
it  all  extant  literature,  and  to  attract  the  best 
scholars  to  accept  posts  in  connexion  with  it. 
According  to  the  well-known  story  embodied  in 
the  letter  of  Aristeas,  it  was  in  connexion  with 
the  establishment  of  the  Alexandrian  library,  and 
at  the  express  desire  of  Ptolemy  Philadelphus, 
that  the  production  of  the  LXX  was  undertaken. 
The  main  library,  in  the  Museum,  is  stated  to 
have  been  destroyed  during  the  siege  of  Cicsar 
in  Alexandria,  and  thenceforth  the  principal  Alex- 
andrian library  was  that  of  the  Serapeum,  which 
previously  had  held  a  secondary  place.  This  in 
turn  suH'ered  greatly  at  the  sack  of  the  Serapeum 
by  Bishop  TheophOus  in  390,  so  that  it  is  doubtful 
if  much  was  left  to  be  destroyed  by  the  Arabs  in 
641.  From  the  date  of  the  foundation  of  these 
two  great  libraries,  public  libraries,  pre\'iously 
almost  unknown  in  Greece,  seem  to  have  become 
common.  Polybius  (xii.  27)  in  the  2nd  cent.  B.C. 
s]ic,'iks  as  if  they  would  naturally  be  found  in  most 
liirge  towns.  At  Rome  they  were  of  later  growth. 
Private  collections  of  books  must  certainly  have 
been  known  to  Varro,  and  Cicero's  library  was  an 
extensive  one  for  those  days.  iEmUius  PauUus 
and  LucuUus  brought  back  libraries  from  their 
wars  in  the  East.  CiEsar  planned  the  establish- 
ment of  a  public  library ;  but  the  execution  of  it 
was  left  to  Augustus,  who,  however,  had  been 
slightly  anticipated  by  Asinius  Pollio.  From  this 
point  public  libraries,  often  in  connexion  with 
temples,  became  common  in  Rome,  as  elsewhere. 
A  concrete  example  of  a  library,  thoujjh  on  a 
small  scale,  is  provided  by  that  at  Hereulaneura, 
in  which  the  papyrus  rolls,  now  in  the  Naples 
Museum,  were  found.  It  was  a  very  small  room, 
with  shelves  round  the  walls,  on  which  lay  the 
rolls  (1756  in  number);  and  a  cabinet,  also  con- 
taining rolls,  stood  in  the  middle  of  the  room. 

Commg  to  Christian  times  and  Christian  litera- 
ture, it  must  have  been  long  before  anything  in 
the  iKiture  of  a  library  was  required.  The  only 
books  « ith  which  Christians,  as  such,  had  to  deal 
were  those  of  the  OT  and  NT,  and  the  few  books 
which  for  a  time  hovered  on  the  border  of  the 
Canon,  such  as  the  Epistles  of  Clement  and  Bar- 
nabas, the  Shepherd  of  Hermas,  the  Gospel  of 
Peter,  and  the  like.  These  would  either  be  in 
private  possession  or  the  property  of  a  Church, 
which  would  also,  in  time,  require  something  in 
the  nature  of  service  books.  The  earliest  Christian 
libraries,  therefore,  apart  from  the  small  collections 
which  an  individual  might  have,  were  attached  to 
churches ;  but  even  these  could  not  attain  to  any 
considerable  size,  so  long  as  they  were  liable  to 
dispersion  in  the  days  of  persecution.  The  earliest 
of  which  we  have  individual  knowledge  is  that 
which  Pamphilus  (t  A.D.  308)  established  atCa?sarea, 
consisting  primarily  of  the  works  of  Origen.  Her* 
the  great  scholar's  Hexapla  and  Tetrapla  were  pre- 
served, and  the  colophons  of  several  MSS  (not- 
ably the  Codd.  Sinaiticus  and  Marchailianas,  and 


WRITIXG 


WRITING 


957 


Cod.  H  of  the  Pauline  Epistles)  testify  to  the 
use  of  these  autographs  for  the  purposes  of 
revision.  On  the  adoption  of  Christianity  as  the 
religion  of  the  State,  a  library  was  founded  by 
Constantino  in  his  new  caijital,  which  was  greatly 
increased  by  his  successors.  With  the  institution 
of  monasticism,  monasteries  as  well  as  churches 
became  the  homes  of  libraries.  Pachomius,  the 
founiler  of  monasticism  in  Egypt,  required  his 
monks  to  study  the  Scriptures,  and  his  rules 
(Migne,  Patr.  Grcuc.  xl. )  clearly  imply  ready 
access  to  manuscripts.  Throughout  the  Eastern 
empire,  though  learnin"  was  never  so  exclusively 
the  possession  of  the  clergy  as  it  became  in  the 
West,  the  large  majority  of  scribes  were  con- 
nected with  churches  or  monasteries.  Naturally, 
this  is  especi.illy  the  case  with  MSS  of  the  Bible 
or  theological  works ;  but  in  the  list  of  scribes 
of  Greek  MSS  of  all  kinds,  whose  names  are  on 
record,  bj-  far  the  most  are  monks  or  clerics  (Gardt- 
hausen,  Griech.  Pal.  p.  302  ti'. ).  In  the  West,  so 
long  as  the  old  Roman  civilization  remained, 
private  and  public  libraries  continued  to  exist 
throughout  the  empire,  and  the  "rreat  provincial 
mansions  of  the  nooility  were  well  stocked  with 
books,  literary  culture  being  one  of  the  marks  of 
that  leisured  and  luxurious  section  of  society.* 
The  irruptions  of  the  barbarians  swept  this  civi- 
lization awaj'.  The  pagan  institutions  for  the 
preservation  and  multiplication  of  literature  went 
to  the  ground,  and  the  sole  libraries  which  con- 
tinued to  exist  were  those  of  cliurches,  and 
especially  of  monasteries.  Benedict,  like  Pach- 
omius in  the  East,  prescribed  reading  as  one  of  the 
special  duties  of  his  monks,  thereby  establishing 
a  tradition  which  became  an  honourable  charac- 
teristic of  monasticism  in  general,  and  of  the 
Benedictines  in  particular.  In  the  early  part  of 
the  Middle  Ages,  learning  flourished  most  in  the 
north  of  England,  which  was  made  famous  by  the 
scliolarsliip  of  Bede  and  by  the  excellent  schools  of 
Wearmouth  and  J  arrow.  From  tlie  north  of  Enj;- 
land  proceeded  what  are  perhaps  the  most  beauti- 
fully written  MSS  that  Latin  scribes  ever  pro- 
duced— the  Codex  Aniiatinus  and  the  Lindisfarne 
Gospels.  Tlie  history  of  these  MSS  establishes  a 
point  of  some  importance,  namely  the  ease  with 
which  books  were  transferred  from  one  ]iart  of 
Europe  to  another.  The  Lindisfarne  Gospels  was 
certamly  transcriljed  from  an  exemplar  brought 
from  Naples ;  and  the  Codex  Aniiatinus,  which 
must  have  been  copied  from  the  same  or  a  similar 
volume,  was  itself  (though  it  is  one  of  the  largest 
MSS  in  existence) convejed  from  England  to  Rome 
as  a  gift  to  the  Pone.  Piom  England  learning 
spread  southward  to  France  and  Switzerland  ;  and 
while  Alcuin  founded  the  famous  scliool  of  Tours, 
from  which  a  new  tradition  of  calligraphy  came 
forth  to  inlluence  all  Europe,  Irish  monks  founded 
(and  to  a  large  extent  peopled)  St.  Gall,  which 
became  the  centre  of  learning  and  of  writing 
in  the  Rhone  valley  and  the  adjacent  countries. 
As  monasticism  grew  and  the  mona-steries  became 
rich,  so  did  their  libraries  increase.  Monte  Gas- 
sino,  Bobbio,  Grotta  Ferrata,  in  Italy ;  Fleury, 
Cluny,  Corbie,  St.  Germain  des  Pr6s,  in  France ; 
Fulda,  Reichenau,  in  Geniiany ;  St.  Gall,  in  Swit- 
zerland ;  Canterbury  (both  St.  Augustine's  and 
Christ  Church),  Rochester,  St.  Albans,  York, 
Durham,  in  England, — these  are  only  a  few  of  the 
most    famous    monasteries  whose    libraries   were 

*  Sic,  C!7.,  Kill,  Itoman  Socitty  in  th»  latt  Century  qf  tin 
Weium  Jimpiret  p.  IM  ff. 


special  liomes  of  literature  in  the  ages  preceding 
tlie  invention  of  printing.  The  accommodation 
for  books  was  at  first  neither  large  nor  luxurious. 
The  early  buildings  of  monasteries  show  no  place 
for  a  library.  Tlie  books  (apart  from  such  precious 
ones  as  were  jilaccd  in  the  shrine  of  the  patron 
saint)  were  stored  in  cupboards  (armaria)  along 
the  sides  of  the  cloister,  or  in  recesses  in  its  walls ; 
and  in  the  cloister  the  monks  read  and  copied 
them.  In  course  of  time  the  cloister  windows 
adjoining  the  books  were  glazed  as  a  protection, 
and  the  elder  monks,  at  least,  had  'carrells'  or 

Eews  in  which  they  could  sit  at  their  work.  As 
ooks  multiplied,  increased  provision  had  to  be 
made  for  tliem.  In  the  Cistercian  houses,  small 
cupboard-like  rooms  were  introduced,  in  which 
the  books  lay  upon  shelves  round  the  walls,  much 
after  the  fashion  of  the  Roman  library  at  Hercul- 
aneum.  In  the  14th  and  15th  centuries  larger 
rooms  were  provided,  generally  above  some  earlier 
building  ;  and  here  the  books  could  be  arranged  in 
regular  bookcases.  Libraries  are  pro^aded  for  also 
in  the  statutes  of  the  earliest  colleges  at  the  univer- 
sities ;  and  the  manner  of  them  can  be  realized 
from  examples  still  extant,  as  in  the  Laurentian 
library  at  Florence.  Sometimes  the  books  lay  on 
desks,  sometimes  they  stood  on  shelves,  with 
desks  below  or  above  on  wliich  they  could  be 
placed  for  consultation.  In  either  case  they  were 
normally  attached  to  their  place  by  chains,  so  that 
they  could  not  be  carried  away  without  permission. 
For  the  copying  of  MSS  special  scriptoria  were 
provided  in  the  great  monasteries,  and  monks  with 
a  turn  for  literature  were  told  oil'  for  this  duty  ;  so 
that  in  many  i)laces  (as  at  Grotta  Ferrata  or  St. 
Albans)  distinct  traditions  of  penmanship  were 
established,  and  special  styles,  whether  of  historical 
chronicles  or  of  illuminated  miniatures,  were  culti- 
vated. For  a  long  time  these  were  practically 
confined  to  monasteries.  Only  with  tlie  revival 
of  learning  did  literature  and  art  issue  out  to  the 
world  in  general  ;  and  then  the  end  of  the  reign  of 
nianu.scripts  was  at  hand.  In  the  15th  and  16th 
centuries  we  find  many  scribes  (especially  the 
Greek  scribes  in  Italj-)  and  many  miniaturists  wlio 
were  certainly  laymen  ;  and  so,  before  the  decline 
of  monasticism  was  .accomplished,  its  special  work 
as  the  exclusive  guardian  of  literature  was  done, 
and  the  secular  world  was  ready  to  take  into  its 
own  keeping  the  heritage  of  learning  wliich  the 
monks  bad  been  so  largely  instrumental  in  hand- 
ing down  to  it. 

LiTKRATURE. — Guidf  to  the  Babylonian  and  Assyrian  An- 
tiquitifs  in  tlie  liritish  Museum,  IDOO,  pp.  .^4-78;  Dziatzko, 
art.  '  Bibliothelten' in  Pauly-Wissowa.  Ji?^  ;  Edwards,  Memoirs 
of  Libraries,  1859,  Libraries  and  Founders  of  Libraries,  18C5  ; 
S.  R.  Maitland,  The  Dark  Ages^,  188fl  ;  F.  A.  Gasquet,  Som« 
Notes  on  Mediaeval  Monastic  Libraries,  1891 ;  J.  W.  Clark, 
The  Care  o/  Books,  1901. 

On  Heb.  (also  Phcon.,  I'alinyr.,  Aram.,  etc.)  pala30;;raphy,  with 
facsimiles  of  penis,  seals,  inscriptions,  etc.,  see,  fiirUicr,  refer- 
ences and  illustrations  under  artt.  ^ioNRY  and  Wrigiits  and 
Mrascrbs;  M.  A.  Levy,  Siegel  u.  Grmme  mil  aram.  phun. 
altheb.,  etc,  Inschri/trn(l^iMi);  Lidzl>.irski,  Ildh.  drr  nordsein, 
Kjngr.  nebst  ausfjewuhlten  Inschri/ten  (ISOS,  with  plates ;  in- 
dispensable  for  further  study  of  subject,  with  full  biblioprnphy, 
pp.  4-ii8,  493-99);  ilordtmann  u.  Miiller,  Sabdisclie  Denkunthr, 
1883;  D.  II.  Mullcr,  Kpiqr.  Denkmaler  aus  Arabicn,  1889; 
Ilommel,  SUdarab.  Chrestomathie,  1893;  C/S  (Ph.cn.,  Aram., 
Ilimyar.  insf.'riptions,  with  facsimiles);  Cleniiont-Ganneau, 
Jifc'  d'Arch^ol,  orient.;  the  collection  of  fine  l-'acsiniHe.i  t>t' 
MSS  and  Inscriptions,  pub.  by  the  Palieopraph.  Society 
((JrientjU  series);  the  atlas  of  facsimiles  of  Heb.  MSS  acconi- 
piinyinp  Neubaucr's  Cataloijue  of  Heb.  MSS  in  the  Bmtl. 
Libran/.  See  also  the  recently  established  periodicals :  Lid/,, 
barski's  lipfietneris  /Ur  sem.  Ejtitjraphik  (I.  I.  1900);  and 
lUperUrirt  d' Epigrapltie  tin.  [iuppl.  to  CIS]  (1. 1.  1900). 

F.  G.  Kknyom 


958 


XANTHICUS 


YOKEFELLOW 


X 


XANTHICDS.— See  Time,  p.  765. 

XERXES  (ii?pfi!s),  king  of  Persia  (B.C.  485-465), 
i.si  the  Ahasuerus  of  Ezr  4"  and  of  the  Book  of 
E.-^tlier.*  In  the  first  of  these  instances  the  position 
of  the  name,  between  Darius  (Hystaspis)  and  Arta- 
xerxes{Longimanus),  scarcely  permits  of  any  other 
conclusion.  The  view  (Ewald,  et  al.)  that  Cambyses 
the  son  of  Cyrus  is  referred  to,  is  now  generally 
abandoned.  There  has  never  been  any  doubt  as 
to  tlie  intention  of  the  author  of  the  Book  of  Esther 
to  identify  his  Ahasuerus  with  Xerxes,  although  a 
difierence  of  opinion  has  prevailed  regarding  the 
historicity  of  tlie  role  he  assigns  to  this  king.  It 
may  suffice  to  say  here  that,  while  the  extravagance, 
cruelty,  and  caprice  attributed  to  Ahasuerus,  and 

*  It  seems  hopeless  to  attempt  to  fix  the  identity  of  the 
Ahasuerus  of  Dn  9'  and  To  U".  In  ftuy  case  he  cannot  be 
the  hutoricat  Xerxes. 


the  vindictiveness  of  Esther,  correspond  closely 
enough  to  what  we  are  told  of  Xerxes  and  hia 
queen  Amestris  (cf.  e.g.  Herod,  vii.  35,  114,  11811'., 
238  ;  viii.  24 if.  ;  ix.  110 ft'.),  there  are  powerful  con- 
siderations which  forbid  our  accepting  the  book 
as  a  record  of  actual  occurrences.  See,  further, 
Esther,  vol.  i.  pp.  773",  775. 

The  name  Ahasuerus  appears  in  the  MT  as  I^niv'nx  or  eillynt* 
[in  Est  101  E^tfiibh,  prob.  by  cop.yist's  error,  has  ti'lcnNJ.  The 
LXX  forms  are  :  Ezr  4fl  B  'A<rUrf>«C  [or  peril.' AvUripoi],  A  'A<r<r«w- 
Kfioi,  Luc.  'Afffvrr-i^  ;  Dn  91  Theod.  'Ac-e-Jrpot  [Al  B]  or  'Air<rour,pot 
[A*  »"  Ql,  LX.X  Si;{r(,  Luc.  'Arm^ptt ;  To  1410  B  'A.ri^fx, 
A  'Artlxpott  N*^-'  '  Airffi/v)poe ;  in  Esther  BA,  confusing  with 
Nnc'cnrnK  (Artax^rxes),  reproduce  uniformly  by  'Afniclipirt  or 
some  corruption  of  that  name,  although  Luc.  has  'Acsi/v^pof 
except  in  920  'A/>Ta{if jrf.  Bevan  (Daniel,  p.  149)  holds  that 
the  form  of  the  name  originally  in  use  among  the  Jews  was 
no  doubt  K'TcnK  {Ahashj/arsh  or  Abshayarsh),  answering  to 
the  Pers.  Ehshayarahd  (Aram  riK-pn,  CIS  II.  L  122). 

J.  A.  Selbib. 


YARN.— See  LiNEN. 

YEAR See  Time. 

YELLOW.— See  Colours,  vol.  i.  p.  458*. 

YOKE  (BID,  npto,  ^'v,  Viy,  n;^  ['  team '] ;  NT  feiVyo? 
'a  team,'  'a  pair,'  firyis)  in  Scripture  usage  is 
almost  exclusively  associated  with  the  plough. 
The  simple  yoke  (bid,  .i^jid)  was  a  cross  piece  of 
wood  fastened  to  the  forehead  of  the  draught  ox  ; 
and  the  same  Heb.  word,  especially  in  the  plural 
(nis:),  describes  the  bars  going  round  the  neck  of 
the  ox  to  keep  the  yoke  in  its  place.  Generally, 
however,  the  cross  piece  of  wood  rested  upon  the 
necks  of  two  oxen  drawing  together,  and  this  ('?s 
from  ^h'j,  Arab.  =  '  insert,  '  tlirust  in,'  Aram.  = 
'  enter ')  is  the  yoke  of  the  plough  with  which  we 
are  familiar.  The  plough  used  by  the  fellahtn  of 
Syria  is  the  same  as  that  with  which  Elisha  was 
pumgliing  when  Elijah  ca.^t  his  mantle  upon  him 
(1  K  19'").  Although  in  the  yauran  and  the  GhGr 
of  Jordan  two  j)airs  of  oxen  are  to  be  seen  yoked 
to  the  )il()ugh,  in  Galilee  and  the  plain  of  Jezreel 
tlie  )il<)ii^;h  is  drawn  by  a  single  pair.  The  yoke 
rests  upon  the  neck  of  the  beasts,  being  fitted  to 
each  by  forked  pieces  of  wood  mortised  into  the 
yoke  and  joined  under  the  neck  with  a  thong  or 
chain.  To  the  yoke  the  pole  of  the  primitive 
plough  is  attached  by  thongs  or  cords  fastened  to 
the  cross-pin  of  the  pole,  which  passes  through  a 
ring  on  the  yoke,  or  is  lield  tirni  liv  a  peg  inserted 
into  it  (see  figures  in  I'EFSt,  IS'Jl'.  p.  113  ;  ZDI'V 
xii.  pp.  159,  160;  Benzinger,  Arch.  207;  '\A'hite- 
house,  Primer  of  Heb.  Ant.  87;  and  art.  Agrioul- 
TUKK).  The  'thonga'  are  nnoio  (AV  'bands'  or 
'  bonds'),  see  Jer  2=»  5»  27»  30»,  Nah  1",  and  cf.  Ps 
'2?  107",  Is  52".  For  examples  of  npio  see  Lv  26", 
Jer  27=  28'»-  "•  ",  Ezk  30'8  34-^  ;  fig.  Is  588-». 

The  yoke  {nir)  Is  composed  of  a  horizontal  bar  of  wood  with 
knobbed  extremities,  but  with  no  hollowed-out  portion  to 
receive  the  nape  of  the  neck  of  the  ox.  In  place  of  the  bow  two 
pins  {Uhatdi\)  are  let  into  holes  in  the  nir,  at  an  angle  of  al)Out 
80  degrees  to  each  other,  their  upper  extremities  being  about 
S  in.  apart  *»  receive  the  nape  of  tbs  neck.    Wlien  luijusted 


they  are  fastened  by  a  leather  thong  or  a  chain  (Jenir).  The 
ring  ibalakah)  is  a  tough  branch,  beiit  in  a  rude  elliptical  form. 
It  IS  tied  to  the  n'lr  by  a  leather  thong  (sfier')  between  two 
pintles  iiijrdyah),  which  keep  it  in  place  (Post  in  PEFSt,  1891, 
p.  112)- 

The  pair  of  beasts  in  the  plough  is  called  a  yoke 
(1  K  19'",  Jer  51^  njj  [from  icy  '  to  bind  or  join 
together']),  or  yoke  of  oxen  (lijj  i;j  1  S  11',  Job  P, 
ffi'Tos  ^oui'  Lk  14'').  The  ground  that  a  pair  of 
oxen  was  sufficient  to  cultivate  was  known  as  "ijjf 
n-iv  (1  S  14'*).*     See  above,  p.  910^ 

The  yoke  was  among  the  Hebrews  the  emblem 
of  subjection  and  servitude  (Gn  27",  Lv  26'^,  1  K 
12"''-,  La  3-'',  Nah  1'^).  Where  the  subjection  was 
more  than  usually  bitter,  the  yoke  of  wood  is 
exchanged  for  a  yoke  of  iron  (Dt  28^,  Jer  28"). 
To  impress  upon  the  Jewish  people  the  necessity 
of  submitting  quietly  to  Nebuchadnezzar's  sway, 
the  pro]iliet  Jeremiah  put  a  yoke  upon  his  own 
neck,  and  appeared  in  public  with  this  badge  of 
servitude.  It  was  the  popular  thing  when  Hana- 
niah,  one  of  the  prophets  w  ho  said,  '  Peace,  peace, 
when  there  wius  no  peace,'  tore  the  yoke  oil 
Jeremiah's  neck  to  bac-k  up  his  own  false  predic- 
tion tliat  within  two  years  God  would  break  the 
yoke  of  Nebucliadnezzar  from  oft'  the  neck  of  all  the 
nation.  To  this  Jeremiali  answered,  '  Thus  saitli 
the  Ixird,  Thou  hast  broken  the  bars  of  wood,  but 
thou  shalt  make  in  their  stead  bars  of  iron.  For 
thus  saith  the  Lord  of  hosts,  the  God  of  Israel :  I 
have  put  a  yoke  of  iron  uiion  the  neck  of  all  these 
nations'  (Jer  28'»- ").  In  the  NT  'yoke'  (M^s) 
is  used  only  in  this  metaphorical  sense, — the  joke 
of  legal  obedience  (Ac  15'",  Gal  5'),  of  servitude 
(ITi  6'),  of  Christ  (Mt  11»-*'),  who.se  yoke  is 
'kindly'  (xp'?<'"'"iis)>  because  it  is  'lined  with  lo\e.'t 

LiTKRATiEE.— Benzinger,  Ueb.  Arch.  207  fl. ;  PEFSt,  1S91  p. 
112;  ZDJ'V  xii.  169 1.  T.  NiCOL. 

YOKEFELLOW.— See  Synzygits. 

•  This  superficial  measure  is  known  still  in  Palestine.  The 
fedddn  in  Eg}*pt  and  Syria  is  the  amount  which  a  pair  of  oxeo 
Clin  plough  in  the  season.  In  Scollnnd  it  is  customary  to  speak 
of  11  Ihn-e  pair  or  five  pair  of  horse  farm. 

t  Matthew  Heuiy,  ad  Ivc. 


ZAANAX 


ZABAD.EAXS 


959 


ZAANAN  (j.:k!(  ;  B'"-  AQ*  Teroaip,  0*  ^nadv).— 
A  I'liice  inentioneil,  alon<;  with  Shaphir  and  Beth- 
EZKL  in  Mic  1",  where  there  is  a  characteristic 
word  -  ijlay  :  '  tlie  inhabitress  of  ZdiXiidn  went 
{yiiziak)  not  out'  (for  fear  of  the  enemy).  Za'ftnan 
i»  generally  considered  to  be  the  same  as  Zenan 
(i;y  ;  B  Sewd,  A  levvin,  Luc.  Zcvaii)  of  Jos  15", 
an  unidentilied  town  in  the  Shephelah. 

ZAANANNIM.— In  Jos    19"   'the   terebinth  of 

Bo<fn'ftiiaim '  (D-jys;i  jH'jn)  is  mentioned  in  defining 
the  boundaries  of  Naphtali,  while  in  J"  4"  '  the 
terebinth  of  Bfi?a'anannini '  (d'jjj^sj  k  ;  IIV  gives 
in  both  passages  'the  oak  (m.  'terebinth  )  in 
Zaanannim')  is  the  site  of  the  encampment  of 
Heber  the  Kenite  and  the  scene  of  Sisera  s  murder 
by  Jael.  There  can  be  little  doubt  that  3  is  not 
the  preposition  but  part  of  the  name  (a  conclusion 
M'hich  is  strongly  supported  by  the  absence  of  the 
art.  from  yh»),  and  tnat  the  form  oij^sj  deserves 
the  preference  (see  Dillm.  Jos.  ad  loc).  The  LXX 
has  in  Jos  19^  B  'Beaeiudv,  A  Beati'a^'i/i,  Luc.  Sceva- 
ffl/i;  in  Jg4"  it  translates,  B  iv\eov(KToivTuiv[Vi^  'be 
covetous'],  A  ivairavoiiivuf  [confusing  with  D'::n»]. 

The  site  of  Bc?a'ftnaim  is  quite  uncertain.  It  is 
difficult,  not  to  say  impossible,  to  reconcile  some 
of  the  other  data  in  Jg  4  with  the  statement  in 
V."  that  it  was  'by  Kedesh,'  if  by  the  latter  is 
meant  Kkdesh -NAPHTALI.  Equally  unsuitable 
is  the  Kedesh  of  Issacliar  (?.(46m  Kadeis)  between 
Taauach  and  Megiddo.  Conder  {Tent  -  Work, 
ii.  1321,  favoured  by  G.  A.  Smith  (HGHL  395), 
identifies  BC^a'Snaim  with  Khirbct  Bestilm,  E. 
of  Tabor,  and  takes  Kedesh  to  be  Radish,  a 
ruin  on  the  shore  of  the  Sea  of  Galilee,  S.  of 
Tiberias.  Chej'ne  (Encyc.  Bibl.  i.  571),  somewhat 
arbitrarily,  emends  D'jysa  to  D':ienp,  supposing 
the  reference  to  be  to  a  ^Cidshon  or  ],<a<lshon 
in  Issachar,  whose  inhabitants  would  be  called 
I^idslionim.  Upon  this  theory  the  words  ib'N 
B-p"nK  of  Jg  4''  must  of  course  be  viewed  as  a 
gloss.  (See,  further,  Moore,  Judges,  pp.  121, 
125  f.  ;  G.  A.  Smith,  I.e. ;  Neubauer,  G(og.  du 
Talm.  22.->). 

On  the  dilliculties  of  the  narrative  of  Jg  4  see 
artt.  Barak,  Dkboraii,  Si.sera. 

J.  A.  Sklbie. 

ZAAVAN  (i-ji.).—\  descendant  of  Seir,  Gn  36" 
(A  '/.uvKau]  =  \  Ch  I*'  (B  ZoTOd.u,  A  'Afowdi',  Luc. 
Zatidf).  The  tribe  of  which  ho  apjiears  here  as 
the  eponj-mous  head  has  not  been  identified. 

ZABAD  (iji,  prob.  a  contraction  for  n;-i3i  or 
''K'^:.!).— The  word  -~\  and  others  formed  from  it 
occur  as  proper  names  in  Palmyrene  and  Naba- 
ttean  inscriptions  (I.idzbarski,  Nordscin.  Eiwirdfih. 
p.  265).  Kuller  forms  are  Zebadiaii,  ZAlii)n:L  = 
'  my  gift  is  Jehovah  '  or  '  God.'  G.  B.  Gray  {IIPN 
222f.)  points  out  that  there  are  in  the  OT  alxiut* 
36  persons  bearing  the  name  Zabad  or  names  formed 
from  it.  Of  these,  23  occur  in  Chron.  alone.  No 
more  than  3  are  mentioned  in  pre-e.xilic  books. 
In  the  case  of  one  of  these  (and  we  may  add  pos- 
-silily  in  that  of  the  other  two)  the  text  is  doubtful, 
and  the  original  may  not  have  included  the  ele- 
ment Zabad.  Ho  draws  the  conclusion:  'The 
historical  diaracter,  therefore,  of  persons  bearing 
one  of  these  names  and  mentioned  only  by  the 
Clironicler  seems  to  me  suspicious.'     Cf.  Nos.  1.  2. 

*  It  is  iometimcfl  dilllcult  to  l)e  certAin  whether  the  «aiM 
uarau  in  difTtireiit  paxsotfus  rcfera  to  one  or  to  more  pereoni. 


Zabad  occurs  in  the  OT  as  the  name  of  the  fol- 
lowing : — 1.  One  of  the  links  in  tlie  genealogy  of 
the  .ludahite  family  Jerahmeel,  1  Ch  2*'-  (Za^^S) 
ll'"  (B  ■La.^iT,  A  Zo|Sdr).  Cf.  GENEALOGY,  §  IV.  12, 
Shcs)uxn. 

1  Ch  2>">  is  an  appendix  to  the  account  of  the  clans  of 
Jerahmeel,  which  is  closed  in  v.:W  by  the  subscription  ;  '  these 
are  the  sons  of  Jerahmeel.'  A  doubt  has  been  raised  as  to  the 
identity  of  Zabad  ben  Nathan  ben  Attai  ben  Sheshan  and 
Ahlai  ('SnN)  his  wife  in  231-37,  and  Zabad  ben  Ahlni.  one  of 
David's  mighty  men,  In  11".  Siefftried-Stade  and  Oif.  Ueb. 
Lex.  regard  the  former  aa  a  family  name,  and  the  latter  as  an 
individual.  There  can  be  little  doubt  that  the  Chronicler  in- 
tended to  identify  them.  The  historical  value  of  the  sections 
in  which  this  Zahad  is  mentioned  is  uncertain.  Kittel  iSBO'F) 
regards  2"  -il  as  one  of  the  latest  .additions  to  Chronicles ; 
Kaiitzsch  (Bibel),  however,  refers  it  to  an  ancient  source  ;  while 
Gray  (///*iV  2:10)  says  of  the  section  as  a  whole:  'The  char- 
acter of  the  thirteen  names  presents  nothiii-,'  inconsistent  with 
the  (fenealoty-  being  genuine.'  He  is,  urifoitunately,  doubtful 
about  the  names  in  which  we  are  specially  interested.  'The 
only  names  which  appear  to  me  suspicious  are  n31  (Zabad]  and, 
in  a  less  degree,  *ny  (Attai].'  1  Ch  ll*u»-*',  a  passage  peculiar  to 
Chron.,  is  the  direct  continuation  of  vv.2ft-iu,  which  =; 2  8  23^39. 
Possibly,  therefore,  vv.-Ub-iT  are  from  the  same  ancient  source  as 
the  rest  of  the  list,  and  were  accidentally  omitted  from  Samuel 
(so  Kautzsch,  Kittel,  etc.).  The  concluding  note  in  2  S  2339, 
■  thirty  and  seven  in  nil,'  is  transposed  by  LXX,  and  the  nunilicr 
37  does  not  i-orruspond  with  the  list.  But  Ciray  (op.  cit.  '2'2[l  ft".) 
holds  that  if  vv.-ilb-i?  is  based  on  an  ancient  document,  the 
text  is  very  corrupt.  Possibly  Zabad  b.  Nathan  (1  Ch  23«)i8  the 
same  as  Zabud  b.  Nathan,  Solomon's  priest  and  'king's  friend' 
in  1  K  4&.  The  latter  occurs  in  some  texts  and  versions  (see 
Zabdd,  and  cf.  No.  3)  as  Zacnr  or  Zaccfir,  so  that  we  might  read 
for  Zabad  in  1  Ch  233  Zacar,  a  contraction  of  the  familiar 
Zechariah.  In  some  scripts  of  Heb.  Zacar  (IDI)  and  Zahad 
(131)  can  hardly  be  distinguished.  Cf.  Jozacar.  If  Zabad  is 
accepted,  and  1  Ch  2'^^^^  is  regarded  as  based  on  some  old 
genealogy  setting  forth  the  relations  of  clans,  the  apiiarcnt 
occurrence  of  Zabad  as  an  Ephraimite  clan  in  1  Ch  7'*i  may 
indicate  that  the  clan  was  at  one  time  reckoned  to  Judah,  arcl 
at  another  to  Ephraim  ;  or  that  it  wjis  ultimately  divided  be- 
tween the  two  tribes.     Note  also  the  Elishama  in  'i^i  and  "26. 

2.  A  link  in  an  Ephraimite  genealogy,  1  Ch  7" 
(Zd,?e5),  ending  apparently  in  a  certain  '  Ezer  and 
Elc.id,'  who  were  slain  liy  the  men  of  ( iatli.  Zabad 
in  MT  is  tli^j  son  of  Tahatli  and  the  father  of 
Shuthelah.  In  LXX",  however,  the  genealogy 
is  much  shortened,  and  it  is  Zaliad  who  is  slain 
— thus,  '  And  the  sons  of  Ephraim,  Sotlial;ith. 
The  sons  of  Laada,  Noome,  his  son,  Zabad  his  son  : 
and  tlie  men  of  G;ith  killed  him.'  It  is  pointed 
out  in  Shuthelah  that  Zab:ul  (-iz\)  here  is  probably 
a  corruiition  of  'ami  Bond'  (mm)  repeated  from 
v.^.*  If  so,  this  Zabad  disappears.  If,  however, 
Zabad  is  retained  here,  cf.  No.  1. 

3.  In  2  Ch  24'^  the  name  of  one  of  the  murderers 
of  Joash  is  given  as  Zabad  (15  Za.jit\,  A  Yia^cO),  the 
son  of  Shiineath  the  Ammonitess.  2  K  12-'  has 
Jo/.acar.  Perhaps  we  should  read  here  Zarar 
(Kittel,  SHOT);  cf.  Jozacar.— 4.  5.  6.  Three  lay- 
men of  the  time  of  Ezra,  who  had  married  foreign 
wives,  whom  they  promised  to  divorce:  («)  Ezr 
10"  of  the  bene  Zattu  (B  Za^aSd^,  NA  Za^dJ  ;  1  Es 
9'*  2dj3a9os,  cf.  Sabatus).  (4)  Ezr  lO*"  of  the  benfi 
lla.shum  (B  Za/9A,  A  Za^dJ  ;  1  Es  9*"  H  ^ajSowaioDt, 
A  IJan/aioDs,  cf.  Sabanneu.s).  (c)  Ezr  10"  of  the 
bene  Nebo  (B  iliSi/i,  A  omits  both  this  and  the 
following  Zebina  ;  1  Es  9'"  Za/3aSa(a5,  cf.  Zaiia- 
DAIAS).  Apparently  Zebina  is  omitted.  One  of 
the  two,  Zal/atl,  Zeoina,  may  be  due  to  accidental 
repetition.  W.  H.  Bennett. 


ZABAD^ANS  (Zo/3a5aroi).— The  name  of  an  Aiab- 

.So  also  (JitsBAtoov,  VII. 1»  4,  ami  in  Kncj/c.  Bibl.  Ilogg,  art. 
.'hraim'   12,  and  Uervcy   fpioted  by   ""  ~' 

ter  arrived  at  this  view  Independt  ntlv. 


'  Ephraim^'   12,  and  Uervcy   fpioted  by  Hogs.      The  present 


960 


ZABADEAS 


ZACHARIAH 


ian  tribe  defeated  by  Jonathan  (1  Mac  1'2")-  The 
Pesli.  form  of  the  name  seems  to  mean  Znhnulmatts, 
i.e.  Banu  Zubaid,  which  was  the  name  of  a  famous 
AraViian  family ;  and  indeed  derivatives  from  the 
root  Zbd  form  many  proper  namus  in  Arabic  and 
Nabatieaii  (the  name  substituted  for  Zahada>an  liy 
Jos.  Ant.  XIII.  V.  U),  though  tlie  verb  itself  in 
its  old  sense  '  to  give '  is  not  found  in  Arabic. 
The  name  of  the  tribe  defeated  by  Jonathan 
is  thought  to  be  retained  in  Zebdnny  or  Ziiba- 
dtini,  '  a  well-known  district  between  Damascus 
and  Baalbek,  where  the  river  of  Damascus  rises' 
(Yakut,  ii.  913).  The  plain  of  Zebdany  is  thus 
described  by  Conder,  Tent  ■  Work  in  PaUntine, 
i.  249:  'It  13  flanked  on  the  west  by  the  ragged 
and  ('astellated  ridges  of  the  Anti-Lebanon,  and  on 
the  east  by  a  range  of  equal  height.  The  plateau 
is  bare  and  treeless,  except  towards  the  north, 
where  are  groves  of  poplar.  Through  the  centre 
runs  the  river,  its  course  marked  by  green  bushes.' 
The  situation  of  the  plain  seems  to  agree  with  the 
movements  recorded  in  1  Mac.  exceedingly  well. 
Beth  Zabdni,  to  which  allusion  is  sometimes  made 
in  the  Rabbinic  writings,  and  which  some  have 
connected  with  this  i)lace,  has  been  shown  by 
Kohut  {Arufh  Complctum,  ii.  68)  to  belong  to  a 
difl'erent  region.  D.  S.  Mabgoliouth. 

ZABADEAS  (Za/3a«oias,  AV  Zabadaias),  1  Es  ff«> 
=  Zabad,  Ezr  10". 

ZAB6AI  (';!). — I.  One  of  the  descendants  of 
liebai  who  had  married  a  foreign  wife,  Ezr  lO'-® 
(BA  Zo^oi's  Luc.  Za^ov8) ;  called  in  1  Es  9-"  Jozab- 
dus.  2.  Father  of  Baruch  who  assisted  in  the 
rebuilding  of  the  wall,  Neh  32»(BA  Za^oi),  S  Za^poi, 
Luc.  'Pa/3/3ai).  The  KerS  has,  perhaps  rightly,  'ji 
Zaccai,  a  name  which  occurs  in  Ezr  2''  ( B  Za(>x<"'i 
.V  '^"'  ZaKxd",  Luc.  Zaj,xa'a5)  =  Neh  7'^  (BX  Zatfoi's 
A  Za.Kxovf>,  Luc.  Za/cx«"'5),  and  is  the  origin  of  the 
ZACCH.EUS  of  2  Mac  10"  and  the  NT. 

ZABBUD  (Kithtbh  int,  Keri  toi  Zarcur  ;  B.  cm., 
A  Zo/3oi'5,  i.e.  lui  [cf.  1  K  4'],  Luc.  ZaKxoup). — An 
I'xile  who  returned  with  Ezra,  Ezr  8".  In  1  Es 
S'"  n!2!)  is  apparently  corrupted  into  ISTALCURUS. 

ZABDEUS  (Za^Saios),  1  Es  9-'  =  Zebadiah  of  the 
sons  of  Immer,  Ezr  H>". 

ZABDI  ('^3!  ?  '  gift  of  Jah,'  or  perh.  '  my  gift,' 
or  'gift  to  me'  ;  NT  Ze/SeSaios,  Zebedee).— 1.  The 
grandfather  of  Achan,  Jos  7'- "■ '»  (B  ZaufSpil,  A 
Za^pf,  Zan^pl,  Luc.  Za;35(e)0,  called  in  1  Ch  2" 
Z-imri  (B  Za/ji^pfl,  A  Zafifipi).  2.  A  Benjamite, 
1  Ch  8'^  (B  ZajiSel,  A  Za,aoI,  Luc.  Zf;35i)-  3.  An 
uHicer  of  Uavid,  1  Ch  27='  (B  Zaxp^l,  A  and  Luc. 
Zaiiol).  i.  A  Levite,  Neh  11"  (B  om.,  A  Zexp^,  Luc. 
Zexp(^) ;  l^ut  read  probably  n^i  Zichri,  as  in  ||  1  Ch 

ZABDIEL  C^K"!?!  'my  gift  is  El').—!.  Father  of 
one  of  David's  otiicers,  1  Ch  27*  (BA  Zo/SSei^X,  Luc. 
Za/j5i7)X).  2.  A  prominent  oihcial,  overseer  of  12S 
'  mighty  men  of^  valour'  in  Nehemiali's  time,  Neh 
11"  (B  BaSii'A,  A  Zoxp^-fjX,  Luc.  Zexpii/X).  3.  An 
Arabian  who  put  Alexander  Balas  to  death  and 
sent  his  head  to  Ptolemy,  1  Mac  11"  (Za'^oiriX),  Jos. 
Atit.  XIII.  iv.  8  (Zd/3eiXos). 

ZABDD  (ini  '  bestowed  ').— The  son  of  Nathan, 
'priest'  and  '  king's  friend '  (see  art.  Pkiksts  and 
Levites,  p.  73),  1  K  4"  {B  Za§oi0,  A  Za^^oiiS,  Luc. 
Zoxoi'p.  '•"•  ^^i)- 

ZACCAI See  Zabbai. 

ZACCH^US  (Zokxoios),  the  same  name  as  Zaccai 


('pure')  in  the  OT  (Ezr  2',  Neh  7''').— 1.  The  pub- 
lican. All  that  we  know  of  him  from  the  Bible  ia 
to  be  found  in  Lk  19'"'".  He  was  a  Jew,*  and  a 
chief  official  amongst  the  publicans  in  and  about 
Jericho,  where  a  considerable  amount  of  revenue 
was  raised  from  the  palm-groves  and  balsam 
(Joseph.  Ant.  XV.  iv.  2).  Zaccha-us  had  therefore 
great  opportunities  for  growing  rich.  He  was  a 
man  of  short  stature.  Anxious  to  see  Jesus,  he 
climbed  up  into  a  sjcomore  tree  t  to  be  above  the 
tlirong  that  surrounded  our  Lord.  On  coming  to 
the  place,  Jesus  called  to  him  to  come  down,  and 
invited  Himself  to  his  house.  This  delighted 
Zacchjeus,  though  the  bystanders  murmured  at  the 
choice  of  lodging  which  our  Lord  had  made.  He 
declared  his  anxiety  to  be  liberal  to  the  poor,  and 
to  make  fourfold  restitution  to  any  whom  lie  had 
wronged.  His  wish  to  tlo  right  won  from  Christ 
the  declaration  :  '  To-day  is  salvation  come  to  this 
house,  forasmuch  as  he  also  is  a  son  of  Abraham. 
For  the  Son  of  man  came  to  seek  and  to  save  that 
which  was  lost.'  In  the  Clementine  Iloniilies  {n'l.  63), 
Zaccha'us,  after  being  companion  of  St.  Peter,  is 
made  by  him  bishop  of  Cies.area.  By  '  Pra-desti- 
natus '  he  is  said  to  have  combated  the  errors  of 
Valentinus  and  Ptoleniieus  (a  disciple  of  Valen- 
tinus),t  though  this  is  chronologically  impossible. 
There  is  no  early  authority  for  making  Zacch^us 
a  bishop  at  all.  A  Zacchieus  is  mentioned  bj'  the 
Talmud  as  living  at  Jericlio,  the  father  of  the 
celebrated  Rabbi  Jochanan  ben-Zachai. 
3.  An  officer  of  Judas  Maccaba^us,  2  Mac  10". 

H.  A.  Redpath. 

ZACCUR  (T3!).— 1.  A  Reulenite,  Nu  13^(»)  (B 
ZaKxvp,  A  Zaxpov,  Luc.  Zayxovp).  2.  A  Simeonite, 
1  Ch  4^  (B  om.,  A  ZaKxoijp,  Luc.  Zaxoi'P).  3.  A 
Merarite,  1  Ch  24-''  {ZaKxovp).  4.  An  Asaphite, 
1  Ch  25=  (B  ^aKxoi's,  A  ZaKxovp)  '»  (B  Zaxxo^S,  A 
ZaKxovp),  Neh  12^^  (ZaKxovp).  S.  One  of  those  who 
assisted  Nehemiah  to  rebuild  the  wall,  Neh  3' 
(B  Za^aovp,  A  and  Luc.  ZaKxovp).  6.  One  of  those 
who  sealed  the  covenant,  NeU  10'*  (B  Zaxuip,  A 
ZaKxiip,  Luc.  ZaKxoi'p),  prob.  same  as  mentioned  in 
13's  (BA  ZaKxoup,  Luc.  ZaKxoip).  7.  Ezr  8"  J^gri. 
See  Zabbud. 

ZACHARIAH  (Zaxapias,  whence  AV  Zacharia.i). 
— In  His  denunciation  of  the  Pharisees  and  the 
guilty  nation  of  the  Jews,  our  Lord  declares  that 
the  innocent  blood  of  the  prophets  is  to  be  required 
of  them,  'from  the  blood  of  Abel  the  righteous 
unto  the  blood  of  Zachariah  the  son  of  Barachiah, 
whom  ve  slew  between  the  sanctuary  and  the 
altar'  (^It  23'',  cf.  the  ||  Lk  IP').  Tlie  reference 
is  almost  cert.ainlv  to  the  murder  of  Zecliariah  (see 
Zechariah,  No.  il)  recorded  in  2  Ch  24-""---.  This 
is  far  more  likely  than  the  view  held  by  some,  that 
the  Zachariah  intended  is  the  fatlier  of  John  the 
Baptist  (see  Zacharias),  who,  according  to  Origen 
{Com.  in  Matt.),  was  killed  in  the  temple.  The 
reason  why  Jesus  fixes  upon  a  murder  in  the  time 
of  king  Joash  (c.  840-800  B.C.)  is  probably  because 
the  Books  of  Clironicles  already  in  our  Lord's  day 
came  last  in  the  Canon  of  the  OT.  '  It  was  equi- 
valent to  an  appeal,  in  Christian  ears,  to  the  whole 
range  of  the  Bible  from  Genesis  to  Revelation' 
(Ryle,  C'««o»  <)/■</««  or,  p.  141). 

Some  ditticuity  is  occasioned  by  the  designation 
'  son  of  Baracliiah.'  The  Zechariah  of  2  Chron. 
was  the  son  of  the  high  priest  Jehoiada.  The 
only  'Zechariah  the  eon  of  Berechiah'  known  to 
us  is   the   prophet  who  was  contemporary   with 

*  Tertiillian  (adv.  Marc.  iv.  37.  1)  saj'B  that  he  was  a  Oentile. 
This  is  contradicted  by  the  'son  of  Abraham'  of  Lk  19^. 

t  Not  tile  tree  conunonly  called  sycomore,  but  one  with  flg^ 
like  fruits  and  leaves  Hke  those  of  the  mulbcrrj-  tree. 

!  See  Harnack,  QetcliichU  der  altchristlichen  LUleralvr,  i  cL  I 
p.  791. 


ZACHARIAS 


ZADOK 


961 


HafTgai  (cf.  Zee  1').  There  may  he  a  ((infusion 
with  him  on  the  part  of  the  evangelist  Matthew 
[Luke  omits  the  designation  'eon  of  Barachiah'] 
or  of  a  glossator.* 

ZACHARIAS  (Zaxop(os).— 1.  1  Es  l«  =  Zeclmriah, 
one  of  '  the  rulers  of  the  house  of  God  '  in  Josiah's 
reign,  2  Ch  35''.  2.  In  1  Es  1">  (LXX  ")  Zeeh.  stands 
in  place  of  lleman,  the  singer  of  David's  time,  in 
the  iiarallel  passage  2  Ch  35".  3.  I  Es  G'  7^  the 
prophet  Zeohariah.  4.  1  Es  8*"  =  Zeehariah  of 
the  sons  of  Parosh,  Ezr  8'.  5.  1  Es  8"  (B  Zaxapmi) 
=  Zechariah  of  the  sons  of  Bebai,  Ezr  8".  6.  1  Es 
8**  (LXX ")  =  Zeehariah,  one  of  the  'prineipal  men 
and  men  of  understanding'  willi  whom  Ezra  con- 
sulted, Ezr  8"*.  7.  1  Es  9-''  =  Zecliariah  of  the 
sons  of  Elam,  Ezr  10-'«.  8.  1  Es  9"  =  Zeehariah, 
one  of  those  who  stood  upon  Ezra's  left  hand  at 
the  reading  of  the  Law.  .Neh  8*.  9.  1  .Mac  S''-  »« 
Fatlier  of  Joseph,  a  leader  in  the  MaccaUT?an  war 
under  .Judas  MaccaK-eus.  10.  Lk  P  etc.  Father  of 
John  the  Baptist.     See  following  article. 

ZACHARIAS  (Zoxapias).— Father  of  John  the 
Baptist  (Lk  1°  etc.  3-).  He  was  a  priest  of  the 
course  of  Ar.lJAll,  one  of  the  twentj--four  coupes 
into  which  from  tlie  time  of  the  Chronicler  at  least 
(1  Ch  24'-'»)  the  families  of  the  (iriests  that  had 
returned  from  Babylon  were  divided  (see  Schiirer, 
ffJP  II.  i.  216,  219).  The  course  of  Abijah  was 
the  eighth  of  these  courses,  and  had  now  been 
brought  up  for  its  week's  service  in  the  temple. 
The  lot  for  that  particular  day's  service  (see  Eders- 
heim.  The  Temple,  p.  129  fi.)  had  fallen  to  the 
house  of  Zacharias,  and  to  Zaeharias  himself  the 
duty  of  olVering  incense  in  the  Holy  Place.  While 
performing  this  service  he  had  a  vision,  and  the 
Angel  of  the  Lord  announced  that  his  aged  wife 
should  have  a  son,  who  should  be  called  John, 
and  be  the  forerunner  of  the  Messiah.  Asking  a 
sign  he  was  struck  dumb,  and  recovered  speech  (inly 
after  having  the  child  niimed  John  at  liis  circum- 
cision. The  Song  of  Praise  which  is  put  in  liis 
mouth,  the  JIiiwiIicIhh  (Lk  l"'-''),  celebrates  in 
prophetic  strains  the  glorious  fulfilment  ot  Israel's 
Messianic  hope.  With  the  song  he  drops  com- 
pletely out  of  the  pages  of  canonical  Scripture. 

ZACHARY  {Zacharias),  2  Es  I*.— The  prophet 
Zeehariah. 

ZADOK. — 1.  The  most  important  of  the  many 
persons  who  bore  this  name  was  the  founder  of  the 
leading  branch  of  the  priesthood  in  Jerusalem. 
We  have  no  reliable  information  concerning  his 
origin  or  his  early  history.  He  comes  liefore  us 
first  in  a  list  of  David's  ollicers,  where  we  are  told 
that  '  Ziidok  the  son  of  Ahitub,  and  Ahimelech 
the  son  of  Abiathar,  were  priests '  (2  S  8"). 

The  text  of  this  veree  is  obviousl}'  corrupt.  Ahimelech  wafl 
murdered  at  Nob,  and  his  son  Abiutiiar  wiui  David's  attendant 
and  pripst  to  the  end  of  his  reign.  If  Ahitiili,  in  our  pasMa^je, 
is  the  priest  mentioned  in  1  S  143  he  can  hardly  have  lii-en 
Z.vlr)lc's  father,  for  we  are  certainty  meant  to  understand  tliat 
Zadolt  (lid  not  tielong  to  the  descendants  of  Eli  (1  S  2^,  I  K  2"^). 
Comparing  1  S  2220  it  would  eecra  that  2  H  8*'  should  run : 
*  Al>i.ithar  the  son  of  Ahimelech,  the  son  of  Ahitub,  and  Zatlok, 
were  pricsta.' 

Zndok  and  Abiathar  appear  again  when  David 
fled  from  Jerusalem  before  Absalom.  They  iiur- 
pos(-(i  accompanying  him  and  taking  with  tliem 
the  ark,  but  the  king  bade  them  return  with  it  to 
the  city,  watch  tlie  course  of  events,  and  send  him 
news  (2  S  15--"-)- 

Accor<linK  to  the  Vulff.  (0  eidens)  and  many  modem  versions, 
he  addrt-sseM  Zadok  as  a  seer.  '  Art  thou  not  a  seer?*  (A  V  and 
RV  text  2  S  l.'i")-     But  the  Heb.  will  not  bear  this  rendering. 


*  A  Zeehariah  *  the  son  of  Jebertchiah '  is  mentioned  in  Is  8- 
out  it  is  quite  unlikely  that  be  w^  thought  of  in  Mt  23^. 
VOL.  IV. — 6l 


and  it  is  ditflcult  to  be  content  with  any  pointing  or  tranFlatloo 
of  it.  The  L.\X  w-i  ("ISiTi)  is  better.  Wellhauscn  (2>rt  litr 
Bb.  Sam.  p.  177)  proposes  to  read  eiinn  )n3,T  tor  njiSri  [nscr:  U 
the  two  words  are  a  late  insertion  this  would  be  an  improve- 
ment. In  any  case,  there  is  no  rc-uson  for  believing  that  Zodok 
bore  the  title  of '  seer.' 

At  the  close  of  David's  reign  Abiathar  joined 
the  party  of  Adonijah  (1  K  1'),  but  Z.adok  gave  in 
his  adhesion  to  Solomon  (v."),  and  was  ordered  by 
the  king  to  anoint  him  (v.*').  When  Solomon 
had  made  sure  of  his  position  he  deposed  Abiathar 
from  tlie  priestly  oilice,  '  and  Zadok  the  priest  did 
the  king  put  in  the  room  of  Abi.'ithar.'  Tliis  event 
has  inlluenced  the  earlier  narratives  in  Samuel, 
whore  Zadok  is  from  the  first  put  before  Abiathar. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  descendants  of 
Zadok  continued  during  many  centuries  to  take 
the  lead  amongst  the  priests  of  the  temple.  The 
Deuteronomic  reform  raised  them  to  an  even  higher 

Sosition  than  they  had  occupied  previously,  for  it 
enied  the  legitimacy  of  all  .sacrilices  oll'ered  else- 
where than  at  Jerusalem,  and  thus  brought  the 
provincial  priesthood  into  discredit.  Ezekiel  went 
further.  To  him  tlie  sons  of  Zadok  were  the  only 
legitiniiite  priests  (40^"  4:i'»  44">  48") ;  the  rest  of 
the  Levitts,  because  of  their  unfaithfulness,  were 
to  be  degraded,  nothing  but  the  menial  work  of 
the  sanctuary  being  left  in  their  hands  (44'"-"). 

The  Chronicler's  accounts  require  separate  treat- 
ment. 1  Ch  12-*  states  that  amongst '  the  beads  of 
them  tliat  were  armed  for  war,  which  came  to 
David  to  Hebron,  to  turn  the  kingdom  of  Saul  to 
him,'  was  'Zadok,  a  young  man  mighty  of  valour, 
and  of  his  father's  house  twenty  and  two  captains.' 
As  he  is  said  to  have  been  of  the  house  of  Aaron, 
we  cannot  wonder  that  Joseplius  (Ant.  Vll.  ii.  2) 
identities  him  with  the  priest.  But  the  narra- 
tive as  a  whole  is  coneei\ed  in  a  totally  different 
spirit  from  those  in  Samuel,  and  the  details  do  not 
comm.and  our  credence.  Tlie  numbers  alone  are 
sulUcient  to  condemn  it.  Equally  unsatisfactory 
are  the  genealogical  lists  in  which  Zadok's  descent 
from  Eleazar  is  traced  (1  Ch  6*-">'«'-™  24»).  Their 
object  is  to  make  out  that  the  Zadokite  priests 
belonged  to  the  elder  branch  of  Aaron's  descenci- 
ants,  and  the  descendants  of  Eli  to  the  younger 
br.inch  of  Ithamar.  The  most  cursory  inspection 
reveals  their  artilicial  construction  and  their  un- 
reliableness.  The  utmost  we  can  gather  from  the 
Chronicler  is  the  fact  that  after  the  return  from 
the  Exile  some  families  which  traced  no  connexion 
with  Zadok  managed  to  vindicate  tlieir  right  to 
minister  at  the  altar  (1  Ch  24"- ■•),  but  that  his 
representatives  were  both  more  numerous  and 
more  highly  placed  (1  Ch  24»-  *  27";  1  S  2^"- "«  points 
in  the  same  ilirection).     See,  further,  art.  Pkiests 

AND  LEVITE.S. 

The  filT  vo(mli/.ation,  pl^y.  Is  probably  mistaken.  The  LXX 
fre(|ucntly  has  IxiheCx,  a  translit(,'ration  of  pn;(.  From  2a^So(^« 
was  derived  licc^ituKetit; ,  although  it  cannot  be  unhesitatingly 
attlnned  that  the  Sadduckks  took  their  name  immediately  from 
the  orij,'inal  Zadok.  There  can,  however,  he  no  doubt  as  XA 
their  close  connexion  with  the  priestly  aristocracy. 

2.  In  2  K  IS*",  2  Ch  27',  we  are  told  that  Jotham 
succeeded  Uzziah,  his  fatlier,  and  that  bis  mother's 
name  was  Jerusha,  the  daughter  of  Zadok.  In 
the  statements  concerning  the  accession  of  a  king 
it  is  not  usual  to  give  the  maternal  grandfather's 
name;  possibly,  therefore,  Jotham's  grandfather 
was  a  person  of  considerable  importance,  not  im- 
probablv  a  priest. — 3.  Neh  3*  mentions  a  Zadok, 
son  of  Jiiuina  (Kjy:),  as  one  of  Nehemiah's  willing 
heliiers  in  rebuilding  the  city  wall.  His  father 
seems  to  be  mentioned  as  one  of  those  who  came 
to  Jerusalem  with  Zerubbabel,  Ezr  2^  Neh  V. — 
4.  Zadok,  the  son  of  Immer,  Neh  3-",  rejiaired  the 
wall  '  over  against  his  own  house,'  on  the  east  side 
of  the  city,  near  the  horse -gata.      We  have  no 


962 


ZAHAM 


ZANOAH 


means  of  deciding  positively  wliether  he  is  to  be 
identified  witli  the  bearer  of  the  same  name  in  a 
later  passage  of  the  book.  But  there  is  no  con- 
clusive reason  against  the  identification.  Zadok 
'the  scribe'  is  appointed  by  Nehemiah  to  be  one 
of  the  'treasurers  over  the  treasuries'  (Neh  13"). 
He  would  seem  to  have  been  a  priest.  Shelemiah 
the  priest  and  himself  are  distinguished  from  the 
Levites.  Ezra's  example  shows  tliat  the  priest 
may  also  be  the  scribe.  In  this  case  Zadok  must 
have  been  the  head  of  '  the  chUdron  of  Immer.' — 
5.  Zadok  is  distinguished  from  the  priests  as  one 
of  'the  chiefs  of  the  people'  who  sealed  the  cove- 
nant (Neh  10=')-— 6.  1  Ch  G'-,  compared  with  Ezr  "'■' 
and  Neh  11",  appears  to  refer  to  a  liijjli  priest  of  the 
name  of  Zadok  later  than  tlie  founder  of  the  line. 
But  it  is  impossible  to  rely  on  these  lists,  and,  in 
any  event,  nothing  is  known  of  the  man. 

Mt  l^*  mentions  a  Sadoo  (^ahux)  as  one  of  the  progenitors  of 
Joseph,  the  husband  of  Mary.  Jij^ephus  {Ant.  xviii.  i.  1)  states 
that  one  Zadok,  a  Pharisee,  assisted  Jndas  of  GaHlee  (Ac5-*~)  in 
rousing  the  people  a^^ainst  the  'enrolment'  under  QuiriniiiB 
(Lk  21).  Jost  {Gcgch.  den  Judeiithums,  ii.  20)  refers  to  a  Zadok 
who  is  mentioned  in  the  Talmud  as  ha\'in<:  fasted  fort.v  .years, 
until  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  He  pro]ioniids  a  theologi- 
cal  puzzle  first  to  Rabbi  Joshua  and  next  to  Rabban  Gamaliel, 
who  give  him  discordant  answers.  Thereupon  Joshua  is  pub- 
licly rebuked  and  put  to  shame  by  Gamaliel  {Bech,  36a). 

J.  Taylor. 
ZAHAM  (CC!).— A  son   of  Rehoboam,  2  Ch  11" 
(B'PooXXd/n,  A  ZaXd/i,  Luc.  Zadfi). 

ZAIN  (T).— The  seventh  letter  of  the  Hebrew 
alphabet,  and  as  such  employed  in  the  119th  Psalm 
to  designate  the  7th  part,  each  verse  of  which  be- 
gins with  this  letter.  It  is  transliterated  in  this 
Dictionary  by  «. 

_  ZAIR  (Tyy).— According  to  the  MT  of  2  K  8=', 
Joram,  in  the  course  of  his  campaign  against 
Edom,  '  passed  over  to  Zair '  (B  e/s  Zeitip,  A  om.). 
In  the  parall.  passage  2  Ch  21'  the  Heb.  is  '  passed 
over  with  his  princes  '  {r-it^c^  ;  LXX  /iera.  tup  apxif- 
Tuf),  which  may  be  confidently  pronounced  to  be  a 
corruption  of  the  text  in  Kings.  The  latter  itself 
is  unfortunately  not  certain.  No  place  of  the  name 
of  Za'ir  being  mentioned  elsewhere,  it  has  been 
conjectured  that  Zu'ar  (Ewald,  el  al.)  or  Se'ir  (cf. 
Vulg.  Seira)  should  be  read.  'The  latter,  however, 
is  somewhat  vague,  and  against  the  claims  of  Zdar 
may  be  urged  the  LXX  -etup,  whereas  that  name 
is  elsewhere  reproduced  by  Z-qyiip  (cf.  Buhl,  Edom. 
65,  who  also  objects  to  Conder's  suggested  identifica- 
tion of  Za'ir  with  ez-Zuwera  S.E.  of  the  Dead  Sea). 

ZALAPH  ('■^t;  B  -ZtU,  A  and  Luc.  2eX^0).— The 
father  of  Hanun,  who  assisted  in  repairing  the 
wall,  Neh  3^"  [the  text  is  a  little  suspicious,  'the 
sixth  son'  being  a  somewhat  peculiar  note,  which, 
however,  is  supported  by  the  VSS]. 

ZALMON  (pc4;  "ZcXfiiJiv  ;  Salmon).— i.  The  place 
mentioned  in  Ps  68"  is  considered  by  some  com- 
mentators to  be  the  same  as  Mount  Zalmon  (.Ig 
9'''')  —  the  hill,  near  Shechem,  on  which  Abinie- 
lech  and  his  jieople  cut  down  boughs  to  set  '  the 
hold '  of  the  house  of  El-berith  on  lire.  There  is, 
however,  nothing  in  Ps  68  to  lend  to  the  belief 
that  the  Psalmist  intended  to  refer  to  an  undcr- 
feature  of  Mount  Gerizira,  which  is  mentioned  in 
the  OT  only  in  connexion  with  an  incident  th.at 
had  no  influence  on  the  history  of  the  Israelites. 
The  central  idea  of  the  psalm  is  the  selection  of 
Zion  as  the  abode  of  God,  in  preference  to  Sinai 
■whence  the  Law  was  given,  and  to  '  the  mountain  of 
Bashan'  which  had  looked  down  upon  the  memor- 
able overthrow  of  Og  anil  his  army.  The  earlier 
verses  contain  a  retrospective  glance  at  the  journey 
of  the  Israelites  from  Sinai  onwards,  through  the 
desert,  under  the  immediate  leading  and  K^idauce 


of  God,  and  their  triumphant  occupation  of  Canaan 
after  vanquishing  all  their  enemies.  In  this  vic- 
torious progress,  one  of  the  most  striking  incidents 
was  the  complete  overthrow  of  Og,  near  Edrei,  on 
the  plains  of  Bashan, — a  victory  which  long  lingered 
in  the  national  memory  (Ps  135"  136-"), — and  Zalmon 
should  probably  be  looked  for  in  that  region.  Some 
suppose  that  Zalmon  means  'darkness,'  and  connect 
it  with  the  '  darkly '  wooded  hill  near  Shechem, 
but  this  meaning  would  be  equally  applicable  to 
the  basalts  and  volcanic  hills  of  Bashan.  Zalmon 
may  have  been  a  jiortion  of  Bashan,  or  one  of  tiie 
summits  of  Jebel  Jfaiiran,oi  Mount  Hermon.  (In 
Jg  9'"*  the  LXX  reads  5pos  "Ep/iwt/  for  Mount  Zalmon). 
The  allusion  to  the  snow  is  supposed  by  some  to 
refer  to  ground  white  with  the  bones  of  Canaanites 
slain  in  battle ;  but  this  is  rather  straining  the 
meaning.  Possibly  the  words  refer  to  an  actui 
fall  of  snow  in  Zalmon  during  the  battle  with  Og. 

2.  One  of  David's  heroes,  2  S  2328.     See  Ilai. 

C.  W.  Wilson. 

ZALMONAH  (nji^s,  SeX/uoi/d).— The  station  in  the 
journeyings  of  the  children  of  Israel,  following 
Mt.  Hor,  in  the  itinerary  of  Nu  33,  and  men- 
tioned there  only  in  vv.'''-  *'.  Nothing  is  known 
as  to  its  position.  It  must  have  been  in  the  neigh- 
bourhood of  Punon,  the  station  following  ;  and,  if 
the  identification  in  art.  PuNON  be  accepted,  itg 
site  Avould  be  approximately  determined. 

The  Or.  rendering  is  identical  with  th.it  of  Hashnioiiah,  as 
has  been  noticed  in  art.  Hasiimo.vaii  ;  but  the  same  renilering 
also  occurs  for  Azmon  of  Nu  34^  in  A,  'Ao-Afi.an'a  in  F,  and  in 
AF  of  Xu  33^  for  Hashmonah.  Ewald's  proposed  modification 
of  the  text,  which  would  separate  Sit.  Hor  from  Zalnioiiah  by 
inserting  vv.st:b-4la  after  Uashmouah,  haa  been  given   in  art. 

Exouus,  VOL  i.  p.  soiK  A.  T.  Chapman. 

ZALMUNNA.— See  Zebah. 

ZAMBRI  (B  Zafi^pel,  A  Zafipph,  AV  Zambis),  1  Eg 
93*=Amariah,  Ezr  lO*'. 

ZAMOTH  (ZaMifl),  1  Es  9=«=Zattu,  Ezr  10". 

ZAMZUMMIM  (D'Bip! ;  LXX  Zoxonfuv,  A  Zon^on- 
fidv,  V  Zoix/j.etp). — In  the  arclia?ological  notice,  Dt 
2-""'-^,  said  (v.-")  to  have  been  the  name  given  by 
the  Ammonites  to  the  '  Rephaim,'  wiio  once  in- 
habited their  land,  but  had  afterwards  been  ex- 
pelled by  them, — a  people  '  great  and  many  and 
tall,  like  the  Anakim'  (comp.  the  similar  note  in 
yy  10. 11  respecting  the  'Emini,'  the  prehistoric 
occupants  of  the  territory  possessed  afterwards  by 
Moal),  and  in  v.'^  resjiecting  the  yorites,  the 
original  occupants  of  Edom).  The  Rephaim  were 
a  people,  reputed  to  have  been  of  giant  stature, 
who  left  remains  or  memories  of  themselves  in 
dilleriiit  parts  of  Palestine, —cf.  e.g.  the  'Vale 
of  licphaira'  Jos  15'  al.  S.W.  of  Jerus.,  and  the 
description  of  Og,  king  of  Bashan,  as  '  of  the 
remnant  of  the  Rephaim,'  also  2  S  21'«-  '»•  »■  --  RV  ; 
and  the  Ammonites  called  those  Rephaim  who, 
in  prehistoric  times,  had  inhabited  their  own 
terntorv  by  the  name 'Zamzummim.'  This  is  all 
that  is  Icnown  about  them.  As  regards  the  name, 
zamzamah  in  Arab,  is  a  distnnt  and  confused 
.<!ound,  and  ziztm  is  the  loxo  hvin  of  the  Jinn  heard 
in  the  desert  at  night  (Lane,  1248  f.),  whence  W.  R. 
Smith  ("p.  Driver  on  Dt  2-")  thinks  with  Schwally 
that  the  name  meant  properly  u-hU-perers,  mur- 
miircrs,  and  denoted  the  spirits  (cf.  Is  8")  of  the 
old  giants,  which  'were  still  thought  to  haunt  the 
ruins  and  deserts  of  East  Canaan.  But  of  course 
this  is  only  a  conjecture  :  we  do  not  know  that  the 
root  zamzama,  with  its  Arabic  meaning,  was  in  use 
in  Animonitish.     Cf.  Zuzim.  S.  R.  DRn'ER. 

ZANOAH  (0^3')- — !•  A  town  in  the  Shephelah, 
Jos  15"  (B  Toj-ii,  A  and  Luc.  Z<ww),  Neh  3"  (BA 


ZAPHENATH-PANEAH 


ZATHUI 


rM-,3 


Zcwij,  Luc.  Zanj;-)  11*'(BA  om.,  jj"- "°« '»'•  Zai-ie, 
Luc.  Zcwii),  1  Ch  4"  (BA  Zoroly,  Luc.  Zarie)  In 
tlie  la-st  cited  passage  Jekuthiel  is  said  to  have 
been  the  'father'  of  Zanoah.  The  place,  it  is 
generally  agreed,  is  the  modern  Zanua,  S.E.  of 
Zoreah  (Robinson,  BR/'-  ii.  61).  2.  A  place  in 
the  mountains,  Jos  lo*"  (B  ZaKavaei/j.  [combining 
cut  and  the  following  j'sn],  A  Zovii,  Luc.  Zoi-oi;), 
possibly  Ziiniita  S.W.  of  Hebron  {SWP  iii.  404), 
although  Dillm.  objects  that  this  is  too  far  south. 

ZAPHENATH-PANEAH  (rjvs  ni?»,  ^opeofKpavvx). 
— The  name  given  by  I'haraoh  to  Joseph  (Gn  41"). 
Far-fetched  attempts  of  the  ancients  to  explain  it 
by  Hebrew  have  found  no  favour  amongst  modern 
commentators,  the  name  being  eWdently  intended 
for  Egyptian.  In  1886  Krall  connected  it  with  a 
■well-known  Egyptian  type  of  name  (;rf-i- divine 
na.me  +  e-/'nh]  meaning  '  Said  Anion  (Bast,  Mont, 
etc.),  he  liveth,'  and  in  subsequent  j-ears  Steindorff 
established  its  identity  more  closely  (Zeitschrift 
fiir  ^gyptische  Spr.  u.  Alterthumskunde,  1889,  41, 
1892,  50).  The  Massoretic  vocalization  of  the 
Dame  is  wrong :  so  also  are  the  Greek  forms  in 
the  LXX  and  elsewhere.  But  the  consonants  in 
the  Hebrew  text  are  a  precise  transliteration  of 
those  in  •XK-lllieT-6q-U)ll|),  which  would  be 
approximately  ttie  pronunciation  of  a  hieroglyphic 

name  '^^  ^  I  -\1  fl  k_  T  ®  '  Said  God, 
he  liveth.'  A  Greek  mummy-label  of  the  Roman 
age  preserves  an  example  of  the  same  formation 
Kaiievre^ijivx,  where  "SluvO  (shortened  to  Metr-)  is 
the  divinitj»  (Steindortf,  I.e.).  This  type  of  personal 
name  grew  extremely  common  in  the  period  of  the 
Deltaic  dj-nasties  (22nd -20th):  earlier,  it  is  ex- 
tremely rare,  and  has  not  yet  been  traced  before 
the  end  of  the  20th  dynasty.  Probably  many  details 
in  the  story  of  Joseuh  date  from  the  26th  dynasty 
(B  c.  666-525),  there  being  much  intercourse  be- 
tween Egypt  and  Palestine  at  that  period.  The 
compound  with/)  ntr  'TlieGod'  (rrNOyTe  shortened 
to  nNer-)  has  not  yet  been  found  on  Egyptian 
monuments :  it  is  probably  a  monotheistic  touch 
added  by  a  Hebrew  familiar  with  Egypt  and  the 
Egyiitian  language.  F.  Ll.  Gkiffith. 

ZAPHON  (fs»  'north').— A  city  E.  of  Jordan, 
assigned  to  Gad,  Jos  13-''  (B  1a(j>di>,  A  and  Luc. 
'Za<j>iJii>).  It  is  named  also  in  Jg  12',  where  nyst 
BhouM  be  rendered  '  to  Zaphon'  (RVra)  instead  of 
•northward'  (AV  and  RV).  LXX  in  the  latter 
passage:  B,  translating,  th  ^oppav  ;  A  and  Luc, 
not  recognizing  the  n  locale,  have,  respectively, 
"Kfipdvi.  and  Zt^prfva.  Eusebius  and  Jerome  (OS'' 
219,  75;  91,  2(3)  mention  an  Amathus  21  miles 
south  of  Pella,  and  the  same  place  is  referred  to 
by  Josepbus  (BJ  I.  iv.  2  [if  the  text  be  correct])  as 
the  strongest  fortress  on  the  Jordan,  and  as  the 
Beat  of  one  of  the  -lynedria  instituted  by  Gabinius 
(Ant.  XIV.  V.  4).  This  is  the  modern  'Anwtch,  a 
little  north  of  the  Jabbok,  at  the  mouth  of  Wady 
er-Ru"eib.  There  a])pears  to  be  no  reason  (in  spite 
of  Buhl,  GAP,  259)  to  doubt  the  Talnmdic  tradi- 
tion that  Amathus  represented  the  ancient  Zaphon 
(eee  Neubauer,  Gfoq.  du  Tnlm.  249). 

Zaplion  is  probably  connected  with  ]'\'tt  Ziphion 
(Gn  10"'),  or  (more  conectlv)  ['1:5!  Zgphon,  with 
pentilic  name  Zephonites  (><u  26";  LXX  ILatpuv, 
'Za4>uv(e)l),  described  as  a  '  son '  of  Gad. 

ZARAIAS  (Zapafat).— 1.  (A  ZapUi,  A V  Zacharias) 
1  Es,'-)»  =  Seraiah,  Ezr2«;  Azariah,  Neh  "'.  2.  1  Es 
8'  (B  om.),  one  of  the  ancestors  of  Ezra,  called 
Zerahiah,  Ezr  7',  and  Arna.  2  Es  V.  3.  1  Es  8"  = 
Zerahiah,  the  father  of  Eliehoenai,  Ezr  8*.  4. 
1  Es  8"  =  Zebadiah,  son  of  Michael,  Ezr  8'. 


ZARAKES  (B  Zdp(os,  A  Zapi^i)!,  AV  Zaraces), 
1  Es  1=»  (LXX  ^).  He  is  there  called  brother  of 
JoaVim  or  JehoiaVim,  king  of  Judah,  and  is  said  to 
have  been  brought  up  out  of  Egypt  by  him. — The 
name  apparently  is  a  corruption,  through  confusion 
of  T  and  1,  of  Zedel^iah,  who  was  a  brother  of 
JehoiaVini,  2  K  24".  The  verse  of  1  Es.  is  entirely 
ditlereut  from  the  corresponding  passage  in  2  Ch 
36^^ 

ZARDEUS  (B  ZfpaMas,  AZapSatas,  AV  Sardeus), 
1  Es  9-''  =  Aziza,  Ezr  lO'-". 

ZAREPHATH  (nrv  ;  LXX  and  NTSdpeirra  [A  in 

1  K  17"  i:e09d]).— The  Arab,  village  of  Sarafcnd 
lies  on  a  promontory  about  eight  miles  south  of 
Zidon.  On  the  shore  in  front  of  it  are  the  scattered 
remains  of  what  must  have  been  a  considerable 
town,  the  Zarephath  or  Sareptaof  the  Bible.  This 
was  possibly  also  Misrephothmaim  of  Jos  11*  13' 
[but  see  AIisrephoth-maim].  Zarephath  origin- 
ally belonged  to  Zidon  (1  K  17'),  but  passed  into 
the  possession  of  "fyre  after  the  assistance  rendered 
by  tlie  fleet  of  Zidon  to  Shalmaneser  IV.  in  B.C.  722 
in  his  abortive  attempt  to  capture  insular  T3Te. 
In  Lk  4^  it  is  again  called  a  city  of  Sidon  (RV  '  in 
the  land  of  Sidon ').  Zarephath  is  included  in  the 
list  of  to^vn3  captured  by  Sennacherib  when  he 
invaded  Phoenicia  in  B.C.  701.  It  was  the  tf  wn  in 
■which  Elijah  lodged  during  the  years  of  famine 
(1  K  17*'"^).  In  the  middle  of  the  present  ruins, 
by  the  shore,  stands  a  shrine  of  St.  George,  occupy- 
ing the  place  of  the  Crusaders'  Chapel,  wliich  was 
buUt  on  the  traditional  site  of  Elijah's  upper  room. 
The  rewarded  faith  of  tlie  Gentile  woman  of 
Sarepta  was  recalled  by  Clirist  in  the  synagogue 
of  Nazareth,  and  the  allusion  gave  deep  ofl'ence  to 
His  hearers  ,'Lk  4-^'').  Here  may  have  lived  the 
Syro- Phoenician  woman  whose  faith  was  greatly 
commended  by  Christ,  and  ■Nvhose  daughter  was 
healed  by  Him  (Mt  15""^,  Mk  7«»'). 

G.  M.  Mackie. 
ZARETHAN  (\rp;i).  —  When  the  Jordan  was 
divided,  the  waters  rose  up  in  a  heap  '  at  Adam, 
the  city  that  is  beside  Zarethan'  (Jos  3",  LXX 
om.).  One  of  Solomon's  commissariat  officers  had 
in  his  district  'all  Bethshean  which  is  beside  Zare- 
than, beneath  Jezreel'Cl  K  4'',  LXX  om.).  The 
bronze  castings  for  the  temple  were  made  in  the 
Jordan  district  '  at  the  ford  of  Adamah  [reading, 
with  Moore,  .iDiK(n)  m3VD3  for  MT  '.t  nayia  (AV 
and  RV  '  in  the  clay  ground ')]  between  Succoth 
and  Zarethan'  (1  K  7^'*).     In  tlie  parallel  passage 

2  Ch  4"  the  name  appears  as  Zeredah  .tii;:  (B 
corruptly  ^Avajx^atpSoLdcu  [1  =  dva  fj.(<jov  — tp.],  A  &va, 
IjAaov  ZaSaOi,  Luc.  ZapiSaSi),  which  is  named  in 
IK  ll'-""  (B  and  Luc.  Zapetpi,  A  ZapiSa)  as  the 
birthplace  of  Jeroboam,  and  in  Jg  7^  [where  read 
.Tjiji  Zeredah  for  rrry^  Zererah  ;  B  Vapayadi,  A  om., 
Luc.  Kai  fill  (rmrry/jiivri]  in  connexion  with  the  flight 
of  the  Midianite  host. 

Zarethan  or  Zeredah  cannot  be  precisely  located, 
but  must  be  sought  in  the  vicinity  of  ed-Damiek 
(the  city  of  Adam  of  Jos  3").  The  proposal  (van 
de  Velde,  Knobel,  et  nl.)  to  identify  with  l;Crirn. 
$ar(abeh,  the  great  landmark  of  the  Jordan  Valley, 
must  be  rejected  on  phonetic  and  other  grounds 
(see  Dillm.  Jos.  ad  loc.  ;  Moore,  Judges,  212  f.  ; 
Kittel,  Kunige,  34  ;  Buhl,  GAP  181). 

J.  A.  Selbie. 

ZATHOES  (ZaMs.  AV  Zathoe),  1  Es  8*",  probably 
stands  for  Zattu.  The  name  does  not  appear  in 
the  Heb.  of  the  corresponding  passage  Ezr  8', 
which  sliould  be  corrected  by  1  Es.  eo  as  to  run  '  Of 
the  sons  of  Zattu,  Shecaniah  the  son  of  Jahaziel.' 

ZATHUI  (B  ZoToV,  A  ZaeBovl),  1  Es  5"  =  Zattn, 
Ezr  2«,  Neh  7"  ;  called  also  Zathoes,  1  Es  8"". 


964 


ZATTU 


ZEBOIIM 


ZATTU  (N'ni). — The  name  of  a  family  of  exiles 
tliat  returned,  Ezr  2"  (B  ZaSoud,  A  and  Luc.  ZaeSovd) 
=  Neh  7"  (B  ZaBovLd,  A  ZaBBova):  several  members 
of  this  family  had  married  foreign  wives,  Ezr  10" 
(B  Za$omd,  A  ZaSovd,  Luc.  Zaddovd) ;  its  head 
sealed  the  covenant,  Neli  10"t"l  (B  ZaSovid,  A 
Zaffflomd,  Luc.  ZaOdala^).  The  name  of  tliis  family 
has  dropped  out  of  the  Heb.  text  of  Ezr  8' ;  see 
SHECANIAH,  No.  2. 

ZAZA  (N!!).— A  Jerahmeelite,  1  Ch  2»  (B  'OfaV, 
A  'Ofaj-d,  hue.  ZTjifd).  The  initial  'O  of  BA  is  due 
to  taking  the  i  of  IIT  niii  as  part  of  the  name,  and 
not  as  the  particle  =  '  and.' 

ZEALOT.— See  Canan.ban. 

ZEBADIAH  (n.-5i  and  iT-tjj  'J"  hath  bestowed' ; 
cf.  the  names  i;;!";  and  'jn"!?!). — 1.  2.  Two  Ben- 
jamites,  1  Ch  8"'  (IB  'Afa/SajSid,  A  'Afa^aSid,  Luc. 
Za;3aS(d)  "  (BA  Za,8a5id).  3.  One  of  those  who 
joined  David  at  Ziklag,  1  Ch  12'  (B  Za^SiSid,  A 
ZaBadid).  i.  One  of  David's  officers,  son  of  Asahel, 
I  Ch  27'  (B  'A^Sdas,  A  Za/SSJas,  Luc.  Za^Salas).  S. 
An  exile  who  returned  with  Ezra's  second  caravan, 
Ezr  8'  {ZajiSud,  A  Za/35(as,  Luc.  Za;3oias) ;  called  in 
1  Es  8"  Zaraias.  6.  A  priest,  of  the  sons  of  Immer, 
who  had  married  a  foreign  wife,  Ezr  10'-"'(B  ZajSoeid, 
A  Za^Sid,  Luc.  Za,3oids) ;  called  in  1  Es  9-'  Zabdeus. 
7.  A  Korahite,  1  Ch  26^  (B  Zaxaplas,  A  and  Luc. 
ZojSaSias).  8.  One  of  the  Levites  sent  by  Jehosha- 
phat  to  teach  in  the  cities  of  Judah,  2  Ch  17'  (B 
ZapSela!,  A  Za^Sias).  9.  An  officer  of  king  Jehosha- 
phat,  entrusted  with  judicial  functions,  2  Ch  19" 
(B  Za^Sdas,  A  Za^Slas,  Luc.  Zo/SaSaias). 

ZEBAH  and  ZALMUNNA  (nji  'victim,'  pjD^s 
'shade,  i.e.  protection,  withheld';  Z^,3ee,  -eKfxava. ; 
Jg  S'--\  Ps83").— The  narrative  of  Gideon's  pursuit 
of  these  two  ^lidianite  kings  (Jg  S'"*')  cannot  be  a 
continuation  of  the  foregoing  verses  (7^-S^) ;  it 
must  be  derived  from  another  source,  attached 
abruptly,  and  with  the  loss  of  its  opening  verses, 
to  the  story  of  the  defeat  of  Midian.  So  far  from 
a  victory  having  been  just  won,  it  seems  such  a 
remote  possibUity  that  the  men  of  Succoth  and 
Penuel  treat  Gideon  with  derision  as  he  passes 
them  on  the  track  of  the  two  kings  (8'*).  The 
kings  were  returning  to  their  country,  laden  with 
spoil  (8^-);  they  were  not  in  flight,  and  had  no 
tliought  of  being  pursued  (8"),  otherwise  they  would 
have  used  the  advantage  which  their  camels  (8™) 
gave  them  to  effect  their  escape.  We  gather,  in 
fact,  from  this  narrative  (8^"-')  that  Gideon's  ex- 
pedition against  Zebah  and  Zalmunna  was  not 
part  of  the  general  campaign  against  Midian,  but 
a  private  enterprise  of  personal  revenge.  On  one 
of  their  raids,  probably  on  this  very  one  from 
which  they  were  returning,  the  two  Arab  chieftains 
had  murdered  Gideon's  brethren  at  Tabor,  doubt- 
less a  place  near  Ophrah  (8'*).  To  Gideon,  as  next 
of  kin,  fell  the  duty  of  avenging  their  blood. 
Collecting  300  of  his  clan,  he  followed  the  enemy 
across  the  Jordan,  attacked  them  unexpectedly  at 
Karkor,  captured  the  two  kings,  and,  after  exhibit- 
ing them  as  his  prisoners  to  the  men  of  Succoth, 
carried  them  back  in  triumph,  probably  to  his 
home  at  Ophrah  (Moore).  There  he  slew  them 
with  his  own  hand,  when  his  young  son  refused 
to  be  their  executioner,  the  two  kings  meeting 
their  fate  with  barbaric  courage.  The  execution 
was  a  religious  act  as  well  as  an  act  of  blood- 
revenge,  and  niay  well  have  taken  place  before  the 
alt&T (Smend, AT Meliijionsgcschichte,  128).  Human 
victims  were  similarly  sacriticed  after  the  return 
from  a  victorious  campaign  (Jg  II*"-''),  or  as  the 
chief  portion  of  the  spoil  (1  S  15").  W.  R.  Smith, 
{RS  397  n.)  compares  the  choice  of  Gideon's  J'oung 


son  as  executioner  of  the  kings  with  the  choice  of 
'  young  men  '  or  '  lads'  as  sacrificers  (Ex  24'),  and 
illustrates  from  the  custom  of  the  Saracens,  who 
charged  lads  with  the  execution  of  their  captives. 
The  pronunciation  of  tlie  names  Zebah  and  Zal- 
munna represents  merely  a  popular  etymology, 
which  gave  a  contemptuous  meaning,  '  victim,' 
'protection  withheld,'  to  the  names  of  the  kings. 
The  first  sj'Ilable  of  Zalmunna  maybe  the  name 
of  a  deity  Zalm,  found  in  Aramaic  inscriptions 
from  Teima  {CIS  pars.  U.  cxiii,  cxiv),  perhaps 
also  in  the  Phoenician  Zailrim  (Zalam)  -  ba'al 
(CIS  i.  cxxxii),  called  in  Greek  Za\a.ij.flJi,  or  -at; 
see  Hoftinann,  ZA  xi.  244  f.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  names  may  be  merely  symbolic,  and  not  the 
actual  names  of  the  two  kings  (so  Nbldeke,  Die 
Amalekiter,  9n.,  and  Stade,  GVIi.  190). 

G.  A.  Cooke. 

ZEBEDEE  (Ze§eSalo^;  Heb.  "^31  'gift  of  J",'  or, 
more  properly,  Aram,  "j?! ;  raising  the  question 
why  the  name  is  not  spelt  Za^SoIos,  as  in  the  OT 
[1  Es  9^1  etc.],  but  Zf;3eS-.  On  Jewish  bearers  of 
this  name  see  Jastrow,  Diet.  377,  where  also  a 
local  name  p?)  n'3,  '  probably  in  Galilee,'  is  men- 
tioned).— The  father  of  the  apostles  James  and 
John  (Mt  4=')  and  the  husband  of  Salome  (Mt  27'«, 
Mk  15'"').  Zebedee  followed  the  occupation  of 
fisherman  on  the  Sea  of  Galilee,  and  was  appar- 
ently in  easy  circumstances,  to  judge  from  the 
mention  of  his  'boat  with  the  hired  servants' 
(Mk  1™).  This  is  also  borne  out  by  the  facts  that 
his  wife  was  one  of  the  pious  women  who  after- 
wards ministered  to  the  Lord  of  their  substance 
(Mt  27"-^,  Lk  8=-');  and  that  his  son  John  was 
personally  known  to  the  high  priest  (Jn  18'^),  and 
had  the  means  of  providing  for  the  mother  of  Jesus 
(Jn  19").  Zebedee  himself  comes  before  us  directly 
only  in  connexion  witli  the  call  of  his  sons  ;  and, 
from  his  raising  no  objection,  it  has  been  con- 
jectured that  he  himself  was  a  disciple  of  John  the 
Baptist,  as  his  sons  certainly  were,  and  by  him 
had  been  taught  to  regard  Jesus  as  the  Messiah. 
Whether  he  ever  became  an  active  follower  of 
Jesus  it  is  impossible  to  say.  The  subsequent 
sUence  of  Scripture  regarding  him  would  incline 
one  to  think  not,  unless  this  silence  is  to  be  ex- 
plained by  Zebedee's  death  soon  after  his  sons' 
call.  ^ 

According  to  Barhebraeus  (on  Mt  10')  and  the 
Book  of  the  Bee,  the  sons  of  Zebedee  belonged  to 
the  tribe  of  Zebulun  ;  according  to  the  Gospel  of 
the  Twelve  Apostles  (ed.  Harris,  p.  26),  to  the  tribe 
of  Issachar.  G.  Milligan. 

ZEBIDAH  (so  EV,  following  KPthtbh  nrji ;  AV 
follows  Kirg  .T113I  Zebudah). — The  daughter  of 
Pedaiah  of  Kumah,  and  mother  of  king  Jehoiakim, 
2  K  23^  [MT  omits  in  ||  2  Ch  36»].  In  Kings  the 
LXX  has :  B  'leXXd  dirydTitp  'EoeiX  iK  Kpovfii,  A 
ElcXSdtj)  BvyaTTip  EUddiXd  ix  'Pi'/id ;  in  2  Chron.: 
AB  Ze(*f)xw/>i  Bvydrtjp  ^Tjpelov  iK  'Valid  ;  Luc.  has  in 
both  tiassages  'A/tirdX  Birfd-n^p  'Upc/dou  [confusing 
with  Zedelfiah's  mother,  24"]. 

ZEBINA  («)'?!). — One  of  the  sons  of  Nebo  who 
had  married  a  foreign  wife,  Ezr  10^  (B  Zav^ivi, 
A  om.,  K  Za/i/Seiva,  Luc.  ZejSei'W).    See  Zabad,  No.  6. 

ZEBOIIM One  of  the  five  Cities  of  the  Plain, 

Gn  10i»  (DPS)  142- 8,  Dt  292S(22)  (Kuh.  in  all  c"i!i. 
If  (re  o:i3?),  Hos  11'  (KHh.  D-Ni? ;  ^eri  o'\^'i,  the  k 
being  regarded  as  guiescent ;  AV  and  RV  here 
Zeboim).  The  LXX  has  uniformly  2c/3w(f)iM  [but 
in  Dt  29"  P"'  AF  Sf/Sufio]-  According  to  Bijlime  (on 
Neh  1-6,  p.  3)  the  word  is  punctuated  in  MT  upon 
the  analogy  of  cyis  '  hyajnas,'  and  so  as  to  avoid 
suggesting  O'^s,  D"3i-,  or  Q'kjji  'gazelles.' 
I'he  site  has  not  been  identified.      Upon  the 


zr-T.oi.M 


ZEBU LUX 


pns 


general  question  of  tlie  situation  of  the  five  Cities 
of  the  Plain  see  art.  ZoAn. 

ZEBOIM 1.  'The  ravine  of  Zebo'im '  (OTiV"  "I 

'  ravine  of  the  hy;enas';  BA  Tai  ttjj'  ^aiieli/,  Luc. 
XaSalf)  is  named  in  1  S  13"  in  ilescribing  the  route 
followed  by  one  of  the  linnds  of  Philistine  mar- 
auders. It  is  ])rob.  the  Wddij  el-]^dt  or  one  of  its 
branches  (Buhl,  GAP  98  ;  G.  A.  Smith,  IIGHL 
2U1  n.  I).  The  name  ICarfy  abH  dabd'  ('Hya>na 
gor^'e')  is  still  applied  to  a  ravine  in  this  nuij;h- 
bourhood,  though  perhaps  not  to  the  identical 
one  referred  to  in  1  Samuel.  The  same  locality 
appears  to  be  referred  to  in  the  ^eboim  (BA  om., 
»'■'  ■Ze^otln,  Luc.  Ze^uieh)  of  Neh  11".  2.  Hos  IP. 
See  Zeuoii.m. 

ZEBUL  ("7^1;  Zf^oi/'X,  =  'hei';ht,"high  dwelling' (?), 
perhaps  shortened  from  '(t'od's)  dwelling'  or  from 
(Bii.al)-zelml).— ,Jg  9'*-  »"■  ^-  ^-  *',  Abimelech's  otiicer 
(piildd)  and  governor  {sar)  of  Shechem.  By  his 
loyalty  and  resource  he  dealt  successfully  witli  an 
insurrection  against  his  master's  authority  in 
Sliecheni.  It  was  an  insurrection  of  Shechemites 
against  Abimelech,  who  was  only  half  a  Shechem- 
ite  by  birth  and  had  u.surped  his  position  (so 
Mooie,  Judges  255  II'.,  whose  arguments  are  con- 
vincing). The  interpretation  of  9^  is  uncertain  ; 
Moore  reads  'served  for  '  serve  3'e'  (n?v  for  'i3;), 
and  explains,  '  Abimelech  and  Zebul  were  formei  ly 
the  servants  of  Shechem  ;  why  then  should  She- 
chemites serve  them  now?'  Others  take  the  in- 
surrection to  have  been  one  of  Israelites  against 
Shechemites  (c.rj.  Wellliausen,  Composition  353  f.; 
liobertson  Smith,  ThT  xx.  1886,  195-198);  but 
this  does  not  agree  well  with  the  rest  of  the  narra- 
tive.   See,  further,  Abimelech,  No.  3. 

G.  A.  Cooke. 

ZEBULUN  (pS;!,  1^31,  p'-iDi ;  ZojSot/Xiiy,  Zabulon). 
— The  tirst  and  .second  forms  of  the  name  in  Heb. 
ate  u.sed  interchangeably  ;  the  third  occurs  only  in 
Jg  1**.  Two  explanations  of  the  name  are  given 
in  Gn  30'"W.  In  the  Krst  (from  E)  Leah  exclaims 
3ia  ij!  '.-N  o'n'~ti  "jiji  '  God  has  gifted  me  with  a 
good  gift,'  n  of  121  being  made  equivalent  to  "?.  In 
the  second  (from  J)  she  cries,  'V'if  'jS?i:  cysn  'this 
time  my  husband  will  dwell  (lie)  by  me,'  Zcbulun 
receiving  a  meaning  like  'neighbour'  or  'borderer' 
(Dillmann).  From  an  Assyr.  root  the  meanin" 
'will  exalt  (esteem)  me'  liius  been  suggested,  ana 
Delitz.sch  {Gc.ytcsii,  in  loc.)  points  out  that  this 
agrees  with  the  LXX  rendering  atpemi;  it  seems 
doubtful,  however,  whether  znb/ilu  means  more 
th.in  to  rarry  or  bear  (not  to  lift  up). 

Zelmlun  appears  in  the  lists  of  Jacob's  sons, 
and  as  the  ancestor  of  the  tribe  (Gn  10'^,  Nu  26-"). 
An  old  Jewish  tradition  says  he  was  tlie  lirst  of 
the  live  brethren  presented  by  Joseph  to  Pharaoh 
[Targ.  pseudo-Jon.  on  Gn  47").  So  far  as  our 
records  go,  the  man  and  his  life  are  wrapped  in 
oUscurity.  The  chief  tribal  families  are  tiiree,  at 
the  head  of  which  stand  Zcbulun's  three  sons  : 
Sered,  Elon,  and  .Jahleel,  said  to  have  been  born 
in  Canaan  before  t  he  settlement  in  Egj'pt  (Gn  46"). 

In  the  desert  journey  Zeb.  was  placed  with 
Issacliar  in  the  cam])  of  .ludah,  eastward  of  the 
tabernacle.  These  marched  in  the  van,  under 
the  standard  of  Judah  (Nu  2'-').  The  tribe  then 
numbered  57,400  men  capable  of  bearing  arms, 
and  the  headman  or  'prince'  was  Eliab,  son  of 
Hclon  (Nu  l"-*"  2').  Gaddiel,  son  of  So(li,  rcpre- 
eenteil  Zeb.  among  the  spies  (Nu  13'°).  At  Shittim, 
after  the  camp  hud  been  deva-statcd  by  the  plague, 
the  warriors  of  Zeb.  are  given  at  60,500  (Nu  26"). 
Elizaphan,  son  of  Parnacli,  acted  with  the  repre- 
seniatives  of  the  other  tribes  in  the  division  of  the 
land  (Nu  342»).  At  Shechem,  Zeb.  the  youngest 
■on  of  Leah,  and  Reuben,  who  had   fallen  from 


honour,  are  placed  with  the  sons  of  the  liandm.-iids, 
over  against  the  other  six  sons  of  Uachel  and  Leah, 
to  make  equal  division  of  the  tribes  (Dt  27").  Zeb. 
earned  no  special  distinction  either  under  .Moses 
in  the  wilderness,  or  under  Joshua  during  the  Con- 
quest. In  the  second  division  of  territory  the  lot 
of  Zeb.  came  up  third  (Jos  1!)'"),  and  there  fell  to 
him  a  stretch  of  country,  richly  diven-iilied,  with 
sylvan  vale,  fruitful  plain,  and  breezy  height. 

The  boundaries  of  Zeb.  cannot  now  be  traced 
with  any  certainty.  As  described  in  Jos  191"-"^  it 
marched  with  Issachar  on  the  S.,  Nai)htali  on  the 
VI.  and  N.E.,  and  Aslier  on  the  A\  .  and  N.W. 
The  eastern  boundary  probably  ran  from  Tabor, 
along  the  W.  border  of  Naplitali,  as  lai  nmlli  as 
Ke/r  A?ia7i  (Hannathon);  turning  westward,  it 
skirted  the  district  of  er-lidmeh,  reaching  the 
eastern  border  of  Asher  down  the  vale  of  'Abilin, 
in  which  lies  Ja/at,  which  some  identify  with 
Iphtah-el,  or  down  Wadij  cl-Kurn,  further  to  the 
north  (('onder)  :  thence  it  p.issed  southward  to 
the  lip  of  Kishon,  opposite  Tell  Knimun  (Jokneam). 
We  can  hardly  even  guess  at  the  southern  bound- 
ary. Chislotli-tabor,  or  ChesuUoth  (Ilcsul),  and 
Daberath  (Debfirieh)  seem  to  be  given  to  Zeb.  in 
V.'-  ;  but  in  v."  the  former,  and  in  2r-*  the  latter, 
are  assigned  to  Issachar.  Tabor,  possibly  the  city 
on  the  mountain,  1  Ch  6"  places  in  the  land  of 
Zebulun.  If  Deburich  belonged  to  Issachar,  this 
would  mean  possession  of  at  least  part  of  the 
mountain,  perhaps  the  western  and  southern 
slopes.  If  the  two  tribes  shared  the  mountain, 
this  may  be  alluded  to  in  Dt  33'".  It  is  the  most 
striking  feature  in  the  landscape,  and  round  it 
sacred  associations  from  of  old  were  sure  to  gather. 
Other  identifications  proposed  are  precarious,  and, 
if  established,  would  produce  a  very  peculiar  border- 
line. Tell  Shadiid  may  be  identified  with  Sarid, 
by  the  substitution  of  il  for  ;-.  In  that  case  Md'ltil 
caiuiot  be  Marala,  as  it  lies  not  westward,  but  a 
little  east  of  north  from  Tell  Shadiid  ;  and  not  only 
the  change  of  r  to  /,  but  also  the  intrusion  of  'ain 
before  lamed,  must  be  accounted  for.  Af;ain,  it  is 
ditlicult  to  conceive  the  line  running  irom  Tell 
Sliddud  past  Iksal  to  Deburich,  and  then  doubling 
back  upon  Yafa,  as  the  identiiication  of  this  last 
with  Japhia  would  require.  The  authority  for 
locating  Gath-hepher  at  el-Meshcd  is  very  slender, 
and  the  name,  which  is  of  someanticiuity,  is  against 
it.  The  line  indicated  for  the  western  border  of 
Nai)htali  seems  to  throw  the  boundary  of  Zeb. 
further  to  the  east;  so  also  the  identihcation  of 
Nahalal  with  'Ain  Mahil. 

The  Blessing  of  Jacob  (Gn  49"),  which  dates  from 
the  time  of  the  Judges,  or  at  latest  not  after 
Solomon,  apparently  gives  Zeb.  access  to  the  sea. 
'  Zebulun,  towards  the  strand  of  the  sea  he  settles, 
he  himself  towards  the  strand  of  the  shiiis,  and  his 
rear  to,  or  towards,  Zidon '  (Dillm.);  tliis  is  sup- 
ported by  Josephus  (Ant.  V.  i.  22;  BJ  III.  iii.  1). 
The  boundaries  between  the  tribes  and  the  land 
held  by  the  Canaanites  must  have  varied  from 
time  to  time,  and  possibly  then  Zeb.  held  an 
approach  to  the  shore,  perhaps  through  the  gorge 
of  Kishon  and  along  tlie  base  of  Carmel.  But 
the  words  may  mean  onlj'  that  the  sea  was  near 
and  easily  reached  ;  that  Zeb.  bordered  on  the 
coast,  i.e.  the  coast-lands,  and  not  the  sea  itself. 
Delitzsch  translates,  'Zebulun,  near  to  the  coast  of 
the  sea  shall  he  dwell,  yea  he,  near  to  the  coast  of 
the  ships,  nnd  his  side  leans  on  Zidon.'  The  refer- 
ence to  Zidon  is  obscure  :  Zeb.  never  approached 
that  city.  Possibly  the  name  of  their  chief  city  is 
given  to  the  rich  coast-lands,  including  Acre,  from 
which  the  Phicnicians  were  never  driven  out  (Jg 
1").  The  much  later  writer  in  Jo-shua  (P)  knows 
nothing  of  any  'outgoing'  of  the  territory  to  the 
Mediterranean.     'The  way  of  the  sea'  (Is  9'),  the 


966 


ZECHARIAH 


ZECHARIAH 


great  liijrliway  of  commerce  from  north  and  east  to 
the  harbour  at  Acre,  wliich  [)asseil  tlirou^'h  a  large 
part  of  his  land,  and  brought  Zob.  into  contact 
with  the  trade  of  the  world,  would  itself  enable 
hira  to  'suck  the  treasures  of  the  sea'  (Dt  33"). 

In  Zeb.  four  cities  were  given  to  the  Levites — 
Jokneani,  Kartah,  Dimnah  (Dillm.  and  others 
read  Kimmun),  and  Nahalal  (J03  21"-«).  Of 
these,  Kitron  (identical  with  Kartah  [see  art.  Kar- 
tah]) and  Xalialal  (probably  'Ain  Mahil)  re- 
mained in  the  hands  of  tlie  Canaanites,  and  so 
cuuld  not  be  occupied  liy  the  Levites  (Jg  I*').  In 
1  Ch  G'^  [Heb.  *-]  only  Rimmono  (Ruramaneh)  and 
Tabor  are  named,  the  latter  corresponding  with 
no  name  in  the  former  list. 

What  is  said  of  the  territory  of  Naphtali 
(see  art.  Naphtali)  applies  Generally  to  Zeb., 
although  the  mountains  of  Naphtali  north  and 
north-east  rise  to  a  much  greater  height.  Jehel 
Knukdb  (1S50  ft.)  is  a  prominent  feature  of  the 
western  land.s<'ape,  and  Jebel  es-Sikh,  N.W,  of 
Nazareth,  crowned  by  Neby  Sain,  commands  one 
of  the  finest  and  most  comprehensive  views  in  N. 
Palestine.  The  Tlain  of  Asochis,  el-Bnttanf,  is 
not  so  large  as  Esdraelon,  but  is  equally  rich  and 
fruitful.  Olive  groves  tlourish  in  the  valleys, 
and  most  villages  have  orchards  or  vineyards,  pro- 
tected by  cactus  hedges. 

Only  one  judge  is  mentioned  as  rising  in  Zebu- 
lun,  viz.  Elon,  who  judged  Israel  ten  years  (Jg 
12"- '-).  But  the  tribe  seems  always  to  have  pro- 
duced men  of  warlike  energy  and  enterprise. 
'  Marched  .  .  .  from  Zeb.  those  Avho  carry  the 
muster-master's  staff''  (Jg  5" ;  '  officers  who  had 
charge  of  the  enumeration  and  enrolment  of  troops ' 
[Moore]).  Called  by  Barak  to  the  conflict  with 
Sisera  (Jg  4'- '"),  their  patriotic  devotion  and 
])rowess  are  specially  celebr.ated  in  Deborah's  song 
(.Jfrju.  IS).  Giileon  "summoned  them  to  the  strife 
with  Midian  (.Tg  6").  To  David  at  Hebron  came 
from  Zeb.  50,000  men  of  war  'who  were  not  of 
double  heart'  (1  Ch  l^'^')  ;  nor  were  gifts  lacking 
from  the  produce  of  well-cultivated  land  {ib.  12'"'). 
Under  David  the  headman  of  the  tribe  was  Ish- 
niaiah,  son  of  Obadiah  (1  Ch  27").  In  response  to 
Hezekiah's  invitation,  despite  the  scoHing  of 
others,  some  from  Zeb.  bumbled  themselves  and 
went  to  Jerusalem,  where,  althotigh  not  '  cleansed 
according  to  the  purilicalion  of  the  sanctuary,' 
they  were  welcomed  and  allowed  to  eat  the  p.ass- 
over  (2  Ch  .SO'"-  "•  '*•  ">).  Doubtless,  Zeb.  shared 
the  fate  of  Naphtali  when,  along  with  other  dis- 
tricts, Galilee  was  carrieil  into  captivity  by  Tiglath- 
pileser  (2  K  15'^,  cf.  Is  9'). 

The  peasant  farmers  of  Zeb.  lent  strength  to  the 
Jewish  army  in  the  war  of  independence,  and  their 
soil  witnessed  some  of  the  fiercest  encounters. 
Jotapata  {Jcfat)  made  a  heroic  defence  against 
the  Romans  [BJ  VII.).  Sepphoris  became  the 
centre  of  Roman  .idministration  in  the  district 
(Ant.  XVIII.  ii.  1  ;  UJ  III.  ii.  4).  Here  for  a  time 
were  the  headnuarters  of  the  Jewisli  Rabbis  before 
tliey  settled  in  Tiberias  (Jost,  Judcntliuin,  ii.  16  tl'.). 
Through  the  territory  of  Zeb.  from  the  springs  at 
Sepphoris  to  the  hill  of  Uattin,  the  Crusaders 
marched  to  their  overthrow  at  the  hands  of 
Saladin.  It  is  the  chief  glory  of  Zeb.  that  it 
afforded  the  infant  Saviour  a  safe  asylum  ;  that  on 
its  breezy  uplands,  in  the  free  atmosi)here  of  the 
north.  His  frame  grew  to  maturity,  and  mind  and 
heart  were  prepared  for  His  mighty  task. 

Members  of  this  tribe  are  called  Zebulunites 
(■:^i3in,  ZojSoi/Xiic,  Zabulon,  Nu  26-').  The  title 
•j^2in  'the  Zebulunite,'  is  also  applied  to  Elon 
the  judge  (Jg  12"-  '=).  W.  Ewing. 

ZECHARIAH  (",-i:|  and  .1^:1  ;  Zaxap'i  and  -(as). 
—1.  Brother  of  Ner  and  uncle  of  Saul  (I  Ch  9"), 


one  of  the  ten  sons  of  Jeiel  or  Jehiel,  patriarch 
of  Gibeon  in   Benjamin.     He  is  called  Zecher  in 

1  Ch  8*'.  2.  A  Levite,  one  of  the  sons  of  Korah, 
firstborn  son  of  Meshelemiah  (1  Ch  9-'  26»-  "). 
3.  A  Levite,  whose  place  Avas  among  the  brethren 
of  the  second  degree  under  the  chief  singera 
Heman,  Asaph,  and  Ethan  (1  Ch  1.5'«-»').  4.  A 
priest  in  the  time  of  David  (1  Ch  15^),  one  of  the 
seven  appointed  to  blow  a  tr\impet  before  the  ark. 

5.  A  Levite,  of  the  family  of  Kohath  (1  Ch  24^). 

6.  A  Levite,  of  the  familV  of  Merari  (1  Ch  26"). 

7.  Father  of  Iddo  ( 1  Ch  27-').  8.  One  of  the  i)rincea 
of  Judah  in  the  days  of  jehosliaphat  (2  Ch  17'). 

9.  A  Levite,  one  of  the  sons  of  .\saiih  (2  Ch  20'*). 

10.  Son  of  Jehoshaphat  (2  Ch  21'-),  to  whom,  with 
his  brethren,  his  father  gave  large  gifts  of  silver 
and  gold,  together  with  certain  fenced  cities. 
Along  with  the  other  sons  of  the  king  he  was  slain 
by  his  brother  Jehoram  on  his  accession  to  the 
throne.  11.  Son  of  Jehoiada  the  priest  (2  Ch 
24-°).  After  Jehoiada's  death,  Joash,  who  had 
yielded  to  the  evil  counsels  of  his  princes,  was 
privy  to  the  conspiracy  against  Zech.,  because 
he  reproved  the  idolaters  and  announced  God's 
judgment  against  them.  He  was  stoned  with 
stones  at  the  commandment  of  the  king  in  the 
court  of  the  house  of  the  Lord.  His  dying  words, 
'  The  Lord  look  upon  it  and  require  it,'  were  long 
remembered.  See  also  Zachakiah.  12.  A  pro- 
phet, living  in  the  earlier  part  of  Uzziah's  reign, 
i.e.  before  the  middle  of  the  8th  cent.,  about  B.C. 
770,  who  exercised  a  powerful  influence  for  "ood 
upon  the  king  (2  Ch  26').  He  is  described  as 
having  '  understanding  in  the  vision  of  God,'  or 
giving  'instruction  in  the  fear  of  God.'  13.  Son 
of  Jeroboam  II.,  king  of  Israel  (2  K  14-»  15«-'-).  It 
would  seem  that  his  father's  death  had  been  suc- 
ceeded by  a  period  of  confusion,  and  probably  the 
interval  of  at  least  ten  years  between  the  father's 
death  and  the  son's  succession  had  been  spent  in 
incessant  conHicts  between  rival  claimants  of  the 
throne.  Jeroboam  died  in  the  twenty  -  seventh 
year  of  Uzziah,  and  Zech.  succeeded  in  the  thirty- 
eighth  J'ear  of  that  monarch's  reign  (2  K  15'*).  It 
may  very  well  be  that  Zech.  was  a  brave  soldier 
and  a  capable  ruler  like  his  father,  but  all  that 
the  sacred  historian  records  of  him  is  that,  in  re- 
spect of  character  and  moral  conduct,  he  followed 
his  fathers  in  evil-doing.  He  did  that  which  was 
evil  in  the  sight  of  the  Lord,  as  his  f.athers  had 
done ;  he  departed  not  from  tlie  sins  of  Jeroboam 
the  son  of  Nebat,  wherewith  he  made  Israel  to  sin. 
After  a  reign  of  si.x  months  he  was  slain  by  a  con- 
spirator Shallum,  who  himself  survived  only  one 
month.  With  Zech.  ended  the  dynasty  of  Jehu, 
according  to  the  word  of  the  Lord  (2  K  10*'),  '  thy 
sons  of  the  fourth  generation  shall  sit  on  the 
throne  of  Israel.'  14.  A  man  of  high  repute  in 
Isaiah's  day  (Is  8").  When  faithful  witnesses  were 
required  to  attest  a  solemn  prophetic  roll,  this 
Zech.  was  chosen  along  with  Uriah  the  priest,  lie 
is  described  as  son  of  Jelierecliiah,  and  may  pos- 
sibly be  the  same  as  the  Asaphite  mentioned  in 

2  Ch  2S^'^  as  Delitzsch  suggests  (see  No.  16). 
Diestel  (in  Schenkel,  v.  130)  would  identify  him 
with  the  prophet  of  Uzziah's  time  (see  No.  12)  ; 
but  this  cannot  be,  for  the  prophet  referred  to 
evidently  died  in  the  earlier  years  of  L'zziah's 
reign,  whereas  this  Zech.  is  represented  as  living 
in  the  days  of  Ahaz.  Riehm  suggests  his  identifi- 
cation with  the  father  of  Hezekiah's  mother  (No. 
15).  15.  The  father  of  Abi  or  Abijah,  the  mother 
of  king  Hezekiah  (2  K  18-,  2  Ch  29').  Murplij 
thinks  he  may  be  identified  with  the  piophet 
mentioned  in  2  Ch  26' ;  but  this  is  extremely  im- 
probable. 16.  A  reforming  Asaphite  under  Heze- 
kiah (2  Ch  29'^),  who  took  part  in  the  cleansing  of 
the  house  of  the  Lord.     17.  Head  of  a  house  of  tha 


ZECHARIAH,  BOOK  OF 


ZECHAEIAH,  BOOK  OF 


967 


Reubenites  (1  Cli  5'),  one  of  the  bretliren  of  Beerah, 
who  as  one  of  tlie  princes  of  tlie  Reubenites  was 
taken  away  captive  into  AssjTia  by  Tiglatli- 
pileser  in  the  days  of  Pekah  king  of  Israel,  about 
Ii.C.  734.  18.  A  Levite,  one  of  the  sons  of  Kohath 
(2  Ch  34"),  in  the  days  of  Josiah.  In  the  work  of 
repairing  the  temple,  about  B.C.  620,  tliisZecli.  was 
one  of  the  overseers.  19.  One  of  the  nilers  of  the 
temple  under  Josiah  (2  Ch  35").  As  Hilkiah  men- 
tioned immediately  before  was  chief  priest,  Zecli. 
was  probably  second  priest  (liT^^  iv^>  ''1^6  Zeph- 
aniali  in  Jer  52-'*,  '1  K  25").  He  is  also  named  in 
1  Es  V.  See  Zacuarias,  1.  20.  The  prophet. 
See  next  article.  21.  One  of  the  family  of  I'arosli 
or  i'horos,  who  accompanied  Ezra  from  Babylon  to 
Jerusalem  in  B.C.  458  (Ezr  8^  1  Es  8^").  22.  Son 
of  IJebai  (Ezr  8"),  leader  of  the  twentj'-eight  sons 
of  Bebai  who  returned  to  Jerusalem  witli  Ezra. 
23.  One  of  the  chief  men  with  whom  Ezra  con- 
sulted at  the  river  Ahava  or  Theras  near  B.abylon 
(Ezr  8".  See  also  1  Es  8").  24.  A  descen<l.ant  of 
Elam,  one  of  the  people  who  had  taken  foreign 
wives,  and  who  undertook  under  Ezra's  reforma- 
tion to  put  them  aw.ay  (Ezr  KP").  See  also 
1  Es  9".  2S.  One  of  tlie  descendants  of  Perez 
(Pharez),  son  of  Judah,  whose  descendant, 
Athaiiili,  was  one  of  the  heads  of  the  children 
of  Judah  settled  in  Jerusalem  after  the  return 
from  Babylon  (Neh  11<).  26.  Called  the  son  of  the 
Shilonite  (Neh  11°),  a  descendant  of  Shelah,  son  of 
Judah,  whose  descendant,  Maa,seiah,  was  one  of 
the  heads  of  the  children  of  Judali  settled  in  Jeru- 
salem after  the  return  from  the  Exile.  27.  Son  of 
Paslihur.  a  priest  and  courtier  under  Zedekiah, 
whose  descendant,  Adaiali,  \v;i.s  one  of  the  priests 
t-etiled  in  Jerusalem  under  Nehemiah  (Neh  11'-). 
28.  An  Asaphite,  son  of  Jonatluin,  who,  'with 
musical  instruments  of  David,  the  man  of  God,' 
took  part  with  Ezra  in  giving  thanks  at  the  dedi- 
cation of  the  wall  of  Jerusalem  (Neh  12^).  29.  A 
priest,  one  of  the  bloweis  of  trumpets  at  the  dedi- 
cation of  the  wall  of  Jerusalem,  who  took  part 
in  that  thanksgiving  service  (Neh  12*'). 

J.  Macpherson. 
ZECHARIAH,  BOOK  OF.— 

I.  The  genuine  prophecies  of  Zechariah  (chs.  I-8X 
U.  The  activity  and  significance  of  the  prophet. 

Literature. 
Ui.  Chs.  9-14:  (1)  Contents;   (2)  Relation  of  the  rtiflerent 
parts  to  one  another  ;   (;i)  Date  of   the  various  com- 
ponents ;  (4)  Religious  and  theological  value  of  these 
chapters. 

Literature. 

i.  The  oenui.ne  Prophecies  of  Zechariah 
(Chs.  1-8).  —  The  Book  of  Zechariah  includes 
within  it  passa;.'es  belonging  to  very  diilerent 
dates  and  procee<ling  from  diiferent  hands.  The 
super-scriptions  that  ajipear  in  9'  and  12'  divide 
the  book  into  two  larger  parts:  (1)  chs.  1-8,  (2) 
chs.  9-14. 

For  Zechariah,  the  contemporary  of  Haggai,  who 
is  named  in  1',  all  that  has  to  be  taken  into  account 
is  chs.  1-8,  which  fall  into  three  divisions :  (a)  I'"" 
a  call  to  repentance,  based  uijon  an  allusion  to  the 
impenitence  of  the  fathers  and  the  consequent 
judgment  that  overlook  them.  They  f^""^'  ''''o 
prophets  are  gone,  but  Cod's  word  still  abides  in 
force. — (6)  I'-O"  the  nocturnal  visions  of  Zecha- 
riah, with  an  appendix  6'""'°.  In  eight  visions, 
which  are  explained  to  him  on  each  occasion  by 
the  angelu-1  interprcs,  the  prophet  gives,  as  it  were, 
a  compendium  of  tlie  e.schatological  hopes  that 
animated  him.  The  exposition  of  these  is  followed 
up  by  the  direction  in  B'""-  to  him  to  take  of  the 
silver  and  gold  brought  by  the  deputies  of  the 
Babylonian  Jews,  ana  to  have  a  crown  made  for 
the  ^cmnh,  i.e.  for  Zcrubbabcl.  This  crown  is  then 
to  be  laid  up  in  the  temple  as  a  memorial  of  tlio^o 
deputies      Side  by  side  with  Zerubbabel  is  to  be 


Joshua  as  priest,  and  peaceful  relations  are  to 
subsist  between  the  two.  Then  shall  the  peoples 
come  from  f.ar  and  help  to  build  the  temple  of 
Jahweh.  (The  text  of  this  passage  has  not  come 
down  to  us  intact,  but  has  obviously  undergone 
revision  in  order  to  obscure  the  dillerence  between 
these  hopes  and  the  actual  history.  By  aid  of  the 
LXX  the  original  text  may  be  reconstructed). — 
(c)  Chs.  7.  8.  Taking  occasion  from  the  question 
addressed  to  the  priests  and  prophets  whether  the 
fast-days  observed  during  the  Exile  were  still  to  be 
kept  up,  the  prophet  points  to  the  impending 
Messianic  time,  for  which  a  moral  reformation  is 
the  inilispensable  prerequisite.  Then  shall  the 
fast-days  become  joyous  festivals,  %\'lien  men  from 
all  peoples  shall  join  themselves  to  the  Jews  in  their 
pilgrimages  to  Jahweh,  because  they  have  heard 
that  God  has  fixed  His  d\\clling-i>lace  with  them. 

ii.  The  Activity  and  Sig.mficance  of  the 
Prophet. — According  to  l'-',  Zechariah  was  a  son 
of  Berechiah  and  a  grandson  of  'Iddo,  the  latter  of 
whom  is  mentioned  as  the  head  of  a  priestly  tamily 
which  returned  from  the  Exile  (Neh  1"^').  Zechariah 
will  thus  have  been  presumably  somewhat  young 
when  he  began  his  pro[)heticaI  work  amongst  his 
people.  We  are  told  in  1'  that  he  came  forward, 
like  Hagg.ai,  in  the  second  year  of  Darius  (Hystas- 
pis),  but  two  months  later  than  that  prophet  ;  he 
continued  to  labour  till  the  7tli  month  of  the  fourth 
year  (cf.  7').  In  this  way  liis  whole  activity  would 
appear  to  have  been  confined  to  rather  less  than 
two  years.  The  political  back<jvound  is  the  same 
.as  in  Haggiii,  njiniely,  the  violent  commotions 
which  the  accession  of  Darius  produced  in  the 
north-eastern  portion  of  his  empire.  A  feeling  of 
profound  depression  had  laid  hold  of  the  community 
at  Jerusalem  ;  Jahweh,  it  was  felt,  had  not  yet 
had  compassion  upon  His  people,  He  yet  remained 
far  from  them.  Zechariah  strives  to  reanimate  the 
hopes  of  his  co-religionists,  and  to  rekindle  faith  in 
the  time  of  consummation,  which  will  speedily  set 
in  ;  and  it  would  ajipear  that  he  was  at  least  parti- 
ally successful  (cf.  7'  •)•  An  indispensable  condition 
of  the  arrival  of  the  Messianic  era  is  the  building 
of  the  tem|jle ;  for  as  the  commencement  of  the 
judgment  formerly  showed  itself  when  the  glory  of 
Jahweh  was  seen  by  Ezekiel  (cf.  ch.  lU)  to  forsake 
the  temple,  so  upon  the  day  when  Jahweh  once 
more  makes  His  abode  with  His  people  all  the  dis- 
tress of  the  time  shall  come  to  an  end  ;  in  short, 
this  dwelling  of  Jahweh  in  the  temple  is  the  sine 
qua  non  of  the  dawn  of  the  Messianic  age  (cf.  8'°). 
Hence  Zechariah,  like  Haggai,  concentrates  all  his 
energies  upon  the  task  of  inducing  the  people  to 
undertake  the  work  of  building  the  teinjile.  It  is 
from  this  point  of  view  that  one  can  understand 
Zechariah's  view  of  the  priesthood  as  the  security 
for  the  coming  of  the  Zfiiiah,  i.e.  the  Messianic 
King(cf.  3"'-)- — Zechariah's  endeavour  to  reanimate 
the  hopes  of  his  contemporaries  explains  also  the 
central  place  which  Messianic  prophecy  occupies  in 
his  book.  The  whole  of  the  nocturnal  visions  turn 
essentially  upon  the  Messianic  expectations  of  the 
time,  and  in  eh.  8  as  well  he  has  regard  to  these,  so 
that  from  this  book  we  can  construct  a  pretty  com- 
plete picture  of  the  Messianic  hopes  that  were  then 
entertained.  The  central  liguro  is  the  Messianic 
King,  whom  Zechariah,  with  reference  to  Jer  23' 
(33"),  calls  the  Zcmnh  and  ideiitilies  with  Zerub- 
babel, although  a  redactor,  who  had  regard  to 
the  actually  existing  relations,  has  sought  to  sub- 
stitute the  high  priest  Joshua  for  Zerubbabel.  It 
is  true,  indeed,  tliat  even  with  Zechariah  himself 
the  high  priest  holds  a  highlv  sigiiilicant  place: 
ho  represents  the  community  oefore  Jahweh,  and 
has  at  all  times  free  access  to  lliiii.  Cf.  also  the 
articles   Ezra-Nehemiaii,   Haogai,   and    Zerub- 

UAUEL. 


968 


ZECHARIAH,  BOOK  OF 


ZECHAEIAH,  BOOK  OF 


In  Zeclmriah,  as  in  Haggai,  we  note  the  dis- 
appearance of  immediate  proplietio  inspiration. 
Connecte<l  willi  tliis  is  the  circumstance  that  the 
message  is  communicated  to  the  propliet  by  the 
angel  of  Jaliweh  (cf.  Ezk  40-'"),  and  that  his 
visions  are  no  longer  the  outcome  of  intuition  but 
ratlier  of  <leliberate  reflexion.  Hence  the  angelus 
interpres  is  a  standing  figure  in  them.  Side  by  side 
with  tlie  angelus  interpres  we  have  the  inaVakh 
Jahweh  and  the  Satan,  the  latter  of  whom  also  is 
thus  obviously  to  be  tliought  of  as  included  among 
the  messengers  of  God.  Tlie  greater  prominence 
thus  assumed  by  angels  is  the  result  of  the  more 
transcendental  character  to  which  the  idea  of  God 
has  attained  :  Jahweh  is  One  who  is  enthroned  on 
high  above  men,  and  whose  dealings  with  them 
must  be  through  the  medium  of  angels.  Here  for 
the  lirst  time  we  encounter  /ui-sntan,  still  indeed 
as  an  aiipellative.  It  is  not  till  1  Ch  21  that  it 
attains  the  character  of  a  proper  name.  The  Book 
of  Job  appears,  in  its  idea  of  the  Satan,  to  occupy 
a  position  intermediate  between  tliese  otlier  t^^o. 
See,  further,  the  article  Satan,  above,  p.  408^ 
— Not  without  signihcance,  perhaps,  for  further 
development  is  the  conception  here  met  with  of 
Sin  as  an  independently  e.xisting  power.  Personi- 
fied as  a  woman,  she  is  carried  oli"  to  the  land  of 
Sliinar,  i.e.  the  land  of  destruction  (cf.  5").  This 
last  designation  is  considered,  indeed,  to  include 
not  onlj'  Shinar,  but  the  whole  heathen  world  ;  in 
Zechariah,  as  in  Haggai,  the  way  is  paved  for  the 
notion  so  clearly  defined  in  Daniel  of  the  kingdom 
of  God  and  the  kingdoms  of  the  world.  Here  tlie 
opposition  is  not  yet  sharply  marked  ;  here,  partly 
as  an  after-eti'ect  of  Deutero-Isaianic  ideas,  but 
partly  also  as  a  consequence  of  a  vivid  conscious- 
ness of  being  the  Ijearers  of  the  true  religion 
and  of  being  '  righteous,'  in  contrast  with  the 
'ungodly  Gentiles'  (of.  1"  2'"),  we  meet  with  the 
thought  that  from  all  peoples  those  seeking  for 
salvation  shall  flock  to  Jerusalem  and  dwell  there, 
and  that  Jahweh  will  own  them  as  His  people  (cf. 
2"'-  8™"-). 

LrrERATrRK. — A-  Kohler,  Die  nachexitiachen  Prophften^  1861- 
1863;  K.  Bredenkanip,  Dn-  frophet  Sacharja,  1S79 ;  C.  H.  H. 
Wright,  Zec/iariah  atid  hia  Fropkecies,  1379 ;  W.  H.  Lowe,  The 
Ucbt-ew  Student's  Com.  wl  Zechariah,  lieb.  and  LXX,  1872  ;  K. 
Marti,  Der  Prophet  Zacharja,  der  Xeitfjennttge  Serubbabels,  1892; 
J.  Wellhausen,  Die  kleinen  Frophcten,  1892  ;  W.  Nowack,  Die 
kleinen  Projihettn,  1897 ;  O.  A.  Smith,  The  Book  nf  the  Twelve 
Prophets,  ii.  1898.  Cf.  SelHn,  Studien  zitr  Entstehumjs'ie- 
sehichte  der  yiid.  Geineiiide  nnch  dem  babylon.  Exit,  1901  ; 
K.  .Marti  in  SE,  1892,  pp.  207  fl.,  716ff.  ;  J.  Ley,  ib.  1893,  p. 
771  fl. 

iii.  Chapters  9-14.— (1)  Contents.— C\\.  9  opens 
with  the  annount  cment  of  judgment  upon  Damas- 
cus, Tyre,  Zidon,  and  the  Philistines.  Jahweh 
Himself  protects  Jerusalem  and  its  inhabitants. 
Jerusalem  is  to  be  the  seat  of  the  Messianic  King, 
who  will  enter  the  city  riding  upon  an  ass,  the 
animal  of  peace.  For  He  works  not  with  secular 
resources,  but  by  His  word  puts  an  end  to  the  strife 
among  the  nations.  For  the  sake  of  the  blood 
covenant  Jahweh  brings  back  the  captives  of  Zion. 
Judah  and  Ephraim,  together  with  Zion,  are  to  be 
the  weapons  wherewith  He  subdues  the  sons  of 
Javan.  Then  will  Jahweh  feed  His  people  like  a 
flock  in  His  land  which  is  so  good  and  fair. — After 
a  short  interlude,  in  which  the  Israelites  are  called 
on  to  ask  rain  from  Jaliweh,  instead  of  turning  to 
tuiaphim  and  soothsayers  (lO'--'),  comes  lO'-Il': 
J.-ihweh  threatens  tlie  sheplierds  and  the  goats  ; 
He  removes  them,  and  native  leaders  put  them- 
eelves  at  the  head  of  Judah,  which  with  Jahweh's 
help  overcomes  those  that  ride  upon  horses.  But 
Jahweh  will  have  pity  on  the  house  of  Joseph  and 
V  ill  bring  them  back,  so  that  they  shall  be  His  as 
if  He  had  never  cast  them  oil'.  From  E^ypt  and 
Assyria  He  will  bring  them  back  to  Gilead  and  the 


Lebanon  district,  but  the  land  will  not  suffice  for 
them.  Jahweh  will  be  their  strength,  and  in  Hia 
name  shall  they  boast.  But  the  cedars  of  Lebanon 
and  the  oaks  of  Bashan  shall  howl  because  the 
forest  is  destroved,  the  shepherds  bewail  the  loss 
of  pasturage,  the  lions  roar  because  the  glory  of 
the  Jordan  Valley  is  gone.  —  In  11*""  we  have  a 
narrative  of  wli.at  has  occurred  in  recent  times  ; 
the  prophet  is  to  put  the  contents  of  his  preaching 
in  pictorial  form,  as  it  were,  before  the  eye.  He 
receives  the  commission  to  take  the  place  of  the 
worthless  shepherds  in  feeding  the  sheep.  He  took 
the  two  staves  'Graciousness'  and  'Union,'  in  order 
to  represent  in  a  way  the  principles  by  which  he 
meant  to  be  guided.  In  like  manner  he  cut  oil'  the 
three  shepherds  in  one  month.  But  soon  he  became 
disgusted  with  the  sheep,  and  they  abhorred  him. 
Therefore  he  broke  the  two  staves,  and  now  received 
the  commission  to  act  the  part  of  a  foolish  shepherd, 
for  such  an  one  Jahweh  is  to  set  over  them  by  way 
of  punishment.  The  conclusion  of  this  threatening 
of  11"  is  supplied  by  13'"^  :  Jahweh  will  smile  the 
shepherd,  so  that  the  sheep  shall  be  scattered. — 
12'-13'  form  a  whole  :  the  heathen,  and  with  them 
Judah,  besiege  Jerusalem,  but  from  Judah  judg- 
ment goes  forth  upon  the  heathen,  while  Jerusalem 
itself  remains  peacefully  in  its  place.  Jaliweh  has 
at  first  helped  the  Judahites,  that  the  pride  of  the 
house  of  David  and  of  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem 
might  not  become  too  great.  Then  Jahweh  pro- 
tects Jerusalem,  the  heathen  who  are  moving 
against  her  are  destroyed  by  Him.  Then  shall 
the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem  look  back  to  him 
whom  they  once  pierced,  and  they  lament  over 
him  as  one  does  over  an  only  son.*  Then  Jahweh 
opens  for  the  house  of  David  and  its  inhabitants 
a  fountain  for  purification,  then  He  roots  out  the 
names  of  the  idols,  and  destroys  the  prophets,  and 
expels  the  spirit  of  uncleanness  out  of  the  land. — 
Ch.  14  begins  once  more  with  a  reference  to  an 
attack  by  the  nations  upon  Jeru.salem  ;  the  city  ia 
taken,  the  houses  destroyed,  half  of  the  inhabit- 
ants go  into  captivity.  Then  Jahweh  appears  for 
her  defence,  treads  upon  the  Mt.  of  Olives,  which 
divides  under  His  feet,  and  the  other  half  of  the 
inhabitants  make  their  escape  through  the  new 
valley  thus  formed.  There  is  no  more  interchange 
of  light  and  darkness,  of  heat  and  cold,  but  one 
day.  Living  waters  flow  from  Jerusalem  eastwards 
and  westwards.  Jahweh  rules  as  king  over  the 
whole  earth.  The  fle^h  of  the  peoples  who  fight 
against  Jerusalem  shall  moulder  away  while  they 
are  yet  alive,  but  the  remnant  shall  all  come  to 
Jerusalem  to  worship  Jahweh  and  to  keep  the 
Feast  of  Tabernacles. 

(2)  Relation  of  tlie  different  parts  to  one  another. 
— In  seeking  to  answer  this  question,  the  circum- 
stance must  be  kept  in  mind  that  in  these  chapters 
events  are  frequently  described  not  in  their  actual 
chronological  order,  but  the  final  result  emerges 
first,  and  the  description  follows  of  the  way  in 
which  God  brings  about  this  result.  Taking  this 
into  account,  it  will  be  seen  that  there  is  no  occa- 
sion, with  Rubinkam,  to  separate  9'"'°  from  vv."*-  ; 
the  latter  verses  supply  an  account  of  the  incidents 
that  precede  the  aclvent  of  the  peaceful  King.  On 
the  other  hand,  10'-^  has  a  very  loose  connexion 
with  ch.  9.  Itf"'  might  be  from  the  same  hand  as 
ch.  9 ;  in  the  latter  there  was  only  a  passing  allu- 
sion to  the  return  of  the  captives,  in  10^"-  this  has 
the  central  place  ;  as  in  Q'"-  Syria  is  the  subject  of 
Divine  judgment,  so  here  it  is  isrs,  which  in  lata 
Hebrew  stands  for  Sj'ria. 

It  is  very  questionable,  however,  whether  11'"" 
and  13'"'  are  from  the  same  hand  as  chs.  9  and  10. 
No  decisive  grounds  can  be  alleged  in  favour  of 

*  For  tlie  text  of  this  passage,  and  the  om  mads  ot  It  In  i* 
1937,  see  art.  Qcoiations,  p.  184''. 


ZECHARIAH,  BOOK  OF 


ZECHAEIAH,  BOOK  OF 


969 


identity  of  authorship  ;  on  the  contrary,  there  is  a 
niiirkeil  dii'ersity  in  so  far  as  it  is  only  at  U", 
which  has  its  continuation  in  13'"',  that  the  outlook 
into  the  future  begins. — Ch.  12  is  not,  as  Cornill 
{Einleitiiug',  p.  203)  maintains,  the  neiessar}' com- 
plement of  U'"- ;  in  fact,  the  striking  ditrerence  of 
diction  makes  it  impossiUle  to  ascribe  both  chapters 
to  the  same  hand.  Seeing,  further,  that  ch.  13  is 
undoubtedly  closely  bound  up  with  ch.  12,  a.  material 
objection  to  Cornill's  opinion  emerges.  In  ch.  13 
the  writer  liolds  in  abliorrence  those  who  make  a 
public  claim  to  be  prophets ;  Jaliweh  will  make  an 
end  of  such,  just  as  He  sweeps  idolatry  and  the 
spirit  of  uncleanness  out  of  the  land.  On  the  otlier 
hand,  in  II'"'-  the  prophet  in  his  experiences  is  to 
represent  in  a  way  the  conduct  of  the  people,  and 
the  '  Canajinites  (tralliokers)  of  the  flock'  [reading 
|rfsri  "yjp  for  n  •■yj_^  [;],  who  watch  his  conduct,  are 
to  recognize  that  it  is  the  word  of  Jahweh  that  de- 
termines his  action.  We  cannot  assent  to  Rubin- 
kani's  separation  of  13'"°  from  ch.  12,  which  is 
justified  neither  by  the  language  nor  tlie  contents; 
the  features  in  the  picture  of  the  last  days  men- 
tioned in  13'^-  complete  the  picture  of  ch.  12. 

On  the  other  hand,  ch.  14  must  certainly  be 
assigned  to  another  pen  than  12'-13'.  According 
to  cli.  12,  the  destructive  judgment  is  executed 
upon  the  lieatlien  before  Jerusalem,  while  the  city 
itself  stands  fast ;  but,  according  to  ch.  14,  Jeru- 
salem is  captured  by  the  heatlien,  the  houses 
destroyed,  etc.  According  to  13',  a  fountain  is 
openea  for  the  house  of  David  and  the  inhabitants 
ot  Jerusalem  for  the  purpose  of  purification,  where- 
as the  fountain  of  14'  obviously  serves  dillereut 
ends  altogether.  As  little  can  we  think  of  a  con- 
nexion of  ch.  14  with  chs.  9  and  10,  as  is  plain 
from  the  opposition  between  14"  and  9'°. 

The  result  of  our  examination  is  tliat  we  have 
the  following  independent  pieces:  (i.)  9.  (10"-) 
11)3-113;  (u.)  11*-"  13'-9;  (iii.)  12'-13»;  (iv.)  ch. 
14. 

(3)  Date  of  the  various  components. — (i.)  9.  (10"-) 
lff'-U\  Of  decisive  weight  for  fixing  the  date  is 
9",  where  the  p.;  'jsCsons  of  Greece')  are  named 
as  the  principal  enemies  of  the  people  of  Jahweh. 
The  place  here  a.ssigned  to  the  Greeks  carries  us 
to  the  time  subsequent  to  Alexander  the  Great. 
This  conclusion  is  not  oppo.se<l  by  10'"'-,  where 
Asshur  and  Egj'pt  are  mentioned,  for,  vm  was  noted 
above,  "bs'n  became  in  later  days  a  name  for  Syria. 
It  is  from  this  same  point  of  view  that  9"-  becomes 
for  the  first  time  intelligible  :  the  word  of  .lahweh 
is  directed  against  the  land  of  I.tadrach  and  Damas- 
cus, i.e.  against  the  empire  of  llie  Scleucids.  Thus 
also  we  understand  certain  otiier  features  in  the 
picture  of  the  future :  tlie  giacious  favour  shown 
to  ICjiliniim  and  the  turning  again  of  her  captivity, 
OS  well  as  her  reunion  with  Judali,  all  this  has 
come,  since  the  time  of  E/.ekicl,  to  be  a  fixed  point 
m  the  escliatolo^y  of  tlie  prophets.  The  figure  of 
the  Messianic  King  is  not  ojipo.ted  to  the  above 
date,  for  it  is  only  an  ajiparent  identity  that  sub- 
sists between  9'"-  and  Is  9"'-  1 1'"-.  .-Vs  a  matter  of 
fact,  this  King  is  quite  passive,  Ills  form  almost 
disappears,  to  make  mom  for  that  of  a  /in»w  spiri- 
tmilii.  Characteristic  of  the  .same  period  are  i)as- 
sages  like  9',  whore  the  return  to  Jahweh  finds 
expression  partly  in  the  observance  of  Levitical 
laws  about  food,  a  notion  utterly  impossible  in  the 
preexilic  period.  A  more  precise  dating  for  these 
chapters  is  unattainable,  on  account  of  a  lack  of 
clear  allusions  to  the  historical  situation. 

(ii.)  11*'"  13'"".  This  section  contains  allusions 
to  certain  contemporary  occurrences,  but  they  are 
nnintelligible  to  us,  i)artly  owing  to  the  probably 
defective  text  that  has  come  down  to  us,  but 
partly  also  to  our  \ery  imulequato  information 
rcg.irding  considerable  periods  of   the   post-exilic 


history.  This  alone  may  be  regarded  as  beyond 
doubt,  that  we  are  pointed  to  a  time  after  the 
Exile:  what  is  .said  in  11"  about  the  shepherds, 
as  well  as  the  similar  expressions  in  v.',  can  be 
understood  only  in  the  light  of  their  dependence 
on  Ezk  34.  The  shepherds  are  to  be  under- 
stood as  the  native  authorities,  especially  the 
high  priest.  It  is  of  the  latter  that  we  must 
understand  the  'V  of  11"  and  the  "n'?;;  -ns  of  13', — 
he  is,  as  it  were,  Jahweh's  companion  ;  jri'jp  and 
p'n;;(ll')  must  be  foreign  rulers,  who  iire  hence 
fittingly  called  ;Ni-i  "^J?  (11'-").  Wellhausen  is 
inclined  to  .see  in  11^^-  a  reflexion  of  the  incidents 
in  the  last  decade  before  the  outbreak  of  the  Jlac- 
cab;e.an  revolt,  which  witnessed  rapid  and  \iolcnt 
changes  of  the  high  priesthood. 

(iii.)  12'-1.'?°  bears,  throughout,  the  post- exilic 
stamp,  (n)  The  campaign  of  the  heathen  against 
Jerusalem  is  dependent  upon  Ezk  38  f.  The  thought 
that  Jahweh  in  the  first  inst.'irice  helps  Judah,  lest 
Jerusalem  may  exalt  herself  yet  more,  cannot  be 
properly  understood  at  any  period  earlier  than  that 
at  which  Jerusalem  had  become  the  rallying-point 
for  the  Diaspora  of  the  whole  Jewish  world,  and 
when  the  glory  of  the  city  and  her  temple  was 
reflected  also  upon  her  rulers  and  her  Lnbaliitants. 
— (b)  13',  too,  points  to  dependence  on  Ezekiel, 
although  his  viewpoint  has  been  transformed  under 
the  influence  of  notions  of  the  Levitical  period,  as 
these  find  expression  in  the  custom  described  in  Nu 
19. — (c)  We  are  pointed  to  the  later  posit-exilic 
period  by  tlie  juxtajiosition  of  tit  n'3  :ind  "i^  n'j 
(12'-'-),  which  would  have  been  an  unpo.ssibility  in 
pre -exilic  times.  And  the  whole  description  in 
joiiff.  carries  us  to  a  time  after  the  Exile. — [d)  A 
late  date  is  also  indicated  by  the  hostility  breatlied 
in  13-"-  against  prophecy,  i.e.  against  those  who 
come  forward  publiclj',  clothed  in  a  hairy  mantle. 
The  place  of  these  bad  been  taken  by  anonymous 
and  pseudonymous  prophetical  authorship.  Our 
chapters  lie  upon  the  line  of  development,  whose 
culmination  is  indicated  in  views  like  those  ex- 
pressed in  1  Mac  4**  9-'  14^',  cf.  San/icd.  11a. 

(iv.)  Ch.  14  likewise  belongs  to  later  post-exilic 
times,  (a)  This  chapter  also  is  dependent  on  Ezk 
38  f.  It  is  true  that  the  thought  of  t  he  latter  is 
transformed  in  quite  a  peculiar  fashion,  without 
our  being  able  to  recognize  the  motive  for  the 
change,  but  this  cannot  prevent  our  admitting  the 
dependence  which  is  unmistakably  present  in  U""-. 
— (6)  In  14"  we  are  probably  carried  to  the  period 
after  Malachi,  for  this  ver.se  is  dependent  on  Mai 
3-* ;  it  is  probable,  moreover,  that  v."  is  in  conscious 
opposition  to  Mai  l""- — (c)  It  is  only  during  the 
later  post-exilic  period,  when  the  Jewish  Diaspora 
went  on  pilgrimage  to  Jerusalem  from  all  parts  of 
the  world  to  hold  the  festivals,  that  we  can  undcr- 
st^ind  the  thought  expressed  here  (v.'")  that  the 
converted  heathen  proclaim  their  conversion  by 
a  pilgrimage  to  Jerusalem  to  keep  the  Eeast  of 
TaLernacles. — (rf)  It  is  only  during  the  same  period 
that  the  notion  of  holiness  expressed  in  v.*'  is  in- 
telligible, a  notion  which  once  more  shows  the 
influence  of  Ezekiel. 

(4)  lidiffUins  (ind  theological  value  of  these 
chapters. — We  stand  no  longer  upon  the  ground  of 
prophecy  properly  so  called,  but  of  anonymous 
eschatologu:al  writing.  Certain  stereotyped  feat- 
ures of  cschatology  recur.  The  writers  are  very 
strongly  influenced  by  ancient  prophecy ;  for  tho 
most  part  bv  its  religious  rather  than  by  its  ethical 
ciiiitents.  Ethical  I'cutiires  indeed  recede  far  be- 
hind religious.  Very  marked  is  the  influence  of 
the  Levitical  period.  The  Messianic  King  still  ap- 
pears, it  is  true,  in  9"',  but  lie  is  a  comparatively 
iilidse  figure  which  mi^ht  be  loft  out  without 
daniai;iiig  the  connexion.  He  is  no  longer  the 
I'-ader    ill   the   conflict   against  enemies,   but   exclu- 


970 


ZECHAEIAH,  BOOK  OF 


ZEDEKIAH 


slvely  Prince  of  Peace,  with  an  extremely  passive 
character.  The  conception  of  the  final  Kiiijj;  had 
at  this  time  assumed  a  pale  cast,  that  it  niiylit  be 
ahle  to  take  on  otlier  colours,  namely  those  of  the 
priest  and  the  prophet. — Highly  significant  is  tlie 
conception  of  tlie  Kingdom  of  God  as  embracing 
tlie  whole  world.  Jali  weh  is  King  over  all  the  earth, 
nnd,  as  He  is  one.  His  worship  is  also  one  (cf.  14"). 
But  this  universalisra  has  a  strong  Levitical  colour- 
ing, as  is  shown  especially  by  the  closing  verses 
of  ch.  14  with  their  weighty  emphasis  upon  the 
purity  of  the  theocracy.  The  ordering  of  every- 
thing on  the  basis  of  the  dominion  of  holiness,  in 
other  words  the  supremacy  of  the  Law,— this  is 
the  end  of  the  process  of  development. 

Eukardt,  it  is  true,  maintains  that  the  spiritual 
uniqueness  of  Deutero  ■  Zechariah  consists  in  tlie 
freedom  with  wliich  he  extends  the  theocratic 
universalism  over  the  whole  religious  situation  of 
his  time.  From  passages  like  14'  13-  9'  Eckardt 
draws  the  conclusion  that,  according  to  Deutero- 
Zechariah,  the  heathen  world  unconsciously  wor- 
ships Jahweh  in  the  person  of  its  own  gods,  that 
in  its  ceaseless  gropings  and  strivings  it  seeks 
Him  without  any  clear  notion  of  what  it  is  doing. 
Deutero-Zechariah,  he  holds,  goes  beyond  Mai  I" 
and  Is  26" ;  for  while  Malachi  exhibits  a  view 
which,  carried  to  its  logical  conclusion,  must  end 
in  syncretism  and  indifterentism,  and  while  Is  ■2G'^ 
on  the  other  hand,  shows  a  large  -  heartedness 
which  might  readily  be  abused  to  cover  cowardly 
sub.servience  and  denial  of  the  truth,  Deutero- 
Zechariah  in  his  uiiiveisalism  has  avoided  these 
errors.  So  far  from  seeing  in  idolatry  only  a 
readily  excusable  error  in  calculation,  he  considers 
that  heathenism  must  be  overcome  in  the  most 
terrible  conllic*:  Eckardt  admits  tliat  the  views 
of  Deutero-Zechariah  have  a  Levitical  tinge,  but 
urges  tliat  his  universalism  is  not  brought  to  a 
stand  by  the  wall  of  tlie  Law,  but  break.s  through 
it  whenever  it  presents  itself  as  an  obstacle.  Ch. 
14,  it  is  true,  lays  great  stress  upon  Levitical 
purity,  but  it  is  clear  from  the  context,  especiallj' 
from  the  closing  words  of  v.^',  that  for  tlie  writer 
the  building  up  of  tlie  Kingdom  of  God  culminates 
in  piety  of  soul,  just  as  the  Levitical  purity  of  the 
last  days  passes  over  into  inward  purity.  N.ay, 
from  14''',  where  he  renders  nx2n  by  'sin-offering,' 
Eckardt  draws  the  conclusion  that  the  particular- 
istic narrow-mindedness  of  the  laws  about  atone- 
ment is  then  to  be  overcome  by  the  universalism 
of  Divine  grace,  for  there  shall  be  a  huttnth  even 
for  the  peoples  who  doMantly  refuse  to  join  in  the 
prescribed  pilgrimage  to  .Jerusalem. 

An  accurate  unprejudiced  exegesis,  however, 
shows  these  contentions  of  Eckardt  to  be  irrecon- 
cilable with  the  text.  In  view  of  the  condition  of 
things  described  in  M'""'",  how  can  the  statement 
that  there  shall  be  no  more  a  Canaanite  in  the  liou.se 
of  Jahweh  be  made  to  justify  the  inference  tli.at 
'  the  building  up  of  the  Kingdom  of  God  sliall  be 
founded  on  piety  of  soul '  ?  Or  how  can  14' 
'  Jahweh's  name  shall  be  one '  give  rise  to  the 
notion  that  at  present  Jahweh  is  worshijiped 
under  a  variety  of^names?  In  any  case  no  sujiport 
to  this  notion  is  given  by  9',  w  hich  cannot  mean 
that  the  eyes  of  the  heathen  worlil  are  turned 
towards  Jahweh.  9'  alone  would  sufiice  to  turn 
the  scale  against  Eckardt,  for  in  this  verse  the 
conversion  of  the  Philistines  is  to  evidence  itself 
(1)  by  their  eating  no  more  of  eiouXiOvTa,  and  (2) 
by  their  submitting  to  the  Levitical  laws  about 
food,  '  for  Jahweh  removes  the  abomination  be- 
tween their  teeth.'  It  is  beyond  question  also  that 
in  9"  we  have  not  a  promise,  in  contrast  with  Dt 
23'',  but  a  threatening,  as  the  context  shows. 
Eckardt's  view  is  thus  shown  to  be  untenable  on 
exegetical  grounds. 


Literature. — B.  O.  F.  Flu:;^e,  Die  Weissagitivjtm  welcke  b€§ 
d^n  iichrijten  des  Propheten  /acfiarias  bei/'jftn^'itn  simi,  etc., 
1784;  W.Heiigstenberg,£«()-((/;p,i.(1831)3uii'tI.,  bhrislologU  dn 
A.T.'s  III.  i.2  p.  327  8.;  E.  F.  J.  Ortenherg,  Uif  Beatandtheil* 
des  Bitches  Sacharja,  18J>9 ;  B.  SUde,  '  Deuterozat:harja '  ia 
ZATtVi.  Iff.,  ii.  151  fl.,  273  3.  (critiniscd  by  Kuenen  in  Under- 
zoek  2,  55  81-S3]  :  W.  Staerk,  Untermcckltiyjeti  utter  die  Kotn- 
position  und  AO/assungszeit  von  Zach.  9-lU,  18H1 ;  O.  K.  Grula- 
macher,  Uiitersuchung  iiber  den  Urxpning  der  in  Sack.  i/-J4 
vorli^fjenden  ProphHien^  1S92  ;  Rubink.im,  The  Second  Part  oj 
the  Book  of  Zachariah,  Basel,  1S92 ;  Eckardt,  'tier  Spntch- 
gebrauch  von  Zach.  ft-14 '  in  ZATW  xiii.  76tf.,  'Der  reli;,'io8e 
Uehalt,"  U.S.W.,  in  Ztschr.  /iir  Theol.  u.  Kirche,  iii.  oUff. ; 
A.  K.  Kuiper,  Zackarja  ix-xio,  eene  exeqetisch-critiache  atutlie^ 
189-1 ;  T.  K.  Cheyne,  JQR.  18S8,  pp.  '76-83 ;  Boehmer,  ■  Daa 
Raethsel  von  Sach.  12-14'  in  Evang.  Kirchenzeiischr.  1901,  p. 
914  ff.  ;  on  the  last  chapter  cf.  Graetz  in  Ji^R  iii.  20811.  See 
also  the  relevant  sections  in  the  OT  Introductions  of  Driver, 
Cornill,  Strack,  Konig,  Baudissin.  \V.  NOWACK. 

ZECHER  (iri).— A  son  of  Jehiel  the  'father' 
of  Gibeon,  1  6h  S^'  (B  Zaxoip,  A  ZaKxovp,  Luc. 
lexp^) ;  called  in  9"  Zechariah. 

ZECHRIAS  (B  Zexp/as,  A  'Effpfas,  A"V  Ezerias), 
1  Es  S'. — Azariah,  a  priest  in  the  line  of  Ezra,  Ezr  7'. 

ZEDAD  (iy$  [the  name  occurs  only  with  .i  locale, 
n'l'is]). — One  of  the  points  mentioned  in  defining 
the  Northern  border  of  the  Promised  Land  in 
Nu  34',  and  again  in  Ezekiel's  ideal  picture,  Ezk 
47'^.  The  reading  is  uncertain,  the  Sam.  having 
in  Numbers  mns ;  LXX  in  Numbers,  B  and  Luc. 
ZapddaK,  A  Zadd3aK,  F  2d5daK ;  in  Ezekiel,  BA 
^(Xda/jifia.  If  the  reading  lis  is  followed,  the  site  ia 
unknown ;  for,  as  Dillmann  points  out,  the  Sadad, 
on  the  road  from  Riblah  to  ^iaryaten  (accepted  by 
Wetzstein,  Miihlau,  Furrer,  et  al.),  is  much  too  far 
to  the  east  and  north.  If  we  read  tim,  as  we  should 
probably  do,  the  place  may  perhaps  be  identified 
(so  van  Kasteren,  RB,  1895,  p.  oU)  with  Khirbet 
Seradd,  N.  of  Abil,  E.  of  Merj  'Ajdn,  towards 
Hermon. 

ZEDEKIAH  (5n;p-ix,  .i.-p-is  only  in  1  K  22",  Jer 
27''-  '28'  '29^  '  righteousness  of  J" ' ;  LX.\  i:eoeKii, 
-(3eKLat,  ZeSeKioii ;  A'^ulg.  Sedecias).  —  1.  Son  of 
Chenaanah,  and  one  of  Ahab's  four  hundred  court 
prophets  (1  K  22'i-  "•^-  ==,  2  Ch  W-  ^-  ").  When 
Jehoshaphat  demanded  that  a  prophet  of  J"  should 
be  consulted  about  the  proposed  expedition  to 
Kamotli-gilead,  Zedekiah  came  forward  in  that 
character  in  order  to  forestall  Micaiah  ben-Imlah. 
He  produced  horns  of  iron  and  apparently  pre- 
sented them  to  Ahab  as  from  J",  with  a  Divine 
commission  :  '  Thus  saith  the  Lord,  With  the.se 
shalt  thou  push  the  Syrians,  until  they  be  con- 
sumed.' He  maintained  his  attitude  in  the  pres- 
ence of  Micaiah,  and  ventured  to  insinuate  a 
doubt  as  to  the  source  of  the  inspiration  of  the 
latter :  '  Which  way  went  the  spirit  of  the  Lord 
from  me  to  speak  unto  thee?'  The  sharp  retort 
in  wliich  Micaiah  reaffirmed  the  coming  defeat  of 
Israel  does  not  seem  to  have  weakened  the  infatua- 
tion of  the  two  kings.     Tfie  lying  spirit  prevailed. 

Joseplms  {Ant.  vni.  xv.  4)  embellishes  this  story,  and  trans- 
j^osos  the  incidents  of  it.  lie  puts  a  speech  to  Ahab  into 
Zedekiaii's  mouth,  in  which  he  tries  to  prove  Micaiah  t<3  be  a 
fal^e  prophet  because  of  his  disagreement  with  Elijah  as  to  the 
place  of  Ahab's  future  death,  and  concludes  by  proposing  a 
practical  test :  '  When  struck  by  me,  let  him  injure  my  hand 
as  Jadaos  dried  up  tlic  right  hand  of  king  Jeroboam  when  he 
wished  to  arrest  him.'  Zedekiah  then  smites  .Micaiah,  and  oi 
nothing  happens  to  him,  Ahab  is  convinced.  The  incident  of 
the  iron  horns  follows. 

2.  A  prophet,  one  of  the  captives  deported  to 
Babylon  with  Jehoiachin.  He  and  another,  named 
Ahab,  are  denounced  by  Jeremiah  (29'^'"^)  for  gross 
immorality  as  well  as  for  falsely  prophesying  a 
speedy  restoration  from  Babylon.  It  was  probably 
tlieir  action  as  political  agitators  that  brought 
on  them  the  cruel  punishment  of  being  masUd 
in  the  tire  by  order  of  Nebuchadrezzar.     Jeremiah 


ZEDEKIAH 


ZEDEKIAH 


971 


proiiliesied  that  their  fate  wouhl  be  proverbial. 
Zedekiah  was  son  of  Maaseiah,  who  is  probably 
to  be  identified  with  the  priest  whose  son,  '  the 
second  priest'  Zephaniah,  wa<  put  to  death  at 
Kihlali  by  Nebuchadrezzar  (2  K  2.') ■'"■•).  3.  Son  of 
Hananiah,  one  of  the  princes  in  the  reign  of 
Jehoiakim  (Jer  36"). 

4.  Tlie  last  king  of  Jndah  (Sedekias  in  I  Es 
l",  Bar  1*).  He  was  the  youngest  son  of  Josiah 
and  full  brother  of  Jehoahaz  (2  K  23"'  24'*; 
in  Jos.  Ant.  x.  vii.  2,  'Jehoiakim'  is  a  blunder 
for  '  Jelioaliaz').  In  1  Ch  3"  liis  name  pre- 
cedes that  of  SHALLUM  or  Jehoahaz,  perhaps 
on  account  of  the  latter's  insignificance,  while  in 
the  following  verse  and  in  2  Ch  30'°  he  is  repre- 
sented as  son  of  Jehoiakim,  perhaps  as  having 
been  his  successor.  These  variations  are  in- 
structive as  showing  the  degree  of  inaccuracy 
which  may  exist  in  biblical  genealogies.  The 
direct  account  of  tliis  reign  is  contained  in  2  K 
24"-25',  Jer  30'"'  52'-",  2  Ch  30'°-='.  Consider- 
able light  is  also  thrown  on  this  period  by  the 
prophetical  writings  of  Jeremiah  and  Kzekiel, 
especially  the  narrative  portions  of  Jeremiah  which 
are  here  enumerated  in  their  chronological  order  : 
chs.  24.  27.  (Gr.  34.)  28.  (.35.)  29.  (36.)  21.  37.  (44.) 
34.  (41.)  38.  (45.)  39"-'«  (46'»-"')  32.  (39.)  33.  (40.) 
39'"'''  (46'"').  There  is,  in  fact,  more  contemporary 
material  available  for  the  construction  of  the 
history  of  this  reign  than  of  tliat  of  any  other 
Hebrew  nionarcli  ;  yet  there  are  few  of  which 
there  is  so  little  definite  to  record. 

Zedekiah's  eleven  je.irs'  occupancy  of  the  throne 
was  but  the  hist  sigh  of  the  expiring  Davidic 
dyna-sty,  one  episode  in  the  struggle  of  Egypt  and 
Babylon  for  the  masterj'.  The  king  himself  was  a 
weak  man  in  a  false  position.  As  a  private  citizen 
he  might  have  liad  an  inolt'ensive  and  respectable 
career,  for  he  was  of  an  amiable  disposition  and 
religiously  inclined,  but  in  the  Davidic  vine  he 
was  '  no  strong  rod  to  be  a  sceptre  to  rule'  (Ezk 
19'^).  Josephus  in  one  passage  {Ant.  X.  vii.  5) 
credits  him  with  x/")<"''^''';'  "o'  SiKaioavfrj.  Tliis  is 
Butliciently  evidenced  in  his  de.-ilings  with  Jere- 
miah. On  two  occasions  we  read  of  formal  depu- 
tations from  tlie  king  to  the  propliet  (Jer  21'  37'), 
'  Inquire,  I  pray  thee,  of  the  LoRD  for  us,'  '  I'ray 
now  unto  the  Lord  uurGod  for  us' ;  and  wlien  this 
State  recognition  was  no  longer  possible,  Zedvkiah 
proved  the  sincerity  of  his  own  penional  con- 
victions in  secret  consultations  (Jer  37"  38'").  It  is 
noteworthy,  too,  that  the  only  occasions  on  which 
we  read  of  Zedekiah's  exerting  his  authority  are 
when  he  mitigated  the  rigour  of  Jeremiah's  im- 
prisonment (37-')  and  sanctioned  his  deliverance 
from  the  miry  dungeon  (3S'°),  see  also  Jer  38'"; 
anil  so  it  was  promised  to  him,  in  marked  contrast 
with  the  fate  of  Jehoiakim  (Jer  22'"'"),  that  he 
should  die  in  jieivce  and  be  buried  as  a  king  (Jer 
34''' ').  Jeremiah,  in  fact,  never  adopts  a  liarsh 
tone  when  speaking  of  him.  Others  also  felt  the 
same  personal  attraction.  They  looked  back  on 
him  as  '  the  breath  of  our  nostrils,  the  anointed  of 
the  Lord  ...  of  whom  we  said.  Under  his  shallow 
we  shall  live  among  the  nations'  (La  4-").  On  the 
other  hand,  Ezekiol,  whose  moral  and  political 
jud;:nient  was  uninllucncnl  bj-  personal  contact 
with  the  king,  speaks  of  Zedekiah  in  terms  of  un- 
qualified censure.  He  is  the  'deadly  wounded 
wicked  one.'  The  prophetic  sentence  of  dejiosition 
anticipates  the  act  of^  man  (Ezk  2r-""-'').  Kzekiel, 
in  fact,  is  at  one  with  the  pro-Egyptian  party  in 
regarding  Jehoiachin  as  de  jure  king.  Ho  dates 
his  visions  not  by  the  years  of  Zedekiah's  reign, 
but  by  those  of  kin"  Jehoiachin's  captivity.  On 
other  grounds  it  is  dilheult  to  avoid  feeling  sym- 

fathy  with  the  pro-Egyptian  party  in  Jerusalem, 
n  comparison,  indeed,  with  the  exiles  in  Babylon, 


they  were  as  bad  figs,  '  very  bad,  that  cannot  be 
eaten,  they  are  so  bad'  (Jer  24,  see  also  Ezk  5* 
ai3-i8  1422  22.  .33«-«),  but  their  patriotism  was 
sincere  if  perverted,  while  Zedekiah  s  throne  rested 
upon  a  renunciation  of  national  ambitions.  This 
is  clearly  marked  in  the  words  of  Ezekiel  (17'^- '■*), 
'  The  king  of  Babylon  .  .  .  took  of  the  seed  royal 
and  made  a  covenant  with  him  ;  he  also  brought 
him  under  an  oath,  and  took  away  the  mighty  of 
the  land :  that  the  kingdom  might  be  base,  that 
it  might  not  lift  itself  up,  but  that  by  keeidng  of 
his  covenant  it  might  stand.'  In  other  words,  it 
was  Nebuchadrezzar's  policy  to  reduce  the  Jewish 
nation  to  impotence  and  at  the  same  time  attach 
it  to  himself  by  motives  of  self-interest,  and  thus 
control  the  powerful  fortress  of  Jerusalem.  Jose- 
phus (.4n<.  X.  viL  1)  gives  the  terms  of  the  oath 
under  which  Zedekiah  was  brought :  '  That  he 
would  surely  guard  the  country  for  him,  and 
neither  make  any  political  changes  nor  favour  the 
Egyptians.'  Accordingly,  the  hopes  of  the  n.ational 
party  centred  round  Jehoiachin,  whom  they  hoped 
to  restore  to  the  throne  (Jer  28'').  Zedekiah's  dis- 
loyalty, therefore,  was  directly  against  his  own 
personal  interests ;  but  he  was  quite  passive  in  the 
liands  of  the  man  or  faction  that  happened  to  be 
nearest  to  him  at  the  time;  as  Josephus  says  {Atit. 
X.  vii.  2),  '  As  long  as  he  heard  the  prophet  speak- 
ing these  things,  he  believed  him  and  agreed  to 
everything  as  true,  and  believed  that  it  would  be 
to  his  advantage ;  but  then  his  friends  used  to 
corrupt  him  and  draw  him  away  from  the  sug- 
gestions of  the  prophet  to  whatever  course  they 
wished.'  We  have  here  an  echo  of  the  taunt-song 
which  Jeremiah  (38--)  puts  into  the  mouth  of  the 
women  of  the  royal  harem  :  'Thy  familiar  friends 
have  set  thee  on,  and  have  prevailed  over  thee  : 
now  that  thy  feet  are  sunk  in  the  mire,  they  are 
turned  away  back.'  '  The  princes  '  to  whom  allu- 
sion is  here  made,  seem  in  this  reign  to  have 
usurped  most  of  the  executive  power.  They  tried 
and  sentenced  Jeremiah  on  a  charge  of  desertion 
(Jer  37").  They  reduced  the  king  to  abject  terror 
(37"  3S-°).  There  was  truth  as  well  as  pathos  in  the 
words  with  which  he  surrendereil  his  best  friend 
to  them  :  '  The  king  is  not  he  that  can  do  any- 
thing against  you  '  (38^).  In  a  ruler  such  weakness 
is  the  greatest  crime,  and  in  the  case  of  Zedekiah 
it  was  aggravated  by  the  fact  that  '  the  |)rince3 ' 
for  the  most  part  belonged  to  the  pro- Egyptian 
party  to  which  Jeremiaii  and  Ezekiel  (Jos.  Ant. 
X.  vii.  2)  were  opposed,  and  which  encouraged  the 
idolatrous  reaction  which  followed  on  the  death  of 
.losiah.  That  reaction  was  now  in  full  force  (.see 
Ezk  8  and  11).  And  yet  it  is  not  so  much  for 
abetting  false  or  irregular  worship  that  the  pro- 
phets condemn  Zedekiah  as  for  brcacli  of  faith. 
The  oath  of  fealty  which  ho  made  to  Neliucliad- 
rezzar  struck  men  as  being  of  a  i>eculiarly  binding 
nature.  He  'made  him  swear  by  God'  (2  Ch  36'") 
and  place  his  hand  under  his  thigh  (Ezk  17"). 
The  lofty  and  stern  morality  of  the  Hebrew  ]iro- 
phets  dill  not  p.alliate  Zedekiah's  subsequent  viola- 
tion of  this  solemn  promise  on  the  ground  that  it 
had  been  made  to  a  heathen.  On  the  contraiy, 
'Thus  .saith  the  Lord  God  :  As  I  live,  surely  mine 
oath  that  he  hath  despised,  and  my  covenant  that 
he  hath  broken,  I  will  even  bring  it  upon  his  own 
head '(Ezk  17'").  The  new  name  Za/c/ciah  which 
he  now  received  in  place  of  Mattaniah,  in  token  of 
vassalage,  very  possibly  has  reference  to  the  right- 
eousness of  J"  whicli  was  ajipealed  to  on  this 
occasion  ;  and  this  again  may  well  be  '  the  circum- 
stantial origin  '  of  the  Messianic  aspirations  alter 
the  Shoot  of  the  Uavidic  stock  whoso  name  is  'J" 
is  our  righteousness'  (Jer  '-'.3''-  '). 

It  is  dithcult  to  say  how  long  Zedekiah  remained 
negatively  loyal  to  the  Chaldicans,  but  in  his  fourth 


972 


ZEDEKIAH 


ZEDKKIAII 


year  (n.c.  590)  his  allegiance  was  so  far  question- 
able that  the  rulers  of  Edoni,  Moab,  Amnion,  Tyre, 
and  Sidon  (Jer  27'''),  incited  thereto  by  their  pro- 
phets and  diviners,  were  emboldened  to  send 
envoys  to  Jerusalem  in  order  to  induce  Ztdekiah 
to  join  a  league  for  the  purpose  of  throwing  oli'  the 
BaDjlonian  yoke.  The  prophets  and  diviners  of 
Israel,  too,  both  in  Jerusalem  and  Babylon,  were 
fomenting  a  similar  agitation,  utterinj,'  delinite 
predictions  that  '  shortly  '  (Jer  27'"),  '  within  two 
full  years'  (Jer  28'),  would  all  the  vessels  of  the 
Lord's  house  and  Jeconiah  himself  be  restored 
to  their  native  land.  The  silver  vessels  which 
Zedekiah  is  said  (Bar  1')  to  have  made  to  take  the 
place  of  the  gold  ones  served  to  emphasize  the 
national  humiliation.  It  seems  to  us  unaccount- 
able that  the  peoples  of  Syria  could  have  had  such 
provincial  imaginations,  so  little  sense  of  pro- 
portion, as  to  expect  the  speedy  fall  of  the  empire 
of  Nebuchadrezzar.  On  the  other  hand,  it  must 
be  rememliered  that  the  rise  of  Chalda;a  was  of 
very  recent  date,  the  sudden  collapse  of  Nineveh 
must  have  made  anytliing  seem  possible,  and 
belief  in  the  inexhaustible  resources  of  Egypt  was 
a  tradition  in  the  East.  The  prestige  of  centuries 
dies  hard.  In  opposition  to  such  men  as  Hananiah 
and  Shemaiah  at  Jerusalem  (Jer  28'  29-^),  and 
Ahab  and  Zedekiah  at  Babylon  (Jer  29--),  Jere- 
miah as  chief  prophet  of  the  pro-Chaldsean  party 
declared  that  resistance  to  Nebuchadrezzar  was 
premature,  futile,  and  suicidal,  since  supremacy 
had  been  assured  by  God  to  Babylon  for  70  years. 

With  characteristic  energy  Nebuchadrezzar  at 
once  set  about  crushing  the  incipient  revolt.  He 
made  examples  of  the  agitators  at  Babylon, 
'  roasting  them  in  the  fire '  (Jer  29--),  and  at  the 
same  time  apparently  sent  to  demand  explana- 
tions from  his  vassal  at  Jerusalem.  It  is  possible 
that  the  mission  of  Elasah  and  Gemariah  (Jer  29^) 
to  Babj'Ion  should  be  referred  to  this  date  ;  in  any 
case  Zedekiah's  personal  attendance  was  required, 
and  he  journe3'ed  to  Babylon  before  the  close  of 
his  fourth  j'ear,  accompanied  by  a  leading  member 
of  the  pro  -  ChaUUean  party,  Seraiah  (Jer  51°"). 
There  is  no  reason  to  doubt  the  sincerity  of  the 
protests  of  loyalty  which  Zedekiah  doubtless  made 
at  this  time.  He  had,  in  fact,  everything  to  lose 
by  the  defeat  of  Chaldsea,  but  he  counted  for 
nothing  in  the  struggle  of  factions  at  Jerusalem, 
which  continued  as  before,  intense,  sordid,  mono- 
tonous. In  his  fifth  year  Ezekiel  (F4"-)  sees  the 
fate  of  Jernsakni  to  be  inevitable.  The  dominant 
party  had  an  infatuated  confidence  in  the  im- 
pregnability of  their  fortress,  '  This  city  is  the 
caldron,  and  we  be  the  flesh  '  (Ezk  11')  ;  and  as  it 
was  hopeless  to  expect  any  help  from  the  exiles  in 
Babylon,  these  latter — the  real  depositaries  of  the 
Mes.sianic  hope — came  to  be  regarded  as  outcasts  : 
'  Get  you  far  from  the  Loi;d  ;  unto  us  is  this  land 
given  for  a  posses.sion '  (Ezk  11").  This  was  the 
state  of  feeling  in  Jerusalem  in  the  sixth  year  of 
the  reign. 

Psainmetichus  11.,  who  died  in  589,  was  succeeded 
on  the  throne  of  Egypt  by  his  brother  Apries 
(Uahibri),  and  Zedekiah  was  induced  to  'send  his 
ambassadors  into  Egj-pt  that  they  might  give  him 
horses  and  much  people'  (Ezk  17'°).  Edom,  Moab, 
and  Philistia  now  held  back,  but  Judali  committed 
itself  to  an  alliance  with  Tyre  (Ezk  26'  29"*), 
Amnion,  and  Egypt  against  Babylon.  This  took 
place,  according  to  Josephus  (Ant.  X.  N-ii.  3),  at  the 
close  of  Zedekiah's  eighth  year  ;  but  the  prophecy 
of  Ezekiel  (21)  in  which  reference  is  made  to  it 
seems  to  be  dated  (20')  in  his  seventh  year.  In 
any  case  it  was  not  until  his  ninth  year,  the  tenth 
day  of  the  tenth  month,  that  the  Chalda;an  army 
actually  invested  Jerusalem.  The  delay  is  easily 
accounted  for.    At  the  time  when  war  was  actually 


declared,  Nebuchadrezzar  was  probably  engaged 
in  reducing  Elam  or  Susiana  (Jer  49^'"),  ami  when 
he  did  turn  his  attention  to  the  Egyptian  coalition 
he  was  uncertain  whether  he  should  first  attack 
Amnion  or  Judah  (Ezk  21^''').  Finally,  he  estab- 
lished himself  at  Kiblah,  wlience  he  despatched 
expeditions  against  Tyre  and  Jerusalem  respec- 
tively. The  division  sent  against  Zedekiah,  before 
settling  down  around  the  capital,  reduced  tha 
smaller  fortresses  of  Judah  ;  Lachish  and  Azekah 
alone  held  out  (Jer  34').  It  was  a  day  never  to  be 
forgotten  (2  K  25',  Jer  39'  52*,  Ezk  24»,  Zee  8'»). 
Some,  the  king  himself  included,  at  last  recognized 
the  fact  that  deliverance  from  this  danger  would 
be  a  miracle  comparable  to  one  of  the  Lord's 
wondrous  works  of  old  time  (Jer  2P).  The  general 
alarm,  indeed,  was  such  as  to  cause  a  religious 
revival,  one  feature  of  which  was  a  renewal,  with 
the  patriarchal  ceremonial  (Jer  34'-  '*),  of  the 
covenant,  and  in  particular  a  solemn  engagement 
was  made  by  all  the  people  that  they  would  in 
future  observe  the  law  as  to  the  manumission  of 
slaves  (Ex  2P,  Dt  15").  Their  zeal  for  this  enact- 
ment may  have  been  quickened  by  a  desire  to 
increase  the  number  of  defenders  of  the  city. 

Meanwhile  the  Egyptian  army,  commanded  by 
Apries  in  person,  was  advancing  from  the  south  to 
the  relief  of  his  ally  (Jos.  Ant.  X.  vii.  3),  and 
captured  Gaza,  and  compelled  the  Chaldaians  to 
raise  the  siege  of  Jerusalem.  Josephus  (I.e.)  states 
that  the  two  armies  met  in  a  pitched  battle,  and 
that  the  Egj'ptians  were  put  to  flight  and  driven 
out  of  all  Syria.  From  Jer  37'  we  shcmld  infer 
no  more  than  that  Pharaoh  was  forced  to  retreat  to 
his  OAvn  land.  The  Chaldeean  army  had  no  sooner 
withdrawn  than  the  base  people  of  Jerusalem 
broke  faith  with  their  slaves  and  reduced  them  to 
bondage  again — a  step  which  called  forth  an  in- 
dignant protest  from  the  prophet  (Jer  34'"''-). 
Meanwhile  there  were  constant  desertions  to  the 
Chaldrean  army  (Jer  37"  38">  39»  52"),  caused  at 
least  in  .some  measure  by  the  predictions  of  Jere- 
miah. The  burden  of  his  utterances  during  the 
siege  was  that  the  city  and  all  its  contents  was 
doomed,  but  that  individual  deserters  would  save 
their  own  lives  (21°  38^-  ").  We  cannot  wonder 
then  that  the  anti-Chalda^an  party  regarded  him 
as  a  dangerous  traitor  (38*),  and  viewed  with  sus- 
picion his  relations  with  the  king.  In  fact,  after 
lie  had  been  sentenced  to  imprisonment,  Zedekiah 
could  only  see  him  by  stealth  (37"  3S'«). 

The  relieving  force  having  been  completely  re- 
pulsed, the  besiegers  once  more  closed  round  the 
doomed  city.  Josephus  displayed  a  true  historical 
spirit  in  describing  the  siege  in  the  light  of  bia 
own  experiences.  It  must  have  been  an  almost 
exact  counterpart,  in  the  desperate  courage  and 
the  horrors  of  it,  to  the  siege  under  Titus.  There 
were  the  same  circles  of  forts  to  keep  the  blockade, 
the  battering-rams  against  the  gates,  the  'mounts' 
built  high  to  overtop  the  city  walls  (2  K  25',  Jer 
32-»,  Ezk  i-  17"  21*"  26'-»),  while  the  besieged 
strained  all  their  powers  of  mind  and  body  U) 
erect  counter  works,  destroying  even  the  royal 
palace  to  find  building  material  (Jer  33').  But 
deadlier  than  the  missiles  of  the  Chalda>ans  weie 
the  pestilence  and  the  famine  (Jer  21''-  '•  »  32»  34" 
38^-  »  La  5'»,  Ezk  5'=-  '«•  ",  Bar  2»),  with  the 
supreme  horror  of  cannibalism  (Jer  19*,  La  2'"''* 
4"*,  Ezk  5'").  The  city  yielded  at  last  to  famine 
(Jer  52"),  and  on  the  ninth  day  of  the  fourth  month, 
in  the  eleventh  year  of  Zedekiah's  reign,  about 
midnight  the  six  generals  who  had  been  conducting 
the  siege  entered  through  a  breach  and  sat  in  grim 
state  in  the  middle  temple  gate  (Jer39'  ;  Jos.  Ant. 
X.  viii.  2  ;  cf.  Ezk  9-). 

In  the  confusion  that  followed,  Zedekiah  with 
his  household  and  most  of  the  surviving  defender! 


ZEEB 


ZEPHANIAH 


973 


of  tlie  city  broke  tlirou;,'li  the  cordon  of  the  be- 
siegers ;  they  were  betrayed,  however,  by  some  of 
the  deserters,  and  had  only  succeeded  in  reaoliing 
the  plains  of  Jericho  when  they  were  overtaken. 
The  unfortunate  king  was  conveyed  to  Riblah 
to  the  presence  of  Nebuchadrezzar,  who  '  spake 
with  liiin  of  judgment,'  taxing  him,  according  to 
Josephus,  with  perjury  and  ingratitude.  With 
a  relinenient  of  cruelty  his  eyes  were  put  out, 
but  not  until  he  had  seen  the  slaughter  of  hiB 
children. 

Josephua  calls  attention  to  the  remarkable  manner  in  which 
the  (ate  of  Zetickiah  fulfilled  two  apparently  discrepant  pro- 
phcL'ies  of  Jc-rtiiiiah  and  Ezekiel  TL-spectively.  'Thine  eyes 
shall  behold  the  eyes  of  the  kin^j  of  liabylon,  and  he  shall  s^teak 
with  thee  mouth  to  mouth,  atid  thou"  shalt  go  to  liabylon' 
(Jer  34-'),  and  '  1  will  brin;r  him  to  liabylon,  to  the  land  of  the 
Chalda:ans;  yet  shall  be  not  see  it,  though  he  shall  die  there' 
(Ezk  12'a). 

In  all  probability,  Zedekiah  did  not  long  survive 
his  misfortunes.  We  hear  no  more  of  liim.  The 
hope  of  Israel  henceforth  centres  round  the  more 
innocent  captive,  his  nephew  Jeconiah  (2  K  25-''). 

5.  A  '  prince '  who  '  sealed  unto  the  covenant '  at 
Nehemiah's  reformation  (Xeh  10'). 

N.  J.  D.  White. 

ZEEB.— See  Okeb. 

ZELA(H).  —  A  Benjamite  city,  Jos  1S=«  {vh^, 
LXX  om.),  where  was  the  family  buryingplace 
of  Saul  (2  S  21"  vS'  [here  EV  needlessly  confuses 
by  writing  Zela/i],  LXX  if  r-j  irXevpf  [taking  it  for 
V>s  '  side  'J).     Its  site  has  not  been  discovered. 

ZELEK  (p'ri). — An  Ammonite,  one  of  David's 
heroes,  2  S  23^'  (B  'ENa^,  A  i:^(.\e7J,  Luc.  ZaXadS}  = 
I  Ch  1 1**  (B  ZiXri,  A  Sf  \\i)/(). 

ZELOPHEHAD  (iijci-?).— A  Manassite  who  died 
during  the  wilderness  journeyings,  leaving  no 
male  issue.  His  five  daughters  successfully  as- 
serted their  claim  to  the  inheritance  of  their 
father  (Nu  26»'  27'"'  36-"",  Jos  17',  1  Ch  7").  See 
vol.  ii.  pp.  1'29''  and  341".  The  LXX  readings  are  : 
B  laXruai  eJit-ept  in  1  Ch  7"  ZairipadS  ;  A  2a.\?rad5 
except  in  Jos  17'  SoX^odo  {bis). 

ZELZAH.— In  1  S  10»  Samuel  tells  Saul :  'When 
thou  art  departed  from  me  to-day,  then  thou  shalt 
liiul  two  men  by  llachel's  sepulchre  in  the  border 
of  Benjamin  niSsx'  The  last  word  is  rendered  by 
AV  and  UV  'at  Zelzah.'  But  there  are  grave 
reasons  for  suspecting  the  correctness  of  this.  No 
place  of  such  a  name  is  known  to  us,  nor  should 
we  expect  any  further  definition  after  the  specilic 
mention  of  '  Kachel's  sepulchre.'  The  LXX  trans- 
lates by  dXXo/wVouj  Aie7dAa  'leaping  mightily  '  (Ew. 
'  in  grosser  Eile ') ;  dXXo/«'i'ous=D'n^i  (v.'').  But,  as 
Driver  points  out,  though  Sv  nSx  may  mean  (meta- 
phorically) leap  u/ion,  we  are  not  justified  in  at- 
tributing to  n>!(  absolutely  the  sense  of  leapinc/. 
Moreover,  i^cydXa  as  an  adverb  does  not  occur 
elsewhere  in  the  LXX,  and  Wellh.  is  doubtless 
riglit  in  regarding  it  as  simply  a  lleb.  word  written 
in  Greek  letters  and  transformed  into  something 
significant  in  Greek  (for  other  instances  of  a 
siiiiihir  kind  see  Driver,  Text  of  Sam.  GO  n.).  lie 
himself  takes  dXXo/if'i'oi;?  /it-ydXo  to  be  doublets 
wliich  have  arisen  from  the  words  in  "^riKwy.  tv 
BaKoXdfl  which  are  found  in  several  MSS  after  the 
word  Ufi'ia/Mii'.  See,  more  fully,  his  Text  d.  Buchcr 
Ham.  73  f.;  and  cf.  Driver  and  Lblir,  who  take 
practically  the  same  view  of  the  passage. 

ZEMARAIM  (D:";?i). — A  city  of  Benjamin,  appar- 
ently in  the  vicinity  of  Bethel,  Jos  18"*  (B  i^apd, 
A  Zftiplfi,  Luc.  ~a/iaptlfi).  It  prob.  gave  its  name 
to  Mt.  Zcmaraim  ('s  in,  t6  6pot  Zo/jLopuf),  in  the 
hilloouLUj  of  Kphraim,  2  Ch  13',  from  which  the 


Chronicler  makes  Abijah  harangue  Jeroboam  and 
his  army.  It  is  generallj'  identified  with  es-Sumra 
to  the  north  of  Jericho  (PEF  Mem.  iii.  174,  212 f.; 
Bulil,  GAP  ISO,  et  al.);  but  Dillm.  [Jos.  ad  lor.) 
doubts  the  correctness  of  tliis,  holding  that  the 
place  (see  Berth,  on  2  Ch  13')  ouglit  to  be  .sought 
to  the  south  of  Bethel,  and  not  far  to  the  east 
where  es-Sumra  lies. 

ZEMARITE  (nes).— Name  of  a  tribe  said  to  be 
one  of  the  sons  of  Canaan  and  placed  between 
Arvad  and  Hamath,  Gn  10'8=1  Ch  V^iAZatiapatos, 
E  [in  Gen.]  ~atiapeios).  The  name  seems  akin  to 
Zemaraim  of  Jos  18--.  The  Arabian  geographers 
mention  several  places  with  similar  names ;  but 
the  juxtaposition  of  this  name  with  Arvad  suggests 
comparison  with  Sumur  of  the  Tel  el-Amarna 
tablets,  in  which  the  two  names  figure  more  than 
once  side  by  side.  So  1.50.  59  (ed.  \\  inckler) :  'The 
people  of  Arvad  have  made  a  treaty  to  take  awaj' 
Tyre ;  Tyre  they  could  not  conquer,  but  Suuiui 
they  did  conquer.'  From  81.  13  it  appears  to  li.ive 
been  a  port,  and  is  identified  by  ^V inckler  with 
Botrys.  In  the  fragmentary  narrative  contained 
in  these  tablets  it  appears  to  have  been  repeatedly 
taken,  destroyed,  and  rebuilt.  A  jjlace  named 
SimjTa,  considerably  to  the  north  of  Botrys,  is 
mentioned  Ijy  the  classical  geographers  (Strabo, 
XVI.  ii.  12 ;  I'liny,  HX  v.  77 ;  Ptol.  v.  xv.  4),  and 
was  supposed  by  Michaelis  to  retain  a  trace  of 
the  name  given  in  Genesis  (so  also  Schrader, 
KAT'  105  ;  Dillm.  Gen.  ad  loc,  et  al.). 

D.  S.  Margoliouth. 

ZEMIRAH  (n-;-ct)._A  son  of  Beclier,  1  Ch  7' 
(B  'AfjiapiaSj  A  Zafxapias,  Luc.  Zapiaptd). 

ZENAN See  Zaanan. 

ZENAS  (ZTj^-as).— In  Tit  3"  St.  Paul  exhorts 
Titus  to  bring  or,  more  probably,  send  forivard 
(rrpOTre/ii/'oi')  on  their  journey  Zenas  and  ApoUos 
with  great  care  {aTovSaiai),  that  nothing  may  be 
wanting  to  them,  and  describes  Zenas  as  riv 
voiiinii',  i.e.  '  the  lawyer.'  This  may  mean  a 
lawyer  in  the  secular  sense,  but  more  probably 
one  skilled  in  the  Jewish  law  (cf.  Lk  T""  11«14»). 
Just  above,  the  same  word  is  used  about  disputes 
concerning  the  Law  (Tit  3'  '  But  avoid  .  .  .  striv- 
ings about  the  law,  /idxas  fofUKas '). 

A.  C.  Headlam. 

ZEPHANIAH.  — 1.  The  prophet.  See  Zi:i'HA- 
NlAll,  BdOK  OF,  where  also  the  name  is  discussed. 
2.  A  Kohatliite,  mentioned  among  the  ancestors 
of  Heman  the  singer  (1  Ch  C^"").  3.  Son  of 
Maaseiah  the  priest  in  Jerusalem  in  the  time  of 
Zedekiah  the  king  and  Jeremiah  the  prophet.  He 
belonged  to  the  court  party  opposed  to  making 
any  terms  with  Babylon,  and  inclined  to  trust  to 
the  help  of  Egypt.  Though  thus  opposed  to  the 
policy  of  Jeremiah,  he  showed  a  good  disposition 
towards  the  prophet  by  letting  him  see  the  letter 
which  he  had  received  from  Shemaiah  in  which 
Zeph.  was  urged  to  stop  every  mad  prophet,  and 
was  called  in  question  for  not  having  rebuked 
Jeremiali  for  prophesying  that  the  Babylonian 
captivity  would  continue  (Jer  2i)'-'*- -"').  He  was 
sent  by  Zedekiah  to  Jeremiah  to  ask  of  the  Lord 
through  His  projihet  deliverance  from  Nebuchad- 
nezzar, and  carried  back  God's  message  to  the  king. 
He  was  then  sent  again  to  inquire  as  to  the  pro- 
posed league  with  Egypt  (Jer  21'  37').  As  ne.\t 
in  rank  to  Seraiah,  grandson  of  Hilkiah  (1  Ch  C"), 
Zeph.  is  called  second  priest,  ^(^^^(ri)  [ri3  (2  K  '25"). 
On  the  occasion  of  the  final  overthrow  of  Jerusalera 
by  Nebuzaradan,  in  B.C.  587,  Zeph.  was  taken, 
along  with  Seraiah  and  others,  down  to  the  king 
of  Babylon  at  lliblah,  and  was  there  put  to  death. 
i.  The  lather  of  one  Josiah,  into  >\hose  house  in 


974     ZF.PIIANIAH,  APOCALYPSE  OF 


ZEPIIA^'IAH,  LOOK  OF 


Jerusalem  the  messengers  from  the  Jews  remain- 
in;;  in  Haliylon  went  (Zee  G'"-  ").  As  this  occurred 
some  sixty-seven  years  after  the  death  of  the  son 
of  Maasoiah,  there  is  not  much  probability  in  the 
suggestion  that  he  may  be  identical  with  the 
father  of  Josiah.  It  is  not,  however,  by  any 
means  impossible.  J.  Macphekson. 

ZEPHANIAH,  APOCALYPSE  OF.  —  A  Jewish 
apocryphon,  probably  similar  in  contents  to  the 
Ascension  of  Isaiah.  It  is  named  in  each  of  the 
two  lists  of  OT  apocrypha  tliat  have  come  down 
to  us,  viz.  the  Stichometry  of  Nicephorus,  and  an 
anonymous  list  found  in  Codex  Coislinianus,  and 
three  other  codices  (Schiirer,  i/'J/'  II.  iii.  125  tl'.). 
The  only  extract  known  is  given  by  Clemens 
Alex,  in  his  Stromatn,  V.  xi.  77,  where,  after 
quoting  from  Moses,  Euripides,  and  Plato  to  the 
eti'eet  that  true  worship  does  not  require  material 
temples,  he  says:  'Are  not  these  (sayings)  like 
tliose  of  Zephaniah  the  prophet?  "  And  the  spirit 
of  tlie  Lord  took  me  and  brought  me  up  into  the 
fifth  heaven  and  showed  me  angels  called  lords 
.  .  .  dwelling  in  temples  of  salvation  and  singing 
praise  to  God,  ineffable,  most  high."'  The  occu- 
pants of  the  fifth  heaven  are  named  also  in  Ascen- 
sion of  Ixaiah,  A?-"-  ;  Slav.  Enoch,  18'  ;  Testaments, 
Levi,  iii.  3 ;  Chagigah,  126. 

Fragments  of  a  Christianized  Coptic  recension 
of  the  Apocabjpse  of  Zephaniah  were  discovered  at 
Akhmim  and  published  by  S.  Bouriant  in  Mim. 
de  la  mission  archiol.  au  Caire,  1885.  A  Germ, 
translation  by  Stem  appeared  in  the  Ztschr.  f. 
drjyp.  Sprache,  etc.,  1886,  p.  115  H'.  ;  and  the  same 
fragments,  with  additions,  and  along  with  a  fairly 
comi)lete  Coptic  recension  of  the  Apocalypse  of 
Elias,  have  been  edited  by  Steindorfi' in  TU.  The 
question  of  how  much  belongs  to  the  Apocalypxc 
of  Zephaniah  and  how  much  ought  to  be  assigned 
to  an  unidentified  Apocalypse,  is  not  yet  settled 
(cf.  James  in  Encyc.  Bibl.  i.  256). 

Literature.  —  Fabricius,  Cod.  pseudepigr.  VT  i.  1140  f. ; 
Dillm.  in  PRE'i  xii.  360 ;  Zockler,  Apokr.  d.  AT  440;  Schurer, 
GJV3  iiL  271  J. ;  Harnack,  Getch.  d.  attchrist.  Litt.  i.  854,  ii.  1, 
672 1 ;  Bousset,  Der  Antichriit,  1895,  pp.  54-67. 

J.  T.  Maeshall. 
ZEPHANIAH,  BOOK  OF.— 

i.  The  Writer, 
ii.  Contents  of  the  Boole, 
iii.  Date  and  Unity. 

iv.  Literarj'  Characteristics,  Condition  of  Text,  etc. 
T.  Religious  Value. 

Literature. 

i.  The  M^riter.— The  title  of  the  book  reads  : 
'  The  word  of  the  LORD,  which  came  unto  Zeph- 
aniah, the  son  of  Cushi,  the  son  of  Gedaliah,  the 
son  of  Amariali,  the  son  of  Hezekiah,  in  the  days 
of  Josiah,  the  son  of  Anion,  king  of  Judah.'  The 
name  Zephaniah  (n;;5i-,  LXX  -o<poi'lai;  cf.  the  name 
Sl'ajss  in  No.  107  of  the  Phoen.  inscriptions  in  CIS) 
means  'he  whom  J"  has  hidden  or  protected,' and 
is  borne  in  the  OT  by  tliree  men  (see  art.  ZEPH- 
ANIAH) besides  the  author  of  the  prophecy  before 
ns.  It  has  plausibly  been  inferred  that  the  ^eze- 
Jciah  named  in  the  title  is  the  Juda'in  nion.arch  of 
that  name  (so  Hitzig,  followed  by  most  modems). 
This  would  account  for  the  genealogy  of  Zephaniah 
bein"  carried  back  four  generations,  whereas  the 
usual  practice  in  the  case  of  the  prophets  is  to 
name  only  their  father  (cf.  Is  1'  '  Isaiah  the  son  of 
Amoz,' Jer  1"  Jeremiah  the  son  of  Hilkiah,'  Ezk  P 
'Ezeki«l  the  son  of  IJuzi,' Jl  1'  'Joel  the  son  of 
Petliuel ').  No  argument  against  this  conclusion 
can  be  drawn  from  tlie  absence  of  the  title  '  kin" 
of  Judah  '  after  ^ezeki•■^h's  name.  This  title  could 
have  been  inserted  only  somewhat  awkwardly, 
seeing  that  it  liad  to  be  aj)pended  also  to  Josiah's 
name,  and  may  have  been  lelt  to  be  unnecessary  in 


the  case  of  so  well-known  a  name  as  that  of  ^leze. 
kiah.  Zephaniah's  great-grandfather,  Aniariah. 
will  thus  liave  been  a  younger  brother  of  king 
Man.asseh,  and  no  difficulty  in  the  way  of  Zeph- 
aniah's being  a  contemporary  of  Josiah  is  occasioned 
by  the  circumstance  that  the  succession  IJezekiah — 
Manasseh — Amon — Josiah  appears  to  contain  a 
generation  fewer  than  Uezekiah — Amariah — Geda- 
liah— Cushi — Zephaniah.  For  we  learn  from  2  K 
21'-  "  that  Manasseh  was  45  years  old  when  his 
son  Amon  was  born,  a  date  at  which  his  brother 
Amariah  might  easily  have  had  a  grandson  (Cushi). 
Zephaniah  may  tlius  have  been  as  old  as,  or  even 
older  than,  Josiah.  If  the  prophet  belonged  to 
the  royal  family,  all  the  greater  interest  attaches 
to  his  strictures  upon  'the  princes  and  tlie  king's 
sons  '  (!*• ').  He  w,as,  clearly  enough,  a  dweller  in 
Jerusalem  (note  his  familiarity  with  the  various 
localities  of  the  city,  the  Fish  Gate,  the  Second 
Quarter,  the  Maktesh  [1'°-"],  and  esp.  the  words 
in  I''  '  I  will  cut  off  the  remnant  of  Baal  from  this 
place '). 

ii.  Contents  of  the  Book.— The  prophecy  falls 
into  two  unequal  divisions,  the  first  and  larger  of 
these  being  occupied  with  threatenings,  tlie  second 
with  promises. 

A.  The  Threatening,  1--3'. 

A  destructive  judgment,  universal  in  its  scope, 
is  proclaimed  in  terms  which  reca.U  those  that 
heraldpd  the  approach  of  the  Deluge  (Gn  6' ;  cf. 
also  Hos  4'  and  Ezk  38'*) ;  man  and  beast,  the 
fowls  of  the  heaven  and  the  fishes  of  the  sea,  the 
stumbling-blocks  with  the  wicked,  are  to  be  cut  ofl 
(P-»). 

The  word  ni'?p'*3  in  v. 3  is  doubtful.  In  its  only  other  occur- 
rence (in  the  sing.  nV^pp  Is  3^)  it  means  'overthrown  mass,* 
'ruin,'  which  of  course  does  not  suit  here;  and  even  the 
rendering  '  stumbling-blocks  '  {i.e.  idols  ;  cf.  the  use  of  the  cog- 
nate S^c^rp  in  Ezk  14^-  -1-  7)  is  hardly  appropriate  t*^  the  context. 
Schwally  would  emend  'ri'~::'51  [G.  A.  Smith  prefers  Hiph. 
T'i^r'?'!]  'and  I  will  cause  (the  nicked)  to  stumble'  (cf.  v.n 
'  they  shall  walk  like  blind  men  ').  LX5  reads  ««i  affBitrrovrit 
tl  airt^Ct  (  =  C"i*v^v'  ^'^rr^)-  Wellh.  and  Now.  (cf.  Davidson) 
regard  the  words  C'Vv'"*n'nN  n^^^^^n  as  an  interpolation  of 
a  late  glossator,  who  missed  a  definite  allusion  to  the  sweeping 
away  of  idols  in  the  general  destruction. 

In  particular  this  judgment  will  overtake  idola- 
ters and  syncrctists  in  Judah  and  Jerusalem  ( vv,"**^). 
The  'day  of  tlie  Lord'  (on  this  conception  see  the 
references  in  art.  Obadiah,  vol.  iii.  p.  578*)  is  at 
hand  ;  He  has  prepared  a  sacrificial  feast  {cf.  Is  13* 
34«,  Jer  46^**,  Ezk  SQi^),  where  thr  victims  are  the 
people  of  Judah,  and  to  this  t^:e  instruments  of 
His  vengeance  (prob.  the  Scythian  hordes  ;  see 
helow  under  *  Date  ')  as  '  sanctified  '  guests  (cf.  1  S 
16'  20-^)  are  invited  (v.'^).  From  the  royal  house 
downwards  all  classes  are  guilt}',  and  shall  share 
in  the  terrors  of  that  day  (vv.^'*'). 

Nowack'8  transposition  of  v. 9b  and  v,8b  ('i  will  punish  the 

princes  and  the  king's  sons,  who  All  their  master's  house  with 
violence  and  deceit;  and  I  will  punish  all  who  leap  over  the 
threshold,  and  all  who  clothe  themselves  with  foreign  apparel ') 
is  perhaps  somewhat  arbitrary,  but  it  is  attractive.  As  the 
clauses  stand,  the  *  leaping  over  the  threshold '  is  connected  in 
such  a  way  with  the  'filling  of  their  master's  house  with 
violence  and  deceit,'  as  to  amount  to  a  charging  of  the  royal 
princes  with  housebreaking.  Perha]>s  the  prophet  means  to 
bring  such  a  charge  ajjainst  them  (Davidson,  et  o/.);  but,  oo 
the  other  hand,  there  is  much  to  be  said  in  favour  of  the  sup- 
position that  what  he  has  in  view  is  their  imitation  of  a  foreign 
{?  Philistine  [see  art.  Ciifrbtmites,  vol.  i.  p.  S77»])  custom  of 
leaping  over  the  threshold  in  cnt^rinp  a  house.  TTpon  Nowack'B 
arrangement  of  the  clauses,  this  habit  and  the  apmg  of  foreign 
manners  in  dress  fall  into  line  with  one  another. 

In  that  day  Jahweh  will  search  Jerusalem  with 
lanterns  {cf.  for  the  figure  Lk  15»),  and  hunt  from 
their  hiding-places  (cf.  Am  9^)  the  men  who  are 
now  sunk  in  religious  indiflerentism  and  who  say, 
*The  Lord  will  not  do  good,  neit!ierwill  he  do  evu' 
(v.*^ ;  cf.  Pa  10*  14^  etc.,  and,  for  the  proverbial 


ZEPHANIAH,  BOOK  OF 


ZEPHANIAH,  BOOK  OF 


975 


expression,  Is  41^,  .ler  10').  The  utter  ruin  and 
the  war  alarms  of  that  day  are  furtlier  described 
iu  vv."'". 

Then  in  2'''  the  prophet  turns  to  his  countrymen 
with  an  appeal  yet  to  seek  the  Lord,  if  perchance 
they  may  Ve  hid  in  the  da^  of  His  fierce  anger, 
when  the  Philistines  (vv. ■""'),  Moab  and  Amnion 
(>-v.*-"),  Cash  (v."),  and  Assj-ria  (vv."-'»)  shall  be 
overwhelmed. 

There  la  no  sulHcient  ground  for  Wellhausen's  mippcsition 
that  in  2*  the  situation  and  tone  are  pfiiR-wJiat  different  from 
those  of  ch.  1,  a  difference  due  to  the  clioice  of  the  coast  road 
by  the  Scythian  host,  and  a  consequent  anticipation  on  the 
part  of  the  proptiet  that  Judoli  might,  after  all,  escape  the 
Btorm. 

Vv.^-7  and  1^15  are  in  the  ktvak  measure  (see  Lamrntations, 
vol.  iii.  p.  20^,  and  Poetry,  a'hove,  p.  5),  although  the  rhythm 
is,  now  at  least,  in  several  instances  imperfect. 

In  3'''  Jerusalem  is  once  more  the  subject  of 
denunciation,  as  the  rebellious,  polluted,  oppressing 
city,  whose  princes,  judges,  pro]ihets,  priests,  are 
all  alike  unfaithful  to  tlicir  duty,  and  whose  in- 
habitants have  failed  utterly  to  learn  the  lesson 
Ciod  meant  to  teach  them  by  His  judgments  upon 
the  nations.  V.*  appears  to  form  the  connecting 
link  between  the  Threatening  and — 

15.   T/ie  Promise,  3""=". 

The  faithful  in  Jerusalem  are  to  wait  till  the 
judgment  is  accomplished,  when  all  peoples  shall 
lie  brought  to  serve  the  LORD  with  one  consent 
(vv.'''").  Israel's  sinfulness  and  pride  shall  be  no 
more,  they  shall  trust  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  and 
shall  dwell  .safely  (vv."'").  The  book  closes  with 
a  triumphant  i-all  to  the  people  to  rejoice  in  the 
Lord  wno  <lwells  in  their  midst,  and  who  gives  to 
them  a  high  and  honourable  place  amongst  the 
nations  (vv. '*■"»). 

The  general  sense  of  these  closing  verses  Is  clear,  but  there 
Is  sonic  uncertainty  as  to  details,  .is  the  text  is  in  several  places 
more  or  less  corrupt  (see  below,  §  iv.). 

iii.  Date  and  Unity. — 1.  The  title  of  the  book 
a-ssigns  the  [^irojihecy,  as  we  have  seen,  to  the  days 
of  king  Josiah.  So  far  as  ch.  1  is  concerned,  the 
correctness  of  this  date  is  almost  universally  ad- 
mitted, even  by  those  who  do  not  regard  the  title 
as  an  original  part  of  the  book. 

The  only  important  exception  is  Ed.  Konig  (Einleit.  ind.  AT 
852  f.),  who  would  as^i^;n  the  prophecy  to  the  period  of  reaction 
that  followed  the  dcith  of  Josiah  (B.C.  COB).  But,  while  much 
In  the  book  would  suit  such  a  date,  there  is  one  circumstance 
which  appears  sutticient  to  condciim  K(tnig's  view,  namely  the 
aljsence  of  any  censure  upon  the  king  in  i*^.  This  is  suitable 
In  the  case  of  Josiah  but  not  of  Jchoial^im  (see  0.  A.  Smith, 
Twelve  I'Tophtln,  ii.  S9  f.). 

But  the  reign  of  .losiah  (B.C.  639-608)  is  crossed 
by  an  important  dividing  line  in  the  year  621,  the 
date  of  the  reformat  ion  on  the  basis  of  the  Deutero- 
nomic  law-lxiok.  On  which  side  of  this  line  dois 
our  prophecy  naturally  range  itself?  We  have  no 
hesitation  in  reaching  the  conclusion  that  the  de- 
scription of  the  idolatrous  practices  in  1*''  and  of 
the  whole  religious,  moral,  and  social  condition  of 
things  in  l'- »  '=  (not  to  speak  of  3'  etc.),  points 
to  a  period  prior  to  the  year  021.  This  o]]inion, 
whiili  is  the  prevailing  one  among  scholars  (of 
moderns  it  may  stillice  to  name  A.  1$.  Davidson, 
Driver,  G.  A.  Smith,  Wellhausen,  Nowack,  Cornill, 
Bnilde,  Strack),  is  opposed  for  various  reasons  by 
Delitz.sch  (in  PEE"),  Kleinert  (in  Lange's  Bibel- 
werh),  and  ."^chulz  (Com.  18il2),  who  would  date  the 
prophecy  subsequent  to  the  reforms  of  B.C.  6'_'1. 

The  argument  for  a  late  date,  which  is  diawn 
from  supposed  echoes  of  Deuteronomy  (e.g.  Zejih 
ju.  u.  n  compared  with  Dt  28="-  »'),  need  not  detain 
ns,  for  it  is  weak  in  the  extreme.  Nor  can  any 
great  weight  be  laid  upon  the  expression  '  the 
remnant  of  Baal '  in  1^  as  if  this  were  an  allusion 
to  the  survival  of  I!aal  worship  after  the  drastic 
mea-svires  ado])tcd  against  it  oy  Josiah  in  621. 
For  (a)  it  is  possible  that  the  original   text  was 


'  the  navies  [mcr  instead  of  nKE* ;  LXX  t4  dvifutra] 
of  Baal ' ;  cf.  IIos  2"  '  I  will  take  away  the  names 
of  the  Baalim  out  of  her  mouth,'  and  Zee  IS''  'I 
will  cut  oil'  the  names  of  the  idols  out  of  the  land.' 
Or  (6)  iiJy'  may  be  taken  in  the  sense  of  '  the  rest'  = 
'  every  vestige,'  so  that  the  meaning  will  be  '  I  will 
wholly  root  out  Baal-worship,'  '  I  will  cut  it  off  tUl 
not  a  trace  of  it  is  left'  (cf.  Is  H'-"^  '  I  will  cut  ofl 
from  Babylon  name  and  remnant ') ;  so  A.  B. 
David.son,  Wellhausen,  NoAvack.  Probably  the 
same  sense  should  be  attributed  to  the  n'lx^f*  of 
Am  1'  and  the  rnq!!  of  Am  4'-  !)'.  Or  (c),  even  if 
the  expres.sion  be  taken  in  its  narrowest  sense,  the 
'  remnant  of  Baal '  may  refer  to  the  Baal-worship 
which  survi\od  the  reforms  which,  if  we  can  trust 
the  Chronicler  (2  Ch  34'' ),  Josiah  had  undertaken 
six  years  previously.  Besides,  as  A.  B.  David.son 
points  out,  Baal  may  stand  here  for  any  kind  of 
false  worship,  even  that  which  is  nominarty  oli'cred 
to  Jaliweh.  On  the  Chemarim  see  article  under 
that  title. 

A  (litticulty  in  the  way  of  assigning  the  prophecy 
to  the  earlier  part  of  Josiah's  reign  has  been  felt 
owing  to  the  mention  of  'the  king's  sons'  in  I', 
seeing  that  it  is  imjiossible  that  Josiah,  who  could 
not  have  been  much  over  21  years  of  age  at  the 
time  (cf.  2  K  21'-'),  could  have  had  sons  capable  of 
perpetrating  the  outrages  attributed  to  them  in  v.". 
But  here  again  (a)  it  is  not  unlikely  that  the  LXX 
6  oiA-ot  Tov  ^a<jiX^ws  [i.e.  -'■^n  n'5  instead  of  TiSsn  -jj]  has 

S reserved  the  original  reading — '  the  king's  house.' 
r  (h)  '  the  king's  sons '  may  mean  simply  members 
of  the  royal  family  (who  had  a  king,  but  not  neces- 
sarily the  reigning  king,  among  tlieir  ancestors) ; 
cf.  1  K  22=^  2  K  IP,  Jer  SG'-"  [see  Hitzig-Graf]  38'. 
Owing  to  the  youth  of  the  king,  his  relatives  at 
court  would  have  all  the  freer  scope  for  their  mal- 
practices. 

The  early  date  for  which  we  are  contending  is 
further  supported  by  the  projihet's  allusions  to  an 
appioachin"  foe,  whom  he  does  not  name,  but  who 
is  with  much  probability  identified  by  most  moderns 
with  the  Scythians,  whose  incursions  are  referred 
to  bj'  Herodotus  (i.  102  d'.),  and  who  prob.ably  passed 
along  the  Philistine  seaboard,  c.  626  B.C.  [This 
exjiliiii.'ition  is  in  e\ery  way  preferable  to  that  of 
Sctnvally,  who  supjioses  the  toe  to  be  Egypt  (see 
A.  B.  Davidson,  p.  ',18,  for  a  conclusive  refutation 
of  Schwally)].  '1  hese  Scj'thian  hordes  appear  also 
to  have  been  the  subject  of  Jer  4"-6*'  in  its  original 
form,  and  to  have  suggested  the  imagery  of  Ezk 
38"''.  In  the  year  626  Josiah  would  be  21  years 
of  age,  and  Zephaniah  jiossibly  a  little  older.  The 
latter  and  Jeremiah  probably  began  their  prophetic 
activity  in  one  and  the  .same  yea''  (02(i). 

The  i)resent  position  of  the  book,  both  in  MT 
and  LXX,  between  3abal>kuk  and  Ilaggai  proves 
nothing,  for  the  arrangement  of  the  Twelve  is  in 
other  instances  (e.g.  JOEL  and  Obadiah)  demon- 
strably unchronological.  The  proper  nlace  of  our 
book  is  between  Nahum  and  I.Tabal>kuV. 

2.  AVhile  ch.  1,  with  the  ]iossible  exception  of 
a  few  expressions  which  may  have  found  their 
waj'  from  the  margin  into  the  text,  is  universally 
attributed  to  Zephaniah,  and  dated  by  the  great 
majority  of  scholars  within  the  first  half  of  Josiah's 
reign,  tliere  are  considerable  differences  of  ojiinion 
as  to  the  unity  and  the  date  of  the  rest  of  the  book. 

Kuenen  (}  78.  6-8)  accepted  the  genuineness  of  all  but  S^*-*", 
which,  on  account,  chief  ;,  of  differences  both  in  tone  anfl  situa- 
tion  from  the  rest  of  the  prophecy,  he  was  inclined  to  make 
pOBt-exilic  (c.  6.'!(1  B.C.).  He  d"(endeil  21*  "  against  Stade((;r/ 
i.  044  n.  8),  who  denied  to  Ztphuniah  also  the  whole  of  ch.  8. — 
WellhauBen  (followed  pretty  dosely  by  Nowack)  is  suspicious  of 
22.3,  he  rejects  vv.8-11,  and  treats  ch.  3  as  a  later  supplement, 
added  in  two  stages,  vv.i-7  and  vv.8-20,  upon  the  analogv  ol 
Mic  111  and  vv.7 -20.  _  Budde  (lollowod  by  Co'nill,  Kinltit.* 
5  ZU,  .1  [contrast  his  more  consc-native  position  in  -  {  31.  3]) 
would  admit  2'**  81-6-7-s-fl  {in  this  order]  n  13  as  In  harmony 
with  ^ephaniah's  sltUAtlon  and  a  suitable  sequel  to  ch.  1 ;  hi 


976 


ZEPHAXIAH,  BOOK  OF 


ZEPHANIAH,  BOOK  OF 


rejects  the  whole  of  2+18  mainly  because  Israel  appears  in  these 
verses  as  the  victim  instead  of  aa  the  perpetrator  of  wrong  (the 
conception  in  ch.  1);  3"- lo  are  excluaed  as  breaking  the  con- 
nexion between  v. 8  and  vMt  while  vv.l-*  20  are  declared  to  be  a 
later  lyrical  epilogue  to  w.^i  13. — Schwally  allows  to  Zephaniah 
notbintr  outside  ch,  1  except  2^3  IB  and  possibly  21-*,  holding  2*^12 
to  be  exilic  and  ch.  3  post-exilic.  He  concedes,  however,  that 
31-7  *  may  be'  ^ephaniaji's. — O.  A.  Snuth  accepts  the  whole  of 
ch.  2  except  vv,8-io  (the  oracle  against  Moab  and  Ammon,  which 
is  suspicious  for  reasons  noted  below)  and  v.u  which  breaks 
the  connexion  between  vj  and  v. 12,  in  31-13  he  considers  w.9. 10 
to  be  'obviously  an  intrusion/  while  v. 8  should  possibly  precede 
V.6,  as  IJudde  proposes.  He  has  no  doubt  about  attributing 
w. 14-20  to  the  end  of  the  Exile  or  the  period  after  the  Iteturn. — 
Driver  remarks  that  2"  seems  to  be  out  of  place,  and  that  S'^^o 
is  somewhat  doubtful,  although  even  here,  the  picture  being  of 
course  an  imaginative  one,  *  the  question  remains  whether  it  is 
sufficiently  clear  that  it  was  beyond  the  power  of  ?ephaniah'8 
imagination  to  construct  it'  (LOTe  342 1.,  where  the  author 
adds  a  reference  to  his  discussion  on  Mic  T^-O). — Davidson  con- 
siders it  quite  possible  that  2-*-ls  has  in  various  places  been 
expanded,  but  defends  the  genuineness  of  ch.  2  as  a  whole. 
He  allows  that  3^0  should  possibly  be  omitted,  but  otherwise 
vv.1-13  appear  to  him  to  be  genuine,  although  they  might 
suggest  that  the  passage  was  later  than  ch.  1.  Towards  vv.1+20 
he"  holds  the  same  attitude  as  Kuenen,  recognizing  in  them 
quite  a  different  situation  from  that  of  the  rest  of  the  book. — 
Konig  would  apparently  accept  the  whole  book  as  genuine, 
with  the  exceinion  of  that  part  of  the  title  which  refers  the 
prophecy  to  the  days  of  .Josiah. 

As  to  ch.  2,  there  will  be  little  question   that 

Schwally,  in  arguing  again.st  the  genuineness  of 
vv. '3^  built  too  much  upon  the  occurrence  of  uj)  and 
ni:v  in  v.'  (cf.  the  criticisms  of  Bacher,  Budde,  and 
Davidson).  Yet  there  is  force  in  the  remark  of 
Nowack,  that  while  the  tvord  uy  occurs  in  the 
older  literature  (Nu  12'  [E],  Am  8*,  Is  11^),  the 
notion  has  not  yet  assumed  there  that  ethico- 
religious  stamp  which  it  bears  in  Zeph  2',  and  for 
which  we  must  look  for  parallels  to  the  later 
Psalms.  No  doubt,  as  an  argument  this  is  '  rather 
precarious'  (Davidson,  p.  101);  but  an  instinctive 
feeling  may  be  stronger  than  logic,  and  we  confess 
that,  like  Wellh.  and  Nowack,  we  '  cannot  rejiress 
a  doubt'  of  the  genuineness  at  least  of  v.',  which 
with  its  '  Seek  ye  the  LORD,  ye  meek  of  the  earth,' 
'  seek  righteousness,  seek  meekness,'  has  a  decidedly 
late  ring  to  our  ears. 

The  objections  taken  to  2*""  in  general  are 
singularly  pointless  (see  Davidson  or  G.  A.  Smith), 
but  vv.'""  can  hardly  be  defended.  The  oracle 
against  Moab  and  Ammon  (vv.*''")  denounces  these 
peoples  for  an  attitude  towards  Judah  which  seems 
out  of  place  in  Josiah's  reign ;  their  territories 
were  not  on  the  line  of  the  Scythian  invasion  of 
Egypt  via  Philistia  [but  see,  as  bearing  on  this 
argument,  Davidson,  p.  99] ;  and,  further,  the 
verses  are  not,  like  those  that  precede  and  that 
follow,  in  the  kinah  measure.  This  last  ciicuni- 
stance  tells  very  strongly  against  their  originality. 
Then  v.",  if  it  belongs  to  Zephaniah  at  all,  is 
certainly  out  of  place.  The  omission  of  these 
four  verses  gives  a  good  connexion  between  v.' 
and  v.'^. 

It  may  be  held  with  some  confidence  that  3""*" 
emanates  from  the  period  of  the  Return.  Its 
entire  dill'erence  of  tone  from  ch.  1  and  from  the 
opening  verses  of  ch.  3  is  unmistakable.  The 
language  reminds  us  of  Deutero  -  Isaiah,  and  the 
escliatology  of  Ezekiel.  Like  Am  9u-i»  and  Mic 
7'"-",  the  verses  were  proliably  introduced  into 
Hieir  present  pl.ace  to  relieve  a  sombre  back- 
ground, this  having  been  only  imperfectly  accom- 
plished in  the  instance  before  us  bj-  vv."'".  In  all 
probability  vv.'-  '",  v.liich  interrupt  the  connexion 
and  spoil  the  antithesis  between  v."  and  v.",  should 
also  be  assigned  to  the  same  or  a  similarly  late 
hand.  There  does  not  appear  to  be  any  adequate 
ground  of  suspicion  against  the  rest  of  ch.  3, 
making  due  allowance,  of  course,  for  textual 
corruptions  (see  next  section). 

iv.  LiTEKAitY  Characteristics,  Condition  of 
Text,  etc. — The  style  of  Zephaniah  is,  upon  the 
whole,  cleai'  and  forcible ;   several  of  bis  figures 


are  striking  (e.g.  1"  'I  will  search  Jerusalem  with 
lanterns,'  *  ih.  '  the  men  that  arc  thickened  upon 
their  lees,'  v."  '  they  shall  walk  like  blind  men'). 
Powerful  and  awe-inspiring  is  his  description  of 
the  day  of  the  Lord  in  1'=-'*,  whose  opening  words 
in  the  Vulg.  Dies  ira;,  dies  ilia,  commence  also  the 
well-known  hymn  of  Thomas  of  Celano.  We  have 
a  passage  of  exquisite  beauty  in  S"'"*.  It  is  true, 
as  David.son  jioints  out,  that,  as  compared  with 
Nahum's  description  of  the  destruction  of  Nineveh, 
Zcplianiah's  prophecy  of  the  same  event  is  some- 
what general  and  lacks  the  power  of  the  other 
prophet's  impassioned  oratory ;  but  this  diti'erence 
may  be  due  partly  to  the  fact  that  the  picture 
in  tlie  one  case  is  painted  from  the  imagination, 
and  in  the  other  is  the  work  of  one  who  had  beheld 
the  kind  of  scenes  he  depicts.  To  a  considerable 
extent  Zephaniah  borrows  from  his  predecessors, 
esp.  from  Isaiah  and  Amos  (cf.  I'-'with  Hos  4'; 
the  description  of  the  day  of  the  Lord  with  Is  2"'", 
Am  2»-"  5^;  l'^"  with  Am  5";  l"*"  with  Is  10= 
28-- ;  &•-'»  with  Am  1^-2'). 

There  are  traces  in  Zephaniah  of  the  phenomena 
that  characterize  late  Hebrew.  It  is  partly,  in- 
deed, on  account  of  some  of  these  marks  that 
Wellh.  doubts  the  genuineness  of  3'"'  (note  n^xu 
and  n:v  in  v.',  niiin  in  sense  of  f  elds  in  v.',  ^v  ips  in 
sense  of  command  in  v.').  For  further  instances 
see  G.  A.  Smith,  iL  37  n.  1,  who  also  gives  on  the 
preceding  page  a  list  of  rare  grammatical  forms 
and  phrases  found  in  this  book.  Of  hapax 
legoniena  may  be  noted  S'o:  in  1",  ni}  and  nn3(?)  in 
2'*,  ptCD  and  -i-idd  in  2^,  nnx  (?)  in  2''',  k";?  ( =  rnr:)  in  3', 
C"!j  (Qal)  in  3^  nn;i:  (if  correct ;  see  Ges.-Kautzsch, 
§  i24c)  in  3^  ns:  in  3'',  Tnj;  (difl'erent  from  Ezk  8") 
and  i-53(?)  in  3'".     See  also  2'',  v.""  \\\  (Aram.). 

The  text  of  Zephaniah  is,  unfortunately,  in 
several  places  in  rather  a  corrupt  condition,  and 
contains  some  suspicious  words :  in  some  cases, 
however,  it  can  be  corrected  with  the  help  of  the 
LXX,  and  in  others  Wellli.  and  others  have  made 
plausible  emendations  {e.g.  in  1»-  >"■  2'-  »■  «• '';  »  3'- »}, 
though  naturally  uncertainties  still  remain.  For 
particulars  we  must  refer  to  G.  A.  Smith,  Twelve 
Prophets  (ii.  35-37,  56-74),  or,  more  fully,  to 
Nowack's  Commentary. 

V.  Religious  Value. — The  abiding  value  of  the 
Book  of  Zephaniah  rests  mainly  upon  three  founda- 
tions :  (a)  the  profoundly  earnest  moral  tone  of  the 
prophet,  with  his  deep  sense  of  the  sin  of  injustice 
and  oppression,  and  inflexible  demand  for  puiity  of 
heart  and  conduct ;  (6)  his  doctrine  of  the  disciplin- 
ary value  of  suffering.  God's  judgments  are  meant 
to  humble  and  chasten  Israel,  and  when  she  haa 
learned  this  lesson  she  trusts  in  God  alone  (3'-  "'"). 
In  w.'- '»,  a  later  addition  to  the  book,  the  same 
principle  is  applied  to  the  heathen.  Their  lips  are 
purified  (isn  here  in  the  same  sense  as  in  1  S  10') 
by  suffering,  so  that  they  become  lit  to  call  U])on 
the  name  of  the  Lord,  (c)  The  wide  outlook  of 
the  prophet's  philosophy  of  history,  his  doctrine  of 
Divine  Providence.  The  apparently  irresponsible 
Scytliians  come  upon  the  scene  at  the  moment 
God  needs  their  presence  ;  the  various  nations  are 
overtaken  by  the  Divine  judgment,  in  order  that 
God's  purpose  may  be  accomplished  of  blessing  not 
only  the  Jewish  people  but  the  whole  world. 

A  imiversalism  akin  to  that  expressed  in  Jn  4"'' 
has  sometimes  been  attributed  to  Zephaniah  upon 
the  ground  of  2"  ('men  shall  worship  him,  every 
one  from  his  place  ')  3»-  "> ;  but  in  the  first-named 
passage  the  words  we  have  italicised  are  of  uncer- 
tain meaning  (but  see  Davidson),  and  all  three 
passages  lie  under  strong  suspicion  of  belonging 
to  a  later  age  than  that  of  Zephaniah. 

It  may  be  added  that  the  Book  of  Zephaniah  ia 

•  This  verse  gave  rise  to  the  medifflval  pictures  of  St.  2eph 
anioh  carrying  a  lantern  in  his  left  hand. 


ZEPHATH 


ZERETH-SHAHAR 


977 


»ne  of  those  from  which  the  figure  of  the  Messianic 
king  is  entirely  absent.  The  standpoint  of  the 
prophet  was  indeed  such  as  almost  necessarily  to 
preclude  the  appearance  of  any  such  conception. 

LiTBRATURB.— Driver,  LOT»  (1897).  np  340-843;  Wildoboer, 
LM  d.  J/y.  (lS9o)  pp.  189-103;  the  KinUituivjen  of  CornUlS 
(5  35.  3).  Ed.  Konig  (1S93),  pp.  352-351  ;  Strack »  (ISUS).  p. 
\l»(.  :  Uaudissiri  (1901),  pp.  550-555. 

Commentaries ;  F.  A.  Strauss,  Vaticinia  Zejih.  ecrm.  Ulustr. 
1843;  Hiuig  -  Steiner  in  A'<(/.  tirij.  lldb.  (isal);  H.  Ewald 
(1S0T-6S).  Propheti,  En(;  tr.  iii.  14-20 ;  E.  B.  Puscy,  The  ilinur 
rrii}ihel$;  von  Orclli  in  StraokZorkkr's  A';;/.  Kom.;  L.  Reinke 
(Horn.  Cath.X  Ver  Frojih.  Zeph.  1808;  W.  Schiili,  Com.  ilher  d. 
I'ruph.  Zeph.  1892  ;  Wellhausen,  Die  kleinen  I'roplttlen  (1893), 
pp.  2»-3l,  147-155;  A.  B.  Daviilaon,  'Naliuni,  llabaltliuk,  and 
Zeplianiah '  in  Camb.  Bible,  1S96  (a  most  valualile  work);  No- 
wack.  "Die  kleinon  Pronheten '  in  JIdkom.  z.  A.T.  (1S97)  pp. 
874-298;  J.  T.  Beck,  Erklarumj  der  ITopheten  Hahum  u. 
Zephanja,  1899  (a  curious  work,  with  an  interest  of  its  own,  but 
without  anv  scienliflc  value). 

.Misu-ellan'cous :  F.  W.  Farrar,  'The  Minor  Prophets' in  .Wen 
«l/(A<- iJiW«  series  (1890),  pp.  153-158;  Kirkpatrick,  Doctrine  of 
the  J'roultete  (\«)2).  pp.  253-203  ;  W.  K.  Smith,  art.  '  Zenhaniah  ' 
in  Encyc.  Brit.";  Buhl  on  Zeph  21'"  3'7i'-  in  ZATH'  (1SS5), 
p  18311.  ;  Schwallv.  'Das  Bvich  Zcphanja,'  ib.  (1890)  p.  105(1.  ; 
Bacher  on  Zeph  23,  ih.  (1801)  pp.  1851.,  2C0ff.;  Buddc,  SK 
(1893),  p.  303  If.;  Itachmann,  '  Zur  Textkrilik  dcs  Propheten 
Zephanja,'  ii.  (1894),  p.  641  fl.  J.  A.  SELBIE. 

ZEPHATH  (n;s ;  B  and  Luc.  Zetpix,  A  Z^pep).— 
See  li"KM.\il,  and  luld  to  the  Literature  there 
Dillui.  on  Nu  li*^  and  Moore  on  Jg  1". 

ZEPHATH  AH.— According  to  MT  of  2  Ch  WW 
As.i  joined  battle  witli  Zerah  the  Cushite  in  the 
valley  of  Zepliathah  (nrjs  «■?)  at  Maresliah.  No 
such  place  is  known  to  us  fc):,ewhere  in  (JT,  and  it 
is  not  unlikely  that  the  LXX  Kara  ^oppav  [i.e.  k;33 
.1;:^  instead  ot  npja  k'j;]  ilapcla-ns,  '  to  the  north  of 
Maresliah,'  has  preserved  the  original  reading. 

ZEPHL  ZEPHO.— A  son  of  Eliphaz,  and  one  of 
tlie  'dukes'  of  Edom,  Gn  36"-  "  (is?  Zepho,  LXX 
Zuirpdp)  =  1  Ch  1™  ("?5  Zephi,  15A  i:M0ap,  Luc. 
^c:T<pouri).  It  is  impossible  to  decide  between  the 
claims  of  the  two  forms  of  the  name,  nor  can  its 
ethnological  signification  be  determined. 

ZEPHON,  ZEPHONITE.— See  Zaphon. 

ZER  (is).— A  '  fenced'  city  of  Xaphtali,  Jos  19". 
It  follows  Ziddim  (properly //«;iiW'/»»i  [with  art.]). 
The  LXX  tr.  v."  kuI  al  v6\ei.t  reixw"'  '■'^''  Tupiui;' 
[i.e.  Dnsn],  Ti/pos  [i.e.  li],  <c.t.\.,  but  it  is  difficult  to 
supi)08e  that  this  can  be  correct.  Ha??iddim  may 
be  the  modern  tlaitin,  near  Isam  I^idlin,  N.\V. 
of  Tiberias  (so  Talni.;  see  Neubauer,  p.  '207).  The 
identity  of  Zcr  is  t|uite  uncertain.  Conjectures  as 
to  tlie  site  are  noted  in  Dillra.  Jos.  ad  loc. 

ZERAH  (iTi! ;  LXX  Zipa,  Z6.pt  ;  Mt  1»  Zopd).— 
1.  One  of  the  sons  of  Keuel,  the  son  of  Esau  by 
his  Canaanitish,  or  Ishmaelite,  wife,  Ba.seniath 
(Gn  36"- ",  1  Ch  V").  The  name  apnears  again  as 
that  of  the  father  of  Jobab,  one  of  the  early  kings 
of  K<lom  (Gn  36^,  1  Ch  1").  2.  The  younger  bom 
of  the  twin  sons  of  Judah  by  Tamar  his  daughter- 
in-law.  The  peculiar  circuni.stancesof  his  birth  are 
made  to  account  for  his  name  (Gn  .38*'  [J]).  He 
gives  his  name  to  the  Zerahites  (Nu  20-^).  Of  this 
family  was  .Vchan  the  son  of  Zabdi  {Zap-^pel,  LXX 
Jos  7'  ;  Zimri,  1  Ch  2*),  who  took  of  the  spoil 
of  Ai  contrary  to  the  Divine  command.  Zerah's 
sons  are  mentioned  1  Ch  9",  and  rctliahiah  (Neh 
11'-')  is  one  of  his  descendants.  He  linds  a  place 
along  with  PEREZ  his  twin  brother  in  the  gene- 
alogy of  our  Lord  (Mt  1').  3.  A  son  of  Simeon, 
anil  the  founder  of  a  family  of  Zerahites  within 
that  tribe  (Nu  20'*,  1  Ch  4-'^)  ;  called  alho  Zohar 
(Gn  •IG"',  Ex  G").  4.  A  Levitc  name,  borne  bv  a 
Geislionito  (1  Ch  6=')  and  by  a  Kolialhite  (1  Ch  6^'). 
8.  The  name  of  the  Cushite  ('2  Ch  14"'»)  who 
invaded  Judah  in  the  reign  of  Asa  (c.  911-871  B.C.), 
vou  IV.— 6« 


and  sufTered  a  disastrous  defeat  at  Maresliah  In 
the  south-west  of  the  land. 

The  invasion  of  Judah  by  Zerab  the  Cushite  la  unknown  to 
secular  history,  and  rests  solely  upon  the  authority  of  the 
Chronicler.  This  circumstance,  together  with  the  fact  that  the 
name  of  Zerah  the  Cushite  does  not  appear  in  any  list  of  the 
kinps  of  E[^ypt,  has  led  Wellhausen  (/fwfon/ o/  Israel,  p.  207), 
Stade,  and  otiiers  to  pronounce  the  narrative  unhistorical.  It 
is,  they  say,  an  invention  conceived  for  the  pur|X)se  of  mak- 
ing the  historical  overthrow  of  Rehoboam  into  a  triumph  on 
ttie  part  of  his  descendant :  it  had  its  origin  at  llie  time 
when  Cushites  ruled  in  Egypt,  and  tran^ferrtd  a  condition  of 
atTairs  which  was  true  of  a  later  time  to  the  days  of  Asa.  But 
this  is  an  excess  of  historical  scepticism.  There  is  nothing 
in  the  inscriptions  inconsistent  with  the  narrative  of  the 
Chronicler.*  'There  is  so  little  known,'  says  Wiedemaim 
{Geschiclite  von  Alt.  AgypUn,  p.  155),  'from  tiie  time  of 
Osorkon  I.  that  it  cannot  be  considered  i)e\  ond  the  bounds  of 
probability  for  an  Etliiopian  invader  to  iiuve  made  himyelf 
master  of  the  Nile  Valley  for  a  time  in  his  reign,  and  for  him 
and  not  Usorkon  I.  to  be  the  Zerah  of  the  Chronicler.'  Zerah 
was  identified  by  Champollion  {Pride  du  SysUme  hieroijly. 
phique-,  pp.  257-262)  with  Osorkon  i.,  the  second  king  of  the 
22na  dynasty ;  and  the  identification  has  been  accepted  by 
Ewald  and  others.  The  discovery  of  M.  Naville  in  the  ruins  of 
Bubastis{/>'u^a*(i*',  pp.  50,  51  f.;  Sayce,  11  CM  p.  363)  goes  rather 
to  connect  the  invasion  with  Osorkon  il.,  who  is  made  to  declare 
on  a  moniunent  that  *  the  Upper  and  Lower  Jtuteimu  have  been 
thrown  under  his  feet."  This  would  show  that  Osorkon  ii.  had 
been  engaged  in  a  campaign  in  Palestine,  wtiicii  is  designated 
Upper  Ivutennu  in  the  geographical  language  of  Egvpt. 
Homniel  (J/77'  p.  315n.  ;  cf.  Ball,  LiijIU  from  the  East,  \i'.  82) 
thinks  that  Zerah  and  his  Cushites  were  from  South  Arabia,  a 
view  which  is  favoured  by  the  character  of  the  spoils,— tents, 
sheep,  and  camels, — as  well  as  by  the  very  name  Zerah,  which 
resembles  Zirrikh  or  Dhirrih,  a  royal  name  in  the  newly -found 
Sabaian  inscriptions.  This  view  is  fa\oured,too,  by  the  designa- 
tion of  the  people  as  'Aii^^o^us  in  the  LXX  (2Ch  141S),  which 
may  be  compared  with  the  bdnu  Mazirit  the  Ua'din  of  the  same 
inscription.! 

Ln  KRATCRE. — In  addition  to  references  given  above  see  Sayce, 
Kaypt  of  the  Hebrews,  n.  Ill ;  Maspero,  Strtuiftle  of  the  A'ationSt 
p.  774  ;  McCurdy,  UPM  i.  259  ;  Heraog,  PRE  2  xvii,  473. 

T.  NicoL. 
ZERAHIAH  (n;--!i  'J"  hath  arisen  or  sinned,'  cf. 
Sab.  ^xniT). — 1.  A  prie.st,  an  ancestor  of  Ezra,  1  Ch 
(joits.  m  [Heb.  S'-'  6^"],  Ezr  1*  (H  in  all  Zapaid  ;  A 
Zapalas,  Zaplat,  Zapaid).  2.  The  father  of  Eliehoenai, 
Ezr  8*  (B  Zapeia,  A  Zapoid). 

ZERED  (I"!!). —The  torrent- valley  {Tinhat)  of 
Zered  is  named  in  the  itinerary  of  Israel's  journey- 
ings,  Nu  21'=  (15  Zaper,  A  Zdpe,  Luc.  ZipcB),  immedi- 
ately prior  to  their  crossing  of  the  Amon,  and  in 
Dt  i"  as  the  point  that  marked  the  close  of  the  38 
years'  wanderings.  It  is  probably  either  the  Sail 
Sdidch  (Kiiolici),  the  principal  conlhient  of  the 
Anion  frnm  tin'  S  K.  i  liurcklianit  Sijru'ii.  (i:'>:i),  or 
tlie  ll'((//y  Ktriik  ((m-s..  Uitz.,  Kcil.  Dillm.,  ti.  A. 
Smith,  liubl).  The  objection  to  the  Wady  el-A/isd 
(Wetzstein  in  Del.  Genesis*,  567  f.;  Tristram,  Land 
of  Mnah,  49  f.)  is  that  this  wady  must  have  formed 
tlie  S.  boundary  of  Moab  on  the  side  of  Edom, 
whereas  lye-abarim,  the  station  before  the  cross- 
ing of  the'Zered,  is  shown  by  Nu  21"  to  have  been 
in  the  wilderness  to  the  E.  of  Moab  (see  Driver, 
Deut.  38). 

ZEREDAH,  ZERERAH.— See  Zarethan. 

ZERESH  (B^i  ;  B  Zuxrapd,  A  Suirapd).— The  wifd 
of  Haman,  Es"t  5'»'  "  6".  Jensen  (see  Wildeboer, 
'Esther'  in  Kurzer  Hdcom.  p.  173)  compares  the 
Elamite  goddess  KirUa  or  Giriia  (suggesting  to 
read  iJnj).  The  explanations  of  tlie  name  from  the 
Persian  are  doubtlul. 

ZERETH  (n-is).— A  Judahite,  1  Ch  4'  (B  "Apefl, 
A  ZipeO,  Luc.  i'dpi)*). 

ZERETH-SHAHAR  (tW  n-jj).  —  A  Renbenit* 
town,  Jos  13'"  (B  SfpoSd  /to!  "Leluv,  A  ^ipO  koX 
2tiip).     Its  site  has  not  been  identified,  although  in 

•  ot  course  his  numbers  (680,000  men  in  Asa's  army,  1,000,000 
In  Zerah's)  are,  as  frequently  happens,  inerediWy  large. 

t  .See.  however,  the  criticism  of  this  hyiiothesis  of  Hommel's  in 
Ed.  Konig  »  Filnf  neue  arab.  LaruUehaftmamen,  1902,  pp.  63-67. 


978 


ZERI 


ZEEUBBABEL 


the  vicinity  of  Mkaur  (Macbrerus)  the  hot  springs 
eaSara  and  the  volcanic  mountain  Hammat  es- 
Sara  may  contain  reminiscences  of  the  ancient 
iame  (Biihl,  GAP26S). 

ZERI.— See  IZRI. 

ZEROR  (nn>).— An  ancestor  of  Saul,  1  S  9'  (BA 
'Ap(!,  Luc.  Zapa). 

ZERUAH  (n^n^).— The  mother  of  Jeroboam, 
1  K  lI'-«  (B  and  I-uc.  om.,  A  Zapova)  l2-">  (BA 
Zapeiffd,  B"  'Apdpd).  In  the  latter  passage,  which 
is  an  addition  of  the  LXX,  it  is  further  stated  that 
she  was  a  harlot  (7r6pi'i)), 

ZERUBBABEL  (^?rj;  LXX  and  NT  ZopoySdjSeX, 
Zorobabel). — 

The  etymology  and  the  meaning  of  the  name  are  doubtfuL 
It  is  often  taken  aB= Heb.  '755  Sfn] '  begotten  of  (i.«.  in)  Babylon '; 
but  proper  names  with  a  passive  participle  as  one  efement  are 
scarcely,  if  at  all,  fuund  In  Hebrew,  though  frequent  enough 
in  Assyrian  (Gray,  ii/'jV  2111,  n.  1;  Driver,  Text  0/  Sam,  14; 
i<estie',  Mar(jinaiie)i,  7f.).  The  same  objection  applies  to  the 
explanation  ^33  >n]  'dispersed  of  Babylon;'while  philology  and 
the  Btness  of'  things  are  both  opposed  to  van  Uoonacker's 
(.ZoroOabel,  44  f.)  explanation  ^33  3ni  'crush  Babylon."  Upon 
the  whole,  we  should  perhaps  accept  the  view  of  Ed.  Meyer 
{Entatehnnff  des  Judpnthuws,  p.  v)  who  makes  it  a  Rah..Assyr. 
name  and  punctuates  2ir«-/)ii'jrf=' seed  or  off  siiring  of  Babyloii.' 
The  name  is  said  to  occur  in  Bab.  documents  as  Zer  Babili 
fStrassmaier,  In.^chr.  von  Nabonid.  113,  L  13,  Insckr.  von 
Darius,  138,  L  2,  297,  L  2)l 

Zerubbabel  played  an  important  part  in  connexion 
with  the  return  of  the  Jews  from  exile.  Of  Uavidic 
descent,  he  is  generally  called  the  son  of  Shealtiel 
or  Salathiel  (Ezr  3--  »,  Hag  I',  Mt  I'^etc),  who  was 
one  of  the  sons  of  Jehoiachin,  the  captive  king  of 
Judah  (1  Ch  3").  In  one  passage,  1  Ch  3",  the  iMT 
(perhaps  by  a  textual  error  ;  the  LXX  has  SaXaffujX) 
makes  him  the  son  of  Pedaiah,  who  was  Shealtiel's 
brother.  He  probably  came  to  Jerusalem  along 
with  the  first  band  of  exiles,  under  the  leadership 
of  Sheshba??ar,  who  is  not  to  be  identihed  with 
him,  and  who  may  have  been  his  uncle,  the  Shen- 
az?ar  of  1  Ch  3'*.  See  article  Sheshbazzar,  p. 
493. 

In  direct  opposition  to  Ezr  3'  and  48  (the  latter  of  which 
has,  without  any  warrant,  been  set  down  as  an  interpolation)" 
it  is  contended  by  de  daulcy  and  others  that  Zerub.  came  to 
Jerusalem  not  under  Cyrus,  but  in  the  second  year  of  Darius 
Hvstaspis;  and  appeal  is  made,  in  support  of  this  opinion,  to 
1  Es  3-68  and  Jos.  Ant.  w.  iiL  These  last  two  authorities  are 
indeed  but  one,  for  the  Jewish  historian  simply  follows,  with 
modifications  of  his  own,  the  narrative  of  1  Esiiras.  .\s  to 
1  Esdras  itself,  it  is  possible  that  it  has  sometiuies  presen-ed  a 
true  reading  where  this  has  been  lost  by  the  MT  (see  Esdras, 
vol.  i.  p.  759''),  and  hence  where  the  narrative  is  parallel  with 
the  Heb.  Ezra  we  may  occasionally  get  help  from  it,  but  it  is 
more  than  questionable  whether  we  ouglit  to  attach  weight  to 
its  testimony  as  to  facts  where  it  contradicts  the  canonical 
book.  As  a  specimen  of  the  hopeless  confusion  that  reigns  in 
I  ICsdras,  we  may  adduce  the  position  occupied  by  215  25  (  -  Ezr 
4*-^=').  which  is  more  out  uf  place  than  even  ui  the  Heb.  edition, 
while  the  independent  narrative  in  3-5"  introduces  Darius 
ilystaapis  as  if  he  f^or  the  first  time  gave  the  exiles  permission 
lu  return,  although  this  has  already  in  2"i  been  tra(^cd  to 
Cyrus.  This  section  (3-5'"')  is  not  translated  from  the  Hebrew, 
but  is  either  a  free  composition  of  the  author  or  borrowed  by 
him  from  a  Greek  source.  Its  hero  Zerub.  is  introduced  as  one 
of  the  bodyguard  of  Darius  Hystaspis,  vsho  as  a  recompense  for 
the  skin  with  which  he  had  cotuiucted  an  argument  (about  the 
relative  power  of  Wine,  the  King,  Woman,  and  Truth)  received 
permission  from  the  king  to  return  to  Jerusalem  and  to  build 
the  temple.  The  details  of  this  st^»ry  are  no  doubt  apocryphal, 
but  it  is  possible  that  a  substratum  of  truth  underlies  it,  — 
Zerub.  may  have  headed  an  embassy  to  Darius  to  invoke  his  aid 
au'sinst  the  Samaritans  and  other  opponents  of  the  Jews  (cf. 
Jos.  .Inf.  XI.  iv.  'J). 

According  to  Ezr  3-4°  (narrative  of  the  Chroni- 
cler), Zerubbc.bel,  along  with  Jeshua  the  high  priest 

"  Howorth  (Academy,  1893,  p.  174  f.)  is  wrong  in  asserting 
that  the  first  four  verses  of  Ezr  4  are  not  found  in  the  parallel 
tiassage  in  1  Esdras.  Strangely  enough,  Sayce  {IlCil  543)  falls 
into  the  same  mistake.    As  a  matter  of  fact,  Ezr  4^-^  =  1  Es 

6B;t.8S. 


and  others,  soon  after  their  arrival  in  Jerusalem 
(in  the  seventh  month)  set  tip  an  altar  for  burnt- 
offerings,  kept  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles,  and  took 
steps  for  the  rebuilding  of  the  temple,  whose  foun- 
dations were  laid  in  the  second  month  of  the 
second  year  of  their  arrival,  amidst  ceremonies 
which  the  Chronicler  describes  in  his  characteristic 
fashion  (3'"").  Owing,  however,  to  the  opposition 
of  '  the  adversaries  of  Judah  and  Benjamin,'  this 
act  was  followed  by  seventeen  years  of  inactivity, 
until,  in  the  second  year  of  Darius  (B.C.  520),  and 
largely  owing  to  the  stimulus  supplied  by  the 
prophets  Haggai  and  Zechariah,  the  work  was 
resumed  in  earnest  (Ezr  5').  A  new  delay,  occa- 
sioned by  the  suspicions  of  Tattenai,  '  governor  on 
this  side  the  river,'  and  others,  was  ended  by  an 
appeal  to  Darius  himself,  who  ordered  that  the 
work  should  be  allowed  to  proceed  (6'").  The 
temple  was  finished  and  dedicated  four  years  later 
(6'"). 

(a)  There  has  been  much  discussion  as  to  the  date  when  the 
foundation  of  the  temple  was  really  laid.  In  Ezr  3^'.  this  is 
distinctly  asserted  to  have  been  done  by  Zerub.  and  Jeshua 
in  the  second  year  after  their  arrival  in  Palestine  (i.«.  637X 
On  the  other  hand,  it  certainly  appears  from  Ezr  62,  Hag  li«. 
215-18^  Zee  89,  that  the  foundation  was  not  laid  till  seventeen 
years  later  (520).  •  The  discrepancy  may  be  removed  by  the 
suggestion  of  Driver  (LOTS  647)  that  tlie  ceremony  of  Ezr  3' 
was  of  so  purely /on/mi  a  character  that  Haggai  could  afford 
to  ignore  it.  It  is  quite  conceivable  that  the  fulfilment  of  the 
project  formed  in  537  haii  to  be  postponed  till  520,  for,  not 
to  speak  of  the  opposition  of  the  Samaritans  (Ezr  41f),  the 
character  of  Cambyses  (529-522),  the  successor  of  Cyrus,  and 
notably  his  expedition  to  Egj-pt  (627),  would  be  unfavourable  to 
the  prosecution  of  the  building.  Others  (see  Literature  below) 
prefer  to  suppose  that  the  Chronicler,  for  obvious  reasons,  ante- 
dated the  lajing  of  the  foundation  by  over  fifteen  years,  while 
on  the  other  hand  he  did  substantial  justice  to  the  real  course 
of  events  by  representing  the  work  of  building  as  not  seriously 
taken  in  hand  till  the  second  year  of  Diirius. 

(b)  A  more  serious  question  is  raised  by  Havet  ('  La  modernity 
des  proph^tes'  in  lieime  des  deux  mondes,  1889,  p.  799fl.), 
Inibert  (Ae  tevipU  reconstruit  par  Zorobabel,  1888),  and 
Howorth  {^Acad<inij,  ISO:!),  who  contend  that  the  Darius  of 
Kzr  45-'^  is  not  Darius  Hystaspis  (622-485),  as  we  have  hitherto 
taken  for  granted,  but  Darius  Nothus  (424-404).  The  rebuilding 
of  the  temple  is  thus  brought  down  a  whole  century  (422  instead 
of  620).  The  strongest  argument  in  support  of  this  theory  is 
the  mention  in  Ezr46  7  of  Ahasueru8(r.e.  Aerxes)and  Artaxerxes 
( I.nngiinanns)  in  such  a  way  as  apparently  to  imply  that  Darius 
of  i"  is  Nothus.  But  it  has  long  been  suspected  (cf.  Driver. 
iOr6  647f.  ;  Comill,  i'infeit.'^  268)  that  the  section  Ezr  4«-23  i* 
out  of  place  and  should  follow  ch.  6.  It  really  refers  to  event* 
that  happened  in  the  time  of  Nehemiah,  and  describes  opposition 
to  the  rebuilding,  not  of  the  temple  but  of  the  city  and  ualU. 
How  the  Chronicler  came  to  insert  this  section  where  he  did,  ie 
a  question  we  will  not  undertake  to  answer  ;  but  that  even  he 
was  capable  of  supposing  that  a  century  elapsed  between  41, 
when  Zerub.  and  Jeshua  stand  at  the  head  of  the  community, 
and  61,  when  under  their  ilirections  the  building  of  the  temple  i* 
pushed  on,  is  inconceivable. 

The  only  other  reason  for  identifying  Darius  with  Nothus  i» 
found  in  Ezr  el-"  'according  to  the  decree  of  Cyrus  and  Darius 
and  Artazerxes  king  of  I'ersia.'  But  it  is  abundantly  evident 
from  the  context  that  Artaxerxes  is  here  an  interpolation  due 
to  prolep/iis  on  the  part  of  a  scribe  who  had  in  his  mind  the 
services  rendered  to  the  Jews  by  that  monarch  in  the  time  of 
Ezra  and  Nehemiah.  The  identity  of  the  Darius  of  Ezr  4'."  with 
Hystaspis  is  further  evident  from  Zee  17- 12,  where  the  70  years 
must  date  from  either  697  or  580,  and  in  either  case  70  (a  round 
number)  will  bring  us  to  the  reign  of  this  king.  Apart  from 
anv  other  consideration,  is  it  credible  that  a  whole  century 
wo'uld  have  been  suffered  to  elapse  between  the  Return  and  the 
rebuilding  of  the  temple,  seeing  that  the  latter  institution  had 
since  Josiah's  reforms  assumed  such  importance  ?  The  Chronicler 
could  not  in  his  narrative  allow  seventeen  years,  not  to  speak 
of  a  century,  to  pass  before  steps  were  taken  to  restore  the 
building,  hence  perhaps  his  statement  that  the  foundations  were 
laid  shortly  after  the  Return,  and  about  the  same  time  as  the 
altar  was  re-erected.  So  clearly  does  Imbert  perceive  the  force 
of  these  considerations,  that  he  admits  that  shortly  after  the 
Return  a  temple  was  built  hi/  Sheshbazzar,  which  was  afterwards 
destroyed,  when  or  by  whom  we  are  not  told,  and  then  finally 
came  Zerub.,  a  contemporary  of  Darius  Nothus,  and  restored  it* 
Imbert  most  arbitrarily  alters  the  text  of  Ezr  6"  so  as  to  read 
•Darius  the  son  0/ Artaxerxcs'  instead  of  'Darius  aTut  Arta- 
xerxes.'  The  latter,  as  in  Ezr  4,  is  held  to  be  Longimanus,  who, 
according  to  Imbert,  is  distinguished  from  Mnemon  (under 
whom  he  places  the  activity  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah)  by  haring 
his  name  written  Nn^pnci^b!,  while  the  latter  monarch  appears 

•  Van  Hoonacker  (Zorobabel,  63 ff.,  Xouvelles  Etudes,  106 ft.) 
labours  hard,  but  it  seems  to  us  unsuccessfully,  to  put  a  differ 
ent  interpretation  on  the  language  of  Haggai  and  Zechariah. 


i 


ZERUBBABEL 


ZIBA 


979 


as  HnOST"*"!"^*?'  (This  is  pure  tkncy  ;  the  Interchange  of  '.T  and  D 
to  so  comiooD  as  to  be  a  very  precarious  foundation  for  an 
arpument  of  any  weipht),  Inil'»ert  is  even  able  to  tell  us  that 
ihe  Honk  of  Ezra  orlpinaily  contained  an  account  of  ibe  building 
and  the  destruction  of  Sheshbaz/ar's  temple,  but  that  a  later 
genemtion  .■^uppre^sed  this,  supiilyin^  its  [ilaee  by  the  li>t  of 
names  in  Kzr2.  which  was  borrowed  from  Neh  7.  it  Is  needless 
tn  say  that  fur  all  this  there  is  not  the  slightest  historical 
evidence. 

The  Darius,  then,  with  whom  Zerub.  was  contemporary,  was 
beyond  ail  reasonable  doubt  Darius  llystaspis. 

How  long  Zerub.  occupied  a  position  subordinate 
to  Slie.shbazzar  we  do  not  know,  but  in  the  begin- 
ning of  the  reign  of  Darius  he  was  peJiah  or  governor 
of  Judah  (liag  1  '"etc.).  His  history  suh.sequeiit 
to  the  liuilding  of  the  temple  is  involved  in  hoixlo.ss 
ob.scurity.  He  is  not  named  even  in  connixion 
with  the  dedication  (Kzr  U'^").  A  Jewi.sh  tradition 
relates  that  he  leturned  to  IJabylon  and  died  there. 
It  is  possible  that  Darhis.  after  the  troubles  that 
broke  out  during  his  reign,  may  have  preferred  to 
have  a  scion  of  the  ancient  dj-nasty  of  Israel  under 
his  eye  rather  than  run  the  risk  of  his  pre.sence 
in  .Ju<l<ea  .stimulating  projects  for  the  restoration 
of  the  Davidic  moii.archy.  Of  the  sons  of  Zerub. 
(1  Ch  o''-"')  we  know  absolutely  nothing.  Zerub.  is 
mentioned  in  Sir  48''  in  '  the  praise  of  famous 
men.' 

In  recent  years  new  interest  has  been  given  to 
the  personality  of  Zerubbabel  by  the  extremely 
able  and  ingenious  work  of  Sellin,  Serubhahel :  ein 
lieitnifj  zur  Gesch.  der  mi.isinn.  Erwartiini/  mid 
der  Entstehunrj  /Ips  Jiidenthums.  \iiUS.  Sellin 
seeks  to  make  out  that,  at  the  instigation  of  the 
prophets  Haggai  and  Zechariali  (cf.  Hag  '2'-",  Zech 
4'8"''),  Zerub.  was  actually  raised  to  the  throne  of 
Judah,  and  the  Mes.sianic  kingdom  thus  .set  up, 
but  that  he  was  soon  overthrown  by  the  Persians 
and  put  to  death.  The  martyr  king  was  even  sup- 
posed by  Sellin  to  be  the  suffering  Servant  of  Is  H:). 
The  evidence  in  support  of  these  conclusions  is 
very  skilfully  mar.shalled,  but  one  has  a  feeling 
that  fancy  plays  too  large  a  part  in  Sellin's  recon- 
struction of  the  post-exilic  historj',  and.  so  far  as 
the  argument  rests  upon  Is  oSand  kindred  pa.ssages, 
it  will  have  no  weight  with  tho.se  (and  their  number 
is  increasing)  who  refuse  to  see  in  the  Servant  an 
individual  instead  of  a  rollertive  sense  (cf.  esp.  Kd. 
Kiinig,  The  Ej-Hi-s'  Rnnk  af  Consolation,  18!l!t,  and 
I5ud(le.  Die  noiiftiannlen  Ehi-d-Jalaci'-Lirdrr,  1!)00). 
[The  identitication  of  the  Servant  with  Zerubbabel 
is  abandoned  by  Sellin  in  liis  Stndien  zur  Entsleh- 
■unqnyisch.  der  jud.  Gemeinde  nach  dcm  Bab.  Exil, 
1!K)1]. 

The  investigations  of  Profe.ssor  Kosters  led 
him  to  conclusions  which,  if  accepted,  involve 
a  complete  recasting  of  the  traditional  opinions 
about  the  Helurn  from  exile,  and  the  influence 
of  that  event  upon  Israel's  sulwcquent  history. 
Founding  partly  on  tlie  undoubted  fact  that  a 
great  many  .ludahitcs  were  never  carried  into 
exile  at  all,  Kosters  contended  that  the  temple 
was  rebuilt,  not  by  the  returned  exiles,  but  by 
the  peojile  of  the  land  (at  the  generally  accepted 
date  ')20-'>IG).  While  Driver  and  Hyle  are  satis- 
fied that  the  Chronicler  gives  in  Ezr  ;!"-'■'  a  sub- 
stantially correct  account  of  what  transpircil, 
Cheyne  accepts  Kosters'  results.  He  agrees,  in- 
deed, with  Wildeboer,  that  Kosters  went  too  far 
in  denying  that  any  exiles  at  all  returned  at  the 
acces.sion  of  Cyrus,  but  is  of  opinion  th.at  the  real 
Kiturn  was  not  till  that  headed  by  Ezra  at  Xehe- 
miah's  second  visit  (t'W).  The  story  of  the  Return 
and  the  building  of  the  temple  a-s  told  by  the 
Chronicler  is,  upon  Kosters'  theory,  constructed 
with  a  view  to  glorifying  the  ijofa  (exiles)  at  the 
expense  of  the  ^am-hd'dnz  (people  of  the  land). 
Zerubbabel  and  .leshua  may  have  tlone  all  that  is 
recorded  of  them,  but  they  need  never  have  been 


in  Babylon  at  all.  Kosters'  conclusions  have  been 
combated,  especially  by  Wellh.,  Ed.  Meyer,  and  van 
Hoonacker  (see  Literature  below),  from  different 
points  of  view,  and  it  may  be  safely  asserted  that, 
if  it  has  been  the  fjushion  to  attribute  too  much  to 
the  gola  and  too  little  to  the  remnant  of  Judah, 
the  brilliant  Leyden  professor  went  to  the  opposite 
extreme. 

LiTEBATUEE.  —  KueueD,  Z>e  dtronologie  ran  het  PerziHche 
tiidcuk.  IMio  [<;fMim.  Abhani/I.  Slair.J;  de  Saulcv.  J?/»</« 
chronot.  (Ux  livrtfi  <t'K«d.  et  Xefi.  IsiIn;  lnii>ert.  /.e  tentjjle 
recoiiil.  pur  Zorob.  18SS ;  Stadc,  OVJ  (1*SS).  ii.  9b  (T.  ;  Driver, 
LOT'  USS*^),  p.  M5ff. ;  Uvle,  izru  and  Sehemiah  (Camb. 
Bible).  1S93 ;  Iloworth,  '  keal  character  and  importance  of 
1  K.sdras'  in  Academij.  189.3,  pp.  18,  Cll.  lOli,  174,  826.  bii.  see 
also  I'SBA  x.\iii.  147.  305;  A.  van  Hoonacker.  Zvrobabei  et  le 
Heeond  tem/.U,  lv.12;  Wellhausen,  UW  (1S'.I7),  p.  157  (T.  ; 
Schurer,  (i.lV'  (1S9S),  ii.  827  ff.  (IIJP  II.  111.  177  IT.):  P.  Ilav 
Hunter,  After  tlit  Exile  (1890).  i.  .'lO  f.,  1,%  f.,  219  f. ;  C.  0. 
Torrey,  The  ComjwHitiotl  and  I/int.  Vattte  of  Ezr.-Seh. 
!s90;  t-avce,  IlCil  .WJtr.;  Schrader.  'Die  Dauer  dcs  zweiten 
Tempelbiiues,'  in  .S'A',  1867,  pp.  460-.')U4  (the  first  notable  attack 
on  the  historicity  of  Ezr  3  ;  Schrader's  view  has  been  adojited 
by  Kuenen,  J>tade,  Marti,  Ryssel,  Konifr.  and  many  others), 
twosters'  epoch-makinir  work,  Ilet  fiernttt  ran  Inratl  in  fitt 
PerziHche  tijdralc,  lsy4,  was  criticised  by  Wellhausen  upon  the 
whole  adversely  (tlioui;h  he  concedes  a  pood  deal  to  him),  in 
'/'/-\'(  l^y.^.  No'.  2,  '  Die  liuckkehr  der  .Juden  aus  dem  bab.  E.\il ' 
[to  which  Ko.^lers  replied  in  TliT.  1895.  p.  549  ft'.]),  and  has  met 
with  much  no)re  uncompromising  opposition  from  van  Hoonacker 
(XotlvelleH  Ettiilftt  unr  /a  rextauratiiin  juive,  1S96,  cf.  also  his 
art.  '  The  lleturn  of  llie  Jews  underCyrus,*  in  Kjrpos.  TimeK,\u\, 
[ls97]  .351  IT,),  and  Kil.  Meyer  {FInMrliitn{t  den  Judenthunm, 
Is'Jtl;  Meyer  was  severely  criticise«i  by  Wellh.  in  GGA,  1-S97, 
p.  S9  if.,  and  rejilied  in  a  pamphlet,  '.lulius  Wellhausen  und  meine 
Sohrift  hie  Kntntefi  luiij  de>i  Judenthumn,^  the  controversy  turn- 
Inj;  especially  iijion  the  genuineness  of  the  documents  professedly 
<juoted  by  the  Chronicler,  which  is  alTirmed  by  Meyer  apainst 
Kosters  and  Wellhausen).  As  was  noted  above,  Kosters'  con- 
clusions have  been  largely  accepted  by  Wildeboer,  Lit.  d.  AT. 
411  f.,  419  f.,  ancl  Chevne,  Inirod.  to  /miah.  .\.\.\iii-.\.\.xix,  J/iL 
5  ft.  '  J,  A.  Selbie. 

ZERUIAH  (■';'^^in2S  14ilCW23a'^;-'J;  hXXZap- 
ouEid  and  Zapovid ;  Saruia).  — The  mother  of  David's 
officers,  Abishai,  Joab,  and  Asahel.  Her  husband's 
name  is  never  mentioned,  and  the  three  heroes  are 
always  referred  to  as  '  the  sons  of  Zeruiah  '  (once  in 

1  Sam,,  13  times  in  2  Sam,,  3  limes  in  1  Kings,  and 
7  times  in  1  Chronicles),  This  fact  may  simply 
imply  that  Zeruiah's  hiLsband  died  early  and  w,is 
forgotten  ;  or  it  may  signify  that  the  mother  of 
these  famous  men  was  herself  so  remarkable  a 
woman  that  her  husband's  name  was  comparatively 
unworthy  of  preservation  ;  or  it  may  be  an  interest- 
ing relic  of  the  ancient  custom  of  tracing  kinship 
through  the  female  line. 

In  the  genealogy  given  in  1  Ch  2,  Zeruiah  and  Abigail  aro 
mentioned  as  sisters  of  the  sons  of  .Jesse  (2''M.  The  e.vpi-ession 
seems  to  imply  that  they  were  not  daughters  of  Jesse,  and  in 

2  S  17"  one  of  the  two,  Abigail,  is  called  the  dangliter  of 
Nahash,  On  this  pas8.igo  Stanley  bases  tlie  conjecture  that 
•lesso's  wife  was  the  mother  of  ZeVuiah  and  Abigail  by  a  pre- 
vious marriage  with  Nahash,  king  of  the  Ammonites;  l)ut 
Buddo  prefers  to  emend  irni  into  't*'  (Jesse).    8ee  Nahash, 

J,  STIiACHAN, 
ZETHAM  (=7-0.  — A  Gershonite  Levite,  1  Ch  23' 
(B  ZefliM,  -V  ZaiOi/j.)  26^  (B  ZeOiii,  A  ZoSAyn,  Luc.  in 
both  passages  Zijddv). 

ZETHAN(t7'.0.— ABenjamite,  lCh7"'(BZoi9(i^, 
A'UWde,  l.uc,  Zridi). 

ZETHAR  CvO-  —  ^  eunuch  of  king  Ahasucrus, 
Est  li"(HA  'A/SoTofd).  The  llcb.  form  of  the  name 
is  compared  by  Oppert  {Esther,  26)  with  Pers. 
zaitar,  '  conqueror.' 

ZIA  (>:'!).  — A  Gadite,  I  Ch  5"  (BA  ZoCe,  Luc. 
7.ta). 

ZIBA  (X?"?,  "?»  in  2  S  10<  ;  B  2ei/jd,  A  ZL^i.  and 
in  2  S  lO'S-H  ili^/id  ;  Silnt).  —  A  servant  or  slave 
(■>?>•)  of  the  house  of  Saul  (2  S  i)2).  The  Thilistino 
inviusion,  which  was  so  fatal  to  his  m<a.ster's  house, 
probably  gave  him  his  liberty  (cf,  Jos.  Ant.  vii. 
V.  5),  and  he  comes  on  the  scene  at  the  head  of  a 


980 


ZIBEON 


ZIDOX 


household  of  his  o«Ti,  consisting  of  15  sons  and 
20  slaves  (2  S  9'").  He  is  consulted  b}-  David, 
who  wishes  for  Jonathan's  sake  to  show  kindness 
to  any  surviving  representative  of  the  house  of 
Saul,  and  informs  the  king  of  the  existence  of 
Mepiiibosheth,  Jonathan's  lame  son,  in  the  ob- 
scurity of  Lo-debar  (2  S  9^-*).  When  David  there- 
upon receives  Mephibosheth  into  his  own  house  as 
a  permanent  guest,  and  confers  upon  him  the  estate 
wliich  had  belonfjed  to  Saul,  Ziba  is  appointed  Me- 
phibosheth's  land -steward  (2  S  Q"- '»).  At  a  later 
period,  Ziba  dexterously  turns  Absalom's  rebel- 
lion and  Mephibosheth's  weakness  to  his  personal 
account.  To  display  his  own  loyalty,  he  fetches 
David  a  large  supply  of  provisions  during  the 
latter's  flight  across  the  Mount  of  Olives,  and  at 
the  same  time,  apparently  without  anj'  grounds, 
accuses  his  master  of  having  gone  o\er  to  the 
enemy  in  the  hope  of  obtaining  the  kingdom  of 
Saul.  For  this  sinister  service  Ziba  is  rewarded 
with  a  grant  of  all  Mephibosheth's  property  (2  S 
le'"*).  When  the  rebellion  is  stamped  out,  and 
the  king  returns  to  Jerusalem,  Mephibosheth  is 
able  to  rebut  the  false  charges  made  against  him 
by  his  treacherous  servant.  The  king  might  justly 
punish  Ziba,  but  in  the  hour  of  victory  he  is  in  a 
conciliatory  mood.  If  Ziba  has  not  been  faithful 
to  his  master,  he  has  at  any  rate  been  loyal  and 
serviceable  to  his  king.  David  accordingly  contents 
liimself  with  restoring  half  the  property  of  Saul  to 
Mephiboshetli  and  confirming  Ziba  in  the  possession 
of  the  other  half  (2  S  IQ--""*^).  J.  Steachan. 

ZIBEON  (pv:s)-— Gn  SG^- "•»•".»  i  Ch  l^s- " 
(Sffif^ci^  except  1  Ch  1^  A  Zf^^nit,).     See  Anah. 

ZIBIA  (n;:v).— A  Benjamite,  1  Ch  8'  (B  'If^ia, 
A  -e^id,  Luc.  ^a/3id).  This  and  the  name  Zibiah 
may  be  connected  with  'Zf,  fera.  .t;s  '  gazelle,'  as 
totem. 

ZIBIAH  {^■:!i).— The  mother  of  Joash  of  Judah, 
2  K  I2>  12)=2  Ch  24'  (BA'A^id).     See  also  Zibia. 

ZICHRI  (-!:;i).— 1.  A  grandson  of  Kohath,  Ex  6=' 
(B  7jexpei,  A  Zfxc')i  misspelt  in  modem  edd.  of  AV 
Zithri,  although  ed.  of  1611  has  correctly  Zichn. 
2.  3.  4.  S.  Four  Benjamites,  1  Ch  8"*  (B  Zaxpf', 
A  Zfx/)i),  v.=s  (B  Zexpef,  A  Zoxfii),  v."  (B  Zaxpd, 
A  Zexpi),  Neh  11»  (B  Zf^pf',  A  Zexp',  and  so  in  the 
next  three  occurrences).  6.  An  Asaphite,  1  Ch  9" 
II  Neh  11"  (see  Zabdi,  No.  4).  7.  A  descendant  of 
Eliezer,  1  Ch  2&^.  8.  A  Reubenite,  1  Ch  27'". 
9.  A  Judahite,  2  Ch  17'"  (B  7.apd,  A  Zax^-O.  10. 
Fatlier  of  a  captain  in  Jehoiada's  time,  2  Ch  23' 
(B  Vjaxipia.,  A  Zaxapi'os).  11.  A  mightv  man 
of  Ephraini,  2  Ch  28'  (B  'Effxpei,  A  ''E^cKpl, 
Luc.  Zaxapfas).  12.  A  priest  in  the  days  of 
Joiakim,  Neh  12"  (BS*A  om.,  ««■  '  ■»«  k"  Zexp€l, 
Luc.   Zaxapias). 

ZIDDIM.— See  Zer. 

ZIDON  (jiTV  and  [rv ;  ^{c)iiiiv,  Arab.  Saida).— 
Till'  ancient  city  of  Zidon  lay  20  miles  to  the  S.  of 
Bervtus  (BejTout),  and  about  the  same  distance 
to  tlie  N.  of  its  great  rival  Tyre.  It  was  situated 
behind  a  small  promontory,  and,  like  T3're  and 
Jatla,  owed  its  maritime  existence  and  commercial 
prosperity  to  a  ledge  of  rock  lying  oil'  a  short 
distance  from  the  shore.  In  the  case  of  Zidon,  this 
reef,  with  its  detached  islets  rounding  the  N.  side 
of  tlie  promontory,  presented  half  a  mile  of  break- 
water, and  alibrded  an  excellent  protection  to  its 
shipping.  On  the  S.  side  of  the  promontory  there 
was  another  harbour,  more  capacious,  but  le.ss 
sheltered.  The  section  of  Phoenician  plain  belong- 
ing to  Zidon   stretched  from  the  river  Tamyras, 


Arab.  Dmnt'ir,  half-way  between  Zidon  and  Berytus, 
down  to  Zarepliath,  8  miles  S.  of  Zidon. 

i.  Early  Ascendencv.  —  Zidon  is  considered 
to  have  been  the  most  ancient  of  the  Phoenician 
cities.  On  her  coins  she  claims  to  be  the  mother 
of  Hippo,  Citium,  and  Tjre,  and  the  name  of  Zidon 
is  mentioned  in  the  Egyptian  records  as  far 'back 
as  B.C.  1500.  It  is  referred  to  as  a  city  in  Gu  10", 
and  Josephus  {Ant.  I.  x.  2)  states  that  it  received 
its  name  from  the  eldest  son  of  Canaan  (Gn  10"). 
According  to  another  derivation  it  owed  its  name, 
like  Bethsaida  of  Galilee,  to  the  fishing  carried  on 
in  its  waters.  This  is  in  agreement  with  the 
allusion  to  Zidon  in  Anast.  Pnp.  i.  to  the  ell'ect 
that  the  fish  at  Zidon  were  as  numerous  as  grains 
of  sand.  Zidon  appears  to  have  taken  the  lead  in 
the  develojiment  of  industrial  exchange  among 
both  the  civilized  and  barbarous  nations  bordering 
on  the  middle  and  eastern  divisions  of  the  Medi- 
terranean. In  this  way  the  vessels  of  Tyre  on 
their  longer  and  more  perilous  voyages  still  con- 
tinued to  be  spoken  of  as  vessels  of  Zidonian 
commerce.  When  the  Phoenician  trattic  in  cloth, 
brass,  slaves,  etc.,  is  referred  to  in  the  Homeric 
poems,  it  is  to  Zidon,  not  Tyre,  that  reference  ia 
made  {11.  vi.  2m',  xviii.  743 ;  Ocl.  iv.  618,  xiv.  272- 
285,  xvi.  117,  402,  404).  Vergil  {yEn.  i.  446)  in  the 
same  way  calls  Dido  Zidonian,  though  he  mentions 
Tyrian  colonists,  and  gives  his  hero  a  Tyrian  steers- 
man, Palinurus.  It  may  have  been  in  this  sense, 
a-s  referring  to  the  general  protectorate  of  Zidon, 
that  it  is  spoken  of  in  Gn  49'^  as  reaching  down  to 
tlie  border  of  Zebulun.  This  early  pre-eminence  of 
Zidon  continued  from  the  time  of  Egyptian  decline 
after  Ramses  II.  down  to  the  unsuccessful  conflict 
with  the  Philistines  (B.C.  1252),  provoked  by  the 
seizure  of  Dor  as  a  dj'eing  station.  For  an  account 
of  the  colonial  expansion  of  the  Phoenicians  see 
art.  Phcexicia. 

ii.  Political  History. — The  public  fortunes  of 
Zidon  were  closely  connected  with  those  of  Arvad 
and  Tyre.  These  and  the  other  Phoenician  cities, 
although  constantly  attacked  by  one  or  other  of 
tlieir  powerful  military  neighbours,  seldom  united 
under  any  leadership  for  the  welfare  of  all.  The 
town  of  'Tripoli  is  said  to  have  been  occupied  by 
residents  originally  belonging  to  three  seijarate 
Phoenician  towns,  and  to  have  been  named  from  their 
three  permanentlj"  separate  quarters.  They  some- 
times, however,  combined  against  one  of  their  own 
cities,  as  when  Alexander  sailed  down  upon  devoted 
Tyre  with  a  fleet  of  over  200  vessels,  chiefly  Phoe- 
nician, collected  from  the  ports  of  Zidon,  Cyprus, 
and  Rhodes.  One  reason  for  such  independence 
was  that  each  town  wa.s  nominally  under  the  pro- 
tection of  its  own  deity,  who,  as  his  name,  Ba'al- 
Zidon,  'Lord  of  Zidon,' or  Melkarth,  '  King  of  the 
city,'  implied,  was  expected  to  defend  its  rights 
and  promote  its  fortunes.  In  the  case  of  lyre 
and  Zidon,  commercial  jealousy  also  had  an  im- 
portant influence. 

{I)  Zidon  under  Assi/ria. — Zidon  came  into 
relationship  with  Assyria  by  acknowledging  the 
suzerainty  of  Asliur-bani-pal  in  B.C.  877.  Tliia 
position  of  nonunal  depen(lence,  with  permission 
to  trade  with  Assyria,  soon  changed  into  a  more 
exacting  tributary  relationship  under  Shalma- 
ne.ser  U.  and  Tiglath  -  pileser,  and  led  to  open 
rebellion  in  the  reign  of  Shalm.aneser  iv.  (B.C.  727), 
and  to  the  complete  subjugation  of  the  country 
by  Sennacherib  in  n.C.  701.  About  B.C.  676  Esar- 
haddon  conquered  Zidon,  and,  after  beheading  its 
king,  'Abd-Melkarth,  demolishing  the  citadel  and 
palace,  and  killing  most  of  the  inhabitants,  trans- 
ported the  remainder  of  the  population  to  Assyria, 
and  called  the  town  'Ir-Esarhaddon  ('  city  of  Esar- 
haddon  '). 

(2)   Zidon  under  Babylon. —Tho    authority  ol 


ZIDON 


ZILLAH 


981 


Assyria  came  to  an  end  with  the  Scythian  invasion 
(B.C.  G30-61U)  and  the  attack  <if  tlie  Medes  in  tlie 
year  606.  The  interval  of  respite  gave  the  I'Ikj;- 
nicians  an  opportunity  of  consulting  for  their  own 
better  protection  against  Babylon  and  Egypt,  and 
at  this  time  Zidon  and  the  other  cities  agreed  to 
follow  the  leadership  of  Tyre  (Ezk  21').  The 
alliance  seems  to  have  e.\tenaed  beyond  the  coast 
towns  to  I'Mom,  Moab,  and  Ammon  ;  and  Jeremiah 
was  instructed  to  give  the  Lord's  nies.sage  to  the 
deputation  sent  to  Jerusalem  (Jer  27').  When 
Pharaoh  •  neco  marched  out  of  Egypt  to  invade 
Mesopotamia  in  D.C.  tiUS,  kin"  Josiahof  .lerusalem, 
in  fidelity  to  the  cause  of  Babylon,  eiuleavoured 
to  arrest  1iim,  and  lo.'^t  his  life  in  doing  so.  Soon 
after,  when  in  G0.5,  at  the  great  battle  of  Car- 
chemish,  Nebuiliadnu/zar  defeated  Neco,  Phoenicia 
■was  overrun  and  laid  waste  by  the  savage  soldiery 
of  Babylon.  So  cruel  was  their  treatment  of  the 
conquered  cities  that  the  yoke  of  Egypt  seemed 
light  in  comparison,  and  in  598  they  all  rebelled, 
including  Judipa.  Another  invasion  followed,  with 
its  attendant  sufferings.  Judoea  hastened  to  sub- 
mit (2  K  24'- ",  2  Ch  36«),  but  Tyre  justified  the 
hegemony  committed  to  her  by  enduring  a  long 
siege,  .submitting  to  Nebuchadnezzar  in  585.  By 
this  humbling  of  Tyre  (Ezk  28),  Zidon  was  brought 
once  more  to  the  front,  and  maint.iined  her  position 
as  chief  of  the  cities  till  the  overthrow  of  the  Bab. 
kingdom  by  the  Persians  under  Cyrus  in  538. 

(3)  Zidon  under  Persia,  Greece,  and  Home. — A 
period  of  rest  was  enjoyed  during  the  reign  of 
Cyrus  (B.C.  540-529).  Afterwards  the  Phoenician 
cities  were  required  to  pay  a  light  annual  tax,  and 
on  demand  to  supply  transport  ships  and  war  vessels 
to  the  king  of  Persia.  Tliey  were  allowed  to  have 
their  own  kings  and  administration,  and  their  con- 
dition was  much  better  tlian  it  had  been  under  the 
Assyrians  and  Babyloni.ins.  In  B.C.  351,  as  the 
power  of  Persia  began  to  wane,  Zidon  took  the  lead 
in  organizing  a  Phonician  revolt  against  Arta- 
xerxes  Ochus,  king  of  Persia.  In  the  punitive  in- 
vasion that  followed,  Zidon  was  captured  and 
reduced  to  ashes,  as  many  as  40,000  perishing  in 
the  flames  (Uiod.  Siculus,  xvi.  40-44). 

After  the  battle  of  I.ssus  (D.C.  333),  Zidon,  with 
the  other  cities  of  Phoenicia,  except  Tyre,  surren- 
dered to  Alexander,  and  Zidon  contributed  a  large 
contingent  of  ves.sels  to  assist  Alexander  in  his 
attack  on  the  insular  fortress.  During  the  con- 
fusion that  followed  the  death  of  Alexander, 
Zidon  was  at  did'erent  times  under  Egyptian  and 
Seleucid  rule  until,  in  A.D.  198,  it  pa.ssed  to  the 
latter,  and  became  rapidlj'  Hellenized.  A  school 
of  Philosophy  sprang  up  at  Zidon,  to  which  was 
added  the  school  of  Law  and  Jurisprudence  trans- 
ferred from  Berytus  after  the  earthquake  there  in 
A.D.  551.  Under  the  Bomans  Zidon  enjoyed,  along 
with  Tyre,  the  rights  of  a  free  city,  having  its  own 
magistrates  and  muiiici]>al  government.  During 
the  12th  and  13th  cents,  it  was  fre(iuently  taken 
and  retaken  by  the  Crusaders  and  the  Saracens. 

The  modern  Arabic  town  of  10,000  inhabitants 
lies  along  the  shore  of  the  N.  harbour,  with  its 
ancient  wall,  crowded  houses,  narrow  streets,  and 
shaded  ba/^iars.  The  gardens  adjoining  the  town 
are  irrigated  from  the  river  Awaly  (IJostrenus), 
which  enters  the  sea  two  miles  N.  of  Zidon.  These 
gardens  arc  covered  with  fruit-trees,  cfiielly  oranj^e, 
and  in  early  spring,  when  the  dark  foliage  is  vane- 
gated  with  fragrant  blossom  and  golden  fruit,  and 
the  banks  of  the  water  channels  are  beautiful  with 
violets,  Zidon  may  still  claim  the  epithet  of  the 
Greek  poet  Dionysius,  who  called  her  ivBeiibiaaa, 
'the  flowery  city.'  In  these  gardens  pillars  and 
blocks  of  carved  stone  and  ancient  coins  are  con- 
tinually Iwing  found.  In  1H55  the  tomb  of  king 
Eshinunazar,  pro\)ably  of  the  3rd  cent.  B.C.,  was 


discovered.  A  few  j'ears  ago  a  much  larger  and 
more  important  di.scovery  was  made  of  a  sub- 
terraneaTi  burial  chamber,  with  side-rooms  contain- 
ing ornamental  sarcophagi,  one  of  which  was  at 
first  pronounced  that  of  Alexander  the  Great. 

iii.  Bini.E  Allusions.— Except  during  the  time 
of  friendly  contact  jjroduced  by  the  buildin"  of  tlie 
temjile  (1  Ch  22^'),  and  its  restoration  in  the  time 
of  Ezra  ( Ezr  3'),  the  general  tone  of  reference  to 
Zidon  is  that  of  hostility.  '  Great  Zidon  '  was  on 
tlie  border  of  the  portion  assigned  to  Asher  (Jos 
19-''),  but  the  Zidonians  remained  unconquered, 
and  jiroved  a  source  of  danger  and  temptation  to 
Israel  (Jos  13»,  Jg  1"  3'  10«).  They  are  mentioned 
with  Amalek  and  Midian  as  having  aggressively 
oppressed  Israel  (Jg  10'-,  where  perhaps  Phoenicians 
in  general  are  meant).  The  marriage  of  Ahab  with 
the  Zidonian  .Jezebel  is  denounced  as  a  sin  surpass- 
ing that  of  Jeroboam  (1  K  16^').  The  Zidonians 
are  held  up  to  abhorrence  as  having  sought  to 
make  merchandise  of  captured  Israelites,  and  of 
using  the  sacred  vessels  of  the  Lord  at  their 
heatlien  shrines  (Jl  3°).  Zidon,  with  the  other 
world  powers,  is  to  drink  the  cup  of  the  Lord's 
fury  (Jer  25--),  and  it  is  seen  lying  cast  away  and 
forgotten  along  with  its  companions  in  oppression, 
Asshur,  Elam,  and  Egypt  (Ezk  32'*).  Zidonians 
were  among  the  multitudes  who  went  fortli  to  hear 
Christ  (Mk  3"),  and  the  sin  of  Tyre  and  Zidon  is 
made  to  compare  favourably  with  that  of  the 
impervious  cities  of  Galilee  (Mt  lPi-22,  Lk  10"-"). 
The  Syro-Phojnician  woman  whose  daughter  was 
healed  came  from  the  coasts  of  Tyre  and  Zidon 
(Mt  1521-2*,  Mk  "=■'■*'),  and  Jesus,  after  this  miracle, 
passed  through  Zidon  (Mk  7^')-  Zidon  again 
appears  with  Tyre  in  the  conciliatory  interview 
with  Herod  in  A.D.  44  (Ac  12-"),  and,  finally,  was 
visited  by  St.  Paul  on  his  voyage  to  Rome  (Ac  27'). 

Zidonians  (d-i'itv,  or,  more  commonly,  D'JT!i  ; 
'ZiOiivLot,  <t>o/m«s). — From  originally  meaning  the 
inhabitants  of  the  city  of  Zidon  (1  K  lP-*>,  2  K  23") 
the  name  came  to  be  api)lied  generally  to  all  the 
cities  of  the  same  race,  being  thus  =  Phoenician. 

LiTKRATtTRR. — Kenrick,  Phnni-ina:  Bawlinson,  £/w(.  of  Phot- 
nicia ;  Thomson,  Land  and  the  touk. 

G.  M.  Mackie. 
ZIHA  (Kfi-Y,   in   Neh   7*«  Nrrv).— The  name  of  a 
family  of  Nethinim,   Ezr  2*»  (B  Xoveii,  A  2oi;ad, 
Luc.   ZovSSad)  =  'S(ih  V  (BN  ^Jjd,  A""    Olai,   Luc. 
ZovXal),  Neh  U'"  (BS*A  om.,  ««■•"«  in*  2id\}. 

ZIKLAQ  (i^rf,  in  1  Ch  12'- »  :^p's ;  B  JIik^Uk 
except  Jos  19"  1  S  27«<'"  SneXd/t,  1  Ch  4*'  'QkU, 
12'  iowXd,  v.2«  ^urr\iti;  A  i;l^f^d7  except  Jos  19" 
SfktXd).— A  Judahite  (Jos  15")  or  Sinieonite  (19», 
1  Ch  4*)  town,  which,  in  the  time  of  Saul,  was  in 
Philistine  hands  and  was  assigned  to  David  as  his 
headquarters  by  AcHlsn  (1  S  27",  2  S  1'  4'",  1  Ch 
12'-  -").  It  was  plundered  by  the  Amalcl>ites  dur- 
ing the  absence  of  David,  who,  however,  overtook 
and  defeated  the  marauders  (1  S  30'--') ;  see  art. 
David,  vol.  i.  p.  5G0.  It  is  mentioned  as  inhabited 
by  Judahites  after  the  Captivitj',  Neh  H'-". 

The  site  of  Zifclag  has  not  been  identified  with 
certainty.     The  most  probable  of  the  sites   |)ro- 

{)Osed  appears  to  be  the  ruin  Zu/ieili/ca,  discovered 
)y  Cornier  and  Kitchener  in  1877,  lying  E.S.E. 
from  Gaza.  This  ruin  occujiies  three  low  hills,  and 
is  at  a  distance  of  about  4  miles  N.  of  Wudi/  es- 
Shtrta  (prob.  the  licsor  of  IS  30»- '»•  »').  This 
identification  is  favoured  by  Miiblau  (in  Riehm's 
UWW  1868"),  Buhl  (GAP  185),  Dillm.  {Jos.  527, 
where  other  less  probable  suggestions  are  men- 
tioned), et  al.  J.  A.  Seldie. 

ZILLAH  (.iVj,  2fXXd).— One  of  Lamkch'S  tw« 
wives,  Gu  4'»-  *■•  ».    See  ADAH,  No.  1. 


982 


ZILLETIIAI 


ZIOX 


ZILLETHAI  (-nW).— 1.  The  name  of  a  Benjamite 
famUy,  1  Ch  S-""  (B  ^aXSd,  A  IDaXcf,  Luc.  r:e\a«i). 
2.  A    Manassite    who    joined    David    at  Ziklaf;, 

1  Ch  12-'"  (BX  ^epi.a0ei,  A  ra\a((i,  L,ic.  SiXafld). 

ZILPAH  {^pY). — A  slave-girl  given  to  Leah  by 
Laban,  Gn  29-'  (P),  and  by  her  to  Jacob  as  a 
concubine,  30'  (J) ;  tlie  mother  of  Gad  and  Asher, 
vv.w"  (J),  35=«  37-  •t6'8  (all  P).  The  LXX  (A)  has 
Ze\4>d  throughout. 

ZIMMAH  (.T^!).— The  name  of  a  family  of  Ger- 
shouite  Levites,  1  Ch  6-"  i''  (B  and  Luc.  'Aefifid, 
A  Zo^/i<i)  V.'"!*')  (B  Zafiim/i,  A  Zafifid,   Luc.    Ze/i/zd), 

2  Ch  29'^  (BA  Zi/iffiie,  Luc.  Zf^Mi). 

ZIURAN  (nai). — A  son  of  Abraham  and  Ketu- 
rah,  Gn  25'  (A*E  Ze^pdv,  A*  Zcu;3pdv,  D^  Zo/i^piv) 
=  1  Ch  F^  (B  Zen^pdv,  A  Ze^pdu).  The  ethnologi- 
cal signification  of  the  word  is  doubtful.  Pos- 
sibly Knobel  is  right  in  connecting  it  Avith  the 
Za^pdfj.  of  Ptolemy  (VI.  vii.  5),  W.  of  Mecca,  on 
the  Red  Sea,  We  may  perhaps  compare  also 
the  ZiMRI  of  Jer  25^  The  name  is  derived  from 
TC!,  '  mountain-sheep  or  -goat,'  this  animal  having 
doubtless  been  the  totem  of  the  clan. 

ZIMRI  (-III  'mountain-sheep'  [see  Gray,  HPN 
p.  97,  note  2] ;  BX  Zo/i/Spef,  AF  Zap.^pl ;  in  1  Ch  8« 
A  Za/ipl ;  Vulg.  Zambn,  but  in  Chron.  Zamri).  — 
1.  A  prince  of  the  tribe  of  Simeon,  son  of  Salu 
(Nu  25«-"  [P],  1  Mac  2=«).  While  the  congregation 
of  Israel  in  general  were  expressing  repentance  for 
having  joined  in  the  impure  worship  of  Baal-peor, 
Zimri  sliamelessly  and  ostentatiously  continued  in 
it.  This  outrage  fired  the  zeal  of  Phinehas,  who 
followed  him  and  his  partner  into  the  alcove  (njp) 
and  slew  them  both.  2.  Son  of  Zerah,  and  grand- 
father or  ancestor  of  Achan  (1  Ch  2*,  which  also 
represents  him  as  brother  of  the  four  sages  who 
are  mentioned  in  1  K  4*').  He  is  called  Zabdi  in 
Jos  7'.  3.  A  Benjamite,  lineal  descendant  of  Saul 
(1  Ch  S*!  9^').  4.  King  of  Israel  (1  K  IG'"*').  He 
had  been  captain  of  half  the  chariots  under  Elah, 
and  made  use  of  his  position  to  conspire  against 
his  master,  whom  he  assassinated  while  the  latter 
was  drunk.  Even  amongst  the  series  of  deeds  of 
violence  that  ushered  in  the  constant  changes  of 
dynasty  in  the  Northern  Kingdom  this  act  of 
Zimri  seemed  peculiarly  atrocious.  '  Is  it  peace, 
thou  Zimri,  thy  master's  murderer  ? '  was  the  bitter 
taunt  Hun^  down  by  Jezebel  at  Jeliu  as  he  entered 
the  gate  of  Jezreel  (2  K  9^).  And  in  the  formula 
which  closes  the  narrative  of  tlie  reign  the  his- 
torian specially  notes  '  the  treason  that  he  wrought' 
(vr").  Zimri's  coup  (THat  apparently  had  no  general 
support,  the  people  following  either  Omri  or  Tibni, 
and  his  brief  reign  of  seven  days  onlj-  enabled  him 
to  accomplish  tlie  extirpation  of  the  family  of 
Baasha,  which  had  been  predicted  by  Jehu  the  son 
of  Hanani  (v.').  The  distance  between  Gibbethon 
and  Tirzah  leads  us  to  infer  that  Omri  must  have 
marched  at  once  on  the  capital,  and  that  he  met 
with  scarcely  any  resistance.  Zimri  perished  in 
the  ashes  of  the  royal  palace  to  which  he  had 
himself  set  lire.  S.  '  All  the  kings  of  Zimri '  are 
mentioned  in  the  same  verse,  Jer  25"  (Gr.  32") 
with  those  of  Elam  and  the  Medes  as  amongst 
those  who  were  to  drink  the  cup  of  the  fury  of 
the  Lord.  There  is  considerable  doubt  as  to 
what  place  is  meant,  or  even  as  to  the  genuine- 
ness of  the  phrase.  It  is  omitted  in  LXX  (BXA), 
but  Aquila  seems  to  have  read  it.  Delitzsch 
thinks  that  a  place  called  Namri  in  the  inscrip- 
tions of  Shalmaneser  U.,  and  situated  in  north- 
west Babylonia,  is  referred  to  ;  but  Schrader  {COT 
ii.  107)  discredits  this  opinion,  without  suggesting 
any  rival  theory.  N.  J.  D.  Whitk 


ZIN  (l^  ;  Zilv,  Zh  ;  Sin),  Nu  13-'  20'  27"  33"  34»-  \ 
Dt  32=',  Jos  15'- ^ — A  region  passed  through  by 
the  Israelites  in  their  journeyings.  The  most 
exact  indication  of  its  position  is  given  in  Nu  34 
and  Jos  15.  These  passages  (in  w  liich  the  boundary 
of  Judah  is  traced  in  almost  identical  terms)  refer 
to  'the  wilderness  of  Zin'  in  v.'  of  both,  and 
further  describe  the  boundary  thus  :  ' .  .  .  and  pass 
on  to  Zin '  (Nu  v.*  ...'[..  .  and  passed  along  to 
Zin  (Jos  v.^)  ...]...  to  Kadesh-barnea').  The 
Hebrew  is  identical  in  botli  passages  njy  ij;;),  but 
the  nun  is  without  tlagesh  in  Numbers. 

These  are  the  only  places  where  the  word  Zin 
occurs  by  itself,  and  it  seems  to  denote  a  place  or 
limited  area  from  which  the  region  round  about 
was  named  '  the  wilderness  *  of  Zin,'  the  expression 
which  occurs  in  all  the  remaining  passages  cited 
above. 

In  Nu  13^'  'the  wilderness  of  Zin'  is  named  as 
the  southern  limit  from  wliich  the  spies  began  to 
search  the  land.  In  Nu  33*^  it  is  given  as  one  of 
the  stations  in  the  journeyings.  The  brief  note, 
'the  same  is  Kadesh,'  serves  to  explain  the  follow, 
ing  verse  ('And  they  journeyed  from  Kadesh'.  .  .). 
Nu  20'  records  the  arrival  of  the  children  of 
Israel  'in  the  wilderness  of  Zin'  in  the  lirst  month 
[the  year  is  not  stated],  and  the  following  vv.'-"* 
relate  the  events  which  took  place  at  Meribah. 
The  remaining  two  passages,  Nu  27  and  Dt  32, 
which  are  duplicates,  refer  to  the  punishment  of 
Moses  for  his  offence  at  '  the  waters  of  Meribah  of 
Kadesh  in  the  wilderness  of  Ziu.' 

Hence  it  may  be  inferred  (ci)  that  the  Wilderness 
of  Zin  formed  part  of  the  southern  boundary  of 
Judah  at  its  eastern  end  towards  the  Dead  Sea ; 
(6)  that  ^Cadesh  was  included  within  its  limits.  A 
reference  to  art.  Paran  leads  to  the  further  con- 
clusion that  the  wilderness  of  Paran  must  have 
been  adjacent  to  that  of  Zin,  so  that  ^adesh  was 
regarded  as  in  either  territory. 

The  LXX  and  Vulg.  render  both  Sin  and  Zin  by  2/'»,  Su't,  Sin ; 
but  in  Nu  34*,  Jos  153  the  LXX  B  renders  n:s  by  "E.f«j>;  AP 
1ii*vetx  in  Numbers,  A  ^f»a  in  Joshua.  Vul^.  has  Senna  in 
Numbers,  Sina  in  Joshua.  The  close  similarity  between  the 
events  recortled  in  Ex  17  and  Nu  20  (noticed  in  art.  Mkribah), 
and  other  points  of  resemblance  between  occurrences  before  and 
after  Sinai,  su^'gest  a  further  question  whether  Sin  and  Zin,  the 
Sin  of  the  pre-Sinai  and  the  Zin  of  the  post-Sinai  narrative, 
may  be  variations  developed  in  the  course  of  tradition.  Both 
names  are  found  only  in  the  Hexateuch,  and  there  is  no 
geoaraphical  indication  of  later  times  to  guide  us.  The  hypo- 
thesis does  not  appear  improbable,  but  the  narrative  in  its 
present  form  indicates  two  regions  bearing  different  names. 
On  the  supposition  of  a  Sinai  to  the  £.  of  the  Arabah,  these 
two  '  wildernesses'  would  be  much  closer  together  than  on  the 
traditional  hypothesis.  A.  T.  CHAPMAN. 

ZINA.-See  ZlZA. 

ZION  (iV»;  B  S«ii>',  but  Si(ii'  in  Am  1'  and  in  28 
places  in  the  Psalms ;  A  Ziiir,  but  in  Is  1'  2^,  Jer  26", 
La  2',  Jl  2'-  ",  and  in  6  places  in  the  Psalms  i;«nj»', 
and  in  Ca  3",  Is  31",  Jer  8'"  Sni  ;  in  Ca  3"  B  omits. 
In  Apoc.  and  NT  Siuii-,  Sion,  where  the  AV, 
following  the  Greek,  has  Sion,  the  RV  Zion). — 
The  stronghold  (■^^!>a)  of  Zion  was  the  castle,  or 
acropolis,  of  the  '  city  of  tte  Jebusites'  (Jg  19") ; 
see  art.  Jebus.  Its  position  must  have  been  one 
of  great  natural  strength,  for  it  was  regarded  by 
its  garrison  and  its  inhabitants  as  impregnable, 
and  when  David  laid  siege  to  it  he  was  received 
with  taunts  and  jeers  (2  S  5'*-  ',  1  Ch  11» ;  cf.  Jos. 
Ant.  VII.  iii.  1).  'Nevertheless,  David  took  the 
stronghold  of  Zion,  the  same  is  the  city  of  David 
.  .  .  and  David  dwelt  in  the  stronghold  and  called 
it  the  city  of  David.  And  he  built  round  about 
from  MUlo  and  inward'  (2  S  S'',  1  Ch  11»«).  In 
two  other  passages  (I  K  8',  2  Ch  5^)  Zion  is  directly 
identified  with  the  city  of  David  by  the  expression 
'  the  city  of  David  which  is  Zion.'  Within  th« 
*  For  the  meaning  of '  wilderness '  see  art.  Jt.:>Ui^uX 


ZION 


ZION 


983 


city  walls  David  built  a  palace  (2  S  5",  Neh  12"), 
round  which  were  "atliereJ  the  houses  of  his 
warriors  (2S  11-);  and  pitched  a  tent  for  tlie  ark 
of  Jahweh  (2  S  6'»-",  1  Ch  15^  16').  Before  his 
death,  iJaiud  purchased  the  threshinj;  -  lloor  of 
Arauiiah  the  tJebusite,  upon  which  was  erccied, 
afterwards,  the  altar  of  the  temple  (2  S  24"'-"', 
lCh21"'-*);  and  when  he  died  he  was  buried  in 
the  city  of  David  (1  K  2'",  Neh  3'"). 

The  exact  position  of  the  stronghold  within  the 
later  Jerusalem  is  one  of  the  must  important  of 
the  disputed  points  connected  with  the  topography 
of  the  Holy  City.  In  the  article  Jerusalkm  it  is 
shown  that  the  ancient  city  stood  on  two  spurs,  or 
hills,  separated  from  each  other  by  a  deep  ravine. 
The  western  and  higher  simr  is  identified  by  Chris- 
tian  tradition  with  Zion  ;  on  the  eastern  and  lower 
the  temple  was  built.  The  western  spur  is  broad- 
backed,  and,  so  far  as  its  original  form  is  known, 
there  is  no  broken  ground  or  conspicuous  feature 
upon  it  that  would  naturally  be  selected  as  the 
site  of  a  castle  such  as  those  usually  erected  for 
the  protection  of  an  ancient  hill-town.  Moreover, 
there  is  no  spring;  and  when,  at  a  later  date,  the 
spur  was  covered  with  houses,  this  deficiency  had 
to  be  met  by  the  construction  of  reservoirs  and 
aqueducts.  The  earliest  settlement  at  Jerusalem 
cannot  therefore  be  placed  on  the  western  spur. 
The  eastern  spur,  on  the  other  hand,  is,  for  the  most 
part,  a  narrow  ridge  of  rock,  upon  which  there  are 
good  natural  jiDsitions  for  the  construction  of  a 
Sill-fort  or  '•-astle.  One  such  position  is  that  which 
was  occi.pieil  by  the  Macedonian  Akra  and  the 
Herodian  Antonia  ;  another  is  the  point,  south  of 
the  present  IJaram  esh-Shorif,  at  which  the  Tyro- 
pocon  raWne  most  closely  approaches  the  valley  of 
the  Kidron.  In  that  valley,  at  the  foot  of  the 
eastern  slope  of  the  spur,  rises  the  only  true  spring 
at  or  near  Jerusalem — GlHON,  now  tlie  Fountain 
of  the  Virgin. 

The  evolution  of  Jerusalem  cannot  have  differed 
greatly  from  that  of  other  ancient  cities.  The 
earliest  settlement  would  naturally  have  been  on 
the  eastern  spur,  and  it  probably  consisted  of  a 
village  on  the  slopes  above  the  spring,  with  a  small 
fort  on  higher  ground  to  which  the  people  could 
fly  on  the  approach  of  an  enemy. 

By  about  B.C.  1400  .lerusalem  had  become, 
according  to  the  Tel  el-Amarna  letters,  the  forti- 
fied cajiital  of  a  small  district ;  and  siich  it  appears 
to  have  been  when  the  Hebrews  entered  Palestine. 
The  natural  disadvantages  of  its  positiim  for 
trade,  and  the  scarcity  of  fertile  land  in  its  vicinity, 
were  against  rapid  grow  tli  ;  and  there  is  no  reason 
to  suppose  th.at,  when  taken  by  David,  it  was 
larger  than  other  hill-towns  in  Palestine,  or  that 
it  Tiiul  spread  beyond  the  limits  of  the  eastern 
spur.  The  topographical  argument  in  favour  of 
placing  the  stronghold  of  Zion  on  this  spur  rather 
than  on  the  western,  is  supported  by  the  historical 
notices. 

The  temple  area,  which  is  now  enclosed  by  the 
walls  of  the  ^arani  esh-Sherif,  was  ahave  tlie  city 
of  David,  and  was  not  regarded  as  forming  part  of 
it(l  IC8'-«,*2Ch5»-»;  cf.2.S2-l'«).  And  the  state- 
ments of  Nehemiah  {3'»-  '•  12",  cf.  2'*),  which  place 
the  stairs  of  the  city  of  David,  the  palace  of  David, 
and  his  tomb  between  the  i)Ool  of  Slielah  (SiLOAM) 
and  the  temple,  absolntely  exclude  the  western 
spur  as  a  possible  site  for  the  city  of  David.  With 
this,  too,  agree  tlie  iilentilication  by  Micah  (4*)  of 
the  '  tower  of  the  flock '  with  '  the  Opiiel  of  the 
daughter  of  Zion  ' ;  the  references  in  Ezekiol  {43'- ') 

•  Notice  tier«  *  bring  uj  :  90  reifularly  fn  OT  people  so  up 
from  the  nalare  to  the  veinplo  (Jer  2fl)0),  ftnd  dotpn  In  the 
•jpiwsite  direction  (2  K  111",  Jcr  221  sou,,  if,  however,  the 
palace  had  been  on  the  western  spur  (2620-00  ft.),  the  temple 
{244l>  ft.)  would  have  been  below  it. 


to  the  proximity  of  the  royal  palace  and  sepulchre! 
to  the  temple  ;  and  the  aiiparent  connexion  of  Zion 
and  the  temple  in  Ps  78''-  "'  and  Jer  50'*.  Perhaps 
also  there  may  lie  an  allusion  to  the  relative  posi- 
tions of  Zion  and  the  temple  in  Ps  48'''  '  Mount 
Zion,  on  the  sides  of  the  north,  the  city  of  the 
great  King.'  Throughout  the  OT  there  are  pas- 
sages which  have  no  meaning,  if  Zion  and  the 
temple  hill  were  two  separ.ate  to]K)graphical 
features.  Zion  is  the  holy  hill  or  mountain  (Ps 
2\  Jl  2'),  the  chosen  habitation  of  Jahweh  (Ps  9" 
74'^  76'  84'  132",  Is  8'8  60'^  Jer  8'»,  Jl  3"--',  Zee 
8»).  There  He  manifests  Himself  (Ps  14'  20»  53« 
128'  134^  Am  1'-) ;  and  there  He  must  be  wor- 
shipped and  praised  (Ps  65'-,  Jer  31«,  Jl  2'-"). 
Hence  .Mount  Zion,  the  intangible  mount,  the  city 
of  the  living  God,  is  employed  in  the  XT  as  the 
type  of  heaven  (He  12'«-  -,  Kev  14').  At  the  same 
time  the  name  Zion  is  given,  in  some  instances, 
to  the  whole  city  (Ps  120'  146'°,  Is  1"  10*',  La  1*; 
cf.  the  common  expression  'daughters  of  Zion'); 
and  in  others  it  is  mentioned  as  if  it  were  a 
separate  quarter  of  Jerusalem  (2  K  19",  Ps  51", 
Is  30'»  64'",  Jer  26'«,  Jl  S'",  Am  P,  Mic  3'^  Zee  1" ; 
cf.  the  distinction  between  Jerusalem  and  the 
quarter  in  which  the  kings  were  buried  in  2  Ch 
28-''). 

In  1  Maccabees,  written  c.  B.C.  100  by  some  one 
who  was  well  acquainted  with  the  localities,  Zion 
is  identified  with  the  temple  hill  (4"-S8  5m  7»  etc.), 
and  so  it  is  in  1  Es  8>",  2  Es  5=»,  Sir  24'",  and  Jth  9". 
Jose|ihus,  who  does  not  mention  Zion,  says  {Ant. 
VII.  lii.  1)  that  David  took  the  lower  city  and  the 
Akra  (both  of  which  he  elsewhere  places  on  the 
eastern  spur),  and  (iii.  2)  that,  after  driving  the 
Jebusites  out  of  the  Akra,  David  rebuilt  Jerusalem, 
called  it  the  city  of  David,  and  dwelt  in  it.*  The 
Kabbis, t  without  exception,  place  the  temple  on 
Zion,  and  Origen  distinctly  states  (ui  Joan.  4"- -") 
that  the  Jews  did  .so  in  his  day.  Eusebius  (in  /.«. 
22')  and  Jerome  apparently  [in  /.?.  l'-"  22')  take  the 
same  view  ;  but  elsewhere  they  identify  Zion  with 
the  western  spur,  and  in  this  agree  w  itli  the  Bor- 
deaux Pil<;rim  [Itin.  Hiero-i.).  From  the  4th  cent, 
onwards  /ion  is  always  identified  with  the  south 
part  of  the  western  spur.  This  identification  first 
apjicars  after  the  othcial  recovery  of  Golgotha,  and 
it  possibly  owes  it."  origin  to  the  feeling  that,  with- 
out a  Zion,  the  '  New  Jeru.salem '  of  Constantine 
would  be  incomplete  and  inferior  in  sanctity  to  the 
'Old  Jerusalem'  with  its  temple  on  the  lower 
ground  to  the  east. 

The  identification  of  Zion  with  the  eastern  spur 
satisfies  the  tojiographical  conditions  and  the  his- 
torical evidence  until  the  4th  cent.  A.D.  But  the 
spur  is  now  so  completely  covereil  with  deep  rubbish 
that  its  original  form  is  unknown,  and  the  exact 
position  of  tlie  stronfjiiold  can  be  determined  only 
uy  extensive  excavations.  The  fort  was  jirobably 
small,  for  its  builders  could  have  had  in  view  only 
the  protection  of  the  spring  and  the  little  town  on 
the  slopes  above  it.  Lightfoot  (Op.  i.  553,  ii.  187), 
Ferjjussou  (Essau  on  the  ancient  tupog.  of  Jerus.  p. 
55  11'.,  1847),  ancf  a  few  other  writers,  place  Zion 
immediately  north  of  the  temple  ;  but,  if^tho  words 
of  I  K  8'-  ■*  (cf.  2  S  24"'  '»)  are  to  be  taken  literally, 
it  must  have  been  to  the  south  of  the  Holy  Place 
of  the  Jews.  In  this  direction,  on  a  site  so  situated 
as  to  command  the  spring,  it  has  been  placed  by 
Birch  (I'KFSt.  1878,  pi..  12'.t,  178),  Stade  (GVI  !. 

*  Joseitluiti  odds  (iii.  2)  that  David  took  poHSession  of  the* 
Upper  City,  which  he  called  (/i./  v.  iv.  I)  the  fortreBa  (^^^^«»). 
and  Joined  the  Akra  to  it.  This  postiibly  refers  to  the  first 
eiiduHuro  of  the  wentcm  spur,  which  liavid  may  well  have 
undertaken  tuwarde  the  clone  of  his  reijin,  when  the  develop, 
uient  of  tnide  had  greatly  enriched  the  kin{;dom. 

f  Some  of  the  copper  coina  etnick  during  the  war  of 
Vespanian  anil  the  rebellion  in  llulrian's  reign  bear  ttio 
legonda  Liff'uUath  /loa,  '  Dolivomnce  of  Zion.'  and  Chfrut\ 
Z.,  '  EmondpatiOD  of  Zioo.*    See  art.  MoxSY,  vol.  iU.  p.  iSl. 


315  f.),  Robertson  Smith  (art.  'Jerusalem'  in 
Enajc.  Brit.'  1881),  Sayce  {PEFSt,  1883),  von 
Alien  (ZZ>Prii.  IStf.,  iii.  116tt.),  Klaiber  (Z/>PK 
iii.  189 ti".,  iv.  ISIl.),  Guthe  {ZDPVv.  271  K.,  1883), 
G.  A.  Smith  (in  Enci/c.  Bibl.  2418),  and  the  ma- 
jority of  recent  authorities.  Guthe  (I.e.)  believed 
that  his  excavations  proved  the  existence  of  a  wide, 
deep  ditch  or  hollow,  cut  through  the  hill,  in  a  N.  W. 
direction,  from  tlic  Virgin's  Fount  to  the  TyropcEon 
Valley.  But  his  excavations  Avere  not  complete, 
and  tlie  view  tliat  he  found  the  ditch  of  the  strong- 
hold must  be  accepted  with  reserve. 

The  identification  of  Zion  with  the  western  spur 
is  accepted  by  Keland,  liobinson,  Ritter,  Williams, 
de  VogU6,  Stanley,  Conder,  and  others  ;  but,  as  will 
have  been  seen,  it  is  exceedingly  difficult  to  recon- 
cile with  the  statements  of  the  OT. 

The  following  view  may  be  suggested.  When 
David  took  Jerusalem  it  was  a  hill-town  on  the 
south  part  of  the  eastern  spur,  with  a  small  castle 
or  acropolis,  called  Zion,  situated  at  a  convenient 
spot  to  the  south  of  the  present  JJaram  esh-Sherif. 
After  David's  capture  of  the  city  he  at  once  com- 
menced to  rebuild  and  strengtlien  its  fortifications, 
especially  those  of  the  stronghold  and  Millo.* 
Towards  the  end  of  his  reign,  when  a  period  of 
great  prosperity  had  set  in,  he  commenced  the 
enclosure  of  the  western  spur  ;  and  his  work  on 
both  spurs  was  continued  by  Solomon  (1  K  9"'''*t 
11"),  tlezekiah  (2Ch  32^  cf.  Is  22'),  and  Manasseh, 
who  '  built  an  outer  wall  to  the  city  of  David,  on 
the  west  side  of  Gihon  in  the  valley 'J  (2  Ch  33"). 
The  stronghold  of  Zion  became  the  city  of  David, 
and  tliis  name  was  soon  extended  to  the  town  at 
the  south  end  of  the  spur.  When  the  town  spread 
northward,  Zion  was  connected  with  the  central 
IJart  of  the  spur,  on  which  lay  the  royal  buildings 
and,  adjoining  them  on  the  north,  at  the  top  of  the 
hill,  the  temide  area ;  and  so  it  became  a  sacred 
name  for  tlie  spot  upon  which  the  temple,  the 
dwelling-place  of  Jahweh,  stood.  Afterwards,  the 
name  was  frequently  applied  by  prophets  and  poets 
to  the  temple  enclosure,  to  the  eastern  spur,  and  to 
the  holy  city  of  Jerusalem. 

In  the  time  of  Hadrian  there  was,  according  to 
Epiphanius  (de  Mens,  et  Pond,  xv.),  a  small  church 
on  the  western  spur,  which  marked  the  site  of  the 
house — that  of  tlie  mother  of  Mark — at  which  the 
apostles  met  after  the  Ascension.  This  church, 
apparently  tlie  same  as  that  called  by  Cyril  of 
Jerusalem  the  '  Church  of  the  Apostles,'  became 
in  later  years  the  basilica  of  holy  Zion,  or  the 
'Mother  Church'  on  Zion.  This  tradition  now 
attaches  to  the  church  of  the  Sjiian  monastery, 
which  claims  to  be  the  oldest  ecclesiastical  estab- 
lishment at  Jerusalem.  There  was  also  a  Church 
of  St.  Peter,  or  'House  of  Caiaphas,'  which  is 
mentioned  in  the  5th  cent,  as  being  distinct  from 
that  of  Zion  (Brev.  ;  Theodosius,  De  loc.  .wnct.  ; 
see  discussion  in  Antoninus  Martyr,  App.  ii.  P.  P. 
Text  Series,  vol.  ii.).  C.  W.  Wilson. 

ZIOR  (-iv't). — A  town  in  the  hill-country  of 
Judah,  Jos  15^  (B  -,ip9,  A  2iii/)).  It  is  prob.  to 
be  identified  with  the  modem  village  Sdir,  about 
6  miles  N.N.E.  of  Hebron.  A  pretended  grave  of 
Ksau  is  shown  at  the  place,  the  origin  of  this 
tradition  being  probably  the  similarity  of  the 
names  Sdir  and  Sc'ir  (see  Miililau  in  Riehm's 
//iriJ2  1871';  Gu6rin,  Jud(e,  iii.  150  f.  ;  PEF 
Mem.  iii.  309,  379  ;  Buhl,  GAP  158).  The  Zior  of 
Jos  15"  can  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  -iwp 
(Sior)  of  Eusebius  and  Jerome  (05»  293,   19,  20; 

•  See  art.  Millo,  and  ct  Stade,  GVl  i.  343. 

t  [This  passage  ahowH  that  Che  palace  wa«  higher  than,  and 
therefore  to  the  north  of.  the  'city  of  David.'— En.). 

J  This  wall  was  built  apparently  to  give  more  etflcient  pro- 
tection to  the  passage  leading  to  the  Virgin's  Fount,  which  was 
discovered  by  Sir  C.  Warreu. 


151,   1-3),   which   is  described   as  between   MWi, 
(Jerusalem)  and  Eleutheropolis  (Beit  Jibrin). 

ZIPH  (T!).— 1.  A  son  of  Jehallelel,  1  Ch  4'» 
(B  'A^ijaxf^  A  Z(0o(,  Luc.  Z(0).  2.  A  city  ot 
Southern  Judah,  Jos  15-''  (B  om.,  A  'I^Kafi^  [com- 
bining Ziph  and  the  preceding  Ithnan],  Luc.  Zelcp). 
Its  site  has  not  been  recovered.  3.  A  city  in  the 
hill-country  of  Judah,  Jos  15»  (B  'Ofei^,  A  and 
Luc.  ZI0),  cf.  1  Ch  2'''  (Ze(0)  ;  fortified  by  Reho- 
boam,  2Ch  IP  (B  Zd^,  A  Zei^,  Luc.  Z(</>).  The 
wilderness  of  Ziph  (Tt  i3ip)  was  one  of  the  refuges 
of  David  (see  vol.  i.  p.  564'')  when  fleeing  from 
Saul,  IS  23"-'»-2*  26-''".  The  gentilic  name 
Ziphites  (o'si  and  D'c'i ;  LXX  Z{(]iif>atoi)  occurs 
in  1  S  23"''-  '■«  P-x-'i  ""'y]  26',  Ps  54  ""•.  Ziph  is  the 
modern  Tell  Zif,  S.E.  of  Hebron  (Robinson,  BRP* 
i.  492,  498  ;  Gu^rin,  Jud(e,  iii.  159  If.  ;  G.  A. 
Smith,  HGHL  306  n.;  Buhl,  GAP  163).  Jerome 
(OS-  159,  14)  mis.states  its  distance  from  Hebron 
as  8  M.P.,  whereas  it  is  under  5  (Roman)  miles 
(Robinson). 

ZIPHAH  (n?!).— A  son  of  Jerahmeel,  1  Ch  4" 

(B  Za(pa.,  A  Zai0d,  Luc.  Zi0<i). 

ZIPHION.  — See    Zapuon.       ZIPHRON.  -  See 

SinuAiM. 

ZIPPOR  (-ii2v,  twice  [Nu  22"'  23'»]  t2V).— Father 
of  Balak  king  of  Moab,  Nu  22=-''-'»'9  23'8,  Jos 
24",  Jg  11^  (all  Zeircpuip).  The  name,  which  doubt- 
less in  this  case  and  in  that  of  Zipporah  has  a 
totemistic  significance,  means  '  sparrow.' 

ZIPPORAH  (msv ;  SeTr^iipa).  —  One  of  the 
daughters  of  the  priest  of  Midian,  Ex  2"-  ^  (J), 
wife  of  Moses  and  mother  of  Gershom.  According 
to  18^  (E)  she  had  another  son.*  For  the  part 
played  by  her  in  connexion  with  the  circumcbion 
of  Gershom,  i-*"-  (J),  see  art.  CIRCUMCISION,  vol. 
i.  p.  443*.  Zipporah,  who  was  a  Midianitess, 
cannot  of  course  be  the  '  Cushite  woman '  (see 
vol.  iii.  p.  442''  notet)  of  Nu  12'.  On  the  name 
Zipporah  see  preceding  article. 

ZIY.— See  art.  Time,  p.  765*. 

ZIZ.— The  ascent  (AV  wrongly 'clifr')  of  Ziz(n^VP 
|"sn ;  BA  17  di-ajSaffis  'Acrae,  Luc.  .  .  .  ' .Kinai)  is  only 
once  mentioned  in  the  Bible  (2  Ch  20'"),  and  is 
generally  d.assed  among  unidentified  sites.  The 
context,  however,  leaves  no  doubt  in  the  mind  of 
the  present  writer  as  regards  identification.  It  is 
the  ascent  to  a  clitf,  rising  above  the  plain  of  the 
Dead  .Sea  near  En-gedi  on  the  edge  of  the  table- 
land or  wilderness  of  Judaea  (see  En-GEDI).  Conder 
says  of  this  spot :  '  On  tlie  south  are  the  wolds  of 
the  Negeb  plateau,  with  the  plains  of  Beersheba 
beyond.  On  the  ea.st  is  the  "Solitude,"  with 
white  peaks  and  cones  of  chalk,  and  deep  and 
narrow  watercourses,  terminated  by  the  great 
pointed  cliff  of  Ziz,  above  Engedi,  and  by  the 
precipices  over  the  Dead  Sea,  200U  ft.  high'  (Tent- 
Work  in  Palestine,  p.  244).  The  gorge  lying  at  its 
base  offers  one  of  the  few  ways  of  ascent  from  the 
western  shore  of  the  Dead  Sea  to  the  tableland  of 
Jud:ea,  and,  on  the  occasion  in  connexion  with 
which  7Af  is  mentioned,  was  selected  by  the  hosts 
of  Amnion,  Moab,  and  Edom  for  a  combined  attack 
on  the  kingdom  of  Judah  in  the  reign  of  Jehoslia- 
pli.it.  The  attack,  liowever,  in  answer  to  prayer, 
proved  disastrous  to  the  invaders  (cf.  IIGUL  272). 

E.  HlTLL. 

ZIZA  (Ki'i). — 1.  A  Simeonite  chief  who  took  part 
in  the  raid  on  Gedor,  1  Ch  4"  (B  and  Luc.  om., 

•  The  ■  son» '  ot  MT  In  Ex  420  is  from  the  hand  ot  a  redactor 
See  art    'M08K8.  vol.  iii.  p.  439»  note  t. 


ZIZAH 


ZOAR 


985 


A  Zoi.fd).     2.  A  son  of   Rehoboam,  2  Ch   11»   (B 
Zeiid,  A  Zifi). 

ZIZAH  (m-!).— A  Gershonite  Levite,  1  Ch  23". 
The  name,  prob.  by  a  copyist's  error,  appears  in 
v.'"  as  Zina  (ij'')-  LXX  has  in  both  verses  Zifd. 
One  Heb.  MS,  cited  by  Kennitott,  also  reads  .ij'i 
in  v.'». 

ZOAN  dVi,  Tdi-it,  Tanis.  The  Coptic  Jani  re- 
sembles the  Hebrew  and  the  Arabic  San,  but  a 
Christian  Coptic  MS,  containing  a  list  of  bishops, 
bears  witness  to  the  Greek  pronunciation  with  7. 
[Amelineau,  Gin(jrnphie  dc  VEqyj^fe,  1S93,  p.  413  f.]). 
— A  city  of  Egypt  which  the  LXX  bj-  llicir  render- 
ing identify  witli  the  city  known  to  the  Greeks  as 
Tanis.  It  is  described  by  Greek  writers  as  a  '  great 
city'  (Strabo,  ildneke,  c.  802;  Stephauus  Byzant. 
in  iiis  list  of  cities),  and  the  branch  of  the  Nile  on 
which  it  was  situated  was  called  from  it  the  Tan- 
aitic  mouth.  The  city  declined  in  importance  when 
the  river  which  flowed  by  it  ceased  to  be  a  main 
waterway  ;  and  the  surrounding  country,  which  in 
ancient  times  was  rich  jjasture  ground,  is  now  salt 
marsh  and  lake.  An  insignilicant  collection  of 
dwellings  (known  as  S.an  on  the  Muiz  canal), 
chiolly  inhabited  by  lishermen  who  ply  their  trade 
on  the  neighbouring  lake  Menzaleh,  marks  the 
site  of  this  once  flourishing  city.  But  widely 
scattered  around  are  ruins  which  bear  witness  to 
its  former  greatness.  From  very  early  times  it 
was  a  centre  of  worship,  and  successive  dynasties 
enriched  the  city  with  costly  buildings  and  obelisks 
which  (such  is  the  opinion  of  these  who  have  ex- 
plored the  site)  equ.-illed,  perhaps  in  some  respects 
surpassed,  many  of  tlu  temples  which  have  been 
more  fortunately  preserved. 

The  references  to  this  city  in  Is.  and  Ezk.  are  in 
accord  with  the  testimony  of  the  monuments  and 
of  Greek  writers.  Isaiah  (19"- '^^  SO')  describes  it 
as  the  aljode  of  jirinces  and  counsellors,  and  Ezekiel 
(*.»")  includes  it  in  a  list  of  the  principal  cities 
doomed  to  destruction.  The  note  in  Nu  1.3^  that 
'  Hebron  was  built  seven  years  before  Zoan  in 
Egypt,'  opens  up  a  wide  field  of  conjecture,  but 
yields  little  by  way  of  lertain  inference.  Hebron 
was  regarded  as  an  ancient  city,  existing  in  the 
time  of  Abraham,  and  the  note  implies  that  Zoan 
also  was  an  ancient  city,  built  before  the  migration 
of  the  Hebrews  into  Egj'pt ;  but  wliether  anything 
more  (such  as  community  of  origin)  is  sugj^ested 
bv  the  comparison  is  doubtful.  The  question  of 
ni'ist  interest  to  the  biblical  student  in  conne.xion 
with  Z  lan  is:  Was  this  city,  already  flourishing 
when  Israel  came  into  Egypt,  in  any  way  connected 
with  their  sojourn  there  T  It  is  known  that  in 
E.xodus  the  name  Zoan  does  not  occur.  Rameses 
is  mentioned  (Ex  12")  as  the  place  from  which  the 
chililren  of  Israel  set  out  on  their  journeyings. 
But  in  1*8  78,  which  recounts  the  womlers  which 
God  had  wrought  for  Israel,  '  the  held  of  Zoan  '  is 
twice  mentioned  (vv."-**)  as  the  scene  of  the  plagues. 
The  I'saliiiist  may  have  used  this  expression  as  a 
poetical  parallelism  to  '  the  land  of  Egj'pt,'  just  as 
Isaiah  places  the  '  princes  of  Zoan  '  in  parallelism 
with  the  '  counsellors  of  Pharaoh,'  and  the  only 
inference  to  be  drawn  from  the  pa.ssage  is  that  the 
Psalmist  knew  Zoan  as  a  very  important  city.  It 
is  [)Ossible  that  the  use  of  Zoan  may  lie  due  to  a 
t^ailition  not  elsewhere  preserved.  Ebers  [Diirc/i 
GosKn  zum  Hinai,  p.  498)  gives  an  inscription  in 
which  the  words  '  the  field  of  Zoan '  occur. 

Brugscli  asserts  that  Ramses  II.  transferred  his 
court  10  Zoan,  strengthened  its  fortifications  and 
founded  a  new  temple  city  ;  that  the  place  was 
called  Pi  liamessu,  the  city  of  Ramses,  and  that 
the  new  Pharaoh  who  '  knew  not  Joseph  '  can  lie 
no    other    than     Ramses    II.    {Egypt    under    the 


Pharaohs,  ii,  94,  96,  99).  These  statements  if 
accepted  go  far  towards  locating  the  children  of 
Israel  at  the  time  of  their  departure.  But  Egypt- 
ologists do  not  agree  in  inturpreting  the  monu- 
mental evidence.  In  the  articles  PlTHOM  and 
Ramese-S  will  be  found  the  opinions  of  Naville 
and  others  who  are  not  prepared  .j  .tdopt 
Brugsch's  identification.  This  at  least  may  be 
said  of  the  site  now  occupied  by  San.  Its  posi- 
tion on  the  Nile,  in  or  near  to  what  was  the 
land  of  Goshen,  its  known  antiquity  and  import- 
ance, mark  it  out  as  a  residence  of  the  Ph.iraohs 
and  a  probable  dwelling-place  of  Israel  in  bondage. 

A.  T.  Chapman. 

ZOAR  (lys,  -il'is;  LXX  usually  Z-qyup,  but  Gn  13'» 
7joyopa,  3eT  48**  Zoyop  ;  Vulg.  always  iScijor  ;  Jos 
Zoapa  and  Zoup). — The  name  of  one  of  tlie  'cities 
of  the  Plain '  (or  Oval ;  Heb.  Kikkar  :  see  Plain, 
4),  near  the  Dead  Sea,  mentioned  in  Gn  13'°  14-- ' 
(where  its  former  name  is  said  to  have  been  Held 
vh^),  19"  (where  its  name  is  explained,  by  a  popular 
etymology,  as  signifying  '  littleness,'  and  it  is  said 
to  have  been  spared,  on  account  of  its  smallncss, 
at  the  time  when  the  other  '  cities  of  the  Kikkar ' 
were  destroyed),  vv.^^-  "',  Dt  34'  (in  Moses'  view 
from  Pisgah  :  '  and  the  Kikkar,  the  plain  Ibikah ; 
Plain,  3]  of  Jericho,  as  far  as  Zo'ar'j,  and  as  a 
city  of  Moab,  Is  15»,  Jer  48''  (read'piob.  with  LXX 
[di'a77ei\oTe  els  Zoyopa],  Ew.,  Graf,  al.  'make  a  cry 
to  be  heard  unto  Zo'ar),  v.**. 

These  are  all  the  biblical  notices  of  Zo'ar. 
Though  no  place  V)earing  the  name  is  at  present 
known,  it  is,  however,  mentioned  repeatedly  by 
post-bibl.  writers,  down  to  the  Middle  Ages,  as 
an  important  place  lying  at  the  S.  end  of  the 
Dead  Sea.  Jos.  says  that  it  was  still  called  Zoup 
in  his  day  {Ant.  I.  xi.  4),  and  states  that  the  Dead 
Sea  extended — as  the  context  implies,  from  Jericho 
— for  580  stadia  '  as  far  as  Zoara  [m^'xP'  Zoapu;-]  of 
Arabia'  (BJ  Vf.  viii.  4).  Euseb.  {Ononi.  201)  says 
that  the  Dead  Sea  lay  between  Jericho  and  Zoora ; 
and  states  (231,  s.v.  CaXa)  that  it  had  a  Roman 
garrison,  and  that  the  bals.am  and  the  palm  still 
grew  there,  testifying  to  the  ancient  fertility  of 
the  locality.  Ptolemy  (v.  17.  5)  speaks  of  it  as  be- 
longing to  Arabia  Petrtea ;  Stepli.  of  Byz.  calls  it 
a  Ku)fi7}  fieydXi)  ij  <l>poi'pLov ;  in  the  ecclesiastical 
Notitiw  it  is  mentioned  as  an  episcopal  see  in 
Pal.-ustina  Tertia,  which  was  represented  at  the 
Council  of  Chalcedon,  A.D.  451  (Reland,  Palwst. 
215,  217,  223,  '220,  1005  ;  cf.  '230).  Under  the  name 
Zughar  (Zughar,  Sughar,  .Sukar)  it  is  often  men- 
tioned by  the  mediaeval  Arabic  geographers  (see 
Tuch,  Genciis  -,  '280  f.  ;  or,  more  fully,  Guy  le 
Strange,  Pal.  under  the  Moslems,  1890,  286-9U)  as 
situated  one  degree  S.  of  Jericho  (Abul-feda),  at 
the  'end  of  the  Dead  Sea,'  in  a  hot  and  unhealthy 
vallej',  but  nevertheless  an  important  commercial 
centre,  capital  of  the  province  of  esh-SheiAh  or 
Edom  (p.  39),  a  station  on  the  great  trade  route 
between  the  Gulf  of  'Akabah  and  Jericho,  two 
daj's'  journey  from  the  latter  place,  and  famous  for 
its  dates  and  indigo  (cf.  IIGIlL  500  f.).*  From  its 
proximity  to  Zo'ar,  the  Dead  Sea  is  often  called  by 
these  writers  the  '  Lake  of  Zughar.'  The  Crusaders 
also  mention  'Segor'  (cf.  the  Vulg.  above)  as  pleas- 
antly situated,  with  many  ii.iliii  trees,  so  tliat  it 
was  even  called  by  them  '  \illa  I'.Uniarum  '  and 
'Palmer'  (cf.  Knob,  on  (!n  19-''''-^  [fuller  than 
DUlm.l  ;  Rob.  BliP  ii.  517-9). 

As  regards  the  precise  position  of  Zo'ar,  it  was 
argued  by  Robinson  {I.e.)  that  the  notices  of  Jos. 
and  Eus. ,  though  they  implied  that  Zo'ar  was  near 
the  S.  end  of  the  Dead  Sea,  did  not  neces.sarily  fix 
it  at  that  end  ;  and  that  as  Jerome  (on  Is  15°)  .says 

•  Le  strange  shows  very  clearly  that  Merrill  (K(U1  of  Jord. 
233)  in  iu   errur  in  tayinic   that  the   Arah.  geo);ruphcra  [lac« 
*  Zughar  at  the  H.  end  of  the  yea. 


986 


ZOAR 


ZOAR 


thai,  Luhith  was  between  Areopolis  and  Zo'ar,  the 
most  natural  site  for  it  would  be  (see  the  maps)  at 
cl-Mezra'a,  in  the  midst  of  a  verdant  stretch  of 
woodland  and  pasture-ground  beliinil  the  barren 
promontory  el-Lisaii,  just  where  tlie  Wady  Kerak, 
Mowing  down  from  above  the  old  citadel  of  Kerak, 
fertilizes  the  soil  on  the  E.  side  of  the  Dead  Sea.* 
The  same  site  was  adopted  by  Tuch  (I.e.  281  f.). 
Wetzstein,  however,  in  an  iniiiortant  Excursus  on 
Zo'ar  at  the  end  of  Uelitzsch's  Genesis*  (1872),  p. 
564  If.,  pointed  out  that  it  was  not  consistent  with 
the  data  :  the  media;val  Zo'ar  was  one  of  the  six 
stations  on  the  usual  caravan  -  route  from  Aila 
(Elath)  by  Hebron  to  Jerus.  :  it  was  two  days' 
journey  from  Aila  to  Ghamr  el-'Arabah,  two  more 
to  Zo'ar,  and  two  more  to  Hebron  :  el-Mezra'a,  as 
a  glance  at  the  map  will  at  once  show,  is  entirely 
out  of  tlie  line  of  this  route  (for  Tuch  was  in  error 
in  supposing  that  it  passed  along  the  E.  side  of  the 
Dead  Sea  and  crossed  the  Jordan  by  Jericho ;  no 
road  is  possible  along  the  E.  side  of  the  Sea)  ;  nor 
would  the  steep  and  narrow  W.  Kerak  be,  as  'Tuch 
supposed,  a  practicable  route  for  Baldwin's  army  to 
take  when  marching  to  the  relief  of  Kerak,  for  a 
handful  of  men  could  have  ettectually  barred  its 
progress  (cf.  Tristram,  Moab,  65,  67-9,  esp.  68). 
Pulclierius,  moreover,  accompanied  Baldwin  on  an 
expedition  from  Jerus.  to  Petra,  passing  Hebron 
and  Zo'ar  on  the  way ;  but  again,  if  Zo  ar  was  at 
elMezra'a,  it  would  have  taken  them  strangely 
out  of  their  course.  Accordingly  Wetzstein  sup- 
poses with  great  plausibility  that  Zo'ar  lay  near 
the  S.E.  corner  of  the  Dead  Sea,  in  the  verdant 
and  tropically-wooded  oasis,  some  6  miles  long  by 
1-3  broad  (see  Tristram's  Map,  and  pp.  329  f., 
333  f.,  Moab,  46  f.,  50-52;  Rob.  ii.  113;  Grove  in 
Smith,  DB  iii.  1182,  §  26;  Gautier,  Autour  de  la 
Mer  Morte,  1901,  p.  52 f.),  fertilized  by  the  waters 
of  the  Wady  el- Ansa  ('  the  W.  of  the  sand-wells'), 
flowing  down  from  the  S.E.,  and  called  now,  from 
the  high  and  smooth  sandstone-range  risin"  up 
behind  it,  the  GhSr  es-Sdfiijeh  ('the  Hollow  of  the 
Smooth  (cliti)').  And  an  Arabic  authority  (Dim- 
ashki,  c.  1300),  ap.  le  Strange  (p.  292),  expressly 
places  Zughar  here.  In  the  curious  mosaic  map 
of  Pal.,  also,  discovered  in  1896  in  a  ba.silica  at 
Mcdebali  in  Moab,  and  belonging  probably  to  the 
5tli  or  Gth  cent.  A.D.,  BAAAK  [LXX  for  Beld] 
H  KAI  ZOOPA,  with  a  palm-tree  beside  it,  is  placed 
clearly  at  the  S.E.  corner  of  the  Dead  Sea.t 

On  the  South  of  ttie  Dead  Sea  the  ctiaracter  of  the  soil  is  very 
different :  there  is  here  a  large  saline  morass,  ett-Sel/kha  (above, 
p.  512'*  note  •),  some  6  miles  broad  and  10  long,  bounded  on  the 
N.  half  of  its  W.  side  by  the  cliffs  of  rock-salt  called  Jebet 
Usdum  (vol.  i.  p.  575^,  iij.  152),  consisting  of  tine  mud  brou^jht 
down  by  the  wadvs  on  the  S.W.  and  S.  and  mingled  with 
drainin^s  of  the  Jebel  Usdura :  this  is  entirely  destitute  of 
vegetation,  and  only  passable  with  danger  and  ditticulty  (see 
descriptions  in  KoU  li.  112  ;  Tristram,  Laiid  o/  Isr.  326-9 ; 
Gautier,  op.  cit.  48-52).  The  Wady  Ghurundel  divides  the 
Sebkha  from  ttie  Ghdr  cs-Satiyeh. 

At  present  there  is  nothing  in  the  Gh6r  e?- 
Safiyeh  but  a  wretched  village  of  reed  huts,  en- 
closed by  a  reed  stockade,  with  camps  round  about, 
inhabited  by  Bedawis  (Tristram,  330;  Gautier,  53 f., 
with  views,  48,  56) ;  anil  Wetzstein  (p.  56S  f.)  thinks 
that,  from  the  climate,  there  could  never  have  been 
a  much  more  substantial  place  here  ;  but  he  points 
to  a  castle  which  may  well  have  been  the  site  of 
the  (ppoijpiov  mentioned  in  ancient  times ;  and  per- 
haps the  ancient  Zo'ar  stood  in  a  higher  and  more 
healthy  situation  than  the  actual  floor  of  the 
Ghdr  (cf.  the  two  ruins  to  the  S.E.  a  little  way  up 
the  W.  el-Ahsd  [Tristram,  Mcah,  46-49]). 

•  Tristram,  Moab,  60,  64.  The  map  at  the  end  of  Tristram's 
Land  of  Itraet  shows  very  distinctly  the  different  fertile  snuts 
on  the  shores  of  the  Dead  Sea.  The  elevations  will  be  nest 
learned  from  O.  A.  Smith's  large  Topngr.  and  Phys.  Map  of  Pat. 

t  See  Lagrange,  La  Mosaique  giogr.  dt  Mddaba,  in  the  Rev. 
Bibl.,  April  1S97,  Map  (ia  which  the  Eait  is  at  the  top),  and 

p.  17a. 


The  usually  accepted  site  of  both  ?o'ar  and  of  the  othei 
'  cities  of  the  Ki/ckur'  has  been  at  the  S.  end  of  the  Dead  Sea; 
but  it  was  argued  by  Mr.  (afterwards  Sir  G.)  Grove  in  Sniith'i 
VB,  8.  V.  '  Zoar,'  that  they  were  at  the  North  end  of  the  Sea  ;  and 
this  view  has  been  followed  since  by  Tristram  (L.  of  }sr.  354  ff.), 
Conder  (Tent-Work,  154,  207 f.,  210),  and  other  English  writers 
(cf.  above,  arta.  (Somorrah  and  SodomX  The  principal  grounds 
upon  which  it  is  supported  are  (1)  that  in  On  13'"  Lot  is  said  to 
have  seen  from  near  Bethel  (v. 3)  '  all  the  Kikkar  of  Jordan,"  and 
afterwards  to  have  dwelt  in  the  'cities  of  the  Kikkar,'  whereas 
the  S.  end  of  the  Dead  Sea  is  not  visible  from  near  Bethel,  and 
a  plain  situated  there  would  not  naturally  be  called  the  '  Plain 
of  Jordan ' ;  (2)  that  the  S.  end  of  the  bead  Sea  is  not  visible 
from  Nebo,  as  it  is  implied  in  Dt  34^  (quoted  above)  that  ^i^o'ar 
was  ;  (3)  that  Gn  14?,  which  states  that  Chedorla'omer,  coming 
up  from  ihe  S.,  after  smiting  the  Amalekites  in  Hazazon-tamar 
(-  En-gedi,  2  Ch  202),  proceeded  to  the  Vale  of  Siddiin,  implies 
that  this  vale,  and  consequently  the  cities  of  the  Kikkar  (which 
were  near  it),  were  at  the  N.  end  of  the  Sea.  It  is  true,  the 
language  of  Gn  1310-  11a.  12b  does  not  seem  to  suggest  that  the 
narrator  (J)  pictured  the  part  of  the  Kikkar,  to  which  IjOl 
would  naturally  descend  from  Bethel,  as  separated  from  Sodom 
by  the  Dead  Sea,  with  practically  no  passage  along  either  shore : 
on  the  other  hand,  this  conclusion  is  not  necessary  ;  the  narra- 
tive may  well  be  condensed,  and  Lot  may  not  then  and  there 
have  directly  '  moved  his  tent  as  far  as  Sodom.'  The  evidence 
that  the  po*f-bibL  Zo  ar  wag  at  the  S.  end  of  the  Dead  Sea 
clearly  cannot  be  resisted  :  and  in  the  case  of  what  must 
anciently  have  been  a  well-known  place,  it  seems  scarcely 
likely  that  the  Zo'ar  of  Josephus  wa^  on  a  different  site  from 
the  biblical  Zo'ar.  Further,  as  regards  (1),  Kikkar  does  not 
mean  '  Plain,'  but  *  Round,'  and  it  may  thus  have  been  applied 
to  the  entire  basin  in  which  both  the  lower  Jordan  and  the 
Dead  Sea  lay,  the  '  Kikkar  of  the  Jordan  '  (Gn  1310-  ",  1  K  7«) 
being  in  particular  the  part  of  it  including  the  lower  course 
of  the  Jordan  :  in  Gn  13^0,  also,  it  is  not  said  that  Lot  saw 
the  exact  part  of  the  KiJ:kdr  in  which  the  cities  were  (for  'all' 
must  be  an  exaggeration,  even  if  the  cities  were  at  the  N.  end 
of  the  Dead  Sea,  since  only  a  part  of  the  plain  there  is  discern- 
ihle  from  near  Bethel);  (2)  the  view  described  in  Dt  34' ■•■*  includes 
many  points  (as  Dan)  not  actually  visible  from  Nebo  (Thomson, 
L.  ana  B.  iii.  653),  and  v,8  implies  naturally  that  Zo'ar  was  at 
some  distance  off,  not  a  place  at  the  foot  of  Nebo  (Tell  Sfta^fliur, 
Conder,  Heth  and  Moah^,  p.  154  f.,  6  m.  N.E.  of  the  Dead  Sea, 
in  spite  of  the  facts  that  ShaghOr  does  not  correspond  jihoneti- 
cally  to  Zo'ar,  and  that  Tell  Shaghflr  is  not  distinguishable  from 
Has  Siaghah,  ib.  p.  137);  (3)  the  route  from  En-gedi  to  the  N. 
end  of  the  IJead  Sea,  whether  inland  (across  a  succession  of 
steep  wfidis ;  Rob.  i.  526-32)  or  alon^  the  coast  (by  wading  or 
clambering  round  promontories  :  Rob.  i.  606  n. ;  Tristram,  Land 
of  Isr,  252,  274,  278,  ;?S4  f.).  is  much  more  impracticable  for  an 
amiv  than  that  to  its  S.  end  :  according  to  others  also.  IJazazoD- 
tamar  is  not  En-gedi  at  all,  but  the  T.amar  of  Ezk  4719  4329,  a 
village  on  the  road  between  Elath  and  Hebron  (Onom.  210X 
perhaps  (Rob.  ii.  202)  JCumuf),  22  m.  S.W.  of  the  S.  end  of  the 
Dead  Sea. 

And,  in  fact,  there  are  biblical  data  which,  when 
considered  carefully,  appear  to  support  the  S.  site. 
To  say  nothing  of  Dt  34',  just  referred  to,  it  is 
observable  that  Zo'ar  is  alwaj'S  spoken  of  as  a  Monb- 
ite  town,  and  never  claimed  as  an  Israelite  or  (Jos 
13""-')  Reubenite  town,  as  it  naturally  would  be 
if  it  lay  at  the  N.  end  of  the  Sea;  Ezk.  also  (16") 
describes  Sodom  as  being  on  the  '  right '  {i.e.  the 
south)  of  Jems.  (Samaria  being  on  its  '  left,'  or 
north),  which  shows  that  he  did  not  picture  it  at 
the  N.  end  of  the  sea  (which  is  due  E.  of  Jerusalem). 
The  S.  site  is  accepted  by  the  great  majority  of 
recent  authorities,  as  Knob.,  Del.,  Keil,  Dillm.  (on 
Gn  19-"),  Riehm,  H\\B;  Sociu,  ZBl'V,  1880,  p.  81  ; 
Buhl,  (li'ogi:  371  f.,  274;  G.  A.  Smith,  Exjto).,  Dec. 
lS9(i,  p.  413.  HGHL  678  (cf.  505-H);  Clermont- 
Canneau,  PEFSt.  1880,  p.  20  ;  Blaiickenhoru, 
ZI)J'  V.  1896,  p.  54f.  (who gives  further  particulars). 

On  the  singular  argument  by  which  Homniel  {AIIT  1U5-8) 
seeks  to  show  that  Bela'  (Gn  14^  ^)  is  nieiitiuned  in  A>.syr.  under 
the  name  Malhi,  Malf/u,  etc.,  see  Johns  (in  the  Expogitor, 
Aug..  1.S1I8,  pp.  15t'-60),*who  shows  that  it  reals  upon  a  series  of 
niiHreadings  and  niiRunderstandings. 

The  site  of  Zo'ar  carries  with  it  the  site  of  the 
other  'cities  of  the  Kikkar,'  which  (Gn  19)  may 
have  formed  a  group  by  themselves,  but  cannot 
have  been  at  any  great  distance  from  Zo'ar.  Pro- 
vided, therefore,  it  may  be  assumed  (see  SiDDIM, 
Vale  of)  that  in  Abraham's  time  what  is  now 
the  shallow  S.  part  of  the  Dead  Sea  was  the  '  Vale 
of  Siddim,'  and  the  morass  es-Sebkha  a  fertile 
plain  (like  the  present  GhOr  es-Satiyeh),  it  may 
reasonably  be  supposed  that  the  other  four  cities 
were  situated  on  this  plain ;  an  earthquake,  how- 


ZOBAH 


ZOHKLETII,  THE  STOXE         987 


e^er,  took  place,  producing  on  the  one  hand  an 
eruption  of  petroleum,  which,  ijjniting,  destroj-ed 
the  four  cities  (Tristram.  L.  of  Lir.  353  f.;  Dawson, 
Egypt  and  Syria,  p.  125  fT.),  and  on  the  other  hand 
a  subsidence  of  the  soil,  which  caused  the  '  Vale  of 
Siddim  '  to  be  covered  by  the  waters  of  the  Dead 
Sea,  and  the  plain  on  which  the  four  cities  were 
situateii  to  become  the  saline  morass,  now  called 
esSebkha  (cf.  the  descriptions  of  the  site  of  the 
overthro\vn  cities,  0129",  Zeph  2'  ;  Is  13-«,  Jer  49" 
=5i3«).  S.  R.  Driver. 

ZOBAH  (k;'is  or  njSx ;  Sou^d  [A  in  2  S  8"  and  S  in 
1  Ch  19*  Zii^i). — One  of  the  numerous  kingdoms 
into  which  the  Aramitans  on  the  north  and  north- 
east of  Palestine  were  divided.  Apart  from  tlie 
short  notice  of  the  wars  of  Saul  (1  S  14"),  which  is 
probably  the  work  of  a  later  editor  (see  Samukl,  I. 
AND  II.),  the  first  mention  of  Zoliah  or  Aram-zobah 
occurs  in  the  reign  of  David  in  connexion  with 
his  war  against  Hanun,  king  of  the  Ammonites 
(2  S  8"-  lu").  In  the  fuller  and  more  accurate 
account  of  this  campaign,  given  in  2  S  10"-,  it  is 
stated  that  the  Ammonites  hired  the  Syrians  (or 
Aramaeans)  of  BETii-ni:iion  and  of  Zobah^  together 
with  Ish-tob,  king  of  Maacah,*  to  assist  them  in 
repelling  the  expected  Lnva-sion  of  the  Israelites. 
Despite  this  important  reinforcement,  the  ATiiiiion- 
ites  failed  to  withstand  the  Israelites  under  Joab 
and  Abishai,  and  both  they  and  their  allies  were 
forced  to  take  refuge  in  flight.  The  Aramoeans, 
hoH-eviT.  seem  to  liave  rf-alized  that  a  wider  issue 
than  that  of  the  temporary  support  of  Amnifpn 
was  involved  in  their  struggle  with  the  newly  de- 
veloped kinj;dom  of  Israel ;  for,  owing  to  the  en- 
forced inactivity  of  the  two  great  empires  of  Egj'pt 
and  Assyria,  it  was  obvious  that  the  supremacy 
(for  the  time  being)  over  northern  Palestine  would 
rest  with  the  stronger  of  the  two  riv.-il  dynasties  of 
Aram  and  Israel.  Hence  we  lind  Iladadezcr,  king 
of  Zobah,  making  further  and  more  strenuous  eft'orts 
to  overwhelm  the  Israelite  kingdom.  To  this  end 
he  assembled  all  the  forces  at  his  command,  and 
with  the  aid  of  the  powerful  kingdom  of  Damascus 
(followinfj'  2S  8°  rather  than  10'":  see  below)  again 
took  the  held.  The  opposing  armies  met  at  Hclam  ; 
but  the  Israelites,  this  time  under  the  command  of 
David  himself,  once  more  proved  victorious,  and 
coniTiellud  the  Syrians  to  accept  terms  of  peace.  It 
would  appear  from  I  K  11^'-  that  this  battle  had 
an  imiMMiant  bearing  on  the  history  of  Syria  ;  for, 
according  to  the  notice  there  preserved,  a  certain 
Itezon,  son  of  Eliada,  took  advantage  of  the  defeat 
of  lladadezer  to  desert.  Accompanied  by  a  troop 
of  men  he  lied  to  Damascus,  where  he  set  up  a  king- 
dom, and  became  'an  adversary  to  Israel  all  the 
days  of  Solomon.' 

It  cannot  be  denied  that,  at  first  sight,  the  im- 
pression of  Zobah  conveyed  by  the  biblic:il  narra- 
tive is  that  of  a  large  and  powerful  kingdom  in 
the  north  of  Palestine,  exercising  sovereign  sway 
over  all  the  Aram.'ean  tribes.  Hence  the  majority 
of  scholars,  until  recently,  have  placed  it  vagiiclj' 
between  Damascus  and  Ilamath,  the  nearest 
ajiproach  to  a  delinite  site  being  that  of  Niildeke, 
who  assiOTis  it  to  the  neighbourhood  of  Emesa. 
As  regards  its  site,  this  im[)ression  is  conlirmed  by 
the  Assyrian  monuments  (Schrader,  KGF  p.  122, 
KAT'  y.  182f.,  art.  'Zobah'  in  Uiehm's  NWJI; 
Fr.  Del.  Par.  p.  279  f.);  but  the  idea  of  its  im- 
portance seems  to  be  derived  very  largely  from  the 

*  2  3  10<.  Read  u  Wellhausen  and  Eloatennun— l|^;-nti] 
te;i  3ia  c^'K-nx  ijyp  'and  tlie  king  of  Moocuh,  Uh-tob,  and 
with  him  (13,000  men),'  omittinK  the  awkward  '  with  a  thuuwmd 
men.'  In  the  parallel  pass-ige  (1  Ch  IV^-),  the  Chronicler  (fives 
the  «yini. total  ai  32,000  men  <'•»■  20,000-l-l'.!,000) :  he  ohviouBly, 
tlu-rt-toru,  did  oot  luulude  th«  extrft  tbouaand  (lea  Klonterm. 
■dtoc.). 


fact  that  (according  to  the  present  text  of  2  S  10'", 
cf.  8^)  lladadezer,  king  of  Zobah,  exercised  control 
over  the  distant  Aram;ean  tribes  living  'beyond 
the  River.'  But  a  comparison  of  the  two  accounts 
of  David's  wars  with  the  Ammonites  and  the  Ara- 
m.xans  (2  S  8  an<l  10)  shows  clearly  that  the  account 
given  in  2S  8^"  is  mainly  the  work  of  a  later  editor, 
who  probably  also  substituted  the  phrase  '  that  were 
beyond  the  liiver'  (10"*)  for  the  original  'of  Damas- 
cus'* (on  the  relation  of  10"-  to  ch.  8  .see  Samuel, 

I.  AND  II.,  p.  300).  On  the  ground  of  its  import- 
ance, therefore,  and  of  the  extent  of  influence, 
there  is  no  need  to  place  Zobah  so  far  north  as  the 
kingdom  (or  city)  of  that  name  mimtioned  in  the 
Assyrian  tribute — or  geograpliical  lists  (see  above). 
Moreover,  a  closer  examination  of  the  history  of 
the  two  campaigns  makes  it  more  probable  that 
Zobah  lay  considerably  further  south.  The  order 
in  which  the  Aramaean  tribes  are  mentioned  in  2  .S 
lO"'-  (Beth-rehob,  Zobah,  M.-uicah)  is  decidedly 
against  the  northern  theory,  for  both  Beth-rehob 
and  Maacah  lay  to  the  S.  or  S.W.  of  Damascus, 
and  ajiparently  their  territories  bordered  on  that 
of  Ammon  :  we  should  expect,  therefore,  to  lind 
the  kingdom  of  Zobah  in  the  same  neighbourhood. 
Hence  Winckler  (GcvcA.  Isr.  p.  137  f.)  is  no  doubt 
right  in  identifying  Zobah,  or  Aram-zoliah,  not  with 
the  Assyrian  Subiti  (or  Subutu)  lying  to  the  N. 
of  Damascus,  but  with  the  place  of  the  same  name, 
S.  of  Damascus  and  in  the  neighbourhood  of  the 
Haurfm,  mentioned  by  Assurbanipal  in  the  account 
of  his  campaign  against  the  Arabian  king  Jauta 
(Rassara-Cvlinder,  vol.  vii.  11.  110-112  ;  see  KIB  ii. 
p.  217).  Winckler  (p.  141  f.)  is  inclined  to  go 
even  further  and  to  identifj'  Zobah  with  Beth- 
rehob,  but  the  evidence  which  he  adduces  is 
scarcely  convincing. 

It  is  possible  that  the  editor  who  is  responsible 
for  2  S  8^'*  confused  the  two  Zobahs,  for  the  two 
cities  of  Zobah  which  he  mentions,  Berothai 
(  =  Berothah,  Ezk  47'")  and  Betah  (1  Ch  18"  Tiii- 
HATH,  probably  the  modern  Tchnk),  were  situated 
N.  of  Damascus.  In  addition  to  the  authorities 
cited,  see  also  Tompkins  in  PEFSt,  April  1885, 
pp.  108  f.,  113.  J.  F.  Stenning. 

Z06EBAH  (.133!;).— A  Judahite,  1  Ch  4"  (B 
2a,3a0a,  A  ^u^TjOa,  Luc.  ^apri^d). 

ZOHAR  (nni-).— 1.  Father  of  Ephron  the  Hittite, 
On  23"  25'"  [Zdap].  2.  The  name  of  a  Simeonite 
family,  Gn  46'"  (A  2dap,  D  ^ia\).  Ex  6'"  {:^dap) ; 
called  in  Nu  26'"  and  1  Ch  4-^  Zerah  (in  former, 
BA  Zdpa  ;  in  latter,  B  Zdpcs,  A  Zdpof,  Luc.  Zdpa). 
3.  The  name  of  a  Judahite  family,  according  to 
the  ^irS  of  1  Ch  4'  (in^i  '  and  Zolinr,'  which  was 
followed  in  AV  of  IGli).  The  Kahlbh  is  ins- 
which  in  modern  edd.  of  AV  appears  as  '  Jczoar ' 
(an  iiicori'L-ct  transliteratiou  of  "ic^;)  and  in  RV  as 
'  Izliar'  (i.e.  "v^y). 

ZOHELETH,  THE  STONE  (n'-ntn  [jk  'the  ser- 
pent's stone':  B  AIOt)  toS  ZueXtfle;,  A  rbv  \l$ov 
ToO  ZuiAfS). — The  spot  at  which  Adonijah  prepared 
a  sacrificial  feast  for  all  those  who  supported  his 
claims  to  the  throne  of  David  (1  K  1").  The  stone 
was  doubtless  a  mazzrhd,  and  marked  the  site  of 
an  old  Canaanite  sanctuary.  In  ancient  times 
'  living  water  '  was  regardccl  as  inhabited  by  jinn, 
usually  in  the  form  of  a  serpent  or  dragon  ;  rf. 
'  the  dragon's  well '  (Neb  2") :  hence  such  water  was 

•This  seems  more  prob.  than  the  siibstitntion  of  'Damoaeus* 
(or  'beyond  the  Uiver,'  which  waa  8u^K(^'^te4)  in  Sahckl,  I.  a.nd 

II.  ;  see  also  Uudde,  Hichter  u.  Sam.  p.  260,  note  3.  W'inckler, 
Getch.  /»ru.ls.  p.  137 (.,  indeed,  reject*  the  whole  or  loui»«  as 
redoctional,  argiiin^  with  some  force  that  v.ifb  really  fonns  ttie 
conclusion  to  vv.8-1* ;  but,  with  the  exception  of  tlio  phrase 
'  beyond  the  River,'  there  seems  do  JustillcatioD  tor  doubting 
the  geoulDeoeas  of  Ibe  j>ajuia|[a. 


S88 


ZOHETH 


ZOROASTKIAXISM 


itself  sacred,  and  the  source  vhence  it  issued 
usually  became  the  site  of  a  temple  (see  W.  R. 
Smith,  US'-  170  f.).  The  actual  position  of  the 
stone  is  somewliat  uncertain,  and  depends  on  the 
identification  of  En-rogel ;  the  name  seems  to  have 
been  preserved  in  the  modem  ez-Zehindeh  (see  art. 
En-R(i<;i;l  and  the  authorities  there  cited).  Well- 
hausen  (Skizzcn,  iii.  171)  suggests  that  the  name 
Zoheleth  may  be  connected  with  the  Arabic  Zti/uil 
=  Saturn.  J.  F.  Stenxi.Ng'. 

ZOHETH  (n™)._A  descendant  of  Judah,  1  Ch 
4="  (B  Zwdy,  A  Zuxie,  Luc.  ZaiiB). 

ZOOLOGY.— See  Natural  History. 

ZOPHAH  (n?is).— An  Asherite,  1  Ch  7"(B  Zuxad, 
A  ^io<pdp,  Luc.   ^ov(pi)^  (B  Xwipas,  A  Zwtpi,  Luc. 

ZOPHAI  Cs^s).— An  ancestor  of  Samuel,  1  Ch 
6=«  I")  (2oi/(/i(f)i)  =  ZuPH  of  v.»  m  and  1  S  1'. 

ZOPHAR  (n5"is,  'Zui(pap).—The  third  in  order  of 
Job's  three  friends,  described  in  the  LXX  as  '  king 
of  the  Mina-ans'  (Job  2")-  Probably  the  chief  of 
a  tribe  on  the  borders  of  Idumsea. 

ZOPHIM.— The  '  field  of  Zophim '  (D-?i-  n--f,  LXX 
(h  dypou  (jKOTnay)  was  one  of  the  spots  to  which 
Balal^  took  l'>alaa,m  to  view  Israel,  Nu23'*(JE). 
It  is  questionable  whether  we  have  here  a  proper 
name ;  the  Heb.  expression  means  literally  '  Held 
of  viewers  or  lookers  out'  (note  the  addition  'to 
the  top  of  Pisgah ').  Such  'places  of  watching' 
(nssa)  were  naturally  situated  frequently  on  the 
tops  of  hUls  (see  Mizpah,  vol.  iii.  p.  400»).  On 
the  impossible  combination  Ramat/uxim-fophim  of 
ISP  see  art.  Ramah,  p.  19S*. 

ZORAH  {^sry<  BA  Zapad,  ynth  the  following 
e.xceiitions :  B  in  Jos  15^  om.,  19^^  Zapde,  Jg  13^ 
^apdX;  A  in  Jg  IS'-^  ^apd,  18-  'Apai  ;  in  Neh  11^ 
Bx*  A  om.,  N'^- '  l,apad,  Luc.  -apd). — A  town 
allotted  to  Judah,  according  to  Jos  15^;  but  else- 
wliere  spoken  of  as  Danite,  Jos  19",  Jg  18--*-" 
(coupled  with  EsilTAOL) ;  specially  noted  as  the 
home  of  SamsoN,  Jg  13--",  who  was  buried 
between  Zorah  and  Eslitaol,  16^'.  It  was  fortified 
by  Ruhob'oam,  2  Ch  11'",  and  is  mentioned  in  Neh 
11-'*  as  peojiled  by  Judahites  after  the  Captivity. 
The  gentilic  name  Zorathites  (•";?■!>■?)  occurs  in 
1  Ch  2=^  (ol  Zapaeam)  4-  (B  6  'ApaSei,  A  6  ^apaBl, 
Luc.  ^aXadi-qX)  and  prob.  2"  (where  read  Zoratliites 
'r'i'''VO  for  Zorites  "pi'D  :  B  6  'Ho-apuei,  A  6  'Haapacl, 
Luc.  6  -apaOi).  In  the  latter  verse  the  name 
Manahalhites  (Manoahites)  is  a  reminiscence  of 
Manoah  the  father  of  Samson. 

^orali  is  the  modern  Surah  on  the  northern  side 
of  Wddy  e^-Surar  (the  Valley  of  Sorely)  opposite 
'Ain  Shcms  (Beth  -  shemesh),  which  lies  on  the 
southern  side.  This  corresiionds  with  the  state- 
ment of  Eusebius  {OS"  293,  29)  that  it  was  10 
miles  from  Eleutheropolis  on  tlie  road  to  Nico- 
polis.  It  is  mentioned  under  the  name  Zardn  in 
the  Travels  of  a  Mohar  (Sayce,  HCM  344),  and  as 
Zarkha  in  the  Tel  el-Aniarna  letters  (Winckler, 
No.  173 ;  Petrie,  No.  265)  as  attacked  by  the 
Khabiri. 

LlTKRATTRll.— Robineon.  BRP^  Ul.  163;  Guirin,  Judie,  U. 
16  ff.  :  liawleker.  Pal.'  163  ;  O.  A.  Smith,  HQHL  218 ;  Buhl, 
GAP  90,  195.  J.  A.  SELBIE. 

ZORITES.— See  ZORAH. 

ZOROASTRIANISM.— An  account  of  the  ancient 

religion  of  Iran,  the  religion  of  the  Parsis  at  the 
present  day,  finds  its  place  in  a  Bible  Dictionary, 


not  because  of  direct  references  to  it  in  the  Bible 
Mhich  need  elucidation, — for  these  are  exceedingly 
few, — but  because  of  the  widely-held  opinion  that 
some  of  the  most  important  later  developments  of 
Judaism  were  profoundly  affected  by  contact  with 
Persian  beliefs.  The  developments  in  question 
affect  Angelologv.  Demonology,  and  the  doctrine 
of  the  Resurrection.  lu  the  present  article  only 
that  will  be  described  which  directly  concerns  the 
parallel  phenomena  in  the  religion  of  Israel. 

1.  The  Mazilayasna  ('worship  of  Mazda')  is 
variously  known  as  Mazdeism,  Zoroastriani.sm,  or 
Parsism.  Its  basis  is  the  worship  of  a  supreme 
deity,  Ahura  Slazddh,  or  Onnazd  ('the  Lord 
WiMlom '),  beneath  w  horn  stand  six  higidy  ab- 
stract archangels  called  Am-ihrmpands  (Amesha 
Spcnta,  'immortal  holy  ones'),  and  a  large  num- 
ber of  angels  (yazata),  who  are  mostly  nature- 
powers  dethroned  from  the  divine  position  tliey 
held  in  the  days  when  the  ancestors  of  Iranian 
and  Indian  tribes  lived  together  as  one  people. 
The  sacred  book  of  the  religion,  the  Avesta*  con- 
tains some  ancient  hymns  which  appear  to  come 
from  Zarathushtra,  called  by  the  tireeks  Zupo- 
iarprii.  He  is  probably  to  be  regarded  as  a  real 
person,  the  reformer  to  whom  may  plausibly  be 
assigned  the  monotheistic  doctrine  of  the  religion, 
and  the  philosophic  system  w  hich  attempts  to  solve 
the  problem  of  JEvil.  This  system  involves  an  evil 
spirit,  Angra  Mainyu,  or  Ahriman  ('destructive 
spirit '),  who  with  his  hosts  of  demons  (dalva)  pre- 
sides over  all  evU  things  in  the  world  and  wages 
war  with  Ahura  and  the  good  creation,  till  the 
time  when  evil  will  be  finally  destroj'ed.  Among 
the  most  powerful  of  the  good  spirits  are  the 
'fravashis  of  the  pious.'  A  fravashi  is  part  of  a 
man's  identity,  dwelling  in  heaven  but  powerful 
to  aid  on  earth.  It  belongs  to  good  men  past, 
present,  and  to  come.  It  shares  the  fortunes  of 
its  earthly  counterpart,  when  a  living  man  ;  and 
if  that  man  becomes  evil,  it  apparently  ceases  as  a 
fravashi  to  be.  The  good  Zoroastrian  had  a  code 
of  simple  and  generally  high-toned  morality  to 
observe,  hamjiered  by  a  complicated  and  often 
extremely  foolish  ritual,  which  is  probably  to  be 
laid  to  the  account  of  alien  priests  who  fastened 
on  the  religion  during  the  later  Acluemenian 
reigns.  After  death,  the  pious  receive  a  blissful 
immortality  with  Ahura  in  the  '  House  of  Song,' 
while  the  (/nti'a  -  worshippers  are  condemned  to 
torment  in  the  '  House  of  the  Lie.'  Ultimately 
the  world  is  to  be  renewed  under  Snoshyant  ('one 
who  shall  save ' — a  being  miraculously  descended 
from  Zoroaster),  after  purification  by  the  '  ordeal 
of  molten  metal,'  which  will  consume  all  that  is 
evil. 

2.  Such  is,  in  the  barest  outline,  the  faith  of 
Zoroastrianism.  The  only  other  preliminary  left 
for  us  to  determine  here  is  the  date  at  which  this 
system  had  penetrated  countries  inhabited  by 
Jews.  It  is  obvious  that  if  Judaism  owed  any  of 
its  eschatology,  or  its  doctrine  of  angels  and 
demons,  to  this  forei^  influence,  Zoroastrianism 
must  have  been  firmly  established  in  Babylonia 
or  Media  before  the  Book  of  Daniel  was  written, 
and  presumably  generations  before.  The  date  of 
the  Avesta  is  a  warmly  disputed  question  ;  but 
for  our  present  purpose  this  matters  little,  for  the 
doctrines  which  find  parallels  in  Judaism  are  uni- 
versally admitted  to  be  earl}-,  on  the  witness  of 
classical  writers,  from  Herodotus  downwards.   That 

•  Its  main  dh-isiona  are  the  Yasrui  (abbreviated  T»  ),  which 
includes  the  oldest  part,  the  Gdtfids,  or  hymns  ;  the  VathU 
(}'0,  hymns  in  honour  ot  old  nature  powers;  End  the  Ven- 
diddil  (Vd  ),  the  Leviticus  of  Parsism.  Many  of  the  most 
imiwrtanlof  the  'Rabbinic'  writings  of  Parnism  are  translated 
by  Dr.  E.  W.  West  in  the  Sacred  Books  nf  the  Ea»i  (SBE).  Il 
this  series  also  Is  found  the  beat  tmulation  ot  the  Avesta  Itaell, 
by  Darmesteter  and  Uilla. 


20R0ASTRIANISM 


ZOROASTRLVNISM 


989 


these  doctrines  were  prevalent  '  in  the  cities  of  the 
Medes,'  and  other  regions  inhabited  by  Israelites 
during  and  after  the  Exile,  may  also  be  regarded 
as  certain.  Moreover,  it  is  fair  to  argue  that  the 
Jews  would  be  predisposed  to  look  fav  ourably  on  the 
religion  of  their  liberator  Cyrus.  (That  the  early 
Acha-nienian  kings  did  hold  what  may  be  fairly 
desoribcd  as  Zoroastrian  faith,  may  be  assumed  as 
probable,  though  not  at  all  certain.)  At  present 
we  have  to  show  how  far  the  Zoroastrian  and  the 
later  Jewish  systems  coincide,  and  examine  what 
reason  there  is  for  assuming  that  foreign  inllu- 
ence  aflected  the  development  of  Judaism.  Before 
discussing  this  question,  we  may  deal  with  the  few 
passages  of  the  Bible  and  Apocrypha  in  which  direct 
allusion  is  made  to  Zoroastrian  institutions. 

3.  There  are  two  allusions  in  the  Prophets  which 
have  caused  no  little  difficulty,  since  both  of  them 
refer  to  pre-exilic  times.  In  Jer  30'-  '•'  Kab-m.\g 
appears  to  be  the  IJabylonian  title  of  an  ollicial 
head  of  a  sacred  caste,  like  the  Magian  ii-ei/jcnroXot 
of  Astyagcs  in  Hdt.  i.  108.  By  itself  this  passage 
is  not  decisive:  Tiele  (Rdiqionsgesch.  ii.  llOf.) 
would  deny  the  connexion  of  the  Rabmag  with 
Median  Magi,  and  make  him  no  religious  officer 
at  all.*  Tiele  has  not  dealt  with  the  very  remark- 
able passage,  Ezk  8'"-,  which  creates  a  strong 
presumption  that  there  were  Magi  outside  Zoro- 
astrianism,  whose  influence  was  felt  at  Jerusalem 
before  the  Exile.  The  prophet  sees  sundry 
'  abominations '  in  the  temple,  the  worst  of  which 
are  sun-worshippers  who  '  put  the  branch  to  their 
nose.'  This  'bianch,'  despite  Gunkel,  must  be 
the  bnrsom,  or  'bundle  of  line  tamarisk  boughs' 
(Strabo,  xv.  3.  14),  which  the  Parsi  priest  of  to- 
day holds  up  to  his  face  at  worship.  Now,  if  this 
were  'a  distinctively  Persian  rite'  (Davidson,  in 
loo.),  it  would  be  'hardly  probable  at  so  early  a 
date  in  Israel.'  But  it  is  only  Magian,  and  not 
Persian  at  all.  It  belongs  to  the  mass  of  ritual 
which  the  Magi  contrived  to  graft  long  after  this 
time  upon  the  Mazdavasna,  hitherto  almost  desti- 
tute of  ceremonies  anil  priestly  rites.  If,  then,  this 
characteristically  Magian  rite  lias  penetrated  as  far 
as  Jerusalem  in  the  7th  cent.  B.C.,  it  is  no  longer 
'improbable '  (Tiele)  that  these  famous  medicine- 
men should  have  'come  from  Media  to  Babylon.' 
On  the  contrary,  their  success  at  Jerusalem  is  more 
easily  explaineil  if  they  had  alreadj'  a  footing  at 
Babylon. 

4.  The  presence  of  Parsism  in  Tobit  is  so  clear 
that  we  may  fairly  discuss  it  at  this  point.  That 
'Atrixooam  ( B  'A(rfJiioavs)  is  A  rshma  dacna, '  the  demon 
Wrath,' t  has  been  generally  accepted,  though  no 
very  successful  attempt  h.as  been  made  to  account 
for  this  and  other  Parsi  traits  in  a  Jewish  romance. 
A  key  to  the  (h.aracter  of  the  book  may  perhaps  be 
found  in  the  recognition  of  a  Median  folklore  story 
which  a  Jewish  author  has  adapted  :  see  the  de- 
tails of  this  tlieor\'  worked  out  in  a  paper  by  the 
present  writer  in  Jixpos.  Times,  March  I'JOO.  The 
following  will  be  included  among  the  features  of 
the  original  storj'.  (l)Tlie  scene  is  in  Media,  a 
meeting-place  of  Ir.anian  and  Semitic,  and  especi- 
ally in  '  Zoro.istrian  Itagha'  ('Pdyai  Ti}5  MriSlas, 
9"  K).  (2)  The  demon  .'\cshma,  aa  is  natural  in  a 
popular  story,  has  enlarged  his  functions  to  include 
'Lust,  haitl  by  Hate,'  his  Avestan  attribute.  His 
opponent  in  the  Median  original  would  be  Siaosha, 
the    angel    '  Obedience,'   wliom    Parsism    sets    in 

•  He  coniparcfl  the  Awyr.  ma;)  *prcat,'  bo  that  the  word  would 
mean  'prince';  cf.  *~iv^  in  Jer.  l,c,  But  is  this  distinctive 
enough,  where  other  classes  of  olllcers  are  mentioned  side  by 
side  with  him? 

f  The  traimlation  'covetous  or  histfu!,'  (rivrn  aliove  under 
ASMoo.KCS,  is  haflcd  only  on  an  a'<.<(unie<l  etymolo^^y,  and  flnds 
no  8U|)port  In  I'ar^i  text*i.  Note  that  the  two  wordn  have  become 
one,  the  Avesta  here,  a3  Id  Ahura  ilazdah  and  Artffra  Ma\nj/u, 
keeping  tbem  separate. 


special  antagonism  to  AuCTa  Mainyu's  arch-fiend 
Aeshnia.  Behind  him  doubtle.ss  stands  the  'grate- 
ful dead  man  '  of  the  folk-tale,  found  widely  in  tha 
East,*  on  which  Hans  Andersen  based  his  Travel- 
ling Companion.  Raphael  therefore  is  ultimately 
substituted  for  the  dead  man  of  To  2'.  (3)  The 
extraordinary  emphasis  laid  on  the  duty  of  burying 
the  dead  strongly  recalls  the  Vendidad,  and  it 
seems  clear  that  the  Jewish  adapter  has  simply 
substituted  burial  for  the  Parsi '  Tower  of  Silence,' 
on  which  the  vultures  strip  the  bones.  Great  merit 
is  accumulated  when  the  faithful  Parsi,  with  a 
companion, — it  is  mortal  sin  to  do  it  alone, — removes 
a  corpse  thither  from  polluting  the  sacred  earth. 
In  the  original,  therefore,  the  prototypes  of  Tobit 
and  Tobias  must  have  done  this  [lious  work  to- 
gether. Moreover,  a  dog  was  necessary,  that  his 
glance  might  exorcise  the  corrujition  fiend.t  Hence 
the  entirely  otiose  and  un  Jewish  dog  which  sur- 
vives in  To  6'  (S)aud5"  ll^(B).  In  addition  to  this, 
there  is  a  clear  reference  in  4"  (B)  to  the  draona,  tha 
'  corpse-cake.' t  (4)  There  seem  very  clear  allu- 
sions (see  6",  and  note  the  attempt  at  explanation 
in  N  :  also  cf.  3"  and  3")  to  the  idea  of  the  merit 
of  marriage  with  near  kin.  Now  this,  in  the  form 
of  first-cousin-marriage,  has  always  been  prominent 
in  Parsism.§  The  Magi  went  further,  and  made 
themselves  notorious  in  antiquity  by  their  vehe- 
ment preaching  of  incestuous  unions,  to  which 
they  attributeil  extraordinary  virtue.  In  the 
Median  Tobit  no  doubt  Raguel  and  the  hero  were 
brothers,  so  that  7''  (S)  may  be  taken  literally. 
(5)  The  charm  by  which  Tobit's  blindness  is  healed 
is  very  much  like  one  found  in  the  Shah  N.lmeh  of 
Firdausi  ;  see  the  story  in  Atkinson's  epitome 
(Chandos  Classics),  p.  Iu6.  The  jiarallel  suggests 
that  in  the  Median  story  the  blindness  may  have 
been  caused  by  demons'  enchantment ;  the  fish  in 
6-  looks  also  like  a  demon.  (6)  In  8'(N,  the  original 
text  clearly)  the  demon  (lies  dvw  eis  rd  m^PI  A.lyi- 
TTTov.  That  the  original  Aramaic  ||  DTiD  was  a 
blunder  for  p-i:iD  w.as  suggested  by  Kohut.H  and 
in  spite  of  Niildeke's  objection  seems  highly  prob- 
able. Mflzindaran  was  especially  the  land  of 
.sorcery  ;  and  on  Mt.  Dimavand  therein  (cf.  dnj 
in  8')  the  hero  Thraetaona  '  bound '  (<n«7r65i(rtr 
avrdv  xal  iirloriijeii,  ib. )  the  old  serpent  Azhi  Dahftka. 
(7)  The  seven  angels  of  12"  may  in  the  original 
liave  been  the  Amshaspands,  who  are  often  made 
seven  by  the  addition  either  of  Ahura  Mazda  or  of 
Sr.aosha.  If  this  is  so — and  it  is  not  really  neces- 
sary— we  have  the  only  distinctively  Zoroastrian 
feature  in  Tobit ;  the  rest  are  probably  Magian, 
.and  may  well  antedate  the  Zoroastrian  reform. 
But,  of  course,  we  have  no  means  of  dating  the 
original  story.  It  is  noteworlliy  that  there  is 
practically  no  eschatology  in  the  book ;  if  its 
original  was  untouched  by  Zoroastrian  ism  projier, 
this  would  be  natural.  It  follows  that  we  cannot 
rely  much  on  Tobit  as  a  channel  for  Parsi  influences 
on  Judaism.  The  utmost,  therefore,  that  the  book 
teaches  us  is  that  Israelites  dwelling  in  Media  were 
not  strongly  prejudiced  ag.ainst  their  neighbours 
(cf.  14*),  nor  perhaps  impervious  to  their  religion. 

5.  To  the  category  of  direct  references  belongs, 
according  to  general  belief,  the  storj'  of  the  MaGI 

•  .See  a  close  parallel  in  F.  II.  Groome's  (Vy/»jji/  Folk-Taiei, 
No.  1.  In  his  note  he  pivcs  a  list  of  jtarallelH  elsewhere.  Add 
Hinton  Knowles,  Fotk.Tales  of  Katifiinir,  p.  40.  A  folk-tAle 
closely  connected  with  ToOit  may  be  seen  in  T/iS  Utory  qf 
AkXkarivi.  Harris,  Lewis,  and  Conyhearo). 

t  See  ()e:i.'er.  Cieiligntwn  of  K.  I'ranvnitt,  1.  85  ff. 

t  West,  SBE  V.  283  f.  Also  cf.  Ilarlland,  Ugmd  <if  Pertna, 
U.  2i«S-312. 

5  Technically  known  by  the  Pahlavi  term  KhvHitk.dcu. 

i  Assuming  the  truth  of  Kendcl  Harris's  thesis,  .^  ;ner.  7oum. 
0/  Thent.  ISllll,  p.  641  ff.,  esp.  p.  654. 

Ii  Geiger's  Jiul.  Zcittfc-h.  .\.  To  this  jmper,  vitiated  by  an  im- 
possible theory  of  aiiti-rar.'dc  polemic  and  s  very  late  dftte  fol 
TobU,  are  due  several  points  in  (UH^)  here. 


990 


ZOROASTRIANISM 


ZOROASTRIANISM 


in  Mt  2.  The  assumption  that  the  name  is  strictly 
used  is  as  old  as  the  early  Syriac  commentators  on 
Matt.,*  but  it  is  curious  that  there  is  so  little  cor- 
roborative evidence.  Discussion  here  is  hampered 
by  the  necessity  of  assuming  the  investigation  of 
Alagianism  in  general.  The  difficulty  lies  in  the 
very  limited  attestation  which  the  most  authentic 
sources  of  orthodox  Parsism  give  to  the  connexion 
of  tlie  stars  with /ravas/iis.  We  have  a  very  strik- 
ing identification  of  stars  with  representative  spirits 
of  a  community  in  Kev  l-^.  Aleanwhile,  we  may 
note  tliat  although  tlie  Avesta  and  the  Pahlavi 
scriptures  but  faintly  encourage  this  association, 
there  is  a  remarkably  strong  consensus  of  tradition 
connecting  the  Magi  witli  star-lore.  It  is  a  side  of 
theiractivitywhicli  would  naturally  be  strengthened 
by  connexion  with  Babylon  (see  §  3,  above).  The 
extent  to  which  these  Magi  were  ortliodox  Zoro- 
astrians  must  remain  doubtful.  It  seems  fair  to 
assume  that  the  star  did  for  them  represent  the 
frnvfiM  of  a  great  one  just  born.  If  we  insist 
on  Avestan  doctrine,  that  star  must  have  been  a 
brilliant  new  star,  and  not  a  planet,  for  these  were 
considered  malign  ;  there  seem,  however,  to  be 
traces  of  an  ojiposite  view,  so  that  this  need  not  be 
decisive  against  Kepler's  theory.  The  question 
remains  why  they  expected  a  king,  and  a  king  of 
the  Jews;  a  prophet  or  'saviour'  (saoshyant) 
would  seem  a  more  natural  idea.  It  is  possible 
that  we  may  fall  back  on  the  oneiromancy  tradi- 
tionally associated  with  the  Magit  (cf.  Mt  2''),  and 
suppose  that  they  interpreted  the  meaning  of  this 
new  star  by  the  help  of  an  unrecorded  dream.  It 
must  be  noted,  however,  that  both  dreams  and 
star-lore  are  extra-Avestan,  though  not  inconsist- 
ent developments  of  the  sj'stem  as  we  know  it. 
It  is  only  provisionally  that  we  may  cherish  the 
belief  that  the  earliest  Gentile  homage  to  the 
Lord  Christ  was  paid  by  priests  of  the  loftv  re- 
ligion which  in  earlier  times  was  perhaps  privileged 
to  stimulate  within  Judaism  the  growth  of  the 
doctrine  of  the  Resurrection. 

6.  Such  are  the  biblical  passages  in  which  direct 
allusion  to  Parsism  may  be  traced  or  reasonably 
suspected  ;  sundry  more  doubtful  examples  may 
be  left  to  the  end  of  this  article.  We  pass  on  to  a 
much  more  important  question.  It  being  granted 
that  during  and  after  the  Exile  great  numbers  of 
Jews  were  living  in  Mazdayasnian  countries,  have 
we  reason  to  believe  tliat  the  development  of 
certain  doctrines  among  these  Jews  was  stimulated 
by  what  they  knew  of  corresponding  doctrines  in 
Parsism,  and  that  in  this  way  the  history  of 
doctrine  in  Judaism  was  vitally  attected?  The 
essential  parts  of  our  problem  may  be  stated  in 
terms  of  Ac  23',  where  (if  we  may  include  demons 
under  '  spirits  ')  the  Sadducees  represent  the  older 
Judaism,  the  Pharisees  the  newer,  which  arose 
after  the  Jews  came  in  contact  with  Parsism. 
Pout  hoc,  obviously  :  is  it  also  projitcr  hoc !  A 
detailed  examination  of  Parsism  will  show  the 
marked  likeness  between  the  two  religions  in 
respect  of  eschatology  and  spirit-lore.  Is  this 
coincidence,  or  has  one  religion  atfected  the  other  ? 
If  the  latter,  which  is  the  debtor,  or  is  the  obliga- 
tion mutual?  Finally,  if  foreign  influence  on 
Judaism  is  to  be  postulated,  liave  the  claims  of 
Babylon  or  Hellas  a  prior  right  to  be  heard  ?  The 
last  question  is  rather  beyond  our  present  range  ; 
but  we  may  at  least  plead  that  Parsism  is  in- 
comparably nearer  to  the  faith  of  Israel  than 
any  other  religion  can  pretend  to  be,  and  that 
its  influence  is  antecedently  more  likely  to  have 
been  felt.  The  ease  for  the  independent  develop- 
ment of  Judaism  may  be  seen  in  the  articles  on 

*  See  Oottheil,   'References  to  Zoroaster'   lo   the  Dritler 
CloJfSicai  aiudies,  pp.  24-61. 
I  X.g.  in  HdL  i.  107. 


EscHATOLOCv,  Angel,  and  Demon.  But  weighty 
authorities  bespeak  at  least  respectful  hearing  for 
the  theory  that  the  development  of  Jewish  doctrine 
was  stimulated  by  the  knowledge  of  a  ;reed  which 
contained  full-grown  dogma  that  within  Judaism 
was  only  in  germ.*  It  is  natural  to  assume  that 
gratitude  to  the  Persians  as  their  deliverers,  to 
whom  the  Jews  owed  the  protection  which  made 
the  birth  of  the  Jewish  Church  possible,  may  have 
predisposed  them  in  favour  of  religious  ideaa 
wherein  thinkers  could  recognize  what  was  latent 
in  their  own  faith. 

7.  In  Exchatolugy  one  ground  of  hesitation  to 
accept  a  measure  of  Parsi  influence  has  been  the 
doubt  whether  the  Resurrection  is  a  truly  ancient 
doctrine  in  Parsism.  t  The  doubt  is  entirely  ground- 
less :  the  mere  fact  that  Darmesteter  himself,  the 
great  champion  of  a  late  date  for  the  Avesta, 
acknowledges  the  Resurrection  as  a  doctrine  of 
Achaemenian  antiquity,  might  silence  questioning. 
The  important  diflerences  between  Parsi  eschat- 
ology and  the  various  systems  which  struggled 
for  recognition  among  the  Jews  during  the  last 
centuries  B.C.  are  drawn  out  by  Charles,  Eschat. 
p.  135  f.  These  divergences  are  fatal  to  any 
theory  of  borrowing,  but  they  do  not  afiect  the 
assertion  that  the  Jewish  belief  'can  hardly  have 
developed  without  Persian  stimulus'  (Cheyne). 
It  is  generally  conceded  that  OT  passages  speak- 
ing of  an  individual  resurrection  do  not  appear 
until  a  period  when  Persian  stimulus  is  historically 
possible,  when  the  knowledge  that  the  Persians 
held  this  belief  could  encourage  thoughtful  Jews 
to  develop  their  own  doctrine  in  a  thoroughly 
Jewish  form.  In  this  case  the  foreign  influence 
would  show  itself  by  the  absorption  of  details, 
minor  doctrines  or  illustrations  of  doctrine.  Now 
these  are  forthcoming,  if  not  beyond  dispute  iu 
individual  cases,  yet  to  an  extent  making  coin- 
cidence improbable.  Amon^  these  are  the  follow- 
ing.J  Is  24-"-  is  allowed  by  Charles,  a  hostile 
witness  [Eschat.  pp.  116  n.,  159),  to  show  probable 
traces  of  Parsism  :  the  imprisonment  of  evu  powers 
before  their  flnal  punishment  may  be  compared 
with  Bund.  3-*  (SBE  v.  19),  which  seems  to  repre- 
sent an  Avestan  picture  of  war  in  heaven, 
followed  by  the  binding  of  the  fiend,  as  in  the 
Apocalypse.  In  Is  05"  66^  a  new  heaven  and 
earth,  following  the  final  judgment  and  destruc- 
tion of  evil,  is  parallel  with  the  frasho-kereti, 
'renewing,'  which  in  Parsism  follows  the 'ordeal 
of  molten  metal '  (§  1).  This  last,  the  ayo-khshusta, 
somewhat  resembles  the  tigure  of  Mai  3-'  4'.  The 
four  periods  in  Daniel  have  a  very  close  parallel 
in  the  Pahlavi  Buhman  Yasht  (HBE  v.  193) ;  but 
in  this  very  late  work  it  seems  more  reasonable 
to  assume  indebtedness  to  the  Bible,  as  on  p. 
197  there  is  an  apjiarent  imitation  of  Lk  IG'""-, 
and  on  p.  203  of  Mic  7".§  A  characteristic  of 
Parsism  from  the  Urst  is,  however,  recogniz- 
able in  the  new  manner  of  looking  upon  general 
human  history,  and  in  the  reckoning  of  millennia, 
which   became  prominent   in    apocalyptic.     Parsi 

fhraseology  has  been  found  (Cheyne,  UP  440)  in 
s  26  ',  where  the  '  dew  of  lights'  is  compared  with 
'  the  illimitable,  self-created  lights '  of  '  the  Best 

•See  Kuonen,  Itel.  of  1st.  iii.  32IT.  ;  Gritz,  Uwt.  of  Jeiet, 
i.  441  ff.  :  Ewald,  OT  and  XT  Theol.  pp.  72-78;  Noldeke  in 
C.eiger's  Zeitschr.  x.  233  ff. ;  Kenan,  llM.  Jut.  iv.  156 ;  King, 
The  Gnoatiat  2,  p.  120 ;  Kousset,  ThLZ  xxiv.  513 ;  and  esp. 
C'lievne,  JRL  257  fl.,  Sineleenth  Cent,  for  Dec.  1891,  etc. 

t  So,  among  others,  SchulU,  OT  Theol.  i.  330 ;  Schwally, 
Leben  n.  d.  Tode,  %  38.  The  latter  observes  that  only  twi 
AvesUin  passages  are  quot«d  for  the  doctrine.  He  ignores  the 
mtness of  Theopompus.  Jackson (J.iOS' XT.,lb[.)add3  I'sSC, 
a  Oatliic  text. 

1  The  word  paradise  is  not  included  among  these,  becauM 
it  has  developed  its  theological  meaning  entirely  on  Jewish 
soil.  The  Avestan  pairidaeza,  equated  by  Sfiegel,  is  a  kr 
X.ty.,  equivalent  in  meaning  to  its  con^'cner  Ti^.T,ix»f. 

i  P.  211  (i  64)  hag  a  less  decided  resemblance  to  Bev  1211. 


ZOROASTRIANISM 


ZOROASTRIANISM 


991 


Worlil  of  til''  lilest,  shininp,  nil  illuminated '  {Vd 
Itt*")  ,  ijut  tliis  Juus  not  illustrate  the  dew,  for 
which  Schwally  rightly  denies  comparison  with  the 
lluoina.*  A  mure  hi>iieful  parallel  maj'  be  seen 
when  we  note  the  I'arsi  view  of  the  Dawn  as  a  daily 
parable  of  the  Itesiirrection  —  an  idea  witnessed 
in  Vedic  India  by  the  pliriuse  making'  the  dawn  the 
'banner  of  immurtalily'  (flr/i-eda,  iii.  61.  3):  for 
Parsism  see  Darmenleter,  Ormtizd  ct  Ahriman,  p. 
239.  There  seems  no  adequate  reason  to  deny  the 
possibility  of  this  conception  in  I'.salms  ol  the 
Persian  period  ;  and  in  Ps  4U'^  17"  its  presence  is 
hij;hly  probable.  The  LXX,  as  Cheyne  obsor>-es, 
bIiows  the  doctrine  of  the  Resurrection  unmistak- 
ably, as  in  Is  SO'",  Job  19-«,  Psl' 65  (title).  I'assins 
on  to  the  Apocrypha,  Knuch  shows  some  decidedly 
Parsi  traits:  note  the  tr.ansformed  heaven  andeartli 
(45*-  °),  and  the  mountain  of  God's  throne  set  in 
the  south  (18),  compared  with  Secrets  of  Enoch  10, 
where  a  hell  is  placed  in  the  north, — this  connota- 
tion of  north  and  south  is  exceedingly  common  in 
Parsi  books.  The  Slavonic  Enoch  is  notable  as 
an  early  witness  for  the  idea  of  seven  heavens 
(see  Hkavex),  which  jippears  in  late  Parsi  books.t 
but  not  in  the  A  vest  a,  where  there  are  four.  In 
the  Apocalypse,  which  seems  to  have  assimilated 
not  a  little  Parsism,  presumably  through  earlier 
Jewish  apocalyptic,  we  have  the  millennium,  the 
binding  and  subsequent  destruction  of  the  'old 
serpent'  (see  §  4  (6)),  the  assault  of  Satan  on 
heaven  and  his  casting  down  to  earth  (cf.  SBE 
V.  19),  the  bl.-isting  of  a  third  part  of  the  sky 
(ib.  164  and  17),  all  of  which  can  be  more  or  less 
illustrated  from  Par.si  sources:  clo.ser  still  are  the 
parallels  which  may  be  seen  in  some  late  Parsi 
writings  described  by  West,  ib.  Iviii  f.  It  is  not 
till  the  Talniudic  period  that  we  get  direct  imita- 
tions without  that  thorough  assimilation  which 
makes  all  the  comparisons  hitherto  noted  indi- 
vidually disputable :  for  Talmudie-l'arsic  eschato- 
logy  see  Kohut  in  ZDMG  xxi.  5o2-591.  One 
interesting  examjile  may  be  quoted,  as  it  has  been 
used  to  illustrate  Jn  U, — the  adoption  by  the 
Kabbis  of  the  Avestan  doctrine  that  the  departing 
soul  hovers  three  days  near  the  corpse  and  takes 
its  flight  on  the  fourtli.J 

8.  In  A  nf)eloto(ji/  the  influence  of  Parsism  was  also 
confined  to  subsidiary  points,  but  is  more  marked. 
A  tradition  ia  preserved  in  the  Jerusalem  Talmud 
(lioshhtnliiinn,  p.  50)  that  'the  names  of  the 
angels  came  up  with  them  from  Babylon,'  which 
may  be  taken  as  meaning  '  from  the  Kxile '  in 
general.  This  coincides  with  the  fact  that  the 
practice  of  naming  angels,  and  placing  them  in  an 
ordered  hierarchy,  dues  not  appear  before  the 
Return.  Except,  perh.aps,  in  tlio  case  of  a  few 
Talmudic  angels, §  no  parallels  are  to  be  expected 
between  Hebraic  names  and  Persian  originals. 
As  before,  we  are  at  most  to  postulate  Persian 
stimulus  behind  the  reuiarkalde  contrast  between 
the  impersonal  angels  of  early  Jahvism  and  the 
individualized  and  ordered  celestial  beings  of 
Daniel,  Zechariah,  and  the  NT — still  more  of  the 
Apocrj'pha.;i  The 'seven  spirits'  of  Ilev  1*  8"  En 
90"'-ir(?cf.  Zee  3»  4=  and  the  'watchers'  of  I)n  4") 
may  be  linked  with  the  Amsha.spands  by  their 
appearing  lirst  in  Tobit  (12"):  the  .sacred  number 
would  recommend  the  idea,  and  the  Jews  probably 
met  with  it  in  a  form  they  would  approve,  with 

*  The  Indian  Soma — the  juice  of  a  sacred  plant,  endowed  in 
Ve<la  and  Avcsta  with  niiractilous  qualilicH. 

t  Kolmt,  ^.>'.  Independent,  Jan.  11,  1S94.  For  other  Parsic 
trait.s  in  this  Enoch  8Ce  Charles's  ed.  p.  74. 

J  The  doctrine  woa  probably  taken  from  Parsism,  but  It  is 
loueul  elsewhere :  Dr.  J.  O.  Frazer  quotes  it  from  modern  Cireece 
and  from  Calabria. 

8  Kohut  (.^  ni/r/o/.  pp.  4.T-4.'i)  has  one  or  two  plausible  equations, 

ll  ForPhilo.  BceSiek'tried,  I'hilo,  p.  141. 

*I  Charles  notes  here  that  the  'seven  first  whit«  ODea *  come 
froai  the  Amshasuoiids. 


Sraosha  (Raphael's  prototype  in  Tobitl  making  up 
the  seven,  instead  of  the  Deity  liimsell  (see  §  4  (7)). 
There  is  exceedingly  goud  reason  for  regarding 
as  Parsic  the  national  angels  ('[irinccs')  of  Dn 
jQis.  M)  12',  the  decisive  argument  being  that  Israel 
has  an  angel  other  than  J"  (contrast  Sir  17"). 
This  makes  a  strong  case  for  recognizing  here  the 
fravnxhi — a  doctrine  the  more  likely  to  be  assimi- 
lated in  that  it  had  a  (less  developed)  analogue 
in  Babylonian  religion.  In  the  Apocalypse  the  con- 
ception comes  out  in  the  'angels  of  the  churches. 
The  fravashi  of  a  nation  or  community  is  a 
conception  found  in  three  Avestan  passages:  see 
Mills'^ version  of  Ys  17'*  [SBE  xxxi.  2o9).  The  two 
NT  allusions  (Mt  IS'",  Ac  12")  confirm  the  doctrine 
oi  fravnuhis  for  individuals  ;  but  that  the  doctrine, 
whatever  its  origin,  is  comiiletely  assimilated  may 
be  seen  from  the  apparent  fact  that  the  nation  has 
lis  fravashi  long  before  the  individual.  The  latter 
may  indeed  have  been  developed  out  of  the  former, 
just  as  in  the  doctrine  of  the  Resurrection.  In 
Parsism,  of  course,  the  individual  came  first.  The 
yazatas  are  fairly  paralleled  by  genii  in  Enoch  61'" 
69'-"-,  and  in  the  Apocalypse  by  angels  who  w.atch 
over  waters  (10',  cf.  Anfihita),  fire  (14",  Parsi 
Atare),  sun  (19",  Hvare),  wind  (7',  Vata).  In  all 
these  parallels,  however,  we  find  the  Parsi  sug- 

festion,  if  such  there  be,  thoroughly  assimilated. 
'he  fravashi  is  no  longer  a  being  neces.sarily  good, 
but  becomes  a  coinpli;te  spiritual  counterpart  of 
the  nation  (Daniel)  or  the  church  (Apocalypse), 
and  capable  therefore  of  declension  and  punish- 
ment.* Similarly,  the  'angels'  of  the  little  ones 
are  nearest  the  throne  (Mt  18'"),  because  represent- 
ing those  who  have  not  learned  to  sin.  The  stud)' 
of  St.  Paul's  attitude  to  these  doctrines  is  in- 
structive in  more  ways  th;in  one.t  He  accepts 
an  elaborate  ranking  of  sjiirits.  The  air,  as  in 
Parsism,  is  made  the  arena  of  strife  between  good 
and  evil  angels  :  J  the  spirit  world  is  a  reflex  of  the 
earthly  in  the  inextricable  mixture  of  contending 
powers.  But  he  accepts  these  beliefs  only  as 
enhancing  the  supremacy  of  Christ :  cf.  He  1^  2^ 
Rev  22".  Like  Zoroaster,  centuries  earlier,  he 
found  his  contemjioraries  in  danger  of  a  virtual 
polytheism  (cf.  Col  2'"),  and  set  them  free  by  mag- 
nifying the  one  Divine  Being  whose  traii.scend- 
ence  made  worship  of  mere  angels  impos.sible. 
In  doing  this,  Zoroaster  simplj'  tried  to  ignore  the 
deities  of  the  f.aith  bo  reformed,  with  the  result 
th:it  after  his  death  they  came  back  like  a  flood, 
losing  little  in  position  by  their  formal  subordina- 
tion, as  angels,  to  Ahura  Mazda.  St.  Paul  was 
able  to  accept  fearlessly  the  angelology  he  found, 
while  greatly  lessening  its  importance,  and  achiev- 
ing a  permanent  success  in  raising  Christ  to  an  un- 
approachable height  above  the  s])irit  world. 

9.  Much  of  what  has  been  said  can  be  repeated  for 
Demonolvgy.  It  would  be  absurd  to  think  of  Satan 
and  his  angels  as  borrowed  from  Angra  Mainyu 
and  the  datras.  Tlie  .Semites  had  deintjns  enough 
of  their  own,  and  the  Satan  doctrine  in  Parsism 
and  in  Judaism  developed  in  very  dillerent  ways. 
We  may  still  believe  that  the  ranking  of  demons 
and  the  elevation  of  one  s)iiril  to  their  bead  may 
have  been  stimulated  by  Parsism.  There  are 
native  forces  which  largely  account  for  the  diller- 
cnce  between  earlier  and  later  Jahvism  in  this 
respect ;  but  when  we  find  the  Jews,  after  historical 
contact   with   Persians,   advancing   to   a   position 

•  Cf.  Weber,  Jiid.  Theol.t  p.  170 1.  ;  also  Soderblom  in  Itev. 
Uittt.  lU'l.  xl.  waft,  :  on  the  whole  subject  see  the  writ-er's 
poper,  '  It  Is  his  Ancel,"  in  JTS,  1902. 

t  See  BeyschlaR,  A7'  Tlieol.  ii.  lonlT.  Mazdcisni  hart  prohaliiy 
mixed  with  in(li|;enous  cults  in  Cilieia  (see  lieo.  Itift.  Jiel.  xxxvl. 
201),  so  ttiut  St.  Paul  may  have  been  ae<)uainted  with  it  in  youth. 

1  Against  this  view  of  Kph  2'''  see  Findloy  (in  Kxpoit.  BibU), 
\}.  10;i.  He  observes  that  tlic  Uabbis  retranletl  the  alniosphere 
as  Satan's  abo<le — *a  notion  foreijin  to  Srri|ilure.'  'They,  at 
anv  rate,  may  well  have  sot  the  notion  from  Parsism 


992 


rOROASTRIAXISM 


ZOROASTRIANISM 


more  and  more  like  theirs,  it  is  hard  to  suppose 
the  movement  entirely  imlepemlent.  Stave  well 
shows  that  the  teaching  of  the  Proplifts,  esppcinllv 
Deutero- Isaiah,  tended  to  an  absolute  denial  of 
existence  to  heathen  deities  ;  yet  as  early  as  2  Ch 
28^  the  gods  of  Damascus  are  real,  and  before 
long  they  and  other  foreign  guds  aie  firmly  estab- 
lished as  demons.  The  striking  contrast  between 
this  development  and  tliat  towards  which  the 
Projilifts  li'd  is  explained  satisfactorily  by  the 
daevas  of  Parsism,  who  were  to  some  extent  them- 
selves the  deities  of  hostile  tribes.  The  earlier 
histdry  of  Jewish  and  Parsi  denionology  may  dillbr 
widely ;  but  the  doctrine  of  the  N't  might  be 
broadly  enunciated  in  terms  which  would  accurately 
describe  Zoroaster's  own  teaching,  while  that  of 
the  Talmud  has  much  in  common  \vith  accretions 
found  in  the  Vendidad  and  the  Pahlavi  patristics. 
In  both  NT  and  Gathas,  Evil  is  a  lying  and 
murderous  spirit,  which  in  the  beginning  chose 
evil  thoughts,  words,  and  deeds,  and  which  has 
over  since  the  Fall  *  tempted  mankind,  with  the 
aid  of  fiends  who  afllict  the  bodies  and  souls  of 
men.  In  both,  men  are  called  to  join  in  the  strife 
which  shall  end  with  the  destruction  of  EWl  in 
hell.  Could  we  believe  that  a  pure  Gathic  religion 
was  ever  preached  within  the  Jews'  hearing,  the 
historical  connexion  of  the  two  systems  would  be 
almost  indisputable.  But  the  very  corruptions  of 
later  Parsism  must  have  helped  to  recommend  it 
to  the  popular  Jewish  mind,  which  was  equally  in 
boudage  to  the  fear  of  evil  spirits  and  the  foolish 
ritual  that  pretended  to  control  them.  It  is  note- 
worthy that  Judaism  deliberately  forsook  sug- 
gestions from  its  earlier  writings — the  Serpent  of 
Gn  3  and  Azazel  in  Lv  16 — when  it  formed  a  new 
demonologv  with  '  the  Satan '  as  prince  of  evil. 
We  naturally  seek  a  foreign  body  wliose  attraction 
has  drawn  it  from  its  proper  course.  Without 
pursuing  this  subject  in  detail,  we  may  note  in 
conclusion  that  in  the  Apocalypse,  where  parallels 
with  Parsism  (however  explained)  are  especially 
numerous,  there  is  a  deep-seated  connexion  of 
thought  in  the  characteristic  balancing  of  the 
heavenly  and  the  infernal — e.g.  the  devil,  the 
beast,  and  tlie  false  prophet  as  the  '  anti-trinity  of 
heir(.seeMilligan, 5rtirrficc<«re, p.  11011'.).  Itseems 
reasonable  to  suppose  that  the  author  would  readily 
make  use  of  imagery  from  a  system  so  subtlj"  re- 
sembling his  own.  There  is  significance  then  in  tlie 
identification  of  the  Serpent  of  Gn  3  with  Satan 
(12^),  whose  binding  and  subsequent  destruction  is 
narrated  in  striking  accordance  with  the  Parsi 
story  of  Azhi  Dahaka  (above,  §  4  (6)).  AVe  may 
peiliaps  fairly  add  that  Azhi  Dahaka  is  especially 
connected  with  Bab}ion,t  a  coincidence  which 
might  be  claimed  as  no  mere  accident — the  less  so 
as  in  the  Pahlavi  Bahmnn  Yasht  (SBE  v.  234)  we 
find  the  serpent  Azlii,  in  his  brief  release  before  his 
final  destruction,  swallowing  'one-third  of  man- 
kinil,  cattle,  sheep,  and  other  creatures  of  Auhar- 
nuizd.'  The  obvious  parallels  in  the  Apocalypse 
are  only  discounted  by  the  impo.ssibility  of  prov- 
ing that  the  Pahlavi  translator  is  here  faithful  to 
his  original  Avestan  text,  now  lost.  (See  above,  §  7). 
10.  The  question  of  Parsi  influences  upon  the 
E.S.SKNES  is  raised  by  Lightfoot's  dissertaticm  (in 
L'omm.  on  Col.  pp.  387-389).  He  accepts  (like 
Hilgenfeld)  links  with  Parsism  in  (1)  dualism,  (2) 
sun-worship,  (3)  angelolatry,  (4)  magic,  (5)  striving 
after  ])urity.  Otiier  points  might  be  plausibly 
added,  such  as  their  white  garments,  the  value  set 
on  truth,  their  devotion  to  agriculture,  etc.  (Their 
unblooily  olferings  must  not  be  counted  here,  for 
Mazdeism  has  always  had  a  sacrifice  of  llesli,  as 
well  as  the  libation  and  the  Haoma  otleruig).     It 

•  I'  we  may  read  Yima's  fall  in  K«  32"  :  Tiele  denies. 

*  See  }'(  5^;  and  Darraesteter's  note  (Lt  ZA  ii.  375). 


must  be  allowed  that  there  is  little  really  distinc- 
tive here,  except  the  sun-worship— the  one  point 
in  which  Clieyne  (who  in  other  respects  endorses 
Lightfoot's  view)  thinks  Josephus  inaccurate.* 
Moreover,  there  was  Magian  sun-worship  which 
was  not  Zoroastrian,  as  in  Ezk  S'"'  (see  §  3,  above). 
Essene  dualism  seems  to  owe  nothing  to  that  of  the 
Vendidad,  which  has  no  philosophical  theory  of 
the  inherent  evil  of  matter  and  no  trace  of 
asceticism.  The  most  conspicuous  features  in  the 
picture  Josephus  draws  are  alien  from  the  spirit 
of  Parsism.  In  their  psychology  and  eschatology 
one  or  two  surface  parallels  are  neutralized  by 
deep-seated  divergences.  Thus  in  Mazdeism  the 
pre-existent  souls  (frai-ashis)  came  to  earth  volun- 
tarily, to  join  in  the  warfare  against  evil,  not 
tyy-^l  TLVL  (pvcTtic^  KaracTTTui^tvai.  And  in  denying  the 
Resurrection  in  favour  of  the  immortality  of  the 
soul,  the  Essenes  betray  affinity  with  Uellenistie 
Judaism  (especially  the  Book  of  Wisdom) :  note 
that  Griitz  and  Montet  trace  the  latter  doctrine 
to  Neoplatonism,  recognizing  Parsi  influence  only 
in  the  former.  Unless  Josephus  ( Wars,  II.  viii. 
11)  is  entirely  drawing  on  imagination,  we  must 
admit,  witli  Soderblom,  that  Greek  influence  is 
demonstrable  in  their  paradise  beyond  the  sea, 
while  the  solitary  Parsi  feature,  the  hell  io<piJiSrit  xal 
Xfif-^P'os,  is  not  sufficient  to  support  an  argument. 

11.  Sundry  miscellaneous  comparisons  may  be 
mentioned,  and  among  them  those  given  by  Darmes- 
teter  in  his  attempt  to  prove  that  Parsism  borrowed 
from  Judaism.  (1)  Philo's  Ai57os  (mostly  Neopla- 
tonic)  originates  Vohu  JIanah  ('the  Go(>d  Mind'). 
(2)  The  enactments  of  Pentateuchal  and  Avestan 
law  are  regularly  introduced  with  the  formula, 
'(God)  saith  to  (the  lawgiver).'  (3)  Ahura  creates 
the  world  in  six  periods — heax'en,  water,  earth, 
plants,  animals,  man.t  (4)  ^lankind  in  the  Avesta 
descends  from  one  couple,  and  the  name  Masht/a 
signifies  'man,' J  like  di^.  (5)  Sin  begins  with  the 
first  man.  (6)  Ahura  bids  king  Yima  collect  in  a 
subterranean  palace  the  finest  types  of  the  human 
race,  animals,  and  vegetables.  When  three  de- 
structive winters  have  depopulated  the  earth,  this 
'  'Var '  shall  open  and  re-people  it  with  a  higher 
race.i  (7)  Yima's  successor  has  three  sons,  between 
whom  tlie  world  is  parted  as  among  the  sons  of 
Noah.  (8)  Zarathushtra  holds  converse  with  Ahura 
on  a  mountain  before  promulgating  the  Law.  (9) 
Zarathushtra  had  three  precursors  in  his  religion, 
as  Moses  had  the  three  patriarchs.  (10)  The  A\esta, 
like  the  OT,  is  divided  into  Law,  Prophecy,  and 
Miscellaneous  Literature.  Darmesteter  tries  to 
show  that  these  parallels  must  be  interpreted  by 
Parsi  borrowing.  As  he  has  convinced  no  one,  the 
point  need  not  be  argued.  It  is  enough  to  say 
that  (1)  the  really  Avestan  elements  in  these  com- 
parisons are  demonstrably  far  too  old  to  have  been 
borrowed  ;  (2)  some  features  may  come  from  lialjy- 
lonian  or  even  Accadian  antiquit}',  inllueming 
Hebrew  and  Parsi  alike  ;  (3)  most  of  the  parallels 
are  obviously  fortuitous,  proving  nothing  even 
when  presented  apart  from  a  setting  which  greatly 
modifies  the  resemblance.  That  some  of  the  later 
parts  of  the  Avesta  (and,  a  fortiori,  Pahlavi  writ- 
ings) maj"  have  been  influenced  by  Judaism  is 
likely  enough.  Thus  Horn  ||  thinks  th.at  tlie  Pall 
is  late  in  Parsism  and  due  to  the  Hebrew,  also 
that  the  virgin-birth  of  SaoshyantH  owes  some- 
thing to  Is  7".     Sundry   biblical  and  Talmudio 

•  Expoa.  Times,  ii.  206.  t  Cf.  Oheyne,  OP  283. 

I  Strictly  mortals. 

\  See  Gekltier'8  tr.  of  I'd  22nf-  in  Usoner,  Sintjtiifmgen.  p. 
20SfI.;  Chcyne  (Encyc.  Bibl.  g.v.  'Deluge')  remarks  that  it 
seema  influenced  by  the  Hebrew. 

jl  '  Jled.  u.  Pers.'  p.  330  (in  Uellwald,  KuUurgesch.  pt.  6). 

^  This  is  a  {^ood  example  of  a  parallel  made  plausible  by 
selective  description  :  the  Pars)  story  is  a  most  extravapmt 
mar\'el,  to  be  classed  with  the  miraculous  births  described  Ui 
Hartl.ind's  Legend  o/  Perieui,  i.  1338. 


ZOKOASTRIANISM 


ZOROASTRIANIRM 


993 


paralli-lB  iuhv  I*  w«n  in  Kolint,  ■l(,ili  ii.  ifj:*  tl  «nii 
lii.  !i.'*l  tl.  I  lif  periiiil  of  the  UitbyluniRn  Taliniui 
seenie  to  have  biou^'ht  a  closer  contm't  with 
ParBisin.  Hut  thcMe  lat«r  contartn  lie  oiitBiHe  our 
allure,  a«  al»o  doe«  tbe  rar»i  herexy  of  Mani — if 
siK-h  it  really  he.* 

12  The  l{(iok  of  Esther  m'\\i\\t  reasoimtily  be 
ex|ipctt-<l  to  bIiow  traces  of  Persian  relif.'ion.  Hut 
thiiu^'h  NironK  I'ersian  intlueme  is  betrayed  by 
the  loan  "onls  (oee  Siheftilow  itz,  A  risrltes  im  A  T), 
we  canimt  with  certainty  lix  on  anythinf;  of  valne 
for  the  questions  we  are  disrussinf;  here.  The 
Persian  orifrin  of  the  Feast  of  I'UKIM,  which  has 
receiveii  new  importance  from  the  theory  of  J.  (i. 
Krazer  (Gulden  hough*,  iii.  I5i>  I9S),  is  examined 
elsewhere.  An  atterajit  has  lately  been  made  by 
H    Winckler'l   to  tind   the  names  of  tlie  Aiiishas- 

fands  Vohnm.'inah  and  Anieretat  in  those  of 
lanian  and  llammeilatha.  It  a|>|>ears  pndiable 
that  these  two  archangels'  names  underlie  the 
'ilfjLavoi'  Kal  ' Ayaddrov  (T  'A*iap5droi'),  iltf>aiiiujp  So*- 
fidfwy  of  Stralio  (p.  512) :  it  is  clear  that  the  names 
only  have  been  borrowed  in  this  Pontic  appropria- 
tion, so  that  we  need  not  c()nsider  the  cliaracter  of 
the  Avestan  orifxinals.  If  the  lM)ok  really  starts 
from  an  olil  story  celebrating  the  victory  of  natire 
Babylonian  gods,  Marduk  and  Ishtar,  over  the 
foreign  divinities  answering  to  '  Vashti '  and 
'  Hanian,'  we  sluuild  have  to  treat  it  as  a  com- 
position essentially  parallel  with  Tobit,  as  ex- 
plained in  §  -t,  al>ove,  that  is,  as  a  tale  whose 
original  signilicance  waa  unknown  to  or  igriored 
by  a  Jewish  a<lapter  writing  with  purposes  of  his 
own.  In  tliat  case  Jensen's  identification  of 
Hainan  and  Vashti  as  Elamitt  deities  is  clearly 
preferable  to  Winckler's,  which  demands  that 
Persian  deities  sliould  sutler  humiliation.  But  the 
whole  theory  will  have  to  reckon  with  the  ex- 
planation of  all  these  names  from  Persian  alone, 
as  set  forth  in  the  new  work  of  Scheftelowitz 
named  above. 

13.  Two  further  comparisons  may  l>e  added  from 
the  various  suggestions  of  Prof.  Cheyne.  The 
later  Jewish  practice  of  prayer  at  dawn  was,  he 
thinks,  promiited  by  I'arsi  usage — a  point  wliich 
would  be  hard  to  prove,  lie  draws  an  interesting 
parallel  between  the  'Wisdom'  of  OP  sapiential 
books  and  the  dsnn  kkratu,  '  heavenly  wisilomf?),' 
of  tbe  Avesta.  Hut  even  if  this  translation  were 
safe,  the  conception  is  almost  i»(dated  in  the 
Avesta,  and  it  would  be  better  to  compare  the 
.\m8ha-<pand  Volnimanah,  a  personification  strik 
ingly  resembling  the  Wisdom  with  whom  .("created 
the  world.  His  rising  up  to  welcome  the  soul  of 
the  good  man  as  it  enters  Gnrd  demann  is  in  agree- 
ment with  Wisdom's  (tttXavSpmloL.  The  sex  of  the 
impersonation  answers  to  another  Amshaspand, 
Armaiti,  the  'daughter  of  Ahnra.'  It  is  obviously 
impossible  to  assert,  or  to  deny,  that  the  one  con- 
ception springs  out  of  the  otiier,  or  owes  some 
thing  to  it,  so  long  as  the  dates  of  the  several 
literatures  permit  association. 

14.  To  the  foregoing,  more  or  less  plausible, 
contacts  may  be  added  one  which  has  been  rather 
too  ingeniously  pleaded  by  a  scholar  of  great  learn 
ing,  but  without  meeting  with  much  acceptance. 
In  ZDMG  ixx.  716  IT.  Rabbi  A.  Kohnl  tried  to 
prove  an  '  antiParsic  bias' in  Deutero  Isaiah.  It 
will  be  eiioiigli  in  general  to  refer  to  the  criticism 
bv  de  Harlez  in  Hev.  d.  queiitioru  histi/riyufji,  April 
1877.  One  passage,  however,  cannot  lie  so  sum 
marily  set  aside.  In  Is  45''  commentators  since 
Saailya  have  seen  a  polemic  against  Persian  dual- 

*  8o  f>«niipit«l«r  arifl  Jft^kson  ;  B/Kterblom  daniet  IRsv,  Bift. 
Rtl.  xl.  ti~e  y     8««  Ilamuk.  Hitt.  o/  Dogma,  111.  KSO. 

t  In    hli    AllorimUtU.    Fortdt..    Srtl   wriM,    L    I     (IHOl)       On 
(>mano«  •««  JenMO,  UiltiUr  ».  Ann^nier,  p.   181  ;   on  tlun. 
<ii*dftlhik.  ib.  p.  ieo4  D. 
vol.  IV. — 6l 


isiii,  a  view  from  which  the  most  recent  writers 
have  begun  to  recoil.  If  we  are  to  recogiii/.e  an 
allusion  to  some  foreign  dualistic  idea.s,  it  is  more 
proUably  Magian  doctrine  than  anything  we  could 
su|ipose  held  by  Cynis.  It  hajipens  that  in  the 
(■athaa  {1')  44')  we  Hnd  A  hura  ail  dressed  as  'the 
artiticer  of  light  and  darkness,  sleep  and  waking, 
dawn,  noon,  and  night.'  A  yet  more  ini|>onaMt 
parallel  is  the  imprecation  in  I)ariu«'  great  in- 
scription {li'h.  4'"""),  'may  Auraina/.da  slay  tliee 
.  .  .  and  whatever  thon  shalt  do,  mav  Aurama/da 
destroy  that  for  thee.'  It  is  clear  tlierefore  iliat 
even  in  the  reign  of  Darius,  Persian  religiim  could 
have  used  the  language  of  Is  45',  merely  Bubstiliit- 
ing  Aurama/.da's  name  for  that  of  J".  The  idea, 
therefore,  ol  a  veiled  polemic  against  Cyrus'  re 
ligion  must  be  abandoned. 

16.  The  student  will  have  realized  from  the 
foregoing  paragraphs  that  it  is  no  easy  task  to  sum 
up  in  the  case  before  as,  and  that  a  verdict  of  '  not 
proven'  is  about  as  much  as  we  can  expect  in  the 
present  state  of  our  knowledge.  The  dithculty  is 
one  which  confronts  us  everywhere  in  the  study  of 
ancient  religions  in  Western  Asia,  in  which  certain 
ideas  seem  to  float  alwut  with  a  freedom  that 
vetoes  almost  any  attempt  to  fix  their  parentage. 
The  general  indejiendence  of  Israel's  religious  cle- 
velopment  has  certainly  come  out  more  clearly 
from  the  investigation.  Of  the  Hebraists  hardly 
any  will  allow  more  than  a  trilling  weight  to 
Persian  influence,  and  even  Prof,  t'lieyne  speaks 
in  his  latest  utterances  with  more  hesitation  than 
lie  did.*  On  the  Iranian  side  an  able  and  ex- 
haustive examination  has  been  niaile  in  the  new 
work  on  eschatology  ^y  •^oilerblom  (named  be- 
low), whose  results  are  almost  entirely  unfavour- 
able to  the  doctrine  of  Persian  elements  in 
Judaism.  He  notes  how  unlike  anything  in 
.ludaism  is  the  Avestan  hell,  a  place  ot  cold  and 
stench  and  [loison,  not  of  lire  —  wliich  was,  of 
coarse,  too  sac  reil  an  element  to  be  applied  thus; 
on  the  other  hand,  the  vinilerground  Hadea,  divided 
into  two  parts,  for  pious  souls  and  sinners,  is 
essentially  Ureek.  lie  would  allow  no  genuine 
contacts  of  Judaism  and  Parsism  until  a  late 
epmh.  Thus  he  compares  with  1  Th  4"  the  passage 
in  y'<  19,  where  through  the  work  of  Saoshyant 
the  world  is  renewed,  the  dead  arise,  and  the 
living  are  endowed  with  immortality  (p.  224). 
If  this  is  supposed  to  be  more  than  an  accidental 
parallel,  we  may  iilace  it  w  ith  the  Pauline  passages 
in  S  H,  above.  SixierbloTii  remarks  on  the  uniqaenesa 
of  the  conception  in  2  P  S"-,  of  the  earth  brought 
out  of  water  and  reserved  for  fire  :  this  aspect  of 
the  future  is  e.ssentially  an  Indo-Germanic  idea, 
lieing  found  in  India,  Iran,  Greece,  Gaul,  and 
Iceland  (p.  '2m4).  In  sharp  contrast  to  this 
adRpt*tion  of  a  nature  myth  he  sets  the  purely 
iMietical  and  spiritual  conception  of  Deutero- 
Naiah  as  to  the  'new  heaven  and  new  earth'  (p. 
•JHJ).  Looking  back  upon  the  narrow  range  of  the 
parallels  noted  in  §  7,  we  shall  probably  do  well  to 
allow  Persian  inlluence  in  Escliatolopy  only  some 
weigiit  in  stinuiliitiiii;  what  was  n<me  the  less  a 
native  growth  in  .luiiaism.  It  may,  however,  have 
prompted  the  sii<lden  change  Irom  a  Resurrection 
ol  the  .Inst  iwith  some  conspicuons  siiiiiers)  to  a 
I'liiversal  Resurrection  :  so  liousset,  with  a  half 
consent  from  .S(derbloin  (p.  Ml ',}.  '1  be  presence  of 
Persian  ideas  ill  the  Apocalypse  can  hardly  be 
denied  ;  and  they  can  l^e  rea.soiiably  explained 
from  the  adoption  of  Zoroii-strian  imagery  in  earlier 
apocalyptic.  I      In  .\ngelology  and   Demonology  we 

•  i:f  hw  lntii.Mm|{c  in  Kniiul  lytuilifH  (IHIW,,  mid  viirloua  liolea 
ill  thi-  Knc.  HM. 

t  It  is  cnrioim  thst  Mnxdi-inm  p»o  entirely  f«IIe<t  lo  peiietmt"* 
WMterti  Aftis  Minor  .CumuiiU  Myxt.  dt  Milhra.  '/TS).  Ottirrwiwe 
we  Mhonitt  l)nv«>  nntilrnll.v  thoni;llt  uf  Gphci^nH  iie  a  place  where 
Hiicti  i<luUH  would  be  In  the  air. 


994 


ZOROBABEL 


ZUZIM 


seem  justified  in  re^anling  llie  forei^in  iiirtnenoe  as 
present  in  the  elalioiHte  ordering  ami  raiikini^  of 
eiiiritH.  In  tlie  tmiiier  we  have  a  very  provable 
Zorondtrian  feature  In  the'  rrpresentative  ant;els' ; 
wliile  in  the  latter  we  may  assign  to  the  same 
cause  the  lireaihes  nf  continuity  (I)  in  tlie  «l'anilon- 
incnt  of  earlier  ideas,  ike  Azazel  and  the  Ser- 
pent, in  favour  of  the  Satan  ;  (2)  in  the  clianced 
view  of  tlie  gods  of  the  nations,  who  were  at  tirst 
Ireateil  as  real  K"d»,  liien  becaiue  °  nolliin^s,'  and 
finally  developed  into  demons.  It  is  an  interest- 
iiif;  result  of  these  cotiressions,  if  allowed,  that 
the  New  Testamenl  is  very  much  more  concerned 
with  i.lieni  than  the  Old. 

LiTBKATtjRi. — The  fullest  (tisruwfnn  will  be  found  in  Sta^e, 
Vhfr  dfn  Binjlusg  dfs  /'armtttius  unj  dtu  .huli-nfutn  (U''Hs  ;  see 
•uinniar^  of  it  in  Orit  R^v  July  190U,  p.  'i'l'.^  ff  .  and  an  iinporlanl 
rtrwcvN  in  Rm.  llml  Kri  il,  2««  f  ,  by  S..,ierl>loin) ;  Chejne,''/" 
3!I4  IS-.!.  Kzpol  Timri.  il.  202,  424,  248  9  ,  Knc  KM.  t.v.  'Anijel,' 
and  in  Knhut  Sluiiif.^  (IKv»fl).  The  relatione  between  Paraism 
and  Rabbinic  Judaism  were  examined  by  Sehorr  In  hia  Hebrew 
periodical  Hf-Batiu,  vii  and  viii  (IsrtS)  [not  ween],  who  was 
closely  followed  by  Kohut,  Jud-  A  lufriol.  u,  Dnrrutrwt.  (ISttfl). 
The  auestion  is  well  di8*-UH8ed  from  the  Biblical  standpoint  by 
M  Nicolas,  th'9  Ditctrinf»  li'-lt^fifUiiet  dp*  Ju\fit  {X^W).  See  also 
Kohut  in  ZD.yfff  »il.  Iif>-1  fl  ,  xxv.  59ff.  ;  (Jeiirer  in  his  Jiul. 
Zcittchr  Iv,  729.,  I.  11,19  ;  Scbwally,  Lflmt  itoch  d.  Todf, 
p_  141)9  ;  Moulton  In  ThxJcer.  1.  401  B.,  II  3(i»,  i»i<t  ,  Kipnt. 
Time;  li  S62  9.,  Oil.  Rrv  vi  g-14,  I.  QB-KKi ;  Soderbloni,  '  l-a 
Vie  f\iture  d'aprfes  le  Mazdeisrae'  {Ann.  du  Muaft  Guinx^t, 
1901),  e8i>.  pp  3iil-321.  Too  lale  for  use  came  F,  Iloklen  ■  Dis 
I'enrandtucriaft  der  jud..<;hT.  init  der  part.  Egchatolwjie  (19irti), 
a  verr  full,  if  somewhat  uncritical,  collection  of  parallels, 

J.  H.  MOULTOK. 
ZOROBABEL See  Zkrihbabeu 

ZORZELLEUS  (H  *a7,s'eX3oroi,  A  Zo^fAXeoi,  AV 
Berzdus),  1  Ks  5".  See  Barzillai.— A  daUK'hter 
of  his,  named  Augia,  is  mentioned  as  married  to 
Addus,  the  ancestor  of  a  priestly  family,  who 
could  not  trace  their  genealogy  at  the  return  umler 
Zerubbabel,  The  same  change  of  the  initial  letter 
occurs  in  the  LX.X  of  Ezx  2«'  (H  Zop^AStl,  A  Ze^ 
§t\\ai ;  but  in  the  same  verse  B  Btps'eWatl,  A  -()■ 

ZDAR  (iipn).— Father  of  Nethanel  the  head  of 
the   tribe    of    Simeon,    Nu    I*    2«    7'*-"    lO"*   (all 

ZUPH  (lis),— 1.  An  ancestor  of  Elkanah  and 
Samuel,  1  S  1'  (IWk  Ncurei^  [reading  ^)io3  for  T'fp]. 
A  Xoinr,  l.uc.  S^ipK  1  Ch  Ci^M-^''''-*';  the  IfftMbh 
has  •■.-$  Zipb  ;  \i\  'Lov<p,  Luc.  ^oi'0O,  culled  in 
v."(")  Zophai.  2.  The  land  of  Zuph  (lis  n?  : 
B  tt  Zel<p,  A  i,  rn  ^ei<t>,  Luc.  *  yv'  l.^i),  1  S  9», 
probably  derived  its  name  from  having  been 
originally  settled  by  the  family  of  Zuph  (Driver, 
Text  of  Sam.  2).  The  gentilic  name  Zuphite  ('eik) 
probably  underlies  the  name  Ramattuiitn-zojihiin 
of  1  S  P  (see  art.  Ramah,  p.  108*).  Neither  the 
S/'iba  of  Robinson  {BliF'  ii.  18  ff.)  nor  any  other 
known  site  can  be  said  to  contain  any  certain 
trace  of  the  name  Zuph. 

ZUR  {f'  'rock ').-!.  A  Midianite  prince  slain 
by  the  Israelites  (Nu  31").  His  daughter  COZBI 
was  killed,  along  with  the  Simeouile  Zimri,  by 


Phinehas  la.'i").  In  .los  IS"  he  is  described  aa  one 
of  the  (allied  or  vassal)  princes  of  Sibon  (|n'p  •3'pj) ; 
but  this  note  is  due  to  a  harmonizing  redactor 
(see  Dillm.  ad  lor.),  2.  The  name  of  a  (lilieonite 
family  settled  at  Jerusalem,  I  Ch  8'"(B  and  Luc. 
^odf),  A  'Iffoi'/p  [i.e.  •»t\  'and  Zur']),  9"  (BA  'latlf 
[t.«.  -"si],  Luc.  iimlp). 

ZURIEL  (''N-Tx  'my  rock  is  EI').— A  Merarit« 
chief,  Nu  3"  (SoupniX).  On  the  precarious  infer- 
ences which  have  been  drawn  by  Hommel  from 
the  ciimpositiim  and  meaning  of  this  and  the  names 
Zuri.ilftddai,  Pedn/t^ur,  and  Eli^ur,  see  art.  KocK, 
p.  '290. 

ZURISHADDAI  (•^i*-)ii  'my  rock  is  Shaddai  or 
the  Almighty  '), — Father  of  Slielumiel  the  chief  of 
the  tribe  of  Siinetm,  Nu  1*  (B  i^oupfuraJoi,  AF 
^ovpiaaial)  J"  \i.\  ^oupiirajai,  F  Zovi>w aiaei)  1"*-  *■ 
IU"(LXX  in  all  three  lofpurojoi).  Ua  the  name 
see  reference  under  Zuriel. 

ZUZIM  (0'i«n  ;  LX.X  ISrr,  Irxip^- — confusing  with 
D'lvn  or  D'j«y  ;  Svmm.  ZoifojiM*"  ;  Pesh.  kjtv  (pi.) 
'the  mighty';  Vulg.  Zuzirn).  —  lT>  (in  14'  one  of 
the  prehistoric  peoiiles  whom  rhe<lorla'omer  is  said 
1  to  have  smitten  on  nis  expedition  against  the  kings 
of  the  l'enta|«)lis,  descriited  as  resident  in  '  Ham' 
(which  see),  and  mentione<l  between  the  '  Kepha- 
im'of  A.sHTEROTH-KARNAlM  (in  Bashan)  and  the 
•  Flmim  '  (Dt  2""-)  of  the  region  occupied  afterwards 
by  Moab,  The  locality  indicated  corresponds  to 
what  «as  afterwards  the  territory  of  the  Ammon- 
ites, which  is  said  in  Dt  2*  to  have  been  occupied 
originally  by  the  Zamzummim  ;  and  hence  it  hai 
often  been  supposed  that  the  two  names  were  in 
some  way  or  another  ditl'erent  designations  of  the 
same  people,— a  scribal  error  having  found  its  way 
into  one  of  the  two  paa.sages,  or  the  old  prehistoric 
name  having  become  modified  in  form  in  the  coarse 
of  oral  transmission.  In  Babylonian  m  and  te  are 
represented  by  the  same  characters ;  and  hence 
Sayce(//Ci1/ 160f.  ;  Exjw.j.  I'linrs,  viii,  463)  very  in- 
geniously explained  thedittereiK-e  by  the  conjecture 
that  in  Dt  2*  the  name  appears  as  it  /<as  actually 
pronounced, —  or  at  least  nearly  so  (Zuzim  for 
ZnWZiWim),  while  in  Un  14'  it  appears  as  it  was 
written  by  a  scribe  who  was  translating  from  a 
Bab.  document  {ZnMZeMim),  and  did  not  know 
what  the  true  pronunciation  was.  However, 
before  this  theory  can  be  accepted,  better  proof  is 
needed  than  has  hitherto  been  produced  that  Gn  14 
was  really  translated  from  a  Bab.  original  ;  the 
strongly  Hebraic  style  and  colouring  of  the  chapter 
do  not  favour  the  supposition.  Whether  the  name 
is  in  any  way  connected  with  that  of  Ziza,  a  place 
10  m,  S",E,  of  yeshljon,  and  20  m.  S,  of  Rabbath 
amnion,  a  military  statitm  in  Roman  times, 
mentioned  also  in  the  Middle  Ages  (see  Dillm.), 
and  still  possessing  remains  of  massive  forta  and 
other  indications  of  its  former  importance  (Tria- 
trani,  Moab,  182-190),  must  be  left  an  opec 
question.  b  K.  Driver. 


I 


TBK  UID  OF  TOL.  IV. 


from  which  It  was  borrowed. 


lOOM  11/86  Scnc 


000  460  010